It would seem to me that one way of avoiding the scenario of a
multitude of disparate typologies is to have a single web site
to which we can post ceramic images and our comments upon them.

For example, an image of the "luster" teapot, of recent discussion,
and a short summary of its context could have been placed on a
web page and the comments (hopefully supported by references) on
the vessel type (Astbury, Astbury-type, Bennington, etc.) could
have been collected on the same page with the image.  Researchers
using this data base could then weigh these comments and make their
own educated decision for artifacts in their collections.

Another advantage to on-line data bases, in addition to those
already mentioned, is that they are not static like a text.  Updates
and corrections can be made almost instantaneously which, as we have
seen from this discussion, would certainly be beneficial in the
construction of a ceramic typology.

Michelle M. Terrell
Project Director
The Jewish Community of Nevis Archaeology Project
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~terre011/Nevis.html


>This is a good idea, esp. since the "production costs" for high-quality
>color images on the net beat any sort of publication, and distribution
>costs are nil--there for those who want/need them.  But, who will start?
>And, given that us archaeologists like nothing better than to argue
>typologies (witness this recent debate), whose typology will we post?  Will
>we let all of them duke it out?
>
>>Ah, but that is where the internet can shine!  What is needed is major
>>journals, archaeological societies, or universities to commit to posting
>>and maintaining sites with well illustrated, described, and dated artifact
>>assemblages.  Obviously this would need to be backed up with archival paper
>>copies on file.
>>But *somebody* will still need to create and define the classifications and
>>write the reports!