Meta's right. We have reached a plateau where the old "collector"
terminology is obsolete, but most of us don't know enough to be confident
in more specific attribution. It was really comfortable a quarter century
ago to look at a collection of "Leeds" and pronounce that it was really
"shell edged pearlware." Life has become more complex.

Over the years, as knowledge has grown, it has become more prudent to refer
to a pot by its physical characteristics or its regional affiliation, if
known. So I can stride into a collection and grandly refer to "Delaware
Valley slip-decorated red earthenware," as if I knew something worth
knowing.

We still see vague terms like "redware" that don't really describe
anything. Even if one can't be more specific, one can still classify by
such characteristics as body, paste color, glaze, and decoration. I'd be
inclined to recommend that most pots be classified on a strictly
descriptive basis, unless the analyst is experienced enough to make
specific identifications. There's the problem: expertise.

It is possible to distinguish the "Jackfield-like" from the rest of the red
earthenwares, and some of us have enough experience to split the broad
categories into specific sources. But we can't all be Meta or David, and I
doubt that they would be inclined to visit everyone's collection, even if
it were possible.

That's why we need to go back to an old reliable means of communication, so
popular among the reviled and shunned collectors: color plates. We could
also revert to a type of report that is no longer fashionable in the
national journals: the illustrated excavation report with pictures of well
documented and identified artifacts.

Unless we can persuade all the experts to visit all the world's
collections, we need a medium to disperse their expertise and add
uniformity to the descriptive system. May I suggest that the national and
international archaeological journals should start publishing
well-illustrated articles that feature ceramic classification? I realize it
has nothing to do with marxism and class struggle, but it would be useful
to us dirt movers.




  Archaeologists readily identify the
  worst of the profession. We agree that     _(____)_
  the worst incompetents share 3 attributes:/        |
     1. They have fresh ideas;       _===__/   Baby  ||
     2. They write coherent prose;  | ___       ___  ||
     3. They are not in the room. o||| . \_____/ . \_|
  ____________________________   _ _  \_/_______\_/_____
  Ned Heite, Camden, DE  http://home.dmv.com/~eheite/index.html