George, the link you sent was too generic (opened to Home page)...hopefully this link will get folks to the actual page with the link to open your file: 
http://www.jefpat.org/diagnostic/Post-Colonial%20Ceramics/index-PostColonialCeramics.htm

Thanks for sharing!


-----Original Message-----
From: George Miller <[log in to unmask]>
To: HISTARCH <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tue, Nov 1, 2011 6:41 pm
Subject: Free paper on common cup and bowl shapes


Here are some additional comments on my “Common Staffordshire Cup and Bowl
hapes” paper that has been posted on Diagnostic Artifacts from Maryland
eb site that Trish Samford announced on October 4th on HISTARCH.

            This paper partly results from a fellowship I had with the
aryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory at Jefferson Patterson Park
nd Museum at St. Leonard, Maryland and from information I have gathered
ver the years of research on ceramic marketing and consumption.  My
upulation contains the following information.

   1. Profile drawings and historical documentation of the following
  shapes: Common, Bute, London/Grecian, Canova, and Tulip shapes.  These
  are by far the most common shapes we find in archaeological assemblages.
   2. Matrix charts of the types of decoration commonly found on these
  various shapes of cups through time.
  3. A discussion of how the “Potter’s Dozen” worked.  This system was
  used for hollow ware and was originally based on a pint capacity.  Under
  this system the number of vessels to the dozen could vary from 3 to the
  dozen to 42 to the dozen.  When the system was set up, cups held 1/3 of
  a pint, so were counted 36 to the dozen.  A dozen cups consisted of 18
  cups and 18 saucers.  I have also provided some insights into how to
  read potters and importer’s invoices that list hollowwares by the potter’s
  dozen.

Cups, particularly painted ones, rarely have maker’s marks, so we are
ependent upon the style of painting and vessel shapes to tighten our
ating of these objects.  They are among the easiest vessel forms to
ecognize and also among the most common vessels in our assemblages.

I addition to the above information, the Diagnostic Artifacts from Maryland
eb site also had a file on painted wares dealing with the dates and
efinitions of China glaze, blue painted, early polychrome colors, chrome
olors and sprig painted wares that I helped compile while on my fellowship
o the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory.

I would welcome comments on this cupulation, as there is room for
ightening up the dates and for adding further historical documentation.  This
aper can be downloaded for free from the web site at
ttp://www.jefpat.org/diagnostic/index.htm

Peace,
George