Anita wrote:>
> I thought the great debate over Colonoware was that it showed African
> influences. Of course, this might be hard to say, given that most Colonoware
> I have seen is unglazed plainware.
>
Anita, that's the problem. If prehistoric archaeologists looked at all
"unglazed plainware" as if it were an undistinguishable mass, we would
still know nothing about life from the Neolithic onwards. The point is
that "colonoware" is a vast phenomenon with great variability through
time and space. A classical archaeological problem quite suitable to
study by well-established archaeological methods. Too many folks have
assumed they knew what colonoware was, or that it was beyond knowing,
simply because all they see is "unglazed plainware."