I'm not a ceramicist, at all; but I am a zooarchaeologist, and some of the
methodological issues seem to me to be very similar.  It might be worth
taking a peek at the literature on quantatative zooarchaeology, just to
avoid reinventing the wheel, or refighting the same old battles.
 
Re Alasdair's question B, standardization would seem to be necessary for
making useful comparisons.  At the same time, there will be sherds which
cannot be identified as to vessel type, although you can record lots of
information about them.  We often have to deal with bones which cannot
reliably be assigned to a particular species, although other information is
present, and they may be identifiable to the Genus level.  In thoses cases,
that's what we record.  Pushing ID's past the point of reasonable certainty
can skew any interpretations based on the identifications.  Maybe you could
do someting similar?
 
 
With regard to differing methods of calculating MVCs, it is very likely
that it does make a difference.  I have seen cases in zooarchaeology where
one could change the relative frequencies of the various species present,
significantly in some cases, by changing the method of calculating Minimum
Number of Individuals (MNI).  Some people don't use MNIs for that reason.
 
For a good idea of the complete quantitative nightmare that can result from
non-standardizationm, see R. Lee Lyman in American Antiquity 59(1):36-71.
112 terms with 122 definitions!
 
Cheers,
Anne
 
Anne M. Jensen                               |
Maritime Archaeological Project-Pingasagruk  |  "Truth burns up error."
Department of Anthropology                   |
Bryn Mawr College                            |            -Sojourner Truth
Bryn Mawr, PA  19010   USA                   |
 
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Voice:  610-526-5031