Thanks, Bill Adams, for making the important point that I thought we
all had agreed on some time ago (as discussed in the POTS typology
article, for instance):  typologies are heuristic devices and
different typologies serve different purposes.  While the humanistic
side of things interests some of us more than the scientific angle, I
think, in fact, that too many of us ignore at our peril the benefits
of materials analysis.  I've been very glad to see archaeologists
turning to various sorts of materials analysis for coarse redwares,
"colono" wares, etc., where qualitative approaches seem to have been
taken about as far as they can go.
 
But Tom Wheaton struck a sympathetic chord with me as well, in
stating that he didn't want to get involved with reinventing the
wheel when it came to ceramic typologies (and other things!).
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that very few of our
"old hands" in historical archaeology are the ones who are teaching
students in colleges and universities, or maybe it's just an
inevitable fact of life.  I can put people in touch with George
Miller (he's in Florence, NJ, not Raleigh, NC, by the way) if they
are truly interested in tapping his vast knowledge and great
helpfulness.
 
I might also mention that David Landon at Michigan Technical
University ([log in to unmask]) has done considerable work with taphonomy
and historical faunal assemblages, including a 1993 articlein Journal
of Archaeological Science, etc., in belated response to an inquiry I
saw posted a few days back.
 
Cheers from the UK this time,
Mary Beaudry, Visiting Lecturer, University of Sheffield
[log in to unmask]