I have some questions regarding the potential - or desirability
thereof - for the standardisation of 19th century ceramic analysis.
 
        A)  I'm sure many of you have encountered inconstencies between
reports in the calculation of Miller's CC index value.  Do you consider
this to be a problem?  I know Spencer-Wood and Heberling (can't find the
exact reference to hand. Sorry) compared the calculations from 5 sites in
the Boston area and found the results to be comparable within .01, which
certainly suggests that this isn't too much of a problem.  Have any other
comparisons of this type been done?
 
        B) What are your opinions on the need for standardising
form designations for 19th century ceramics (cf POTS; POtomac Typology
System for 17th century [Beaudry et. al., of course])?  Is one report's
pickle dish another reports's side plate?  Are there opinions on the
usage of the "muffin" and "twiffler" types from Miller's CC index papers
(1980, 1991)?
 
        C) Lastly, I've encountered several different methods for calculating
minimum vessel counts.  Since so much analysis stems from MVC's, are there
opinions on the importance of this matter?
 
        This is something I've been working on with the Lab Supervisor at
Milner's Alexandria office.  Obviously Dana and I have (frequently differing)
opinions on these points, but I've tried to avoid biasing responses in
advance and thus I've attempted to leave our views out of this post (how
successfully, I don't know).  I thought it might be useful to canvas some other
viewpoints, so have at it.
Thanks in advance
 
Alasdair M. Brooks
Archaeology Lab Supervisor
Jefferson's Poplar Forest
([log in to unmask])
 
PS I understand that there's a material culture LISTSERV.  Could someone please
send me the address so I can post a similar note there (apologies in advance
for any duplication).