On Fri, 6 Jun 1997 09:48:08 SAST-2 Antonia Malan wrote:
 
 
> Thanks for your responses Susan, Dan, Paul, Alasdair ...  It is great
> to know one's nightmares are shared.
> Perhaps I should make it clear that we are not much wishing to debate the need
 f
> or MNVs,
> or counting things, or how to distinguish ironstone from white
> granite.
 
<snip>
 
Of course, I find myself guilty of  (to use Dan Mouer's phrase) answering the qu
estion
I thought had been asked - or had wanted to be asked!  Sorry about that.  It's a
ll too
easy to mount the soapbox.
 
> I wanted to know if anyone had come up with a
> simple process for sorting and expressing post-1860 ceramics that does not
> require super-specialist analysis and has some interpretive raison
> d'etre.  There may not be an ultimate one, but we want to give it a
> go and did not want to reinvent a wheel.
> Have I got this bit right?  The reason for doing it at all, is the pipe-dream
of
>  broad comparability between sites.
 
Given that this discussion has had comments from the USA, UK and RSA, I
would think that the "pipe-dream" of broad comparability is as desirable as
ever.
I think it is possible for individual sites and organisations to come up with
meaningful systems for identifying post-1860 ceramics, especially when working
on a single site, or reasonably analogous sites.  Furthermore, I think that it's
possible to do so relying on little more than common sense.
But of course, as Deetz wrote, "common sense is culturally relative", or in this
context, common sense can be site (or regionally) specific.  The
goal of comparability, however desirable (and I think it's exceptionally
desirable) is currently no closer.
 
To continue with some of Dr. Malan's points.... She rightly notes the
difficulties associated with identifying body type for this period.  Decoration
and form/function, particularly the forme,r  will probably give you the
meaningful categories that are easiest to consistently identify.  Students
can also be taught broad fabric/paste categories (coarse earthenware/refined
earthenware/stoneware/porcelain) without too much difficulty.
 
But somehow, I get the feeling that I'm doing little more than listing things
we already knew rather than contributing anything new.  This appears to
be a common theme.  As far as ceramics are concerned, we appear to dance
around endlessly in little self-repeating circles.  Clearly
there's broad agreement on many of these topics, but what are we going to
do about it?
 
Incidentally, as far as databases are concerned, might I put in a good word
for the Re:Discovery database package that Dan Mouer mentioned a few
days ago.  It's easily the best database I've ever used.
 
 
Alasdair Brooks