I agree with much of what Dan Mouer said. The cry for ceramic standardisation
is a fairly universal one. However, there are numerous problems both
methodological and theoretical. Given a large pile of body sherds to separate
into say creamware and pearlware I'm sure very few ceramacists would agree on
every sherd. I'd also like to see the results compared with a chemical
analysis. I've looked at many sherd asssmblages analysed by others and often
totally disagreed on their division of fabrics and just on the grounds of
'lumping' and 'splitting'. At a recent conference in Cologne much heart
wrenching went on about defining proto- and full-stonewares. Well I think
this was a waste of time because though one could come up with firm
scientific criteria you can't spend large sums of money analysing every
sherd. In any case were these criteria relevant to the people who made and
used the pots. There is also no ideal way of quantifying pots. Sherds counts,
weighing, EVE's and minimum vessels all have their problems. Its always best
to use a range. For example, you can use rims to calculate EVE' s or minimum
vessels but it is possible that broken rims were more likely to be picked up
and moved off site. I have certainly noted considerable differences between
EVE's based on bases and rims which suggests differential movement of broken
pots. The other danger with standardisation if it is taken too far is that
you risk the danger of fossilising the development of the subject. This is
not to say we should not attempt to encourage intra-site comparability but
standardisation is not some Holy Grail.
Paul Courtney, Leicester, England
 
On Thu, 5 Jun 1997 11:28:40 SAST-2 Antonia Malan wrote:
 
(1)  In 1994 there was desultry correspondence about standardising 19th
century ceramic analysis.  Did anything come of this?  Did anyone
crack the secret?  We have sorted out the Dutch 18th century, and the
British period up to 1840 or even 1860; now we are onto the later
19th and early 20th century.  (Neither POTS nor Miller's Indices are
directly relevant to the Cape, so we had to set up our own system.)  We
believe
it is indeed necessary to deal with
the later period and its problems.  We are tackling MNVs, basic description
and
identification, a simple database (based on MSAccess).  Are we too
optimistic?  Any ideas or support welcome.
(2)  A sample of bones taken from a dump (c1900 AD) on an elite wine estate
near
 
Cape Town has produced a pile of cattle skulls that have been broken
up into small pieces.  What were they doing with them?  Cooking them?
Rendering them down?  Did I miss something crucial in the recent soap
making discussion that would be relevant?
Thanks.
 
Dr Antonia Malan
Historical Archaeology Research Group
Department of Archaeology
University of Cape Town
7700 RONDEBOSCH, South Africa
Tel: (021) 650 2358  Fax: (021) 650 2352