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.  These discussions take you into endless loops and anyone
who has tried to do ceramic analysis should be only too aware of the
pitfalls.  I agree that critical awareness of these should be raised,
though.  Let's rest on the assumption that there are problems.
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.
Form and function and emic value are valuable criteria.  Ideally, the method is
based on a hierachical system of description that accommodates less specialist a
nalysis down to anal
level identification of variations in Willow patterns.  (Into this, you then nee
d to add the
glass, metal, whatever, vessels, of course.)   It is pointless using
body types alone for this period.  Thus, you may end up
with two or three easily distinguished bodies (commercial stoneware vs
white bodied refined ware vs other) and then concentrate on
decoration and form.
Aluta continua!
PS What about the bones?  No ideas?  See part (2) of my message.
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