I quite agree.  The dynamic nature of a web-based means for identification
and discussion of ceramics could also work against the "dead hand" problem
we get with any published (text-based) typology.  The "pearlware" argument
that's been proceeding here this past week is a direct result of South's
codification (and publication) of Noel-Hume's Williamsburg typology.  This
taught us all ceramic identifications, and made B-burg the type site for
the entire 18th century US east coast, something we've gotten away with
because of the general dominance of the British potteries during that time,
due ultimately to the British trade policies that were the cause of the
Revolution, or so it's said by high-school history texts.  But, it falls
apart, when there were local producers (as Carl Steen has pointed out), or
when the market began to really open up, as happened in the 19th century.
As Carl also points out, Stan South would be the first to revise his
typology, and ask others to contribute to it, though that's proven
difficult in the results-oriented,
solve-this-problem-today-because-we-have-two-more-for-you-tomorrow
situation in CRM.  If computers can help here...





At 03:45 PM 8/9/99 -0500, you wrote:
>It would seem to me that one way of avoiding the scenario of a
>multitude of disparate typologies is to have a single web site
>to which we can post ceramic images and our comments upon them.
>
>For example, an image of the "luster" teapot, of recent discussion,
>and a short summary of its context could have been placed on a
>web page and the comments (hopefully supported by references) on
>the vessel type (Astbury, Astbury-type, Bennington, etc.) could
>have been collected on the same page with the image.  Researchers
>using this data base could then weigh these comments and make their
>own educated decision for artifacts in their collections.
>
>Another advantage to on-line data bases, in addition to those
>already mentioned, is that they are not static like a text.  Updates
>and corrections can be made almost instantaneously which, as we have
>seen from this discussion, would certainly be beneficial in the
>construction of a ceramic typology.
>
>Michelle M. Terrell
>Project Director
>The Jewish Community of Nevis Archaeology Project
>http://www.tc.umn.edu/~terre011/Nevis.html
>
>
>>This is a good idea, esp. since the "production costs" for high-quality
>>color images on the net beat any sort of publication, and distribution
>>costs are nil--there for those who want/need them.  But, who will start?
>>And, given that us archaeologists like nothing better than to argue
>>typologies (witness this recent debate), whose typology will we post?  Will
>>we let all of them duke it out?
>>
>>>Ah, but that is where the internet can shine!  What is needed is major
>>>journals, archaeological societies, or universities to commit to posting
>>>and maintaining sites with well illustrated, described, and dated artifact
>>>assemblages.  Obviously this would need to be backed up with archival paper
>>>copies on file.
>>>But *somebody* will still need to create and define the classifications and
>>>write the reports!
>