I'm not a ceramicist, at all; but I am a zooarchaeologist, and some of the methodological issues seem to me to be very similar. It might be worth taking a peek at the literature on quantatative zooarchaeology, just to avoid reinventing the wheel, or refighting the same old battles. Re Alasdair's question B, standardization would seem to be necessary for making useful comparisons. At the same time, there will be sherds which cannot be identified as to vessel type, although you can record lots of information about them. We often have to deal with bones which cannot reliably be assigned to a particular species, although other information is present, and they may be identifiable to the Genus level. In thoses cases, that's what we record. Pushing ID's past the point of reasonable certainty can skew any interpretations based on the identifications. Maybe you could do someting similar? With regard to differing methods of calculating MVCs, it is very likely that it does make a difference. I have seen cases in zooarchaeology where one could change the relative frequencies of the various species present, significantly in some cases, by changing the method of calculating Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI). Some people don't use MNIs for that reason. For a good idea of the complete quantitative nightmare that can result from non-standardizationm, see R. Lee Lyman in American Antiquity 59(1):36-71. 112 terms with 122 definitions! Cheers, Anne Anne M. Jensen | Maritime Archaeological Project-Pingasagruk | "Truth burns up error." Department of Anthropology | Bryn Mawr College | -Sojourner Truth Bryn Mawr, PA 19010 USA | E-mail: [log in to unmask] Voice: 610-526-5031