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