George,I'd love to browse through your paper, but can't find it on the Maryland Diagnostics. Can you provide more specific directions or link?Meli Diamanti




--- On Tue, 11/1/11, George Miller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: George Miller <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Free paper on common cup and bowl shapes
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Tuesday, November 1, 2011, 9:38 PM

Here are some additional comments on my “Common Staffordshire Cup and Bowl
Shapes” paper that has been posted on Diagnostic Artifacts from Maryland
web site that Trish Samford announced on October 4th on HISTARCH.



            This paper partly results from a fellowship I had with the
Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory at Jefferson Patterson Park
and Museum at St. Leonard, Maryland and from information I have gathered
over the years of research on ceramic marketing and consumption.  My
Cupulation contains the following information.



   1. Profile drawings and historical documentation of the following
   shapes: Common, Bute, London/Grecian, Canova, and Tulip shapes.  These
   are by far the most common shapes we find in archaeological assemblages.

   2. Matrix charts of the types of decoration commonly found on these
   various shapes of cups through time.
   3. A discussion of how the “Potter’s Dozen” worked.  This system was
   used for hollow ware and was originally based on a pint capacity.  Under
   this system the number of vessels to the dozen could vary from 3 to the
   dozen to 42 to the dozen.  When the system was set up, cups held 1/3 of
   a pint, so were counted 36 to the dozen.  A dozen cups consisted of 18
   cups and 18 saucers.  I have also provided some insights into how to
   read potters and importer’s invoices that list hollowwares by the potter’s
   dozen.



Cups, particularly painted ones, rarely have maker’s marks, so we are
dependent upon the style of painting and vessel shapes to tighten our
dating of these objects.  They are among the easiest vessel forms to
recognize and also among the most common vessels in our assemblages.



I addition to the above information, the Diagnostic Artifacts from Maryland
web site also had a file on painted wares dealing with the dates and
definitions of China glaze, blue painted, early polychrome colors, chrome
colors and sprig painted wares that I helped compile while on my fellowship
to the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory.



I would welcome comments on this cupulation, as there is room for
tightening up the dates and for adding further historical documentation.  This
paper can be downloaded for free from the web site at
http://www.jefpat.org/diagnostic/index.htm



Peace,

George