After reading the recent posts on whiteware/ceramics (sorry for beating you to
this, Barbara!), I must admit having come away with a rather queasy feeling.
Of all the posts, Cara Blume's was the one I came closest to agreeing with.
Here's what I know, or at least what I think I know.
Creamware: 1762-c.1820 Creamy yellow glaze.
Pearlware: 1780-c.1820 bluish glaze, tends to pool in crevices.
Esther White (at Mount Vernon) told me last October that she has the
earliest precisely dated creamware in Virginia. But I'm afraid I
only remember that it was 1770 something.
Whiteware: c.1820-present
Right, here we get tricky. Whiteware is tradationally defined as a white
uncoloured (in the glaze) refined whitebodied earthenware. Of course, life is
rarely that simple. There is a 10 year transitional period, c.1820-30 where
cream and pearlware lose colour and "fade" into whiteware. There is an
excellent discussion of this in George Miller's 1980 Historical Archaeology
paper on CC index values.
CC ware, "pearl white", etc: As also discussed by Miller, these were the
potter's own original terms for what archaeologists call "creamware"
and "pearlware." Miller has argued for the use of these terms by
archaeologists with mixed success. Personally, I use "creamware."
Ironstone: There is a great deal of confusion on this term. Some reference
works give an initial date of 1813 for this based on the introduction
of "Mason's Patent Ironstone" in this year. This is misleading as
"ironstone", along with "stone china" "white granite" (and myriad
others) are actually brand names. From a typlogy standpoint, all the
catalogues I'm aware of (which I admit is a far from conclusive
list and is confined to the east coast of the USA and parts of
North Yorkshire) consider ironstone to be a very highly fired refined
whitebodied earthenware with a very thick paste (on the tongue test,
it sticks, but not as much as whiteware). Ironstone is frequently
blue or grey tinted and is typically (although not universally)
undecorated or very simply moulded. Any ware fitting this description
from the period 1850-1890 is almost certainly ironstone.
Note that becuase of the use of the previously listed brand names,
separation of whiteware and ironstone can be tricky. At Poplar Forest, we
have a c.1830-1840 black transfer printed plate which is very clearly
whiteware despite a maker's mark that says "stone china." Some labs choose
to catalogue whiteware and ironstone together as a result of these
difficulties, although all the labs that I know that do so still recognise
the difference.
In a recent Council for Northeastern Historical Archaeology (CNEHA)
newsletter, (I forget the prcise date - sorry!), George Miller (again) sums
up many of the above arguments and suggests the use of the term "white
granite" for the later ironstone to differentiate it from the earlier
brand name whiteware. I have my reservations about the latter suggestion, but
since this is turning into the long post from Hell, I'm noting in anyway.
I've left things out (like recent research suggesting that some early
"test" whiteware may date to 1805), and I've probably not been entirely
cogent at times. I was under the impression that the typology arguments that
were still going on at this point were within the parameters I've noted
above.
I do know, however what whiteware _isn't_. It is _not_ jasperware
sorry, I meant Jackfield - a very highly fired refined red earthenware with
a dark purplish paste (occasionally classified as a stoneware due to the
firing temperature) - or delft/tinglaze - a highly friable earthenware with
a distinctive glaze. Someone suggested that these were "whiteware" but this
is catagorically not the case.
Anyway, my fingers are sore from typing.
Alasdair M. Brooks
Archaeology Lab Supervisor
Jefferson's Poplar Forest
I alone am responsible for any mistakes above, and since I don't use an
offline editor, there might well be one or two! Please point them out if you
think I made any.
|
