Dear David and others,

I think the point about terminology is well taken, although I have the impression that most people are able to understand that not all "Jackfield" comes from Jackfield kilns, etc, that the term is simply a label that refers to particular physical characteristics of a sherd or vessel (as perhaps Lucy implied?).

I am curious what terms have been used to replace these proper-name-type terms?  We still need to be able to refer to these artifacts by some kind of name or label (at least I think so).  Could people post some examples of alternatives to the dec arts/ collector names?

cool discussion!

Anna

__
Anna Agbe-Davies
[log in to unmask]
or
[log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From:   HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY  On Behalf Of David Barker
Sent:   Friday, August 06, 1999 7:24 AM
To:     [log in to unmask]
Subject:        Re: ceramic help

[]  
snip
 
It really is time that we consign these out-dated collectors' terms to the
dustbin (?trash can) and start to think about our ceramics objectively. Terms
related to specific makers - Astbury ware or Astbury-type, Whieldon-type,
Elers-type, etc. - only serve to confuse the serious student and to disguise
realities about dating and manufacture. Equally, those linked to the place of
manufacture - Jackfield-type ware, Buckley ware, etc. - limit our vision of the
wider (frequently much wider) manufacture of significant ceramic types in the
UK and beyond.

Sorry, but we have been banging on about this at Stoke for more than a decade.
I understand that many collectors and decorative arts people will be slow to
adjust to objective and relevant terminology for ceramics - they are tied in to
a body of literature which only serves to perpetuate ceramic myth and
misinformation - but as a profession, we depend upon a clear understanding our
our most fundamental form of material evidence. We have to be able to
communicate to each other in a common language (keep it simple, I say) and to
be able to recognise those basic terms for the material which will have a
direct bearing upon the way we interpret our sites and their formation.

[]  snip
 
David Barker