I have also found this conversation enlightening (I certainly will not
use the terms interchangeably anymore) and hope that more ceramic
experts will chime in at some point. For me, the crux of the issue now
seems to be, what is the difference between the technological processes
of enameling and glazing? It seems that the surface traits (i.e.
opacity, glossiness , etc.) can be applied to either glazes or enamels.
Likewise, I am not sure that saying that the "tin-infused surface
covering" does not fuse to the ceramic body is completely accurate. It
does fuse, just very poorly, hence its characteristic egg-shell
appearance and its tendency to easily spall off once a vessel is broken,
leading to the many partially or completely exfoliated sherds in
archaeological assemblages.
Rob
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rob Mann, Ph.D.
Southeast Regional Archaeologist
Museum of Natural Science
119 Foster Hall
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
225.578.6739
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mary
C. Beaudry
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 3:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Enamels
I suppose that what gives me pause is the notion that the colored glassy
compound is FUSED to the surface: this is surely not the case in any of
the
tin whatevered wares I have seen, used, dug up, studied, or otherwise
had
any acquaintance with. But I was told by a ceramics expert (cannot
remember
which one) that while Barber and others had used the term enamel it was
not
strictly accurate and like Carl says we should move on when we know
better.
I've been preparing for the artifacts class I'm teaching in the fall so
have found this exchange enlightening & I wish I could afford that book
that G. Avery edited. Sounds like it would be most helpful.
mcb
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Carl Steen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> hard white substance covering the crown of a tooth
>
> a
> colored glassy compound (opaque or partially opaque) that is fused to
> the surface of metal or glass or pottery for decoration or protection
>
> a paint that dries to a hard glossy finish
>
> any smooth glossy coating that resembles ceramic glaze
>
> coat, inlay, or surface with enamel
> wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
>
>
> Technically the usage is correct. All pottery glazes are "enamels."
But
> "Tin Enameled" is a little less specific than "Tin Glazed" and which
itself
> is more reductive than "Tin-Oxide Glaze" or lead glaze with tin oxide
> opacifer, etc, etc.
>
> Re: Barber, we owe a lot to him and the other pioneers in ceramic
studies,
> but should always recognize that they were making it up as they went
and be
> willing to refine our definitions as we learn.
>
> I haven't seen the book yet, but will surely buy it eventually.
>
> Carl Steen
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Mann <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 3:46 pm
> Subject: Re: Enamels
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> First, I fail to see how the term tin-enameled can be construed as
> un-scientific, whatever that is. Secondly, it is not as if this term
has
> just been "added" to the field. Over a century ago Edwin A. Barber
> (1907) wrote a book entitled "Tin Enameled Pottery: Majolica, Delft,
and
> other Stanniferous Faience," Pennsylvania Museum and School of
> Industrial Art, Philadelphia. Now, it may well be that Barber was
just
> as technically incorrect as others who use the term, but to suggest
that
> those who have used the term are "bedeviled by a lack of technical
> understanding" and have simply applied the term because they are
> confused by its similarity to "modern enamel paints" seems to be
taking
> it too far. Barber, after all, wrote several volumes on ceramics and
> was Honorary Curator of the Department of American Pottery and
Porcelain
> at the Pennsylvania Museum and School of Industrial Art. I am all for
> terminological consistency (I always cringe when I see the term kaolin
> pipes) and since, as George noted, the goal of the French Colonial
> Pottery Conference was to foster further discussions of classifying
> French colonial pottery, perhaps this thread can add to these
> discussions and point the way toward better technical understanding
and
> terminological consistency.
>
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Rob Mann, Ph.D.
>
> Southeast Regional Archaeologist
>
> Museum of Natural Science
>
> 119 Foster Hall
>
> Louisiana State University
>
> Baton Rouge, LA 70803
>
> 225.578.6739
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
paul
> courtney
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 11:25 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Enamels
>
>
>
> Tin-lead glaze would be more accurate but the use of enamel is just
>
> adding another confusing and un-scientific term to a field already
>
> bedevilled by lack of technical understanding - on analogy to modern
>
> enamel paints which look nothing like tin-lead glazes anyway.
Enamelling
>
>
> is best kept to enamelled metalwares by archaeologists. As Mary
pointed
>
> out the tin is merely an opacifier in a lead glaze but many glazes are
>
> opaque. Must try and get the conference book.
>
>
>
> paul courtney
>
> Leicester
>
> UK
>
>
>
>
>
--
Mary C. Beaudry, PhD, RPA, FSA
Professor of Archaeology & Anthropology
Department of Archaeology
Boston University
675 Commonwealth Avenue
Boston, MA 02215-1406
tel. 617-358-1650
people.bu.edu/beaudry/Mary_Beaudrys_Research/Welcome.html
|
