Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 17 Apr 2001 06:28:43 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Ron May wrote:
>
>As a ceramics analyst, I am uncomfortable with the cavalier use of the term
>"colono ware" for all European and African cultures in the American East and
>Southeast. I should think that a careful analysis of construction techniques,
>x-ray defraction analysis, Neutron Activation Analysis, and a few other
>simple visual observations would distinguish African slave pottery from Irish
from Danish from etc. immigrant groups.
This is exactly the conclusion I have reached. Most writers on
"colono" have treated it as a single "ware" based on shared
superficial characteristics. It is clear that South Carolina and
Virginia "colono" are not the same, and that they spring from
different origins, for example.
In order to sort the origins of "colono," it will be necessary to
analyze the seventeenth century antecedents, when the constituent
elements can be identified. Creolization, which differed from one
locality to the next, produced different traditions that have been
unfortunately lumped as "colono" and treated as a single subject.
This lumping has become an obstacle to further analysis.
--
*****[log in to unmask]******
* *
* Grass clippings this *
* year can be lettuce *
* next year if you *
* think ahead and *
* put them on a *
* compost heap. *
* --Thanks very mulch *
************************
|
|
|