I suspect that the ceramic terms used by manufacturers was based on
marketing strategy, rather than an industry-wide standard. The
proliferation of whiteware names may be directly related to attempts by
manufacturers to distinguish their (very similar) ceramics from others.
Erica Sanborn
> If I may be allowed to weigh in on this discussion, one of the
>difficulties with nomenclature is that manufacturers, wholesalers,
>retailers, consumers, and, laterally, archaeologists have lacked
>consistency in their use of labels -- and doubtless always shall. Terms
>like "ironstone china," "vitrified china," "stoneware," "Indian china,"
>"porcelain china," "majolica," "semi-porcelain," "stone china," "imperial
>porcelain," "vitreus hotel porcelain," "royal semi-granite," "porcelaine
>de terre," and similar labels appear printed and/or stamped on the
>ceramic wares of countless manufacturers in England and the United
>States. The question is, were there (are there) industry-wide standards
>for such labels? (Probably not.) Or were such terms specific only
>in-house, manufactuer by manufacturer (more likely), and as much the
>product of the imagination of sales people as of the chemists or other
>clay experts who assembled the wares' components? Once ceramics, or
>other mass-produced, products leave the manufactuers, wholesalers and
>retailers are given to adding or embellishing labels, and consumers, not
>likely to look at hallmarks, proceed to apply terms of their own liking
>(with "china," "porcelain," and "ironstone" probably among the most
>common). Finally, archaeologists are given to creating their own
>terminology, the final straw in a house of confusion. As historical
>arxchaeologists, it would seem to behoove us to track these labels for
>various kinds of wares as best we can, remembering that words (labels),
>like artifacts themselves, are products of the human behavior in which we
>profess an interest. B. Fontana
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From:
><mailto:[log in to unmask]>Alasdair Brooks To:
><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask] Sent: Sunday, January 20,
>2002 3:44 PM Subject: Re: White Granite
>on 1/17/02 10:03 AM, Ron May at [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
>
>
>Robert,
>
>There is an old saying that if you heaped a load of white ceramics in
>a room and asked 6 archaeologists to enter the room separately and
>sort the sherds into type piles, you would have 6 different groupings
>of white sherds. There is such a wide range of training, visual
>skills, and backgrounds among our fold, it is difficult to answer
>your question. I personally am interested in the gradation
>development of paste improvements after the 1860s and the fact that soft
>paste continues to be made. However, there are many historic
>archaeologists who will tell you distinguishing "white granite" or
>"Stone China" is a waste of time.
>
>Ron May
>Legacy 106, Inc.
>
>
>I largely disagree with this. Between George Miller and Neil Ewins,
>there's enough definition in the literature to make a separation between
>white granite and other materials possible. While obviously there will
>be individual body sherds where definitive ID is well-nigh impossible,
>which will generate different counts depending on the archaeologist,
>that's hardly a problem unique to white granite. White granite is
>quite conclusively a separate ware, and George's 7 points on white
>granite identification (as re-posted to this list) are very useful for
>the USA in this regard (somewhat less so in Australia; here points 1,
>5, 6, and 7 are the most relevant). Pity about the lack of
>illustrations in the CNEHA newsletter, but there's enough in Ewins to
>get the point across.
>
>I've even been given to understand that there's a white granite
>collector's group in the USA, but I've had no contact with them.
>
>Alasdair Brooks
>
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Dr. Alasdair Brooks
>Department of Archaeology
>La Trobe University
>Plenty Road
>Bundoora VIC 3083
>Australia
>Phone - 03 9479 3269
>E-mail - [log in to unmask]
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>"The buffalo tastes the same
>on both sides of the border"
>Sitting Bull
|