HISTARCH Archives

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

HISTARCH@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
AM Brooks <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 4 Mar 2001 13:20:35 +0000
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (30 lines)
Ron,

Just very briefly... the answer is 'all of the above to varying degrees'.
In large-scale international and inter-regional comparisons, decoration
appears to be far more sensitive to local idiosyncracies of taste, choice,
and distribution than form.

Across six sites, 2 each from Wales, the Outer Hebrides, and central
Virginia (one slave quarter, one poor white), only two sites showed
significant variation in tableware form distributions from the other 4.
Decorative distributions, however, were far more vaired; this isn't simply
a matter of differences in specific design (as you'd naturally expect),
but also in terms of what percentage of the tablewares were printed vs.
painted vs. undecorated (etc....)

If you're interested in the specifics, let me know, and I'll send some
data off-list.

Alasdair Brooks

On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Ron May wrote:

> Alasdair,
>
> But why would the decoration vary? Is this a regional choice, ethnic choice,
> or personal choice?
>
> Ron May
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2