Ned:

It seems that you already have half the explanation - that it was once
stood in the fire channel, and then you mention that it is "refired."

   If it was a clamp or a kiln such an unsalable brick would have been
tossed to the side.  What may have happened, and this is the Yankee in me
saying this, when another clamp or kiln was set the brickmakers simply used
this already ruined brick to fit in the fire channel or over a vent and
thus prevented the waste of another good brick.  Instead of having two
bricks vitrified / glazed on one side, you have one.  Maybe you can use it
as evidence that the pile was fired at least twice?

Is there a prize for this?

         Dan W.




At 08:07 AM 6/6/02, you wrote:
>At 12:59 PM -0400 6/5/02, Ron May wrote:
>>Could the so-called sacrificial brick merely have been resting in
>>the kiln when a worker left a wine bottle on it from lunch and the
>>heat melted the glass all over the brick?
>
>Actually, I'd like to think something so romantic, but this brick
>clearly has overall glazing on both large faces and the glazing
>extends into the sides in a perfectly believable way. If I were to
>find a brick like this glazed on only one side, I would simply report
>that it was standing in the fire channel. But since both faces are
>believably channel-facing surfaces, I am looking for a more
>convincing way to explain it.  The other bricks in the structure are
>clearly face brick, fired to produce a smooth texture and color.
>
>--
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Ned Heite and Baby the Land Rover
>[log in to unmask]
>Heite Consulting, archaeologists and historians
>
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++