on 18/2/03 8:43 am, Timothy James Scarlett at [log in to unmask] wrote:

> The earthenware is porous, stoneware is vitrified and thus non-porous.
> Stoneware is similar to porcelain in this manner.  If you take a clean and
> dry broken ceramic fragment and touch it to your tongue, an earthenware
> sherd will absorb water from your tongue.  While pulling water from the skin
> of your tongue, the sherd actually pulls tiny bits of your skin into the
> voids in the ceramic fabric.  Thus it feels "sticky" to you.  Stoneware and
> porcelain, on the other hand, will feel slippery and not sticky.
>

All true, except that it's worth warning that the tongue test breaks down
for assemblages post-dating c.1845/50.  From the middle of the 19th century
on, refined white bodied vessels occur in a broad spectrum of vitrification
levels, from 'traditional' whitewares through to porcelaneous materials.

Thus the tongue test is _not_ a reliable guide for assemblages with a second
half of the 19th component.  You can also occasionally run into under-fired
unvitrified stonewares, which obviously cause their own tongue test issues.

That said, I find myself doing it as almost a nervous tic these days, even
though I don't use it to identify my ware types.

Incidentally, my personal record is 14 sherds hanging from my tongue at
once, though since I was using terracotta flowerpots, some of you might
consider this to be cheating (it was a slow day at the lab).



Black-glazed wares....

Someone asked whether 'Jackfield' could or should be used for all
black-glazed red earthenwares, or only the highly-fired teapot types.  I'd
restrict it to the latter, if only to avoid confusion with Buckley Wares
(and similar types).

North Americans can find a description of Buckley ware in Noel Hume's
'Guide' (fig. 50, pg.135).  However, while importation of this material to
the USA seems to end in the 1770s (I don't know about Canada), it's
important to stress that Buckley ware is found on British domestic sites (or
at least Welsh ones) well into the 19th century.

I think it was Carl Steen (apologies if it wasn't) who mentioned 18th and
early 19th century black glazed red earthenwares made in the Southern US.
If we're talking about the iron-rich black glazed red earthenwares that I
know were made in Virginia and the Carolinas (at least), may I throw out a
bit of totally off-the-cuff speculation?  Has anyone looked at whether there
might be any possible chance of a continuity of tradition between these
materials and late 15th-17th century Cistercian ware or other similar
European types?  Since I haven't seen any of the relevant American examples
for about 6 years (when I was last working there), this may be clutching at
faded memory straws on my part, so it's just a thought....

It's a bit difficult to look at samples of these things when you're in
Melbourne...


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