Sender: |
|
X-To: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 12 Sep 2008 23:59:58 +0000 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
8bit |
Content-Type: |
text/plain |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I would suggest that instead of "agatized glaze" the term motled glaze may be more appropriate though I haven't seen the piece. "Agated" etc. are best applied to paste rather than glaze. I would echo others concern about an assignment to either Buckley or Jackfield-I have looked at collections with "Jackfield" that are clearly wood ash glazed 19th c (with irradecence) or simply iron colored lead glazes (black) [under oxidation].
Silas Hurry
Historic St. Mary's City
-------------- Original message --------------
From: James Brothers <[log in to unmask]>
> Darn my fingers, agatized (banded like agate). Sort of a tiger stripe.
> Black-glazed redware works, for some reason I overlooked that one.
>
> On Sep 11, 2008, at 10:50 PM, Patrick Tucker wrote:
>
> > Not sure what you mean by "agitated," but it sounds somewhat like
> > black-glazed redware. This is the archaeological category for the
> > type, not
> > the decorative type listed in pottery manufacturers' records. I have
> > not
> > seen this category in temporal contexts later than the 1830s.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Pat Tucker
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> > James
> > Brothers
> > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 3:10 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Pottery Type
> >
> > I have a pottery fragment from Virginia (late 1700s to end of 19C
> > context). Earthenware, dark red paste. Glaze on one side is lustrous,
> > other side is black and dark brown agitated. I'm pulling a blank, any
> > suggestions?
> > Thanks
> > Jim Brothers
|
|
|