Sender: |
|
X-To: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 12 Sep 2008 08:40:42 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Could it be Buckleyware? This would have a good amount of white clay in the paste though.
-----Original Message-----
From: James Brothers <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 7:53 am
Subject: Re: Pottery Type
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?
|
|
|