Dear Carl,

I can't resist the tempation to respond to the sight of a generic term used for
any ceramic type.

It really is time that we consign these out-dated collectors' terms to the
dustbin (?trash can) and start to think about our ceramics objectively. Terms
related to specific makers - Astbury ware or Astbury-type, Whieldon-type,
Elers-type, etc. - only serve to confuse the serious student and to disguise
realities about dating and manufacture. Equally, those linked to the place of
manufacture - Jackfield-type ware, Buckley ware, etc. - limit our vision of the
wider (frequently much wider) manufacture of significant ceramic types in the
UK and beyond.

Sorry, but we have been banging on about this at Stoke for more than a decade.
I understand that many collectors and decorative arts people will be slow to
adjust to objective and relevant terminology for ceramics - they are tied in to
a body of literature which only serves to perpetuate ceramic myth and
misinformation - but as a profession, we depend upon a clear understanding our
our most fundamental form of material evidence. We have to be able to
communicate to each other in a common language (keep it simple, I say) and to
be able to recognise those basic terms for the material which will have a
direct bearing upon the way we interpret our sites and their formation.

I do not wish to suggest that we at Stoke have all the answers - far from it -
but there is a ceramics dialogue going on within (and outside) the
archaeological profession in the UK, the US and beyond. This will, I am
confident, result in a simple standard terminology for the majority of common
British ware-types encountered on historic sites.

Oh yes, for 'Astbury-type' read red earthenware or redware. Refined,
twice-fired lead-glazed red earthenwares make their entry onto the ceramic
stage around 1720 and can be found virutally unchanged in form and decoration
until the 1760s, by which time they are increasingly the vehicles for a range
of engine-turned decoration. A gradual down-market move takes them into the
19th century, by which time we see some pretty shabby stuff. The use of
red-firing clay for refined wares continues, however, as has been discussed in
connection with the red-bodied lustre wares; there are also the mid to late
19th-century plain black teapots which are ubiquitous, and then the late
19th-/early 20th-century 'Jackfield wares' [this term has got to go!] with
enamelled decoaration and gilding which seem to turn up in every antique shop.

Apologies for the rant

David Barker

       [log in to unmask]:

In a message dated 8/5/1999 9:47:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< This is a
 redware paste--a very hard, thin example--almost like stoneware.  The
 interior white slip is quite thin and the clear glaze on both sides is
 slightly crackled--apparently with age/damage rather than intentionally.
 The blue on the exterior is a clear bright blue--pretty much the basic blue
 on a color spectrum.  Where the two color zones intersect there is a narrow,
 almost black band--it seems to be from one color being placed over the
 other.  The brown zone is a deep, dark brown and since it is under the clear
 glaze, it doesn't seem to be a case of copper lustre which has darkened.

 Does the further description help?  Lustre would certainly fit the time
 period for the site as well as going along with the several colors of
 transfer print ware we have. >>


Lucy--
I believe that there are several types of refined redware with slip coated
bodies and lead glazes that begin with the 18th century Astbury wares
illustrated by Noel Hume. They split off into a number of "types" in  the
19th century. Lustre is one decorative motif, but not a separate type. I
usually lump these together as "Astbury-type" wares. They were made for a
long time, and I don't think of them as good temporal markers unless they
have distinctive sprigging or other decoration.
Carl Steen