HISTARCH Archives

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

HISTARCH@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Paul Courtney <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 6 Aug 1999 19:08:44 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (46 lines)
Write that book soon- David. If our American chums buy it you might even
make some money out of it. In the meantime I suggest you post details of
some of the Stoke museum ceramics publications with postal rates to the
US. See you for a balti and a few beers sometime.



In message <[log in to unmask]>, David
Barker <[log in to unmask]> writes
>Now we are talking!
>
>I'm delighted that there are people out there who care about this stuff.
>
>Re: 'Astbury-type', we've always referred to it as 'glazed red earthenware',
>but I prefer the simple 'redware' (slipping into GRE merely as an
>abbreviation).
>I should add, however, that we now have a huge body of redwares almost
>certainly made by AN Astbury (common Staffordshire name). Excavations on an
>18th-century pottery factory site in Shelton, Stoke-on-Trent, in 1992 exposed -
>amongst other things - a large waster dump containing - you guessed it - glazed
>and biscuit tea and coffee wares of the type under discussion. These have
>mould-applied relief decoration in white, inlaid agate band, turned and cut
>flutes, and other weird stuff which we are not used to seeing. Stylistically we
>thought 1730/40. Documentary study by Rodney Hampson showed that between 1728
>and 1744 one John Astbury was tenant of the potworks and was, therefore,
>probabaly reponsible for the wasters excavated. This date range is supported by
>vessels commemorating the capture of Portobello in 1739. On the down-side, fine
>though these redwares are, there's not a whole lot to distinguish them from
>similar wares from a dozen other N. Staffordshire sites. [This makes life
>easier!]
>
>As for our Jackfield friends: 'blackware' or 'refined blackware' suffices for
>us. We use the latter if we have a multi-period group containing 17th-/early
>18th-century once-fired blackwares. I'm now quite happy to leave off the
>additional "so-called 'Jackfield-type' wares", which has cluttered up my text
>for so long. The point is well-made that a label is just that, as long as we
>can recognise it, but equally there is no excuse for us to be sloppy in our
>approach.
>
>It's a pleasure to chat - beats work!
>
>David Barker

Paul Courtney
Leicester UK

ATOM RSS1 RSS2