In a message dated 8/9/1999 5:14:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<<
 However, Carl, I think that the John Bartlam 'china glaze' sherds may prove
to
 be a red herring and certainly need to be reassessed.
  >>

David-- I'm not sure what you mean by this "red herring" business. I was at
the site for the first phase of work, and did a preliminary analysis of the
material. Stanley South directed further excavations and analysis so I can't
speak for his conclusions.

    There were however a number of glazed and bisque sherds that I think
almost anyone would call "pearlware" if they use the classic definition. Now
they may or may not be "real pearlware" or "real China Glaze" but if you
dropped the sherds into a collection from 1780 few archaeologists could sort
them out.

    Personally, I think that the type names "creamware-pearlware-and
whiteware" are more trouble than they are worth. I prefer to lump them
together as "refined industrial earthenwares"  and concentrate on decoration
and other idiosyncratic characteristics for dating. This is a result more of
the problems in sorting out  later manifestations of the three "types" than
of sorting out early examples.  Yet I would say that the Bartlam sherds
indicate a greater overlap in the occurence of creamware and pearlware than
might previously have been believed.

    The Bartlam sherds were wares, however, that I felt completely comforble
calling "pearlware" after much internal debate and knowing fully the
implications.
So whether they are a "red herring" or not, I still maintain that they are
wares which I and presumably many others would happily call "pearlware" if we
found them on a site dating to the 1780s.

    However they were found on a site which produced both kiln wasters and
finished wares. The potter trained in Staffordshire and presumably either
learned the technique for making glazes look blue there, or invented it
himself. He made pottery at Cainhoy between about 1767 and 1769.

    What this means to me is that someone stepped forward and tried to make
what we would call pearlware well before it was accepted by the main body of
Staffordshire earthenware makers. The red herring, I think, is the reliance
on Wedgewood as a source for the introduction of pearlware, as George Miller
pointed out, and relying on general acceptance of the name and technique as
an introduction date.

    On another note, Lon Bulgrin wrote that he felt that the tone of this
thread was less than collegial. I hope that no one else thinks so, Stating
opinions and debating is entirely possible without hating the person with
whom you disagree. If I should ever be guilty of offending anyone by stating
my opinion I hope that it will be pointed out to me. They are only ideas
after all...



Carl Steen