David and other Histarchers,
    I have been following this thread with interest and learning a good deal.  I
think that the attached jpegs (apologies for quality of images) may be one of the
so-called Astbury wares or red bodied wares or maybe something else entirely - I
may be off in left field somewhere.

    The site is the U.S. Arsenal at Augusta, first occupied in the late 1820s and
open until the mid 1950s.  We have found our share of the Creamwares, Pearlwares
and Whitewares, but this red bodied ware is unusual on the site.

    At any rate, I have attached 3 jpegs of a teapot with a very dark brown glaze
(almost appearing black in places).  In the lighter areas, it resembles Rockingham
(here we go again with those names).  The exterior glaze has a lustre finish but
there is no white glaze on the interior.

    If anyone can tell me what this ought to be called and/or provide
bibliographical references, it would be appreciated.

    Christopher Murphy
    History & Anthropology
    Augusta State University

David Barker wrote:

> I'm delighted that something useful has arisen from this - if only the
> opportunity to reaffirm that 'pearlware' dating has indeed been pushed back
> into the mid 1770s as George Miller has stated.
>
> However, Carl, I think that the John Bartlam 'china glaze' sherds may prove to
> be a red herring and certainly need to be reassessed.
>
> You are quite right Carl - so-called experts realyy should get their act
> together and provide the revised basic inofrmation that's need. Perhaps if we
> spent less time yacking on email, but then...
>
> Of course the internet has tremendous potential in this regard, as Ellen says,
> and I hope that we at Stoke shall soon be joining others in this field. How
> about neat web sites? I'm new to this technology, but have already found, for
> example, the Port Royal (UTexas) site of interest. We can go much further at
> low cost and increasingly the profession has access to this medium.
>
> On the other hand, I couldn't agree more with Ned Heite about the need to
> include detailed ceramic [& other artefact] information in archaeological
> journals. This doesn't seem to be very fashionable in the States, although over
> here we get criticised for an over-emphasis in journals on typologies and finds
> lists. Much as I'd like to visit collections world-wide, it is something of a
> necessity if I am to learn precisely what is going on over the water, and in my
> position I do need this information.
>
> I am sure that there will be more of this, but for now I must do something to
> earn my crust.
>
> David Barker