DOCSLIB.ORG

Guidelines January 2020 Page 2 of 142

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Guidelines January 2020 Page 2 of 142 MISSISSIPPI STANDARDS FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRACTICES Developed by the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Historic Preservation Division, Archaeology and Historic Sites Section 2019 Mississippi Archaeology Guidelines January 2020 Page 2 of 142 Contents Rule 12.1. Introduction to the Standards ............................................................................ 5 Rule 12.1.1. Environmental Review and Section 106 Consultation Process FAQ......... 7 Rule 12.1.2. A Brief Overview of the Review Process ................................................ 11 Rule 12.1.3. Relevant Statutory Authorities ................................................................. 12 Rule 12.2. Area of Potential Effects (APE) ...................................................................... 13 Rule 12.2.1. Determining the Area of Potential Effect: FCC Projects ......................... 13 Rule 12.2.2. Assessing Effects: non- FCC Projects ...................................................... 14 Rule 12.3. Evaluating Site Significance ........................................................................... 15 Rule 12.3.1. Evaluation Checklist for Archaeological Properties ................................ 16 Rule 12.3.2. Evaluating Archaeological Sites under Criteria other than D .................. 18 Rule 12.3.3. Assessing the National Register Integrity of Archaeological Sites .......... 22 Rule 12.3.4. Supplemental Guidelines for Nominating Archeological Sites and Districts to the National Register of Historic Places .............................................. 23 Rule 12.4.0. Criteria for Qualified Professional Archaeologists ...................................... 27 Rule 12.4.1. Consultants List ........................................................................................ 30 Rule 12.5.0. Archaeological Site Types and Historic Themes ......................................... 31 Rule 12.5.1. Definition of an Archaeological Site ....................................................... 31 Rule 12.5.2 Archaeological Site Types ......................................................................... 31 Rule 12.5.3. Historic Periods & Themes ...................................................................... 36 Rule 12.6.0. Archaeological Survey and Investigations ................................................... 45 Rule 12.6.1. Preliminary Literature Review and Records Search ................................ 45 Rule 12.6.2. Archival Research for Evaluation (Phase II Testing) and Data Recovery (Phase III) Projects ................................................................................................. 46 Rule 12.6.3. Archaeological Survey and Methodology ................................................ 46 Ruler 12.6.4. Special Environment Surveys ................................................................. 49 Rule 12.6.5. Phase I Field Documentation Standards ................................................... 54 Rule 12.6.6. Phase II Testing and Evaluation ............................................................... 56 Rule 12.6.7. Phase III Data Recovery/Mitigation ......................................................... 63 Rule 12.7.0. Archaeological Site Cards ............................................................................ 67 Mississippi Archaeology Guidelines January 2020 Page 3 of 142 Rule 12.7.1. Acquiring Site Numbers (Trinomials) ...................................................... 67 Rule 12.7.2. Recording Archaeological Sites ............................................................... 67 Rule 12.7.3. Guide to the Mississippi Archaeological Site Card.................................. 68 Rule 12.7.4. Historic Artifact Analysis: using DAACS cataloging manual descriptions ................................................................................................................................ 79 Rule 12.8.0. Archaeological Report Guidelines ............................................................... 81 Rule 12.8.1. Management Summaries .......................................................................... 81 Rule 12.8.2. Reports and Distribution .......................................................................... 82 Rule 12.8.3. Report Guidelines for Negative Findings Reports ................................... 83 Rule 12.8.4. Phase I Reporting ..................................................................................... 83 Rule 12.8.5. Phase II, and Phase III Reporting ............................................................. 85 Rule 12.9.0 Archaeological Investigations on State Lands and Mississippi Landmarks . 88 9.1. Preparing a Scope of Work .................................................................................... 88 Rule 12.9.2. Notice of Intent ......................................................................................... 89 Rule 12.10.0. Laboratory and Curation Guidelines .......................................................... 90 Rule 12.10.1. Field Tracking Methods ......................................................................... 90 Rule 12.10.2. Photographing ........................................................................................ 90 Rule 12.10.3. Processing ............................................................................................... 91 Rule 12.10.4. Analysis .................................................................................................. 93 Rule 12.10.5. Conservation and Curation ..................................................................... 94 Rule 12.11.0. GIS and Electronic Submission Guidelines ............................................... 98 Rule 12.12.0. Tribal Consultation ..................................................................................... 99 Rule 12.12.1. Legal Requirements of Consultation with Tribes ................................... 99 Rule 12.12.2 Federal Agency Policies ........................................................................ 101 Rule 12.13.0. Treatment of Human Remains ................................................................. 105 Rule 12.14.0. Alternative Mitigation .............................................................................. 107 Rule 12.15.0. Public Education and Outreach ................................................................ 109 Rule 12.15.1. Standards for Public Education and Outreach ...................................... 109 Rule 12.15.2. Education and Outreach for Landowners ............................................. 109 Rule 12.15.3. Education and Outreach for the Town ................................................. 110 Rule 12.15.4. Recommended Projects and Programs ................................................. 110 Rule 12. 16.0 Architectural Survey................................................................................. 112 Mississippi Archaeology Guidelines January 2020 Page 4 of 142 Rule 12.16.1. Survey Standards .................................................................................. 112 Rule 12.16.2. Survey Inclusion Guidelines ................................................................ 118 Rule 12.16.3. Instructions for Completing the Mississippi Historic Resources Inventory Form ..................................................................................................................... 120 Rule 12.17.0. Mississippi Landmark Permits: Procedures for Implementation of the Antiquities Law of Mississippi ................................................................................ 129 Rule 12.18.0. Citizen’s Guide to Reporting an Archaeological Site .............................. 136 Appendix A. Linear Resources ....................................................................................... 137 Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 142 Mississippi Archaeology Guidelines January 2020 Page 5 of 142 Rule 12.1. Introduction to the Standards Mississippi history dates back to over 12,000 years ago. The vast majority of that history is unwritten and becomes known only through the archaeological record. Most often, archaeological investigations in Mississippi occur in response to federal and state laws that protect archaeological resources. The Mississippi Department of Archives and History, serving as the Mississippi State Historic Preservation Office (MSSHPO), developed these Standards to provide a framework for those activities, as well as guidance for non-regulatory archaeological studies. In accordance with MS Code § 39-7- 21 (2013), the Board of Trustees adopted the following standards to guide archaeological excavations in Mississippi. These Standards replace the “Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations and Reports in Mississippi” established in 2001, and as amended in 2012. Since that date, there have been many technological advances, advances in archaeological method and theory, and reevaluation of archaeological practices and procedures in Mississippi. These Standards will reflect those. The Standards reflect various goals for Mississippi archaeology: 1. Ensure that archaeological studies meet high professional research standards. 2. Identify important archaeological sites that contribute to our understanding of Mississippi’s pre-contact and post-contact history. 3. Protect important archaeological sites, or when appropriate, gain information. 4. Provide significant public benefits.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fast Fossils Carbon-Film Transfer on Saggar-Fired Porcelain by Dick Lehman
    March 2000 1 2 CERAMICS MONTHLY March 2000 Volume 48 Number 3 “Leaves in Love,” 10 inches in height, handbuilt stoneware with abraded glaze, by Michael Sherrill, Hendersonville, North FEATURES Carolina. 34 Fast Fossils 40 Carbon-Film Transfer on Saggar-Fired Porcelain by Dick Lehman 38 Steven Montgomery The wood-firing kiln at Buck Industrial imagery with rich texture and surface detail Pottery, Gruene, Texas. 40 Michael Sherrill 62 Highly refined organic forms in porcelain 42 Rasa and Juozas Saldaitis by Charles Shilas Lithuanian couple emigrate for arts opportunities 45 The Poetry of Punchong Slip-Decorated Ware by Byoung-Ho Yoo, Soo-Jong Ree and Sung-Jae Choi by Meghen Jones 49 No More Gersdey Borateby JejfZamek Why, how and what to do about it 51 Energy and Care Pit Firing Burnished Pots on the Beach by Carol Molly Prier 55 NitsaYaffe Israeli artist explores minimalist abstraction in vessel forms “Teapot,” approximately 9 inches in height, white 56 A Female Perspectiveby Alan Naslund earthenware with under­ Female form portrayed by Amy Kephart glazes and glazes, by Juozas and Rasa Saldaitis, 58 Endurance of Spirit St. Petersburg, Florida. The Work of Joanne Hayakawa by Mark Messenger 62 Buck Pottery 42 17 Years of Turnin’ and Burnin’ by David Hendley 67 Redware: Tradition and Beyond Contemporary and historical work at the Clay Studio “Bottle,” 7 inches in height, wheel-thrown porcelain, saggar 68 California Contemporary Clay fired with ferns and sumac, by The cover:“Echolalia,” San Francisco invitational exhibition Dick Lehman, Goshen, Indiana. 29½ inches in height, press molded and assembled, 115 Conquering Higher Ground 34 by Steven Montgomery, NCECA 2000 Conference Preview New York City; see page 38.
    [Show full text]
  • Leeds Arts Calendar LEEDS ARTS CALENDAR MICROFILMED Starting with the First Issue Published in 1947, the Entire Leeds Art Calendar Is Now Available on Micro- Film
    Leeds Arts Calendar LEEDS ARTS CALENDAR MICROFILMED Starting with the first issue published in 1947, the entire Leeds Art Calendar is now available on micro- film. Write for information or send orders direct to: University Microfilms, Inc., 300N Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106, U.S.A. Leeds Art Collections Fund This is an appeal to all who are interested in the Arts. The Leeds Art Collections Fund is the source of regular funds for buying works of art for the Leeds collection. We want more subscribing members to give one and a half guineas or upwards each year. Why not identify yourself with the Art Gallery and Temple Newsam; receive your Arts Calendar free, receive invitations to all functions, private views and organised visits to places ot Cover Design interest, by writing for an application form to the Detail of a Staffordshire salt-glaze stoneware mug Hon Treasurer, E. M. Arnold Butterley Street, Leeds 10 with "Scratch Blue" decoration of a cattle auction Esq., scene; inscribed "John Cope 1749 Hear goes". From the Hollings Collection, Leeds. LEEDS ARTS CALENDAR No. 67 1970 THE AMENITIES COMMITTEE The Lord Mayor Alderman J. T. V. Watson, t.t..s (Chairman) Alderman T. W. Kirkby Contents Alderman A. S. Pedley, D.p.c. Alderman S. Symmonds Councillor P. N. H. Clokie Councillor R. I. Ellis, A.R.A.M. Councillor H. Farrell Editorial 2 J. Councillor Mrs. E. Haughton Councillor Mrs. Collector's Notebook D. E. Jenkins A Leeds 4 Councillor Mrs. A. Malcolm Councillor Miss C. A. Mathers Some Trifles from Leeds 12 Councillor D.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Delftware Delftware Is Tin-Glazed Earthenware, Composed
    A History of Delftware Delftware is tin-glazed earthenware, composed of a buff-colored body coated with a layer of lead opacified by tin ashes. It first appeared in the Near East in the 9th century, and then spread through trade to the Mediterranean, reaching South Spain in the 11th century. Delftware appeared in Italy in the 14th century before moving to France and the Low Countries (present day Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg) in the early 16th century. Despite its eastern origins, Delftware was named for the city of Delft, Holland, an area known both for pottery and several Delftware factories. In the 16th century, the Dutch modeled their pottery on the characteristics of Italian pottery. By the 17th century, however, the Dutch controlled much of the trade around Asia, having seized control from Portugal. As a result, Chinese style porcelain became extremely popular in the Netherlands. The factories that produced Delftware began to copy porcelain designs. This practice netted a huge profit after internal Chinese wars disrupted trade between China and the West and reduced the amount of porcelain imported from the east. The great demand for Chinese porcelain led many Dutch to buy Delftware porcelain In 1567 two Flemish potters, Jasper Andries and Jacob Jansen, arrived in Norwich, England to establish a Delftware factory. There was not enough clay in that area of England, however, so the two men moved their factory to London. In the 17th and 18th century other “Low Country” immigrants began arriving in England and established Delftware factories. These factories profited from exporting their products to the colonies in the Americas.
    [Show full text]
  • European Art & Decorative Arts Wall Text and Extended Labels
    European Art & Decorative Arts Wall Text and Extended Labels FIRST FLOOR The Morgan Memorial The construction of the Morgan Memorial, completed in two sections in 1910 and 1915, more than doubled the size of the original Wadsworth Atheneum that opened in 1844. The building is dedicated to Junius Spencer Morgan, whose bust by William Wetmore Story stands at the top of the western stairs. Morgan was a Hartford man who founded a banking empire, and his son, J. Pierpont Morgan, chose to build the museum’s new wing as a tribute to his father. The total cost of the Memorial—over $1,400,000—represents the largest of J. Pierpont Morgan’s generous gifts. He spent over twelve years purchasing the several properties on which the Memorial stands, and was involved in its construction until his death in 1913. Benjamin Wistar Morris, a noted New York architect, was selected to design what was to be a new home for the Wadsworth Atheneum’s art collection. It was built in the grand English Renaissance style, and finished with magnificent interior details. Four years after J. Pierpont Morgan’s death, his son, J. Pierpont Morgan Jr., followed the wishes outlined in his father’s will and gave the Wadsworth Atheneum a trove of ancient art and European decorative arts from his father’s renowned collection. Living in the Ancient World Ordinary objects found at sites from the countries surrounding the Mediterranean Sea and the Middle East reveal a great deal about daily life in the ancient world. Utensils for eating and drinking, glassware, lamps, jewelry, pottery, and stone vessels disclose the details of everyday life.
    [Show full text]
  • A Desire for Fired Clay from Far Away: Analysis of Ceramics from a Seventeenth-Century Domestic Site in Bridgetown, Barbados
    W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 2010 A Desire for Fired Clay from Far Away: Analysis of Ceramics from a Seventeenth-Century Domestic Site in Bridgetown, Barbados Anne M. Gibson College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the Caribbean Languages and Societies Commons, and the History of Art, Architecture, and Archaeology Commons Recommended Citation Gibson, Anne M., "A Desire for Fired Clay from Far Away: Analysis of Ceramics from a Seventeenth- Century Domestic Site in Bridgetown, Barbados" (2010). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539626618. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-e5hm-ws51 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Desire for Fired Clay from Far Away: Analysis of Ceramics from a Seventeenth-Century Domestic Site in Bridgetown, Barbados Anne Gibson Coppell, Texas Bachelor of Arts, Baylor University, 2007 A Thesis presented to the Graduate Faculty of the College of William and Mary in Candidacy for the Degree of Master of Arts Department of Anthropology The College of William and Mary August, 2010 APPROVAL PAGE This Thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Anne M. Gibson Approved by the Committee, May 20^10 Committee Assistant Professor Frederick H.
    [Show full text]
  • Royal Delft Collectors' Society Newsletter" Heet U Van Harte Welkom
    Royal Delft Collectors’ Society Newsletter Issue 2 28 June 2004 Welcome to the second issue of the newsletter for collectors of Royal Delft (De Porceleyne Fles). De “Royal Delft Collectors' Society Newsletter" heet U van harte welkom. Wij wensen U veel lees pret toe. The reactions to the previous newsletter, published 28 March, 2004, were extremely positive and encouraging. Current Membership includes collectors from Holland, Germany, Britain, and the United States. More information about our Royal Delft Collectors’ Society can be found at the back of this issue, along with a membership form. If you know of any other collectors, please share this information with them, so that they may also enjoy the benefits of Society membership. Photo: Frans Feijen, Courtesy Royal Delft In the previous issue of this Newsletter mention was made of stylish, new tableware by Porceleyne Fles. Already it has been attracting a lot of favourable notice, although only introduced late last autumn. The modern, contemporary design is the result of co-operation between Jacob de Baan, Marjet Wessels Boer, and Margit Seland. The decoration is minimal, but inspired by the centuries-old trademarks and the classic punch-ring, visible on the bottom of Delftware pieces. Each item is decorated with the historical trademarks or initials of former Porceleyne Fles owners (such as Johannes Knotter, the Harlees family, and Joost Thooft) and important designers (such as Leon Senf and Carel Hartog). Therefore this thoroughly modern tableware is also rooted in the 17th century Delftware tradition. Beaker, 11cm (4½”) high, €22.00 ($26.50). Oval soup/salad/pasta bowl, 27cm (10½”), €24.00 Named New Delft, the tableware is entirely ($29.00).
    [Show full text]
  • Pottery and Protestant Theology in Early Modern England
    Journal of early modern history 24 (2020) 63-83 brill.com/jemh Eating the Forbidden Fruit: Pottery and Protestant Theology in Early Modern England Alexandra Walsham University of Cambridge [email protected] Abstract This article offers insight into Protestant attitudes towards food by exploring seventeenth- and eighteenth-century English delftware dishes and chargers decorated with the biblical motif of the Temptation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. It investigates the biblical story and doctrinal assumptions that underpinned this ico- nography and considers how objects decorated with it illuminate the ethics of eating in the godly household and reformed culture. Analyzing a range of visual variations on this theme, it approaches this species of Christian materiality as a form of embod- ied theology. Such pottery encouraged spectators to recognize the interconnections between sexual temptation and the sensual temptation presented by gluttony and to engage in spiritual and moral reflection. Probing the nexus between piety and bodily pleasure, the article also seeks to complicate traditional stereotypes about puritan asceticism. Keywords Adam and Eve – delftware – eating – food – sex – pottery – temptation – theology Introduction The tin-glazed earthenware dish reproduced in Fig. 1 is decorated with an image that was ubiquitous in early modern England: the Temptation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Created by the Pickleherring pottery in 1635, © Alexandra Walsham, 2020 | doi:10.1163/15700658-12342661 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0Downloaded License. from Brill.com10/07/2021 07:13:49AM via free access 64 Walsham Figure 1 Adam and Eve charger (Pickleherring pottery, London, 1635): © Victoria and Albert Museum, London, C.26-1931.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeological and Historic Pottery Production Sites Guidelines for Best Practice Summary
    Archaeological and Historic Pottery Production Sites Guidelines for Best Practice Summary This document provides practical guidance on how to investigate sites where pottery production has taken place. It describes how to anticipate and locate pottery production sites and the types of evidence that may be found. This document also provides advice on the available methods and strategies for examining, recording and sampling features and finds of various types at each stage of the work. The different techniques for establishing the date of pottery production, and for characterising the products of a site, are given particular emphasis. This document was compiled by Harriet White, Sarah Paynter and Duncan Brown with contributions by Joanne Best, Chris Cumberpatch, David Dawson, Peter Ellis, Jane Evans, Laurence Jones, Oliver Kent, Gareth Perry, The Prince’s Regeneration Trust, Ian Roberts, Kerry Tyler and Ann Woodward. It is one of four Historic England publications concerning industrial processes in the past, the other three being: ■ Science for Historic Industries: Guidelines for the Investigation of 17th- to 19th- Century Industries ■ Archaeological Evidence for Glassworking: Guidelines for Best Practice ■ Archaeometallurgy: Guidelines for Best Practice. First published by Historic England October 2015. All images © Historic England unless otherwise stated. www.historicengland.org.uk/advice/technical-advice/archaeological-science/ Front cover images: clockwise from top left Reconstruction of a 17th-century kiln from Potters A 14th-century
    [Show full text]
  • Blue and White Porcelain: an International Sensation
    Blue And White Porcelain: An International Sensation Trade Routes c. 1st c. A.D. Kendi (drinking vessel), porcelain, China, 7th c. Xing ware jar, porcelain with white glaze, 9th c. Ding ware dish, molded decoration, 12th c Plate, Iraq, 850-950 A.D. Plate, Mesopotamia, 9th c. Tang Dynasty, Hebei Province, China 9th C. Tang Dynasty, Hebei Province, China 9th C. Cobalt-painted bowls, Iraq, 9th-10th c. Iraq, 9th c. Jingdezhen ware dish, cobalt blue underglaze, 18”, 14th c. Chinese Jingdezhen plates, c. 1430 Probably Syrian (Damascus), Ottoman period, late 16th c. Jingdezhen ware bowl, cobalt blue underglaze, 8½”, c. 1430 Medici factory ewer, Italy, 8”, c. 1575-87 Vase, Wanli reign mark, 1573-1619, 22”, 1573-1619 Hamza’s Son, Rostam, Questions a Slave Girl from the Hamzanama, c. 1562-77 Abu’l Hasan, Ibraham Recieves a Zoroastrian, from a Bustan by Saadi, c. 1605-6 Clara Peeters, Still Life with Cheeses, Pretzels, Nuts and Dates, c. 1610 Johannes Vermeer, Woman at Window Reading a Letter, 1657-9 Willem Kalf, Still Life with Chinese Bowl, 1662 Willem Kalf, Still Life with Silver Ewer, Chinese Bowl and Lemons, 1655-7 VOC (Dutch West Indies Company) plate, hard paste porcelain, Imari ware, Japan, export type, 15”, c. 1660 Garniture of five vases (kastel), Delftware, tin-glazed earthenware, 19”, signed by Lambertus van Eenhoorn, c. 1710 Cornelis de Man, Family at Dinner Table, o/c, 23 x 28”, c. 1665-70 Delftware Wineglass Cooler, Netherlands, late 17th c. Delftware Tulip Vase, c. 48”, Netherlands, early 17th c. Delftware Tiles with Merchant Sailing Vessels, 16th c.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6 MATERIAL CULTURE at AYERS TOWN
    Chapter 6 MATERIAL CULTURE AT AYERS TOWN This chapter considers the more than 20,000 artifacts (excluding subsistence remains and fire-broken rock) recovered by University of North Carolina archaeological investigations and attributed to the Federal period Catawba occupation of Ayers Town. These artifacts were recovered primarily from metal detecting, test unit and block excavations, and pit features; a few incidental finds also were made during the mechanical stripping of topsoil from the site. The assemblage associated with Ayers Town, as would be expected at a Native American habitation occupied in relatively close proximity to Euroamerican settlements during the late 1700s, contains a mixture of goods locally produced by the site’s inhabitants as well as manufactured items from more distant sources. In terms of sheer numbers, Catawba-made pottery is the predominant artifact class, comprising over 85% of the total assemblage. It is likely that these reflect vessels made for use by Catawbas as well as vessels marketed to Euroamerican settlers (Riggs et al. 2006). The 210 non-kaolin clay pipes and pipe fragments, representing just over one percent of all artifacts found, are the only other significant group of artifacts likely made by Ayers Town residents. The remaining artifacts (excluding architectural debris such as fired clay and daub, and recovered samples of raw materials used in pottery production) were obtained primarily from Euroamerican sources through trade, purchase, gifting, or as payments derived from the developing Catawba land-leasing system (Pettus 2005). Many of the iron artifacts, such as hand- wrought nails and cast-iron vessel fragments, likely derive from the Hill-Hayne Iron Works (also known as the Aera & Aetna Iron Works), located on Allison Creek less than 20 mi above the Catawba towns and in operation from 1778 to 1802 (Commons 1910:304–312; SCA&H 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • DAACS Cataloging Manual: Ceramics
    DAACS Cataloging Manual: Ceramics by Jennifer Aultman, Nick Bon-Harper, Leslie Cooper, Jillian Galle, Kate Grillo, and Karen Smith OCTOBER 2003 LAST UPDATED OCTOBER 2014 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 6 1. CERAMIC ARTIFACT ENTRY ...................................................................................... 7 1.1 COUNT ......................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 WARE .......................................................................................................................... 8 1.3 MATERIAL ..................................................................................................................... 8 1.4 MANUFACTURING TECHNIQUE .......................................................................................... 9 1.5 VESSEL CATEGORY .......................................................................................................... 9 1.6 FORM ......................................................................................................................... 10 1.6.1 Teaware ............................................................................................................ 10 1.6.2 Tableware ......................................................................................................... 11 1.6.3 Utilitarian .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Iron, Steel and Swords Script - Page 1 Schematic (Very!) Structure of Kaolinite / Clay Spheres Symbolize Atoms, Other Shapes Clusters of Atoms Or Molecules
    Early Pyrotechnolgy 3. Pottery and Glass Pottery and Ceramics Not everything made from some muddy stuff that eventually solidifies is called pottery. I will not go into what exactly is meant by the term but only look at four ingredients that are associated with pottery: 1. Clay as starting material. 2. Some way of shaping; in particular the potter's wheel. 3. Firing at high temperatures. 4. Decorating or glazing. White ware "pottery" thus is not really pottery, even so it is usually called that, and those amazing "ceramic bottles" of the Moche culture in South America aren't pottery proper either since, while made from clay and fired, they were not made on a wheel. This gives an easy distinction: If it is not pottery proper, let's call it ceramics. Doing justice to the history and technology of pottery would mean to write another hyperscript like this one. I'm not going to do that. I will only give a few essentials, hoping that nobody will note that I don't' know a thing about pottery myself. Pottery is about pots made by potters. Pots - hollow objects able to contain some liquid - are extremely useful if not absolutely necessary to any life-style that can be described as remotely human. Try to make or drink beer without a "pot" and you get the point. However, you do not need a potter and pottery proper to make a pot. You can do that simply by hollowing out a stone, letting some quicklime solidify, or by using "bio-pots", e.g.
    [Show full text]