This lab will build on the work that we started last week with describing artifacts. The goal of this lab will be to think about the categories that archaeologists often use in their own descriptions and what such categories might begin to tell us about the objects. One reason why archaeologists have begun to develop a standard set of categories is to facilitate comparison of object both from within a site and among different sites. However, this standardization often devolves into various levels of idiosyncrasy as each scholar feels that his or her categories are more useful than those of others in the filed. Regardless, there persists and underlying principle that argues that the recognition of differences and similarities in form, decoration and production technique serve as the basis from which to think about higher order topics such as trade patterns, technological innovation, stylistic influence, and consumption practices.
Each of you will rewrite your object description in light of our discussion of categories and which categories are appropriate given the particular artifact that you are examining. In writing that description you will think not only about what the object is but what it is not. In this sense you are already making implicit comparisons. You will then start the process of making explicit comparisons. Depending on your object there will be other objects in the collection which you can serve as useful parallels or there may be images of similar objects from other collections or excavations that relate seem to serve as useful comparative material. Once you have found a parallel object or set of objects you will begin to record the similarities and differences and begin to speculate about what those might mean in terms of where and when the object is from, how it was produced and used, and what it might tell us about the people and societies with which it came in contact.
Finally, you will publish your findings here on the wiki in the space below.
Posted at Sep 23/2007 04:37PM:
Aaron Isham: Material: Lustreware ceramic
Glazed: yes
Nature of fabric: Form of earthen clay with added materials (broken ceramics, perhaps sand) as temper. The addition of the temper has made the fired ceramic darker and much coarser. Also, both the front and back of the piece contain numerous pits and inconsistencies, suggesting that the ceramic vessel itself was quickly made and not produced for its quality.
Decoration: Ceramic has been decorated with lustreware glaze. The glaze used was white. The addition of gold metallic oxides to portions of the glaze was used to create patterns of circles and lines. Because only a fragment of the ceramic is intact, any deeper meaning of the designs cannot be judged. They are most likely for decorative purposes only. There are numerous smudges of glaze on the back of the piece as well as large drops of runoff from the front that were not smoothed out, also suggesting that the entire ceramic vessel was produced quickly and not for quality.
Form: The piece appears to be part of a large bowl. Judging from the designs on the front of the piece it could have served a decorative purpose.
Comparisons:
One other ceramic piece from the collection was also decorated in the lustreware style. The material used to make the piece was much lighter than the one I examined, suggesting that no tempering material was added to the clay or a different type of clay was used. As we know both pieces are from Fustat, it is most likely that the potter did not add temper to the mix. The piece also appears to be part of a much smaller bowl. This could suggest that no temper was added to the ceramic mix because the ceramic did not need to be as strong for the smaller piece.
Posted at Sep 24/2007 08:46AM:
elisa foster: My vessel is a small glazed ceramic ewer, likely used for storing oil or water. Nature of the fabric: the clay is somewhat coarse and uneven, although it is generally a light sand color. Decoration: this vessel is decorated with a light clay slip and clear glaze to which uneven strokes of purple and blue "splashed decoration" have been applied to the body. This sort of decoration has a close parallel to Iranian whiteware decoration, which attempted to imitate Chinese porcelain. Specifically, the Copenhagen Bowl from the David Collection from Rayy, Persia shows a strong parallel to the decoration of my vessel. (See Daily Life Ornamented: The Medieval Persian City of Rayy (Oriental Institute) p. 135) This sort of decoration has been described as a "distinctly new aesthetic" in Persian ceramics. And importantly, has been discovered at the sites of Baghdad, Nishapul, Siraf and Fustat (where this vessel likely originated).
Posted at Sep 24/2007 04:33PM:
Audrey von Maluski: My piece is made of fritware, a type of clay made from ground up quartz. This material allowed the piece to be fired at a higher temperature, and also enabled it to withstand higher temperatures when in use. Quartz-based fritware is white in color, and appears to be more porous than typical clay. It is also lighter in weight. My piece appears to be a fragment of a bowl or jug. I think the piece is a bowl, because the interior surface is decorated. Other students' pieces showed decorations on the inside of bowls, but not of jugs. There is an unglazed rim on the apparent bottom of the piece, which at least allowed me to guess at the normal orientation of the vessel. The vessel does not use a glaze slip, but does show a clear glaze over the colored designs, which gives the piece a glassy or fine porcelain feel.
My piece was decorated in a very detailed manner. The interior of the vessel was designed with olive green outlines of ivy and flowers, which were white and filled in with blue. This style reminded me a little bit of Asian porcelain decorations. The outside of the piece is striped with blue, white, and olive green. The underside of the vessel is glazed in cream, with a dark brown blotch visible to one side. There is a blue squiggle across the bottom, as well as black Arabic writing. This is likely the signature of the artist, as this is a very fine piece, both in decoration and material.
I saw other pieces in the collection with similar decorating styles, as well as some made from ground up quartz as well. Fritware of this type was common to Egypt, which is consistent with our knowledge of the collection. Islamic fritwares preceded European porcelain.
Posted at Sep 27/2007 03:08PM:
Gareth: Material: My piece was a fragment of ceramic.
Form: It appears to have been a large bowl.
Glazing: Yes, on both the inside and out.
Nature of Fabric: The composition of the clay seems to be of good quality and there is an almost pinkish tinge to the visible portions. This suggests that the clay is pure and there are few to no additives (no ‘specks’ are visible). The smoothness suggests the piece was well made and the baking must have been done in order to achieve strength enough to support what appear to have been broad, shallow edges of a rather large bowl.
Decoration and Style: While the surface was extremely worn, it was observed that the hints of a metallic finish were once lustreware. The piece was covered in a light, clear glaze and a bird, possibly a peacock, was featured at the center
When compared to other lustreware pieces it was concluded that this bowl may not have been quite as ornate as some. This could have been due to wear.
Posted at Sep 29/2007 08:08PM:
vgorra:
My fragment is from a red earthenware bowl of the “polychrome glaze” tradition. The outside color of the piece is a tawny and gray/white color. There was a change in the natural shade of the clay during the firing process. One can tell this because a dark underglaze was not used on this piece, allowing visibility of the clay’s natural post-fired color. This is a significant change from the original color of the clay, which resembles the hue of a “dusty red brick”. The painted design of the piece uses yellow, green and dark brown glaze. There is no figural imagery of humans or animals, geometric shapes or true vegetal formations. The placement of the decoration is interesting; there is a clear contrast between the free flowing splatters of paint (which could be interpreted as loose vegetal shapes) on the left side of the fragment and the vertical lines on the left. This decoration only exists on the inner side/rim of the bowl. This placement of decoration emphasizes this part of the piece.
Even though only 95% of the Islamic pottery is known to be unglazed, I do not believe that the glaze decoration of my piece adds credibility to the assumption that this object was used as formal presentation piece. I attribute this to the lack of formalized and precise decoration. There are no moldings found of the piece and the bottom of the piece is not glazed. This unglazed base leads me to believe that the bowl was placed on its base, and not positioned on a stand. However there are other pieces of pottery in this collection that have a fully glazed bottom. Perhaps, this signifies a heightened importance placed on the aesthetic or function of these particular pieces.
Posted at Sep 30/2007 06:35PM:
karl su: My shard of pottery was the base of a medium-sized ceramic bowl, with the base having a diameter of 2 – 3 inches.
It was glazed on both the interior and exterior. However the bottom of the base that would be in contact with the surfaced it was placed on was left unglazed. The interior glaze had an undercoat layer of white slip with colors of green, blue and black on top. On the exterior there were several clumps where the glaze had just been allowed to form giving it a ‘drippy’ look.
The fabric appeared to be of fritware, looking very similar to a grey stone with residues of quartz.
The interior was decorated with a distinct floral pattern emanating from the centre of the bowl. In several of these petals, Arabic words were painted under the glaze. Overall is a highly intricate design. On the unglazed outer portion of the base there was a small circular hole.
The bowl was probably used for decorative or religious purposes with its aesthetically pleasing quality. The attention to detail on the interior contrasts with the lack of care (irregular clumps of glaze) on the exterior, suggesting it could have possible been made by a factory-line process, with different workers working on different parts of the bowl.
Posted at Oct 04/2007 05:52PM:
aviad:
Material: My artifact is a piece of ceramic.
Glazing: Yes, the fragment was glazed on both the inside and outside, though not on the bottomside of the base.
Clay color/composition: The clay color was a sandy, light beige color. The composition appeared rather uniform in that there were no major changes in color or form. There was, however, very little unglazed clay to look at for compositional assessment.
Decoration/Style: The decoration of the fragment involved a green/yellow glaze with brown lines that create a flower like pattern of geometric leaf shapes. This decorative style is very typical of the sgraffiato glaze...
Glaze: The glaze on this artifact is incredibly similar to the Two-tone sgraffiato technique described in Kinnet's book. This form of sgraffiato involves an incised decoration that resembles a floral, geometric pattern. Two-tone sgraffiato also is generally topped with a green glaze that fades to yellow over time. This type of glazing is generally used with earthen ware.
Form: The form of the piece is the base of a bowl, which goes well with descriptions of two-tone sgraffiate which is generally applied to bowls. However, the general form of two-tone sgraffiato bowls has a much thicker sides than this artifact does. Perhaps this artifact is in the same family, but shows a local variation in form, while still using the same glazing techniques?