Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2010
4th February 2013, 11:16 AM
(This post was last modified: 4th February 2013, 11:19 AM by Wax.)
The vessel they fitted over does not have to have been ceramic. Whats the possibility of them fitting over a metal vessel or even wood? There might be advantages to heavy lids and I have seen stone "pot lids" which were Victorian and used for ceramic vessels. But again the question of what they started out as still raises its head.
The dimples increase the surface area if you were trying to control evaporation of a liquid, just a thought. Might work for melting something over a boiling liquid.
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
4th February 2013, 01:41 PM
Early attempt at cuneiform by someone who'd heard about it third hand? (and completely missed the point...)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2007
4th February 2013, 03:43 PM
Wax Wrote:The vessel they fitted over does not have to have been ceramic. Whats the possibility of them fitting over a metal vessel or even wood? There might be advantages to heavy lids and I have seen stone "pot lids" which were Victorian and used for ceramic vessels. But again the question of what they started out as still raises its head.
The dimples increase the surface area if you were trying to control evaporation of a liquid, just a thought. Might work for melting something over a boiling liquid.
Thanks Wax. I'm not sure the scorching on the thingies would fit with being used as lids for wooden vessels, unless the scorching happened during a different phase of use. Metal would be good but we have excellent iron & copper alloy preservation on both sites and no sign of anything that chunky bar a section of what looks to be a plank saw from one. The only metal finds on the other site are things like a spearhead and a knife blade - nothing which would indicate a vessel. However, secondary deposition is again a possibility.
The evaporation idea is interesting but we were at a bit of a loss there as well. It's a lot finer than any briquetage I've seen and salt evaporation pans round here tend to be big beasts. I'd expect to see more than just one sherd per site if that was it. In order to melt something the objects must've originally had walls at least, so that points to a primary function. But again, no signs of more sherds in the respective assemblages. If there was a lot of mead being drunk in the Bronze Age as generally proposed, then it stands to reason that there's honey knocking around and ergo the beeswax by-product which could be processed by melting and used in its own right. Lipid analysis.... Hmm...
Nice ideas!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2007
4th February 2013, 03:45 PM
Dinosaur Wrote:Early attempt at cuneiform by someone who'd heard about it third hand? (and completely missed the point...)
Perhaps an early stab at braille? The indentations read: "It's a chunk of pot you dweeb - now get a life."
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2011
11th February 2013, 01:32 AM
There are a few examples of dimpled base interiors on Iron Age Hebridean pots - look at p33 here for a starting point
http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_204273_en.pdf
Also there are large dimpled platters found in the Hebrides during the Norse period
http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/share/resources...A_Lane.pdf
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2007
11th February 2013, 09:10 AM
Callippides Wrote:There are a few examples of dimpled base interiors on Iron Age Hebridean pots - look at p33 here for a starting point http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_204273_en.pdf
Also there are large dimpled platters found in the Hebrides during the Norse period http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/share/resources...A_Lane.pdf
Interesting - thank you very much. The cheese-making theory is fascinating and one which haunts me whenever I look at something odd which has been done to pottery! I'll see if I can follow up and get some example pics as that paper's not illustrated.
Norse influences are a bit of a longshot for an inland area in south-east Dorset, but I believe there were occasional coastal raiding parties.
Very useful. Much appreciated.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2011
11th February 2013, 12:31 PM
The trimming of bases is reasonably common in both later prehistory and the Roman period â people using bases as stands, platters, coaster etc. â sometime making spindle whorls out of them. It's had to say for certain, but the finger impressions on the one on the far right - no. 4 - look kind of like the moulding marks you see on some pots, i.e. when the potter was pushing the clay down after attaching the lower wall to the base on the interior. In other words, it might not be decoration, unlike on the exterior of no. 2.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2007
11th February 2013, 12:52 PM
Potgeek Wrote:The trimming of bases is reasonably common in both later prehistory and the Roman period – people using bases as stands, platters, coaster etc. – sometime making spindle whorls out of them. It's had to say for certain, but the finger impressions on the one on the far right - no. 4 - look kind of like the moulding marks you see on some pots, i.e. when the potter was pushing the clay down after attaching the lower wall to the base on the interior. In other words, it might not be decoration, unlike on the exterior of no. 2.
I think maybe the pics aren't clear enough. The dimples extend across what appear to be the internal surfaces of both in a relatively even distribution on each and they're all oriented in the same direction. If they were forming marks I'd expect them to be less organised and pointing in different directions, maybe concentrating near the walls? It's a shame there are none of the original edges remaining so we could confirm whether/how the marks related to the wall attachments.
As we're seeing them, both sets of finger marks appear to have been inside their "parent" vessel (if they came from vessels), so would only have been decorative if the vessels were open forms. Which is something I'd not considered. Interesting.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2008
11th February 2013, 05:58 PM
They look like 'rusticated' pottery, usually A-S, but sometimes found in the IA. These look more IA than Saxon, as the latter is usually 'pinched' rather than just poked with a fingertip. Fabric looks more IA as well. In the case of the one on the left, the odd shape might be due to spalling, when a roundish flake of pot blows off the outside of a vessel during firing or post-production heating. In the case of the one on the right, the finger-tipping appears to be internal, and it looks like a base that has blown at the primary coil-join - quite common on flat-bottomed, coil-built pots, they're not very resistant to thermal shock. The 'fingertipping' effect might have been due to the potter pressing the base onto a board to flatten it. Both a bit odd though, and always difficult to be certain from a photo. That'll be £25 please
\"Whoever understands the pottery, understands the site\" - Wheeler
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
11th February 2013, 08:17 PM
Potgeek Wrote:...sometime making spindle whorls out of them....
Dead common around here, especially on late Roman (C.4th/5th) sites, have dug plenty but usually samian. Have seen Roman greywares trimmed to discs though, couple of inches across (but no hole), no hint as to what they were for.
Only pay Red £23, I'd already chucked in the thing about coil-built pots exploding near the top of page 1, he shouldn't get paid extra just for using fancy technical words! - any openings in the indoor world of clipping corners off potsherds, can provide own nail-clippers? (bit brassic outdoors in Whitby today, led to such radical thoughts...)
