Jeremy McLeod on tue 6 aug 02
Here's a question for the History of Pottery mavens on the list:
I was attending a healthcare workshop today (in my other life as a hospice
chaplain)
and the presentor did an etymology of the word "sincere" referring to Roman
pottery and made the point that said pottery was "porcelain". I'm not questioning
the "without wax/sincere" wordplay. I am wondering if the Romans were reknown
for making porcelain pots. I'm so accustomed to thinking about Roman and
terracotta
in the same breath that I stubbed a mental toe on the idea of "Roman porcelain".
Any clues?
Jeremy McLeod
Snail Scott on wed 7 aug 02
At 10:14 PM 8/6/02 -0600, you wrote:
>...the presentor did an etymology of the word "sincere" referring to Roman
>pottery and made the point that said pottery was "porcelain". I'm not
questioning
>
>the "without wax/sincere" wordplay. I am wondering if the Romans were
reknown
>for making porcelain pots.
Nope. Porcelain was unknown to classical Europe.
My dictionary lists the etymology of 'sincere' as
from the Latin, but coming from 'sine' (without)
+ 'caries' (decay), meaning uncorrupted. Though
the Latin for wax, 'cera', sounds closer to
'sincere' in modern English, that similarity is
merely a misleading coincidence.
The English word 'ceramic' originally comes to us
from the Greek 'keramos', meaning pottery or
potters' clay. Again, no connection to wax; just
another oddity of linguistics.
-Snail
iandol on thu 8 aug 02
Dear Jeremy McLeod,=20
I have a text about the occurrence of pottery in Roman Britain. As far =
as I can tell there is no mention of any material which might possibly =
be mistaken for a white translucent ceramic fabric.
A cross check with the Latin dictionary gives Porcelain as Fictilia but =
the back translation from the Latin gives "Clay, Earthen"
Your presenter my have been considering "Porca" meaning Sow or =
"Porcella" meaning little pig. Porcelain is reputed to have achieved =
that appellation because of the likeness of its white tranluscency to =
Pork Fat. Much English language is achieved through allusions to Latin =
similes.
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis.
vince pitelka on thu 15 aug 02
> I am wondering if the Romans were renown for making porcelain pots.
> I'm so accustomed to thinking about Roman and terracotta in the same
> breath that I stubbed a mental toe on the idea of "Roman porcelain".
Jeremy -
Your instincts were correct. The Romans never made anything remotely
resembling porcelain. True porcelain originated in China, and not until
long after Roman times. Porcelain first appeared around the late Tang or
Early Song Dynasties, between 800 and 1000 AD, and it was not developed in
the West (in Germany) until 1000 years later.
Roman pottery synthesized influenced from diverse cultures, exhibiting one
of the most remarkable aspects of Roman culture - their ability to
assimilate some of the better qualities of every culture they absorbed or
conquered. Roman pottery never shows the degree of artistic accomplishment
found in Classical Greek pottery, but it certainly shows some remarkable
ingenuity, especially in the use of bisque molds and the development of a
super-refined terra sigillata. The essential process of terra sigillata had
been developed by the Greeks, and the Etruscans were noted for monochromatic
polished wares (bucchero ware), and the Romans seem to have put these two
together to come up with their monochromatic red polished wares.
All Western pottery before the late medieval era was porous earthenware. The
Germans developed high-fired salt glazed wares during the Gothic era, but it
took quite a few more centuries for them to develop true porcelain. Best
wishes -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Crafts
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Home - vpitelka@worldnet.att.net
615/597-5376
Work - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 ext. 111, fax 615/597-6803
http://www.craftcenter.tntech.edu/
Wood Jeanne on fri 16 aug 02
Greetings,
Some of my research suggests the reason the Romans
didn't increase their pottery technology...and
possibly the artistic accomplishment... may have been
because many of the Roman potters were Roman soldiers
who were constantly on the move with the troops.
Potters were conscripted, as were other craftsmen,
from the places Rome conquered and continued to
practice their crafts for their legion when they
weren't fighting or traveling.
Temporary potteries and temporary kilns were set up
where the army was stationed and would have to be
abandoned when orders came in.
Of course this doesn't address the pottery in the more
settled lifestyle of the city itself.
But, I find it interesting.
Regards,
Jeanne W.
--- vince pitelka wrote:
> Roman pottery synthesized influenced from diverse
> cultures, exhibiting one
> of the most remarkable aspects of Roman culture -
> their ability to
> assimilate some of the better qualities of every
> culture they absorbed or
> conquered. Roman pottery never shows the degree of
> artistic accomplishment
> found in Classical Greek pottery, but it certainly
> shows some remarkable
> ingenuity,
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
| |
|
