Talk:Pottery/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Surely historic pottery was made somewhere besides Israel? Rmhermen 13:44, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Note: Pottery forms are well known from pre-historic/ancient sites in many places, including Egypt, China (see Porcelain discussion page), Mesopotamia and now the Indus River Civilization (circa BC 5500) and from historic periods as well. Should we branch out into a history of pottery group with sub-articles such as the existing article "history of the pottery of Palestine?" (Which I've been working on - copy editing.)

The history of pottery --- in _____?

02-16-05, -W. (an anon.-- now signed in as WBardwin).

Usage and Measurement Conventions

Is there a wiki convention about American and English spelling variants? i.e. color and colour in this article. The instructions say it is courteous to leave in the original author's form. But do we designate that style for the whole article-- to be consistent-- or let each author/editor put in his own style?

And how about dating systems? BC/AD, BCE/CE, YBP? -W

Either BC/AD or BCE/CE is preferred but hopefully only one in a single article. Same with AE versus BE - please stick with original author's choice. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style for more. Rmhermen 13:49, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

To RMHermen: OK. Revised my additions to match British spelling. But, the original author/source for this article used British terminology for pottery techniques and tools as well. Most American potters use other terms and some prefer Japanese terms instead. This is particularly true on the US West Coast. So, do I define all the terms or stick to the British preference? -W

I would think define all terms. More information is often better especially if the relationships are not obvious. Rmhermen 04:02, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

02-12-05 And.....since the two sides of the Atlantic use different systems for heat measurement, I will defer to the British "C" on existing articles, but will probably stick to the American "F" on the articles I've started - with parenthetical references in both places. This measurement (of many kinds) issue seems common to talk pages. Some people seem quite heated. Thanks for the advice. -W. (now signed in as WBardwin.)

Vandalism

On 2-6-05, manually restored some vandalism done shortly after my own last session. Appears to be another AOL number. Worked to make it nearly identical but added a few things of my own as well. -W (logged in as WBardwin on 02-17-05).

Ceramics vs. Pottery

The forcible moving of articles on ceramics into pottery is a massive error that will weaken Wikipedia.

Ceramics includes many articles NOT used domestically or thrown on a potter's wheel - this is particularly important in non-Western art, such as Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese, Laotian, Cambodian, and other works that are shaped by hand, or are used for small and large scale architectural elements. Wall panels, tableaux, large flat roofing tiles, end-pieces, temple figures, votive figures, and much else that is included under the general "ceramics" label within which there are pottery made.

The entry on Korean Ceramics appears either to be instantly re-edited or vandalized into Korean pottery irrespective of the fact that probably the majority of all Korean and Chinese ceramics were not made by potters - but by workers who made bricks, roof tiles, and end-tiles in ceramic out of clay, and as well votive figures that were made of coils, and not on a potter's wheel.

While to non-ceramics people this is a quibble - the forcible inclusion of ceramics within pottery is so erroneous as to lead the Wikipedia into chaos as world ceramics entries are included - a good many cultures create ceramics but do not use potter's wheels, and their work is not pottery.

And as well do we include ballistics plates, space shuttle tiles, and the work of Gaudi under "pottery"? What chaos will that bring. Does one talk of Picasso's "pottery", when he worked in such a wide variety of pieces that this becomes even a greater error?

Discussion encouraged on this by more sophisticated editors.

POofYS origin site for this material.

--Sorry -- I don't quite get your point - but it seems hung up on English semantics. All "ceramics" means is "made from clay." "Pottery" has been an all inclusive word for centuries, at least in English, implying useful items made from clay. A potter's wheel is only one tool for producing "pottery," as useful clay items were produced for centuries, even in Asia, before the potter's wheel was invented. These hand crafted or mold based traditions continue today. Many Korean and other Asian "potters" of high standing produced both wheel work and handcrafted work and called it all pottery. "Pottery tiles" and other structural clay items like pipes and water conduits have also been used in cultures worldwide.

--Industrialization added to the variety and type of products produced from clay and has given the field other terms, including the overbroad use of the generic "ceramics." But, unfortunately, in the United States, the word "ceramics" has been also been co-opted for a very narrow range of clay products: low fire figurative ware mass produced in molds that can be cleaned, smoothed and painted by the individual consumer before firing. "Ceramic Shops" by and large carry only these types of items -- not normally any finished ware at all. So, to the American clay artist, clay technician, and potter, "ceramics" has become a hobbyist term. Although the word "ceramics" is still useful when talking about things like ceramic technology, glaze chemistry, firing ratios and other processes, most American producing clay workers use pottery as the broader term. And, YES, Picasso was a potter, in that he produced items from clay as an artistic statement. However, he was not a very good clay technician. Most of his work is glazed or painted on pottery forms produced by other clay artists at his request and to his design.

--So, if I've dug out your central point -- it may be best to create a tree of articles from the base term Clay or Clay Products, which can then be broken into at least three subfamilies: Pottery, Ceramics (if we must), and Clay or Ceramic Technology (which would include the use of clay in computer chips and the Space Shuttle). We would want a strong section on Clay history - by country and/or region too. But, please, let's not get dramatic about the semantics -- Wikipedia is not going to implode into a million pieces if people have to hunt a little for articles on clay. Comments welcome. WBardwin 13:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

--I would like to second the idea of creating the broad term Clay products or clay, however I believe the the wiki would best be served by having only two subfamilies of Ceramic Technologies and 'ceramic art'. The difficulties I see in the proposed divisions is that some ceramic vessles are both functional and art, some are just functional, and some have very little to do with function. This means that 'pottery' can be a subheading underneath both 'Ceramic technology' and any sort of 'ceramic art.' It is not a heading on it's own, and excludes itself from ceramic technology, where as it was a key technology in the development of human civilazation. However, as I propose, you can place pottery under 'ceramic technology' and have under 'Ceramic art' 'hand-built' and 'wheel thrown.' 06-16-05

--- Ok, trying to make this more clear, I propose the following divisions:

Clay Products
- Ceramic Technology
  - Pottery
  - Space Age Ceramics
- Ceramic Art
  - Hand Built
  - Wheel Thrown

as I am new here, I don't feel comfortable making this change, since it is a massive reorganazation of information. Rather, I am comfortable with the action of reorganizing, it is that I am uncomfortable making this change without input from more seasoned Wikipedians. Frost Indri 19:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So your initial proposal is something like this:

 Clay Products
 |-Ceramic Technology
    |
    |-Industrial clay
       |-Ceramic products 
    |-Pottery 
    |-Space Age Ceramics
    |-Technical History
    |-Techniques
       |-Clay production/aquisition
       |-Firing/kiln processes
       |-Glazes
       |-Shapeing/forming tools/Techniques
 |-Ceramic Art
    |
    |-Cultural Ceramic/clay History
       |-Asian
       |-American(Indigenous)
       |-Greek
       |-Modern
       |-Etc.
       |-Well known clay Artisens
    |-Hand Built
    |-Wheel Thrown
                               edited by:Frost Indri 28 June 2005 19:40 (UTC)

Other areas I've been concerned about:

industrial clay/ceramics products
clay/ceramic techniques and methods
cultural clay/ceramic history
technical clay/ceramic history
clay related tools and ingredients
well known clay artisens

And I'm sure there are plenty more. A list of all the existing clay related articles would be a good beginning. Comments welcome. WBardwin 02:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, most of these could be devided up between technology and art, though there would be some amount of inter-connectedness. I wonder if we could Pottery ans Craft from pottery as art. Not saying that they can't be both but you can talk about the different aspects seperatly, and interlink the articles.

I've attempted to branch out the tree, but for simplicity purposes just edited the one you've already created, and dated the edit.

I have to admit when it comes to techniques, I'm not very certain. Technically speaking, its all the technology, however a lot of the "tech" is used for art purposes. I mean, I can't think of anyone who would seriously use a raku process to make a completely utilitarian piece. (That may just be the limit of my knowledge, however.) I would find it very hard to seperate processes used for purely technical/"craft" peices, and those used for artistic ones. Mostly because we'll use just about anything if we like the effect it creates. I lumped shaping tools and Techniques together because the techniques are so dependant on the tools. Frost Indri 28 June 2005 19:40 (UTC)

WBaldwin invited me over here. I think it's kind of futile to try to organize a wiki data set, but appreciate the effort.

First off, let me speak to Ceramics vs. Pottery: it's an issue even in the American Ceramics/Pottery community. You will hear arguments (sometimes heated) over the terms Potter vs. Ceramcist vs. "Clay person" among artists. So it's not settled. I will have to disagree with WBaldwin about the preference for the work pottery: the two most influential organizations of American Potters are the American Ceramics Society and the National Council on Education in the Ceramic Arts, and the widest selling publication is Ceramics monthly. So as a American potter, I tend to prefer the term "Ceramics" or "Ceramic arts" instead of pottery. However, ceramics these days also covers non-clay applications like baked ceramic circuits and various glass materials, such as the Air Force's new missle-proof windows. So the terminology is liable to remain unsettled, I'm afraid.

On Art vs. Craft: in pottery there is no meaningful distinction between functional and artistic except at the extremes of factory-made mugs and wall-mounted raku bowls. Both historically, and anywhere in between those two extremes, practitioners and users alike have made no attempt to distinguish between the decorative value of a pot and its usefulness. The very earliest pots which archeology has dug up intact contain stamped or etched designs.Jberkus 07:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that Ceramics is the generally used and technically correct term -- the public, in my geographic area, does not understand that pottery is ceramics. When I use the word "ceramics" -- a large number of people say "my Grandmother and I do that! We paint figurines all the time." If my gallery uses the word "ceramics" in advertising, people show up looking for cast figures. Our local "ceramics" supplier says 80% of sales is related to low-fire cast figurines, glazes and paints. Try selling and advertising "ceramic" work in that atmosphere. So all of the potters in my area avoid the word like the plague. We are starting to use the term "clay arts," however. As for organizing articles here, it is mostly to create categories that would ease reference for the average user. So, the real question is -- what does the non-clay worker (English speaking) think of when looking for information on clay? And how should we present that information? From the Korean entries -- pottery appears to be an industrial/manufacturing word. In the western US, pottery implies handcrafted material (- and ceramics is recreational therapy in nursing homes). What is it like in other areas? WBardwin 21:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

WBardwin, I'm not sure where the naming you observe comes from. However, as far as San Francisco, Eastern Los Angeles, Southern Oregon and Portland are concerned, "ceramics" does not refer primarily to hand-painted cast figures. Are you sure that that nomenclature isn't just local to your town? Jberkus 05:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Reorganization

~~I haven't read the discussion above, but~~ I thought you all should know that there has been a bit of a realignment in article and category naming. Ceramic materials are now covered in article Ceramic and Category:Ceramic materials. The former primarily deals with ceramics from a technical and engineering/scientific perspective. The fine art of ceramics is now covered in Category:Ceramics. I couldn't find a "main article" for this category, so I created one, called Ceramics (art). If there is an existing article on this topic, they should probably be merged. Ceramics is, for now, a redirect to Ceramic. It has articles pointing to it that relate to both ceramic materials and the fine art. I am in the process of moving all the technical/engineering links to point to Ceramic. When I'm done, I'll convert the redirect into a disambiguation page. Someone from the art community should go through the remaining links and change the arts-related links to point to a suitable article (once one exists). I recommend that Ceramics stay a disambiguation page, to reduce the confusion and contention between engineering and the Arts.--Srleffler 05:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

So much for trying for concensus!! What was the basis of your thinking in making these categories? Chemistry, right? Since pottery is a craft, a technical methodology, an archaeological milestone, a historic movement, a high tech industry, as well as a clay art form, how does all that fit into ceramic (art)? Please read the discussion above and contribute before making further decisions. It is an incredibly broad subject and a simple category scheme can't do it justice. WBardwin 22:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't actually initiate these changes, but rather I tried to clean up a half-finished job started by other people. There were two separate changes. User:Fplay realigned the categories weeks ago, as part of a larger cleanup of the whole category system. He broke "ceramics" into two categories: Category:Ceramics for the fine art, and Category:Ceramic materials for technical and engineering articles. The former is a subcategory of Category:Fine arts and contains Category:Pottery and Category:Porcelain. The latter is a subcategory of Category:Materials. The former article Ceramics, which dealt almost exclusively with technical and engineering aspects of ceramics, was put in Category:Ceramic materials.

The second change was initiated by User:Nightstallion, renaming the former article Ceramics to Ceramic, as a singular noun representing the type of material, analogous to plastic and metal. This was discussed and voted on at Talk:Ceramic. I actually opposed the change, but it went through anyway, despite lack of consensus. After the page was moved, I went through the pages that linked to Ceramics and edited the ones that deal with ceramics as a technical or engineering material, etc. to point to the new location, Ceramic. I also removed the few paragraphs on ceramics as an art form from the latter article, and put them, temporarily, in Ceramics (art), and changed the redirect at Ceramics into a disambiguation page. This completes the separation of ceramic as a technical and engineering material from ceramics as an art form.

I understand that you're upset by this, but I recommend you keep the split between technical/engineering/materials and arts/crafts, since it fits better with Wikipedia's category scheme, in which Art and Technology are separate high-level categories. The motivation for Fplay's original change was actually to get the technical material out of the Fine Arts category. Note also that your proposed scheme above doesn't work at all from a technical point of view because most technical ceramics are not made of clay. Some example ceramic materials, from Ceramic: Barium titanate, Bismuth strontium calcium copper oxide, Boron carbide, Boron_nitride, Ferrite, Lead zirconate titanate, Magnesium diboride, Silicon nitride, Steatite, Uranium oxide, Yttrium barium copper oxide, Zinc oxide, Zirconia. Bricks are also mentioned. Attempting to put "ceramic technology" under "clay products" doesn't work at all, and doesn't fit Wikipedia's category structure, where Category:Art and Category:Technology are two separate high-level categories, linked directly from the Main Page.

This may actually be for the best. These changes don't really impact the pottery/ceramics debate at all, other than to restrict it to arts issues, removing engineering from the area of contention. The renaming of the former Ceramics to Ceramic frees up the former name. If you like, you can make Ceramics a new article just on the art of ceramics, leaving all the discussion of materials science to Ceramic. Alternatively, you could leave Ceramics as a disambiguation page and make the page on the art form Ceramics (art) or Pottery or some other name. This would reduce confusion over the use of "ceramics" to mean both the type of material and the art form. --Srleffler 04:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. In working out your category scheme, you need to think about how the pottery/ceramics articles fit into the larger category structure, particluarly Category:Fine arts, Category:Arts and crafts, and Category:Crafts. Fortunately, things can appear in more than one place. Categories are not a tree.--Srleffler 04:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

One minor correction

"This is important for functional earthenware vessels, which would otherwise be unsuitable for holding liquids due to porosity."

This is not technically a true statement. Glazing can increase the durability of pottery, but is not necessary for waterproofing pottery. Once a piece is fired to a high enough temperature (depending on the clay), it becomes vitrified and waterproof -- with or without glaze.

As a counter example, American raku pottery is frequently glazed and is anything but waterproof.

- David

p.s. on the topic of the subject tree, I would break ceramics down into Industrial ceramics and non-industrial. Industrial including space materials, semi-conductors, toilets, etc. Non-industrial would split into functional (cups, bowls, vases, etc) and non-functional (raku, wall-hangings, etc). I'd stay away from "art" because we have some very artistic, functional pieces.

Glaze variants

Material moved from anon edit of introductory paragraph for discussion. Please consider a better placement in this article or whether to expand the Pottery section in the Glaze article. I believe it is high time to break pottery glaze out of the generalized article. Comments welcome. WBardwin 08:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

There are a few different kinds of ways to fire a piece. There is high firing, low firing and raku firing. Each of these firings requires a different type of glaze to be applied to the piece beforehand.

Candidate for Oldest Pottery

Anon contribution moved here for research/verification. Source please. WBardwin 19:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Though recently appeared in underwater research pottery from 30000 BP in Gulf of Cambay, India, making it the earliest pottery in the world. This pottery is sun dried.

I'd also apprecaite expansion on this. If the articles are as described "sun dried" and not fired then they are not pottery Regards, Andy

Jaren Diamond wrote an article for Discover which discusses Jomon pottery. He states it's the world's oldest. - [1]. --Brunnock 21:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Jomon pottery has l.o.n.g been considered the oldest pottery -- along with paleolithic European figurines -- but discoveries emerge frequently enough to deserve regular reevaluation and inclusion in the article. I would concur with Andy that sun-dried clay objects can not be considered pottery - but the reference could be included in the article as a precursor to the firing process. WBardwin 02:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello WB, Brunnock and others, Could someone explain about "Venus of Dolní Věstonice" as I have understood that this was 1) ceramic, and 2) was up to 30,000 years old Thanks, Andy

The Venus figurine is an example of ceramics, not pottery. The respective articles should make that clear. --Brunnock 18:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

again, definitions thwart us. Please see discussion on Ceramics vs Pottery above. - :{ -- WBardwin 00:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Too much for me to read. The first sentence of this article states, Pottery is a ceramic material...formed into vessels. Venus is not a vessel. --Brunnock 00:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Brunnock, I can not agree more with WB on this: pottery is a type of ceramic material. And whilst all definitions are open to debate two widely accepted include: 1. Ceramics “inorganic, non-metallic compounds that are processed at high temperature” 2. Pottery “ generally understood to mean domestic ceramic ware ... but also embraces electroceramics, and chemical stoneware ... any article made from clay or a mixture containing clay and other materials” For brevity I’ve not quoted the full description of the latter

A critical part of the first is “high temperature” and of the second “ceramic” and “clay”. In summary pottery is a ceramic material that before firing was formulated with a proportion of clay. Any interpretation of the current wikipedia entry that pottery is a vessel is either a misunderstanding or suggests the entry needs to be re-written

If the Venus of Dolni Vestonice was shaped from a mixture containing an amount of clay and then subjected to heat treatment that imparted permanent chemical and physical changes then it is pottery ... and therefore by definition also ceramic

Consequently with an attribution of something around 30,000 years old the Dolni Vestonice should be featured as the oldest piece of pottery, and ceramic, that has yet been identified Regards, Andy

What interpretation? The very first sentence of this article states that pottery is a ceramic vessel. This also agrees with Asimov's Chronology of Science and Technology. You make no distinction between pottery and ceramics. Do not rewrite the definition of pottery simply to win an argument. --Brunnock 11:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Brunnock, I was not attempting to “ ... rewrite the definition of pottery simply to win an argument” I noted that if your interpretation that pottery must be a vessel was based on the current wikipedia entry then it required a rewrite as this is an incorrect meaning

Your criticism that “You make no distinction between pottery and ceramics” is also misplaced, as I was not responsible for this wording, in fact I disagree with some parts. However as you should be aware wikipedia is a collaborative project, and entries should be supported with appropriate references. There are many more suitable sources for a definition than “Asimov's Chronology of Science and Technology”. Internationally recognised definitions for many ceramic terminologies have been established for use, including academic or legal field, and one of the most widely accepted is by the American Society for Testing and Materials which in ASTM Standard C 242-01 “Standard Terminology of Ceramic Whitewares and Related Products” defines pottery as “ All fired ceramic wares that contain clay when formed, except technical, structural, and refractory products”

Another authoritative source is “Dictionary Of Ceramics. 3rd edition. Dodd A, & Murfin D. Institute of Materials 1994. This was the origin of the previously edited description which included ““ generally understood to mean domestic ceramic ware ... but also embraces electroceramics, and chemical stoneware ... any article made from clay or a mixture containing clay and other materials”

And how about considering the following two books that were both written by senior and highly respected scholars, and both use the term for the body and not the type of vessel: 1) Pottery Science: materials, processes and products Dinsdale A Ellis Hoorwood. 1986

2) An Introduction To The Technology of Pottery. 2nd edition Rado P The Institute Of Ceramics. 1988

The antiques sector also recognises pottery as a type of body rather than relating it to a vessel: the following two books discuss the material as being used to make not only vessels but tiles and figurines: The Arthur Negus Guide to English Pottery and Porcelain Price. B. Hamlyn. 1978

Pottery through the Ages Haggar R.G. Methuen. 1959

I have deliberately chosen references from different dates and disciplines to demonstrate that pottery is widely recognised as a type of material independent of the type of object. However for a single, almost definitive source, one should consider the ATSM standard Regards, Andy ---

Do any of your references state that the Venus figurine is the earliest example of pottery yet found? --Brunnock 14:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Brunnock, If you recall I asked why the Venus of Dolni Vestonice had been removed from the entry. It was yourself that suggest it should not be included as it was “ceramic” and not pottery. However if the Venus was shaped entirely, or partially, from clay then fired to impart permanent changes then it is both ceramic and pottery

Could you elaborate on why you consider it not to be appropriate for this entry? Regards, Andy

For the third time, the Venus figurine is an example of ceramics, not pottery. At this point, I would recommend that you seek dispute resolution. Try Wikipedia:Requests for comment. --Brunnock 17:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Brunnock, Thank you for your prompt replies, however I had hoped that you would explain your insistence. My response included explanations with appropriate references.

You seem set on insisting that pottery is not a ceramic material and yet have provided no supporting evidence. Repeatedly stating it is not will not suffice, and a popular book such as Asimov's Chronology of Science and Technology does not have the statue as those I mentioned that included: 1.) Internationally recognised standard 2.) Technical literature

As it was you that removed the reference to Venus of Dolni Vestonice it is beholden to you to properly explain. Your explanation needs to detail why it is ceramic and not pottery

It not being a vessel is irrelevant, as again I refer to ASTM Standard C 242-01 “Standard Terminology of Ceramic Whitewares and Related Products”: Pottery - “ All fired ceramic wares that contain clay when formed, except technical, structural, and refractory products.” There is no mention of type of item, and this usage is common not only in the other authoritative references I noted but also by wide spread convention

Your statement “... ceramics, not pottery.” would appear to be in disagreement with The American Society for Testing and Materials. Are you sure this is what you claim? Regards, Andy

Hello Guys, Nick here, seeking a bit of light relief from the Porcelain article. I've been trying to follow the discussions here and have the following comments. Firstly, the so-called sun-dried pottery from the Gulf of Cambay is probably a red herring, it's neither pottery or anything like 30,000 years old, so far as I can see. Secondly, the figurines of Dolni Vestonice are most definitely low-fired ceramics and it would be churlish not to call them pottery and included them in the article. The date I have for them is about 26,000 b.p., by the way. Thirdly, the earliest dated pottery vessels appear (so far) to be those found in the Fukui cave, near Nagasaki (WB's Jomon pottery). The shards have been dated to about 12,700 b.p. (+/- 500 years). Regards, Nick.--Nick 20:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I've no problem at all with your separation of the Venus as pottery and the Jomon as pottery vessels Kind regards, Andy

If Asimov isn't good enough, then how about Jared Diamond? As I already pointed out (and you keep ignoring), he wrote an article for Discover which states that the Jomon invented pottery [2]. He also explains why pottery was so revolutionary.

I'm now asking for a second time- can you cite any references that state that the Venus figurine is the world's earliest known example of pottery? Please cite an academic reference. The ASTM is a trade organization. --Brunnock 21:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The ASTM is not a trade organisation it is a standards organisation. The reference you ask for is Hoops and Barnett, 1995, The Shape of Early Pottery Studies. Note: Pottery studies. H&B say ...the earliest invention of ceramics - the first thoroughly artificial objects - can be credited to Gravettian figurine makers at Dolni Vestonice... You asked for an academic reference and you got one. Now tell us why a low-fired ceramic material could not reasonably be described as pottery. Regards, Nick. --Nick 22:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have repeatedly stated that the Venus figurine is an example of ceramics. You're just proving my point. Asimov, Diamond, and this article all state that pottery is a ceramic vessel which can hold a liquid. There's also a book titled Jomon of Japan: The World's Oldest Pottery(ISBN 0710304757). Why are you disagreeing with the sources that I'm citing? --Brunnock 23:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

And here is a reference from BYU which states that Jomon pottery is the world's oldest- [3]. --Brunnock 00:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Brunnock, The point I have made is that pottery is a type of ceramic. The ASTM reference is an internationally recognised authority. Why discredit it for being a trade organisation? The trade defer to such organisations and contribute staff to their committees. And if you want references from, or in association with, trade organisations how about others I previously listed which included:

An Introduction To The Technology Of Pottery Published by The Institute of Ceramics The author, Paul Rado, was The Research Manager for Worcester Royal Porcelain

Pottery: materials, processes and products Published by Ellis Horwood The author, Allen Dinsdale, was the Director of Research at The British Ceramic Research Association

And to add my weight to Nick’s request please explain why you consider a clay based and fired object not to be pottery

Regards,

Andy

I have stated, repeatedly, that the Venus figurine is a ceramic and pottery is a vessel. The pottery, Ceramics (art), and the Venus of Dolní Věstonice articles all concur with my position. I have cited 4 references which state that Jomon pottery is the oldest in the world. You have not cited anyone who states that the Venus figurine is the oldest example of pottery in the world. --Brunnock 12:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe I am now a little clearer in understanding the disagreement, and this seems to be based on your interpretation of what constitutes pottery. I think you are claiming that an object made from clay then fired must be a vessel for it to be considered pottery, and if it is not, such as a figure, then it is not pottery but ceramic

Is this is your interpretation?

If so then it is certainly novel to me, and more importantly at odds with not only long-standing convention but also published papers, books and standards. Pottery is, by overwhelming consensus, a material; the type, shape and function of the object is not applicable

The meaning of ceramic, or ceramics, is also worth noting as it means considerably more than a fired clay object of non-vessel type. Although various definitions exist one with some merit is “inorganic, non-metallic compounds that are processed at high temperature”. This illustrates the very important detail that a ceramic can be have been formed without any clay. An example of this being boron nitride

Your reference to support what I understand is your interpretation, clay fired vessel, has been Asimov's Chronology of Science and Technology. This can not be considered an authoritative source. It is, to quote from the publisher “ ... exploration of the relationship between science and society over the past 4 million years.” Very interesting and useful but it does not have the same esteem as specialist sources. To counter your support from one popular reference book, Asimov’s, I could site another: The Hutchinson Encyclopaedia has the following entry: “Pottery and porcelain: Ceramics in domestic and ornamental use, including earthenware, stoneware, and bone china (or softpaste porcelain).” However I similarly would not consider this an appropriate source for a definition

The references I have previously given include ASTM, Institute of Ceramics, British Ceramics Research Organisation and respected scholars. All of these use pottery as a type of ceramic and one independent of form

Your claim of pottery needing to be a vessel is also not supported by other books on the Jomon. Both of the following are from prestigious organisations where in text and illustration the term pottery is used for a whole range of objects, from unidentified broken pieces to vessels and figures:

Ancient Jomon of Japan Junko Habu Cambridge University Press ISBN 0521776708 Page 113 and 114 describes the discovery of 1,500 figurines or figurine fragments. A series of figurines are illustrated on page 143

An Archaeological History of Japan Koji Mizoguchi University of Pennsylvania Press ISBN 0812236513 A figurine pot, described as Dogu, is discussed though out and referenced to a number of papers including “Jomon dogu no sekai” by Kikan kokogaku in a special 1990 issue of the Japanese publication Archaeology Quarterly

And despite what you have claimed I have not ignored your mention of Jaren Diamond. However as “Jaren Diamond wrote an article for Discover” is not a proper citation it hinders attempts to locate and refer to it. My comment regarding the Asimov reference was because of its apparent definition of pottery. If Diamond does not define pottery then it is not meaningful to this part of the debate

For what its worth I think the wikipedia entry should include Jomon ware but also the Venus of Dolni Vestonice as examples of ancient pottery. The text would therefore need to include that there are conflicting claims to being the earliest, and Nick's mention of Hoops and Barnett, 1995, "The Shape of Early Pottery Studies" would seem to be a useful inclusion to this. However discussion on the interpretation of pottery based on being figure or vessel, which may be local around you, would be unsuitable for inclusion as this can not be supported

Nick - not least for my own interest as I don't know the article could you give furtehr details on the Hoops and Barnett article ... such as the journal in which it was published so I can obtain a copy via the library. Many thanks

Regards, Andy

I did provide a link to the Diamond article. See [4].

You still have not cited anyone who states that the Venus figurine is the world's first example of pottery. --Brunnock 18:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I’ve not included this is the above as it the lengths of it may swamp the piece but the following is from Ceramic Dictionary Terms that is mainatined by Ceram Research, formily named the British Ceramic Research Association:

Pottery. This term is generally understood to mean domestic ceramic ware, i.e. tableware, kitchenware and sanitaryware, but the pottery industry also embraces the manufacture of wall- and floor-tiles, electroceramics and chemical stoneware. There are subdivisions within these main groups of pottery-ware, e.g. tableware may be earthenware, bone china or porcelain; similarly, sanitaryware may be sanitary fireclay, sanitary earthenware or vitreous china sanitaryware. `COSHH in the Production of Pottery, Approved Code of Practice' 1990 defines pottery to include china, earthenware and any article made from clay or from a mixture containing clay and other materials. See also common pottery, fine pottery. In USA the term whiteware (q.v.) is used. A pottery is also general usage for the factory where pottery is made.

And for back ground of the organisation have a look at their website www.ceram.com. They state “CERAM is an international organisation with over 50 years of experience working for clients who are involved in ceramics and materials processing, the manufacture of ceramic components, or the use of ceramic products.“ And for imediate relevance to this debate they are based in the area of England known as The Potteries

Regards, Andy

You still haven't cited anyone who considers the Venus figurine to be the world's earliest example of pottery. --Brunnock 18:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Brunnock, Thank for the noting the link to the Diamond article as I had missed it initially. Having just scanned through it on the web page though I can not find any mention in it to pottery needing to be a vessel, and therefore it does not replace your reference to Asimov’s book

A read of my comments will reveal that I did not claim that the Venus of Dolni Vestonice was the oldest example of pottery. The debate started following my question “"Could someone explain about "Venus of Dolni Vestonice" as I have understood that this was 1) ceramic, and 2) was up to 30,000 years old” I was interested in why its mention had been removed as I has understood it to be the oldest. I was seeking clarification, and which still has not been provided

However further to your request for a citation of it being the oldest: 1.) Nick’s mention of the Hoops and Barnett paper deserves consideration 2.) Your own admission, that the Venus of Dolni Vestonice is ceramic, needs to be expanded upon. And this is to return again to the very crux of the debate, which is for you to explain why it is ceramic and not pottery ... and many authoritative sources have been suggested against your interpretation but not one has been offered in its support

Regards, Andy

I'm sorry that you had difficulty reading the Diamond article. I'll quote the relevant section for you below-

It therefore astonished archeologists to discover that the world's oldest known pottery was made in Japan 12,700 years ago. 
For the first time in human experience, people had watertight containers readily available in any desired shape.

I hope that clarifies the definition of pottery for you. --Brunnock 19:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Brunnock, Thanks for copying that but you can not really consider that to be a defintion of pottery. I'm not disputing that this article claims the Jamon pieces to be pottery or them to be the oldest but the above two sentences make no claim or reference to being a defintion. Also where does it say that articles made from the same material and processed in the same fashion, as the figures which the Jamon also made, are not pottery but ceramic? Regards, Andy

Can you find anyone who considers the Venus figurine to be an example of pottery? --Brunnock 19:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes ... you. You claimed it is ceramic, and unless it was shaped from a material contaning no clay then it is therefore pottery Regards, Andy

The Venus figurine, like your argument, holds no water. --Brunnock 19:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"Yes ... you. You claimed it is ceramic, and unless it was shaped from a material contaning no clay then it is therefore pottery" And flippancy aside Google searches find many references to it. That’s not the best way for sure but the paper Nick mentioned needs to be considered

Plus: 1) I have never claimed Venus of Dolni Vestonice to be the oldest pottery 2) Please explain why a figure shaped from clay and then fired is not pottery ... this needs to be much more than repeatedly saying ‘Its not”

I ask that you read through my comments listed back across the last few days. If you don't agree with them please explain fully why as to date you have not been able to. Your stand point regarding what makes an article ceramic or not has simply been to repeat "It's not"

Finally: are you interested in helping compile a high quality wikipedia entry for pottery or do you simply wish to engage in a childish squabble? If it is the former you need to give coherent arguments that should ideally be supported accessible references. If its the latter then you will have to find someone else other than me. Any way its getting late here but if you can make legitimate contributions I’ll happily read them tomorrow Regards, Andy

Dear Brunnock, I think you're flogging a dead horse here, what you are saying is that there can't be any such thing as a pottery figurine, yes? This would not be the generally accepted view, I think. I honestly can't be bothered hunting out 'academic references' to pottery figures and pottery figurines, but I can tell you that there will be lots. Excluding everthing except pots from an article on pottery doesn't make the slightest sense to me. Regards, Nick. --Nick 20:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Who's beating a dead horse? Andy asked 3 days ago why the Venus figurine is not pottery and I have answered him. To repeat, the pottery, Ceramics (art), and the Venus of Dolní Věstonice articles all concur that the Venus figurine is an example of ceramics, not pottery. I have cited multiple sources which state that Jomon pottery is the oldest in the world. Neither of you have come up with any which state that the Venus figurine is pottery. --Brunnock 08:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Brunnock, You have not been able to explain why the Venus of Dolni Vestonice should be classed as ceramic and not pottery. You have only repeated “It’s ceramic”, “It’s ceramic”, “It’s ceramic”, much in the style of a young child. You have provided no appropriate support of your view: the Asimov citation is a popular reference book. I have given numerous respected references to show that pottery is a type of ceramic material. With particular reference to the Jomon I have given you citations of two academic publications that describe their ceramic figures as being pottery.

No one has disputed that some claim the Jomon as the oldest pottery. However there are other claims, and Nick has provided you with one reference. You quoting other wikipedia articles is inappropriate as: 1. Incestuous and circular 2. The nature of the source, open and continuous amendments, is both wikipedia’s greatest weakness and strength. The former being it allows unhelpful and erroneous contributions such as those you are making here 3. It can never have the same authority as books and journals written by appropriate scholars that are subject to peer review via rigorous procedures

Your earlier reply to Wbardwin is illuminating “Too much for me to read” as this suggests either limited intellectual capabilities or a lack of interest

Most telling though is that have been unable to explain your reasoning, and similarly your references have been only 1) one popular reference book, 2 ) wikipedia, and 3) those easily found online. This suggests that you: 1. Do not have the knowledge and understanding 2. Have no appropriate references

I can only conclude that you are either being deliberately awkward and obtuse or you have an extremely limited knowledge on this subject. I agree with Nick’s last comments “I honestly can't be bothered” and simply, and politely, ask that you leave this subject to people that can make useful contributions

Nick – I’ve added an email address to my profile so if you wish we can work on an entry without being interupted by idiotic contributions

Andy

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks,

Thank you for the request to stay cool ... advice I will continue to follow. As I have noted in my final response to Brunnock I will no longer engage in debate with him on wikipedia though I have provided contact details if he chooses to discuss the subject via private email Kind regards, Andy

You have not cited any references which refer to either the Venus or Jomon figurines as pottery. You are also ignoring my references to the Jared Diamond article ([5]), to the BYU article ([6]) and to the book Jomon of Japan: The World's Oldest Pottery(ISBN 0710304757).

If you can't be bothered to do your research, then you shouldn't edit articles on Wikipedia. --Brunnock 20:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

And for my final reponse:

“You have not cited any references which refer to either the Venus or Jomon figurines as pottery” A read of the discussion will confirm these have already been made, and include: 1) Venus figures as pottery. Hoops and Barnett article, From the Smithsonian Institution Press. Are you prepared to discredit this organisation ... are you claiming that you know more then they? 2) Jomon figurines as pottery (i) Ancient Jomon of Japan by Junko Habu, and (ii) An Archaeological History of Japan by Koji Mizoguchi

"You are also ignoring my references to the Jared Diamond article, to the BYU article" ... again you are incorrect: 1) Jared Diamond article. This has previously been discussed. Please read my comments 2) BYU article. This not contributing anything extra to the other sources. Additionally the other references, such as Cambridge University, are academic or scientific rather than religious. I also refer back to an earlier comment I made “No one has disputed that some claim the Jomon as the oldest pottery. However there are other claims”

Jomon of Japan book and Out of the Dust online article. There is no reason why both of these should not be referenced in the wikipedia article along with references to further reading

And as far as ignoring ... you have consistently ignored many references from globally recognised authorities that explained pottery is a ceramic material

To respond to your challenge “ ... you shouldn't edit articles on Wikipedia” it is those without interest and knowledge that should not be contributing, and for this subject that is you

It is not research I can’t be bothered with but a meaningless debate with you. The paucity of your sources, one popular reference book and two easily found online articles, demonstrates lack of research by you

Although I will continue to make contributions I will not engage in any further arguments with you. Not only will it potentially damage the integrity of wikipedia but is pointless as you are evidently not interested in assisting with this entry. However if you wish to contact me you can find an email on my profile, and this will allow us to exchange details on our respective background in ceramics, and pottery, including technical, academic & professional experience and qualifications

Andy

According to Nick, Hoops and Barnett stated ...the earliest invention of ceramics - the first thoroughly artificial objects - can be credited to Gravettian figurine makers at Dolni Vestonice.... I don't see how you can interpret this to mean that the Venus figurine is pottery.

According to Andy, Ancient Jomon of Japan has a couple of pages that describe Jomon figurines. I don't see how you can interpret that to mean that figurines are pottery.

According to Andy, An Archaeological History of Japan describes a figurine pot. Well, if it's a ceramic pot, then it's pottery. But I don't see how you can interpret this to mean that the Venus figurine is pottery.

Furthermore, Past worlds : the Times atlas of archaeology (ISBN 0723003068) states, The earliest known pottery comes from Japan, and is dated to about 10,500BC. --Brunnock 14:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Andy, the full reference you were asking for is Hoops and Barnett, The Shape of Early Pottery Studies. The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. and London, 1995. My email address is in my profile too and if you wish to contact me off-list please feel free to do so, but on the whole I think it would be more in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia to have these discussions out here, in the open. What we have is a classic argument between splitters and lumpers about definitions. I'm a lumper myself and think that where possible we should include rather than exclude. I'm not proposing to contribute much to the Pottery article, what time I have is spent mainly in the Porcelain department, where I think what we'll need soon is some words on categories of porcelain, Hard-paste, soft-paste, bone china, et cetera, you know the sort of thing. Hope to see you there, it's something you'll know a lot more about than me <g>. Regards, Nick. --Nick 10:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nick,

Thanks for the comments, and especially the full citation for the Hoops and Barnett ... being from the Smithsonian makes it an extremely strong reference. I see the porcelain article is coming along so I’ll concentrate on the Pottery entry and then maybe we’ll exchange a few ideas. I would hope to be able to contribute to something on porcelain, though I think there’s going to be quite a bit of work for you regarding hard paste, soft paste etc

Maybe I could provide some decent references, either from my own collection or via the library ... speaking of which aren’t they wonderful; just received the following:

Ethics, Tools, and the Engineer by R.E. Spier. Published by CRC in 2001. ISBN 0849337402 which states “The earliest fired pottery based on wet clay and bone was unearthed at Vestonice (Czechoslovakia) and dated 25000 years ago”

Kind regards, Andy

You found a valid reference! I'm impressed! If I may quibble, however, the book's description states that it is not about archaeology or history. It's about engineering ethics. Do you think we could agree to use archaeological or historical references?

I found an academic reference which refers to both the artifacts at Dolni Vestonice and Jomon pottery ([7]). The author acknowledges that people were using fired clay techniques at Dolni Vestonice, but they were just artifacts for a religious ceremony whereas the Jomon created the world's first pottery.

There's also an interesting web page at [8]. The author lists ceramics at Dolni Vestonice and pottery in Japan. He included an extensive list of references. --Brunnock 18:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

From the Ceramics Today website- Clay figurines are known from the earliest human occupations, but clay vessels, pottery vessels used for storing, cooking and serving food, and carrying water were first manufactured at least 12-13,000 years ago. [9] --Brunnock 14:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

Though in Gulf of Cambay the claim mentions c. 30000 BP sun dried pottery making some contributor to Wikipedia doubt about if it is real pottery I can say that the finding is a black dish (Badrinaryan 2006)that deserves the term of pottery. On the other hand in Cambay there was also found "fired" pottery TL and OSL dated to c. 16800 BC, earlier than Jomon.

Reference? --Brunnock 23:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It surprises me so much that you ask for reference when you deleted it from the article many times.

You have to cite your sources (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). Besides, as you can see above, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of Jomon pottery as the oldest pottery yet found. --Brunnock 20:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a typical response after deleting quotings with SOURCES that someone does not want to appear to general knowledge. Please find another excuse.

What sources? --Brunnock 21:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The quotation with references for the earliest pottery in the world found in Gulf of Cambay, India are as follows: "...a nice, thin, pottery ...analysed in the Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmadabad, Gujarat State, using standard Thermoluminescence based pottery dating techniques. As expected the one of the pottery piece whose figure is given, gave a date of 13000 ± 1950 BP. It is an important date. Another pottery piece which was ill-fired, on OSL dating (Location 21 o12.54' N ; 72 o 30.370' E) by Oxford University gave an age of 16840 ± 2620 BP. These are the oldest fired pottery pieces obtained sofar in the world...In the Gulf of cambay civilization already attempts appear to have been made in experimental pottery making. These are seen from effects of fired clays (for making pottery) which gave ages of 20130 ± 2170 BP (Location 21 o 13.720' N; 72 o 26.190' E) and 16600 ± 1150 BP (Location 21 o13.80 'N ; 72 o 26.10E), by OSL as determined by the Oxford University dating lab...Apart from this, sun-dried Pottery pieces were collected in these areas.Three of the specimens were dated by OSL facility in Oxford. The results obtained are (1) 31270±2050 BP, (2) 25700±2790 BP and (3) 24590±2390 BP. A black slipped dish which was also sun dried was dated in Oxford by OSL. This gave an age of 26710 ± 1950 BP" (Badrinaryan 2006). For a detailed Chart of Dates see Kathiroli et al. 2004: 149.

References:

Badrinaryan 2006. "Gulf of Cambay, Cradle of Ancient Civilization" http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/BadrinaryanB1.php?p=1 (Part 5)

Kathiroli et al. 2004. "Recent Marine Archaeological Finds in Khambhat, Gujarat". Journal of Indian Ocean Archaeology No 1, p. 141-149.

Hello 200.9.166.222, With appropriate caveat these seem to be worthy of inclusion to illustrate there is debate over the identity of the oldest. The only negative comment I would make is that sun-dried pieces should not be included as high temperature firing is a requirement for something to be pottery Regards, Andy

Are you talking about this Graham Hancock? I'm pretty sure that reference constitutes original research. I found two news articles about those findings in the Gulf of Cambray ([10] and [11]). Both of those articles indicate that the artifacts are not older than Jomon pottery. Furthermore, those articles are several years old. Is there anything more recent? --Brunnock 21:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, Badrinaryan is a geologist, not an archaeologist and his claims are doubted by several Indian archaeologists (see [12] and [13]). --Brunnock 21:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The biased views of you Brunnock are typical. The article of Badrinaryan is Badrinaryan's not Hancock's. Your criticism is based on past references, not new. The samples were not analysed by Badrinarayan but by OXFORD and HANOVER laboratories, only to mention two. Do you try to say scientists of such laboratories are pseudo?. You criticize Badrinaryan of not being an Archaeologist, BUT YOU NEITHER, you are more desqualified to judge this things than him. You did not even know of the matter. You cite out of date quotations and delete updated Kathiroli's 2004 paper on a scientific journal and you did not even read it!!! If we follow your way of thinking we must reject also Kenoyer and Meadow's work just because they put Von Daneken's advertisement in their site, see: http://harappa.com/har/har0.html Of course you do not know who are Kenoyer and Meadow. For your information they are reputed ARCHAEOLOGISTS that study Harappan culture, they are from Harvard and Wisconsin Universities.

What am I supposed to see on http://harappa.com/har/har0.html? It's just a table of contents.

I linked to two articles that were published in an Indian magazine (Frontline) which quoted Indian archaeologists who doubt Badrinaryan's claims, so I don't think bias has anything to do with it.

Can you provide a link to Kathiroli's 2004 paper? --Brunnock 22:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello 200.9.166.222, With reference to my earlier comments on sun-dried pieces not being pottery I think it would be best to remove just this section ... before pressing ahead with it are you OK with that Regards, Andy

Hello Brunnock. About Harappa.com page I was trying you to see just the lowest part of that where they present an advertisement of Erick Von Daneken. As for Kathiroli's paper, just enter NIOT's page:

http://www.niot.res.in/m3/arch/index.htm

You will find four PDF papers. Kathiroli et al. 2004 is at:

http://www.niot.res.in/m3/arch/indarch.pdf

Pay attention to the final Chart of dates.

Hello Andy. Your comment is important but personaly I think there is a DISH not fired that for me counts as pottery.

Hello 200.9.166.222, Thanks for your response. I'm strongly in favour of including the Cambray reference, however a clay dish / article / vessel that's sun dried rather than fired will not be pottery ... the temperatutres achieved would not have been sufficient to induce the necessary permanent chemical and physical changes. I see that WBardwin previously suggested they could be referenced as a precursory to pottery; I'm think dropping mention of the sun dried pieces would be preferable as: 1) conforms ith the universal understanding of pottery, and 2) in no way diminishes the strength of this particular candidate

Regards, Andy

There's a longer discussion about the artifacts on Talk:Ruins in the Gulf of Cambay. The consensus appears to be that the "pottery" is actually naturally cemented sediment. As of this writing, no archaeologist agrees with the geologists' claims that they have found pottery which predates the Jomon period. --Brunnock 18:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It is suspicious that the supposed geoarchaeologist that writes in Talk: Ruins in the Gulf of Cambay writes a long skeptical article and do not mention his complete name. Anyway who can say the real motivations of such SKEPTICALS. Declarations like: "NO ARCHAEOLOGIST accepts it" make me suspect. They judge but NO BODY can judge them. They say they are professionals, but even proffesionals have a political view. The emphatical way of this opposition is very suspicious even though with supposed specialists. This skeptical scientifics are CLEARLY politically motivated. The NIOT team has archaeologists, though not as main conductors of the project, and there are also other specialists in the team from many fields.

The supposed Skeptical geoarchaeologists also lies when he says that fragments could be from elsewhere because NIOT's team made an study of the soil of the bottom of the sea showing that it has the same composition as pottery found. There are many other lies of this supposed specialist, once again quoting NOT UPDATED findings. This way of behaviour is VERY VERY SOUSPICIOUS.

I see triying to have a REAL scientific discussion with such people is IMPOSSIBLE, they will find pseudo-scientific arguments all the time. They do not want to find the truth. And here in Wikipedia I see there is also a dangerous person called Brunock. He performs the wall who stops to see the light for all. Sadly he is not the only one in Wikipedia who doest it.

Other people from Wikipedia have to know that there are many political enemies of India that do not hesitate to use "scholars" to deny the truth. These days Steve Farmer and Michael Witzel, supposed scholars even presented a video of UNTOUCHABLES to justify their claims and attacking India's way of living and culture.

How sad! Even Wikipedia has that kind of people infiltrated!

It is suspicious that the supposed geoarchaeologist ... do not mention his complete name.

Your anonymous contributions don't exactly inspire a tremendous amount of trust, either. --Brunnock 22:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The big difference is that I DID NOT ANY CLAIM as the anonimous pseudo archaeologist. I put references of the works I quoted. HE DID NOT. I did not said: "All the archaeologists think so". And after all what is Brunnock? A pseudonim of Farmer or Witzel? You do not sign with your name. Why you ask for me to do?

Brunnock is my name. I'd answer your question, but I have no idea what you're talking about. --Brunnock 00:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I believe you that's your name. There is one question: We should be critical with the critics, not only with the researchers. Many times such critics can do more harm to scientific truth as it is the present case. The ultracritical and supposed serious Harvard scholar Michael Witzel who many times discredited research of Indian scholars in Frontline Magazine, just like the case we have,time after was found doing a fraudulent translation of a Hindu text called Baudhayana Srauta Sutra himself in order to prove his theories against Indian researchers. You can see about it in B.B. Lal 2005. What I want you to see is that there is a political interest in some supposed scholar circles to discredit almost all that is found by Indian scholars. Witzel and Farmer are the most notable politically involved supposed proffessionals that do not want India's real history to be known. They have many people who follows them. I would not be surprised if the "geoarchaeologist" that rejects so vehemently the Cambay claim be one of their followers. In the discussion page of "Ruins of Cambay" they deleted many times the prove that they are wrong, that the findings are REAL FIRED POTTERY, proved in laboratory: "Since some persons have expressed doubts about the pottery pieces, a thorough scientific study was made involving the pottery pieces to establish their authenticity. To determine the properties of various material including pottery, many samples were subjected to X-Ray diffraction (XRD) analysis. Since the materials that constitute pottery etc are clays and heterogeneous mixures of a variety of materials, these were accordingly analysed. Every area has a special fingerprint pattern in the clay which can be recognized in X-Ray diffraction (XRD). The above analysis was carried out in Deccan College, Pune Maharashtra state, India,by using an advanced instrument which gave excellent results. The conclusions are that the pattern of pottery pieces corresponds very well with the locally available clay of gulf of Cambay. The mineral patterns of habitational floor, wattle and daub and land materials (alluvial deposit) are comparable. The patterns of fired clay, floor birck piece, vitrified clay, compare very well. All these indicate that they are genuine artifacts, made from locally available material and are insitu. It fully confirms the presence of archaeological sites. The findings indicate that the pottery was produced locally with levigated clay, fired uniformly at about 700oC. From the presence of calcite in clays and pottery arid to semi-arid environmental conditions prior to the submergence of the site could be deduced. Calcritised alluvial deposits indicate the existence of ancient rivers which once flowed in the submerged regions of Gulf of Cambay"(Badrinaryan 2006).

As for the Fake made by Dr. Michael Witzel, see:

THE HOMELAND OF THE ARYANS Evidence of Rigvedic Flora and Fauna & Archaeology by B.B. Lal (with contributions by K.S. Saraswat) New Delhi: Aryan Books International (aryanbooks@...), 2005 ISBN 81-7305-283-2, pp. xx+126, 32 colour plates, Rs. 500/- (paperback edition.

Thank you

Definition of pottery

Hello all, I've included a defintion of pottery as a material in addition to the description of it as a technique. Regards, Andy

So what's the difference between pottery and ceramics? --Brunnock 13:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello all, A little bit of tweaking: 1. Clay changed to clay body as a more accurate description 2. Biscuit added as alternative spelling Regards, Andy

Hello all, also added: 1) That a pottery is also a factory, and 2) Mention and link to Stoke-on-Trent in England which is known as The Potteries Regards, Andy

although I've been much to busy in real life to join in, I have been monitoring the talk page and the ongoing discussion. I made the change to reflect some of the issues discussed and hopefully move toward concensus. Pottery -- archaeologically and historically speaking -- is often defined largely as vessels or utilitarian objects, but not exclusively. In the modern sense, in academia, art circles and industrial production, pottery is defined in many ways by many people. I referred you earlier to the previous discussion on the page (which you said was too long to read). You can see that, even on Wiki, modern clay workers have differing views on definitions. So -- "objects" is more inclusive of the many viewpoints. Hopefully I will have more time to work in the near future. WBardwin 21:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not controversial. I don't think there is a single archaeologist that considers pottery to be any ceramic object. I have cited several references above which define pottery as ceramic "vessels" or "watertight containers". Until today, this article defined pottery as ceramic vessels. Andy cited one reference which refers to Venus figurines as pottery and that's a book about engineering ethics. You make no distinction between pottery and ceramics. By redefining pottery, you're rewriting history. --Brunnock 21:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is your statement from above -- "Too much for me to read. The first sentence of this article states, Pottery is a ceramic material...formed into vessels. Venus is not a vessel. --Brunnock 00:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)" Not too far out of context, I believe.

And -- definitions are always controversial. In my archaeology undergraduate courses -- we were required to define our own terms for each and every paper we were writing because they did vary from issue to issue. And clay artifacts were defined in different ways in different contexts. And, please, our definition here is hardly rewriting history or prehistory.

On definitions, let's start with Websters -- which would be a starting place for our average reader. "1) a place where clayware is made and fired. 2-a) the art or craft of the potter. 2-b)the manufacture of clayware 3) Clayware. 4) especially earthenware as distinquished on the one hand from procelain and stoneware and on the other from brick and tile." No mention of vessels at all. Using the word objects should be an innocuous compromise. -- WBardwin 23:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello WB, All, another definition of pottery for you, from the Century Dictionary. (1) The ware or vessels made by potters; baked earthenware, glazed or unglazed. (2) A place where earthen vessels are made. (3) The business of a potter; the manufacture of earthenware. Regards Nick 16:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Nick, WBardwin,

And whilst you’ve been hitting the dictionaries so have I ... From The (Shorter) Oxford English Dictionary comes:

Pottery 1. A potter’s workshop or factory. 2. The potter’s art, ceramics; the manufacturer of earthenware vessels. 3. Pottery-ware, earthenware

As much as I respect the O.E.D. I think a specialist authority, such as the ASTM, would be the better choice

Regards,

Andy

What's the difference between pottery and ceramics? --Brunnock 00:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

ah -- back to the central question -- please see the ranting discussion nearer the top of the page. And the two Ceramics articles have to be considered as well. It is a tricky thing. Historically, if you look at both Mayan and Korean clay products (as examples), vessels and utilitarian work were produced out of the same clay bodies, with the same firing processes, and often by the same people as nonfunctional, decorative or ritual items such as masks and figurines. The techniques used may have been slightly different but archaeologists often find remnants of both types of work in the same workshops or districts. Most modern potters -- including me -- make both functional and non-functional ware. When I load a kiln, about 85 percent of my work is wheel thrown functional items, another 10 percent or so are functional items produced by other techniques, but there is always about 5 percent that is non-functional/decorative/whimsical or just plain strange. In American culture, these items don't have a ritual function, but they sell well for me and are satisfying to make. I suspect this pattern was found for clay ware throughout history. So -- are my functional items pottery and the non-functional ones ceramics?

As we develop such central definitions, dictionary definitions are a good start. But I believe we must include the viewpoints of many disciplines. Ceramics/pottery is a touchstone in archaeology/prehistory, history, art history, craft, industrial production -- and today, in ceramics technology. And modern clay workers, who move in many directions, redefine their terms every day. Each of the disciplines have their own perspective on clay ware, and so probably their own definition. If we do a good job in defining our terms for ceramics, pottery and other related terms, an accurate and effective tree of articles should follow. That has been an objective of mine but time has not permitted. WBardwin 02:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in rants. You changed the definition of pottery in this article from "ceramic vessels" to "ceramic objects". Could you please explain what is the difference between pottery and ceramics? There is no ceramics article. It's a disambig page. Thank you. --Brunnock 02:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added to my comment above. If you are not willing to read the larger discussion above, I will not reproduce it here. I have my own opinion(s) on the different terms. They are based on a study of archaeology, history and personal experience as a clay worker. My opinion should have a bearing on Wiki articles, as should yours, but neither of us have carte blanche to produce a definition. Remember that concensus is a goal for all Wiki activities. Our definition here -- based as I said above on the usage of the terms in many disciplines, will influence how clay related articles are presented in Wikipedia. The two ceramic articles -- each with a different slant -- will also need work when we decide on a definition. I personally believe that ceramics has been used more as an umbrella term for anything that has to do with clay. That makes me uncomfortable too. So -- how do you define ceramics and pottery? WBardwin 02:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You changed the definition of pottery based on your personal experience? You realize that Wikipedia has a No original research policy?

Personally, I was fine with this article's prior definition of pottery. The only people that had a problem with it were folks who thought that Venus figurines are pottery. --Brunnock 10:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, please refrain from changing your comments. It makes it difficult for folks to follow this discussion. --Brunnock 10:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello all, Although there is still quite a bit of work to do in 'Oldest' section to better reflect the debate as a starting point I've reintroduced the Venus of Dolni Vestonice. When time allows I'll list references that mention the Venus. In addition to a better summary of the various claims I wonder if the Cambray section could be tidied up a little, perhaps just a simple bit of editing? I'll happily have a go but I wonder if 200.9.166.222 could as it's largely his / her contribution

Hello 200.9.166.222 Whilst I stongly support the inclusion of the Cambray finds I personally think it would benefit from triming in length. I don't mind doing this but thought you would prefer to yourself

Regards, Andy

Why are you starting a new discussion on an old topic? The only reference you came up with is an engineering ethics book. I have cited multiple sources which state the Jomon pottery is the oldest. --Sean Brunnock 17:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)