Posted by susan walter on October 5, 2014, 9:21 pm
I guess that's how to describe it. I have 2 different archaeologically retrieved rim patterns, one pink, the other blue.
If you were to start with sherds, say from Brussels, as shown in Williams & Weber 1978:208, or Lacadnia pg 70, or Pandora pg 360, or ONLY the non pictorial parts of the rim of Cyrene pg 248, how would you set up the search parameters?
Those 4 patterns don't have the same border, so they could not be found with one Border Type search. The Brussels pattern in the database has a selected Border Type of Miscellaneous/Vermicelli border. In the Cyrene border, we would name a border type dependent upon the cartouches, with background. Because the database is concerned mainly with the center pattern, it is much better to search by center pattern if you are looking for a pattern in the database. You can look at the list of Border Types in the database if you are looking for ideas on how to describe certain borders. If you are just looking for a description of the border type that has been used for a certain pattern, they just search the database, using the pattern name. The images in Williams & Weber are very poor for identifying border elements; however, the verbal descriptions are good.
What I'm trying to do is match up archaeological specimens to the database.
The fragments I'm focused on are bits only of repeated diaper or segments of rim pieces with no diagnostic elements such as cartouches or obvious pictorials.
I picked out examples from Williams/Weber because they are similar to the types of border sherds I have. They are not the same as my bits obviously; because I've been unable to identify mine.
There is no way of my matching up the central images that would connect with these rim sherds, as in most cases I have only a foot for one figure or itty bitty architectural element, or worse a bunch of leaves or clouds or unidentifiable somethingorother. And of course different vessels/patterns are jumbled together in one provenience.
I know you've seen plenty of archaeological requests. Earlier this year I posted one here for what were huge pieces from this site and got one pattern identified by Lem.
So I was hoping that I was just not working the borders section correctly and you at TCC could lead me to another way of doing it.
All that said, I am not complaining. By matching up my bits of "big" or "distinctive" fragments with TCC parameters, I've managed to get 22 patterns identified. That is 20 more than was previously known!
And what is super cool is a clear tie to the hide and tallow era. I'm rolling in the dirt of San Diego's Presidio with delight! And more than grateful for the amazing TCC database.