After Antiquity. Ceramics and society in the Aegean from the 7th to 20th century A.C.: A case study from Boeotia, Central Greece 9076368104, 9789076368108

Table of contents :
1887_13511-Cover
1887_13511-Voorwerk
1887_13511-Chapter 1
1887_13511-Chapter 2
1887_13511-Chapter 3
1887_13511-Chapter 4
1887_13511-Chapter 5
1887_13511-Chapter 6
1887_13511-Chapter 7
1887_13511-Chapter 8
1887_13511-Chapter 9
1887_13511-Chapter 10
1887_13511-Chapter 11
1887_13511-Chapter 12
1887_13511-Chapter 13
1887_13511-References
1887_13511-Appendix A
1887_13511-Appendix B
1887_13511-Meta
1887_13511-CV

Citation preview

Archaeological Studies Leiden University ASLU 10 J. VROOM AFTER ANTIQUITY

AFTER ANTIQUITY CERAMICS AND SOCIETY IN THE AEGEAN FROM THE 7TH TO THE 20TH CENTURY A.C.

A case study from Boeotia, Central Greece

Joanita Vroom

published by the Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, 2003

10

Medieval and post-medieval ceramics from the archaeological sites discoverd by the Boeotia Project, Central Greece, to the present day Vroom, J.

Citation Vroom, J. (2003, January 29). Medieval and post-medieval ceramics from the archaeological sites discoverd by the Boeotia Project, Central Greece, to the present day. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/1887/13511 Version:

Corrected Publisher’s Version

License:

Licence agreement concerning inclusion of doctoral thesis in the Institutional Repository of the University of Leiden

Downloaded from:

https://hdl.handle.net/1887/13511

Note: To cite this publication please use the final published version (if applicable).

archaeological studies leiden university

archaeological studies leiden university 10

*

AFTER ANTIQUITY *

ceramics and society in the aegean f r o m t h e 7 t h t o t h e 2 0 t h c e n t u r y a .c . * a case study from boeotia, central greece *

joanita vroom

faculty of archaeology, leiden university, 2003

Archaeological Studies Leiden University is published by the Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, The Netherlands This book originally appeared as a Ph.D. thesis, Leiden University, 29 Jan. 2003 isbn: 90-76368-10-4 © Copyright 2003, Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, The Netherlands All correspondence should be addressed to: Secretary ASLU, Faculty of Archaeology P.O. Box 9515 nl 2300 ra Leiden Fax: 00.31.71.5272429 www.archeologie.leidenuniv.nl (click on: English; Publications; Archaeological Studies Leiden University) Type-setting: Steven Boland Cover photographs: J.Vroom

CONTENTS

list of figures list of tables acknowledgements

11 17 19

INTRODUCTION – AIM AND SCOPE OF THIS BOOK

21

PART I – POST-ROMAN CERAMIC S IN THE AEGEAN: PROBLEMS AND POS SIBILITIES 1 1.1 1.2

1.3 2 2.1 2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5 3 3.1 3.2

post-roman ceramics in the aegean as an archaeological problem Introduction Problems in chronology and terminology 1.2.1 Problems in chronology and terminology for the earlier periods 1.2.2 Problems in chronology and terminology for the later periods 1.2.3 Post-Roman chronology: a new proposal for the ceramics from Boeotia Summary

25 25 25 25 26 27 29

research into post-roman ceramics in the aegean: a methodological-historical survey Introduction The pioneers 2.2.1 Art-historical approaches 2.2.2 The first ‘systematic’ approach: Sparta The Interbellum 2.3.1 The importance of David Talbot Rice 2.3.2 ‘Followers’ of the Talbot Rice view 2.3.3 A new step ahead: the excavations at Athens 2.3.4 A major contribution: the excavations at Corinth The period after the Second World War 2.4.1 Underwater archaeology 2.4.2 Recent developments 2.4.3 Towards a new typo-chronology 2.4.4 The rise of surface surveys Summary

31 31 31 31 35 36 36 37 38 39 40 41 43 44 45 46

the current state of knowledge of post-roman ceramics in the aegean: the major projects Introduction Early Byzantine period (ca. 7th-9th centuries) 3.2.1 Constantinople/Istanbul

49 49 49 49

5

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.2.2 Greek mainland 3.2.3 Cyprus 3.2.4 Crete 3.2.5 Other Greek islands Middle Byzantine period (ca. 10th-12th/ early 13th centuries) 3.3.1 Constantinople/Istanbul: ‘Glazed White Wares’ 3.3.2 Corinth: ‘Glazed Red Wares’ 3.3.3 Greek mainland (other than Corinth) 3.3.4 Greek islands and Cyprus Late Byzantine/Frankish period (ca. 13th-mid 15th centuries) 3.4.1 Constantinople/Istanbul 3.4.2 Cyprus 3.4.3 Greek mainland Turkish period (ca. late 15th-18th centuries) 3.5.1 Greek mainland 3.5.2 Constantinople/Istanbul 3.5.3 Greek islands and Cyprus Early Modern period (ca. 19th-mid 20th centuries) 3.6.1 The Aegean and Cyprus: the ethnoarchaeological approach 3.6.2 The Aegean and Cyprus: the art-historical approach Summary

51 53 55 56 58 59 60 62 63 64 65 66 66 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76

PART II – THE CERAMIC S FOUND IN BOEOTIA: TYPO-CHRONOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE 4 4.1 4.2

4.3 4.4

4.5 5 5.1 5.2

boeotia: the survey finds in context Introduction Previous research into Post-Roman ceramics in Boeotia 4.2.1 Publications before the 1990s 4.2.2 Recent publications The Boeotia Project: background and methodology Survey material as a source of information 4.4.1 Problems of chronology and visibility 4.4.2 Possibilities: towards a ‘horizontal chronology’ 4.4.3 The dating of the Post-Medieval ceramics Summary

79 79 79 79 80 80 82 82 84 85 86

5.3

the boeotia project: the pottery in context Introduction The assemblages and their provenances 5.2.1 Presentation of the assemblages 5.2.2 List of the assemblages Summary

87 87 87 87 91 132

6 6.1 6.2

a presentation of the diagnostic ceramics from boeotia Introduction Late Roman – Early Byzantine period

135 135 137

6

6.3

6.4

6.5

6.6

6.2.1 Red Slip Wares: Askra Ware (Ware 1) 6.2.2 Unglazed Wares (Ware 2) 6.2.3 Unglazed Wares: ‘Slavic Ware’ (Ware 2a) 6.2.4 Amphorae: Late Roman 2 / Saraçhane 9 amphora (Ware 3) 6.2.5 Amphorae: Saraçhane 35 amphora (Ware 3a) 6.2.6 Unglazed Beehives (Ware 4) Middle Byzantine period 6.3.1 Fine Orange-Red Burnished Ware (Ware 5) 6.3.2 Unglazed Incised Ware (Ware 6) 6.3.3 Plain Glazed Wares (in a red and a grey fabric) (Ware 7) 6.3.4 Plain Glazed Ware (in a white fabric) / Glazed White Ware II (Ware 8) 6.3.5 Slip-painted Ware (Ware 9) 6.3.6 Green and Brown Painted Ware (Ware 10) 6.3.7 Fine Sgraffito Ware (Ware 11) 6.3.8 Painted Fine Sgraffito Ware (Ware 11a) 6.3.9 Amphorae: Günsenin 3 / Saraçhane 61 amphora (Ware 12) 6.3.10 Amphorae: ‘Otranto 1 amphora’ (Ware 13) 6.3.11 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 14) 6.3.12 Incised Sgraffito Ware and Champlevé Ware (Ware 15) Late Byzantine/Frankish period 6.4.1 ‘Zeuxippus Ware’ Subtypes: Monochrome Sgraffito Ware and One Colour Sgraffito Ware (Ware 16) 6.4.2 Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Corinth (?) (Ware 17) 6.4.3 Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Thessaloniki (Ware 18) 6.4.4 Other Monochrome Sgraffito Wares (Ware 19) 6.4.5 Brown and Green Sgraffito Wares (Ware 20) 6.4.6 Slip-painted Ware (Ware 21) 6.4.7 Polychrome Lead-glazed Ware type ‘RMR’ (Ware 22) 6.4.8 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 23) Turkish period 6.5.1 Monochrome Sgraffito Wares from Italy (Ware 24) 6.5.2 Polychrome Sgraffito Wares from Italy (Ware 25) 6.5.3 Brown and Green Sgraffito Wares (Ware 26) 6.5.4 Maiolica from Italy (Ware 27) 6.5.5 Maiolica from Greece (Ware 28) 6.5.6 Monochrome Glazed Ware (Ware 29) 6.5.7 Slip-painted Ware (Ware 30) 6.5.8 Painted Ware (Ware 31) 6.5.9 Iznik Ware (Ware 32) 6.5.10 Porcelain (Ware 33) 6.5.11 Polychrome Marbled Ware (Ware 34) 6.5.12 Polychrome Painted Maiolica (Ware 35) 6.5.13 Kütahya Ware (Ware 36) 6.5.14 Tobacco Pipes (Ware 37) 6.5.15 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 38) Early Modern period 6.6.1 Çanakkale Ware (Ware 39) 6.6.2 Painted Ware from Grottaglie and/or Corfu (Ware 40)

137 139 141 143 144 144 145 145 145 147 147 150 151 152 152 153 155 157 163 164 164 165 165 166 166 167 167 169 170 170 170 171 172 173 173 174 175 175 176 176 177 178 179 179 180 180 182

7

6.7 6.8 7 7.1 7.2

7.3 7.4

6.6.3 Slip-painted Ware from Didymoteicho and/or the Dardanelles (Ware 41) 6.6.4 Slip-painted Ware from Crete, Chalkis or Thasos (Ware 42) 6.6.5 Glazed Domestic Ware from Siphnos (Ware 43) 6.6.6 Polychrome Painted Terracotta from the Eastern Aegean (Ware 44) 6.6.7 Storage Jars (Ware 45) 6.6.8 Glaze Painted Ware (Ware 46) 6.6.9 Drip-painted Ware from Marousi, Attica (Ware 47) 6.6.10 Monochrome Yellow Glazed Ware (Ware 48) A proposal for a ‘horizontal chronology’ Summary

184 184 185 185 186 186 186 188 188 191

changing shapes in the ceramics found in boeotia Introduction Changing vessel shapes in Boeotia 7.2.1 Tablewares of the Late Roman – Early Byzantine period 7.2.2 Tablewares of the Early Byzantine – Middle Byzantine period 7.2.3 Tablewares of the Middle Byzantine period 7.2.4 Tablewares of the Late Byzantine/Frankish period 7.2.5 Tablewares of the Turkish period 7.2.6 Tablewares of the Early Modern period Changing vessel shapes and vessel functions Summary

229 229 229 229 231 231 233 234 236 237 238

PART III – THE CERAMIC S FOUND IN BOEOTIA: THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE 8 8.1. 8.2

8.3

8.4 8.5 9 9.1 9.2

8

the socio-economic background of the ceramics found in boeotia: a short introduction Introduction The Boeotian infrastructure: settlements and routes 8.2.1 Towns 8.2.2 Ports 8.2.3 Rural settlements 8.2.4 Land routes 8.2.5 Sea routes The Boeotian infrastructure: economic activities 8.3.1 Craftsmen/artisans 8.3.2 Merchants 8.3.3 Markets 8.3.4 Fairs Non-commercial ways of distribution: the role of the governing classes Summary

241 241 241 242 245 247 249 250 251 252 253 255 256 257 259

ceramic production and distribution in boeotia: the local factor Introduction The sources 9.2.1 Archaeological evidence 9.2.2 Written sources

261 261 261 261 262

9.3

9.4

9.5 9.6 10 10.1 10.2

10.3

10.4

10.5

9.2.3 Ethnographic/ethnoarchaeological studies Ceramic production 9.3.1 Raw materials 9.3.2 Manufacturing 9.3.3 Surface treatment and decoration 9.3.4 Glazing 9.3.5 Firing 9.3.6 Organisation of the workshops 9.3.7 Location of the workshops Ceramic distribution 9.4.1 Sedentary potters 9.4.2 Itinerant potters Peacock’s model of production and distribution Summary

262 263 263 264 265 266 267 270 272 273 273 275 275 276

the economics of ceramics in boeotia and beyond Introduction Pottery and socio-economic history 10.2.1 Blake’s theory 10.2.2 Blake’s theory and the fragility of pots 10.2.3 Orton’s theory Testing Blake’s and Orton’s theories in Boeotia 10.3.1 Blake’s theory and the ceramics found in Boeotia 10.3.2 Orton’s theory and the ceramics found in Boeotia 10.3.3 Two theories and the Boeotian reality Boeotia in a wider economic and geographical perspective 10.4.1 Wallerstein’s ‘world system’ and Boeotia: a test case 10.4.2 Production and distribution of Maiolica (ca. 15th-16th centuries) 10.4.3 Production and distribution of Iznik and Kütahya Wares (ca. 16th-18th centuries) 10.4.4 Wallerstein’s core-periphery theory and the Boeotian imports Summary

279 279 279 280 281 284 284 284 288 289 291 291 293 296 298 300

PART IV – THE CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE ON CHANGING VESSEL SHAPES: A FIRST SURVEY OF THE EVIDENCE 11 11.1 11.2

11.3

dining habits in late roman and byzantine times: a preliminary survey of the pictorial evidence and the written sources Introduction Problems and possibilities in iconographical interpretation 11.2.1 Problems 11.2.2 Possibilities From Roman banquets to the Last Supper 11.3.1 At Christ’s table 11.3.2 Pictorial representations 11.3.3 Sculptural representations 11.3.4 Interpretations

303 303 303 303 304 304 305 305 307 307

9

11.4

11.5

11.6

11.7

11.8 12 12.1 12.2

12.3

12.4

12.5

Last Supper scenes: the history of research 11.4.1 Before the Second World War 11.4.2 After the Second World War Late Roman – Early Byzantine period 11.5.1 Pictures of the Late Roman – Early Byzantine period (ca. 5th-7th centuries) 11.5.2 Late Roman dining habits in the written (and pictorial) sources Middle Byzantine period 11.6.1 Pictures of the Macedonian Renaissance (ca. 850-1050 AD) 11.6.2 Pictures of the Comnenan Era (ca. 1050-1200 AD) Late Byzantine/Frankish period 11.7.1 Pictures of the Paleologan Renaissance (ca. 1250-1454 AD) 11.7.2 Byzantine dining habits in the written sources 11.7.3 Dining habits in the Late Byzantine/Frankish period Summary

307 307 308 309 309 311 313 313 315 321 321 327 329 331

dining habits in turkish and early modern times: a preliminary survey of the written sources and the pictorial evidence Introduction The written sources on food and dining habits 12.2.1 The travellers’ accounts of food 12.2.2 The travellers’ accounts of dining habits 12.2.3 The budgets of pious foundations 12.2.4 Cookbooks 12.2.5 A book on dining etiquette 12.2.6 The tax registers and travellers’ accounts on food in Boeotia The pictorial evidence of dining habits 12.3.1 The Eastern model 12.3.2 The Western model 12.3.3 The 19th century Iznik Ware and Kütahya Ware in the written sources 12.4.1 The use of Iznik Ware in the written sources 12.4.2 The use of Kütahya Ware in the written sources Summary

335 335 335 336 339 341 342 344 344 349 349 350 351 353 353 354 356

PART V – CONCLUSION 13 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6

the ceramics found in boeotia: towards an integrated perspective The state of previous research of Post-Roman ceramics in the Aegean A classification system for the pottery found in Boeotia A typo-chronology of the ceramics found in Boeotia Form and function Form, function and socio-economic background Form, function and cultural background

appendices – Appendix A to chapter 2 appendices – Appendix B to chapters 5 and 6 references

10

359 359 360 361 363 364 365 369 375 379

list of figures Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.2 Fig. 2.3 Fig. 2.4 Fig. 2.5 Fig. 2.6 Fig. 2.7 Fig. 2.8 Fig. 2.9 Fig. 2.10

The Mediterranean and Cyprus, showing location of the most important places mentioned in the text. The Aegean, showing location of the most important places mentioned in the text. Delphi before the excavations by the French Archaeological School, ca. 1805 AD (after Dodwell 1834). David Talbot Rice at elder age (after Robertson & Henderson 1975). Drawing from Byzantine Glazed Pottery (after Talbot Rice 1930, pl. II). Drawing from Corinth XI: The Byzantine Pottery (after Morgan 1942, pl. LII). Drawing from The Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors I (after Stevenson 1947). Underwater archaeology: 7th century amphorae from the Yassi Ada Shipwreck, now in the Museum for Underwater Archaeology in Bodrum, Turkey (after Alpözen et al. 1995, 3). Bacini in wall of a church at Serres, Macedonia (photo: J. Vroom). Survey material on the surface in Boeotia (photo: J. Vroom).

Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2 Fig. 3.3 Fig. 3.4 Fig. 3.5 Fig. 3.6 Fig. 3.7 Fig. 3.8 Fig. 3.9 Fig. 3.10 Fig. 3.11 Fig. 3.12 Fig. 3.13 Fig. 3.14 Fig. 3.15

Shapes of Red Slip Wares (after Hayes 1972). Shapes of Late Roman amphorae (after Riley 1977, fig. 10). Shapes of Glazed White Wares (after Morgan 1942, fig. 30). Drawing of Glazed White Wares (after Morgan 1942, pl. V). Shapes of Glazed Red Wares (after Morgan 1942, fig. 24). Drawing of Glazed Red Wares (after Morgan 1942, pl. I). Slip-painted Ware (photo: J. Vroom). Brown and Green Painted Ware (after Morgan 1942, pl. XXII). Fine Sgraffito Ware (photo: J. Vroom). Late Sgraffito Ware (after Talbot Rice 1930, pl. I). Shapes of Late Sgraffito Wares (after Dark 2001, fig. 65). Iznik Ware (photo: Benaki Museum, Athens). Shapes of Iznik Ware (after Atasoy & Raby 1989, 38). Early Modern Wares (photo: Folkoristic Museum Larissa). Display of Early Modern ceramics in a traditional Greek household (after Korre-Zographou 1995).

Fig. 4.1

Map of Boeotia with approximately the size of the two research areas, including research area A (e.g. Valley of the Muses) and research area B (Hyettos area). Intensive survey area in the Valley of the Muses, Boeotia (photo: J. Vroom). Beginning of the description of the households of the village of Panaya in Boeotia. T.D. 35 from 1506 AD. Example of a Mufassal Tahrir (by courtesy of M. Kiel). Portrait of the British traveller George Wheler (1650-1723 AD), Durham Cathedral, Durham, 1696 AD (by courtesy of Durham Cathedral).

Fig. 4.2 Fig. 4.3 Fig. 4.4

Figs. 5.1a-b Fig. 5.2 Fig. 5.3 Fig. 5.4 Fig. 5.5 Fig. 5.6 Fig. 5.7 Fig. 5.8

Location of 30 selected sites in Boeotia with Medieval and Post-Medieval finds, including research area A (Valley of the Muses) and research area B (Hyettos area). Agia Eleousa (site 1) – (photo: J. Vroom). Lower Archondiki (site 2) – (photo: J. Vroom). Askra (site 4) – (photo: J. Vroom). Askra: church (site 4) – (photo: J. Vroom). Charmena (site 5) – (photo: J. Vroom). CN3: church (site 6) – (photo: J. Vroom). CN4 (site 7) – (photo: J. Vroom).

11

Fig. 5.9 Fig. 5.10 Fig. 5.11 Fig. 5.12 Fig. 5.13 Fig. 5.14 Fig. 5.15 Fig. 5.16 Fig. 5.17 Fig. 5.18 Fig. 5.19 Fig. 5.20 Fig. 5.21 Fig. 5.22 Fig. 5.23 Fig. 5.24 Fig. 5.25 Fig. 5.26 Fig. 5.27 Fig. 5.28

CN4: building (site 7) – (photo: J. Vroom). Haliartos B6: tower (site 11) – (photo: J. Vroom). Hyettos (site 12) – (photo: J. Vroom). Ipsilantis: tower (site 13) – (photo: J. Vroom). Klimataria (site 14) – (photo: J. Vroom). Mavrokambos (site 15) – (photo: J. Vroom). Mavromati North (site 16) – (photo: J. Vroom). Mavromati North: church (site 16) – (photo: J. Vroom). Neochori 1-3 (site 18) – (photo: J. Vroom). Palaiomazi (site 19) – (photo: J. Vroom). PP16: church (site 20) – (photo: J. Vroom). Paralimni: tower (site 21) – (photo: J. Vroom). Rhadon: church (site 22) – (photo: J. Vroom). Tatiza (site 23) – (photo: J. Vroom). Thespiae (site 24) – (photo: J. Vroom). Engraving of Thespiae, ca. 1805 AD (after Dodwell 1834). Upper Haliartos 1: church (site 27) – (photo: J. Vroom). VM4: tower (site 28) – (photo: J. Vroom). VM4: interior chimney of tower (site 28) – (photo: J. Vroom). VM67: church (site 30) – (photo: J. Vroom).

Fig. 6.1

W1.1: African Red Slip Ware (1:2); W1.2-1.4: Askra Ware (by courtesy of J. Hayes); W1.5: Askra Ware from Thebes (photo: J. Vroom). W2.1, W2a.1 (1:2); W4.Ex.1-8: Unglazed Beehives (after Crane 1983). W3.1; W3a.1 (1:3); W5.1-2 (1:2). W6.1-8 (1:2). W7.1-7 (1:2). W7.8-14, W8.1 (1:2). W12.1-5 (1:2). W13.1-4, W14.1-4 (1:2). W14.5-16 (1:2). W14.17-23 (1:2). W14.24-27 (1:2). W14.28-31 (1:2). W14.32-34 (1:2). W23.1-2; W38.2-5 (1:2). W40.3-8 (1:2). W42.2-3, W44.2, W47.1, W45.1 (1:2).

Fig. 6.2 Fig. 6.3 Fig. 6.4 Fig. 6.5 Fig. 6.6 Fig. 6.7 Fig. 6.8 Fig. 6.9 Fig. 6.10 Fig. 6.11 Fig. 6.12 Fig. 6.13 Fig. 6.14 Fig. 6.15 Fig. 6.16

List of colour figures Fig. 6.17 W9.1-6 (1:2). W9.7-8 (1:3); W9.9-12 (1:2). Fig. 6.18 W10.1-6 (1:2). Fig. 6.19 W10.7-11 (1:2). Fig. 6.20 Fig. 6.21 W10.12-16 (1:2). W11.1, W11.3 (1:2); W11.2, W11.4-5 (1:3). Fig. 6.22 W15.1-6 (1:2). Fig. 6.23

12

Fig. 6.24 Fig. 6.25 Fig. 6.26 Fig. 6.27 Fig. 6.28 Fig. 6.29 Fig. 6.30 Fig. 6.31 Fig. 6.32 Fig. 6.33 Fig. 6.34 Fig. 6.35 Fig. 6.36 Fig. 6.37 Fig. 6.38 Fig. 6.39

W15.7-8 (1:3); W15.9-12 (1:2). W16.1-5 (1:2). W17.1-6 (1:2). W18.1-2, W19.1-2, W20.1-3 (1:2). W24.1-6 (1:2). W25.1-9 (1:2). W26.1-6 (1:2). W26.7-11 (1:2). W27.1-5, W22.1 (1:2); W27.6-7 (1:1). W28.1-7 (1:2). W29.1-2 (1:2); W29.3-4 (1:3). W30.1-2, W31-4 (1:2). W31.5-7 (1:2). W32.1, W34.2, W35.1-7 (1:2); W32.2 (1:1). W36.1 (1:1); W 36.2, W37.1, W39.1-2, W40.1-2, W41.1 (1:2). W42.1 (1:3); W48.1-2, W43.1-2, W44.1, W46.1 (1:2).

List of photographs Fig. 6.40 W2.1, W3.2, W4.1, W8.1; W5.Ex: Fine Orange-Red Burnished Ware (Ware 5) from Thebes (photo’s: J. Vroom); W6.Ex: Unglazed Incised jar (Ware 6) from Thessaloniki (after Papanikola-Bakirtzis, 1999, 17). W9.13-14, W10.17, W11.6 (photo’s: J. Vroom); W12.Ex: Günsenin 3/Saraçhane 61 amphora (Ware 12) Fig. 6.41 (by courtesy of N. Günsenin). Fig. 6.42 W13.2-3, W13.5, W15.13-18; W13.Ex: ‘Otranto 1’ amphora (Ware 13) from Butrint, Albania (photo’s: J. Vroom). W15.19-20, W18.3, W21.1, W22.2, W26.13 (photo’s: J. Vroom). Fig. 6.43 W26.14-16, W30.3; W28.Ex: Maiolica from Greece (Ware 28), found at Thebes (photo’s: J. Vroom); Fig. 6.44 W26.Ex: Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware (Ware 26) (after Makropolou 1995, pl. 31.55). W30.4-6, W31.8, W33.1, W34.1; W31.Ex: Painted Ware (Ware 31), found at Thebes (photo: J. Vroom). Fig. 6.45 W37.1, W38.1; W38.Ex1: Lid of storage jar (Ware 38) from Metheora (photo: J. Vroom); W38.Ex2: Fig. 6.46 Unglazed Domestic jug (Ware 38) from Thebes (photo’s: J. Vroom); W37.Ex: Smoking of chibouk tobacco pipe (Ware 37) (after Robinson 1985). W32.1, W42.2, W46.1 (photo’s: J. Vroom); W40.Ex: Grottaglie Ware (Ware 40) (after Korre-Zographou Fig. 6.47 1995, fig. 185); W47.Ex: Olive jars from Marousi, Attica (Ware 47), 1930 (after Korre-Zographou 1995, fig. 401); Nine Men’s Morris game on Medieval tile fragment from site VM4 (photo: J.Vroom). Fig. 7.1 Fig. 7.2

‘Kufic script’ in a wall of the Monastery of Hosios Loukas (photo: J. Vroom). Frescoes in crypt of the Monastery of Hosios Loukas (photo: J. Vroom).

Fig. 8.1 Fig. 8.2

Location of the most important places and routes mentioned in the text (after Koder & Hild 1976). Painting of the town of Thebes by Hugh William Williams (1773-1829 AD), ca. 1819 AD (after Tsigakou 1995, pl. 12). Painting of the town of Livadheia by William Walker (1780-1863 AD), ca. 1804 AD (after Tolias 1995, fig. 29). Engraving of the port of Negroponte in the Turkish period (after Koder 1973). View of the port of Anthedon (photo: J. Vroom). Miniature of bucolic scenes in the Middle Byzantine era, Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzos, Bibl. Nat. Cod. Gr. 533 (fol 34v), Paris, 11th century (after Galavaris 1969, pl. XIV).

Fig. 8.3 Fig. 8.4 Fig. 8.5 Fig. 8.6

13

Fig. 8.7 Fig. 8.8

Fig. 8.12 Fig. 8.13

Engraving of travellers during the Turkish period (after Tolias 1995, fig. 45). Transport by ship in the MByz era; Mosaic, Cathedral of Monreale, Palermo, 12th century (after Meyer 1952, pl. IX). Miniature of women spinning and weaving, Book of Job, 11th century (after Mathews 1998, 82). Miniature of merchants in Constantinople, Le livre des merveilles, Bibl. Nat. Paris, 15th century. Painting of the Marketplace (Bazaar) in Athens by Eduard Dodwell (1767-1832 AD), ca. 1801/1805-6 AD (after Tsigakou 1995, pl. 6). Modern fair (panigiri) in Thebes (photo: J. Vroom). Engraving of Ioannis Stamou Khondrodimas or Logothetis by Louis Dupré, ca. 1825 (after Dupré 1825).

Fig. 9.1 Fig. 9.2 Fig. 9.3 Fig. 9.4 Fig. 9.5 Fig. 9.6 Fig. 9.7 Fig. 9.8 Fig. 9.9 Fig. 9.10 Fig. 9.11 Fig. 9.12 Fig. 9.13

Kiln fragment from site VM4 in Boeotia (photo: J. Vroom). Engraving of a Medieval potter by Jost Amman (1539-1591 AD) (after Bidon 1986, fig. 3). Potter’s clay of pottery workshop (photo: J. Vroom). Throwing of traditional pottery (photo: J. Vroom). Painting of traditional pottery (photo: J. Vroom). Plan of Byzantine kiln at Corinth (after Morgan 1942, fig. 9). Clay tripod stilts (photo: J. Vroom). Vessels stacked with tripod stilts (after Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1992, fig. 17). Modern kiln with recycled pithoi in wall (after Korre-Zographou 1995, fig. 447). Potter’s workshop in Dardanelles, ca. 1903 AD (after Korre-Zographou 2000, fig. 8). Plan of traditional potter’s workshop in the village of Kentri, Crete (after Blitzer 1984, fig. 18.3-4). Traditional pots waiting for distribution in harbour of Skopelos, 1947 (after Korre-Zographou 1995, fig. 390). Modern distribution of traditional pottery (photo: J. Vroom).

Fig. 8.9 Fig. 8.10 Fig. 8.11

Fig. 10.1a-c Byzantine sherds from Boeotia with small repair holes (photo’s: J. Vroom). Recycling of a pithos as a chimney (photo: J. Vroom). Fig. 10.2 Fig. 10.3 Recycling of two half pithoi as flowerpots (photo: J. Vroom). Engraving of a Maiolica kiln in N. Piccolpasso’s treatise The Three Books of the Potter’s Art, ca. 1557 AD (after Fig. 10.4 Lightbown & Caiger-Smith 1980). Maiolica plate from Caffaggiolo of a pottery painter and his clients, ca. 1525 AD (after Thornton 1997, fig. 1). Fig. 10.5 Fig. 10.6 Miniature of the guild of potters showing a pottery atelier before Sultan Murad III, Topkapi Palace Museum Library, H 1344 (fol 405b), ca. 1582 AD (after Atasou & Raby 1989, fig. 42). Miniature of a fruit seller’s shop with Iznik pottery, Topkapi Palace Museum Library, H. 1711 (fol 14a), Fig. 10.7 1595-1603 AD (after Atasoy & Raby 1989, fig. 11). Fig. 11.1 Fig. 11.2 Fig. 11.3 Fig. 11.4 Fig. 11.5 Fig. 11.6 Fig. 11.7 Fig. 11.8

14

‘Fractio Panis’ fresco, Capella Graeca, Catacomb of Priscilla, Rome, ca. end 2nd-mid 4th (?) century (after Jastrebowska 1979, fig. 3). ‘Banquet of the seven pious priests’ fresco, Catacomb of Vibia, Rome, 2nd half of the 4th century (after Wilpert 1903, pl. 133). ‘Banquet of gladiators’ mosaic, Thysdrus (El Djem), Museé National du Bardo, Tunis, ca. 220-250 AD (after Salomonson 1960, fig. 1). Ivory diptych, Tesoro del Duomo, Milan, 5th century (after Dobbert 1891, fig. 18). Miniature, Bibl. Vaticana lat. 3867 (fol. 100v), Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Rome, late 5th century. Mosaic, Basilica San Apollinare Nuovo, Ravenna, ca. 500 AD (after Dobbert 1891, fig. 19). Miniature, Archivescovado Codex Purpureus Tetraevang. (fol 3r), Rossano (after Dobbert 1891, fig. 22). ‘Story of Joseph’ miniature, Ashburnham (or Tours) Pentateuch, Bibl. Nationale lat. 2334 (fol. 44), Paris, ca. late 6th-early 7th century (after Weitzman 1979).

Fig. 11.9 Fig. 11.10 Fig. 11.11 Fig. 11.12 Fig. 11.13 Fig. 11.14 Fig. 11.15 Fig. 11.16 Fig. 11.17 Fig. 11.18 Fig. 11.19 Fig. 11.20 Fig. 11.21 Fig. 11.22 Fig. 11.23 Fig. 11.24 Fig. 11.25 Fig. 11.26 Fig. 11.27 Fig. 11.28 Fig. 11.29 Fig. 11.30 Fig. 11.31 Fig. 11.32 Fig. 11.33 Fig. 11.34 Fig. 11.35 Fig. 11.36 Fig. 11.37 Fig. 12.1 Fig. 12.2 Fig. 12.3

‘Pharaoh’s Meal’ miniature, Nat. Libr. Theol. Graec. 31 (fol. XVII, 34), Vienna, 6th century (after Wickhoff 1895, pl. A and XXXIV). Miniature, Bibl. Publica Petropol.Gr. 21 Lectionary, St. Petersburg, 9th century (after Dobbert 1891, fig. 23). Miniature, Historical Museum Add.gr. 129 Chuldov Ps., Moscow, 2nd half 9th century (after Dobbert 1892, fig. 31). Copy of fresco, Bibl.Vaticana lat. 9071 (fol. 237), Vatican, ca. 8th or 10th ? century (after Dobbert 1891, fig. 24). Miniature, British Libr. Add. 19352 Theodore Ps. (fol. 50v), London, ca. 1066 AD (after Dobbert 1892, fig. 32). Miniature, Bibl. Nationale gr. 74 Tetraevang. (fol. 82), Paris, (3rd quarter of the) 11th century (after Omont 1908). Miniature, Bibl. Nationale gr. 74 Tetraevang. (fol. 69), Paris, (3rd quarter of the) 11th century (after Omont 1908). Miniature, Gospel of Queen Melisende, British. Libr. Egerton 1139 Ps. (fol. 6r), London, begin 12th century (after Millet 1916, fig. 279). Miniature of Job’s Children, St. Catherine’s Monastery gr. 3 (fol. 17v), Sinai, 11th century (after Weitzman & Galavaris 1990, 37). Enamel, Pala d’ Oro, San Marco, Venice, ca. 1105 AD (after Hahnloser & Palacco 1994, pl. 31). Miniature, Nat. Libr. 93 Tetraevang. (fol. 175v), Athens, (2nd half of the) 12th century (after Delatte 1926, 82f.). Fresco, Sophie Cathedral, Kiev, ca. 1045 AD (after Dobbert 1892, fig. 44). Miniature, Monastery in Gelati Tetraevang., Georgia, 11th century (after Dobbert 1892, fig. 37). Miniature, Bibl. Vaticana Barb gr. 372 Barberini Ps. (fol. 68r), Vatican, mid 11th century (after Millet 1916, fig. 278). Fresco, Crypt of Hosios Loukas, Phokis, 11th century (photo: J. Vroom). Miniature, Djroutchi Tetraevang. (fol. 68v), Georgia, 11th century (after Millet 1916, fig. 270). Fresco, San Angelo, Formis, Capua, 11th century (after Sandberg-Vavalá 1929, fig. 159). Fresco, Panaghia Phorbiotissa, Asinou, Cyprus, begin 12th century (after Sacopoulou 1966, pl. 8). Fresco, Karanlik Kilise, Göreme, Cappadocia, ca. 1200-1210 AD (after Restle 1967, II, 235). Miniature in a croce dipinta, Museo Nazionale di San Matteo, Pisa, ca. 12th-13th century (after SandbergVavalá 1929, fig. 164). Fresco, Dohariou Monastery, Athos, 14th century. Enamel in diptychon, Chilandar, late 13th century (after Huber 1973, pl. 9). Fresco by Duccio, Opera del Duono, Siena, 1308-11 AD. Icon of the Hospitality of Abraham, Benaki Museum, Athens, 14th century (photo: Benaki Museum, Athens). Miniature, Bibl. Ambrosiana D67 sup. (fol 79v), Milan, 12th-13th century (after Cipriani 1968, 28). Fresco, St. Nikita, Chucer, Macedonia, ca. 1315 AD. Miniature, Bibl. Nationale gr. 54 Tetraevang., Paris, 13th century (after Millet 1916, fig. 277). Fresco, St. Andrew, near Skopje, Macedonia, 1389 AD (after Bihalji-Merin 1960, 65). Fresco, Bojana, 1259 AD (after Boschkov 1969, 46). Portrait of the Flemish traveller and diplomat Augerius Busbequius by Melchior Lorck, Royal Museum for Fine Arts, Copenhagen, 1557 AD (after Von Martel 1994). Frontpage of the Turkish Cookery Book (after Turâbî Efendi 1862; rev. ed. 1996). Miniature by Levni, Surnâme-i Vehbi, Topkapi Palace Museum Library (fol 73b), 1712 AD (Arsel 1996, 81).

15

Fig. 12.4 Fig. 12.5 Fig. 12.6 Fig. 12.7 Fig. 12.8 Fig. 12.9 Fig. 12.10 Fig. 12.11 Fig. 12.12 Fig. 12.13 Fig. 12.14 Fig. 12.15 Fig. 12.16

16

Miniature by Levni, Surnâme-i Vehbi, Topkapi Palace Museum Library (fol 50a), 1712 AD (after Arsel 1996, 103). Engraving with Ottoman dining scene, 1608 AD (after Schweiger 1608). Icon of the Life of Saint Alexios by Stefanos Tzankarolas, Antivouniotissa Museum, Corfu, Post 1571 AD (photo: Antivouniotissa Museum, Corfu). Icon of Hospitality of Abraham, Zakinthos Museum, Zakinthos (photo: J. Bintliff). Icon of Hospitality of Abraham from Zakinthos, Benaki Museum, Athens, 18th century (photo: Benaki Museum, Athens). Icon of the Birth of Saint John the Baptist by Tamazo Tzen, Monastery of Saint John, Livadia, Levka, 1st half of the 18th century (photo: J. Vroom). Cutlery set of steel, gold damascening, Sadberk Hanim Museum, Istanbul, mid 18th century (after SHM, 100) Painting of a banquet at Yildiz Palace by S∏efik, Istanbul Museum of Painting and Sculpture, Istanbul, late 19th-early 20th century (after Arsel 1996, 58). Engraving of Voivode of Athens by Louis Dupré, ca. 1825 AD (after Dupré 1825). Lithograph by Gille based on the design of Otto M. von Stackelberg (1787-1837 AD), Benaki Museum, Athens, ca. 1831 AD (after Dimitsantou-Kremezi 1984, fig. 49). Miniature of an Iznik dish, University Library, Istanbul, T. 6043 (fol 11b), 1586 AD (after Atasoy & Raby 1989, fig. 14). Miniature of a Kütahya coffee cup and saucer, Topkapi Palace Museum Library, H. 2164 (fol 12a), early 18th century (after Atasoy & Raby 1989, fig. 20). Portrait of the British traveller Lady Mary Wortley Montagu (1709-1762 AD) (after Jack 1993).

list of tables Table 1.1

Chronological divisions of the Post-Roman ceramics of the Boeotia Project.

Table 5.1

Complete list of sites in Boeotia with Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery: All sites with Post-Roman finds sampled in the course of the Boeotia Project. Selected list of Boeotian sites with Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery: Sites featured in the catalogue on the basis of diagnostic wares in survey samples. Sample type per site size of the selected 30 Boeotian sites. Diagnostic sherds per period (2779 in total; found on 30 Boeotian sites).

Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table 6.6 Table 6.7 Table 6.8A Table 6.8B Table 6.9 Table 6.10 Table 6.11 Table 6.12 Table 6.13

List of 48 diagnostic wares found on the Boeotian sites. Amounts of diagnostic wares at 30 selected Boeotian sites and their concentration in all periods. Percentages of wares in Late Roman-Early Byzantine period (colour plate). Percentages of wares in Middle Byzantine period (colour plate). Percentages of wares in Late Byzantine/Frankish period (colour plate). Percentages of wares in Turkish period (colour plate). Percentages of wares in Early Modern period (colour plate). Horizontal chronology I: 48 discussed wares of the Boeotian samples. Horizontal chronology II: pottery chronology per site. The frequency and provenance of wares of the Late Roman – Early Byzantine period (ca. 7th-9th centuries) on the Boeotian sites. The frequency and provenance of wares of the Middle Byzantine period (ca. 10th-late 12th/early 13th centuries) on the Boeotian sites. The frequency and provenance of wares of the Late Byzantine/Frankish period (ca. 13th-mid 15th centuries) on the Boeotian sites. The frequency and provenance of wares of the Turkish period (ca. late 15th-18th centuries) on the Boeotian sites. The frequency and provenance of wares of the Early Modern period (ca. 19th-mid 20th centuries) on the Boeotian sites.

Table 7.4 Table 7.5 Table 7.6 Table 7.7

Percentages of glazed and unglazed wares in Hyettos and Askra (main period: LR-EBYZ). Percentages of glazed wares and unglazed wares in CN3 and Neochori (1-3) (main period: MBYZ). Average diameters of vessels shapes from the Middle Byzantine period, from the Late Byzantine/Frankish period and from the Turkish period. Percentages of glazed and unglazed wares in VM4 and Rhadon (main period: LBYZ/F-ET). Types of pottery in Post-Roman Boeotia: functional analysis of the ceramics. Percentages of glazed and unglazed wares in Charmena and Mavromati North (main period: T-EMOD). Post-Roman ceramics in Boeotia: functional analysis.

Table 9.1

Peacock’s model of pottery production and distribution.

Table 10.1

Proportion of ceramic types found in each class of settlement in Liguria (after Mannoni & Mannoni 1975, fig. 3). Blake’s interpretation of the Ligurian material. Long-term economic cycles in Europe (after Braudel 1984 and Orton 1985). Economic ‘core’ zones and leading cities in the North-South poles (after Braudel 1984 and Orton 1985).

Table 7.1 Table 7.2 Table 7.3

Table 10.2 Table 10.3 Table 10.4

17

Table 10.5

Presentation of the Medieval and Post-Medieval ceramics found on the Boeotian sites according to Blake’s theory. Table 10.6 Total of diagnostic wares per period in total, on rural sites, on ‘urban’ sites and on tower sites. Modified model of economic ‘core’ zones and leading cities in the East-West poles in the Mediterranean. Table 10.7 Table 10.8a-bModel of technological innovation in European and Near Eastern ceramics, modified for the ceramics found in Boeotia (after Braudel 1984 and Orton 1985). Blake’s theory and the ceramics found in Boeotia. Table 10.9 Table 10.10 Orton’s theory and the ceramics found in Boeotia, based on the Braudelian cycles in the Mediterranean. Table 10.11 Prices of Iznik Ware and Kütahya Ware in a 1600 AD list. Table 10.12 Wallerstein’s differences in core areas and periphery areas. Table 11.1

Dining habits and pottery shapes: Late Roman – Early Byzantine to Late Byzantine/Frankish periods.

Table 12.1

Table 12.6

Account list of food consumption in imaret of Sultan Selim II in Konya, 1594-1601 AD (after Faroqhi 1984, table 33). Ten most used ingredients in Turkish cuisine. Spices used in Turkish cuisine. Herbs used in Turkish cuisine. Differences between Eastern and Western dining habits on 16th to the 18th century pictures from the Aegean. Dining habits and pottery shapes: Turkish to Early Modern periods.

Table 13.1

Dining habits and pottery shapes: Late Roman – Early Byzantine to Early Modern periods.

Table 12.2 Table 12.3 Table 12.4 Table 12.5

18

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Since 1996, when I started my research, many people have given generously of their time and effort, and I would like to express my sincerest thanks to them. In the first place, I would like to thank the directors of the Boeotia Project, Prof. John Bintliff and Prof. Anthony Snodgrass, for inviting me to study and publish the Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery finds from their survey. Furthermore, I am greatly obliged to Prof. John Hayes and Prof. Machiel Kiel for sharing with me their expertise and valuable suggestions. I would like to extend my gratitude also to the following people and institutions in Greece: Dr. Guy Sanders, Dr. Charles Williams II and Dr. Nancy Bookidis at the American excavations in Corinth, who very generously took time to discuss the Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery from Corinth with me and showed and shared their findings during my visits to the site. At the American excavations in the Athenian Agora, Dr. John Camp and Dr. Jan Jordan deserve thanks for their help and co-operation in showing me material from Athens. Of the archaeologists who were helpful in showing the pottery from their projects, I gratefully mention here Prof. Timothy Gregory of the Isthmia excavations, Dr. Marcel Piérart of the Argos excavations, Prof. Richard Hodges of the British-Albanian excavations at Butrint and Dr. Kathy Hadzis of the Greek-Albanian excavations at Butrint, as well as Prof. Reinder Reinders of the Halos Project in Thessaly. Special thanks are due to the directors and staffs of the Netherlands Institute at Athens, of the British School at Athens and of the French School at Athens, who have been very helpful for getting permits and providing accommodation for my research in Greece. In Boeotia, I would like to thank most warmly Dr. Vassilis Aravantinos, Ephor of the 9th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, and Mrs. Charis Koilakou of the 1st Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities for their encouragement and support. I am also indebted to all the archaeologists and staff within the Thebes Museum for their help in facilitating my work in Boeotia. In particular, I would like to thank Joanna Galanaki, and especially Mina and Nikos Chatzis, and their two children Thanos and Georgios, who very generously offered me hospitality in their houses in Thebes and Thespiae. Furthermore, I would like to express my sincere gratitude towards those who were so kind to read sections of the manuscript and provided me with their valuable comments: Dr. Cyprian Broodbank, Archie Dunn, Prof. Richard Hodges, Prof. David Jacoby, Prof. John Hayes, Prof. Machiel Kiel, Dr. Evangelia Kiriatzi, Dr. Paul Reynolds, Dr. Hedda Reindl-Kiel, Dr. Leonard Rutgers and Dr. Ioannis Spatharakis. Among the many colleagues who showed me their finds, shared their views with me and with whom I had stimulating discussions about pottery or dining habits, I wish to mention: Pamela Armstrong-Catling, Prof. Paul Arthur, Dr. Uzi Baram, Dr. Graziella Berti, Dr. Hugo Blake, Dr. Will Bowden, Dr. Duncan Brown, Dr. Daniela Cottica, Efi Dafi, Dr. Veronique François, Dr. David Gaimster, Prof. Sauro Gelichi, Dr. Fokke Gerritsen, Dr. Sharon Gerstel, Dr. Michael Given, Dr. Gilles Grivaud, Dr. Nergis Günsenin, Dr. Alan Harvey, Dr. Hellen Hatcher, Dr. Allan Johnston, Dr. Olga Karagiorgou, Prof. Ewald Kislinger, Prof. Johannes Koder, Dr. Franziska Lang, Dr. Peter Lock, Dr. Gloria London, Elvana Metalla, Dr. Clive Orton, Dr. Tassos Papacostas, Dr. Dimitra Papanikola-Bakirtzis, Dr. Maria Parani, Dr. Hellen Patterson, Dr. Platon Petridis, Prof. Marcus Rautman, Dr. Michael Rogers, Dr. Mats Roslund, Anja Salm, Dr. St. John Simpson, Stephania Skartsis, Prof. Jean-Paul Sodini, Edna Stern, Dr. Paula Tagliente, Dr. Eleni Tsougarakis, Alexandra van Dongen, Prof. Johanna Maria van Winter, Dr. Marie-Louise von Wartburg Maier, Dr. Yona Waksman, Dr. Oliver Watson, Dr. Hugh Willmott and Dr. Filiz Yenis∏ ehirliog©lu. I would also like to thank the following colleagues of the Boeotia Project with whom I worked during my stays in the Likouresi Monastery: Jo Bell, Dr. Oliver Dickinson, Sebastian Fuller, Dr. Mark Gillings, Kostas and Eleni Papagiannopoulos, Dr. Kalliope Sarri, Dr. Kostas Sbonias, Dr. Robert Shiel, Leftheris Sigalos, Dr. Paul Spoerry and Athana-

19

sios Vionis. The students of the Universities of Bradford, Durham and Cambridge, who collected the ceramic finds in Boeotia and who helped me with the pottery drawings, deserve a place of their own. The inking and colouring of the pottery drawings in chapter 6 are the work of Erick van Driel of the University of Leiden and Yvonne Beadnell of the University of Durham. Medy Oberendorff and Johan van Triest of the University of Leiden have provided assistance in the preparation of the maps and pottery drawings for publication. Steven Boland was responsible for the final lay-out; Lujet Heijne for the Greek summary. All are gratefully thanked. My research was supported financially by the Leverhulme Foundation (UK). In addition, I received grants from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), from the Skilliter Centre for Ottoman Studies at the University of Cambridge (UK) and from the Ernst-Kirsten-Gesellschaft (G). Last but not least, I would like to express my very warm and special thanks to Sebastiaan Bommeljé, who has contributed in so many inspiring ways to the completion and editing of this book. He, my dear family and all my close friends helped me through the darkest hours of despair, which are familiar to everybody who sets out at the lonely adventure of writing an archaeological study such as this.

20

INTRODUCTION – AIM AND SCOPE OF THIS BOOK

The aim of this book is to present and discuss a substantial collection of Medieval and Post-Medieval ceramics from Boeotia in Central Greece. This collection was sampled in the course of the Boeotia Project under the direction of Prof. Anthony Snodgrass (University of Cambridge) and Prof. John Bintliff (University of Bradford, University of Durham; now University of Leiden). The Boeotia Project started in 1978 and yielded in the two following decades of fieldwork seasons of intensive survey a vast ceramic collection, of which 74 samples of pottery dating from ca. the 7th up to the 20th centuries after Christ make up only a relatively small part.[1 ] These 74 Boeotian samples contain a total of some 12,000 Post-Roman sherds. The samples under discussion were selected from the field collection (and provisionally dated by Prof. John Hayes during his visits to the Boeotia Project in the 1980s). Not all samples were the result of intensive survey, as on some Post-Roman sites outside the core areas of research only ‘diagnostic judgement’ sampling (collecting of grab samples) was undertaken. Although all 12,000 Post-Roman fragments have been handled by me, only the diagnostic sherds (ca. 2800, or 23% of the total amount of Post-Roman fragments) are discussed and presented in this book.[2 ] In most archaeological projects in the Mediterranean, the awareness of the importance of ceramic finds from the Medieval and Post-Medieval periods has increased dramatically over the last ten years, but the diagnosis of this Post-Roman pottery is still severely hampered by a lack of knowledge and of up-to-date publications. This book sets out to make a contribution to our understanding of Medieval and Post-Medieval ceramics in the Aegean area by presenting a typochronological catalogue of the finds in Boeotia, and by discussing various archaeological, as well as socioeconomic, cultural and historical problems related to these ceramics. In the first part of this book, the ‘Post-Roman Ceramics in the Aegean: Problems and Possibilities’, three subjects

will be treated. First, I will sketch the main problems related to chronology and terminology of Post-Roman ceramics in the Eastern Mediterranean in general, and in the Aegean in particular. Secondly, a general survey of earlier publications on Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery in the Aegean will be presented. Here I will discuss questions such as: what is the history of research of Medieval and Post-Medieval ceramics in the Aegean area? In doing so, I will focus my attention mainly on those publications which have been crucial for methodological advances or the opening-up of new material. Thirdly, an attempt will be made to construct on the basis of the existing literature the current typo-chronological state of knowledge per period, beginning in chronological order with the Early Byzantine period (ca. 7th-9th centuries) and ending in Early Modern times (ca. 19th-mid 20th centuries). In particular, I will look at the question of how the Post-Roman ceramics, found in a stratigraphical context on large excavations in the Aegean, have been characterized, described and dated in earlier publications. That is to say: in publications prior to 1996, the year I started my research on the Boeotian material. In the second part of this book, ‘The Ceramics Found in Boeotia: the Typo-chronological Perspective’, the focus will switch to the Boeotian situation. Here I will address questions such as: what has been published on Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery in Boeotia? Are these publications of relevance for the classification of the survey ceramics collected by the Boeotia Project? I will discuss here also the well-known problems relating to working with surface ceramics in field surveys, and in particular the problem of visibility of the wares. The final section of this part is dedicated to the formulation of a perspective to overcome these problems, or: the proposal for a ‘horizontal chronology’ of the ceramics. Next in this second part of the book is a presentation of the diagnostic ceramic finds from a selection of PostRoman sites in Boeotia. It concerns a catalogue of 30 of

21

the most important site-samples of the total of 74 sites on which Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery was found during the field survey of the Boeotia Project. The sitesamples discussed here are the ones containing the diagnostic wares used for the assembling of the ‘horizontal chronology’ of Post-Roman ceramics in Boeotia from circa the 7th to the mid 20th century. The discussion will be restricted, however, to the analysis of the diagnostic surface ceramics; I will not engage in discussions about the definition of sites or the nature of sites in archaeological field research (the designation ‘site’ here merely signifies ‘find spot’ of ceramic material). Following the presentation of the diagnostic sitesamples an effort is made to combine the ceramic data from all the studied sites in a regional typo-chronological classification, and to present the diagnostic types of PostRoman pottery found on the Boeotian sites. To that purpose I use a classification system for the entire period under study (ca. 7th century to mid 20th century) which encompasses 48 different wares. This classification system is designed especially for the presentation of the wares found in Boeotia under study, and is an effort to incorporate the latest views on the 48 wares discussed in this part of the book. As the system is based on the Boeotian samples only, it does not encompass, however, all the Post-Roman wares known from the Aegean area. In addition, attention will be given in this part of the book to the changes in shapes and decoration of the ceramics found in Boeotia (especially the tablewares) through time. I will try to explain these changes and how they are related. Here a more detailed analysis of the pottery itself is attempted in an effort to establish a relationship between changing pottery vessel shapes and changing pottery vessel function from Late Roman times onwards. In the third part of this book, ‘The Ceramics Found in Boeotia: The Socio-Economic Perspective’, I will consider questions that go beyond the typo-chronological approach of the Medieval and Post-Medieval ceramics in Boeotia. In this part I will explore the socioeconomic and technological aspects of the pottery found in Boeotia. First, I will try, for instance, to establish whether it is possible to sketch the outlines of the socio-economic background in which the manufacture and distribution of ceramics in Medieval and Post-Medieval Boeotia took

22

place. For that purpose, I will mainly use the secondary literature, in which written sources on this subject are collected, discussed or summarized. Secondly, I will concentrate upon the local perspective of the production and distribution of pottery in Medieval and Post-Medieval Boeotia. This will be done on the basis of archaeological evidence, but also on the basis of textual sources as well as ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological information of traditional pottery production in Early Modern Greece and Cyprus. Thirdly, I will discuss the Boeotian material in a wider socio-economic perspective. I will try to discern the distribution patterns in which both locally produced and imported vessels were used within Boeotia. To this end, I will first discuss two main views of long-term changes in the technology of Medieval and PostMedieval ceramics in general. Furthermore, I will discuss the question whether it is possible to examine Boeotia as a ‘receiving centre’ for certain wares from internal and external sources in a wider Mediterranean perspective. I will focus on the processes of production, import and distribution of the tin-glazed wares in Boeotia from the 16th to the 18th century (e.g. Maiolica from Italy, Iznik and Kütahya Wares from Turkey) in an emerging ‘world-economy’. In the fourth part of this book, ‘The Cultural Perspective on Changing Vessel Shapes: A First Survey of the Evidence’, I will present a preliminary discussion of the use of table equipment (pottery and cutlery) from Late Roman to Early Modern times from the point of view of the Boeotian finds. In doing so, I will use two additional sources of information: pictorial representations of dining scenes and textual sources on pottery and pottery related subjects from ca. the 5th to the mid 20th centuries. In addition, I will try to integrate the information derived from the pictorial evidence and the written sources in an effort to shed some light on the cultural history of eating and drinking in Medieval and PostMedieval Greece. Specifically, I will look at the possible relationship between the archaeological artefacts and the history of food and dining habits in Central Greece during this period, in an attempt to begin to understand the interaction between long-term changes in shapes and technology on the one hand, and historical as well as cultural changes on the other hand.

Finally, in the fifth part of this book I will present a synthesis of the typo-chronological and functional analysis of the ceramics found in Boeotia and the socioeconomic and cultural approaches. Here, the question will be addressed whether a combination of these data permits some general observations regarding the Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery of Boeotia in particular, and of the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean in general.

notes 1. All the dates refer to the period after Christ, unless otherwise stated. In this text, I will therefore not use A.C. (‘After Christ’) after centuries, only after a specific historical date I will use AD (‘Anno Domini’) in order to avoid misunderstandings (e.g. 1204 AD), except for the 20th century and later. 2. With ‘diagnostic’ I mean that the sherd allows a more precise typo-chronological interpretation than ‘Post-Roman’ or ‘Medieval’ or ‘Post-Medieval’ in general.

23

1 – P O S T- R O M A N C E R A M I C S I N T H E A E G E A N A S A N A R C H A E O L O G I C A L P R O B L E M

,., Introduction Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery found in Greece has been little studied until now, and is rather seldom displayed in museums, as modern tourists may notice during their visits to the Aegean. As the traditional focus of archaeologists working in Greece has been on the material culture of Antiquity, the pots and pans of the Medieval inhabitants of Greece – such as the Franks, Venetians, Catalans, Albanians and Turks – have not always received the attention they deserve. In fact, until quite recently Post-Roman ceramics were treated in most excavations and surface surveys in the Aegean as the Cinderella of the project. ‘Digging through the Byz’ was the general device of archaeologists working in Greece – and perhaps it still is in some places.[1 ] This expression means literally what it says: removing as quickly as possible with heavy machinery the layers on top of the vessels and other precious remains of Antiquity or Prehistory. Even today, it still is standard procedure at some excavations in the Aegean to simply throw away all undecorated Medieval pottery which is considered to be in the way of ancient treasures. It is, therefore, perhaps small wonder that as recently as 1991 the archaeologist Timothy Gregory and the Byzantinist Alexander Kazhdan observed in the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium that ‘the study of Byzantine pottery is still well behind that of other periods in the history of the Mediterranean, in part because of a lack of interest and in part because of the paucity of stratigraphically excavated Byzantine sites necessary to the elucidation of ceramic chronologies. Pottery from critical periods, such as the ‘dark age’ of the 7th-8th century and the 14th-15th century, is poorly known and little studied’.[2 ] However, lately things have started to change, and the awareness has grown that the history of Greece did not grind to a halt at the time of the conquest of Greek lands by the Romans only to emerge out of something like a black hole with the War of Independence in 1821 AD. During the last two decades, new excavations, field

surveys, and groundbreaking new publications have opened up this vast period as a legitimate field of study. However, the growing interest in the Medieval and PostMedieval archaeology of the Aegean has also underlined once more the relative lack of knowledge about the typochronology of the material culture of this period, as well as the lack of a common terminology to describe and classify it. In this chapter I will discuss the main problems related to the chronology and terminology of PostRoman ceramics in the Eastern Mediterranean in general, and in Greece in particular. Attention will be paid to the traditional division of pottery types in conventional historical and/or art-historical periods, which do not always correspond with the time-scales of production and actual use of certain pottery types. I will argue, however, that although these traditional period labels are from an archaeological perspective often illfitting and sometimes quite confusing, it may be inescapable to use them in order to provide a chronological structure, especially in the case of a large collection of pottery covering an extensive time span such as discussed here.

,.-

Problems in chronology and terminology

1.2.1 problems of chronology and terminology for the earlier periods For archaeologists, the problem starts as soon as the term ‘Post-Roman’ is uttered. The knowledge of Post-Roman ceramics in the Eastern part of the Mediterranean has been and still is hampered by the poor knowledge of local (domestic) wares and the lack of published wellstratified contexts. The result is that nobody really knows where and when to begin. Therefore, one of the basic chronological problems which up to this date remains to be tackled, is the question when in terms of pottery types the Late Roman period ends and the Early Byzantine (or Early Christian) period begins.[3 ] That is to say that we often really do

25

not quite know how to distinguish with any degree of certainty Late Roman wares from Early Byzantine wares, when all we know is that many ‘Roman’ pottery techniques and features continued (or recurred) through the Early Medieval period in the Mediterranean. In addition, the terminology of the chronological phases causes confusion in itself. What is ‘Byzantine’ or ‘Early Christian’ supposed to mean in the Eastern Mediterranean area, and in Greece in particular? Pottery from the 4th to 7th century found at excavations in the East is generally labelled ‘Byzantine’. Here the term ‘Byzantine’ is used in relation to the foundation of Constantinople in 330 AD and the split between the Eastern and Western Roman Empire by the end of the 4th century. Elsewhere in the Mediterranean, however, the same wares are normally designated ‘Late Roman’ by those archaeologists who emphasize the continuity of this pottery with the Roman types. They argue that the term ‘Late Roman’ should be viewed here in cultural rather than in political terms, and they point to the stylistic influence of Roman Christianity on the pottery decoration. The term ‘Byzantine’ is usually reserved by these scholars exclusively for the period beginning with the widespread introduction of the lead-glazed wares, which were produced in the Mediterranean and the Near East from the 7th century onwards (see also Dunn 2000, 304 on this categorisation). The terminological indetermination does not contribute to a clear picture. For instance, for archaeologists working in the West the ‘Early Byzantine’ period starts only in the 6th century, whereas for their colleagues working in Palestine and Jordan the ‘Late Byzantine’ period already ends in the 6th century (with the loss of these Byzantine territories to the Persians and Arabs). However, these pottery date ranges as used in the Near East and in the West imply a perspective based mainly on political history. The actual styles and shapes in pottery tend to lag behind political changes, reacting more to the creation or extinction of markets (which are affected not only by political developments, but both by long-term socio-economic changes and by natural events in general such as plagues and earthquakes). Therefore, it is perhaps not particulary surprising that the most recent view of pottery developments in the East is that Roman-derived wares continued to be produced in the Near East through the Early Islamic/Umayyad period (661-750 AD), and that

26

Egyptian Red Slip Ware even continued well into the 9th century.[4 ] 1.2.2 problems of chronology and terminology for the later periods As far as the later periods under study (Middle Byzantine up to Modern period) are concerned, the standard period labels and use of terminology for ceramics has also created problems. For instance, the chronologies used by archaeologists, art-historians and historians for the later periods differ widely. For some, the Late Roman period (4th-7th century) already counts as ‘Medieval’, for others the Greek Middle Ages do not start until Ottoman times. In addition, there are those who wonder whether ‘Medieval’ is not a term defined from the perspective of the Western-European Renaissance and Reformation, and has less meaning in the Greek Orthodox world.[5 ] To add to the confusion, the designation ‘Byzantine’ is itself not without problematic cultural and political connotations.The British specialist in Byzantine art, Robin Cormack was perhaps not far off the mark when he stated: ‘The term may have caused more problems than it solved and may actually have marginalised the period in historical studies’ (Cormack 1997, 34). Another example is the term ‘Frankish’. Archaeologists have often used this term for 13th to 15th century pottery found in Greece. But one may wonder what does the term ‘Frankish pottery’ really mean? Is it pottery used and/or produced by Franks, who came as ‘Crusaders’ to Greek lands, or only a chronological definition for the material culture of the 13th to 15th century? Could it even be possible that the designation ‘Frankish’, so often used in the Greek context, creates in this respect as much clarity as confusion? The term ‘Frankish’ for 13th-15th century wares certainly causes confusion among Medieval archaeologists working with 5th-9th century Merovingian and Carolingian material from North-Western Europe, who are used to calling their finds ‘Frankish’. And they are not the only ones left wondering. The leading expert on Frankish Greece, Peter Lock, flatly states that the standard term ‘Frankish’ as a chronological synonym for Late Byzantine wares ‘may be diagnostically misleading in the field and not helpful in discussion of the penetration of either Greek markets or Greek minds by Medieval Western Europeans’ (Lock 1997, 309).[6 ]

Similar questions may even be raised in relation to the term ‘Roman’. The point is that, in general, archaeologists do not seem to have taken much notice from the confusion between 1) political regimes (Roman, Frankish, Ottoman) that do not relate to ethnicity, and 2) groups (Greeks, Albanians, Jews, Catalans, Sarakatsanoi, Vlachs etc.) living under these regimes that do relate to ethnicity, 3) the continuum of time that respects neither regime or ethnicity, and the pottery that can relate to all three. All these problems may leave the archaeologist working with Post-Roman pottery in Greece quite empty-handed as far as terminology is concerned. But it perhaps also serves as a reminder of the fact that pottery in certain regions has its own rhythm of change, and does not necessarily obey the chronological schemes and schedules of historians and archaeologists. Historical events such as the fall of Constantinople in 1204 AD and the creation of Latin states in Greece did not neatly coincide with the appearance in the Aegean of pottery types such as ‘Latin’, ‘Venetian’, ‘Genoese’, or a century later ‘Catalan’, even though these groups were appearing in Greek territory. 1.2.3 post-roman chronology: a new proposal for the ceramics from boeotia As stated above, there exists at this moment no standard terminology or chronology for the Post-Roman pottery in the Aegean area. The chronological divisions used here (Late Roman-Early Byzantine; Middle Byzantine; Late Byzantine/Frankish; Turkish; Early Modern; Modern) reflect an effort to classify ceramic groups with clear stylistic and technological similarities under more or less conventional period labels. The problem here is of course that one cannot escape the connotations attached to these conventional designations. It should be emphasized therefore that much more important than these period labels, are the actual datings per pot type. I have contemplated whether to use only centuries in discussing the chronology of the ceramics from Boeotia without the larger period labels (as dates lack the historical and cultural connotations attached to traditional chronological terms), but I decided that because this study covers such an extensive time span, it was unavoidable to use some sort of overall chronological structure for the sake of clarity. However, it should be underlined once more that the chronology of ceramics does not stop or begin at historical or

political boundaries: the relation between changes in pottery on the one hand and the events and long-term developments of history on the other hand is much more complicated than that. Also, it should perhaps be noted that some of the preliminary period labels used by John Hayes during his initial dating of the pottery found by the Boeotia Project (e.g. ‘Middle-Late Byzantine’, ‘(Late) Frankish-(Early) Turkish’), will not be used here – as Hayes himself did not use these terms in any of his publications. The detailed study of the pottery from Boeotia – which was immensely helped by Hayes’ initial dating – has enabled me to establish a more detailed typo-chronology of the wares, so that they can be assigned with more certainty to more clearly defined stylistic groups. This study covers the period from ca. the 7th to the mid 20th century. I will use the term ‘Medieval’ whenever I refer to the time span from the 7th to the mid-15th centuries. This designation seems fitted to cover this fragmented period in Greek history and is also intended to put the discussion of the pottery in the wider context of Medieval Europe. The term ‘Post-Medieval’ is used here as a general designation for the period of Ottoman rule and the Early Modern era in Greece (i.e. from the mid 15th up to the mid 20th century). This research into the ceramic finds from Boeotia starts with the 7th century for the simple reason that John Hayes has ended his catalogue of the Roman ceramics in the 6th century. He suggests that the major break in Roman pottery tradition occurred in Greece in the 7th century, when the first lead-glazed wares produced in Constantinople started to appear (J.Hayes, pers. comm.; see also Hayes 1993). Furthermore, the Arab invasions of the Near East (e.g. the fall of Cyprus in 653/4 AD) and of Northern Africa (e.g. the fall of Carthage in 698 AD) caused clear breaks in the production and circulation of pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean. So the term ‘Early Byzantine’ refers to pottery produced and used in the period between approximately the 7th and 9th centuries. After the 9th century, major changes in pottery types occurred in Boeotia. The term ‘Middle Byzantine’ refers to these new styles of pottery produced and used between circa the 10th and the late 12th/early 13th centuries. Notwithstanding its shortcomings as an archaeolog-

27

Late Roman period

= ca. 250 – 600 AD

Early Byzantine period

= ca. 7th – 9th centuries A.C.

Middle Byzantine period

= ca. 10th – late 12th/early 13th centuries A.C.

Late Byzantine/Frankish period

= ca. 13th – mid 15th centuries A.C.

Turkish period

= ca. late 15th – 18th centuries A.C.

Early Modern period

= ca. 19th – mid 20th centuries A.C.

Modern period

= ca. mid 20th century A.C. – .....

Table 1.1 Chronological division of the Post-Roman ceramics of the Boeotia Project.

ical designation for pottery types, I will use for practical reasons the combined term ‘Late Byzantine/Frankish’ as a typo-chronological term. The word ‘Frankish’ refers to the period of Frankish and Catalan domination in Central Greece (ca. 1204-1460 AD); whereas the term ‘Late Byzantine’ is rather an art-historical term for the material culture in Greece (especially Northern Greece) during the same period, although it is not always appropriate for Boeotia. I will use the combined term ‘Late Byzantine/Frankish’ as a general label for pottery produced and used from ca. the 13th up to the mid 15th century, which is stylistically different from ‘Middle Byzantine’ wares. The designation ‘ Turkish’ refers to pottery dating from approximately the late 15th century to the 18th century. The subdivisions ‘Early Turkish’ (ca. late 15th16th centuries) and ‘Late Turkish’ (ca. 17th-18th centuries) are sporadically used in historical contexts. Finally, the designation ‘Early Modern’ refers to pottery roughly dating from the Greek War of Independence until the end of the Civil War (ca. 19th-mid 20th centuries). This designation ‘Early Modern’ for an archaeological period has its specific problems. Most field projects dealing with the Early Modern period focus their attention mainly on agricultural features and industrial remains, and less on the pots and pans used in the recent past (see Vroom 1998b, 132 for references). In addition, there seems to be no general agreement over the precise meaning of ‘Early Modern’ and ‘Modern’, or over the chronological boundaries involved.

28

In general, the archaeologist Jack Davis, discussing survey data from the Cyclades in Ottoman times, touched the sore spot of much archaeological research in Greek lands when he correctly stated that ‘artefacts of later periods – if systematically collected and described – are often assigned the vaguest dates (e.g. Post-Byzantine; Medieval to Modern), and their distributions are subsequently ignored or subjected only to cursory analysis’ (Davis 1991, 133). Many field projects in Greece in fact use the designation ‘Early Modern’ or ‘Turkish and Modern’ for the period from the mid 15th to the late 20th century, a span of over 500 years. This rather unspecific ‘archaeological period’ seems often to be the result of the limited amount of archaeological material from this period which is collected (or recognized) during surveys and the lack of excavations conducted on sites of this period. If any sub-division of this period is made, this more often than not is based on the availability of historical sources and not on artefacts, a fundamental shift in argumentation in archaeological projects which is not always sufficiently recognized (Davis 1991). However, the use of the term ‘Early Modern’ (and not ‘Modern’) for the period between the beginning of Greek Independence in 1821 AD and roughly the Second World War is to be preferred for a couple of reasons. In Boeotia, the quantity and quality of the surface pottery recorded by the Durham/Cambridge Project – which is studied in combination with excavation material from Thebes – make it possible to divide

the Post-Medieval pottery into well-documented subdivisions such as ‘Early Turkish’ (ca. late 15th-16th centuries), ‘Late Turkish’ (ca. 17th-18th centuries) and ‘Early Modern’ (ca. 19th-mid 20th centuries). After ca. 1950 AD the influx of Modern Western goods (such as plastic containers) resulted in a shift in the material culture in Boeotia, which justifies the reservation of the term ‘Modern’ for this period only.

4. Another instance of inclarity in terminology seems to me the designation ‘Coptic’ for pottery. The religious term Coptic is often used to designate painted table wares produced in Egypt and Nubia in the Late Roman – Early Byzantine periods, although the same pottery manufacture tradition can be traced in Nubia all the way up to the 14th century. 5. Although the designation ‘Medieval’ is thus undoubtedly problematic, the term is, however, certainly to be preferred to the term ‘Byzantine’, if only to put this chronology relating to

,..

Summary

the Greek world more clearly in a wider European and Mediterranean context.

In order to offer an overall chronological structure for the time span under discussion here (ca. 7th to 20th centuries), the following division of the Medieval and Post-Medieval ceramics from the Boeotia Project will be used (see Table 1.1). I have to underline, however, that this division is based in the first place on the stylistic and technological changes of the pottery and not on historical or political events (although the period labels do have obvious historical connotations). That is not to say that changes in pottery are completely independent of historical developments, but it can hardly be stressed enough that this relation is complex and that the boundaries between archaeological phases may be much fuzzier than chronological divisions may suggest.

6. A discussion of the terms ‘Frank’ and ‘Frankish’ and of the related problems in using this kind of terminology is given by Peter Lock in his book The Franks in the Aegean, 1204-1500 (Lock 1995, 8-9 and 271). Cf. also Peter Lock and Guy Sanders’ preface in The Archaeology of Medieval Greece (Lock & Sanders 1996; see also Vroom 1999b).

notes 1. The reference is from the Dutch-American art-historian and expert on Rembrandt, Gary Schwartz, in the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad (1.11.1996), who quotes his former professor of archaeology in America, John Young. 2. Kazhdan et al. (1991, 400). The term ‘Byzantine’ is used conventionally to designate the predominant artistic styles developed in Constantinople between its establishment as Imperial capital in 330 AD and its fall in 1453 AD (after: The Penguin Dictionary of Decorative Arts, 140). 3. Sometimes archaeologists also use the term ‘Early Christian’ for this period, concentrating on the study of architectural styles of churches, their mosaic or fresco decoration and sculptural ornaments. However, the term suggests that a majority of the population is Christian.

29

2 – R E S E A R C H I N T O P O S T- R O M A N P O T T E R Y I N T H E A E G E A N : A M E T H O D O L O G I C A L -H I S T O R I C A L S U RV E Y

-., Introduction Before entering into a detailed discussion of the PostRoman ceramics (ranging from ca. the 7th to the 20th century) which were sampled in the course of the Boeotia Project, it seems appropriate to present an overview of the history of research concerning Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery in the Aegean. Here, I will list and review the publications which have been – or still are – important for the study of Post-Roman ceramics in the area. The purpose of this chapter, however, is not to get lost in an exhaustive bibliography, but rather to focus attention on ground-breaking publications from the past, which have been crucial for methodological advances or the opening-up of new material. In general, the emphasis will be on studies relating to the Aegean and to Constantinople/Istanbul (as Capital of the Byzantine Empire and of the Ottoman Empire respectively),[1 ] and of course on studies relating to Greece in particular. (See for the most important places mentioned in this chapter figs. 2.1 and 2.2.) I will start with the publications regarding the classification of pottery from excavations and museum collections, beginning with the humble but pioneering steps made in the 19th century. Thereafter, more recent discussions of these topics will be summarized. In the end a summary of current developments will be given, including research into material recovered from shipwrecks, into bacini (embedded bowls in church walls), into burial offerings and into the published ceramics of surface surveys.

-.-

The pioneers

For a long time a major handicap for Post-Roman archaeology in Greece seems to have been that it remained a mere branch of classical archaeology, and indeed a much neglected branch.[2 ] In the early days of archaeology in the Aegean area, excavators focussed almost exclusively on Classical sites and their

monuments – Byzantine, Medieval and Ottoman remains were often hastily destroyed in order to reach the Classical strata, or they were disposed of because of their supposed lack of artistic value (fig. 2.3).[3 ] During the late 18th and 19th centuries archaeologists working in Greece were so occupied by the Classical and Hellenistic periods (some modern critics tend to say that they were blinded by a hellenocentric obsession), that their perspective was not even affected by the Age of Romanticism and the Gothic Revival in Western Europe and America, which triggered in other fields of society a keen interest in and glorification of Medieval times. The result was, that it remained for long time standard procedure at most excavations to simply throw away all pottery which was considered to be Post-Classical. It needs no explanation that this approach was not very helpful in preserving and documenting the PostRoman remains, but it was only in the early 1940s that the first questions were raised. The American specialist in Byzantine pottery Charles H. Morgan described in no uncertain terms his views on the traditional archaeological methods: ‘The spirit of irreverence which cheerfully overthrew Byzantine walls and Frankish churches can hardly have been expected to show any concern for the less conspicuous ceramic remains from the same periods. Plates and bowls, fragmentary and whole, were consigned to the dump, their bright green or yellow glazes signalling them for oblivion as Medieval rubbish’ (Morgan 1942, 1). 2.2.1 art-historical approaches The first mention in print of the existence of PostClassical ceramics appears to date from 1897 AD, when Wladimir De Bock as curator of the Hermitage in Saint Petersburg published 31 fragments of glazed pottery from the Caucasus and the Crimea (De Bock 1897). These ceramics had been excavated on the NorthEastern coast of the Black Sea, especially at the site of Cherson in the Crimea. De Bock tried to classify the pottery into six types, based on their decoration and production techniques.

31

Fig. 2.1 The Mediterranean and Cyprus, showing location of the most important places mentioned in the text.

32

1. Constantinople/Istanbul

48. Limassol

2. Venice

49. Kalavasos-Kopetra

3. Padova

50. Kornos

4. Genoa

51. Constantia/Salamis

5. Marseilles

52. Amathus

6. Pisa

53. Mesembria

7. Florence 8. Faenza 9. Montelupo 10. Rome 11. Brindisi 12. Otranto 13. Carthage 14. Ragusa/Dubrovnik 15. Durazzo/Dürres 16. Butrint 17. Cherson 18. Caffa 19. Adrianople/Edirne 20. Nicaea/Iznik 21. Bursa 22. Çanakkale 23. Kütahya 24. Pergamon 25. Smyrna/Izmir 26. Bodrum 27. Yassi Ada 28. Rhodos 29. Lindos 30. Kastellorizo 31. Adana 32. Tarsus 33. Diyarbakir 34. Antioch/Antakya 35. Acre 36. Jerusalem 37. Alexandria 38. Kellia 39. Nicosia 40. Lapithos 41. Dhiorios 42. Paleopaphos/Paphos 43. Soli 44. Lemba 45. Kouklia 46. Agios Dimitrios 47. Kourion

His tentative classification in figural and geometric designs was in the words of Charles Morgan ‘neither greatly varied nor well documented’ (Morgan 1942, 1), but it lasted for thirteen years until a new classification was proposed for finds from excavations in Constantinople/Istanbul (Ebersolt 1910). Here, glazed sherds were collected as curiosities, and they found their way into various private collections and museums in Istanbul and Europe (such as the Imperial Museum in Istanbul and the Kaiser Friedrich Museum in Berlin, which owns one of the finest collections of Medieval wares in Western Europe). At the beginning of the 20th century the first systematic publications on Post-Roman pottery from the Eastern Mediterranean appeared, although this area of study was still regarded as a very minor branch of art history. A good example of the art-historical perspective is the study by the British scholar Henry Wallis of some 10th-16th century glazed wares excavated at the ‘new Post Office’ at Constantinople/Istanbul, which were acquired by the South Kensington Museum in London (the later V&A) and the Kaiser Friedrich Museum at Berlin (Wallis 1907).[4 ] Wallis tried to classify these decorative wares according to the evolution of designs. To this end he brought in comparative material from Italy with respect to the various art-historical influences which affected the pottery. His book was rounded off with a presentation of the complete pots in a handsome catalogue with elegant illustrations. This was no artistic frivolity, because Wallis was convinced, as he wrote, that ‘on matters of ornamental motives, technique and the like, they [the pots] have much to tell’ (Wallis 1907, 5). The interest aroused by Henry Wallis’ Byzantine Ceramic Art resulted in the production of the catalogue of Byzantine and Anatolian ceramics in the Imperial Museum at Istanbul, published by Jean Ebersolt three years later (Ebersolt 1910). This volume is a systematic and well-illustrated presentation and classification of 158 pieces of pottery from excavations at the Old Palace, from the Botanical Garden and from the New Museum in Constantinople/Istanbul, as well as from other regions of the Ottoman Empire (e.g. Edirne, Izmir, Pergamon). All the finds (147 glazed and 11 unglazed fragments) were collected in the Imperial Museum at Istanbul. Although these two elaborate catalogues laid the foundation for the study of Medieval pottery in Greece, research in those days was still exclusively focused on the

33

Fig. 2.2 The Aegean, showing location of the most important places mentioned in the text.

34

1. Thessaloniki

47. Hydra

2. Veria

48. Patras

3. Olynthus

49. Clarence/Glarenza

4. Athos

50. Gastouni

5. Serres

51. Vervena

6. Thasos

52. Sparta

7. Aliki

53. Mistra

8. Komotini

54. Magoula

9. Ganos

55. Koroni

10. Didymoteicho

56. Methoni

11. Lemnos

57. Nichoria

12. Lesbos

58. Monemvasia

13. Chios

59. Kythera

14. Emporio

60. Keos

15. Alonnesos

61. Syros

16. Skopelos

62. Tinos

17. Demetrias

63. Siphnos

18. Nea Anchialos

64. Antiparos

19. Halmyros/Almiros

65. Melos

20. Larissa

66. Sikinos

21. Tyrnavos

67. Samos

22. Trikkala

68. Pythagoreio

23. Ioannina

69. Herakleion

24. Corfu

70. Knossos

25. Arta

71. Mallia

26. Levka

72. Pseira

27. Zakinthos

73. Kentri

28. Amphissa

74. Thrapsano

29. Delphi

75. Gortys

30. Khrissa

76. Vori

31. Livadheia

77. Khania

32. Kalapodi

78. Olympia

33. Thebes

79. Navplion

34. Euripos/Negroponte/ Chalkis 35. Athens 36. Eleusis 37. Salamis 38. Aegina 39. Corinth 40. Isthmia 41. Kenchreai 42. Nemea 43. Argos 44. Tiryns + Merbaka 45. Berbati-Limnes 46. Methana

typology of decorated fine wares. Fragmentary and (undecorated) domestic material was continuely disregarded at excavations, notwithstanding the fact that it normally constituted the overwhelming majority of the excavated ceramics. 2.2.2 the first ‘systematic’ approach: sparta An exception to the general neglect of Post-Roman domestic pottery was the publication of an article by R.M. Dawkins and J.P. Droop on some glazed pottery fragments from ancient Sparta (Dawkins & Droop 191011). For the first time, efforts were made ‘to publish all the pieces of any interest as material for further study’, and as a result of this systematic approach, to introduce new styles and wares. The short article was about a small collection of Medieval glazed fragments (‘usually called Byzantine’) which was found in trial pits on and around the Acropolis of Sparta during excavations carried out by the British School from 1906 to 1910. The sherds were especially abundant outside the East end of the Late Roman fortifications. Seven decoration techniques were distinguished by Dawkins and Droop: the first five being varieties of graffiato,[5 ] and the last two painted sherds – with or without glaze (see Appendix A1). Dawkins and Droop were still doubtful about the dating of these artefacts: they laid ‘no claim to speak as experts’ about pottery ‘whose date and general relations are still matters of some doubt’ (Dawkins & Droop 191011, 23). In their article they drew parallels to 11th-12th century pieces from Cairo as well as to 13th-14th century material from Pergamon and Constantinople/Istanbul, which is now all in the Kaiser Friedrich Museum at Berlin (Altmann 1904; Wulff 1909-11; the second, revised edition of Wulff ’s publication is in Volbach 1930). For the dating they also relied heavily on the 1907-publication by Henry Wallis and on the catalogue of Byzantine and Anatolian pottery in the Imperial Museum at Istanbul (Ebersolt 1910). Nowadays, these early publications on Post-Classical wares (such as Dawkins and Droop 1910-11; Wulff 190911 and Volbach 1930) are very much outdated, and the French ceramicist Jean-Michel Spieser describes them even as ‘essentiellement des pièces de musées’, ‘essentially museum pieces’ (Spieser 1991, 249). That may be true, but perhaps one has to admit that these pioneers showed at least the courage to publish their material, even though they were no experts on the subject.[6 ] They

35

Fig. 2.3 Delphi before the excavations by the French Archaeological School, ca. 1805 AD (after Dodwell 1834).

were archaeologists for whom all periods seem to have been interesting – even pottery from Greece which fell outside the canonical styles of the Classical era. Perhaps this interest can be explained by the fact that Dawkins and Droop belonged to the last generation of broad-minded scholars (of the Victorian and Edwardian periods), who were not real classical archaeologists with an exclusive focus on Antiquity, but also ‘ethnoarchaeologists’ and generalists who were trying to understand every aspect of Greek society. It was no coincidence that Wace and Dawkins were also involved in publications on Greek embroideries (Wace 1914; 1935; Wace & Dawkins 1914). According to Peter Mackridge (Dawkins’s biographer), Dawkins was a medievalist or folklorist rather than a Byzantinist. He published several short papers on Byzantine finds, as well as articles in the journal Folk-Lore and three substantial volumes of Greek folk-tales (Mackridge 1995, 185-86).

-..

The Interbellum

During the First World War (1914-1918) the growth of scientific research and publication on Mediterranean

36

archaeology, and especially on Post-Classical pottery, actually lapsed. And the troubled times that followed in the Eastern Mediterranean area were often not conducive to further extensive work.[7 ] However, during the Interbellum the French Armeé d’Orient started large excavations in the Manganas area of Constantinople/ Istanbul, East of the Old Serai (1921-1923). Their example was followed by British archaeologists in the Hippodrome (1927-1928) and at the Great Palace (19361937) (cf. Demangel & Mamboury 1939; Talbot Rice 1930; Stevenson 1947). In the same period Andreas Xyngopoulos collected glazed sherds from various places in Thessaloniki, and in particular from the trenches then being dug for installing the sewerage system (cf. Bakirtzis 1980c, 394; Bakirtzis & Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1981). Eventually, the first processing of Post-Roman finds from excavations in Corinth and Athens also took place in this period (Philadelphos 1924; Frantz 1938). Similar material also came to light in Cyprus, Cilicia and the Near East (Du Plat Taylor 1938; Du Plat Taylor & Megaw 1951; Volbach 1930; Johns 1934; Lane 1937). 2.3.1 the importance of david talbot rice The first attempt at a more systematic level of study for Post-Roman ceramics in the Aegean region was undertaken by David Talbot Rice, a specialist on Byzantine and Near Eastern art (fig. 2.4). After studying archaeology and anthropology at Oxford, Talbot Rice dug on behalf of the British Academy in the Hippodrome and later in the ‘Great Palace’ of Constantinople/Istanbul. In 1930 he published his path-breaking book Byzantine Glazed Pottery, which included an extensive bibliography of older publications. In this study Talbot Rice presented what was then the state of knowledge of the subject, basing himself mainly on material from the 1927-28 excavations in the Hippodrome at Constantinople/Istanbul (fig. 2.5).[8 ] In Byzantine Glazed Pottery the glazed wares were classified into two principal classes. This classification was based on the colour of the fabric: the white wares were grouped under class A, the ‘faïence’[9 ]; the red wares under class B, the ‘earthenware’ (see Appendix A2). Within these two classes several subgroups were distinguished by Talbot Rice, according to a numerical system. The ‘faïence’ was divided into five main groups (A1 Polychrome ware, A2 Petal ware, A3 Plain glazed ware, A4

White inscribed ware and A5 Impressed ware) and two subsidiary ones (A6 Models and A7 Pottery icons), while the ‘earthenware’ was divided into five main subgroups (B1 Early Sgraffito ware, B2 Elaborate incised ware, B3 Late Sgraffito ware, B4 White painted ware and B5 Marbled ware) and three subsidiary ones (B6 Samsoun ware, B7 Deep-green glazed ware and B8 Turkish incised ware). This system devised by Talbot Rice had great advantage for pottery specialists: it was now possible to use a shorthand notation for each ware. The introduction of Byzantine Glazed Pottery was written by Bernard Rackham, then curator of the Victoria & Albert Museum in London and an expert on Italian Maiolica. His diagnosis was clear and to the point when he flatly stated that ‘Byzantium is the name written over one of the uncharted regions on the map of ceramic history’. His conclusion may be called something of an understatement: ‘Towards the exploration of Byzantine pottery, little has hitherto been done’ (Talbot Rice 1930, ix-x). Except for the very early pioneering publications (Wallis 1907; Dawkins and Droop 1910-11), Talbot Rice had nothing else at his disposal than the recent archaeological finds from the Hippodrome at Constantinople/ Istanbul. His book is nothing less than a rather heroic effort to use these as basis for a completely new ordering of the Aegean material, vastly surpassing previous attempts of classification (De Bock 1879, Ebersolt 1910 and Dawkins & Droop 1910-11). This having said, it is now clear that the solid evidence available at the time was, to state it mildly, rather pitiful. The gaps in what was proposed by Talbot Rice as a single continuous ceramic story are now only too evident. Currently, pottery specialists value Byzantine Glazed Pottery therefore only on its historical merit as a landmark in the development of an archaeological specialisation (Spieser 1991, 249; Hayes 1992). Still, there is no denying that the classification of Talbot Rice served as the basis for most subsequent discussions in the field. He was perhaps the first scholar to recognize the beauty of Byzantine pottery, as well as ‘its value in dating related material’ (as stated by the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres in his foreword in Talbot Rice’s Festschrift by Robertson & Henderson 1975). 2.3.2 ‘followers’ of the talbot rice view During the 1930s some articles appeared in which Talbot Rice’s classification was closely followed. One of these

Fig. 2.4 David Talbot Rice at elder age (after Robertson & Henderson 1975).

Fig. 2.5 Drawing from Byzantine Glazed Pottery (after Talbot Rice 1930, pl. II).

37

detailed studies was Frederick Waagé’s publication of pottery from the first season’s work of the American excavations in the Athenian Agora (Waagé 1933). It described the wares used in Athens from about the 1st century B.C. (Late Hellenistic times) to the 18th century after Christ (Late Ottoman times), and included therefore a number of new wares for which no categories had as yet been assigned (see Appendix A3).[10 ] However, no attention was given to Post-Roman coarse wares; all the published vessels were either slipped or glazed. Because of the problems of stratigraphy and the shortage of comparative material or coins at hand, Waagé presented the Medieval and Post-Medieval ceramics in a less comprehensive classification than his frequently praised scheme for the Late Roman Red Slip Wares (see also fig. 3.1).[11 ] He did not try to hide the lack of solid ground for his section on Medieval pottery: ‘It is less complete, lacks in large part the better wares, and is without evidence for chronology. Even more than in the deeper Roman levels had modern pits, cellars and cisterns disturbed the Medieval fill’ (Waagé 1933, 308).[12 ] Nevertheless, Waagé suggested that during the American excavations in the Agora, only occasional pieces of coarse glazed pottery were found which seemed to bridge the gap between the Late Roman pottery and the earliest Sgraffito Wares, although these sherds were too fragmentary to determine any shapes.[13 ] On the basis of the recovered coins, it was thought that only in the 11th century had the Athenian Agora been inhabited again to any degree. A non-follower (but admirer) of the Talbot Rice view of Post-Classical pottery was the Greek archaeologist Andreas Xyngopoulos. In the early 1930s he presented some sherds from ancient Olynthus in Macedonia, which were discovered in 1928 by D.M. Robinson at the South projection of the Meghali Toumba (Xyngopoulos 1933). Xyngopoulos grouped the finds from this hill-site according to his own classification system of decoration techniques (see Appendix A4), although he favoured the classification devised by Talbot Rice ‘for it allows of distinction both in technique and style to a greater degree’ (Xyngopoulos 1933, 285, note 4). The stratigraphy of the Meghali Toumba was as follows: the lowest level, at a depth of about 0.50m., was marked by a layer of plinths and tiles which, according to

38

Xyngopoulos, ‘must belong to Early Christian times’ (Xyngopoulos 1933, 291). On top of this level coins were found, one of which belonged to Justinian and the others to the period between the 11th and the 14th centuries. The sherds, found at a depth of 0.10-0.50m. below surface, were not numerous and belonged to different periods. Two fragments could be attributed to the 11th century, the rest were placed in the 14th century. Finally, the top layers were from the Turkish period, marked by some clay pipes and coins. Xyngopoulos concluded that the bulk of the material showed many similarities to the finds from Thessaloniki, and were probably produced there. 2.3.3 a new step ahead: the excavations at athens In addition to the Agora and Olynthus publications, a number of other articles on Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery in Greece which appeared before 1945 are noteworthy. Among them is a second piece on Byzantine pottery from the American excavations in the Athenian Agora, this time written by M. Allison Frantz (Frantz 1938). Her study dealt with a number of closed deposits (i.e. refuse dumps of pottery), and presented a modification of dates and classifications proposed by Waagé in 1933 (see Appendix A6). Frantz selected five groups of pottery, ranging in date from the 10th or early 11th to the 13th century. These groups included the contents of a cistern dating to the first half of the 11th century, and two contexts dating to the first half of the 12th century. The dating by Frantz was based on coins found with the pottery. The wares were divided into Plain-Glazed Wares, Impressed Ware, Painted Wares, Sgraffito Wares and Coarse Ware (see Appendix A6). The article of Frantz was of great importance for establishing a firmer chronology, and supplied many useful parallels for the pottery from Corinth, where such information based on stratigraphy and coin dates was still sadly lacking. Equally important was a publication written a few years later by the same author regarding some Turkish pottery from the Athenian Agora excavations (Frantz 1942; see Appendix A7). Here, for the first time archaeological attention was paid solely to the centuries following the conquest of Greek lands by the Ottomans. However, the 16th-18th century levels at Athens had been so severely disturbed that the material (from ten

different deposits in the Agora) was presented by Frantz with only tentative suggestions for dating. In the groups she discussed there were a few slight indications of absolute dates, and the coincidence of different wares gave a certain relative chronology. Most important was Frantz’s recognition of a locally made type of tin-glazed Maiolica which she called ‘blue and white painted ware’, but which is nowadays known as ‘local Maiolica’ (Frantz 1942, 1). 2.3.4 a major contribution: the excavations at corinth In the same year 1942 in which Frantz published the Ottoman pottery from the Athenian Agora, Charles H. Morgan published almost 1800 fragmentary and complete glazed vessels from the American excavations at Corinth (fig. 2.6). In his Byzantine Pottery he discussed pottery from a few sealed deposits, which enabled him to propose an improved and more consistent classification, as well as a chronology for the various groups (Morgan 1942; preceded by the very short notes Morgan 1935; 1938).[14 ] Dissatisfied with Talbot Rice’s classification system (for being too simple, inflexible and sometimes misleading), Morgan tried to construct a chronology for the Middle Byzantine phases at Corinth which would be of practical use for ceramicists all over the Aegean. Therefore he introduced a nominal rather than an alphabetical or arithmetical terminology. Morgan’s basic principle in the classification of ceramics was to put the emphasis on decoration techniques – a method already used by Dawkins & Droop in 1910-11 and Frantz in 1938 (see Appendix A8).[15 ] He distinguished four main groups (Plain-Glazed Wares, Painted Wares, Sgraffito Wares and Unglazed Wares) with several subtypes (based on design) in a provisional chronological order. Furthermore, Morgan defined a new and uniform terminology for shapes (bowl, chafing dish etc.), parts of shapes (base, foot etc.) and patterns of design (chevron, Kufic etc.). As far as the treatment of styles, designs and forms is concerned, Byzantine Pottery still stands as a basic reference work on 11th-12th century wares of the Middle Byzantine period, although ceramics of the later (Frankish and Ottoman) periods found at Corinth are not particularly well presented or at least not well identified in this publication.[16 ] Only quite recently stratigraphical excavations have

Fig. 2.6 Drawing from Corinth XI: The Byzantine Pottery (after Morgan 1942, pl. LII).

been applied to Medieval layers, most specifically in Corinth. The new data suggest that the earlier relative chronologies were all suffering from their subjective foundations (unavoidable considering the constraints the pioneers where working under). With regard to Morgan’s views, various new suggestions have been forwarded recently on the reintroduction of lead-glaze production in the Aegean (Spieser 1991 and François 1995), on the nomenclature of some Corinthian wares (Sanders 1995, 18 note 39 suggests revision for the term ‘Imitation Lustre’), as well as on the classification of Medieval and Post-Medieval wares (cf. Megaw 1968b, 1975 on Zeuxippus Ware and Aegean Ware; Bakirtzis 1980 on Ottoman wares). Also, Morgan’s lack of interest in domestic wares is now seen as outdated (Bakirtzis 1989 shows convincingly that one can do more with these wares than Morgan thought possible). According to the current director of the Corinthian excavations, Guy Sanders, there is little ground left to follow Morgan’s dates without reservation. The still persisting practice among some archaeologists to refer

39

with confidence to Morgan’s chronology is met with regret by him, because it ‘seldom contributes new evidence to our understanding of the pottery production of the Medieval Mediterranean, and can perpetuate errors, for not infrequently the Corinthian published record, where old, is insecure or even wrong’ (Sanders 1993, 251-2). Morgan’s chronology is now subject of constant refinement after new finds at Corinth and other places. John Hayes proposed, for instance, late 12th century dates for wares and types listed by Morgan as mid 12th, and he also placed Morgan’s late 12th century types in the early 13th century (Hayes 1992, 4). Guy Sanders offered three examples illustrating Morgan’s misdating of material from the early 9th to 12th centuries (Sanders 1995, 19-20). In addition, David Whitehouse suggested rather convincingly that the Corinthian glass workshop (in the South centre of the Agora) would be rather 13th14th century instead of Morgan’s dating to the 11th-12th century. He based himself on new Medieval glass finds in Southern Italy and Tarquinia, and on a detailed reexamination of the stratigraphy of the old excavations at Corinth (Whitehouse 1991). Notwithstanding these considerations, Corinth remains one of the very few sites in Greece with an outstanding overall monograph on Byzantine ceramics (although it must be used with some caution). While Morgan’s chronology is under serious revision, it is understandable that at present most scholars still follow his system of classification.

-./

The period after the Second World War

Another major step forward for the study of Post-Classical ceramics came with Robert B.K. Stevenson’s post-war publication of the pottery from the 1936-37 excavations in the Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors in Constantinople/Istanbul (Stevenson 1947; later followed by Talbot Rice’s shorter and somewhat less informative section on the pottery in 1958). Due to a purely archaeological treatment of the pottery fragments – with an emphasis on rims and bases, as opposed to that of the traditional art-historical approach of studying complete vessels – Stevenson’s presentation of the Great Palace material provided a basis for a much more refined chronological division of Byzantine glazed pottery (fig. 2.7).

40

Fig. 2.7 Drawing from The Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors I (after Stevenson 1947).

In The Great Palace I the ceramic material (about 7000 sherds) was divided into five chronological ‘stages’, which were distinguished typologically and by their provenance from the different layers of the stratification established during the excavations. The evidence for the dating of these stages was provided by the associated coins. The excavations yielded datable deposits covering the period from the Late Roman period down to about AD 1200. Thanks to close study of the stratigraphy, Stevenson was able to produce a much improved chronology for the various groups of Byzantine glazed wares, especially for glazed pottery found in the Constantinople/Istanbul region. Despite these developments, the study of Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery made little progress in the decades following the Second World War. It seemed as if the minds of archaeologists were again almost entirely concentrated on fine wares, particularly on the later,

more ornamental ones (Sgraffito Ware and the like). Notable contributions to this art-historical approach were especially made by the Anglo-Irish archaeologist Peter Megaw, one of the most active archaeologists of his time in the field of Medieval pottery. From the 1960s onward, he produced not only an excellent summary of the state of knowledge of Byzantine pottery for a more general public (Megaw 1968a, 100-106), but also various important if perhaps old-fashioned articles in which he tried to isolate particular groups of 13th century pottery on stylistic criteria, introducing new designations such as ‘Zeuxippus Ware’ and ‘Aegean Ware’ (Megaw 1968b; 1975; 1989). Megaw’s approach to trace these wares to specific places and potters seems to have been influenced in particular by the ‘workshop-model’ of John Beazley in his study of Black- and Red-Figure vases in Classical Greece (Beazley 1956; 1963). More innovative was Megaw’s analysis of fabrics of Byzantine and allied pottery from the Eastern Mediterranean, which he made together with the British scientist Richard Jones, Director of the Fitch Laboratory in Athens during the 1980s (Megaw & Jones 1981; 1983). Especially noteworthy is the interim report on the ‘Spectographic Analyses of Byzantine and Allied pottery’ which they published in 1982 in the XVI. Internationaler Byzantinistenkongress (Vienna). A second article on the same subject followed in the Annual of the British School at Athens in the succeeding year (Megaw & Jones 1983). Megaw and Jones took seven groups (three from Cyprus and five from Mainland Greece) of kiln wasters and tripod stands from attested production centres and usually from the kilns themselves. The fragments were tested by chemical analysis (Optical Emission Spectroscopy, or OES for short). In doing so, Megaw and Jones tried to set up a series of fabric analyses of Byzantine and related production centres in the Aegean and then test unprovenanced wares against them. Their initiative has since been continued by a team from Oxford University, which included Helen Hatcher and Pamela Armstrong, who will extend the analytical work to cover material from additional production sites in Turkey, Syria and Israel (Armstrong and Hatcher 1997). All this has resulted in a clear shift in research on Byzantine pottery, from a purely art-historical emphasis on shape and decoration to a more technical approach based on the chemical compositions of fabrics and glazes. This shift is very evident in Materials Analysis of Byzantine

Pottery, a collection of nine articles presented at a colloquium which was held at Dumbarton Oaks in April 1995 (Maguire 1997; see also 2000c). The articles in this book illustrate the newest archaeometric methods for determining clay sources, glaze compositions, and manufacturing technologies in pottery and tiles. Most papers use hard-science techniques, such as neutron activation analysis (NAA) or X-ray diffraction, in their research into the physical aspects of pottery, and do not bother much with the historical and cultural context of the artefacts. The scope of the contributions varies from the investigation of the site Qal’at Sem’an in Northern Syria as a possible manufacturing site of pilgrim’s tokens (Gerard et al. 1997) to the determination of trade patterns of Sgraffito Wares in Northern Greece (PapanikolaBakirtzis et al. 1997). Armstrong and Hatcher’s paper in Materials Analysis of Byzantine Pottery touches, among other things, upon a new scientific technique called ICP-AES (short for: Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectometry). This approach uses small drilled samples from the examined sherds, to make measurements of a range of elements found in ceramics (including the major elements as well as many of the trace elements), so that a fairly complete picture of the bulk composition of the clay can be obtained. Taking at least 20 samples from each production centre, Armstrong and Hatcher hope to build up eventually well-defined groups of pottery, arranged by their material contents. However, no hard results of the research they initiated are yet presented in the paper. 2.4.1 underwater archaeology Since the 1960s the study of Post-Classical pottery has not only benefited from a shift away from a purely arthistorical approach, but also from new archaeological techniques such as underwater investigation of sunken coastal sites and shipwrecks (fig. 2.8). Artefacts from these ships were fully in use when they were covered with mud, sand and clay. The wreck is like a time capsule in which life has stopped suddenly, so there is no distortion of the archaeological information by later rubbish dumps, mixed layers or secondary use of the site. The main task is to divide the finds into ship’s inventory and cargo. This is important because only artefacts from the cargo can be used for the study of trade and have roughly the same date as the sinking of the ship. Items

41

Fig. 2.8 Underwater archaeology: 7th century amphorae from the Yassi Ada Shipwreck, now in the Museum for Underwater Archaeology in Bodrum, Turkey (after Alpözen et al. 1995, 3).

from the ship’s inventory could have been on board for a much longer period of time and have a less clear date. As a consequence of the increased activities of underwater archaeologists, interest was stimulated in Byzantine trade amphorae and other domestic wares. A good example of this development is the study of the Late Roman – Early Byzantine shipwreck of Yassi Ada (near Bodrum in Turkey), excavated by G.F. Bass in 1961-4 for the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania (Bass 1962; Bass 1982 with references to earlier publications; Van Doorninck 1989). The ship carried a cargo of approximately 850 to 900 Byzantine amphorae, among which two basic shapes could be distinguished: type 1 (a Late Roman amphora 1 variant) and type 2 (a Late Roman amphora 2 variant) (see Appendix A12). The latest dated coin from the wreck gave a terminus post quem of 625/26 AD.

42

The underwater excavation at Yassi Ada also identified the shipwreck’s galley, in which all of the cooking, eating, and pantry wares of crew and passengers were found. A reasonably accurate inventory of these 7th century wares comprised several (glazed) bowls, plates and dishes, and a considerable number of cooking pots (both pottery and bronze), storage jars and resin-lined pitchers. Other items included a pipette (‘wine thief ’) for drawing liquid from large containers like amphorae or fermentation-jars. According to the excavators, most of the galley wares were of types found on the Western coast of the Black Sea, Constantinople/Istanbul, and the islands of Chios and Samos, suggesting that the ship’s home port would lie somewhere to the North of Yassi Ada (Bass 1982, 188). More recently, other shipwrecks have yielded further information about the distribution of amphorae during the Byzantine period. An important example is the ‘glass wreck’ dating from the 11th century at Serçe Limani, South-West of Marmaris on the Turkish coast, which was excavated in 1977-79 by the same G.F. Bass and F. Van Doorninck for the Institute of Nautical Archaeology (Bass & Van Doorninck 1978; Van Doorninck 1989, 253; 1991; 2002). Besides some 89 Byzantine piriform amphorae (of which many had been used on more than one occasion as transport jars) the Serçe Limani wreck had a mixed cargo of glazed ceramics and three tons of broken glass vessels and glass cullet (packed in cylindrical baskets), which most probably came from Fatimid Syria. The discovery of two other important shipwrecks with cargoes of fine tableware may be noted here. One was found off the island of Pelagonnisos (Pelagos) near Alonnesos in the Northern Sporades (Kritzas 1971 and Ioannidaki-Dostoglou 1989), and the other between Kastellorizo and Rhodes in the Dodecanese (Philotheou & Michailidou 1986, summarized in Philotheou & Michailidou 1989 and Loucas 1989). These wrecks yielded very diverse finds for the 12th and 13th centuries (although we lack further information about find spots and find conditions which might provide important clues for the exact dating of these vessels). However, the publications seem to be somewhat biased in favour of certain classes of decorated glazed bowls (i.e. Fine Sgraffito Ware and Aegean Ware; see for an example of the first ware fig. 3.9), while the coarser wares receive little attention. This is a feature which unfortunately has been not uncommon in underwater archaeology of the

second half of the 20th century, and which was recently rightly criticized by John Hayes, who flatly stated: ‘Too many wrecks have been plundered for their decorated items’ (Hayes 1992, 4). 2.4.2 recent developments Since the early days of its inception as a minor branch of art-history, the study of Post-Roman pottery in Greece has changed substantially. In recent years archaeologists working in the Aegean have had their eyes opened to the wealth of information represented by the material remains of the twelve centuries of Post-Classical Greek history. Nowadays, the sherds from the Medieval and Post-Medieval periods are no longer discarded, but carefully collected at excavations and surveys. More important, sometimes they even reach the stage of publication: either in excavation reports, museum catalogues or in separate articles. As a result of this development, the last two decades have seen the publication of quite a number of studies and the organization of even more symposia and exhibitions. In 1987 the French Archaeological School at Athens organized the first symposium which was dedicated exclusively to Byzantine pottery found in the Eastern Mediterranean (Déroche & Spieser 1989). This landmark gathering of specialists was followed by a conference at Siena in 1991 about 11th-15th century ceramics in the Eastern Mediterranean and their relationships with Italy (Gelichi 1993). In addition, a first monograph on the archaeology of Medieval Greece has recently been published, with some interesting contributions on pottery (Lock & Sanders 1996). The important Ph.D. thesis of Guy Sanders on the Byzantine glazed wares from Corinth to ca. 1125 AD still awaits publication (Sanders 1995). On the occasion of the 7th international congress on Medieval ceramics in the Mediterranean, which was held in October 1999 in Thessaloniki, both the Benaki Museum in Athens and the Museum of Byzantine Culture in Thessaloniki organised a temporary exhibition on Byzantine and Post-Byzantine tablewares. Both exhibitions were accompanied by a fully illustrated catalogue, presenting in all 664 vessels from all over Greece: from Thrace to Crete (Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1999; Papanikola-Bakirtzis & Mavrikiou & Bakirtzis 1999). The long-awaited Benaki catalogue appeared 68 years after the Museum opened its doors to the public in

1931. Both catalogues give good overviews of the published (and unpublished) glazed and sgraffito wares from the 11th to the 17th centuries, as well as technical information on the pottery manufacturing processes of these wares in Greece (see Appendices A17 and A18). In his review of the Benaki Museum publication, Archibald Dunn stated that the volume is an ‘example of a welcome trend, the publication of catalogues of Byzantine pottery (essentially of fine wares), sufficiently well illustrated and annotated to serve as works of reference’ (Dunn 2000, 304). Finally, a stimulating study by Abadie-Reynal of trade systems in the Late Roman – Early Byzantine world, especially of Late Roman sigillata wares and amphorae from the 4th to the beginning of the 7th century from the Aegean area, showed how the distribution of ceramics in the Eastern Mediterranean can contribute to the discussion about the transition of the Late Roman economy into the Byzantine economic system, and about relations between Constantinople/Istanbul and the rest of the Empire (Abadie-Reynal 1989a and 1989b; recently updated by Sodini 2000). This represents a pioneer attempt for the Eastern Mediterranean to propose social and economic models by using ceramic evidence. The traditional tendency of classifying Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery solely on the basis of decorative techniques has now given way to issues of fabric, provenance and manufacture. In recent years attention has also been given to the technology of the Medieval workshops in Greek lands and the Eastern Mediterranean area, mainly from information derived from excavations at Serres and Thasos in Northern Greece (Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1992; François 1994), at Sparta in the Peloponnesus (Sanders 1993), on Cyprus (Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1993; 1996) and at Pergamon in Turkey (Spieser 1996). From these studies it appears that two approaches for locating centres of pottery production are now used: the study of the remains of kilns, and the study of refuse from the pottery-making process. In Thessaloniki, for example, a local workshop of 13th-14th century pottery with bird designs in a champlevé technique was recognized by the study of wasters alone, while no kiln was yet located (Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1983). If the archaeology of Medieval Greece today is anything, it is perhaps best described as a new branch of research, trying to find a solid typo-chronological foot-

43

Fig. 2.9 Bacini in wall of a church at Serres, Macedonia (photo: J. Vroom).

hold in an historical period in which until recently mainly byzantinists, text-scrutinizers, and iconresearchers showed interest. Its main focus is – or should be – on establishing a chronology. For this, excavations (and publication of these excavations) are essential. New information derived from stratigraphical context and statistical information on the ceramics is sure to result in the need to amend existing views expressed in earlier publications. However, although the quest for improved chronology is paramount, field researchers are also focussing on locating workshops and recording the characteristics of their products, as well as on the problem of the provenance of yet unidentified groups of wares. In addition, modern developments in ceramic studies, such as the emphasis on the aspects of production, use and distribution of pottery, also play a fruitful role in current archaeological publications on Medieval pottery from Greece (Bakirtzis 1989). 2.4.3 towards a new typo-chronology Excavations at the remains of the church of Agios Polyeuktos (now also known as Saraçhane in Istanbul) under the auspices of Dumbarton Oaks in the 1960s have shed new light on the Byzantine period from the beginning of the 5th till the beginning of the 13th century (Hayes 1968). Eventually, the finds at Saraçhane resulted in a typology for all Early and Middle Byzantine pottery to 1204 AD, put forth in a really excellent publication by John Hayes which presents the best up-to-date review of this material so far (Hayes 1992; preceded by Hayes 1968; see Appendix A13). Invaluable as the finds

44

at Saraçhane are, the chronology however stops abruptly at 1204 AD, the year of the Fourth Crusade. The material record shows a gap till Early Ottoman times (15th century), and Late Turkish material is virtually absent. In recent years some quite substantial reassessments of dates have been made regarding the chronology of Post-Classical pottery. In general the tendency has been to move the Middle Byzantine chronology to somewhat later dates. The Saraçhane finds confirm this trend: Hayes suggests, for instance, that wares which were formerly dated as late 12th century types, should in fact be dated to the early 13th century, which is in line with the evidence provided from the castle of Saranda Kolones (‘The Forty Columns’) at Paphos on Cyprus (Hayes 1992). Recently, there has been a growing recognition of the so-called bacini as a potential source of information for the chronology of Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery in Greece. Bacini is the Italian term for decorated bowls which were embedded in church façades in both Italy and Greece since the 11th century (Gelichi 1991a; 1991b; see fig. 2.9). Hayes especially has stressed the fact that these bowls can sometimes ‘provide cross-dating between one glazed ware and another, since several wares and styles may be present on a single campanile’ (Hayes 1992, 4). In Greece, the bacini had never been systematically examined until the publication by Megaw of bowls from three Byzantine churches. These churches were dated on architectural arguments from the 11th to the 13th century (Megaw 1964; preceded by Megaw 1931-32, 126). According to him, the glazed bowls were used to enrich the facades of Greek churches especially in the 11th and 12th centuries, usually as focal ornaments in window tympana. The practice continued after the Latin occupation, notably at Mistra. Megaw’s contribution concerned the church of Agios Georgios at Loukisia in Boeotia, the church of the Panagia Katholiki at Gastouni in Elis and the church of the Panagia at Merbaka in the Argolid. Especially his dating of this last church to the 12th century has led to some discussion in recent years. Instead of dating the Merbaka church on the basis of its architectural decoration, Sanders used its bacini, which were mostly ProtoMaiolica wares from Southern Italy, to propose a late 13th-early 14th century dating of the building (Sanders

1989). In addition, Sanders observed that the name of the place may well have been derived from that of William of Meerbeke, who was bishop of Corinth from 1277 to 1286 (Sanders 1989, 188; based on Struck 1909, 236). The general opinion seems to be that the custom of immuring decorated pottery in church walls started in Middle Byzantine times (from the 11th century onwards) in Athens, and spread rapidly to the Peloponnesus and Eastern Greece (Nikolakopoulos 1978, 22; see also Ince & Koukoulis 1989, 412 with more literature). According to the Greek archaeologist K. Tsouris, who studied bacini in the architecture of 13th century churches in NorthWestern Greece, ‘they are more rarely encountered in Thessaly and Macedonia, and we know of no examples at all from Constantinople/Istanbul, its surrounding area, or Asia Minor’ (Tsouris 1996, 614 and 620-621 which contains an extensive catalogue of 83 churches with bacini in Northern and Central Greece). For the rest of Greece, the custom remained popular until Ottoman times. Bacini of much later date, such as the Turkish and Early Modern periods, were inlaid in the walls of several churches in Attica and on the islands of Salamis and Hydra (Nikolakopoulos 1988; 1989 and Korre-Zographou 1995, 69-76), at Methana (Koukoulis & Ince 1986), on Mount Athos (Carswell 1966), on the island of Euboea/Evvia (Kiel 1990), and on the Cyclades (A.Vionis, pers. comm.). Apart from the bacini, another useful source for fixed dates in the study of Medieval and Post-Medieval ceramics in Greece is the custom of placing decorated cups, dishes and bowls in or above graves, as some sort of burial offering. Joan Du Plat Taylor made the first major contribution to the study of Cypriot glazed pottery by her careful excavation in 1934 of a number of burials at Episkopi, near Limassol (Du Plat Taylor 1938). By relating single bowls in these burials to the stratigraphical and coin evidence, she established for the first time fixed points in the chronology of the Medieval wares on Cyprus. Until recently, hardly any Post-Classical cemetery had been studied in Greece (an exception is Ivison 1996), but the importance of the burial bowls for the dating of pottery again became clear during excavations carried out by the Byzantine Ephorate of Thessaloniki in the church of the 14th century Vlatadon Monastery, where a section of the monastery’s cemetery was brought to light.

A total of nine graves were discovered inside the church amongst the foundations of the earliest construction phase, whilst another nine graves were found in the vicinity. Sixteen of these eighteen graves contained burial vessels: fifty-five bowls in total. The earliest finds from the graves have been dated to the 2nd half of the 14th century and the latest to the beginning of the 16th century (Makropoulou 1985). The use of pottery in Late Byzantine/Frankish tombs as grave-goods also occurred at the excavations of Saraçhane in Constantinople/Istanbul, in Ephesus and in Cyprus (e.g. Hayes 1992; Parman 1989). 2.4.4 the rise of surface surveys In the last 25 years, the blossoming of surface survey projects all over Greece has led to a substantial change in the emphasis of archaeological field studies (fig. 2.10). Nowadays, instead of focussing mainly on excavating the stratigraphy of single sites (often focussing on one cultural period), the approach to the history of habitation of Greek lands implies as a matter of course not only a regional, but also a longue durée perspective on settlement history, in many cases embracing the evidence of human occupation from Prehistoric to Modern times. As a result, interest in material from the Byzantine, Frankish, Turkish and Early Modern periods has risen significantly (for a discussion of these see Bintliff 2000). Examples of surveys with a special interest in Medieval and Post-Medieval artefacts are those undertaken at Palaeopaphos on Cyprus (Sørenson & Guldager 1987; Gregory 1987; 1993), at Mallia on Crete (François 1994), at Methana (Mee & Forbes 1997) and at BerbatiLimnes in the Peloponnesus (Hahn 1996), in Eastern Phokis (Armstrong 1989) and in Lakonia (Armstrong 1996a), as well as the island of Keos in the Aegean (Hayes 1991). Not all of these publications seem to follow, however, recent results in the refinement of the chronology of Post-Classical pottery, and some dating is still based on the traditional, but outdated pottery handbooks of Corinth and Athens such as the one published by Morgan more than half a century ago. It cannot be denied that surface surveys have contributed greatly to our knowledge of the history of habitation in Greek lands. The quantitative data available from surveying large areas without excavation has been widely used to establish diachronic patterns of settlement, networks of forts, villages, and agricultural

45

-.0

Fig. 2.10 Survey material on the surface in Boeotia (photo: J. Vroom).

installations. Field research in the Mediterranean area is now unthinkable without surface surveys. At the same time, however, the fact remains that many surveys have produced quite an amount of discussion on sampling techniques and strategies, as well as quite a few statistical and theoretical models, but much less hard ceramic evidence in the form of systematic publications of pottery to sustain any detailed long-term history of habitation in Greece beyond the Roman period. On a more general level, the relation between survey finds and historical developments remains one of the most important challenges for field workers. Some critics, among them Peter Lock, have even raised doubts whether the emphasis on processual change in most survey projects fits easily into historical analysis based on scrutiny of the written sources. Anonymous scatters of pottery, Lock remarks, ‘lack the relationship which excavated material provides and are of course dependent on the current knowledge of ceramics’ (Lock 1995, 27). This may be too pessimistic, but even among the most ardent advocates of surface surveys the conviction has grown that the first and foremost stumbling block for all efforts to reach detailed conclusions on the basis of survey material is the still fragmentary knowledge of the typo-chronology of Medieval and Post-Medieval ceramics in Greek lands.

46

Summary

Since the first publication on Medieval and PostMedieval pottery by De Bock in 1887 much has been done as far as the classification, description and dating of glazed wares is concerned. Substantial progress has been made, especially thanks to landmark publications such as Byzantine Glazed Pottery, Excavations at Corinth XI: The Byzantine Pottery and Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul II: The Pottery. On the other hand, the bulk of the material upon which our knowledge is based, is still limited to poorly described museum objects (often of unknown provenance), to finds of sparse and unstratified excavations (wells and fills), and to surface survey ceramics. At this moment there are no more than two large, multi-period urban centres whose pottery has been studied and published in such a way that we can use it as measure for the chronology and classification of Medieval and Post-Medieval ceramic finds in the Aegean: Constantinople/Istanbul (Stevenson 1947 and Hayes 1992) and Corinth (e.g. Sanders 1987; 1995 and Williams & Zervos 1988-1996). Furthermore, most studies of Post-Classical pottery in the Aegean have been (and some still are) written from a purely art-historical perspective, showing little concern for the humble but vast genre of domestic and transport pottery. The history of research began with the development of classification systems, based on decorative techniques. Another but similar approach was to isolate groups of pottery, which, owing to certain shared features, may be attributed to the same workshop (Megaw 1968b; 1975; 1989). From this originates the quest for centres of pottery production, together with the problem of the provenance of certain groups of wares. Also imitating classical art-historical ‘workshop’ methods, it emphasises the fine tableware. Lately, the study of Medieval and Post-Medieval ceramics in Greece has quickened its pace somewhat and quite a number of smaller publications have appeared on the subject, in particular on decorated glazed ware. There have been scholarly meetings and the relatively new science of archaeometry has also been applied in this field. Approaches such as chemical analysis of glazed and domestic pottery are also now opening up new areas of research in the study of Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery in the Aegean (see Megaw & Jones 1983; Jones 1986; Tite 1989; Waksman 1995 and especially Maguire 1997).

However, research on the social dimensions of pottery, which has in recent years become a concern of archaeology in its widest sense, is still completely lacking in the study of Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery in Greece. In spite of the recent ‘renaissance’ of the research subject, it is in this respect still lagging far behind studies generated, for instance, from Italian and British material. Virtually nothing is known about the relation between changes in the artefact, and changes in production and distribution patterns, or changes in eating and drinking habits. Archaeological ceramicists specializing in other periods have already shown that pottery can be used as more than a mere aid to archaeological dating, and that it is worthwhile to explore its technological, socio-economic and cultural aspects. There can be no doubt that this holds true also for the ceramics of Medieval and PostMedieval Greece. Questions with regard to the organisation of the pottery workshop, the changing focus of supply and demand, the importance of the road system and the settlement pattern to the distribution of pottery, the taste among the elites and the poorer classes, as well as the cultural values of food and drink in relation to changing shapes may all be considered in order to answer questions about Post-Roman society in Greek lands. If ceramicists working on Medieval and PostMedieval pottery in Greece have the ambition to say anything worthwhile beyond fabric and decoration and date (which in itself is an Herculean task), they will probably try to do so by combining the information obtained by typo-chronological research of the ceramics sampled during surveys and excavations, by scrutinizing the textual sources, by using scientific techniques, and even by looking with a critical eye at the socio-historical representation of Medieval pottery on icons and frescoes. Such an approach may eventually point the way to reaching new and tenable conjectures about the past, or at least offer the parachute with which to jump with some confidence into the still rather black hole of Medieval Archaeology of Greece in general, and of Boeotia in particular.

excavations or excavated finds from the city centre. The names ‘Constantinople’ or ‘Istanbul’ will be used in a historical context in the Byzantine or Turkish periods respectively. 2. Ian Morris (1994) gives a good survey of this ‘classicism’ in the intellectual history of Greek archaeology. 3. Cf. e.g. Tanoulas (1987, 461-76) and Sanders (1995, 4) for the destruction of these Post-Roman monuments in Athens and Delphi. Official interest in the fate of Byzantine and Medieval ceramics and architectural remains did not come until 1914 with the foundation of the Byzantine and Christian Museum in Athens (Kotsakis 1991, 67). It may also be noted that until 1950 archaeological legislation in Greece only protected antiquities before 1453 AD, the year of the Fall of Constantinople. 4. Other early publications with an art-historical approach are, for instance, Von Stern (1906) about Post-Roman glazed ceramics from Russia (Theodosia-Caffa) and Wulff (1909; especially 1911, 100-124) about Post-Roman glazed ceramics from Constantinople/Istanbul, Priene, Miletus, Pergamon, Lycia, Thessaloniki and Southern Russia. 5. Dawkins & Droop (1910-11, 24.) introduced in their article the term ‘graffiato’ for incised wares of the Middle Byzantine period, but they did not explain from where this term derived. The term ‘sgraffiato’ (from the Italian word ‘sgraffiare’ = ‘to scratch’) was introduced by the Victorian scholar J.C. Robinson in his Catalogue of the Special Exhibition of Works of Art of the Mediaeval, Renaissance and More Modern Periods, on Loan at the South Kensington Museum (1863) and is afterwards also used by B. Rackham in his Catalogue of Italian Maiolica (1977, 423-52). However, since David Talbot Rice used the term ‘sgraffito’ in his Byzantine Glazed Pottery (1930, 32) ceramicists working in the Aegean nowadays prefer the term ‘sgraffito’ to ‘sgraffiato’ or ‘graffita’ which are used by their colleagues in Italy to describe the same type of ware. 6. In contrast, the German archaeologist W. Altmann (1904, 203) considered the glazed ware found in the lower Agora and middle Gymnasium of Pergamon even as ‘Bauernware, die mit der in der Farbenwirkung oft erstaunlich reizvollen thüringischen sich vergleichen lässt’.

notes 7. Noteworthy also was Schneider’s publication of Late Roman 1. I will use the designation ‘Constantinople/Istanbul’ here

– Early Byzantine material from Samos in 1929. Cf. Schneider

strictly to describe the archaeological site, when referring to

(1929).

47

8. The pottery from these excavations was published by D.

Sanders (1987) and in the interim reports by C.K. Williams and

Talbot Rice in Reports of the British Academy Archaeological Expedi-

O. Zervos in Hesperia 59 (1990) – 65 (1999).

tion to Constantinople, 1928 and 1929, Oxford. 17. Cf. for the 1959-61 excavations in the South-West corner of 9. The term ‘faïence’, used by Talbot Rice in his 1930 publication for glazed white wares from the Byzantine period, is not the same as the modern ceramic term. Nowadays, faïence is the French name for tin-glazed earthenware, called after bianco di Faenza ware. This is maiolica with a thick white glaze introduced in the 1540s in Faenza, one of the biggest pottery making centres in Italy. 10. Waagé (1934) also introduced the name ‘Proto-Maiolica’ for a group of 13th and 14th century painted pottery from Corinth. 11. Waagé’s classification of the Late Roman Red Slip Wares was considered by Hayes (1972, 4-5) as a ‘major step forward’. 12. According to Waagé (1933, 309) there were no sherds of Polychrome Ware or Petal Ware from the Constantinople excavations in his collection. The Agora pottery had more similarities with that from Corinth (Deltion tis Christianikis Archaiologikis Etaireias 11 1923, 21ff), Sparta (Dawkins & Droop 1910-11, 23) and Thebes (unpublished; although Keramopolous already published in 1926 some grave-material from Thebes). 13. Although Waagé (1933) acknowledged that the absence of a slip (especially over red clay) was an indication of early date in general, he also admitted that it was not necessarily valid in the case of the rougher kitchen ware. 14. The excavations at Corinth started in 1896 AD, and Morgan also excavated parts of the site in 1929 and 1936-37 (Sanders 1995, 15). Previous to Morgan’s 1942-publication there were two articles about ceramics from Post-Roman Corinth, aside from some odd pieces published in excavation reports in the American Journal of Archaeology (Philadelphos 1924; Shear 1929; De Waele 1930 and Broneer 1933), followed by the study of Waagé (1934) on Proto-Maiolica wares. According to Megaw (1964, 145 n. 4) ‘only 30 of the 1788 items described were found before 1929’. 15. However, Morgan changed Frantz’s system by incorporating her second category of decorative styles (impressed ware) in his ‘Plain-Glazed Wares’-group. 16. Pottery from the Late Byzantine/Frankish and Turkish periods has subsequently been published by MacKay (1967),

48

the Forum at Corinth, Robinson (1960; 1962).

3 – T H E C U R R E N T S TA T E O F K N O W L E D G E O F P O S T- R O M A N C E R A M I C S I N T H E AEGEAN: THE MAJOR PROJECTS

.), Introduction Archaeological research in the Aegean has expanded enormously after the Second World War (as we have seen in the previous chapter) and as a consequence the knowledge in Post-Roman pottery in Greece has greatly increased. In this chapter I will try to establish to what point precisely this knowledge has expanded as a result of recent excavations (I will not discuss survey-material here). An overview is given of what archaeologists found in a stratigraphical context during the last 25 years, of their results and of the character and date of their material. And, not least important, I will discuss the major gaps and uncertainties in the study of Medieval and PostMedieval ceramics from Greece, at the point when I started my research on the Boeotian material in 1996. In short, in this chapter an attempt is made to describe the current state of knowledge on the typo-chronology of Post-Roman ceramics per period and per region. This inventory is in chronological order: it starts with the Early Byzantine period (ca. 7th-9th centuries) and ends in Early Modern times (ca. 19th-mid 20th centuries). The emphasis will be on the most important Post-War studies relating to large excavations in Greece (e.g. Athens, Corinth, Thessaloniki), in Cyprus (e.g. Paphos, Salamis) and in Constantinople/Istanbul, which were published before 1996.[1 ] The result of these studies will be discussed per region: e.g. ‘Constantinople/Istanbul’, ‘Greek Mainland’, ‘Greek Islands’ and ‘Cyprus’. No short excavation reports in journals such as Archaiologikon Deltion, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique or Archaeological Reports will be under discussion here. Furthermore, the Medieval and Post-Medieval ceramic finds from Boeotia (e.g. Thebes, Chalkis) and from other parts of the Mediterranean will be treated in part II (in chapters 4 and 6 respectively).

3.2

started in the 1940s) and Saraçhane excavations in Constantinople/Istanbul provided a stratigraphical basis for a much more refined chronological division of Early Byzantine and Middle Byzantine ceramics (e.g. Stevenson 1947; Talbot Rice 1958; Hayes 1968; 1992). The volumes with the pottery finds dealt with fine wares (mainly Red Slip Wares), as well as with cooking wares and amphorae (see figs. 3.1-2 for the commonest types in Late Roman fine wares and amphorae, as classified by Hayes 1968 and Riley 1981). However, solid dates for pottery found in the parts of the Byzantine Empire outside Constantinople/Istanbul are still lacking. This holds especially true for the 7th century onwards, when imports of classic Red Slip Wares and well-known types of the Late Roman amphora series stop and local products ‘in a Roman tradition’ take their place. One of the main difficulties is that these locally produced ‘Roman derivatives’ in cooking wares and amphorae are essentially undecorated (except for some rouletting, ridges and wavy incised lines on the exteriors or on the rims),[2 ] and for some ceramicists therefore hard to recognize and to date. In fact, to put it bluntly only a few studies dealing with Early Byzantine pottery of the 7th to 9th centuries from the Aegean area (such as Sparta and Gortys) are anything more than groping in the dark. The chronology of these publications is often based on coins or imports of new wares, such as glazed dishes and bowls in a white fabric from Constantinople/Istanbul (cf. Hayes 1980a). Of special interest for pottery chronology in the Early Byzantine period are the finds from Crete and Cyprus, where an Arab occupation perhaps has caused a radical break (and thus a solid date ante quem) in the local pottery production as well as in the Byzantine imports on these islands. On Cyprus this happened from 653/4 AD until 961 AD; on Crete from 828 AD until 961 AD.

Early Byzantine period (ca. 2th-4th centuries)

As has been discussed in the previous chapter, the publication of the pottery from the Great Palace (which

3.2.1 constantinople/istanbul The first ground-breaking publication of Early Byzantine ceramics in the Eastern Mediterranean was

49

Fig. 3.1 Shapes of Red Slip Wares (after Hayes 1972).

Hayes’ study of the excavated pottery from Saraçhane in Constantinople/Istanbul (Hayes 1992; preceded by the publication of a 7th century deposit in Hayes 1968). The excavations at Saraçhane uncovered remains of the church of Agios Polyeuktos, which was finished in 524/7 AD and was founded by Anicia Juliana (the daughter of the Western Emperor Flavius Anicius and Placidia the Younger). The first volume of the excavation-series dealt with the actual excavation and the architecture of the monument; the second volume dealt with all the Late

50

Roman and Byzantine finds, ranging from the 4th to the early 13th centuries. At the Saraçhane excavations, fine red bodied tablewares and coarser kitchen wares were a more or less constant element in all the Late Roman and Early Byzantine assemblages. Among the tablewares were the three major Late Roman fine wares, such as African Red Slip Ware from Northern Africa, Phocaean Red Slip Ware from Western Turkey and Cypriot Red Slip Ware from Cyprus, which can be generally dated from the 4th to the 7th century (cf. Hayes 1968 for these types; see also fig. 3.1). A typical shape of these fine tablewares was, for instance, the large dish or bowl with the finish of a reddish slip on the in- and outside (they lacked a glazed treatment). Apart from these fine textured sigillata wares, other finds at Saraçhane consisted of cooking wares, among them thick-walled mortaria with a sparsely lead glazed interior, a mica-dusted ware and a white bodied ware with a matt colour-coating in red to orange-brown or black. Furthermore, a few Late Roman ‘unguentaria’ (slender fusiform flasks, sometimes bearing stamps) were found.[3 ] The pottery found at Saraçhane constituted, according to Peter Megaw, also ‘the humble beginnings of glazing in Constantinople’ (Megaw 1975, 34). From the 7th century onwards, lead-glazed wares began to be produced in the neighbourhood of Constantinople/ Istanbul and Corinth. The glaze was initially not used for decorative purposes, but was put on the interior of kitchenware for use as a sealant. It was only in the 8th century that glaze became more common on (sparsely) decorated tablewares. The most common shapes among them are glazed cups and fruit-stands in a white fabric (Hayes 1992, 12-34 divides them in five groups) and glazed chafing dishes in a red fabric (Sanders 1995). The bulk of the earlier finds from the Saraçhane excavations, however, was made up of transport amphorae: they accounted for some 85 percent of the total sherd finds of the earlier Byzantine period (circa 5th-8th centuries or so), and for some 50 percent of the total sherd finds from the 10th century onwards (Hayes 1992, 3). Hayes classified them in ca. 60 types, ranging from the 4th to the 13th century in date (cf. Hayes 1992, 61 for previous classifications of the Late Roman and Byzantine amphora-types).[4 ] The dominant amphora type until the end of the 7th century was type S 5 (S for

years by archaeologists excavating at the large urban centres of Athens and Corinth. Work at Corinth concentrated in the 1990s on the (Middle) Byzantine and Frankish periods. The excavators appear to have been working in a part of Corinth that was little occupied in Late Antiquity (although recent excavations on the edges of the Forum, East of the Theatre, and in the Panagia field to the South-east of the Forum yielded 6th7th century finds; cf. Sanders 1999b). The standard work for Athens is still the 1959 volume of the Athenian Agora-series by Henry Robinson (Robinson 1959). Almost half a century later, it can serve as an example of the character of Early Byzantine pottery coming from one of the most important excavations on Mainland Greece (although no quantification took place).

Fig. 3.2 Shapes of Late Roman amphorae (after Riley 1977, fig. 10).

Saraçhane; also known as Late Roman 1 in Riley’s typology from Berenice; see fig. 3.2) from Cilicia, Cyprus and the region around Antioch, which represented between 15-20% of the types present (cf. Riley 1979). This amphora type was followed by amphora type S 6 / LR 4 from Gaza for the transport of wine from Palestine, and amphora type S 9 / LR 2 (a globular type for the transport of wine) from the Eastern Aegean (see fig. 3.2). Hayes argued that the 7th to 11th century tablewares and cooking wares from Constantinople had little in common with products found in peripheral Byzantine and non-Byzantine areas (e.g. Bulgaria, mainland Greece and South Russia). Nevertheless, the fine wares and cooking wares were exported from Constantinople to other regions. Recently, examples of one type of cooking pot with an internal flange halfway down the inside of the rim (Hayes’ Ware 3), produced at Constantinople in the 6th and 7th centuries, was found in Cyprus, at Carthage, in the Crimea, at Rome and at Marseilles (Hayes 1992, 54). 3.2.2 greek mainland Unfortunately, the publication of Early Byzantine ceramics has been rather neglected during the last 25

Athenian Agora – At the American excavations in the Athenian Agora, a group of 11 wheel-made, unglazed small jugs was found in an ossuary (group N). They were preliminarily dated by Robinson to the beginning of the 7th century on the basis of a bronze coin of Heraclius (610-641 AD) (Robinson 1959, 121-2, group N, pl. 35). Robinson suggested that the terminus ante quem for the vessels and lamps in layer XIII (group M 349-384) were a bit earlier in date, namely the last quarter of the 6th century, ‘when Slavic hordes invaded Athens and caused the retreat of the population back within the old Late Roman fortification’ (Robinson 1959, 84, M34-84). However, John Hayes is now inclined to redate Robinson’s group M in layer XIII even earlier to circa 520-540/50-AD (J. Hayes, pers. comm.). In addition, one lead-glazed plate fragment in a red fabric, some unglazed cooking pots, one unglazed jug and two globular amphorae in the level above layer XIII (that is to say: layer XIV) were then tentatively dated by Alison Frantz to the 9th and 10th centuries (Robinson 1959, 120, M 385-91, pl. 34). The plate fragment was covered with a vitreous transparent glaze on the interior, turning green to yellow-brown on the clay (Robinson, 120, M 385). Unfortunately, no picture or drawing of this important sherd exists in the book. Perhaps even more unfortunate is the fact that since Robinson’s 1959-volume, no more Late Roman – Early Byzantine ceramics have been published from the Agora excavations at Athens. (No wonder that the archaeological world is eagerly awaiting John Hayes’

51

already much anticipated publication of the Athenian Agora material which is to appear at the moment that I am writing.) Kenchreai/Corinth – In the meantime, a volume on ceramics found during excavations at Kenchreai, the Eastern port of Corinth, in the 1960s yielded no further essential information on 7th-9th century wares from the Corinthian region (Adamsheck 1979). It was the area of the harbour which was explored by the American excavators. However, the stratification was much disturbed because of problems with ground water. The finds represented primarily occupation of the later harbour area, including Late Roman and Byzantine fine and coarse wares of the 3rd until the early 7th century (such as African Red Slip Ware, Phocaean Red Slip Ware, LR 2 and ‘Samos cistern amphorae’ as well as unguentaria; see figs. 3.1-2).[5 ] In all cases, glazed ceramics of the Middle Byzantine period were found mixed in the same context or at the same level and within the same co-ordinates as the 4th-7th century Red Slip Wares. The excavators concluded, therefore, that after the 4th century Kenchreai was not inhabited continuously enough to establish solid dates. Argos – An important complex of Late Roman – Early Byzantine finds with a better stratigraphical context originated from excavations in the city centre of Argos in the Peloponnesus. In the ancient Agora of Argos a well with a large quantity of complete vessels, mostly amphorae and domestic wares, was found during excavations by the French School of Archaeology in 1976 and 1977 (Piérart & Thalmann 1980). This well was used continuously from the 3rd through the 10th century, while afterwards it became a cesspit and was finely filled in during the second half of the 12th century. Four main groups of wares were distinguished by the excavators, and labelled A, B, C and D respectively: group A was dated from the 4th to the beginning of the 5th century and included mainly amphorae (e.g. LR 3 amphora; see fig. 3.2) and one-handled jugs with ribbed bodies. Group B was dated from the end of the 11th to the beginning of the 12th century, and consisted of Byzantine amphorae with incised wavy lines, cooking pots, jugs and a pilgrim’s flask with a matt painted decoration on the outside. Groups C and D, finally, were dated from the first half to the end of the 12th century.

52

These last two groups contained ribbed cooking pots and matt painted amphorae. (Similar painted amphorae and flasks have been found at Argos by a team of Greek archaeologists, but were dated by them to an 8th-9th century context; cf. Kritzas 1973-74, 245, fig 167c). Of particular interest was Piérart-Thalmann’s group A1 , a distinct variant of group A, which was tentatively dated by them as originating from the 5th to the 7th century (or perhaps even into the 9th century). The subgroup consisted of only four vessels: one jug with ribbed exterior (5th+ century), two cooking pots (6th-7th centuries) and a small amphora with incised graffiti on the shoulder (9th century?). They were found in the lowest part of group B, but were thought to be older than the rest in this group. According to the excavators, they were evidence that the sporadic use of this well extended for a long period of time (Piérart & Thalmann 1980, 466, pl. IV). In her study of the distribution of Late Roman – Early Byzantine fine wares and amphorae in the Aegean, Catherine Abadie-Reynal suggested that the import of African Red Slip Ware witnessed a revival in Argos in the 6th century (Abadie-Reynal 1989a). This fine ware from North Africa represented 40% of the total amount of fine wares from this period in Argos; the rest of the Red Slip Wares came from Phocaea in Western Turkey (see fig. 3.1). These imported wares disappeared in Argos towards the mid 7th century. Of the amphorae finds at Argos, the LR 2 amphora (from the Aegean) was dominant in the 6th century with 20-30% of the total amount, but amphorae from Turkey, Syria and Palestine of the same date-range were also very well-presented on the site (see fig. 3.2). This showed, according to AbadieReynal, that the trade system at Argos must have been more diverse and less state-dominated than in other parts of Greece, where especially Phocaean Red Slip Ware dominated. Slavic Ware – Another type of pottery from Early Byzantine times found at Argos demands particular attention: this is the so-called ‘Slavic Ware’. Aupert excavated in 1980 in Late Roman levels in the Baths at Argos cooking pots with a flat bottom, rounded sides and a flaring rim. The fabric of these pots was very coarse with many large voids and white quartz inclusions. Some of the vessels were perhaps hand-made or hand-shaped (the walls are not regular and show fingerprints on the

surface); others show wheel marks and were probably manufactured on a slow wheel or turntable. The decoration included horizontal straight and wavy lines and vertical straight lines. The pottery seemed to be similar to what is called ‘Prague-Korc˘ak Ware’, found at many sites in the Balkans and Central Europe. Aupert argued that the vessels must have been left by an invading band of Slavs who took the city in 585 AD but quickly abandoned it, leaving the tell-tale mark of their pottery behind (Aupert 1980a, 394). Since his conjecture, the Argos material has been taken as dramatic confirmation of the historical accuracy of the Chronicle of Monemvasia and as material testimony to the Slavic invasions of the late 6th century in Greek lands (Vryonis 1981, 378-81; Gregory 1993, 151-55). In other parts of Greece, similar hand-made coarse pottery found earlier in contexts of the late 6th and early 7th centuries were thereafter generally characterized as ‘Slavic Ware’ (Ialouris 1961-62, 107, pl. 117; Rudolph 1971; Gardawaski 1974; Davidson Weinberg 1974, 51221). Examples were excavated and recognized at Tiryns, Olympia, Demetrias, Corinth, Isthmia and Sparta (e.g. Rudolph 1971, 102, pl. 44, no. 31; Kilian 1980;Eiwanger 1981; Gregory 1990; 1993; Sanders 1995). These finds consist of a variety of cooking vessels that feature small hand-made or slow wheel-turned pots, often with a flat bottom, out-turned rim, and rounded wall decorated with incised linear patterns. The fabric is always coarse, but otherwise varies widely, even among the finds from individual sites (e.g. Gregory 1993, 152). However, it now appears that most ‘Slavic Ware’ finds (especially Aupert’s pots in Argos) have been dated too early and are probably of the 7th century (see for a recent discussion of the dating of this ware, chapter 6, 141-43 under Ware 2a), although Aupert’s 1980s ‘group’ seems to contain some earlier items as well (late 5th/6th centuries). In short, the dating of this deposit may have to be stretched out over a longer period (J. Hayes, pers. comm.). Delphi – At Delphi, excavations of the French School in the Roman Agora and the so-called ‘South-Eastern Villa’ showed that the site was occupied until the beginning of the 7th century (Petridis 1995; 1996). Most of the imported tablewares came from North Africa (e.g. African Red Slip Ware; see fig. 3.1) and Attica (e.g. Central Greek Painted Ware), but also some fine wares from Turkey, Gaul and Cyprus were found. Next to

these imports, there was a local production centre near the ancient Sanctuary of Apollo which must have existed between the last quarter of the 6th and the beginning of the 7th century. Apart from moulds for lamps of a North African type, the excavators discovered three kilns, kiln supports and wasters. The local products included two types of colour-coated amphorae, large basins with wavy incised lines, jugs and small jugs (often covered with a red/brown slip on the upper part), Corinthian-style cooking pots and red-slipped small plates. 3.2.3 cyprus Although most of the Late Roman – Early Byzantine finds from Cyprus belong to the Eastern orbit of the Mediterranean, it is still important to discuss here some types of ceramics excavated on the island (e.g. Glazed White Wares, hand-made cooking pots) which are relevant for the discussion of the Boeotian wares in chapter 6. A good general overview of 7th-9th century ceramics found on Cyprus is presented by John Hayes in a short article which deals mainly with the excavations at the site of Salamis (ancient Constantia), but also reviews pottery finds (Red Slip Wares, amphorae and kitchenware) from other sites on the island (Hayes 1980a). Interesting is Hayes’ overview of finds of glazed wares from the East on the island. According to him, there is clear evidence of local production of domestic wares on Cyprus from circa 650 AD onwards. A typical Cypriot product was, for instance, the thin-walled, wheel-ridged cooking pot, which was probably made at Dhiorios in the NorthWestern part of the island (cf. Catling 1972).[6 ] The chronology of the Cypriot cooking wares is often based on their occurrence together with 7th-9th century imports of glazed wares from Constantinople, which were found at Salamis, Paphos, Soli and other major sites. Ceramics dating later than the 9th century were not discussed by Hayes. Kornos Cave – More detailed information on Late Roman – Early Byzantine finds came from the excavation by Hector Catling and A. Dikigoropoulos of a small deposit found in the Kornos Cave on North-Central Cyprus (Catling & Dikigoropoulos 1970). This limestone cave in a remote area 2500 feet (= ca. 800 m.) above sea level contained an assemblage which seems characteristic for the Late Roman – Early Byzantine era on the island. It consisted of one jug and two dishes of Cypriot Red Slip

53

Ware (a locally made Late Roman fine ware of the 4th7th centuries; see fig. 3.1), as well as of jugs and a ‘pilgrim flask’ in unglazed plain wares.[7 ] Furthermore, a Cypriot cooking pot, a mould-made lamp with relief decoration of a cross, as well as bronze and iron objects were found in the cave, together with bronze coins of Heraclius (610-41 AD) and Constans II (641-67 AD), suggesting a date around mid 7th century for the pottery (Catling & Dikigoropoulos 1970, pl. XXIX B; for the date cf. Megaw 1986, 505). The Kornos Cave may have been occupied by fugitives from the Arab raids in the mid 7th century, or could have been used as a refuge by outlaws, and the excavators suggest that the desertion of the cave may have been contemporary with the wholesale abandonment of Early Byzantine sites all over Cyprus late in the 7th or early in the 8th century. They suggest that this well-known but hitherto unexplained phenomenon should be understood rather ‘in terms of natural catastrophe (such as the plague of circa 747 AD) than a wholly man-made disaster’ (Catling & Dikigoropoulos 1970, 61). Salamis – Other Cypriot material, which would play a role in the refinement of Early Byzantine chronology, was excavated at Salamis/Constantia on the Eastern part of the island between 1964 and 1974 by archaeologists of the University of Lyon and the Cyprus Department of Antiquities (Diederichs 1980a and 1980b, 51-62). This material was found in the South-Eastern part of the town, especially in a large private residence, named by the French as l’Huilerie (or oil-factory), and in the Early Christian basilica of Kampanopetra. The vessels found here consisted mainly of closed shapes (unguentaria, jugs in undecorated plain wares), amphorae (among which LR 1 and a Beirut type 8.2), some open shapes (plates, bowls, jars etc.) and lids – all in a Roman tradition. Also some typical examples of Cypriot Red Slip Ware and unglazed cooking wares in a whitish fabric (cf. Hayes 1968, 206; 1992, 38; see also fig. 3.1) were recovered at the site. Although the excavators admitted that many questions remained concerning the dating of this pottery, the publication of the material was swift and exemplary (Diederichs 1980b). However, the volume has to be used with some care because the excavation seems to contain also quite a bit of earlier Roman material (J. Hayes, pers. comm.).

54

Soloi – At Soloi, on the Northern coast of Cyprus, a large Early Byzantine basilica had been excavated by a FrenchCanadian mission already in the 1960s and early 1970s, although the publication was delayed because of the Turkish invasion of the island in 1974 (Des Gagniers & Tinh 1985). The finds seem to suggest that the large basilica may have been in function as late as the beginning of the 10th century. The pottery from the debris included both amphorae and cooking pots, related to those in use in the final phase at Kourion (see below). Hayes has suggested a 9th or even a 10th century date for the latest Soloi vessels (Hayes 1980a, 378). A partial re-occupation of the basilica area prior to the 10th century was attested by the find of a 9th century glazed Constantinopolitan plate in a white fabric (Hayes 1980a, 379, fig. 22:2; Megaw 1986, fig. 9a). Kourion – On the acropolis at Kourion, located in SouthWestern Cyprus, extensive excavations were carried out in 1974-75 by Peter Megaw in a large Episcopal church. The complex was abandoned in the mid 7th century, apparently as a result of the Arab raids (Megaw 1976; 1979; 1986, 511-12). Systematic demolition and limeburning marked the final levels on the site; among the latest datable finds were an early 8th century archiepiscopal seal and an Umayyad coin of 720-21 AD. Contemporary imports of amphorae of Umayyad and Byzantine types, among them a LR 13-variant in a Cypriot style, appeared to be typical for the early 8th century phase at Kourion. Notably absent were Cypriot Red Slip Ware (although Egyptian Red Slip Ware A was found; cf. Hayes 1993, 89) and the thin-walled, wheel-ridged cooking pot, both characteristic wares for 7th century Cyprus (cf. Dhiorios, Kornos Cave, Pegeia). Instead, the site yielded in its latest phase a thick-walled, hand-made cooking pot with circular handles and an imported thinwalled cooking pot with ribbon handles (Megaw 1986, fig. 8a-b). Kalavasos-Kopetra – In 1987 the American ‘KalavasosKopetra Project’ started an intensive survey and subsequent excavations at the small inland settlement of Kopetra in the Vasilikos Valley, circa 20 kilometres East of Limassol (McClellan & Rautman 1989; 1991; 1994; Rautman & McClellan 1990; 1992; Rautman et al. 1993). The excavations took place at the site of three basilicas near the edges of the settlement, as well as at buildings in

the habitation centre. The settlement seemed to have flourished briefly during the 6th and 7th centuries. In the middle of the 7th century the site suffered widespread damage and human activity on it was substantially reduced, probably as result of Arab raids on the island (Megaw 1986). This final phase of occupation may have lasted only a few years, and by the 8th century the site was abandoned. The bulk of the finds from Kalavasos-Kopetra was of Cypriot manufacture, including Cypriot Red Slip Ware (which comprised over half of all the fine wares recovered; see fig. 3.1) and many fragments of LR 1 amphora (over 90% of all identified amphora sherds; see fig. 3.2), as well as more than 200 fragments of locally made cooking vessels (among which the thin-walled wheel-ridged type cooking pot known from Dhiorios and the thick-walled hand-made type known from Kourion). The hand-made cooking pots apparently constituted the latest evidence for post-destruction activity at Kopetra, and were found together with a late follis of Constans II (issued in 659/60 AD). Related hand-made cooking pots were found in the neighbouring Maroni Valley at the 6th to early 7th century church complex at Maroni-Petrera, near Kopetra (Manning et al. 1994, 367). More examples have been reported at the necropolis of Amathus, circa 20 km to the west. These cooking pots were found in a reused tomb together with pottery, lamps and other objects of the mid 7th century (Procopiou 1995, 258, 269, pl. XXXII, 1b). Paphos – Finally, British excavations on the Crusader Castle of Saranda Kolones, overlooking the harbour of Paphos in Western Cyprus, revealed 7th-9th century finds and the debris of a glass factory. The mound was first investigated by Peter Megaw in 1957-59 on behalf of the Cyprus Department of Antiquities. Subsequent excavations with other sponsors followed in 1966-67, in 197071 and in 1981-1983 (Megaw 1971; 1972; 1984; Rosser 1985). Found together with the glass was a type of (LR13variant?) amphora related to the early 8th century example from Kourion (Megaw 1971, fig. 5, no. 22; 1972, fig. C). Further study by John Hayes of the pottery associated with the glass factory and from construction contexts in the Castle included a number of plain and comb-grooved amphorae of the late 8th-early 9th

century, fragments of coarse lead-glazed vessels (including chafing dishes) and two sherds of Constantinopolitan Glazed White Ware of the 8th century (Megaw 1971, 145-46; 1972, 340). Similar 8th-9th century pottery appeared below the Crusader layers at the Castle during excavations in the 1980s. Among the finds were rim fragments of Glazed White Ware and two pieces of glazed chafing dishes of the same era (Rosser 1985, 87, n. 21, fig. H: 13-19). 3.2.4 crete Both the written sources and the archaeological evidence concerning Crete suggest that the 6th and the first half of the 7th centuries were a time of great commercial activity and financial flourishing for the island (Tsougarakis 1988, 21). This was followed by a period of decay, and from 827-828 AD onwards Crete was gradually conquered by the Arabs. Knossos – In this perspective, an intriguing assemblage from a so-called ‘Arab building’ at ancient Knossos might be worth a closer study (Warren & Miles 1972). The excavators claimed to have found the first-known building from the period of Arab occupation of the island (828961 AD), but unfortunately did not publish the pottery very adequately. The house itself, a simple rectangular structure, was dated by coins of the Arab emirs of Crete, and could have been built at the time of or shortly after the Arab conquest. However, the pottery directly on and in the floor was mixed and included Minoan sherds, as well as pieces of unglazed ceramics which were rather vaguely described as ‘Late Roman or later’ (and compared with very disturbed deposits from a Byzantine basilica church in the northern part of Knossos; cf. Frend & Johnston 1962, 217-29).[8 ] Also, a lid fragment was found with stamped squares on the outside (although the excavators designated it also as ‘Late Roman or later’, it rather looks like it should be dated to the Late Byzantine/Frankish period). A deposit at the East side outside the building yielded a pointed Arab-type lamp nozzle, several glazed sgraffito fragments from Late Byzantine/Frankish – Early Turkish times, as well as a sherd which was described as ‘dark green glazed with light green glaze patterned’ (this is, in fact, a fragment of 19th century Didymoteicho Ware from Thrace). All in all, the discus-

55

sion of the pottery found at this excavation was rather disappointing and does not contribute greatly to a solid chronology for the Early Byzantine material on Crete (cf. Hayes 2001, 433, note 10 who also suggests a later date for the few fragmentary ‘Arab’ finds from this excavation). Gortys – More interesting are the excavated finds of the Italian Archaeological Institute near the praetorium (governor’s palace) at Gortys in Central Crete. The site was abandoned after the earthquake in 796 AD and the Arab invasion in 828 AD, when much of the city was razed. From 1978 onwards, the Italian excavators recovered a habitation area of the 5th-8th centuries with open house-shops along the west road (la strada ovest) of the praetorium (Di Vita 1988). The finds included imported tablewares, imported amphorae (LR 1 amphora: 8,7%; LR 4 amphora: 10,7%; LR 7 amphora: 3,7% of the total finds; see also fig. 3.2), glass and ivory objects from North Africa, Egypt, Syria, Cyprus, Western Turkey and Constantinople,[9 ] as well as locally produced amphorae and an unique type of painted ware (or ceramica sovradipinta bizantina). This Byzantine Painted Ware from Gortys was dated by the excavators between the end of the 6th and the 8th centuries (although stratigraphical contexts seem still inadequate to provide more solid dating). The vessels are decorated with geometric patterns and designs of stylistic birds and fishes in a red-brown slip. Similar examples were also found at the sites of Pseira and Knossos on Crete. The pottery from Gortys shows many parallels with slip-decorated wares from the Greek Mainland (such as ‘Central Greek Painted Ware’ found at Athens, Argos, Delphi, Nea Anchialos, Demetrias, Thasos and Thessaloniki) and from Coptic Egypt (found at Alexandria and Kellia). Excavations in 1988 and in 1989 in the habitation area west of the Gortys praetorium revealed the remains of ‘poor houses’ and a small monastery, which were occupied until the end of the 8th century. They yielded a few sherds of Glazed White Ware (Hayes’ groups I and II), which were dated to the second half of the 7th century (Di Vita 1993) Two large fragments were part of a lid (for a chafing dish) and were decorated with socalled ‘petals’. This Petal Ware found at Gortys, which is normally rare outside Constantinople, can be dated stylistically towards the mid 8th century (cf. Hayes 1992, 12-18; 1993, 87).

56

Pseira – Furthermore, American-Greek excavations on the islet of Pseira off the North-Eastern coast of Crete have revealed in the late 1980s a church complex of the Early Byzantine period with yet another find of glazed ware on Crete (Albani & Poulou-Papadimitriou 1990). Unfortunately, previous excavations in 1910 by R.B. Seager, who was searching for the Minoan settlement of Pseira, made a stratigraphical study of the ceramics ‘almost impossible’. The pottery was, therefore, provisionally dated on the basis of its fabric and typology as being from the late 6th/early 7th up to the beginning of the 9th centuries. Among the other finds at Pseira were domestic wares (amphorae, cooking pots and jugs), a few Phocaean Red Slip Ware fragments (see fig. 3.1), and a Palestinian-type lamp of the 7th-8th centuries. The discovery of pieces of a glazed chafing dish in a red fabric is noteworthy. The chafing dish appeared to be an early type and was dated to the 9th century, which makes it a rare find outside Corinth and Constantinople (Albani & PoulouPapadimitriou 1990, 7-8, fig. 8).[10 ] 3.2.5 other greek islands Chios – In the Aegean area itself, the excavations by the British School at Athens at Emporio on the South coast of the island of Chios in the 1950s was a relatively early example of a modern excavation almost exclusively focussed on the Late Roman, Early Byzantine and subsequent Medieval occupation of the area (Ballance et al. 1989). The Early Christian basilica church complex (erected around 570 AD) and the Byzantine fortified settlement on the Acropolis hill were explored under the direction of John Boardman (1953) and Michael Balance (1954-55). The excavators believed that the fortress may have been constructed in the early part of the reign of Constans II (641-68) against the Arab threat. The settlement was destroyed by the Arabs before their attack on Constantinople in 674 AD. The basilica church was also destroyed in this period. The bulk of the Early Byzantine pottery, lamps, coins and other finds from the Chios excavation were later published by John Boardman (Boardman 1989). Among the finds were a few Early Roman pots, Late Roman fine tablewares (such as Phocaean Red Slip Ware, African Red Slip Ware and Cypriot Red Slip Ware; see fig. 3.1), mid 7th century plain wheel-made wares with ribbed walls and sparsely incised (wavy) lines (among them jugs

with one or two handles, jugs with a spout, small cups and mugs, open jars and dishes), as well as cooking pots, amphorae, pithoi, lids and stoppers. The finds suggest, according to the excavators, that there were subsequent phases of reoccupation in the fortress at Emporio: the first one ended in the early 9th century, the second one before the end of the 11th century. Pottery of the alleged 9th century re-occupation period included two round-bottomed amphorae with irregularly grooved walls (nos. 280-81), a storage jar with a pointed foot (no. 282), a handled jar (no. 283), two cooking pots (nos. 284-85), a one-handled mug (no. 287) and a jug with grooved walls (no. 286). However, the evidence suggests that this dating might be dubious. One of the two so-called 9th century amphorae (no. 281) looks rather like a LR 1-variant and should therefore be dated to the 7th century (although the drawing of this amphora in fig. 43 looks quite different from its photograph in plate 25). The second amphora (no. 281) is a LR 13-variant with a LR 1 base and can indeed be dated to the 8th-9th centuries (P. Reynolds, pers. comm.). In addition, the supposedly 11th century glazed pottery from a tomb within the chapel in the fortress seems to be limited to a handful of fragments of Brown and Green Painted Ware and Slippainted Ware fragments, which both are nowadays dated to the 12th century (Boardman 1989, 114, fig. 43, pl. 26).

pitchers, beakers and deep bowls), often with grooves on the outside; 2) hard fired, thin-walled cooking pots; and 3) fine wares with a thick rim (among them Phocaean Red Slip Ware form 3, which can be dated to the 6th century). A large group of one late 6th/7th century amphora-type from the cistern was classified twenty years later by Paul Arthur with the term ‘Samos cistern amphora’, because both the distribution and the clay of the type appear to be of Samian origin (cf. Arthur 1990; see also note 5). More recently, a Greek rescue excavation uncovered a pit deposit of the late 6th-early 7th century at Pythagoreio on Samos (Gerousi 1992-1993). The finds included amphorae (from Africa, the Aegean area, Eastern Turkey as well as from Samos itself), domestic wares (e.g. a Beirut lantern, a wine thief and a cheesemaker) and a glazed chafing dish in a white fabric, which must be one of the earliest examples (if correctly dated) of this type of ware found outside Constantinople. Fifteen bronze coins were also found in the pit, the latest being from 615-629 AD and four others having an issue date of 611-614/5 AD. According to the excavators, the associated buildings were destroyed in the third quarter of the 7th century during the Arab invasions on the island, and in the course of later reconstructions of the buildings the pottery and coins must have been thrown into the pit.

Samos – On the island of Samos, German archaeologists excavated the Heraion (or Sanctuary of Hera) on the Southern coast, and published the Red Slip Wares found there (Technau 1929; Schneider 1929; Isler 1978, 127131; Tölle-Kastenbein 1974, 159-162). African Red Slip Ware was used in the Heraion until the 5th century, when Phocaean Red Slip Ware rapidly became the dominant ware (see fig. 3.1). The number of finds of this ware increased dramatically after about 450 AD and reached a new peak in the first half of the 6th century (Lund 1996, 107; see also note 4 for the Eupalinos Tunnel finds on Samos). The excavation of a cistern on Samos, which contained Late Roman/Early Byzantine wares, was published by H.P. Isler (Isler 1969). The pottery was apparently thrown in the cistern during the destruction of a nearby house, and was therefore considered as a closed deposit. The ceramics were divided into three groups: 1) crudely made kitchenware (pithoi, amphorae,

Kythera – Other 6th to 7th century material was excavated on the island of Kythera near the Peloponnesus. Some Late Roman – Early Byzantine deposits at the site of Kastri on Kythera could be dated in connection with coins from the mid 6th century to 615/16 AD (Coldstream & Huxley 1972). The excavators dated the pottery on the basis of Waagé’s old classification of the material from the excavations at Antioch in SouthEastern Turkey (Waagé 1948). The finds included Late Roman fine wares, such as African Red Slip Ware and Phocaean Red Slip Ware, as well as LR 2 amphorae (see figs. 3.1-2). Aegina – Early Byzantine and Middle Byzantine finds from the densely inhabited Classical site (‘Burgberg’) North of the modern port of Aegina (on the island with the same name) yielded fine wares (among them African Red Slip Ware of the 7th century; see fig. 3.1), glass fragments, and lamps of the 1st century until the 6th

57

century (Felten 1975). According to the German excavators, the settlement was destroyed at the beginning of the 9th century (perhaps by Arabs?). The pottery was dated by them from the late 6th to 8th centuries and consisted mostly of unglazed domestic ware, such as ribbed jugs with one handle, cooking pots, fragments with incised wavy lines and two-handled amphorae. Apparently, also fragments of 8th century Glazed White Ware from Constantinople were recovered during the excavations (cf. Hayes 1993, 88). However, a closer look suggests that the chronological range of the material from Aegina does not stop at the 8th century. The finds seem also to contain pottery from the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries. One amphora in this publication (no. 108, pl.22), for instance, looks similar to Medieval amphorae from Italy of the 10th-11th centuries. Also, the unglazed incised and gouged wares as well as the plain glazed chafing dishes in a red fabric appear to be later than proposed by the excavators. Thasos – On the island of Thasos, in the most Northern part of the Aegean, excavations were conducted from 1969 to 1977 by Jean-Paul Sodini in the double basilica of Aliki. The finds were published in 1992 by Catherine Abadie-Reynal, together with ceramics found in a trial trench in a villa at Delkos as well as pottery from earlier excavations of the French School at Athens (AbadieReynal 1992). The time range of all the published ceramics was from the early 5th until possibly the 8th century. Finds included 2nd to 7th century fine wares (among them Phocaean Red Slip Ware; see fig. 3.1), as well as amphorae (LR 1, LR 2 and LR 3; see fig. 3.2) and cooking pots. Furthermore, various lamps, glass and metal objects were recovered.

...

Middle Byzantine period (ca. ,+th-,-th/early ,.th centuries)

Contrary to the situation of ceramics of the Early Byzantine period of the 7th, 8th and 9th centuries, pottery finds of the so-called Middle Byzantine period are fairly well documented in publications. This period is mostly taken to stretch from the late 9th/early 10th through the 12th/early 13th century, and is often characterised by archaeologists and historians as an era of recovery and development, especially in the regions

58

outside Constantinople. New production centres of pottery emerged in this period, using new shapes and decoration-techniques, and distribution patterns changed rapidly. Especially during the 11th and 12th centuries, with the appearance of widely used glazed wares with painted or sgraffito decoration, ‘a greater uniformity of taste in pottery styles’ was apparently emerging in the Byzantine world (Hayes 1992, 3). In the catalogue of the Thessaloniki-exhibition Byzantine Glazed Ceramics the editor refers to these centuries with good reason as ‘the age of experimentation and aspiration’ (Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1999, 18). Fine examples of these glazed and highly decorated wares have been published in catalogues of several large exhibitions held in France and Greece from the 1980s onwards (e.g. Splendeur de Byzance 1982; Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Art 1986; Brouscari 1988). Since Alison Frantz’s article from the early 1940s in which she identified the mythical Byzantine hero Digenis Akritas on a glazed plate from Athens, there has remained a constant art-historical interest in the iconography of Byzantine glazed wares (Frantz 1940-41; Biers 1977; IoannidakiDostoglou 1981). The research into Middle Byzantine ceramics has always been focussed on developing the typology and chronology for the (easily recognisable) glazed and highly decorated wares from Constantinople/Istanbul and Corinth, and in doing so has always relied (and still relies) heavily on Morgan’s classification and dating from the 1940s (Morgan 1942). The publication of unglazed domestic pottery was mostly routinely ignored, with the notable exception of some finds from Constantinople (Peschlow 1977-78), Corinth (MacKay 1967), Argos (Piérart & Thalmann 1980), Sparta (Sanders 1993) and Nichoria (Rosser 1983). Furthermore, a handful of fundamental publications on Middle Byzantine amphorae found in the Aegean have appeared during the last 25 years (cf. Peschlow 1977-78 for Constantinople; Piérart & Thalmann 1980 for Argos and Vassi 1993 for Lakonia). An important contribution was Bakirtzis’ study on the names, shapes and functions of cooking wares and amphorae in Greece, specifically of the period from the 9th/10th to the 13th/15th century (Bakirtzis 1989a). However, it was only Hayes’ publication of the Saraçhane excavations at Constantinople/Istanbul that provided a good dating of these wares in a stratigraphical context (Hayes 1992, 61-79).

The standard glazed wares of the Middle Byzantine period are traditionally divided into glazed ceramics with a white fabric and glazed ceramics with a red fabric. Of these, the so-called ‘Glazed White Wares’ (the names are based on fabric, not on colour of glaze), have a long period of production in Constantinople: from the early 7th to the 13th century (see in general, figs. 3.3-4). The ‘Glazed Red Wares’ appear only from the late 9th century onward, and many originate from Corinth (see in general, figs. 3.5-6). From the outset these wares have attracted the interest of most scholars working with Byzantine ceramics (e.g. Talbot Rice 1930; Morgan 1942; Stevenson 1947). According to Hayes, they even form ‘the backbone of Byzantine pottery chronology prior to the appearance of the sgraffito and related classes in the 12th century’ (Hayes 1992, 12). Fig. 3.3 Shapes of Glazed White Wares (after Morgan 1942, fig. 30).

Fig. 3.4 Drawing of Glazed White Wares (after Morgan 1942, pl. V).

3.3.1 constantinople/istanbul: ‘glazed white wares’ (figs. 3.3-4) After two reports of Robert Stevenson and David Talbot Rice on the Great Palace finds (which appeared in 1947 and 1954 respectively), it took a long time until a large deposit of Glazed White Wares was published in 1978 from excavations at Constantinople/Istanbul. This deposit was recovered on the South side of the Agia Eirene church in Constantinople/Istanbul, and was dated by the excavator from mid 9th to late 10th centuries (Peschlow 1977/78). It included tableware in a monochrome green and monochrome yellow glaze (sometimes with an impressed decoration), oil-lamps, chafing dishes, unglazed domestic vessels and amphorae, as well as two coins. One of these could be dated to the years 868-870 AD. Furthermore, the Agia Eirene excavations yielded six examples of a subgroup of Glazed White Ware with a polychrome painted decoration (the so-called Polychrome Ware). These vessels belonged to Morgan’s Groups I-III, and were dated to the 10th century (Peschlow 1977-78, 405-6). In recent years, though, it has been argued by some scholars that the Agia Eirene deposit was dated too early by the excavator, and should be rather dated somewhere between the late 10th and early 12th centuries (Hayes 1992, 13; Sanders 1995, 25). More recently, John Hayes devoted a chapter in his publication of the Saraçhane excavations to the monochrome Glazed White Wares, sometimes decorated with

59

an impressed or stamped decoration (Hayes 1992, 1234). The stratigraphical and numismatic evidence of these excavations contributed greatly to the refinement of the dating of the Glazed White Wares. Hayes’publication dealt with circa 20,000 glazed sherds in a white fabric, which is the largest collection of Glazed White Wares yet studied. He suggested several improvements in the traditional diagnosis of monochrome Glazed White Ware. The previous classifications by Talbot Rice and Stevenson tended to stress the decorative aspects of these ceramics (hence their suggestions for names were ‘Petal Ware’ and ‘Impressed Ware’) (see Appendix A2). Hayes, however, divided the wares into five new groups on the basis of fabric, while Polychrome Ware was treated as a different group altogether and was discussed in a separate chapter (see Appendix A13). At the Saraçhane excavations, the Glazed White Wares occurred in such massive quantities (ca. 20,000 sherds in total) that Hayes assumed that they were made locally – although no kilns, wasters or unfinished products have ever been found.[11 ] The overall daterange may now be set from early 7th century until some time in the 13th century. Apart from his new groupings of the Glazed White Wares, Hayes also proposed new dates and a new typology (of three groups) for Middle Byzantine Polychrome Ware. These new groups were based more or less on Morgan’s scheme but differed as far as the colours were concerned. (Hayes 1992, 35-37; see also 1993, 8586). Hayes’ group 1 may begin as early as the second half of the 10th century, group 2 is found in late 10th and early 11th century contexts and group 3 he finds in deposits of the late 11th to early 12th centuries. Polychrome Ware, however, formed only a small category of the Byzantine finds. At the Saraçhane excavations with 175 vessel sherds and 20 tile fragments it accounted for only one percent of the total amount of glazed pottery of this period (Hayes 1992, 35). Finds of Glazed White Wares have been recorded at every major Byzantine site in the Aegean area (e.g. Athens, Corinth, Thessaloniki) and around the Black Sea shores (e.g. Cherson in the Crimea, Mesembria in Bulgaria) (cf. Waagé 1933, 321-22; Morgan 1942, 42-49; Bakirtzis & Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1981, 422; Hayes 1992, 12, n. 2; and Armstrong forthcoming, fig. 3.1 for more find spots of Glazed White Wares in the Aegean, in Italy, in Bulgaria, in Cyprus, in Turkey and in Southern

60

Russia). More recently, fragments of 7th-9th century Glazed White Wares were also recovered and published at the sites of Salamis, Kourion, Soli and Paphos on Cyprus (Megaw 1972, 340; Hayes 1980a, 379-80; Rosser 1985; Megaw 1986, 512-13, 516), at Gortys on Crete (Di Vita 1993, 351-55), at Thera on Santorini (E. Dafi, pers. comm.) and at Pythagoreio on Samos (Gerousi 19921993). Half a century ago, Morgan published small quantities of Glazed White Wares found at the site of Corinth, which have recently been reassessed by Guy Sanders in the light of excavations during the last decades on the site (Morgan 1942; Sanders 1995). It now appears that this ware from Constantinople was much in use at Corinth at the end of the 10th and during the 11th century before the local factories became active, though it continued to be imported on a smaller scale in the 12th century (Morgan 1942, 49; Sanders 1995). Morgan based his typology on the decorative styles, and he dated the material to rather long time spans of years, unless there was good evidence for suggesting narrower chronological bands. However, as far as the Polychrome Ware (in a white fabric) is concerned, Sanders’ reassessment of the archaeological evidence from Corinth has indicated that this type of ware was an 11th century decorative style and one of the primary stimuli for the glazed pottery production at Corinth (Sanders 1995). This conclusion seems to be supported by excavated material elsewhere: from Thessaloniki (Soteriou & Soteriou 1952, 238-43; Bakirtzis & Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1981) and from Nichoria in the Peloponnesus (McDonald & Howell 1971, 135, pl. 115a; Rosser 1983, pl. 10-1) 3.3.2 corinth: ‘red glazed wares’ (figs. 3.5-6) The so-called ‘Red Glazed Wares’ (formerly also named ‘Plain Glazed Wares’ by Morgan) are the second group of Middle Byzantine glazed wares found in Greek lands. These glazed wares in a red fabric and covered with a clear lead glaze formed indeed a significant and important group of Middle Byzantine ceramics found at Corinth (Morgan 1942, 36-42). The Red Glazed Wares of the 11th-12th centuries have, according to some pottery specialists, their ‘roots’ in the excavated groups at Corinth studied by Charles Morgan in 1942 (Megaw 1975; Sanders 1995, 16). They comprised Class ‘B’ in Talbot Rice’s classification, and were also present in the

Fig. 3.5 Shapes of Glazed Red Wares (after Morgan 1942, fig. 24).

Fig. 3.6 Drawing of Glazed Red Wares (after Morgan 1942, pl. I).

excavated deposits of the Great Palace and Saraçhane excavations at Constantinople/Istanbul (Hayes 1992, 412 defined them as ‘Coarse Glazed Wares’). More recently, Guy Sanders clarified the picture of the locally produced Red Glazed Wares from Corinth as presented by Morgan 50 years ago (Sanders 1995). He was able to discuss the development of this glazed pottery from a body of securely dated material. Apparently, Corinth’s pottery production evolved slowly from the 9th until the end of the 11th century. In the beginning, very little was glazed (less than 0,5%). Glaze was used as a surface treatment to seal the body of a limited range of shapes intended to hold liquids (such as chafing dishes, lids and cups). From the mid 10th century, however, the shape of the Corinthian chafing dishes seemed to be influenced by examples from Constantinople (Sanders 1995, 306). At the end of the 11th century the Corinthian industry went through a period of transformation. The shapes changed (dishes and bowls replaced chafing dishes) and new decoration-techniques were introduced. One notable change was the use of a white slip as an attempt to imitate the imported Glazed White Wares from Constantinople. In the process, the Corinthian potters experimented with a white slip (on a red fabric) and various painted and incised designs as decoration, creating the so-called ‘Slip-painted Ware’, ‘Fine Sgraffito Ware’ and ‘Green and Brown Painted Ware’ (see figs. 3.7-9). Apparently, the new influences occurred in the years immediately after the mid 11th century, after the battle of Manzikert and the conquest of Sicily by the Normans (Hayes 1993, 86). The volume of glazed pottery in the Corinthian deposits increased from the 11th century onward, and especially during the 12th and into the 13th century. Furthermore, quantitative research at Corinth by Guy Sanders showed that some styles, which were once considered 10th century or earlier, more probably date late in the 11th century. According to him, the most urgent remaining problem that has to be tackled is the chronological gap between the mid 12th and the early 13th century. Excavations at Corinth of a trench in the SouthEastern quarter of the temenos (shrine) of temple E revealed in 1989 that the ditch created by removal of this wall was used as a dumping ground for over 50 and up to 80 years (Williams & Zervos 1990, 339-45). Large

61

Fig. 3.7 Slip-painted Ware (photo: J. Vroom).

Fig. 3.8 Brown and Green Painted Ware (after Morgan 1942, pl. XXII).

Fig. 3.9 Fine Sgraffito Ware (photo: J. Vroom).

62

quantities of pottery were recovered, and both stratigraphical and numismatic data supplemented by statistical analysis of the material permitted the excavators to trace changes in ceramic styles from the last decades of the 11th and the first half of the 12th century. The finds included typical Middle Byzantine fine wares in a red fabric, such as Slip-painted Ware, Fine Sgraffito Ware, Measles Ware, Green and Brown Painted Ware, as well as cooking pots and painted amphorae (see figs. 3.7-9). Five years later, more of the same wares were found in a waste pit that had been dug into a construction floor of a monastic complex of the 13th century. The finds included fragments of Fine Sgraffito Ware, Measles Ware and chafing dishes (Williams & Zervos 1995, 18, pl. 13:a,b,d and f). Similar wares (e.g. Green and Brown Painted Ware, Sgraffito ware, Slip painted Ware) were also found near the surface level at the American excavations at Kenchreai, the Eastern port of Corinth. Since there were no building remains or deposits with which to associate the Byzantine pottery, none of it was dated other than by comparison. And because of their poor preservation, only ‘those pieces with some recognizable shape and/or some coherent design’ were dated and classified according to Morgan’s old system (Adamscheck 1979, 100-104, pl. 25). The excavators concluded that during the Byzantine and Turkish periods there must have been little if any substantial occupation making use of the anchorage. 3.3.3 greek mainland (other than corinth) As far as the rest of Greece is concerned, there are only sporadic and brief reports of rescue excavations in urban centres of the Aegean. At Thessaloniki, for instance, most of the excavations published the well-known Middle Byzantine glazed wares (including Polychrome Ware, Brown and Green Painted Ware and Fine Sgraffito Ware; see figs. 3.8-9), but provided no stratigraphical contexts (cf. Bakirtzis & Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1981; Evgenidou 1982). Athenian Agora – Of the Middle Byzantine pottery published from the Athenian Agora only Alison Frantz’s exemplary article from over 60 years ago is still of practical use (Frantz 1938). Since then, nothing substantial has been published on Byzantine ceramics from Athens. Some odd finds of the Middle Byzantine period came from excavations on the Roman Agora (Orlandos

1964) and from excavations on the Northern slope of the Acropolis (Broneer 1938; Vavylopoulou-Charitonidou 1982). Of particular interest, though, was the discovery of Byzantine structures from the 9th to the 12th centuries on the Northern side of the Athenian Agora (Shear 1984). The finds included typical Corinthian products in a red fabric (such as Brown Glazed Ware, Green and Brown Painted Ware and Fine Sgraffito Ware; see figs. 3.6; 3.8-9), as well as domestic wares and coins, but they were unfortunately only presented in very brief descriptions in an excavation report (Shear 1984). Nichoria – Apart from giving laudable attention to coarse wares, the American excavators at Nichoria in Messenia (South-Western Peloponnesus) developed a sort of a rough dating of Byzantine roof tiles. The excavations yielded several Lakonian-type roof tiles which could be paralleled with imported glazed wares and with numismatic evidence (Rosser 1983). Some of the tiles were diagnosed as dating from the Late Roman-Early Byzantine period, others (from the chapel which could be dated on the basis of a coin of 1143-80 AD) from the late 10th to the early 12th century. These last ones included three basic types: cover tiles, pan tiles, and ridge tiles. In the same way, according to the excavators, the coarse wares were dated in a refined way ‘not like other published coarse wares from the Peloponnesus’ (Rosser 1983, 378). Unfortunately, the lay-out of the Nichoriacatalogue as well as the drawings are rather unclear, and make further study of the coarse wares and roof tiles on the basis of this publication not an easy matter. 3.3.4 greek islands and cyprus Aegina – Finds of Glazed Red Ware (e.g. chafing dishes) from the Acropolis to the North of the modern port of Aegina offered comparisons for shapes (with Corinth) but offered, on the other hand, little insight into the chronology of this glazed ware (Felten 1975, 75, nos. 14449, figs. 17-9, pl. 28). Recently, Guy Sanders has argued that the chafing dishes from Aegina appeared to represent types which can be dated between the early 9th and late 11th century (Sanders 1995, 20). This date seems to correspond with other wares in this publication, for instance, with some unglazed jugs (nos. 105, 110) and amphorae (nos. 105-109) as well as with some fragments

of unglazed incised and gouged wares (e.g. nos. 113-114, 125). Kythera – On the island of Kythera, a Middle Byzantine deposit from a rubbish fill overlying Roman and Minoan burial levels was found at the site of Kastri (Coldstream & Huxley 1972). The finds included 12th century fine wares, among them Green and Brown Painted Ware, Slip-painted Ware, Fine Sgraffito Ware and Monochrome Green Glazed Wares. Furthermore, the excavation yielded two varieties of amphorae (e.g. Günsenin 3/ Saraçhane 61 amphorae), as well as domestic wares (bowls, jars and cooking pots) which were, according to the excavators, of ‘a ponderous crudity rarely seen at Kastri since the Early Bronze Age’ (Coldstream & Huxley 1972, 308). Lindos – Unfortunately, the Byzantine pottery brought to Copenhagen by the Danish expedition from Lindos (on the island of Rhodes) in 1902-14 and in 1952 lacked precise information concerning its provenance (Sørensen & Pentz 1992, 217-31). Perhaps the vessels came from the Acropolis of Lindos, or from some of the other sites where the Danes were active on the island (e.g. the Agios Stephanos graves). The fragments only represent a minority of the excavated and published finds, and there are no finds of domestic wares in the Lindos-volume. In fact, most of the published fragments are nicely decorated pieces of Fine Sgraffito Ware and Champlevé Ware of the 12th-early 13th centuries, together with some odd pieces of later date, and do not give substantial information. Underwater archaeology – Better dates of Middle Byzantine wares found in the Aegean were provided in the 1970s by underwater archaeologists. In the summer of 1970, a Byzantine shipwreck was excavated by the Greek archaeological service and P. Throckmorton off Pelagonnisos (or Pelagos) near Alonnesos in the Northern Sporades (Kritzas 1971; BPA, 229-242; nos. 263-4, 269-97; Ioannidaki-Dostoglou 1989; Armstrong 1991). The ship was carrying a cargo of six large millstones and ca. 1490 complete pieces of pottery, the majority of which were glazed plates and bowls with a fine engraved decoration on the inside. This Sgraffito Ware was decorated with animal figures, geometric motifs, medallions, bands with ‘Pseudo-Kufic’ letters,

63

interlace designs and floral patterns. On the basis of the decoration technique of the glazed finds the shipwreck was dated to the mid 12th century. The unglazed finds and amphorae were, however, not published. More Eastwards, another shipwreck was discovered in 1970 off Cape Zapheirion (Pounenti) on the SouthWestern coast of Kastellorizo Island (Filotheou & Michailidou 1986; Loucas 1989). The wreck was already known from material in the local museum and in foreign collections. The cargo of the ship consisted of a minimum of 130 vessels (an unknown amount has dispersed without a record). They all had the same shape and size: a thick, deep bowl or plate with a ring foot and hemispherical body. One group had incised motifs (e.g. stylised birds, fish, octopus, star), the other group was painted (e.g. slip-painted, green splashes, green and brown painted). The value of the Kastellorizo cargo, which was dated to the late 12th-early 13th centuries, lies in the fact that it constituted a closed find, probably loaded onto the ship from one (yet unknown) pottery workshop.

../

Late Byzantine/Frankish period (ca. ,.th-mid ,0th centuries)

It was only after the Second World War that the complexity and variety of pottery of the periods following Byzantine rule over Greece, the ‘Late Byzantine/Frankish period’ (13th-14th centuries) and ‘Turkish period’ (15th-18th centuries) were recognized (see for some examples figs. 3.10-11). Slowly but undeniably, finds from these periods began to attract more attention and interest at Greek excavations. After early publications concerning finds in Constantinople/ Istanbul, one of the most important sources of information for the Late Byzantine/Frankish period in the Aegean became the study of Medieval pottery from Cyprus, which grew into an important commercial centre between Western Europe and the Crusaders’ dominions in the East during the Crusader period, when the island was a fief of the Lusignan family (1192-1489 AD). The emphasis of research in the most recent decades was on glazed and highly decorated wares with incisions and painted colours (e.g. ‘Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware’), on the identification of local pottery workshops (e.g. on Cyprus and at Thessaloniki) and on the publica-

64

Fig. 3.10 Late Sgraffito Ware (after Talbot Rice 1930, pl. I).

tion of products from a single manufacturing centre (e.g. ‘Zeuxippus Ware’ and ‘Aegean Ware’). Much glazed pottery of the Late Byzantine/Frankish period was published in catalogues of private collections in Greece and on Cyprus (e.g. Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1982; 1984; 1989; Makropoulou 1995). A recent development is the attention to the distribution of pottery in Late Byzantine/Frankish times. A good deal of study was made, for instance, of imports in Greek lands of 13th century glazed tablewares from Italy, such as ‘Metallic Ware’, ‘Roulette Ware’ and ‘Proto-Maiolica Wares’ (François 1997b). This last group of glazed wares from Italy was found at the excavations of Corinth (Waagé 1934; Robinson & Weinberg 1960), of Argos (Oikonomou-Laniado 1993), of Isthmia (Gregory 1989; 1993, nos. 6-19) and of Arta (Papadopoulou & Tsouris 1993, figs. 7-9).

Fig. 3.11 Shapes of Late Sgraffito Wares (after Dark 2001, fig. 65).

Until now, less work was done in the Aegean on the study of unglazed domestic wares and amphorae of the Late Byzantine/Frankish period (these ceramics were often better studied in Eastern Europe). The publications of the major excavations in Greece covered very little of domestic pottery, with the exception of Corinth (MacKay 1967; Sanders 1987; Williams & Zervos 198995), Sparta in the Peloponnesus (Sanders 1993) and of Paphos on Cyprus (Megaw 1971; 1972; Von Wartburg 1983; 1984). 3.4.1 constantinople/istanbul The earliest endeavours to diagnose Late Byzantine/ Frankish wares in more detail concerned pottery found in Constantinople/Istanbul (and the Crimea). The difficulties encountered during these attempts are reflected in the shifting terminology. During the final quarter of the last century, the term ‘Zeuxippus Ware’ was used for a type of thin-walled Sgraffito Ware of the Late Byzantine/Frankish period which was first identified by David Talbot Rice during excavations of the Baths of Zeuxippus in Constantinople/Istanbul in 1927, and which was described by him as ‘Shiny Olive Incised Ware’.[12 ] The designation Zeuxippus Ware was proposed by Megaw in 1968, who

classified four variations within this thinly potted ware.[13 ] However, the view on Zeuxippus Ware as the product of a ‘single centre’ at Constantinople soon began to fall apart, due to new finds which did not fit the theory. In an attempt to rescue his views on the ware Megaw suggested the possibility of ‘Zeuxippus derivatives’, or ‘local imitations’ (Megaw 1971; cf. Armstrong 1992 with 13th century examples from Sparta). This could not prevent the designation remaining under criticism. It became clear that the ware had been produced not only in Constantinople, but also in Northern Italy, Corinth and on Cyprus. Imitations had even been made throughout the Balkans into the Turkish period. Recently, Sanders suggested the more general term ‘Late Sgraffito Ware’ for this group of ceramics, because ‘Zeuxippus Ware’ is, as he rightly remarked, ‘a stylistic grouping of great complexity’ (Sanders 1993, 257). The only problem with his new term might be that Talbot Rice had earlier used the very same label ‘Late Sgraffito Ware’ as a designation for the entire collection found at the Baths of Zeuxippus (Talbot Rice 1930; see Appendix A2). In the meantime, Megaw had distinguished in 1975 a second ‘new’ type of ware in the finds from Zeuxippus, which he called ‘Aegean Ware’. This ‘Aegean Ware’ is a coarse, thickly-gouged type of Sgraffito Ware with a low ring-base. Megaw dated the ware to the early 13th century on the basis of its occurrence in the destruction fill from the 1222 AD earthquake at the Castle of Saranda Kolones in Paphos on Cyprus (Megaw 1971; 1972 ; 1975). On this site sealed deposits with Medieval coins have been uncovered, providing a dated assemblage.[14 ] Megaw argued for an Eastern Aegean provenance of his new ceramic category, mainly by comparing the shapes and designs of the ware with similar late 12th century pottery found in this region, which he believed were the proto-types of his group (Megaw 1975, 39). Other designations of this ware have also been proposed: apart from ‘Champlevé Ware’ (Sanders 1993, 260-1), one may encounter the terms ‘Incised Ware’ and ‘Coarse Incised Ware’ (Morgan 1942, 162-66; Stevenson 1947, 54, pl. 20.8). Most ceramicists still seem to use the designation ‘Aegean Ware’ (e.g. Armstrong 1991 for a group of material from a shipwreck off Skopelos), though the technical description ‘Champlevé Ware’ seem to be more appropriate, taking into account that

65

the theory of its provenance seems now to be faltering (see Sanders 1993, 260-61). According to excavation evidence, the ware is generally dated to the second half of the 12th and the early 13th centuries (Morgan 1942, 156-57; Hayes 1992, 48). 3.4.2 cyprus In the Post-Second World War years Cypriot-made Medieval pottery not only became the subject of a successful exhibition at Nicosia in 1947 (see Loizides), but also of a tentative classification system (Du Plat Taylor & Megaw 1951; preceded by the earlier note Du Plat Taylor 1938; see Appendix A5 and A9). In this preliminary classification system the wares from Medieval Cyprus were divided into twelve distinctive groups, identifiable by technique and design as well as by form and texture (e.g. Plain Sgraffito, Slip-painted Ware, several Brown and Green Sgraffito types, Plain-glazed and imported wares). These groups were placed in a more or less chronological sequence. However, the system was soon afterwards revised and supplemented with further subdivisions (Dikigoropoulos & Megaw 1958). More recently, the excavations at the Castle of Saranda Kolones in Paphos yielded abundant information about Cypriot glazed wares from the Middle Byzantine and Early Late Byzantine/Frankish periods (Megaw 1971, 1972, 1982, 1984; see also Rosser 1985), as did the excavations at Medieval sites such as Kouklia and Paphos, which yielded mainly early 13th to late 16th century pottery finds (e.g. Herrin 1973; 1974; Giudice et al 1992; 1993; 1994; 1995). In addition, the publication of 60 pots in the Pierides Foundation Museum added further to the knowledge of the shapes and decorations of Cypriot pottery from the Early Frankish to Early Turkish periods (PapanikolaBakirtzis 1989). With its colour illustrations this handsome catalogue gives a good idea of the decorated tablewares produced at workshops in the area of Lemba, Lapithos and Enkomi. Small and deep bowls, goblets or chalices on a high ring-base predominate, decorated with sketchy figures in sgraffito emphasized by alternate green and ochre colours in the lead glaze. Apparently, such Cypriot pottery was a regional phenomenon with its own local features, but was influenced by Sgraffito Wares from the Near East such as the so-called ‘Port Saint Symeon Ware’ from South-Eastern Turkey and Northern Syria. Although perhaps manufac-

66

tured by local potters from the region around Tarsus, Adana and Antakya, occasional examples of Christian motifs leave no doubt that this latter class of lead-glazed sgraffito ware was intended for the Crusaders’ market (Lane 1957, 40). A good example of industrial archaeology on Cyprus can be found at the site of Kouklia, where a sugar cane factory of the Late Medieval period (15th-16th c.) is under excavation since 1973 (Maier 1977; 1979; 1980; 1981; 1984; Wartburg 1983; 1984). Under the direction of Franz Georg Maier and Marie-Louise von Wartburg of the University of Zurich excavations of the ancient Temple of Aphrodite unexpectedly revealed masses of unusual and distinctive Medieval vessels. These appeared to be narrow clay jars and funnel-shaped ‘sugar cones’, or containers into which the boiled syrup of sugar cane was poured and crystallized in a method of production described in Medieval texts (Maier 1971; 1977, 133, fig. 2 and pl. XXX: 4-5; 1979, 174ff.). The three main types of matching cones and jars found at Kouklia represented in graded sizes the once-, twice-, and thrice-boiled sugar. The largest and crudest of the moulds, for the once-boiled sugar, were by far the most common types (Wartburg 1995). The Swiss excavators also uncovered a kiln for the on-site production of the sugar cones and jars. In addition, at the castle of Saranda Kolones in the port of Paphos, more sugar cones were discovered in a mill room of the Crusader levels (Megaw 1971, fig. 2:4; 1982, 215-6: Rosser 1985, 87-88, figs. E and 13). 3.4.3 greek mainland Corinth – The first specialised study of glazed ceramics of the Late Byzantine/Frankish period was published in the late 1960s by the American archaeologist Theodora Stillwell Mackay, and concerned the finds excavated at Corinth in 1959-61 (Mackay 1967). A good deal of this 13th-14th century material came from closed deposits and relatively undisturbed fills (designated as bothroi IV). This gave MacKay the occasion to correct to some extent Morgan’s tentative remarks on the ware, which he made in the margins of his writings on Byzantine pots (Morgan 1942). The chief purpose of MacKay’s article was to provide material which could be helpful in dating 13th century fills, but really innovating was her dating of some unglazed 10th-13th century domestic wares. The chronology of these last wares – ‘a province almost

untouched in works on pottery of this period’, as she rightly remarked – was based on coins and firmly dated glazed wares (MacKay 1967, 249). In her article MacKay was able to push Morgan’s previous chronology of several wares into the first quarter of the 14th century. Further progress in the study of Medieval pottery in Greece was made only in more recent years. A range of smaller publications in Greek periodicals may be mentioned here, such as the ones concerning ceramics from 13th-14th century disturbed layers at Arta (Andreou 1976; Charitonidou 1981-82; VavylopoulouCharitonidou 1984), from (sometimes unstratified) excavations at Thessaloniki (Bakirtzis 1980; Efgenidou 1982 and Vavylopoulou-Charitonidou 1989), and from 12th15th century Tyrnavos in Thessaly (Gourgiotis 1983). The last author also published unstratified Thessalian pottery from the Middle Byzantine period and the Late Frankish-Early Turkish period (Gourgiotis 1989; 1994; 1995). The number, variety and quality of these local wares from Thessaly, now assembled in the Folk-Art Museum in Larissa, enabled Gourgiotis to make a significant contribution to the study of Frankish-Early Turkish ceramics on Mainland Greece. Notable progress also came with the excavation at Corinth in 1986 to the South of the South-East corner of the podium of Temple E, which revealed a deep fill containing Medieval pottery from the late 13th or early 14th century (Sanders 1987). The pottery had been dumped between four walls of a ruined room of an as yet incompletely excavated structure. Approximately 12,000 sherds, weighing ca. 165 kg., were retrieved along with nine coins, glass, some bone and iron objects. The nine coins were recovered from this Medieval fill above the floor: six of these were Middle Byzantine (12th century) and three were Late Byzantine/Frankish (13th century). Although publication of these finds has until now only taken the form of an article, the statistical approach by Guy Sanders and his exemplary descriptions of the fabrics, as well as the close attention paid to plain wares, such as cooking pots and amphorae, and the discussion of the imported Proto-Maiolica wares, resulted in a major step forward in the study of Medieval Wares in Greece. Earlier datings proposed by Megaw (especially concerning the ‘Zeuxippus Ware’) could now be substantially refined (Sanders 1987). The recent discovery of buildings and a cemetery of the Late Byzantine/Frankish period (of the 13th-14th

centuries) in Corinth seem to provide for the first time stratified material in association with numismatic evidence for this period (cf. the interim reports by Charles Williams and Orestes Zervos in Hesperia 19891995). The excavations have revealed, amongst other things, an ecclesiastic complex immediately South-East of the Corinth museum (e.g. Williams & Zervos 1990; 1991; 1995; Williams 1993). This complex was constructed in the late 13th or early fourth quarter of the 13th century at the Western edge of the Medieval city. Within the complex stratigraphical sequence of this area the evolution of pottery styles at Medieval Corinth became discernable. It now appears that the Corinthian potters working during the early years of the Frankish occupation produced fine wares that continued to be decorated in local styles such as incision with a needle like instrument, incision with a broad-ended instrument and champlevé decoration (Williams & Zervos 1995, 16). The recent finds illustrated the continuity of shape and style from the 12th into the 13th century. The 13th century local products, painted in murky green and brown, became more crudely potted than their Byzantine predecessors: the walls became thicker and wheel marks on the outside were generally undisguised (Williams & Zervos 1995, 18). In addition, new types of imported pottery started to appear around the beginning of the second quarter of the 13th century. The most important ones were from Italy: Metallic Ware, Roulette Ware (Veneto Ware), Proto-Maiolica (from Brindisi) and other South Italian wares (cf. Williams 1993). Noteworthy were also some imports of drug jars (albarelli), accompanied by a Mamluk jar, from the Near East and Egypt (Williams & Zervos 1994, 16-22, pl. 5:11, pl. 6) According to the excavators in Corinth, especially the influx of these foreign glazed wares (and not so much the sack of Corinth by the Catalans in 1312 AD) seemed to have almost completely eliminated the local manufacture of glazed wares by the second decade of the 14th century (Williams & Zervos 1995, 23-4). This decline during the 14th century seems to be the reason that local ceramics of the 14th and 15th centuries long remained virtually unknown at Corinth. They are, in fact, absent in the catalogues of Morgan and MacKay (Morgan 1942; MacKay 1967).

67

Isthmia – Excavations by American archaeologists at the nearby site of Isthmia offered an opportunity to learn more about the local pottery in use in the Isthmus area during Late Byzantine/Frankish times (Gregory 1989; 1993). Some of the 12th century wares produced at Corinth have been found at Isthmia, but more common were pieces of the 13th to 15th centuries. Finds from a series of more or less closed deposits included imports from Spain (‘Lustre Ware’) and Italy (‘Proto-Maiolica’ and ‘Polychrome Sgraffito Ware’), as well as locally produced products with an incised circle in the centre (the so-called ‘Local ware A’). Sparta – Renewed excavations by the British School on the Acropolis of Sparta produced new information on Lakonian Byzantine pottery, 83 years after Dawkins and Droop’s first publication on later ceramics from this site (Sanders 1993). This more recent paper offered the opportunity to examine stratigraphically-excavated sequences of ceramics between the late 12th and early 14th centuries, and to contrast Sparta’s Medieval wares with assemblages from Corinth. Interesting, for instance, is the fact that imports of this period common at Corinth (such as Rouletted Ware, Metallic ware and RMR) are totally absent in Sparta. The excavated strata at Sparta especially have helped to define the development of early 13th glazed tableware in another part of the Peloponnesus (such as Late Sgraffito Ware, Zeuxippus Ware, Glaze Painted Ware, Champlevé Ware, Plain Glazed Wares, Incised Ware, Sgraffito Wares and Measles Ware). Furthermore, the Sparta material has helped to fill the gaps in the typology of coarse wares and plain wares (which were divided into decorated and undecorated types). Lakonia – Further information from the Sparta area has been provided by a rescue excavation, conducted in 1989-90 by the Greek archaeological service in the village of Magoula, 1 kilometre South-West of the Acropolis of Sparta (Vassi 1993). The excavation revealed the remains of a Late Roman or Early Christian structure. The fill of a later pit cut into the interior corner of this building contained sherds of both glazed and plain wares. Outside and to the West of the building were two rows of graves. According to the excavators, these were to be associated with the pit, which may well have served as a bothros (waste pit) for the nekrodeipnon vessels (Vassi 1993, 287).

68

One burial was accompanied by a coin of 1071-78 AD, another burial by a coin of 1143-80 AD. The pit yielded a Slip-painted bowl, dated by the excavator to the late 11thearly 12th century, fragments of domestic ware and a three-handled amphora type. The broad strap handles of this last vessel were incised with three or four vertical lines, separating diagonal deep incisions (sometimes forming a herring-bone pattern). Comparing Vassi’s Slip-painted bowl with similar decorated vessels from the above mentioned excavations at Sparta it appears that the bowl from Magoula is dated too early (cf. Sanders 1993, 261-263, nos.12-14, pl. 24). The decoration of this ‘Late Slip-painted Ware’ from Sparta consists of circles, concentric circles and dots, covered with a bright yellow glaze (just like Vassi’s bowl). However, Sanders rather dates this ware later, in the first half of the 13th century, on the basis of unpublished contexts in Corinth with Latin coins and other early 13th-century pottery (Sanders 1993, 262). Furthermore, similar decorated handles and body sherds of Vassi’s amphora type found at Magoula were also collected by the Dutch-British Lakonia Survey near Sparta. The sherds were subsequently identified as the product of a Lakonian ceramic workshop, and generally dated to the late 12th- early 13th century (Armstrong 1989). More products of this Lakonian workshop were recovered in early 13th century strata during the British excavations on the Acropolis of Sparta (Sanders 1993, 268-269, nos. 12, 14, 35-38). Thessaloniki – The long-standing assumption that Thessaloniki was a production centre of ceramics in the Late Byzantine/Frankish period has been justified by recent discoveries (Bakirtzis 1980; Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1983; 1985; Babritzas 1970: Evgenidou 1982; KourkoutidouTsioumi-Pazaras; Soteriou & Soteriou 1952; Pelekanidis 1959). Apart from isolated finds of tripod stilts and wasters, kiln waste was found in some quantity in 1973 on the Pharangi building site near the Rotunda. The find of an unfinished fragment, decorated with a bird in a combination of engraving and cut-slip (champlevé) technique, proved the existence of a workshop of bird bowls in the city centre (Bakirtzis & Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1981). The production may be dated to the second half of the 13th and the 14th centuries. Further excavations in the centre of Thessaloniki revealed at the Hippodrome in 1972 a cemetery with 32

graves of the Late Byzantine/Frankish period (Vavylopoulou-Charitonidou 1989). The graves contained 230 glazed bowls, dating from the end of the 13th until the beginning of the 15th century. Of these 213 burial vessels, three or four were imported, the rest were locally produced in the workshops of Thessaloniki. The interior walls of the local bowls were decorated with incised and gouged designs of birds and geometric motifs. Similar finds were recovered in 1976 by the Greek archaeological service in the church of the 14th century Vlatadon Monastery at Thessaloniki, when a section of the monastery’s cemetery was brought to light. Nine graves were discovered inside the church amongst the foundations of the earliest constructional phase, another nine graves were found in the precinct. Sixteen of these eighteen graves contained burial vessels: fifty-five bowls in total. The oldest finds from the graves have been dated to the second half of the 14th century and the latest to the beginning of the 16th century (Makropoulou 1985). Thasos – More eastwards, on the island of Thasos, ceramics of the Late Byzantine/Frankish period were recovered by French excavators at the Ancient Agora, the Castle of the port and the terrain of Psatheri. The publication of these finds presented a technical perspective on the manufacture of local Medieval wares (e.g. clays, glazes and the use of potter’s wheels and kilns) in a specific area (François 1995). Emphasis was put by the author on the relationship between historical events at Thasos and the distribution of imported and locally produced ceramics, specifically to movements of the Latin fleet in the Eastern Mediterranean between the 13th and 15th centuries (François 1993; 1995). It is known from historical sources, for instance, that during the 13th century Genoa undertook substantial commercial activities in the Eastern part of the Mediterranean, and the archaeological material shows that the long-distance imports from the East (from Syria-Palestinian sites) on Thasos, date specifically from that period. In the 14th century, however, with the loss of Genoese control in the East, commercial activities on Thasos shifted towards the Black Sea area and as a consequence pottery from Northern Greece suddenly appeared on the island of Thasos. Finally, during the 15th century, under the Turkish threat, long-distance imports ceased and local pottery was produced in a (yet unknown) workshop on nearby Lemnos.

With her approach to the Thasos-material, François may be heralded as one of the first ceramicists who effectively tried to link pottery finds with information from written sources, so that a more comprehensive information came out of the pottery finds, by looking to the wider exchange patterns (long-distance versus shortdistance) of pottery in the Late Middle Ages.

..0

Turkish period (ca. late ,0th-,3th centuries)

Interest in Post-Medieval pottery in Greece (that is to say: pottery from the period of the ‘Tourkokratia’) has been slowly growing since the pioneering articles of Waagé and Frantz which dated from the first half of the last century (Waagé 1933; Frantz 1942). Although a handful of interesting publications has appeared since then (e.g. Bakirtzis 1977 and 1978 for Didymoteicho in Thrace; Hayes 1981 and 1992 for Istanbul; and Hahn 1989 for Crete), there is still much to be done in the field of Ottoman archaeology in the Aegean. It may be noted that until 1950 the archaeological legislation in Greece only protected antiquities dating before 1453 AD, the year of the ‘fall’ of Constantinople. Literature dealing with Ottoman ceramics in general, such as the famous colourful tablewares produced in Iznik, Kütahya and Çanakkale in Western Turkey, is of course quite extensive (e.g. Aslanapa 1965; Keskiner 1989; Altun et al 1991; see also figs. 3.12-13). However, research into these wares was until recently not undertaken from a purely archaeological perspective, but rather from an art-historical approach and heavily focussed on the variations in decorative styles. The technical aspects of the production processes of these wares or their distribution and use throughout the Ottoman Empire were hardly studied (notable exceptions are Tite 1989; Atasoy & Raby 1994). The publication of the excavation of some pottery kilns at Iznik (with emphasis on kiln equipment and deformed or unfinished products) appeared to be the only example of a more modern approach to Ottoman ceramics in the Eastern Mediterranean (Aslanapa et al. 1989). Furthermore, most studies of Ottoman ceramics only focussed their attention on the well-known wares, which were produced in large scale production centres (in Iznik, Kütahya and Çanakkale). Other types of fine ware or cooking wares, which were produced throughout the

69

Ottoman Empire at medium sized centres or in small local workshops, remained up to this day unpublished and therefore unknown (an exception is Ziadeh 1995 for locally produced wares in Ottoman Palestine). Hardly any attention has also been given to ceramics which were imported during the Ottoman era into the Aegean region from other parts of the Mediterranean or from North-Western Europe, such as Maiolica from Italy. On the other hand, since the 1980s a new dating-tool in Ottoman archaeology has become available in typologizing and dating of assemblages of clay tobacco pipes of the chibouk style from Constantinople/Istanbul, as well as from Athens, Corinth and Cyprus (Hayes 1980b; updated 1992; Robinson 1983; 1985; Baram 1995).

Fig. 3.12 Iznik Ware (photo: Benaki Museum, Athens).

Fig. 3.13 Shapes of Iznik Ware (after Atasoy & Raby 1989, 38).

70

3.5.1 greek mainland Didymoteicho – About twenty-four years ago, the excavations by the Greek archaeologist Charalambos Bakirtzis in Macedonia and Thrace provided a new stimulus to the study of pottery from this period on the Greek mainland (Bakirtzis 1977; 1978). Especially, his publications of Didymoteicho as an important Thracian production centre during the Turkish period were groundbreaking (Bakirtzis 1977; 1980). Here, for the first time previously unknown locally produced wares dating from the 15th century until the Early Modern period were shown (Bakirtzis 1980b). Most vessels found at Didymoteicho were made in a ‘Byzantine’ style, using traditional decoration-techniques such as sgraffito and slip-painting. Other yet unknown wares published by Bakirtzis included monochrome green glazed vessels in various shapes and unglazed domestic vessels (such as chamber pots and jugs with spouts on the shoulder). Two glazed jugs with rosettes in relief on the outside looked very similar to similar types from the production centre at Çanakkale in Western Turkey. An unfinished product of such a jug, however, showed that they must also have been made in Didymoteicho. Local production at Didymoteicho was confirmed by the find of two kilns, several potter’s tools and much kiln waste datable to the early 19th century in a building site just outside the town walls (Bakirtzis 1980, 148ff.). Ten years after the groundbreaking publication of Bakirtzis, the Greek archaeologist Tsouris recovered again potter’s tools from the Turkish – Early Modern period at Didymoteicho, bearing the date 1825 AD

(Tsouris 1987). More recently, Veronique François gave a good overview of the extensive distribution of the later Slip-painted ware from Didymoteicho in the Eastern Mediterranean in Turkish and Early Modern times. It has been found, for instance, on sites in Greece, on Crete, in Turkey, on Cyprus, in the Near East and in Egypt (François 1994, 383-85; 1995). Bakirtzis’ article on ‘Post-Byzantine’ wares from Didymoteicho initiated a crop of articles in Greece in the 1980s, which were published mainly in popular periodicals such as Archaiologia and Ethnografika. Research concentrated on locating pottery production centres of fine and domestic wares, for instance at 16th-18th century Larissa (Gourgiotis 1981; 1984; 1994), at 17th19th century Athens (Charitonidou 1982) and at 17th18th century Arta (Vavylopoulou-Charitonidou 1980; Charitonidou 1981-82). These publications showed that the production centres of glazed wares in Ottoman Greece did not change their pottery repertoire and decoration methods radically compared to previous manufacturing methods of Byzantine and Medieval times. In fact, the two main decoration techniques employed by the Greek potters during the Turkish period were painting and incision (sgraffito), while they closely followed the conservative Byzantine colour palette of green and ochre-yellow brushstrokes. The decoration was limited to some winding lines and circles and covered with a transparent lead glaze, as in the Medieval period. Arta was such a production centre of glazed wares, where tradition had managed to survive in the Turkish period. The red-bodied, lead-glazed products of Arta included Slip-painted Ware, Coloured Sgraffito Ware and Brown and Green Painted Ware. Other production centres in Greece using ‘Byzantine and Medieval’ techniques were Thessaloniki, Veria and Trikkala, where unfinished products, potter’s tools and wasters of the Turkish period were found during rescue excavations in the city centres. In almost all of the locally produced pottery in Ottoman Greece, one can distinguish the influence of Italian Renaissance pottery (such as tin-glazed Maiolica from Northern Italy or Polychrome Sgraffito Ware from the Veneto-region). Finds of imitations of Italian blueand-white Maiolica in Athens were found together with two potter’s kilns, wasters and potter’s stilts (Frantz 1942; Vaylopoulou-Charitonidou 1982a; 1982b, fig. 45b).

All in all, two main types of locally produced ceramics of the Turkish period were found during excavations on the Greek mainland: painted and sgraffito wares in a traditional ‘Byzantine’ style, and Italian imitations. Archaeologists working in North-Western Greece, published these two types of wares from excavations at the Castle of Rogon near Arta (Vavylopoulou-Charitonidou 1986-87), as well as from excavations from the Castle at Ioannina in Epirus (Tsouris 1982). The stratigraphy of these excavations, however, is not always clear. 3.5.2 constantinople/istanbul The modern standard for diagnosing the typochronology of glazed and domestic wares of the Turkish period from stratigraphical excavations at Constantinople/Istanbul was set recently by John Hayes. His first preliminary report on these wares came from excavations of the Bodrum Djami (or the Myrelaion), followed by a more detailed publication on the finds from the Saraçhane excavations eleven years later (Hayes 1981; 1992). At the excavations of the Bodrum Djami, the richest deposit in pottery was the 16th century fill overlying a Late Byzantine tiled floor. It yielded some 90 percent of the finds. The great bulk of the material was uniform, comprising fragments of Iznik Ware (and other fine sherds), as well as local domestic pottery current during the first half of the 16th century. In addition, a small amount of 18th century pottery was recovered, which corresponded to the finds from the upper fill. The date of this later fill was given by fragments of well-datable 18th century Kütahya Ware. In addition, a few pieces of modern China came from the surface of the fill. At the Saraçhane excavations, most of the PostMedieval finds came from fifteen pit- and well-groups, which provided an excellent conspectus of the wares and types current between 1500 AD and 1650 AD. The period of 1700-1850 AD was rather poorly represented. This provided, however, a convenient break between the earlier and later Ottoman ceramics. The only difficulties in separating earlier from later products were found in the Chinese Porcelain and Maiolica series, which appeared to span the whole Turkish period. In absence of numismatic evidence, it was the fine wares (e.g. Porcelain, Iznik Ware, Maiolica) which served as a dating-tool for the coarse wares of the (late) 15th to 17th centuries. Some twenty wares of the latter, glazed as

71

well as unglazed, were identified by Hayes. According to him, most of them were locally produced in Istanbul. About 190 vessel-types were listed in a preliminary conspectus of the types used in Istanbul during Early Turkish times. Unfortunately, the transitional shapes of the late 17th to early 18th century were rather underrepresented in these samples (Hayes 1992, 233). The Ottoman pottery produced and used in Istanbul apparently differed significant from its Byzantine predecessors. One of the most striking new features was the total disappearance of large amphorae, which were probably replaced by wooden barrels. Noteworthy was also the replacement of the thin-walled, unglazed cooking pots by simple lead-glazed types. As a result, the proportion of glazed wares in the later assemblages increased substantially, to around 35-40 percent of finds in Early Turkish contexts, with a further rise in the 18th/19th centuries, when glazed wares came to predominate (ca. 60-80 percent) (Hayes 1992, 233). The glazes of the local wares were generally dark-toned, and applied directly to the body-clay (though a white slip occurred on some wares). Decoration was not common on the domestic wares. From the 18th century onwards, one can discern a decline in the Medieval folk pottery tradition. A breakdown of the chief classes present in late 15th to early 17th century deposits at Saraçhane shows the following pattern: 1) Fine wares (Iznik, Porcelain etc.): some 1-10 percent of total sherds; 2) Plain glazed wares: about 25-35 percent; 3) Unglazed tablewares: about 1520 percent; 4) Coarse unglazed wares (mainly drinkingcups, spouted jugs) about 50 percent (declining in 17th century). The 18th century increase in the proportion of glazed wares is largely explained by the part-glazing of (the formerly unglazed) spouted jugs from this time onwards. New shapes were mostly unglazed, such as high-stemmed drinking bowls (goblets), spouted jugs (the so-called ibrik), and tall two-handled flagons. In his publications of the Istanbul finds, Hayes introduced clay tobacco pipes as chronological indicators for dating assemblages (they appeared after the introduction of tobacco in the Ottoman Empire after ca. 1605 AD). His preliminary report on Ottoman clay pipes from the Saraçhane excavations initiated the typologizing of pipe bowls in the so-called chibouk style (Hayes 1980; revised in 1992, 391-95). Based on associated finds, he constructed a provisional typology and chronology of these bowls into 27 types. The types were then grouped

72

into five categories, ranging from early types in grey clay to imported types in different fabrics. The significance of Hayes’ research was that he not only contextualized the finds firmly in the Turkish period, but also that he provided a fine dating method, where other scholars had in the past mistakenly dated the objects as Roman (Baram 1995, 301). Hayes’ report of 1980 formed the inspiration for two important articles on Ottoman clay pipes: the first one dealt with finds from German excavations at the Kerameikos in Athens, the second one with finds from American excavations at Corinth and at the Athenian Agora (Robinson 1983; 1985). Unfortunately, no stratigraphy was observed in the Post-Medieval levels of the Kerameikos excavation, and the pipe bowls found were without context. In the Athenian Agora and at the Corinth excavations, on the other hand, the pipes for which there was any stratigraphical context came from Late Turkish to Early Modern levels (or the 18th century and later). Robinson’s accurate publications of these finds included the history of pipe-smoking in Greece as well as detailed descriptions of approximately 250 pipe bowls from Athens and Corinth, comparing them with more examples from Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey and Syria. Her studies enabled other archaeologists working in the Eastern Mediterranean to parallel their finds with the Greek examples. Making use of Hayes’ and Robinson’s catalogues, the Ottoman archaeologist Uzi Baram examined 53 tobacco pipes from Cypriot collections and organized them into a new typology (Baram 1995). He grouped these pipe bowls according to shape, fabric colour, borehole size and the presence of maker’s marks. From the total of these attributes Baram presented typologies for production and chronology. 3.5.3 greek islands and cyprus Little is known about the pottery used in Southern Greece and on the Greek islands from the late 14th until the 17th centuries, when these parts of Greece were under occasional or localized Venetian rule. One might expect to find imported pottery from Italy in these Venetian outposts and colonies. However, very few Renaissance ceramics from the West have been published until now, and there is no clear picture of the pottery distribution systems in later times. Exceptions to the rule are the publication of some occasional pieces of

15th-16th century graffita arcaica and 16th century Maiolica found on Rhodos (Michailidou 1993) and on Crete, for instance at Mallia (François 1994, 376-380), at Khania (Hahn 1989; 1991) and at Heraklion (Stillwell MacKay 1996). Crete – On Crete, the Greek-Swedish Kastelli excavations at Khania provided good stratified layers and sealed deposits of Post-Byzantine finds (including kitchenware, as well as imported tablewares from Italy and Turkey), but the material was unfortunately very fragmentary (Hahn 1989). A helpful addition was the publication of six well-preserved 15th-16th century tin-glazed jugs found in Western Crete, now in the collection of the Archaeological Museum at Khania (Hahn 1991). Although these jugs were all stray finds from villages near Khania, and information about the exact provenance and context was scarce, they provided the excavators of Khania with entire profiles to help them in their study of the smaller fragments. Another 15th-16th century group of published material came from digging activities in Heraklion (Stillwell Mackay 1996). The finds, which are now stored in the Historical Museum in Heraklion, included a Lustre bowl from Spain (Valencia), Maiolica from Northern Italy and one piece of a polychrome painted ware, the socalled ‘RMR’ ware (which stands for the colours ramina, manganese, rosso) from Southern Italy, as well as undecorated glazed wares and unglazed wares (cooking pots). Unfortunately, the photographs in the publication of the finds are not well reproduced and there is no information about the find circumstances of these vessels. Cyprus – On Cyprus, the only serious publication dealing with 14th-16th century imports from Italy is Peter Megaw’s pre-World War II article (but published in 1951) of three closed deposits of table and kitchen wares excavated in Nicosia (Megaw 1951). These finds were the result of random discoveries during building operations, and therefore not the result of systematic excavation. The rubbish pits contained Maiolica from Faenza, Padua and Venice, as well as Italian Polychrome Sgraffito Ware from the Veneto-region. Apart from these Italian imports, also some pieces from the East such as Iznik Ware from Turkey, Chinese Porcelain and painted bowls from Syria were found in the pits. According to Megaw the Syrian finds showed that trade flourished between Cyprus and

Fig. 3.14 Early Modern Wares (photo: Folkoristic Museum Larissa).

the Near East, ‘when Syrian merchants, circumventing the Papal Edicts which prohibited Christians from trading in the ports of the Saracen enemy, transported their merchandise to Cyprus for re-shipment in Christian vessels to the West’ (Megaw 1951, 145).

..1

Early Modern period (ca. ,4th-mid -+th centuries)

Ceramics from Early Modern Greece remained little more than objects of curiosity until the middle of the 20th century, when they emerged as the focus of legitimate scholarly study in their own right (fig. 3.14). With the appearance of plastic vessels and containers in the late 1950s the production and the demand for earthenware pots decreased enormously, which at the time stimulated interest in the declining art and craft of ‘the last potters’ of Greece. This feeling was voiced by one student of Greek pottery who sadly remarked about the vanishing craftsmen: ‘Their achievements, unfortunately, will soon be of historical rather than contemporary interest, and will become an item for study by industrial archaeologists’ (Matson 1972a: 223). Until now two main perspectives were used in research into early Modern ceramics in Greece: an ethnoarchaeological approach and an art-historical approach. It is unfortunately impossible to discuss here material found in a stratigraphical context, because publications of a purely archaeological character do not exist for Early Modern wares.

73

3.6.1 the aegean and cyprus: the ethnoarchaeological approach The awakening of interest in Early Modern wares had begun somewhat earlier than the mid-century, with a provocative article by Stanley Casson on traditional potting practices and pottery trade in the Aegean (Casson 1938; with a follow-up in 1951). Casson collected data from the main modern pottery production centres (on Cyprus, Crete, Chalkis, Samos, Siphnos, Skyros and in Çanakkale, Turkey) as an illustration for a better understanding of ceramics from the past. He shows, for instance, an Early Modern unglazed water-jar from Cyprus with rouletted decoration round the neck, which closely follows forms of Bronze Age pottery. Incidentally, he called attention to a few glazed and unglazed mugs, plates, cups and jugs with slip-painted decoration from Samos and Skyros. However, it was clearly not his intention to investigate the subject in full. Other pioneers in the field were the Germans Roland Hampe and Adam Winter, an archaeologist from Heidelberg and a professional potter from Mainz-Kastel respectively. In May and June of 1960 they visited the traditional potters of Crete, Messenia and Cyprus in order ‘to acquire profound knowledge about the manufacture of ancient ceramics’. They carefully documented the working methods, wheel- and kiln constructions and organisation of these workshops, as well as the distribution of their products, all of which resulted in a massive treatise on traditional pottery production in the Aegean (Hampe & Winter 1962). This publication was soon extended by a second one on potters in Southern Italy, Sicily and other parts of Greece (Hampe & Winter 1965). Because of the systematic approach of gathering as much ethnographic data as possible, both volumes remain ‘classics’ for an understanding of the Early Modern Greek potter’s craft. The registration of Early Modern pottery remained in both volumes, though, restricted to one (!) drawing of a storage jar from Thrapsanos on Crete. A number of archaeologists and potters have since visited traditional pottery centres in Greece, often with the purpose of learning about the past from the present (e.g. Matson 1972a; 1972b; Noll 1983; London 1987; London et al. 1990; Blitzer 1990). Among them, Frederick Matson tried to compare aspects of Bronze Age wares found in the course of the Minnesota Messenia Expedition with traditional pottery production

74

of the region (Matson 1972a). His research was based upon the study of sherd collections, visits to archaeological sites, and extended conversations with Messenian potters at work. Still interesting is his ecological approach of looking at the sources of the material used, the physical properties of the clay and the siting of the workshop. He repeated this methodology in a study of five potters in the Arethousa district of Chalkis (Matson 1972b). The sedentary and nomadic aspects of traditional pottery-making at Thrapsano and Kentri on Crete were recorded in the 1970s and 1980s by Maria Voyatzoglou (1972; 1973; 1974; 1984) and by Harriet Blitzer (1984), although a detailed account of the organisation of the Thrapsanos potters had already been published some 50 years earlier (Xanthoudides 1927). The best documentation of the Cretan potters’ products, though, is presented in a special volume of the Research Centre of the Museum of Cretan Ethnology at Vori (Vallianou & Padouva 1986). Here, for the first time, 88 unglazed pottery types produced on Crete in the 19th and 20th centuries were presented according to the same archaeological standards as used for the recording and diagnosis of ancient ceramics. The decoration of the studied vessels was restricted to some incised (wavy) lines and carelessly painted blotches. Besides ethnographic descriptions and the comparison with ancient potters, the social environment of the Early Modern potter’s workshop became one of the keyitems of research on the other Greek islands (Wagner 1974; Psaropoulou 1984; 1990; Voyatzoglou 1979-80). The most important of those studies is the work of F.C. Wagner, who visited all the traditional pottery centres on the island of Siphnos in the 1960s. His main contribution was the thorough documentation of the location, function and organisation of the Siphniote workshops, among which he identified four main workroom-types. In addition, he published 20 different shapes of unglazed kitchenware (among them the typical cooking pot tsoukali), manufactured on Siphnos. The pottery industry on Cyprus was the focus of a six-month ‘ethnoarchaeological project’ of the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute (London 1987; id. 1989; London et al. 1990 with references to earlier publications). Apart from the by now well-known aim to use traditional pottery as a tool to learn about ancient people and their lifestyles, this project also inves-

tigated pottery reuse and discard patterns, percentages of wasters and even the gender of Cypriote potters in past and present. The ceramics under study were unglazed casseroles, cooking pots (with matching lids) and jugs with oblique stippled patterns and incised wavy line decoration, made in Kornos and Agios Dimitrios. A more technical and synthetical perspective was chosen by Richard Jones, the director of the Fitch Laboratory in Athens during the 1980s, who classified all the published information about traditional pottery and tile workshops in the Aegean. He presented a table with categories concerning the location of the workshops, the materials used, the characteristic wares and the potterydistribution (Jones 1986, table 12.1 and fig. 12.1 with further literature). In addition, his article included some case studies of the main modern production centres (e.g. those of South-West Messenia, Siphnos, Thrapsanos, Chalkis and Cyprus), emphasizing their different modes of organisation. Until the 1980s, however, the focus of scholarly attention had been rather on the potter’s craft instead of his products. That traditional Early Modern and Modern pots could actually be the subject of a broad typo-chronological as well as of a socio-economic study in their own right was shown in an article of 1990. The manufacture of one particular group of ceramics, the large unglazed storage jars with ribbed walls from Koroni (the so-called koroneïka), was studied within the traditional cultural context of 19th- and 20th-century Messenia by Harriet Blitzer (1990). She examined the reasons for their use and trade throughout the Eastern Mediterranean, and, using the distribution of these modern pots as an indicator, defined some types of commercial interaction that might have been possible in prehistoric Aegean trade. 3.6.2 the aegean and cyprus: the art-historical approach Meanwhile, Early Modern ceramics were also being studied from an art-historical perspective, often in the context of Greek folk studies. Vassilios Kyriazopoulos (1969; 1984), Georgios Giourgiotis (1976; 1994), Angeliki Vavylopoulou-Charitonidou (1976; 1982) and, more recently, Katerina Korre-Zographou (1995 with further Greek literature) treated decorative types of glazed or painted folk pottery in Greece as objects of art within a historical context.

Fig. 3.15 Display of Early Modern ceramics in a traditional Greek household (after Korre-Zographou 1995).

Their concern was less focussed on the technical analysis of ware-types, forms and fabrics, but more on the recording of ornamental vessels in Greek folk collections. One of the conclusions forwarded in these studies was that with the general rise in the standard of living in pre-modern Greece during the 20th century, there was also an increasing need for ceramic objects which satisfied purely aesthetic demands. In these publications the folk pottery was often ordered according to the regions of production. Kyriazopoulos, for instance, concluded that ceramics from Western Greece were more primitive, their forms simpler, and the decoration (both plastic and painted) more sparse and less vivid. The Eastern regions were characterized by more richly and vividly decorated pots. Noteworthy also was his observation that the Greek potters limited themselves to the production of unglazed earthenware and slip-covered vessels, and did not engage in the manufacture of Porcelain, although the raw material for Porcelain (kaolin) existed in abundance on the island of Melos (Kyriazopoulos 1969, 90 note 3). Fine examples of the various types of Early Modern and Modern pottery in the folk tradition are nowadays on display in the Kyriazopoulos Collection of Ceramic Folk

75

Art at Monastiraki, Athens (Vavylopoulou-Charitonidou 1976). Of special interest for the study of Early Modern pottery in the Aegean are also some publications on industrially made transfer-printed wares from NorthWestern Europe (especially from France and Great Britain), which were imported in Greece during the Early Modern period (Amandry 1982; Kyriazopoulos 1984; Korre-Zographou 1995, 245-64). This printing technique, whereby the design of an inked engraving was transferred to paper and from there to the ceramic object, was a cheap and fairly easy process. Therefore, the plates decorated in this way could be mass produced and widely distributed. The transfer-printed vessels were introduced to Greece after the mid 19th century, with the emergence of Syros as one of the trading centres after the War of Independence. These so-called ‘Syriana’ ceramics were made in North-Western Europe, but commissioned by merchants from Syros, who promoted them in the Greek market. In Early Modern Greece, at least in the more prosperous regions, printed plates were often arranged on wall-shelves or a mantle-piece to ornament the house (see fig. 3.15). Decorated with scenes from Greek Antiquity and the Greek War of Independance, they became status symbols and confirmation of continuity from the Greek past. Ideological themes on these plates were scenes or heroes from the War of Independence, such as Lord Byron or Kolokotronis, but also Alexander the Great was very fashionable (cf. Gourgiotis 1976; Amandry 1982; Korre-Zographou 1995: figs. 45255 and 475-91). Apart from these decorative and ideological devices, the main use of the transfer-printed plates was the serving of food during special occasions. Gourgiotis described the moments of excitement, when the figure of Venizelos or the horse of Kolokotronis would appear after the last spoonfuls of soup (Gourgiotis 1976b). Nowadays, these plates can still be seen in traditional households on the Cyclades and the Sporades, in small Folklore Museums all over Greece and in the Benaki Museum at Athens.

..2

Summary

Summarizing, we can conclude that interest in PostRoman pottery in the Aegean is a fairly recent phenom-

76

enon. In fact, excavations in the Aegean have yielded more systematic, stratigraphical information on Medieval and Post-Medieval ceramics during the last twenty years than before. An excellent example of a recent, all-period approach is the publication by John Hayes of the pottery from the Saraçhane excavations at Constantinople/Istanbul (Hayes 1992). This volume is a landmark for Post-Roman pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean for several reasons: 1) the multi-period nature of the excavation; 2) the excellent presentation of the finds; and 3) the exhaustive comparisons with other excavations. However, we must not cheer too early: as far as Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery is concerned the situation is not yet ideal. There is some sort of basic typochronology of the fine wares, but there is still much uncertainty. As far as local production and later (unglazed) domestic wares are concerned, there is hardly any knowledge. As Guy Sanders has rightly stated: ‘Recent work on later ceramics in the Eastern Mediterranean is still limited to survey finds, poorly provenanced museum objects, and sites on which Medieval material was sparse and unstratified. The excavation of large, multi-period urban centres which possess significant Medieval components is a perennial occupation of archaeologists in Greece (e.g. at Athens, Corinth, Thebes and Thessaloniki). It is only Corinth, however, that produces regular reports on ceramic finds from the later strata’ (Sanders 1993, 251-2). For each of the periods discussed here, problems still loom large over the advances in knowledge. Most publications dealing with pottery from the Late Roman – Early Byzantine period, for instance, are focussed on the differences in percentages between locally produced or imported fine wares, domestic wares and amphorae from the 5th to 7th centuries. After the 7th century, there is still a gap in our ceramic knowledge in the Eastern Mediterranean. It seems as if the amount of pottery in use was less, the familiar, mass-produced fine and cooking wares became rare, and imports were less common. The standard types of Late Roman amphorae were superseded by LR1 and LR2 variants and imitations made in Syria, Palestine and the Aegean. Arab territories continued to produce and export amphorae in Cyprus in the 8th century. The well-known Late Roman tablewares, such as the Red Slip Wares from North Africa, Western Turkey and

Cyprus, which had been used until the 7th century, seemed to be no longer produced and distributed in significant quantities. In their place came glazed wares in a white fabric from Constantinople. However, the presence of these first White Glazed Wares is in many regions of the Aegean still obscure because of lack of publication. The discussion about the provenance and the distribution of these wares is therefore limited to excavated material from Constantinople/Istanbul and from some urban centres. In addition, hand-made wares were used together with thin-walled wheel-made pots. The appearance of hand-made cooking pots (on Cyprus and in the Peloponnesus) suggests that pottery-making gradually shifted from large fabricae to small, locally based craft tradition. These wares were probably made at the household or village level. This suggests that the discussion around finds of the so-called ‘Slavic Ware’ is too much connected with historical conclusions around the appearance of the Slavs in Central Greece. For the study of ceramics from the Middle Byzantine and Late Byzantine/Frankish periods, the emphasis of research and publication in the Aegean is often on the decorated sgraffito and painted wares instead of on the less recognizable cooking wares and amphorae. Sanders seems quite right in complaining that ‘those finding and reporting Medieval material culture almost routinely ignore unglazed pottery, even though plain and cooking ware styles can be easily recognized, are highly regionalized, and in some cases possess qualities attractive to markets outside the production area’ (Sanders 1993, 251-2). Furthermore, most recent publications on Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery offer hardly any new typeseries of the studied material, no new developments in pottery research, let alone patterns of exchange. The emphasis of most publications is often on complete pots from private or museum collections. There is hardly any good stratigraphical information. Most authors follow the standard chronology of Corinth, which is (as we have seen in the previous chapter) insecure and even wrong in its dating, although lately advances are in progress under the leadership of the director of the excavations, Guy Sanders. As far as Ottoman and Early Modern pottery is concerned, it seems that the more recent the pottery the more art-historical and ethnographic the study of it –

and less archaeological. For pottery from the Turkish period, for instance, good work has been done in Northern Greece (Macedonia and Thrace), but pottery from excavations in the large urban centres in Greece (e.g. Athens, Corinth, Thessaloniki) is very unsatisfactorily studied and hardly published. At least, not in a stratigraphical context. Studies of the distribution and use of ceramics in the Aegean area during Ottoman times are lacking altogether. If we look at the various approaches used in the research into Early Modern ceramics in Greece, it is clear that there were two main perspectives until now: 1. an ethnoarchaeological perspective in which the diminishing pottery industry (especially kilns and workshops) was studied and recorded, sometimes with the aim of gaining a better understanding of Prehistoric and Classical technologies; and 2. an art-historical perspective in which traditional pottery types in the Aegean were documented, often from a folk-cultural point of view. However, the bulk of these studies offer only a very limited help for archaeologists presently working with Early Modern sherds found on excavations or sampled on surveys. In fact, what field ceramicists need most urgently, is an accurate description of fabrics and glazes, more information about the provenance and function of Early Modern pottery and good archaeological drawings for the establishment of ceramic type-series. Much remains to be done. We need more information on production centres and kilns in the Aegean area. Furthermore, we need more study of closed deposits from excavations in the large urban centres, including all excavated material (fine wares as well as cooking wares), to create new typo-chronologies. Finally, we need more archaeological approaches concerning pottery research in the later periods: that is to say, the Turkish and Early Modern periods.

notes 1. Cf. for the use of the designation ‘Constantinople/Istanbul’ chapter 2, note 1. See for the most important places in the Eastern Mediterraneum area mentioned in this chapter figs. 2.1 and 2.2. 2. Hayes (1995; 1997) hails this ‘aniconic style’ as the road towards Iconoclasm. The term ‘aniconic style’ is used for

77

Byzantine pottery which has no figural subject but only

Constantinople/Istanbul. Furthermore, their chemical analyses

geometric or foliate decoration.

indicate a possible origin close to Istanbul, at Arnavutköy on the European side of the Bosporus.

3. See Hayes (1971) for more information on these Late Roman unguentaria.

12. D. Talbot Rice in Report of the British Academy Archaeological Expedition to Constantinople, 1928, 34.

4. Ten years before, W. Hautumm (1981) also tried to establish a chronology for Late Roman amphora 1 and 2 by exploring new

13. The best overview of Zeuxippus Ware, found in various sites

research-methods. All of the 7th century material in his

from the Black Sea to Cyprus, is given by François (1995, 377-9,

catalogue (ca. 605 fragments) came from the Eupalinos-tunnel

pl. 23). See also Papanikola-Bakirtzis (2001) for more examples

on the Island of Samos, excavated by the German Archaeolog-

of Zeuxippus Ware from Kato Paphos on Cyprus and from

ical School at Athens between 1971 and 1974 under the

Pieria, near ancient Pydna, in Northern Greece.

direction of Ulf Jantzen. 14. Also the conservative firing technique (i.e. the upright 5. Cf. on ‘Samos cistern amphorae’ in general, Isler (1969, pls. 85-88) and Hayes (1992, 69, type 17).

stacking in the kiln, which was not typical of later 13th-century glazed ware) led Megaw to date Aegean Ware to the early 13th century (Megaw 1975, 42). However, the destruction date of the

6. According to John Hayes, the pottery finds in the Dhiorios-

castle of Saranda Kolones in 1222 AD has recently been debated

article are dated by Catling too late. They should be dated pre-

by Von Wartburg (2001c), who suggested that the castle was

550 AD. Only one of the kilns, the one of rectangular form, can

destroyed somewhat later and not by the earthquake of 1222

be dated later (J.W. Hayes, pers. comm.). See also Megaw (1959,

AD.

34) for the dating of the stock in trade from the potters’ workshop at Dhiorios to ‘not later than the mid-8th century’. 7. Plain wares are used for the preparation or serving of food; see in general, Riley (1979, 277). 8. Hayes’ recent article (2001) features another Early Christian pottery assemblage dating from the 5th to 7th centuries (and including a 7th century cistern deposit) from a church complex in the northern zone of ancient Knossos. See also Catling & Smith (1976) for the late 6th-7th century finds from an osteotheke found some hundred metres to the south(-east) of this church complex at Knossos. 9. Of the imported fine wares, African Red Slip Ware dominated in the 4th and the 7th centuries; Phocaean Red Slip Ware, on the other hand, in the 5th and the 6th centuries (see fig. 3.1). 10. Just recently, more fragments of late 7th-early 8th century glazed wares in a white fabric have been found at excavations in Heraklion, but this material has yet not been published by Natalia Poulou-Papadimitriou. 11. Megaw & Jones (1983, 263), however, mention the discovery of an unpublished waster from Kyriotissa (Kalenderhane) at

78

4 – B O E O T I A : T H E S U RV E Y F I N D S I N C O N T E XT

/., Introduction In this chapter I will try to present an historical and methodological context for the ceramics under discussion in this book. First, I will present an overview of the history of archaeological research of Post-Roman pottery in Boeotia before 1996 (when I started my own study of the Boeotian material). In the course of this presentation, the relevant publications on the subject prior to the 1990s will be discussed, and I will try to evaluate what has been published until 1996. Furthermore, what do these publications tell us about the ceramics found in Boeotia from Medieval and Post-Medieval times? Secondly, I will present in this chapter a short introduction to the Boeotia Project, its approach to intensive survey and its sampling strategies. Thirdly, I will briefly discuss some of the well-known problems which face pottery archaeologists who work with surface ceramics from field surveys. In particular I will address here the problem of establishing a chronology on the problem of selection of the wares on the ground. I will finish the chapter with a perspective on how to overcome these problems. Apart from recognizing the problems, it is also worthwhile to investigate new approaches for dating Medieval and Post-Medieval sherds in (Central) Greece from intensive survey.

/.-

Previous research into Post-Roman ceramics in Boeotia[1 ]

4.2.1 publications before the 1990s It is probably safe to say that research into Post-Roman pottery in Boeotia started in 1926 at a large cemetery in the centre of modern Thebes, where the Greek archaeologist Antonios Keramopoulos excavated several tombs of the 12th to 13th centuries (Keramopoulos 1926). This cemetery, situated at the site of the ancient sanctuary of Apollo Ismenios on a small hill 200 m. East of the Kadmeia, yielded a significant amount of Middle Byzantine pottery. In the tombs, plates and cooking ware, jugs, lamps, and candlesticks were found. Other

finds included bronze fibulae and jewellery (Symeonoglou 1985, 236-9, site 8). The cemetery was dated by Keramopoulos on the basis of a few coins, and his short note on the pottery was merely illustrated by four vague photographs (Keramopoulos 1926, plates 2-5). It was almost 40 years later when the next publication on Medieval ceramics in Boeotia appeared in print. In 1964 Peter Megaw reported on a bacino in the Byzantine church of Agios Georgios in Loukisia, on the Northern coast of Boeotia (Megaw 1964). Of the twelve bowls once immured in this church only one had survived: a Fine Sgraffito bowl of the 12th century. However, there had been ongoing discussion about the date of the church. The Greek archaeologist Orlandos, for instance, argued on architectural grounds that the church was from the second half of the 11th century (Orlandos 1937, 166-171). A few years after Megaw, a German-British project published a handful of Late Roman-Early Byzantine amphorae fragments with combed decoration, excavated at the Boeotian harbour of Anthedon (Schläger et al. 1968). The harbour was dated on the basis of construction techniques to Late Roman – Early Byzantine times (4th to 7th century). The pottery extracted from the structures (mostly amphorae and no fine or glazed wares) was according to the excavators characteristic for the 6th century, although they stated that numerous small fragments could also easily belong to the 4th, 5th or 7th century. Pottery of a later date found on the sea bed in the harbour and in the cement of the harbour works showed that the harbour was also in use during the 12th century (see John Hayes’ information in Hood 1970, 37, note 3). Unfortunately, the excavators did not publish much of this later material; an exception is their publication of one Günsenin 3/ Saraçhane 61 amphora of the 12th-early 13th centuries (Schläger et al. 1968, 88, fig. 90). From the late 1960s onwards, reports by the Ephorates of Antiquities in Boeotia and Chalkis in the ‘Chronika’ of the Greek journal Archaiologikon Deltion provided an increasing amount of information about Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery found at excava-

79

tions in Boeotia. However, these references were often mere notes on finds from rescue excavations, without any chronological or stratigraphical support, let alone good illustrations or photographs. Positive exceptions to the rule were several Greek reports on Middle Byzantine material from Thebes and Chalkis, in which the 12th-13th century pottery was clearly featured in good photographs (e.g. Pharaklas 1968; Ioannidou 1973; Georgopoulou-Meladini 1971; 1973; 1973-74; Papadakis 1975; Ioannidaki-Dostoglou 1981 and Koilakou 1986). Noteworthy is also Georgopoulou-Meladini’s article from 1973-74 about Late Frankish-Early Ottoman material from Chalkis. She was the first to publish 14th-16th century pottery found in Boeotia (Georgopoulou-Meladini 1973-74). In 1985 G.A. Nikolakopoulos published a short note in which he discussed some 12th-13th century fragments from excavations at Thebes, carried out by the Greek archaeologist Keramopoulos in the 1920s (Nikolakopoulos 1985). This article was an abstract of an unpublished extensive study, the main aim of which was to show that Medieval pottery of mainland Greece, was ‘one of the most beautiful and together with the Hispano-Arabic one of the foreshadowers of modern European pottery’, and in no way inferior to ceramics from Constantinople. For this purpose Nikolapoulos selected sherds from the collection of the Byzantine Museum of Athens, and presented them in an art-historical perspective, without any archaeological context. 4.2.2 recent publications The first extensive publication of Post-Roman pottery in Boeotia, which fully met up-to-date archaeological standards, was Pamela Armstrong’s article in the Annual of the British School at Athens on finds from Thebes (Armstrong 1993). The material she discussed had been excavated in 1980 by Katie Demakopolou, then Ephor of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in Boeotia, in the central square of the city (Plateia Agiou Ioannou Kalokteni). The finds in the nine deposits discussed by Armstrong covered a wide chronological range, encompassing the time span from the Middle Byzantine period to Early Modern times. In the absence of numismatic evidence, all fragments were dated by parallels from the excavations at Corinth and Constantinople/Istanbul (published by Morgan 1942 and Hayes 1992 respectively). Most of the Theban deposits were very mixed and

80

contained pottery of many different periods, except for deposits I and IV. The unglazed domestic wares (such as amphorae) found in deposit I were dated by Armstrong within the 8th to 10th centuries. However, the current director of the Corinth excavations, Guy Sanders, later dated comparable amphorae at Corinth to the later 10th and 11th centuries (Sanders 1995). Sanders also voiced a different opinion about the dating of deposit IV: instead of the second half of the 12th century, he preferred a date in the early 13th century. On the whole, he considered Armstrong’s article ‘valuable more for parallels and distribution of types than chronology’ (Sanders 1995, 21).[2 ] Another contribution to Medieval archaeology in Boeotia before 1996 is a publication of three complete vessels which are perhaps from the Frankish period, some Ottoman pipe fragments and a tripod stand, all found at various places in Thebes (Theodorou-Mavrommatidi 1995). Of special interest is the find of the tripod stand, which was used at potter’s workshops to separate glazed vessels during the firing process, because it seems clear evidence that pottery production must have taken place in Medieval and Post-Medieval Thebes. However, in spite of the valuable reports in the Archaiologikon Deltion from the late 1960s onwards and of the published results of recent research in the 1990s, one cannot avoid the conclusion that the study of PostRoman pottery in this part of Greece (as in other parts of the Aegean outside Corinth) left room for improvement. Most fundamentally, research into post-Roman pottery in Boeotia has been hampered by a lack of systematically collected and especially well-stratified data. Presently, this situation has changed, in the first place by the systematic collection of Post-Roman wares in the course of the Boeotia Project, and in the second place by several recent excavations by the Greek Archaeological Service of the Thebes Museum, where attention was paid to the Post-Roman strata (e.g. Koilakou 1992-1996;Vroom forthcoming a).

/..

The Boeotia Project: background and methodology

Between 1978 and 1999 the Boeotia Project, a collaborative field survey directed by Anthony Snodgrass (University of Cambridge) and John Bintliff (University of Leiden; formerly Bradford and Durham), has been

Fig. 4.1 Map of Boeotia with approximately the size of the two research areas, including research area A (e.g. Valley of the Muses) and research area B (Hyettos area).

investigating the history of habitation of this large province in Central Mainland Greece (some 2580 square kilometres in its ancient boundaries). The circa 12,000 Post-Roman sherds collected during the course of that project will be discussed in this and the following chapters. The key approach used by the Cambridge-Durham Boeotia Project in its study of settlement patterns was intensive field walking (Bintliff & Snodgrass 1985; Bintliff 1994; 1995; 1996; 1997 with further literature). Teams of students, each with a staff leader, covered the countryside, walking at distances of some 15 metres apart in long transects. Covering the landscape as fully as possible (however difficult the terrain), the teams conti-

nuously inspected the surface for pieces of pottery and tile. The field walkers counted all pottery fragments in sight on so-called ‘clickers’, in order to enable the computer mapping of the continuous density variation of surface pottery across the entire survey area (Bintliff & Snodgrass 1985). At regular intervals (after each transect of about 50 to 200 metres), team leaders recorded the pottery densities recorded by each individual walker. Anomalous highs in density or quality were taken to betray the presence of a possible ‘site’. These apparent places of human activity were gridded in mini-transects 7.5 metres wide and 10 metres long (the former normal transect width divided in two), which were totally counted for ceramics by each

81

Fig. 4.2 Intensive survey area in the Valley of the Muses, Boeotia (photo: J. Vroom).

walker. Finally, all transects were sampled for chronologically-diagnostic sherds, with the purpose of diagnosing and dating at a later stage, to enable the detailed mapping of the expansion and shrinking of sites during each phase of their existence (Bintliff 1996). Most of the fieldwork during sixteen years of the Boeotia Project has been carried out in an area of some 51 square kilometres in South-Western Boeotia, more or less around the modern village of Mavromati (the expedition base till 1993). The research area includes the territories of the ancient cities of Haliartos and Thespiae, as well as the ancient large village/small town of Askra (see fig. 4.1: area A). Since the late 1980s the Boeotia Project opened up a second but much smaller survey area (a mere three square kilometres) in the far Northern borderlands of the province, near the modern village of Pavlo. Here, the entire surface and surroundings of the small ancient city of Hyettos have been fieldwalked (see fig. 4.1: area B). The surveyed area in Boeotia is dominated by two main landscape types: large lowland plains and lakes of alluvial/colluvial deposits and plateaux of soft carbonate rocks. With irrigation the plains make fertile agricultural land, in contrast to the coastal limestone mountains in the South. Approximately one third of Boeotia is currently classified as cultivated: the entire lowland zone and much of the upland soft rock plateaux and hills (Bintliff 1992, 134; see fig. 4.2). To the North, the lacustrine deposits of Lake Kopais, drained in the late 19th century by the English company ‘Lake Kopais Co. Ltd’ (1886-1952), are very fertile, and tomatoes, melons,

82

cotton, vegetables and maize are all grown there (Stedman 1996, 179; Papadopoulos 1997). Since ancient times, Boeotia has been an agriculturally rich and relatively densely populated region, which has apparently been inhabited continuously throughout the ages. All in all, a total of some 54 square kilometres of the region has been surveyed in the course of the Boeotia Project. Until now, some 300 rural sites have been discovered, and complete surface surveys of four urban sites (that is: ‘urban’ in Late Antiquity) were carried out. Sites from the Medieval and Post-Medieval periods (7th19th centuries) are ubiquitous in the research area (Bintliff 1995; 1996; 1997). Partly due to the widespread practice of deep-ploughing, they usually yield fairly rich surface material of rather fine quality. Certainly when compared to sites in more mountainous parts of Greece, these sites are abundant in diagnostic surface finds (Vroom 1996; 1997; 1998a; 1998b; 1999; forthcoming d).

/./

Survey material as a source of information

4.4.1 problems of chronology and visibility Since its spectacular rise as a research strategy in Mediterranean lands in the 1970s, surface surveying has always met with a degree of scepticism from excavation archaeologists. But today, as regional surveys are well established, a new sort of scepticism among surveyors themselves seems to be emerging. Questions about site definitions and especially about the efficiency of collection strategies of surface material for the identification of sites are more commonly heard than a decade or so ago. This is not the place to embark on a rejoinder in these very interesting but complex methodological discussions. Perhaps it suffices here to state that among archaeologists – including survey workers – there is a growing awareness of the potential difficulties which may arise when some (or all) of the sampling is done by unskilled field workers, mostly students, who are expected to collect everything ‘in sight’ but are not always trained to detect certain ‘difficult’ ceramic types (for instance local domestic wares) (Sanders 1995, 6). But ‘visibility’ is not only a problem of untrained eyes – it may even be that this is the least worrying aspect of this problem. Then there is the specific difficulty of diagnosing and dating certain wares, especially without a stratigraphical context. And there are the even more

specific difficulties in recognition and identification of Post-Roman material in Greece. Also among experienced field workers it is nowadays acknowledged that certain types of pottery are very difficult to recognise and still harder to diagnose. Among these types, the Medieval and Post-Medieval unglazed wares in Greece figure prominently (Davis 1991, 133). The 8th and 9th centuries in particular still pose serious problems for all archaeological field workers in the Mediterranean. There is a wider significance in the remarks made by the historian Chris Wickham upon the absence of Early Medieval ceramics on rural sites in Italy: ‘Even if we found 8th century pottery, we would usually not know it, because we have too few diagnostic types’ (Wickham 1994, 110). In addition, the ceramicist Helen Patterson, who studies Early Medieval pottery from Italy, stresses that the problems in Post-Roman chronology in Italy are further exacerbated by the regionalization of ceramic production and distribution after the collapse of the Roman market system in the 5th and 6th centuries (Patterson 2000). The lesson to be taken from her observations is that vast regional differences should be taken into account when dating survey assemblages and excavation finds of Post-Medieval material. As an example Patterson mentions the Saraçhane excavations in Istanbul, which according to her ‘have shown that late 7th to 11th century wares circulating in Constantinople are rarely found outside the capital’ (Patterson 2000, 112). To this she adds that although the ceramic evidence becomes more abundant all over the Mediterranean from the 10th century onwards, the production and distribution systems still remained at a regional level. Patterson also points to other factors which may influence the low ceramic visibility of wares in certain periods. She mentions the different function and status of sites, the quality of the pottery, the practises of use and discard behaviour, the intensity of later (modern) occupation, the phenomenon of ‘unploughed’ hilltop settlements, and the collection strategies adopted by field surveys. To this one may add the phenomenon of ‘opting out’ of the use of ceramics as household utensils, which may occur for all sorts of reasons in various periods and in all sorts of places (Vroom 1998b). It is increasingly recognised that the scarcity of pottery from certain periods on sites may indicate that other materials (wood, metal) were preferred to make means of preparing and

serving food and drink among the inhabitants (Vroom 1998b). Lastly, one may note that ceramicists trying to diagnose Post-Roman wares still have to depend on the traditional, but outdated pottery handbooks of PostRoman wares from Corinth and Athens. This situation and the perhaps sometimes uncritical use of the handbooks has rightly been questioned (Sanders 1999; 2000). Still, one must admit that there are hardly published alternatives, in spite of progress being made recently in Corinth and other places. In view of all these problems in the study of Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery in Greek lands, there is an urgent necessity for specialists of different periods to work closely together on this material (whether it is assembled in the course of surveys or during excavations). Especially needed is the establishment of datable ceramic sequences. Here, the combination of survey material (which offers information because of its quantitative nature) with excavation material (which offers information because of its stratified nature) should be aimed at. In spite of the recent signs of (self-)doubt among fieldworkers, it may be underlined here that survey is the single and unsurpassable research strategy when aiming to address problems of long-term habitation history in a regional perspective, and was never meant as a refined mode of exact chronological analysis. Although surveys may not provide the final answers to all archaeological problems, as perhaps some field walkers of the first generations once hoped, it certainly has proven itself as a very successful method and it surely is the only way to approach the historical landscape as a source of information in its own right. The further refinement of intensive field walking techniques and the repeated resurveying of identified sites (in the company of pottery specialists with a trained eye) can perhaps help alleviate problems of visibility. And apart from close co-operation between specialists involved, and apart from the use of excavated data to control the dating of pottery sampled from the surface, survey collections themselves may be used in new ways, in order to fully use their two specific qualities: quantity and spatial variation. Due to its character (much fine ware found at many different sites), the Post-Roman collection of the Boeotia project seems to offer possibilities for typo-chronological research in its own right.

83

4.4.2 possibilities: towards a ‘horizontal chronology’ Refinement in the chronological diagnosis of Medieval and Post-Medieval survey material is an ongoing process, and substantial progress has been made over the last few years in collecting and dating sherds in surveys all over the Mediterranean area. The Boeotia Survey has been trying over the years to contribute to the development of a new perspective on the problems related to the chronology of Post-Roman pottery. In contrast to most other recent surveys in Greece, the study of the Medieval and Post-Medieval history of habitation has, in fact, become one of its important goals (Bintliff 1994; 1995; 1996; 1997; 2000a). When the Boeotia Project started its field research in 1978, little was known about urban or rural developments during the Medieval and Ottoman periods in this part of Central Greece (or of any part of Greece for that matter). After more than two decades of intensive archaeological survey this situation has now changed. Many unknown Medieval sites have been recorded and about 12,000 Medieval and Post-Medieval sherds have been collected. These circumstances offer at least some sort of foundation for the study of a continuous Post-Roman history of habitation. The starting point for my own contribution to the Boeotia Project is the fact that some sites in Boeotia have been inhabited continuously throughout Antiquity and the Middle Ages until Modern times, whilst other sites were inhabited during short and clearly bounded periods of time. One prospect of my endeavours is to combine the ceramic data from all these sites into a sort of typo-chronological mosaic, which may provide for Boeotia a so-called ‘horizontal chronology’ reaching from ca. the 7th to the 20th century. The possibility of constructing such a horizontal stratigraphy, from the Boeotian material was first suggested by Anthony Snodgrass and John Bintliff and they offered me the opportunity to explore this line of approach. (The concept of assemblage definition from surface survey linked to type fossils was already tested by John Hayes for the Archaic-Hellenistic period.) Of vital importance for the construction of this ‘horizontal chronology’ are three unique factors: 1) the quality of the Post-Roman survey ceramics found in Boeotia, which includes a substantial amount of diagnostic tablewares and imports ; 2) the quantity and

84

Fig. 4.3 Beginning of the description of the households of the village of Panaya in Boeotia. T.D. 35 from 1506 AD. Example of a Mufassal Tahrir (by courtesy of M. Kiel).

regional distribution of the Post-Roman survey ceramics over some 74 different site-samples; 3. the fact that the Boeotia Project has surveyed distinctive one-period sites with rather well-defined chronological boundaries. Detailed analysis and seriation of this material may produce the identification of characteristic groups of material for the entire Post-Roman period with overlapping phases of perhaps 150-200 years. In this way, the chronological chain of the horizontal chronology could be linked together step by step. Furthermore, the dating of the horizontal chronology in Boeotia was helped by three other factors. First, previous independent work by John Hayes on the entire survey collection of the Boeotia Project in the 1980s had already provided provisional datings of the Medieval and Post-Medieval fragments. His expertise on Roman and Post-Roman pottery in the Mediterranean (especially on ceramics from the Saraçhane excavations in Constantinople/Istanbul) helped me enormously with recognizing different types of pottery. His study of the survey material found in Boeotia was, however, at that time hampered by the lack of good reference points furnished by excavations. As a result of this, Hayes studied thousands of finds which fell into quite recognizable classes, but whose exact date-spans remained elusive. This led him to the conclusion that the research area in Boeotia is rich in finds, ‘but lacking in imports (or close copies of them) from ca. 1100 BC to 1100 AD’ (Hayes 2000, 106).

Secondly, the dating of the ceramic sequences in Boeotia will benefit greatly if it could be controlled by testing it with excavated material from local excavations in urban centres. As it happened, I had the opportunity to do just this. The Greek Archaeological Service had kindly offered me the opportunity to study and publish the Post-Roman pottery from excavations in the city centre of nearby Thebes (Vroom forthcoming a).[3 ] This city was during the Middle Ages one of the most important economic centres of this part of the Byzantine Empire (it may even be ranked third after Constantinople and Thessaloniki). The excavation of some rubbish pits in the historical centre of Thebes revealed that some of these pits had closed deposits with ceramics dating from the 12th to 18th century (Vroom forthcoming, a). This was a great chance to compare excavated material from a major urban centre with survey finds from its rural surroundings. Finally, the well-stratified sequences of Medieval pottery in Corinth (often found in association with coins), recently splendidly published by Guy Sanders and Charles Williams II, could broaden the ceramic reference base in Boeotia (Williams & Zervos 1988-1998; Sanders 1995; 1999; 2000). Partly as the result of the kind co-operation with and permission granted by both Williams and Sanders, I already have had the opportunity to notice that there are many similarities between the ceramics from both regions.[4 ] 4.4.3 the dating of the post-medieval ceramics In studying and dating the Post-Medieval ceramics found on the Boeotian sites an important chronological anchorage was provided by the fact that the Boeotia Project has disposal over very detailed Ottoman tax registers from the Imperial Archives, which are translated and studied by Machiel Kiel (Kiel 1997). These registers range from the 15th to the 18th century and provide information about village-names, about the foundation of new settlements, about the number of inhabitants per village, about the number of households, as well as all sorts of economic output and resources (see fig. 4.3). This textual information can be linked with the archaeological data, so that the pottery of the Ottoman period need not be studied in vacuo (Bintliff 1996; 1999; see Vroom 1998a for an example of this approach). The Boeotia project, as several projects in the Mediterranean, has benefited enormously from the

Fig. 4.4 Portrait of the British traveller George Wheler (16501723 AD), Durham Cathedral, Durham, 1696 AD (by courtesy of Durham Cathedral).

work by Kiel (and others) to open up the Ottoman archives. Still, it may be that non-specialists find it not that easy to use the data from the Ottoman registers. The Ottomanist Suraiya Faroqhi has recently warned scholars to be careful with the interpretation of these tax registers. She suggested that that one has to take into account several distorting factors, such as the conditions of transport and communications during the 16th century. Certain taxpayers may well have hidden and thus avoided registration during the 16th century (Faroqhi 1999, 89). Other problems are connected with the fact that in most parts of the Ottoman Empire the tax registers of the 16th century record very high levels of population growth. Some of these increases may, according to her, simply reflect more effective counting procedures (Faroqhi 1999, 90-91). Finally, historians trying to arrive at estimates of rural population for the 17th and 18th centuries – a period in which the registers seem much less detailed than before – are obliged to work ‘with a rather intractable documentation’ (Faroqhi 1999, 93). Although Faroqhi’s warnings are perhaps too pessimistic (and probably not quite accurate as far as all later defters are concerned), it is certain that it is something of a challenge to combine the information obtained from the Ottoman tax registers with the actual archaeological data from the sites. In this respect it may prove helpful to put special emphasis on the absence or presence of tobacco clay pipes of the Turkish period when dating the Post-Medieval sites in Boeotia. It is nowadays acknowledged that the study of tobacco clay

85

pipes may contribute to resolve the problems encountered in excavations and surface surveys with establishing a tentative typo-chronology of the ‘difficult’ ceramics from Ottoman times (cf. Ziadeh 1995 for such an approach). According to Rebecca Robinson in her study of tobacco pipes from Corinth and the Athenian Agora, these pipes were first introduced into the Middle East at the beginning of the 17th century and their development can fairly accurately be followed through the following centuries (Robinson 1985). Last but not least, the above gathered information for dating the ceramics found in Boeotia of the Turkish and Early Modern periods can be extended and controlled by the accounts of Western travellers who passed through Boeotia from the late 15th century onwards. Some of these travellers were scholars and antiquarians visiting the ancient sites and Classical monuments of Boeotia; others were just casual travellers. The antiquarian perspective was expressed, for instance, by the Canon of Durham Cathedral, George Wheler (1650-1723 AD), who travelled with his companion the French physician Jacob Spon (1647-1685 AD) through Boeotia in 1676 AD (see fig. 4.4). Both antiquarians roamed the Greek country with the intention of identifying and describing the ancient sites and gathering original information. The accounts they both have written are considered to have ‘founded the modern tradition of Greek travel-literature’ (Constantine 1984, 7-33; see also Eliot 1978 and Roller 1988, 43-48). Where relevant, the observations of Spon and Wheler and of other travellers of the Boeotian landscape and sites, as well as their comments on villages and settlements have been used to support the dating of the sherds.

more than publications of some rescue excavations (mostly small interim reports), which were valuable in their own right but a far cry from establishing some sort of a typo-chronology of Post-Roman ceramics for this part of Central Greece. In addition, most of the information from these reports is related to the Byzantine period, virtually nothing, however, to the Turkish and Early Modern periods. The Boeotia Project carried out an intensive surface survey in two parts of the region, which resulted in a substantial amount of systematically sampled PostRoman ceramics, supplemented with some grab samples. Without losing sight of the many problems involved with working with surface material, the PostRoman collection of the Boeotia Project seems to offer unprecedented opportunity to try and construct a horizontal chronology from ca. the 7th century up to the 20th century. Furthermore, my study of the Post-Roman pottery from Boeotia was helped by four factors: 1) all the survey material of the Boeotia Project was previously dated in broad categories by John Hayes; 2) I had the opportunity to study ceramics from a well excavated context in Thebes; 3) there are many parallels with the well published pottery from Corinth; and 4) the dating of some Post-Medieval ceramics on Boeotian sites could be controlled by information on human settlements gathered from the Ottoman tax registers and the Western travellers’ accounts with reference to the region.

notes 1. See for the location of places mentioned in this chapter fig. 8.1.

/.0

Summary

2. In view of the discussion about the dating of the finds published by Pamela Armstrong, it is rather regrettable that all

When John Bintliff and Anthony Snodgrass offered me the opportunity to start my research of the Post-Roman ceramics in Boeotia in 1996, there was not much existing literature to build upon. Due to the fact that the Modern cities of Thebes and Livadheia are built on top of the Medieval and Post-Medieval layers, there were hardly any good stratigraphical sequences from these Boeotian urban centres. There existed no campaigns of long-term excavation designed to explore Medieval and PostMedieval Boeotia. What was available, amounted to little

86

the material (which was stored at the Thebes Museum) has been thrown away, and is therefore lost for further study. 3. I would like to thank Dr. Vassilis Aravantinos of the IX Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities at Thebes for the opportunity to study and publish the material of his excavations. 4. I would like to thank Dr. Charles Williams II and Dr. Guy Sanders of the ASCS for allowing me to see unpublished material from the excavations of Corinth.

5 – T H E B O E O T I A P R O J E C T: T H E P O T T E R Y I N C O N T E X T

0., Introduction The aim of this chapter is to present and discuss the diagnostic finds from a qualitative selection of samples from 30 sites in Boeotia with Post-Roman finds. All PostRoman samples were already selected from the total of collected sherds on the site by John Hayes. This presentation of samples is ordered per site. I will use the word ‘site’ here as it is commonly used in the everyday practice of field work and as it has been used in the course of the Boeotia survey (also prior to my involvement): as a designation for any find spot with a substantial number of artefacts of which the finds are documented or stored under a separate name or codename. I do not indulge here in the ongoing debate about the nature, characteristics and definition of sites in the Mediterranean landscapes (see for the Boeotian sites and their problems, Bintliff 1999; 2000b). Any find spot or place of provenance of the assemblages which has received in the course of the Boeotia Project a site-name (after a nearby village, such as ‘Tatiza’, or after a code, such as ‘VM4’) is called a site here. The 30 sites discussed here constitute ca. 40,5% of the total of 74 sites where Post-Roman pottery was found during the field survey of the Boeotia Project (see tables 5.1-2). The selection is made for practical reasons; sites which yielded only very small samples of Post-Roman wares or mostly undiagnostic wares, or yielded only a few finds from the (Early) Modern period, are mostly excluded from this list. The site-samples under review are those which comprised substantial amounts of diagnostic pottery which could be used for assembling the horizontal chronology of Post-Roman pottery in Boeotia. Of the 30 discussed sites, 20 are situated within the two core research areas of the Boeotia Project where intensive survey was conducted. The two areas of intensive field walking covered by the Boeotia Project are some 54 square kilometres. One research area (research area A) is situated in South-Western Boeotia around the modern village of Mavromati; the second (and smaller) research area (research area B) is situated in North-Western Boeotia near the modern village of

Pavlo (see fig. 5.1). On all sites in these two areas of intensive (transect by transect) research, pottery was collected by the project staff and students by means of systematic sampling. The remaining 10 sites are situated outside the two areas, and pottery was collected here by means of diagnostic judgment sampling, or ‘grab sampling’ of diagnostic wares. Several of the Post-Roman sites are now identified with village names mentioned in the Ottoman tax registers (see M. Kiel and J. Bintliff with assistance of F. Sauerwein and A. Dunn, Unpublished Gazetteer of Ottoman Boeotia). The value of these particular sites is that their occupational history can be studied both in the Ottoman archives and on the ground. The sites listed here vary widely in size and sherd density. I have followed the designations ‘large’, ‘medium’ and ‘small’ regarding the sites as well as the designations ‘rural’, ‘tower’ and ‘urban’ as they were used already by the Boeotia Project. Although it should be noted that the designation ‘urban’ refers to the status of the sites in Late Antiquity, it is beyond the scope and aim of this book to discuss here problems related to site function or hierarchy, let alone methodological problems concerning sampling strategies (see for these matters, Bintliff 1999; 2000b). For the same obvious reason I will not forward new arguments concerning the intricate problems related to the identification of the sites, and limit myself to the arguments formulated in the existing literature.

0.-

The assemblages and their provenances

5.2.1 presentation of the assemblages The information in this list is presented in a fixed order: 1. Site number and name. The site name (in capitals) is usually derived from the nearest modern settlement (as shown on the 1963 1:200,000 topographical map); sometimes the site was given a code name by the Boeotia Project for convenience of reference (e.g. VM4 for Valley of the Muses site no. 4).

87

Complete list of sites in Boeotia with Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery All sites with Post-Roman finds sampled in the course of the Boeotia Project No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

Site name Agia Eleousa Agios Georgios Agios Vlasios Archontiki, Lower Archontiki, Upper Askra Chaironeia Charmena CN1 CN3 CN4 CN7 CN8 CN15 CN17 Haliartos B1 Haliartos B4 Haliartos B6 Haliartos B7 Hyettos Ipsilantis Klimataria Likouresi Mavrokambos/Morokambos Mavromati North

No. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50.

Site name Mavromati Plains B3 Mavromati Plains B4 Mazaraki Megali Rachi Melissochori Neochori 1 Neochori 2 Neochori 3 Onchestos Palaiomazi PP2 PP5 PP7 PP8 PP13 PP14 PP16 PP16a PP26a Paralimni Rhadon Sanctuary of the Muses Tatiza Thespiae B6 Thespiae

No. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74.

Site name Thespiae South 14 Thouri Upper Haliartos 1 Upper Haliartos 2 VM1 VM3 VM4 VM21 VM22 VM24 VM30 VM40 VM42 VM43 VM44 VM61 VM67 VM68 VM82 VM88 VM89 VM90 VM91 VM97

CN = Copais North PP = Palaeopanaghia VM = Valley of the Muses Table 5.1 Complete list of sites in Boeotia with Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery: All sites with Post-Roman finds sampled in the course of the Boeotia Project. Selected list of Boeotian sites with Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery Sites featured in the catalogue on the basis of diagnostic wares in survey samples No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Site name Agia Eleousa Archontiki, Lower Archontiki, Upper Askra Charmena CN3 CN4 CN8 CN15 CN17

No. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

Site name Haliartos B6 Hyettos Ipsilantis Klimataria Mavrokambos/Morokambos Mavromati North Megali Rachi Neochori (1-3) Palaiomazi PP16

No. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

Site name Paralimni Rhadon Tatiza Thespiae Thespiae B6 Thespiae South 14 Upper Haliartos 1 VM4 VM21 VM67

CN = Copais North PP = Palaeopanaghia VM = Valley of the Muses Table 5.2 Selected list of Boeotian sites with Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery: Sites featured in the catalogue on the basis of diagnostic wares in survey samples.

88

Figs. 5.1a-b Location of 30 selected sites in Boeotia with Medieval and Post-Medieval finds, including research area A (Valley of the Muses) and research area B (Hyettos area): 1. Agia Eleousa 2. Archondiki, Lower 3. Archondiki, Upper 4. Askra 5. Charmena 6. CN3 7. CN4 8. CN8 9. CN15 10. CN17 11. Haliartos B6 12. Hyettos 13. Ipsilantis 14. Klimataria 15. Mavrokambos 16. Mavromati North 17. Megali Rachi 18. Neochori 1-3 19. Palaiomazi 20. PP16 21. Paralimni 22. Rhadon 23. Tatiza 24. Thespiae 25. Thespiae B6 26. Thespiae South 14 27. Upper Haliartos 1 28. VM4 29. VM21 30. VM67

89

2. Site location. The location is given in the standard (uncorrected) Greenwich coordinates, as indicated on the 1:50,000 topographical maps of the Hellenic Military Service (Geografiki Iperisia Stratou) at Athens. The sheets used are: Vagia (1988), Thivai (1988), Livadhia (1988) and Livanatai (1971). All site locations are indicated in fig. 5.1. 3. The approximate size of the site. Calculated in metres, or using the length of transects walked by the Boeotia Project. Otherwise I follow here the designations (small, medium, large) of the Boeotia Project. 4. Site function. A classification of the sites, based on the recorded remains and artefacts as well as geographical setting, into habitation sites (RUR), urban sites (CITY), habitation sites with a Medieval/PostMedieval tower (TOW), and other special purpose sites, including Medieval/Post-Medieval monasteries and churches (SP). ‘Urban’ refers to the status of the site in Late Antiquity. A question mark after the designation indicates that the site function is not absolutely clear; a mere question mark without a designation indicates that the function is obscure. 5. The year(s) of sampling of the ceramics. The year(s) indicate(s) the field work season during which the site was subject to close recording or sampling by members of the survey team. 6. The character of sampling. Information will be given here to indicate whether the sherds were sampled in the intensive survey areas of the Boeotia Project, or collected as a ‘grab sample’ outside the intensive survey areas. 7. The total amount of sampled Post-Roman sherds from the site. This figure does not include the sampled sherds from other periods, such as Prehistoric, Classical etc. 8. Site description. A short description of the location, the current land-use, overall visibility and architectural features is presented here based on my own visits to the sites and additional comments of John Bintliff. 9. Site chronology. The periods for which there is clear or probable evidence for human activity on the site are indicated by the following broad chronological divisions (as in AR): BYZ = Byzantine; FR = Frankish; MED = Medieval; R = Roman; T = Turkish; MOD = Modern. The chronological designations may be preceded by E = Early; M = Middle;

90

L = Late; PST = Post. A question mark after a designation indicates that dating is merely probable; parentheses indicate that the quantity of material recorded by the Boeotia Project was only very limited (e.g. less than 4 sherds). 10 Presentation of the diagnostic finds. All the diagnostic ceramics sampled on the site (both the catalogued and uncatalogued finds) are described briefly in various types of wares, of which the characteristics (fabric, glaze, shape etc) will be explained in the next chapter (chapter 6). The total amount of collected diagnostic sherds of each type of ware per site is presented in table 6.2. The numbers behind a certain type of ware agree with the numbers of sherds in the catalogue. 11 Catalogue of sherds. A representative selection of all the diagnostic sherds sampled on the site is presented fully. The fragments described in the catalogue are now stored in the small museum of Thespiae in Boeotia. The shapes are described according to A Guide to the Classification of Medieval Ceramics Forms (1998 edition), published by the Medieval Research Group. All measurements are given in centimetres unless otherwise stated. The following abbreviations are used: H. = height; L. = length; Diam. = diameter; W. = width; Th. = thickness (of the wall); est. = estimated; pres. = preserved. The fabrics have been examined both by eye and using a 10x hand-lens, and are described according to David Peacock’s method (Peacock 1977). The purely visual description of the frequency and size of the inclusions refers to a modified Wenthworth scale of sediments, and the hardness is based on a modified Moh’s scale of minerals.[1 ] The description of feel as smooth, rough, powdery and so on is entirely subjective. Glaze is used to indicate lead glazing; in the few instances where tin-glaze is used, it is described as such. The colour of the fabrics is described according to the classification of the Munsell Soil Color Charts (1970 edition) in natural light (e.g. 5 YR 6/6 for orange). The colours of the decorations which fall outside the range of the Munsell Soil Color Charts are described according to the standard Pantone Matching System (PMS).[2 ] Fig. 6.15 gives the colour code for the drawing of decorated pottery as recommended by English Heritage.[3 ]

Fig. 5.2 Agia Eleousa (site 1) (photo: J. Vroom).

Fig. 5.3 Lower Archondiki (site 2) (photo: J. Vroom).

5.2.2 list of the assemblages

Catalogue: ,., Bowl, base fragment (Gs. 6/1.6). Fig. 6.26: W.17.6.

Site no. 1: AGIA ELEOUSA (fig. 5.2) Site location: Thivai sheet 23°, 16.75 min. E.; 38°, 22.75 min. N. Site size: medium. Site function: RUR/SP. Year of sampling: 1993. Sample: grab sample. Total of sampled sherds: 105.

Pres. H. 0.036, est. Diam. of base 0.058, Th. 0.007-10. Soft, medium fine, light red fabric (2.5 YR 6/8) with some fine to medium limestone inclusions and a few fine mica. Smooth feel. White slip and pale green glaze (PMS 372 C) on the inside. In: incised letter ‘E’ at centre. Low ring foot with round resting surface and central nipple in the

Site description: A scatter of pottery can be found on a South-Western foothill of the Southern promontory of Mount Serlongos (414 m.), around 5 km. North of Thebes. The site overlooks the Northern part of the fertile Theban plain to the South and is located on the edge of more rocky terrain to the North. It is marked by two churches, one of which is Agia Eleousa. In between the two churches is a powerful spring. The assemblage is characterised by many small, very worn fragments (due to ploughing) and contains rather few tile fragments. Site chronology: (LR); MBYZ; LBYZ/FR; (T). Diagnostic finds: lr: Red Slip Wares? 1 LR 2 amphora? (Ware 3). 1 Unglazed Beehive (Ware 4; see fig. 6.40: W4.1). mbyz: 2 Unglazed Incised Ware (Ware 6). 1 Green and Brown Painted Ware (Ware 10). 1 Günsenin 3/Saraçhane 61 amphora (Ware 12). 8 Incised Sgraffito Ware / Champlevé Ware (Ware 15). lbyz/fr: 1 Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Corinth (Ware 17) (cat.no. ,.,). 3 Brown and Green Sgraffito Wares (Ware 20). t: 3 Monochrome Glazed Wares (Ware 29).

middle; convex divergent lower wall. Wheel-ridges on the outside. Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Corinth (Ware 17). Cf. Gregory 1993, 284-88, nos. 1-5, pls. 1-2: ‘Local Ware A’ from Isthmia, dated second half of the 13th century. Or rather ‘Late Sgraffito Ware’ from Corinth? See Sanders 1987, 163-66 and MacKay 1967, 264 from Corinth, dated second half of the 13th – 14th centuries (a coin of 1382-1400 was found with MacKay’s no. 3).

Site no. 2: ARCHONTIKI, LOWER (fig. 5.3) Site location: Vagia sheet 23°, 12 min. E.; 38°, 17.5 min. N. Site size: medium, ca. 200 x 250 m. Site function: RUR/SP. Year of sampling: 1993. Sample: grab sample. Total sampled sherds: 299. Site description: A medium-sized scatter of ceramics can be found on a plateau above the Kanavares Brooklet, about half-way between the modern village of Thespiae and the Theban Plain. The site is marked by the church of Agios Paraskevi (shown on 19th century maps as ‘Archondiki’). The Kanavares Brooklet takes its rise near the ancient city of Thespiae and runs East through rolling fertile hills for several kilometres before entering the

91

Theban Plain. About half-way the stream, the hills on the South bank form a rather steep cliff on the top of which are several flat plateaus. The lower plateau to the East carries the ‘Lower Archondiki’ site, while a higher plateau to the West carries the ‘Upper Archondiki’ site (site 3). According to Bintliff, one of these two sites must have a relation with a settlement named ‘Archonditsa’ in the Ottoman tax registers, of which the habitants must have moved later to modern Leondari (the village next to modern Thespiae) (J. Bintliff, pers. comm.). A community with the name ‘Archonditsa’ first appears in the Ottoman tax registers in 1466 AD as ‘Archonditsa Bala’ until 1688 AD, another appears in 1521 AD as ‘Archonditsa Zir’ in the records until 1688 AD (M. Kiel, J. Bintliff with assistance of F. Sauerwein and A. Dunn, unpublished gazetteer for Ottoman Boeotia; see also Vroom 1996, 6). The British traveller William Leake mentioned the hamlet of ‘Arkhudhitza’ on a hill which borders the Kanavares Brooklet, while travelling from Thebes to Thespiae (Leake 1835, 478). The name ‘Archonditsa’ can be identified with the deserted village of ‘Archontiki’ on 19th century maps (this village is first named ‘Archontisi’ in 1836 AD; then ‘Archontiki’ in 1871 AD and is uninhabited in 1890 AD).

Catalogue: -., Dish, rim fragment (93.3.124). Fig. 6.20: W10.9. Pres. H. 0.037, est. Diam. of rim 0.200. Moderately soft, medium fine, dull orange (5 YR 6/4) to orange-red fabric (2.5 YR 6/6) with many coarse lime and some voids. Smooth feel. White slip and transparent glaze with green paint (PMS 5763 C) on the inside. In: reserved wavy line in slip. Straight rim with thickened lip and knick in upper wall. Green and Brown Painted Ware (Ware 10). Cf. McDonaldHowell 1973, pl. 158d., dated 12th century. -.- Dish?, body fragment (93.3.123). Fig. 6.41: W10.17. Pres. L. 0.086, pres. W. 0.085, Th. 0.007-9. Moderately soft, medium fine, orange red fabric (2.5 YR 6/6) with many coarse lime and some coarse voids. Smooth feel. White slip on the inside. In: black-painted abstract decoration and a hole drilled in the wall. Green and Brown Painted Ware? (Ware 10). -.. Bowl, rim fragment (93.2.20). Pres. H. 0.034, est. Diam. of rim 0.200. Moderately soft, medium fine, orange fabric (5 YR 6/6) with some fine lime and some voids. Smooth feel. White slip and pale glaze on the inside. In: incised circle with Kufic decora-

Site chronology: MBYZ; LBYZ/FR; T; (EMOD). Diagnostic finds: mbyz: 1 Unglazed Incised Ware (Ware 6). 4 Slippainted Ware (Ware 9). 3 Green and Brown Painted Ware (Ware 10). 3 Fine Sgraffito Ware (Ware 11). 52 Günsenin 3/Saraçhane 61 amphora (Ware 12). 14 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 14). 21 Incised Sgraffito Ware/Champlevé Ware (Ware 15; see fig. 6.42: W15.14). lbyz/fr: 4 ‘Zeuxippus Ware’ Subtypes (Ware 16). 1 Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Corinth (Ware 17). 5 Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Thessaloniki (Ware 18). 1 Jug with glazed exterior. t: 4 Monochrome Sgraffito Wares from Italy (Ware 24). 4 Brown and Green Sgraffito Wares (Ware 26). 2 Slip-painted Ware (Ware 30). 2 Painted Ware? (Ware 31). 1 Unglazed Domestic Ware with wavy incised decoration (Ware 38). emod: 1 Glaze Painted Ware (Ware 46).

92

tion. Plain rim with rounded lip and convex divergent upper wall. Fine Sgraffito Ware (Ware 11). Cf. in general, Morgan 1942, spiral style. -./ Cooking pot, rim fragment (93.2.28). Pres. H. 0.032, est. Diam. of rim 0.120. Moderately soft, medium coarse, orange fabric (5 YR 6/6) with some fine lime and many fine quartz particles. Rough feel. Straight rim with slightly thickened lip and concave convergent upper wall. Unglazed Domestic Ware (Ware 14). Cf. for shape, Armstrong 1993, fig. 6, no. 70 amd fig. 8, no. 124. -.0 Storage jar, rim fragment (93.1.64). Fig. 6.11: W14.24. Pres. H. 0.083, est. Diam. of rim 0.280. Fairly hard, coarse, dull orange fabric (5 YR 7/4) with very many medium lime and some medium quartz particles; some voids. Bluish grey core (5 B 5/1). Greyish brown slip (7.5 YR 4/2) on the outside. Straight, thickened rim with knick inside to receive a lid. Unglazed Domestic Ware (Ware 14).

-.1 Dish, base fragment (93.1.58). Fig. 6.24: W15.8.

some fine lime and a few quartz inclusions. Smooth feel.

Pres. H. 0.038, est. Diam. of base 0.130.

White slip and an even, matt ochre-yellow glaze (10 YR 7/8)

Moderately soft, medium fine, orange fabric (5 YR 7/6) with

on the inside. In: incised abstract decoration.

some coarse lime and some voids. Smooth feel. Vague white

Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Thessaloniki (Ware 18).

slip on the outside. White slip and yellow glaze (5 Y 8/6) on the inside. In: gouged decoration of medallion with straight and wavy lines. Heavy, shallow ring foot with flat resting surface and recessed bottom; convex divergent lower wall. Incised Sgraffito Ware (Ware 15), dated (first half of) 13th century.

Site no. 3: ARCHONTIKI, UPPER Site location: Vagia sheet 23°, 12 min. E.; 38°, 17.5 min. N. Site size: medium, ca. 450 x 175 m. Site function: RUR. Year of sampling: 1993. Sample: grab sample. Total sampled sherds: 325.

-.2 Bowl?, base fragment (93.3.133). Fig. 6.24: W15.11. Pres. H. 0.020, est. Diam. of base 0.070. Moderately soft, medium fine, orange red fabric (2.5 YR 6/6) with many coarse lime and some medium quartz particles; some coarse voids. Smooth feel. Dull orange wash (5 YR 7/4) on the outside. White slip and light yellow orange glaze (10 YR 8/4) on the inside. In: green painted blob (PMS 576 C). Shallow ring foot with straight divergent lower wall. Incised Sgraffito Ware (Ware 15). Cf. for shape, Pringle 1985, fig. 3, no. 19 glazed slip ware with green splashed decoration, dated (12th-)13th century. See also in general Filotheou-Michailidou 1986, pls. 68-69, figs. 19-21, dated 13th century. -.3 Dish, base fragment (93.1.57). Fig. 6.43: W15.19. Pres. H. 0.037, est. Diam. of base 0.080. Soft, medium fine, orange fabric (5 YR 6/6) with some fine lime and some voids. Smooth feel. Vague white slip on the inside. White slip and pale yellow glaze (2.5 Y 8/4) on the inside. In: gouged decoration of circles? Shallow ring foot with flat resting surface and recessed bottom; straight divergent lower wall. Incised Sgraffito Ware (Ware 15). Cf. for decoration, Pharaklas 1968, pl. 160c (left below), pl. 162a (left centre) from Thebes; Filotheou & Michailidou 1986; Armstrong 1989, pl. 4, no. 48, dated 13th century. -.4 Dish?, rim fragment. Fig. 6.43: W15.20. Pres. L. 0.060, pres. W. 0.054, est. Diam. of rim 0.200. Same ware as no. -.3. Incised Sgraffito Ware (Ware 15). -.,+ Bowl, 2 body fragments. Fig. 6.43: W18.3. Pres. L. 0.056 and 0.028, pres. W. 0.072 and 0.024. Moderately soft, medium fine, orange fabric (5 YR 7/6) with

Site description: A very dense East-West running scatter of ceramics and occasional heaps of building material can be found on the ploughed fields on top and on the North-Western slope of a plateau, about 350m. NorthWest of the rebuilt chapel of Agios Paraskevi which marks the site of Lower Archondiki (site no. 2). As it is situated on a higher plateau than Lower Archondiki, this site is known as Upper Archondiki. See for a discussion of the site location and site identification above under site no. 2. Judging from the ceramics found, Upper Archondiki could be the later Archondiki/ Archonditsa settlement, which was deserted between 1871 AD and 1890 AD. Site chronology: MBYZ; (LBYZ/FR); T; EMOD. Diagnostic finds: mbyz: 1 Green and Brown Painted Ware (Ware 10). 2 Günsenin 3/Saraçhane 61 amphora (Ware 12). 7 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 14). 3 Incised Sgraffito Ware/ Champlevé Ware (Ware 15). lbyz/fr: 1 Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Thessaloniki (Ware 18). t: 1 Monochrome Sgraffito Ware (Ware 24). 18 Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware (Ware 26). 14 Monochrome Glazed Ware (Ware 29). 47 Painted Ware (Ware 31). 3 Polychrome Painted Ware (Ware 35). 1 Kütahya Ware (Ware 36). 4 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 38) . emod: 1 Çanakkale Ware (Ware 39). 20 Painted Ware from Grottaglie (Ware 40).2 Slip-painted Ware from Didymoteicho (Ware 41). 3 Slip-painted Ware from Crete (Ware 42). 1 Glazed Domestic Ware from Siphnos (Ware 43). 4 Glaze Painted Ware (Ware 46). 1 Modern plate.

93

Catalogue: .., Amphora?, rim fragment (93.5.49). Fig. 6.10: W14.19.

..0 Dish?, base fragment (93.5.99). Fig. 6.35: W31.3. Pres. H. 0.020, est. Diam. of base 0.072.

Pres. H. 0.035, est. Diam. Oof rim 0.100, Th. 0.003-7.

Soft, fine, dull orange fabric (7.5 YR 7/4) with some fine

Moderately soft, medium fine, dull orange fabric (5 YR 7/3)

mineral inclusions. Smooth feel. White slip and transparent

with some medium lime and a few fine black mineral inclu-

glaze with brown (7.5 YR 4/6) and (mustard) yellow (2.5 Y

sions. Rough feel. Everted, flattened rim with convex

8/6) glazed pattern on inside. Ring foot with flat resting

convergent upper body; plain oval handle.

surface and convex divergent lower wall.

Unglazed Domestic Ware (Ware 14). Cf. for shape, Piérart &

Painted Ware (Ware 31).

Thalmann 1980, group B, pls. 5-7; Armstrong 1993, fig. 14, no. 212 and Shear 1997, 104:c and 106:a, b, dated second half of 12th century.

..1 Bowl, rim fragment (93.4.16). Fig. 6.45: W31.8. Pres. H. 0.031, est. Diam. of rim 0.200. Soft, fine, dull orange fabric (5 YR 7/4) with a few fine lime

..- Jug, body fragment (93.5.8). Fig. 6.44: W26.15.

inclusions. Smooth feel. White slip and pale yellow glaze

Pres. L. 0.042, pres. W. 0.042, Th. 0.007.

(PMS 127 C) in and out. On the rim in and out: olive-brown

Soft, fine, dull orange fabric (5 YR 7/3) with few fine quartz

splashes (2.5 Y 4/6). Everted, flanged rim with straight

and few voids. Smooth feel. White slip and transparent

divergent upper wall.

glaze on the outside. Out: incised decoration of medallion?,

Painted Ware (Ware 31). Cf. for shape, Z™ bona-Trkman 1991,

highligthed with pale green (7.5 Y 6/3) and ocre/yellowish

nos. 27-28 deep footed bowls, dated 15th century.

brown (10YR 5/8). Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware (Ware 26). Cf. Frantz

..2 Bowl, rim fragment (93.4.31). Fig. 6.37: W34.2.

1942, fig. 26, no. 1, group 9, P 2165 for the same fabric,

Pres. H. 0.034, est. Diam. of rim 0.240.

glaze and colours, dated 18th century?; see also fig. 33, no.

Moderately soft, fine, dull orange fabric (5 YR 7/4) with

21, group 9, P 2157 for same decoration.

some mediuym lime and few voids. Smooth feel. Transparent glaze (5 YR 5/8) in and out. In: slip-painted decora-

... Dish, base fragment (93.5.9). Fig. 6.35: W31.1.

tion of pale yellow stripes (2.5 Y 8/4) and brown-black

Pres. H. 0.024, est. Diam. of base 0.082.

splashes (10 YR 2/1). Out: green splash (PMS 575 C) on the

Moderately soft, fine, dull orange fabric (7.5 YR 7/3) with

upper part of the body. Straight rim with rounded lip and

some fine lime and black quartz particles; few voids.

convex divergent upper wall.

Smooth feel. White slip and pale yellow glaze (2.5 Y 8/4) on

Polychrome Marbled Ware (Ware 34). From Huveaunes in

the inside. In: splashes of brownish yellow (10 YR 6/8) to

Provence, dated 2nd half 17th-18th centuries.

olive yellow paint (2.5 Y 6/8). Heavy, shallow ring foot with round resting surface and flat underside; straight divergent lower wall. Painted Ware (Ware 31).

..3 Jug, body fragment (93.1.42). Fig. 6.37: W35.4. Pres. L. 0.025, pres. W. 0.022, Th. 0.006. Soft, fine, light yellow orange fabric (10 YR 8/3) with a few fine sand particles and a few voids. Chalky feel. White slip

../ Dish, base fragment (93.5.48). Fig. 6.35: W31.2. Pres. H. 0.017, est. Diam. of base 0.082.

and transparent glaze in and out. Out: painted decoration in yellow orange (10 YR 7/8), yellowish brown (10 YR 5/8),

Moderately soft, fine, dull orange fabric (7.5 YR 7/4) with

dark brown (10 YR 3/2) and blue (PMS 279 C).

some medium lime and few fine mineral inclusions. Smooth

Polychrome Painted Maiolica (Ware 35), dated 17th-18th

feel. White slip and transparent glaze with yellow orange (10 YR 8/6) and olive green (PMS 576 C) glazed pattern on

centuries. ..4 Plate, body fragment. (93.1.3). Fig. 6.37: W35.6.

inside. Rather heavy ring foot with flat resting surface and

Pres. L. 0.045, pres. W. 0.045, Th. 0.008.

central nipple.

Fairly hard, fine, light grey fabric (10 YR 8/2) with a few fine

Painted Ware (Ware 31). Cf. for decoration, Williams &

lime inclusions. Smooth feel. White slip and transparent

Zervos 1992, p. 172, no. 42, pl. 44, dated ca. 16th century; Z™ bona-Trkman 1991, dated 17th century?

glaze in and out. In: painted decoration in dark reddish brown (5 YR 3/3), yellow (2.5 Y 8/6) and brown (10 YR 4/6). Polychrome Painted Maiolica (Ware 35).

94

..,+ Plate, body fragment (93.1.50). Fig. 63.7: W35.5. Pres. L. 0.025, pres. W. 0.025, Th. 0.008-10. Fairly hard, fine, light grey fabric (10 YR 8/2) with a few fine lime inclusions. Smooth feel. White slip and transparent glaze in and out. In: painted decoration in brownish yellow (10 YR 6/8), yellow (2.5 Y 8/6) and and dull yellowish brown (10 YR 4/3). Polychrome Painted Maiolica (Ware 35). ..,, Plate?, base fragment? (93.2.76). Fig. 6.37: W35.1. Pres. L. 0.038, pres. W. 0.037, Th. 0.005-7. Same ware as no. ..3. Polychrome Painted Maiolica (Ware 35). ..,- Jug, body fragment (93.2.22). Fig. 6.37: W35.2. Pres. L. 0.028, pres. W. 0.033, Th. 0.005-6. Same ware as no. ..3. Polychrome Painted Maiolica (Ware 35).

Fig. 5.4 Askra (site 4) (photo: J. Vroom).

Site no. 4: ASKRA (figs. 5.4-5). Site location: Vagia sheet 23°, 5 min. E.; 38°, 19.5 min. N. Site size: large. Site function: CITY/SP. Years of sampling: 1982, 1985, 1994. Sample: intensive survey. Total of sampled sherds: 2423.

..,. Open shape (dish?), body fragment (93.2.5). Fig. 6.37: W35.3. Pres. L. 0.047, pres. W. 0.038, Th. 0.005. Same ware as no. ..,+. Polychrome Painted Maiolica (Ware 35). ..,/ Hemispherical small cup, rim fragment (93.5.141). Fig. 6.38: W36.2. Pres. H. 0.029, est. Diam. of rim 0.080. Moderately soft, fine, light yellow orange fabric (10 YR 8/3) with a few, fine sand particles? Smooth feel. White slip and transparent glaze in and out. Decoration: black lozenge design and blue lines (PMS 278 C) on the inside; bluish grey (PMS 285 C)/turqoise (PMS 319 C)/black/reddish brown (7.5 R 4/4) design on the outside. Small straight rim with rounded lip and convex divergent upper wall. Kütahya Ware (Ware 36), dated 18th century. Cf. Hayes 1992, figure 100 for similar shapes found during excavations in Istanbul. ..,0 Dish, body fragment (93.5.126). Fig. 6.38: W39.1. Pres. L. 0.049, Th. 0.007-8. Fairly hard, fine, dull orange (5 YR 7/4) to orange fabric (5 YR 6/8) with few fine lime and many fine mineral inclusions. Smooth/soapy feel. In: white slip and creamish glaze (PMS 155 C) with black/purple to dark reddish brown (7.5 R 3/2) glazed striped decoration. Çanakkale Ware (Ware 39), dated 19th century.

Site description: A very dense and extensive scatter of pottery is to be found on a gently sloping plateau below and to the South-East of the Pyrgaki-hill (654 m.), crowned by a Hellenistic watch-tower. The ancient site occupies a central position of the Valley of the Muses and is situated to the South side of the perennial Askrisstream. On the South-Eastern edge of the site stand the ruined remains of a large, vaulted church of the Byzantine or Frankish period on a spot locally known as ‘Episkopi’ (fig. 5.5). Archibald Dunn has suggested that the Episkopi-church marks the see of an independent bishop of the diocese of Thebes (called ‘Zaratova’, a Slavic placename) in Middle Byzantine times (Dunn 1995, 759 and note 26; Lock 1997, 310; see also Koder & Hild 1976, 283 on the diocese of Zaratova). Dunn puts Zaratova at Askra, a site whose original name had disappeared, because of Zaratova’s linkage in one ecclesiastical reference (Cod. Sinaiticus 1117) with the older, and thereafter nevermentioned, see of Thespiae (or ‘Erimocastro’), which is a standard Byzantine practice (A. Dunn, unpublished Byzantine gazetteer for Boeotia). The last reference of Zaratova (or ‘Zaraconien’) is probably in 1338 AD (Koder & Hild 1976, 283, note 8). Bintliff suggests that after the Latin conquest in 1204 AD only a small community remained associated with this church throughout Frankish and Early Turkish

95

Catalogue: /., Chafing dish, rim fragment (85 ASF 58.gs.2). Fig. 6.6: W7.8. Pres. H. 0.041, pres. W. 0.045, est. Diam. of rim 0.240, Th. 0.007-10. Soft, fine, orange fabric (5 YR 6/6) with many medium lime, a few fine quartz inclusions and some fine voids. Sandy feel. Transparent glaze on the inside, becoming greyish brown (5 YR 4/2) on the clay after firing. Slightly everted, plain rim with round lip and flange on the inside to receive a lid; straight divergent upper wall. Plain Glazed Ware (Ware 7). Cf. in general, Morgan 1942, fig. 24, dated mid to late 11th century. Fig. 5.5 Askra: church (site 4) (photo: J. Vroom). /.- Chafing dish, rim fragment (85 ASF 77.gs.1). Fig. 6.6: W7.9.

times, while the bulk of the Greek community were given as a fief to a secular lord, who replaced the settlement a kilometre to the East to the low conical hill on which he build his own tower (site 29: VM4, former ‘Palaeopanagia’) (Bintliff 1996, 6; see also Vroom 1998a, 316, note 7).

Pres. H. 0.079, pres. W. 0.058, est. Diam. of rim 0.230, Th. 0.007-14. Soft, medium fine, orange fabric (5 YR 6/6) with some fine lime, a few fine quartz inclusions and many fine voids. Sandy feel. Transparent glaze on the inside, becoming dull yellowish brown (10 YR 4/3) on the clay after firing. Everted plain rim with round lip and flange on the inside to receive

Site chronology: LR (-EBYZ?); MBYZ; LBYZ/FR; T; (EMOD). Diagnostic finds: lr-ebyz?: 6 Askra Ware (Ware 1). 6 Unglazed Ware with wavy incised lines (Ware 2). 32 LR 2 amphora (Ware 3). 90 Unglazed Beehives (Ware 4). mbyz: 1 Fine Orange-red Burnished Ware (Ware 5). 1 Unglazed Incised Ware (Ware 6). 5 Plain Glazed Ware (Ware 7). 4 Slip-painted Ware (Ware 9; see fig. 6.41: W9.14). 6 Green and Brown Painted Ware (Ware 10). 4 Fine Sgraffito Ware (Ware 11). 1 Günsenin 3/Saraçhane 61 3 amphora (Ware 12). 1 ‘Otranto 1’ amphora (Ware 13). 19 Incised Sgraffito Ware/Champlevé Ware (Ware 15). lbyz/fr: 5 ‘Zeuxippus Ware’ Subtypes (Ware 16). 6 Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Thessaloniki (Ware 18). 1 Unglazed Domestic Ware (Ware 23). t: 1 Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Italy (Ware 24). 1 Polychrome Sgraffito Ware from Italy (Ware 25). 2 Slip-painted Ware (Ware 30). 1 Painted Ware (Ware 31). 1 Unglazed Domestic Ware (Ware 38). emod: 1 Flower pot (glazed inside, almost vanished) (Ware 47?).

96

a lid; straight divergent upper wall. Plain Glazed Ware (Ware 7). Cf. in general, Morgan 1942, fig. 24, dated mid to late 11th century. /.. Amphora, handle fragment. Fig. 6.42: W13.5. Pres. L. 0.102, W. 0.053, Th. 0.028. Soft, medium coarse, light yellow orange fabric (7.5 YR 8/3) with some medium red mudstone and black quartz inclusions and many medium voids. Organics? Chalky feel. Oval ribbed handle. ‘Otranto 1’ amphora (Ware 13). From Corinth? /./ Bowl, base fragment (82 ASF F1.S1.17). Fig. 6.25: W16.1. Pres. H. 0.023, est. Diam. of base 0.048, TH. 0.007. Fairly hard, fine, dull orange fabric (5 YR 7/4) with a few fine lime and quartz inclusions. Smooth feel. White slip and crazed, a bit glossy ochre-yellow glaze (2.5 Y 7/8) on the inside. In: incised spiral at the centre. Small ring foot with flat resting surface and central nipple. ‘Zeuxippus Ware’ Subtype (Ware 16). /.0 Bowl, base fragment (85 ASF F7.1.gs.12). Fig. 6.25: W16.5. Pres. H. 0.039, pres. W. 0.084, est. Diam. of base 0.060, Th. 0.007. Fairly hard, fine, dull orange fabric (7.5 YR 7/4) with some fine lime inclusions and a few fine black quartz particles.

Smooth feel. White slip and a pale yellow glaze (7.5 Y 8/3), which is glossy and pitted, on the inside. In: incised spiral, highlighted with green splashes (PMS 385 C). Ring foot with round resting surface and central nipple; convex divergent lower wall. ‘Zeuxippus Ware’ Subtype (Ware 16). Cf. PapanikolaBakirtzis 1999, 221, no. 257 from Thessaloniki, dated 14th century. /.1 Bowl, base fragment (85 ASF 72.gs. 7). Fig. 6.27: W18.1. Pres. H. 0.036, pres. W. 0.059, est. Diam. of base 0.080, Th. 0.008-10. Moderately soft, medium fine, orange fabric (5 YR 7/6) with

Fig. 5.6 Charmena (site 5) (photo: J. Vroom).

some fine lime and a few quartz inclusions. Smooth feel.

Site no. 5: CHARMENA / HARMENA (fig. 5.6) Site location: Vagia sheet 23°, 7.5 min. E.; 38°, 21.5 min. N. Site size: large, but dispersed settlement. Site function: RUR. Years of sampling: 1985, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1997. Sample: intensive survey. Total of sampled sherds: 550.

A,31) ‘Charmena’ is named as a site of watermills, a description more appropriate for nearby Haliartos (Archie Dunn, unpublished Byzantine gazetteer for Boeotia). The name returns again much later as ‘Mavromati Charmena’ in the Ottoman tax-registers, referred to by Machiel Kiel in an appendix of his article on Boeotia during Ottoman times (Kiel 1997, 338). The community of ‘Mavromati Charmena’ first appears in the tax register of 1642 AD with ca. 300 people; is again mentioned in 1655 AD, but does not occur in the 1687/8 AD record. According to Kiel, Mavromati Charmena is in the 18th century also known as ‘Çiftlik-i Kebir’, or: ‘the Great Çiftlik’, but disappears in the 19th century (Kiel 1997, 338).

Site description: A scatter of pottery and the remains of numerous houses can be found on the Southern and lower terraces of the hill called Charmena (262 m.), circa 1 kilometre North of the modern road from Haliartos to Askri. The site is situated in a small perched valley surrounded by limestone hills. It is secluded from the Kopais basin, although it is close to the natural route from Haliartos and the Kopais basin below over the hills to the region of Thespiae and the Valley of the Muses. The remains of the houses, made of small rubble stone, are to be found on rocky areas on both sides of the valley (Sigalos forthcoming). According to Johannes Koder and Friedrich Hild, the name ‘Charmena’ is a Slavonic toponym to be found in an Early Byzantine source (derived from ‘Chormena’), but they label another site with this name (Koder & Hild 1976, 139 and note 1). In a Byzantine cadaster (Cadaster

Site chronology: MBYZ; (LBYZ/FR); T. Diagnostic finds: mbyz: 1 Fine Sgraffito Ware (Ware 11). 2 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 14). 2 Incised Sgraffito Ware/Champlevé Ware (Ware 15). lbyz/fr: 3 Brown and Green Sgraffito Wares (Ware 20). t: 2 Monochrome Sgraffito Wares from Italy (Ware 24). 34 Brown and Green Sgraffito Wares (Ware 26). 2 Maiolica from Italy (Ware 27). 16 Maiolica from Greece (Ware 28). 36 Monochrome Glazed Wares (Ware 29). 5 Slippainted Ware (Ware 30). 26 Painted Ware (Ware 31). 1 Iznik Ware (Ware 32). 1 Porcelain (Ware 33; see fig. 6.45: W33.1). 1 Polychrome Painted Maiolica (Ware 35). 2 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 38; see fig. 6.46: W38.1).

White slip and an even, matt ochre-yellow glaze (10 YR 7/8) on the inside. In: incised abstract decoration. Ring foot with flat resting surface; straight divergent lower wall with a knick. Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Thessaloniki (Ware 18). Cf. Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1999, 84, no. 92 from Thessaloniki, dated 14th century.

97

Catalogue:

Maiolica from Greece (Ware 28). Cf. Frantz 1942, fig. 1,

0., Bowl, base fragment (1980 gift). Fig. 6.27: W20.3.

P.12.812 and fig. 13, group 3, P. 2179, dated late 16th-early

Pres. H. 0.022, pres. W. 0.068, Diam. of foot 0.058, Th.

17th centuries.

0.005. Soft, fine, fabric (7.5 YR 7/4) with a few, fine lime and sand

0.0 Open shape, body fragment (1986 gs. 41). Fig. 6.33: W28.6.

inclusions. Powdery feel. White slip and transparent glaze

Soft, fine, light yellow orange fabric (10 YR 8/3) with a few

in and out. In: sgraffito decoration, higlighted with green

fine lime and a few fine white quartz inclusions and some

(PMS 365) and ochre (2.5 Y 6/8) splashes. Ring foot with

voids. Chalky feel. White slip and tin-glaze on the inside;

round resting surface; concave underside.

white slip and dark reddish brown glaze (7.5 R 5/3) on the

Brown and Green Ware (Ware 20). Cf. for similar decora-

outside. In: painted decoration in blue (PMS 549 C) and

tion, Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1996, nos. 61-63, pl. LV from

dull reddish brown (7.5 R 5/3).

Lapithos on Cyprus, dated late 14th-15th centuries; Wriedt

Maiolica from Greece (Ware 28).

Sörensen & Pentz 1992, 218, fig. 61a-b, no. 12228 (probably Cypriote) and Georgopoulou-Meladini 1973-74, pl. 328b (found at Chalkis).

0.1 Jug?, body fragment (1986 gs.79). Pres. L. 0.025, pres. W. 0.026, Th. 0.006. Fairly hard, fine, light yellow orange fabric (7.5 YR 8/3) with

0.- Dish, rim fragment (1986 gs.4). Fig. 6.31: W26.12. Pres. L. 0.029, pres. W. 0.055, est. Diam. of rim 0.280, Th.

a few fine grog and lime inclusions and a few voids. Smooth feel. White slip and light grey glaze (7.5 Y 7/2) on the

0.006-7.

outside. Out: painted decoration in blue (PMS 302 C).

Soft, fine, light yellow orange fabric (7.5 YR 8/3) with a few

Maiolica from Greece (Ware 28). Cf. Frantz 1942 local

fine sand inclusions. Smooth feel. White slip on the inside;

Maiolica, dated late 16th-early 17th centuries.

splashes of white slip and greyish olive glaze (5 Y 5/3) on the outside. On interior rim: incised decoration of spiral, highlighted with bright yellowish-brown (10 YR 6/8) and green

0.2 Dish?, body fragment (1986 gs.32). Fig. 6.45: W30.4. Pres. L. 0.048, pres. W. 0.056, Th. 0.010.

(PMS 371 C) glaze. Broad everted rim with round lip.

Fairly hard, fine, orange-red fabric (2.5 YR 6/6) with some

Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware (Ware 26). Cf.

fine lime inclusions and a few fine voids. Smooth feel. Dark

Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1999, 260, no. 298 from Trikkala,

olive glaze (5 Y 4/3) on the inside. In: slip-painted decora-

dated 16th century.

tion of concentric circles, pale yellowish in tone (5 Y 8/4). Slip-painted Ware (Ware 30).

0.. Closed shape, body fragment (1986 gs.66). Fig. 6.44: W26.14. Pres. L. 0.030, pres. W. 0.043, Th. 0.004.

Pres. L. 0.039, pres. W. 0.062, Th. 0.011-13.

micaceous inclusions. Smooth feel. White slip and glaze and

Fairly hard, fine, orange-red fabric (2.5 YR 6/6) with some

the in- and the outside. Out: incised decoration of lines and

fine lime inclusions and a few fine voids. Smooth feel.

scribbles, highlighted with ochre-yellow (10 YR 6/8) and

Green-tinted glaze on the inside, becoming olive black (5 Y

green (PMS 338 C) splashes.

3/1) after firing. In: slip-painted decoration of concentric

Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware (Ware 26). Cf. in general,

circles, pale yellowish in tone (2.5 Y 8/4)

Makropoulou 1995, 18, no. 51, fig. 27, dated 16th century.

Slip-painted Ware (Ware 30).

0./ Bowl, base fragment (1991 gs.1.29). Fig. 6.33: W28.1.

98

0.3 Dish?, body fragment (1986 gs.51). Fig. 6.45: W30.5.

Soft, fine, orange fabric (5 YR 6/6) with a few fine lime and

0.4 Dish?, base fragment (1991 gs.1.15). Fig. 6.35: W31.4.

Pres. H. 0.019, pres. W. 0.064, Diam. of foot 0.052, Th. 0.005.

Pres. H. 0.036, pres. W. 0.092, est. Diam. of base 0.110, Th.

Soft, fine, pale yellow fabric (2.5 Y 8/2) with some fine lime

0.011-13.

inclusions. Smooth feel. White slip and pale grey tin-glaze

Moderatley soft, medium fine, orange fabric (7.5 YR 7/6)

(5 Y 8/1) on the inside; white slip and green glaze (PMS 575

with some medium lime inclusions (up to 1 mm.) and some

C) on the outside. In: painted decoration of spiral in blue

voids. Smooth feel. White slip and pale yellow orange glaze

(PMS 289 C to PMS 541 C). Thin ring foot with flat resting

(10 YR 8/3) on the inside. In: painted decoration of brown

surface; concave underside.

(10 YR 6/8) and green (PMS 577 C) splashes. Ring foot with

round resting surface and convex divergent lower wall. Painted Ware (Ware 31). 0.,+ Dish, rim fragment (1991 gs.1.9). Fig 6.36: W31.5. Pres. L. 0.061, pres. W. 0.056, est. Diam. of rim 0.270, Th. 0.006. Soft, fine, dull orange fabric (7.5 YR 7/4) with some fine lime inclusions and some medium voids. Smooth feel. White slip and pale yellow glaze (2.5 Y 8/3) on the inside and just under the rim on the outside. On interior rim: painted decoration in green (PMS 576 C) and ochre-brown (10 YR 6/8). Broad everted rim with notches on the lip; convex divergent upper wall.

Fig. 5.7 CN3: church (site 6) (photo: J. Vroom).

Painted Ware (Ware 31). 0.,, Dish, rim fragment. Fig. 6.36: W31.6. Pres. H. 0.034, Pres. W. 0.072, est. Diam. of rim 0.250. Th. 0.003-5. Soft, fine, dull orange fabric (7.5 YR 7/4) with some fine lime inclusions and some medium voids. Smooth feel.

Site no. 6: CN . (figs. 5.7) Site location: Livanatai sheet 23°, 6.05 min. E.; 38°, 33.75 min. N. Site size: large; ca. 150 x 200 metres (10 transects of 50 x 60 metres) Site function: RUR/SP. Years of sampling: 1989, 1990, 1992, 1993. Sample: intensive survey. Total of sampled sherds: 1775.

White slip and pale yellow glaze (2.5 Y 8/4) on the inside and upper part outside. On interior rim: painted decoration in ochre-yellow (2.5 Y 7/8). Broad everted rim; convex divergent upper wall. Painted Ware (Ware 31). 0.,- Dish, base fragment (UHX.154). Fig.6.37: W32.1. Pres. H. 0.025, pres. W. 0.058, est. Diam. of base 0.240, Th. 0.008. Medium soft, fine, fabric (5 YR 6/3) with a few lime and white sand inclusions. Smooth feel. White slip and glaze

Site description: A quite extensive area with ceramics is to be found between the small churches of Agios Georgios and Agios Vasilis on the Northern side of a tiny valley, about 250 metres to the North-Northwest of the Acropolis of ancient Hyettos (site 12). In the centre of the site is a good well. Most pottery is to be found in the fields on the South-Eastern slope of the hill marked by the church of Agios Vasilis. The site yielded major Prehistoric finds as well, while undated cist graves can be found to the West of the southern chapel (fig. 5.8).

(PMS 9181) in and out. In: painted decoration in red (7.5 R 4/6), blue (PMS 548) and turquoise-green (PMS 327). Iznik Ware (Ware 32). Cf. for shape, Hayes 1992, fig. 94, nos. 12-14, Iznik Ware IIIa-b, dated 1620-1650 AD; for decoration, Korre-Zographou 1995, 60, fig. 99 left, dated 1666 AD. 0.,. Bowl, rim fragment (1986 gs. 2). Fig. 6.37: W35.7. Pres. H. 0.029, pres. W. 0.061, est. Diam. of rim 0.180, Th. 0.005-8. Moderately soft, fine, pale orange fabric (5 YR 8/3) with a few quartz inclusions and a few voids. Smooth feel. White slip and tin-glaze on interior bowl; white slip and green glaze (PMS 355 C) on the interior rim and the outside. On interior bowl: painted decoration in blue (PMS 549 C) and dull reddish brown (7.5 R 5/3). Polychrome Painted Maiolica (Ware 35).

Site chronology: LR; MBYZ; LBYZ/FR; T. Diagnostic finds: lr: 1 African Red Slip Ware, Hayes form 104A (Ware 1). 1 Unglazed Ware (Ware2). 14 LR 2 amphora (Ware 3). mbyz: 1 Fine Orange-Red Burnished Ware (Ware 5). 20 Unglazed Incised Ware (Ware 6; see fig. 6.4: W6.2-5 and 6.7). 7 Plain Glazed Ware with a red fabric (Ware 7). 25 Slip-painted Ware (Ware 9). 43 Green and Brown Painted Ware (Ware 10). 34 Fine Sgraffito Ware (Ware 11). 85 Günsenin 3/Saraçhane 61 amphora (Ware 12; see fig. 6.7: W12.1-2, W12.4). 36 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 14). 11 Incised Sgraffito Ware/Champlevé Ware (Ware 15).

99

lbyz/fr: 2 ‘Zeuxippus Ware’ Subtypes (Ware 16). 7 Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Thessaloniki (Ware 18). 1 Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware (Ware 20). 1 Unglazed Domestic Ware (Ware 23). t: 1 Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware (Ware 26). 2 Maiolica from Greece (Ware28). 1 Slippainted Ware (Ware 30). 1 Painted Ware (Ware 31). 1 Polychrome Painted Ware (Ware 35). 6 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 38).

Pres. H. 0.039, pres. W. 0.078, est. Diam. of base 0.100, Th. 0.008-9. Moderately soft, medium fine, orange-red fabric (2.5 YR 6/6), dull orange on the outside (5 YR 7/4). Many coarse lime inclusions (up to 2 mm.) and some voids. Smooth feel. Dark olive glaze (5 Y 4/3) on the inside; vague white slip on the outside. In: slip-painted decoration, pale greenish in tone (PMS 577 C). Ring foot with round resting surface; straight divergent lower wall. Slip-painted Ware (Ware 9). Cf. Frantz 1938, 443, fig. 6, P 9571, A24.

Catalogue: 1., Large dish, rim fragment (92 Sa 1.67). Fig. 6.1: W1.1.

1.0 Open shape, body fragment (87 7C/2). Fig. 6.41: W9.13.

Pres. H. 0.035, est. Diam. of rim 0.320.

Pres. L. 0.085, pres. W. 0.080, Th. 0.010.

Fairly hard, fine, orange fabric (2.5 YR 6/8) with few fine

Moderately soft, medium fine, orange-red fabric (2.5 YR

lime and mineral inclusions. Smooth feel. Orange self-slip

6/6), dull orange on the outside (5 YR 7/4). Many coarse

(2.5 YR 6/8) in and out. Everted thickened rim and straight

lime inclusions (up to 2 mm.) and some voids. Smooth

divergent upper wall; grooved in and out.

feel. Yellowish orange glaze (10 YR 6/4 to 6/6) on the

African Red Slip Ware (Hayes form 104A) (Ware 1), dated

inside. In: slip-painted decoration, pale yellowish in tone

first half of the 6th century.

(2.5 Y 8/4). Slip-painted Ware (Ware 9). Cf. in general, Morgan 1942,

1.- Closed shape, base fragment (89 Sa 2b/3). Fig. 6.3: W5.2. Pres. H. 0.066, pres. W. 0.071, est. Diam. of base 0.140, Th.

fig. 77 and Papanikola-Bakirtzis et al. 1999, nos. 77-90 for decoration.

0.004-13. Soft, medium fine, pale reddish orange fabric (2.5 YR 7/4)

1.1 Open shape, body fragment (92 Sa ?.1). Fig. 6.19: W10.1.

with some medium lime, a few very coarse grog or

Pres. L. 0.080, Th. 0.006-7.

mudstone? inclusions (up to 4 mm.), a few micaceous

Moderately soft, fine, orange fabric (5 YR 7/6) with some

particles and some coarse voids (up to 4 mm.). Smooth feel.

fine lime and few fine mineral inclusions; some fine voids.

Vertical gouging on the outside. Flat base with rounded

Smooth feel. Light grey slip or wash? (7.5 YR 8/1) on

transition and straight divergent lower wall.

outside; light grey slip (7.5 YR 8/2) on inside. In: brownish

Fine Orange-Red Burnished Ware (Ware 5). Cf. Hayes

grey painted decoration (10 YR 4/1) of large spirals.

1992, 50, fig. 60, 37.31 (gouged beaker), dated late 10th-

Green and Brown Painted Ware? (Ware 10). Cf. Armstrong

11th centuries.

1989, 36, no. 1, pl. 11, fig. 22, dated 12th century; Dawkins & Droop 1910-11, pl. 17.75?

1.. Dish, base fragment (91 Gs.25). Fig. 6.17: W9.5. Pres. H. 0.028, pres. W. 0.024, est. Diam. of base 0.120, Th.

1.2 Dish, base fragment (93 Sa 1.29). Fig. 6.19: W10.2.

0.006-7.

Pres. H. 0.032, est. Diam. of base 0.110.

Moderately soft, medium fine, dull orange fabric (5 YR 6.4)

Soft, medium fine, orange fabric (5 YR 7/6) with some

with some fine lime, some medium quartz inclusions and

coarse lime and few fine mineral inclusions; some medium

many voids. Smooth feel. Yellowish brown glaze (2.5 Y 5/4)

voids. Sandy feel. White slip and light grey glaze (7.5 YR

on the inside. In; slip-painted decoration, pale yellow-

8/2) on inside. In: painted decoration in brownish black (7.5

orangish in tone (2.5 Y 5/4). Heavy ring foot with round

YR 3/1) and green (PMS 346). Ring foot with flat resting

resting surface and flat underside; straight divergent lower

surface and convex divergent lower wall.

wall.

Brown and Green Painted Ware (Ware 10), dated late 11th-

Slip-painted Ware (Ware 9). Cf. Morgan 1942, pl. 32a.

12th centuries. Cf. Armstrong 1989, 8, no. 25, pl. 3 and pl. 6, 3rd row left (uncatalogued pottery from Panagia), seealso

1./ Dish, base fragment (89 Sa 1c/46). Fig. 6.18: W9.8.

100

16, no. 14, pl. 7, fig. 11 and p. 18, no. 16, pl. 7, fig. 11.

1.3 Dish, base fragment (93 Sa 1.49). Fig. 6.19: W10.3. Pres. H. 0.033, est. Diam. of base 0.100. Soft, fine, orange fabric (5 YR 7/6) with some fine lime and few fine mineral inclusions; few fine voids. Sandy feel. White slip in and out (all over) and light grey glaze (7.5 YR 8/2) on inside. In: painted decoration in brownish black (7.5 YR 3/1) and green (PMS 346) of large running spirals. Ring foot with flat resting surface and straight divergent lower wall. Brown and Green Painted Ware (Ware 10), dated 12th century. 1.4 Dish, rim fragment (93 Sa 1.23). Fig. 6.20: W10.11. Pres. H. 0.047, est. Diam. of rim 0.260.

Fig. 5.8 CN4 (site 7) (photo: J. Vroom).

Moderately soft, medium, dull orange fabric (5 YR 7/4) with few coarse lime (up to 4mm.) and some fine mineral inclusions; many fine voids. Smooth feel. White slip and light cream glaze (PMS 9181) on inside. In: painted decoration in brownish grey (5 YR 4/1) and green (PMS 370 and PMS 374) of large running spirals. Everted flattened rim and

Site no. 7: CN / / STA DENDRA (figs. 5.8-9) Site location: Livanatai sheet 23°, 6.5 min. E.; 38°, 34 min. N. Site size: medium. Site function: RUR. Years of sampling: 1989, 1990. Sample: intensive survey. Total of sampled sherds: 219.

straight divergent upper wall with knick. Green and Brown Painted Ware (Ware 10), dated 12th century. Cf. for similar decoration, Waagé 1933, fig. 18g-l and Armstrong 1989, 8, no. 20, pl. 3. For shape, see Waagé 1933, pl. X.10 (fig. 18k). 1.,+ Dish?, body fragment (90 Sa 1.31). Fig. 6.21: W10.16. Pres. L. 0.072, Th. 0.006-9. Moderately soft, medium fine, orange fabric (5 YR 6/6) with some coarse lime and few fine mineral inclusions; some medium voids. Smooth feel. White slip and light grey glaze (7.5 YR 8/2) on inside. In: painted decoration in greyish brown (7.5 YR 4/2) and green (PMS 370 C) . Green and Brown Painted Ware (Ware 10). Similar to Morgan 1942, pl.23, in general. 1.,, Cooking pot, rim-handle fragment (89 Sa 2b/22). Fig. 6.14: W23.1. Pres. H. 0.035, pres. W. 0.047, est. Diam. of rim 0.140, Th. 0.004-6. Fairly hard, medium fine, dull orange fabric (5 YR 6/4 to 7/3) with light grey core (2.5 Y 7/1). Many coarse lime (up to 2 mm.), a few medium black quartz and a few fine

Site description: A thin scatter of pottery can be found on a broad flat-topped, elongated hill known as ‘Metochi’, to the North-East of the Acropolis of ancient Hyettos (site 12). The architectural structures on the site are rather well-preserved, among which are the remains of houses, an 18th-19th century church and a large storehouse of a monastery (Sigalos forthcoming; see also fig. 5.10). The relative scarcity of pottery may perhaps be explained by the fact that the hill is unploughed. This site could be the Albanian settlement of ‘Gjin Vendri’ (in modern Greek ‘Sta Dendra’ or ‘the place with the trees’) which is mentioned in the Ottoman tax-registers with 11 households (circa 55 people) in 1466 AD, rising to 23 households (circa 115 people) in 1570 AD and sinking again to circa 52 people in 1688 AD (Kiel & Bintliff et al., unpublished gazetteer for Ottoman Boeotia; see also Bintliff 1996, 113). According to Bintliff, it replaced the Byzantine settlement of this area (which may have been site 6: CN3). The settlement is absent in the 19th century records. At an unknown date the settlement probably changed into an estate of the Monastery of Martinon in Eastern Boeotia (cf. Bintliff 1996, 113).

micaceous particles. Smooth feel. Straight rim with round lip and flange on the inside; slightly straight convergent upper wall and vertical oval handle. Unglazed Domestic Ware (Ware 23), dated mid 13th-mid 14th centuries.

Site chronology: (MBYZ); T; EMOD. Diagnostic finds: mbyz: 1 Incised Sgraffito Ware/Champlevé Ware (Ware 15).

101

for similar decoration, see Korre-Zographou 1995, 115, fig. 191.x 2.. Plate, rim fragment (89.1.1/21). Fig. 6.38: W40.1. Pres. L. 0.025, pres. W. 0.053, est. Diam. of rim 0.240. Fairly hard, fine, pale yellow fabric (2.5 Y 8/3) with a few fine lime. Smooth feel. White slip and transparent glossy glaze in and out. On interior rim: painted decoration in grayish olive (5 Y 5/3) and in blue (PMS 285 C). Everted, flattened rim. Painted Ware from Grotaglie and/or Corfu (Ware 40). Fig. 5.9 CN4: building (site 7) (photo: J. Vroom).

2./ Dish, rim fragment (89 Sa 7.3.66). Fig. 6.38: W41.1. Pres. H. 0.025, pres. W. 0.018, Th. 0.005.

t:

emod:

1 Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware (Ware 26). 4 Monochrome Glazed Wares (Ware 29). 1 Slip-painted Ware (Ware 30). 1 Painted Ware (Ware 31). 1 Polychrome Marbled Ware (Ware 34). 1 Unglazed Domestic Ware (Ware 38). 1 Çanakkale Ware (Ware 39). 7 Painted Ware from Grottaglie (Ware 40). 3 Slip-painted Ware from Didymoteicho (Ware 41). 4 Glazed Domestic Ware from Siphnos (Ware 43). 6 Storage Jars (Ware 45). 8 Glaze Painted Ware (Ware 46). 3 Monochrome Yellow Glazed Ware (Ware 48).

Moderately soft, fine, dull orange fabric (5 YR 6/4) with a few fine inclusions. Smooth feel. Glassy olive-green glaze (10 Y 4/2) on the inside and on the rim outside. In and on rim out: white slip-decoration becoming light green (PMS 358) under glaze. Everted rim with straight divergent upper wall. Slip-painted Ware from Didymoteicho (Ware 41), Cf. Frantz 1942, P 6598, fig. 23.2, group 7. See also François 1994, 383-385, fig. 1, nos. 10-13, dated 19th century. 2.0 Dish, rim fragment. (89 Sa 1.1.31). Fig. 6.39: W48.1. Pres. H. 0.019, pres. W. 0.048, est. Diam. of rim 0.280. Fairly hard, fine, orange fabric (5 YR 6/6) with a few fine

Catalogue: 2., Dish, rim fragment (89 Sa 7.3.48). Fig. 6.38: W39.2. Pres. H. 0.016, est. Diam. of rim 0.200.

lime inclusions and a few voids. Smooth feel. White slip and yellow glaze (PMS 115) on the inside; reddish brown glaze (5 YR 4/8) on the outside. On rim: brown decoration (7.5 YR

Fairly hard, fine, orange fabric (2.5 YR 7/6) with some fine

3/4) of flower. Everted, flattened rim.

mineral and micaceous particles and few fine grog? Smooth

Monochrome Yellow Glazed Ware (Ware 48).

feel. White slip on inside and just under rim on outside. In: light grey glaze (7.5 YR 8/2) with brown/dark reddish grey

2.1 Dish, base fragment (89 Sa 1.1.1). Fig. 6.39: W48.2.

(10 R 3/1) decoration. Everted rim with straight divergent

Pres. H. 0.039, est. Diam. of base 0.125, Th. 0.009-13.

upper wall.

Same ware as no. 2...

Çanakkale Ware (Ware 39), dated 19th century. Close to

Monochrome Yellow Glazed Ware (Ware 48).

Erdmann 1963, pl. 20, fig. 66. 2.- Plate, rim fragment (89.1.1/21). Fig. 6.38: W40.1. Pres. L. 0.035, pres. W. 0.028, est. Diam. of rim 0.270. Fairly hard, fine, light gray fabric (10 YR 8/2) with a few fine lime. Smooth feel. White slip and transparent glossy glaze in and out. On interior rim: painted decoration in reddish-

Site no. 8: CN 3 Site location: Livanatai sheet 23°, 6.5 min. E.; 38°, 33.75 min. N. Site size: small. Site function: RUR. Years of sampling: 1991, 1993. Sampling: intensive survey. Total of sampled sherds: 415.

brown (7.5 R 4/3) and in blue (PMS 542 C). Everted, flattened broad rim. Painted Ware from Grotaglie and/or Corfu (Ware 40). Cf.

102

Site description: A large and rich scatter of pottery can be found in a field in the fertile plain immediately North

of the Acropolis of ancient Hyettos (site 12), less than 500 metres of site CN3 (site 6).

Pres. H. 0.046, est. Diam. of rim 0.180. Moderately soft, medium coarse, orange fabric (2.5 YR 6/8) with many fine quartz and lime inclusions; some coarse

Site chronology: (LR); MBYZ; (EMOD). Diagnostic finds: lr: 1 Red Slip Ware (Ware 1). 3 LR 2 ampora (Ware 3). mbyz: 4 Unglazed Incised Ware (Ware 6). 2 Plain Glazed Ware (Ware 7). 2 Slip-painted Ware (Ware 9). 4 Green and Brown Painted Ware (Ware 10). 1 Fine Sgraffito Ware (Ware 11; see fig. 6.41: W9.14). 18 Günsenin 3/Saraçhane 61 amphora (Ware 12). 2 Incised Sgraffito Ware/Champlevé Ware (Ware 15). emod: 2 Modern plates.

voids. Rough feel. Yellowish brown (speckled) glaze (10 YR 5/6) on the inside. Straight rim with rounded lip; ridge inside; straight divergent upper wall. Plain Glazed Ware (Ware 7). Cf. for shape, Morgan 1942, p. 198, fig. 174 (chafing dish) or Peschlow 1977-78, 386, no. 31, fig. 5 (plate, dated mid 9th-end 10th century). 3.0 Dish, base fragment (91 Sa 19.78). Fig. 6.17: W9.3. Pres. H. 0.023, est. Diam. of base 0.080. Soft, medium fine, orange fabric (5 YR 6/6) with many fine lime and a few fine mineral and micaceous particles; some very coarse voids. Powdery feel. White slip and olive yellow glaze (5 Y 6/4) on the inside. In: pale yellow slip-painted

Catalogue: 3., Closed shape, handle fragment (92 Sa 8.1). Fig. 6.4: W6.1.

decoration (5 Y 8/3) of running spirals. Slip-painted Ware (Ware 9). Cf. for decoration, Waagé

Pres. L. 0.082, Th. 0.026.

1933, fig. 18a-f; Frantz 1938, 443, A24, fig. 6, P 4571; Du

Moderately soft, medium fine, light reddish brown fabric (5

Plat Taylor & Megaw 1951, 4, pl. X.1, dated 12th?-early

YR 6/3) with some medium lime, a few fine quartz and

13th? century; Morgan 1942, 100-104, figs. 76-80 and, in

some coarse voids (up to 3mm). Powdery feel. On handle:

particular, pl. 32a, no. 749 (later ‘linear’ style), dated mid

incised scribbles.

12th century; Armstrong 1991, 346.

Unglazed Incised Ware (Ware 6). 3.1 Open shape, base fragment (91 Sa 1.54). Fig. 6.17: W9.2. 3.- Closed shape, body fragment (91 Sa ?). Fig. 6.4: W6.8.

Pres. H. 0.022, est. Diam. of base 0.100.

Pres. L. 0.054, Th. 0.010.

Soft, medium fine, orange fabric (5 YR 7/6) with some

Soft, medium fine, orange fabric (5 YR 7/6) with a few

coarse lime and a few fine mineral inclusions; some

medium lime inclusions; few medium voids. Powdery feel.

medium voids. Powdery feel. White slip and dull orange

Sgraffito decoration on the outside.

glaze (5 YR 6/4) on the inside. In: pale yellow slip-painted

Unglazed Incised Ware (Ware 6). Cf. McDonald & Howell

decoration (5 Y 8/3). Ring foot with round resting surface.

1971, pl. 115b (Nichoria), found in context with Glazed

Slip-painted Ware (Ware 9). Cf. Morgan 1942, fig. 77, pl.

White Ware from Constantinople (late 9th-11th).

32a+d, dated mid 12th century.

3.. Chafing dish, rim fragment (93 Sa 2.36). Fig. 6.5: W7.3.

3.2 Dish?, base fragment (91 Sa 1.12). Fig. 6.19: W10.4.

Pres. H. 0.032, est. Diam. of rim 0.240.

Pres. H. 0.021, est. Diam. of base 0.090.

Soft, medium coarse orange fabric (5 YR 6/6) with some

Soft, medium fine, orange fabric (5 YR 6/6) with some

fine lime and mineral inclusions. Rough feel. Grey (black

medium lime and a few fine mineral particles; some fine

and white) slip on the outside; brown to greyish red glaze

voids. Powdery feel. White slip and light grey glaze (7.5 YR

(2.5 YR 4/2) on the inside. Straight rim with rounded lip;

8/2) on the inside. In: greyish brown (7.5 YR 4/2) and green

ridge inside; convex divergent upper wall.

(PMS 340) oxide decoration. Ring foot with flat resting

Plain Glazed Ware (Ware 7). Cf. Comsa 1980, 324, dated

surface and straight divergent lower wall.

10th? century; Felten 1975, 74-5, nos. 144-7, figs. 17-9, dated

Green and Brown Painted Ware (Ware 10).

11th century. 3.3 Dish, rim fragment (91 Sa 1.25). Fig. 6.20: W10.7. 3./ Chafing dish or plate?, rim fragment (93 Sa 2.37). Fig. 6.5: W7.2.

Pres. H. 0.030, est. Diam. of rim 0.240. Soft, fine, dull orange fabric (5 YR 7/3) with a few fien lime

103

and some voids. Smooth feel. White slip and transparent

Catalogue:

glaze on the inside. In: green (PMS 577C) and brown (10

4., Closed shape, body fragment (92 Sa 7.12). Fig. 6.3: W5.1.

YR 4/2) oxide decoration. Straight rim with rounded lip;

Pres. L. 0.065, pres. W. 0.068, Th. 0.010-12.

straight divergent upper wall.

Soft, fine, pale reddish orange (2.5 YR 7/4) to orange fabric

Green and Brown Painted Ware (Ware 10).

(5 YR 7/6) with some medium lime, a few fine mica and some voids. Soapy feel. Horizontal gouged grooves on the

3.4 Dish?, base fragment (91 Sa 3.22). Fig. 6.23: W15.6.

outside.

Pres. H. 0.023, Diam. of base 0.068.

Fine Orange-Red Burnished Ware (Ware 5). Cf. Hayes

Soft, fine, dull orange fabric (7.5 YR 7/4) with a few fine

1992, fig. 60, 37.31, dated late 10th-11th centuries.

mineral and micaceous particles; many coarse voids. Powdery feel. White slip and bright yellowish brown glaze (2.5 Y 7/6) on the inside. In: free style incised sgraffito motif

4.- Open shape, body fragment (93 Sa 14.1). Pres. L. 0.042, Th. 0.004-6.

(made with a gouge?). Heavy ring foot with flat resting

Soft, fine, orange fabric (2.5 YR 6/6) with some fine lime

surface and flat underside.

particles and few fine mineral and micaceous particles;

Incised Sgraffito Ware (Ware 15). Cf. Pharaklas 1968, pl.

some fine voids. Sandy feel. White slip and light grey glaze

163a (below centre)

(7.5 YR 8/2) on inside. In: sgraffito band of Kufic? motifs. Fine Sgraffito Ware (spiral style) (Ware 11). Mid 12th century.

Site 9: CN ,0 Site location: Livanatai sheet 23°, 5.5 min. E.; 38°, 33.75 min. N. Site size: small. Site function: RUR. Years of sampling: 1992, 1993. Sample: intensive survey. Total of sampled sherds: 283.

4.. Open shape, rim fragment (92.Sa.1.3). Pres. H. 0.036, est. Diam. rim 0.230. Moderately soft, fine, orange-red fabric (2.5 YR 6/8) with a few fine sand and voids. Smooth feel. White slip on the inside and just under the rim on the outside; pale glaze (7.5

Site description: A small scatter of heavily worn and fragmented pottery is located on a spur of the chain of hill known as Levkani, one kilometre North-West of the Acropolis of ancient Hyettos (site 12) and a few hundred metres West-Northwest of site CN3 (site 6). Nowadays the ridge is covered with olive-groves and good water is nearby. The site has been heavily ploughed, and most pottery fragments on the surface are very small and damaged. There are no visible architectural remains, but a fragment of an olive-press (apparently reused in a monument) can be found on the perimeter of the site.

YR 8/2) on the inside. In: brown (7.5 YR 5/2) and green stripes (PMS 358C). Straight rim with direct lip. Green and Brown Painted Ware (Ware 10). Cf. Morgan 1942, pp. 77-80, pl. XXIIIb, no. 477 (Group III: stiff stripe formation), dated 2nd quarter 12th century. 4./ Cooking pot, rim fragment (95 Gs.15). Fig. 6.38: W14.33. Pres. H. 0.032, est. Diam. rim 0.270. Soft, medium coarse, light yellow orange (10 YR 8/3) to orange fabric (7.5 YR 7/6) with very many coarse lime (up to 3 mm), some medium black quartz and some coarse voids. Powdery/chalky feel. Out: incised wavy decoration on shoulder. Straight rim with rounded lip and straight

Site chronology: MBYZ. Diagnostic finds: mbyz: 2 Fine Orange-red Burnished Ware (Ware 5). 8 Unglazed Incised Ware (Ware 6). 7 Plain Glazed Ware in red fabric (Ware 7). 2 Slip-painted Ware (Ware 9). 4 Green and Brown Painted Ware (Ware 10). 1 Fine Sgraffito Ware (Ware 11). 1 Painted Fine Sgraffito Ware (Ware 11). 15 Günsenin 3/Saraçhane 61 amphora (Ware 12). 4 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 14).

104

convergent shoulder. Unglazed Domestic Ware (Ware 14). Cf. for shape, Sanders 1993, 281, nos. 71-73, fig. 14, dated late 12th? century and Armstrong 1996a, fig. 17.5, no. 23, dated late 12th? century. 4.0 Closed shape?, handle fragment (95 Gs.1). Pres. L. 0.044, W. 0.035, Th. 0.011. Soft, medium coarse, light reddish brown fabric (5 YR 6/3) with some medium lime and many medium white quartz

inclusions. Dark grey core. Rough feel. Vertical oval handle (of reduced fabric?) Unglazed Domestic Ware (Ware 14). 3. 4.1 Cooking pot, base fragment (92 Sa.3.3). Pres. H. 0.029, Diam. of base 0.059. Same fabric as no. 4.0. Unglazed Domestic Ware (Ware 14). 4.2 Cooking pot, rim-handle fragment. Fig. 6.14: W23.2. Pres. H. 0.038, est. Diam. rim 0.145. Fairly hard, medium fine, dull orange (5 YR 6/4) to yellowish grey fabric (2.5 Y 5/1) with some medium lime

Fig. 5.10 Haliartos B6: tower (site 11) (photo: J. Vroom).

and many medium white and black quartz. Rough feel. Straight divergent upper wall and everted flattened rim. Unglazed Domestic Ware (Ware 23). Thin-walled, wheel-made cooking pot in ‘Frankish style’, dated 13th century.

Site no. 10: CN ,2 Site location: Livanatai sheet 23°, 5.5 min. E.; 38°, 33.75 min. N. Site size: small. Site function: RUR. Year of sampling: 1992. Sample: intensive survey. Total of sampled sherds: 409. Site description: A medium scatter of pottery can be found to the North of the Acropolis of ancient Hyettos (site 12), in between site 6 (CN3) and site 9 (CN15), and immediately to the North of site 6 (CN3). The location is now covered by olive groves. Site chronology: (LR); MBYZ. Diagnostic finds: lr: 1 LR 2 amphora (Ware 3). mbyz: 3 Fine Orange-red Burnished Ware (Ware 5). 2 Unglazed Incised Ware (Ware 6). 7 Plain Glazed Ware in red fabric (Ware 7). 11 ‘Otranto 1’ amphora (Ware 13). 8 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 14).

Site no. 11: HALIARTOS B1 (fig. 5.10) Site location: Vagia sheet 23°, 6.10 min. E.; 38°, 22 min. N. Site size: large. Site function: RUR/SP/TOW. Years of sampling: 1985, 1986, 1989, 1993. Sampling: intensive survey. Total of sampled sherds: 693.

Site description: Pottery was collected during the urban edge and interior square survey in two areas in the modern village of Haliartos: 1) the building trenches for rebuilding of the small, upslope church of Agia Paraskevi in the 1980s, next to where the road from Mazi to Haliartos makes its turn towards the hill of Haliartos; 2) slightly North-East of this church, across the main road Levadheia-Thebes where fields almost border directly on the road. Here a large amount of material was collected. On the basis of the written sources, Bintliff is convinced that the two areas are in fact part of a single settlement site (J. Bintliff, pers. comm.). A square, partly ruined tower of the Late Byzantine/Frankish period 1 kilometre East of the town on the main road is now thought to be related with this site (Leake 1835, 213). Peter Lock also argues against it being an isolated defense-tower (Lock 1986, 113 for a description of the tower). ‘Byzantine’ sherds have been found earlier near the tower (Lauffer 1986, 48). Archibald Dunn proposes that the reference ‘ecclesia Carminensis’ in 13th-14th century Frankish documents can be related to the site of Haliartos, and not to ancient Koroneia as has been suggested by Koder and Hild (A. Dunn, unpublished Byzantine gazetteer for Boeotia; see also Koder & Hild 1976, 192-93 for the Frankish sources). Furthermore, Dunn would link Haliartos to a so-called ‘Charmena’ site in a cadaster (Cadaster A,31) with water mills (see site 5). However in 1745 AD, the British traveller Richard Pococke described Haliartos as a ‘deserted place’ (Pococke 1745, 207). His fellow countryman William Leake recorded in the early 19th century a deserted settlement of some size near the Acropolis of ancient Haliartos, which included a ruined mosque and two

105

ruined churches. The site had been, according to him, ‘once inhabited by both Turks and Greeks’ (Leake 1835, 207). Building activities restarted in Haliartos again in the late 19th century with the arrival of the Kopais Company.

Pres. H. 0.016, pres. W. 0.061, est. Diam. of base 0.100, Th. 0.006. Moderately soft, medium fine, orange fabric (5 YR 6/6) with some fine lime and some medium voids. Smooth feel. White slip and pale yellow glaze (2.5 Y 8/4) on the inside. In: gouged decoration of spiral. Small ringfoot with round

Site chronology: LR; MBYZ; LBYZ/FR; (T); (EMOD). Diagnostic finds: lr: 8 LR 2 amphora (Ware 3). mbyz: 1 Unglazed Incised Ware (Ware 6). 5 Slippainted Ware (Ware 9). 14 Green and Brown Painted Ware (Ware 10). 4 Fine Sgraffito Ware (Ware 11). 19 Günsenin 3/Saraçhane 61 amphora (Ware 12). 8 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 14). 24 Incised Sgraffito Ware/Champlevé Ware (Ware 15). lbyz/fr: 4 ‘Zeuxippus Ware’ Subtypes (Ware 16). 1 Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Corinth (Ware 17). 2 Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Thessaloniki (Ware 18). 3 Monochrome Sgraffito Wares (Ware 19). 5 Slip-painted Ware (Ware 21). 1 Polychrome Lead-glazed Ware type ‘RMR’ (Ware 22). t: 2 Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware (Ware 26). Unglazed Domestic Ware with wavy incised lines (Ware 38). emod: 1 Glazed Domestic Ware from Siphnos (Ware 43). 1 Polychrome Painted Terracotta from the Eastern Aegean (Ware 44). 1 Glaze Painted Ware (Ware 46).

resting surface; straight divergent lower wall. Incised Sgraffito Ware (Ware 15), dated 13th century ,,.. Open shape, base fragment (1993 gs.1.23). Fig. 6.42 centre: W15.16. Pres. L. 0.026, pres. W. 0.036, Th. 0.008. Soft, medium fine, orange fabric (5 YR 6/6) with many fine lime inclusions and some coarse voids (up to 2 mm.). Smooth feel. White slip and pale yellow glaze (7.5 Y 8/3) on the inside. In: gouged decoration. Incised Sgraffito Ware (Ware 15). Cf. in general, Morgan 1942, fig. 138a, no. 1662; Stevenson 1947, pl. 20, no. 30 (Stage V); Armstrong 1989, fig. 9, no. 3 and PapanikolaBakirtzis et al. 1999, 90-93, nos. 170-79. ,,./ Open shape, base fragment. Fig. 6.42 right: W15.17. Pres. L. 0.032, pres. W. 0.052, Th. 0.007. Moderately soft, medium fine, dull reddish orange fabric (10 R 6/4) with some fine lime and some voids. Smooth feel. White slip and glossy pale yellow glaze (5 Y 8/4) on the inside. In: gouged decoration. Incised Sgraffito Ware (Ware 15). ,,.0 Dish, base fragment (1993 HALB6 gs.4.44). Fig. 6.42: W15.18.

Catalogue:

Pres. H. 0.027, pres. W. 0.092, est. Diam. of base 0.140, Th.

,,., Dish, base fragment (1985 gs.2.7). Fig. 6.22: W11.1.

0.011.

Pres. H. 0.028, pres. W. 0.082, est. Diam. of base 0.100, Th.

Soft, medium fine, orange fabric (5 YR 6/6) with some

0.011-12.

medium lime, a few fine quartz and some coarse voids (up

Soft, medium fine, orange fabric (5 YR 6/6) with some

to 2 mm.). Rough feel. White slip and light yellow orange

medium lime inclusions and some coarse voids (up to 2

glaze (10 YR 8/4) on the inside; vague white slip on the

mm.). Smooth feel. White slip and pale yellow glaze (7.5 Y

outside. In: gouged decoration. Heavy ring foot with round

8/3) on the inside; vague white slip on the outside. In:

resting surface and flat underside.

incised decoration of bird and central spiral. Ring foot with

Incised Sgraffito Ware (Ware 15). Cf. Armstrong 1989, fig.

flat resting surface and flat underside; sligthly convex

9, no. 6 and Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1999, 55, no. 45 from

divergent lower wall.

Thebes, dated early 13th century.

Fine Sgraffito Ware (Ware 11). Cf. in general, Morgan 1942, pl. XLIII, dated mid 12th century and Spieser 1996, 52, nos. 562-75, pls. 58-59.

,,.1 Bowl, base fragment (1993 gs.3.1). Fig. 6.25: W16.4. Pres. H. 0.027, pres. W. 0.096, Diam. of foot 0.060, Th. 0.006-8.

,,.- Dish, base fragment (1985 gs.2.8). Fig. 6.42 left: W15.15.

106

Moderately soft, medium fine, orange fabric (5 YR 6/6) with

some medium lime and some voids. Smooth feel. White slip and bright ochre-yellow glaze (7.5 YR 7/4) on the inside; dull orange wash (7.5 YR 7/4) on the outside. In: three incised circles. Ring foot with flat resting surface and slightly central nipple; convex divergent lower wall. ‘Zeuxippus Ware’ Subtype (Ware 16). Cf. Armstrong 1992, fig. 7, no. 18 (from Sparta?), dated 13th century; id. 1993, no. 90, pl. 32 (Theban products of mid to 3rd quarter 13th century?) and Makropoulou 1995, pl. 15, no. 29. ,,.2 Jug, body fragment. Fig. 6.43 right: W21.1. Pres. L. 0.039, pres. W. 0.038, Th. 0.005-7. Moderately soft, medium fine, orange fabric (5 YR 6/6) with

Fig. 5.11 Hyettos (site 12) (photo: J. Vroom).

some medium lime, a few coarse quartz inclusions and some medium voids. Smooth feel. Out: white slip-decoration becoming yellow (2.5 Y 7/8) under glaze. The tone of the glaze is dull reddish brown (2.5 YR 4/4) where it covers

function: CITY/SP; RUR in Middle Byzantine period. Years of sampling: 1990, 1991, 1992. Sampling: intensive survey. Total of sampled sherds: 1782.

the unslipped fabric. Slip-painted Ware (Ware 21). Cf. Andreou 1976, pl. 151d and f (from Arta); Makropoulou 1985, fig. 2e; Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1989, pl. 59; Papadopoulou & Tsouris 1993, figs. 5-6. ,,.3 Open shape, rim fragment (89 G.36.7). Fig. 6.39: W43.1. Pres. H. 0.030, pres. W. 0.035, est. Diam. of rim 0.150, Th. 0.006-8. Soft, fine, orange fabric (5 YR 6/8) with a few fine lime and many medium micaceous particles. Rough feel. Glassy, bright brown glaze (2.5 YR 5/8) on the inside and on the exterior rim. Plain rim with direct lip and deep groove on the outside; straight divergent upper wall. Glazed Domestic Ware from Siphnos (Ware 43). Cf. Wagner 1974, 179, no. 5.

Site description: A substantial scatter of Post-Roman pottery can be found on the large multiperiod site on and below the hill marked by the church of Agios Athanasios, two kilometres North-East of the modern village of Loutsion. The site is identified as ancient Hyettos (Etienne & Knoepfler 1976). The steep Acropolis-hill controls the large fertile plain of Dendri to the East. ‘Byzantine’ sherds have been found earlier within the Acropolis (Fossey 1988, 294). To the South of the Acropolis extends a large gently sloping plateau which carried the lower town. Numerous remains of the enceinte of the Acropolis, as well as interior remains, can be observed on the site, among which a fine piece of polygonal masonry (cf. Koder & Hild 1976, 173 with further literature; see also Bintliff 1992).

,,.4 Closed shape, base fragment (89 658.4). Fig. 6.39: W44.1. Pres. H. 0.030, pres. W. 0.057, est. Diam. of base 0.155, Th. 0.009-12. Soft, fine, orange fabric (5 YR 6/6) with some fine lime inclusions. Smooth feel. Out: glaze decoration in light blue (PMS 297). Flat base with angular transition; straight divergent lower wall. Polychrome Painted Terracotta from the Eastern Aegean (Ware 44).

Site no. 12: HYETTOS (fig. 5.11) Site location: Livanatai sheet 23°, 6.25 min. East of Greenwich; 38°, 33.5 min. N. Site size: large. Site

Site chronology: LR(-EBYZ?); MBYZ; (EMOD). Diagnostic finds: lr-ebyz?: 6 Askra Ware (Ware 1). 1 Unglazed Ware (Ware 2). 1 ‘Slavic Ware’ (Ware 2) (no. ,-.,). 16 LR 2 amphora (Ware 3). 12 Unglazed Beehives. mbyz: 2 Unglazed Incised Ware (Ware 6). 1 Fine Sgraffito Ware (Ware 11). 6 Günsenin 3/Saraçhane 61 amphora (Ware 12). emod: 2 Painted Ware from Grottaglie (Ware 40). Catalogue: ,-., Cooking pot, rim fragment (CN91.374.31). Fig. 6.2: W2a.1. Pres. H. 0.044, est. Diam. of rim 0.110.

107

et al., unpublished gazetteer for Ottoman Boeotia). From 1466 AD until 1540 AD it was part of the Kaza of Thebes; in 1570 AD it shifted to the Kaza of Levadheia. In 1540 AD it had a population boom of 174 families (circa 870 people), but shrunk in 1688 AD to circa 34 families. Friedrich Sauerwein comments that the settlement was still called ‘Vrastamitis’ in 1836 AD, but was renamed ‘Ipsilantis’ in 1953.

Fig. 5.12 Ipsilantis: tower (site 13) (photo: J. Vroom). Fairly hard, medium coarse, dull orange fabric (5 YR 6/4); orange (2.5 YR 7/6) to reddish brown (2.5 YR 5/4) on the inside. Rather gritty ware with very many, medium lime and flint inclusions. Hackly feel. Greyish brown slip (5 YR 5/2 to 5/3) roughly put on the outside. Everted rim with straight convergent upper wall. Unglazed Ware: ‘Slavic Ware’ (Ware 2).

Site no. 13: IPSILANTIS (fig. 5.12) Site location: Vagia sheet 23° 00,60 min. E.; 38° 21,95 min. N. Site size: medium. Site function: TOW. Years of sampling: 1983, 1991. Sampling: grab sample. Total of sampled sherds: 141.

Site chronology: MBYZ; LBYZ/FR; T. Diagnostic finds: mbyz: 1 Unglazed Incised Ware (Ware 6). 2 Plain Glazed Ware in red fabric (Ware 7). 2 Günsenin 3/Saraçhane 61 amphora (Ware 12). 6 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 14). 3 Incised Sgraffito Ware/Champlevé Ware (Ware 15). lbyz/fr: 1 Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Corinth (Ware 17). 2 Monochrome Sgraffito Wares (Ware 19). 1 Polychrome Lead-glazed Ware type ‘RMR’ (Ware 22). t: 2 Monochrome Sgraffito Wares from Italy (Ware 24). 2 Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware (Ware 26). 1 Maiolica from Greece (Ware 28). 9 Monochrome Glazed Wares (Ware 29). 4 Slippainted Wares (Ware 30). 1 Painted Ware (Ware 31). 10 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 38). Catalogue:

Site description: A thin scatter of pottery and traces of houses are to be found on a steep, low and rocky promontory ca. 1 kilometre South-East of the modern village of Ipsilantis, as well as on its adjacent hill slopes. The promontory is aptly called ‘Pyrgos’ as it is crowned by a large and fairly well-preserved tower from the Frankish period (Lock 1986, 115-116). The hill dominates an area with fertile and well-watered low hills which forms a natural small basin between Mount Helicon and Kopais Lake to the North. This natural basin is the exploitation area of modern Ipsilantis, which is identified by A. Dunn as ‘Rastamites’, ‘Vrastamites’ or ‘Vrastamades’, a Slavic toponym derived from Byzantine and Post-Byzantine sources and 20th century maps (A. Dunn, unpublished Byzantine gazetteer for Boeotia). In the Ottoman tax registers ‘Rastamites’ first appears in 1466 AD as a Greek village (with a Slav name), including 94 families (Kiel & Bintliff

108

,.., Chafing dish, rim fragment (Ips 83.30). Fig. 6.6: W7.10. Pres. H. 0.022, pres. W. 0.036, est. Diam. of rim 0.200, Th. 0.009. Moderately soft, medium fine, reddish grey fabric (2.5 YR 5/1) on the outside, but with a dull orange core (2.5 YR 6/3), with many medium lime, a few fine sand inclusions and a few fine voids. Rough feel. Transparent glaze on the inside, becoming dark reddish brown (2.5 YR 3/2) on the clay after firing. Slightly everted, plain rim with round lip and flange on the inside to receive a lid. Plain Glazed Ware (Ware 7). Cf. in general, Morgan 1942, fig. 24, dated mid to late 11th century. ,..- Bowl, body fragment (Ips 83.62). Fig. 6.32: W22.1 Pres. L. 0.033, pres. W. 0.053, Th. 0.006. Soft, fine, pale yellow fabric (2.5 Y 8/3) with a few fine lime inclusions and some fine voids. Powdery/chalky feel. White slip and dull yellow orange glaze (10 YR 7/3) on the inside.

In: painted decoration of crosshatched leaves (?) in dull reddish brown (2.5 YR 5/3) and greyish brown (5 YR 4/2). Polychrome Lead-glazed Ware type ‘RMR’ (Ware 22). Cf. Williams & Zervos 1991, p. 168, no. C.35.195, pl. 43 for similar decoration. ,... Dish, rim fragment (Ips 91.27). Fig. 6.34: W29.1. Pres. H. 0.053, pres. W. 0.096, est. Diam. rim 0.250, Th. 0.009. Soft, fine, dull orange fabric (5 YR 7/4) with some fine lime inclusions. Powdery feel. White slip and pale green glaze (PMS 578 C) all over. Broad everted rim with notches in the lip; convex divergent upper part. Monochrome Glazed Ware (Ware 29). Cf. Williams &

Fig. 5.13 Klimataria (site 14) (photo: J. Vroom).

Zervos 1992, fig. 14, no. 42 for shape, dated as Turkish.

Site no. 14: KLIMATARIA (fig. 5.13) Site location: Thivai sheet 23° 15,60 min. E.; 38° 24,70 min. N. Site size: medium. Site function: TOW/SP. Years of sampling: 1989, 1990, 1992. Sampling: grab sample. Total of sampled sherds: 3551. Site description: Much pottery was sampled on a small peninsula (232 m.), which projects from the East into Lake Liki and is crowned by a tower of the Frankish period. In the 19th century the tower was only known by rare appearances in times of a low water-level, and also nowadays the site is only accessible during very dry summers (cf. also Lock 1986, 117). Apart from architectural remains and pottery from Prehistoric and ClassicalRoman times, the site has substantial remains of a towersettlement (with regular buildings around the court-yard reminiscent of the Frankish estate settlements of the Kingdom of Jerusalem; Bintliff 1995, 114; see also Sigalos forthcoming). In addition, a small cemetery was found below the site to the North; it yielded very few finds, which included tile-graves, graves made of limestone slabs and a Late Roman jug. According to Bintliff, the lake must have been (much) lower in Medieval and Post-Medieval times because of two reasons: first, the current rocky shores of the lake have no agricultural potential, whereas the parts which are exposed in times of a lower water-level are fertile and exploitable; secondly, access to the site is now extremely difficult. Another indication of a lower water level in the past are references to a multi-arched bridge running from the site across the lake towards the Theban Plain.

This bridge is indicated on an (unpublished) French military map of the early 19th century . A hand-copy of this 19th century French military map can be found in the British School of Archaeology at Athens, made by George Finlay (J. Bintliff, pers. comm.). Site chronology: LR(-EBYZ?); MBYZ; (LBYZ/FR); T; (EMOD). Diagnostic finds: lr-ebyz?: 5 Unglazed Wares (Ware 2). 10 LR 2 Amphora (Ware 3). 38 Unglazed Beehives (Ware 4). mbyz: 1 Fine Orange-red Burnished Ware (Ware 5). 1 Unglazed Incised Ware (Ware 6). 3 Plain Glazed Ware in red fabric (Ware 7). 1 Green and Brown Painted Ware (Ware 10). 2 Fine Sgraffito Ware (Ware 11). 66 Günsenin 3/Saraçhane 61 amphora (Ware 12). 5 ‘Otranto 1’ amphora (Ware 13). lbyz/fr: 1 ‘Zeuxippus Ware’ Subtype (Ware 16). 1 Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Thessaloniki (Ware 18). 2 Monochrome Sgraffito Wares (Ware 19). t: 2 Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware (Ware 26). 1 Maiolica from Italy (Ware 27). 3 Maiolica from Greece (Ware 28). 7 Monochrome Glazed Wares (Ware 29). 6 Painted Ware (Ware 31). 1 Polychrome Painted Ware (Ware 35). 20 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 38). emod: 2 Glaze Painted Ware (Ware 46). Catalogue: ,/., Small jug, complete profile (89.CEM1). Figs. 6.2 and 6.40: W2.1.

109

H. 0.123, W. 0.075, Diam. of base 0,056, Th. of rim 0.003.

Pres. H. 0.024, pres. W. 0.046, est. Diam. of rim 0.160, Th.

Soft, medium fine, dull orange fabric (7.5 YR 7/4) with

0.004.

many fine lime and white quartz inclusions. Smooth feel.

Soft, fine, orange fabric (5 YR 7/6) with a few fine lime and

White slip? on the outside. Flat base with rounded transi-

micaceous particles. Smooth feel. White slip and a creamish

tion; spherical body with straight divergent neck; straight

crazed glaze (10 YR 8/3) all over. Out: incised scribbled

rim with rounded lip. Vertical handle broken off.

decoration, highlighted with green (PMS 575 C) and ochre

Unglazed Ware (Ware 2), dated 6th-7th centuries?

splashes (10 YR 6/8). Straight rim with round lip. Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware (Ware 26). Cf. Vavy-

,/.- Amphora, neck-shoulder-handle fragment (92.CEM.Gs1.1).

lopoulou-Charitonidou 1989, fig 56 and Papanikola-

Fig. 6.3: W3.1.

Bakirtzis 1999, 251-53, nos. 295-95, probably 15th-16th

Pres. L. 0.169, pres. W. 0.082, Th. 0.010.

centuries from Thessaloniki.

Fairly hard, medium coarse, dull brown fabric (7.5 YR 5/3) with grey core (7.5 Y 4/1). Slightly gritty ware with very

,/.1 Dish, rim fragment (89.49.I.139). Fig. 6.33: W28.7.

many medium white quartz, some fine lime and many fine

Pres. L. 0.065, pres. W. 0.093, est. Diam. Of rim 0.200, Th.

micaceous particles. Rough feel. Straight symmetrical neck

0.006.

with vertical round handle.

Soft, fine, light grey fabric (10 YR 8/2) with a few medium lime

LR 2 Amphora (Ware 3), dated 6th century or later. Cf. for

inclusions. Smooth/chalky feel. White slip and pitted, pale

shape, Boardman 1989, 106-107, no. 236, fig. 36 (mid 7th

green glaze (10 Y 8/2) all over. On interior rim: blue (PMS 302

century).

C) and brown (10 YR 4/4) painted decoration. Broad everted rim with round lip; convex divergent upper part.

,/.. Amphora, neck-shoulder-handle fragment ( 89.K1.49.I.10, 110, 113, 116, 115, 124, 125, 178). Figs. 6.3 and 6.40: W3a.1.

Maiolica from Greece (Ware 28). Cf. Armstrong 1993, no. 174, fig. 11, pl. 33 from Thebes.

H. 0.225, Diam. of neck 0.060, Th. 0.010. Soft, fine, orange fabric (5 YR 7/6) with a few medium lime

,/.2 Dish, rim fragment (89.49.I.7). Fig. 6.34: W29.2.

and quartz inclusions and many fine micaceous particles.

Pres. L. 0.076, pres. W. 0.088, est. Diam. Of rim 0.210, Th.

Powdery feel. Light yellow orange slip on the outside.

0.007-8.

Convex convergent upper part with narrow neck and two

Soft, fine, light grey fabric (10 YR 8/2) with a few medium

vertical oval handles.

lime inclusions and some medium voids. Smooth/chalky

Amphora Saraçhane 35 (Ware 3). Cf. Hayes 1992, 71, type

feel. White slip and matt brown glaze (7.5 YR 4/4 and 4/6)

35, fig. 23.10; see also figs. 32.10 and 35.38, dated 7th-8th

on the inside. A drop of glaze on the outside. Broad everted

centuries ‘or later’.

rim with groove and notches in the lip; convex divergent upper part.

,/./ Bowl, body fragment (89.K1.Sa.64.5). Fig. 6.27: W18.2.

Monochrome Glazed Ware (Ware 29). Cf. for similar shape

Pres. L. 0.052, pres. W. 0.063, Th. 0.004-5.

and glaze, Armstrong 1989, fig. 13, nos. 59-60, pl. 8 from a

Moderately soft, fine, dull orange (7.5 YR 7/4) to orange

survey in Phokis.

fabric (5 YR 6/6) with some medium lime inclusions. Smooth feel. White slip and yellowish glaze (2.5 Y 7/6) on

,/.3 Dish, rim fragment (89.B8/42). Fig. 6.36: W31.7.

the inside; splashed glazed on the outside. In: sgraffito

Pres. L. 0.066, pres. W. 0.093, est. Diam. of rim 0.300, Th.

decoration of a Salamon’s knot’.

0.007-8.

Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Thessaloniki (Ware 18).

Soft, fine, orange fabric (5 YR 6/6) with a few very coarse

Cf. Spieser 1996, 24-5, nos.174-78 with references to other

lime inclusions (up to 3mm.) and some medium voids.

exemples from Bulgaria, Olynthus and Ephesos. See also

Smooth feel. White slip and a bit glossy cream glaze (7.5 YR

Xyngopoulos 1933, pl. 205, no. II.A1 (N) and Vavylopolou-

8/3) on the inside; white slip and green glaze (PMS 576 C) on

Charitonidou 1989, figs. 16-18 from Thessaloniki, dated

the outside. On interior rim: green (PMS 575 C) and ochre

end 13th-14th centuries.

(10 YR 6/8) painted decoration. Broad everted rim with two grooves and notches in the lip; convex divergent upper part.

,/.0 Bowl, rim fragment (89.49.I.54). Fig. 6.30: W26.1.

110

Painted Ware (Ware 31).

Site no. 15: MAVROKAMBOS / MOROKAMBOS (fig. 5.14) Site location: Vagia sheet 23°, 13 min. E.; 38°, 19.25 min. N. Size of site: small. Function of the site: RUR. Year of sampling: 1982. Sample: grab sample. Total of sampled sherds: 52. Site description: A small scatter of pottery is to be found to the North and below a low hill (164 m.) marked by the newly built church of Panagia. The location, bordering on the South side of the Theban Plain but not near any modern village, is called ‘Mavrokambos’ on the Vagia sheet of the 1:50.000 topographical map, but is known as ‘Morokambos’, a Greek toponym derived from 20th century maps (A. Dunn, unpublished Byzantine gazetteer for Boeotia). ‘Morokambos’ is the name of the village which used to stand on this site, and it recalls the mulberry trees of the old silk industry around Thebes (Symeonoglou 1985, 157). The 19th century traveller Sir William Gell mentioned a ‘Morekampe’ during his journey along the Theban plain (Gell 1819, 125). His contemporary, William Leake described ‘Morokamo’ as a small village (Leake 1835, 478). Their description fits in the location of Morokambos marked on the Carte de la Grèce of 1852 AD as a small village (Kiel & Bintliff et al., unpublished gazetteer for Ottoman Boeotia; see also Stedman 1996, 182). Site chronology: MBYZ; T; (EMOD). Diagnostic finds: mbyz: 6 Günsenin 3/Saraçhane 61 amphora (Ware 12). 6 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 14). 4 Incised Sgraffito Ware/Champlevé Ware (Ware 15). t: 2 Slip-painted Wares (Ware 30). 1 Painted Ware (Ware 31). 1 Polychrome Painted Wares (Ware 35). 4 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 38). emod: 1 Çanakkale Ware (Ware 39).

Site no. 16: MAVROMATI NORTH (figs. 5.15-16) Site location: Vagia sheet 23°, 8 min. E.; 38°, 20 min. N. Site size: medium. Site function: RUR. Years of sampling: 1981, 1984, 1993. Sample: intensive survey. Total of sampled sherds: 568.

Fig. 5.14 Mavrokambos (site 15) (photo: J. Vroom).

Site description: A medium sized scatter of ceramics can be found in and to the immediate North-West of the modern village Mavromati. The site includes the Eastern part of the modern cemetery and extends also into the small fields and gardens below the houses in the Northern area of the village, which stands on a elongated spur. Local tradition maintains that Mavromati was founded as a stratochori (‘armed village’) to provide protection for local farmers and named after John ‘Black Eye’ (Kiel & Bintliff et al., unpublished gazetteer for Ottoman Boeotia; see also Stedman 1994, 181). In the Ottoman tax registers it is a Albanian foundation, and recorded as ‘Mavromati’ or ‘Mavromati Yorgi’ from 1466 AD (7 households) until 1642 AD (71 households). The French traveller Eugène Yemeniz uses the name (Black Eye) in the mid 19th century for a small ‘hameau’ (hamlet) of Mavromati, and mentions a local tradition which maintains that never a blue eye opens in this village during the day (Yemeniz 1845, 281). The sources indicate that a population boom occurred in Mavromati during the (second half of the) 19th century. According to the lists the village grew from some 80 households in 1800 AD to 173 households in 1879 AD; other figures speak of 686 inhabitants in 1879 AD and 1544 in 1907 AD (Kiel & Bintliff et al., unpublished gazetteer for Ottoman Boeotia; see also Vroom 1998b, 138). Site chronology: LR; (MBYZ); (LBYZ/FR); (T); EMOD. Diagnostic finds: lr: 1 Red Slip Ware (Ware 1). 12 LR 2 amphora (Ware 3). 23 Unglazed Beehives (Ware 4). mbyz: 1 Fine Sgraffito Ware (Ware 11).

111

Fig. 5.15 Mavromati North (site 16) (photo: J. Vroom).

lbyz/fr: 1 Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware (Ware 20). t: 1 Maiolica from Italy (Ware 27). emod: 37 Painted Ware from Grottaglie (Ware 40). 1 Slip-painted Ware from Didymoteicho (Ware 41). 4 Slip-painted Ware from Crete (Ware 42). 1 Glazed Domestic Ware from Siphnos (Ware 43). 1 Polychrome Painted Terracotta from the Eastern Aegean (Ware 44). 3 Drip-painted Ware from Marousi (Ware 47).

Fig. 5.16 Mavromati North: church (site 16) (photo: J. Vroom). Pres. H. 0.035, est. Diam. of rim 0.220, Th. 0.010. Fairly hard, fine, light grey fabric (10 YR 8/2) with few fine lime and sand inclusions. Smooth feel. White slip and transparent vitreous glaze in and out. On interior rim: painted decoration of flowers and squares in blue (PMS 284 C) and olive yellow (2.5 Y 6/8). Flat everted rim and straight divergent upper wall. Painted Ware from Grottaglie (Ware 40). ,1./ Jug, base fragment (93 Gs 4.3). Fig. 6.15: W40.7.

Catalogue:

Pres. H. 0.027, est. Diam. of base 0.010, Th. 0.006.

,1., Dish, rim fragment (93 Gs 3.13). Fig. 6.15: W40.4.

Fairly hard, fine, pale yellow fabric (2.5 Y 8/3) with few fine

Pres. H. 0.027, est. Diam. of rim 0.200, Th. 0.009-10.

lime and sand inclusions. Smooth feel. White slip and trans-

Fairly hard, fine, pale yellow fabric (2.5 Y 8/3) with few fine

parent vitreous glaze in and out. Flat standing ring with

lime and sand inclusions. Smooth feel. White slip and trans-

slightly concave convergent lower wall.

parent vitreous glaze in and out. On interior rim: painted

Painted Ware from Grottaglie (Ware 40).

decoration of flowers and leaves in light blue (PMS 292 C), olive yellow (2.5 Y 6/8) and greyish red-brown (10 R 45/2). Flat everted rim with straight divergent upper wall.

,1.0 Jug, base fragment (93 Gs 1.21). Fig. 6.15: W40.8. Pres. H. 0.053, est. Diam. of base 0.080. Th. 0.008.

Painted Ware from Grottaglie (Ware 40). Cf. Korre-

Fairly hard, fine, light grey (10 YR 8/2) to pale yellow fabric

Zographou 1995, pl. 182.

(2.5 Y 8/3) with few fine lime and sand inclusions. Smooth feel. White slip and transparent vitreous glaze in and out.

,1.- Dish, rim fragment (93 Gs 2.27). Fig. 6.15: W40.5.

Painted lines in blue (PMS 543 C) on the outside. Flat

Pres. H. 0.030, est. Diam. of rim 0.260, Th. 0.007.

standing ring with straight divergent lower wall.

Fairly hard, fine, pale yellow fabric (2.5 Y 8/3) with few fine

Painted Ware from Grottaglie (Ware 40).

lime and sand inclusions. Smooth feel. White slip and transparent vitreous glaze in and out. On interior rim: painted

,1.1 Dish, rim fragment (93 As 1.72).

decoration of guirlandes in blue (PMS 284 C), bright

Pres. H. 0.024, est. Diam. of rim 0.200-220?

yellowish orange (10 YR 6/8) and olive yellow (5 Y 5/4). Flat

Moderately soft, fine, orange fabric (5 YR 6/6) with few fine

everted rim, with straight divergent upper wall.

lime and sand. Smooth feel. Glassy olive-green glaze (10 Y

Painted Ware from Grottaglie (Ware 40).

4/2) in and out (on rim). In and on rim out: slip-painted decoration. becoming pale green (PMS 346) under glaze.

,1.. Dish, rim fragment (93 Gs 1.14). Fig. 6.15: W40.6.

112

Everted rim and straight divergent upper wall.

Slip-painted Ware from Didymoteicho (Ware 41). Cf.

lime and many medium micaceous particles. Rough feel.

François 1994, 383-85, fig. 1, nos. 10-13, dated 19th

Glassy, bright brown glaze (2.5 YR 5/8) on the inside; dull

century.xx

reddish brown wash (2.5 YR 5/4) on the outside. Out: name-stamp of potter in Greek letters (translation:

,1.2 Basin, rim fragment (93 Sa 5.29). Fig. 6.16: W42.2.

Georgios N. Kolara(k)is, Vroulidia, Siphnos). Everted,

Pres. H. 0.063, est. Diam. of rim > 0.300.

flattened rim with straight divergent upper wall.

Fairly hard, medium fine, bright brown fabric (2.5 YR 5/6)

Glazed Domestic Ware from Siphnos (Ware 43).

with some fine lime and mica and few fine mineral inclusions. Smooth feel. Brownish red glaze (10 R 5/8) in and out

,1.,- Open shape?, rim fragment (93 Sa 5.18). Fig. 6.16: W44.2.

on upper area (overspil); white/light grey dripped slip (7.5

Pres. H. 0.035, est. Diam. of rim 0.180.

YR 8/2) on inside. Everted rim with knick and straight

Soft, fine, orange fabric (5 YR 6/6) with some fine lime

divergent upper wall.

inclusions. Smooth feel. Multi-colour glaze decoration in

Slip-painted Ware from Crete (Ware 42). Cf. Vallianou &

and out: light blue (PMS 297), bright yellow (PMS 123) and

Padouva 1986, 31, nos. 22-3; Psaropoulou 1984, 73 (‘pilina’

red (PMS 1925) all over; dark reddish brown (10 R 3/2),

= lekani from Kos for kneading the bread).

light blue (PMS 297) and red (PMS 1925) on upper area on the inside. Everted, slightly folded rim with straight conver-

,1.3 Basin?, rim fragment (93 As 3.23). Fig. 6.16: W42.3. Pres. H. 0.065, est. Diam. of rim 0.029?

gent upper wall. Polychrome Painted Terracotta from the Eastern Aegean

Fairly hard, medium fine, orange-red fabric (2.5 YR 7/6)

(Ware 44). Cf. Kyriazopoulou 1984, figs. 138b-143 (jugs

with some fine lime and a few fine sand particles. Smooth

from Chios, Samos and Rhodos), figs. 189-193 (Petronas

feel. Glassy transparent glaze in and out, becoming bright

from Rhodos). See also Korre, 24, fig. 26.

reddish brown (5 YR 5/8) on fabric. In: slip-painted decoration. Everted, double rim with straight divergent upper wall. Slip-painted Ware from Crete (Ware 42).

,1.,. Closed shape, body fragment (93 As 5.24). Pres. L. 0.042, pres. W. 0.077, Th. 0.010. Soft, fine, dull orange fabric (7.5 YR 7/4) with a few fine lime and some voids. Smooth feel. Olive grey glaze (10 Y 6/2

,1.4 Dish?, rim fragment (93 As 3.25 of 5.25?).

to 4/2) in and out. Out: cordon decoration applied to

Pres. H. 0.020, est. Diam. of rim 0.200.

surface.

Fairly hard, medium fine, orange fabric (5 YR 6/6) with

Storage jar (Ware 45).

some fine lime and few voids. Smooth feel. Glassy transparent glaze in and out (on rim), becoming brown (10 YR

,1.,/ Closed shape, base fragment (93 As 1.60). Fig. 6.16: W47.1.

4/6) on fabric. In and on rim: slip-painted decoration.

Pres. H. 0.049, est. Diam. of base 0.130.

Everted rim with straight divergent upper wall.

Fairly hard, fine, orange fabric (5 YR 7/6) with some fine

Slip-painted Ware from Crete (Ware 42).

lime. Smooth feel. Splashes of white slip on the outside; glassy grey-green (7.5 Y 7/2), brownish (5 YR 5/8) to

,1.,+ Dish?, rim fragment (93 As 3.24). Pres. H. 0.032, est. Diam. of rim 0.240.

brownish yellow glaze (10 YR 6/8) in and out. Flat base with angular transition and straight divergent lower wall.

Fairly hard, fine, orange fabric (5 YR 6/6) with a few fine

Drip-painted Ware from Marousi, Attica (Ware 47). Cf.

lime and a few voids. Smooth feel. Glassy transparent glaze

Kyriazopolous 1984, pls. 90-92 and Korre-Zographou

in and out (on rim), becoming reddish yellow (7.5 YR 6/8)

1995, 214, fig. 401.

on fabric. On rim: slip-painted decoration. Everted rim with straight divergent upper wall. Slip-painted Ware from Crete (Ware 42).

,1.,0 Closed shape, body fragment (93 As 1.2). Pres. L. 0.061, pres. W. 0.087, Th. 0.015. Fairly hard, fine, light grey fabric (10 YR 7/2) with a few fine

,1.,, Open shape?, rim fragment (93 Sa 3.18). Fig. 6.39: W43.2.

lime and some fine sand. Smooth feel. Splashes of white slip

Pres. H. 0.056, est. Diam. of rim 0.260.

on the outside; glassy olive grey glaze (10 Y 6/2) in and out.

Soft, medium coarse, orange fabric (5 YR 6/8) with few fine

Drip-painted Ware from Marousi, Attica. Cf. Bakirtzis 1980,

113

figs. 26-27 and Frantz 1942, 3, figs. 22-23 (18th century drip-painted ware from Athens).

Site no. 17: MEGALI RACHI Site location: Vagia sheet 23°, 6.5 min. E.; 38°, 16.75 min. N. Size of the site: small. Function of the site: RUR. Year of sampling: 1983. Sample: grab sample. Total of sampled sherds: 27. Site description: A large scatter of ceramics and some architectural remains can be found ca. 2 kilometres to the East of the site of Tatiza (site 23), immediately North of the old road between the area of Thespiae and the Thisbe basin. The road runs East-West along the Northern side of a long and broad valley which is quite fertile and mainly given to olive-tree cultivation, but bordered with rocky limestone mountains to the North and South. No name is attached to it from Ottoman tax registers or maps. Site chronology: MBYZ; (LBYZ/FR); (EMOD). Diagnostic finds: mbyz: 1 Fine Orange-red Burnished Ware (Ware 5). 1 Günsenin 3/Saraçhane 61 amphora (Ware 12). 10 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 14). 1 Incised Sgraffito Ware/Champlevé Ware (Ware 15). lbyz/fr: 1 Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Corinth (Ware 17). emod: 1 Glaze Painted Ware (Ware 46). 1 Modern plate.

systematically in three areas (Neochori 1-3) from the top of the hill downwards to the South. According to Bitliff, the location is perhaps referred in the Ottoman tax registers of the 16th century (M. Kiel & J. Bintliff, unpublished gazetter for Ottoman Boeotia). Site chronology: (LR); MBYZ; LBYZ/FR; EMOD. Diagnostic finds: lr: 2 Unglazed Beehives (Ware 4). mbyz: 8 Fine Orange-Red Burnished Ware (Ware 5). 13 Unglazed Incised Ware (Ware 6). 1 Plain Glazed Ware (Ware 7). 11 Slip-painted Ware (Ware 9). 4 Green and Brown Painted Ware (Ware 10). 33 Günsenin 3/Saraçhane 61 amphora (Ware 12). 6 ‘Otranto 1’ amphora (Ware 13). 4 Unglazed Domestic Ware (Ware 14). 23 Incised Sgraffito Ware/Champlevé Ware (Ware 15). lbyz/fr: 7 Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Corinth (Ware 17). 2 Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Thessaloniki (Ware 17). 9 Monochrome Sgraffito Wares (Ware 19). emod: 1 Painted Ware from Grottaglie (Ware 40). 3 Glaze Painted Ware (Ware 46). 1 Monochrome Yellow Glazed Ware (Ware 48). 1 Modern plate. Catalogue: ,3., Chafing dish, rim fragment (93 1 gs.11.1). Fig. 6.5: W7.7. Pres. H. 0.037, est. Diam. of rim 0.300, Th. 0.008. Soft, medium fine, orange fabric (5 YR 7/8) with a few medium lime, a few coarse white quartz (up to 2 mm.) and many coarse mica (up to 3 mm.). Rough feel. Pitted, trans-

Site no. 18: NEOCHORI ,-. (fig. 5.17) Site location: Vagia sheet 23°, 6.25 min. E.; 38°, 25 min. N. Site size: large. Site function: RUR/SP. Years of sampling: 1984, 1993. Sample: intensive survey. Total of sampled sherds: 925. Site description: Three closely related scatters of pottery (treated here as one site) can be found on the amphitheatre-like formed Southern slopes of the Diaskepasi hill which rise circa 200 metres above and to the South-West of the nearby modern village of Neochorion (which is out of sight). The site is located circa 120 metres North of the new church of Zoodogos Pigis in a small fertile basin (with an abundance of water). Sampling was done

114

parent glaze on the inside, becoming reddish brown (5 YR 4/8) on the clay after firing. Slightly everted, plain rim with round lip and flange on the inside to receive a lid; straight divergent upper wall. Plain Glazed Ware (Ware 7). ,3.- Jar, rim fragment (1 gs.10.11). Fig. 6.10: W14.18. Pres. H. 0.091, pres. W. 0.064, est. Diam. of rim 0.090, Th. 0.006. Moderately soft, medium fine, orange-red fabric (2.5 YR 6/8) with some coarse lime (up to 2mm.), a few fine mica and some fine black grits. Smooth feel. Creamish slip (7.5 YR 8/3) on the outside. Everted, thin rim with round lip; straight symmetrical neck; two heavy oval handles.

Unglazed Domestic Ware (Ware 14). Cf. for shape, Piérart & Thalmann 1980, group B, amphora B5 from Argos, dated end 11th-early 12th century and Sanders 1993, no. 38, fig. 9 from Sparta, dated late 12th century. ,3.. Cooking pot, rim fragment (84 2.5.1). Fig. 6.9: W14.14. Pres. H. 0.035, est. Diam. of rim 0.165, Th. 0.005. Moderately soft, medium fine, dull orange fabric (5 YR 7/3) with some medium lime and a few fine black mineral inclusions. Rough feel. Straight, slightly thickened rim with straight convergent upper part. Unglazed Domestic Ware (Ware 14). Cf. for shape, Sanders 1993, no. 72, fig. 14 from Sparta, dated late 12th

Fig. 5.17 Neochori 1-3 (site 18) (photo: J. Vroom).

century. 2mm.). Smooth feel. White slip and matt, pale green glaze ,3./ Dish, body fragment.

(7.5 Y 8/3) on the inside. In: incised spiral(?) at the centre.

Pres. L. 0.048, pres. W. 0.066, Th. 0.007.

Heavy ring foot with round resting surface and central

Soft, medium fine, orange fabric (5 YR 7/8) with a few

nipple(?).

medium lime. Smooth feel. White slip in and out. Matt,

Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Corinth (Ware 17).

green glaze (PMS 577 C) on the inside. In: gouged abstract decoration. Incised Sgraffito Ware (Ware 15).

,3.3 Bowl, base fragment (84 2 gs.1.11). Fig. 6.26: W17.3. Pres. H. 0.035, pres. W. 0.076, est. Diam. of base 0.078, Th. 0.012-13.

,3.0 Dish, base fragment (84 2 gs.5a.15). Fig. 6.23: W15.5.

Soft, medium fine, orange fabric (7.5 YR 7/6) with some

Pres. H. 0.027, pres. W. 0.064, est. Diam. of base 0.020, Th.

very coarse lime (up to 3mm.), a few medium quartz, a few

0.009.

fine mica and many voids. Rough feel. White slip and matt,

Fairly hard, fine, dull orange fabric (5 YR 7/4) with a few

pale green glaze (PMS 77 C) on the inside. In: incised spiral

medium lime. Smooth feel. White slip in and out. Pitted,

(?) off the centre and grooved circle at centre. Thick ring

ochre-yellow glaze (2.5 Y 8/8) on the inside; drips of glaze

foot with flat resting surface and flat underside; straight

on the outside. In: gouged decoration of lines (?). Ring foot

divergent lower wall.

with flat resting surface; convex divergent lower wall.

Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Corinth (Ware 17).

Incised Sgraffito Ware (Ware 15). ,3.1 Bowl, base fragment (93 2 gs.3.1). Fig. 6.26: W17.1. Pres. H. 0.029, pres. W. 0.084, est. Diam. of base 0.075, Th. 0.012. Fairly hard, medium fine, orange fabric (5 YR 7/6) with a few coarse lime (up to 2 mm.), a few fine mica and some

Site no. 19: PALAIOMAZI (fig. 5.18) Site location: Vagia sheet 23°, 3.15 min. E.; 38°, 20.5 min. N. Site size: medium. Site function: RUR. Year of sampling: 1982. Sample: grab sample. Total of sampled sherds: 201.

voids. Smooth feel. White slip and matt, pale green glaze (PMS 377 C) on the inside. In: incised spiral at centre. Ring foot with flat resting surface and flat underside. Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Corinth (Ware 17). ,3.2 Bowl, base fragment (93 2 gs. 1.15). Fig. 6.26: W17.2. Pres. H. 0.021, pres. W. 0.056, est. Diam. of base 0.053. Soft, medium fine, dull orange fabric (5 YR 7/4) with a few fine lime and a few coarse white quartz inclusions (up to

Site description: Pottery is to be found on a low promontory of the South-Eastern slope of Mount Goulas (665 m.), halfway along the modern road which runs from Mazi to Evangilistria, where it forms a quite steep and narrow plateau above the gorge of a river which is known as ‘Palaiomazi’ on 19th century maps. The lower end of the site is marked by a spring on the South side of the modern road. On the North side of the road, just

115

opposite the well, many ruined structures are to be seen in the maquis. As this area has little farming, sherd visibility is hampered by the lack of ploughing and by maquis, but occasional erosion gullies yield scatters of multi-period pottery. Most of the sample was recovered from a profile recently formed in the course of roadconstruction. The toponym ‘Palaiomazi’ is perhaps related to the modern village of Mazi. The name ‘Mazi’ occurs in the Ottoman tax registers from 1466 AD until 1570 AD, but it is unclear yet whether this is the site ‘Palaiomazi’ or the modern village Mazi (Kiel & Bintliff et al., unpublished gazetteer for Ottoman Boeotia). The British traveller J.C. Hobhouse mentioned ‘Mazee’ as a ‘poor village in the hills’, inhabited by Albanian peasants. It contained 50 huts, ‘which hold much more than the usual proportion of inhabitants, about 500’ (Hobhouse 1813, 272). His contemporary and fellow countryman, William Leake described Mazi as ‘a small village on the foot of a remarkable peaked hill’, from where the road continued ‘Southward to Mavromati and Erimokastro’; according to him the Maziotes ‘chiefly cultivate kalambokki [maize] in the plain, and vineyards on the hills around the village’ (Leake 1835, 206). Palaiomazi was marked as a settlement on the Carte de la Grèce of 1852 AD and as an toponym on a Greek map of about 1933 AD (Stedman 1996, 182). The reasons for the desertion of the site are unknown, although local tradition maintains that the Turks wished to build a ‘castle’ here and removed the inhabitants to the present village of Mazi (Stedman 1996, 182).

Fig. 5.18 Palaiomazi (site 19) (photo: J. Vroom).

Monochrome Glazed Wares (Ware 29). 1 Painted Ware (Ware 31). 3 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 38). Catalogue: ,4., Dish, rim fragment (82 PMA 2.51). Fig. 6.24: W15.7. Soft, fine, orange fabric (5 YR 6/8) with a few fine lime inclusions and some medium voids. Smooth feel. White slip and a bit crazed, pale yellow glaze (5 Y 8/3) on the inside and on the upper outside. In: incised decoration of freestyle stylised motifs. Straight rim with round lip; convex divergent upper part. Incised Sgraffito Ware (Ware 15). Cf. Morgan 1942, pl. 51f + h and Armstrong 1996b, pl. 84, no. 79 for similar decoration. ,4.- Dish, base fragment (82 PMA 2.58). Fig. 6.30: W26.6.

Site chronology: LR; MBYZ; LBYZ/FR; T. Diagnostic finds: lr: 2 LR 2 amphora (Ware 3). 2 Unglazed Beehives (Ware 4). mbyz: 1 Unglazed Incised Ware (Ware 6). 1 Plain Glazed Ware (Ware 7). 1 Slip-painted Ware (Ware 9). 2 Green and Brown Painted Ware (Ware 10). 10 Günsenin 3/Saraçhane 61 amphora (Ware 12). 5 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 14). 6 Incised Sgraffito Ware/Champlevé Ware (Ware 15). lbyz/fr: 5 Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Corinth (Ware 17). t: 1 Polychrome Sgraffito Ware from Italy (Ware 25). 2 Brown and Green Sgraffito Wares (Ware 26). 2 Maiolica from Greece (Ware 28). 3

116

Moderately soft, fine, orange-red fabric (2.5 YR 6/8) with a few fine lime inclusions and a few medium voids. Smooth feel. White slip and a shiny pale grey glaze (7.5 Y 8/2) on the inside; a drop of glaze on the outside. In: incised decoration of spirals, highlighted with a green splash (PMS 349 C), and a tripod stilt mark near the centre. Ring foot with flat resting surface; convex divergent lower part. Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware (Ware 26). Cf. Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1999, 97, no. 112, dated ca. 15th -16th centuries.

Site no. 20: PP,1 / PALAEOPANAGHIA ,1 (fig. 5.19) Site location: Vagia sheet 23°, 7.25 min. E.; 38°, 18.15 min. N. Site size: medium. Site function: RUR/SP. Years

emod:

Fig. 5.19 PP16: church (site 20) (photo: J. Vroom).

of sampling: 1984, 1991. Sample: intensive survey. Total of sampled sherds: 880. Site description: A very dense and reasonably intensive scatter of pottery is to be found around (and especially on the South-Eastern side of) the rebuilt church of Agios Georgios, which marks the junction of the road from Thespiae to Neochori in the South-West and to Askri in the North. The large modern church was built over the remains of a small ruined church. The site is on the fertile lands which stretch over the low hills between Askra and Thespiae. The pottery was sampled in a cotton field and a vineyard next to the church, but perhaps the scatter stretches further into the stubble field to the North. Site chronology: (LR); MBYZ; LBYZ/FR; EMOD. Diagnostic finds: lr: 1 LR 2 amphora (Ware 3). 1 Unglazed Beehive (Ware 4). mbyz: 2 Fine Orange-Red Burnished Ware (Ware 5). 6 Unglazed Incised Ware (Ware 6). 1 Plain Glazed Ware in red fabric (Ware 7; see fig. 6.5: W7.6). 15 Slip-painted Ware (Ware 9). 9 Green and Brown Painted Ware (Ware 10). 20 Fine Sgraffito Ware (Ware 11). 35 Günsenin 3/Saraçhane 61 amphora (Ware 12; see fig. 6.7: W12.3 and W12.5). 1 ‘Otranto 1’ amphora (Ware 13). 20 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 14). 31 Incised Sgraffito Ware/Champlevé Ware (Ware 15; see fig. 6.42: W15.13). Fingergrooved tiles. lbyz/fr: 3 Zeuxippus Ware (Ware 16). 1 Monochrome

Sgraffito Ware from Corinth (Ware 17). 1 Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Thessaloniki (Ware 18). 2 Monochrome Sgraffito Wares (Ware 19). 5 Painted Ware from Grottaglie (Ware 40). 1 Slip-painted Ware from Crete (Ware 42). 1 Polychrome Painted Terracotta from the Eastern Aegean (Ware 44). 5 Glaze Painted Ware (Ware 46). 6 Modern plates.

Site no. 21: PARALIMNI (fig. 5.20) Site location: Thivai sheet 23° 23,50 min. E.; 38° 28,80 min. N. Site size: medium. Function of site: TOW. Years of sampling: 1983, 1993. Sample: grab sample. Total of sampled sherds: 362. Site description: A fairly dense scatter of pottery can be found on a boat-shaped promontory, which rises just West of the North-Eastern tip of the modern Lake Paralimni and is marked by a Medieval tower.This tower still stands to a height of six metres, but contains a wellpreserved basement vault (see Lock 1986, 119 for more information on the tower). Visibility on the site is particularly bad because of the thick maquis, but still pottery can be found all over the hill and some material also on the lower land around. The tower site is visible from the main road LoukisiaAnthedon, and is adjacent to the natural road which runs between the Northern coast and the Eastern end of Lake Paralimni. In the Middle Ages it probably overlooked arable lands which are now drowned in the lake. It is certain that at least in Prehistoric and Classical times the water level of lake was substantially lower. A ‘Byzantine’ settlement was revealed by a temporary lowering of the water-level of the lake in the 1970s. The setllement included remains of a church, and was apparently found below the tower (Spiropoulos 1973, 265-66; Sampson 1973-74, 448). Site chronology: (MBYZ); (LBYZ-FR); T. Diagnostic finds: mbyz: 1 Plain Glazed Ware (Ware 7). 1 Günsenin 3/Saraçhane 61 amphora (Ware 12). 1 Unglazed Domestic Ware (Ware 14). lbyz/fr: 1 Monochrome Sgraffito Ware (Ware 19). t: 1 Slip-painted Ware (Ware 30). 2 Monochrome

117

Fig. 5.20 Paralimni: tower (site 21) (photo: J. Vroom).

Glazed Wares (Ware 29). 8 Painted Ware (Ware 31). 1 Polychrome Marbled Ware (Ware 34; cf. fig. 6.45, W34.1). 3 Unglazed Domestic wares (Ware 38).

Site no. 22: RHADON (fig. 5.21) Site location: Livanatai sheet 23° 04,40 min. E.; 38° 31,00 min. N. Site size: medium. Site function: RUR/SP. Years of sampling: 1992, 1994. Sample: grab sample. Total of sampled sherds: 414. Site description: A thin to medium dense (and probably not large) scatter of pottery is to be found on the slopes of a ridge which rises halfway on the South side of the Rhadokambos valley, not far from the modern village of Pavlo. The site is marked by two little churches which stand next to each other. The pottery is to be found where ploughing has improved the poor visibility. The Rhadokambos Valley once formed an easy route for travellers who preferred to travel over the hills and not along the borders of Kopais Lake, which were very wet in Ottoman times. According to Bintliff, the site is named after the Albanian village ‘Rado Golemi’, which first appears in the Ottoman tax registers in 1466 AD and survived into the 19th century (more exactly: between 1871 AD and 1879 AD), when the villagers moved to the modern village of Pavlo (Kiel & Bintliff et al., unpublished gazetteer for Ottoman Boeotia).

Fig. 5.21 Rhadon: church (site 22) (photo: J. Vroom).

1 Slip-painted Ware (Ware 9). 1 Fine Sgraffito Ware (Ware 11). 21 Günsenin 3/Saraçhane 61 amphora (Ware 12). 2 Unglazed Domestic Ware. lbyz/fr: 4 ‘Zeuxippus Ware’ Subtypes (Ware 16). 1 Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Thessaloniki (Ware 18). 10 Monochrome Sgraffito Wares (Ware 19). t: 1 Monochrome Sgraffito Wares from Italy (Ware 24). 20 Brown and Green Sgraffito Wares (Ware 26). 3 Maiolica from Greece (Ware 28). 4 Monochrome Glazed Wares (Ware 29). 5 Slip-painted Wares (Ware 30). 3 Painted Ware (Ware 31). 1 Polychrome Marbled Ware (Ware 34). 1 Kütahya Ware (Ware 36). 3 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 38). emod: 2 Slip-painted Ware from Didymoteicho (Ware 41). 1 Slip-painted Ware from Crete (Ware 42). 5 Storage Jars (Ware 44). 1 Glaze Painted Ware (Ware 46). 1 Drip-painted Ware from Marousi (Ware 47). 6 Modern plates. mbyz:

Catalogue: --., Open shape, body fragment (92 Sa 3.32). Fig. 6.24: W15.12. Pres. L. 0.030, Th. 0.009. Soft, fine, orange fabric (5 YR 6/6) with few fine lime and micaceous particles; few fine voids. Sandy feel. White slip and pale yellow (5 Y 8/3) to light yellow glaze (5 Y 7/4) on inside. In: incised animal decoration in bordered tondo. Incised Sgraffito Ware (Ware 15). Cf. for decoration,

Site chronology: (MBYZ); LBYZ/FR; T; EMOD. Diagnostic finds:

118

Armstrong 1991, 337, no. 13, fig. 16, dated late 12th-early 13th century.

--.- Small bowl/cup?, base fragment (92 Sa 58). Fig. 6.27: W19.1.

(PMS 583) and bright yellowish brown (2.5 Y 6/8) splashes.

Pres. H. 0.017, Diam. of base 0.045.

Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware (Ware 26). Cf. for decora-

Soft, fine, orange fabric (7.5 YR 7/6) with few fine lime and

tion, Armstrong 1989, 13, no. 64, pl. 5; 37, no. 13, pl. 11

micaceous particles; few fine voids. Smooth feel. White slip

(painted incised/Post-Byzantine brown and green sgraffito);

and pale yellow glaze (5 Y 8/3) on inside. In: sgraffito

Armstrong 1993, 314, no. 157, fig. 10 (Late Byzantine and

‘medallion’ at centre of base. Small ring foot with flat resting

Early Post-Byzantine). See also Frantz 1942, fig. 26, no. 1,

surfaceand (slightly) central nipple.

group 9, P 2165.

Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Thessaly? (Ware 19). Cf. Korre-Zographou 1995, 41, figs. 64-67 from Tirnavos, Larissa, dated 13th-14th centuries?

--.1 Open shape, body fragment (92 Sa 3.14). Fig. 6.45: W30.6. Pres. L. 0.048, Th. 0.010. Fairly hard, medium fine, dull orange (7.5 YR 7/4) to

--.. Dish?, rim fragment (92 Sa 3.19). Fig. 6.31: W26.10.

orange fabric (7.5 YR 7/6) with some fine to coarse lime (up

Pres. H. 0.029, est. Diam. of rim 0.230.

to 3mm.); few medium voids. Smooth feel. White slip and

Fairly hard, fine, dull orange (5 YR 7/4) to orange fabric (5

olive glaze (5 Y 5/4) on inside. In: pale yellow slip-painted

YR 7/6) with few fine lime and mineral inclusions; few fine

circles (5 Y 8/4).

voids. Smooth feel. White slip and transparent/light grey

Slip-painted Ware (Ware 30). Cf. Vavylopoulou-Chari-

glaze (5 Y 8/2) in and out (under rim). In: sgraffito decora-

tonidou 1981-82, fig. 20; Tsouris 1982, fig. 81a, fig. 80b.

tion, highlighted with green (P 346) and yellow (5 Y 7/8) splashes. Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware from Thessaloniki (Ware

--.2 Closed shape, body fragment (92 Sa 3.104). Fig. 6.38: W36.1. Pres. L. 0.025, Th. 0.003.

26). Cf. for decoration, Frantz 1942, fig. 18, no. 3, group 5,

Moderately soft, fine, light yellow orange fabric (7.5 YR 8/3)

P 9334; Parazas 1979, pl. 136b; Charitonidou 1982, figs. 1-7,

with few fine sand? Sandy feel. Out: red (7.5 R 4/6) and

dated ca. 1650-1750 AD; Petsas 1965, pl. 475a; id. 1967, pl.

dark bluish grey glaze (10 BG 3/1).

295; Vavylopoulou-Charitondiou 1989, 225-26, fig. 56 from

Kütahya Ware (Ware 36), dated 18th century.

Thessaloniki, dated 16th century and Papnikola-Bakirtzis 1999, 250, no. 293 from Thessaloniki, dated late 15th-16th centuries.

--.3 Closed shape, body fragment (94 Sa. 5). Fig. 6.16: W45.1. Pres. L. 0.121, pres. W. 0.151, Th. 0.010-12. Moderately soft, m edium coarse, dull orange (7.5 YR 7/4)

--./ Dish?, base fragment (92 Sa 3.2). Fig. 6.43: W26.13.

to orange-red fabric (2.5 YR 6/6) with brownish grey core

Pres. H. 0.049, est. Diam. of base 0.100.

(7.5 YR 5/1). Some coarse lime inclusions (up to 2mm.),

Soft, medium fine, dull orange fabric (7.5 YR 7/4) with some

many medium black quartz and a few fien micaceous

medium lime and few fine mineral and micaceous particles;

particles. Rough feel. Out: stamped decoration.

few fine voids. Sandy/smooth feel. White slip and light grey

Storage jar (Ware 45).

glaze (5 Y 8/2) on inside. In: sgraffito decoration and green oxide blob (PMS 376 C). Heavy ring foot with flat resting surface and convex divergent lower wall. Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware (Ware 26). Cf. Armstrong 1993, 322, no. 254, fig. 16, dated Late Byzantine to Early Post-Byzantine.

Site no. 23: TATIZA A & D (fig. 5.22) Site location: Vagia sheet 23°, 5.5 min. E.; 38°, 16.25 min. N. Site size: medium. Site function: TOW. Year of sampling: 1983. Sample: grab sample. Total of sampled sherds: 90.

--.0 Open shape, body fragment (92 Sa 3.73). Pres. L. 0.029, Th. 0.005. Moderately soft, medium fine, dull orange fabric (7.5 YR 7/4) with few coarse lime (up to 3mm.). Smooth feel. White slip and transparent/light grey glaze (7.5 YR 8/1) on outside; white slip and bright yellowish brown glaze (2.5 Y 6/6) on inside. Out: sgraffito spirals, highlighted with green

Site description: A small scatter of pottery is to be found on a low, elongated plateau marked by the scanty remains of a Medieval tower (or structure) and two disused early modern army blocks along the Northern side of the old road which runs between Thespiae and the Thisbe basin (cf. the description of site 17 of Megali

119

Rachi; see for more details Stedman 1996, 182; cf. Lock 1986, 121-22 for a description of the tower). To the South there are springs and the remains of a church, as well as the ruins of a deserted village of Ottoman and Early Modern times. The site is now marked on the Vagia sheet of the 1:50.000 map as ‘Pyges’; just opposite on the Southern side of the road stands the modern church of Agia Trias. ‘Byzantine’ sherds have been found earlier at Tatiza (Fossey 1988, 147-48). In the Ottoman tax registers ‘Tatize’ is an Albanian resettlement, and recorded from 1466 AD until 1646 AD (Kiel & Bintliff et al., unpublished gazetteer for Ottoman Boeotia). The written sources mention a village of Tatiza which was abandoned some time during the 18th century. The 17th century traveller George Wheler refers to ‘Tadza’ as a village with ‘some marks of Antiquity; and by it a curious Fountain’ (Wheler 1682, 471). More than a century later, the British traveller Edward Dodwell only saw ‘ruins of a place called Tateza’ (Dodwell 1819, 257). His contempory, Sir William Gell noticed some 10 years later ‘a village or kalybea, Tatiza’ (Gell 1819, 118). Stedman suggests that between Wheler’s visit in 1682 AD and Dodwell’s arrival in 1800 AD Tatiza ‘ceased to be a permanent settlement but continued in use as a temporary summer base for shepherds from the Helikon Hills’ (Stedman 1996, 182). The Carte de la Grèce of 1852 AD shows the location of ‘Tatatu re’ (or ‘fountain’) as an abandoned village (Stedman 1996, 182).

Fig. 5.22 Tatiza (site 23) (photo: J. Vroom).

emod:

Maiolica from Greece (Ware 28). 3 Monochrome Glazed Wares (Ware 29). 1 Slippainted Ware (Ware 30). 4 Painted Ware (Ware 31). 4 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 38). 2 Glaze Painted Ware (Ware 46).

Catalogue: -.., Bowl, base fragment (83 TA D 36). Fig. 6.25: W16.2. Pres. H. 0.023, pres. W. 0.070, est. Diam. of foot 0.055, Th. 0.010. Moderately soft, fine, orange fabric (7.5 YR 7/6) with a few fine lime and quartz inclusions. Smooth feel. White slip and matt ochre-yellow glaze (10 YR 7/6) on the inside. In: three incised circles. Ring foot with flat resting surface and flat underside; convex divergent lower part.

Site chronology: LR; MBYZ; LBYZ/FR; T; (EMOD). Diagnostic finds: lr: 6 LR 2 amphora (Ware 3). 11 Unglazed Beehives (Ware 4). mbyz: 2 Plain Glazed Ware (Ware7). 1 Slip-painted Ware (Ware 9). 1 Fine Sgraffito Ware (Ware 11). 2 Günsenin 3/Saraçhane 61 amphora (Ware 12). 13 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 14). 3 Incised Sgraffito Ware/Champlevé Ware (Ware 15). lbyz/fr: 3 ‘Zeuxippus Ware’ Derivatives (Ware 16). 2 Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Thessaloniki (Ware 18). 5 Monochrome Sgraffito Wares (Ware 19). t: 3 Monochrome Sgraffito Wares from Italy (Ware 24). 4 Brown and Green Sgraffito Wares (Ware 26). 1 Maiolica from Italy (Ware 27). 2

120

‘Zeuxippus Ware’ Subtype (Ware 16). -..- Dish, base fragment (83 TA A 23). Fig. 6.31: W26.7. Pres. H. 0.020, pres. W. 0.055, est. Diam. of foot 0.080,TH. 0.009. Moderately soft, fine, dull orange fabric (7.5 YR 7/4) with some medium lime and a few fine micaceous particles. Smooth feel. White slip and a matt pale glaze on the inside. In: incised decoration of circles, highlighted with ochre (2.5 Y 6/6) and green splashes (PMS 362 C). Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware (Ware 26).

Site no. 24: THESPIAE ANCIENT CITY (figs. 5.23-24) Site location: Vagia sheet 23°, 9.5 min. E.; 38°, 18 min. N. Site size: large. Site function: CITY/SP. Years of sampling: 1980; 1985; 1986. Sample: intensive survey.

Total of sampled sherds: 14,346 (for all periods from Prehistory to Modern). Site description: An abundance of pottery is to be found on the major multiperiod site which stretches from the connected hills with the modern villages of Thespiae and Leondari Southwards over a wide area below on either side of the Karavares-stream. The site occupies a ferile and well-connected position on gently rolling lands with plentiful water between Mount Helicon and Thebes. Post-Roman sherds were found in the Eastern part of the large ancient site, mainly outside the Late Roman kastrofortified walls (see also Koder & Hild 1976, 275; Bintliff 1996, 111-12). Late Roman coins and ‘Byzantine’ sherds were also found at a ‘cemetery’ near the three-aisled church of Agios Athanasios. During the Middle Ages the site was called ‘casale Hermocastrum’ (or ‘deserted castle’) in a charter of 1212 AD. The Latin toponym refers to the architectural remains of Late Roman Thespiae, and the date to the time when the place was granted to the Premonstratensians at Brindisi (Koder & Hild 1976, 275, note 8; see also Stedman 1996, 182). The site is still known as ‘Erimocastro’ on 20th century maps (A. Dunn, unpublished Byzantine gazetteer for Boeotia). The absence of any mention of the name in the Ottoman tax registers of the 15th and 16th centuries is striking, and must perhaps be related to the location of a small Albanian village of 15 households in 1466 AD in the hills above the ancient site, called ‘Kobila’ or ‘Zogra Kobili/Zagra Kubli’ in the Ottoman registers (also known as ‘Kobella/Kaskaveli’, which became the modern village of Leondari) (Kiel & Bintliff et al., unpublished gazetteer for Ottoman Boeotia; Bintliff 1996, 111-12). The Medieval name ‘Erimokastro’ reappeares again in the 17th century in the Ottoman archives (in the lists of 1642 AD until 1655 AD), as well as in the travellers’accounts (Magni 1688, 84; Wheler 1682, 470). The traveller George Wheler described ‘Rimocastri’ in 1682 AD as three ‘little knots of houses’, two on the brow of the hill and one on the plain below. All three villages consisted of ‘about a hundred cottages of Greeks and Albaneses’ (Wheler 1682, 470). The British traveller Wiliam Leake mentioned the disappearance of the lower village in the plain, which he called ‘Lefka’, in the mid 19th century. He noted then five or six ruined churches and some deserted, ruined cottages (Leake 1835, 479). His contemporary, the French traveller Eugène Yemeniz also recorded only the two higher villages on the hill (the

Fig. 5.23 Thespiae (site 24) (photo: J. Vroom).

modern vilages of Thespiae and Leondari) as a ‘chateau solitaire’ (Yemeniz 1845, 272 and 274). Site chronology: LR; MBYZ; (T); (EMOD). Diagnostic finds: lr: 9 Askra Ware (Ware 1). 15 LR 2 amphora (Ware 3). 79 Unglazed Beehives (Ware 4). mbyz: 7 Plain Glazed Ware in red fabric (Ware 7). 1 Plain Glazed Ware in white fabric/Glazed White Ware II (Ware 8). 1 Fine Sgraffito Ware (Ware 11). 13 Günsenin 3/Saraçhane 61 amphora (Ware 12). 1 Incised Sgraffito Ware/Champlevé Ware (Ware 15). t: 1 Tobacco Pipe (Ware 37). emod: 2 Painted Ware from Grottaglie (Ware 40). Catalogue: -/., Chafing dish, rim fragment (85 Tr 2020.2). Fig. 6.5: W7.1. Pres. H. 0.042, pres. W. 0.049, est. Diam. of rim 0.165, Th. 0.010-13. Soft, medium fine, light brownish grey fabric (5 YR 7/2) with some coarse lime (up to 2mm.) and a few fine mica. Rough feel. Degraded transparent glaze on the inside, becoming greyish olive (5 Y 5/3) on the clay after firing. Out: six incised stripes under the rim. Slightly everted, plain rim with round lip and flange on the inside to receive a lid; convex divergent double wall. Plain Glazed Ware (Ware 7). Cf. for shape, Sanders 1995, fig. 2, no. 7 (form I), dated (late 9th)-early 10th century. -/.- Chafing dish, rim fragment (86 Tr 275.1). Fig. 6.5: W7.4. Pres. H. 0.041, pres. W. 0.058, est. Diam. of rim 0.240, Th. 0.008-9.

121

Moderately soft, medium fine, dull orange fabric (5 YR 6/4) with some fine lime, a few medium quartz inclusions and some voids. Rough feel. White slip on the inside and just under the rim on the outside. Degraded transparent glaze with impurities on the inside, becoming olive yellow (5 Y 6/4) on the clay after firing. Slightly everted, plain rim with round lip and flange on the inside to receive a lid; straight divergent upper wall. Plain Glazed Ware (Ware 7). -/.. Chafing dish, rim fragment (85 Tr 2018.1). Fig. 6.5: W7.5. Pres. H. 0.062, pres. W. 0.073, est. Diam. of rim 0.190, Th. 0.010.

Fig. 5.24 Engraving of Thespiae, ca. 1805 AD (after Dodwell

Fairly hard, medium coarse, dull orange fabric (7.5 YR 7/3)

1834).

with some medium lime, a few fine quartz, some medium organics and some voids. Rough feel. Transparent glaze

-/.1 Cup, rim fragment (85 Tr 103.2). Figs. 6.6 and 6.40: W8.1.

with impurities on the inside, becoming olive-brown (2.5 Y

Pres. H. 0.040, pres. W. 0.039, est. Diam. of rim 0.120, Th.

4/4) on the clay after firing. Slightly everted, plain rim with

0.008.

round lip and flange on the inside to receive a lid; straight

Soft, medium fine, light brownish grey (7.5 YR 7/3) with a

divergent upper wall.

few fine lime and sand inclusions. Smooth feel. Olive-yellow

Plain Glazed Ware (Ware 7). Cf. for shape, Felten 1975, fig.

glaze (5 Y 6/6 to 7/6) on the in- and outside. Out: stamped

19 (2nd row, left), dated 10th-early 11th century.

decoration. Thin, everted rim with a knick under the rim; convex divergent wall.

-/./ Chafing dish, rim fragment (85 Tr 2013.4). Fig. 6.6: W7.11.

Glazed White Ware II (Ware 8). The shape has similarities

Pres. H. 0.044, pres. W. 0.059, est. Diam.of rim 0.250, Th.

with Sanders 1995, 134, fig. 25, no. 140 (form I), dated

0.008.

(10th)-11th century.

Soft, medium fine, orange fabric (5 YR 6/6) with many coarse lime (up to 2 mm.) and many voids. Powdery feel.

-/.2 Tobacco pipe (85 Th.Sa.6523). Fig. 6.38 and 6.46: W37.1.

Transparent glaze on the inside, becoming dull reddish

Pres. H. 0.026, pres. W. 0.035.

brown (5 YR 5/3) on the clay after firing. Everted, plain rim

Burnt fabric.

with round lip and flange on the inside to receive a lid; straight divergent upper wall.

-/.3 Open shape, rim fragment (86 Tr 143.7).

Plain Glazed Ware (Ware 7). Cf. for shape, Morgan 1942,

Pres. H. 0.009, pres. W. 0.048, est. Diam. of rim 0.250, Th.

fig. 24, dated mid to late 11th century.

0.007. Fairly hard, fine, light yellow orange fabric (7.5 YR 8/3) with

-/.0 Chafing dish, base fragment (85 Tr 1018.10). Fig. 6.6: W7.12.

a few fine lime and black quartz inclusions. Smooth feel.

Pres. H. 0.034, pres. W. 0.082, est. Diam. of base 0.135, Th.

White slip and glaze on the inside. On interior rim: painted

0.009-12.

decoration of two flowers in blue (PMS 2178) and two

Soft, medium coarse, orange fabric (5 YR 6/6) with some

brown-red stripes (2.5 YR 4/2). Everted flattened rim.

fine lime, a few fine mica, some medium organics and some

Painted Ware from Grottaglie and/or Corfu (Ware 39).

voids. Rough feel. Transparent glaze on the inside (and

.

some splashes on the outside), becoming dull reddish

-/.4 Basin, rim fragment (85 Th.Tr.7.1). Fig. 6.39: W42.1.

brown (5 YR 4/4) on the clay after firing. Flat base with

Pres. H. 0.060, pres. W. 0.110, est. Diam. of rim 0.360, Th.

concave transition; straight divergent lower wall.

0.011.

Plain Glazed Ware (Ware 7). Cf. in general, Morgan 1942,

Fairly hard, medium fine, orange fabric (5 YR 6/6) with

fig. 24, dated 10th-11th century?

some fine lime and a few voids. Smooth fdeel. Glassy transparent glaze in and out (on rim), becoming brown (10 YR

122

4/6) on fabric. In: slip-painted decoration. Everted double

(7.5 YR 3/2) on a creamish slip (10 YR 8/3). Everted

rim with straight divergent upper wall.

thickened rim; straight divergent upper wall.

Slip-painted Ware from Crete, Chalkis or Thasos (Ware 42).

Glaze Painted Ware (Ware 46).

Site no. 25: THESPIAE B1 Site location: Vagia sheet 23°, 9.5 min. E.; 38°, 18 min. N. Site size: small. Site function: RUR. Year of sampling: 1989. Sample: intensive survey. Total of sampled sherds: 21.

Site no. 26: THESPIAE SOUTH ,/ Site location: Vagia sheet 23°, 9.5 min. E.; 38°, 18 min. N. Site size: small. Site function: RUR. Year of sampling: 1989. Sampling: intensive survey. Total of sampled sherds: 326.

Site description: A very small scatter of ceramics can be found on a plateau of fertile land halfway between the modern villages of Thespiae and Mavromati, ca. 200 metres West of the road that links them.

Site description: A very large and dense scatter of pottery is to be found some two kilometres South of the major site of the ancient city of Thespiae, on a low hill circa 125 metres North of the main track which runs East-West above the Askra river, and 250 metres West of the track which runs North along the West side of Rachi Vavaras. The area is characterised by fertile lowland still under cultivation, on which numerous large (mostly Roman) sites are to be found.

Site chronology: (T); EMOD. Diagnostic finds: t: 1 Unglazed Domestic Ware (Ware 38). emod: 4 Painted Ware from Grottaglie (Ware 40). 2 Slip-painted Ware from Didymoteicho (Ware 41). 3 Glazed Domestic Ware from Siphnos (Ware 43). 2 Glaze Painted Ware (Ware 46). 6 Modern plates. Catalogue: -0., Plate, rim fragment (93 Th B6.gs.17). Fig. 6.15: W40.3. Pres. H. 0.032, pres. W. 0.044, est. Diam rim 0.300, Th. 0.006-9. Fairly hard, fine, light yellow orange fabric (10 YR 8/3) with a few fine lime and sand inclusions. Smooth feel. White slip

Site chronology: LR; MBYZ. Diagnostic finds: lr: 1 Unglazed Ware (Ware 2). 1 LR 2 amphora (Ware 3). 4 Unglazed Beehives (Ware 4). mbyz: 3 Fine Orange-red Burnished Ware (Ware 5). 12 Unglazed Incised Ware (Ware 6). 11 Plain Glazed Ware (Ware 7). 3 Günsenin 3/Saraçhane 61 amphora (Ware 12). 6 ‘Otranto 1’ amphora (Ware 13). 4 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 14).

and transparent shiny glaze all over. On interior rim: painted decoration of lines in yellowish brown (10 YR 5/8)

Catalogue:

and in pale blue (PMS 543 C). Slightly everted plain rim

-1., Chafing dish, rim fragment. Fig. 6.6: W7.14.

with round lip; straight divergent wall; flat bottom?

Pres. H. 0.039, est. Diam. rim 0.140.

Painted Ware from Grottaglie (Ware 40).

Soft, medium coarse, orange (5 YR 6/6) to light red fabric (2.5 YR 6/6) with many medium limestone inclusions, some

-0.- Plate or dish?, rim fragment (93 Th B6.gs.2). Figs. 6.39 and

medium flint and a few fine red and black iron particles.

6.47: W46.1.

Rough feel. Wet-smoothing? on the outside. Everted, plain

Pres. H. 0.025, pres. W. 0.130, est. Diam rim 0.260, Th.

rim with concave divergent upper wall.

0.008-11.

Plain Glazed Ware (Ware 7) , dated 10th century. Cf.

Fairly hard, medium fine, red fabric (10 YR 5/6 and 6/6)

Sanders 1995.

with some medium lime and sand inclusions and some voids. Smooth feel. Transparent glaze on the in-and outside

-1.- Chafing dish, rim fragment. Fig. 6.6: W7.13.

(under the rim), becoming reddish brown (2.5 YR 4/4) on

Pres. H. 0.035, est. Diam. rim 0.230.

the clay after firing. On interior rim: painted decoration of

Moderately soft, medium fine, orange fabric (5 YR 6/6) with

abstract motifs in green (PMS 3415 C) and brownish black

some medium limestone inclusions, a few medium flint and

123

a few fine black iron particles. Smooth feel. Pitted, trans-

7/6) with some coarse grog (up to 2 mm.), many medium

parent glaze on the inside, wich becomes yellowish brown

limestone, some coarse flint (up to 2 mm.) and some

(10 YR 5/6 to 2.5 Y 5/6) on the clay after firing. Slightly

medium micaceous particles. Rough feel. Flat base with

everted, plain rim with straight, divergent upper wall.

rounded transition and convex divergent lower wall.

Plain Glazed Ware (Ware 7). Mid-late 11th century.

Unglazed Domestic Ware (Ware 14).

-1.. Amphora, rim fragment. Fig. 6.8: W13.1. Pres. H. 0.045, est. Diam. rim 0.090. Fairly hard, medium fine, light yellow orange fabric (10 YR 8/3) with many coarse limestone inclusions (up to 4 mm.), a few fine flint and some medium voids. Pale reddish orange to pinkish core (2.5 YR 7/4 to 5 YR 7/4). Chalky feel. Wet-

Site no. 27: UPPER HALIARTOS , / UH , (fig. 5.25) Site location: Vagia sheet 23°, 7 min. E.; 35°, 21.10 min. N. Site size: small. Site function: RUR/SP. Years of sampling: 1980, 1984, 1985, 1991, 1997. Sample: intensive survey. Total sampled sherds: 480.

smoothed on the outside. Slightly everted, thickened rim with heavy, oval handle and straight divergent upper wall. ‘Otranto 1’ amphora (Ware 13). -1./ Amphora , two body fragments. Figs. 6.8 and 6.42: W13.2-3. Pres. L., Th. of wall Fairly hard, medium fine, light yellow orange fabric (10 YR 8/3) with many coarse limestone inclusions (up to 4 mm.), a few fine flint and some medium voids. Pale reddish orange to pinkish core (2.5 YR 7/4 to 5 YR 7/4). Chalky feel. Wet-

Site description: A fairly small but dense scatter of ceramics can be found beside the road between the modern village of Haliartos and that of Askra, just North of the monastery of Agios Georgios on a North-Eastern spur of Mount Kondra. The site occupies the fertile fields South and West of the little church of Agios Paraskevi, near the large site of Charmena (site 5). A ruined church in the rocks opposite the site might relate to the modern village.

smoothed on the outside. Incised decoration and slightly grooved on the outside. ‘Otranto 1’ amphora (Ware 13). -1.0 Amphora , base fragment. Fig. 6.8: W13.4. Pres. H. 0.041, est. Diam. base 0.130. Fairly hard, medium fine, light yellow orange fabric (10 YR 8/3) with many coarse limestone inclusions (up to 4 mm.), a few fine quartz and some medium voids. Pale reddish orange to pinkish core (2.5 YR 7/4 to 5 YR 7/4). Chalky feel. Wet-smoothed on the outside. Flat base with rounded transition and straight divergent lower wall. ‘Otranto 1’ amphora (Ware 13). -1.1 Jug, body fragment. Fig. 6.4: W6.6. Pres. L.; Th. of wall Soft, fine, dull orange (5 YR 7/3) to orange fabric (5 YR 6/6 to 7/6) with many, medium limestone inclusions and a few fine flint. Smooth feel. Dull orange self-slip (5 YR 7/3) on the outside. Incised decoration of scribbles on the outside. Unglazed Incised Ware (Ware 6). -1.2 Storage jar, base fragment. Pres. H., est. Diam. of base 0.200. Soft, coarse, orange-red (2.5 YR 6/6) to orange fabric (5 YR

124

Site chronology: LR; MBYZ; LBYZ/FR; T; (EMOD). Diagnostic finds: lr: 1 Red Slip Ware (Ware 1). 1 Unglazed ware (Ware 2). 2 LR 2 amphora (Ware 3). 3 Unglazed Beehives (Ware 4). mbyz: 2 Unglazed Incised Ware (Ware 6). 3 Plain Glazed Ware (Ware 7). 9 Slip-painted Ware (Ware 9). 11 Green and Brown Painted Ware (Ware 10). 1 Fine Sgraffito Ware (Ware 11). 17 Günsenin 3/Saraçhane 61 amphora (Ware 12). 1 ‘Otranto 1’ amphora (Ware 13). 11 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 14). 13 Incised Sgraffito Ware/Champlevé Ware (Ware 15). lbyz/fr: 1 Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Thessaloniki (Ware 18). 2 Monochrome Sgraffito Wares (Ware 19). 2 Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware (Ware 20). 1 Polychrome Lead-glazed Ware type ‘RMR’ (Ware 22; see fig. 6.43: W22.2). t: 2 Monochrome Sgraffito Wares from Italy (Ware 24). 1 Maiolica from Italy (Ware 27). 1 Monochrome Glazed Ware (Ware 29). 1 Painted Ware (Ware 31). 3 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 38).

with his description of the site as ‘an old Ruined Tower, with the remains of a Town about it, seated upon a high point of a Rock, part of some Hill called now only Panagia’ (Wheler 1682, 476). One and a half century later, his fellow countryman William Leake noticed that one could still see the remains of churches and houses at the foot of the site-hill (Leake 1835, 489). Friedriech Sauerwein notes that in 1836 AD the new location of the settlement was called ‘Palaeopanagia’, in 1953 it was renamed ‘Panagia’ and in 1971 finally ‘Akraia/Askri’ (Kiel & Bintliff et al., unpublished gazetteer for Ottoman Boeotia). Fig. 5.25 Upper Haliartos 1: church (site 27) (photo: J. Vroom).

emod:

1 Polychrome Painted Terracotta from the Eastern Aegean (Ware 44). 1 Modern base with mark (= Güntersfild).

Site no. 28: VM/ / VALLEY OF THE MUSES / (figs. 5.26-28) Site location: Vagia sheet 23° 05,80 min. E.; 38° 19,15 min. N. Site size: large. Site function: TOW. Years of sampling: 1982; 1995; 1996. Sample: intensive survey. Total of sampled sherds: 1050. Site description: A substantial scatter of pottery as well as architectural remains are to be found on the multiperiod site on the South-Eastern slope of a low hill on the Northern rim of the Valley of the Muses, circa 1,5 kilometres West of the modern village of Askra, which is marked by the remains of a tower from the Frankish period (which rise to a maximum height of seven metres; see Lock 1986, 118 for a description of the tower; cf. for Post-Roman finds from the site Vroom 1998a; 1999a; see figs. 5.27-28). Other finds of pottery include prehistoric and Classical/Hellenistic as well as Roman wares. The site was recorded as ‘Panaya’ in the Ottoman tax registers from 1466 AD until 1646 AD, and it had two monasteries and ten mills attached to it. It had a population boom of 220 households (or circa 1075 persons) in 1570 AD. In the 1646 AD list, however, the number was reduced to 43 households (Kiel & Bintliff et al., unpublished gazetteer for Ottoman Boeotia; see also Stedman 1996, 183). The British traveller George Wheler testified in the 17th century of the abandonment of the settlement

Site chronology: LR; MBYZ; LBYZ/FR; T; (EMOD). Diagnostic finds: lr: 1 Red Slip Ware (Ware 1). 5 Unglazed Beehives (Ware 4). mbyz: 2 Green and Brown Painted Ware (Ware 10). 49 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 14). 2 Incised Sgraffito Ware/Champlevé Ware (Ware 15). lbyz/fr: 3 ‘Zeuxippus Ware’ Subtypes (Ware 16). 3 Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Thessaloniki (Ware 18). 8 Monochrome Glazed Wares (Ware 19). 1 Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware (Ware 20). 1 Polychrome Lead-glazed Ware type ‘RMR’ (Ware 22). t: 43 Monochrome Sgraffito Wares from Italy (Ware 24). 10 Polychrome Sgraffito Wares from Italy (Ware 25). 44 Brown and Green Sgraffito Wares (Ware 26). 29 Maiolica from Italy (Ware 27). 18 Maiolica from Greece (Ware 28). 29 Monochrome Glazed Wares (Ware 29). 2 Slip-painted Wares (Ware 30). 17 Painted Ware (Ware 31). 1 Iznik Ware (Ware 32). 25 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 38). emod: 1 Glaze Painted Ware (Ware 46). extra: 1 kiln furniture with glassy residues on top (see fig. 9.1); 1 Medieval tile fragment with a Nine Men’s Morris Game incised on the interior (fig. 6.47; cf. for a detailed discussion of this last piece, Vroom 1999a). Catalogue: -3., Bowl, base fragment. Fig. 6.27: W20.1. (see Vroom 1998a, no. 3.1). Pres. H. 0.024 est. Diam. of base 0.060

125

Fig. 5.26 VM4: tower (site 28) (photo: J. Vroom).

Fig. 5.27 VM4: interior chimney of tower (photo: J. Vroom).

Moderately soft, fine, dull orange (2.5 YR 6/4) to dull

1992, fig. 5, no. 1991-14:3 from Corinth, dated late 13th-

reddish orange fabric (10 R 6/6) with a few fine lime and a

early 14th centuries and id. 1995, fig. 5, no. 29b from

few medium black mica; some medium voids. Smooth feel.

Corinth, dated end 13th-early 14th centuries.

Dull orange wash (7.5 YR 7/4) on the outside. White slip and pale glaze (PMS 580 C) on the inside. In: incised decoration, highlighted with brown (7.5 YR 4/6) and green

-3./ Amphora, rim-handle fragment. Fig. 6.10: W14.22 (see Vroom 1998a, no. 10.2).

splashes (PMS 5763 C). Ring foot with flat resting surface

Pres. H. 0.026, est. Diam. of rim 0.080.

and concave underside.

Same ware as no. ,+.,. Slightly everted rim with straight

Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware (Ware 20). Cf. for decora-

symmetrical neck and an oval handle.

tion, Makropoulou 1985, 267, fig. 3d, dated 1st half of 14th

Unglazed Domestic Ware (Ware 14 or 23?).

century; François 1993, 322-24, fig. 7 left below, dated 14th century; Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1999, 200-201, nos. 227-28 from Thessaloniki, dated late 13th-14th centuries.

-3.0 Cooking pot, rim fragment. Fig. 6.10: W14.21 (see Vroom 1998a, no. 10.1). Pres. H. 0.028, est. Diam. of rim 0.140.

-3.- Bowl, base fragment. Fig.6.27: W20.2.

Fairly hard, medium fine, dull orange fabric (5 YR 7/3) with

Pres. H. 0.032, est. Diam. of base 0.052.

some medium lime and a few fine black mineral inclusions.

Same ware as -3.,.Ring foot flat resting surface and slightly

Rough feel. Traces of heat: reddish brown (10 R 5/4) to

concave underside; convex divergent lower wall.

brownish grey (10 YR 4/1) on the outside; dull orange (2.5

Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware (Ware 20). Cf. for decora-

YR 6/3) to greyish red (2.5 YR 5.2) on the inside. Everted

tion, Makropoulou 1995, 15, no. 32, pl. 17.32, dtaed mid

rim with straight convergent upper wall.

14th century and Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1999, 210, no. 241,

Unglazed Domestic Ware (Ware 14 or 23?)

dated 14th century. -3.1 Stamped lid fragment. Fig. 6.14: W23.3. (see Vroom -3.. Amphora?, rim fragment. Fig. 6.10: W14.23 (see Vroom

1998a, no. 9.3).

1998a, no. 9.1).

Pres. H. 0.015, est. Diam. of lid 0.140.

Pres. H.0.0 34, est. Diam. of rim 0.080.

Moderately soft, medium coarse, orange fabric (5 YR 7/6)

Moderately soft, fine, orange fabric (5 YR 7/6) with some

with many medium lime and some fine mica; some coarse

fine lime and a few fine micaceous particles; a few fine

voids. Smooth feel. Dull yellow orange wash? (10 YR 7/3) on

voids. Smooth feel. Dull orange/white wash (7.5 YR 7/3)

the outside. Out: stamped circles on top edge. Discoid

in and out. Everted thickened rim and convex divergent

thick-walled lid.

neck.

Unglazed Domestic Ware (Ware 23 or 38?). 14th to 16th

Unglazed Domestic Ware (Ware 14 or 23?) . Cf. for shape,

centuries (or later?)

Sanders 1993, no. 43, fig. 11 from Sparta; Williams & Zervos

126

-3.2 Incised lid fragment. Fig.6.14: W23.6. (see Vroom 1998a,

glaze (2.5 Y 6/8) on the inside and just under rim on the

no. 9.2).

outside. Splashes of white slip and glaze on the outside. In:

Pres. H. 0.016, est. Diam. of lid 0.200.

two horizontal incised lines under rim and incised decora-

Moderately soft, medium fine, orange (5 YR 7/6) to dull

tion. Straight rim with round lip and straight divergent

orange fabric (5 YR 7/4) with some very coarse lime lumps

upper wall.

(up to 3mm.), a few medium black mineral inclusions and

Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Italy (Ware 24). Close to

some fine mica; some coarse voids. Smooth feel. Orange

a similar vessel from Corinth (C-92-26), found in a Turkish

wash? (7.5 YR 7/6) on the inside. Out: incised wavy lines.

context (C.K. Wiliams II, pers. comm.) See also Frantz

Unglazed Domestic Ware (Ware 23?). 14th to 16th centuries

1942, P 21447 (Turkish large glazed bowl with steep sides)

(or later?)

and Bertacchi 1996, 49, no. 102 from Veneto-region, dated 16th century.

-3.3 Bowl, rim fragment. Fig. 6.28: W24.2. (see Vroom 1998a, no. 1.5).

-3.,, Bowl, rim fragment. Fig. 6.28: W24.1. (see Vroom 1998a,

Pres. H. 0.059, est. Diam. of rim 0.180.

no. 1.8).

Moderately soft, fine, orange fabric (5 YR 7/6) with a few

Pres. H. 0.045, est. Diam. of rim 0.175.

fine lime and micaceous particles; a few fine voids. Smooth

Moderately soft, fine, orange fabric (7.5 YR 7/6) with a few

feel. Dull orange-buff wash (7.5 YR 7/3) on the outside.

fine lime and micaceous particles; a few fine voids. Smooth

White slip and olive green glaze (PMS 370 C) on the inside

feel. White slip and dark yellow glaze (5 Y 7/8) in and just

and just under rim on the outside. In: seven horizontal

under rim on the outside; ridges on the outside. In: eight

incised lines and incised decoration underneath. Straight

horizontal incised lines and decoration. Straight rim with

rim with round lip and convex divergent upper wall.

round lip and slightly convex divergent upper wall.

Monochrome Sgraffito ware from Italy (Ware 24). The

Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Italy (Ware 24). Cf.

decoration has some similarities with Armstrong 1993, 328,

Frantz 1942, P 21447; shape has similarity with Bertacchi

no. 315, fig. 18, (dated as a ‘Zeuxippus Derivative’ of the

1977, pl. II, no. 204 from Veneto-region, dated mid 15th

mid 13th century but found during excavations at Thebes

century, and id. nos. 100-102 from Veneto-region, dated

in a mixed deposit from Middle Byzantine to Modern. An

16th century.

exact parallel was found at Corinth (C-90-35) in a mid-14th century context (C.K. Williams II, pers. comm.).

-3.,- Dish, rim fragment. Fig. 6.29: W25.3. (see Vroom 1998a,

-3.4 Bowl ?, base fragment. (see Vroom 1998a, no. 1.6).

Pres. L. 0.046, pres. W. 0.022, est. Diam. of rim 0.220.

no. 4.3). Pres. H. 0.030, est. Diam. of base 0.090.

Fairly hard, fine, orange-red fabric (2.5 YR 6/8) with many

Fairly hard, medium fine, dull orange fabric (7.5 YR 7/4)

fine lime, a few fine mineral and micaceous inclusions.

with a few fine lime and sand inclusions; a few voids.

Smooth feel. White slip and transparent glaze on the inside

Smooth feel. Reddish brown wash (10 R 5/3) on the outside.

and just under the rim on the outside. In: incised decora-

White slip and green glaze (PMS 575 C) on the inside. In:

tion of diagonals, highlighted with yellow splash (2.5 Y 7/8).

incised line and decoration just above the base. Flat base

Polychrome Sgraffito Ware from Italy (Ware 25). Italian (Po

with angular transition and straight divergent lower wall.

Valley, Pisa?), dated 15th to 16th centuries.

Monochrome Sgraffito ware from Italy (Ware 24). Graffita arcaica Padana? Cf. in general, Saccardo 1993, fig. 3, no. 4 for the shape.

-3.,. Open shape, body fragment. Fig. 6.29: W25.4 (see Vroom 1998a, no. 4.4). Pres. L. 0.028, pres. W. 0.037, Th. of wall 0.012-14.

-3.,+ Bowl ?, rim fragment. Fig. 6.28: W24.3. (see Vroom 1998a, no. 1.7).

Moderately soft, fine, orange fabric (5 YR 6/8) with some fine lime and a few fine micaceous particles; a few voids.

Pres. H. 0.047, est. Diam. of rim 0.190.

Smooth feel. Dull orange wash? (7.5 YR 7/4) on the outside.

Moderately soft, fine, dull orange fabric (5 YR 7/4) with a

White slip and pale glaze (10 YR 8/2) on the inside. In:

few fine lime and some fine mineral inclusions; a few fine

incised decoration of large flower?, highlighted with

voids. Smooth feel. White slip and bright yellowish brown

yellowish brown splash (10 YR 7/8 and 6/8). Polychrome

127

Sgraffito Ware from Italy (Ware 25). Italian (Po Valley,

Pres. L. 0.027, pres. W. 0.034, Th. of wall 0.004-6.

Pisa?), dated 15th to 16th centuries.

Same ware as no. /.,. Polychrome Sgraffito Ware (Ware 25). Graffita rinascimen-

-3.,/ Jug, body fragment. Fig. 6.29: W25.7. (see Vroom 1998a,

tale. Cf. in general for decoration, Munarini & Banzato

no. 4.5).

1993, 161-62, no. 71 and 226, no. 176 (Veneto-region,

Pres. L. 0.050, pres. W. 0.037, Th. of wall 0.006.

Padua?).

Moderately soft, fine, orange-red fabric (2.5 YR 6/8) with a few fine lime, sand and micaceous particles. Smooth feel.

-3.,3 Bowl?, body fragment. Fig. 6.29: W25.9. (see Vroom

Glassy transparent glaze on the inside; white slip and pale

1998a, no. 4.6).

glaze on the outside. Out: incised decoration, highlighted

Pres. L. 0.067, pres. W. 0.065, Th. of wall 0.005-8.

with yellowish brown (10 YR 6/8) and green splashes (PMS

Moderately soft, fine, orange-red fabric (5 YR 7/6) with

349 C).

many fine mineral and some fine micaceous particles; some

Polychrome Sgraffito Ware from Italy (Ware 25). Cf.

medium voids. Smooth feel. Orange wash? (7.5 YR 7/6) on

Munarini & Banzato 1993, 164-65, no. 76 (Veneto-

the outside. White slip and transparent/light grey glaze (2.5

region/Padua?), dated late 15th to early 16th centuries.

Y 8/2) on the inside. In: incised decoration of crossedhatched border in dark red (10 R 4/6) with gouge, high-

-3.,0 Dish, rim fragment. (see Vroom 1998a, no. 3.5). Pres. H. 0.026, est. Diam. of rim 0.300.

lighted with green splashes (PMS 348 C). Polychrome Sgraffito Ware from Italy (Ware 25). Graffita

Moderately soft, medium fine, dull orange fabric (7.5 YR

rinascimentale a punta e a stecca. Cf. for similar crossed-

7/4) with a few coarse lime inclusions (up to 4mm.). Smooth

hatched decoration, Megaw 1951, no. B30, fig. 13, dated

feel. White slip in and out (just under rim); pale yellow

mid 16th century; Munarini & Banzato 1993, 280-1, no. 256

glaze (7.5 Y 8/3) on the inside. In: incised lines on rim, high-

(from Veneto-region, Padua?), dated first half of 16th

lighted with green (PMS 576 C) and dull yellow orange (5 Y

century and Von Wartburg 1998, no. 74, fig. 84.

6/3) to brown splashes (PMS 464 C). Flaring rim and convex divergent upper wall.

-3.,4 Bowl?, base fragment. Fig. 6.30: W26.4. (see Vroom

Polychrome Sgraffito Ware from Italy (Ware 25). Graffita

1998a, no. 3.3).

policroma tarda from Pisa? Cf. for shape Nepoti, 84, fig. 27

Pres. H. 0.021, est. Diam. of base 0.072.

and 116, fig. 37, dated 15th century. Fabric and glaze show

Moderately soft, fine, dull orange fabric (7.5 YR 7/4) with a

similarities to Frantz 1942, fig. 26, no. 1, group 9 (P 2165)

few fine grog, lime and mineral inclusions. Smooth feel.

and fig. 28, no. 7, group 9 (P 2150).

White slip in and out. Pale yellow glaze (7.5 Y 8/3) on the inside. In: incised decoration, highlighted with green (PMS

-3.,1 Jug?, body fragment. Fig. 6.29: W25.1. (see Vroom

576 C) and bright yellowish brown splashes (2.5 Y 6/8).

1998a, no. 4.1).

Ring foot with flat resting surface and recessed bottom.

Pres. L. 0.050, pres. W. 0.035, Th. of wall 0.008-9.

Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware (Ware 26). Italian

Moderately soft, fine, orange fabric (5 YR 7/6) with a few

influence? Decoration has some similarity to graffita arcaica

fine sand? Sandy feel. White slip and transparent glaze in

padana? Cf. François 1994, 118, fig. 2, dated mid 15th century.

and out. Out: incised design, heightened with yellow (5 Y 7/8) and green (PMS 376).

-3.-+ Bowl?, base fragment. Fig. 6.30: W26.5. (see Vroom

Polychrome Sgraffito Ware from Italy (Ware 25). Graffita

1998a, no. 3.2).

rinascimentale. Cf. in general, Nepoti 1991 (second half of

Pres. H. 0.034, est. Diam. of base 0.080.

15th century); and for decoration, Munarini & Banzato

Soft, fine, light grey fabric (10 YR 8/2) with a few fine lime

1993, 152, no. 56 (Veneto-region, Padua?), dated at the

and micaceous particles; some fine voids. Sandy feel. White

beginning of the 16th century. See also Hahn 1991, figs. 2-6

slip and pale yellow glaze (5 Y 8/3) on the inside. In: incised

for a local Cretan variant.

decoration, highlighted with olive yellow (5 Y 6/3) and green splashes (PMS 576 C). Ring foot with flat resting

-3.,2 Jug?, body fragment. Fig. 6.29: W25.2. (see Vroom 1998a, no. 4.2).

128

surface and slight central nipple; straight divergent lower wall.

Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware (Ware 26). Italian

75), found in a mixed context (C.K. Williams II, pers.

influence? Late 14th to 15th centuries or later.

comm.).

-3.-, Plate?, rim fragment. Fig. 6.44: W26.16 (see Vroom

-3.-/ Open shape, body fragment. Fig.6.32: W27.7. (see Vroom

1998a, no.3.4).

1998a, no. 5.1).

Pres. H. 0.038, est. Diam. of rim 0.260.

Pres. L. 0.023, pres. W. 0.027, Th. of wall 0.007.

Moderately soft, medium, dull orange fabric (7.5 YR 7/4)

Moderately soft, fine, light grey fabric (7.5 YR 8/2) with a

with a few coarse grog, some very coarse lime (up to 3mm.)

few fine lime and sand. Smooth feel. White ground and

and a few medium white mineral inclusions; some voids.

glossy, tin-glaze in and out. Painted blue decoration (PMS

Smooth feel. White slip and pale green glaze (PMS 5777 C)

281 C) in small patterns (dots and florals) on the inside;

on the inside and just under the rim on the outside. In:

vertical blue stripe on the outside.

incised decoration, highlighted with green splashes (PMS

Maiolica from Italy (Ware 27). Alla porcellana maiolica. Cf. in

349 C) and a bit yellowish brown (2.5 Y 5/6). Everted,

general, Megaw 1951, 225, C51, fig. 25 and Munarini &

flattened rim and convex divergent body.

Banzato 1993, 297-98, nos. 279-81 from Emilia-Romagna

Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware (Ware 26). Italian

area (Faenza?), dated 1500-1550 AD. Cf. Hayes 1992, 265.

influence? Cf. for shape, Nepoti 1991, fig. 17, no. 44, dated 2nd half of 15th century.

-3.-0 Jug, rim fragment (broken off). (see Vroom 1998a, no. 5.5).

-3.-- Open shape, body fragment. Fig. 6.31: W26.8. (see Vroom

Pres. H. 0.040, pres. W. 0.039, Th. of wall 0.007.

1998a, no.3.6).

Moderately soft, fine, light grey fabric (7.5 YR 8/2) with a

Pres. L. 0.048, pres. W. 0.052, Th. of wall 0.007-8.

few fine lime and sand. Smooth feel. White ground in and

Moderately soft, fine, orange fabric (5 YR 7/6) with some

out; glossy, tin-glaze on the outside. Out: painted blue

coarse lime (up to 3mm.) and a few fine mineral inclusions;

ladder design (PMS 280 C).

a few fine voids. Smooth feel. Splash of white slip and dull

Maiolica from Italy (Ware 27). Alla porcellana maiolica? Late

orange wash (5 YR 7/4) on the outside. White slip and pale

15th to 16th centuries.

yellow glaze (7.5 Y 8/3) on the inside. In: incised decoration, highlighted with green circle (PMS 576 C). Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware (Ware 26). Cf. Armstrong

-3.-1 Jug, base fragment. Fig. 6.32: W27.1. (see Vroom 1998a, no. 5.2).

1989, 20, pl. 8, no. 52 (Post-Byzantine). Fabric and glaze

Pres. H. 0.035, est. Diam. of base 0.120.

show similarities to Frantz 1942, fig. 13, no. 5, group 3 (P

Soft, fine, light grey fabric (7.5 YR 8/2) with a few fine lime

2176). See also Charitonidou 1982, 60-64, figs. 1-7, dated as

and sand inclusions. Smooth/chalky feel. White/light

late as 1650-1750 AD.

greyish ground (10 YR 8/1) and tin-glaze on the outside; pale yellow ground (7.5 Y 8/3) on the inside. Out: painted

-3.-. Dish?, rim fragment. Fig. 6.31: W26.11. (see Vroom

blue decoration (PMS 288 U) of ‘ladder design’-ornament?

1998a, no. 3.8).

Disc base with flat underside and (slightly) straight

Pres. L. 0.040, est. Diam. of rim 0.270.

divergent lower wall.

Soft, fine, dull orange fabric (7.5 YR 7/4) with a few fine

Maiolica from Italy (Ware 27). Stile severo maiolica from

lime and sand particles. Smooth feel. White slip in and out.

Faenza?, dated early 16th century. Cf. Hayes 1992, 265.

Olive green glaze (PMS 5763 C) on the outside (just under rim) and light yellow orange glaze (10 YR 8/3 and 2.5 Y 8/3) on the inside. In: four horizontal incised lines and decora-

-3.-2 Jug?, body fragment. Fig. 6.32: W27.3. (see Vroom 1998a, no. 5.4).

tion, highlighted with green (PMS 5763 C) and yellowish

Pres. L. 0.020, pres. W. 0.039, Th. of wall 0.007.

brown (2.5 Y 5/6). Slightly everted rim and straight

Moderately soft, fine, light grey fabric (7.5 YR 8/2) with a

divergent upper wall.

few fine sand? Smooth/chalky feel. White ground in and

Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware (Ware 26). Cf. Waagé

out. Light yellowish glaze on the inside and transparent on

1933, 318-19, fig. 14, no. B; Frantz 1942, fig. 7, group 1,

the outside. Out: painted blue decoration (PMS 295 U) of

no. 4 (P 4921) and a similar fragment at Corinth (C-92-

‘ladder-design’ around a medallion.

129

Maiolica from Italy (Ware 27). Italian blue-and-white

Maiolica from Greece (Ware 28). Cf. for shape, Hahn 1991,

maiolica. Cf. Hahn 1989, 232, fig. 9, no. 12 with references

figs. 1-6 (tail of trefoil-mouth jug).

(fragment of jug with part of ‘ladder-design’ in light blue, dark blue and manganese, dated tolast half 15th to early

-3..- Jug, base fragment. (see Vroom 1998a, no. 6.1).

16th centuries. See also Hahn 1991, 315, cat.no. 1, fig. 1, pl.

Pres. H. 0.050, est. Diam. of base 0.110.

1 (Maiolica jug from Khania, middle and second half 15th century) and Frantz 1942, fig. 5 (Athens). Cf. Z™ bona-Trkman

some very coarse lime lumps (up to 3 mm.) and a few fine

1991, 15, no. 30, dated 16th century.

mineral inclusions; some coarse voids. Smooth feel. White

Fairly hard, medium fine, orange fabric (5 YR 7/6) with

ground and pale yellow glaze (5 Y 8/3) on the outside. Out: -3.-3 Jug?, body fragment. Fig. 6.32: W27.4. (see Vroom

two painted greenish grey stripes (10 G 5/1). Ring foot with

1998a, no. 5.3).

flat resting surface and convex divergent lower wall.

Pres. L. 0.038, pres. W. 0.045, Th. of wall 0.005-6.

Maiolica from Greece (Ware 28).

Soft, fine, light grey fabric (7.5 YR 8/2) with a few fine lime and sand. Chalky feel. Dull yellow orange lead glaze (10 YR 7/3) on the inside. White ground and transparent glaze on

-3... Bowl?, body fragment. Fig. 6.33: W28.5. (see Vroom 1998a, no. 6.3).

the outside. Out: painted blue decoration (PMS 296 U) of

Pres. L. 0.042, pres. W. 0.055, Th. of wall 0.007.

‘ladder-design’ around a medallion.

Moderately soft, fine, dull orange fabric (5 YR 7/4) with a

Maiolica from Italy (Ware 27). See no. -3.-2.

few fine grog and sand particles. Smooth feel. White ground in and out. Speckled yellow glaze (2.5 Y 7/8) on the

-3.-4 Closed shape, body fragment. (see Vroom 1998a, no. 5.6).

outside and pale yellow glaze (2.5 Y 8/3) on the inside. Out:

Pres. L. 0.024, pres. W. 0.030, Th. of wall 0.006.

painted decoration of leaves alternately in reddish brown (5

Moderately soft, fine, light grey fabric (7.5 YR 8/2) with a

YR 4/6) and green (PMS 341 U), and outlined in blue (10

few fine lime and sand inclusions. Smooth/chalky feel.

BG 5/1).

White ground in and out. Transparent glaze on the outside;

Maiolica from Greece (Ware 28). Cf. for similar glaze and

pale yellow glaze (5 Y 8/4) on the inside. Out: painted blue

decoration, Frantz 1942, 20, no. 4 (P 2179), fig. 13, dated

(PMS 534 C) and green (PMS 556 C) decoration.

late 16th to early 17th centuries.

Maiolica from Italy (Ware 27). Italian polychrome maiolica, from Faenza?. Late 15th to early 16th century.

-3../ Jug, body fragment. Fig. 6.33: W 28.4. (see Vroom 1998a, no. 6.4).

-3..+ Closed shape?, body fragment. Fig. 6.32: W27.6. (see

Pres. L. 0.043, pres. W. 0.060, Th. of wall 0.008.

Vroom 1998a, no. 5.7).

Moderately soft, fine, orange fabric (7.5 YR 7/6) with a few

Pres. L. 0.027, pres. W. 0.018, Th. of wall 0.007.

fine lime and sand. Smooth feel. White ground and pale

Moderately soft, fine, light grey fabric (10 YR 8/2) with a

yellow glaze (2.5 Y 8/4) on the outside. Out: painted decora-

few fine sand? Smooth feel. White ground and transparent

tion of ‘ladder-design’ in blue (10 G 6/1 and 5/1).

glaze in and out (craquelée). Out: painted purple-blue

Maiolica from Greece (Ware 28). Cf. for similar ‘ladder-

(PMS 280 C) and light green (PMS 579 C) decoration.

design’, Frantz 1942, 20, no. 2 (P 1937), fig. 12 and P 23392

Maiolica from Italy (Ware 27). Italian polychrome maiolica.

(unpublished vessel in Agora-collection).

16th century. -3..0 Jug?, body fragment. Fig. 6.33: W28.3. (see Vroom -3.., Jug, body fragment. Fig. 6.32: W27.5. (see Vroom 1998a, no. 6.4).

1998a, no. 6.5). Pres. L. 0.043, pres. W. 0.047, Th. of wall 0.005-8.

Pres. L. 0.034, pres. W. 0.040, Th. of wall 0.004-11.

Moderately soft, fine, pale fabric (5 Y 8/3) with a few fine

Moderately soft, fine, dull orange fabric (5 YR 7/4) with a few

sand and some voids. Smooth feel. White ground and pale

fine lime and sand. Smooth feel. White ground and transpa

yellow glaze (5 Y 8/4) on the outside. Yellow glaze (5 Y 8/6)

rent/greyish white glaze (2.5 GY 8/1) on the outside. Dull

on the inside. Out: blue paint decoration (10 G 5/1)

orange glaze (5 YR 6/4) on the inside. Out: painted decora-

Maiolica from Greece (Ware 28).

tion of blue vertical lines (PMS 302 U). Handle with ‘tail’.

130

-3..1 Dish, rim fragment. (see Vroom 1998a, no. 7.1).

-3./+ Dish, rim fragment. Fig. 6.44: W30.3. (see Vroom 1998a,

Pres. H. 0.067, est. Diam. of rim 0.240.

no. 2.3).

Soft, fine, dull orange fabric (5 YR 7/4 to 7.5 YR 7/4) with

Pres. H. 0.034, est. Diam. of rim 0.300.

some medium lime inclusions (up to 2mm.) and some

Fairly hard, medium fine, dull orange fabric (2.5 YR 6/4)

voids. Smooth feel. White slip and pale green glaze (PMS

with a few medium lime inclusions; few medium voids.

577 C) on the inside and just under the rim on the outside.

Smooth feel. Orange wash (7.5 YR 7/6) on the outside. Olive

Flaring rim with notches in lip; convex divergent upper

yellow glaze (5 Y 6/4) on the inside. In: slip-painted decora-

wall.

tion on the rim, pale yellowish in tone (7.5 Y 8/3) and two

Monochrome Glazed Ware (Ware 29). Cf. for shape, Hayes

slip-painted horizontal lines (7.5 Y 8/3) on the inside of the

1992, 281 Turkish type series, no. 12.1, fig. 107, dated 17th

dish. Flattened, frilled rim and convex divergent upper wall.

century.

Slip-painted Ware (Ware 30). Similar fabric and glaze as no. -3..4. The shape has some similarity with Hayes 1992,

-3..2 Bowl, rim fragment. (see Vroom 1998a, no. 7.2).

Turkish type series, figs. 107-108.

Pres. H. 0.042, est. Diam. of rim 0.180. Soft, fine, dull orange fabric (7.5 YR 7/4) with a few fine

-3./, Open shape, body fragment. Fig. 6.35: W30.2. (see Vroom

sand inclusions and a few voids. Smooth feel. White slip in

1998a, no. 2.3).

and out and pale green glaze (PMS 578 C) on the inside.

Pres. L. 0.034, pres. W. 0.030, Th. of wall 0.008-12.

Flanged rim and convex divergent upper wall.

Moderately soft, fine, greyish brown fabric (7.5 YR 6/2) with

Monochrome Glazed Ware (Ware 29). From Italy? 16th to

a few medium lime inclusions; few medium voids. Smooth

17th centuries.

feel. Yellow or green-tinted glaze, becoming olive black (7.5 Y 3/1) after firing, on the inside. In: slip-painted decoration,

-3..3 Bowl, base fragment. (see Vroom 1998a, no. 7.3).

pale yellowish in tone (5 Y 8/3).

Pres. H. 0.032, est. Diam. of base 0.060.

Slip-painted Ware (Ware 30). Cf. for similar colour hues of

Fairly hard, fine, pink or light yellow orange fabric (7.5 YR

glaze and background Xyngopoulos 1933, pl. 204 and

8/4) with a few fine sand inclusions and some voids. Smooth

colour plate, IV A2(a).

feel. White slip and rather glassy pale green glaze (PMS 5777 C) on the inside. Blobs of green glaze (PMS 5753 C) on the outside. Ring foot with flat resting surface and Convex

-3./- Jug?, body fragment Fig. 6.37: W32.2. (see Vroom 1998a, no. 8.1).

divergent lower wall. Tripod stilt mark on the inside of the

Pres. L. 0.016, pres. W. 0.019, Th. of wall 0.004.

base.

Fairly hard, fine, light grey fabric (7.5 YR 8/1) with a few

Monochrome Glazed Ware (Ware 29). From Italy? 16th to

fine quartz sand. Smooth feel. Tin-glaze in and out. Out:

17th centuries.

painted decoration in red (7.5 R 4/6) and dark bluish grey (10 BG 3/1).

-3..4 Dish, base fragment. Fig. 6.35: W30.1. (see Vroom 1998a,

Iznik Ware (Ware 32). Ca. late 16th to mid 17th centuries.

no. 2.1). Pres. H. 0.025, est. Diam. of base 0.075. Fairly hard, medium fine, orange-red fabric (5 YR 6/6 to 2.5

-3./. Ceramic tile fragment Fig. 6.47. Pres. L. 0.112, pres. W. 0.117, Th. 0.027.

YR 6/6) with a few medium lime inclusions; a few medium

Moderately soft, coarse, buff (7.5 YR 8/3) to pale reddish

voids. Smooth feel. Orangish wash (7.5 YR 7/6) on the

orange fabric (2.5 YR 7/4) with many coarse grog, lime and

outside. Olive yellow glaze (5 Y 6/4) on the inside. In: deco-

black quartz inclusions. Harsh feel on the outside. Hand-

ration of slip-painted concentric circles, pale yellowish in

made. No surface treatment. Incised decoration of three

tone (5 Y 8/4). Ring foot with flat resting surface and flat

squares of diminizing size, the sides of each bisected by a

underside.

cross-line through the middle.

Slip-painted Ware (Ware 30). Cf. for generally analogous

Medieval tile fragment with Nine Men’s Morris Game

slip-painted decoration Makropoulou, 12, no. 7, fig. 3,

incised on the inside (cf. Vroom 1999a for a detailed

dated 15th century.

description; see also Christoforaki 2001, 96, fig. 106 for an erroneous date and description of this piece).

131

Site no. 29: VM -, / VALLEY OF THE MUSES -, Site location: Vagia sheet 23°, 4.5 min. E.; 38°, 18.75 min. N. Site size: medium to large. Site function: RUR. Years of sampling: 1982. Sample: intensive survey. Total of sampled sherds: 592. Site description: A medium dense scatter of pottery is to be found directly West of the modern village of Askra, in an amphitheatre-like slope covered with vineyards. The site is marked with an iconostasis and borders on the modern cemetery. Nearby is site VM1. Site chronology: LR; MBYZ; (T); EMOD. Diagnostic finds: lr: 6 LR 2 amphora (Ware 3). 11 Unglazed Beehives (Ware 4). mbyz: 3 Slip-painted Ware (Ware 9). 1 Fine Sgraffito Ware (Ware 11). 4 Saraçhane 61/Günsenin 3 amphora (Ware 12). 3 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 14). 8 Incised Sgraffito Ware/ Champlevé Ware (Ware 15). t: 3 Monochrome Sgraffito Wares from Italy (Ware 24). 2 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 38). emod: 10 Painted Ware from Grottaglie (Ware 40). 2 Slip-painted Ware from Didymoteicho (Ware 41). 4 Slip-painted Ware from Crete (Ware 42). 2 Glazed Domestic Ware from Siphnos (Ware 43). 34 Glaze Painted Ware (Ware 46). 4 Monochrome Yellow Glazed Ware (Ware 48). 1 Flowerpot.

Site no. 30: VM 12 / VALLEY OF THE MUSES 12 (fig. 5.29) Site location: Vagia sheet 23°, 4.5 min. E.; 38°, 18.75 min. N. Site size: small. Site function: RUR/SP. Years of sampling: 1984, 1995. Sampling: intensive survey. Total of sampled sherds: 81. Site description: A small scatter of pottery is to be found in the Valley of the Muses on the Northern and NorthEastern slopes of an foothill of Mount Scopia marked by the large church of Agios Nikolaos, ca. 575 metres West of the hill known as Strongylia. This church has a cemented roof and is chalked all over, but seems to be of a considerable age (the interior has four columns on one

132

Fig. 5.28 VM67: church (site 30) (photo: J. Vroom).

of which bears an extensive inscription, as well as frescoes one of which carries the date 1842 AD). To the South-East of the church, under dense maquis, are the remains of structures built of uncut, medium-sized blocks which are cemented with mortar and tile fragments. According to Bintliff, the place is probably one of the two 16th century monastic churches mentioned in the Ottoman tax registers as being attached to the village of ‘Panaya’ (see site 28) (Kiel & Bintliff et al., unpublished gazetteer for Ottoman Boeotia). Site chronology: (LR); MBYZ; (LBYZ/FR); (T). Diagnostic finds: lr: 1 Unglazed Beehive (Ware 4). mbyz: 1 Unglazed Incised Ware (Ware 6). 3 Slippainted Ware (Ware 9). 1 Brown and Green Painted Ware (Ware 10). 1 Fine Sgraffito Ware (Ware 11). 1 Günsenin 3/Saraçhane 61 amphora (Ware 12). 6 Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 14). 2 Incised Sgraffito Ware/ Champlevé Ware (Ware 15). lbyz/fr: 2 ‘Zeuxippus Ware’ Subtypes (Ware 16). 1 Unglazed Domestic Ware (Ware 23). t: 2 Monochrome Sgraffito Wares from Italy (Ware 24). 1 Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware (Ware 26). 1 Painted Ware (Ware 31).

0.. Summary To summarize the results, the total number of PostRoman find spots or sites recorded in the course of the

Boeotia Project in its research region is 74 (see table 5.1). Of these 74 sites, a selection of 30 sites was discussed in this chapter (see table 5.2). The selection is based on the criterion whether the site sample offered typo-chronological information which could contribute to the assembling of a horizontal chronology of Post-Roman ceramics in Central Greece. Of the selected 30 sites, 20 are situated in the two core areas of research where the intensive survey resulted in total coverage samples. The remaining 10 sites were not covered by intensive survey, and here pottery was collected by means of diagnostic judgment sampling, in other words by collecting ‘grab samples’ of diagnostic wares. Of the 30 sites under discussion here, 22 are multiperiod sites with pottery diagnostic of several chronological periods; the remaining 8 were occupied or in use during a single period. Rural sites make up the largest category in the above described list, consisting of 21 sites (70% of the total). Furthermore, there are five tower sites (17%) and four ‘urban’ sites in this list (13%) – ‘urban’ refers here to the situation in Late Antiquity; after the Late Roman-Early Byzantine era, these sites shrink dramatically. Of the 30 listed sites, nine fall in the category small, fourteen were designated as medium and seven are large (see table 5.3; these designations refer to the multiperiod site size). Of the nine small sites, six were found and sampled during the intensive survey of the core areas of research, on two sites grab samples were collected. Of the fourteen medium sites, six were found and sampled during intensive survey, on eight sites grab samples were collected. On the seven large sites, pottery was only collected during the intensive survey. The pottery in the site-samples range in date from the Late Roman/Early Byzantine period (6th-7th centuries) to the Early Modern period (beginning of the 20th century). (For the use – and problems – of the chronological periods, see Chapter 1 and Chapter 6; for the designation of the wares per period see Chapter 6). Eleven samples contained some amounts of pottery from the Late Roman period (more Late Roman material may – or may not – be present in the ‘Roman samples’ of the site collections); perhaps four sites yielded a few (problematic) sherds from the Early Byzantine period (Late Roman and Early Byzantine sherds together amount to 16% of the total diagnostic wares per period; see table

Table 5.3 Sample type per site size of the selected 30 Boeotian sites.

Table 5.4 Diagnostic sherds per period (2779 in total; found on 30 Boeotian sites).

5.4). At least twenty-one sites have yielded a large amount of wares from the Middle Byzantine period (47% of the total diagnostic wares per period; see table 5.4). Sixteen sites have produced a small amount of ceramics of the Late Byzantine/Frankish period (only 5% of the total wares per period; see table 5.4). Fourteen sites have produced a substantial amount of pottery fragments of the Turkish period (24% of the total diagnostic wares per period; see table 5.4). Finally, twelve sites have produced ceramics of the Early Modern period (8% of the total diagnostic wares per period; see table 5.4).

133

When all the wares of all 30 discussed sites are taken together, the following picture emerges. The periods most abundantly represented in the samples are the Middle Byzantine period (especially ceramics of the 12th/early 13th centuries), followed by the (Early) Turkish period (especially ceramics of the 16th century). Periods much less represented in the samples are Early Byzantine and Late Byzantine/Frankish. I will not discuss here whether these substantial fluctuations in quantity may be interpreted as clear indications of analogous fluctuations in population, or that other factors may have influenced these percentages. Of importance here is that two decades of field research in Boeotia have made it clear that several sites in the study area have yielded material of consecutive periods, throughout Antiquity and the Middle Ages until Modern times, while other Post-Roman sites (such as sites CN15, CN17 and Thespiae B6) have yielded material of only single and clearly limited periods of time. This provided the possibility to combine the ceramic data from all these sites in a regional typo-chronological seriation, and a preliminary classification of the diagnostic wares for Medieval and Post-Medieval Boeotia from ca. the 7th to the mid 20th century, which will be presented in the next chapter. The dating of the sherds found in Boeotia of the Middle Byzantine and Early Modern periods was especially facilitated by many parallels in shapes and decoration-techniques with (recent) recovered material from the Corinth excavations (partly unpublished yet, but kindly made accessible to me by Charles Williams II and Guy Sanders). Furthermore, the study of several closed deposits in the city centre of Thebes (including a few vessels with complete shapes) proved a great help in recognizing (yet) unknown wares of the Turkish period (see Vroom forthcoming a). Other sources which were helpful in the analysis of the survey finds were the Ottoman tax registers and the travellers’accounts. Some sites in the catalogue could be firmly related to detailed information in the tax registers from the Turkish period (especially from the 16th century); and another six sites in the catalogue were mentioned as ‘ruins’ or ‘villages’ by Western travellers in their accounts and diaries from the 17th century onwards. Especially in the case of site VM4, the combination of the Ottoman tax registers and other textual evidence in relation to the survey finds proved to be

134

helpful in formulating a conjectural habitation history of the site (see also Vroom 1998a). Unfortunately, only one tobacco pipe fragment appeared in the material I studied, namely on the site of Thespiae (figs. 6.38 and 6.46: W37.1).[4 ] This piece is, however, a stray find of the Turkish period, and did not contribute very much to the dating of this site in PostMedieval times. Noteworthy from the point of view of local pottery production is that one kiln site (site VM4), including the fragment of a kiln floor with glassy residues on top, has also been found by the Boeotia Project (see fig. 9.1).

notes 1. Moh’s and Wenthworth scales can be found in most basic geology textbooks. Here the following categories are used: Hardness: ‘soft’ = fingernail scratches easily; ‘moderately soft’ = fingernail scratches; ‘fairly hard’ = penknife scratches; ‘hard’ = penknife just scratches; ‘very hard’ = penknife will not scratch. The term ‘inclusions’ indicate temper naturally found in the clay and temper purposefully added to the clay. Frequency: ‘few’ = density below 2%; ‘some’ = density between 2% and 5%; ‘many’ = density between 5% and 10%; ‘very many’ = density above 10%. Size (distinguishable with naked eye): ‘fine’ = less than 0.5 mm.; ‘medium’ = 0.5 mm. – 1 mm.; ‘coarse’ = 1 mm. – 2 mm.; ‘very coarse’ = above 2 mm. 2. Pantone Color Formula Guide 747XR (Moonachie, New Jersey, 1989). 3. Academic and Specialist Publications. Preparing your illustrations for publication (London, n.d.), 11. 4. Apparently, there were a few more fragments of tobacco pipes of the Turkish period collected in the research area of the Boeotia Project, but these have not been found by me in the storage rooms of Thespiae Museum.

6 – A P R E S E N TA T I O N O F T H E D I A G N O S T I C C E R A M I C S F R O M B O E O T I A

1., Introduction As the study of Post-Roman ceramics in the Aegean is still very much in development, there exists no fixed system of classification for the wares. Of course, there is a broad consensus concerning the diagnosis and description of the wares, but many details, datings and even terminology are still under discussion. The purpose of this chapter is, however, to present the diagnostic types of Post-Roman pottery sampled by the Boeotia Project in the research area, in a classification system for the entire period under study from ca. the 7th century until the mid 20th century. This typo-chronological classification system treats 48 different wares, and it is an effort to incorporate the latest views on the wares discussed here (see table 6.1). The classification is based on all diagnostic wares among the 12,000 post-Roman sherds in the samples of the Boeotia Project. As a consequence, the classification does not encompass all the Post-Roman wares known from the Aegean area. The subdivision into 48 wares merely reflects the result of my attempt to design a classification system specifically for the wares found in Boeotia. Although most of the main wares can be found all over the Aegean, the classification used here reflects the archaeological reality, that each specific region has its own specific (local and imported) pottery types. I will treat the 48 wares found on the Boeotian sites in a chronological order, beginning with Red Slip Wares from the 6th-7th centuries up to Modern glazed wares of the 19th-20th centuries. It should be born in mind that the diagnostic wares presented here mostly represent only a relatively small percentage of the total sample of all 12,000 Post-Roman sherds collected in the course of the survey (ca. 23%), which included as a result of the intensive sampling many sherds (such as small, worn fragments of coarse wares) which can only be dated in a general way as ‘Medieval’ or ‘Post-Medieval’. The emphasis in this chapter is mainly on the diagnostic tablewares, although a start is made to present the less known unglazed domestic wares from Boeotia in a preliminary classification. Also, in case a ware of specific

interest is represented by only one fragment, I have included the ware in this chapter (although the occurrence of only one sherd in a sample may in itself not be enough as dating evidence). The total numbers of all 48 wares are presented in table 6.2. The percentages of these wares per period will be given in tables 6.3 – 6.7 (colour plate). Every type of ware is described according to name, fabric, surface treatment, decoration, shape, distribution and date-range. The numbers in bold type-face following the indication of the type of ware refer to the catalogue numbers of the sherds in the list of assemblages. The names of unknown wares are sometimes merely a technical description. If possible, the provenance of the ware is included in the name. The description of the fabric is based on the sherds found on the Boeotian sites. The colour of the fabrics and decorations is described according to the classification of the Munsell Soil Color Charts (1970 edition) in natural light (e.g. 5 YR 6/6 for orange). The colours of the decorations which fall outside the range of the Munsell Soil Color Charts are described according to the standard Pantone Matching System (PMS).[1 ] ‘Glaze’ is used in this chapter to indicate lead glazing;[2 ] in the few instances where tin-glaze is used, it is fully described as such. ‘Slip’ is diluted clay (also called engobe), which is used by potters to distinguish the body of the vessel or as surface decoration. Wet-smoothing often leaves a thin self-slip or ‘wash’ on the outside, which differs from the thick white slip/engobe on the inside of Medieval and Post-Medieval ceramics in the Aegean (cf. Hayes 1992, 31). The problem of chronology and periodization – From an archaeological point of view there is no standard terminology or chronology for the Post-Roman periods in the Aegean area (cf. Chapter 1 and see also Appendix A). The periodization used here (Late Roman-Early Byzantine; Middle Byzantine; Late Byzantine/Frankish; Turkish; Early Modern) is an effort to classify ceramic groups with clear stylistical and technological similarities

135

DIAGNOSTIC WARES FOUND ON THE BOEOTIAN SITES (Late Roman – Early Byzantine period (ca. 7th-9th centuries) Red Slip Wares: Askra Ware Unglazed Wares Unglazed Wares: ‘Slavic Ware’ Amphorae: Late Roman 2 / Saraçhane 9 amphora Amphorae: Saraçhane type 35 amphora Unglazed Beehives

Ware 1 Ware 2 Ware 2a Ware 3 Ware 3a Ware 4

Middle Byzantine period (ca. 10th-late 12th/early 13th centuries) Fine Orange-Red Burnished Ware Ware 5 Ware 6 Unglazed Incised Ware Plain Glazed Ware (in red and grey fabric) Ware 7 Ware 8 Plain Glazed Ware (in white fabric) / Glazed White Ware II Slip-painted Ware Ware 9 Green and Brown Painted Ware Ware 10 Ware 11 Fine Sgraffito Ware Painted Fine Sgraffito Ware Ware 11a Ware 12 Amphorae: Günsenin 3 / Saraçhane 61 amphora Ware 13 Amphorae: ‘Otranto 1’ amphora Ware 14 Unglazed Domestic Wares Incised Sgraffito Ware and Champlevé Ware Ware 15 Late Byzantine/Frankish period (ca. 13th-mid 15th centuries) ‘Zeuxippus Ware’ Subtypes Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Corinth (?) Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Thessaloniki Other Monochrome Sgraffito Wares Brown and Green Sgraffito Wares Slip-painted Ware Polychrome Lead-glazed Ware type ‘RMR’ Unglazed Domestic Wares

Ware 16 Ware 17 Ware 18 Ware 19 Ware 20 Ware 21 Ware 22 Ware 23

Turkish period (ca. late 15th-18th centuries) Monochrome Sgraffito Wares from Italy Polychrome Sgraffito Wares from Italy Brown and Green Sgraffito Wares Maiolica from Italy Maiolica from Greece Monochrome Glazed Wares Slip-painted Wares Painted Ware Iznik Ware Porcelain Polychrome Marbled Ware Polychrome Painted Maiolica Kütahya Ware Tobacco Pipes Unglazed Domestic Wares

Ware 24 Ware 25 Ware 26 Ware 27 Ware 28 Ware 29 Ware 30 Ware 31 Ware 32 Ware 33 Ware 34 Ware 35 Ware 36 Ware 37 Ware 38

Early Modern period (ca. 19th-mid 20th centuries) Çanakkale Ware Painted Ware from Grottaglie and/or Corfu Slip-painted Ware from Didymoteicho and/or Dardanelles Slip-painted Ware from Crete, Chalkis or Thasos Glazed Domestic Ware from Siphnos Polychrome Painted Terracotta from the Eastern Aegean Storage Jars Glaze Painted Ware Drip-painted Ware from Marousi, Attica Monochrome Yellow Glazed Ware

Ware 39 Ware 40 Ware 41 Ware 42 Ware 43 Ware 44 Ware 45 Ware 46 Ware 47 Ware 48

Table 6.1 List of 48 diagnostic wares found on the Boeotian sites.

136

under more or less conventional chronological headings. Much more important than these period labels though, are the datings per pot type. Perhaps using only these dates without the larger periods would have been preferable (as dates lack the historical and cultural connotations attached to conventional periodization), but as this study covers such an extensive timespan, it seems unavoidable to use a recognizable chronological structure. The periodization used here is in line with all recent publications on Post-Roman ceramics in the Aegean area, though never before such an extended timespan was covered in one chronological system. The term ‘Early Byzantine’ refers here to pottery produced and used in the period between approximately the 7th and 9th centuries, and ‘Middle Byzantine’ to pottery produced and used between circa the 10th and the late12th/early 13th centuries with distinctly different characteristics. Notwithstanding its shortcomings in archaeological use, I use the term ‘Late Byzantine/Frankish’ for pottery used during the period from the 13th century to the mid 15th century, which is stylistically and technologically different from the previous Middle Byzantine pottery (so the term does not refer solely to imported pottery related to the new Frankish rulers over central Greece). The ‘Turkish period’ is used as heading for all pottery found in Boeotia which dates from approximately the late 15th century to the 18th century (including imports from the West). Finally, the designation ‘Early Modern’ refers to pottery roughly dating from the Greek War of Independence until the end of the Civil War (ca. 19th-mid 20th centuries). All these designations, datings and periods are not without problems, and they will certainly not be the final word. As stated in Chapter 1, some of the preliminary period labels used by John Hayes during his initial dating of the pottery found in Boeotia, are not used here – as Hayes himself did not use them in any of his publications (e.g. ‘Middle-Late Byzantine’, ‘(Late) Frankish(Early) Turkish’). The result of the detailed study of the pottery – which was immensely helped by Hayes’ initial groupings – enables us now to diagnose and date the wares found in Boeotia more specifically, so that they can be assigned more clearly to stylistic/technological periods. This is not to say that in the course of future research the need for new period labels or other chronological divisions may not arise.

Table 6.2 Amounts of diagnostic wares at 30 selected Boeotian sites and their concentration in all periods (highlighted numbers).

Obviously, there are no clear chronological boundaries in archaeology, and all wares described here may have earlier origins and may have been used longer than may be suggested by the graphic rigidity of the tables in which they are presented here. Still, what matters is the core period of the production and use of the wares, not the chronological fringes. This ‘certain’ period is based on the current state of knowledge (published excavations). Of course, ‘certain’ in archaeology means provisionally certain: dates and designations of wares may change as new publications appear. In short, for each type of pottery discussed here, it was the core period to which it is currently dated in the literature which counted when deciding under which heading it should be listed. That is not to say that a particular pot type cannot be found in later (or earlier) contexts, but that in itself the ware cannot be used to date those later (or earlier) contexts. All in all, the presentation of the wares in this chapter

aims to be an archaeological presentation, based on fabrics, glazes, shapes and decorations of pottery, not a proposal for a new view on Medieval and Post-Medieval Greek history.

1.-

Late Roman-Early Byzantine period (table 1.. colour plate)

6.2.1 red slip wares: askra ware (ware 1) — (fig. 6.1: w1.1-5) Red Slip Wares (e.g. African Red Slip Ware and Phocaean Red Slip Ware; see W1.1) were found on eight sites in the research area. The mass-produced Red Slip Wares from Northern Africa and Western Turkey provided models for local wares, such as the so-called ‘Askra Ware’ in Boeotia (found on the sites of Askra and Thespiae; see W1.2-4). Wasters of this locally produced Red Slip Ware were

137

W 1.1

W 1.2

W 1.3

W 1.4

W 1.5

Fig. 6.1 W1.1: African Red Slip Ware (1:2); W1.2-1.4: Askra Ware (by courtesy of J. Hayes); W1.5: Askra Ware from Thebes (photo: J. Vroom).

138

only found on the site of Askra and were therefore named ‘Askra Ware’ by John Hayes.[3 ] The fabric of the Boeotian fragments of Askra Ware is smooth, moderately soft, fine and has a clear brown to orange-brown colour (5 YR 7/6 to 6/6), with many fine lime and micaceous particles and some voids. A metallic pinkish brown slip (2.5 YR 6/6, 5/6 and 6/8) is applied on a polished body by dipping. There is no slip on the base. The shape is a shallow bowl with a convex divergent body and an upright concave rim, flaring at top. The lower part of the bowl consists of flat base with rounded transition, but there are also footed versions (with a slightly splayed foot of medium height). The inside is sometimes stamped in the centre with circles, crosses and small rosettes. The shape and decoration seem to imitate Phocaean Red Slip Ware of the 6th century. According to John Hayes, the production of Askra Ware must have occurred in the Thespiae region in Boeotia (perhaps at Askra). He has recently found more bowls of this type of Red Slip Ware at the Agora excavations in Athens, as well as at Corinth (J. Hayes, pers. comm.; see also Sanders 1999, fig. 8, no. 5 for Corinth). It was found in Athens and in Corinth in mid-late 6th century contexts. Another example of Askra Ware can also be noticed in the storage rooms in the Thebes Museum as found from excavations in the Pavlogianopoulou street in the city centre of Thebes (see fig. 6.1: W1.5). Red Slip Wares were found in Boeotia at: Askra, CN3, CN8, Hyettos, Mavromati North, Thespiae, Upper Haliartos 1 and VM4. 6.2.2 unglazed wares (ware 2) — (figs. 6.2 and 6.40: w2.1) Under this category are grouped various unglazed wares of the Late Roman-Early Byzantine period, of which a handful of sherds was sampled on six sites in the research area. Most of the fragments (fourteen in total) are undecorated, except for a few sherds with incised horizontal and wavy lines. This type of simple decoration can also be noticed on vessels (mostly amphorae, storage jars and jugs) found in Greece from the late 6th century onward (cf. Felten 1975, no. 111, fig. 23; Aupert 1980b, nos. 331-2, figs. 46-7; Boardman 1989, figs. 32-39, 43). The pieces found in Boeotia are, however, too fragmentary to discern a vessel shape in order to give a more precise indication of their dating.

Furthermore, the well-known difficulty of distinguishing Late Roman from Early Byzantine finds seems particularly acute in Boeotia. The region is clearly lacking in imports until approximately the 10th-11th centuries. This raises, according to John Hayes, ‘the question of how to distinguish Roman from Early Medieval coarse wares. In fact, one may say that ‘Roman’ techniques and habits continued (or recurred) throughout the early Middle Ages in those areas where urban industries still survived – perhaps in parts of Crete, but not in Boeotia’ (Hayes 2000, 106).Thebes could be, however, an exception for surviving rural industry, but we do not have enough evidence for this yet. Noteworthy is the find of a wheel-made small jug on the site of Klimataria in the research area (figs. 6.1 and 6.40: W 2.1). It was found in the cemetery area of the site. It may originate from a tomb, because the vessel is remarkably complete compared to the rest of the survey material. The fabric of the jug is medium fine, with many fine lime and white quartz inclusions. The colour of the clay is dull orange (7.5 YR 7/4), and the vessel is unglazed. The jug has a flat base with rounded transition. The body is globular and has a long narrow neck. The rim is straight, with a slightly flaring opening. The vessel seems to have one vertical handle, which is broken off. The shape, size and fabric of this globular jug look similar to Late Roman-Early Byzantine lekythoi (or libation vessels) found in graves at Corinth and Athens. These unglazed vessels are dated in Corinth from the late 6th to the 7th century (G. Sanders, pers. comm.). At the American excavations in the Athenian Agora, similar wheel-made, small jugs were found in an ossuary (Robinson’s group N). They were preliminarily dated by the excavators to the early 7th century on the basis of a bronze coin of Heraclius (610-641 AD) (Robinson 1959, 121-22, N 8-11, pl. 35). Similar jugs were also found at the excavations of Emporio on the island Chios (in a 660 AD context), as well as at the excavations in Argos in the Peloponnesus (in a 685 AD context) (cf. Boardman 1989, 100-3, fig. 33; Aupert 1980b, 429, no. 232, fig. 41; 431, nos. 252-257, fig. 41; see also Keramopoulos 1926, fig. 3 for Theban examples). In Italy, analogous looking jugs were mainly found in burial contexts, in some cases associated with churches and in others with apparently deserted villas or farms (cf.

139

W 2a.1

W 2.1

W 4. Ex 1-8

Fig. 6.2 W2.1, W2a.1 (1:2); W4.Ex.1-8: Unglazed Beehives (after Crane 1983).

140

for some of these cemetery vessels, Arthur & Patterson 1998, 427, fig. 8). The vessels were distributed throughout Central and Southern Italy. All the sites were dated from the later 6th to the later 7th centuries as a terminus post quem on associated numismatic evidence or metalwork. It has been suggested that this sort of small jugs appear to show a new rite of funeral offering, perhaps initiated in Southern Italy around 500 AD (Hayes 1997, 50). The use of pottery as grave-goods was in Greece first attested in the church of St. Dionysios the Aeropagite at Athens, where Early Byzantine unglazed jugs were put in late 6th-7th century graves (Travlos & Frantz 1965, 166-167, nos. 1-2, pl. 42e). However, according to Guy Sanders, they were more probably not offerings but rather vessels used in the Christian burial liturgy for pouring wine, water or oil over the corpse and then buried to prevent their reuse (G. Sanders, pers. comm.). Unglazed Wares were found in Boeotia at: Askra, CN3, Hyettos, Klimataria, Thespiae South 14 and Upper Haliartos 1. 6.2.3 unglazed wares: ‘slavic ware’ (ware 2a) — (fig. 6.2: w2a.1) A second type of Unglazed Wares from Early Byzantine times demands special attention, if only because of the ongoing discussion about its meaning and dating: this is the so-called ‘Slavic Ware’. In the research area, on the ancient site of Hyettos, one rim fragment of this ware has been found. Since the 1980s coarse hand-made sherds found in Late Roman-Early Byzantine levels of excavations in Greece have been linked with the Slavic invasions of Greek lands during the late 6th and early 7th centuries. Thus resulted in the designation ‘Slavic Ware’ (Aupert 1980a, 394, 404; Vryonis 1981, 378-81; Gregory & Kardulias 1990, 509-510. no. 4; Gregory 1993, 151-55; see also chapter 3 under ‘Slavic Ware’). This designation is, however, not without problems. Although Slavic invasions in Greek lands are recorded in the written sources, the historical interpretations of these sources as well as their reliability are still under debate. The fabric of the Boeotian sherd is fairly hard, medium coarse, and is dull orange (5 YR 6/4) on the outside and orange (2.5 YR 7/6) to reddish brown (2.5 YR 5/4) on the inside. The gritty clay has many large voids (of lime or organic material?) and very many, medium lime and white quartz inclusions. A greyish

brown slip (5 YR 5/2 to 5/3) is roughly put on the outside. Until now, several sites in the Peloponnesus and in Thessaly (such as Argos, Olympia, Sparta, Messini, Tiryns, Isthmia, Corinth and Demetrias) have yielded material plausibly identified as being of this ‘Slavic’ tradition. Boeotia, on the other hand, has now only one site with only one fragmentary piece of Slavic Ware. (It is beyond the scope of this book to discuss the complex problem of Slavic occupation in Boeotia). More complete examples of Slavic Ware, excavated on Greek sites, display a variety of vessels that feature both hand-made or hand-shaped and slow wheel-turned pots. It concerns here small cooking vessels, often with a flat bottom, an everted rim and a rounded wall. The walls of the pots are not regular, and fingerprints can be seen on the surface (both on the interior and on the exterior). The coarse fabrics of Slavic Ware have been seen to vary widely, even among finds from the same sites (e.g. Gregory 1993, 152). Some examples of Slavic Ware have no decoration at all, other vessels are decorated with multiple and single linear or wavy incised lines, stamps or raised ribs. The exact dating of this type of coarse hand-made pottery in Greece is quite problematic. The current view is that the first excavated examples of Slavic Ware in Olympia and in Argos were dated too early (e.g. Avraméa 1997, 82-86; Anagnostakis & Poulou-Papadimitriou 1997; Vida & Völling 2000 and Poulou-Papadimitriou 2000). The horizontal and vertical incisions on the vessels from Argos and Isthmia, for instance, are now considered by most scholars as being more characteristic for the late 7th and early 8th centuries (and not the 6th century). In fact, their decoration can be compared with similar designs on vessels in Eastern Europe, which are dated in Eastern Germany, Poland and former Yugoslavia in the 7th century, and in Russia and Rumania even in the 8th and 9th centuries (cf. Avraméa 1997, 84-85 and notes 79-80). Furthermore, on Greek sites (e.g. Argos, Tiryns, Isthmia) Slavic Ware is often found together with Byzantine fine wares and amphorae of the 7th century, or even later. Excavations in the orchestra and lower cavea of the ancient theatre of Sparta yielded handmade Slavic cooking pots in deposits containing 8th to 10th century material, including Byzantine amphorae (e.g. a Saraçhane amphora 5 or 31 handle) (Sanders 1995a, 35, note 52; 1995b; see also Sanders 1993, 279 for

141

W 3.1

W 3a.1

W 5.1

Fig. 6.3 W3.1; W3a.1 (1:3); W5.1-2 (1:2).

142

W 5.2

other pots in a ‘Slavic tradition’ from Sparta but dated to the 12th-14th centuries). These finds suggest that Slavic Ware was throughout the Byzantine period used together with finer, wheel-made pottery. This has led some scholars to the conclusion that the distribution and use of Slavic Ware on the Peloponnesus might indicate a pattern of peaceful habitation rather than violent incursions or a military occupation (Gregory 1993, 155; Avraméa 1997, 86). All in all, it remains difficult to relate finds of ‘Slavic Ware’ with the historical events of the Slavic invasions in Greek lands, and the pottery may very well be little more than an indication of the contracting economy in the Early Byzantine period. Slavic ware and other handmade wares found in the Mediterranean in that period (e.g. in Italy, Cyprus, Carthage) were probably manufactured as easy-to-make products for daily use at a household or village level; they were not the products of large-scale urban manufacturing (Rautman 1998; Poulou-Papadimitriou 2000). The first of these handmade, undecorated pots appear to have been made before the mid 7th century; wheel-made, decorated vessels of the ‘Slavic type’, on the other hand, originate mainly from after the end of the 7th century and persist until the late Middle Ages (ca. 14th-15th centuries) (cf. Anagnostakis & Poulou-Papadimitriou 1997; PoulouPapadimitriou 2000; see also for Medieval examples from Albania, Vroom forthcoming a). In Albania, this type of unglazed, coarse cooking ware was even produced in Early Modern times. If anything can be said with certainty about Slavic Ware, it is that further research (for instance on the different fabrics and different decoration-styles) is badly needed. Until now, this type of pottery has clearly been wedged too often into a historical framework (which is, in fact, itself subject of discussion) rather than being used as an implement through which to formulate an archaeological argumentation in its own right. Found in Boeotia at: Hyettos. 6.2.4 amphorae: late roman 2 / saraçhane 9 amphora (ware 3) (fig. 6.3: w3.1) — Sixteen sites in the research area yielded many fragments of globular amphorae, among which the socalled Late Roman amphora 2 (LR 2) is the best-known type. This type of amphora was described by Riley in his

typology of amphorae found at the excavations at Benghazi (Riley 1979). The same type was later defined by Hayes as his number 9 in the Saraçhane classification of amphorae from the 4th to 13th century (Hayes 1992, 66). The fabric of the classic LR 2 amphora is cleanbreaking brown to pinkish-red, fired buff or light brownish at surface, with some lime inclusions and occasional flakes of gold mica (biotite). The most common shape found in Boeotia is broadbellied with a wide shoulder, tapering neck, and high conical or cup-shaped mouth. The upper part has closeset straight or wavy grooving on the shoulder, deeply cut to form a series of sharp ridges; the lower part slopes in towards the bottom. The base is rounded, bearing a small central ‘button’. The handles are oval in crosssection. LR 2 amphorae were very common in the (Eastern) Aegean and in Black Sea regions from the 3rd quarter of the 5th century onwards. In the Aegean they were, for instance, found at Isthmia (Broneer 1959, 336, no. 16, pl. 72b), at Nea Anchialos (Iatridou 1976, pl. 139e), on Samos (Hautumm 1981, figs. 17-41; Gerousi 1992-93, fig. 2, pl. 47), as well as at Athens, Nichoria, Corinth, Itea, Anthedon, Lesbos, Yassi Ada, Chios, Paphos, Thorikos, on Cyprus, Kythera, Halieis (Porto Cheli), Thessaloniki, Knossos and Argos (e.g. Robinson 1959, pl. 40, P4129, Rudolph 1979, 294-320, Aupert 1980b, 440, no. 325a, fig. 46, Hautumm 1981; see also Karagiorgou 2001 for their distribution in Greece and in the Balkans). These globular amphorae were produced at different workshops in the Aegean, which seems to be shown by the discovery of kiln sites for LR 2 amphorae at Chios, at the site of Cardamaina on Kos and a site opposite Kounoupi Island between Ermioni and Porto Cheli in the Argolid (e.g. Rudolph 1979; Zimmerman Munn 1985). The date-range of LR 2 amphorae at the excavations at Saraçhane varies from early 6th to mid 7th centuries (Hayes 1992, 66, fig. 22. 10-11 with further literature). The examples from the fortress at Emporio on Chios seem to be the latest in the series, from a terminus post quem context dating to the third quarter of the 7th century (Boardman 1989). Found in Boeotia at: Agia Eleousa, Askra, CN3, CN8, CN17, Haliartos B6, Hyettos, Klimataria, Mavromati North, Palaiomazi, PP16, Tatiza, Thespiae, Thespiae South 14, Upper Haliartos 1 and VM21.

143

6.2.5 amphorae: saraçhane 35 amphora (ware 3a) — (fig. 6.3 and 6.40: w3a.1) Several fragments of a large jar vessel of the so-called Saraçhane 35 type were found on the site of Klimataria in the research area, composing the upper half of an amphora. This amphora type is named after Hayes’ description of amphorae in the Saraçhane publication (Hayes 1992, 71). The fabric of the sherds found in Boeotia is soft, fine, and orange-brown in colour (5 YR 7/6). The rather powdery clay contains a few medium limestone, a few fine quartz inclusions and many fine micaceous particles. It seems as if there is a yellowish self-slip (7.5 YR 8/4) on the exterior surface. The vessel is unglazed and has no decoration. The shape of the shoulder is broad, with a short vertical neck. The two handles are shallow arched and oval in crosssection. A similar example has been recovered at the excavations of Saraçhane in Istanbul (Hayes 1992, type 35, fig. 23.10; see also figs. 32.10 and 35.38). Its provenance is as yet unknown. This amphora type has been dated by John Hayes in ‘the 8th century (and rather later?)’ (Hayes 1992, 71). Found in Boeotia at: Klimataria. 6.2.6 unglazed beehives (ware 4) — (figs. 6.2 and 6.40: w4.1 and w4.ex.1-8). Among the survey finds on fifteen sites in Boeotia were many fragments of horizontal beehives, made of unglazed earthenware. Ancient ceramic beehives were first identified by the excavators of a Greek house of the Late Classical – Early Hellenistic period (ca. 350-275 BC) near the village of Vari in Attica (Jones et al 1973, 397v., nos. 135-77, fig. 13, pls. 75-77; Graham 1975; Jones 1976). The fabric of the Boeotian sherds is fine, medium soft and contains some fine lime, mudstone and micaceous particles. The colour of the clay is light yellow orange (7.5 YR 8/4) on the outside; dull orange (5 YR 7/4) on the inside. Most fragments have a smooth feel. On the exterior one can notice shallow horizontal ribbing of the manufacture process. The beehives are tall wide-mouthed vessels with an everted rim and flat bottom, which could be opened at only one end. The thickness of the walls is ca. 0.8-1 cm. There are no handles. Together with the jars come

144

ceramic extension rings, shaped like bands round barrels, as well as large, flat circular lids. The rims of the jars, the rings and the lids have all similar dimensions: between 24-39 cm. The lids cover the open mouths of the jars, have a flight entrance for the bees and are flanked by several holes about 2 cm. in diameter (see figs. 6.2 W2.Ex.4 and 6.40 W4.1). It has been suggested that these holes were needed for fixing the lid tightly across the mouth of the hive with the help of wooden wedges (Jones et al. 1973, pl. 77). The jars are plain on the outside, but show horizontal and vertical incisions on the inside of the vessel. While the clay was still wet, the interior surface was scratched by drawing a comb vertically from the mouth to the closed end. At intervals of ca. 15 cm. the comb was drawn crosswise in horizontal lines over the vertical incisions. The purpose for this was that the honeycombs would attach more easily to the vessel. Fragments of beehives found elsewhere in the Aegean which were examined by gas chromatography showed indeed traces of beeswax on the combed jars (Graham 1973, fig. 5; Jones 1976, 868; Crane 1999, fig. 23.2b). The oldest known ceramic beehives in Greece can be found in the Athenian Agora Museum and are dated ca. 425-400 BC (Jones et al. 1973, 398; Graham 1975, 73; Crane 1983, fig. 26; 1999, fig. 23.2a with more finds in Greece). Similar combed vessels have been recovered in one of the towers of Justinian’s fortress at Isthmia in the Peloponnesus, where they were excavated in combination with LR 2 amphora fragments and dated between 550 and 600 AD (Broneer 1959, 337, no. 17, fig. 11, pl. 72c; Jones 1976, 83-4 Gregory & Kardulias 1990, 509, c & Jones 2002, no. 3, pl 77; see also Anderson-Stojanovi´ table 2 for more examples of Late Roman-Byzantine beehive fragments at Isthmia). More Late Roman-Early Byzantine examples (ca. 650-750 AD) come from excavations on Crete (Gortys, Eleftherna and Knossos) and on Cyprus (Crane 1999, table 23.2a; Hayes 2001, 434 and note 17), as well as from excavations on the island of Aegina (Evi Dafi, pers. comm.). Modern ceramic beehives are still used on certain islands in the Aegean (e.g. Syros, Antiparos, Tinos, Sikinos, Crete; cf. Crane 1983, fig. 24; 1999, table 23.2a). The beehives found on the Boeotian sites were probably locally produced, because wasters were found on the site of Thespiae. Found in Boeotia at: Agia Eleousa, Askra, Hyettos, Klimataria, Mavromati North, Neochori 1-3, Palaiomazi,

PP16, Tatiza, Thespiae, Thespiae South 14, Upper Haliartos 1, VM4, VM21 and VM67.

1..

6.40, W5.Ex). Perhaps this ware was locally produced. Found in Boeotia at: Askra, CN3, CN15, CN17, Klimataria, Megali Rachi, Neochori, PP16 and Thespiae South 14.

Middle Byzantine period (table 1./ colour plate)

6.3.1 fine orange-red burnished ware (ware 5) — (figs. 6.3 and 6.40: w5.1-2 and w5.ex) Fragments of the so-called ‘Fine Orange-Red Burnished Ware’ were found on nine sites in the research area. This pottery type was first distinguished by John Hayes in his typology of the Saraçhane finds (Hayes 1992, 50). The fabric of the Boeotian sherds of Fine OrangeRed Burnished Ware is soft, fine and has a pale reddish orange (2.5 YR 7/4) to orange colour (5 YR 7/6). The soapy clay contains some medium to big lumps of limestone, a few fine micaceous particles and mudstone. The surface bears no slip. The exterior surface of the sherds found in Boeotia is decorated with light vertical burnishing and vertical gouged grooves. The shape of the fragments indicates that they belonged to a closed vessel. Forms include jugs with a flat base, a vertical shoulder and short neck. They are decorated with shallow incised or gouged crosses and vertical gouged stripes on the outside. The provenance of a production centre or production centres of this unglazed, red-bodied ware is as yet unknown. Fine Orange-Red Burnished Ware has been found at the Saraçhane excavations in Constantinople/Istanbul, and is dated there in the late 10th to 11th centuries (Hayes 1992, 50, fig. 18, nos. 1-6). Apart from the Saraçhane finds, similar grooved vessels were also found in 9th to late 11th century deposits at the excavations of Corinth and of Otranto, Southern Italy, although the Otranto fragments have a yellowish, calcareous fabric (Patterson & Whitehouse 1992, fig. 6:15, nos. 552-555; Sanders 1999, 159). Burnishing of the surface of unglazed jugs seems to start in Corinth in the second half of the 11th century (MacKay 1967, 274). At excavations in the city centre of Thebes, more sherds of the red-bodied gouged variant were recovered in a rubbish pit of the Middle Byzantine period (Vroom forthcoming a). These Theban fragments display the typical fabric colour (red-orange), the typical decorationtechnique (light vertical grooving/gouging and burnishing) and the typical shape (a flat-based, round-bodied jug) of Hayes’ Fine Orange-Red Burnished Ware (cf. fig.

6.3.2 unglazed incised ware (ware 6) — (figs. 6.4 and 6.40: w6.1-7 and w6.ex) Seventeen sites (of the total of 30 sites) in the research area yielded pieces of unglazed closed vessels of the Middle Byzantine period with an incised decoration on the outside. The term used here is a purely technical description of the ware. The fabric is soft, orange-red in colour (2.5 YR 6/8) with some coarse limestone, a few fine mica and has a soapy feel. Most of the fragments found on the Boeotian sites have an incised, wavy decoration of ‘scribbles’ on the exterior body. The shape is of a closed vessel, perhaps a jar or jug, combined with a grooved neck. The Boeotian fragments are identical to the find of an incised lagenio (water jar) from Thessaloniki (published by Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1999, 17, fig.1; here fig. 6.40, W6. Ex). This last jug was found together with some amphorae (Hayes’ Saraçhane type 61) during the restoration of the St. Sophia church at Thessaloniki, and has been therefore dated to the end of the 11th and the beginning of the 12th century (D. Papanikola-Bakirtzis, pers. comm.). The jug was probably used for carrying or pouring liquids. A similar looking fragment was also found during excavations at Nichoria on the South-Western Peloponnesus, where it was found in a late 9th-11th century context with Glazed White Ware from Constantinople (cf. McDonald & Howell 1971 [1975], pl. 115b). More sherds (without a clear dating context) were found on rural sites on the island of Keos (Cherry et al. 1991, fig. 18.3, nos. 63-12, 48-10, 48-9), as well as on rural sites in Eastern Phokis, near the research area of the Boeotia Project (Armstrong 1989, no. 24, fig. 14, pl. 9; and 1996b, 357, pl. 83, nos. 10-11, 65-66, pl. 84, no. 97 under the heading ‘incised coarse ware’).[4 ] The provenance and distribution of these unglazed incised vessels in the Aegean area are still unknown. The fabric perhaps suggests local production (and two over fired? fragments were found on the Boeotian sites), though a definitive conclusion is as yet not possible. More Boeotian examples of this ware were found during excavations at Thebes (cf. Pharaklas 1968, pl. 162a right,

145

W 6.1

W 6.3

Fig. 6.4 W6.1-8 (1:2).

146

W 6.2

W 6.4

W 6.5

W 6.6

W 6.7

W 6.8

central row and pl. 166c right; Ioannidou 1973, 274, pl. 229b centre, bottom row; Koilakou 1993, fig. 8; 1996, figs. 6, 10, pl. 34c). Found in Boeotia at: Agia Eleousa, Lower Archondiki, Askra, CN3, CN8, CN15, CN17, Haliartos B6, Hyettos, Ipsilantis, Klimataria, Neochori 1-3, Palaiomazi, PP16, Thespiae South 14, Upper Haliartos 1 and VM67. 6.3.3 plain glazed wares (in a red and a grey fabric) (ware 7) — (figs. 6.5-6: w7.1-14) Fourteen sites in the research area yielded fragments of chafing dishes with glazed interiors of the Middle Byzantine period. The term ‘chafing dish’ was introduced by Alison Frantz in 1938 for this type of glazed kitchenware found at the Agora excavations in Athens (cf. Frantz 1938, 434). After her, Morgan called this type of pottery ‘Plain Glazed Wares’ with the sub-variety ‘Brown Glazed Wares’ (Morgan 1942, 36-42). The chafing dishes comprised class ‘B’ in the 1930-classification by David Talbot Rice, and were also present in excavated deposits of the Great Palace and Saraçhane Djami at Constantinople/Istanbul. John Hayes included them rather under his group ‘Coarse Glazed Wares’ (Hayes 1992, 41-2). I prefer Morgan’s term ‘Plain Glazed Ware’, because the transparent glaze is applied directly on the surface of the vessel without an intervening slip. The fabric of the chafing dish fragments found on the Boeotian sites is both of a red and a grey clay. The red clay is coarse and reddish brown (5 YR 6/4) in colour, sometimes with large lime and quartz inclusions and relatively porous. The grey variant is soft, medium fine and light brownish grey (5 YR 7/2) to reddish grey (2.5 YR 5/1) in colour, with some medium limestone inclusions. The colourless glaze is applied as a sealant directly to the coarse fabric, resulting in a dark olive-brown (2.5 YR 3/2 to 2.5 Y 4/4) or olive-green tone (5 Y 6/4 to 5/3) on the clay. The glaze varies from some sparse spots (due to the application of the lead compound in powder form) to a thick glassy coating on the inside of the dishes. The decoration on the outside of the chafing dish fragments found in Boeotia is limited to a few simple incised lines. Chafing dishes are vessels with a glazed bowl set on a hollow, ventilated stand. In its earliest form (from the

late 8th to mid 10th century), the dish is set within the mouth of the stand, so that the rims of both elements are approximately even and form a double wall (Sanders 1995; see also Romei 1992, 378-93, figs. 2-4, pl. E2 with examples from the Crypta Balbi excavations at Rome). Other examples have the bowl set so deeply that the rim of the bowl is well below that of the stand. At the excavations of Corinth many locally produced vessels have been recovered: mainly in a red as well as in a white fabric (Morgan 1942, 36-57). The chafing dishes from Corinth can generally be dated there from the 9th until the early 12th centuries. The earlier type of Corinthian chafing dish with a double wall could be dated as originating from the late 8th until the mid 10th centuries. Only one fragment, found on site Thespiae S14, is of this earlier type of chafing dish with a double wall, and this piece is datable from the late 9th to early 10th century (cf. Sanders 1995, 80, no. 7, fig. 2 for a similar chafing dish found together with a coin of Leo VI, 886912 AD). All the shapes of the other chafing dishes found in Boeotia are of the later type, and can be generally dated from the 10th to late 11th century (cf. in general Morgan 1942, fig. 24; Felten 1975, 74-75, nos. 144-47, figs. 17-19; Çomsa 1980, 324, fig. 1, no. 17 and Koilakou 1992; fig. 17 for an example found in Thebes). The fragments found on the Boeotian sites could have been locally manufactured. However, we do not have solid evidence yet for production of chafing dishes in Boeotia. Found in Boeotia at: Askra, CN3, CN8, CN15, CN17, Ipsilantis, Klimataria, Neochori 1-3, PP16, Paralimni, Tatiza, Thespiae, Thespiae South 14 and Upper Haliartos 1. 6.3.4 plain glazed ware (in a white fabric) / glazed white ware ii (ware 8) — (figs. 6.6 and 6.40: w8.1) Only one sherd of Plain Glazed Ware in a white fabric was found in the research area on the site of Thespiae (figs. 6.6 and 6.40: W8.1). The ware was first classified by David Talbot Rice in his groups ‘A1-6’ and ‘B4: White Painted Ware’, based on finds from Constantinople/ Istanbul (Talbot Rice 1930, 9-31, 45-48). Other names used by him and others were ‘Plain Glazed Ware’ ‘Petal Ware’ and ‘Impressed Ware’, stressing the decorative aspects of the pottery (cf. Talbot Rice 1930, 19-23, 25-28; Frantz 1938; Morgan 1942, 42-49, 51-52). The ware was

147

W 7.1

W 7.2

W 7.3

W 7.4

W 7.5

W 7.6

W 7.7

Fig. 6.5 W7.1-7 (1:2).

148

W 7.8

W 7.9

W 7.10

W 7.11

W 7.12

W 7.13

W 7.14

W 8.1

Fig. 6.6 W7.8-14, W8.1 (1:2).

149

later divided by John Hayes in five groups as ‘Glazed White Wares I-V’ (Hayes 1992, 12-34). The fabric of the Boeotian sherd is soft, medium fine and has a dull orange colour (7.5 YR 7/3). The powdery clay contains a few fine lime and sand inclusions. The clay is directly covered with an olive-yellow glaze (5 Y 6/6) on the outside and with a yellow glaze (5 Y 7/6) on the inside. The shape is of an open vessel, probably a cup with a flaring rim and rounded lip, turning sharply up to a vertical concave upper wall. The open vessels of Glazed White Ware II are generally incised or stamped on the inside with geometric designs, as well as with representations of (fantasy) animals or human figures in a Classical style. The geometric decoration of the Boeotian sherd is in relief, executed with a mould or by pressing a stamp on the outside of the vessel (cf. Morgan 1942, 42; Sanders 1995, 259 and Megaw 1968c on the find of a potter’s stamp). John Hayes has suggested the indistinct stamped decoration on Glazed White Wares served as maker’smarks (Hayes 1997, 50); other scholars believed they were rather part of the vessels’decoration (Talbot Rice 1930; Herrin 1996; Dark 2001, 108-9). Glazed White Wares (with a relief decoration) were widely distributed: they have been found at Corinth, in the Athenian Agora, at Thebes and at other major sites in the Aegean (e.g. Morgan 1942, 42-49; Waagé 1933, 32122; Bakirtzis & Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1981, 422, figs. 1-2; Koilakou 1994, figs. 24-25, pl. 49b). They were also recovered in Italy, in Cyprus, in Turkey, in Bulgaria and in Southern Russia (see Armstrong 2002, fig. 3.1 for find spots of Glazed White Wares in the Mediterranean). However, the largest amounts came from Constantinople/Istanbul. At the Saraçhane excavations, for instance, they represented a substantial percentage of the finds (Hayes 1992, 19). This fact correlates the view that the main production centre of this ware should be sought in the wider environs of the Capital (Talbot Rice 1930, 28; Hayes 1992, 12; Sanders 1995, 232-33). The site of Anavatköy on the Bosporus has been suggested as the place from where the white clay probably came (Megaw & Jones 1983, 258 and note 56). Recently, wasters of Glazed White Ware II have been found at Nicaea, modern Iznik in North-Western Turkey (François 1997, 417, fig.2, nos. 16-17). Excavated examples from Corinth and elsewhere (especially from Constantinople/Istanbul) gave a broad

150

time-range for Glazed White Wares with an impressed decoration: from the 9th to the late 11th century – some even as late as the 12th-13th centuries (Morgan 1942, 49; Sanders 1995, 260; Hayes 1992, 21). The shape of the Boeotioan sherd has similarities with a yellow glazed cup from Corinth, which could be dated to the (10th)-11th centuries (cf. Sanders 1995, 134, no. 140 (form I), fig. 25). Interesting is also the find of some fragments of Glazed White Ware II or III at excavations in Sigtuna, Sweden, which could be dated to the second half of the 11th century. One green glazed cup from Sigtuna was deposited later, during the first half of the 12th century (Roslund 1997, 268, fig. 16). More sherds of a brownglazed variant were found in Trondheim in an early 11th century context (Reed 1990, 72). Found in Boeotia at: Thespiae. 6.3.5 slip-painted ware (ware 9) — (figs. 6.17-18 and 6.41: w9.1-14) Many fragments of Slip-painted Ware of the Middle Byzantine period were found on fourteen sites in the research area. The name of ‘Slip-painted Ware’ for this type of pottery was proposed by Frederick Waagé in his Athenian Agora-publication on the basis of its decoration-technique (Waagé 1933, 323). The fabric of the Boeotian sherds is soft, medium fine and has an orange colour (5 YR 6/6 to 7/6). The clay contains some medium lime inclusions, a few fine micaceous particles and some medium voids. The interior of the vessel is not completely covered with a white slip, but only decorated with it (as a kind of paint). The designs have been painted directly onto the raw clay surface, which was then coated with a glaze (see Morgan 1942, 95-96 for a detailed description of the technique). The decorative effect is based on the contrasts between the brown clay and the pale slip. The glaze on top enhances this contrasting effect. The tone of the glaze varies from pale yellow (5 Y 8/3) where it covers the decoration, to yellow-brown (5 Y 6/4) or (dark) green where it covers the unslipped clay. The slip-painting technique occurs on both open and closed shapes: dishes with a low ring foot, as well as quite a large number of jugs (Morgan 1942, 97, figs. 71-80). Slip-painted pottery was widely distributed in the Byzantine world. The earliest examples in Greece were first dated by Morgan to the 11th century (Morgan 1942,

95-103), but the floruit of this ware was in the 12th century (Sanders 1995, 240-42). Wasters of Slip-painted Ware have been found at Corinth (Megaw & Jones 1983, 238-39, pl. 25.4). The abstract decoration of the fragments found in Boeotia belongs with its rectilinear and spiral patterns to Morgan’s ‘later linear style’ of the 12th century (cf. Waagé 1933, fig. 18a-f; Morgan 1942, 100-4, figs. 76-78 and, in particular, pl. 32a, no. 749). Guy Sanders calls this decoration-style rather ‘Light on Dark Slip Painted II’ (Sanders 1995, 241-2). The style is found widely in Greece and has been reported from excavations on a number of regional centres, including Sparta, Sikyon, Athens, Thebes, Chalkis and Thessaloniki, as well on rural sites in Eastern Phokis (cf. Armstrong 1989, 42 and id. 1996b, 350 note 34 with further literature; see also for Thebes, Koilakou 1992, pl. 29d; 1993, pl. 32c; 1996, pl. 33a). It has also been found during excavations at the Great Palace in Constantinople/Istanbul (Stevenson 1947, pl. 25, no. 12). Found in Boeotia at: Lower Archondiki, Askra, CN3, CN8, CN15, Haliartos B6, Neochori 1-3, Palaiomazi, PP16, Rhadon, Tatiza, Upper Haliartos 1, VM21 and VM67. 6.3.6 green and brown painted ware (ware 10) — (figs. 6.19-21 and 6.41: w10.1-17) The survey in Boeotia yielded many fragments of Green and Brown Painted Ware on fifteen sites in the research area. This red-bodied ware was first named ‘Black and Green Painted Ware’ by Frederick Waagé in 1933, but is now internationally known as ‘Green and Brown Painted Ware’ (Waagé 1933, 323). The term ‘Green and Brown Painted Ware’ was introduced by Charles Morgan in 1942, because the black colour more often appears to be brown with a yellow hue (Morgan 1942, 70-71; see also Philadelphos 1923, 41, fig. 21 and Sanders 1995 for more finds at Corinth). The fabric of the Boeotian sherds is soft, medium fine and has an orange-red colour (2.5 YR 7/6 to 5 YR 7/6). The clay contains some coarse limestone (up to 4mm.), a few fine quartz inclusions and some medium voids. These sherds are covered on the inside with a thick, white slip and a thin, transparent or light grey glaze (7.5 YR 8/2). An under glaze design is painted in green (PMS 370) and different hues of brown (7.5 YR 4/2 to 3/1) on top of the white slip.

Green and Brown Painted Ware from Corinth is divided by Morgan into five groups according to fabric, decorative techniques and date (Morgan 1942, 72-83). The decoration of the Boeotian fragments often belongs to Morgan’s Group II with simple linear and spiral combinations (Morgan 1942, 75-77). In Morgan’s group II the two colours are used in fairly equal quantity, which is, according to him, characteristic for the first quarter of the 12th century. The shape of the Boeotian sherds, a deep rounded bowl with a flat everted rim, is also typical for this group (Morgan 1942, fig. 55d, no. 442). The bowl has a ring foot with flat resting surface and convex divergent lower wall. There exist also closed shapes, which are usually small jugs (cf. Frantz 1938, 441, fig. 4, A20-21; Morgan 1942, 73, fig. 52a). Green and Brown Painted Ware seems to be particularly well attested on sites of the Mainland: apart from Corinth, it has also been recovered at Nichoria, Kythera, Sparta, Nemea, Kenchreai, Athens, Thebes, Chalkis, Eastern Phokis, Larissa, Thessaloniki and Pella (e.g. Dawkins & Droop 1910-11, pl. XVIII; Waagé 1933; Frantz 1938, figs. 1,2,5,6; Soteriou & Soteriou 1952, pl. 96a-d; Petsas 1966, pl. 344b; Makaronas 1972, pl. 443f; Papadakis 1975, fig. 11; Adamscheck 1979, 102-4, pl. 25; Georgopoulou-Melanidi 1979; Bakirtzis & PapanikolaBakirtzis 1981, fig. 3; Vavylopoulou-Charitonidou 1982, pls. 37, 40a; Rosser 1983; Shear Jr. 1984, pl. 16b,i; id. 1997, pl. 105b-c; Armstrong 1989; id. 1993; Sutton 1990; Koilakou 1992, pl. 29e-f; id. 1993, figs. 9, 14, pls. 32c, 33d; Gourgiotis 1995, 48 right above). Furthermore, it has been found in other parts of the Mediterranean: for instance, on Keos, on a shipwreck near Kastellorizo, on Crete, on Cyprus, at Cherson, at Constantinople/ Istanbul, in the Balkans and as bacini in Italy (e.g. Du Plat Taylor 1938; Stevenson 1947, stage V; Borboudakes 1968; Megaw 1984; Rosser 1985; Filotheou & Michailidou 1986; Blake 1986; Cherry et al. 1991, 354, figs. 5.13, 18.1; Gelichi, Berti & Nepoti 1993). Looking at the distribution of Green and Brown Painted Ware in the Mediterranean, it appears as if this ware was produced somewhere within the Byzantine sphere. Places of manufacture have been suggested at Corinth (Morgan 1942, 72) and at Sparta (Armstrong et al. 1997, 226). Considering the large amounts of this ware on the Boeotian sites, production in this part of the region belongs to the possibilities. Recent research has

151

disputed Morgan’s chronology of dating Green and Brown Painted Ware in the late 11th-12th centuries, and Guy Sanders now attributes this ware circa 50 years later: from the second half of the 12th until the beginning of the 13th century (cf. Sanders 1999; 2000). Found in Boeotia at: Agia Eleousa, Lower Archondiki, Upper Archondiki, Askra, CN3, CN8, CN15, Haliartos B6, Klimataria, Neochori 1-3, Palaiomazi, PP16, Upper Haliartos 1, VM4 and VM67. 6.3.7 fine sgraffito ware (ware 11) — (figs. 6.22 and 6.41: w11.1-3 and w11.6) Many fragments of Fine Sgraffito Ware with finely incised decoration are found on seventeen sites in the research area. The ware was first described in 1930 by Talbot Rice as his ‘Group B1’ or ‘Early Sgraffito Ware’, which derives from the Italian verb sgraffiare (‘to scratch’) (Talbot Rice 1930, 32-33).[5 ] It became later known by Charles Morgan under the term ‘Fine Style Sgraffito’ or ‘Fine Sgraffito’ (Morgan 1942, 117). In Israel the ware is often published under the heading ‘Mid-12th century Byzantine Sgraffito’ (e.g. Boas 1994). The fabric of the Boeotian sherds is medium coarse with many lime inclusions, and has a deep orange-red colour (2.5 YR 5/6 to 7.5 YR 7/6). A thickly applied, white slip and transparent glaze cover the interior and upper part of the vessels. The colour of the glaze, which ends some distance below the rim on the outside, is often pale yellow-green (5 Y 8/4), because of impurities in the glaze. This ware consists mainly of bowls and dishes with a straight rim or narrow everted rim and a low ring base. The vessels are decorated on the interior with delicate scrollwork and lace designs which were engraved through the white slip with a fine and sharp tool before firing (cf. in general, Morgan 1942 and PapanikolaBakirtzis 1999). The delicate incised designs are either in horizontal bands between two compass-drawn lines, or in a tondo in the centre of the vessel. Some pieces found on the Boeotian sites correspond to Morgan’s Group II, the so-called ‘spiral style’ with a rinceau (or foliated scroll) design (Morgan 1942, figs. 22, 96, pls. 39-41), which is dated by him in the first half of the 12th century (Morgan 1942, 117-23). Other sherds belong rather to his ‘free style’ with animal and human figures represented on a free field (Morgan 1942, pls. 4243; see also Von Wartburg 2001b). Two Boeotian fragments depict a fairly large-sized bird (one of them a

152

pigeon or ‘Collared Turtle-Dove’ which recalls analogous looking vessels from Corinth and can be dated around the mid 12th century (Morgan 1942, fig. 104b, pls. 42-43; Spieser 1996, 52, nos. 562-75, pls. 58-59; PapanikolaBakirtzis et al. 1999, 76, no. 137; Von Wartburg 2001b, 119, fig. 12.7, pl. 12.2). It has been suggested that these animals represent birds of the chase or their preferred preys (Von Wartburg 2001b, 125). Fine Sgraffito Ware is widespread in the Aegean area, with examples found at Athens, Corinth, Sparta, Samos, Chalkis and Thebes. It has also been found on sites in Italy, Rumania, Turkey, Cyprus, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine (cf. Pringle 1986, fig. 1q; Boas 1994, fig. 10; François 1997, fig. 2). Similar fragments were also recovered during excavations at Dürres and at Butrint in Albania (Hoti 1989, pl. III; Vroom forthcoming b). Peter Megaw (1975) notes that the most elegant phase of Fine Sgraffito Ware is represented by finds from the Pelagonnisos shipwreck in the North Sporades (Kritzas 1971). The question of the provenance of this ware is still debated. Wasters of Fine Sgraffito Ware have been found in Corinth (Megaw & Jones 1983, 238-39, pl. 25.4). John Hayes has suggested that Fine Sgraffito Ware was also produced on the Bosporus near Constantinople/Istanbul (Hayes 1992, 44; see also Megaw & Jones 1983, 250, M7, pl. 25.3 for a possible waster from Constantinople/Istanbul). Furthermore, Cyprus and Argos have been named as possible places of production (cf. Boas 1994 and Armstrong et al. 1997, 226; Von Wartburg 2001b, 122 and 125, notes 29 and 58 contra Boas 1994). The ware began to be produced during the 12th century (Hayes 1992, 44). At the excavations in Lund, Sweden, a Fine Sgraffito sherd from a dish or bowl was found in a late 12th century context (Roslund 1997, 269, fig. 17). The general date of this type of ware, established from new research at Corinth, is now thought to be in the mid 12th to second half of 12th/early 13th century (cf. Sanders 1999; id. 2000; Von Wartburg 2001b, 115 and note 6). Found in Boeotia at: Lower Archondiki, Askra, Charmena, CN3, CN8, CN15, Haliartos B6, Hyettos, Klimataria, Mavromati North, PP16, Rhadon, Tatiza, Thespiae, Upper Haliartos 1, VM21 and VM67. 6.3.8 painted fine sgraffito ware (ware 11a) — (fig. 6.22: w11a.1-2) The survey in Boeotia yielded a few sherds of a sub-

division of Fine Sgraffito Ware: the so-called ‘Painted Fine Sgraffito Ware’ with added painted decoration in green or brown. This variant of Fine Sgraffito Ware was found on site CN3 in the research area. The term ‘Painted Sgraffito Wares’ was first used by Charles Morgan to cover all the Corinthian examples with the combination of incised and painted decoration techniques (Morgan 1942, 140). The term ‘Painted Fine Sgraffito’ was introduced in the 1999-catalogue of the Benaki Museum in Athens (Papanikola-Bakirtzis et al. 1999, 81). The fabric of the Boeotian sherds is medium coarse with many lime inclusions, and has a deep orange-red colour (2.5 YR 5/6 to 7.5 YR 7/6). A thickly applied, white slip covers the interior and upper part of the vessels. The colour of the transparent lead glaze, which ends some distance below the rim on the outside, is often pale yellow-green (5 Y 8/4), because of impurities in the glaze. The incised designs are executed on the interior through the white slip with a fine and sharp potter’s tool. The engraved decoration consists often of an interlace medallion at the bottom with an intertwining band on an imbricated ground. Around the central medallion are zones of scrolls, spirals or tendrils. The sgraffito decoration has in addition painted spirals or linear motifs in green and in brown (Morgan 1942, 140; PapanikolaBakirtzis 1999, 37-39, nos. 19-23; Papanikola-Bakirtzis et al. 1999, 81-82, nos. 153-56). There exist also vessels on which only one colour was used (Frantz 1938, 444, 445; Ioannidaki-Dostoglou 1989, 161, 163, 165; PapanikolaBakirtzis 1999, 40-43, nos. 24-28; Papanikola-Bakirtzis et al. 1999, 82-84, nos. 157-161). Forms include bowls with a low ring base and horizontal banded rim, smaller hemispherical bowls and dishes of a slightly concave shape (Morgan 1942, 129, fig. 103). Painted Fine Sgraffito Ware has been found in Constantinople/Istanbul, Corinth, Sparta, Argos, Athens, Thebes, Euboea, Eastern Phokis, Thasos and Thessaloniki (e.g. Dawkins & Droop 1910-11, no. 52, pl. XVII; Morgan 1942, 141, pls. 46-47; Bakirtzis & PapanikolaBakirtzis 1981, 423, fig. 6; Efgenidou 1982, 34, fig. 7a, drawing 7; Vavylopoulou-Charitonidou 1982, pl. 41b; Doukata et al. 1989; Armstrong 1989; id. 1993; id. 1996b, 354; Hayes 1992, 46; Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1999, 37-42). The ware is also often found in Northern Greece and in the Balkans, and it has been suggested that one

possible workshop must be sought in Thessaloniki (cf. Papanikola-Bakirtzis et al. 1999, 81, note 118). Morgan dated Painted Fine Sgraffito Ware in the first half of the 12th century (Morgan 1942, 149), but nowadays it is generally dated to the middle and second half of the 12th century (cf. Hayes 1992, 46; Sanders 1995, 247). Found in Boeotia at: site CN3. 6.3.9 amphorae: günsenin 3 / saraçhane 61 amphora (ware 12) – (figs. 6.7 and 6.41: w12.1-5 and w12.ex) The Günsenin 3 / Saraçhane 61 amphora of the Middle Byzantine period was sampled on twenty-three sites in the research area. The type was first recognized by the Turkish underwater archaeologist Nergis Günsenin, who systematically studied Byzantine amphora types in 50 Turkish museums since 1984 (Günsenin 1989, 271-4, figs. 8-10). Later, John Hayes described the amphora as number 61 in his typology of amphorae for the Saraçhane publication (Hayes 1992, 76, fig. 26.10) The fabric of the Boeotian sherds is fairly hard, medium, and has an orange colour (5 YR 7/6). The clay contains some fine lime inclusions, some medium voids and much organics (especially on the handles). There is a creamish or dull orange slip (5 YR 7/3 to 7.5 YR 7/4) on the exterior surface. A characteristic feature is the closely set horizontal grooving which begins at the shoulder and cover the upper two-thirds of the vessel wall. The final third down towards the bottom is smooth or sporadically decorated with single grooves. This amphora type has an ovoid body with two heavy, high-slung handles attached on the tall neck and on the shoulder (cf. Hayes 1992, 76, type 61, fig. 26.10; Sanders 1993, 282, fig. 15 for the shape). The height of complete examples varies between 53 and 70 cm. high. The neck is narrow with an everted thickened rim. The walls are thick, up to 1 cm. in section (see fig. 6.41, W12. Ex). The Günsenin 3 / Saraçhane 61 amphora has been found throughout the Eastern Mediterranean, extending from Italy in the West to Israel in the East, from Cyprus in the South and Novgorod in the North (cf. Günsenin 1989, 271-4, fig. 1; 1990, fig. 16 and Sanders 1993, 283 for its distribution). In Greece, the amphorae have been identified at Corinth, Athens, Marathon, Gytheion and Anthedon (Boeotia), and on Corfu, Kythera, Kea and Melos (Schläger et al. 1968, 88,

153

W 12.1

W 12.2

W 12.4

Fig. 6.7 W12.1-5 (1:2).

154

W 12.3

W 12.5

fig. 90; Günsenin 1990, 320; Cherry et al. 1991, 354, fig. 18. 2,5; Hayes 1992, 76 and Sanders 1993, 283 with further literature). Looking at Günsenin’s distribution map, a place of manufacture on the Northern coast of Turkey is probable, although John Hayes claims for a production centre in Central Greece. Hayes suggests Boeotia or perhaps Athens (Cherry et al 1991, 354-55; see also Sanders 1993, 283 note 49). During the Saranda Kolones excavation on Cyprus this type of amphora was found in pre-1222 earthquake destruction layers (Von Wartburg 2001c; contra Megaw 1972, 322-43, fig. 27). A date in the later part of the 12th century and the first quarter of the 13th century seems probable. Furthermore, at excavations in Sweden (in the towns of Lund and Sigtuna) several pieces of this amphora type have been found and dated to the 12th13th centuries, or more precisely to the first quarter and the first third of the 13th century (Roslund 1997, 273-4, fig. 21.3). This type was perhaps used until amphorae disappeared completely during the 14th century and were replaced by wooden barrels. According to Nergis Günsenin, the shipwreck at Çamalti Burnu, near Marmara, which contained a cargo of Günsenin 3 and 4 amphorae, symbolized the last phase of Byzantine amphora trade (Günsenin 2001; 2002). It has been suggested that the Günsenin 3 / Saraçhane 61 amphora was manufactured for the specific purpose of shipping honey or even as a bee-hive (Cherry et al. 1991, 356-7; Hayes 1992, 76). This may be the case, but amphorae were often multi-functional: they could easily have been used for the transport of all sorts of liquids and were at the same time suitable for every conceivable purpose, including food preparation or storage. Unserviceable amphorae were even recycled and reused as filling material in vaults. Found in Boeotia at: Lower Archondiki, Upper Archondiki, Askra, CN3, CN8, CN15, Haliartos B6, Hyettos, Ipsilantis, Klimataria, Morokambos, Megali Rachi, Neochori 1-3, Palaiomazi, PP16, Paralimni, Rhadon, Tatiza, Thespiae, Thespiae South 14, Upper Haliartos 1, VM21 and VM67. 6.3.10 amphorae: ‘otranto 1 amphora’ (ware 13) — (figs. 6.8 and 6.42: w13.1-5 and w13.ex) Apart from the Günsenin 3 / Saraçhane 61 amphora, fragments of other amphora types of the Middle Byzantine period have been found on eight sites in the

research area. I will limit myself here to the description of one type: the so-called ‘Otranto 1 amphora’. This term was introduced by Paul Arthur in his typology of amphorae found at Otranto in Southern Italy (Arthur 1992, 206, nos. 818-24, figs. 7:2-3). Nergis Günsenin described this amphora as type 15 in her typology of Byzantine amphorae (Günsenin 1990, 313, pl. LXXXVI/1). The fabric of the Boeotian sherds is fairly hard, medium fine, and is pale creamish-orange (7.5 YR 8/3) in colour (with an orange-pink core). It contains many organics, some limestone inclusions (up to 4mm.), some medium red mudstone and many medium voids. This amphora type has thick, ribbed strap handles that depart from below the everted, heavy rim. The vessel is characterized by a ribbed body. Noteworthy is also an incised wavy line (of ca. 4-5 mm. wide) around the shoulder of the amphora. In her presentation of Byzantine finds from excavations in the centre of Thebes, Pamela Armstrong dated this type of amphora within the 8th to 10th centuries, ‘a period when little is known about pottery production and typology in this region’ (Armstrong 1993, 303, fig. 4; see also Koilakou 1994, fig. 23, pl. 49c for another example from Thebes). However, Guy Sanders now suggests that the amphora illustrated is of a type which at Corinth dates to the end of the 10th and the 11th century (Sanders 1995, 21). At excavations in Argos a similar looking amphora type with a flat base is dated to the end of the 11th and the beginning of the 12th century (Piérart & Thalmann 1980, pl. V, no. B1); in the Athenian Agora it was found together with coins of the late 11th-12th centuries (Günsenin 1990, 41). The date from Corinth seems to agree with finds from excavations at Otranto in Southern Italy. According to Paul Arthur, this amphora type (his ‘Otranto type 1’) is of Apulian origin, perhaps from the Brindisi/Bari area (Arthur 1992, 206). The amphora predominates in Otranto in contexts which can be dated to the 10th century and the first half of the 11th century. Since Arthur’s publication of the Otranto finds in 1992, more examples of this amphora type (which he divided into two principal variants) have been recovered at underwater sites around Apulia and at village sites in the hinterland of Otranto (Arthur & Auriemma 1996, fig. 1). Further examples have been recognized at the site of Sibenik in the former Yugoslavia, as well as in the

155

Fig. 6.8 W13.1-4, W14.1-4 (1:2).

156

W 13.1

W 13.2

W 13.4

W 13.3

W 14.1

W 14.2

W 14.3

W 14.4

museum of Dürres and at the excavations of Butrint in Albania (Tartari 1982, type 35; J. Vroom, pers. observation, see fig. 6.42, W13. Ex)). It now seems certain that amphorae of different shapes and of different fabrics (probably more than two types) were produced in Southern Apulia from the 10th/11th to the 12th century. The different local fabrics suggest that more than one production site was involved. Similar amphorae have also been found at the excavations of Corinth, where they seem to have been made locally (G. Sanders, pers. comm.). The differences between the Apulian and Corinthian amphorae, however, are difficult to discern as both products were made of similar looking calcareous clays (cf. Megaw & Jones 1983, 262; see also Sanders 1999, 162 for a description of the Corinthian clay). Clearly, more study needs to be done on these amphorae to discern the Apulian from the Corinthian ones. Found in Boeotia at: Agia Eleousa, Askra, CN17, Klimataria, Neochori 1-3, PP16, Thespiae South 14 and Upper Haliartos 1. 6.3.11 unglazed domestic wares (ware 14) — (figs. 6.8-13: w14.1-36) Many fragments of unglazed domestic wares of the Middle Byzantine period were sampled on twenty-two sites in the research area. This category contains domestic wares involved in the preparation of food, serving of food and liquids and storage. They include cooking pots, water jars (or small amphorae) and storage jars (pithoi). The term is purely a technical description of a broad category. Only the more characteristic of those that can be dated are presented here. The most common shape found on the Boeotian sites, for instance, is a rather thick-walled cooking pot (figs. 6.8-9). The fabric of the cooking pot fragments found on the Boeotian sites is soft, medium coarse, and has an orange (7.5 YR 7/6) to light reddish brown colour (5 YR 6/3). The gritty clay contains very many coarse limestone (up to 3mm.), many medium black or white quartz inclusions and some coarse voids. The large inclusions are added to the clay for efficient heat conduction. The outside is sometimes decorated with incised wavy lines. The upper part of the cooking pot found in Boeotia has often a straight rim with rounded lip and straight convergent shoulder, sometimes with grooves on the upper part. Cooking pots changed little during Byzantine times.

The shape of the rim is the best datable part of the cooking pots found on the Boeotian sites. Most of the rims resemble cooking pots found in Corinth, Thebes, Nichoria, Sparta and Lakonia, where these vessels were dated from the mid 12th to the early 13th century (cf. for shape, Rosser 1983, figs. 10.58 and 10.61; Sanders 1993, 281, nos. 65, 70-73, figs. 13-14; Armstrong 1993, nos.147 and 149, fig. 9; id. 1996a, fig. 17.5, no. 23). These are typical cooking pots of ‘the Byzantine style’ (Joyner 1997, fig. 3). In addition, the fragment in fig. 6.12: W14.28 could be from an unglazed, portable brazier for heating and cooking (see Bakirtzis 1989, pl. 14). Noteworthy is also the find of fragments of water jars or small amphorae on the Boeotian sites (fig. 6.10). The fabric is moderately soft, fine, and has an orange colour (5 YR 7/6). The smooth clay contains some fine lime and a few fine micaceous particles. There is a dull orange/white wash (7.5 YR 7/3) on the in- and outside of the vessel. The two-handled jar or amphora has an everted thickened rim and a convex divergent neck. Similar plain unglazed vessels were found during excavations at Athens, Corinth, Argos and Sparta, where they were dated from the late 11th to the late 12th century (cf. in general, MacKay 1967, 272-79; Piérart & Thalmann 1980, group B, amphora B5, pls. 5-7; Sanders 1993, no. 38, fig. 9 and Shear 1997, 104:c and 106: A,B). In addition, the survey yielded several basin and storage jar (pithos) fragments (figs. 6.11-13). These last ones have a flat base with a diameter of ca. 20 cm, and a wall thickness of ca. 12 cm. The fabric is soft, coarse, and has a dull orange (5 YR 6/4 to 7/4) or orange-red colour (2.5 YR 6/6 to 7/6). The rough, gritty clay contains many coarse limestone (up to 4 mm.), many coarse organic inclusions, very many coarse black quartz and red mudstone and some coarse voids. The clay has often a brownish grey core (10 YR 6/1). The interior wall has sometimes a flange for receiving lids to close the jars (see fig. 6.13: W14.33 for an example of a lid fragment). The exterior surface can be decorated with incised wavy lines. It is difficult to date the Boeotian storage jar fragments more precisely yet. The dates assigned here are based on associated diagnostic wares from the Boeotian sites on which the pithoi were found. Found in Boeotia at: Lower Archondiki, Upper Archondiki, Charmena, CN3, CN15, CN17, Haliartos B6, Hyettos, Ipsilantis, Morokambos, Megali Rachi, Neochori 1-3, Palaiomazi, PP16, Paralimni, Rhadon,

157

Fig. 6.9 W14.5-16 (1:2).

158

W 14.5

W 14.6

W 14.7

W 14.8

W 14.9

W 14.10

W 14.11

W 14.12

W 14.13

W 14.14

W 14.15

W 14.16

W 14.17

W 14.18

W 14.19

W 14.20

W 14.21

W 14.22

W 14.23

Fig. 6.10 W14.17-23 (1:2).

159

W 14.24

W 14.25

W 14.26

W 14.27

Fig. 6.11 W14.24-27 (1:2).

160

W 14.28

W 14.29

W 14.30

W 14.31

Fig. 6.12 W14.28-31 (1:2).

161

W 14.32

W 14.33

W 14.34

Fig. 6.13 W14.32-34 (1:2).

162

Tatiza, Thespiae South 14, Upper Haliartos 1, VM4, VM21 and VM67. 6.3.12 incised sgraffito ware and champlevé ware (ware 15) — (figs. 6.23-24 and 6.41-42: w15.1-20) Many fragments of these broadly incised and gouged wares were sampled on twenty-one sites in the research area. This complex group of wares in related sgraffito styles have previously been called ‘Aegean Ware’ by Peter Megaw on the basis of a finer quality pottery, found in the Aegean and dating from the 12th century, which he believed was the proto-type of this group (Megaw 1975, 39). Other designations have also been proposed: apart from ‘Champlevé Ware’ (Xyngopoulos 1933; Sanders 1993, 260-1), one may encounter the terms ‘Incised Ware’ and ‘Coarse Incised Ware’ (Morgan 1942, 162-6; Stevenson 1947, 54, pl. 20.8; Hayes 1992, 48). Most ceramicists still seem to use the designation ‘Aegean Ware’ or ‘Aegean Wares’ (cf. Armstrong 1989, 45-46), though a technical description seems more appropriate, taking into account that the theory of the ‘Aegean’ provenance seems to be faltering. Recent publications rightly divide the vessels in two groups on the basis of the decoration-technique: ‘Incised Sgraffito Ware’ and ‘Champlevé Ware’ (Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1996, 48; id. 1999). I have put the two groups in the same category, because the fragments found on the Boeotian sites are often too small to make a difference. The fabric of both wares found on the Boeotian sites is orange-red (2.5 YR 6/8) and coarse with many large lime inclusions. A yellowish glaze covers a thick, whitish slip on the interior of the vessel with a mere overlap on the rim. The exterior of the vessel, including the base, is often covered with a thin slip-wash. The (pale) yellow glaze is also coarse. The decoration used is thick gouging through the white slip executed with a blunt or broad-bladed tool, rather than neatly incised designs as in Fine Sgraffito Ware. Furthermore, the slipped ground of the vessel can be removed so that the decorative subjects appear in very low relief, while the details are usually in fine sgraffito. Morgan called this last decoration technique ‘Incised’, but the French term champlevé has prevailed internationally, precisely because it describes the technique of removal (lever) of the slipped ground (champ) (Morgan 1942, 162).

The decorative engraved subjects fall into two categories: 1. human and animal figures, 2. vegetal motifs (see Morgan 1942, 162-165; Iakobson 132, fig. 82). Also possible is a decoration of only green splashes or dabs over the whitish slip and under the glaze (Megaw 1975, 37; Filotheou & Michailidou 1986, figs. 19-21, pls. 68-69; Stern 1997, 46). Incised Sgraffito Ware with linear decoration is datable to the first quarter of the 13th century (Morgan, 166, pls. 49-51; Megaw 1975, 34-45; Armstrong 1991, 335-47). The most common shape consists of thickwalled shallow bowls with a simple rim and dishes with a low ring foot and an incurved rim. Following Morgan’s classification for Corinth, some sherds found on the Boeotian sites belong to his ‘Medallion Style’, characterized by a central medallion at the interior bottom (Morgan 1942, 147-50). The rest of the Boeotian fragments belong to Morgan’s ‘Free Style’ group where the designs are engraved freely on the whole interior surface (Morgan 1942, 150-57). This ‘Free Style’ decoration often includes human figures (warriors and hunters with enormous shields, spears and swords), which can be identified as warrior heroes such as Digenes Akritas (Frantz 1940-41; Ioannidaki-Dostoglou 1981). Vessels of this last group have been found, amongst other places, in Constantinople/Istanbul, Thessaloniki, the Crimea, Athens, Thebes, Corinth and Cyprus (Frantz 1938, 465, 456; Morgan 1942, 150-57; Stevenson 1947, 54, pl. 20:8; Bakirtzis & PapanikolaBakirtzis 1981, 426, fig. 9; Filotheou & Michailidou 1989, pl. 79a; Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1999, 48-50). Incised Sgraffito Ware and Champlevé Ware have been identified on many sites in Italy, Greece, Turkey, the Crimea, Cyprus, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine (see for their distribution in the Mediterranean, Pringle 1986, fig. 1; Boas 1994, fig. 11; François 1997, fig. 4). Furthermore, Albanian examples have been found at the excavations of Dürres in Albania (Hoti 1989, pl. IV). Both wares were manufactured at more than one distinct site: for instance, Constantinople/Istanbul and Cyprus have been named as possible production centres (Boas 1994; Papanikola-Bakirtzis et al. 1999, 85). Both wares date generally to the 2nd half of the 12th and the early 13th century (Morgan 1942, 156-57; Hayes 1992, 48; Papanikola-Bakirtzis et al. 1999, 85). Charles Morgan dated the vessels to the late 12th century, whereas more recent studies tend to date Champlevé Ware up to the early 13th century (Morgan 1942, 166;

163

Sanders 1993, 260). Peter Megaw dated this ware to the early 13th century on the basis of its existence in the destruction fill from the 1222 earthquake at the Castle of Saranda Kolones, Paphos, on Cyprus (Von Wartburg 2001c; contra Megaw 1971; 1972; 1975). On this site sealed deposits with Medieval coins have been uncovered, providing its dating. The conservative firing technique (i.e. the upright stacking in the kiln, which was not typical of later 13th-century glazed ware) led Megaw to date it to the early 13th century (Megaw 1975, 42). Found in Boeotia at: Agia Eleousa, Lower Archondiki, Upper Archondiki, Askra, Charmena, CN3, CN4, CN8, Haliartos B6, Ipsilantis, Morokambos, Megali Rachi, Neochori 1-3, Palaiomazi, PP16, Tatiza, Thespiae, Upper Haliartos 1, VM4, VM21 and VM67.

1./

Late Byzantine/Frankish period (table 1.0 colour plate)

6.4.1 ‘zeuxippus ware’ subtypes: monochrome sgraffito ware and one colour sgraffito ware (ware 16) — (fig. 6.25: w16.1-5) Fragments of ‘Zeuxippus Ware’ Subtypes have been found on ten sites in the research area. The group is an imitation or subtype of real ‘Zeuxippus Ware’: a fine, high-quality prototype decorated in a number of incised techniques which influenced the decorative repertoire of the 13th century. Zeuxippus Ware takes its name from the Baths of Zeuxippus in Constantinople/Istanbul, where it was first identified (Megaw 1968b, 67-68). In general, the imitations of Zeuxippus Ware have been given a dazzling number of names, such as ‘Shiny Olive Incised Ware’, ‘Imitation Zeuxippus’, ‘Zeuxippus Derivatives’, ‘Glossy Ware’, and ‘spirale cerchio’ (e.g. Talbot Rice 1928; MacKay 1967, 252-54, 258-261; Armstrong 1992, 30; Lazzarini 1989). Guy Sanders proposes the more general term ‘Late Sgraffito Ware’ (introduced by David Talbot Rice in his 1930 publication), because Zeuxippus Ware is, as Sanders rightly remarks, not ‘the product of a single centre’, but ‘a stylistic grouping of great complexity’ (Sanders 1993, 257). It is now generally accepted that Zeuxippus Ware is a non-homogeneous group or ‘family’ with different characteristics in glaze colour, decoration and firing technique (e.g. Megaw 1989, 259; Stern 1997, 54; Berti & Gelichi 1997).

164

However, an adequate, all-embracing term has not been found yet. The fabric of the Boeotian sherds is fairly hard, fine, and has a dull orange colour (7.5 YR 7/4 or 5 YR 7/4). The smooth clay contains some fine lime inclusions and a few fine black flint particles. The interior surface is covered with a white slip and a glaze. This glaze can be either matt ochre-yellow (2.5 Y 7/8) or glossy, pale yellow in colour (7.5 Y 8/3). The decoration consists of a central incised spiral, engraved or gouged with a tool through the white slip on a potter’s wheel, which gives the impression of concentric circles. The incised circles on the pale glazed fragments are further enhanced with brushstrokes or splashes of green colour (PMS 385 c). The most common shape is a deep bowl with a ring foot and a central nipple. The vessel has steep walls, a straight rim and rounded lip. Marks of tripod stilts can be seen on the inside of the bases, often near the incised circles. The Boeotian fragments show characteristics of the so-called ‘Zeuxippus Ware I B-C’ or locally made imitations of this ware. There are two groups according to decoration. The oldest group with a monochrome yellow glaze (Monochrome Sgraffito Ware) includes bowls with gouged small circles on the inside of the base. The decoration of this group shows similarities with pottery found at Gülpinar and Pergamon in Western Turkey, which can be generally dated to the 13th and 14th centuries (Yenis∏ ehirliog©lu 1989, 303-15, fig. 10 and fig. 3 (D 30) and Spieser 1991, pl. XIIa). The incised circles of the second group (which is divided into two subtypes) are, on the other hand, larger. The first subtype with a monochrome yellow glaze (Monochrome Sgraffito Ware) looks very similar to 13th(-14th?) century vessels excavated at Sparta, as well as at Thebes and Panakton in Boeotia (cf. Armstrong 1992, fig. 7. no. 18; id. 1993, no. 90, pl. 32; Koilakou 1992, 81, fig. 20; Makropoulou 1995, no. 29, pl. 15.29 and S. Gerstel, pers. comm.). The second subtype with green painted splashes (One Colour Sgraffito Ware) shows similarities with late 13th-14th century examples excavated at Thessaloniki and Attica, as well as at Thebes and Panakton in Boeotia (cf. Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1999, 89, no. 101 and 221, no. 257; Vroom forthcoming a; S. Gerstel, pers. comm.).[6 ] Production centres of Zeuxippus Ware and its Subtypes are much debated: suggestions are made for

Constantinople/Istanbul and somewhere in the Aegean, but also in Northern Italy and in Western Cyprus (cf. Megaw & Jones 1983, 263; Megaw 1989, 262-63; Lazzarini & Calogero 1989; Boas 1994, 118; more study on this material could trace additional production centres). Recently, tripod stilts, wasters and unfinished products of ‘Zeuxippus Ware’ Subtypes have been found in Pergamon in combination with a group of sherds which could be dated from the 12th to the 14th centuries (Waksman 1995; Waksman & Spieser 1997). Imitations were even produced in the Balkans into Ottoman times. Therefore, the further use of the term ‘Zeuxippus Ware’ does not seem to be very apt (Vroom 1998a, 521-22). Zeuxippus Ware and its Subtypes were widely distributed throughout the Eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea during the Late Byzantine/Frankish period (cf. Boas 1994, fig. 12; François 1995, pl. 23; id. 1997, fig. 3). Interesting are the signs of trade connections between the various ‘Zeuxippus Ware’ Subtypes in Italy (Berti & Gelichi 1997). This paper discusses ‘Zeuxippus Ware’ finds in the Italian Peninsula, their distribution and chronology, and presents hypotheses concerning their production areas on the basis of mineral-petrographic analyses. Berti and Gelichi suggest that a principal production tradition of some types of ‘Zeuxippus Ware’ already existed at the end of the 12th century and the beginning of the 13th century, but that their manufacturing sites are still unknown (they propose an area somewhere in the Aegean). After the success of this type of production, imitations started to be made during the 13th century in several centres around the Aegean and in Italy, with local variations and evolutions. Found in Boeotia at: Lower Archondiki, Askra, CN3, Haliartos B6, Klimataria, PP16, Rhadon, VM4 and VM67. 6.4.2 monochrome sgraffito ware from corinth (?) (ware 17) — (fig. 6.26: w17.1-6) Eight sites in the research area yielded this type of Monochrome Sgraffito Ware of the Late Byzantine/Frankish period. The ware was first identified as ‘Local Ware A’ by Timothy Gregory from excavations at the Poseidon Sanctuary at Isthmia (Gregory 1993, 284-88, pls. 1-2). However, finds of this ware at Corinth are described as a ‘locally produced Late Sgraffito’ by Guy Sanders, and this designation seems to be prefer-

able (Sanders 1987, 163-66; see also MacKay 1967, 264). The fabric of the Boeotian sherds is soft and medium fine with some large lime inclusions that frequently explode during firing. The colour of the clay is pink (7.5 YR 7/4) with a reddish yellow core (5 YR 6/8). A white slip covers the whole surface of the vessel. A vitreous lead glaze is thickly applied on the interior and just over the rim; its colour is often a dirty green (10 Y 3/2 or PMS 3308u). The shape consists of hemispherical bowls with a low ring foot, cut back along the side and a low pendant cone in the middle of the underside. Most examples have an incised spiral or circle, carelessly engraved at the centre of the interior of the vessels. The ware is very common at Isthmia, Corinth, Thebes and on several rural sites in Boeotia. At the excavations of Corinth and Isthmia, it can be dated to the 2nd half of the 13th century (Gregory 1993, 284-88; Williams & Zervos 1995, 28, no. 25, pl. 8). However, it seems to go well into the 14th century at Isthmia, where it was found together with a Venetian coin of 1382-1400 AD (Gregory 1993, 288). The finds in Boeotia seem to fit the stylistic characteristics of the published types from Corinth (cf. Sanders 1987). Found in Boeotia at: Agia Eleousa, Lower Archondiki, Haliartos B6, Ipsilantis, Megali Rachi, Neochori 1-3, Palaiomazi and PP16. 6.4.3 monochrome sgraffito ware from thessaloniki (ware 18) — (figs. 6.27 and 6.43: w18.1-3) A second type of Monochrome Sgraffito Ware of the Late Byzantine/ Frankish period was recovered on twelve sites in the research area. The term is a purely technical description of the ware. It was also called ‘Plain Sgraffito Ware’, but I prefer the technical description (Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1999, 75-85). The fabric is moderately soft, fine, and has a dull orange (7.5 YR 7/4) to orange colour (5 YR 6/6 to 7/6). The smooth clay contains some medium lime and a few quartz inclusions. The vessel is covered with a white slip and yellowish (2.5 Y 7/6) or ochre-yellow glaze (10 YR 7/8) on the inside and on the upper part of the outside. The rest of the exterior surface can be splashed with glaze. The interior of the Boeotian sherds has incised abstract motifs through the white slip, among which the

165

so-called ‘Salomon’s knot’. Vessels with similar looking knots have been found at Constantinople/Istanbul, Thessaloniki and Corinth (Demangel & Mamboury 1929, 137, fig. 184.13, 140, fig. 187, 2, 7, 13, 15, 16; Talbot Rice 1930, fig. 5:8-11, pl. XIV.a; Morgan 1942, fig. 225ef; Makropolou 1995, pls. 11-12). Another motif is a stylized branch with three heart-shaped leaves which have oblique hatching around the edges. The interior rim is engraved with two horizontal lines. The most common shape is a small hemispherical bowl with flaring ring foot and flat resting surface. The rim is straight with a rounded lip. Similar sgraffito bowls have been recovered during excavations at the Hippodrome and the cemetery of Vlatadon monastery, both in Thessaloniki (Makropoulou 1985, fig. 3d; Vaylopoulou-Charitonidou 1989, figs. 16-18; Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1999, 84, no. 92). These bowls were dated to the (late 13th-)14th century. More examples with a similar incised decoration were found at Pergamon, Western Turkey, although the designs look rather carelessly engraved (Spieser 1996, 24-5, nos. 168-72, 174-178, pls. 10-11) Found in Boeotia at: Lower Archondiki, Upper Archondiki, Askra, CN3, Haliartos B6, Klimataria, Neochori 1-3, PP16, Rhadon, Tatiza, Upper Haliartos 1 and VM4. 6.4.4 other monochrome sgraffito wares (ware 19) — (fig. 6.27: w19.1-2) Under this heading are grouped other types of Monochrome Sgraffito Wares of the Late Byzantine/Frankish period. The fragments were found on eleven sites in the research area. The sherds do not belong to the above two described wares (Wares 17 and 18), but their size is often too fragmentary to provide more precise information on their shape, their decoration or their provenance. Monochrome Sgraffito Wares were produced by incising or engraving through an overall coating of white or creamish slip (clay thinned with water) with a sharp tool, cutting down to the underlying clay to create a contrasting design. A thick and glass-like glaze covers the slip of the fragments in this catalogue. Both slip and glaze are applied mostly on the inside of the vessel. The Boeotian sherds have a single added colour in the glaze, which is often olive green (from copper oxide) or

166

yellow/yellowish brown (from iron oxide). Especially this last colour is characteristic for Monochrome Sgraffito Wares of the Late Byzantine/Frankish period (e.g. Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1999, 76-84, cat. nos. 76-87, 90, 92) Found in Boeotia at: Lower Archondiki, Haliartos B6, Ipsilantis, Klimataria, Neochori 1-3, PP16, Paralimni, Rhadon, Tatiza, Upper Haliartos 1 and VM4. 6.4.5 brown and green sgraffito wares (ware 20) — (fig. 6.27: w20.1-3) Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware of the Late Byzantine/Frankish period (with two added colours in the glaze) was found on six sites in the research area. The term ‘Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware’ was first used as a designation for this ware by Peter Megaw in his 1937-39 article about finds from Nicosia (Megaw 1951). One year later, it was used by Joan Du Plat Taylor for two different groups of Cypriote incised wares (Du Plat Taylor 1938). Subsequently, most archaeologists working with Medieval pottery found in the Aegean used the term for this particular type of polychrome incised ware (see for recent publications, François 1995, 83, class VI; Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1989; id. 1996). However, Dimitra Papanikola-Bakirtzis used the term ‘Coloured Sgraffito Ware’ as an alternative (Papanikola-Bakirtzis et al. 1992; id. 1999, 149; Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1999, 86-117). The fabric of the Boeotian sherds is moderately soft, fine, and has a dull orange (2.5 YR 6/4) or reddish orange colour (10 R 6/6). The smooth clay contains a few fine limestone, a few medium black quartz and some medium voids. The interior is covered with a white slip and pale glaze (PMS 580 C). The exterior is polished and has a dull orange wash (7.5 YR 7/4). This type of glazed earthenware with sgraffito design has an abstract incised decoration on the inside of the vessel, highlighted alternately with yellow-brown (7.5 YR 4/6) and green splashes of paint (PMS 5763 C). The colours used are iron oxide for yellow-brown and copper oxide for green. Forms include hemispherical bowls with steep walls. The lower part consists of a (sometimes high) ring foot with flat resting surface and a concave underside. Tripod stilt marks can be seen on the inside of the bowls. By the 12th century the use of two or more colours, especially brown and green, was found widely in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. From the late 13th century onward Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware also became prevalent in Greece (e.g. Papanikola-

Bakirtzis 1989, 33; Papanikola-Bakirtzis et al. 1999, 149), and was used there into the 20th century (KorreZographou 1995). Whether the ware was introduced by Levantine potters or through other channels, is not clear. We do know, however, that this polychrome incised ware was also produced in Northern Italy, possibly from as early as the 13th century, while its heyday in Italy seems to be in the 15th to 16th centuries (see Ware 25). Imported vessels from the Aegean area with this type of decoration were found in the Lagoon of Venice. But at the same time, Italian imitations were imported to Greece, which influenced the local production. The incised decoration of the Boeotian fragments resemble Brown and Green Sgraffito bowls found at Thessaloniki and Thasos, which can be dated to the middle and second half of the 14th century (François 1993, 322-4, fig. 7 left below; Makropolou 1985, 267, fig. 3d; Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1987, pl. Va, VIa-b). In fact, the abstract engraved design of one Boeotian fragment found on site VM4 is identical to a 14th century sgraffito bowl from Thessaloniki (Makropoulou 1995, 15, no. 32, pl. 17.32; Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1999, 210, no. 241). A waster of this bowl with exactly similar incised decoration was found in Thessaloniki (Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1997, pl. IVc). Parallels for these sgraffito bowls from Thessaloniki were also recovered in Rumania, Bulgaria and Turkey. Furthermore, comparisons can be made to the distinct Brown and Green Sgraffito group of Cyprus, which was produced in the 14th and 15th centuries (cf. Megaw & Jones 1983, 239-40, pls. 28.3-4; PapanikolaBakirtzis 1989, 41). The fabric and incised decoration of one sherd found on the site Charmena has many similarities with late 14th/15th century Sgraffito wares from the production centre of Lapithos on North-Western Cyprus, characterized by medium-sized carinated bowls (cf. Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1982, 231, fig. 2; id. 1996, nos. 61-63, pl. LV). A base fragment with the same incised decoration has also been found during excavations at Chalkis (Georgopoulou-Meladini 1973-4, pl. 328b). Found in Boeotia at: Agia Eleousa, Charmena, CN3, Mavromati North, Upper Haliartos 1 and VM4. 6.4.6 slip-painted ware (ware 21) — (fig. 6.43: w21.1-3) Fragments of Slip-painted pottery of the Late Byzantine/Frankish period were sampled on site Haliartos B6 in the research area. As this ware is a later

variant of Middle Byzantine Slip-painted Ware (Ware 9), the term and decoration-technique have already described above. The fabric of the Boeotian sherds is moderately soft, medium fine, and has orange (5 YR 6/6) to orange-red colour (2.5 YR 6/6). The coarse clay contains some medium limestone, a few coarse quartz inclusions and some medium voids. The interior of the open vessels is decorated with a white slip and a pale yellow or yellow glaze (see Ware 9 for a more detailed description of the slip-painted technique). The tone of the glaze varies from pale yellow (5 Y 8/4) or yellow (2.5 Y 7/8) where it covers the decoration, to orange (7.5 YR 6/6) or dark red (10 R 3/3) where it covers the unslipped fabric. Forms include hemispherical bowls, dishes and a large amount of jugs. The slip-painted technique was well-established in Greece by the Middle Byzantine period (as we have seen above under Ware 9), but was also used on vessels of the Late Byzantine/Frankish period or even later (Morgan 1942, 101, figs. 79-80; MacKay 1967, 261-62; cf. Ware 30). In Cyprus and Thessaloniki, the slip-painted technique flourished on bowls and jugs of the 13th and 14th centuries (Du Plat Taylor & Megaw 1958, 4; PapanikolaBakirtzis 1987, 195; id. 1989, 33; id. 1996, pls. 2-5; Von Wartburg 1997; see also Georgieva 1980, fig. 15 for a 13th century jug with similar slip-painted decoration from the Medieval castle of Melnik in the Czech Republic). The fragments of Haliartos B6 are reminiscent in fabric and decoration technique to 14th-15th century vessels found during excavations in Thessaloniki (Makropolou 1985, fig. 2e; Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1989, pl. 59), as well as in Arta (Andreou 1976, pl. 151d-f; Papadopoulou & Tsouris 1993, 245-49, figs. 5-6, nos. 10-11). Found in Boeotia at: Haliartos B6. 6.4.7 polychrome lead-glazed ware type ‘rmr’ (ware 22) — (figs. 6.32 and 6.43: w22.1-2) Only four fragments of Polychrome Lead-glazed Ware type ‘RMR’ from Southern Italy were recovered on four sites in the research area. Charles Morgan was the first to identify the type during excavations at Corinth and labelled it ‘Proto-Maiolica II’ (Morgan 1942, 108-11). Currently, various other designations are in use, including ‘Split Ware’ (Buerger 1979, 34), ‘Italian Polychrome Ware’ (Gregory 1993, 294-96), ‘Pottery with painted decoration which includes red’ (Patterson &

167

W 23.1

W 23.2

W 38.2

W 38.3

W 38.4

W 38.5

Fig. 6.14 W23.1-2; W38.2-5 (1:2).

168

Whitehouse 1992, 148-54) and ‘RMR’, which stands for the colours of the decoration (Ramina, Manganese, Rosso = Italian for ‘green, brown and red’) and seems the most widely accepted (Whitehouse 1980, 82-83; 1986, 569). The latest name which has been suggested is ceramica invetriata policroma tipo ‘RMR’ (or: Polychrome Leadglazed Ware type ‘RMR’), which I will prefer here (Tagliente 2000). The fabric of the ware is soft and medium fine with some grog and lime inclusions. The colour of the chalky clay may be whitish or buff (2.5 Y 8/3). Usually, a whitecreamish slip (10 YR 8/3) and a transparent lead glaze are applied to the interior of the vessel. The ware generally features a painted decoration of concentric horizontal bands as well as stripes in reddish brown (10 R 5/4-5/6) and bluish grey (5 B 5/1) and with green borders. Other designs include hatching and cross-hatching, lozenges and triangles. One Boeotian fragment has a geometric? motif outlined in brown (5 YR 4/2) and filled with reddish brown (2.5 YR 5/3) and brown cross hatching (5 YR 4/2). The main shape is a bowl with a low ring foot, a curving or carinated wall and an everted, bevelled rim. Closed forms (such as jugs with flat bases) are also represented in this group. This type of pottery was found all over Apulia (particularly in Bari and Brindisi), and, indeed, in most other regions of Southern and Central Italy. Recently, kiln sites for ‘RMR’ Ware have also been found at Taranto. At excavations at Italy, RMR Ware is generally dated from mid 13th to mid 14th centuries (e.g. Patterson & Whitehouse 1992, 148; Vroom forthcoming e and f). In Greece, it has been found in Arta, Patras, Isthmia, Argos, Merbaka (in the Peloponnesus), Melos, Rhodes and in large quantities at the excavations of Corinth (cf. Waagé 1934; Morgan 1942; Stillwell MacKay 1967; Petsas 1971, pl. 153a; Papadopoulou & Tsouris 1993; Gregory 1993; Oikonomou-Laniado 1993; Michailidou 1987, pl. 377b; id. 1993, 333-39; Sanders 1996, fig. 6, nos. 6-8). Found in Boeotia at: Haliartos B6, Ipsilantis, Upper Haliartos 1 and VM4. 6.4.8 unglazed domestic wares (ware 23) — (fig. 6.14: w23.1-6) Fragments of various unglazed domestic wares of the Late Byzantine/Frankish period were recovered from three sites in the research area. They include cooking

pots of a semi-fine reduced fabric, and small amphorae of a buff, plain fabric. The term is purely a technical description of a broad category. The fabric of the cooking pots found in Boeotia is fairly hard, medium fine, and has a dull orange (5 YR 6/4) to yellowish grey colour (2.5 Y 5/1). The rough clay contains some medium limestone and many medium white and black quartz inclusions. These wheel-made coarse wares have generally an unpolished, badly-fired exterior with cracks and large voids. Some fragments show traces of heat on the surface, discolouring the clay to reddish brown (10 R 5/4) or brownish grey (10 YR 4/1) on the outside; dull orange (2.5 YR 6/3) to greyish red (2.5 YR 5.2) on the inside. For cooking, the pots would have been suspended over the fire, pushed directly into the embers or placed on a trivet (or stone). These vessels of a reduced fabric would have been practical as cooking ware, because the fabric was porous. Moisture would ooze through the bottom and evaporate on the surface, thus cooling the fabric (very much like transpiration), so it would not crack in the heat of the fire. A corrugated form would enlarge the surface for evaporation, and would thus enhance the conduction of heat. The Boeotian fragments of the Late Byzantine/ Frankish period have thin, straight divergent upper walls, a vertical folded rim and a tall neck. The diameter of the rim is ca. 11-15 cm. (cf. for shape, Sanders 1993, 277, nos. 58-60, fig. 13 and Joyner 1997, fig. 3). The majority of the sherds are simple in design: with two strap handles, mostly directly attached to the rim.The double handles imply that the pots were lifted to and from the fire with both hands. One fragment has distinctive pottery cutting marks of a string on its base. The sherds are undecorated, although wheel ridging on the outside is becoming more prominent at this time. Similar looking cooking pots ‘in a Frankish style’ were found during excavations at Corinth (Williams & Zervos 1991, pl. 10, nos. 30-31; id. 1993, pl. 10, no. 13; id. 1994, pl. 9, no. 46; id. 1995, pl. 9, no. 40a-b). These vessels were roughly dated there from the mid 13th to mid 14th centuries (Joyner 1997). Before the introduction of glazes in domestic wares (around the 17th century) a reduced fabric was often suitable for storage and cooking. Found in Boeotia at: Askra, CN3 and VM67.

169

1.0

Turkish period (table 1.1 colour plate)

6.5.1 monochrome sgraffito wares from italy (ware 24) — (fig. 6.28: w24.1-6) The survey in Boeotia yielded several fragments of Monochrome Sgraffito Wares of the Post-Medieval era on eleven sites in the research area. The sherds were identified by me as graffita monocroma from Northern Italy. The designation ceramica graffita was first given by Giuseppe Liverani to incised glazed pottery from Faenza (Liverani 1935); the term graffita monocroma by Mannoni for similar vessels from Liguria (Mannoni 1968). The fabric of the Boeotian sherds is moderately soft to fairly hard, fine, and has a dull orange (7.5 YR 7/4) to orange colour (5 YR 7/6). The smooth clay contains a few fine lime, sand and micaceous particles, as well as a few fine voids. The fabric is covered with a white slip and glaze on the inside and just under the rim on the outside. There is a dull orange-buff wash (7.5 YR 7/3) on the rest of the exterior. Splashes of white slip and glaze can also occur on the outside. There are two variants in the colour of the glaze: 1) ‘Monochrome Green Sgraffito Ware’ (graffita rinascimentale: monocroma verde), covered with an olive green (PMS 370 C) to green glaze (PMS 575 C), and 2) ‘Monochrome Yellow Sgraffito ware’ (graffita rinascimentale: monocroma giallo), covered with a bright yellowish brown (2.5 Y 6/8) to dark yellow glaze (5 Y 7/8). The decoration of both types is incised through the white slip in the interior of the vessels. It consists of horizontal lines just under the rim and above the base and stylized motifs of a vegetal and geometric character in between. The most common shapes are hemispherical bowls or basins. The Boeotian pieces have a straight rim with round lip and convex divergent upper wall. The diameter of the rim is most commonly ca. 18 cm. The base is flat with an angular transition and straight divergent lower wall. Sometimes there are ridges on the outside. Two Boeotian fragments are hemispherical bowls with an impressed roller-stamping on the outside, which is typical for graffita vessels from the Venetoregion (cf. Bertacchi 1977, pl. II, no. 177; Saccardo 1993, 212-5, fig. II, no. 3). The green- and yellow-glazed types probably come from the Veneto-region, and can be dated to the second half of the 15th or first half of the 16th century.

170

The green-glazed type has parallels with analogous looking 15th-16th century bowls found on the island of Rhodes and at Paphos on Cyprus (cf. Michailidou 1993, fig. 1 and Von Wartburg 1998, no. 64, fig. 82 for the shape and decoration). More fragments of 15th century graffita monocroma verde were also found during excavations at the site of Medieval Alexandria in Egypt, as well as at the site of Giv’at Yasaf (Tell Er-Ras) in Israel (François 1998a, pl. 1a; Stern 1999, no. 22). The yellow-glazed type looks similar to a vessel from the excavations in Corinth (C-92-26), found in a Turkish context (C.K. Williams II, pers. com.). More examples from the Veneto region can be seen in an Italian publication on 14th-16th pottery found at excavations in Aquileia, where they are dated to the 16th century (Bertacchi 1977, 49, nos. 100 and 102). I have also noticed a similar bowl in the Athenian Agora collection, which has been found in a pre-18th century context (Frantz 1942, fig. 13, no. 5). Found in Boeotia at: Lower Archondiki, Upper Archondiki, Askra, Charmena, Ipsilantis, Palaiomazi, Rhadon, Tatiza, Upper Haliartos 1, VM4, VM21 and VM67. 6.5.2 polychrome sgraffito wares from italy (ware 25) — (fig. 6.29: w25.1-9) Eleven fragments of Polychrome Sgraffito Wares of the Post-Medieval era were found on three sites in the research area. These wares from Northern Italy have also been described in publications as ‘incised slipwares’ (graffita arcaica; cf. Blake 1986), ‘North-Eastern Italian Painted Sgraffito’ (Gregory 1993, 299-302) or mezzamaiolica, although this last term is obviously incorrect because the red-bodied earthenware is not tin-glazed as in genuine Maiolica (see for the use of this last term, Liverani 1968, 116). The types found on the Boeotia sites are in fact a more developed style of graffita policroma: other names in Italy are graffita arcaica tardiva and graffita rinascimentale (cf. Magnani & Munarini 1998). The fabric of the Boeotian sherds is soft, fine and has an orange-red colour (7.5 YR 7/8). A white slip covers the surface of the vessel. The incised and gouged motifs are enhanced with alternating green and ochre-yellow oxide colours, which tend to run into the lead glaze so that the washy effect of the colour contrasts with the incised and

gouged design and the orange-red clay (2.5 YR 6/8 to 5 YR 7/6) beneath. The outside is plain glossy brown. The decoration consists of more intricated designs of a vegetal and geometric character, such as bands of foliage. Also animals and portrait-busts, surrounded with fish-grate designs, came generally into fashion. Concentric lines enclose a flowering stem or more rarely a bird or a heraldic shield, surrounded by an overlapping wreath-like or geometric band. Common shapes are dishes and bowls with straight rims and rounded lips or flanged rims. The bases have ring foots and are concave underneath. A local Cretan variant has been published by Hahn (1991, figs. 2-6) from a collection in the Archaeological Museum at Khania. The group is composed of five polychrome sgraffito jugs, which show both North Italian as well as Eastern Mediterranean influences. The handles of these jugs have either broad strap form or oval/spherical section, and often end on the belly in a ‘tail’ (these tails already appeared in mid-14th century Italy, cf. also fig.6.32 W27.5). The Boeotian sherds show the distinctive polychrome sgraffito style of the Veneto-region and the Lower Po Valley, dating from the 2nd half of the 15th and the beginning of the 16th century. Especially in the late 15th and early 16th centuries these Sgraffito Wares, copying Near Eastern and Eastern Mediterranean prototypes, were widely produced in Northern Italy; South of the line running from Pisa to Faenza, they were less commonly made. There is much uncertainty about what was made where, but it seems that most of the material was made in or near Venice, Padua, Mantua, Ferrara and Bologna for ordinary domestic use (Wilson 1987, 160; id. 1989, 68-69). Most of these wares were distributed from Pisa in the 16th and 17th centuries throughout the Mediterranean to Greece and Turkey (cf. in general, François 1994, 377; see also Michailidou 1987, pl. 377b and 1993, fig. 2a-b for Rhodes; Buerger 1979 for Split; Hahn 1989, 232, fig. 10, François 1994, 376-380 and Stilwell MacKay 1996 for Crete; Hayes 1992, 265, pl. 42b-c for Constantinople/ Istanbul; and François 1998a, pl. 1b for Medieval Alexandria). They have also been found elsewhere in the Near East: in Jerusalem, Karak, Hawran and Bilad alSham (Meinecke-Berg 1983, pl. 57.a; Pringle 1984, 3940; Milwright 1999; id. 2000, 196). More examples of these Italian Polychrome Sgraffito Wares were recovered

at excavations in Butrint, Albania (Vroom forthcoming b and c). There is also a polychrome variant of graffita rinascimentale a punta e a stecca, found on site VM4 in the research area. It concerns here a body fragment with greater areas of white slip removed with a gouge (a stecca) and covered with a transparent glaze. The rather elaborate reserved decoration in a crossed-hatched pattern is highlighted with green splashes (PMS 348 C). The sherd comes perhaps from the Veneto-region or from Pisa, and can be dated to the first half of the 16th century (cf. for similar crossed-hatched decoration Megaw 1951, no. B30, fig. 13 from Bologna?, dated mid 16th century; Munarini & Banzato, 280-1, no. 256 from the Veneto-region, Padua?, dated first half of the 16th century and Von Wartburg 1998, no. 74, fig. 84 from Paphos). Cheaper types in monochrome glazes were widely distributed in the Western Mediterranean (Blake 1981, 105). Found in Boeotia at: Askra, Palaiomazi and VM4. 6.5.3 brown and green sgraffito wares (ware 26) — (fig. 6.30-31 and 6.43-44: w26.1-16 and w26.ex) A group of later Brown and Green Sgraffito Wares has been found on thirteen sites in the research area. This group can be diagnosed as the Post-Medieval period variant of Brown and Green Sgraffito Wares of the Late Byzantine/Frankish period (Ware 20). The origin of the term has been explained under that heading. The fabric of the Boeotian sherds is generally fine, dull orange (5 YR 7/4) to orange (5 YR 6/8) in colour. There is a transparent lead glaze over a white slip, through which an incised decoration is engraved. The white slip, glaze and incised decoration of these footed bowls are mostly on the inside (with a mere overlap on the rim and the upper part of the exterior); the rest of the exterior being polished and unglazed or green glazed. Scars of tripod stilts can often be seen on the interior. The engraved decoration on the in- and outside is enhanced by brushstrokes of yellow-brown and green. Iron oxide is used for yellow-brown and copper oxide for green. The designs consist of incised small spirals and rosette-like motifs created by winding lines. One can also discern straight lines alternating with pairs of winding lines.

171

Forms include hemispherical bowls with a low ring foot and straight rim (cf. Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1999, nos. 112, 294-95). Popular are also large shallow plates with a ring foot and broad horizontal rim, forming a ridge at the point of junction with the body (cf. PapanikolaBakirtzis 1999, no. 293). Although grouped here together in one category (because of their decorative-technique) the sherds do not, therefore, seem to belong to one single productioncentre. Relationships between these various painted incised groups, produced in Greece and in the Balkans, still remain unclear. The distinction between local production and import wares from Italy seems sometimes impossible to make yet, because trade in ceramics in the Eastern Mediterranean during this period was flourishing. According to Hahn, Italian Sgraffito Ware had an influence on the local ceramic production of Crete through commerce, especially as a result of the Venetiandomination on the island (Hahn 1991). Thus there were Cretan potteries with import-influenced wares, including a Khania workshop studied by Hahn which was in use at least from the 15th to 16th centuries and on into the Late Turkish period. One distinct group of sherds found on the Boeotian sites belongs to the ‘aniconic, incised style’ produced in Central and Northern Greece in the late 15th to 16th centuries. Similar looking fragments were also found on rural sites in Eastern Phokis, quite close to the NorthEastern research area of the Boeotia Project (Armstrong 1989, nos. 20-22, fig. 15). In Epirus, this brown and green aniconic sgraffito style even goes on into the 18th and 19th centuries (Korre-Zographou 1995, figs. 152, 167-70, 180 and 202). Typical finds in Boeotia are small bowls and cups from Thessaloniki (see fig. 6.44, W26. Ex; cf. Soteriou & Soteriou 1952, pl. 99g-h; Petsas 1967, pl. 295c; id. 1969, pl. 294d; Charitonidou 1982, 60-61, nos. 1-7; Kourkoutidou et al. 1984, pl. 213d; Makropoulou 1985, fig. 6a; id. 1995, 18-19, nos. 51-55, pls. 27.51-31.55 and Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1999, nos. 112, 294-95). Unfinished products and wasters from rescue excavations at Thessaloniki came from the area of the Rotunda. This area was perhaps the potters’ quarter in Post-Medieval times (Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1999, 249). Another pottery workshop with similar wares of the 15th-16th centuries has recently been found at Veria (Papazotou 1999, 254-

172

57; see also Petsas 1965, pl. 475a; Pazaras 1979, pl. 136b-c). One can also discern this ‘aniconic style’ on large dishes and small cups from Thessaly (Gourgiotis 1976, fig. 5; id. 1984, 68-71; id. 1989, 56-57; VavylopolouCharitonidou 1989, group 10, figs. 54-57). One fragment of a plate with horizontal rim from the Boeotian site Charmena perhaps comes from a 16th century workshop at Trikkala in Thessaly (cf. PapanikolaBakirtzis 1999, no. 298). Tripod stilts, unfinished products and a pottery kiln were found during an excavation at Trikkala in 1964 (Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1999, 258-65). Found in Boeotia at: Lower Archondiki, Upper Archondiki, Charmena, CN3, CN4, Haliartos B6, Ipsilantis, Klimataria, Palaiomazi, Rhadon, Tatiza, VM4 and VM67. 6.5.4 maiolica from italy (ware 27) — (fig. 6.32: w27.1-7) Under this heading I grouped various decorated Maiolica wares of Italian manufacture. Italian Maiolica fragments were found on six sites in the research area. The designation Maiolica from Italy is used as a denomination for painted tin-glazed earthenware from various Renaissance production centres in Italy (e.g. Faenza, Deruta, Montelupo) (see in general, Wilson 1987; id. 1989 and Poole 1997). tin-glazed pottery had its origin in the 9th century in the Near East, from whence it spread through the Islamic world to Spain. It has been suggested that the word derived from Maiolica, the Medieval name for the Spanish island of Majorca, which functioned as a major intermediary between the Spanish-Moorish pottery industry in Valencia and Italy (Rackham 1977, 2; Wilson 1987, 28). Alternatively it may have been a corruption of the Spanish name for lustreware, obra de málequa (Malaga ware) (Poole 1997, 1). The fabric of the Boeotian sherds is soft and fine with a few lime and sand inclusions. The colour of the clay is generally whitish or pale yellow (2.5 Y 8/3). The surface of the vessels is covered with an opaque white tin-glaze (10 Y 8/3) providing the foundation for painted designs in blue. Closed vessels are often only lead-glazed on the inside, which gives the white fabric a yellowish colour (2.5 Y 8/6). Forms appear to be confined to dishes, bowls and jugs. The jugs have knife-trimmed disc bases with a flat underside and tre-foil mouth rims.

The majority of the Maiolica finds in Boeotia consists of fragments with a ‘ladder medallion design’ painted in blue (cf. Vroom 1998a, 531-34 and perhaps Armstrong 1993, 328, no. 327, pl.36). This type of painted decoration is common on Italian maiolica-jugs of the so-called stile severo from Northern Italy (especially from Faenza), but a more simplified version can also be seen on some locally made 16th century vessels found during the Agora-excavations at Athens (Frantz 1942, fig. 5). Because of their fabric, glaze and painted clear colours the Boeotian fragments are clearly Italian imports. Unfortunately, the sherds are often too small for the full decoration motifs to be made out. This type of Maiolica rinascimentale can generally be dated to the late 15th to early 16th century. Similar fragments have also been found at the Castle of Rogoi in Epirus (VavylopolouCharitonidou 1986, fig. 22). One variant of these different maiolica-groups is represented on site VM4 in the form of some tin-glazed blue-and-white fragments (e.g. fig. x) in the so-called alla porcellana style current in Faenza, Montelupo and Venice (for the suggestion of Venice, see Caiger-Smith 1973, 99 and Hayes 1992, 265, n. 3). The term alla porcellana (‘like porcelain’) was introduced by Niccolo Piccolpasso in 1550 AD (1980, 69). The alla porcellana style started in Faenza in the late 15th-early 16th century, but a range of much simpler varieties of it were also produced in 16th century Montelupo (wasters from Montelupo were published by Vannini 1977). Their blue and white decoration was imitating Chinese blue and white Porcelain wares of the Ming period but the motifs are Middle Eastern, particularly Turkish (cf. Pringle 1977, 150-54). A similar piece of blue-white alla porcellana was also found at excavations in the Castle of Rogon, Epirus (Vavylopolou-Charitonidou 1986, fig. 22e). More fragments were recovered at Khania on Crete (MacKay 1996, 129, nos. 5-6, fig. 1, pls. 1-2) and at Nicosia and Kouklia on Cyprus (Megaw 1951, figs. 18 and 25; Von Wartburg 2001a, 380). Found in Boeotia at: Charmena, Klimataria, Mavromati North, Tatiza, Upper Haliartos 1 and VM4. 6.5.5 maiolica from greece (ware 28) — (figs. 6.33 and 6.44: w28.1-7; w28.ex) Italian blue-and-white Maiolica imports were also locally imitated in Greece during the Early Turkish period. Fragments of this type of Maiolica from Greece were

found on eight sites in the research area. During the Agora excavations at Athens, for instance, a type of locally made tin-glazed Maiolica was found which was described by Frantz as ‘blue and white painted ware’ (Frantz 1942, 1-2). The clay of the Boeotian sherds is the usual soft, orangish-buff Attic fabric (5 YR 7/4 to 7/6) of a medium fineness. The tin-glaze, covering a white slip, looks rather dirty white and poor. Often one can observe lead glaze of poor quality on the outside of bowls; sometimes the inside of jugs remained unglazed. This was due to the fact that these methods were cheaper than using tin-glaze. The designs are painted in blue (10 BG 5/1 or PMS 301 U) on a white slip; accessory details are in reddish brown (5 YR 4/6), green (PMS 348/370) or purple (5 R 4/1). The most frequent decorative motives in the Agoracollection are birds, rosettes, and cross-hatchings. The ‘ladder-designs’ are painted in a more simplified and cruder version than the Italian originals: the lines are smaller and there are spirals and reddish brown dots outside the ‘ladder-design’ (cf. also Armstrong 1993, pl. 34, no. 202 for a Theban example). The most characteristic forms are small bowls, plates and trefoil-mouth jugs (see Frantz 1961, fig. 61 and Korre-Zographou 1995, fig. 84 for this last shape). Although Frantz presented the Agora-material with only tentative suggestions for dating, she suggested that a terminus ante quem for the manufacture of this ware (as well as evidence of its Athenian origin) is provided by the two potter’s kilns (with wasters and tripod stilts) under the paving of the church of Vlassarou. Since the Church of Vlassarou was seen by Jacques Spon in 1675, Frantz concluded that the latest possible occurrence of this ware must be considered to be the first half of the 17th century (Spon & Wheler 1678, 331; Frantz 1942, 2). Fragments of this type of pottery were also found during excavations at Corinth (Morgan 1942, fig. 153 right below) and at Thebes (cf. Armstrong 1993, 319, nos. 201-3 and 324, nos. 268, 271-72; Vroom forthcoming a; see fig. 6.44, W28.Ex). Found in Boeotia at: Charmena, CN3, Ipsilantis, Klimataria, Palaiomazi, Rhadon, Tatiza and VM4. 6.5.6 monochrome glazed ware (ware 29) — (fig. 6.34: w29.1-4) This later type of monochrome glazed pottery was sampled on twelve sites in the research area. Mono-

173

chrome Glazed Ware is a general category used for vessels, which are decorated only with a vitreous glaze of one colour over a white slip. The fabric of the Boeotian sherds of this Monochrome Glazed Ware is soft, fine and buff to dull orange (5 YR 7/4 to 7.5 YR 7/4) or dull yellow orange (10 YR 7/3) in colour. Inclusions include some medium lime (up to 24mm.), a few fine sand and some voids. The surface treatment is confined to a white slip on the inside as well as on the outside, over which a vitreous glaze has been applied. The glaze is commonly pale green (5 Y 8/3 and PMS 577 C) or green (PMS 5767 C and PMS 365 C), although other colours are possible. Tripod stilt marks can be sometimes seen on the inside of the base. There is no further decoration. The shapes are most characteristic for Ottoman times: large dishes with a broad flaring rim (sometimes with notches of rough rouletting (‘pie-crust’) along the edge of the round lip), a convex divergent upper wall and a high ring foot. The rim diameter of the large dishes is ca. 18-24 cm. There are also small bowls with a straight rim and jugs or jars with oval strap-handles. Most of the examples are presumably of the Turkish period. Similar looking vessels, which have been excavated in Athens and Istanbul, can be dated to the 16th to 17th centuries (cf. Hayes 1981, fig. 81, K46 (BC 19); id. 1992, 281 his Turkish type series, no. 12.1, fig. 107). Another comparable dish with ‘pie-crust’ rim from a shipwreck at Yassi Ada, near Turkey, was dated to the late 16th-first half of the 17th century by a coin find (Bass & Van Doorninck 1971, 37, pl. 3 fig. 40). At the excavations of Corinth, similar dishes with flaring rims in a monochrome green or in a monochrome yellow glaze were found in a late 18th century well (G. Sanders, pers. comm.; see also Williams & Zervos 1992, fig. 14 for shape). More examples of similar monochrome glazed dishes have been found on rural sites in Eastern Phokis (Armstrong 1989, nos. 59-61, fig. 13, pl. 8) and in Lakonia (Armstrong 1996a, 129, fig. 17.4, 8-10 where the sherds are dated to the 17th to early 18th centuries), as well as during excavations at Thebes (Armstrong 1993, nos. 177-80, fig. 12). Found in Boeotia at: Agia Eleousa, Upper Archondiki, Charmena, CN4, Ipsilantis, Klimataria, Palaiomazi, Paralimni, Rhadon, Tatiza, Upper Haliartos 1 and VM4.

174

6.5.7 slip-painted ware (ware 30) — (figs. 6.35 and 6.44-45: w30.1-6) Slip-painted Ware of the Post-Medieval period has been recovered on eleven sites in the research area. This group can be diagnosed as the later variant of Slip-painted Wares of the Middle Byzantine and Late Byzantine/Frankish periods (Wares 9 and 21). The origin of the term has been explained under the heading of Ware 9. The fabric of this later Slip-painted Ware found on the Boeotian sites is medium fine with some lime inclusions and has a dull orange (5 YR 6/4) to orange-red (2.5 YR 6/6) colour. The outside is often covered with a thick orangish wash. The inner body is not completely covered with a white slip, but only decorated with it. The designs have been painted directly onto the inner vessel surface, which was then covered completely with a yellow or green-tinted lead glaze. The colour of the glaze varies from light where it covers the decoration, to yellow-brown, (dark) green or sometimes even almost black (10 YR 3/2) where it covers the unslipped fabric.This black colour is probably due to a chemical reaction during firing.[7 ] The glaze of the slip-painted pottery recorded at VM4 often has a glassy appearance. The decoration of Slip-painted Ware of the Turkish period is confined to pale (7.5 Y 8/3) or yellowish (5 Y 7/6) concentric circles and irregular blotches on the inside of footed dishes or bowls. A variant of wavy lines in green (PMS 360 C and PMS 368 C) also exists. The slip is often applied so thickly on the clay that it appears to be in relief. The designs are stiffer and more abstract than the earlier dated Slip-painted Ware of Corinth; there are no dots, rectilinear or spiral motives (cf. Morgan 1942, pls. 31-32). Because of their fabric, rather ‘glassy’ appearance and type of decoration the sherds in this catalogue differ substantially from Slip-painted Wares of the Middle and Late Byzantine periods. The walls are thicker, the fabric is hard-fired and there is a thick orange wash on the outside. In addition, the shape of a shallow dishfragment with flattened rim and ‘pie-crust’ decoration seems to corroborate a later dating. I have noticed analogous looking fragments to the Boeotian pieces in the Athenian Agora collection, where they were found in a 16th-18th century context. (see also Charitonidou 1982, 63, no. 18). Similar sherds were also found at the excavations at Chlemoutsi Castle on the Peloponnesus (Stefania Skartsis, pers. comm.).

The decoration of the Boeotian fragments has some similarities to vessels found at Arta and Ioannina, although the fabric and glaze of these last ones look different. The Epirote examples were dated to the 17th18th centuries (cf. Vavylopoulou-Charitonidou 1981-82, 14-15, no. 20, fig. 20; Tsouri 1982, pls. 73e, 77b, 78b, 80b and 81a).[8 ] This late slip-painted variant from Arta and Ioannina has also been found at the excavations of Corinth in a late 18th well (G. Sanders, pers. comm.). In modern Greek folk pottery slip-painted designs are still practised today (see in general, Kyriazopoulos 1984; Korre-Zographou 1995). The technique survived in the Aegean on traditional pottery into the PostMedieval period, as well as into the Early Modern period. The white slip, known by traditional potters as astari or batanas, was often applied to domestic vessels used in the household (cf. wares 40 and 41; see also Kyriazopoulos 1969, 89-123; Bakirtzis 1980, 149, fig. 19). Found in Boeotia at: Lower Archondiki, Askra, Charmena, CN3, CN4, Ipsilantis, Klimataria, Morokambos, Paralimni, Rhadon and VM4. 6.5.8 painted ware (ware 31) — (figs. 6.35-36 and 6.45: w31.1-8 and w31.ex) An Ottoman variant of Painted Ware was sampled on sixteen sites in the research area. The term is a purely technical description for a yet unknown ware. The fabric of the Boeotian sherds is soft, fine, and has a dull orange fabric (7.5 YR 7/3 to 7/4 or 5 YR 7/4) The smooth clay has some medium lime and few fine quartz inclusions. The inside and the upper part of the outside (just under the rim) are covered with a white slip and transparent glaze, sometimes pale yellow in tone (2.5 Y 8/4). The interior is nonchalantly painted with brushstrokes in brown (7.5 YR 4/6) and in (mustard) yellow (2.5 Y 8/6) to yellow orange (10 YR 8/6) and in olive green (PMS 576 C) to olive yellow paint (2.5 Y 6/8). On the rim and on the upper part of the exterior are often also splashes in olive-brown (2.5 Y 4/6), ochre/yellowish brown (2.5 Y 5/6) or green paint (PMS 576 C). Forms include a bowl with (heavy) ring foot and flat resting surface. The upper part has an everted, flanged rim with straight divergent upper wall. Common are also plates with broad flat rims and convex divergent upper wall. The diameter of the rim is generally 20-24 cm. The painted decoration of the Boeotian sherds has

some similarity with a green-painted dish from Corinth, which was found in a mid 16th century context (cf. Williams & Zervos 1992, p. 172, no. 42, pl. 44). Furthermore, the shape of the Boeotian bowls shows similarities with 16th century Maiolica from Italy and Slovenia (cf. Z™ bona-Trkman 1991, nos. 27-28; see also fig. 6.45, W31. Ex for a Theban example). Found in Boeotia at: Lower Archondiki, Upper Archondiki, Askra, Charmena, CN3, CN4, Ipsilantis, Klimataria, Morokambos, Palaiomazi, Paralimni, Rhadon, Tatiza, Upper Haliartos 1, VM4 and VM67. 6.5.9 iznik ware (ware 32) — (fig. 6.37: w32.1-2) Two small fragments of Iznik Ware (type III) with an under glaze blue-and-red painted decoration were found on two sites in the research area.[9 ] The name refers to a pottery production centre at Iznik (ancient Nicaea) in North-Western Turkey, about 96.5 km. SouthEast of Istanbul, on the other side of the Bosporus. The fabric of the Boeotian sherds is a white body of a fine, hard and opaque consistency (5 yr 6/3), composed of silica (from sand or quartz), white clay and lead-rich glass frit. The vessel is covered on the in- and outside with a fine white slip (P 9181) which is used as a ground for the painted decoration. The lead glaze, with small additions of tin and alkaline, is colourless and fuses completely with the clay to form a continuous mass. The compact white body sometimes gives the impression of Porcelain. A classification of three phases has been suggested for this Turkish fine ware, largely on the basis of colour schemes in the decoration: I ‘Abraham of Kütahya Ware’ with blue-and-white patterns only (ca. 1480/90-1525/30); II ‘Damascus Ware’ with a variety of colours, excluding red (ca. 1525-1560); III ‘Rhodian Ware’ in red, green and blue decoration with black outlines (ca. 15551700).[10 ] According to Hayes, the chronology of these phases has been established on the basis of actual dated specimens and tiles from dated buildings, with some supporting literary references (Hayes 1992, 245). One dish fragment from the Boeotian site Charmena has a painted decoration on the inside in red (7.5 R 4/6), blue (PMS 548 C) and turquoise-green (PMS 327 C). The design looks similar to Iznik III a-b dishes which can be dated ca. 1620-1650 AD (cf. Hayes 1992, nos. 12-14, fig. 94 for the shape; Korre-Zographou 1995, 60, fig. 99 left, dated 1666 AD)

175

From the 1470s this distinctly new type of tin-glazed ware began to be produced in Turkey and was strongly influenced by Chinese Porcelain. Investigations at Iznik (ancient Nicaea, in North-Western Turkey) have produced evidence for the production of the ware, but also Kütahya has been mentioned as a manufacture centre for frit ware (Carswell 1998, 88). Before the mid17th century Iznik vessels and tiles circulated widely throughout the Ottoman Empire and beyond (cf. Hayes 1992, 244-47 with further literature). At Corinth, for instance, two 16th century Iznik fragments were found in the post-Frankish levels of the excavations of 1991, and were dated to the middle of the second half of the 16th century (Williams & Zervos 1992, 172, no. 41, pl. 44; see also Morgan 1942, fig. 153 for more finds of Iznik Ware in Corinth). In the 17th century the Iznik style did continue but the quality of both the colours and the glaze deteriorated markedly. Some colours are gone or tend to be pale (the red colour has lost its lustre and can look maroon), whilst the glaze is poor and more matt. Found in Boeotia at: Charmena and VM4. 6.5.10 porcelain (ware 33) — (fig. 6.45: w33.1) One small rim fragment of a hard-paste Porcelain cup was found on the site of Charmena in the research area. The term porcelain (porcellana) derives from Italian and literally means ‘little female pig’ (Carswell 1995, 11). The fabric of the Boeotian piece is fine, hard and translucent white. It is fired at a high temperature, and made of a mixture of white clay (kaolin) and a feldspathic stone (called petuntse). The glaze is much vitrified and is fused to the fabric, when fired. The monochrome decoration, painted in under glaze cobalt blue, originally comes from 14th century China (from the Jingdezhen region). The shape indicates a hemispherical cup with curved sides and straight rim. The Boeotian fragment is either from China, or perhaps from the Meissen factory in Germany. Because of its small size, the design is difficult to recognize. Porcelain was first made in China (probably not before the 9th century) and the secret of its manufacture was not discovered in the West until 1709-10 AD. The massive export of Chinese blue-and-white Porcelain to Europe, known as kraak Porcelain, began in the 16th century. It was highly prized (and collected) by the

176

Sultans, but written sources such as the muhallefat deftleri (lists of the effects of a deceased person) show that Chinese Porcelain was also used by other important court officials of the Ottoman Empire during their lifetimes (Carswell 1995, 12). In time, Porcelain from European factories in Meissen and in Vienna (imitating Chinese blue-andwhite Porcelain) began to replace Chinese Porcelain in the Ottoman Empire. Coffee cups from Meissen, for instance, were mass-produced for the Turkish market from the 18th century onwards (Lane 1957, 65). In 1732 AD, the Ottoman merchant Manasses Athanas was noticed in Meissen, making substantial orders of Porcelain (Soustiel 1985, 348). The Meissen cups were designed and decorated to appeal to Ottoman tastes, but had an identification mark of crossed swords in under glaze blue underneath the base. Apart from finds in Turkey,[11 ] Meissen cups have also been found in Israel: for example, in the Armenian cathedral of St. James in Jerusalem (Carswell & Dowsett 1972, I, fig. 32) and at excavations at Acre (Edelstein & Avissar 1997, colour pl. IV: 5.a-b). There was a decline in the quality of European-manufactured Porcelain in the early 19th century: less gilding was used and the shapes became cruder (SHM 1995, 117). Imported Porcelain vessels became by this time cheap commodities for everyday use. Found in Boeotia at: Charmena. 6.5.11 polychrome marbled ware (ware 34) — (figs. 6.37 and 6.45: w34.1-2) Only three fragments of Polychrome Marbled Ware were found on three sites in the research area. This type of polychrome pottery displays mottled colours, imitating the surface appearance of heavily veined, coloured marble, and is therefore called ‘Marbled Ware’ (in Italian ceramica marmorizzate). The term ‘Marbled Ware’ or ‘B5 Ware’ was used by Talbot Rice in his 1930-classification (Talbot Rice 1930, 48-49, pl. XVIa). The fabric of the Boeotian sherds is fine, hard and orange-red (7.5 YR 7/8). There is a white slip on the inside and upper part exterior. The rest of the outside is plain with a glossy brown glaze. The polychrome marbling effect on the surface is made by running or shaking different-coloured slips or glazes (often brown, yellow and green) so that the colours moved among one another. With narrow streaks the ware is known as ‘fine

marbling’, with wide streaks as ‘open marbling’ (Savage & Newman 2000, 186). The predominant forms are dishes with broad brims, as well as hemispherical bowls with everted and overhanging rims. The footed bases are concave underneath, and have often wheel-turning and trimming marks. Closed vessels also exist in this type. Polychrome Marbled Ware was made at various centres in Northern Italy and Provence. Hurst was the first to recognize that Marbled Ware came from the Mediterranean (Hurst 1967, 75). Wasters of Marbled Ware were found in Pisa by Tongiorgi in 1969 (Berti & Tongiorgi 1982). Other products were made at Montelupo, Savona and in Lombardy (Blake 1981, 105). In view of the hold Pisa seems to have had on the trade of lead glazed wares throughout the Mediterranean, it is more likely that most of the dishes and bowls came from Pisa. The distribution of North Italian marbled ware extended not only throughout the Mediterranean, but also to the Americas and NorthWestern Europe (Lister & Lister 1976). Marbled Ware has also been found in the Aegean: at Corinth, at Argos, at Chlemoutsi Castle, at Chalkis, at Thessaloniki, at Veria, at Didymoteicho, at Istanbul, at Ganos (near the Sea of Marmara) and on Cyprus (e.g. Philadelphos 1923, 27, fig. 22; Petsas 1965, pl. 475e; Du Plat Taylor 1938; Megaw & Du Plat Taylor 1951; Daux 1968, 1003-4, fig. 2; Georgopoulou-Melanidi 1973-74, pl. 328c; Bakirtzis 1980, fig. 28; Efgenidou 1982, fig. 4b, BII; Tsouris 1987, 51, fig. 10; Hayes 1992, 265, no.11, pl. 51f; Armstrong & Günsenin 1995, 185, nos. 19-21, fig. 4 and Von Wartburg 2001a). I have also noticed examples of Marbled Ware in the Museums of Athens, Thebes and Larissa (cf. also Waagé 1933, 326-27; Frantz 1942, P 6667, fig. 21, no. 2 and Charitonidou 1982, 64, no. 19 for similar examples found in Athens; Armstrong 1993, 328, no. 327, pl. 36 for Thebes and Gourgiotis 1994, fig. 74 for Larissa). The dating is, generally, from the late 16th to the 18th centuries. One sherd found on site Upper Archondiki in the research area is a variant on Italian Marble Ware. It concerns here a rim fragment of a bowl from the workshops of Huveaune in Provence, Southern France (cf. Amouric et al. 1999, 98-100, figs. 212-13). The fabric is moderately soft, fine, and has a dull orange colour (5 YR 7/4). The interior is decorated with mixed slips of pale yellow (2.5 Y 8/4) and brown-black (10 YR 2/1). A

transparent glaze (5 YR 5/8) covers the in- and outside. The Boeotian piece can be dated to the second half of the 17th and 18th centuries. Found in Boeotia at: CN4, Paralimni and Rhadon. 6.5.12 polychrome painted maiolica (ware 35) — (fig. 6.37: w35.1-7) Six fragments of polychrome painted jugs were recovered on five sites in the research area. The term is purely technical. Another names in Greece are ‘mastrapades (wine jugs) of Epirus’ or faentiana (KorreZographou 1995, 126-27). In an Italian text they are called ‘dozens of bad quality ware’ (Korre-Zographou 1995, 127, note 13). The fabric of the Boeotian sherds is fine, soft, and has a light yellow orange (10 YR 8/3) or light grey colour (10 YR 8/2). The chalky feeling clay contains a few fine sand particles and a few voids. The vessel is covered with a white slip and tin-glaze in and out. The glazing technique is like the one for Italian blue-and-white Maiolica. The most popular painted colours are yellowish orange (10 YR 7/8), yellowish brown (10 YR 5/8), dark brown (10 YR 3/2) and blue (PMS 279 C). Sometimes, lines in light blue decorate the base. There are two categories in painted decoration: 1) vessels with a two-headed eagle (Korre-Zographou 1995, figs. 209 and 362). The eagle has hooked nails and open wings. This design was not only popular in the Western coast of the Adriatic and Dalmatia, but also in Germanspeaking countries. 2) Vessels with ‘verses’, written in the centre of the pot (Korre-Zographou 1995, figs. 138-39, 210-23, 361 and 363). The verses are written in black on a white background and the 18th century way of writing is used (also in the mid 19th century). The circular frame is formed with double or triple lines and spirals of a baroque or rococo type. The verses were of a Bacchic (or anti-Bacchic character), and a kind of popular poetry. Finally, other, more free-style, designs were also possible on the mastrapades (Charitonidou 1983, pls. 62b-63; Korre-Zographou 1995, figs. 224-27, 359, 364-66). The most common shape is a trefoil mouth jug. The handle forms a curve, from the rim to the body of the pot. The jug has a broad stable foot. Other forms in Boeotia include large plates (Korre-Zographou 1995, figs. 356-58). Unfortunately, all the pieces found on the Boeotian sites are very small, and this makes identification of the decoration difficult.

177

The mastrapades were produced at Italian workshops in Pesaro by orders of Greek traders. The jugs with the two-headed eagle decoration were first designed during the period 1757-62 AD at Pesaro by Giuseppe Bartolucci. Other workshops of the mid 19th century, for instance at Epirus, Greece, also produced these jugs. The jugs with verses were first produced at the workshop of Filippo Antonio Callegari and Antonio Casali around 1770 AD. The vessels were exported from the port of Ancona, an important trading centre of the Adriatic. Trading activities were becoming more intense in the 18th century, when an exhibition for European exchanges took place on a yearly basis at nearby Senighallia. Similar jugs can be seen in traditional houses on the islands of Samos and Skyros, where they were very popular from the middle of the 18th century until Modern times. They were placed on shelves and hang on house walls according to their value (Korre-Zographou 1995; 2000). In the Athenian Agora collection one jug was found in an 18th context (Frantz 1942, fig. 33, no. 22). Furthermore, the excavations of Corinth yielded similar wares in late 18th century and early 19th century levels (G. Sanders, pers. comm.). Found in Boeotia at: Upper Archondiki, Charmena, CN3, Klimataria and Morokambos. 6.5.13 kütahya ware (ware 36) — (fig. 6.38: w36.1-2) Only two fragments of Kütahya Ware were found on two sites in the research area. The ware was produced in the workshops of Kütahya, a small town situated in NorthWestern Turkey about 200 km. from Istanbul (see Lane 1957, 63-65; Carswell & Dowsett 1972). The Boeotian sherds of Kütahya Ware are characterized by a fine, buff-coloured fabric (10 YR 8/3) of a granular texture, covered with an irregular glaze. Usually polychrome, the colours (including blue, green, red, purple and yellow) are painted on a white slip beneath a transparent glaze on the in- and outside of the vessel. Kütahya Ware is strongly influenced by Chinese Porcelain, and is, therefore, sometimes described as a cheap substitute of real Porcelain or ‘peasant-porcelain’ (Lane 1957, 65). The painted designs are usually geometrical, floral or figural. Characteristic are Christian subjects (figures of saints) or the depiction of men and women wearing contemporary 18th century Turkish costume. Some

178

scholars believe that most of the potters in Kütahya seem to have been Armenians or Greeks, because the vessels often bear inscriptions in these languages (Lane 1939, 234 and 1957, 63-66; and, in particular, Kyriazopoulos 1978). The most distinctive products of the Kütahya potters are small, thinly-potted utensils, including coffee cups (often with matching saucers), bowls, jugs and coffee pots. The shapes of the small cups (the so-called fincan) are probably derived from those of Porcelain coffee cups made at Vienna and Meissen (Germany) about 17301740 AD (Lane 1939, 236; 1957, 65). Kütahya is particularly noted for its 18th century painted table wares and tiles. By this time the city occupied the position held by adjacent Iznik in earlier Ottoman times. In the 17th century, the Turkish traveller Evliya Çelebi already recorded the decline of the Iznik potteries and noted also the production of ceramics in Kütahya. He wrote of his visit in 1669-1670: ‘Kütahya has thirty-four quarters, among them the quarter of the infidel china-makers […] their dishes and cups, their various drinking-vessels and jugs, their bowls and plates are not only for local consumption. But the dishes of Iznik are more world-famous’ (as cited by Lane 1957, 63). According to some scholars (e.g. Glassie 1993, 435), fine ceramics were already being made in Kütahya from the end of the 14th century. But the heyday of Kütahya pottery was in the 18th century. In that period the ware found its way to all corners of the Ottoman Empire: from Jerusalem and Cairo in the East to Marseilles in the West, and to the Crimea in the North. A few pieces even reached North America (cf. Hayes 1992, 266, notes 3-5, with extensive literature). In the Aegean area, Kütahya Ware has been found at Athens (Waagé 1933; Frantz 1942 group 8, nos. 7-8, group 10, nos. 1-3), at Thessaloniki (Efgenidou 1982), at Khania on Crete (Hahn 1989) and on rural sites in Eastern Phokis (Armstrong 1989, nos. 35 and 37, pl. 9; id. 1996b, 353, no. 61). On Cyprus, Kütahya Ware has been found at Kouklia (Von Wartburg 2001a, 367, nos.6-14). A later phase of poorer quality (mainly cups and dishes) continued into the 19th century, when Kütahya potters tried to make an unconvincing imitation of early Ottoman Iznik ware. Lately, through a series of revivals the industry has attained something of a second youth (Glassie 1993, 435-562). Found in Boeotia at: Upper Archondiki and Rhadon.

6.5.14 tobacco pipes (ware 37) — (figs. 6.38 and 6.46: w37.1 and w37.ex) One pipe fragment was sampled on the site of Thespiae in the research area. It concerns here an earthenware pipe-bowl of the typical Eastern tobacco pipe in chibouk style. The bowl was used in conjunction with a long tube and separate mouth-piece. The chibouk pipe was in fashion throughout the Ottoman Empire from the 17th century onwards. According to Rebecca Robinson in her study of tobacco pipes from Corinth and the Athenian Agora, these pipes were first introduced into the Middle East at the beginning of the 17th century (Robinson 1985). Women as well as men smoked this type of pipe (Robinson 1985; see fig. 6.46, W37. Ex). The fabric of the Boeotian fragment is fine, of a greyish colour (7.5 YR 6/2). The surface is covered with a purplish grey slip (10 R 3/1). The pipe has a rounded bowl with a short shank and a developed keel. The shank flares to a simple end, with a slightly convex termination. Most of the rim is broken away. An impressed decoration can be seen on the upper part (shoulder) of the bowl. More fragments of this type have been found in Corinth and a few pieces in Istanbul (cf. Robinson 1985, 172, C4, pl. 47; Hayes 1992, type IV). The large number found in Corinth, compared to the relatively small number elsewhere suggests, according to Robinson, that this may be a local Corinthian product (Robinson 1985, 172). The date of this bowl fragment from Boeotia is probably (late 17th-) early 18th century. Fragments of a later (red-burnished) type and date were also found at excavations in Thebes (Koilakou 1994, pl. 48c and Vroom forthcoming a). Found in Boeotia at: Thespiae. 6.5.15 unglazed domestic wares (ware 38) — (fig. 6.14 and 6.46: w38.1-5 and w38.ex1-2) Fragments of unglazed domestic pottery were found on seventeen sites in the research area. Especially the Boeotian site of VM4 yielded a large amount of Medieval and Post-Medieval unglazed hard-fired wares, often broken in small pieces. The term is purely a technical description of a broad category. There are two types of fabric in the Boeotian sherds. The first type has a fine, smooth orange fabric (5 YR 7/6) with a pale wash on the outside because of lightly polishing or wet-smoothing. The fabric of the second

type is medium fine to medium, orange (5 YR 7/6) in colour and with some large calcite lumps and voids, producing a lumpy surface. Some fragments are plain; others are decorated with incised horizontal lines or incised wavy combing (see also Armstrong 1989, no. 76, pl. 8 and nos. 51-52, pl. 9 for similar incised fragments from rural sites in Eastern Phokis). Because of their fragmentary condition, the fragments found on the Boeotian sites offer little information on the shape of the vessels. The bases are usually flat with an angular transition (the diameter varies from 6 to 18 cm.). There are large and small strap-handles: slightly grooved, flat handles for bigger forms and oval handles for smaller ones. Excavations at Thebes, which yielded more complete vessels of the same fabric, have shown that the majority of the Boeotian sherds must be strap-handled amphorae and jugs for holding or serving liquids (Pharaklas 1968, pl. 159b and d; Vroom forthcoming a). The jugs from the excavations at Thebes stand firmly on a flat base and have spouts and handles. In these jugs liquids are drained off through a tubular spout, which is placed high up the shoulder opposite the handle. One or two handles make for easy handling. The narrow rim and neck of the jugs could have been sealed with a bung. Analogous looking vessels of the Ottoman period, which are sometimes called ibrik, were also found during excavations at Didymoteicho and at Istanbul (cf. Bakirtzis 1980, fig. 10 right; Hayes 1981, fig. 84, d.54 (BC29); and id. 1992, fig. 106 Turkish type series k2). At the Saraçhane excavations in Istanbul, they were dated to the mid 16th to mid 17th centuries. Most of the Theban finds are unglazed; sometimes the vessels merely have a decoration of a pair of incised lines on the shoulder. The clay is not very well levigated and contains many big lime lumps, which during the firing process of the pot cause cracking of the clay. Due to their porous fabric and unglazed interior, such earthenware jugs probably kept liquids cool. However, because of this porosity there could be a risk of absorption of liquids or food into the fabric. Fragments of large lids of a round form (which are of the same fabric as the jugs) were also collected on the Boeotian sites. The sherds have one flat surface and one decorated surface: they were either stamped with small asterisks or incised with wavy lines. Probably these lids were used for large storage vessels (pithoi). Similar

179

looking storage jar covers were found in an PostMedieval context at the town of Didymoteicho and on rural sites in Lakonia (cf. Bakirtzis 1980, 148, fig. 13; Armstrong 1996a, 140, fig. 17.13, nos. 5-9), as well as during excavations at the Late Medieval site of Panakton (S. Gerstel, pers. comm.). Furthermore, I have noticed a similar (Ottoman-Early Modern?) storage jar cover still at use at one of the monasteries at Meteora (Fig. 6.46, W37. Ex). Found in Boeotia at: Lower Archondiki, Upper Archondiki, Askra, Charmena, CN3, CN4, Ipsilantis, Klimataria, Morokambos, Palaiomazi, Paralimni, Rhadon, Tatiza, Thespiae B6, Upper Haliartos 1, VM4 and VM21.

1.1

Early Modern period (table 1.2 colour plate)

6.6.1 Çanakkale ware (ware 39) — (fig. 6.38: w39.1-2) Only three fragments of Çanakkale Ware were recovered from three sites in the research area. The ware was produced at the pottery centre of Çanakkale on the Dardanelles, which was active during the 18th and 19th centuries (see, in general, Korre-Zographou 1995, 155-172, pls. 276-313, 368-379: id. 2000 and Altun 1996). The origin of the term probably comes from the Turkish for pottery bowls (= çanak). In fact, Çanakkale would mean ‘the bowl-shaped fortress’. There was an entire quarter in the town, called the Tsanakadika (or ‘pitchers shops’), where the workshops of the Turkish and Greek potters were concentrated (Kyriazopoulos 1978, 80 and note 4). The fabric of the Boeotian sherds of Çanakkale Ware is fairly hard and has an orange (5 YR 6/8) to orange-red colour (2.5 YR 6/8). The clay is rather coarse and contains a few fine lime and some fine white and black quartz inclusions. Also beige-coloured clay was used. The Boeotian fragments are covered with a white slip and light grey (7.5 YR 8/2) to creamish glaze (PMS 155C) on the inside and just under the rim on the outside. The outside is usually only glazed. The earliest products from Çanakkale are characterised by a painted decoration with under glaze designs, while in the later period there is partial over glaze painting. Under glaze colours consist mostly of purplish dark brown, orange, yellow, dark blue and white. The decoration on the Boeotian pieces is

180

painted in a black-purple to dark reddish brown colour (7.5 R 3/2), and the glaze is slightly corroded (fig. 6.38, W39.1-2). The decoration at the centre consists of large abstract rosette flowers or vegetal stylised motifs in dark brown, as well as ships, kiosks, mosques, birds and other animals. The designs are painted on the white slip freehand with broad strokes of the brush. The decoration on the broad rim is divided at intervals by lattice patterns, and occasionally by spots or white petalled flowers and leaves. The later examples are characterized by applied ornaments: oversize moulded rosettes, leaves and flowers in a baroque style. The earliest form is a large, shallow dish (ca. 22-23 cm. in diameter) with a broad everted rim and straight divergent upper wall (Altun et al. 1996, nos. 3-36; KorreZographou 1995, figs. 294-301; 368-79; id. 2000, figs. 61-62, 83, 85, 94, nos. A1-37, A53-66; Soustiel 2000, nos. 134-41). The rims of later examples of the late 19th and 20th centuries can have wavy or curved hump edges. Furthermore, the later repertoire from Çanakkale consisted of bowls, jugs, large vases and animal figures such as winged horses and lions which were used as water containers or decorative objects (Altun et al. 1996, nos. 42-252; Korre-Zographou 1995, 276-93, 302-12; id. 2000, figs. 107-14, 118-36, 213-29, B1-95, C1-48; Soustiel 2000, nos. 142-77). The precise start of the Çanakkale production is not yet known. European travellers, who visited the town in the late 17th as well as the 18th and 19th centuries, make references in their accounts to its pottery industry (for instance, Edmund Chishull, who visited Çanakkale in 1699 AD; cf. Öney 1991, 105-107). One of the earliest evidences of production at Çanakkale is the report of the British traveller Richard Pococke in 1743-5 AD, who briefly refers to the ceramics which reminded him of those he had seen in Delft in Holland: ‘and they made a sort of ware like that of Delft, which is exported to the value of 15.000 dollars a year.’ (Pococke in Cramerus 1779, II, II, 104). The British Embassy physician James Dallaway, however, who visited the town in 1794 AD, spoke of the rather crude and ordinary pots and pans manufactures there which he found quite tastelessly painted and gilded (Öney 1991, 106, note 8). The most successfully executed ceramics from Çanakkale were created in the second half of the 18th century and the first half of the 19th century. By the end

W 40.3

W 40.4

W 40.5

W 40.7

W 40.8

W 40.6

Fig. 6.15 W40.3-8 (1:2).

181

of the 19th century the industry had declined and its products were of comparatively inferior and grotesque quality. The traveller Vital Cuinet, who visited Çanakkale towards the end of the 19th century, noted that although the pottery industry was already in decline, it still represented a significant share of the export trade of the town (Öney 1991, 107, note 14). Sherds, excavated at Saraçhane, are generally accepted to have been manufactured somewhere between the late 17th and the early 18th c. The ware has also been found on Crete (cf. Hahn 1989, 227-29, fig. 1; François 1994, 357-87), as well as in Thessaloniki (Efgenidou 1982, 23-39; Petsas 1967), Athens (Waagé 1933, fig. 19; Charitonidou 1982, 63, nos. 14-15), Lemnos (Charitonidis 1964, 395-96, pl. 462e) and Cyprus (Herrin 1973; 1974, 51 Von Wartburg 2001a, 367-369, nos. 16-20; cf. for other places in Greece, Nikolakopoulos 1981). The Museum of Greek Folk Art at Athens and the Folk-Art Museum of Larissa have several examples (cf. Gourgiotis 1994, fig. 78). Ceramics from Çanakkale were widely distributed in the Ottoman Empire (e.g. Tunisia, Turkey and Egypt) as well as in the Aegean, especially on islands with a lot of trade (Kyriazopolous 1978, 80). Çanakkale plates were known on the island of Skyros as kastriana or tsanakia, where they were mostly used as decorative ornaments in the houses (see fig. 3.15). However, in the display of plates the Skyros women did not regard them as first class. Found in Boeotia at: Upper Archontiki, CN4 and Morokambos. 6.6.2 painted ware from grottaglie and/or corfu (ware 40) — (figs. 6.15, 6.38 and 6.47: w40.1-8 and w40.ex) Several fragments of Painted Ware of the Early Modern period were found on ten sites in the research area. This ware was produced in the pottery village of Grottaglie in Apulia, Italy (Micheli & Caròla Perrotti 1977; Cuomo di Caprio 1982; Jurlaro 1983; Pansini & Rossi 1988, 34953; Argento 1989). It may be noted here that Grottaglie Ware is not always recognized at surveys in Greece. Sometimes, it is erroneously described as ‘local maiolica’ (Armstrong 1989, 16, fig.10, no.14, pl.5) or as ‘blue design’ plates with flower or other patterns near the rim (Davis et al. 1996). The fabric of the Boeotian sherds is fairly hard and fine with a few fine limestone and sand inclusions. The colour

182

of the clay varies from light grey (10 YR 8/2) to pale yellow (2.5 Y 8/3) and there is an opaque vitreous glaze all over the vessels (this is a lead glaze with added tin). The decoration is limited to some simple lines, small flowers and a Greek meander-design, painted in light blue, yellow or brown on rim and body. Some 19thcentury trefoil-mouth jugs in the Museo Internazionale delle Ceramiche at Faenza, Italy, actually show the same blue floral and Greek meander-decoration – which the Italian potters called ‘Greca’ (see fig. 6.46, W47. Ex; cf. Micheli & Caròla Perrotti 1977, pls. 16 and 31; Bojani 1983). The interior of the big plates and dishes from Grottaglie is often decorated with single figures, such as a cock, a bird or a flower. One can distinguish thick-walled plates and shallow dishes with everted, flattened rims, and trefoil-mouth jugs with flat bases and strap handles (Cuomo di Caprio 1982, 214-23). It seems that this white glazed tableware had an extensive distribution in the East: it is to be found from Austria and the Balkans (including the Dalmatian coast), to Greece and even Turkey (where I observed it at the excavations of Myra at the Lycian coast; cf. also Donatone 1992, 100-1). Some workshops on the island of Corfu, Greece, however, also produced a kind of Grottaglie Ware (Charitonidou 1983, 292; pl. 65a-b). The main shapes and designs of these ‘Grottaglie-imitations’ are similar to the Italian ones: plates, shallow dishes or jugs with painted flowers and meanders on a pale yellowish background. Sometimes tube-like vessels with a lid also exist (cf. the Kyriazopoulos Collection of Ceramic Folk Art at Monastiraki, Athens; Charitonidou 1987, figs. 1-4; Korre-Zographou 1995, 111-16). According to Angeliki Charitonidou, potters from Grottaglie settled on the island of Corfu from the 19th century onwards (Charitonidou 1987, 10, although she also mentions the Venetian potter’s family Gatti settling on Corfu already in 1530). Among these, the Apulian potter Vitto Gianfrante established his workshop at the village of Mantouki in 1921, producing Grottaglieimitations. When Vitto died, his son Silvestro kept on making pottery, first at Mantouki, and then at the region of Garitsa till 1944, when he went back to Grottaglie with his Greek wife and children. Evidently, he was the last Italian potter working on Corfu (Charitonidou 1987, 9).

W 42.2

W 42.3

W 44.2

W 47.1

W 45.1

Fig. 6.16 W42.2-3, W44.2, W47.1, W45.1 (1:2).

183

Found in Boeotia at: Upper Archontiki, Askra, CN4, Hyettos, Mavromati North, Neochori 1-3, PP16, Thespiae, Thespiae B6 and VM21. 6.6.3 slip-painted ware from didymoteicho and/or the dardanelles (ware 41) — (fig. 6.38: w41.1) Slip-painted Ware of the Early Modern period was found on six sites in the research area. It was produced in the historic city of Didymoteicho in Thrace, situated on a rocky hillock near the river Evros (Bakirtzis 1980; Megaw & Jones 1983, 244-45, pls. 29.3-4). The Boeotian sherds of this ware are made of a moderately soft, fine fabric with a few fine lime and sand inclusions. The fabric has a dull orange (5 YR 6/4) to orange (5 YR 6/6) colour and is wet-smoothed on the outside. There are two variants of glazed pottery from Didymoteicho found on the Boeotian sites. One has a brilliant greenish glaze, becoming dark green (10 Y 4/2) on the fabric and pale green on the white slip; the other shows an ochre-yellowish glaze, becoming brown on the fabric and yellow on the white slip. This slip is simply put on the rim by hand, dribbling star like towards the interior of the vessel (cf. Psaropoulou 1989, 58, fig. 3 and Korre-Zographou 1995, fig. 29 for this technique). The shapes are often open: usually dishes with an everted rim and straight divergent walls (cf. François 1994, fig. 1, nos. 10-13; 1995, figs. 1-5; Korre-Zographou 2000, fig. 175). The interior bases of these dishes are sometimes decorated with impressed concentric circles (Bakirtzis 1980, figs. 26-27). Didymoteicho has a long tradition of pottery production: from the 13th-14th till the 17th centuries and from the 19th till the 20th centuries. The Ottoman traveller Evliya Çelebi, who passed through Didymoteicho in the 17th century, mentioned that there existed 200 workshops in the city (Bakirtzis 1980, 153). Two kilns and much of their waste were recovered in a building site near the main gate, just outside the walls. The finds were dated to the early 19th century (Bakirtzis 1980, 148v.). This 19th- to 20th-century Slip-painted Ware from Didymoteicho was widely distributed throughout the Eastern Mediterranean. One can find it in Istanbul, as well as in Egypt and Northern Syria (cf. François 1995; and id. 1998, pl. 1d-e for Cairo). It was also found during excavations in Athens (Frantz 1942, 3, figs. 22-23), as well as on Kythera, on Crete and on Cyprus (Psaropoulou

184

1984, 15 and 44; Hahn 1989, 227-29; François 1994, 38183, fig. 5b; Von Wartburg 2001a, 373-74, nos. 40-42). The pottery production seems to have been practised in the city of Didymoteicho until the 1950s; some old inhabitants still remember the boats on the river Evros for shipment of the ceramics (Bakirtzis 1980, 153). The production of Didymoteicho was probably imitated by several other workshops in Northern Greece (Thrace) or in North-Eastern Turkey. It has been suggested that manufacture of the Slip-painted dishes also took place at Ganos, in Istanbul and in Çanakkale (Armstrong & Günsenin 1995; Hayes 1992, ware P1, 267-77, fig. 11, note 19, pl. 51 h,i; Altun et al. 1996, nos. 37-41 and Glassie 1993, 412, 871). Found in Boeotia at: Upper Archontiki, CN4, Mavromati North, Rhadon, Thespiae B6 and VM21. 6.6.4 slip-painted ware from crete, chalkis or thasos (ware 42) — (figs. 6.16, 6.39 and 6.47: w42.1-3) This type of slip-painted domestic ware was found on five sites in the research area. A range of wheel-made domestic vessels in a slip-painted decoration was produced in Greece during the 19th and 20th centuries, for instance by the potters from the Chrissogelos family from Siphnos who emigrated to Herakleion on Crete as well as to Chalkis and Thasos (Jones 1986, 867; Ballianou & Padouva 1986; Papadopoulos 1999). The fabric of the Boeotian sherds is fairly hard and medium fine with some lime and mica and a few fine mineral inclusions. The clay is usually red-fired, varying in colour from bright brown (2.5 YR 5/6), orange (5 YR 6/6) to orange-red (2.5 YR 7/6). The surface treatment is confined to a glassy transparent glaze on the inside and exterior rim of the fragments, becoming bright reddish brown (5 YR 5/8) to brown (10 YR 4/6) or reddish yellow (7.5 YR 6/8) on the clay. The standard glaze used by the Cretan potters was apparently a form of red lead (Blitzer 1984: n.29). The decoration consists of a white slip (7.5 YR 8/2), which is splashed nonchantly on the inside of the body and on the rim. One main shape may be discerned on site Mavromati North: a bowl or basin with an everted, double rim and straight divergent walls, in Greek called ‘lekane’ (Fig. 7ab). The diameter of the rim is rather large. Glazed (or unglazed) parallels of these so-called

‘lekane’ were made at the workshops of Thrapsano and Kentri on Crete (Blitzer 1984, fig. 18-5, nos. 5 and 7; Vallianou & Padouva 1986, 31, nos. 22-3). Other examples can be found in the Kyriazopoulos Collection of Ceramic Folk Art at Monastiraki, Athens. The lekane was probably used in food preparation, serving and eating. The glazing-technique was only known to a few Cretan potters and was therefore normally restricted to vessels used in food preparation, cooking and serving (Blitzer 1984, 152). Larger examples of these pots were apparently also used for washing clothes or kneading bread. On the island of Kos, for instance, similar vessels (called ‘pilina’) were used for kneading bread (Psarapoulou 1984, 73). Found in Boeotia at: Upper Archondiki, Mavromati North, PP16, Rhadon and VM21. 6.6.5 glazed domestic ware from siphnos (ware 43) — (fig. 6.39: w43.1-2) Some fragments of a wheel-made domestic ware with glazed interior were found on six sites in the research area. The term is purely a technical description. The fabric is soft, medium coarse and orange in colour (5 YR 6/8). The clay contains a few fine lime inclusions and – this is very striking! – an eye-catching amount of micaceous particles. The interior is glazed with a vitreous lead glaze, becoming bright brown (2.5 YR 5/8) on the fabric; the outside is coated with a lighter coloured clay or slip (2.5 YR 5/4). A name-stamp of a potter in Greek letters indicates that one piece came from the workshop of Georgios N. Kalarakis at Vroulidia, Siphnos (Fig. 7). In his study of the pottery industry on the island of Siphnos, Wagner noted that this potter was still functioning in 1969 in the Northern part of the island (Wagner 1972: 185). There were apparently two workshops of the Kalarakis-family at Vroulidia producing storage jars (pithoi) for water and oil, water jugs and flower pots (Wagner 1972: 403). However, the shape, glazed interior and coated exterior of the Mavrommati North-fragment show that the sherd was part of a cooking pot (Wagner 1974: fig. 44, nos. 1-2). These cooking dishes (tsoukali or tsikali) were often imported from the island to other parts of the Aegean (Jones 1986, fig. 12.5). The Siphniote variety was said to have even been preferred by Cretan house-

wives above locally made cooking wares (Blitzer 1984, 145). The good reputation of the cooking pots from Siphnos is based on the special heat-resistant properties of the fabric. Already in the 18th century the French traveller Tournefort noted the quality of Siphniote lead, a lead as hard as pewter, which ‘makes the seething pots of the island exceeding good’ (Tournefort 1741). Found in Boeotia at: Upper Archondiki, CN4, Haliartos B6, Mavromati North, Thespiae B6 and VM21. 6.6.6 polychrome painted terracotta from the eastern aegean (ware 44) — (figs. 6.16 and 6.39: w44.1-2) Three fragments of a colourful painted earthenware are found on four sites in the research area. The term is purely a technical description. The orange-red fabric (5 YR 6/6) of the Boeotian sherds is soft and fine with some fine lime inclusions. Most distinctive, however, is the multi-painted decoration in bright colours, such as light blue, bright yellow and red all over the body. The most common shape is a water jug with a flat base and two vertical handles. The name for such jugs in Turkish is bardaklar. The Boeotian fragments look similar to pots from traditional workshops operating in the Eastern Aegean: on the island of Chios (Kyriazopoulos 1984, figs. 128; 131; 143), on the island of Lesbos (cf. Kyriazopoulos 1984, figs. 132-37; Kourti 1999, 83, 154-55, 184), on the island of Rhodos (Kyriazopolous 1984, 133, fig. 142, 144-45, 189-93; Psaropoulou 1984) and on the Western coast of Turkey (for instance, at Akköy: cf. Glassie 1993, 749). At Archangelos, on the island of Rhodos, traditional pottery production is concentrated at two remaining workshops: one at Petronas, near the sea, and the other at Stegna (Psaropoulou 1984, 25-59). A type of terracotta ware with multi-coloured painted decoration was manufactured at the workshop of Petronas (Kyriazopoulou 1984, figs. 142 and 189-93; Psaropoulou 1984, 51-54; Korre-Zographou 1995, figs. 26 and 564-70). The multi-coloured ware from Petronas was especially made for ceremonies during baptism and marriage. For instance, the so-called nuptial dowry or ‘takimi’ consisted traditionally of 19 vessels, carefully painted with floral designs in bright colours such as red,

185

yellow, green and blue. Tiny white dots were applied forming a kind of outline around the motifs. The painting of these takimi-vessels was done with a feather plucked from the right wing of a young hen, because, as one living paintress said, ‘otherwise it does not fit the hand well’ (Psaropoulou 1984, 51). Found in Boeotia at: Haliartos B6, Mavromati North, PP16 and Upper Haliartos 1. 6.6.7 storage jars (ware 45) — (fig. 6.16: w45.1) Fragments of various types of unglazed storage jars (pithoi) were sampled on two sites in the research area. The sherds offer little information on the shape of the vessels, because of their fragmentary condition. The fabric of one storage jar-type found in Boeotia is soft, fine, and has a dull orange colour (7.5 YR 7/4). The smooth clay has a few fine lime inclusions and some voids. There is a glaze, olive grey in tone (10 Y 6/2 to 4/2), on the in- and outside. On the exterior wall there are several cordons applied to the surface. A similar decoration of cordons can be seen on 19th century pithoi from Tyrnavos (cf. Korre-Zografou 1995, fig. 321). This type of decoration can be found on green glazed kanati (large pitchers) from Macedonia (cf. KorreZographou 2000, fig. 141e). Similar fragments with a green glaze and cordon decoration were also recently found during excavations at Corinth in an 1825-1830 AD context (G. Sanders, pers. com.) Another storage jar-variant was found on the Boeotian site of Rhadon. The fabric of this type is fairly hard, medium coarse, and is dull orange in colour (5 YR 7/4). The rough clay contains some fine lime and quartz, many medium micaceous particles and some voids. It seems as if there is an orange-reddish wash (2.5 YR 6/4) on the inside of the large jar. The exterior wall of some pieces has a stamped decoration; other a roulleted decoration. Other pithoi with a similar stamped decoration were found at Khania on Crete, as well as at Pherai Evrou in Macedonia (Hahn 1989, 229, fig. 4; Bakirtzis 1977, pl. 167a, no. 1). The rouletted decoration can be found on kouroupi (storage jars or milk churns) made at Thrapsanos on Crete (Kyriazopoulos 1984, 122, fig. 107 and 183, fig. 291; Korre-Zographou 1995, fig. 147). Found in Boeotia at: CN4 and Rhadon.

186

6.6.8 glaze painted ware (ware 46) — (figs. 6.39 and 6.47: w46.1) This type of Glaze Painted Ware of the Early Modern period was found on thirteen sites in the research area. The term is purely a technical description. Glaze painting is the decorative application of coloured glazes underneath a transparent second glaze, which covers almost the entire vessel. The fabric of the Boeotian sherds is fairly hard, fine, and is orange in colour (5 YR 6/8). The smooth clay contains a few fine lime and sand particles, and some voids. The vessel is covered with a white slip, sometimes creamish in tone (10 YR 8/3), and transparent glaze on the in- and on the outside (just under the rim). On the rim one can discern a painted decoration of green splashes (PMS 576 C to PM 3415 C and 7.5 YR 3/2). The interior wall can have a brownish colour (2.5 YR 4/4). The most common shape is a bowl with everted flattened rim and grooved upper wall. The diameter of the rim is ca. 26 cm. The provenance of this type of painted pottery is unknown yet. The ware is perhaps local, because of the large amount of finds in Boeotia. It is generally found in a 19th-20th centuries context. Found in Boeotia at: Lower Archondiki, Upper Archondiki, CN4, Haliartos B6, Klimataria, Megali Rachi, Neochori 1-3, PP16, Rhadon, Tatiza, Thespiae B6, VM4 and VM21. 6.6.9 drip-painted ware from marousi, attica (ware 47) — (figs. 6.16 and 6.47: w47.1 and w47.ex) This Early Modern glazed ware with drip-painting on the outside was sampled on three sites in the research area. The name is purely a technical description. The fabric of the Boeotian sherds is fairly hard and fine, only including some fine lime and sand. The smooth feeling clay has an orange (5 YR 7/6) or light grey (10 YR 7/2) colour. There are splashes of white slip, dripping from the upper part of the vessel, on the outside. The glaze is vitreous and its colour varies from grey-green (7.5 Y 7/2), brownish (5 YR 5/8) to brownish yellow (10 YR 6/8), or even olive grey (10 Y 6/2). The closed vessels have a flat base with angular transition and straight divergent lower wall. They are glazed on the inside. The diameter of the base is ca. 12 cm. The walls are rather thick.

187

Table 6.8A

Horizontal chronology I: 48 discussed wares of the Boeotian samples.

The ware was probably produced at a workshop of traditional pottery at Marousi in Attica, which has the highest number of workshops in all Greece (Kyriazopoulos 1969, 103). Similar examples can be seen on a photograph from 1930, showing pitarakia for olives from the workshop of Alekou Kardiakou in Marousi (KorreZographou 1995, 401; here fig. 6.47, W47. Ex). Other Early Modern drip-painted jugs can be seen in the ethnographic museum on Mykonos (Kyriazopolous 1984, pls. 90-92). From its context on the Boeotia sites, the ware can be dated somewhere in the 19th-20th centuries. Found in Boeotia at: Askra, Mavromati North and Rhadon. 6.6.10 monochrome yellow glazed ware (ware 48) — (fig. 6.39: w48.1-2) This monochrome glazed ware of the Early Modern period was found on three sites in the research area. The name is just a technical description of the type of ware. The fabric of the Boeotian sherds is fairly hard, fine, and has an orange colour (5 YR 6/6). The smooth clay contains a few fine lime inclusions and a few voids. The inside is covered with a thick, white slip and yellow glaze (P 115); the outside with a reddish brown glaze (5 YR 4/8). On the rim is a brown painted decoration (7.5 YR 3/4) of a flower-like motif. The shape consists of a dish with a flat disc base and an everted, flattened rim. The walls are rather thick. The provenance of this type of ware is yet unknown. It could be local, because I noticed more examples of the ware in the Thebes museum. From its context on the Boeotian sites, the ware can be dated somewhere in the 19th-20th centuries. Found in Boeotia at: CN4, Neochori 1-3 and VM21.

1.2

A proposal for a ‘horizontal chronology’

One of the challenges of working with survey pottery is of course the absence of a ‘fixed’ chronology, which in traditional excavations is provided by the stratigraphy of successively-older layers of activity. In these vertical levels of occupation the traces of the separate phases of habitation are retrieved in a fixed context (datable pottery in one specific layer provides a chronological context for more difficult to date pottery) . In surveys, such as the Boeotia Project, this is of course not the case.

188

However, the amount and regional distribution of the sampled surface pottery in a regional survey may provide the opportunity to a different approach to the problem of typo-chronological sequences. The number and regional distribution of the ca. 2800 diagnostic sherds from the 30 selected Boeotian sites, described in the presentation of the 48 Post-Roman wares above, seem to offer possibilities for such a new typo-chronological approach, in which the sequence of wares is not ‘vertical’ but ‘horizontal’. As a first attempt to explore these possibilities, I have tried to combine the available ceramic data into a continuous typo-chronological model of dates per pot type for the research area. The result is a sort of mosaic of wares, which overlap in time, and a mosaic of phases of site-occupation, which in a regional perspective also overlap in time. This double mosaic of interlocking time-ranges provides a preliminary horizontal chronology of the Boeotian site-samples which encompasses the entire period from ca. the 6th/7th to the mid 20th centuries (see tables 6.8a-b). Ideally, this horizontal stratigraphy would be an uninterrupted interlocking chronological chain of Medieval and Post-Medieval date-ranges in Central Greece. Such a chain would offer not only a tentative continuous history of human activity in the region, but also the possibility to ‘link’ wares which are difficult to diagnose to specific time-ranges. The model of the Boeotian ‘pot types per site’ and ‘pot types per period’ presented here may be understood as a first attempt to construct a workable ‘horizontal stratigraphy’ (see tables 6.8a-b). The dates of the overlapping time-ranges of the 48 diagnostic wares reflect the current standard chronology of the wares (the result of excavations), including all the earlier discussed uncertainties. All date-ranges have, however, a core (‘certain’) period of use of the ware (indicated in Table 6.8a by solid lines), and ‘possible’ periods of use (indicated by the open line). In the same way, the dating of the phases of occupation of the Boeotian sites (the result of the surface survey), falls apart in ‘certain’ periods (indicated in Table 6.8b by solid lines) and ‘possible’ periods (indicated by open lines). The designation ‘certain’ was given for a period of occupation if more than 3 pieces of a datable ware were diagnosed in the sample (the ‘certain’ timerange of the ware was point of departure). In the end the sum of all ‘certain’ dates for pottery would result in a

189

Table 6.8B

Horizontal chronology II: pottery chronology per site.

‘certain’ period of occupation, whereas the sum of all datable wares of which less than 3 pieces were sampled, together with the ‘possible’ periods of the ‘certain’ wares, would provide the point of departure for deciding for a ‘possible’ period of occupation. Applied to the wares found in Boeotia, both perspectives of the ‘horizontal stratigraphy’ (‘pot types per site’ and ‘pot types per period’) immediately suggest that there are several interesting problems in the great chain of dates. In the first place, the period between 700 and 950 is also in Boeotia a true Dark Age. In the second place, there is a remarkable gap between 1400 and 1450 (perhaps 1475). In short, the horizontal chronology did not work (yet) for the Early Byzantine period, as the fragments of diagnostic wares from that period found on the Boeotian sites were few in number and especially too small to identify shapes. Also the 14th/early 15th and the 17th centuries offered difficulties to construct a solid continuous ‘chain’ of dates. In these instances the fragments of diagnostic wares were in itself recognizable, but their quantity was limited (or virtually absent for the early 15th century). These gaps may be the result of temporary abandonment or depopulation of the research region, or of a lack of knowledge about the wares of the period. It may also be the case, however, and the horizontal chronology seems to suggest this, that the circulation of some wares was perhaps not so clearly bounded in time as the traditionally accepted chronology of excavated sites suggests. It is, for instance, very probable that some pottery found in Boeotia (especially domestic wares and amphorae) was used for longer periods of time than is perhaps suggested by conventional dating. It would seem likely that in this rural area the shapes, decorations and techniques of locally made pottery would be less likely to sudden change, and more likely to persist longer than in other parts of the Aegean. The result would be that the date-ranges of the Boeotian horizontal chronology would have less sharp borders than is suggested in the graphic form of tabled 6.8a-b, and would be more fluid. Still, the horizontal chronology as it is, helped to propose provisional dating for wares which were hitherto unrecognised or remained undated. Several of the 48 wares discussed above, especially some of the unglazed domestic wares but also some glazed and painted wares, were designated to specific periods partly on the basis of the information emerging from the

190

combination of ‘pot type per site’ and ‘pot type per period’. It concerns here for the Middle Byzantine period Fine Orange-Red Burnished Ware (Ware 5), Unglazed Incised Ware (Ware 6), ‘Otranto type 1’ amphorae (Ware 13) and the Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 14); for the Late Byzantine/Frankish period Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 23); for the Turkish period Monochrome Glazed Wares (Ware 29), Slippainted Wares (Ware 30), Painted Ware (Ware 31) and Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 38); for the Early Modern period Glaze Painted Ware (Ware 46), Drippainted Ware (Ware 47), Storage Jars (Ware 45) and Monochrome Yellow Glazed ware (Ware 48). All these wares are traditionally dated only in the broadest possible time ranges or designated as ‘undatable’; some were even unknown in the existing literature. In some cases (such as Ware 5, 6, 13, 14), the horizontal chronology provided a context for finding parallels in the literature, so that more solid dating became possible. As work still continues in Boeotia – both in surveys and excavations – the horizontal chronology for the region presented here is only a first step on what may prove to be a long road, and merely reflects the current state of knowledge. But it forms a start for future research, especially on ‘difficult’ wares, perhaps a direction to explore for other regional surveys, and a basis to tackle problems in regional typo-chronology which are only touched upon here. The problem of fabrics – It would perhaps have been helpful if it had been possible to supplement this chronological catalogue of wares with a detailed catalogue of fabrics. This could have been an important contribution to solve the question which wares were definitely made locally, regionally or imported. However, it is very difficult to distinguish the various fabrics of the Boeotian wares by eye or by handlens only. Until now, no archaeometrical analysis has been executed on Post-Roman ceramics from the Boeotia Project (or from Boeotia at large, for that matter). For other periods, there exists the chemical analysis of some decorated Mycenaean fine wares of LH III date from several sites in Boeotia (among them stirrup jars, mainly from Thebes). This research was done by the Fitch Laboratory of the British School at Athens, and especially by S.R. White for his Ph.D. thesis at the University of Bradford (cf. Jones 1986, 134-141, 479-489, tables

6.10a/b-13, fig. 6.14). In addition, the chemical analysis of 76 Mycenaean fine ware sherds from Boeotia was more recently done by the Universities of Berkeley and Manchester (Tomlinson 2000). In the study of White a tentative division of the region into two composition zones was defined: one in Central Boeotia, encompassing the Kopais basin and the Theban plain, and the other situated to the coastal region in Eastern Boeotia, overlooking the Gulf of Euboea (see Jones 1986, 469, nos. 1 and 3). All the chemical analyses show that there is not only little or no-inter site discrimination within each zone, but there is also relative lack of uniformity in the composition of samples at the intra-site level (Jones 1986, 140; Tomlinson 2000). In fact, characteristic for the Boeotian compositions are wide concentration ranges for several elements, which tend to overlap with those of many other regions in Greece. The chemical compositions of Boeotian pottery groups are, for instance, very similar to those typical of the Argolid and of the Corinthia (on the Peloponnesus), of Attica, of Euboea, and especially of Central Crete (due to the fact that this last region has a similar chemistry as Boeotia). Furthermore, the phenomenon of variable composition is in Boeotia not only confined to Mycenaean pottery. The petrologic classification and chemical analysis of a few black figured vases of Archaic date from Paris, which were attributed stylistically to workshops in Boeotia, reveal a similar picture (Jones 1986, 636-641). Also here the compositions of the samples were not uniform, and a distinction with compositions from Attica and Euboea could not be made with confidence. It has been suggested that this variability is the result of the fact that the local clays used by the potters during the Bronze Age and Archaic periods were naturally variable in composition (Jones 1986, 140). Unfortunately, nobody has until now done any systematic work on clay sources available in Boeotia. Clay prospections will, therefore, be made in the Thebes area by the Fitch Laboratory in the near future for further study (E. Kiriatzi, pers. comm.). At this moment, however, only a more general clay description, based on visual observation, can be extracted from the Post-Roman pottery assemblages of the Boeotia Project. Typical are soapy, (reddish) orange fabrics (ranging in Munsell colour from 5 YR to 7.5 YR, 7/4 to 7/5) made of red (terra rossa) clays, with much limestone (sometimes in big lumps) and a few small micaceous particles, quartz and mudstone (these last

inclusions are actually characteristic for the Corinthian fabrics). A quite striking aspect is that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish - by eye or by handlens the local Boeotian fabrics definitely from the Peloponnesian ones, as the clays used in both areas are quite similar (P. Reynolds, pers. comm.). It appears that there is, as yet, no resemblance with the fabric of two pieces, showing glazed pottery production in Phokis (Armstrong 1989, 46-47). It is, therefore, at this moment very hard indeed to distinguish wares which are definitely local (i.e. produced in Central Boeotia itself) from wares which are definitely regional (i.e. produced in Central Greece, including Eastern Boeotia, the Argolid, Euboea, Attica, Thessaly etc.). Therefore, the designations ‘local’, ‘regional’ and ‘imported’ attributed here to pottery types found in Boeotia are mainly based on other considerations than clay types. Four considerations played a key role: 1) Finds of wasters or misfired fragments is clear evidence for locally produced wares (e.g. Askra Ware, beehives); 2) The recording of high frequencies and large amounts of wares typical for the wider Aegean area is taken as an indication of probable local/regional production of these wares (e.g. LR 2 amphorae); 3) Finds of typically foreign wares (such as Maiolica, Porcelain, Iznik Ware) is evidence of definite pottery imports; 4) Finds of wares which are known to have been produced outside Boeotia (by the finds of wasters or kilns) are taken as an indication of probable pottery imports (e.g. Painted Fine Sgraffito Ware and Monochrome Fine Sgraffito Ware from Thessaloniki).

1.3

Summary

The 48 wares of the classification system for Post-Roman wares presented here were recovered on 30 Boeotian sites with Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery (of a total of 74 Boeotian sites where Post-Roman material was found). As a consequence, the system does not include all Medieval and Post-Medieval wares known in the entire Aegean region (as certainly up to the 11th century rural Boeotia seems to lack imported wares). The classification system does include, however, all main types of wares, and offers a continuous typo-chronological sequence of wares suitable for (quantitative) analysis. Questions which can be raised, are, for instance: which wares are common

191

on the Boeotian sites and which ones sporadic or even non-existent, and in what way does this differ from other regions in the Aegean?

Ware 1: RSW/Askra Ware

Moderate

Local

Ware 2: Unglazed Wares

Moderate

Local?

Ware 2a: ‘Slavic Ware’

Rare

Local

Ware 3: LR 2 / Saraçhane 9 amphora

Abundant

Local? Regional?

Ware 3a: Saraçhane 35 amphora

Rare

?

Ware 4: Unglazed Beehives

Abundant

Local

Table 6.9 The frequency and provenance of wares of the Late Roman - Early Byzantine period (ca. 7th-9th centuries) on the Boeotian sites.

Much of the Late Roman-Early Byzantine wares found on the Boeotian sites appear to be locally (or regionally) produced, given the frequency and large amount of typical 6th and 7th century wares (e.g. Askra Ware, LR 2 amphorae and the unglazed beehives) in the survey region. Except for two amphora types, there seem to be hardly any imported wares in this period. And even the many LR2 amphora fragments found in Boeotia may very well be of local production, and do not necessarily have to indicate that this sort of ware was imported from other places in the Aegean area. In short, John Hayes’ earlier observation that ‘Boeotia is rich in finds, but lacking in imports’ until the Middle Byzantine period seems by and large to be correct. This makes the distinction between Late Roman and Early Byzantine wares, however, even more complicated than it already is. In fact, no clear Early Byzantine wares of the 8th and 9th centuries can be identified with full certainty from the Boeotia survey collection. This is partly due to the fragmentary condition of the sherds that possibly might be designated to that era, as a result of which there is very little information on their shapes. Only some fragments, found together on one Boeotian site (Klimataria) and forming the upper half of a Saraçhane 35 amphora, can perhaps be dated to the ‘8th century (and later?)’ (Hayes 1992, 71). This date is, however, totally dependent on the Saraçhane context (more examples of this amphora type have not been published yet). The rest of the relevant wares in the survey collection from Klimataria are rather of the 6th and 7th

192

centuries. In general, though, it may be said that the transition period between Late Roman and Byzantine ceramics in the Aegean area is still a minefield clouded in the darkness of a lack of knowledge – this holds true for the ceramics found in Boeotia as well as elsewhere in Greek lands (cf. Hayes 1992; Sanders 1995). With regard to this early period, the dating and interpretation of the single piece of so-called ‘Slavic Ware’, which was found on the Boeotian site Hyettos, poses another problem. Firstly, this is an isolated stray find. The rest of the relatively sparse Medieval pottery sampled on the site dates from much later and provides no clear context for the fragment of ‘Slavic Ware’ (which is traditionally dated to the 6th to 9th centuries). In fact, the dating of ‘Slavic Ware’ (formerly seen as ‘typical’ Early Byzantine) has been questioned lately, and discussion on this ware (if indeed it is one ‘ware’) seems far from reaching any solid conclusions.

Ware 5: Fine Orange-Red Burnished Ware

Rare

Ware 6: Unglazed Incised Ware

Moderate

Local? Local?

Ware 7: Plain Glazed Ware

Abundant

Local?

Ware 8: Glazed White Ware II

Rare

Import

Ware 9: Slip-painted Ware

Abundant

Local? Regional?

Ware 10: Green and Brown Painted Ware

Abundant

Local? Regional?

Ware 11: Fine Sgraffito Ware

Abundant

Regional?

Ware 11a: Painted Fine Sgraffito Ware

Moderate

Import

Ware 12: Günsenin 3 / Saraçhane 61 amphora Abundant

Local?

Ware 13: ‘Otranto 1’ amphora

Moderate

Regional? Import?

Ware 14: Unglazed Domestic Wares

Abundant

Local

Ware 15: Incised Sgraffito Ware

Abundant

Local? Regional?

+ Champlevé Ware

Table 6.10 The frequency and provenance of wares of the Middle Byzantine period (ca. 10th-late 12 th/early 13th centuries) on the Boeotian sites.

The Middle Byzantine period (10th to about the 12th/early 13th centuries) is much more common (one could even say abundant) in the samples from the Boeotian sites. The vast majority of the Middle Byzantine pottery consists of plain glazed chafing dishes, as well as the standard painted and incised wares of this period (e.g. Slip-painted Ware, Green and Brown Painted Ware and Fine Sgraffito Ware).

As far as it is possible to tell anything of the provenance of these glazed wares, most of them were probably made somewhere on the Greek Mainland, not far from Boeotia. Perhaps some were locally produced, while others came from the workshops at Corinth. It is noteworthy that the fabrics of some Middle Byzantine unglazed wares found in Boeotia (e.g. Fine Orange-Red Burnished Ware, Unglazed Incised Ware and ‘Byzantine style’ cooking pots) show similarities with the fabrics of the glazed wares. Archaeometrical and chemical analyses on the fabrics in the future would, therefore, be helpful for distinguishing the Boeotian clays from the Corinthian ones. At the moment, we can only speak of a koine of production in the area around the Corinthian Gulf. The imported wares of the Middle Byzantine period show, however, that Boeotia looked to the East rather than the West for its pottery. There are a few imports from distant regions during this period in the region. Only one piece of White Glazed Ware from Constantinople was recovered on the site of Thespiae. Some fragments of Painted Fine Sgraffito Ware were possibly also imported from the North-Eastern part of the Aegean. A recent discovery of a workshop at Thessaloniki has shown that this type of ware was probably manufactured in that region. The latest types among the glazed wares of the Middle Byzantine period are fragments of dishes with a gouged or reserved decoration: they can be dated to the late 12th-early 13th centuries. It is yet uncertain, however, whether these were Eastern Mediterranean (from Cyprus?) or Aegean products.

Ware 16: ‘Zeuxippus Ware’ Subtypes

The 13th century marks the beginning of another period in the archaeological record for Boeotia. Sherds of the Late Byzantine/Frankish period are few in numbers, but most of the diagnostic wares were imported: first from Corinth and Thessaloniki and later increasingly from Italy (such as ‘RMR’ Ware). This gradual change in focus from East to West must have taken place in Boeotia towards the end of the 13th century, as it did in the rest of Central Greece. Italian imports increase significantly from that period onwards at Corinth and at other sites in the Peloponnesus. According to Guy Sanders, this change in the orientation of Frankish Corinth for its imports from the East to the West reflects ‘the reconquest of Constantinople in 1261 AD by the Byzantines and the loss of the Latin Kingdom in Jerusalem in 1291 AD, as well as the assertion and consolidation of Angevin power in the Peloponnesos’ (Sanders 1987, 192). In Boeotia, however, some Italian imported wares which are well-known as imports on other sites are noticeably absent (such as ‘real’ ProtoMaiolica, Roulette Ware or Metallic Ware). Also absent in Boeotia are typical Late Byzantine glazed domestic wares, such as the ones excavated on Cyprus and in Israel. Furthermore, the absence of large transport amphorae in Boeotia in Late Byzantine/ Frankish times contrasts with the large amounts of amphorae in the Middle Byzantine period. This absence may reflect the use of different containers for transport. Apparently, amphorae lost their role as transport vessels during the 14th century, when they were superseded by wooden barrels which belonged to a more Western tradition (as suggested by Sanders 1987, 191 and Bakirtzis 1989b).

Moderate Import?

Ware 17: Monochrome Sgraffito Ware from Corinth (?)

Abundant Regional

Ware 18: Mononochrome Sgraffito Ware from Thessaloniki

Rare

Ware 24: Monochrome Sgraffito Wares from Italy Moderate

Import

Ware 19: Other Monochrome Sgraffito Wares

Moderate ?

Ware 25: Polychrome Sgraffito Wares from Italy

Import

Ware 20: Brown and Green Sgraffito Wares

Rare

Import

Ware 26: Brown and Green Sgraffito Wares

Abundant

Regional? Import?

Ware 21: Slip-painted Ware

Rare

Regional?

Ware 27: Maiolica from Italy

Moderate

Import

Ware 22: Polychrome Lead-glazed Ware type ‘RMR’

Rare

Import

Ware 28: Maiolica from Greece

Abundant

Regional

Ware 23: Unglazed Domestic Wares

Moderate Local?

Ware 29: Monochrome Glazed Wares

Moderate

?

Ware 30: Slip-painted Wares

Moderate

Regional?

Ware 31: Painted Ware

Abundant

Local?

Table 6.11 The frequency and provenance of wares of the Late

Ware 32: Iznik Ware

Rare

Import

Byzantine/Frankish period (ca. 13th-mid 15th centuries) on the

Ware 33: Porcelain

Rare

Import

Boeotian sites.

Ware 34: Polychrome Marbled Ware

Rare

Import

Ware 35: Polychrome Painted Maiolica

Rare

Import

Import

Regional?

Moderate

193

Ware 36: Kütahya Ware

Rare

Import

Ware 46: Glaze Painted Ware

Ware 37: Tobacco Pipes

Rare

Import

Ware 47: Drip-painted Ware from Marousi, Attica

Moderate Regional

Ware 38: Unglazed Domestic Wares

Moderate

Local

Ware 48: Monochrome Yellow Glazed Ware

Rare

Table 6.12 The frequency and provenance of wares of the

Abundant Local?

?

Table 6.13 The frequency and provenance of wares of the Early

Turkish period (ca. late 15th-18th centuries) on the Boeotian

Modern period (ca. 19th-mid 20th centuries) on the Boeotian

sites.

sites.

Finds on the Boeotian sites become much more abundant again in the (early) Turkish period. The many imports in this period come from the East (e.g. Iznik Ware and Kütahya Ware), as well as from the West (e.g. Polychrome Sgraffito Ware, Maiolica, Marbled Ware). Most of the imports date of the late 15th – early 16th centuries (the period of the ‘Pax Ottomanica’ in the Aegean). The bulk of these imports seem to come from Northern Italy (from the Veneto-region). The imports seem to show that the rural settlements in Boeotia became more incorporated into a more ‘international’ distribution system of ceramics. The period is further characterized by the development of distinctive regional workshops in Greece (e.g. in Athens, Arta and Northern Greece), which sometimes tried to imitate the Italian imports (e.g. Maiolica and Polychrome Sgraffito Wares). Interesting is the fact that for the Turkish period unglazed domestic wares but no glazed domestic wares were found on the rural sites in Boeotia (while these last wares are abundant at the Saraçhane excavations in Istanbul). Pottery of the 18th century is relatively sparse with only a few (and mostly imported) ceramic finds and with difficult to date local wares, but pottery fragments of the 19th and early 20th centuries are quite plentiful on the Boeotian sites. Also smaller sites of the Early Modern period yielded imported glazed and domestic wares from all over the Mediterranean (from Southern Italy, from Thrace, from Crete, from Siphnos and from Çanakkale in Turkey).

A type of ware which is quite abundant on the Boeotian sites in this period is the so-called ‘Grottaglie pottery’. This tin-glazed earthenware was produced in Apulia, Southern Italy (and afterwards imitated on Corfu by Italian potters). This fine-textured and hard-fired ware is often considered to have been a cheap imitation of the more costly faience and Porcelain from Western Europe, which could explain its popularity in Boeotia where Porcelain is rare. Apart from this imported Grottaglie Ware, there is an abundant presence on the Boeotian sites of a kind of painted domestic ware (here designated as ‘Glaze Painted Ware’), which was perhaps locally produced. Other Early Modern products in the Greek folk tradition are slip-painted bowls from Didymoteicho (and/or the Dardanelles) and cooking wares from Siphnos and Crete (and/or Chalkis and Thasos). However, these last wares are not so common. It shows that for the local Greek potters competition with the imported wares from Western Europe (such as Grottaglie Ware), which were both cheap and usually of better quality, must have been quite difficult in that time. In the end, the importance of the site-samples collected in the course of the Boeotia Project lies not only in the fact that they helped to answer questions, but also that, at the same time, they have opened up a whole array of new problems and challenges. We can conclude that changes in ceramic technology, decoration and shape are commonly used by archaeologists to define (or refine) chronological sequences and the dating of sites. Once these chronologies are defined, we can start looking at the processes underlying the changes regions or cultures went through over time.

Ware 39: Çanakkale Ware

Rare

Ware 40: Painted Ware from Grottaglie and/or Corfu

Abundant Import

Ware 41: Slip-painted Ware from Didymoteicho/Dardanelles Rare

Import

Import

Ware 42: Slip-painted Ware from Crete, Chalkis or Thasos

Moderate Import

Ware 43: Glazed Domestic Ware from Siphnos

Rare

Import

Ware 44: Polychrome Painted Terracotta from East Aegean

Rare

Import

Ware 45: Storage Jars

Rare

Import?

194

notes

11. I have noticed, for instance, Meissen Porcelain cups at the recent excavations of an Ottoman village in Bilecik in North-

1. Pantone Color Formula Guide 747XR (Moonachie, N.J., 1989).

Western Turkey. I would like to thank Abdullah Decevi from the University of Eskis∏ ehir (Turkey) for the opportunity to visit

2. Lead glaze is a paint-like liquid of lead-oxide, used to give

this excavation. See also Von Wartburg (2001a, 382, no. 15 and

earthenware a transparent, glassy and non-porous finish. The

note 81) for the finds of possible European porcelain products

relatively easy technique of lead-oxide glazing had been already

on Cyprus and on Crete.

known in some parts of the Roman Empire, but became widely diffused from the 9th century onward and remained the principal method of glazing for many centuries, first for functional reasons as a sealant, later as a decorative-technique. 3. I would like to thank John Hayes for giving me unpublished drawings of Askra Ware found in the Athenian Agora (here to be seen in fig. 6.1). 4. Guy Sanders (1999, 160) also mentioned incised designs on unglazed pottery of the 11th century at Corinth, but did not show drawings or photographs of this ware. 5. See chapter 2, note 4. 6. I would like to thank Dr. Sharon Gerstel of the University of Maryland (USA) for showing me unpublished drawings of the Late Byzantine/Frankish finds from her Panakton excavations. 7. Lead glazes need to be fired in an oxidizing atmosphere between 840° and 1190° Centigrade otherwise they become black. Xyngopoulos (1933, 288, note 7) also explains that the hues of the brown and black colours are dependent upon those of the glaze and of the colour of the clay. Yellow glaze when fired, without an underlying slip, directly over the clay forms a brown or russet colour by chemical change (for instance, when the firing atmosphere was not homogenously oxidising). Green glaze becomes then black. 8. Unfortunately, I have not seen the fabric and glaze of these wares from Arta and Ioannina. 9.These colours were themselves vitrifiable pastes. See Tite (1989) for a technical study of the slip, glaze and colourants used in the production of Iznik Ware. 10. Arthur Lane proposed this classification in his Later Islamic Pottery (1957), but the definitive discussion of Iznik Ware is now given by Atasoy & Raby (1989), Aslanapa et al. (1989) and Henderson (2001, 181-200).

195

Table 6.3 Percentages of wares in Late Roman-Early Byzantine

Table 6.4 Percentages of wares in Middle Byzantine period

period (colour plate).

(colour plate).

Table 6.5 Percentages of wares in Late Byzantine/Frankish

Table 6.6 Percentages of wares in Turkish period (colour plate).

period (colour plate).

Table 6.7 Percentages of wares in Early Modern period (colour plate).

196

W 9.1

W 9.2

W 9.3

W 9.4

W 9.5

W 9.6

Fig. 6.17 W9.1-6 (1:2).

197

W 9.7

W 9.8

W 9.9

W 9.10

W 9.11

W 9.12

Fig. 6.18 W9.7-8 (1:3); W9.9-12 (1:2).

198

W 10.1 W 10.2

W 10.3

W 10.4

W 10.5

W 10.6

Fig. 6.19 W10.1-6 (1:2).

199

W 10.7

W 10.8

W 10.9

W 10.10

W 10.11

Fig. 6.20 W10.7-11 (1:2).

200

W 10.12

W 10.13

W 10.14

W 10.15

W 10.16

Fig. 6.21 W10.12-16 (1:2).

201

W 11.1

W 11.3

W 11.2

W 11a.1

W 11a.2

Fig. 6.22 W11.1, W11.3 (1:2); W11.2, W11a.1-2 (1:3).

202

W 15.2

W 15.1

W 15.3

W 15.4

W 15.5

W 15.6

Fig. 6.23 W15.1-6 (1:2).

203

W 15.12

W 15.7

W 15.8

W 15.9

Fig. 6.24 W15.7-8 (1:3); W15.9-12 (1:2).

204

W 15.11

W 15.10

W 16.1

W 16.2

W 16.3

W 16.4

W 16.5

Fig. 6.25 W16.1-5 (1:2).

205

W 17.1

W 17.2

Fig. 6.26 W17.1-6 (1:2).

206

W 17.3

W 17.4

W 17.5

W 17.6

W 18.2 W 18.1

W 19.1

W 19.2

W 20.1

W 20.2

W 20.3

Fig. 6.27 W18.1-2, W19.1-2, W20.1-3 (1:2).

207

W 24.1

W 24.2

W 24.3

W 24.4

W 24.5

Fig. 6.28 W24.1-6 (1:2).

208

W 24.6

W 25.2

W 25.1

W 25.4

W 25.6

W 25.3

W 25.7

W 25.8

W 25.5

W 25.9

Fig. 6.29 W25.1-9 (1:2).

209

W 26.1

W 26.2

W 26.3

W 26.5

W 26.4

W 26.6

Fig. 6.30 W26.1-6 (1:2).

210

W 26.8 W 26.7

W 26.9 W 26.12

W 26.10

W 26.11

Fig. 6.31 W26.7-11 (1:2).

211

W 27.1

W 27.3

W 27.5

W 27.6

Fig. 6.32 W27.1-5, W22.1 (1:2); W27.6-7 (1:1).

212

W 27.2

W 27.4

W 22.1

W 27.7

W 28.1

W 28.2

W 28.3

W 28.4

W 28.5

W 28.6

W 28.7

Fig. 6.33 W28.1-7 (1:2).

213

W 29.1

W 29.2

W 29.3

W 29.4

Fig. 6.34 W29.1-2 (1:2); W29.3-4 (1:3).

214

W 30.2

W 30.1

W 31.2

W 31.1

W 31.3

W 31.4

Fig. 6.35 W30.1-2, W31-4 (1:2).

215

W 31.5

W 31.7

Fig. 6.36 W31.5-7 (1:2).

216

W 32.2

W 32.1

W 34.2

W 35.2

W 35.3

W 35.1

W 35.4

W 35.5

W 35.6

W 35.7

Fig. 6.37 W32.1, W34.2, W35.1-7 (1:2); W32.2 (1:1).

217

W 36.2 W 36.1

W 37.1

W 39.1

W 39.2

W 40.1

W 40.2

W 41.1

Fig. 6.38 W36.1 (1:1); W 36.2, W37.1, W39.1-2, W40.1-2, W41.1 (1:2).

218

W 42.1

W 48.1

W 48.2

W 43.1

W 43.2

W 46.1

W 44.1

Fig. 6.39 W42.1 (1:3); W48.1-2, W43.1-2, W44.1, W46.1 (1:2).

219

W 2.1

W 3.2

W 4.1

W 5.Ex

W 6.Ex

W 8.1

Fig. 6.40 W2.1, W3.2, W4.1, W8.1; W5.Ex: Fine Orange-Red Burnished Ware (Ware 5) from Thebes (photo’s: J. Vroom); W6.Ex: Unglazed Incised jar (Ware 6) from Thessaloniki (after Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1999,17).

220

W 9.13

W 10.17

W 9.14

W 12.Ex

W 11.6

Fig. 6.41 W9.13-14, W10.17, W11.6 (photo’s: J. Vroom); W12.Ex: Günsenin 3/Saraçhane 61 amphora (Ware 12) (by courtesy of N. Günsenin).

221

W 13.Ex

W13.2-3

W 15.13

W 13.5

W 15.14

W 15.15-17

W 15.18

Fig. 6.42 W13.2-3, W13.5, W15.13-18; W13.Ex: ‘Otranto 1’ amphora (Ware 13) from Butrint, Albania (photo’s: J. Vroom).

222

W 15.19

W 15.20

W 18.3

W 21.1

W 22.2

W 26.13

Fig. 6.43 W15.19-20, W18.3, W21.1, W22.2, W26.13 (photo’s: J. Vroom).

223

W 26.14

W 26.15

W 26.16

W 26.Ex

W 28.Ex

W 30.3

Fig. 6.44 W26.14-16, W30.3; W28.Ex: Maiolica from Greece (Ware 28), found at Thebes (photo’s: J. Vroom); W26.Ex: Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware (Ware 26) (after Makropolou 1995, pl. 31.55).

224

W 30.4-5

W 30.6

W 31.8

W 31.Ex

W 33.1

W 34.1

Fig. 6.45 W30.4-6, W31.8, W33.1, W34.1; W31.Ex: Painted Ware (Ware 31), found at Thebes (photo’s: J. Vroom).

225

W 37.1

W 37.Ex

W 38.1

W 38.Ex2

W 38.Ex1

Fig. 6.46 W37.1, W38.1; W38.Ex1: Lid of storage jar (Ware 38) from Metheora; W38.Ex2: Unglazed Domestic jug (Ware 38) from Thebes (photo’s: J. Vroom); W37.Ex: Smoking of chibouk tobacco pipe (Ware 37) (after Robinson 1985).

226

W 40.Ex

W 42.3

W 47.Ex

W 46.1

W 32.1

GAME

Fig. 6.47 W32.1, W42.2, W46.1 (photo’s: J. Vroom); W40.Ex: Grottaglie Ware (Ware 40) (after Korre-Zographou 1995, fig. 185); W47.Ex: Olive jars from Marousi, Attica (Ware 47), 1930 (after Korre-Zographou 1995, fig. 401); Nine Men’s Morris game on Medieval tile fragment from site VM4 (photo: J.Vroom).

227

7 – CHANGING SHAPES IN THE CERAMICS FOUND IN BOEOTIA

2., Introduction When one steps back from inspecting the individual sherds and takes a general view of all Boeotian field samples collected throughout the research region, it is striking that there are clear differences to be seen in pottery shape and pottery technology for each chronological phase. Tablewares of the Middle Byzantine period (ca. 10th-late12th/early 13th centuries) seem to have predominantly open shapes, such as large dishes, while in the Late Byzantine/Frankish period (ca.13thmid 15th centuries), much smaller bowls form the larger part of the diagnostic forms. Because the samples of the Boeotia Project under study here are largely the result of intensive surveying, one would expect that these changes are unrelated to varying sample strategies, biases in collecting, visibility or other research-related factors. The consistency of the variation in shape in all samples rather suggests that indeed changes occurred in the use of pottery through time, and that it was precisely these changes which led to the shifts in shapes. Here the question arises: how can we explain these changes and how are they related to the pottery shapes? It seems obvious that any search for answers must start with a more detailed analysis of the pottery itself, and that this analysis should be undertaken not only from a restricted perspective of ceramic shapes, fabrics and techniques but from a broader perspective in which pottery is regarded as primary evidence for the nature of Medieval society in a general sense (see also Vroom 2000b for this approach). What I mean is that a farmer’s frying pan must meet other needs than a nobleman’s wine jug, and those functional requirements (and perhaps glimpses of their socio-economic context) can be traced in the fabric, the thickness of the walls of the vessel, the shape, the decoration and the applied slip or glaze. Looking at the relation between vessel shape and vessel function as a source of historical and socio-cultural information is, however, still an underdeveloped approach among archaeologists working in the Eastern Mediterranean as a source of historical and socio-cultural information.[1 ]

In short, apart from the search for models of ceramic production and distribution in Medieval and PostMedieval Boeotia, it would seem fruitful to explore ways to link fabric and form of pottery on the one hand, with developments in social habits on the other.[2 ] In the search for archaeological explanations with all its technicalities concerning fabrics, slips, glazes etc., it is easy to forget that the main function of pottery has always been that of a common, everyday utensil – in the kitchen, on the table, in the cupboard, and in transport. Whether they were made by rural potters for the local consumer, or by organized workshops as a luxury item for longdistance trade, the shapes and proportions of Medieval pots should be judged on how well they performed the function for which they were designed. I will restrict myself here to the changes in shape of the decorated tablewares, which were used for serving food and drink, and I will not discuss the no less interesting (but perhaps more complex and overwhelming) problems related to the changing shapes of the utilitarian domestic wares, which played a role in transport, storage and cooking.

2.-

Changing vessel shapes in Boeotia

7.2.1 tablewares of the late roman – early byzantine period (ca. 5th-7th c.) In the Eastern Mediterranean, many Roman pottery techniques and features seem to continue in the Early Byzantine period (Hayes 1997, 49). It is for that reason (and because there is a much firmer grip on Late Roman than on Early Byzantine pottery) that I will discuss here some general characteristics of the pottery used for serving and eating in the Late Roman period for the Eastern Mediterranean in general, and for Boeotia in particular. Tableware of the 4th to the 7th century consisted of a variety of fine textured and thin-walled vessels, finished with a smooth reddish slip (not a glazed treatment) on the in- and outside. These Red Slip Wares were specifi-

229

Hyettos

Askra

Table 7.1 Percentages of glazed and unglazed wares in Hyettos and Askra (main period: LR-EBYZ).

CN3

Neochori

Table 7.2 Percentages of glazed wares and unglazed wares in CN3 and Neochori (1-3) (main period: MBYZ).

cally intended for use on the dining-table and therefore the finish had to be of the best possible quality. However, both fabric and slip suggest that the vessels were not useful for very watery dishes, for which glazing would be a much more suitable finish. In line with this general picture, the two main sites with material of the Late Roman – Early Byzantine period in Boeotia, Hyettos and Askra, yielded quite some Late Roman Red Slip Wares, but a very small amount of glazed Medieval sherds on the same sites compared to the total number of sherds found (see table 7.1). The total number of glazed Medieval wares on both sites is only 1% and 5% respectively compared to 99% and 95% of unglazed tablewares, domestic wares and amphorae. It is clear that the mass-produced Red Slip Wares

230

from Northern Africa and Western Turkey provided models for local wares in Boeotia, such as the so-called ‘Askra Ware’ (Ware 1). The form repertoire of these Red Slip Wares consisted, in general, of a series of large open bowls, dishes and plates. The average rim width of the locally produced Askra Ware was generally 19-20 cm. (see fig. 6.1). The rim diameters of open Red Slip vessels from Northern Africa could even be larger, ranging from 29 cm. to nearly half a metre (see fig. 3.1). The average vessel volume of African Red Slip Ware had been increasing since the 3rd century onwards (Hawthorne 1997, fig. 5). It has been suggested that this increase in the size of the vessels reflects a change in eating habits in Late Roman times: from small, individual-sized bowls to large communal dishes (Carandini 1981, 15; Hawthorne 1996; 1997). It has even been argued that the shape change can be related to the rise of Early Christianity in Africa, with the adoption of communal dining seen as a reaction to the individual dining of pagan Rome. For the Early Christian’s meals were supposed to be communal and simple, with a ‘minimum of material trappings’ (Hawthorne 1997, 33-5; 1998, 168). The Red Slip Wares were decorated with rather simple designs, such as rouletting and stamps (figures, fishes, crosses etc.). This ‘lack’ of decoration has also been interpreted as a reflection of some form of Christian asceticism (Hawthorne 1997, 34). However, other scholars suggest that the potters merely imitated vessels made in more expensive materials such as glass and silver (Poblome 1999, 298-303). From the 7th century onwards, the decline in figural depictions on Byzantine pottery apparently took off throughout the Byzantine Empire, perhaps related to the Iconoclast movement in the 8th and 9th centuries (as suggested by Hayes 1997, 50 and Dark 2001, 102-3) The typical designs of the 5th and 6th century seem to disappear without evident successors. The few ceramic finds from the Late Roman-Early Byzantine period in Boeotia have hardly any decoration. Also in the rest of the Aegean figural ornament becomes rare, and what remains are simple decoration-techniques such as ridges and wavy-combing. It is only in the late 10th and 11th centuries that fully decorated tablewares return. The Late Roman and Middle Byzantine decorated styles, therefore, bracket a period of some 400 years when Byzantine pottery was essentially undecorated.

7.2.2 tablewares of the early byzantine – middle byzantine period (ca. 9th-10th c.) The introduction in Boeotia of lead glazed pottery mark the transition from the Early Byzantine to the Middle Byzantine period. The relatively easy technique of leadoxide glazing had been already known in some parts of the Roman Empire, but in the 7th century lead-glazed tablewares began to be produced in the neighbourhood of Constantinople. In the 8th century lead glazes, which produce translucency after firing at low temperatures (700-800° Centigrade), became more common on tablewares, generally without further decoration (e.g. handled cups, chafing dishes and dishes on a pedestal ring foot, the so-called ‘fruit stands’). From this time onwards it remained the principal method of glazing for many centuries: first for functional reasons as a sealant, later (from the 11th century onwards) as a decorativetechnique. Two main sites in Boeotia with finds from the Middle Byzantine period, CN3 and Neochori, show a progressive introduction of glazed wares from about the 10th century onward. The total number of glazed wares on both sites is slowly rising in the Middle Byzantine period to 15% compared to 85% of the unglazed tablewares, domestic wares and amphorae (see table 7.2). This contrasts sharply with the percentages of 1% and 3% from sites of the Late Roman – Early Byzantine period in Boeotia (see table 7.1). The number of 15% coincides, however, with the proportions of glazed finds at the Saraçhane excavations in Constantinople/Istanbul, where approximately 10-12% glazed wares were found in 10th-11th century contexts (Hayes 1992; 1993, 85). This first phase of glazed pottery in Boeotia is characterized by red-bodied chafing dishes, or vessels with a glazed bowl set on a hollow, ventilated stand (Ware 7) (see fig. 3.5; cf. Frantz 1938, 434, figs. 19, 22-24; Morgan 1942, 36-42, figs. 24-28, pls. I-III; Comsa 1980, figs. 1, 6).[3 ] The red fabric is coarse, sometimes with large lime inclusions, and relatively porous. These characteristics would make the vessel suitable for cooking. The colourless lead glaze is applied directly as a sealant to the coarse fabric, resulting in a dark brownish (or olive-green) tone. The glaze varies from some sparse spots (due to the application of the lead compound in powder form) to a thick glassy coating on the inside of the bowl. It has been suggested that these chafing-dishes were placed on the table during banquets, as a sort of portable

brazier and cooking pot (Morgan 1942, 37; Bakirtzis 1989). Their function could be either to heat food in the kitchen or to keep it hot at the table. The theory that food in the upper glazed bowl was kept warm by charcoal or by a small candle placed in the lower stand is confirmed by burnt parts in the fabric of the Boeotian fragments (and of pieces found at other excavations). According to some scholars, chafing dishes are mentioned in Byzantine texts as saltsaria, saltsera, gararia or garera, because their main function was to prepare and serve warm sauces and, in particular, warm fishsauces (the so-called garoi) at the table (Koukoules 1952, 162; Bakirtzis 1989, 55-65; Gourgiotis 1991, 82). The evidence, however, seems still inconclusive. 7.2.3 tablewares of the middle byzantine period (ca. 11th-late 12th/early 13th c.) The archaeological finds in Boeotia confirm that from the end of the 11th century onward, the practice of using glazed pottery for table or display purposes became more widespread.In addition, the potters took much more trouble to ensure that vessels for the table, such as bowls and dishes, were pleasing to look at. They achieved this by covering their inside with a coating of white slip (known as bandana or astari) and a lead glaze, and further enhancing the surfaces with a colourful variety of incised and painted designs, coloured by oxides of copper (green) and iron (brown). Perhaps this new zest for decoration was related to the rise of a new elite whose enjoyment of food and drink was enhanced by appreciation of artistic endeavour at the table, but perhaps it was even more related to the spread of glazing technology and the greater availability of raw materials.The more readily available metal ores, and the increase in figural expression in architecture and painting on buildings (evident from the 12th century), formed part of the aesthetic and technological background for the potters. The production of tablewares was perhaps part of a wider ‘socioaesthetic’ development. Furthermore, the recovery of the countryside by the state in that period and the recovery of markets and crafts lead into more elaborate ceramic products and distribution. In this perspective, it is no great surprise that the bulk of late 11th-12th century tableware found on Boeotian sites consists of Fine Sgraffito Ware (bowls and dishes decorated with fine line incisions through the

231

Fig. 7.1 ‘Kufic script’ in a wall of the Monastery of Hosios

Fig. 7.2 Frescoes in crypt of the Monastery of Hosios Loukas

Loukas (photo: J. Vroom).

(photo: J. Vroom).

white slip with a sharp tool; Ware 11), Slip-painted Ware (on which the white slip was used as decorationtechnique to paint the vessel surface; Ware 9) and Green and Brown Painted Ware (on which designs were painted with copper and iron oxides on a white slip; Ware 10) (cf. in general, Morgan 1942 and PapanikolaBakirtzis 1999; see also figs. 3.7-9). The decoration-techniques of the Middle Byzantine period were innovative, the designs colourful and nonreligious. Often the potters who engraved these wares drew upon themes from popular life for their inspiration, or upon the decorative vocabulary of the Islamic Near East. They decorated their ceramics with animals, musicians, dancers, hunters and (mythical) warriors, which would have been gradually revealed as the content of the vessel decreased. Sometimes they used apotropaic signs (such as the so-called ‘knot of Salomon’) or rapacious creatures (lions, leopards, and hawks with their prey). It has, therefore, been suggested that these Byzantine designs were actually talismans with a protective significance to avert evil from the meal or from the owner/user of these vessels (Dauterman-Maguire & Maguire 1992, 9-10).[4 ] Another interpretation is that the single animals depicted represent birds of the chase or their preferred preys and are thus related to the imagery of falconry (Von Wartburg 2001b, 124-25). Inspiration for the decoration found on these incised and painted vessels of the Middle Byzantine period could also derive from the repertoire of Medieval ornament employed by craftsmen working in other media and in other materials (cf. Le Patourel 1986). One can observe, for instance, exactly the same design of so-

called ‘Kufic script’ in Fine Sgraffito Ware as in the abstract wall-masonry created by masons in the walls of the Monastery of Hosios Loukas (see fig. 7.1). Furthermore, the spiral painted motifs on the Brown and Green Painted sherds found on the Boeotian sites are comparable to the ornamental, figural frescoes produced by painters in the crypt of the same monastery (see fig. 7.2).[5 ] How stylish and delicate this Byzantine pottery from Boeotia appears to be from the outside, the façade is only to hide the soft and rather coarse fabric. The clay is not very well levigated and contains many calcium carbonate inclusions. These calcium carbonate inclusions must have caused big problems for the Medieval potters, because they cause cracking of the clay during the firing process. What we have here are, in fact, not very sophisticated and rather porous vessels, which the potters tried to cover up with a white slip and a lead glaze as sealant. In addition, the shapes of these decorated (11th-)12th century wares are generally very simple (figs. 6.17-22). We see thick-walled dishes and shallow bowls with a low ring foot, but jugs are unusual. The open dishes and bowls come in similar shapes, but a range of sizes. The larger open vessels were probably used for serving main dishes at the table; those of smaller dimensions were used perhaps for side dishes or sauces. The wide, flat dishes and bowls of the Middle Byzantine period have, in general, large rim diameters, ranging from 24 to 30 cm. (see table 7.3). The function of these serving and eating vessels was probably intended for communal dining rather than for individual use at the table. However, because of their porosity they could

232

not have been very suitable for watery or greasy dishes. Examples of similar shapes from the same period can be found in Medieval Spain, where the Muslim community used to eat communally from large centrallyplaced dishes from Malaga (e.g. the ataifor) with their hands. Individual plates and small bowls were very rare here before the 14th century (Gutierrez 1997, 74). Comparisons can also be made with the so-called mokhfia (large polychrome painted dishes) from Fez in Morocco, which were used for the serving and communal consumption of couscous (Hakenjas 1988, 55; form table 2, nos. 4-8). 7.2.4 tablewares of the late byzantine/frankish period (ca. 13th-mid 15th c.) The open-shaped tablewares of Byzantine times seem to have gone out of use in Boeotia during the 13th century. They were gradually overtaken in the Late Byzantine/Frankish period by Sgraffito wares with more deep and narrow shapes, and sometimes one or two colours in the glaze (Wares 16-20; figs. 3.10-11 and 6.25-27). Still, the actual amount of real Late Byzantine/ Frankish decorated tablewares sampled in Boeotia is not overwhelming. The glaze colour of the Monochrome Sgraffito sherds found on the Boeotian sites is either green (copper) or ochre-yellow (iron); a smaller number of Brown and Green Sgraffito fragments is enhanced with a combination of more colours: green (copper), brown-yellow (iron) and brown-purple (manganese). A new range of designs was also introduced. The emphasis of the engraved decoration was now rather on monograms, geometric and stylised floral patterns, although animals and human figures can still be found. In addition to the vast improvement in the quality of the lead glaze (which became thicker and with a more glassy appearance), a finer, thinly-potted ware replaced the previous thick, soft and coarse tablewares of the Middle Byzantine period. An important innovation was the introduction of the tripod stand in the potter’s kiln, which allowed better distribution of heat and flow of air around vessels compared to simple stacking. This was required when very controlled conditions were necessary for potters to produce highly decorated pottery and complex vessel forms. The introduction of the tripod stand (used for all later 13th century vessels) resulted in a tighter packing in

the kiln and consequently a substantially increased output for the workshops, which had to compete with Western imports during this period. Two of the main sites in Boeotia with occupation in the Late Byzantine/Frankish and Early Turkish periods in Boeotia, VM4 and Rhadon, show a further increase of glazed sherds in both periods compared to the total number of sherds found (see table 7.4). The total number of glazed wares on both sites rises to 24% and 32% respectively compared to 76% and 68% of unglazed domestic and tablewares. This is again a substantial rise from the 15% glazed wares during the Middle Byzantine period (see table 7.2). Especially interesting, though, is the change in shape: from the 13th century onwards we see a clear increase of small, deep bowls with a high ring foot (figs. 6.25-28) instead of shallow dishes with a low ring base (figs. 6.1722). The rim width of the bowls is generally smaller than their Middle Byzantine predecessors, ranging from 17 to 20 cm. (see table 7.3). One of the most remarkable aspects of the Late Byzantine/Frankish period (and successively of the Early Turkish period) in Boeotia is the enormous increase of bowls and the lack of cups, compared to the use of other types of pottery (mainly jugs, jars and dishes) in all periods (see table 7.5).These bowls could have been used for liquid mixtures, or were perhaps even used as drinking vessels (as the so-called hanaps in Medieval Europe). Vessels such as bowls, with fairly high sides and thicker glazes, clearly imply that the contents are watery. Apart from new dining habits and new diets, the introduction of new shapes in the Late Byzantine/Frankish period may also reflect a growing demand for ceramic versions of more expensive metal ware utensils, or perhaps the well-recorded increase in the wine trade (and therefore wine-drinking among various classes) in Late Medieval society (McCarthy & Brooks 1988, 110). Cups, chalices and goblets are, for instance, also typical shapes of the later Middle Ages, and they clearly demonstrate the influence of metal forms on pottery (cf. Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1989, 41 for Cypriot parallels).In addition, it is known that during the 14th century earthenware tablewares were generally considered as rather low-value items in the hierarchy of materials.[6 ] Prestigious metal drinking jugs and beakers (especially silver, bronze and pewter) were much more valued, and in general some pottery of this period clearly imitates

233

Table 7.3 Average diameters of vessels shapes from the Middle Byzantine period, from the Late Byzantine/Frankish period and from the Turkish period.

VM4

Rhadon

Table 7.4 Percentages of glazed and unglazed wares in VM4 and Rhadon (main period: LBYZ/F-ET).

metal shapes. As always, the ‘missing artefacts’ (like silver, pewter, bronze and treen) must be borne in mind when considering the full range of behavioural patterning evident in any one ceramic or glass assemblage.[7 ] 7.2.5 tablewares of the turkish period (ca. late 15th-18th c.) After the clear change of vessel shapes in the 13th century, a new change is visible in the Boeotian assemblages towards the end of the 15th century and the 16th century, when a range of new and more sophisticated

234

ceramic products appear. Besides some Sgraffito imports with North-Italian features (Wares 24 and 25) a sudden increase of fine tin-glazed wares from Italy (Ware 27: Maiolica) and from Turkey (Ware 32: Iznik Ware) can be noticed. These imported wares were the result of improved pottery technology and apparently specifically designed for the table or for display purposes. Small deep bowls (also available in the imported Italian wares) remained popular in Boeotia into the Early Turkish period (see Wares 24, 26 and 28 and table 7.5). In Greece the influence of these Italian and Turkish imports also gave a new impetus to local ceramics (such as Greek imitations of Maiolica: Ware 28) and new shapes. Innovations were, for instance, the trefoil-mouth jug and the jug with a spout (the so-called ibrik), both for serving and pouring liquids (Wares 27 and 38). These jugs were popular in unglazed, plain glazed, painted and sgraffito form, but their shapes were not very varied. Perhaps they were once used for serving or pouring water, diluted yoghurt, or sherbets made of fruit juices, the traditional drinks in Ottoman times (Scarce 1996, 89) The jug with spout or ibrik could also have been used for carrying and storing water, or for pouring water in a basin during the ceremony of hand-washing before and after a meal. Another new shape in the Boeotian tablewares of the 16th and 17th centuries was the large flanged dish with

Table 7.5 Types of pottery in Post-Roman Boeotia: functional analysis of the ceramics.

Charmena

Mavromati N.

Table 7.6 Percentages of glazed and unglazed wares in Charmena and Mavromati North (main period: T-EMOD).

expanded flat rim, sometimes with notches or pie-crust decoration in the lip (see figs. 6.34-36). They are often monochrome glazed vessels with one colour (green, brown or yellow) in the glaze (Ware 29), although decorated examples also exist in Boeotia (Wares 30, 31 and 32). John Hayes has noted in his Saraçhane publication that the proportions of glazed wares in Constantinople/Istanbul increased markedly to around 35-40% of finds in Early Turkish contexts, with a further rise to 60-80% in the 18th/19th centuries when glazed wares become predominant (Hayes 1992, 233). A similar (but not so dramatic) increase of glazed

wares in the Turkish and Early Modern periods is visible in Boeotia. As mentioned earlier, sites VM4 and Rhadon yielded large quantities of glazed sherds in the Early Turkish period (24% and 32% of the total sample respectively; see table 7.4). Two of the main sites with occupation in the Turkish and Early Modern periods in Boeotia, Charmena and Mavromati North, show a moderate increase of glazed sherds compared to the total number of fragments found. The total number of glazed wares on both sites rises to 32% and 34% respectively against 68% and 66% of unglazed domestic and tablewares (see table 7.6). The diameter of the rim width of the glazed large dishes of the Turkish period found on the Boeotian sites varies from 24 to 32 cm. (see table 7.3). The increase of average rim width in comparison with Late Byzantine/ Frankish (17-20 cm.) is obvious. Perhaps the large bowls were used for substances containing a lot of fat or liquid like soup, in the 16th century one of the most common dishes in the Ottoman Empire (Dernschwam 1953-55 in Babinger 1923, 123). These liquid mixtures were probably eaten from a communal dish in which everybody who was sitting around dipped his or her cutlery. The polychrome decorated wares of the Turkish period found in Boeotia have exterior as well as interior designs, often based on spirals and winding lines (Wares

235

24-36). The ‘visual performance’ value of the exterior designs must have been significant, as is suggested by evidence from the American Southwest for situations in which vessels were carried around for consumption or shared at the supra-household or community-wide levels (Mills 1999, 112-3). We know, for instance, that in traditional households on the Greek islands highly decorated wares were often arranged on wall-shelves or mantleshelves to ornament the house and as a display of status, but were also used during special occasions (see fig. 3.15). Towards the end of the Turkish period (probably in the 18th century), a new type of glazed tableware made its way to Boeotia. It concerns here thinly-potted, small cups, made of a fine, buff-coloured fabric, from Kütahya in Turkey (Ware 35). The polychrome painted designs (in blue, green, red, purple and yellow) were usually geometrical, floral or figural. This tableware from Kütahya was strongly influenced by Chinese Porcelain, and is, therefore, sometimes described as a cheap substitute of real Porcelain or ‘peasant-porcelain’ (Lane 1957, 65). The small Kütahya cups are clearly related to the spread of coffee-consumption and their shape was probably derived from those of Porcelain coffee cups made at Vienna and Meissen (Germany) about 17301740 AD (Lane 1939, 236; 1957, 65; see in general, Vroom 1996 for the spread of coffee drinking in the Ottoman Empire). Noteworthy in this period is also the introduction of smoking in the Eastern style in Boeotia as indicated by the find of an earthenware fragment of the so-called chibouk tobacco pipe (Ware 37; see fig. 6.46). This type of pipe was in fashion throughout the Ottoman Empire from the 17th century onwards (Robinson 1985). According to the Ottoman archaeologist Uzi Baram, coffee cups and tobacco pipes embodied in the Ottoman Empire during the 17th and 18th centuries ‘the new, the modern, the rebellion against the social order’ (Baram 1999, 151). He suggests that by the end of the 19th century and into the early 20th century these items had become old-fashioned, or in his words: ‘the vestiges of an old empire’, and eventually to be ‘replaced by tea, cigarettes and nationalism’ coming from the West (Baram 1999, 151). 7.2.6 tablewares of the early modern period (ca. 19th-20th c.) The samples of the Boeotia Project indicate that in the

236

19th and in the beginning of the 20th century various types of typically Early Modern tablewares made their way into the rural areas of this region. By now, also the smaller settlements in the Boeotian interior imported glazed domestic and tablewares from all over the Mediterranean (Italy, Thrace, Crete, Siphnos, Turkey), and even industrialized mass-produced wares from North-Western Europe (France and Great Britain). Since the Industrial Revolution of the late 18th century, transfer-printed wares were widely appreciated in Europe and finds in Boeotia prove the influx of these industrial manufactured ceramics in Early Modern Greece. The printing technique, whereby the design of an inked engraving was transferred to paper and from there to the ceramic object, was a cheap process. Very distinctive in the Boeotian samples are a few sherds of large, printed plates in a monochrome colour from North-Western Europe, such as ‘opaque de Sarreguemines’ from the Utzschneider factory in France (in the catalogue of site-samples categorized as ‘Modern plates’). Also a piece of printed pottery from the British firm Powell, Bishop & Stonier Ltd. in Staffordshire (1891-1939) was found in Boeotia, which features on the back a caduceus-mark above the words ‘bisto’ and ‘England’ (cf. Korre-Zographou 1995, figs. 452-55; 47491; 515-17 for similar wares imported to the Cyclades). The main use of the transfer-printed pottery was the serving of food, but there were also purely decorative purposes. In Early Modern Greece, at least in the more prosperous regions, printed plates were often arranged on wall-shelves or mantle-shelves to ornament the house (see fig. 3.15). Ideological themes on these plates were scenes or heroes from the War of Independence, such as Lord Byron or Kolokotronis, but also depictions of Alexander the Great were very fashionable (cf. Gourgiotis 1976; Korre-Zographou 1995, figs. 452-55 and 475-91). Another widely imported, mass-produced ware of the Early Modern period was Grottaglie pottery, which was found quite abundantly on the Boeotian sites. This is a lead/tin-glazed earthenware from Southern Italy (or imitations from Corfu?) with an opaque white glaze on which the potters painted simple designs (such as small flowers and Greek meanders in blue, yellow or brown). One can distinguish thick-walled plates and shallow dishes with everted, flattened rims, and trefoil-mouth

Table 7.7 Post-Roman ceramics in Boeotia: functional analysis.

jugs with flat bases and strap handles (Cuomo di Caprio 1982, 214-23). This fine-textured and hard-fired Grottaglie Ware was a cheap imitation of the more costly faience and Porcelain from Western Europe. Interesting is the fact that all these Western imported wares have a white-fired fabric, whereas the more locally produced glazed vessels in the Aegean are made of red-fired terracotta. In short, one can discern the appearance of decorative tableware, such as plates, dishes and trefoil-mouth jugs with purpose-designed rims for pouring and drinking. The shapes of these imported wares vary greatly, but were totally based on individual dining habits in Western Europe.Is it possible that the imports of this pottery indicate a slow trend toward different consumption patterns (such as individualized food serving) in these Boeotian rural villages? In fact, the population boom, the reclamation of land for agriculture, the easy access of Boeotia to sea-routes and the development of merchandizing in the 19th century created good conditions for Early Modern ‘Westernization’ and a new ‘modernization’ in Boeotian households. Table 7.7 shows the growing increase of vessels which were used for consumption in Boeotia (as opposed to processing, or transport and storage) throughout all periods, and the dramatic increase in consumption pottery during the Turkish and Early Modern periods is very obvious. (Noteworthy in this table is also the reverse dramatic decrease of vessels which were used for distribution and storage, such as amphorae, which were undoubtedly replaced from the 14th century onwards by wooden barrels or skin containers.) For the local potters competition with imported

manufactured wares from Western Europe, which were both cheap and usually of better quality, must have been difficult. Typical Early Modern products in the Greek folk tradition found in Boeotia, like the careless slippainted green bowls from Didymoteicho and the simpler glazed domestic wares from Crete and Siphnos, were not very sophisticated and probably not suited for display in Greek households (see fig. 3.15), but rather practical in use for food preparation and consumption.In fact, the traditional evidence indicates that Greek consumers have often argued that these wares, manufactured in a traditional way, were excellent for cooking and for preserving the taste of food (G.London, pers. comm.).

2..

Changing vessel shapes and vessel functions

The relation between changes in pottery forms and changes in the function of pottery has been the subject of various earlier studies, though none of those was related to the Mediterranean area (in Post-Roman times). The emphasis of most of these studies was on ethnographic material from the American continent. The first to approach the problem was Ralph Linton, who attempted to deduce some general morphological parameters for ceramic cooking pots from North America and to place them in a cultural context (Linton 1944). After his pioneering study, most researchers used in their contributions the principal functional categories, morphological parameters and governing factors formulated by Linton. Nevertheless, within this general framework quite different approaches developed in an ever expanding discussion (cf. in general, Juhl 1995, table 2.1). A recent line of argument, for instance, is that differences in the nature and volume of the foods cooked, as well as the introduction of new foods and the methods of cooking are all important indicators of changes in the types and capacities of ceramic containers. In a casestudy of increasing vessel sizes among Pueblo communities in the American Southwest, one of the explanations forwarded was the change in specific types of food (such as the adoption of corn) that might require boiling and serving in suitable containers (Mills 1999, 110). Another approach is to look closely at the variations in size, wealth and status of the user group/household, and the occurrence of centralized, community-wide feasting, as factors in changes of pottery forms. Christy

237

Turner and Laurel Lofgren, for instance, introduced in their study of the Anasazi culture in North-Eastern Arizona the idea that the volumes of cooking pots and serving bowls can be directly related to the number of people served at a meal (Turner & Lofgren 1966). However, Ben Nelson showed that household size was only part of the solution of the problem, and that age distribution and social composition of the group using the pots were also significant factors (Nelson 1981). However, as far as tablewares are concerned, most studies emphasise that easy access to the food in the vessels, and the size of the user group are the primary functional factors for shapes. Therefore, open vessels with a firm stand predominate in this category. Calculations seem to indicate that individual-sized serving and eating vessels are about three times smaller than familysized serving and eating vessels, and that drinking vessels will have the smallest volume (Henrickson & McDonald 1983, 632 and Juhl 1995, 35 with more literature). Furthermore, changes in the shapes or types of tablewares are also often related to changes in status display of individuals or of the household as a whole (e.g. Henrickson & McDonald 1983; Lischka 1978). For instance, vessels for the serving and consumption of food are often costly decorated, because one of their functions is to have a high display effect in the household. A prominent representative of this more or less cultural approach to wining and dining habits is the anthropologist Jack Goody, who argues that class differences, the social context of food preparation and serving, as well as changes in ‘cuisine’ and ‘manners’ can all have far-reaching effects. Goody notes that ‘the identity and differentiation of the group is brought out in the practice of eating together or separately, as well as in the content of what is eaten by different collectivities; this is the arena of feasts and fasts, of prohibitions and preferences, of communal and domestic meals, of table manners, and modes of serving and service’ (Goody 1982, 38). Unfortunately, he does not discuss the effects on vessel shapes (Goody 1982, 38). However, the approach of Goody to the cultural complex of changes in cuisine and dining habits might be helpful as an additional perspective in trying to explain the shift in shapes of the Boeotian pottery. The challenge here is to find a way to use the Boeotian collection of Post-Roman finds, not only as a source of

238

typochronological information but also as a source of information on the functional and socio-cultural context of the pottery. A way of extracting this information is to compare the changes in the form of the pottery over time with changes in drinking and eating habits known from other sources, which I will undertake in chapters 11 and 12.

2./

Summary

The Medieval and Post-Medieval surface material from the Boeotia Project shows that, at least in case of the tablewares, there are a number of very clear changes over time in the general shapes and techniques of the pottery. The first obvious change is in the Late RomanEarly Byzantine period from fine, large dishes and plates with the finish of a red slip to coarse utilitarian vessels with a lead glaze as a sealant on the inside. Noteworthy is also the change from shallow, open vessels in the Middle Byzantine period to smaller, deeper bowls in the Late Byzantine/Frankish and Early Turkish periods, and then to large, open dishes in the Turkish period again (see table 7.3). At the same time, innovations in decoration techniques in tablewares were introduced in the Middle Byzantine period, which have been practised in large parts of Greece until recent times without much change. New and more technically advanced types of tinglazed tablewares, such as trefoil-mouth Maiolica jugs from Italy (for serving and pouring liquids) and coffee cups from Turkey, were introduced in Boeotia during the Turkish period. The use of the white-fired, colourful tablewares, finally, was introduced in the Early Modern period, when cheap, mass-produced pottery from the West made its way to all corners of Boeotia in substantial quantities. In general, more varied shapes of plates and jugs became widespread during the 19th and 20th centuries. The question to be answered is whether these technological and functional variations in pottery production from Late Roman-Early Byzantine times onwards in Central Greece were only the result of technical innovations in the potter’s craft and of socio-economic factors (such as an increased demand for imports), or also of actual changes in the consumption of food and/or by changes in dining habits of the local population. And if so, the problem is how to get an adequate picture of

these changing socio-economic circumstances and dining habits. The obvious way to proceed seems, therefore, to explore the written sources and the pictorial evidence on these subjects in the next chapters. There, the entire field of the obviously complex relation between shape and function of pottery is to be explored further from a different perspective.

notes 1. An exception is Bakirtzis (1989), who made an important contribution towards the study of names, shapes and uses of domestic wares in Byzantine Greece (concentrating on the period from the 9th/10th to the 13th/15th centuries). 2. Blake (1980, 3-8) has questioned the value of the traditional approach to pottery for dating. He argues, for instance, that pottery ‘reflects the components of demand’ (rather than supply) and is therefore a ‘unique measure of the consumption habits of past communities’. See also Vroom 2000b. 3. Cf. Hayes (1992, 41-43, fig. 15), although his ‘Coarse Glazed Wares’ have different shapes. 4. Various interpretations of the decoration on Middle Byzantine pottery are possible, but for the most part these must remain in the realm of speculations as we have no means of confirming or refuting them. 5. In England the possibilities of pottery acting as a means of defining regional cultures was propounded by E.M. Jope in a series of articles. Jope (1952, 61-76; 1972) identified regional traits and this was followed up with a more wide-ranging paper in which architectural style and building materials were considered. 6. The 14th century scholar and historian Nicephorus Gregoras (ii.788.15-18) stresses the hierarchy of materials when he exclaims that the poverty of the imperial court required the replacement of gold and silver vessels by those made of tin and ‘ceramic and clay’ (as cited by A. Kazhdan in Kazhdan et al. 1991, 2146). 7. See Smart Martin (1989, 1-27). However, vessels made of cheaper materials such as wood and leather were far more widespread than their survival today would indicate.

239

8 – THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC BACKGROUND OF THE CERAMICS FOUND IN BOEOTIA: A SHORT INTRODUCTION

3., Introduction In this chapter I will try to sketch a preliminary framework for the socio-economy in Medieval and PostMedieval Boeotia in which the production and distribution of goods (or pottery) must have taken place through the centuries. It is not my aim to present a detailed socioeconomic history of Medieval and Post-Medieval Boeotia; the emphasis will be rather on structural socioeconomic factors which enabled production and distribution of pottery within Boeotia. Questions raised here are, for instance, where pottery production centres could have functioned in the Boeotian landscape, and in what way the Boeotian infrastructure may have influenced the distribution of pottery for local use and export. Written sources were explored to gather information on the social and economic context in which the Medieval and Post-Medieval potters could have operated. For the Byzantine and Frankish periods in Boeotia I have mainly used the secondary literature, in which these written sources are collected, discussed or summarized. For the Byzantine period, for instance, I have relied upon the publications of Alan Harvey, David Jacoby, Angeliki Laiou, Archibald Dunn, as well as the volumes of the Tabula Imperii Byzantini on Hellas and Negroponte by Johannes Koder and Friedrich Hild (Koder 1973; Koder & Hild 1976; Jacoby 1991-92; 1994; Harvey 1982-83; 1989; Laiou 1980-81; 1982; 1990; Dunn 1995). Peter Lock has presented, in general, the written documents of the Late Byzantine/Frankish period in Greece (Lock 1997). For the Ottoman period in Boeotia, things are different. For this era, an important anchorage was provided by the fact that the Boeotia Project had access to very detailed Ottoman tax registers, which gave information about all sorts of economic output and resources in the research area. These registers were translated and studied by the Dutch Ottomanist Machiel Kiel (e.g. Kiel 1992; 1997). I make grateful use of his findings here. Further material was provided by the Ottomanist Suraiya Faroqhi, who published in general about

merchants, markets and artisans in the Ottoman Empire (e.g. Faroqhi 1995). Finally, scattered but often illuminating information on towns, the conditions of transport and communications in the Turkish and Early Modern periods can be found in the accounts of Western travellers (antiquarians, geographers etc.), who travelled in Boeotia from the late 15th to the 19th centuries.

3.-

The Boeotian infrastructure: settlements and routes

A fundamental part of the socio-economic background of the production and distribution of pottery in Boeotia is of course formed by the infrastructure of the area in Post-Roman times. The major features of that infrastructure were the two major towns (Thebes and Livadheia), the importance of the ports, the rural settlements, the land and sea routes (see fig. 8.1). The importance of regional infrastructure for the production and distribution of pottery in a given time has been stressed in earlier research (Moorhouse 1983). It has been convincingly argued, for instance, that distribution patterns of other consumption goods may point to the directions in which pottery moved and, perhaps, the extent to which rural settlements located away from the major roads made use of pots from different sources (Hodder 1974). It seems clear that in general the land and sea trade systems functioned as the arteries along which pottery travelled. Research on Medieval settlements in Britain has shown that both the pattern of settlement and the road system in an area were of particular importance to the pattern of distribution of pottery (Moorhouse 1978, 16). Here, I will discuss the main features of the Boeotian infrastructure in Post-Roman times, and their relevance for the production and distribution of goods (or pottery) over time in the region. These main features are the towns, the ports, the rural settlements, the land routes and the sea routes.

241

Fig. 8.1 Location of the most important places and routes mentioned in the text (after Koder & Hild 1976). 1. Anthedon

13. Panaghia

2. Larymna

14. Mazi

3. Aulis

15. Evangilistria

4. Oropos

16. Petra

5. Livadostro

17. Thisbe + Domvrena

6. Aigosthena

18. Vathy

7. Eleusis

19. Koroneia

8. Panakton

20. Osios Loukas

9. Loukisia

21. Orchomenos

10. Mouriki

22. Atalanti

11. Haliartos

23. Kalapodi

12. Thespiae + Leondari 24. Kaparelli

8.2.1 towns (figs. 8.2-3) Thebes – Late Roman Thebes grew into the administrative centre for church and state in Central Greece during Byzantine times.[1 ] It was made the capital of the province (thema) of Hellas at the end of the 7th century, as well as an autocephalous archbishopric by the late 8th century (Koder & Hild 1976, 269-70; Dunn 1995, 757). The town became densely populated during the 12th century and was even acquiring new suburbs outside its walls (Dunn 1995, 769). Long-term excavations in the city centre of Thebes revealed a densely populated Medieval settlement with narrow streets on the Kadmeia Hill (Symeonoglou 1985; Harvey 1989, 218-9). The town was located in the midst of a relatively fertile area, functioning thus as a large market for the agricultural and pastoral products of the region. This part of Central Greece was supplying Constantinople with significant quantities of wheat in the 11th century (Dunn 1995, 770). Furthermore, Thebes was internationally known for its manufacture of high-quality silk textiles, red-dyed with kermes and purple-dyed with marine molluscs, by the 11th century (in general, Jacoby 1991-92; Dunn 1992, 290-91; see also Rackham 1983, 332-33 for references on kermes in later times). Silk was one of the most important national products in the Byzantine economy, both for use within the Empire and for exports. In an economy with a limited money supply, silk was even used as a supplementary currency, enabling the Emperor to

242

pay a portion of salaries in silk (Oikonomides 1997, 147). Furthermore, Thebes high-quality silk cloths were also used as diplomatic gifts during the reign of Alexios III (1195-1203 AD) (Jacoby 1991-92, 467). The 12th century bishop of Athens, Michael Choniates, repeatedly complained that the Thebans were treated more leniently than the Athenians by tax-collectors, although Athens was not as famous as Thebes or Corinth for the quality of its cloth manufactures (Jacoby 1991-92, 488 and note 200). However important as a regional centre, Thebes did not escape the apparent economic downfall in Greek lands during ‘the Dark Ages’ of the 7th-9th centuries. The settlement contracted to the Kadmeian Hill during the 7th century, and there is evidence of a prolonged abandonment of the other parts of the town (Symeonoglou 1985; Harvey 1989, 29). The petty currency of small-scale transactions seems to reappear in Boeotia in the 9th century, during the reign of Theophilos (829-842 AD) (Dunn 1995, 765 and note 58; Galani-Krikoy 2000). A sign of the renewed economic vitality in Thebes is that there was probably a bronze coin mint operating from the late 11th century onward (Harvey 1989, 5; Hendy 1985, 310-12, 424-28, 435-37). In an attempt to cope with a livelier and growing degree of exchange and with a lower pricestructure, this minted money had to facilitate a market in wich silver coins had too high a value. The 12th century coin hoards from Central Greece seem indeed to

Fig. 8.2 Painting of the town of Thebes by Hugh William Williams (1773-1829 AD), ca. 1819 AD (after Tsigakou 1995, pl. 12).

Fig. 8.3 Painting of the town of Livadheia by William Walker (1780-1863 AD), ca. 1804 AD (after Tolias 1995, fig. 29).

indicate a relatively high degree of monetisation of the local economy (Dunn 1995, 766; Galani-Krikoy 2000). Written sources underline the importance of Thebes as an agricultural and industrial centre in the Middle Byzantine period. The 12th century Arab geographer Idrisi called ‘Istibas’ a flourishing city, and referred to Thebes as a great centre of agricultural production.[2 ]

His contemporary, the Byzantine statesman and historian Niketas Choniates, wrote of the ‘traditional wealth and fame of the town’, and referred to its commercial activity. In spite of its inland location, Thebes attracted many foreigners in the Middle Byzantine period because of its agricultural and pastoral products, as well as its silk industry (Jacoby 1991-92; Dunn 1995, 769-70). Among them were Venetian and Genoese merchants who had been active in Thebes as early as the 11th century. The Venetians were engaged in business in Thebes already in 1071 AD (Jacoby 1991-92, 494-95 and note 241; id. 1994, 352 and note 15). The town became part of the Italian long-distance trade system from the 12th century onwards. In the Ottoman census lists of the 15th and 16th centuries Thebes figured as the main centre of a large district (kaza) in the sanjak (sub-province) of Egriboz, including more than 100 villages. In 1570 AD Thebes had four mosques, two hamams, two schools and a caravanserai (Kiel 1999). The tax registers show that the Theban economy was based on the production of wheat, wine, cotton, wool and silk and on the breeding of sheep. The city appears to have been a fairly rich place which even supplied Attica with grain (Kiel 1987, 120). During the 16th century the population of Thebes was almost entirely Christian, consisting in 1540 AD of 1290 Christian households, 300 unmarried men and 192 widows, besides 81 Muslim households with 25 unmarried young men and a group of 96 Jewish households. This gives a total of ca. 6500 to 7500 inhabitants in Thebes alone. According to Kiel, the year 1540 AD marked the limit of population growth for Thebes during the 16th century (Kiel 1992). The 1570 tax register shows that the expansion of its population had come to a standstill, but economic life was further intensified. Between the years 1506 AD and 1570 AD, cotton production rose fivefold and the production of wine and silk doubled, as did the number of water mills, the market dues and the revenue of the public weighing house (kantar) (Kiel 1992, 406 and tables 5a-b). The city was even a centre for the manufacture of tobacco pipes, made of meerschaum.Meerschaum (called ‘sipiolithos’ in Modern Greek) is a hydrous silicate of magnesium, which is very light and can float in water.The mineral can be found in the area around Thebes.

243

Observations of 17th century travellers seem to confirm the picture of Thebes as a prosperous and densely populated town (see also fig. 8.2). In 1654 AD Sieur du Loir remarked that Thebes was about the same size as Athens, but better provided with all the necessities of life (Sieur Du Loir 1654, 330). The French doctor Jacob Spon and his British companion George Wheler, who visited Thebes in the 17th century, reported that the town had perhaps 3000 or 4000 souls, two mosques and several churches (Spon & Wheler 1679, 55). They also mentioned that the houses inside the walls were compactly built, ‘higher and much better’ than elsewhere in the country. This last observation is confirmed by the Ottoman traveller Evliya Çelebi, who was at Thebes in 1668 AD and noticed there elegant and decorated, stone-built and spacious houses (Yiannopoulos 1969; see also Kiel 1999). He counted seventeen quarters in Thebes inhabited by Greeks, six quarters by Muslims and one quarter by Jews, with approximately 2500 houses in the entire town. According to Evliya, the mosque of Egribozlu Ahmed Pasha was the most delicate, as well as the most artistically made and largest building at Thebes. An icon of St. Luke from ca. 1700-1720 AD, still to be seen in the Cathedral of Thebes, probably depicts this mosque with a number of domes and vaults.[3 ] However, not a single stone has been preserved of this mosque. The British traveller Richard Pococke observed in 1745 AD that the outlines of Thebes, situated in a plain, measures one mile at least. It was the residence of an archbishop, as well as of a governor (voivode) and of a judge (kadi). One could count in Thebes, according to Pococke, 2000 Greek, 70 Jewish and 1000 Turkish houses (Pococke in Cramerus 1779, 208-9). Two centuries later, this flourishing picture of Thebes seems to have changed into a grimmer one. In 1806 AD, the American Nicolas Biddle called Thebes a city of no more than 1500 or 2000 souls (Biddle 1806 in McNeal 1993, 109). According to the British traveller J.C. Hobhouse, Thebes was now a very poor town, containing about 500 houses, mostly of wood, and inhabited chiefly by Turks. It had two mosques, four churches, and there was further nothing worthy of notice in this place (Hobhouse 1813, 278). Almost half a century later, the French writer and diplomat Eugène Yemeniz was a bit more optimistic. He suggested in 1845 AD that the population of Thebes was

244

‘numerous, animated and not without means’. The central road was surrounded by picturesque houses with shop-windows beneath which contained all kinds of things attracting customers (Yemeniz 1845, 256-57). His fellow countryman, Henri Belle, made forty years later the same observation. He described Thebes as composed of one large road, surrounded by small two-storey houses, of which the ground floor consisted of little shops (boutiques) (Belle 1881, 65). Livadheia – From the 14th century onwards, Livadheia to the North-West gradually grew more important in Boeotia.[6 ] The town, seat of a bishopric, consisted of a cluster of houses below a well-bastioned square castle on a steep conical hill. This fortress was the stronghold of a small group of Catalan mercenaries, called the Grand Company, who took control of Central Greece after the battle of Skripou in 1311 AD. During the 14th century, Livadheia had Catalan settlers next to Greeks until it was occupied by the Turks in 1394 AD. Though not as large as Athens, Livadheia became the seat of a kadilik and one of the largest cities in Central Greece during the Turkish period (see also fig. 8.3). It had an Ottoman garrison of twenty-two soldiers bearing Muslim Turkish names from the sanjak (sub-province) of Egriboz, because of its large and strong castle. Furthermore, a civil Muslim population of 51 households and 25 bachelors was settled in the town (Kiel 1997, 324). Livadheia had altogether 237 families in the 1466-67 AD Ottoman tax register.This amounted to a total population of roughly 1000-1100 inhabitants, of which about 30% were Muslims (Kiel 1997, 325).[4 ] The 15th century Italian traveller Giovan-Maria Angiolello called Livadheia a place ricco di mercantia, e altre cose necessarie alla vita humana – ‘rich with merchandise, and all the other things which are necessary for human life’ (Reinhard 1913, 32). During the 16th century, the Ottoman tax registers give information on the growing number of inhabitants (including a community of 36 Jewish families coming from the West), as well as of the foundation of Islamic institutions in Livadheia (among them lodgings for travellers, maintained from the rents of shops, watermills and gardens in or near the town) (Kiel in Bosworth et al. 1986, 772). In the late 16th century registers Livadheia counted five Turkish mosques, two Islamic schools, a Dervish convent and a hamam (hot bath). The Christians

had at least four churches (Kiel 1997). The Ottoman traveller Evliya Çelebi visited Livadheia in 1667-68 AD. According to him, the town contained 2020 spacious and prosperous houses, inhabited by Muslims and Christians, as well as fountains and coffee shops. The population included many rich and notable persons, among them a voivode (representative of the Sultan) commanding 200 men (Kiel in Bosworth et al. 1986, 773). The Western travellers Jacob Spon and George Wheler seem to confirm these numbers. For the 17th century, they mentioned that the town was large and populous and that it was mainly inhabited by Turks and Greeks (among whom only a few Jews), living from the production of woollen cloth and trade in corn and rice. By this time, the Turks had five or six mosques, and the Greeks as many churches. Spon and Wheler also mentioned a caravanserai, as well as water mills in the town centre (Spon & Wheler 1679, 49-50). The British traveller Richard Pococke passed through Livadheia about 60 years later, in 1745 AD. He counted only 650 houses in the town, 50 of which were inhabited by Jews, while the rest was divided by an equal number of Christians and Turks. According to him, the Christians had three churches (Pococke in Cramerus 1779, 206). It is possible that Pococke’s number is not totally reliable, because the French traveller Pouqueville, visiting the town shortly before 1800 AD, counted at least 2000 households in Livadheia (Pouqueville 1820, 159-175). We can notice this last number again in the travellers’ accounts of the early 19th century. Henry Holland, travelling in 1815 AD, also noted 2000 houses in Livadheia, ‘many of them very large and inhabited by wealthy and respectable Greeks’. He counted five mosques with minarets, but the Muslim-Turkish population was apparently quite small (Holland 1815, 395). Livadheia was considered by the British traveller and geographer William Leake as a town with ‘a greater air of opulence than any place in Northern Greece, not even excepting Ioannina’ (Leake 1835, 118). The town had in Leake’s time circa 1500 large houses, of which 130 only were Turkish. Apparently, Leake only counted the large houses: they had spacious chambers and galleries ‘in the Turkish manner’, and were surrounded for the most part with gardens. Leake’s fellow countryman, the traveller J.C. Hobhouse, called Livadheia around the same time a place of considerable trade and counted as

many houses. According to him, the town contained 1500 stone houses, many of them in very good condition. Only one hundred of the families living at Livadheia were Turkish; the rest were Christians. There were six mosques in the town, as well as six churches (Hobhouse 1813, 260). In the mid 19th century, the Frenchman Eugène Yemeniz considered the town as ‘delicate, picturesque and original’. Its houses lay one by one on the two shores of the river Hercina. He mentioned a small church as well as small minarets in the city centre. The roads of Livadheia were, according to him, lively and almost all converted into bazaars, where ‘textiles of a thousand colours’ were on display (Yemeniz 1845, 295). Of the 19th century travellers, the American Nicolas Biddle was not so charmed by Livadheia. He called it a tolerably large town, built on a declivity of a hill. He described the houses, however, in general as mean, the streets badly built and there were few houses decent to live in. According to his report, only the Logothetis family had a really charming house, in which Biddle was quite well accommodated (Biddle 1806 in McNeal 1993, 104). The house of the Logothetis family survived as an official monument in the city centre of Modern Livadheia today. 8.2.2 ports (figs. 8.4-5) In Medieval and Post-Medieval times, the port of Euripos/Negroponte (modern Chalkis) guarded the narrows between the Boeotian mainland and the island of Euboea (see fig 8.4). During the Byzantine period, its harbour facilities had both military and commercial functions. Euripos/Negroponte was an important harbour for the Imperial fleet (basilikon ploimon), and it had ship yards during the Middle Byzantine period (Koder & Hild 1976, 102). Euripos/Negroponte was the most convenient port for access to Thebes and it was the main outlet for products from Boeotia. It acquired greater importance as the agricultural production of the region and the industrial production of Thebes intensified. The port was also a centre for fishermen of marine molluscs, which were used as a purple dye in the Boeotian silk industry (Koder & Hild 1976, 104). Furthermore, Euripos/Negroponte was the dominant port in Central Greece for inter-regional sea connections. After 1082 AD, it was one of the ports listed

245

Fig. 8.4 Engraving of the port of Negroponte in the Turkish period (after Koder 1973).

in the Venetians’ privileges, together with Demetrias (Koder & Hild 1976, 102). Euripos/Negroponte and other ports of the Western and Northern Aegean (together with their hinterlands) became not only the object of Western commercial penetration in their own right, but were also on the route from the West to the Capital of the Byzantine Empire. Between the years 1261-1400 AD, Euripos/Negroponte was an important trade centre with dealings between the Cyclades, Crete, Thessaloniki and Constantinople, as well as a storage centre for cloth from the West. According to Johannes Koder, it had a Northern and Southern harbour. He suggested that the latter harbour was used as an anchorage place and depot, and probably as port for transit merchandise to Constantinople, Venice, Athens, the Peloponnesus and Crete (Koder 1973, 85-6). The Northern harbour was, according to Koder, smaller and mainly used for the local exchange of goods in the Northern Gulf of Euboea and with Pteleon (Koder 1973, 86). Contrary to Koder, David Jacoby, however, thinks that Negroponte had only one harbour (D. Jacoby, pers. comm.).

246

In Ottoman times, exports of timber from Boeotia took place through the port of Euripos/Negroponte, where the Turks were in the majority (among them a garrison of 357 men) (Angelomatis-Tsougarakis 1990, 31; Kiel in Bosworth et al. 1986, 772). In 1745 AD, the British traveller Richard Pococke recorded that the port was ‘only’ twelve miles from Thebes. A basfa and a commander (aga) of the Janissaries resided in Euripos/Negroponte; the first one being involved with the administration of justice over a large region which extended to Salona/Amphissa in the West (Pococke in Cramerus 1779, 204). A century later, the Frenchman Alexandre Buchon counted within the interior of the fortress 300 Muslims, 200 Jews and two mosques. In his time, the town consisted of 5000 Christians (Longnon 1911, 27). Other (minor) ports in Boeotia were mainly situated on the Northern coast during Byzantine times: at Anthedon, at Larymna, at Aulis and at Oropos (Koder & Hild 1976, 104). Excavations at the port of Anthedon have revealed that all the visible remains of the harbour works belonged to the 4th to 7th centuries (Schläger,

Fig. 8.5 View of the port of Anthedon (photo: J. Vroom).

Blackman & Schäfer 1968; see fig. 8.5). Later pottery, which was found on the sea bed in the harbour and in the cement of the harbour works, showed that the port of Anthedon was also used during the 12th century (cf. Hayes in Hood 1970, 37, note 3). According to the Byzantinist Archibald Dunn, a large settlement of the Middle Byzantine period existed at Anthedon, which had preserved its name in the 12th century and must be Cavo di Lucaza (i.e. Loukisia) mentioned on an early 14th century portulan chart (Medieval book of navigation) (Dunn 1995, 762, note 43). After 1204 AD, a few minor ports became more significant on the Southern coast of Boeotia: for instance, at Livadostro (Riva d’Ostro) and at Dombrena (Koder & Hild 1976, 102; Lock 1995, 262). Livadostro was mainly used by the Catalans as an outlet for Athens, having access with Brindisi and the West, because Venice prevented their ships to use the Aegean coast for some time (Setton 1975). According to the historian Peter Lock, the harbour facilities at Livadostro (Riva d’Ostro) were rudimentary. He considered the port little more than a roadstead guarded by a watchtower on the beach. All cargoes would have to be rowed ashore. Trade through it must have been limited, and quick access with the ports of Southern Italy seems to have been ‘its chief recommendation’ (Lock 1995, 117 and 262). Apperently, during the 16th century Livadostro was still active, because the Ottoman tax registers mention here port dues (H. Kiel, pers comm.). 8.2.3 rural settlements (fig. 8.6) Since ancient times, Boeotia has been an agriculturally

rich and relatively densely populated region, which has apparently been inhabited continuously throughout the ages. Also rural sites from the Medieval and PostMedieval periods are ubiquitous in the research area, which is still cultivated today (Bintliff 1995; 1996; 1997). A total of 74 sites with Post-Roman finds have been recorded during the field survey of the Boeotia Project (e.g. Vroom 1996; 1997; 1998a; 1998b). Although the region was apparently continuously inhabited, the settlement pattern in Medieval and PostMedieval Boeotia was never static. The archaeological evidence indicates the shrinkage or abandonment of the urban centres, as well as an apparent depopulation of the countryside in the Early Byzantine period. The recovery must have started earlier than the 11th century. The importance of the church of the Dormition at Skripou and the continued architecture of the church of St. Gregory the Theologian at Thebes in the 9th century is to be noted (cf. Soteriou 1924; Megaw 1966; Trombley 2000, 990, note 2). The revival of the urban centre of Thebes in the 11th and 12th centuries has a parallel development in the Boeotian countryside, where a substantial increase of finds from this period is evident. This seems in accordance with the views that the middle decades of the 12th century witnessed a general population increase all over the Byzantine Empire (Hendy 1989, 11; Harvey 1989). From the survey results in Boeotia, we know that the research area contained at least 28 settlements with pottery finds from the 11th and 12th centuries against a mere three of the 9th and 10th centuries. These settlements seem to have been small nucleated hamlets distributed evenly across the landscape, both in lowland areas and on hilltops (Bintliff 1996, 4). The written sources confirm that the second half of the 12th century was a period of prosperity for Boeotia, as it was for its capital Thebes. An 11th century fiscal register for Eastern Boeotia, the much discussed Cadaster of Thebes, shows intensification of agricultural production and cultivation of former wasteland during the 11th century (Svoronos 1959; Lemerle 1979; Harvey 1982-83 with further literature; Dunn 1995, 768-69; Bintliff 1995, 4; Neville 2001). According to the historian Alan Harvey, this agricultural expansion led to population increase and acted eventually as a stimulus to the urban economy. As more land was cultivated, the wealth of the landowning elite increased and their stronger

247

Fig. 8.6 Miniature of bucolic scenes in the Middle Byzantine era, Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzos, Bibl. Nat. Cod. Gr. 533 (fol 34v), Paris, 11th century (after Galavaris 1969, pl. XIV).

purchasing power stimulated urban production (Harvey 1982-83).

248

Furthermore, differences in peasant wealth in the rural communities from the 9th century onward formed the first significant sign of social stratification in the rural and urban economy (Hendy 1989, 9). A detailed but mutilated fiscal register for Central Greece, the socalled Prakti kon of Athens, which describes many properties in Attica and South-Eastern Boeotia in the 12th century, seems to demonstrate, for instance, that the majority of the peasantry was not impoverished (cf. Hendy 1989, 9 and Dunn 1995, 770-71 with further literature on this register). From 14 villages and 88 rural households in the Asopos Valley and Attica, 33% (or 37%) owned a pair of oxen, 24% (or 27%) owned one ox, while 31% (or 35%) were categorised as lacking their own oxen, though they were not without possessions. In short, apparently 65% of the rural households mentioned in this register could be described as economically successful despite the status of the farmers as tenants (Dunn 1995, 770-71). The archaeological material suggests that the demographic and economic pinnacle for Medieval Boeotia seems to be in the 13th century, that is to say: in the Frankish period. At the beginning of the 13th century the Franks took possession of a settled and relatively flourishing land in which the population was growing (Lock 1995). The results from the Boeotia survey seem to show that the majority of the Boeotian population now lived in the countryside in nucleated hamlets and villages (Bintliff 1996, 5-6). Between 1325-28 AD, Boeotia was clearly talked of (and promoted) in the West as ‘a desirable place, as a land of prosperity and felicity’ (Lock 1997, 310 and notes 22-23 with further literature). In addition, monetisation and trade advanced in Frankish Greece in the 13th century (Lock 1995). A most dramatic change of land use seems to have occurred in the 14th and early 15th centuries, when the Boeotian landscape almost became deserted. This process of massive depopulation was probably caused by the more or less simultaneous events: of the Plague from 1348 AD onwards (it is assumed that 1/3 of the Greek population succumbed to the Black Death), of increased raiding by Turkish pirates, as well as of destructive warfare in the region between the Franks, the Byzantine Empire and the Ottomans. In the later 15th century, despite plagues, raids and wars, the population in Boeotia seems to increase by natural means and by immigration. The Dukes of Athens

and Thebes invited, for instance, large scale re-settlement into the region by the immigration of Albanian clans (Bintliff 1996, 5; 2000). For the Turkish period, the Ottoman tax registers indicate that the Boeotian economy and population apparently took off as soon as the Pax Ottomanica was established in the late 15th century, and that they flourished during the 16th century. The figures in the Ottoman census statistics show at least a spectacular growth (studied by Machiel Kiel). This is matched by a substantial growth in settlement numbers based on archaeological field survey in the area (collated by Sbonias 1999). The Boeotian censuses indicate that the highpoint of population density is around 1540-1570 AD, as it was with the Ottoman Empire as a whole. The records show a severe decline in most communities during the 17th century, a slight recovery in the 18th century, but full recovery only in the final decades of the 19th century (Bintliff 1997; 2000). After the War of Independence agriculture initially made a bad start in Boeotia. The new Greek state took over the land previously occupied by the Turks, with the aim of redistributing it amongst Greek farmers. This proved to be difficult both politically and practically, and much land was left uncultivated (Slaughter & Kasimis 1986). The beginning of wealth creation began only at the turn of the 20th century and took off more dramatically in the 1950s with the distribution of the fertile lands of the drained Lake Kopais amongst adjacent townships. Villages in Boeotia grew and developed rapidly; most houses have since been improved, extended or entirely rebuilt (cf. Slaughter & Kasimis 1986; Stedman 1996 with more information on settlement locations, traditional house-types and the growth of villages in Early Modern Boeotia). 8.2.4 land routes (figs. 8.1 and 8.7) The most important road in Boeotia went from Lamia to the West through the Kephissos-valley, via Kopais Lake and Thebes plain, to Athens or Corinth in the East and South-east (Koder & Hild 1976, 95; cf. Belke 2002, 86-9 for the hierarchy in local roads during Byzantine times; see also fig. 8.1). Before the drainage of Lake Kopais, travellers used the low road between Livadheia and Thebes only during the dry summer months. The higher (or winter) route went from Livadheia, followed the foothills further inland from Koroneia to Evangilis-

Fig. 8.7 Engraving of travellers during the Turkish period (after Tolias 1995, fig. 45).

tria and Mazi or Askra, and went then ultimately to Thebes (Stedman 1996, 180). Another important road went from Thebes to the port of Euripos/Negroponte and was called the dimosia strata (‘public street’) in the 11th century Cadaster of Thebes, or via publica qua Thebas itur a Negroponte (‘the public road which goes from Negroponte to Thebes’) in the Frankish period (Koder & Hild 1976, 96). There were three other important routes in Boeotia: one, along the coast, from Euripos/Negroponte through Anthedon (Loukisia), Paralimni and Mouriki to Thebes. Another road was passing from Atalanti port via Orchomenos to Lake Kopais. The third one, via Kaparelli to Livadostro, connected Thebes with the Gulf of Corinth (Koder & Hild 1976, 97; see also fig. 8.1). In Byzantine and Medieval times, the means of transportation were slow and frail in Greece. It took about three days to reach Adrianople (modern Edirne) from Constantinople and eight days from Thessaloniki to the Danube (Kahzdan & Epstein 1985, 49). Carrying cargo over land, a process burdened with a variety of tolls and the constant danger of banditry, must have been relatively costly and reduced in the 14th century because of warfare. The Byzantines used donkeys and mules for transportation; only under especially favourable circumstances were oxen used to draw carts (Kahzdan & Epstein 1985, 49). Until modern times, feet and mule back were still the only means of transport in the mountains of Central Greece (Bommeljé & Doorn 1996, 343). During Ottoman times, the trade network continued on the main roads in Central Greece. From spring to the

249

Fig. 8.8 Transport by ship in the MByz era; Mosaic, Cathedral of Monreale, Palermo, 12th century (after Meyer 1952, pl. IX).

beginning of winter, large organized expeditions of merchants (called caravans) moved on these roads during the daylight with some small intervals for rest (see fig. 8.7). Heavy goods were carried by wagon; in mountainous areas mules were the normal means of . transport (Inalcik 1973, 146). Travellers on horseback or muleback accompanied the caravans; coaches were seldom used for such expeditions. The journey was usually very dangerous, and the merchants and travellers were constantly armed. The 17th century Frenchman Robert de Dreux, for instance, observed a caravan with travellers and merchants in Boeotia, who travelled together to protect themselves against groups of bandits and thieves (Dreux in Pernot 1925, 139). Two centuries later his fellow countryman Eugène Yemeniz also remarked later that bandits made the Boeotian roads unsafe (Yemeniz 1869, 219). According to the British traveller William Leake, the road from Livadheia to Thebes was not infrequently interrupted by robbers who established themselves at a pass with the name ‘Petra’ (Leake 1835, 137).

250

During the journey there were specific organized stopping places, called khani or caravanserai, where the caravans could temporally rest. A khan was a modest inn, where travellers could stay overnight, have a drink, take a simple meal, feed their animals and close deals with local sellers and buyers. These inns were often important landmarks, built in central places of the Ottoman Empire’s road network and indicating historic land routes and nodes of communication (Bommeljé & Doorn 1996, 347). Many inns were not located within a village, but often just outside or even in the middle of the countryside at geographically important sites (crossroads, mountain passes and river crossings). The construction of these khani was especially designed to resist the thieves’ attacks. In Boeotia, the 17th century travellers Jacob Spon and George Wheler mentioned one khan at the entrance of Livadheia and two khani in Thebes (Spon & Wheler 1679, 47, 54). Richard Pococke mentioned only one khan in Thebes in 1745 AD (Pococke in Cramerus 1779, 209). A century later, Henri Belle remarked about a khan in Thebes, ‘from where there’s a rancid and stinking smell escaping which turns your stomach’ (Belle 1881, 65). Also his contemporary, the German traveller Habbo Gerhardus Lolling, was not very charmed by this Theban inn and called it ‘ein höchst elendes Chani’ (Lolling 1989, 79). And the Frenchman Eugène Yemeniz described the interior of a 19th century khan on the border of Boeotia and Attica as ‘in perfect harmony with the rude and savage aspect of these places’ (Yemeniz 1854, 232). According to the Greek historian Helen AngelomatisTsougarakis, who studied British travellers’accounts of early 19th century Greece, there was no other khani on the road between Athens and Livadheia or Euripos/Negroponte (modern Chalkis) than the ones on the border and the one in Thebes. This meant that in the whole of Attica and a great part of Boeotia there were just two stop-overs for travellers. She rightly stated, therefore, that ‘considering the fact that this was the only main road connecting three important towns as well as Northern Greece with the Morea, this lack of any provision for accommodation seems quite unusual’ (Angelomatis-Tsougarakis 1990, 54-55) 8.2.5 sea routes (fig. 8.8) Throughout the Byzantine and Medieval periods, transportation by water was far more important than travel by

land, especially with respect to long-distance trade. Transporting goods by sea was less expensive and more efficient, although dangerous (e.g.storm risks at sea, pirates) and with restrictions. The sailing-season was not only limited by weather, but also by law: the Theodosian Code restricted maritime trade to between 13 April and 15 October (Dark 2001, 90). Byzantine cargo ships were small (no greater than 16-25 metres in length) and slow (Pryor 2002; Koder 2002, 120-24). According to the historian Antoniadis-Bibicou, their average capacity was 8.5 – 17 cubic metres (Antoniadis-Bibicou 1966, 132). It has been suggested that the maximum speed of these trading ships was in favourable conditions of around 3.5 knots but possibly no more than six knots (Dark 2001, 90; Pryor 2002, table 2.2). The historian Archibald Dunn has assembled the written sources from the Byzantine era for the Boeotia Project in which Boeotian trade is mentioned (A. Dunn, unpublished report for Boeotia Project). Documents of the 10th century mention merchant ships travelling between Italy and Boeotia and Phokis. By the 1070s, ‘the time of the earliest surviving Venetian references to commercial transactions in Boeotia, high-value cargoes were involved. One was worth 300 pounds in silver denarii; another was worth 75 pounds in silver denarii. The cargoes being exported from Thebes were probably silk, the industry which made Thebes famous in the 12th century’ (A. Dunn, unpublished report for Boeotia Project). Especially after the Fourth Crusade of 1204 AD, Thebes and Boeotia were inserted within the Venetian inter-regional maritime system.Before long the region developed into one of the heartlands for the Italiandominated markets in the East (Koder & Hild 1976, 101; Lock 1995). The Venetian sea routes went, on the one hand, to Thessaloniki, Constantinople and the Black Sea; on the other hand, to the Italian ports (e.g. Venice), the Dalmatian coast, the Ionian Islands and Crete (Koder & Hild 1976, 101; Jacoby 1994). The Venetians tried to avoid the dangers of open sea and piracy by sailing along the Boeotian coast through the Gulf of Euboea. One portulan chart (Medieval book of navigation) described a route from the Eastern Peloponnesus via Euripos/Negroponte and Atalanti to Thessaloniki (Koder & Hild 1976, 102). Another portulan chart showed that the Gulf of Corinth was less important for the inter-regional sea trade (Koder & Hild 1976, 102).

The most important source of wealth in the 13th century was the silk industry at Thebes. Venetian references mentioned also trade with inland Boeotia, which exported wheat from Livadheia by way of the ports of Livadostro, Stiris (modern Antikyra) and Bidabos/Vidavi (modern Vitrinitsa) (Koder & Hild 1976, 102-3). In general, raw materials (which were used in the manufacture and dyeing of cloth and in the tanning of leather) were exported and manufactured goods (such as cloth from Flanders, Brabant and Northern Italy) were imported (Lock 1995, 257). Other important exports from Greece were grain, wine, olive-oil and olives, fruits, cheeses, honey and nuts (almonds and walnuts)(cf. Koder 2002, 113-15). The Greek harbours were used as stopping-places in the long-distance routes to the Black Sea and Egypt (Lock 1995, 253). Next to this inter-regional trade system, there existed a local trade system of goods and persons by sea. Often these consisted of staple markets for local products (such as grain, wine, raisins, wax, honey, salt and fish) between Crete, Negroponte, Modon and Nauplion (Laiou 198081; Lock 1995, 252). The Aegean Sea was used as a transit centre for products from the East (Lock 1995, 253). Corinth and Thebes were the two most important centres of silk manufacturing in Central Greece during the 12th century, both received their raw material from neighbouring areas (such as the North-Western Peloponnesus) (Jacoby 1994b). In addition, the fishing industry in Central Greece contributed to this local maritime trade system. Local transport was described by the 12th century bishop of Athens, Michael Choniates, as being carried out on fishermen’s boats. Furthermore, he mentioned fishermen of marine molluscs from Euripos, Karystos and Athens (Koder & Hild 1976, 104; Jacoby 1991-92, 481 and 492 on the purple fisher’s guild in Athens). Until the 13th century the fishing of Murex or marine molluscs, which were used as a purple dye in the textile production, was important for the silk industry at Thebes.

3..

The Boeotian infrastructure: economic activities

Apart from the location of towns, ports, rural settlements, land and sea routes, there were also other factors which could be important for the distribution of material goods. The presence of craftsmen/artisans, of merchants,

251

Fig. 8.9 Miniature of women spinning and weaving, Book of

Fig. 8.10 Miniature of merchants in Constantinople, Le livre des

Job, 11th century (after Mathews 1998, 82).

merveilles, Bibl. Nat. Paris, 15th century.

of markets and fairs and of governing classes in towns, ports and rural settlements could, for example, initiate and influence exchange and distribution.

Thebes, as they did elsewhere in the Byzantine Empire (Jacoby 1991-92, 492 and note 230). The Theban silk industry employed both men and women. In a letter written between 1148 and 1154 AD the Byzantine scholar John Tzetzes praised the skill of the female silk weavers of Thebes (as well as the good running water in the area) (Jacoby 1991-92, 466 note 73). Furthermore, the Byzantine statesman and historian Niketas Choniates clearly stated that ‘the abducted artisans’ from Corinth and Thebes were often of low social rank, yet also seemed to suggest that Greek women of high social status skilled in weaving were among them (Jacoby 1991-91, 467-68, n. 83). In 1147 AD, the Norman king Roger II conquered Thebes and carried off gold, silver, gold-lined cloth and some of the best silk workers (mainly Jews) to Palermo in Sicily (Koder, Hild & Soustal 1976, 270 with literature; Jacoby 1991-91, 463-66). However, this setback seems to have had little effect on the town’s industry. The Theban silk industry still prospered in the 1320s, the red samite it manufactured was exported then to Egypt (Jacoby 1994b). According to the traveller Benjamin of Tudela, the Jewish population in Thebes alone amounted in 1160 AD to no less than 2000 people. He described them as ‘the most eminent manufacturers of silk and purple’ in all of Greece (Asher 1840, 47, 16.2). Nowadays, three Medieval stelai with Hebrew relief and incised inscriptions can still be seen in the courtyard of the Thebes Museum (cat.nos. 32126-8). They seem the only remaining evidence of the existence of a Jewish community in Thebes during the 14th century (cf. for the publication of these Hebrew inscriptions from

8.3.1 craftsmen/artisans (fig. 8.9) In Byzantine times, the craftsman/artisan and the merchant were often one and the same person; that is to say: a single person who produced and sold his wares (Oikonomides 1997, 144). In towns such as Thebes and Livadheia there must have been a variety of local craftsmen/artisans, for instance builders, carpenters, weavers, glass-blowers, wheelwrights and potters. Excavations in the Medieval centres of comparable towns such as Athens and Corinth have revealed physical evidence of such local workshops (glass factories, potters’ kilns etc.). Furthermore, the Book of the Eparch, which originates from the reign of Leo VI (886-912 AD) with later supplements, mentions the activities of 22 professional corporations of artisans in Constantinople that were controlled by the Eparch (the prefect) of this city (Mango 1980, 55 and note 69 with further literature). Unfortunately, craftsmen/artisans from Boeotia are not easy to detect in the written sources of the Byzantine era. From the documents we only know that there were highly-skilled artisans, such as well trained dyers, weavers and tailors, operating in Thebes (Jacoby 199192). The manufacture of silk textiles, including the highquality fabrics required by the imperial court, was exclusively carried out in private workshops, both on a domestic level as an industrial scale (Jacoby 1991-92, 467). There is reason to believe that guilds regulated the activity of silk workers and traders in 12th century

252

Thebes, Schwab 1909, 106-11 and Bowman 1982, 31730).[5 ] During the 16th century, Thebes produced its own school of Greek orthodox fresco- and icon painters. Frangos Katelanos and the two brothers Georgios and Frangos Kontaris were the chief exponents of this School of Thebes, whose surviving works can be found in a number of places in Greece (Chatzidakis 1966-69; 1974; Kiel 1990, 431-33 and fig. 1). The link between increased economic prosperity, population growth and expanding artistic activity seems to suggest that there was a wealthy group in Thebes, which was able to indulge in luxuries such as art. In Ottoman times, Thebes was also a centre for the manufacture of tobacco pipes, made of meerschaum (a hydrous silicate of magnesium). The Ottoman traveller Evliya Çelebi visited the meerschaum quarries at Thebes in 1668 AD. He recorded that ‘of this white stone they make chibouk bowls, which they carve very beautifully’ (Evliya Çelebi in Yannopoulos 1969, 171). The Western travellers Jacob Spon and George Wheler also visited a place near Thebes, where meerschaum was dug up. They reported that tobacco pipes were carved out of this ‘white hard stone’ at the quarry itself or in little shops (boutiques) in the city centre. The normal ones were sold for 5 aspres a piece, the best pipes for 9 or even 10 aspres (Spon & Wheler 1679, 54). However, by the time that J.C. Hobhouse and Colonel W.M. Leake visited Thebes at the beginning of the 19th century, this pipe production appears to have ceased all together (Hobhouse 1817, 234-35; Leake 1835, 222). For the other Boeotian town Livadheia, on the other hand, we do not have much information about craftsmen/artisans working here during Ottoman times. In the tax register of 1506 AD we find among the 70 Muslim households seven tanners, two blacksmiths, a boza maker, a shopkeeper, a shoemaker and a dyer. About 60 years later, the 1570 register mentions no professions at all, although this may very well be the result of the changes in the system of recording the Ottoman tax registers. In many registers between the years 1570-1590 professions were not mentioned at all (Kiel 1997, 325). Apparently, there were Jewish brokers working in Livadheia and in Euripos/Negroponte during the 19th century (Angelomatis-Tsougarakis 1990, 159).

8.3.2 merchants (fig. 8.10) Apart from the above-mentioned artisan-merchant, the Greek historian Angeliki Laiou distinguishes three other types of merchants operating in the Eastern Mediterranean during Byzantine and Medieval times (see in general, Laiou 1982). The first of these were the small retail traders and pedlars or middle-range businessmen, who conducted the internal trade. These independently operating merchants frequented the local fairs of the towns to sell widely-consumed items. However, they worked only with small quantities of capital and merchandise, and they had no resources to organise trading on a large scale. Most of these middlemen were active on the local level, but some also went to Constantinople personally to sell their merchandise. This was not, however, something to be done on an individual basis. The Byzantinist Nicolas Oikonomides has drawn attention to the fact that all merchants who sold the same product joined forces together in a cartel, and thus could collectively negotiate with their colleagues in Constantinople (Oikonomides 1997, 151). A second group of merchants were the naukleroi, the ship-owners or merchant-captains who operated as a guild. They transported not only merchandise on commission from others, but were also engaged in trade (especially in the Aegean and in the Black Sea). The shipowner was usually also the captain of his ship (magister), and conducted trade for his own profit. It seems that this was not a particularly prestigious occupation. The important ship-owners of Constantinople had at least no special social prestige (Oikonomides 1997, 149). Thirdly, there were the wealthy merchants and bankers with a somewhat larger capital, and a greater geographic radius of activity. Their rise is closely linked to the development of an urban economy, beginning in the 10th century. These wealthy merchants stood as a group somewhat apart from the rest of the urban population. A large, varied, but not exactly determinable proportion of this group were members of the aristocracy, sometimes of the same family (Laiou 1980-81, 201; 1982, 112). All merchants and bankers had to face one economic reality: the Byzantine state controlled and protected imports and exports of goods, and had an exclusive monopoly over the trade of luxury items (mostly from abroad) (Hendy 1989, 19). Besides monopolies, the state

253

forbade the export of products included in the ‘list of obstructed goods’ (such as silk, purple dye and gold). The state controlled the market prices at a certain stable level. Byzantine merchants were first forced to sell their goods to foreigners and then to buy foreign goods with the money gained from this transaction. In this way, the ‘foreign exchange’ of Byzantine money was hindered (Herrin 1969-70). Italian merchants – From the late quarter of the 11th century onwards, the situation changed in the Eastern Mediterranean. By that time, Venetian merchants (followed in the 12th century by Genoese and Pisan merchants) began to penetrate into the internal trade and maritime networks of the Byzantine Empire. Thanks to the commercial privileges granted them by the Byzantine Emperor, the Italian merchants could stay as long as they wanted, they enjoyed political and economic independence, and they did not had to pay the full 10% tax on sale of goods (Herrin 1969-70, 192). Furthermore, according to Angeliki Laiou, they controlled the main prerequisites for international and internal trade: ‘communications through their fleets, the money markets through their elaborate banking and financial techniques, and the information mechanisms through their system of representatives in all important trade centres’ (Laiou 1980-81, 211). Before long, the Venetians had established themselves in every commercial centre in the Empire (such as Thebes) and organised the export of Greek products. Written sources (such as the reference of a taxegium de Stives in a document) reveal that Venetian merchants undertook regular voyages to Thebes as early as 10711073 AD (Jacoby 1994, 352 and note 15). They were interested in the silk as well as in the agricultural and pastoral products of the region, and organised the transport of these goods, overland and by sea, both to the great markets of the Empire and to foreign markets (Italy, Egypt and the Frankish states) (Dunn 1995, 770). Despite its inland location, Thebes had accommodated a resident colony of Venetian merchants by 1170 AD, where they were able to keep a close check on their interests and act as intermediaries for wealthier merchants with more extensive interests (Herrin 196970; Harvey 1989, 223). However, Constantinople was the predominant centre of exchange transactions and of the transit trade, and the Byzantine hinterland was an

254

exporter of some food and raw materials (grain and provisions) and an importer of manufactured goods (cloth and soap) (Laiou 1980-81, 179-87). Until recently it was thought that the Italian presence, even dominance, of Byzantine markets in the 12th century was an economic disaster both for the Byzantine state and for Byzantine society (e.g. Herrin 1969-70; Oikonomides 1997, 164-65). However, that picture seems too bleak. The stimulus given by the Italian merchants to Byzantine economic activity has often been ignored. The general view nowadays is, therefore, that the Venetian exports must have encouraged production, exchange, and monetisation in Constantinople, Corinth and Thebes (Laiou 1980-81, 188-89; Hendy 1989, 24; Dunn 1995, 770). Byzantine merchants – The Byzantines engaged in trade were primarily involved in retail sales and not in largescale activities. From the 11th century onwards, they played, in general, a service role to the Italians: they bought cloth and sold grain, skins, raw silk and wool, they invested their money, and the end product of their activity was channelled to Constantinople to be used locally or to be sent to Italy (Laiou 1980-81, 204 and 211). The Byzantine merchants had capital, sometimes quite substantial capital, but they invested it in a money and commodities market controlled by the Italians. Angeliki Laiou studied the published and unpublished documents on Byzantine merchants of the Palaeologan period (ca. from the 13th to the 15th centuries) in the Venetian and Genoese archives (Laiou 1982). According to her, ‘the Byzantine merchant is an elusive figure. He is supposed to have played a dominant role in the Mediterranean until the 12th century, and to have controlled the internal trade of the Byzantine Empire, secure behind the protective barriers erected by a strong government’ (Laiou 1982, 96). However, the role of the merchants in the Aegean is not to be underestimated. Laiou’s research shows that after the 12th century these merchants had rarely access to the Italian markets, and were hardly involved in long-distance trade. From 1261 to 1310 AD, the Byzantine traders dealt with small scale trade primarily in the Black Sea (slaves, a little grain, some fish) and in the Aegean (cloth and cochineal: red dye extracted from the ‘kermes’ beetle). The capital involved in these operations was normally very small (Laiou 1982, 100). From 1311 to 1352 AD, a proportion

(18%) of Byzantine merchants and investors belonged to the aristocracy. Laiou explains this by the fact that the Byzantine aristocracy, having lost its lands to the Turks, by necessity turned to trade (Laiou 1982, 105). It is therefore no coincidence that during the final conquest by the Ottomans of the remaining parts of the Byzantine Empire, from 1353 to 1402 AD, the number of Byzantine traders in trade rose dramatically (Laiou 1982, 105-6). During this second half of the 14th century the situation seems to have changed considerably in another respect, according to Laiou. The Byzantine merchants were now also trading in places far from home, and sometimes disposing of considerable capital (Laiou 1982, 118). There was a symbiotic (not competitive) trade in the Aegean in this period, linking Crete, Cyprus, Constantinople, Chios and Rhodos. Whereas the control of the Byzantine state declined in this period, a part of Byzantine society became more free and participated in the expansion of the economy which was taking place in the Eastern Mediterranean and in Italy (Laiou 1982, 118-20). Ottoman merchants – Little is known about the economic background of the inhabitants of Ottoman Boeotia. There seems to be, however, no reason to think that the region missed out on the general trends in the Ottoman world. According to the historian Suraiya Faroqhi, very wealthy merchants were not common among the urban elites in the provinces of the Ottoman Empire, but the overall volume of internal trade grew steadily, especially during the 16th century. She argues that so many new inns (khans) and covered markets were built in this period that a considerable part of the growing urban population must have made a living in crafts and trade (Faroqhi 1995, 99). Ottoman statesmen considered it good policy to encourage an ever-increasing flow of manufactured . goods into the Empire (Inalcik 1973, 138). As a result, Greece also became an open market for European traders. During the 18th and 19th centuries, European merchants imported Western manufactured and colonial goods, and exported from the region raw materials and food (such as cereals, olive oil, silk, wax, valonia and currants). Most of the long-distance trade was dominated by the French and the Venetians (the last ones dominating the important harbours of Nafpaktos and Patras, as well as the Peloponnesus), but also British

Fig. 8.11 Painting of the Marketplace (Bazaar) in Athens by Eduard Dodwell (1767-1832 AD), ca. 1801/1805-6 AD (after Tsigakou 1995, pl. 6).

Fig. 8.12 Modern fair (panigiri) in Thebes (photo: J. Vroom).

and Dutch merchants were active in the region. The internal trade was in the hands of local merchants, both Muslim and non-Muslim (Wagstaff & Frangakis-Syrett 1992, 79-81) 8.3.3 markets (fig. 8.11) Merchandise (including pottery) may pass from a village market to a provincial fair, and from there to a centre of interregional trade. The market and fair had very different functions. The market had as a centre for the surrounding villages never been entirely absent from the peasant economy: it provided basic foodstuffs and essentials for customers, was held usually weekly for one day only and was generally scattered (Hendy 1989, 25). It seems likely that common people bought most of what they needed at the market, as well as from itinerant merchants. There often existed permanent markets in

255

cities and ports: in Boeotia, for instance, at Thebes, Livadheia, Euripos/Negroponte and Ipsilantis.[8 ] These markets were on major route ways, and functioned as communication junctions, but also as economic centres. According to the Byzantinist Nicolas Oikonomides, markets were increasing in number from the mid 9th to mid 11th centuries. Merchants from the provinces went as middlemen from market to market, and brought supplies to the villages on their routes (Oikonomides 1997, 150). Furthermore, the provincial cities were getting more important, and merchants began to establish themselves permanently in the marketplaces. We also find mention made of market fairs held outside Boeotia, such as Corinth, Halmyros and Negroponte (Oikonomides 1997, 151). Between the years 1506 AD and 1570 AD, the market dues and the revenue of the public weighing house (kantar) at Thebes doubled, as did the production of wine and silk and the number of water mills (Kiel 1992, 406 and tables 5a-b). According to the 17th century travellers Spon and Wheler, however, Thebes had a ‘scantily provided’ bazaar with small shops and Euripos/Negroponte one ‘of the poorest sort’ (Spon & Wheler 1679, 54). Livadheia is another example of an important market town in Boeotia during Ottoman times, which was also involved in external trade (AngelomatisTsougarakis 1990, 66). From Livadheia, Boeotian products were distributed to European markets, as well as to Thessaly and to the Eastern Greek Mainland. In the tax register of 1570 AD we find a tax yield of 11,716 akçe (silver coins) of market dues and dues of the public weighing house (Kiel 1992, 325). The town traded during the 17th century in wool (which was produced in Livadheia), in grain and rice (which were exported all over Greece) (Spon & Wheler 1679, 49). The market of Livadheia was attended by peasants from the nearby villages of Mount Parnassus (Angelomatis-Tsougarakis 1990, 183). Finally, from the Ottoman tax registers in Boeotia we know that the rural settlement of Rastamites, now Ipsilantis, also had a market (panigiri) during the Turkish period (M. Kiel, pers. comm.). 8.3.4 fairs (fig. 8.12) Apart from the regular local markets, there existed large periodic markets or fairs, the so-called panigiri, which grew in importance from the late 10th century onwards

256

(see in general, Laiou 1990). These fairs were more regional, sold more exotic goods, were held normally once a year and lasted for a number of consecutive days, or in some instances weeks. Fairs would attract more distant customers and acted as magnets for traders and buyers from all over the Empire. They were founded by the Emperor or churches and monasteries, and were often connected with the feast day of a saint. In the Byzantine period the most important periodic fair in Greek lands was the annual fair of Saint Demetrius in Thessalonica (26 October). It was even the biggest fair in the Balkans and ‘all merchants’ gathered here. The anonymous author of the dialogue Timarion (Ex. 3-4) described the annual fair of Saint Demetrius in Thessaloniki in the first half of the 12th century as the ‘most considerable panigiri’ (meaning both fair and festival) among the inhabitants of Macedonia. Merchants came from places as distant as the Greek islands, the Balkans and even Western Europe (Italy, Spain and Portugal are mentioned). According to the author of the Timarion, the merchants put their tents in two lines facing one another. ‘The lines ran a long distance, leaving between them a broad lane that allowed for the rush of the crowd’. The author of the Timarion saw all kinds ‘of fabric and thread of men’s and women’s garb,’ produced both in Boeotia and in the Peloponnesus and carried on commercial ships from Italy to Greece (see for a discussion of this translation, Kahzdan & Epstein 1985, 236 and Jacoby 1991-92, 462, n. 53). The merchants brought the most diverse and exotic goods directly from their countries to the fair of Thessaloniki.[7 ] Other important annual fairs on the Greek Mainland were panigiri at Vervena in the Peloponnesus, and the panigiri of Saint Demetrius in the area of Clarence (which was attended by Venetian merchants). It is known that the transfer of silk from the Peloponnesian producers to the ports was also carried out by merchants or agents visiting the inland regional fair at Vervena (Jacoby 1994b, 45 and 59). During the Ottoman period, trade centres grew up around covered markets, where valuable goods and trust money were stored (the so-called bedestans), in all large Ottoman towns in the Balkans, such as Serres, Thessa. loniki, Larissa, Verria and Yenice –; Vardar (Inalcik 1973, 143; M. Kiel, pers. comm.). As a transit and reexport centre, and as an exporter of manufactured

goods, Istanbul provided an economic link between regions, in return for foodstuffs from the Balkans . (Inalcik 1973, 145). Edirne in Turkish Thrace and Bursa in North-Western Anatolia became important commercial centres in the Ottoman Empire. Chinese Porcelain, for instance, formed an important part of the merchan. dise coming to Bursa from Central Asia (Inalcik 1973, 125). According to the historian Suraiya Faroqhi, there existed two types of Balkan fairs in Ottoman times (Faroqhi 1978). The first one was more local in character. Here consumers purchased their basic supplies of cloth, shoes, pottery and similar goods, which were often meant to last throughout the following year. In the second fair, retailers met wholesalers. The former supplied themselves with goods for resale to consumers, while the latter bought up foodstuffs and raw materials. In practice, the two functions were never clearly separated. For the 16th century, very little is known about the differentiation of functions between various fairs (Faroqhi 1978, 54-55). The Balkan fairs were no longer mainly concerned with imported goods. They largely served internal trade on all levels, interregional, intercity and local. They may to some extent have acted as a funnel for the channelling of exports. Not all important towns maintained fairs inside the city perimeter. Sometimes fairs were established outside the areas dominated by major cities. Nothing is known, however, of fairs in Boeotia. We have not much information about the outward appearance of fairs in Greece during the Ottoman period. We hear that Ibrahim Pasa had a wall built around the fair of Maskolur (Thessaly), and that about 1000 shops were constructed upon his orders. The number of stores at the nearby fair of Dolyan (in Thessaly?, or Doyran in Macedonia?) was around 700. The fairs seem to have lasted only for circa ten to fifteen days. Traders seem to have possessed fairly permanent rights to the shops they tenanted (Faroqhi 1978).

3./

Non-commercial ways of distribution: the role of the governing classes (fig. 8.13)

Apart from trade, there are also other factors involved in the distribution of goods. The British numismatist

Fig. 8.13 Engraving of Ioannis Stamou Khondrodimas or Logothetis by Louis Dupré, ca. 1825 (after Dupré 1825).

Grierson already pointed 50 years ago to alternative explanations for the presence of luxury goods or exotic coins, such as personal gifts, dowries, payments, property carried around by itinerant pedlars or households and even political payments in goods (Grierson 1959). At Thebes, the emergence of a wealthy elite or upper class (the archontes, literally ‘magistrates’ or ‘rulers’) is evidenced from the mid-10th century onward, but it becomes much more prominent during the 11th and 12th centuries (Dunn 1995, 763). The archontes were at that time a city-based class: according to the Byzantinist M. Hendy, they generally owned both urban property, including residential and industrial/artisanal which they probably tended to lease or rent out, and also quantities of land in the vicinity of its city (Hendy 1989, 18). The Cadaster of Thebes covering the region between Thebes and Chalkis revealed an extremely complex pattern of landownership in which scattered holdings sometimes in

257

partial ownership (and clearly acquired through purchase, exchange or inheritance) were not uncommon (Svoronos 1959; Lemerle 1979 and Neville 2001). The families involved formed dynasties and were related by inter-marriage. By the end of the 12th century they were regionally all-powerful, and from amongst the more prominent of them a number of dynasties were already emerging as dominant (Hendy 1989, 18). The Boeotian urban elite was involved in rural expansion, trade, transportation, banking and the renting of premises. Local archontes played perhaps a direct role in the industrial promotion of the Theban silk industry (Jacoby 1991-91, 479-80). The lords were not involved in the actual production of raw silk, yet their officers collected small quantities of this commodity on their estates. It has been assumed that the rise of the provincial elite implies an impoverishment of a once-free (and fairly prosperous) peasantry in Central Greece. But it is probable that the upsurge of trade offered benefits to a part of the peasants as well, even if they had become tenants of the aristocracy (Dunn 1995, 770-71). According to the Byzantinist Archibald Dunn, the endowment of churches and monasteries, and notably extramural ones (Skripou), from the year 870 AD onward showed changes in the region’s economic history (Dunn 1995, 763-64). A great upsurge in the endowment of small churches and monasteries in Boeotia took place during the 11th-12th centuries. In the late 10th to early 11th centuries the principal focus of the patronage of the Boeotian elite may have been Hosios Loukas (Dunn 1995, 763). The phenomenon is linked by Dunn with economic prosperity and religiosity of the Theban elite (Dunn 1995, 764). During the Frankish period in Boeotia, the landscape was covered with square towers at more or less regular intervals (cf. Bintliff 2000 for latest map). According to Peter Lock, these towers had no strategic purposes, but were rather agricultural and domestic in inspiration. Although some of them occupied strategic positions, they were apparently not sited with reference to administrative centres, to roads, or even to each other. Much more important was their siting with reference to amenities: water, building materials, fertile lands, and access to the hinterland (Lock 1986; 1989, 138). Peter Lock’s conclusion is that they were residences or tower houses for the lowly Frankish vassals, as well centres of small agricultural estates. All in all, we do not know

258

much about the Frankish rural elite, and we know nothing about their economic role. We are better informed about the officials in Ottoman Thebes.[9 ] From 1461 onwards there was, for instance, a senior judge (kadi) in Thebes, which was the centre of a kadilik. It is noteworthy that this kadi earned no less than 150 akçe or silver coins a day (in the 16th century the equivalent of ca. three Venetian ducats), and that he held in 1660 AD the 15th position on the official list of all kadis in the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman traveller Evliya Çelebi gave a list of Ottoman officials in 17th century Thebes (Evliya Çelebi in Yannopoulos 1969). Among them were a representative of the Sultan (voivode) with 200 soldiers, a commander of the local cavalry, a commander of the Janissaries, a tax inspector and an inspector of the market. In addition, Evliya noted that there was no garrison commander, because Thebes had at that time no town wall. The 18th century initiated the period of the semiindependent holders of çiftliks (serf estates) who invested in agriculture (irrigation works etc.) and increasingly produced for the world market as producers of raw materials (Kiel 1997, 331). The çiftlik-system developed mainly as a means of increasing and overseeing the production of grain in the Ottoman Empire for the markets of Western Europe. They were common on the plains of Thessaly and swiftly penetrated further South to Boeotia. By 1724 AD, most people were producing for the world market, whether of their own free choice, or forced by their landlord. Favoured by its status as a vakif (charitable holdings for religious or educational institutions), Livadheia was governed by a voivode, who farmed the revenue from the administration of the royal mosques; or more commonly by a deputy (vekil), for whom the farmer was answerable. The 19th century British traveller William Leake suggested that ‘the Turk now residing at Livadheia is in the latter capacity, but is himself farmer and collector of the customs’ (Leake 1835, 202-4). Furthermore, he mentioned that the municipal power of Livadheia was divided among three principal Greek families, of which the first is that of John Khondrodhimas, commonly called Logothetis (from his office in the church; see fig. 8.13). All the affairs of the town passed through the hands of a clerk (grammatikos), appointed by these families (Leake 1835, 202). One can notice by now the development of a relatively large class

of Greek merchants, living in fine stone mansions in the town, besides the largely Turkish landowning class (Kiel 1997, 339). During the 18th and 19th centuries, many landowners became merchants involved in exports to European markets. This closed but united wealthy elite became even richer by their participation in the distribution of products. Leake was not very positive about the Greek elite living in Livadheia, although he underlined their role in the monetary economy. He stated that ‘the upper class of Greeks at Livadheia are as insolent and unfeeling to their inferiors, as they are malignantly jealous of one another; though it cannot be denied at the same time, that they have all the hospitality, wit, and sociable disposition of the nation, and, unlike the thesaurizing Jews and Armenians, generally live to the full extent of their means’ (Leake 1835, 204). Most of the Western travellers were, however, impressed by some of the most powerful and rich of the Boeotian notables, like John Khondrodimas Logothetis (Dodwell 1819, 211; AngelomatisTsougarakis 1990, 79, n. 24). One of the better buildings in Livadheia was Logothetis’ house, where many travellers had visited and lodged in during the 19th century (e.g. Dodwell 1819, 211-12; Biddle 1806 in McNeal 1993, 104; see supra). Hobhouse was also impressed by the number of Logothetis’ household, ‘making in all an establishment of fifty persons’ (Hobhouse 1813, 261).

3.0

Summary

There is no direct written evidence concerning pottery production and distribution in Boeotia from Byzantine to Ottoman times. There is, however, no reason to suspect that ceramics played a different role in the market economy during the Medieval and Post-Medieval periods compared to other household goods. The general socioeconomic background of Boeotia, and all its consequences for local production and distribution as sketched above, most probably applied to ceramics as well. The socio-economic infrastructure of Boeotia is marked by several diachronic fundamentals from Byzantine to Early Modern times. There were two important towns: Thebes and, from the 14th century onwards, Livadheia. The first one was an important centre of both commodity-production and of the redistribution of agricultural products, such as grain. It was

surely from the Byzantine period onwards an industrial centre with an important silk industry. From the 11th12th centuries onward, Thebes was also inserted within the Venetian maritime system for long-distance trading operations, as many documents testify. The development of urban communities with artisans/craftsmen created new pockets of demand. One of the principal features of the town was the possession of a market (and a mint). Furthermore, Thebes and Livadheia developed into the resorts of a wealthy urban elite, governors and other officials. These towns, by their nature of being the centre of a region and of its commerce, may have provided many opportunities for pottery to travel in Boeotia. The town and its surrounding countryside were an entity: one drew on the resources of the other. For instance, the existence of a town attracted commercial activities in the form of markets and fairs. Ports with military and commercial functions in Boeotia (such as Euripos/Negroponte) must also have been important for the distribution of pottery. Not only were ports the principal means of exporting goods overseas but they also had a very large catchment area for the goods which passed through them, either leaving or entering the country. Euripos/Negroponte had, for instance, an anchorage place, dock facilities and depots which enabled cargoes to be handled and distributed to local retailers. The number of rural settlements shows that Boeotia was at least for the Middle Byzantine period onwards a good and large outlet for products. Its countryside was relatively densely inhabited. The Boeotians lived in hamlets and villages, but were not isolated. The changing social and economic conditions sometimes led to abandonment or expansion of settlements, but the region remained by and large populated over the centuries. Increasing population numbers certainly must have affected pottery production, if only by providing a larger market. In addition, Boeotia benefited from a fairly convenient road system, linking it to the coast and to Athens and Corinth in the East and to Lamia and Thessaly in the West. The importance of the overland roads grew in the 12th century, in connection with the industrial expansion of Thebes. The long-distance movement of pottery in Medieval and Post-Medieval Boeotia must also have taken advantage of an easy access to transport over water. These land and sea routes must have been packed

259

with goods travelling all over Greece and the Aegean. It is not more than probable that pottery, either as saleable items in their own right or as containers, formed part of this traffic. While some customers may have travelled long distances to buy needed supplies, for instance at annual fairs, stall holders in local rural markets were known to have travelled equally long distances to sell their wares. Merchants (locals and Westerners) within Thebes, Livadheia and Euripos/Negroponte had both local and long-distance customers (in the Aegean and abroad). Tradesmen would travel considerable distances and not restrict themselves to the local markets in Boeotia or the larger fairs in Thessaloniki and in the Peloponnesus. This will also have applied to the buying and selling of pottery (household and luxury). notes 1. See for the different names of Thebes in Medieval and PostMedieval times, Koder & Hild (1976, 269-71). 2. Geographie d’Edrisi, traduit et accompagnée de notes I-II = Recueil de Voyages et Memoires, 6, ed. A. Jaubert (1836-40), II, 123. See also Niketae Choniatae Historia, ed. J.A. van Dieten (corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantiae, xi; 1975), 99, 608. For a historical survey of Thebes in Post-Roman times see in general, Koder & Hild (1976, 269-70). 3. The rediscovery of this remarkable building was made by John Bintliff, who observed it in the background of the icon when the latter was included in an exhibition of Boeotian ecclesiastical photographs by George Kopanyas at the Cultural Centre of Livadheia, and subsequently obtained a photographic enlargement of the Ottoman town perspective for the publication by the Ottomanist Machiel Kiel (1999, pl. 1). 4. According to Machiel Kiel (1997, 325), the demographic expansion of the town was very rapid. Between 1466 AD and 1570 AD, the Muslims grew with a yearly percentage of 1.36%; the Christians with a yearly percentage of 1.15%. 5. See also for more information on the Jews in Medieval Thebes, Bowman (1980, 403-9). 6. See for the different names of Livadheia in Medieval and Post-Medieval times, Koder & Hild (1976, 200-201).

260

7. Also the 12th century Western chronicler Robert de Torigny mentioned Thessaloniki as an important trade centre (Chronique, ed. L. Delisle, vol. 2, Rouen 1873, 87). 8. The reference to the market at Ispilantis was found by Machiel Kiel in the Ottoman tax registers of Boeotia. I would, therefore, like to thank him for this information. 9. I would like to thank Machiel Kiel for this information.

9 – CERAMIC PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION: THE LOCAL LEVEL

4., Introduction Traditionally, archaeology has approached pottery as its main tool for dating and as an art-historical – or aesthetic – subject in its own right. More recently, awareness has grown that it is also worthwhile to explore the technological, socio-economic and cultural aspects of pottery as a way to answer questions about the past. Here I will set out to follow this line of approach, and will try to use the Boeotian ceramics themselves as a source of information to shed some light on the historical problems of the production and distribution of pottery in Medieval and Post-Medieval Central Greece. The aim of this chapter is to sketch the possibilities in which the manufacture and distribution of locally produced glazed and unglazed ceramics in Medieval and Post-Medieval Boeotia took place. This will be done on the basis of archaeological evidence, but also on the basis of textual sources as well as ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological information concerning traditional pottery production in Early Modern Greece and Early Modern Cyprus. In this chapter I will, however, limit the discussion to red-bodied unglazed and lead glazed wares in Boeotia and will not discuss the manufacture of the white-bodied tin-glazed wares, which were imported from Italy (Maiolica) and from Turkey (Iznik Ware and Kütahya Ware).[1 ] This chapter deals with the local perspective, and in the next chapter I will discuss the wider socioeconomic, macro-regional perspective. After a discussion of the various sources of information, attention will be given in this chapter to the potter’s selection of the raw materials, the construction of the vessel and its finishing treatment, the firing of the ceramic object, the organisation and location of the potter’s workshop, as well as to the distribution of the finished product. Finally, I will discuss David Peacock’s model of ceramic production and distribution in the Mediterranean, wich ranges from simple household production to much more complex production systems, and I will try to assess its relevance to the Boeotian situation (Peacock 1982).

4.-

The sources

9.2.1 archaeological evidence In Boeotia there is evidence of Medieval and PostMedieval pottery production on several sites. In particular, on the large site near the Modern village of Askra, which has been labelled with the codename ‘VM4’, a piece of kiln furniture has been found together with many tile wasters (see chapter 5). It is, however, at the moment not possible to say if the kiln fragment is from a rectangular or rounded kiln. The glassy residues or vitrified clay (from pottery or from tiles?) on top of this (yet undatable) kiln fragment suggest pottery and/or tile production in Boeotia (P. Spoerry, pers. comm.; see fig. 9.1). This does not imply that VM4 is the only production site in Boeotia, but the find of these industrial artefacts is the most convincing evidence that we have at the moment. The kiln fragment can be taken as evidence that perhaps a substantial part of the wares found on VM4 was locally produced. These locally produced sherds from site VM4 can provide – as a kind of ‘technological document’ – all sorts of information about potting in the past. The vast majority of the Medieval and PostMedieval fragments recorded at VM4 date from the 13th to the 17th centuries. Pottery production must therefore have taken place within the timespan of these centuries. Among the types of wares which could have been locally produced, are most probably unglazed domestic wares, Coloured Sgraffito Ware and a later type of Slip-painted Ware (cf. chapter 6 for a more detailed description of these wares). It can be assumed that the potter (or potters) of site VM4 was dependent upon some basic preconditions for pottery production. These preconditions vary from the proximity of raw materials such as clay, water and fuel, to local demand and the proximity of roads, towns or markets (cf. for these last preconditions chapter 8). Furthermore, the potter would have required a workshop, a kiln, and a covered area to dry his pots and store them after firing.

261

Fig. 9.1 Kiln fragment from site VM4 in Boeotia (photo: J. Vroom).

Fig. 9.2 Engraving of a Medieval potter by Jost Amman (15391591 AD) (after Bidon 1986, fig. 3).

9.2.2 written sources Unfortunately, there is little textual evidence from Medieval and Post-Medieval Greece itself which can help us to shed light on the problem of the (local) production and distribution of pottery. For instance, there exists for the Aegean area no technical manual like the beautifully illustrated Italian treatise on the manufacture of Maiolica, which was written by the amateur potter

262

Cipriano Piccolpasso around 1557 AD.[2 ] What we do have, though, is a Persian manuscript written in 1301 AD by Abu’l-Qaim, a member of a famous potters’ family from Kashan, which gives us a glimpse of potterymaking in the Near East in this period.[3 ] Although the potters in the Near East were technologically far more advanced than their Western contemporaries (who tried to follow their inventions), the basic structure of pottery manufacture in the Aegean was probably by and large comparable to that in the Near East. In addition, two Medieval treatises from NorthWestern Europe concerning the decoration of pottery contain comments on ceramic production in the 12th century. A Medieval manuscript with the title De diversis artibus was written in the Rhineland by the monk Theophilus about 1110-40 AD, probably from much older material.[4 ] Heraclius’ treatise De coloribus et artibus Romanorum was composed as a craftsman’s handbook at about the same date, or a little later.[5 ] Finally, there are some scattered passages about pottery production in the Mediterranean in the Classical and Byzantine written sources. Some of these were already compiled by Gisela Richter in her book The Craft of Athenian Pottery (Richter 1923, 87-105). Others are presented here for the first time together. The problem of these references, however, is that they are widely dispersed over a long period of time: they vary from the 2nd century scholar and rhetorician Pollux of Naucratis to the 14th century lawyer Constantine Harmenopoulos. 9.2.3 ethnographic/ethnoarchaeological studies Relevant information on traditional pottery techniques may be learned from contemporary Greek potters, who still work under, or remember, the pre-modern technological and socio-economic circumstances in which their craft was carried out. Apart from the loss, or occurrence, of some technological innovations, circumstances may have remained more or less unchanged for centuries. Their insights could therefore be helpful to come to a plausible reconstruction of the Medieval production process. The value of ethnographic studies for research into archaeological problems has been stressed before, for instance, by the archaeologist Carla Sinopoli in her Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics. She stressed that ethnographic studies of pottery have provided general

frameworks from which archaeological ceramics and particular research problems can successfully be approached. Although the issues they describe are of broad relevance to archaeological studies, one can not but agree with her caution that conclusions must be evaluated and tested in each archaeological case (Sinopoli 1991, 73-4). Information about the role of the potter in Early Modern Greece or the distribution of his products can be extracted from recent ceramic ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological research in Greece and Cyprus, dating back to Stanley Casson’s pioneering article on this subject in 1938 (cf. the ‘Early Modern period’ of chapter 3 for an overview of these publications). In particular, I will use here the studies on traditional pottery centres of Koroni in Messenia, of Thrapsano and Kentri on Crete and various villages on Cyprus (e.g. Casson 1938; Hampe & Winter 1962; id. 1965; Matson 1972a; Voyatzoglou 1984; Blitzer 1984; 1990; London 1989a; 1990; 1998-99).

4..

Ceramic production Fig. 9.3 Potter’s clay of pottery workshop (photo: J. Vroom).

9.3.1 raw materials (fig. 9.3) First of all, potters have to assemble and prepare the clay and tempering materials for the making of pottery. This holds of course also true for the Medieval potters at site VM4. A passage from the Geoponika (II,49,3), a 6th century text on Byzantine agriculture, states that Greece had not only local ceramic production but also many clays suitable for making pottery: ‘It is most necessary for every reason to have potters [on a farm], since we are convinced that it is possible to find potter’s clay on any land; for either on the surface, or deep down, or in outof-the-way places on the land you will find earth suitable for making pottery’ (as cited by Richter 1923, 87). In Boeotia the best clay deposits are to be found nearby Lake Kopais. The Kopais plain consists of lacustrine sediments, but alluvial deposits of the Late Pleistocene and Holocene periods extend around the edges of the lake and in the Kiphissos Valley. In the Valley of the Muses and at the modern village of Askra (nearby site VM4), deposits of flysch, soft limestone and limestone debris can be found. The local clays are of a secondary type, and they are brown-, red- and ochre yellow-firing clays.[6 ] The red clays (kokkinochoma) are

associated with residual soils formed on the limestone and limestone conglomerates (these soils are also known as terra rossa). Furthermore, the clays are naturally variable in their appearance, texture and potting and firing properties. The Boeotian terra rossa clays have a low melting/ sintering point and they tend to be surface clays. They are very plastic clays and they shrink a lot causing problems not only in forming but also in drying and firing. For these reasons, usually, they can not be used on their own. Modern potters in different areas of the Aegean use them mainly in combination with other clays (in mixtures).[7 ] The Boeotian terra rossa clays, as well as the silty limestone deposits, were presumably dug (by the potters) near the surface. Ethnographic studies in Greece (and abroad) suggest that the digging of clay usually happens within a radius of half an hour’s walk with a pack animal (1-2 km) from the workshop (Arnold 1985, table 2.1; Hampe & Winter 1962, 14; Blitzer 1984, 146; Jones 1986, 872).[8 ] Material needed in small quantities, such as white clay for a slip inside or lead for

263

Fig. 9.4 Throwing of traditional pottery (photo: J. Vroom).

glazing, could be brought from some distance away (Arnold 1985, table 2.3). After digging, the earth was pounded in order to pulverize it. Early Modern potters in Messenia, on Crete and on Cyprus beat the clay with a wooden stick or mallet (the so-called kopano or kopana), made from a forked tree branch, and mixed with water in a wooden trough or earthenware pithos (Matson 1972a, 214, pl. 142; Blitzer 1984, 148, pl. 15a-c; id. 1990, 680-81; London 1989a, 74; id. 1990, 52-3, fig. 36; Korre-Zographopu 1995, figs. 1 and 7).[9 ] The 14th century Persian treatise, written by Abu’lQaim, describes this process as follows: ‘the materials are broken up and powdered like grains of kohl by means of beating, powdering, grinding, sifting and sieving [through coarse silk]. Some materials are broken up to the size of a pea with an iron hammer and ground by means of a mill. When this is done with a hand mill it is much better’ (as cited by Allan 1973, 112). The next step was to mix different clays to a blend which was suitable for making vessels. The Medieval

264

potters were aware of the importance of the right composition and consistency of their clay. In the Geoponika (VI, 3, 1) one can read that ‘not all earth is suitable for pottery, but with regard to potter’s clay, some prefer the yellowish red, some the white, and others mix the two’ (cited by Richter 1923, 88). In more modern times, mixing clays of different colours and properties appeared to be still common at traditional potters’ workshops in Greece and on Cyprus (Jones 1986, 873). Modifiers were sometimes added to the mixed clay by the potter, or were already naturally present in it. An added tempering material or filler was, for instance, ‘grog’ (crushed clay or potsherds) which provided pottery with a very fine texture. A section in Heraclius’ treatise De coloribus et artibus Romanorum (III, 3) offers a recipe for preparing grog, made of potter’s clay which was fired and then crushed into a powder. ‘Take some potter’s clay as strong as you can find. Put it either in a kiln with other pots where it will bake with a slow fire, or in another kiln until it is quite red. When it has cooled, put it in a pot and pound it until it is quite pulverised. Then take some water and add it to this powder; pour all of this into another pot and let it stand for a day. After this throw away the water, take the residue, mix it with clay which is free of sand in the proportion of two parts to three for the very strong clay mentioned above. Pound the lot with a pestle. You can then make any sort of pot you like’ (as cited by De Boüard 1974, 68-69; see also Ilg 1873, 49-51 for the German translation). 9.3.2 manufacturing (fig. 9.4) After the mixing, the clay was further sieved and washed to remove natural impurities, such as pebbles, roots etc. The preferred method to purify the clay was by ‘levigation’, or letting the clay settle in water basins to separate finer and coarser silts. The final preparation of the clay before the actual forming of the pots, was by kneading and wedging. This involved beating, thumping and rolling the clay until it was judged to be evenly mixed and all the air was expelled. The 5th-6th century lexicographer, Hesychius of Alexandria, wrote in his Lexicon under the heading ‘orgasai’: ‘to make ready: or as is said, to knead the clay, which is to prepare it, to mix it, to wet it, to work it into a plastic mass’ (as cited by Richter 1923, 88). According to the 14th century potter Abu’l-Qaim, the clay was kneaded with the hands: ‘This is kneaded well

like dough and left to mature for one night. In the morning it is well beaten by hand and the mastercraftsman makes it into fine vessels on the potter’s wheel; these are left standing till they are half dry’ (as cited by Allan 1973, 114).[10 ] After the kneading, the clay was suitable for throwing on the wheel (the Medieval unglazed and glazed pottery from site VM4 in Boeotia was all wheel-made). According to a Byzantine editor of Aristophanes’ Clouds (perhaps Manuel Moschopoulos?),[11 ] potters used a wheel (a socalled trochos) as a main tool in their workshops (Koukoules 1947-55, II, 196, n. 10). The precise structure of this wooden wheel is uncertain, as none has yet been found during excavations. Perhaps it was a foot-operated wheel, which probably resembled the kick wheel type used by traditional potters in Early Modern Greece (Kyriazopoulos 1969, 103; Matson 1972a, 214; Blitzer 1984, 149, pl. 15e; Voyatzoglou 1984, 134-9). The potters used both hands to shape the clay on the upper wheel as they kicked the lower wheel with their feet. The kick wheel is depicted in Western European illustrations from the 13th century onwards (Fig. 9.2).[12 ] Suidas in his Lexicon, which was compiled around the end of the 10th century, described Kolias as a place in Attica where vases were made on a potter’s wheel: ‘It is said that all the kinds of clay that are brought to the wheel (and the wheel on which vessels are shaped is meant), that is, of all the clay fit for making vases, the clay of Kolias is the best, so that it is also dyed with miltos’ (as cited by Richter 1923, 97). However, not all vessels in Medieval Greece were shaped on a kick wheel. Especially large pots were built by hand, or plates could be formed in moulds (cf. Rice 1987, 124-9). Hand-modelling of the clay is described in the Geoponika (VI, 3, 4): ‘Potters do not use the wheel for all pithoi, but only for the small ones. The larger ones they build up day by day, placing them on the ground in a warm room, and thus make them large’ (as cited by Richter 1923, 93). The use of wooden cores or moulds for the manufacturing of pottery was already mentioned by the 2nd century scholar and rhetorician Pollux of Naucratis in his Onomasticon (VII, 164): ‘That around which those who make pithoi put the clay and shape it – this wooden core is called kanavos’ (as cited by Richter 1923, 93). The fragments of the locally produced pottery found on site VM4 were obviously manufactured on a fast

rotating wheel, because fine horizontal grooves and ridges (also known as ‘rilling’), caused by the potter’s hands, are prominent on the outside.[13 ] After being shaped the pot was taken off the wheel using a knife or string to cut it away (like a cheese-wire) and carried to the drying room, where it was left until it was leatherhard (or ‘green-hard’). In this stage, additional features such as handles, spouts and bases were stuck on the pot, using a little slip as adhesive. After the wheel-throwing process the pottery was left to dry (often with a volume reduction of nearly 5% due to water loss) before being placed in the kiln, during which the outside was wet-smoothed with a piece of cloth to remove all ruggedness. The 14th century Persian treatise described this process as follows: the vessels ‘are scraped down on the wheel and the feet are added, and when they are dry they are washed with a damp linen cloth in order to smooth over the lines on them so that they disappear. When they are dry again they are rubbed with a wool cloth until they are clean and smooth’ (as cited by Allan 1973, 114). 9.3.3 surface treatment and decoration (fig. 9.5) As soon as the vessel was dry enough to hold its final shape, the surface of the pot was covered, either by dipping, by pouring or by wiping, with a thin white or creamish slip (also called an engobe).[14 ]This slip (pure clay thinned with water) was known by Early Modern potters in Greece as bandana or astari (PapanikolaBakirtzis 1999, 18). On open vessels the slip was generally applied as a thin coating on the inside, and on closed ones on the outside. Medieval potters used a range of techniques to achieve elaborate surface decoration. Several factors might have determined the motifs to be employed. These included the vessel’s intended function, the availability of raw materials and the potter’s perception of what kind of decoration will please or sell. Table wares tend to be more elaborate than ordinary domestic vessels, although some cooking pots in Boeotia have surfaces with rouletted or incised decoration. One type of decorated ware found on site VM4 was produced by incising or engraving through the white or creamish slip with a sharp tool, cutting down to the underlying clay to create a contrasting design. This is called the sgraffito technique (sgraffito is from the Italian word sgraffiare for ‘scratched’).[15 ] The technique was

265

already used by Muslim potters in the Near East before it became an important decoration-method in Byzantine pottery. It survived until Modern times in traditional Greek workshops. The potters used a stylus or smoothed cane to incise the decoration through the white slip (Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1999, 18). The width of the incised line distinguishes the different classes in Medieval pottery (as mentioned before in chapter 6). In Fine Sgraffito Ware (ca. 11th12th centuries) the potter made the line quite thin, giving the designs a certain delicacy. After the middle of the 12th century the incised line became broader. Another development of the 12th century sgraffito technique was the removal of the slip coating around the representations in such a way as to make the decoration appear to be in low relief on the dark-coloured clay (the so-called champlévé technique). During the Middle Byzantine period, compasses must have been used by the potters to get regular circles in the slip, because traces of holes caused by the compasses can still be seen in sgraffito sherds (Vogt 1993). Also brushstrokes with colour were added to the sgraffito decoration, but the colour was apt to run in the lead glaze. Another type of (local?) glazed ware found on site VM4 was decorated with a white liquid slip, as a kind of paint. The Medieval potters applied the slip directly on the vessel, giving it a pattern in relief or in contrasting colours (usually light on a dark body). The slip-trailed designs on these sherds may have been decorated by hand with the aid of an implement, such as a so-called ‘painting horn’. This was a potter’s tool in the form of a hollow cow’s horn with a strong reed in the open end, which served as a fountain-pen, releasing the slip in suitable doses for drawing the design.[16 ] None of these potter’s tools, however, are preserved archaeologically from Medieval times (Bidon 1986, 86). Ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological research shows that Early Modern potters in Greece and Cyprus used knives, stamps, combs, sponges, strings and brushes to decorate vessels. Most of their decoration tools were adapted from reused domestic objects, or from widely available (and highly perishable) materials such as wood, cane or bone (cf. Psaropoulou 1989; London 1990, fig. 70 and Korre-Zographou 1995, figs. 28, 29, 32 and 44-5). In Early Modern Messenia, for instance, a piece of broken comb or reed was used to make wavy lines on the

266

body of the vessels. The shaping tool (or potter’s rib) was known locally as a stella and was made of beech wood. Lips of vessels were finished with a small piece of cloth (pani), dipped constantly in water (Blitzer 1990, 691). Ethnoarchaeological research on Cyprus has further revealed that decoration tools not only varied regionally, but also from village to village (London 1989a, 72). 9.3.4 glazing The effect of the decoration on the vessels was enhanced by the use of a clear glaze (a coating of glass fused with the surface of the vessel). Glazing also had the function as a sealant of the porous clay. Lead glaze, a paint-like liquid of lead and silica oxides, was the principal type of glaze in Medieval Greece. The relatively easy technique of lead oxide glazing had already been known in most parts of the Roman Empire, but became widely spread in the Eastern Mediterranean from the 9th century onwards. Glazes with or without metal oxides could be applied either to unfired leather-hard pottery or to already fired vessels. In Boeotia, lead glaze was used functionally and decoratively on the inside of bowls and dishes and on the outside of jugs to give them a transparent, glassy and non-porous finish. It is rarely found on cooking pots, and only from the 14th century is it found on the inside of cooking vessels and bowls where it had a more functional use. The lead glazes, used on sherds found at site VM4, were colourless, sometimes with a pale yellowish hue. The glazes could be coloured by the addition of other metallic oxides, usually copper to produce a green colour and iron for a yellow-brown tone. The technique was relatively fast and easy: the glaze could either be sprinkled over the vessel in powdered form, or applied as a liquid by dipping the pot into the glaze or brushing the glaze on to the surface. Lead glaze was little prone to firing mistakes, solid and durable in use and required only a low firing temperature (about 800°Centigrade) to form a thin layer of glass. Recent research has shown that there are no obvious changes in glazing technology from the 9th until the 13th centuries. Very similar high lead transparent glazes are used for both the Glazed White Wares and the Glazed Red Wares (Armstrong et al. 1997, 229). A Medieval treatise from North-Western Europe gives us a recipe from Greek potters for glazing vessels in

various colours. This manuscript with the title De diversis artibus was written in the Rhineland by the monk Theophilus in the first half of the 12th century. ‘They [the Greeks] take all kinds of colours and grind each one separately with water. With each one colour they mix a fifth part glass of the same colour, finely ground by itself with water’ (as cited by Dodwell 1986, 47). Furthermore, Heraclius’ treatise De coloribus et artibus Romanorum (III, 3) offers a 12th century recipe for decorating pottery with a clear lead, or a copper lead glaze. This text is the oldest in the Middle Ages which mentions the use of lead, copper or brass in the manufacture of glazes. ‘But if you wish to lead-glaze the pot, take some wheat flour, boil it in a pan with water, then let it cool and cover the whole of the surface of the pot with it. Then take some lead well solutum [powdered?]. However, if you want to obtain a green colour, take some copper, or better still, some brass, and mix it with the lead as follows: take the lead and melt it in a pot; when it is molten stir it by turning with your hands (sic) in the pot until a powder is produced, and mix this then with 6 parts of brass filings. When the pot has been dampened with water and flour sprinkle it immediately with lead, i.e. with the filings mentioned above. If you want a yellow glaze sprinkle the pot with pure lead without brass filings’ (as cited by De Boüard 1974, 69; see also Ilg 1873, 50-51 for the German translation).[17 ] In short, for lead glazing the Medieval potter mixed the ingredients and ground them, adding water or an organic material (such as flour) until he had a homogeneous liquid. Any metallic oxide required was then added. The liquid was then applied to fired pottery either by dipping or in some other way, and then the coated ware was re-fired in the kiln. The 14th century potter Abu’l-Qaim from Persia mentions that the glazed vessels afterwards ‘stood on top of a broad-meshed sieve, which is the lid of a trough, so that the excess of colour drips away. They are dried in the sun’ (as cited by Allan 1973, 114). Lead glazes permitted a much greater range of colouring, but were apt to smudge and run. Theophilus’ treatise De diversis artibus mentions that the Greek potters painted with a lead glaze ‘circles, or arcading, or squares, and, in them, animals, birds or foliage, or anything they please’ (Dodwell 1986, 47). It is archaeologically unknown whether these elaborate decorations were only used for special purpose pottery,

Fig. 9.5 Painting of traditional pottery (photo: J. Vroom).

or also on more common vessels. It is known, however, that in Early Modern Messenia the customers were more concerned about the minimum cost of vessels that served their function well, than they were about the perfect appearance of the glazed surface (Matson 1972a, 216). Unfortunately, the soft-fired lead glaze was at the same time not very healthy for producer and user, since some of the poisonous lead could easily be dissolved by organic acids in wine, fruit juice, vinegar or milk. The adaptation of lead glaze may have reduced the potter’s working life, as one of the first symptoms of lead poisoning is a trembling of the hands. And of course, trembling hands could produce distortions of the vessel at several stages of the manufacture process (cf. for the dangers of lead poisoning, Caiger-Smith 1973, 221-22 and Halle 1996). 9.3.5 firing (fig. 9.6) The glazed fragments from site VM4 show that the pottery was fired twice: one phase for the shape, the

267

Fig. 9.6 Plan of Byzantine kiln at Corinth (after Morgan 1942, fig. 9).

other for the lead glaze above the slip (see also Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1999, 18). Because of the red, porous and relatively soft vessel fragments found in Boeotia, one can presume that the clay must have been low-temperature fired (under 900° Centigrade) in an oxidising kiln. Imperfect kiln control resulted in unintended colour variations. Some of the glazed fragments from site VM4, for instance, have a black colour, probably indicating that the firing atmosphere was not homogenously oxidising and that the kiln was too hot or in a reducing stage. A 14th century lawyer from Thessaloniki, Constantine Harmenopoulos, specifically names in his compendium of civil and criminal law the potter’s kiln as ‘kerameikon fournon’ (Hexabiblos 2, 4, 13). He further mentions that the person, who was building a potter’s kiln in the city, had to build it at a certain location and at some distance from the houses. For example, a kiln built to the North or the East of a house had to be built at a distance of 20 pigeis (or yards); and at a distance of 12 pigeis if the kiln was built to the South or West. If the

268

neighbouring house had no windows or doors facing the kiln, then the kiln could be built at a distance of one third of the above mentioned distances (Hexabiblos 2, 4, 13). A reconstruction of a Medieval kiln can be made from excavated examples at sites in Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, Rumania and on Cyprus. In Greece, Medieval kilns have been found at Athens (from the 4th-6th century in the Kerameikos; from the 6th-8th century on the Aeropagus; from the 9th-10th century and from the 16th-17th century in the Agora), at Kounoupi in the Eastern Argolid (from the 8th century), at Corinth (from the 11th-12th century), at Oreoi on the island Euboea (from the 11th-13th century) and at Didymoteicho in Thrace (from 15th-19th century).[18 ] Most of these kilns were of the updraught type, with a cylindrical structure and a crude dome (see figs. 9.6 and 9.9). The fire itself was burning in a hearth next to the under-flow fire chamber. In that way, the hot gases had to pass through the fire chamber and from there upwards through a floor pierced with numerous holes into the upper baking chamber where the pottery was stacked.[19 ] Unfortunately, we have no details from the excavated kilns about the original form of the upper chamber. Probably kilns used for glazed pottery had a domed structure (with a chimney on the top or smaller holes in the roof). In Early Modern Greece, the kilns were usually made from clay, or a combination of stone, clay and unbaked mud bricks (Matson 1972a, 217; Blitzer 1984, 153; id. 1990, 695).[20 ] There is no exact information in the written sources about the range of firing temperatures reached in the up draught kiln, but 900°-1000° Centigrade is accepted as a range which may be generally applicable (Hampe & Winter 1965, 195-6; Rice 1987, 160; Jones 1986, 873). In the Geoponika (VI, 3, 5) we can read that ‘the firing is no small part of the potter’s craft. Not too little or too much fire should be built under the pots, but just enough’ (as cited by Richter 1923, 94). Large quantities of fuel were required for firing the kiln. Documentary evidence of the Medieval industry in England shows three types of fuel used there: wood, coal and peat (Le Patourel 1968, 117-19).[21 ] A Medieval treatise from North-Western Europe gives us some indications about the firing technique used by Greek potters for glazed vessels. Theophilus writes in his 12th century manuscript De diversis artibus: ‘They [the

Fig. 9.7 Clay tripod stilts (photo: J. Vroom).

Fig. 9.8 Vessels stacked with tripod stilts (after PapanikolaBakirtzis 1992, fig. 17).

Greeks] put the vessels in the kiln, which they used for making glass, and light a fire of dry beech wood below until they are red hot from the flames around. Then they take away the wood and block up the furnace’ (Dodwell 1986, 47). Furthermore, the 14th century potter Abu’l-Qaim from Persia offers a detailed description of the kiln: ‘[It] is like a high tower, and inside has row upon row of fired earthenware pegs, each an arsh and a half long, fitted in

the holes in the wall. The vessels are placed on them and fired for twelve hours with a hot even fire, with this stipulation: that no wood be put on until the smoking has stopped, so that the smoke does not ruin or blacken the pots. In Hashan they burn soft wood [like hyssop and walnut], and in Baghdad, Tabriz and other places the wood [of the willow] is stripped of its bark so that it does not smoke. The vessels are removed from the kiln after a week [after they have cooled]’ (as cited by Allan 1973, 114). Many excavated Medieval pots contain marks that show how they were stacked in the kiln. The largest and heaviest vessels would have been stacked at the base of the kiln with the smaller and lighter pots near the top. Most Medieval kilns, such as the one at Corinth, had a kiln capacity of 200 vessels of medium measure (Morgan 1942). The glazed pots were often stacked upside-down inside the kiln, as is often indicated by the drops of glaze found at the rims and the absence of accumulated glaze in the bottoms of Medieval vessels. From the end of the 13th century onwards, tripod stilts (or earthenware supports) were used to separate glazed vessels from sticking together in the kiln, when fired (Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1992, 26, figs. 16-7; see figs. 9.7-8). These clay stands made it possible to stack the pots vertically one on top of the other. This allowed better distribution of heat and flow of air around vessels in the kiln, when compared with simple stacking. A thicker vitreous glaze seems to accompany the use of these tripod stilts, which (after taking away) often leave small marks of bare clay on the bottom of the vessels. The introduction of the tripod stand resulted in a tighter packing in the kiln and consequently a substantially increased output. Apparently, ‘saggars’ (protective clay containers) were also used for firing glazed pottery in Medieval and Post-Medieval times. A section in Heraclius’ treatise De coloribus et artibus Romanorum (III, 3) gives us an idea about saggars used in 12th century Europe. ‘Then place this pot in a bigger pot and put it in the kiln so that it will become more brilliant and beautiful, but in a slow heat, not too much nor too little’ (as cited by De Boüard 1974, 69; see also Ilg 1873, 51 for the German translation). In Early Modern Messenia, the kilns for wheel-made vessels were smaller than those for pithoi. The average number of wheel-made pots fired at once was 500-600 vessels, although the larger kilns could contain 700-800

269

or even 1000 vessels (Matson 1972a, 219).[22 ] Glazed pots were placed in the centre of the kiln with a ring of unglazed vessels around them (Blitzer 1990, 696). Kilns were used for fairly long periods, if kept in repair, they could last for two or three generations (Matson 1972a, 218). 9.3.6 organisation of the workshops (fig. 9.10) In the Byzantine written sources, potters were called piloplastai, piloepsitai or plintourgoi; tile-makers on the other hand were called, amongst others, keramides, keramidoplastai and kouphokeramourgoi. A potter’s workshop was called kerameion (see Koukoules 1947-55, II, 196 with references). The archaeologist David Talbot Rice states that ‘the Emperor Constantine granted in a law of 337 AD special favours to members of 36 professions at Constantinople, and among them were potters.’ (Talbot Rice 1930, 1; unfortunately he does not give a reference for this information). According to Alexander Kazhdan and Timothy Gregory, the potters (or kerameis) ‘were evidently professionals, although the Book of the Eparch [a 12th century tract regulating the activity of merchants and corporations of artisans in Constantinople] does not list a potters’ guild and in general they are infrequently mentioned in written sources’ (Kazhdan et al 1991, 399).[23 ] Names of potters (kerameos) are, on the other hand, mentioned in Byzantine grave inscriptions from Cilicia in Southern Turkey (Mentzou 1975, 90-93, nos. 259-283). The occupation of potter was in this region especially common in Korykos, because the number of mentioned potters is here relatively large compared to other occupations. According to Mentzou, some potters in Korykos must have had private workshops, others must have worked as employees in larger workshops. He concluded this from the evidence of two inscriptions where the potters were referred to as ‘employer’ (ergodotis) (Mentzou 1975, 92, nos. 281-82). Also interesting is an inscription where the term ostrakas or ostrakarios is mentioned: this was apparently a specialist using ceramics for reinforcing ceilings and walls of cisterns against water (Mentzou 1975, 92, no. 283 and note 1). In addition, the 8th-9th chronicler Theophanes refers in his Chronographia (440) that 500 ostrakarioi (tilemakers) were send from ‘Hellas and the islands’ to Constantinople by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine V Kopronymos in 766 AD to assist with the repair of an

270

Fig. 9.9 Modern kiln with recycled pithoi in wall (after KorreZographou 1995, fig. 447).

Fig. 9.10 Potter’s workshop in Dardanelles, ca. 1903 AD (after Korre-Zographou 2000, fig. 8).

aqueduct in the Capital (Koder & Hild 1976, 59). This could mean that craft production was at a reasonable level in Early Medieval Greece, and could stand the loss of 500 craftsmen.[24 ] Potters or tile-makers may have worked either on their own or more probably in small or larger workshops, both in large urban centres such as Thebes and in or outside rural communities such as VM4. The author of the 10th century Geoponika (85.20) describes the potter, for instance, as ‘the most necessary craftsman in the countryside’. Apparently, there even existed a saint, namely Agios Spiridon, who was regarded as the protector of potters (Kyriazopoulos 1984, 14). In Late Roman Egypt, the potters were paid in wheat and money from various estates for the manufacture of new wine-jars, as in shown on expenditure accounts written in some 6th century papyri from Oxyrhynchus (Oxyrhynchus Papyri, xvi, 1911, 1913) It is, however, likely that most Medieval potters in the Aegean combined their craft with agriculture, so that besides making pots they earned a living by growing some crops and keeping a few animals. The 12th century writer of ecclesiastical decrees Balsamon (PG 137, 929C) lists, as an illustration of this practice, potters’ shops (kerameia) among various agricultural properties. In Early Modern times, traditional potters in Greece and on Cyprus were seasonal workers. Potting was often done as a supplement to the income from farming during the spring and summer months: from April or May until August or even November. During this season, the potters worked every day (except Sunday) from dawn till dusk. In Kornos on Cyprus, for instance, 10,000 to 11,000 coil-built pots (including 3000 cooking pots) could be sold during the six-month pottery-making season (London 1989b, 227). The rest of the year was mainly devoted by traditional potters to agricultural labour, for instance the olive harvest or the cultivation of wheat (Xanthoudides 1927, 111; Matson 1972a, 220; Voyatzoglou 1984, 131; Blitzer 1984, 145; Jones 1986, 873; London 1989a, 65). Potters (or tsikala) were mentioned, among several other professions, in the archives of the monasteries of Mount Athos. In 1316 AD, for instance, there were seven potters in the Eastern Macedonian village Radolibos (modern Rodolivos), which was the largest community in the region, with more than 200 households at the beginning of the 14th century. Apparently, there were

two family ateliers in Radolibos: one with three artisans, the other with two.[25 ] This might suggest that the basic unit of pottery production on Medieval rural sites must have been the household, in which wives, children and family joined in work that was carried out in the house or its vicinity.[26 ] Each workshop or kiln would not have employed more than three or four persons. Women, children and hired workers were involved in the process (see fig. 9.10). This would fit in with examples from ethnographic studies in the Aegean. Women may have been potters, as was (and still is) the case on Early Modern Cyprus, or perhaps served as helpers in their husband’s workshops, as was the case on Crete in Early Modern times (Blitzer 1984, 145; London 1987; 1989b; 1998-99; 2000).[27 ] Ethnoarchaeological research on Cyprus shows that children accompanied their parents to help carry and trample the clay (London 1989a, 67-8). Apprenticeship rarely started before the age of 8 or 9 years, for a certain strength in the hands was required for working the heavy clay (Ionas 1998, 148). In Early Modern Cretan villages, the youth were provided with their own wheels, were taught by their elders, and when they reached a suitable age (about twelve or thirteen) were incorporated into the production process (Blitzer 1984, 145). In Medieval Europe the status of the Medieval potter was, in the eyes of his contemporaries, a lowly one (Bidon 1986, 71). In the town he was probably in the lowest stratum of the craft hierarchy. In the countryside of Medieval England he was a peasant, potting as a byindustry, or a small free-holder or cottager (Le Patourel 1968, 106-7). The textual sources considered the potters of their day barely as craftsmen, let alone artists. This could also have been the case in Medieval Greece. The 10th century lexicographer Suidas gives in his Lexicon as explanation of the word ‘to make pottery’ this phrase: ‘commonly said instead of to work hard’ (as cited by Richter 1923, 104). Early Modern potters at Koroni, Messenia, referred to a fairly harsh life in which their diet consisted of no more than oil, bread and tomatoes. A potter earned in a day perhaps more than a worker in the fields, but his task was harder and required longer hours (Matson 1972a, 221). The local daily wage around 1900 AD was approximately one drachma. At this time a wheel-made clay vessel with a capacity of 20 okades (1 oka = 1.27 kg.) costed 20 lepta (100 lepta = 1 drachma). A large pithos

271

with a capacity of roughly 300 okades was sold for a price between 10 and 15 drachmas. A wooden barrel holding around 500 kilograms was priced at 50 drachmas (Blitzer 1990, 679). In contrast, on Crete before the Second World War, traditional potters in Kentri received two and a half drachmas for each small water jar (Blitzer 1984, 155, n. 14). 9.3.7 location of the workshops (fig. 9.11) The writer Artemidorus stated in his late 2nd century treatise on the interpretation of dreams, the so-called Oneirokritika (2, 20), that potters and tanners lived ‘away from the city’ (White 1975, 101). Furthermore, an inscription on a pithos found in the village Aboudjak , near Alishar in North-Central Turkey, records the presence of a potter’s workshop outside the city (Mentzou 1975, 93). Also in Medieval Europe potters’ workshops were built outside cities and villages, apparently because of the fire-hazard and the bad smell (Bidon 1986, 71). On Early Modern Crete, the workshops and kilns of traditional potters were generally located in a ring around the outskirts of the village, away from the residential areas. ‘This arrangement, according to the potters, freed the village from the extensive amount of smoke produced during the firings, which might take place as often as every eight to ten days’ (Blitzer 1984, 147). The written sources also mention solitary coastal locations of pottery-making. The Lavra monastery at Mount Athos, for instance, acquired in 952 AD for three gold coins a potter’s workshop located near the seashore (Lavra 1, no.4.4). By 982 AD the Iviron monastery at Mount Athos was served by a pottery workshop, which was also situated by the sea (Ivir. 1, no. 4.68). The coastal location of potteries seems to be corroborated by archaeological finds. In Preslav, Bulgaria, in Ganos on the Sea of Marmara and in Kato Vasiliki, Aetolia, kilns have been found at the sea-shore (e.g. Günsenin 1993). These kilns were perhaps located near the sea, because of the availability of river clays or the advantages of quick transport by ship of the finished products. This seems to be confirmed by recent ethnoarchaeological research. For instance, the location of a Early Modern pottery workshop on the island of Thasos, Northern Greece, had to satisfy three conditions: 1) the

272

Fig. 9.11 Plan of traditional potter’s workshop in the village of Kentri, Crete (after Blitzer 1984, fig. 18.3-4).

plot chosen had to be more than an acre to accommodate roofed constructions; 2) a well was necessary in close proximity to the area where the levigation of the clay took place; and 3) the workshop had to be a short distance from the sea since transport of the pots was principally by water (Papadopoulos 1999, 122). A rural pottery workshop for coarse ware of the Late Roman-Early Byzantine period has been excavated at Dhiorios in Cyprus (Catling 1972). A cluster of small rectangular buildings was there associated with the production of unglazed cooking pots. The complex included a workshop with some kilns next to it, as well as a storeroom with stock available for sale at the time the site was abandoned. In Early Modern times, similar rural workshops in general included a workroom, a kiln, and an outdoor work area (see, in general, Voyatzoglou 1979-80, fig. 5: Blitzer 1984, figs. 18.3-4; id., 1990, fig. 3). Apparently, there existed no standard plan (see fig. 9.11).

If potters’ workshops for particular reasons had to be located within the city, they had to operate according to specific conditions (Koukoules 1947-55, II, 196). At the excavations of Corinth, at least four Medieval pottery workshops were recovered within the limits of the ancient Agora, all within the immediate vicinity of the Byzantine centre (Morgan 1942, 7). Two complexes comprised a courtyard surrounded by stone-built rectangular buildings and containing kilns and wells. The plan of these two Medieval pottery workshops at Corinth was compared by Charles Morgan to that of a traditional Early Modern pottery at Amaroussi in Attica (Morgan 1942, 7-10). However, this research is frustrated by the relative paucity of archaeological evidence of pottery-making at Corinth. According to the present director of the excavations at Corinth, Guy Sanders, only one of the previously identified four Medieval kilns in the Forum area at Corinth can be described as a pottery kiln with any degree of certainty (Sanders 1999, 159).

4./

Ceramic distribution (figs. 9.12-13)

Unfortunately, the written sources give us no information on the mechanisms of distribution of Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery within the region. Therefore, it is not possible to formulate anything more precise on distribution than some generalisations, largely based on ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological studies of traditional potters in Early Modern Greece and Cyprus. The two main ways of distributing local pottery were distribution from the workshop of a sedentary potter to a local market and distribution by means of itinerant potters who travelled from local market to local market. The British archaeologist Colin Renfrew has proposed a general hierarchy of five possible exchange mechanisms for pottery (Renfrew 1977, 9-10).[28 ] At the lowest level the consumer obtained his pot from the home or workshop of the potter/artisan. At the next level the potter himself carried his wares to the consumers, acting as an itinerant pedlar. Alternatively, the potter and consumer exchanged at a third place such as a market. Slightly more sophisticated is the idea of a middleman purchasing products from the potter and arranging for the distribution. Finally, the potter consigned all his stock to some central body which gave him goods in exchange.

Fig. 9.12 Traditional pots waiting for distribution in the harbour of Skopelos, 1947 (after Korre- Zographou 1995, fig. 390).

Fig. 9.13 Modern distribution of traditional pottery (photo: J. Vroom).

9.4.1 sedentary potters Sedentary potters produced vessels in a fixed workshop for the local consumer within their region of production. The pots were either sold directly by the potters from

273

their workshops to local consumers who came to buy immediately, or in bulk to a richer household in response to a specific order. On Early Modern Cyprus, the bulk (80% of 1880 pieces) of a total output of the largest rural pottery was sold to local customers (London 1989a, 68). For the Early Modern potters at Koroni in South-Eastern Messenia, however, this direct contact was not a substantial source of income (Blitzer 1990, 699). Another method for distributing pottery was through local markets or village fairs (the so-called panigiria), which were held during the summer in small towns and villages. In the Peloponnesus, these panigiria in the 17th and 18th centuries were primarily small, day-long markets where local necessities were offered for sale (Blitzer 1990, 699). In Boeotia during the Ottoman period, there were common markets (pazar) in the urban centres of Thebes and Livadheia, as well as a smaller intermediate market (panigiri) at the village of Vrastamites, now Ipsilantis (Angelomatis-Tsougarakis 1990, 182). On these markets and panigiria, payment for the pottery rarely involved money, but more often locally grown vegetables, pulses, olive oil, or wheat for the winter (Voyatzoglou 1984, 131; London 1989a, 68; id., 70; Jones 1986). Manorial (and monastic) estates, and the way in which they were managed and administered, could also have had an influence on pottery circulation. Lay landlords may have encouraged the siting of production centres, as well as the distribution of pottery (Moorhouse 1978, 16). The larger and more dispersed the estate of a powerful magnate was, the greater opportunity there was for vessels to travel (outside their normal area of circulation). Pots sometimes travelled in the baggage of a wealthy family or officials moving between the holdings of a single estate (cf. Moorhouse 1983). The transport to the regional fairs and local markets was either done by the potters themselves, or by middlemen who received a share of the profits. On Early Modern Cyprus, traditional potters visited villages, especially on the days of the local panigiria (London 1990, 69; Jones 1986, 875; Ionas 1998, 149). In Messenia, transport was carried out by the Koroni potters with pack animals, or with a karo, a two-wheeled vehicle that allowed quantities of goods to be transported (Blitzer 1990, 699). Sedentary potters in Early Modern Greece could also sell their wares to local and visiting middlemen (emporoi) who accumulated pottery from the potters’ workshops

274

and resold it in larger land markets. Many of these emporoi were from the same region of production, while others were from more distant towns to which they returned with their purchases. Travel went overland with pack animals or carts, or by water with ships. The emporoi in Koroni, for example, were able to buy pottery from the potters, stockpiled them, and then offered them to ship captains stopping at the port for other Peloponnesian commodities, including olive oil and currants (Blitzer 1990, 700). Early Modern pots were also distributed by ship over greater distances throughout the Eastern Mediterranean (Ionas 1998, 151; see fig. 9.12). At the town of Didymoteicho in Thrace, for instance, elderly inhabitants remembered the boats on the river Evros for shipment of the locally produced ceramics (Bakirtzis 1980, 153). This transport by small sailing ships or caiques was conveyed primarily during the warm months of the year: roughly from April until October (Casson 1938, 466; Matson 1972a, 220; Blitzer 1990, 701). The pots were either directly shipped on the shore below pottery villages, or at the quay of a harbour.[29 ] Documentary evidence from the Byzantine and Medieval periods for the movement of pottery is sparse or non-existing, yet the archaeological evidence suggests that ceramics were distributed on ships for specific tastes. Shipwrecks, excavated in the Aegean since the 1970s, show that pottery (and especially different types of amphorae) moved a lot in Late Roman and Byzantine times (cf. Parker 1992). Pottery was at first, however, never a major item of most ship cargoes in the Mediterranean, because it was quite cheap. Pottery was usually stowed on top of the main cargo. Some scholars suggest that ceramics (even the fine tablewares) were more likely to have been space-fillers for more valuable shipments (cf. Gill 1991 on Classical Greek fine wares). An 11th century shipwreck at Serçe Limani, South-West of Marmaris, contained both Islamic glazed wares and Byzantine wine amphorae, as well as its main cargo: 3 tons of broken glass vessels and glass cullet and 80 intact glass vessels (Bass & Van Doorninck 1978; Van Doorninck 1989; 2002). However, from the 12th century onwards some ships began to carry glazed tablewares as their principal cargoes. The Pelagonissos-Alonnesos shipwreck, for instance, transported 1,490 ceramics and other objects, among them 768 complete vessels and 628 fragments of

decorated tablewares (mainly Fine Sgraffito Ware) compared to 79 pieces of domestic wares and amphorae (Kritzas 1971; Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1999, 122-42). The Skopelos and Kastellorizo shipwrecks were carrying cargoes of Incised Sgraffito Ware, Champlevé Ware and Slip-painted Ware (Armstrong 1991; Filotheou & Michailidou 1989; Loucas 1989). In the same period, one can notice more finds of these wares in areas outside the Byzantine Empire, such as in Italy and in the Near East (François 1997, figs. 2-4). This commercialisation and internationalization of pottery distribution coincides with the emergence of a larger scale pottery production in the Middle Byzantine period, perhaps capable of supplying more extensive markets. In addition, the rise of population numbers and relative wealth in towns and countryside, as well as the more organised circulation of persons and goods between East and West during the 12th and 13th centuries may have created new markets for these glazed wares (François 1997). From the 13th century onward, one can observe also a more intensive (maritime) circulation of pottery between the Western and Eastern parts of the Mediterranean (François 1995, figs. 23-24; id. 1997). 9.4.2 itinerant potters Medieval documents in England have shown that potters in that period also travelled many miles to sell their wares at more distant locations (Le Patourel 1968, 119). However, one must not think yet in terms of a large-scale trade system for pottery, because the costs of transport would be very high in relation to the price of the article.[30 ] In Medieval England, for instance, transport could cost as much as 25 percent of the total price or more in some cases, and as a result of this, coarse wares travelled little more than a radius of 20 miles from their place of origin (Le Patourel 1968, 120). Furthermore, transporting fragile pottery over the Greek mountains and foothills could be a risky business. The itinerant potters from Early Modern Cyprus, therefore, prepared pottery to commission; using their own clay or the locally available clay they found at the villages they visited (Casson 1938, 467; London 1990, 69). These potters set out with their donkeys, laden with some wet clay as well as with a load of pots for sale. After arriving in a village they sold ready made pots and also made pottery to commission. In addition, they mended damaged pots or remade others (Casson 1938, 467).

An ethnographic study in the Boeotian village Vasilika shows that potters were among the wide variety of itinerant specialists whose regular visits were an important characteristic of the household economy of the villagers on mainland Greece. The villagers took it for granted that they would use part of their produce, in kind or in cash, to pay for the services of these itinerant specialists (Friedl 1962: 34-35). The Early Modern potters from the island of Siphnos were seasonally itinerant craftsmen. Being islanders, they travelled throughout the Aegean as merchants of their wares. They loaded into their ships not only their pots but also their clay (like the Cypriot potters), in order to manufacture to commission at their ports of call. A caique of 13 tons could take pottery to Megara, near Athens, coming back with resinated wine (Casson 1938, 470-71; Jones 1986, 861).

4.0

Peacock’s model of production and distribution

A general model for ceramic production and distribution in the Mediterranean has been given by the archaeologist David Peacock for Roman pottery studies (Peacock 1982, 6-11).[31 ] Peacock identified six principal modes of production characterized by an increasing level of complexity and scale: 1) household production for the family; 2) household industry; 3) individual workshops; 4) nucleated workshops; 5) the manufactory and 6) the factory. Each mode of production is defined by its own level of organisation and associated technology (see table 9.1). Following Peacock’s model, his third mode, the ‘individual workshops’, would resemble in closest way the Medieval pottery production and distribution on site VM4 in Boeotia. The ‘individual workshop’, as defined by Peacock, is usually an isolated workshop, found in a rural rather than an urban setting. Although mainly seasonal, pottery-making is the main source of subsistence. It may have been practised for only part of the year, in combination with farming or garden cultivation during the winter. The ‘individual workshops’ require investment in technology, including a wheel and kiln for the manufacture of pottery. The craftsman (rather a man than a woman) may work by himself but since efficiency is

275

1. household production for the family

The simplest mode of production, in which each household makes the pottery it requires for its own consumption.

2. household industry

The first steps towards craft specialisation: pottery-making for exchange or trade is in the hands of a few skilled artisans.

3. individual workshops

Pottery-making is the main source of subsistence, but it may be practised for only part of the year. Higher production towards wider markets. Individual workshops are grouped together to form a more or less tightly clustered industrial complex aiming at a wider distribution network. A number of artisans are grouped together in a single space or building, and they co-operate in producing a single and often high specialised product. Large-scale grouping and specialisation of labour in a special building, using power-driven machines for manufacture of standardised products for both local and longdistance markets.

4. nucleated workshops

5. manufactory

6. factory

Table 9.1 Peacock’s model of pottery production and distribution.

important, he is liable to employ assistants, perhaps members of his own family or hired workers. The labour requirement together with his investment in equipment favours a sedentary existence. The potters’ workshops no longer produce for the own household, but rather for the most lucrative markets for sale. Although useful in general terms as a framework for the situation in Boeotia, Peacock’s model of ceramic production and distribution is not without its handicaps. It can not always describe the whole range of production modes present and the observed variability. Firstly, some of his modes are too broad for categorisation. Pottery might have been produced during the Medieval and Post-Medieval periods in more, and overlapping, types of production modes. Both extremes of Peacock’s framework, the household and the factory, might have co-existed within a single culture in past times (Gaimster & Freestone 1997, 14). As we have seen above, in Early Modern Greece sedentary and itinerant potters, as well as urban and village potters existed next to each other. Furthermore, we also have to consider the family industry in Early Modern Greece, where workshops were close to the house and women and children were assistants (or sometimes potters themselves).

276

A second problem is the effect of land tenure and feudal structures on production centres and the distribution of Medieval pottery. Could the potter dispose freely of his own products? Many products were manufactured and transported in the Middle Ages by tenants in service for the use of land. Manorial documents from England show, for instance, that the Medieval potter there had to pay for licence to dig clay, and he had to pay whether he took clay from the Lord’s land or from his own land (Le Patourel 1968, 113).

4.1

Summary

Scanty and fragmented as they are, the archaeological, textual and ethnographical sources of information suggest that pottery production in Medieval and PostMedieval Greece must have been much more common and much more widespread in the countryside than is often assumed. The standard view on ceramic production and distribution in Medieval times seems often biased by the finds of beautiful manufactured vessels, made by highly skilled artisans in large urban centres such as Constantinople or Corinth. Those are, however,

the fairly exceptional, expensive imported wares, whereas the general picture which seems to emerge now is that domestic pottery was a widespread relatively cheap everyday utensil, made by local peasant-potters directly for a local market. Furthermore, ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological observations of traditional potters in Greece and Cyprus suggest that regional diversity and overlapping types of production levels (urban and village potters,family industry, sedentary and itinerant potters) characterized ceramic production and distribution processes in Early Modern times. This may very well have been the case in previous centuries. The general picture is that, although they were small, the Early Modern potters’ workshops did not produce only for their own household, but rather for wider markets. They invested in technology, including a footoperated kick wheel and an up draught kiln, for the manufacture of pots during the summer months. The finished products were sold on the nearest market or village fair, or directly to local customers. When pots travelled in quantity over longer distances, middlemen were often acting as links between potters and customers. The situation on rural sites (such as VM4) in Medieval and Post-Medieval Boeotia probably resembled this pre-industrial/pre-modern organisation of production and distribution.

5. Heraclius’ treatise, De coloribus et artibus Romanorum, was edited with a German translation and commentary by Ilg (1873). An older edition with English translation by Merrifield (1849, 166-257). Cf. De Boüard (1974, 67-76) for some observations on Heraclius’ treatise. 6. According to Richter (1923, 1), when Early Modern potters speak of the colour of a clay, they refer to the colour after firing, not in the raw state. 7. I would like to thank Dr. Evangelia Kiriatzi, Director of the Fitch Laboratory in Athens, and Dr. Robert Shiel of the University of Newcastle (UK) for this information on the Boeotian clays. See also Allen (1997) for the environmental conditions of the Kopais Lake. 8. Blitzer (1984, 146) mentions that Early Modern potters on Eastern Crete brought the clay to their villages on pack animals laden with sacks capable of holding 125 to 150 okades (one oka equals roughly 1.25 kg) of clay each. 9. It has been suggested by Papanikola-Bakirtzis (1992, 22, fig. 12) that this pulverization by wooden mallets was also done in Byzantine times. 10. Foot trampling was usually done to prepare extremely large batches of clay. According to Matson (1972a, 214), the Early Modern potters in Messenia wedged their clay with their feet.

notes

They worked the clay out from the centre of the pile into a flat

1. The manufacture of these tin-glazed wares will be discussed

again toward a central mound. Also Blitzer (1984, 148)

in the Chapter 10. Cf. on the technological investigations of tin-

mentions that the Early Modern potters on Crete stamped the

glazed wares from Italy and Turkey, Wilson (1987) and Tite

clay with their bare feet.

circular cake perhaps 3 m. in diameter, and then worked back

(1989; 1991). 11. Cf. Dover (1968, cxix-cxx) and Keaney (1972). 2. Cipriano Piccolpasso’s manuscript is translated and provided with an introduction by Lightbown and Caiger-Smith (1980).

12. Blitzer (1990, 691) suggests that in Early Modern Messenia

3. Abu’l-Qasim’s treatise has been published in its original

90 years. For the technical aspects of different types of potter’s

Persian with a German translation and notes by Ritter, Ruska,

wheels, see Loebert (1984).

wheels could be used by traditional potters for as long as 80 to

Sarre and Winderlich (1935). An English translation of the treatise with a more detailed commentary has been given by

13. Wheel-throwing in general requires plastic clays. The

Allan (1973).

presence of rilling depends on the specific forming technique and the surface treatment afterwards.

4. Theophilus Presbyter, De diversis artibus / The Various Arts, was edited and translated by Dodwell (1986). Older editions

14. The term ‘engobe’ is French. According to Rice (1987, 149),

sometimes use the title Diversarum artium schedula.

the term ‘tends to be used primarily with reference to high-

277

fired ceramics, to designate a slip applied under a glaze.

24. This reference of Theophanes shows that life in Greece

Engobes are intended to alter the colour of the vessels and are

during the 8th-9th centuries was not so dark after all! Appar-

usually white; their ingredients are selected to ensure low

ently it was not a problem to find these specialists.

shrinkage and good fit with the vessel’. 25. This information is found by a group of researchers of J. 15. The term ‘sgraffiare’ was used for the first time by Cypriano

Lefort and published in, ‘Anthroponymie et société villageoise

Piccolpasso in his 16th century treatise on pottery techniques,

(Xe-XIve siècle)’ in Kravari et al. (1991, 237). See for more

which provides us with many potter’s terms. Cf. Lightbown and

detailed information on the Byzantine documents from

Caiger-Smith (1980).

Radolibos, Lefort (1981; 1985).

16. Instead of a cow’s horn other nozzled tools (in Modern

26. Voyatzoglou (1984, 130) mentions that in Thrapsanos on

Greek called chradotiri) could also be used for the slip-painting

Crete the potter-craftsman was the father while other members

technique. Cf. Psaropoulou (1989, figs. 7-9). According to

of the family were his assistants. According to Casson (1938,

Korre-Zographou (1995, 23, fig. 25), an analogous tool, called

468), the master potter was called mastoras or protomastoras on

ploumoudistiri, was also used in Skyros.

Early Modern Crete.

17. In Early Modern Chalkis, the green glaze was prepared by

27. On Cyprus, women of all ages played an important role at

traditional potters from black copper oxide, copper red lead

home in pottery-making, especially in hand-built pottery on a

(from Laurion) and a fine siliceous white powder from Melos

round or square turntable. Cf. London (1987; 1998-99).

(called atsakas) which may be bentonite. Cf. Jones (1986, 868). 28. Richard Hodges has drawn attention to an alternative 18. A short list of excavated kilns is given by Cook (1961, 67).

tiered hierarchy of markets proposed by Skinner (Hodges

This list is supplemented by Megaw and Jones (1983, 236, n. 3),

1982, 15-16). At the lowest level, ‘the minor or incipient

Papanikola-Bakirtzis (1992, 25, n. 8), Seifert (1993, 104) and

standard market’, there is a simple exchange of peasant-

François (1995, 31-2). See Frantz (1942) for the find of the Post-

produced goods and no imported items. The next stage, ‘the

Medieval kilns on the Athenian Agora.

standard market’, is the point at which surpluses generated at peasant level early to flow more freely and imported goods

19. After T.E. Gregory in ODB, 1129.

cease to be distributed. A level above, or ‘the central market’, lies strategically on the major route ways and possesses an

20. According to Rice (1987, 158), kilns are generally

important wholesaling and regional function. At the highest

constructed of refractory material, such as brick, which is able

level, ‘the regional market’, dominates the marketing of a vast

to withstand the stresses of continual expansion and contrac-

area.

tion in firing and cooling. 29. In Boeotia, Chalkis, Livadostro or Anthedon could have 21. For Early Modern potters fuel is the most expensive of their

served as ports for the distribution of local products.

materials, and represents, next to hired workers, their greatest expenditure. Cf. Rice (1987, 162).

30. The Early Modern potters at Koroni in Messenia, however, would only make trips themselves in times of economic stress.

22. Cullen and Keller (1990, 184) mention that Early Modern

Cf. Blitzer (1990, 699-70).

potters at Trapsano on Crete produced 400 to 500 pithoi each season, at a rate of 10-14 vessels per day.

31. Another but less relevant model of ceramic production and distribution (because it is not specific for the Mediterranean

23. According to Voyatzoglou (1984, 132), the itinerant jar

region) is given by Van der Leeuw (1977), who divided the

makers of the potters’ village of Thrapsanos on Crete were once

organisation in pottery production in: 1. household produc-

part of 30 to 35 guilds, totalling about 200 men. Each guild had

tion; 2. household industry; 3. workshop industry and 4. large-

six members: the master, the second master, the wheeler, the

scale industry.

clay man, the wood cutter and the carrier.

278

10 – THE ECONOMIC S OF CERAMIC S IN BOEOTIA AND BEYOND ‘Without exchange, there is no society.’ Fernand Braudel (1977, 15)

,+., Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to look at ceramics found in Boeotia in their wider socio-economic perspective. In this chapter I will try to move, as the ceramicist Carla Sinopoli once put it, ‘one step back from the sherds themselves to examine how they are linked to their broader context’ (Sinopoli 1991, 69). In contrast to the previous chapter, in which the Medieval and PostMedieval ceramics from the Boeotia Project were discussed from the perspective of the development of local production and local distribution, I will try to sketch in this present chapter wider patterns of longdistance distribution and discuss production centres in the Mediterranean outside the research area. This is of course a subject which is complicated enough for a book in its own right, so I will limit myself here to a mere survey of relevant problems and theories, in an attempt to shed some light on the material found in Boeotia from a wider perspective, and to explore possibilities for future research. In order to address the problem of the economics of pottery in Boeotia in a wider context, I will first discuss two views on long-term changes in the technology of Medieval and Post-Medieval ceramics in general (e.g. changes of shape, glaze, decoration) which have been forwarded by archaeologists during the late 1970s and mid 1980s. One view is based on the role of pottery as an indicator of changing demand (and thus of economic change) and consumption in a certain region (Blake 1978; 1980). The other view is based on technological innovations in pottery in relation to economic trends (Orton 1985). Both views, which were developed separately but partly overlap, will be tested on the finds from Boeotia. Secondly, I will sketch the outlines of the socioeconomic background for changes in the imports of pottery in Boeotia. In particular, I will focus on the processes of import and distribution of the tin-glazed wares in Boeotia from the 16th to the 18th century (e.g. Maiolica from Italy, Iznik and Kütahya wares from Turkey). I will discuss the large-scale organisation of

pottery production in the main production centres, the costs of manufacture, as well as the pottery prices and long-distance market patterns of these Post-Medieval wares in an emerging ‘world-economy’(or modern ‘world-system’ in the words of the sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein).

,+.-

Pottery and socio-economic history

When addressing the problem of explaining the occurrence of changes in technology, form and decoration in Post-Roman pottery over time, we cannot but establish that there are no elaborated, tested and generally accepted theories or models to help us. However, two tentative views have been formulated to explain change and innovation in Medieval and Post-Medieval ceramics. In two successive small papers the British archaeologist Hugo Blake proposed (in the late 1970s) a theory regarding the value of ceramic finds as indicators of economic change. He based his approach on the material from a regional surface survey by L. Mannoni and T. Mannoni in Liguria, Northern Italy (Blake 1978; 1980). In his view entire assemblages or ‘genuine’ samples of pottery of all periods can be used as a measure of the changing consumption habits of past communities. The implication is, of course, that ultimately changes in demand by consumers generate changes in the production and technology of pottery. Five years after Blake, the British archaeologist Clive Orton published a small paper in which he formulated an approach with a somewhat different emphasis. In his view technological innovations in Medieval and PostMedieval pottery are directly linked to long-term economic cycles (Orton 1985). In formulating this model, he was inspired by the longue durée perspective of the French Annales-historian Fernand Braudel (formulated, for instance, in his famous La Méditerranée of 1949; see also 1984). Here, I will review both of these approaches (which seem complementary rather than alternatives, as

279

Table 10.1 Proportion of ceramic types found in each class of settlement in Liguria (after Mannoni & Mannoni 1975, fig. 3).

consumption patters and economic cycles are interrelated), and will try to test them with the ceramics found in Boeotia. 10.2.1 blake’s theory Hugo Blake presented his views on the underlying factors influencing changes in Medieval pottery technology in two papers of limited size (Blake 1978; 1980). The more notable of the two is his 1980-article ‘Technology, supply or demand?’ in Medieval Ceramics. The conclusion of both papers was that it is foremost the mechanism of demand (and thus of economic change) and consumption in a certain region, which induced change, and not so much ‘supply’ of technological innovations. In general, Blake questioned the value of the traditional approaches to Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery. He raised doubts, in particular, on its traditional role as a ‘dater’, as a ‘characteriser of cultural groups’ and as an ‘index of technical progress’. Instead, he suggested that probably only our understanding of the role of pottery as a functional object makes any significant contribution to our understanding of the past (Blake 1980, 4). In the end, his main line of argument was clear: pottery is to be used as an indicator of supply

280

and especially of demand in any community: ‘The assumption behind all distribution studies is that the consumers wanted and were able to buy the products’ (Blake 1980, 5). The method suggested by him to test this theory of pottery as an indicator of supply and demand is to erect for a region under research a hierarchy of sites as well as an hierarchy of different types of pottery over time. Consequently, both hierarchies have to be plotted against the known socio-economic history of the sites (see Blake 1978, fig. 28.2; 1980, fig. 1). The next step is to infer from the ceramic finds the relative wealth and status of different groups of people in a certain region. These differences can be seen in the distribution of pottery types and their relative presence in various periods and types of settlement. The example used by Blake in his 1980-article is based on the quantified results of work by L. Mannoni and T. Mannoni on ceramic types found on different sites in a regional surface survey in Liguria, Northern Italy (Mannoni & Mannoni 1975, fig. 3; here table 10.1). The dates of these finds range from the period pre-1050 AD to 1900 AD. The study of Mannoni and Mannoni shows the ceramic developments in a relatively poor

peasant society in Liguria during the late 11th to late 14th centuries, followed by wealthier rural sites in the Renaissance era with access to tin-glazed wares (such as Maiolica). During the 16th to early 18th centuries, however, these tin-glazed wares were replaced on the rural sites by cheaper slip-coated wares, indicating, according to Blake, the impoverishment of the Ligurian countryside in that period. Finally, in the later 18th and 19th centuries one can detect rural improvement in Liguria again with a renewed appearance of exotic glazed wares. To sum up, Blake detected these main trends in the Ligurian material; in his view all were generated by changing demand by consumers: 1050-1350 AD

exotica and tin-glazed types absent

1350-1500 AD

tin-glazed type present

1500-1750 AD

slip-coated types replaced tin-glazed ware

1750-1900 AD

peak in glazed ware

Table 10.2 Blake’s interpretation of the Ligurian material.

In the end Blake concludes from the study of Mannoni and Mannoni that entire assemblages, which include pottery from a substantial time span, can make an important contribution to our understanding of demand for ceramics (rather than of their supply). Most members of Medieval and Post-Medieval societies used pots, creating a huge and constant demand, whereas few were engaged in its production and distribution (and were bound to rely in their trade on consumer demand). In this way pots are, according to him, a ‘unique measure of the consumption habits of past communities’. In short, Blake concluded that ceramics provide in certain circumstances, ‘the most reliable measure of economic change’ (Blake 1980, 8). 10.2.2 blake’s theory and the fragility of pots Blake’s theory and his plea to ask more complex questions of Medieval and Post-Medieval ceramics rather than dating and diagnosing alone, induced in the early 1980s a positive reaction from the Medieval archaeologists Peter Davey and Richard Hodges (Davey & Hodges 1983, 13-4). They underlined the two practical implications of Blake’s approach. Firstly, the recovery of ceramic evidence should be one of the central aims in any excava-

Fig. 10.1a-c Byzantine sherds from Boeotia with small repair holes (photo’s: J. Vroom).

tion or survey strategy. Secondly, entire assemblages should be collected, which is to say that sampling should include both the easily recognizable wares and the harder to date wares on any given site. Both points had also been stressed by Blake himself.

281

Fig. 10.3 Recycling of two half pithoi as flowerpots (photo: J. Vroom).

Fig. 10.2 Recycling of a pithos as a chimney (photo: J. Vroom).

Apart from those – nowadays perhaps not so revolutionary – observations, it seems that Blake’s model also leads to some further considerations. His theory is based on the exact counting of sherds, but this may be a bit more problematic than it seems. The main problem is that sherds are not pots (cf. Orton 2000). This is also not a very revolutionary observation, but it seems that especially in modern quantitative pottery research this very basic fact is perhaps somewhat underestimated at times. The fact that sherds are not pots has, however, serious consequences for any theory which relies on sherdcounts. One of these consequences is that careful attention should be paid to the breakage-frequency of pottery, to the type of pottery and to the period of use of the pottery, which is found in the form of sherds. Pottery is fragile, it has in general a short life and is most of the time quite quickly replaced. It is obvious that the most frequently used pots will have a higher chance of being broken than vessels which are never moved in the household, such as large pithoi. This implies that the replacement rate is the highest for the cheapest, most

282

often used (and most often broken) vessels (Sinopoli 1991, 87; Abbink 1999, 48). As a general principle, the larger the pot the longer it lasts, and use life is directly related to frequency of use. It has been established, for instance, that (among the Kalinga in the Philippines) rice cooking vessels tend to last slightly longer than vegetable cooking pots, but that they both average about two years of use. Water jars tend to last three times as long and wine jars perhaps ten times as long. The larger rice and vegetable cooking pots last, on average, nine to ten years; large containers last even longer than a generation (Longacre 1981, 63-4). Exposure to thermal stress also leads to increased breakage rates. Cooking and serving vessels can be expected to break at a higher rate than large, nonmovable pithoi. It is no surprise that in ethnographic studies, the cooking pot is often the type of vessel with the shortest use-life and with the highest replacement rate (Abbink 1999, appendix 2, table 2a-c). On the other hand, valuable (imported) pots can be more carefully preserved or kept longer than less valuable ones, and therefore of considerable age when discarded. Damaged vessels may or may not be removed from active use, depending on their value (Rice 1987, 303-4). Cracked vessels which are expensive, rare or have some sort of added value may be repaired and continue in their primary uses. It has been suggested that objects could have been repaired in the past to indicate aspects of status, the desire for the retention of the ‘antique’ or simply for reasons of personal affection (Willmott 2001, 103).

As far as Greek Medieval pottery is concerned, pots are indeed found that have been repaired. Several 12th and 13th century plates and bowls from Athens and Thrace, for instance, show small circular holes pierced through the body at a later date to repair the crack in the plate with aid of metal clamps or rivets to hold the join together (Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1999, cat. nos. 14, 17, 75). Also in the surface ceramics from Boeotia one can occasionally notice sherds with small repair holes in the walls (see figs. 10.1a-c). Interesting in this respect is the remark of the Ottoman traveller Evliya Çelebi about the twenty ‘menders of broken cups’ (Finjian Kindejian) among the tradesmen’s guilds of Istanbul, who paraded before the Sultan while mending broken cups. He also listed twenty-five craftsmen working in ten workshops earning their money by clamping and pinning broken vessels, as can be seen on a repaired (blue-white painted) mosque lamp from ca. 1495-1505 AD (Atasoy & Raby 1989, 37, note 4 and fig. 283). This suggests there was even an industry of recycling broken pottery (from Iznik and Kütahya?) in 17th century Istanbul.Nowadays, repairs of broken pottery are still made by traditional potters on Modern Cyprus (London 1989a, 69). Finally, the reuse or recycling of broken pottery into a variety of secondary uses must also be taken in account in the life-time of a pot. In North-Western Europe, for instance, sherds were often reused in the construction of hearths, floors and ditches (Therkorn 1987; Abbink 1991, fig. 2.6). Damaged amphorae, found at several shipwrecks in the Eastern Mediterranean, revealed the recycling of these transport jars in Byzantine times and showed that these vessels must have been used (for a secondary purpose) for a much longer period than previously assumed (Van Doorninck 1989; 2002, 141-42 and note 24; Parker 1992, 372-73; Kingsley 1994-95, 4244). This recycling of amphorae has been explained as a reaction to the decreasing significance of amphorae as transport containers in preference to skins (Van Doorninck 1989, 256). Other suggestions are that recycling indicates the attempt of entrepreneurs to minimize transportation costs by reusing vessels, or the preference for the storage of liquids in old vessels. Since a freshly thrown one could absorb as much as one-fifth of the liquid inside it (Kingsley 1994-95, 43-44). In Early Modern Greece and Cyprus, the walls and side entrances of kilns were strengthened or closed

Table 10.3 Long-term economic cycles in Europe (after Braudel 1984 and Orton 1985).

Table 10.4 Economic ‘core’ zones and leading cities in the North-South poles (after Braudel 1984 and Orton 1985).

through the addition of sherds or even broken jars filled with earth and clay (London 1989b, 221; 1990, 62, figs. 74 and 77; Blitzer 1990, 695; see also fig. 9.9). Broken pots and sherds were also used as kiln separators during firing (London 1989b, 221; Blitzer 1990, 696). The reuse of often complete vessels was common in Early Modern

283

Greece as well. Pots reused as chimney tops stand often on the roof of houses (fig. 10.2). Large jars (pithoi) were reused in a variety of imaginative ways, as flower pots, burial containers, settling basins, wellheads, trash bins, kneading troughs, hearths, pavement elements, and even dwellings (e.g. London 1989b, 221; Cullen & Keller 1990, 184; see also fig. 10.3). Another example is the acoustic pot, frequently used in Greek churches because it was thought that it aided resonance during singing. After their second life, all these vessels may end up as archaeological data. It is evident that whatever view we have when counting surface sherds found by survey, we should bear in mind the problem of breakage-frequency and reuse of pottery, which vary widely per type (not to mention the problems of visibility and durability).

Andre Gunder Frank’s ‘A and B cycles’ (Frank 1993; Frank & Gills 1993) and to Wallerstein’s core-periphery world system, which will be discussed later in this chapter. The heart of Orton’s model is that he tried to link the ‘Braudelian cycles’ with the idea that new pottery techniques were adopted more rapidly in a core zone during the upswing of economic cycles, for example through a greater willingness to create new productive capacity. He assumed that in a downswing core areas retained their level of technology while the other areas lost this technology or fell back on technologies of a lower level. In the end, Orton’s conclusion was that general economic conditions, and particularly the availability of capital for investment, played an important role in innovation within ceramic production.

10.2.3 orton’s theory Five years after Blake, the British archaeologist Clive Orton formulated a proposal to explain technological innovations in Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery in Europe which had a somewhat different emphasis (Orton 1985; see also Vroom 2000a). Central to Orton’s approach are two questions: the first is why pottery technologies, styles and forms changed as they did, and the second question is when they did. For his model Orton combined knowledge of the hierarchy of pottery technologies (formulated by Hugo Blake in the 1980-article) with the long-term economic perspectives of the historian Fernand Braudel (Braudel 1949; 1984). Orton basically presented his model in two tables. In the first table he summarized Braudel’s long-term cycles of economic activity in Medieval and Post-Medieval Europe (table 10.3). In the second table he presented a regional division of economic development in premodern Europe divided into a ‘North pole’ and a ‘South pole’ (table 10.4). As far as the economic cycles are concerned, Orton emphasized that the upward trends favour all economies involved, while downward trends favour only the ‘core economies’. These core economies (or core zones) ‘set the pace’ for economic development and are least affected by economic downturns. At different times different regions take the role as frontrunner. Surrounding the core economy are concentric zones of progressively less leading regions, surrounded by a periphery which is relatively backward, marginalised and exploited. This approach might be linked to

,+..

284

Testing Blake’s and Orton’s theories in Boeotia

When putting Blake’s and Orton’s theories to the test, it is inevitable to take two different approaches to the ceramics found in Boeotia. In the case of testing Blake’s theory, the main emphasis is to be put on the number of sherds, their provenance and relative value (to see whether they can be used as indicators of economic developments). In the case of Orton’s theory, however, the main emphasis is to be put on the general economic background of the periods in which the chronology of the sherds is to placed (in order to see whether a clear relation can be seen between the economic cycles and changing pottery techniques). 10.3.1 blake’s theory and the ceramics found in boeotia Fundamental for Blake’s model is an overview of the number of sherds per period per site or site-type. To test his model for the ceramics from Boeotia, I use a presentation of the Medieval and Post-Medieval ceramics found by site-type (urban, rural, tower) and per period (table 10.5 and table 10.6a-b). The tables includes all 30 Boeotian sites at which substantial amounts of PostRoman pottery was sampled (see Chapter 5), and all 48 diagnostic Medieval and Post-Medieval wares discussed in this book (see Chapter 6). Early Byzantine period – Tables 10.5 and 10.6a-b indicate that the surface ceramics from all Boeotian sites show an

Table 10.5 Presentation of the Medieval and Post-Medieval ceramics found on the Boeotian sites according to Blake’s theory.

absence of decorated and/or glazed wares in the 7th to 9th centuries (Wares 1-4 are unglazed). Especially the lack of early Glazed White Ware in Boeotia is noteworthy, compared to other assemblages in the Aegean area (e.g. on sites in Crete, Cyprus etc.) where this type of ware from Constantinople has been found more frequently. Apparently, this Central Greek inland region had not much contact with the Capital during this period and its inhabitants were using rather locally or regionally produced wares such as Askra Ware (Ware 1), LR 2 amphorae (Ware 3) and beehives (Ware 4). Moreover, the small numbers of especially table wares (Wares 1, Askra Ware, and Ware 2, Unglazed Ware) on the rural sites and tower sites seem to suggest that we are dealing in the Early Byzantine period either with a society poor in ceramics (in Blake’s terms: with a small population demanding few consumption goods) or that people were using other types of material (such as metal or wooden vessels) in daily life. There is also a decline in variety in the pottery types and shapes, as compared to Late Roman times. Apparently, pottery in Central

Greece was produced on a smaller scale in Early Byzantine times. On the other hand, there appears to be continuity in pottery technology from the Roman period. In shape and fabric, the wares seem to be relics of the Late Roman period. A common type of amphora on the Boeotian sites is, for instance, the Late Roman 2 amphora. This is a typical Aegean product, which is mostly dated from the 5th to the 7th centuries, but which was perhaps used (or reused) in a derivative form for a longer period of time in the Greek countryside. Noteworthy are also the large quantities of Late Roman amphorae and beehives in the urban sites, which could indicate some sort of agricultural activity there. Middle Byzantine period – During the 10th to early 13th centuries, one can discern a sudden increase in the numbers of diagnostic ceramics on the Boeotian rural sites and tower sites as opposed to the numbers found on urban sites, especially a boom in the different types of decorated wares (Ware 9-11, 15). New pottery techniques

285

Table 10.6 Total of diagnostic wares per period in total, on rural sites, on ‘urban’ sites and on tower sites.

were introduced during this period, whereby the potters experimented with a white slip, incised motifs and a lead glaze. Some of the new glazed tablewares of this period, which were found in Boeotia in considerable quantities, were Slip-painted Ware (Ware 9), Brown and Green Painted Ware (Ware 10), Fine Sgraffito Ware (Ware 11) and Incised Sgraffito Ware (Ware 15). In addition, substantial numbers of the unglazed wares of this period found on the Boeotian sites included Günsenin 3/Saraçhane 61 amphorae (Ware 12), Unglazed Incised Ware (Ware 6) and Unglazed Domestic Wares (Ware 14). The range and quantity of the glazed and unglazed wares on the Boeotian sites is the same as the Middle Byzantine finds from the excavations in Corinth and Thebes, and this perhaps indicates that pottery production of these wares took place in the region around the Corinthian Gulf. Especially the large amounts of Incised Sgraffito Ware (Ware 15) and Günsenin 3/Saraçhane 61 amphorae (Ware 12) on all Boeotian sites seems to suggest that these types of pottery could have been

286

locally or regionally manufactured (that is: in Central Greece). In addition, the archaeological material seems to suggest that the Middle Byzantine era was for Boeotia a period of ceramic prosperity (especially for the rural sites, but less for the urban sites). That is to say: between the 10th and early 13th centuries fine decorated tablewares reached the Boeotian rural communities which lived entirely of the land. The question remains whether this implies that the Boeotian rural communities became wealthier and better off (in Blake’s terms: whether the consumer demand increased), or whether pottery production took place on a bigger scale and pots became therefore cheaper and more accessible for the villagers. Late Byzantine/Frankish period – During the late 13th to mid 15th centuries the highly decorated wares of the Middle Byzantine period gave way to much plainer vessels in monochrome glazes. This does not mean that for instance all Incised Sgraffito Ware and Champlevé Ware (Ware 15) or Günsenin 3/Saraçhane 61 amphorae

(Ware 12) immediately vanished in Boeotia in the early 13th century, but only that new wares with new stylistic and technological characteristics made their entrance. Although these Late Byzantine wares show signs of technical innovations (such as harder firing, the use of tripod stilts and new glazing techniques), they show at the same time less careful potter’s throwing methods and less imaginative designs (mostly incised abstract motifs or circles). One can notice less sophisticated wares on the Boeotian sites, and even a decline in use in glazed wares during the 14th and early 15th centuries. Imported wares from Italy, which made their way in substantial quantities into other parts of Greece from the 13th century onwards, are sporadic in Boeotia (such as ProtoMaiolica and RMR Ware), or even non-existing (such as Metallic Ware and Roulette Ware). The absence of these wares is especially in sharp contrast with the situation in Corinth, Thebes and other parts of Mainland Greece (cf. François 1997). In addition, one can distinguish less fragments of Unglazed Domestic Wares and amphorae on all the Boeotian sites.The normal and widespread practice of using ceramic vessels for cooking, recognizable in the Middle Byzantine period by sooting around the base and lower walls, was perhaps gradually superseded by a preference for metal pots. This new cooking trend began in some areas in Europe already before the mid 14th century. The ceramic evidence on the Boeotian sites is not very abundant as far as the later Middle Ages are concerned (in contrast to Hugo Blake’s sites in Northern Italy during the same period of time). The decline of pottery finds in the Late Byzantine/Frankish period is perhaps the result of factors such as an impoverishment of the Greek countryside caused by depopulation, wars and the Black Death during the 14th century. Turkish period – During the late 15th and 16th centuries things evidently changed in Boeotia. This is witnessed by finds of steadily growing numbers of imported upmarket wares from Italy and Turkey. Imported Monochrome and Polychrome Sgraffito Wares (Wares 24 and 25) and Maiolica (Ware 27) from Italy, as well as Iznik Ware (Ware 32) from Turkey were found on the rural sites and on the tower sites in Boeotia. Locally produced Maiolica-imitations (from Athens?) (Ware 28) were also

found on these sites. Furthermore, technological innovations (such as tin-glazed wares) and new pottery shapes (increase of trefoil mouth jugs) made their début in Boeotia. At the same time, we see the total disappearance of amphorae (probably replaced by wooden or leather containers) and unglazed cooking pots on all sites. During the Early Turkish period, the small amounts of pottery found in the Boeotian urban sites contrasts quite sharply with the notable increase of finds in major rural and tower sites (such as VM4 and Charmena). Especially the increase in the amount of finds on the tower sites in Boeotia is striking, and perhaps suggests that the areas around the so-called ‘Frankish’ towers in this region could have been (re)used (or inhabited) well into Turkish times. The numbers and also the increase of imported pottery (e.g. Wares 24-25, 27) seem to show that the economic conditions for the Boeotian population as a whole became more favourable during the late 15th and 16th centuries (which seems to be corroborated by the Ottoman census registers, see chapter 8). Apparently, the spending power of the population grew (in Blake’s terms: consumer demand increased), but the spending power of these potential purchasers of pottery did not increase to the extent that they were able to buy superior products substitutes such as Chinese Porcelain and Spanish or Italian lustrewares (which are known to have circulated in other parts of the Ottoman Empire). The substantial increase in imports during the 15th16th centuries must have made life less easy for the local potters. Competition with the low-prized and betterquality wares from abroad must have become fiercer. The local potters, however, did not innovate their pottery repertoire and they fell back on older decoration techniques (such as incising and slip-painting on red-bodied wares), which were often done in a crude manner. From the 17th century onward, the demand for locally produced wares perhaps decreased even more, as non-ceramic (and more durable and recyclable) materials, such as metal vessels, began to be used more often. However, the shifting balance between pottery and metal wares in 17th and 18th Greece is a complex one, and may be quite different for cooking pots and serving vessels. Early Modern period – During the 17th to early 19th centuries, we can hardly find tin-glazed wares, nor up-

287

market status wares like Porcelain or Kütahya Ware on the Boeotian sites. The period is generally characterized by conservatism and preservation of pottery production methods with the producers sticking to slip-coated wares of a low quality (such as Slip-painted Ware and the socalled ‘peasant porcelain’ from Çanakkale in Turkey). Does this imply that the living standards of the Boeotian villagers during this period were lower than before (in Blake’s terms: did demand decrease)? Or was there rather a regional difference in the access to wealth in Central Greece, because the Boeotian population was more selective in up-market products or used other types of materials (such as metal, leather and wood) in their household? The ‘boom’ of an integrated capitalist, export-orientated economy, which occurred throughout the entire Mediterranean area in the final decades of the 19th century, on the other hand, can also be seen to have had an impact on Boeotia. The results of the Boeotia survey show that mass-produced cheap pottery from this period is notably abundant on the rural sites in this region. One can especially note a peak of glazed kitchen wares (later replaced by metal and plastic in the 20th century). Only in industrial times with its advanced system of production, distribution and exchange, glazed tablewares and glazed kitchen wares seem to reach the majority of peasant households in Boeotia. Even small inland settlements in the region used glazed and domestic imports from the Mediterranean (Italy, Thrace, Crete, Siphnos, Turkey), as well as industrial manufactured wares from North-Western Europe (France and Great Britain). The cost of these modern products must have come down substantially. For the local potters competition with these imported mass-produced wares from Western Europe, which were both cheap and usually of better quality, must have been difficult. The typical Early Modern products in the Greek folk tradition which were found in Boeotia, like the carelessly slip-painted bowls from Didymoteicho (Ware 41) and the simpler cooking wares from Crete and Siphnos (Wares 42 and 43), were not very sophisticated. Apparently, this pottery was not intended for display but rather for practical use: in food preparation, storage and consumption. These locally produced domestic wares were undoubtedly the survivors, the left overs of the pottery industry in the Early Modern period; they do not represent the former production any more. Their

288

Table 10.7 Modified model of economic ‘core’ zones and leading cities in the East-West poles in the Mediterranean.

previous role was filled in during the 20th century by imports from the West, by plastics and by metal vessels. According to Blake’s model, the abundance of new wares in Early Modern times must be explained by an increase in demand. There probably was a general increase in consumer purchasing power in Early Modern Boeotia. But on the other hand, the question arises here whether the increased imports of pottery may not be easier explained at least in part by the emergence of cheap new products and cheap new distribution methods (steam ships for instance). 10.3.2 orton’s theory and the ceramics found in boeotia It is one thing to acknowledge the importance of Braudel’s general ideas on long-term economic trends, it is another to use Orton’s theory in the specific case of the Boeotia-area. The geographical-historical perspective I have chosen here to test Orton’s model is the entire Mediterranean region in Medieval and Post-Medieval times. Instead of starting from Braudel’s model of the economic core zones in a North and South pole (which apply for ‘Western Europe’), I have divided the Mediterranean into an East and West pole with the dividing line between Italy and Greece (as shown in table 10.7) because of obvious historical and geographical reasons. If one tries to identify the long-term economic trends in relation to the ceramics found in Boeotia (shown in tables 18.8a-b), the evidence seems to suggest an upswing in technological innovation during the 9th and 10th centuries, when a more prolific and varied ceramic production begin to appear in the Aegean area. This is

Table 10.8a-b Model of technological innovation in European and Near Eastern ceramics, modified for the ceramics found in Boeotia (after Braudel 1984 and Orton 1985).

marked, for instance, in the ceramics from Boeotia by the introduction of lead glazing and slip-coated techniques (as seen above in Wares 9, 10 and 11) which came from the Mediterranean core zone in the East (especially from the Near East, with Constantinople acting as intermediary). As Greece was an integral part of the Eastern Mediterranean economic system, it is probable that the new ‘revolutionary’ ceramic trends coming from the East had also their effect in the Boeotia-area, which can be seen in the pottery techniques. This upswing is followed by a downswing in technological innovation of the ceramics found in Boeotia around the mid 13th century with a stagnation of these techniques and even a reversion to less carefully manufactured glazed wares and less sophisticated decorated wares (Wares 16, 17 and 18). During that period, the Mediterranean core zone seems to have shifted from the East to the West (e.g. Northern Italy), marked by the spread of Western tin-glazed wares (such as Proto-

Maiolica and later Maiolica) into the Eastern Mediterranean economic system. During the Early Turkish period, the core zone changed again from the West back in the East (e.g. Istanbul), which is shown by a upswing in pottery technology with the introduction of a high-quality frit ware (Iznik Ware) and new pottery shapes (e.g. coffee cups) in the Eastern Mediterranean economic system. However,from the 18th century onwards the Eastern Mediterranean (including Boeotia) became definitively the periphery of the West-European core-zones (and a consumer market for Western mass produced pottery such as glazed tablewares and European manufactured Porcelain). As a result of this, locally produced wares in Greece became less sophisticated and were made in traditional decoration techniques. 10.3.3 two theories and the boeotian reality The result of the testing of both Blake’s and Orton’s

289

QUANTITY:

QUALITY:

Late Roman-Early Byzantine period

-

-

Middle Byzantine period

+

+

Late Byzantine/Frankish period

-

+

Early Turkish period

+

+

Late Turkish period

-

+

Early Modern period

+

-

PERIOD:

Table 10.9 Blake’s theory and the ceramics found in Boeotia.

PERIOD:

Economic core area:

Economic core area:

EAST

WEST

Late R.-Early Byzantine period Near East, (Constantinople) Middle Byzantine period

Near East, Cairo

Late Byzantine/Frankish period Early Turkish period

Islamic Spain Venice, Genoa, Pisa

Istanbul

Late Turkish period

W. Europe

Early Modern period

W. Europe

Table 10.10 Orton’s theory and the ceramics found in Boeotia, based on the Braudelian cycles in the Mediterranean.

models through the changes in quantity and quality of pottery from the Boeotian sites, may be summarized in the form of two tables (Tables 10.9 & 10.10). They reflect the variations in general economic prosperity and socioeconomic structure of this Greek region in Medieval and Post-Medieval times in relation to the ceramics. All in all, putting Blake’s theory to the test, using the Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery from the Boeotian sites, seems to indicate that the changes in consumer access to tin-glazed wares in Central Greece are quite similar but later in time to those he presented on the basis of the Ligurian assemblages from Northern Italy. Whether Blake’s explanation of these changes is wholly satisfactory, is another matter. His emphasis on demand as the decisive factor in triggering changes in pottery production seems in itself a valuable contribution to the debate how to understand local variation in ceramics in an historical perspective. The problem, however, seems to be that it is not always clear what triggers the changes in consumer demand itself (the causes may vary from the discovery of new cooking techniques and the import of new dining habits to falling

290

prices and to product innovation). In addition, Blake’s model seems to be based on a very rigid assumption about the place and function of pottery in domestic material culture, which apparently remains unchanged throughout the ages. This assumption, however, does not take into account conditions in which vessels of nonceramic materials (wood, metal) invade the domain of pottery and may diminish its visibility without a clear relation to changes in consumer demand or major shifts in the economy (cf. Vroom 1998b). This last problem may be raised also in relation to Orton’s model; although it would seem that his approach of combining economic trends with technological innovation does make some points which can be useful for future investigations in typo-chronological developments in pottery. It seems, for instance, certain that changes in pottery styles in Medieval and PostMedieval Greece cannot be understood fully without taking into account that the Aegean area was something of a periphery for both the Islamic/Arab and the Italian/Frankish economic systems. On the other hand is Orton’s approach perhaps a bit too strict in the way that it looks only at economic development, and not at other factors for explaining ceramic change or continuity. The model does not take into account, for instance, of socio-demographic developments and cultural processes, such as the autonomous changes of consumer’s preferences, dining habits or fashions in past communities. Changes in the pots themselves may also be due to the increased demand or sophistication of the market. It may also be due to improvements in living standards, to the availability of alternatives in different materials and to conscious copying, not only of vessels in stone, metal, glass, wood or leather, but also of the products of other kilns. In short, large scale economic cycles alone may not hold all the answers to explain changes in pottery types and technologies on a more local scale. Apparently, Orton realised this himself, because he explicitly noted that one should not overlook as an archaeologist ‘the personal attributes of will’, such as ‘emotional commitment and sheer pig-headness on the part of the innovator, and greed, vanity and boredom with existing forms on part of the consumer’ (Orton 1985, 22). If anything, both theories are not mutually exclusive and even complementary, as both focus on inter-related

aspects (consumer demand and economic cycles). In trying to understand the changing tides of ceramics in Boeotia from the Early Byzantine period to Early Modern times, a mixture of elements brought forward by Blake and Orton may prove the most fruitful, if used in an approach which also takes the cultural complexities of pottery changes into account. In any case, even after this preliminary exploration the survey data suggest that changes in demand do not necessarily have to run exactly parallel with larger ‘economic developments’.

,+./

Boeotia in a wider economic and geographical perspective

In order to understand the full implications of Blake’s and Orton’s theories for pottery changes in the research area, it is perhaps fruitful to take another look at Boeotia in Post-Medieval times, this time in an economic wider perspective (the rise and fall of the Ottoman Empire as well as the rise of the Western capitalist system). In the previous chapter we have discussed the production and distribution of Medieval and Post-Medieval wares both on a local (Boeotian) level, as well as on a regional (Aegean) level. We have seen that the majority of the local potters in Boeotia must have been locked into the system of rural ‘isolated workshops’, where the manufacturing costs were low and the raw materials readily available. Attention should, however, also be given to other types of wares, which were produced and traded on an interregional or long-distance level (the Mediterranean area and beyond). This perspective may clarify whether and to what extent the pottery finds in Boeotia reveal the degree to which the area was part of a wider economic and trade system. According to the archaeologist G.C. Dunning, there are three basic requirements of pottery to be used as an index of long-distance trade (Dunning 1968, 35). First, the pottery must be distinctive in style of decoration and in ware. Secondly, it must be readily distinguishable from the pottery of the country to which it is sent. And thirdly, the provenance of the pottery must be known (or definable within limits). The imported tin-glazed wares found on the Boeotian sites, such as Maiolica from the West and Iznik and Kütahya from the East, meet all these requirements. Besides, all these wares were manufactured after 1450

AD, were imported to Boeotia from Italy and Turkey, and were made on a high-quality technological scale. Relevant to this perspective is also the suggestion of the Ottomanist Suraiya Faroqhi: ‘Industries whose products were distributed over a wide area are more revealing about the state of the economy as a whole than those catering for a purely local market’ (Faroqhi 1995, 73). What she suggests, is that imported wares seemed to respond more quickly to increasing wealth and expanding markets, and were part of a wider, more ‘capitalistic’ distribution economy. This is certainly true for the early Post-Medieval period. It is certain that after 1500 AD pottery-making evolved from a humble craft producing local ware for everyday use into a highly skilled ‘industrial’ activity employing power-driven machinery. The arrival of the tin-glazed wares in Boeotia indicates, in short, that the region was on the one hand becoming more and more integrated in a larger geo-political body (the Ottoman Empire) and that it subsequently became part of larger economic developments, or as the sociologist Wallerstein would say: the particular system of ‘world-economy’. 10.4.1 wallerstein’s ‘world-system’ and boeotia: a test case The term ‘world-system’ was coined in the mid-1970s by Immanuel Wallerstein in his much-debated book The Modern World-System. Capitalist Agriculture and the origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century (Wallerstein 1974; later followed by additional publications in 1980 and 1989). In this book he suggested that Western Europe transformed after about 1450 AD into a ‘capitalist, modern world-system’, overshadowing, absorbing and conquering in the process other parts of the world, such as the Eastern Mediterranean and the Ottoman Empire. According to Wallerstein, such a ‘world-system’ represents a social system with durable structures and communities, which are typified by an all-embracing network of mutual interactions. In his The Modern WorldSystem he devotes much attention to the rise and fall of the Ottoman Empire in relation to the world-system. It is this part of his work which could be of interest for the understanding of developments in Boeotia (and the Aegean area). Wallerstein distinguished two forms of world-system: a ‘world-empire’ and a ‘world-economy’. With the term

291

‘world-empire’ he means a single social economy (or ‘division of labour’) with one overarching political structure. A ‘world-economy’, on the other hand, is a single social economy spreading throughout the world and containing multiple state-structures. In Wallerstein’s view the world-systems in Ancient and Medieval times seem dominated until ca. 1500 AD in Wallerstein’s view by the ‘world-empire’ variety. It was only after the rise of capitalist Western Europe in the 16th century that one form of new ‘world-economy’ developed. From then on, this capitalist world-economy would expand rapidly by virtue of its own internal dynamic. As it expanded, it incorporated the worldempires and mini-systems it found at its edges (such as the Ottoman Empire, including Boeotia), until by the 20th century it had integrated the entire globe. Thus according to Wallerstein, the Ottoman Empire found itself in Early Post-Medieval times economically outside the capitalist world-economy (Wallerstein 1979; Wallerstein et al 1987). In the 16th century the Ottoman Empire was in his view a classic case of a world-empire, and its long-distance trade was mainly trade in luxuries (or non-essentials) such as silk cloths and spices. However, thereafter the Ottoman Empire came into contact with the capitalist world-economy of Western Europe, and it was inevitably incorporated into the European world-economy. As a result, all economic production within the Ottoman Empire became more and more ‘peripheralized’, or dependent from and subjected to the economy of the central world-system. Wallerstein’s linkage of Ottoman history with the debate on world-systems theory as an explanatory model has been questioned since its formulation by historians, anthropologists and Ottomanists alike. To start with, the world-system perspective was criticized for its ‘onesideness’ and the ‘economism’ of its approach (see e.g. Ismanog©lu-Inan 1987; Woolf 1990 with further literature). The anthropologist Eric Wolf, in particular, criticized the ‘Eurocentric view’ of Wallerstein’s theory, in which it seems to be taken as a law of nature that an active and progressive centre (the West) subordinates and transforms a passive and backward periphery (the rest of the World) (Wolf 1982). Janet Abu-Lughod suggested that an advanced world-system already existed in the second half of the 13th century, including almost all regions (apart from the ‘New World’) that would be reintegrated in the 16th century. Especially the

292

time between the 13th and 16th centuries marked, according to her, a ‘transition’ period, in which the ‘Fall of the (Far) East’ preceded the ‘Rise of the West’ (AbuLughod 1989, 361; 1993). The Ottomanists Huri Islamog©lu and Çaglar Keyder also argued strongly against the thesis of the ‘peripheralization’ of the Ottoman Empire (Islamog©lu & Keyder 1977). On the other hand, the historian Suraiya Faroqhi has recently pointed to the fact that Wallerstein’s global perspective did draw the study of Ottoman history into a broader historical discussion, from which it benefited greatly (Faroqhi 1999, 18; see also Baram & Carroll 1999, 14 for this view). Indeed, it seems indisputable that as a result of the Wallerstein-discussion historical developments in the Ottoman Empire were viewed by scholars in a much wider perspective: transformations were no longer studied in isolation but as part of international patterns. More specifically, after Wallerstein more emphasis was put on the Ottoman Empire as part of the world economy, ‘as it expanded through trade and brought an ever-increasing regional specialization’ (Islamog©lu-Inan 1987, 8). Most Ottomanist historians, who embraced or drew inspiration from the world-system theory, concentrated their research now on the development of agricultural production, of the cotton-cloth manufacture or of the silk industry in various periods of Ottoman history (see Islamog©lu-Inan 1987 with literature). This has resulted in major steps forward in the understanding of these aspects of Ottoman socio-economic history. However, it is beyond the scope of this book to discuss the Wallerstein-debate in detail, or to weigh the merits and flaws of his model in relation to the rise and fall of the Ottoman Empire, let alone to fully explore here the problems and possibilities of it with respect to developments in Boeotia. Yet, it would seem that the Wallersteinian perspective, and the discussion it created, could in a general sense also be useful for archaeologists. It may help, for instance, to focus on the general question of what kinds of ceramics were available in the Eastern Mediterranean at particular points in time, and in particular, to address the question of what market forces may have affected the inhabitants of rural settlements in Medieval and Post-Medieval Boeotia in buying their pots. To use the words of Ian Morris on the matter of world-system theory and Mediterranean archaeology: ‘to concentrate on one particular locality in the ancient

Mediterranean without reference to its broader context is a meaningless exercise; but equally, to focus on some abstract concept of a world-system without examining how its members actually went about constructing it through adapting or resisting large-scale forces explains little’ (Morris 1999, 70). It seems, in short, fruitful to look with post-Wallersteinian eyes at the organization of production and at the trade patterns of wares which were imported in Boeotia after ca. 1450 AD. As a first effort I will specifically try to discuss here three types of Post-Medieval tin-glazed wares found in Boeotia in a Wallersteinian perspective: Maiolica from Italy, as well as Iznik Ware and Kütahya Ware from Turkey. I will discuss the organisation of production, the production costs, the pottery prices, and long-distance market patterns of these wares which can be associated with an expanding world-system.

Fig. 10.4 Engraving of a Maiolica kiln in N. Piccolpasso’s treatise The Three Books of the Potter’s Art, ca. 1557 AD (after Lightbown & Caiger-Smith 1980).

Fig. 10.5 Maiolica plate from Caffaggiolo of a pottery painter and his clients, ca. 1525 AD (after Thornton 1997, fig. 1).

10.4.2 production and distribution of maiolica (ca. 15th-16th c.) (figs. 10.4-5) Firstly, I will look here at the imported tin-glazed wares from Italy, mainly Maiolica, which came to Boeotia from the 15th century onwards. These imports came from the West, or in Wallersteinian terms: from the emerging world-system. The best primary source on the production and distribution of Maiolica is the already mentioned and beautifully illustrated Three Books of the Potter’s Art (the authorative edition is Lightbown & Caiger-Smith 1980). This is a treatise on the manufacture of this type of tinglazed ware written by the Italian amateur potter Cipriano Piccolpasso around 1557 AD (see fig. 10.4). It contains a very detailed description of the technique of Maiolica production.[1 ] An excellent discussion of this text and the role of the Maiolica industry in its socioeconomic context is to be found in an article by Richard Goldthwaite, on which much of the following section on the organisation of production of Maiolica is based (Goldthwaite 1989). Organisation of production – During the 15th century the number of Maiolica production centres increased in Northern and Central Italy, both regions offering good access to local clays and fuels to improve the quality of ceramic production. There was a huge variety in the nature, size and organisation of these North Italian workshops. The smallest were home-based single

293

potters; the largest ateliers employed specialist painters on contract as well as highly skilled kiln operators (Goldthwaite 1989, 4). The technology of Maiolica production quickly advanced. The kiln technology improved by the introduction of moulds and saggars, which increased the volume and speed of production while reducing costs (fig. 10.4). In addition, new potter’s techniques increased the pace with which changes in form and style followed upon each other. Among these new techniques were the discovery of tin-glaze, the introduction of new colours in the painted decoration (yellow, orange, crimson and cobalt blue), and experiments with lustre-effects and Porcelain (Goldthwaite 1989, 3-4). The heightened pace of product change went hand in hand with increasing demand. The rise of substantial consumer markets at home and abroad as well as changes in social habits created new demands for luxury pottery. Maiolica was considered fashionable and desirable as a substitute for metal vessels on the table (Goldthwaite 1989, 17-20). At the same time, a more refined business organisation developed in Renaissance Italy. Capital was invested in the Maiolica industry by entrepreneurial family dynasties and merchants with money. In the 15th century merchants from Florence made contracts with groups of individually producing household potters in nearby Montelupo. Successful potters became, according to Goldthwaite, ‘veritable entrepreneurs’. They entered into long-term contracts, they attracted investment capital and they marketed their products in other parts of Italy and abroad (Goldthwaite 1989, 7-9). This system of free enterprise was encouraged by the cities’ governments who offered exemption from taxes, monopoly rights and protection. At Faenza, for instance, the promotion of sales abroad took place under the patronage of the communal government. Maiolica workshops were also granted privileges of sole manufacture for a certain period, to encourage the expenditure of capital in a way which was expected to benefit trade and manufacture and to provide employment (Goldthwaite 1989, 10). Production costs – The highest costs in the Maiolica production were the transportation of fuel and of raw materials. A 15th century potter’s account book recorded payments for transport of dried wood (required for

294

firing the vessels) by the cartload from up to 8 km (5 miles) away (Thornton 1997, 117 and note 14). Furthermore, not all the Maiolica production centres used local clays. Piccolpasso explains, for example, that Venetian potters used clays from Ravenna, Pesaro and Ferrara, as well as from places as far as Padua and Rimini (Lightbown & Caiger-Smith 1980, 13; cf. also Thornton 1997, 116 and n. 8). Tin, cobalt blue and other raw materials for glazes and pigments also had to be imported from abroad and were therefore expensive (Goldthwaite 1989, 7). In fact, the main raw materials for the manufacture of Maiolica, such as white clay, tin and cobalt blue, were only found in a few places in the Mediterranean. The tin used by the Italian potters travelled considerable distances (from England, Flanders, Bavaria and Bohemia) in what must have been a profitable and highly organised trade (Lightbown & Caiger Smith 1980, 54; Wilson 1987, 24). However, it was the cost of labour rather than the cost of raw materials that determined the price. A factor which greatly contributed to the production costs was the addition of a skilled draftsperson to the Maiolica workshop (fig. 10.5). In 15th century Italy, the cost of a painter’s touch added an extra one third to the price of a vessel. A painted Maiolica pot cost, therefore, a third more than a plain one (Lightbown & Caiger-Smith 1980, 111-21; fig. 10.5). The same difference in prizes because of painter’s costs can be seen in 16th century Holland, where monochrome blue painted Delftware was remarkably less expensive than the rest of richly decorated Delftware (Van Aken-Fehmers 1999, 28). (It may be noted that in ancient Athens in the mid fifth century BC an undecorated black-glazed vessel costed 25 to 50 percent less that a contemporary red-figured counterpart; cf. Johnston 1991a, 228; 1991b and Stissi 2002, table XIII.1). Pottery prices – Notwithstanding the costs of the long distance trade, Maiolica was generally moderately, even low, priced in the regions to where it was exported (Van Gelder 1973, II, 128, note 6). In fact, the prices were low enough to bring it within reach of some groups of the population of the importing region. It has been estimated, for instance, that in 14th century Holland a Maiolica jug from Spain costed three pennies, whereas a pewter jug costed 136 pennies (Baart 1993, 172). Furthermore, recent archaeological studies have shown that in 16th century Amsterdam a substantial number of

well-to-do households possessed one or more Maiolica items (from Italy, from Spain or from the Netherlands itself) (Baart 1986a, 78; 1986b, 99). The really upmarket segments of the pottery market, on the other hand, were formed by Porcelain and lustre products. These wares were relatively more expensive: they were costly in materials, as well as in invested labour, and in addition had a high failure rate. The technically difficult (and consequently more expensive) Porcelain and lustre-decorated earthenware were, therefore, only produced in some areas of Italy for a limited market. Prices differed a lot among these wares. In 17th-18th century Holland, the cost of red earthenware was only one stiver, of Dutch Maiolica three stivers, but hand painted Porcelain costed at least 40 stivers (Baart 1993, 172). Daily wages of skilled labourers in the Netherlands came during the 16th-17th centuries to around 12 stivers a day (Noordegraaf 1985, tables 5a-n; Baart 1986b, 95), So, a hand painted Porcelain vessel costed in those times approximately three and a half days of work, whereas a Maiolica vessel costed only four hours of work. Distribution – The commercial success of Italian Maiolica extended even to foreign markets. During the 15th and 16th centuries the pottery production town of Montelupo, for instance, seemed to have obtained a near monopoly of the Maiolica trade in the Mediterranean, ranging from Egypt in the East and Spain in the West. Then, the trade went further up the Channel to both sides of the North Sea (Hurst, Neal & van Beuningen 1986, 12). The distribution of Maiolica from inland Montelupo to North-Western Europe ran via the port of Pisa. From there, Genoese ships transported from 1427 AD onwards the vessels around the Mediterranean to ports of trade as far away as Antwerp and Southampton (Baart 1991, 233; Mallet 1972, 251-253). From there, the Maiolica from Montelupo found its way even to the New World. At the end of the 16th century, ships from Amsterdam began to collect the Maiolica made in Liguria themselves. During the early decades of the 17th century, Dutch ships were also responsible for the distribution of Maiolica from Faenza which they took aboard in Venice (Mallet 1972, 25; Baart 1986, 86; 1991, 233)

Fig. 10.6 Miniature of the guild of potters showing a pottery atelier before Sultan Murad III, Topkapi Palace Museum Library, H 1344 (fol 405b), ca. 1582 AD (after Atasou & Raby 1989, fig. 42).

Fig. 10.7 Miniature of a fruit seller’s shop with Iznik pottery, Topkapi Palace Museum Library, H. 1711 (fol 14a), 1595-1603 AD (after Atasoy & Raby 1989, fig. 11).

295

10.4.3 production and distribution of iznik and kütahya wares (ca. 16th-18th c.) (figs. 10.6-7) From the 16th century onward, the other main types of imported luxury pottery in Boeotia were Iznik and Kütahya wares. Both came from the heart of the Ottoman Empire, which was during this period in a Wallersteinian perspective doomed to ‘peripheralization’. Here, I will treat the two main pottery production centres in Western Turkey, Iznik and Kütahya, as a single group. As other scholars have pointed out, the products of Kütahya can not easily be distinguished from those of Iznik until the beginning of the 18th century (Lane 1957, 19; Atasoy & Raby 1989, 74; Carswell 1998, 115). In fact, for most of the Ottoman wares of the 16th17th centuries it still remains difficult to establish their provenance. Of Iznik and Kütahya, the former was the pre-eminent production centre, but not the only place in the Ottoman Empire where glazed wares were made in the 16th and 17th centuries. We now know that glazed vessels and tiles were also manufactured in Damascus and Diyarbakir, as well as at the Tekfur Sarayi kilns and Golden Horn kilns at Istanbul (Atasoy & Raby 1989, 74; Yenis∏ ehirliog©lu 1996; 2000; Henderson 2001, 200). Organisation of production – The vessels and tiles from Iznik and Kütahya were entire commissioned by the Ottoman court in Istanbul: for daily use in the kitchens of the Imperial household, as well as for monumental architectural decoration (fig. 10.6). The government tightly controlled the production processes, that is: it allocated the raw materials, the quantity and quality of the goods produced, and it also regulated the pottery prices. The interference of the Ottoman authorities was, however, not always a stimulus for the pottery production. The government attempted to control the quantity of production, sometimes even at the expense of its quality, rather than to encourage technological refinement or the introduction of new designs and shapes. According to some scholars, the patronage of the court and the designs provided by it were so strictly enforced that to a certain extent the Iznik and Kütahya workshops can be considered to have been a virtual extension of the Palace ateliers (Atasoy & Raby 1994, 230). In short, the pottery production at Iznik/Kütahya was a highly centralized industry. On the other hand, although the Ottoman state sponsored ceramic produc-

296

tion in the 15th and 16th centuries, workshops and kilns were in principle privately owned by master artisans, and many workshops operated in a family tradition. The entire ceramic production was done by the master craftsmen and their apprentices (cf. fig. 10.6). Only some workshops knew a division of labour (Denny 1977, 190). In Iznik, the workshops and kilns were close to each other in the city centre and fell under central control and provisioning. The 17th century traveller Evliya Çelebi remarked that some 300 potters were active in the town, although Western scholars nowadays tend to think that this figure is too high (Atasoy & Raby 1989, 63; Henderson 2001, 182-83). Recent excavations revealed, however, some 30 pottery kilns in only a small area in Iznik (Altun et al. 1991). Creditors and the state owned part of the workshop’s capital. Official representatives of the Ottoman state not only supervised production, but also obtained and distributed supplies for potters, which would later be repaid from the proceeds of sales (Atasoy & Raby 1994, 63). A firman (imperial edict) of 1598 AD, for instance, forbade potters who were making tiles for the state from working for others, before they had completed state orders (Atasoy & Raby 1989, 63). Other edicts forbade the potters from selling their wares to private pottery merchants until state orders had been completed. According to the Ottomanist Michael Rogers, this state interference argues for ‘a high, if periodically variable, degree of dirigisme in the Ottoman economy, both in production and consumption’ (Rogers 1986, 135). However, state control over the potters was not total. Despite state regulation the ‘open market’ was still a significant factor (fig. 10.7). While commissioned works made up a significant portion of the production, Iznik wares were also sold through private middlemen on the free market (Aslanapa et al. 1989, 21). In 1633 AD the Ottoman traveller Evliya Çelebi described a parade of 300 merchants of pottery before Sultan Murad IV. According to his report, the merchants adorned their shops with ‘fayence of Nicaea (Iznik) and Kutahie’, obviously to promote sales to the public (Carswell 1976, 42; see also fig. 10.7 for the use of Iznik pottery in a shop). Production costs – The Iznik/Kütahya workshops were located in Western Turkey, in a region with plentiful supply of non-resinous wood for firing. A document

from 1719 AD describes that the judge (naib) of Iznik and the governor of the province of Kocaeli were asked to provide 50,000 kilos of pine wood for the kilns at Tekfur Sarayi in Istanbul (Anhegger 1941, 176-77; Henderson 2001, 187). Raw materials were the major production expenditure. Quartz, used for making frit ware (a siliceous clay bodied ware), was available in abundant quantities in the beds of nearby creeks and rivers. However, the other primary materials, such as clay, soda and colouring pigments, came from quite a long distance. In addition, tin (for the glaze) had to be imported from abroad and was not cheap. The production process of Iznik/Kütahya wares in the pottery workshops was undoubtedly the last phase of a complex network of contacts between the miners obtaining the raw materials, the middlemen who supplied the materials to tradesmen who sold them, and finally, the potters (Henderson 2001, 184). The preserved records from a frit ware workshop at Meybod, give a clear indication of the production costs for a potter. Labour formed only a low percentage of the production costs. Also here the raw materials, such as silica, frit and colouring pigments, were quite expensive and amounted to no less than 72.5 percent of the total costs. Fuel amounted to 21 percent and labour only to 6.5 percent of the production costs (see Atasoy & Raby 1989, 63). Pottery prices – We have some information on the prices of the glazed pottery from Iznik and Kütahya. The earliest document mentioning Iznik ceramics in use at the Topkapi Palace can be dated to 1489-90 AD (Atasoy & Raby 1989, 30). This register lists the types, quantities and prices of items, including Iznik pottery, purchased for the Imperial kitchens. We learn from the document that the cost of 97 Iznik vessels was at that time 1916 akçe (silver coins), or about 40 akçe a piece (almost 1 Venetian ducat). Daily wages of unqualified labourers in Bursa were in 1502 AD 4 to 7 akçe a day, of master-artisans between 8 and 12 akçe a day (as a comparison: 0,960 kg. of mutton costed 1 akçe in Bursa; cf. Yerasimos 2001, 45 for these prices). Consequently, an Iznik vessel costed in those times approximately six to ten days of work for unqualified workers and three and half to five days of work for master-artisans. In an account from 1617-8 AD, one and a half

Ware: ‘When they are Iznik’ ‘When they are Kütahya’

‘New price’:

‘Old price’:

10

14

8 or 7

16

Table 10.11 Prices of Iznik Ware and Kütahya Ware in a 1600 AD list.

century later, the prizes of 6331 types of Iznik ceramics differed from 60.70 akçe for a large jar to only 2 akçe for a small cup (Atasoy & Raby 1989, 30). By this time, the Iznik potters apparently preferred more and more to make vessels for sale on the open market rather than ceramics on commission for the court. A royal decree sent to Iznik in 1585 AD had ordered the workshops to stop making tablewares for the open market and turn their energies toward making tiles for the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul. Throughout its existence, the Ottoman court was trying to control inflation by setting legally enforceable fixed prices on all sorts of products. For Iznik and Kütahya wares, the prices were pegged to an artificially low level. Two of the government registers of fixed prices for the sale of various ceramics have been published so far: one is dated to the 15th September 1600 AD, the other to the 31st December 1640 AD (Atasoy & Raby 1989, 24-5; see also Carswell 1991, 52; Akalin & Bilgi 1997, 13). The pottery recorded in the 1600 AD list is arranged by type. Under the heading of ‘salad and sweetmeat dishes’, the following prices (both and ‘old price’ and a ‘new price’) of pottery from Iznik and Kütahya are given (see Table 10.11). The list shows a puzzling (and as yet unexplained) reversal: not only are the ‘old prices’ for Kütahya and Iznik wares higher than the ‘new prices’ but the ‘new price’ for Kütahya is below that of Iznik, while the ‘old price’ was higher. The cost of a dish remained constant at 30 akçe between 1578 and 1617-8 AD, while the price of a deep bowl was 7.75-8 akçe in 1617-8 AD and 7 akçe in the schedule of fixed prices of 1640 AD (Atasoy & Raby 1989, 32). This price stability was, according to Atasoy and Raby, in sharp contrast with the general economic situation in the late 16th and the early 17th century, when the Empire saw a continuous debasement of the coinage in rapid price inflation (Atasoy & Raby 1989, 32).

297

Apart from these government registers of fixed prices, probate registers also list the prices of Iznik and Kütahya wares together with Chinese Porcelain in inventories of estates. They show that Iznik pottery is always valued lower than Chinese Porcelain, although for one inventory of the possessions of one Haci Hürrem Bey, dated 1623 AD, a piece of Chinese Porcelain is valued at 150 akçe, compared to 60 akçe for an Iznik dish and 500 akçe for a Kütahya dish (Carswell 1991, 53; Akalin & Bilgi 1997, 13). Furthermore, prices and quantities in the probate inventories of Edirne’s well-to-do residents seem to indicate that, compared to Chinese Porcelain, tin-glazed pottery was cheap and widely available (Atasoy & Raby 1989, 25-7). The potter’s skill and the taste of the decoration made them an acceptable and cheaper substitute for Porcelain, and for metal. Distribution – The Ottoman government imposed strict controls over internal and external trade (Islamog©lu & Keyder 1977, 40-41). This control was affected through the granting of concessions to merchants. The sale of these concessions provided the state with revenue. The extent of mercantile activity and therefore mercantile accumulation was thus controlled. Furthermore, through restrictions, sanctions and prohibitions the flow of commodities (such as pottery) inside the Ottoman Empire was regulated. In spite of this controlled trade inside and outside the Ottoman Empire, Iznik and Kütahya wares were distributed beyond the Mediterranean. Fragments have been found in excavations ranging from Fustat (old Cairo) in Egypt to Southern Russia and Waltham Abbey in Great Britain (Azarnoush-Maillard 1977, 127, fig. 35c; Huggins 1969, 93, pl. 1). Excavations and field surveys in Greece have revealed that Iznik and Kütahya ceramics were also known in this part of the Ottoman Empire. The 1570s provided the first interest from Europe in ceramics from Iznik/Kütahya in the form of orders (and imitations) (Atasoy & Raby 1989, 264). Italian cities, such as Venice, Genoa and Florence, were intermediaries in the trade with Western Europe. Genoese merchants, for example, docked their ships alongside the wharf at Karamürsel in Iznik, and purchased about 2000 pieces of pottery on each occasion. Sometimes the Genoese merchants even had a permanent representative in Iznik, who throughout the year visited the workshops

298

attempting to procure or order the goods they required (Kırımli 1983, 50-52). Furthermore, the Dalmatian city of Ragusa was a major trading partner of the Ottomans in the 16th century. Iznik and Kütahya wares were sold to the West by retailers in Istanbul, where the Venetian and Genoese merchants had headquarters in Galata, and found their way through Venice and Ragusa into Germany and the North. To illustrate the extent of the Ottoman exports, some precious jugs from Iznik are of special interest (Sarre 1939). They were exported in the 16th century and later, and acquired silver-gilt lids in Europe. Such a jug turned up in Halle, Germany, probably through trade with Venice, as must also be the case with similar jugs found in England and Holland (Sarre 1939, 345). We learn from the Journal of Stephan Gerlach, secretary of the Austrian embassy in Istanbul between 1573 and 1578 AD, that his master, David Ungnad, had spent over 100 ducats on pottery vessels and 1000 thalers on ‘Nicaean tiles’ for shipment via Venice, which was quite a lot of money (Lane 1957, 58). Other written sources identify the trade of Kütahya vessels still existing in the early 18th century. The French merchant Paul Lucas listed, for instance, in 1715 AD the types of Kütahya Ware he sent back from Istanbul ‘une douzaine de tasses à café avec leurs soucoupes, une tasse, deux bouteilles pour mettre de l’eau de rose, deux salières et deux escritoires, le tout de porcelaine de Cutaje’, or: a dozen coffee cups with their saucers, a cup, two bottles for rose water, two salts and two escritoires, all made of porcelain from Kütahya (as cited by Lane 1957, 63). Another Frenchman, Claude Charles de Peyssonnel, French Consul in the Crimea in 1753 AD, listed among the products traded there each year, ‘environs deux cents paniers de fayence de Cutahié de tout espèce, comme pots, vases de toutes grandeurs, tasses à sorbet et à café, etc.’, or: approximately two hundred baskets of faience from Kütahya of all sorts, such as pots, vessels of all sizes, cups for sherbet and for coffee etc. (as cited by Carswell 1991, 54). 10.4.4 wallerstein’s core-periphery theory and the boeotian imports One of the basic elements in the ‘world-system’ theory of Wallerstein is the relation between core areas and periphery areas (Wallerstein 1974). A summary of his discussion of the differences between core areas and

CORE

PERIPHERY

expanding mercantile city states

‘stagnant’ bureaucratic empires

decentralised

centralised

wealth finance

staple finance (supplies of raw materials)

segmentary society

territorial

control developed more technological skills and production processes

lack of this

control forms of labour organisation (such lack of this as wage labour) strong state-ideological apparatus to defend its interests

lack of this

high-wage (but low-supervision)

low-wage (but high-supervision)

high profit

low profit

high-capital intensive goods

low-capital intensive goods

made by ‘free’wage-renumerated labour

coerced labour; control over persons

Table 10.12 Wallerstein’s differences in core areas and periphery areas.

periphery areas, may be visualized in a table (Table 10.12). This schematic outline of Wallerstein’s coreperiphery model seems to fit perfectly to the 16th century tin-glazed pottery industries in Italy and Turkey respectively, the first area being the centre, and the second the periphery. The Maiolica production in Italy flourished under various mercantile city states, encouraging decentralisation of the industry in numerous centres (which produced wares with their own particular qualities). These city states defended improvement in technology which increased levels of production output (and consequently higher profits). Furthermore, the Maiolica industry was characterized by free enterprise and capital investment by entrepreneurs. The production of the wares was often in remote rural areas, presenting a further challenge to entrepreneurship. The highest production costs were for the transport of raw materials and fuel, as well as for the higher wages of the specialists who were involved in the manufacturing process. The Ottoman court in Istanbul, on the other hand, was the seat of a highly centralized, bureaucratic government, which took centralisation of the tin-glazed pottery production at Iznik and Kütahya for granted. The Ottoman government commissioned orders, regulated

fixed (low) pottery prices, supervised the quantity of production and distribution (often at the expense of its quality). The state did not encourage the introduction of new shapes or designs, or the promotion of sales. In fact, there was no real open market of demand and supply; the state owned most of the workshop’s capital and supplies. There existed no ‘free’ wage labour, but paid employment (with high supervision). Raw materials were the major expenditure, whereas labour formed the lowest percentage of the production costs. The Boeotian imports – During the 16th century, ceramic influences and imports from the West seem to be much more significant in Boeotia than imports from the East (32 Maiolica sherds and 45 Maiolica-imitated sherds versus 4 sherds from Iznik and Kütahya). Apparently, the emerging city states in Italy had a bigger economic impact in Boeotia than Istanbul, the centre of the Ottoman Empire of which Boeotia was part of in the 16th to 18th centuries. Perhaps this has to do with the dynamics of distribution of pottery, in which Central Greece was since the 12th-13th centuries part of an Italian marketing area. However, the Italian merchants undoubtedly had to make more efforts to distribute their products in Greek lands than in other markets in which they operated, because this region had during the 16th century a different (precapitalist, pre-Modern) society than Italy. From circa 1500 AD the tin-glazed wares found in Boeotia were manufactured in production centres far removed from the place of their consumption. The ceramic finds thus seem to indicate that the rise and expansion of the ‘Modern’ commercial and early-capitalist economy did not leave Central Greece untouched. On the other hand, it should be taken into account that the flourishing of the Boeotian villages during the 16th century (and thus the rise in rural purchasing power) was also the result of the regeneration of the oldfashioned market system under early Ottoman rule. In effect, the Ottoman economy may have been ‘westernizing’ through imports without changing immediately towards capitalism itself. Still, the notable influx of western ceramics into Boeotia may well mark the first step of the region into the expanding sphere of influence of what Wallerstein calls the emerging ‘world- system’. Apart from the theory, it is clear that in Greece the access to luxury wares increased substantially. In

299

Medieval times only the elite could afford the products available by long-distance trade, but in Post-Medieval times an ever increasing number of people had the opportunity to buy objects manufactured in distant places around the world (for instance tin-glazed wares from Italy and Turkey and Porcelain from China). Fragments of Maiolica, of Iznik Ware and of Kütahya Ware have been found in urban centres in Greece (e.g. Athens, Corinth, Thebes and Thessaloniki), as well as on rural sites in Boeotia and Eastern Phokis. The archaeological records seem to show that from the 16th century onwards a consumer revolution occurred in Boeotia as it did in the European world, as goods that were once only available to the wealthy could be purchased increasingly also by common people (McKendrick 1982, 9-13).

,+.0

Summary

In this chapter I have tried to shed light on the Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery found in Boeotia by using various models which seek to explain archaeological and historical change. My aim was to contribute to the understanding of the sherds found in Boeotia in a wider perspective, specifically in the perspective of historical developments in the entire Mediterranean area. In the first part of the chapter, I have discussed two current models of long-term regional changes in Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery. The first of those is Hugo Blake’s theory, which explores the mechanisms of demand and consumption by counting survey sherds from different types of settlements in a region. Notwithstanding the very real problems concerning breakage-frequency and reuse of pottery as well as his quite uniform approach to the role of pottery in general, his model seems to contain several useful elements which can contribute tot the understanding of the stylistic and technological changes in the ceramics found in Boeotia. The second model is Clive Orton’s theory, which combines economic trends with technological innovation. This theory has also some useful point to make in its line of approach for future investigation in typo-chronological developments in pottery. The model looks, however, purely at economic incentives and does not take into account socio-demographic developments and cultural processes such as the processes of consumer’s choices or fashions in past communities.

300

In short, it seems that both theories can be used as complementary models for the material found in Boeotia. Blake’s counting of survey sherds offered a very useful way of ordering the material, while at the same time Orton’s model seemed valid to explain certain trends in pottery found in Boeotia. Both models are, however, still rather rudimentary and provide no more than a first step to explain changes in pottery production and demand. In the second part of the chapter I have tried to look at the material found in Boeotia from a meta-regional perspective. My aim was to explore whether Wallerstein’s world-system theory could contribute to the discussion of large-scale economic processes on pottery found in Boeotia. The archaeological record seems to suggest that from the 16th century onwards the small region of Boeotia, part of the Ottoman Empire and flourishing in its own right under the Pax Ottomanica, slowly came under the shadow of the wider expanding world economy from the West. The linkage between Boeotia and the two competing systems in the Post-Medieval period is exemplified by the finds of types of wares which were produced and traded on an interregional level. These included tin-glazed wares, which were imported to Boeotia from Italy (such as Maiolica) and Turkey (such as Iznik and Kütahya wares). In order to understand the changes in pottery types in Boeotia during this period, I have tried to look with post-Wallersteinian eyes at the organisation of production, the production costs, the pottery prices and longdistance market patterns of the imported wares. The use of Wallerstein’s model seemed to show rather clearly the fundamental differences between the capitalist structure of the Maiolica industry in Italy (a core area in the emerging ‘world-system’) and the feudalist Ottoman system of the Iznik-Kütahya workshops in Turkey (an area becoming more peripheralized during this period). However, Wallerstein’s model seems to offer less insight into the complicated mechanisms of changing demand and supply of pottery, especially at the regional scale as the one in Boeotia. It is therefore probably inadequate to use as a key a ‘super model’ (as already stated by Bintliff 2000). It may be illuminating to use Wallerstein’s model, in order to get a wider perspective on perhaps small-time developments in a small-time region

in the periphery of the European theatre, but other casestudies using Wallerstein’s world-system theory have also showed that the reality is often more complex than his model can explain (see in general Kardulias 1999). This also holds true for the study of the tin-glazed pottery industries in Post-Medieval times. Nevertheless, it is safe to conclude that the perspectives of Blake, Orton and Wallerstein are helpful in underlining: 1) the close relation between technological changes in pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean in general and in Boeotia in particular; 2) the relation between technological changes and the processes of supply and demand on a regional scale; 3) the relation between regional changes and changes on a supraregional or even global level. The benefit of these three theories is that they draw attention to these problems.

notes 1. This new technique was described by Cipriano Piccolpasso around 1557 AD as follows: the vessel was made on a wheel and given a first firing to a temperature of about 1000° Centigrade. The ware was then dipped in a lead glaze with added tin-oxide, which produces a white, opaque surface that is suitable for painted decoration. The main pigments used were blue from cobalt, purple and brown from manganese, green from copper and yellow from antimony. After painting, the ware was dipped in, or sprinkled with, a clear lead glaze. It was then stacked in the kiln, sometimes carefully packed in protective saggars. The second firing (about 950° Centigrade) both fused the glaze and developed the colours of the painted decoration.

301

1 1 – D I N I N G H A B I T S I N L AT E R O M A N A N D BY Z A N T I N E T I M E S a preliminary survey of the pictorial evidence and the written sources

,,., Introduction In this chapter I will present a first and preliminary survey of the use of table equipment (pottery and cutlery) in Late Roman and Byzantine times. In doing so, I will use the two obvious sources of information: pictorial representations of dining scenes and textual sources on this subject from ca. the 3rd to the 15th centuries. The aim of this survey is to establish whether the pictorial and written sources can contribute to the understanding of post-classical dining habits in the Eastern Mediterranean, of their changes over time, and, consequently, of the changes in form and function of the ceramics found in Boeotia. It is not my intention in any way to strive for completeness in this survey, but rather to establish whether this is a fruitful line of approach to explain long-term changes in the ceramics found in Boeotia. It remains for others to explore this field of research more fully in the future. As far as the pictorial sources are concerned, I will look at dining scenes from religious and secular Byzantine art, and at pictures of the Last Supper scene in particular. Specifically, my attention will be focused on the depiction of the Last Supper in the Byzantine East as an actual meal (and not as a liturgical act) from the 5th century onwards. However, it is not my intention to discuss here all the known representations of the Last Supper scene in Byzantine art. I will concentrate my discussion upon those pictures in which the depicted scene has relevance for the understanding of the changes in shape and function of the ceramics found in Boeotia. In relation to dining habits in Late Roman and Byzantine times, there is a wide range of textual sources available, but mostly with indirect evidence. Written sources relevant to the subject include, amongst others, lexicography’s and dictionaries, hagiographic sources, miracle stories, but also poems, cookbooks, medical treatises and manuals of ceremonies. For the Roman period, many of these sources have already been collected in 1864 in a slightly different perspective by Joachim Marquardt in his Das Privatleben der Römer (2nd ed. rev. by A. Mau in 1886); for the Byzantine period the same work

has been done by Phaidon Koukoules in his fifth volume on Byzantine Life and Civilisation (1952, 136-69). After the survey of the sources in this chapter, I will use the next chapter to compare this material with the general archaeological evidence on Late Roman and Byzantine dining habits in Greece. Thereafter, I will sketch briefly the pictorial and textual sources on wining and dining in Ottoman times. Finally, I will try to integrate the information derived from all the postclassical sources in an effort to reconstruct the broad outlines of the cultural history of eating and drinking in Greece. As said, the aim is to establish whether the changes over time in dining manners may help us to understand typo-chronological developments in the ceramics found in Boeotia.

,,.-

Problems and possibilities in iconographical interpretation

11.2.1 problems Using representations of pottery in Byzantine art as a source of historical information may not be as easy as it would seem. When we look at a painted vessel on an icon or on a miniature as an object on a table, do we really see what we seem to see? Is it possible to draw any historical conclusions, formulate any hypothesis on the social meaning and historical context of the painted pots, or are we merely looking at formalistic religious schemes depicting fixed theological scenes? Although it may sound dangerously close to a platitude, it is not entirely superfluous to note here that the Byzantines did not perceive the world around them in the same way as we do nowadays. Certainly Byzantine artists had no interest in depicting the everyday reality of their time as precisely as possible. Fundamentally, they were more interested in the representation of moral and theological problems. Indeed, nearly all Byzantine painting is religious in content and is based on the faithful reproduction of stereotyped compositions, that were prescribed by the rules of the Orthodox Church (cf.

303

Mango 1981, 50-51 and Dauterman Maguire & Maguire 1992, 2-3). For instance, in their faithful reproduction of formulas the Byzantine artists represented all biblical figures in clothes of the period of the Later Roman Empire (consisting of a tunic and chlamys); contemporary Byzantine costume was not used (Mango 1980, 272). It has even been suggested that ceramics on Byzantine mosaics, miniatures or frescoes may have had no relation with actual objects, but had a purely symbolic meaning. According to this view, the seemingly realistic representation of the pot or vessel would be more or less a coincident. If this is true (or partly true), one consequence would be that certain forms of vessels – real or imaginary – may have served for many decades as a standard example for a school of artists. Other pots may have been neglected by artists because the colour or form did not fit in their aesthetic and religious traditions. 11.2.2 possibilities This is not the place to discuss extensively the problem whether Byzantine artists represented the reality of their own times, or repeated a standard repertoire (which may even have its origin in the Early Christian period). It suffices to note that the subject should be approached carefully. According to the British art historian Robin Cormack, what was seen as tradition and orthodoxy was by no means constant. He remarked that ‘images help to show not only the permanence of the amalgam [between church and state] over the centuries, but also the changes in character demonstrated by the way in which the uses and perceptions of art altered’ (Cormack 1985, 253). The best way to proceed would be to formulate two basic questions: does the pictorial and written evidence indicate a clear development in the portrayal of dining scenes? And if so, do the depicted and described artefacts make anything clear about the cultural changes of dining manners? I hope to show that it is possible to document, through art, certain aspects of the development of Byzantine and Medieval table manners. This is particularly feasible from Late Antique times onwards, as it is in this period that representations of dining scenes can be related to textual sources. In looking at the sources, I will be strictly focussing on the depicted vessels, beakers and cutlery, and will stay clear of the theological or iconographical implications of the dining scenes, (as well as of the possible symbolism of the depicted food).

304

As said, I will treat here in some detail the Last Supper scene in Byzantine art, trying to establish the evolution in the depiction of the table settings and attributes from the 5th century onwards. Now and then I will also use examples from other dining scenes from religious and secular art to illustrate my line of thought. Pictures presenting Christ’s last meal can be found in the Orthodox East, as well as in the Latin West. In the East, the scene is frequently depicted on frescoes, in miniatures, in mosaics etc. Early presentations of the Last Supper in the Byzantine East are of two main types, which are strictly separated: the scene is presented as a meal (with Jesus and the Apostles seated or reclining around a table) or as a liturgical act (the Communion of the Apostles; cf. Dobbert 1891: 451-62; 1892, 507-27 and Wessel 1964). One may wonder whether depictions of the Last Supper are suited as illustrations of changing dining habits, as some consider the scene to be the subject treated the most conservatively by Byzantine artists in their repertoire. However, a closer look at apparently similar looking depictions of the Last Supper from various periods reveal clear developments over time, in particular quite fundamental changes in key details in dining habits. As will be shown in this chapter, the scene of the Last Supper as a meal is not one of the most conservative depictions in Byzantine iconography as some scholars suggest (see also Dobbert 1891; Millet 1916; Wessel 1964 for this discussion). The Last Supper is of great interest, because it is the only dining scene in Byzantine art (especially in book-illustrations and miniatures) which can be seen with a high frequency over a long period of time, even in those centuries for which we have hardly any other pictures (such as the 8th and 9th centuries). Here, I will argue that we can indeed observe a clear long-term development of dining habits on the Last Supper scenes from Late Antiquity onwards. In doing so, I will also use other depictions of dining scenes in Byzantine iconography (among them ‘Job’s children’ or the ‘Hospitality of Abraham’) to support my arguments.

,,..

From Roman banquets to the Last Supper

Dining scenes of the Byzantine period seem to develop out of early Christian figurative art, which in its turn had

adopted the traditional Roman banquet scenes. Especially from the 3rd century onwards, banquet scenes were depicted in relief on marble sarcophagi covers and in simple paintings on plaster, which can be found in burial chambers and little subterranean chapels in Rome and Ostia (see in general, Dölger 1943, figs. 304-14 for the sarcophagi; Stevenson 1978 for the paintings and Jastrzebowska 1979 with references to the earlier literature). 11.3.1 at christ’s table The catacomb paintings often show a communal meal, consisting of eating bread and fish and drinking wine (sometimes interpreted in a Eucharist or funeral sense). There are also various depictions of dining scenes from the New Testament, such as the ‘Multiplication of Loaves and Fishes’ (ca. 38 known examples) and the ‘Wedding at Cana’ (much less frequent), or of the ‘Banquet of the Blessed in Heaven’ (even less frequent). The prominent display in catacomb art of fish, loaves of bread and winevessels has often been regarded as a symbolic representation of the Eucharist, not of the actual diet (Baum 1944). Recently, this common opinion is beginning to be disputed, and I will argue below in a short survey that the picture is indeed more complex than formerly supposed. The first publications of banquet scenes on wall paintings and sarcophagi appeared already in the 17th century (Jastrzebowksa 1979 with further literature). Almost three centuries later, the artist/archaeologist Josef Wilpert collected a large number of these banquet scenes from catacomb paintings in his standard work Die Malereien der Katakomben Roms (Wilpert 1903). This was an important work, if only because the paintings were in immediate danger of decay through exposure. Later, Wilpert documented much material on dining scenes for his corpora on Early Christian sarcophagi, and on Early Christian mosaics and frescoes (Wilpert 1917; 1929-36). Although he has been severely criticised for his iconographical and iconological views on Eucharistic meals by the art historian Joseph Strzygowski and the historian Franz Joseph Dölger (cf. Deichmann 1983, 28-30), all three publications of Wilpert are still useful as works of reference. 11.3.2 pictorial representations A well-known dining scene in Early Christian catacomb paintings is the so-called ‘fractio panis’ in the Capella Graeca, the little chapel in the catacomb of Priscilla in

Rome (Wilpert 1895; 1903, pl. 15 left; Stevenson 1978, 95) (fig. 11.1). It is dated between the mid 2nd and the mid 4th century (Jastrzebowska 1979, 17, no. V prefers a later date). Seven persons are reclining behind a curved cushion (the so-called pulvinum). Before this cushion one can distinguish two plates and a small two-handled cup. The food, consisting of three small bread rolls and two fishes, is displayed prominently on the plates. The scene strongly suggests a communal meal. One of the figures is shown in the act of breaking the bread. This has led Wilpert to the assumption that the painting was ‘the earliest representation of the Eucharistic sacrifice’ (Wilpert 1895). This seems mistaken, and the current view is that the catacomb artists were more concerned with the depiction of Early Christian funerary meals than with literally portraying liturgical practices (Milburn 1988, 36; Frend 1996, 161, n. 242; Jastrzebowska 1979). Other painted banquet scenes from the 2nd to 4th centuries (both of Christian and secular character) can be found in the catacomb of Callistus, in the catacomb of the martyrs Peter and Marcellinus and on the tomb of M. Clodius Hermes under the basilica of St. Sebastian in Rome. On almost all these frescoes, the guests recline or sit repeatedly behind a small, round tripod table, on which are set out plates of bread and fish, and sometimes a cup of wine. An exception to this combination of fish, bread and wine can be found in the syncretistic catacomb of Vibia (second half of the 4th century), where a banquet of the ‘seven pious priests’ is depicted (fig. 11.2). The food of the seven diners consists of four crossmarked bread loaves, which lie next to four flat plates, containing a fish, ‘cake and a hare or rabbit’ (Wilpert, 1903, pl. 133; Stevenson 1978, 121 see also Ferrua 1991). Another example of a communal wining and dining scene in Roman secular art is the so-called ‘mosaic of gladiators’ from Thysdrus (El Djem) in Tunisia (fig. 11.3). It can be roughly dated to 220-250 AD (Salomonson 1960, 25-31, fig. 1; 1963, 42-4, fig. 19; Weitzmann 1979, 96-7). Five men are seated at a table, whose curving shape and columnar front suggest an arena. On the edge of the curving table is a green glass beaker on a ring foot. In the centre of the El Djem mosaic a slave hands a glass (filled with wine?) to the celebrants. Beside him, we can discern on a so-called repositorium two small one-handled jugs, and next to it a one-handled container for mixing wine and water.

305

Fig. 11.1

Fig. 11.2

Fig. 11.4

306

Fig. 11.3

Fig. 11.5

Fig. 11.1 ‘Fractio Panis’ fresco, Capella Graeca, Catacomb of Priscilla, Rome, ca. end 2nd-mid 4th (?) century (after Jastrebowska 1979, fig. 3). Fig. 11.2 ‘Banquet of the seven pious priests’ fresco, Catacomb of Vibia, Rome, 2nd half of the 4th century (after Wilpert 1903, pl. 133). Fig. 11.3 ‘Banquet of gladiators’ mosaic, Thysdrus (El Djem), Museé National du Bardo, Tunis, ca. 220-250 AD (after Salomonson 1960, fig. 1). Fig. 11.4 Ivory diptych, Tesoro del Duomo, Milan, 5th century (after Dobbert 1891, fig. 18). Fig. 11.5 Miniature, Bibl. Vaticana lat. 3867 (fol. 100v), Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Rome, late 5th century.

11.3.3 sculptural representations Analogous looking dining scenes are known from Late Roman and early Christian marble sarcophagi covers of the 3rd and 4th centuries (Wilpert 1929-36; Gerke 1940, 365-366, pls. 25-26; Dölger 1943, 391-540, pls. 304-315; Jastrzebowska 1979). The earliest group of these sculptural banquets in Early Christian sculpture show openair, communal meals with bread and wine; the later ones show similar dinner scenes with bread and fish. These last ones were apparently not only influenced by the catacomb paintings, but also by older carved banquet scenes from profane hunting scenes. These pagan meals were characterized either by the head of a ‘Caledonian’ wild boar on a flat plate between two loaves of bread, or either by a fish on a flat plate (cf. Gerke 1940, 110-151, pl. 25.1). This seems to show that the carved representation of a fish in communal meals was not the exclusive right of the Early Christians, but was already known in Roman profane art (Gerke 1940, 138; Dölger 1943, 604, n. 2123; Jastrzebowska 1979). 11.3.4 interpretations The most comprehensive research on these depictions is made by E. Jastrzebowska, who studied 144 banquet scenes (both Christian and secular ones) on wall paintings and sarcophagi of the 3rd and 4th centuries. Her conclusion is that these scenes draw rather upon pagan (mythological as well as public) prototypes in Roman art than upon biblical models, and that they represent real contemporary dining practices (such as a funerary meal) of the Early Christians (Jastrzebowska 1979, 71 and 88). Indeed, the food depicted could have

been quite real: fish, bread and wine were also seen to be appropriate for Roman pagan meals (McGowan 1999, 133). Eventually, these ingredients took on a growing religious significance for the Christians, who adopted the theme of communal banquets in both catacomb paintings and sarcophagi (Snyder 1985, 21-25; see also Engemann 1997, 117-22). After Christianity was recognized as one of the religions of the Roman state in 313 AD, the banquet scene remained common in Christian iconography. With the triumph of Christianity as the official religion, churches were built all over the Empire. The interiors of these churches were sumptuously decorated with mosaics, paintings, architectural relief ’s, carved ivories etc. In addition, the churches were adorned with devotional painted representations from the Old and New Testament, which had to impress the pious illiterates. The character of these later pictures were often more stern and less joyous than the earlier catacomb paintings, but on all these Christian ornamental banquet scenes are common. From the 5th century onwards, the most important dining scenes depicted were those referring to certain passages from the Gospels. Among the themes are ‘The Last Supper’ (Matt. 26:17-35; Mark 14:12-25; Luke 22:738 and John 13:1-38), ‘The Wedding at Cana’ (John 2:110), ‘Abraham’s hospitality at Mamre’ (Gen. 18:1-15) or ‘Christ’s Meal with Simon in Bethany’ (Matt. 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9; with different men and incidents in Luke 7:36-50 and John 12:7-8). Scenes of the Last Supper form the vast majority of the banquet scenes. In contrast to the ‘liturgical’ Last Supper scenes, the ‘historical’ Last Supper scenes seem more narrative: they show us more clearly how the food was served, how the diners’ seating was arranged and which vessels and utensils were used. Therefore, I will discuss here solely the aspect of the meal, and not the role of the Apostles. In the past, the emphasis has often been the other way around.

,,./

Last Supper scenes: the history of research

11.4.1 before the second world war Interest in the iconography of Last Supper-scenes started at the end of the 19th century, especially among German scholars. Hermann Riegel wrote in 1869 his

307

Über die Darstellung des Abendmahls besonders in der toskanischen Kunst, using pictures from Byzantium to 19th century art (Riegel 1869). Two years later, Eduard Dobbert’s article ‘Die Darstellung des Abendmahls durch die Byzantinische Kunst’ (Dobbert 1871) contained severe criticism of Riegels treatment of the Byzantine examples. The article proved to be the start of a series of detailed contributions on the representation of Christ’s meal published by Dobbert in the journal Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft (Dobbert 1890; 1891; 1892; 1895). Particularly noteworthy here are Dobbert’s 1891/1982-articles about ‘Das Abendmahl Christi in der bildenden Kunst bis gegen den Schluss des 14. Jahrhunderts’. In these two papers he studied Last Supper scenes in Byzantine art from the 5th till the 14th century, emphasising the treachery of Judas as well as the seating of Jesus and the other Apostles during the meal. Particularly important in Dobbert’s eyes were the roles of Judas and John in the compositions. One of his conclusions was that from the 6th century onwards the Byzantine artists portrayed Judas with a hand in a plate with fish, and that from the 9th century onwards they painted John reclining as a little child upon the breast of Jesus. The rest of the table setting on Byzantine pictures correlated very much with the composition of Early Christian catacomb paintings. The research of Eduard Dobbert was continued by Curt Sachs in 1907 and by the Dutchman Frederik Adama van Scheltema in 1912. They wrote systematic studies on the existence of Last Supper pictures in (North)-Western Europe from the 15th to 17th centuries. Especially Adama van Scheltema assembled much information on this theme, exploring a wide area, comprising Tuscan Renaissance art, Leonardo da Vinci’s paintings, Venetian art and Dutch paintings of the 17th century. He tried to explain all these Last Supper pictures within the religious or philosophic context of their respective periods (for instance: he linked Giotto with humanism, Leonardo da Vinci with platonic ideas, and Dutch art with Protestantism). In addition, the French scholar Gabriel Millet devoted a chapter on various Last Supper-scenes in his Recherches sur l’iconographie de l’évangile aux XIVe, XVe et XVIe siècles d’après les monuments de Mistra, de la Macedoine et du Mont-Athos (Millet 1916, 286-309). Like Dobbert, he was studying the portrayal of Judas and the seating of

308

the Apostles in Last Supper scenes. However, Millet made a clear distinction between Oriental, Byzantine and Western traditions. He concluded that until the 13th century the West imitated a mixture of Oriental and Byzantine elements, but introduced innovations in the iconography in the 14th century. A new feature which was developed in the West was, for instance, that Jesus was sitting in the centre and some of the Apostles at the front of the round table. The shape of the table in Eastern and Western iconography was, in particular, studied by Laura Hibbard Loomis, who tried to find a relationship between representations of the Last Supper table and those of the Round Table of King Arthur (Loomis 1927).[1 ] She concluded that the table’s shape was an important clue in the differentiation of Last Supper scenes. Furthermore, she focussed her attention on the origin of the straight table in Last Supper scenes in Eastern and Western iconography. According to her, the earliest examples of the straight table type were found in Western religious art from the 10th-11th century onwards (Loomis 1927, 83-86 with references). A special interest in the iconography of the Passion in Medieval Italian art (including an interesting chapter on Last Supper scenes from the 13th and 14th centuries) was given by Evelyn Sandberg-Vavalà in the late 1930s, whereas K. Künstle paid attention to the Last Supper scene in his Ikonographie der christlichen Kunst and Karl Möller to its representation in Medieval German art (Sandberg-Vavalà 1929, 199-217; Künstle 1926-28, 41325; K. Möller in Schmitt 1937, 28-44). 11.4.2 after the second world war After Millet and Loomis, there was a long period of apparent disinterest in the iconography of Last Supper scenes in Byzantine art among art historians and archaeologists. This relative silence lasted until the late 1950s/1960s. In that decade, the evolution of the scene was often described in dictionaries of Christian art and archaeology (e.g. Réau 1957, II.2, 409-17; Aurenhammer 1959-67, 11-15; Schiller 1966, II, 27v.; Wessel 1966, 1-22; Kirschbaum 1968-90, 10-18). Klaus Wessel’s Abendmahl und Apostelkommunion appeared in 1964 as one of the last extensive studies on the theme. Wessel was professor in Early Christian and Byzantine art history at Munich, and in this small volume he paid attention to the history of the Last Supper as a meal (Abendmahl), as

well as a liturgical act (Apostelkommunion) from the Early Byzantine era until approximately the 16th century. In general, the attention of all these scholars for the Last Supper scene was rather focused on the sequence of seating, the number of Apostles, and the role of the Apostles Judas and John, than on the significance of the actual table settings. Nevertheless, their conclusion about the evolution of Last Supper pictures from the Late Roman period onwards is noteworthy. The consensus seems to be that the Last Supper pictures as a meal showed a clear development over time. Dobbert remarked for example: ‘Although the Byzantine artist was tied to certain rules in the composition of his picture, he was at the same time free to show his individual talent and view’ (Dobbert 1891, 382). Millet, Loomis and Wessel clearly saw a change in the composition of the Last Supper meal through times. According to the last named, this proved that the representation of the Last Supper never belonged to the stereotyped standard repertoire, as was prescribed by the Byzantine Orthodox church. Wessel remarked that its transformation into new forms is especially evident in book-illustrations and miniatures, but less in monumental church frescoes (Wessel 1964, 46). In short, by studying religious elements in Last Supper scenes these scholars concluded that Christ’s meal was not depicted as a fixed formal theological depiction in Byzantine art. However, detailed research on the profane pots and pans on the Last Supper table was beyond the scope of their investigations. In contrast to this tradition, it is my intention to ignore here the mainly art-historical and theological figures of Jesus and the Apostles for the moment, and to look only at the dining scenery of the Last Supper pictures: the tables, the tablecloth, and above all the plates, cups and knives. If the depiction of the Last Supper scene as a whole was transformed over the centuries, this may be also the case with the depiction of the tablewares, as illustration of actual changes in dining habits from Late Antiquity into Byzantine times.

,,.0

Late Roman – Early Byzantine period

11.5.1 pictures of the late roman and early byzantine period (ca. 5th-7th centuries) According to Dobbert, the oldest Last Supper meal in

Byzantine art can be found on a 5th century ivory diptych in the Cathedral treasure of Milan (Dobbert 1891, 183, fig. 18; see also Volbach 1976, 84-5, pl. 63 with more literature on the diptych).[2 ] On the Milan diptych we can distinguish four persons reclining on a high, semicircular couch (fig. 11.4).[3 ] The couch has a crescent cushion or bolster on the front, and stands around a small, semicircular table. At the centre of the table we can see a flat, wide-open plate with one fish. It remains uncertain, however, whether the artist was here following the Early Christian tradition which associates fish with the symbol of Christ, or was inspired by similar representations in Late Roman secular art (cf. Jastrzebowska 1979, pls. IV, 1, 3-4; VI, 2).[4 ] Around the communal plate one can discern five or six small, cross-marked bread loaves. There are no knives, spoons or individual plates on the table. It appears as if the second diner on the left is holding a drinking cup in his hand, but the image is not clear (see also Dölger 1934, 564-5). The person sitting next to him (Christ without a nimbus?) is reclining on the left side of the semicircular couch. The shape of the round, cross-marked loaves looks quite analogous to representations of bread on Pompeian frescoes and Late Antique sarcophagi and mosaics, as well as to excavated examples from Pompeian bakeries (Dölger 1922, pl. 78, nos. 7-8; 1936, pl. 13). It has been suggested that, from Antiquity onwards, these loaves (the so-called quadrae or artes quadrati) were incised in four or eight parts to simplify the breaking of the bread during the meal (Dölger 1936, pls. 13-16; Blümner 1969, 88). Furthermore, the number of these quadrae corresponds each time (both in religious and secular art) with the number of diners, which seems to imply that each guest was served one loaf of bread during dinner (Dolger 1936, 208 with textual references).[5 ] The scene on the Milan diptych shows many similarities with a contemporary dining scene on a miniature from secular art (fig. 11.5). The miniature can be found in the Codex Vergilii Romanus, which is roughly dated to the 5th century (Dölger 1943, 543-4; Weitzmann 1979, 227-8). This manuscript, kept in the Vatican Library in Rome,[6 ] has an almost complete text of Virgil’s Eclogues, Georgics and Aeneid, and is adorned with nineteen miniatures. The miniature (Picturae 1902, no. 13, fol. 100v.) shows Dido banqueting with Aeneas and an unknown

309

Fig. 11.6

Fig. 11.7

310

Fig. 11.6 Mosaic, Basilica San Apollinare Nuovo, Ravenna, ca. 500 AD (after Dobbert 1891, fig. 19). Fig. 11.7 Miniature, Archivescovado Codex Purpureus Tetraevang. (fol 3r), Rossano (after Dobbert 1891, fig. 22).

figure, both dressed with a Phrygian cap.[7 ] The diners recline on their left hand on a semicircular, cushioned sofa around a small table with slender decorated legs. The table bears a flat, large plate or dish (perhaps a niello discus, made of gold or silver)[8 ] with a fish in the centre. The large plate was probably intended for communal dining. Below the three diners are two attendants: the left one is serving wine in a funnel-shaped beaker (a calathus)[9 ] from an one-handled jug with narrow neck (a lagoena).[10 ] One of the guests is also drinking with his left hand from a similar beaker. The right servant is holding an one-handled ewer with a pronounced rim (a lagoena or an urceus?) in one hand;[11 ] in the other one he has a stemmed, broad bowl (perhaps a patera,[12 ] or a water-basin?). It has been suggested that both these vessels were common objects at the end of the 4th century for washing hands during dinner (Dölger 1943, 549-50; Buckton 1994, 52). There are two other Last Supper pictures of the 6th century which show the same characteristics as the one on the Milan diptych: a couch on which the diners are reclining, a crescent cushion, a semicircular table in front of the couch, one plate in the centre, etcetera. The first of these Last Supper scenes, which seems to have served as a classic prototype for later depictions, can be found on a mosaic in the Basilica of San Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna (dated ca. 500 AD) (fig. 11.6). The second example is an illustration in the Codex Purpureus Rossanensis, a manuscript from Near Eastern or Constantinopolitan origin (Haseloff 1898, 22, pl. 5; Dobbert 1891, fig. 22) (fig. 11.7).[13 ] Both pictures portray Jesus (with a nimbus around his head) reclining on his left elbow on the extreme left side of a raised, cushioned couch. The twelve Apostles are reclining on their left elbow as well. The semicircular table is covered with an embroidered tablecloth. In the centre of the table one can discern one communal dish, with some bread rolls around. On the Ravenna-mosaic the large dish has a broad flat base with curved wall and

two fishes stick out of it. The shape of the dish looks quite similar to Late Roman Red Slip wares (such as Ware 1 found on the Boeotian sites).[14 ] On the Rossano-illustration, on the contrary, the chalice-like dish has convex walls on a high ring foot. Both pictures show no cutlery, no individual plates, and no individual beakers. The diners seem to eat their food from the wide-open, communal dish with their fingers. Also interesting in this respect is another banquet scene from the 7th century (fig. 11.8). The scene is depicted in a full-page miniature about the Story of Joseph in the so-called Ashburnham (or Tours) Pentateuch in the National Library at Paris.[15 ] This manuscript was probably made during the late 6th or early 7th century (Weitzmann 1979, 471-2). The dining scene is a good example of communal dining without cutlery or individual plates. In fact, all diners, reclining on a cushioned couch around a semicircular table, are actually grasping with their hands into a single communal dish in the centre. The shape of the dish is difficult to see, but one can roughly discern a very large and flat plate. Finally, one remark on the fish depicted in these scenes. Dölger rejected the view that in Last Supper scenes, as the one in S. Apollinare Nuovo at Ravenna, the fish should be considered as a symbol of Christ (Dölger 1943, 601-610). Instead he cites a tradition, attested in ancient art, which employed fish as an elegant food to symbolize a sumptuous repast. He argues that the fish as a symbol of a formal meal became a convention in Christian art also, notably in representations of the Last Supper. Recent research on the use of fish in Early Christian meals has also shown that there is no persuasive evidence for a fish Eucharist (Snyder 1985, 25; McGowan 1991, 127-140). Indeed, fish was prized food for the well-to-do classes and was used on festive occasions from Antiquity into Byzantine times (Dölger 1943, 329-540 and 601-610). 11.5.2 late roman dining habits in the written (and pictorial) sources Among the Romans the dining room was known as the triclinium, so called because it was common to arrange three couches around a single central table on three of its four sides. These couches allowed space for three diners each to take their meal. Roman writers refer to the standardization of the type, as well as to the social manners

311

during formal parties (cf. references in Marquardt-Mau 1886, 302-6). The Roman dining table was relatively small, certainly in relation to the couches which offered space to several persons, and could be round or rectangular. According to the Roman writer Varro (Ling. 5.118), Romans had once used square tables but generally preferred in his time round ones. A more significant distinction, therefore, is that between moveable and immoveable tables (Bradley 1998, 48). The folding table (repositorium) was not an item of furniture that was replenished with food as diners proceeded from one course to another; instead the practice among rich Romans was to remove the table altogether when one course was finished and to bring in another for the next (Marquardt-Mau 1886, 320-1). Dining tables were sometimes equipped with elaborate salt-cellars (salina), vinegar stands (acetabula), sets of heated dishes or bowls to vomit into (vomitive) (Marquardt-Mau 1886, 318-9). The table was also furnished with plates and beakers, made either of metal, silver or from earthenware. Especially the silver ones were put on a display table (abacus) before dinner (Marquardt-Mau 1886, 319). Glass was much less common than pottery but included bowls, beakers, bottles and jugs usually of a pale greenish colour. In Late Roman times, dinner (cena), the main meal of the day, was eaten in the late afternoon or evening. The cena (for the upper classes at least) was an important social occasion and divided into three main courses with dishes: it began with an entrée (gustatio) of pure roots, vegetables, fish and eggs; it culminated in the main course (cena), sometimes consisting of three to seven dishes; and it ended with desserts (bellaria), consisting of sweets, nuts and fresh fruits (Marquardt-Mau 1886, 3237; Gowers 1993, 17). According to Ovid (Ars Am. 3.755-56), there was an etiquette for the Roman cena: a ‘quiddam gestus edendi’ (Marquardt-Mau 1886, 318 n. 2; Bradley 1998, 39). Diners arriving at a host’s house changed their outdoor dress into a looser dinner costume (synthesis). Shoes were taken off by slaves, and replaced by sandals (solaea) (Marquardt-Mau 1886, 322). The Romans ate a good deal of their food with their fingers, but it was important to know the correct number of fingers to use for different sorts of dishes. Plutarch (Mor. 99D) spoke of instructing children to ‘take their meat with the right

312

Fig. 11.8 ‘Story of Joseph’ miniature, Ashburnham (or Tours) Pentateuch, Bibl. Nationale lat. 2334 (fol. 44), Paris, ca. late 6thearly 7th century (after Weitzman 1979).

Fig. 11.9 ‘Pharaoh’s Meal’ miniature, Nat. Libr. Theol. Graec. 31 (fol. XVII, 34), Vienna, 6th century (after Wickhoff 1895, pl. A and XXXIV).

hand and hold their bread in the left’ (as cited by Bradley 1998, 41). Furthermore, hands had to be washed before and between courses (Marquardt-Mau 1886, 322-23). Nevertheless, the Romans had cutlery in the form of spoons on the table. Spoons with an oval bowl (ligula) were used for eating soup, broths, soft foods and porridge; spoons with a small, round bowl and a long, pointed handle (cochlear) were used for eating eggs, snails, oysters and mussels (Marquardt-Mau 1886, 3146). Table knives were unnecessary, as food was cut up in the kitchen, and forks were relatively unknown (Strong 1966, 129). It was essential for the guests to bring their own napkins (mappae) and to know how to use them (Marquardt-Mau 1886, 313-4). One element of the protocol was that diners reclined to eat, with their left arm supported on a bolster, taking food from a serving table with the right hand. The custom was a mark of high status (Bradley 1998, 39). The diners during the cena were placed in a hierarchical order: the guest of honour, for instance, sat in a special place, the so-called ‘consul’s spot’ (locus consularis) (Marquardt-Mau 1886, 304). Literary sources and pictorial representations show that different dining habits existed in Late Antiquity (Jastrzebowska 1979; Dunbabin 1991). From the 2nd-3rd century onwards, the fashion for a curved couch (the socalled sigma or stibadium) around a semicircular table prevailed in Late Roman and Early Christian art (Van der Meer 1983).[16 ] The sigma-couch, made of wood or stone and with a cushion or bolster (pulvinum) in the front, could not hold as many guests as the earlier three triclinia: normally there was space for a party of five to eight persons (Marquardt-Mau 1886, 307). The depiction of this type of couch in both catacomb paintings and sarcophagi suggests that the curved stibadium was initially intended for banquets in the open air (Dunbabin 1991, 132-3). In Late Antiquity the sigma-couch, adorned with a decorated bolster on the inside, became the setting for formal and luxurious banquets, both in- and outdoors, with the first guest of honour usually reclining in the right corner (in dextro cornu) and the second one in the left corner (in sinistro cornu) (Marquardt-Mau 1886, 3089).[17 ] The actual shape and size of such a sigma-couch can be seen in a 6th century miniature of the ‘Pharaoh’s Meal’ (Genesis 40,20-23) in the so-called Vienna Genesis

(Wickhoff 1895, pl. A and XXXIV).[18 ] This is the only picture, on which one can distinguish the sigma-couch from the back (fig. 11.9). Its shape is that of a half circled sofa on several banisters-like legs, with a decorated bolster on its front. The written sources seem to indicate that table habits from Late Antiquity were persistent into Byzantine times. This is especially visible in the earliest Last Supper scenes in Byzantine art. The above mentioned religious (and secular) banquet scenes of the 5th and 6th centuries seem to refer to dining habits in an ancient Roman style, when diners were reclining on a cushioned sigma-couch around a small, semicircular table.[19 ] On most Eastern pictures from the Early Byzantine period, Jesus is reclining, for instance, on the extreme right side of the couch (in dextro cornu), which is the guest’s place of honour in Late Antique times (the so-called consul’s spot). There are no individual plates, no individual beakers, no cutlery. The diners seem to eat their food from a centrally placed, communal dish with their fingers.

,,.1

Middle Byzantine period

11.6.1 pictures of the macedonian renaissance (ca. 850-1050 ad) In the 8th century the Empire was to enter into a turbulent period of civil strife, of which the central issue was the imperial imposition of a ban on figurative religious images. The Iconoclastic controversy started in 726 AD, with the public removal of the image of Christ from the gate of the imperial palace, and lasted until 843 AD. According to the art historian Robin Cormack, it is ‘the period not so much when icons were banned or destroyed as the time when people, whether emperors, clergy or the public, were forced to ask what were the functions of images in Christianity’ (Cormack 1989, Ad.not., 5). He rightly remarks that during the Iconoclastic period traditions continued and new influences from outside Byzantium (the Islamic world and the Carolingian West) were probably absorbed (Cormack 1985, 95-140; 1989, III, 8-9). Once Iconoclasm had been defeated and the ban on religious images lifted, Byzantine art entered in the eyes of many recent scholars into a second glorious phase – the so-called ‘Macedonian Renaissance’, named after the

313

Fig. 11.10

Fig. 11.11

Fig. 11.12

Fig. 11.13

314

Fig. 11.10 Miniature, Bibl. Publica Petropol.Gr. 21 Lectionary, St. Petersburg, 9th century (after Dobbert 1891, fig. 23). Fig. 11.11 Miniature, Historical Museum Add.gr. 129 Chuldov Ps., Moscow, 2nd half 9th century (after Dobbert 1892, fig. 31). Fig. 11.12 Copy of fresco, Bibl.Vaticana lat. 9071 (fol. 237), Vatican, ca. 8th or 10th ? century (after Dobbert 1891, fig. 24). Fig. 11.13 Miniature, British Libr. Add. 19352 Theodore Ps. (fol. 50v), London, ca. 1066 AD (after Dobbert 1892, fig. 32).

ruling dynasty which started with Basil I the Macedonian (867-886 AD). Many new churches were built, and their interiors demanded new religious art. The Macedonian Renaissance seems to be reflected mostly in the minor arts, especially in illuminated manuscripts and carved ivories, as well as the church history (Mango 1980, 272). The Byzantine artists introduced in this period new iconography, styles and techniques. This is also evident in the Last Supper scenes. A rare example of a Byzantine Last Supper scene from the 9th century can be found in a miniature of Gospel no. XXI in the Library of St. Petersburg (Dobbert 1891, fig. 23; Millet 1916, fig. 275).[20 ] Jesus and the Apostles are reclining on a sigma-couch around a semioval table, covered with a tablecloth (fig. 11.10). A new feature in this composition is the figure of Judas sitting alone at the front of the table, and grasping with his hand into a centrally placed, communal dish with a fish. The wide-open dish has convex walls and a high ring foot, like the one on the miniature of the Codex Purpureus Rossanensis of the 6th century, although most of the previous dishes were depicted as flat plates. The large dish could either be made of metal or of earthenware: it is difficult to see this from the picture. The shape of the vessel looks quite similar to the so-called ‘fruit stands’, made in Glazed White Ware (Ware 8), which were exclusively produced at Constantinople around that same time (see fig. 3.x). The use of these fruit stands suggests the careful presentation of food. Perhaps the fruit stands with their central medallions in relief decoration were imitating metal proto-types, which had a high ring foot and convex walls like a silver bowl found at Carthage (see Strong 1966, pl. 66a). On the semicircular edge of the table of the Rossanensis miniature there are only some bread rolls. Two large candelabra in the back refer to the nightly hour of the meal. A similar arrangement can be seen in a miniature in

the Chludov Psalter from the second half of the 9th century in Moscow (fig. 11.11),[21 ] as well as in a 10th century Last Supper fresco in the San Bastianello in Pallara church at Rome (fig. 11.12).[22 ] However, the Apostles are on both pictures sitting, instead of reclining, around the semicircular table. Remarkable is also the change in Judas’ position: he sits in front of the table, trying to grasp towards a centrally placed, communal dish, or putting food with his hand in his mouth. Knives or forks are not yet depicted on these Last Supper scenes. The sudden appearance of large candelabra (standing lamps with arms and nozzles) in the background of the above mentioned three pictures is also noteworthy. It has been suggested that the presence of lamps, candles and candelabra on Last Supper scenes from the 9th/10th century onwards indicated the nocturnal hour of Christ’s last meal. A similar arrangement as on the Chludov example can, for instance, be seen on a later miniature in the Theodore Psalter from ca. 1066 AD (Dobbert 1892, fig. 32) (fig. 11.13).[23 ] Monastic inventories of the Middle Byzantine period, as well as existing models suggest that most candelabra were made of bronze (Bouras 1989-90). Furthermore, examples of jasper and rock-crystal are described in a late 14th century inventory of the Agia Sophia in Constantinople (Buckton 1994, 108). All these pictures show that customs in the Empire were apparently beginning to change, at least for the well to do classes.[24 ] The dining scenes showed that the guests, instead of reclining, sat upright on high-backed benches around larger tables. Sitting at table had since Antiquity been the normal practice only for those of inferior social position (wives and children) at ordinary meals, and in taverns. Also in the Roman peasant household men and women sat to eat their dinner (Bradley 1998, 47). We learn from 10th century written sources, however, that the tradition of reclining on the sigma-couch seems to have persisted longer during certain festive banquets at the Court than in the normal Byzantine household.[25 ] 11.6.2 pictures of the comnenan era (ca. 1050-1204 ad) Under the Comnenan dynasty, in the 11th century and most of the 12th century, there was a thriving intellectual and artistic life, which lasted until the conquest of

315

Fig. 11.14

Fig. 11.15

Fig. 11.16

Fig. 11.20

Fig. 11.21

316

Fig. 11.19

Fig. 11.14 Miniature, Bibl. Nationale gr. 74 Tetraevang. (fol. 82), Paris, (3rd quarter of the) 11th century (after Omont 1908). Fig. 11.15 Miniature, Bibl. Nationale gr. 74 Tetraevang. (fol. 69), Paris, (3rd quarter of the) 11th century (after Omont 1908). Fig. 11.16 Miniature, Gospel of Queen Melisende, British. Libr. Egerton 1139 Ps. (fol. 6r), London, begin 12th century (after Millet 1916, fig. 279). Fig. 11.19 Miniature, Nat. Libr. 93 Tetraevang. (fol. 175v), Athens, (2nd half of the) 12th century (after Delatte 1926, 82f.). Fig. 11.20 Fresco, Sophie Cathedral, Kiev, ca. 1045 AD (after Dobbert 1892, fig. 44). Fig. 11.21 Miniature, Monastery in Gelati Tetraevang., Georgia, 11th century (after Dobbert 1892, fig. 37).

Constantinople by the Latins (or Crusaders) in 1204 AD (see in general, Evans & Wixom 1997). By the 11th century, several miniatures in a Greek manuscript show Jesus and Petrus as the only persons reclining as guests of honour, in the right and left corners (figs. 11.14-15).[26 ] The other Apostles are sitting around a large, oval table with embroidered tablecloth. Interesting is the repeated addition of two earthenware cups or chalices (for drinking) next to the usual wideopen, communal dish. The shape of these handled cups reminds us of similar looking examples in Glazed White Ware II, of which a fragment has been found on the Boeotian site of Thespiae (Ware 8; see also Morgan 1942, pl. XII b-c). The increased use of earthenware cups during this period perhaps reflects the decline of glass (more popular in the Late Roman period) at the table. The combination of one communal dish flanked by two ceramic cups can be seen on many Last Supper pictures of the Middle Byzantine period, among them the 12th century miniature in the Gospel of Queen Melisende (Millet 1916, fig. 279; Buchtal 1957, pl. 6a) (fig. 11.16).[27 ] An 11th century miniature of Job’s Children from St. Catherine’s Monastery at Sinai even shows – apart from the one large communal plate and two communal cups – that five of the ten diners actually grasp with their hands towards and into the centrally-placed dish (Weitzman & Galavaris 1990, 37) (fig. 11.17).[28 ] The wide-open, shallow dishes of this period have some similarities with the shapes of the decorated tablewares of the 11th-12th centuries from Boeotia (Wares 9-11 and 15). These

vessels have large rim diameters (up to 30cm.), and must have been quite practical for communal purposes (see table 7.3). The miniatures of this period also confirm the growing depiction of bread in Last Supper scenes. Pictures often show round cross-marked loaves and round or oval slices of bread (perhaps trenchers which were used instead of plates?) on the semicircular edge of the table. Also noteworthy is the appearance of profane looking bread ‘pretzels’ on the table. Examples of this combination of bread rolls/trenchers and a bread ‘pretzel’ are, for instance, to be found on a 12th century enamel from the Pala d’Oro at the San Marco in Venice (Hahnloser & Palacco 1994, 29, no. 56, pl. 31) (fig. 11.18), as well as on a 12th century manuscript in a Tetraevangelion in the National Library in Athens (Delatte 1926, 82f.) (fig. 11.19).[29 ] In one case, on an 11th century fresco in the Sophie Cathedral in Kiev, there is even bread in the shape of ‘prosfora’ (bread for the Holy Communion) in the wide-open, communal dish instead of a fish (Dobbert 1892, fig. 44; Lazarev 1966) (fig. 11.20). It has been suggested that there are also napkins on the Last Supper tables. There are, for example, three folded white napkins on the already mentioned enamel in the Pala d’Oro at Venice (fig. 11.18), and one napkin on an 11th century miniature from the Monastery in Gelati in Georgia (Dobbert 1892, fig. 37) (fig. 11.21). In addition, a mid 11th century miniature in the Barberini Psalter in the Vatican Library shows at least two white napkins for the reclining figures of Jesus and Petrus (Millet 1916, fig. 278) (fig. 11.22).[30 ] Also noteworthy is the fact that there are even two asterisks on the same table. These metal objects were normally placed over the blessed bread during the Byzantine liturgy. If we look at the 11th century ‘Last Supper’-fresco in the crypt of the monastery of Hosios Loukas in Boeotia, we see just one large communal dish, placed centrally on the table (Chatzidakis 1997, 70-1, fig. 79) (fig. 11.23). This open dish is used for the main course by Christ and the apostles, who are sitting around a sigma-shaped marble table. There are no knives, spoons or forks on the table, which implies that all diners use only their fingers to eat from the shared plate directly. A long, snake-like folded napkin on the right side of the table is provided during the meal. Two ceramic cups, flanking the communal plate, are apparently also shared by all diners.

317

Fig. 11.17

Fig. 11.18

318

Fig. 11.22

Fig. 11.24

Fig. 11.23

Fig. 11.26

319

Fig. 11.25

Fig. 11.27

320

Fig. 11.17 Miniature of Job’s Children, St. Catherine’s Monastery gr. 3 (fol. 17v), Sinai, 11th century (after

matching knives and forks on the table (Restle 1967, II, 235) (fig. 11.27).[32 ]

Weitzman & Galavaris 1990, 37). Fig. 11.18 Enamel, Pala d’ Oro, San Marco, Venice, ca. 1105 AD (after Hahnloser & Palacco 1994, pl. 31). Fig. 11.22 Miniature, Bibl. Vaticana Barb gr. 372 Barberini Ps. (fol. 68r), Vatican, mid 11th century (after Millet 1916, fig. 278). Fig. 11.23 Fresco, Crypt of Hosios Loukas, Phokis, 11th century (photo: J. Vroom). Fig. 11.24 Miniature, Djroutchi Tetraevang. (fol. 68v), Georgia, 11th century (after Millet 1916, fig. 270). Fig. 11.26 Fresco, Panaghia Phorbiotissa, Asinou, Cyprus, begin 12th century (after Sacopoulou 1966, pl. 8). Fig. 11.25 Fresco, San Angelo, Formis, Capua, 11th century (after Sandberg-Vavalá 1929, fig. 159). Fig. 11.27 Fresco, Karanlik Kilise, Göreme, Cappadocia, ca. 1200-1210 AD (after Restle 1967, II, 235).

Most remarkable in this period is the sudden appearance of cutlery in Last Supper scenes. On a miniature of the 11th century Georgian Tetraevangelion from Djroutchi (fol. 68v) there is one knife discernable among the other dining equipment, which consists of some loaves of bread, four fishes, one dish and two cups (Millet 1916, fig. 270) (fig. 11.24). More examples are displayed on an 11th century fresco from the San Angelo church at Formis in Italy (Sandberg-Vavalá 1929, fig. 159). Jesus is here reclining on a couch, the other Apostles are sitting around a sigma-shaped table, adorned with a tablecloth (fig. 11.25). The composition of the table equipment is quite rich on this particular fresco. Apart from the knives, one can also distinguish twelve bread rolls, a main dish with fish and two chalices. Furthermore, the introduction of forks on Last Supper scenes in the East seems unmistakably have taken place in this period.[31 ] The forks have usually two points (fig. 11.18). A similar cutlery set (knive with matching fork) can also be seen on a 12th century fresco in the church of Panaghia Phorbiotissa of Asinou on Cyprus (Sacopoulo 1966, 30-37, pl. 8; Stylianou & Stylianou 1985, 121-22) (fig. 11.26). On a fresco from ca. 1200-1210 AD in Karanlik Kilise at Göreme in Cappadocia, one can even distinguish three sets of

,,.2

Late Byzantine/Frankish period

11.7.1 pictures of the palaeologan renaissance (ca. 1250-1453 ad) In the year 1204 AD, the Latin troupes of the Fourth Crusade, launched from Venice in 1202 AD with the aim of helping the remnants of the Latin Kingdom in Egypt, took and sacked Constantinople. Many of the Byzantine works of art that today embellish Venice were taken from the Eastern capital as loot (e.g. the Pala d’ Oro). In spite of the disaster, artistic activities did not come to a sudden end in- and outside Constantinople. The last Byzantine dynasty, the Palaeologans, witnessed the final revival of Byzantine culture before the fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD. Examples of Last Supper pictures become so frequent from the 13th century onwards, that I have to limit myself to the ones which are important for the discussion of changes in dining habits. Remarkable in this period is the sudden shift towards a greater variety and a larger amount of vessels, jugs and cutlery on the Last Supper table. One can distinguish the separation of food in several bowls, which were apparently shared by three or four guests at the table. A late 12th-13th century miniature in a croce dipinta in the Museo Nazionale di San Matteo in Pisa, shows, for instance, five bowls on the Last Supper table, which was laid with a white table cloth (Sandberg-Vavalá 1929, fig. 164) (fig. 11.28). In that way, Jesus and his Apostles were sharing one bowl between two or three men. The diners were therefore expected to eat together from the same bowl with their immediate neighbours. Furthermore, the food was eaten with a knife and with the fingers. A late 14th century ‘Last Supper’-fresco at Mount Athos, shows also the separation of food into several bowls, as well as the use of jugs and even of glass beakers and glass wine jugs (fig. 11.29). The dishes with food and vessels of wine or water were not placed regularly on the table. The guests were apparently expected to share the dishes and knives between three or four men, but it seems as if they had one individual bread roll each. These rolls were perhaps used as a supplementary spoon to sop up sauces and gravies.

321

Fig. 11.28

Fig. 11.29

322

Fig. 11.28 Miniature in a croce dipinta, Museo Nazionale di San Matteo, Pisa, ca. 12th-13th century (after Sandberg-Vavalá 1929, fig. 164). Fig. 11.29 Fresco, Dohariou Monastery, Athos, 14th century.

The long, sharp-pointed knives on this fresco were probably intended to cut food into manageable pieces which could then be picked up by hand, or their points could serve as spears for lifting food to the mouth. Three or four knives for all diners were often documented on Last Supper scenes of this period. A late 13th century enamel in a diptychon from Chilandar shows even three rectangular shaped knives with a broad blade after Western fashion (Huber 1973, pl. 9) (fig. 11.30). It seems as if the end of blade is equipped with a beard to pick up food more easily from the table.[33 ] The depiction of glass cups or beakers is uncommon on 13th century Last Supper scenes from the East. The first glass beakers (actually in use!) can be detected in Western religious art at the beginning of the 14th century: on a Last Supper scene of Duccio in the Opera del Duomo in Siena from 1308-11 AD, for instance, and on a Marriage at Cana scene from Giotto in the Arena Chapel at Padua from 1305-7 AD (fig. 11.31). Interesting in this respect is also the sudden introduction of realistic looking tin-glazed earthenware, namely a blue-andwhite painted Maiolica jug, on Duccio’s 14th century Last Supper scene. In the same century, one can discern for the first time in the East similar blue-and-white painted jugs as well as glass vessels on a 14th century icon depicting the Hospitality of Abraham, now in the Benaki Museum in Athens (fig. 13.32). Furthermore, glass beakers in a Venetian style are also depicted on a 14th century fresco of the Last Supper in the church of Panagia Kera at Merambello, Eastern Crete (A. Lymberopoulou, pers. comm.). On the tables of the Western well-to-do households and clergy a single glass often served all diners during the Middle Ages; only from the late 13th century onwards did drinking glasses occur on Medieval sites more often and in a variety of forms (Willmott 1997, 185). In the East, glass beakers and vessels became less exceptional in religious iconography from the 14th century onwards. It is also obvious that the depiction of the dish with one fish undergoes a change after the 13th century.

Sometimes we discern a pair of fish, sometimes several vessels with fish, and in other cases the fish has vanished completely from the Last Supper table. A 12th-13th century miniature in the Ambrosiana Library at Milan shows, for instance, two dishes with the unprecedented amount of five fishes in each vessel (Wessel 1964; Cipriani 1967, 28) (fig. 11.33).[34 ] Apart from fish and bread, meat is the other food most frequently represented in Late Byzantine religious art. In addition to its possible links to Jewish traditions (see below), roasted lamb, which was often served as a whole (with head) on a dish, exemplifies the growing importance of meat at banquets. On some religious dining scenes, though, such as the Feast of Herod and the Wedding at Cana, the most prized meat was poultry. On a fresco from ca. 1315 AD in the church of St. Nikita at Cucer in Macedonia, one can actually see the host cutting one chicken with a knife into eatable pieces for his guests (fig. 11.34). On various Late Byzantine dining scenes, one can discern various types of food in the depicted vessels, such as soup-like substances. Noteworthy is also the appearance of a dish filled with small round balls (fruits?). The clearest depictions of such a dish can be seen on a 13th century miniature in the National Library in Paris (Wessel 1964, 49) (fig. 11.35),[35 ] as well as on a 14th century fresco in the church of St. Andrew, near Skopje in Macedonia (Bihalji-Merin 1960, 65) (fig. 11.36). Another interesting feature on Late Byzantine Last Supper scenes is the presence of white roots lying among the tableware. This vegetable makes its sudden appearance on many religious and secular frescoes, icons and miniatures in Byzantine art from the 13th century onwards. If the roots are perhaps horseradish, which originates from Southern and Eastern Russia, they may refer to the maròr (the bitter flavours), which the Jews normally consume during their Seder (a ritual meal in which symbolic foods are tasted during the Jewish paschal meal or Pesach).[36 ] The story of the Last Supper, which Jesus shared with his Apostles in a house in Jerusalem, was of course situated at the time of the Jewish feast of Passover. The document Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesin et in Exodum described the Passover as a communal meal that required small male animals to be cooked and eaten together with unleavened bread and bitter herbs (maròr) in accordance with the prescriptions outlined in the

323

Fig. 11.30

Fig. 11.31

324

Fig. 11.32

Fig. 11.33

Fig. 11.34

Fig. 11.35

325

Fig. 11.36

Fig. 11.37

326

Fig. 11.30 Enamel in diptychon, Chilandar, late 13th century (after Huber 1973, pl. 9). Fig. 11.31 Fresco by Duccio, Opera del Duono, Siena, 1308-11 AD. Fig. 11.32 Icon of the Hospitality of Abraham, Benaki Museum, Athens, 14th century (photo: Benaki Museum, Athens). Fig. 11.33 Miniature, Bibl. Ambrosiana D67 sup. (fol 79v), Milan, 12th-13th century (after Cipriani 1968, 28). Fig. 11.34 Fresco, St. Nikita, Chucer, Macedonia, ca. 1315 AD. Fig. 11.35 Miniature, Bibl. Nationale gr. 54 Tetraevang., Paris, 13th century (after Millet 1916, fig. 277). Fig. 11.36 Fresco, St. Andrew, near Skopje, Macedonia, 1389 AD (after Bihalji-Merin 1960, 65). Fig. 11.37 Fresco, Bojana, 1259 AD (after Boschkov 1969, 46).

book of Exodus (Segal 1963, 30-32; Feeley-Harnik 1981, 121; see also Hachlili 1998, 347-60, table vii.2, pls. vi-9 and 14 for the depiction of Jewish ritual objects in Late Antique catacombs and tombs in Rome, for instance at Villa Torlonia). On the other hand, the white roots appear so frequently on pictures in a non-Pesach context, that their presence may simply indicate a new ingredient for the dinner table – perhaps they were just refreshing for the mouth (Cf. Koder 1993, 88 and note 12). It has also been suggested that these white roots (in Greek called rapani) were used against intoxication during excessive winedrinking (Agagnostakis & Papamastorakis 2002). On a Last Supper fresco in a 13th century church at Bojana in Bulgaria, one can even distinguish three different types of roots (Boschkov 1969, 111) (fig. 11.37). According to the German art historian Klaus Wessel, the addition of the roots on this particular fresco at Bojana could be regarded as a folkloristic element from the Balkans. He observed that on the same fresco the Apostles had a long white cloth on their knees, which was decorated with black stripes. Apparently, such a cloth is nowadays still used in Bulgaria during dinner as a napkin (Wessel 1964, 48; 1966, 10). 11.7.2 byzantine dining habits in the written sources The textual evidence indicates that in Byzantine times three meals a day were considered normal: breakfast (progeuma or prophagion), a midday meal (ariston or mesem-

brinon) and supper (deipnon). Nicholas Mesarites, bishop of Ephesus from 1212 to 1220 AD, described the ariston as a noontime meal that included bread, wine, fish, meat and vegetables. Other Byzantine sources recommended a full meal at noon and only bread and wine for dinner, or no dinner at all. Both the ariston as the deipnon were in ancient Roman style divided into three courses: an entrée was served first, often followed by a fish dish accompanied by a sauce (gakos) – an alternative could be some form of roasted meat – and the last course consisted of a sweet. In his manual of the ceremonies of the Byzantine court, the emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus gave details about the protocol for an official dinner in the 10th century (De Caerimoniis I, 741 f.; II, 868). He referred to the ‘table of honour with nineteen places’ to recline on. He also explained that twelve guests should lie at the table with the Emperor, just as the apostles at Last Supper. A contemporary of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Liutprand of Cremona, described how the Byzantine Emperor during festive meals was lying down at the sigma table in a special hall (L. VI. Hist. c.3). All diners washed their hands before and after eating in a chemiboxesto, a clay or metal vessel intended for this purpose. According to Kazhdan and Wharton Epstein, in 12th century texts the Byzantines seem to show a greater desire for sumptuous meals and an increased interest in food and consumption in that period ((Kazhdan & Wharton Epstein 1985, 81). The poems of Prodromos, for instance, reveal both a concern with good dining as well as a greater availability of different foodstuffs (Poèmes prodr. no. 2.38-45). And especially, the letters of Eustathios of Thessaloniki show this new, Epicurean delight in exotic dishes (Eust. Opusc. 311.42-56; 80-93). At the same time, one can notice a change in more wine consumption after the 12th century (Kislinger 2003). However, one can also argue that as a result of an improvement in economic conditions in cities there are more people who can afford such food as well as wine and give expression to their new consumption pattern. Vessels of many different shapes, sizes and materials were used as tablewares (see Koukoules 1952, 146-55 with references). The written sources mention, amongst others, round and flat plates or dishes, which were used for eating food and drinking water (pinakas, pinakia, pinaskous); deep bowls, which were used as food and

327

liquid containers (missouria, missourakia) or for serving food (minsi, missi); deeper round plates for the table (scodella, skoutellia); cups for serving meat (koupes); communal dishes for the table (lekanis, lekania, lekanidas) and discs (diskos) which were used for serving sweets and all kinds of dried and fresh fruits. All these terms refer to the shape, the function or the fabric of these vessels. Some of them were either made of clay or wood, others of silver and gold. Earthenware of average quality was a relatively cheap commodity, and used at all social levels. Among the upper classes, clay tableware was generally considered of a lower quality than a gold or silver vessel. The 14th century historian Nicephorus Gregoras (2: 788.15-18) stresses this hierarchy of materials when he noted that the poverty of the imperial court required the replacement of gold and silver vessels by those made of ‘ceramic and clay’. (In Late Antiquity, Rabbula of Edessa, a 5th century bishop, is said to have ordered his clergy to sell their silver dishes for the benefit of the poor and replace them with ceramic ones.[37 ] We just do not know the precise importance of earthenware within a normal Byzantine household. We may assume that vessels made of cheaper materials such as wood and leather almost certainly occupied a position at least as important as that of pottery. Where metal vessels were largely confined to aristocratic and upper clerical households, in humbler kitchens food could be prepared, cooked and served in vessels made from wood, basketry, leather or stone. An act of 1110 AD fixing the division of property between three brothers in Thessaloniki stated that the utensils in the house were made of ‘wood, iron, bronze, and other materials’ (as cited by Kazhdan 1997, 59). The Byzantinist Nicholas Oikonomides has studied lists of household goods of middle- and lower-class households, living in the provinces. He concludes that, in contrast to the court in Constantinople, eating procedures must have been rather simple in the average Byzantine household. His conclusion is that ‘people often, if not always, ate with their fingers from a large serving plate and drank from a common cup or jar (made of clay)’ (Oikonomides 1990, 212). Table and furniture for seating were rare in these lists, as were spoons. Exceptions to the rule were monasteries (and hospitals), where flat individual ‘plates’ of earthenware or wood appeared, together with drinking glasses and

328

spoons (the lists even mention twenty-four spoons in one monastery!). According to Oikonomides, the reason for this may have been that cleanliness and healthy habits were highly valued and formalized in these places. As we have seen, the Byzantines normally ate with their hands on the Last Supper scenes, yet the written sources mention a variety in cutlery. Table knives were made of iron with bronze or bone handles, but the wealthy classes used also silver ones decorated with ivory handles (Koukoules 1952, 148 note 2). Forks were invented in the East and probably introduced to the West by Italians who had learnt their use in Byzantium. Gregory of Nicaea remarked already in the 4th century that during dinner the upper classes used silver peronas or awls (not yet forks in a modern sense), which were elaborately decorated (PG 44, 752). However, according to Koukoules, no Early Byzantine texts mention forks. Only from the 10th century onwards, do Western chroniclers mention their usage at the Byzantine court (Koukoules 1952, 148 n. 6). In shape these forks seem to have been at first quite similar to holders with an awl (souphlia). Later these souphlia developed in (more modern looking) two-pronged or three-pronged forks. At the excavations in Corinth, such a two-pronged iron fork was found, which was roughly dated to the 11th century (Davidson 1952, 194, 1461, pl. 88). In the 12th century bishop Eustathios of Thessalonica even described five-pronged forks (Koukoules 1952, 149 and note 1) The fork caused nothing less than a sensation, when introduced to Venice in the 11th century. The Byzantine princess Theodora came to marry the future Doge, Domenico Selvo, and at one of the celebrations she scandalized society by refusing to eat with her hands like any other mortal. Instead, after the food had been cut up into little pieces by her eunuchs, she popped them one by one into her mouth with a two-pronged golden fork. Peter Damian, hermit and Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, denounced the whole scene in a passage with the title: ‘Of the Venetian Doge’s wife, whose body, after her excessive delicacy, entirely rotted away’. According to Damian, the Byzantine princess rotted because of her excessive refinement in habits, to which the West was not used [38 ] The use of forks was at that time not yet adopted in the West. When the 13th century French missionary William de Rubruck saw the Tartars using forks to eat

meat, he made a comparison with the odd European example with which pears and fruit cooked in wine were eaten (Herbst 1925, 14). From the 13th to the 15th centuries, richly decorated forks, which were used for eating sweetmeats and candied fruits, appear occasionally in Medieval inventories of the aristocracy (Gay 1887, 736). Forty-three forks are, for instance, mentioned in Florence in 1361, in the list of plate belonging to the Commune (Emery 1976, 39). In an inventory from 1435 of Jacoba of Bavaria’s valuables is named ‘een cristallen gavelken tot den groenen genguer met gold beslagen’, or a gold-plated small crystal fork, which was used by her for eating green ginger (Forbes 1969, 66; Messen 1972, 1) 11.7.3 dining habits in the late byzantine/frankish period The pictorial evidence of dining habits in Greek lands during the Palaeologan era (ca. 1250-1453 AD), discussed above, seems to corroborate the archaeological evidence now available from Boeotia and Corinth. They show a clear increase in the number of deeper dishes and bowls on the table, as well as a more common occurrence of knives as dining utensils (cf.Davidson 1952, 189 and Gerstel 1996). As we have seen in chapter 7, the shapes of the tablewares found in Boeotia change in the Late Byzantine/Frankish period quite clearly from relatively wide dishes into smaller and deeper bowls with a thick, vitreous glazed interior. The rim diameters of these bowls are generally much smaller than the shallow dishes of the Middle Byzantine period (see table 7.3). This change in form of the Late Byzantine/Frankish inhabitants of central Greece seems to indicate that table pottery was shared by lesser people at the table, precisely as suggested by the later pictures of the Last Supper scene (see figs. 11.28-37). In addition, a more common use of knives as table utensils on the pictures of the Palaeologan period seems to be supported by further archaeological evidence from Boeotia. During recent excavations at the Late Medieval rural site of Panakton in Boeotia, for instance, a number of knives, including one with a bone handle, were found in combination with exactly the same types of sgraffito bowls as the ones found on the sites surveyed in the course of the Boeotia Project (e.g. Ware 16). All finds at Panakton were stratigraphical dated to the 14th century (Gerstel 1996, 148-49).

There is of course no simple and direct relation between changing historical circumstances and changing pottery shapes. However, it does not seem an extravagant conjecture to suggest that there is probably a link between the introduction of deeper bowls and more cutlery on the one hand, and the spread of affluence and new (and more complicated) table manners introduced during the Late Byzantine/Frankish period in Boeotia on the other hand. Furthermore, the differences in vessel size may be interpreted as evidence for a change in specific types of food that required boiling and serving in suitable containers. This change to a different dining style in late Medieval Greece may have been influenced by a progressive trend to more watery dishes, cooked in their own juices which are known to have occurred also in North-Western Europe (cf. Paston-Williams 1995, 49-50 and 111-12). The shift from an emphasis on roasting to an emphasis on stewing could perhaps explain the introduction of deeper containers during this era. As we have seen, the bowls of the Late Byzantine/Frankish period in the Boeotian samples are notably deeper and glassier in appearance than the earlier dishes. Although the actual effect may not have been immediate let alone all-pervasive, it may be that the Franks, as newcomers in the Byzantine world and the Byzantine kitchen, introduced their ‘Western’ diet, cooking traditions and dining habits to 13th century Greece. It is clear that in Corinth as well as on the Boeotian sites, a new type of deep-bodied ‘stew pot’ with a tall neck and slightly inturned rim appeared around the middle of the 13th century (see Ware 23 in Boeotia). This change in shape has been related to a change in diet, as the Byzantines ate mainly pulses and the Franks much more meat stews (Joyner 1197). According to the excavators at Corinth, this change happened as a direct result of the influx of Frankish refugees after the capture of Constantinople in 1261 AD (Williams & Zervos 1994, 36). However, it should be emphasized that explanations in this field of research may involve a complex mosaic of factors. The historian David Jacoby has rightly argued that the number of Franks already settled in Greece was far more important than the number of refugees coming in after 1261 AD. Moreover, how could one explain that the Franks, who had lived in the Byzantine urban surrounding of Constantinople, should bring ‘new’

329

DINING HABITS

CENTURIES

textual and pictorial evidence

LATE ROMAN / EARLY BYZANTINE

POTTERY SHAPES IN BOEOTIA archaeological evidence

5th-9th C.

LATE ROMAN / EARLY BYZANTINE

‘ancient style’ small semi-circular table

relatively open shapes (Ware 1)

reclining dining position on couch

hardly any glazed tablewares, but slipped wares

centrally placed, communal dish

average rim width 19/20-30 cm.

few individual drinking beakers or glasses

unglazed domestic wares

no cutlery; but loaves of bread

MIDDLE BYZANTINE

10th-12th C.

MIDDLE BYZANTINE

‘byzantine style’

dominance of open shallow dishes

introduction high square table

introduction glazed decorated wares

introduction of sitting upright

average rim width 24-30 cm.

centrally placed communal dish on high foot;

increase glazed wares

flanked by 2 drinking cups

glazed drinking cup (Ware 8)

introduction of table cloth and napkins

unglazed domestic wares

introduction of cutlery in 12th-13th c.

LATE BYZANTINE/FRANKISH

13th-15th C.

LATE BYZANTINE/FRANKISH

‘early Western style’

introduction of smaller deeper shapes

white table cloth

increase of glazed wares

increase of tablewares and cutlery

thicker, vitreous glaze

shift from communal to small group dining

average rim width 17-20 cm

sharing dishes and goblets by 2 or 3 diners

imports from Italy

introduction glass in 14th c.

unglazed domestic wares

introduction Maiolica

Table 11.1 Dining habits and pottery shapes: Late Roman – Early Byzantine to Late Byzantine/Frankish periods.

eating habits with them to central Greece? (D. Jacoby, pers. comm.). Nevertheless, Medieval written sources contain clear references to the different eating styles and cooking habits between East and West. The Byzantine diet included, for instance, more sauces, olive-oil, fish, vegetables and fruit, whereas the Medieval Western elite tended to look down upon green stuff as inferior food (see for the use of vegetables among the Byzantines, Koder 1993). Liutprand, the German bishop of Cremona, complained already in the mid 10th century about the use of these ingredients in the Byzantine kitchen. Filled with horror, he mentioned that one of the prepared dishes of his Byzantine host contained lettuce,

330

and another one was prepared with garlic, onions and leek. He also found the ‘Greek wine’, flavoured with pitch, resin and gypsum for preservation, undrinkable (Weber 1980). On the other hand, when we change the perspective 180 degrees, one can see the same abhorrence uttered by the Byzantines about the ‘Western’ cuisine. One Byzantine source from the 12th century mentioned specifically the outright dirty and unclean Western cooking methods of the Crusaders. The Byzantine statesman and historian Niketas Choniates even ridiculed the Franks because they consumed ‘chine of oxen cooked in cauldrons’, and ate ‘chunks of pickled hog boiled with ground beans, and a pungent garlic

sauce mixed with other seasonings’ (Nik. Chon. 594.1-5). Of course, we must keep in mind that these qualifications were written by chroniclers from Constantinople who gave no less voice to ethnic stereotypes than their Western counterparts (Lock 1995, 275). It is clear, though, that the food and the eating habits which the Crusaders encountered in the East were quite different from those to which they were accustomed to in Europe. Yet, at the same time some of them seem to have adjusted fairly easy to the Eastern style of eating. In Syria, for instance, a Frankish lord had in the 12th century an Egyptian cook preparing oriental food for him (Prawer 1972, 518 note 86).[39 ] Evidently, the problem of the relation between changing dining habits and changing pottery shapes is not clear-cut. It is even quite obscure to what degree and at what pace the socio-political landscape in Greece changed as a result of the coming of the Franks, let alone to what degree and at what pace their arrival changed the existing diet and repertoire. Basically, it is unknown in what numbers the Franks came to the Greek lands, as it is unknown whether they brought their own households and cooks. There is evidence of intermarriage among Franks and the Greek elite, as there is evidence of integration and acculturation on both sides (e.g. Jacoby 1973; Lock 1995, 266-309). Probably, the changes in dining habits and pottery shapes during the Late Byzantine/Frankish period in Central Greece reflect not a sudden change, but a period of transition and gradual adaptation. Old dining habits die hard, especially in rural areas such as Boeotia, and it is also very gradually that the changes in vessel shape become apparent during the late 13th century, only to gather momentum during the 14th century, after which the ‘new’ more narrow shapes continued into the early 16th century (so well up into the Turkish period with its renewal of more communal dining, as we shall see in the next chapter). I would suggest, therefore, that in Boeotia during the Late Byzantine/Frankish period there was a gradual transition from completely communal dining in the ‘Byzantine style’ to small-group dining in the ‘Western style’. This transition took place at a different pace in different parts of the region. Most sites at which bowls with the new deep and narrower shapes were sampled, seem to be situated near important land routes in Boeotia (e.g. the main route from Livadheia to Thebes).

It is probably safe to say that the Franks perhaps had only a limited impact when they first arrived in Greece, but that they opened up the region for a subsequent influx of Western influences and trade. And what came in their wake made the difference. Although the Franks were a comparatively small group in the Greek world, the gradual and slow impact of their economic, technological and cultural ‘luggage’ probably far exceeded their numerical importance (see in general, Lock 1995).[40 ]

,,.3

Summary

This first and preliminary survey of the use of table equipment (pottery and cutlery) in Late Roman and Byzantine times leads to several observations. The written sources indicate that diet (e.g. bread, wine, fish, olive-oil) and table habits from Late Antiquity were persistent into Byzantine times, which seems to be supported by the pictorial evidence. This is especially visible in the slow and gradual changes in the Last Supper scenes in Byzantine art, which may be taken to represent to a high degree contemporary dining habits. The religious (and secular) banquet scenes of the 5th and 6th centuries seem to represent dining habits which were almost identical to those of the Roman period. Diners were reclining on a cushioned sigma-couch around a small, semicircular table. On most Eastern pictures from the 5th to 7th centuries, Jesus is reclining on the extreme right side of the couch (in dextro cornu), which was the guest’s place of honour already in Late Antique times (the so-called ‘consul’s spot’ or place of the host). There are no individual plates, no individual beakers, no knives or spoons on the table. The diners apparently ate their food from a centrally placed, communal dish with their fingers. The shape of this dish looks quite similar to ones in Late Roman Red Slip Wares (or Ware 1 found on the Boeotian sites). Around the communal dish (mostly with fish), one can often discern some loaves of bread, one for each guest, which could have been used as a sort of spoon or eating equipment. The illustrations of the Last Supper seem thus to confirm the abundance of bread in the Byzantine diet. The earlier pictures show round, crossmarked loaves on the edges of the table. The form of these loaves looks analogous to depictions of bread on

331

frescoes and sarcophagi, as well as to real examples of Roman loaves from the excavations at Pompeii in Italy. The pictorial and textual evidence indicates that during the 8th-10th centuries customs in the Byzantine Empire were slowly beginning to change, at least for the well-to-do classes. The dining scenes from this period show that the guests, instead of the Roman habit of reclining around a table, were following the Western Medieval habit of sitting upright on high-backed benches at high square tables, sometimes laid with a white table cloth. (Sitting at the dinner table had since Antiquity been the normal practice only for those of inferior social position.) Still, also in this period one can discern one communal large pedestal dish (either made of metal or of earthenware) on the table, which was shared by all diners. The shape of this dish with a high ring foot and convex walls looks quite similar to the so-called ‘fruit stands’ of Glazed White Ware (Ware 8), which were exclusively produced at Constantinople at that time. It is possible that these fruit stands with their typical interior medallions in relief decoration were ceramic imitations of metal vessels. Their use perhaps suggests the careful presentation of food. It is noteworthy that chafing dishes (Ware 7) are not depicted at all on these pictures, although archaeologists and historians suggested that they were meant as table equipment to keep sauces warm at the table (their absence could perhaps indicate that they were rather used in the kitchen). Instead, one can notice realistic looking standing lamps (candelabra) in the background of the dining room, indicating the nightly hour of the meal (but probably not giving much light on the table). In dining scenes from the Middle Byzantine period, open shallow ring-footed dishes (without a lip) dominate the pictures, often flanked by two ceramic drinking cups. Centrally placed on the table, these large dishes were obviously used communally by all diners for the main course. In short, the communal character of the meal persisted, and cutlery was not yet depicted. The wideopen dishes have some similarities with the shapes of the decorated tablewares of the 11th-12th centuries found on the Boeotian sites (Wares 9, 10, 11 and 15). These thickwalled, open vessels have large rim diameters, and must have been quite practical for communal rather than individual purposes. It is highly probable that the inhabitants of Boeotia consumed the food in these communal

332

dishes with their hands rather than with cutlery, just as the well-to-do on the pictures with dining scenes. It is equally noteworthy that there always two ceramic drinking cups next to the communal bowl depicted on the pictures, perhaps made of Glazed White Ware (of which one fragment was found in Boeotia as Ware 8). The increased use of glazed drinking cups, made of earthenware, perhaps reflects another substitute for drinking glass (which is more typical for the Roman period) at the table. During the 12th-13th century, knives and forks suddenly made their appearance on the Last Supper pictures as instruments for taking food from the communal dish. From this time on, there is often at least one knife depicted on the table. Sometimes there is just a single large knife when it is the only one available for all the guests. Sometimes there are several small knives, often shared by three or four diners. From the late 12th century onwards, the Last Supper scenes as well as secular dining scenes show a clear increase in the variation of tableware and food. This seems to suggest a change in consumption, which is also supported by the written sources. Several types of bread appear on the table, as well as several dishes with fish and meat, while roots are now introduced apparently as a sort of side-dish. The table equipment definitively becomes more refined, and napkins make their debut on the Byzantine table. Still, there are major differences with contemporary dining scenes from Western Europe. On the Byzantine pictures there are no spoons, no salt cellars, nor an aquamanile (water jar), all of which are so omnipresent in Western depictions of meals. Apart from this progressive change in eating styles, a process of fragmentation of the communal eating manners seems apparent during the Late Byzantine/ Frankish period (at least from the 14th century onwards). On later Last Supper scenes, one can see a trend toward the separation of food into more bowls (shared by two or three diners). Glass beakers and jugs appear, as well as Maiolica and a variety of vessels. All this suggests the spread of wealth, consumerism and a smaller group eating style with more food in several smaller bowls on the table. This seems to be reflected in the ceramics found in Boeotia, where the rim diameters of the Late Byzantine/Frankish wares (Wares 16-24) are much smaller than their Byzantine predecessors. Summarizing, it may be concluded that the pictorial

evidence and the textual sources corroborate the clear trend in the archaeological evidence from the Boeotia survey, that there was a change from shallow, open vessels in the Late Roman – Middle Byzantine periods to smaller, deeper bowls in the Late Byzantine/Frankish period. I would suggest that in Boeotia (at least) there seems to be evidence that there were gradual changes from exclusively communal dining in Late RomanByzantine times (more focussed on sharing food together) to a more Western form of non-communal, small group dining in the Late Byzantine/Frankish period (the possible beginning to personal consumerism). There was probably no sudden, clear change in habits nor in pottery forms, but a slow but clear transition, which lasted from the 13th to the early 16th centuries.

Phrygian cap is Ascanius. Loomis (1927, 76), however, wrongly suggests that Aeneas is dining with two women: Dido and Anna. 8. Cf. Hilgers (1969, 170) with further literature. 9. Cf. Hilgers (1969, 42-3, 128-9, figs. 14-6 with further literature); and Isidorus Hispalensis, Origines XX 5,5, ‘calices et calathi et scalae poculorum genera, antea ex ligno facta’, who mentions wooden ‘calathi’ as being used as drinking vessels in the 7th century. 10. Cf. Marquardt (1964, 649) and Hilgers (1969, 61-5, 203-5) with further references for ‘lagoena’ as a serving jug for wine and other liquids. 11. Cf. Marquardt (1964, 649) and Hilgers (1969, 83-6, 298300, fig. 77) with further references for ‘urce(ol)us’ as a serving jug for wine and water (in the last case: for washing hands).

notes 12. Cf. Hilgers (1969, 71-2, 242-5, fig. 62 and plate 5, no. 7) for 1. The shape of the round table was connected with the Holy

‘patera’ as a drinking vessel.

Grail by Barb (1956). 13. Rossano, Archivescovado Codex Purpureus Tetraevang. (fol 3r). 2. Most art historians and archaeologists (e.g. Dobbert 1891, 183; Wilpert 1917, 846; Smith 1918, 137 and Dölger 1943, 569)

14. See, for instance, Hayes (1972, 107-11, forms 62-64, figs. 17-

agree that this picture on the Milan diptych is a Last Supper

18, form 181, fig. 35).

meal. However, Millet (1916, 287, n. 1) considers it as a Wedding at Cana-scene.

15. Paris, Bibl. Nationale lat. 2334 (fol. 44).

3. The restriction of large groups to four or five persons

16. The term sigma for a couch was used by Martial in his

because of shortage of space was often done in Early Byzantine

Epigrammaton libri (XIV, 87, 1). In modern literature the term

art. Cf. Wilpert (1917, 846) and Dölger (1934, 571-574) for

was used for the first time by A. Bosio in his 1632-publication of

more examples.

the Roman catacombs.

4. According to Wilpert (1917, 846), the Last Supper scene was

17. The first textual source mentioning this hierarchy of right

from the beginning regarded as a symbol of the Eucharist meal.

and left corners on the sigma-couch is Apollinaris Sidonius, a

However, Dölger (1943, 329-540 and 601-610) shows convin-

Gallo-Roman of noble family, who was describing the official

cingly that a meal with a fish was already present in ancient

banquet of Emperor Majorian (457-461 AD) in his Epistulae I,11.

texts and in ancient secular art, representing a luxury dish for the well-to-do classes.

18. Vienna, Nat. Libr. theol. graec. 31 (fol. XVII, 34). See also Dölger 1943, 572-3.

5. Cf. for this distribution of bread rolls for each guest, Dölger (1936, 208).

19. The use of the sigma-couch or triclinium (with reclining diners) in later (ca. 16th-18th centuries) European art has been

6. Vatican, Bibl. Vaticana lat. 3867 (fol. 100v).

studied by Blunt (1938-39).

7. According to Dölger (1943, 547), this unknown person with

20. St. Petersburg, Bibl. Publica Petropol. gr. 21 Lectionary.

333

21. Moscow, Historical Museum Add. gr. 129 Chuldov Ps.

paintings as archaizing post-Byzantine works under Western

Kondakoff (1886, 170) and Dobbert (1892, 362, fig. 31) date this

influence. His dismissal was based on iconographical study of

Greek psalter from the Chludov collection in the 9th century.

the tableware and cutlery in Last Supper scenes, which he

See also Cormack (1989, IV, 2, n.5) on the 9th century date.

described as inconceivable luxuries for remote Cappadocian monks in the Byzantine period. Weigand’s research

22. There seems to be some confusion about the provenance of

method, however, was shown to be inapplicable by Chatzidakis

this fresco. Dobbert (1891, 201, fig. 24) presents the same scene

(1939).

as a copy of a destroyed fresco in the church of San Sebastiano (alla Polveriera) in Rome. He dates this fresco in the 8th century.

33. It has been suggested by Forbes (1969, 19) that this beard

The copy (actually a water colour of a 17th century artist) is now

was used to stir, or perhaps spear, pieces of food in the plate.

kept in the Vatican, Bibl. Vaticana lat. 9071 (fol. 237). Millet (1916, fig. 276) is describing the copy as a 10th century fresco

34. Milan, Bibl. Ambrosiana D67 sup. (fol 79v).

coming from the San Bastianello in Pallara church. 35. Paris, Bibl. Nationale gr. 54 Tetraevang. 23. London, British Libr. Add. 19352 Theodore Ps. (fol. 50v). 36. I would like to thank Prof. Johanna Maria van Winter for 24. Wilpert (1917, 846-847) suggested about the disappearance

this suggestion. See also Reinhardt (1991, 293), who mentions

of reclining on Last Supper scenes: “Als diese Sitte ausser Brauch

that horse radish (or cochlearia armoracea) originally came from

kam und damit auch das Verständnis für ihre bildnerische Veran-

Southern and Eastern Russia.

schauung verloren ging, verschwand sie aus der Kunst.’ 37. Cf. Overbeeck (1865, 172, 14-18) and Blum (1969, 43). 25. Cf. Dölger (1943, 601, n. 18) who is referring to passages about reclining guests in the texts of Constantine Porphyrogen-

38. Peter Damian, Institutio Monialis, chap. 11, in Migne (1853,

itus (913-59 AD) and Liutprand of Cremona.

vol. 145, col. 744).

26. Paris, Bibl. Nationale gr. 74 Tetraevang. The miniatures of

39. I would like to thank Prof. David Jacoby of The Hebrew

this Tetraevangelion have been published by Omont (1908).

University, Jerusalem, for this reference.

27. London, British Libr. Egerton 1139 Ps. (fol. 6r).

40. According to Ken Dark (2001, 99), this ‘Westernization’ is also shown in the appearance of figures in ‘Western’ Medieval

28. Sinai, St. Catherine’s Monastery gr. 3 (fol. 17v).

dress (wearing longer hair and short kilts instead of tunics or trousers) on 13th century and later pottery.

29. Athens, Nat. Libr. 93 Tetraevang. (fol. 175v). 30. Vatican, Bibl. Vaticana Barb gr. 372 Barberini Ps. (fol. 68r). 31. In Western religious iconography, the fork had apparently less appeal. A rare early example of a fork is shown in a Last Supper scene from the Hortus Deliciorum of Herrade von Landsberg, a 12th century manuscript from the Alsace. But this scene has so many ‘Byzantine’ elements in its composition (such as Jesus reclining on the right side of a couch around a semicircular table), that one can doubt its Western origin. 32. Weigand rejected in two articles in the Byzantinische Zeitschrift (1935; 1936) a Byzantine dating for the rock-cut churches in the Göreme Valley, instead explaining the

334

1 2 – D I N I N G H A B I T S I N T U R K I S H A N D E A R LY M O D E R N T I M E S a preliminary survey of the written sources and the pictorial evidence

,-., Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to look at the PostMedieval ceramics found on the Boeotian sites from a functional perspective. More particularly, I will try to discuss the relation between changing shapes and techniques of these archaeological artefacts and the history of food and dining habits in central Greece throughout the Ottoman and Early Modern periods. Evidently, this is a vast and complex subject, of which I can present here no more than a first survey of the sources and the possibilities for further research. In order to do that, I will address five questions: what kind of food and which type of cookery were dominant in the Ottoman Empire? What were the ingredients used in recipes? How were meals served, and what do we know about dining habits and table manners? What kind of furniture and tableware were used? And, on a more regional scale: what kind of food and drink could the villagers in Boeotia have produced and used in the locally available pottery? To answer these questions I will try to make use of written sources and pictorial evidence from the Ottoman and Early Modern periods. It is not, however, my intention to strive for completeness in my search for written sources and iconography for these two periods. This chapter is rather a preliminary attempt towards the study of the relationship between material culture and the history of food and of dining habits in the Eastern Mediterranean during Ottoman and Early Modern times. I was helped by some publications, which produced summary studies on the history of food and dining habits in the Ottoman Empire (Ursinus 1985; Reindl-Kiel 1991; 1993; 1995; Araz 1996 and Yerasimos 2001).

,-.-

The written sources on food and dining habits

The written sources which can be used in an effort to explore the use of food and dining habits in Ottoman and Early Modern times include both European and Ottoman texts. Most prominent among the European

sources are the diaries or accounts of Western travellers (a varied group of diplomats, embassy employees, travel writers, scholars, pastors or returned captives). The Ottoman sources include budgets of pious foundations, cookbooks, books on dining etiquette and the 15th-16th century tax registers of the Boeotian villages. The accounts of European travellers who passed through Greece in their journey to Constantinople (or other Eastern destinations) are a primary source specifically for the study of dining habits in the provinces of the Ottoman Empire. An important example is the diary of the German traveller Hans Dernschwam (1494-1568), who travelled in the party of the Habsburg ambassador and wrote in his private notebook much about the culinary customs of the common Turkish household. Furthermore, the accounts of the British professor from Cambridge Fynes Moryson (1566-1629) and the Flemish scholar and diplomat Ogier Ghislain Busbequius (15221592) are useful sources for daily life in the Ottoman Empire during the 16th century (fig.12.1). Because these visitors from the West described the eating habits during Ottoman times rather accurately, we know quite a lot about the Turkish cuisine. In fact, these foreigners often described the dining rituals and practices in the Ottoman Empire in more detail than the Turks themselves, probably because as travellers they were ‘outsiders’ in a culture foreign to them, and thus were in a position to record what was ‘peculiar’ (that is: ‘un-European’) in the Ottoman etiquette and culinary conventions. However, the interpretation of these European sources is not unproblematic, as the Ottomanist Suraiya Faroqhi has rightly pointed out in her book Approaching Ottoman History (Faroqhi 1999, 110-143). Some – if not many – travellers had the tendency to use their travel account as a moral tale, or even worse, to invent stories or ‘authorities’ they ‘quote’ for the sake of captivating their readers. Others had the tendency to copy the writings of their predecessors in their search for scholarly credentials. In addition to this, as Faroqhi points out, it is often ‘difficult to find words for novel experiences, and travel

335

Fig. 12.1 Portrait of the Flemish traveller and diplomat

Fig. 12.2 Frontpage of the Turkish Cookery Book (after Turâbî

Augerius Busbequius by Melchior Lorck, Royal Museum for

Efendi 1862; rev. ed. 1996).

Fine Arts, Copenhagen, 1557 AD (after Von Martel 1994).

in the Balkans and Anatolia was an once-in-a-lifetime experience for most writers’ (Faroqhi 1999, 126). All this makes it necessary to try and balance the European accounts with the Ottoman view of daily life in the Empire, as a sort of control of the Western traveller’s biases and idiom. Unfortunately, Ottoman travellers and writers (e.g. Evliya Çelebi, Yusuf-al-Sirbim and Gelibolulu ‘Ali) apparently did not pay much attention to dining habits of common people in the Empire. Other primary sources, which could shed light on the subject or which could be explored for controlling the Western travellers’accounts, such as budgets of pious foundations, cookbooks (fig. 12.2), books on food etiquette and the 15th-16th century tax registers of the Boeotian villages, I was only able to study if they had been used or published in secondary literature.

336

12.2.1 the travellers’ accounts of food Through the ages, most European travellers generally found the Turkish cuisine too plain for their liking, noticing in particular the lack of sauces, gravy or garnishes (e.g. Nicolay 1577, 177-78; Moryson 1617, 128). In 1551 AD, the French traveller and geographer Nicolas de Nicolay wrote, for instance: ‘Der Turcken speiss ist schlecht, sparlich und grobe, ohne gefüll, bruhe, saltzen, specerey oder Confect […] so vergeleichen sich ihre kuchen noch Koch, gar nicht mit den unsern’, or: The Turkish food is bad, frugal and unrefined, made without feeling, stock, salt, spices or confectionery […] you can not in the least compare their cuisine or cook with ours (Nicolay 1577, 177-78). His contemporary, the British scholar and traveller Fynes Moryson quite agreed with him: ‘They are ignorant of the Arts of birding, fouling, hunting, or

cookery, and having no lascivious apetite provoking then to gluttony, are content with simple meates’ (Moryson 1617, 128). The 16th century Flemish diplomat Ogier Ghislain Busbequius described the Turks as very sober in their diet: ‘The Turks are so frugal and think so little of the pleasures of eating that if they have bread, salt, some garlic or an onion and a kind of sour milk which they call yoghurt, they ask for nothing more. They dilute this milk with very cold water and crumble bread into it and take it when they are hot and thirsty […] it is not only palatable and digestible, but also possesses an extraordinary power of quenching the thirst’ (Busbequius 1589 in Von Martels 1994, 92-93). Busbequius also noted that the Turks did not need hot food or meat during their travels. Their meals consisted mainly of yoghurt, cheese and fruits stewed in water. This food cost them so little that Busbequius reckoned that one of his own countrymen would spend more on food in one day than a Turk in twelve days. Even at formal banquets only rice with mutton or chicken was served by the Turks, followed by cakes and sweetmeats (Busbequius 1589 in Von Martels 1994, 92-95). According to his contemporary, the German traveller Hans Dernschwam, the food of the common people in Turkey was so simple because they ‘knew little of the art of cooking’ – especially their wives. ‘Their main dish is just czorba, that is a soup dish’ (Dernschwam 1553-55 in Babinger 1923, 123). Generally this czorba was cooked from mutton stock and thickened with rice, but sometimes cracked wheat (bulgur) was added in place of rice. The soup was seasoned with lemon juice, vinegar and a little pepper (Dernschwam 1553-55 in Babinger 1923, 123). The Turks ate this soup also for breakfast: ‘Der turkhen prauch ist, frue zuessen. Auch wan er nur aufgestanden, ist er ein czorba, das ist ein suppen von waitz’, or: The Turkish custom is to eat early in the morning. Also when a Turk just gets up, he eats a ‘czorba’- that is a soup made of wheat (Dernschwam 1553-55 in Babinger 1923, 124). Additional information about the eating habits of the Turks was given by a Spanish slave, who served during the 16th century for three years as a physician to Sinan Pasa, the admiral of the Ottoman fleet. In his memoirs the Spaniard complained that the Turks were not particularly concerned with food: ‘If you ask me, they eat to live, not because they take pleasure in food’ (Viaje in Solalinde 1919, 254-57).

In the soldier’s quarters of the Janissaries (the Sultan’s standing infantry corps), Busbequius was informed that few of the Ottoman soldiers ever ate meat. He was shown a Janissary ‘eating a mixture of turnip, onion, garlic, parsnip and cucumber, seasoned with salt and vinegar, from a ceramic or wooden dish’ and drinking nothing but water. Busbequius, therefore, concluded that this simple diet was as good for the Ottoman soldier’s health as for his purse (Busbequius 1589 in Von Martels 1994, 258-59). A century later, the British scholar Fynes Moryson also commented on the spare diet of the Ottomans, recording that the Turks did not eat pork, fowl nor fish, but much yoghurt, unleavened bread, chicken, rice and fruit throughout the year. He thought that it was no wonder they found it easy to keep an army in the field, because ‘the greatest men were content with rice to eat and water to drink’ (Moryson 1617, 128). It is no surprise that the Turks themselves had a different opinion about the food they ate. The Ottoman traveller Evliya Çelebi visited Vienna during a trip with the ambassador Kara Mehmed Pascha in 1665 AD. While describing meals for patients in the Viennese hospitals, Evliya praised the Turkish cuisine as follows: ‘Only the Ottoman people know how to eat. Even in India and Persia the food is not good: just the rice dishes there are famous’ (translated in German by Kreutel 1987, 180). Evliya’s contemporary, the Egyptian writer Yusuf alSirbini, was also quite enthusiastic about Turkish cooking. He stated that ‘even better than in Cairo the _ dish is prepared by Abna ’ al-Turk, whose way of cooking is the most delicious’ (as cited by Baer 1980, 29; see also his note 12 for the Arab text). In general, it is clear that Turks did eat meat, and that they preferred mutton to any other meat, and that it was served in nearly every meal for those who could afford it (Nicolay 1577, 177; Moryson 1617, 128). Mutton was boiled first for making soup, and was then chopped very fine and mixed with fried onions (Dernschwam 1553-55 in Babinger 1923, 123). The Turks usually ate only mutton, lamb and chicken, either stewed or roast, rarely any beef, veal nor game, and their only flavouring was garlic (Nicolay 1577, 177-78; D’Ohsson 1791, 24-25). Most Turkish dishes were served with their own gravy. There were no separate sauces served with the food. Although one Western traveller called the mutton flesh ‘very savoury’ (Moryson 1617, 129), others complained

337

that the roast meat was not healthy and ‘without any taste’ (Nicolay 1577, 178). Served with their meat, the Turks ate rice cooked with butter and mutton broth. This pilav was second in popularity only to soup (Viaje in Solalinde 1919, 254-57). To make the pilav, rice was first boiled in water, and then fried in butter or fat. Fried almonds were sometimes scattered on top of the pilav before it was served (Nicolay 1577, 176; Dernschwam 1553-55, 123). Other travellers specifically mention the generous use of butter and other fats. Other side dishes were white bread or small round buns, made from unsalted dough. Dernschwam thought it was remarkable that the Turks always demanded freshly-baked bread. If the bread was even one day old, the bakers reduced the price from two loaves for one asper to three loaves for the same money (Dernschwam 1553-55 in Babinger 1923, 48-9; 125). Sesame or black cumin were often pressed on the bread before it was baked, or the bread was smeared with sesame oil (Dernschwam 1553-55 in Babinger 1923, 128; Moryson 1617, 128). Later, during the 18th century, the Dutch pastor Herman van der Horst again records that sesame seed was ‘generally in use by the Turks to bake it on the crust of their bread’ (tr. Schmidt 2000). While the well-to-do classes ate mutton and fresh bread, the lower classes managed on a more modest diet. Garlic, onions, radish, carrots and cheese were eaten every day, though fish and other seafood were almost absent (Lubenau 1587-88 in Sahm 1915, II 10-12; Moryson 1617, 128; D’Ohsson 1791, 28). The Ottoman traveller Evliya Çelebi considered fresh or salted fish and sea food as a nourishment worthy for drunkards and Christians (Yerasimos 2001, 17). The food of the poorest was usually very simple: they lived almost entirely on green vegetables, beans and lentils (Dernschwam 1553-55 in Babinger 1923, 124). Courgettes and egg-plants were stuffed with finely chopped mutton mixed with garlic, spices and salt, and cooked in plain water. Usually, yoghurt was spread over this type of dish just before it was served (Dernschwam 1553-55 in Babinger 1923, 124). The Turkish yoghurt, sour and salted, won Dernschwam’s praise. According to him, it was found in all villages, and for eating it everybody had to wear a spoon on their belt. Often it was also drunk mixed with water: ‘Andere nation wurden krank darvon, schadt inen nichs’, or:

338

People from other nations become ill from it, but it does not hurt them (Dernschwam 1553-55 in Babinger 1923, 124). His 16th century contemporary, Fynes Moryson added that the Turks ‘willingly eate curds turned sower and mingled with bread and water, commonly called ‘Mishmish’, and fresh cheesse or curds, and have plentie of milke, aswell of cowes as of goates (Moryson 1617, 128). Also fruit was eaten, often after a meal. Dernschwam and Moryson mention apricots, melons, little plums, cherries, oranges, pomegranates, figs, raisins, lemons, melons, dates and peaches (Dernschwam 1553-55 in Babinger 1923, 123; Moryson 1617, 129). According to the 16th century British traveller George Wheler, the best melons in the world came from the Greek island of Zante, ‘if I may compare them with what I have eaten in England, France, Italy and Turkey’ (as cited by Eliot 1978, 18). Citrus fruits were also grown on the Greek islands. George Sandys praised, for instance, the orchards of the island of Chios, as full of ‘Oranges, Lemons, Citrions, Pomegranates and Figs’ (Sandys 1615, 13). Also his contemporary, the French traveller Sire Du Loir mentioned Chios as almost the only island supplying Istanbul with ‘Cytrons, d’Oranges et de Grenadines’ (Du Loir 1654, 20). Turks seemed to have a great taste for sweet things, but these were never eaten with the meal except at wedding parties and banquets. The sweetening was provided from honey or a thick molasses made from grape sugar or other fruit, called pekmez. Honey was considered by the Turks to be a noble product. They used it in many dishes and drinks (Dernschwam 1553-55 in Babinger 1923, 46). According to one 17th century traveller, the island of Chios had ‘the best hony in the world’ (Sandys 1615, 12). Apparently, the most ordinary drink of the Turks was just water (Nicolay 1517, 178; Wheler 1682, 204). Water, or sometimes sherbets, were drunk at the end of a meal. Sherbets were refreshing drinks made of among other things lemon juice, sugar, honey and water, sometimes flavoured with ambergris or musk. During summertime, sherbets were cooled with ice or snow from the mountains (Lubenau 1587-88 in Sahm 1915, II 10-12; Nicolay 1517, 178; Moryson 1617, 129; see also Carswell 1976, 38-45 with a list of texts mentioning sherbets). They also drank liquids made of medicinal herbs, ‘to purifie and coole the blood’, and they drank it hot (Moryson 1617, 129). According to the Armenian

Tosuniyan, who westernized his name to D’Ohsson, the Turks drank aquavit (‘eau-de-vie’) as an alcoholic digestive, but no beer, cider or punch (D’Ohsson 1791, 67). Not only the Turkish soldiers drank alcohol, but ‘even religious men, will drinke wine largely, even to drunkenness’ (Moryson 1617, 129; Nicolay 1577, 178). ‘The Turkish souldiers being to fight, if they can find no wine, drinke then iuyce of balcke poppy, called opium’ (Moryson 1617, 130). Dernschwam judged that the best wines came from the Greek Islands (Dernschwam 1553-55 in Babinger 1923, 101). The Dutch diplomat Frederik Gysbert van Dedem van de Gelder, who travelled to Istanbul in 1785 AD, seemed to agree with him on that and had a good appetite for the wines of the islands Tinos and Samos, preferring in particular the one from Samos (Van Dedem 1785 in Schmidt 1998, 150-151). Noteworthy is also Dernschwam’s remark that (although they drank it) no wine was made by the Turks themselves, and that ‘they did not have fine sets of drinking cups’. During autumn they either stored the grapes for the winter, or boiled them to make sherbet by adding honey to the grape juice. They also made good vinegar from poor wine (Dernschwam 1553-55 in Babinger 1923, 101). There was no lack of wine in the Aegean area, as Greeks and Jews made large quantities of it. They lacked the proper presses and they did not have good barrels or cellars for storing. In the villages, the wine was kept indoors on ground level (not below ground) in upright barrels from which the villagers drew wine in cups or jugs as they needed it. Dernschwam even saw wine covered with a layer of oil to preserve it. Because of these primitive storage methods, the wine mostly lost its taste and colour, and often turned bitter (Dernschwam 155355 in Babinger 1923, 101-103). A kind of lime or rosin was used to preserve the wine and to protect its colour. However, the lime and rosin also gave an odd and unpleasant taste which apparently lingered in the mouth, and made some people sick. The 19th century traveller Edward Dodwell complained, for instance, about the wine he drank in central Greece that it ‘was execrable and so impregnated with rosin, that it almost took the skin from our lips!’ (Dodwell 1819, 155). Retsina was not an attractive drink for this traveller: ‘one ocque, or two pounds and 3 quantrises weight of terpentine is infused in each barrel […] the same proportion of rosin is used at Patra; but in many parts of Greece half of

this quantity is reckoned sufficient. I have no hesitation in asserting, that the sour beer of England is in general preferable to the resinous beverage of Greece’ (Dodwell 1813, 212). 12.2.2 the travellers’ accounts of dining habits According to the travellers’accounts most of the ordinary houses in the Ottoman Empire had no specific dining area, since all rooms were multi-purpose and suitable for dining (Moryson 1617, 126-27; D’Ohsson 1791, 32; Dodwell 1819). In almost all traditional households (especially among the well-to-do classes) the men ate separately from the women (who ate in the harem). There were two meals a day: between 10 and 11 in the morning and in the early evening, half an hour before sunset (D’Ohsson 1791, 30). Before meals, everybody washed their hands, particularly the right hand which was reserved for clean activities such as eating. At the beginning of the 19th century Edward Dodwell described the washing ceremony in a household in Krissa in central Greece as follows: ‘Before sitting down to dinner, as well as afterwards, we had to perform the ceremony of the ‘cheironiptron’, or washing of the hands: a tin basin, which the Turks name ‘levenn’ (leg˘en in Turkish) is brought round to all the company, the servant holding it on his left arm, while with the other hand he pours water from a tin vessel, called by the Turks ‘ibrik’, on the hands of the washer, having a towel thrown over his shoulder, to dry them with. The towel is called ‘mandili’, from the ancient word ‘magdalia’. The ceremony is performed not only before and after meals, but is practised by Greeks and Turks before commencing their orations’ (Dodwell 1819, 156). After washing the hands, people sat for dinner on large cushions or on a carpet around a low table, which was basically a large round tray (a so-called sini) put upon a base (Dernschwam 1553-55 in Babinger 1923, 126; D’Ohsson 1791, 32-33; Dodwell 1819, 156). The tray was made of copper, or in later times enamel with floral designs. It was set upon a small wooden column or trestle on top of a large cloth (a sofra), which was laid on the floor (Dernschwam 1553-55 in Babinger 1923; D’Ohsson 1791, 32). The foldable wooden trestle, either plain or polished, was made of wood and generally had six legs. Only four to six diners could sit around the sini; in case there were more guests a second or third sini was put on the sofra (D’Ohsson 1791, 31).

339

Stools or chairs were not available; everyone sat on the ground (Knolles 1621, 833; Lubenau 1587-88 in Sahm 1915, II 10-12). The diners sat around the tray on their knees, or one knee raised and the other left flat on the ground (D’Ohsson 1791, 33). To the astonishment of the travellers, even the richer classes sat on the ground ‘like Tailors with thier knees bended […] or upon the grasse when they eate by Rivers sides and in Gardens’ (Moryson 1617, 128). Some Westerners felt uneasy and even embarrassed with these sitting procedures, as Edward Dodwell recalled at the beginning of the 19th century: ‘We sat on cushions placed on the floor; and our dress not being so conveniently large as that of the Greeks, we found the greatest difficulty in tucking our legs under us, or rather sitting upon them, as they do with perfect ease and pliability. Several times I was very nearly falling back, and overturning the episcopal table, with all its good things’ (Dodwell 1815, 157). Simplicity ruled during meals: even the wealthiest tables were not provided with a table cloth, individual plates, forks or knives (Rycaut 1668, 84). Only some flat pieces of bread ‘of two or three different qualities’ were dispersed on the tray, sometimes combined with a simple salt cellar (D’Ohsson 1791, 33). The large flat pieces of bread were either leavened or unleavened, and could be used as small plates (Moryson 1617, 128). In well-to-do households, servants would file in carrying the food in serving dishes of metal or ‘porcellana’ with a lid (Nicolay 1577, 176; Schweigger 1639, 148; D’Ohsson 1791, 32). The evening meal in these households consisted of several dishes of soups, pilavs and stews, always served consecutively and in quick succession. Paul Rycaut and the count D’Ohsson both emphasised that the dishes were ‘served in by one at a time, which as soon as touched or tasted, are taken off to make room for another’ (Rycaut 1668, 84; D’Ohsson 1791, 33). There was usually only one serving dish with food at the centre and no individual plates. According to Moryson, all diners ate out of this communal dish: ‘I have often seene Men of the better sort, eating out of the feeting pot, without any dish set before them’ (Moryson 1617, 129). Solid food was eaten with the (right) hand, and for this reason it was always prepared in pieces of suitable size. Large pieces of mutton (or fowl) were served boned and so well cooked that they could easily be broken up at the table (D’Ohsson 1791, 28-29). Several travellers

340

noticed that the Turks stewed their meat until it was very tender ‘so as they make breake it with their fingers, for they have no knives, neither have a variety of dishes set before them, but all sitting in a circle, fall upon one dish. Taking meat, they all together say a prayer or grace, and talke not whilest they eate, but silently fall hard to their worke’ (Moryson 1617, 128). The only cutlery available on the dining table were spoons. They were only used for soup and other liquid dishes. One 17th century traveller mentioned that ‘every one has lying by him a Wooden spoon, which holds three or four times as much as any of our ordinary ones, and whereof the handle is of a length proportionable; for as to Gold or Silver spoons, it is not their custome to use any’ (Tavernier 1677, 66). Another Westerner remarked two centuries later that they were still ‘the only article of luxury upon a Turkish dinner-table’ (White 1846, II 49). As indicated above, knives and forks were unnecessary because the food was cut and well cooked during the preparation. Even members of the upper classes were not accustomed to use cutlery in Ottoman times, as is suggested by J.C. Hobhouse, who was travelling in Greece in 1809-10 AD. He was invited for dinner in Livadheia at the house of the rich Logothetis family. Filled with terror and confusion, Hobhouse observed the table manners of his host’s wife, because this lady ‘to imitate European customs’ took up an olive in her fingers, and afterwards stuck it on a fork (Hobhouse 1813, 262). For most households in the Ottoman Empire, one simple dish, one wooden spoon, or one drinking-cup of leather or wood were sufficient for all meals (Moryson 1617, 128). Of particular interest in this respect is the remark of Edward Dodwell, who was invited for dinner in a Greek house at Krissa (in Phokis) at the beginning of the 19th century. During this meal he dined at a low round table of tinned copper, the sini, and sat on cushions on the floor. Besides complaining about the bad wine Dodwell also spoke (with disgust) about the communal large goblet, the ‘kyliks philotisia’, which served for the whole party. He emphasized with abhorrence the fact ‘that both Greeks and Turks use only one glass at meals’ (Dodwell 1819, 156-57). The French traveller Eugène Yemeniz had the same experience some thirty years later during a baptism at Erimocastro (modern Thespiae) in Boeotia. During the ceremony only a single glass for all, as well as one fork,

one plate and one napkin were used (Yemeniz 1845, 280). His contemporary, the British officer’s wife Esme Scott-Stevenson was even ‘aghast’, when she was invited for dinner in the village of Lefka on late 19th century Cyprus.[1 ] After helping her to some chicken broth, her host ‘suddenly helped himself to a few spoonfuls, which he ate with a great deal of noise and lip-smacking, and then as suddenly proceeded to fill up my plate with the same spoon’ (italics in text; cf. Scott-Stevenson 1880, 171). Filled with disgust, she concluded that ‘even the educated Turks have not the least delicacy in eating. Unacquainted with the usages of good society, they cannot understand our objections to their manners’ (Scott-Stevenson 1880, 172). Tavernier explained that the Turks did not drink heartily until after the meal; while the meal is in progress they assuaged their thirst by helping themselves with long wooden spoons from ‘cups of porcelaine which hold about two quarts’ full of sherbets’ (Tavernier 1677, 67). After meals, sherbets were served in wealthy households in large Porcelain bowls, often placed on plates of the same material ‘or other leather decorated with gold’ (Bon 1604-7, 106; Knolles 1621, 833; Schweigger 1639, 148; Du Loir 1654, 169; Tavernier 1677, 66). For wiping their hands during and after dinner, each diner shared a long narrow towel around the entire table to cover everyone’s lap. Poorer people would use grass during outside meals instead of the towel (Moryson 1617, 128). Individual napkins were also used in well-to-do households. A servant sometimes offered an embroidered napkin to each diner, who put this on the right shoulder covering the breast and thighs with it. At the same time, another napkin was used for cleaning the fingers (D’Ohsson 1791, 34). Then the hands were washed again under water poured from a tall ewer into a copper bowl with a perforated cover. After the meal was over, in wealthy households the diners would drink a cup of coffee which aided the digestion. Edward Dodwell noticed that strong thick coffee, without sugar, was handed round after dinner: ‘the cup is not placed in a saucer, but in another cup of metal, which the Turks call ‘zarf’, and which defends the fingers from being burnt; for the coffee is served up and drank as hot as possible’(Dodwell 1819, 157). While drinking their coffee, most men would smoke a pipe in the chibouk style (D’Ohsson 1791, 87; Hobhouse 1813, 262). According to Dodwell, ‘the life of a Turkish

gentleman consists almost entirely of smoking tobacco, drinking coffee, and counting his beads. The former is indispensably necessary for his happiness’ (Dodwell 1819, 152). 12.2.3 the budgets of pious foundations The budgets of pious foundations, founded by the Ottoman Sultans, are an additional source of information about the use of food among people outside the Ottoman Court. These documents originate mainly from the 16th century and show the use of food products of consumers in urban centres (unfortunately, most of these lists have been published in only Turkish; cf. Reindl-Kiel 1991, 182, note 5). One source, which has been published in English, is an account list of the food consumption in the imaret (a complex of public buildings and institutions, offering free meals to the poor) of Sultan Selim II in Konya, which encompasses the period from 1594 AD to 1601 AD. The list shows that the most significant ingredients for preparing dishes were meat (probably mutton) and rice, both food products with a higher social status (Faroqhi 1984, 328, table 33; here table12.1). Rice was traditionally considered superior to bulgur (cracked wheat). In the Konya imaret it was undoubtedly used for the preparation of soup or pilav, which were made especially during the month of fasting (Ramadan) and for feasts. The consumption of rice was generally about one half of the consumption of flour in these foundations . (Inalcik 1982). Other main ingredients on the list are wheat (for preparing bread or soup), clarified butter for cooking the dishes (oil was often only used for lamps), honey and currants (for sweet dishes). It was a custom in these foundations to serve rice dishes and sweet dishes on Fridays and holy days, which would explain the large amounts of rice, butter and honey used. Apart from the above mentioned ingredients, the account list of the imaret of Konya also mentions almonds, Coriander raisins, wild apricots, figs, starch, pepper, chickpeas, saffron and flour. The almonds, raisins, apricots and figs were perhaps used for making as ure (a pudding containing grains, nuts and dried fruits). It is perhaps remarkable that cane sugar is not mentioned on the list, nor dairy products (such as milk or yoghurt) and vegetables. Furthermore, fish seems to be lacking on the menu of this pious foundation. In fact,

341

Table 12.1 Account list of food consumption in imaret of Sultan Selim II in Konya, 1594-1601 AD (after Faroqhi 1984, table 33).

in most of these large foundations food products rich of calories seem to dominate the daily meals, which contained approximately 2000-2500 calories a meal (cf. Yerasimos 2001, 42). 12.2.4 cookbooks Regular recipes of the Turkish cuisine appeared in print only from the 19th century onwards (see Kut 1996, 62-68 for a good overview of old manuscripts on Turkish cuisine2 ). On the other hand, the dictionary Dîvânü Lugât’it-Türk (‘Compendium of the Turkish dialects’), which was already written in the 11th century (between 1069 AD and 1073 AD) by the Turkish scholar Mahmud el-Kas∏ garî in Baghdad, contained references to typical Turkish foods (such as ‘ayran’, a yoghurt drink, or ‘pekmez’, a grape extract). However, this compilation of Turkish languages was not intended as a cookbook. References in it about food and drink suggest, however, that the cuisine at that time was largely based on grain and animal products (Kut 1996, 38). Two centuries later, food occupied an important place in Mevlânâ Celâleddîn Rûmî’s work ‘Mesnevî’, written in 1273 AD. It mentioned dishes of the Seljuk period in Anatolia, among them ‘tutmaç’ (a thick soup made with noodles, to which yoghurt is added before eating) (Kut 1996, 40-41). In Mevlânâ’s poetry one can find not only examples of a religious tradition imbued with food metaphors, but also many references to food,

342

wine, cooking, kitchen, bread etcetera. In it one can almost find a complete list of kitchen utensils and ingredients used by the Seljuks in the 13th century (among them typical ingredients of the later Turkish cuisine such as ‘bulgur’, ‘sherbet’, ‘helva’ and ‘yoghurt’). Mevlânâ’s poems seem to suggest that in addition to meat and cereal dishes the Seljuks ate a lot of vegetables (spinach, onions, eggplant, leeks, celery, turnips, lentils and a variety of beans). In that sense, his poetry is rather associated with asceticism than with hedonistic gluttony. The earliest surviving ‘real’ Turkish cooking manual dates from the mid 19th century. This cookery book, titled Melceü’t-tabbâhîn (literally ‘Refuge for Cooks’), was adapted for Turkish readers by Mehmet Kâmil, a teacher at the College of Forensic Medicine in Istanbul (Kut 1996, 67). However, the work, printed in Istanbul in 1844 AD, was actually based on much older, handwritten recipes from 1260 AD. The ninth edition of Melceü’t-tabbâhîn was translated in the English language as the Turkish Cookery Book by Turâbî Efendi, and, according to him, this was done to be as ‘accurate and concise’ as possible (fig. 12.2). Turâbî’s cookbook was dedicated to the late Viceroy of Egypt on the occasion of a banquet given on board the Viceroy’s yacht in 1862 AD, and published two years later. This first Turkish cookbook in the English language offered an excellent ‘entry’ for a larger audience into the Ottoman cuisine.

Table 12.2 Ten most used ingredients in Turkish cuisine.

Table 12.3 Spices used in Turkish cuisine.

Table 12.4 Herbs used in Turkish cuisine.

Forty years later, it was followed by another cooking manual, this time in the Turkish language and popularized for the Turkish market with the appropriate title Ev Kadini (literally ‘Housewife’). Turâbî’s Turkish Cookery Book of 1864 AD (republished in 1996 in a facsimile edition) seems to have been the foundation for all following works, and must therefore be considered as a basic compendium of Turkish food. It contains 253 recipes, divided into twenty sections: varying from meat stocks to jams and reserves. Of all ingredients (ca. 120 in total) counted in the 253 recipes of this edition, the ten most used ingredients are: 1) salt (161 times); 2) butter (128 times); 3)

pepper (113 times); 4) onions (89 times); 5) sugar (87 times); 6) eggs (76 times); 7) mutton (68 times); 8) flour (51 times); 9) lemons (48 times) and 10) cinnamon (45 times). The high regard for butter (and sheep fat) in the recipes of Turâbî’s Turkish Cookery Book (in second place) seems to be quite normal in pre-Industrial societies of the East (cf. also the 15th-16th century recipes in Yerasimos 2001 for the most favourite ingredients for the Ottoman elite: ‘rice, sugar and butter’). For most dishes in Turâbî’s recipes exclusively clarified butter is used, which has a long tradition in the Islamic world. The sequence of frying and then boiling (instead of the

343

other way round) has also been derived from the East, namely from Arabic cuisine (Van Winter 1998). Olive oil, which was of course not readily available outside the Aegean area (but which was much used in the Greek/Roman/Byzantine cuisine), is not so much used in these recipes. It appears only in fish soups and a few fish dishes. Meat dishes form also an important group in Turâbî’s recipes (in seventh place); fish, poultry and game are not so popular. Meat means primarily mutton (or lamb). The meat dishes are prepared with a wide range of cooking techniques (e.g. frying, roasting, boiling) and are sometimes even sweetened (revealing the Eastern preference for sugar, which is in 5th place in these recipes). Turkish cuisine tends to cook meat in small pieces together with various vegetables. Turks like well cooked meat, which frequently errs on the side of overcooking, because the Islamic ban on ‘eating blood’ (for instance, red meat) was observed as far as possible. The result is often over-dry meat from which all the juices have evaporated. Pepper, salt and cinnamon are the most popular spices in the Turkish Cookery Book (see tables 12.2 and 12.3). Other spices, which are used in much smaller quantities, are garlic, mixed spices, cumin, nutmeg and sago. Also parsley and lemon juice are often used as seasonings (see tables 12.2 and 12.4). In addition, sugar, onions, eggs, flour and rice are indispensable ingredients in many dishes. Food products from the New World such as potatoes, tomatoes and maize were not yet important in the Turkish cuisine of that time. 12.2.5 a book on dining etiquette Rules of etiquette relating to food and eating in Ottoman times often derived from Islamic doctrine. A fundamental publication on the etiquette of food and dining habits according to Islamic rules is the 11th book of Ihya’ulu-m al-Dı-n, written around 1100 AD by the famous Arab theologian and mystic Abu Hamid Muhammed AlGhazza- l-ı (tr. Kindermann 1964). This manual for the faithful Muslim includes sections on correct behaviours before, during and after meals. It gives practical instructions how to eat as an individual or how to eat in the company of other diners. Furthermore, it advises on how to invite people, how to serve food to guests and how to be hospitable towards them. Under the credo ‘food is part of religion’, Al-Ghazza- l-ı

344

gives his readers practical (and often sensible) dining rules, such as washing hands before and after meals, using a toothpick after meals and only to eat when one is hungry (Kindermann 1964, 3). Out of modesty towards Allah, a good Muslim had to eat on the ground (eating from a sofra, or leather blanket) instead of from a table. The sitting position on the ground had to be correct: this was either on both knees, or one could sit on the left knee with the right leg up. According to Al-Ghazza- l-ı , one should praise Allah before and after dinner. The actual eating was of course done with the right hand, beginning (and finishing) with a pinch of salt. One should not use knives for cutting the food: ‘break it with your teeth’ is Al-Ghazza- l-ı ’s advice (Kindermann 1964, 9). Furthermore, one had to take small bites from the food, chew it well and to swallow it down in the mouth before taking the next bite. It was forbidden to clean the hands on the bread (instead one should clean them on a napkin), to blow on hot food, and to spit or breathe in a jug before drinking from it. One was also not supposed to drink anything else during meals than a little cold water. The thought behind this was that not drinking would strengthen the stomach. One had to take the communal drinking jug with the right hand with the words: ‘In the name of Allah’, and then sucking the liquid instead of gulping it. During dinner, one was not supposed to look at what your neighbour was eating, but to stay humble and only occupied with yourself. One was advised to stop eating before one was full, then to lick the dirty fingers and clean them with a napkin, and finally wash the fingers with tepid water. It was not appropriate, though, to spit in the washing-bowl in the company of other diners. After dinner, one should use a toothpick for cleaning food remains between the teeth. The prophet said: ‘Eat your meals with your family, meals so eaten are blessed’, so Al-Ghazza- l-ı concluded ‘the best food is the one, which is shared by many’ (Kindermann 1964, 8). 12.2.6 the tax registers and travellers’ accounts of food in boeotia The 15th-16th century tax registers of Boeotia, which have been studied and translated by the Dutch Ottomanist Machiel Kiel, offer relevant information about the production and consumption of food in central Greece during the Early Ottoman era (Kiel

1997). Additional information on food in Boeotia is sometimes supplied by travellers’accounts. Through these tax registers and travellers’accounts, the outlines of the rural way of life in Boeotia emerge in Ottoman times. The tax registers show that the Boeotian villages produced mainly cereal grains such as wheat, barley, oats and millet. The main crop in Boeotia, wheat, was grown all over the Ottoman Empire and accounted in some cases to circa 80% of the cultivated land. The second crop was often barley. This implies that the villagers in Boeotia must have eaten quite a lot of bread, or perhaps bulgur, boiled cracked wheat and considered as inferior to rice. Bulgur, which is rich in protein and easy to preserve, was generally eaten at all three meals in other villages in the Ottoman Empire. Archaeobotanical evidence from an excavation in central Turkey seems to corroborate this grain-based diet. A sample of charred plant remains from Ottoman times shows that bread wheat was the main crop on this site, followed (at a distance) by two row hulled barley and rye (Nesbitt 1993). Furthermore, at the excavation of Panakton in Boeotia seeds of barley were identified by a palaeobotanist within the soil deposits of a Late Medieval house (Gerstel 1996, 149). In the early 19th century the traveller Edward Dodwell distinguished two types of bread which were eaten in Boeotia. He reported that every family in the village of Davli in Boeotia baked a loaf of ‘delicate white bread’ in an oven as a present for the village priest. This must have been special bread, made of fine wheat, because the common bread in Boeotia is described by Dodwell as being heavy, coarse and gritty: ‘It is covered with ashes, and thus badly baked’ (Dodwell 1819, 203) According to the census lists the city of Livadheia in Boeotia had ‘a boza maker’ in 1506 AD (Kiel 1997, 325). This seems to indicate that in the beginning of the 16th century people drank a beverage with the name boza or bouza, a mild alcoholic liquid made of a bad quality barley. Apparently, boza was not forbidden by the Islamic laws because it was made from grain and not grapes. The Ottoman traveller Evliya Çelebi wrote in the 17th century about this type of beer: ‘It is permitted to drink boza as it gives strength even to soldiers of the faith’ (as cited by Mansel 1995, 174). Unfortunately, we do not have much information on the production or consumption of maize (a New World product; then named galambok) in the 16th century tax

registers of Boeotia, for it only gained economic importance in Greece and in the Balkans after the 17th century (Stoianovich 1966). In the Boeotian tax registers maize is recorded for the first time in the years 1724-25 AD, although one should bear in mind that we have no registers for Boeotia between 1570 and 1724 and that maize was probably introduced in Central Greece well before 1724-25 AD (Kiel 1997, 338). A century later, its production must have been increased enormously, because the British traveller William Leake mentioned in 1835 AD that the Theban plain ‘produced maize’ in the summer (Leake 1835, 216). He also was convinced that the fertility of the Kopais Lake area was shown by its maize, because ‘I counted 900 grains in one cob’ (Leake 1835, 158). Leake’s contemporary, the Frenchman Eugène Yemeniz remarked also on the prosperity of the lake area, because he noticed ‘fields of maize, rice, madder, tobacco and cotton until the shores of the Kopais Lake’ (Yemeniz 1869, 198). As indicated earlier, rice was another basic ingredient in the Ottoman diet, although it is not mentioned in the 15th century tax registers for Boeotia.The textual sources suggest that at first rice was imported in Greece from the East, but in later times cultivation followed the path of Ottoman settlement in the Balkans and Hungary. In Thrace, Macedonia and Thessaly the production of rice was introduced around the second . half of the 15th century (Inalcik 1982). Ottoman tax registers of the 16th century (of 1526 AD and of 1570 AD respectively) mention Christian and Muslim cultivators of rice in the plain east of Livadheia (Kiel in Bosworth et al. 1986, 773). In the early 19th century rice was still produced in Boeotia, because Edward Dodwell and William Leake mentioned ‘fields of cotton and rice’ near the towns of Livadheia and Thebes (Dodwell 1819, 269; Leake 1835, 119). The cultivation of rice demanded irrigation, but the crop has a high ratio of yield. There was always a great demand for rice in the Ottoman markets, especially in the rapidly growing urban centres. This kept the price for this staple food relatively high. The sale of rice was . regulated, and according to the historian Halil Inalcik, only state owned rice could be sold in the markets or shops for a period of 8 months (in a later period 6 months) after the harvest. He also remarks that in the year 1480 AD ‘out of 6,176 muds (1583 tons) of the state share of rice produced in the Filibe region [in

345

Macedonia] and its dependencies, 3,497 muds was sold in the market for 547,488 akças or about 11,000 gold . ducats’ (Inalcik 1982, 115 and note 140). According to the Ottomanist Suraiya Faroqhi, the high prices made the consumption of rice the privilege of wealthy and middle class households. Due to transport costs, she remarks, ‘it was probably seldom consumed by peasants outside of the producing areas’ (Faroqhi 1977, 171). The Boeotian tax registers rarely seem to indicate that the cultivation of fruits and vegetables was practised in almost every village on a small scale (perhaps only for household use), especially lentils, beans and chickpeas are mentioned (sometimes also almonds, onions and pine-resin). Only for the village of Muzaraki (so far in publication) were types of legumes enumerated separately, such as beans, lentils and chickpeas (Kiel 1997, table IV). Chickpeas, beans, or lentils were common side dishes for villagers during the Ottoman period (see also . Inalcik 1993, 170). As crops they were sometimes rotated with wheat, maize and barley. The Aegean region has always been known for its olive cultivation and although not a very common feature in the Ottoman diet, olive oil was probably used in the rural kitchen (apart from it being used for lamps). According to the Ottoman tax registers, the cultivation of olives is listed in the Aegean from the second half of the 16th century, and especially during the 17th century (cf. Karidis & Kiel 2000, 140-41 and Yilmaz 1995, 222-27 for example on Lesbos and the neighbouring mainland). It has been suggested that olive cultivation in Greece was a commercial product, not a subsistence product (Jameson et al. 1994). Furthermore, the introduction of new types of food, such as potatoes, tomatoes, capsicum peppers, squash, red beans and green beans made their way to the Ottoman Empire during the 15th and 16th centuries. According to Suraiya Faroqhi, beans, fruit and rice perhaps added variety to the peasant diet: ‘the poorer people must have eaten a lot of onion and garlic to flavour their coarse bread, and cheap vegetables must have been important ingredients for their thick soups’ (Faroqhi 1977, 169). Interesting in this respect is the remark of the British traveller George Wheler, who in the early spring of 1676 AD noted that the garden of the Monastery of Hosios Loukas was ‘well planted with Beans and Pease’. He was enjoying there a supper which consisted of ‘a Plate of

346

Fig. 12.3 Miniature by Levni, Surnâme-i Vehbi, Topkapi Palace Museum Library (fol 73b), 1712 AD (after Arsel 1996, 81).

Fig. 12.4 Miniature by Levni, Surnâme-i Vehbi, Topkapi Palace Museum Library (fol 50a), 1712 AD (after Arsel 1996, 103).

Fig. 12.6 Icon of the Life of Saint Alexios by Stefanos Fig. 12.5 Engraving with Ottoman dining scene, 1608 AD (after

Tzankarolas, Antivouniotissa Museum, Corfu, Post 1571 AD

Schweiger 1608).

(photo: Antivouniotissa Museum, Corfu).

delicate white Honey-combs, with Bread and Olives, and very good Wine’ (as cited by Eliot 1978, 13). Beekeeping seems to have been a traditional activity in most Boeotian villages (already in Late Roman – Early Byzantine times the archaeological record shows a large number of beehive fragments; see Ware 4). The tax on honey is listed in the Ottoman tax registers in nearly all Boeotian villages, and its value seems to have been large (M. Kiel, pers. comm.). George Wheler observed another garden at Hosios Loukas, which was ‘furnished with four or five hundred Stocks of Bees’ (as cited by Eliot 1978, 13). Its main products were honey for sweetening dishes and drink water, as well as beeswax for candles. Sugar, produced in Cyprus and Egypt, was probably not used as a sweetener by most villagers in Boeotia. Cane sugar from Cyprus was sent exclusively to Istanbul, where the Ottoman court was the main consumer (Yerasimos 2001, 36). Although wine is almost absent in the Ottoman tax registers (instead one can observe references of winemost for very young wine), the villagers in Boeotia must have produced and consumed wine. Other written sources show that the size of vineyards and their value varied from one place to another. George Wheler praised the ‘the best Wine, the most generous and well tasted’ of Thespiae in the 17th century, whereas Edward Dodwell complained about wine ‘of the worst quality’

drunk at Livadheia one and a half century later (Wheler 1682, 470; Dodwell 1819, 212). William Leake mentioned that the chief produce of the island of Euboea was wine: ‘from Cumae and Katsrevala alone, 20,000 barrels of 54 okes are sent to Smyrna and the Black sea, of which the average price on the spot is five piastres a barrel’ (Leake 1835, 253). Vineyards would also have been a source of raisins and currants. Moreover, many areas probably made use of grape extract or pekmez for sweetening dishes. Since pekmez was prominent in the kitchen accounts of pious foundations and not too expensive, we may assume it was a popular ingredient (Faroqhi 1977, 172). The stock-raising of sheep and goats is recorded in the Boeotian tax-registers. The village of Mavrommati, for instance, listed 4493 sheep in the year 1724 AD. The 18th century French traveller F. Beaujour praised the sheep from Livadheia as being better, larger and stronger than the ones from Thessaly and Macedonia (Beaujour 1787-97, 138). The Boeotian sheep produced meat, wool, milk and dairy products. Yoghurt and cheese were important sources of protein in the villager’s diet, because these products would not easily spoil in the absence of refrigeration. Meat was often a lesser source of protein, because it was more expensive. Most villagers probably consumed it only on special ceremonial occasions, a few times each year.

347

Fig. 12.7

Fig. 12.8

348

Fig. 12.9

Fig. 12.7 Icon of Hospitality of Abraham, Zakinthos Museum, Zakinthos (photo: J. Bintliff). Fig. 12.8 Icon of Hospitality of Abraham from Zakinthos, Benaki Museum, Athens, 18th century (photo: Benaki Museum, Athens). Fig. 12.9 Icon of the Birth of Saint John the Baptist by Tamazo Tzen, Monastery of Saint John, Livadia, Levka, 1st half of

use of book miniatures, icons and oil-paintings found in parts of Greece which were under Venetian domination in Post-Medieval times (e.g. the Ionian Islands and the Cyclades). Finally, attention will be given to pictorial evidence of the 19th century as a period of transition to a more modern dining style.

the 18th century (photo: J. Vroom).

,-.. The pictorial evidence of dining habits Another source for controlling or adding perspective to the Western travellers’accounts is the pictorial evidence for dining habits in the Ottoman Empire. There exist several Ottoman miniature paintings portraying banquet scenes at the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul. From the 16th century onwards, the Ottoman court sponsored book miniatures illustrating the dynastic chronicles of that period (Faroqhi 1999, 47). An excellent source for Ottoman banquet scenes is, for instance, the book Surnâme-i Vehbi (now in the Topkapi Palace Museum), which illustrates the circumcision celebrations for the sons of Sultan Ahmed III in 1712 AD. According to the historian Nurhan Atasoy, the Ottoman miniature is – besides a work of art – a good source of historical information (Atasoy 1971). She argues, for example, that the miniatures in the book S∏ehins∏ahname (which describes the reign of sultan Murad III until 1581 AD) depict the events as they really happened. In addition, she is convinced that the miniatures in another book, called the Hünername of 1588 AD, show the actual vessels in use on the table, although it is often difficult to make a clear distinction between Iznik Ware and Chinese blue-and-white Porcelain. Although Atasoy’s view that the Ottoman miniature painting can provide historical information seems plausible, it would be naive to accept them at face value as a source of ‘press photographs’ of daily life in the Ottoman era. It is important that the pictorial information is combined and controlled with data from other sources in order to be fully understood. The pictorial evidence seems in particular suited to show differences between oriental and occidental dining habits in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Ottoman period. For this so-called ‘Western model’ (as opposed to the Eastern type of dining habits), I will make

12.3.1 the eastern model Some of the miniature paintings in the Surnâme-i Vehbi offer a quite detailed picture of Ottoman wining and dining in the early 18th century. All depicted banquet scenes share several fundamental features: people are sitting on the ground around a low table, consisting of a large round tray on a wooden trestle (the so-called sini). The table is set upon a large cloth or carpet, which is laid on the floor. Servants file behind the guests while carrying the food from the kitchen in metal dishes, covered with a lid. On the sini one can notice only one main dish (often a large, wide-open bowl) with food at the centre, used by all diners. Adjacent to it are sometimes a few plates with olives or cloves(?) perhaps as side dishes or small appetizers. In not one of the miniatures is there a depiction of individual plates, or of forks or knives for the diners. Furthermore, people appear not to drink during dinner, because there are no cups or beakers on the table. On some paintings, solid food (such as chicken, fish, mussels and a rice dish with chicken) is taken from the communal bowl by all diners with two fingers of the right hand (fig. 12.3). At other banquet scenes, individual spoons are placed in front of each guest, while there is a large serving soup tureen at the centre of the table (fig. 12.4). Spoons seem to have been used only for liquid dishes, such as soup, compote and pudding. Obviously, everyone is expected to eat with their spoon from the same communal dish. (The written sources show that there even existed a complex etiquette of communal soup eating, whereby the right side of the spoon was only used to dish the liquid up and the left side to eat from (Ursinus 1985). Other pictures with dining Turks (such as illustrations in Western travellers’accounts) show exactly the same scenery as the Ottoman miniature paintings with the banquet scenes in the Topkapi Palace. On a 17th century engraving in Salomon Schweigger’s book Eine neue Reissbeschreibung aus Teutschland nach Constantinopel

349

eastern model:

western model:

No specific dining area

Introduction of dining room

Low round table

High square table

Sitting on the ground

Sitting on chairs

One main dish with food

Several main dishes with food

No drinking vessels

Drinking vessels of transparent glass

Communal bowls of Chinese Porcelain

Individual plates of Italian Maiolica

No knives nor forks

Cutlery sets: sharp-pointed knives and two-pronged forks

Table 12.5 Differences between Eastern and Western dining habits on 16th to the 18th century pictures from the Aegean.

und Jerusalem (1639), for instance, one can see people sitting on a carpet on the floor, around a low round table and with a communal large dish at the centre. There are no drinking utensils nor forks and knives on the table. One spoon is used by all three diners to eat the rice dish (pilav) from the main dish (fig. 12.5). This first survey of the pictorial evidence on dining habits in the Ottoman Empire seems to suggest that both Eastern and Western depictions of eating scenes confirm to the descriptions in the travellers’accounts in great detail. The ‘Eastern model’ of dining was apparently the standard: a communal dish with hardly any cutlery and additional pottery on the table. 12.3.2 the western model In parts of the Aegean area which were kept longer under Venetian control (such as the Ionian Islands and the Cyclades) the pictorial evidence seems, however, to contain certain deviation from the standard Eastern model. Here, one can notice more ‘Western’ dining habits on pictures from the 16th century onwards. For instance, an icon of 1571 AD from Corfu, now in the local Antivouniotissa Museum, shows a high square table, laid with a white table cloth (fig. 12.6). The guests (probably members of the local aristocracy) are sitting around the table on nicely carved Renaissance stools in some sort of separate dining room. There are several dishes with food placed irregularly on the table, as well as a few indi-

350

vidual plates. The diners seem to eat from earthenware tableware with a smooth glossy surface (Maiolica from Italy?), sometimes painted with a family’s coat of arms. Apart from the introduction of the separate dining room to facilitate a more private way of eating, one can also observe the increase in use of glass vessels in the 16th and early 17th centuries. On the same icon from Corfu, one diner on the right holds a delicate wine-jug of transparent glass in his hand (fig. 12.6). Another diner on the left holds a thin-walled transparent wine-glass in his hand. This seems to be a Venetian goblet with a tall stem and round base, favoured by the wealthy classes of society. He holds the glass at the base and not at the stem or cup. This way of holding a glass is a typical Western dining habit in this period (it can be seen on many contemporary Western pictures). Perhaps this was done because of hygienic reasons, or because the drinker does not want to pollute the glass with his greasy fingers. The increasing popularity of drinking glasses from the 16th century onward has often been ascribed to its relative exclusiveness. According to the British glassspecialist Hugh Willmott, the use of glass certainly had the social benefit of expressing refinement and achieved position within society. He regards glass vessels as ‘potentially powerful means of expressing hidden codes of meaning and aspiration’ (Willmott 1997, 188). Furthermore, he notices that drinking vessels of transparent glass had the ‘unique ability to not only reveal but

Fig. 12.10 Cutlery set of steel, gold damascening, mid 18th century, Sadberk Hanim Museum, Istanbul (after SHM, 100)

Fig. 12.11 Painting of a banquet at Yildiz Palace by S∏efik, Istanbul Museum of Painting and Sculpture, Istanbul, late 19th-early 20th century (after Arsel 1996, 58).

also raise the profile of its contents in a way not achievable in other material (Willmott 2002, 197). With the rise of a new, prosperous class in the 16th and 17th centuries also in Greek lands, there was a growing demand for new delicacies and luxurious possessions. One of the many manifestations of this new opulence was an increase in the variety of ways in which food was prepared and in the amount of effort that was expended on dining in style. In regions where the Western style of dining had influence, this meant an increase in the quantity, shape and variety of tableware and by the appearance of the ‘service’ or matching collection of settings (Goldthwaite 1989). In these regions of the Ottoman Empire, Maiolica from Italy

(Ware 27 in Boeotia) began to assume a significant role because of its glossy white surface which could easily be painted in the most fashionable styles. The change towards this ‘conspicuous consumption’ is obvious on 16th to 18th century icons from Greece with Venetian presence. Even biblical banquets, such as the ‘Hospitality of Abraham’ or the ‘Marriage at Cana’, became quite sumptuous in table setting. On two 18th century icons from the island of Zakynthos, for instance, one can observe elaborate carved tables laid with fine embroidered tablecloths (figs. 12.7 and 12.8). Furthermore, one can notice a greater variety in tableware, such as Maiolica vessels, the introduction of two candlesticks, more wine glasses and wine jugs of fine Venetian glass, and individual cutlery sets of a sharp-pointed knife and a two-pronged fork for each diner. Although we have seen the fork as an invention of the East, it was from Italy that the practice of eating with a knife and fork as a set together was introduced into the rest of Europe and the Mediterranean during the 16th century.[3 ] An early illustration with the names of a fork (forcina), a spoon (cuchiar) and knife (coltello) can be found in one of the oldest Italian cookbooks, Cuoco Secreto di Papa Pio Quinto, written by Bartolomeo Scappi in 1570 AD (Forbes 1969, 65, fig. 33). Other ‘Western-influenced’ icons show individual plates in front of all diners, such as the icon depicting the ‘Marriage of Cana’ from an early 18th century church on the island of Melos (Vionis 2001, 72). The use of separate eating settings on the dining table can also be seen on an icon of the first half of the 18th century from the island of Levkas, depicting the ‘Birth of Saint John the Baptist’ (fig. 12.9). Apart from several individual plates, there are also two matching dishes and one matching soup tureen on the table, creating a nice set or ‘service’ of Maiolica vessels. The pictorial evidence clearly indicates that the standard ‘Eastern model’ of communal dining in the Ottoman Empire existed next to a ‘Western model’ of individual dining (cf. table 12.5). 12.3.3 the 19th century Only with the introduction of European fashions in the Ottoman Empire during the early 19th century, dish meals in upper-class Turkish households began to be served in the ‘Western style’ at tables with separate place settings (Scarce 1996, 88). Meals became larger and

351

Fig. 12.12 Engraving of Voivode of Athens by Louis Dupré, ca. 1825 AD (after Dupré 1825).

Fig. 12.13 Lithograph by Gille based on the design of Otto M. von Stackelberg (1787-1837 AD), Benaki Museum, Athens, ca. 1831 AD (after Dimitsantou-Kremezi 1984, fig. 49).

more elaborate with a menu of several courses. Tableware and eating utensils known in the West were now introduced, and imported Porcelain from Europe was used to beautify the dinner tables. It became now quite fashionable to use knives and forks which were heavily decorated (engraved, curled or chased) on every surface. One can notice, for instance, such a cutlery set (consisting of a gold damascening spoon, fork and knife) of the mid 18th century in the Sadberk Hanim Museum in Istanbul (SHM, 100-101; here fig. 12.10). An oil-painting of a late 19th-early 20th century banquet at Yildiz Palace in Istanbul (now in the Istanbul

352

Museum of Painting and Sculpture) gives a good impression of these Westernized dining habits among the Ottoman elite (fig. 12.11). The guests are sitting at a central large table with accompanying chairs instead of sitting on the ground around a traditional low sini. The table is covered with a large white damask cloth which reached all the way down to the floor. European Porcelain dinner-services from Germany or from France appear to have replaced traditional Porcelain bowls from China. The table is laid with complete place settings, containing cutlery and a napkin. Various wine-glasses are accompanied by water-glasses and glass jugs for each diner. In the centre of the table are tall silver or silver-gilt ornaments with branches (also called ‘épergne’) for holding a variety of food. Other table-equipment is arranged around these central ornaments. Although in the 19th century (after circa 1840 AD) the ruling elite in Istanbul gradually switched over to more Western dining habits, serving each person a portion on a separate plate, the tradition of eating communally from one dish must have persisted much longer in the provinces. In central Greece, this custom perhaps lived on into Early Modern times (even among the local elite). An illustration in the traveller’s account of Louis Dupré from 1825 AD, for example, depicts the Voivode of Athens while dining in the Eastern fashion (fig. 12.12). The diners are sitting on the floor or on a low bench. They are eating with their hands from a communal dish, which was placed at the centre of a sini. It is highly probable that the lower classes in rural areas of central Greece also preferred to stick to old dining habits. In the Benaki Museum at Athens there is a lithograph by Gille based on a design of the Estonian baron Otto Magnus von Stackelberg (1786-1837), who travelled in central Greece at the beginning of the 19th century (Stackelberg 1831). The lithograph depicts dinner time in a village hut in Eleusis in Attica, and it is clear that the Greeks sit on the floor around a low round table and eat with their hands from a large communal dish (fig. 12.13). The 19th century was, in short, for the Ottoman Empire a transitional period from a traditional to a more modern or Westernized way of life, though the Western style of eating was slowly but surely getting the upper hand. Both the Eastern model and the Western model of dining habits existed within the Ottoman Empire and the newly-formed Greek state.

Fig. 12.14 Miniature of an Iznik dish, University Library, Istanbul, T. 6043 (fol 11b), 1586 AD (after Atasoy & Raby 1989, fig. 14).

,-)/

Iznik Ware and Kütahya Ware in the written sources

There is one last written source of information which may shed light on the use and distribution of ceramics in the Ottoman Empire in a more direct way. These are the texts on the production and use of Iznik Ware and Kütahya Ware, the two types of luxury pottery whose production was regulated centrally by the Ottoman court. 12.4.1 the use of iznik ware in the written sources There are many remarkable aspects of the Topkapi Palace, but for archaeologists, one of the most remarkable aspects is the almost total absence of surviving Iznik pottery. The palace yielded only broken pieces from excavations on the premises, in stark contrast to the large quantities of Chinese Porcelain which survived in the palace (and in the private collection of the Sultans). This means that we have to rely almost entirely on documentary references in order to establish to what extent – in what way – Iznik pottery was used at the Sultan’s court. The relevant Ottoman documents, examined by Nurhan Atasoy, consist of schedules of fixed prices, probate inventories and various palace registers such as treasury accounts, stocktaking records, sale registers,

palace kitchen records and inventories of gifts. The earliest dated document mentioning Iznik ceramics in use at the Topkapi Palace can be dated to the year 148990 AD (Atasoy & Raby 1989, 30). This register lists the types, quantities and prices of items, including Iznik pottery, purchased for the Imperial Kitchens. We learn from it that the cost of 97 Iznik vessels was at that time 1916 akçe. Another kitchen record from 1582 AD provides evidence that during special occasions (such as the festivities for the circumcision of the son of Sultan Murad III, which lasted 52 days and nights), 541 extra Iznik plates, dishes and bowls were purchased from the bazaar, in addition to the Chinese Porcelain, copperware and Iznik ceramics that were brought out of the Palace kitchens (Atasoy & Raby 1989, 14). The documents and Ottoman miniatures also show that Iznik ware was mainly used in the palace as an everyday ware (fig.12.14). Even in the 16th century, when the quality of fabric and decoration of Iznik ceramics reached its peak, the Ottoman Sultans preferred the more expensive and valuable foreign wares (such as Chinese Porcelains). The archival sources suggest that Iznik ware was stored in large quantities in the Imperial Kitchens of the Topkapi Palace, ready for use on a day-to-day basis. The documents refer to ‘compote bowls’, ‘large yoghurt bowls’, ‘salad and sweetmeat dishes’, ‘lamb dishes’, and even to ‘dishes for various puddings’ or ‘for clotted cream’. Prices and quantities in the probate inventories of Edirne’s wealthy residents (such as drapers and members of the military class) seem to indicate that, compared to Chinese Porcelain, Iznik pottery was relatively cheap and widely available for the upper classes (Atasoy & Raby 1989, 25-7). The potter’s skill and the taste of the decoration made them an acceptable, ready to use substitute for Porcelain, as well as for metal. On the other hand, it seems that Iznik Ware was the top end pottery in elite houses outside the Palace. It has rightly been suggested that Iznik pottery perhaps filled the gap between wood, tinned copper or crude pottery kitchen wares on the one hand, and gold and silver on the other (Rogers 2000). There is ample evidence that Iznik pottery was considered to be the high status alternative for vessels of wood, base metal (brass or copper), or even metal (though it was valued lower than Chinese Porcelain).

353

Fig. 12.15 Miniature of a Kütahya coffee cup and saucer, Topkapi Palace Museum Library, H. 2164 (fol 12a), early 18th century (after Atasoy & Raby 1989, fig. 20).

Fig. 12.16 Portrait of the British traveller Lady Mary Wortley Montagu (1709-1762 AD) (after Jack 1993).

354

12.4.2 the use of kütahya ware in the written sources Probate registers often list ceramics from Iznik and Kütahya together with Chinese Porcelain in inventories of estates. They show that Iznik pottery is always and Kütahya Ware is mostly valued lower than Chinese Porcelain. For one inventory (of the possessions of one Haci Hürrem Bey, dated 1623 AD), however, we find that a piece of Chinese Porcelain is valued at 150 akçe (silver coins), compared to 60 akçe for an Iznik dish and no less than 500 akçe for a Kütahya dish (Carswell 1991, 53; Akalin & Bilgi 1997, 13). The most distinctive products of Kütahya were thinly-potted, polychrome painted vessels in a fine, whitish frit. Small coffee cups (often with matching saucers), bowls, jugs and coffee pots made up the majority of production (see fig. 12.15). The shapes of the coffee cups were probably taken from Chinese Porcelain or from Porcelain made at Vienna and Meissen (Germany) about 1730-1740 (Lane 1939, 236). In the written sources of the time there are numerous references to the use of this sort of coffee cup. In 1839 AD the Western traveller Ami Boué described the serving of coffee in the Ottoman Empire, apparently referring to Kütahya Ware: ‘Der Kaffee wird in sehr kleinen, weissen Porzellantassen […] aufgetragen, welche oftmals mit einem feinen Goldrand, aber nur bei sehr reichen Leuten mit Malereien verziert sind’, or: The coffee is served in very small, white cups made of porcelain […] which are often decorated with a fine golden rim, but only very rich people have them with painted decoration (as cited by Ursinus 1985, 157). Remarks on the consumption of coffee are, for instance, frequent in Lady Mary Wortley Montagu’s famous ‘Turkish letters’, written while she accompanied her husband on a trip in 1718 AD (fig. 12.16). She reported that after the end of meals she often was offered coffee served in small cups of the finest ‘China with soucoups of gold’ (Montagu 1763 in Jack 1993, 116). According to Montagu, coffee was drunk in hamams, at picnics, in public gardens and in the houses of rich ladies (Montagu 1763 in Jack 1993, 59, 73, 86 and 88). There were sets of metal coffee pots, Porcelain cups in filigree holders, and small dishes for offering coffee and refreshments to the guests.It has therefore been suggested that in the early 18th century Kütahya Ware was well suited to the pleasure-seeking, romantic atmosphere that

DINING HABITS

CENTURIES

textual and pictorial evidence

POTTERY SHAPES IN BOEOTIA archaeological evidence

TURKISH

16th-18th C.

TURKISH

‘Eastern style’

Parts of Greece

dominance of large open dishes

no specific dining area

under Ottoman rule

increase glazed wares

low round table; no stools or chairs

average rim width 24-31 cm.

one centrally placed main dish with food

relatively few luxury imports

no drinking vessels

(Iznik & Porcelain & Kütahya)

communal dishes of Porcelain

introduction coffee cup

spoons only for liquid food

introduction tobacco pipe

no knives or forks

unglazed serving jugs

much use of watery and greasy dishes: soups, stews and pilavs use of rice, sugar, mutton and butter; hardly use of olive oil

‘Western style’

16th-18th C.

imports of Italian wares

introduction of dining room

Parts of Greece

relatively small deep bowls

high square table

under Western influence

average rim width 17-20 cm.

several main dishes

introduction of trefoil-mouth jugs

individual plates of Italian Maiolica

introduction of tin-glazed wares

drinking goblets of transparent glass

(e.g. Maiolica)

cutlery sets, consisting of

finds of glass

sharp-pointed knives and two-pronged forks candle-standards use of bread, wine, fish and olive oil

EARLY MODERN

19th-20th C.

EARLY MODERN

‘late Western style’

imports for display in household

high square table

Industrial-made pottery

all food in separate dishes

mass-produced tablewares

individual plates

introduction glazed domestic wares

individual drinking vessels of transparent glass individual cutlery sets

Table 12.6 Dining habits and pottery shapes: Turkish to Early Modern periods.

prevailed among the wealthy classes during the ‘Tulip Age’ of the Ottoman Empire (Watson 1988). The delicacy of the Kütahya cups indeed suggests that they were probably made for intimate gatherings of the Ottoman elite, rather than for robust public use in

coffee houses and bazaars. Coffee drinking had become a sort of national pastime in the 18th century (Vroom 1996). It was not only drunk in coffee houses, but also in the harem, in the hamam (bath-house) and at garden parties and picnics throughout the Ottoman Empire.

355

Evliya Çelebi recorded in his traveller’s account as many as 300 coffee houses and 500 coffee merchants in Istanbul alone, as well as the coffee cups found in the markets in Istanbul in regards to the varying levels of prestige associated with the different types (Kut 1996; Baram 1999). According to Uzi Baram, coffee drinking embodied during the 17th and 18th centuries ‘the new, the modern, the rebellion against the social order’. However, he suggests that by the end of the 19th century and into the early 20th century, it became ‘oldfashioned, the vestige of an old empire’, and eventually to be replaced by tea and nationalism (Baram 1999, 151) Lemon-squeezers were also made at Kütahya in the first quarter of the 18th century (Carswell 1976). Lemons were not grown in Northern Turkey, but we learn from various sources that lemons and lemon-juice were imported from the Aegean to Istanbul in the 17th and 18th centuries for making lemon sherbet. Obviously, a lemon squeezer of Kütahya Ware would be something only to be found in well-to-do households.

,-.0

Summary

The written sources (mainly travellers’ accounts) as well as the pictorial evidence (mainly miniatures and icons) clearly suggest that there existed two styles of dining habits in the Aegean area from the 16th century onwards. The dining habits in an ‘Eastern style’ were quite different from those in a ‘Western style’ and it seems that these differences are reflected in the pottery finds from Boeotia (see table 12.6). The ‘Eastern style’ of dining was characterized by the absence of a specific dining area and of stools or chairs. The diners were sitting on the ground around a low round table, the so-called sini. They were eating with their hands from a centrally placed communal dish. In Boeotia, an increase can be noted from the 16th century onwards of large open glazed dishes with an average rim width of 24-31 cm. (see chapter 7). These dishes are either monochrome glazed (Ware 29) or under glaze painted (Wares 31 and 32). Obviously this eating with the hand from a communal dish happened with the right hand according to Islamic doctrine. The Islamic culinary laws demanded that the diners did not use knives or forks to cut their meat, but broke and ate it with their fingers. Pieces of

356

bread were laid on the sini for each diner, but there were no individual plates, no individual cutlery-sets nor napkins. There were also no drinking vessels on the sini; all the guests drank after the meal. The only utensils used were spoons, for common households made of wood, for eating soup and other liquid or greasy dishes (such as stews, prepared with butter and not with oliveoil). Fellow-diners had to follow the intricate etiquette of eating soup communally, whereby the right side of these spoons was used only to dish the liquid up and the left to eat from it. In well-to-do households, the dishes were handed over by servants, forming a row from the kitchen to the sini where people were eating. On the menu were probably soup, mutton and rice (pilav) cooked in butter, and the food was served in large dishes, made of metal or earthenware. Perhaps the diners also ate from more expensive table wares, such as Porcelain and Iznik Ware. After dinner, the diners in well-to-do households washed their hands and drank coffee. Probably the coffee was served in decorative coffee cups of Porcelain or of Kütahya Ware, which were very popular among the Ottoman elite in the 18th century. In addition, water and sherbets were the only drinks offered during but mostly after the meal. While drinking their coffee, most guests would smoke a tobacco pipe in the chibouk style. In Boeotia, fragments of Porcelain (Ware 33) as well as of Kütahya Ware (Ware 36) and of one tobacco pipe (Ware 37) have been found. The dining habits in a ‘western style’, on the other hand, show the introduction of a separate dining room for a more private way of eating. Diners were sitting on chairs, stools or benches around a high square table covered with a white tablecloth. The table was set either with white napkins, or with a longer supplementary tablecloth, which guests could use to wipe their hands or mouths. Candle-standards for lighting the dining room were also placed on the table. It was customary to use several small bowls or dishes of earthenware, metal or wood, which were placed irregularly on the table. Diners shared these dishes of food between two or more, helping themselves from the nearest part, taking no more than their share. In Boeotia, one can notice, for instance, from the Late Byzantine/Frankish period onwards relatively small deep bowls with an average rim width of 17-20 cm. (e.g. Wares 24 and 25).

Furthermore, diners started to eat from fine table ware, made of earthenware with a smooth glossy surface, at meal-times in the Western style. The growing demand for new delicacies and luxurious possessions lead to the conspicuous display in Italian Maiolica of the separate ‘dinner service’ or matching collection of settings, sometimes painted with a family’s coat of arms. On the Boeotian sites one can observe the introduction of tinglazed wares such as Maiolica from Italy (Wares 27 & 28). The Western Mediterranean diet for the well-to-do classes was based on the Greek/ Roman/Byzantine cuisine, including bread, wine, olive oil, a variety of vegetables, fish and roasted or boiled meat. Wine and water were served in trefoil-mouth jugs, and were drunk from cups and goblets. Glass or silver would have appeared on the table of the wealthy. Drinking goblets and jugs of transparent glass became more fashionable from the 16th century onwards ‘Western’ cutlery sets were now introduced, consisting of sharp-pointed knives and long twopronged forks (for cutting and transferring pieces of meat), and sometimes spoons (for liquid or semi-liquid foods). Guests could also have brought their own knives. Roasted meat was carved at the table; the sauce came in a separate small bowl. The long-pronged forks helped the meat when carving; in Italy they were also used for eating pasta, as well as for fruit. Of course, the relation between Eastern and Western dining habits and the respective diet during the Turkish and Early Modern periods on the one hand, and pottery found on the Boeotian sites on the other hand is complex and not straightforward. Still, this first and preliminary survey of the written texts and the pictorial evidence on dining habits and diet in Post-Medieval times seems to suggest a pattern of mixed relationships which is interesting enough to serve as an incentive for further research. The main relation is that the differences between communal dining (the ‘Eastern model’) and a more individual dining (the ‘Western model’) seems to be reflected during the 16th century in the notable variation between smaller and larger rim shapes of the ceramics found in Boeotia (as depicted in table 12.6). I would suggest that in Boeotia there were rather clear changes from communal dining in Byzantine times to a transitional, more Western form of small group dining in the Frankish period, and back to communal

dining again in the Turkish era. These developments may have been the result (direct or indirect) of the arrival of new political rulers, who opened up the region to new, Western dining habits, but they may have been also the result of larger socio-economic changes, and probably they were the result of both.

notes 1. I am grateful to Dr. Michael Given of Glasgow University (UK) for this reference. 2. Noteworthy is also the recent discovery of a 15th century manuscript in a library in Istanbul, which is a Turkish translation of a Arab cookbook of the 13th century, the Kitâb al-tabîkh from Baghdad, but which also appears to have 82 added recipes from an unknown manuscript. The name of the 15th century compiler is Mehmed bin Mahmoud Shirvânî. According to the discoverer of the 15th century Turkish manuscript, Stéphane Yerasimos (2001, 11-13), the Ottoman court probably has asked Shirvânî to give a Turkish translation of dishes which were in use in that time, reflecting in that way Ottoman cuisine of the 15th and 16th centuries. 3. The use of the fork as a table implement was introduced in France in 1379 AD, in Italy in the 15th century and in Britain in the 17th century.

357

1 3 – C O N C L U S I O N : T H E C E R A M I C S F O U N D I N B O E O T I A , T O WA R D S A N I N T E G R AT E D P E R S P E C T I V E

,..,

The state of previous research of Post-Roman ceramics in the Aegean When I was offered in 1996 the opportunity to study 12,000 fragments of Post-Roman ceramics sampled in the course of the Boeotia survey, there was not much literature concerning pottery from this period in the Aegean area and in the region itself to build upon. Of course, substantial progress had already been made since the first publications on Medieval and PostMedieval pottery from the Eastern Mediterranean appeared at the end of the 19th century, especially as far as the classification, description and dating of decorated glazed wares is concerned. On the other hand, the bulk of the material upon which this knowledge was ultimately based, still is limited to poorly described museum objects (often of unknown provenance), to finds of sparse and unstratified excavations (wells and fills), and to surface survey ceramics (which are often categorized in very broad periods). There were, though, a handful of recent exceptions, which will be discussed below. However, many fundamental problems related to terminology and chronology remained, and it is therefore not surprising that this study begins with an effort to create some clarity in this field.To this end, a typo-chronological division for all the Medieval and PostMedieval ceramics from the Boeotia Project is proposed here, which could be used as a framework for the study of the Post-Roman survey ceramics in the region. This division of the sherds found in Boeotia from ca. the 7th to the mid 20th centuries is based on observable changes in the shapes, fabrics and other visible features of the pottery, and not on the traditional historical chronology. The main feature of this division is that it fully recognizes that pottery has its own rhythm of change, and does not necessarily obey the chronological schedules of historians and archaeologists at all places at exactly the same time. The next step was an effort to assemble the widest possible range of publications of the last 20 years which could offer more or less systematic, stratigraphical information on Post-Roman ceramics in the Aegean. These

publications included of course the most important studies in this field (prior to 1996) relating to large excavations in Greece, Cyprus and Constantinople/ Istanbul.This preliminary survey per period and per region indicated that while there is some sort of basic consensus on the typo-chronology of the Post-Roman glazed tablewares, there is still much uncertainty. As far as local production and unglazed domestic wares is concerned, there is hardly any knowledge. Most studies on Post-Roman pottery have been (and some still are) written from a purely art-historical perspective, showing little concern for the humble but vast genre of unglazed domestic wares and amphorae. For the period between the 7th century and the 9th/10th century, for instance, when we lose sight of the last datable Late Roman wares, there exists a very real gap in our knowledge of the ceramics in the Aegean area. The amount of pottery in use was apparently less, the imported, mass-produced fine tablewares and amphorae from North Africa, Western Turkey and Cyprus, which had been used until the 7th century, seemed no longer being produced and distributed in notable quantities. In their place came glazed tablewares in a white fabric from Constantinople. However, the presence of these first Byzantine glazed wares, let alone its dating, is in many regions of the Aegean (except for Constantinople/Istanbul) still obscure because of lack of publications. For the study of ceramics from the Middle Byzantine and Late Byzantine/Frankish periods in the Aegean, the emphasis of research and publication is mostly on the decorated sgraffito and painted wares and not on the less recognizable cooking wares and amphorae. This also holds true for pottery of the Turkish and Early Modern periods. It even seems that the more recent the pottery, the more art-historical and ethnographical the study of it – and less archaeological. Post-Medieval pottery from excavations in the large urban centres in Greece (e.g. Athens, Corinth, Thessaloniki) is unfortunately still very unsatisfactory studied and hardly published (at least, not in a stratigraphical context). Studies of the distribution

359

and use of ceramics in the Aegean area in Ottoman times are lacking altogether. At this moment there are two large, multi-period urban centres from which the pottery has recently been studied and published in such a way that we can use it as measure for the chronology and classification of Medieval and Post-Medieval ceramic finds in the Aegean: Constantinople/Istanbul (e.g. Stevenson 1947 and Hayes 1992) and Corinth (e.g. Sanders 1995 and Williams & Zervos 1988-1999). An excellent example of a recent, all-period approach is especially the publication by John Hayes of the pottery from the Saraçhane Djami excavations at Constantinople/Istanbul (Hayes 1992). This volume is a landmark for Post-Roman pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean for several reasons: 1) the multiperiod nature of the excavation; 2) the excellent presentation of the finds; and 3) the exhaustive comparison with other excavations. However, much remains to be done. For instance, more information is needed on production centres and kilns in the Aegean area. Furthermore, more studies are needed of closed deposits from excavations in the large urban centres, including all excavated material (fine tablewares as well as domestic wares), to create new typochronologies (especially for the Turkish and Early Modern periods). Finally, research on the social aspects of pottery, which has in recent years become a concern of archaeology in its widest sense, is still completely lacking in the study of Post-Roman ceramics in the Aegean. In spite of the recent ‘renaissance’ of this research subject, Aegean archaeology is in this respect still lagging far behind studies generated, for instance, from Italian and British material. Virtually nothing is known about the relation between changes in artefacts, and changes in production and distribution patterns, let alone changes in eating and drinking habits of the people who used the pottery on a daily basis.

,..-

A classification system for the pottery found in Boeotia

Without losing sight of the many problems involved with working with surface material, it is safe to state that the Post-Roman collection of the Boeotia Project offers an unprecedented opportunity to study a large, regionally based assemblage which encompasses a continuous time-

360

span of some 13 centuries. It was conjectured that this collection even offered the chance to try and construct a horizontal chronology of wares ‘overlapping’ in time from ca. the 7th century up to the mid 20th century, thus visualizing the long-term changes of human activity at sites. I have refrained from any discussion of the question whether the substantial fluctuations in the quantity of sampled pottery per period on sites may be interpreted as clear indications of fluctuations in population, or that other factors (e.g. visibility, or durability of the pottery) may have influenced these fluctuations. Of importance here is that two decades of field research in Boeotia have made it clear that several sites in the study area have yielded material of (more or less) consecutive periods, throughout Antiquity and the Middle Ages until Modern times, while other Post-Roman sites have yielded material of only single and apparently clearly limited periods of time. This provided the possibility to combine the ceramic data from all these sites in a regional typochronological seriation, and a preliminary classification of 48 diagnostic wares for Medieval and Post-Medieval Boeotia from ca. the 7th to the mid 20th century. However, due to the fact that the Modern cities of Thebes and Livadheia are built on top of the Medieval and Post-medieval layers, there are hardly any good stratigraphical sequences from these two major Boeotian urban centres of Medieval and Post-Medieval times in the research area. Unfortunately, there have until now not been long-term excavations designed to explore Medieval and Post-Medieval Boeotia. What was available to control the classification of the surface ceramics, amounted to publications of some rescue excavations (mostly small interim reports), which were valuable in their own right but a far cry from establishing some sort of vertical stratigraphy for the Post-Roman ceramics in this part of Central Greece. In addition, most of the information from these reports is related to the Byzantine period, and virtually nothing to the Turkish and Early Modern periods. As a result of this, the classification system for the ceramics found in Boeotia I present here is based mainly on the clearly diagnostic glazed tablewares and less on the unglazed domestic wares, which are still largely terra incognita in the region, as in many parts of the Aegean. Still, the creation of the classification system for the ceramics found in Boeotia was helped by four factors.

Firstly, all the survey material of the Boeotia Project was previously dated in a general way by John Hayes. Secondly, the dating of the sherds found in Boeotia of the Middle Byzantine and Early Modern periods was especially facilitated by many parallels in shapes and decoration-techniques with (recently) recovered material from the Corinth excavations (partly unpublished yet, but kindly made accessible to me by Charles Williams II and Guy Sanders). Thirdly, I had also the opportunity to study recent excavated ceramics from a well excavated context in Thebes. This study of several closed deposits in the city centre of Thebes (including a few vessels with complete shapes) proved a great help in recognizing formerly unknown wares of the Turkish period (see Vroom forthcoming a). Finally, some PostMedieval ceramics found on some Boeotian sites could be controlled in a more unconventional way by information gathered from the travellers’accounts and Ottoman tax registers (translated and studied by Machiel Kiel) with reference to the region. Some sites in the catalogue presented here could be firmly related to detailed information in the tax registers from the Turkish period (especially from the 16th century); and another six sites in catalogue were mentioned as ‘ruins’ or ‘villages’ by Western travellers in their accounts and diaries from the 17th century onwards. Especially in the case of site VM4, the combination of the Ottoman tax registers and other textual evidence in relation to the survey finds proved to be helpful in formulating a conjectural habitation history of the site (see also Vroom 1998a). However, apart from the dating and the diagnosis of types and shapes, many problems related to the pottery found in Boeotia remain untouched here. I have not threaded, for instance, into the complex field of relating the surface sherds found on the Boeotian sites to actual historical developments in the region (Although the amount and quality of the finds perhaps would make certain suggestions concerning general trends possible). Another problem not fully discussed here is how to relate a typo-chronological classification based on survey material to the fixed date chronology of excavated sites (such as Corinth). Chronologies based on excavated material often tend to assign to wares rather restricted dates (short periods of time for the circulation of pottery types), while problems encountered in a ‘horizontal chronology’ based on the survey finds might be solved when we would suggest that that several types of wares

(especially domestic wares and amphorae) found on the rural sites in Boeotia have been used by the villagers for longer periods of time than is commonly accepted, and that transition periods between various wares are rather fluid. The obvious criticism of working with surface material might be that an attempt to construct a classification system for thirteen centuries without a vertical stratigraphy amounts to little more than a ‘bold conjecture’. The one possible answer to such scepticism is that the ceramics of the Boeotia Project offer by their sheer number, quality, time range and regional provenance, an opportunity for a new approach, a new perspective, new questions and new answers. And in the end, all progress in science – including archaeology – is fuelled by new conjectures, preferably bold ones. This, of course, means nothing more than that the study of pots should be done as carefully and meticulously as possible,and that it should never rush to conclusions, but that it should also be done from the perspective on scientific research formulated by Karl Popper, who underlined that scientific knowledge advances by seemingly unjustified (and unjustifiable) anticipations, by tentative solutions to problems, in short: by conjectures. These conjectures are controlled by criticism: that is, by attempted refutations, which include critical tests. Or in Popper’s words: ‘As we learn from our mistakes our knowledge grows, even though we may never know – that is know for certain’ (Popper 1963). In the end, the importance of the site-samples collected in the course of the Boeotia Project lies therefore not only in the fact that they helped to find answers, but also that, at the same time, they have opened up a whole array of new questions and problems.

,...

A typo-chronology of the ceramics found in Boeotia

The intensive survey of the Boeotia Project was undertaken in two parts of this Central Greek region. It resulted in a substantial amount of systematically sampled Post-Roman ceramics, supplemented with grab samples collected at sites outside the core areas of research. The first core area included the territories of the ancient cities of Haliartos, Thespiae and Askra; the second one the area around the small ancient city of Hyettos.

361

The total number of Post-Roman find spots or sites recorded in the course of the Boeotia Project is seventyfour. Of the seventy-four site-samples, a selection of thirty site-samples is discussed in this book. The selection is based on the criterion whether the site sample offered typo-chronological information which could contribute to the assembling of a horizontal chronology of Post-Roman ceramics in Central Greece. In short, the thirty selected sites yielded highly diagnostic wares, while the unselected sites did not (and contained mostly only small to very small amounts of Early Modern coarse wares). Of the selected thirty site-samples, twenty were collected in the two core areas of research where the intensive survey resulted in total coverage samples. The remaining ten site-samples were not the result of intensive survey but of diagnostic judgment sampling, in other words by collecting ‘grab samples’ of diagnostic wares. Of the thirty site-samples under discussion here, twenty-two are multi-period with pottery diagnostic of several chronological periods; the remaining eight contain pottery of a single period. The pottery in the Boeotian site-samples under study range in date from the Late Roman period (ca. 6th-7th centuries) to the Early Modern period (ca. mid 20th century). Eleven samples contained pottery from the Late Roman period (about half of all the ca. 250 sites recorded in the course of the Boeotia project have Late Roman material, but that material was not seen by me). Perhaps four sites yielded a few (problematic) sherds from the Early Byzantine period (Late Roman and Early Byzantine sherds together amount to 16% of the total diagnostic wares per period). At least twenty-one yielded a substantial amount of wares from the Middle Byzantine period (47% of the total diagnostic wares per period). Sixteen sites produced a small amount of ceramics of the Late Byzantine/Frankish period (only 5% of the total wares per period). Fourteen sites produced a substantial amount of pottery fragments of the Turkish period (24% of the total diagnostic wares per period). Finally, twelve sites of the thirty under study (and many of the smaller sites not discussed here) produced ceramics of the Early Modern period (8% of the total diagnostic wares per period). In total, the thirty selected Boeotian site-samples with Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery included ca. 2800 diagnostic sherds used here to develop a continuous

362

classification system for the Medieval and Post-Medieval periods (or 23% of the total of 12,000 sherds). The classification system of 48 wares presented in this book does not include all Medieval and Post-Medieval wares known in the entire Aegean region. The classification system does include, however, all main types of wares found in Boeotia, and offers a continuous typo-chronological sequence of wares suitable for (quantitative) analysis. Much of the Late Roman-Early Byzantine wares found on the Boeotian sites appear to be locally produced, given the frequency and large amount of typical 6th and 7th century wares (e.g. Askra Ware, LR 2 amphorae and the unglazed beehives) in the survey region. No clear Early Byzantine wares of the 8th and 9th centuries can be identified with full certainty in the Boeotia survey collection, though some sherds may be designed as ‘possible’ Early Byzantine. The uncertainty is partly due to the fragmentary condition of the sherds concerned, which offer little information on the diagnostic shape of the pots they originate from. Sherds known from the Middle Byzantine period (10th to about early 13th centuries) are much more common (one could even say abundant) in the samples from the Boeotian sites. The vast majority of the Middle Byzantine pottery consists of plain glazed chafing dishes, as well as the standard painted and incised wares of this period (e.g. Slip-painted Ware, Green and Brown Painted Ware and Fine Sgraffito Ware). As far as it is possible to tell anything of the provenance of these glazed wares, most of them were probably made somewhere on the Greek Mainland, in or not far from Boeotia. The workshops at Corinth may also be a place of origin, while part of the wares may have been locally produced, for instance in Thebes (although no kilns have been found there yet). The imported wares of the Middle Byzantine period show, however, that Boeotia clearly looked to the East rather than the West for its pottery during these centuries. The 13th century marks the beginning of another period in the archaeological record for Boeotia. Sherds of the Late Byzantine/Frankish period are few in numbers, but most of the diagnostic wares were imported: first from Corinth and Thessaloniki and later from Italy (such as ‘RMR’ Ware). This gradual change in focus from East to West must have taken place in Boeotia towards the end of the 13th century and during the 14th century. During the same period, a gradual decline of

large amphorae for transport and storage can be noticed in Boeotia, which contrasts quite sharply with the large amounts of amphorae in the Middle Byzantine period. This demise into virtual absence of transport vessels may reflect the increasing use of containers of different material (e.g. wood, leather) for transport. Finds on the Boeotian sites become much more abundant again in the (early) Turkish period. The many imports in this period come from the East (e.g. Iznik Ware and Kütahya Ware), as well as from the West (e.g. Polychrome Sgraffito Ware, Maiolica, Marbled Ware). Most of the imports date of the late 15th – early 16th centuries (the period of the ‘Pax Ottomanica’ in the Aegean). The bulk of these imports seem to have come from Northern Italy (from the Veneto-region), and they seem to show that the rural settlements in Boeotia became more incorporated into a more ‘international’ operating distribution system of ceramics. The Early Turkish period is further characterized by the development of distinctive regional workshops in Greece (e.g. in Athens, Arta and Northern Greece), which sometimes tried to imitate the Italian imports (e.g. Maiolica and Polychrome Sgraffito Wares). Of particular interest is the fact that for the Turkish period no glazed domestic wares were found in the Boeotian site-samples (while these wares are abundant at the Saraçhane excavations in Istanbul). Pottery of the 18th century is relatively sparse with only a few (and mostly imported) ceramic finds. However, ceramics of the 19th and early 20th centuries are quite plentiful in the Boeotian site-samples. Also smaller sites of the Early Modern period yielded imported glazed and domestic wares from all over the Mediterranean (from Southern Italy, from Thrace, from Crete, from Siphnos and from Çanakkale in Turkey). When all the 12,000 sherds of the 48 diagnostic wares of the 30 selected Boeotian sites are taken together, the following picture emerges. The periods most abundantly represented in the samples are the 12th/early 13th centuries (named here the Middle Byzantine period), and the 16th century ((Early) Turkish period). Periods much less represented in the samples are the 8th and 9th centuries (Early Byzantine) and the 14th and early 15th centuries (Late Byzantine/Frankish). Once the typochronology of the wares had been defined, it became possible to try to establish the processes and influences underlying the changes in pottery types over time.

,../

Form and function

Archaeological ceramicists have become increasingly aware of the fact that besides considering pottery as an aid to dating, it is also possible to explore its technological, socio-economic and cultural aspects. Although never attempted before, this holds also true for the PostRoman ceramics in the Aegean. In fact, pottery was (and still is) an everyday utensil, manufactured and used by human beings as quintessential part of their behaviour with regard to storage, cooking and transport. Questions with regard to the organisation of the pottery workshop, the changing focus of supply and demand, the importance of the road system and the settlement pattern to the distribution of pottery, the taste among the elites and the poorer classes, as well as the cultural values of food and drink in relation to changing shapes may all be considered in order to answer questions about changing vessel shapes as well as about past societies. In this book a first attempt was made to look at PostRoman survey material from a functional point of view. The Medieval and Post-Medieval surface ceramics from the Boeotia Project shows that, at least in case of the diagnostic tablewares, a change occurred during the Early Byzantine period from large dishes and plates with a finish of a red slip to vessels with a lead glaze as a sealant on the inside. Noteworthy is also the change from shallow, open vessels in the Middle Byzantine period to smaller, deeper bowls in the Late Byzantine/Frankish period, and then again to large, open dishes in the Turkish period. At the same time, changes in decoration techniques in tablewares were introduced in the Middle Byzantine period, which have been practised in parts of Greece until recent times without much change. On the other hand, new and more technically advanced types of tin-glazed tablewares, such as trefoilmouth Maiolica jugs from Italy (for serving and pouring liquids) and coffee cups from Turkey, were introduced in Boeotia during the Turkish period. The use of these white-fired, colourful tablewares really took off in the Early Modern period, when cheap, mass-produced pottery from the West seemed to find their way into the Boeotian rural sites. During the 19th and 20th centuries, more varied shapes of plates and jugs became widespread in the region. One of the questions is whether these technological and functional variations in pottery production in

363

Central Greece between the 7th and the mid 20th centuries were only influenced by autonomous technical innovations in the potter’s craft, or that they were also generated or influenced by external ‘socio-economic’ factors (such as changes in distribution and demand) or ‘cultural’ factors (such as changes in dining habits). The way chosen here to approach these questions is to explore the written sources and the pictorial evidence on this subject. This proved to open up an entire field of research for the relation between shape and function of Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery.

,..0

Form, function and socio-economic background

There is no direct written evidence concerning the pottery production and distribution in Boeotia from Byzantine to Ottoman times. There is, however, no reason to think that ceramics played a different role in the slowly emerging market economy of the region than other household commodities. The socio-economic infrastructure of Medieval and Post-Medieval Boeotia is marked by several diachronic fundamentals which remained unchanged from Byzantine to Early Modern times. There were two important towns: Thebes and, from the 14th century onwards, Livadheia. Especially the first was an important centre of both commodity-production and of the redistribution of agricultural products, as well as an industrial centre with an important silk industry. From the 11th-12th centuries onward, Thebes was also one of the Venetian centres for long-distance trading operations, as many documents testify. The development of these urban communities with artisans/craftsmen and a wealthy urban elite must have created new pockets of demand. One of the principal features of Thebes was the possession of a market (and a mint). Ports with military and commercial functions in Boeotia (such as Euripos/Negroponte) must also have been important throughout the ages for the distribution of pottery. Not only were ports the principal means of exporting goods overseas but they also had a very large catchment area for the goods which passed through them, either leaving or entering the country. The longdistance movement of pottery in Medieval and PostMedieval Boeotia (for which there is ample evidence from the 10th-11th century onwards) must also have

364

taken advantage of an easy access to transport over water. The number of rural sites suggests that Boeotia provided at least from the Middle Byzantine period a steady demand for (household) products. Furthermore, the region benefited from a fairly convenient road system, linking it to the coast as well as to Athens and Corinth in the East and to Delphi and Lamia in the West. The textual, archaeological and ethnographical sources of information used in this book suggest that pottery production in Medieval and Post-Medieval Greece must have been much more common and much more widespread in the countryside than is often assumed. Noteworthy from the point of view of local pottery production is that one kiln site (site VM4), including the fragment of a kiln floor with glassy residues on top, has been found in the course of the Boeotia Project. The traditional view on ceramic production and distribution in Medieval times seems often somewhat biased by the traditional emphasis on the finds of beautiful manufactured vessels, made by skilled artisans in large urban centres such as Constantinople or Corinth. Those are, however, the fairly exceptional, expensive imported wares, whereas the general picture which arises from the survey finds in the rural area of Boeotia, is that domestic pottery was a relatively cheap and widespread everyday utensil, made by (local) peasant-potters directly for a local market. There are, however, two points to be stressed here. The designations ‘expensive’ and ‘cheap’ for pottery can not be more than relative terms. The large quantities and widespread occurrence of certain types of fine pottery on even the most modest of the Boeotian sites, surely indicates that the prize to be paid for these wares was no impediment for their distribution. These wares were clearly mass-produced and ‘mass-consumed’ which made low prices possible. On the other hand, an increase of economic prosperity in these rural regions (for instance during the Pax Ottomanica) led to an increase in purchasing power, a greater demand, and thus a larger production of pottery. Ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological observations of traditional potters in Greece and Cyprus suggest that regional diversity and overlapping types of production workshops (urban and village potters, sedentary and itinerant potters) characterized ceramic production and

distribution processes in Early Modern times. This may very well have also been the case in previous centuries. The picture emerges is that, although they were small, the Early Modern potter’s workshops did not produce only for the own household, but rather for wider markets. They invested in technology, including a foot-operated kick wheel and an up draught kiln, for the manufacture of pots during the summer months. The finished products were sold on the nearest market or village fair, or directly to local customers. When pots travelled in quantity over longer distances, middlemen were often acting as links between potters and customers. The situation on rural sites (such as VM4) in Medieval Boeotia probably resembled this pre-industrial/pre-modern organisation of production and distribution. In order to obtain a better understanding of the processes involved in the changes in production and distribution of pottery over time, I have applied three complementary models (of Blake, Orton and Wallerstein) on the Boeotian survey material. All three models appeared to offer only a rudimentary insight into the complicated mechanisms of changing demand and supply of pottery, certainly not on a regional scale as the one in Boeotia. In addition, I have made an effort to understand the Post-Roman assemblages from Boeotia in a wider perspective, specifically in the perspective of socioeconomic and historical developments in the entire Mediterranean area. For this, I tried to explore the possibility of applying to the Boeotian situation Wallerstein’s model of economic development (better known as the world-system model). When applied to the pottery found in Boeotia, Wallerstein’s model seems to highlight the fundamental differences between the capitalist structure of the Maiolica industry in Italy (a core area in the emerging ‘world-system’) and the feudalist Ottoman system of the Iznik-Kütahya workshops in Turkey (an area becoming more ‘peripheral’ during this period). The archaeological record indicates that especially during the 16th century a side show to the larger competition in the world between trade goods and court goods was unfolding on Boeotian soil, as a result of which this rural area was gradually incorporated into larger economic developments in this part of the world. The changes in the pottery industry and pottery imports in Boeotia, as well as the introduction of new

fine wares (notable from the 12th century onwards) may well have been related (directly or indirectly) to changes in the Boeotian social structure. These changes probably included the formation of a new local elite and wealthier middle class (land owners, artisans/craftsmen, merchants), who could afford a greater freedom of choice in ceramics and other goods. Furthermore, the growth of trade with the pre-capitalist Italian cities apparently facilitated the circulation of pottery, promoted the spread of innovations and favoured a general process of acculturation.

,..1

Form, function and cultural background

Another perspective explored in this book to enhance the understanding of the changing shapes and techniques of the pottery found in Boeotia may be called a ‘cultural’ approach.To this end a survey was made of the use of table equipment (pottery and cutlery) as well as dining habits in textual sources and pictorial evidence from Late Roman to Early Modern times. Although it is beyond the scope of this study to pursue anything more than a first and provisional exploration of this complex subject, several observations can now be made. The textual sources and the pictorial evidence corroborate the clear trend in the archaeological evidence from the Boeotia survey, that at least in the decorated tablewares there occurred a pattern of clear changes in pottery shapes over time. The main trend is the change from shallow, open vessels in the Late Roman – Middle Byzantine periods to smaller, deeper bowls in the Late Byzantine/Frankish and early Turkish periods, and then back again to large, open dishes in the Turkish period again. In this book I have tried to understand these shifts in shape and technology (changes in glaze) by relating them to shifts in cuisine and dining habits. As a result a clear pattern seems to emerge (cf. table 13.1). I would suggest that in Boeotia there must have been gradual changes from communal dining in Late RomanByzantine times (characterized by large open dishes) to a more ‘Western’ form of small group dining in the Late Byzantine/Frankish period (characterized by more food in smaller bowls), and back to communal dining again in the Turkish era (characterized by large open dishes). These were probably no sudden, complete changes in habits (or in pottery forms), but slow though nonetheless

365

DINING HABITS textual and pictorial evidence

CENTURIES

POTTERY SHAPES IN BOEOTIA archaeological evidence

LATE ROMAN / EARLY BYZANTINE ‘ancient style’ small semi-circular table reclining dining position on couch centrally placed, communal dish few individual drinking beakers no cutlery; loaves of bread

5th-9th C.

LATE ROMAN / EARLY BYZANTINE relatively open shapes (Ware 1) hardly any glazed tablewares, but slipped wares average rim width 19/20-30 cm. unglazed domestic wares

MIDDLE BYZANTINE ‘byzantine style’ introduction high square table introduction of sitting upright centrally placed, communal dish on high foot; flanked by 2 drinking cups introduction of table cloth and napkins introduction of cutlery in 12th-13th c.

10th-12th C.

MIDDLE BYZANTINE dominance of open shallow dishes introduction glazed decorated wares average rim width 24-30 cm. increase glazed wares glazed drinking cup (Ware 8) unglazed domestic wares

LATE BYZANTINE/FRANKISH ‘early western style’ white table cloth increase of tablewares and cutlery shift from communal to small group dining sharing dishes and goblets by 2/3 diners introduction glass in 14th c. introduction Maiolica

13th-15th C.

LATE BYZANTINE/FRANKISH introduction of smaller deeper shapes increase of glazed wares thicker, vitreous glaze average rim width 17-20 cm first imports from Italy unglazed domestic wares

TURKISH ‘eastern style’ no specific dining area low round table; no stools or chairs one centrally placed main dish with food no drinking vessels communal dishes of porcelain spoons only for liquid food; no knives or forks much use of watery and greasy dishes: soups, stews and pilavs use of rice, sugar, mutton and butter; no oil

16th-18th C. Parts of Greece under Ottoman rule

TURKISH dominance of large open dishes increase glazed wares average rim width 24-31 cm. relatively few luxury imports (Iznik & Porcelain & Kütahya) introduction coffee cup introduction tobacco pipe unglazed serving jugs

‘western style’ introduction of dining room high square table; several main dishes individual plates of Italian Maiolica drinking goblets of transparent glass cutlery sets, consisting of sharp-pointed knives and two-pronged forks candle-standards use of bread, wine, fish and olive oil

16th-18th C. Parts of Greece under western influence

increase Italian imports relatively small deep bowls average rim width 17-20 cm. introduction of trefoil-mouth jugs introduction of tin-glazed wares (e.g. Maiolica) finds of glass

EARLY MODERN ‘late western style’ high square table all food in separate dishes; individual plates individual drinking vessels of transparant glass individual cutlery sets

19th-20th C.

EARLY MODERN imports for display industrial pottery mass-produced tablewares introduction glazed domestic wares

Table 13.1 Dining habits and pottery shapes: Late Roman - Early Byzantine to Early Modern periods.

366

clear transitions, which lasted throughout the 13th to the early 16th centuries. The rise of a Western form of ‘non-communal’, small group dining in the Late Byzantine/Frankish period can perhaps be related to a gradual fragmentation of communal dining habits introduced in Greece and in Boeotia from the West. The gradual changes of dining habits during the 13th century through the 16th century are clearly supported by the pictorial and written evidence, and appear to be reflected by changes in the average rim width during this period (from wide open shapes in the Middle Byzantine period to smaller deeper shapes in the Late Byzantine/Frankish period, to wider shapes again in the Turkish period). In addition, changing shapes of cooking pots and changing use of glaze seems to corroborate the rather scarce written sources which suggest that besides the dining habits also the food itself changed. The archaeological evidence suggests that changes in shapes and technology of the pots followed the shifts from a vegetable based diet in Byzantine times to a more watery/greasy meat(?) based diet in Late Byzantine/Frankish times (meat was a well-known status symbol in the Western world) to a more soup/rice based diet in Ottoman times. Finally, the Late Byzantine/Frankish period witnessed the introduction of individual cutlery, which was abandoned again in the Turkish period when communal dining becaqme the standard again until the rise to dominance of the Western dining habits at the end of the 19th century. These developments from the 13th century onward occurred against a socio-economic background of growing wealth in urban centres (and thus a more developed social hierarchy and more personal consumerism) in Boeotia and growing imports from Italian pottery production centres. It may well be that together with the Maiolica also ‘Western habits’ were imported from Italy. Without wanting to sound in any way politically correct, it should be stressed that ‘individualization’ (in dining habits) is no indication of a higher standard of civilization or that the course of Boeotian cultural history can be seen as an inevitable route leading to its ‘natural’ ending in Westernization.It concerns here very complex cultural developments, involving for instance the concept of ‘individualism’ in the Byzantine world and Orthodox religion, which can only be referred to here as

fields for future study. The same goes of course for the abandonment of individual dining and the re-introduction of communal meals in the Turkish period, the first centuries of which probably were a relatively prosperous period in Boeotian history, as compared to the probably confused Late Byzantine/Frankish period with its Western influences. The interlocking processes of the mergence of new pottery shapes, new dining habits and new diets may have been the direct result of the arrival of new political rulers from the West and the East, but they may have been also be related to larger socio-economic changes in Boeotia from the 13th century onward, and probably they were the result of both. Perhaps archaeology alone can never fully provide answers here, but it may be considered a step forward that archaeology can formulate questions in this field. The relation between dining habits and diet in the Turkish and Early Modern periods on the one hand and pottery shapes of wares found on the Boeotian sites on the other hand is at least as complex as in Medieval times. There seems to emerge a pattern of relationships between acculturation, enculturation and technological innovation which is surely interesting enough to serve as an incentive to further research. What the Boeotia pottery indicates, at least, is that there seems to be a clear relation between communal dining (the ‘Eastern model’) and individual dining (the ‘Western model’) and wider c.q. smaller rim widths of vessels (see table 13.1). While the 16th century witnessed the re-introduction in Boeotia of communal dining (and of course a new elite, this time imported from the East), supported by Islamic rules and traditions concerning dining and food, the 18th century saw the slow rise of specialised ceramics for specialised types of foods and drinks. These signalled not only an increase of individual wealth for certain Boeotian inhabitants but also the beginning of a more individualized manner of consumption, which was to triumph in the 19th and 20th centuries. Even this first overview of the problems and the possibilities of interpreting survey finds in a sociocultural perspective suggests that it is possible and fruitful to use the collections of surface pottery such as the one sampled in Boeotia for something more than mere typo-chronological study or the (re)construction of settlement patterns. One of the advantages of survey ceramics is that they can offer a broad geographical and

367

chronological perspective that is not only restricted to one single site, but rather to wider trends in a region. In Boeotia, for example, the finds do seem to offer the chance to form a notion of the development of pottery use and dining habits of all sections of the population: from the rural villagers to the wealthy town folks. It is obvious that a farmer’s frying pan must meet other needs than a nobleman’s wine jug, and those functional requirements can be traced in the fabric, the thickness of the walls of the vessel, the form and the applied slip or glaze. However, looking at the relation between vessel shape and function is still a somewhat underestimated practice among archaeologists, let alone that it is fully appreciated as a source of historical and socio-cultural information. In the end, one of the conclusions of this book must be that various fields for future research clearly emerge. In the first place, the classification system of 48 diagnostic wares presented here provides a basis for further study of the Post-Roman pottery of Boeotia, especially the coarse wares which were not discussed here in detail. I mean both the (yet) not clearly diagnostic unglazed domestic wares in all samples as well as the wares of the Early Modern period in the 44 samples which were not used to develop the classification system and the horizontal chronology. In addition, the problem of the relation between the ‘fixed’ chronology of excavations and the chronology based on the survey pottery deserves further study. Here, the ongoing excavations at Corinth may prove especially valuable, as well as the recognition that chronological boundaries between different pottery types may differ per place, region and period, and may be more ‘fluid’ than is traditionally often assumed. More study is also needed on the vast and complex subject of the relation between changes in pottery shapes and techniques on the one hand and socio-economic and cultural changes on the other hand. The interplay between supply and demand, between technology and purchasing power, between urban areas and rural areas, as well as between cultural lifestyles and pottery need all to be further explored. And lastly, comparisons between Boeotia and other well-researched areas in the Mediterranean will undoubtedly contribute to sharper questions and perhaps more comprehensive answers.

368

REFERENCES (all titles are latinized as a service for the reader).

Abadie-Reynal, C. 1989a. Céramique et commerce dans le bassin égéen du IVe au VIIe siècle. In: M. C. Morrisson & J. Lefort (Eds.), Hommes et richesses dans l’empire byzantin I: IVe - VIIe siècle, Paris, 143-162. Abadie-Reynal, C. 1989b. Les amphores protobyzantines d’Argos. In: P. Déroche & J.-M. Spieser (Eds.), Recherches sur la céramique byzantine (BCH Suppl. 18), Athens, 47-56. Abbink, A.A. 1999. Make It and Break It: The Cycles of Pottery. A study of the technology, form, function, and use of pottery from the settlements at Uitgeest-Groot Dorregeest and Schagen-Muggenburg 1, Roman period, North Holland, The Netherlands, Leiden.

Altun, A., Akalin, S., Demirsar-Arli, B., & Yilmaz, H. 1996. Çanakkale Seramikleri/Çanakkale Ceramics, Istanbul. Amandry, A. 1982. L’Indépendance grecque dans la faïence francaise du 19e siècle, Nauplion. Amouric, H., Richez, F., & Vallauri, L. (Eds.). 1999. Vingt mille pots sous les mers, Aix-en-Provence. Anagnostakis, I. & Papamastrorakis, T. 2002. Byzantine... radishes for the appetite (in Modern Greek). In: Weekly supplement of Kathimerini 12.05.2002, 21-23.

Abu-Lughod, J. L. 1989. Before European Hegemony. The World System A.D. 1250-1350, New York and Oxford.

Anagnostakis, I. & Poulou-Papadimitriou, N. 1997. Messène protobyzantine (Ve-VIIe s.) et problèmes de la céramique modelée dans le Péloponnèse (in Modern Greek with French summary). Symmeikta 11, 229-322.

Abu-Lughod, J.L. 1993. Discontinuities and persistence. One world system or a succession of systems? In: A.G. Frank & B.K. Gills (Eds.), The World System: Five Hundred Years or Five Thousand?, London and New York, 278-291.

Anderson-Stojanovic´, V.R. & Jones, J.E. 2002. Ancient beehives from Isthmia. Hesperia 71, 345-76.

Adamsheck, B. 1979. Kenchreai, Eastern Port of Corinth IV: The Pottery, Leiden. Akalın, S. & Yilmaz Bilgi, H. 1997. Delights of Kütahya. Kütahya Tiles and Pottery in the Suna & Inan Kiraç Collection, Istanbul. Albani, J. & Poulou-Papadimitriou, N. 1990. Church complex at Pseira. Excavations at Pseira, 1987 and 1988. Cretan Studies 2, 1-9. Alexandre Bidon, D. 1986. Le metier de potier en terre (XIIIeXIXe siecle): histoire, iconographie et archeologie. Revue d’Archeologie Moderne et d’Archeologie Generale 4, 61-97. Allan, J.W. 1973. Abu’l-Qasim’s treatise on ceramics. Iran 11, 111-120.

Andreou, J. 1976 [=1984]. Arta (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 31 (B2), Chron: 204, pls. 150-151. Angelomatis-Tsougarakis, H. 1990. The Eve of the Greek Revival. British Travellers’ Perceptions of Early Nineteenth-Century Greece, London & New York. Anhegger, R. 1941. Quellen zur osmanischen Keramik. In: K. Otto-Dorn (Ed.), Das islamische Iznik, Berlin, 165-195. Antoniadis-Bibicou, H. 1966. Études d’histoire maritime de Byzance, Paris. Araz, N. 1996. Eat sweet, talk sweet. In: S. Arsel (Ed.), Timeless Tastes. Turkish Culinary Culture, Istanbul, 19-37. Argento, A. (Ed.). 1989. Le ceramiche di Grottaglie. La cultura delle mani, Mottola (TE).

Alpözen, T.O., Özdas, A.H. & Berkaya, B. 1995. Commercial Amphoras of the Bodrum Museum of Underwater Archaeology. Maritime Trade of the Mediterranean in Ancient Times, Bodrum.

Armstrong, P. 1989. Some Byzantine and later settlements in Eastern Phokis. Annual of the British School at Athens 84, 1-48.

Altmann, W. 1904. Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon, 1902-1903: Die Einzelfunde. Athenische Mitteilungen 29, 179-207.

Armstrong, P. 1991. A group of Byzantine bowls from Skopelos. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 10 (3), 335-347.

Altun, A., Carswell, J. & Öney, G. 1991. Turkish Tiles and Ceramics, Sadberk Hanim Museum, Istanbul.

Armstrong, P. 1992. Zeuxippus derivative bowls from Sparta. In: J. M. Sanders (Ed.), Philolakon. Lakonian Studies in Honour of Hector Catling, London, 1-9.

379

Armstrong, P. 1993. Byzantine Thebes: Excavations on the Kadmeia. Annual of the British School at Athens 88, 295-335. Armstrong, P. 1996a. The Byzantine and Ottoman pottery. In: W. Cavanagh, J. Crouwel, R. W.V. Catling, & G. Shipley (Eds.), The Laconia Survey, II: Archaeological Data, London, 125-140. Armstrong, P. 1996b. The Byzantine and later pottery. In: R.C.S. Felsch (Ed.), Kalapodi. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen im Heiligtum der Artemis und des Apollon von Hyampolis in der antiken Phokis, Mainz, 336-371. Armstrong, P. 2002. From Constantinople to Lakedaimon: Impressed White Wares. In: J. Herrin, M. E. M. Mullett, & C. Otten-Froux (Eds.), Mosaic: Festschrift for A.H.S. Megaw, London, 57-68. Armstrong, P. & Günsenin, N. 1995. Glazed pottery production at Ganos. Anatolia Antiqua/Eski Anadolu, 3, 179-201. Armstrong, P. & Hatcher, H. 1997. Byzantine and allied pottery, phase 2: Past work on materials analysis and future prospects. In: H. Maguire (Ed.), Materials Analysis of Byzantine Pottery, Washington, D.C., 125-140. Arnold, D.E. 1985. Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process, Cambridge. Arthur, P. 1990. Anfore dall’alto Adriatico e il problema del Samos cistern type. Aquileia Nostra, 61, 282-295.

Atasoy, N. 1971. The documentary value of the Ottoman miniatures. In: IVème congrès international d’art Turc, Aix-en-Provence, 2-17. Atasoy, N. & Raby, J. 1989 (1994). Iznik. The Pottery of Ottoman Turkey, London. Aupert, P. 1980a. Céramique slave à Argos (585 ap. J.-C.).In: Études argiennes (BCH Suppl. 6), Athens, 375-394. Aupert, P. 1980b. Objets de la vie quotidienne à Argos en 585 ap. J.-C. In: Études argiennes (BCH Suppl. 6), Athens, 395-457. Aurenhammer, H. 1959-1967. Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie, Vienna. Avraméa, A. 1997. Le Péloponnèse du IVe au VIIIe siècle: Changements et persistances, Paris. Baart, J. M. 1986. Italiaanse majolica en faience uit de Amsterdamse bodem: het tafelgoed van de gegoede burgerij. In: R. Kistemaker & M. Jonker (Eds.), De smaak van de elite, Amsterdam, 78-92. Baart, J. M. 1986 . Materiële cultuur in de late 16de eeuw: het milieu van een molenaarsweduwe. In: J. R. Ter Molen, A. P. E. Ruempol & A. G. A. Van Dongen (Eds.), Huisraad van een molenaarsweduwe. Gebruiken van een 16de-eeuwse boedelinventaris, Amsterdam, 93-103.

Arthur, P. 1992. Amphorae for bulk transport. In: F. D’Andria & D. B. Whitehouse (Eds.), Excavations at Otranto II: The Finds, Galatina (Le), 197-217.

Baart, J. 1991. Italian pottery from The Netherlands and Belgium . In: T. Wilson (Ed.), Italian Renaissance Pottery Papers Written in Association with a Colloquium at the British Museum, London, 232-240.

Arthur, P. 1998. Eastern Mediterranean amphorae between 500 and 700: A view from Italy. In: L. Sagui (Ed.), Ceramica in Italia: VI-VII secolo, Florence, 157-181.

Baart, J. M. 1993. The price of pottery . In: H. Clevis & J. Thijssen (Eds.), Assembled Articles I. Symposium on Medieval and Post-Medieval Ceramics, Nijmegen, 171-175.

Arthur, P. & Auriemma, R. 1996. A search for Italian wine: Middle Byzantine and later amphoras from Southern Puglia. The INA Quarterly 23, 14-17.

Babinger, F. (Ed.). 1923. Hans Dernschwam’s Tagebuch einer Reise nach Konstantinopel und Klein-asien (1553-55), Munich and Leipzig.

Arthur, P. & Patterson, H. 1998. Ceramics and Early Medieval Central and Southern Italy: ‘a potted history’. In: La storia dell’ Alto Medioevo Italiano (VI-X secolo) alla luce dell’ archeologia, Florence, 409-441.

Babinger, F. 1927. Die Geschichtsschreiber der Osmanen und ihre Werke, Leipzig.

Asher, A. 1840. The Itinerary of Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela I, London and Berlin. Aslanapa, O. 1965. Türkische Fliesen und Keramik in Anatolien, Istanbul. Aslanapa, O., Yetkin, S. & Altun, A. (Eds.). 1989. The Iznik Tile Excavation, Istanbul.

380

Babritsas, A. K. 1970 [= 1973]. Thessaloniki. Archaiologikon Deltion 25 (B2), Chron: 362-366, pls. 308-312. Baer, G. 1980. Egyptian attitudes towards Turks and Ottomans in the 17th and 18th centuries. In: S. Grozdanic (Ed.), Prilozi za orijentalnu filologiju. III Medunarodni simpozijum za predosmanske i osmanske studije, Sarajevo, 18-22. septembra 1978 / Revue de philologie orientale. III Symposium international d’études preottomanes et ottomanes, Sarajevo, le 18-22 septembre 1978, Sarajevo, 25-34.

Bakirtzis, Ch. 1977a [= 1984]. Pherai Evrou (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 32, Chron: 283-284, pls. 165-167.

Barb, A. A. 1956. Mensa Sacra. The round table and the Holy Grail. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 19, 40-67.

Bakirtzis, Ch. 1977b [= 1984]. Didymoteicho (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 32 (B2), Chron: 284-287, pl. 168.

Barbitsas, A. 1970. Thessaloniki (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 25 (B2), Chron: 363-366.

Bakirtzis, Ch. 1977c [= 1984]. Kavala (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 32 (B2), Chron: 264, pl. 155.

Bass, G. F. 1962. Underwater excavations at Yassi Ada: A Byzantine shipwreck. Archäologischer Anzeiger, 537-564.

Bakirtzis, Ch. 1978 [= 1985]. The Tower of Kyra-Maros, Daphne Nigritsa (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 33 (B2), Chron: 316-318.

Bass, G.F. & Van Doorninck, Jr., F.H. 1971. A fourth-century shipwreck at Yassi Ada. American Journal of Archaeology 75, 27-37.

Bakirtzis, Ch. 1979 [= 1987]. Gratini (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 34 (B2), Chron: 348-349, pl. 157. Bakirtzis, Ch. 1980a. Didymoteichon: un centre de céramique post-byzantine. Balkan Studies 21, 147-153.

Bass, G. F. & Van Doorninck, Jr., F.H. 1978. An 11th century shipwreck at Serçe Liman, Turkey. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 7, 119-132. Bass, G. F. 1982. The Pottery. In: G. F. Bass & F.H. Van Doorninck, Jr. (Eds.), Yassi Ada I: A Seventh-Century Byzantine Shipwreck, College Station, 155-188.

Bakirtzis, Ch. 1980b [= 1988]. The survey of Khrysoupolis (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 35 (B2), Chron: 437-458.

Baum, I. 1944. Die symbolischen Darstellungen der Eucharistie. Eranos-Jahrbuch 11, 327-46.

Bakirtzis, Ch. 1980c. Nekrologies, Andreas Xyngopoulos (in Modern Greek), Ellinika 32, 393-405.

Beaujour, F. 1800. Tableau du commerce de la Grèce formé d’après une année moyenne, depuis 1787 jusqu’en 1797, Paris.

Bakirtzis, Ch. 1987 [= 1992]. Kastro Siderokastro (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 42 (B2), Chron: 464-465.

Beazley, J.D. 1956. Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painters, Oxford. Beazley, J.D. 1963. Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters, Oxford.

Bakirtzis, Ch. 1989. Byzantine ‘Tsoukalolagina’ (in Modern Greek), Athens. Bakirtzis, Ch. & Papanikola-Bakirtzis, D. 1981. De la céramique byzantine en glaçure à Thessalonique. Byzantino-bulgarica 7, 421-436. Baldwin Smith, E. 1918. Early Christian Iconography and a School of Ivory Carvers in Provence, Princeton. Ballance, M., Boardman, J., Corbett, S. & Hood, S. 1989. Excavations in Chios 1952-1955: Byzantine Emporio, London. Ballianou, C. & Padouva, M. 1986. Cretan Pots from the 19th and 20th Century (in Modern Greek), Vori.

Becker, W. A. 1854. Charikles: Bilder altgriechischen Sitte, zur genaueren Kenntniss des griechischen Privatlebens, Leipzig. Bek, L. 1983. Questiones convivales. The idea of the triclinium and the staging of convivial ceremony from Rome to Byzantium. Analecta Romana Instituti Danici 12, 81-107. Beldiceanu, N. & Beldiceanu-Steinherr, I. 1978. Riziculture dans l’empire ottoman (XIVe-XVe siècle). Turcica 9/2-10, 9-28. Belke, K. 2002. Roads and travel in Macedonia and Thrace in the middle and late Byzantine period. In: R. Macrides (Ed.), Travel in the Byzantine World, Aldershot, 73-97. Belle, H. 1881. Trois années en Grèce, Paris.

Baram, U. 1995. Notes on the preliminary typologies of production and chronology for the clay tobacco pipes of Cyprus. Report of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus, 299-309. Baram, U. 1999. Clay tobacco pipes and coffee cup sherds in the archaeology of the Middle East: Artefacts of social tensions from the Ottoman past. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 3 (3), 137-151.

Bertacchi, L. 1977. Ceramiche dal XIV al XIX secolo dagli scavi archeologici di Aquileia, Aquileia. Bertaux, E. 1903. L’art dans l’Italie mériodionale de la fin de l’ empire à la conquête de Charles d’Anjou, Paris. Berti, G. & Tongiorgi, C. 1982. Aspetti della produzione pisana di ceramica ingobbiata. Archeologia Medievale 9, 141-174.

381

Berti, G. et.al. (Eds.). 1986. La ceramica medievale nel Mediterraneo occidentale(Atti del III Congresso, Siena-Faenza 8-13 ott. 1984), Florence.

Bintliff, J. & Howard, P. 1999. Studying needles in haystacks: Surface survey and the rural landscape of Central Greece in Roman times. Pharos 7, 51-91.

Berti, G. & Gelichi, S. 1997. ‘Zeuxippus Ware’ in Italy. In: H. Maguire (Ed.), Materials Analysis of Byzantine Pottery, Washington, D.C., 85-104.

Bintliff, J. & Snodgrass, A. 1985. The Cambridge/Bradford Boeotian expedition: The first four years. Journal of Field Archaeology 12, 123-61.

Bidon, D. A. 1986. Le métier de potier en terre (XIIIe-XIXe siècle). Histoire, iconographie et archéologie. Ramage 4, 61-98.

Bintliff, J. & Snodgrass, A. 1988. Mediterranean survey and the city. Antiquity 62, 57-71.

Biers, W. 1977. The horseman and the angel. Archaeology 30 (5), 333-337.

Bintliff, J. & Snodgrass, A. 1989. From polis to chorion in South-West Boeotia. In: H. Beister & J. Buckler (Eds.), Boiotika. Vorträge vom 5. Internationalen Böotien-Kolloquium zu Ehren von Professor Dr. Siegfried Lauffer, Munich, 285-372.

Bintliff, J. 1992a. The Boeotia Project 1991: Survey at the city of Hyettos. University of Durham & University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Archaeological Reports 1991 15, 23-28. Bintliff, J. 1992b. The history of the Greek countryside: As the wave breaks, prospects for future research. In: P. N. Doukellis & L. G. Mendoni (Eds.), Structures rurales et sociétés antiques, Besançon, 7-15. Bintliff, J. 1994. The Boeotia Project 1992-93. University of Durham & University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Archaeological Reports 1993 17, 8-13. Bintliff, J. 1995. The two transitions: Current research on the origins of the traditional village in Central Greece . In: J. Bintliff & H. Hamerow (Eds.), Europe between Late Antiquity and The Middle Ages. Recent Archaeological and Historical Research in Western and Southern Europe, Oxford, 111-130. Bintliff, J. 1996. Frankish countryside in Central Greece: The evidence from archaeological field survey. In: P. Lock & G. D. R. Sanders (Eds.), The Archaeology of Medieval Greece, Oxford, 118. Bintliff, J. 1997a. Regional survey, demography, and the rise of complex societies in the ancient Aegean: Core-periphery, neoMalthusian and other interpretative models. Journal of Field Archaeology 24, 1-38. Bintliff, J. 1997b. The Boeotia Project 1997 field season. University of Durham & University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Archaeological Reports 1997 20, 89-95. Bintliff, J. et. al. 2000a. Deconstructing ‘the sense of place’? Settlement systems, field survey, and the historic record: a casestudy from Central Greece. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66, 123-149. Bintliff, J. 2000b. Beyond dots on the map: Future directions for surface artefact survey in Greece. In: J. Bintliff, M. Kuna & N. Venclová (Eds.), The Future of Surface Artefact Survey in Europe, Sheffield, 3-20.

382

Bintliff, J. & Vroom, J. 2000, Ceramics and Village Life in Medieval and Post-Medieval Boeotia. In: V. Aravantinos (Ed.), Epetiris tis Etaireias Boiotikon Meleton, Tomos G, Teychos a (archaiologia), G’ Diethnes Synedrio Boiotikon Meleton, Thiva 4-8 septembriou 1996, Athens, 921-934. Blake, H. 1978. Medieval pottery: Technical innovation or economic change? In: H. M. K. Blake & T. W. Potter (Eds.), Papers In Italian Archaeology, vol I.2, Oxford, 435-473. Blake, H. 1980. Technology, supply or demand? Medieval Ceramics 4, 3-12. Blake, H. 1981. Pottery exported from Northwest Italy between 1450 and 1830: Savona, Albisola, Genoa, Pisa, and Montelupo. In: G. Barker & R. Hodges (Eds.), Archaeology and Italian Society: Prehistoric, Roman and Medieval Studies, Oxford, 99-129. Blake, H. 1986. The Medieval incised slipped pottery of NorthWest Italy. In: G. Berti et.al. (Eds.), La ceramica medievale nel mediterraneo occidentale, Florence, 317-352. Blitzer, H. 1984. Traditional pottery production in Kentri, Crete: Workshops, techniques and trade. In: P. P. Betancourt (Ed.), East Cretan White-on-Dark Ware, Philadelphia, 143-157. Blitzer, H. 1990. Koroneïka: Storage jar production and trade in the traditional Aegean. Hesperia, 59, 676-711. Blum, G. G. 1969. Rabbula von Edessa. Der Christ, der Bischof, der Theologe, Louvain. Blumner, H. 1969. Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Künste bei Griechen und Römern, Hildesheim. Blunt, A. 1938-39. The triclinium in religious art. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 2, 271-76.

Boardman, J. 1989. The finds. In: M. Ballance, J. Boardman, S. Corbett & S. Hood (Eds.), Excavations in Chios 1952-1955: Byzantine Emporio, Oxford, 86-142.

Broneer, O. 1959. Excavations at Isthmia. Hesperia 28, 298-343. Brouscari, E. 1988. Collection Paul Canellopoulos (XVIII): Vases byzantins. Bulletin du Correspondance Hellénique 112, 503-514.

Boas, A. J. 1994. The import of Western ceramics to the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. Israel Exploration Journal 44 (1-2), 103122.

Buchtal, H. 1957. Miniature Painting in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, Oxford.

Boas, A. J. 1998. The Frankish period: A unique Medieval society emerges. Near Eastern Archaeology 61, 138-73. Boas, A. J. 1999. Crusader Archaeology: The Material Culture of the Latin East, London. Bojani, G. C. 1983. La ceramica pugliese al museo di Faenza. In: La ceramica in Puglia. Atti del convegno di ricerca storica, Latiano 1415 maggio 1983, Brindisi, 13-26. Bommeljé, Y. & Doorn, P. 1996. The long and winding road: Land routes in Aetolia (Greece) since Byzantine times. In: H. Kamermans & K. Fennema (Eds.), Interfacing the Past, Leiden, 343-351. Boschkov, A. 1969. Monumentale Wandmalerei Bulgariens, Mainz. Bosworth, C.E., Van Donzel, E., Lewis, B. & Pellat, Ch. (Eds.). 1986. The Encyclopaedia of Islam V, Leiden.

Buckton, D. (Ed.). 1994. Byzantium. Treasures of Byzantine Art and Culture from British Collections, London. Buerger, J. 1979. The Medieval glazed pottery. In: Diocletian’s Palace. Report on American-Yugoslav Joint Excavations III, Split, 5124. Cabrol, F. & Leclerq, H. 1925. Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, II:2, Paris. Caiger-Smith, A. 1973. Tin-glaze Pottery in Europe and the Islamic World. The Tradition of 1000 Years in Maiolica, Faience & Delftware, London. Carswell, J. 1966. Pottery and tiles on Mount Athos. Ars Orientalis 6, 77-90. Carswell, J. 1976. The Lemon-squeezer: An unique form of Turkish pottery. In: IVème congrès international d’art turc 1971, Aix-en-Provence, 29-45.

Bouras, L. 1989-90. Three Byzantine bronze candelabra from the Grand Lavra monastery and Saint Catherine’s monastery in Sinai. Deltion tis Christianikis Archaiologikis Etaireias 15, 19-26.

Carswell, J. 1991. Kütahya Tiles and Ceramics. In: Turkish Tiles and Ceramics, Istanbul, 50-57.

Bowman, S. 1980. Jews in fourteenth-century Thebes. Byzantion 50, 403-409.

Carswell, J. 1995. Chinese Ceramics in the Sadberk Hanim Museum, Istanbul.

Bowman, S. 1982. Jewish epitaphs in Thebes. Revue des Études Juives 141, 317-330.

Carswell, J. 1998. Iznik Pottery, London.

Bradley, K. 1998. The Roman family at dinner. In: I. Nielsen & H. S. Nielsen (Eds.), Meals In a Social Context. Aspects of the Communal Meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World, Aarhus, 36-55. Braudel, F. 1949. La Méditerranée et le monde méditerranéen à l’époque de Philippe II, Paris. Braudel, F. 1977. Afterthoughts on Material Civilization and Capitalism. (Translated by P.M. Ranum), Baltimore.

Carswell, J. & Dowsett, C. J. F. 1972. Kütahya Tiles and Pottery from the Armenian Cathedral of St. James, Jerusalem, Oxford. Casson, A. S. 1938. The Modern pottery trade in the Aegean. Antiquity 12, 464-473. Casson, A. S. 1951. The Modern pottery trade in the Aegean further notes. Antiquity 25, 187-191. Catling, H. W. 1972. An Early Byzantine pottery factory at Dhioros in Cyprus. Levant 4, 1-82.

Braudel, F. 1984. The Perspective of the World, London. Broneer, O. 1933. Excavations in the agora at Corinth, 1933. American Journal of Archaeology 37, 554-572. Broneer, O. 1938. Excavations in the north slope of the Acropolis, 1937. Hesperia 7, 259-262.

Catling, H. W. & Dikigoropoulos, A. I. 1970 . The Kornos Cave: An Early Byzantine site in Cyprus. Levant 2, 37-62. Catling, H. W. & Smyth, D. 1976. An Early Christian osteotheke at Knossos. Annual of the British School at Athens 71, 25-47. Charitonidis, S. 1964 [= 1967]. Limnos (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 19 (B3), Chron: 395-401, pls. 462-466.

383

Charitonidou, A. 1981 - 1982. Greek ceramic art in Arta in the time of the Turkish rule (in Modern Greek). Ethnografika 3, 522. Charitonidou, A. 1982. Features of Post-Byzantine ceramics: Athenian workshops (in Modern Greek). Archaiologia 4 (aug.), 60-64. Charitonidou, A. 1983. Elements of traditional ceramics of the 19th and 20th century: Epeirus - Corfu - Zakynthos (in Modern Greek). Epeirotika Chronika 25, 287-294.

Crane, E.E. 1999. The World History of Beekeeping and Honey Hunting, London. Cullen, T. & Keller, D. R. 1990. The Greek pithos through time: Multiple functions and diverse imagery. In: W. D. Kingery (Ed.), The Changing Roles of Ceramics in Society: 26,000 B.P. to the Present, Westerville, OH, 183-209. Cuomo di Caprio, N. 1982. Ceramica rustica tradizionale in Puglia, Galatina (Lecce). Dark, K. 2001. Byzantine Pottery, Stroud, Gloucestershire.

Charitonidou, A. 1987. Popular traditional ceramics in Italy and Greece (in Modern Greek). Keramika Chronika 44, 8-10. Charleston, R. J. (Ed.). 1968. World Ceramics, London, New York, Sydney and Toronto.

Dauterman Maguire, E. & Maguire, H. 1992. Byzantine pottery in the history of art. In: D. Papanikola-Bakirtzis, E. Dauterman Maguire & H. Maguire (Eds.), Ceramic Art from Byzantine Serres, Urbana & Chicago, 1-20.

Chatzidakis, M. 1939. A propos d’une nouvelle manière de dater les peintures. Byzantion 14, 95-113.

Daux, G. 1968. Chronique des fouilles, 1967. Bulletin du Correspondance Hellénique 92, 1003-1004.

Chatzidakis, M. 1966-69. The painter Frangos Kontaris. Deltion tis Christianikis Archaiologikis Etaireias 5, 299-301.

Davey, P. & Hodges, R. 1983. Ceramics and trade: A critique of the archaeological evidence. In: P. Davey & R. Hodges (Eds.), Ceramics and Trade. The Production and Distribution of Later Medieval Pottery in North-West Europe, Sheffield, 1-14.

Chatzidakis, M. 1974. Frangos Katelanos and the other Thebans (in Modern Greek). Istoria tou Ellinikou Ethnos 10, 424428.

Davidson, G. R. 1952. Corinth XII: The Minor Objects, Princeton, N.J.

Chatzidakis, M. (Ed.). 1997. Hosios Loukas, Athens. Christoforaki, I. 2001. Images of everyday life. In: Byzantine Hours. Works and Days in Byzantium: Athens - Thessaloniki - Mystras, Athens, 80-115. Coldstream, J. N. 1972. Deposits of pottery from the settlement. In: J. N. Coldstream & G. L. Huxley (Eds.), Kythera. Excavations and Studies, London and New York, 77-204. Constantine, D. 1984. Early Greek Travellers and the Hellenic Ideal, Cambridge. Cormack, R. 1985. Writing in Gold. Byzantine Society and its Icons, London. Cormack, R. 1989. The Byzantine Eye: Studies in Art and Patronage, London. Cormack, R. 1997. Painting the Soul. Icons, Death Masks and Shrouds, London. Cramerus, E. W. (Ed.). 1779. Beschrijving van het Oosten en van eenige andere landen door den heer R. Pococke. Derde deel, eerste stuk van Klein Asie, Thracie, Griekenland, en eenig andere Gewesten van Europa, Utrecht. Crane, E. E. 1983. The Archaeology of Beekeeping, London.

384

Davidson Weinberg, G. 1974. A wandering soldier’s grave in Corinth. Hesperia 43, 512-521. Davis, J. L. 1991. Contributions to a Mediterranean rural archaeology: Historical case studies from the Ottoman Cyclades. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 4, 131-215. Davis, J. L. (Ed.). 1998. Sandy Pylos. An Archaeological History from Nestor to Navarino, Austin. Dawkins, R. M. & Droop, J. P. 1910-1911. Byzantine pottery from Sparta. Annual of the British School at Athens 17, 23-28. De Bock, M. W. 1897. Poteries vernissées du Caucase et de la Crimée. Mémoires de la Société Nationale des Antiquaires de France 6, 193-254. De Bouard, M. 1974. Observations on the treatise of Eraclius, de coloribus et artibus Romanorum. In: V. I. Evison, H. Hodges & J. G. Hurst (Eds.), Medieval Pottery from Excavations, London, 67-76. De Jerphanion, G. 1938. La voix des monuments, Rome. Deichmann, F. W. 1983. Einführung in die christliche Archäologie, Darmstadt.

Della Preite, A. 1997. Ceramica bizantina sovraddipinta. In: A. Di Vita & A. Martin (Eds.), Gortina II: Pretorio il materiale degli scavi Colini 1970-1977, Athens, 211-217.

Dodwell, E. 1819. A Classical and Topographical Tour through Greece during the Years 1801, 1805 and 1806, I, London. Dodwell, E. 1834. Cyclopic or Pelasgic Remains in Greece, London.

Delphes = 1992. La redécouverte de Delphes, Paris. Demangel, R. & Mamboury, E. 1939. Le Quartier des Manganes et la première région de Constantinople, Paris.

D’Ohsson, I.M. 1791. Tableau général de l’Empire Othoman, divisé en deux parties, dont l’une comprend la législation Mahométane; l’autre, l’histoire de l’Empire Othoman, vol. IV, Paris.

Dembinska, M. 1985. Diet: a comparison of food consumption between some eastern and western monasteries in the 4th-12th centuries. Byzantion 55, 431-462.

Dold, A. 1955. Zur ältesten Handschrifts des ‘Edictus Rothari’. Urfassung des Longobardengesetzes. Zeit und Ort ihrer Entstehung, Stuttgart and Cologne.

Denny, W. B. 1977. The Ceramics of the Mosque of RuÕtem PaÕa and the Environment of Change, New York and London.

Doukata, S., Zikos, N. & Bakirtzis, C. 1989. Rescue excavations at the building-plot of the new museum at Thasos (in Modern Greek). To archaiologiko ergo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 3, 521-534.

Derbes, A. 1996. Picturing the Passion in Late Medieval Italy. Narrative Painting, Franciscan Ideologies, and The Levant, Cambridge.

Dölger, F. J. 1922. Der heilige Fisch in den antiken Religionen und im Christentum, Münster.

Déroche, V. & Spieser, J. M. (Eds.). 1989. Recherches sur la céramique byzantine (BCH Suppl. 18), Athens.

Dölger, F. J. 1927. Die Fish-Denkmäler in der Frühchristlichen Plastik, Malerei und Kleinkunst, Münster.

Des Gagniers, J. & Tram Tam Tinh. 1985. Soloi I. Dix campagnes de fouilles, 1964-1974: La basilique, Ste. Foye.

Dölger, F. J. 1936. ‘Unser tägliches Brot.’ Das eine Brot als Tagesbedarf und das halbe Brot des Einsiedlers Paulus. In: Antike und Christentum, Bonn, 201-10.

De Waele, F. J. 1930. The Roman market North of the temple at Corinth. American Journal of Archaeology 34, 432-454.

Dölger, F. J. 1943. Die Fisch-Denkmäler in der Frühchristlichen Plastik, Malerei und Kleinkunst, Münster.

Diederichs, C. 1980a. Salamine de Chypre IX: Céramiques hellénistiques, romaines et byzantines, Paris.

Du Loir, S. 1654. Les voyages du Sieur Du Loir, Paris.

Diederichs, C. 1980b. Plats estampés d’epoque byzantine. In: Salamine de Chypre, histoire et archéologie, Paris, 389-393.

Du Plat Taylor, J. 1938. Medieval graves in Cyprus. Ars Islamica 51, 72-87.

Dikigoroupoulos, A. I. & Megaw, A. H. S. 1958. Early glazed pottery from Polis. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus 1940-48, 77-93.

Du Plat Taylor, J. & Megaw, A. H. S. 1951. Cypriot Medieval glazed pottery. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus 193739, 77-93.

Dobbert, E. 1871. Die Darstellung des Abendmahls durch die byzantinische Kunst. In: A. v. Zahn (Ed.), Jahrbücher für Kunstwissenschaft 4, Leipzig, 281-346.

Dunbabin, K. M. D. 1991. Triclinium and stibadium. In: W. J. Slater (Ed.), Dining In A Classical Context, Ann Arbor, 121-148.

Dobbert, E. 1890. Das Abendmahl Christi in der bildenden Kunst bis gegen den Schluss des 14. Jahrhunderts. Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft 13, 281-92; 363-81; 423-42. Dobbert, E. 1891. Das Abendmahl Christi in der bildenden Kunst bis gegen den Schluss des 14. Jarhunderts. Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft 14, 175-203; 451-62. Dobbert, E. 1892. Das Abendmahl Christi in der bildenden Kunst bis gegen den Schluss des 14. Jahrhunderts. Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft 15, 357-84; 507-27.

Dunn, A. 1992. The exploitation and control of woodland and scrubland in the Byzantine world. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 16, 235-298. Dunn, A. 1995. Historical and archaeological indicators of economic change in Middle Byzantine Boeotia and their problems. In: A. Christopoulou (Ed.), Eperis tis etaireias Boiotikon meleton II, b, Athens, 755-774. Dunn, A. 2000. Book review of H. Maguire (Ed.), Materials Analysis Of Byzantine Pottery, Washington D.C., and D. Papanikola-Bakirtzi et al., Byzanyine Glazed Pottery In The Benaki Museum, Athens. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 24, 304-308.

385

Dunning, G. C. 1968. The trade in Medieval pottery around the North Sea. In: J. G. N. Renaud (Ed.), Rotterdam Papers. A Contribution to Medieval Archaeology, Rotterdam, 35-58. Ebersolt, J. 1910. Catalogue des poteries byzantines et anatoliennes du musée de Constantinople, Constantinople. Edelstein, G. & Avissar, M. 1997. A sounding in old Acre. Atiqot (Eng. ser.), 31, 129-136. Efendi, T. 1862. Turkish Cookery Book (Fascimile edition 1996), London. Efgenidou, D. 1982. Les poteries de St. Nikolaos Tranos de Thessalonique (in Modern Greek). Anthropologika 3, 23-39. Efgenidou, D. 1982. Ceramics, objects of everyday use (in Modern Greek). Archaiologia 3, 61-64. Eiwanger, J. 1981. Demetrias IV: Keramik und Kleinfunde aus der Damokratia-Basilika in Demetrias, Bonn. Eliot, C. W. J. 1978. George Wheler, christian traveler and philosopher. Échos du Monde Classique (Classical News and Views) 22 (1), 13-24. Engemann, J. 1997. Deutung und Bedeutung frühchristlicher Bildwerke, Darmstadt. Etienne, R. & Knoepfler, D. 1976. Hyettos de Béotie et la chronologie des archontes fédéraux entre 250 et 171 avant J.-C. (BCH Suppl. 3), Athens. Evans, H. C. & Wixom, W. D. (Eds.). 1997. The Glory of Byzantium. Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era A.D. 8431261, New York. Faroqhi, S. 1977. Rural society in Anatolia and the Balkans during the sixteenth century, I. Turcica 9, 161-195.

Faroqhi, S. 1995b. Merchant networks and Ottoman craft production (sixteenth-seventeenth centuries). In: S. Faroqhi (Ed.), Making a Living in the Ottoman Lands 1480 to 1820, Istanbul, 169-192. Faroqhi, S. 1999. Approaching Ottoman History. An Introduction to the Sources, Cambridge. Feeley-Harnik, G. 1981. The Lord’s Table. Eucharist and Passover in Early Christianity, Philadelphia. Felten, F. 1975. Die christliche Siedlung. In: H. Walter (Ed.), Alt-Ägina I,2, Mainz, 68-77. Ferrua, A. 1991. Katakomben: Unbekannte Bilder des frühen Christentums unter der Via Latina, Stuttgart. Filotheou, G. & Michailidou, M. 1986 [= 1991]. Byzantine dishes from the cargo of the shipwreck near Kastellorizo (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 41 (A), Mel: 271-330, pls. 61-80. Filotheou, G. & Michailidou, M. 1989. Plats byzantins provenant d’une épave près de Castellorizo. In: P. Déroche, & J.-M. Spieser (Eds.), Recherches sur la céramique byzantine (BCH Suppl. 18), Athens, 173-176. Fossey, J. M. 1988. Topography and Population of Ancient Boiotia, Chicago. François, V. 1993. La céramique byzantine à Thasos, ses liens avec la flotte latine du XIIIe au XVe siècle. In: S. Gelichi (Ed.), La ceramica nel mondo tra XI e XV secolo e i suoi rapporti con l’Italia, Florence, 317-331. François, V. 1994. La céramique à glacure à Malia: productions médievales italiennes et productions ottomanes. Bulletin du Correspondance Hellénique 118, 375-387. François, V. 1995a. La céramique byzantine à Thasos, Paris.

Faroqhi, S. 1978. The early history of the Balkan fairs. SudostForschungen 37, 50-68. Faroqhi, S. 1979. Rural society in Anatolia and the Balkans during the sixteenth century II. Turcica 11, 102-153. Faroqhi, S. 1984. Towns and Townsmen of Ottoman Anatolia. Trade, Crafts and Food Production in an Urban Setting, 1520-1650, Cambridge. Faroqhi, S. 1991. The fieldglass and the magnifying lens: Ottoman studies of crafts and craftsmen. In: S. Faroqhi (Ed.), Making a Living in the Ottoman Lands 1480 to 1820, Istanbul, 71-91. Faroqhi, S. 1995a. Kultur und Alltag im Osmanischen Reich. Vom Mittelalter bis zum Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts, Munich.

386

François, V. 1995b. Byzantine ou Ottomane? Une céramique peinte a l’engobe découverte en méditerranée orientale. Anatolia Antiqua/Eski Anadolu 3, 203-217. François, V. 1995c. Contribution à l’étude d’Alexandrie islamique: la céramique médiévale de Kom el-Dikka et de Kom el-Nadoura. In: Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano, I Centenario del museo greco-romano, Alessandria, 1992, Atti del II congresso internazionale italo-egiziano, Roma, 314-322. François, V. 1997a. Sur la circulation des céramiques byzantines en Méditerrannée orientale et occidentale. In: La céramique médiévale en Méditerranée. Actes du 6e congrès, Aix-en-Provence, 231-35.

François, V. 1997b. Céramiques importées à Byzance: une quasi-absence. Byzantinoslavica 58, 387-404.

Georgieva, S. Céramique mediévale de la fortresse de Melnik (in Russian with French summary). Archeologija 22, 47-54.

François, V. 1998a. Les céramiques médiévales d’Alexandrie: un témoignage archéologiques d’importance. In: C. Décobert & J.-Y. Empereur (Eds.), Alexandrie Médiévale 1, Cairo, 57-64.

Georgopoulou-Meladini, M. 1973 [= 1977]. Medieval remains on Euboea: Chalkis (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 28 (B1), Chron: 311-317, pls. 267-272.

François, V. 1998b. La céramique médiévale d’Alexandrie: Kôm El-Dikka et Kôm El-Nadoura, deux dépotoirs de la période islamique. In: R.-P. Gayraud (Ed.), Colloque international d’archéologie islamique, Cairo, 319-34.

Georgopoulou-Meladini, M. 1973-4 [= 1979]. Medieval remains on Euboea: Chalkis (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 29 (B2), Chron: 499-512, pls. 322-328.

Frank, A. G. & Gills, B. K. 1993. The World System: Five Hundred Years or Five Thousand?, London and New York. Frank, A. G. 1993. Bronze Age world system cycles. Current Anthropology 34, 383-430. Frantz, M. A. 1938. Middle Byzantine pottery in Athens. Hesperia 7, 429-467. Frantz, A. 1940-41. Digenis Akritas: a Byzantine epic and its illustrators. Byzantion 15, 87-91. Frantz, M. A. 1942. Turkish pottery from the Agora. Hesperia 11, 1-28. Freestone, I. & Gaimster, D. (Eds.). 1997. Pottery in the Making. World Ceramic Traditions, London. Frend, W. H. C. 1996. The Archaeology of Early Christianity. A History, London.

Gerke, F. 1940. Die christlichen Sarkophage der vorkonstantinischen Zeit, Berlin. Gerousi, E. 1993. Early Christian ceramics from the area of ‘Episkopi’ on Samos (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 47-48 (A), 251-268. Gerstel, S. E. J. 1996. An introduction to Medieval Panakton. In: J. M. Fossey (Ed.), Boeotia Antiqua, VI: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Boeotian Antiquities, Amsterdam, 143-151. Glassie, H. 1993. Turkish Traditional Art Today, Bloomington and Indianapolis. Goldthwaite, R. A. 1989. The economic and social world of Italian Renaissance Maiolica. Renaissance Quarterly 42, 1-32. Goody, J. 1982. Cooking, Cuisine and Class. A Study in Comparative Sociology, Cambridge. Gourgiotis, G. K. 1976a. Postbyzantine sgraffito wares (in Modern Greek). Zygos 19, 52-53.

Galani-Krikoy, M. 2000. Thebes: 6th-15th century after Christ: The evidence of coins from excavations in the city centre (in Modern Greek). In: V. Aravantinos (Ed.), Epetiris tis etaireias Boiotikon meleton IIIa: Archaiologia, Athens, 901.

Gourgiotis, G. K. 1976b. A printed plate with the portrait of Venizelos (in Modern Greek). Zygos 21, 9-10.

Galavaris, G. 1969. The Illustrations of the Liturgical Homilies of Gregory Nazianzenus, Princeton.

Gourgiotis, G. K. 1981. Early Post-Byzantine ceramics from Larissa (in Modern Greek). Archaiologia 1, 74-76.

Gelichi, S. 1991a. Ceramiche e commerci con il mediterraneo orientale nel tardo-medioevo (XII-XIII secolo). In: La Grecia insulare fra tardoantico e medioevo, Ravenna, 197-208.

Gourgiotis, G. K. 1983. The Byzantine town of Tyrnavos (in Modern Greek). Archaiologia 8, 64-68.

Gelichi, S. 1991b. La ceramica nell’Italia centro-settentrionale nel tardo medievo tra oriente e occidente. In: A cerâmica medieval no mediterrâneo occidental, Mertola, 339-348. Gelichi, S. (Ed.). 1993. La ceramica nel mondo bizantino tra XI e XV secolo e i suoi rapporti con l’Italia, Florence. Gelichi, S., Berti, G. & Nepoti, S. 1993. Relazione introduttiva sui ‘bacini’. Atti XXVI convegno internazionale della ceramica, 7-30.

Gourgiotis, G. K. 1984. Late Byzantine pottery of ‘sgraffiti’ style (in Modern Greek). Archaiologia 12, 68-71. Gourgiotis, G. K. 1989. Byzantine plates: the decorative elements of interior space (in Modern Greek). Archaiologia 33, 56-57. Gourgiotis, G. K. 1991. Thessalian ‘hand washing equipment’ and ‘chafing dishes’ of the Late Byzantine centuries (in Modern Greek). Archaiologia 38, 81-83.

387

Gourgiotis, G. 1994. Ceramics: Post-Byzantine ceramics from Thessaly of the end of the 18th century (in Modern Greek). In: To laografiko istoriko Mouseio Larisas, Larissa, 105-110. Gourgiotis, G. K. 1995. Middle Byzantine pottery workshops in Thessaly (in Modern Greek). Archaiologia 54, 47-50. Graham, A. J. 1975. Beehives from ancient Greece. Bee World 56, 64-75. Gregory, T. E. 1987. Circulation of Byzantine and Medieval pottery in southwestern Cyprus. In: D. W. Rupp (Ed.), Western Cyprus: Connections, Göteborg, 199-204. Gregory, T. E. 1989. Late Byzantine pottery from Isthmia: New evidences from the Korinthia. In: V. Déroche & J.-M. Spieser (Eds.), Recherches sur la céramique byzantine (BCH Suppl. 18), Athens, 201-208. Gregory, T. E. 1991. Kilns. In: A. P. Kazhdan (Ed.), Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Oxford, 1129. Gregory, T. E. 1993a. Local and imported Medieval pottery from Isthmia. In: S. Gelichi (Ed.), La ceramica nel mondo bizantino tra XI e XV secolo e i suoi rapporti con l’Italia, Florence, 283-306. Gregory, T. E. 1993b. An Early Byzantine (dark-age) settlement at Isthmia: Preliminary report. In: T. E. Gregory (Ed.), The Corinthia in the Roman Period, Ann Arbor, Mi., 149-160. Gregory, T. E. 1993c. Byzantine and Medieval pottery. In: L. W. Sørensen & D. W. Rupp (Eds.), The Land of the Paphian Aphrodite, II: The Canadian Palaiopaphos Survey Project, Artifact and Ecofactual Studies, Goteborg, 157-176. Gregory, T.E. & Kardulias, P.N. 1990. Geophysical and surface surveys in the Byzantine fortress at Isthmia. Hesperia 59, 467511. Grierson, P. 1959. Commerce in the Dark Ages: A critique of the evidence. Trans. Royal Hist. Soc. 9, 123-140. Günsenin, N. 1990. Les amphores byzantines (Xe-XIIIe siècles): typologie, production, circulation d’après les collections turques, Paris. Günsenin, N. 2001. L’ épave de Çamalti Burnu I (Ile de Marmara, Proconnese): Resultats des campagnes 1998-2000. Anatolia Antiqua / Eski Anadolu 9, 117-133.

Hachlili, R. 1998. Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Diaspora, Leiden, Boston and Cologne. Hahn, M. 1989. Byzantine and Post-Byzantine pottery from the Greek-Swedish excavations at Khania, Crete. In: V. Déroche & J.-M. Spieser (Eds.), Recherches sur la céramique byzantine (BCH Suppl. 18), Athens, 227-232. Hahn, M. 1991. A group of 15th/16th century jugs from Western Crete. Acta Hyperborea 3, 311-320. Hahn, M. 1996. The Berbati-Limnes project: The Early Byzantine to Modern periods. In: B. Wells (Ed.), The BerbatiLimnes Archaeological Survey 1988-1990, Stockholm, 345-451. Hahnloser, H. R. & Palacco, R. (Eds.). 1994. La pala d’oro, Venice. Hakenjos, B. (Ed.). 1988. Marokkanische Keramik, Stuttgart and London. Halle, U. 1996. Über die Schädlichkeit von Bleiglasuren. Beispiel Fürstentum Lippe mit historischen Glasurrezepten aus dem Jahre 1794. In: H. Ludtke & R. Vossen (Eds.), Töpfereiforschung zwischen Mittelmeer und Skandinavien. Beiträge des Internationalen Kolloquiums 1990 in Hamburg, Bonn, 43-56. Hampe, R. & Winter, A. 1962. Bei Töpfern und Töpferinnen in Kreta, Messenien und Zypern, Mainz. Hampe, R. & Winter, A. 1965. Bei Töpfern und Zieglern in südItalien, Sizilien und Griechenland, Mainz. Harvey, A. 1982-83. Economic expansion in Central Greece in the eleventh century. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 8, 2128. Harvey, A. 1989. Economic Expansion in the Byzantine Empire, 9001200, Cambridge. Hautumm, W. 1981. Studien zu Amphoren der spätrömischen und frühbizantinischen Zeit, Fulda. Hawthorne, J. 1996. Commensalism and common sense: A new approach to archaeological ceramics. Internet: http//www.shef.ac.uk/~assem/hawth.html, 1-7.

Günsenin, N. 2002. Medieval trade in the Sea of Marmara: the evidence of shipwrecks. In: R. Macrides (Ed.), Travel in the Byzantine World, Aldershot, 125-35.

Hawthorne, J. W. J. 1997. Post processual economics: The role of African Red Slip Ware vessel volume in Mediterranean demography. In: K. Meadows, C. Lemke & J. Heron (Eds.), TRAC 96: Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference Sheffield 1996, Oxford, 29-37.

Gutiérrez, A. 1997. Cheapish and Spanish. Meaning and design on imported Spanish pottery. Medieval Ceramics 21, 1-8.

Hayes, J. W. 1968. A seventh-century pottery group. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 22, 203-216.

388

Hayes, J. W. 1972. Late Roman Pottery, London. Hayes, J. W. 1980a. Problèmes de la céramique des VIIème IXème siècles a Salamine et a Chypre. In: C. Diedrichs (Ed.), Salamine de Chypre, histoire et archéologie, Paris, 375-387.

Herrin, J. 1969-70. The collapse of the Byzantine Empire in the twelfth century: A study of a Medieval economy. University of Birmingham Historical Journal 12, 188-203. Herrin, J. 1973. Kouklia 1972 - The Medieval pottery. Reports of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus,, 199-201.

Hayes, J. W. 1980b. Turkish clay pipes: A provisional typology. In: P. Davey (Ed.), The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe IV, Oxford, 3-10.

Herrin, J. 1974. Old Paphos, 1972. The Medieval pottery. Archaölogischer Anzeiger, 48-51.

Hayes, J. W. 1981. The excavated pottery from the Bodrum Camii. In: C. L. Striker (Ed.), The Myrelaion (Bodrum Camii) in Istanbul, Princeton, 36-41.

Herrin, J. 1996. Early Christian and Byzantine art, VII.1: Ceramics. In: J. Turner (Ed.), The Dictionary of Art IX, London, 631-635.

Hayes, J. W. 1992. Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul II: The Pottery, Princeton, N.J.

Hibbard Loomis, L. 1927. The table of the Last Supper in religious and secular iconography. Art Studies 5, 71-88.

Hayes, J.W. 1993. Les débuts de la céramique vernissée byzantine et omeyyade d’après les fouilles de Saraçhane (Constantinople). In: Bulletin de l’ Association pour l’Antiquité tardive 2, Annuaire 1992, Paris, 85-89.

Hilgers, W. 1969. Lateinische Gefässnamen. Bezeichnungen, Funktion und Form römischer Gefässe nach den antiken Schriftquellen, Düsseldorf.

Hayes, J.W. 1997. Réflexions sur les céramiques paléo-chrétiennes d’Orient et leurs liens avec l’Occident. In: G. Démians d’Archimbaud (Ed.), La céramique médiévale en Méditerranée, Aixen-Provence, 49-52. Hayes, J. W. 2000. The current state of Roman ceramic studies in Mediterranean survey, or handling pottery from surveys. In: R. Francovich, H. Patterson & G. Barker (Eds.), Extracting Meaning from Ploughsoil Assemblages, Oxford, 105-109. Hayes, J.W. 2001. Early Christian pottery from Knossos: The 1978-1981 finds from the Knossos medical faculty site. Annual of the British School at Athens 96, 431-454. Henderson, J. Q. 2001. The Science and Archaeology of Materials. An Investigation of Inorganic Materials, London and New York. Hendy, M. 1985. Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy c. 3001450, Cambridge.

Hillenbrand, C. 1999. The Crusades. Islamic Perspectives, Edinburgh. Hobhouse, J. C. 1813. A Journey through Albania, and Other Provinces of Turkey in Europe and Asia, to Constantinople during the Years 1809 and 1810, London. Hodder, I. 1974. Some marketing models for Romano-British coarse pottery. Britannia 5, 340-359. Hodges, H. 1974. The Medieval potter: artisan or artist? In: V. I. Evison, H. Hodges & J. G. Hurst (Eds.), Medieval Pottery from Excavations, London, 33-40. Hodges, R. 1982 (2nd.ed. 1989). Dark Age Economics. The Origins of Towns and Trade A.D. 600-1000, London. Hodges, R. & Whitehouse, D. 1983. Mohammed, Charlemagne and the Origins of Europe, London. Hood, S. 1970. Isles of refuge in the Early Byzantine period. Annual of the British School at Athens 65, 37-45.

Hendy, M. F. 1989. ‘Byzantium, 1081-1204’: The economy revisited, twenty years on. In: M. F. Hendy (Ed.), The Economy, Fiscal Administration and Coinage of Byzantium, Northampton, Chapter III, 1-48.

Holland, H. 1815. Travels in the Ionian Islands, Albania, Thessalia, Macedonia, etc. 1812-13, London.

Henrickson, E. F. & McDonald, M. M. A. 1983. Ceramic form and function: An ethnographic search and an archaeological application. American Anthropologist 85, 630-645.

Hoti, A. 1989. Enë me glazurë nga quteti i Durrësit (shek. XXV) / Récipients à glaçure découverts à Durrës (Xe-XVe siècles) (in Albanian). Iliria 19, 213-242.

Heraclius. 1970. Farben und Kunsten der Römer / De coloribus et artibus Romanorum, Osnabrück.

Huber, P. 1973. Bild Und Botschaft. Byzantinische Miniaturen Zum Alten Und Neuen Testament, Zürich. Huggins, P. J. 1969. Excavations at Sewardstone Street, Walthan Abbey, Essex 1966. Post-Medieval Archaeology 3, 47-99.

389

Hurst, J. G. 1967. The pottery. Wiltshire Archaeological Magazine 62, 74-78.

Isler, H.P. 1978. Samos IV: Das archaische Nordtor und seine Umgebung von Samos, Bonn.

Hurst, J. G., Neal, D. S. & Van Beuningen, H. J. E. 1986. Pottery Produced and Traded in North-West Europe 1350-1650, Rotterdam.

Ivison, E. 1996. Latin tomb monuments in the Levant 1204-ca. 1450. In: P. Lock & G. D. R. Sanders (Eds.), The Archaeology of Medieval Greece, Oxford, 91-106.

Ialouris, N. 1961/2 [= 1963]. Excavations in Olympia (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 17, Chron: 106-107. Iatridou, E. 1976 [= 1984]. Nea Anghialos (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 31 (B1), Chron: 190-192, pls. 138-140. Ilg, A. (Ed.). 1873 (2nd ed.). Heraclius von den Farben und Kunsten der Römer, Osnabrück. . Inalcik, H. 1973. The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age 13001600, London. . Inalcik, H. 1982. Rice cultivation and the çeltukci-re’âyâ system in the Ottoman Empire. Turcica 14, 69-141. . Inalcik, H. 1993. A case study of the village microeconomy. . Villages in the Bursa sançak, 1520-1593. In: H. Inalcik (Ed.), The Middle East and the Balkans under the Ottoman Empire. Essays on Economy and Society, Bloomington, 161-176. . Inalcik, H. & Quataert, D. 1994. An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1914, Cambridge. Ioannidaki-Dostoglou, E. 1981. Representation of warriors and hunters on Byzantine vessels (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 36, 127-138. Ioannidaki-Dostoglou. 1989. Les vases de l’épave byzantine de Pélagonnèse-Halonnèse. In: P. Déroche & J.-M. Spieser (Eds.), Recherches sur la céramique byzantine (BCH Suppl. 18), Athens, 157-171. Ioannidou, A. 1973 [= 1977]. Thebes (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 28 (B1), Chron: 274-280, pls. 228-231.

Jack, M. (Ed.). 1993. Lady Mary Wortley Montagu’s Turkish Embassy Letters, London. Jacoby, D. 1973. The encounter of two societies: Western conquerors and Byzantines in the Peloponnesus after the fourth crusade. The American Historical Review 78, 873-906. Jacoby, D. 1991-92. Silk in western Byzantium before the fourth crusade. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 84-85, 452-500. Jacoby, D. 1994a. Italian privileges and trade in Byzantium before the fourth crusade: A reconsideration. Anuario de estudios medievales 24, 349-369. Jacoby, D. 1994b. Silk production in the Frankish Peloponnesus: The evidence of fourteenth century surveys and reports. In: H. A. Kalligas (Ed.), Travellers and Officials in the Peloponnesus. Descriptions-Reports-Statistics, In Honour of Sir Steven Runciman, Monemvasia, 41-61. Jastrzebowska, E. 1979. Les scènes de banquet dans les peintures et sculptures chrétiennes des IIIe et IVe siècles. Recherches Augustiniennes 14, 3-90. Johns, C. N. 1934. Medieval slip-ware from Pilgrims’ Castle, ‘Atlit (1930-1). Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 3, 137-144. Johnston, A. 1991a. Greek vases in the marketplace. In: T. Rasmussen & N. Spivey (Eds.), Looking at Greek Vases, Cambridge, 201-231. Johnston, A. 1991b. The vase trade: A point of order. Acta Hyperborea 3, 403-409.

Ionas, I. 1998. Pottery in the Cyprus Tradition, Nicosia. Ionas, I. 2000. Traditional Pottery and Potters in Cyprus. The Disappearance of an Ancient Craft Industry in the 19th and 20th Centuries, Aldershot etc. Islamog© lu, H. & Keyder, C. 1977. Agenda for Ottoman history. Review 1 (1), 31-55. Islamog© lu-Inan, H. (Ed.). 1987. The Ottoman Empire and the World-Economy, Cambridge etc. Isler, H. P. 1969. Heraion von Samos: Eine frühbyzantinische Zisterne. Athenische Mitteilungen 84, 202-230.

390

Jones, J. E., Sackett, L. H. & Graham, A. J. 1962. The Dema house in Attica. Annual of the British School at Athens 57, 75-114. Jones, J. E. 1976. Hives and honey of Hymettus. Beekeeping in Ancient Greece. Archaeology 29, 80-91. Jones, R. E. et al. (Ed.). 1986. Greek and Cypriot Pottery: A Survey of Scientific Studies, Athens. Jope, E. M. 1956. Ceramics: Medieval. In: C. Singer, E. J. Holmyard, A. R. Hall & T. I. Williams (Eds.), A History of Technology, II: The Mediterranean Civilizations and the Middle Ages, c. 700 BC to AD 1500, Oxford, 284-310.

Jope, E. M. 1972. Models in Medieval studies. In: D. L. Clarke (Ed.), Models in Archaeology, London, 963-990. Joyner, L. 1997. Byzantine and Frankish cooking wares at Corinth, Greece: Changes in diet, style and raw material exploitation. In: A. Sinclair, E. Slater & J. Gowlett (Eds.), Archaeological Sciences 1995 , Oxford, 82-87. Juhl, K. 1995. The Relation between Vessel Form and Vessel Function. A Methodological Study, Stavanger. Kardulias, P.N. 1999. World-Systems Theory in Practice. Leadership, Production, and Exchange, Lanham, Boulder, New York and Oxford. Karagiorgou, O. 2001. LR2: A container for the military annona on the Danubian border? In: S. Kingsley & M. Decker (Eds.), Economy and Exchange in the East Mediterranean during Late Antiquity, Oxford, 129-166. Karidis, D.N. & Kiel. M. 2000. A City Description of Mytilini and the History of Lesbos (15th-19th centuries) (in Modern Greek), Athens. Kasaba, R. 1988. The Ottoman Empire and the World Economy, New York.

its influence on the spread of Greek christian culture. In: G. Veinstein (Ed.), Süleymân the Magnificent and His Time. Acts of the Parisian Conference Galeries Nationales du Grand Palais 7-10 March 1990, Paris, 399-424. Kiel, M. 1997. The rise and decline of Turkish Boeotia, 15th19th century (Remarks on the settlement pattern, demography and agricultural production according to unpublished Ottoman-Turkish census- and taxation Records). In: J. L. Bintliff (Ed.), Recent Developments in the History and Archaeology of Central Greece, Oxford, 315-359. Kiel, M. 1999. The icon and the mosque. Orthodox Christian art as a source to retrieve the lost monuments of Ottoman architecture of Southern Greece. The case of Istife/Thebes. In: Festschrift Aptullah Kuran, Istanbul, 223-232. Kilian, K. 1980. Zu einigen früh- und hoch-mittelalterlichen Funden aus der Burg von Tiryns. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 10, 281-290. Kindermann, H. 1964. Über die guten Sitten beim Essen und Trinken. Das ist das 11. Buch von al-Ghazza-lı-’s Hauptwerk, Leiden. Kingsley, S.A. 1994-95. Bag-shaped amphorae and Byzantine trade: Expanding horizons. Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 14, 39-56.

Kazhdan, A. P. & Wharton Epstein, A. 1985. Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London.

. Kırımli, F. 1983. Iznik çinleri ve cenovalı çini tüccaları / Iznik pottery and Genoese pottery merchants. Antika 27, 50-53.

Kazhdan, A. P., et.al. (Ed.). 1991. Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Oxford.

Kirschbaum, E. (Ed.). 1968-90. Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie, Rome, Freiburg, Basel and Vienna.

Kazhdan, A. 1997. The peasantry. In: G. Cavallo (Ed.), The Byzantines, Chicago and London, 43-73.

Kislinger, E. 2003. Dall’ubriacone al krasopateras: consumo del vino a Bisanzio. In: G. Archetti & P. Villa (Eds.), La civiltà del vino. Fonti, temi e produzioni vitivinicole dal medioevo al novecento, Brescia, 173-96.

Keramopoulos, A. D. 1926. Early Christian and Byzantine graves in Thebes (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 10, 124-136.

Koder, J. 1973. Negroponte. Untersuchungen zur Topographie und Siedlungsgeschichte der Insel Euboia während der Zeit der Venezianerherrschaft, Vienna.

Kiel, M. 1987. Population growth and food production in 16th century Athens and Attica according to the Ottoman ‘tahrir defters’. In: J.-L. Bacqué-Grammont & R. Van Donzel (Eds.), Comité international d’études pré-ottomanes et ottomanes. VIth Symposium Cambridge, 1st-4th July 1984, Istanbul, Paris and Leiden, 115-133.

Koder, J. & Hild, F. 1976. Tabula Imperii Byzantini I: Hellas und Thessalien, Vienna.

Kiel, M. 1990. Byzantine architecture and painting in Central Greece 1460-1570. Its demographic and economic basis according to the Ottoman census and taxation registers for Central Greece preserved in Istanbul and Ankara. Byzantinische Forschungen 16, 429-446.

Koder, J. 2002. Maritime trade and the food supply for Constantinople in the middle ages. In: R. Macrides (Ed.), Travel in the Byzantine World, Aldershot, 109-24.

Kiel, M. 1992. Central Greece in the Suleymanic Age. Preliminary notes on population growth, economic expansion and

Koder, J. 1993. Gemüse in Byzanz. Die Versorgung Konstantinopels mit Frischgemüse im Lichte der Geoponika, Vienna.

Koilakou, C. 1986 [= 1990]. Thebes (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 41, Chron: 27-29, pls. 51-2.

391

Koilakou, C. 1992. Thebes (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 47, Chron: 72-84, pls. 27-30.

Kyriazopoulos, V. 1969. Pottery. In: S. A. Papadopoulos (Ed.), Greek Handicraft, Athens, 89-120.

Koilakou, C. 1993. Thebes (in Modern Greek. Archaiologikon Deltion 48, Chron: 77-93.

Kyriazopoulos, V. D. 1978. The contribution of the Christians in Asia Minor pottery. Balkan Studies 19, 77-103.

Koilakou, C. 1994. Thebes (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 49, Chron: 113-122.

Kyriazopoulos, V. D. 1984. Greek Traditional Ceramics (in Modern Greek), Athens.

Koilakou, C. 1996. Thebes (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 51, Chron: 74-85.

Laiou, A. E. 1980-81. The Byzantine economy in the Mediterranean trade system: 13th-15th centuries. Dumbarton Oak Papers 34-35, 177-222.

Kollwitz, J. 1933. Die Lipsanothek von Brescia, Berlin and Leipzig. Korre-Zographou, K. 1995. Pottery of the Greek Area (in Modern Greek), Athens. Korre-Zographou, K. 2000. Pottery from Çanakkale: 1670-1922 (in Modern Greek), Athens.

Laiou, A. E. 1982. The Greek merchant of the Palaeologan period: A collective portrait. The Proceedings of the Academy of Athens, 96-124. Laiou, A. E. 1990. Händler und Kaufleute auf dem Jahrmarkt. In: G. Prinzing (Ed.), Fest und Alltag in Byzanz, Munich, 53-70, 189-194.

Kotsakis, K. 1991. The powerful past: Theoretical trends in Greek archaeology. In: I. Hodder (Ed.), Archaeological Theory in Europe. The Last Three Decades, London and New York, 65-90.

Lane, A. 1937. Medieval finds at Al Mina in North Syria. Archaeologia. Society of Antiquaries at London 87, 19-78.

Koukoules, F. 1947-55. Byzantine Life and Civilisation (in Modern Greek), Athens.

Lane, A. 1939. Turkish peasant pottery from Chanak and Kutahia. The Connoisseur 104, 232-259.

Koukoulidis, T. G. & Ince, G. E. 1986 [= 1990]. Methana. Archaiologikon Deltion 41, Chron: 31-32, pls. 53-54.

Lane, A. 1957 (2nd ed.). Later Islamic Pottery. Persia, Syria, Turkey, Egypt, London.

Kourkoutidou, E., Tsioumi, C. & Pazaras, T. 1976 [= 1984]. Thessaloniki (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 31 (B2), Chron: 267-270, pls. 210-213.

Lauffer, S. 1986. Kopais: Untersuchungen zur historische Landeskunde Mittelgriechenlands, Frankfurt, Bern and New York.

Koyunoglu, Ö. 1953. Byzantine pottery from the Palace of Justice: Excavations at Istanbul. Annual of the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul 18 (5), 40-41. Kravari, V., Lefort, J. & Morrison, C. 1991. Hommes et richesses dans l’Empire byzantin II: VIIIe-XVe siècle, Paris. Kreutel, R. F. (Ed.). 1987. Im Reiche des goldenen Apfels. Des türkischen Weltenbummlers Evliyâ Çelebi denkwuerdige Reise in das Giaurenland und in die Stadt und Festung Wien anno 1665, Graz, Vienna and Cologne. Kritzas, C. 1971. The Byzantine shipwreck of Pelagos near Alonnesos (in Greek). Athens Annals of Archaeology 4, 176-185. Kritzas, C. 1973-4 [= 1979]. Argos (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 29 (B2), Chron: 212-249, pls. 153-170. Künstle, K. 1928. Ikonographie der christlichen Kunst I: Prinzipienlehre, Hilfsmotive, Offenbarungstatsachen, Freiburg im Breisgau. Kut, G. 1996. Turkish culinary culture. In: S. Arsel (Ed.), Timeless Tastes. Turkish Culinary Culture, Istanbul, 38-61.

392

Leake, W. M. 1835 (repr. 1967). Travels in Northern Greece, Amsterdam. Lefort, J. 1981. Le cadastre de Radolibos (1103), les géomètres et leurs mathématiques. In: Travaux et Mémoires, VIII: Hommage à M. Paul Lemerle, Paris, 269-313. Lemerle, P. 1979. Continuity or change? The land-register of Thebes. In: P. Lemerle, The Agrarian History Of Byzantium, Galway, 193-200. Le Patourel, J. 1968. Documentary evidence and the Medieval pottery industry. Medieval Archaeology 12, 101-126. Le Patourel, J. 1983. Documentary evidence for the pottery trade in North West Europe. In: P. Davy & R. Hodges (Eds.), Ceramics and Trade: The Production and Distribution of Later Medieval Pottery in North-West Europe, Sheffield, 27-36. Lightbown, R. & Caiger-Smith, A. (Eds.). 1980. Cipriano Piccolpasso I tre libri dell’ arte del vasaio / The Three Books Of The Potters’s Art, London.

Linton, R. 1944. North American cooking pots. American Antiquity 9, 369-80.

(Eds.), Recherches sur la céramique byzantine (BCH Suppl. 18), Athens, 177-183.

Lischka, J. J. 1978. A functional analysis of middle classic ceramics at Kaminaljuyu. In: R. K. Wetherington (Ed.), The Ceramics of Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala, 223-278.

Lucchesi Palli, E. 1947. Die Passions- und Endszenen Christi auf der Ciboriumsäule von San Marco in Venedig, Prague.

Lock, P. 1986. The Frankish towers of Central Greece. Annual of the British School at Athens 81, 101-121.

Ludtke, H. & Vossen, R. (Eds.). 1996. Töpfereiforschung zwischen Mittelmeer und Skandinavien. Beiträge des Internationalen Kolloquiums 1990 in Hamburg, Bonn.

Lock, P. 1989. The Medieval towers of Greece: A problem in chronology and function. Mediterranean Historical Review 4, 129145.

Lumbroso, G. 1881-82. La forchetta da tavola in Europa. Memorie della R. Accademia dei Lincei.III: Memorie della classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche 10, 141-148.

Lock, P. 1995. The Franks in the Aegean, 1204-1500, London and New York.

Lund, J. 1996. From archeology to history? Reflections on the chronological distribution of ceramic finewares in South Western and Southern Asia Minor from the 1st to the 7th century AD. In: M. Herfort-Koch, U. Mandel & U. Schädler (Eds.), Hellenistische und kaiserzeitliche Keramik des östlichen Mittelmeergebietes, Frankfurt, 105-125.

Lock, P. & Sanders, G. D. R. (Eds.). 1996. The Archaeology of Medieval Greece, Oxford. Lock, P. 1997. The Frankish period in Boeotia: Problems and perspectives. In: J. Bintliff (Ed.), Recent Developments in the History and Archaeology of Central Greece, Oxford, 305-313. Loizides. 1947. Catalogue of a Loan Exhibition of Medieval Cypriot Pottery from the Collection of Mr. Christakis Loizides, Nicosia.

MacKay, T. S. 1967. More Byzantine and Frankish pottery from Corinth. Hesperia 36, 249-320.

Lolling, H. G. 1989 (rev. ed.). Reisenotizen aus Griechenland: 1876 und 1877, Berlin.

Mackridge, P. 2000. R.M. Dawkins and Byzantium. In: R. Cormack & E. Jeffreys (Eds.), Through the Looking Glass. Byzantium through British Eyes. Papers from the Twenty-Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, London, March 1995, Aldershot etc., 185-195.

London, G. A. 1987. Cypriote potters: Past and present. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 319-321.

Magnani, R. & Munarini, M. (Eds.). 1998. La ceramica graffita del Rinascimento tra Po, Adige e Oglio, Ferrara.

London, G. A. 1989a. On fig leaves, itinerant potters, and pottery production locations in Cyprus. In: P. E. McGovern, M. D. Notis & W. D. Kingery (Eds.), Cross-craft and Cross-cultural Interactions in Ceramics, Westerville, OH, 65-80. London, G. 1989b. Past present: The village potters of Cyprus. Biblical Archaeologist 50, 219-229.

Maguire, H. (Ed.). 1997. Materials Analysis of Byzantine Pottery, Washington, D.C. Maier, F. G. 1977. Excavations at Kouklia (Palaepaphos). Ninth preliminary report: Season 1976. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 133-40.

London, G. A. et. al. 1990. Töpfereien auf Zypern: Damals - Heute / Traditional Pottery In Cyprus, Mainz.

Maier, F. G. 1979. Excavations at Kouklia (Palaepaphos). Tenth preliminary report: Seasons 1977 and 1978. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 168-76.

London, G. A. 1998-99. Potters in Cyprus: Twelve years later. Newsletter of the Department of Pottery Technology (Leiden University) 16-17, 57-68.

Maier, F. G. 1980. Ausgrabungen in Alt-Paphos. Archäologischer Anzeiger, 498-511.

Longacre, W. 1981. Kalinga pottery: An ethnoarchaeological study. In: I. Hodder, G. Isaac & N. Hammond (Eds.), Pattern of the Past. Studies in Honour of David Clarke, Cambridge, 49-66.

Maier, F. G. 1981. Excavations at Kouklia (Palaepaphos). Eleventh preliminary report: Seasons 1979 and 1980. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 101-105.

Longnon, J. (Ed.). 1911. Alexandre Buchon’s voyage dans l’Eubée, les Iles Ioniennes et les Cyclades en 1841, Paris.

Maier, F. G., & Karageorghis, V. 1984. Paphos: History and Archaeology, Nicosia.

Loucas, I. 1989. Les plats byzantins à glaçure inédits d’une collection privée de Bruxelles. In: P. Déroche & J.-M. Spieser

Maier, F. G. 1984. Ausgrabungen in Alt-Paphos. Archäologischer Anzeiger, 301-312.

393

Maier, F. G. & Von Wartburg, M.-L. 1998. Ausgrabungen in AltPaphos. 17. Vorläufiger Bericht: Grabungskampagnen 19911995. Archäologischer Anzeiger, 105-32. Makaronas, C. I. 1972 (= 1977). Pella (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 27 (B2), Chron: 505-509, pls. 443-444. Makropoulou, D. 1985. Concerning the Late-Byzantine cemetery of Vlatadon Monastery (in Modern Greek). I Thessaloniki / Thessalonique 1 , 255-309. Makropoulou, D. 1995. Byzantine and Post-Byzantine ceramics (in Modern Greek). In: Sullogi Dimitriou Oikonomopoulou, Athens, 7-51. Mallet, J. V. G. 1972. L’importazione della maiolica italiana in Inghilterra. Atti V convegno internazionale della ceramica, 251-264. Mango, C. 1981. Discontinuity with the Classical past in Byzantium. In: M. Mullett & R. Scott (Eds.), Byzantium and the Classical Tradition. 13th Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies 1979, Birmingham, 48-57. Mannoni, T. 1968. La ceramica in Liguria dal secolo VI al secolo XVI. Albisola 1, 213-233. Mannoni, L. & Mannoni, T. 1975. La ceramica dal medioevo all’età moderna nell’ archeologia di superficie della Liguria centrale ed orientale. Albisola 8, 121-136. Mannoni, T. 1981. The archaeological evidence for commerce: A Ligurian case study. In: G. Barker & R. Hodges (Eds.), Archaeology and Italian Society: Prehistoric, Roman and Medieval Studies, Oxford, 125-130. Mantran, R. 1989. La vie quotidienne à Istanbul au siècle de Soliman le Magnifique, Paris. Marquardt, J. 1964 (orig. 1886). Das Privatleben der Römer, Darmstadt. Mastrokostas, E. 1964 [= 1966]. Excavations at the wall of Dyme (in Modern Greek). Praktika tis en Athinais Archaiologikis Etaireias, 60-67. Mathews, T. F. 1998. The Art of Byzantium: Between Antiquity and the Renaissance, London. Matson, F. R. 1972a. Ceramic studies. In: W. A. McDonald & J. Rapp Jr. (Eds.), The Minnesota Messenia Expedition: Reconstructing a Bronze Age Regional Environment, Minneapolis, 200-224. Matson, F. R. 1972b. The potters of Chalkis. In: E. N. Borza & R. W. Carruba (Eds.), Classics and the Classical Tradition, Pennsylvania, 117-142.

394

Mayeske, B. J. B. 1972. Bakeries, Bakers and Bread at Pompeii: A Study in Social and Economic History, Ann Arbor, Michigan. McCarthy, M. R. & Brooks, C. M. 1988. Medieval Pottery in Britain AD 900-1600, Leicester. McClellan, M. C. & Rautman, M. L. 1989. The 1987 and 1988 field seasons of the Kalavasos-Kopetra Project. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 157-166. McClellan, M. C. & Rautman, M. L. 1991. The 1990 field season at Kalavasos-Kopetra. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 225-236. McClellan, M. C. & Rautman, M. L. 1994. The 1991-1993 field seasons at Kalavasos-Kopetra. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 289-307. McDonald, W. A.& Howell, R. T. 1971 [= 1975]. Nichoria. Archaiologikon Deltion 26 (B1), Chron: 131-137, pls. 114-116. McDonald, W. A. & Howell, R. J. 1973 [= 1977]. Nichoria. Archaiologikon Deltion 28 (B1), Chron: 181-193, pls. 153-159. McGowan, A. 1999. Ascetic Eucharists. Food and Drink in Early Christian Ritual Meals, Oxford. McNeal, R. A. 1993. Nicholas Biddle in Greece. The Journals and Letters of 1806, Pennsylvania. Mee, C. & Forbes, H. 1997. A Rough and Rocky Place: The Landscape and Settlement History of the Methana Peninsula, Greece, Liverpool. Megaw, A. H. S. 1931-32. The chronology of some Middle Byzantine churches. Annual of the British School at Athens 32, 90-130. Megaw, A. H. S. 1951. Three medieval Pit-groups from Nicosia. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus 1937-39, 145-168 and 224-6. Megaw, A.H.S. 1959. Archaeology in Cyprus, 1958. Archaeological Reports for 1958, 25-34. Megaw, A. H. S. 1964. Glazed bowls in Byzantine churches. Deltíon tis Christianikis Archaiologikis Etaireas 4, 145-162. Megaw, A. H. S. 1966. The Skripou screen. Annual of the British School of Athens 61, 1-32. Megaw, A. H. S. 1968a. Byzantine pottery (4th-14th century). In: R. J. Charleston (Ed.), World Ceramics, London, 100-106. Megaw, A. H. S. 1968b. Zeuxippus Ware. Annual of the British School in Athens 63, 67-88.

Megaw, A. H. S. 1968c. A Byzantine potter’s stamp. Athens Annals of Archaeology 1, 197-200. Megaw, A. H. S. 1971. Excavations at Saranda Kolones, Paphos: Preliminary report on the 1966-67 and 1970-71 seasons. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 117-146. Megaw, A. H. S. 1972. Supplementary excavations on a castle site at Paphos, Cyprus, 1970-1971. Dumbarton Oak Papers 26, 322-343. Megaw, A. H. S. 1975. An early thirteenth-century Aegean glazed ware. In: G. Robertson & G. Henderson (Eds.), Studies in Memory of David Talbot Rice, Edinburgh, 34-45. Megaw, A. H. S. 1976. Excavations at the episcopal basilica of Kourion in Cyprus in 1974 and 1975: A preliminary report. Dumbarton Oak Papers 30, 345-371. Megaw, A. H. S. 1979. The atrium of the episcopal basilica at Kourion: A preliminary report. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 358-365. Megaw, A. H. S. 1982. Saranda Kolones 1981. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 210-216. Megaw, A. H. S. 1984. Saranda Kolones: Ceramic evidence for the construction date. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 333-340. Megaw, A. H. S. 1986. Betwixt Greeks and Saracens. In: V. Karageorghis (Ed.), Acts of The International Archaeological Symposium ‘Cyprus between the Orient and the Occident’, Nicosia, 8-14 September 1985, Nicosia, 505-519. Megaw, A. H. S. 1989. Zeuxippus Ware again. In: V. Déroche & J. M. Spieser (Eds.), Recherches sur la céramique byzantine (BCH Suppl. 18), Athens, 259-266.

Millet, G. 1916. Recherches sur l’iconographie de l’évangile aux XIVe, XVe et XVIe siècles d’après les monuments de Mistra, de Macedoine et du Mont-Athos, Paris. Mills, B. J. 1998. Ceramics and the social contexts of food consumption in the Northern Southwest. In: J. M. Skibo & G. M. Feinman (Eds.), Pottery and People. A Dynamic Interaction, Salt Lake City, 99-114. Moorhouse, S. 1978. Documentary evidence for the uses of Medieval pottery – An interim statement. Medieval Ceramics 2, 3-21. Moorhouse, S. 1983. Documentary evidence and its potential for understanding the inland movement of Medieval pottery. Medieval Ceramics 7, 45-87. Morgan, C. H. 1935. Several vases from a Byzantine dump at Corinth. American Journal of Archaeology 39, 76-78. Morgan, C. H. 1938. Excavations at Corinth, autumn 1937. American Journal of Archaeology 42, 362-370. Morgan, C. H. 1942. Corinth XI: The Byzantine Pottery, Cambridge, Mass. Morris, I. 1994. Archaeologies of Greece. In: I. Morris (Ed.), Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies, Cambridge, 8-47. Morris, I. 1999. Negotiated peripherality in Iron Age Greece: Accepting and resisting the East. In: P.N. Kardulias (Ed.), World-Systems Theory in Practice. Leadership, Production, and Exchange, Lanham, Boulder, New York and Oxford, 63-201. Moryson, F. 1617. An Itinerary Written by Fynes Moryson Gent, First in the Latine Tongue, and then Translated by Him into English, London.

Megaw, A. H. S. & Jones, R. E. 1982. Spectographic analyses of Byzantine and allied pottery. In: XVI. Internationaler Byzantinistenkongress. Akten II.3, Vienna, 577-585.

Munarini, M. & Banzato, D. 1993. Ceramiche rinascimentali dei musei civici di Padova, Milan.

Megaw, A. H. S. & Jones, R. E. 1983. Byzantine and allied pottery: A contribution by chemical analysis to problems of origin and distribution. Annual of the British School at Athens 78, 253-263.

Nelson, B. 1981. Ethnoarchaeology and paleodemography: A test of Turner and Lofgren’s hypothesis. Journal of Anthropological Research 37, 107-129.

Meyer, P. (Ed.). 1952. Byzantinische Mosaiken. Torcello, Vendig, Monreale, Palermo, Cefalù. Bern.

Nepoti, S. 1991. Ceramiche graffite della donazione Donini Baer, Faenza.

Michailidou, M. 1987 [= 1992]. Rhodos (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 42 (B2), Chron: 670-673, pl. 377.

Nesbitt, M. 1993. Ancient crop husbandry at KamanKalehöyuk: 1991 archaeobotanical report. In: T. Mikasa (Ed.), Essays on Anatolian Archaeology, Wiesbaden, 75-97.

Michailidou, M. 1993. Ceramica veneziana dalla città medievale di Rodi (1309-1522): Nota preliminare. In: S. Gelichi (Ed.), La ceramica nel mondo bizantino tra XI e XV secolo e i suoi rapporti con l’Italia, Florence, 333-340.

Neville, L. 2001. Information, ceremony and power in Byzantine fiscal registers: varieties of function in the Cadaster of Thebes. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 25, 20-43.

395

Nicolay, N. 1577. Vier Bucher von de Raisz und Schiffart in die Turckey, Andorff.

Orton, C. 1985. Diffusion or impedance - Obstacles to innovation in Medieval ceramics. Medieval Ceramics 9, 21-34.

Nielsen, I. & Sigismund Nielsen, H. (Eds.). 1998. Meals in a Social Context. Aspects of the Communal Meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World, Aarhus.

Orton, C. 2000. Sampling in Archaeology, Cambridge.

Nikolakopoulos, G. 1973. The beauty of ceramics (in Modern Greek). Zygos 3, 17-23.

Öney, G. 1971. Türk devri çanakkale seramikleri / Turkish period çanakkale ceramics, Ankara. Öney, G. 1976. Çanakkale ceramics. In: IVème congrés iternational d’art Turc. Aix 1971, Aix-en-Provence, 173-181.

Nikolakopoulos, G. 1978. Embedded Ceramics in the Façades of Medieval and Turkish-period Churches I and II (in Modern Greek), Athens.

Öney, G. 1989. Beylikler devri sanati XIV. - XV. yuzyil (1300-1453), Ankara.

Nikolakopoulos, G. 1981. Céramiques encastrées de anciennes églises de Grèce. Faenza 67, 160-178.

Öney, G. 1991. Çanakkale ceramics. In: Turkish Tiles and Ceramics, Istanbul, 103-115.

Nikolakopoulos, G. A. 1985. Greek Medieval Pottery (in Modern Greek). Archaiologia 17 (nov.), 41-47.

Papadakis, N. 1975. The Medieval fortification of Chalkis (in Modern Greek). Archeion Euboikon Meleton 20, 277-317.

Nikolakopoulos, G. A. 1988. The ceramics of the chapel of Phaneromeni of Salamis (in Modern Greek). Archaiologia 28 (sept.), 81-84.

Papadopoulos, A. 1997. The socio-economic effects of the drainage of Lake Copais. In: J.L. Bintliff (Ed.), Recent Developments in the History and Archaeology of Central Greece, (BAR. IS. 666), Oxford, 365-377.

Nikolakopoulos, G. A. 1989. Embedded ceramics of churches (in Modern Greek). Archaiologia 33, 66-71. Noordegraaf, L. 1985. Hollands welvaren? Levensstandaard in Holland 1450-1650, Bergen. Noy, D. 1998. The sixth hour is the mealtime for scholars: Jewish meals in the Roman world. In: I. Nielsen & H. Sigismund Nielsen (Eds.), Meals in a Social Context. Aspects of the Communal Meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World, Aarhus, 134144. Oikonomides, N. 1990. The contents of the Byzantine house from the eleventh to the fifteenth Century. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 44, 205-214. Oikonomides, N. 1997. Entrepeneurs. In: G. Cavallo (Ed.), The Byzantines, Chicago and London, 144-171. Oikonomou-Laniado, A. 1993. La céramique protomajolique d’Argos. In: S. Gelichi (Ed.), La ceramica nel mondo bizantino tra XI e XV secolo e i suoi rapporti con l’Italia, Florence, 307-316. Orlandos, A. 1948. Byzantine vessels of the museum of Rhodos (in Modern Greek). Archeion ton byzantinon mnimeion tis Hellados 6, 222-225. Orlandos, A. 1969. Complementary research on the basilica of Sikyon (in Modern Greek). Archeion ton byzantinon mnimeion tis Hellados IA, 148-176.

396

Papadopoulos, S. 1999. Traditional Pottery Workshops of Thasos (in Modern Greek), Athens. Papadopoulou, B. & Tsouris, K. 1993. Late Byzantine ceramics from Arta: Some examples. In: S. Gelichi (Ed.), La ceramica nel mondo bizantino tra XI e XV secolo e i suoi rapporti con l’Italia, Florence, 241-261. Papanikola-Bakirtzis, D. 1982. Cypriot Medieval glazed bowls in Patras (in Modern Greek) . Athens Annals of Archaeology 15, 228-237. Papanikola-Bakirtzis, D. 1983. A workshop of glazed pottery at Thessaloniki (in Modern Greek). In: D. Papanikola-Bakirtzis (Ed.), Aphieroma sti mnimi tou Stylianou Pelekanidi, Thessaloniki, 377-388. Papanikola-Bakirtzis, D. 1984. The identity of a vessel in the Benaki Museum (in Modern Greek). Reports of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 351-353. Papanikola-Bakirtzis, D. 1987. Medieval Cyprus as Manifested in the Representation of Glazed Pottery (in Modern Greek). Archaiologia 24, 41-43. Papanikola-Bakirtzis, D. 1988. Dated C14th pots from Paphos. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 245-48. Papanikola-Bakirtzis, D. 1989a. Medieval Cypriot Pottery in The Pierides Foundation Museum, Larnaca.

Papanikola-Bakirtzis, D. 1989b. Medieval Pottery from Enkomi, Famagusta. In: V. Déroche & J. M. Spieser (Eds.), Recherches sur la céramique byzantine (BCH Suppl. 18), Athens, 233-246. Papanikola-Bakirtzis, D. 1992. Serres: A glazed pottery production center during the Late Byzantine period . In: D. Papanikola-Bakirtzis (Ed.), Ceramic Art from Byzantine Serres, Urbana & Chicago, 21-35. Papanikola-Bakirtzis, D. 1993. Cypriot Medieval glazed pottery: Answers and questions. In: A. A. M. Bryer & G. S. Georghallides (Eds.), Sweet Land of Cyprus. Papers given at the Twenty-Fifth Jubilee Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, March 1991, Nicosia, 115-130. Papanikola-Bakirtzis, D. 1996. Medieval Glazed Pottery from Cyprus: The Workshops of Paphos and Lapithos (in Modern Greek), Thessaloniki. Papanikola-Bakirtzis, D. (Ed.). 1999. Byzantine Glazed Ceramics. The Art of Sgraffito, Athens. Papanikola-Bakirtzis, D. 2001. Zeuxippus Ware: Some minor observations. In: J. Herrin, M. Mullett & C. Otten-Froux (Eds.), Mosaic. Festschrift for A.H.S. Megaw (BSA studies 8), London, 13134. Papanikola-Bakirtzis, D., Mavrikiou, F. N. & Bakirtzis, Ch. 1999. Byzantine Glazed Pottery in the Benaki Museum, Athens. Parker, A. J. 1992. Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and the Roman Provinces, Oxford. Paston-Williams, S. 1995. The Art of Dining. A History of Cooking and Eating, London. Patlagean, E. 1977. Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale à Byzance, Paris. Patterson, H. & Whitehouse, D. 1992. The Medieval domestic pottery. In: F. D’Andria & D. Whitehouse (Eds.), Excavations at Otranto II: The Finds, Galatina (Le), 87-195.

Peacock, D. P. S. 1982. Pottery in the Roman World: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach, London. Pernot, H. (Ed.). 1925. Voyage en Turquie et en Grèce de R.P. Robert de Dreux, aumonier de l’ambassadeur de France, 1665-1669, Paris. Peschlow, U. 1977-78. Byzantinische Keramik aus Istanbul. Ein Fundkomplex bei der Irenenkirche. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 2728, 363-414. Petridis, P. 1996. Das fruhchristliche Delphi. Die keramischen Zeugnisse. In: M. Maass (Ed.), Delphi. Orakel am Nabel der Welt, Simaringen, 121-124. Petsas, P. 1965 [= 1968]. Antiquities and remains from Western Macedonia (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 20 (B3), Chron: 423-440, pls. 473-508. Petsas, P. 1966 [= 1968]. Antiquities and remains from Central Macedonia (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 21 (B2), Chron: 331-340, pls. 339-359, 362. Petsas, P. 1967 [= 1969]. Antiquities and remains from Central Macedonia (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 22 (B2), Chron: 377-405, pls. 282-307. Petsas, P. M. 1971 [= 1975]. Patras (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 26 (B1), Chron: 148-187, pls. 127-169. Pharaklas, N. 1968 [= 1969]. Thebes (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 23 (B1), Chron: 207-225, pls. 159-172. Philadelphos, T. A. 1923. Byzantine finds from the excavations in old Corinth (in Modern Greek). Deltion tis Christianikis Archaiologikis Etaireias 11, 1-22. Piérart, M. & Thalmann, J.-P. 1980. Céramique romaine et médiévale. In: V. Déroche & J.-M. Spieser (Eds.), Études Argiennes, Athens, 463-482. Poole, J. E. 1997. Italian Maiolica, Cambridge, New York and Melbourne. Popper, K. R. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations, London.

Patterson, H. 2000. The current state of Early Medieval and Medieval ceramic studies in Mediterranean survey. In: R. Francovich, H. Patterson & G. Barker (Eds.), Extracting Meaning from Ploughsoil Assemblages, Oxford, 110-120.

Poulou-Papadimitriou, N. 2000. La céramique montée à la main: est-elle forcément barbare? Dossiers d’ archéologie 256, 35. Pouqueville, F. C. H. L. 1820. Voyage dans la Grèce, Paris.

Paviot, J. 1991. Cuisine grecque et cuisine turque selon l’experience des voyageurs (XVe-XVIe siecles). Byzantinische Forschungen 16, 167-177.

Prawer, J. 1972. The Crusaders’ Kingdom. European Colonialism In The Middle Ages, New York and Washington, D.C.

Pazaras, T. 1979 [= 1987]. Veria (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 34 (B2), Chron: 313-321, pls. 134-141 .

Pringle, D. 1977. La ceramica dell’area sud del convento di S. Silvestro a Genova. Archeologia Medievale 4, 100-160.

397

Pringle, D. 1984. Thirteenth-century pottery from the Monastery of St. Mary of Carmel. Levant 16, 91-111. Pringle, D. 1985. Medieval pottery from Caesarea: The crusader period. Levant 17, 171-202. Pringle, D. (Ed.). 1986. The Red Tower (Al-Burj Al-Ahmar). Settlement in the Plain of Sharon at the Time of the Crusaders and Mamluks A.D. 1099-1516, London. Pryor, J.H. 2002. Types of ships and their performance capabilities. In: R. Macrides (Ed.), Travel in the Byzantine World, Aldershot, 33-58. Psaropoulou, B. 1984. Last Potters of the East Aegean, Nauplion. Psaropoulou, B. 1989. Decoration and tools in utilitarian pottery (in Modern Greek). Ethnographika 6-7, 57-70. Rackham, O. 1983. Observations on the historical ecology of Boeotia. Annual of the British School at Athens 78, 291-351. Rautman, M. 1998. Hand-made pottery and social change: The view from Late Roman Cyprus. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 11, 81-104. Reinhard, J. 1913. Essai sur J.-M. Angiolello, noble vicentin (14521525), Angers. Reindl-Kiel, H. 1995. Wesirfinger und Frauenschenkel. Zur Sozialgeschichte der Türkischen Kuche. Archiv fur Kulturgeschichte 77, 57-84. Renfrew, C. 1977. Introduction: Production and exchange in early state societies, the evidence of pottery . In: D. P. S. Peacock (Ed.), Pottery and Early Commerce. Characterization and Trade in Roman and Later Ceramics, London, New York and San Francisco, 1-20. Réau, L. 1957. Iconographie de l’art chrétien, II: Iconographie de la bible 2: Nouveau testament, Paris. Rice, P. M. 1987. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook, Chicago and London. Richter, G. M. A. 1923. The Craft of Athenian Pottery. An Investigation of the Technique of Black-figured and Red-figured Athenian Vases, New Haven. Riegel, H. 1869. Über die Darstellung des Abendmahles besonders in der toscanischen Kunst, Hannover.

Riley, J.A. 1979. The coarse pottery from Berenice. In: J.A. Lloyd (Ed.), Excavations at Sidi Khrebish, Benghazi (Berenice), Tripoli, 91-467.

398

Ritter, H., Ruska, J. & Winderlich, R. 1935. Eine persische Beschreibung der Fayencetechnik von Kaschan aus dem Jahre 700h/1301ad. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 3, 16-56. Robertson, G. & Henderson, G. (Eds.). 1975. Studies in Memory of David Talbot Rice, Edinburgh. Robinson, H. S. 1959. The Athenian Agora V: Pottery of the Roman Period, Chronology, Princeton, N.J. Robinson, H. S. & Weinberg, S. S. 1960. Excavations at Corinth, 1959. Hesperia 29, 225-253. Robinson, R. C. W. 1983. Clay tobacco pipes from Kerameikos. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 98, 265-285. Robinson, R. C. W. 1985. Tobacco Pipes of Corinth and of the Athenian Agora. Hesperia 54, 149-203. Rogers, M. 1986. Ottoman luxury trades and their regulation. In: H. G. Majer (Ed.), Osmanistische Studien zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte. In Memoriam Vanco Boskov, Wiesbaden, 135-155. Rogers, J. M. 2000. Archaeology vs. archives: Some recent approaches to the Ottoman pottery of Iznik. In: Ç. BalimHarding & C. Imber (Eds.), The Balance of Truth. Essays in Honour of Professor Geoffrey Lewis, Istanbul, 275-292. Roller, D. W. 1988. Early Travellers in Eastern Boiotia, Amsterdam. Roslund, M. 1997. Crumbs from the rich man’s table. Byzantine finds in Lund and Sigtuna, c. 980-1250. In: H. Andersson, P. Carelli & L. Ersgard (Eds.), Visions of the Past. Trends and Traditions in Swedish Medieval Archaeology, Lund/Stockholm, 239-297. Ross, L. 1996. Medieval Art: A Topical Dictionary, Westport, Connecticut and London. Rosser, J. 1983. The pottery. In: Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece III: The Byzantine Occupation, Minneapolis, 378-424. Rosser, J. 1985. Excavations at Saranda Kolones, Paphos, Cyprus, 1981-1983. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 39, 81-97. Rudolph, W. 1971. Mykenische und nachmykenische Streufunde von der Unterburg . In: Tiryns V: Forschungen und Berichten, Mainz, 87-103. Rudolph, W. 1979. Excavations at Porto Cheli and Vicinity. Preliminary Report V: The Early Byzantine Remains. Hesperia 48, 294-320. Rycault, P. 1968. The Present State of the Ottoman Empire, London.

Sahm, W. (Ed.). 1915. Beschreibung der Reisen des Reinhold Lubenau, Königsberg.

Savage, G. & Newman, H. 1974 (rev.ed. 2000). An Illustrated Dictionary of Ceramics, London.

Salomonson, J. W. 1960. The ‘Fancy Dress Banquet’. Attempt at interpreting a Roman mosaic from El Djem. Bulletin Antieke Beschaving 35, 25-55.

Sbonias, K. 1999. Investigating the interface between regional survey, historical demography and paleodemography. In: J. Bintliff & K. Sbonias (Eds.), Reconstructing Past Population. Trends in Mediterranean Europe (3000 BC-AD 1800), Oxford, 219-234.

Salomonson, J. W. 1963. Romeinse mozaieken uit Tunesië, Leiden. Sampson, A. D. 1973-74. Oreoi (Euboea) (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 29 (B2), 487-90. Sandberg-Vavalà, E. 1929. La croce dipinta italiana e l’iconografia della passione, Verona. Sanders, G. D. R. 1987. An assemblage of Frankish pottery at Corinth. Hesperia 56, 159-195. Sanders, G. 1989. Three Peloponnesian churches and their importance for the chronology of late 13th and early 14th century pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean. In: V. Déroche & J.-M. Spieser (Eds.), Recherches sur la céramique byzantine (BCH Suppl. 18), Athens, 189-199. Sanders, G. D. R. 1993. Excavations at Sparta: The Roman Stoa, 1988-91. Preliminary report, part 1(c) Medieval pottery. Annual of the British School at Athens 88, 251-286. Sanders, G. D. R. 1995a. Byzantine Glazed Pottery at Corinth to C. 1125, Birmingham (Ph.D. thesis, University of Birmingham). Sanders, G. D. R. 1995b. Pottery from Medieval levels in the orchestra and lower cavea. Annual of the British School at Athens 90, 451-57. Sanders, G. D. R. 1999a. Corinth workshop production. In: D. Papanikola-Bakirtzis (Ed.), Byzantine Glazed Ceramics. The Art of Sgraffito, Athens, 159-164. Sanders, G. D. R. 1999b. A Late Roman bath at Corinth. Excavations in the Panayia field, 1995-1996. Hesperia 68, 441-480.

Scarce, J. 1996. Domestic Culture in the Middle East. An Exploration of the Household Interior, Edinburgh. Schiller, G. 1966-91. Ikonographie der christlichen Kunst, Gütersloh. Schläger, H., Blackman, D. J. & Schäfer, J. 1968. Der Hafen von Anthedon mit Beiträgen zur Topographie und Geschichte der Stadt. Archäologischer Anzeiger 83, 21-98. Schmidt, J. (Ed.) 1998. Per koets naar Constantinopel. De Gezantschapsreis van Baron van Dedem van de Gelder naar Istanbul in 1785, Zutphen. Schmidt, J. 2000. The travel notes of a Dutch pastor in Anatolia 1717-1727. In: Ç. Balim-Harding & C. Imber (Eds.), The Balance of Truth. Essays in Honour of Professor Geoffrey Lewis, Istanbul, 309330. Schmitt, O. (Ed.). 1937. Reallexikon zur Deutschen Kunstgeschichte I A, Stuttgart. Schneider, A. M. 1929. Samos in frühchristlicher und byzantinischer Zeit. Athenische Mitteilungen 54, 97-141. Schwab, M. 1909. Sept épitaphes hébraïques de Grèce. Revue des Études Juives 58, 106-111. Schwartz, H. (Ed.). 1971. Paul Rycaut’s The Present State of the Ottoman Empire (1668), New York. Schwartz, G. 1996, Byzantium wegspitten. NRC-Handelsblad 01.11.1996, CS 3.

Sanders, G. 2000. New relative and absolute chronologies for 9th to 13th century glazed wares at Corinth: Methodology and social conclusions. In: K. Belke, F. Hild, J. Koder & P. Soustal (Eds.), Byzanz als Raum. Zu Methoden und Inhalten der historischen Geographie des östlichen Mittelmeerraumes, Vienna, 153-173.

Schweigger, S. 1639. Eine neue Reissbeschreibung aus Teutschland nach Constantinopel und Jerusalem, Nurnberg.

Sanders, G.D.R. 2001. Byzantine polychrome pottery. In: J. Herrin, M. Mullett & C. Otten-Froux (Eds.), Mosaic. Festschrift for A.H.S. Megaw (BSA studies 8), London, 89-104.

Seifert, M. 1993. Pottery kilns in Mainland Greece and on the Aegean Islands. Rivista di Archeologia 17, 95-105.

Sarre, F. 1935. Eine keramische Werkstatt von Kaschan im 13.-14. Jahrhundert. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 3, 57-69.

Setton, K. 1975 (2nd ed.). The Catalan Domination of Athens, 13111388, New York.

Sarre, F. 1939. Die Fayencen von Nicaea und ihr Export nach dem Abendland. Pantheon 24, 341-345.

Shear, T. L. 1929. Excavations in the theatre district and tombs of Corinth in 1929. American Journal of Archaeology 33, 515-46.

Scott-Stevenson, E. 1880. Our Home in Cyprus, London.

399

Shear Jr., T. L. 1997. The Athenian Agora: Excavations of 19891993. Hesperia 66, 495-548.

Spieser, J.-M. 1996. Die byzantinische Keramik aus der Stadtgrabung von Pergamon, Berlin and New York.

Shear Jr., T. L. 1984. The Athenian Agora: Excavations of 19801982. Hesperia 53, 1-57.

Spon, J. & Wheler, G. 1679. Voyage d’Italie, de Dalmatie, de Grèce et du Levant, Amsterdam.

SHM = 1996. Sadberk Hanim Museum, Istanbul.

Stedman, N. 1996. Land use and settlement in Post-Medieval Greece. An interim discussion. In: P. Lock & G. D. R. Sanders (Eds.), The Archaeology of Medieval Greece, Oxford, 179-192.

Sigalos, E. forthcoming. Housing in Medieval and Post-Medieval Greece. (Ph.D. Thesis, University of Leiden), Leiden. Sinopoli, C. M. 1991. Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics, New York and London. Slaughter, C. & Kasimis, C. 1986. Some social-anthropological aspects of Boeotian rural society: A field-report. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 10, 103-160. Smart Martin, A. 1989. The role of pewter as a missing artifact: Consumer attitudes toward tablewares in late 18th-century Virginia. Historical Archaeology 23, 1-27. Snyder, G.F. 1985. Ante Pacem. Archaeological Evidence of Church Life before Constantine, Macon, Georgia. Sodini, J.-P. 2000. Productions et échanges dans le monde protobyzantin (IVe-VIIe s.): Le cas de la céramique. In: K. Belke, F. Hild, J. Koder & P. Soustal (Eds.), Byzanz als Raum. Zu Methoden und Inhalten der historischen Geographie des östlichen Mittelmeerraumes, Vienna, 181-208. Solalinde, A. G. (Ed.). 1919. Viaje de Turquía. Atribuido a Christóbal de Villalón, Madrid-Barcelona. Sørenson, L. W. & Guldager, P. 1987. Canadian Palaepaphos survey project: Second preliminary report. Ceramic finds. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 259-278. Soteriou, G. A. 1924. The Byzantine church of St. Gregory the Theologian at Thebes (in Modern Greek). Archaiologiki Ephimeris, 1-26. Soteriou, G. A. & Soteriou, M. G. 1952. The Basilica of Agios Dimitrios in Thessaloniki (in Modern Greek), Athens. Soustiel, J. 1985. La céramique islamique, le guide du connaisseur, Freiburg. Soustiel, L. (Ed.). 2000. Splendeurs de la ceramique ottomane du XVIe au XIXe siècle, Istanbul. Spieser, J.-M. 1991. La céramique byzantine médiévale. In: V. Kravari, J. Lefort & C. Morrison (Eds.), Hommes et richesses dans l’Empire byzantin II: VIIIe-XVe siècle, Paris, 249-260.

Stegensek, A. 1902. Santa Maria in Vescovio, Kathedrale in der Sabina. Römische Quartalschrift fur christliche Alterthumskunde und fur Kirchengeschichte 16, 7-24. Stern, E. J. 1995. Export to the Latin East of Cypriot manufactured glazed pottery in the 12th-13th century. In: N. Coureas & J. Riley-Smith (Eds.), Cyprus and the Crusades. Papers given at the International Conference ‘Cyprus and the Crusades’, Nicosia, 6-9 sept. 1994, Nicosia, 325-335. Stern, E. J. 1997. Excavation of the courthouse site at Akko: The pottery of the Crusader and Ottoman periods. Atiqot (Eng. ser.) 31, 35-70. Stern, E. J. 1999. Ceramic ware from the Crusader period in the Holy Land. In: S. Rozenberg (Ed.), Knights of the Holy Land. The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 259-265. Stevenson, R. B. K. 1947. The pottery, 1936-7. In: G. Brett, W. J. Macaulay, & R. B. K. Stevenson (Eds.), The Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors, London, 31-63. Stevenson, J. 1978. The Catacombs. Rediscovered Monuments of Early Christianity, London. Stillwell Mackay, T. 1996. A group of Renaissance pottery from Heraklion, Crete. Notes and questions. In: P. Lock & G.D.R. Sanders (Eds.), The Archaeology of Medieval Greece, Oxford, 127-133. Stissi, V. 2002. Pottery to the People. The Production, Distribution and Consumption of Decorated Pottery in the Greek World in the Archaic Period (650-480 BC), Amsterdam (Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam). Stoianovich, T. 1966. Le maïs dans les Balkans. Annales ESC 21, 1026-1040. Strong, D. E. 1966. Greek and Roman Gold and Silver Plate, London. Struck, A. 1909. Vier byzantinische Kirchen der Argolis: Plataniti, Chonika, Merbaka und Arisa. Archaölogische Mitteilungen 34, 189-236. Stylianou, A. & Stylianou, J. A. 1985. The Painted Churches of Cyprus. Treasures of Byzantine Art, London.

400

Svoronos, N. 1959. Recherches sur le cadastre byzantin et la fiscalité aux XIe-XIIe siècles; le cadastre de Thèbes. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 83, 1-166.

Toynbee, A. 1973. Constantine Porphyrogenitus and his World, London etc.

Symeonoglou, S. 1985. The Topography of Thebes from Bronze Age to Modern Times, Princeton, N.J.

Tölle-Kastenbein, R. 1974. Samos XIV: Das Kastro Tigani. Die Bauten und Funde Griechischer, Römischer und Byzantinischer Zeit, Bonn.

Tagliente, P. 2000. La ceramica invetriata policroma nel basso Salento. In: S. Patitucci Uggeri (Ed.), La ceramica invetriata tardomedievale dell’Italia centro-meridionale, Florence, 167-182.

Travlos, J. & Frantz, A. 1965. The church of St. Dionysios the Aeropagite and the palace of the archbishop of Athens in the 16th century. Hesperia 34, 157-202.

Talbot Rice, D. 1930. Byzantine Glazed Pottery, Oxford.

Triandaphylopoulos, D. 1978 [= 1985]. Kerkyra (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 33 (B1), Chron: 227-230, pls. 100101.

Talbot Rice, D. 1958. The Byzantine Pottery. In: D. Talbot Rice (Ed.), The Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors, Second Report, Edinburgh, 110-113. Tanoulas, T. 1987. The propylaea of the Acropolis at Athens since the seventeenth century: Their decay and restoration. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 102, 413-483. Tartari, F. 1982. Amforat e muzeut arkeologjik të Durrësit (përpjekje për një katalog të tyre) / Les amphores du Musée archéologique de Durrës (in Albanian with a summary in French). Illiria 2, 239-279. Tavernier, J.-B. 1677. A New Relation of the Inner-Part of the Grand Seignor’s Seraglio, London. Technau, W. 1929. Griechische Keramik im Samischen Heraion. Athenische Mitteilungen 54, 6-64. Theodorou-Mavrommatidi, A. 1995. Excavations in the new drainage-system of Thebes (in Modern Greek). In: A. Christopoulou (Ed.), Epetiris tis etaireias Boiotikon Meleton II a, Athens, 511-537. Theologidou, K. 1987 [= 1992]. Kastro Chrisis (in Modern Greek) . Archaiologikon Deltion 42 (B2), Chron: 436-437, pl. 251. Theophilus, P. 1986. The Various Arts / De Diversis Artibus (edited and translated by C.R. Dodwell), Oxford. Thessaloniki = 1986. Thessaloniki: History and Arts (in Modern Greek), Athens. Tite, M. S. 1989. Iznik pottery: An investigation of the methods of production. Archaeometry 31, 115-132. Tomlinson, J.E. 2000. Statistical analysis of neutron activation data on Mycenaean pottery from Gla, Thebes, Eutresis, Kallithea and Tanagra in Boeotia. In: V. Aravantinos (Ed.), Epetiris tis Etaireias Boiotikon Meleton, Tomos G, Teychos a (archaiologia), G’ Diethnes Synedrio Boiotikon Meleton, Thiva 4-8 septembriou 1996, Athens, 253-263.

Trombley, F. R. 2000. Early Medieval Boeotia (c. 580-1050 A.D.). In: V. Aravantinos (Ed.), Epetiris tis etaireias boiotikon meleton III, 1: Archaiologia, Athens, 990-1008. Tsigakou, F.-M. 1995. British Images of Greece from the Benaki Museum Collections, Athens. Tsouris, K. E. 1982. Ceramics from Ioannina of the end of the 18th century (in Modern Greek). Epeirotika Chronika 24, 267-281. Tsouris, K. 1987. Report on an excavation at Didymoteicho (in Modern Greek) . Archaiologika Analekta eks Athinon 20, 43-65. Tsouris, K. 1996. Glazed bowls in the Late Byzantine churches of North-Western Greece. Archeologia Medievale 23, 603-624. Turner, C. & Lofgren, L. 1966. Household size of Prehistoric Western Pueblo Indians. SouthWestern Journal of Anthropology 22, 117-132. Ursinus, M. 1985. Die Ess- und Trinkgewohnheiten der Osmanen. In: Türkische Kunst und Kultur aus osmanischer Zeit, Recklinghausen, 155-158. Van Aken-Fehmers, M. S. 1999. De producten in kaart gebracht. In: M. S. Van Aken-Fehmers, L. A. Schledorn, A.-G. Hesselink & T. M. Eliëns (Eds.), Delfts aardewerk. Geschiedenis van een nationaal product: Deel I, Zwolle, 27-36. Van der Meer, L. B. 1983. Eine Sigmamahlzeit in Leiden. Bulletin Antieke Beschaving 58, 101-115. Van Doorninck, Jr., F. H. 1989. The cargo amphoras on the 7th century Yassi Ada and 11th century Serçe Limani shipwrecks: Two examples of a reuse of Byzantine amphoras as transport jars. In: V. Déroche & J. M. Spieser (Eds.), Recherches sur la céramique byzantine (BCH Suppl. 18), Athens, 247-257. Van Doorninck, Jr., F. H. 1991. The Medieval shipwreck at Serce Limani: An early 11th-century Fatimid-Byzantine commercial voyage. Graeco-Arabica 4, 45-52.

401

Van Doorninck, Jr., F.H. 2002. The Byzantine ship at Serçe Limanı: an example of small-scale maritime commerce with Fatimid Syria in the early eleventh century. In: R. Macrides (Ed.), Travel in the Byzantine World, Aldershot, 137-48. Vandiver, P. B. & Koehler, C. G. 1986. Structure, processing, properties, and style of Corinthian transport amphoras. In: W. D. Kingery (Ed.), Technology and Style, Columbus, Ohio, 173-215. Van Gelder, H. A. E. 1973. Gegevens betreffende roerend en onroerend bezit in de Nederlanden in de 16e eeuw II, The Hague. Van Winter, J. M. 1998. Arabic inluences on European Medieval cuisine. In: P. Lysaght (Ed.), Food and the Traveller. Migration, Immigration, Tourism and Ethnic Food, Nicosia, 276-280. Vassi, O. 1993. An unglazed ware pottery workshop in twelfthcentury Lakonia. Annual of the British School at Athens 88, 287-293. Vavylopoulou-Charitonidou, A. 1976. Precious possessions of the Folkloristic Museum in Athens (in Modern Greek). Zygos 21, 28-38. Vavylopoulou-Charitonidou, A. 1982. Ceramic finds of the Byzantine and Post-Byzantine periods from the excavation ‘south of the Acropolis’, 1955-1960 (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 37 (A), 131-138. Vavylopoulou-Charitonidou, A. 1984. Byzantine ceramics at Arta (in Modern Greek). Deltion tis Christianikis Archaiologikis Etaireias 4 (12), 453-472. Vavylopoulou-Charitonidou, A. 1986-87. Post-Byzantine vessels from the castle of Rogon (in Modern Greek). Epeirotika Chronika 28, 37-42. Vavylopoulou-Charitonidou, A. 1989. Céramique d’offrande trouvée dans des tombes byzantines tardives de l’hippodrome de Thessalonique. In: V. Déroche & J.-M. Spieser (Eds.), Recherches sur la céramique byzantine (BCH Suppl. 18), Athens, 209-225. Vida, T. & Völling, T. 2000. Das slawische Brandgraberfeld von Olympia. Rahden, Westf. Vionis, A. 2001. Domestic material culture of the Cyclades: A case study of the late Medieval and Post-Medieval times (in modern Greek). Corpus 29, 66-73. Vloberg, M. 1946. L’Eucharistie dans l’art, Grenoble and Paris. Vogt, C. 1993. Technologie des céramiques byzantines à glaçure d’époque Comnène. Les décors incisés: les outils et leurs traces. Cahiers Archéologiques 41, 99-110. Volbach, W. F. 1930 (2nd ed.). Mittelalterliche Bildwerke aus Italien und Byzanz. Bildwerke des Kaiser Friedrichs Museums, Leipzig.

402

Von Martels, Z. (Ed.). 1994. Augerius Gislenius Busbequius’ Legationis Turccicae epistolae quator / Ogier Ghiselin van Boesbeek’s Vier brieven over het gezantschap naar Turkije, Hilversum. Von Stern, E. 1906. Das Museum der Kaiserlich Odessaer Gesellschaft fur Geschichte und Altertumskunde. Lieferung III: Theodosia und seine Keramik, Odessa. Von Wartburg, M.-L. 1983. The Medieval cane sugar industry in Cyprus: Results of recent excavation. The Antiquaries Journal 63, 298-314. Von Wartburg, M.-L. 1984. Ausgrabungen in Alt-Paphos 1981 und 1982, II: Zuckerformen und Melassetöpfe: eine Klasse mittelalterlicher industrieller Keramik. Archäologischer Anzeiger, 315-327. Von Wartburg, M.-L. 1995. Production du sucre de canne à Chypre: un chapitre de technologie médiévale. In: M. Balard, & A. Ducellier (Eds.), Coloniser au moyen âge, Paris, 126-131. Von Wartburg, M.-L. 1997. Lemba ware reconsidered. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 323-340. Von Wartburg, M.-L. 1998. Mittelalterliche Keramik aus dem Aphroditeheiligtum im Palaipaphos (Grabungsplatz TA). Archäologischer Anzeiger, 133-165. Von Wartburg, M.-L. 2001a. Types of imported table ware at Kouklia in the Ottoman period. RDAC, 361-396 (with an appendix by B. Graf). Von Wartburg, M.-L. 2001b. Bowls and birds: Some Middle Byzantine glazed bowls from Swiss private collections. In: J. Herrin, M. Mullet & C. Otten-Froux, Mosaic. Festschrift For A.H.S. Megaw, London, 115-129. Von Wartburg, M.-L. 2001c. Earthquakes and archaeology: Paphos after 1222. In: Acts of the Third International Congress of Cypriot Studies, 1996, Nicosia, 127-145. Voyatzoglou, M. 1972. The Pithoi at Thrapsano of Crete (in Modern Greek). (Ph.D. thesis, University of Thessaloniki), Thessaloniki. Voyatzoglou, M. 1973. The potters of Thrapsano. Ceramic Review 24, 13-16. Voyatzoglou, M. 1974. The jar makers of Thrapsano in Crete. Expedition 16, 18-24. Voyatzoglou, M. 1979-1980. Traditional pottery in Modern Greece. The case study of St. Stephanos at Mantomado of Mytilini (in Modern Greek). Ethnografika 2, 37-46.

Voyatzoglou, M. 1984. Thrapsano, village of jar makers. In: P. P. Betancourt (Ed.), East Cretan White-on Dark Ware, Philadelphia, 130-142. Vroom, J. 1996. Coffee and archaeology. A note on a Kütahya Ware find in Boeotia, Greece. Pharos 4, 5-19. Vroom, J. 1997. Pots and pans. New perspectives on the Medieval ceramics of Greece. In: G. De Boe & F. Verhaeghe (Eds.), Material Culture in Medieval Europe. Papers of the ‘Medieval Europe Brugge 1997’ Conference 7, Zellik, 203-213.

the Bouthrotos Acropolis. In: K. Hadzis et al., Bouthrotos I, Athens, 319-331. Vroom, J. forthcoming (d). Broken pottery and the habitation history of Medieval and Post-Medieval Boeotia (Greece). In: Ch. Bakirtzis & D. Papanikola-Bakirtzis (Eds.), La céramique mediévale en méditerranée. Actes du VIIe congrès international sur la céramique médiévale en Méditerranée, Thessaloniki 11-16 octobre 1999, Thessaloniki. Vryonis, S. 1981. Slavic society and the Slavic invasions of Greece. Hesperia 50, 378-90.

Vroom, J. 1998a. Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery from a site in Boeotia. A case study example of Post-Classical archaeology in Greece. Annual of the British School at Athens 93, 513-546.

Waagé, F. O. 1933. Excavations in the Athenian agora.The Roman and Byzantine pottery. Hesperia 2, 279-328.

Vroom, J. 1998b. Early Modern archaeology in Central Greece. The contrast of artefact-rich and sherdless sites. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 11, 3-36.

Waagé, F. O. 1934. Preliminary report on the Medieval pottery from Corinth I. The proto-type of the Archaic Italian Maiolica. Hesperia 3 129-139.

Vroom, J. 1999a. Playing games in the Valley of the Muses. A Medieval board game found in Boeotia, Greece. Pharos 7, 93110.

Waagé, F. O. 1948. The glazed pottery. In: F. O. Waagé (Ed.), Antioch-on-the-Orontes IV, part 1: Ceramics and Islamic Coins, Princeton, N. J., 79-108.

Vroom, J. 1999b. Book review of P. Lock & G.D.R. Sanders (Eds), The Archaeology of Medieval Greece. American Journal of Archaeology 103, 165-166.

Wace, A. J. B. 1914. Catalogue of a Collection of Old Embroideries of the Greek Islands and Turkey, London.

Vroom, J. 2000a. Piecing together the past. Survey pottery and deserted settlements in Medieval Boeotia (Greece). In: K. Belke, F. Hild, J. Koder & P. Soustal (Eds.), Byzanz als Raum. Zu Methoden und Inhalten der historischen Geographie des östlichen Mittelmeerraumes im Mittelalter, Vienna, 245-259. Vroom, J. 2000b. Byzantine garlic and Turkish delight. Dining habits and cultural change in Central Greece from Byzantine to Ottoman times. Archaeological Dialogues 7, 199-216. Vroom, J. 2000c. Book review of H. Maguire (Ed.), Material analysis of Byzantine Pottery. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 93, 217219. Vroom, J. forthcoming (a). Byzantine garbage and Ottoman waste. Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery from some rubbish pits at Pelopidou Street, Thebes. In: V. Aravantinos, L. Godart, A. Sacconi et al. (Eds.), Thèbes. Fouilles de la Cadmée II. Les tablettes en linéaire B de la Odos Pelopidou. Le contexte archéologique, Pisa and Rome.

Wace, A. J. B. & Dawkins, R. M. 1914. Greek embroideries (parts 1 and 2). The Burlington Magazine 26, 49-50; 99-107. Wagner, F. C. 1974. Die Töpfersiedlungen der Insel Siphnos, Karlsruhe. Wagstaff, M. & Frangakis-Syrett, E. 1992. The port of Patras in the second Ottoman period. Economy, demography and settlements c. 1700-1830. In: Les Balkans à l’époque ottomane, Aix-enProvence, 79-94. Waksman, S. Y. 1995. Les céramiques byzantines des fouilles de Pergame: Caractérisation des productions locales et importées par analyse élémentaire (PIXE et INAA) et par pétrographie. (Ph.D. thesis University of Strasburg), Strasburg. Wallerstein, I. 1974. The Modern World-System I. Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century, London. Wallerstein, I. 1979. The Ottoman Empire and the capitalist world-economy: Some questions for research. Review. A Journal of the Fernand Braudel Center for the Study of Economics, Historical Systems, and Civilizations 2, 389-398.

Vroom, J. forthcoming (b). The Medieval and Post-Medieval fine wares and cooking wares from the triconch palace and the baptistery. In: W. Bowden, R. Hodges & K. Lako (Eds.), Butrint: Excavations and Survey 1994-1999, London.

Wallerstein, I. 1980. The Modern World-System II, London.

Vroom, J. forthcoming (c). Byzantine, Medieval and PostMedieval ceramics. Glazed pottery and other fine wares from

Wallerstein, I., Decdeli, H.. & Kasaba, R. 1987. The incorporation of the Ottoman Empire into the world-economy. In:

403

H. Islamog ˘lu-Inan (Ed.), The Ottoman Empire and the WorldEconomy, Cambridge, 88-100.

Williams II, C. K. & Zervos, O. H. 1989. Excavations at Corinth, 1989: The temenos of temple E. Hesperia 59, 336-356.

Wallerstein, I. 1989. The Modern World-System III, London.

Williams II, C. K. & Zervos, O. H. 1991. Corinth, 1990: Southeast corner of temenos E. Hesperia 60, 1-40.

Wallis, H. 1907. Byzantine Ceramic Art, London. Warren, P. & Miles, G. C. 1972. An Arab building at Knossos. Annual of the British School at Athens 67, 285-296. Watson, O. 1988. Ceramics. In: B. W. Robinson (Ed.), Islamic Art in the Keir Collection, London, 137-286. Weber, T. 1980. Essen und Trinken in Konstantinopel des 10. Jahrhunderts, nach den Berichten Liutprands von Cremona. In: J. Koder & T. Weber (Eds.), Liutprand von Cremona in Konstantinopel, Vienna, 71-99. Weigand, E. 1936. Zur Datierung der kappadokischen Höhlenmalereien. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 36, 337-347. Weitzmann, K. (Ed.). 1979. Age Of Spirituality. Late Antique and Early Christian Art, Third to Seventh Century, New York. Wessel, K. 1961. Der Sieg über den Tod. Die Passion Christi in der Frühchristlichen Kunst des Abendlandes, Berlin. Wessel, K. 1964. Abendmahl und Apostelkommunion, Recklinghausen. Wessel, K. (Ed.). 1966. Reallexikon zur Byzantinischen Kunst, Stuttgart. Wheler, G. 1682. A Journey into Greece in Company of Dr. Spon, London. White, C. 1846. Three Years in Constantinople; Or Domestic Manners of the Turks in 1844, London. Whitehouse, D. 1986. Apulia. In: La ceramica medievale nel mediterraneo occidentale, Florence, 573-586.

Williams II, C. K. & Zervos, O. H. 1992. Frankish Corinth: 1991. Hesperia 61, 133-191. Williams II, C. K. & Zervos, O. H. 1993. Frankish Corinth: 1992. Hesperia 62, 1-52. Williams II, C. K. & Zervos, O.H. 1994. Frankish Corinth: 1993. Hesperia 63, 1-40. Williams II, C. K. & Zervos, O. H. 1995. Frankish Corinth: 1994. Hesperia 64, 1-60. Williams II, C. K. & Zervos, O. H. 1996. Frankish Corinth: 1995. Hesperia 65, 1-55. Williams II, C. K., Snyder, L. M., Barnes, E. & Zervos, O. H. 1998. Frankish Corinth: 1997. Hesperia 67, 223-264. Willmott, H. 1997. English sixteenth and early seventeenth century vessel glass in the context of dining. In: G. De Boe & F. Verhaeghe (Eds.), Material Culture in Medieval Europe, Zellik, 185-190. Willmott, H. 2001. A group of 17th-century glass goblets with restored stems: Considering the archaeology of repair. PostMedieval Archaeology 35, 96-105 Willmott, H. 2002. Glass in London and England: Forms and use. In: J. Veekman (Ed.), Maiolica and Glass, From Italy to Antwerp and Beyond, Antwerp, 187-200. Wilpert, J. 1895. Fractio Panis. Die älteste Darstellung des eucharistischen Opfers in der ‘Capella Greca’, Freiburg im Breisgau.

Whitehouse, D. 1991. Glassmaking at Corinth: A reassessment. In: D. Foy, & G. Sennequier (Eds.), Ateliers de verriers de l’antiquité à la période pré-industrielle, Rouen, 73-82.

Wilpert, J. 1903. Die Malereien der Katakomben Roms, Freiburg.

Wickham, C. 2000. Italy at the end of the Mediterranean world system. Journal of Roman Archaeology 13, 818-824.

Wilson, T. 1987. Ceramic Art of the Italian Renaissance, London.

Williams II, C. K. 1993. Italian imports from a church complex in Ancient Corinth. In: S. Gelichi (Ed.), La ceramica nel mondo bizantino tra XI e XV secolo e i suoi rapporti con l’Italia, Florence, 263-282. Williams II, C. K. & Zervos, O. H. 1988. Corinth, 1987: South of temple E and east of the theater. Hesperia 57, 95-146.

404

Wilpert, J. 1929-36. I sarcofagi cristiani antichi, Rome.

Wilson, T. 1989. Maiolica. Italian Renaissance Ceramics in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Wolf, E. R. 1982. Europe and the People without History, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London. Woolf, G. 1990. World-systems analysis and the Roman empire. Journal of Roman Archaeology 3, 44-58.

Wriedt Sørensen, L. & Pentz, P. 1992. Lindos IV,2: Excavations and Surveys in Southern Rhodes: The Post-Mycenaean Periods until Roman Times and the Medieval Period, Copenhagen. Wulff, O. 1909-1911. Altchristliche und Mittelalterliche, Byzantinische und Italienische Bildwerke I: Altchristliche Bildwerke, II: Mittelalterliche Bildwerke, Berlin. Xanthoudides, S. 1927. Some Minoan potter’s-wheel discs. In: S. Casson (Ed.), Essays in Aegean Archaeology presented to Sir Arthur Evans in Honour of His 75th Birthday, Oxford, 111-128.

. Yenis∏ ehirliog© lu, F. 1996. Istanbul - Tekfur sarayı - Osmanlı dönemi çini fırınları ve Eyüp çömlekçiler mahallesi yüzey aras∏ tırmaları. T.C. Kazı ve Ara∏stırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, Ankara, 535-566. Yenis∏ ehirliog© lu, F. 2000. Eyüp çömlekçiler mahallesi aras∏ tırmaları. In: Tarihi Kültürü ve Sanatıyla, Eyüp Sempozyumu III, Istanbul, 42-51. Yerasimos, St. 2001. A la table du Grand Turc. Paris. Yılmaz, F. 1995. Yüzyılda Edremit Kazası, Izmir.

Xyngopoulos, A. 1933. Byzantine pottery from Olynthus. In: D. M. Robinson (Ed.), Excavations at Olynthus. Part V: Mosaics, Vases and Lamps of Olynthus found in 1928 and 1931, London, 285-292. Yannopoulos, G. (Ed.). 1969. The travels of Evliya Çelebi across Greece, vol II (in Modern Greek), Athens. Yemeniz, E. 1854. Voyage de Grèce, Paris. Yemeniz, E. 1869. Scènes et récits des guerres de l’independance: Grèce moderne, Paris.

Z™ bona-Trkman, B. 1991. Grajska Zapus©c©ina. Katalog ob razstavi keramike in stekla 14.-17. stol. (in Slovenian), Grad Dobrovo. Zervoudaki, H. 1970 [= 1973]. The town of Rhodos (in Modern Greek). Archaiologikon Deltion 25 (B2), Chron: 500-517, pls. 434439. Ziadeh, G. 1995. Ottoman ceramics from Ti’innik, Palestine. Levant 27, 209-245. Zimmerman Munn, M. L. 1985. A Late Roman site in the Hermiond. American Journal of Archaeology 89, 342-343.

Yenis∏ ehirliog© lu, F. 1989. La céramique glaçurée de Gülpinar. In: V. Déroche & J.-M. Spieser (Eds.), Recherches sur la céramique byzantine (BCH Suppl. 18), Athens, 303-315.

405

APPENDIX A TO CHAPTER 2: C L A S S I F I C A T I O N S O F M E D I E VA L A N D P O S T- M E D I E VA L C E R A M I C S I N G R E E C E , C O N S TA N T I N O P L E / I S TA N B U L A N D C Y P R U S

,. R.M. Dawkins & J.D. Droop ,4,+-,,, Byzantine pottery

2. Stamped ware

from Sparta, BSA ,2: -.--3.

3. Plain glaze-painted ware Byzantine and Turkish Pottery

A: Graffiato Ware I-V

Sgraffito Ware 1. Early Sgraffito Ware (Rice B1)

B: Painted Ware VI-VII

2. Elaborate Incised Ware (Rice B2) 3. Late Sgraffito Ware (Rice B3) -. D. Talbot Rice ,4.+, Byzantine Glazed Pottery, Oxford.

4. Turkish Sgraffito Ware Stamped Ware

Class A: the ‘Faïence’

1. White Stamped Ware (Rice A5)

Group A1: Polychrome Ware

2. Red Stamped Ware

Group A2: ‘Petal’ Ware

3. Turkish Stamped Ware

Group A3: Plain Glazed Ware

Painted Ware

Group A4: White Inscribed Ware

1. Slip Painted Ware (included by Rice in B2)

Group A5: White Ware, Impressed Design

2. Black and Green Painted Ware

Group A6: Models

3. Turkish Painted Ware

Group A7: Pottery Icons

Plain Ware

Class B: the ‘Earthenware’ Group B1: Early Sgraffito Ware Group B2: Elaborate Incised Ware

/. A. Xyngopoulos ,4.., Byzantine pottery from Olynthus, in:

Group B3: Late Sgraffito Ware

D.M. Robinson, Excavations at Olynthus, part V: Mosaics, Vases,

Group B4: White Painted Ware

and Lamps of Olynthus Found in ,4-3 and ,4.,, London: -30-

Group B5: Marbled Ware

-4-.

Group B6: Samsoun Ware Group B7: Deep Green Glazed Ware

I. Vases with Impressed Decoration

Group B8: Turkish Incised Ware

II. Incised A. With glaze 1. Slightly incised

.. F.A. Waagé ,4.., Roman and Byzantine pottery in Agora, Hesperia -: -24-.-3.

2. Deeply incised 3. Champlevés B. Without glaze

Roman Pottery

III. Incised and Painted

Pergamene Ware

A. With the colour scheme following the incised pattern

Italian Ware

B. With the colour scheme independent of the incised

Tschandarli Ware

pattern

Samian Ware Later Roman Ware A

IV. Painted A. With representations and decorations

Later Roman Ware B

1. On white ground

Later Roman Ware C

2. On coloured ground

Later Roman Ware D

B. With simple colours but without patterns

1. Painted wares

369

0. J. Du Plat Taylor ,4.3, Medieval graves in Cyprus, Ars

3. Ch. Morgan ,4/-, Excavations at Corinth XI: The Byzantine

Islamica 0.,: 00-32.

Pottery, Cambridge Mass.

Brown-and-green sgraffito A

Plain-Glazed Wares

Brown-and-green sgraffito B

Brown Glazed Wares

Green sgraffito A

Impressed Wares

Green sgraffito B Green-painted

white biscuit red biscuit

Plain white glazed

Plastic Ware

Plain green glazed

Petal Ware

Plain brown glazed

Inscribed Ware

Foreign

Undecorated Wwares

Coarse red (unglazed)

white biscuit I-II red biscuit Painted Wares

1. M.A. Frantz ,4.3, Middle Byzantine pottery in Athens,

Polychrome Wares I-IV

Hesperia 2: /.+-/11.

Green and Brown Painted Wares white biscuit

I. Plain-glazed Wares a. White Ware (Rice A3) b. Brown glaze c. Plain glaze on slip II. Impressed Ware (Rice A5) III. Painted Wares a. Polychrome Ware (Rice A1)

red biscuit I-V Spatter Painted Wares white biscuit red biscuit Red Painted Wares white biscuit red biscuit

b. Black and Green Painted Ware

Imitation Lustre Ware

c. Slip-painted Ware

Measles Ware

d. Red-painted Ware

Slip Painted Ware

IV. Sgraffito (Rice B1-3)

Blue Painted Ware

V. Coarse Ware

Fingerprinted Ware Proto-Majolica Wares I-III

2. M.A. Frantz ,4/-, Turkish pottery from the Agora, Hesperia ,,: ,--3.

Later Proto-Majolica I-III Sgraffito Wares Sgraffito

Asia Minor Ware

I The Fine Style

Good Sgraffito

II The Spiral Style

Bird Bowls

III The Duochrome Style

Blue and White Painted

IV Assorted Cups

Flaring Angular Bowls

Developed Style – Middle 12th century

Marbled Ware

Late 12th and 13thy centuries

Drip-painted Ware Concave Projecting Rim Scrawling Sgraffito

Painted-Sgraffito Wares Early 12th century Late Byzantine

Blob-painted Ware

Sgraffito with Relief Decoration

Stamped Medallions

Incised-Sgraffito

Kioutakia Ware

I The Medallion Style

Pseudo-Majolica

II The Intermediate Style

370

III The Free Style

Matt Painted Jugs and Jars

13th century

‘Protogeometric’ Matt Painted Ware

Late Byzantine or Turkish

Cooking Pots

Painted Incised-Sgraffito 12th century 13th century

Unglazed Bowls: Plain and Matt Painted Matt Painted Pithos Lamps

Painted Incised-Sgraffito with Relief Decoration Incised Wares ,,. G.D.R. Sanders ,432, Frankish pottery at Corinth, Hesperia 01: 4. J. Du Plat Taylor & A.H.S. Megaw ,40,, Cypriot Medieval glazed pottery: Notes for a preliminary classification, RDAC ,4.2-.4: ,-,..

Glazed Wares Local Wares Late Sgraffito Imported Wares

I.

Plain Sgraffito

II.

Slip-painted Ware

Proto-Maiolica and related wares

III.

Early Brown and Green Sgraffito

‘Grid-iron’ Proto-Maiolica

IV.

Brown and Green Sgraffito with External Glaze

Ramina Manganese Rosso (RMR) Ware

V.

Brown and Green Sgraffito with Plain Slipped Exterior

Other Proto-Maiolicas

VI.

Brown and Green Sgraffito, Overall Sgraffito

Bowl as Mackay, no. 20

VII. Brown and Green Decadent Sgraffito

Rouletted Ware

VIII. Green-painted Sgraffito

Green-glazed wares, ‘Metallic Ware’

IX.

Green-painted

Other green-glazed wares

X.

Green-glazed Sgraffito

Other late 13th-century fine wares

XI.

Plain-glazed Wares

XII. Imported Wares

Cooking Wares Local Wares Imported Wares Plain Wares

,+. T.S. MacKay ,412, More Byzantine and Frankish from Corinth, Hesperia .1:

Open Vessels Decorated Plain Wares Undecorated Plain Wares

Later 13th and Early 14th century Fine Glazed Wares Metallic Ware Glossy Ware Roulette Ware

Closed Vessels Decorated Plain Wares Undecorated Plain Wares Transport Amphoras

Roulette Ware Variant Olive-Brown Ware Unique Bowls Other Late Glazed Wares Proto-Majolica I, II and Late Proto-Majolica

,-. G.F. Bass ,43-, The pottery, in: G.F. Bass & F.H. van Doorninck, Jr. (eds.), Yassi Ada I. A Seventeenth-Century Byzantine Shipwreck, College Station: ,00-,33.

Shiny Olive Incised Ware II Later Slip Painted Ware

Cargo Amphoras

Painted Incised Sgraffito, Incised, Sgraffito and Late

Type 1 amphoras

Byzantine Painted Sgraffito Wares

Type 2 amphoras (bolle)

Unique Impressed Red Ware Bowl

Stoppers

Unglazed Wares Plain Unglazed Jugs and Jars

Graffiti Capacity and weight of amphoras

371

Origins and contents of amphoras Galley Wares Glazed Wares Plates and dishes

Painted Sgraffito Ware and Vessels in Similar Fabric Painted Sgraffito Ware Black and Green Painted Ware Slip-Painted Ware

Pitchers

Corinthian (?) Ware

Cups

Late 12th to 13th century Red-Bodied Wares

Tube-spouted jars

‘Thick Zeuxippos Ware’

Lids

Orange-Brown Glazed ware

Cooking pots and basin

Dark Brown Glassy Glazed ware

Whine thief Pantry wares (storage jars)

Coarse Incised Ware Late Byzantine Wares 7. Other Late Roman and Byzantine Unglazed Wares Mica-Dusted Wares I-III

,.. J.W. Hayes ,44-, Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, II: The Pottery, Princeton-Washington-Oxford.

Red-Burnished and Polished Wares Coarse Red-Burnished Ware Fine Orange-Red Burnished Ware

Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery 1. Introduction 2. Late Roman wares Early local fabrics Late Roman Fine Wares

Coarse Gritted Ware Other Unglazed Wares 8. Late Roman and Byzantine Cooking Wares Ware 1: Early grey wares (4th-5th centuries)

Late Roman unguentaria

Ware 2: Early ‘mealy’ ware (5th century)

Mortaria of lead-glazed type

Ware 3: ‘Grey gritty ware’

Colour-coated white ware

Ware 4: ‘Micaceous brown ware’

Miscellaneous 3. Glazed White Wares

Ware 5: Cypriot fabrics Ware 6: Main Middle Byzantine series (10th-12th

GWW I = Stevenson’s A 0 ware and its subdivisions

centuries)

(this includes most of Talbot Rice’s group A 4).

Ware 7: Late variants of Ware 6 (late 11th and 12th

GWW II = Talbot Rice’s groups A 2-3 and A 5-6,

centuries)

with some additional variants.

Ware 8: Coarse-ware trivets (mid-11th-early/mid-

GWW III = more or less Stevenson’s B 4b (the plain

12th centuries)

counterpart of the Polychrome Ware B 1). B4c may

Ware 9: Late red ribbed series (Frankish period)

be regarded as a variant.

Other cooking wares, unclassified

GWW IV = Talbot Rice’s B 4 (essentially

9. Amphorae types 1 – 69

Stevenson’s B 4a).

10. Lamps

GWW V

1. ‘Asia Minor’ types (types 1-3)

4. Polychrome Ware

2. ‘Local colour-coated class’ (types 4-10)

5. Unglazed White Wares

3. Plain orange class (types 11-14)

UWW I = GWW I

4. Lamps in slip-coated orange to red-brown ware

UWW II = no matching glazed ware

with large loop handles

UWW III = GWW II

(type 15)

UWW IV = GWW III UWW V = GWW IV (cf. also GWW V) 6. Other Glazed Wares, including Islamic Wares Coarse Glazed Wares I – IV

372

Plain Coarse Ware

11. Catalogue of deposits (with finds catalogue by deposit) 12. Other illustrated pottery Turkish Pottery

Islamic Wares

13. Introduction

Fine Sgraffito Ware

14. Turkish Fine Ware

15. ‘Miletus Ware’ (Iznik series)

,0. D. Papanikola-Bakirtzis ,441, Mesaioniki Ephyalomeni

16. Iznik Ware and Derivatives

Keramiki tis Kyprou ta Ergasteria Paphou kai Lapithou, Thes-

Iznik Ware

saliniki.

Iznik Monochrome Ware Other Quartz-Frit ware

Painted ware

‘X-1’ Ware

Slip-painted

‘Syrian’ Ware

Green-painted

17. Chinese Porcelain

Sgraffito ware

18. Various Italian Wares (Mostly Pre-1700)

Plain & incised sgraffito

19. Later Ottoman Fine Wares

One colour incised sgraffito

Kütahya Ware

Brown and green incised sgraffito

Çanakkale Ware

Brown and green sgraffito

20. Turkish Coarse Wares A – Y 21. Catalogue of Deposits: Turkish Pit-Groups 22. Late Ottoman Deposits

Green painted Plain glazed ware Plain glazed

23. Supplement Turkish material 24. Clay Tobacco Pipes ,1. D. Papanikola-Bakirtzis ,444, Byzantine Glazed Ceramics. The Art of Sgraffito, Athens. ,/. G.D.R. Sanders ,44., Excavations at Sparta: the Roman Stoa, ,433-4,. Preliminary report, part ,c: Medieval pottery, BSA 33: -0,--31.

The Age of Experimentation and Aspiration (11th-mid 13th c.) Measles Ware Fine-Sgraffito Ware

Glazed Wares Late Sgraffito Zeuxippus Ware Glaze Painted Ware

Painted Sgraffito ware Incised-Sgraffito Ware Champlevé Ware The Age of Eclecticism and Colour (13th-14th c.)

Champlevé

Zeuxippos Ware

Late Slip Painted Ware

Plain Sgraffito ware

Plain Glazed Wares Incised Ware

Coloured Sgraffito Ware The Age of Repetition and Survival (15th-17th c.)

Sgraffito Wares

Coloured Sgraffito Ware

Plain Glazed wares

Sgraffito Wares from Italy

Measles Wares and other early 12th century types Plain Wares Taffy ware

,2 D. Papanikola-Bakirtzis, F.N. Mavrikioy & Ch. Bakirtzis

Incised decoration

,444, Byzantine Glazed Pottery in the Benaki Museum, Athens.

Matt painted a. Red decoration b. White decoration c. Protogeometric Undecorated Plain Wares Cooking wares Wheel-made Hand-made Amphoras

A. White Wares A.1. Painted Wares A.1.a. Polychrome Ware A.1.b. Green and Brown Painted Ware A.1.c. Brown Painted Ware A.1.d. Blue painted Ware A.2. Incised Ware A.3. Relief Ware B. Red Wares

373

B.1. Slip-Painted Ware B.2. Sgraffito Wares B.2.a. Fine Sgraffito Ware B.2.b. Painted Fine Sgraffito Ware B.2.c. Incised Sgraffito Ware B.2.d. Champlevé Ware B.2.e. ‘Zeuxippus’ Ware B.3. Palaeologan Sgraffito Ware B.3.a. Plain Sgraffito Ware B.3.b. Coloured Sgraffito Ware Green Sgraffito Ware Brown and Green Sgraffito Ware B.3.c. Cypriot Sgraffito Ware B.4. Plain Glazed Palaeologan Ware

374

APPENDIX B TO CHAPTERS 5-6: PROVENANCE OF SHERDS

W indicates Ware; thus W1.1 refers to Ware 1 (as described in the

W 7.14

= from site Thespiae S14 (no. 26.1)

list of wares in Chapter 6), sherd number 1.

W 8.1

= from site Thespiae (no. 24.6)

Numbers behind the site names refer to the diagnostic finds

W 9.1

= from site CN3 (no. 6)

discussed in the catalogue of the assemblages in Chapter 5; thus

W 9.2

= from site CN8 (no. 8.6)

(no. 6.1) refers to the first discussed sherd of site no. 6.

W 9.3

= from site CN8 (no. 8.5)

Note: the indication ‘Ex.’ in captions of Chapters 5 & 6 means

W 9.4

= from site CN3 (no. 6)

‘Example’ (of a particular ware).

W 9.5

= from site CN3 (no. 6.3)

W 9.6

= from site CN3 (no. 6)

W 1.1

= from site CN3 (no. 6.1)

W 9.7

= from site CN3 (no. 6)

W 1.2

= from Athens

W 9.8

= from site CN3 (no. 6.4)

W 1.3

= from Athens

W 9.9

= from site Neochori 1-3 (no. 18)

W 1.4

= from Athens

W 9.10 = from site CN3 (no. 6)

W 1.5

= from Thebes

W 9.11

= from site CN3 (no. 6)

W 2.1

= from site Klimataria (no. 14.1)

W 9.12

= from site CN3 (no. 6)

W 2a.1

= from site Hyettos (no. 12.1)

W 9.13

= from site CN3 (no. 6.5)

W 3.1

= from site Klimataria (no. 14.2)

W 9.14

= from site Askra (no. 4)

W 3a.1

= from site Klimataria (no. 14.3)

W 10.1

= from site CN3 (no. 6.6)

W 4.1

= from site Agia Elousa (no. 1)

W 10.2

= from site CN3 (no. 6.7)

W 5.1

= from site CN15 (no. 9.1)

W 10.3

= from site CN3 (no. 6.8)

W 5.2

= from site CN3 (no. 6.2)

W 10.4

= from site CN8 (no. 8.7)

W 6.1

= from site CN8 (no. 8.1)

W 10.5

= from site Thespiae (no. 24)

W 6.2

= from site CN3 (no. 6)

W 10.6 = from site CN3 (no. 6)

W 6.3

= from site CN3 (no. 6)

W 10.7

W 6.4

= from site CN3 (no. 6)

W 10.8 = from site CN3 (no. 6)

W 6.5

= from site CN3 (no. 6)

W 10.9 = from site Archontiki, Low (no. 2.1)

W 6.6

= from site Thespiae S14 (no. 26.6)

W 10.10 = from site PP16 (no. 20)

W 6.7

= from site CN3 (no. 6)

W 10.11 = from site CN3 (no. 6.9)

= from site CN8 (no. 8.8)

W 6.8

= from site CN8 (no. 8.2)

W 10.12 = from site PP16 (no. 20)

W 7.1

= from site Thespiae (no. 24.1)

W 10.13 = from site Thespiae (no. 24)

W 7.2

= from site CN8 (no. 8.4)

W 10.14 = from site CN3 (no. 6)

W 7.3

= from site CN8 (no. 8.3)

W 10.15 = from site CN3 (no. 6)

W 7.4

= from site Thespiae (no. 24.2)

W 10.16 = from site CN3 (no. 6.10)

W 7.5

= from site Thespiae (no. 24.3)

W 10.17 = from site Archontiki, Low (no. 2.2)

W 7.6

= from site PP16 (no. 20)

W 11a.1 = from site Haliartos B6 (no. 11.1)

W 7.7

= from site Neochori 1-3 (no. 18.1)

W 11a.2 = from site PP16 (no. 20)

W 7.8

= from site Askra (no. 4.1)

W 11.3

= from site PP16 (no. 20)

W 7.9

= from site Askra (no. 4.2)

W 11.4

= from site CN3 (no. 6)

W 7.10

= from site Ipsilantis (no. 13.1)

W 11.5

= from site CN3 (no. 6)

W 7.11

= from site Thespiae (no. 24.4)

W 11.6

= from site CN8 (no. 8)

W 7.12

= from site Thespiae (no. 24.5)

W 12.1

= from site CN3 (no. 6)

W 7.13

= from site Thespiae S14 (no. 26.2)

W 12.2

= from site CN3 (no. 6)

375

W 12.3

= from site PP16 (no. 20)

W 15.6

= from site Neochori 1-3 (no. 18.9)

W 12.4

= from site CN3 (no. 6)

W 15.7

= from site Palaiomazi (no. 19.1)

W 12.5

= from site PP16 (no. 20)

W 15.8

= from site Achontiki, Low (no. 2.6)

W 13.1

= from site Thespiae S14 (no. 26.3)

W 15.9

= from site PP16 (no. 20)

W 13.2

= from site Thepsiae S14 (no. 26.4)

W 15.10 = from site Ipsilantis (no. 13)

W 13.3

= from site Thepsiae S14 (no. 26.4)

W 15.11 = from site Archontiki, Low (no. 2.7)

W 13.4

= from site Thespiae S14 (no. 26.5)

W 15.12 = from site Rhadon (no. 22.1)

W 13.5

= from site Askra (no. 4.3)

W 15.13 = from site PP16 (no. 20)

W 14.1

= from site CN8 (no. 8)

W 15.14 = from site Archontiki, Low (no. 2)

W 14.2

= from site Neochori 1-3 (no. 18)

W 15.15 = from site Haliartos B6 (no. 11.2)

W 14.3

= from site PP16 (no. 20)

W 15.16 = from site Haliartos B6 (no. 11.3)

W 14.4

= from site PP16 (no. 20)

W 15.17 = from site Haliartos B6 (no. 11.4)

W 14.5

= from site Neochori 1-3 (no. 18)

W 14.6 = from site CN3 (no. 6) W 14.7

= from site PP16 (no. 20)

W 15.18 = from site Haliartos B6 (no. 11.5) W 15.19 = from site Archontiki, Low (no. 2.8) W 15.20 = from site Archontiki, Low (no. 2.9)

W 14.8 = from site PP16 (no. 20)

W 16.1

= from site Askra (no. 4.4)

= from site PP16 (no. 20)

W 16.2

= from site Tatiza (no. 23.1)

W 14.10 = from site Ipsilantis (no. 13)

W 16.3

= from site PP16 (no. 20)

W 14.11 = from site Rhadon (no. 22)

W 16.4 = from site Haliartos B6 (no. 11.6)

W 14.12 = from site Tatiza (no. 23)

W 16.5

= from site Askra (no. 4.5)

W 14.13 = from site Palaiomazi (no. 19)

W 17.1

= from site Neochori 1-3 (no. 18.6)

W 14.14 = from site Neochori 1-3 (no. 18.3)

W 17.2

= from site Neochori 1-3 (no. 18.7)

W 14.15 = from site PP16 (no. 20)

W 17.3

= from site Neochori 1-3 (no. 18.8)

W 14.16 = from site PP16 (no. 20)

W 17.4

= from site Neochori 1-3 (no. 18)

W 14.17 = from site CN3 (no. 6)

W 17.5

= from site Neochori 1-3 (no. 18)

W 14.18 = from site Neochori 1-3 (no. 18.2)

W 17.6

= from site Agia Eleousa (no. 1.1)

W 14.19 = from site Archontiki, Up (no. 3.1)

W 18.1

= from site Askra (no. 4.6)

W 14.20 = from site CN3 (no. 6)

W 18.2

= from site Klimataria (no. 14.4)

W 14.9

W 14.21 = from site VM4 (no. 28.5)

W 18.3

= from site Archontiki, Low (no. 2.10)

W 14.22 = from site VM4 (no. 28.4)

W 19.1

= from site Rhadon (no. 22.2)

W 14.23 = from site VM4 (no. 28.3)

W 19.2

= from site Palaiomazi (no. 19)

W 14.24 = from site Archontiki, Low (no. 2.5)

W 20.1

= from site VM4 (no. 28.1)

W 14.25 = from site Thespiae (no. 24)

W 20.2 = from site VM4 (no. 28.2)

W 14.26 = from site Neochori 1-3 (no. 18)

W 20.3 = from site Charmena (no. 5.1)

W 14.27 = from site CN3 (no. 6)

W 21.1

= from site Haliartos B6 (no. 11.7)

W 14.28 = from site CN3 (no. 6)

W 22.1

= from site Ipsilantis (no. 13.2)

W 14.29 = from site Neochori 1-3 (no. 18)

W 22.2 = from site Upper Haliartos 1 (no. 27)

W 14.30 = from site CN3 (no. 6)

W 23.1

W 14.31 = from site CN3 (no. 6)

W 23.2 = from site CN15 (no. 9.7)

W 14.32 = from site CN15 (no. 9.4)

W 24.1

W 14.33 = from site Neochori 1-3 (no. 18)

W 24.2 = from site VM4 (no. 28.8)

W 14.34 = from site CN3 (no. 6)

= from site CN3 (no. 6.11) = from site VM4 (no. 28.11)

W 24.3 = from site VM4 (no. 28.10)

W 15.1

= from site CN3 (no. 6)

W 24.4 = from site VM4 (no. 28)

W 15.2

= from site Ipsilantis (no. 13)

W 24.5 = from site VM4 (no. 28)

W 15.3

= from site CN3 (no. 6)

W 24.6 = from site VM4 (no. 28)

W 15.4

= from site PP16 (no. 20)

W 25.1

W 15.5

= from site Neochori 1-3 (no. 18.5)

W 25.2 = from site VM4 (no. 28.17)

376

= from site VM4 (no. 28.16)

W 25.3 = from site VM4 (no. 28.12)

W 31.1

= from site Archontiki, Up (no. 3.3)

W 25.4 = from site VM4 (no. 28.13)

W 31.2

= from site Archontiki, Up (no. 3.4)

W 25.5 = from site VM4 (no. 28)

W 31.3

= from site Archontiki, Up (no. 3.5)

W 25.6 = from site VM4 (no. 28)

W 31.4

= from site Charmena (no. 5.9)

W 25.7

W 31.5

= from site Charmena (no. 5.10)

W 25.8 = from site VM4 (no. 28)

W 31.6

= from site Charmena (no. 5.11)

W 25.9 = from site VM4 (no. 28.18)

W 31.7

= from site Klimataria (no. 14.8)

= from site VM4 (no. 28.14)

W 31.8

= from site Archontiki, Up (no. 3.5)

W 26.2 = from site Ipsilantis (no. 13)

W 32.1

= from site Charmena (no. 5.12)

W 26.3 = from site Ipsilantis (no. 13)

W 32.2 = from site VM4 (no. 28.42)

W 26.4 = from site VM4 (no. 28.19)

W 33.1

= from site Charmena (no. 5)

W 26.5 = from site VM4 (no. 28.20)

W 34.1

= from site Paralimni (no. 21)

W 26.6 = from site Palaiomazi (no. 19.2)

W 34.2 = from site Archontiki, Up (no. 3.7)

W 26.7 = from site Tatiza (no. 23.2)

W 35.1

W 26.8 = from site VM4 (no. 28.22)

W 35.2 = from site Archontiki, Up (no. 3.13)

W 26.1

= from site Klimataria (no. 14.5)

= from site Archontiki, Up (no. 3.11)

W 26.9 = from site Rhadon (no. 22)

W 35.3 = from site Archontiki, Up (no. 3.8)

W 26.10 = from site Rhadon (no. 22.3)

W 35.4 = from site Archontiki, Up (no. 3.10)

W 26.11 = from site VM4 (no. 28.23)

W 35.6 = from site Archontiki, Up (no. 3.9)

W 26.12 = from site Charmena (no. 5.2)

W 35.7

= from site Charmena (no. 5.13)

W 26.13 = from site Rhadon (no. 22.4)

W 36.1

= from site Rhadon (no. 22.7)

W 26.14 = from site Charmena (no. 5.3)

W 36.2 = from site Archontiki, Up (no. 3.14)

W 26.15 = from site Archontiki, Up (no. 3.2)

W 37.1

= from site Thespiae (no. 24.7)

W 26.16 = from site VM4 (no. 28.21)

W 38.1

= from site Charmena (no. 5)

W 27.1

= from site VM4 (no. 28.26)

W 38.2 = from site VM4 (no. 28.6)

W 27.2

= from site Rhadon (no. 22)

W 38.3 = from site VM4 (no. 28)

W 27.3

= from site VM4 (no. 28.27)

W 38.4 = from site VM4 (no. 28)

W 27.4

= from site VM4 (no. 28.28)

W 38.5 = from site VM4 (no. 28.7)

W 27.5

= from site VM4 (no. 28.31)

W 39.1

W 27.6 = from site VM4 (no. 28.30)

= from site Archontiki, Up (no. 3.15)

W 39.2 = from site CN4 (no. 7.1)

W 27.7

= from site VM4 (no. 28.24)

W 40.1

W 28.1

= from site Charmena (no. 5.4)

W 40.2 = from site CN4 (no. 7.3)

= from site CN4 (no. 7.2)

W 28.2 = from site Charmena (no. 5)

W 40.3 = from site Thespiae B6 (no. 25.1)

W 28.3 = from site VM4 (no. 28.35)

W 40.4 = from site Mavromati North (no. 16.1)

W 28.4 = from site VM4 (no. 28.34)

W 40.5 = from site Mavromati North (no. 16.2)

W 28.5 = from site VM4 (no. 28.33)

W 40.6 = from site Mavromati North (no. 16.3)

W 28.6 = from site Charmena (no. 5.5)

W 40.7 = from site Mavromati North (no. 16.4)

W 28.7 = from site Klimataria (no. 14.6)

W 40.8 = from site Mavromati North (no. 16.5) W 41.1

= from site CN4 (no. 7.4)

W 29.2 = from site Klimataria (no. 14.7)

W 29.1

W 42.1

= from site Thespiae (no. 24.9)

W 29.3 = from site Klimataria (no. 14)

W 42.2 = from site Mavromati North (no. 16.7)

W 29.4 = from site Klimataria (no. 14)

W 42.3 = from site Mavromati North (no. 16)

W 30.1

= from site Ipsilantis (no. 13.3)

= from site VM4 (no. 28.39)

W 43.1

= from site Haliartos B6 (no. 11.8)

W 30.2 = from site VM4 (no. 28.41)

W 43.2 = from site Mavromati North (no. 16.11)

W 30.3 = from site VM4 (no. 28.40)

W 44.1

W 30.4 = from site Charmena (no. 5.7)

W 44.2 = from site mavromati North (no.16.12)

= from site Haliartos B6 (no. 11.9)

W 30.5 = from site Charmena (no. 5.8)

W 45.1

W 30.6 = from site Rhadon (no. 22.6)

W 46.1 = from site Thespiae B6 (no. 25.2)

= from site Rhadon (no. 22.8)

377

W 47.1

= from site Mavromati North (no. 16.14)

W 48.1 = from site CN4 (no. 7.5) W 48.2 = from site CN4 (no. 7.6)

378

ÌÅÔÁ ÔÇÍ ÁÑ[ÁÉÏÔÇÔÁ

ÊåñáìéêÜ êáé êïéíùíßá óôï Áéãáßï á]ü ôïí ?âäïìï ì?÷ñé ôïí åéêïóôü áé!íá ìåôÜ [ñéóôüí * Ìéá ìåë?ôç á]ü ôç Âïéùôßá, Êåíôñéê= ÅëëÜäá

ÅÉÓÁÃÙÃH

Óôü÷ïò ôçò äéáôñéâ=ò áõô=ò åßíáé ç ]áñïõóßáóç êáé ç ìåë?ôç ìéáò åêôåôáì?íçò óõëëïã=ò ìåóáéùíéê!í êáé ìåôáìåóáéùíéê!í ]=ëéíùí óêåõ!í á]ü ôçí ]åñéï÷= ôçò Âïéùôßáò, óôçí Êåíôñéê= ÅëëÜäá. Ôá êåñáìéêÜ áõôÜ ?÷ïõí óõëëå÷èåß á]ü ôï  ãéá ôï ]ñüãñáììá ôçò Âïéùôßáò, ìéá óõóôçìáôéê= áñ÷áéïëïãéê= å]éöáíåéáê= ?ñåõíá (‘survey’) óôçí Êåíôñéê= ÅëëÜäá, ôçí ï]ïßá äéåõè$íïõí ïé Êáèçãçô?ò John Bintliff (]áíå]éóô=ìéï ôïõ Leiden, Ïëëáíäßá) êáé Anthony Snodgrass (]áíå]éóô=ìéï ôïõ Cambridge, Áããëßá). Ôï õëéêü ôï ï]ïßï ìåëåôåßôáé, ]åñé?÷åé ?íá ó$íïëï . ]åñß]ïõ èñáõóìÜôùí á]ü ]=ëéíá óêå$ç, ôá ï]ïßá ÷ñïíïëïãï$íôáé á]ü ôïí ?âäïìï ì?÷ñé ôïí åéêïóôü áé!íá ì.÷., êáé êáôÜãåôáé á]ü  áñ÷áéïëïãéêï$ò ÷!ñïõò (‘sites’) ôçò ìåôáñùìáúê=ò å]ï÷=ò. ÔñéÜíôá á]ü áõôï$ò ôïõò áñ÷áéïëïãéêï$ò ÷!ñïõò å]éë?÷ôçêáí ùò ó÷åôéêïß ãéá ôõ]ïëïãéê=-÷ñïíïëïãéê= ?ñåõíá ôùí êåñáìéê!í êáé ]áñïõóéÜæïíôáé ó’ áõô= ôç äéáôñéâ= ó’ ?íáí êáôÜëïãï. ?]åéôá óõæçôï$íôáé ëå]ôïìåñ!ò ôá ]ñïò åî?ôáóç èñá$óìáôá áõô!í ôùí  å]éëåãì?íùí ÷!ñùí. ]ñüêåéôáé ãéá  ]åñß]ïõ èñá$óìáôá, äçëáä= % ôïõ óõíïëéêï$ áñéèìï$ ìåôáñùìáúê!í êåñáìéê!í ôïõ ]ñïãñÜììáôïò ôçò Âïéùôßáò. Ìåëåôï$íôáé ü÷é ìüíï ïé áñ÷áéïëïãéê?ò ]ëåõñ?ò, áëëÜ êáé ïé êïéíùíéêï-ïéêïíïìéê?ò êáé ]ïëéôéóìéê?ò ]ëåõñ?ò. Ç äéáôñéâ= á]ïôåëåßôáé á]ü ô?óóåñá ì?ñç. Ôï ]ñ!ôï ì?ñïò áíáö?ñåôáé óôçí ?ñåõíá ìåôáñùìáúê!í ]=ëéíùí óêåõ!í óôï Áéãáßï ì?÷ñé ôï , ÷ñïíéÜ óôç äéÜñêåéá ôçò ï]ïßáò îåêßíçóå ç ]áñï$óá ìåë?ôç. Ôï äå$ôåñï ì?ñïò ]åñé?÷åé (á) ìéá ]áñïõóßáóç ôùí  å]éëåãì?íùí áñ÷áéïëïãéê!í ÷!ñùí ó’ ?íáí êáôÜëïãï êáé (â) ìéá ôáîéíüìçóç ôùí ìåóáéùíéê!í êáé ìåôáìåóáéùíéê!í êåñáìéê!í ôïõ ]ñïãñÜììáôïò ôçò Âïéùôßáò óå  äéÜöïñïõò ô$]ïõò, ïé ï]ïßïé ?÷ïõí êáôáôáãåß ôõ]ïëïãéêÜ-÷ñïíïëïãéêÜ á]ü ôïí ?âäïìï ì?÷ñé ôïí åéêïóôü áé!íá ì.÷. Ôï ôñßôï ì?ñïò áíáö?ñåôáé óå ìéá åñìçíåßá ôùí êåñáìéê!í ôçò å]éöáíåéáê=ò ?ñåõíáò ôïõ ]ñïãñÜììáôïò ôçò Âïéùôßáò ì?óá á]ü ìéá êïéíùíéêï-ïéêïíïìéê= ]ñïï]ôéê=. Äåí ÷ñçóéìï]ïéåßôáé ìüíï ôï õëéêü áëëÜ êáé ?ããñáöåò ]çã?ò êáé åñìçíåõôéêÜ ìïíô?ëá á]ü ôçí áñ÷áéïëïãßá êáé ôçí êïéíùíéïëïãßá, ]ñïêåéì?íïõ íá ôáîéíïìçèï$í ôá äåäïì?íá. Ôï ô?ôáñôï ì?ñïò áíáö?ñåôáé óôïõò ôñü]ïõò êáôáíüçóçò ôùí êåñáìéê!í ôçò å]éöáíåéáê=ò ?ñåõíáò, ì?óá á]ü ìéá ]ïëéôéóìéê= áíôßëçøç. Óôï ì?ñïò áõôü ÷ñçóéìï]ïéï$íôáé å]ßóçò ?ããñáöåò ]çã?ò êáé åéêïíïãñáöéêü õëéêü. Óçìáíôéê= åßíáé ç ó÷?óç áíÜìåóá óå áëëáã?ò êåñáìéê!í ó÷çìÜôùí êáé óå áëëáã?ò åèßìùí äéáôñïö=ò óôï Áéãáßï, á]ü ôç âõæáíôéí= ì?÷ñé ôç ó$ã÷ñïíç å]ï÷=. Óôï ô?ëïò, óôï óõì]?ñáóìá, ó÷çìáôßæåôáé ìéá ó$íèåóç ôùí ôåóóÜñùí ]áñá]Üíù ìåñ!í.

ÌEÑÏÓ É: ÌÅÔÁÑÙÌÁÚÊA ÊÅÑÁÌÉÊA ÓÔÏ ÁÉÃÁIÏ: ¶ÑÏÂËHÌÁÔÁ ÊÁÉ ÄÕÍÁÔAÔÇÔÅÓ

¶ñïâë=ìáôá ÷ñïíïëüãçóçò êáé ïñïëïãßáò ÊÜèå ?ñåõíá êåñáìéê!í óôï Áéãáßï ìåôÜ ôç ñùìáúê= å]ï÷= áíôéìåôù]ßæåé ]ñïâë=ìáôá ÷ñïíïëüãçóçò êáé ïñïëïãßáò. Áõôü ó÷åôßæåôáé, ìåôáî$ Üëëùí, ìå ôçí á]üêëéóç –ç ï]ïßá óõ÷íÜ ]áñáëåß]åôáé- áíÜìåóá óå áñ÷áéïëïãéê?ò êáé éóôïñéê?ò ÷ñïíïëïãéê?ò êáôáôÜîåéò, áëëÜ êáé ìå ôéò éóôïñéê?ò (üóïí áöïñÜ ôçí ô?÷íç) ñßæåò ôçò áñ÷áéïëïãßáò á]ü ôç âõæáíôéí=, ìåóáéùíéê= êáé ìåôáìåóáéùíéê= å]ï÷=. ]áñüëá áõôÜ äßíåôáé ó’ áõô= ôç äéáôñéâ= ìéá ]ñüôáóç ãéá ìéá ÷ñïíïëïãéê= ôáîéíüìçóç ôïõ ìåóáéùíéêï$ êáé ìåôáìåóáéùíéêï$ õëéêï$ ôçò å]éöáíåéáê=ò ?ñåõíáò ôçò Âïéùôßáò. Ì]ïñåß íá ëåéôïõñã=óåé ùò ]ëáßóéï ãéá ôç ìåë?ôç ôùí ìåôáñùìáúê!í ]=ëéíùí óêåõ!í óôçí ]åñéï÷= (âë. ]ßíáêá ).

407

Ìåôáñùìáúê= å]ï÷=

= ]åñß]ïõ - ì.X.

Áñ÷?ò ôçò âõæáíôéí=ò å]ï÷=ò

= ]åñß]ïõ ïò - ïò áé. ì.X.

Ìåóïâõæáíôéí= å]ï÷=

= ]åñß]ïõ ïò – ô?ëç ïõ /áñ÷?ò ïõ áé. ì.X.

Ìåôáâõæáíôéí=/öñÜãêéêç å]ï÷=

= ]åñß]ïõ ïò – ì?óá ïõ áé. ì.X.

Ïèùìáíéê= å]ï÷=

= ]åñß]ïõ ô?ëç ïõ – ïò áé. ì.X.

Áñ÷?ò ôçò ó$ã÷ñïíçò å]ï÷=ò

= ]åñß]ïõ ïò – ì?óá ï$ áé. ì.X.

Ó$ã÷ñïíç å]ï÷=

= ]åñß]ïõ ì?óá ï$ áé. ì.X. - ...

¶ßíáêáò  – ¶ñüôáóç ìéáò ÷ñïíïëïãéê=ò ôáîéíüìçóçò ôùí ìåôáñùìáúê!í êåñáìéê!í ôïõ ]ñïãñÜììáôïò ôçò Âïéùôßáò.

Áõô= ç ôáîéíüìçóç óå ‘å]ï÷?ò’ á]ü ôïí ôñßôï áé!íá ì?÷ñé ôá ì?óá ôïõ åéêïóôï$ áé!íá óôçñßæåôáé óå áñ÷áéïëïãéê?ò âÜóåéò, ü]ùò óå ïñáô?ò áëëáã?ò ôïõ åßäïõò ôïõ ]çëï$, ôùí ó÷çìÜôùí êáé óå Üëëá öáíåñÜ åîùôåñéêÜ ÷áñáêôçñéóôéêÜ ôùí ]=ëéíùí óêåõ!í. Äåí óôçñßæåôáé üìùò óôçí ]áñáäïóéáê= éóôïñéê= ÷ñïíïëüãçóç, áöï$ ôá ]=ëéíá óêå$ç ?÷ïõí ôï äéêü ôïõò ñõèìü áëëáã!í, ï ï]ïßïò äåí ÷ñåéÜæåôáé á]áñáßôçôá íá ôáéñéÜæåé ìå ôéò ÷ñïíïëïãéê?ò êáôáôÜîåéò ôùí éóôïñéê!í êáé éóôïñéê!í ô?÷íçò, ïé ï]ïßïé åñãÜæïíôáé óôçí ]åñéï÷= ôçò Ìåóïãåßïõ. Å]é]ë?ïí, ]áñïõóéÜæåôáé ó’ áõôü ôï ]ñ!ôï ì?ñïò ôï éóôïñéêü ôçò ?ñåõíáò ìåôáñùìáúê!í êåñáìéê!í óôï Áéãáßï. Ôï éóôïñéêü áõôü îåêéíÜåé ìå ôïõò ]ñùôï]üñïõò ôïí ï áé!íá, êáôü]éí áíáö?ñåôáé óå èåìåëéùô?ò ü]ùò ï David Talbot Rice êáé ï Charles Morgan, êáé ôåëåé!íåé ìå ôéò ]ñüóöáôåò åîåëßîåéò (åíÜëéá áñ÷áéïëïãßá êáé åíôáôéê?ò å]éöáíåéáê?ò ?ñåõíåò). Åä! äåí ]áñáêïëïõèåßôáé ìüíï ôï éóôïñéêü ôçò ?ñåõíáò, Üëëá äéá]éóô!íåôáé êáé üôé ]ñïçãï$ìåíåò ôáîéíïì=óåéò ôùí ìåôáñùìáúê!í êåñáìéê!í âáóßæïíôáé êõñßùò óå ìïõóåéáêÜ áíôéêåßìåíá (ôá ï]ïßá óõ÷íÜ äåí ]åñéãñÜöïíôáé êáëÜ êáé åßíáé Üãíùóôçò êáôáãùã=ò), óå åõñ=ìáôá äõóäéÜêñéôùí óôñùìáôïãñáöéê!í áíáóêáö!í (].÷. ]çãÜäéá êáé ‘óêïôåéíÜ’ ãåùëïãéêÜ óôñ!ìáôá) = óå õëéêü ôçò å]éöáíåéáê=ò ?ñåõíáò (ôï ï]ïßï êáôáôÜóóåôáé óõí=èùò óå ìáêñü÷ñïíåò êáé áóáöåßò ]åñéüäïõò). Ô?ëïò ãßíåôáé ìéá ]ñïó]Üèåéá íá ]áñïõóéáóôåß ëå]ôïìåñ!ò ç óçìåñéí= êáôÜóôáóç ôçò å]éöáíåéáê=ò ?ñåõíáò ó÷åôéêÜ ìå ôá ìåôáñùìáúêÜ ]=ëéíá óêå$ç óôï Áéãáßï. Óôï óçìåßï áõôü äßíåôáé ìéá ]åñßëçøç ôùí åêäüóåùí ôùí ôåëåõôáßùí åßêïóé åô!í, ïé ï]ïßåò ì]ïñåß íá ]ñïóö?ñïõí óôñùìáôïãñáöéê?ò ]ëçñïöïñßåò ãéá ìåôáñùìáúêÜ êåñáìéêÜ, üóïí áöïñÜ ôéò ]éï óçìáíôéê?ò áíáóêáö?ò óôçí Êùíóôáíôéíï$]ïëç, ôçí ç]åéñùôéê= ÅëëÜäá, ôá åëëçíéêÜ íçóéÜ êáé ôçí Ê$]ñï. Ôç óôéãì= ]ïõ îåêßíçóå ç ]áñï$óá ?ñåõíá (ôï ), ïé åêäüóåéò ôùí ]ïñéóìÜôùí ä$ï áíáóêáö!í óôï Áéãáßï óôÜèçêáí áíáíåùôéê?ò êáé á]ïöáóéóôéê?ò. ]ñüêåéôáé ãéá ôçí ?êïäóç ôïõ John Hayes ãéá ôá âõæáíôéíÜ êáé ôïõñêéêÜ êåñáìéêÜ ôùí áíáóêáö!í óôï ôæáìß Saraçhane óôçí Êùíóôáíôéíï$]ïëç (Hayes ) êáé ãéá ôéò åêäüóåéò ôùí Guy Sanders êáé Charles Williams ãéá ôá âõæáíôéíÜ êáé öñÜãêéêá êåñáìéêÜ ôùí áíáóêáö!í óôçí Êüñéíèï (Sanders , , Williams & Zervos -). Óôéò áíáóêáö?ò áõô?ò áíáêáë$öèçêáí ü÷é ìüíï ä$ï óçìáíôéêÜ êáé ãéá áé!íåò óõíå÷!ò êáôïéêçì?íá, áóôéêÜ ê?íôñá, áëëÜ ãåíí=èçêáí êáé ìåë?ôåò ãéá ôá ìåôáñùìáúêÜ ]=ëéíá óêå$ç, óôéò ï]ïßåò ãéá ]ñ!ôç öïñÜ óõíä?èçêáí ìå å]éôõ÷ßá ç óôñùìáôïãñáöéê= êáé ç ]ïóïôéê= ?ñåõíá.

ÌEÑÏÓ II: ÔÁ ÊÅÑÁÌÉÊA Á¶O ÔÇ ÂÏÉÙÔIÁ: ÔÕ¶ÏËÏÃÉÊH-XÑÏÍÏËÏÃÉÊH ÁÍÔIËÇØÇ

. Ìéá ‘ïñéæüíôéá ÷ñïíïëüãçóç’ ãéá ôá óõãêåíôñùì?íá åõñ=ìáôá á]ü ôç Âïéùôßá Óôï äå$ôåñï ì?ñïò ôçò äéáôñéâ=ò ôïíßæïíôáé ôá ìåóáéùíéêÜ êáé ìåôáìåóáéùíéêÜ êåñáìéêÜ ôçò å]éöáíåéáê=ò ?ñåõíáò ôçò Âïéùôßáò. ÌåôÜ á]ü ìéá ó$íôïìç åéóáãùã=, ]ïõ áöïñÜ ]ñïçãï$ìåíç ?ñåõíá ôùí ìåôáñùìáúê!í êåñáìéê!í óôç Âïéùôßá, ]áñïõóéÜæåôáé ?íáò êáôÜëïãïò ôùí  áñ÷áéïëïãéê!í ÷!ñùí êáé ôùí óõãêåíôñùì?íùí åõñçìÜôùí ôïõò.

408

Ôç äåêáåôßá ôïõ  êáé ôïõ , ç å]éöáíåéáê= ?ñåõíá ôçò Âïéùôßáò ]ñáãìáôï]ïé=èçêå óå ä$ï ]åñéï÷?ò óôçí Êåíôñéê= ÅëëÜäá. Ç ]ñ!ôç =ôáí ç ]åñéï÷= ã$ñù á]ü ôéò áñ÷áßåò ]üëåéò Áëßáñôï, Èåó]é?ò êáé ¢óêñá. Ç äå$ôåñç =ôáí ç ]åñéï÷= ã$ñù á]ü ôç ìéêñ= áñ÷áßá ]üëç $çôôï. ÊáôÜ ôç äéÜñêåéá ôçò å]éöáíåéáê=ò ?ñåõíáò ôçò Âïéùôßáò ôåêìçñé!èçêáí óõíïëéêÜ  áñ÷áéïëïãéêïß ÷!ñïé (‘sites’) ìå êåñáìéêÜ á]ü ôç ìåôáñùìáúê= å]ï÷=. Á]ü áõôï$ò ôïõò  å]éë?÷ôçêáí  ÷!ñïé, ïé ï]ïßïé ]åñéãñÜöïíôáé ó’ ?íáí êáôÜëïãï? ôá ÷áñáêôçñéóôéêÜ ôùí ÷!ñùí êáé ôá óõãêåíôñùì?íá åõñ=ìáôá (‘assemblages’) ]áñïõóéÜæïíôáé óå ìéá óôáèåñ= óåéñÜ, ç ï]ïßá áíáö?ñåôáé ìåôáî$ Üëëùí óôï ì?ãåèïò, óôç ëåéôïõñãßá, óôï óõíïëéêü áñéèìü á]ü óõëëåãì?íá èñá$óìáôá êáé óå ìéá ]åñéãñáö= ôïõ ôï]ßïõ. Á]ü áõôï$ò ôïõò  å]éëåãì?íïõò áñ÷áéïëïãéêï$ò ÷!ñïõò, óå  âñ?èçêáí êåñáìéêÜ á]ü äéáöïñåôéê?ò ÷ñïíïëïãéê?ò å]ï÷?ò (á]ü ôç ìåôáñùìáúê= ì?÷ñé ôç ó$ã÷ñïíç å]ï÷=), óôïõò õ]üëïé]ïõò ï÷ô! áñ÷áéïëïãéêï$ò ÷!ñïõò âñ?èçêáí êåñáìéêÜ á]ü ìßá ìüíï å]ï÷=. . ?íá ó$óôçìá ôáîéíüìçóçò ãéá ôá èñá$óìáôá á]ü ôç Âïéùôßá ?]åéôá ãßíåôáé ìéá ]ñïó]Üèåéá íá ]áñïõóéáóôï$í ôá ]ñïò åî?ôáóç ìåôáñùìáúêÜ ]=ëéíá óêå$ç ôùí  áñ÷áéïëïãéê!í ÷!ñùí ó’ ?íá ôõ]ïëïãéêü-÷ñïíïëïãéêü ó$óôçìá ôáîéíüìçóçò. Óôá  ]åñß]ïõ ]ñïò åî?ôáóç èñá$óìáôá ôçò å]éöáíåéáê=ò ?ñåõíáò ôçò Âïéùôßáò õ]Üñ÷åé ç ìïíáäéê= äõíáôüôçôá íá ]ñáãìáôï]ïé=óïõìå ìßá óõíèåôéê= ìåë?ôç ]ëï$óéùí äåäïì?íùí ôùí ]=ëéíùí óêåõ!í, ôá ï]ïßá êáôÜãïíôáé á]ü ìéá ]åñéöåñåéáê= åñåõíçôéê= ]åñéï÷= êáé ]åñéëáìâÜíïõí ?íá ÷ñïíéêü äéÜóôçìá  ]åñß]ïõ áé!íùí. Ôá ]=ëéíá óêå$ç ]áñïõóéÜæïõí ]ïéêéëßá: á]ü ôï]éêÜ ìåôáñùìáúêÜ ïéêéáêÜ óêå$ç ì?÷ñé êáé åéóçãì?íá êåñáìéêÜ á]ü ôçí Éôáëßá êáé ôçí Ôïõñêßá, ôá ï]ïßá åßíáé óìáëôùì?íá ìå êáóóßôåñï. Óôï ó÷çìáôéóìü áõôï$ ôïõ óõóô=ìáôïò ôáîéíüìçóçò ãéá ôá ìåôáñùìáúêÜ êåñáìéêÜ á]ü ôç Âïéùôßá óôÜèçêáí óçìáíôéêïß ô?óóåñéò ]áñÜãïíôåò: ) ï Âñåôáíüò John Hayes, åéäéêåõì?íïò óå ]=ëéíá óêå$ç, ÷ñïíïëüãçóå ôá êåñáìéêÜ ôçò å]éöáíåéáê=ò ?ñåõíáò ó’ ?íá ]ïë$ áñ÷éêü óôÜäéï óå ]ñü÷åéñåò êáôçãïñßåò, ) ôá êåñáìéêÜ ôçò Âïéùôßáò äåß÷íïõí ]ïëë?ò ïìïéüôçôåò, üóïí áöïñÜ ôï ó÷=ìá êáé ôçí ôå÷íéê= äéáêüóìçóçò, ìå ]=ëéíá óêå$ç ôá ï]ïßá âñ?èçêáí êáé ÷ñïíïëïã=èçêáí êáôÜ ôç äéÜñêåéá óôñùìáôïãñáöéê!í áíáóêáö!í óôçí Êüñéíèï, ) =ôáí äõíáô= ç ó$ãêñéóç áíÜìåóá óå êåñáìéêÜ ôçò å]éöáíåéáê=ò ?ñåõíáò ôçò Âïéùôßáò êáé óå áíáóêáìì?íá ]=ëéíá óêå$ç á]ü ôç È=âá (ôá ï]ïßá ìåë?ôçóá åê ì?ñïõò ôùí åëëçíéê!í áñ÷!í), ) óå ìåñéê?ò ]åñé]ô!óåéò =ôáí äõíáôüò ï ?ëåã÷ïò ôçò ]áñïõóßáò óõãêåêñéì?íùí ô$]ùí ìåôáìåóáéùíéê!í êåñáìéê!í (ôçò å]éöáíåéáê=ò ?ñåõíáò) á]ü ôç Âïéùôßá ì?óù ìéáò ó$ãêñéóçò ìå äåäïì?íá ?ããñáöùí ]çã!í á]ü ôçí ïèùìáíéê= å]ï÷= (óõãêåêñéì?íá ìå äåäïì?íá öïñïëïãéê!í ìçôñ!ùí á]ü ôçí Ïèùìáíéê= Áõôïêñáôïñßá êáé ìå áíáöïñ?ò Äõôéê!í ]åñéçãçô!í). Ìå áõôüí ôïí ôñü]ï =ôáí äõíáôüí íá óõíè?óïõìå ?íá ôõ]ïëïãéêü-÷ñïíïëïãéêü ó$óôçìá ôáîéíüìçóçò ãéá ôá êåñáìéêÜ á]ü ôç Âïéùôßá. Ì?óù ôïõ óõóô=ìáôïò ôáîéíüìçóçò ãíùñßæïõìå üôé óôç ìåôáñùìáúê= å]ï÷= êáé óôéò áñ÷?ò ôçò âõæáíôéí=ò å]ï÷=ò, ç ]ëåéïíüôçôá ôùí èñáõóìÜôùí á]ü ôïí ?êôï êáé ôïí ?âäïìï áé!íá êáôáóêåõÜóôçêå óå ôï]éêü å]ß]åäï. Áõôü ôï óõì]?ñáóìá åîÜãåôáé (á) ìå âÜóç ôçí ]áñïõóßá ]=ëéíùí óêåõ!í êáê=ò êáôáóêåõ=ò (].÷. ïéêéáêÜ óêå$ç, ïé Üêñåò ôùí ï]ïßùí =ôáí äéáêïóìçì?íåò ìå êüêêéíï êáè!ò êáé êõø?ëåò öôéáãì?íåò á]ü ]çëü), ôá ï]ïßá õ]ïäåéêí$ïõí ôçí ]áñïõóßá öï$ñíùí êáé (â) ìå âÜóç ?íá åîáéñåôéêÜ ìåãÜëï áñéèìü èñáõóìÜôùí ôïõ ô$]ïõ áìöïñ?á ôçò ìåôáñùìáúê=ò å]ï÷=ò, ôïí ï]ïßï ãíùñßæïõìå üôé êáôáóêåõÜóôçêå óôï Áéãáßï. Èñá$óìáôá åêåßíçò ôçò å]ï÷=ò, ôïõ üãäïïõ êáé ?íáôïõ áé!íá, åßíáé ]ïë$ ó]Üíéá. Áíôßèåôá, êåñáìéêÜ ôçò ìåóïâõæáíôéí=ò å]ï÷=ò ?÷ïõí ìéá ]ëï$óéá ]áñïõóßá óôçí åñåõíçôéê= ]åñéï÷=. Ôçí ]ëåéïíüôçôá á]ïôåëï$í ïé óìáëôùì?íåò êáôóáñüëåò (‘chafing dishes’), ü]ùò êáé âáìì?íá êáé ÷áñáãì?íá ]=ëéíá óêå$ç (ü]ùò ôá ëåãüìåíá ‘Slip-painted Ware’, ‘Green and Brown Painted Ware’ êáé ‘Fine Sgraffito Ware’). Áõôïß ïé ô$]ïé êáôáóêåõÜóôçêáí ]ñïöáí!ò óôçí ç]åéñùôéê= ÅëëÜäá, äçëáä= óôç Âïéùôßá = êïíôÜ åêåß. Ôçí å]ï÷= åêåßíç, ôá êåñáìéêÜ åéóÜãïíôáí êõñßùò á]ü ôç Âõæáíôéí= Áõôïêñáôïñßá (ìåôáî$ Üëëùí á]ü ôç Èåóóáëïíßêç êáé ôçí Êùíóôáíôéíï$]ïëç). Èñá$óìáôá ôçò ìåôáâõæáíôéí=ò/öñÜãêéêçò å]ï÷=ò åßíáé ïëéãÜñéèìá óôç Âïéùôßá. Åêåßíá ôá ÷ñüíéá, ôá ]åñéóóüôåñá ]ñïò åî?ôáóç êåñáìéêÜ åéó=÷èçóáí: áñ÷éêÜ á]ü ôçí Êüñéíèï êáé ôç Èåóóáëüíßêç, êáôü]éí á]ü ôç Ä$óç, óõãêåêñéì?íá ôçí Éôáëßá. Áõô= ç áëëáã= ôïõ ì?ñïõò ]ñï?ëåõóçò ôùí êåñáìéê!í á]ü ôçí Áíáôïë= óôç Ä$óç ?ãéíå óôç Âïéùôßá óôá ô?ëç ôïõ ïõ áé!íá êáé êáôÜ ôç äéÜñêåéá ôïõ ïõ áé!íá. Åõñ=ìáôá êåñáìéê!í (ôùí áñ÷!í) ôçò ïèùìáíéê=ò å]ï÷=ò ?÷ïõí ìéá ]ïë$ ]ëï$óéá ]áñïõóßá óôç Âïéùôßá. Óõãêåêñéì?íá ]áñáôçñï$íôáé ]ïëëÜ åéóçãì?íá ]=ëéíá óêå$ç: á]ü ôçí Áíáôïë= (êåñáìéêÜ á]ü ôï Iznik êáé ôï Kûtahya ôçò Ôïõñêßáò), ü]ùò êáé á]ü ôç Ä$óç (ìåôáî$ Üëëùí á]ü ôï Maiolica ôçò Éôáëßáò). Ç ]ëåéïíüôçôá áõôï$ ôïõ åéóçãì?íïõ õëéêï$ á]ü ôç Ä$óç ÷ñïíïëïã=èçêå óôá ô?ëç ôïõ ïõ áé!íá êáé óôéò áñ÷?ò ôïõ ïõ áé!íá êáé =ñèáí á]ü ôç Âüñåéá Éôáëßá (ôçí ]åñéï÷= ã$ñù á]ü ôç Âåíåôßá). Ôá ]ñ!ôá ÷ñüíéá ôçò ïèùìáíéê=ò å]ï÷=ò óôçí ÅëëÜäá ÷áñáêôçñßæïíôáé ãåíéê!ò á]ü ôçí Üíèçóç åñãáóôçñßùí áããåéï]ëÜóôùí, ôá ï]ïßá âñ?èçêáí óôçí

409

]åñéö?ñåéá (ìåôáî$ Üëëùí óôçí ¢ñôá, ôçí Áè=íá êáé ôç Âüñåéá ÅëëÜäá), êáé óôá ï]ïßá êáôáóêåõÜóôçêáí ôï]éê?ò á]ïìéì=óåéò ôùí åéóçãì?íùí ]=ëéíùí óêåõ!í á]ü ôçí Éôáëßá. Ô?ëïò, êåñáìéêÜ á]ü ôïí ï áé!íá åßíáé ]ïë$ ó]Üíéá óôçí åñåõíçôéê= ]åñéï÷=. Ôïí ï áé!íá êáé ôéò áñ÷?ò ôïõ ï$ áé!íá (äçëáä= ôéò áñ÷?ò ôçò ó$ã÷ñïíçò å]ï÷=ò), ï áñéèìüò êåñáìéê!í ìåãÜëùóå ãñ=ãïñá. Áõôü ôï öáéíüìåíï ó÷åôßæåôáé ìå ôç ãñ=ãïñá áõîáíüìåíç åéóáãùã= âéïìç÷áíéê!í ]=ëéíùí óêåõ!í á]ü ôç Ìåóüãåéï (ôç Íüôéá Éôáëßá, ôçí Ê?ñêõñá, ôç ÈñÜêç, ôç Óßöíï, êë].) ãéá ïéêéáê= ÷ñ=óç. Â?âáéá ]ñ?]åé íá ?÷åé õ]üøç êáíåßò üôé ïé áñ÷áéïëïãéê?ò ìåôáâÜóåéò äåí ãßíïíôáé ó÷åäüí ]ïô? áéöíéäéáóôéêÜ êáé üôé ïé áëëáã?ò ôùí ó÷çìÜôùí êáé ôùí ôå÷íéê!í ôùí ]=ëéíùí óêåõ!í, ïé ï]ïßåò äéáêñßíïíôáé ó’ áõô= ôç äéáôñéâ=, åîåëß÷èçêáí ì’ ?íá ñõèìü óôáäéáêü. ]åñéëç]ôéêÜ, åßíáé ãíùóôÜ ôá åî=ò ãéá ôï õëéêü ôùí èñáõóìÜôùí ôçò å]éöáíåéáê=ò ?ñåõíáò ôçò Âïéùôßáò: ïé å]ï÷?ò ]ïõ áíôéóôïé÷ï$í óå ìåãÜëï âáèìü óôá óõãêåíôñùì?íá åõñ=ìáôá, åßíáé ï ïò áé!íáò êáé ïé áñ÷?ò ôïõ ïõ áé!íá (ç ìåóïâõæáíôéí= å]ï÷= ó’ áõô= ôç äéáôñéâ=), ü]ùò êáé ï ïò áé!íáò (ïé áñ÷?ò ôçò ïèùìáíéê=ò å]ï÷=ò). Ïé å]ï÷?ò ]ïõ äåí ]áñïõóéÜæïõí ìåãÜëç áíôéóôïß÷çóç, åßíáé ï üãäïïò êáé ?íáôïò áé!íáò (ïé áñ÷?ò ôçò âõæáíôéí=ò å]ï÷=ò), êáè!ò êáé ï ïò áé!íáò êáé ïé áñ÷?ò ôïõ ïõ áé!íá (ìåôáâõæáíôéí=/öñÜãêéêç å]ï÷=). . Ó÷=ìáôá êáé ëåéôïõñãßá Åêôüò á]ü ôç äõíáôüôçôá ÷ñïíïëüãçóçò ôùí êåñáìéê!í ôçò å]éöáíåéáê=ò ?ñåõíáò, õ]Üñ÷åé ç äõíáôüôçôá ôçò åî?ôáóçò ôùí ôå÷íïëïãéê!í, êïéíùíéêï-ïéêïíïìéê!í êáé ]ïëéôéóìéê!í ]ëåõñ!í ôïõ õëéêï$ ôçò Âïéùôßáò. Ó÷åôßæåôáé ìå ôçí êáèçìåñéí= ÷ñ=óç ôùí ]=ëéíùí óêåõ!í. Ó’ áõô= ôç äéáôñéâ= ãßíåôáé ìéá ]ñïó]Üèåéá íá áíáë$óïõìå ôéò ëåéôïõñãßåò ôïõ õëéêï$ êáé êõñßùò ôùí ïéêéáê!í óêåõ!í . Äßíåôáé ?ìöáóç óôéò áëëáã?ò ó÷çìÜôùí êáé äéáêüóìçóçò ôùí èñáõóìÜôùí á]ü ôç Âïéùôßá ãéá íá á]ïêáëõöèåß ç ó÷?óç áíÜìåóá óôéò áëëáã?ò ôùí ó÷çìÜôùí ôùí ]=ëéíùí óêåõ!í êáé ôùí ëåéôïõñãé!í ôïõò á]ü ôá ô?ëç ôçò Áñ÷áéüôçôáò. Äéáêñßíåôáé ìéá áëëáã= óôéò áñ÷?ò ôçò âõæáíôéí=ò å]ï÷=ò, üôáí ìåãÜëá, öáñäéÜ ]éÜôá, ôùí ï]ïßùí ïé Üêñåò =ôáí äéáêïóìçì?íåò ìå êüêêéíï (ôá ëåãüìåíá ‘Red Slip Wares’), áíôéêáèéóôï$íôáé á]ü ]=ëéíá óêå$ç ôùí ï]ïßùí ôï åóùôåñéêü åßíáé óìáëôùì?íï ìå ìüëõâäï ãéá íá åßíáé ]éï ]ïñ!äç. Óçìáíôéê= ãéá ôçí ?ñåõíá åßíáé ç áëëáã= ôùí ìåãÜëùí, öáñäé!í ]éÜôùí (ôçò ìåóïâõæáíôéí=ò å]ï÷=ò) óå ìéêñüôåñá, øçëüôåñá ]éáôÜêéá óôç äéÜñêåéá ôçò ìåôáâõæáíôéí=ò/öñÜãêéêçò å]ï÷=ò, ü]ùò êáé ç áëëáã= áõô!í ôùí ôåëåõôáßùí óå ìåãÜëá, öáñäéÜ ]éÜôá ôçí ]åñßïäï ôçò ïèùìáíéê=ò å]ï÷=ò. Áëëáã?ò ôùí ôå÷íéê!í äéáêüóìçóçò ôùí ïéêéáê!í óêåõ!í åéó=÷èçóáí óôç ìåóïâõæáíôéí= å]ï÷=. Ïé êáéíï$ñéåò äéáêïóì=óåéò êñÜôçóáí óå ìåñéêÜ ì?ñç ôçò ÅëëÜäáò ì?÷ñé êáé ôç ó$ã÷ñïíç å]ï÷=, Ôçí ïèùìáíéê= å]ï÷= åéó=÷èçóáí óôç Âïéùôßá í?á êáé ]éï ]ñï÷ùñçì?íá åßäç ïéêéáê!í óêåõ!í, ü]ùò ôá óìáëôùì?íá ìå êáóóßôåñï Maiolica á]ü ôçí Éôáëßá (êõñßùò êáíÜôåò ãéá ôï óåñâßñéóìá ôïõ êñáóéï$ êáé ôïõ íåñï$) = ôá, å]ßóçò óìáëôùì?íá ìå êáóóßôåñï, öëéôæÜíéá ôïõ êáö? á]ü ôçí Ôïõñêßá. Ç ÷ñ=óç áõô!í ôùí äéáêïóìçì?íùí åéä!í ?ãéíå óõ÷í= ìüíï óôéò áñ÷?ò ôçò ó$ã÷ñïíçò å]ï÷=ò, üôáí öôçíÜ ]=ëéíá óêå$ç, êáôáóêåõáóì?íá óå ìáæéê= ]áñáãùã=, åéó=÷èçóáí óôç Âïéùôßá á]ü ôç Ìåóüãåéï. ÊáôÜ ôç äéÜñêåéá ôïõ ïõ êáé ï$ áé!íá, ]éï äéáöïñåôéêÜ ó÷=ìáôá êõñéÜñ÷çóáí óôçí ]åñéï÷= (ü]ùò ]éÜôá êáé êáíÜôåò). ?íá á]ü ôá åñùô=ìáôá ]ïõ åîåôÜæåôáé ó’ áõôü ôï ì?ñïò ôçò äéáôñéâ=ò, åßíáé áí ïé ]áñá]Üíù ëåéôïõñãéê?ò áëëáã?ò óôï õëéêü ôçò å]éöáíåéáê=ò ?ñåõíáò å]çñåÜóôçêáí á]ïêëåéóôéêÜ á]ü áõôüíïìåò ôå÷íéê?ò áíáíå!óåéò óôçí åñãáóßá ôïõ áããåéï]ëÜóôç, á]ü åîùôåñéêï$ò ‘êïéíùíéêï-ïéêïíïìéêï$ò’ ]áñÜãïíôåò (ü]ùò ìåôáâïë?ò ôçò æ=ôçóçò êáé ôçò äéáíïì=ò ]=ëéíùí óêåõ!í), á]ü ]ïëéôéóìéêï$ò ]áñÜãïíôåò (ü]ùò ìåôáâïë?ò ôùí åèßìùí äéáôñïö=ò) = áí å]çñåÜóôçêáí ôáõôü÷ñïíá êáé á]ü ôéò ôñåéò. ]ñïêåéì?íïõ íá äïèåß ìéá á]Üíôçóç óôï åñ!ôçìá áõôü, óõìâïõëå$ôçêá ?ããñáöåò ]çã?ò êáé åéêïíïãñáöéêü õëéêü á]ü ôéò äéÜöïñåò å]ï÷?ò.

ÌEÑÏÓ ÉÉÉ: ÔÁ ÊÅÑÁÌÉÊA ÔÇÓ ÂÏÉÙÔIÁÓ: Ç ÊÏÉÍÙÍÉÊÏ-ÏÉÊÏÍÏÌÉÊH ÁÍÔIËÇØÇ

Óôï ôñßôï ì?ñïò ôçò äéáôñéâ=ò äßíåôáé ?ìöáóç óôéò ôå÷íïëïãéê?ò êáé ôéò êïéíùíéêï-ïéêïíïìéê?ò ]ëåõñ?ò ôïõ õëéêï$ ôçò Âïéùôßáò. ]ñ!ôá ]áñïõóéÜæåôáé ç êïéíùíéêï-ïéêïíïìéê= õ]ïäïì= ãéá ôçí ]áñáãùã= êáé ôç äéáíïì= ôùí ]=ëéíùí óêåõ!í ôçò Âïéùôßáò á]ü ôá ô?ëç ôçò Áñ÷áéüôçôáò. Óçìáíôéêïß ]áñÜãïíôåò ó’áõôü ôï óçìåßï åßíáé ].÷. ç ôï]ïèåóßá ôùí ]üëåùí, ôùí ëéìáíé!í, ôùí åãêáôáóôÜóåùí êáé ôùí áîüíùí å]éêïéíùíßáò óôï ôï]ßï ôçò Âïéùôßáò. Å]ßóçò Üëëïé ]áñÜãïíôåò åßíáé ]éèáíü íá äéáäñáìÜôéóáí ?íá ñüëï óôç äéáíïì= áãáè!í óôçí ]åñéï÷=, ü]ùò ç ]áñïõóßá ÷åéñùíÜêôùí, åì]üñùí, áãïñ!í êáé ï ïéêïíïìéêüò ñüëïò ôçò êõñßáñ÷çò åëßô óôç Âïéùôßá. Ôç ìåôáñùìáúê= å]ï÷=, ä$ï ]üëåéò óôÜèçêáí ó]ïõäáßåò óôç Âïéùôßá: ç È=âá êáé á]ü ôïí ï áé!íá ç ËéâáäéÜ, ü]ïõ åñãÜóôçêáí ÷åéñ!íáêôåò (êõñßùò óôç ìåôáîïâéïìç÷áíßá) êáé î?íïé ?ì]ïñïé (ìåôáî$ Üëëùí óôç Âåíåôßá). Å]ßóçò óçìáíôéêÜ ëéìÜíéá ìå óôñáôéùôéê?ò êáé åì]ïñéê?ò ëåéôïõñãßåò (ü]ùò ï Å$ñé]ïò óôçí Å$âïéá) åîõ]çñåôï$óáí ãéá áé!íåò ôç Âïéùôßá óôç äéáíïì= ôùí áãáè!í. Ëüãù ôïõ ìåãÜëïõ áñéèìï$ áñ÷áéïëïãéê!í ÷!ñùí êáé ìåóáéùíéê!í êáé ìåôáìåóáéùíéê!í êåñáìéê!í åõñçìÜôùí, õ]ïôßèåôáé üôé õ]=ñ÷å å]é]ë?ïí

410

ìéá åíäï÷!ñá ü]ïõ åß÷å ìéá óõíå÷= æ=ôçóç ]ñïúüíôùí (êáé ]=ëéíùí óêåõ!í å]ïì?íùò). Ô?ëïò, ç Âïéùôßá äé?èåôå ?íá êáëü ïäéêü äßêôõï ôï ï]ïßï óõí?äåå ôéò áêô?ò ôïõ íüôïõ êáé ôïõ âïññÜ êáé ëüãù ôïõ ï]ïßïõ ç ]åñéï÷= =ñèå ó’å]áö= ìå ôçí Áè=íá êáé ôçí Êüñéíèï óôá áíáôïëéêÜ êáé ìå ôïõò Äåëöï$ò êáé ôç Ëáìßá óôá äõôéêÜ. Å]é]ë?ïí åîåôÜæåôáé ó’ áõôü ôï ì?ñïò ç ôï]éê= áíôßëçøç ôçò ]áñáãùã=ò êáé ôçò äéáíïì=ò ôùí ]=ëéíùí óêåõ!í óôç Âïéùôßá. ÊáôÜ ]Üóá ]éèáíüôçôá, ç ]áñáãùã= ]=ëéíùí óêåõ!í =ôáí ìéá óõíçèéóì?íç êáé êáèçìåñéí= á]áó÷üëçóç óôçí $]áéèñï. ÊáôÜ ôç äéÜñêåéá ôçò å]éöáíåéáê=ò ?ñåõíáò óôç Âïéùôßá âñ?èçêáí ]Üíôùò ìåñéêÜ ]=ëéíá óêå$ç êáê=ò êáôáóêåõ=ò êáé ?íá èñá$óìá åíüò áããåéï]ëáóôéêï$ öï$ñíïõ ìå õ]åñèåñìáóì?íá êïììÜôéá á]ü êáôóáñüëåò (âë. site VM). Ó’ áõôü ôï óçìåßï ]ñ?]åé íá ?÷åé õ]üøç êáíåßò üôé áíáìöéóâ=ôçôá õ]=ñîå ôï]éê= ]ïéêéëßá ôçò ]áñáãùã=ò ôùí ]=ëéíùí óêåõ!í, ëüãù ôùí äéáöïñåôéê!í ô$]ùí ôùí áããåéï]ëáóôéê!í åñãáóôçñßùí óôçí ]üëç êáé ôçí $]áéèñï, ïé ï]ïßïé óå ]ïëë?ò ]åñé]ô!óåéò å]éêáë$]ôïíôáí ìåôáî$ ôïõò. Áí êáé ïé üñïé ‘áêñéâü’ êáé ‘öôçíü’ åßíáé ó÷åôéêïß, õ]ïôßèåôáé üôé ôá ]=ëéíá óêå$ç =ôáí ?íá áñêåôÜ öôçíü êáé êáèçìåñéíü ]ñïúüí, ôï ï]ïßï êáôáóêåõáæüôáí á]ü ôï]éêï$ò áããåéï]ëÜóôåò ãéá ìéá ôï]éê= áãïñÜ. Ô?ëïò, ó’ áõôü ôï ôñßôï ì?ñïò åîåôÜæåôáé ôï õëéêü á]ü ôç Âïéùôßá ìå âÜóç ìéá åõñ$ôåñç êïéíùíéêï-ïéêïíïìéê= áíôßëçøç. Ãéá ìéá êáë$ôåñç êáôáíüçóç ôùí äéáäéêáóé!í ó÷åôéêÜ ìå ôéò áëëáã?ò óôçí ]áñáãùã= ]=ëéíùí óêåõ!í êáé ôç äéáíïì=, ÷ñçóéìï]ïéï$íôáé ôñßá ìïíô?ëá: ä$ï á]ü ôç ìåóáéùíéê= áñ÷áéïëïãßá (ôùí Hugo Blake êáé Clive Orton) êáé ?íá á]ü ôçí êïéíùíéïëïãßá (ôï ìïíô?ëï ôïõ ëåãüìåíïõ ‘]áãêüóìéïõ óõóô=ìáôïò’ ôïõ Immanuel Wallerstein). Ôï ôåëåõôáßï ìïíô?ëï åöáñìüæåôáé ó’ áõô= ôç äéáôñéâ= ãéá ]ñ!ôç öïñÜ óôéò äéáäéêáóßåò ôçò ]áñáãùã=ò, ôùí ôéì!í, ôçò åéóáãùã=ò êáé ôçò äéáíïì=ò ôùí êåñáìéê!í, óìáëôùì?íùí ìå êáóóßôåñï, á]ü ôïí ï ì?÷ñé ôïí ï áé!íá (ìåôáî$ Üëëùí óôéò âéïìç÷áíßåò ôïõ Maiolica á]ü ôçí Éôáëßá êáé ôïõ Iznik êáé Kûtahya á]ü ôçí Ôïõñêßá). Ôá ]áñá]Üíù ìïíô?ëá ì]ïñåß íá óõíôåë?óïõí ìå äéÜöïñïõò ôñü]ïõò óôçí å]?êôáóç ôçò êáôáíüçóçò ôùí ]ïë$]ëïêùí ôñü]ùí ãéá ôçí ]ñïóöïñÜ êáé ôç æ=ôçóç ôùí êåñáìéê!í, êõñßùò ó’ ?íá ]åñéöåñåéáêü å]ß]åäï ü]ùò óôç Âïéùôßá.

ÌEÑÏÓ ÉV: Ç ¶ÏËÉÔÉÓÌÉÊÇ ÁÍÔIËÇØÇ ÔÙÍ ÌÅÔÁÂÁËËÁÌÅÍÙÍ ÓXÇÌAÔÙÍ ÔÙÍ ÊÅÑÁÌÉÊÙÍ: ÌÉÁ ¶ÑÙÔÇ ÊÁÔÁÍAÇÓÇ ÔÏÕ ÕËÉÊÏU

Óôï ô?ôáñôï ì?ñïò ôçò äéáôñéâ=ò ]áñïõóéÜæåôáé ìéá óõæ=ôçóç ó÷åôéêÜ ìå ôç ÷ñ=óç ïéêéáê!í óêåõ!í êáé ìå ôï éóôïñéêü ôùí åèßìùí äéáôñïö=ò á]ü ôá ô?ëç ôçò Áñ÷áéüôçôáò ì?÷ñé ôç ó$ã÷ñïíç å]ï÷=. Ó’ áõôü ôï óçìåßï ÷ñçóéìï]ïéï$íôáé å]ßóçò ?ããñáöåò ]çã?ò êáé åéêïíïãñáöéêü õëéêü á]ü óêçí?ò ôïõ öáãçôï$ (åéêüíåò, íù]ïãñáößåò êáé ìéíéáôï$ñåò). Ôï êåíôñéêü æ=ôçìá åßíáé ?áí õ]Üñ÷åé ìéá ó÷?óç áíÜìåóá óå ôõ]ïëïãéê?ò-÷ñïíïëïãéê?ò áíáãíùñßóåéò ôùí áñ÷áéïëïãéê!í áíôéêåéì?íùí êáé óôçí éóôïñéê= äéáäñïì= ôçò ôñïö=ò êáé ôùí åèßìùí äéáôñïö=ò óôï Áéãáßï (êáé óõãêåêñéì?íá óôçí Êåíôñéê= ÅëëÜäá). Ç ?ñåõíá å]éäé!êåé íá á]ïäåßîåé üôé óôç Âïéùôßá õ]=ñ÷å ìéá ó÷?óç áíÜìåóá óå ?èéìá äéáôñïö=ò êáé óôï ]ëÜôïò ôùí áêñ!í ôùí ]=ëéíùí óêåõ!í. Ï ôñü]ïò êïéíïâéáêï$ óéôéóìï$ óôá ô?ëç ôçò ñùìáúê=ò å]ï÷=ò ì?÷ñé ôç ìåóïâõæáíôéí= å]ï÷= ìåôáâë=èçêå óå ìéá ]éï ‘äõôéê=’ ìïñö= óéôéóìï$, á]ïôåëï$ìåíç á]ü ]åñéïñéóì?íï áñéèìü áôüìùí (ôá öáãçôÜ =ôáí ÷ùñéóì?íá óå äéÜöïñåò ìéêñüôåñåò ìåñßäåò) êáôÜ ôç äéÜñêåéá ôùí ôåë!í ôçò âõæáíôéí=ò/öñÜãêéêçò å]ï÷=ò. Êáôü]éí, óôçí ïèùìáíéê= å]ï÷=, åìöáíßóôçêå îáíÜ ï êïéíïâéáêüò ôñü]ïò. Áõô= ç åî?ëéîç áíôéóôïé÷åß óôéò áëëáã?ò á]ü ìåãÜëá, öáñäéÜ ]éÜôá (óôá ô?ëç ôçò ñùìáúê=ò å]ï÷=ò ì?÷ñé ôç ìåóïâõæáíôéí= å]ï÷=) óå ìéêñüôåñá êáé ]éï âáèéÜ óôá ô?ëç ôçò âõæáíôéí=ò/öñÜãêéêçò å]ï÷=ò, êáé îáíÜ óå ìåãáë$ôåñá, öáñäéÜ ]éÜôá ôçí ïèùìáíéê= å]ï÷=. ]éèáí!ò, ïé ]ïëéôéóìéê?ò áëëáã?ò ôùí åèßìùí äéáôñïö=ò, ü]ùò êáé ïé áëëáã?ò óôçí ôõ]ïëïãßá ôïõ áñ÷áéïëïãéêï$ õëéêï$, =ôáí óôáäéáê?ò äéáäéêáóßåò. Ïé ìåôáâïë?ò ó÷åôßæïíôáé å]é]ë?ïí ìå áñêåôÜ ]ïë$]ëïêåò êïéíùíéêï-ïéêïíïìéê?ò êáé ]ïëéôéóìéê?ò åîåëßîåéò óôï Áéãáßï ãåíéê!ò êáé óôç Âïéùôßá óõãêåêñéì?íá. Ç ôÜóç ãéá ?íáí ]éï ‘äõôéêü’ ôñü]ï óéôéóìï$ óôç ìåôáâõæáíôéí=/öñÜãêéêç å]ï÷=, ì]ïñåß íá óõíäåèåß ìå ìéá óôáäéáê= äéáäéêáóßá á]ïäéÜñèñùóçò ôïõ êïéíïâéáêï$ ôñü]ïõ, ç ï]ïßá åéó=÷èçêå á]ü ôç Ä$óç óôçí ÅëëÜäá êáé ôç Âïéùôßá. Ôá ìåôáâáëëüìåíá ó÷=ìáôá êáé ç ÷ñ=óç ôïõ óìÜëôïõ óå ]=ëéíá óêå$ç á]ü ôç Âïéùôßá, á]ïäåéêí$ïõí, ìå âÜóç ?ããñáöåò ]çã?ò üôé ]ñïöáí!ò êáé ç ßäéá ç äéáôñïö= Üëëáîå. ]áñáôçñï$íôáé áëëáã?ò óôï äéáéôïëüãéï ôçí ]åñßïäï ôçò âõæáíôéí=ò å]ï÷=ò, ôï ï]ïßï ÷áñáêôçñßóôçêå êõñßùò á]ü ëá÷áíéêÜ, öñï$ôá êáé åëáéüëáäï• êáôÜ ôç äéÜñêåéá ôçò ìåôáâõæáíôéí=ò/öñÜãêéêçò å]ï÷=ò ôï äéáéôïëüãéï ]ñïóäéïñßóôçêå á]ü ëé]áñ?ò äßáéôåò, ïé ï]ïßåò åß÷áí ùò âÜóç ôïõò ôçí êáôáíÜëùóç ]åñéóóüôåñçò ]ïóüôçôáò êñ?áôïò (ôï ï]ïßï óå óõìâïëéêü å]ß]åäï ëåéôïõñãï$óå ùò óôïé÷åßï êïéíùíéê=ò è?óçò óôç Ä$óç!). Ô?ëïò, ôçí ïèùìáíéê= ]åñßïäï ôï äéáéôïëüãéï âáóßóôçêå êõñßùò óå óï$]åò, ñ$æé êáé âï$ôõñï. Ïé åîåëßîåéò áõô?ò ?ëáâáí ÷!ñá á]ü ôïí ï áé!íá ì?óá ó’?íá êïéíùíéêï-ïéêïíïìéêü êëßìá, ôá ÷áñáêôçñéóôéêÜ ôïõ ï]ïßïõ =ôáí (á) ìéá áõîáíüìåíç åõçìåñßá óôá áóôéêÜ ê?íôñá (ôïõô?óôéí ]éï óõãêåêñéì?íç êïéíùíéê= éåñÜñ÷çóç êáé áôïìéê= óõì]åñéöïñÜ êáôáíÜëùóçò) êáé (â) ìéá áõîáíüìåíç åéóáãùã= ]ñïúüíôùí á]ü ôçí Éôáëßá. ÊáôÜ ]Üóá ]éèáíüôçôá åéó=÷èçóáí ôáõôü÷ñïíá ìå ôá ìéêñÜ ]éÜôá á]ü ôï Maiolica êáé ]éï ‘äõôéêÜ’ ?èéìá äéáôñïö=ò.

411

Ôçí ïèùìáíéê= å]ï÷= å]ßóçò öáßíåôáé üôé õ]=ñ÷å ìéá ó÷?óç áíÜìåóá óôç äéáäéêáóßá üóìùóçò ]ïëéôéóìéê!í ÷áñáêôçñéóôéê!í, ç ï]ïßá ïöåéëüôáí óôç ãåéôíßáóç äéáöïñåôéê!í ]ïëéôéóì!í (acculturation), óôçí ßäéá ôçí åê]ïëéôéóôéê= äñáóôçñéüôçôá (enculturation), êáè!ò êáé óå ôå÷íéê?ò êáéíïôïìßåò ]ïõ áöïñï$óáí ]=ëéíá óêå$ç. Åêåßíç ôçí ]åñßïäï ]áñáôçñåß êáíåßò ìéá îåêÜèáñç äéáöïñÜ áíÜìåóá óôïí êïéíïâéáêü ôñü]ï óéôéóìï$ (ôï ëåãüìåíï ‘áíáôïëéêü ìïíô?ëï’) êáé óå ìéá ]éï áôïìéê= ìïñö= óéôéóìï$ (ôï ëåãüìåíï ‘äõôéêü ìïíô?ëï’), ç ï]ïßá óôçñß÷èçêå áíôßóôïé÷á óôï äéáöïñåôéêü ì?ãåèïò ôùí Üêñùí ôùí ]éÜôùí (ü]ùò âë?]åôå óôïí ]ßíáêá .). Ôïí ï áé!íá å]?óôñåøå óôç Âïéùôßá ï êïéíïâéáêüò ôñü]ïò (åéó=÷èçêå ]éèáí!ò á]ü ìéá í?á åëßô, ]ñïåñ÷üìåíç á]ü ôçí Áíáôïë=), ï ï]ïßïò âáóßóôçêå óå éóëáìéêÜ ?èéìá êáé éóëáìéê?ò ]áñáäüóåéò ó÷åôéêÜ ìå ôçí ôñïö= êáé ôá ?èéìá äéáôñïö=ò. Áíôßèåôá, ï ïò áé!íáò ÷áñáêôçñßæåôáé á]ü ôçí áñã= åî?ëéîç ôùí åéäéê!í ]=ëéíùí óêåõ!í ãéá óõãêåêñéì?íá åßäç ôñïö!í êáé ]ïô!í ]ïõ ]ñïïñßæïíôáí ãéá áôïìéê= êáôáíÜëùóç (ìåôáî$ Üëëùí öëéôæÜíéá ôïõ êáö?). Ó’ áõôü ôï ì?ñïò ôçò äéáôñéâ=ò ãßíåôáé öáíåñü üôé ôá êåñáìéêÜ ôçò å]éöáíåéáê=ò ?ñåõíáò äåí ]ñïóö?ñïõí ìüíï áñ÷áéïëïãéê?ò ]ëçñïöïñßåò, Üëëá ]áñÜëëçëá äåß÷íïõí êáé ìéá êïéíùíéêï-ïéêïíïìéê= êáé ]ïëéôéóìéê= áíôßëçøç, ç ï]ïßá äåí ]åñéïñßæåôáé ìüíï óå ?íáí () áñ÷áéïëïãéêü ÷!ñï (‘site’) -ü]ùò óå ìéá áíáóêáö=-, Üëëá óå ìáêñü÷ñïíåò åîåëßîåéò óå ìéá ]åñéï÷=. Ìå áõôüí ôïí ôñü]ï, ôá åõñ=ìáôá á]ü ôçí å]éöáíåéáê= ?ñåõíá ôçò Âïéùôßáò ]áñ?÷ïõí ôç äõíáôüôçôá íá ó÷çìáôßóïõìå ìéá åéêüíá ôùí áëëáã!í óôç ÷ñ=óç ôùí ]=ëéíùí óêåõ!í, óôç ëåéôïõñãßá êáé óôá ?èéìá äéáôñïö=ò ó’ üëïõò ôïõò ôïìåßò ôïõ ]ëçèõóìï$: á]ü ôïõò áãñüôåò óôçí $]áéèñï ì?÷ñé ôïõò ]ëï$óéïõò óôçí ]üëç.

ÌEÑÏÓ V: ÓÕ̶EÑÁÓÌÁ

Ô?ëïò, óôï óõì]?ñáóìá ]áñïõóéÜæåôáé ìéá ó$íèåóç ôçò ôõ]ïëïãéê=ò-÷ñïíïëïãéê=ò êáé ëåéôïõñãéê=ò áíÜëõóçò ôùí ìåôáñùìáúê!í èñáõóìÜôùí á]ü ôç Âïéùôßá êáé ôùí êïéíùíéêï-ïéêïíïìéê!í êáé ]ïëéôéóìéê!í ]ëåõñ!í ôïõò. Ó’ áõôü ôï óçìåßï õ]ïäåéêí$åôáé üôé ç ôõ]ïëïãéê=-÷ñïíïëïãéê= ìåë?ôç ôùí áñ÷áéïëïãéê!í åõñçìÜôùí äåí á]ïôåëåß ìüíï ìéá óôáèåñ= âÜóç ãéá ÷ñïíïëïã=óåéò, áëëÜ ]ñïóö?ñåé êáé ?íá ó$íïëï äõíáôïô=ôùí ãéá ôçí ?ñåõíá ôïõ êïéíùíéêï-ïéêïíïìéêï$ êáé ]ïëéôéóìéêï$ ]ëáéóßïõ ôùí êåñáìéê!í.

412

about the author After finishing Gymnasium Alpha at the Van Maerlantlyceum in her place of birth Eindhoven, Joanita Vroom graduated in Classical Archaeology, as well as in Ancient History at the University of Utrecht. During her studies, she had already been invited to handle the survey ceramics of the Dutch Aetolia Project in Greece. Since her graduation she has worked as free-lance journalist and archaeological ceramic researcher until she was offered the position of post-doc research assistant at the Department of Archaeology, University of Durham (UK), on a grant from the Leverhulme Foundation (1995-1999), as well as the position of part-time Ph.D. student. During this period she studied the Post-Roman ceramic finds from the Boeotia Project of the Universities of Durham and Cambridge. In 2000-2001 she received a grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) to proceed with her Ph.D. research at the University of Leiden. There she finished her thesis After antiquity (2003) which was subsequently published in the Archaeological Studies Leiden University series (ASLU). During her academic career she became involved in many field projects (excavations and surveys) in Greece, Albania, Turkey and in Cyprus, carrying out research on the Late Roman, Byzantine, Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery found in the Eastern Mediterranean. She has published primarily on socio-economic and cultural aspects of Medieval and PostMedieval ceramics. Currently, she is a post-doc Research Fellow at the Institute of World Art and Archaeology, University of East Anglia, Norwich (UK), at a position financed by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

406