Version classiqueVersion mobile

Multidisciplinary approaches to food and foodways in the medieval Eastern Mediterranean

 | 
Sylvie Yona Waksman

Byzantium and beyond

Changing people, dining habits and pottery technologies

Tableware productions on the eve of the Ottoman Empire in western Anatolia

Jacques Burlot, Sylvie Yona Waksman, Beate Böhlendorf‑Arslan et Joanita Vroom

Résumé

In western Anatolia, the second half of the thirteenth century corresponds to the arrival of Turkish populations with the creation of the Beyliks, the first Turkish emirates. These Turkish people came with their cultural identities and caused the introduction of new traditions and practices such as those related to food. This is illustrated for example by the use – and the production – of different types of tableware, such as Moulded Wares and Turquoise Glazed Wares. Thanks to archaeological and archaeometric studies, it was possible to identify some production centres of these new types of tableware and to define their techniques of manufacture. The first results show that there were several centres in western Anatolia producing these early Turkish vessels, and that some of these wares, such as the Turquoise Glazed Wares, were produced using new recipes, particularly in the nature and composition of their glazes. New populations, tableware types and techniques of manufacture are correlated, illustrating these new influences.

Texte intégral

Introduction

1The battle of Kösedağ on June 26, 1243, and the victory of the Mongols over the Seljuks of Rum marked a turning point in the history of western Anatolia. During the second half of the thirteenth century, the Mongols advanced into central Anatolia and chased the Seljuks from eastern Asia Minor, forcing them to conquer new territories, especially those that were Byzantine, located in the western part of Anatolia. The Seljuks settled there and formed new principalities, called Beyliks, including the Ottoman emirate. Turkish populations gradually conquered and permanently occupied this region, and the fourteenth century introduced a new period in the western Anatolia region where the main cities came under the rule of Turkish leaders (Beys) for the first time in their history (Korobeinikov 2008; Lindner 2009; Leiser 2011).

2The domination by these new Turkish populations corresponds, according to these historians, to an important political, ethnic, socio-cultural and religious transformation in the region. This transformation is correlated with the arrival of Islam, which brought about the construction of important architectural monuments such as mosques, madrassas, and hospitals in the main cities in a new and unique style (Korobeinikov 2008; Ocak 2009). Among the most important monuments built during the Beylik period are the İsa Bey mosque at Ayasuluk/Ephesus and the İlyas Bey mosque at Balat. Most historical and archaeological studies devoted to the material culture of the western Anatolia Beyliks focus on this architecture (Lindner 2009).

3The arrival of the Turks in the region also brought new traditions and practices such as those related to food. These newcomers consumed different foods, such as those mentioned by N. Trépanier concerning the Beyliks of central Anatolia (Trépanier 2014), and used different vessels, as attested by the discovery of new ceramic types in the archaeological contexts of this period (Böhlendorf-Arslan 2002; 2008; Vroom 2018, pp. 392‑395, fig. 7; 2019, pp. 240‑243).

4The discovery of these new ceramics gives rise to several questions. The first one is related to a better definition of these productions and to the location of the corresponding workshops. The second question pertains to the chronology of their manufacture, and especially to the estimation of its beginning, which may correspond to the introduction of new types and techniques of manufacture. The study of this aspect enabled us to obtain information relative to economy and trade in the western Anatolian Beyliks. Definition, location and dating relied mainly on archaeological and pottery studies, and on archaeometric analyses of ceramic bodies.

5Further study of the production techniques of these new types of pottery enabled us to characterize and define new kinds of technical expertise which were part of the identity of these Turkish populations. This was possible thanks to analyses of the slips and glazes carried out using a scanning electron microscope, a method already used by other researchers for such studies in western Anatolia (Armstrong et al. 1997; Demirci et al. 2002; Okyar 2010; Okyar et al. 2011; Kırmızı 2012; Özçatal et al. 2014; Kırmızı et al. 2015).

6However, our methodology, combining both archaeological and archaeometric studies, contrasts with previous research on Islamic and Turkish pottery production techniques, which has been mainly based on objects in museums whose findspots are unknown, or on archaeological samples which had not been associated with a well-defined production (Armstrong et al. 1997; Mason & Tite 1994; 1997; Pradell et al. 2008; Tite et al. 2011; 2015).

Pottery types and corpus of samples

  • 1 Different areas were excavated in Ayasuluk/Ephesus by the Austrian Archaeological Institute over m (...)

7Two sampling campaigns carried out within the framework of the POMEDOR project, in the summers of 2014 and 2015, enabled us to obtain most of the samples in the studied corpus. Our research focused on pottery from four sites located in western Turkey: Ephesus, Miletus, Pergamon, and Sardis1 (fig. 1).

Fig. 1 – Location of the sites investigated (in red) (CAD: J. Burlot).

Fig. 1 – Location of the sites investigated (in red) (CAD: J. Burlot).

8Concerning the dating of this pottery, it is very difficult to obtain chronologies for the medieval levels of these sites because they were frequently discarded during earlier excavations that focused on more ancient levels, especially those corresponding to Antiquity. Still, we were able to obtain some chronological information: first, thanks to well-dated contexts in which some of the samples studied were discovered in Pergamon (Böhlendorf-Arslan 2004); second, by comparing our pottery types with similar ones discovered on other archaeological sites with well-stratified layers, as is the case with a closed context at the Manisa hamam (Gök Gürhan 2008; 2013).

Glazed Wares of the Late Byzantine period

9The first group that we studied to define this cultural transition were the glazed types of tableware characteristic of the Late Byzantine period. Those we selected were produced in two centres, located at Pergamon and Ephesus (Waksman 1995; 2014; 2015; Waksman et al. 1996; Waksman & Spieser 1997; Sauer & Waksman 2005), and consist of Monochrome Glazed Wares and Monochrome and Polychrome Sgraffito Wares (fig. 2a), usually dated to the second half of the thirteenth and to the beginning of the fourteenth centuries (Spieser 1996; Böhlendorf-Arslan 2004; Vroom 2005; Vroom & Fındık 2015). The study of these ceramics enabled us to establish a Byzantine basis of reference in relation to pottery productions in western Anatolia. The technological features of these types of pottery thus constitute our starting point, as they are representative of the Late Byzantine productions.

Fig. 2 – Examples of samples representative of the four types considered (with indication of their chemical group).

Fig. 2 – Examples of samples representative of the four types considered (with indication of their chemical group).

(a) Glazed Wares of the Late Byzantine period (Pergamon, local production); (b) Polychrome Sgraffito Wares (BZY913, BZY957: Ephesus local c/4; BZY962: Ephesus region b/2; BZN 74, BZN135, BZN152, BZY433, BZY776: “Pergame F”); (c) Moulded Wares (BZN 70, BZY932, BZY934: Ephesus local c/4; BZY931, BZY956: Ephesus region b/2); (d) Turquoise Glazed Wares (BZY365, BZY366, BZY906, BZY907: Ephesus region b/2) (Pictures: S.Y. Waksman; Drawings: S.Y. Waksman, J. Burlot, C. Brun and excavations teams; CAD: J. Burlot, C. Brun).

Polychrome Sgraffito Wares

10Among the ceramics that emerged in western Anatolia during the Beylik period is a type presenting decoration techniques used in the Byzantine period, such as the sgraffito technique. However, the pottery presents a new pattern, with petals incised on the interior of the vessel decorated by painted purple-brown dots set off by green or orange stripes (Crane 1987, p. 55; Waksman 1995, “groupe F”; Spieser 1996, p. 49, mentioned as “Keramik mit grünen und purpurnen Flecken”; Böhlendorf-Arslan 2004, Teil III, pp. 189‑190; Vroom 2005, types 3 and 4, p. 29; Vroom & Fındık 2015, p. 219) (fig. 2b). These Polychrome Sgraffito Wares were common in the western Anatolian region. Apart from the sites we have chosen for our research, this pottery was also discovered elsewhere, for example at the Ayasuluk Hill (Yılmaz 2014), the İlyas Bey complex at Balat (Gök Gürhan 2010a; 2011a), Aphrodisias (François 2001), Beçin (Gök Gürhan 2009a), Amorium (Böhlendorf-Arslan 1998) and Manisa (Gök Gürhan 2008).

11Two archaeological contexts enabled us to obtain good dating for these wares. In Pergamon, a filled cistern, sealed by an earth layer in courtyard 19, indicates an intentional deposition of the pottery discovered in the cistern. According to coins dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century, the fill of the cistern could be dated to soon after the middle of the fourteenth century (Böhlendorf-Arslan 2002; 2004). In Manisa, sherds of these Polychrome Sgraffito Wares were found during restoration work at the Gülgün Hatun Hamam in a space located in the bath house, between the cupola of a private room (halvet) and a water storage vault, sealed by a mortar layer (Gök Gürhan 2013). This space could probably be dated to the foundation period of this hamam, that is, the middle of the fourteenth century (Gök Gürhan 2008). These two dates prove that this pottery type was more frequently used in the second half of the fourteenth century and confirm the hypothesis that we are dealing with wares of the Beylik period.

Moulded Wares and Turquoise Glazed Wares

12The same closed context of the Gülgün Hatun Hamam in Manisa, dated to the middle of the fourteenth century, provided other sherds, including examples of the last two types in the corpus presented in this study (Gök Gürhan 2008; 2010b; 2011b; 2013). These are Moulded Wares and Turquoise Glazed Wares. Unfortunately, as far as we know, this context is the only one in the region which provides a well-defined chronology for these wares.

13Moulded Wares were already present in western Anatolia in Antiquity, but they appear again much later, both in glazed and unglazed versions, together with other types of pottery, such as Turquoise Glazed Wares (Waksman 2015). These Moulded Wares were found at Ayasuluk/Ephesus (Vroom 2005, type 6, p. 34; Vroom & Fındık 2015, p. 227), Miletus (Böhlendorf-Arslan 2008, p. 378), Sardis, and in other parts of Ayasuluk/Ephesus (Yılmaz 2014), as well as at the archaeological sites of Akşehir (Gök Gürhan 2007; 2009b), Beçin (Gök Gürhan 2009a), Iznik (Özkul Fındık 2001) and Anaia/Kadıkalesi (Mercangöz & Doğer 2009), among others.

14The Turquoise Glazed Wares, along with the Moulded Wares, were widespread in the Islamic world and also seem to have appeared in the western Anatolian productions at the same time as the arrival of the first Turkish populations. The turquoise colour of the glaze is itself evidence of a new tradition, as it is not observed in the decoration of Byzantine pottery of this region.

15Among these Turquoise Glazed Wares, some present a turquoise glaze on both sides and others feature a turquoise glaze on the inside and a yellow glaze on the outside. In fact, all the pottery in our study presenting these two colours was discovered in Ayasuluk/Ephesus. Turquoise Glazed Wares have so far been discovered in Ayasuluk/Ephesus (Vroom 2005, type 2, p. 30), Miletus, Sardis (Scott & Kamilli 1981, p. 686; Crane 1987, p. 53) and Pergamon; other sites have provided evidence for the use of Turquoise Glazed Wares during Turkish times, such as Aphrodisias (François 2001), Akşehir (Gök Gürhan 2007; 2009a), Iznik (Özkul Fındık 2001), Akköy (Uysal 2013) and Amorium (Özkul Fındık 2003).

Scope of the analyses and analytical methods

16In order to confirm that these new types of pottery were produced in western Turkey, it was necessary to carry out provenance studies based on chemical analyses of the ceramic bodies (tabl. 1). These were carried out in Lyon (CNRS UMR 5138) using wavelength dispersive X‑ray fluorescence spectrometry (WD-XRF), and the pottery samples were classified according to their chemical compositions using hierarchical clustering analysis (see e.g. Waksman 2015 for details). On all the sites examined, evidence for local production was present, either as kiln furniture or as pottery wasters. These were used as local reference samples to identify the clusters of samples corresponding to locally manufactured wares, thus indicating which types were included in the local repertoires.

Tabl. 1 – Chemical compositions of the body of pottery samples of the types under study found in Ephesus, Miletus, Pergamon and Sardis, ranked as in the classification figure 3.
In the case of the Ephesus and Miletus groups, means (m) and standard deviations (σ) were re-calculated, taking into account samples belonging to the same productions published in previous studies (Sauer and Waksman 2005; Waksman 2014; 2015; Waksman et al. 2017).
Major and minor elements are given in oxides weight %, trace elements in ppm (part per million); n: number of samples. Elements not taken into account in the classification are indicated between brackets, asterisks indicate values not taken into account in the calculation of m and σ.

Tabl. 1 – Chemical compositions of the body of pottery samples of the types under study found in Ephesus, Miletus, Pergamon and Sardis, ranked as in the classification figure 3.In the case of the Ephesus and Miletus groups, means (m) and standard deviations (σ) were re-calculated, taking into account samples belonging to the same productions published in previous studies (Sauer and Waksman 2005; Waksman 2014; 2015; Waksman et al. 2017). Major and minor elements are given in oxides weight %, trace elements in ppm (part per million); n: number of samples. Elements not taken into account in the classification are indicated between brackets, asterisks indicate values not taken into account in the calculation of m and σ.

Tabl. 1 (1/3)

  • 2 We will not focus on details here, in particular as to the precise nature of the various inclusion (...)

17The analyses concerning the production techniques were carried out on the materials used for the decoration layers on the vessels, the slips and the glazes. In a first approach, which is the one presented in this article, the objective is to determine the recipes used for the production of the glazes covering all the pottery samples in our corpus (tabl. 2). The aim is to define the nature of the glazes and to determine their main fluxes and colouring oxides.2 For the slips, we focused on their microstructure to characterise them and to interpret the way in which they were produced. We carried out all analyses and observations of the slips and glazes with a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) (FEI Quanta FEG 250) at the “Centre technologique des microstructures” (CTµ) in Lyon, using the same protocol as in our previous study focusing on Beylik Moulded Wares (Waksman et al. 2017). Elemental compositions were determined thanks to an energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometer (EDS) attached to the SEM, and the microstructures were observed using backscattered electron images (BSE images) which enabled differentiation of the various phases according to their chemical contrast.

Tabl. 2 – Semi-quantitative SEM-EDS analysis of the glazes, in wt.%. Samples are classified typologically (ins.: inside; out.: outside; Eph. Loc.: Ephesus local [c/4]; Perg. Loc.: Pergamon local; Mil. Loc.: Miletus local; Eph. Reg.: Ephesus region [b/2]; Perg. F.: “Pergame F”).

Tabl. 2 – Semi-quantitative SEM-EDS analysis of the glazes, in wt.%. Samples are classified typologically (ins.: inside; out.: outside; Eph. Loc.: Ephesus local [c/4]; Perg. Loc.: Pergamon local; Mil. Loc.: Miletus local; Eph. Reg.: Ephesus region [b/2]; Perg. F.: “Pergame F”).

Tabl. 2 (1/3)

Results and discussion

Provenance studies

18Figure 3 presents the classification, according to the chemical composition of the bodies, of pottery samples representative of the different types under study, together with samples taken as local references from the different sites. Not all the local groups are shown here, only those which include at least one sample of the types newly introduced at the beginning of the Turkish period: Polychrome Sgraffito Wares of the types shown in figure 2b, Moulded Wares and Turquoise Glazed Wares. This choice excludes in particular groups of Late Byzantine or Early Ottoman pottery manufactured in Pergamon (Waksman 2014, fig. 5, tabl. 2), and a tripod stilt found in Sardis, which were shown to be chemically different.

Fig. 3 – Classification, according to the chemical compositions of their bodies, of pottery samples of the different types and sites under study.

Fig. 3 – Classification, according to the chemical compositions of their bodies, of pottery samples of the different types and sites under study.

The same classification is shown twice, with colours and symbols highlighting either the types (below), or the findspots and the reference samples used to identify the productions local to the sites (above). The main chemical groups are underlined, their names refer to previous studies (Waksman 1995; 2014; 2015; Waksman et al. 2017; classification based on the concentrations of 17 elements, see tabl. 1) (S.Y. Waksman).

  • 3 Three other samples less marginal to the same group are noticeable (fig. 3, tabl. 1: BZN 70, BZY93 (...)
  • 4 The terms c/4 and b/2 correspond to the names of Ephesus groups in Waksman (2014; 2015) and Waksma (...)

19The classification distinguishes four main groups already defined in previous studies (e.g. Waksman 1995; 2014; 2015, for the latest updates see Waksman et al. 2017; Burlot 2017), a sample marginal to one of them3 (BZN104) and an unclassified pair of samples having similar compositions (BZN 2, BZY961) (tabl. 1). Among the groups, two include reference samples which enable us to identify them as local to Ephesus and Miletus, respectively (fig. 3: “Ephesus local [c/4]”,4 “Miletus local”). The third group (“Ephesus region [b/2]”) probably corresponds to a production in the region of Ephesus (Waksman et al. 2017), while the fourth (“Pergame F”) was provisionally named after the site where the first archaeometric study mentioning this group was carried out (Waksman 1995). It may correspond to a workshop located in the region of Pergamon, but as we do not have strong enough evidence so far, its location is considered unknown. Further studies are needed in order to clarify the locations of the last two productions.

20Still, it is clear that the new types were introduced into the local repertoire of several workshops in the region, and possibly beyond. WD-XRF results attest, and confirm previous studies, that pottery of the Beylik period, mostly dated to the fourteenth-beginning of the fifteenth centuries, was manufactured on several production sites in western Anatolia (Waksman 1995; 2014; 2015; Sauer & Waksman 2005; Waksman et al. 2017; Burlot et al. 2018).

  • 5 The results presented here on Glazed Moulded Wares also apply to their unglazed – and predominant  (...)

21The results also show that the same types of pottery were manufactured in different workshops, even though they may not have produced all the types considered here. In Miletus, the Beylik productions include Moulded Wares5 and Polychrome Sgraffito Wares. The same types were manufactured in Ephesus, where they were made with the same clayey material as the earlier Late Byzantine Wares. The “Pergame F” production includes Turquoise Glazed Wares and Polychrome Sgraffito Wares. The “Ephesus region (b/2)” group includes all three types, and it is noticeable that all the Turquoise Glazed Wares that show a yellow glaze on their external side are part of this group. Moreover, at least another workshop is indicated by the two unclassified samples of Polychrome Sgraffito Ware and Turquoise Glazed Ware (fig. 3: BZN 2, BZY961).

  • 6 Based on the chemical compositions of a tripod stilt from Sardis (BZN 68), and of common wares of (...)

22The distribution of the workshops appears to be very variable (fig. 3). While some of the groups only include samples found on a single site (“Miletus local”, “Ephesus region [b/2]”), group “Pergame F” distinguishes itself as being composed of samples coming from all four sites. During the Early Turkish period, this workshop exported pottery throughout western Anatolia, and at least as far inland as Sardis. Actually, most of the pottery found at Sardis considered in this study corresponds to this production, but there is no evidence that it was manufactured there.6

23The three other workshops appear to have distributed their products in more restricted areas, if these were actually exported, which may be questioned in the case of Miletus. With perhaps one exception (BZN 70), all the samples manufactured on Ephesus production sites (local and regional) were discovered at Ephesus and Miletus, Miletus being the site closest to Ephesus among those considered here. These results suggest productions intended for local or nearby regional markets.

Production techniques

24In the present study, all the pottery types were made with a clay body which once dry was covered with a slip in which patterns could be incised, as in the case of sgraffito wares. They were then fired a first time (biscuit-firing). The potters then sometimes painted additional decoration, before applying a glaze on the biscuit ware and proceeding to a second firing. The three layers distinguishable in SEM images illustrate this process: ceramic body, slip and glaze (fig. 4a-4b).

Fig. 4 – Images, based on the chemical contrast (SEM, BSE mode), of cross sections of wares showing the different categories of glazes and slips.

Fig. 4 – Images, based on the chemical contrast (SEM, BSE mode), of cross sections of wares showing the different categories of glazes and slips.

(a) Transparent high lead glaze (sample BZY933: Ephesus local c/4); (b) tin-opacified turquoise lead-alkali glaze (sample BZY365: Ephesus region b/2); (c) and (d) slips with a clayey matrix exhibiting a lamellar microstructure oriented horizontally and inclusions of various shapes (respectively samples BZY932: Ephesus local c/4 and BZY931: Ephesus region b/2); (e) slip with a clayey matrix having a significant degree of vitrification and inclusions featuring more blurred edges (sample EY-118: Pergamon, local production); (f) slip with great density of rounded inclusions (sample BZY775: “Pergame F”) (gl: glaze; ws: white slip; cb: ceramic body; cass. incl.: cassiterite inclusions) (Pictures: J. Burlot).

The glazes

Fluxes

25To define the glaze recipes used in the pottery produced at this time in western Anatolia, we first focused on the fluxes, whose presence in the glaze mixture lowers its melting point below that of silica. We mainly focused on lead and alkali (sodium and potassium) which are the fluxes used in the pottery studied.

26There are two main ways of using lead to produce a glaze. The first is to sprinkle lead (in the form, for example, of galena [PbS]) on the surface of the pottery, which will transform into oxides and interact directly with the silica and other materials in the slip to form the glaze during firing. The second way is to use lead in the form of oxides obtained by heating a lead compound, which is then transformed into a frit through reaction at high temperature with a siliceous sand (SiO2) in an incomplete fusion. Once the frit is obtained after cooling, it is ground and then used to prepare a liquid suspension of varying thickness that will be applied to cover the pieces to be glazed (Picon et al. 1995; Thiriot 1997; Tite et al. 1998).

27As for the use of alkali fluxes, these may be added to the glaze mixture as sodium-rich materials taken from evaporitic deposits of lakes (such as natron) or from ashes that result from the combustion of vegetal matter found close to coastlines (Salicornia, Saponaria) (Picon et al. 1995; Thiriot 1997). In our case, alkali fluxes are mainly sodium-rich ones.

  • 7 In figure 5b, all the Late Byzantine Wares irrespective of the colour of their glazes are represen (...)

28Figure 5 presents in two binary plots the concentrations of lead versus alkali oxides contained in the glazes. In figure 5a, the samples are classified according to production, whereas they are classified according to typology in figure 5b.7

Fig. 5 – Binary diagram showing PbO vs. alkali contents (Na2O + K2O) in the glazes: (a) samples are represented by symbols according to the production they belong to; (b) samples are represented by symbols according to their typology.

Fig. 5 – Binary diagram showing PbO vs. alkali contents (Na2O + K2O) in the glazes: (a) samples are represented by symbols according to the production they belong to; (b) samples are represented by symbols according to their typology.

29We first notice in both binary plots the presence of two main clusters, namely two groups of samples concentrated in relatively reduced areas. One sample is completely isolated.

30The first group corresponds to samples with a lead oxide content higher than 40%. It contains all the Late Byzantine samples as well as the polychrome sgraffito and the moulded samples, regardless of their provenance. In addition, we find within this group the samples representing the yellow glazes that cover the external sides of some Turquoise Glazed Wares, and one turquoise glaze (BZY366). This set corresponds to the glazes that Tite et al. (1998) mentioned as being of “high lead” type, with lead oxide content mainly present at between 45% and 65%, alkali content being lower than 2%. Two samples of this set show an alkali content above 2%, one corresponds to the turquoise glaze of BZY366 (2.28%) and the other corresponds to the dark brown glaze of BZY288 (2.36%), whose high content of potassium oxide appears to be related to its colouring agent. For sample BZY288, two different glazes were analysed (tabl. 2), one dark brown, the other colourless. The amount of potassium is much higher for the dark brown glaze than for the colourless one, which would suggest that the potassium comes from the colouring agent.

31The second group is only represented by samples of Turquoise Glazed Wares belonging to two productions (fig. 5a). The lead oxide content is lower than that of the previous group, between 27% and 38%. However, the alkali content is much higher, with percentages of sodium and potassium oxides combined exceeding 3%. One sample (BZY365) remains isolated, corresponding to a more alkaline turquoise glaze (K2O + Na2O = 13.77%).

32Thus, these diagrams enable us to distinguish two kinds of glazes according to their fluxes. The first category includes the high lead glazes that cover all samples of the Late Byzantine Glazed Wares, the Polychrome Sgraffito Wares, the Glazed Moulded Wares and the yellow glaze on the external side of some Turquoise Glazed Wares. The second category of glazes corresponds to the turquoise ones which are of lead-alkali type (fig. 5b).

Glaze opacification

33Beyond this chemical distinction in the fluxes, these two types of glaze also differ from each other in their transparency and microstructure. Inclusions and bubbles, which are common agents of opacification, are very rare in high-lead glazes. These glazes are very homogenous (fig. 4a), which means that the materials constituting the glazing mixtures melted well and diffused in a homogenous way during the firing. We observed rare exceptions of recrystallized inclusions, as well as inclusions of pigments. Further analyses to specify the nature of these inclusions are ongoing, as such data could provide information on the raw materials used (colorants, pigments) as well as the firing conditions. These high-lead glazes are almost homogenous, and thus transparent.

34We do not observe such a homogeneity in the turquoise glazes, which are very rich in cassiterite inclusions (tin oxides) (fig. 4b). These are the white inclusions observed in the glazes, which for all samples are widespread over the entire thickness. The use of cassiterite, which appears to have been crushed due to the angular shapes of these inclusions, renders the glazes opaque when added to the glazing mixture.

Colouring agents

35All green glazes, regardless of their ceramic types and their provenance, were obtained by the addition of copper oxides.

36The yellow colour in some analysed glazes of Late Byzantine Wares, manufactured in Ephesus, resulted from the use of iron oxides. The brown colour resulted from the addition of iron and potassium oxides. As for the yellow to orange glazes analysed in the Late Byzantine samples from Pergamon, they contain relatively high amounts of iron oxides. The higher the amount of iron oxide, the more orange the glaze appears.

37Concerning the Polychrome Sgraffito Wares, the green stripes were painted using copper oxides and the yellow-to-orange stripes using iron oxides. The purple-brown dots were obtained by using manganese oxides.

38As for the Turquoise Glazed Wares, this turquoise colour results from the presence of copper oxides in a lead-alkali glaze. The yellow glazes observed on some external sides were produced with high contents of iron oxides in high-lead glazes.

The slips

  • 8 For a more detailed presentation of their chemical features see Burlot (2017).

39As with the glazes, the slips were analysed using a SEM to determine their chemical composition as well as to observe their microstructure.8 The combination of these data allowed us to confirm that all studied slips are of clayey type, rich in siliceous inclusions and poor in iron oxides, which explains their white-buff colour. In general, it is possible to classify these clayey slips into three categories (Burlot 2017).

40The first category concerns the slips of the Miletus and Ayasuluk/Ephesus (local and regional) productions. These slips consist of a clayey matrix which, under SEM observation in BSE mode, exhibits a lamellar microstructure oriented horizontally (fig. 4c‑d). The degree of vitrification of the matrix is generally low, except for some slips from the Ephesus regional group, which may have a relatively high degree of vitrification. In all cases, siliceous inclusions of various shapes are present. Porosities of elongated and horizontally oriented shape are also present.

41The second category refers to slips of the Late Byzantine group manufactured in Pergamon. In these slips, the lamellar microstructure of the clay matrix and its orientation are no longer visible. The matrix has a significant degree of vitrification, either only at the surface of the slip, or in its entire thickness. As for the inclusions, they are more rounded and more heterogeneous in size and their edges do not appear as clearly, but are somewhat blurred (fig. 4e).

42Finally, the third category includes samples from the group “Pergame F”. These slips have a greater density of inclusions, which also have more rounded shapes (fig. 4f). The inclusions are more abundant, which significantly reduced the proportion of clayey matrix. This configuration suggests that this type of slip was produced by a mixture of sand with a small portion of clay used as binder between the grains.

Discussion of production techniques

43The results confirm an initial hypothesis, that is, that the types of slips and glazes of Polychrome Sgraffito Wares and Moulded Wares do not differ from those of the Byzantine period. Indeed, based on our Late Byzantine corpus, we were able to define the decorations of a Byzantine tradition as being made up of a transparent high lead glaze covering a slip of clayey type rich in siliceous inclusions. The description of these coatings corresponds to the archaeometric studies that have been conducted on other series of western Anatolian Late Byzantine and Early Turkish glazed wares (Armstrong et al. 1997; Demirci et al. 2002; Waksman 2005; Okyar 2010; Okyar et al. 2011; Kırmızı 2012; Özçatal et al. 2014; Kırmızı et al. 2015; Waksman et al. 2017; Burlot et al. 2018). The main glaze colours used for this pottery are green, yellow-orange and brown, respectively obtained by the use of copper, iron and iron plus potassium oxides.

44This same association, a transparent high-lead glaze on top of a clayey slip rich in siliceous inclusions, is also employed for the Glazed Moulded Wares and the Polychrome Sgraffito Wares, regardless of their provenance. The metallic oxides that produce the colours are the same as those used by the Byzantine potters, except perhaps for the manganese oxide used for the purple-brown dots of the Sgraffito Wares.

45In this western Anatolian case, it appears that the new Turkish consumers made new demands, which caused potters to produce new types having Islamic inspiration but maintaining Byzantine techniques and materials. This hypothesis appears especially true in the example of Ephesus, where the local Late Byzantine and Beylik productions used the same clay mixtures for the manufacture of ceramic bodies.

46It is with the turquoise glaze that we observe a new manufacturing recipe. The turquoise glaze is no longer a high-lead type but a lead-alkali type. New fluxes would thus have been employed, including sodium in particular. In addition, the turquoise glazes are not transparent, but are opacified with tin oxides. As for the slips on which these glazes lie, they are the same as those used for the Late Byzantine and other Beylik productions, that is, clayey and rich in siliceous inclusions. Thus, with the turquoise glazed wares, we see a new tradition appear, both in type and in technique. The turquoise glaze, produced for the first time in the region, represents a new recipe that employed sodium and not only lead as a flux, and tin as an opacifier.

47The use of sodium flux and of tin as an opacifier would appear to be more expensive if we refer to the bicoloured Turquoise and Yellow Glazed Wares. The fact that the potters preferred to use two different glazes, thus increasing the time of production and making it more complicated, rather than using only the turquoise glaze, suggests that they accepted it only because it was more affordable. The use of two types of glaze for the same pottery is also observed in the region in the later Miletus Wares, considered to be among the first Ottoman productions (Burlot & Waksman, forthcoming).

Conclusion

48The western Anatolia region during the fourteenth century saw the emergence of new political entities, the Beyliks, which marked the beginning of a definitive Turkish domination in the region. These first Turkish populations settled in the region with their food habits and their associated tablewares. This resulted in the introduction of a repertoire of new types and new techniques in the pottery productions.

49The three new types studied, considered to be of the Beylik period, were produced in the region in different workshops, which manufactured several of these types. In general, these productions appear to have been very little exported, or exported only short distances, which suggests production for local markets. However, one of the productions, “Pergame F”, whose workshop have not yet been located, is an exception, as it is found on different sites in western Anatolia and at least as far eastward as Sardis.

50In all these workshops, the techniques used for the decorations are the same for the same type of pottery. The glazes and slips belong to the same technical tradition, although the slips may be differentiated by their microstructures, which demonstrate the use of different raw materials and variants in the fabrication process, specific to each workshop.

51As far as slips and glazes are concerned, the Polychrome Sgraffito Wares and the Glazed Moulded Wares continue the recipes used by the Byzantines. The glazes are all transparent and rich in lead, covering a clayey slip. This changes with the introduction of turquoise glaze, whose colour results from combining copper oxide with alkali-based fluxes which were not previously used in Byzantine workshops in the region. In addition, the potters added tin oxides to the turquoise glaze to make it opaque.

52Further changes in the production techniques of western Anatolian pottery occurred in the late fourteenth century with the production of Miletus Wares, considered to be the first Ottoman ceramics and which were produced in other workshops in the region (Burlot & Waksman, forthcoming). This pottery features the slips that marked a real change in recipe, as they are no longer clayey slips but synthetic ones, i.e. slips made of ground quartz mixed with clay and a vitreous phase, which were to prefigure the later famous Iznik fritwares.

Acknowledgements

53This study was funded by the French National Research Agency (ANR) through the POMEDOR project, and we acknowledge the support of the ANR under reference ANR-12‑CULT-0008. We would like to thank: the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism, the Directors of the archaeological excavations and the staff of the Museums at Ephesus, Miletus, Sardis, and Pergamon for giving us permission to study the samples; B. Aydıl and O. Tuncer, S. Demir and the Ephesus, Sardis and Pergamon teams for their contribution to the drawings; the staff of the analytical facilities in Lyon (CNRS UMR 5138 and CTµ).

Bibliographie

Armstrong et al. 1997: Armstrong P., Hatcher H., Tite M., “Changes in Byzantine glazing technology from 9th to 13th centuries”, in G. Démians d’Archimbaud (ed.), La céramique médiévale en Méditerranée. Actes du VIe congrès de l’AIECM2 (Aix-en-Provence, 13‑18 novembre 1995), Aix-en-Provence, 1997, pp. 225‑229.

Böhlendorf-Arslan 1998: Böhlendorf-Arslan B., “Glazed pottery from trench TT”, in C.S. Lightfoot (dir.), “The Amorium project: The 1996 season”, Dumbarton Oaks papers 52, 1998, pp. 332‑335.

Böhlendorf-Arslan 2002: Böhlendorf-Arslan B., “Die Beziehungen zwischen byzantinischer und emiratszeitlicher Keramik”, in N.Ş. Doğan (ed.), Ortaçağ’da Anadolu, Ankara, 2002, pp. 135‑156.

Böhlendorf-Arslan 2004: Böhlendorf-Arslan B., Glasierte byzantinische Keramik aus der Türkei, Istanbul, 2004.

Böhlendorf-Arslan 2008: Böhlendorf-Arslan B., “Keramikproduktion im byzantinischen und türkischen Milet”, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 58, 2008, pp. 371‑407.

Burlot 2017: Burlot J., Premières productions de céramiques turques en Anatolie occidentale. Contextualisation et études techniques, PhD, Lyon 2 University, 2017 (unpublished).

Burlot et al. 2018: Burlot J., Waksman S.Y., Böhlendorf-Arslan B., Vroom J., Japp S., Teslenko I., “The Early Turkish pottery productions in western Anatolia: Provenances, contextualization and techniques”, in F. Yenişehirlioğlu (ed.), Proceedings of the XIth Congress AIECM3 on Medieval and Modern Period Mediterranean Ceramics (Antalya, 19‑24 October 2015), vol. 1, Ankara, 2018, pp. 427‑430.

Burlot & Waksman, forthcoming: Burlot J., Waksman S.Y., “‘Miletus Ware’ revisited: The transition from Byzantine to Ottoman pottery in western Anatolia”, forthcoming.

Crane 1987: Crane H., “Some archaeological notes on Turkish Sardis”, Muqarnas 4, 1987, pp. 43‑58.

Demirci et al. 2002: Demirci S., Caner-Saltık E.N., Türkmenoğlu A.G., Böke H., “Technological properties of some medieval glazed pottery in Anatolia”, in E. Jerem, K.T. Biro (ed.), Archaeometry 98: Proceedings of the 31st symposium (Budapest, April 26-May 3 1998), vol. 2, BAR International series 1043, Oxford, 2002, pp. 513‑518.

François 2001: François V., “Éléments pour l’histoire ottomane d’Aphrodisias. La vaisselle de terre”, Anatolia Antiqua 9, 2001, pp. 147‑190.

Gök Gürhan 2007: Gök Gürhan S., “Akşehir Kurtarma Kazısı Seramikleri”, in G. Öney, Z. Çobanlı (ed.), Anadolu’da Türk Devri Çini ve Seramik Sanatı, Istanbul, 2007, pp. 155‑169.

Gök Gürhan 2008: Gök Gürhan S., “Beylikler Dönemi’ne ait sgraffito teknikli ve Tek Renk Sırlı Kaplar”, Sanat Tarihi Dergisi 17, 2008, pp. 59‑83.

Gök Gürhan 2009a: Gök Gürhan S., “1995-2009 Yılları arasında Beçin Kazısı’nda Ortaya Çıkarılan Seramiklerin Değerlendirilmesi”, Sanat Tarihi Dergisi 18, 2009, pp. 45‑70.

Gök Gürhan 2009b: Gök Gürhan S., “Evaluation of ceramic production in Akşehir in the framework of ceramics and kiln materials unearthed during rescue excavations at Akşehir’s Anıt Meydan (‘Monument Square’)”, in G. Dávid, I. Gerelyes (ed.), Thirteenth Internationl Congress of Turkish Art, Budapest, 2009, pp. 283‑294.

Gök Gürhan 2010a: Gök Gürhan S., “Balat İlyas Bey Külliyesi Kazısında Ortaya Çıkarılan Seramiklerin Değerlendirilmesi (2007-2008)”, in K. Pektaş, S. Cirtil, S. Özgün Cirtil, G. Kurtuluş Öztaşkin, H. Özdemir, E. Aktu, R. Uykur (ed.), XIII. Ortaçağ-Türk Dönemi Kazıları ve Sanat Tarihi Araştırmaları Sempozyumu Bildirileri, 14‑16 Ekim 2009 / Proceedings of the XIIIth Symposium of medieval and Turkish period excavations and art history researches (14‑16th October 2009, Pamukkale), Istanbul, 2010, pp. 291‑305.

Gök Gürhan 2010b: Gök Gürhan S., “Manisa Gülgün Hatun Hamamı’nda Bulunan ‘Baskı Desenli, Kuşlu Testiler’”, in A.O. Uysal, A. Yavaş, M. Dünbar, O. Koçyiğit (ed.), XII. Ortaçağ-Türk Dönemi Kazıları ve Sanat Tarihi Sempozyumu (5‑17 Ekim 2008, Çanakkale), Izmir, 2010, pp. 206‑216.

Gök Gürhan 2011a: Gök Gürhan S., “Ceramics unearthed during the excavation and cleaning work conducted at the İlyas Bey complex in 2007 and 2008”, in B. Tanman, L.K. Elbirlik (ed.), Balat İlyas Bey complex, Istanbul, 2011, pp. 301‑332.

Gök Gürhan 2011b: Gök Gürhan S., Bir Seramik Definesinin Öyküsü. Saruhanoğlu Beyliği’nin mirası Manisa Gülgün Hatun Hamamı seramikleri, Manisa, 2011.

Gök Gürhan 2013: Gök Gürhan S., “XIV. Yüzyıl Seramik Sanatında Yeni Formlar Yeni Süslemeler; Manisa Gülgün Hatun Hamamı ve Balat İlyas Bey Külliyesi Kazı Buluntuları”, in F. Hitzel (ed.), 14th International Congress of Turkish Art (Paris, 19‑21 September 2011), Paris, 2013, pp. 365‑372.

Kırmızı 2012: Kırmızı B., Material characterization of the late 12th-13th century Byzantine ceramics from Kuşadası Kadıkalesi/Anaia, PhD, Ankara University, 2012 (unpublished).

Kırmızı et al. 2015: Kırmızı B., Göktürk E.H., Colomban P., “Coloring agents in the pottery glazes of western Anatolia: New evidence for the use of Naples yellow pigment variations during the Late Byzantine period”, Archaeometry 57/3, 2015, pp. 476‑496.

Korobeinikov 2008: Korobeinikov D.A., “Raiders and neighbours: The Turks (1040-1304)”, in J. Shepard (ed.), The Cambridge history of the Byzantine Empire (c. 500-1492), Cambridge, 2008, pp. 692‑727.

Leiser 2011: Leiser G., “The Turks in Anatolia before the Ottomans”, in M. Fierro (ed.), The new Cambridge history of Islam, vol. 2, The western Islamic world 11th to 18th centuries, Cambridge, 2011, pp. 301‑312.

Lindner 2009: Lindner R.P., “Anatolia (1300-1451)”, in K. Fleet (ed.), The Cambridge history of Turkey, vol. 1, Byzantium to Turkey (1071-1453), Cambridge, 2009, pp. 102‑137.

Mason & Tite 1994: Mason R.B., Tite M.S., “The beginnings of Islamic stonepaste technology”, Archaeometry 36/1, 1994, pp. 77‑91.

Mason & Tite 1997: Mason R.B., Tite M.S., “The beginnings of tin-opacification of pottery glazes”, Archaeometry 39, 1997, pp. 41‑58.

Mercangöz & Doğer 2009: Mercangöz Z., Doğer L., “Kuşadası Kadıkalesi/Anaia Bizans Sırlı Seramikleri”, in I. ODTÜ Arkeometri Çalıştayı. Türkiye Arkeolojisi’nde Seramik ve Arkeometrik Çalışmaları Prof. Dr. Ufuk Esin Anısına (7‑9 Mayıs 2009, Ankara), Ankara, 2009, pp. 83‑101.

Ocak 2009: Ocak A.Y., “Social, cultural and intellectual life (1071-1453)”, in K. Fleet (ed.), The Cambridge history of Turkey, vol. 1, Byzantium to Turkey (1071-1453), Cambridge, 2009, pp. 353‑422.

Okyar 2010: Okyar F., “A preliminary study of the pottery from a well shaft in Ayasuluk/Ephesos”, in S. Pfeiffer-Taş (ed.), Funde und Befunde aus des Schachtbrunnen im Hamam III in Ayasuluk/Ephesos. Eine schamanistische Bestattung des 15. Jahrhunderts, Archäologische Forschungen 16, Vienna, 2010, pp. 67‑72.

Okyar et al. 2011: Okyar F., Kara A., İssi A., Yaygingöl M., Ünal D., Doğan M., Pfeiffer-Taş S., “A study on medieval pottery from a ceramic kiln remains in Ayasuluk/Ephesus: Compositional and microstructural data”, in S. Pfeiffer-Taș, Reste einer Keramikwerstatt aus dem 14. Jh. in Ayasuluk/Ephesos, Anzeiger der philosophisch-historischen Klasse 146, Vienna, 2011, pp. 155‑178.

Özçatal et al. 2014: Özçatal M., Yaygingöl M., İssi A., Kara A., Turan S., Okyar F., Pfeiffer-Taş S., Nastova I., Grupče O., Minčeva-Šukarova B., “Characterization of lead glazed potteries from Smyrna (Izmir/Turkey) using multiple analytical techniques. Part I: Glaze and engobe”, Ceramics international 40/1, 2014, pp. 2143‑2151.

Özkul Fındık 2001: Özkul Fındık N.Ö., Iznik Roma Tiyatrosu Kazı Buluntuları (1980-1995) Arasındaki Osmanlı Seramikleri, Ankara, 2001.

Özkul Fındık 2003: Özkul Fındık N.Ö., “Turkish glazed pottery”, in C.S. Lightfoot (ed.), Amorium reports, 2, Research papers and technical reports, BAR International series 1170, Oxford, 2003, pp. 105‑118.

Picon et al. 1995: Picon M., Thiriot J., Vallauri L., “Techniques, évolutions et mutations”, in Le vert et le brun. De Kairouan à Avignon, céramiques du xe au xve siècle, Marseille, 1995, pp. 41‑50.

Pradell et al. 2008: Pradell T., Molera J., Smith A.D., Tite M.S., “The invention of lustre: Irak 9th and 10th centuries AD”, Journal of archaeological science 35, 2008, pp. 1201‑1215.

Rheidt 1991: Rheidt K., Die Byzantinische Wohnstadt, t. 2, Altertümer von Pergamon XV, Berlin-New York, 1991.

Sauer & Waksman 2005: Sauer R., Waksman S.Y., “Laboratory investigations of selected medieval sherds from the Artemision in Ephesus”, in F. Krinzinger (ed.), Spätantike und Mittelalterliche Keramik aus Ephesos, Archäologische Forschungen 13, Vienna, 2005, pp. 51‑66.

Scott & Kamilli 1981: Scott J.A., Kamilli D., “Late Byzantine glazed pottery from Sardis”, in Actes du XVe Congrès international des études byzantines (Athènes, 1976), vol. 2, Athens, 1981, pp. 679‑696.

Spieser 1996: Spieser J.‑M., Die Byzantinische Keramik aus der Stadtgrabung von Pergamon, Pergamenische Forschungen 9, Berlin-New York, 1996.

Thiriot 1997: Thiriot J., “Les fours pour la préparation des glaçures dans le monde méditerranéen”, in G. Démians d’Archimbaud (ed.), La céramique médiévale en Méditerranée. Actes du VIe congrès de l’AIECM2 (Aix-en-Provence, 13‑18 novembre 1995), Aix-en-Provence, 1997, pp. 243‑260.

Tite et al. 1998: Tite M.S., Freestone I.A., Mason R.B., Molera J., Vendrell-Saz M., Wood N., “Lead glazes in Antiquity: Methods of production and reasons for use”, Archaeometry 40/2, 1998, pp. 241‑260.

Tite et al. 2011: Tite M.S., Wolf S., Mason R.B., “The technical development of stonepaste ceramics from the Islamic Middle East”, Journal of archaeological science 38, 2011, pp. 570‑580.

Tite et al. 2015: Tite M.S., Watson O., Pradell T., Matin M., Molina G., Domoney K., Bouquillon A., “Revisiting the beginnings of tin-opacified Islamic glazes”, Journal of archaeological science 57, 2015, pp. 80‑91.

Trépanier 2014: Trépanier N., Foodways and daily life in medieval Anatolia: A new social history, Austin, 2014.

Uysal 2013: Uysal A.O., “Akköy. Un centre de céramique peu connu à l’époque des beylicats”, in F. Hitzel (ed.), 14th International Congress of Turkish Art (Paris, 19‑21 September 2011), Paris, 2013, pp. 831‑839.

Vroom 2005: Vroom J., “Medieval pottery from the Artemision in Ephesus: Imports and locally produced wares”, in F. Krinzinger (ed.), Spätantike und Mittelalterliche Keramik aus Ephesos, Archäologische Forschungen 13, Vienna, 2005, pp. 17‑49.

Vroom 2018: Vroom J., “Bright finds, big city: Medieval ceramics from old and recent excavations in Ephesus (Turkey)”, in F. Yenişehirlioğlu (ed.), Proceedings of the XIth Congress AIECM3 on Medieval and Modern Period Mediterranean Ceramics (Antalya, 19‑24 October 2015), vol. 1, Ankara, 2018, pp. 383‑396.

Vroom 2019: Vroom J., “Medieval Ephesus as a production and consumption centre”, in S. Ladstätter, P. Magdalino (ed.), Ephesus from Late Antiquity to the Later Middle Ages. Proceedings of the International Conference at the Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations, Koç University, Istanbul, 30th November-2nd December 2012, Österreichishes Archäologisches Institut Band 58, Vienna, 2019, pp. 231‑253.

Vroom & Fındık 2015: Vroom J., Fındık E., “The pottery finds”, in S. Ladstätter (ed.), Die Türbe im Artemision. Ein frühosmanischer Grabbau in Ayasuluk/Selçuk und sein kulturhistorisches Umfeld, Sonderschriften des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 53, Vienna, 2015, pp. 205‑292.

Waksman 1995: Waksman S.Y., Les céramiques byzantines des fouilles de Pergame. Caractérisation des productions locales et importées par l’analyse élémentaire par les méthodes PIXE et INAA et par pétrographie, PhD, University of Strasbourg, 1995 (unpublished).

Waksman 2005: Waksman S.Y., “À propos de quelques analyses élémentaires de glaçures de céramiques byzantines médiévales”, in M. Schvoerer, C. Ney, P. Peduto (ed.), Décor de lustre métallique et céramique glaçurée, Scienze e materiali del patrimonio culturale 7, Ravello, 2005, pp. 83‑89.

Waksman 2014: Waksman S.Y., “Long-term pottery production and chemical reference groups: Examples from medieval western Turkey”, in H. Meyza (ed.), Late Hellenistic to Medieval fine wares of the Aegean coast of Anatolia: Their production, imitation and use, Warsaw, 2014, pp. 107‑125.

Waksman 2015: Waksman S.Y. in collaboration with Carytsiotis M.‑M., “Medieval ceramics from the Türbe excavations in Ephesos/Ayasuluk: An archaeometric viewpoint”, in S. Ladstätter (ed.), Die Türbe im Artemision. Ein frühosmanischer Grabbau in Ayasuluk/Selçuk und sein kulturhistorisches Umfeld, Sonderschriften des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 53, Vienna, 2015, pp. 293‑311.

Waksman & Spieser 1997: Waksman S.Y., Spieser J.‑M., “Byzantine ceramics excavated in Pergamon: Archaeological classification and characterization of the local and imported productions by PIXE and INAA elemental analysis, mineralogy and petrography”, in H. Maguire (ed.), Materials analysis of Byzantine pottery, Washington DC, 1997, pp. 105‑133.

Waksman et al. 1996: Waksman S.Y., Rossini I., Heitz C., “Byzantine Pergamon: Characterization of the ceramics production centre”, in S. Demirci, A.M. Özer, G.D. Summers (ed.), Archaeometry 94: The proceedings of the 29th International Symposium on Archaeometry, Ankara, 1996, pp. 209‑218.

Waksman et al. 2017: Waksman S.Y., Burlot J., Böhlendorf-Arslan B., Vroom J., “Moulded wares production in the Early Turkish/Beylik period in western Anatolia: A case study from Ephesus and Miletus”, Journal of archaeological science: Reports 16, 2017, pp. 665‑675 (dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.11.015, accessed 10/12/2019).

Yılmaz 2014: Yılmaz G., “Ayasuluk Kalesi ve St. Jean Anıtı Kazılarinda Bulunan Seramikler”, in M. Acara Eser, E. Bilget Fataha, G. Koyun (ed.), XVI. Ortaçağ-Türk Dönemi Kazıları ve Sanat Tarihi Araştırmaları Sempozyumu Bildirileri, 18‑20 Ekim 2012 / Proceedings of the XVIth Symposium of medieval-Turkish era excavations and art history researches (18‑20th October 2012), Sivas, 2014, pp. 863‑871.

Notes

1 Different areas were excavated in Ayasuluk/Ephesus by the Austrian Archaeological Institute over many years and the pottery of our corpus comes from excavations carried out in the sectors of the Artemision, of the Türbe near the Artemision, of the former Roman tribune and of the İsa Bey Hamam. The Byzantine-Turkish Wares from these excavations have been studied by J. Vroom and her team from Leiden University, and by Vroom and Fındık (Vroom 2005; Vroom & Fındık 2015). At Balat/Miletus, the pottery studied was discovered during excavations carried out by the German Archaeological Institute, especially in the area surrounding the Roman theatre, from which the medieval ceramics were recently reconsidered by B. Böhlendorf-Arslan (Böhlendorf-Arslan 2004; 2008). The material from Pergamon was also found during excavations led by the German Archaeological Institute, particularly in the sector of the Byzantine city (Rheidt 1991). The Byzantine wares from Pergamon were mainly studied by J.‑M. Spieser and S.Y. Waksman (Waksman 1995; Spieser 1996). Concerning the pottery examples from Sardis, they were discovered during excavations carried out by Harvard University, and the studies of the Late Byzantine and Turkish pottery were carried out by H. Crane and J.A. Scott in the 1980’s (Scott & Kamilli 1981; Crane 1987).

2 We will not focus on details here, in particular as to the precise nature of the various inclusions observed in these glazes, the identification of which may provide information concerning the raw materials used by the potters (Burlot 2017).

3 Three other samples less marginal to the same group are noticeable (fig. 3, tabl. 1: BZN 70, BZY933, BZY965).

4 The terms c/4 and b/2 correspond to the names of Ephesus groups in Waksman (2014; 2015) and Waksman et al. 2017.

5 The results presented here on Glazed Moulded Wares also apply to their unglazed – and predominant – version, as shown in a previous study focusing on this type (Waksman et al. 2017).

6 Based on the chemical compositions of a tripod stilt from Sardis (BZN 68), and of common wares of the Archaic period found in Sardis and studied in Lyon by P. Dupont. We would like to thank him for the information.

7 In figure 5b, all the Late Byzantine Wares irrespective of the colour of their glazes are represented by the same symbol (green triangles); on the other hand, in the case of Turquoise Glazed Wares having a yellow glaze covering the external side, both glazes are represented by different symbols (blue and red triangles, respectively).

8 For a more detailed presentation of their chemical features see Burlot (2017).

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1 – Location of the sites investigated (in red) (CAD: J. Burlot).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/10249/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 294k
Titre Fig. 2 – Examples of samples representative of the four types considered (with indication of their chemical group).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/10249/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,7M
Légende (a) Glazed Wares of the Late Byzantine period (Pergamon, local production); (b) Polychrome Sgraffito Wares (BZY913, BZY957: Ephesus local c/4; BZY962: Ephesus region b/2; BZN 74, BZN135, BZN152, BZY433, BZY776: “Pergame F”); (c) Moulded Wares (BZN 70, BZY932, BZY934: Ephesus local c/4; BZY931, BZY956: Ephesus region b/2); (d) Turquoise Glazed Wares (BZY365, BZY366, BZY906, BZY907: Ephesus region b/2) (Pictures: S.Y. Waksman; Drawings: S.Y. Waksman, J. Burlot, C. Brun and excavations teams; CAD: J. Burlot, C. Brun).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/10249/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 2,3M
Titre Tabl. 1 – Chemical compositions of the body of pottery samples of the types under study found in Ephesus, Miletus, Pergamon and Sardis, ranked as in the classification figure 3.In the case of the Ephesus and Miletus groups, means (m) and standard deviations (σ) were re-calculated, taking into account samples belonging to the same productions published in previous studies (Sauer and Waksman 2005; Waksman 2014; 2015; Waksman et al. 2017). Major and minor elements are given in oxides weight %, trace elements in ppm (part per million); n: number of samples. Elements not taken into account in the classification are indicated between brackets, asterisks indicate values not taken into account in the calculation of m and σ.
Légende Tabl. 1 (1/3)
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/10249/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 684k
Légende Tabl. 1 (2/3)
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/10249/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 769k
Légende Tabl. 1 (3/3)
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/10249/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 176k
Titre Tabl. 2 – Semi-quantitative SEM-EDS analysis of the glazes, in wt.%. Samples are classified typologically (ins.: inside; out.: outside; Eph. Loc.: Ephesus local [c/4]; Perg. Loc.: Pergamon local; Mil. Loc.: Miletus local; Eph. Reg.: Ephesus region [b/2]; Perg. F.: “Pergame F”).
Légende Tabl. 2 (1/3)
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/10249/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 150k
Légende Tabl. 2 (2/3)
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/10249/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 460k
Légende Tabl. 2 (3/3)
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/10249/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 167k
Titre Fig. 3 – Classification, according to the chemical compositions of their bodies, of pottery samples of the different types and sites under study.
Légende The same classification is shown twice, with colours and symbols highlighting either the types (below), or the findspots and the reference samples used to identify the productions local to the sites (above). The main chemical groups are underlined, their names refer to previous studies (Waksman 1995; 2014; 2015; Waksman et al. 2017; classification based on the concentrations of 17 elements, see tabl. 1) (S.Y. Waksman).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/10249/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 896k
Titre Fig. 4 – Images, based on the chemical contrast (SEM, BSE mode), of cross sections of wares showing the different categories of glazes and slips.
Légende (a) Transparent high lead glaze (sample BZY933: Ephesus local c/4); (b) tin-opacified turquoise lead-alkali glaze (sample BZY365: Ephesus region b/2); (c) and (d) slips with a clayey matrix exhibiting a lamellar microstructure oriented horizontally and inclusions of various shapes (respectively samples BZY932: Ephesus local c/4 and BZY931: Ephesus region b/2); (e) slip with a clayey matrix having a significant degree of vitrification and inclusions featuring more blurred edges (sample EY-118: Pergamon, local production); (f) slip with great density of rounded inclusions (sample BZY775: “Pergame F”) (gl: glaze; ws: white slip; cb: ceramic body; cass. incl.: cassiterite inclusions) (Pictures: J. Burlot).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/10249/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,5M
Titre Fig. 5 – Binary diagram showing PbO vs. alkali contents (Na2O + K2O) in the glazes: (a) samples are represented by symbols according to the production they belong to; (b) samples are represented by symbols according to their typology.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/10249/img-12.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 459k

Auteurs

Université Lumière Lyon 2, UMR 5138 “Archéologie et Archéométrie”, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 7 rue Raulin, 69365 Lyon cedex 7, France, jacques.burlot@hotmail.fr

Philipps University, Christian Archaeology and Byzantine Art History Dept., Biegenstr. 11, D‑35037 Marburg, Germany, boehlendorf@uni-marburg.de

Acheter

Volume papier

LCDPUleslibraires.fr
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search