Crossing the Cultural Divide? Continuity in Ceramic Production and Consumption between the Almoravid...

This article was downloaded by: [University of California, San Diego]On: 21 March 2013, At: 12:04Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Al-Masaq: Islam and the MedievalMediterraneanPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/calm20

Crossing the Cultural Divide?Continuity in Ceramic Production andConsumption between the Almoravidand Mudéjar Periods in SevilleRebecca Bridgman in collaboration with , Pina López Torres &Manuel Vera ReinaVersion of record first published: 24 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Rebecca Bridgman in collaboration with , Pina López Torres & Manuel VeraReina (2009): Crossing the Cultural Divide? Continuity in Ceramic Production and Consumptionbetween the Almoravid and Mudéjar Periods in Seville, Al-Masaq: Islam and the MedievalMediterranean, 21:1, 13-29

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09503110802704395

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/calm20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09503110802704395

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Al-Masaq, Vol. 21, No. 1, April 2009

Crossing the Cultural Divide? Continuity in CeramicProduction and Consumption between the Almoravidand Mudejar Periods in Seville

REBECCA BRIDGMAN IN COLLABORATION WITH

PINA LOPEZ TORRES AND MANUEL VERA REINA

ABSTRACT This paper examines the production and consumption of a table ware bowl,

known as an ataifor, between the sixth/twelfth and eighth/fourteenth centuries in Seville.

During this period, al-Andalus underwent great political change with the Berber invasions

followed less than 200 years later, in most areas, by the Christian Reconquista.

Documentary sources suggest that in the case of Seville, this dynamic political situation led

to substantial social upheaval. However, recent research, encompassing material culture

studies, had led us to question the extent of this upheaval. Here, results of a preliminary

study into the ataifor indicate a lesser degree of social change in the city during the sixth/

twelfth to eighth/fourteenth centuries than previously understood.

Keywords: Al-Andalus; Social change; Ceramic production/consumption; Ataifor

Introduction

Seville was ruled by three different political regimes from the sixth/twelfth to eighth/

fourteenth centuries, which can be broadly categorized as Almoravid, Almohad and

Christian or Mudejar. The Almoravid era was short-lived,1 ending in Seville in

541/1147 with the Almohad invasions.2 Almohad Caliphs then retained power in

the city until 625/1228. However, urban leaders of Seville remained largely

affiliated to this North African regime until the Christian Reconquista in 645/1248,3

when the Mudejar period began. For the purposes of this study, it is important to

note that documentary sources suggest that the latter periods of political upheaval,

in particular, were accompanied by significant changes in the society of this city.

For example, according to written evidence, in 645/1248, the city was forcibly

Correspondence: Rebecca Bridgman, Department of Applied Arts, Fitzwilliam Museum, Trumpington

Street, Cambridge, CB2 1RB, UK. E-mail: [email protected]

1M.J. Viguera Molıns, ‘‘Historia Polıtica’’, in Historia de Espana. El Retroceso Territorial de al-Andalus:

Almoravides y Almohades. Siglos XI al XIII, ed. R. Menedez Pidal, volume VIII (Madrid: Espasa Calpe

S.A., 1997), pp. 50–59.2M.J. Viguera Molıns, ‘‘The last century of Islamic Seville: 1147-1248’’, in Sevilla Almohade, eds

M. Valor Piechotta and A. Tahiri (Seville: University of Seville, Junta de Andalucıa, 1999), pp. 242–244.3Ibid., 244.

ISSN 0950–3110 print/ISSN 1473–348X online/09/010013-17 � 2009 Society for the Medieval Mediterranean

DOI: 10.1080/09503110802704395

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

12:

04 2

1 M

arch

201

3

abandoned by its Muslim inhabitants and repopulated by Christian conquerors

from the north of the Peninsula.4 Sources also indicate that changes in society were

not limited to the advent of new rulers. Events such as the expulsion of Mudejars

from Seville, following the uprising in 662/1264,5 undoubtedly also resulted in a

degree of dynamism within the population of the city.

Clearly, there was social change in Seville during the sixth/twelfth to eighth/

fourteenth centuries; nevertheless it is important to question the extent of these

changes. In recent years new disciplines, such as archaeology, have provided

additional evidence which facilitates a questioning of the written sources, on

subjects such as social changes in Seville following the Reconquista. For example,

studies of ceramic production from Islamic to Christian periods in both the south-

east and south-west of the Iberian Peninsula suggest continuity of techniques into

the Mudejar period.6 This continuity indicates that the potters themselves, or at

least their technical knowledge, survived.

An examination of ceramic production and consumption can help further our

understanding of society, if we consider that people in the past mediated their social

relationships through the material culture they made and used.7 Social change,

such as that cited by the written sources following the Reconquista in Seville, may

visibly impact on pottery production and consumption in two ways. Firstly,

alternative dining or cooking methods may be introduced by new inhabitants

resulting in the need for a novel range of vessel forms. Secondly, craftsmen may be

brought to the city to produce these new vessel forms, using alternative techniques

to those previously employed. These changes in pottery consumption and

production can be studied through evolving vessel form and by analysing the way

in which the pot is made. However, caution must be observed in interpreting

information from ceramic material as other forces, such as change in location or

organisation of kiln sites, may also have affected production. It is important,

therefore, to examine the context of pottery production as well as consumption,

when interpreting results of ceramic analysis.

This study represents a small collaborative project, which provides an initial

examination of a table ware bowl, known as the ataifor. Vessels examined here were

recovered from excavated contexts in Seville dating between the sixth/twelfth to

eighth/fourteenth centuries and beyond. This study examined the clay body

(hereafter fabric) and form of this vessel type, in an attempt to understand how

pottery was made and used in the city at this time. The aim of this analysis was to

4A. Collantes de Teran, Sevilla en la Baja Edad Media (Seville: Servicio de Publicaciones del Excmo.

Ayuntamiento, 1984), pp. 68–69.5M.A. Ladero Quesada, La Cuidad Medieval (1248–1492), 3rd edn (Seville: Grafitres, S.L., 1989).6For south-eastern al-Andalus, see J. Molera, T. Pradell, L. Merino, M. Garcıa-Valles, J. Garcıa-

Orellana, N. Salvado and M. Vendrell-Saz, ‘‘La tecnologıa de la ceramica Islamica y Mudejar’’,

Caesaraugusta, 73 (1997): 15–41. For south-western al-Andalus, see C. Gomez Martin and D. Oliva

Alonso, ‘‘Perduracion del sistema de trabajo hispano-musulman en el mudejar: elementos auxiliares del

horno de alfarero en la Sevilla del siglo XIII’’, in Actas del I Congreso de Arqueologia Medieval Espanola

(Aragon: Actas del I Congreso de Arqueologıa Medieval Espanola, 1986), volume I, pp. 494–503.7For perspectives on the production of material culture, see M.-A. Dobres, Technology and Social Agency.

Outlining a Practice Framework for Archaeology (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000). For perspectives on the

consumption of material culture see A. Appadurai, ‘‘Introduction: Commodities and the politics

of value’’, in The Social Life of Things, ed. A. Appadurai (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1986), pp. 3–53.

14 Rebecca Bridgman et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

12:

04 2

1 M

arch

201

3

further understanding of the social change that took place in Seville following the

political upheavals of the sixth/twelfth and seventh/thirteenth centuries.

Pottery production in Seville

An understanding of changes in ceramic production is important to the

interpretation of any pottery assemblage. Current knowledge allows us to illustrate

the movement of principal centres of ceramic manufacture, in and around the city8

(Figure 1). This displacement of kilns, in common with social change in Seville

during the sixth/twelfth to eighth/fourteenth centuries, can be associated largely

with political upheaval. As a result, although the movement of kilns provides

additional explanation for change in pottery form or fabric, any such movement has

the same root cause as any differences brought about by varying social dynamics.

For the purposes of this paper, the forms of ataifor vessels studied are assumed to be

produced at kilns in or around Seville.9

The most important change in pottery production during the sixth/twelfth to

eighth/fourteenth centuries in Seville took place in the Almohad period. At this

time, the city’s principal kilns moved from the east to the west bank of the River

Guadalquivir, probably primarily as a result of the expansion and reform of the city

under the Almohad regime.10 However, the site of re-location must also have been

influenced by an alteration in the course of the river, which facilitated construction

in an area previously uninhabitable due to flooding, known as ‘La Cartuja’.

Although other smaller kiln sites existed closer to the intra-mural area during the

Almohad period,11 those at ‘La Cartuja’ were probably the largest and most

important examples. Following the Reconquista, it is important to note that large-

scale ceramic production remained on the west bank of the river, although it

re-located to the area of Triana.12 The destruction of extra-mural areas and the

foundation of a monastery at the site of ‘La Cartuja’ were probably influential

factors in the displacement of pottery manufacture following the Christian

conquest.13

To summarise, the changing location of principal urban kiln sites apparently

coincided with, and was influenced by, the dynamic political situation in Seville

between the sixth/twelfth and eighth/fourteenth centuries. The following sections

will assess whether dislocation of kiln sites, in addition to social change, had a

measurable effect on ceramic production.

8M. Vera Reina and P. Lopez Torres, La ceramica medieval sevillana (siglos XII al XIV). La produccion

trianera. [British Archaeological Reports. International Series; 1403] (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2005),

pp. 29–32.9Further work examining ceramic production in Almohad Seville, soon to be published by the author,

confirms this assumption.10M. Valor Piechotta, ‘‘De Hispalis a Isbiliya’’, in Edades de Sevilla: Hispalis, Isbiliya, Sevilla, ed. M. Valor

Piechotta (Seville: Ayuntamiento de Sevilla, 2002), pp. 41–58.11N. Camina Otero and F. Gamarra Salas, ‘‘Informe preliminar de la intervencion: excavacion

arqueologica de urgencia en Avenida de Roma y Calle General Sanjurjo de Sevilla’’, unpublished report,

Seville, 2003, pp. 71–72.12Vera Reina and Lopez Torres, La ceramica medieval sevillana, 29–32.13Ibid.

Crossing the Cultural Divide? 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

12:

04 2

1 M

arch

201

3

Pottery – the ‘ataifor’

It has been suggested above that the movement of kiln sites could influence ceramic

production. However, any variation in the manufacture of pottery vessels is more

commonly regarded as a response to the demands of the people that used them.14

FIGURE 1. Location of Roman and Medieval ceramic kilns.

14H. Blake, ‘‘Technology, supply or demand?’’, Medieval Ceramics, 4 (1982): 3–12.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

12:

04 2

1 M

arch

201

3

Ceramics are viewed as an excellent indicator of change or continuity within

society.15 Reasons behind demand for new types of pottery vessels are linked to

changes in society, such as the introduction of novel dinning or cooking habits by

incoming social groups. This is because food and eating are central to social identity

and so can be used to distinguish between different cultural groups.16

Archaeological studies, such as those by Vroom, have demonstrated the association

between changing vessel shape or size and new dinning habits introduced by

invading populations.17

In this study, the ataifor was chosen for examination as it is a form used at the

table, and so would have been particularly susceptible to any change in dinning

habits. Samples were taken from a range of ataifor forms from the excavated site of

San Jorge, Triana. This site was chosen owing to the large number of complete

vessels recovered, facilitating easy identification of specific form types examined

here. The ceramic typology from medieval contexts of San Jorge has been studied in

detail by Pina Lopez Torres.18 Furthermore, Manuel Vera Reina has interpreted

archaeological evidence, indicating a range of activities from funerary to ceramic

production, which took place at San Jorge from the sixth/twelfth to eighth/

fourteenth centuries.19

Examination of ataifor typology suggests that the usage of certain vessel forms

continued during the sixth/twelfth to eighth/fourteenth centuries. In contrast, the

usage of other forms of this same vessel type, were either limited to the period of

North African rule, or appear uniquely in the Almohad and Christian periods.20

Despite the mixed picture of continuity and change in vessel form, their size

remained large, indicating similar communal dining traditions existed throughout

the period examined here (see Table 1).

The only exception is Almoravid form XIIA, which is slightly smaller than the

others. These predominantly large ataifor bowls would have contained food for

more than one person and were probably placed in a central position in the table.21

Table 1. Rim diameters of ataifor vessel types included in this study.

Ataifor form Period used Diameter (cm)

IV Almoravid – Almohad 19V Almoravid – Almohad 25–30I Almoravid – Mudejar 18–24XIIA Almoravid 13XIII Mudejar 25XII Almoravid – Mudejar 23–37VIII Almohad – Mudejar 23–30

Note: See Vera Reina and Lopez Torres, La ceramica medieval sevillana, 66–82,for form numbers, dates and measurements.

15C.M. Sinopoli, Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics (New York: Plenum Press), pp. 119–140.16R.C. Wood, The Sociology of the Meal (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1995), pp. 1–45.17J. Vroom, ‘‘Byzantine garlic and Turkish delight: Dining habits and cultural change in central Greece

from Byzantine to Ottoman times’’, Archaeological Dialogues, 7.2 (2000): 199–216.18Vera Reina and Lopez Torres, La ceramica medieval sevillana, 41–280.19Ibid., 15–28.20Ibid., 66–82.21A. Gutierrez, ‘‘Cheapish and Spanish. Meaning and design on imported Spanish pottery’’, Medieval

Ceramics, 21 (1997): 73–81.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

12:

04 2

1 M

arch

201

3

It is possible to conclude, therefore, that there are signs of continuity of use of bowls

with a large diameter, despite the slight changes in profiles, between the sixth/

twelfth and eighth/fourteenth centuries.

Analysis of ceramic fabric

In this section, the clay fabric of ataifor vessels is examined in conjunction with the

form typology, in order to identify any possible changes or continuity in ceramic

production between the sixth/twelfth and eighth/fourteenth centuries in Seville.

A. Methodology

It is broadly acknowledged, that techniques and knowledge of pottery production

were embedded within society22 and transmitted only to members of a distinct

social group.23 If these hypotheses are accepted, then the preparation and mixing of

clays to produce pottery may be used as an additional indicator of any changes

within society.

Pottery from sixth/twelfth to eighth/fourteenth century contexts in Seville was

most probably made from alluvial clay deposits found on the banks of the River

Guadalquivir. Evidence of clay extraction from these deposits has been identified in

the form of pits, excavated in the vicinity of kilns at the ceramic production site of

‘La Cartuja’.24 The mixing and working of these raw clays to produce material that

could be made into ceramic vessels is well attested in the Medieval Period.

For example, scientific analysis of materials recovered from Medieval Denia has

indicated that vessels were produced from more than one clay type.25 Further

evidence of these techniques can be observed in the Middle East, where potters

working in the Medieval Period changed the ‘recipe’ for the production of the clay

body of high quality glazed vessels over time, in order to improve the quality of

these pieces. 26

It was considered important to examine the fabric of vessels during this project,

given this evidence for the preparation of clay as an important preliminary stage of

ceramic production and the hypotheses concerning the transmission of knowledge

of such processes. Samples of the clay fabric of eleven different ataifor forms

recovered from sixth/twelfth to eighth/fourteenth centuries contexts at the site of

San Jorge, Triana were subjected to scientific analysis. It should be noted, that this

odd number of samples is not significant but is simply representative of the quantity

of vessels forms available for study. A technique known as ceramic petrology was

22B. Sillar, ‘‘Dung by preference: The choice of fuel as an example of how Andean pottery production is

embedded within wider technical, social and economic practices’’, Archaeometry, 42.1 (2000): 43–60.23V. Kilikoglou, G. Vekinis, Y. Maniatis and P.M. Day, ‘‘Mechanical performance of quartz-tempered

ceramics: Part 1, strength and toughness’’, Archaeometry, 40.2 (1998): 261–279.24F. de Amores Carredano, ‘‘Las alfarerıas Almohades de la Cartuja’’, in El Ultimo siglo de la Sevilla

Islamica (1147–1248), ed. Magdalena Valor Piechotta (Salamanca: University of Seville and Gerencia

Municipal de Urbanismo del Ayuntamiento de Sevilla, 1999), pp. 303–306.25J.A. Gisbert Santonja, ‘‘Los hornos del alfar islamico de la Avda. Montogo/Calle Teulada Casco

Urbano de Denia (Alicante)’’, in Fours Potiers et ‘‘Testares’’ Medievaux in Mediterranee Occidentale [Serie

Archeologie XIII], eds F. Amigues and A. Bazzana (Madrid: La Casa de Velaquez, 1990), pp. 75–91.26R.B. Mason and M.S. Tite, ‘‘The beginnings of Islamic stonepaste technology’’, Archaeometry, 36.1

(1994): 77–91.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

12:

04 2

1 M

arch

201

3

used to analyse vessel fabric. This encompasses a microscopic examination of the

geological elements contained within the clay used to make these vessels.27 In this

way, the clay fabric of a ceramic vessel can be characterized based on observed

geological content. Petrological analysis can be used to assess accurately any

similarities or differences in the fabric of pottery vessels, which may appear identical

to the naked eye. These variations are important in this study because they could

indicate different ceramic manufacturing processes.

B. Results of analysis

Results of petrological analysis indicate the presence of seven different fabric types,

identified from the eleven samples tested. These results are summarised both in

Table 2 and in the illustrations provided. In this section, a synthesis of results is

given, highlighting any important trends. However, it should be noted that the

sample size analysed was small because this represents a pilot study and not a large

project, therefore, caution must be observed in interpreting these results.

Given the small sample size studied, the differentiation of clay fabrics analysed is

not necessarily indicative of overall changes in ceramic production, however the

presence of these distinctions should not be ignored. For example, four distinct

fabric groups (I, II, III, IV) were identified in the same number of Almoravid vessels

(see Figures 2–11). This could be interpreted as a fragmentation of production that

may have occurred when a series of small kiln sites, or several groups of potters,

were making the same ceramic forms, resulting in slight differences in clay fabrics

produced. In contrast, the fabrics of vessels from Almohad and Mudejar contexts

appear more homogeneous, possibly suggesting a more organised and collective

approach to ceramic production. This move towards homogeneity in fabrics

coincides with the re-location of principal ceramic production sites during the

Almohad period, from the east to the west bank of the River Guadalquivir. It seems

probable, therefore, that the re-organisation of kiln sites under the Almohads led to

reforms in production techniques, which then endured into the Mudejar period. It

should be noted, that scientific investigation into ceramic production techniques in

the east of al-Andalus, has also indicated continuity in ceramic manufacture

between these periods.28

Despite the presence of four distinct fabric groups during the Almoravid period,

a limited degree of continuity in ceramic production has been observed between the

Almoravid and later Almohad or Mudejar periods. The similarity of one form type

(Figure 6) and one fabric (Figure 11), with vessels dating to these later periods,

illustrates this limited continuity between the early sixth/twelfth and late seventh/

thirteenth or eighth/fourteenth centuries.

The greatest continuity in terms of both vessel form and fabric was identified in

pottery recovered from Almohad and Mudejar contexts (Figures 12 and 13).

Notably, the most commonly occurring fabric in this study (Group V) was used to

produce the majority of Almohad and Mudejar ataifor examined here (Figure 14).

This continuity in ceramic production is particularly interesting as according to

27For fuller description of this technique, see D.P.S. Peacock, ‘‘The scientific analysis of ancient

ceramics: A review’’, World Archaeology, 1 (1970): 375–389.28J. Molera et al., ‘‘La tecnologıa’’, 15.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

12:

04 2

1 M

arch

201

3

Ta

ble

2.

Su

mm

ary

of

resu

lts

of

petr

olo

gic

al

an

aly

sis.

Sa

mp

len

o.

Sa

mp

led

ate

Fo

rm

no./

typ

eS

urfa

ce

trea

tmen

tF

ab

ric

gro

up

Fa

bric

desc

rip

tio

nw

ith

prin

cip

al

inclu

sio

ns

2092

Alm

ora

vid

IVM

elad

ogla

zeI

Fin

e,gre

yfa

bri

cw

ith

wel

lso

rted

incl

usi

on

sm

easu

rin

g<

0.5

mm

insi

ze.

Qu

art

z(1

0%

),L

imes

ton

e(5

%),

Mu

scovit

eM

ica

(2%

),F

eld

spar

(1–2%

)y

fragm

ents

of

Gra

nit

e(1

%).

See

Box

1.

2090

Alm

ora

vid

VM

elad

ogla

zeII

Fin

e,gre

yfa

bri

cw

ith

mod

erate

lyw

ellso

rted

incl

usi

on

sm

easu

rin

g.

Ch

ara

cter

ised

by

pel

lets

of

red

iron

oxid

e,m

easu

rin

gu

pto

5m

min

size

,cl

earl

yvis

ible

inh

an

dsp

ecim

en.

Oth

erin

clu

sion

sare

mu

chsm

aller

,m

easu

rin

g<

0.3

mm

,in

clu

din

g:

Qu

art

z(1

5%

),M

usc

ovit

eM

ica

(2%

),L

imes

ton

e(1

%),

fragm

ents

de

Gra

nit

e(1

%)

an

dC

her

t(1

%).

See

Box

2

2094

Alm

ora

vid

IG

reen

gla

zeII

IF

ine,

bu

ffco

lou

red

fab

ric

wit

hw

ell

sort

edin

clu

sion

sm

easu

rin

g<

0.4

mm

.Q

uart

z(7

%),

Bio

tite

Mic

a(3

%),

Lim

esto

ne

(1%

),F

eld

spar

(1%

),fr

agm

ents

of

Gra

nit

ey

San

dst

on

e(<

1%

),Ir

on

oxid

e(2

%).

See

Box

3.

499

Mu

deja

rI

Wh

ite

gla

zeV

IF

ine

bu

ffco

lou

red

fab

ric

wit

ha

wel

lso

rted

,sm

all

incl

usi

on

sm

easu

rin

g<

0.2

mm

.Q

uart

z(7

%),

Lim

esto

ne

(10%

),B

ioti

teM

ica

(10%

)fr

agm

ents

of

Met

am

orp

hic

rock

,su

chas

Phyllit

e(1

%).

Asi

milar

fab

ric

was

pro

du

ced

inS

eville

du

rin

gth

eA

lmoh

ad

per

iod

ina

vari

ety

of

form

s.S

eeB

ox

3.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

12:

04 2

1 M

arch

201

3

2096

Alm

oh

ad

XII

Mel

ad

ogla

zeIV

Tw

osi

milar

fab

rics

are

both

fin

e,ligh

tre

din

colo

ur

wit

hw

ell

sort

edin

clu

sion

sm

easu

rin

g<

0.4

mm

.Q

uart

z(1

5–20%

),B

ioti

teM

ica

(7–10%

),L

imes

ton

e(1

–5%

),F

eld

spar

(1–2%

),fr

agm

ents

of

Gra

nit

e(<

1%

)y

San

dst

on

e(<

1%

).S

eeB

ox

4.

494

Mu

deja

rX

III

Wh

ite

gla

zeIV

2921b

Alm

oh

ad

VII

IM

elad

ogla

zeV

Fin

ere

dfa

bri

c,ty

pic

alofce

ram

icp

rod

uct

ion

inS

eville

,p

art

icu

larl

yin

the

Alm

oh

ad

an

dM

ud

eja

rp

erio

ds.

Incl

usi

on

sare

on

lysi

ngle

space

d,

mod

erate

lyso

rted

an

dm

easu

reb

etw

een

0.2

–0.9

mm

.T

hey

enco

mp

ass

ah

eter

ogen

eou

sco

llec

tion

of

rock

fragm

ents

an

dm

iner

als

incl

ud

ing:

Qu

art

z(1

5–20%

)B

ioti

teM

ica

(5–10%

),L

imes

ton

e(1

–3%

)F

eld

spar

an

dIr

on

oxid

e(1

–2%

),fr

agm

ents

of

Gra

nit

ic,

Sed

imen

tary

an

dM

etam

orp

hic

rock

s,fo

rex

am

ple

Phyllit

e(<

1%

).S

eeB

ox

5.

3225

Alm

oh

ad

XII

Mel

ad

ogla

zeV

629

Mu

deja

rX

IIM

elad

ogla

zeV

3250

Mu

deja

rX

IIM

elad

ogla

zeV

867

Mu

deja

rF

oot

rin

gb

ase

Wh

ite

gla

zew

ith

stam

ped

dec

ora

tion

VII

Fin

eb

uff

colo

ure

dfa

bri

cw

ith

wel

lso

rted

incl

usi

on

sm

easu

rin

g<

0.5

mm

.C

on

tain

sla

rge

qu

an

titi

esof

seco

nd

ary

calc

ite

(30%

),oth

erp

rin

cip

al

incl

usi

on

sare

Qu

art

z(7

%)

Lim

esto

ne

(2%

)B

ioti

tean

dM

usc

ovit

eM

ica

(5%

),F

eld

spar

(2%

)y

fragm

ents

of

Gra

nit

e(<

1%

)S

eeB

ox

6.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

12:

04 2

1 M

arch

201

3

BO

X1.

Note

:In

form

ati

on

con

cern

ing

the

dati

ng

of

vess

elfo

rms

inth

efo

llow

ing

figu

res

ista

ken

from

Ver

aR

ein

aan

dL

op

ezT

orr

es,

La

cera

mic

am

edie

val

sevilla

na.

Illu

stra

ted

ves

sel

form

sare

rep

rod

uce

dh

ere

wit

hth

ekin

dp

erm

issi

on

of

Pin

aL

op

ezT

orr

esan

dM

an

uel

Ver

aR

ein

a.

All

ph

oto

gra

ph

sw

ere

taken

by

the

au

thor.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

12:

04 2

1 M

arch

201

3

BO

X2.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

12:

04 2

1 M

arch

201

3

BO

X3.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

12:

04 2

1 M

arch

201

3

BO

X4.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

12:

04 2

1 M

arch

201

3

BO

X5.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

12:

04 2

1 M

arch

201

3

BO

X6.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

12:

04 2

1 M

arch

201

3

documentary sources, there were significant political and subsequent social changes

occurring in the city at this time.

Evidence of continuing ceramic production techniques, may suggest that the

same groups of potters were been working in Seville during the last years of the

Almohad regime and the early years of the Reconquista. We should be cautious,

however, in leaping to conclusions concerning continuity in society during the

sixth/twelfth to eighth/fourteenth centuries in Seville. The clay fabric of the

remaining two vessels from the Mudejar contexts (Group VI, see Figure 8 and

Group VII, see Figure 16) cannot be paralleled in any other material examined

here. Furthermore, the production of several Mudejar ataifor vessel forms, included

in this study, is thought to end around the same time as the expulsion of Mudejars

from Seville, following the 662/1264 uprising.29 As a result, certain Mudejar forms

and fabrics (for example Figure 13) cannot necessarily be used as evidence of

continuity of ceramic production from the Almoravid or Almohad periods.

Nevertheless, given the small sample size, it should be noted that negative evidence

of the lack of similarities between the vessels tested here does not necessarily

indicate a change in production techniques. By contrast, positive evidence of

similarity in fabrics between vessels of different date cannot be ignored.

Conclusions

A tentative conclusion can be advanced that there is evidence of continuity in

ceramic production and use of ataifor vessels, recovered from contexts dating to

between the sixth/twelfth and eighth/fourteenth centuries, from the site of

San Jorge, Triana. Factors, such as the displacement of kilns, may have influenced

ceramic production. However, during the turbulent years of the Berber regimes and

the subsequent Christian Reconquista, it would appear possible that a degree of

continuity in society in Seville may have resulted in the relatively limited variation in

pottery forms and fabrics. Clearly, a great deal of caution must be observed in the

interpretation of the evidence presented here due to the small scale and preliminary

nature of this study. Further analysis, of ceramics and other items of material

culture is clearly needed to elucidate this issue and to provide a more balanced

picture than that given by documentary sources alone.

Acknowledgements

My sincere thanks to Manuel Vera Reina and Pina Lopez Torres for their

collaboration on this project and for their permission to analyse pottery from

San Jorge, Triana. I must also thank Dr Fernando Fernandez y Diego Oliva Alonso

of the Museo Arqueologico de Sevilla for their assistance and co-operation in this

project.

A number of people commented on the results of this study, providing much

support and encouragement, they are: Professor Magdalena Valor Piechotta,

Dr Fernando de Amores Carrendano and Pilar Lafuente Ibanez all from the

University of Seville; Rosario Huarte Cambra, who works in team of archaeologists

at the Real Alcazar, Seville. At the University of Southampton, thanks must go to

29Vera Reina and Lopez Torres, La ceramica medieval sevillana, 29–40.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

12:

04 2

1 M

arch

201

3

my supervisor Professor Simon Keay who commented on earlier drafts of the text,

while my advisor Dr David Williams advised on aspects of petrological analysis.

Finally, thanks to Dr Dionisius Agius who encouraged me to organise a session on

ceramics from al-Andalus, of which this paper formed a part, at the International

Medieval Congress in Leeds, 2004.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

12:

04 2

1 M

arch

201

3

Crossing the Cultural Divide? Continuity in Ceramic Production and Consumption between the Almoravid...

Documents

Transcript of Crossing the Cultural Divide? Continuity in Ceramic Production and Consumption between the Almoravid...