Sgraffito pottery in the Ottoman Timișoara “Palanca Mare ...

01 Gaspar new version.inddSgraffito pottery in the Ottoman Timioara “Palanca Mare” suburb—ICAM excavation point (2015 Campaign)
Adriana Gaspar
[email protected]
© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019, Office 415, The Workstation, 15 Paternoster Row, Sheffield, S1 2BX
JIA 6.1 (2019) 1–18 Journal of Islamic Archaeology ISSN (print) 2051-9710 https://doi.org/10.1558/jia.34614 Journal of Islamic Archaeology ISSN (print) 2051-9729
Keywords: Ottoman, Timioara, sgraffito, glazed pottery, social identity, Ottoman archaeology
Rescue excavations conducted at ICAM in Timioara have shed light on a relatively rare pottery type of the Ottoman period. Since the 2015 campaign, great strides have been made in Ottoman period archaeology in Timioara, but little attention has been given to the everyday ceramics of the site. The sgraffito pottery from Timioara represents a distinctive indicator of the mentality and consumption habits of the communities of the Ottoman period. Analysis of this pottery type has shed light on the nature of the various social and economic networks that developed under Ottoman rule. Deriving the multifaceted meanings attached to these sgraffito wares will contribute to the overall history of Timioara during the Ottoman era (16th–17th centuries), and within the context of other archaeological remains it will aid in reconstructing the topographical situation of the town and its social life.
Introduction Timioara is a city located in the western part of Romania. It was developed in a marshy area that was frequently flooded by the two rivers Bega and Timi, which influenced the fortress’s Timioara extension. The topography of its location created a natural division between the castle (the Citadel), the fortified town, and the “extra muros” neighborhoods. During the Otto- man period (1552–1716) Timioara was the most extensive and significant sancak and center of the vilayet with the same name, which was founded in 1552 and was of particular importance to the Ottoman Empire due to its strategic position as a northern point of contact with Christian Europe. When Ottoman rule ended in 1716, the new Austrian administration leveled every- thing, leaving space for the construction of a new fortification.
Data of archaeological significance was collected beginning in 2006 due to urban interven- tions in Timioara that are still in place today. While nothing structural from the Ottoman period remains standing, there are remains from foundations and the street network, as well as a huge quantity of artifacts. This study examines the material culture from these contexts, with a special focus on the glazed pottery distinguished by its distinct form and style of decoration. These include bowls on a low ring foot of reddish and siliceous fabric with sgraffito motifs,
2 Sgraffito Pottery in the Ottoman Timioara “Palanca Mare” Suburb
© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2019
including pointed leaves, spirals, and winding lines on a monochrome background, or green and brown-painted designs under a transparent glaze. These wares are of high quality, perhaps as a result of the administrative and military importance of Timioara to the Ottoman Empire. These products belong to a larger network of connections in the Balkan provinces and across the Mediterranean, especially in Cyprus. They have largely been dated to the 16th century (or later) contexts and their chromatics and motifs are based on the traditional Byzantine products. It is a tradition of craftsmanship that has survived the test of time, as demonstrated by ethnographic studies in northern Romania where the sgraffito technique is still utilized.
Archaeology in Timisoara
Recent archaeological research of the expanded areas in Timioara since 2006 has yielded spec- tacular results. The research was conducted concomitantly with development projects of the city’s infrastructure and included some of the areas occupied by the former medieval fortress of Timioara. This brought to light architectural elements from the earlier occupation levels, including the defensive system, foundations of mosques, a bath, large-scale building substruc- tures, several burial tombs, households, a water supply system with wells, and pits for various uses (Draovean et al. 2007; Flutur et al. 2014; Szentmiklosi et al. 2015; Micle et al. 2015; Diaco- nescu et al. 2016; Draovean, Suciu 2016; Szentmiklosi et al. 2016; Micle et al. 2017). Most of the discoveries were dated to the Ottoman era (1552–1716) and were cross-referenced with the relevant textual sources and maps from this period (Opri 2007).1
The approximate limits of the Ottoman fortress were determined based on Perette’s map from 1716. As such, excavations were concentrated in the perimeter of the fortified town, with some exploration of the two suburbs, “Palanca Mare” or the Rascian town and “Palanca Mic” (Opri 2007, 34–35).2 The archaeological items were numerous and included prehistorical ceramics (Bozu et al. 2015, 146) as well as evidence for habitation from the Copper Age (Szentmiklosi et al. 2015, 250). There were also items from the 12th–13th and 14th–16th centuries, with the largest category being ceramics, largely from the Ottoman period (Micle et al. 2017, pl. 4/2–7). This resulted in the Banat National Museum of Timioara cultivating a considerable collection of Ottoman-period wares, perhaps the richest in Romania. Many of the artifacts are still under study, with only a few having been properly analyzed (2015–2016 campaigns: “Parcul Justiiei,” ICAM and ADRV). In general, the artifacts either remain unpublished or have received mention only in excavation reports and publications that deal with the material generally (Gapar 2015). Among the corpus of Ottoman period artifacts from the excavation campaigns between 2006–2016 are local objects as well as imports (Kopeczny 2007; Dinu 2007; Tnase, Dinu 2015; Flutur et al. 2014, Pl. XI–XIII; Gapar 2016).3 Many objects have not been processed, let alone
1. A synthesis of the plans for the development of Timioara in the Ottoman period can be found here. See Figure 9 (p.21, 23).
2. Past excavations from the large Ottoman suburb (Palanca Mare) exposed parts of the street network and wooden households, stone and brick building structures, water wells, supply pits. See: Szentmiklosi, Blrie 2012; Bozu et al. 2015; Gindele, Gapar 2016; Gindele et al. 2016. The small suburb (Palanca Mic) was investigated and the research aimed at establishing the stratigraphy and identifying elements of habitation. See: Gindele and Gapar 2015, 2016.
3. A study was included in the fellowship project called Early Ottoman Cities in a Comparative Perspective: The Case of Temesvar.” The paper project will be published in English on the website https://www.mamluk.uni- bonn.de/publications, and in the volume of the institute.
Adriana Gapar 3
published, and as a result the only discussion to any great depth has centered around special categories of objects, such as tobacco clay pipes, faience, and porcelain, while everyday pottery has received far less commentary.
This article will examine the pottery from the archaeological layers and features attributed to the Ottoman period, focusing on a category of glazed wares from the season of excavations carried out in 2015 at ICAM (Advanced Environmental Research Institute). This ware type is of great importance for documenting the social/ethnic groups and the social and economic networks that developed under Ottoman rule. The discovery of this ware type elsewhere indicates that it was widespread, and its study will contribute significantly to our understanding of the later historical period in Romania, which has been little studied by Romanian scholars.
The ICAM excavations: Location and results
The excavation site was located near the Mrti Square, Oituz Street no. 4 (Gindele et al. 2016). This included the complex of buildings belonging to the West University of Timioara. It is limited to the north by Aristide Demetriade Street, to the south by Oituz Street, to the east by Popa apc Street, and to the west by Calea Alexandru Ioan Cuza Street (Figure 1/a). The rescue excavations were coordinated by archaeologists from the Satu Mare County Museum.
Besides the Ottoman fortress of Timioara, research was conducted within the perimeter of the Palanca Mare suburb. From 1552 to 1716, the fortress was a unit made up of the castle (the Citadel), the fortified town (separated from the castle by a water ditch), and some outlying neighbourhoods developed to the north of the town and south of the Citadel (Figure 1/a). According to Opri (2007, 34), by the end of the 17th century these neighbourhoods were fortified. Excavations were conducted in three areas labelled as S1, S2, and S3 (Figure 1/1b). In the area of S1, the peak of the BIX Carol bastion was discovered. In S2, the archaeological contexts were destroyed by the construction of a modern building. In S3, part of the habitation level of the 16th–17th centuries was preserved, and the four pits excavated yielded an abundance of archaeological material. This undisturbed layer was protected to the north by the wall of the IX counterguard. Along with the bastion peak (Figure 1/b, C1 and C4), the wall is part of the Aus- trian star-shaped fortification (Figure 1/2). In addition to the Ottoman layer, chronologically mixed layers yielded materials from the Bronze Age (2000–1500 BC) (Gogâltan 1999, 71–79), Sarmatian (3rd–4th centuries AD) (Grumeza 2015, 75–77), late medieval, and modern periods (18th–19th centuries). The current stage of artifact processing has indicated that the most representative finds in terms of quantity are pottery sherds. The objects recovered from the three areas included stove tiles, tobacco clay pipes and other ceramic objects, as well as more than 5000 pottery sherds.4 Almost 70% of these finds are from the undisturbed layer from S3, with many of them coming from four possibly related pits dated to the 16th–17th centuries. The four pits yielded 93% of the total pottery sherd count from the S3 area.
This study will not focus on the typological analysis of the whole collection of objects, as this will be examined in future publications. Rather, this article will analyze a special category of glazed ceramics decorated with sgraffito (Papanikola-Bakirtzi 1999, 18). As a point of comparison, wares of this type were examined from other excavations in Timioara, from sites similar to the fortified Ottoman town, as well as those from other contemporary Ottoman provinces.
4. No fragments of tiles, bricks or wall daub with traces of wickers were taken into account.
Figure 1. 1a) ICAM excavation mark (yellow square) on the map of Timioara city and its location in relation to the appx. limits (white line) of Timioara fortress in 1716 (Overlap: Google Earth; processed after Opris 2007, fig. 7); 1b) Detailed excavation plan; 2) Location of the bastion BIX Carol and the Countergard IX in the map of Timioara city. Overlapping with The Second Mili- tary Survey of the Habsburg Empire (1806-1869) (processed after mapire.eu); 3) Ottoman min- iature, year 1720 (after Yerasimos 2007, 41.jpg); 4a, b) Feature C2, contour and drawings with details (photo, drawing by A. Gapar); 5a, b) Feature C3, contour and drawings with details (photo, drawing by A. Gapar); 6a, b) Feature C6, contour and drawings with details (photo, drawing by A. Gapar).
Adriana Gapar 5
Sgraffito pottery
The sgraffito pottery is characterized by a technique that combines vessels incised decorative patterns with painted decoration. The incised motifs can be found on monochrome or colored glazed vessels, a glazing technique that requires multiple layers of glaze application in different shades. During production of sgraffito pottery the vessels are fired and painted in repeated stages. After shaping the vessel, it is coated with a light layer of slip, then the patterns are engraved, and the vessel is fired at a low temperature, somewhere between 400–5000C. After the first firing, sometimes the vessel is painted with a glaze of stains or lines under a transparent lead glaze before being fired a second time at around 8000C (Murdzev 2008, 79).5
Sgraffito ornamentation was used for the first time in the Byzantine Empire in the 11th century (Papanikola-Bakirtzi 1999, 18). Its development was influenced by the Islamic world and especially by Persia (Vionis 2001, 88). In the second half of the 11th century and until the end of the 12th century in the regions of southern and south-eastern Bulgaria, two distinct types of incised ornamentation were developed (Borisov 2005, 67). At that time the style was not widespread; it was known only in small circles within the region. Local knowledge of this ornamentation technique is suggested by the fact that finds from the other Byzantine provinces and in neighbouring Serbia, Macedonia, Romania, Russia, and Ukraine did not exhibit similar decoration.6 However, by the end of the 13th century, sgraffito pottery became common in the Balkans and in Italy, and by the late medieval and early modern periods it became the most widely-used decorative style throughout the Mediterranean and Europe (Walker 2016, 163, 170). Cyprus, for instance, was a major center of export of sgraffito wares for the Eastern Mediterranean (Papanikola-Bakirtzis 2005, 126).7 The technique was known in almost all of the Byzantine provinces, and throughout the Ottoman Empire and it continued to be used until the early modern period; still to this day in Romania the technique is used in pottery workshops in the north (Papanikola-Bakirtzi 1999, 23).
In the context of the 16th to the 17th centuries, this technique is referred to as „late sgraffito” and its presence in the archaeological discoveries in the Balkans represents the geographical limits of Ottoman-occupied territory (Biki 2003, 187). In the Balkans, the sgraffito wares followed a different trajectory from those in the Mediterranean in terms of production and the development of ornamental patterns. The shapes of the vessels are limited in number, with the most common being the low ring foot bowls. The decoration was based on variations of the four-leaf rosette found in the Byzantine period which was a motif used to symbolize the Greek cross (Soproni 1956, 57, 58, IX. t. 1–2. kép, 1–4 ábra). This motif was supplemented with spirals, scales, and curved or winding lines. The engraved pattern was emphasized by alternating brushstrokes of brown, yellow or green, sometimes with lead spots, the use of which was influenced by the Italian style of decoration (Papanikola-Bakirtzi 1999, 23).
The varying artistic influences are reflected in the different stylistic characteristics of sgraffito vessels. In what is now present-day Romania, patterns and motifs vary from one region to another (Papp 2009a, 570, 571; Papp 2009b, 588, 589; Papp 2009c, 390; Kilia and Akkerman; Iambor 2002, 21–22). In the 13th century, sgraffito vessels in Muntenia were similar to those found in castles in Buda, Szolnok, and Belgrade (Kovács 1984, 140). In Moldova the wares depict 5. Illustration of the technological stages can be seen in the volume edited by Papanikola-Bakirtzi 1999, 7. 6. For combined decoration see also the plates . 1.–14. 7. For parallels in Jordan, see: Walker 2013, 7, 20, 21; Walker 2014.
a naturalistic style, sharing similarities with sgraffito pottery from Hungary and Cyprus. Some scholars have suggested that sgraffito wares have an Armenian origin, due to the communities that migrated from Cilicia to Moldova, Polonia and Hungary when the Tatars invaded in 1306 (Kovács 1984, 140; Damian 2015; Soproni 1956, 52). Noteworthy are the pottery centers in Dobrogea that produced sgraffito vessels with stylistic peculiarities similar to those found in the Black Sea Basin bearing Byzantine and Islamic characteristics (Damian 2015, 400–401). Prior to the introduction of sgraffito to Transylvania in the 17th century, workshops produced traditional vessels utilizing decorative elements from the Byzantine world more than those of Islamic influence (Sltineanu 1938, 33).
Various workshops in Bulgaria produced sgraffito vessels from the 12th–14th centuries, and by the 17th century, Varna was the largest production center (Kovács 1984, 139). In Roma- nia, there are some archaeological remains of the workshops that manufactured sgraffito pottery, including one in Muntenia, at Curtea de Arge. These workshops date to the 14th–15th centuries, and were known for producing copies of imported Byzantine ceramics. According to Sltineanu (1938, 33–34), another major center of production was in Moldova, at Stupca (Suceava county). During archaeological investigations at Magura, in Valea Teleormanului, a tripod stilt and a sherd were unearthed from a medieval context. While the sherd was not slipped or glazed, it did exhibit an engraved pattern, suggesting that there may have been a sgraffito pottery workshop (ânreanu 2010, 164). Sgraffito wares were introduced into Hun- gary from the Balkans following the Ottoman conquest. Its distribution was likely influenced by trade routes, the geographical position of some settlements and towns, and by the Bos- nian communities coming from the Balkans who settled in the south (Kovács 1991, 172; 1984, 141–142). According to Biki (2003, 186, fig. 27, 28), the painted sgraffito wares discovered at the Belgrade fortress were similar to those from Smederevo and southern Hungary, suggesting a common workshop between these regions.
The development of sgraffito and its survival during the Ottoman period has long been a highly-debated topic among scholars. Soproni (1956, 57) suggested that after the late 16th century, the popularity of sgraffito vessels waned in the lands of the Ottoman Empire. This sup- posed disinterest may be supported by the fact that the incised pattern on Ottoman-period wares is not as elaborate in comparison to those from the Byzantine period. While sgraffito ceramics may have declined in popularity in the Ottoman territories, they remained fashion- able in areas such as Moldova and Ukraine (Soproni 1956, 57–58). Ethnographic studies show that in the late 18th– early 19th centuries, sgraffito production continued in a few centers in Galicia, with the most developed workshop in Kuty (in present-day Ukraine). The traditional technique was maintained, and decoration was based on the chromatics and motifs traditional to the Byzantine period. „Kuty ceramics” were also manufactured in northern Romania where the wares bear a distinctly local style of a white background with painting in shades of green, brown and yellow (Soproni 1956, 58, IX. t. 3 kép; Bltu 2006–2007). This ceramic type is still employed in the manufacturing of folk pottery in Botoani (Bltu 2006–2007, 165), Rdui, and Ctmreti-Deal (Bltu 2006–2007, 165–166).
Sgraffito pottery in Timisoara
Two distinct styles of engraved decoration are representative of the pottery recovered from archaeological contexts in Timioara. The first are the sgraffito wares, where a thick slip is
Adriana Gapar 7
incised with a sharp object to create a pattern. Thereafter the vessel is glazed and painted with one or more colors. The incised pattern provides visual contrast not only with its design, but also through the dark color that the scratching of the clay produces. The second style of engraved decoration is considered a subgroup of sgraffito pottery and is characterized by combed bands of wavy and straight lines with a glaze. According to Borisov (2005, 66–67), this technique was developed in Bulgaria in the 11th–12th centuries. The sgraffito finds in Timioara have not yet been reported in layers earlier than the 16th–17th centuries, suggesting their connection to the introduction of Ottoman rule in the region. Similarly, sherds discovered from Lucian Blaga Street (Gapar 2018) and other streets in Timioara investigated during the 2013–2014 archaeological campaigns were also dated to 16th–17th centuries. Other sgraffito sherds with polychrome glaze have recently been identified in the collection of the Banat National Museum, in which are stored the materials from the 2006 campaign (Dinu 2007, 131, fig. 79, no. 2).
Description of the sgraffito pottery from ICAM The repertoire of the sgraffito wares discovered during excavations at ICAM is limited. Ves- sels were restored from the sherds discovered in three archaeological features (pits) in the undisturbed habitation level of the third excavated area, S3 (Figure 1/b). Two open forms were discovered and identified as bowls. One-third of one bowl was restored (Figure 2/5a–c). The second bowl consisted of a rim and a body sherd which were joined (Figure 2/4a–c). Another body sherd from the same bowl was discovered, but it does not join with the other fragments of the vessel. (Figure 2/2a–c). A fourth ceramic fragment is from a vessel whose form cannot be identified (Figure 2/1a–c) but is suggested to have had a closed form. Three sherds were decorated with sgraffito on a white slip. All sherds were glazed with green or a combination of brown and yellow. A single sherd was decorated with the combing design previously men- tioned and glazed with green.
The analyzed sherds were chosen during the organization of the artifacts into a database when it was found that sgraffito sherds from two of the pits, conventionally called C3 (Figure 1/1b, 4a, b) and C6 (Figure 1/1b, 6a, b), complement one another. The restored bowl (Figure 2/5a–c) was made of medium-fine clay mixed with micaceous sparkles and small pieces of limestone. The oxidation firing resulted in a brown-pink color of the ceramic material, with slight porosity to the touch and over-burning stains on the outside, visible where the surface was unglazed. It has a deep and hemispherical body supported by a ring foot with a wider base pulled inwards and a slight protrusion of clay in the center. It measures 22 cm wide at the rim and 8 cm wide at the ring foot. The rim is straight, but very slightly thicker at the lip and sharply everted. On the outside, under the rim, there are three rows of thin grooves that form thin and sharp ribs, in addition to several other incised lines. Inside, from the center to the rim it is decorated with incisions. On the bottom, there are three rows of decoration spaced apart by two concentric circles that surround the bowl’s surface. The space in the middle between the circles is filled with incised points. The vessel wall is fragmented, but from the preserved pattern, one can distinguish three leaves that join the circle in the upper register. The leaves are symmetrically arranged, and their sharp peaks continue to the rim and are filled with incised lines in a wavy pattern extending from the bottom to the top. The pattern was deeply incised in the slip over which a matte glaze was applied, covering the background of the vessel
Figure 2. 1a–c) Kaolin fragment with combed decoration and glaze (photo, drawing by A. Gapar); 2a–c) Sgraffito bowl, part of the wall (photo, drawing by A. Gapar); 3) Stack of glazed bowls separated by tripod stilts. Graphic model (made by A. Gapar); 4a-c) Sgraffito bowl (photo, drawing by A. Gapar); 5a-c) Sgraffito bowl (photo, drawing by A. Gapar).
Adriana Gapar 9
with speckles of green. In some areas the glaze appears in yellowish shades. On the bottom of the bowl, above the middle row of circles, the green glaze marks the scars of the tripod stilt used in the kiln during the firing process (Megaw 1968, 69; Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1999, 21). On the outside, the upper half is covered with a thin white slip on the surface of which there are sporadic stains and drained drips of green glaze.
The second bowl (Figure 2/4a–c) was identified on the basis of two joinable sherds, consisting of a rim fragment and a body fragment. Both sherds were found in the fill of the archaeological feature (pit) C3 (Figure 1/1b, 5a, b). In addition, another sherd from this vessel was discovered and is most likely a body fragment (Figure 2/2a–c). The vessel was made from medium-fine clay, brown-reddish in color and mixed with small pieces of limestone. The outside is grey in color with no glaze. The body is deep and hemispherical, and its wall maintains a consistent thickness through the profile and measures 22 cm wide at the rim. The rim was sharply everted and then very slightly rounded outwards under which there are two thin grooves. The inside is decorated with incised patterns and alternating colors of glaze, some of which has flaked off. Below the rim, there are two vertical lines arranged parallelly. The decoration on the body was split into two registers formed at the base of the second register (in the middle) and separated by a curve which extends obliquely towards the center of the vessel. In the first register, the upper part contains oblique hatchings of varying sizes and at the center are incised curved
Figure 2 pottery descriptions
1a–c. Combed sherd. White kaolin paste. Wall with a constant thickness. Decorated on one side, vertically grouped into three tape registers: wavy lines at the center—five lines; right down—five lines; right up—four lines. Motif covered with green glaze. Surface S3, feature C3.
2a–c. Bowl. Part of the vessel wall described above. Medium-fine clay, limestone, oxidizing firing, complete, brown-brick color, overfiring traces. Wall thickness almost constant. Interior with sgraffito decoration: two vertical registers, separation curve. In the first register: curved lines; the vertically covered surface with bright glaze, left with brown, right with yellow, brown lines and dots. Second register: green glaze. On the outside: white line of slip at the top, gray on the non-slipped surface. (0–2.40) m, surface S3, feature C2.
3. Graphic reconstruction with a stack of glazed bowls separated by tripod stilts, with the sgraffito bowl as an example.
4a–c. Sgraffito bowl. Medium-fine clay with small pieces of limestone, oxidizing firing, complete, brown-brick color, overfired traces. Hemispherical body, deep, wall thickness almost constant, oblique cut and slightly rounded rim, two thin grooves on the outside. Inside with sgraffito decoration, lines, semicircles, polychrome glaze. On the outside, white slip in the upper half and yellowish green glaze, white line in the lower part, gray shade in the non-slipped part. (2.50–2.60) m, surface S3, feature C2.
5a–c. Sgraffito bowl. Medium-fine clay with micaceous sparkles and small pieces of limestone, oxidizing firing, complete, brown-pink color. Deep and hemispherical body, 22 cm wide at the rim, 8 cm diameter of the ring foot with widened base and pulled inward, center button at the top. Thick walls to the bottom, thick rim, sharply everted and slightly rounded out. Inner covered with white slip, sgraffito decorated with rows of circles and leaves arranged radially, green glaze, scars tripod stilt. On the outside, thin slip covers the upper half, spots, and drained green glaze. Pink traces from overfired, on the non-slipped surface. Surface S3, feature C3, C6.
and straight lines. One of them starts from the semi-circle separating the registers, where the surface of the vessel is covered with bright glaze in two shades extending to the rim. On the left side the glaze is brown and on the right side of the same register the glaze is yellow with brown lines made up of drips of glaze. Only a small section of the second registry is preserved. There are no traces of incised decoration, but over the white slip a dark green glaze was applied and extends to the upper part of the rim. The slip covers more than half of the outer part of the sherd and is likewise partially covered by a thin yellowish-green glaze and a white line that was most likely part of the decoration.
In addition, the study includes one sherd of kaolin (Figure 2/1a–c) which also came out of feature C3. It is decorated on only one side and consists of an incised pattern covered by a green glaze. The pattern is composed of three registers aligned vertically. The parallel lines of the registers were created by a comb with five thin teeth. The lines form a wavy band in the center and two straight bands at the extremities. In the central and lower part, the band consists of five thin lines while the upper register contains only four incisions. The small size of this sherd makes it difficult to identify the form of the vessel, but the shape of the rim indicates that it had a wide opening.
Debates on sgraffito pottery in Timisoara
According to the ceramic record in Timioara, pedestalled vessels first appear in habitation levels dating to the 16th–17th centuries and are common in this period. These forms are similar to other discoveries of the Ottoman provinces of Europe, and their proliferation coincides with the arrival of Ottoman communities in Timioara after 1552. (Lajkó 2003, 326; Kovács 1984, 145). Therefore, this form—the main element in determining use and function—marks a change in vessel production technology, diet, and the lifestyle of the communities. Except for the kaolin fragment, all sgraffito specimens belonged to household assemblages and were used for serving food along with other glazed tableware. Moreover, the size of the vessels could be directly proportionate to the number of people that needed to be fed within the household. Other Ottoman period contexts for which we have more information about diet can be used as a point of comparison, such as the large bowls and dishes found in Cyprus used for serving pilaf and soup (Biki 2017, 211).8 Considering the large sizes of the bowls from Timioara, it is likely that they were used for family meals (Figure 1/3).9
On the other hand, two of the specimens have average dimensions (Dinu 2007, 131), and no analogies for the chromatic characteristics of the sgraffito bowl with the monochrome glaze have been identified (Figure 2/5a–c). The scars of the tripod stilt suggest serial production of identical forms but not necessarily of the sgraffito vessels (Figure 2/3). The only similar element to other finds from the Ottoman provinces is the incised pattern—with the Byzantine roots —common in the Balkans. It is decorated with the ribbed leaf and variations of this style, as indicated in the discoveries from Hungary, Serbia, and Croatia, at the fortresses of Ozora
8. In the 14th and 15th centuries, Greek workers on the sugar plantations in Cyprus used sgraffito bowls to eat the field meal. See Walker 1998, 138, 139, 149.
9. The scene in the painting can be used as a clue; the proportions between the size of the spoons and of the bowl on the table were taken into consideration. In both instances the bowls filled with pilaf and soup measure appx. 65 cm, feeding 10 people. As can be seen, a 22 cm wide and deep bowl is of sufficient size for four to five people to share. Of course, it was also considered that the depictions in the painting were not proportionally accurate.
Adriana Gapar 11
and Buda (Papp 2017, kat. Sz. 752),10 Visegrád-Alsvár (Gerelyes 1986, 81, 12. kép; 1991, 39, 45, 4. kép, 2. kép.), Szolnok (Kovács 1984, Pl. 1–10), Belgrad (Biki 2003, 186, fig. 27, 28) and Osijek (Radi 2014, cat. nos. 71, 74).11 However, these parallels vary in color, and the engraved pattern is emphasized with spots of color and the occasional drained lead glaze. It should be noted that this style of decoration is similar to the sgraffito sherds discovered at Lucian Blaga Street in Timioara.
The monochrome sgraffito bowl can be dated to the second half of the 16th century. The period was established on the basis of four coins recovered from the fill of one of the features. Three of the coins were copies of dinars from the 16th century, and one was an Ottoman coin from the same period. A similar date can be attributed to the kaolin sherd (Figure 2/1a–c), as it was found in the fill of the feature containing the sherds from the restored bowl described above. Although the combing decoration was developed among the Vlachs, and was especially widespread in Walachia, the style was not often used in Timioara during the Ottoman period (Kovács 1984, 144; Borisov 2005, 66–67). At the present stage of processing the ceramic finds, only a few combed sherds have been identified, including a fragment with a reddish fabric and combed decoration in combination with painted patterns from Lucian Blaga Street (Gapar 2018, fig. 4/1, pl. III/1).12 The scarcity of combed decoration at Timioara is unlike the situation at nearby citadels such as Szolnok where the combed decoration occurs frequently on glazed pedestalled bowls (Kovács 1984, 143, 144, pl. 19. 1–8). The decoration with straight and waved lines has also been encountered on vessels subjected to reduction firing, as with the pitcher/ ewer discovered at Jeni Palanka in Hungary (Gaál 2010, kat. 55).
Final remarks
Recent archaeological research in Timioara has yielded vast quantities of pottery sherds, some of which were restored and feature various shapes and sizes. Many of the glazed wares were found in the features and layers corresponding to the Ottoman period (1552–1716). The sgraffito wares are a distinct group characterized by decoration made with incisions in the soft clay of the layer of slip. After a few stages of firing, the surface was coated with a transparent glaze, or sometimes with a lead glaze, to imitate the appearance of metal vessels (Kovács 1984, 138). However, the different stylistic and artistic characteristics of the sgraffito sherds discovered in the perimeter of the Palanca Mare suburb are indicative of a different trajectory. The ring foot form (Figure 2/5a–c) and distinctive chroma, accented by a leaf pattern radially arranged on a monochrome background with green glaze represents the culmination of various artistic influences and its application to a practical form. The presence of tripod stilt scars suggests serial production of this form, perhaps with the sgraffito decoration (Figure 2/3). The associated coins
10. The National Museum of History of Budapest organized a temporary exhibition with the results of archaeological research in Budapest carried out between 2005–2015 campaigns. A sgraffito bowl with the leaf motif discovered in the excavations at Tabán (a suburb of Buda fortress) was published in the catalog of the exhibition. For other discoveries of sgraffito vessels, see also: Gerelyes 1987, 187, 4. kép 2; Gerelyes 1986, 3. kép, 9. kép.
11. In December 2014–September 2015 an exhibition of objects from the Ottoman period was held in the Slavonic Museum. Sgraffito vessels were published in the catalog and two of them bear the motif of the leaf.
12. The fragment is included in the manuscript with the pottery discovered on this street (Gapar 2018). Also found here are several pottery sherds that were fired in the reduced atmosphere and decorated with strips of wavy lines (personal observation).
from the fill date the vessel to the second half of the 16th century, immediately after the estab- lishment of the Ottoman garrison in Timioara. Perhaps during that period, the local potters tried to adapt their production to imitate the artwork of the Ottoman craftsmen, as the shape of the bowl and the decoration indicate Ottoman artistic influence. Alternatively, the production of this ceramic type could have been developed by the first Ottoman potters that arrived immediately after the beginning of the occupation of Timioara by the Ottoman Empire.
So far, ceramic finds from Timioara include several other sgraffito specimens. These fragments are from vessels similar to those discovered in nearby Ottoman fortresses in terms of dimensions and fabric, but not in decoration. Categorically, they belong to the groups of deep- bodied bowls with sgraffito patterns consisting of the ribbed leaf, sometimes in combination with other vegetal or geometric patterns. The general rule for decoration is the same: on the inside, all of them have the layer of white slip and monochrome or polychrome glaze (Dinu 2007, 131), and the presence of micaceous sparkles and glassy glaze emphasized the imitation effect of metal vessels. The incised pattern is only on the inside and is highlighted against a background of different shades of green, olive-green, and greenish-yellow to yellow. The pattern is emphasized by brushstrokes or stains of glaze in darker tones of green or brown, sometimes with drained lines of lead glaze. These wares share similarities with the Lapithos workshop products from Cyprus, produced from the 14th century until the 1970s (Walker 2016, 161). The patterns of both sgraffito under green glaze and green-painted under transparent glaze are believed to be 16th century (or slightly later) contexts in Cyprus. They take the form of deep bowls on a low ring foot with a beige and silicious fabric, and green-painted (technically in-glaze painted, rather than slipped) design of pointed leaves under a transparent lead glaze, sometimes with sgraffito (Taylor and Megaw 1937–1939, 10).13 While these are Lapithos products, they imitate foreign wares (Walker 1998, 132; 2016, 159, 161, 164; Taylor and Megaw 1937–1939, 2).Similar wares to those in Timioara have been identified in Ottoman contexts in the Balkans but make up only a small portion of the overall finds (Kovács 1984, 138–142; Biki 2003, 134–145, 165, 166). In Hungary they are known from habitation levels dating from after 1500 to the beginning of the 17th century (Gerelyes 1986, 136; 1991, 39, 45; Dávid and Gerelyes 2015, 77). Their distribution patterns vary from one region to another and only a few sgraffito sherds from excavations have been thoroughly analyzed (Kovács 2010, 92, 93; Pusztai 2003, 303, 309).
The sgraffito wares from the Ottoman period in Timioara have largely come out of excavations in the limits of the fortified town, as opposed to the outlying neighbourhoods where they rarely appeared. This is in contrast to the suburbs of the fortress of Buda where the number of sgraffito wares was higher and even yielded whole vessels that were either intact or could be joined (Kolláth 2012, 190, 191; Éder 2014, 6–8. kép, 34–36. kép; Borbála and Papp 2005, 117; Papp 2017, Kat. sz. 742; Tóth 2003, 273, 275). It is possible that through the geographic position of the fortress and its spatial limits, the inhabitants of Timioara’s suburbs experienced a different cultural evolution. It should be noted that several generations of Christians lived outside the town in neighbourhoods that gradually developed and were fortified by the end of the 17th century (Opri 2007, 31, 32, 34). In these areas, the presence of a Muslim population was reported only after the year 1600 when Evliya Çelebi and Henrick Ottendorf mention the names of people, households and religious buildings (Ottendorf 2006).14 As an Ottoman town,
13. See also Group VIII, IX (Walker 1998, 115); Group VIII, IX (Walker 2016, 161, 163), Type VIII, IX. 14. Details with descriptions at Cltori strini vol.VI 1976.
Adriana Gapar 13
the fortified space of Timioara became a center of not only political, military and religious power, but also of trade15 that probably focused on local ceramic production (Fenean Cr. 2004, 99, 100).
The sgraffito finds from Timioara are limited to a few sherds and it seems to not have been a particularly popular ceramic type of the inhabitants in the suburbs, most of whom were Christian.16 This may suggest that the sgraffito pottery was associated with a high standard of living or with a particular social group. It could also be the case that sgraffito was simply fash- ionable at the time. This is supported by the fact that the time-intensive process of producing these vessels required skilled craftsmen. The multiple stages of firing, coating with slip and glazing, engraving and creativity of the designs resulted in high-quality, costly pottery, especially in comparison to simpler wares. In spite of the higher cost, the inhabitants of Timioara expressed a taste for luxury products and were purchasing these vessels as early as the first half of the colonization period by the Ottomans.
Chinese porcelain cups and plates along with Islamic ceramics have been identified in habitation levels since the end of the 16th century, with smoking pipes appearing in these types of assemblages in 17th century (Tnase and Dinu 2015, 87–88). As with the sgraffito vessels, the objects considered tobe widespread throughout the Ottoman world are rarer among the artifacts discovered in the suburbs of Timioara. The inventory of artifacts from the pits17 at ICAM include a significant amount of ceramic material, but less porcelain and tobacco smoking pipes. The practices of smoking and drinking coffee in the context of Ottoman fortresses were linked to the daily consumption practices of the soldiers garrisoned there. In the case of Timioara, the distribution of these objects in the suburbs may be linked to the garrison that was established in the fortified town and was occupied by soldiers recruited from other Otto- man provinces in the Balkans. The presence of sgraffito pottery in the fortress therefore may be connected to the social identity of those who used them during this period.
The processing of Ottoman artifacts from Timioara is in its infancy, and archaeological research of the suburbs has not been conducted systematically. Therefore, at this stage in the research it is premature to attempt to make comparisons and assumptions based on the patterns of distribution of Ottoman ceramics. The presence or absence of certain types of vessels in related contexts helps identify relationships with similar specimens in Timioara, but generally speaking, sgraffito wares here are rare, making up less than 1% of the larger ceramic assemblage. In neighboring provinces, they represent an even smaller part of the assemblages. For this reason, it is important that as many of the sgrafitto sherds are published as possible, even if the sherds are very small in size. Such publications could contribute to the knowledge of this pottery type likely linked to a higher standard of living, a particular social group, or to the cooking preferences of Ottoman period communities (Walker 1998; 2013; Rdulescu 2005; Bltua 2006–2007). The study of distribution patterns and function of pottery types in con- junction with written sources will reveal consumption patterns associated with social practices of Ottoman-period Timioara.
15. In Timioara there was also a „bazar of canvas”; see Cltori strini vol. VI 1976, 499, 500. 16. Evliya Çelebi mentions the payment of soldiers in Timioara with the money collected from the 36,000
Christians who paid haraç; Cltori strini vol.VI 1976, 495–496. 17. The pits had different shapes and depths, but their function could not be determined.
This article contains a general review of the sgraffito ceramics known to date in Timioara and their phenotypic and chronological characteristics. Parallels for this ware type have been offered where possible, and the technological and artistic influences outline the general knowledge of sgraffito wares in Timioara and other Ottoman regions. As demonstrated above, it is certain that these vessels have parallels in the Balkans and larger connections in the Mediter- ranean. On the other hand, their original points of production and distribution may be located somewhere in a nearby region, which would have allowed for minimal transportation costs to Timioara (Biki 2017, 214).18 As has been noted, this study is only a preliminary analysis of this ceramic type in Timioara. The results illustrate various potential aspects of daily life during the 164 years of Ottoman rule there, but the interpretation of this data forms only the basis for publications of Ottoman pottery in neighbouring regions and other historical provinces in Romania that were influenced by Ottoman authority. While this study is just a small part of the material culture of the Ottoman period in Timioara, it nonetheless provides an important contribution to the research of the late-Medieval period in Romania, an era that has been little studied by Romanian scholars. Considering the sgraffito wares have larger connections with other regions, this analysis is relevant for studying not just the consumption habits adopted by past communities, but also the socio-economic history of this region as it developed under Ottoman rule.
Acknowledgments
Special thanks are due to Dr. Eugen Nicolae and to Dr. Adrian Ioni from “Vasile Pârvan” Insti- tute of Archaeology, Bucharest, for reading the first draft of this paper and for the valuable suggestions and comments. The author expresses deep gratitude to Prof. Dr. Bethany Walker for all her support, encouragement and suggestions. Many thanks are due to both the Research Unit of Islamic Archaeology and the Annemarie Schimmel Kolleg, to their staff and scientific members for the friendly atmosphere and the well-organized scientific structures which facili- tated the author’s work there. Many thanks also go to Dr. Robert Gindele of the Satu Mare County Museum, head of the project at ICAM point, for the permission to process the archaeological material resulting from the rescue excavations of the 2015 campaign. Thanks are due to Dr. Aurel Vâlcu, from „Vasile Pârvan” Institute of Archaeology, Bucharest, for dating the coins and additional information. Thanks also go to Adrienn Papp at the National History Museum of Budapest and Dr. Gyöngyi Kovács from the Research Centre for the Humanities, Institute of Archaeology in Budapest, for the inspiring discussions, suggestions, and remarks and general technical information on sgraffito vessels. Thanks to Constantin Inel at the National Muzeum of Alba-Iulia and head of the excavation project on Vasile Alecsandri Street and Eugeniu Savoya Street, in Timioara for the permission to mention the sgraffito pottery discovered in these excavations. Many thanks go again to Prof. Dr. Bethany Walker for providing technical descriptions and explanations. Finally, thanks to Dorina Burtic for reading the first English draft of this article. Any remaining errors are the author’s own.
18. Ceramic workshops during the Ottoman period were reported at Kruševac in Serbia, at Varoš (Borough) a district of Varna and also in Belgrade—an important economic center of the empire, especially for everyday- use pottery. It was a center on the northern border likely producing the sgraffito pottery.
Adriana Gapar 15
About the author
Adriana Gapar is a Ph.D. Candidate at the “Vasile Pârvan” Institute of Archaeology in Bucha- rest, Romania. She started her Ph.D under the supervision of Dr. Eugen Nicolae in 2014, with her thesis topic entitled “Ottoman Temesvar in the light of archaeological finds.”
References Bltu, S.
2006–2007. “Ceramica tip ‘Kuty’. Arie de rspândire, Muzeul Judetean Botoani.” Acta Moldaviae Septentrionalis 5–6: 164–172.
Biki, V. 2003. Gradska Keramika Beograda (16–17.vek) [Belgrade Ceramics in the 16th–17th Century]. Beograd. 2017. “Ottoman glazed pottery standardisation: The Belgrade Fortress evidence for production trends
[ : ].” Glazed Pottery of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea Region, 10th–18th Centuries Vol. 2, edited by S. Bocharov, V. François, A. Sitdikov, 207–216. Kazan-Kishinev.
Borbála, M. and A. Papp. 2005. “Régészeti kutatások a Rác fürd és a tabáni kés La Tène kori fazekastelep területén” [Archaeological
research conducted within the Rác bath and the area of the late La Tène pottery makers’ colony in the Tabán urban district]. Régészeti Kutatások Magyarországon 109–124.
Borisov, B. D. 2005. “ −
[About the production of artistic ceramics in south-eastern Bulgaria in the 11th–12th centuries].” Studia Archaelogica Universitatis Serdicensis 4: 52–67.
Bozu, O. and A. Szentmiklosi, A. Blrie, A. Georgescu, C. Harnischfeger, I. Leonti and A. Talagiu. 2015. “Timioara, judeul Timi. Punct: Piaa Timioara 700 [City Business Center, cldirea E].” Cronica Cercetrilor
Arheologice din România, campania 2014 149: 246–248. Cltori, S.
1976. Cltori strini despre rile Române Vol. VI, Partea a II–a, edited by E. Çelebi, Bucureti. Damian, O.
2015. “Consideraii asupra ceramicii medievale pontice pe baza descoperirilor de la Enisala [Des Considérations sur la Céramique Médiévale Pontique les Découvertes d’Enisala].” Banatica 23: 393–428.
Dávid, G. and I. Gerelyes. 2015. “History, Meet Archaeology. The Potter’s Craft in Ottoman Hungary.” In Bread from the Lion’s Mouth. Artisans
Struggling for a Livelihood in Ottoman Cities, edited by S. Faroqhi, 70–87. New York, Oxford. Diaconescu D. and S. Tincu, A. Szentmiklosi, A. Georgescu, R. Giorgi, C. Harnischfeger, I. Leonti, L. Brânduan and
A. Muscalu-Creescu. 2016. “Timioara, judeul Timi. Punct: Strada Sergent Constantin Muat.” Cronica Cercetrilor Arheologice din
România, campania 2015 112: 208–210. Dinu, N. and F. Draovean, C. Fenean, A. Flutur, A. Szentmiklosi, G. El Susi, Z. Kopekzny, H. M. Kiss and R. eptilici.
2007. “Ceramica de import.” Timioara în amurgul Evului Mediu. Rezultatele cercetrilor arheologice preventive din Cen- trul Istoric, Timioara, 2007, 127–141.
2007. “Descrierea situaiei arheologice cercetrilor preventive din pieele Liberti, Sfântu . Gheorghe i strada 9 Mai.” Timioara în amurgul Evului Mediu. Rezultatele . cercetrilor arheologice preventive din Centrul Istoric, Timioara, 2007, 11–84.
Draovean, F. and C. Suciu. 2016. “Timioara, Piaa Sf. Gheorghe, Punct: Cetatea Timioarei.” Cronica Cercetrilor Arheologice din România, cam-
pania 2015, 211–212. Éder, K.
2014. “Hdoltságkori Gödör a Viziváros Területérl (Egy szemeskályha maradványai és kísérleletei).” Budapest Régiségei 47: 283–311.
Fenean Cr. 2006. Cultura Otoman a Vilayetului Timioara (1552–1716). Timioara.
Flutur, A. and D. Tnase, A. Hamat. 2014. “Cercetrile arheologice preventive în cetatea Timioarei, str. Lucian Blaga, anul 2014. Raport preliminar.”
Banatica 24(1): 225–252. Gaál, A.
2010. “Kerámia leletek a Szekszárd-palánki török palánkvár (Jeni Palanka) területérl és feltárásából. Mázas asz- tali edények.” A Wosinsky Mór Múzeum Évkönyve 32: 401–452.
Gapar, A. 2015. “Cronica expozitiei. Timisoara in Amurgul Evului Mediu. Rezultatele cercetarilor arheologice din centrul
istoric.” Banatica 25: 497–507. 2016. “Obiceiuri cotidiene reflectate arheologic în Timioara Otoman. Observaii asupra pipelor de lut [Daily hab-
its from Timisoara reflected in archaeological finds from Ottoman Era. Observations on smoking clay pipes].” Materiale i Cercetri Arheologice 12: 259–285.
2018. “Ceramica otoman (secolele XVI–XVII) din Timioara, provenit din cercetrile arheologice efectuate pe str. L. Blaga (2014) [Ottoman ceramics (16th–17th centuries) from Timioara, from the archaeological research carried out on L. Blaga Street (2014)].” In Cercetri arheologice în centrul istoric al Timioarei—strada Lucian Blaga, campania 2014, edited by A. Flutur, D. Tnase and A.C. Hamat, 101–158. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Mega.
Gerelyes, I. 1986. “Adatok a sgraffi to-díszes török kerámia keltezésé-hez.” Keletkutatás 69–84. 1987. “Török kerámia a Visegrádi Alsóvárban.” Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae 167–179. 1991. “Török leletegyüttesek a budavári palotából (1972–1981).” Tanulmányok Budapest Múltjából 23: 21–75.
Gindele, R. and A. Gapar. 2015. “Palanca Mic-cartier otoman redescoperit. Parcul Justiiei Timioara.” Arheologia Banatului 1: 38–39. 2016. “mun. Timioara, jud. Timi. Punct: Parcul Justiiei.” Cronica Cercetrilor Arheologice din România, campania 2015
114: 230–231. Gindele, R. and L. Marta, A. Gapar.
2015. “În vreme de rzboi i pace. Bastionul Carol i Palanca Mare-str. Oituz, Timioara.” Arheologia Banatului 1: 28–29.
2016. “mun. Timioara, jud. Timi. Punct: Str. Oituz nr. 4.” “Institutul de Cercetri Avansate de Mediu (ICAM) Uni- versitatea de Vest din Timioara.” Cronica Cercetrilor Arheologice din România, campania 2015 113: 210–211.
Gogâltan, F. 1999. “Bronzul timpuriu i mijlociu în Banatul românesc i pe cursul inferior al Mureului. I. Cronologia i desco-
peririle de metal [Die Frühe und Mittlere Bronzezeit im rumänischen Banat und am Unterlauf der Marosch. Die Chronologie und die Metallfunde].” In Bibliotheca historica et archaeologica banatica 23. Timioara.
Grumeza, L. 2015. “Settlements from the 2nd–early 5th century AD in Banat (I): State of research and the interpretation of the
discoveries from Romania.” Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology 2(4): 75–89. https://doi.org/10.14795/j. v2i4.144
Iambor, P. 2002. “Cucerirea Banatului de ctre turci i transformarea lui în paalâc.” In Vilayetul Timioarei (450 de ani de inte-
meiere a paalâcului) 1552–2002. Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Universitas Timisiensis 5: 7–26. Timioara. Kolláth Á.
2012. “Két kora újkori kerámia leletegyüttes a budai Szent György térrl.” Budapest Régiségei 45: 169–194. Kopeczny, Z.
2007. “Ceramic medieval local (sec. XIV–XVII).” In Timioara în amurgul Evului Mediu. Rezultatele cercetrilor arheologice preventive din Centrul . Istoric, Timioara, 2007, edited by F. Draovean, C. Fenean, A. Flutur, A. Szentmik- losi, G. El Susi, Z. Kopekzny, H. M. Kiss, R. eptilici and N. Dinu, 85–125.
Kovács, G. 1984. Török Kerámia Szolnokon. Szolnok. 1991. 16th–18th Century Hungarian Pottery Types. Antaeus. 2010. “Turkish, Balkan, and far eastern ceramics in Ottoman Hungary.” In Exhibition on Ottoman Art—16th–17th Cen-
tury Ottoman Art and Architecture in Hungary and in the Center of the Empire, edited by M. Baha Tahman and V. Belgin Demirsar Arli, 91–99. Istanbul.
Adriana Gapar 17
Lajkó, O. 2003. “Post-medieval pottery finds from Hódmezvásárhely-Ótemplom.” In Archaeology of the Ottoman Period in
Hungary. Papers of the conference held at the Hungarian National Musem Budapest, 24–26 May 2000 edited by I. Ger- elyes and G. Kovács, 321–328, Budapest.
Megaw, A.H.S. 1968. “Zeuxippus Ware.” The Annual of the British School at Athens 63: 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0068245400014283 Micle, D. and M. B. Crângu and C. Timoc.
2015. “Bile turceti din Piaa Libertii, Timioara. Un monument arheologic inedit în contextul reabilitii cen- trului istoric al oraului [The Turkish Baths in Liberty Square, Timisoara. An Archaeological Monument Unusual in the Context of the Rehabilitation of the Historic Center of the City].” ArheoVest 1–2: 3: 555–573.
Micle, D. and A. Stavil, O. Rogozea, B. A. Craiovan, C. Oprean and C. Boia. 2017. “Timioara. mun. Timioara, jud. Timi. Punct: Piaa Sfântul Gheorghe, nr. 2–3.” Cronica Cercetrilor Arheo-
logice din România, campania 2016, Bucureti 121: 217–219. Murdzhev, P.
2008. “The medieval town in Bulgaria, thirteenth to fourteenth century.” unpublished PhD thesis, University of Florida.
Opri, M. 2007. Timioara. Monografie urbanistic. vol.I, Descoperiri recente care au impus corectarea istoriei urbane a Timioarei.
Timioara. Ottendorf, H.
2006. De la Viena la Timioara, 1663. Von Wien auff Temeswar, 1663. Bécstl Temesvárig, 1663. Od Bea do Temišvara, 1663. Editura Banatul: Timioara.
Papanikola-Bakirtzi, D. 1999. Byzantine Glazed Ceramics. The Art of Sgraffito. The Archaeological Receipts Fund: Athens.
Papp, S. 2009a. “Transylvania.” Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, edited by G. Ágoston and B. Masters, 570–571. USA:
Inforbase publishing. 2009b. “Wallachia.” (Walachia; Rom.: ara Romaneasc; Turk.: Eflak), Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, edited by
G. Ágoston and B. Masters, 588–590. USA: Inforbase publishing. 2009c. “Moldavia.” (Ger.: Moldau; Rom.: Moldova; Turk.: Kara Bodan), Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, edited
by G. Ágoston and B. Masters, 389–391. USA: Inforbase publishing. Papp, A. and Z. Bencze, B. Nyékhelyi Dorottya, J. Benda, J. Beszédes, T.B. Balogh, K. Csontos, K. Éder, A. Endrdi, Z.
Havas, A.L. Horváth, A.M. Horváth, A. Kirchhof, A. Korom, E. Kovács, D. Kraus, G. Lassányi, O. Láng, B. Maráz, K. Magyar, Z.M. Virág, A. Nagy, I. Sándor, J. Szigeti, G. Zsilas, A. Tth, G. Terei, F.M. Th, J.A. Tth, P. Vámos, A. Végh and J. Zádor.
2017. “Budátl délre: a Tabán. Fürd a török kori telepüésen.” In Kincsek a város alatt. Újdonságok a múltból: Budapest régészeti örökségének feltárása. 1867/2005–2015. (Idszaki kiállítás a Budapesti Történeti Múzeum Vármúzeumában. 2017.04.12.–2017.09.17). Kiállítási vezet és katalgus, edited by P. Zsidi, 163–196. Budapest.
Pusztai, T. 2003. “The pottery of the Turkish Palisade at Bátaszék.” In Archaeology of the Ottoman Period in Hungary. Papers of
the conference held at the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, 24–26 May 2000, Opuscula Hungarica, edited by I. Gerelyes and G. Kovács, 301–311.
Radi, M. 2014. “Osijek I Šira Okolica U Osmanskom Periodu [Osijek and the surrounding area in the Ottoman period].”
(katalog izlobe: Muzej Slavonije, Osijek, prosinac, 2014. -rujan, 2015) [exibition catalog: december, 2014– september, 2015]. Keramika. Svakodnevna keramika 42–53.
Rdulescu, A. 2005. “Mnstirea Coula - jud. Botoani. Scurt raport arheologic – 1976.” Forum Cultural anul V, 18(3): 10–12.
Soproni, O. 1956. “Szolnok török kerámiája.” Jászkunság 3(2): 56–61.
Sltineanu, B. 1938. Ceramica Româneasc. Bucureti.
Stnic, A. 2016. “The missing fortresses in Dobrogea. Case study: Turkish Fortifications.” In Coordonate Istorice i Arheologice/
Dobrogea. Archaeological and Historical Coordinates, Tulcea, 7–36. Szentmiklosi,A. and A. Blrie.
2012. “Contribuii la cunoaterea evoluiei oraului Timioara la sfâritul Evului Mediu. Cercetrile arheologice preventive din suburbia Palanca Mare.” Analele Banatului. Arheologie-Istorie, 205–226.
Szentmiklosi, A. and D. Diaconescu, S. Tincu, A. Blrie, A. Georgescu, C. Harnischfeger, I. Leonti and A. Talagiu. 2015. “Timioara, judeul Timi, Punct: Piaa Unirii.” Cronica Cercetrilor Arheologice din. România, campania 2014, 151:
250–251. Piteti. Szentmiklosi, A. and D. Diaconescu, S. Tincu, A. Blrie, A. Georgescu, C. Harnischfeger and I. Leonti.
2016. “Timioara, judeul Timi. Punct: Piaa Unirii.” Cronica Cercetrilor Arheologice din România, campania 2015, 111: 207–208. Târgu-Jiu.
Taylor, J. and A.H.S. Megaw. 1937–1939. Cypriot Medieval glazed pottery: notes for a preliminary classification. Department of Antiquities: Cyprus.
Tnase, D. and N. Dinu. 2015. “Faian i porelan din Epoca Otoman descoperite în Timioara, strzile Lucian Blaga, Enrico Caruso i
Radu Negru (Campania 2014).” Studii i cercetri de Istorie Veche i Arheologie 66: 1–2: 69–96. Tóth, A.
2003. “An Ottoman-era cellar from the foreground of Buda’s royal palace.” In Archaeology of the Ottoman Period in Hungary (edited by I. Gerelyes and G. Kovács, 273–280, Hungarian National Museum: Budapest.
ânreanu, E. 2010. Habitat medieval în sud-vestul Munteniei în sec. XIV–XVII. Temeiuri istorice i arheologice. Bucureti.
Vionis, A. K. 2001. “Post-Roman pottery unearthed: Medieval ceramics and pottery research in Greece.” Medieval Ceramics 25:
84–98. Walker, B. J.
1998. “The ceramic correlates of decline in the Mamluk Sultanate: An analysis of late Medieval Sgraffito wares.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto.

Sgraffito pottery in the Ottoman Timișoara “Palanca Mare ...

Documents

Transcript of Sgraffito pottery in the Ottoman Timișoara “Palanca Mare ...