Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 24

. . .

XXVIII .
2


. . , . , . .


2017
A. KH. KHALIKOV INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE REPUBLIC OF TATARSTAN

HIGH ANTHROPOLOGICAL SCHOOL UNIVERSITY

GLAZED POTTERY
OF THE
MEDITERRANEAN
AND THE BLACK SEA
REGION, 10TH18TH
CENTURIES
Volume 2

Edited by
Sergei Bocharov, Vronique Franois, Ayrat Sitdikov

Kazan Kishinev
2017
902/904(4)=00
50


. .


. . , . , . .


- , . . ,

,
()

, . . ,
()

. . ,

()

ISBN 978-9975-4269-1-6.
. ..
: . . , . , . .
Stratum plus P. P.,
: . .
: . .
: . .
-: . . , . . , . .
: . .
: . .

. . , . . . .
, ( )
- ,
. --, ( )
.-. , - . ,
. . . . , ( )
- , . ,
-, . , - . .
-,
. . , -
. . . ,
- , . ,
. . , . ,
. . , -
-. ,

DESCRIEREA CIP A CAMEREI NAIONALE A CRII

XXVIII . = Glazed Pottery of


the Mediterranean and the Black Sea Region, 10th18th Centuries / - . . . ,
. . , - . . . ; .: . . [ .] ; .:
. . . : . . ; : Stratum Plus :
, 2017 . ( = Archeological
records of Eastern Europe, ISBN 978-9975-4272-6-5). ISBN 978-9975-4269-0-9.
2. 2017. 845 p. Tit. paral.: lb. engl., rus. Texte : lb. engl., fr., ital. i alte lb. strine.
Rez.: lb. engl., rus. Bibliogr. la sfritul art. Referine bibliogr. n subsol. ISBN 978-9975-4269-1-6.
1 disc optic (CD-ROM) : sd., col.; n container, 15 15 cm.
Cerine de sistem: Windows 98/2000/XP, 64 Mb hard, Adobe Reader.
902/904(4)=00
50

-
XXVIII . ,
,
, , , ,
.
XXVIII .
, ,
,
, ,
- .
, , , , , , , , ,
, , , , .
, , , ,
, ,
.

: ( ), Google
: E-library.ru, WorldCat, NKI Scholar.
Printed by decision of the Academic Council
A. Kh. Khalikov Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences
of the Republic of Tatarstan

Edited by
Sergei Bocharov, Vronique Franois, Ayrat Sitdikov

Scientific reviewers
Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
Doctor of Historical Sciences Nikolay N. Kradin
Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography of the Peoples of the Far East
of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Vladivostok)

Doctor Habilitat of History, Docent Nicolaj D. Russev


High Anthropological School University (Kishinev)

Doctor of Historical Sciences Iuryi B. Tsetlin


Leading Research Fellow of the Institute of Archaeology
of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow)

Editorial Board
Candidate of Historical Sciences Sergei G. Bocharov. A. Kh. Khalikov Institute of Archaeology,
Tatarstan Academy of Sciences. Kazan, Russian Federation
Doctor of Archaeology Veronique Franois. Medieval and Modern Mediterranean Archaeology
Laboratory, CNRS. Aix-en-Provence, France
Corresponding Member of the Tatarstan Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Historical Sciences Ayrat G.
Sitdikov. A. Kh. Khalikov Institute of Archaeology, Tatarstan Academy of Sciences. Kazan,
Russian Federation
Doctor of Archaeology Pamela Armstrong. Oxford University. United Kingdom
Doctor, Professor Boris Borisov. St. Cyril and Methodius University of Veliko Tarnovo.
Bulgaria
Candidate of Historical Sciences Igor V. Volkov. Russian Research Institute for Cultural and
Natural Heritage named after Dmitry Likhachev. Moscow, Russian Federation
Doctor of Archaeology Sauro Gelichi. Ca Foscari University of Venice. Italy
Candidate of Historical Sciences Vladimir Yu. Koval. Institute of Archaeology of the Russian
Academy of Sciences. Moscow, Russian Federation
Candidate of Historical Sciences Andrey N. Maslovsky. Azov History, Archaeology and
Palaeontology Museum-Reserve. Azov, Russian Federation

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17


C. La Serra (Vibo Valentia, Italia). Invetriate policrome in circolazione al San
Francesco di Cosenza nel Basso Medioevo. Primi dati da nuove scoperte
(Calabra, Italia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
J. Coll Conesa (Valencia, Spain). Changing Tastes: from Lustreware
to Polychrome Tiles. Exported Pottery from Valencia in Mediterranean Area
and around (14th to 18th cc.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
V. Verrocchio (Pescara, Italia). La maiolica di Castelli (TE) nellAdriatico
Orientale fra XVI e XVIII secolo. Attuali conoscenze e prospettive di ricerca . 51


E. F. Athanassopoulos (Lincoln, NE, USA). Medieval Glazed Pottery:
Archaeological Evidence from Rural Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
A. . Trker (anakkale, Turkey). A Byzantine Settlement on the Kalabakl
Valley in the Hellespont: Yaclar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
L. Doer (zmir, Turkey), M. E. Armaan (Uak, Turkey). Byzantine Glazed
Pottery Finds from Aigai (Aiolis) Excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
A. G. Yangaki (Athens, Greece). Immured Vessels in the Church of Panagia
Eleousa, Kitharida, Crete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
M. ztakn (Pamukkale, Turkey). Byzantine and Turkish Glazed Pottery
Finds from Aphrodisias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
I. Shaddoud (Aix-en-Provence, France). Vaisselier de sant dans le monde arabe
(VIIIeXVe sicles) : une restitution possible des usages grce au croissement
des sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
V. Biki (Belgrade, Serbia). Ottoman Glazed Pottery Standardisation:
The Belgrade Fortress Evidence for Production Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
V. Franois (Aix-en-Provence, France). Circulation des potiers ou des modles ?
Production damascne de vaisselle ottomane la manire dIznik . . . . 217
G. Homsy-Gottwalles (Beyrouth, Liban). Beyrouth post-mdivale. tude
de cas : la cramique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

9

. (, ).
X . (
) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
C. Paraschiv-Talmachi (Constana, Romania). Early Medieval Glazed
Ceramics Discovered in the Fortifications from Hrova and Oltina
(south-east of Romania) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
. (-, ).
. .
( ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
. - (, ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
K. Chakarov (Pavlikeni, Bulgaria), D. Rabovyanov (Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria).
Stone-Paste Ceramics from Tarnovgrad the Capital of the Second
Bulgarian Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
. . (, ), . . (, ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
. . , . . (, ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
. . (, ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
. . (, ).

() . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
. . (, ). -
( XIIIXIV .) . . . . . . . 409
. . (, ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447
. . (, ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455
. . (, ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491
. . (, ), . . (, ).
XIIIXIV -
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499
. . (, ).
XIIIXIV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513

10
. . (, ). . 539
. . , . . (, ). XV
XVI . . . . . . . . . 561
. . (, ). XV
XVIII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581


. . (, ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 603
. . (, ).
XXI XI . . . . . . . . . . 625
. . (, ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 639
. . (, ).
( ) . . . . . 675
. . , . . (, ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 701
. . (, ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 713
. . (, ), . . (, ).
. . . . . 717
. . (, ).
:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725
. . (, ).
( 2007 .) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 739


G. Guionova, M. Bouquet (Aix-en-Provence, France). Ishkornaa : de lusage
de la soude vgtale dans les revtements cramiques (Paykend, oasis
de Boukhara, IXeXIXe sicles) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 767
. . (, ). :
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 779
.-. (, ). . . 795
.-. (, ). . . . . . . . . . 813
. . (, ).
XVII XVIII . . . . . . . . 835

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843

11
CONTENTS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN REGION


C. La Serra (Vibo Valentia, Italy). Polychrome Glazed Ware from St. Francis
in Cosenza during Late Middle Ages. First data from new discoveries
(Calabria, Italy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
J. Coll Conesa (Valencia, Spain). Changing Tastes: from Lustreware
to Polychrome Tiles. Exported Pottery from Valencia in Mediterranean Area
and around (14th to 18th cc.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
V. Verrocchio (Pescara, Italy). Castelli (Italy) Maiolica in the Eastern Adriatic
between 16th and 17th Centuries. Current Knowledge and Research
Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN REGION


E. F. Athanassopoulos (Lincoln, NE, USA). Medieval Glazed Pottery:
Archaeological Evidence from Rural Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
A. . Trker (anakkale, Turkey). A Byzantine Settlement on the Kalabakl
Valley in the Hellespont: Yaclar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
L. Doer (zmir, Turkey), M. E. Armaan (Uak, Turkey). Byzantine Glazed
Pottery Finds from Aigai (Aiolis) Excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
A. G. Yangaki (Athens, Greece). Immured Vessels in the Church of Panagia
Eleousa, Kitharida, Crete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
M. ztakn (Pamukkale, Turkey). Byzantine and Turkish Glazed Pottery
Finds from Aphrodisias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
I. Shaddoud (Aix-en-Provence, France). Pots for Medical Uses in the Arab World
(8th15th centuries): a possible reconstruction of the uses thanks to the cross
disciplinary comparison of sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
V. Biki (Belgrade, Serbia). Ottoman Glazed Pottery Standardisation:
The Belgrade Fortress Evidence for Production Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
V. Franois (Aix-en-Provence, France). Circulation of Potters or Models?
Damascus Pottery Production in the Style of Iznik Ware . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
G. Homsy-Gottwalles (Beirut, Lebanon). Post-Medieval Beirut. Case Study:
the Pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
12
BLACK SEA REGION
P. Georgiev (Shumen, Bulgaria). A Collection of White Clay Pottery from
the Middle of the 10th Century in the Monastery at the Village of Ravna
(North-Eastern Bulgaria) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
C. Paraschiv-Talmachi (Constana, Romania). Early Medieval Glazed
Ceramics Discovered in the Fortifications from Hrova and Oltina
(south-east of Romania) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
B. Borisov (Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria). Glazed Wares from the Medieval
Settlement near Polski Gradets, Radnevo Region (Southern Bulgaria) . . . . 287
M. Manolova-Vojkova (Varna, Bulgaria). Import of Byzantine Sgraffito
Pottery in the Medieval Towns of Bulgarian Black Sea Coast . . . . . . . . . 317
K. Chakarov (Pavlikeni, Bulgaria), D. Rabovyanov (Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria).
Stone-Paste Ceramics from Tarnovgrad the Capital of the Second
Bulgarian Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
I. A. Kozyr (Kropivnytskyj, Ukraine), T. D. Borovyk (Kiev, Ukraine). Torhovytsia
Archaeological Complex Glazed Ceramics of the Golden Horde Period . . . 335
M. V. Elnikov, I. R. Tihomolova (Zaporozhye, Ukraine). Relief Decoration Ceramics
from the Bolshie Kuchugury Hillfort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
M. V. Elnikov (Zaporozhye, Ukraine). Architectural Qashan Ceramics from
Konskie Vody Hillfort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
I. B. Teslenko (Kiev, Ukraine). Pottery Assemblage from the Excavation of
a Household of the Golden Horde period on the Territory of the Medieval
Settlement in Alushta (Crimea) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
S. G. Bocharov (Kazan, Russian Federation). Possidima Settlement in South-Eastern
Crimea and Its Pottery Complex (edge 13th 14th centuries) . . . . . . . . . . . 409
M. V. Dmitrienko (Azov, Russian Federation). Glazed Bowls with Images
of Feline Predators from the Digs on the Golden Horde City of Azak . . . . . 447
A. N. Maslovskiy (Azov, Russian Federation). East Crimean Imported Glazed
Ceramics in Azak, a Golden Horde City. Questions of Chronology . . . . . . 455
N. I. Iudin (Azov, Russian Federation). Qashan Bowls from Excavations in
the Centre of the Golden Horde City of Azak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491
E. A. Armarchuk (Moscow, Russian Federation), A. V. Dmitriev (Krasnodar,
Russian Federation). Glazed Ware of the 13th 14th Centuries from
the North-Eastern Black Sea Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499
E. I. Narozhny (Armavir, Russian Federation). About the Finds of Glazed Pottery of
13th 14th Centuries on the Territory of the Northern Caucasus . . . . . . . . . 513
S. A. Kravchenko (Azov, Russian Federation). Ceremonial Ceramics from
the Digs in Azak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539
S. A. Belyaeva, E. E. Fialko (Kiev, Ukraine). Iznik Pottery of the End of
15th 16th Centuries from the Excavation of the Lower Yard of the Akkerman
Fortress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561

13
I. R. Gusach (Azov, Russian Federation). Asia Minor Glazed Ceramics
of the 15th18th Century found on the Excavated Turkish Fortress
of Azak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581

EASTERN EUROPE
K. A. Lavysh (Minsk, Belarus). Oriental and Byzantine Glazed Pottery
in Medieval Towns on the Territory of Belarus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 603
S. I. Valiulina (Kazan, Russian Federation). Middle Eastern Glazed Ceramics
of the Turn of the 10th11th Centuries and the 11th Century from Middle
Volga Region Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625
T. M. Dostiyev (Baku, Azerbaijan). Glazed Ceramics of Medieval Shamkir City . 639
K. A. Rudenko (Kazan, Russian Federation). Medieval Ceramics from
the National Museum of Tatarstan (preliminary communication) . . . . . . . 675
L. F. Nedashkovsky, M. B. Shigapov (Kazan, Russian Federation). Glazed
Pottery from the Golden Horde Settlements of the Ukek Region . . . . . . . 701
E. M. Pigarev (Kazan, Russian Federation). Glazed Pottery of
the Krasny Yar Hillfort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 713
V. L. Egorov (Moscow, Russian Federation), E. M. Pigarev (Kazan, Russian Federa-
tion). Production of Pseudo-Celadon in Saray, a Golden Horde Capital . . . . 717
V. Yu. Koval (Moscow, Russian Federation). Glazes of Black Sea Region
Medieval Tableware Majolica: chemical composition according to spectral
analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725
V. Yu. Koval (Moscow, Russian Federation). Imported Glazed Ceramics of
the Moscow Kremlin (from 2007 year excavations) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 739

CENTRAL ASIA AND FAR EAST


G. Guionova, M. Bouquet (Aix-en-Provence, France). Ishkornaya: the use
of vegetal soda plant in ceramic coverings (Paykend, Bukhara oasis,
9th19th centuries) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 767
E. F. Gyul (Tashkent, Uzbekistan). Glazed Ceramics of Uzbekistan: Stages
of Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 779
O.-Sh. Kdirniazob (Nukus, Uzbekistan). Glazed Ceramics of Mizdakhkan . . 795
M.-Sh. Kdirniazob (Nukus, Uzbekistan). Qashan Ceramics of Khwarezm . . . 813
F. S. Tataurov (Omsk, Russian Federation). Chinese Porcelain from Russian
Sites of the Middle Irtysh in 17th First Half of the 18th Centuries. . . . . . . 835

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843

14
V. Biki Vesna Biki. PhD. Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade.
. . , .
E-mail: vesna.bikic@gmail.com
Address: Kneza Mihaila, 35/IV, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia

Ottoman Glazed Pottery


Standardisation: The Belgrade Fortress
Evidence for Production Trends
Keywords: Balkans, Ottoman Period, pottery, standardisation, pottery production, social identity
: , , , ,

V. Biki
Ottoman Glazed Pottery Standardisation: The Belgrade Fortress Evidence for Production Trends
Glazed pottery from the Belgrade Fortress, already evaluated contextually and typologically, allow us to address some im-
portant issues of pottery production and cra specialisation in the Ottoman period (16th17th centuries). In order to determine
the degree of pottery standardisation, this article will analyse the main production parameters, such as shape, size/volume and
production technology. The production organisation and cra skills in all aspects of pottery making are examined as well.

.
:

, , -
(XVIXVII .).
, -
, , () .
.

Despite the fact that pottery is being used by Tschinifuruschani Isnik/nfuruan Iznik (von
all strata of human society, its overall social sta- Hammer 1829: 627628). This piece of evi-
tus is very modest, having as a consequence very dence alone speaks of the division within the pot-
scarce knowledge of the role of pottery craft in the tery trade and craft specialisation, and pehaps
wider economic context (Sinopoli 1988: 590). In also of social status differences between crafts-
the Ottoman society the potters and their products men (Goitein 2010: 278). We also know that in
were very seldom referred to in written accounts. 16th-century Varna each potters household was
Yet some of them are highly illustrative, such to pay two akes for firing the pottery kiln, and
as the festival book Surname of Murad III. the same amount was to be paid in the port for
Describing the circumcision ceremony of his son each shipment of pots (Kuzev 1976: 134).
Mehmed in 1582, this source mentions crafts- The study of Ottoman-period pottery espe-
men in the procession. The potters (dikkaran) cially intensive in recent years gave us an in-
were also labelled as the Iznik wares salesmen sight into its complexity, i. e. in both its common

This paper results from the research project of the Institute of Archaeology Urbanisation Processes and Development of
Mediaeval Society (No. 177021), funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic
of Serbia.
( 177021), , -
.

V. Biki, 2017.
207
XXVIII .

Fig. 1. Selection of the green glazed vessels from the Belgrade Fortress

. 1. .

features and regional characteristics. The greatest glazed pottery and to resolve the issue of its stan-
breakthroughs have been achieved by continuous dardisation degree and, moreover, to explain pro-
publishing of large assemblages, like those from duction trends for the functional class of table-
the Agora of Athens (Franz 1942), the Sarahane ware, that is everyday pottery. I will not process
district of Istanbul (Hayes 1992), Varna (Pletnov the luxurious classes, like the Iznik ware, as their
2004), and Damascus (Franois 2012). Thus production was specialised in all aspects and con-
this pottery is well-studied in the contextual and trolled by the state (cf. Atasoy, Raby 1989). In
chronological sense, and in regard of distribu- observing production trends, glazed pottery from
tion patterns as well. This is particularly true for Ottoman contexts at the Belgrade Fortress con-
glazed wares, which constitute a significant pro- stitutes a reference assemblage. This large (opti-
portion of the Ottoman-period pottery. Given the mal) sample has already been typologically and
large quantities of finds, the northern border of stylistically processed and discussed in a wider
the Empire is especially important for these anal- cultural discourse (Biki 2003).
yses. This does not refer only to material from
the towns, first of all Buda (Gerevich 1966; Methodological Framework
Gerelyes 1990; Tth 2003) and Belgrade (Biki
2003; 2007; Popovi, Biki 2004), but also to Perhaps because it comes from the dawn of
finds from smaller fortifications occupied by the the Modern Age, when technological and tech-
Ottomans between the 16th and 18th centuries (cf. nical perfection is commonly expected, the issue
Na 1961; Gerelyes 1990; Kovcs 19901991; of standardisation of the Ottoman-period pottery
Kovcs, Rozsas 1996; Holl 2005; Kovcs 2003). has not yet been discussed. However, precisely
In all these publications glazed ware is signifi- this question is crucial for our understanding of
cantly represented, with its characteristic models, different aspects of pottery craft, and at present
shape of the vessels particularly bowls and we can count not only on substantial archaeolog-
plates and sgraffito decoration, all of them be- ical data, but on affordable complementary pe-
ing long-present in the Mediterranean-Byzantine trographic and physical-chemical analyses too.
world. Furthermore, large-scale ethnoarchaeological re-
On the other hand, the production issues of search has spawned a series of theoretical models
the Ottoman pottery have not been sufficiently for the reconstruction of pottery production and
discussed. This stands for both the hearthware certain aspects of social organisation (cf. Stark
and tableware, respectively illustrating local pot- 1995; Sinopoli 1988; 2003; Roux 2000; Costin
tery traditions and production trends of the ep- 2001); the most important backing is sought pre-
och. Thus the aim of this article is to study the for- cisely in the processes of product standardisation
mal, morphological and technological features of and craft specialisation.
208
V. Biki. Ottoman Glazed Pottery Standardisation: The Belgrade Fortress Evidence for Production Trends

Fig. 2. Glazed bowls from the Belgrade Fortress classes of decoration.

. 2. : ..

According to the definition, standardisation Analysis of Glazed Assemblage


(uniformity) is displayed in sets of vessels show- from the Belgrade Fortress
ing little variability in features formal, mor-
phological and production-based and simpli- At first glance, glazed ware from different
fication of production procedures (Rice 1981: contexts at the Belgarde Fortress seem uniform
219220; 1987: 202; Arnold, Nieves 1992; (fig. 1). This refers first of all to glaze colour,
Blackman et al. 1993; Mills 1995; Stark 1995; which is green or, to a considerably smaller ex-
Roux 2003). To examine the degree of uniformi- tent, yellow. Similarities in the formal attributes
ty, first the morphological variations of the ves- of this pottery, such as cross sections, surface
sels were determined through measuring the dif- finish and even the shape of bowls and pitch-
ferent dimensions, which was followed by the ers, confirm this impression; small variations in
statistical comparison of datasets; the range these parameters are connected to the function of
of values, mean value and standard deviation are the vessels.
the main evidence for standardisation (Kwame On the macroscopic level the cross sections
et al. 1996; Eerkens 2000; Eerkens, Bettinger appear as compact, hard and firm, which points
2001). to the presence of mineral inclusions in the
On the other hand, the results of recent pe- clay, chiefly sand (Kilikoglou et al. 1995). As a
trographic and physical-chemical analyses gave rule, the inner surfaces of bowls and the outer
clear indications of the use of local clay de- surfaces of jugs were treated in the same man-
posits and of stable raw material composition ner: they were first covered with a thin layer of
(clay and inclusions). This implies that deliber- white slip, and then with green or yellow glaze.
ate technological choices were made by the pot- As the vessels were made for serving food and
ters in order to produce vessels with certain func- liquids of various consistency and temperature,
tions (ivkovi et al. 2015); thus in later instanc- both coatings were to reduce porosity and per-
es this research could help resolve the issues of meability (Bronitsky 1986: 225; Rice 1987:
pottery production organisation and the degree 232) and to add to the aesthetic value, perhaps
of specialisation within the craft itself (Sinopoli even to make this pottery resemble the more
1988; 2003; Costin 1991: 3335; Rice 1996: luxurious metallic ware. In most instances,
176182). slip and glaze were evenly applied, and trac-
209
XXVIII .

Fig. 3. Glazed pottery from the Belgrade Fortress review of vessel types.

. 3. : .

Fig. 4. Sgrato bowls from the Fortress of Belgrade.

. 4. .

210
V. Biki. Ottoman Glazed Pottery Standardisation: The Belgrade Fortress Evidence for Production Trends

es of dripped coating can often be seen on the Table 1.


exteriors of bowls and plates and on the low- The values of coecient of variation
er parts of jugs and pitchers. Glazes are bright, for metric attributes of bowls and
of a lead-type, which has recently been con- jugs from the Belgrade Fortress
firmed through chemical analyses of samples
from similar assemblages in Bulgaria (Yoleva type orifice maxi- vessel body
et al. 2015). dia- mum height height
Among the formal characteristics pottery wall meter body
width
thickness is particularly important, as the vessels
hemi- Mean n= 21 n= 11 n= 18
resistance to physical damage and temperature spherical SD 19.26 18.39 6.53
changes depended on it. The thickness analysis bowl CV (%) 2.61 3.95 1.48
showed greater variability in bowls. Some bowls 13.56 22.00 22.98
on foot were shaped with their walls tapering up, conical Mean n= 21 n= 11
mostly from 0.8 cm to 0.4 cm, while the majori- bowl SD 20.14 6.91
ty of bowls have evenly thick walls, 0.30.4 cm CV (%) 4.00 2.08
and 0.81 cm respectively. In contrast to open 19.86 30.12
form bowls and plates, closed forms (jugs and jug 1 Mean n= 10 n= 7 n= 6 n= 6
pitchers) do not show variations; even if they are SD 5.1 16.48 27.66 18.44
more complex in shape, their wall thickness is CV (%) 1.42 0.65 1.87 1.19
28.54 4.09 7.06 6.75
0.4 cm on average.
The decoration analysis yielded results for the jug 2 Mean n= 9 n= 9 n= 9 n= 9
SD 4.82 13.73 23.32 15.61
whole class of glazed pottery, and those relating CV (%) 1.1 2.94 6.34 4.95
to particular functional groups of vessels. Two 22.82 21.45 27.18 31.75
decoration types have been observed, slip-paint-
ed and sgraffito. The first type comes in two vari-
ants, in the form of stripes and spots. They were meals, like pilaf or bulgur, were served in large
all applied on bowls of all types, although not in bowls dishes; medium-sized vessels were
the same ratio (fig. 2). The greatest diversity is used for serving soupy food pottage and meals
found in most common, hemispherical and coni- with milk (and jam and compote as well), while
cal bowls. On the other hand, jugs do not display small bowls and plates were used for serving
spot-like slip decoration, and pitchers were hard- sauces and spices, but also for measuring flour,
ly decorated at all (fig. 1). Sgraffito was more sugar, rice, etc (Bertrandon de la Brokijer 1950:
commonly applied on bowls than on pitchers, 123; Biki 2005: 217222). Jugs and pitchers
but only in a few designs. Apart from the decora- come in several sizes (figs. 1; 4; 5). The medium
tion, these vessels show significant uniformity in ones were usually used for carrying water from
size as well. the source or the well to the house, and for keep-
It is clear from the above text that the best ing it in the kitchen or by the table during the din-
sample within glazed pottery is provided by two ing time. Small jugs and pitchers were used for
large classes: open forms for serving dishes drinking, and possibly for measuring food too,
bowls, and closed forms for keeping and carry- like small bowls.
ing liquids jugs and pitchers. In terms of ty- As can be seen from the preliminary results
pology, both classes can be divided into a num- of petrographic and chemical analyses, produc-
ber of groups/types, with regard to vessel shapes, tion characteristics of the Ottoman-period pot-
rim profiles, foot shape and height, and pres- tery are connected with the vessels function
ence or absence of spouts. Yet each functional (ivkovi et al. 2015). Glazed pottery, howev-
class appears in several shapes, and all of them er, show variations not only in connection with
come in three, maximum four sizes (figs. 25), the intended function of the products, but also
that is effective capacities of 1.21.9 l (bowls) with the planned surface treatment. The ceram-
and 0.53 l (jugs and pitchers), which may im- ic body is red, in nuances from red ochre to dark
ply the vessels function. red; cross sections appear compact espe-
The purpose of particular ceramic categories cially in the somewhat harder sgraffito pottery.
may be suggested by what we know of Ottoman However, in particular cases cross sections are
eating habits. In most cases, the size of the ves- soft and the surface is powdery when touched;
sels was intimately connected with the size glaze and slip flake off too, all of which are the
of the portions. The majority of bowls, dishes consequences of insufficient evaporation during
and plates from Belgrade were of medium size firing.
(fig. 3), to contain food for three to five persons All this points to differences in firing pro-
(Bertrandon de la Brokijer 1950: 119). The thick cedures for distinct functional and decorative
211
XXVIII .

Fig. 5. Glazed jugs of type 1 from the Belgrade Fortress.

Fig. 5. 1 .

groups, and certain parameters indicate an abbre- other hand, their orfce dameters proved to be
viated firing cycle, i. e. speeded up production! the key parameter for standardisation, with the
Slip and glaze quality does not vary significant- coefficients of 13.56 % for hemispherical bowls
ly. White slip is of constant thickness, coating and 19.86 % for conical ones. In all previous stud-
the entire surface, while glaze thickness depend- ies this parameter was used to illustrate the pot-
ed on the presence of decoration and the decora- ters motor abilities and skills (Roux 2003: 777).
tive technique applied. It was noticed that a num- The analysis of the second parameter, height,
ber of undecorated green vessels were thinly and produced no satisfactory results for either type
sparsely glazed; thus their colour is paler by sev- of glazed bowls. Although rather high variation
eral shades and not bright. coefficients of 22.98 % for hemispherical bowls
and 30.12 % for conical ones prove the initial
Standardisation Analysis premise that there were several sizes (volumes)
within both types, these results point to the need
This analysis was conducted on a sample of for further height classification between differ-
85 vessels, 56 open forms (bowls) and 29 closed ent dimensional groups within particular types;
(jugs, pitchers, beakers). The sample is hetero- such a division, along with other metrical analy-
geneous, revealing differences in all parameters ses, would be more suitable for the study of stan-
among functional classes and types orifice dardisation. This problem is particularly evident
and bottom diameters, height and wall thickness. with conical bowls, which could not have been
Yet, variation coefficient values of the glazed pot- divided into different dimensional classes, or,
tery metrical attributes provided results relevant better to say, such a division would harm the sta-
to the study of standardisation degree and pottery tistical relevance of the sample. Even if the ex-
production organisation. Particularly illustrative treme values were ignored while calculating the
are the results for two predominant types of each coefficients, these bowls show considerably larg-
functional group (table 1). er spans in both parameters, with their orifice di-
Coefficient values for glazed bowls from the ameters ranging from 6 cm to 24 cm and recipi-
Belgrade Fortress, with feet of different heights, ents height between 4 cm and 10 cm.
show significant metrical variations (Fig. 2: A similar variation percentage is found in jugs,
110; Biki 2003: types I/1, 1/2). As could be where the recipient height is less variable than the
expected, bottom diameter and thickness, wall total vessel height, 19.59 % and 22.32 % respec-
thickness and the way vessels were built from tively. All these variations reflect on the vessels
bottom to top proved rather random, with coef- capacity, which spans 0.15 l and 1.9 l in bowls,
ficients ranging between 26 % and 43 %. On the and 0.75 l and 3 l in pitchers. At the same time we
212
V. Biki. Ottoman Glazed Pottery Standardisation: The Belgrade Fortress Evidence for Production Trends

Fig. 6. Glazed jugs of type 2 from the Belgrade Fortress.

Fig. 6. 2 .

found out that the average volume of hemispher- Glazed Pottery Standardisation
ical bowls and type 1 jugs was the same (1.2 l), and Production Trends
smaller than that of conical bowls (1.5 l) and type
2 jugs (1.9 l). These figures point to certain pro- The analysis of the Ottoman-period glazed
duction trends in the shape-size relation, which pottery from the Belgrade Fortress yielded im-
should be further tested on a larger sample. portant insights into its technological, formal
The two predominant types of jugs (Biki and aesthetic standards. Visually, vessels from
2003: types III/2, III/20) display interesting vari- this group display remarkable similarties, an im-
ation coefficients. Jugs of type 1 show excep- pression corroborated by very uniform clay
tionally low variability in vessels maximum composition and production procedures. At the
width (4.09 %), height (7.06 %) and recipient whole-class level, the latter ones were restrict-
height (6.75 %), while the other attributes are sig- ed to only a few colour and decorative patterns
nificantly higher. In contrast to this, type 2 jugs, on the one hand, and on the other the meticu-
although visually rather similar to each oth- lous crafting of particular sgraffito bowls is pre-
er, display the variability of more than 20 % in cisely a testimony to an advanced specialisation
all attributes. Unlike jugs, pitchers (Biki 2003: (Goitein 2010: 258).
type VI/2) show the greatest uniformity in orifice The sameness of the forms and overall techno-
diameters (19.69 %), while the variation coeffi- logical features of glazed pottery indicates that the
cients of all the other metrical parameters exceed potters had models at their disposal immediately
20 %. These results point to an inconsistent sam- after the Ottoman rule over the town was estab-
ple creating the so-called cumulative blurring, lished. These were quite different from the prod-
the consequence of a series of factors: in the case ucts of the local ceramic tradition (Biki 2003:
of pottery, first of all there is a possibility that 14); on the other hand, such forms are known
the sample comprises products of many potters, from archaeological contexts form Istanbul to
or vessels of numerous series, produced over a Buda (cf. Hayes 1992: Figs. 103, 104, 106108,
long time (Blackman et al. 1993). For these rea- 110, 127; Frantz 1942: 1728, Figs. 617,
sons, the calculated variation coefficients by no 2534; Pletnov 2004; Tabl. 1620, 4397,
means minimise the impression of uniformity 112119; Holl 2005: Abb. 29, 33, 36, 39, 41).
gained through other methods. Thus the Belgrade evidence is highly illustrative
213
XXVIII .

of the Ottoman production trends and parame- the previous microtopographic research it can
ters. be assumed that the artisans concentrated in the
Glazed pottery comes in a small number of bazaars and around the town gates. This was so
forms and in a few dimensional classes, uni- partly due to the side-effects of their trades (need
form in colour and decoration. The whole group for space, hot temperature, odours, etc.), but
displays approximately the same degree of stan- perhaps even more because the state wanted to
dardisation; yet certain products show greater have the craftsmen under control (Goitein 2010:
uniformity, above all jugs of type 1, and bowls 259260). This spatial pattern was confirmed in
of both predominant types (hemispherical and Kruevac, Serbia, where a pottery workshop was
conical) as well. A high degree of morphological situated in the peripheral zone of the densest set-
standardisation is usually explained by demand tlement, separated from the houses by the fortifi-
conditions, creating an atmosphere of agree- cation rampart (Mini 1979: 157164). A sim-
ment between the manufacturer and the custom- ilar position was occupied by a pottery kiln in
er (Sinopoli 1988: 586590). One should also the Varo (Borough) district of Varna (Kuzev
take into account the customers inclination to- 1976: 134). With this in mind, one may suppose
wards uniformly shaped products, envisaged as that the Belgrade workshop area was situated in
reflecting the potters skills (Underhill 2003: 208). the southern outskirts of the town.
In connection with this, the relatively high vari- Large series of uniform ceramic ware, includ-
ability of metrical parameters points to a num- ing everyday glazed pottery, testify that there was
ber of potters producing a series of wares over a market for such goods, which is in line with
a long period (Costin 1991: 3233; Hegmon et the well-documented role of Belgrade as an im-
al. 1995). In our case, this was almost two hun- portant economic center on the northern bor-
dred years, from the begining of the 16th to the der of the Empire and a storage center for all
end of the 17th century. There are also exceptions, sorts of goods (Popovi 2006: 165). This is also
such as type 1 jugs which were probably made by proved by the distribution of glazed pottery to the
a single potter, or a group of mutually connect- Ottoman strongholds across the Danube River,
ed craftsmen, perhaps from a single workshop in Sourthern Hungary (Kovacs 19901991:
which might have functioned at some point with- 170171; Kovacs, Rozsas 1996: Figs. 1115;
in this timespan. In addition to this, from the es- Holl 2005: Abb. 29, 33, 36, 39, 41). These might
tablishment of the Ottoman rule in 1521, the con- possibly have originated from the Belgrade work-
tents of archaeological contexts changed only in shops; and moreover, similar glazed ware occur
quantity, i. e. in the consumption volume, which throughout this region. Thus an elaborated spa-
was at its peak in the 17th century (Biki 2003; tial arrangement of production activities (Costin
2007). Given all this, the overall pottery unifor- 1991: 1315) can be assumed, within which the
mity during the Ottoman period can be seen as potters from spatially separated territories, differ-
reflecting a stable trend of demand. ent in material and social conditions, could have
Bearing in mind the common Ottoman prac- been engaged in the same cause (Sinopoli 2003:
tice, we can only suppose how pottery produc- 3235).
tion was organised. First of all, one should recall In this particular case, connections between
that in the Ottoman Empire craftsmen clustered Belgrade and the Hungarian possessions across
according to their crafts and specialisations, not the river actually slightly pre-date the Ottoman
their ethnic or confessional affiliation; thus the conquest, otherwise strikingly reflected in pot-
esnafs (guilds) were heterogeneous in composi- tery (Biki 2003: 158164). The Balkan iden-
tion (Goitein 1983: 8485). From the previous tity of sgraffito bowls is uncontested (Bakirtzis
text it may be suggested that in the Belgrade area 1980; Gerelyes 1985; 1990; Kovacs 19901991:
the Ottoman style pottery production was start- 170172), and their distribution outlines the
ed by the newcomers, according to their needs limits of the conquest, outside of which there are
and standards of quality and design. The use no such finds (Biki 2003: 166). The workshop
of local raw materials at a time of fundamental producing this ware may have been situated in
changes in the vessels form and design suggests Belgrade, but elsewhere in the region as well.
that the local pottery tradition was at least part- In its general production character, glazed
ly incorporated into new products (ivkovi et pottery from the Ottoman period conveys a mes-
al. 2015). Thus, it may further be concluded with sage of social status and ethnic attribution, and
considerable certainty that the local potters had partly illustrates the legal framework their man-
their share in the production process. ufacturers had to work within (Costin 1998;
The results obtained provide some ground for 2001: 282285). The notion from the begin-
addressing the issue of the organisation of pot- ning of this article of a marginal socail status of
tery production in this area. From the results of pottery and the potters is, in the case of Belgrade,
214
V. Biki. Ottoman Glazed Pottery Standardisation: The Belgrade Fortress Evidence for Production Trends

circumstantially evidenced by the fact that the Pottery production and the organisation of its
rank of craftsmen was mentioned last by Evliya distribution would imply the establishment of
elebi (Evlija elebi 1979: 90), after those of the potters esnaf, which could then have com-
the military, international traders, administra- prised not only the manufacturers but the dealers
tive staff, winegrowers and gardeners, and boat as well (Baer 1970: 3031). The overall charac-
builders. ter of glazed pottery, and especially the obtained
The low status of the artisans, including the standardisation parameters, provide grounds for
potters, was appropriate to the socio-economic sketching a model of pottery production in an
context of their activities. Namely, to fulfill the Ottoman town. The fact that this was Belgrade,
needs of, above all, the army, they were to pro- the key 16th17th century military and econom-
duce large series of uniform ware. Due to the de- ic center on the northern border of the Empire,
mands for quantity and the urgency, some pro- adds to the potential of the reconstruction of-
duction procedures had to be abbreviated, which fered, particularly as against pottery production
resulted in a decrease in pottery quality. As in organisation in Istanbul, and in the wider context
the case of other towns (Kuran 2000: 4446; of workshop production in the Balkans and the
Kuzev 1976: 134), the Belgrade potters were of Mediterranean.
mixed ethnic and confessional backgounds. The
supposition that the Muslim Turks (Ottomans) Acknowledgments
were the ones to start producing pottery for their
own needs would make them one such group, Presented material comes from the excava-
while technological and stylistic ware charac- tions conducted by the Institute of Archaeology
teristics point to an inclusion in the production (Belgrade Fortress Research Project), founded
line of the locals, primarily Serbs but also oth- by the City of Belgrade, Secretariat for Culture.
er Balkan Christians Bulgarians and Greeks I would like to thank Dr Ivan Bugarski for trans-
(Evlija elebi 1979: 84). lation of text into English.

References
Arnold, D., Nieves, A. 1992. Factors Affecting Ceramic Costin, C. L. 2001. Craft Production Systems. In: Fein-
Standardization. In: Bey, G. J. III, Pool, C.A. (eds.). man, G. M., Price, T. D. (eds.). Archaeology at the
Ceramic Production and Distribution: An Integrated Millennium. A Sourcebook. New York: Springer,
Approach. Boulder Co.: Westview Press, 93113. 273327.
Atasoy, N., Raby, J. 1989. Iznik the Pottery of Ottoman Tur- Eerkens, J. W. 2000. Practice Makes Within 5 % of Perfect:
key. London: Alexandria Press. Visual Perception, Motor Skills, and Memory in
Baer, G. 1970. The Administrative, Economic and Social Artifact Variation. Current Anthropology 41 (4),
Functions of Turkish Guilds. International Journal 663668.
of Middle East Studies 1 (1), 2850. Eerkens, J. W., Bettinger, R. L. 2001. Archaeology Tech-
Bakirtzis, Ch. 1980. Dydimoteichon: un centre de cramique niques for Assessing Standardization in Artifact
post-byzantine. Balkan Studies 21 (1), 147153. Assemblages: Can We Scale Material Variability?
Bertrandon de la Brokijer. 1950. Putovanje preko mora. American Antiquity 66 (3), 493504.
Beograd: Nauna knjiga. Evlija elebi. 1979. Putopis, odlomci o jugoslovenskim zem-
Biki, V. 2003. Gradska keramika Beograda (1617. vek). ljama. Prevod, uvod i komentari H. abanovi. Sa-
Beograd: Arheoloki institut. rajevo: Svjetlost.
Biki, V. 2005. Obeleja kulture ishrane. In: Foti, A. (ed.). Franois, V. 2012. Objets du quotidien Damas lpoque
Privatni ivot u srpskim zemljama u osvit modernog ottomane. Damas mdivale et ottomane. In: Ey-
doba. Beograd: Clio, 203232 chenne M., Boqvist M. (eds.). Histoire urbaine, so-
Biki, V: 2007. The early Turkish stratum on the Belgrade cit et culture matrielle, Bulletin dtudes orien-
Fortress. Byzas 7. Istanbul, 515522. tales 61, 475506.
Blackman, M. J., Stein, G. J., Vandiver, P. B. 1993. The Stan- Franz, A. 1942. Turkish Pottery from the Agora. Hesperia 11
dardization Hypothesis and Ceramic Mass Produc- (1), 128.
tion: Technological. Compositional and Metric In- Gerelyes, I. 1985. Adatok tabni trk diszkermia keltez-
dexes of Craft Specialization at Tell Leilan, Syria. shez s etnikai htterhez. Folia Archaeologica
American Antiquity 58 (1), 6080. XXXVI, 223247.
Bronitsky, G. 1986. The use of materials science tech- Gerelyes, I. 1990. Die balkanverbindungen der trkischen
niques in the study of pottery construction and use. Keramik von der Budaer Burg. Acta Archaeologica
Advances in archaeological method and theory 9, Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 42, 269285.
209276. Gerevich, L. 1966. A Budai vr feltrsa, Budapest: Aka-
Costin, C. L. 1991. Craft specialization: Issues in defining, dmiai Kiad.
documenting, and explaining the organization of Goitein, S. D. 1983. A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish
production. Archaeological Method and Theory 3, Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the
156. Documents of the Cairo Geniza. Vol. 1. Berkeley:
Costin, C. L. 1998. Introduction: Craft and Social Identity. University of California Press.
Archeological Papers of the American Anthropo- Goitein, S. D. 2010. Studies in Islamic History and Institu-
logical Association. Special Issue: Craft and So- tions. Leiden: Brill.
cial Identity 8, 316. Hammer, J., von. 1829. Geschichte des osmanischen

215
XXVIII .

Reiches. Vol. IV. Pest. XVXVIII . : = Pletnov, V.


Hayes J. W. 1992. The Pottery. Excavations at Sara- 2004. Bitovata keramika vv Varna XVXVIII vek
hane in Istanbul. Vol. 2. Princeton, New Jersey: (Household Pottery in Varna, 15th18th Centuries).
Princeton University Press and Dumbarton Oaks Varna: Slavena Publ. (in Bulgarian).
Research Library and Collection. Popovi, M. 2006. Beogradska tvrava. Drugo dopun-
Hegmon, M., Hurst, W., Allison, J. R. 1995. Production for jeno izdanje. Beograd: JP Beogradska tvrava;
local consumption and exchange: Comparisons of Arheoloki institut; Zavod za zatitu spomenika kul-
Early red and white ware ceramics in the San Juan ture grada Beograda.
region. In: Mills, B. J., Crown, P. L. (eds.). Ceramic Popovi, M., Biki, V. 2004. Kompleks srednjovekovne
production in the American Southwest. Tucson: Uni- Mitropolije u Beogradu. Istraivanja u Donjem gradu
versity of Arizona Press, 3062. Beogradske tvrave. Beograd: Arheoloki institut.
Holl, I. 2005. Fundkomplexe des 15.17. Jahrhunderts aus Rice, P. M. 1981. Evolution of Specialized Pottery Produc-
dem Burgpalast von Buda. Varia Archaeologica tion: A Trial Model. Current Anthropology 22 (3),
Hungarica XVII. Budapest: Archologisches Insti- 219240.
tut der UAW. Rice, P. M. 1987. Pottery Analysis, A Sourcebook. Chicago:
Kovcs, G. 19901991. 16th18th century Hungarian pot- University of Chicago Press.
tery types. Antaeus 19/20, 169180. Rice, P. M. 1996. Recent Ceramic Analysis: 2. Composition,
Kovcs, G. 2003. Some Possible Directions for Research into Production, and Theory. Journal of Archaeological
Ottoman-era Archaeological Finds in Hungary. In: Research 4 (3), 165202.
Gerelyes, I., Kovcs, G. (eds.). Archaeology of the Roux, V. 2003. Ceramic Standardization and Intensity of
Ottoman Period in Hungary. Budapest: Hungarian Production: Quantifying Degrees of Specialization.
National Museum, 257266. American Antiquity 68 (4), 768782.
Kovcs, G., Rozsas, M. 1996. A barcsi trk palnkavr. So- Sinopoli, C. M. 1988. The Organization of Craft Production
mogyi Mzeumok Kzlemnyei 12, 163182. at Vijayanagara, South India. American Anthropolo-
Kvamme, K. L., Stark, M. T., Longacre, W.A. 1996. Ar- gist 90 (3), 580597.
chaeology Alternative Procedures for Assessing Sinopoli, C. M. 2003. The Political Economy of Craft Produc-
Standardization in Ceramic Assemblages. American tion. Crafting Empire in South India, c. 13501650.
Antiquity 61 (1), 116126. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kilikoglou, V., Vekinis, G., Maniatis, Y. 1995. Toughening Stark, B. 1995. Problems in Analysis of Standardization and
of ceramic earthenwares by quartz inclusions: an an- Specialization. In: Mills B. J., Crown P. L. (eds.). Ce-
cient art revisited. Acta Metallurgica er Materialia ramic production in the American Southwest. Tuc-
43 (8), 29592965. son: University of Arizona Press, 231267.
Kuzev, A. 1976. Brennfen fr Glasurkeramik aus dem 17. Tth, A. 2003. An Ottoman-era Cellar from the Foreground
Jahrhunert in Varna. Bulletin du Muse national of Budas Royal Palace. In: Gerelyes, I., Kovcs, G.
de Varna XII, 131136. (eds). Archaeology of the Ottoman Period in Hun-
Kuran, T. 2000. Islamic influences on Ottoman guilds. In: gary. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum,
iek, K. The great Ottoman Turkish civilization. 273280.
Vol. 2. Economy and Society. Ankara: Yeni Trkiye Underhill, A. 2003. Investigating Variation in Organization
Yayinlari, 4359. of Ceramic Production: An Ethnoarchaeological
Kwame, K. L., Stark, M. T., Longacre, W.A. 1996. Archaeol- Study in Guizhou, China. Journal of Archaeological
ogy Alternative Procedures for Assessing Standard- Method and Theory 10 (3), 203275.
ization in Ceramic Assemblages. American Antiq- ivkovi, J., Biki, V., Carvajal Lopez, J. C., Georgako-
uity 61 (1), 116126. poulou, M. 2015. Reconstructing technological
Mills, B. J. 1995. The organization of Protohistoric Zuni ce- sequences of 15th16th century pottery from the
ramic production. In: Mills, B. J., Crown, P. L. (eds.). Belgrade Fortress: consumption in the context of
Ceramic production in the American Southwest. historical change. EMAC 201513th European
Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 200267. Meeting on Ancient Ceramics. 2426 September
Mini, D. 1979. Grnarska radionica iz srednjovekovnog 2015, Athens. Conference programme and ab-
Kruevca. Starinar XXVIIIXXIX, 153164. stracts, P-116. Athens.
Na, . 1961. Tvrava Ba Rezultati arheolokih istrai- Yoleva, A., Djambazov, S., Djambazov, P. 2015. Study of
vanja 1958. i 1959. godine. Rad vojvoanskih muze- medieval ceramics excavated at the monastery of
ja 10, 89115. Karaachteke (Varna, Bulgaria). Bulgarian Chemical
Pletnov 2004: . 2004. Communications 47 (1), 387394.

24 2016 .

216