Istanbul Ceramic Workshops Project First laboratory study of a Constantinopolitan production of Byzantine ceramics

Introduction

The rescue excavations undertaken in Istanbul by the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul, in the framework of the MARMARAY infrastructure project, recently unearthed the remains of one or several ceramics workshops. Dated back to the late Byzantine and early Ottoman periods, they are located in the district of Sirkeci, at the periphery of what used to be the main imperial and ecclesiastic complex of Constantinople.

This exceptional discovery provides, for the first time, the opportunity to study the manufacture of ceramics in Istanbul at the Byzantine period. Our project intended to constitute, with the help of chemical analysis, a corpus of reference data corresponding to these productions. The new reference groups could then be used to test the attribution to Contantinople of several categories of ceramics. As the capital of the Byzantine empire, the city has always been considered the origin of many ceramics productions, due to relative abundance and persistance of similar fabrics in the Ottoman period (Byzantine White Ware, Hayes 1992), or to quality of execution and large scale of diffusion (e.g. Zeuxippus Ware, Megaw 1968). But until the Sirkeci excavations no archaeological evidence had come to confirm these hypotheses.

Excavations at Sirkeci

They have been directed first by Çiğdem Girgin, then by Nihal Erhan and Suleyman Eskalen, under the supervision of Ismail Karamut, director of the Istanbul Archaeological Museum. Although a structure that might be interpreted as a kiln was unearthed in 2005 (Girgin 2007), no further structure of pottery production has been found so far. But the large quantities of pottery dump found in the Sirkeci excavations attest to the vicinity of ceramics workshops.

Pottery dump mainly consists in kiln furniture () and biscuit-fired pottery, that is unfinished ware rejected after a first firing and before the application of a glaze. The biscuits were slipped and usually decorated with the sgraffito or the champlevé technique.

Figure 1: Kiln furniture. Tripods and other stands used to separate glazed pottery in kilns.

First approach of the Sirkeci repertoire

Although our study did not intend to be a typological one, a first approach of the repertoire of the Sirkeci production could be done, thanks to the ceramics wasters and to chemical analysis (Waksman et al. 2009). This repertoire includes a variety of motives, some of which related to previously studied categories ( and ). For instance, monograms motives enable to date (part of) the production to the late Byzantine—and more precisely to the Paleologan—period, according to previous studies (Papanikola-Bakirtzi 1999). Others may be related to Elaborated Incised Ware (François 2003), to Zeuxippus Ware class I (Megaw 1968), possibly to Westliche Sgraffitoware (Böhlendorf Arslan 2004). A bird motive reminds of the so-called Thessaloniki bird, only known up till now from the Thessaloniki workshops (Papanikola-Bakirtzi 1999).

This part of the study benefited from the assistance of Burçe Tuz, Nurcan Çalık and Nilgün Örnek, archaeologists of the Sirkeci team.

Figure 2: Biscuit-fired wasters. These wasters, coming from the same archaeological context, illustrate the variety of motives in the production of Sirkeci. It includes ceramics decorated with monograms (top row, 2^nd from the right), with birds (top row, 1^st from the right) and Elaborated Incised Ware (top row, 1^st from the left).

Figure 3: Biscuit-fired and glazed ceramics with monograms.

Chemical analysis and reference groups

Chemical analysis were carried out by wavelength-dispersive X-ray fluorescence at the Laboratoire de Céramologie in Lyon (France). Twenty-four major and trace elements are determined in ceramics samples, 17 of which are currently used in multivariate analysis that enable to classify samples according to their chemical composition.

Three reference groups, corresponding to the productions of Sirkeci, could be defined. The main one (S2) includes the majority of the samples and the largest typological variety—Elaborated Incised Ware, ceramics decorated with monograms, with birds and other figurative motives, ceramics related to Zeuxippus Ware class I, etc. This production is made out of a non-calcareous clay. The two other groups are also constituted of non-calcareous clays, but unlike the previous one their paste may be considered kaolinitic, due to high aluminium, low alcaline elements and manganese contents. The second group (S3) possibly corresponds to an early Ottoman production, whose particularity is to apply the sgraffito technique on a kaolinitic paste. The third group is a very small one (S1, two samples), but of interest since it presents profiles similar to Glazed White Ware Ⅱ (Hayes 1992). In spite of this typological similarity, group S1 is quite different chemically from Glazed White Ware II samples from the Saraçhane excavations (Waksman and Girgin 2008). In the present state of research, the Sirkeci material cannot confirm the hypothesis of a Constantinopolitan production of Glazed White Ware Ⅱ. Neither do the other groups confirm the local manufacture in Istanbul of several other categories, including Zeuxippus Ware and Orange Brown Glaze Ware (Hayes 1992) or Novy Svet Ware (Waksman and François 2004–2005).

Conclusions

This project grant enabled to study and characterize chemically the first production of Byzantine ceramics attested by archaeology in Istanbul. Partly dated to the Paleologan period, its repertoire includes Elaborated Incised Ware, ceramics decorated with monograms or related to Zeuxippus Ware class I. It also includes bird motives similar to those produced and previously attributed to Thessaloniki. The Sirkeci repertoire gives a complex picture of ceramics production in the late Byzantine period, with multiple and mutual typological and stylistical influences.

Chemical analysis enabled to define the first reference groups corresponding to undoubtedly Constantinopolitan productions. These may be used to test the attribution to the Byzantine capital of several types of ceramics. They may also help precising the fluxes of exchanges and the respective economic role of the great late Byzantine cities, as may be seen through ceramics study. The excavations at Sirkeci in Istanbul give us an exceptional opportunity to study ceramics production in the Byzantine capital. But our results only give some clues in a field still largely to be investigated.

Bibliography

• Böhlendorf Arslan, B. 2004: Glasierte byzantinische Keramik aus der Türkei, Teil Ⅰ-Ⅲ, Istanbul.
• François, V. 2003: Elaborate Incised Ware: un témoin du rayonnement de la culture byzantine à l'époque paléologue, Byzantinoslavica ⅬⅪ: 151–168.
• Girgin, Ç. 2007: Sirkeci'de sürdürülen kazı çalışmalarından elde edilen sonuçlar, in Gün Isiginda: Istanbul'un 8000 yili: Marmaray, Metro, Sultanahmet kazıları, Vehbi Koç Vakfı, Istanbul: 98–105.
• Hayes, J.W. 1992: Excavations at Saraçhane in İstanbul. Vol 2. The Pottery, Princeton.
• Megaw, A.H.S. 1968: Zeuxippus Ware, BSA 63: 67–88.
• Papanikola-Bakirtzi, D. (ed.) 1999: Byzantine Glazed Ceramics. The Art of Sgraffito, Athens.
• Waksman, S.Y., François, V. 2004–2005: Vers une redéfinition typologique et analytique des céramiques byzantines du type Zeuxippus Ware, BCH 128–129.2: 87–182.
• Waksman, S.Y., Girgin, Ç. 2008: Les vestiges de production de céramiques des fouilles de Sirkeci (Istanbul). Premiers éléments de caractérisation, Anatolia Antiqua ⅩⅥ: 443–468.
• Waksman, S.Y., Erhan, N. and Eskalen, S. 2009: Les ateliers de céramiques de Sirkeci (Istanbul). Résultats de la campagne 2008, Anatolia Antiqua ⅩⅦ: 457–467.