Rácz Tibor Ákos: A múltnak kútja. Fiatal középkoros regészek V. konferenciájának tanulmánykötete - A Ferenczy Múzeum kiadványai, A. sorozat: Monográfiák 3. (Szentendre, 2014)
Képtáblák
English Summaries Orsolya Zay Analysis of Porcelain and Faience Fragments from the Ottoman Period of Eger. The Archaeologist’s View and the SEM-EDS Method The castle of Eger was one of the most important administrative centres (vilajet) in the time of the Ottoman rule. This is best demonstrated by the material finds recovered through archaeological excavations, which fill in the lacunae of the documentary evidence. During the period between 1596 and 1687 several hundreds of import artefacts arrived here, transported through trade routes of the Ottoman Empire, among them faience and porcelain wares. The majority of these are cups (without handles), which attest tea and coffee consumption becoming customary at that time. The topic has been addressed in an MA thesis in 2013, focusing on the collection of documentary and archaeological evidence and the material analysis of ceramic finds. Following discussions with the departmental staff - dr. György Szakmány, dr. Zsolt Bendő, and Sándor Józsa -, at the Department Of Petrology and Geochemistry of the Eötvös Loránd University, ten ceramic fragments have been selected for the analysis. The author of the present article was also working together with Péter Véninger, conservator/restorer, so there were eventually opinions of three different professions represented in the analysis of the finds. She has chosen the SEM-EDS method purposefully, partly because such analysis was carried out and published so far only with regard to tiles from Sárospatak, but it did not feature image recording and processing. Besides, this method, based on thin sections, is not only capable of providing data on the composition of the material but also on its texture. One of the fragments was definitely produced by a workshop in Iznik, and there is also one that is to be classified as Persian faience. The author arranged other fragments in sequential row between these two, and she tried to classify them relying on existing categories. However, she came to the conclusion, that previously applied categories, like “semi-faience” or “semi-porcelain” should be rather omitted, since they are irrelevant from a material analysis point of view. On the other hand, it will be possible to define with precision both the Iznik group of workshops and the Persian faience. Large vessels were well known products of the Iznik workshops, which can be found not only in Turkey or in the area once ruled by the Ottomans, but they also travelled through trade, so they are present in some large Western European collections as well. Cups have not been studied yet in details, so their material analysis is apparently important to broaden our knowledge on the products of the Iznik workshops. As for the group of the Persian faience, previous archaeological research has classified several different groups of artefacts as such - yet, more analytical investigations are needed —, and it has been argued, thus far, that their differences indicate different workshops and different fashion styles. Previously applied terminologies are certainly to be reviewed in the light of future results. Nevertheless, this analysis on cup and vessel fragments has pointed out that at least two other cup types can be related to Iznik masters, and it was also possible to define the composition of the ceramic as well as the paints and glazes of cups and vessels which have been categorized as Iznik or Persian faience. The results can serve as a basis for future research, as similar investigations using the SEM-EDS method have not been conducted so far in Hungary. 474
