Prékopa Ágnes (szerk.): Ars Decorativa 31. (Budapest, 2017)
Szabolcs KONDOROSY: Types of Smoking Pipe Widespread in the Ottoman Empire in the 17th Century in Connection with Archaeological Finds from Onetime Várad Cathedral (Budapest Museum of Applied Arts)
Soberón, Mikel: ‘Les pipes de ceramica no caolinítica trobades a Barcelona, producció i comerţ als segles XVII-XIX.’ [The non-kaolinitic clay pipes found in Barcelona: Production and trade in the 17th to 19,h centuries], Quaderns d’Arqueologia i História de la Ciutat de Barcelona II/ 8, 2012, pp. 166-191 (hereinafter Beltrán 2012), p. 180, Lám. 9/8, 16/7. 25 Humphrey 2009, Type 1.2. No drawing or description of the floral version is given, and so it cannot be classified any more precisely. 26 Hayes 1980, p. 8. He mentions three hundred unclassified pipes, and they may easily include this type. 27 Radu-Iorguş 2013, pp. 245-246, Fig. 1/1. 28 Quoted in Gosse 2004, p. 163, 7.1 29 Gosse 2004, pp. 163-164, No. 266. 30 French, Peter G.: ‘Smoking pipes of the Islamic period from the Madrasa Tatar al-Higaziya’, in ‘Die Gesichte der Erhaltung arabischer Baudenkmäler in Ägypten’, Abhandlungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo, Islamische Reihe 8, 2001, pp. 213-230, Abb. 67. /4.1. 31 Civilyté, Agné - Kvizikevicius, Linas - Sarcevicius, Saulius: ‘Die Pfeifenwerkstatt des 17./18. Jahrhunderts in Vilnius’ [The Pipemaker Workshop of the 17th/18th centuries in Vilnius], Knasterkopf 18, 2005, pp. 63-66 (hereinafter Civilyté 2005), p. 63, Ab. 1. Typ. 4. 32 The loss of this basic feature causes difficulties for positively identifying derivatives of the type. The rosette or flower on the side of the head without other retained traits is not sufficient to ascertain derivation from the type. Tulip-head pipes that appeared in the late 17'1' century also have floral patterns on the side, but the shape may derive from other types. 33 Quoted in Gosse 2004, p. 163, No. 293, 309. 34 Iparművészeti Múzeum (Museum of Applied Arts), Budapest, inv. nos. 10.422, 85.73 and 99.106. 35 In detail: Kondorosy 2015. There is a very similar pipe to the transitional shape in Temesvár (now Timişoara, Romania): Gaşpar, Adriana: ‘Obiceiuri cotidiene reflectate arheologic în Timişoara otomană. Observaţii asupra pipelor de lut’ [Daily customs reflected in the archaeology of Ottoman Timişoara. Notes on the clay pipes]. Materiale şi Cercetări Arheologice Serie Nouă, XII, 2016, pp. 259-283 (hereinafter Gaşpar 2016), p. 281, Fig. 9/15. 36 Brusic 1987, p. 489. 37 Civilyté 2005, p. 65. The site of the pipe kiln came into the possession of the Jesuits in 1697. 38 Emödi 1998, p. 31. 39 The identification of this type has been subject to more errors than either of the other two. 40 In detail: Kondorosy, Szabolcs: ‘A szegedi vár pipái I.’ [The Pipes of Szeged Castle I.] Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyvei Studia Ethnographica 6, 2008, pp. 331-364 (hereinafter Kondorosy 2008), p. 340. 41 Zoljani: Sisa-Vivek, Marija - Filipec, Kresimir: ‘Keramicke lule s lokaliteta Zoljani / Cemesac L’ [Clay Pipes from the Site Zoljani - Cemesac I]. Opuscula Archceologica 37/38, 2013/2014, p. 321, T.l./14-16. 42 Sofia: Stanceva, Magdalina - Nikolova, Tatjana: ‘Hobh npoyMBaHna Bbpxy TAHHeHHTe AyAH ot CepAHKa’ [New studies on the clay pipes from Serdika], in CepAHKa, III, 1988, (hereinafter Stanceva 1988), p. 139, 06p. 11; Vidin: two pipes in the National History Museum of Sofia (inv. nos. 28039.15 and 28039.87). 43 Corinth and Athens: Robinson, Rebecca W.: ‘Tobacco pipes of Corinth and of the Athenian Agora’. Hesperia 54/2, 1985, p. 173, CIO, PI. 48, 195, A7, PI. 61. 44 Hadrianopolis: Cengiz, Aysun: ‘Edirne Yeni Saray kazilarmda eie gegen lüleler’ [The clay tobacco pipes uncovered from the excavations of Yeni Saray at Edirne], degree dissertation, 2011, pp. 53-58. 45 Stanceva 1988, p. 139. 46 Szeged: Kondorosy 2008, p. 338; Temesvár (49%): Kopeczny, Zsuzsanna - Dincă, Remus: ‘Tobacco Clay Pipes Discovered in the Historical Center of Timişoara’ Ziridava 26, 1, 2012, pp. 167-190; Temesvár (36%): Gaşpar, 2016, Fig. 7/1-6, Fig. 8/7-10. 21
