Marisia - Maros Megyei Múzeum Évkönyve 1. (2019)

Oana Toda: Tobacco Clay Pipes from Rupea Castle and their Historical Context

TOBACCO CLAY PIPES FROM RUPEA CASTLE AND THEIR

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Oana TODA*

This study is aimed at the publication and contextualization of the few tobacco clay pipes discovered in Rupea castle between 2010 and 2012. The small finds, dated from the 17th until the 19,h century, are representative for a much controversial daily habit of the Early Modern that met great enthusiasm among the population and censorship from the official authorities. The rapid spread of smoking is not as much visible in the archival sources as in the number of smoking accessories excavated by archaeologists. The small lot from Rupea, even though fragmentary, contains ‘Turkish-type’ artifacts, possibly some hybrid ‘Turkish-Hungarian ones and late ‘Austro-Hungarian pieces.

Keywords: 17th-19th centuries, smoking, Turkish influence, archaeological excavation, rules and regulations, Transylvanian Saxons

Cuvinte cheie: secolele XVII-XIX, fumat, influenza turceascä, säpäturä arheologicä, legi si regulamente, sasi din Transilvania

INTRODUCTION

During the past two decades, the publication of a handful of scientific papers marked the onset for the research of tobacco consumption and of its associated material culture in the Principality of Transylvania1 and the neighboring areas.2 Researcher A. M. Gruia highlighted the need for systematical publication of the lots of tobacco clay pipes and related accessories that were archaeologically excavated, and for the reevaluation of some popular misconceptions when it comes to their identification and dating.3 Valuable steps were carried out especially in the case of

Timisoara and Oradea, as several studies revealed the pipe typology for the 17th and 18th centuries based on consistent archaeological groups of such artifacts with well-documented contexts of discovery. For the most part, however, the data availability on the smoking accessories in the Principality is tributary to the personal choice of the archaeologist. Given the highly lacunar state of research in the field of Modern Period archaeology, these finds present a late dating for the majority of archaeologists and do not meet enough scientific interest.4 Only few researchers

* Oana Toda. Mure§ County Museum, Tärgu Mure§, RO, oanatoda@yahoo.com

1 Rusu 1998; Szente 2009; Gruia 2012a; Gruia 2012b; Gruia 2012c; Gruia 2013; Demién 2018.

2 Emődi 1998; Marta 2002; Kopeczny-Dincä 2011; Gaspar 2016; Kondorosy 2014; Kondorosy 2017; Trandafir et al. 2017 (the situation in Oradea was mostly discussed for the interval of the Ottoman occupation). In Moldavia and Wallachia, with a couple of exceptions (e.g.: Ene 2013; Hänceanu 2013; Bilavschi 2017), the subject was discussed incidentally, as part of larger monographic works or archaeological reports. See, for example: Andronic-Neamtu 1964, 425, 427-428; Andronic et al. 1967, 265-270; Neamtu et al. 1980, 128, 247.

3 Gruia 2013, 41-48.

4 A notable exception in the case of the quarantine at Pri$ca mtn. peak (Harghita County): Demjén 2018.

MARISIA 1,2019, p. 119-138.