ANTAEUS COMMUNICATIONES EX INSTITUTO ARCHAEOLOGICO ACADEMIAE SCIENTIARUM HUNGARICAE = 19-20/ 1990-1991 Budapest 1991Gy. Kovacs 16TH—18TH CENTURY HUNGARIAN POTTERY TYPES The 16th—18th century pottery and metal finds have so far failed to attract wider professional interest, and quite often they are treated as parts of the early medieval (or other period) stray finds of secondary importance. However, these objects should deserve special attention (even if they are just stray finds) because they are vestiges of an era characterized by a chequered annals history, a variega- ted ethnic picture and a culture of mixed origins. All these aspects are accurately reflected by the surviving objects, which should also be seen as the origins of the material culture of the 19th and 20th centuries. From this latter point of view the fairly unknown types of the 18th century are of prime importance as they represent the transition, the link between the late Middle Ages (16th—17th centu- ries) and the Modern Age (here: 19th—2Oth centuries). The aim of the present paper is to introduce the 16th—18th century pottery finds discovered during trial excavations at Tordkszentmiklés and Torokkoppany (Fig. 1). On the basis of these objects, we wish to specify some of the pottery types characteristic of the period, and we also wish to contribute to the question of continuity and discontinuity. The comparison of the two assemblages was meant to highlight the regional differences between ceramic types, and through this we also wish to shed light on the different ethnic backgrounds. Térdkszentmiklés, which was called Balaszentmiklés in the Middle Ages, came under Turkish control after the fall of the Szolnok castle in 1552. During the Turkish occupation of Hungary, Térdkszentmiklés became the centre of the Szent- miklés nahije of the Szolnok-based Turkish sanjak, and it was also the “‘advenced fort’’ of Szolnok. Having suffered countless attacks and takeovers, the castle of Térdkszentmiklés was ruined and rebuilt several times, and after its recapture from the Turks in 1865 it fell into ultimate ruin in the first half of the 18th century." In 1982—83, trial excavations were conducted at the presumed site of the Turkish period palisaded castle of Tordkszentmiklés. Trial trenches were opened at several spots; five trenches were dug in the garden of the Rézsa tér Catholic parish church alone.? There we hit upon the remnants of a palisaded wall and a section of a most, and also a number of pits which most probably belonged to the one- time castle. The objects discovered there can be dated to the 17th century, or most specifically to the second half of the 17th century. The ‘‘miscellaneous”’ finds uncovered during the digging of the trial trenches (pottery dating mainly from the 16th—18th centuries and a few 19th—20th century pieces) point to the regulation of the area sometime during the modern age. Térdkkoppany, which was known as Koppany in the Middle Ages, was oc- cupied by the Turks in 1543, some ten years before the fall of Balaszentmiklés. The castle remained on Turkish hands until 1689. The settlement, which became the headquarters of the Koppany sanjak of the Turks in the early 1550s, was consider- ably fortified in the 16th—17th centuries on account of its geographical location and administrative significance.® Antaeus 19—20 (1990—1991) Budapest170 Our excavations in Torékkoppany took place in the summer of 1984. The aim of the excavations in the plot opposite to the 15th century Gothic Roman Catholic church of the village (the plot of the later post office! was to establish the location of the one-time Turkish bath and to recover its accidental remnants. The area has yielded the foundations of a modern age building and two medieval graves, and also a few unidentified objects which presumably included stones from the bath which we could not find. (The only find associable with the bath was a stretch of an open water conduit set with carved ashlars discovered in a neighbouring plot.*) Most of the objects brought to light from the trial trenches date from the 16th—18th centuries. Their more accurate dating was hardly possible, except for the wheel-turned pottery, where we could rely on written sources relating the sett- lement in the local sanjak of certain people from the Balkans.* The Hungarian pottery constituted the majority of the finds at both sites. However, its proportion was much higher in the Térdkszentmiklés assemblage than in the Térdkkoppany one. Compared with the earlier pottery, the wares produced during the Turkish occupation of Hungary were more colourful, and their local development was influenced by a variety of external effects. There were a few pottery froms which occurred first in the second half of the 15th century but became common only in the 16th or 17th—18th centuries. An example for this is the three-legged pan type with handle, which had Western — or more specifically Austrian — precedents,® and fragments of which have come to light in both as- semblages (PI. 4.1, Pl. 6.3). The bowls and plates also became common forms during the 16th century, as the main forms where lead-glaze was applied.’ One ‘of the groups of the 17th—18th century bowls and plates will be discussed separately below on account of its associations in the Balkans. The other group, which was specifically Hungarian, was characterized by the decoration with birds or stylized flowers. The Torokszentmiklés site has yielded a few remarkable speci- mens of the bowls with red-green colouring against light background and deco- rated with acanthus leaves with dark brown contour (PI. 1.10, Pl. 3.7, 9), and the same site also produced the fragment of a bow! decorated with bird figure (PI 3.10).8 The emergence of the floral ornaments in Hungary has taken up the attention of several researchers. O. Soproni® highlighted the Byzantine-Isiamic and western influences and also the Italian archetypes. Gy. Domanovszky'° stressed the Ha- banic, Turkish and Balkan influences. According to M. Kresz and O. Soproni," the spread of the pottery decorated with incised floral ornaments was ascribable to Italian, Habanic and Turkish wares and also to the influence of other pieces of fine workmanship, like eg. the ornaments on the contemporary furniture, the embroid- eries or the painted ceilings. Through their use as well decorations, the bowls and plates have become the most decorative and colourful group within the Hunge- rian (folk) potteries, and it was through them that the rich ornamentation spread to other pottery types. (As a matter of curiosity, let us quote here an ethnographi- cal observation by M. Kresz. Having realized that in certain regions of the Balkans the suspension hole was missing even from the ornamented bowls, she noted that, the hanging up of the bowls and plates on the wall was a specifically Hungarian practice."? This observation will be important at the analysis of the bowls as- sociable with the southern Slavs of the Balkans, since some of the bow's there do have suspension holes, which thus indicates a Hungarian link)71 Noteworthy among the glazed wares with incised decoration is the body frag- ment from a vessel (mug?) recovered at Torokszentmiklés. The exterior of this fragment is decorated with yellowish-white spiral motif against a red background (Pl. 1.8)."7 The decoration may perhaps be traced back to Byzantine pre- cedents.* The Térdkszentmikiés assemblage also included narrow-necked jugs of white fabric and fragments from bellied unglazed pots and pots with glazed inte- rior and brownish-red or red earth colour (PI. 1.2, 5; Pl. 3.1—6, 8). In most cases the paint covers the shoulder and side of the vessels, but some of them also have their handle painted. This kind of painted pottery is known primarily from the cent- ral, northern and eastern parts of the country, but is was not typical of Transdanu- bia (the site at Térdkkoppdny has yielded no fragments of this type). The brownish-red or red earth colour has been common throughout Europe since the Middle Ages. Its use in Hungary on jugs and mugs started in the 13th century, = and later it was applied on other vessel types."* The variants of red earth colour were also used by the Hungarian folk potters during the modern age, and at some places this practice can demonstrably be traced back to medieval traditions (eg. in the pottery of Rév)."” Both the Tordkszentmiklés and the Torékkoppany assemblages included un- decorated cooking pots with unglazed exterior and lead-glazed interior (PI. 1.9; Pl 2.2; Pl. 6.4). Let us note here that the wheel-turned unglazed pot type which was more common in the Térdkkoppdny assemblage will be discussed in detail in the paragraph on the pottery of the southern Slaves of the Balkans. Ethnographical researches have revealed that the modern age cooking pot demand of the Great Plain region was supplied primarily by the potter’s centre at Gomér," although we have data to prove that the potters of Rimaszombat were suppliers of the Great Plain population as early as under the Turkish occupation of Hungary."® This pot- tery trade was presumably flourishing prior to the Turkish rule, and its origins some researchers date back to the 13th century.”° Later in time, Gomér pottery was sold in the region of Térdkszentmiklés as well, and thus some of the pots found there (including, perhaps, the above-mentioned vessels of white fabric) may well be considered wares produced in Gém6r. Besides the Hungarian wares, both the Térokszentmiklés and the Tordkkop- pany assemblages have offered Turkish pottery types. These wares included va- rious pedestalled bowls of red fabric, with self-coloured, flown or stained glaze, fragments from jugs with pouring lip, pipes and fragments from candlesticks — all of which are proofs for the settlement of the Turks in the area (PI. |. 1, 3—4, 7; Pl 21, 4; Pl. 11—13). The jugs with pouring lip have their precedents in Hungary," but their general use can be expressly ascribed to the Turkish period.? The typi- cal Turkish glazed jug disappeared at around the end of the 17th century, but a va- riant of the lean arched pouring lip survived in the production of the Moh ters.” Moreover, the word “‘ibrik”, which was the Turkish name for '’pot’ survived after a slight change of meaning. As opposed to the jugs with pouring lip, the pedestalled bowls were comletely alien to Hungarian pottery of the day: these bowls were introduced by the conquering Turks, and their use lasted only until the end of the Turkish occupation. As regards their form and decoration, the pedestalled bowls had remained practically unchanged over the centuries, and it is difficult to point out the chronological differences on the individual pieces. As regards the Hungarian late Turkish-period assemblage (including the Eger?> as well as the Térokszentmiklés and Térokkoppany assemblages) it may perhaps be172 presumed that the multiple partitioning of the cone-frustum-shaped base, the horizontally everted wide rim which is often decorated with incised zones of wavy lines, and the lacerated edge of the rim of some of the bowls was common prima- rily in the later periods, although a positive proof for this assumption would require a larger comparative sample. The bowls with sgraffito decoration constitute a special group within the pedestalled bowls. These bowls occurred in a few Turkish settlements (forts) only, and there in diverse proportions. They were demonstrably in use in the 16th and early 17th centuries, and their geographical currency was determined primarily by com- mercial considerations. In all probability this explains the lack of this typically Turkish- period ware in both the Térdkszentmiklés and the Térdkkoppany assemblages. ”° The above-named pottery types are undeniably relics of the Turkish culture in Hungary, or more specifically of the Hungarian Turkish culture which had its roots in the Balkans and was transmitted by the Turks and the Turkized southern Slavs Besides this ,,classical’’ Turkish pottery, 16th—17th century Hungarian pottery also includes a peculiar group which research distinguishes from the Turkish wares and regards as legacy of the southern Slavs of the Balkans. For example this group includes the thick-walled baking bowls and baking bells (also known as “‘publika’’) which were made of coarse fabric and were rather roughly executed. The use of the baking bells has long been rather wide-spread in the Balkans,” and thus we have reasons to presume that it also became common (was rein- troduced?*) by the people of the Balkans who arrived in Hungary during the Tur- kish period. Indicative of this are the baking bell fragments in Turkish period as- semblages.” (In all probability the Térdkkoppany fragments — Pl. 8.7—8. — also date from the period of Turkish occupation, at least this is indicated by the general composition of the assemblage). The baking bells had remained in use in the countries of the Balkan, and also in some places in Hungary, until the 19th—20th centuries. °° The wheel-turned, unglazed pots and jugs, most of which are brick-red in colour and often bear a stamp on the bottom are also associable with the southern Slavs of the Turkish period. These vessels are decorated with horizon- tally incised lines or zones of lines, rusticated ornaments, patterns impressed with cog-wheel or sigil, or stripe patterns. These wares were completely missing from the Tordkszentmiklés assemblage, whereas they constituted the bulk of the Tordkkoppény finds (PI. 4.1—10; Pl. 10.1—5). These wares, which are similar to those used during the age of the Arpads, occurred in large quantities in certain parts of the country, primarily in southern Transdanubia (Pécs, Szigetvar, Mérévér, Tordkkoppany, Ozora, Szekszdrd-Paldnk, etc.).° The fact that these places are neighbouring on Yugoslavia inevitable draw our attention to their parallels in Yu- goslavia. The wheel-turned wares with linear decoration and occasional base- stamp occurred in the territory of Yugoslavia in the 8th century, and have survived to the present day. Literature mentions numberous finds of this type from the 9th—17th centuries.” Pots with base-stamp coeval with the Tordkkoppany pieces are known from the excavation of a house in Belgrade, which was built in the second half of the 17th century.*? Comparable wheel-turned wares with base-stamp were produced by potters in the Balkans as late as in the beginning of this century. (Let us note here that a reliable version of the turning wheel had been in use in Hungary throughout the Middle Ages, notwithstanding that its use was common only in the age of the Arpdds.*° Stray finds indicate its use in southern Transdanubia in the modern age.°°173 In view of the influx of the Turks and also other, mainly Moslem, peoples from the Balkans (Serbians, Bosnians, Croatians, Albanians, Wallachians, etc.), the settlement policy of the Turks which also affected the Christians and the major migrations of the Catholic Bosnians and the Eastern Catholic Serbians in the (late) 17th century?” — all of which had a major influence on the situation in southern Transdanubia — we have no ground to identify a single ethnic group as transmitter of this pottery type. Consequently, one of the names used in Hungarian for this pottery type (Bosnian pottery) is indeed not accurate.** The use of this name can be considered justified inasmuch as most of the migrations that ended in Trans- danubia had their origins in Bosnia, where the use of the turning wheel has long been a specifically marked practice. The peculiar spread in Hungary of this pottery type is a question still awaiting solution.*? One possible explanation is that the people who produced and used these wares found a better place to live in Transdanubia than in the Great Plain. However, one cannot leave out of consideration here the changaes in the econo- my and population in southern Transdanubia, which enabled and even incited the people from the Balkans to settle there. The analysis of the traces of the southern Slavs (mainly Serbs) in the southern parts of the Great Plain, and perhaps also the re-evaluation of the finds ascribed earlier to the age of the Arpdds could furnish further data for research. It is fairly difficult to establish the chronology of the relics of the people of va- rious origins and religion who arrived in Hungary from the Balkans. Research in Hungary has associated some 17th—18th century ornamental bowls with the southern Slavs who settled in Hungary in the (late) 17th century.*° As we have seen earlier, these bowls were flat with thin rim, and were decorated with zones of wavy lines incised in the engobe, zones of parallel straight lines, curtain-like mo- tifs or flown glazed sedgeleaf-shaped patterns. On the bowls decorated with the latter pattern, stripes of different colour radiate from the centre, where they merge into a marble-like patch. in his study on the 18th century pottery of Turkish charac- ter found at Szeksz4rd Gy. Mészdros‘' also dealt with this vessel type and ascribed it to the 17th—18th century southern Slavid population in Hungary (Buda, Eger, Visegrad, Mérdgy, Szeksz4rd, etc.). The BudapestTaban assemblage, which also contains dated pieces, |. Gerelyes*? associated with the Serbs who settied in the Tabén around the end of the 17th century. Supporting the assumption that the origins of this bowl type should be sought in the Balkans is the fact that the geometric patterns used on them are still common on the Serbian, Bulgarian and Wallachian wares.*? Nevertheless, the connection between the occurrence of this pottery type in Hungary and the arrival here of the southern Slav (Serbian) people who practiced the late Turkish tradi- tions requires more comprehensive proofs. In the 18th century, this type of deco- ration was used not only by the southern Slav potters but also by craftsmen of other nationality. In Hungary, this decoration style had been preserved until the late 19th century by the Sérkéz potters.“* These bowls with incised decoration or glazed “‘sedgeleaf’’ pattern are represented in small numbers in both the Torokkoppany and the Tordkszentmiklés assemblages (PI. 4.5—8; Pl. 8.1—2, 4, 6). They are more common in the Torok- koppény assemblage, while the pits at Tordkszentmiklés have yielded no such bowls. This appears to indicate that the pits were filled up prior to the arrival there of this pottery type (and its transmitters). Accordingly, this observation dates the occurrence of this pottery type there to the (end of the) 17th century. However, it174 is also possible that the late 17th century migrating people were kept away from Térdkszentmikiés by the constant warfare in the area.*® Fragments from black-burnt jugs, which were the typical wares of the 16th—18th centuries, have come to light at both Térdkszentmikiés and Tordkkop- pany. However, their presence in the two assemblages differs both quantitatively and qualitatively. The few Térdkkoppany sherds come from light-grey levigated thin-walled vessels decorated with patterns impressed with cog-wheel or incised zones of wavy lines. Remarkable besides the body fragments is a small sherd from a straight pouring lip (PI. 10.6—13.). Most of the numerous Térdkszentmiki6s sherds are dark black in colour. Characteristic of them is the big, wide strap- handle with a grooving or deep slot in the middle, the filtered neck and the geo- metric pattern on the body (PI. 2.3, 5—6; Pl. 5.1—7). In our view this marked difference between the black potteries of the two sites can in no way be consi- dered a mere contingency, notwithstanding that the scarcity of the finds prevents us from drawing further conclusions. However, in view of the composition of the assemblages, we associate the Torokkoppany sherds with the wares of the Turks and the southern Slavs of the Balkans,*® whereas the Tordkszentmiklés pieces were in all likelihood products of 17th—18th century Hungarian potters. The latter pieces anticipate the folk pottery of the Great Plain, where this decoration was es- pecially typical.” Scholars disagree as to the origins of the Hungarian black pottery. Many of them date the spread of the type in Hungary, if not the technology, to the period of Turkish occupation.*® Through the mass influx of the southern Slavs, the style of the Hungarian black pottery could be markedly influenced by the Balkan type of black pottery. This is manifest especially in the jug forms.® In the modern age, the forms and ornaments of the Balkan wares were preserved primarily by the pot- ters in the Mohdcs workshops, partly because they sold their wares in the Balkans in the 18th—19th centuries.°° The two assemblages described above could not offer clues to chronological questions, since the pottery types represented in them have primarily topographi- cal values. The composition of the two assemblages is markedly different: the Térdkkoppany assemblage is dominated by southern Slav elements, whereas in Tordkszentmiklés the wares are markedly Hungarian. The differences in the pot- tery types can most probably be accounted for by the ethnic differences between the population (or less specifically the area or environment) of the two settle- ments. The analysis of the pottery types reveals that the wares of the Turkish pe- riod maintained their medieval traits until the 16th—17th centuries, but they also became more variegated owing to the external western and eastern influences. These wares also clearly anticipated the style of 19th— 20th century folk pottery. In connection with the vessels of white fabric and red earth colour and the black wares we could also refer to the regional differences between the potteries of the 17th—19th centuries. The Turkish and southern Slav wares introduced new forms and styles during the period of Turkish occupation, and their occurrence had a positive effect on the development of the forms and ornaments. The characteris- tics of the late Turkish and southern Slav wares survived primarily on the works of the S4rk6z and Mohécs potters. Accounting for this were (at least in the 18th cen- tury) the partial ethnic continuity and the renewed inspiration from the Balkans.°"LITERATURE Bajalovié-Hadti-Pesié 1981 Birtasevié 1970 Fehér 1959 Fehér 1972 Fodor—Kozék 1970—71 Gai 1985 Gadi 1985 Gerd 1978 Gerd 1985 Gerelyes—Feld 1986 Hegyi 1976 Holl 1956 Holl 1963 Istvan 1964 Kovacs 1984 Kresz 1960 Kresz 1977 Lazar 1986 Luké 1939—40 Meszaros 1968 Popovié 1956 Romer 1966 M. Bajalovié-Hadi-Pe8ié: Keramika u srednojovekovno| Srbij Beograd 1981 M Birtasevic. Srednjovekovna keramika. Beograd 1970 G.Fehér: A pécsi Janus Pannonius Mizzeum nédolts4gkor to ‘ok emiléke’ (Turkish remains of the Janus Pannonius Museum 1 Pécs.|, PécsiME 1959 103—150. G. Fehér. Adatok Eger torok agyagmivességéher (Contribu tions to Turkish pottery in Eger). EgriME 10 (1972) 191—214. L. Fodor—K. Kozék: Leletegyuttesek 2 roménkori székesegy- naz kornyékér6l. Adatok az egri var XVII—XVIII. sz4zadi kerd- midjénak torténetéhez |. (Finds from the area of the Roma- nesque Period cathedral. Contributions to the history of the 17—18th century pottery of the Eger castle I. EgriMé 8—9 (1970-71) 147199. E. Gal: XVII—XVIIl, szézadi kerémialelet Hodmezbvasérhelyr6l (i7—18th century pottery find from Hédmez6vasérhely) ActaAntSzeged 1985 79-105 A, Gadi. Torok paldnkvérak a Buda-eszéki dt Tolna megyei sza- kaszén. (Turkish palisade castles alongside the Tolna section of the Buda-Es26k road). StudiaAgr (1985) 185—197. Gy. Ger6: Turkische Keramik in Ungarn. Einheimische und Im- portierte Waren. In: Fifth international Congress of Turkish Art, Budapest 1975. Budapest 1978 347-362 Gy. Gerd. Die Frage der Keramik und des Ethnikums im turki- schen Fundmaterial von Ungarn. Wissenschattliche Arbeiten aus dem Burgenland 71 (1985) 198—200. |. Gerelyes—I. Feld. Hédolts4gkori leletegyittesek a2 020% varkastelyb6\ (Findgroups of the Ozora castle under the Tur- kish rule). ComArchHung 1986 161—182 K. Hegyi: Egy vildgbitodalom végvidékén (On the frontier of an Empire). Budapest 1976. |. Holl: Adatok a kGzépkori magyar fazekass4g munkamédsze- reinez (Contributions to the working methods of Hungarian medieval potters). BpR 17 (1956) 177—193, | Holl: A magyar kozépkori kerdmia kutatésénak problémdi (Problems of the research of Hungarian medieval pottery) Miveltség és Hagyomény 5 (1963) 65—86. B. J. Istvan: S4rkozi népi cserépedények (Folk clay vesse's of the Sérkoz). NéprErt 46 (1964) 91-137 Gy. Kovécs: Torok kerdmia Szolnokon (Turkish pottery in Szol- nok). Szoinok Megyei Mizeumi Adattér 30-31. Szoinok 1984 M. Kresz: Fazekas, kors6s, télas (Potter, jar-maker, dish- maker). Ethn 71 (1960) 197—379. M. Kresz' & magyarorsz4gi fazekass4g. (Hungarian pottery) Budapest 1977 (manuscript) S. Ldzér: Az egri var torokkori magyar cserépedényei (Hunga- rian clay vessels of the Eger castle under the Turkish rule). Ag- fia 22 (1986) 35-63. G. Luk6: A debreceni fazekasipar emiékei a XVI—XVII. sz4zad- Ol (Remains of the Debrecen pottery from the 16—17th cen- turies). DebreceniMé 1939-40 159-164. Gy, Mészéros: Szekszérd 6s kOrnyéke t6rok6s diszitésd kerd- miai emiékei (Pottery remains with Turkish elements from Szekszérd and its environment). Szekszérd 1968 C. Popovié: Loncarstvo u. Bosni i Hercegovini |. Glasnik Zemaliskog Muzeja u Sarajevu 11 (1956) 95—122 8 Rémer: A sutdharang a torténelem elStti idSkt6! napjainkig (The bakery bell from prehistory to our days). Ethn 77 (1966) 290-422176 Sarosdcz 1972 Gy Sarosdcz_ A mohdcsi keramia és torténete (Pottery of Mo acs and its history). Dundntali Dolgozatok 6 (1972) Simié-Milovanovié 1954 Z_ Simié-Mifovanovié. Beograd kroz Muzejski Material Godisnjak Muzeja grada Beograda 1 (1954) 1-44 Soproni 1961 ©. Soproni: Leadgiazed Turkish and Hungarian Pottery from the Time of the Turkish Occupation of Hungary. Faenza 47 (7961) 26~31 Sopronin ©. Soproni: A magyar mivesei kerdmia szuletése. A torok hé- doltsg kerdmidja (The birth of Hungarian artistic pottery. The pottery under the Turkish rule). Budapest n. d, (1981), Szabadtalvi 1986 J Szabadtaivi A magyar feketekerémia (Hungarian biack pot- tery), Budapest 1986. Tomié 1966 P Tomié: Narodna keramika u Jugosiavij Beograd 196. Urosevics 1969 D.Urosevics. A magyarorszagi délszidvok torténete (The his- tory of southern Siavs in Hungary). Budapest 1969. Velics— Kammerer A Velics~E Kammerer. Magyarorszsq) torok kinestari defte ‘ek II Turkish treasury defters of Hungary —Il). Budapest 1886-1890 NOTES 1 For a comprehensive summary of the Turkish period history of Torokszentmikids and its castle: S. Toth: Vaziatok Torokszentmikiés multjéb6l (Sketches from the past of Torokszentmikiés) Torokszentmiki6s 1957 33-60, | Sugér. Torok végvérrendszer Eszakkelet-Magyarorszgon (Heves, Kuls6 SzoInok, Borsod varmegyék és a J4szs4g) (The System of Turkish border castles in Northeastern Hungary (Heves, Outer Szolnok, Borsod Counties and the Jészs4q area). In Magyar és torok végvarak 1663—1684 (Hungarian and Turkish border castles 1663-1684) StudAgr 5 (1985); Balaszentmiklos, Szentmiki6s in Turkish registers: L. Gydrffy: Adatok a2 Alfold torokkori telepuléstorténetéhez (Az 1571-es szoinoki torok defter forditasa) (Data on the Turkish period settlement history of the Great Hungarian Piain (Translation of the Turkish defter of Szoinok of 1571), Szolnok 1956 23; G. Agoston: A szoinoki szandzsak 1591—92. évi osszeirdsa | (The 1891-92 registers of the sanjak of Szoinok 1). Zounuk 3 (1988) 278— 281; on the strength of the castle guards. Volics— Kammerer | 9100, 130, 265; Hegy! 1976, 69. Speaking of the signifi- cance of the border castles and the related changes in the military strength, Hegy! stresses that, (in the 16th century) the troops stationed at Szentmikiés numbered an average 200. 2 Gy Kovacs. Torokszentmiki6s-Rézsa t6r Az 1982 év régészeti kutatdsai (Archaeological excava- tions in 1982), RégFur ser |. 36 (1983) 125-126, Az 1983 év régészeti kutatdsai (Archaeoiogi- ccal excavations in 1983), RégFuz ser. |, 37 (1984) 130 3 On the emergence of the sanjak of Kopp4ny. E, Vass: Torokkoppany 1556. évi els6 torok ad6- osszeirésa. Somogy megye miltj4b6\ (The first Turkish tax register of Torokkoppény of 1556. From the past of Somogy County). Levéitari Evkonyy, Kaposvar 1972 57—73; L. Fekete—Gy. Kdidy-Nagy. Budai torok szmadéskonyvek 1550-1580 (Turkish account books of Buda 1850~1880). Budapest 1962 436, Gy Kéldy-Nagy. A dudai szandzsdk 1559. évi osszeirdsa (The 1559 register of the sanjak of Buda) Budapest 1977 9, note 20. On the castie guards: Ve hes— Kammer | 86, 11235, 347, 388 4 On the bath: |. Kardcson’ Eviia Cselebi torok vildgutaz magyarorszégi utazésai 1660—1664 (Travels of the Turkish globe-trotter Evlia Celebi in Hungary 1660—1664). Budapest 1904 83; Gy. Ger. Az oszmsn-torok épitészet Magyarorszgon (Dzs4mik, turbék, furd6k) (Osman-Turkish ar- chitecture in Hungary (djamis, turbes, baths]) Budapest 1980 122 5 The Wallachians turned up in the Simontornya sanjak in 1578. They occupied seven farmlands: G. David. A simontornyai szandzsdk a 16. sz4zadban (The Simontornya sanjak in the 16th centu- ty). Budapest 1982 67, the Wallacnians appeared in the Koppdny sanjak in the early 1580s. The 1581 register of the Wallachian villages in the Koppdny sanjak. Velics Kammerer | 331~333; Con the immigration of southern Slavs in general: L. Fenyvesi Az igali portya és a kormendi kétyavetye balkni tanuls4gai Adalékok a Nédolts4gi r&c-vian-fiak-vojnik problematikéhoz, 1647 {The Balkan lessons of the plunder of Igal and the sale of Kormend {Data to the debate on the Serb-Wallachian-Voynik problem during the Turkish occupation, 1641), In. Magyar és torok vég- varak 1663—1684 (Hungarian and Turkish border casties 1663-1684). StudAgr 5 (1985) 204; Urosevics 1969, 91-94, the 18th century data on the Serbs can in certain cases ascribe the pot- teries to the 18th century, cf L Takdcs Hatdrjelek, natarjérés a feudalis kor végén Magyarorszé gon (Bordery marks, delimitations in late feudal Hungary), Budapest 1987 197198, 203, etc.10 n 12 13 14 15 16 25 26 27 28 177 Holl 1963 70, 80; Fodor— Kozak 1970-71 153 Holl 1963 76—77; Ldzdr 1986 41 A 16th—17th century bow! decorated with bird was published by Luké 1939—40 161 and Fig. 2 A nice bowl with bird similar to the Torokszentmiki6s piece is known from Belgrade. It is men tioned repeatedly in Yugoslav literature: as a 14th century bowl: Simié—Milovanovié 1954 Figs, 13 and 4; asa 15th century Italian ware: Birtasevié 1970 Cat. 208 and Fig. 96; asa 16th century Hungarian bow! Bajalovic—Hadgi—Pesi¢ 1981, Fig. 160. In her summary, Soproni in. d 174182) discusses at length the bird motif and aiso the bow! with bird, mentioning several Hun: garian examples. She also treats the bow! at issue as a Hungarian product (179) Sopron 1961 29; Sopronin. 4. (1981), 193 Gy. Domanovszky. Rég\ fazekasség (Folk pottery). Budapest 1942, 7; idem: Magyar népi kerémia (Hungarian folk pottery.) Budapest, 1968, 29 Kresz 1977, 363-364; 0. Soproni: Régi magyar 6lommézas kerémia (Ancient Hungarian lead glazed pottery.) IparE 3—4 11959), 233234; Soproni n. d. 193 Kresz 1977, 386 A small pan from Eger is decorated with a similar pattern. Itis dated by its publisher to the 17th or early 18th century: Lazar 1986, 44 and Fig 12.2 Ct. Ch.M. Morgan: The Byzantine pottery. Corinth XI, Cambridge Massachusetts 1942, 120; Bajalovié —Hadti—Pesié 1981, 76—77, Pl. XXXi—XXXil and Fig. 68; Boldizsar- Bizénci 6s dél- itéliai kerdmiék egyes magyarorszdgi kOzépkorilelhelyekr6! (Byzantine and southefn Halian pot- teries from medieval sites in Hungary.) SzogediME 1987:1, 38-39 and Fig. 4 Holl 1963, 67 Holl 1956, Fig. 16; K. Szab6" Az alfoldi magyar nép mavelSdéstorténeti emiékei (Kecskemeéti th varos mézeumnak asatésai (Cuitur historical relics of the Hungarians of the Great Plain. Exca- vations by the Museum of Kecskemét). Budapest 1939, 107 and Figs. 489—492; |, Gereiyes Eldzetes jelentés a Békés-kastélyzug) torokkori palénkvér asatésér6l 1975—1978 (Preliminary report on the excavation of the Turkish period palisaded castle at Békés-Kastélyzug 1975-1978.) Archért 107 1980), 110 and Fig. 9, Géi 1985, 86-87 and Pl. Vil. 1-8, Pi. XIV. 1; Luké 1939—40, 189-160 and Fig. 1.; Fodor—Kozdk 1970—71, 147-148, 152, 155 and Figs. 2—6, 22-28; Ldzér 1986, 41—43 and Fig. 5, 1—4, Fig. 8, 2—3, Fig. 10, 1, 2—3; J. Kalmér: The 15th century relics of the Fulek (Filakovo) castle. RégFuz Ser Il. 4 (1959) 34, J. Hosso: Prehiad vyvoja stredoveke) keramika na Slovensku. ArchHist 8 (1983) 224—225 and Figs 4—5; Birtasevié 1970 Cat. 155~157, 187 and Figs 75—77; etc Holl 1963 71: Kresz 1960 310, 316; Kresz 1977 350-353. Kresz 1960 304—306. Kresz 1960 308. The 1661 account book of Nagykéros repeatedly states that '“We have bought ots etc. from the people of Rimaszombat'”. Kresz 1960 315; cf. Holl 1956 192 Holl 1963 71 and Fig. 6. Gy. Domanovszky: KiontScsoves edények és magyarorszégi elterjedésuk (Vessels with pouring lip and their spread in Hungary). Ethn 51 (1940) 221 Sarosacz 1972 Figs 72—74 S. Kakuk: Les monuments de la dinanderie turque dans les langues balcaniques et le hongrois. ‘ActaOrHung 19 (1966) 70; S. Kakuk: Cultural words from the Turkish occupation of Hungary. Stu- dia Turco-Hunganica 4 (1977) 39-101 Fehér 1972; Fodor—Kozék 1970—71 Recent studies on sgraffito bowls: Gerd 1978 350; Soproni nd. 43-60; Kovées 1984 20—31 1. Gerelyes: Adatok a sgratfito-diszes torok kerémia keltezésénez (Data on the dating of the Tur. kish pottery with sgraffito decoration). Keletkutatés 1986 autumn, 69—84; Eadem: Sgraftito- diszes torok kerémia az ozorai varkastélyb6l (Sgraffito decorated Turkish pottery from the Ozora castle). FolArch 38 (1987), 247—261 Rémer 1966 During the excavation of Arpddian Age villages several baking bell fragments have been brought to light, which proves the use of this vessel in the period. J. Kovalovszky: Asatdsok Szarvas kor- nyéki Arpdd-kori falvak helyén (Excavations in the area of the Arpddian Age villages near Szar- vas). ArchErt 87 (1960) 37 and Pi. XII. 1-5; Eadem: Elézetes jelentés a dobozi Arpad-Kori falu- 4satésr6i 1962—1974 (Preliminary report on the excavation of the Arpddian Age village near Doboz 1962—2974). ArchErt 102 (1975) 209 and Fig. 5.1—10, Fig. 6.2. In the two works quoted above, the author also mentions other sherds coming from Arpadian Age sites: Tiszalok-R4zom, ibid. 1960, 37; Tiszavalk-Tetes, ibid. 1978, note 10.178 29 Fodor—Kozak 1970— 71 155 and Figs. 46— 47; Kovacs 1984 P|, 34 |, Similarly to the Torokkop: any piece, the dating of the Szoinok baking bowl sherds to the Turkish period is only made prob: able by the assembiage (and its composition) coming from Szolnoi-Tisza-part; K. Magyar: A kozépkori Segesd varos és megye torténete (Egy kirdlynéi kozpont a X—XVIIl. szézadban} (The history and archaeological excavation of the medieval town and county of Segesd [A queeniy centre in the 10th 18th centunes|). Somogyi Almanach 45—49 (1988) Fig 13.4 30 Rémer 1966 400-410, A Onuz. Le métier domestique du travail de la poterie. EthnAlb 10 (1980) 145-146 and Figs 5—I1, Popiié 1956 P |. 1 and 8, Tomié 1966 17 and Figs 12, A. Magyar. Dé daimacziai konynak (Kitchens in Southern Dalmatial Neprért 14 11913) 143144; Z Szilédy. Erdély 1691 tizhelyei (Ancient freplaces in Transylvania). Néprért 10 (1909) 7—9; On the ongins and name of the object Zs. Batky Téraynévmagyarazésok (Explanations of object names). Puplika. Néprért 27 (1935) 16—17, Zs Batky “Puplika’ again. Néprért 28 (1936) 113—117 31 Fenér 1959 126-127, N. Parddi Beszdmolé a pécsi Tettyén 1957. évben végzett 4satdsrol (An account of the excavations conducted in Tettye, Pécs, in 1957). PécsiME 1958 (1959) Pl. LXII. 18 ‘2nd 132, Here the author also quotes the Nagykanizsa pieces; Gerd 1978 351 and Fig. 13; Gerd 1985 197— 200: M G Sandor Régeszeti kutatdsok Marévérban (Archaeological excavations at Marévar). Magyar MGvéd 1959 — 60 (1964) 126, Gadi 1985 189, Gerelyes— Feld 1986 165-177 32 Bajalovie—Hadei— Pesié 1981 41—50 and Figs. IIx; Birtasevi 1970 29-41, 57—71 and Pi NN—XIL, Figs 21—39; Idem’ Srebna ostava u novca 12 sela Ritopeka. Godisnjak Muzeja grada Beograde 4 (1957) 5556; cf also Note 33 33. G Marjanovié—Vujovie: Kuca 12 druge polovine XVII. veka otkopana u utvicebin oidgratu Beogradskog grada — Donjem Gradu. Godisnjak grada Beograda 20 (1973) 227, Pls. IV, VI 34 Popowié 1956 96-99, idem Loncarstvo Bosne | Hercegovine Ii. Gimsar 12 (1957) 17— 46, P Tomié 0 tipovima grncarskog kola u keramike u Srbij. Glasnik Etnogratskog Muzeja 22—23 (1960) 20; Idem: 1966 17-18 and Figs 3-6; Holl 1956 182—186, 191 and inerature cited in notes 5 and 11 36 Holl 1956 189-131, idem 1963 80; For example J Kovalovszky. Asatdsok Csepelven (Excava. tions at Csepely). VeszprémMK 8 (1969) Figs 32— 34; sherds of this kind have come to light from a house dated to the late 15th century, and from another eariy 16th century house. 36 Kresz 1977 207 cites a datum trom Toina County and refers to the fervale potters of Magyarher- telend, Baranya County (i Danké A magyarhertelendi néi fazekassag (The female potters of Magyarhertelend) PécsiMé 1967 (1968) 123-133; Gy. Domanovszky. A magyar nép diszitéma- vészete (The decorative art of Hungarian people) ||, Budapest 1981 |. 199. According to the authors the knowledge of this relatively primitive pottery was inherited by the Magyarhertelend people trom the southern Slavs of the Turkish period). According to Gy. Geré'’s oral information, which | wish to thank hereby, there was a potter working in the early years of this century in Basal near Szigetvar! who produced wares similar to those at issue but already on foot driven turning wheel. Here the effects of the southern Slavs can also be presumed. 37 Ct Note 5, and also Hegyi 1976 182—184, on the major influx of the southern Slavs in the se- Cond half and end of the 17th century cf L_Hadrovics A magyarorszagi szerb kérdés baikani gyokere! (The Balkan roots of tne Serbs in Hungary) Budapest 1942 36; L. Nagy” Récok Buddn 65 Pesten 1686-1703 (Serbs in Buda and Pest 1686~1703). TBM 13 (1969) 62,1 Taba. Baranya megye népessége a XVIl_sz6zad végén (The late 17th century population of Baranya county) Pécs 1941 45—46 On the southern Slavs of the Great Plan’ S. Borovszky Egy alajbég telepitese Adatok az Aifoid XVII. sz4zadh torténetéhez (The settlement of an alai beg Contributions to the 17th century history of the Great Hungarian Plain). Budapest 1901; Gy. Kidy—Nagy’ A gyulai szandzsdk 1567 @s 1579. évi osszeirasa (The 1567 and 1579 registers of the sanjak of Gyula } Békescsaba 1982. 18, On the southern Slavs of Transdanubia A. Gadi A Dombévar-béka 161 XVi—XVII_szdzadi temeté (The 16In—17th century cemetry at Dombévér-Békat). Szek szardiME_1879~80 (1982) 133-223; L Hegedds: Tolna megye nyugati felének telepulése! 1580—1704 (Settlements in the western half of Toina county 1580-1704), Tanulményok Toina megye torténetéd6i (Studies from the history of Toina county) 19. Szekszérd 1973 5—103, etc 38 The terms southern Slav or late Slav are used by Gerelves— Feld 1986 177, Note 6; Gerd 1985 200. 39. Urosevics 1969 61, the author deals with the reasons behind the settlement of the southern Slavs in Batka in the 17th century 40 The pottery at issue was discussed by 0. Soproni in several works © Soproni Visegrddi folyatott mza5 kerdmia (Flown glazed pottery from Visegrad). MiviortTan 1956-58 (1960) 35~ 50, Ea- dem 1961 27— 28 and PI Xil, Eademn o 87116. On the occurrence of the pottery in he Great Piain cf also Kovacs 1984 34—35 and Fig. 33, Ga! 1985 89 and Pi Xil 5, Pi Xill 5, Lazdr 1986 41-42 and Fig 6 3-4 Latter author dates the Eger bowls to the second halt of the 16th century or the early 17th century This dating 1s too early179 41. Mészéros 1968 20 42 |. Gerelyes: Adatok a tabéni torok diszkerdmia keletkezéséher 6s etnikai hatteréhez (Contribu tions to the dating and ethnic background of the Turkish ornamental pottery from the Taban). Fo Arch 36 (1985) 238240 43. Soproni 1961 27; Eadem nd. 105, 108 and Figs 23— 24; B Slatineanu. Ceramica Romineasca Bucuresti 1938 Pis. VI. c. XIV. a, XVI. b, XIX. ab, XX. 0, B Kencev. Boigarskoe keramiteskoe iskusstvo, Sofija 1947 12, 21; G. Bakirdaijev Kerammikata v Balgarija. Sotija 1956 118, 120, 125 Tomié 1966 20 refers to the fact that the pottery finds of W Bulgaria and of Pirot are rather similat 44 Mészéros 1968 21—22; Istvan 1964 45 Slightly different from these sedgeleat-decorated bowls with marbled centre is the sherd from a finely marbled glazed bowl that came to light from a mixed layer in the garden of the school in Torékszentmikids (PI. 4.4). Similar bowls are published by | Gereiyes Torok kerémia a visegradi Aisévarb6l (Turkish pottery from the lower castie of Visegrad). CommArchHung 1987 175 and Fig. 3.3, itis dated to the second half of the 16th century (7) oF the first half of the 17th century 46 Ct eg. Fehér 1972 195 and Pl. X. 12; | Horvath —M.'H. Kelemen—I. Torma. MRT. Komarom megye régészeti topografidia. Esztergom és a dorogi j4rés. (Archaeological topography of Komérom county. Esztergom and Dorog districts). Budapest 1979 428 and Pi. 54.6, / Danko A Gyula fezekassdg (The potters of Gyula). A Gyulai Erkel Ferenc Maz kiadv. 48-49 Gyula 1963 7; Gad! 1985 Fig. 16, Gerd 1985 196 and Fig. 3; Kovacs 1984 38—41 and Fig. 24. G. Fenér Torokkoriparmdvészeti alkotasok (Applied art under the Turkish rule). Budapest 1975, Figs. 25 and 68; G. Fehér 1959 124—1926; Soproni n. d. 1733, S Nadi. TwrCava Ba¢. RadVoiMuz 10 (1961) Pis. XI. 1, XI. 1; Simié—Milovanovi¢ 1954 17 and Fig. 7 47 A Béres. A nddudvari fekete kerémia (The black pottery of Nédudvar). Hajdi-BiharME 6 (1965), 3-101, Idem: A Déri Mézeum nédudvari fekete edény gyijteménye (The collection of black Nadudvar potteries in the Déri Museum). DebreceniME 1965 (1966) 441-566; M_ Kresz Mezétir fazekasséga 1813—1914 (The pottery of Mez6tir 1813-1914). Budapest 1978 3. J ‘Szabéfalvi A magyar fekete kerdmia és Kelet-eurbpai kapesolatal (The Hungarian black pottery and its East European relations). Miveltség és Hagyomdny 12 (1960) 165192; dem: Die Schwarze Keramik in Ungarn und ihre Osteuropaischen Bezeihungen. ActaEthnHung 7 (1958) 387—428, Idem: Die Ornamentik der Ungarischen Schwarzkeramik. Acta€thnHung 9 (1960) 25~327 48 A brief summary: Szabadfalvi 1986 9—10 49 Fehér 1959 126, Sarosdcz 1972 882, Szabadfaivi 1986 10 50 Sarosdcz 1972 3233, 32~33, Istvén 1964 114 51 | wish to thank hereby the help of M. Kresz, |. Holl and 1. Torma in writing this paper ILLUSTRATIONS Figute 1 Map of Hungary with the findspots Plate | Turkish and Hungarian pottery, 17th century. Torokszentmik 16s, garden of parish church, section | Pit No 2. 18, section V. Pit No 1 9-10 Plate i Turkish and Hungarian pottery, 17th century Torokszentenik 16s, garden of parish church, section | Pit Nol. 1—4, section | PitNo 3. 5—6 Plate ill 1-6, B Fragments from vessels with red earth colour 17th—18th century; 7. 9—10: Fragments from vessels with in cised decoration. 16th—17th century Torokszentmiklos, Garden of parish church’ 1—7, 9—10, schoolyard. 8 Plate Iv 1—2: Fragments from wessels, 17th—18th century, 3, 5~8 Fragments from bowls. Late 17th—18th century, 4 Frag ments from bowl, 17th century. Torokszentmikl6s, Schoolyard Plate V Black pottery 2, 4. 6—7; 1, 3, 5. 17th—18th century. Torok: szentmiklés, garden of parish church: 1~ 2; Schoolyard. 3~ 7 Plate VI Fragments from vessels. 1, 3. 16th—17th century; 2, 4 V7th—18th century; Fragments from glazed tiles. 5—6, 8 16th—17th century: 7: 16th century. Torokkoppany. Posta- tele Plate Vil Turkish pottery. 16th—17th century, Torokkoppany, Postatelek180 Plate vill Plate IX Plate X Plate Vil Piate vill Plate IX Plate X 1—6: Fragments from bowls. Late 17th—18th century; 7—8: from baking bowls and baking bells. 16th—17th century (7), ‘Torokkoppany. Postatelek Southern Slavic pottery, 16th—17tn century. Tordkkoppény. Postatelek 1—5: Southern Slavic pottery, 16th—17th century; 6—13: Black pottery, 16th—17th century. Torokkoppany. Postatelek 1—9, 11, 13; Friedrich-telek: 10, 12 Turkish pottery, 16th—17th century. Torokkoppény. Postatelek 1—6. Fragments from bowls, Late 17th—18th century, 7—8: from baking bowis and baking bells. 16th—17th century (?) ‘Torokkoppany. Postatelek Southern Slavic pottery, 16th—17th century. Trdkkoppény. Postatelek 1—5: Southern Slavic pottery, 16th—17th century; 6—13: Black pottery, 16tn—17th century. Torokkoppany. Postatelek 1=$, 11, 13, Fredrich-telek 10, 12@ a Gy. Kovées Fig. 1352 Gy. KovéesPaha: Sa w