G.HATHAZL-GY. KOVACS A POST-MEDIEVAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM VAL, In 1986 Gabor Hathézi conducted a control excavation beside the Gothic church tower of Val near Székesfehérvar in county Fejér (Figs !~2). The excavations clarified the building history of the medieval church (Fig. 3) and it also became clear that the former Turkish palisade fortress of Val can be located to this area (a probability that seemed likely on the testimony of the written sources). The final report on the discoveries made in the course of the excavations, including the results ofthe topographic investigation of the site and the evidence of the written sources, appeared 1996,’ Here we shall only publish an outstanding post-medieval assemblage that includes also some remarkable Turkish finds.” ‘The Turkish palisade fortress of Val was built in 1550. In fact, the Turks had transformed the medieval, three-naved church standing in the centre of the settlement into a fort. As part of the defense fortifications of Székesfehérvar, the fort played an important role in the Turkish period, and it was one of the main stations on the road linking Gyér and Tata to Adony (Jankurtaran). The garrison stationed in the fort was about 100 to 120 strong. In the Fifteen Years’ War the fort was briefly occupied by the Hungarians; recaptured by the Turks, and the Hungarians finally re-occupied it around 1686/87." After the Turkish occupation period, the territory of the fort and its ruins (with the church standing in its centre) were, being formerly an ecclesiastic property, reclaimed by the Reformed Church (169: 1714), who were supplanted by a group of Catholics who had been settled here by the Jesuits. In the early 1720s the Catholic Church began large-scale construction work on the ste." 1G. HATIAZI-Gy. KOVACS: A vil gétikus templomorony’ (Adatok Val 14-17. szizadi térténethe) [The Goth church tower in Vil The history of Vil inthe 14th-17h centuries], IKMK B. 46, Sabkesfehérvir 1996, In the present study, the findings of the excavations and history of the Vil were evaluated by G. HATHAZI, while the find assemblage was analyzed by Gv. KOVACS. * For the constuction ofthe Turkish palisade fot, see J. ILLES: Adatok a szolnoki vie épitsthez és els6 ostromihoz [The con- struction andthe fist siege of Szolnok castle). HK 6 (1893) 643 644; for the garison ep. VELICS-KAMMERER (1886-1890), passim, and L. MERENYE: A trok végek Gthada 1577-ben [The garrisons of the Turkish fort in 1577). HK 7 (1894) 260, fora desription of the palisade fort in Turkish sources, such as Behram Dimiski's writings, (om the later 17th century) cp. L. PEKETE: A hédolsigkori tOrBk- sg Magyarorszigra vonatko76 (idrajziismeretei [Geographical escriptions of Hungary by Turkish writers during the Turkish ‘occupation period). HK 31 (1930) 136; for Evia Celeb's writings (1664-1656) see 1. KARACSON (translator): Evlia Csclebi rok vilig-utazd magyarorszigi uazassi 1664-1666, [The travels of Evia Celebi in Hungary, 1664-1666). Terbk-magyarkor| wrténelim emlékek Tak torténetitdk IV, Budapest 1908, 2; fr the events ofthe Ftleen Years’ War bearing on Val, see CS. CsoRwa: Eszter- igom hadi krOnikija [The war ehroniele of Esztergom] Budapest 1978, 158, and J. BuzAst Néhiny adalék Székesfehérvér 1601. vi Visszafoglasinak tirénetéher [The recapture of Székesfehérvr in 1601]. Feigr megyei Tértkvk 11 (1979) 57; for the baming ofthe castle in 1661, ep. N. SZEDERKENYI: Heves virmegye toténete IL Egervira elesésttl vistzavéeleig 1596-1687 [The history of Heves county IIL, From the fll of Eger to its recapture 1596-1687) Eger 1891, 76; for the palisade fortress and the ole ofits garison, ep. 4. Friz: Tarik exéditések Fojér megyében I Pirkinyok [Turkish fortifications in Fejér county Il. Palisade forts), IKMK B. 8, Székes- fehérvir 1986, 11-12, and G. FARKAS: A trdk hédoltsig Krénikija, Srékesfehénvsson 6 Fejér megyéhen (1526) 1543-1688 (1690) [The Turkish occupation period in Sztkesfehérvéc and. Fejér ‘ounty(1526) 1543-1688 (1690), Fejér megyei TartEvk 19 (1989) 201-242, as well as P. JEDLICSKA: Adatok exd6di bird Pally (Miklos a gyri hdsnek életrajza es Korihoz 1352-1600 (The biog raphy and the times of baron Miklés Pally of Erd6d, the hero of Gyér, 1582-1600] (Eger 1897) passim. “The Historia Domus, the 18h century Canonica Visitatios, the protocols and diaries, the investigational records ftom the 18th fentury and other writings housed inthe Catholic parsonage of Vél all contain invaluable information onthe post-Turksh history ofthe sve and its buildings, as well as on the location of the Turkish fort, and the identification of the fort with the medieval church, For {comprehensive survey of these sources, ep. the study by (G. HATHAZI and Gy, Kovacs quoted in note | Acta ArchacologcaAcademiaeScentarum Hungarica $8, 1997 “Gor S210S785 006 Akademia Kad, Budapest| POST-MEDIEVAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM VAL 1? ZILLA Gu SS 2 SE 1she — IZZZA Turkish period 1-6 pits (EEG rahe. ose Fig. 3. Excavation plan (A), peridisation ofthe medieval church (B). Aside from several building remains and various medieval finds, a number of rich post-medieval as- semblages also came to light in the course of the excavations. One of these was recovered from pit 4 (Fig. 34). ‘The 110 em by 120 cm refuse pit lay beside the northeastern comer of the Gothic tower, at the base of the church wall; its depth was 370 cm as measured from the modem surface and 265 em from the 1721/22 post-medieval surface. The stratigraphic sequence indicated that the pit had been opened following the destruction of the Turk- ish fort, probably during the levelling operations that were part of the construction work carried out by the Re~ formed Church (1693/1694). The pit cut through the destruction layer of the Turkish fort and it was overlain and sealed by a post-medieval layer which can be linked to the large-scale building and levelling in the early 1720s (1721/22). The pit can thus be precisely dated to the three decades at the tum of the 17th and 18th centuries (1693/94-1721/22). In contrast, the finds from the pit can be assigned to a broader time bracket, for they include late Turkish, Balkan Slavic and local Hungarian artefacts from the late period of the Turkish fort, as well as finds from the late 17th century and the decades around the turn of the 17th-18th centuries. Being a closed assem- blage, the finds offer a reliable chronological anchor for dating artefacts from the late Turkish period, the Tate 17th century, and the turn of the 17th-18th centuries.” The assemblage is currently housed inthe Szent Istvin Kirdly Musoum of Saékesfehérvi, inv. nos 88,1.1-169, 88,1,209-247, 88.1.249-250, 8.1.439-444, Acta Archaeol Academie Sclentarum Hungarica 6, 1997198 G.HATHAZI-GY. KOVACS (COPPER WARES The finds from the pit include also an assemblage of Turkish copper wares: a baking pan, pedestalled bowls, a drinking cup, a ewer, a cauldron, and an ornate platter, as well as a handful of vessel fragments, The copper vessels were all rather deformed (Fig. 4. !~2). Altogether six vessels could be reconstructed and restored (Fig. 4. 3). All of these vessels had been made of beaten shest copper, and bore traces of soldering, riveting and, occasionally, of turning, Some had a pattern of punctates. The copper cauldron with a suspension handle (Cat. no. 1: Fig. 6) is a typical example of the squat ‘Turkish copper cauldrons from the Turkish-occupied parts of Hungary. The three cauldrons from Parkény/Sturovo and the fragment of a similar vessel from Szekszérd-Uljpaldnk can all be dated to the 17th cen- tury, ‘The early prototypes to these round cauldrons can perhaps be sought among the decorated bronze Kettles of the Orient (Iran) from the Seljuk period.’ One of the most magnificent examples of this vessel is the so-called Bobrinsky kettle. However, these Iranian kettles fulfilled a very different function than their counterparts from Hungary, which, incidentally, differ also in size,* and it is therefore uncertain whether any links should be as- sumed between these two vessel types ‘The 16th-17th century Turkish cauldrons from Hungary have few analogies among the copper wares from the Balkans and from Anatolia; we only looked for comparable vessels among the later, 18th and earlier 19th century finds from these territories that come from the same Ottoman-Turkish culture. However, we found that as far as their form is concerned, the vessels used in the Balkans and in Anatolia during this later period have little in common with the cauldrons from Hungary. In Bulgaria the most common handled cauldron following the 18th century is bell-shaped,” and round or rounded forms tend to be extremely rare. The few round cauldrons" of Bulgaria nonetheless share numerous similarities with the vessels from Hungary. Ethnographic data from the Balkans and Anatolia suggest that these copper cauldrons were used for a variety of purposes, most often as buckets for drawing and carrying water, for milking, or ~ depending on their size and, perhaps, on their shape — for cooking and for carrying food and, in some cases, for religious purposes, in which case the function is emphasized by the decoration. The simple vessels of the Turkish occupation period in Hungary functioned as buckets or as pots that, on the strength of modern ethnographic parallels, they were placed over an open fire on an iron tripod or were suspended’ and were used for heating water or for the prepa- ration of soups and broths. These vessels are called bakra¢ in Turkish, and the term has been borrowed both into the Balkanic Slavic languages and into Hungarian (bogracs).” Drinking cup (Cat. no. 2: Fig. 5. 4). Cylindrical earthenware and metal cups were highly popular during the 16th-17th centuries not only in the Ottoman Empire, but also in Europe. Analogies to the cup from Val from “Comparable cauldrons are known from Pi (OBERSCHALL (1944) 359-360, Pl. CXL. 7 = FeHER (1962) 159, PI. XVI. 4-6, from the collection of the Janus Pannonius Museum in Pécs: FEMER (1959) 121, PL XL 7, from Esztergom: FEHER (1968) 280, Figs 40-44, from Jésaberény and Szolnak: KovAcs (1984) 78-79, Fig. 1. 1-2, and from Dunafoldvér-Alsérév; GAAL (1991) 196, 200, Fig. 2. 2-3, Fig. 3.1; a further specimen wae Aredged up from the Danube: GAAL (1991) 196. Fig. 3, 2, while ther pieces include a cauldron fiom Buda and an unprovenanced specimen OBERSCHALL (1944) 360. The fragments of a similar cauldron have been reported trom Szekszaré-Uipalink: GAAL (1983) 166, Fig, 5 * OBERSCHALL (1944) 360, * The diameter ofthe cauldrons ranges between 15 and 21 em, ‘and they had probably been used for holding. soap or clay ERGINSOY (1978) 187-189, Fig. 97-98, 195-198, Fig, 104-105; (0, ASLANAPA: Tak Sanat (Istanbul 1984) 334-335, * SLAVOY (1974) nos 321-358, Acta ArchaoloicaAcademiaeScionianum Hungarcoe $9, 1997 SLAVOV (1974) nos 350-351 " PEBER (1968) 284; Kogav (1957) 15, PVII, lower lel, P. 1X. top; BALAMAN (1982) Figs 17-18; DoCEvA-PoPOvA (1973) 314-319; SLAVOV (1974) nos 321-358; se also note 12. A. "MAGYAR: Dé-Dalmdciai konyhék [South-Dalmatian cuisines). NE 14 (1913) 143, Fig. 1-2; A. MUKA: Les construc- tions & migtage dans les villages de I’Albanie centrale, Ethnogra- pie ATbanase 14 (1986) Pls X-X, with further literature; E. IZA: ‘La maison de feu dans Mhabitationeitadine albanase. Ethnographic Allanaise 14 (1985) Pf; H. VAKARELSKI: Etnograija na Bilgaria [Ethnography of Bulgari] Sofja 1977, 263; B. KonC: Razvoj kuge i kulture stanovanjau selima Srbije (Evolution of the Housing and Dwelling Culture in Serbian Villages in the XIXth Century). Glas- nik Btnografskog Muzeja u Beogradu 44 (1980) Fig. 4. Cooking in ‘auldrons suspended over an open fire is stil very popular in Hun {gary and ean also be encountered in the West KAKU (1966) 69; ID. (1977) 97-98; KaYAOGLL (1987) 195, 218.Fig. 4. The vessels during the excavation (1-2), the restored Turkish copper aseFig. 5. Turkish copper wareFig. 6, Turkish copper cauldeon the Turkish occupation period include a few simple copper items" and an orate silver cup!” in Hungary copper wares, occasionally decorated, occur among the 16th-19th/20th century assemblages from the Balkans and Anatolia.” Outstandin fragment ofthe upper part ofa comparable cup, found in the Danube near Margaret Island, is known from the collection of the Hungatian National Museum: EMER (1962) 156, PI. XXL. 14a Somewhat lange, intact cup with a slightly differing base and bearing a very worn incised tugraike owner's ar potter's mark lund its rim was found in Szolnok castle: KOVACS (1984) 84, Fi 4. 1, Comparable vessels have alo been seported fom Suéker fehérvir (Szent Istvén Kirily Museum, Sikisi's kind oral communication). uuninventorzed; Gyula among the glazed pottery cups resembling in shape their copper counterparts, are the 5G. Feuer: Az EME 1 (1963) 213-230. "Such as the simple one-handled drinking vessels ftom Bul aria: SLAvOY (1974) nos 381, 385; ep. also more recent finds fiom Anatolia: KOSAY (1957) PI. XXII], and orate lidded cups from Bosnia: KaraMesmepovit (1980) Fig, 180, a8 well as orate Anatolian eistkupa (Le hanap d'argent Tue Een), ldded pieces of fiom the 16th century G. FENERVARI: Az-iselim mavészet trténee [A history of Islamic ar] (Budapest. 1987) Fig. 206; OL.CER (1985) Cat. no. 6/15,Iznik earthenware cups that were also popular in Westem-Europe.”” The use of this vessel, be it made of metal or clay, has survived into modern times over a fairly extensive area, Most frequent among the Turkish copper vessels in Hungary are the copper ewers, found in large num- bers — both intact and fragmentary — on Turkish period settlements." Most of these ewers can be equally dated to the 16th or the 17th century. They generally have a pear-shaped body, often flattened on both sides, a slender, narrow or wider neck encircled by a rib and a curved spout. Undecorated ewers or ewers ornamented with a row of punetates are more common, The ewer from Val belongs to the latter type (Cat, no. 3: Fig. 5, 3). Comparable vessels include, for example, a jug from Szolnok” and another one from Pécs,” although they are somewhat squatter in form. The ewers had originally been provided with a lid; the lid of the Val ewer was secured to its handle by an S-shaped element. Ewers were used to serve coffee, tea and sweet drinks, but their popularity is also explained by the fact that they were also an important accessory of the ritual ablution preceding the recital of prayers.” A basin often went with the ewer, and the two articles were made in a manner that they could be fitted to each other A closer inspection of the 16th-17th century ewers from Hungary reveals that they are only distantly related to Anatolian Seljuk and Ottoman-Turkish jugs: as a matter of fact, they differ considerably in form from the lavishly ormamented Seljuk ewers of the 11th-13th centuries.” The magnificent Ottoman-Turkish ewers made of copper or precious metals from the 17th-19th centuries, most of which were manufactured in court workshops,” represent the peak of Ottoman-Turkish metalwork. Parallels to the copper ewers of the Turkish ‘occupation period in Hungary can only be found among the plainer jugs, and they include a handful of ewers from the 16th-17th century Ottoman Empire,” as well as a few simple post-medieval and later specimens from Anatolia and the Balkans.” There is a striking similarity between some finds from Hungary and some 18th-19th century ewers from the Balkans.” ‘The Turkish word for ewer, sbrik, was borrowed into the Balkanic languages, as well as into Hungarian; in Hungary its still used as a somewhat archaic expression for “water jug’.” The pedestalled bowl, made either of metal or clay, was one of the vessels most commonly used by the new Turkish overlords of Hungary. Smaller and larger intact and fragmentary specimens of copper (ranging in size from cups to bowls) have been found on several sites in Hungary.” Only some of these (from Esztergom, ©. ZicK-NISSEN: Keramik In: Tirkische Kunst und Kultue aus coamanischer Zeit I. Frankfurt 1985, Cat, nos 228, 27-38, * OMERSCHALL (1944) 361-362, PL CXIL. 1-3, $-7 (hom the Novi Sad area, Késmieh/Ke2marok, Buda): FEMER (1989) 121, PI. XL. 1-2 (Pées and unprovenanced, from the Pécs area); ID. 1962 137-160, PL. XXIV, 1, 7-9, PL XXV. 5-7, PL XXVIL 1-3, PL XXVIL 5 (from the Novi Sad area, Danube bed, Késmirk/Ke2ma- rok, Buda, Székesfehérvir, Szigetvir, unprovenanced site); 1D. 1968, 279, Figs 27-34 (Esztergom); GAL (1983) 164, Fig 3. 8. = Fig. 3. 8 (Seekszird-Ujpalink); 1D. 1991, 191, Fig. 1. 2 (Duna- ‘Bldvir-Alsirév); KOVACS (1984) 79-80, Fig. 3. 1-2 (Szolnok Térakszentmiklés); MAGYAR (1988) 151, Fig. 27 (Segesd) 1D. 1990. Fig. 24. 1 (Babsce). Kovacs (1984) 79, Fig 3.2. enex (1959) 121, PL X12 21 BEER (1968) 283; CETIN (1956) 95-96; MeMgodi.u (1973) Fig. V.9. © The neck, for example, is funnel-shaped, while the spout is straight and much shorter: ERGINSOY (1978) passim; ep. BODUR (1987) 29-20, Figs 14-15, ase jugs inclode the splendid pieces inthe collection ofthe ‘Topkapr Saray Moscum, the Museum of Turkish and Islamic Aes, and the Sadberk Hanim Museum: The ANATOLIAN Civilisations IL, Seluk/Ottoman. Topkapr Palace Museum. Istanbul 1983, £279, E283, E344, E350, F335, E356; OLCER (1985) Cat nos 6/2, 63: Bot (1987) Cat. no. A97, A100. Acta ArchaolgicnAcadeniaeSciemiarum Hanguricae #9, 1997 BoDuUR (1987) Fig.20, Cat no. AS6. S Kosay (1957) PL XXL bottom, PL XXL top_ right KRESEVIAKOVIC (1951) 221, Fig. 8; KARAMEHMEDOVIC (1980), Figs 188-180, 194, 198, 214; DoCEVA-PorOvA (1973) 320, Pl. IV. 6; SLAvoY (1974) nos 392-421; G. KAYAOGLU: Turkish Copper World: 1. Copper Ewers. Turkiye Turing ve Ocomobil Kuruma Belleten) 63/343 (1979) 54-61, noting that the so-alled Bosnian fewer ean even today be oceasionally found in Thrace and, more rarely, in Istanbul Cp. K. HeGYE Egy vilighirodalom vépvidékén [On the fringes of an empire) Budapest 1976, Fig. 35 and SLAVOV (1974) nos 394-395. A good parallel to the finds from Hungary isan early 18th century jug Fem Sarajevo (KARAMEHMEDOVIC (1980) Fig. 18. lef. 2 KaKUK (1966) 70; 1D. (1977) 99-101; Kayaodtu (1987) 198, 218, 2 FEHER (1962) 158-155, 158, PL XXIL 1, 4, 6, 9-11, PL XXII 1, PL. XXV. 2 (Dunavecse, Ajnacské/Hajnicka, Budapest, Danube bed near Margatt Island) 1D. (1968) 277-279, Figs 1-26 (Esztergom); GAAL (1983) 177, Fig. 9. 2.= Fig, 18 4 Fig, 10.4 = ig. 18. § (Dunafoldvar); ID. (1991) 201, Fig. 5. 1-2, Fig. 7.1-2, 5 (Kaloesa ares 18h century, Szekszinl-Ujpalink, exset fndspat unknown, Dunaijvros area); KOVACS (1984) 84-85, Fig. 5. 1-3 (Szolnok)A POST-MEDIEVAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM VAL 203 Dunatjvaros area, Szekszird-Ujpalink) can be securely dated to the 17th century, their majority being equally datable to the 16th or to the 17th century. The Val pit yielded three pedestalled bowls of copper, only one of which could be restored (Cat. no. 4: Fig. 5, 5), while the other two vessels could be identified on the basis of the photographs taken before the restoration (Fig. 5, /-2). Good analogies to the restored bow! can be quoted from Esztergom” and Szekszérd-Ujpalink.” Irrespective of their date, their fabric and their findspot, pedestalled bowls are uniform as far as their form is concemed, even though a lot of variations can be observed. The links between the pedestalled bowls from Hungary and their Balkanic counterparts are reflected in the striking resemblance between a few 16th-17th century bowls from Hungary and bowls from the Ethnographie Museum of Sofia," and in the similarities, for ‘example, between an ornamented bowl of the Turkish occupation period from Esztergom” and a 219th century ‘ornamented ‘tureen’ from Varna." Pedestalled bowls resembling the ones found in Hungary are still manufac- tured in the copper workshops of Turkey and the Balkans, The Turkish word for pedestalled bow! is safan," a term still widely used in Balkanic languages” that reflects also one lasting influence of the long Turkish dominion. In Hungary, this word disappeared after the 17th century, together with the disappearance of the article it had denoted, surviving only in a few regional dialects." c bowls were and are still used mainly for serving food, although other functions (as a holy water basin for example) are also documented in the Balkans where their denomination is not consistent.” ‘Baking pans (tepsi) come in a wide variety of size and fabric and they seem to have been highly popular ‘among the Turks as shown by their frequent occurrence in assemblages from Hungary. Copper varieties of the type found in Val (Cat. no. 5: Fig. 5, 6), have also been discovered in Esztergom” and on a number of other sites ‘as well.” They are generally unomamented, with a diameter ranging between 30 and 40 cm, although there are both smaller and larger varieties. A few of these pans were provided with a handle," but most did not have one. One part of the quoted specimens can be dated to the 17th century (such as the baking pan from Szekszérd- Ujpalink), while the others can equally date to the 16th and to the 17th century (such as the one from Ajnacs- k6/Hajnicka), Round, flat and slightly deep baking pans, sometimes provided with a long handle, are still very popular among the Turkish and Balkanic peoples," and also in Hungary. The Turkish name for these pans is tava or tepsi." Both forms still exist in the Balkanic languages; in contrast, only tepsi is still current in Hungarian.” In Turkey fava is mainly used for a pan with a long handle, whereas tepsi is reserved for baking pans without handle, The two words are often interchanged in the Balkans, The pans (and trays) manufactured in Turkey and in the Balkans during the 18th-20th centuries tend to be larger and are often ornamented,” either with a simple pattern or an inscription, or with a profusion of floral and geometric pattems. These ornamented varieties were hardly used for baking. The ormamented Turkish fepsi-s were utilised as trays for serving coffee, tea, soft drinks, sweets or fruit. The plain repsi-s of the Turkish occupation period in Hungary were, without a shadow of doubt, » Fenién (1968) 278, Fig. 18 %GaAL (1991) 201, Fig. 7.1 1G, FEHER JR.: Problem na zangjatijstvoro prez turskoto aditestoo v ungarskataarheologia [Handicrafts daring the Tuek- ish occupation period in Hungary} ArhSof (1963) 2, Figs 6-10. ain (1968) 278, Fis 22-23. » SLavov (1974) no. 309, ™ For the occurence of this term in Seljuk times: ORAL (1987) x. °° KAKUK (1966) 74; KAVAOGLU (1987) 203-204, 218, 8 KAKUK (1966) 74 © Kogay (1957) 21; Ona. (1957) 33; PeMée (1968) 283; SLAvOW (1974) nos 277-289, 306-309; KAYAOGLU (1987) 203, ™ FeHER (1968) 280, 285, Figs 1-57. » AjndeskéiHajnicka, Budapes:Railway Bridge, Dunaveese (OBERSCHALL (1944) 357, PL. CXIV. 1; ep. Feabx (1962) 154-155, 158, PL XXIUL. 14, Pl. XXVIL 7), Dunafoldvir (GAAL (1983) 17, Fig, 4.3 = Fig. 14 3), Szeksaird-Ujpalink (GAAL (1991) 201, Fig 74); Segesd (MAGYAR (1988) Fig. 25. 3) and Babécsa (MAGYAR (1990) Fig, 26, 2), as well as some unprovenanced finds 7), A bowl with a suspension rng fom rokszentmiklds can also be assigned to this type (KOVACS (1984) 4, Fig. 4, 3), a8 con an unpublished specimen in the Szolnok, ‘Museum (Damjanich Museum, inv. no. 73.412). “+ Fener (1968) 280, Fi, $1; OveRSCUALL (1944) 357, #1 KoSa¥ (1957) PL XVI, Pl. XX. top left; MeMiSoGLU (1973) Fig, IV, 24, 31; KOZARAG (1956) Fig, 5; KRESEVLIAKOVIC (1951) 217-218, Fig ‘For the oveurrence of the word fps! in the Seljuk period, ep. ‘Oxas (1957) 38 KAKUK (1966) 75; 1D. (1977) 101-102; KAYAO6LU (1987) 205-207, 218 “© GeTIN (1956) 96, Pls LVIII-LXIV; SLAVOV (1974) nos 127 141 KARAMEHMEDOVI (1980) passim. Acta Archaic Academie Scerara Hungarica 49.1997208 G.HATHAZL-GY. KOVACS used as baking pans: smaller ones were used for making sweet pastries, while larger ones were used for baking, pita and for roasting meat." ‘The large, round flat platter (sini) (Cat. no. 6: Fig. 7) with a small rim, ornamented with a rosette motif’ of dots, had probably functioned as a tray, although its use as a small table top is also feasible. In the latter case, the larger platters were placed on some kind of simple stand and the guests would sit around them as if around a table.” This arrangement continues to be very popular in the East Large copper platters are called sin’ in Turkish.” In the southern Slavic languages this Turkish word has since acquired a terminal phoneme (-ja)." These round, flat platters (or table tops) were and are still made in a wide range of sizes,” and sometimes have a diameter well over | m. Their usual size, however, varies between 50 em and | m." The specimen from Val, with a diameter barely exceeding 50 cm, is relatively small and has no known parallels among the current corpus of published, 16-17th century finds from Hungary. Comparable 18th-20th century platters from the Balkans and Anatolia are gencrally decorated. The de- sign either covers the entire interior surface or only its centre. The ornamentation of the Val tray, a six-petalled rosette or a six-pointed star ~ drawn with a compass ~ is a popular motif that appears on a wide variety of prod- ucts ranging metal objects to wood tablets, including the modem copper trays of the Balkans." ‘Only few of the fragmentary vessels can be assigned fo specific types. One of these is the rim fragment of a vessel having a rim diameter of 22 em, most likely a cooking pot. The shape of the rim suggests the probable use of a lid. Vessels — such as cooking pots and pedestalled bowls with a similar rim to accommodate a lid ~ can bbe quoted both from assemblages of the Turkish occupation period in Hungary and from among the modern ethnographic collections of the Balkans." ‘The assignment of rim fragments ornamented with a series of openwork triangles (Cat. no. 7: Fig. 8) 0 a specific vessel form is also rather difficult. Openwork ornamentation is quite popular on Islamic, Turkish and. Balkano-Turkish metalwork, and it is frequently used for the decoration of incense burners and lamps,” as well as for the omamentation of a variety of other articles in the form of friezes or pedestals. The fragments from Vl pethaps come from an incense burner, although their use as frieze ornaments is also possible: both assumptions are tentative in the absence of further fragments that could be joined to the already existing ones, ‘The copper vessels described in the above that were cither part of tableware sets or had been used for preparing various dishes offer a good picture of the copper wares used in this particular Turkish fort and, at the same time, provide a good illustration for the entries of Turkish inventories of estate,” that also list the value of the articles in question at the time.”* © Onat. (1987) 33; Fett (1968) 285; MemugogLu (1973) Fig IV. 24, 31; KRESEVLJAKOVIC (1951) 217-218, “Oral (1987) 34; GENN (19586) 96, FeHER (1968) 283; [BALAMAN (1982) Figs 31732; KARAMEIMEDOVIC (1980) Fig. 69; fora 16th century depiction, ep. K. HEGY!-V. ZIMANYI: Az oszmin birodalom Eurdpaban [The Otoman Empire in Europe} Budapest 1986, Colour P. 160. “7 For the origin and the use of this word during the Seliuk period, cp. ORAL (1987) 34 “© KAKUK (1966) 74; KAYAOGLU (1987) 204 ©. KAYAOGLU: Baki: Usilan I Mehmet Celal Kays [Coppersmiths Hl. Mehmet Celal Kaya]. Halk Kuliet Derleme, Arata (1984-3) Fig, 2 Cp. SLAVOV (1974) nos 90-126; GEN (1986) 96-98; KaraMeiteDovie(1980) passim, A design echoing the Vl pattern, a variant on the six-petalled rosette can be seen on a madern plate fom Sumen (dsm, 86 em: SLAVOV (1974) nos 66, 101) and on an 18th century plater from Sarajevo (iam. 102 em; KARAMELMEDOVIC (1980) Fig 162). ° BERER (1962) 154, 159, Pl. XXV. 1-2, 8 (Ainiesk6Hajnicka, Danube bed near Margaret Island, Négréd) 1D. (1968) 276, Figs 1 17, 280, Figs 38-39 (Esztergom); SLAvOY (1974) nos 277-278, 359-364, Acta drcacolgicaAcudemiae Sietiaram Hangarcwe #9, 1997 © Three incense burners, all found at Buda, ean be quoted fom Hungary: OERSCHALL (1948) 388, PL CXV. 2, CXVIL 6-7; Com- parable 17th century burners fom Sarajevo: KARAMEHMEDOVIE (1980) Fig. 27 “The rim of two round copper lids found st DunafSlavir and Buda ate likewise ornamented with a series of openwork triangles (GaAt (1983) 164, Fig. 3.6 = Fig. 13. 6; FenER (1962) 157, PL XXIV. 2) For openwork omamentation on pedestals and lids inthe Balkan material, ep. SLAVOV (1974) No, 281; KARAMEHMEDOVIC (1980) Figs 62, 106, 180. 1, FEXETE: Egy vidéki rOk Ur otthona a XVI. szizadban [The home ofa Turkish noble inthe provinces inthe 16th century} MTAK()) (1989) 87-106; I. GeRELYES: TOrdk hagyatéki dssce inisok, mint kultstrténetiforrsok (Tirkische Hinterassenschals- register als kulturgeschichliche Quellen). TBM 21 (1979) 200-218; ID; Inventories of Turkish Estates im Hungary in the second half of the 16th Century. ActaOeHlung 39 (1985) 275-338, with further iterate “The available data indicates thatthe value of copper vessels ranged from a few alge to several hundreds. The average price of pedestaled bow! or a ewer was 20 to 30 atée inthe 16th century. Prices tended to be higher during the 17th eentury owing to the devaluation ofthe akee.0 10m Fig, 7. Turkish copper platter omamented with a sete moti of dos.206 0 3cm Fig. #. Openwork copper fragments, In Hungary conditions were not particul velopment of the rly suitable for the extensive local manuf: ern metalwork introduced by the Turks. The raw materials, copper and tin, had to be im- and later de- ported from, Bosnia and Serbia and perhaps Anatolia, and while the bulk of the imported raw materials was used for military purposes (for gun founding), smaller amounts were reserved for the manufacture of vessels and other articles. Local workshops, such as the ones at Buda, basically catered to the local market, and thus most copper wares were most likely manufactured in the traditional workshops of the Balkans,” and were imported to Hungary as part of the trade between the Balkans and the Turkish-occupied areas of Hungary. The import of copper wares is also reflected in the entries of Turkish custom-registers.” The vessels from Val too were proba- bly manufactured in a Balkanic, perhaps a Bosnian, workshop; although this assumption remains tentative with- out a closer inspection of the 16th-17th century comparative material from the Balkans. The vessels from Val are all types well known in Turkish copperworking and they are characteristic products of Balkanic workshops that were inspired by, and developed under, Turkish influence and, as shown in the above, most are still manufac- tured ~ even if ina slightly different form ~ and used today, both in Anatolia and in the Balkans. Turkish copper wares from the Balkans continued to arrive to Hungary in the 18th century, well after the Turkish occupation period, this being the reason that the Turkish names of these vessels survived regional dialects, ither as part of the vernas ‘he greater part of the Turkish copper wares from Hungary cannot be precisely dated.” Their workman- ship at best indicates that they can be linked to Turkish-Balkani although some pieces may well be products of a later period, coming from the dated to the 16th-17th centuri copper workshops and that their bulk can be 8th century workshops in the Balkans that still stood under Turkish dominion, This being the main reason that trade in eopper and tin was expressly forbidden by the Hungarians and Ausitians, although thee s evidence that inspite ofthis prohibition capper was shipped from the Hungarian mining towns to the Turkish-occupiedterito- ries of Hungary and also that there was a regular trade in this com= ‘monity between Turkish and Hungarian merchants (GECSENYL (1995) 770-772, °* For the traditional copper workshops in the Balkans between the T6th-18th centuries (such as the ones at Prigtina, Saraybosna [Sarajevo], Fos, Mostar, Uskip [Skopje], Usiove, Petkovo, Iti, 1c) ep. KRESEVLIAKOVIC (1951) 191-197; Kozarat (1956) 37; KARAMEHMEDOVIC (1980) passim; SLAVOY. (1974) 15-22 G. KAYAOGLU: Bakie Kap Yapim Teknikleri: Dove Teknigi [The manufacturing techniques af copper vessels 1. Folklor ve Et ct Archaeologica Academie Scientia Hangs 9.197 ografya Aragurmalan (Istanbul 1984) 218; BoDUR (1987) 50. The ‘ost important copper workshops were t0 he found in Sarajevo, % VELICS-KAMMERER (1890) 213, 216, 248; L, FEKETE: Buda- pest a trokkorban (Budapest in the Turkish occupation period] Budapest 1944, 210, 232; L. FEKETE-GY, KALDY-NAGY: Budal t6rdke szimadiskbnyvek 1850-1580 [Turkish account-books from Buda, 1550-1580), Budapest 1962, 583. As part of this trade, a number of western copper articles also appeared in Hungary (ep. Gecseevt (1995) 779), "© Most of the vessels in the collections of the Hungarian Na tional Museum ard of the Balassa Balint Museum of Esztergom Foie (1962) 168; FEHER (1968) a8 well as the finds from Szolnok county KOVACS (1984) are stay Finds that ean only be dated within broader time span,|\ POST-MEDIEVAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM VAL 20 ° 10cm ———— Fig. 9. Potery finds from the pit poss tempered with grits (1-2), tw[A FOST-MEDIEVAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM VAL 209 ‘The l6th-17th century plainer copper vessels from Anatolia and the Balkans are little known in the publications. The products of later copperworkshops from these territories only offer more general parallels to similar finds from Hungary. The often striking similarities that exist between certain copper wares and their ‘workmanship from more distant regions and from later periods reflect a certain conservatism in form, ornamental motifs and workmanship and also, to a certain extent, the “timelessness” of these wares. The finds from Hungary represents the provincial and archaic variant of Islamic copperworking as developed in the Balkans during the Ottoman-Turkish period; the clarification of their Balkanic links in the 1Sti/16th-20th centuries will undoub- tealy contribute to the more secure dating of these wares.” Itis nonetheless possible to assign a more precise date to certain classes of finds or find assemblages" in Hungary. Metal analyses" may also contribute to a more exact chronology — the analyses of the copper vessels from Ozora have already yielded encouraging results, showing that the copper and tin content of the vessels discovered in Ozora varies."* At present, a dating based on the find context seems more reliable, but since these finds were made of metal, it must be borne in mind that several years or even decades may have elapsed between the date of manufacture and the time of the articles’ deposition. Even a coin find or distinctive associated pottery finds recovered from a securely datable layer or destruction level can only offer relatively broad time limits for the exact date of the manufacture and use of a certain vessel. Other chronological anchors are provided by data ‘on the exact period in which a particular fortress came under Turkish control, although an earlier production date for certain finds cannot be rejected out of hand.” ‘On the basis of the finds circumstances, the Turkish copper assemblage from Vil ean be securely dated to the later 17th century. Enriching our knowledge of metalwork from the later Turkish occupation period in Hungary, itis, at the same time, one of the leading assemblages from this period. The analogies of these vessels among the finds from the Turkish-dominated territories of Hungary suggest that most of the well-datable pieces can be dated to the 17th century, indicating that in spite of the incipient internal disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, the long peace in the first half of the 17th century favoured the relative flourishing of Turkish industry in Hungary, as well as the establishment of commercial contacts with the Balkans and the heartland of the empire This, in turn, obviously influenced the growth of the presumably local manufacture and dissemination of copper wares. POTTERY In the following we shall discuss the main pottery types recovered from the pit, most of which are repre- sented also by an intact vessel; most of the pottery fragments could be assigned to one or the other of these main types, the remainder being indistinct sherds. While preserving its Byzantne-Balkanic traditions, Baka hie copperworking developed under a strong Turkish influence and there also evolved regional styles: Stavov (1974); KaRAMEHNEDOVIS (1980) To quote but a few examples: the three eauldrons found at Pirkiny*Sturovo-Kakadvir can be assigned to the 17th century on the basis of two associated pots found with them (FEHER (1962) 64h; the typological and the silistic analysis of the vessels in the assemblage found atthe southem head ofthe railway bridge (on the Pest side) ssigh the finds to the earlier or the mid-I7th century (Openscuats (1944) 256; Fenéx (1962) 164); a pedestalled bow! from Estergom was assigned tothe 17th century onthe ste its stylistic analysis and the parallels to its omamental motifs (Fen (1968) 278, Figs 22-23); the Turkish inscription ona large li from Dunafoldvar reveals the natne ofits former owner, who, according toa deter, had served as a cavalry officern the palisade forwess of Dunafoidvarin 1601 (GAAL (1983) 169, Fig. 62-2, Fig 16.1), Even though it does not sretly belong to this class of finds, an omamented copper jug bearing the craftsman’s mark fom the Turkish camp at Dunapentcle (established in 1543) shows that this paticular vessel had boon manufactured in 1532_in Istanbul (1. BONA: Dunapentele trténete [The history of Dunapentele] Budapest 1991, Fig. 7). «Modern catalogues occasionally include a description of | the metal composition, but this is still rather rare; ep. E. TIL W. T. CHASE-P. JETT: Islamic Metalwork in the Freer Gallery of ‘Art Washington 1985. %*L. Gere: XV-XVIIL szizadi émeletek az ozorai virkastély- ‘bl [15th-T6th century metal finds from the castle of Ozora) Buda- pest 1994, in print. OBERSCHALL (1984) 359 dates the copper vessels ftom Aj- reski/Hajcka between 1645 and 1649, t0 the second Turkish period ofthe castle; in contrast, FEHER (1962) 164 has argued that ‘he same finds could be equally well dated to the 16th century (ovhen the castle first came under Turkish control between 1546 and 1550) or the 7h century, The finds from the Turkish fortes a Uj- palink can be dated to the 17Ih century on the evidence ofthe dates, ofits construction and destruction (GAAL, (1983) and (1991) pas- sim) dest Archaeologica Academia Sientaram Hungarieve 49.199720 G.HATHAZLGY. KOVACS Bowls and plates. Most common among the 16th-17th century pottery finds that can be linked to the Turkish newcomers in Hungary are the pedestalled bowls which were a basic item of tableware sets. At Val, slazed Turkish pottery can be predominantly assigned to this vessel type. The vessels are generally covered with a monochrome glaze. The fragments of a restorable bow! and several bow! fragments were recovered from pit 4 ‘The restored bowl (Cat. no. 8: Fig. 11, 5 and 13, 2) has a good analogy, also covered with monochrome glaze. eg, from Visegrad." ‘The fragments of a lead-glazed plate with a suspension loop and “written” (painted) floral design that were in part found in the pit and in part in the destruction layer, is a local, Hungarian product (Cat. no. 9: Fig 10, 3 and Fig. 13, 4). Lead glazed plates became a hallmark of Hungarian pottery during the 16th and especially during the 17th century. They were generally provided with suspension loops from the 17th century.” Some of the plates from the 16th-17th centuries (fom the Turkish occupation period) are ornamented with a painted floral design or with bird figures in red and green outlined in dark brown and black on a light, yellowish-white background under an uncoloured glaze." Only a few fragments of this plate type were found in the pit. The num- beer of late plates from the post-Turkish period (late 17th and 18th centuries)” differ both in form, and also in colour and ornamentation from the vessels of the Turkish occupation period. In terms of form and ornamentation the VAl plate can be assigned toa later date. Storage jars. Two-handled storage jars, both smaller and larger, often occur together with other Turkish finds in Hungary and they can be considered Turkish products. Two such vessels were recovered from pit 4 at Val. One is covered with a dark green glaze (Cat. no. 10: Fig. 9, 3 and Fig. 12, 3), while the other, unglazed jar is somewhat larger and more bulky (Cat. no, 11: Fig. 9, 4 and Fig. 12, 4). The latter is unparalleled among the published finds in Hungary from this period. Analogies to the glazed jar can be quoted from Bares,” found on the territory of the Turkish palisade fort in a context that can be dated to the earlier 17th century on the evidence of a coin find. The two vessels are comparable both in form and size. ‘Comparable storage jars from Hungary can be quoted from Buda castle,” Filek/Filakovo” and Eger.” ‘The latter is assumed to be a Turkish product, although its affinities to Hungarian pottery are noted by the author of the publication. Close parallels to these 17th century two-handled storage jars from Hungary can be readily found in the archeological and ethnographic material from the Balkans.” In addition to more recent material from the Balkans, resemblances with some of the large, two-handled water-jars made by folk potters in the Mohées area must also be noted,” since these bear a striking similarity to the storage jars of the Turkish occupation period in Hungary. This is no mere coincidence for the techniques, the forms, the ornamental designs of Mohécs pottery are strongly rooted in Balkanic traditions.” Pots. Hand-thrown pois. Aside from a handful of sherds, distinctive larger pieces such as rim, body and basal fragments from coarse, hand-thrown pots tempered with small grits were only recovered in greater number from pit 4 Cat. no. 12: Fig 14, 2. ‘ Genecyes (1987) 171, ig. 4.1 © Hots (1963) 76-77; Geeeves (1991) 31,46 ‘© Writte” (pained) Figural and Moral ormamentation devel- oped under Turkish, Balkani, Halian (Renaissance) and Habén influence: ep. M. KRESZ: A magyarorszigi fazckassig (Hunga- rian Pottery]. PHD thesis. Manuscript, Budapest 1977, 362-364; (0. SoroNt: A magyar mivészi Kerimia sziletése. 4 160% hidolt- sg kordmidja (Leadglazed Turkish and Hungarian Pottery from the ‘Time of the Turkish Occupation of Hungary) Budapest nd. (1981), 193; BALASSA-ORTUTAY (1979) 351-352; DOMANOVSZKY (1981) 113-75, © Eg. B. Gét: XVIEXVIIL szizadi kerimialeet Hdmezd- ‘visihelye6l (Der Keramikfund von HGdmezivisithely aus den XVIL-XVIIIJahrhunderten). AASzeg Suppl. V (198) 89, Pi XIL Xl: LAzAR (1986) 45, Fig. 13. 3; S. MITHAY: Az ugodi var {eltrdsinak eredményei (Die Burg von Ugod). Acta Musei Papen- Acts Archsoogic Acoma centrum Hangaricoe $9. 197 sis 1 (1988) 75-76, Fig. 22, 1-2 and 24; GeRELYES (1991) 46, Fig 15.1 and 3, Fig. 16.3, Fig. 17.1 and 3 ‘W Kovaes-RO7SAS (1996) 10, Fig. 11.1; Fig. 12. Geet ves (1991) 31, Fig. 10. 1: the body of the jar is deco- rated with plastic ribs; it can be dated to the beginning or the first half of the 17th century KaLwAe (1959) 36, PILLXXY. 8-9. According tothe author, these jars were used for storing ol Lazar (1986) 44, Fig. 12.1 Finds ftom Prilep and Skoplje ae dated to the 14-15th centuries) for more recent Serbian vessels, ep. ToMAC (1983) Cat. 1664 ~ the ‘neck and the tim matches that ofthe unglazed storage jar fom Val, Although the Serbian vessel is much larger, the handle has a diffe. tent Form and the vessel body is ornamented! with imptessed ribs ® $anosACz (1972) 52, Figs 6-69. % Ibid 7810cm Fig 11 Turkish glazed pedestal bow (S} ad cup-shaped stove tes (1, The currently known, 16th-17th century pots of this type in Hungary have a tapering body, a strongly profiled shoulder and an outturned rim that is either straight, rounded or slightly drawn up to accommodate the lid. The pots are often stamped on their basc, their body is cither unomamented or ornamented with incised straight or wavy lines, and finger impressed or stamped patterns. The hand-thrown vessels were primarily distributed in southern Transdanubia during the Turkish oceu- pation period,” and are rarely found in more northerly ar ‘generally termed ‘south Slavie' pottery that in Hungary ” Pécs: PEER (1959) 126-127: N. PARADE: Beszimolé a pécs ‘Tetyén 1957. évben végzetdsatistél (Berichte Uber die am Tettye in Pées 1957. dutchgefihre Ausgrabung). JPME 1988 (1959) 132, PL UXIL 18; Nagykanizs: PARADI op. cit. 132; Srigevir, Mecseknalasd, Marévar: Gy. Ge&0r Turkische Keramik in Unga, Einhoimisebe und Imporiere Waren, In; Fith International Con gress of Turkish Ant, 1975. Budapest 1978, 351-382. Fig. 13; ID: Die Frage der Keramik und des Ethnikums im Trkischen Funcma- terial von Ungatn, Wissenschafliche Aebeiten aus dem Burgeniand 71 Eisenstadt 1988, 197-200, Fig. 4; Torokkopany: GY. KOVACS! 16th-18h Century Hungarian Pottery Types. Antacus. 19-20 (1990-91) 172, PLAX, 1-10, Pl, X. 1-5; Segesd: MAGYAR (1988) 147, Fig. 11. 46, Fig. 12.1, Fig. 16. 1 3-4; Babess; MAGYAR (1990) 139, Pls 28-29; Orora: GeRELYES-FELD (1986) 165-178; (they are also infrequent at Val). This hand-thrown n be linked to the garrisons of the Turkish forts in 1, FELD. KISFALUDY-1, VOROS-T. KOPPANY-L. GERELYES-Zs. MIKLOS: Jelenés az ovorai virkastélyban és komnyékén 1981-85- ben végzettrégészetikutatisokrdl [Investigations at Ozora castle in 1981-85}, BME 14 (1988) 279-280, Fig. 45; Szckszrd-Ujpalank: GAAL (1985) 18%; Bates: KOVACS-ROZSAS (1996) 178, Figs 13 14 > Hand-thrown pottery finds fiom the Turkish occupation period ‘of Hungary ae often labelled “south Slavie’ forthe simple reason thatthe Balkanic pepulation groups with which this potey can be associated were predominantly ofa south Slavie origin; however, a closer inspection of more recent pottery products suggests tat Similar hand-thrown pattery had also been made elsewhere in the Balkans (eg. in Albani).G.NATHAZL-GY. KOVACS ° 10cm Fig. 12, Profile drawings ofthe vessels on Fig. 9 Actndrchcocicn Ace Shean Myer $4387A POST-MEDIEWAL, ASSEMBLAGE FROM VAL o 10cm Fig. 13, Profile drawings ofthe pedestalled bow on Fig LI and the vessels on Fig. 10. Acta Archaeologica AcademiaeSeentaram Hungariae $8, 1997a4 G HATIAZLGY Kovacs Hungary that were generally recruited from the Balkans, mainly from the south Slavie population as well as to Balkanic population groups who settled around the forts.” The distribution of hand-thrown pottery shows that these Balkanic groups did not play such a significant role in the more northerly territories as they did in southern ‘Transdanubia, The finds from these Turkish forts can contribute to a better knowledge of where Serbs and other southern Slavic groups had been settled, as well as to their ratio within and around individual garrisons. ‘The archaeological record can thus complement the evidence on the settlements of Baleanic groups gleaned from the Turkish written sources.” Parallels to the 16th-17th century hand-thrown wares from Hungary abound in Balkanie pottery. Hand- thrown pottery with incised or impressed pattems and the occasional stamp on the base first appeared in the Sth century in the southern Slav territories, surviving to the modern times. Several comparable vessels have been reported from 9th to 17th contexts from the Balkans, from the territory of ex-Yugoslavia,” where they were still made in the 20th century.” The slow wheel was and is still mainly used in the mountainous regions of Bosnia- Herzegovina that were isolated from the mainstream of civilization Wheel-turned cooking pots with glazed interior. One major category of finds ~ both from the layers and, in particular, from pit 4 ~, represented by both intact vessels, as well as numerous rim, body and basal fragments, ‘come from more thin-walled pots with glazed interior. A small intact pot (Cat. no. 13: Fig. 10, 2 and Fig. 13. 3) from pit 4 represents the classical form of this vessel type and can be classified as a cup in view of its size. A larger pot with a small handle (Cat. no. 14: Fig. 10. 5 and 13. 6) can also be assigned here. These cooking pots can be regarded as the products of local, late 17th century Hungarian pottery workshops. The exterior of these pots is unglazed, and is most often ornamented with densely or less densely spaced incised lines. The rim is often collared. The occurrence of pots with collared rims in the various assemblages suggests that this vessel appeared in Hungary in the 16th century (or perhaps even earlier) and in the early 17th entury,"* becoming widespread in the 17th century, especially during its latter half" Comparable specimens are known from securely dated assemblages of the later 17th century or its very end from a number of sites!” The products of Hungarian folk pottery represent the direct continuation of th On the testimony of the Turkish sources the garrisons of the “Turkish forts of Hungary were made up of soldiers of southern Slav ‘origin (especially inthe earlier period). Serbian were to be found almost everywhere although their predominance can only be dem- ‘onstrated in the more inland areas, in southem Transdanubia that lay in the proximity ofthe southern and Balkanic chain of fotfca- tions and inthe smaller forts along the Danube (HHecvt (1995) 81 un, "The southern Slavic element does not seem 10 have been predominant within and around the fortess at Vil. The detiled “Turkish pay-lsts, for example do nat mention any mercenates, The members of the elite corps were forthe greater part probably made Up of Turks, and one source also mentions a renegade Hungarian (irovi (1995) 110) © M, BIRTASEVIE: Sredajovekowna keramika (Medieval Ceram= Jes) (Beograd 1970) 39-41; MamuaNovic: Vusovie (1973) 208. 206, PI IV, Figs 4-9, Pl, Vig BAIALOVIC-HAD2L-PESIC(I9B1) 4 50; V. BIKIG Srednjovekovna keramika Beograda (Medieval Pottery fiom Belgrade) Beograd 1998, passim, 1 HOLL: Adatok a kizépkori magyar farckassig mun kamidszereiher (Betrige zu den Atbeitsmethoden der Ungarischen “Téperei des Mittellters), BudRég 17 (1956) 182-186, with further literature in notes $ and I: Cv. C. PoPovie: Londarstvo u Bosni i Hercegovini I-Il (L'art de la poterie en Boshi et en Heraégovine) G2M Istoriia | Etogeafia 11 (1986) 98-122; 12 (1957) 17-46, . ToMIC: O tipovima gméarskog Kola i keramike w Stbiji (Types de tours de potiers et de céramique en Serbie). Glasnik Emnogeat- Acta ArchegloicadcademieeScenaram Hynvaricne 49.1997 tradition."* The best analogies in terms skog Muzsjau Beograd 22-23 (1960) 19-20; 1D. 1983, 15, 24-33, 242-251; A. ONUZH: Le meter de potere & Farke de Tirana El rnographic Albanaise 8 (1979) 219-228; etc "Vie: ZS, MIKLOS: Leletmentés a kizépkori Vie terletén (Széchenyi u3-1) (Retungsgrabung im Gebiet der mitelaltelichen Vie, Széchenyi Strafle 3-7) Vici Konyvek 5 (Vic 1991) passim, pit $6: Pl. AS, 9,11; Buda: GERELVES (1986) 75 1D. (1991) 26, 28, 32,46, Fig 19.4 Visogrd, pit 6: GERELYES (1986) 81 = 1987 171, Fig 4.4 Fig. 7.1, Ege: LAZAR (1986) 39. " LavalLevice: Z. DRENKO: Archeologicky wskum Levického radu (Atehiologsehe Untersuchung der Burg in Levice). ZSNM. 70 (1976). Historia 16, 124, Fig. 7. 5; Filek/Filakovo: KALMAR, (1959) 38, some of the finds are shown in Pl. LXV: Pikiny Suuovor FRHER (1962) 139, Fig. 63, 1-25 Ozora: GERELYES Fetp (1986) 175, Fig. $. 7; Seekseétd-Ujpalink: GAAL (1985) Fig 1, Buda: GERELYES (1991) 36-37, 46; Visegrid: GERELYES (1987) pit 8174, Fig. 5, 9-10 = Fig. 7. 2-3; Sutkesfehérvir SIKLOS! (1982) 9-10, inv. no. BI.26, 81-48, with obligue channel- ing on the body’ Siimeg, Szigliget: KOZAK (1966) 84, 86, Fig. 2. 11-13, Fig. 3. 1-5, Fig. 5, 5-7, 9-12; Belgrade: MaRuANovic Vusovie (1973) 211, Fi. 18, PIV. 10. Gy, MESZAROS: Szoksrdrd és KérmySke tks dizi ke simiai emlékei (Ceramic Relies with Turkish-style Omamentation and its Environment) Szeksrird 1968, 37, Pl. XL 2, 4, 6; SaROSACZ (1972) $8, 85, Figs 18-19 and 92-94; KRESZ (1960) Figs 4,8 and 11 from Sackszi1 POST-MEDIEWAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM VAL ais 0 10cm ———— Fig. 14, Potery fragments (1-2) and one-kandled lass jug Q.6 G NATHAZLGY Kovacs218 G Mami Gy. KOVACS of form, decoration, as well as size to the cup and the restored pot from Vil are to be found among the vessels of the later 17th century. ‘These pots are often found in association with Turkish finds, as at Parkany/Sturovo (found together with three Turkish copper cauldrons), at Székesfehérvér (found together with pedestalled bowls, a faience lid from Iznik and a copper jug), at the Turkish forts in Szekszérd-Ujpalank and Bares (found together with typical Turk- ish glazed and southern Slavic hand-thrown pottery), and finally at Val itself (found together with copper wares and other articles of Turkish origin). This should by no means be taken to imply that these pots were Turki: products,” but rather that local Hungarian pottery” was also used by the Turks. It must here be noted that pots from Val and Székesfchérvar can be equally dated to the Turkish or the post-Turkish period, Several fragments of red, reddish or reddish-brown unglazed pots came to light from pit 4. The partially or completely reconstructed specimens (Cat. nos 15-16: Fig. 9. [-2 and Fig. 12. 1-2) show that they have a strongly profiled shoulder, a constricted short neck and an outtumed thickened rim. The fabric is coarse and tempered with tiny grits. These pots too were local Hungarian products. Comparable pots, but with slightly differing rim have been reported from Ozora, from various 1Sth— 16th century contexts.” According to the excavation report, the pottery shows a continuous development, al- though there are clearly visible differences between the pots recovered from earlier and later layers. Parallels to the pots from the upper layers occur in several closed assemblages of the Turkish occupation period at Ozora, and they were used from the mid-16th century throughout the entire occupation period until the close of the 17th century.” Gyula Sikldsi published similar pots, found in an assemblage datable to the later 17th century, from Székesfehérvir.” The reconstructed pot and the fragments from Vl can be definitely linked to these late vessel types. Handled cups. There are no known published parallels in Hungary to one of the two small one-handled cups with glazed interior (Cat. no. 17: Fig. 10. 1 and Fig. 13. 1). In view of its context the cup can be seen as a local Hungarian product, although it seems more likely that it can be linked to Balkanic pottery. The other small cup with collared rim (Cat 13: Fig. 10. 2 and Fig. 13. 3) is a typical Hungarian ware (its chronology and exten- sive distribution, as well as its parallels have been discussed in the above) Milk jugs. The reddish-brown, wide-mouthed intact milk jug with outturned rim, omamented with white painting represents a fairly rare type at Val (Cat. no, 18: Fig. 10. 4 and 13. 5). Several rim and body fragments of this jug type were also recovered from the pit (such as Cat. no. 24: Fig. 15. 8): they most likely represent only @ few vessels, This vessel is undoubtedly a late 17th century product for it does not occur in earlier contexts. This date is confirmed by comparable vessels from the end of the 17th century,” as well as by the survival of the form in Hungarian folk pottery.” The Val jugs can be broadly dated to the later 17th century or the turn of the 17th-18th centuries, although the fact that this pottery type was found exclusively in pit 4 restricts the time bracket to the decades while the pit was filled in, namely to the turn of the 17th-18th centuries. The jugs from Val can be seen as the prototypes of later vessels that later became extremely widespread and were used as milk jugs and milk Habin wares. The Habin jug fragments, that come both in monochrome and in decorated varieties, are ‘an important chronological anchor for dating the find assemblage from the pit. A floral design of white and light © Penée (1959) 114, PL. V. 1; SIKLOSI(1982)9 inv, no. 1.26. nonetheless yielded vessel fragments of this pottery ype: Holl (1963) 80; GeReL ves (1986) 77 1 PELD-. GERELYES: Kés6-kézépkor leletegyittes az ozorai virkastélybal (Spitmittlalterlicher Fundkomplex. aus dem Burg- sohlo8 von Ozoma). CommArchHung 1985. 16S; FEtD-GERELYES. (Geee-GyORKY-TAMASI (1989) 179-180, Figs 57. 1. GERELYES: Spratfitosiszestrdk Kermia 2 ozorakvtkas- télybsl (Tuskische sgraffverzierte Keramik aus dem Burgkastell von Ozora). FotArch 38 (1987) 249, Fig. $. 3, 5; although the Turkish peviod pit in wench I and pit 2 in weneh J were only infilled uring the period following the Turkish occupation period, they GGeRELYEs- FELD (1986) 165, 169, 196 SiKLOSt (1982) 9-10. ” KozAK (1966) 84, Fig. 2. 4: Sieg, jug with white painting; 86, Fig. 4. 8-12: Sriglget, unglazed, jug-ike pots; according t6 Gyula Siklsi (pers. comm.) at Székestchérvar this vessel type was recovered mainly from 17Ch-18th century eontexts af fom assem blages datable tthe turn ofthe 17th-18th centuries, SanosACz (1972) $8, Figs 85-86: linear design painted with white earth paint Figs 87-88: glazed jugs Kees (1960) passim; KOZAK (1966) 84[AFOST-MEDIEVAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM VAL 219 coloured stylized flowers, leafs and tendrils set against a dark blue background can be seen on two body shreds (Cat. no. 23: Fig. 15. 4). Vessels, mostly jugs, bearing the date of their manufacture and ornamented with similar designs are known from the second half and the close of the 17th century,” and thus the fragments from Val can bee dated to the same period, STOVE TILES Four restorable cup-shaped glazed Turkish stove tiles were found in pit 4 (Cat. nos 19-2: Fig. 11. 1-4), While a fifth restored specimen had probably also been part ofthis assemblage. These stove tiles became popular in the Turkish-occupied areas of Hungary during the 16th and the 17th centuries.” Since the parallels to these tiles and the type of stove they had belonged to point to a Balkanic origin,” their appearance and distribution can be linked to the influx ofa Balkanic population. A high number of unglazed, bowl-shaped stove tile fragments came to light from the pit. Together with other stove tiles they had most likely belonged to a stove from the post-occupation period,” the base and several additional tiles from this stove had been uncovered during the excavation, Some of the tiles from trench V are ‘omamented with ribs and impressed pattems, but the majority of the tile fragments from pit 4 tend to be un- adorned. Bowl-shaped tiles first appeared in the late 14th century in Hungary, becoming widespread in the 15th and 16th centuries. Most were made locally, and show little va ion as far as form concerned, reflected also in their long survival from the (14th/)-I5th to the close of the 17th century, and to the present day.” There are, obviously, several differene: in the workmanship, the colour and the finer details of stove tiles from different periods. Good parallels to the Val tiles can be quoted from among the stove tiles recovered from a refuse pit at Székesfehérvar (containing also Turkish articles) of Val, as well as from among the 17th century stove tiles of Stimeg castle™ ornamentation, that has been dated to approximately the same period as pit 4 " that stand close also in terms of ‘The ceramic finds described in the above are complemented by various fragments from glazed and un- glazed vessels, as well as jugs, pots, plates, lids, etc. and jugs fired in a reducing atmosphere, (Cat. nos 25-31 Fig. 15. 1-3, 5~ 9), Noteworthy among these is the fragment of the upper part of an unglazed light brown ves~ sel with strongly outturned rim and a wide neck, decorated with a rouletted design using an indented wheel (Cat. no, 32: Fig. 14, 1), that has no known contemporary parallels in Hungary." 1, KaTONA: A habin kerma Magyarorszigon [Habs Ceram ‘es in Hungary}. Budapest 1974, fora description, see pp. 209-213, a5 well s the Figs on pp. 19, 21,28, 4, 6, % 1, GERELYES (1986) 76; (1991) 32-33 quotes the well-datable specimens. FEHER (1959) 131-132, notes parallels fom Bulgaria; cp. ©. BAKARDSCHIEW: Bulgarische Keramik (Sofia 1956) 42, Figs 58-61; MARIANOVIC-VUsoVIC (1973) 203-204, Figs 2-3, PL VIN publishes the finds fom stove from Belgrade that can be dated 10 the later 17th century. ° Owing to modern, 20th century intrusions the exact stratige Phy of the area around the stove could not be observed and we can nly assume thatthe stove ean be linked to the frst post-Turkish period settlement PELD-GERELYES-GERE-GYORKY-TaMAst (1989) 199; BALASSA-ORTUTAY (1979) 146, Figs 40 and 70; for the manufac ture of stove tiles ep. N. PARADI: KésOkizépkori kilyhacsempe nogativok (Stove-Tile Moulds ofthe Late Middle Ages). FolArch 9 (1957) 184; G, ILON-T. SABIAN: XV. szdzadi eserépkalyhak Kal- sBvatrl (Kacheldfon aus dem XV. Jahrhundert aus KilsSvat) Acta ‘Musei Paponsis 2 (1989) 109-112, Figs 3-7. SikLOst (1982) 14-15. mK. Kozék: A stimegi vir XV-XVIL szizadi kalyhai Die (fen der Simeger Burg aus dem 15.~17. Jahrhunder). VMK 11 (1972) 271-290. "2 must ee be noted that eventhough nat one single coarse, hand-made bell shaped baking id of clay tempered with chaff was, found, this is mere chance since several fragments fom such baking lids were recovered from pit 5 lying near pit 4 that can be dated to the same period, Baking lids and ther fragments are one ofthe most distintive finds ofthe Turkish occupation period in Hungary, and ave generally found in large numbers, expecially in southern Trans: ‘danubia (For example at Szekszérd-Ujpalnk, Ozora, Bares) Baking lids (called vinikin modern Serbian) were commonly used by the arrisons of Balkan origin, and they were stil used in the 19th 20th centuries in the Balkans. Acts Archaeologica Acoma Scientia Hungarica 9 1997220 G.NATHIAZL-GY. KOVACS IRON FINDS In contrast to the Turkish copper wares and ceramic finds, iron artefacts were much fewer in number, and generally represent types that are well-known among the finds discovered in contemporary castles, towns and rural settlements ‘The characteristic finds of 16th-17th century assemblages include slightly flattened, oval hee! plates provided with spikes for attachment (Cat. no. 33: Fig. 16. 3),""and a wide variety of knives. The Val knife with an antler handle and copper binding strip (Cat. no, 36: Fig. 16. 2) was probably made at the turn of the 17th/18th centuries and has no exact parallels in the currently known material of Hungary. The simple, originally triangular of near-triangular hoe (Cat 35: Fig. 16. 1), used in gardening and vine cultivation, probably dates from the Turk- ish period, enlarging the number hoes from the late Turkish occupation period in Hungary." The so-called broach padlock (Cat. no. 34: Fig. 16. 4) belongs to a type that appeared during the second half of the 15th cen- tury in Hungary," and occurs — although more rarely ~ also in later assemblages. Comparable locks, recovered from late medieval and Turkish period contexts, are known from Segesd” and Bares." GLASSWARE Noteworthy among the glassware fragments that are mostly small, indistinet sherds," is a deep blue coloured one-handled glass jug with slightly flattened body (Cat. no. 37: Fig. 14. 3) that can be assigned to the turn of the 17th-18th centuries. The form itself harks back to Venetian Renaissance vessels of the 1500s, al- though the Val jug is slightly more globular, and the form of its base is more characteristic of the late 17th and early 18th century, BONE FINDS. ‘The antler fragment bearing a design of incised triangles most probably comes from a powder horn (Cat. no. 38: Fig. 16. 5). Although a few similar powder homs are known from the 16th century,” most come from the 17th—18th centuries." In conclusion, pit 4 of the Val site was opened after the Turkish occupation period (around 1693/94), and was infilled in the early 1720s (1721/22); the finds in the assemblage include artefacts from the later 17th century (later Turkish occupation period, between 1640 and 1686/87) and from the turn of the 17th/I8th centu- "© Reflecting the fashion of a new footwear that hecame wide- spread in the 16th century, oval heel plates similar o the ones rom ‘Val are generally considered to bea Inte variant ofthe type that can be assigned tothe 16th century (KALMAR (1959) 13; K. I. MELIS: Régészetiadatok a késbkSzépkorilabbeliviselt kutatishoz (Sur les trouvilles archéologiques de la recherche des chaussures & la fin du moyen-ige). Archit 101 (1974) 275,278). wThe hoes from Ozora (GERELVES-FELD (1986) Fig. 9. 5-6) and Bares (Driva Museum, Bares, inv. no. 95.449) were both found in Turkish period contexts "© F. TeMESVARY: Kulestipusok és zr-mechanizmusok fjlédése ‘4 XV. szizadban (Entwicklung der Seblideltypen und Sehlodime- chanismen vom XV. Iahthundert an). FolArch 13 (1961) 164, Fig. 52.1.4, 611,15, "se MAGYAR (1988) Fig. 20.4: the padlock has been defined as ‘medieval’ allowing also a date inthe Turkish occupation perio. et Archaeologica Academia Sientiaram Hungaricae 9.197 1 KovAcs-ROzSAS (1996) Fig. 16. "es Aside ffom the glass jug, a dark-brown basal fragment of a small vessel resembling a muli-petaled flower is worth mention ing, as well as the shoulder fragment of a translucent, greenish vessel omamented with oblique channelling 1 1, VoROS: Kzépkor aganes liportartok az ugodi varbsl (Mit- Ielateriche Pulverfasse aus Geweih gefertigh in der Butg_ von Ugod), Acta Musti Papensis 1 (1988) 131-135, with further litera- ture; L_ VANDOR Botszentayérgy vira (Az Gn. Romlottvir kus tatisinak eredményeib6l) [The Botszentuysrgy castle. Investiga- tions in the Romlot caste). Nagykanisai Honismereti Fizetek 9 (1995) Fig. XVI 8 BALASSA-ORTUTAY (1979) 350, 362, Fig 176 and Ills 209-210; Domanovsaky (1981) 1. 237-239, Il. Figs 150-153; 'B. BoRSOs: Magyar vadisz l6portartok (Hungarian hunting powder horns) Budapest 1982, with further literature| POST-MEDIEVAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM VAL 221 ries (1686/1693-1721/22). The later finds from the turn of the 17th/18th century include, for example, the milk jug, the blue glass jug and the plate ornamented with a “written” (painted) floral design. The earlier finds ean be subdivided into two groups: the copper wares, the glazed pedestalled earthenware bowls, the glazed cup-shaped stove tiles, the hand-thrown pots, and the two-handlled storage jars can be linked to the Turkish and southern Slavic newcomers, while the remaining finds represent products of local Hungarian and, in a wider sense, of Central European industry — the latter, however, cannot be easily distinguished from the finds of the turn of the 17th/18th centuries. These include, for example, the pots with collared rim, the Habén vessels, the lids and the uunglazed bowl-shaped tile stoves. The earlier 17th century marks the beginning of a development in material ‘culture that lasted well into the 18th century ~ the end of the Turkish occupation marks a certain break in Hun- ‘gary ~ and thus a more precise date for individual articles is only possible in knowledge of the find context and the associated finds. The Val assemblage, with its varied finds, offers a good cross-section of the material culture ‘of Hungary in this period that was coloured by Turkish, Balkanic, Hungarian and Habin elements and, owing to its secure chronological context, offers an excellent starting point for the further study of post-medieval assem- blages."" CATALOGUE, 1 Copper cauldron with Matened round body’ suspension loops riveted to the body. Restored. Diam, of sim 24.5-27 em, H, 19.5-20.7 em, Vol. 10000 rn (Fig 6) 2 Cylindrical copper cup. The body widens almost impercepibly towards the rim. Four engraved lines encircle the neck under the rim. A smal perforation under the im. Restored, Diam. 11.5 em, H. 13.5 em, Vol. 1000 ml (Fig. $4). 3 Copper ewer. Pearshaped body with long, cylindrical neck that is encircled by a ib. Long gracefully curved spout. The han- Ale springs from under the rim, and hasan S-shaped element forthe atachment ofthe lid. The flattened sides ofthe body and the handle are ‘ormamented with a design of fine punelates, Restored, Diam. of base 13.8 em, H. 24 em, Vol 2000 ml (Fig. 5. 3) “4 Globular copper how! set on a conical pedestal. The nm is narow and outurned. Restored. Diam. of mouth 21.3 em, H. 9 em, Vol. 1300 mi (Fig. 5.5). 5 Round fa copper pan tepsi) with shor sides and straight rim. Undecorated. Restored Diam, 43 cm, H. 3.5 em (Fig. 5.0) 6 Large, at, round copper platter (in), with a small, horizontally outured rtm. multiple rosette design of punctt with a compass, in ts centre. Restored. Diam. of mouth 52 em, HL. 2. em (Fig. 7). 7 Copper rim fragments, omamented with ows of openvork wriangles. One fragment is riveted to a backing plate. The fagmens allow the reconstruction ofan are witha diameter of ea 18 em, The two fagments cannot be joined, but may come from the same object (Fig. 8 Light red pedestlled bow, covered with trownish-yllow glaze in its interior. The pedestal is conical, the body is globu- lar, widening towards the rin, The vin is rounded and notched on the ouside. Restored, Diam, of mouth 22,5 em, I, 12.5 em, Vol 2000! 2800 mi (Fig. 11.5, Fig. 13.2) 9 Reddish-brown clay plate. The thickened rim i inturned and rounded, with a small suspension loop on the outer side. The in terior is ornamented with a tendril patera under an uncoloured glaze, Restored, Diam, of mouth 27.5 em, diam. of base 12 em, H. 8.1m, Vol 1400/2150 ml (Fig. 10.3 Fig 13.4). 10 Large, thickwalled, vo-handled storage jar. Coveted with a dark groen glaze on its exterior and a pale green glaze in its Interior. Ovoid body with eylindrical neck and slightly outtarned, straight rim, The ribs under the rm, and ther is also ib i line with the handles. A pair of two furrows on the shoulder and on the upper part of the body in line with the handles. Restored. Diam, of mouth 15.2 em, H.36.2 em, Vol. 740007800 ml (Fig. 8 3, Fig. 12.3). 11 Large, thick-walled, unglazed, light reddish to-andled sorage jar. Ovoid body. Short constricted neck: sloping shoulder ‘A bundle of incised lines enctces the shoulder, the handles spring from ths poi. Straight-cut rim. Restored. Diam, of mouth 12 em, 1.38 em, Vol. 14000/14200 mi (Fig. 9.4 Fig. 12.4) 12 Rim and body fagment ofa lage, hund-trown por. Fabric tempered with small grits. Dark greyish-brown, with black patches on the outside, light greysh-brown on the inside. The rim is shaped to accommodate a lid. Ineised horizontal lines encircle the shoulder. Diam. of mouth eca. 22 em (Fig. 14.2) "The excavation plans were drawn by Gabor Hathizi, Andris jug Finally, we wish to thank Professoe Andrés Kubinyi and Itvin Bodr; excavation photographs were taken by Gabor Hathizi; the Torma for their invaluable comments on this paper. finds were photographed by Krisztina Pilfay and Tibor Kaas; the illustrations were deawn by Sandor Osi and Mrs, Géza Szathmiry, In the ease of capper wares, the given volumes are absolute, Whom we all wish o thank here. We ae also grateful to Katalin 1. while inthe ease of eathenvare, the frst figure indicates the prob: Gyirky for her excellent description and dating of the blue glass able, the second the absolute volume Aete Archacneien Acudemive Setar Hangaricae 89.197mm GaMATHAZL-GY, KOVACS 13 Sima, one-handed, yellowish-white por or eup with outturned, collared rim. Traces of green glaze in its interior, especially around the fim, The vessel body it decorated with a bundle of incised horizontal lines, Intact Diam. of mouth I em, H. LT em, Vol 500/560 ml (ig. 10.2, Fig. 13.3). 14 Thin-walled, greyish-brown, ovoid cooking po, The wide strap handle springs from the base of the collared im. The body is ‘decorated with bundles of incised horizontal lines, the interior is covered with slight dark green glaze. Restored. Diam. of mouth 18.8 em, ‘dam. of base 95-10 em, H. 23.7 em, Vol 4000/4500 mi It may have come om the upper part of the pit although it was not Found ex- pressly inthe pit (Fig. 10.5, Fig. 13.6) 15 Large, thin-walled, unglazed, eddish por tempered with small grits, bearing traces of turning (especially in its interior. ‘Strongly burnt in some spos. Ovoid body, narrowing towards the base, with profiled shoulder, The neck is short, with a sight break where itmeets the shoulder. The rim i outtarmed and thickened. Two small quadrangular perforations onthe shoulder, Restored. Diam, of mouth 20cm, H. 25.5 em, Vol, 6800/7200 ml (Fig. 9.2, Fig. 12.2), 16 Lower half of pot resembling the previous one, but slighlly larger (Fig. 9 Big. 121). 17 Dark sed cup, witha small stap-handle springing from the rim. Cylindrical neck, widening slightly towards the rim, deco ‘ated witha double furrow on the outside, The body is glebular. Vellowish-brown glazing on the interior and outside on the neck, Restored, Diam. of mouth 7.8-8 cm, H. 10.5 cm, Vol. 400450 mil. Alhough not found strietly inthe pt, its find circumstances suggest that it had belonged tothe upper level of the pit (Fig. 10.1, Fig. 13.) 18 Reddish-brown, thin-walled, slightly globular, wide-mouthed mi jug of wol-levigated clay. The Fim is strongly outturmed and rounded. The body is ornamented with closese, oblique luting. Unglazed. with faint traces of white painted bands on the neck and shoulder, and a wavy line between the two lower bands. Intact, Diam. of mouth 13.5 em, H. 24.8 em, Vol. 2900/3100 mi (Fig. 1. 4, Fig, 2.5) 19-22 Glazed, cup-shaped stove sles. Light reddish-brown in colour, covered with green glaze inthe interior; te rim is out sumed and notched, Restored. Diam, of mouth 15-16em, Il 6-7.5 em (Fig. 11. 1-4 23 Segmented body fragment of a Hahn jug. The fabric is greyish-white, Omamented witha stylized Moral pa famed by a double line set agains a blue background (Fig 15. 4, 24 Shoulder fragment of light-brown, thin-walled, unglazed mi jug, omamented with Hight, oblique Muting and horizontal and wavy white pained lines (Fig. 15. 8) 25 Fragment of alight beown conea! lid (Fig. 15.1). 26 Fragment of « small, ereyish-brown how, The rim is thickened, and has a deep furrow. Covered with @yellowish-brown slze in its imerir and on the rim on the outside. Diam. of mouth cca 24 em, 11.4 em Fig. 15.2). 27 Shoulder fragment of light brown 2jug. Light engobe bands on the exterior, with arouletted pattern made with an indented wheel (Fig. 15 3). 28 Body fragment of light brown pot, covered wit lines on the outside (Fig. 15.3). 29 Body fragment ofa light brown 2eup with glazed exterior and a red, black and green painted pattern of horizontal and wavy vertical lines set against yellowish-white background (Fig. 15.6) 30 Body ftagments of yellowishowhite cup, covered with brownish-yellow glaze on both sides. Omamented with an appliqué spiralling tendril with a bud at it end. The field framed by the tendrils geen (Pig 1. 7) 31 Shoulder fragment of a brown, unglazed one-handled jug. The body 1s globular, and ornamented with lose-set ribs atthe junetion ofthe neck and the shoulder; the lowermost rib as oblique impressions (Fig. 15.9). 32 Body fragment of an unglazed vessel tempered with sand. Greyish-brown inside and brownish on the outside. The rim is out ‘urned and thickened. pattern of oblique lines set between two horizontal lines on the neck and a bundle of four etosely set lines under & serie of furrows on the shoulder, all made with an indented wheel, Diam. of mouth cea 20-20.3 em (ig 14.1) 33 Oval hee! plate, Nattened and rectangular in section in the middle, the Wo ends widen and end in a fine point, Three small iron spikes for purposes of attachment, one at each end and one at the back of the heel. Distance between the two ends 7.1 em, H. 0.7 and '03)¢m (Fig. 16.3). The pit als yielded the heavily corroded fragments of another hee! pate. 34 So-called brooch type padlock. One part ofthe body of the padlock is rectangular, the other, containing the Tock mechanism, iseylindrical. The bow i incomplete and broken. L. 75 em, W. 35 em (Fig. 16.4). 35 Fragment of a probably triangular (or near-tiangular) hoe wit sloping shoulder and an oval shaf-hole i the sha. The blade ‘was hafled an angle. The edge ofthe blade is broken and incomplete on both sides. L. of the blade 15 em (total L, ofthe hoe with shat 29cm), W.at shoulder cca, 14 em (Fig. 16.1) 136 Knife, the blade and the tang are sei Hine. The blade is wider than tang. The blade is slightly curved and heavily corroded (restored on the basis ofa photograph taken before restoration). The handle, two semi-cylindrical antler plates, was attached tothe tang by ‘metal rivets. A 7mm wide copper binding stip atthe junetion ofthe Blade and the handle, Total L, 19cm L.of handle & em (Fig. 16.2). 37 Dark blue glass jug, wih fattened, ovoid body. The long, cylindrical neck is encircled by a thin glass thread. The high handle is drawn from the middie of the neck to the shoulder. The base is Conical. The vessel is incomplete and deformed, Diam. of mouth 6.5 em, diam. of base 6 em, present H. 11 em (Fig. 143). 38 Carved antler fragment, probably fom a powder hoen. The polished side beats a design of incised wiangles, some of which ace hatched. L. Tem (Fig. 16. 5. 1m enclosed in 1 brownish-yllow glaze on the inside, and a bundle of close-set, incised Acta Archaeologica Academe Seentaram Hungarica 4, 1997A POST-MEDIEVAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM VAL ma REFERENCES. BAVALOVIC-HAD21-PESIC (1981) = M. BAIALOVIC-HAD21-PESIC: Keramika u stednjovekovno) Sebiji (Les eé Serbie aw Moyen-Age) Beograd 1981, BALAMAN (1982) ‘AR. BALAMAN: Te-Ve Kay Genel etnograf amir 1982, BALASSA-ORTUTAY (1979) 1 BALASSA-Gy. ORTUTAY: Magyar népraz (Hungarian ethnography] Budapest 1979, BOoUR (1987), =F. BooUR: Turk Maden Sanan (The Art of Turkish Metalworking) Istanbul 1987, ‘Gem (1956) = P-CeTIN: Etnogtafya Muzesindeki Baki Eserler zotinde Arasurma [The copper vessels in the Fhnographie Muscum, Tk Etnogratye Dergis 1 (1956) 95-01 Doteeva-Porova (1973) J. Doteva-Porova: Kim voprosa za mednikarstvoto v Sumen (Sur le chaudkonneris & Suen}. INMSumen 6 (1973) 314-319, DOwANOVS7KY (1981) Gy. DOMANOVSZKY: A magyat nép disetémivészete IH [The omamental art ofthe Hun arian people] Budapest 1981 ecinsoy (1978) =U. ERainsov: Islam Maden Sanatnn Geligmesi [The development of Islamic metalwork] Istanbul 1978 enter (1959) G. PEMER 1: A pécsi Janus Pannonius Mizcum hodolisigkori trGk emlékei (Denkmaler aus der Zot der Tarkischen Unterwerfung im Janus Pannonivs Museum in Pés). PME 1959 (1960) 103-149, Fei .: Vases de euive Tures dans 153-167, Feutr (1968) % G. FEHR m.: Esvtergomi trdk vorbsrézedények (Les utensils de cuivee Tures d'Eszter- gom). KMK I (1968) 273-310, FELD-GeRcLves-Gene-GyORKY-TaMAst (1989) = 1, PALD-L, Geet ves-L, Geré-K. GyORKY-I. TaMASt: Ujabb kés® kézépkorileletegyftes 1x ozorai virkastlybdl (A Newly Found 15-16th Century Find-Unit from the Castle of Ozora). CommArehFung (1989) 177-207. ent (1962) “Musée National Hongros. FolArch 14 (1962) GAAL (983) A.GAAL: A szekszirdi mézeum hidoltsigkori ézedényei (Copper Vessels ofthe Szekszird “Museum fiom the Turkish Occupation. CommArchHung (1983) 163-184 Gaat (1985) A. GAAL: Térdk palinkvirak a Budaeséki st Tolna megyei szakaszin [Turkish palisade fot along the Tolna section of the Buda-Eszék road) In: Magyar és Wirdk végvérak 1663 1684. StAgr 5 (Eger 1985) 185-197, Gat C90) = A.GAAL: A saokszardi mizeum hédoltsigkori rézedénye IL (Copper Vessels in the Szek- szird Museum from the Turkish Occupation Period I). CommArchltung (1991) 191-207 séavt (1995) LL Grcséavi: Bécs & a hédoltsig kereskedclmi dsszekésetései a 16. szézadban (Com- ‘mercial Connections between Vienns and the Turksh-ocevpid tertiteries inthe 16th cen- tury). Szizadok 129 (1998) 767-190 Gene ves (1986) | GERELYES: Adatok a sgraffito-iszes trdk kerimia kelteésther (Some Data to Assist the Dating of Gratfits Decorated Turkish Ceramics) Kk (1986: fll) 69-84, 136 Geneves (1987). |. GeRavEs: Térak kerimia a visegridi Alsbvirbél (Turkish Ceramics from Alsivée in Visegri). CommArchFung (1987) 167-179, GexeLyes (1991) = GERELYES: T&rdk leletogyitesek a budavéri paloibs (1972-1981) (Tirkische Fund omplexe aus dem Burgpalast von Buda, 1972-1981). TBM 23 (1991) 21-74 Gone ves-Feun (1986) = | GERELYES-I. FELD: Hédolsighorileltegyitesek az ozorai virkatélybl (Fundkomp- lexe des Burgichlosses von Ozora aus der Zeit der Tirkenherschaft). CommArehHung (1986) 161-182, Hegyt (1995) K. HeGvi: Térdk herendezkedés Magyarorsvigon (The Turkish rule in Hungary] Budapest 1995. Hou (1963) |. HOLL: A magyar kézépkor kerimia kutatisinak problémai (Die Probleme der Forschung der ungatischen mittlaltrichen Keramik), Mivelisbyé¢ Hagyominy 5 (1963) 65-86 Kaku (1966) S. KAKUK: Les monuments de la dinanderie Turque dans les langues Balkanigues et le Hongrois. AetaOrHung 29 (1966) 67-177 Kaku (1977) Zs. KAKUK: Cultural Words from the Turkish Occupation of Hungary. Studia Tureo- Hungarica IV. Budapest 1977. Kata (1959) J. KALMAR: A fileki (Filskovo) wi XV-XVIL széeadi emlékei (Die Denkmiler der Burg Filakovo aus dem XV-XVIL. ahh). RégFU. Ser. 1 4, (1959) KakamenneDovic (1980) = M.A. KARAMEHMEDOVIC: Umjetnitka obrada metala [Ornamental metalwork] Sarajevo 1980, Kavaootu (1987) G. KayAoctU: Balkan Dillevinde Turkge'den Gegen Bakiethk Terimleri ve Bakir Kap- Kagake Adlan [The Osman-Turkish loanwords conceming copperworking and copper ot Arson Academie Scena Hungaria $9,997a4 Kosay (1957) Kovacs (1984) KovAcs-ROZSAS (1996) Kozarae(19s6) KozAK (1965) KReSevuaKowe (1951) Kes (1960) Lazan (1986) MAGYAR (1988) Maayan (1990) Maguanovie-Vusovi@(1973) Masasoot (1973) peRscuacs (1948) ‘onat (1957) ‘bxce (1988) sanosher.(1972) ‘Sik. (1982) suavov (1974) Tome (1983) VVELICS-KANIMERER (1886-1890) G.HATIIAZL-GY. KOVACS vessels in the Balkan languages}. ln I, Millelraras Tirk Folklor Kongresi Bildleri V. Mada Kaiti, Ankata 1987, 183-219, HZ. Kosay: Tirkiye Halkinn Madd Kalirtine Dait Arastmalar Ul. Kap-Kacak [Research ‘on ethnographic material in Turkey I, Vessels). irk Emogratya Dergsi 2 (1957) S-28, Ps EXxIX, Gy. KOVACS: Térdk rézedényck Szolnok megyébél (Vases de euivre Tures provenant du comitat de Szolnok}. Archét 111 (1984) 78-91. = Gy. Kovaes-M. ROZSAS: A tarsi trdk palinkvar (Turkish Palisade Fortress in Bares). SMK 1996 12 (1996) 163-182. = V. Kozan Kazandiije u Pridtin (Les chaudronniers de Prishina). GMKM 1 (1956) 37 10. = K. KOZAK: A siimogi és seiligeti vir XVI, saizadvéy kerdmiia (Die Keramik vom Ende es 17_Jarhunders der Schldsser von Simeg und Szigliget). VMMK 5 (1966) 81-89. H. KRESEVLIAKOviC: Kazandziski obrt uw Bost i Hercegovini (Chaudronnerie en Hosni et Herzégovine), GZMS 6 (1951) 191-240. = M. KRes2: Fazekas, korss, tila (Potter, Jugmaker, Dishmaker). Ethnographia 71 (1960) 27-319. S. LAZAR: Az egri vr trokkori magyar eserépedényei (Ungarsche Tépferaren der Burg von Eger aus der Turkenzeit). Agria 22 (1986) 35-63. = K. MaGyar: A kizépkori Sepesd visos & mesye torténete, régészeti kutatisa (EBy kidlynéi Kézpont a X-XVIIL szizadban) [Historical and archaeological investigations in the medieval town and county of Segesd. A quecnly centre in the 10th-1B8th centuries} Ka- posvar 1988, K, MAGYAR: Babscsa trténete a honfoglalistl 2 mohiesi vészig (The history of Babsesa from the Conquest period tothe Batle of Mohcs). In: Babsesa trténete. Tanulményok a kézségtrténetéi. Babéesa 1990, 15-219. G. MagsaNovic-Vuovic: Kuga iz druge polovine XVIL. veka otkopana u utvréenom podgracu Beogradskog sada, Donjem Gradu (La maison de la seconde moitié du XVlle siécle déterrée dans le fiubourg forié de a ville de Belgrade, Donji Grad). GGB 20 (1973) 201-228, , Meso: Harput Baku (Copperworking in Harput), Trk Etnografya Dergsi 13 (1973) 33-4 = M. BARANYNE OweRSCHALL: Iparmivesség [The applied arts. In: L, FEKETE: Budapest a térOkkorban (Budapest 1944) 354-381 = M.Z. Oat: Selpuk Devri Yemekleri IL. (Foods ofthe Seljuk era} Turk Etnografys Dergisi 2(1957) 29-34 = N.T. OLCER: Turkische Metallkunst, In: Tirkische Kunst und Kultur aus osmanischer Zeit 1, Frankfurt 1985, 274-299, Gy. SaROSACZ: A mohiesi kerimia és tirténete (Zur Geschichte der Mohdeser Keramik DuDole 6, Péss 1972 Gy, SIKLOSt: Tirdk Konyha Istolni Belgrad belvirosébol (A Turkish kitchen from Istlni Belgrade] Sztkesfehérvir 1982, ‘A. SLAVOV: Medni Sidove (Copper Vessels) Sofia 1974 P., Toc: Graarstvou Stil [Pottery in Serbia] Beograd 1983. = A, VELICS-E, KAMMERER: Magyarorszagi trdk kinestin dfterek LIL [Tu fiom Hungary -I] Budapest 1886-1890. APPENDIX L.KOLTO, Results of the metal-analyses of the copper wares Thirteen separate tests of the seven copper vessels from Val were made as part of the project involving the analyses of bronze and copper vessels of the Turkish occupation period in Hungary. The X-ray emission analysis (XAE) was carried out on the analysator of the Directorate of the Somogy County Museums. The emis- sion source used was a 10 mCi capacity ring-shaped 1-125 isotope, ote Achacologica Academive Seton Hungarica $8, 1987A POST-MEDIEVAL ASSEMBLAGE FROM VAL ns ‘The main purpose of the analyses was to obiain new data and, also, to determine whether there exists a distinct group among the Turkish copper wares of Hungary; whether vessels manufactured in Turkey, in the Balkans and in Hungary differed from each other, and whether the same metal was used for the manufacture of the various elements ofthe articles. The results from the analyses of this particular assemblage are obviously unsuitable for making gener- alizations concerning all Turkish copper wares from Hungary; however, one common feature did become appar~ ent, namely that these metal vessels contain very litle alloying material (Sn, Pb, Sb). The conspicuously high antimony content (Sb) ~ approximately equalling the tin contents (Sn) — is another characteristic feature of these objects. It is also clear that individual vessels were assembled from metal parts whose composition was not nec- essarily identical, Note ‘The composition of the larger rim fragment (Cat. 7) must be treated with caution since the object in {question has been badly damaged by fire, and thus the test result is unreliable. ‘The surface of the rim fragment (Cat. 7) was probably tinned, although the test results do not confirm this because values higher than the approximately 5% obtained here is quite frequent in tin-bronze alloys (such as the spout of the ewer (Cat. 3) that had a tin content of almost 7.5%), ‘Meaal analyses ofthe copper vessels Objects Inventory Remarks umber Fe Ni Cu sb Pb Bi Lager itn Faginent wath rows of openwork tran 881.10. 0.14 9045 0.16 010 397 492 021 005 burnt Interior ofa rim fe S810 O11 0.25 9245 024 007 495165 022007 tinned Body ofthe pedest (excerion BELL 002 0.23 9589 - 0.10 006 1.95 143 0.20 0.09 Handle ofthe ewer 812. 018 95.79 005 0.10 189186 038008 Spout ofthe ewer 020 90.10 - ol O10 749 a2 087 Sill chain onthe handle of the ewer 00s 0.01 9444 025 007 1.78284 057 002 Handle of the cauldron Bald SOT a0. 112 as 007 4.06 Suspension loop ofthe cauldron ~~ 9603 = 002 184198043 aos Suspension loop ofthe cauldron from the oer side 96.5 002 002 1.51 203 021 G06 Body ofthe cauldron 027 9603 — 0.12, 0.17137 1.69025 Base ofthe round ‘at baking pan S88. OL O17 98.62 019 009 2.90288 03 Base ofthe flat formamented platter 881.7.(F/2) 025 9535 - 035 0.14 168 69034 ase of the cup BB13, 024 934s 003 470139 0.18 002 Acta drcucolgica Acadewine Scientia Hungarica 9, 1997