Abbreviations

Bakirtzi Bakirtzis, Ch., ‘Didymoteichon: un centre de céramique postbyzantine’, Balkan Studies 21 (1980) 147–53.Google Scholar

BP Morgan, Ch. II, The Byzantine Pottery: Corinth XI (Princeton 1942)Google Scholar.

Catling Catling, H. W., ‘An Early Byzantine Pottery Factory at Dhiorios in Cyprus’, Levant 4 (1972) 1–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

CMGP du Plat Taylor, J. and Megaw, A. H. S., ‘Cypriot Medieval Glazed Pottery—Notes for a Preliminary Classification’, RDAC 1939 1–13.Google Scholar

Dikigoropoulos Dikigoropoulos, A. I. and Megaw, A. H. S., and Megaw, ‘Early Glazed Pottery from Polis’, RDAC 1940–1948 77–93.Google Scholar

Frantz Frantz, M. Alison, ‘Middle Byzantine Pottery in Athens’, Hesperia 7 (1938) 428–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Great Palace I Stevenson, Robert B. K., ‘The Pottery, 1936–7’ in The Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors… First Report… (Oxford-London 1947).Google Scholar

Hippodrome I Rice, D. Talbot, ‘The Byzantine Pottery’ in Preliminary Report upon the Excavations in the Hippodrome of Constantinople in 1928 (London 1928).Google Scholar

Lane Lane, Arthur, ‘Medieval finds at Al Mina in North Syria’, Archaeologia 137 (1937) 19–79.Google Scholar

Megaw 1968 Megaw, A. H. S., ‘Zeuxippus Ware’, BSA 63 (1968) 67–88.Google Scholar

Megaw 1975 Megaw, A. H. S., ‘An Early Thirteeth Century Aegean Glazed Ware’, Studies in Memory of David Talbot Rice (Edinburgh 1975) 34–45.Google Scholar

Peschlow Peschlow, Urs, ‘Byzantinische Keramik aus Istanbul’, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 27/28 (1978) 363–414.Google Scholar

Rudolf Rudolf, W., ‘Excavations at Porto Cheli and Vicinity: The Early Byzantine Remains’, Hesperia 48 (1979) 295–311.Google Scholar

Taylor Taylor, J. du P., ‘Medieval Graves in Cyprus’, Ars Islamica 5 (1938) 55 ff.Google Scholar

¹ BP 2.

² For a preliminary report see Megaw, A. H. S. and Jones, R. E., ‘Spectrographic Analyses of Byzantine and Allied Pottery’, Actes XVI_e CIEB (Vienna 1981) (forthcoming).Google Scholar

³ The short list of recorded Byzantine kilns given by Cook, R. M. (BSA 56 (1961) 64 ff.)Google Scholar can now be expanded. Notable are those at Lefkadia, (PAE (1959) 87)Google Scholar and Trikala, (A. Delt 20 (1965)Google ScholarChron. 315–16), in addition to the three in which our Batches A, F, and H(2) originated.

⁴ BP 7 ff.

⁵ Hayes, J. W. in Colloques Internationaux du CNRS No. 578Google Scholar: Salamine de Chypre. Histoire ei Archéologie (1978) 375–80 fig. 6.

⁶ e.g. for tiles, Ettinghausen, E. S., ‘Byzantine Tiles from the Basilica in the Topkapu Sarayi’, Cahiers Archéologiques 7 (1954) 79–88.Google Scholar

⁷ Rice, D. T., Byzantine Glazed Pottery (Oxford 1930) 28.Google Scholar

⁸ Cf. Rice, D. T., ‘Byzantine Polychrome Pottery’, Cahiers Archéologiques 7 (1954) 75 n. 1.Google Scholar

⁹ Miatev, K., Die Keramik von Preslav (Sofia 1936).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Akrabova-Zhandova, I., ‘Un atelier de céramique peinte au sud de l'église ronde à Preslav’, Bulletin of the Archaeological Institute (Sofia) 20 (1955) 487–510Google Scholar; Totev, T., ‘Le Monastère de Tuzlalaka un centre de céramique peinte à Preslav au ix^e x^e s.’, Archeologija Bŭtlgarska 18. 1 (1976) 8–15.Google Scholar

¹¹ Philadelphia, A., Deltion Christianikis Archaeologikis Eterias 1 (1924), 22 ff.Google Scholar

¹² Nikolakopoulos, G., Τα κεραμεικά της Παναγίας του Μέρμπακα της Ναυπλίας (Athens 1979).Google Scholar

¹³ Pringle, D., Some More Proto-Maiolica from ‘Athlit (Pilgrim's Castle) and a Discussion of its Distribution in the Levant’, BSAJ 14 (1980) 104–7.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Whitehouse, D., ‘Proto-Maiolica’, Faenza 66 (1980) 77–89.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Fragments have been seen (by Megaw) among the unpublished pottery, destined for the Haaretz Museum in Tel-Aviv, from the ruined manor Kh. Mazra'a, near the coast north of Someleria.

¹⁶ BP 10 ff. fig. 8.

¹⁷ We are indebted to Dr. V. Karageorghis for permission to analyse this selection, and to Mr. M. Loulloupis for relevant information.

¹⁸ CMGP 9 Group VII pl. viii 47 58.

¹⁹ CMGP 10 Group VIIIB.

²⁰ Similar to Taylor fig. 11.

²¹ Hadjisavvas, S., ‘An Archaeological Survey of Paphos’, RDAC 1977 227.Google Scholar Subsequently, wasters have been found at Ayia Marina itself (information from Franz Maier).

²² CMGP 5 fig. 2.

²³ Dikigoropoulos and Megaw 79–80.

²⁴ BP 49.

²⁵ Peschlow 380 ff.

²⁶ Rice, op. cit. (n. 7) 7 and Xyngopoulos, A., ‘Byzantine pottery from Olynthus’, Olynthus 5 (1933) 292.Google Scholar

²⁷ D. Pananikola-Bakirtzis, Εργαστήρια εφθαλωμένης Κεραμεικής στή Θεσσαλονίκη Πρῶτες πληροφορίες ᾿ in Mélanges Stylianos Pélékanides (forthcoming) and Bakirtzis, Ch. and Bakirtzis, D., Byzantino-Bulgarica 7 (1981) 434.Google Scholar

²⁸ Bakirtzis 148 ff.

²⁹ Catling 52 and fig. 31.

³⁰ Rudolf 304 n. 19.

³¹ Rudolf 304 n. 23.

³² Hood, M. S. F., BSA 65 (1970) 37–45.Google Scholar

³³ Rudolf fig. 3.

³⁴ Rudolf 304 n. 23.

³⁵ Rudolf 303 ff.

³⁶ Megaw, A. H. S., ‘Supplementary Excavations on a Castle Site at Paphos, Cyprus, 1970–71’, DOP 26 (1972) 322–43Google Scholar and id., ‘Saranda Kolones, 1981’, RDAC 1982 210–16.

³⁷ BP 105.

³⁸ Stillwell-Mackay, T., ‘More Byzantine and Frankish Pottery from Corinth’, Hesperia 36 (1967) 249–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁹ Kritsas, C. B., ‘Τό Βυζαντινόν ναυάγιον Πελαγοννήσον-Αλννύσον’, Athens Annals of Archaeology 4 (1971) 176 ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Frantz fig. 32 A65, A79; fig. 33 C1, C3, and C5.

⁴¹ Kritsas, op. cit. (n. 39) 180.

⁴² Frantz 435–6.

⁴³ Frantz 465 fig. 30 E2.

⁴⁴ See, for example, Catling, et al., BSA 75 (1980) 49–113Google Scholar and Jones, R. E. and Mee, C. B., JFA 5 (1978) 461–74.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See, for example, Lazzarini, L. et al. , ‘Chemical, Minera logical and Moessbauer Studies of Venetian and Paduan Renaissance Sgraffito Ceramics’, Archaeometry 22 (1980) 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁶ Prag, A. J. N. W., Schweizer, F., and Williams, J.Li., Archaeometry 16 (1974) 153–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁷ R. E. Jones, Greek and Cypriot Pottery: a Review of Scientific Studies, forthcoming.

⁴⁸ At least 150 mg in the case of the coarse wares, especially the Dhiorios batch.

⁴⁹ A full account of both the precision and accuracy of the analytical procedure using optical emission spectroscopy is given by Jones, op. cit. (n. 47).

⁵⁰ This matter is discussed in detail by Jones, op. cit. (n. 47).

⁵¹ The composition characteristics of the groups presented by the authors, op. cit. (n. 2), were based on calculations of the preliminary data. Small discrepancies are to be found between the two data sets.

⁵² The dispersions of the other major and minor, but not the trace, element contents are also relatively high, but less so than that of Mg.

⁵³ Picon, M., ‘Remarques préliminaires sur deux types d'altération de la composition chimique des céramiques au cours du temps’, Figlina 1 (1976)Google Scholar (Documents du Laboratoire de céramologie de Lyon).

⁵⁴ These were analysed in connection with a study of Corinthian transport amphorae in collaboration with Drs. C. G. Koehler, A. Kostikas, and A. Simopoulos.

⁵⁵ See Mountjoy, et al., BSA 73 (1978) 159ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ We are grateful to Mile D. Kassab for supplying samples of these clays. Analysis at the Research Laboratory for Archaeology at Oxford of a white clay used by potters today at Iznik revealed that, unlike the Bosphorus clay, it was highly calcareous (H. Hatcher, personal communication). See n. 57.

⁵⁷ We may note some analyses of the White Ware reported by Rice, Talbot in Studies in Islamic Art and Architecture in Honour of K. A. C. Creswell (Cairo 1965) 197 n. 4.Google Scholar The mineralogical composition of the best polychrome White Ware (his type 2) was given as: much quartz, a little calcite, a little γ-Al₂O₃, a little calcium aluminate, and a little feldspar or anorthite. That of his type 1 (pink or buff body, very hard) was: much quartz, some mica, possibly a little γ-Al₂O₃. He also reported that Iznik 16th- cent. pottery was clearly different from the White Ware since it contained much quartz, a little crystobalite, and a little diopside (198 n. 4).

⁵⁸ Chemical and petrological analyses of pottery from the cave have been carried out in collaboration with Dr. K. D. Vitelli, Mrs. Ph. Pomoni, and Dr. V. Perdikatsis.

⁵⁹ Johnston, A. W. and Jones, R. E., ‘The SOS Amphora’, BSA 73 (1978) 103–41.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Prag et al., op. cit. (n. 46) Table 6.

⁶¹ The Fitch Laboratory's corpus of Attic pottery ranging in date from the Mycenaean period to the present material of the 12th cent. A.D. reveals small but discernible variations in composition, reflecting the use of different clays and clay mixes in the Athens region as functions of time and type of vessel. The impressive results obtained in an analytical programme carried out at the Brookhaven National Laboratory in collaboration with Mrs. D. Thompson on material of Proto geometric to Hellenistic date are highly pertinent to this issue; an account of this work was given by D. Filli ères at the Archaeometry Symposium in Brookhaven in 1981.

⁶² An exposition of discriminant analysis in its application to provenance studies of pottery in the Aegean is given by Cherry in Mountjoy et al, op. cit. (n. 55) and in Catling et al., op. cit. (n. 44). A more general account is provided by Pollard in Chapter 2 of Jones, op. cit. (n. 47). The BMDP7M stepwise discriminant analysis programme was used on the Oxford University Computing Service's ICL 2980 computer.

⁶³ See Catling et al., op. cit. (n. 44) Table 4.

⁶⁴ From Prag et al., op. cit. (n. 46) Table 6.

⁶⁵ Tréziny, H. and Jones, R. E., MEFRA 91 (1979) 58–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁶ Pringle, D., ‘The Medieval Pottery of Palestine and Transjordan (AD 636–1500): an Introduction, Gazetteer and Bibliography’, Medieval Ceramics (Bulletin of the Medieval Pottery Research Group) (1981) 45.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Megaw 1968 87.

⁶⁸ Megaw 1975.

⁶⁹ Maier, F. G., RDAC 1979 pl. xvii 2.Google Scholar