Peloponnese: Its
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CHLEMOUTSI CASTLE (CLERMONT, CASTEL TORNESE), PELOPONNESE: ITS POTTERY AND ITS RELATIONS WITH THE WEST (13TH - EARLY 19TH C.) by STEPHANIA SKARTSIS Volume 1: Text A thesis submitted to The University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman & Modern Greek Studies Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity University of Birmingham October 2009 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT Chlemoutsi was the most important castle of the Principality established in the Peloponnese after the Fourth Crusade. The glazed pottery of the Frankish period (early 13th - early 15th c.) is almost exclusively Italian, reflecting the connections of the Principality of Achaea with Italy and illustrating the tastes of the Latin elite in ceramics. The pottery proves that the castle remained important after the end of the Frankish occupation and indicates its decline in the 18th c. The ceramic material of the Post-Byzantine period reflects the incorporation of the castle into the Ottoman Empire, the relations it developed with the rest of Greece, but, also, the continuation of its close connections with the West. Although a Turkish castle for most of the period between 1460 and the early 19th c., its imported pottery is mainly Italian, while the number of Islamic ceramics is small. The close political and economic relations with Italy developed after the Fourth Crusade, the Venetian interests in the Peloponnese, the constant Venetian occupation of the neighbouring Ionian Islands and the direct access to the Ionian Sea and Italy seem to have made the NW Peloponnese one of the most strongly Western-influenced areas of the Greek mainland. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In the first place, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Archie Dunn, for all his advice, support and encouragement in the course of this research. His initial suggestions about the orientation of the thesis were very helpful, while his constructive comments were crucial for finally bringing this study into shape. Furthermore, I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Ruth Macrides for her help and valuable suggestions in an early stage of this research. In the University of Birmingham, I owe special thanks also to Dr. Rhoads Murphey for the translation of a Turkish inscription from Chlemoutsi. I am greatly obliged to the former Director of the 6th Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities Mrs. Myrto Georgopoulou-Verra for offering me the possibility to study the material from the excavations at Chlemoutsi. I would like to express my thanks also to the present Director the Ephorate Dr. Anastasia Koumousi for facilitating my research. Many thanks are due to Dr. Demetrios Athanasoulis of the 6th Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquites for his encouragement and practical aid. I would like to thank most warmly my colleagues and all the archaeologists and staff in the castle. Their sense of responsibility and successful teamwork were essential for any research endeavour on the site. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. John Hayes, Dr. Guy Sanders and Dr. Joanita Vroom, who were so kind to see photographs of the pottery and provided me with their valuable comments. I would like to give my special thanks to the colleagues and friends Dr. Evi Dafi and Dr. Nikos Kontogiannis, who shared their views with me and gave me information on some pottery types. I owe thanks also to the mechanical engineer Georgios Maroulis for his assistance in the preparation of the sketch plans of the excavations and to Georgia Tsiota for the computer editing of the pottery drawings. I would like to express my very warm and special thanks to my husband, Yannis Chatzipantazis, for his assistance in the computer editing and formatting of maps, tables and photographs and for preparing a database especially designed for the archaeological finds from Chlemoutsi. To him, all my dear family and my friends I owe particular thanks for their constant encouragement and understanding and for their emotional support through the ups and downs I experienced during the long adventure of this research. TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1: TEXT PART I: AIMS & ACADEMIC BACKGROUND. HISTORICAL & ARCHAEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK 1 CHAPTER 1. AIMS AND METHODOLOGY 2 1. Subject and aims of the thesis 2 2. Terminology and chronological boundaries 4 3. Methodology 7 4. The value of the study of the pottery from Chlemoutsi 10 CHAPTER 2. THE CURRENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE FRANKISH/LATE BYZANTINE & POST-BYZANTINE POTTERY (13TH-19TH C.) 11 1. Major studies of Byzantine pottery 11 2. The pottery of the Frankish/Late Byzantine period (13th-15th c.) 16 Constantinople 16 Cyprus 17 Syria – Palestine 19 Peloponnese 21 Central Greece 28 Epeiros 30 Northern Greece 31 Aegean Islands and Crete 32 3. The pottery of the Post-Byzantine period (later 15th-19th c.) 34 Constantinople/Istanbul 37 Northern Greece 37 Epeiros 38 Central Greece 39 Peloponnese 42 Cyprus 42 Aegean Islands and Crete 43 4. Major contributions to our knowledge of the Western pottery imported to Greece between the 13th and the 19th c. 45 CHAPTER 3. CHLEMOUTSI: HISTORICAL & ARCHAEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK 51 A. THE CURRENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE OF CHLEMOUTSI 51 1. Previous studies of Chlemoutsi 51 2. History and description of the castle 54 3. Conclusion: our current state of knowledge of Chlemoutsi 57 B. EXCAVATED AREAS 58 1. ‘Old excavations’ 58 2. The excavations of 1997-2000 59 PART II: THE MATERIAL 66 CHAPTER 4. THE POTTERY: A TYPOLOGICAL PRESENTATION 67 A. POTTERY OF THE FRANKISH/LATE BYZANTINE PERIOD (13TH-15TH C.) 67 I. POTTERY FROM LATE BYZANTINE WORKSHOPS 67 1. COLOURED SGRAFFITO WARE 67 2. SLIP-PAINTED WARE 69 3. BROWN GLAZED (MONOCHROME) WARE 71 II. POTTERY IMPORTED FROM THE WEST 73 4. ARCHAIC MAIOLICA 73 i. With brown & green decoration 76 ii. Blue Archaic Maiolica 80 5. PROTOMAIOLICA 80 i. With ‘grid-iron’ medallion and/or chevron band on the wall 85 ii. With other decoration 87 6. LEAD GLAZED POLYCHROME WARE (TYPE ‘RMR’) 88 i. Bowls with a central motif surrounded by coloured bands 91 ii. Bowl probably of the ‘type of Taranto’ 96 iii. Bowls decorated with cross 97 iv. Various bowls 99 v. Closed forms with geometric or vegetal decoration 101 vi. Various small fragments of closed forms 104 7. DOUBLE-DIPPED WARE 105 8. VENETO WARE 107 9. SGRAFFITO FROM VENICE AND THE PO VALLEY 108 i. Monochrome (green-glazed) Sgraffito 110 ii. Polychrome Sgraffito 110 10. SPANISH WARE 114 III. PLAIN GLAZED WARES OF UNCERTAIN ORIGIN 116 11. METALLIC WARE 116 12. ‘IRIDESCENT GREEN GLAZED WARE’ 119 13. MONOCHROME SLIPPED AND GLAZED WARE 121 B. POTTERY OF THE POST-BYZANTINE PERIOD (LATER 15TH- EARLY 19TH C.) 122 I. POTTERY FROM POST-BYZANTINE WORKSHOPS 122 14. SGRAFFITO WARES 122 14.A. COLOURED SGRAFFITO FROM ARTA 123 14.B. VARIOUS COLOURED SGRAFFITO WARES 127 14.C. MONOCHROME SGRAFFITO 131 15. SLIP-PAINTED WARE 131 16. PAINTED WARES 137 16.A. GREEN PAINTED WARE 137 16.B. PAINTED WARE FROM ARTA 148 16.C. PAINTED WARE FROM IOANNINA 149 16.D. BROWN PAINTED WARE 150 16.E. VARIOUS PAINTED WARES 155 17. GREEK MAIOLICA 160 17.A. WITH POLYCHROME DECORATION 161 17.B. WITH DECORATION IN RED AND BLUE 162 17.C. WITH BLUE DECORATION 164 18. MARBLED WARE 165 19. PLAIN GLAZED WARE 166 II. POTTERY IMPORTED FROM THE WEST 173 20. NORTHERN ITALIAN SGRAFFITO WARES 173 20.A. LATE SGRAFFITO FROM VENICE / PO VALLEY – RENAISSANCE SGRAFFITO 173 20.B. ‘GRAFFITA A PUNTA E A STECCA’ 176 20.C. LATE SGRAFFITO FROM PISA 177 21. ITALIAN MAIOLICA 179 21.A. EARLY RENAISSANCE MAIOLICA 180 i. Closed forms with blue decoration 181 ii. Jugs with polychrome decoration and/or blue ovoid contour panel 183 21.B. RENAISSANCE AND LATER MAIOLICA 188 i. Polychrome Maiolica 189 ii. Dark Blue Maiolica 193 iii. Maiolica ‘alla porcellana’ 194 iv. Maiolica of the ‘compediario style’ 195 v. Maiolica ‘berettina’ 196 vi. Various later Maiolica 198 21.C. LATE POLYCHROME MAIOLICA 200 22. NORTHERN ITALIAN MARBLED WARE 205 23. ‘TÂCHES NOIRES’ FROM ALBISOLA 207 24. MONOCHROME WHITEWARE 209 25. GERMAN STONEWARE 211 26. TRANSFER-PRINTED WARE FROM ENGLAND 213 III. POTTERY IMPORTED FROM THE EAST 216 27. IZNIK WARE 216 28. KÜ TAHYA WARE 218 29. ÇANAKKALE WARE 221 30. PORCELAIN 224 C. MISCELLANEA 226 1. WITH INCISED AND PAINTED DECORATION 226 2. WITH PAINTED DECORATION 227 3. PLAIN GLAZED 229 PART III: DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE MATERIAL 232 CHAPTER 5. THE CASTLE IN THE FRANKISH / LATE BYZANTINE PERIOD & ITS POTTERY (13TH-15TH C.) 233 A. THE CASTLE IN THE FRANKISH/LATE BYZANTINE PERIOD: HISTORICAL & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE 233 B. THE POTTERY OF THE FRANKISH/LATE BYZANTINE PERIOD: DISCUSSION 238 1. The pottery of the Frankish/Late Byzantine period in Greece and Chlemoutsi: some general remarks 238 2. Western pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean and Greece: role and distribution 242 3. Western pottery in Corinth and Chlemoutsi 247 4. Ceramic use in Chlemoutsi. Relations of the Peloponnese with the West 251 CHAPTER 6. THE OTTOMAN AND VENETIAN CASTLE AND ITS POTTERY (LATER 15TH-EARLY 19TH C.) 263 A. THE OTTOMAN AND VENETIAN CASTLE: HISTORICAL & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE 264 B. THE POTTERY OF THE POST-BYZANTINE PERIOD: DISCUSSION 273 1.