The origins and evolution of Cypriot glazed ware productions during the thirteenth to seventeenth centuries CE

Carmen Ting; Thilo Rehren; Athanasios Vionis; Vasiliki Kassianidou

doi:10.1007/s12520-020-01270-4

The origins and evolution of Cypriot glazed ware productions during the thirteenth to seventeenth centuries CE

Ting, Carmen; Rehren, Thilo; Vionis, Athanasios; Kassianidou, Vasiliki 2021-01-30 00:00:00 This paper challenges the conventional characterisation of glazed ware productions in the eastern Mediterranean, especially the ones which did not feature the use of opaque or tin-glazed technology, as technologically stagnant and unsusceptible to broader socio-economic developments from the late medieval period onwards. Focusing on the Cypriot example, we devise a new approach that combines scientific analyses (thin-section petrography and SEM-EDS) and a full consideration of the chaîne opératoire in context to highlight the changes in technology and craft organisation of glazed ware productions concentrating in the Paphos, Famagusta and Lapithos region during the thirteenth to seventeenth centuries CE. Our results indicate that the Paphos production was short-lived, lasting from the establishment of Frankish rule in Cyprus in the thirteenth century to the aftermath of the fall of the Crusader campaigns in the fourteenth century. However, glazed ware production continued in Famagusta and Lapithos from the late thirteenth/fourteenth centuries through to the seventeenth century, using technical practices that were evidently different from the Paphos production. It is possible that these productions were set up to serve the new, local demands deriving from an intensification of commercial activities on the island. Further changes occurred to the technical practices of the Famagusta and Lapithos productions around the 16th/17th centuries, coinciding with the displacement of populations and socio-political organisation brought by the Ottoman rule. . . . . Keywords Glaze technology Cyprus Eastern Mediterranean Late medieval Post-medieval Introduction The Islamic opaque or tin-glazed wares—described to be the ‘elite’ and ‘first quality’ ceramics that were only produced in a During the medieval and post-medieval periods, glazed wares few places and circulated over a broad geographical distance became an integral component of material culture in the east- (Mason 1997:171)—have been the focus of much research in ern Mediterranean, marking the beginning of their transition the past and present alike, reigniting the debate on their origins to become a global phenomenon, with lasting impacts on our and technological evolutions (e.g. Mason and Tite 1997; consumption habits until today. The extant understanding of Matin et al. 2018; Salinas et al. 2019; Tite et al. 2015; the processes and mechanisms leading to this important epi- Watson 2014). In contrast, the glazed wares that do not have sode of technological and social changes remains very patchy. opaque glazes have received much less attention, as it is as- sumed that they were mostly produced and consumed locally and/or distributed to places not far from their origins of pro- duction, with their technology and craft organisation being * Carmen Ting static and unsusceptible to socio-economic developments carmen.k.ting@gmail.com (Armstrong et al. 1997;Mason 1997:171–72). This view is being challenged, with the recent examination of materials McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of from Corinth as one of the notable examples, showing that Cambridge, Cambridge, UK distinct technologies were used to produce lead glazes corre- Science and Technology in Archaeology and Culture Research sponding to the changing political situation of Byzantium Centre, The Cyprus Institute, Nicosia, Cyprus (Palamara et al. 2016;White 2009). In spite of these efforts, UCL Institute of Archaeology, London WC1H, 0PY, UK very little is still known about how glazed ware productions, Archaeological Research Unit, Department of History and especially non-opacified, emerged and developed, even Archaeology, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus 35 Page 2 of 22 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 though they constitute the bulk of glazed ceramic evidence in from the site (Papantoniou and Vionis 2018: 20). Similarly, the the archaeological record. samples from Potamia-Ayios Sozomenos come from rural sites A case in point is the Cypriot production of glazed table- in the territory of the present-day administrative district of wares, which only began in the thirteenth century CE. These Nicosia, dated to the fourteenth to sixteenth/seventeenth centu- productions are poorly understood, as previous research ries (François and Vallauri 2001, 2014), comprising character- centred on their styles (e.g. du Plat-Taylor and Megaw 1951; istic examples of glazed tableware commonly found in both Papanikola-Bakirtzi 1989, 1996, 2004, 2012; Vallauri and urban and rural contexts. The samples from the urban centres François 2010; von Wartburg 1997; Waksman and von of modern Nicosia (Agios Georgios Hill and Vitonos Street) Wartburg 2006), while technical studies are few and narrowly provide, once again, interesting comparanda for the typical lo- focused (e.g. Charalambous et al. 2010, 2012, 2014; cal ceramic repertoire dating to the period between the thir- Waksman 2014). Against this background, we developed a teenth and seventeenth centuries. The material from those two more holistic, interdisciplinary research framework that com- sites (currently under systematic study by S. Gabrieli) is not yet bines stylistic and scientific analyses with a consideration of published. The Paphos Theatre assemblage is an exception, the full chaîne opératoire in context. Our work sought to with the glazed wares and direct evidence of production such identify and characterise the Cypriot productions from their as tripod stilts and clay lumps being found in a sealed deposit emergence to the seventeenth century CE, as a starting point to securely dated to the thirteenth century (Barker 2016;Green explore the processes and mechanisms that contributed to the et al. 2011, 2014); thus a more comprehensive set of samples proliferation of glazed ware productions more generally in the from this assemblage was studied first (Ting et al. 2019). eastern Mediterranean. Owing to its particular position The dating of the samples from the abovementioned sites connecting Europe with the Middle East, Cyprus is a vivid was carried out on the basis of their similarity in terms of fabric reflection of the broader atmosphere in the Mediterranean at (macroscopic examination), shape and decorative style to pub- the time, marked by constant conflicts between Christian West lished examples from excavated and confirmed production sites and Islamic East, intertwined with competitions among mer- on the island, namely Paphos, Lemba, Lapithos and Nicosia chant powers (Hunt 2014). (Charalambous 2014; Charalambous et al. 2010;Cook 2014; Papanikola-Bakirtzi 1989, 1996, 2004, 2019;Taylorand Megaw 1951; Ting et al. 2019). Cypriot glazed production Materials has so far been classified (and dated) according to decorative style, such as slip-painted, plain glazed, sgraffito, sgraffito with We selected 60 glazed ware samples from excavations at the sites slip-painted decoration, painted glazed and white-slipped of Agios Georgios Hill and Vitonos Street (both within the mod- glazed wares (for the chronology of these wares, see Taylor ern city of Nicosia) and at the Hellenistic-Roman theatre in and Megaw 1951: 1–13; Papanikola-Bakirtzi 1996:60, 73– Paphos (Paphos Theatre), and from archaeological surveys in 74, 84–85, 99, 115, 131, 145, 172–173, 187–188, 196), all the area near the modern villages of Kofinou and Potamia- represented in our samples. Despite the bias in our sampling, Ayios Sozomenos (Figs. 1 and 2). The excavations and surveys with a slightly greater proportion of samples from the Paphos at these sites yielded substantial evidence of late medieval and Theatre assemblage, the samples should allow for a better un- post-medieval occupation, as seen in the recovery of a wide derstanding of the temporal developments of technical practices range of glazed ware types belonging to the productions from characteristic of different productions. different sites within Cyprus and the imported ones (Cook 2004; Cook and Green 2002; François and Vallauri 2001; Lécuyer and Michaelides 2004;Lécuyeretal. 2002; Papantoniou and Vionis Methods 2018; Pilides 2003;Pilidesetal. 2010;Vallauri 2004; Vionis 2018). We focused on the ones that are considered to be repre- The chaîne opératoire approach to glazed ware sentative of the local ceramic repertoires dating to different production phases between the 13th and 17th centuries based on morpho- stylistic analyses, including slip-painted, plain glazed, sgraffito, The production of glazed wares involves a complex process sgraffito with slip-painted decoration, painted glazed, and white- (Fig. 3), each step revealing manufacturing choices and slipped glazed wares (Table 1). allowing room for variables (Gosselain 1998; Lemonnier Samples from Kofinou come from the survey around the 1992). Reconstructing the technical practices characteristic church of Panagia in the Xeros River valley (Larnaca district), of production through time permits a more nuanced perspec- wheresurface ceramicevidencepointsto a largepost-Roman tive of diachronic development, highlighting the decisions rural settlement of approximately 10 ha that survived from the made by potters. Examining the technical practices across beginning of the thirteenth to the seventeenth/eighteenth centu- productions allows a more sophisticated comparison of behav- ries CE; here, glazed wares representing 5% of the assemblage ioural influences than those afforded by traditional ‘stylistic’ Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Page 3 of 22 35 Fig. 1 Selected glazed ware samples that are representative of each site. Reproduced at different scales affiliation, which has perhaps overplayed the ‘imitation’ di- Sciences Laboratories, and a ZEISS EVO25 at the UCL mensions rather than the active dynamics through which Institute of Archaeology Wolfson Archaeological Sciences knowledge was transferred among potters and beyond. Laboratories—were used. Both suites were fitted with the Oxford Instruments Aztec EDS analysis system. The JEOL JSM 6610 was set to 20.0 kV accelerating voltage and took Thin-section petrography about 22 to 25 s total per measurement, whereas the ZEISS EVO 25 was set to 20.0 kV accelerating voltage and collected The potential provenance of the samples was determined by about 750,000 X-rays, which also took about 22 to 25 s total per comparing their mineralogy with the geology of the different measurement. Corning Glass C was analysed as reference ma- regions described in geological maps and surveys. Thin-section terial at the beginning of each analytical session. Comparing petrography was used to record the mineralogical and textural with the published values, the absolute and relative errors doc- variations that exist among the samples and to characterise the ument the accuracy of the measurements, showing that all ele- recipe of the ceramic body, informing about paste preparation ments but P O and SnO are within 10% of the expected methods. All samples were prepared into thin sections at the 2 5 2 values. The mean and standard deviation values highlight the UCL Wolfson Archaeological Sciences Laboratories and reproducibility of data for both SEM suites, while the mean analysed using a LEICA DM EP Polarization Microscope. In values of the measurements generated by the two SEM suites the description of the petrographic observation, the percentage document the cross-instrument data consistency charts developed by Matthews et al. (1991) were usedtoesti- (Supplementary Table S1). A fused basalt sample (BCR-2) mate the relative abundance of inclusions. wasalsoanalysedbythe ZEISS EVO25 asanextra standard for ceramic materials. A cobalt standard was analysed at regular Scanning electron microscope energy dispersive intervals to monitor the beam current stability. spectrometry (SEM-EDS) The area of analysis for the slip, paint and glaze was set around 25 × 50 μm for areas that contain particles and newly The recipes of the paints, slips and glazes and the method and formed crystal phases, and to 10 × 10 μm for areas avoiding order of their application for all samples were identified using these features. The area of analysis for the ceramic body was set SEM-EDS. Two SEM-EDS suites—a JEOL JSM 6610 low around 150 × 300 μm at low magnification. We acknowledge vacuum SEM at the UCL Qatar Archaeological Material 35 Page 4 of 22 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Fig. 2 Map of Cyprus showing the sites mentioned in the text, produced and 33° 24′ 15.15″ E for the Kofinou Church of Panagia Odigitria, and with the digital geological data provided by the Cyprus Geological 35° 03′ 54.55′′ N and 33° 26′ 20.18″ E for Potamia-Agios Sozomenos. Survey. The DMS coordinates of the excavated sites are 35° 09′ 58.8′′ Lapithos, Kyrenia and Famagusta are also mentioned in the text, although N and 33° 21′ 18.9′′ E for Agios Georgios Hill, 35° 10′ 13.9′′ N and 33° the exact sites of production in these areas are yet to be found. The 22′ 15.6′′ E for Vitonos Street and 34° 45′ 39.50′′ N and 32° 24′ 51.27″ E coordinates for these sites are based on the location of modern towns: o o o o for Paphos Theatre. Noteworthy is that Agios Georgios Hill and Vitonos 35 24′ 55′′ N and 33 36′ 66″ E for Lapithos, 35 14′ 10′′ Nand 33 35′ o o o Street are represented in the map as ‘Nicosia’, given the close proximity 24″ E for Kyrenia, 35 10′ 29′′ N35 10′ 18′′ Nand 34 8′ 22″ Efor of these two sites. The DMS coordinates of the surveyed sites are taken Famagusta after the locations of the church in the area, which are 34° 49′ 33.68′′ N that the SEM-EDS analysis of ceramic bodies does not repre- has an inclusions:matrix:voids percentage that ranges from sent the full bulk composition particularly for coarse bodies, but around 30:60:10 to 50:45:5. The inclusions consist of around was performed following the standard procedure used in glazed 20–30% of monocrystalline quartz, 5–15% of serpentine, am- ware examination (Pradell and Molera 2020), complementing phibole and mudstone fragments, 5–10% of plagioclase feld- the data generated by thin-section petrography, which was our spar, pyroxene, biotite and limestone fragments and < 5% of principal method of assessing the ceramic body. The data pre- apatite in a non-calcareous clay matrix (Fig. 4a). The inclu- sented below are an average of five analyses. All measurements sions are well-sorted and homogeneous in grain size (mode were converted to oxides by stoichiometry and normalised to size = 0.20 mm), with some mudstone and limestone frag- 100 wt% to account for fluctuations in beam intensity and un- ments measuring up to 0.80 mm. The Micaceous Group avoidable porosity in the analysed areas. Oxides with concen- (n = 21) stands out for its fine-grained inclusions (mode size = tration lower than 0.1 wt% are not reported as they are below 0.08 mm), with its inclusions:matrix:voids percentage rang- the limits of detection of both instruments. ing from around 20:75:5 to 30:65:5. The inclusions consist of around 10–15% of biotite and monocrystalline quartz, 5–15% of limestone fragments, 5% of iron-rich nodules and < 5% of quartzite in a calcareous clay matrix (Fig. 4b). The inclusions Results of the samples in this group are well-sorted. The Mixed Carbonate Group (n = 12) has different types of carbonate Ceramic body materials in a micritic clay matrix, with its inclusions:matrix:voids percentage ranging from around Petrographic analysis identified three fabric groups, the 30:60:10 to 50:45:5 (Fig. 4c). The carbonate materials are Amphibole-Serpentine Group, Micaceous Group, and Mixed made up of around 15–20% of limestone fragments and Carbonate Group. The Amphibole-Serpentine Group (n =27) Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Page 5 of 22 35 Table 1 The site of recovery, ware type and date of the samples included in this study Site Sample Ware type Date Vessel Interior Exterior Interior glaze Exterior glaze no. form slip/paint slip/paint Agios Georgios AG05 Plain glazed 13th to early 14th Bowl Brown slip – Transparent – Hill centuries AG06 White-slipped 16th–17th Bowl Brown paint – Transparent – centuries AG10 Plain glazed 13th–early 14th Bowl Brown slip – Transparent – centuries AG18 Plain glazed 13th–early 14th bowl –– Green – centuries AG19 White-slipped 16th–17th Bowl White slip White slip Transparent Transparent centuries AG20 White-slipped 16th–17th Bowl White slip White slip Transparent Transparent centuries Kofinou KF02 Sgraffito 15th–16th Bowl White slip White slip Yellow Transparent centuries KF04 Sgraffito 15th–16th Bowl White slip – Yellow Transparent centuries KF05 Slip-painted 13th century Bowl White paint – Yellow – KF06 White-slipped 16th century Bowl White slip – Transparent, – green KF08 Painted 16th–17th Bowl Brown paint – Brown? – centuries KF09 Painted 16th–17th Bowl Green/brown – Green/brown? – centuries paint KF10 Plain glazed 13th century Bowl–– Green – KF13 Plain glazed 16th–17th Bowl White slip White slip Yellow Yellow centuries Paphos Theatre PT01 Slip-painted 13th century jug – White – Transparent/pale paint yellow PT02 Slip-painted 13th century Jug – White – green paint PT03 Slip-painted 13th century Jug – white paint – Yellow PT04 Slip-painted 13th century Bowl White paint – Green – PT05 Slip-painted 13th century Bowl White paint – Yellow artially glazed, transparent? PT06 Slip-painted 13th century Bowl White paint – Transparent? – PT07 Slip-painted 13th century Bowl White paint White Yellow Transparent/pale paint yellow PT08 Slip-painted 13th century Bowl White paint – Yellow – PT09 Plain glazed 13th century Bowl White slip – Yellow – PT10 Plain glazed 13th century Bowl White slip – Yellow – PT11 Plain glazed 13th century Bowl White slip – Green Transparent? PT12 Sgraffito 13th century Bowl White slip – Transparent, Transparent? yellow, green PT13 Sgraffito 13th century Bowl White slip – Yellow, green Transparent? PT14 Sgraffito 13th century Bowl White slip – Transparent, Transparent? yellow, green PT15 Sgraffito 13th century Bowl White slip – Yellow Transparent? PT16 Sgraffito 13th century Bowl White slip – Yellow Transparent? PT17 Sgraffito 13th century Bowl White slip – Yellow, green Transparent? PT18 Sgraffito with 13th century Bowl White slip White Green Green slip-painted paint decoration PT19 Sgraffito with 13th century Bowl White slip White Green Green slip-painted paint decoration PT20 13th century Bowl White slip Yellow Yellow 35 Page 6 of 22 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Table 1 (continued) Site Sample Ware type Date Vessel Interior Exterior Interior glaze Exterior glaze no. form slip/paint slip/paint Sgraffito with White slip-painted paint decoration PT21 sgraffito with 13th century Bowl White slip White Green/yellow? Green/yellow? slip-painted paint decoration PT23 Biscuit-fired 13th century Bowl White paint –– – slip-painted PT24 Biscuit-fired 13th century Bowl White paint –– – slip-painted PT25 Biscuit-fired 13th century Bowl White paint –– – slip-painted PT26 Biscuit-fired 13th century Bowl – White –– slip-painted paint PT27 Biscuit-fired 13th century Bowl White paint –– – slip-painted PotaNia-Ayios PS01 Sgraffito 16th century Bowl–– Yellow, green – SozoNenos PS02 Sgraffito 14th–16th Bowl White slip – Transparent, – centuries green PS03 Sgraffito 14th–16th Bowl White slip – Green – centuries PS04 Sgraffito 14th–16th Bowl White slip – Green – centuries PS05 Sgraffito 14th–16th Bowl White slip White slip Green, yellow green centuries PS06 Sgraffito 14th–16th Bowl White slip – Transparent/pale – centuries yellow PS07 Sgraffito 14th - 16th Bowl White slip White slip Yellow, green Transparent centuries PS09 Slip-painted 14th–15th Bowl Brown slip, – Transparent – centuries white paint PS10 Slip-painted 14th–15th Bowl Brown slip, – Transparent – centuries white paint PS11 Slip-painted 14th–15th Bowl Brown slip, – Transparent – centuries white paint PS12 Painted 16th–17th Bowl Brown paint – Brown? – centuries PS13 Painted 16th–17th Bowl Green paint – Green? – centuries PS14 Painted 16th–17th Bowl Green paint – Transparent, – centuries green? PS15 Painted 16th–17th Bowl Green paint – Green?, brown? – centuries PS16 Painted 16th–17th Bowl Brown paint – Transparent, – centuries Brown? PS17 Biscuit-fired painted 16th–17th Bowl Brown paint –– – centuries PS18 Biscuit-fired painted 16th–17th Bowl Green paint –– – centuries Vitonos Street VS02 Unglazed white-slipped 16th - 17th Bowl White slip –– – centuries VS03 Unglazed white-slipped 16th–17th Bowl White slip –– – centuries VS04 White-slipped 16th–17th Bowl White slip White slip Transparent Transparent centuries Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Page 7 of 22 35 Fig. 3 The chaîne opératoire of glazed ware production. Steps in box with dashed line are optional calcite, and 10% of skeletal carbonate grains, which are found grain size (mode size = 0.20 mm), although some quartz and together with around < 5 to 10% of monocrystalline quartz, limestone fragments measure up to 0.64 mm. SEM-EDS anal- and < 5% of plagioclase feldspar, amphibole and iron-rich ysis of the ceramic body confirms the classification of the nodules. The inclusions are well-sorted and homogeneous in samples into three compositional groups (Table 2). Fig. 4 Photomicrographs showing the fabric of a the Amphibole-Serpentine Group (Paphos production), b the Micaceous Group (Lapithos production) and c the Mixed Carbonate Group (Famagusta production). All photomicrographs were taken in cross polarisation at × 50 magnification 35 Page 8 of 22 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Table 2 The composition (wt%), mean and standard deviation (st. dev.) of the ceramic body of all samples by SEM-EDS in accordance with the fabric groups. ‘–’ indicates not detected on analysis Fabric group Sample no. Na O MgO Al O SiO P O KOCaOTiO Fe O PbO 2 2 3 2 2 5 2 2 2 3 Amphibole-Serpentine (n = 27) KF05 0.9 2.8 14.1 65.4 0.2 3.9 4.4 1.0 7.2 0.2 PT01 1.0 2.2 14.9 67.0 0.2 4.1 2.8 0.8 6.6 0.1 PT02 0.7 2.2 13.7 65.1 0.3 3.7 7.3 0.6 6.1 0.4 PT03 0.7 2.3 14.2 62.1 0.2 3.7 9.4 0.9 6.2 0.3 PT04 1.1 2.2 13.1 69.2 0.3 3.4 3.5 0.9 6.0 0.4 PT05 0.8 2.4 15.3 65.3 0.3 4.0 3.8 0.7 7.1 0.2 PT06 1.1 2.0 13.4 66.0 0.2 3.8 6.5 0.7 6.1 0.2 PT07 1.0 2.2 14.6 66.9 0.3 3.8 3.6 0.8 6.4 0.2 PT08 1.0 1.8 11.3 67.2 0.3 2.8 8.7 0.6 5.7 0.4 PT09 1.0 2.0 13.6 67.0 0.2 3.6 4.7 0.7 6.0 1.1 PT10 0.9 2.3 14.6 65.7 0.3 4.2 4.8 0.7 6.3 0.2 PT11 0.9 2.2 14.6 63.2 0.3 3.4 7.2 0.7 6.7 0.7 PT12 0.9 2.4 14.9 64.7 0.3 4.0 5.3 0.7 6.7 0.1 PT13 1.0 1.8 13.9 65.8 0.2 3.4 6.9 0.7 6.1 0.4 PT14 1.0 2.0 13.6 69.4 0.2 3.3 3.5 0.8 5.9 0.2 PT15 0.8 2.2 15.5 64.3 0.2 3.9 4.9 1.0 7.0 0.1 PT16 0.9 2.0 12.8 65.5 0.3 3.4 7.7 0.7 5.2 1.6 PT17 0.9 2.1 14.4 66.1 0.2 3.6 5.1 0.7 6.3 0.6 PT18 0.8 2.3 14.4 64.2 0.3 3.7 6.2 0.8 6.4 1.0 PT19 0.8 2.2 13.5 66.2 0.2 3.7 6.4 0.8 6.1 0.2 PT20 0.8 2.2 13.3 65.2 0.2 3.3 7.2 0.7 6.3 0.7 PT21 0.9 2.3 14.4 65.9 0.3 3.9 4.3 0.9 7.0 – PT23 0.8 2.2 14.0 67.7 – 3.4 5.1 0.7 5.8 – PT24 0.7 2.5 14.5 62.7 0.1 3.6 6.7 0.9 6.8 1.2 PT25 0.9 2.2 13.0 66.4 0.1 3.4 6.5 0.7 5.6 0.9 PT26 0.8 2.2 14.2 62.9 0.2 3.7 9.0 0.5 6.2 – PT27 0.8 2.3 13.5 66.4 0.3 3.2 6.5 0.5 6.4 – Mean 0.9 2.2 14.0 65.7 0.2 3.6 5.9 0.8 6.3 0.5 St. dev. 0.1 0.2 0.9 1.8 0.1 0.3 1.8 0.1 0.5 0.4 Micaceous (n = 21) AG19 1.0 4.6 15.0 49.7 0.2 2.6 16.6 0.6 7.9 2.0 AG20 1.2 5.0 16.0 50.5 0.2 3.1 11.7 1.0 8.0 3.0 KF02 1.1 5.0 17.3 52.8 0.2 3.4 10.9 0.8 7.9 0.6 KF04 1.2 4.2 16.9 54.4 0.1 3.3 12.1 0.8 6.8 0.1 KF06 1.3 5.4 16.8 52.7 – 2.8 9.9 1.1 8.9 1.0 KF08 1.1 6.5 16.7 50.7 – 2.7 12.0 0.7 8.6 0.9 KF09 1.2 6.4 17.7 51.5 – 3.4 9.9 0.9 8.0 1.1 PS01 1.4 5.7 17.2 50.2 0.2 3.4 10.8 0.8 9.5 0.8 PS02 1.1 5.9 16.3 51.7 0.2 3.2 8.8 0.9 9.4 2.6 PS03 1.2 5.1 17.5 51.5 0.3 3.6 11.1 1.2 8.1 0.4 PS04 1.1 5.1 18.9 52.8 0.2 4.1 8.6 0.8 8.2 0.4 PS06 1.0 5.3 16.6 51.4 0.2 3.0 12.4 0.8 8.3 1.0 PS07 0.9 5.1 15.5 50.0 0.4 2.9 15.5 0.7 7.8 1.3 PS12 1.3 4.8 17.0 53.1 0.2 3.5 9.3 0.7 7.5 2.6 PS13 1.1 5.7 15.4 48.6 0.2 2.8 17.4 0.7 7.6 0.4 PS14 1.3 5.9 18.1 50.4 0.3 3.6 9.7 0.7 8.2 1.8 PS15 1.1 5.9 16.2 52.4 0.1 3.0 9.8 1.5 8.2 1.9 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Page 9 of 22 35 Table 2 (continued) Fabric group Sample no. Na O MgO Al O SiO P O KOCaOTiO Fe O PbO 2 2 3 2 2 5 2 2 2 3 PS16 1.2 5.4 17.1 52.8 0.2 3.3 9.4 0.7 8.6 1.4 PS17 1.0 6.1 14.8 48.4 0.6 2.9 16.8 0.7 7.7 1.2 PS18 1.1 5.6 16.6 49.5 0.3 3.4 14.4 0.8 8.3 0.1 VS04 1.2 5.0 16.6 52.0 – 3.1 12.2 0.9 7.9 1.1 Mean 1.1 5.4 16.7 51.3 0.2 3.2 11.9 0.8 8.2 1.2 St. dev. 0.1 0.6 1.0 1.6 0.1 0.4 2.7 0.2 0.6 0.8 Mixed Carbonate (n = 12) AG05 1.1 5.8 12.7 46.5 0.5 2.2 22.6 0.7 7.1 0.5 AG06 1.6 4.1 12.3 45.7 0.5 1.9 23.0 0.7 7.9 2.2 AG10 1.1 5.0 11.5 40.5 0.4 2.3 29.6 0.7 5.8 3.2 AG18 1.6 4.4 12.9 49.9 – 1.8 18.6 0.9 8.7 1.0 KF10 1.4 6.0 12.9 45.9 – 1.5 22.4 0.9 8.2 0.8 KF13 1.1 5.3 12.2 46.7 0.5 1.3 23.4 0.8 8.2 0.6 PS05 1.5 5.0 11.4 42.2 0.4 2.0 29.4 0.7 6.7 0.3 PS09 1.7 5.2 13.8 47.4 0.2 2.4 19.5 0.9 7.8 0.9 PS10 1.5 4.5 11.8 43.7 0.4 2.0 27.2 0.6 7.6 0.2 PS11 2.0 4.0 13.9 49.7 0.3 2.4 18.6 0.7 7.6 0.6 VS02 1.6 7.1 11.7 42.2 – 1.8 26.4 0.6 7.6 0.9 VS03 1.5 4.7 13.1 46.9 – 1.8 22.7 0.8 7.8 0.6 Mean 1.5 5.1 12.5 45.6 0.4 1.9 23.6 0.7 7.6 1.0 St. dev. 0.3 0.9 0.9 3.0 0.1 0.4 3.8 0.1 0.8 0.9 The values in italic are the calculation based on the values that are not in italic Paint and slip the white slip of the sgraffito samples of the Micaceous Group is also made of a mixture of quartz and clay, the quartz inclu- Microstructure sions display greater heterogeneity in abundance, size and shape (Fig. 6a–c). The quartz particles of PS02, PS03 and The ceramic body of all samples was covered with paint PS04 are 10 to 30 μm in size, accounting for around 30% of and/or slip. Paint was applied to create specific patterns on the slip. The quartz particles of PS06 and PS07 are more the surface of the vessel, whereas slip was used to cover angular and coarser-grained (20 to 50 μm), makinguparound the entire surface. The white paint of the samples of the 80% of the slip. The quartz particles of KF02 and KF04 are Amphibole-Serpentine Group, as represented by the slip- very angular and very coarse-grained (20 to 60 μm), consti- painted, sgraffito with slip-painted decoration, and biscuit- tuting around 50% of the slip. The slip of the white-slipped firedslip-paintedwares,isthin(ca.25–65 μm), with very samples (AG19, AG20, KF06, VS04) deviates from the slip of few to no particles or crystallites (Fig. 5a). The white slip the sgraffito belonging to the same fabric group, as it is packed of the monochrome glazed, sgraffito and sgraffito with with quartz particles that are homogeneous in size (20 μm) slip-painted decoration wares of the same fabric group and rounder in shape, bound with little clay material (Fig. 6d). measures between 90 and 205 μm in thickness, with The slip-painted samples of the Mixed Carbonate Group around 10% of quartz particles that are around 20 μmin (PS09, PS10, PS11) consists of a layer of white paint made size (see Ting et al. 2019,Fig. 5b). with coarser-grained quartz particles, overlying a brown slip The brown and green paint of the painted glazed samples of layer with a brighter matrix than the associated ceramic body the Micaceous Group has a different microstructure from the (Fig. 5c). More variations are observed in the slip of the Mixed paint of the Amphibole-Serpentine Group, as highlighted in Carbonate Group, as evident in the identification of the use of their biscuit-fired counterparts (PS17, PS18). Although the a mixture of quartz particles and clay (AG05, AG10), the presence of fine-grained apatite (PS05) and a compacted layer paint of both samples is corroded, darker patches and undis- solved quartz in a bright matrix can be recognised (Fig. 5b). A of non-calcareous clay (KF13). Adding to this variety is the paint layer of similar microstructure is not observable in the slip of the white-slipped samples of the Mixed Carbonate painted glazed samples that had undergone firing (KF08, Group, which displays similar features as those of the KF09, PS12, PS13, PS14, PS15, PS16) (see Fig. 7a). While Micaceous Group. 35 Page 10 of 22 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Fig. 5 BSE images showing the different microstructures exhibited by (a) the paint of a biscuit-fired slip-painted sample (PT23) of the Amphibole- Serpentine Group (Paphos production), b the paint of a biscuit-fired brown-painted sample (PS17) of the Micaceous Group (Lapithos production) and c the presence of an iron-rich slip and paint of the slip-painted sample (PS11) of the Mixed Carbonate Group (Famagusta production) Composition the unglazed biscuit-fired slip-painted samples of the Amphibole-Serpentine Group (PT23, PT24, PT25, PT26, With only a few exceptions, the composition of both white PT27) and the slip of the white-slipped samples of the paint and slip is consistent with each other and across fabric Mixed Carbonate Group (VS02, VS03) shows that the PbO groups. Noteworthy is that the analysis of the white paint of concentration is either low or below the limits of detection Fig. 6 BSE images showing the textural variation of the slip of the sgraffito samples a PS04, b PS06, c KF04 of the Micaceous Group (Lapithos production), and d the quartz-laden slip specific to the white-slipped sample (VS03) of the Mixed Carbonate Group (Famagusta production) Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Page 11 of 22 35 Fig. 7 BSE images showing the presence of a afew microcrystallites rich in lead and tin oxides in the glaze of sgraffito (PS03) of the Micaceous Group (Lapithos production), b needle- like microcrystallites rich in alumina, silica and lead oxide and equant microcrystallites rich in lime and silica in the glaze of the green-painted sample (PS15) of the Micaceous Group (Lapithos production), c a thick interaction layer and microcrystallites rich in lead antimonate in the glaze of the plain glazed sample (KF10) of the Mixed Carbonate Group (Famagusta production) and d microcrystallites rich in lead antimonate in the glaze of the bright, yellow plain glazed sample (KF13) of the Mixed Carbonate Group (Famagusta production) (Table 3). The PbO concentration in the paint and slip of the concentration (ca. 29 wt%). The addition of lead oxide to glazed ware samples, therefore, likely reflects a reaction with the slip or paint is likely to have strengthened the bond be- the glaze. Since PbO is not an original feature of the slips and tween the glaze and ceramic body, especially when double paints, for the further discussion, it was removed from their firing was performed (Molera et al. 2020). composition, which was then renormalised to 100 wt%. Also, the composition of the paint and slip is acquired from analysing both clay and particles as the difference between Glaze clay with and without particles is slight and systematic, with higher SiO in clay with particles due to added quartz. The Microstructure paint and slip tend to have higher Al O and SiO and lower 2 3 2 CaO and Fe O concentration than their associated ceramic The thickness of the glaze varies across ware types and fabric 2 3 body; suggesting that a different, alumina-rich clay was used groups (Table 4). All samples of the Amphibole-Serpentine for the paint/slip and ceramic body. Group have a thin interaction layer between the painted or Although alumina-rich clay was used to make the paint/ slipped ceramic body and glaze, with a few bright micropar- slip in most cases, higher CaO concentration (14.7 to ticles being found to have scattered in the glaze of some sam- 25.5 wt%) in the white slip of the sgraffito samples of the ples (PT04, PT11, PT14 and PT21) (see Ting et al. 2019,Fig. Micaceous Group (PS06 and PS07) and the white-slipped 5c). A similar microstructure can be observed in the glaze of sample of the Mixed Carbonate Group (AG06) points to the most samples of the Micaceous and Mixed Carbonate Groups use of calcareous clays. Higher Fe O concentration (8.5 to (Fig. 7a), but with a few exceptions. The painted glazed sam- 2 3 9.6 wt%) in the brown slip of the slip-painted samples of the ples of the Micaceous Group (KF08, KF09, PS12, PS13, Micaceous Group (PS09, PS10, PS11) and the plain glazed PS14, PS15, PS16) have needle-like and dark, equant (AG05, AG10) of the Mixed Carbonate Group suggests that microcrystallites, especially in the areas where the brown an iron-rich clay was used or iron oxide was added to the clay and green paint was applied (Fig. 7b). The glaze of the plain to enhance the colour. Other exceptions are the brown and glazed samples of the Mixed Carbonate Group (AG18, KF10) green paint of the painted glazed samples of the Micaceous is characterised by dark, elongated and equant Group. Analysis of the unglazed biscuit-fired painted-glazed microcrystallites throughout (Fig. 7c). The glaze of KF10 samples (PS17, PS18) reveals that the darker patches of the has bright microparticles (< 10 μm) concentrated at the glaze paint are non-calcareous clay with enriched Fe O or CuO margin. These bright microparticles are also identified along 2 3 concentration, whereas the brighter matrix has high PbO the glaze margin of another plain glazed sample of the same 35 Page 12 of 22 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Table 3 The composition (wt%), mean, and standard deviation (st. dev.) of the paint (P) and slip (SL) of the samples by SEM-EDS. I interior surface, E exterior surface. ‘–’ indicates not detected on analysis Fabric group Sample Layer Surface Thickness Analysis with Na OMgO Al O SiO P O K O CaO TiO Fe O CuO PbO 2 2 3 2 2 5 2 2 2 3 no. (um) inclusions Amphibole- KF05 P I 65 N 0.9 3.3 19.0 55.5 – 4.6 1.4 0.4 6.8 – 8.0 Serpentine PT01 P E 60 N 0.7 1.3 12.9 51.9 0.3 3.2 1.9 1.0 3.7 – 23.1 PT02 P E 50 N 0.9 0.9 20.7 53.7 0.2 4.4 0.9 1.4 2.6 – 14.1 PT03 P E 55 N 0.8 2.3 15.7 58.2 0.1 4.6 3.9 0.6 6.2 – 7.7 PT04 P I 60 N 0.5 0.4 16.7 58.8 0.1 2.9 0.4 1.1 1.7 – 17.2 PT05 P I 40 N 1.0 0.8 20.7 50.7 – 4.5 2.6 0.7 2.5 – 16.3 PT06 P I 65 N 1.0 1.9 19.8 47.7 0.2 4.5 2.1 0.8 5.8 – 16.3 PT07 P I 55 N 0.8 2.0 14.9 53.0 0.2 3.8 2.1 0.8 5.4 – 17.1 E 55 N 0.7 1.5 14.0 56.9 0.1 3.3 0.9 1.4 6.8 – 14.4 PT08 P I 40 N 1.5 0.9 24.3 52.3 – 4.7 1.7 0.8 2.7 – 11.1 PT09 SL I 90 Y 0.8 0.6 21.3 42.0 0.4 3.4 0.6 1.3 3.4 – 26.3 PT10 SL I 80 N 0.6 0.6 22.2 52.8 – 4.6 0.6 0.4 1.7 – 16.4 Y 0.6 1.0 19.6 55.7 0.1 3.8 2.8 0.8 3.2 – 12.1 PT11 SL I 115 N 0.8 0.6 27.8 41.2 – 4.1 0.5 1.8 1.4 – 21.5 Y 0.7 0.6 21.7 52.3 0.1 4.1 0.6 0.9 1.4 – 17.3 PT12 SL I 100 N 0.9 1.0 23.2 42.3 0.1 4.6 1.1 1.4 2.7 – 22.8 Y 0.9 2.5 15.4 59.7 0.2 4.1 3.3 0.8 6.4 – 6.7 PT13 SL I 90 N 0.8 0.3 26.8 48.0 – 3.9 0.2 0.6 1.3 – 17.7 Y 1.0 0.6 27.9 47.0 – 4.7 0.3 0.7 1.6 – 16.2 PT14 SL I 100 N 0.6 0.6 21.8 44.9 – 3.8 0.6 1.7 1.8 – 24.1 Y 0.5 0.5 20.6 48.4 – 3.8 0.4 1.7 1.1 – 22.5 PT15 SL I 95 N 0.6 0.6 24.4 49.1 0.4 4.7 1.0 2.0 2.6 – 14.6 Y 0.6 0.4 19.3 57.6 – 3.5 0.3 1.5 1.4 – 14.7 PT16 SL I 205 N 0.8 0.4 29.1 41.8 0.1 4.5 0.5 1.5 1.4 – 19.8 Y 0.6 0.4 15.6 60.7 0.5 2.8 2.4 0.9 1.2 – 14.8 PT17 SL I 195 N 0.6 0.7 24.6 36.2 – 3.9 0.4 1.0 1.8 – 30.7 Y 0.5 0.4 17.5 52.8 0.1 3.0 0.3 0.9 1.0 – 23.5 PT18 SL I 140 N 0.8 0.5 29.0 44.0 – 4.5 0.4 0.9 1.6 – 18.0 Y 0.5 0.4 14.5 66.3 – 2.8 0.4 1.0 1.0 – 13.0 P E 80 N 0.9 0.4 29.0 50.4 0.1 3.9 0.5 0.9 1.5 – 12.2 Y 0.6 0.4 17.0 67.0 0.2 3.0 0.6 0.8 1.3 – 8.9 PT19 SL I 105 N 0.7 0.8 29.6 41.5 – 3.7 0.3 1.0 1.6 – 20.7 Y 0.7 0.6 20.8 50.9 – 3.5 1.5 1.9 1.7 – 18.4 P E 90 N 0.7 0.4 23.0 43.7 – 4.1 0.7 0.9 1.3 – 24.8 Y 1.1 3.3 19.6 54.0 – 4.9 2.5 0.4 6.3 – 7.9 PT20 SL I 100 N 0.8 0.6 29.9 44.5 – 4.5 0.5 0.3 1.3 – 17.5 Y 0.7 0.4 19.2 54.9 – 3.6 0.5 2.0 1.5 – 17.0 P E 55 N 0.7 0.5 24.1 37.5 0.4 3.5 0.6 1.3 2.1 – 29.2 Y 0.9 0.7 20.3 43.2 4.0 4.3 0.6 0.7 1.8 – 23.5 PT21 SL I 90 N 0.7 0.7 21.0 43.9 0.8 4.2 2.8 0.9 1.8 – 23.1 Y 0.8 3.0 16.3 50.4 0.1 4.7 2.7 0.8 8.4 – 12.8 P E 120 N 0.7 2.6 15.1 52.4 – 4.6 2.2 0.4 8.6 – 13.4 Y 0.8 2.4 14.9 56.9 0.2 3.9 3.7 0.6 6.9 – 9.7 PT23 P I 60 N 1.0 0.8 35.2 53.7 – 4.7 0.3 1.2 2.5 – 0.6 PT24 P I 50 N 1.8 1.1 35.8 50.5 – 5.5 0.9 0.8 2.9 – 0.6 Micaceous PT25 P I 50 N 1.2 0.8 33.4 53.9 – 6.1 0.6 1.0 2.4 – 0.6 PT26 P E 30 N 2.6 0.9 33.4 46.3 – 9.4 1.6 0.6 2.6 – 2.5 PT27 P I 25 N 0.9 1.2 34.8 50.8 0.2 5.5 0.8 0.9 2.5 – 0.6 Mean (paint) 1.0 1.4 22.0 52.6 0.5 4.5 1.5 0.9 3.9 – 12.0 St. dev. (paint) 0.4 0.9 7.6 6.4 1.1 1.3 1.0 0.3 2.2 – 8.1 Mean (slip) 0.7 0.7 22.4 49.2 0.3 4.0 1.0 1.1 2.2 – 18.5 St. dev. (slip) 0.1 0.6 4.8 7.3 0.2 0.6 1.0 0.5 1.7 – 5.2 AG19 SL I 135 N 3.8 1.3 18.6 62.4 0.2 7.5 1.6 1.2 0.6 – 2.8 Y 0.6 0.6 7.8 81.1 0.2 5.9 1.1 0.5 0.5 – 1.7 E 145 N 2.5 1.1 18.1 62.4 0.1 10.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 – 1.9 Y 0.6 0.7 8.9 74.1 – 7.1 5.9 0.1 0.4 – 2.3 AG20 SL I 100 N 1.0 1.7 22.7 46.1 – 4.9 0.7 0.1 1.0 – 21.7 Y 1.4 1.2 15.3 60.6 – 4.8 1.0 0.2 1.5 – 14.0 E 115 N 1.3 1.9 22.6 56.7 – 5.9 0.9 – 1.4 – 9.3 Y 1.5 1.1 14.8 67.4 – 4.9 1.2 0.3 1.4 – 7.3 KF02 SL I 170 N 1.0 1.1 28.5 45.4 – 5.0 0.4 0.3 1.2 – 17.1 Y 0.4 0.3 7.7 81.7 – 2.5 0.3 0.4 0.6 – 6.3 E 155 N 0.9 1.1 27.1 47.5 – 4.5 0.2 0.5 1.9 – 16.1 Y 0.3 0.4 8.6 79.0 – 2.5 0.2 0.5 1.0 – 7.5 KF04 SL I 140 N 0.9 0.7 32.8 51.2 – 4.8 0.7 0.5 1.7 – 6.7 Y 0.4 0.9 15.7 75.4 – 2.3 2.0 0.8 0.9 – 1.6 KF06 SL I 45 N 2.0 2.1 13.5 65.5 – 5.6 0.8 0.1 1.6 – 8.8 Y 1.8 3.8 13.7 58.4 – 4.9 1.2 0.1 2.3 – 13.7 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Page 13 of 22 35 Table 3 (continued) Fabric group Sample Layer Surface Thickness Analysis with Na OMgO Al O SiO P O K O CaO TiO Fe O CuO PbO 2 2 3 2 2 5 2 2 2 3 no. (um) inclusions PS02 SL I 100 N 2.2 0.9 13.6 62.3 – 5.2 2.0 0.1 1.5 – 12.1 Y 1.8 0.9 12.6 59.3 – 4.4 6.6 0.3 2.5 – 11.5 PS03 SL I 135 N 1.4 1.4 24.9 40.4 0.1 4.1 0.8 0.1 0.9 – 25.8 Y 1.5 1.0 15.3 60.6 – 5.3 3.0 0.2 1.2 – 11.7 PS04 SL I 80 N 0.6 1.9 20.3 54.8 – 4.6 2.6 1.6 1.8 – 11.7 Y 0.4 1.6 12.5 69.0 – 3.4 2.6 0.1 1.5 – 8.7 PS06 SL I 75 N 0.5 0.7 5.6 59.8 – 3.0 25.5 0.1 0.6 – 4.2 Y 0.3 0.3 4.0 88.4 – 2.1 2.1 0.1 0.6 – 2.1 PS07 SL I 75 N 0.5 0.7 6.6 69.2 – 2.7 14.7 0.3 0.8 – 4.2 Y 0.6 0.4 7.2 76.6 0.1 3.0 5.3 0.4 0.9 – 5.5 E N 0.3 1.2 5.5 70.0 0.1 2.0 16.3 0.2 0.7 – 3.6 Y 0.5 0.4 6.8 78.7 – 2.7 4.5 0.6 0.8 – 4.9 PS17 P I 50 Y 0.3 2.0 4.3 20.5 – 0.4 4.2 0.1 39.0 – 29.0 PS18 P I 50 Y 0.8 0.7 7.4 38.5 – 1.5 0.6 0.1 1.0 2.2 47.3 VS04 SL I 135 N 0.6 0.7 13.8 65.2 – 3.8 0.3 0.3 0.7 – 14.6 Y 0.3 0.3 6.7 83.1 – 2.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 – 6.5 E 85 N 0.7 1.2 21.4 51.2 – 5.6 0.4 0.6 1.2 – 17.7 Y 0.3 0.3 7.4 80.5 – 2.5 0.3 0.3 0.5 – 7.9 Mean (paint) 0.6 1.4 5.9 29.5 – 0.9 2.4 0.1 20.0 2.2 38.1 St. dev. (paint) 0.4 1.0 2.2 12.7 – 0.8 2.6 0.03 26.9 – 12.9 Mean (slip) 1.0 1.0 14.4 65.1 0.2 4.3 3.4 0.4 1.1 – 9.1 St. dev. (slip) 0.8 0.7 7.7 12.6 0.03 1.9 5.6 0.4 0.6 – 6.2 Mixed AG05 SL I 140 N 0.6 2.2 23.3 38.7 2.0 4.5 3.4 2.2 6.3 – 16.9 Carbonate Y 0.8 2.9 20.2 37.4 1.9 4.7 1.8 1.0 7.5 – 21.9 AG06 P I 50 N 1.2 6.1 12.3 41.3 1.8 1.4 13.1 2.8 8.8 – 11.2 AG10 SL I 50 N 0.8 2.4 20.5 36.2 1.4 4.8 1.6 1.4 6.4 – 24.4 Y 0.7 2.8 20.4 40.0 1.3 4.5 2.4 0.5 6.1 – 20.8 KF13 SL I 50 N 2.3 4.5 17.6 59.3 – 6.3 1.4 0.1 2.4 – 6.1 E 60 N 2.3 4.7 16.9 55.2 – 6.5 1.5 0.1 2.3 – 10.3 PS05 SL I 70 N 0.5 2.1 32.9 54.4 – 7.3 1.6 0.1 0.9 – 0.2 Y 0.4 1.4 25.2 63.3 0.4 5.4 2.4 0.2 1.1 – 0.2 E 55 N 0.3 2.1 31.7 54.9 0.7 7.0 2.0 0.1 0.8 – 0.3 Y 0.3 1.7 25.4 64.2 – 5.9 1.4 0.3 0.7 – 0.2 PS09 SL I 30 Y 1.0 6.4 27.5 46.1 0.2 6.2 0.9 1.2 9.5 – 0.9 P 100 N 0.8 0.9 13.7 68.5 – 8.7 0.5 0.2 0.4 – 6.2 Y 0.5 1.1 9.7 75.1 0.3 6.4 1.2 0.6 1.1 – 4.2 PS10 SL I 115 Y 1.4 6.4 22.9 49.2 0.2 4.9 4.3 1.1 9.2 – 0.4 P 110 N 0.5 1.4 10.5 74.0 0.1 6.9 1.3 0.9 1.0 – 3.5 Y 0.7 1.0 10.3 73.3 0.2 5.2 0.6 0.1 0.5 – 8.1 PS11 SL I 140 Y 1.1 8.2 16.6 50.8 0.3 5.8 5.9 1.5 9.2 – 0.6 P 165 N 0.9 0.7 20.2 66.3 0.2 4.1 0.5 0.5 0.9 – 5.7 Y 0.7 0.4 18.9 69.8 0.3 3.8 0.5 1.1 1.0 – 3.5 VS02 SL I 165 N 3.0 4.4 16.1 58.0 – 5.7 5.7 0.2 4.7 – 2.1 Y 0.4 1.2 5.2 83.2 – 2.9 2.4 0.2 2.0 – 2.5 VS03 SL I 75 N 1.2 1.4 19.9 61.2 – 5.8 0.4 0.5 0.9 – 8.8 Y 0.3 0.4 5.2 87.6 – 1.9 0.4 1.1 0.5 – 2.4 Mean (paint) 0.7 0.9 13.9 71.2 0.2 5.8 0.8 0.6 0.8 – 5.2 St. dev. (paint) 0.2 0.3 4.6 3.5 0.1 1.9 0.4 0.4 0.3 – 1.8 Mean (slip) 1.2 3.8 18.5 55.9 0.9 5.0 3.1 0.8 4.7 – 6.6 St. dev. (slip) 0.8 2.4 7.7 15.1 0.8 1.8 3.4 0.8 3.6 – 8.0 The values in italic are the calculation based on the values that are not in italic fabric group (KF13), resulting in the presence of double- (AG18, KF10). These samples also have higher values of glazed layers (Fig. 7d). alumina, alkali, and alkaline earth oxides in the glaze (Fig. 8). The higher concentration of these oxides in the painted glazed samples was likely caused by an interaction Composition with the clay-based paint, as revealed by the analysis of the paint of the biscuit-fired samples (PS17, PS18), resulting in All samples, regardless of their ware types and fabric groups, the formation of wollastonite (dark, equant microcrystallites) are lead glazes, with the majority having PbO concentrations and lead-feldspar (needle-like microcrystallites) in the painted over 50 wt% (Table 4). Lower PbO concentration is detected areas. For AG18 and KF10, there is a gradual decrease in in the glaze of the painted glazed samples of the Micaceous MgO, Al O , CaO and Fe O and increase of PbO concentra- Group (KF08, KF09, PS12, PS13, PS14, PS15, PS16) and the 2 3 2 3 tion from the ceramic-glaze interface to the glaze margin green plain glazed samples of the Mixed Carbonate Group 35 Page 14 of 22 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 (Supplementary Fig. 1). This compositional change, coupled respectively, which are hypothesised to have been the main with the thick interaction layer, suggests that the glaze was locations where the Cypriot glazed ware productions took applied to an unfired ceramic body, stimulating the partial place based on the results of stylistic analysis (du Plat Taylor absorption of ceramic material into the glaze. and Megaw 1951; Papanikola-Bakirtzi 1989, 1996, 2012; In terms of glaze colourants, the green glaze is coloured by Vallauri and François 2010; von Wartburg 1997;Waksman CuO, whereas most yellow and brown glazes have higher Fe O and von Wartburg 2006). The Amphibole-Serpentine Group 2 3 concentration. Low SnO concentration (< 1.0 wt%) is detected represents the production in Paphos at the western tip of the in PS13, PS16, PT04, PT11, PT14 and PT21, present as bright island, where serpentine is one of the main lithologies of the microcrystallitesrichinPbO andSnO . Judging from their shape igneous and sedimentary rocks of the Mamonia Formation and rare occurrence, it is likely that the SnO was incorporated as (Hadjistavrinou and Afrodisis 1977; Robertson and impurities associated with the flux. We have previously argued Woodcock 1979). The provenance of this fabric group is fur- that Roman lead pipes and solders might have been used as flux ther confirmed by its similarity with the mineralogical descrip- for the glaze as natural lead ores are rare in Cyprus (Ting et al. tion of the local production of Late Hellenistic colour-coated 2019; see also Segal 2015; Wyttenbach and Schubiger 1973). pottery at Nea Paphos, which was established through the Around 2.0 wt% of Sb O is present in the plain glazed samples comparison with the sediments collected along the Ezousa 2 5 of the Mixed Carbonate Group (KF10, KF13), which contain River (Marzec et al. 2019). The dominance of biotite, quartz bright microparticles rich in PbO and Sb O ,leadingtoanin- and limestone of the Micaceous Group aligns with the geolo- 2 5 tense yellow glaze of KF13. It is not clear whether the lead gy of the Lapithos region, the potential provenance of this antimonate was included intentionally to colour the glaze of fabric. Situated at the northern coast, Lapithos is underlain KF10. The brown glaze seen in the plain glazed samples by sediments from the Kyrenia Range, comprising marbles (AG05, AG10) and the slip-painted samples (PS09, PS10, and limestones of the Hilarion Formation and metamorphic PS11) of the Mixed Carbonate Group and the white glaze seen rocks of Troodos Pillow Lavas. Lapithos is known to have in the white-slipped samples of the Micaceous (AG19, AG20, been involved in pottery production from Bronze Age until VS04) and Mixed Carbonate Groups (AG06) were created modern times. Whereas the recipes for the Bronze Age pottery through the application of transparent lead glaze over an iron- are yet to be determined as part of ongoing research by rich brown slip and quartz-laden white slip, respectively. Dikomitou-Eliadou (2019), the mineralogy of the Micaceous Analysis of the painted and unpainted areas of painted glazed Group seems to be consistent with the description of the samples of the Micaceous Group (PS14, PS16) shows that a Lapithos productions characterised by Constantinou and transparent glaze was also used to cover the painted glazed sam- Panayides (2019) drawing references to ethnographic and ples, but the interaction with the underlying paint resulted in the geological records. The micritic texture and the presence of transferal of the oxides used as colourants (Fe O and CuO) from different kinds of carbonate inclusions of the Mixed 2 3 the paint to the glaze. Carbonate Group point to the Famagusta region as its possible By removing the oxides relating to the flux and colourants origin. Sandy marls, calcareous sands and bioclastic lime- from the glaze composition, and plotting the renormalised glaze stones of the Athalassa Formation cover the eastern coast and associated ceramic body or slip composition (Hurst and where Famagusta is located (Bear 1963). Freestone 1996; Walton and Tite 2010) (Supplementary Fig. 2), the Micaceous Group samples fall on the unity slope Reconstruction of technical practices of different line, whereas the Mixed Carbonate Group samples deviate slight- productions ly from it. In contrast, the Amphibole-Serpentine Group samples do not fall on the unity slope line. Such patterning suggests that Paphos production lead oxide was applied directly to thesurface of thevessels of the Micaceous and some vessels of the Mixed Carbonate Groups to The glazed wares designated as the Paphos production, which form the glaze, while a lead-silica mixture was used to make the include slip-painted, plain glazed, sgraffito and sgraffito with glaze belonging to the Amphibole-Serpentine Group. slip-painted decoration, are dated to the thirteenth century CE. These vessels were all made using the same recipes of the ceramic body, paint, slip and glaze and following the same Discussion production sequence. Local clay was procured to form the ceramic body, which was then covered with white paint or Provenance determination of the compositional slip. The paint was made of alumina-rich clay with little to groups no inclusions, whereas the slip was a mixture of alumina-rich clay and fine-grained quartz. The surface of sgraffito was fur- The mineralogy of the three fabric groups is consistent with ther incised to expose the ceramic body underneath. All the geology of the Paphos, Famagusta and Lapithos regions, painted and slipped wares were fired before the glaze Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Page 15 of 22 35 Table 4 The composition (wt%), mean, and standard deviation (st. dev.) of the glaze of the samples by SEM-EDS. I interior surface, E exterior surface, Y yellow glaze, G green glaze, Br brown glaze, T transparent glaze. ‘–’ indicates not detected on analysis Fabric group Sample no. Surface Thickness (um) Colour Area inclusive of particle/crystallite Na OMgOAl O SiO K OCaOTiO Fe O CuO SnO Sb O PBO 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 5 Amphibole-Serpentine KF05 I 110 Y N 0.1 0.3 2.6 28.3 0.4 1.0 0.1 3.1 –– – 64.0 PT01 E 115 T N 0.1 0.2 4.6 34.8 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.1 – 0.2 57.8 PT02 E 75 G N 0.3 0.4 5.4 39.7 1.2 1.2 0.3 1.1 1.5 0.2 0.2 48.5 PT03 E 75 Y N 0.2 0.4 3.0 31.0 0.6 3.0 0.2 3.6 0.2 –– 57.9 PT04 I 55 G N 0.1 0.2 5.4 30.3 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.6 1.9 – 0.3 59.6 Y 0.1 0.2 5.6 29.7 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.6 – 0.2 0.4 59.6 PT05 I 130 Y N 0.1 0.5 1.7 23.2 0.3 1.6 0.1 3.6 –– – 68.9 PT06 I 50 T N 0.2 0.6 4.1 34.9 0.9 1.7 0.2 1.8 0.2 – 0.1 55.3 PT07 I 60 Y N 0.2 0.6 3.7 26.6 0.5 1.9 0.2 1.7 –– – 64.7 E 65 T N 0.1 0.2 3.4 33.7 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.1 –– 60.5 PT08 I 100 Y N 0.2 0.4 1.6 27.7 0.4 2.0 0.1 1.2 –– – 66.3 PT09 I 160 Y N 0.2 0.2 4.6 41.9 0.6 0.6 0.2 3.3 –– – 48.3 PT10 I 130 Y N 0.2 0.6 4.2 29.7 0.7 2.7 0.3 3.5 –– 0.1 58.0 PT11 I 75 G N 0.1 0.3 4.3 33.7 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.8 1.8 0.5 – 56.7 Y 0.1 0.3 4.0 32.9 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.9 2.0 0.7 – 57.3 PT12 I 120 Y N 0.1 0.4 4.5 27.1 0.5 1.2 0.3 4.1 0.1 – 0.3 61.7 TN – 0.2 4.6 32.0 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.5 1.0 – 0.2 60.0 G N 0.1 0.6 4.7 30.0 0.7 1.8 0.2 1.5 2.4 – 0.2 57.6 E 50 T? N 0.4 1.4 7.5 37.1 1.5 2.6 0.4 5.6 0.1 – 0.2 43.3 PT13 I 95 Y N 0.3 0.6 5.4 31.0 1.0 2.5 0.3 3.2 0.2 –– 55.4 TN – 0.3 3.7 28.7 0.5 1.1 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.6 – 63.3 GN – 0.3 3.7 26.8 0.4 1.1 0.2 0.7 1.9 0.4 – 64.4 E 120 T? N 0.3 0.8 4.0 28.6 0.8 3.5 0.2 5.3 0.1 – 0.1 56.4 PT14 I 45 Y N 0.2 0.2 4.2 30.2 0.4 1.4 0.2 2.3 0.3 – 0.2 60.4 G N 0.1 0.3 3.7 29.2 0.3 0.9 0.2 – 1.4 – 0.2 63.3 Y – 0.2 3.0 28.8 0.3 0.9 0.2 0.5 1.6 0.1 0.2 64.3 E T? N 0.2 0.4 5.1 34.8 0.8 2.0 0.2 3.8 0.3 –– 52.2 PT15 I 80 Y N 0.2 0.3 4.2 24.2 0.5 1.1 0.2 3.4 –– – 65.9 E 60 T? N 0.2 0.6 3.7 28.7 0.6 1.9 0.2 4.4 –– – 59.8 PT16 I 65 Y N 0.2 0.3 3.9 36.8 0.6 1.8 0.2 0.7 0.2 – 0.1 55.2 E 60 T? N 0.3 1.2 5.0 39.5 1.3 4.3 0.2 2.6 1.0 0.5 – 43.9 PT17 I 90 Y N 0.1 0.2 3.3 28.5 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.5 0.5 –– 65.4 G N 0.2 0.5 3.9 27.6 0.6 1.4 0.2 1.2 0.6 –– 63.9 E 100 T? N 0.3 0.5 4.1 28.0 0.8 2.1 0.2 2.3 0.1 –– 61.7 PT18 I 100 G N – 0.2 3.2 30.9 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.5 2.0 0.3 – 61.8 E 50 G N 0.1 0.2 3.3 37.1 0.6 0.8 0.2 1.3 2.0 0.5 – 53.8 PT19 I 50 G N 0.1 0.2 2.8 32.8 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.9 0.2 – 0.3 61.6 E 60 G N 0.5 1.4 8.2 43.4 2.1 2.9 0.6 3.8 0.1 – 0.2 37.0 PT20 I 55 Y N – 0.2 3.2 31.2 0.4 0.8 0.2 1.8 0.4 0.3 0.1 61.3 E 100 Y N 0.3 0.8 5.6 40.2 1.5 2.2 0.3 5.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 43.7 PT21 I 115 G/Y N – 0.3 2.1 29.1 0.4 2.1 0.2 0.8 1.4 0.2 0.2 63.2 Y 0.1 0.5 1.7 27.4 0.3 1.8 0.2 1.4 1.2 0.2 0.7 64.6 E 80 G/Y N 0.1 0.5 2.9 25.7 0.4 1.4 0.2 1.0 1.2 0.1 0.3 66.3 Mean 0.1 0.3 3.7 30.5 0.5 1.4 0.2 1.7 0.7 0.3 0.2 60.6 St. dev. 0.1 0.2 1.1 4.2 0.2 0.7 0.1 1.2 0.8 0.2 0.1 4.9 35 Page 16 of 22 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Table 4 (continued) Fabric group Sample no. Surface Thickness (um) Colour Area inclusive of particle/crystallite Na OMgOAl O SiO K OCaOTiO Fe O CuO SnO Sb O PBO 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 5 Micaceous AG19 I 75 T N 0.4 0.2 1.7 34.1 1.2 1.8 0.1 0.3 –– – 60.1 E 50 T N 0.5 0.2 3.4 39.3 2.4 1.6 – 0.3 0.1 –– 52.2 AG20 I 10 T N 0.4 0.2 3.8 27.4 0.6 1.4 – 0.4 –– – 65.8 E 10 T N 0.3 0.2 3.9 33.0 0.6 1.4 – 0.4 0.2 –– 59.9 KF02 I 85 Y N 0.2 0.2 2.4 31.0 0.4 1.2 – 2.5 0.1 –– 61.8 E80 T N – 0.2 2.4 30.8 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 –– – 65.7 KF04 I 60 Y N 0.1 0.3 3.6 32.9 0.4 1.8 0.3 1.5 0.4 –– 58.9 E 100 T N 0.2 0.8 4.3 30.3 0.8 1.4 0.2 3.8 0.3 –– 58.0 KF06 I 65 G N 0.3 0.9 4.8 22.8 0.4 0.6 – 0.9 2.3 –– 67.0 T N 0.5 0.9 5.0 24.0 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.7 0.4 –– 67.6 KF08 I 35 Br? N 1.2 1.7 12.5 51.0 5.1 2.8 – 3.6 0.1 –– 21.8 Y 1.2 1.6 12.8 52.7 5.3 2.5 0.1 2.2 0.3 21.3 KF09 I 45 G/Br? N 1.2 1.9 9.9 41.7 3.0 2.6 0.1 3.7 3.1 0.7 – 32.1 Y 1.0 2.6 10.4 42.6 3.6 2.4 0.2 4.0 2.9 –– 30.3 PS01 I 80 Y N 0.5 1.3 5.2 31.8 0.8 0.9 – 0.9 –– – 58.6 G N 0.5 1.3 5.4 29.4 0.7 1.3 – 1.0 1.5 –– 58.9 PS02 I 170 T N 0.6 0.4 3.9 29.6 0.6 0.5 – 0.8 0.1 –– 63.5 G N 0.5 0.5 4.2 30.9 0.7 0.7 – 0.6 1.0 –– 60.9 PS03 I 50 G N 0.4 0.5 4.6 32.3 0.7 1.6 – 0.5 1.4 –– 57.8 PS04 I 75 G N – 0.6 2.7 31.0 0.7 1.9 – 0.5 2.1 –– 60.3 PS06 I 100 T N 0.2 0.1 1.4 35.1 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.4 –– 60.8 PS07 I 100 Y N 0.2 0.2 2.1 34.2 0.6 0.9 0.2 3.1 0.2 –– 58.4 GN – 0.3 2.2 32.1 0.6 1.2 0.1 2.5 2.8 –– 58.0 E 80 T N 0.2 0.2 2.2 37.8 0.7 0.5 – 0.3 0.1 –– 58.0 PS12 I 75 Br? N 0.8 1.2 6.5 29.2 1.1 1.3 0.1 4.7 0.5 –– 54.5 Y 0.9 1.2 7.4 31.6 1.8 1.7 – 5.3 0.5 –– 49.5 PS13 I 60 G? N 1.2 1.5 9.2 45.4 2.9 1.7 0.2 2.3 4.7 0.7 – 30.3 Y 1.1 1.5 9.4 46.6 3.0 2.0 – 2.1 4.8 0.9 – 28.6 PS14 I 60 G? N 0.5 1.2 5.6 24.7 0.6 1.6 0.2 2.4 6.3 –– 57.0 Y 0.5 1.3 5.9 25.8 0.7 1.7 – 2.5 5.0 –– 56.8 T N 0.9 1.2 7.0 31.4 1.1 0.8 – 0.9 0.4 –– 56.3 PS15 I 80 G? N 0.9 1.4 8.6 33.1 1.4 1.6 0.2 2.6 3.2 –– 47.0 Y 0.8 2.6 9.9 36.1 2.3 3.7 0.2 2.8 2.7 –– 38.9 Br? N 0.9 1.8 8.6 35.9 1.9 2.0 0.2 2.9 0.6 –– 45.2 Y 0.9 1.9 9.1 37.5 2.4 2.3 0.1 2.6 0.5 –– 42.6 PS16 I 50 Br? N 0.9 1.5 8.0 38.4 1.5 1.6 – 4.2 1.5 2.0 – 41.4 Y 1.0 3.3 13.7 47.4 3.8 5.2 0.3 3.9 – 0.9 – 21.1 T N 0.9 1.5 8.2 38.5 1.5 1.0 – 1.2 – 1.3 – 45.8 VS04 I 10 T N 0.1 0.1 3.8 35.9 0.8 0.2 – 0.1 –– – 58.8 E10 T N – 0.1 2.3 28.6 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 –– 68.0 Mean 0.6 1.0 5.8 34.2 1.4 1.4 0.2 1.8 1.2 1.3 – 52.3 St. dev. 0.4 0.8 3.1 6.4 1.1 1.0 0.1 1.4 1.7 0.7 – 12.6 Mixed Carbonate AG05 I 80 T N 0.3 0.9 4.6 29.3 – 0.9 0.9 0.2 1.7 0.3 – 61.1 AG06 I 10 T N 0.2 0.3 1.4 29.5 0.2 1.5 – 1.5 0.1 –– 65.3 AG10 I 60 T N 0.1 0.3 2.9 23.2 0.3 0.7 0.1 1.1 0.1 –– 71.1 AG18 I 180 G N 1.8 0.3 6.4 38.6 2.0 5.6 0.4 2.8 1.8 –– 40.5 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Page 17 of 22 35 application, which were subjected to a second firing, as indi- cated by the thin interaction layer between the glaze and slip or ceramic body. The glaze was a mixture of lead oxide and silica, coloured by copper and iron oxides. Famagusta production The earliest evidence of the Famagusta production in this study are the plain glazed wares dated to the thirteenth to fourteenth centuries, which exhibit different technical prac- tices. The green glaze was applied to an unfired, unslipped ceramic body, resulting in a thick interaction layer, and the chemical contribution of the ceramic body to the glaze. For the brown plain glazed wares, the ceramic body was covered with an iron-rich clay slip, which was fired before applying a layer of transparent lead glaze. This technique of covering the ce- ramic body with coloured slip and transparent glaze was also used to make the slip-painted wares dated to the fourteenth to fifteenth centuries. The slipped body was further decorated with white paint, which was made of alumina-rich clay and coarse-grained quartz. The Famagusta production appears to have continued dur- ing the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, with new, more diverse technical practices being introduced to make sgraffito, white-slipped and plain glazed wares. The slip of the sgraffito was made of alumina-rich clay with a few apatite inclusions and no quartz. The interior and exterior surfaces of the sgraf- fito were fully covered with white slip and coloured glaze rather than covering only the interior surface with slip and using coloured glazes to create splash decoration, as typical of other productions. It was also during this phase that the use of quartz-laden slip is recorded in the white-slipped ware. This production is further distinguished by the use of lead antimonate as colourant to create an intense yellow glaze for the plain glazed ware, which was not seen in other Cypriot productions. Lapithos production The glazed wares identified as Lapithos production fall into two broad phases. The early phase is dominated by sgraffito, dated between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries. Although the production sequence displayed by the sgraffito was similar to that of the Paphos production, variation exists in the slip and glaze preparation method. Alumina-rich or calcareous clays mixed with quartz of varying shapes, sizes and abundance were used to make the slip, suggesting the co- existence of different potting groups in Lapithos. The glaze was formed by applying lead oxide directly to the fired ceram- ic body, as the renormalised glaze composition after removing the lead oxide value is similar to the underlying slip composition. Table 4 (continued) Fabric group Sample no. Surface Thickness (um) Colour Area inclusive of particle/crystallite Na OMgOAl O SiO K OCaOTiO Fe O CuO SnO Sb O PBO 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 5 Y 1.6 2.3 5.7 41.2 1.8 8.1 0.3 3.1 1.3 –– 34.7 KF10 I 110 G N 2.1 0.4 7.6 49.3 3.7 5.2 0.1 3.0 0.6 – 1.7 26.6 Y 1.8 3.7 7.6 48.2 2.8 9.7 0.2 3.5 0.4 – 1.5 20.6 KF13 I 160 Y N 0.9 0.9 4.8 34.9 1.4 1.6 – 0.6 –– 2.0 52.9 Y 0.8 0.9 3.8 33.6 1.1 1.4 – 0.5 –– 2.2 55.8 E 140 Y N 0.8 0.9 4.2 33.0 1.0 1.5 – 0.5 –– 2.1 55.8 Y 0.8 0.9 3.9 32.7 1.1 1.6 – 0.6 –– 2.5 56.0 PS05 I 120 G N 0.2 0.4 2.4 26.2 0.4 0.6 – 2.1 1.8 –– 65.8 Y N 0.1 0.5 2.7 24.2 0.5 0.7 – 3.1 0.1 –– 68.1 E 100 G N 0.2 0.4 2.9 27.5 0.6 0.9 0.1 1.2 1.5 –– 64.8 PS09 I 50 T N 0.2 0.4 2.5 36.3 0.9 1.1 0.1 0.8 0.1 –– 57.7 PS10 I 75 T N 0.4 0.6 2.5 31.6 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.9 0.2 –– 61.5 PS11 I 40 T N 1.0 0.3 3.8 35.7 1.8 0.7 0.2 0.4 –– – 56.1 Mean 0.8 0.8 4.1 34.0 1.2 2.6 0.2 1.6 0.7 0.3 1.9 53.5 St. dev. 0.7 1.0 2.0 7.9 1.0 3.0 0.2 1.2 0.7 – 0.3 15.6 The values in italic are the calculation based on the values that are not in italic 35 Page 18 of 22 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Fig. 8 Biplots showing that the glaze of the painted samples of the concentration. The blue samples represent the Amphibole-Serpentine Micaceous Group (KF08-09, PS12-16) and the plain glazed samples of Group (Paphos production), yellow samples of the Micaceous Group the Mixed Carbonate Group (AG18, KF10) deviate from other samples (Lapithos production), and red samples of the Mixed Carbonate Group by having higher a MgO and K O concentration, and b Al O and CaO (Famagusta production) 2 2 3 Technological change occurred during the sixteenth to sev- Glazed ware production in Cyprus began in the thirteenth enteenth centuries, evidenced by the introduction of painted century, stimulated by the establishment of Frankish rule on glazed ware. Incision and splashing coloured glazes, which the island (Cook 2014; von Wartburg 1997). The Franks’ were commonly used to decorate sgraffito, were replaced by involvement in the Crusader campaigns created demand for painting. The paint was a mixture of iron or copper oxide- Cypriot goods, with ports such as Limassol and Paphos func- enriched clay and lead oxide, different from the paint of the tioning as stopovers for pilgrims to refill supplies on their way slip-painted ware of the Paphos and Famagusta productions. to the Levant (Coureas 1995, 2005;Stern 2012). Accordingly, The vessels were first fired, followed by the painting of pre- the vast majority of glazed wares that are stylistically typical cise patterns on their interior surface and the application of a of the Paphos production were recovered in the Levant (Boaz layer of transparent glaze. Such order of paint and glaze ap- 1999;Stern 2014), with only a few being found in Cyprus; plication is confirmed by the identification of the growth of pointing to a targeted export to the Crusader States. This may the newly formed wollastonite and lead-feldspar explain why the Paphos production declined shortly after the microcrystallites specifically in the areas where the painted collapse of the Crusader States in the East, following the fall decorations were present. Despite the shift in decorative tech- of Acre in 1291 (Cook 2014; von Wartburg 1997). nique, the glaze preparation method remained constant, in Despite the loss of the Crusaders markets, production contin- which lead oxide rather than a lead-silica mixture was used. ued in the Famagusta and Lapithos region, with their products largely circulating within Cyprus. The collapse of the Crusader entities triggered the relocation of trading outposts from the The developments of glazed ware productions in Levant to Cyprus by the Western powers (Ashtor 1983; medieval and post-medieval Cyprus Edbury 1991), enabling its transformation to a regional and in- ternational trading hub (Coureas 2005;Day 2002; Edbury 1999; Özkutlu 2014). Historical records highlighted the pivotal role Three major observations emerge by comparing the three pro- ductions. First, there is little overlap in technological reper- played by Famagusta in the pan-Mediterranean trade during the toires and trajectories among them. Second, over time, greater thirteenth to fifteenth centuries (Edbury 1999; Jacoby 1989; variety of technical practices appear to have developed in the Philips 1995), whereas another trading settlement is said to have Famagusta and Lapithos productions. Third, while the Paphos been built in Lapithos and its adjacent port in Kyrenia (Jacoby production was a short-lived one, the Lapithos and Famagusta 1977). Such a surge in commercial activities not only attracted productions remained active for a much longer period, and merchants from the West, particularly the Genoese and underwent significant changes during the sixteenth and sev- Venetians, but also offered opportunities for local populations enteenth centuries. We argue that these developments are to get involved in trade and related activities. All these contrib- linked to the socio-political and economic developments in uted to an overall elevation in wealth and social status within the Cyprus and the broader eastern Mediterranean of the time. Cypriot society, generating a local demand for glazed wares. Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Page 19 of 22 35 The technical practices used by the Famagusta and pottery produced locally lost the refinement of shape and deco- Lapithos potters deviated from the Paphos ones, but the ware ration that characterised ceramics of the preceding late medieval types made by the three productions were broadly similar, period, but increased in volume, rendering it affordable for the represented by slip-painted, plain glaze and sgraffito. These less-affluent classes (Vionis 2016;Walker 2009). ware types bear close stylistic similarities with contemporane- The presence of Ottoman rule in Cyprus also induced forced ous ceramics from the Levant, specifically evident in the migration of people, including artisans, from mainland Anatolia. Paphos and early Lapithos sgraffito, and Port Saint Symeon It is argued that incoming artisans took over certain areas of craft Ware from the Frankish Principality of Antioch (Sanders production (Erdoğru 1997), but their involvement was not par- 2003; Stern 2012;Vionis 2017). This may be explained on ticularly obvious in pottery production, at least not among the the basis of the intensive contacts between Cyprus and the glazed wares under study. Whereas the use of lead antimonate as Levant first through the trading of the Paphos products in glaze colourant by the Famagusta production points to the pos- the thirteenth century. Later on, after the fall of Acre, this sible exchange of influence or raw materials from Anatolia influence in styles and technology accelerated after Christian (Constantinescu et al. 2014), other technical aspects of the populations fled from Syria and Palestine to Cyprus (Jacoby sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Famagusta and Lapithos pro- 2014), promoting the transferral of different bodies of techni- ductions seem to have had little in common with Iznik and cal knowledge and trends to the island, as evident in the tech- Miletus wares, the better-known examples of Ottoman pottery nological variations of the Famagusta and Lapithos produc- (Burlot et al. 2020;Henderson 1989; Paynter et al. 2004;Tite tions. However, a full reconstruction of technical practices of et al. 2016). In fact, some technical practices exhibited certain different productions in the neighbouring regions as such is extents of continuity, as seen in the glaze preparation method of still missing; thus, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly where the the Lapithos production, suggesting that technological changes influences might have derived from. occurred gradually by mixing local practices with new elements, Interestingly, little similarity exists between the technical possibly inspired by external contacts. practices used by the Famagusta and Lapithos productions, possibly because they were sponsored by competing merchant groups. Being the most prominent foreign merchants operating Conclusion in Cyprus, the Genoese were granted the exclusive right to trade in Famagusta, while the Venetians had stronger influence in Our study represents the first systematic characterisation of Kyrenia and other ports (Grivaud 1993;Özkutlu 2014); both local glazed ware productions across Cyprus. We identify are known to have modified the economic landscape of the three main regions—Paphos, Famagusta, and Lapithos— regions where they settled (García Porras and Fábregas García where production took place. Interpreting the results of mac- 2010). Given the constant vying for power between the roscopic, petrographic and SEM-EDS analyses in combina- Genoese and Venetians, some kind of measures might have tion with the chaîne opératoire reveals that each production been implemented to prevent the exchange of technical knowl- had distinctive sets of technical practices, and that these prac- edge between potters in Famagusta and Lapithos. Surviving tices changed through time. We argue that the changes in notarial deeds recorded that novices were tied to long-term technology and craft organisation were first linked to the rise apprenticeships to learn crafts such as ship-building and wood- and fall of the Crusader territories in the East, the emergence working (Coureas 2014), anditisreasonabletoassumethat of local demand as a result of an intensification of commercial similar schemes were applied to glazed ware production, too. activities and finally the restructuring of socio-political foun- The changes we identify in the Famagusta and Lapithos pro- dations brought by the Ottoman rule. ductions around the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were not These findings have important implications beyond their only limited to the technical practices, but also to the ware types regional archaeological significance. We have painted a dif- produced (i.e. white-slipped and painted glazed wares), which ferentiated picture of the nature and characteristics of non- we believe was stimulated by the Ottoman occupation of the opaque glazed ware productions from the earlier assumptions, island following the final capture of Famagusta in 1571. The in which they are described to be technologically stagnant and initial years of Ottoman rule saw the expulsion of the Venetian unsusceptible to broader socio-economic developments. rulers and the Western landholding classes, and the appointment Whereas it is likely that local production centres procured of a new non-Western ruling class (Erdoğru 1997;Given 2000). the same type of raw materials over time, it does not neces- In addition to restructuring the political order, drastic changes sarily imply that how the raw materials were prepared and the occurred to the socio-economic organisation. The reformation steps involved in making the vessels remained the same. We of the fiscal system, in particular, allowed agricultural taxes to have further demonstrated that the emergence of local produc- be paid in cash rather than in kind, providing means for rural tions was stimulated by a wide array of factors, largely con- communities to accumulate wealth (Quataert 2000). As ceramic text-specific. These new observations are made evident owing research in other regions under Ottoman rule has illustrated, to the new research framework developed by our study, 35 Page 20 of 22 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 highlighting the importance of considering the whole produc- References tion sequence rather than focusing on one or two technologi- Adlington LW (2017) The Corning archaeological reference glasses: new cal aspects. This framework, which provides a structured way values for ‘old’ compositions. Papers from the Institute of to organise and compare data, can be readily applied to iden- Archaeology 27:1–8. https://doi.org/10.5334/pia-515 tify other local productions in the eastern Mediterranean. Armstrong P, Hatcher H, Tite M (1997) Changes in Byzantine glazing Together, this will unlock a host of new evidence, enabling technology from the 9th to 13th centuries. In: Démians DG (ed) La Céramique Médiévale en Méditerrnée: Actes du Vle congrés us to explore the dynamics of socio-cultural interactions that l’AIECM2 Aix-en-Provence (13–18 Novembre 1995). Narration contributed to making glazed wares an essential part of our Éditions, Aix-en-Provence, pp 225–229 daily lives since medieval times. Ashtor E (1983) Levant trade in the later Middle Ages. Princeton University Press, Princeton Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary Barker C (2016) The theatre precinct of Nea Paphos (Fabrika): recent material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-020-01270-4. excavations by the Australian mission. In: Balandier C (ed) Nea Paphos: Fondation et Développement Urbanistique d’une Ville Chypriote de l’Antiquité à nos Jours. Études Archéologiques, Acknowledgements We are grateful to the Department of Antiquities of Historiques et Patrimoniales. Ausonius, Bordeaux, pp 91–104 Cyprus for granting us permission to study and sample the materials for Bear LM (1963) The mineral resources and mining industry of Cyprus. analysis. We are equally grateful to the participants of the field projects Bulletin No. 1. Geological Survey Department, Ministry of from which our materials were derived, specifically Craig Barker, Holly Commerce and Industry, Nicosia Cook, Veronique François, Smadar Gabrieli, Doria Nicolaou, Giorgos Boaz AJ (1999) Crusader Archaeology: The Material Culture of the Latin Papantoniou, Despina Pilides, and Lucy Vallauri. We would also like to East. Routledge, London thank Tom Gregory at the UCL Wolfson Archaeological Sciences Burlot J, Waksman Y, Bellot-Gurlet L, Simsek G (2020) ‘Miletus Ware’: Laboratories for his technical support, and UCL Qatar for facilitating an early Ottoman marker of a ceramic technology transition in west- access to the JEOL SEM-EDS system in Doha; UCL Qatar was a depart- ern Anatolia. J Arch Sci: Reps 29(102073):1–11. https://doi.org/10. ment of UCL established in cooperation with Qatar Museums at 1016/j.jasrep.2019.102073 Education City, generously funded through Qatar Foundation. Charalambous AC (2014) Cypriot medieval glazed pottery: a study of provenance and manufacture. In: Papanikola-Bakirtzi D, Coureas N Authors’ contributions All authors contributed to the research presented (eds) Cypriot medieval ceramics: reconsiderations and new perspec- in the paper in accordance with their specialisations, and to the writing tives. The A.G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia, pp 279–298 and editing of the paper. Charalambous AC, Sakalis AJ, Kantiranis NA, Papadopoulou LC, Tsirliganis C, Stratis JA (2010) Cypriot Byzantine glazed pottery: Funding This research was carried out as part of the Marie Skłodowska- the study of Paphos workshops. Archaeometry 52:628–643. https:// Curie Actions Individual Fellowship ‘GLAZE’, which was based at the doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2009.00502.x University of Cyprus and including a secondment to the UCL Institute of Charalambous A, Charalambous E, Violaris Y, Kantiranis N, Stratis J Archaeology, funded by the European Commission Horizon 2020 frame- (2012) Study of glazed ceramics from Lapithos and Nicosia by X- work (H2020-MSCA-IF-2016; grant no. 750904). ray micro-fluorescence (μ-XRF) and X-ray diffraction (XRD). Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus 2010:537–550 Data availability All data are included in the paper. Constantinescu B, Cristea-Stan D, Kovács I, Szökefalvi-Nagy Z (2014) External milli-beam PIXE analysis of the mineral pigments of glazed Iznik (Turkey) ceramics. Periodico di Mineralogia 83:159– Compliance with ethical standards 169. https://doi.org/10.2451/2013PM0009 Constantinou G, Panayides I (2019) The geological and physico- Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of geographical environment of Lapithos and the materials for local interest. ceramic production. In: Papanikola-Bakirtzi D (ed) Ceramic Art from the Soil of Lapithos. Leventis Municipal Museum of Nicosia Code availability Not applicable and Lapithos Municipality, Nicosia, pp 17–39 Cook HKA (2004) The Hellenistic theatre at Nea Paphos and its medieval Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons players. Med Arch 17:275–285 Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, Cook H (2014) From boom to bust: the impact of the Crusades upon the adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as glazed pottery Paphos, Cyprus, during the thirteenth and fourteenth long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the centuries A.D. From the Theatre Workshop perspective. In: source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if Papanikola-Bakirtzi D, Coureas N (eds) Cypriot medieval ceramics: changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article reconsiderations and new perspectives. The A.G. Leventis are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated Foundation, Nicosia, pp 29–44 otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the Cook HKA, Green JR (2002) Medieval glazed wares from the Theatre article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not site at Nea Paphos, Cyprus: preliminary report. Report of the permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, pp 413–426 need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a Coureas N (1995) Western merchants in the ports of Cyprus up to 1291. copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. In: Karageorghis V, Michaelides D (eds) Cyprus and the Sea. University of Cyprus, Nicosia, pp 255–261 Coureas N (2005) Economy. In: Nicolaou-Konnari A, Schabel C (eds) Cyprus, Society and Culture 1191–1394. Brill, Leiden, pp 103–156 Coureas N (2014) Apprentice artisans and craftsmen in Famagusta in the notarial deeds of Lamberto di Sambuceto and Giovanni da Rocha, Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Page 21 of 22 35 1296–1310. In: Walsh M, Kiss T, Coureas N (eds) The harbour of Jacoby D (1977) Citoyens, sujets et protégés de Venise et de Gênes en all this sea and realm: Crusader to Venetian Famagusta. Central Chypre du XIIIe au XVe siècles. Byzantinische Forschungen 5: European University Press, Budapest, pp 69–75 159–188 Day J (2002) The Levant trade in the Middle Ages. In: Laiou AE (ed) The Jacoby D (2014) Refugees from Acre in Famagusta around 1300. In: economic history of Byzantium: from the seventh through the fif- Walsh M, Kiss T, Coureas M (eds) The harbour of all this sea and teenth century. Dumbarton Oaks Library Collection, Washington realm: Crusader to Venetian Famagusta. Central European D.C., pp 807–814 University Press, Budapest, pp 53–67 Dikomitou-Eliadou M (2019) A preliminary compositional study of Early Lécuyer N, Grivaud G, Michaelides D, Nicolaïdes A, Amouric H, and Middle Bronze Age pottery from Lapithos. In: Papanikola- Decock L, Devillers B, François V, Hadjichristofi F, Loiseau M, Bakirtzi D (ed) Ceramic art from the soil of Lapithos. Leventis Bernard S, Vallauri L (2002) Potamia-Agios Sozomenos (Chypre). Municipal Museum of Nicosia and Lapithos Municipality, La constitution des paysages dans l’Orient Médiéval. Bulletin de Nicosia, pp 57–75 Correspondance Hellénique 126:598–614 Edbury P (1991) The kingdom of Cyprus and the crusades, 1191–1374. Lécuyer N, Michaelides D (2004) Archaeological survey at Potamia- Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Ayios Sozomenos. British School at Athens Studies 11:139–149 Edbury P (1999) Kingdoms of the Crusaders: from Jerusalem to Cyprus. Lemonnier P (1992) Elements for an anthropology of technology. The Ashgate, Aldershot University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor Erdoğru MA (1997) The servants and Venetian interest in Ottoman Marzec E, Kiriatzi E, Müller NS, Hein A (2019) An integrated typolog- Cyprus in the late sixteenth and the early seventeenth centuries. ical, technological and provenance investigation of Late Hellenistic Quaderni di Studi Arabi. Suppl. no. 15:97–120 colour-coated pottery from Nea Paphos. Cyprus. Arch Anth Sci 11: François V, Vallauri L (2001) Production et consumation de céramiques à 4103–4122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-019-00786-8 Potamia(Chypre) del’époque franque à l’époque ottomane. Mason R (1997) Medieval Syrian lustre-painted and associated wares: Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 125:523–546. https://doi. typology in a multidisciplinary study. Levant 29:169–200. https:// org/10.3406/bch.2001.7151 doi.org/10.1179/lev.1997.29.1.169 François V, Vallauri L (2014) Ceramics from Potamia-Agios Mason R, Tite MS (1997) The beginnings of tin-opacification of pottery Sozomenos: new archaeological data on the ceramic production glazes. Archaeometry 39:41–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475- and trade in Cyprus. In: Papanikola-Bakirtzi D, Coureas N (eds) 4754.1997.tb00789.x Cypriot medieval ceramics: Reconsiderations and new perspectives. Matin M, Tite M, Watson O (2018) On the origins of tin-opacified ce- The A.G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia, pp 45–55 ramic glazes: new evidence from early Islamic Egypt, the Levant, du Plat-Taylor J, Megaw AHS (1951) Cypriot medieval glazed pottery – Mesopotamia, Iran, and Central Asia. J Arch Sci 97:42–66. https:// notes for a preliminary classification. Reports of Department of doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2018.06.011 Antiquities Cyprus 1939:1–13 Matthews AJ, Woods AJ, Oliver C (1991) Spots before the eyes: new García Porras A, Fábregas García A (2010) Genoese trade networks in the comparison charts for visual percentage estimation in archaeological southern Iberian Peninsula: Trade, transmission of technical knowl- material. In: Middleton A, Freestone I (eds) Recent developments in edge and economic interactions. Mediterranean Historical Review ceramic. British Museum Research Laboratory, London, pp 211– 25:35–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518967.2020.494097 Given M (2000) Agriculture, settlement and landscape in Ottoman Molera J, Martines Ferreras V, Fusaro A, Gurt Esparraguera JM, Cyprus. Levant 32:215–236 Gaudenzi Asinelli M, Pidaev SR, Pradell T (2020) Islamic glazed Gosselain OP (1998) Social and technical identity in a clay crystal ball. wares from ancient Termez (south Uzbekistan). Raw materials and In: Stark MT (ed) The archaeology of social boundaries. The techniques. J Arch Sci: Reps 29:102169:1–11. https://doi.org/10. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C., pp 78–106 1016/j.jasrep.2019.102169 Green JR, Barker C, Gabrieli S (2011) Fabrika: an ancient theatre of Nea Özkutlu S (2014) Medieval Famagusta: socio-economic and socio- Paphos. The A.G, Leventis Foundation, Nicosia cultural dynamics (13th to 15th centuries). Dissertation, University Green JR, Gabrieli RS, Cook HKA, Stern EJ, McCall B, Lazer E (2014) of Birmingham Paphos 8 August 1303: Snapshot of Destruction. The A.G, Leventis Palamara E, Zacharias M, Xanthopoulou M, Kasztovszky Z, Kovács I, Foundation, Nicosia Palles D, Kamitsos EI (2016) Technology issues of Byzantine Grivaud G (1993) Sur le commerce Chypriote de l’époque Latine. In: glazed pottery from Corinth, Greece. J Microchem 129:137–150. Bryer AAM, Georghallides GS (eds) The sweet land of Cyprus, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2016.06.008 papers given at the Twenty-fifth Jubilee Spring Symposium of Papanikola-Bakirtzi D (1989) Medieval pottery from Enkomi, Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, March 1991. Cyprus Research Famagusta. In: Déroche V, Spieser J-M (eds) Recherches sur la Centre for the Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies, Céramique Byzantine, vol 18, pp 233–246 Nicosia, pp 133–145 Papanikola-Bakirtzi D (1996) Medieval glazed pottery from Cyprus: the Hadjistavrinou Y, Afrodisis S (1977) Geology and hydrogeology of the workshops of Paphos and Lapithos. The A.G. Leventis Foundation, Paphos region. In: Hadjistavrinou Y (ed) Bulletin no. 7 of the Thessaloniki Geological Survey Department. Ministry of Agriculture and Papanikola-Bakirtzi D (2004) Colours of Medieval Cyprus through the Natural Resources, Nicosia, pp 1–44 Medieval Ceramic Collection of the Leventis Municipal Museum of Henderson J (1989) Iznik ceramics: a technical examination. In: Atasoy Nicosia. The Anastasios G. Leventis Foundation and The Leventis N, Raby J (eds) Iznik – the pottery of Ottoman Turkey. Alexandria Municipal Museum, Nicosia Press, London, pp 65–87 Papanikola-Bakirtzi D (2012) Colours of Medieval Cyprus. The A.G, Hunt D (2014) Medieval Cyprus 1191–1571. In: Papanikola-Bakirtzi D Leventis Foundation, Nicosia (ed) Colours of Medieval Cyprus. The A.G. Leventis Foundation, Papanikola-Bakirtzi D (2019) Ceramic art from the soil of Lapithos. Nicosia, pp 19–33 Leventis Municipal Museum of Nicosia and Lapithos Hurst D, Freestone I (1996) Lead glazing technique from a medieval kiln Municipality, Nicosia, pp 105–125 site at Hanley Swan, Worcestershire. Med Ceram 20:13–18 Jacoby D (1989) The rise of a new emporium in the eastern Papantoniou G, Vionis AK (2018) The river as an economic asset: set- Mediterranean: Famagusta in the late thirteenth century. Variorum, tlement and society in the Xeros valley in Cyprus. Land 7(4):157. Northampton https://doi.org/10.3390/land7040157 35 Page 22 of 22 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Paynter S, Okyar F, Wolf S, Tite MS (2004) The production of Iznik Islamic glazes. J Arch Sci 57:80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas. pottery – a reassessment. Archaeometry 46:421–447. https://doi.org/ 2015.02.005 10.1111/j.1475-4754.2004.00166.x Vallauri L (2004) Céramiques en usage à Potamia-Agios Sozomenos de Philips J (1995) The Latin East, 1098–1291. In: Riley-Smith J (ed) The l'époque médiévale à l'époque ottoman: nouvelles données. Cahiers Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades. Oxford University Press, du Centre d'Études Chypriotes 34:223–238 Oxford, pp 112–140 Vallauri L, François V (2010) Famagouste: indices d’une production de Pilides D (2003) Excavations at the Hill of Agios Georgios vaisselle à l’époque vénitienne. Cahiers du Centre d’Études (PA.SY.D.Y.), Nicosia, 2002 season – preliminary report. Report Chypriotes 40:295–310 of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus:181–237 Vionis AK (2016) A boom-bust cycle in Ottoman Greece and the ceramic Pilides D, Hermon S, Amico N, Chamberlain M, d’Andrea A, Iannone G, legacy of two Boeotian villages. J Greek Arch 1:353–384 Ronzino P (2010) The Hill of Agios Georgios, Nicosia: 3D analysis Vionis AK (2017) The Byzantine to Early Modern pottery from Thespiai. of an on-going archaeological excavation. In: Melero FJ, Cano P, In: Bintliff JL, Farinetti E, Slapak B, Snodgrass AM (eds) Boeotia Revelles J (ed) Fusion of cultures: abstracts of the XXXVIII confer- Project, Volume II: the city of Thespiai. Survey at a complex urban ence on computer applications and quantitative methods in archae- site. McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge, pp 351–374 ology, pp 325–28 Vionis AK (2018) Settled and sacred landscapes of Cyprus: church and Pradell T, Molera J (2020) Ceramic technology. How to characterise landscape in the Xeros valley during the Early Byzantine period. In: ceramic glazes. Arch Anth Sci 12(189):1–28. https://doi.org/10. Horster M, Nicolaou D, Rogge S (eds) Church building in Cyprus 1007/s12520-020-01136-9 (Fourth to Seventh Centuries). A mirror of intercultural contacts in Quataert D (2000) Consumption studies and the history of the Ottoman the Eastern Mediterranean. Waxman Verlag, Münster, pp 45–70 Empire, 1550–1922: an introduction. State University of New York, von Wartburg M-L (1997) Lemba ware reconsidered. Report of the Albany Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, pp 323–345 Robertson AHF, Woodcock NH (1979) Mamonia Complex, southwest Waksman SY (2014) Archaeometric approaches to ceramic production Cyprus: evolution and emplacement of a Mesozoic continental mar- and imports in medieval Cyprus. In: Papanikola-Bakirtzi D, Coureas gin. GSA Bulletin 90(7):651–665 N (eds) Cypriot medieval ceramics: reconsiderations and new per- Salinas E, Pradell T, Matin M, Tite M (2019) From tin- to antimony- spectives. The A.G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia, pp 257–278 based yellow opacifiers in the early Islamic Egyptian glazes: region- Waksman Y, von Wartburg M-L (2006) ‘Fine-sgraffito ware’, ‘Aegean al influences and ruling dynasties. J Arch Sci: Reps 26(101923):1– ware’, and other wares: new evidence for a major production of 12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j/jasrep.2019.101923 Byzantine ceramics. Reports of the Department of Antiquities Sanders GDR (2003) Recent developments in the chronology of Cyprus:368–388 Byzantine Corinth. In: Williams CK, Bookidis N (eds) Corinth Walker BJ (2009) Identifying the Late Islamic period ceramically: pre- XX: the centenary, 1896–1996. American School of Classical liminary observations on Ottoman wares from Central and Northern Studies at Athens, Princeton, pp 385–399 Jordan. In: Walker BJ (ed) Reflections of empires: archaeological Segal I (2015) Chemical and isotopic study of lead-based objects from a and ethnographic studies on the pottery of the Ottoman Levant. The Late Roman tomb on Sallah ed-Din Street, Jerusalem. Atiqot 80: American Schools of Oriental Research, Massachusetts, pp 37–65 133–138 Walton MS, Tite MS (2010) Production technology of Roman lead- Stern EJ (2012) Akko I: the 1991–1998 excavations. The Crusader- glazed pottery and its continuance into late antiquity. period pottery. Part 1: text. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem Archaeometry 52:733–759. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754. Stern EJ (2014) The Paphos glazed wares: distribution and consumption 2009.00506.x in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. In: Papanikola-Bakirtzi D, Watson O (2014) Revisiting Samarra: the rise of Islamic glazed pottery. Coureas N (eds) Cypriot medieval ceramics: reconsiderations and In: Gonnella J, Abdellatif R, Struth S (eds) Beiträge zur Islamischen new perspectives. The A.G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia, pp 61–76 Kunst und Archäologie, vol 4, pp 125–144 Ting C, Vionis A, Rehren T, Kassianidou V, Cook H, Barker B (2019) White HE (2009) An investigation of production technologies of byzan- The beginning of glazed ware production in late medieval Cyprus. J tine glazed pottery from Corinth, Greece in the 11th to 13th centu- Arch Sci: Rep 27(101963):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep. ries. Dissertation, University of Sheffield 2019.101963 Wyttenbach A, Schubiger PA (1973) Trace element content of Roman Tite MS, Shortland AJ, Schibille N, Degryse P (2016) New data on the lead by neutron activation analysis. Archaeometry 15:199–207. soda flux used in the production of Iznik glazes and Byzantine https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.1973.tb00090.x glasses. Archaeometry 58:57–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm. Tite MS, Watson O, Pradell T, Matin M, Molina G, Domoney K, Publisher’snote Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic- Bouquillon A (2015) Revisiting the beginnings of tin-opacified tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences Springer Journals http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/springer-journals/the-origins-and-evolution-of-cypriot-glazed-ware-productions-during-FAp8lul31h

Loading next page...

References (89)

Nolween Lécuyer, Gilles Grivaud, Demetrios Michaelidès, Andréas Nicolaïdès, Henri Amouric, L. Decock, Benoît Devillers, V. François, Fryni Hadjichristofi, M. Loiseau, B. Simon, L. Vallauri (2001)
Potamia-Agios Sozomenos (Chypre). La constitution des paysages dans l'Orient médiéval
Bulletin De Correspondance Hellenique, 125
C. Ting, Athanasios Vionis, T. Rehren, V. Kassianidou, Holly Cook, Craig Barker (2019)
The beginning of glazed ware production in late medieval Cyprus
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports
S. Paynter, F. Okyar, S. Wolf, M. Tite (2004)
The production technology of Iznik pottery—a reassessment*
Archaeometry, 46
(2012)
Study of glazed ceramics from Lapithos and Nicosia by Xray micro-fluorescence (μ-XRF) and X-ray diffraction (XRD)
M. Walsh, T. Kiss, N. Coureas (2014)
The Harbour of all this Sea and Realm: Crusader to Venetian Famagusta
R. Mason (1997)
Medieval Syrian Lustre-painted and Associated Wares: Typology in a Multidisciplinary Study
Levant, 29
Moujan Matin, M. Tite, O. Watson (2018)
On the origins of tin-opacified ceramic glazes: New evidence from early Islamic Egypt, the Levant, Mesopotamia, Iran, and Central Asia
Journal of Archaeological Science
Seyit Özkutlu (2015)
Medieval Famagusta: socio-economic and socio-cultural dynamics (13th to 15th centuries)
( 2020 ) ‘ Miletus Ware ’ : an early Ottoman marker of a ceramic technology transition in western Anatolia
(2009)
Identifying the Late Islamic period ceramically : preliminary observations on Ottoman wares from Central and Northern Jordan
T. Pradell, J. Molera (2020)
Ceramic technology. How to characterise ceramic glazes
Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 12
(2014)
From boom to bust : the impact of the Crusades upon the glazed pottery Paphos , Cyprus , during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries A . D . From the Theatre Workshop perspective
(2006)
Aegean ware', and other wares: new evidence for a major production of Byzantine ceramics
B. Constantinescu, D. Cristea-Stan, I. Kovács, Z. Szőkefalvi-Nagy (2014)
External milli-beam PIXE analysis of the mineral pigments of glazed Iznik (Turkey) ceramics
Periodico Di Mineralogia, 83
P Armstrong (1997)
225
Wim Weiden (2020)
The Leventis Municipal Museum of Nicosia
P. Edbury (1999)
Kingdoms of the Crusaders: From Jerusalem to Cyprus
G. Papantoniou, Athanasios Vionis (2018)
The River as an Economic Asset: Settlement and Society in the Xeros Valley in Cyprus
Land
O. Gosselain, M. Stark (1998)
Social and Technical Identity in a Clay Cristal Ball
(1997)
Changes in Byzantine glazing technology from the 9th to 13th centuries. In: Démians DG (ed) La Céramique Médiévale en Méditerrnée: Actes du Vle congrés l’AIECM2 Aix-en-Provence
L. Vallauri, V. François (2010)
Famagouste : Indices d’une production de vaisselle à l’époque vénitienne
, 40
A. Wyttenbach, P. Schubiger (1973)
Trace element content of Roman lead by neutron activation analysis
Archaeometry, 15
(2014)
Ceramics from Potamia - Agios Sozomenos : new archaeological data on the ceramic production and trade in Cyprus
D. Abulafia, E. Ashtor (1985)
Levant Trade in the Later Middle Ages.
The Economic History Review, 38
(2010)
The Hill of Agios Georgios, Nicosia: 3D analysis
(2016)
The theatre precinct of Nea Paphos ( Fabrika ) : recent excavations by the Australian mission
(2002)
Excavations at the Hill of Agios Georgios
A preliminary compositional study of Early and Middle Bronze Age pottery from Lapithos
L. Adlington (2017)
The Corning Archaeological Reference Glasses: New Values for “Old” Compositions
, 27
M. Tite, A. Shortland, N. Schibille, P. Degryse (2016)
NEW DATA ON THE SODA FLUX USED IN THE PRODUCTION OF IZNIK GLAZES AND BYZANTINE GLASSES
Archaeometry, 58
(1999)
Crusader Archaeology: The Material Culture of the Latin East
(1977)
Citoyens, sujets et protégés de Venise et de Gênes en Chypre du XIIIe au XVe siècles
E. Palamara, N. Zacharias, M. Xanthopoulou, Z. Kasztovszky, I. Kovács, D. Palles, E. Kamitsos (2016)
Technology issues of Byzantine glazed pottery from Corinth, Greece
Microchemical Journal, 129
Oliver Watson (2014)
Revisiting Samarra: the Rise of Islamic Glazed Pottery
Beiträge zur islamischen Kunst und Archäologie
(2018)
Settled and sacred landscapes of Cyprus: church and landscape in the Xeros valley during the Early Byzantine period
(1997)
Changes in Byzantine glazing technology from the 9 th to 13 th centuries
(2014)
Refugees from Acre in Famagusta around 1300
Nolwenn Lécuyer, Gilles Grivaud, Demetrios Michaelides, Andréas Nicolaïdès, Corinne Bouttevin, Ludovic Decock, Benoît Devillers, Guergana Guionova, Émilie Léal, Lucy Vallauri, Sylvain Vondra, M. Zdanowski (2003)
Potamia-Agios Sozomenos (Chypre)
Bulletin De Correspondance Hellenique, 127
D. Quataert (2000)
Consumption studies and the history of the Ottoman Empire, 1550-1922 : an introduction
(1977)
Geology and hydrogeology of the Paphos region
(1991)
Spots before the eyes: new comparison charts for visual percentage estimation in archaeological material. In: Middleton A, Freestone I (eds) Recent developments in ceramic
(2014)
Medieval Cyprus 1191–1571
(1996)
Lead glazing technique from a medieval kiln site at Hanley Swan, Worcestershire
Archie Dunn (2005)
The Economic History of Byzantium from the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century
Speculum
L. Bear (1963)
The mineral resources and mining industry of Cyprus
(1951)
Cypriot medieval glazed pottery – notes for a preliminary classification
M. Tite, O. Watson, T. Pradell, Moujan Matin, G. Molina, K. Domoney, A. Bouquillon (2015)
Revisiting the beginnings of tin-opacified Islamic glazes
Journal of Archaeological Science, 57
(1996)
Medieval glazed pottery from Cyprus: the workshops of Paphos and Lapithos
Athanasios Vionis (2016)
A boom-bust cycle in Ottoman Greece and the ceramic legacy of two Boeotian villages
Journal of Greek Archaeology
(1989)
Medieval pottery from Enkomi, Famagusta
(2011)
Fabrika: an ancient theatre of Nea Paphos
P. Edbury (1991)
The Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, 1191–1374: The defence of Latin Syria
P. Marescotti, E. Roccotiello, M. Zotti, L. Capitani, C. Carbone, E. Azzali, M. Mariotti, G. Lucchetti (2013)
Influence of soil mineralogy and chemistry on fungi and plants in a waste-rock dump from the Libiola mine (eastern Liguria, Italy)
Periodico Di Mineralogia, 82
(2014)
Apprentice artisans and craftsmen in Famagusta in the notarial deeds
A. Charalambous, A. Sakalis, N. Kantiranis, L. Papadopoulou, N. Tsirliganis, J. Stratis (2009)
CYPRIOT BYZANTINE GLAZED POTTERY: A STUDY OF THE PAPHOS WORKSHOPS
Archaeometry, 52
C. Tonghini (2014)
‘Akko I: The 1991-1998 Excavations: The Crusader-Period Pottery, by Edna J. Stern. 2 volumes. IAA Reports 51. Jerusalem
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 372
P. Edbury (1991)
The kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, 1191-1374
(2010)
3D analysis of an on-going archaeological excavation
L. Vallauri (2004)
Céramiques en usage à Potamia-Agios Sozomenos de l'époque médiévale à l'époque ottomane. Nouvelles données
, 34
P. Lemonnier (1992)
Elements for an Anthropology of Technology
A. Robertson, N. Woodcock (1979)
Mamonia Complex, southwest Cyprus: Evolution and emplacement of a Mesozoic continental margin
Geological Society of America Bulletin, 90
(1995)
Western merchants in the ports of Cyprus up to 1291. In: Karageorghis V, Michaelides D (eds) Cyprus and the Sea
Alberto Porras, Á. García (2010)
Genoese trade networks in the southern Iberian peninsula: trade, transmission of technical knowledge and economic interactions
Mediterranean Historical Review, 25
V. François, L. Vallauri (2001)
Production et consommation de céramiques à Potamia (Chypre) de l'époque franque à l'époque ottomane
Bulletin De Correspondance Hellenique, 125
(1991)
Cyprus Research Centre for the Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies
(1997)
The servants and Venetian interest in Ottoman Cyprus in the late sixteenth and the early seventeenth centuries
(2019)
Ceramic art from the soil of Lapithos
J. Green, Smadar Gabrieli, H.K.A. Cook, E. Stern, B. Mccall, E. Lazer (2014)
Paphos 8 August 1303: Snapshot of a Destruction
(2004)
TheHellenistic theatre at Nea Paphos and its medieval players
(1993)
Sur le commerce Chypriote de l’époque Latine. In: Bryer AAM, Georghallides GS (eds) The sweet land of Cyprus, papers given at the Twenty-fifth
(2014)
The Paphos glazed wares : distribution and consumption in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem
(1989)
Iznik ceramics: a technical examination
S. Waksman (2014)
Archaeometric approaches to ceramics production and imports in Medieval Cyprus
(2004)
Archaeological survey at PotamiaAyios Sozomenos
(2019)
The geological and physico - geographical environment of Lapithos and the materials for local ceramic production
(2014)
Cypriot medieval glazed pottery: a study of provenance and manufacture. In: Papanikola-Bakirtzi D, Coureas N (eds) Cypriot medieval ceramics: reconsiderations and new perspectives
J. Molera, V. Ferreras, A. Fusaro, J. Esparraguera, Mainardo Gaudenzi, S. Pidaev, T. Pradell (2020)
Islamic glazed wares from ancient Termez (southern Uzbekistan). Raw materials and techniques
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 29
(2017)
The Byzantine to EarlyModern pottery from Thespiai
Edyta Marzec, E. Kiriatzi, Noémi Müller, A. Hein (2019)
An integrated typological, technological and provenance investigation of Late Hellenistic colour-coated pottery from Nea Paphos, Cyprus
Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences
M. Walton, M. Tite (2010)
PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY OF ROMAN LEAD‐GLAZED POTTERY AND ITS CONTINUANCE INTO LATE ANTIQUITY
Archaeometry, 52
Michael Given (2000)
Agriculture, Settlement and Landscape in Ottoman Cyprus
Levant, 32
A. Luttrell, C. Allmand (1998)
The Latin East
R. Mason, M. Tite (1997)
The beginnings of tin-opacification of pottery glazes
Archaeometry, 39
G. Sanders (2003)
Recent Developments in the Chronology of Byzantine Corinth
, 20
Elena Salinas, T. Pradell, Moujan Matin, M. Tite (2019)
From tin- to antimony-based yellow opacifiers in the early Islamic Egyptian glazes: Regional influences and ruling dynasties
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports
D. Jacoby (2017)
The Rise of a New Emporium in the Eastern Mediterranean: Famagusta in the Late Thirteenth Century
(2015)
Chemical and isotopic study of lead - based objects from a Late Roman tomb on Sallah ed - Din Street , Jerusalem
Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations
(2002)
Medieval glazed wares from the Theatre site at Nea Paphos, Cyprus: preliminary report

Publisher: Springer Journals
Copyright: Copyright © The Author(s) 2021
ISSN: 1866-9557
eISSN: 1866-9565
DOI: 10.1007/s12520-020-01270-4
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This paper challenges the conventional characterisation of glazed ware productions in the eastern Mediterranean, especially the ones which did not feature the use of opaque or tin-glazed technology, as technologically stagnant and unsusceptible to broader socio-economic developments from the late medieval period onwards. Focusing on the Cypriot example, we devise a new approach that combines scientific analyses (thin-section petrography and SEM-EDS) and a full consideration of the chaîne opératoire in context to highlight the changes in technology and craft organisation of glazed ware productions concentrating in the Paphos, Famagusta and Lapithos region during the thirteenth to seventeenth centuries CE. Our results indicate that the Paphos production was short-lived, lasting from the establishment of Frankish rule in Cyprus in the thirteenth century to the aftermath of the fall of the Crusader campaigns in the fourteenth century. However, glazed ware production continued in Famagusta and Lapithos from the late thirteenth/fourteenth centuries through to the seventeenth century, using technical practices that were evidently different from the Paphos production. It is possible that these productions were set up to serve the new, local demands deriving from an intensification of commercial activities on the island. Further changes occurred to the technical practices of the Famagusta and Lapithos productions around the 16th/17th centuries, coinciding with the displacement of populations and socio-political organisation brought by the Ottoman rule. . . . . Keywords Glaze technology Cyprus Eastern Mediterranean Late medieval Post-medieval Introduction The Islamic opaque or tin-glazed wares—described to be the ‘elite’ and ‘first quality’ ceramics that were only produced in a During the medieval and post-medieval periods, glazed wares few places and circulated over a broad geographical distance became an integral component of material culture in the east- (Mason 1997:171)—have been the focus of much research in ern Mediterranean, marking the beginning of their transition the past and present alike, reigniting the debate on their origins to become a global phenomenon, with lasting impacts on our and technological evolutions (e.g. Mason and Tite 1997; consumption habits until today. The extant understanding of Matin et al. 2018; Salinas et al. 2019; Tite et al. 2015; the processes and mechanisms leading to this important epi- Watson 2014). In contrast, the glazed wares that do not have sode of technological and social changes remains very patchy. opaque glazes have received much less attention, as it is as- sumed that they were mostly produced and consumed locally and/or distributed to places not far from their origins of pro- duction, with their technology and craft organisation being * Carmen Ting static and unsusceptible to socio-economic developments carmen.k.ting@gmail.com (Armstrong et al. 1997;Mason 1997:171–72). This view is being challenged, with the recent examination of materials McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of from Corinth as one of the notable examples, showing that Cambridge, Cambridge, UK distinct technologies were used to produce lead glazes corre- Science and Technology in Archaeology and Culture Research sponding to the changing political situation of Byzantium Centre, The Cyprus Institute, Nicosia, Cyprus (Palamara et al. 2016;White 2009). In spite of these efforts, UCL Institute of Archaeology, London WC1H, 0PY, UK very little is still known about how glazed ware productions, Archaeological Research Unit, Department of History and especially non-opacified, emerged and developed, even Archaeology, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus 35 Page 2 of 22 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 though they constitute the bulk of glazed ceramic evidence in from the site (Papantoniou and Vionis 2018: 20). Similarly, the the archaeological record. samples from Potamia-Ayios Sozomenos come from rural sites A case in point is the Cypriot production of glazed table- in the territory of the present-day administrative district of wares, which only began in the thirteenth century CE. These Nicosia, dated to the fourteenth to sixteenth/seventeenth centu- productions are poorly understood, as previous research ries (François and Vallauri 2001, 2014), comprising character- centred on their styles (e.g. du Plat-Taylor and Megaw 1951; istic examples of glazed tableware commonly found in both Papanikola-Bakirtzi 1989, 1996, 2004, 2012; Vallauri and urban and rural contexts. The samples from the urban centres François 2010; von Wartburg 1997; Waksman and von of modern Nicosia (Agios Georgios Hill and Vitonos Street) Wartburg 2006), while technical studies are few and narrowly provide, once again, interesting comparanda for the typical lo- focused (e.g. Charalambous et al. 2010, 2012, 2014; cal ceramic repertoire dating to the period between the thir- Waksman 2014). Against this background, we developed a teenth and seventeenth centuries. The material from those two more holistic, interdisciplinary research framework that com- sites (currently under systematic study by S. Gabrieli) is not yet bines stylistic and scientific analyses with a consideration of published. The Paphos Theatre assemblage is an exception, the full chaîne opératoire in context. Our work sought to with the glazed wares and direct evidence of production such identify and characterise the Cypriot productions from their as tripod stilts and clay lumps being found in a sealed deposit emergence to the seventeenth century CE, as a starting point to securely dated to the thirteenth century (Barker 2016;Green explore the processes and mechanisms that contributed to the et al. 2011, 2014); thus a more comprehensive set of samples proliferation of glazed ware productions more generally in the from this assemblage was studied first (Ting et al. 2019). eastern Mediterranean. Owing to its particular position The dating of the samples from the abovementioned sites connecting Europe with the Middle East, Cyprus is a vivid was carried out on the basis of their similarity in terms of fabric reflection of the broader atmosphere in the Mediterranean at (macroscopic examination), shape and decorative style to pub- the time, marked by constant conflicts between Christian West lished examples from excavated and confirmed production sites and Islamic East, intertwined with competitions among mer- on the island, namely Paphos, Lemba, Lapithos and Nicosia chant powers (Hunt 2014). (Charalambous 2014; Charalambous et al. 2010;Cook 2014; Papanikola-Bakirtzi 1989, 1996, 2004, 2019;Taylorand Megaw 1951; Ting et al. 2019). Cypriot glazed production Materials has so far been classified (and dated) according to decorative style, such as slip-painted, plain glazed, sgraffito, sgraffito with We selected 60 glazed ware samples from excavations at the sites slip-painted decoration, painted glazed and white-slipped of Agios Georgios Hill and Vitonos Street (both within the mod- glazed wares (for the chronology of these wares, see Taylor ern city of Nicosia) and at the Hellenistic-Roman theatre in and Megaw 1951: 1–13; Papanikola-Bakirtzi 1996:60, 73– Paphos (Paphos Theatre), and from archaeological surveys in 74, 84–85, 99, 115, 131, 145, 172–173, 187–188, 196), all the area near the modern villages of Kofinou and Potamia- represented in our samples. Despite the bias in our sampling, Ayios Sozomenos (Figs. 1 and 2). The excavations and surveys with a slightly greater proportion of samples from the Paphos at these sites yielded substantial evidence of late medieval and Theatre assemblage, the samples should allow for a better un- post-medieval occupation, as seen in the recovery of a wide derstanding of the temporal developments of technical practices range of glazed ware types belonging to the productions from characteristic of different productions. different sites within Cyprus and the imported ones (Cook 2004; Cook and Green 2002; François and Vallauri 2001; Lécuyer and Michaelides 2004;Lécuyeretal. 2002; Papantoniou and Vionis Methods 2018; Pilides 2003;Pilidesetal. 2010;Vallauri 2004; Vionis 2018). We focused on the ones that are considered to be repre- The chaîne opératoire approach to glazed ware sentative of the local ceramic repertoires dating to different production phases between the 13th and 17th centuries based on morpho- stylistic analyses, including slip-painted, plain glazed, sgraffito, The production of glazed wares involves a complex process sgraffito with slip-painted decoration, painted glazed, and white- (Fig. 3), each step revealing manufacturing choices and slipped glazed wares (Table 1). allowing room for variables (Gosselain 1998; Lemonnier Samples from Kofinou come from the survey around the 1992). Reconstructing the technical practices characteristic church of Panagia in the Xeros River valley (Larnaca district), of production through time permits a more nuanced perspec- wheresurface ceramicevidencepointsto a largepost-Roman tive of diachronic development, highlighting the decisions rural settlement of approximately 10 ha that survived from the made by potters. Examining the technical practices across beginning of the thirteenth to the seventeenth/eighteenth centu- productions allows a more sophisticated comparison of behav- ries CE; here, glazed wares representing 5% of the assemblage ioural influences than those afforded by traditional ‘stylistic’ Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Page 3 of 22 35 Fig. 1 Selected glazed ware samples that are representative of each site. Reproduced at different scales affiliation, which has perhaps overplayed the ‘imitation’ di- Sciences Laboratories, and a ZEISS EVO25 at the UCL mensions rather than the active dynamics through which Institute of Archaeology Wolfson Archaeological Sciences knowledge was transferred among potters and beyond. Laboratories—were used. Both suites were fitted with the Oxford Instruments Aztec EDS analysis system. The JEOL JSM 6610 was set to 20.0 kV accelerating voltage and took Thin-section petrography about 22 to 25 s total per measurement, whereas the ZEISS EVO 25 was set to 20.0 kV accelerating voltage and collected The potential provenance of the samples was determined by about 750,000 X-rays, which also took about 22 to 25 s total per comparing their mineralogy with the geology of the different measurement. Corning Glass C was analysed as reference ma- regions described in geological maps and surveys. Thin-section terial at the beginning of each analytical session. Comparing petrography was used to record the mineralogical and textural with the published values, the absolute and relative errors doc- variations that exist among the samples and to characterise the ument the accuracy of the measurements, showing that all ele- recipe of the ceramic body, informing about paste preparation ments but P O and SnO are within 10% of the expected methods. All samples were prepared into thin sections at the 2 5 2 values. The mean and standard deviation values highlight the UCL Wolfson Archaeological Sciences Laboratories and reproducibility of data for both SEM suites, while the mean analysed using a LEICA DM EP Polarization Microscope. In values of the measurements generated by the two SEM suites the description of the petrographic observation, the percentage document the cross-instrument data consistency charts developed by Matthews et al. (1991) were usedtoesti- (Supplementary Table S1). A fused basalt sample (BCR-2) mate the relative abundance of inclusions. wasalsoanalysedbythe ZEISS EVO25 asanextra standard for ceramic materials. A cobalt standard was analysed at regular Scanning electron microscope energy dispersive intervals to monitor the beam current stability. spectrometry (SEM-EDS) The area of analysis for the slip, paint and glaze was set around 25 × 50 μm for areas that contain particles and newly The recipes of the paints, slips and glazes and the method and formed crystal phases, and to 10 × 10 μm for areas avoiding order of their application for all samples were identified using these features. The area of analysis for the ceramic body was set SEM-EDS. Two SEM-EDS suites—a JEOL JSM 6610 low around 150 × 300 μm at low magnification. We acknowledge vacuum SEM at the UCL Qatar Archaeological Material 35 Page 4 of 22 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Fig. 2 Map of Cyprus showing the sites mentioned in the text, produced and 33° 24′ 15.15″ E for the Kofinou Church of Panagia Odigitria, and with the digital geological data provided by the Cyprus Geological 35° 03′ 54.55′′ N and 33° 26′ 20.18″ E for Potamia-Agios Sozomenos. Survey. The DMS coordinates of the excavated sites are 35° 09′ 58.8′′ Lapithos, Kyrenia and Famagusta are also mentioned in the text, although N and 33° 21′ 18.9′′ E for Agios Georgios Hill, 35° 10′ 13.9′′ N and 33° the exact sites of production in these areas are yet to be found. The 22′ 15.6′′ E for Vitonos Street and 34° 45′ 39.50′′ N and 32° 24′ 51.27″ E coordinates for these sites are based on the location of modern towns: o o o o for Paphos Theatre. Noteworthy is that Agios Georgios Hill and Vitonos 35 24′ 55′′ N and 33 36′ 66″ E for Lapithos, 35 14′ 10′′ Nand 33 35′ o o o Street are represented in the map as ‘Nicosia’, given the close proximity 24″ E for Kyrenia, 35 10′ 29′′ N35 10′ 18′′ Nand 34 8′ 22″ Efor of these two sites. The DMS coordinates of the surveyed sites are taken Famagusta after the locations of the church in the area, which are 34° 49′ 33.68′′ N that the SEM-EDS analysis of ceramic bodies does not repre- has an inclusions:matrix:voids percentage that ranges from sent the full bulk composition particularly for coarse bodies, but around 30:60:10 to 50:45:5. The inclusions consist of around was performed following the standard procedure used in glazed 20–30% of monocrystalline quartz, 5–15% of serpentine, am- ware examination (Pradell and Molera 2020), complementing phibole and mudstone fragments, 5–10% of plagioclase feld- the data generated by thin-section petrography, which was our spar, pyroxene, biotite and limestone fragments and < 5% of principal method of assessing the ceramic body. The data pre- apatite in a non-calcareous clay matrix (Fig. 4a). The inclu- sented below are an average of five analyses. All measurements sions are well-sorted and homogeneous in grain size (mode were converted to oxides by stoichiometry and normalised to size = 0.20 mm), with some mudstone and limestone frag- 100 wt% to account for fluctuations in beam intensity and un- ments measuring up to 0.80 mm. The Micaceous Group avoidable porosity in the analysed areas. Oxides with concen- (n = 21) stands out for its fine-grained inclusions (mode size = tration lower than 0.1 wt% are not reported as they are below 0.08 mm), with its inclusions:matrix:voids percentage rang- the limits of detection of both instruments. ing from around 20:75:5 to 30:65:5. The inclusions consist of around 10–15% of biotite and monocrystalline quartz, 5–15% of limestone fragments, 5% of iron-rich nodules and < 5% of quartzite in a calcareous clay matrix (Fig. 4b). The inclusions Results of the samples in this group are well-sorted. The Mixed Carbonate Group (n = 12) has different types of carbonate Ceramic body materials in a micritic clay matrix, with its inclusions:matrix:voids percentage ranging from around Petrographic analysis identified three fabric groups, the 30:60:10 to 50:45:5 (Fig. 4c). The carbonate materials are Amphibole-Serpentine Group, Micaceous Group, and Mixed made up of around 15–20% of limestone fragments and Carbonate Group. The Amphibole-Serpentine Group (n =27) Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Page 5 of 22 35 Table 1 The site of recovery, ware type and date of the samples included in this study Site Sample Ware type Date Vessel Interior Exterior Interior glaze Exterior glaze no. form slip/paint slip/paint Agios Georgios AG05 Plain glazed 13th to early 14th Bowl Brown slip – Transparent – Hill centuries AG06 White-slipped 16th–17th Bowl Brown paint – Transparent – centuries AG10 Plain glazed 13th–early 14th Bowl Brown slip – Transparent – centuries AG18 Plain glazed 13th–early 14th bowl –– Green – centuries AG19 White-slipped 16th–17th Bowl White slip White slip Transparent Transparent centuries AG20 White-slipped 16th–17th Bowl White slip White slip Transparent Transparent centuries Kofinou KF02 Sgraffito 15th–16th Bowl White slip White slip Yellow Transparent centuries KF04 Sgraffito 15th–16th Bowl White slip – Yellow Transparent centuries KF05 Slip-painted 13th century Bowl White paint – Yellow – KF06 White-slipped 16th century Bowl White slip – Transparent, – green KF08 Painted 16th–17th Bowl Brown paint – Brown? – centuries KF09 Painted 16th–17th Bowl Green/brown – Green/brown? – centuries paint KF10 Plain glazed 13th century Bowl–– Green – KF13 Plain glazed 16th–17th Bowl White slip White slip Yellow Yellow centuries Paphos Theatre PT01 Slip-painted 13th century jug – White – Transparent/pale paint yellow PT02 Slip-painted 13th century Jug – White – green paint PT03 Slip-painted 13th century Jug – white paint – Yellow PT04 Slip-painted 13th century Bowl White paint – Green – PT05 Slip-painted 13th century Bowl White paint – Yellow artially glazed, transparent? PT06 Slip-painted 13th century Bowl White paint – Transparent? – PT07 Slip-painted 13th century Bowl White paint White Yellow Transparent/pale paint yellow PT08 Slip-painted 13th century Bowl White paint – Yellow – PT09 Plain glazed 13th century Bowl White slip – Yellow – PT10 Plain glazed 13th century Bowl White slip – Yellow – PT11 Plain glazed 13th century Bowl White slip – Green Transparent? PT12 Sgraffito 13th century Bowl White slip – Transparent, Transparent? yellow, green PT13 Sgraffito 13th century Bowl White slip – Yellow, green Transparent? PT14 Sgraffito 13th century Bowl White slip – Transparent, Transparent? yellow, green PT15 Sgraffito 13th century Bowl White slip – Yellow Transparent? PT16 Sgraffito 13th century Bowl White slip – Yellow Transparent? PT17 Sgraffito 13th century Bowl White slip – Yellow, green Transparent? PT18 Sgraffito with 13th century Bowl White slip White Green Green slip-painted paint decoration PT19 Sgraffito with 13th century Bowl White slip White Green Green slip-painted paint decoration PT20 13th century Bowl White slip Yellow Yellow 35 Page 6 of 22 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Table 1 (continued) Site Sample Ware type Date Vessel Interior Exterior Interior glaze Exterior glaze no. form slip/paint slip/paint Sgraffito with White slip-painted paint decoration PT21 sgraffito with 13th century Bowl White slip White Green/yellow? Green/yellow? slip-painted paint decoration PT23 Biscuit-fired 13th century Bowl White paint –– – slip-painted PT24 Biscuit-fired 13th century Bowl White paint –– – slip-painted PT25 Biscuit-fired 13th century Bowl White paint –– – slip-painted PT26 Biscuit-fired 13th century Bowl – White –– slip-painted paint PT27 Biscuit-fired 13th century Bowl White paint –– – slip-painted PotaNia-Ayios PS01 Sgraffito 16th century Bowl–– Yellow, green – SozoNenos PS02 Sgraffito 14th–16th Bowl White slip – Transparent, – centuries green PS03 Sgraffito 14th–16th Bowl White slip – Green – centuries PS04 Sgraffito 14th–16th Bowl White slip – Green – centuries PS05 Sgraffito 14th–16th Bowl White slip White slip Green, yellow green centuries PS06 Sgraffito 14th–16th Bowl White slip – Transparent/pale – centuries yellow PS07 Sgraffito 14th - 16th Bowl White slip White slip Yellow, green Transparent centuries PS09 Slip-painted 14th–15th Bowl Brown slip, – Transparent – centuries white paint PS10 Slip-painted 14th–15th Bowl Brown slip, – Transparent – centuries white paint PS11 Slip-painted 14th–15th Bowl Brown slip, – Transparent – centuries white paint PS12 Painted 16th–17th Bowl Brown paint – Brown? – centuries PS13 Painted 16th–17th Bowl Green paint – Green? – centuries PS14 Painted 16th–17th Bowl Green paint – Transparent, – centuries green? PS15 Painted 16th–17th Bowl Green paint – Green?, brown? – centuries PS16 Painted 16th–17th Bowl Brown paint – Transparent, – centuries Brown? PS17 Biscuit-fired painted 16th–17th Bowl Brown paint –– – centuries PS18 Biscuit-fired painted 16th–17th Bowl Green paint –– – centuries Vitonos Street VS02 Unglazed white-slipped 16th - 17th Bowl White slip –– – centuries VS03 Unglazed white-slipped 16th–17th Bowl White slip –– – centuries VS04 White-slipped 16th–17th Bowl White slip White slip Transparent Transparent centuries Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Page 7 of 22 35 Fig. 3 The chaîne opératoire of glazed ware production. Steps in box with dashed line are optional calcite, and 10% of skeletal carbonate grains, which are found grain size (mode size = 0.20 mm), although some quartz and together with around < 5 to 10% of monocrystalline quartz, limestone fragments measure up to 0.64 mm. SEM-EDS anal- and < 5% of plagioclase feldspar, amphibole and iron-rich ysis of the ceramic body confirms the classification of the nodules. The inclusions are well-sorted and homogeneous in samples into three compositional groups (Table 2). Fig. 4 Photomicrographs showing the fabric of a the Amphibole-Serpentine Group (Paphos production), b the Micaceous Group (Lapithos production) and c the Mixed Carbonate Group (Famagusta production). All photomicrographs were taken in cross polarisation at × 50 magnification 35 Page 8 of 22 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Table 2 The composition (wt%), mean and standard deviation (st. dev.) of the ceramic body of all samples by SEM-EDS in accordance with the fabric groups. ‘–’ indicates not detected on analysis Fabric group Sample no. Na O MgO Al O SiO P O KOCaOTiO Fe O PbO 2 2 3 2 2 5 2 2 2 3 Amphibole-Serpentine (n = 27) KF05 0.9 2.8 14.1 65.4 0.2 3.9 4.4 1.0 7.2 0.2 PT01 1.0 2.2 14.9 67.0 0.2 4.1 2.8 0.8 6.6 0.1 PT02 0.7 2.2 13.7 65.1 0.3 3.7 7.3 0.6 6.1 0.4 PT03 0.7 2.3 14.2 62.1 0.2 3.7 9.4 0.9 6.2 0.3 PT04 1.1 2.2 13.1 69.2 0.3 3.4 3.5 0.9 6.0 0.4 PT05 0.8 2.4 15.3 65.3 0.3 4.0 3.8 0.7 7.1 0.2 PT06 1.1 2.0 13.4 66.0 0.2 3.8 6.5 0.7 6.1 0.2 PT07 1.0 2.2 14.6 66.9 0.3 3.8 3.6 0.8 6.4 0.2 PT08 1.0 1.8 11.3 67.2 0.3 2.8 8.7 0.6 5.7 0.4 PT09 1.0 2.0 13.6 67.0 0.2 3.6 4.7 0.7 6.0 1.1 PT10 0.9 2.3 14.6 65.7 0.3 4.2 4.8 0.7 6.3 0.2 PT11 0.9 2.2 14.6 63.2 0.3 3.4 7.2 0.7 6.7 0.7 PT12 0.9 2.4 14.9 64.7 0.3 4.0 5.3 0.7 6.7 0.1 PT13 1.0 1.8 13.9 65.8 0.2 3.4 6.9 0.7 6.1 0.4 PT14 1.0 2.0 13.6 69.4 0.2 3.3 3.5 0.8 5.9 0.2 PT15 0.8 2.2 15.5 64.3 0.2 3.9 4.9 1.0 7.0 0.1 PT16 0.9 2.0 12.8 65.5 0.3 3.4 7.7 0.7 5.2 1.6 PT17 0.9 2.1 14.4 66.1 0.2 3.6 5.1 0.7 6.3 0.6 PT18 0.8 2.3 14.4 64.2 0.3 3.7 6.2 0.8 6.4 1.0 PT19 0.8 2.2 13.5 66.2 0.2 3.7 6.4 0.8 6.1 0.2 PT20 0.8 2.2 13.3 65.2 0.2 3.3 7.2 0.7 6.3 0.7 PT21 0.9 2.3 14.4 65.9 0.3 3.9 4.3 0.9 7.0 – PT23 0.8 2.2 14.0 67.7 – 3.4 5.1 0.7 5.8 – PT24 0.7 2.5 14.5 62.7 0.1 3.6 6.7 0.9 6.8 1.2 PT25 0.9 2.2 13.0 66.4 0.1 3.4 6.5 0.7 5.6 0.9 PT26 0.8 2.2 14.2 62.9 0.2 3.7 9.0 0.5 6.2 – PT27 0.8 2.3 13.5 66.4 0.3 3.2 6.5 0.5 6.4 – Mean 0.9 2.2 14.0 65.7 0.2 3.6 5.9 0.8 6.3 0.5 St. dev. 0.1 0.2 0.9 1.8 0.1 0.3 1.8 0.1 0.5 0.4 Micaceous (n = 21) AG19 1.0 4.6 15.0 49.7 0.2 2.6 16.6 0.6 7.9 2.0 AG20 1.2 5.0 16.0 50.5 0.2 3.1 11.7 1.0 8.0 3.0 KF02 1.1 5.0 17.3 52.8 0.2 3.4 10.9 0.8 7.9 0.6 KF04 1.2 4.2 16.9 54.4 0.1 3.3 12.1 0.8 6.8 0.1 KF06 1.3 5.4 16.8 52.7 – 2.8 9.9 1.1 8.9 1.0 KF08 1.1 6.5 16.7 50.7 – 2.7 12.0 0.7 8.6 0.9 KF09 1.2 6.4 17.7 51.5 – 3.4 9.9 0.9 8.0 1.1 PS01 1.4 5.7 17.2 50.2 0.2 3.4 10.8 0.8 9.5 0.8 PS02 1.1 5.9 16.3 51.7 0.2 3.2 8.8 0.9 9.4 2.6 PS03 1.2 5.1 17.5 51.5 0.3 3.6 11.1 1.2 8.1 0.4 PS04 1.1 5.1 18.9 52.8 0.2 4.1 8.6 0.8 8.2 0.4 PS06 1.0 5.3 16.6 51.4 0.2 3.0 12.4 0.8 8.3 1.0 PS07 0.9 5.1 15.5 50.0 0.4 2.9 15.5 0.7 7.8 1.3 PS12 1.3 4.8 17.0 53.1 0.2 3.5 9.3 0.7 7.5 2.6 PS13 1.1 5.7 15.4 48.6 0.2 2.8 17.4 0.7 7.6 0.4 PS14 1.3 5.9 18.1 50.4 0.3 3.6 9.7 0.7 8.2 1.8 PS15 1.1 5.9 16.2 52.4 0.1 3.0 9.8 1.5 8.2 1.9 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Page 9 of 22 35 Table 2 (continued) Fabric group Sample no. Na O MgO Al O SiO P O KOCaOTiO Fe O PbO 2 2 3 2 2 5 2 2 2 3 PS16 1.2 5.4 17.1 52.8 0.2 3.3 9.4 0.7 8.6 1.4 PS17 1.0 6.1 14.8 48.4 0.6 2.9 16.8 0.7 7.7 1.2 PS18 1.1 5.6 16.6 49.5 0.3 3.4 14.4 0.8 8.3 0.1 VS04 1.2 5.0 16.6 52.0 – 3.1 12.2 0.9 7.9 1.1 Mean 1.1 5.4 16.7 51.3 0.2 3.2 11.9 0.8 8.2 1.2 St. dev. 0.1 0.6 1.0 1.6 0.1 0.4 2.7 0.2 0.6 0.8 Mixed Carbonate (n = 12) AG05 1.1 5.8 12.7 46.5 0.5 2.2 22.6 0.7 7.1 0.5 AG06 1.6 4.1 12.3 45.7 0.5 1.9 23.0 0.7 7.9 2.2 AG10 1.1 5.0 11.5 40.5 0.4 2.3 29.6 0.7 5.8 3.2 AG18 1.6 4.4 12.9 49.9 – 1.8 18.6 0.9 8.7 1.0 KF10 1.4 6.0 12.9 45.9 – 1.5 22.4 0.9 8.2 0.8 KF13 1.1 5.3 12.2 46.7 0.5 1.3 23.4 0.8 8.2 0.6 PS05 1.5 5.0 11.4 42.2 0.4 2.0 29.4 0.7 6.7 0.3 PS09 1.7 5.2 13.8 47.4 0.2 2.4 19.5 0.9 7.8 0.9 PS10 1.5 4.5 11.8 43.7 0.4 2.0 27.2 0.6 7.6 0.2 PS11 2.0 4.0 13.9 49.7 0.3 2.4 18.6 0.7 7.6 0.6 VS02 1.6 7.1 11.7 42.2 – 1.8 26.4 0.6 7.6 0.9 VS03 1.5 4.7 13.1 46.9 – 1.8 22.7 0.8 7.8 0.6 Mean 1.5 5.1 12.5 45.6 0.4 1.9 23.6 0.7 7.6 1.0 St. dev. 0.3 0.9 0.9 3.0 0.1 0.4 3.8 0.1 0.8 0.9 The values in italic are the calculation based on the values that are not in italic Paint and slip the white slip of the sgraffito samples of the Micaceous Group is also made of a mixture of quartz and clay, the quartz inclu- Microstructure sions display greater heterogeneity in abundance, size and shape (Fig. 6a–c). The quartz particles of PS02, PS03 and The ceramic body of all samples was covered with paint PS04 are 10 to 30 μm in size, accounting for around 30% of and/or slip. Paint was applied to create specific patterns on the slip. The quartz particles of PS06 and PS07 are more the surface of the vessel, whereas slip was used to cover angular and coarser-grained (20 to 50 μm), makinguparound the entire surface. The white paint of the samples of the 80% of the slip. The quartz particles of KF02 and KF04 are Amphibole-Serpentine Group, as represented by the slip- very angular and very coarse-grained (20 to 60 μm), consti- painted, sgraffito with slip-painted decoration, and biscuit- tuting around 50% of the slip. The slip of the white-slipped firedslip-paintedwares,isthin(ca.25–65 μm), with very samples (AG19, AG20, KF06, VS04) deviates from the slip of few to no particles or crystallites (Fig. 5a). The white slip the sgraffito belonging to the same fabric group, as it is packed of the monochrome glazed, sgraffito and sgraffito with with quartz particles that are homogeneous in size (20 μm) slip-painted decoration wares of the same fabric group and rounder in shape, bound with little clay material (Fig. 6d). measures between 90 and 205 μm in thickness, with The slip-painted samples of the Mixed Carbonate Group around 10% of quartz particles that are around 20 μmin (PS09, PS10, PS11) consists of a layer of white paint made size (see Ting et al. 2019,Fig. 5b). with coarser-grained quartz particles, overlying a brown slip The brown and green paint of the painted glazed samples of layer with a brighter matrix than the associated ceramic body the Micaceous Group has a different microstructure from the (Fig. 5c). More variations are observed in the slip of the Mixed paint of the Amphibole-Serpentine Group, as highlighted in Carbonate Group, as evident in the identification of the use of their biscuit-fired counterparts (PS17, PS18). Although the a mixture of quartz particles and clay (AG05, AG10), the presence of fine-grained apatite (PS05) and a compacted layer paint of both samples is corroded, darker patches and undis- solved quartz in a bright matrix can be recognised (Fig. 5b). A of non-calcareous clay (KF13). Adding to this variety is the paint layer of similar microstructure is not observable in the slip of the white-slipped samples of the Mixed Carbonate painted glazed samples that had undergone firing (KF08, Group, which displays similar features as those of the KF09, PS12, PS13, PS14, PS15, PS16) (see Fig. 7a). While Micaceous Group. 35 Page 10 of 22 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Fig. 5 BSE images showing the different microstructures exhibited by (a) the paint of a biscuit-fired slip-painted sample (PT23) of the Amphibole- Serpentine Group (Paphos production), b the paint of a biscuit-fired brown-painted sample (PS17) of the Micaceous Group (Lapithos production) and c the presence of an iron-rich slip and paint of the slip-painted sample (PS11) of the Mixed Carbonate Group (Famagusta production) Composition the unglazed biscuit-fired slip-painted samples of the Amphibole-Serpentine Group (PT23, PT24, PT25, PT26, With only a few exceptions, the composition of both white PT27) and the slip of the white-slipped samples of the paint and slip is consistent with each other and across fabric Mixed Carbonate Group (VS02, VS03) shows that the PbO groups. Noteworthy is that the analysis of the white paint of concentration is either low or below the limits of detection Fig. 6 BSE images showing the textural variation of the slip of the sgraffito samples a PS04, b PS06, c KF04 of the Micaceous Group (Lapithos production), and d the quartz-laden slip specific to the white-slipped sample (VS03) of the Mixed Carbonate Group (Famagusta production) Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Page 11 of 22 35 Fig. 7 BSE images showing the presence of a afew microcrystallites rich in lead and tin oxides in the glaze of sgraffito (PS03) of the Micaceous Group (Lapithos production), b needle- like microcrystallites rich in alumina, silica and lead oxide and equant microcrystallites rich in lime and silica in the glaze of the green-painted sample (PS15) of the Micaceous Group (Lapithos production), c a thick interaction layer and microcrystallites rich in lead antimonate in the glaze of the plain glazed sample (KF10) of the Mixed Carbonate Group (Famagusta production) and d microcrystallites rich in lead antimonate in the glaze of the bright, yellow plain glazed sample (KF13) of the Mixed Carbonate Group (Famagusta production) (Table 3). The PbO concentration in the paint and slip of the concentration (ca. 29 wt%). The addition of lead oxide to glazed ware samples, therefore, likely reflects a reaction with the slip or paint is likely to have strengthened the bond be- the glaze. Since PbO is not an original feature of the slips and tween the glaze and ceramic body, especially when double paints, for the further discussion, it was removed from their firing was performed (Molera et al. 2020). composition, which was then renormalised to 100 wt%. Also, the composition of the paint and slip is acquired from analysing both clay and particles as the difference between Glaze clay with and without particles is slight and systematic, with higher SiO in clay with particles due to added quartz. The Microstructure paint and slip tend to have higher Al O and SiO and lower 2 3 2 CaO and Fe O concentration than their associated ceramic The thickness of the glaze varies across ware types and fabric 2 3 body; suggesting that a different, alumina-rich clay was used groups (Table 4). All samples of the Amphibole-Serpentine for the paint/slip and ceramic body. Group have a thin interaction layer between the painted or Although alumina-rich clay was used to make the paint/ slipped ceramic body and glaze, with a few bright micropar- slip in most cases, higher CaO concentration (14.7 to ticles being found to have scattered in the glaze of some sam- 25.5 wt%) in the white slip of the sgraffito samples of the ples (PT04, PT11, PT14 and PT21) (see Ting et al. 2019,Fig. Micaceous Group (PS06 and PS07) and the white-slipped 5c). A similar microstructure can be observed in the glaze of sample of the Mixed Carbonate Group (AG06) points to the most samples of the Micaceous and Mixed Carbonate Groups use of calcareous clays. Higher Fe O concentration (8.5 to (Fig. 7a), but with a few exceptions. The painted glazed sam- 2 3 9.6 wt%) in the brown slip of the slip-painted samples of the ples of the Micaceous Group (KF08, KF09, PS12, PS13, Micaceous Group (PS09, PS10, PS11) and the plain glazed PS14, PS15, PS16) have needle-like and dark, equant (AG05, AG10) of the Mixed Carbonate Group suggests that microcrystallites, especially in the areas where the brown an iron-rich clay was used or iron oxide was added to the clay and green paint was applied (Fig. 7b). The glaze of the plain to enhance the colour. Other exceptions are the brown and glazed samples of the Mixed Carbonate Group (AG18, KF10) green paint of the painted glazed samples of the Micaceous is characterised by dark, elongated and equant Group. Analysis of the unglazed biscuit-fired painted-glazed microcrystallites throughout (Fig. 7c). The glaze of KF10 samples (PS17, PS18) reveals that the darker patches of the has bright microparticles (< 10 μm) concentrated at the glaze paint are non-calcareous clay with enriched Fe O or CuO margin. These bright microparticles are also identified along 2 3 concentration, whereas the brighter matrix has high PbO the glaze margin of another plain glazed sample of the same 35 Page 12 of 22 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Table 3 The composition (wt%), mean, and standard deviation (st. dev.) of the paint (P) and slip (SL) of the samples by SEM-EDS. I interior surface, E exterior surface. ‘–’ indicates not detected on analysis Fabric group Sample Layer Surface Thickness Analysis with Na OMgO Al O SiO P O K O CaO TiO Fe O CuO PbO 2 2 3 2 2 5 2 2 2 3 no. (um) inclusions Amphibole- KF05 P I 65 N 0.9 3.3 19.0 55.5 – 4.6 1.4 0.4 6.8 – 8.0 Serpentine PT01 P E 60 N 0.7 1.3 12.9 51.9 0.3 3.2 1.9 1.0 3.7 – 23.1 PT02 P E 50 N 0.9 0.9 20.7 53.7 0.2 4.4 0.9 1.4 2.6 – 14.1 PT03 P E 55 N 0.8 2.3 15.7 58.2 0.1 4.6 3.9 0.6 6.2 – 7.7 PT04 P I 60 N 0.5 0.4 16.7 58.8 0.1 2.9 0.4 1.1 1.7 – 17.2 PT05 P I 40 N 1.0 0.8 20.7 50.7 – 4.5 2.6 0.7 2.5 – 16.3 PT06 P I 65 N 1.0 1.9 19.8 47.7 0.2 4.5 2.1 0.8 5.8 – 16.3 PT07 P I 55 N 0.8 2.0 14.9 53.0 0.2 3.8 2.1 0.8 5.4 – 17.1 E 55 N 0.7 1.5 14.0 56.9 0.1 3.3 0.9 1.4 6.8 – 14.4 PT08 P I 40 N 1.5 0.9 24.3 52.3 – 4.7 1.7 0.8 2.7 – 11.1 PT09 SL I 90 Y 0.8 0.6 21.3 42.0 0.4 3.4 0.6 1.3 3.4 – 26.3 PT10 SL I 80 N 0.6 0.6 22.2 52.8 – 4.6 0.6 0.4 1.7 – 16.4 Y 0.6 1.0 19.6 55.7 0.1 3.8 2.8 0.8 3.2 – 12.1 PT11 SL I 115 N 0.8 0.6 27.8 41.2 – 4.1 0.5 1.8 1.4 – 21.5 Y 0.7 0.6 21.7 52.3 0.1 4.1 0.6 0.9 1.4 – 17.3 PT12 SL I 100 N 0.9 1.0 23.2 42.3 0.1 4.6 1.1 1.4 2.7 – 22.8 Y 0.9 2.5 15.4 59.7 0.2 4.1 3.3 0.8 6.4 – 6.7 PT13 SL I 90 N 0.8 0.3 26.8 48.0 – 3.9 0.2 0.6 1.3 – 17.7 Y 1.0 0.6 27.9 47.0 – 4.7 0.3 0.7 1.6 – 16.2 PT14 SL I 100 N 0.6 0.6 21.8 44.9 – 3.8 0.6 1.7 1.8 – 24.1 Y 0.5 0.5 20.6 48.4 – 3.8 0.4 1.7 1.1 – 22.5 PT15 SL I 95 N 0.6 0.6 24.4 49.1 0.4 4.7 1.0 2.0 2.6 – 14.6 Y 0.6 0.4 19.3 57.6 – 3.5 0.3 1.5 1.4 – 14.7 PT16 SL I 205 N 0.8 0.4 29.1 41.8 0.1 4.5 0.5 1.5 1.4 – 19.8 Y 0.6 0.4 15.6 60.7 0.5 2.8 2.4 0.9 1.2 – 14.8 PT17 SL I 195 N 0.6 0.7 24.6 36.2 – 3.9 0.4 1.0 1.8 – 30.7 Y 0.5 0.4 17.5 52.8 0.1 3.0 0.3 0.9 1.0 – 23.5 PT18 SL I 140 N 0.8 0.5 29.0 44.0 – 4.5 0.4 0.9 1.6 – 18.0 Y 0.5 0.4 14.5 66.3 – 2.8 0.4 1.0 1.0 – 13.0 P E 80 N 0.9 0.4 29.0 50.4 0.1 3.9 0.5 0.9 1.5 – 12.2 Y 0.6 0.4 17.0 67.0 0.2 3.0 0.6 0.8 1.3 – 8.9 PT19 SL I 105 N 0.7 0.8 29.6 41.5 – 3.7 0.3 1.0 1.6 – 20.7 Y 0.7 0.6 20.8 50.9 – 3.5 1.5 1.9 1.7 – 18.4 P E 90 N 0.7 0.4 23.0 43.7 – 4.1 0.7 0.9 1.3 – 24.8 Y 1.1 3.3 19.6 54.0 – 4.9 2.5 0.4 6.3 – 7.9 PT20 SL I 100 N 0.8 0.6 29.9 44.5 – 4.5 0.5 0.3 1.3 – 17.5 Y 0.7 0.4 19.2 54.9 – 3.6 0.5 2.0 1.5 – 17.0 P E 55 N 0.7 0.5 24.1 37.5 0.4 3.5 0.6 1.3 2.1 – 29.2 Y 0.9 0.7 20.3 43.2 4.0 4.3 0.6 0.7 1.8 – 23.5 PT21 SL I 90 N 0.7 0.7 21.0 43.9 0.8 4.2 2.8 0.9 1.8 – 23.1 Y 0.8 3.0 16.3 50.4 0.1 4.7 2.7 0.8 8.4 – 12.8 P E 120 N 0.7 2.6 15.1 52.4 – 4.6 2.2 0.4 8.6 – 13.4 Y 0.8 2.4 14.9 56.9 0.2 3.9 3.7 0.6 6.9 – 9.7 PT23 P I 60 N 1.0 0.8 35.2 53.7 – 4.7 0.3 1.2 2.5 – 0.6 PT24 P I 50 N 1.8 1.1 35.8 50.5 – 5.5 0.9 0.8 2.9 – 0.6 Micaceous PT25 P I 50 N 1.2 0.8 33.4 53.9 – 6.1 0.6 1.0 2.4 – 0.6 PT26 P E 30 N 2.6 0.9 33.4 46.3 – 9.4 1.6 0.6 2.6 – 2.5 PT27 P I 25 N 0.9 1.2 34.8 50.8 0.2 5.5 0.8 0.9 2.5 – 0.6 Mean (paint) 1.0 1.4 22.0 52.6 0.5 4.5 1.5 0.9 3.9 – 12.0 St. dev. (paint) 0.4 0.9 7.6 6.4 1.1 1.3 1.0 0.3 2.2 – 8.1 Mean (slip) 0.7 0.7 22.4 49.2 0.3 4.0 1.0 1.1 2.2 – 18.5 St. dev. (slip) 0.1 0.6 4.8 7.3 0.2 0.6 1.0 0.5 1.7 – 5.2 AG19 SL I 135 N 3.8 1.3 18.6 62.4 0.2 7.5 1.6 1.2 0.6 – 2.8 Y 0.6 0.6 7.8 81.1 0.2 5.9 1.1 0.5 0.5 – 1.7 E 145 N 2.5 1.1 18.1 62.4 0.1 10.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 – 1.9 Y 0.6 0.7 8.9 74.1 – 7.1 5.9 0.1 0.4 – 2.3 AG20 SL I 100 N 1.0 1.7 22.7 46.1 – 4.9 0.7 0.1 1.0 – 21.7 Y 1.4 1.2 15.3 60.6 – 4.8 1.0 0.2 1.5 – 14.0 E 115 N 1.3 1.9 22.6 56.7 – 5.9 0.9 – 1.4 – 9.3 Y 1.5 1.1 14.8 67.4 – 4.9 1.2 0.3 1.4 – 7.3 KF02 SL I 170 N 1.0 1.1 28.5 45.4 – 5.0 0.4 0.3 1.2 – 17.1 Y 0.4 0.3 7.7 81.7 – 2.5 0.3 0.4 0.6 – 6.3 E 155 N 0.9 1.1 27.1 47.5 – 4.5 0.2 0.5 1.9 – 16.1 Y 0.3 0.4 8.6 79.0 – 2.5 0.2 0.5 1.0 – 7.5 KF04 SL I 140 N 0.9 0.7 32.8 51.2 – 4.8 0.7 0.5 1.7 – 6.7 Y 0.4 0.9 15.7 75.4 – 2.3 2.0 0.8 0.9 – 1.6 KF06 SL I 45 N 2.0 2.1 13.5 65.5 – 5.6 0.8 0.1 1.6 – 8.8 Y 1.8 3.8 13.7 58.4 – 4.9 1.2 0.1 2.3 – 13.7 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Page 13 of 22 35 Table 3 (continued) Fabric group Sample Layer Surface Thickness Analysis with Na OMgO Al O SiO P O K O CaO TiO Fe O CuO PbO 2 2 3 2 2 5 2 2 2 3 no. (um) inclusions PS02 SL I 100 N 2.2 0.9 13.6 62.3 – 5.2 2.0 0.1 1.5 – 12.1 Y 1.8 0.9 12.6 59.3 – 4.4 6.6 0.3 2.5 – 11.5 PS03 SL I 135 N 1.4 1.4 24.9 40.4 0.1 4.1 0.8 0.1 0.9 – 25.8 Y 1.5 1.0 15.3 60.6 – 5.3 3.0 0.2 1.2 – 11.7 PS04 SL I 80 N 0.6 1.9 20.3 54.8 – 4.6 2.6 1.6 1.8 – 11.7 Y 0.4 1.6 12.5 69.0 – 3.4 2.6 0.1 1.5 – 8.7 PS06 SL I 75 N 0.5 0.7 5.6 59.8 – 3.0 25.5 0.1 0.6 – 4.2 Y 0.3 0.3 4.0 88.4 – 2.1 2.1 0.1 0.6 – 2.1 PS07 SL I 75 N 0.5 0.7 6.6 69.2 – 2.7 14.7 0.3 0.8 – 4.2 Y 0.6 0.4 7.2 76.6 0.1 3.0 5.3 0.4 0.9 – 5.5 E N 0.3 1.2 5.5 70.0 0.1 2.0 16.3 0.2 0.7 – 3.6 Y 0.5 0.4 6.8 78.7 – 2.7 4.5 0.6 0.8 – 4.9 PS17 P I 50 Y 0.3 2.0 4.3 20.5 – 0.4 4.2 0.1 39.0 – 29.0 PS18 P I 50 Y 0.8 0.7 7.4 38.5 – 1.5 0.6 0.1 1.0 2.2 47.3 VS04 SL I 135 N 0.6 0.7 13.8 65.2 – 3.8 0.3 0.3 0.7 – 14.6 Y 0.3 0.3 6.7 83.1 – 2.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 – 6.5 E 85 N 0.7 1.2 21.4 51.2 – 5.6 0.4 0.6 1.2 – 17.7 Y 0.3 0.3 7.4 80.5 – 2.5 0.3 0.3 0.5 – 7.9 Mean (paint) 0.6 1.4 5.9 29.5 – 0.9 2.4 0.1 20.0 2.2 38.1 St. dev. (paint) 0.4 1.0 2.2 12.7 – 0.8 2.6 0.03 26.9 – 12.9 Mean (slip) 1.0 1.0 14.4 65.1 0.2 4.3 3.4 0.4 1.1 – 9.1 St. dev. (slip) 0.8 0.7 7.7 12.6 0.03 1.9 5.6 0.4 0.6 – 6.2 Mixed AG05 SL I 140 N 0.6 2.2 23.3 38.7 2.0 4.5 3.4 2.2 6.3 – 16.9 Carbonate Y 0.8 2.9 20.2 37.4 1.9 4.7 1.8 1.0 7.5 – 21.9 AG06 P I 50 N 1.2 6.1 12.3 41.3 1.8 1.4 13.1 2.8 8.8 – 11.2 AG10 SL I 50 N 0.8 2.4 20.5 36.2 1.4 4.8 1.6 1.4 6.4 – 24.4 Y 0.7 2.8 20.4 40.0 1.3 4.5 2.4 0.5 6.1 – 20.8 KF13 SL I 50 N 2.3 4.5 17.6 59.3 – 6.3 1.4 0.1 2.4 – 6.1 E 60 N 2.3 4.7 16.9 55.2 – 6.5 1.5 0.1 2.3 – 10.3 PS05 SL I 70 N 0.5 2.1 32.9 54.4 – 7.3 1.6 0.1 0.9 – 0.2 Y 0.4 1.4 25.2 63.3 0.4 5.4 2.4 0.2 1.1 – 0.2 E 55 N 0.3 2.1 31.7 54.9 0.7 7.0 2.0 0.1 0.8 – 0.3 Y 0.3 1.7 25.4 64.2 – 5.9 1.4 0.3 0.7 – 0.2 PS09 SL I 30 Y 1.0 6.4 27.5 46.1 0.2 6.2 0.9 1.2 9.5 – 0.9 P 100 N 0.8 0.9 13.7 68.5 – 8.7 0.5 0.2 0.4 – 6.2 Y 0.5 1.1 9.7 75.1 0.3 6.4 1.2 0.6 1.1 – 4.2 PS10 SL I 115 Y 1.4 6.4 22.9 49.2 0.2 4.9 4.3 1.1 9.2 – 0.4 P 110 N 0.5 1.4 10.5 74.0 0.1 6.9 1.3 0.9 1.0 – 3.5 Y 0.7 1.0 10.3 73.3 0.2 5.2 0.6 0.1 0.5 – 8.1 PS11 SL I 140 Y 1.1 8.2 16.6 50.8 0.3 5.8 5.9 1.5 9.2 – 0.6 P 165 N 0.9 0.7 20.2 66.3 0.2 4.1 0.5 0.5 0.9 – 5.7 Y 0.7 0.4 18.9 69.8 0.3 3.8 0.5 1.1 1.0 – 3.5 VS02 SL I 165 N 3.0 4.4 16.1 58.0 – 5.7 5.7 0.2 4.7 – 2.1 Y 0.4 1.2 5.2 83.2 – 2.9 2.4 0.2 2.0 – 2.5 VS03 SL I 75 N 1.2 1.4 19.9 61.2 – 5.8 0.4 0.5 0.9 – 8.8 Y 0.3 0.4 5.2 87.6 – 1.9 0.4 1.1 0.5 – 2.4 Mean (paint) 0.7 0.9 13.9 71.2 0.2 5.8 0.8 0.6 0.8 – 5.2 St. dev. (paint) 0.2 0.3 4.6 3.5 0.1 1.9 0.4 0.4 0.3 – 1.8 Mean (slip) 1.2 3.8 18.5 55.9 0.9 5.0 3.1 0.8 4.7 – 6.6 St. dev. (slip) 0.8 2.4 7.7 15.1 0.8 1.8 3.4 0.8 3.6 – 8.0 The values in italic are the calculation based on the values that are not in italic fabric group (KF13), resulting in the presence of double- (AG18, KF10). These samples also have higher values of glazed layers (Fig. 7d). alumina, alkali, and alkaline earth oxides in the glaze (Fig. 8). The higher concentration of these oxides in the painted glazed samples was likely caused by an interaction Composition with the clay-based paint, as revealed by the analysis of the paint of the biscuit-fired samples (PS17, PS18), resulting in All samples, regardless of their ware types and fabric groups, the formation of wollastonite (dark, equant microcrystallites) are lead glazes, with the majority having PbO concentrations and lead-feldspar (needle-like microcrystallites) in the painted over 50 wt% (Table 4). Lower PbO concentration is detected areas. For AG18 and KF10, there is a gradual decrease in in the glaze of the painted glazed samples of the Micaceous MgO, Al O , CaO and Fe O and increase of PbO concentra- Group (KF08, KF09, PS12, PS13, PS14, PS15, PS16) and the 2 3 2 3 tion from the ceramic-glaze interface to the glaze margin green plain glazed samples of the Mixed Carbonate Group 35 Page 14 of 22 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 (Supplementary Fig. 1). This compositional change, coupled respectively, which are hypothesised to have been the main with the thick interaction layer, suggests that the glaze was locations where the Cypriot glazed ware productions took applied to an unfired ceramic body, stimulating the partial place based on the results of stylistic analysis (du Plat Taylor absorption of ceramic material into the glaze. and Megaw 1951; Papanikola-Bakirtzi 1989, 1996, 2012; In terms of glaze colourants, the green glaze is coloured by Vallauri and François 2010; von Wartburg 1997;Waksman CuO, whereas most yellow and brown glazes have higher Fe O and von Wartburg 2006). The Amphibole-Serpentine Group 2 3 concentration. Low SnO concentration (< 1.0 wt%) is detected represents the production in Paphos at the western tip of the in PS13, PS16, PT04, PT11, PT14 and PT21, present as bright island, where serpentine is one of the main lithologies of the microcrystallitesrichinPbO andSnO . Judging from their shape igneous and sedimentary rocks of the Mamonia Formation and rare occurrence, it is likely that the SnO was incorporated as (Hadjistavrinou and Afrodisis 1977; Robertson and impurities associated with the flux. We have previously argued Woodcock 1979). The provenance of this fabric group is fur- that Roman lead pipes and solders might have been used as flux ther confirmed by its similarity with the mineralogical descrip- for the glaze as natural lead ores are rare in Cyprus (Ting et al. tion of the local production of Late Hellenistic colour-coated 2019; see also Segal 2015; Wyttenbach and Schubiger 1973). pottery at Nea Paphos, which was established through the Around 2.0 wt% of Sb O is present in the plain glazed samples comparison with the sediments collected along the Ezousa 2 5 of the Mixed Carbonate Group (KF10, KF13), which contain River (Marzec et al. 2019). The dominance of biotite, quartz bright microparticles rich in PbO and Sb O ,leadingtoanin- and limestone of the Micaceous Group aligns with the geolo- 2 5 tense yellow glaze of KF13. It is not clear whether the lead gy of the Lapithos region, the potential provenance of this antimonate was included intentionally to colour the glaze of fabric. Situated at the northern coast, Lapithos is underlain KF10. The brown glaze seen in the plain glazed samples by sediments from the Kyrenia Range, comprising marbles (AG05, AG10) and the slip-painted samples (PS09, PS10, and limestones of the Hilarion Formation and metamorphic PS11) of the Mixed Carbonate Group and the white glaze seen rocks of Troodos Pillow Lavas. Lapithos is known to have in the white-slipped samples of the Micaceous (AG19, AG20, been involved in pottery production from Bronze Age until VS04) and Mixed Carbonate Groups (AG06) were created modern times. Whereas the recipes for the Bronze Age pottery through the application of transparent lead glaze over an iron- are yet to be determined as part of ongoing research by rich brown slip and quartz-laden white slip, respectively. Dikomitou-Eliadou (2019), the mineralogy of the Micaceous Analysis of the painted and unpainted areas of painted glazed Group seems to be consistent with the description of the samples of the Micaceous Group (PS14, PS16) shows that a Lapithos productions characterised by Constantinou and transparent glaze was also used to cover the painted glazed sam- Panayides (2019) drawing references to ethnographic and ples, but the interaction with the underlying paint resulted in the geological records. The micritic texture and the presence of transferal of the oxides used as colourants (Fe O and CuO) from different kinds of carbonate inclusions of the Mixed 2 3 the paint to the glaze. Carbonate Group point to the Famagusta region as its possible By removing the oxides relating to the flux and colourants origin. Sandy marls, calcareous sands and bioclastic lime- from the glaze composition, and plotting the renormalised glaze stones of the Athalassa Formation cover the eastern coast and associated ceramic body or slip composition (Hurst and where Famagusta is located (Bear 1963). Freestone 1996; Walton and Tite 2010) (Supplementary Fig. 2), the Micaceous Group samples fall on the unity slope Reconstruction of technical practices of different line, whereas the Mixed Carbonate Group samples deviate slight- productions ly from it. In contrast, the Amphibole-Serpentine Group samples do not fall on the unity slope line. Such patterning suggests that Paphos production lead oxide was applied directly to thesurface of thevessels of the Micaceous and some vessels of the Mixed Carbonate Groups to The glazed wares designated as the Paphos production, which form the glaze, while a lead-silica mixture was used to make the include slip-painted, plain glazed, sgraffito and sgraffito with glaze belonging to the Amphibole-Serpentine Group. slip-painted decoration, are dated to the thirteenth century CE. These vessels were all made using the same recipes of the ceramic body, paint, slip and glaze and following the same Discussion production sequence. Local clay was procured to form the ceramic body, which was then covered with white paint or Provenance determination of the compositional slip. The paint was made of alumina-rich clay with little to groups no inclusions, whereas the slip was a mixture of alumina-rich clay and fine-grained quartz. The surface of sgraffito was fur- The mineralogy of the three fabric groups is consistent with ther incised to expose the ceramic body underneath. All the geology of the Paphos, Famagusta and Lapithos regions, painted and slipped wares were fired before the glaze Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Page 15 of 22 35 Table 4 The composition (wt%), mean, and standard deviation (st. dev.) of the glaze of the samples by SEM-EDS. I interior surface, E exterior surface, Y yellow glaze, G green glaze, Br brown glaze, T transparent glaze. ‘–’ indicates not detected on analysis Fabric group Sample no. Surface Thickness (um) Colour Area inclusive of particle/crystallite Na OMgOAl O SiO K OCaOTiO Fe O CuO SnO Sb O PBO 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 5 Amphibole-Serpentine KF05 I 110 Y N 0.1 0.3 2.6 28.3 0.4 1.0 0.1 3.1 –– – 64.0 PT01 E 115 T N 0.1 0.2 4.6 34.8 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.1 – 0.2 57.8 PT02 E 75 G N 0.3 0.4 5.4 39.7 1.2 1.2 0.3 1.1 1.5 0.2 0.2 48.5 PT03 E 75 Y N 0.2 0.4 3.0 31.0 0.6 3.0 0.2 3.6 0.2 –– 57.9 PT04 I 55 G N 0.1 0.2 5.4 30.3 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.6 1.9 – 0.3 59.6 Y 0.1 0.2 5.6 29.7 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.6 – 0.2 0.4 59.6 PT05 I 130 Y N 0.1 0.5 1.7 23.2 0.3 1.6 0.1 3.6 –– – 68.9 PT06 I 50 T N 0.2 0.6 4.1 34.9 0.9 1.7 0.2 1.8 0.2 – 0.1 55.3 PT07 I 60 Y N 0.2 0.6 3.7 26.6 0.5 1.9 0.2 1.7 –– – 64.7 E 65 T N 0.1 0.2 3.4 33.7 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.1 –– 60.5 PT08 I 100 Y N 0.2 0.4 1.6 27.7 0.4 2.0 0.1 1.2 –– – 66.3 PT09 I 160 Y N 0.2 0.2 4.6 41.9 0.6 0.6 0.2 3.3 –– – 48.3 PT10 I 130 Y N 0.2 0.6 4.2 29.7 0.7 2.7 0.3 3.5 –– 0.1 58.0 PT11 I 75 G N 0.1 0.3 4.3 33.7 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.8 1.8 0.5 – 56.7 Y 0.1 0.3 4.0 32.9 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.9 2.0 0.7 – 57.3 PT12 I 120 Y N 0.1 0.4 4.5 27.1 0.5 1.2 0.3 4.1 0.1 – 0.3 61.7 TN – 0.2 4.6 32.0 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.5 1.0 – 0.2 60.0 G N 0.1 0.6 4.7 30.0 0.7 1.8 0.2 1.5 2.4 – 0.2 57.6 E 50 T? N 0.4 1.4 7.5 37.1 1.5 2.6 0.4 5.6 0.1 – 0.2 43.3 PT13 I 95 Y N 0.3 0.6 5.4 31.0 1.0 2.5 0.3 3.2 0.2 –– 55.4 TN – 0.3 3.7 28.7 0.5 1.1 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.6 – 63.3 GN – 0.3 3.7 26.8 0.4 1.1 0.2 0.7 1.9 0.4 – 64.4 E 120 T? N 0.3 0.8 4.0 28.6 0.8 3.5 0.2 5.3 0.1 – 0.1 56.4 PT14 I 45 Y N 0.2 0.2 4.2 30.2 0.4 1.4 0.2 2.3 0.3 – 0.2 60.4 G N 0.1 0.3 3.7 29.2 0.3 0.9 0.2 – 1.4 – 0.2 63.3 Y – 0.2 3.0 28.8 0.3 0.9 0.2 0.5 1.6 0.1 0.2 64.3 E T? N 0.2 0.4 5.1 34.8 0.8 2.0 0.2 3.8 0.3 –– 52.2 PT15 I 80 Y N 0.2 0.3 4.2 24.2 0.5 1.1 0.2 3.4 –– – 65.9 E 60 T? N 0.2 0.6 3.7 28.7 0.6 1.9 0.2 4.4 –– – 59.8 PT16 I 65 Y N 0.2 0.3 3.9 36.8 0.6 1.8 0.2 0.7 0.2 – 0.1 55.2 E 60 T? N 0.3 1.2 5.0 39.5 1.3 4.3 0.2 2.6 1.0 0.5 – 43.9 PT17 I 90 Y N 0.1 0.2 3.3 28.5 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.5 0.5 –– 65.4 G N 0.2 0.5 3.9 27.6 0.6 1.4 0.2 1.2 0.6 –– 63.9 E 100 T? N 0.3 0.5 4.1 28.0 0.8 2.1 0.2 2.3 0.1 –– 61.7 PT18 I 100 G N – 0.2 3.2 30.9 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.5 2.0 0.3 – 61.8 E 50 G N 0.1 0.2 3.3 37.1 0.6 0.8 0.2 1.3 2.0 0.5 – 53.8 PT19 I 50 G N 0.1 0.2 2.8 32.8 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.9 0.2 – 0.3 61.6 E 60 G N 0.5 1.4 8.2 43.4 2.1 2.9 0.6 3.8 0.1 – 0.2 37.0 PT20 I 55 Y N – 0.2 3.2 31.2 0.4 0.8 0.2 1.8 0.4 0.3 0.1 61.3 E 100 Y N 0.3 0.8 5.6 40.2 1.5 2.2 0.3 5.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 43.7 PT21 I 115 G/Y N – 0.3 2.1 29.1 0.4 2.1 0.2 0.8 1.4 0.2 0.2 63.2 Y 0.1 0.5 1.7 27.4 0.3 1.8 0.2 1.4 1.2 0.2 0.7 64.6 E 80 G/Y N 0.1 0.5 2.9 25.7 0.4 1.4 0.2 1.0 1.2 0.1 0.3 66.3 Mean 0.1 0.3 3.7 30.5 0.5 1.4 0.2 1.7 0.7 0.3 0.2 60.6 St. dev. 0.1 0.2 1.1 4.2 0.2 0.7 0.1 1.2 0.8 0.2 0.1 4.9 35 Page 16 of 22 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Table 4 (continued) Fabric group Sample no. Surface Thickness (um) Colour Area inclusive of particle/crystallite Na OMgOAl O SiO K OCaOTiO Fe O CuO SnO Sb O PBO 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 5 Micaceous AG19 I 75 T N 0.4 0.2 1.7 34.1 1.2 1.8 0.1 0.3 –– – 60.1 E 50 T N 0.5 0.2 3.4 39.3 2.4 1.6 – 0.3 0.1 –– 52.2 AG20 I 10 T N 0.4 0.2 3.8 27.4 0.6 1.4 – 0.4 –– – 65.8 E 10 T N 0.3 0.2 3.9 33.0 0.6 1.4 – 0.4 0.2 –– 59.9 KF02 I 85 Y N 0.2 0.2 2.4 31.0 0.4 1.2 – 2.5 0.1 –– 61.8 E80 T N – 0.2 2.4 30.8 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 –– – 65.7 KF04 I 60 Y N 0.1 0.3 3.6 32.9 0.4 1.8 0.3 1.5 0.4 –– 58.9 E 100 T N 0.2 0.8 4.3 30.3 0.8 1.4 0.2 3.8 0.3 –– 58.0 KF06 I 65 G N 0.3 0.9 4.8 22.8 0.4 0.6 – 0.9 2.3 –– 67.0 T N 0.5 0.9 5.0 24.0 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.7 0.4 –– 67.6 KF08 I 35 Br? N 1.2 1.7 12.5 51.0 5.1 2.8 – 3.6 0.1 –– 21.8 Y 1.2 1.6 12.8 52.7 5.3 2.5 0.1 2.2 0.3 21.3 KF09 I 45 G/Br? N 1.2 1.9 9.9 41.7 3.0 2.6 0.1 3.7 3.1 0.7 – 32.1 Y 1.0 2.6 10.4 42.6 3.6 2.4 0.2 4.0 2.9 –– 30.3 PS01 I 80 Y N 0.5 1.3 5.2 31.8 0.8 0.9 – 0.9 –– – 58.6 G N 0.5 1.3 5.4 29.4 0.7 1.3 – 1.0 1.5 –– 58.9 PS02 I 170 T N 0.6 0.4 3.9 29.6 0.6 0.5 – 0.8 0.1 –– 63.5 G N 0.5 0.5 4.2 30.9 0.7 0.7 – 0.6 1.0 –– 60.9 PS03 I 50 G N 0.4 0.5 4.6 32.3 0.7 1.6 – 0.5 1.4 –– 57.8 PS04 I 75 G N – 0.6 2.7 31.0 0.7 1.9 – 0.5 2.1 –– 60.3 PS06 I 100 T N 0.2 0.1 1.4 35.1 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.4 –– 60.8 PS07 I 100 Y N 0.2 0.2 2.1 34.2 0.6 0.9 0.2 3.1 0.2 –– 58.4 GN – 0.3 2.2 32.1 0.6 1.2 0.1 2.5 2.8 –– 58.0 E 80 T N 0.2 0.2 2.2 37.8 0.7 0.5 – 0.3 0.1 –– 58.0 PS12 I 75 Br? N 0.8 1.2 6.5 29.2 1.1 1.3 0.1 4.7 0.5 –– 54.5 Y 0.9 1.2 7.4 31.6 1.8 1.7 – 5.3 0.5 –– 49.5 PS13 I 60 G? N 1.2 1.5 9.2 45.4 2.9 1.7 0.2 2.3 4.7 0.7 – 30.3 Y 1.1 1.5 9.4 46.6 3.0 2.0 – 2.1 4.8 0.9 – 28.6 PS14 I 60 G? N 0.5 1.2 5.6 24.7 0.6 1.6 0.2 2.4 6.3 –– 57.0 Y 0.5 1.3 5.9 25.8 0.7 1.7 – 2.5 5.0 –– 56.8 T N 0.9 1.2 7.0 31.4 1.1 0.8 – 0.9 0.4 –– 56.3 PS15 I 80 G? N 0.9 1.4 8.6 33.1 1.4 1.6 0.2 2.6 3.2 –– 47.0 Y 0.8 2.6 9.9 36.1 2.3 3.7 0.2 2.8 2.7 –– 38.9 Br? N 0.9 1.8 8.6 35.9 1.9 2.0 0.2 2.9 0.6 –– 45.2 Y 0.9 1.9 9.1 37.5 2.4 2.3 0.1 2.6 0.5 –– 42.6 PS16 I 50 Br? N 0.9 1.5 8.0 38.4 1.5 1.6 – 4.2 1.5 2.0 – 41.4 Y 1.0 3.3 13.7 47.4 3.8 5.2 0.3 3.9 – 0.9 – 21.1 T N 0.9 1.5 8.2 38.5 1.5 1.0 – 1.2 – 1.3 – 45.8 VS04 I 10 T N 0.1 0.1 3.8 35.9 0.8 0.2 – 0.1 –– – 58.8 E10 T N – 0.1 2.3 28.6 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 –– 68.0 Mean 0.6 1.0 5.8 34.2 1.4 1.4 0.2 1.8 1.2 1.3 – 52.3 St. dev. 0.4 0.8 3.1 6.4 1.1 1.0 0.1 1.4 1.7 0.7 – 12.6 Mixed Carbonate AG05 I 80 T N 0.3 0.9 4.6 29.3 – 0.9 0.9 0.2 1.7 0.3 – 61.1 AG06 I 10 T N 0.2 0.3 1.4 29.5 0.2 1.5 – 1.5 0.1 –– 65.3 AG10 I 60 T N 0.1 0.3 2.9 23.2 0.3 0.7 0.1 1.1 0.1 –– 71.1 AG18 I 180 G N 1.8 0.3 6.4 38.6 2.0 5.6 0.4 2.8 1.8 –– 40.5 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Page 17 of 22 35 application, which were subjected to a second firing, as indi- cated by the thin interaction layer between the glaze and slip or ceramic body. The glaze was a mixture of lead oxide and silica, coloured by copper and iron oxides. Famagusta production The earliest evidence of the Famagusta production in this study are the plain glazed wares dated to the thirteenth to fourteenth centuries, which exhibit different technical prac- tices. The green glaze was applied to an unfired, unslipped ceramic body, resulting in a thick interaction layer, and the chemical contribution of the ceramic body to the glaze. For the brown plain glazed wares, the ceramic body was covered with an iron-rich clay slip, which was fired before applying a layer of transparent lead glaze. This technique of covering the ce- ramic body with coloured slip and transparent glaze was also used to make the slip-painted wares dated to the fourteenth to fifteenth centuries. The slipped body was further decorated with white paint, which was made of alumina-rich clay and coarse-grained quartz. The Famagusta production appears to have continued dur- ing the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, with new, more diverse technical practices being introduced to make sgraffito, white-slipped and plain glazed wares. The slip of the sgraffito was made of alumina-rich clay with a few apatite inclusions and no quartz. The interior and exterior surfaces of the sgraf- fito were fully covered with white slip and coloured glaze rather than covering only the interior surface with slip and using coloured glazes to create splash decoration, as typical of other productions. It was also during this phase that the use of quartz-laden slip is recorded in the white-slipped ware. This production is further distinguished by the use of lead antimonate as colourant to create an intense yellow glaze for the plain glazed ware, which was not seen in other Cypriot productions. Lapithos production The glazed wares identified as Lapithos production fall into two broad phases. The early phase is dominated by sgraffito, dated between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries. Although the production sequence displayed by the sgraffito was similar to that of the Paphos production, variation exists in the slip and glaze preparation method. Alumina-rich or calcareous clays mixed with quartz of varying shapes, sizes and abundance were used to make the slip, suggesting the co- existence of different potting groups in Lapithos. The glaze was formed by applying lead oxide directly to the fired ceram- ic body, as the renormalised glaze composition after removing the lead oxide value is similar to the underlying slip composition. Table 4 (continued) Fabric group Sample no. Surface Thickness (um) Colour Area inclusive of particle/crystallite Na OMgOAl O SiO K OCaOTiO Fe O CuO SnO Sb O PBO 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 5 Y 1.6 2.3 5.7 41.2 1.8 8.1 0.3 3.1 1.3 –– 34.7 KF10 I 110 G N 2.1 0.4 7.6 49.3 3.7 5.2 0.1 3.0 0.6 – 1.7 26.6 Y 1.8 3.7 7.6 48.2 2.8 9.7 0.2 3.5 0.4 – 1.5 20.6 KF13 I 160 Y N 0.9 0.9 4.8 34.9 1.4 1.6 – 0.6 –– 2.0 52.9 Y 0.8 0.9 3.8 33.6 1.1 1.4 – 0.5 –– 2.2 55.8 E 140 Y N 0.8 0.9 4.2 33.0 1.0 1.5 – 0.5 –– 2.1 55.8 Y 0.8 0.9 3.9 32.7 1.1 1.6 – 0.6 –– 2.5 56.0 PS05 I 120 G N 0.2 0.4 2.4 26.2 0.4 0.6 – 2.1 1.8 –– 65.8 Y N 0.1 0.5 2.7 24.2 0.5 0.7 – 3.1 0.1 –– 68.1 E 100 G N 0.2 0.4 2.9 27.5 0.6 0.9 0.1 1.2 1.5 –– 64.8 PS09 I 50 T N 0.2 0.4 2.5 36.3 0.9 1.1 0.1 0.8 0.1 –– 57.7 PS10 I 75 T N 0.4 0.6 2.5 31.6 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.9 0.2 –– 61.5 PS11 I 40 T N 1.0 0.3 3.8 35.7 1.8 0.7 0.2 0.4 –– – 56.1 Mean 0.8 0.8 4.1 34.0 1.2 2.6 0.2 1.6 0.7 0.3 1.9 53.5 St. dev. 0.7 1.0 2.0 7.9 1.0 3.0 0.2 1.2 0.7 – 0.3 15.6 The values in italic are the calculation based on the values that are not in italic 35 Page 18 of 22 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Fig. 8 Biplots showing that the glaze of the painted samples of the concentration. The blue samples represent the Amphibole-Serpentine Micaceous Group (KF08-09, PS12-16) and the plain glazed samples of Group (Paphos production), yellow samples of the Micaceous Group the Mixed Carbonate Group (AG18, KF10) deviate from other samples (Lapithos production), and red samples of the Mixed Carbonate Group by having higher a MgO and K O concentration, and b Al O and CaO (Famagusta production) 2 2 3 Technological change occurred during the sixteenth to sev- Glazed ware production in Cyprus began in the thirteenth enteenth centuries, evidenced by the introduction of painted century, stimulated by the establishment of Frankish rule on glazed ware. Incision and splashing coloured glazes, which the island (Cook 2014; von Wartburg 1997). The Franks’ were commonly used to decorate sgraffito, were replaced by involvement in the Crusader campaigns created demand for painting. The paint was a mixture of iron or copper oxide- Cypriot goods, with ports such as Limassol and Paphos func- enriched clay and lead oxide, different from the paint of the tioning as stopovers for pilgrims to refill supplies on their way slip-painted ware of the Paphos and Famagusta productions. to the Levant (Coureas 1995, 2005;Stern 2012). Accordingly, The vessels were first fired, followed by the painting of pre- the vast majority of glazed wares that are stylistically typical cise patterns on their interior surface and the application of a of the Paphos production were recovered in the Levant (Boaz layer of transparent glaze. Such order of paint and glaze ap- 1999;Stern 2014), with only a few being found in Cyprus; plication is confirmed by the identification of the growth of pointing to a targeted export to the Crusader States. This may the newly formed wollastonite and lead-feldspar explain why the Paphos production declined shortly after the microcrystallites specifically in the areas where the painted collapse of the Crusader States in the East, following the fall decorations were present. Despite the shift in decorative tech- of Acre in 1291 (Cook 2014; von Wartburg 1997). nique, the glaze preparation method remained constant, in Despite the loss of the Crusaders markets, production contin- which lead oxide rather than a lead-silica mixture was used. ued in the Famagusta and Lapithos region, with their products largely circulating within Cyprus. The collapse of the Crusader entities triggered the relocation of trading outposts from the The developments of glazed ware productions in Levant to Cyprus by the Western powers (Ashtor 1983; medieval and post-medieval Cyprus Edbury 1991), enabling its transformation to a regional and in- ternational trading hub (Coureas 2005;Day 2002; Edbury 1999; Özkutlu 2014). Historical records highlighted the pivotal role Three major observations emerge by comparing the three pro- ductions. First, there is little overlap in technological reper- played by Famagusta in the pan-Mediterranean trade during the toires and trajectories among them. Second, over time, greater thirteenth to fifteenth centuries (Edbury 1999; Jacoby 1989; variety of technical practices appear to have developed in the Philips 1995), whereas another trading settlement is said to have Famagusta and Lapithos productions. Third, while the Paphos been built in Lapithos and its adjacent port in Kyrenia (Jacoby production was a short-lived one, the Lapithos and Famagusta 1977). Such a surge in commercial activities not only attracted productions remained active for a much longer period, and merchants from the West, particularly the Genoese and underwent significant changes during the sixteenth and sev- Venetians, but also offered opportunities for local populations enteenth centuries. We argue that these developments are to get involved in trade and related activities. All these contrib- linked to the socio-political and economic developments in uted to an overall elevation in wealth and social status within the Cyprus and the broader eastern Mediterranean of the time. Cypriot society, generating a local demand for glazed wares. Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Page 19 of 22 35 The technical practices used by the Famagusta and pottery produced locally lost the refinement of shape and deco- Lapithos potters deviated from the Paphos ones, but the ware ration that characterised ceramics of the preceding late medieval types made by the three productions were broadly similar, period, but increased in volume, rendering it affordable for the represented by slip-painted, plain glaze and sgraffito. These less-affluent classes (Vionis 2016;Walker 2009). ware types bear close stylistic similarities with contemporane- The presence of Ottoman rule in Cyprus also induced forced ous ceramics from the Levant, specifically evident in the migration of people, including artisans, from mainland Anatolia. Paphos and early Lapithos sgraffito, and Port Saint Symeon It is argued that incoming artisans took over certain areas of craft Ware from the Frankish Principality of Antioch (Sanders production (Erdoğru 1997), but their involvement was not par- 2003; Stern 2012;Vionis 2017). This may be explained on ticularly obvious in pottery production, at least not among the the basis of the intensive contacts between Cyprus and the glazed wares under study. Whereas the use of lead antimonate as Levant first through the trading of the Paphos products in glaze colourant by the Famagusta production points to the pos- the thirteenth century. Later on, after the fall of Acre, this sible exchange of influence or raw materials from Anatolia influence in styles and technology accelerated after Christian (Constantinescu et al. 2014), other technical aspects of the populations fled from Syria and Palestine to Cyprus (Jacoby sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Famagusta and Lapithos pro- 2014), promoting the transferral of different bodies of techni- ductions seem to have had little in common with Iznik and cal knowledge and trends to the island, as evident in the tech- Miletus wares, the better-known examples of Ottoman pottery nological variations of the Famagusta and Lapithos produc- (Burlot et al. 2020;Henderson 1989; Paynter et al. 2004;Tite tions. However, a full reconstruction of technical practices of et al. 2016). In fact, some technical practices exhibited certain different productions in the neighbouring regions as such is extents of continuity, as seen in the glaze preparation method of still missing; thus, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly where the the Lapithos production, suggesting that technological changes influences might have derived from. occurred gradually by mixing local practices with new elements, Interestingly, little similarity exists between the technical possibly inspired by external contacts. practices used by the Famagusta and Lapithos productions, possibly because they were sponsored by competing merchant groups. Being the most prominent foreign merchants operating Conclusion in Cyprus, the Genoese were granted the exclusive right to trade in Famagusta, while the Venetians had stronger influence in Our study represents the first systematic characterisation of Kyrenia and other ports (Grivaud 1993;Özkutlu 2014); both local glazed ware productions across Cyprus. We identify are known to have modified the economic landscape of the three main regions—Paphos, Famagusta, and Lapithos— regions where they settled (García Porras and Fábregas García where production took place. Interpreting the results of mac- 2010). Given the constant vying for power between the roscopic, petrographic and SEM-EDS analyses in combina- Genoese and Venetians, some kind of measures might have tion with the chaîne opératoire reveals that each production been implemented to prevent the exchange of technical knowl- had distinctive sets of technical practices, and that these prac- edge between potters in Famagusta and Lapithos. Surviving tices changed through time. We argue that the changes in notarial deeds recorded that novices were tied to long-term technology and craft organisation were first linked to the rise apprenticeships to learn crafts such as ship-building and wood- and fall of the Crusader territories in the East, the emergence working (Coureas 2014), anditisreasonabletoassumethat of local demand as a result of an intensification of commercial similar schemes were applied to glazed ware production, too. activities and finally the restructuring of socio-political foun- The changes we identify in the Famagusta and Lapithos pro- dations brought by the Ottoman rule. ductions around the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were not These findings have important implications beyond their only limited to the technical practices, but also to the ware types regional archaeological significance. We have painted a dif- produced (i.e. white-slipped and painted glazed wares), which ferentiated picture of the nature and characteristics of non- we believe was stimulated by the Ottoman occupation of the opaque glazed ware productions from the earlier assumptions, island following the final capture of Famagusta in 1571. The in which they are described to be technologically stagnant and initial years of Ottoman rule saw the expulsion of the Venetian unsusceptible to broader socio-economic developments. rulers and the Western landholding classes, and the appointment Whereas it is likely that local production centres procured of a new non-Western ruling class (Erdoğru 1997;Given 2000). the same type of raw materials over time, it does not neces- In addition to restructuring the political order, drastic changes sarily imply that how the raw materials were prepared and the occurred to the socio-economic organisation. The reformation steps involved in making the vessels remained the same. We of the fiscal system, in particular, allowed agricultural taxes to have further demonstrated that the emergence of local produc- be paid in cash rather than in kind, providing means for rural tions was stimulated by a wide array of factors, largely con- communities to accumulate wealth (Quataert 2000). As ceramic text-specific. These new observations are made evident owing research in other regions under Ottoman rule has illustrated, to the new research framework developed by our study, 35 Page 20 of 22 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 highlighting the importance of considering the whole produc- References tion sequence rather than focusing on one or two technologi- Adlington LW (2017) The Corning archaeological reference glasses: new cal aspects. This framework, which provides a structured way values for ‘old’ compositions. Papers from the Institute of to organise and compare data, can be readily applied to iden- Archaeology 27:1–8. https://doi.org/10.5334/pia-515 tify other local productions in the eastern Mediterranean. Armstrong P, Hatcher H, Tite M (1997) Changes in Byzantine glazing Together, this will unlock a host of new evidence, enabling technology from the 9th to 13th centuries. In: Démians DG (ed) La Céramique Médiévale en Méditerrnée: Actes du Vle congrés us to explore the dynamics of socio-cultural interactions that l’AIECM2 Aix-en-Provence (13–18 Novembre 1995). Narration contributed to making glazed wares an essential part of our Éditions, Aix-en-Provence, pp 225–229 daily lives since medieval times. Ashtor E (1983) Levant trade in the later Middle Ages. Princeton University Press, Princeton Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary Barker C (2016) The theatre precinct of Nea Paphos (Fabrika): recent material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-020-01270-4. excavations by the Australian mission. In: Balandier C (ed) Nea Paphos: Fondation et Développement Urbanistique d’une Ville Chypriote de l’Antiquité à nos Jours. Études Archéologiques, Acknowledgements We are grateful to the Department of Antiquities of Historiques et Patrimoniales. Ausonius, Bordeaux, pp 91–104 Cyprus for granting us permission to study and sample the materials for Bear LM (1963) The mineral resources and mining industry of Cyprus. analysis. We are equally grateful to the participants of the field projects Bulletin No. 1. Geological Survey Department, Ministry of from which our materials were derived, specifically Craig Barker, Holly Commerce and Industry, Nicosia Cook, Veronique François, Smadar Gabrieli, Doria Nicolaou, Giorgos Boaz AJ (1999) Crusader Archaeology: The Material Culture of the Latin Papantoniou, Despina Pilides, and Lucy Vallauri. We would also like to East. Routledge, London thank Tom Gregory at the UCL Wolfson Archaeological Sciences Burlot J, Waksman Y, Bellot-Gurlet L, Simsek G (2020) ‘Miletus Ware’: Laboratories for his technical support, and UCL Qatar for facilitating an early Ottoman marker of a ceramic technology transition in west- access to the JEOL SEM-EDS system in Doha; UCL Qatar was a depart- ern Anatolia. J Arch Sci: Reps 29(102073):1–11. https://doi.org/10. ment of UCL established in cooperation with Qatar Museums at 1016/j.jasrep.2019.102073 Education City, generously funded through Qatar Foundation. Charalambous AC (2014) Cypriot medieval glazed pottery: a study of provenance and manufacture. In: Papanikola-Bakirtzi D, Coureas N Authors’ contributions All authors contributed to the research presented (eds) Cypriot medieval ceramics: reconsiderations and new perspec- in the paper in accordance with their specialisations, and to the writing tives. The A.G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia, pp 279–298 and editing of the paper. Charalambous AC, Sakalis AJ, Kantiranis NA, Papadopoulou LC, Tsirliganis C, Stratis JA (2010) Cypriot Byzantine glazed pottery: Funding This research was carried out as part of the Marie Skłodowska- the study of Paphos workshops. Archaeometry 52:628–643. https:// Curie Actions Individual Fellowship ‘GLAZE’, which was based at the doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2009.00502.x University of Cyprus and including a secondment to the UCL Institute of Charalambous A, Charalambous E, Violaris Y, Kantiranis N, Stratis J Archaeology, funded by the European Commission Horizon 2020 frame- (2012) Study of glazed ceramics from Lapithos and Nicosia by X- work (H2020-MSCA-IF-2016; grant no. 750904). ray micro-fluorescence (μ-XRF) and X-ray diffraction (XRD). Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus 2010:537–550 Data availability All data are included in the paper. Constantinescu B, Cristea-Stan D, Kovács I, Szökefalvi-Nagy Z (2014) External milli-beam PIXE analysis of the mineral pigments of glazed Iznik (Turkey) ceramics. Periodico di Mineralogia 83:159– Compliance with ethical standards 169. https://doi.org/10.2451/2013PM0009 Constantinou G, Panayides I (2019) The geological and physico- Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of geographical environment of Lapithos and the materials for local interest. ceramic production. In: Papanikola-Bakirtzi D (ed) Ceramic Art from the Soil of Lapithos. Leventis Municipal Museum of Nicosia Code availability Not applicable and Lapithos Municipality, Nicosia, pp 17–39 Cook HKA (2004) The Hellenistic theatre at Nea Paphos and its medieval Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons players. Med Arch 17:275–285 Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, Cook H (2014) From boom to bust: the impact of the Crusades upon the adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as glazed pottery Paphos, Cyprus, during the thirteenth and fourteenth long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the centuries A.D. From the Theatre Workshop perspective. In: source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if Papanikola-Bakirtzi D, Coureas N (eds) Cypriot medieval ceramics: changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article reconsiderations and new perspectives. The A.G. Leventis are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated Foundation, Nicosia, pp 29–44 otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the Cook HKA, Green JR (2002) Medieval glazed wares from the Theatre article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not site at Nea Paphos, Cyprus: preliminary report. Report of the permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, pp 413–426 need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a Coureas N (1995) Western merchants in the ports of Cyprus up to 1291. copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. In: Karageorghis V, Michaelides D (eds) Cyprus and the Sea. University of Cyprus, Nicosia, pp 255–261 Coureas N (2005) Economy. In: Nicolaou-Konnari A, Schabel C (eds) Cyprus, Society and Culture 1191–1394. Brill, Leiden, pp 103–156 Coureas N (2014) Apprentice artisans and craftsmen in Famagusta in the notarial deeds of Lamberto di Sambuceto and Giovanni da Rocha, Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Page 21 of 22 35 1296–1310. In: Walsh M, Kiss T, Coureas N (eds) The harbour of Jacoby D (1977) Citoyens, sujets et protégés de Venise et de Gênes en all this sea and realm: Crusader to Venetian Famagusta. Central Chypre du XIIIe au XVe siècles. Byzantinische Forschungen 5: European University Press, Budapest, pp 69–75 159–188 Day J (2002) The Levant trade in the Middle Ages. In: Laiou AE (ed) The Jacoby D (2014) Refugees from Acre in Famagusta around 1300. In: economic history of Byzantium: from the seventh through the fif- Walsh M, Kiss T, Coureas M (eds) The harbour of all this sea and teenth century. Dumbarton Oaks Library Collection, Washington realm: Crusader to Venetian Famagusta. Central European D.C., pp 807–814 University Press, Budapest, pp 53–67 Dikomitou-Eliadou M (2019) A preliminary compositional study of Early Lécuyer N, Grivaud G, Michaelides D, Nicolaïdes A, Amouric H, and Middle Bronze Age pottery from Lapithos. In: Papanikola- Decock L, Devillers B, François V, Hadjichristofi F, Loiseau M, Bakirtzi D (ed) Ceramic art from the soil of Lapithos. Leventis Bernard S, Vallauri L (2002) Potamia-Agios Sozomenos (Chypre). Municipal Museum of Nicosia and Lapithos Municipality, La constitution des paysages dans l’Orient Médiéval. Bulletin de Nicosia, pp 57–75 Correspondance Hellénique 126:598–614 Edbury P (1991) The kingdom of Cyprus and the crusades, 1191–1374. Lécuyer N, Michaelides D (2004) Archaeological survey at Potamia- Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Ayios Sozomenos. British School at Athens Studies 11:139–149 Edbury P (1999) Kingdoms of the Crusaders: from Jerusalem to Cyprus. Lemonnier P (1992) Elements for an anthropology of technology. The Ashgate, Aldershot University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor Erdoğru MA (1997) The servants and Venetian interest in Ottoman Marzec E, Kiriatzi E, Müller NS, Hein A (2019) An integrated typolog- Cyprus in the late sixteenth and the early seventeenth centuries. ical, technological and provenance investigation of Late Hellenistic Quaderni di Studi Arabi. Suppl. no. 15:97–120 colour-coated pottery from Nea Paphos. Cyprus. Arch Anth Sci 11: François V, Vallauri L (2001) Production et consumation de céramiques à 4103–4122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-019-00786-8 Potamia(Chypre) del’époque franque à l’époque ottomane. Mason R (1997) Medieval Syrian lustre-painted and associated wares: Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 125:523–546. https://doi. typology in a multidisciplinary study. Levant 29:169–200. https:// org/10.3406/bch.2001.7151 doi.org/10.1179/lev.1997.29.1.169 François V, Vallauri L (2014) Ceramics from Potamia-Agios Mason R, Tite MS (1997) The beginnings of tin-opacification of pottery Sozomenos: new archaeological data on the ceramic production glazes. Archaeometry 39:41–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475- and trade in Cyprus. In: Papanikola-Bakirtzi D, Coureas N (eds) 4754.1997.tb00789.x Cypriot medieval ceramics: Reconsiderations and new perspectives. Matin M, Tite M, Watson O (2018) On the origins of tin-opacified ce- The A.G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia, pp 45–55 ramic glazes: new evidence from early Islamic Egypt, the Levant, du Plat-Taylor J, Megaw AHS (1951) Cypriot medieval glazed pottery – Mesopotamia, Iran, and Central Asia. J Arch Sci 97:42–66. https:// notes for a preliminary classification. Reports of Department of doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2018.06.011 Antiquities Cyprus 1939:1–13 Matthews AJ, Woods AJ, Oliver C (1991) Spots before the eyes: new García Porras A, Fábregas García A (2010) Genoese trade networks in the comparison charts for visual percentage estimation in archaeological southern Iberian Peninsula: Trade, transmission of technical knowl- material. In: Middleton A, Freestone I (eds) Recent developments in edge and economic interactions. Mediterranean Historical Review ceramic. British Museum Research Laboratory, London, pp 211– 25:35–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518967.2020.494097 Given M (2000) Agriculture, settlement and landscape in Ottoman Molera J, Martines Ferreras V, Fusaro A, Gurt Esparraguera JM, Cyprus. Levant 32:215–236 Gaudenzi Asinelli M, Pidaev SR, Pradell T (2020) Islamic glazed Gosselain OP (1998) Social and technical identity in a clay crystal ball. wares from ancient Termez (south Uzbekistan). Raw materials and In: Stark MT (ed) The archaeology of social boundaries. The techniques. J Arch Sci: Reps 29:102169:1–11. https://doi.org/10. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C., pp 78–106 1016/j.jasrep.2019.102169 Green JR, Barker C, Gabrieli S (2011) Fabrika: an ancient theatre of Nea Özkutlu S (2014) Medieval Famagusta: socio-economic and socio- Paphos. The A.G, Leventis Foundation, Nicosia cultural dynamics (13th to 15th centuries). Dissertation, University Green JR, Gabrieli RS, Cook HKA, Stern EJ, McCall B, Lazer E (2014) of Birmingham Paphos 8 August 1303: Snapshot of Destruction. The A.G, Leventis Palamara E, Zacharias M, Xanthopoulou M, Kasztovszky Z, Kovács I, Foundation, Nicosia Palles D, Kamitsos EI (2016) Technology issues of Byzantine Grivaud G (1993) Sur le commerce Chypriote de l’époque Latine. In: glazed pottery from Corinth, Greece. J Microchem 129:137–150. Bryer AAM, Georghallides GS (eds) The sweet land of Cyprus, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2016.06.008 papers given at the Twenty-fifth Jubilee Spring Symposium of Papanikola-Bakirtzi D (1989) Medieval pottery from Enkomi, Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, March 1991. Cyprus Research Famagusta. In: Déroche V, Spieser J-M (eds) Recherches sur la Centre for the Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies, Céramique Byzantine, vol 18, pp 233–246 Nicosia, pp 133–145 Papanikola-Bakirtzi D (1996) Medieval glazed pottery from Cyprus: the Hadjistavrinou Y, Afrodisis S (1977) Geology and hydrogeology of the workshops of Paphos and Lapithos. The A.G. Leventis Foundation, Paphos region. In: Hadjistavrinou Y (ed) Bulletin no. 7 of the Thessaloniki Geological Survey Department. Ministry of Agriculture and Papanikola-Bakirtzi D (2004) Colours of Medieval Cyprus through the Natural Resources, Nicosia, pp 1–44 Medieval Ceramic Collection of the Leventis Municipal Museum of Henderson J (1989) Iznik ceramics: a technical examination. In: Atasoy Nicosia. The Anastasios G. Leventis Foundation and The Leventis N, Raby J (eds) Iznik – the pottery of Ottoman Turkey. Alexandria Municipal Museum, Nicosia Press, London, pp 65–87 Papanikola-Bakirtzi D (2012) Colours of Medieval Cyprus. The A.G, Hunt D (2014) Medieval Cyprus 1191–1571. In: Papanikola-Bakirtzi D Leventis Foundation, Nicosia (ed) Colours of Medieval Cyprus. The A.G. Leventis Foundation, Papanikola-Bakirtzi D (2019) Ceramic art from the soil of Lapithos. Nicosia, pp 19–33 Leventis Municipal Museum of Nicosia and Lapithos Hurst D, Freestone I (1996) Lead glazing technique from a medieval kiln Municipality, Nicosia, pp 105–125 site at Hanley Swan, Worcestershire. Med Ceram 20:13–18 Jacoby D (1989) The rise of a new emporium in the eastern Papantoniou G, Vionis AK (2018) The river as an economic asset: set- Mediterranean: Famagusta in the late thirteenth century. Variorum, tlement and society in the Xeros valley in Cyprus. Land 7(4):157. Northampton https://doi.org/10.3390/land7040157 35 Page 22 of 22 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2021) 13:35 Paynter S, Okyar F, Wolf S, Tite MS (2004) The production of Iznik Islamic glazes. J Arch Sci 57:80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas. pottery – a reassessment. Archaeometry 46:421–447. https://doi.org/ 2015.02.005 10.1111/j.1475-4754.2004.00166.x Vallauri L (2004) Céramiques en usage à Potamia-Agios Sozomenos de Philips J (1995) The Latin East, 1098–1291. In: Riley-Smith J (ed) The l'époque médiévale à l'époque ottoman: nouvelles données. Cahiers Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades. Oxford University Press, du Centre d'Études Chypriotes 34:223–238 Oxford, pp 112–140 Vallauri L, François V (2010) Famagouste: indices d’une production de Pilides D (2003) Excavations at the Hill of Agios Georgios vaisselle à l’époque vénitienne. Cahiers du Centre d’Études (PA.SY.D.Y.), Nicosia, 2002 season – preliminary report. Report Chypriotes 40:295–310 of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus:181–237 Vionis AK (2016) A boom-bust cycle in Ottoman Greece and the ceramic Pilides D, Hermon S, Amico N, Chamberlain M, d’Andrea A, Iannone G, legacy of two Boeotian villages. J Greek Arch 1:353–384 Ronzino P (2010) The Hill of Agios Georgios, Nicosia: 3D analysis Vionis AK (2017) The Byzantine to Early Modern pottery from Thespiai. of an on-going archaeological excavation. In: Melero FJ, Cano P, In: Bintliff JL, Farinetti E, Slapak B, Snodgrass AM (eds) Boeotia Revelles J (ed) Fusion of cultures: abstracts of the XXXVIII confer- Project, Volume II: the city of Thespiai. Survey at a complex urban ence on computer applications and quantitative methods in archae- site. McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge, pp 351–374 ology, pp 325–28 Vionis AK (2018) Settled and sacred landscapes of Cyprus: church and Pradell T, Molera J (2020) Ceramic technology. How to characterise landscape in the Xeros valley during the Early Byzantine period. In: ceramic glazes. Arch Anth Sci 12(189):1–28. https://doi.org/10. Horster M, Nicolaou D, Rogge S (eds) Church building in Cyprus 1007/s12520-020-01136-9 (Fourth to Seventh Centuries). A mirror of intercultural contacts in Quataert D (2000) Consumption studies and the history of the Ottoman the Eastern Mediterranean. Waxman Verlag, Münster, pp 45–70 Empire, 1550–1922: an introduction. State University of New York, von Wartburg M-L (1997) Lemba ware reconsidered. Report of the Albany Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, pp 323–345 Robertson AHF, Woodcock NH (1979) Mamonia Complex, southwest Waksman SY (2014) Archaeometric approaches to ceramic production Cyprus: evolution and emplacement of a Mesozoic continental mar- and imports in medieval Cyprus. In: Papanikola-Bakirtzi D, Coureas gin. GSA Bulletin 90(7):651–665 N (eds) Cypriot medieval ceramics: reconsiderations and new per- Salinas E, Pradell T, Matin M, Tite M (2019) From tin- to antimony- spectives. The A.G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia, pp 257–278 based yellow opacifiers in the early Islamic Egyptian glazes: region- Waksman Y, von Wartburg M-L (2006) ‘Fine-sgraffito ware’, ‘Aegean al influences and ruling dynasties. J Arch Sci: Reps 26(101923):1– ware’, and other wares: new evidence for a major production of 12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j/jasrep.2019.101923 Byzantine ceramics. Reports of the Department of Antiquities Sanders GDR (2003) Recent developments in the chronology of Cyprus:368–388 Byzantine Corinth. In: Williams CK, Bookidis N (eds) Corinth Walker BJ (2009) Identifying the Late Islamic period ceramically: pre- XX: the centenary, 1896–1996. American School of Classical liminary observations on Ottoman wares from Central and Northern Studies at Athens, Princeton, pp 385–399 Jordan. In: Walker BJ (ed) Reflections of empires: archaeological Segal I (2015) Chemical and isotopic study of lead-based objects from a and ethnographic studies on the pottery of the Ottoman Levant. The Late Roman tomb on Sallah ed-Din Street, Jerusalem. Atiqot 80: American Schools of Oriental Research, Massachusetts, pp 37–65 133–138 Walton MS, Tite MS (2010) Production technology of Roman lead- Stern EJ (2012) Akko I: the 1991–1998 excavations. The Crusader- glazed pottery and its continuance into late antiquity. period pottery. Part 1: text. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem Archaeometry 52:733–759. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754. Stern EJ (2014) The Paphos glazed wares: distribution and consumption 2009.00506.x in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. In: Papanikola-Bakirtzi D, Watson O (2014) Revisiting Samarra: the rise of Islamic glazed pottery. Coureas N (eds) Cypriot medieval ceramics: reconsiderations and In: Gonnella J, Abdellatif R, Struth S (eds) Beiträge zur Islamischen new perspectives. The A.G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia, pp 61–76 Kunst und Archäologie, vol 4, pp 125–144 Ting C, Vionis A, Rehren T, Kassianidou V, Cook H, Barker B (2019) White HE (2009) An investigation of production technologies of byzan- The beginning of glazed ware production in late medieval Cyprus. J tine glazed pottery from Corinth, Greece in the 11th to 13th centu- Arch Sci: Rep 27(101963):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep. ries. Dissertation, University of Sheffield 2019.101963 Wyttenbach A, Schubiger PA (1973) Trace element content of Roman Tite MS, Shortland AJ, Schibille N, Degryse P (2016) New data on the lead by neutron activation analysis. Archaeometry 15:199–207. soda flux used in the production of Iznik glazes and Byzantine https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.1973.tb00090.x glasses. Archaeometry 58:57–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm. Tite MS, Watson O, Pradell T, Matin M, Molina G, Domoney K, Publisher’snote Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic- Bouquillon A (2015) Revisiting the beginnings of tin-opacified tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Journal

Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences – Springer Journals

Published: Jan 30, 2021

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The origins and evolution of Cypriot glazed ware productions during the thirteenth to seventeenth centuries CE

The origins and evolution of Cypriot glazed ware productions during the thirteenth to seventeenth centuries CE

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The origins and evolution of Cypriot glazed ware productions during the thirteenth to seventeenth centuries CE

The origins and evolution of Cypriot glazed ware productions during the thirteenth to seventeenth centuries CE

References (89)

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies