vagner 2002_cuptoare medievale

http://eja.sagepub.com/

European Journal of Archaeology

http://eja.sagepub.com/content/5/3/309The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/146195702761692338

2002 5: 309European Journal of ArchaeologyZsolt Vágner

Medieval Pottery Kilns in the Carpathian Basin

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

European Association of Archaeologists

can be found at:European Journal of ArchaeologyAdditional services and information for

http://eja.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://eja.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://eja.sagepub.com/content/5/3/309.refs.htmlCitations:

by gabriel balan on October 14, 2010eja.sagepub.comDownloaded from


http://eja.sagepub.com/content/5/3/309

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.e-a-a.org

http://eja.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://eja.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://eja.sagepub.com/content/5/3/309.refs.html


M EDIEVAL POTTERY KILNS IN THE

CARPATHIAN BASIN

Zsolt VágnerEötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary

Abstract: This article discusses tenth–sixteenth-century pottery kilns in the Carpathian Basin in theterritory of medieval Hungary. Kilns are classified on the basis of their structure, buildingtechnique and firing technology and these characteristics are examined using archaeologicalevidence, ethnographical sources and also technological and pyrotechnical analysis. Thearchaeological and stratigraphical features and some methodological problems of medievalpottery kiln study are also discussed and a topographical analysis of the pottery kilns in relation tothe workshops and settlements on the basis of archaeological and historical evidence is presented.The history of the development, origin and distribution of the types of medieval pottery kilns inthe Carpathian Basin is also presented. There is a brief discussion of the contribution that potterykiln studies can make to the understanding of workshop organization.

Keywords: Carpathian Basin, classification, medieval pottery kilns, technological history

INTRODUCTION

Pottery, basically a handicraft product, is the most frequent and determinant findof medieval archaeology. Accordingly, detailed analysis of potters’ workshops isindispensable for the typological and chronological evaluation of the ceramics andthe interpretation of its technical characteristics. Pottery kilns are the mostimportant equipment of potters’ workshops. The technical properties of the kilnand the firing standard are the major factors that define the quality of potteryproduction. This justifies the very detailed archaeological, technological andtechnological-historical study of the pottery kilns uncovered during archaeologicalexcavations. The purpose of the present study is to describe the types of potterykilns discovered in the Carpathian Basin in the territory of medieval Hungary, andto outline the problems that have been raised with regard to these finds.

The territory in question is the closed geographical region of the CarpathianBasin, which is nearly entirely enclosed by the high mountains of the Carpathiansand the Alps. Large rivers like the Danube, the Tisza and the Drava cross theterritory, which is the meeting point of major European geographical regions. TheBasin is segmented by extensive plains, hill ranges and mountains. The clay types

European Journal of Archaeology Vol. 5(3): 309–342Copyright © 2002 Sage Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) andthe European Association of Archaeologists [1461–9571(200212)5:3;309–342;030958]


www.sagepublications.com


that determine the existence of workshops show an uneven distribution. Kaolinand clays with high kaolin content, which can be fired at a high temperature, canbe found mainly in the northern and eastern mountains of the area. Secondary clayof good or mediocre qualities can be met within large quantities in the hill rangesand the mountains. The clay types in the plains, apart from a few restricted areas,are usually poor quality with many impurities and much lime, which can be firedat a low temperature (Kalecsinszky 1905; Kresz 1985; Liffa 1935).

The chronological frames of medieval Hungary are defined by the Hungarianconquest around 895 and the Turkish occupation of Buda, the capital of Hungary,in 1526. Significant divergences can be observed between the social and economicfeatures of the transitional period of the tenth century, the eleventh–thirteenthcenturies, called the Árpádian Era after the ruling dynasty, and the late MiddleAges. The eleventh–thirteenth centuries were determined by strong royal powerand centralized property. The economy was based primarily on closed, self-supporting, small communities, where large markets played a minor role. Thissystem started to disintegrate in the thirteenth century and the process wasaccelerated by the Mongolian invasion in 1241–1242 and the fall of the royal powerat the end of the century. As an effect of the stabilization process that started in thesecond third of the fourteenth century, economic development began, althoughrelatively late and slowly, which followed western European patterns. Thisprogress was fatally broken by the Turkish occupation and the war against theTurks, which lasted until the end of the seventeenth century.

HISTORY OF RESEARCH

Similar to other archaeological topics, the study of pottery kilns began in late IronAge and Roman archaeology. Some technical-historical syntheses were made aboutearlier European pottery kilns: Drews (1978–1979) and Duhamel (1978–1979)published short historical and morphological overviews of European pottery kilnsand V.G. Swan (1984) produced a complex wide-ranging work about the potterykilns of Roman Britain. In addition, Peacock (1982) adopted an ethnoarchaeologicalapproach to the pottery production of Roman Britain. At the same time, alongsidethe development of prehistoric and Roman archaeo-parks, there were experimentalstudies of the construction technique of kilns and firing technology (e.g. Bryant1978–1979; Pieta 1995). There have been various studies of medieval pottery kilnsin different European countries, but they are mostly local or regional studies andno European overview has been published to date. Janssen made a brief attempt tooutline the technical development of Carolingian and Medieval pottery kilns in theRhineland (Janssen 1985), while Nekuda and Reichertova published the mostimportant pottery kilns in Moravia in their historical pottery study (Nekuda andReichertova 1968). Moorhouse discussed in his two articles the development ofpottery workshops and their kilns in central England (Moorhouse 1981, 1987).Contrary to the study of ancient kilns, relatively few papers have analysed thekilns from a typological point of view and discussed the construction technique

310 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 5(3)



and the firing technology (Guadagnin 2000; Stephan 1988), and in some countrieshardly any such studies have been published. The majority of studies on Europeanworkshops deal with the typological analysis of the wares produced in the kilnsand the distribution of these types (Janssen 1983). Gaimster (1997) published awide-ranging archaeological and culture-historical review of German stoneware,in which he briefly discussed medieval and early-modern stoneware production,and Guadagnin (2000) produced an excellent historical-archaeological study ofmedieval pottery production centres in the Ysieux valley in the Île-de-France. ChrisGerard (2000) recently completed a magnificent project, the English database ofMedieval pottery production centres. Most of these studies, however, focusedprimarily on the products and their interpretation, and kilns are generallydiscussed as accessory to the main subject. Technological analysis and reconstruc-tions of kilns or their classification are seldom to be found and there is little use ofethnographical, historical or geographical sources and approaches.

In the Carpathian Basin, the study of medieval pottery kilns started with village(Csalogovits 1937) and town investigations (Balogh 1928) at the beginning of thetwentieth century, yet it has remained on the periphery of research, although the investigation of potters’ workshops could contribute, among others, to theclarification of ceramics typology. One of the reasons is that the majority of thekilns were found during small-scale rescue excavations, often under very poorconditions, and many of them are known, in consequence, only from short reports.Even these reports concentrate on the description of the finds material found in thekilns. Due to the spatial and scientific segmentation of the Carpathian Basin, theresults of the investigations of settlements, the material culture and the history ofhandicrafts in the successor states of historical Hungary do not always meet.Typological evaluation of kilns is rarely included in the studies, as e.g. in the caseof Hács-Béndekpuszta (Parádi 1967). Parádi was the first to call attention to theexistence of horizontal-draught kilns, which had not been recognized in Hungaryuntil then, as well as grated up-draught kilns. This type was published mainlyfrom the territory of the presentday Slovakia, where it was usually determined as asingle-chambered kiln as opposed to the two-chambered grated up-draught kilns.Pyrotechnical analyses were also rarely made on kilns as, for example, in theworkshop unearthed at the Óbecse/Bečej – Botra site (Stanojević 1980). Further-more, for lack of written sources about potters’ workshops, very few studies havebeen published on the history of workshops. Even these are restricted to the listingof short data concerning late medieval guilds’ workshops. The study of themedieval and modern period potters in the town of Pozsony/Bratislava is aninteresting exception (Spuransky 1968).

The traditional wood-burning firing kilns that still operate in the territory of theCarpathian Basin are also extremely useful. Professor György Duma, who recentlydied, surveyed the majority of the workshops and pottery kilns in 83 sites in theterritory of present Hungary with an engineer’s precision between 1958 and 1960(Duma 1966, 1982).

VÁGNER: MEDIEVAL POTTERY KILNS 311



DESCRIPTION OF THE POTTERY KILNS FOUND IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN

1. Distribution of the kilns found in the Carpathian BasinFrom the period under discussion, altogether 53 features that could be identified aspottery kilns were observed in 30 sites. Their distribution is varied, as can be seenfrom Table 1, and mirrors the research conditions in the different countries.

2. Topographic characteristics of medieval pottery kilnsDue to the varied geographical setting in the Carpathian Basin, these kilns can befound in the plains as well as in the hills (see Fig. 1). There are few kilns in thecentral and eastern parts of the Hungarian Plain, which can be explained not onlybecause of incomplete research, but by the lack of raw material. The low number ofkilns in Transylvania is primarily due to the absence of research on medieval sites.


Figure 1. Distribution of medieval pottery kilns in the Carpathian Basin.

Table 1. Distribution of pottery kilns by country

Country Sites Kilns

Hungary 12 15Slovakia 10 24Yugoslavia – Serbia 4 9Romania 5 6



It may clearly be seen that, logically, the kilns always stood on dry ground, onpeninsulas, on banks, on hillsides. The simple reason is that groundwater caneasily make pottery kilns inoperable. It may also be observed that the majority ofthe kilns were built near water, which was necessary for the building andmaintenance of the kilns, and as a precaution against the danger of fire.

The distribution of pottery kilns according to settlement typesEvery potter’s kiln stood within the territory of a medieval settlement. The numberof kilns in rural and urban settlements was approximately the same, and only asingle kiln stood in the territory of a manor. Their distribution shows a variedpicture but also mirrors the specific preferences of investigation according tosettlement types.

The location of kilns inside settlements

1. In villages, the kilns were always built in the central area of the settlement. Invillages of the Árpádian Era showing a scattered pattern, the majority of thepottery kilns were excavated in kiln clusters composed of exterior householdovens, as well as kilns which could be used at the same time or separately. Thekilns and ovens shared the same working pit. These clusters were found in thecentre of the settlements. The pottery kilns of late medieval villages were also inthe interior of the settlements – in Szelezsény/Sl’ažany next to the church(Ruttkay 1988:127).

2. The pottery kilns excavated in the territory of Alsó Poltár/Dolný Poltar manorwere located around the productive buildings. Igor Hrubec, who excavated thesite, identified the building next to the kiln as a potters’ workshop building(Hrubec 1971:76).

3. Urban settlements. The pottery kilns unearthed in late medieval towns fortifiedby stone walls, such as Kassa/Košice (Pástor 1959:617), Kisszeben/Sabinov(Slivka 1978:175), Bártfa/Bardejov (Čaplovič and Slivka 1988:99) orPozsony/Bratislava (Egyházy-Jurovská 1984:272), stood outside the townwalls, usually beside the wall or the moat, in all four cases near one of the gates.This extra-mural position can be explained as protection against fire. This issuggested by the regulations of the towns of Pozsony/Bratislava (Spuransky1968) and Kisszeben/Sabinov (Slivka 1978:182), which banned pottery kilnsfrom inside the town walls because of the danger of fire. The kiln excavated inBártfa/Bardejov was found beside the moat running along the town wall nearFazekas Street, which is known from written sources (plathea lutifiguli,lutifigulorum, Töpfergasse). The workshops of the potters stood, according to thesources, ultra aquam. Later this area became the street of the potters’ guild(Čaplovič and Slivka 1988:92–93).

In other urban settlements the pottery kilns stood, as in the villages, in theinterior areas of the settlements. A good example is offered by the kiln in the one-time episcopal centre of Kalocsa, which was excavated next to the cathedral(Vágner 2001:104). The pottery kiln was built in the area between the inner and




outer ramparts of Babócsa, which functioned in the Turkish period as a specificfortified administrative centre (Magyar 1990:133–134).

3. Kiln numbers at individual sitesOwing to the circumstances of the discovery of kilns, there was often no possibilityof studying the wider environment of the kilns during the excavations. In suchcases we have only fragmentary information about the number of kilns in theworkshops. More than one pottery kiln was observed in only eight cases at the 30excavated sites. At five sites two kilns were found and one site yielded three. Onlyone site contained more than that, namely Óbecse-Botra, which had five kilns(Stanojevič 1980).

4. Medieval pottery kiln typesIn the territory of the Carpathian Basin both the main European types, up-draughtand horizontal-draught kilns, can be found together with their subtypes. Theanalysis of the kiln types shows a varied picture.

The main types were distinguished according to the draught between thefirebox or the stoke hole and the flue of the kiln, which determines the direction ofthe flames. The flame direction is vertical in up-draught kilns (Figs 2a and 2b) andis horizontal in horizontal-draught kilns (Figs 2c and 2d).

Up-draught kilns usually have an oval, sometimes a rectangular ground planbecause of the vertical direction of the flame or the draught. The firebox and thefiring chamber are built one above the other. The kiln is vertically loaded. Since thedraught and the flame have a shorter way to go, the control of the atmosphere ofthe kiln and the firing temperature is limited, so the size of the kiln can be decisiveto the quality of firing. It may be added that Roman and medieval brick-kilns alsobelong to this type.

The medieval horizontal-draught kilns had an elongated oval or oblong-shapedground plan because of the horizontal direction of the draught. The firebox and thefiring chamber were arranged lengthwise or stepwise one above the other. The kilnwas usually loaded from the side because of the elongated shape of the kiln. Thedraught and the flame had further to go, and could be better controlled than in theformer type, and, accordingly, the atmosphere of the kiln and the firingtemperature could better be controlled and balanced than in the case of up-draughtkilns. To use this technical property, however, greater skill, attention andexperience were necessary.


Table 2. Pottery kiln types in the Carpathian Basin

Up-draught 43 Single chamber 4Two chambers 39

Horizontal-draught 11 Single chamber 10Two chambers 1



The following subtypes can be differentiated according to their internalorganization, that is, the arrangement of the firebox and the firing chamber in thesame space or their being divided by a grate: single-chambered and two-chambered grated kilns.

To ensure that the firing in the kilns may be controlled, heating channels need tobe created and the path of the flame must be suitably determined, while the fireboxand the firing chamber have to be separated to a certain degree. In kilns with asingle chamber this was usually solved via the loading of the pottery.Ethnographic analogues suggest that sometimes temporary grates could be builtfrom pottery (Fábián 1934–1935:32; see also Fig. 3). There are several variants ofsingle-chambered kiln structure, which is easier to repair, but firing is lesscontrolled and can become dangerous. Making good use of the properties of thekiln type needs greater expertise. At the same time, firing is more controlled andsafer in grated kilns, but there are fewer possibilities for the individualarrangement of the pottery and the application of diverse firing techniques.

5. Distribution of the medieval pottery kiln typesDefinite tendencies can be observed in the distribution map of the kilns in the


Figure 2. Scheme of the major kiln types: a. Up-draught, single-chambered; b. Up-draught, two-chambered; c. Horizontal-draught, single-chambered; d. Horizontal-draught, two-chambered.



Carpathian Basin. To betterunderstand this picture it isworth outlining the historyof the kilns.

Up-draught kilnsOnly up-draught kilns areknown in the CarpathianBasin from the periodbetween the beginning of thetenth century and the end ofthe thirteenth century. Mostof the kilns had two cham-bers with a grated structure;from this period, only onesingle-chambered kiln wasfound, dated to the turn ofthe thirteenth and fourteenthcenturies, at Alsó Poltár/Dolný Poltar (Hrubec 1971:76).

Up-draught kilns areknown from the late MiddleAges and the Turkish period

(fourteenth–seventeenth centuries) mainly from the southern, central and easternparts of the Carpathian Basin. Kilns with a single chamber have been published intwo cases from Székelykeresztúr/Cristuru, Transylvania (Fig. 4), besides theabove-mentioned kiln from Alsó Poltár/Dolný Poltar, which also functioned in thelate Middle Ages (Benkő 1992:159–160, 176–177). According to ethnographicobservations, up-draught kilns with a single chamber were common inTransylvania and the Örség in south-western Hungary in the twentieth century(Duma 1982:78; Kós 1986).

Two-chambered grated kilns dating to the fourteenth–seventeenth centurieswere mainly found in the central and southern regions of medieval Hungary. Theywere probably the developed versions of the kilns of the Árpádian Era. The typewas used to the present day, and they were the characteristic pottery kilns of thenineteenth and twentieth centuries in the Hungarian Plain and in part ofTransdanubia (Duma 1982:78).

The antecedents of up-draught grated kilns were also known before theHungarian conquest. They existed in the eastern and southern territories of theCarpathian Basin from the late Neolithic (Comsa 1976; Ellis 1984:130–163) andreappeared and diffused in the late Iron Age (Jerem et al. 1998) and the Romanperiod (Bónis 1981), mainly as a result of exterior influence, and the ancienttraditions survived in the Migration period as well (Rosner 1981). The Hungariansmay also have brought the type with them, as it was commonly used in their


Figure 3. Modern horizontal-draught, two-chamberedkiln from Hungary. Surveyed at Ják. There are twovertical bars (bárány) behind the stoke hole. (AfterFábián 1934–1935.)

Observation hole

‘Bárány-Lamb’



earlier homelands, among others in the settlements of the Saltovo-Majack culture,where pottery kilns identical with the eleventh–thirteenth century types wereunearthed (Pletneva 1981:48, 74).

Horizontal-draught kilnsThe antecedents of the type are not known in the Carpathian Basin. The origin ofhorizontal-draught kilns has not yet been clarified. There are a few Iron Ageexamples, for instance in Denmark (Lucke 1978–1979: 269). Horizontal-draughtkilns are first known from the end of the early Middle Ages, the late Carolingianperiod in the northern and western territories of present-day Germany, then theywere diffused as a result of the fast development of the pottery industry on theRhine in the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries (Gaimster 1997:41–44).

The pottery industry on the Rhine was based on a high-quality raw materialwith a high kaolin content, which needed a high firing temperature. Thisnecessitated a special kiln type that could produce a higher firing temperature andafforded a better than average control. This explains why the kiln type appeared in


Figure 4. Up-draught, single-chambered kiln. Excavated at Székelykeresztúr/Cristuru Secuisec.Dated to c. fourteenth–fifteenth century. (After Benkő 1992.)

Stoking pit

Pottery kiln B

Stoking pit

Pottery kiln A

Stoking pit



the region of the Rhine pottery industry and in its diffusion area and the territorieswhere it was traded (northern France, Netherlands) (Janssen 1983:320–396; Gaimster1997:41–44; Flambard-Héricher 2000). Then, in the fourteenth–seventeenthcenturies, the population that moved to the east from these territories, orwandering craftsmen or tradesmen, brought it to Moravia and Bohemia (Nekudaand Reichertova 1968:39–49), southern Poland (Gajewski 1959; Kwapieniowa andWalowy 1966:217–225; see Fig. 5) and the above-mentioned territories of Pannonia.The eastward diffusion of these kilns was in parallel to the economic developmentof these central European territories. New versions of the type such as the so-calledGerman or Kassel type kilns were developed in the modern period in many partsof Europe (Duma 1966:93–94, 1982:60–63). At the same time, some archaic single-chambered versions of the horizontal-draught kiln type have remained in use inthe Carpathian Basin region (Fig. 3), in Austria and Hungary (Duma 1966:103) andSlovakia (Plicková, 1952, 1959; see Fig. 6) and in Eastern Europe, especially in theSlav territories: Poland (Kwapieniowa and Walowy 1966:217–219), Byelorussia(Moszynszki 1929:349) and Russia (Rybakov 1948; see Fig. 7).

The type first appeared in Pozsony/Bratislava on the Danube, at the north-eastern gates of the Carpathian Basin, at the beginning of the fourteenth century


Figure 5. Horizontal-draught, single-chambered kiln from Poland excavated at Igołomia. Dated to.c. sixteenth century. (After Gajewski 1959.)



(Egyházy-Jurovská 1984:277). It spread through the Carpathian Basin especiallybetween the middle of the fourteenth century and the beginning of the sixteenthcentury, first of all in areas of present-day Slovakia and less characteristically in thenorthern part of Transdanubia. After the Turkish wars, the German populationsettled in Hungary in the seventeenth–eighteenth centuries brought in a moremodern version of the type in Transdanubia: the so-called Kassel or German kiln(Duma 1966, 1982:60–63; Mészáros 1968:27–28).

The majority of the kilns had a single chamber without a grate. A horizontalgrate was found only in Bajna – Csima kiln n.1 (Fig. 8), which was built into thekiln when it was rebuilt (Horváth et al. 1979:40).

The ceramics made in the kilns found in the Carpathian Basin were made of


Figure 6. Reconstruction of a nineteenth-century modern horizontal-draught, single-chamberedkiln from Pazdics/Pozdišovce, Slovakia. (After Plicková 1959.) Although this is an interpretation itis nevertheless an excellent model of the archaic kiln type.

Figure 7. Early modern horizontal-draught, single-chambered kiln. Surveyed at Medyň(Byelorussia). Dated to eighteenth–nineteenth century. (After Moszynszki 1929.)



relatively good raw material firedat a high temperature (950–1200°C).Pure kaolin, which can be fired at ahigher temperature, up to 1200°C,was found only at Bajna-Csima(Vágner 2001:59). Astonishingly, nohorizontal-draught kiln has so farbeen found in the potters’ centrebased on the large kaolin outcrop inthe Gömör region, which is beyondthe distribution area of the type.Only up-draught kilns are knownfrom the Alsó Poltár/Dolný Poltarworkshop excavated in the centreof this region (Hrubec 1971:76). Inthe horizontal-draught kilns of theworkshops excavated in the

territory of present-day Slovakia, high quality clay types of so-called secondaryoccurrence were used, which contain iron oxide that turns reddish grey duringfiring. The products match the proto-stoneware/Protosteinzeug (1000–1100°C) andnear-stoneware/Faststeinzeug (1050–1200°C) categories with their raw materialand firing quality (Stephan 1988:94–96). However, stoneware fired at 1200–1400°Cdid not appear in the Carpathian Basin together with the diffusion of the kiln type.

6. Characteristics of the structural arrangements of the pottery kilnsThe most important characteristic is that each kiln was a pit kiln. The most evidentexplanation is to ensure thermal isolation and, at the same time, it afforded aneasier, quickly built and often more secure structural solution than overgroundkilns. Kilns with wall constructions have rarely been observed. Most frequently theentire structure was sunk into the ground similar to the kilns recorded from earlierperiods and modern ethnographic fieldwork (Duma 1982:55–59).

Up-draught kilnsMost of the kilns had a round-oval or elongated oval ground plan. Their diametermeasured between 0.8 m and 2 m, their height varied between 0.9 m and 2 m. Thefiring chamber was probably always open to the top and the pottery was loadedthrough this hole. The firing chambers have perished in many of the kilns studiedor they were badly damaged. Nevertheless, stratigraphic observations reveal thatthey were entirely sunken and it is unlikely that they had a closed dome since inthat case a hole would have had to be opened for loading somewhere on the side,which is impossible, or at least very difficult to make in pit kilns. Yet in some casesthese kilns were reconstructed with fireboxes with closed domes and a lateralloading hole (Pleiner 1988). This solution, however, is not really effective sinceloading is difficult because of the narrower firebox and firing is less easy to control.


Figure 8. Horizontal-draught, two-chamberedkiln. The grate is made of arched clay barssupported on a central and an externalplatform. The grate and the kiln platforms aresecondary. Excavated on Bajna-Csima(Hungary). Dated to c. fifteenth–sixteenthcentury. (After Horváth et al. 1979.)



Furthermore, ancient and modern ethnographic kilns suggest that kilns withclosed domes were built to create reductive firing or for the production of specialwares (Dušek and Hohmann 1986; Kresz 1991:524–600; Rhodes 1973:9–17). Suchwares, however, have never been found in up-draught kilns.

Single-chambered kilnsAltogether four single-chambered up-draught kilns have been found from threesites in the Carpathian Basin. All four were pit kilns. The plastered walls wereparallel or slightly narrowed downwards.

Structural differences can be found in the number of stoke-holes. The kilnsexcavated at Alsó Poltár/Dolný Poltar (Hrubec 1971:76) and Székelykeresztúr/Cristuru (6, Iskola Street) had a single stoke-hole (Benkő 1992:159–160). Thisparallels the arrangement of the most common up-draught kilns in Europe. Thetwo kilns at 2, Katustava Street, Székelykeresztúr/Cristuru had two facing stoke-holes, and the southwest hole of kiln ‘A’ was covered with a large stone (Benkő1992:176–177). This arrangement favoured better control of the draught and kilnatmosphere (Fig. 4). This type is relatively rare in Europe apart from the kilns inEngland with many holes (Moorhouse 1981).

The kiln dimensions also varied. The Alsó Poltár/Dolný Poltar kiln wasespecially large. The interior dimensions of 350 cm and the interior height of 240 cmare not characteristic of up-draught kilns of the period. The diameters of the threeSzékelykeresztúr/Cristuru kilns (120–150 cm) are about average, yet their interiorheight was different: Katustava Street: 40–50 cm, Iskola Street: 125 cm (Fig. 4).

Two-chambered, grated kilnsThe grate that separated the firebox from the firing chamber of the up-draught,two-chambered kilns was built in various ways. The grate could be made withoutsupport or added later with support.1. The firebox and the firing chamber of kilns with unsupported grates wereentirely sunk into the ground. The wall and the grate were soil, which baked hardduring the firing. The building of this structure is very simple: a pit was dug fromabove and another from the side and the horizontal layer between the two wasopened via a vertical hole (Fig. 9). This can be observed clearly at the eleventhcentury kiln excavated in Pusztaberény (Fig. 10).


Figure 9. Reconstruction of the building technique of up-draught, two-chambered, unsupportedgrated kilns.



Unsupported kilns, especially commonin the Árpádian Era, were usually small,their diameter measuring 90–120 cm onaverage (Fig. 11). Due to this feature of thekiln structure, the firebox was often widerthan the firing chamber. The total heightof the kilns is often impossible to tell sincethe firing chamber or its top is frequentlydamaged. The height of the completekilns can be estimated from the intactexamples and fragmentary structures toabout 90–110 cm. Usually the firebox wasthe smallest chamber measuring 20–30 cmon average. The grate was often verythick because of the building technique,measuring 25–40 cm on average. Thefirebox could be 30–50 cm high onaverage. At the same time, two large latemedieval kilns at Óbečse-Perlek (Fig. 12)


Figure 10. Up-draught, two-chambered kiln with unsupported, monolith grate. Excavated atPusztaberény (Hungary). Dated to c. twelfth–thirteenth century. (After Bárdos 1978.)

Figure 11. Up-draught, two-chamberedkiln with unsupported, monolith grate.Excavated at Felsölupkó/Gornea (Rom-ania). Dated to c. thirteenth century.(After Uzum and T,eicu 1978.)

Stoke hole

Vertical section of the kiln



measuring 150 cm in diameterhad been built with unsupportedgrates (Stanojev 1996:71–73). Inthis unique case the kilns werebuilt in a clayey soil, which gavesolidity to the grates.

As well as tradition, thepractical structure of the kilns,which was easy to build, mayexplain why only this kiln typewas found in Árpádian Erapotters’ workshops. Pyrotechnicalanalyses of earthenware findssuggest that firing at an averagetemperature of 800–950°C couldbe achieved (Pleiner 1988;Stanojević 1980:25). This sort ofstructure, however, has limiteddimensions, as the kilns that arebuilt in this manner cannot belarger than 120–150 cm.2. In the case of kilns with sup-ported grates, the grates werealways made after the pit hadbeen dug. The late medieval kilnswith supported grates are largerthan the kilns of the tenth–thirteenth centuries. The inner

diameter varied between 150 and 200 cm. In the kilns excavated at Kalocsa (Fig. 13)and Decs-Ete (Fig. 14), the width of the firebox is smaller than that of the firingchamber above it, since the arms of the grate rest on the shelf projecting from thewall of the firebox. Such kilns could be around 150–170 cm in height. The lowerfirebox was 30–50 cm high. The grate was relatively thin compared to themonolithic small kilns, and measured 10–20 cm on average. The interior height ofthe firing chamber was 70–100 cm. The relatively low, 60–70 cm interior height ofthe kiln excavated in Kalocsa (Fig. 13), which measured 120–150 cm in diameter,shows a slight divergence.

The grate rested on a small ledge or a fire-bar. The walls and the fire-bars thatsupported the grate were made of soil as in the kilns excavated at Babócsa-Nárciszos (Fig. 15), Esztergom-Szenttamáshegy and Túrkeve-Csudaballa (Fehérand Parádi 1960:36; Magyar 1990:133–134; Vágner 2001:180), or the clay fire-barswere built after the firebox had been prepared as at Kalocsa (Fig. 13) and Decs-Ete(Fig. 14).

The grate usually had arms, which rested, like spokes, on the central wall or ona fire-bar and the side wall of the kiln. Two types are known: adobe type arms


Figure 12. Up-draught, two-chambered kilnwith wide unsupported, monolith grate.Excavated at Óbecse/Bečej-Perlek (Yugoslavia-Voyvodina). Dated to c. fifteenth century.(After Stanojev 1996:42–74.)




Figure 13. Up-draught, two-chambered kiln. The grate is made of arched clay bars supported on apillar. Excavated at Kalocsa (Hungary). Dated to c. sixteenth century.

Figure 14. Up-draught, two-chambered kiln. The grate is supported on a pillar. Excavated at Decs-Ete (Hungary). Dated to c. sixteenth century. (After Csalogovits 1937.)

Reconstructed firing chamber



made of dried walling elements were used most frequently (Fig. 16), especially atDecs-Ete (Fig. 14), Babócsa (Fig. 15), and Túrkeve; however these were usuallydaubed, so that they look like a perforated clay plate (Csalogovits 1937:329; Vágner2001:51, 180). This arrangement is most characteristic of the kilns documentedethnographically from Hungary (Fig. 17). A grate made of arched clay bars wasfound in the kiln excavated at Kalocsa (Fig. 13). Contemporary analogues areknown from the territory of Romania, from the kilns unearthed at Coconi(Constantinescu 1972:82–91) and Tomesti (Andronic 1970:408–410). The supportedgrate allowed the kiln to be enlarged, thus increasing its efficiency. Grates made ofarms are easier to repair than a monolithic structure of supported grates made ofearth. This arrangement was frequent in the Roman period (Duhamel 1978–1979)and is also common in modern kilns (Duma 1982:70–77).

The remains of a monolithic grate daubed on awattle structure were found in the Turkish periodkiln unearthed at Esztergom-Szenttamás hill (Fehérand Parádi 1960).


Figure 15. Up-draught, two-chambered kiln. The grate is supported on a wall. Excavated atBabócsa (Hungary). Dated to c. sixteenth century. (After Magyar 1990.)

Figure 16. Daub building material for modern up-draught, two-chambered, supported grated kiln. (After Duma 1966.)



The kiln stoke holes were often equipped with a stoking channel extending infront of the firebox. This allowed better control of firing, reducing the hazards ofunexpected changes of draught and wind force in the kilns.

Horizontal-draught kilnsThe kilns usually had elongated oval, or rarely, as in Szelezsény, oblong-shapedground plans (Fig. 18). They had closed domes, with the kiln being made of thesoil. To direct the draught, most of the kilns had a bottom that slightly rose towardthe end (Figs 8, 18 and 19). A similar arrangement was observed in nineteenth–twentieth-century archaic horizontal-draught pit kilns in central and easternEurope (Duma 1966:105; Moszynszki 1929:349; Plicková 1959:39).

The kiln could be loaded through the stoke hole or through the flue as in Bajna-Csima kiln n. 2, where the firing chamber was built stepwise behind the flue.

The dimensions of horizontal-draught kilns vary, but they are usually muchlarger than up-draught kilns. In this case length, width and interior height are themost characteristic measurements. After these we may differentiate:

● a group with smaller dimensions with an average length of 200–250 cm, widthof 100 cm and height of 60–80 cm (Fig. 18)


Figure 17. Modern up-draught, two-chambered, supported grated kiln. Surveyed at Mohács inHungary. (After Duma 1966.)



● a group with medium dimensions: length 350 cm, width 160 cm, height c. 80 cm● and a group with very large dimensions: length 430–600 cm, width 200–220 cm,

height 150–160 cm.

As may be observed, width and height are not really proportionate to length. Thisis because the fire can be controlled by lengthening the path of the flame or theheat. All the known kilns were originally built with a single chamber, only Bajna-Csima kiln n.1 was rebuilt to have two chambers (Fig. 8). To ensure even qualityfiring and to protect the vessels, it was important to control the path of the fire andthe flame and to prevent direct contact between the loaded pottery and the flames.

Single-chambered kilnsThe bottom of the kilns may be flat as in thecase of Felso-Szelezsény (Fig. 18), Bajna-Csima2, and Pozsony/Bratislava, or segmented byelongated, shallow, 10–15 cm deep draughtchannels, as in the kilns excavated at Jesensky


Figure 18. Horizontal-draught, single-chambered kiln. Excavated at Szelezsény/Sl’ažany(Slovakia). Dated to c. sixteenth century. The stoking hole is destroyed. (After Ruttkay 1988.)

Figure 19. Fragment of kadlub found on the firing floorof the Szelezsény/Sl’ažany kiln. (After Ruttkay 1988.)

1. Humus

2. Modern mixed soil

3. Greyish black soil

4. Plaster

5. Yellow clay soil



Street, Galgóc/Hlohovce at Michalská Street,Galgóc/Hlohovce (Pastorek 1985:114) and 39,Kossuth Street, Bajna. These channels helped thediffusion of the fire and the flames, and con-tributed to the separation of the pottery from thefire. Similar channels were found in kilns from the fourteenth century along the Rhine, e.g. atLangerwehe-Jürgersdorf (Fig. 20) and Haupt-strasse (Gaimster 1997:42–43; Jürgens 1988:126–129, 134–136).

Clay slabs, called kadlub (Fig. 19) in theSlovakian literature, were found in the flat-bottomed Szelezsény/Sl’ažany kiln (Ruttkay

1988:128) and in the Galgóc/Hlohovce kiln, the bottom of which was segmentedby channels (Polla and Rejholec 1961:262). The slabs, which show the imprints ofthe vessel mouths, attest to the way the kilns were loaded. These slabs served toseparate the pottery from the fire burning on the bottom of the kiln. The imprintsof the vessels suggest that the vessels loaded on the bottom of the kilns weresurrounded by unfired clay slabs.

The vertical clay slabs or horizontally-perforated bars standing behind the stokehole of the kiln also served to separate the pottery from the flames. They wereobserved in the kilns excavated at Hurban Square in Pozsony/Bratislava, andunder 39, Kossuth Lajos Street, Bajna. They are probably identical to the structuredescribed from the medieval kilns at Paffrath in Rhineland (Fig. 21), Dümmerin(Fig. 22) and Granzin in Saxony (Böhner 1955–1956; Drews 1978–1979:46–47; Lung1955–1958) and Saint-Denis in northern France (Meyer 1987:52), and those inhorizontal-draught kilns discussed in the recent ethnographic literature (Duma1982:62–63; Fábián 1934–1935:32). They seem to have separated the firebox fromthe firing chamber in the same way as the grates in the up-draught kilns (Fig. 3).However they only helped the better distribution of the flames. As the firebox ishorizontal and longer, the fire extended into the firing chamber, and its path had tobe secured further on. A good example is provided even in a fragmentary state bythe kiln excavated under 39, Kossuth Lajos Street in Bajna, where the floor of thefiring chamber was further segmented by channels behind the fire-bar.

Two-chambered grated kilnsA grate was found only in a single case in Bajna-Csima kiln n.1, which was madeduring the rebuilding of the kiln (Fig. 8). A bench was built in the centre of themedium-large, 3.5 m long kiln, then a shelf was added to each of the two sides.They enclosed two horizontal 50-cm-wide draught channels, which were bridged


Figure 20. Horizontal-draught, single-chambered kilnsfrom the Rhineland, Germany, excavated at Langerwehe-Jürgensdorf. The firing floors of the kilns were segmented byelongated parallel shallow channels. Dated to c. fourteenth–fifteenth century. (After Jürgens 1988.)




Figure 21. Horizontal-draught, single-chambered kilns from the Rhineland, Germany, excavatedat Paffrath. In kiln n.1 there are vertical clay slabs behind the stoke hole. Dated tothirteenth–fourteenth century. (After Lung 1958.)



by fired clay bars. This construction helped to control the heat in the kiln and, atthe same time, temporary modifications were still possible due to the distancebetween the bars of the grate. This arrangement is similar to the above-mentionedhorizontal draught channels excavated in the Langerwehe kilns, which did nothave a grate (Fig. 20). A similar, smaller kiln with a more regular ground plan wasfound from the same period in Brno, Moravia, where the grate was composed ofmobile, removable plates. These structures are the forerunners of the so-calledKassel or German kilns, which were introduced in the seventeenth–eighteenthcenturies, and which have been used to the present day (Duma 1966, 1982:62–63;Fábián 1934–1935).

Kiln orientation is not standardized because of the varied geographicalproperties of the individual sites. In sites where more than one kiln was found, theindividual kilns had different orientations as e.g. at Bajna-Csima or Decs-Ete.

Other structures connected with the kilnsWorking pitThe majority of the kilns naturally had a working pit. The bottom of these pits, atleast at the front, was aligned to the bottom of the firebox or the stoke-hole of the kiln.


Figure 22. Horizontal-draught, single-chambered kilns from Germany excavated at Dümmer.Vertical clay slabs were observed behind the stoke hole. Dated to eleventh–twelfth century. (AfterDrews 1978–1979.)



RoofPostholes for props could be observed around the working pits at Bajna-Csima kilnn.2 and at the kilns in Óbecse-Perlek (Fig. 12). They suggest some kind of smallroof that probably protected the workshop area of the kiln. At Felsőlupkó/Gornea– T,armuri (T,eicu and Lazarovici 1996:55–56; Uzum and T,eicu 1978:296) eightpostholes for the roof over the kiln were discovered, while at Bártfa/Bardejovremains of the roof structure were found collapsed into the kiln (Čaplovič andSlivka 1988:103).

7. The stratigraphy of the excavated kilnsThe kilns were usually built in pits dug into a clayey or loessy impermeable soil.Up-draught pit kilns are often excavated to a positive shape as the archaeologistsfollow the burnt surface and they are published in this form without comment.This can be very misleading because it implies that the kiln was built on theground surface, while the earth around them was cleared only for the sake of aneasier excavation and documentation. The excavation of the firing chamber withslightly arched walls to a positive form suggests that the kiln had a constructeddome. It is also misleading in that the ‘wall’ peeled off in this manner can show anunrealistically thin structure. This can be seen especially clearly at the kilnsexcavated at Báčs/Bac, Felsőlupkó/Gornea – T,armuri (Fig. 11) and Babócsa (Fig. 15).

The pottery usually comes from the firing chamber or the surface, and theapertures of the grate. Finds are also often recovered from the firebox and the fill ofthe working pit.

Horizontal-draught kilns often yield an extremely large amount of pottery,which suggests that the last load, or at least a large proportion of it, was left in thekiln. With this type of kiln, there is a greater possibility that the majority of thevessels loaded into the kiln are cracked, and they are difficult to unload throughthe narrow and relatively closed loading hole.

In up-draught kilns it is relatively rare that many vessels from the last load arefound in the interior of the kiln. The reason is that the structure of this kiln typeaffords easier loading possibilities. The Szelezsény/Sl’ažany kiln provides the bestexample, where 1500 sherds from about 90 vessels were found (Ruttkay 1988:128).Similar phenomena were observed in the case of the kilns excavated at Galgóc/Hlohovce (Polla and Rejholec 1961:261) and Kassa/Košice (Pástor 1959:617–618).

8. Some comments on the finds recovered from the kilnsOnly finished products have been published from the majority of the kilns. Spoiltand damaged vessels and tools are rarely mentioned.

Among the finished products, pots were the most frequent, and probably madeup 80–90 per cent of fired vessels. Sometimes other smaller vessel types such asbowls are also found in Árpádian Era kilns. At the same time, a pot-like storagevessel and a pottery cauldron, two different vessel types, which were alsoproduced in series, were found in the Pusztaberény kiln (Vágner 2001:160). Latemedieval kilns show a much more varied picture. Pots are again the most frequent




vessels. Only pots were found in the fourteenth-century Galgóc/Hlohovce kilns. Infifteenth–sixteenth-century kilns, fragments of jugs, jars, bowls and stove tiles alsooccur beside the dominant pots. The finds from the Bajna – Csima kilns areexceptional, with a greater variety of pots, jars and cups (Vágner 2001:56–58). Inthe kiln excavated in Kassa/Košice, high, long-necked bottles of a special type andstove tiles were found (Pástor 1959:617–618). The finds excavated in the Turkishperiod kilns at Esztergom-Szenttamás hill included a large number of glazed warescharacteristic of the period (Fehér and Parádi 1960:43).

One of the reasons why so few spoilt vessels have been published is that most ofthe spoilt vessels appear as broken sherds, where it is difficult to tell if the vesselbroke during or after firing. Usually only cracked and damaged pots arementioned in this category as in the case of Szelezsény/Sl’ažany (Ruttkay1988:133) and Pozsony/Bratislava (Egyházy-Jurovská 1984:280).

Half-finished vessel fragments, more precisely the fragments of bone-dryunfired vessels, were found in Bajna – Csima kiln n.2, the comparative pyrotech-nical analyses of which were carried out with the help of Imre Henszlman (Vágner2001:59). Furthermore, fired, still unglazed vessels were found at the Esztergom –Szenttamás hill site (Fehér and Parádi 1960:43; Horváth et al. 1979:157).

A few specific tools used during firing were also observed. One of the mostmysterious tool groups consists of the clay slabs showing the loading technique ofthe kiln. These slabs, called kadlub in the Slovakian literature (Fig. 19), havepreserved the imprints of the vessel mouths. This suggests that the slabs separatedthe vessels and the fire burning at the bottom of the kiln (Ruttkay 1988:128; Pollaand Rejholec 1961:262). The clay slabs found in the filling of the two-chamberedup-draught kilns of the Turkish period in Esztergom also served to control theflame direction. They were probably laid on the grate (Fehér and Parádi 1960:43).Several tripods were found in the Esztergom kiln. They are important tools ofglazed ware firing. The painted vessels prepared for firing are placed in the kilnson these tripods with the mouth down (Vágner 2001:83).

9. Analytical investigation of kiln findsAnalyses were effected in two cases on finds from the two main kiln types.

1. The vessels found in the up-draught kiln at Óbecse-Botra (n.1) were comparedto raw material collected from the nearby clay outcrop. The analyses showedthat the vessel material did not come from the nearby large clay layer, whichseemed initially the logical solution, but from a more distant outcrop. Theaverage firing temperature of the pottery was also determined as around 880°C(Stanojević 1980:25). Similar temperature values around 800–1000°C weredetermined by reconstruction and pyrotechnical analyses in other up-draughttwo-chambered kilns from the La Téne-D (Jerem et al. 1985; Pieta 1995:27–28),the Roman (Dušek and Hohmann 1986; Šimič-Kanaet 1996:168–171) and theMigration periods (Pleiner 1988:304; Reschreiter 1994:43).

2. Half-finished (unfired) pottery sherds recovered from the horizontal-draughtkiln at Bajna-Csima were submitted to comparative pyrotechnical analyses




under the supervision of Imre Henszlmann at the University of Applied Art.The purpose of the analysis was the comparison of the unfired bone-drypottery sherds found beside the flue of the kiln with the pottery finds from thekiln in order to determine the firing temperature and technology, and theproperties of the raw material used.

Firing was carried out in an electric gradient kiln of NABER type at 980°C –1255°C for 6 hours, increasing the heat every 20 minutes. The colour of the sampleschanged from light pink to a creamy colour and to greyish white as heat wasincreased. The mass loss can be read from Table 3: temperature values weremeasured using TH32 and H505 type heat indicator discs:

The firing of the samples evidently showed that the raw material of the potterywas granular clay that can be fired to white, refractory and solid, that is it does notcontain lime. The mass loss between 9.5 and 10.5 per cent proves the high plasticityof the raw material. The colour and structure of the samples attested to anestimated temperature of 1150°C during firing in the kiln.

The colour we obtained at the end of firing tests at all temperatures wasdifferent to that of the majority of the finds, while the structure of the granularmaterial seemed identical. This implies that the medieval firing may have beencarried out in a slightly reducing atmosphere, when instead of the reddish shade ofiron (III)-oxide, the greyish white or creamy white shade of iron (II)-oxide may beobtained. This technique was observed in the modern ‘white-ware’ productioncentres of Gömör/Gemer in Slovakia (Szanyi 1977).

DATA ON WORKSHOP ORGANIZATION

There is only scarce historical data on the medieval potters’ workshops before thesixteenth century since guild development started relatively late in Hungary. Theyrarely report on individual workshops and their locations. So we have to relyprimarily on archaeological sources, which can be completed with ethnographicdata. The small number of kilns found at individual sites, the structure of the kilnsand the finds they contained, suggest that the majority of the kilns were operatedin workshops run by independent potters and their families.


Table 3. Mass loss

Temperature Mass loss due to heating

1 1255 °C 10.31 %2 1247 °C 9.93 %3 1224 °C 9.69 %4 1190 °C 9.92 %5 1147 °C 9.74 %6 1080 °C 9.81 %7 979 °C 9.55 %



From a topographical aspect, the existence of independent potters’ workshops isindicated by the fact that the majority of the kilns were found alone or in smallclusters. Likewise, ethnographic data shows that later, including the modernperiod, independent or small clusters of kilns were characteristic in the CarpathianBasin. A larger number of kilns (5) is known from a single site: a pottery workshop


Table 4. Gazetteer of medieval pottery kilns in the Carpathian Basin

site country item references

1 Alsó Poltár/Dolný Poltar Slovakia 1 Hrubec 19712 Babócsa – Nárciszos Hungary 1 Magyar 19903 Bács/Bač Yugoslavia – Serbia 1 Stanojev 1996:12–144 Bajna – Csima Hungary 2 Horváth et al. 19795 Bajna, 39, Kossuth Lajos Street Hungary 1 Vágner 2001: 55–576 Bártfa/Bardejov Šiancova Street Slovakia 1 Čaplovič and Slivka 19887 Budapest XX, Soroksár Várhegy Hungary 1 Írásné-Melis 19928 Decs - Ete puszta Hungary 2 Csalogovits 19379 Decs, 8, Pilisi Elemér Street Hungary 1 Vágner 2001:79

10 Esztergom, Szenttamás hill, 6, Hungary 1 Fehér and Parády 1960Lépcső Street

11 Galgóc/Hlohovce Jesensky Slovakia 3 Polla Rejholec 1961(Malinovsky) ul.

12 Galgóc/Hlohovce Slovakia 1 Pastorek 1985Michalska ul.

13 Felsőlupkó/Gornea – T.armuri Romania 1 Uzum and T.eicu 197814 Hács Béndekpuszta Hungary 1 Parády 196715 Kalocsa, 17, I. István király Street Hungary 1 Vágner 2001:102–10616 Kaposvár – road no. 61 leading Hungary 2 Vágner 2001:107–108

eastwards out of the town17 Kassa/Košice, 57, Šrobarovskej Slovakia 1 Pastor 1959

Street18 Kisszeben/Sabinov Slovakia 1 Slivka 197819 Mozsor/Mošorin – Bostanište Yugoslavia – Serbia 1 Veselinović 195220 Nagyvárad/Oradea Romania 1 Rusu 199621 Nyitra/Nitra – Lupka Slovakia 13 Chropovský 1959, 196122 Óbecse/Bečej – Botra Yugoslavia – Serbia 5 Stanojevič 198023 Óbecse/Bečej – Perlek Yugoslavia – Serbia 2 Stanojev 1996:42–7424 Pozsony/Bratislava, Hurbanovo Slovakia 1 Egyházy-Jurovská 1984

Square25 Pusztaberény – Pig sty Hungary 1 Bárdos 1978; Vágner 200126 Székelykeresztúr/Cristuru Romania 1 Benkő 1992:159–160

Secuisec, 26, Iskola Street – hospital

27 Székelykeresztúr/Cristuru Romania 2 Benkő 1992: 176–177Secuisec Katustava, /2, Hajnal Street

28 Szelezsény - Felső Szelezsény/ Slovakia 1 Ruttkay 1988Sl’ažany – Horné Sl’ažany

29 Tótgyarmat/Slovenské Slovakia 1 Vendzová 1964Ďarmoty – Malý Iliašov

30 Túrkeve – Csudabala, site no. 8 Hungary 1 Vágner 2001:178–180



in the early village settlement of Óbecse-Botra (Serbia). Their structure, size andlocation in the settlement match the average picture built up of tenth–thirteenth-century pottery kilns. The finds, however, and the results of the comparativeanalyses of the raw materials indicate that the raw material of the vessels wastransported from a few kilometres away on the other side of the River Tisza, whichpresupposes an organized activity (Stanojević 1980:25).

As regards the topographic characteristics it is worth mentioning that the earlypottery kilns (tenth–thirteenth centuries) were often built between householdovens, in oven clusters, in villages (attached to their fire pits or working pits). Thisdoes not, however, mean that the pottery kilns were used only on a householdlevel since the finds recovered from them imply a greater technical skill. A goodexample is offered by the kiln at Hács-Béndekpuszta where a small and verysimple up-draught, two-chambered, grated kiln was found between the householdovens, which contained high quality finds (Parádi 1967:25).

The structural characteristics of the kilns may also imply features that aredifficult to interpret with respect to workshop organization. The very simplestructure of the small up-draught kilns characteristic of the tenth–thirteenthcenturies might imply a pottery activity that satisfied household demand. But theabove-mentioned pyrotechnical analyses and the ethnographic data showed thatsmall, up-draught grated kilns with a diameter of about 1 m could produce acontrollable firing at 800–900°C. The frequently occurring simple, poor-qualityhousehold ceramics of the tenth–thirteenth-century settlements and cemeterieshave not been found in the pottery kilns excavated so far. At the same time, thesmall dimensions of the kilns in the region may be explained by the closedeconomic system of the period between the tenth and thirteenth centuries and ofcourse before it, when production for markets was negligible.

Late medieval workshops can be characterized by significantly larger kilns. Thiswas caused by a change in the economic system of the country that started in thefourteenth century. This involved the concentration of market districts and centresand an increased demand for production. This increase led, in the case of up-draught kilns, to a greater variety of structural arrangements.

The larger size of the kilns indicates the demand for a larger-scale production.So it is no accident that they appeared in the Carpathian Basin with the neweconomic and market demand at the beginning of the fourteenth century. Serialmass production could be observed first of all in horizontal-draught kilns. One ofthe reasons is that, beside the larger size of the kilns, their structure and technologyallowed more balanced firing. This, in turn, guaranteed the production of a largernumber of vessels with relatively uniform high quality. The demand for this type and scale of production supposes more significant markets or marketdistricts. This explains why the horizontal-draught kilns were usually built in cities(Kassa/Košice, Pozsony/Bratislava, Kisszeben/Sabinov), smaller towns (Galgóc/Hlohovce) or near outcrops of high quality raw material close to central places. Ofthese, only the kilns of Kassa/Košice and Kisszeben/Sabinov can be associated,with a degree of certainty, to the activity of town guilds (Pástor 1959:617–618;Slivka 1978:182).




The especially large horizontal-draught kilns satisfied the demand for specialproduction such as in workshops where rare, extremely high-quality white pottery(proto-stoneware, near-stoneware) based on kaolin raw material fired at a hightemperature was produced in large quantities. In the Carpathian Basin, twoworkshops have been excavated in all, which are situated in the territories of twodistant kaolin outcrops. The earlier, thirteenth–fifteenth-century, kiln excavated inthe territory of Alsó Poltár/Dolný Poltar, was built in the recently extremelyimportant stoneware-producing region in Gömör, while the later kilns of Bajna,dated to the end of the fifteenth century and the beginning of the sixteenth century,operated in a smaller, lesser-known region. As well as their age and location, thestructures and the topographic characteristics of the kilns also show significantdivergences. At Alsó Poltár/Dolný Poltar a large up-draught kiln with a 4 mdiameter was excavated, while in Bajna large horizontal-draught kilns of westernorigin from the Rhine region were uncovered. These large kilns and the uniquefinds recovered from them evidence organized production, which can be justifiedby being bound to the territory because of the scarcity of the high-quality rawmaterial that lent a unique quality to the vessels.

SUMMARY

The following comments may be made with regard to the kilns discovered in theterritory of medieval Hungary in the Carpathian Basin. As regards their structure,the pottery kilns can be grouped into an up-draught type with vertical flamedirection and a horizontal-draught type with horizontal flame direction. It isgenerally characteristic of the kilns that they were built in pits. The majority of theup-draught kilns had two chambers separated by a grate, while only a few kilnswith a single chamber were found, restricted to two regions. The majority of thehorizontal-draught kilns had a single chamber, where various arrangements forthe direction and control of fire could be observed. A grate, which increases thesafety of firing, was observed in only a single case. The comparison of the twotypes shows that the horizontal-draught kilns provided greater production to ahigher standard because of the better control of firing.

Beside structural specifics, the two main types also show divergences indistribution and origin. Up-draught kilns were used in the greater part of theCarpathian Basin throughout the Middle Ages. Types of up-draught kilns areknown in the Carpathian Basin from the Neolithic, and they could also have beenintroduced by the conquering Hungarians. Horizontal-draught kilns, however, areknown only from the turn of the thirteenth–fourteenth centuries until the sixteenthcentury in the territory of present-day Slovakia and north-western Hungary. Thekilns diffused to central Europe and arrived in the Carpathian Basin from westernEurope, probably as a result of influence from Germany. In the case of horizontal-draught kilns of foreign origin it is obvious, even given the low number ofexcavated kilns, how variable the type was. This indicates that the type did notarrive in a single wave and did not have a single origin. It can also be supposedthat after some time they were locally further developed.




Significant differences can be observed in the size and the quantity and qualityof kiln finds from the tenth–thirteenth and the fourteenth–sixteenth centuries. Thekilns from the tenth–thirteenth centuries show a uniform picture. They were smallwith an average diameter of 1 m, and they were built of earth. The late medievalkilns are always larger in both types and the structures are more varied. Thedifferences in size mirror the economic characteristics of the two periods. Theearlier, closed, self-supporting workshops produced fewer wares for the markets,while the larger-scale production from the fourteenth century onwards shows thetransformation of the economy and the increase in market demand. This explainswhy the horizontal-draught kilns that allowed high standard large-scaleproduction appeared only in this period in the economically more advancednorthern territories of the Carpathian Basin.

The most important topographic feature is that, for technical reasons, the kilnswere built mainly in waterless locations, although they were often establishedclose to water sources. The kilns can be found in various settlement types. Thecommon feature is that, disregarding late medieval fortified towns, they canusually be found in the central parts of the settlements.

Because of the lack of written sources, the existence of potters’ workshops canbe deduced only from the discovered kilns. They usually evidence smallworkshops of independent potters, which could be different depending on thescale of production. Of the few special workshops only the large size of the AlsóPoltár/Dolný Poltar kiln and its place among the productive buildings of themanor indicates some kind of a centralized production. Little is known about theworkshops of towns where individual objects were also produced and thatsatisfied the town market. The kilns of these workshops also hint at the activity ofindependent potters. This also indicates how important it would be to study inmore detail the workshops where stoneware was produced and those that wereoperated by guilds.

REFERENCES

ANDRONIC, A., 1970. Sapaturile de salvare de le Tomesti. Materiale si CercetariArheologie 9:407–413.

BALOGH, A., 1928. Esztergom Évlapjai 4:59BÁRDOS, E., 1978. Avar temető Kaposvár határában. Somogyi Múzeumok

Közleménye 3:13–94.BENKő, E., 1992. A középkori Keresztúr szék topográfiája. Varia Archaeologica

Hungarica V. ed. Bálint Csanád, Budapest.BÖHNER, K., 1955–1956. Frühmittelalterlicher Töpferöfen in Walberger und

Pingsdorf. Bonner Jahrbüche 155–156: 355–371.BÓNIS, É., 1981. A pannóniai rómaikori fazekaskemencék. Iparrégészet I.,

Veszprém:11–17.BRYANT, G.F., 1978–1979. Romano-British experimental kiln firings at Barton-

on-Humber, England, 1968–1975. Acta Praehistorica et Archeologica 9–10:13–22.

ČAPLOVIč, D. and M. Slivka, 1988. Stredoveká hrnčiarska pec z Bardejova. NovéObzory 22:83–104.




CHROPOVSKÝ, B., 1959. Slovenske hrinčiarske pece v. Nitre. Archeologické Rozhledie2:297–304, 818–825.

CHROPOVSKÝ, B., 1961. Kotázkam historického postavenia Nitry v VIII a IX storoči.Študijné Zvesti AÚ SAV č. 6:70–83.

COMSA, E., 1976. Die Töpferöfen im Neolithikum Rumaniens. Jahresschrift fürmitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 60:353–364.

CONSTANTINESCU, N., 1972. Coconi, Un sat din Cîmpia Românâ în epoca lui MirceaCel Batrîn. Studiu arheologie si istorie (Bibliotheca de arheologie XVII)Bucuresti:82–91.

CSALOGOVITS, J., 1937. Tolna vármegye múzeumának második ásatása a törökhódoltság alatt elpusztult Ete község helyén. Néprajzi Értesítő 29:321–332.

DREWS, G., 1978–1979. Entwicklung der Keramik-Brennöfen. Acta Praehistorica etArcheologica 9–10:33–48.

DUHAMEL, P., 1978–1979. Morphologie et évolution des fours céramiques enEurope Occidentale protohistorire, monde celtique et Gaule romaine. ActaPraehistorica et Archeologica 9–10:49–76.

DUMA, GY., 1966. Mit Töpfen überwölbte keramische Öfen. Acta Ethnographica15:93–159.

DUMA, GY., 1982. Holzgefeuerte Ofentypen der ungarische Hafne. Keramik 13:53–79.

DUšEK, S. and H. HOHMANN, 1986. Haarhausen I Rekonstruktion eines Töpferofens unddes Brennverfahrens. Weimarer Monographien zur Úr- und Frühgeschichte 16.Weimar.

EGYHÁZY-JUROVSKÁ, B., 1984. K nálezom stredovekých hrnčiarskych peci zBratislavy. Zborník prác L’udmile Kraskovskej. Slovenské národné múzeum vBratislave: 271–283

ELLIS, L., 1984. The Cucueni – Tripolye Culture. A Study in Technology and the Originsof Complex Society. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (InternationalSeries 217).

FÁBIÁN, GY., 1934–1935. A jáki gerencsérek. Vasi Szemle 1:3–4., 2:1 185–201.,296–308., 27–45.

FEHÉR, G. and N. PARÁDI, 1960. Esztergom Szent Tamás-hegyi 1956; évi ásatástörökkori kutatások. Esztergom Évlapjai:35–43. Esztergom.

FLAMBARD-HÉRICHER, A.-M., 2000. La production du Grés: Une affaire de goût.Médiévales 39. automne 2000. Techniques: les paris de l’innovation: 30–45.

GAIMSTER, P., 1997. German Stoneware, 1200–1900: Archaeology and Cultural History.London: British Museum.

GAJEWSKI, L., 1959. Materialy do sredniowiecznego garncarstwa wiejskiego wMalopolsce. Materiale archeologiczne 1 Karków:343–351.

GERARD, C.M., 2000. Medieval Ceramic Production Centres in England, SummaryReport. Winchester.

GUADAGNIN, R., 2000. Fosses – Vallée de l’Ysieux, Mille ans de production céramique enÎle-de-France. Volume 1: Les données archéologiques et historiques. Caen:Publications du CRAM.

HORVÁTH, I., M.H. KELEMEN and I. TORMA, 1979. Komárom megye régészetitopográfiája, Esztergom és a dorogi járás. Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája5:40, 70.

HRUBEC, I., 1971. Výskum zaniknutej dediny Dolný Poltár. Archeologicke Rozhledie23(1):69–79.

ÍRÁSNÉ-MELIS, K., 1992. Kerekegyháza középkori falu Budapest határában. In P.Havassy and L. Selmeczi (eds), Régészeti kutatások az M0 autópályanyomvonalán II: 87–88. BTM műhely 6. Budapest.

JANSSEN, W., 1983. Gewerbliche Produktion des Mittelalters als Wirtschaftsfaktorim ländlichen Raum. In Walter Jannsen (ed.), Das Handwerk in vor- und




frühgeschichter Zeit: Bericht über die Kolloquien des Komission für dieAltertumskunde Mittel- und Nordeuropas in den Jahren 1977 bis 1980: 320–396.Göttingen.

JANSSEN, W., 1985. Der technische Wandel der Töpferofen von der Karolingzeitzum Hochmittelalter, dargestellt anhand rheinischer Beispiele. In Laceramique (Ve – XIXe s) Fabrication – Commercialisation – Utilisation. IerCongrès International d’Archéologie Médievale, Paris 1985. Actes publiéspar la Société d’Archéologie Médiévale avec le concours du Ministère de laCulture et de la Communication: 107–119. Caen.

JEREM, E., M. BALLAAND and L. BALÁZS, 1998. Early Celtic stamped pottery in theeastern Alpine area. Workshop activity and trade. Archaeometrical Research inHungary 2. Budapest.

JEREM, E., J. KARDOS and J. KRISTON, 1985. Scientific Investigations of the Sopron-Krautacker Iron Age Pottery Workshop. Archaeometry 27:83–93.

JÜRGENS, A., 1988. Langerwehe-Brühl-Frechen: neue Grabungen und Erkenntnissein Rheinischen Töpfereizentren. In R.M. Gaimster, M. Redknap and H.H.Wegner (eds), Zur Keramik des Mittelalters und der beginnenden Neuzeit imRheinland: 125–150. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (InternationalSeries 440).

KALECSINSZKY, S., 1905. A magyar korona országainak megvizsgált agyagai. Budapest:Magyar Állami Földtani Intézet.

KÓS, K., 1986. A züricvölgyi gerencsérség. VasiSz 40(3): 388–421.KRESZ, M., 1985. Pottery in the Carpathian Basin. Neogene mineral resources in

the Carpathian Basin. In VIIIth RCMNS Congress Hungarian Geological SurveyBudapest: 479–501.

KRESZ, M., 1991. Agyagművesség. Magyar néprajz vol. 3. Kézművesség: 524–600.KWAPIENIOWA, M. and A. WALOWY, 1966. Piece garcarskie w swietle badan

archeologicznych. Materialy archeologiczne 10:205–229.LIFFA A., 1935. Néhány hazai kaolin- és tűzálló agyag-előfordulás geológiai

viszonyai. Jelentés az 1933–1935; években végzett geológiai vizsgálatokról:1247–1288.

LUCKE, A., 1978–1979. Rekonstruktion eines prähistorischen Töpferofens undBrennversuche in Kukate, Kr. Lüchow-Dannenberg. Acta Praehistorica etArcheologica 9–10:269–275.

LUNG, W., 1958. Mittelalterliche Töpferöfen und Eisenverhüttung in Katterbach.Kölner Jahrbüch 61–63:93–106.

MAGYAR, K., 1990. Babócsa története a honfoglalástól a mohácsi vészig. Babócsatörténete (Tanulmányok a község történetéből 1040–1990) Babócsa:133–134, 210.

MÉSZÁROS, GY., 1968. Szekszárd és környéke törökös díszítésű kerámia. Szekszárd.MEYER, N.O., 1987. Analyse de la distribution de la céramique dans les

stratigraphies d’habitat de Saint-Denis. In La ceramique (Ve – XIXe s.)Fabrication – Commercialisation – Utilisation. Ier Congrès Internationald’Archéologie Médievale, Paris 1985. Actes publiés par la Sociétéd’Archéologie Médiévale avec le concours du Ministère de la Culture et de laCommunication: 43–53. Caen.

MOORHOUSE, A.S., 1981. The medieval pottery industry and its markets. In D.W.Crossley (ed.), Medieval Industry:96–125. London: Council for BritishArchaeology.

MOORHOUSE, A.S., 1987. The composition and development of medieval pottingtenements in the British Isles. In La ceramique (Ve – XIXe s.) Fabrication –Commercialisation – Utilisation. Ier Congrès International d’ArchéologieMédievale, Paris 1985. Actes publiés par la Société d’Archéologie Médiévaleavec le concours du Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication:179–194. Caen.




MOSZYNSZKI, K., 1929. Kultura Ludowa Slovwian I: Kultura Materjalna. Krakow.NEKUDA, V., 1978–1979. Mittelalterliche Töpferöfen und Ausbrenntechnik in

Mähren. Acta Praehistorica et Archeologica 9–10:131–133.NEKUDA, V. and K. REICHERTOVA, 1968. Stredoveka keramika v Čechách a na

Moravé. Moravske Muzeum v Brné:39–49.PARÁDI, N., 1967. A Hács-béndekpusztai árpádkori edényégetőkemence.

Archaeologiai Értesítő 94(1):20–38.PÁSTOR, J., 1959. Zpráva o archeologickom výskume Východoslovenského múzea

v Košiciach v roku 1958. Múzeum 6:617–618.PASTOREK, I., 1985. Osídlenie, hospodárske pomery a materiálna kultúra

feudálneho Hlohovca vo svetle archeologických výskumov a nálezov.Archaeologia Historica 10:109–116.

PEACOCK, D.P.S., 1982. Pottery in the Roman World: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach.London.

PIETA, K., 1995. Das archäologische Freilichtmuseum in Liptovská Mara/Slowakei.In Experimentelle Archäologie Bilanz 1994 (Symposium in Duisburg August1993). Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Nordwestdeutschland Beiheft 8:23–28.

PLEINER, R., 1988. Brennversuche in einem nachgebildeten slawischen Töpferofen.Slovenská Archeológia 36(2):299–307.

PLETNEVA, SZ.-A., 1981. Sztepi Evrazii v épohu szrednevekovja. Archeoligija SSSR20:74, 235.

PLICKOVÁ, E., 1952. Hrnčiarska výroba v Pozdišovciach. Národopisný sborník11:191–271.

PLICKOVÁ, E., 1959. Pozdišovské Hrnčiarstvo. Bratislava.POLLA, B., and E. REJHOLEC, 1961. Nález stredovekych hrnčiarskych peci v

Hlohovci. Slovensky Národopis 9:259–269.RESCHREITER, J., 1994. Nachbau des völkerwanderungszeitlichen Töpferofens aus

Ternitz, NÖ. In Experimentelle Archäologie Bilanz 1994 (Symposium inDuisburg August 1993). Archäologische Mitteilungen aus NordwestdeutschlandBeiheft 8:40–43.

RHODES, D., 1973. Kilns – Design, Construction and Operation. New York.ROSNER, GY., 1981. Fazekas kemencék a Szekszárd-Bogyiszló úti avar faluban.

Iparrégészet 1:43–49. Veszprém.RUSU, A.A., 1996. Cahle din Transilvania (II). Arheologia Medievala I, Resit,a:125–126.RUTTKAY, M., 1988. Hrnčiarska pec z vrcholného stredoveku v Sl’ažanoch. Študijné

Zvesti 24:127–142.RYBAKOV, V.A., 1948. Remslo drevnej Rusi. Moskva: 343–354.ŠIMIČ-KANAET, Z., 1996. Razvoj lončrskih peći i antičkim primjerima. Opuscula

Archeologica 20:151–178. Zagreb.SLIVKA, M., 1978. Nález stredovekej hrnčiarskej pece v Sabinove. Nové obzory

20:175–183. Košice.SRUSANSKY, S., 1968. Príspevok k dejinám bratislavského hrnčiarstra. (Beitrag zur

Geschichte des Bratislaver Töpferhandwerks). Zbornik Slovenského NárodnéhoMúzea Hist. Roc 62:77–146.

STANOJEV, N., 1996. Srednjovekovna seoska naselja od V do XV veka u Vojvodini(Mittelaterliche dörfliche Siedlungen vom 5. bis zum 15. Jh. In derWojwodina). Novi Sad: Muzej Vojvodine.

STANOJEVIČ, N., 1980. Zaštitno iskopavane lokaliteta Botra kod Beceja –Srednevekovna lončarska radionica. RAD VM 31:89–119.

STEPHAN, H.-G., 1988. Steinzeug und Irdenware: Diskussionbeiträge zurAbgrenzung und Definition Mittelaalterlicher Deutscher Steinzeuggruppen.In R.M. Gaimster, M. Redknap and H.H. Wegner (eds), Zur Keramik desMittelalters und der beginnenden Neuzeit im Rheinland: 81–124. Oxford: BritishArchaeological Reports (International Series 440).




SWAN, V.G., 1984. The Pottery Kilns of Roman Britain. London: Royal Commissionon Historical Monuments (Supplementary Series 5).

SZANYI, M., 1977. Adatok a gömöri népi fazekassághoz. Irodalmi Szemle április.T,EICU, D. and G. LAZAROVICI, 1996. Gornea. Timisoara: Editura Banatica.UZUM, I. and D. T,EICU, 1978. Cupt., orul de ars ceramica descoperit in asezarea

feudala timpurie de la Gornea- ‘T,armuri’. Acta Museia Napociensis 15:295–305.VÁGNER, Z., 2001. Középkori fazekaskemencék. (Medieval Pottery Kilns) MA

dissertation, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest.VENDZOVÁ, V., 1964. Výskum v Slovenských Ďarmotách roku 1962. Archeologicke

Rozhledy 16:347–369.VESELINOVIĆ, R.L., 1952. Ranoslovenska lončarske peći i grobovi kod Mošorina u

Bačkoj (Izveštaj o arheološkim proučavanjima u 1951 godini). RAD VM1:143–158.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

Zsolt Vágner studied at the Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest. Since 1998 he hasbeen researching the history of medieval pottery production technology in theCarpathian Basin using archaeological, historical, geographical and ethnographicalsources and approaches with the help of pyrotechnical analysis. In 2001 he completedhis MA dissertation on the medieval pottery kilns in the Carpathian Basin and thepresent article is based on the results of the dissertation, which included a database andclassification of medieval pottery kilns and their technological and topographicalfeatures, and the history of their development. At the moment he is an independentarchaeologist in Hungary.

Address: Pécel 2119, Csiktarcsa utca 8, Hungary. [email: [email protected]]

ABSTRACTS

Fours à poterie médiévaux dans le bassin des CarpatesZsolt Vágner

Cet article porte sur les fours à poterie datant du 10e au 16e siècle sur le territoire de la Hongriemédiévale, dans le bassin des Carpates. Les fours sont classifiés d’après leur structure, latechnique de construction ainsi que la technologie relative à la cuisson. Ces caractéristiques sontanalysées en se basant sur les preuves archéologiques, les sources ethnographiques et les analysestechnologiques et pyrotechniques. De même, on examine les particularités archéologiques etstratigraphiques ainsi que quelques problèmes inhérents aux études des fours médiévaux. Uneanalyse topographique des fours par rapport aux ateliers et villages, d’après les évidencesarchéologiques et historiques, est présentée parallèlement à une analyse du développement, del’origine et de la distribution des différents types de fours médiévaux dans le bassin des Carpates.On termine par une courte discussion sur ce que l’étude des fours à poterie peut apporter à lameilleure compréhension de l’organisation des ateliers.

Mot-clés: basin des Carpates, classification, fours à poterie médiévaux, histoire technologique

Mittelalterliche Töpferöfen im KarpatenbeckenZsolt Vágner

Der Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit Töpferöfen des 10.-16. Jhs. aus dem Karpatenbecken imTerritorium des mittelalterlichen Ungarns. Die Öfen werden anhand ihres Aufbaus, ihrer




Bauweise und Befeuerungstechnologie klassifiziert; diese Charakteristika werden unterEinbeziehung archäologischer Befunde, ethnographischer Quellen sowie technologischer undpyrotechnischer Analysen untersucht. Weiterhin werden die archäologischen undstratigraphischen Gesichtspunkte und verschiedene methodologische Probleme der Forschung zumittelalterlichen Töpferöfen diskutiert und eine topographische Analyse der Öfen zu Werkstättenund Siedlungen auf der Basis archäologischer Befunde und historischer Quellen präsentiert.Zudem wird die Entwicklungsgeschichte, Herkunft und Verbreitung der verschiedenen Typenmittelalterlicher Keramikbrennöfen vorgestellt. Eine kurze Diskussion widmet sich dem Beitrag,den die Untersuchung von Töpferöfen zum Verständnis der Organisation von Werkstätten leistet.

Schlüsselbegriffe: Karpatenbecken, Klassifikation, mittelalterliche Töpferöfen, Technologiegeschichle

A jelen tanulmány tanulmány célja a Kárpát-medencéből, a középkori Magyarország területérőlelőkerült középkori, 10–16. század közé keltezhető fazekaskemencék bemutatása. Afazekaskemencék típusainak vizsgálata, osztályozása a szerkezeti, építéstechnikai, valamint azégetés technológiai jellegzetességek alapján. A fezakaskemence típusok szerkezeténeképítéstechnikájának, és azok jellemző égetéstechnikájának vizsgálata, bemutatása, illetverekonstruálása, a régészeti adatok mellett a néprajzi források, valamint a kemencékből előkerültleletek technológiai, pirotechnikai vizsgálatok felhasználásával. Továbbá az égetokemencékrégészeti- statigráfiai jellegzetességeinek, valamint néhány a feltárások kapcsán felmerülőrégészeti módszertani probléma bemutatása. A kemencék szerkezeti és technológiai vizsgálataimellett teret kapott a kemencék rövid műhely és település topográfiai értékelése a régészeti, illetvea történeti források segítségével. Mindezek, valamint a régészeti-történeti párhuzamoksegítségével a Kárpát-medencéből előkerült középkori fazekaskemencék fejlődéstörténeténekrövid tárgyalása, azok elterjedésének, eredetének a vizsgálata alapján. Végezetül afazekaskemencéknek a műhelyszervezetekre utaló jellegzetességeinek a rövid tárgyalása.




vagner 2002_cuptoare medievale

Documents