Next Article in Journal
Inclusive Information Design in Heritage Landscapes: Experimental Proposals for the Archaeological Site of Tiermes, Spain
Previous Article in Journal
Rural Landscapes as Cultural Heritage and Identity along a Romanian River
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Heritage
Volume 7
Issue 8
10.3390/heritage7080206
heritage-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Exploring Colour Palette in Pottery from Western Anatolia and East Asia—Colour Schemes to Inspire

by
Adamantia P. Panagopoulou
1,2,*,
Joanita Vroom
1,
Anno Hein
2 and
Vassilis Kilikoglou
2
1
Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, Einsteinweg 2, 2333 CC Leiden, The Netherlands
2
Institute of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology “Demokritos”, National Center for Scientific Research, Aghia Paraskevi, 15310 Athens, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Heritage 2024, 7(8), 4374-4402; https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage7080206
Submission received: 5 June 2024 / Revised: 31 July 2024 / Accepted: 7 August 2024 / Published: 14 August 2024
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In the present case study, the manufacturing technology for glazed pottery was investigated, with particular focus on the great variety of colours and glaze recipes used in Western Anatolia and East Asia and observed in finds from rescue excavation sites in Greece. An assemblage of 40 ceramic fragments dating from the Late Byzantine and Islamic to the Ottoman/Venetian periods was examined for their decoration, surface treatment, and production technology. The peculiarities of the colour recipes applied on the glazed pottery of different assumed origins of production were investigated, focusing on glaze technology and employing colourants. This was achieved by the use of an analytical workflow that considered the compositional details of pigments, slip coatings, and glazes. The chemical evaluation was carried out utilising X-Ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy (pXRF) and Scanning Electron Microscopy with Energy Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy (SEM-EDS). Raman Spectroscopy provided information about the compositional variation, and the microscopic examination via Optical Microscopy (OM) and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM-EDS) yielded information about the sample stratigraphy of the examined ceramic sections. Through a wide range of colour and glaze recipes, this study of glazed ceramics was able to define and express the essential elements of each pottery workshop’s perception of colour.

1. Introduction

Over the last several decades, the use of material analysis to examine the compositions and manufacturing processes of ancient glazed ceramics has developed as a field of study. This is due to the fact that pottery has always been the main topic of archaeology research, with various perspectives (art history, economics, everyday life, etc.) explored. Although significant studies of Near and Far Eastern glaze compositions and colour recipes have been conducted [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20], the full range of research attention is often lacking. During the Medieval to Post-Medieval periods, pottery was widely produced in Western Anatolia and East Asia, especially at important urban centres such as Constantinople (Istanbul), Iznik, and Kütahya (Figure 1). Because of their strategic locations at intersectional points along the Silk Road, these urban centres had a significant political, economic, and military role in Western Anatolia and East Asia. Numerous distinct handicraft production sites have been identified in various parts of these cities, with pottery production being one of the most significant, at least from the 9th century onwards. For this purpose, the colour pigments and glaze recipes of 40 ceramic fragments from Western Anatolia and East Asia collected within the Castle of Mytilene and Chalcis in Greece were investigated in this study (Table 1; Figure 1 and Figure 2). The selection of the number of fragments in each class depended on the available archaeological material.
Chalcis in Euboea and Mytilene in Lesvos were two important Greek centres of ceramic production, and they gained great recognition during the Medieval and Post-Medieval periods. Furthermore, the harbours of Chalcis and Mytilene had widely extended trade and distribution of products that connected Greece with the East and West. Specifically, Chalcis had extensive trade with the Western Aegean and Mytilene had extensive trade with the North Aegean. During the Mediaeval to Post-Medieval periods, numerous local and imported ceramics were discovered in these two excavations. Therefore, the selection of samples from these two regions was not random. Much archaeological evidence exists regarding the provenance of the fragments from different regions based on stylistic considerations [21]. However, this is not always sufficient and unambiguous, and that is where elemental analysis in terms of exploring colour palette comes in.
The study of the decoration and iconography of these samples is significant because it attests to various sources of influence from Western Anatolia and East Asia. As part of a larger investigation into the production procedures used to manufacture Medieval and Post-Medieval ceramics, the compositional variance of the pigments and glaze recipes was examined using Optical Microscopy, Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM-EDS), and Raman spectroscopy. Through the integration of scientific methods and archaeological data, this project aimed to define alternative approaches to colour and glazes. It became clear that further knowledge of colour application, mixing, and pattern development in relation to aesthetic perception was required. Therefore, decorative pottery techniques and chemical reactions between glaze and pigments were examined. These investigations into glazed ceramics yielded important insights into the cultural and colour sensibilities of pottery workshops across many locations in Western Anatolia and East Asia.

Historical and Archaeological Context

Mytilene, the main city of the eastern Aegean island of Lesvos, is located 12 miles from the northeast coast of Western Turkey (Asia Minor). Mytilene was a thriving Greek seaport that connected the East with the West due to its advantageous location, which stems from its proximity to the west coast of the Gulf of Adramyttion (Hadramut). In the Byzantine era, Lesvos maintained its ancient trading connections with Egypt and the Near East and was relatively close to major cities like Constantinople, Ephesus, Thessaloniki, Nicaea (later Iznik), and Phocaea. Lesvos’s history is intricately linked to that of the Aegean Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean region [22,23].
From the Medieval to odern times, one of the most well-known locations for ceramic production has been Lesvos. There were also ceramics workshops in the Castle of Mytilene in Lesvos, which is located in the northwest part of the island and extends from the town’s north harbour to the top of the hill (Figure 3). Its construction is known to have started in the 6th century under the rule of Justinian I. After the Ottoman conquest of Lesvos in 1462, the Ottomans used the castle (Kastro) for both defensive and residential purposes until 1912 [21,22]. The four hundred and fifty years (1462–1912) of Ottoman rule left numerous traces in the castle and town of Mytilene in Lesvos. The Ottoman period yielded an abundant variety of diverse ceramic products from the 13th to the 19th centuries due to extended trade, such as pieces of Kütahya Ware, Iznik Ware, Miletus Ware, Zeuxippus Ware subtype, Porcelain, Glazed Frit Ware, Monochrome and One Colour Sgraffito Ware, Glazed White Ware IV, and Elaborate Incised Ware [22,23,24,25].
Chalcis was a powerful and significant centre of Euboea in antiquity, and it is situated on the marine routes that connect the eastern and western Mediterranean. Chalcis connected the Black Sea and Constantinople with southern Greece, Crete, and Venice and served as a major naval and commercial connection for the Venetian maritime power in the East [26,27,28,29]. The city progressively became the main transit hub in western Aegean, especially in the 14th and 15th centuries. Furthermore, the city served as the station for the Theme’s flotilla, which was one of the main military and administrative divisions of the middle Byzantine Empire [26,27,28,29,30,31,32].
The abundance and diversity of ceramics discovered from Chalcis excavations of earlier and more recent years demonstrate the city’s economic prosperity and its connections to major centres of the Byzantine Empire, and from the 13th century onwards, its contact with more distant trading ports to both the East and the West [33]. Additionally, in the first centuries of the Middle Byzantine period (9th–11th centuries), the few yet significant pottery pieces imported from Constantinople made of white clay demonstrate Chalcis’s connections to the capital [34]. Additionally, the diverse imports of ceramics during the Latin occupation attest to Chalcis’s significant role in the Mediterranean trade network and as one of Venice’s main transit ports [29,35,36,37]. The artifacts under study excavated from the Orionos Street excavation were Zeuxippus Ware, Lustre Ware, Glazed Frit Ware, Glazed White Ware II, and Polychrome White Ware (Figure 4).

2. Materials and Methods

The 40 glazed ceramic fragments were studied under a stereo microscope. Additionally, 26 samples were taken from the selected fragments for the preparation and investigation of cross sections through a Leica DM2700P with the Leica MC190HD camera (Leica Microsystems, Wetzlar, Germany). From this optical examination, the microstructure of the glaze, slip coating, and ceramic fabric were analysed in terms of characteristics such as homogeneity, inclusions, and porosity.
Then, pXRF was used as an initial method of fast and non-invasive analysis. For the non-invasive measurements of the 40 ceramic samples, a handheld portable XRF (pXRF) analyser, Thermo Scientific™ Niton™ XL3t XRF (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA), was used. The pXRF ‘soil’ (ppm) calibration method was applied to the samples to find trace elements in the clays. It was very important to examine the extent to which the archaeological typology and fabric classification could be linked to groupings made according to chemical composition. For this reason, pXRF was applied as an initial method of fast and non-invasive analysis. Moreover, pXRF was used to check the presence of seriously degraded samples and, thus, to remove them from further analysis. The section of each sample was measured in one spot as the measurement spot of the pXRF (c. 6 mm) is only marginally smaller than the studied fragments. Samples CH109 and MYT183 were too small for analysis in view of the 6 mm spot size of the pXRF analysis, and they did not present a suitable or preferably flat surface geometry.
Furthermore, a Quanta Inspect D8334 SEM-EDS FEI (FEI, Hillsboro, OR, United States) was used to provide additional information about the pigments’ chemical compositions. When the EDS was operating at a voltage of 25 kV, spectra with a count time of 120 s were recorded in order to obtain the best excitation of the low-energy and low-concentration elements. The type of detector was EDX, and the type of camera was CCD IR. The scale for analytical totals was set to 100%; typically, it ranges from 95% to 99%. An average of three to five measurements were taken in carefully chosen zones within the regions of interest, avoiding heterogeneous zones.
Raman spectroscopy was performed with a Jobin-Yvon LabRam HR 800 (Horiba, Kyoto, Japan) system, and a red laser with an 845 nm diode laser and a 2 μm spot diameter were used. Out of the 50 pigment analyses of each sample, only 19 measurements appeared to be suitable for further evaluation as the remaining Raman spectra appeared to be interfered with by the fluorescence radiation of the glazes. Ceramic pigments with different characteristics and technological backgrounds were analysed using Raman spectroscopy. There was no sample preparation needed for Raman spectroscopy.

3. Results

Following the decoration types listed in descending order (Table 1), the Kütahya Ware samples have geometric designs/free style lines or plants/vegetal motifs, the Iznik Ware samples have plants/vegetal motifs or geometric designs/free style lines, and the Miletus Ware samples have geometric designs/free style lines or plants/vegetal motifs. In addition, the Zeuxippus Ware sample and the Zeuxippus Ware Subtype sample have geometric designs/free style lines, and the Porcelain samples have plants/vegetal motifs. The Lustre Ware sample, the Glazed Frit Ware sample, the Monochrome and One Colour Sgraffito Ware sample, the Monochrome Glazed Ware, the Glazed White Ware IV sample, and the Polychrome White Ware sample only have geometric designs/free style lines. Finally, the Elaborate Incised Ware sample has inscription/monogram. Lastly, some of the Kütahya Ware, Zeuxippus Ware, Zeuxippus Ware Subtype, Porcelain, Glazed Frit Ware, and Glazed White Ware II samples have no decorations (Figure 5).

3.1. Fabrics

The minor and trace elements detected in the body fabrics with the non-invasive handheld portable pXRF spectrometer were Cr, Ni, Zn, As, Rb, Sr, Zr, Sn, Sb, Te, Cs, Ba, Th, and U. Trace elements are defined as elements with concentrations lower than 100 ppm. From the results, the different ceramic typology had varying concentrations of these trace elements, which probably means that they came from different pottery laboratories (Table 2). Moreover, the Kütahya Ware sample MYT230 presented a large difference in trace elements, specifically As, Rb, Sr, Zr, Sn, Sb, Te, Cs, Ba, and Th, compared to the other Kütahya Ware samples. Furthermore, different percentages of trace elements, mainly As, Zr, Sn, Sb, Te, Cs, and Ba, were observed between Polychrome White Ware, Glazed White Ware II, and Glazed White Ware IV. Finally, different chemical compositions were observed in Glazed Frit Ware MYT182 and CH106, mainly consisting of As, Rb, Sr, Zr, and Sn. In the Kütahya Ware samples MYT188 and MYT241, As was present in higher concentrations than in the other samples, which is probably related to the existence of Pb in their glazes and potential interferences in the XRF peaks (Table 2). The Monochrome Glazed Ware sample was not analysed because of inadequate wall thickness.
Regarding the chemical composition of the fabrics analysed through Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM-EDS), some fabric recipes were of great interest. In particular, Glazed Frit Ware (MYT182) and Frit Ware (CH147) were alkali fritware, in contrast to Glazed Frit Ware (CH106), which was lead alkali fritware. The Iznik Ware pieces were alkali fritware. The fabric recipe was the standard Iranian soda–alkali frit recipe due to the type of alkali used, consisting of almost equal parts of pounded quartz stone and calcined soda plant. Furthermore, the Monochrome Glazed Ware sample seemed to have a fritware fabric. Only the fragments of Iznik Ware, Kütahya Ware (apart from MYT184), Porcelain, and Monochrome Glazed Ware (MYT200) had less CaO than the other sherds analysed. Miletus Ware, Kütahya Ware, Zeuxippus Ware, Zeuxippus Ware Subtype, Lustre Ware, Monochrome and One Colour Sgraffito Ware, Monochrome Glazed Ware, and Elaborate Incised Ware were made of red clay fabrics, whereas Iznik Ware, Polychrome White Ware, Glazed White Ware II, Glazed White Ware IV, Glazed Frit Ware, Frit Ware, and Porcelain were made of white clay. The Iznik Ware and the Porcelain, in particular, were made of a high-quality pure-white clay fabric. Zeuxippus Ware, Lustre Ware, and Miletus Ware had a red fabric with Fe content of 6–8%, which was higher than that of Iznik Ware, Glazed Frit Ware, and Porcelain, which had Fe 0.7–1.6% (Table 3 and Table 4).

3.2. Colours

According to the analysis of the chemical composition of the colours through Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM-EDS), the colourant of yellow colours of Kütahya Ware fragments (MYT181, MYT242) was Fe (0.6–0.9%). The red colour of Kütahya Ware and Porcelain was Fe (0.8–1.1%); however, in Kütahya Ware MYT183, it was both Fe (1%) and Mn (0.8%), and in Iznik Ware MYT214, it was Cu (0.4%) and Sn (2.9%). In conclusion, three different recipes for red colour were noticed in the pottery collection under study; regarding the brown colour, two were noticed: Kütahya Ware and Porcelain Wares. In the first recipe, the main colourant was only Fe (1.3–3.4%). The second recipe was observed in samples of Kütahya Ware (MYT183), consisting of Co (0.4%), Fe (1.3%), and Mn (1.8%), and in samples of Porcelain (MYT185), consisting of Co (0.5%), Fe (1.2%), and Mn (2.3%) (Table 5; Figure 6).
The colourants of green colours of fragments of Kütahya Ware, Iznik Ware, and Porcelain were Cu (0.2–2.4%) and Fe (0.6–2.1%). An Iznik Ware sample (MYT168) also contained Sn (4.1%). Dark green pigments had Cu >2%. In conclusion, the potters followed the same recipe for green colour. Three recipes were also observed in reference to purple colours. The first one was noticed in the Kütahya Ware sample (MYT179) with Fe (0.9%), Mn (1.5%), Co (0.3%), and Cr (0.9%). The second one was in the Kütahya Ware sample (MYT242) with Fe (1.7%), Mn (0.8%), Co (0.4%), and Cu (0.2%). Finally, the third one was in the Monochrome Glazed Ware sample (MYT200) with Fe (2.1%), Cu (0.6%), and Co (0.4%). The purple colour of the Monochrome Glazed Ware (MYT200) also contained Zn (2.9%) and Ti (31%) (Table 5; Figure 6).
A former study indicated that the potters from Iznik used only one colourant, i.e., Co or Cu, which, in combination with Fe, produced a darker or lighter blue colour in contrast to the potters of Kütahya, who produced blue colours, turquoise colours, and dark blue outlines based on mixing two or three colourants for the desired blue shades [19]. The Glazed Frit Ware had a lead alkali glaze and a blue colour, resulting from the combination of Co and Cu. Finally, the Porcelains had an alkali glaze, and for the blue colour, Co and Fe were used in the pottery workshops of China. Porcelain with shades of blue and white initially appeared in the Tang Dynasty (618–907), but it was not until the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644) that it gained international recognition. After the cobalt pigment for the blue started to be imported from Persia, blue and white decoration started to be utilised extensively in Chinese porcelain in the 14th century [38,39].
In the present study, four different recipes were observed. The first blue colour recipe was Co and Fe; the second recipe was Cu with Sn for a light blue to turquoise colour; the third blue colour recipe was the combination of Co, Cu, and Fe; and the fourth blue colour recipe was Co, Mn, and Fe. In the Porcelain samples, two different blue hues were present: light blue with Co < 1% and dark blue with Co > 1%. According to Raman Spectroscopy, the blue colour came from Lazurite, Azurire, Blue Smalto, Cobalt Blue, and Egyptian Blue. Two recipes for turquoise colour were observed in the samples under study [19]. The colourants of turquoise colours in the fragments of Kütahya Ware (MYT179) were Cu and Fe, and the second recipe of Kütahya Ware (MYT230) was Cu, Co, and Fe. A new, third turquoise colour recipe was observed in the Glazed Frit Ware sample (CH106) with Cu (0.9%), Fe (0.5%), and Sn (6.8%). Furthermore, the addition of Sn was noticed in the Glazed Frit Ware sample (CH106) at Sn 7% (Table 6; Figure 7).
Two recipes for dark colours were analysed in this study. The first one of the Miletus Ware sample (MYT226) was due to Fe (2.7%), Mn (0.3%), and Cr (8.6%), and the second one of the Miletus Ware sample (MYT204) was due to Fe (1%) and Cr (1.5%). It has already been reported that dark lines came from four different recipes [19]. In the first recipe, the colourants in the dark line were Fe, Mn, Cu, and Cr; in the second recipe, they were Fe, Cu, Cr, and Co; in the third, they were Fe, Co, Cr, and Sn; and finally, in the fourth recipe, they were Fe, Cu, Co, Cr, and Zn (Table 6; Figure 7).
According to Raman analyses, the red and brown colours came from Hematite (Fe2O3) or Magnetite (Fe3O4). In some samples, the combination of both of them was observed [40,41]. The yellow colours mainly came from Yellow Ochre, Fe2O3, with clay and silica, and in some cases, in combination with Magnetite, Fe3O4 [40,41]. The green colour came from Malachite, CuCO3·Cu(OH)2, or Atacamite, CuCl2·3Cu(OH)2 [41]. The blue colours came from Lazurite, Na8[Al6Si6O24]Sn, or Azurite, 2CuCO3·Cu(OH)2, but the turquoise colour came from Cu in Pb [40,41,42,43,44,45]. Finally, the dark colours came from different compositions, specifically Chromium oxide, Cr2O3; Magnetite, Fe3O4; Hematite, Fe2O3; Chromium oxide, Cr2O3; Magnetite, Fe3O4; and a combination of Cr, Al, and Fe [40,42,43] (Table 7, Figure 8).

3.3. Glazes

Regarding the chemical composition of the glazes through Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM-EDS), Kütahya Ware fragments contained PbO 12–25%, CaO 1.9–6.2%, K2O 0.7–4%, and Na2O 1–12%, and they had lead alkali glazes. One sample of Kütahya Ware (MYT183) was an alkali glaze that contained CaO 6.2%, K2O 2.8%, and Na2O 1.7%. Iznik Ware fragments contained PbO 19–30.5%, CaO 0.7–2.5%, K2O 0.6–0.7%, Na2O 2–9%, and SnO2~2%, and they were lead alkali glazes. Miletus Ware fragments contained PbO 18–26%, CaO 0.6–0.9%, K2O 0.9–1.9%, and Na2O 7.3–10.3%, and they were lead alkali (soda) glazes. Glazed Frit Ware samples contained PbO 13.4–20%, Na2O 6.5–8.7%, CaO 2.8–3.9%, and K2O 0.8–1.7%, which were lead alkali (soda) glazes. Porcelain samples contained CaO 5.2–9.7%, K2O 1.1–2.9%, and Na2O 0.5–11%, and they had an alkali glaze. The Monochrome Glazed Ware fragment contained CaO 2.9%, K2O 0.8%, and Na2O 2.1%, and it had an alkali glaze. Zeuxippus Ware contained PbO 32%, CaO 0.9%, K2O 0.4%, and Na2O 0.3%, and it had a lead glaze; and Lustre Ware contained PbO 23%, CaO 1%, K2O 1.9%, Na2O 1.9%, and SnO2 4.5%, and it had a lead alkali glaze. In comparison, Iznik Ware fragments (MYT168, MYT170, MYT214) contained SnO2 1.3–2.4%, while the Kütahya Ware sample (MYT184) contained SnO2 2–3%; Porcelain (MYT186, MYT221, and MYT222) contained TiO2 0.2–0.5%, and Monochrome Glazed Ware fragments (MYT200) contained ZnO 2.9% [19]. The different chemical compositions of the glazes are shown in the ternary diagram (Table 8; Figure 9 and Figure 10).

3.4. Slip Coatings

According to measurements of slip coatings of ceramics from Mytilene in Lesvos (Kütahya Ware, Miletus Ware, and Iznik Ware) by Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM-EDS), the percentage of Fe2O3 was low, about 0.2–2.5%. The CaO content was 0.4–5.7%. The fluxes Ca, K, and Na had a ratio of 5.3:5.3:3. The exception was the sample of Monochrome Glazed Ware (MYT200), which had a high percentage of Na2O (9.1%) and TiO2 (33.3%). Also, the Kütahya Ware (MYT183) sample had a high percentage of Fe and Cr due to the diffusion of the pigments into the slip coatings. The slip coatings of Zeuxippus Ware (CH101) and Lustre Ware (CH110) had higher percentages of Fe and Ca than the previous samples (Figure 9). Specifically, the percentage of Fe was 5.9–6.3% and that of Ca was 8.3–15.9%. The fluxes Ca, K, and Na had a ratio of 7.6:1:0.1. Finally, a significant difference was observed in the slip coatings of the Iznik and Kütahya Ware fragments. Iznik Ware sherds contained SiO2 80%, Na2O 4%, CaO 3%, and K2O 0.7%; Kütahya Ware sherds contained SiO2 88%, CaO 4%, Na2O 1.5%, and K2O 2% (Table 8; Figure 9). Both of them were fine, white slip coatings of a quartz-frit type, which was used as the ground for the painted decoration. The layer of slip coating was observed in all types of pottery, apart from fragments of Polychrome White Ware, Glazed White Ware II, Glazed White Ware IV, Glazed Frit Ware, and Porcelain, which did not have this layer. Furthermore, glaze diffusion existed in some slip coatings (Table 9; Figure 11).

4. Discussion

Concerning the decoration of the studied samples, Kütahya Ware, Iznik Ware, and the Miletus Ware had geometric designs/free style lines or plants/vegetal motifs. Zeuxippus Ware and Zeuxippus Ware Subtype had geometric designs/free style lines, and the Porcelain sherds had plants/vegetal motifs. Only geometric designs/free style lines were observed, though, on the samples of Lustre Ware, Glazed Frit Ware, Monochrome and One Colour Sgraffito Ware, Monochrome Glazed Ware, Glazed White Ware IV, and Polychrome White Ware. Finally, the sample of Elaborate Incised Ware had inscriptions/monograms. On the surfaces of the samples of Kütahya Wares and Iznik Wares, tri-coloured or bi-coloured decoration predominated, to a lesser extent, single-coloured decoration. On the Porcelain samples and Miletus Ware samples, bi-coloured decoration predominated, to a lesser extent, single-coloured decoration. Finally, the samples of the remaining wares mainly presented single-coloured decoration.
According to the recent bibliography of SEM-EDXS of glazed pottery, Mn oxide was the most common colorant for dark or black decorations in Medieval and Post-Medieval tin–lead glazes. Alternatively, Fe oxides were used [46,47,48,49,50]. The analyses performed in the present study indicate some additional recipes potentially used for dark glazes. The observed diversity of the pigment recipes, which is discussed in the following section, was remarkable. On the other hand, known recipes were confirmed, which used Co for blue colours [51,52], Fe for yellow and red colours, and finally, Fe combined with Cu for green colours [47,53,54,55,56,57,58].
The potters followed the same recipe for the green colour, where the main colourant was Cu, and for the yellow colour, it was Fe. Three different recipes for red colour were noticed, specifically Fe; Fe and Mn for brownish red; and Fe, Cu, and Sn for greenish red colours. Two brown colour recipes were observed, specifically Fe; Fe and Mn for reddish brown colours; and Co, Fe, and Mn for bluish dark brown colours. Three recipes were noted for purple colours. The first one contained Fe, Mn, Co, and Cr; the second one contained Fe, Mn, Co, and Cu; and finally, the third one contained Fe, Cu, and Co. A turquoise colour recipe was observed in the Glazed Frit Ware sample (CH106) with Cu, Fe, and Sn. Finally, two recipes for dark colours were analysed in this study. The first one was composed of Fe, Mn, and Cr and the second one was composed of Fe and Cr. For the dark colours, the main colourant was in a higher proportion than the light hue colour. According to Raman analyses, the red and brown colours came from Hematite or Magnetite, or a combination of both of them. The yellow colours came from mainly Yellow Ochre with clay and silica and, in some cases, in combination with Magnetite. The green colour came from Malachite or Atacamite. The blue colours came from Lazurite or Azurite, but the turquoise colour came from Cu in Pb. Finally, the dark colours came from different compositions, specifically Chromium oxide, Magnetite and Hematite, or Chromium oxide and Magnetite, or a combination of Cr, Al, and Fe. According to other studies, the use of Fe for yellow colours, the use of Fe and Mn for brown colours, and the use of Cu for green or turquoise colours are common colour recipes [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20]. However, the use of Fe, Cu, and Sn for greenish red colours, the use of Co, Fe, and Mn for bluish dark brown colours, and all of the purple recipes, such as Fe, Mn, Co, Cr; Fe, Mn, Co, Cu; and Fe, Cu, Co, are rare.
An exceptional variation was noticed in the samples of imported glaze recipes. Specifically, the Kütahya Ware samples had a lead alkali glaze apart from one sample that was an alkali glaze (an imitation that was made in the Castle of Mytilene in Lesvos) [18]. The Iznik Ware samples had a lead alkali glaze, whereas Miletus Ware samples had lead soda–alkali glazes and the Glazed Frit Ware samples had a lead–alkali glaze. The Porcelain samples had an alkali glaze. The Monochrome Glazed sample had an alkali glaze, the Zeuxippus Ware had a lead glaze, and the Lustre Ware sample had a lead–alkali glaze. From the Medieval to Post-Medieval periods, potters who had manufactured the ceramics under study had reached a high level of technological knowledge about generating the desirable glazes. For example, they used Titanium dioxide for whiteness and opacity in glazes and Zinc oxide for brightness or below T 1160 °C for a matte finish in glazes [59].
A distinct layer of slip coating was observed in most of the pottery ware types, apart from Polychrome White Ware, Glazed White Ware II, Glazed White Ware IV, Glazed Frit Ware, and Porcelain, which did not have this layer, as they had a white body fabric. Finally, a significant difference was observed in the slip coatings of Iznik and Kütahya Ware, as both of them were fine, white slip coatings of a quartz-frit type. All the pottery types had underglaze decoration. The slip coating was a very compact and uniformly vitrified structure formed over the vessels. The potters used an underlying white fabric or a white slip coating in order to have good reflectivity for bright colours.
Some fabric recipes are of great interest in this study. Specifically, the samples of Glazed Frit Ware (MYT182) and Frit Ware (CH147) were alkali fritwares, in contrast to the Glazed Frit Ware sample (CH106), which is a lead alkali fritware. The first fabric recipe was an Iranian alkali frit recipe, and the second one was an Ottoman lead–alkali frit recipe that was known to be used in the Aegean. The Abbasid Caliphate, which established Samarra as its headquarters in 836, is associated with beginning the production of proto-fritware in Iraq in the 9th century AD. There is substantial evidence of ceramics in the Abbasid court in both Samarra and Baghdad [60]. After the Abbasid Caliphate collapsed, the major centres of manufacturing moved to Egypt, where the Fatimids produced authentic fritware during the 10th and 12th centuries. However, the technology later spread throughout the Middle East. In the 13th century, the town of Kashan in Iran and in the last quarter of the 15th century AD, the area of Iznik in Ottoman Turkey were important centres for the production of fritware [61,62,63]. Lead is well-known to be used in Ottoman frit recipes but not for the production of Iranian or Mamluk fritwares. Furthermore, for Iznik lead-frit and for Iranian soda–alkali frit, different types of alkalis were used. The Iznik potters did not use desert plant ashes such as Salicornia or Salsola but a preparation of soda from Afyon Karahisar, known as bora [63,64,65].
Furthermore, Porcelain and fritware fabrics of Iznik Ware were made of a high-quality pure white clay fabric. The Iznik Ware pieces were alkali fritwares, and their fabric recipe was the standard Iranian soda–alkali frit recipe due to the type of alkali used and, specifically, almost equal parts of pounded quartz stone and calcined soda plant. Finally, the Monochrome Glazed Ware sample (MYT200) had a fritware fabric. Through XRF and SEM-EDS analyses, it was observed that the sample Kütahya MYT230 had a different chemical composition, which indicates that it is not an original Kütahya sample but an imitation. Moreover, although Polychrome White Ware, Glazed White Ware II, and Glazed White Ware IV came from Constantinople (Istanbul); they had different raw materials, and this information leads to the conclusion that they were probably manufactured in different workshops.

5. Conclusions

Concerning the sampled ceramics that came from Constantinople (Istanbul) and the (eastern) Aegean, such as Polychrome White Ware, Glazed White Ware II and Glazed White Ware IV, Monochrome and One Colour Sgraffito Ware, and Elaborate Incised Ware, the decoration was created with lead glazes and mainly with single-coloured geometric designs/free style lines. Similar technological aspects in decoration were observed when studying the ceramics that came from Egypt or Syria, such as Lustre Ware and Glazed Frit Ware with lead glazes, mainly with single-coloured geometric designs/free style lines. A high diversity of decoration was observed when studying the ceramics that came from Western Turkey, such as Kütahya Wares, Iznik Wares, Miletus Wares, Zeuxippus Ware, and a Zeuxippus Ware subtype. On the one hand, the Zeuxippus Ware and a Zeuxippus Ware subtype presented lead glazes mainly with single-coloured geometric designs/free style lines. On the other hand, the Kütahya Wares, Iznik Wares, and Miletus Wares presented a larger variation in terms of decoration. Specifically, for the Iznik and Kütahya Wares, the same type of glaze was used, namely ‘lead alkali glaze’, sometimes with the addition of Sn. For the Miletus Wares, despite being geographically produced in the vicinity of the other two pottery workshops, a different glaze recipe was used, specifically lead alkali glaze with high Na. Miletus ceramics had their own glaze technology and colour recipes. But all of them used decoration with designs/free style lines or plants/vegetal motifs with mainly tri-coloured or bi-coloured decoration. It seems that the Zeuxippus Ware and Zeuxippus Ware subtype follow similar technological practices as those from Constantinople (Istanbul), rather than those that came from Western Turkey (Asia Minor). Finally, the porcelain from China had alkali glazes with plants/vegetal motifs and mainly bi-coloured decoration.
In summary, the history of the Aegean Sea and the eastern Mediterranean region as a whole is intricately linked to those of Euboea and Lesvos. Chalcis and Mytilene were thriving maritime links connecting Near East and Mediterranean. These areas maintained their trade ties with Egypt and the Near East throughout the Middle Ages, and they even grew stronger under Ottoman authority (1462–1912). A diverse range of imported ceramics produced in various pottery laboratories in Asia Minor and the Near East can be found in this collection of ceramics under study during the Late Byzantine and Ottoman periods. The coexistence of a ceramic Byzantine tradition with pottery from the West implies, on the one hand, the smooth adaptation of these regions to the political conditions of each era and, on the other hand, its integration into the market network. Hence, in spite of all the technological advancements, in regions such as Constantinople (Istanbul), Egypt, and Syria, the Byzantine substratum of pottery remained unaffected. On the other hand, many technological experiments in decoration were observed at the pottery laboratories in Kütahya, Iznik, and Miletus. Entirely different types of decoration and manufacturing were used by Chinese potters. Finally, multicultural art flourished, and the colour, glaze recipes, and pattern development of ceramics played a role in this area. Each potter initially considers colour from a technical aspect, considering the hues of the clay, oxides, slip coatings, and other materials, as well as the effects that can be produced by using glazes.
Although clear evidence about the construction technology in terms of colour palette of the pottery from Western Anatolia and East Asia was discovered, it has to be considered that the interpretation is based on a comparably small data set. Further investigation, essentially with a greater number of samples from each region, will undoubtedly be necessary for the study of glazed ceramics from those areas in order to validate and to interpret the current data and preliminary conclusions based on them. Furthermore, additional research is required, accounting for a range of cultural, technical, geochemical, archaeological, and analytical aspects. It is still a work in progress to determine the provenance of certain glazed pottery findings and to assign other finds to various workshops or as-yet-unlocated manufacturing zones.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.P.P.; methodology, A.P.P., A.H. and V.K.; software, A.P.P.; validation, A.H., V.K. and J.V.; formal analysis, A.P.P.; investigation, A.P.P.; resources, A.H., V.K. and J.V.; data curation, A.P.P.; writing—original draft preparation, A.P.P.; writing—review and editing, J.V., A.H. and V.K.; visualization, A.P.P.; supervision, A.H., V.K. and J.V.; project administration, A.P.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Dissertation: A physicochemical study of Medieval and Post-Medieval ceramics from the Aegean, Open Access, Leiden University.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Director of the Ephorate of Antiquities of Lesvos, Pavlos Triandafillidis, and we want to also thank Hector Williams, Emeritus of Greek Art and Archaeology in the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, for his permission to study the material from the Castle of Mytilene in Lesvos. Furthermore, we would like to thank the current Director of the Ephorate of Antiquities of Euboea, D. Christodoulou and the previous Directors, A. Simosi and Director, P. Kalamara of Ephorate of Antiquities of Euboea.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Colomban, P.; Kirmizi, B.; Franci, G.S. Cobalt and associated impurities in blue (and green) glass, glaze and enamel: Relationship between raw materials. processing, composition, phases and international trade. Minerals 2021, 11, 633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Garner, H. The use of imported and native cobalt in Chinese blue-and white. Orient. Art 1956, 2, 48–51. [Google Scholar]
  3. Gliozzo, E.; Ionescu, C. Pigments—Lead-based whites, reds, yellows and oranges and their alteration phases. Archaeol. Anthropol. Sci. 2022, 14, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gradmann, R.; Schussler, R. Composition and colouring agents of historical Islamic glazes measured with EMPA and μ-XRD. Eur. J. Mineral. 2015, 27, 325–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kaldellis, A.E. Lesvos and the Eastern Mediterranean during the Roman and Early Byzantine Period (100-600 BC); Herodotus: Athens, Greece, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  6. Karim, M.A.; Ariffin, A.; Holland, D. The role of tin in glass system. J. Sci. Math. Technol. 2014, 1, 89–104. [Google Scholar]
  7. Korre-Zografou, K. The Ceramics of the Aegean (1600–1950); Melissa Press: Athens, Greece, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  8. Mason, R.B.J. Shine Like the Sun: Lustre-Painted and Associated Pottery from the Medieval Middle East; Royal Ontario Museum: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  9. Matin, M. Tin-based opacifiers in archaeological glass and ceramic glazes: A review and new perspectives. Archaeol. Anthropol. Sci. 2019, 11, 1155–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rooksby, H.P. Yellow cubic lead-tin oxide opacifier in ancient glasses. J. Soc. Glass Technol. Sect. B Phys. Chem. Glas. 1964, 5, 20–25. [Google Scholar]
  11. Simsek, G.; Unsalan, O.; Bayraktar, K.; Colomban, P. On-site pXRF analysis of glaze composition and colouring agents of “Iznik” tiles at Edirne mosques (15th and 16th-centuries). Ceram. Int. 2019, 45, 595–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tite, M.S. Ceramic production, provenance and use—A review. Archaeometry 2008, 50, 216–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tite, M.S.; Freestone, I.; Mason, R.; Molera, J.; Vendrell-Saz, M.; Wood, N. Lead Glazes in Antiquity—Methods of production and reasons for use. Archaeometry 1998, 40, 241–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Vroom, J. After Antiquity. Ceramics and Society in the Aegean from the 7th to the 20th Centuries A.C. A Case Study from Boeotia, Central Greece; University of Leiden: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  15. Humphrey, J. The Ottoman Clay Smoking Pipes from Mytilene. In Medieval and Post-Medieval Greece: The Corfu Papers; Bintliff, J., Stöger, H., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 121–131. [Google Scholar]
  16. Panagopoulou, A.; Vroom, J.; Hein, A.; Kilikoglou, V. Production Technology of Glazed Pottery in Chalcis, Euboea, during the Middle Byzantine Period. Heritage 2021, 4, 4473–4494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Panagopoulou, A.P.; Vroom, J.; Kilikoglou, V.; Hein, A. Production technology of Byzantine ceramics at Chalkis: Some Preliminary Results. In Proceedings of the 12th International Congress on Medieval & Modern Period Mediterranean Ceramics (AIECM3), Athens, Greece, 21–27 October 2018; pp. 339–343. [Google Scholar]
  18. Panagopoulou, A. A Physicochemical Study of Medieval and Post-Medieval Ceramics from the Aegean. Unpublished. Ph.D. Thesis, Leiden University (NL), Leiden, The Netherlands, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  19. Panagopoulou, A.P.; Vroom, J.; Hein, A.; Kilikoglou, V. A Physicochemical Examination of Blue Shades in Pottery: Rich, Deep and Endless. Colorants 2023, 2, 453–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Vroom, J. Byzantine to Modern Pottery in the Aegean: An Introduction and Field Guide; Second and Revised Edition; Brepols: Turnhout, Belgium, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  21. Vroom, J.; Tzavella, E.; Vaxevanis, G. Life, work and consumption in Byzantine Chalcis: Ceramic finds from an industrial hub in central Greece, ca. 10th-13th centuries. In Feeding the Byzantine City: The Archaeology of Consumption in the Eastern Mediterranean (ca. 500-1500); Vroom, J., Ed.; Medieval and Post-Medieval Mediterranean Archaeology Series V; Brepols Publishers: Turnhout, Belgium, 2023; pp. 223–260. [Google Scholar]
  22. Acheilara, L. The Kastro of Mytilene; Archaeological Receipts Fund, Directorate of Publications: Athens, Greece, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  23. Williams, H. Medieval and Ottoman Mytilene. In Medieval and Post-Medieval Greece: The Corfu Papers; Bintliff, J., Stöger, H., Eds.; Archaeopress: Oxford, UK, 2009; pp. 107–114. [Google Scholar]
  24. Vroom, J. (Ed.) Medieval and Post-Medieval Ceramics in the Eastern Mediterranean—Fact and Fiction (Medieval and Post-Medieval Mediterranean Archaeology Series I); Brepols: Turnhout, Belgium, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  25. Vroom, J. Byzantine Sea Trade in Ceramics: Some Case Studies in the Eastern Mediterranean (ca. Seventh-Fourteenth Centuries). In Trade in Byzantium; Papers from the Third International Sevgi Gönül Byzantine Studies, Symposium; Magdalino, P., Necipoğlu, N., Eds.; Koç University Press: İstanbul, Turkey, 2016; pp. 157–177. [Google Scholar]
  26. Koder, J. Negroponte, Untersuchungen zur Topographie und Siedlungsgeschichte der Insel Euboea während der Zeit der Venezianerherrschaft; Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Wien, Austria, 1973. [Google Scholar]
  27. Jacoby, D. The Demographic Evolution of Euboeaunder Latin Rule, 1205–1470. In The Greek Islands and the Sea, Proceedings of the First International Colloquium, The Hellenic Institute, Royal Holloway, Braga, Portugal, 5–7 September 2023; Chrysostomides, J., Dendrinos, J., Harris, C., Eds.; Porphyrogenitus, University of London: Camberley, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kislinger, E. Verkehrsrouten zur See im byzantinischen Raum’. In Handelsgüter und Verkehrswege. A spekte der Warenversorgung im östlichen Mittelmeerraum (4. Bis 15. Jahrhundert); Kislinger, E., Koder, J., Külzer, A., Eds.; Verlag der Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Wien, Austria, 2010; pp. 151–173. [Google Scholar]
  29. Vroom, J. Shifting Byzantine networks: New light on Chalcis (Euripos/Negroponte) as a centre of production and trade in Greece. In Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Venice, Italy, 22–27 August 2022; Fiori, E., Trizio, M., Eds.; EdizioniCa’Foscari: Venice, Italy, 2022; Volume 1, pp. 453–487. [Google Scholar]
  30. Koder, J.; Hild, F. Hellas and Thessalia. In Tabula Imperii Byzantini I; Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Vienna, Austria, 1976; pp. 29–56. [Google Scholar]
  31. Triantafyllopoulos, D.D. Χριστιανική και μεσαιωνική Χαλκίδα: ανασκόπηση της νεώτερης αρχαιολογικής έρευνας. In ‘H πόλη της Χαλκίδας’, Διεθνές Επιστημονικό Συνέδριο (Χαλκίδα, 24–27 Σεπτεμβρίου); Εταιρεία Ευβοϊκών Σπουδών: Athens, Greece, 1990; pp. 165–170. [Google Scholar]
  32. Georgopoulou, M. Venice’s Mediterranean Colonies, Architecture and Urbanism; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  33. Skartzis, S.S.; Vaxevanis, G. Chalkida in the Middle Byzantine Period and the Age of Latin-Occupation: The testimony of ceramics (9th–15th c.). In An Island between Two Worlds, The Archaeology of Euboea from Prehistoric to Byzantine Times, Proceedings of International Conference, Eretria, Greece, 12–14 July 2013; Norwegian Institute at Athens: Athens, Greece, 2017; p. 593. [Google Scholar]
  34. Hayes, J.W. Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1992; p. 2. [Google Scholar]
  35. Papanikola-Bakirtzi, D.; Bakirtzis, C.; Mauricio, F.N. Byzantine Pottery in the Benaki Museum; Benaki Museum: Athens, Greece, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  36. Papanikola-Bakirtzi, D. Byzantine Glazed Ceramics on the Market. In Trade and Markets in Byzantium; Morrisson, C., Ed.; Dumbarton Oaks Research Library & Collection: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; pp. 193–216. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kontogiannis, N.D. Euripos–Negroponte–Eğriboz: Material culture and historical topography of Chalcis from Byzantium to the end of the Ottoman rule. Ɉahrbuch Der Osterr. 2012, 62, 29–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Finlay, R. The Pilgrim Art. Cultures of Porcelain in World History; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2010; ISBN 978-0-520-24468-9. [Google Scholar]
  39. Medley, M. The Chinese Potter: A Practical History of Chinese Ceramics, 3rd ed.; Phaidon: New York, NY, USA, 1989; ISBN 071482593X. [Google Scholar]
  40. Bell, I.M.; Clark, R.J.H.; Gibbs, P.J. Raman spectroscopic library of natural and synthetic pigments (pre–~1850 AD). Spectrochem. Acta Part A 1997, 53, 2159–2179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Burgio, L.; Clark, R.J.H. Library of FT-Raman spectra of pigments, minerals, pigment media and varnishes, and supplement to existing library of Raman spectra of pigments with visible excitation. Spectrochem. Acta Part A 2001, 57, 1491–1521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Colomban, P. Recent case studies in the Raman Analysis of ancient ceramics: Glaze Opacification in Abbasid Pottery, Medici and 18th century French Porcelains, Iznik and Kûtayha Ottoman Fritwares and an Unexpected Lapis Lazuli Pigment in Lajvardina Wares. Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 2005, 52, 841–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Colomban, P.; Screiber, H.D. Raman signature modification induced by copper nanoparticles in silicate glass. J. Raman Spectrosc. 2005, 36, 884–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Colomban, P.; Milande, V. On-Site Raman Analysis of Rare Ancient Ceramics: Medici Porcelain and Iznik Pottery, Italy. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on: Science, Technology and Cultural Heritage, Venice, Italy, 29 June–29 July 2011. [Google Scholar]
  45. Simsek, G.; Colomban, P.; Milande, V. Tentative differentiation between Iznik tiles and copies with Raman spectroscopy using both laboratory and portable instruments. J. Raman Spectrosc. 2010, 41, 529–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Madrid i Fernández, M.; Peix Visiedo, J.; Buxedai Garrigós, J. Exploring the technique of glazing used by the potters of Barcelona. Mediterr. Archaeol. Archaeom. 2021, 21, 69–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Fortina, C.; Santagostino Barbone, A.; Turbanti Memmi, I. Sienese ‘Archaic’ majolica: A technological study of ceramic bodies and coatings. Archaeometry 2005, 47, 535–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Iñañez, J.G.; Buxedai Garrigós, J.; Madrid i Fernández, M.; Gurt I Esparraguera, J.M.; Cerdà i Mellado, J.A. Archaeometric characterization of Middle Age and Renaissance tin lead glazed pottery from Barcelona. In Archaeometric and Archaeological Approaches to Ceramics, Proceedings of the EMAC’05, 8th European Meeting on Ancient Ceramics, Lyon, France, 2005; Waksman, S.Y., Ed.; Bar International Series 1691; Archaeopress: Oxford, UK, 2007; pp. 175–180. [Google Scholar]
  49. Pérez-Arantegui, J.; Ortega, J.M.; Escriche, C. La tecnología de la cerámica mudéjar entre los siglos XIV y XVI: Las producciones esmaltadas de las zonas de Teruel y Zaragoza. In Avances en Arqueometría 2005. Actas del VI Congreso Ibérico de Arqueometría; Molera, J., Farjas, J., Roura, P., Pradell, T., Eds.; Universitat de Girona: Girona, Spain, 2007; pp. 89–96. [Google Scholar]
  50. Wang, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Yang, Z.; Cui, J. A technological combination of lead-glaze and calcium-glaze recently found in China: Scientific comparative analysis of glazed ceramics from Shangyu, Zhejiang Province. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0219608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Colomban, P.; Edwards, H.; Fountain, C. Raman spectroscopic and SEM/EDXS analyses of high translucent Nantgarw porcelain. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2020, 40, 4664–4675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Greer, M.; MacDonald, B.; Stalla, D. Cobalt, lead, and borax: Preliminary LA-ICP-MS and SEM-EDS analysis of Late-18th- to Mid-19th-century British refined earthenware glazes. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 2021, 37, 103013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Peix Visiedo, J.; Madrid i Fernández, M.; BuxedaiGarrigós, J. The case of black and green tin glazed pottery from Barcelona between 13th and 14th century: Analysing its production and its decorations. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 2021, 38, 103100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gulmini, M.; Appolonia, L.; Framarin, P.; Mirti, P. Compositional and technological features of glazed pottery from Aosta Valley (Italy): A SEM–EDS investigation. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2006, 386, 1815–1822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Ting, C.; Vionis, A.; Rehren, T.; Kassianidou, V.; Cook, H.; Barker, C. The beginning of glazed ware production in late medieval Cyprus. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 2019, 27, 101963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Di Febo, R.; Casas, L.; Rius, J.; Tagliapietra, R.; Melgarejo, J.C. Breaking Preconceptions: Thin section petrography for ceramic glaze microstructures. Minerals 2019, 9, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Oruzbaeva1, G.T.; Khudyakov, Y.S. Physicochemical studies of glazed ceramics of 10th–16th century Kyrgyzstan. Glass Ceram. 2021, 77, 361–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Giannia, L.; Renel, H.; Kremenovi, A.; Colomban, P. ‘Blue-’ and ‘Brown-speckled’ pottery from Qalhât, the Sultanate of Oman (13–16th centuries): Comparison with traditional Omani 19–20 century productions. Boletín De La Soc. Española De Cerámica Y Vidr. 2022, 61, 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Matthes, W.E. KeramischeGlasuren; Müller Publications: Köln, Germany, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  60. Watson, O. Ceramics and circulation. In A Companion to Islamic Art and Architecture; Flood, F.B., Necipoglu, G., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 478–500. ISBN 978-1-119-06857-0. [Google Scholar]
  61. Atasoy, N.; Raby, J. Iznik: The Pottery of Ottoman Turkey; Alexandra Press: London, UK, 1989; ISBN 978-1-85669-054-6. [Google Scholar]
  62. Henderson, J. Iznik ceramics: A technical examination. In Iznik: The Pottery of Ottoman Turkey; Atasoy, N., Raby, J., Eds.; Thames & Hudson: London, UK, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  63. Freestone, I.C.; Bimson, M.; Buckton, D. Composition categories of Byzantine Glass Tesserae. In Annale du Congrel’Historie du Verre; A.I.H.V.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1988; p. 271. [Google Scholar]
  64. Mason, R.B.; Tite, M.S. The beginnings of Islamic stonepaste technology. Archaeometry 1994, 36, 77–91. [Google Scholar]
  65. Mason, R.B.; Tite, M.S. The beginnings of tin-opacification of pottery glazes. Archaeometry 1997, 39, 41–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Heritage 07 00206 g001
Figure 1. Map of Chalcis and Mytilene showing the areas of origin for the ceramics under study (designed by A. Mandaliou).
Figure 1. Map of Chalcis and Mytilene showing the areas of origin for the ceramics under study (designed by A. Mandaliou).
Heritage 07 00206 g001
Heritage 07 00206 g002
Figure 2. Some fragments of the analysed samples from the Castle of Mytilene and Chalcis in Greece.
Figure 2. Some fragments of the analysed samples from the Castle of Mytilene and Chalcis in Greece.
Heritage 07 00206 g002
Heritage 07 00206 g003
Figure 3. Map of the Castle of Mytilene in Lesvos [21] (p. 107); the Castle of Mytilene in Lesvos, Greece [21] (p.19).
Figure 3. Map of the Castle of Mytilene in Lesvos [21] (p. 107); the Castle of Mytilene in Lesvos, Greece [21] (p.19).
Heritage 07 00206 g003
Heritage 07 00206 g004
Figure 4. Plan of Chalcis in Euboea combining the 1840 topographic plan and the modern settlement grid with the locations mentioned in the text [37] (p. 57).
Figure 4. Plan of Chalcis in Euboea combining the 1840 topographic plan and the modern settlement grid with the locations mentioned in the text [37] (p. 57).
Heritage 07 00206 g004
Heritage 07 00206 g005
Figure 5. Decoration of 33 sampled pottery sherds from Mytilene and Chalcis. The rest of the samples are undecorated.
Figure 5. Decoration of 33 sampled pottery sherds from Mytilene and Chalcis. The rest of the samples are undecorated.
Heritage 07 00206 g005
Heritage 07 00206 g006
Figure 6. Green, yellow, red, and brown pigments in the sampled pottery from Lesvos and Chalcis, (SEM-EDS).
Figure 6. Green, yellow, red, and brown pigments in the sampled pottery from Lesvos and Chalcis, (SEM-EDS).
Heritage 07 00206 g006
Heritage 07 00206 g007
Figure 7. Turquoise, purple, and dark pigments in the sampled pottery from Lesvos and Chalcis, (SEM-EDS).
Figure 7. Turquoise, purple, and dark pigments in the sampled pottery from Lesvos and Chalcis, (SEM-EDS).
Heritage 07 00206 g007
Heritage 07 00206 g008aHeritage 07 00206 g008b
Figure 8. Raman spectra of some sampled ceramics from Lesvos and Chalcis.
Figure 8. Raman spectra of some sampled ceramics from Lesvos and Chalcis.
Heritage 07 00206 g008aHeritage 07 00206 g008b
Heritage 07 00206 g009
Figure 9. Optical Microscopy and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM-EDS) of the sampled pottery from Lesvos and Chalcis.
Figure 9. Optical Microscopy and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM-EDS) of the sampled pottery from Lesvos and Chalcis.
Heritage 07 00206 g009
Heritage 07 00206 g010
Figure 10. Glazes of the sampled pottery from Lesvos and Chalcis.
Figure 10. Glazes of the sampled pottery from Lesvos and Chalcis.
Heritage 07 00206 g010
Heritage 07 00206 g011
Figure 11. Slip coatings in the sampled pottery from Lesvos and Chalcis.
Figure 11. Slip coatings in the sampled pottery from Lesvos and Chalcis.
Heritage 07 00206 g011
Table 1. The 40 samples under study from the Castle of Mytilene and Chalcis in Greece.
Table 1. The 40 samples under study from the Castle of Mytilene and Chalcis in Greece.
Pottery TypologyDatingCenturiesLocationOriginSample CodeNumber
Kütahya WareOttoman/Venetianca. late 15th–19thMytileneWestern TurkeyMYT169, MYT179, MYT181, MYT183, MYT184, MYT188, MYT195, MYT218, MYT230, MYT239, MYT241, ΜΥΤ24212
Iznik WareOttoman/Venetianca. late 15th–18thMytileneWestern TurkeyMYT168, MYT170, MYT2143
Miletus WareOttoman/Venetianca. late 14th–15thMytileneWestern TurkeyMYT167, MYT204, MYT2263
Zeuxippus WareLate Byzantine/Frankishca. 13th–14thChalcisWestern TurkeyCH99, CH101, CH1053
Zeuxippus Ware subtypeLate Byzantine/Frankishca. 13th–14thMytileneWestern TurkeyMYT196, MYT233, MYT2383
PorcelainOttoman Venetianca. late 15th–18thMytileneChinaMYT180, MYT185, MYT186, MYT221, MYT222, MYT2236
Lustre WareIslamicca. 9th–12thChalcisEgyptCH1101
Glazed Frit WareIslamic–Ottoman/Venetianca. 10th–18thMytileneSyria or EgyptMYT182, CH1062
Frit WareIslamicca. 10th–12thChalcisEgyptCH1471
Monochrome and One Colour Sgraffito WareLate Byzantine/Frankishca. 13th–14thMytilene(Eastern) AegeanMY1771
Monochrome Glazed WareOttoman/Venetianca. late 15th–18thMytileneUnknown regionMYT2001
Glazed White Ware IIMiddle Byzantineca. mid-9th–12thChalcisConstantinopleCH1071
Glazed White Ware IVLate Byzantine/Frankishca. mid-12th–early 13thMytileneConstantinopleMYT2031
Polychrome White WareMiddle Byzantineca.10th–mid 12thChalcisConstantinopleCH1081
Elaborate Incised WareLate Byzantine/Frankishca. 13th–14thMytileneConstantinople or (Eastern) AegeanMYT2341
Total 40
Table 2. X-Ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy (pXRF) analysis of the fabrics in the sampled pottery from Lesvos and Chalcis (%). * The high concentration of some elements (Sn, Sb, Te, Cs, Ba) is probably related to the existence of Pb in their glazes and potential interferences in the XRF peaks.
Table 2. X-Ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy (pXRF) analysis of the fabrics in the sampled pottery from Lesvos and Chalcis (%). * The high concentration of some elements (Sn, Sb, Te, Cs, Ba) is probably related to the existence of Pb in their glazes and potential interferences in the XRF peaks.
TypologySampleS (%)K (%)Ca (%)Ti (%)VCrMnFe (%)NiCuZnAsRbSrZrSnSbTeCsBaPb (%)ThU
Iznik WareMYT1680.680.452.120.05<LOD<LOD67.10.4355.510727.365626.095.18.4216438913468.64311.771139.18
Iznik WareMYT1700.490.351.510.0521.2<LOD1000.3952.652.125.740228.094.9<LOD43415812860.72861.75241<LOD
Iznik WareMYT2140.470.511.530.07<LOD<LOD<LOD0.43<LOD16754.725726.074.9<LOD33636112058.32771.302117.93
AVERAGE 0.550.441.720.0621.2<LOD83.60.4254.110935.943826.788.38.4231130312762.53311.611888.56
Kütahya WareMYT1790.220.242.660.0210.71983590.35<LOD70930.258929.5487<LOD26.247.7<LOD<LOD<LOD1.7288.3<LOD
Kütahya WareMYT1810.170.351.140.0414.9<LOD<LOD0.40<LOD62.753.032410.955.520.3<LOD<LOD<LOD<LOD<LOD1.1280.2<LOD
Kütahya WareMYT1830.021.560.820.0310.3<LOD3850.4831.0<LOD63.2<LOD39861.548.628.019.173.442.41970.019.6218.6
Kütahya WareMYT1840.400.390.690.04<LOD19.5<LOD0.32<LOD16393.018725.347.010.636.091.515067.73071.5494.8<LOD
Kütahya WareMYT1880.440.785.340.0819.3<LOD3891.001111320170222030.269.1<LOD78.653.513757.42783.99185<LOD
Kütahya WareMYT1690.660.341.320.0618.056.51490.5675.259.417.729325.685.2<LOD35.110813359.412101.73146<LOD
Kütahya WareMYT1950.420.371.450.0416.8<LOD<LOD0.4034.8<LOD52.956114.946.7<LOD28.5<LOD<LOD<LOD<LOD1.6599.6<LOD
Kütahya WareMYT2181.101.295.250.2483.215311404.0316569.317272610222114057.261.51951219501.691399.77
* Kütahya WareMYT2304.510.252.500.0348.6<LOD3000.84397339031521,750<LOD<LOD<LOD5777361940930364025.2942<LOD
Kütahya WareMYT2390.160.490.600.039.90<LOD<LOD0.2732.640.065.312124.419.79.6174.330.110043.92120.4732.9<LOD
Kütahya WareMYT2410.380.540.740.0414.8<LOD1460.48176100118227041.262.6<LOD31.976.614881.33802.9728619.3
Kütahya WareMYT2420.970.442.280.0528.7<LOD1950.33<LOD73.897.643313.460.827.725.347.783.731.52011.0170.9<LOD
AVERAGE 0.450.622.030.0622.66106.75394.710.7889.37288.5884.81772.4065.04110.5542.8042.1159.52127.5163.08466.881.63112.0315.89
STDEV 0.340.431.740.0621.9882.87346.161.0962.58440.3851.53798.05113.21135.2249.7120.2928.4740.0128.15389.671.1076.125.31
MEDIAN 0.400.441.320.0415.85104.75359.000.4075.2073.8065.30497.0025.6061.5024.0033.5053.50135.0058.40292.501.6594.8018.60
Miletus WareMYT167<LOD1.956.060.351141536593.3912754.486.647.186.817314113.422.349.445.85190.0112.79.19
Miletus WareMYT2040.051.984.340.341141957443.8414868.899.267.6101192152<LOD39.210379.06610.0413.78.60
Miletus WareMYT2260.052.205.120.381241917373.9913263.510554.9102210150<LOD19.078.760.26130.0512.910.8
AVERAGE 0.052.045.170.361171807133.7413662.296.956.596.619214813.426.877.061.75980.0313.19.53
Zeuxippus WareCH990.111.705.550.3689.81857983.6514064.684.527.488.423515021.733.111276.26490.1726.513.2
Zeuxippus WareCH1050.490.882.410.1944.412110804.8316877.9110730101254149<LOD<LOD<LOD<LOD<LOD1.63<LOD<LOD
Zeuxippus WareCH1010.251.554.850.3885.32199473.7216074.710128993.423115622.628.713688.06420.2126.115.8
Zeuxippus Ware SubtypeMYT1960.052.234.990.481331445974.0412143.3104<LOD13310520016.329.310170.27120.0415.115.4
Zeuxippus Ware SubtypeMYT2330.041.450.930.551497059414.8337035.776.921.269.4102183<LOD18.951.736.74370.058.906.57
Zeuxippus Ware SubtypeMYT2380.052.124.760.3579.01307073.4311541.217041.213923718125.436.387.757.77830.0418.412.5
AVERAGE 0.051.933.560.461203267484.1020240.111731.211414818820.928.280.154.96440.0414.111.5
Polychrome White WareCH1080.050.290.290.6511352.890.12.2426.468.572.3<LOD10.328.314041.315.553.322.62160.257.474.20
* Glazed White Ware IICH1074.431.051.070.2575.31292821.7087.516073.3340067.644.513161.388.430213987417.778.3<LOD
Glazed White Ware IVMYT2030.170.634.630.07<LOD<LOD1490.33<LOD36.024.19.645.2476.113.4<LOD<LOD<LOD<LOD68.00.01<LOD<LOD
PorcelainMYT180<LOD2.100.810.04<LOD<LOD4840.5237.5<LOD61.46.0937860.655.925.828.474.752.12490.007.7238.6
PorcelainMYT1850.151.151.990.01<LOD26.13450.42<LOD41.928.635.234567.938.916.720.268.535.21530.0510.722.7
PorcelainMYT1860.040.770.580.039.4937.03700.8635.4<LOD77.9<LOD38540.346.439.142.011970.73430.008.8218.3
PorcelainMYT2210.040.401.120.0310.333.11980.2140.454.338.876.87.0835737.419.019.661.236.92210.047.746.55
PorcelainMYT2220.061.000.590.0413.334.34350.8454.7<LOD65.715.837336.749.824.738.686.064.23510.017.0136.7
PorcelainMYT2230.930.950.810.02<LOD42.1<LOD0.8749.9<LOD38.7170026761.564.328.742.813381.45020.7651.815.5
AVERAGE 0.211.130.960.0310.934.53700.6041.548.153.536830897.948.826.030.188.054.72880.1214.822.4
STDEV 0.360.550.490.011.685.8497.60.269.058.7718.17481401159.367.3010.927.317.91190.2816.411.5
MEDIAN 0.051.000.810.0310.334.33780.5239.048.161.435.237361.548.625.828.474.752.12490.018.8018.6
Glazed Frit WareMYT1820.362.008.680.2568.754.34633.3649.0112013833412217014323321.781.241.55671.0472.713.9
Glazed Frit WareCH1060.071.312.460.1427.0<LOD68.10.24<LOD22314.735.231.242267.636.5<LOD37.414.03740.3912.612.0
Frit WareCH1470.123.151.830.1625.567.095.40.3636.145763442.348.611630841.023.954.047.78871.2135.913.0
Lustre WareCH1100.321.4710.30.2887.22017473.5718812310510235.557025232422.4<LOD34.74203.7435.76.50
Elaborate Incised WareMYT234<LOD0.690.420.821681733919.8484.691.319044.445.854.026127.636.012780.26080.04<LOD6.05
Monochrome and One Colour Sgraffito WareMYT177<LOD1.441.010.5912074011505.4541939.686.9<LOD75.711121316.022.985.053.14550.0311.16.60
Table 3. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM-EDS) analysis of polished samples’ fabrics in the sampled pottery from Lesvos and Chalcis (%).
Table 3. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM-EDS) analysis of polished samples’ fabrics in the sampled pottery from Lesvos and Chalcis (%).
Samples Na2OMgOAl2O3SiO2P2O5SO3Cl2OK2OCaOTiO2MnOFe2O3PbO
Kütahya WareMYT179average1.23.4286.9ndndnd0.55.30.5nd0.8nd
stdev0.020.90.10.1 0.030.10.5 0.02
Kütahya WareMYT181average1.30.92.792.9ndndnd0.510.5nd0.7nd
stdev0.10.10.10.4 0.10.10.5 0.1
Kütahya WareMYT183average1.80.524.667.8ndndnd3.310.5nd1.1nd
stdev0.10.10.20.2 0.20.20.5 0.02
Kütahya WareMYT184average16.816.653.1ndndnd2.913.90.7nd5nd
stdev0.20.40.10.3 0.20.40.1 0.2
Kütahya WareMYT188average0.8nd294ndndnd0.81.7ndnd0.7nd
stdev0.02 0.30.3 0.10.1 0.04
Kütahya WareMYT230average1.040.82.692.7ndndnd0.71.3ndnd0.9nd
stdev0.10.10.10.4 0.10.1 0.1
Kütahya WareMYT241average1.010.62.192.3ndndnd1.21.8ndnd0.9nd
stdev0.10.10.040.3 0.10.1 0.1
Kütahya WareMYT242average1.30.62.792.6ndnd0.40.71.1ndnd0.6nd
stdev0.020.10.70.3 0.10.10.2 0.03
Miletus WareMYT167average0.93.516.157.3ndndnd3.49.71.1nd8.1nd
stdev0.040.10.71.9 0.30.80.2 0.3
Miletus WareMYT204average13.717.0158.2ndndnd3.38.10.9nd7.7nd
stdev0.130.30.72.8 0.31.40.1 0.5
Miletus WareMYT226average0.93.615.660.2ndndnd3.28.80.8nd7nd
stdev0.130.31.93.9 0.40.60.04 0.8
Table 4. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM-EDS) analysis of polished samples’ fabrics in the sampled pottery from Lesvos and Chalcis (%).
Table 4. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM-EDS) analysis of polished samples’ fabrics in the sampled pottery from Lesvos and Chalcis (%).
Samples Na2OMgOAl2O3SiO2P2O5SO3Cl2OK2OCaOTiO2MnOFe2O3PbO
Iznik WareMYT168average1.81.63.780.4nd2.22.31.14.1ndnd2.8nd
stdev0.10.20.71.9 0.30.10.20.4 0.7
Iznik WareMYT170average1.81.22.887.7nd1.30.50.73ndnd1.1nd
stdev0.20.10.10.8 0.10.20.040.6 0.2
Iznik WareMYT214average1.612.590.3nd1.1nd0.61.9ndnd1nd
stdev0.10.10.20.3 0.1 0.20.2 0.2
PorcelainMYT180average1.6nd23.769.1ndndnd3.31.2ndnd1.1nd
stdev0.02 0.30.4 0.10.1 0.03
PorcelainMYT185average1.20.523.769.6ndndnd3.30.9ndnd0.9nd
stdev0.20.20.30.2 0.10.1 0.1
PorcelainMYT186average1.80.620.672.1ndndnd3.10.7ndnd1.1nd
stdev0.20.20.30.5 0.10.1 0.1
PorcelainMYT221average4.61.47.282.4ndnd0.41.22.3ndnd0.5nd
stdev0.10.10.040.4 0.030.010.1 0.01
PorcelainMYT222average1.5nd23.670.1ndndnd3.30.7ndnd0.9nd
stdev0.1 0.20.2 0.040.01 0.03
PorcelainMYT223average0.40.330.364.2ndndnd3.50.9ndnd0.4nd
stdev0.10.10.60.6 0.10.2 0.02
Monochrome Glazed WareMYT200averagend1.525.858ndndnd4.21.61.02nd7.9nd
stdev 0.20.30.4 0.10.10.5 0.04
Glazed Frit WareMYT182average0.90.42.393.7ndndnd0.91ndnd0.8nd
stdev0.030.10.040.4 0.2 0.10.04 0.1
Glazed Frit WareCH106average1.91.17.385.5nd0.10.41.11.2ndnd0.5nd
stdev0.20.20.10.4 0.20.060.10.1 0.1
Zeuxippus WareCH101average1.54.11561.4ndndnd2.38.80.9nd6.1nd
stdev0.20.10.31.8 0.11.90.1 0.03
Lustre WareCH110average0.82.711.557.8nd0.6nd1.518.41.03nd5.7nd
stdev0.10.20.70.6 0.5 0.20.90.2 0.4
Table 5. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM-EDS) analysis of the pigments in the sampled pottery from Lesvos and Chalcis (%) (continued).
Table 5. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM-EDS) analysis of the pigments in the sampled pottery from Lesvos and Chalcis (%) (continued).
Samples Na2OMgOAl2O3SiO2P2O5SO3Cl2OK2OCaOTiO2Cr2O3MnOFe2O3CoONiOCuOZnOSnO2PbO
GREEN
KütahyaWareMYT1817.61.41.952.1nd13.10.90.92.8ndndnd1ndnd2.4ndnd16
KütahyaWareMYT2427.81.31.451.2nd10.410.82.4ndndnd0.7ndnd1ndnd22.2
IznikWareMYT16841nd41.111.9nd6.1nd0.0ndndnd0.6ndnd2.4nd4.128.8
PorcelainMYT1801.7nd15.172.30.0nd0.02.95.7ndndnd2.1ndnd0.2ndndnd
YELLOW
KütahyaWareMYT18181.52.353.8nd12.710.83ndndnd0.9ndndndndnd16.1
KütahyaWareMYT2428.11.31.451.8nd10.2112.8ndndnd0.6ndndndndnd21.9
RED ndndnd ndndndnd
KütahyaWareMYT1817.91.72.0254.3nd12.41.031.22.9ndndnd0.8ndndndndnd15.7
KütahyaWareMYT1831.90.713.673.02ndndnd2.86.1ndnd0.81.1ndndndndndnd
IznikWareMYT2149.3nd0.748.415.5nd10.80.7ndndnd0.6ndnd0.4nd2.919.9
PorcelainMYT2230.70.518.271.50.0ndnd3.25ndndnd1.01ndndndndndnd
BROWN
KütahyaWareMYT1831.90.71866.1ndndnd2.37.5ndnd1.81.30.4ndndndndnd
PorcelainMYT1862.41.217.369.7ndndnd3.13.10.46ndnd2.8ndndndndndnd
PorcelainMYT2221.90.817.170ndndnd3.23.20.47ndnd3.4ndndndndndnd
PorcelainMYT1851.30.615.168.2ndndnd2.88ndnd2.31.20.5ndndndndnd
Table 6. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM-EDS) analysis of the pigments in the sampled pottery from Lesvos and Chalcis (%).
Table 6. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM-EDS) analysis of the pigments in the sampled pottery from Lesvos and Chalcis (%).
Samples Na2OMgOAl2O3SiO2P2O5SO3Cl2OK2OCaOTiO2Cr2O3MnOFe2O3CoONiOCuOZnOSnO2PbO
TURQUOISE
GlazedFritWareCH1068.72.91.747nd12.51.010.83.9ndndnd0.5ndnd0.9nd6.813.4
PURPLE
KütahyaWareMYT17911.11.11.858.7nd6.40.71.31.80.10.91.50.90.3ndndndnd13.6
KütahyaWareMYT2421.80.42.268.4nd5.020.50.72.5ndnd0.81.70.4nd0.2ndnd14.9
MonochromeGlazedWareMYT2002.1nd16.717.3nd20.91.60.82.931.1ndnd2.10.4nd0.62.9ndnd
DARK
MiletusWareMYT2047.61.12.846.2nd16.7nd1.10.6nd1.5nd1ndndndndnd21.5
MiletusWareMYT2265.42.73.550.9nd10.5nd1.30.7nd8.60.32.7ndndndndnd13.4
[19]
BLUE
KütahyaWareMYT1841.50.83.0336.8nd17.313.83.1ndndnd2.10.3nd1.0nd4.824.6
KütahyaWareMYT1887.3nd3.152.6nd13.4nd2.011.9ndndnd0.80.1nd2.1ndnd16.8
KütahyaWareMYT2419.11.51.250nd11.91.12.52.6ndndnd1.040.5nd0.0ndnd18.5
KütahyaWareMYT2428.21.21.352.5nd9.81.11.12.6ndndnd0.70.30.30.3ndnd20.8
MiletusWareMYT1678.80.71.747nd11.60.81.30.8ndndnd5.81.62.81.3ndnd15.2
IznikWareMYT1684.10.51.177.3nd5.50.51.926.2ndndnd0.90.6ndndndnd8.1
IznikWareMYT1707.811.144.7nd15.5nd0.70.9ndndnd0.80.6ndndnd2.224.7
IznikWareMYT2149.30.30.848.615nd0.80.80.6ndndnd0.4ndnd0.2nd2.820.4
PorcelainMYT1851.36.315.168.2ndndnd2.88.0ndnd2.31.20.5ndndndndnd
PorcelainMYT2219.042.43.976.7ndnd0.41.14.7ndnd0.31.020.2ndndndndnd
PorcelainMYT2230.50.416.173ndndnd3.23.9ndndnd1.21.4ndndndndnd
PorcelainMYT2230.40.220.969.9ndndnd3.24.1ndndnd0.70.5ndndndndnd
GlazedFritWareMYT1822.30.4278.1nd5.040.51.51.3ndndnd10.3nd0.3ndnd7.1
TURQUOISE
KütahyaWareMYT17910.80.81.159.6nd7.10.71.32.2ndndnd0.5ndnd0.9ndnd14.9
KütahyaWareMYT2307.70.51.755.7nd10.5nd1.32.1ndndnd0.70.3nd4.9ndnd14.6
MonochromeGlazedWareMYT2004.1nd2.66.5nd11.910.64.157.4ndnd5.4ndnd1.44.9ndnd
DARK
KütahyaWareMYT1887.11.42.748.8nd12nd1.91.7nd4.10.42.2ndnd2.1ndnd15.8
KütahyaWareMYT2307.21.52.252.7nd12.4nd1.33nd0.4nd1.20.3nd3.2ndnd14.7
IznikWareMYT17090.91.0447.6nd16.1nd0.80.8nd0.3nd0.80.7ndndnd2.619.4
MiletusWareMYT1678.80.71.747.0nd11.60.81.30.8nd0.6nd5.81.62.8nd1.3nd15.2
KütahyaWareMYT17911.61.11.560.3nd6.60.71.42.1nd0.70.40.8ndnd0.2ndnd12.8
Table 7. Results of Raman and SEM-EDS analyses of the main colourants.
Table 7. Results of Raman and SEM-EDS analyses of the main colourants.
Colours
Pottery TypologySamplesMineralsMain Peaks (Raman)Main Collorants (sem-eds)
RED
Iznik WareMYT168Hematite, Fe2O3300 nm415 nm615 nm--------------
Kütahya WareMYT181Hematite, Fe2O3 408 nm609 nmFe
Magnetite, Fe3O4670 nm
Kütahya WareΜΥΤ242Magnetite, Fe3O4665 nm Fe
BROWN
PorcelainMYT186Hematite, Fe2O3300 nm415 nm620 nmFe
Magnetite, Fe3O4670 nm
PorcelainMYT222Hematite, Fe2O3 406 nm607 nmFe
Magnetite, Fe3O4670 nm
PorcelainMYT223Magnetite, Fe3O4670 nm Fe
YELLOW
Kütahya WareMYT181Yellow Ochre, Fe2O3 + clay + silica387 nm551 nm Fe
Kütahya WareΜΥΤ242Yellow Ochre, Fe2O3 + clay + silica388 nm546 nm Fe
Magnetite, Fe3O4670 nm
BLUE
Kütahya WareMYT181Lazurite, Na8[Al6Si6O24]Sn545 nm1095 nm -------------
Kütahya WareMYT183Azurite, 2CuCO3·Cu(OH)2401 nm765 nm849 nm-------------
PorcelainMYT223Azurite, 2CuCO3·Cu(OH)2401 nm765 nm849 nmCo, Fe
TURQUOISE
Glazed Frit WareCH106Cu in Pb470 nm Cu, Fe
DARK
Miletus WareMYT226Magnetite, Fe3O4230 nm Cr, Mn, Fe
Chromium oxide, Cr2O3530 nm
Hematite, Fe2O3400 nm
Kütahya WareMYT188Magnetite, Fe3O4665 nm Cr, Mn, Fe
Chromium oxide, Cr2O3550 nm
Kütahya WareMYT179Cr, Al, Fe350 nm405 nm700 nm, 845 nm, 896 nm, 931 nmCr, Al, Fe
GREEN
PorcelainMYT180Malachite, CuCO3·Cu(OH)2433 nm552 nm Cu, Fe
Kütahya WareMYT181Malachite, CuCO3·Cu(OH)2440 nm560 nm Cu, Fe
Kütahya WareΜΥΤ242Atacamite, CuCl2·3Cu(OH)2515 nm847 nm Cu, Fe
Iznik WareMYT214Atacamite, CuCl2·3Cu(OH)2516 nm850 nm -------------
Iznik WareMYT214Atacamite, CuCl2·3Cu(OH)2516 nm850 nm -------------
Iznik WareMYT214Atacamite, CuCl2·3Cu(OH)2516 nm850 nm -------------
Table 8. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM-EDS) analysis of polished samples’ glazes in the sampled pottery from Lesvos and Chalcis (%).
Table 8. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM-EDS) analysis of polished samples’ glazes in the sampled pottery from Lesvos and Chalcis (%).
Samples Na2OMgOAl2O3SiO2P2O5SO3Cl2OK2OCaOTiO2Cr2O3MnOFe2O3CoONiOCuOZnOSnO2PbO
Kütahya Ware MYT183 average1.70.513.774.2ndndnd2.86.2ndndnd0.9ndndndndndnd
stdev0.040.10.30.9 0.10.5 0.1
Miletus Ware MYT226 average7.60.74.950.5nd14.5nd1.90.71.03ndnd0.7ndndndndnd17.5
stdev0.30.20.60.8 0.7 0.00.041.1 0.1 1
Porcelain MYT180 average1.70.014.672ndndnd2.77.9ndndnd1.1ndndndndndnd
stdev0.20.00.51.7 0.32.5 0.1
Zeuxippus Ware CH101 average0.30.74.732nd27.21.10.40.9ndndnd0.9ndndndndnd31.9
stdev0.10.20.71.9 0.40.10.20.5 0.3 1.5
Lustre Ware CH110 average1.9nd2.446.9nd16.41.31.91ndndnd0.7ndndndnd4.523
stdev0.1 0.41.9 0.40.20.20.5 0.2 1.2
[19]
Kütahya Ware MYT179 average 11.90.91.259.3nd7.20.71.21.9ndndnd0.5ndndndndnd15.3
Kütahya Ware MYT184 average 1.40.83.238.1nd17.81.0443.04ndndnd1.90.3nd0.9nd3.124.5
Kütahya Ware MYT188 average 1.10.02.364.15.410.2nd0.73.5ndndnd0.6ndndndndnd12.3
Kütahya Ware MYT242 average 8.51.31.453.5nd9.70.90.92.9ndndnd0.6ndndndndnd20.4
Iznik Ware MYT168 average 2.10.92.24210.9nd5.90.552.5ndndnd1.4ndndndnd1.330.5
Iznik Ware MYT170 average 6.70.3148.9nd15.9nd0.60.7ndndnd0.5ndndndnd2.423
Iznik Ware MYT214 average 90.61.150.215.1nd0.80.71ndndnd0.5ndndndnd2.119
Miletus Ware MYT167 average 10.30.51.248.6nd14.81.21.10.9ndndnd0.6ndndndndnd21
Miletus Ware MYT204 average 7.30.71.442.5nd19.6nd0.90.6ndndnd0.9ndndndndnd26.2
Glazed Frit Ware MYT182 average 6.50.70.951.3nd14.70.81.72.8ndndnd0.7ndndndndnd20
Monochrome Glazed Ware MYT200 average 2.10.016.727.3nd10.92.60.82.931.1ndnd2.1ndndnd2.9ndnd
Porcelain MYT185 average 1.20.614.270.6ndndnd2.89.7ndndnd1ndndndndndnd
Porcelain MYT186 average 20.514.673.8ndndnd2.95.3ndndnd0.9ndndndndndnd
Porcelain MYT221 average 11.13.022.674.3ndnd0.51.160.2nd0.30.9ndndndndndnd
Porcelain MYT223 average 0.50.317.272.7ndndnd3.55.2ndndnd0.7ndndndndndnd
Table 9. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM-EDS) analysis of the polished samples’ slip coatings in the sampled pottery from Lesvos and Chalcis (%).
Table 9. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM-EDS) analysis of the polished samples’ slip coatings in the sampled pottery from Lesvos and Chalcis (%).
Samples Na2OMgOAl2O3SiO2P2O5SO3Cl2OK2OCaOTiO2Cr2O3MnOFe2O3CoOCuOZnOSnO2PbO
KütahyaWare MYT181 average 2.10.93.387.4nd1.10.30.91.2ndndnd1ndndndnd1.9
stdev 0.20.10.40.5 0.10.100.02 0.02 0.4
KütahyaWare MYT230 average 3.78.210.936.8ndndnd0.92.7nd24.5nd9.30.62.3ndndnd
stdev 0.10.70.93.4 0.010.3 1.4nd0.70.10.2
MiletusWare MYT226 average 5.81.125.959.3ndndnd5.20.40.6ndnd0.8ndndndnd0.9
stdev 0.10.20.20.4 0.30.30.1 0.1 0.1
ZeuxippusWare CH101 average 1.33.914.562.1nd0.8nd28.30.84ndnd6.3ndndndndnd
stdev 0.10.30.50.5 0.7 0.31.10.09 0.6
LustreWare CH110 average 1.23.210.260.1nd1.5nd115.91.01ndnd5.9ndndndndnd
stdev 0.412.28 0.2 0.015.20.16 0.0
[19]
KütahyaWare MYT179 average 10.12.987.5ndndnd35.7ndndnd0.2ndndndndnd
MiletusWare MYT167 average 0.81.42464.2ndndnd4.63.20.7ndnd1.1ndndndndnd
MiletusWare MYT204 average 22.223.265.6ndndnd3.12.10.8ndnd1.1ndndndndnd
IznikWare MYT168 average 1.11.12.277.3nd4.14.80.83.7ndndnd0.8nd0.3ndnd4.3
IznikWare MYT170 average 3.80.61.577.6ndndnd0.60.7ndndnd1.20.6ndnd0.95.6
IznikWare MYT214 average 2.6nd2.884.8nd3nd0.63.8ndndnd2.5ndndndndnd
MonochromeGlazedWare MYT200 average 9.1nd1.242.40.6ndndnd1.333.2ndnd1.1ndnd11.1ndnd
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Panagopoulou, A.P.; Vroom, J.; Hein, A.; Kilikoglou, V. Exploring Colour Palette in Pottery from Western Anatolia and East Asia—Colour Schemes to Inspire. Heritage 2024, 7, 4374-4402. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage7080206

AMA Style

Panagopoulou AP, Vroom J, Hein A, Kilikoglou V. Exploring Colour Palette in Pottery from Western Anatolia and East Asia—Colour Schemes to Inspire. Heritage. 2024; 7(8):4374-4402. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage7080206

Chicago/Turabian Style

Panagopoulou, Adamantia P., Joanita Vroom, Anno Hein, and Vassilis Kilikoglou. 2024. "Exploring Colour Palette in Pottery from Western Anatolia and East Asia—Colour Schemes to Inspire" Heritage 7, no. 8: 4374-4402. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage7080206

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop