4.5 Article

Archaeometric characterization of 17th-century tin-glazed Anabaptist (Hutterite) faience artefacts from North-East-Hungary

Journal

JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCE
Volume 45, Issue -, Pages 1-14

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2014.01.030

Keywords

Eastern-Central Europe; Anabaptist; Hutterite; Faience; Maiolica; Tin glaze

Funding

  1. Hungarian Scientific Research Fund [OTKA K81201, K81133]
  2. Janos Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The paper presents the first results of a long-term project aiming to reconstruct the production technology of the Anabaptist (Hutterite) tin-glazed ceramics produced in Eastern-Central Europe. Microanalytical investigations were performed on 17th-century faience artefacts (six samples) excavated at Sarospatak, North-East-Hungary. The results are compared with analytical data on the direct or indirect precursor, Italian maiolica. The studied Hutterite faience artefacts reveal similarities with Italian maiolica. Calcareous clay with 14-22 wt% CaO was used for the buff-coloured ceramic body. Up to about 400 mu m thick, tin-opacified white and blue lead-alkali glaze was applied on the biscuit-fired body. The glaze suspension contained sand admixture and a significant amount of common salt and was not fritted before application. The colorants used for the ceramic colours are lead antimonate for yellow, cobalt with arsenic, nickel and iron for blue, copper for green and manganese with minor iron for black. The ceramic colours were applied on the unfired glaze and maturing occurred during the second firing. The main technological difference when compared with the Italian Renaissance maiolica is the deliberate use of a high amount of tin oxide (17-20 wt% SnO2) together with 18-28 wt% PbO content for white glaze of the studied Hutterite faience. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available