'Novy Svet Ware', an Exceptional Cargo of Glazed Wares from a 13th-Century Shipwreck near Sudak...

‘Novy Svet Ware’, an Exceptional Cargo of GlazedWares from a 13th-Century Shipwreck near Sudak(Crimea, Ukraine)—Morphological Typology andLaboratory Investigations

S. Y. WaksmanLaboratoire de Céramologie, UMR 5138 CNRS—University of Lyon, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 7rue Raulin, 69365 Lyon cedex 7, France, [email protected]

I. TeslenkoUkrainian Academy of Science, Archaeological Institute Crimean branch, 2 Yaltinskaya str., 95000 Simferopol,Crimea, Ukraine, [email protected]

Excavation of a medieval shipwreck at Novy Svet, Crimea, Ukraine, revealed an exceptional quantity of glazed ceramics withsgraffito decoration which, according to chemical analysis, correspond to a single production provisionally named ‘Novy SvetWare’. Typological and analytical definitions are given. Its diffusion in the Crimea and extending to Turkey and the Levant,points to a main, as yet unlocated, workshop. The Novy Svet shipwreck suggests the persistence of large-scale diffusion ofceramics in the late-13th century, and demonstrates connections with the Black Sea, the Byzantine capital and territories, theMediterranean and possibly the spice roads.

© 2009 The Authors

Key words: shipwreck, Black Sea, medieval trade, ceramics, typology, chemical analysis.

Since 1999, underwater archaeologists from theNational University Taras Shevchenko of Kiev(Ukraine) have carried out extensive fieldwork in

the bay of Novy Svet near Sudak (medieval Soldaia,Sugdeya, Surozh) (Zelenko, 1999) (Fig. 1). They havelocated and recorded a shipwreck which might be iden-tified as a late-13th-century Pisan ship sunk in 1277 ina battle mentioned in texts, a hypothesis supported bythe dating of the archaeological material and by tracesof a strong fire (Zelenko, 1999: 232–3).

The archaeological material is spread over an area of120 ¥ 120 m, 600 m2 of which had been excavated by2005. It is mainly concentrated in two zones: Area 1, inthe western part of the bay (60 ¥ 60 m, 8–10 m deep),and Area 2, in the middle of the bay (10–12 m deep)(Zelenko, 1999: 223). The former is thought to be theoriginal location of the ship, whose presumed size is7 ¥ 25 m; its cargo would have spread into the entirezone, possibly together with some intrusive material,due to various factors including tides, storms, limiteddepth and human activities (Zelenko, 2008). Besidesamphoras, mainly of types Günsenin 3 and 4 (Güns-enin, 1990), pithoi, glass and other items, the shipwreckcontains an exceptional quantity of glazed tableware

(Zelenko, 1999; Teslenko, 2000; Zelenko, 2003; 2004;2005; 2008). The large quantity of ceramics and glasscollected has few if any counterparts in well-dated ter-restrial excavation contexts. This underwater find thussignificantly increases the data-bank of objects involvedin the international trade system in the Black Sea andthe Mediterranean in the late Middle Ages.

As far as we know, it is also the only medieval ship-wreck carrying large quantities of glazed tablewareexcavated in the area, apart from the Serçe Limanıshipwreck, which besides a main cargo of glass alsocarried smaller cargoes of glazed tableware (Bass andvan Doorninck, 1978; Jenkins, 1992; Bass et al., 2004).A handful of other important cargoes of glazed ceram-ics have been located in the Aegean (Pelagonnesos-Alonnesos, Skopelos) or the Eastern Mediterranean(Kastellorizo), but they are only known either fromrescue excavations, or through looted material inmuseum or private collections (Armstrong, 1991;Papanikola-Bakirtzi, 1999). The Novy Svet shipwreckis thus seen as a rare opportunity to understand bettermaritime trade in glazed ceramics, which is well-attested by terrestrial excavations but poorly docu-mented otherwise.

The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (2010) 39.2: 357–375doi: 10.1111/j.1095-9270.2009.00253.x

© 2009 The Authors. Journal Compilation © 2009 The Nautical Archaeology Society.Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

The glazed wares found on the wreck-site show agreat variety of types of different origins, includingsome well-documented archaeological types. These areGlazed White Ware, present in significant quantities,as well as Port Saint-Symeon Ware, Graffita ArcaicaTirrenica, Cypriot Ware, and Zeuxippus Ware, withorigins over a large area, from Italy to the Levant viathe Byzantine world (Waksman et al., forthcoming).However, the most numerous group of tableware—several hundred objects, including completeexamples—consists of vessels of open form with aflaring ring-foot and a monochrome glaze. They aredecorated in the sgraffito technique, with simple pat-terns of concentric lines or central spirals as basic ele-ments of ornamentation engraved on the interior. Theyhave a fine paste, generally red or orange in section andsmooth and pinkish at the surface. Many small spar-kling mica inclusions (confirmed under the polarizingmicroscope), are visible in the paste. A less-numerousgroup consists of closed vessels decorated by verticalstrips of white slip. Their red clay sometimes alsoseemed to contain mica inclusions.

The first aim of our study was the morphologicaltypology of this tableware. Already introduced else-where (Zelenko, 1999: 230; Teslenko, 2000; Waksmanand François, 2005), it is more fully presented here. Aninitial approach to its diffusion and its possible origins,based on typological criteria, is proposed. Thesehypotheses are tested in the second part of our study,with the help of chemical analysis carried out at theLaboratoire de Céramologie in Lyon (France). Thisalso helped in determining whether these ceramics hada single origin, or represent the production of severalworkshops.

Morphological typologyType 1This type only includes vessels of open form. The innerand the upper part of the outer surfaces are coveredwith a white slip. Occasionally the outside of the vesselis decorated with vertical tongues or horizontal wavesof white slip (Figs 2–11; Fig. 12.2, 4, 5). Besides theconcentric circles and/or central spiral, some artefactsbear additional decorative elements on their inner side.There are three variants. A one-and-a-half-circuitspiral occupies the centre, flanked, 21 mm away, bytwo semi-palmates facing opposite directions (theengraved lines are of different thickness) (Fig. 12.1,sample BYZ648). An irregular circle surrounds thepattern, comprising a cross with curved lines connect-ing its three arms (cut with a three-toothed comb), anda couple of wider concentric circles frame this compo-sition (Fig. 12.3). Rims are decorated with small spiralsand radial lines between two pairs of concentric circles(Fig. 7.7, sample BYZ854).

The glaze colours are yellow, brownish-yellow,greenish-yellow and green, the yellow and brownish-yellow hues being dominant. They cover the inner aswell as the upper part of the outer surfaces, and areusually very bright and shiny. Most of the glazedvessels from the shipwreck belong to Type 1. The rangeof forms is varied, and may be divided into four maingroups showing some variations.

Dishes1. Body with slightly curving or smooth flaring walls.Edges of walls form slightly upward turned or straightrim. Diameter 190–260 mm; height 49–55 mm (Fig. 2).2. Body with slightly-curving or smooth-flaring wallsand out-turned horizontal rims. Diameter 190–220 mm; height c.50 mm (Fig. 3).

Bowls1. Flaring walls and vertical or slightly in-turned,straight or concave rims, separated from the body by arib. Diameter 180–260 mm; height c.90–100 mm(Fig. 4).2. Flaring walls forming rounded angle with rim.Upright rim, concave on exterior with deflected edges.Diameter 170–210 mm; height 100 mm (Fig. 5.2 and 4).3. Flaring walls. Upright slightly-rounded rim, sepa-rated from the body by a small rib. Diam-eter 200–210 mm; height c.100 mm (Fig. 5.1, 3, 5).4. Bell-shaped, with deep body and flaring rim, concaveon interior. Diameter 150–200 mm; height 79–85 mm(Fig. 6).5. Hemispherical body and wide ledge rim. Diameter120–180 mm; height c.65 mm (Fig. 7).6. Hemispherical body. Plain, indistinctly-formed, rim,sometimes with slightly out-turned edges. Diameter120–150 mm; height 52–83 mm (Fig. 8).7. Ellipsoidal body. Plain upright or slightly in-turnedrim. Diameter c.130 mm; height 50–54 mm (Fig. 9).

Figure 1. Location of the Novy Svet shipwreck and of othersites where the diffusion of the ‘Novy Svet Ware’ is attestedby chemical analysis. (S.Y. Waksman)

NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 39.2

358 © 2009 The Authors. Journal Compilation © 2009 The Nautical Archaeology Society

PlatesShallow body with flaring walls. Simple out-turned rimand round lip. Diameter 190 mm; height 55 mm(Fig. 10).

Goblets or beakers1. Vessels with high conical base, low straight flaringbody, low carination (less than 1/3 of the height of thevessel), slightly in-turned, convex rim with slender lip.There is a well-defined rib between the body and therim. Sometimes the edge was decorated by pressure,which gave it a rosette contour (Fig. 11.1). Diameter120–160 mm; height 60–85 mm (Fig. 11).

The Type 1 collection also contains numerousfragments—sides and bases—which are difficult toascribe to one of the groups described above but seem tobelong to the same ware (Fig. 12.2, 4, 5).

Type 2This type only includes vessels of open form. Spirals andconcentric lines decorate the inner side, combined withdeeply-grooved or roller-stamped decoration on theexterior (Fig. 13). Green or yellow glaze covers the innerand the entire outer surfaces. The vessels also have aspecific base construction, different from Type 1, as thecentre of the bottom protrudes downwards. Type 2represents one morphological group with two variants.

Bowls1. Low flaring body, low carenation (less than 1/3 of theheight of the vessel), rim slightly tilted outward withround or flat lip. Diameter 135–200 mm; height62–74 mm (Fig. 13.1, 2, 5–11).2. Low flaring body, low carenation, rim slightly tiltedoutward with out-turned edges. Diameter 150–200 mm; height 64 mm (Fig. 13.3 and 4).

Figure 2. Novy Svet shipwreck, main cargo. Type 1, dishes (1). (S. Siomin)

S. Y. WAKSMAN & I. TESLENKO: 13TH-CENTURY GLAZED WARES FROM A SHIPWRECK

© 2009 The Authors. Journal Compilation © 2009 The Nautical Archaeology Society 359

Type 3This type only includes vessels of closed form—jugs.The outer surfaces are covered with vertical tongues ofwhite slip, directed downwards from the bottom to thelip—obviously applied while the vessels were upside-down (Fig. 14). The glazes have yellow, brownish-yellow and green colours, and cover the inner as well asthe upper part of the outer surfaces (about 2/3 of theheight). The body is rounded and the base is flat. Theneck is high, cylindrical, with an expanded, out-turnedrim and a round lip. A handle is pulled from the heightof the neck to the body. There are two variants. Thefirst has a wide (78–85 mm) neck with trefoil rim(Fig. 14.1, 2, 5, 6) and the second a narrow neck withsimple rim (c.40 mm) (Fig. 14.4).

Distribution and hypotheses of originThe geographical distribution of artefacts decorated inthe manner of Type 1 is very wide. Such ceramics withunsophisticated and simply-made decoration were

probably meant to satisfy mass-consumption demandand were produced in such quantity that today it isdifficult to find a city or even a more or less big settle-ment of the second half of the 13th to the first half of the14th century in the Eastern Mediterranean region whichdid not yield these ceramic types. They have been foundin excavations in Istanbul/Constantinople (Hayes,1992) and Asia Minor including Iznik (François, 1997),Pergamon (Waksman and Spieser, 1997), and Gülpinar(Yenisehirlioglu, 1989); the Near East (Avissar andStern, 2005: fig. 20); the northern coast of the Black Seaat Belgorod-on-Dnester (Kravchenko and Stoliarik,1983) and the Crimea at Chersonesos (Romanchuk,2003: pl. 14–29; 226. 6), Balaklava (Ivanov et al., 1998:fig. 2.3), Eski-Kermen (Parshyna, 1988: fig. 4.27),Bakla (Tallis, 1976: fig. 6.4), Mangup (Danilenko andRomanchuk, 1969: pl. 2. 13–17), Laspi (Kube, 1926),Verhniya Oreanda, Massandra (Parshyna, 1974:fig 14.1–7), Partenit (Parshyna, 1991: fig. 9), Alushta,Sudak (Baranov, 1991: fig. 6; Tur, 1997: fig 6.1, 3, 14,16), Koktebel’ (Botcharov, 2007: fig. 13), and Kerch

Figure 3. Novy Svet shipwreck, main cargo. Type 1, dishes (2). (S. Siomin)



(Zeest and Yakobson, 1965); the Taman peninsula(Makarova, 1963: fig. 7.6; Finogenova, 1987: fig. 3.8–12); the Azov coast (Azov/Azak) (Romanchuk and Per-evozchikov, 1990: fig. 2; Belinski and Maslovski, 1998:fig. 18.13–14; Volkov, 2005: figs 10–17; Dmitrienkoand Maslovski, 2006: fig. 7.5, 6; Maslovski, 2006:fig. 11); the Balkans—Romania (Constantinescu, 1972:pl. XLI. 3), Bulgaria (including Tyrnovo, Cherven,Vetren na Dunav, Varna, Kavarna, Enisala, Kaliakra,and Neseber) (Georgieva, 1974: pl. 45, 46. 2, 48; Geor-gieva, 1985; Atanasov and Yordanov, 1994: pl. XXIe);Greece (including Athens, Thessaloniki, Thasos, andSerres) (Waage, 1933: figs 12–13; Vavylopoulo-Charitonidou, 1998: figs 12–13; François, 1995:figs 21–2, pl. 13c; Papanikola-Bakirtzi et al., 1992;Papanikola-Bakirtzi, 1999; Papanikola-Bakirtzi et al.,1999: figs 245, 324); and the Apennine peninsula/Italy(Gelichi, 1993: fig. 9). The additional semi-palmate ele-ments of decoration are known from 13th–14th-centuryceramics from Chersonesos (Romanchuk, 1999:fig. 3.2), Tyrnovo (Georgieva, 1974: pl. 68. 8), Nicea/Iznik (François, 1997: fig. 7.30–33, fig. 4.30, fig. 4d-e),and Ephesos (Parman, 1989: fig. 10b).

Several names have been used by different scholarsfor this ceramics type. Among them are: ‘ImitationZeuxippus’, ‘Zeuxippus-Influenced Ware’, ‘GlossyWare’, ‘Zeuxippus Derivative’, ‘Orange-Brown Glazed

Ware’, ‘Regional Zeuxippus Derivative’, ‘Late Sgraf-fito’, ‘Zeuxippus Ware Imitation’, ‘Spirale-Cerchio’,and ‘Zeuxippus Subtype’ (Avissar and Stern, 2005). Afirst attempt to differentiate and classify these variousproductions was proposed by Waksman and François(2005). The closer typological parallels to Type 1 vesselsin the Novy Svet shipwreck are most widespread in thesecond half of the 13th to first half of the 14th century.

The origin of this type of vessel is still conjectural.Some researchers connect its origin with Greece(Sparta) (Armstrong, 1992) or North Italian produc-tion centres (Venice) (Berti and Gelichi, 1997). Thereare suggestions that such ceramics were producedlocally in Taman’ (Makarova, 1963). Laboratoryinvestigations showed that ceramics related to ‘Zeux-ippus Ware’ were manufactured in Pergamon, Byzan-tine Nicea and the region of Paphos (Cyprus)(Waksman and Spieser, 1997; Waksman and François,2005). Evidence for production of glazed wares duringthe 13th and beginning of the 14th centuries are foundin Thessaloniki and in Serres, and an area of late Byz-antine workshops was recently excavated in Istanbul(Waksman and Girgin, 2008). Wares with linear orconcentric ornaments occupy a prominent placeamong the various products of these workshops(François, 1997; Papanikola-Bakirtzi, 1999). A signifi-cant part of the vessels from the Novy Svet shipwreck

Figure 4. Novy Svet shipwreck, main cargo. Type 1, bowls (1). (S. Siomin)



have many visual features, such as the construction ofthe bases, the quality of the glaze, the means and styleof ornamentation, which are very similar to Niceanceramics. It is also quite possible that the artefactsoriginated from another production centre, whichworked in the late 13th and first half of the 14thcentury in the style popular at that time.

Concerning Type 2, there are many parallels to theserouletted designs. The first to distinguish this type ofvessel, in the material excavated in Corinth, was C.Morgan. He named it ‘Roulette Ware’ and consideredit to be a post-Byzantine artefact (1942: fig. 156). Lateron MacKay (1967) dated it from the end of the 13th tothe beginning of the 14th century. These wares havebeen described in more detail by Gelichi on the basis ofmaterials from Greece and Northern Italy (Gelichi,1984). The distribution of these vessels is narrowerthan that of Type 1. The main finds occur in the NearEast, the Aegean and the Adriatic regions (Vroom,2003; 2005) and especially in north-eastern Italy whererouletted wares are present in the greatest variety. Thecontext of numerous finds in this region allowed thedetermination of a chronological range of ‘RouletteWare’ from the last quarter of the 13th century untilabout the middle of the 14th century (Gelichi, 1984;Gelichi, 1986: pls X–XIII). In the Crimea and in theAzov region this type of tableware is rare and is as-yetunknown among published material from terrestrial

excavations. Obviously Type 2, unlike Type 1, was nota subject of mass import to the Black Sea region. Min-eralogical analyses by T. Mannoni of some of thesewares from north-eastern Italy proposed localizing anarea of production in the Veneto region. This was con-firmed by the discovery of kiln wasters of ‘RouletteWare’ in the Venice lagoon area (Gelichi, 1984;D’Ambrosio et al., 1986). The vessels of Type 2 fromthe shipwreck may also be of Venetian origin.

The jugs with white slip painting (Type 3) occur moreoften among materials from terrestrial excavations inthe Black Sea and Azov region. They are also frequentlymet in complexes of the second half of the 13th to thefirst half of the 14th centuries, together with vessels ofType 1 (Romanchuk, 2003: pls 1–2; Volkov, 2005:figs 20–21; Yashaeva, 2005: fig. 2; Dmitrienko andMaslovski, 2006: fig. 7; Maslovski, 2006: fig. 11). Theorigin of these jugs is as yet unknown.

It is interesting to note that many of the glazedsherds from the shipwreck have letters and symbolsinscribed in the fired clay (Figs 2.1; 6.3; 7.2; 8.1 and 5;10; 11; 12.1 and 2; 13.4). It is especially interesting thatidentical graffiti are found on vessels of different types(Figs 2.1; 14.1). There is no unanimous conclusionregarding the functional significance of such symbols.It is believed that they might be marks of owners orpotters (Yakobson, 1950; Kravchenko, 1986). Consid-ering that the dishes described above were imported,

Figure 5. Novy Svet shipwreck, main cargo. Type 1, bowls (2, 3). (S. Siomin)



and the potters who made them could hardly knowtheir future buyers, it is possible that the graffito hadsomething to do with the process of distribution. Thissuggestion is only one of several interpretations, and itdoes not exclude a different explanation.

To sum up, we present two types of tableware ofopen forms, with central spirals and concentric lines,and one type of slip-painted jug, all found on a ship-wreck near Novy Svet. Type 1 makes up the over-whelming majority of the finds and has many visualfeatures which are very similar to ceramics fromNicea’s production centre. Type 2 is represented by asmall quantity of examples and finds its nearestanalogies in productions of Venetian workshops. Thejugs are close to Type 1 in their decoration of theexternal surface, and the graffiti on the bottom. Itwas initially suggested that they were made in thesame workshops. Laboratory analyses were thereforecarried out in order to investigate these hypotheses.

Laboratory investigationsFifty-nine samples from the Novy Svet shipwreck wereselected for analysis, to which were added two sherds ofType 1 from previous excavations at the site.1 Samplesrepresentative of the different morphological categorieswere chosen, some of which are shown in Figs 2–15(laboratory numbers of analyzed sherds are indicated).Additional samples were taken for forms which werepresent in several fabrics, or which were suspected tobelong to a different production (Waksman et al.,forthcoming). Most of the samples were from open-shaped wares. Four bear rouletted decoration (Type 2,BYZ613, BYZ645–6, BYZ824–5) (Fig. 13), one(BYZ648) an incised palmette design (Fig. 12.1), andone (BYZ854) a design of small spirals incised on therim (Fig. 7.7). Closed forms are represented by 17samples of jugs (BYZ406, BYZ847–53, BYZ920–28)(Fig. 14).




Method of analysis and classificationChemical analysis was used firstly to classify sherdsinto groups with similar chemical composition. Sherdsincluded in a given compositional group are expectedto share a common origin, under certain conditions onthe geological context (Picon, 1993). Secondly, theattribution to identified production centres was tested.

Analysis was carried out by Wavelength Dispersive-XRay Fluorescence (WD-XRF). Twenty-four elementswere quantified, 17 of which were taken as active vari-ables in multivariate statistical treatments used toclassify ceramics into groups of similar chemicalcomposition. These include eight major and minor ele-ments in ceramics (MgO, Al2O3, SiO2, K2O, CaO, TiO2,

Figure 7. Novy Svet shipwreck, main cargo. Type 1, bowls (5). (S. Siomin) BYZ854 and BYZ866 do not belong to the ‘NovySvet Ware’.




MnO, Fe2O3) and nine trace elements (V, Cr, Ni, Zn,Rb, Sr, Zr, Ba, Ce).

Classification of samples was obtained byhierarchical-clustering analysis applied to standardizeddata, using euclidian distance and average linkage (forexample Picon, 1984). The corresponding diagram,called a dendrogram, initially represents each sampleas a vertical bar at the bottom of the figure (Figs 16–17). The two samples the most alike in elemental com-position are connected by a horizontal link, which lieslower the more the samples are chemically similar. Thetwo samples are then fused into a ‘pseudo sample’ ofaverage composition. The same process is repeated,with the linkage being formed at growing heights, untilall the samples are connected. The resulting diagram

constitutes the dendrogram. It shows clusters ofsamples of similar composition linked at a lower level,all the clusters being ultimately linked together at thetop of the diagram. This representation is, however,not sufficient in itself to define compositional groups. Itdoes not take into account the significance of elementaldifferences between clusters, and further examinationof the data is still needed.

Analytical resultsSamples from the Novy Svet shipwreck are clustered inthe dendrogram (Fig. 16) into several groups and sub-groups, which present various degrees of homogeneity(Fig. 18). The main group (group B) is the most homo-geneous one. It includes examples of most of the formsof Type 1 described above. It is thus seen as represen-tative of the main cargo of glazed wares, and was thusprovisionally named the ‘Novy Svet Ware’ group. Thisgroup also includes sample BYZ648, which bears apalmette design very similar to designs used in theproduction of Nicea, and one of the jugs (BYZ926).Most of the other jugs however belong to three smallill-defined groups of poor homogeneity (groups A1,A2, A3). These are mainly composed of jugs, but openforms are also present, especially in group A1. Thelatter is more clearly differentiated, with lower alu-minium and generally lower iron contents when com-pared to A2 and A3, but it is difficult to decide at thisstage of the study how many compositional groups,and virtually how many productions, are representedin ‘groups A’. One of the samples which appears asmarginal in the dendrogram (BYZ852), may stillbelong to one of the sub-groups (A2 or A3), as itfurther develops some of its chemical characteristicssuch as high iron and titanium. In any case, it is clearthat the low-calcareous wares in ‘groups A’ are chemi-cally different from the ‘Novy Svet Ware’.

Not homogeneous either, but better defined, isgroup C. It is characterized within our sampling by itscomparatively-high potassium and rubidium contents,and by its high baryum concentration, whereas theconcentrations of calcium and strontium are low. It


Figure 10. Novy Svet shipwreck, main cargo. Type 1,plates. (S. Siomin)



gathers all the samples of Type 2 bearing rouletteddecoration. Another sample with specific decoration,BYZ854, appears as an isolated outlier at the righthand side of Fig. 16. It differs in the first place by itshigher concentrations in chromium and nickel.

Comparative material was available within a largecorpus analyzed in Lyon, in the framework of aresearch program focusing on Byzantine ceramicstypologically related to the ‘Zeuxippus Ware’ type(Waksman and François, 2005). Analyses show thatsamples found in the excavations of several Crimeansites, including Chersonesos, Feodosia, Alushta, andSudak, as well as in Istanbul, Iznik/Nicea, and Acre(Fig. 1) belong to the ‘Novy Svet Ware’ (Fig. 17)(Waksman and François, 2005: 675–8, ZeuxippusWare Family type ‘Novy Svet’ (Group B)).

On closer examination, however, samples from ter-restrial sites have slightly different chemical composi-tions. They have on average higher calcium and lowermagnesium, iron, titanium and vanadium concentra-

tions (Fig. 18). These rather small differences may bedue to modifications in the compositions of the NovySvet samples during immersion in the Black Sea. Studiesof ceramics from underwater excavations showed thatchemical alterations are likely to occur in marine envi-ronments, sometimes to a considerable extent (Lemoineet al., 1981; Béarat, 1990; Pradell et al., 1996). But alter-ations in elements such as iron and titanium have not yetbeen reported, as far as we know. Most of these studies,however, concerned either the Mediterranean, or simu-lations in the laboratory. The particular chemical andmicrobiological environment of the Black Sea may leadto different features of alteration, which still have to bestudied. But it may already be noted that these chemicalalterations are quantitatively not very important. It isencouraging for future research, as it means that chemi-cal analysis may be used for provenance studies ofceramics from Black Sea shipwrecks, whereas it is ofvery delicate use in Mediterranean shipwrecks. In thepresent case, we think it likely that all the samples

Figure 11. Novy Svet shipwreck, main cargo. Type 1, goblets or beakers. (S. Siomin)



contained in the ‘Novy Svet Ware’ group (Fig. 17) camefrom the same source.

We could compare the analyses of the Novy Svetsamples to reference data for the production of Iznik/Nicea and of Venice, and thus test the hypotheses ofprovenance suggested by the closest typological paral-lels. The Iznik data corresponds to samples of bothByzantine and Ottoman periods analyzed in the Labo-ratoire de Céramologie. The Venice data correspondsto analyses performed in the Mineralogy and Petrog-raphy Laboratory in Fribourg (Switzerland), with atechnique similar to the one used in Lyon and assumedto provide comparable results (Mignucci, 2002).Fig. 17 shows that, except for sample BYZ854, theNovy Svet group is quite different chemically from theIznik/Nicea production. These differences only appearon a small number of elements (Fig. 18). But they arewell marked on elements that are considered signifi-cant such as chromium and nickel, and, to a lesserextent, titanium. Other clays may however have beenused in Iznik, as shown by sample BYZ274, a tripodfrom Iznik. The latter appears as marginal to the‘Novy Svet Ware’ group in Fig. 17, but does not havea significant chemical resemblance with it. Given thepresently available data, the hypothesis of a Nicean

origin for the ‘Novy Svet Ware’ seems unlikely. Wealso compared its chemical features to those of otherproductions from medieval workshops, includingseveral located in the Crimea (Chersonesos, Sudak,Feodosia, and Alushta) (Waksman and François,2005). None of them presents close chemical similari-ties with the ‘Novy Svet Ware’. At the present stage ofresearch, its production site remains unknown.

In contrast, the origins of two other chemical groups(groups A1 and C) (Fig. 16) could be either substanti-ated or suggested. The chemical composition ofsamples in group C, including all the rouletted wares,are in reasonably good agreement with those of Vene-tian productions (Fig. 18), given the fact that the datacame from different laboratories, that alteration pro-cesses may have occurred, and that only the mean mand standard deviation s of the Venetian referencedata were available (Mignucci, 2002; Waksman andFrançois, 2005; Waksman, forthcoming). It is thusvery likely that ceramics in group C came from Venice.Samples in group A1 present chemical similarities withthe recently-discovered late Byzantine production ofthe Sirkeci workshops, in Istanbul (Fig. 17) (Girgin,2007; Waksman and Girgin, 2008). As only prelimi-nary analytical data on these workshops is as yet

Figure 12. Novy Svet shipwreck, main cargo. Type 1, undefined forms. (S. Siomin)



available, we consider the attribution of group A1 tothe Byzantine capital as provisional, as a propositionwhich would need to be confirmed.

DiscussionWe were able to define a main group within the cargoof glazed ceramics, corresponding mostly to Type 1,provisionally named ‘Novy Svet Ware’. The diffusion

of this ware, widespread in the Crimea, is shown toextend to Turkey and the Levantine coast. Our sam-pling is not representative of the quantities involved, asit may be abundant in Istanbul where typological par-allels are reported from several excavations (forexample Demangel and Mamboury, 1939: pl. XIIIr;Hayes, 1992: pl. 11o). It may be present in several othersites as well, where ‘Zeuxippus-related Ware’ has beenreported and where the ‘Novy Svet Ware’ would need

Figure 13. Novy Svet shipwreck. Type 2, bowls. (S. Siomin)



Figure 14. Novy Svet shipwreck. Type 3, jugs. (S. Siomin)

Figure 15. Typical ‘Novy Svet Ware’ (top and bottom left) and jugs of various origins (bottom right). (S.Y. Waksman)



Figure 16. Classification of analyzed sherds from the Novy Svet shipwreck according to their chemical compositions. Selectedtypological features are indicated by symbols, the main compositional groups are underlined.

Figure 17. Classification of ceramics from the Novy Svet shipwreck together with comparative material: reference samplesfrom selected workshops and samples from sites where the ‘Novy Svet Ware’ was diffused. Novy Svet’s samples are indicatedby their laboratory number, reference samples by black or white dots, samples of ‘Novy Svet Ware’ coming from other sites bya letter. The main compositional groups are underlined.

Figure 18. Chemical compositions of ceramics from the Novy Svet shipwreck and comparative material. Major and minorelements in weight percent of oxides, trace elements in ppm; m: mean, s: standard deviation; n: number of samples; data withan asterisk were not taken into account in the calculation of m and s. Samples are ranked as in the dendrogram (Fig. 17), exceptfor additional data for Venice. Reference groups are taken from Waksman and François (2005) (Iznik), Waksman and Girgin(2007) (Istanbul Sirkeci) and Mignucci (2002) (Venice).



to be sorted out from other productions in the samestyle. The patterns of diffusion of the ‘Novy SvetWare’, and especially the large quantity of ceramicsfound in the Novy Svet shipwreck, point to an impor-tant production site. The latter was active in the secondhalf of the 13th century, as shown by the dating ofseveral items in the cargo (including coins, amphoras,glazed ware, and glass, Zelenko, 1999).

If the sinking of the ship in 1277 could be confirmed(Zelenko, 1999: 233), the cargo would support thehypothesis of a persistence of at least some large ceramicworkshops of Byzantine type after the Latin Empire ofConstantinople. This hypothesis would question theview of an atomized, small-scale ceramics production oflimited diffusion at this period (Laiou and Morrisson,2007: 186–7). Before the discovery of the Novy Svetshipwreck, no such evidence actually pre-dated the mid-13th century. The other shipwrecks containing largequantities of tableware (Pelagonnesos-Alonnesos, Kas-tellorizo, and Skopelos) were all dated earlier(Papanikola-Bakirtzi, 1999), even when taking intoaccount the latest typo-chronological developments(Sanders, 1999; 2000). The Novy Svet shipwreck istherefore seen as an important find for archaeology-based research on the Byzantine economy.

We have not so far been able to identify the origin ofthe ‘Novy Svet Ware’, but only test some hypothesesbased on typological similarities or abundance criteria.At the present stage of research neither Constantinople/Istanbul, Nicea/Iznik, Thessaloniki (Waksman andFrançois, 2004) nor several workshops in the Crimeaappear to be likely candidates. The origin of some otheritems in the ship could, however, be identified. Amongthe material presented here, ceramics of Type 2 are verylikely to be Venetian. Italian glass was also present inthe ship (Zelenko, 1999: 228–9), as well as a fewexamples of ‘Sgraffita Arcaica Tirrenica’ from Savona(Waksman et al. forthcoming). The quantity of Italianproducts, however, seems very small when compared toByzantine ones. From Constantinople itself may haveoriginated some of the ceramics studied here (sub-groupA1), and, with more certainty, a large cargo of ‘Byzan-tine Glazed White Ware’ (Waksman et al., forthcom-ing). The two main types of amphoras present in theshipwreck (Günsenin 4 and Günsenin 3, some of thelatter of small module) are also considered Byzantine,though their origin is as yet unknown. The large Güns-enin 4 amphoras are thought to have carried wine, thesmall Günsenin 3 incense (Zelenko, 1999: 227). Thelatter hypothesis, however, could not be confirmed sofar by analysis of organic residues.2

Next to the main cargoes of amphoras and table-ware, there is a large variety of glazed ceramics foundin small quantities. Interpreted as personal belongingsor material used by the crew, they have been shown tocome from all around the Mediterranean. Next to theVenetian, Savonian, Nicean and Contantinopolitanware already mentioned, chemical analysis identifiedceramics from Beirut, the region of Antioch, and the

region of Paphos (Cyprus) (Waksman et al., forthcom-ing). Other ceramics of Byzantine, Seljuk and Islamicstyles, of unidentified origins, are present as well.

Thus this ship, sunk in the Black Sea, contained acargo of mainly Byzantine nature, and at the same timepresented strong Mediterranean connections. This situ-ation could illustrate the new role of the Black Sea in thelate Middle Ages as the hub of international trade(Bratianu, 1969; Balard, 1978; Karpov, 1990; Karpov,2005; Balard, 2006). Its opening to Italian merchantsafter the 4th Crusade, and especially to the Genoeseafter the fall of the Latin Empire of Constantinople in1261, connected the Black Sea to Mediterranean tradenetworks. The spice and silk roads from Asia wereredirected to the Black Sea after Baghdad was seized bythe Mongols in 1260, and trade benefited from theestablishment of the ‘pax mongolica’. Italian mer-chants, especially Genoese who developed a network ofstations on its shores, had a strong hold on Black Seatrade, and had an important share in the trade of whatremained of the Byzantine Empire as well.

We do not know precisely how the ship described byliterary sources,3 possibly to be identified with the NovySvet shipwreck, fits into this picture. The text tells thestory of a Pisan ship confronted by a Genoese one, fromConstantinople to Sudak via Sinop, and then finallysunk and burnt in 1277 in front of Sudak (Zelenko,2008: 142–3). Sudak was then the end point of one of thetwo straight routes across the Black Sea, with its otherend at Trebizond, to which leads one branch of the silkand spice road (Zelenko, 1999: 232). The text describesa chase rather than a commercial trip. But it is clearfrom terrestrial excavations in the Crimea that the‘Novy Svet Ware’ was a common object of trade there.Its presence in Byzantine territories as well, and theByzantine ceramics and amphoras on the ship, some ofthe latter possibly carrying incense, further connects theship to the Crimea, Constantinople and the Byzantineterritories, and perhaps also the spice road through itstermini of Trebizond or Tana, not to forget Italy fromwhich presumably the ship itself came. The diverse ori-gins of the ceramics on board suggest the involvement ofboth crew and passengers in Mediterranean trade.

ConclusionsLaboratory investigations showed that the glazedceramics on the Novy Svet shipwreck had multipleorigins. However, most of the samples considered,from the main cargo of glazed wares, share the sameelemental characteristics and are seen as the produc-tion of a single workshop. The morphological typol-ogy of this production, usually bearing simpledecorations of central spirals and concentric lines andperipheric wavy lines, is presented. Its rich documen-tation of graffiti, which may inform us about thecommercialization process, needs further study.

Preliminary study of the diffusion of this ware sug-gests that it was exported to several sites in the Crimea,



Turkey, and (occasionally?) the Levant. These patternsof diffusion, as well as the large quantity of ceramicsfound in the Novy Svet shipwreck, point to an impor-tant production site. The cargo suggests the persistenceof large-scale diffusion of ceramics of Byzantine typeafter the end of the Latin Empire of Constantinople.The location of this important workshop is not identi-fied yet, but chemical analysis has shown that Nicea,whose production presented the closest typological par-allels, is not a likely origin. It also indicated that thisware is chemically distinct from the ‘Zeuxippus Ware’stricto sensu, and from a number of other productionsmanufactured in the same style. This ware, provision-ally named ‘Novy Svet Ware’ after the shipwreck, origi-nated from an unidentified workshop which operated inthe second half of the 13th or first half of the 14thcenturies in the style popular at that time.

The origin of other glazed ceramics present in theshipwreck could be either substantiated or suggested.Wares of Type 2, bearing rouletted decoration, aresimilar both typologically and chemically to ceramicsmanufactured in Venice. Another ill-defined chemicalgroup includes both open forms of sgraffito wares withconcentric lines, and jugs with slip-painted decoration.It is chemically close to a late Byzantine productionrecently discovered in Istanbul. Although this propo-sition would need to be supported by further data, it isconsistent with the Constantinopolitan origin of otherparts of the cargo. Preliminary study of the cargo andof other ceramic finds shows connections with theBlack Sea, the Byzantine capital and territories, theMediterranean and possibly the spice roads.

Notes1. Laboratory numbers BYZ 38–39. We would like to thank A. Djanov and S. Botcharov for providing these samples.2. Only pine resin and no incense, in the form of myrrh, benzoin or ‘tears of Somaliland’, was identified by preliminary chemical

analysis of organic residues from one sample of these amphoras, carried out under the supervision of F. Formenti (CPELyon, France). Further analysis is planned.

3. Translated excerpts of the Latin text may be found at: http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/blacksea/battle.html.

AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank S. Zelenko for permission to study the Novy Svet material; the French-Ukrainian PAI Dniproprogramme and the French Minister of Foreign and European Affairs for funding; A. Shapiro, Israel Antiquities Authority,Acco, for the translation of S. Zelenko’s 1999 paper; J. Balensi (CNRS UMR 5189, Lyon) for help with the English revision;and the staff of the Laboratoire de Céramologie (CNRS UMR 5138, Lyon).

ReferencesArmstrong, P., 1991, A group of Byzantine bowls from Skopelos, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 10.3, 335–47.Armstrong, P., 1992, Zeuxippus Derivative Bowls from Sparta, in J. M. Sanders (ed.), Lakonian Studies in Honour of Hector

Catling, 1–9. Oxford.Atanasov, G. and Yordanov, Y., 1994, Srednovekovniyat Vetren na Dunav (The medieval Vetren on the Danube). Shumen.Avissar, M. and Stern, E. J., 2005, Pottery of the Crusader, Ayyubid, and Mamluk Periods in Israel (IAA Reports 26). Jerusalem.Balard, M., 1978, La Romanie génoise (XIIe–début du XVe siècle). 2 vols, Rome.Balard, M., 2006, Les Latins en Orient. XIe–XVe siècle. Paris.Baranov, I. A., 1991, Zastroika vizantiyskogo posada na uchastke glavnyh vorot Sudakskoi kreposti (Building of the Byzantine

suburb on a site of main gate of a Sudak fortress), in Vizantiyskaya Tavrika, 102–21. Kiev.Bass, G. and van Doorninck, F., 1978, An 11th century Shipwreck at Serçe Liman, Turkey, IJNA 7.2, 119–32.Bass, G., Matthews, S., Steffy, J., and van Doorninck F., 2004, Serçe Limanı. An Eleventh-Century Shipwreck. Vol. 1, The Ship

and Its Anchorage, Crew and Passengers. College Station TX.Béarat, H., 1990, Etude de quelques altérations physico-chimiques des céramiques archéologiques, unpublished Ph.D. Thesis,

University of Caen.Belinski, I. V. and Maslovski, A. N., 1998, Tipologicheskaya harakteristika materialov raskopok uchastka zolotoordynskogo

Azaka (The typological characteristic of materials from Golden Horde Azak excavation), Istoriko-arheologicheskie issledo-vaniya v Azove i na Nizhnem Donu v 1995–1997 g.15, 179–251. Azov.

Berti, G. and Gelichi, S., 1997, ‘Zeuxippus Ware’ in Italy, in H. Maguire (ed.), Materials Analysis of Byzantine Pottery, 85–104.Washington DC.

Botcharov, S. G., 2007, Rubezh XIII–XIV vv. Po materialam keramicheskogo kompleksa poseleniya Posidima (Koktebel’)(Boundary of the 13–14th century in the materials from the ceramics complex of Posidima settlement (Koktebel’), in CrimeanBranch of the Archaeological Institute of NAS of Ukraine and Archaeological Institute of Russian Academy of Science,Glazed pottery of Eastern Europe, the Black Sea region and Mediterranean area of X–XVIII centuries, 2nd InternationalConference, Yalta, 19–23 November 2007, 12–17.

Bratianu, G. I., 1969, La mer Noire. Des origines à la conquête ottomane. Münich.Constantinescu, N., 1972, Coconi. Un sat din Cimpia Romana in epoca Lui Mircea cel Batrin. Bucarest.D’Ambrosio, B., Mannoni, T., and Sfrecola, S., 1986, Stato delle ricerche mineralogiche sulle ceramiche mediterranee, in La

ceramica medievale nel mediterraneo occidentale, Edizioni all’Insegna del Giglio, 601–09. Florence.



Danilenko, V. N. and Romanchuk, A. I., 1969, Polivnaya keramika Mangupa (Glazed pottery from Mangup), Antichnayadrevnost’ I srednie veka 6, 116–38.

Demangel, R. and Mamboury, E., 1939, Le Quartier des Manganes et la première région de Constantinople. Paris.Dmitrienko, V. N. and Maslovski, A. N., 2006, Kompleks 1310-h godov iz raskopok Azaka (The Complex of 1310 from the

Excavations of Azak), Istoriko-arheologicheskie issledovaniya v Azove i na Nizhnem Donu v 2005 g.22, 231–57. Azov.Finogenova, S. I., 1987, Polivnaya keramika iz raskopok Tamanskogo gorodischa (Glazed pottery from the Excavations of

Taman’ settlement), Sovetskaya Arheologiya 2, 192–211.François, V., 1995, La céramique byzantine à Thasos (Etudes thasiennes XVI). Paris.François, V., 1997, Les ateliers de céramique byzantine de Nicée/Iznik et leur production (Xe–début XIVe siècle), Bulletin de

Correspondance Hellénique 121.1, 411–2.Gelichi, S., 1984, ‘Roulette ware’, Medieval Ceramics 8, 47–58.Gelichi, S., 1986, La ceramica ingubbiata medievale nell’Italia nord-orientale, in La ceramica medievale nel mediterraneo

occidentale, Edizioni all’Insegna del Giglio, 353–407. Florence.Gelichi, S., 1993, La ceramica bizantina in Italia e la ceramica italiana nel Mediterraneo orientale tra XII e XIII secolo: stato

degli studi e proposte di ricerca, in S. Gelichi (ed.), La ceramica nel mondo bizantino tra XI e XV secolo e i suoi rapporti conl’Italia, Atti del seminaro, Certosa di Pontignano (Siena), 11–13 marzo 1991, 9–46. Florence.

Georgieva, S., 1974, Keramika ot dvoreca na Carevec (Pottery from the palace on the Carevec), in Bulgarian Academy ofScience, Carevgrad Trnov, vol. 2, 7–186. Sofia.

Georgieva, S., 1985, Grncharstvo (Pottery), in Srednevekovniyat Cherven, vol. 1, 133–65. Sofia.Girgin, Ç., 2007, Sirkeci’de sürdürülen kazı çalısmalarından elde edilen sonuçlar (Results obtained from the ongoing excavations

at Sirkeci), in Gün Isiginda: Istanbul’un 8000 yili: Marmaray, Metro, Sultanahmet kazıları, Vehbi Koç Vakfı, 98–105. Istanbul.Günsenin, N., 1990, Les amphores byzantines (10e–13e siècles): typologie, production, circulation, d’après les collections

turques, unpublished Ph.D., University Paris 4.Hayes, J. W., 1992, Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul. Vol. 2. The Pottery. Princeton.Ivanov, A., Savelia, O., and Filippenko, A., 1998, Kompleks polivnoi keramiki srednevekovogo Kadykoya (Kadykovka v

predmestie Balaklavy) (Glazed pottery complex from the medieval Kadykoy (Kadykovka in Balaklava suburb), in CrimeanBranch of the Archaeological Institute of NAS of Ukraine, The historical and cultural connections of the Black Sea region andthe Mediterranean area of X–XVIII centuries on the basis of Glazed pottery, Yalta, 25–29 Ma, 1998, 108–12. Simferopol.

Jenkins, M., 1992, Early medieval ceramics pottery: the eleventh century reconsidered, Muqarnas 9, 56–66.Karpov, S., 1990, Ital’yanskie morskie respubliki y Yuzhnoe Prichernomor’e v 13–15 vv.: problemy torgovli (The Italian sea

republics and the southern Black Sea coast in the 13–15th c.: problems of trade). Moskow.Karpov, S., 2005, The Black Sea region, before and after the Fourth Crusade, in A. Laiou (ed.), Urbs Capta. The Fourth Crusade

and its Consequences (Réalités Byzantines 10), 283–92. Paris.Kravchenko, A. A., 1986, Srednevekovyi Belgorod na Dnestre (kon. XIII–XIV) (The Medieval Belgorod on the Dniestr (end of

13th–14th c.). Kiev.Kravchenko, A. A. and Stoliarik, E. S., 1983, Keramika vizantiyskogo kruga iz Belgoroda XIII–XIV vv. (Byzantine pottery

from Belgorod 13–14th c.), in V. P. Lagodzraya (ed.), Materialy po arheologii Severnogo Prichernomoriya, 179–90. Kiev.Kube, A. N., 1926, Glinianye cherepki, naidennye na yuzhnom beregu Kryma v imenii Laspi (Clay shards from Laspi),

Soobscheniya Gosudarstvennoi Akademii istorii materialnoi kultury 1, 246–57. Leningrad.Laiou, A. and Morrisson, C., 2007, The Byzantine Economy. Cambridge.Lemoine, C., Meille, E., Poupet, P., Barrandon, J-N. and Borderie, B., 1981, Etude de quelques altérations de composition

chimique de céramiques en milieu marin et terrestre, Revue d’Archéométrie, Supplément 1981.3, 349–60.MacKay, T. S., 1967, More Byzantine and Frankish Pottery from Corinth, Hesperia 36, 249–320.Makarova, T. I., 1963, Polivnaya keramika Tamanskogo gorodischa (Glazed pottery from Taman’ settlement), in B. A.

Rybakov (ed.), Keramika i steklo drevnei Tmutarakani, 73–101. Moskow.Maslovski, A. N., 2006, O vremeni vozniknoveniya Asaka (On the time of Azak Origin), Istoriko-arheologicheskie issledovaniya

v Azove i na Nizhnem Donu v 2005 g. 22, 257–95. Azov.Mignucci, A., 2002, The 13th–14th century Venetian ceramic production of ‘Graffita a Spirale-Cerchio’, ‘Graffita S. Bartolo’

and glazed ceramic: a new reference group and an attribution’, in Modern Trends in Scientific Studies on Ancient Ceramics,245–51. BAR Int. Ser. 1011, Oxford.

Morgan, C. H., 1942, Corinth XI. The Byzantine Pottery. Cambridge MA.Papanikola-Bakirtzi, D. (ed.), 1999, Byzantine Glazed Ceramics. The Art of Sgraffito. Athens.Papanikola-Bakirtzi, D., Maguire, E. D. and Maguire, H., 1992, Ceramic Art from Byzantine Serres. Urbana.Papanikola-Bakirtzi, D., Mavrikiou, F. N., and Bakirtzis, C., 1999, Byzantine Glazed Pottery in the Benaki Museum. Athens.Parman, E., 1989, The Pottery from St John’s basilica at Ephesos, in V. Déroche et J.-M. Spieser (eds.), Recherches sur la

céramique byzantine 277–89. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Suppl. XVIII, Athens, Paris.Parshyna, E. A., 1974, Srednevekovaya keramika Yuzhnoi Tavriki (Medieval pottery from Sough Taurika), in S. N. Bibikov

(ed.), Feodal’naya Tavrika, 56–94. Kiev.Parshyna, E. A., 1988, Eski-Kermenskaya bazilika (the Basilica of Eski-Kermen), in Arhitekturno-arheologicheskie issledovaniya

v Krymu, 36–59. Kiev.Parshyna, E. A., 1991, Torzhysche v Partenitah (Market in the area of Partenit), in E. L. Pugachova (ed.), Vizantiyskaya

Tavrika, 64–100. Kiev.Picon, M., 1984, Le traitement des données d’analyse, PACT: Journal of the European Study Group on Physical, Chemical,

Biological and Mathematical Techniques Applied to Archaeology 10: 379–99.



Picon, M., 1993, L’analyse chimique des céramiques: bilan et perspectives, in S. Santoro Bianchi (ed.), Archeometria dellaCeramica. Problemi di Metodo, Atti 8° Simposio Internazionale della Ceramica (Rimini 1992), 3–26. Bologna.

Pradell, T., Vendrell-Saz, M., Krubein, W. and Picon, M., 1996, Altérations de céramiques en milieu marin: les amphores del’épave romaine de la madrague de Giens (Var), Revue d’Archéométrie 20, 47–56.

Romanchuk, A. I., 1999, Glazurovanaya keramika pozdnevizantiyskogo Chersona: k voprosu o gibeli goroda v XIII ili XIV v.(Glazed ceramics of Cherson in the late medieval period: about the question of the destruction of the town in the 13th or 14th

century), Antichnaya drevnost’ i srednie veka 30, Sverdlovsk: 187–202.Romanchuk, A. I., 2003, Glazurovanaya posuda pozdnievizantiyskogo Hersona. Portovyi rayon (Glazed pottery of late Byzantine

Kherson. Port area). Ekaterinburg.Romanchuk, A. I. and Perevozchikov, V. I., 1990, Glazurovanaya keramika iz Asova (hersono-azakskie paraleli v ornamien-

tike) (Glazed pottery from Azak [Kherson-Azaks parallel in ornamentation]), Antichnaya drevnost’ i srednie veka 25, 94–159.Sverdlovsk.

Sanders, G. D., 1999, Corinth workshop production, in D. Papanikola-Bakirtzi (ed.), Byzantine Glazed Ceramics. The Art ofSgraffito, 159–64, Athens.

Sanders, G. D., 2000, New relative and absolute chronologies for 9th to 13th century glazed wares at Corinth: methodology andsocial conclusions, in K. Belke, F. Hild, J. Koder and P. Soustal (eds.), Byzanz als Raum. Zu Methoden und Inhalten derhistorischen Geographie des östlichen Mittelmeerraumes, 153–73. Wien.

Tallis, D. L., 1976, Polivnaya keramika Baklinskogo gorodischa (Glazed pottery from Bakla settlement), SovetskayaArheologiya 4, 63–87.

Teslenko, I., 2000, Kompleks polivnoy keramiki s mesta korablekrusheniya vtoroy poloviny XIIIv. vblizi Sudaka (Krym)(Glazed pottery complex of the second part of 13th century from a shipwreck near Sudak), in E. L. Pugachova (ed.), Blgaritev Severnoto Pritchernomorie izsledvaniya i materialy, 153–68. Veliko Tirnovo.

Tur, V. G., 1997, Arheologicheskie issledovaniya srednievekovogo monastyria na g. Perchem-Kaya (Archaeological investiga-tion of the medieval monastery on the Perchem-Kaya hill), Arheologiya Kryma 1, 117–25.

Vavylopoulo-Charitonidou, A., 1998, Céramique d’offrande trouvée dans des tombes byzantines tardives de l’Hippodrome deThessalonique, in V. Déroche et J.-M. Spieser (eds.), Recherches sur la céramique byzantine, 209–25. Bulletin de Correspon-dance Hellénique Suppl. XVIII, Athens, Paris.

Volkov, I. V., 2005, Polivnaya keramika kompleksa Kabardi (1240–1260) (Glazed pottery of the Kabardi complex), in S. G.Botcharov and V. L. Mytz (eds.), Glazed pottery of Mediterranean and Black Sea Region of the X–XVIII centuries, 122–159.Kiev.

Vroom, J., 2003, Ceramics and society in the Aegean from the 7th to the 20th century AD. Leiden.Vroom, J., 2005, Byzantine to Modern Pottery in the Aegean. Bijleveld.Waage, F. O., 1933, Excavations in the Athenian Agora. The Roman and Byzantine Pottery, Hesperia 2, 308–28.Waksman, S. Y., forthcoming, Two examples of long-distance diffusion of Venetian wares in the Eastern Mediterranean and

the Black Sea: a study by chemical analysis, in I Vasai del Leone. Venice.Waksman, S. Y. and François, V., 2005, Vers une redéfinition typologique et analytique des céramiques byzantines du type

Zeuxippus Ware, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 128–129.2.1, 87–182.Waksman, S. Y. and Girgin, Ç., 2008, Les vestiges de production de céramiques des fouilles de Sirkeci (Istanbul). Premiers

éléments de caractérisation, Anatolia Antiqua XVI, 443–69.Waksman, S. Y. and Spieser, J-M., 1997, Byzantine ceramics excavated in Pergamon: archaeological classification and

characterization of the local and imported productions by PIXE and INAA elemental analysis, mineralogy and petrography,in H. Maguire (ed.), Materials Analysis of Byzantine Pottery, 105–33. Washington DC.

Waksman, S. Y., Teslenko, I. and Zelenko, S., forthcoming, Glazed wares as main cargoes and personal belongings in the NovySvet shipwreck (13th c. AD, Crimea): a diversity of origins investigated by chemical analysis, in VIII Congreso Internacionalde Ceràmica Medieval en el Mediterràneo (Ciudad Real—Almagro 27/2–3/3/2006).

Yakobson, A. L., 1950, Srednevekovyi Hersones (XII–XIV vv.) (Medieval Khersones, 12–14th c.). Moskow and Leningrad.Yashaeva, T. Y., 2005, Polivnaya keramika iz zagorodnyh htschernyh monastyrei Hersona (Glazed pottery from country

monasteries of Kherson), in S. G. Botcharov and V. L. Mytz (eds.), Glazed pottery of Mediterranean and Black Sea Regionof the X–XVIII centuries, 247–56. Kiev.

Yenisehirlioglu, F., 1989, La céramique glaçurée de Gülpinar, in V. Déroche et J.-M. Spieser (eds.), Recherches sur la céramiquebyzantine 303–15. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Suppl. XVIII, Athens, Paris.

Zeest, I. B. and Yakobson, A. L., 1965, Raskopki v Kerchi v 1963 g. (Excavations in Kerch in 1963), Kratkie soobscheniyaInstituta arheologii 104, 62–9.

Zelenko, S. M., 1999, Itogi Issledovan’ij Podvodno-Arkheologiceskoj Ekspeditsii Kievskogo Universiteta imeni TarasaSevcenko na Cernom More v 1997–99 gg. (The results of underwater archaeological research in the Black Sea by the TarasShevchenko Kiev University 1997–99), Vita Antiqua 2, 223–34. Kiev.

Zelenko, S. M., 2003, Issledovanie korablekrushenija 13 veka v buhte pgt. Novy Svet v 2002 godu (Investigations of a 13th c.shipwreck in the Novy Svet bay in 2002), Archeologichni vidkryttja v Ukraine 2001–2002 rokah, 112–14. Kiev.

Zelenko, S. M., 2004, Raskopki korablja 13 veka v buhte pgt. Novy Svet v 2003 godu (Excavations of a 13th c. ship in the NovySvet bay in 2003), Archeologichni vidkryttja v Ukraine 2002–2003 rokah, 110–12. Kiev.

Zelenko, S. M., 2005, Issledovanije gruza korablja 13 veka pogibshego vblizi Sudaka (raskopki 2004 goda) (Investigations ofa 13th c. shipwreck’s cargo near Sudak (2004’s excavations)), Archeologichni vidkryttja v Ukraine 2003–2004 rokah, 110–12.Kiev.

Zelenko, S. M., 2008, Podvodnaya arkheologiya Kryma (Underwater archaeology of Crimea). Kiev.



'Novy Svet Ware', an Exceptional Cargo of Glazed Wares from a 13th-Century Shipwreck near Sudak...

Documents

Transcript of 'Novy Svet Ware', an Exceptional Cargo of Glazed Wares from a 13th-Century Shipwreck near Sudak...