SAMUEL, Marián - ČURNÝ, Marián. Pottery from the cellar of a monastic dwelling at the Kamaldul...

SAMUEL / ČURNÝ 2012

SAMUEL, Marián - ČURNÝ, Marián. Pottery from the cellar of a monastic dwelling at the Kamaldul

monastery in Nitra-Zobor : Keramika z pivnice mníšského príbytku kamaldulského kláštora v Nitre na

Zobore. In Studies in Post-Medieval Archaeology 4. - Praha : Archaia, 2012, s. 429-452. ISBN 978-

80-904408-1-4, ISSN 1805-0514.

429

The following paper presents the extraordinary find assemblage of potteryvessels taken from the deserted Kamaldul St Joseph Monastery in Nitra–Zoboragainst the backdrop of a concise introduction to the development of thisimportant site in Hungarian history and in light of the archaeologicalexcavations that have been conducted there to date.

The monastery was situated in a small basin in the middle of a foreston the western slope of Zobor, which is located a short three kilometres fromthe historical centre of Nitra. The basin is surrounded on two sides by steep

Pottery from the cellar of a monastic dwelling at the Kamaldulmonastery in Nitra – Zobor

Keramika z pivnice mníšskeho príbytku kamaldulského kláštora v Nitre na Zobore

Keramik im Keller einer Einsiedelei des Kamaldulenserklosters auf dem Zobor bei Nitra

Marián Samuel – Marián Čurný1)

Die Autoren stellen den Befund eines einzigartigen Keramikkomplexes aus dem 18. Jahrhundert (1760-1782) im Kellereiner Einsiedelei des Kamaldulenserklosters auf dem Zobor bei Nitra vor. Es handelt sich um eine besonders repräsentativeSammlung von Tafel- und anderer Gebrauchskeramik, die den Haushalt eines Mönchs ausmachte. Zusammen mitder Beschreibung wird auch ein kurzer Exkurs in die Geschichte und Ikonographie Klosters auf dem Zobor und seinerBaugeschichte geboten. Die archäologische Grabung dieses für die slowakische Geschichte außerordentlich bedeutendenFundortes erfolgte verschieden intensiv und in verschiedener Form (Rettungsgrabungen, aber auch zu wissenschaftlichenZwecken angelegte Suchgrabungen) in den Jahren 2001-2003, 2007 und 2008.

Note 1:This work was created as part of Slovak Research andDevelopment Agency grant no. 0269-07 and VEGA grant no. 2/0158/08 and 2/0023/11.

Fig. 1. Nitra, Zobor monastery.Aerial view of remnants of the Barque monastery at the present-day treatmentcentre complex. Photo by I. Kuzma.Obr. 1. Nitra, Zoborský kláštor.Letecký pohľad na zvyškybarokového kláštora uprostredsúčasnej zástavby liečebne. Foto I. Kuzma.

17Samuel - Curny 427_452_Archaia 08.02.12 21:19 Stránka 429

430

STUDIES IN POST-MEDIEVAL ARCHAEOLOGY 4

rock bluffs from which high quality watersprings heavily to this day (fig. 1; fig. 2). The vastBaroque monastery grounds were built on the ruinsof the medieval Benedictine St HippolytusMonastery – the oldest known monasteryin Slovakia.

The history of the Zobor monasteries

Despite the fact that no written reportson the founding of the St Hippolytus Monasteryhave survived, the majority of researchersbelieve that it is possible that the monasterywith an ancient patronage, dates as far back asthe 9th century (at the latest by 880), at the timeof the founding of the Nitra diocese underBishop Viching, a Benedictine from Swabia(e.g. Ruttkay – Slivka 1985, 335; Slivka 2001, 29;Steinhübel 2004, 137). A number of importantmedieval written sources are tied to St HippolytusMonastery: the earliest surviving original

documents from the territory of Slovakia (Zobor deeds from the years 1111and 1113), the oldest Hungarian legend (on St Svorad and St Benedict)and the oldest chronicle works in Hungarian (Anonymous Chronicles)and Bohemian (Chronicles of Cosmas) historiography. During the periodbetween the 11th and 13th centuries the Benedictine monastery served as oneof the spiritual, public service and cultural centres of Hungary. At the timethe monastery was also one of the largest Church land owners in Slovakia,with holdings spreading from the Danube to Turiec and to Trenčín (Oslanský2002a). However, the importance and revenues of the Zobor monasterygradually declined at the end of the 14th century and in the 15th century fora variety of reasons until King Matthias Corvinus (1458-1490) handed it over(along with other important Benedictine monasteries at Pannonhalma,Pécsvárad and Szekszárd) to Esztergom Archbishop Ján Vitéz of Srednaas abbot – commander. Somewhat later (1468) Pope Paul II assigned allof the property held by the Zobor abbacy to the Nitra diocese and chapter.Although the monks were not required to leave the grounds, by the endof the 15th century the monastery was no longer mentioned (Oslanský 2002b).

The site remained abandoned for nearly 200 years until Nitra Bishop JurajSelepčéni (1648-1666) had the Chapel of St Andrew and St Benedict builtin the courtyard of the former monastery in 1663. Later, Nitra Bishop BlažejJaklin (1691-1696) and his brother, Baron Mikuláš Jaklin of Lefantovce,decided to build a new Kamaldul monastery at the site. The foundingdocument dated 23 June 1691 established their intent to build a monasterywith a church for twelve friars and servants (Branecký 1945, 21). Onceapproved by the Nitra Chapter and Esztergom Archbishop Juraj Széchényi,Emperor Leopold I confirmed and supported the plan on 5 September 1691.An unknown architect from the circle of J. B. Fischer of Erlach designedthe monastery. Despite being one of the oldest orders in Europe,the Kamalduls didn’t arrive in Hungary until the end of the 17th century

Fig. 2. Nitra, Zobor monastery.Plan of the present-day complex (b)with an indication of preservedparts (a) of the Baroque KamaldulSt Joseph Monastery (1695-1782).Drawing by M. Samuel.Obr. 2. Nitra, Zoborský kláštor.Plán súčasnej zástavby (b)s vyznačením zachovaných častí(a) barokového kamaldulskéhokláštora sv. Jozefa (1695-1782).Kresba M. Samuel.


431

POTTERY FROM THE CELLAR OF A MONASTIC DWELLING AT THE KAMALDULMONASTERY IN NITRA – ZOBOR

Marián Samuel – Marián Čurný/ p. 429 – 452 /

(Rabazzi Stepancsics 2000); the first two attempts by the founder of the KamaldulOrder himself and his disciples to establish a presence in this territory endedunsuccessfully at the beginning of the 11th century. The Kamaldul Orderowned two monasteries in Slovakia – the ”Zobor” monastery and the ”red”monastery in Pieniny.

The Kamaldul monastery in Zobor

In the course of the construction of the grand Baroque complex seton a system of man-made terraces (1691-1697, first part consecrated in 1695)the remnants of the earlier medieval monastery were almost completelydemolished. The appearance of the Barque monastery is captured in severaliconographic sources from the 18th century. An etching (fig. 3), oil painting(fig. 4) and, above all, the preserved plans of the monastery (fig. 5) clearlyshow that the dominant part of the symmetric layout was the triaxial Churchof St Joseph on the sides of which were monks’ dwellings surroundedby walls (fig.6) with small gardens (sixteen monks and eight laymen livedat the site in 1754). The front of the three-wing, two-storied main buildingwith an entrance gate was accentuated by a bell tower with a clock.The remainder of the grounds, surrounded by strong walls except fora smaller outbuilding, was composed of vast orchards and gardens. A smallcemetery was located in front of the monastery gate. The monastery alsofeatured a stone water duct that delivered water to the grounds from a springbeneath St Svorad Cave. Built in 1704, the water duct supplied individualbuildings and the fountains on monastery grounds; surplus water was even

Fig. 3. Nitra, Zobor monastery. Etching from the 18th centuryshowing the grounds of the Kamaldul St Joseph Monastery.According to Branecký 1945.Obr. 3. Nitra, Zoborský kláštor. Rytina z 18. stor. zobrazujúcaareál kamaldulského kláštora sv. Jozefa. Reprodukovanéz Branecký 1945.

Fig. 4. Nitra, Zobor monastery.Kamaldul St Joseph Monasteryin a painting by an unknownCentral European painter (1770-1780, oil, canvas, 140 x 97.5 cm).Property of the Nitra Gallery,inv. no. O-81, acquisition no. 207/65. Photo by M. Samuel.Obr. 4. Nitra, Zoborský kláštor.Kamaldulský kláštor sv. Jozefana maľbe neznámehostredoeurópskeho maliara (1770-1780, olej, plátno, 140 x 97,5 cm).Majetok Nitrianskej galérie, inv. č. O-81, prír. č. 207/65.Foto M. Samuel.


432


a

b

Fig. 5. Nitra, Zobor monastery.a – Kamaldul St JosephMonastery on the plan by Cristoph Schlegel from the 18th century; b – excerpt from the plan withindicated find site of the potteryassemblage – red arrow. Magyar Országos LevéltárBudapest, call no. S12, Div 9, No 60: 1-2.Obr. 5. Nitra, Zoborský kláštor.a – Kamaldulský kláštorsv. Jozefa na pláne CristophaSchlegela z 18. stor.; b – výrez s vyznačením miestanálezu keramického súboru –červená šípka. Magyar OrszágosLevéltár Budapest, sign. S12, Div 9, No 60: 1-2.


433



used to feed the fishpond below the monastery. After additional lead and woodenpipes were ordered in connection with extensive repairs and reconstructionof the monastery in 1751, water supplies also reached the quarters for novices,the kitchen and the refectory.

Emperor Joseph II dissolved the Kamaldul monastery in Zobor on 9 April1782 after it had been in intensive operation for just under 90 years. Eightmonks, five clerics and five laymen lived at the monastery at the time it wasclosed. The majority of the monastery grounds, including the church,remained abandoned until the end of the 1950s, when construction beganon a facility for the treatment of respiratory disorders (fig. 1; fig. 2). Only someof the outbuildings were used in the intervening years for a variety of purposes(a textile manufactory, an inn, climatic baths and the headquarters forthe Word of God Missionary).

Additional information about the history of this remarkable site continuesto come rather from written sources (Kompánek 1895; Hodál 1933; Branecký1945; Lacko 1965; Oslanský 2002a; 2002b; Judák 2009) than from evidenceof material culture discovered during archaeological excavations. There area number of reasons for this situation, one of them being the fact thatexcavations in the past were typically rescue operations necessitated by buildingactivity; as a result, the spatial and time scope of these excavations wassubstantially limited.

Archaeological excavations

The first archaeological excavations at the site were conducted by the SlovakNational Museum in 1942. The impulse for the commencement of work wasthe discovery of the stone walls during the digging of the small lake in the gardenof the St Svorad mission house. Although part of the wall had already beendestroyed before the arrival of excavation head Ľ. Kraskovská, the teammanaged to uncover several other sections of foundation walls; in additionto pottery finds from the 14th-15th centuries, the medieval origin of the wallswas also confirmed by their position beneath the Baroque monastery. In an effortto discover additional medieval buildings, twelve more trenches were dug onthe grounds of the mission house; the failure to discover any other remnants

Fig. 6. Nitra, Zobor monastery.Computer reconstruction of the appearance of the area of the monks’ dwellings on the basis of archaeologicaland iconographic sources. Prepared by A. Arpáš.Obr. 6. Nitra, Zoborský kláštor.Počítačová rekonštrukciavzhľadu areálu mníšskychpríbytkov na základearcheologických a ikonografickýchprameňov. Vyhotovil A. Arpáš.


434


of medieval architecture confirmed the assumption that the remainsof the Benedictine monastery had been relatively thoroughly removed duringthe construction of the Baroque complex. On the other hand, the ruinsof the Baroque buildings, especially the monks’ dwellings, were relativelyeasy to identify. The crypt in the western part of the church, the remnantsof two dwellings inhabited by monks to the south of the church and otherparts of the Kamaldul monastery were excavated. Unfortunately, excavationresults are provided only in a short informational article (Kraskovská 1942-43;the excavation report was destroyed by fire in the Slovak National Museumduring air raids on Bratislava in 1944).

The next archaeological excavations were conducted in 1961-62in connection with the construction of a healthcare facility for the treatmentof respiratory disorders. The digging of sewerage lines northeast of the formeroutbuilding of the Baroque monastery damaged several sections of the stonewalls that the author of the excavations interpreted as the remnants of buildingsfrom the later phase of the medieval monastery (Habovštiak 1966). And yet,finds of pottery in the anthropogenic layers indicated the existence of the wallsas far back as the 11th century. Unfortunately, at the time of the excavationsit was not possible to extend the studied grounds to the area outsidethe sewerage lines; such an expansion would have enabled researchers to geta better idea about the layout of the discovered architecture and to positivelyconfirm its medieval origin. A. Habovštiak’s study on the grounds of theBaroque complex focused on part of the stone water duct (187 m) in thesection between the spring and the eastern line of the monk’s dwellings(Habovštiak 1971).

In 1997 a layer containing potsherds datable in general to the 9th-11th centurieswas documented during an inspection of the lines cut into the slope near

-11-13

-61

-82

-28-0

-9

+2

+124

3

74

+65

+2

-11

+10

-14

+6

-22

-240

-215

+40

-10

-4

-4

+90 +423

18

6

7

8

9

45

2

1

17

16

15

14 1212

12

10 11 13

Fig. 7. Nitra, Zobor monastery.Floor plan of monks’ dwellingno. 9 at the Kamaldul monastery.1 – exterior stone paving; 2 – brick hallway floor; 3 – stone walls above foundations;4 – threshold; 5 – wooden threshold plank;6 – remnants of brick floor; 7 – foundation of ceramic stove;8 – brick floor; 9 – mortar floor; 10 – cellar earth floor; 11 – streak of mortar; 12 – postholes; 13 – ventilation shaft; 14 – remnants of brick vault; 15 – mortar floor; 16 – brick foundation of altar; 17 – stucco cornice; 18 – pit (medieval?). Drawings by M. Samuel.Obr. 7. Nitra, Zoborský kláštor.Pôdorys mníšskeho príbytku (č. 9) kamaldulského kláštora. 1 – exteriérová kamenná dlažba;2 – tehlová podlaha chodby; 3 – kamenné nadzákladové

murivo; 4 – prah; 5 – drevená doska prahu; 6 – zvyšky tehlovej podlahy; 7 – základy keramickej pece; 8 – tehlová podlaha; 9 – maltová podlaha; 10 – hlinitá podlaha pivnice; 11 – maltový jazyk; 12 – kolové jamky; 13 – vetracia šachta; 14 – zvyšky tehlovej klenby; 15 – maltová podlaha; 16 – tehlový základ oltára; 17 – štuková rímsa; 18 – jama (stredovek ?). Kresba M. Samuel.


435



the water springs (Bednár – Samuel – Chorvátová 1999). This discovery showedthat it was possible to consider the existence of a certain form of settlementat the site in that period.

The possibility to conduct a more systematic study at the site arose onlyafter 2001 (Samuel 2002; 2003; 2004; 2005; 2008; 2009; 2010; in print). Severalsections of the stone foundation walls of the Benedictine St HippolytusMonastery, the negative of the foundation walls, interior paving composedof square brick tiles and other medieval objects were found in the spaceto the south of the ruins of the Baroque monastery church. A coin restingon a fragment of the mortar floor helped date the uncovered remnants.The silver Friesach pfennig from 1200-1246 minted by the Salzburgarchbishopric during the time of Eberhard II is the first coin find from the siteof the Benedictine monastery and confirms the close ties the St Hippolytusmonastery had with other prominent Church institutions in Central Europe(Hunka – Samuel 2004). It would appear that this part of the monastery wasdestroyed or damaged in the 13th century, and it is possible that this occurredduring the invasion of the Tatars or in the course of some other tumultuousevent in this period. A relatively massive anthropogenic layer from the periodof the construction, existence and demise of the medieval monastery wasuncovered in another part of the site; beneath this layer were recessedfeatures (gutter, postholes) containing pottery tied to the earliest identifiedphase of the monastery from the 11th century. The lone architectural elementdocumenting the level of stonework decoration at the Benedictine monasteryis a smaller Romanesque capital dated tentatively to the 12th century.

The excavations of the Baroque Kamaldul St Joseph Monastery madeit possible to determine the extent of the terrain modifications involved in itsconstruction and to study part of the monastery, mainly the area to the southof the line of the monks’ dwellings. Two eremitic dwellings were partiallyuncovered. The monks’ chambers with a 9 x 10 m floor plan had a uniformlayout composed of four rooms divided by a central hallway (fig. 7). Large,flat stone tiles were set in front of the entrances to the dwellings. The smallroom to the right of the entrance served as a chapel; to the left of the entrance

Fig. 8. Nitra, Zobor monastery.View of cellar in monks’dwelling no. 9 from the north.Fig. 8-24 photo by M. Samuel.Obr. 8. Nitra, Zoborský kláštor.Pohľad zo severu na pivnicumníšskeho príbytku č. 9. Obr. 8-24 foto M. Samuel.


436


was the main living chamber with a tiled stove fed from the hallway. The twosmaller rooms in the back served as a work room and a stockroom. The mostelaborate room in the hermitage was naturally the chapel; we studiedthe remnants of one of these in dwelling no. 9. Testifying to the formeropulence of this space is a partially preserved plaster cornices, fragmentsof stucco decoration, multi-coloured wall plastering and remnants of the brickbase on which the altar stood. The floors in the monks’ dwellings featurevarious forms of construction. For example, in the main living chamberof dwelling no. 3 we uncovered an older board floor laid on wooden beamsset in a mortar bed; this floor was later replaced by a poured mortar floor.The opus spicatum brick paving in the hallway of this hermitage hassurvived. The interior walls of the rooms were covered with a fine limestonemortar and whitewashed several times; the exterior walls were covered witha rough ochre plaster. Several monks’ dwellings also included a stone cellarwith a brick barrel vault, a ventilation shaft and a compact earth floor (fig. 8).Multiple segments of the stone water duct were also excavated, includingthe remnants of a stone fountain incorporated into the terrace wall dividingthe two lines of the monks’ dwellings.

The excavation of the cellar in dwelling no. 9 in 2003 produced the mostinteresting results in terms of number and quality. In addition to hermitagewall rubble, the fill of the cellar contained thousands of fish bones froma wide range of species (preliminary information from the analysis conductedby Mgr. Z. Miklíková from the Institute of Archaeology at the SlovakAcademy of Sciences in Nitra), potsherds and fragments of pottery and glassvessels (fig. 9). The pottery component of this assemblage is the subjectof the following evaluation.

Fig. 9. Nitra, Zobor monastery.Assemblage of pottery and glassvessels from the cellar of monks’dwelling no. 9.Obr. 9. Nitra, Zoborský kláštor.Súbor keramických a sklenenýchnádob z pivnice mníšskehopríbytku č. 9.


437



Pottery assemblage

The presented assemblage of pottery vessels from the fill of the cellar inthe monk’s dwelling (no. 9) represents merely a selection of the overall, as yetunprocessed amount of pottery finds (vessels, tiles, pipes and bricks) fromthe Early Modern period settlement at the Zobor monastery.

The assemblage consists of sixteen vessels used for dining and decorativepurposes. On the basis of existing knowledge of the Early Modern periodpottery assortment from the Slovak environment, some of the potteryspecimens from the assemblage can be designated at a minimum as rareforms. In order to compile a description and the nature of the assemblage,individual specimens were classified morphologically as tall (ten specimens)and broad (six specimens) forms.

Tall forms

Tall forms are represented by flowerpots, mugs, a jug, an amphoraand a chamber pot.

The flowerpots feature a conical (barrel-shaped in one case) body, a roundedcollared rim, a pair of strap handles on the body and a flat bottom with three(in one case five) holes (Ø 1-1.5 cm). Dimensions: rim diameter 18-25 cm;bottom diameter 12-16 cm; height 13-16 cm. Three of the flowerpots werereduction fired. Common potter’s clay was used exclusively as the productionmaterial (with a lower ferric content). Decoration consists of rilling on the outersides of the rim and grooving on the shoulder or body of the vessels. Meritingspecial attention is a flowerpot oxidation fired with handles in the formof hanging relief rings (fig. 10). In this case it is necessary to note the potter’sattempt to imitate a model made from different material, perhaps metal(Toranová 1991). From a morphological perspective, the flowerpots share allof the characteristics of pots, though their use for aesthetic and decorativepurposes is indisputable (Kybalová 1979). Flowerpot finds from the Zobormonastery are, to a certain degree, of help in establishing an impressionof the furnishings in a ”monk’s household”, both in the sense of practicedinterior aesthetics (decorative plants) and the self-supplying with medicinalherbs. The small number of specimens of this type of pottery fromarchaeological excavations also points to the fact that its stated use is tiedto the later phase of the Early Modern period, i.e. the 18th and 19th centuries.The closest analogy for the finds from the Zobor monastery is an intactspecimen from the archaeological excavations of the town ditchat the Červený rak (The Red Crayfish) site in Bratislava (Cheben – Bielich 2008)

Fig. 10. Nitra, Zobor monastery.Flowerpot.Obr. 10. Nitra, Zoborský kláštor.Kvetináč.



that can be dated with a high degree of probability to the period beforethe middle of the 18th century.- Flowerpot, common potter’s clay, turned on a fast potter’s wheel, reduction

fired, two flutes on the outer side of the rim, rounded rim with an indicationof collaring, a slanted mouth, two opposing strap handles attached to the shouldersand lower part of the body, flat bottom exhibiting signs of having been cut fromthe potter’s wheel, perforated with three holes (diameter of 1-1.5 cm), overallconical shape; rim diameter 21 cm, bottom diameter 13 cm, height 16 cm.

- Flowerpot (fig. 10: a, b), common, less ferrous potter’s clay, turned on a fastpotter’s wheel, oxidation fired, decorated with rilling on the outer side of therim and grooving on the body, rounded collared rim, two opposing handleswith a round cross-section imitating hanging metal handles, flat bottomexhibiting signs of having been cut from the potter’s wheel, perforated withthree (?) holes (diameter of 1-1.5 cm), overall conical shape; rim diameter25 cm, bottom diameter 16 cm, height 16 cm.

- Flowerpot (fig. 11: a-c), common potter’s clay, turned on a fast potter’s wheel,reduction fired, two flutes on the outer side of the rim and one groove on thebody and base, a rounded collared rim, a slanted mouth, flat bottom exhibitingsigns of having been cut from the potter’s wheel, perforated with three holes(diameter of 1-1.5 cm), suggestion of indentation, overall conical shape; rimdiameter 18 cm, bottom diameter 12 cm, height 13 cm.

- Flowerpot (fig. 12: a-c), common potter’s clay, turned on a fast potter’s wheel,reduction fired, decorated with rilling on the outer side of the rim andgrooving on the shoulders, collared rim is cut off horizontally, fluted on the

438




439



inner side, a slanted mouth, two opposing strap handles attached to the shouldersand lower part of the body, flat bottom exhibiting signs of having been cut fromthe potter’s wheel, perforated with five holes (diameter of 1 cm), a scratched”X” (”sgraffito”) on the shoulders, overall barrel-shaped; rim diameter 20 cm,bottom diameter 12 cm, height 14 cm.

Mugs with a bulbous body, a rounded rim or a collaredrim cut at a slant, strap handles joining the rim and the bodyand a flat, indented bottom; oxidation fired. Two of thesemugs made from common potter’s clay feature a surfacewith white engobe; one specimen is made from white clay.Grooved decoration is visible on the outer side of the rimsand the neck, or even on the entire body of this typeof vessel. The inner side of the mugs features a transparentgreen or brown glaze; one specimen is glazed on both sides(fig. 13). The diameter of the rims is between 9 and 10 cm,the diameter of the bottoms 5-6 cm and the height of themugs 9-11 cm.- Mug (fig. 13), white clay, turned on a fast potter’s wheel, oxidation fired,

grooved decoration on the neck, entire vessel covered with transparent greenglaze, rounded collared rim, fluted on the inner side, a slanted mouth, straphandle attached to the rim and body, slightly concave bottom without traces ofthe method used to remove the vessel from the potter’s wheel, indented,subsequently shaped, overall bulbous shape; rim diameter 9 cm, bottomdiameter 5 cm, height 9 cm.

- Mug (fig. 14 a, b), common, less ferrous potter’s clay, turned on a fast potter’swheel, oxidation fired, grooved decoration over the entire body, white engobe,transparent brown glaze on the inside of the vessel, rounded collared rim,a slanted mouth, strap handle attached to the rim and the upper part of the body,flat bottom without traces of the method used to remove vessel from thepotter’s wheel, subsequently shaped, indented, overall bulbous shape; rimdiameter 10.5 cm, bottom diameter 6 cm, height 11 cm.

- Mug (fig. 15 a, b), common, less ferrous potter’s clay, turned on a fast potter’swheel, oxidation fired, grooved decoration on the outer side of the rim, whiteengobe, transparent green glaze on the inside of the vessel, collared rim cut offon a slant, a slanted mouth, strap handle attached to the rim and the upper part

Fig. 13. Nitra, Zobor monastery.Mug.Obr. 13. Nitra, Zoborský kláštor.Hrnček.



440


of the body, flat bottom without traces of the method used to remove the vesselfrom the potter’s wheel, indented, overall bulbous shape; rim diameter 10 cm,bottom diameter 6 cm, height 11 cm.

The jug is the only specimen of its kind in the assemblage. While the overallexecution of the jug does not exhibit any distinct differences from the othervessels, the use of a transparent violet glaze, the profiling and the spiral-shapedhandle give it an uncommon character. The reinforcement of the vessel witha copper wire at the indented bottom is perhaps evidence that the vessel wasused for a longer period of time, suggesting that it had a special importancefor its owner.- Jug (fig. 16, a, b), common potter’s clay, turned on a fast potter’s wheel,

oxidation fired, transparent violet glaze on the entire vessel, rounded rim witha beak-shaped spout, a slanted mouth, strap handle, profiled, spiral shapedand attached to the neck and at the transition point between the shoulderand the body, slightly concave bottom with signs of having been cut fromthe potter’s wheel, indented (with copper wire attached in the indented area,overall bulbous shape; rim diameter 6 cm, bottom diameter 6.5 cm, height 15 cm.


Fig. 16. Nitra, Zobor monastery.Jug.Obr. 16. Nitra, Zoborský kláštor.Džbán.


441



The amphora appears distinctly foreign in an assemblage of vessels thatcan otherwise be regarded as folk pottery. We are not aware of a closeranalogy from the environment of folk pottery producers. This is perhapsanother case of the producer attempting to imitate a model made froma different material (glass, stoneware or porcelain). The materials used(potter’s clay with coloured substances – engobe, glazes) do not differ fromthose used on other pieces in the assemblage. Our interpretation of the use ofthe amphora leans toward a decorative and simultaneously functional standfor flowers; this interpretation draws on motifs from pseudo-Antique vaseswith flowers often seen on Renaissance tiles. The most similar depictionof the amphora is found in a recently processed find assemblage from DevínCastle, with a likely date of origin in the second half of the 16th century(Divileková 2003, 70, 71, 83-85, tab. XXI: 3, 4; XXII: 1, 3). - Amphora (fig. 17 a, b), common, less ferrous potter’s clay, turned on a fast

potter’s wheel, oxidation fired, relief moulding on shoulder, white engobeapplied only on the outside of the vessel, transparent yellow glaze on the insideof the vessel, transparent green glaze on the outside of the vessel, roundedreinforced rim, a slanted mouth, two vertical bar handles attached to the neck andat the transition point between the shoulder and body, spiral shaped with a reliefbutton in the upper part, bottom/foot without traces of the method used toremove vessel from the potter’s wheel, concave; rim diameter 9 cm, bottomdiameter 10 cm, height 24.5 cm.

The chamber pot forms a functionally distinct group in the assemblage.The chamber pot’s specific shape and rim treatment is literally identicalto the similarly interpreted group of vessels from the archaeologicalexcavation of the Pelikán Inn in Székesfehérvár, Hungary. The Hungarianpieces, like ours, are a low, bulbous vessel with a broad, slanted rim, most

Fig. 17. Nitra, Zobor monastery.Amphora.Obr. 17. Nitra, Zoborský kláštor.Amfora.


442


commonly with a large handle and a transparent glaze coveringthe entire surface of the vessel. The author of the Hungarianexcavations dates the chamber pots to the 18th-19th centuries(Siklósi 2002, 18, tab. 19-22).- Chamber pot (fig. 18), common, less ferrous potter’s clay, turned

on a fast potter’s wheel, oxidation fired, white engobe,transparent yellow glaze on the inside of the vessel, transparentgreen glaze on the rim and outside of the vessel, rounded rimturned outward like a collar, a slanted mouth, strap handleattached to the shoulders and body, flat bottom with signsof having been cut from the potter’s wheel, indented, overallbulbous shape; rim diameter 18 cm, bottom diameter 11 cm,height 16 cm.

Broad forms

Broad forms are represented by a shallow bowl, bowls and cups.Vessels in this group most strikingly display the ”non-folkish nature”of the assemblage.

Bowls are recorded in two basic versions, both of which utilize the samematerial (common, ferrous potter’s clay), are oxidation fired, and featurean indented, slightly concave bottom. The first of these is a shallow bowl witha rounded wide rim, attractive white engobe and a transparent greenmarbled glaze (fig. 19; Pišútová 1981, Fig. 262, 263). The second case involvesthree hemispherical bowls with a simple round, slanted rim (fig. 20-22).All of these bowls originally had two handles, though these havebeen preserved on only one specimen (fig. 21). White engobe is appliedto the surface of the bowls; the inner side features a transparent yellow glaze,the outer side a transparent green or brown glaze. One specimen hasa monochrome, transparent violet glaze over the entire surface of the vessel.

Fig. 18. Nitra, Zobor monastery.Chamber pot.Obr. 18. Nitra, Zoborský kláštor.Nočník.

Fig. 19. Nitra, Zobor monastery.Shallow bowl.Obr. 19. Nitra, Zoborský kláštor.Tanierovitá miska.


443



The horizontal lugs are decorated with fanlike grooving or a relief, stylizedanthropomorphic motif (the head and shoulders of a figure, an angel?).The relief lugs were apparently produced separately in moulds and theiroverall design corresponds to the motifs popular in this period (Hazlbauer –Volf 1993, 24; Pajer 2007, fig. 33). Analogical finds from Bratislava and BanskáŠtiavnica are presented by J. Hoššo (1997, 293, tab. III: 2) and J. Labuda (1991)respectively; the second of these is regarded as a product imported fromthe broader Banská Štiavnica area (the precise origin cannot be determined)and dating to the 17th-18th centuries (Labuda 1991, 146, tab. IX: 2, 3).- Shallow bowl (fig. 19 a-c), common ferrous potter’s clay, turned on a fast potter’s

wheel, oxidation fired, three grooves on the outer side of the rim, the inner sidedecorated with marbling, white engobe on the inner side, transparent greenglaze on the entire surface, rounded collared straight rim, flat bottom, indented,subsequently shaped, signs of the potter’s wheel; rim diameter 15 cm, bottomdiameter 8.5 cm, height 4 cm.

- Hemispherical bowl (fig. 20 a, b), oxidation fired, common ferrous potter’s clay,white engobe on the outer side and underneath on the bottom, transparentviolet glaze on the entire surface, rounded, slightly slanted rim, linguiform lugwith fan-like grooves and attached to the bottom of the rim (apparently originallya vessel with two lugs), indented slightly concave bottom, subsequentlyshaped; rim diameter 16 cm, bottom diameter 10.5 cm, height 7 cm.

- Hemispherical bowl (fig. 21 a-b), oxidation fired, common ferrous potter’s clay,white engobe, transparent yellow glaze on the inner side, transparent brownglaze on the outside, rounded rim, a slanted mouth, two relief lugs perhapsimitating the figure of an angel, attached below the rim, indented slightlyconcave bottom, subsequently shaped; rim diameter 16 cm, bottom diameter8.5 cm, height 8 cm.

Fig. 20. Nitra, Zobor monastery.Hemispherical bowl.Obr. 20. Nitra, Zoborský kláštor.Polguľovitá misa.



444


- Hemispherical bowl (fig. 22 a, b), oxidation fired, common ferrous potter’s clay,white engobe on the entire vessel, transparent yellow glaze on the inner side,transparent green glaze on the outside, rounded rim, a slanted mouth, relieflug perhaps imitating the head and shoulder of a figure and jutting out fromthe rim (apparently originally a two-handled vessel), indented slightly concavebottom, subsequently shaped; rim diameter 16 cm, bottom diameter 8.5 cm,height 7 cm.

Cups are the most luxurious component of the assemblage, especiallyconsidering the different technology used to produce them, their morphologyand their decorative features. While the bodies of these faience cups areshaped into quadrifid form, they maintain a classic, central form. The buckledcups’ sides create a ”melon-like” appearance. Painted on the tin white glazeon the inner side of both cups are green garlands forming a frame for initialsand years: ”·E·Z· 1760 ·I·S·” and ”EZ 17·65”. The initials ”EZ” likely stand for”Eremits Zoboriensis” (Zobor Hermits) and ”IS” the Greek ICHTYS (fish –”living bread”), an acronym formed from Jesus Christ, the Son of God andSaviour (Slivka 1997, 25). It is likewise possible that ”IS” could be the initials ofthe owner or the person who commissioned the product (e.g. Francová 2002, 49).The faience cups can be connected with the tradition of Anabaptist productionrecorded in the territory of Slovakia beginning in the final decade of the 16th century.This production was influenced for years by edicts from 1612 prohibitingthe depiction of animals and human figures on pottery. A stylized plant motifwas the dominant decorative element of early products (Francová 2002, 49).The indicated interpretation of the painted initials might suggest the fact thatthese were products commissioned directly by a monastery resident. In any case,it is clear that both faience cups represent highly luxurious, custom-madeproducts. These Anabaptist faiences were primarily made for specificcustomers; the Anabaptists themselves used them only to a limited extent(Kalesný 1981, 196). Following the decline of the Anabaptists’ isolated lifestyleafter 1686 and the subsequent secularization of the artistic expression of theirproducts, the original conservative decoration of early Anabaptist potterycould continue to maintain its restrained dimension – a style appreciated, forexample, by the residents in the Zobor monastery. We can see a similar typeof decoration on additional Anabaptist products recorded in the broad



445



Hungarian and Austrian territory (e.g. Hermann 2003, fig. 6). A cup with the year1760 features a painted symbol in the form of the letter T on the bottom. Likethe initials and the years, the cup is painted with a high-fired brownish-blackcolour using a contouring brush. The issue of faience products’ marks wasmost recently addressed by R. Irša on the basis of workshop waste findsin Holíč. It is possible to agree with the author that painters in the potteryworkshop used the symbols to mark their work (Irša 2000, 44-46). The onlyanalogical symbol to appear to date in published literature on the issue of paintedmarks on pottery (e.g. Svoboda 1929; Černohorský et al. 1930; Landsfeld 1955;1956; 1970) was presented by A. Güntherová-Mayerová (1942, tab. VI), thoughwithout any indication of the name of the painter or the place of origin.- Faience cup (fig. 23 a-c), oxidation fired, fine white clay, inner side

decorated with green painted leaves, brownish-black contours, tinwhite glaze on the entire surface, rounded rim, a slanted mouth,two vertical stick, spiral-shaped handles attached below the rimand on the body, the body divided by four grooves into a melon-like form, indented and flat bottom, subsequently shaped; garlanddecoration frames two rows of initials •E•Z• and •I•S•, betweenwhich is the year 1760; a ”T” mark is painted on the underside of thecup (inscriptions rendered in brownish-black colour witha contouring brush); rim diameter 11 cm, bottom diameter 6 cm,height 4.5 cm.

- Faience cup (fig. 24), oxidation fired, fine white clay, inner sidedecorated with green painted leaves, brownish-black contours, tinwhite glaze on the entire surface, rounded rim, a slanted mouth,two vertical stick, spiral-shaped handles attached below the rimand on the body, the body divided by four grooves into a melon-like form, indented and flat bottom, subsequently shaped; garlanddecoration frames the initials •E•Z•, below which is the year 1765rendered in black colour with a contouring brush; rim diameter11 cm, bottom diameter 6 cm, height 5 cm.

Fig. 24. Nitra, Zobor monastery.Faience cup.Obr. 24. Nitra, Zoborský kláštor.Fajansová šálka.

Fig. 23. Nitra, Zobor monastery.Faience cup.Obr. 23. Nitra, Zoborský kláštor.Fajansová šálka.


446


Discussion

The system for serving food to the monks and the structure of the dietwere strictly controlled at all monasteries. As M. Slivka (1997, 25) stated,the Carthusians, for example, originally prepared food in their cellsand used the common dining hall (refectory) exclusively on Sundaysand important feast days for one-course meals. After dinner on Sunday foodprovisions were allocated for the entire week: bread, dairy products (cheese),vegetables (legumes), fish and wine (Slivka 1997, 25). But as the individualpreparation of food did not prove to be suitable, the Carthusians and otherorders of monks established a collective method of dining or served foodprepared in advance. The second method involving a ”dispensing window”is archeologically documented at Carthusian monasteries in Letanovce(known as Lapis refugii) in Slovakia, in Brno and in the Moravian townof Dolany. Over time the number of dishes prepared for the main mealgrew and a third ”uncooked” course of fruits and vegetables was added(Slivka 1997, 26).

The primary function of the presented pottery assemblage was not foodpreparation but for serving the meals – both during collective and individualdining at the monastery. The evident use of flowerpots suggests a certaininterest in interior decoration in the monastery environment in the EarlyModern period.

In general it can be said that the pottery assemblage from the Zobormonastery is a self-contained find unit whose existence does not extendbeyond the period of the Kamaldul monastery, i.e. 1695-97, whenthe construction of the monastery was completed, and 1782, when EmperorJoseph II abolished monasteries in the lands of the Habsburg Monarchy.On the basis of the documented find situation we can clearly rule outthe possibility of shifting the dating of the assemblage to the periodfollowing the demise of the monastery, when part of the grounds wereused for various purposes.

From the perspective of composition, the assemblage is a combinationof common products from local potters (fig. 10-19) and products that can beregarded as imports (fig. 20-22). Multiple pottery production centres areknown to have existed throughout the Nitra region during the 18th century(see Špiesz 1963; Kováč 1978; Bielich – Čurný in print); at some of these sitesmaster potters formed guilds, which controlled not only the amount and qualityof the actual production, but especially the method of trade and its territorialrange. The potters’ guild that existed in Nitra in 1690 had six members(Špiesz 1962, 96). It is necessary to look for the provenance of the faience cups(fig. 23, 24) in the post-Anabaptist environment in western Slovakia, withtheir morphological and decorative simplicity (or even their mediocrity)being a complicating factor. It is also appropriate at this point to drawattention to the fact that at the beginning of the Early Modern perioda smaller Anabaptist community was present approximately 20 km awayin Horné Lefantovce; the source of clay for their likely pottery productionwas a high quality clay deposit in the local stream in the part of the villagewith a street named ”Habáň” to this day (Reháková 1998, 140). However,the question arises as to what legacy this production could have leftin the 18th century.


447



In the case of vessels covered entirely with glaze (an amphora, jugand hemispherical bowls) we can regard this glaze as a decorative element.The use of this type of decoration involving a single glaze, as well as twodifferent glazes on the inner and outer surfaces (as is found in ourassemblage), is typical for the entire Baroque period (Kalesný 1981, 190).Despite being quite broad, this dating is also suggested by the relief handleson these five vessels (the spiral-shaped handles on the jug, amphoraand cups; and the relief lugs of the hemispherical bowls).

Conclusion

Assuming that the lifespan of common kitchen and table pottery usedheavily on a daily basis was no longer than ten years (e.g. Scheufler 1990, 74),and taking into consideration the certain frugality of monastery residents,manifested, for example, in the repair of a damaged jug with wire (fig. 16a),the dates on the pair of faience cups could be decisive in setting the lowertime limit of the joint occurrence of the presented sixteen vessels in a singleassemblage. The upper limit, naturally, is the date of the monastery’s demise– certainly not long after the year 1782.

The integrity of the collected assemblage of pottery vessels and the otherfinds creates a fine image of the assortment of objects used by the communityof Kamaldul monks during the 18th century. The importance of the assemblageis also based on the possibility of comparisons with other find assemblages.These possibilities are defined by the distinct timeframe of the find situationresulting from events connected with the final phase of the existenceof the Kamaldul St. Joseph Monastery in Nitra–Zobor.

Translation by David J. Gaul

Resumé:

Príspevok predstavuje jeden z prvých výstupov zameraných na vyhodnotenie konkrétneho druhu predmetovmateriálnej kultúry z archeologického výskumu Zoborského kláštora v Nitre, ktorý tu od roku 2001 realizujeArcheologický ústav SAV. Predmetom záujmu je v tomto prípade výnimočný nálezový celok keramických nádobz pivnice eremitského domu č. 9, ktorý bol získaný počas výskumnej sezóny v roku 2003.

Korene benediktínskeho Zoborského kláštora sv. Hypolita siahajú zrejme ešte do 9. stor. Možno do roku 880,kedy v Nitre vzniklo biskupstvo, ktorého prvým biskupom sa stal švábsky benediktín Viching. S kláštorom sa spájaniekoľko dôležitých stredovekých písomných prameňov – najstaršie v origináli zachované listiny z územiaSlovenska (Zoborské listiny z rokov 1111 a 1113), najstaršia uhorská legenda (o svätom Svoradovi a Benediktovi),najstaršie kronikárske diela uhorskej (Anonymova kronika) a českej (Kosmasova kronika) historiografie.Benediktínsky kláštor v období 11.-13. stor. plnil funkciu jedného z centier náboženského, verejnoprávnehoa kultúrneho života v Uhorsku. Zároveň dlho patril aj k najväčším cirkevným pozemkovým vlastníkom na územídnešného Slovenska. Až v 15. stor. sa zavŕšil trvalý úpadok kláštora. Za panovania kráľa Mateja Korvína (1458-1490)bol kláštor odovzdaný ostrihomskému arcibiskupovi Jánovi Vitézovi zo Sredny ako opátovi – komendátorovi.V roku 1468 pápež Pavol II. všetky majetky Zoborského opátstva pridelil nitrianskemu biskupstvu a kapitule. Predkoncom 15. stor. sa kláštor prestáva spomínať. Tento stav trval takmer 200 rokov až do roku 1663, kedy nechalnitriansky biskup Juraj Selepčéni (1648-1666) vystavať vo dvore bývalého kláštora Kaplnku sv. Ondreja a Benedikta.


448


Ďalší nitriansky biskup, Blažej Jaklin (1691-1696), sa spolu so svojim bratom – barónom Mikulášom Jaklinomz Lefantoviec – rozhodli postaviť tu nový kláštor pre kamaldulský konvent. Po spísaní fundačnej listiny v roku 1691a jej schválení panovníkom Leopoldom I. sa ešte v tom istom roku začalo s výstavbou kláštorného komplexu, ktorýbol pôvodne určený pre 12 rehoľníkov a služobníctvo. Počas výstavby (1691-1697, prvá časť vysvätená 1695) takmerúplne asanovali zvyšky stredovekého kláštora sv. Hypolita. Podoba barokového kláštora je zachytená na niekoľkýchikonografických prameňoch z 18. stor. Na rytine (obr. 3), olejomaľbe (obr. 4), ale hlavne na zachovanom plánekláštora (obr. 5) dobre vidno, že dominantou symetrickej dispozície bol trojloďový kláštorný kostol sv. Jozefa, poktorého stranách stáli múrmi obohnané príbytky rehoľníkov (obr. 6) so záhradkami. Trojkrídlová dvojpodlažnáhlavná budova v popredí so vstupnou bránou mala priečelie akcentované zvonicou s hodinami. Zvyšok areálu,ohraničeného plným múrom okrem menšej hospodárskej budovy, vypĺňali rozsiahle sady a záhrady. Pred bránoukláštora sa nachádzal malý cintorín. Súčasťou kláštora bol aj kamenný vodovod privádzajúci do areálu voduz prameňa pod jaskyňou sv. Svorada. Vodovod, postavený v roku 1704, napájal nielen jednotlivé budovy a fontányv areáli kláštora, ale prebytočnou vodou zásoboval aj rybník pod kláštorom. Po necelých 90-tich rokoch pobytukamaldulov na Zobore panovník Jozef II. 9. apríla 1782 konvent rozpustil. Väčšina areálu kláštora vrátane kostolazostala opustená, len časť hospodárskych budov bola využívaná na rôzne účely (textilná manufaktúra, hostinec,klimatické kúpele, sídlo misionárov Božieho slova) až do konca 50-tych rokov 20. stor., keď sa začala budovaťliečebňa respiračných chorôb (obr. 1, 2).

O význame tejto pre slovenské dejiny mimoriadne dôležitej lokality sa doposiaľ vedelo prevažne ibaz písomných prameňov. Archeologický výskum tu absentoval a realizované výskumy mali hlavne charakterzáchranných akcií vyvolaných stavebnou činnosťou a ich priestorový a časový rozsah bol výrazne limitovaný.Do roku 2001 sa tu uskutočnili tri výskumné kampane. V roku 1942 to bol výskum Ľ. Kraskovskej zo Slovenskéhonárodného múzea, počas ktorého sa pod ešte rozpoznateľnou plánovitou zástavbou kamaldulského kláštorapodarilo zdokumentovať kratšie úseky stredovekých architektúr. Podrobnejšie informácie z výskumu avšakchýbajú, nakoľko výskumná dokumentácia bola zničená počas bombardovania Bratislavy v roku 1944. V rokoch1961-1962 počas výstavby liečebne respiračných chorôb prebehol aj dohľad nad výkopovými prácami pod vedenímA. Habovštiaka. Hĺbením kanalizačných rýh v priestore severovýchodne od bývalej hospodárskej budovybarokového kláštora sa poškodilo niekoľko úsekov kamenných murív, ktoré autor výskumu interpretoval akozvyšky budov mladšej fázy stredovekého kláštora. Sprievodné nálezy svedčia o osídlení lokality minimálne v 11. stor.Okrem toho sa A. Habovštiakovi podarilo preskúmať viac ako 170 m dĺhý úsek kamenného vodovodu v úsekumedzi prameňom sv. Svorada a východnou líniou mníšskych príbytkov. V roku 1997 sa počas obhliadky ryhyvykopanej na svahu v blízkosti vodných prameňov zdokumentovala vrstva obsahujúca črepy keramiky datovateľnejrámcovo do 9.-11. stor.

Možnosť systematickejšie preskúmať lokalitu vznikla až po roku 2001, odkedy prebehlo 5 výskumných sezón.Základné zistenia a interpretácie boli priebežne zverejňované (Samuel 2005; 2010). V priestore južne od ruinybarokového kláštorného kostola sa odkrylo niekoľko úsekov kamenných základových murív benediktínskehokláštora sv. Hypolita, negatívov po základových murivách, interiérová dlažba vyhotovená zo štvorcových tehlovýchdlaždíc a ďalšie stredoveké objekty. K datovaniu odkrytých zvyškov prispel nález mince zo zvyšku maltovejpodlahy (strieborný friesachský fenig z rokov 1200-1246 razený salzburským arcibiskupstvom počas pôsobeniaEberharta II.). Zdá sa, že táto časť kláštora bola v 13. stor. zničená, resp. poškodená pravdepodobne v dôsledkutatárskeho vpádu alebo iných búrlivých udalostí tohto obdobia. V inej časti lokality sa odkryla pomerne mohutnákultúrna vrstva z obdobia výstavby, existencie a zániku stredovekého kláštora, pod ktorou sa nachádzali zahĺbenéobjekty s keramiku zo zatiaľ najstaršej identifikovanej fázy kláštora z 11. stor. Výskum barokového kamaldulskéhokláštora sv. Jozefa umožnil zistiť rozsah terénnych úprav súvisiacich s jeho výstavbou a preskúmať časť kláštora,hlavne priestor južnej línie mníšskych príbytkov. Preskúmalo sa viacero úsekov kamenného vodovodu, vrátanezvyškov kamennej fontány zakomponovanej v murive terasy, ktorá oddeľovala dve línie mníšskych príbytkov.Čiastočne sa odkryli dve eremitky (č. 3 a 9). Mníšske domy s pôdorysom 9x10 m mali jednotnú dispozíciupozostávajúcu zo štyroch miestností (kaplnka, hlavná obytná miestnosť s kachľovou pecou, pracovňa, sklad)oddelených ústrednou chodbou (obr. 7). Podarilo sa zdokumentovať viacero detailných pozorovaní ohľadomspôsobu úpravy a výzdoby kaplnky, spôsobu dláždenia interiérov atď. Štvrtá miestnosť v eremitke č. 9, sklad, bola


449



čiastočne podpivničená kamennou pivnicou s tehlovou valenou klenbou, vetracou šachtou a dlážkou z ušľapanejhliny (obr. 8). Z jej zásypu pochádza vyhodnotený súbor keramiky.

Súbor pozostáva zo 16 nádob používaných pri stolovaní a výzdobe interiérov, resp. na iné praktické účely. Medzivysoké tvary patria kvetináče, hrnčeky, džbán, amfora a nočník. Kvetináče (obr. 10-12) sú v doposiaľ známomnálezovom fonde z obdobia novoveku z územia Slovenska prakticky neznámym tvarom. Charakterizuje ichkónický, v jednom prípade súdkovitý tvar tela, zaoblené okraje s okružím, dvojica pásikových úch na vydutinea rovné dná perforované tromi, v jednom prípade piatimi otvormi (priemer 1-1,5 cm). Rozmery: priemer okrajov18-25 cm, priemer dien 12-16 cm, výška 13-16 cm. Spôsobom výroby či použitým materiálom sa nevymykajú z rámcabežnej hrnčiarskej erudície obdobia mladšieho novoveku, z tohto rámca si však osobitnú pozornosť zasluhujeexemplár s plasticky prevedenými imitáciami kovových visiacich kruhov vo funkcii úch (obr. 10). Nálezy kvetináčovv kláštornom prostredí súvisia zrejme s praktizovaním interiérovej estetiky (okrasné rastliny) či seba zásobovanímliečivami (bylinkárstvo). Hrnčeky (obr. 13-15) sa hlásia k bežnej hrnčiarskej výrobe. Z hľadiska morfológie idev podstate o zmenšené tvary odvodené z bežnej kuchynskej keramiky. Džbán (obr. 16) svojim celoplošnýmglazovaním a profiláciou i slimákovitým zatočením ucha získava charakter „neľudového” tvaru. Spevnenie nádobymedeným drôtom v mieste odsadenia dna svedčí azda o dlhodobejšom používaní nádoby a tým zrejme ajo význame pre jej majiteľa. Amfora (obr. 17) nielen v rámci prezentovaného súboru, ale aj na Slovensku všeobecnevyznieva značne cudzorodo. Je možné, že sa jej výrobca snažil o napodobenie inomateriálovej predlohy. Amforapravdepodobne slúžila ako dekoračný a zároveň funkčný stojan na kytice (váza). V tomto zmysle je potrebnépoukázať na motívy pseudo-antických váz s kyticami na renesančných kachliciach, vyskytujúcich sa od druhejpolovice 16. stor. (na Slovensku napr. z hradu Devín). Jediný exemplár nočníka (obr. 18) je doslova totožný soskupinou takto interpretovaných nádob z 18.-19. stor. z archeologického výskumu hostinca Pelikán v maďarskomSzékesfehérvári.

Široké tvary sú zastúpené tanierovitou miskou, polguľovitými misami a fajansovými šálkami. Tanierovitá miska(obr. 19) so zaobleným okrajom a vysokým okružím je na vrstve bielej engoby zdobená trasakovaním transparentnouzelenou glazúrou. Polguľovité misy (obr. 20-22) vykazujú väčšinu znakov, ktoré ich vylučujú zo skupiny bežnejľudovej hrnčiny. Predovšetkým ide o ich polguľovité telo, odsadenie dna, monochrómne, resp. polychrómneglazovanie, ale najmä výskyt úch – plastických držadiel. Tie boli evidentne vopred odtláčané v matriciach (figurálnemotívy: anjel?) a ich celkové prevedenie korešponduje s módnymi motívmi doby ich vzniku. Podobné prevedeniapoznáme zatiaľ iba z nálezov z Banskej Štiavnice a Bratislavy, kde sú rovnako považované za importované výrobky.Fajansové šálky (obr. 23, 24) predstavujú v súbore najluxusnejšiu zložku. Ich telá sú vytvarované do štvrtinovýchoblúkov, a to pomocou sprehýbania stien týchto nádob. Na vnútornej strane obidvoch sú na zakalenej bielej glazúrenamaľované zelené venčeky, tvoriace rámec pre iniciály a letopočty: „•E•Z• 1760 •I•S•” a „EZ 17•65”. Iniciály„EZ” azda označujú slovné spojenie Eremits Zoboriensis (Zoborskí eremiti) a „I•S” grécke slovo ICHTYS (ryba –„živý chlieb”), ktoré je tvorené začiatočnými písmenami slov Ježiš Kristus, Boží Syn a Spasiteľ. Ich pôvod možnohľadať v posthabánskom prostredí na západnom Slovensku. Presnejšiu identifikáciu znemožňuje ich dekoratívnajednoduchosť až tuctovosť a na druhej strane aj nejasnosti pri výklade autorskej značky maliara výzdoby (T), ktorása nachádza na dne jednej zo šálok.

Primárna funkcia prezentovaného súboru keramiky nebola určená na prípravu jedál, ale skôr na podávanie jedál,a to v rámci tak spoločného ako aj individuálneho stravovania v kláštore. Použitie kvetináčov je evidentné a dourčitej miery charakterizuje snahu o praktizovanie špecifickej interiérovej kultúry v kláštornom prostredí v obdobímladšieho novoveku. Medzi nálezmi nachádzame produkty bežného erudovaného hrnčiarstva azda zo širšiehonitrianskeho regiónu, ale na druhej strane aj evidentné importy, ktoré pôsobia minimálne „neľudovým” ažcudzorodým dojmom (amfora, džbán, šálky). Pri datovaní súboru sa autori pridržiavajú povedomia o nedlhejživotnosti bežne používaných keramických nádob (max. cca 10 rokov), letopočtov na fajansových šálkach (1760,1765) a známych faktov o rozpustení kláštora (1782). Na základe toho je možné stanoviť dobu spoločnéhopoužívania keramických nádob zo súboru medzi roky 1760-1782.


450


Bibliography:

Bednár, P. – Samuel, M. – Chorvátová, H. 1999: Nové včasnostredoveké nálezy z areálu Zoborského kláštora – Neuefrühmittelalterliche Funde aus dem Areal des Zobor-Kloster. AVANS 1997, Nitra, 29.

Bielich, M. – Čurný, M. v tlači: Nálezy včasnonovovekej keramiky z Tvrdomestíc a otázka tzv. čiernehotvrdomestického riadu. In: Chovanec, J. (ed.): Keramika 1000-1700. Zborník z odborného seminára. Trebišov.

Branecký, J. 1945: Krátke dejiny zoborského kláštora a opátstva. Žilina.

Černohorský, K. – Fabian, V. – Geissler, R. – Plánička – Svoboda, J. F. 1930: Československá lidová keramika.Národopisný věstník českoslovanský 23, 97-122, 169-216, 273-300.

Divileková, D. 2003: Stredoveké a včasnonovoveké kachlice z hradu Devín. Ms., diplomová práca. Bratislava.

Francová, Z. 2002: Rastliny a plody vo fajanse. Remeslo, umenie, dizajn 4, Bratislava, 49-50.

Güntherová-Mayerová, A. 1942: Slovenská keramika. Martin.

Habovštiak, A. 1966: Záchranný výskum pri bývalom kláštore v Nitre na Zobore – Rettungsgrabung auf dem Arealeines Ehemaligen Klosters in Nitra auf dem Zobor. Študijné Zvesti AÚ SAV 14, Nitra, 227-234.

- 1971: Stredoveké nálezy a pozostatky kamenného vodovodu pri bývalom Zoborskom kláštore v Nitre –Mittelalterliche Funde und Reste einer steinernen Wasserleitung bei dem Ehemaligen Kloster auf dem Zobor inNitra. Zborník Slovenského národného múzea 65, História 11, Bratislava, 97-120.

Hazlbauer, Z. – Volf, P. 1993: Raně barokní hrnčířské formičky z Nového Strašecí a způsoby jejich použití. Památkystředních Čech 7/1, Praha, 23-30.

Hermann, I. 2003: Sándor Zsuzsanna végrendelete 1688-ból. Pápai Múzeumi Értesítö 8, Pápa, 37-56.

Hodál, J. 1933: Staré benediktínske kláštory na Slovensku. In: Katolícke Slovensko 833-1933. Na pamiatkutisícstoročného jubilea blaženého zvestovania Kristovej viery nášmu národu slovenskému, keď založil prvúkresťanskú svätyňu slovenský knieža Pribina v Nitre. Trnava, 170-177.

Hoššo, J. 1997: Príspevok k štúdiu materiálnej kultúry na území Bratislavy v období stredoveku a na začiatkunovoveku – Beitrag zum Studium der Sachkultur auf dem Gebiet der Stadt Bratislava im Mittelalter und am Anfangder Neuzeit. Archaeologia historica 22, 287-300.

Hunka, J. – Samuel, M. 2004: Prvý nález mince z benediktínskeho kláštora sv. Hypolita v Nitre na Zobore – Der ersteFund einer Münze von Benediktinerkloster des Heiligen Hypolitus in Nitra-Zobor. Slovenská numizmatika 17,Nitra, 219-224.

Irša, R. 2000: Značky na holíčskej fajanse a kamenine v náleze črepniska z roku 1789. In: Irša, R. (ed.): Naše Záhorie.Zborník príspevkov. Malacky, 37-46.

Judák, V. 2009: Pôsobenie kamaldulov na Zobore a na celom území Slovenska. Monumentorum tutela 21, Bratislava,17-28.

Kalesný, F. 1981: Habáni na Slovensku. Bratislava.

Kompánek, J. 1895: Opátstvo Zoborské sv. Hypolita. Tovaryšstvo II, 108-114.

Kováč, J. 1978: Z dejín hrnčiarstva a kachliarstva na hornom Ponitrí. Horná Nitra 8, Martin, 111-151.

Kraskovská, Ľ. 1942-1943: Archeologický výskum na Zobore pri Nitre. Sborník Slovenského národného múzea 36-37,Turčiansky Sv. Martin, 217-227.

Kuzma, I. – Samuel, M. – Tirpák, J. 2004: Niektoré výsledky leteckej a geofyzikálnej prospekcie v roku 2002 a 2003v AÚ SAV Nitra – Some results of aerial and geophysical prospection in 2002-2003 in Archaeological Institutein Nitra. In: Ve službách archeologie V, Brno – Nitra, 39-41.

Kybalová, J. 1979: Habánské fajánsové květináče na zámku v Jindřichově Hradci. Památky a příroda 4, Praha,129-132.

Labuda, J. 1991: Technická keramika z archeologického výskumu komorského dvora v Banskej Štiavnici. ZborníkSlovenského Banského múzea 15, Martin, 217-241.


451



Lacko, M. 1965: Camaldulese Hermits in Slovakia/Zobor, Červený kláštor. Slovak Studies 5, Cleveland, OH – Roma,99-204.

Landsfeld, H. 1955: Značky a znamienka na habánskej keramike. Slovenský národopis 3, Bratislava, 83-100.

- 1956: Autorské značky hrnčiarov a džbánkarov na ich pracovnom náčiní. Sborník Krajského múzea 2, Trnava, 115-127.

- 1970: Značky na habánskej keramike zo západného Slovenska v 17. storočí. Zborník Záhorského múzea 1, Skalica,22-39.

Oslanský, F. 2002a: Zo života a hodnôt benediktínskeho Kláštora sv. Hypolita na Zobore v stredoveku. (Prínospísomných správ k jeho histórii.). Slovenská numizmatika 16, Nitra, 51-70.

- 2002b: Zoborský benediktínsky kláštor a jeho zánik. In: Marsina, R. (ed.): Nitra v slovenských dejinách. Martin,212-219.

Pajer, J. 2007: Archaeological excavations of anabaptist ceramics in Moravia – Archeologické výzkumynovokřtěnecké keramiky na Moravě – Die Erforschung der Keramik der Wiedertäufer in Mähren. Studies in Post-Medieval Archaeology 2, Prague, 227-250.

Pišútová, I. 1981: Fajansa. Bratislava.

Rabazzi Stepancsics, G. 2000: Majk. Kamalduli remeteség. In: Taják-Korok-Múzeumok Kiskönyvtára 460. szám.Veszprém.

Reháková, N. 1998: Život obce a obyvateľstva. In: Kolektív autorov: Lefantovce 1113-1998. Lefantovce, 137-143.

Ruttkay, A. – Slivka, M. 1985: Cirkevné inštitúcie a ich úloha v sídliskovom a hospodárskom vývoji Slovenskav stredoveku – Kirchliche Institutionen und ihre Stellung in der Wirtschafts –und Siedlungsentwicklungder mittelalterlichen Slowakei. Archaeologia historica 10, 333-356.

Samuel, M. 2002: Zisťovací výskum a prieskum v areáli Zoborského kláštora v Nitre – Festellungsgrabungund Erkundung im Areal des Zobor-Klosters in Nitra . AVANS 2001, Nitra, 178-179.

- 2003: Pokračovanie výskumu Zoborského kláštora – Fortsetzung der Grabung im Areal des Zobor-Klosters.AVANS 2002, Nitra, 118-119.

- 2004: Tretia sezóna výskumu Zoborského kláštora – Die dritte Grabungssaison des Zobor-Klosters. AVANS 2003,Nitra, 165-166.

- 2005: Archeologický výskum Zoborského kláštora v rokoch 2001-2003. In: Ruttkay, M. (ed.): Dávne dejiny Nitrya okolia. Nitra, 109-113.

- 2008: Krátky záchranný výskum v areáli Zoborského kláštora – Kurze Rettungsgrabung in der Zobor Kloster-Anlage.AVANS 2006, Nitra, 137-138.

- 2009: Nálezy skla z archeologického výskumu Zoborského kláštora – Glass finds from archaeological excavationsof the Zobor monastery. Študijné zvesti AÚ SAV 46, Nitra, 45-50.

- 2010: Najnovšie výsledky archeologických výskumov Zoborského kláštora v Nitre. Monumentorum tutela 22.Bratislava, 276-286.

- v tlači: Výskumy v areáli Zoborského kláštora v Nitre. AVANS 2008, Nitra.

Scheufler, V. 1990: Evaluation of the pottery finds from a millitary encampment at Nebesa by Aš – Vyhodnoceníkeramických nálezů z vojenského tábora Nebesa u Aše. Studies in postmediaeval archaeology 1, Praha, 26-66.

Siklósi, Gy. 2002: Egy székesfehérvári fogadó 18-19. századi üveg- és kerámiaanyaga. A Szent István Király MúzeumKözleményei A. sorozat 37. Szám. Budapest.

Slivka, M. 1997: Životný štýl rehoľníkov. Jedálny lístok v mníšskom spoločenstve. Historická revue 9, Bratislava,25-26.

- 2001: Doterajšie poznatky z dejín a kultúry kresťanstva na Slovensku (4.-15. storočie) – Knowledge on the historyand culture of Christianity in Slovakia (4.-15. century). Studia archaeologica Slovaca mediaevalia III-IV, 2000-2001,Bratislava, 17-50.

Steinhübel, J. 2004: Nitrianske kniežatstvo. Počiatky stredovekého Slovenska. Bratislava.


452


Svoboda, J. F. 1929: Československá lidová keramika. Příspěvky k soubornému studiu. (Soupis značené lidovékeramiky čsl.). Národopisný věstník českoslovanský 22, Praha, 61-86.

Špiesz, A. 1962: Remeslá a cechy v Ponitrí v 16. až 18. storočí. Vlastivedný časopis 11, Bratislava, 96.

- 1963: Remeslo v Nitrianskej stolici v polovici 18. storočia. Historické štúdie 8, Bratislava, 181-190.

Toranová, E. 1991: Medikováčstvo. Bratislava.

Marián SamuelArcheologický ústav SAVAkademická 2949 21 [email protected]

Marián ČurnýArcheologický ústav SAVVPS KošiceHrnčiarska 13040 01 Koš[email protected]


SAMUEL, Marián - ČURNÝ, Marián. Pottery from the cellar of a monastic dwelling at the Kamaldul...

Documents

Transcript of SAMUEL, Marián - ČURNÝ, Marián. Pottery from the cellar of a monastic dwelling at the Kamaldul...