¹ I am most grateful to Dr Demakopoulou for inviting me to publish the pottery from her excavation, and for her generosity in providing me with a transcript of her day book and copies of her plans and photographs. I am also indebted to Dr A. Andreiomenou and the staff of the Thebes Museum for their help in facilitating my work and for their hospitality during my stay in Thebes. This study was supported financially by grants from the Twenty-seven Foundation (University of London), the Dr M. Aylwin Cotton Foundation, and the Managing Committee of the British School at Athens. The drawings are the work of Elizabeth Cating and Anne Hooton. All are gratefully thanked.

Special abbreviations:

Armstrong 1989 = Armstrong, P., ‘Some Byzantine and later settlements in eastern Phokis’, BSA 84 (1989), 1–42 Google Scholar

Bakirtzis = Bakirtzis, Ch., Βυζαντινά τσουκαλολάγηνα (Athens, 1989)Google Scholar

Frantz = Frantz, A., ‘Turkish pottery from the Agora’, Hesp. 11 (1942), 1–28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hayes = Hayes, J., Sarachane, ii: The Pottery (Princeton, 1992)Google Scholar

MacKay = MacKay, T., ‘More Byzantine and Frankish pottery from Corinth’, Hesp. 36 (1967), 249–320 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Megaw 1968 = Megaw, A. H. S., ‘Zeuxippus ware’, BSA 63 (1968), 67–88 Google Scholar

Megaw 1975 = Megaw, A. H. S., ‘An early thirteenth-century Aegean glazed ware’, in Robertson, G. and Henderson, G. (eds), Studies in Memory of David Talbot Rice (Edinburgh, 1975)Google Scholar

Megaw 1989 = Megaw, A. H. S., ‘Zeuxippus ware again’, in Déroche, V. and Spieser, J.-M. (eds), Recherches sur la céramique byzantine (BCH Supp. 18; 1989), 259–66Google Scholar

Morgan = Morgan, C. H., Corinth, xi: The Byzantine Pottery (Harvard, 1942)Google Scholar

Piérart and Thalmann = Piérart, M. and Thalmann, J.-P., ‘Céramique romaine et médiévale’, Études argiennes (BCH supp. 6; 1980), 459–82Google Scholar

Symeonoglou = Symeonoglou, S., The Topography of Thebes (Princeton, 1985)Google Scholar

For general information about Thebes see Koder, J. and Hild, F., Tabula Imperii Byzantini, i: Hellas und Thessalia (Vienna, 1976), 269–71Google Scholar; for Thebes as the administrative capital see Herrin, J. E., ‘Realities of Byzantine provincial government: Hellas and Peloponnesos, 1180–1205’, DOP 29 (1975). 253–84.Google Scholar

² Sabbidis, A., ‘Ἡ Βυζαντινή Θήβα 996/7–1204 μ.Ξ.’, Ιστορικογεωγραφικά, 2 (1988), 33–52 Google Scholar; Harvey, A., Economic Expansion in the Byzantine Empire, 900–1200 (Cambridge, 1989), 218–20.Google Scholar

³ Niketae Choniatae Historia, ed. van Dieten, J. A. (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, xi; Berlin, 1975), 99, 608CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Miller, W., Essays on the Latin Orient (Cambridge, 1921), 33 Google Scholar; Lopez, R. S., ‘The silk industry in the Byzantine empire’, Speculum, 20 (1945), 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela: Critical Text, Translation and Commentary, ed. Adler, M. N. (London, 1907), 10.Google Scholar

⁵ Lilie, R. J., Handel und Politik zwischen dem byzantinischen Reich und den italienischen Kommunen Venedig, Pisa und Genua in der Epoche der Komnenen und der Angeloi (1081–1204) (Amsterdam, 1984), 210–13Google Scholar; Harvey, A., ‘Economic expansion in central Greece in the eleventh century’, BMGS 8 (1982–1983), 21–8.Google Scholar

⁶ Benjamin of Tudela (n. 4), 10.

⁷ For a comprehensive description and interpretation of the physical remains of Byzantine Thebes see Bouras, Ch., ‘City and village: urban design and architecture’, Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzanlinistik, 31.2 (1981), 622–5.Google Scholar Symeonoglou (n. 1) is an invaluable tool for historians interested in Thebes in any period. Much of his information derives from unpublished sources, partly from his own work and pardy from that of odier archaeologists who have excavated in Thebes. For those reasons it is not always possible to provide references to sources.

⁸ Habitation, : A. Delt. 21 (1966), Chr. 177–81Google Scholar, fig. 3, shows stratigraphy with Byzantine levels; bathhouse: Keramopoullos, A., ‘Αἱ βιομηχανίαι καὶ τὸ ἐμπόριον τοῦ Κάδμου’, Ephemeris (1930). 31, fig. 1Google Scholar; A. Delt. 19 (1964), Chr. 195, 212; Symeonoglou 215, cat. fig. 1, has a detailed plan of the site, divided by period.

⁹ A. Delt. 22 (1967), Chr. 237–9, fig. 4, pl. 165 d.

¹⁰ Symeonoglou, 293–4, 206.

¹¹ A. Delt. 28 (1973), Chr. 247–8, 276.

¹² A. Delt. 22 (1967), Chr. 230; ibid. 23 (1968), Chr. 207.

¹³ A. Delt. 20 (1965), Chr. 237, 253–5, pls 309 c–d, 310–13; ibid. 21 (1966), Chr. 189–91, fig. 11, 210, pl. 196 b; ibid. 24 (1969), Chr. 188, pls 196 b, 197. Sodini, J.-P., ‘Mosaïques paléochrétiennes de Grèce’, BCH 94 (1970), 699–753 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, thought the building was not necessarily a basilica.

¹⁴ A. Delt. 23 (1968), Chr. 207–8, figs 1–2.

¹⁵ A. Delt. 19 (1964), Chr. 192, fig. 1, pl. 221, 210–12, fig. 5.

¹⁶ Catacombs: Keramopoullos, A., A. Delt. 3 (1917), 207 Google Scholar; Delvenakiotis, V., Ὁ Μητροπολίτης Ἰωάννης ὁ Καλοκτένης καὶ αἱ Θῆβαι (Athens, 1970) 23.Google Scholar Habitation, : A. Delt. 25 (1970), Chr. (1970), 220.Google Scholar

¹⁷ A. Delt. 22 (1967), Chr. 239.

¹⁸ Symeonoglou 299, site 229.

¹⁹ A. Delt. 20 (1965), Chr. 235–6, fig. 3, pl. 281 b; ibid. 21 (1966), Chr. 183, pl. 194 b.

²⁰ Demakopoulou, K., AAA 8 (1975), 192–9.Google Scholar

²¹ A. Delt. 22 (1967), Chr. 230; ibid. 23 (1968), Chr. 208–10, flg. 3; ibid. 24 (1969), Chr. 183.

²² A. Delt. 23 (1968), Chr. 212,pl. 162 a.

²³ Demakopoulou, K. and Konsola, D., A. Delt. 30 (1975), Mel. 44–89.Google Scholar

²⁴ Church: Symeonoglou 252–3, site 33. Habitation, : A. Delt. 25 (1970), Chr. 220.Google Scholar

²⁵ Symeonoglou 256, site 50.

²⁶ Tombs: Symeonoglou 252, site 32; mosaics, : A. Delt. 27 (1972), Chr. 321 Google Scholar; ibid. 28 (1973), Chr. 285–6; habitation: A. Delt. 27 (1972), Chr. 321; cathedral: ibid. 3 (1917), 66; Orlandos, A. K., Arch. Byz. Mnem. 5 (1939), 121, 144 n. 1Google Scholar; Delvenakiotis (n. 16), 71–2.

²⁷ For a report of the excavations see Demakopoulou, K., A. Delt. 35 (1980), Chr. 217.Google Scholar

²⁸ Built in AD 1900: Symeonoglou 267, site 97.

²⁹ The house no longer stands; presumably it was shaved off to ground level when the square was created.

³⁰ Hayes, Saraçhane (n. 1); Morgan (n. 1).

³¹ Megaw 1968; Megaw 1989; Megaw 1975 (see n. 1).

³² Piérart and J.-P. Thalmann, (n. 1); MacKay (n. 1); Bakirtzis (n. 1).

³³ Armstrong, 1989 (n. 1).

³⁴ Frantz (n. 1).

³⁵ Armstrong 1989, 3–4.

³⁶ Bakirtzis, pl. 26, nos 2–3 and 5, illustrates various possible forms. Small fragments of vessels of the kind which would have been used at table, or in the production of food, are distinctive in that they tend to have thinner walls than amphorae, and are frequently more finely made, but it is difficult to establish their complete form from small fragments.

³⁷ 39: Hayes, Saraçhane, fig. 7, no. 8; 40: ibid. fig. 7, no. 1. The impressed motif of 41 is quite blurred; see ibid. 21 on the possible function of these impressions as potters' marks.

³⁸ Morgan, pl. 41 c, no. 1004; pl. 32 a, K, nos. 749, 755.

³⁹ Williams, C. K., ‘Corinth 1976, Forum south-west’, Hesp. 46 (1977), 79, nos 44 and 45.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Cabona, D., Gardini, A., and Pizzolo, O., ‘Nuovi dati sulla circolazione delle ceramiche mediterranee dallo scavo di Palazzo Ducale a Genova (secc. XII–XIV)’, in La ceramica medioevale nel Mediterraneo occidentale (Firenze, 1986), 475–7Google Scholar, fig. 15, no. 203, is very similar to 51.

⁴¹ Piérart and Thalmann, B 32 is a close parallel to 54. The Argos group B 23–8 is generally comparable to the unglazed table wares from our deposit: two handles, flat bases and approximately vertical necks; although B 31–4 have only one handle, they too are similar. But for the finishing touches, especially in the combed decoration, Thebes itself provides the closest parallels: A. Delt. 23 (1968), Chr., pl. 159. 52–4 are probably products of Thebes.

⁴² Armstrong 1989, pl. 8, 76.

⁴³ At Corinth it has been found in layers dated to the first half of the 13th cent: Williams, C. K., ‘Corinth 1977, Forum south-west’, Hesp. 47 (1978), 34, pl. 6, no. C-1977–5.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Williams, C. K., Hesp. 58 (1989), 158, pl. 38, no. 22Google Scholar, ‘local olive-green glazed’, as 91.

⁴⁵ Relevant literature and the range of dates are given in Armstrong 1989, 44.

⁴⁶ Corinth: Morgan 59, fig. 41 α 242 is a similar shape and size, 243 has the same speckled brown glaze. Saraçhane: Hayes, Saraçhane, pl. 6 ƒ though this is a white ware.

⁴⁷ Armstrong 1989, pl. 8, no. 49, illustrates a larger fragment from a similar vessel.

⁴⁸ A. Delt. 23 (1968), Chr. pl. 159.

⁴⁹ Bakirtzis, pl. 22, nos 3–4, illustrates them.

⁵⁰ Bakirtzis, pls 27–8, illustrates the complete form. Sizes vary; 121 is rather smaller than 120.

⁵¹ Piérart and Thalmann 103, pl. 9, no. B 37.

⁵² Many examples of ‘random painted’ bowls have been found at the joint Athens Archaeological Society and Australian Archaeological Institute excavations at Torone on the Sithonia penisula in Chalkidike, where they span the transition between Byzantine and post-Byzantine.

⁵³ For this carinated form in the late 12th cent, see Armstrong, P., ‘A group of Byzantine bowls from Skopelos’, OJA 10.3 (Nov. 1991), fig. 7, no. 20.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Shipwreck: ibid. fig. 7, no. 17; E. Phokis: Armstrong 1989, 36, fig. 21, pl. 11 b, no. 1.

⁵⁵ Morgan, pl. 32 b; Armstrong 1989, pl. 3, no. 7.

⁵⁶ Armstrong 1989, pl. 3, no. 7.

⁵⁷ The complete small jug is illustrated in Catalogue of an Exhibition to Mark the Centenary of the Christian Archaeological Society (1884–1984) (Athens, 1984), 61, no. 96.

⁵⁸ They are illustrated in Bakirtzis, pl. 20, nos 1–4.

⁵⁹ MacKay 277, no. 53, pl. 66.

⁶⁰ Hayes's Turkish type series 12: Hayes, Saraçhane, fig. 107, 12.1; 108, 12.2 and 3. They are all green glazed as are the Theban examples; at Torone, on the Sithonia penisula in Chalkidike, there is also a monochrome brown version. Publication of the Byzantine and later pottery from Torone (see n. 52) is forthcoming.

⁶¹ All parallels noted here are from Hayes, Saraçhane. 183: 280, fig. 107, nos 6.1 and 6.2, Turkish type 6, mid-16th cent.; 184: 284, fig. 113, no. 27.1, Turkish type 27, late 15th cent. 185: 280, fig. 107, no. 3.1, Turkish type 3. 187–8: 281, fig. 111, nos 15.1 and 15.2 (note the same green glaze), Turkish type 15. 190: 280, fig. 11, nos 10.1 and 10.2, Turkish type 10. 191: 280, fig. 110, no. 8.8, Turkish type 8, late 16th to early 17th cent. 194: 281, fig. 11, no. 16.1, Turkish type 16, late 17th cent.

⁶² Gourgiotis, G. K., Πρώιμα μεταβυζαντινά κεραμεικά’, Αρχαιολογία, 1 (Nov. 1981), 74–6Google Scholar, for the shape: A. Delt. 23, Chr. (1968), pl. 159, bottom right, from excavations in Thebes.

⁶³ Frantz, fig. 5, illustrates the oval panels, of which 201 and 202 clearly preserve fragments.

⁶⁴ Piérart and Thalmann, fig. 6 and pl. 8, no. B 21. Note the kink on the inner neck profile, opposite the point where the handle is attached on the exterior.

⁶⁵ For 254 see Gelichi, S., ‘La ceramica ingubbiata medioevale nell' Italia nord-orientale’, in La ceramica medioevale … (n. 40), 377, fig. 29Google Scholar, which is closely dated to the 1350s.

⁶⁶ Frantz 2.

⁶⁷ Hayes, Saraçhane, 369–70, figs. 127–8.

⁶⁸ MacKay 277, no. 53, pl. 66.

⁶⁹ 326: Daux, G., BCH 92 (1968), 1003–4, fig. 2Google Scholar, from Argos, found in a 17th-cent. deposit. 327: 600 Years of Ceramics from Faenza (Athens, 1989), 38–9, nos. 10 and 13.

⁷⁰ Hayes, Saraçhane, 393, ‘red burnished’.

⁷¹ Ibid. 392–3, fig. 149,1, XVIII.

⁷² Ibid. 393, ‘early types’.

⁷³ Megaw, A. H. S. and Jones, R. E., ‘Byzantine and allied pottery: a contribution by chemical analysis to problems of origin and distribution’, BSA 78 (1983), at pp. 242, 247, 257–8Google Scholar, batches D and J, white wares found at Corinth and Istanbul.

⁷⁴ White wares have been found, in small quantities, at a number of sites in the eastern Mediterranean: at Sparta, in the excavations of the theatre; on Melos, on the surface at the site of Kato Komia; in Lakonia, on the surface at a village site near the old monastery of Agioi Saranda; and at Xanthos, from the excavations of the lower basilica on the city site.

⁷⁵ Such as the Komnenian red-bodied sgraffito, green and brown painted, or slip-painted wares.

⁷⁶ As white wares come to be recognized more frequently, it may be possible to identify particular unglazed wares with which they are associated chronologically.

⁷⁷ Megaw and Jones (n. 74), 261, have shown that red wares were produced at a number of places.

⁷⁸ Morgan, pls 23, 32, 39, illustrates the styles.

⁷⁹ Armstrong 1989, 4, fabrics A and B.

⁸⁰ See Megaw 1968 for identification of the ware; also Armstrong (n. 53), 335–46, for similar types outside the original definition. The fabric of 133 corresponds to fabric A in my classification of fabrics from sites in Eastern Phokis; the other Aegean wares from Thebes are fabric C (Armstrong 1989, 4).

⁸¹ Ibid. fig. 3, no. 5.

⁸² Megaw's description ‘this distinctive pottery family’ expresses the complex and not yet fully understood nature of these various types most cogently (Megaw 1989, 260). Armstrong (n. 83) is a compilation of findspots of Zeuxippus derivatives from Trebizond to Pisa.

⁸³ Armstrong, P., ‘Zeuxippus derivative bowls from Sparta’, in Sanders, J. M. (ed.), Φιλολάκων: Lakonian Studies in Honour of Hector Catling (Oxford, 1992), 1–9, fig. 1.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ It is impossible to say whether these bowls were all made at one centre; their general uniformity would suggest that they were.

⁸⁵ Bakirtzis, pls 27–8, shows the complete form and variations of it.

⁸⁶ The form is common: see A. Delt. 23 (1968), Chr. pl. 159, for other examples from Thebes. It is the glaze that makes the Larisa pots unique.

⁸⁷ Bakirtzis (pl. 7) illustrates two-handled examples without trefoil mouths. From fragments it is difficult to assign the complete form; either shape is possibly found here.

⁸⁸ Examples of the variation in fabric are: 4, medium-hard, semi-fine, pale-brown to beige with occasional medium to large lime inclusions and angular grey grits; 52, medium-hard, semi-fine, brown with frequent small lime inclusions; 109, hard, fine, pale brown with no obvious inclusions.

⁸⁹ Personal communication from Dr J. Hayes, who has studied survey finds from the territory of Boiotia.

⁹⁰ There probably was a handle which has not been preserved.

⁹¹ I am grateful to Dominique Orssaud for her opinion on this vessel.

⁹² These fragments perhaps represent a relatively small number of vessels.

⁹³ Piérart and Thalmann, B 17.

⁹⁴ Pringle, D., ‘Some more proto-maiolica from ‘Athlit (Pilgrims’ Castle) and a discussion of its distribution in the Levant’, Levant, 14 (1982), 117, fig. 10, no. 4Google Scholar; G. D. R. Sanders, ‘Three Peloponnesian churches and their importance for the chronology of late 13th- and early 14th-century pottery in the eastern Mediterranean’, in Déroche and Spieser (eds) (cited in n. 1), 191.

⁹⁵ Wheler, G., A Journey into Greece (London, 1682), 332 Google Scholar, gives a detailed description of them.

⁹⁶ Hobhouse, J. C., A Journey through Albania and Other Provinces of Turkey in Europe and Asia during the Years 1809 and 1810 (London, 1817), 234 Google Scholar, could not find them.

⁹⁷ For pipes from Athens and Corinth see Robinson, R. C. W., ‘Tobacco pipes of Corinth and of the Athenian Agora’, Hesp. 54 (1985), 149–203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ead., ‘Clay tobacco pipes from the Kerameikos’, AM 98 (1983), 265–85.

⁹⁸ See Robinson, (n. 97), pl. 55, no. 40, although the Athenian one has a black finish. Hayes's chronology has been followed here: Hayes, Saraçhane, 393, ‘red burnished’.