Pierre Aupert - Ceramique Slave a Argos (Google Translation)

7/29/2019 Pierre Aupert - Ceramique Slave a Argos (Google Translation)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pierre-aupert-ceramique-slave-a-argos-google-translation 1/7

Attention has been drawn, for some time already, on sporadic discoveries of

Slavic objects in northern certainly, but also in Central and Southern Greece: bronze

buckle in Nea Anchialos, buckle and ceramic in Demetrias, in Corinth, buckle inKenchréai, in Corfu, ceramic and metal objects at Tiryns, Orchomenus, ceramic in

Olympia and elsewhere also, no doubt. I do not indeed deliver systematic research and it

is certain that the museum storerooms of other sites contain unknown Slavic objects: theytend to pass unnoticed, and the scarcity of publications in the Greek territory quickly fails

research of the excavator which them remarks.

The Argos site is to add to the list. An excavation of the thermes A, indeed provides regularly ceramic from the stratigraphically closed deposits and some shards

from the aphrodision, agora and excavations of Ephoria. Also the question of the date of

this ceramic is posed, much more acutely, than that regularly present in the baths, in

layers of destruction, which were clearly related to an invasion, historically accurateevent (Aupert 1980: 373).

An archaeological approach we had already oriented towards the end of the sixth

century. The dating of material to which Avaro-Slavic shards are found stratigraphically

associated is placed in regularly after 550. On the other hand, J.P. Sodini found on theagora, in a level of destruction similar to ours, a treasure of burned coins, most recent of

which date in the vicinity of 580, while J.F. Bommelaer and Y. Grandjean attribute at thistime also the destruction of the district of Kypseli. These fires and these dates are

furthermore approximate to other neighboring events and, in particular, burial of

treasures "of mill", of the Ostéothèque, and “of Tholos in Athens”, dating in ±582-584, inthe isthmus, dated in 583-ca 585 and destruction of Kenchreai, at the end of the sixth

century (cf. n. 4), and in Corinth.

The investigation which Yannopoulos delivered (supra, p. 323-371), from the

historiographical sources and numismatic evidence, confirms this approach and providesa precision extremely important for archaeologists: the Avaro-Slavic destroyed Argos in

585 and were dispersed at 586.Instead then of attempting, as we are usually reduced, to obtain dating thanks tovery deteriorated coins or the study of a ceramic typology, we are in the privileged

inverse position, where history event brings a date very punctual for several categories of

equipment. Situation fruitful because it allows three types of exploitation:1. Historians of Slavic ceramics find in abandoned material in place by the invader a

repertoire of shapes and designs in use at one limited time, very strictly localized.

2. Ceramic Avaro-slave at Argos, and this is how it must be the case elsewhere, is

regularly present in the layers of destruction who find themselves very preciselydated.

3. It is associated, in these layers, a variety of materials and sometimes abundant,

whose duration of use thereby receives a terminus ante quem particularlyinteresting.

The presentation of the Avaro-slavic ceramic material is the subject of this article.

The second point provides excavators with a reference valuable for chronology of their stratigraphy. The third, he will receive a start operating in the following article. As for the

third, he will receive a beginning operating in the following article (Aupert 1980: 374).

Catalogue



For locations of finds, please refer to the plan Fig. 1.

All material is of the same type of vessel, pot with flat base, ovoid convex belly,and rim flared throat (see below).

The shapes entirely preserved are uncommon and simple classification (see

below and Fig. 33-35) seemed more clear to group materials by type of decoration - it,except in one case maybe (23), does not seem related to a particular form.

Following the inventory number and eventually the number of the figure, we give

the source (Th = Thermes) and dimensions (in cm; in the case of a broken width andheight, or the largest dimension of conserved, without further specification).

The color of the clay is indicated only in special cases. Indeed, it is generally a

very dark gray (Munsell 2, 5 YR 3/0), that brightens sometimes up to gray, or even to

chamois (33, 41), very rarely brick pinkish (12, 20).The decorations are described from top to bottom and we use the following

abbreviations: b. = Band; hor. = Horizontal; vert. = Vertical; rect. = Straight; ond. =

Wavy; inf. = Lower; F = fragment; d. = Diameter. They are almost always incised with

the comb: we therefore specify the number of strands.The average thickness of the walls is 0.7 cm.

Decoration with most often alternating straight and wavy bands – 1-21a

Decoration with bands of contiguous rectilinear streaks – 22

Decoration with bands of horizontal and vertical streaks – 23-30

Decorating with horizontal bands and vertical obliques – 31-38

Decorating with of bands of intersecting horizontal and oblique streaks – 39-41

Decorating with bands of horizontal and oblique comb brands – 42-43

Isolated lines – 44-45

Without decoration – 46-57

Technical features

The dough

The coarse clay, mixed with gravel or small stones around which she retracted by

cooking, creating cavities. The density of these stones, as well as their size varies

according to the vases. In one of them at least (54), crushed reddish ceramic was usedalso as a degreaser. Many other cavities, voids, are result of the combustion of vegetable

particles mixed with the dough. It is this set which gives an aspect so peculiar to Avaro-

slavic ceramics and is the common feature of all production (Aupert 1980а: 384). We



will see below, a similar appearance is however covered by mésohelladiques productions

and Frankish, which it is important to distinguish (Aupert 1980а: 387).

Shaping

The pot is assembled by hand, probably on a simple rotating plate, moved well:wall thickness varies significantly, the profile is not regular and there are clearly

sometimes fingerprints on the internal and external surfaces, or bumps (54). Some

regularization is obtained by a smoothing with hand, often vertical, but also (11), with aspatula, a cloth or a handful of herbs (?), in inside and outside. Outside, the spatula

strokes, sometimes applied after incision of the decor (11, 21) can be regarded as an

element of the latter.

The application of décor

It is done by rotating the vessel, sometimes in a single rotation, sometimes with

repeated. The instrument is the comb with from 2 to 15 strands, more rarely a smallspatula (5, 11, 21? 45) or a punch (44). The strands of the comb are probably small

wooden sticks (the fibers are often visible at the bottom of the grooves), flexible (theydiffer sometimes under pressure or slipping, especially in curves undulating in waves),

variable caliber (0.5 to 3.5 mm), sometimes even within the comb (32) and sometimes

also of unequal length, the shorter appear only at higher pressures (8, 33, 36, etc. .).Flexibility is likely depending on the nature of the wood, but also more or less

free length of the strands. One almost constantly chooses a more flexible comb to run

wavy bands.

The variable resistance of the strands explains that some designs are inciseddeeply and firmly: 2, 8, 9, 12 (b. rect.), while others seem to scratch the surface of the

clay (12 b. Ond., 25, 28 ...).

The shapes

The fragments found, among which no handle appears, without exception belongto the same forms that copies reconstructed: the frustoconical thick-walled "pots", with

flat base, ovoid body with more or less swollen, throat-neck wide enough under a more or

less flared rim. None has the handle. The only suspension element is constituted by a hole

in the rim of No. 39.Here we can distinguish three variants of this general form, that we find again in

the rest, apart from the fairing accentuated form 2 in Olympia.

Form 1 (fig. 33): the diameter of the base narrower than the lip, bulging curve belly, shoulder higher or lower, concave neck and flared lip, without breaking in reverse

curvature. See 1, 2, 20, 34, 39, 47, 54. No. 31 (Fig. 33), particularly stocky, approximates

the shape 3.Form 2 (Fig. 34): wider base and especially dual frustoconical belly. See 23.

Form 3 (Fig. 34): base diameter less than that of the lip, slightly swollen bellies,

cylindroid. See 32, 25?, 55?



Features: Besides the suspension hole in the edge of the No. 39 (form 1), there is a

hole in the center of the base of No. 58: this pot has been used as a colander or draining a

cheese eg.

Décor

The decoration with bands of horizontal stripes alternately straight and wavy,

waves or not, is most commonly used, on the Argive material as throughout the Balkan

region, among indigenous peoples, of the fifth and sixth centuries, then slaves.It is at once the oldest and the one that is maintained as long as we see. Its

banality is such that it appears even on objects destined to remain invisible as pipe

elements.

We find that it coexist at 585, with more varied patterns: bands of oblique or vertical streaks, in panel or intersecting horizontal bands, marks of comb localized.

This decoration carries in general in the neck and the upper part of the body (1, 3,

etc..). Nevertheless it may, from that date, go back under the rim (2, 6, 7) and occupy the

entire surface of the body (23). Rarer, but also attested elsewhere, is the occurrence of one (or two) wavy lines inside the vessel on the edge (4, 23) or, on the body, of isolated

features or traits flatted on the lip (4).The proportion of undecorated vessels, relatively low (27%), is one that can be

seen elsewhere at the same time or later. Synchronism between decor of bands of strikes

and isolated lines, sometimes on the same vessel (5) is to be noted: at first sight isolatedlines (grooves or deep incision) could pass for a characteristic of later times, we see,

infra, it is not so.

Origin and typology

It is not here to determine the exact place material Argive within many

productions Slavic: this would require, still nonexistent synthetic, to immerse themselvesin the maze of local publications, that highlight almost as many "horizons" or "cultures"

as there is excavations, and most importantly, have direct contact with the objects

themselves: what we are virtually impossible.

Origin

The origin of these forms is certainly the olla Roman in its simplified formwithout foot, as it was commonly used in imperial times. It is the same for the basic

decoration, bands of horizontal strikes alternately straight and wavy. The first example

that I know is on a dolium, dated by two coins from the time of Augustus. It is widelyused in the later Empire on common ceramics, especially the fifth and sixth centuries, and

especially in the sixth century, there is a whole class of common pottery, but of excellent

quality, which has exactly the same basic décor as Slavic ceramics. It is well documentedin Argolis and Gorinthie as in Argos, where it is, most often, in the destruction layers

dated precisely by Slavic ceramics.

Typology



Before anything else, it should be noted that the Argive forms from the current

excavation, cover only one type of vessel: pot with a flat bottom and bulging walls: this isgenerally the case in the antique-slavic assemblies, but there are also species of lékanés

with thick walls almost vertical and low, without rim, missing in the moment in Argos

and attested in Tiryns.Forms of pots considered here are the simplest and oldest of this type of ceramic,

to rely on classifications established by archaeologists in the Balkans. They know, in fact,

the widest dissemination in this region gradually invaded by people Avaro-Slavic steppesof southern Russia or Moldova Danube, in the course of the sixth century. We therefore

find in the Russian literature, Romanian, Hungarian, Yugoslav, Polish, Bulgarian and

often even German, as Slavic invasions pushed far, amount of parallel to our findings, as

well as in Corinth or Olympia.But by consulting these classifications and other publications, we find that the

same form or the same decorations, continue for several centuries. Some criteria, often

tenuous it is true, however, can be established. There is in fact, over time, the more

frequent use of wheel, forms often evolve towards greater extent in curves (but primitiveforms often remain parallel), ribs stand out, sometimes, in the Middle Ages, and we see

the emergence of other, especially, in the eighth century, pots equipped with handles, jugs and bowls. Deep and spaced stripes, which appear isolated on our Argive copies,

gradually become a systematicly used, while that involved new forms of decoration (V

incisions, small isolated features, etc..) and encountered fewer undecorated pots. It is possible, moreover, that marks potter (?), on the basis of pots of some productions,

appear only in VII century: in any case no finds from Greek soil does not present, to my

knowledge, this characteristic.

This brief overview will for merit of emphasizing the tenuity of dating criteria,and in this respect, the usefulness of an assemblage dated as well as ours, along with the

limitations of this utility: it is difficult to date a shard, even an assemblage of Slavic

ceramic with a margin chronological reduced, unless it is particularly important and wellcharacterized, if one has no exterior historical index, as is the case in Argos.

Mésohelladique, Frankish and Slavic ceramics

Whether or not it has external historical sources or associations with dated

archaeological material, it is still necessary, if one wants to specify or not to be mistaken

for several centuries, not to confuse slavic with a broken shard mésohelladique or franc.There is indeed a whole category of coarse mésohelladique ceramic, not tourned,

with blackish dimpled dough, containing small pebbles. Its appearance is similar to that

of the Slavic ceramic, but its forms (small carinated bowls or not and especially large jarswith swollen belly) are different. In cases where the smallness of the sherd does not

appreciate precisely this difference in shape, feel, however, brings a hint: mésohelladique

coarse pottery is characterized, as the Minyan, although to a lesser degree, by its smoothtouch, it has less or no rocks and the color changes often pink; and finally

mésohelladiques shards are often thicker because of the greater frequency of jars.

It is rare, however, that one hesitates to distinguish a layer mésohelladique with a

layer of sixth century AD! It is very common, on the other hand, that are found



neighboring and difficult to distinguish, and to date, the layers of the sixth and twelfth

centuries AD, especially in places like Argos, precisely characterized by a relative

depletion between those times. Also the distinction between Slavic and Frankish potteryis particularly important: it is unfortunately no less sensitive to the point that I think the

confusion. Forms do not differ in effect practically: perhaps francs pots are more likely

cylindrical - but this form is not unknown in the Slavic ceramic - or are provided relatedforms, and there is generally almost-identity on this point. Both productions are

sometimes undecorated, and most often decorated with the same type of decor. Certain

Frankish vessels are, however, decorated with roulette and zigzags to the punch, but at atime (seventh-eighth centuries) where they do not appear in Greece. As for the look and

feel, judging by the single Argive copy known to date and has been identified as frankish

by its stratigraphic position (see below, 480, Β 42), they can also be misleading: ceramic

Frankish, not tourned too, has, it seems, much less impurities (or just the size of a pebble)and smaller and more evenly distributed dimples, which provides a softer touch. This

feature could be a criteria, if two of our shards certainly Slavic (54 and 55) … , barely

differentiated from the shards francs by the presence of pebbles.

However, these examples are isolated (2 of 63) and within ± 97% of cases,therefore, the

large, irregular cells, and the presence of small stones should be sufficient toindicate the Slavic origin.

Posterity of the Romano-Slavic decor with wavy streaks

The type of decoration in alternating bands of wavy and straight streaks, we have

seen the Roman origin, continuation in the imperial era, and borrowing by Avaro-Slavs,

had an amazing posterity: used by Franks, as we have just seen, it is found in Italy in theMiddle Ages and the Renaissance and continues in the Byzantine world and under the

Turkish occupation, and finally to the present day, the common ceramic sale in the

bazaars of the village.

Conclusion : les Slaves et la destruction d'Argos

Ceramic Avaro-slave is regularly associated with destruction layers of baths A: it

is found in the middle of piers and collapsed hypocaust floors, in thick layers of ash

scattered on the ground of the rooms, in the underground with their vault broken by the

fall of the columns, on the last floor of the North street in the middle of masonry andcollapsed in heaps of material lying among the ruins of the bathroom of a building SW

baths (see below, p . 399-404). It seems that the invader has installed a few camps in the

ruins of the building, or perhaps before destroying it (see below, p. 399), because thedensity of finds is much greater than in the agora (5 shards), the aphrodision (1 sherd), or

the building in Kypseli destroyed at the same time, but where no Slavic shard, apparently,

was not found. Such destruction does not seem related to many burials that have beendiscovered in the baths in the upper layers, which is consistent with the information

provided by the written sources (vp 366-367) on the preventive exodus of population.

Apart from this disaster, which Argos took a long time to recover, and onomastics

of the region (vp 351-353), the only traces that we have of left this invasion are vestiges



of a poor ceramic. It reflects the rough and nomadic character of the invader: ceramic

with a unique shape, which must reflect the simplicity of culinary preparations and their

frugality, pot to cook and that one carries, hung or stalled in a truck, but empty and it willfill in looting of the next step. Once the population partially returned and the band

dispersed (586) and sedentary, this ceramic disappears.

It is this feature that makes its price even today for the excavator, which, together with historical information, provides a chronological marker precious to the breaking

point between Argos of prosperity and Argos of decadence. It reflects the phenomenon

that marked the break: it remains to explain the reason for such a brutal recession after araid so devastating, but so little murderer, and so limited in time.

Documents

Pierre Aupert - Ceramique Slave a Argos (Google Translation)