Version classiqueVersion mobile

Fish & Ships

 | 
Emmanuel Botte
, 
Victoria Leitch

Troisième partie. Études archéologiques méditéranéennes

Fish products and their trade in Tauric Chersonesos/Byzantine Cherson: the development of a traditional craft from Antiquity to the Middle Ages

Martina Čechová

Texte intégral

Introduction

1Tauric Chersonesos was founded in the second half of the 5th c. BC as a colony of Herakleia Pontike, which was a colony of the Greek city of Megara on the southern shores of the Crimea; an outpost of the Classical world. Tauric Chersonesos, was, however, on the western side of the Crimean peninsula, and was established in order to increase Greek influence in this area. The centre of ancient Chersonesos was on the western side of the Qarantine Bay, west of Sevastopol Bay, a major Black Sea port with excellent natural harbouring facilities. Qarantine Bay had the advantage of being surrounded by sea from three sides, which was very important from a defensive point of view. The natural conditions around Chersonesos were very promising: there were large pastures, extensive arable lands and suitable conditions for fishing. The location also had potential as a trading hub. (see fig. 1 for location.)

Fig. 1. Locational map of the study area (from Crimean Chersonesos 2003).

Fig. 1. Locational map of the study area (from Crimean Chersonesos 2003).

2Despite its distance from other centres of the ancient world and a location bordering barbarian territory, Chersonesos/Cherson was continually inhabited for almost two thousand years. It began as a Greek colony and then became a significant ally of the Roman empire. The Romans wanted to keep the North Pontic area peaceful, and so placed a garrison at Chersonesos. Later on the Black Sea area came under the influence of the Eastern Roman empire, or, as we call it nowadays, the Byzantine empire. Cherson’s history of good relations with the super powers (Athens, Macedonia, the Roman Empire or the Bosporian Kingdom) and barbarian neighbours was due to skillful politics. Chersonesos thus survived the turbulent period of the 3rd c. AD when many of the former Greek colonies of the Black Sea area were destroyed by barbarian raids. When Chersonesos became Byzantine, it remained important as the northernmost Byzantine outpost, protecting the empire from ouside enemies, and was known from this time as Cherson.

3Cherson was destroyed at the very end of the 13th c. by Mongolian hords and was finally abandoned after another attack about 100 years later. Even before its abandonment its importance had greatly diminished, since trade routes to Crimea led more to the east, to the Italian colonies of Sudak or Kaffa (Feodosija). The geographically strategical location of the Heracleian peninsula was not recognized again until the era of Empress Catherine the Great (1729-1796), when Russian naval bases were sought on the Black Sea. The city of Sevastopol was hence founded at a bay close to ancient Cherson. Fortunately, thanks to the decision to establish Sevastopol next to, and not over, the ruins, the ancient city was not affected by modern building activities. Cherson is therefore considered as an extremly suitable and important place for research, where all the aspects of ancient and medieval city life can be studied.

4Archaeological excavations of Cherson began in 1827. Despite many difficulties mainly in the early years of excavation, many monuments from the city’s long history have been preserved. The protected area covers 500 hectares; only one third has been excavated so far.

5Ancient Chersonesos was built according to Greek architectonic rules for cities (the ancient building boom hit the city in the 3rd c. BC, when the walls, the theatre, the mint, temples, private houses and the agora were built and Chersonesos turned into a flourishing Hellenistic city). The rectangular plan of the streets was kept despite many reconstructions in the Middle Ages.

6Besides its political significance, Cherson served as a trading centre where nomads could sell their products and vice versa. However, the economy of Cherson was based not only on its position as a trading crossroads; there were also various workshop industries that enabled Cherson to trade its own products, one of which was fish products.

1. Fish industry at Cherson Natural conditions for fish processing

  • 1 Mylona 2008, p. 121.
  • 2 Strabo. VII, 4, 7.
  • 3 Soročan 2005, p. 235.
  • 4 Hojte 2005, p. 154.

7Like any seaside town, Cherson was involved with fishing. However, at Cherson this evolved from simple fishing to an advanced industry. One reason for this was that the natural conditions for fishing were extremly favourable in the northern Black Sea because the Dniepr and Don rivers brought fresh water to the sea, which created good conditions for fish life in shallow coastal areas.1 Furthermore, there was an abundance of salt in the area, which was used not only as a commodity to sell but also as a preservative for fish processing. It was Strabo who described the salt beds in the vicinity of Cherson for the first time.2 He wrote about a place 15 stadia from Cherson (approximately 6 km) where salt was worked – in the north-western part of the Herakleian peninsula, where salt mining developed from Antiquity. Salt was a cheap but necessary commodity and trade in salt was one of the most important components of Cherson‘s economy in Antiquity and the Middle Ages alike.3 Salt was also an essential part of the fish production industry, since fish spoil extremly quickly if they are not preserved such as through smoking, drying, preserving or indeed salting. The annual amount of salt needed for fish processing in Cherson is estimated to be 8,00000 kg.4

2. Making garum, salting vats

  • 5 Apicius, 1, 8.
  • 6 Geoponica. 20, XLVI.
  • 7 Romančuk 2005, p. 99.

8The fish sauce, garum, was a very popular foodstuff in Antiquity and also in the Middle Ages. The preparation of garum was described in a Roman cookbook by Apicius5 and also in Geoponica, a 10th c. volume containing advice on breeding domestic animals, veterinary medicine, viticulture, oleoculture and also salting meat and fish and the construction of salting facilities.6 Vats were constructed in Cherson for making garum and the remains represent the best evidence for the size of the fish production industry in Cherson, with over 100 vats so far having been recorded. Moreover, many objects such as fish bones, sinkstones, hooks or needles have been found in the houses in Cherson, providing evidence for this industry.7

  • 8 Id., p. 104.

9The salting vats in question were first excavated at the end of the 19th c.; at this time they were considered to be granaries or water cisterns. Their true function as fish salting vats was revealed when the residues from the walls and bases of the vats were examined and fish remains (or even layers of garum, see below the example of the vat no. 91) were found.8

  • 9 Id., p. 102-103.
  • 10 Id. 1972, p. 51; Id. 2005, p. 104, 107.

10The average volume of Cherson´s vats is 25-30 cubic metres, usually 3 m or more in depth. In comparison with the vats from other northern Black Sea towns like Tyritake, Cherson‘s are very large. In Tyritake there are 8 shallow vats situated close to each other; they were suitable for salting large fish. However, the large, deep vats at Cherson were designed for salting smaller fish and making garum.9 This suggestion is supported by evidence of anchovie bones in their bases. The shape of the vats varies; they were hewn in the rock or dug out of the earth. Their walls were covered by limestone bricks and cemented to be water-resistant, and the floors were covered with pieces of pottery, bricks or limestone plates and also cemented. Some of the bricks had stamps on them, which can be used for dating, such as from vat nos 60, 83, 84, 86, 96.10

  • 11 Hojte 2005, p. 152.
  • 12 Romančuk 1973, p. 246-249; Id. 1977, p. 18-26; Crimean Chersonesos 2003, p. 86; Hojte 2005, p. 15 (...)
  • 13 Bělov 1963, p. 66-67.
  • 14 Romančuk 2005, p. 105.

11Cherson´s vats were not located in a closed district within the city but were connected to (private) houses and spread throughout the city, which is not what we would expect from the information in Geoponica. In many cases a store-room with large pithoi was found next to a vat.11 To quote one example, in the north-eastern part of Cherson, block XV-XVI (modern numbering, see fig. 2, in red) in the yard there were two water tanks, wells and pits for pithoi, for storing the salted fish. Two deep rectangular vats (nos 75, 76, fig.3) were situated in the eastern part of the house. This house was rebuilt from a Hellenistic house in the 1st c. AD.12 . The first period of use for the vats dates back to the 1st-4th c. AD, thought to be connected with the presence of the Roman army in Cherson; the army protected the area, so trade and crafts flourished and the economy of Cherson and its vicinity prospered, especially in the 2nd-3rd c. AD. Moreover, the soldiers needed food, and fish products were cheap and easy to make. This prosperous industry was, however, thought to be in decline in the 4th c. AD.13 Nonetheless, in 1958 a vat (no. 33, fig. 4) built (according to the archaeological finds) after the beginning of the 5th c. was excavated and E. G. Surov, a researcher from the Ural University and the then head of the excavations, argued that fish processing did not finish in the 4th c. but went on into the medieval period.14

Fig. 2. Map of vats of Cherson, divided (where known). (Map after Romančuk 2005, colours are author‘s)

Fig. 2. Map of vats of Cherson, divided (where known). (Map after Romančuk 2005, colours are author‘s)

1. according to period of their use:
till the 6th c. – green
till the break of the 7th c. – red
till the mid-7th c. – vinaceous
till the 8th-10th c. – orange
till the 9th-10th c. – blue
2. according to their building time:
5th-7th c. – yellow
9th-10th c. – pink

Fig. 3. Vats No. 75 and 76 (photo: Martina Čechová).

Fig. 3. Vats No. 75 and 76 (photo: Martina Čechová).

Fig. 4. Vats No. 33 (photo: Martina Čechová).

Fig. 4. Vats No. 33 (photo: Martina Čechová).

3. The End of Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages

  • 15 Bortoli, Kazanski 2002, p. 660.
  • 16 Soročan 2005, p. 234-235. According to him, 19% out of 101 vats were backfilled at that time. Gol (...)

12When vat no. 33 was found, the theory that the fish industry was in decline in the 4th c. AD was reconsidered. More vats from the Middle Ages were excavated, and researchers admitted that the fish production industry successfully survived the transition between Antiquity and the Middle Ages.15 Although many of the vats were backfilled over time, new ones were built and the fish industry was not interrupted. The cause of the backfilling was building development within the city; there is no known reason to suppose there was any reduction in fish processing. For example, a large number of vats were backfilled during the reconstruction works that took place in Cherson at the turn of the 7th c.16

  • 17 Romančuk 1972, p. 45, 50.

13Because of the methods of the early excavators it is not possible to establish when all the vats were built or used, however, a certain number of vats can be classified on the basis of stratigraphy, building techniques and archaelogical finds from the backfilling (mainly amphorae and other pottery fragments). Also coins, bronze and glass objects or bones have been found inside them. Some of the vats were filled in one event and the filling represents a closed set of artefacts. For example, vat nos 30-32 and 52, 55-56 were all backfilled at the beginning of the 7th c. and a basilica was built over them (today called Uvarovskaja after its excavator).17

  • 18 Id. 2005, p. 108-109; Id. 1977, p. 20; Id. 1973, p. 247; Id. 1997, p. 70-71; Sazanov 2000, p. 123 (...)

14The classification of vats (fig. 2), was made (where possible) mainly by A. Romančuk. Vat nos 70, 79, 86, 89, 90, 94, 95 were used up to the 6th c., vat nos 30-33, 52, 56, 63, 68, 92, 97-100 were used up until the turn of the 7th c. Vat nos 33, 34-41, 60-62, 83, 84, 86 were built in the 5th-7th c., while nos 74 and 75 were not backfilled earlier than in the mid-7th c. Vat nos 36-41 worked until the 8th-10th c. Vat nos 14, 34, 35, 47, 48, 93, 96 were used as late the 9th-10th c. Vat no. 91 was built in the 9th or 10th c. Essentially, out of all the datable vats, one third were used in the 6th-10th c.18 The theory of such a long and prosperous fish industry is confirmed by many archaeological finds, mainly coins and pottery fragments. Here are some examples, with dimensions given where available.

Vat no. 84 (base 2.65 x 2.4 m)

  • 19 Beševliev 1964, p. 103.

15The walls of the vat were damaged by the sea, however, the base remained intact and it is of great interest because of the pottery plinths that were used to build it (Fig. 5). 36 plinths were found there (39 x 35 cm, 4-5 cm thick), and 23 had inscriptions that suggest dates between the 5th-7th c.19

Fig. 5. Bottom of the vat no. 84 and brick stamps (after Romančuk 2005).

Fig. 5. Bottom of the vat no. 84 and brick stamps (after Romančuk 2005).

Vat no. 63 (depth 15 m)

  • 20 Comprehensive information on this vat was given by A. Sazanov, see Sazanov 2000.

16This vat20 is 15 m deep and its filling is homogeneous. It consists of many amphorae and other pottery fragments (e. g. Hayes 27, Zeest 99, Late Amphora 1, Late Amphora 2, Carrote etc.). More precise dating of the backfilling was enabled by coins found in the filling. They were issued by Emperor Maurice (AD 582-602), so the backfilling of the vat was dated to the end of the 6th to the beginning of the 7th c.

Vat no. 91 (6.4–6.5 m x 2.5–1.1 m, depth 4.7 m)

  • 21 Jakobson 1950, p. 104, ris. 53a, 53b, 54; Bakirtzis 2003, p. 80-81, fig. 21.
  • 22 Talbot-Rice 1930, p. 27-28; Dark 2001, p. 63; Vroom 2005, p. 77.
  • 23 Romančuk 1972, p. 46, 52; Id. 1977, p. 20; Id. 2005, p. 109.

17The backfill consisted of two layers: a layer of fish remains at the bottom and backfill over this. The backfill material contained many fragments of amphorae with flat bases and rounded handles, attached just under the rim. Another amphora type is characterized by a piriform body and rounded handles connected above the low neck. This type dates to the 11th to 13th c.21 Moreover, many fragments of Glazed Whiteware were found in the backfill. This type of pottery, in general characterized by open vessels that are incised or stamped on the inside, belongs to the standard ware of the middle Byzantine period; it was made from the 8th to the 12th c.22 Coins, that were found in the backfill (228 coins in total) came from the 9th-12th c. The latest are coins of Emperor Alexios I Comnenos (AD 1081-1118). Other than these finds, changes in architecture within Cherson provide further chronological indications; according to the archaeological excavation the vat was built in the 9th or 10th c. and it was probably backfilled in the 11th or in the first half of the 12th c., when the defensive tower no. XIV, which is situated in the immedient vicinity, was being rebuilt.23

  • 24 Soročan 2005, p. 234; Romančuk 2005, p. 110; Vladimirov et al. 2004, p. 552.
  • 25 Romančuk 2005, p. 109.

18The archaeological finds confirm that fish processing continued in Cherson in the Middle Ages. The number of the vats that have been found so far indicates that the fish production industry must have been highly developed in Cherson for garum and salted fish and would have been intended not only for local consumption but also for trade. Indeed, it may have been an essential element of Cherson´s economy as late as the 10th c.24 Estimates of 0.5 kg of garum per inhibitant per day have been suggested (but only one third of the city area has been excavated so far, so it was probably even more.)25

4. Economy and Trade

  • 26 Procopius. III, 7, 10.
  • 27 Golofast 2007, p. 57.
  • 28 Borodin 1991, p. 173-190; Golofast 2007, p. cit., 57; Romančuk, Sazanov 1991, p. 47. Romančuk 200 (...)
  • 29 Vladimirov et al. 2004, p. 554.

19According to archaeological finds (mainly amphorae and other pottery), Cherson was a significant trading center in the first half of the 5th c. In following years the city turned into a strategical outpost of the Byzantine empire. The importance of the city for the empire increased from the end of the 5th c., confirmed in the 6th c. by the rebuilding of the city walls by Emperor Justinian.26 Building activity was supported by the Byzantine government until the turn of the 7th c. because Cherson was considered as strategically important.27 Cherson was also economically signficant thanks to the stable politicial situation in the Crimea at that time. The city belonged to the Eastern Mediterranean trade system and it represented the main Byzantine port in Crimea, for exportation and as an entrepot for redistribution.28 Byzantine support of Cherson was influenced by a need to control not only Cherson but also the Goths, living in the south-western inland of Crimea. Cherson also had contact with nomads, whose goods such as furs, leather or cattle were exported from Cherson to other Byzantine cities.29

5. Transportation

  • 30 Macrobius. 7. 12. 13-16.
  • 31 Ejstrud 2005, p. 171, 175.

20Liquid commodities such as wine, olive oil or garum were transported in amphorae. However, it is difficult to distinguish which types were used for Black Sea products. Shapes may have been selected according to the quality of the content,30 and were certainly defined by practical aspects. For instance dense liquids were transported in amphorae with broad rims; olive oil amphorae generally had a short neck and a globular body; wine amphorae often had a long neck etc. On this basis, amphorae for fish products should have a short conical neck and a broad mouth with a body shape widening towards the lower part with a hollow or full point. Generally, in the Mediterranean the amphorae that answer this description include e. g. types Dressel 7-11 or 20 but also quite a lot of other types, depending on their place of production.31 Black Sea amphoras seem to be slightly larger and heavier but the shapes are similar.

  • 32 Opait 2007, p. 101-121.

21The issue of Roman Black Sea fish amphorae was researched by A. Opait. According to him, the main amphora types include Zeest 75, Zeest 75-Similis, Zeest 85-Similis, Zeest 83 and 89, Fish table amphora 54.32

  • 33 Bakirtzis 2003, p. 70.

22The early Byzantine amphora types follow their antic predecessors. They were called kufon or megarikon33 and served mainly to transport wine and oil, but unfortunately we have little information about fish amphorae types in the early Middle Ages. However, the fish production industry was obviously an essential element of the Cherson economy at this time, as outlined above through evidence of salting vats, so presumably there were amphorae for these products.

6. Trade contacts

  • 34 Sazanov 2007, p. 803-815.
  • 35 Shepard 2009, p. 426.
  • 36 Sazanov 1991, p. 60-72.; Id. 2000, p. 123-149; Id. 2007, p. 803-809.
  • 37 Golofast 1990, p. 50-54.
  • 38 Romančuk, Sazanov 1991, p. 47.

23According to the amphorae and other pottery finds from Cherson, trade was active from the beginning of the 6th to the mid-7th centuries, peaking in the last third of the 6th century.34 There was trade with Constantinople (where fish was an essential element of the diet35), Antiochia, Gaza and Syro-Palestinian area, North Africa, Greece and Asia Minor and, of course, other Crimean and south Pontic settlements.36 Trade with the Mediterranean might not have been direct but may have been through Constantinople.37 However, finished craft products were imported to Cherson, in particular fine pottery produced in Asia Minor, Cyprus and North Africa.38

7. Salt

  • 39 Romančuk 2008, p. 154.
  • 40 Borodin 1991, p. 189.

24Salt, the indispansable stuff for the fish processing, was also exported for centuries. The salt trade was indicated in letters of Pope Martin, who was exiled to Cherson and died there in AD 655/6. These letters represent a very important source of knowledge about life in Cherson at that time, nonetheless, their reliability must be considered carefully, as they could have been influenced by the painful fate of the exile.39 The letters are full of complaints; among other things the Pope complained about the high price of food, mainly grain, which was bought from ships that were then loaded up with salt for export,40 supporting the idea of the continuity of the fish trade.

  • 41 Constantine Porphyrogenitus. 42, 120.
  • 42 Primary Chronicle, year 6453 (945).

25A note on salt mining can be found also in Constantine Porphyrogennetos´ De Administrando Imperio, where the emperor (AD 913-959) writes about the area between the river Dnieper and the city of Cherson, that is made up of «marshes and harbours, in which the Chersonites work the salt».41 Also the AD 945 treaty between the Byzantine‘s and the Rus´ preserved in the Russian Primary Chronicle says that the Russains were not allowed to do any harm to Cherson´s fishermen if they met them in the Dnieper delta.42 So, salting fish and salt mining must have been a long-standing traditional and important craft in Cherson.

Conclusion

26In conclusion, fish processing and salt mining were very important components of the economy of Roman and early and middle Byzantine Cherson. These industries continued without interruption from Roman times through to the early Middle Ages; according to various archaeological finds vats were built in the 5th-6th c. and continued until the 10th-11th c. The exportation of garum, salted fish and salt were a source of wealth for Cherson over many centuries and ensured its position as an important trading centre.

Bibliographie

Abbreviations

ADSV-Antičnaja Drevnost i Srednije Veka

BAR-British Archaeological Reports

LRCW-Late Roman Coarse Ware

MAIET-Materialy po Archeologii, Istorii i Etnografii Tavrii

Bakirtzis 2003 : Bakirtzis(Ch.) - Vyzantina tsoukalolagina, Athina 2003.

Bělov 1963 : Bělov (G. D.) - Iz istorii ekonomičeskoj zizni Chersonesa vo II-IV vv. n. e. In : Antičnyj gorod, Moscow, 1963, p. 66-67.

Beševliev 1964 : Beševliev (V.) - Spätgriechische und spätlateinische Inschriften aus Bulgarien, Berlin, 1964, p. 103.

Borodin 1991 : Borodin (O. P.) - Rimskij papa Martin I. i jevo pisma iz Kryma (statja, perevod, kommentarij). In : Karpov (S. P.) (ed.), Pričernomorje v srednije veka, Moscow 1991, p. 173-190.

Bortoli, Kazanski 2002 : Bortoli (A.), Kazanski (M.) - Kherson and its Region. In : Laiou (A. E.) (ed.), The Economic History of Byzantium: From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D. C. 2002, p. 659-665.

Crimean Chersonesos 2003 : Crimean Chersonesos, Institute of Classical Archaeology and the National Preserve of Tauric Chersonesos, 2003.

Dark 2001 : Dark (K.) - Byzantine Pottery, 2001.

Ejstrud 2005 : Ejstrud (B.) - Size Matters: Estimating Trade of Wine, Oil and Fish-sauce from Amphorae in the First Century AD. In : Bekker-Nielsen (T.) (ed.), Ancient Fishing and Fish Processing in the Black Sea Region, Aarhus University Press, 2005.

Golofast 2007 : Golofast (L.) - Early Byzantine deposits from Chersonesos. In : Aibabin (A.), Ivakin (H.) (eds.), Kiev – Cherson – Constantinople, 2007, p. 45-75.

Golofast 1990 : Golofast (L. A.) - Amforiski iz raskopok rannevizantijskovo Chersona, ADSV, 27, 1990, p. 50-54.

Hojte 2005 : Hojte (J. M.) - The Archaeological Evidence for Fish Processing in the Black Sea Region. In : Bekker-Nielsen (T.) (ed.), Ancient Fishing and Fish Processing in the Black Sea Region, Aarhus University Press 2005, p. 133-161.

Jakobson 1950 : Jakobson (A. L.) - Srednevekovyj Chersones (XII-XIV vv.), Moskva – Leningrad 1950.

Mylona 2008 : Mylona (D.) - Fish-Eating in Greece from the Fifth Century B. C. to the Seventh Century A. D., BAR International Series 1754, 2008.

Opait 2007 : Opait (A.) - A Weighty Matter: Pontic Fish Amphorae. In : Gabrielsen (V.), Lund (J.) (eds.), The Black Sea in Antiquity. Regional and Interregional Economic Exchange, Aarhus University Press 2007, p. 101-121.

Romančuk 1972 : Romančuk (A. I.) - Novyje materialy o vremeni strojitelstva rybozasoločnych vat v Chersonese, ADSV, 9, 1972, p. 45- 53.

Romančuk 1973 : Romančuk (A. I.) - Kompleks VII v. iz portovovo rajona Chersonesa, ADSV, 10, 1973, p. 246-249.

Romančuk 1977 : Romančuk (A. I.) - Plan rybozasoločnych vat Chersonesa, ADSV, 14, 1977, p. 18-26.

Romančuk 1997 : Romančuk (A. I.) - More kak faktor razvitija ekonomiky i kultury vizantijskovo Chersona, Meždunarodnaja konferencija «Vizantija i Krym» (Sevastopol, 6.-11. Ijunija 1997), p. 70-71.

Romančuk 2005 : Romančuk (A. I.) - Studien zur Geschichte und Archäologie des Byzantinischen Cherson, Colloquia Pontica, 11, 2005.

Romančuk 2008 : Romančuk (A. I.) - Issledovanija Chersonesa-Chersona. Raskopki. Gipotezy. Problemy, Jekatěrinburg 2008.

Romančuk, Sazanov 1991 : Romančuk (A. I.), Sazanov (A. V.) - Krasnolakovaja keramika rannevizantijskovo Chersona. Srednevekovyj Cherson: istoria, stratigrafia, nachodki, Sverdlovsk 1991.

Sazanov 1991 : Sazanov (A. V.) - Amfornyj kompleks pervoj četvěrti VII v. n. e. iz severo-vostočnovo rajona Chersonesa, MAIET, II, 1991, p. 60-72.

Sazanov 2000 : Sazanov (A. V.) - Les ensembles clos de Chersonèse de la fin du VIe au troisième quart du VIIe siècles: la chronologie de la céramique. In : Kazanski (M.), Soupalt (V.) (eds.), Les Sites Archéologiques en Crimée et au Caucase durant l´Antiquité tardive et le haut Moyen-Age, Leiden-Boston-Köln, 2000, p. 123-149.

Sazanov 2007 : Sazanov (A. V.) - Les amphores orientales d´époque protobyzantine au nord de la mer Noire: chronologie et typologie. In : Bonifay (M.), Tréglia (J.-C.) (eds.), LRCW 2, BAR International Series 1662, II, 2007, p. 803-815.

Shepard 2009 : Shepard (J.) - Mists and Portals: The Black Sea´s North Coast. In : Mango (M.) (ed.), Byzantine Trade, 4th-12th centuries, 2009, p. 421-441.

Soročan 2005 : Soročan (S. B.) - Vizantijskij Cherson. Očerki istorii i kultury (vtoraja polovina VI-pervaja polovina 10 vv.), Charkov, 2005.

Talbot-Rice 1930 : Talbot-Rice (D.) - Byzantine Glazed Pottery, Oxford 1930.

Vladimirov et al. 2004 : Vladimirov (A. O.), Žuravlov (D. V.), Zubar (V. M.), Križickij (S. D.), Rusjajeva (G. S.), Rusjajeva (M. V.), Skržinska (M. V.), Soročan (S. B.), Chrapunov (M. I.) - Chersones Tavričeskij v seredině I v. do n. e. - VI v. n. e., Charkov 2004.

Vroom 2005 : Vroom (J.) - Byzantine to Modern Pottery in the Aegean, Biljeveld, 2005.

Notes

1 Mylona 2008, p. 121.

2 Strabo. VII, 4, 7.

3 Soročan 2005, p. 235.

4 Hojte 2005, p. 154.

5 Apicius, 1, 8.

6 Geoponica. 20, XLVI.

7 Romančuk 2005, p. 99.

8 Id., p. 104.

9 Id., p. 102-103.

10 Id. 1972, p. 51; Id. 2005, p. 104, 107.

11 Hojte 2005, p. 152.

12 Romančuk 1973, p. 246-249; Id. 1977, p. 18-26; Crimean Chersonesos 2003, p. 86; Hojte 2005, p. 150.

13 Bělov 1963, p. 66-67.

14 Romančuk 2005, p. 105.

15 Bortoli, Kazanski 2002, p. 660.

16 Soročan 2005, p. 234-235. According to him, 19% out of 101 vats were backfilled at that time. Golofast 2007, p. 56.

17 Romančuk 1972, p. 45, 50.

18 Id. 2005, p. 108-109; Id. 1977, p. 20; Id. 1973, p. 247; Id. 1997, p. 70-71; Sazanov 2000, p. 123-149.

19 Beševliev 1964, p. 103.

20 Comprehensive information on this vat was given by A. Sazanov, see Sazanov 2000.

21 Jakobson 1950, p. 104, ris. 53a, 53b, 54; Bakirtzis 2003, p. 80-81, fig. 21.

22 Talbot-Rice 1930, p. 27-28; Dark 2001, p. 63; Vroom 2005, p. 77.

23 Romančuk 1972, p. 46, 52; Id. 1977, p. 20; Id. 2005, p. 109.

24 Soročan 2005, p. 234; Romančuk 2005, p. 110; Vladimirov et al. 2004, p. 552.

25 Romančuk 2005, p. 109.

26 Procopius. III, 7, 10.

27 Golofast 2007, p. 57.

28 Borodin 1991, p. 173-190; Golofast 2007, p. cit., 57; Romančuk, Sazanov 1991, p. 47. Romančuk 2005, p. 108.

29 Vladimirov et al. 2004, p. 554.

30 Macrobius. 7. 12. 13-16.

31 Ejstrud 2005, p. 171, 175.

32 Opait 2007, p. 101-121.

33 Bakirtzis 2003, p. 70.

34 Sazanov 2007, p. 803-815.

35 Shepard 2009, p. 426.

36 Sazanov 1991, p. 60-72.; Id. 2000, p. 123-149; Id. 2007, p. 803-809.

37 Golofast 1990, p. 50-54.

38 Romančuk, Sazanov 1991, p. 47.

39 Romančuk 2008, p. 154.

40 Borodin 1991, p. 189.

41 Constantine Porphyrogenitus. 42, 120.

42 Primary Chronicle, year 6453 (945).

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1. Locational map of the study area (from Crimean Chersonesos 2003).
URL http://books.openedition.org/pccj/docannexe/image/1746/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 680k
Titre Fig. 2. Map of vats of Cherson, divided (where known). (Map after Romančuk 2005, colours are author‘s)
Légende 1. according to period of their use: till the 6th c. – green till the break of the 7th c. – red till the mid-7th c. – vinaceous till the 8th-10th c. – orange till the 9th-10th c. – blue2. according to their building time: 5th-7th c. – yellow 9th-10th c. – pink
URL http://books.openedition.org/pccj/docannexe/image/1746/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 604k
Titre Fig. 3. Vats No. 75 and 76 (photo: Martina Čechová).
URL http://books.openedition.org/pccj/docannexe/image/1746/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 2,0M
Titre Fig. 4. Vats No. 33 (photo: Martina Čechová).
URL http://books.openedition.org/pccj/docannexe/image/1746/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 2,1M
Titre Fig. 5. Bottom of the vat no. 84 and brick stamps (after Romančuk 2005).
URL http://books.openedition.org/pccj/docannexe/image/1746/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 485k

Auteur

Slovanský ústav AV, v.v.i., Valentinská 91/1, CZ - 110 00 Praha 1, cechmata@gmail.com

© Publications du Centre Camille Jullian, 2014

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540

Lire

Open access

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search