Study Group for Roman Pottery

Roman Pottery Bibliography

Departments of France: page 63b

search tips   advanced search 
site search by freefind
63 Puy-de-Dôme continued :
Journal of Roman Pottery Studies  Vol 3, 1990 page 122
659 Piboule, A, Sénéchal, R & Vertet, H, Les Potiers de Lezoux du Premier Siècle: Titus, Revue Arch. Sites Hors-série no. 8, 1981. 
cts (early)
A catalogue of mould-decorated sherds, with some discussion of the figure-types used. illustrated with drawings and photographs (both better than usual for Rev. Arch. Sites).

Journal of Roman Pottery Studies  Vol 4, 1991 page 106
946  Bet, Ph & Henriques-Raba, C, 'Les céramiques à parois fines de Lezoux', SFECAG. Actes du Congrés de Lezoux, 1989, 21-29.
A new, very simplified classification for the mainly Trajanic fineware production at Lezoux. The range is dominated by everted-rimmed beakers (cf Symonds, Rhenish Wares .... in press, fig 1, or Greene, p 25, fig 2.3.2, in Arthur & Marsh, Brit Archaeol Rep 57, 1978) which were also probably made at a number of contemporary workshops in the Allier Valley. There are four folded beakers, and a bag-shaped beaker, all of which provoked a lengthy discussion (which follows the paper) on dating, and there are two tripod bowls, two lids and two hemispherical bowls. One suspects that the controversy was rightly provoked by the lack of homogeneity in the this material, since the last three forms and possibly one or two of the folded beakers are probably earlier than the rest, i.e. pre-Flavian, and the bag-shaped beaker is probably later, i.e. Hadrianic. The authors are nevertheless to be congratulated for putting some emphasis on these types, whose importance has hitherto been somewhat underrated.
947  Bet, Ph, Fenet, A & Montineri, D. 'La typologie de la sigillée lisse de Lezoux, Ier-IIIe s., considérations générales et formes inédites', SFECAG, Actes du Congrés de Lezoux, 1989, 37-54.
A new typology, with a dating table, for Central Gaulish plain wares. The discussion following the paper is opened by Lucien Rivet, who remarks that fourteen years previously a similar typo-chronological table had been unveiled for La Graufesenque by Alain Vernhet. He is gently critical in this instance in pointing out that this version is presented with little or no qualification of where the problems lie, in the dating, and no quantification showing which are the really important forms, and which are so rare that their chronology must be relatively suspect. Philippe Bet responds with the comment that the dating presented here is a 'proposition', and it remains for those working with material from occupation sites ('consumer' sites) to challenge these dates. It is pointed out, however, that those working on the latter material must contend with residuality, and the relative life and durability of the pottery. It is interesting to note the number of apparently 'new' plain ware forms. By no means all of these were previously unrecognised, and it remains to be seen to what extent this paper enters into the vocabulary of samian specialists, yet it does provide a useful new classification of oddities. By contrast, it seems unlikely that there will be a sudden rush to call all Dr 33's 'Bet, Fenet & Montineri 36's'.
    948  Bet, Ph & Montineri, D, 'La céramique sigillée moulée Tibéro-Claudienne du site de la Z.A.C. de 1'Enclos à Lezoux', SFECAG, Actes du Congrés de Lezoux, 1989, 55-69.
cts/stv (samian)
A new series if figure-types, plus a few stamps, from the early production of samian at Lezoux. One of the stamps is of the potter RVTENOS, who is perhaps (on account of his name) an immigrant from South Gaul.

Journal of Roman Pottery Studies  Vol 4, 1991 page 116
1006  Simpson, G, 'Erreurs touchant les sigillées de Holzhausen, Lezoux et Blickweiler, et quelques potiers gallo-romains', SFECAG, Actes du Congrès de Lezoux, 1989, 81-83. syn/ptp/lst-2nd
cts/ets (Blickweiler)
This is an angry paper, certainly by the polite standards of modern archaeological discourse. Dr Simpson criticises Barbara Pferdehirt (in Die Keramik des Kastells Holzhausen - 1976) firstly for having neglected to read the text of Oswald & Pryce 1920: most English-speaking users of that volume are quickly aware that it not a straightforward presentation of a "sigillata type series", but rather a commentary on samian forms which includes, on the Plates, examples of variant forms from other sources and even metal vessels in order to fully examine the evolutions of specific types. Fr Pferdehirt fell into this trap quite comprehensively, by assuming that all the larger vessels on PL LVIII are of the Walters form 79 and that this is the equivalent of Ludowici Th, whereas nos. 3 & 5 are actually 'variants', and O &: p make it fairly clear (in the text, pp199-200) that the Lezoux examples are not identical in form to the East Gaulish versions from Rheinzabern and Trier. Fr Pferdehirt has committed similar errors in her reading of O &: p on Dr form 22/23, and on inkwells. Secondly, Dr Simpson criticises Fr Pferdehirt for her understanding of the potter Austrus, considered by both Oswald and S&S to have moved from Lezoux to Blickweiler, in her paper in the Lutz festschrift (Pferdehirt 1987; JKPS 3. entry no. 657). Finally, it seems that Fr Pferdehirt has made erroneous comments in a paper ('Die römische Okkupation Germaniens und Ratiens von der Zeit des Tiberius bis zum Trajans', Jahrb des Römisch-Gennanischen Zentralmuseums, Vol. 33, 1986, 221-320) on early sigillata with regard to the arrival of arretine ware in Britain. Dr Simpson is not alone, however, in making criticisms of this sort concerning Fr Pferdehirt: the reader is referred to Eschbaurner, P & Faber, A, 'Die südgallische Reliefsigillata: Kritische Bemerkungen zur Chronologie und zu Untersuchungsmethoden', Fundberichte aus Baden-Wurttemberg, Vol. 13, 1988, 223-247.

Journal of Roman Pottery Studies  Vol 5, 1992 page 114
1184  Bet, P & Delage, R, 'Introduction à 1'étude des marques sur sigillée moulée de Lezoux', SFECAG, Actes du Congrés de Cognac, 1991, 193-227.
This is perhaps the largest paper yet to appear in a SFECAG volume, mainly owing to the illustrations of some 317 stamps and graffiti signatures, on twelve pages of figures, plus another twelve pages devoted to a catalogue of the illustrated items plus notes on their publication history. The eight pages of text include a series of 

Previous page     Return to Departments of France Introduction     Next page