Ceramics from the Leipzig Group

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pottery from the Leipzig district from Johannisberg near Jena-Lobeda .

In archaeological research, Slavic ceramics from the early and high Middle Ages (7th to 13th centuries) in the southern Middle Elbe-Saale region are referred to as ceramics from the Leipziger Gruppe or ceramics from the Leipziger Kreis . The further distribution area includes the area from the northern Thuringian Basin to the Mulde . The term Leipzig group was coined in 1978 by the archaeologist Hansjürgen Brachmann , who differentiated individual phases within the Leipzig group for the older and middle Slavic times. At around the same time, Heinz-Joachim Vogt proposed a division into three or four independent ceramic groups, which he named after the eponymous sites of Rüssen , Rötha and Groitzsch as well as Kohren . These can be assigned to a joint Leipzig district.

Research history

The first approaches to scientific engagement with early medieval ceramics in the Elb-Saale area go back to the second half of the 19th century. While in the Saale area Friedrich Klopfleisch and, following him, Alfred Götze recognized corresponding finds as Slavic, such finds were also described and illustrated for the first time in other areas, e.g. B. in the area around Rochlitz an der Mulde by Clemens Pfau . Due to inadequate excavation methodology and the fact that it was mainly about reading findings, these researchers have not yet been able to come to any temporal differentiation. Pfau, for example, only differentiated between "Wendish fragments of vessels " and "shards of vessels that apparently belonged to the early German period" .

Research experienced an initial boom in the 1920s and 1930s. In several works, Christoph Albrecht tried to classify the Slavic and German ceramics of the Middle Ages in the Saale region and in Thuringia. In 1937 Heinz A. Knorr published a monograph on Slavic ceramics between the Elbe and Oder and in the following year Erwin Schirmer's Jena dissertation. T. are still valid today. In various essays, Paul Grimm , Johannes Kretzschmar and Kurt Tackenberg also dealt with early medieval ceramics in north-west Saxony and presented various complexes of finds.

In 1949 Herbert Küas began building investigations in the St.Matthew Church , which was destroyed in the war , in Leipzig , which also included archaeological excavations. These were systematically continued on the surrounding area from 1950 to 1956. As a result of the excavations, Liesedore Langhammer was able to create a ceramic stratigraphy for the 7th / 8th centuries in Saxony for the first time. elaborate until the 13th century. The results were presented in 1957 in Langhammer's unpublished dissertation and in short reports in 1960 and 1961. She distinguished between five layers with associated ceramics, which were named with the letters A to E. The basis of the absolute chronological classification were written sources such as the mention of an urbs Libzi for the year 1015 by Thietmar von Merseburg and related general considerations on the historical development of the area. However, these cannot be directly related to the findings. Langhammer's statements in this regard are also contradictory in some cases and are now partly out of date.

For the area on the Elbe, the excavations by Werner Coblenz on the Meißen castle hill between 1958 and 1964 and the surrounding ramparts, z. B. in Zehren , of particular importance. The results of these extensive excavations, which made a better chronological structure possible, especially in Meißen Castle, founded in 929/30, due to the dense historical tradition and good wood preservation with several building horizons, were initially only published in several preliminary reports.

The excavations at the Wiprechtsburg Groitzsch , which were carried out between 1959 and 1967/68 by the State Museum for Prehistory Dresden under the direction of Heinz-Joachim Vogt, are of major importance for the structure of medieval ceramics in West Saxony . The excavator succeeded in stratigraphically examining stratigraphic complexes over 6 m thick and in distinguishing five consecutive castle periods from the 10th to the end of the 13th century. On the basis of written sources from the 11th and 12th centuries, which are sufficiently available for the Wiprechtsburg, and further-reaching historical considerations, previous archaeological dates could be checked and, for the first time, a more precise date could be obtained for numerous findings and finds. In 1959 , Heinrich Rempel was able to make largely valid statements on a chronological and ethnic classification of early and high medieval ceramics for the area of ​​the upper and middle halls and the entire eastern Thuringia . He divided Slavic ceramics into four groups according to typological criteria. However, the use of historical events for dating is problematic. Group I was dated before the oldest documented evidence of the Saale as a border with the Slavs and assigned to the period before the year 750 AD.

In the area of ​​the lower Saale there is a ceramic stratigraphy that was developed during the excavations from 1961 to 1967 in Naumburg Cathedral on the basis of considerations on the building history in connection with the historically transmitted building dates, which, however, did not begin until the early 11th century.

Based on the ceramic stratigraphies in Groitzsch and Leipzig-Matthäikirchhof as well as the results of further smaller excavations and reading finds, Heinz-Joachim Vogt worked out a division of the Slavic ceramics of West Saxony into three groups or time horizons and introduced the name Russians group for the oldest ceramics. In the same year Vogt managed, based on a finding in Kohren-Sahlis, to separate out a late Slavic ceramic group from the 11th to 13th centuries for the Elster-Pleiße-Mulde area, which was called the Kohren group. Also in 1968, the Slavic finds and findings in the Middle Elbe-Saale area were processed by Hansjürgen Brachmann. He was able to differentiate between two different ceramic groups for the older and middle Slavic times, which largely exclude each other in their distribution and were initially referred to as "brown" and "gray" ceramics according to their colors . Ten years later, in his work on the "Slavic tribes on the Elbe and Saale", he replaced these terms with the Ützer Group for the more brown ceramics in the northern Elb-Saale area at the mouths of the Black Elster, Mulde and Saale as well as further down the river. Leipzig group for the gray ceramics in the area around Leipzig and in the wider area from the northern Thuringian Basin to the Mulde. In the fourth delivery of the “Corpus of archaeological sources on early history in the area of ​​the GDR (7th – 12th centuries)” , published in 1985, the material dating from this period from the various sites in the area of ​​today's Saxony was largely presented in full. The fifth delivery, which was about to be finalized, and which was supposed to include the finds from today's Thuringia and southern Saxony-Anhalt, was no longer printed, but the part relating to Thuringia was published separately in 2014.

In 1987 Vogt submitted the monographs of the findings and finds from Wiprechtsburg Groitzsch, which also dealt with the chronological and cultural structure of ceramics in north-west Saxony. After he suggested naming the ceramics after Rötha in 1973, which had previously only been named Group II, Groitzsch was now named after the ceramic group III. However, the presentation of the excavation results by Vogt does not meet today's requirements. This is especially true for the oldest ceramics from the Wiprechtsburg from the layers I / II, which could not be separated and can only be determined as certain "before 1080" . The beginning and the end of Castle I / II are therefore open to discussion.

Since that time, no further stratigraphies have been submitted for north-west Saxony and the adjacent areas that contain significant new information on the ceramic chronology of the 7th / 8th centuries. up to the 11th century. Brachmann summarized the state of research into Slavic ceramics in an essay from 1994 and drew a rather sobering conclusion, according to which "the absolute dating of the ceramic development of the Slavic tribes of the Middle Elbe-Saale region still encounters considerable difficulties" . In the two-volume monograph by Wolfgang Timpel in 1990 and 1995 on early and high medieval ceramics in western Thuringia, “for the dating of the ceramics of the Leipzig group, there have not yet been any new absolute chronological starting points beyond our current knowledge” . Some new scientific dates are contained in the summarizing excavation report on Magdeborn by Harald Mechelk 1997, which essentially support the previous dating approaches.

In the years around and after 2000, several dissertations and master's theses dealt with early medieval complexes from the Elb-Saale area. In his dissertation published in 2001 on the development of Halle (Saale) in the early and high Middle Ages, Volker Herrmann was able to present some new considerations based on dendrochronological dating for the period from around 1100, but for the older horizons he closely followed the previous dates on. Daniela Lange was also unable to provide any new dates when she was working on the finds from the Delitzsch , Lissa and Glesien settlements north of Leipzig. Arne Schmid-Hecklau was able to obtain precise dating approaches for the period from around 930 to around 1200 from an analysis of the excavations at Meißen Castle. A reworking of the excavations in the north-western inner city area of ​​Leipzig, including the old excavations on the Matthäikirchhof, supplemented by the results of the extensive urban archaeological investigations since the beginning of the 1990s, was carried out by Stefan Koch. The excavations of an early medieval settlement on the Crostigall in Wurzen and the castle in Stauchitz , which is probably the urbs gana , the central castle complex of the Daleminzier , which was destroyed in 928/29, suggest new findings . For the Saale valley, Jacob Müller's dissertation published in 2002 on the emergence of medieval forms of settlement in Thuringia is also of importance, in which the area between the Gera and Ilm rivers is considered and which goes through the process of structuring and dating the ceramic finds Timpel leans against it. From the Orlaggebiet lies with the Halle master thesis (1999) by Grit Hother (now Grit Heßland) about a settlement near Ludwigshof , district of Ranis , Saale-Orla-Kreis, from the 9./10. Up to the 14th century, the first detailed excavation was carried out in East Thuringia. In 2006 the finds from Johannisberg near Jena-Lobeda were also reworked.

General remarks on chronology and terminology

Despite having been working with Slavic ceramics in the Elb-Saale area for over 100 years, the level of knowledge must be described as unsatisfactory. The lack of easily datable ceramic complexes has a particularly negative effect. The existing chronological framework for East Thuringia, Saxony and southern Saxony-Anhalt is essentially based on only four to five ceramic stratigraphies, all of which, however, only begin in the course of the 10th century. It is also known and studied in central Germany, although a number of Slavonic castles in part, but these are almost exclusively read finds or small-scale test excavations in just one or two-phase systems as in Rötha, Kretzschau-Groitzschen or Zauschwitz-Weideroda in who did not succeed in stratigraphic separation of the ceramic material. Modern archaeological investigations of burial grounds that contain only a small amount of ceramics or of open settlements are still rather rare.

The ceramic chronology is essentially based on the investigations by Brachmann and Vogt, the results of which are generally well comparable, but differ in detail and especially in terminology, which sometimes led to not inconsiderable confusion. The ceramics referred to by Brachmann in 1968 as "gray ceramics" and since 1978 mostly grouped under the Leipziger Gruppe, were divided into three groups by Vogt according to their shapes, which he named after the sites Rüssen, Rötha and Groitzsch. Vogt considered the name after the site in Leipzig to be "somewhat unfortunate, (because) [...] he [Brachmann] put together the ceramics from the A-BC horizons, which were stratigraphically separated there, into a group". Brachmann and other editors, such as Timpel, took over the names suggested by Vogt after the eponymous sites, but on the other hand they continued to stick to the Leipzig group. This is how the confusing and cumbersome terms Rüssen phase and Rötha type of the Leipzig group emerged. In 1996 Thomas Westphalen subdivided the “ ceramics of the Leipzig group into early Slavic ceramics of the Rüssen type of the 8th / 9th century. Middle Slavic of the Rötha type from the 9th to 10th century and late Slavic of the Groitzian type of the late 10th to early 13th century ”. His re-dating for the end of the Groitzian type was rejected shortly afterwards by Yves Hoffmann. Overall, the chronological framework available for dating the ceramics in the Elb-Saale area is relatively wide-meshed and merely reflects development trends. Especially for the time between the 7th and 8th In the 10th and 10th centuries, the definition and timing of the ceramic horizons are still unclear.

Ceramics from the Rüssen Group

Typical vessels of the Rüssener, Röther and Groitzscher groups of the Leipziger Kreis.

In addition to ceramics of the Prague type , which is limited to a few finds along the central Elbe, the ceramics of the Rüssen group (or the Rüssen phase of the Leipzig group according to Brachmann) are considered the oldest precipitation of the Slavic population in the Elb-Saale area .

Typical for the Rüssen group are high stand-up pots with an egg-shaped or slightly double-conical body, which have a relatively deep recess. In addition, there are small spherical or slightly double-conical beaker-like vessels with a base and simple bowls. The edges are dominated by smooth edges with pointed edges (edge ​​shape 1) or round edges (edge ​​shape 2). According to Vogt's definition, angular edges also appear in the Rüssen group. The vessels of the Rüssen group usually have two or more lines, sinusoidal or uneven, flat and only slightly indented wavy bands on the shoulder. Line and stitch decorations as well as combinations of stitch and wave decorations are rare. In contrast, groups of lines placed vertically are more common. Several of the pieces with single-line horizontal, arched and inclined scratch lines and wavy lines can also be counted in this group. The vessels generally have an uneven surface, the color of which varies between reddish ocher tones and strong gray or gray-brown tones. The vessels were built by hand and not turned. Occasionally, indented stones in the often very thick floors show that they were standing directly on the ground during production.

The group was named after reading finds from a ditch created in 1962 at the eponymous site near Borna . The definition and dating of ceramics are correspondingly uncertain. Vogt dated this group to the 7th / 8th centuries using a bottle of the Rhenish foothills ceramics from Rüssen, also only available as a read. Century. He suspected its beginning as early as the second half of the 6th century, since this ceramic would be regionally excluded with that of the Prague type and could therefore be assumed to be simultaneous. This temporal approach seems too early, because the Russians-type ceramics are mostly younger than the Prague-type, as the occurrence in the second settlement phase of Dessau- Mosigkau shows, which probably belongs to the 8th or 9th century. Brachmann joined the dating of Vogt in the 7th / 8th. Century on. Slavic ceramics of this kind appeared above and in the vicinity of the old Slavic box well from Eythra near Leipzig, which the editors Lothar Herklotz and Dieter Stuchly initially placed in the decades around 600 and which, according to 14C dating, dates to the 7th century. A later dendrochronological dating, however, showed an age of 715 ± 10 AD. Another 14C date after 680 ± 60 AD from Magdeborn confirmed at least the first-mentioned date. The dating of the Rüssen group in or before the 8th century could be confirmed by stratigraphic observations on the cemetery of Rohnstedt in Thuringia. According to Timpel, this ceramic was therefore in use from the second half of the 7th to the middle of the 8th century. Biermann dated the ceramics of the Rüssen type after critical examination of the four essential findings from Rüssen, Dessau-Mosigkau, Mutzschen and Eythra and due to the analogy to the ceramics of the Klučov horizon in Bohemia to the later 8th and 9th centuries.

Neumann put the ceramics from Johannisberg near Jena-Lobeda , which he regarded as "morphologically older" , in the second half of the 8th century due to historical considerations. Some of the pieces assigned to this older ceramic group are probably much younger than he assumed. A small squat pot with a separate base finds an analogy in a vessel with a single wavy line from grave 2 of the cemetery of Rudolstadt-Volkstedt , which Rempel placed in the period after 900 AD due to the jewelry components, especially headdress rings and pearls.

Ceramics from the Röthaer Group

High-shouldered, s-shaped profiled pots with a rounded shoulder and recessed shoulder are typical for both the Russians and the subsequent Rötha group. This also applies to the double-conical pots with straight shoulder and angular shoulder break. Conical bowls and plates as well as wide bowls with a large footprint have been added to the shapes of the Rüssener Group.

In the Rötha group, pointed, rounded edges are rarely found. The most common are smooth edges with angular edges (edge ​​shape 3), slightly trapezoidal thickened edges with angular edge edges (edge ​​shape 4) and trapezoidal thickened edges with angular, painted edges (edge ​​shape 5). The latter marginal forms in particular also appear in more recent find contexts. In the case of individual edge pieces, especially those of the last-mentioned edge shape, an exact assignment is therefore not possible. The wavy bands continue to dominate the decorations, but they are now deeper, overlap more often and appear steeper. Waves overturning to the left occur only sporadically. In addition to comb waves, various geometric patterns as well as comb stroke and comb stitch decorations were used. The colors of the body and the surface are mostly gray, only rarely reddish brown or brown. The surface of the vessel no longer looks uneven, but rather smooth or grainy. First-time smears on the lower part are noticeable. The vessels were mainly built using the bead technique and turned on the slowly rotating hand potter's wheel or pottery board (cavalet).

According to Vogt and Brachmann, the transition from the ceramics of the Russians to the Rötha group falls in the middle of the 8th century, but it is fluid, which is evidenced by the occasional occurrence of angular, smooth edges in the eponymous site of Rüssen. The question of the absolute dating of the Rötha group has not yet been clearly clarified. Vogt gave the 8th and 9th centuries as the main period of their occurrence, but noted at the same time that "ceramics of this form were certainly produced and used for several decades longer" . Vogt relied in particular on two spurs from the eponymous, apparently single-phase rampart "Fuchsberg" in Rötha, which he dated to the 9th century. He also referred to a belt buckle with a profiled bow from the ring wall of Magdeborn, which, according to Vogt, is said to have parallels from grave fields of the 7th and 8th centuries. In Mechelk's opinion, however, due to its profile, it belongs more to the 10th century. However, a number of other metal finds, including a spur from the middle to the second half of the 9th century, as well as a 14C date "around / after 880 ± 60 AD" from Magdeborn confirm the occurrence of the Rötha group at this time. In addition, reference can be made to the wall castle "Der Kessel" from Kretzschau-Groitzschen near Zeitz, which is dated to the end of the 8th to the beginning of the 10th century, mainly due to the metal finds. Such ceramics also come from the Cösitz castle wall near Köthen , most likely identical to the Colodici suburb that was occupied in 839 . There are also finds from the Röthaer Group from the Altengroitzsch castle complexes, the Horizont B of the Matthäikirchhof Leipzig and the Johannisberg near Jena-Lobeda as well as a large number of other castles between the Weißer Elster and Mulde.

Ceramics from the Groitzscher Group

The Groitzsch group forms the transition to the Yavian, completely twisted vessels with strongly profiled edges and a retracting neck. According to Vogt, ceramics are characterized by tall, double-conical pots in several variants, most of which have a rounded edge. In addition, there are small double-conical vessels and conical buckets, plates with flat or raised edges, bowls and bowls. Overall in the Groitzsch group clearly thorn-like or other strongly profiled edges and inner throats dominate, the so-called "duckbill edges" or saddled edges. They correspond to the edge shapes 5c, 6 and 8. On the other hand, smooth edges with a pointed, rounded or angular edge should only be detectable sporadically. However, there is the problem that the edge shapes of the vessels that were recovered from Groitzsch's castles I and II and that gave the group its name, e.g. T. differ only slightly from those of the previous Rötha group. According to Vogt, the difference between the two groups for the margins lies only in their different percentage ratios. For Castles I and II in Groitzsch, “the analysis showed that the rounded edges make up only 2 percent, the simple, angular edges, on the other hand, 28.8 percent, while the strongly profiled edge shapes, thorn edges, etc. with 68 percent clearly dominate ” . Elsewhere, however, Vogt stated that in the case of ceramics from the Groitzsch group, “round or simple, angular edge shapes are only sporadically detectable at 0.09 percent”. This contradiction cannot be resolved from Vogts' publication. On the one hand, some pieces that can still be described as angular are presented, on the other hand, these are hardly represented in other complexes of the Groitzian group.

This includes above all the layer B / C or the ceramic type C from Matthäikirchhof, for which Langhammer states: “The variation in edge profiles [...] is very large. The edges of the clearly twisted edges tighten to form grooves and ribs and are often underhanded ” . Other closed find complexes that are assigned to the Groitzsch group are from Taucha , the "Grube 11" from Lake Göttwitzer See near Mutzschen and the ring wall of Zauschwitz-Weideroda . Hoffmann named with Crostewitz , Sehlis and Sellerhausen a number of other sites that are listed in the "Corpus". They all show almost exclusively vessels with thorn-like profiled edges; Edged smooth edges, on the other hand, are rare. Furthermore, ceramics from the Groitzsch group appear at numerous sites in northwest Saxony, but these are readings that are mixed with older and / or younger pieces and therefore do not allow any answers to the question mentioned. This also applies to the ceramics of the Groitzsch group of burial grounds in the Elb-Saale area such as Landsberg . Overall, the question arises as to whether the eponymous Groitzsch site is actually suitable for the classification or whether there is still a large proportion of the older Rötha group here in Castle I. In addition to the edges, this is also suggested by the vessel shapes found in Castle I, especially the rarer egg-shaped pots (shape A), the bulbous vessels (shape C) and the buckets (shape D).

The typical decorative element of the Groitzscher Gruppe is the very steeply drawn wavy band that tilts to the left. Just like the edge shapes, however, this only conveys a tendency overall, so that individual wall pieces cannot be assigned to the Röthaer or Groitzscher group. The single-course wave can only be observed in isolated cases. There are combinations of stitch and wave embellishments and more frequent than before group embellishments. Geometric patterns, on the other hand, take a back seat. The cause of the wave tilting to the left and the regular edges of the thorns lies primarily in the change in the manufacturing technique of the vessels, which were still built using the bulge or flap technique, but were then turned on the potter's wheel.

Just as unclear as the definition is currently the period of the change between the two ceramic groups. The ceramics of the Röthaer Group are found mainly on those sites, the end of which is traditionally associated with the conquest of the area east of the Saale by King Heinrich I from the 920s. Ceramics from the Groitzsch group, on the other hand, appear in castles that were built after this period, such as Groitzsch I / II, or in more recent construction phases such as in Leipzig-Matthäikirchhof. For example, the construction of Castle I von Groitzsch von Vogt was set in the first half of the 10th century, because he believed that in the "layout of the section castles of Leipzig and Groitzsch and the ring wall of Weideroda, each located at important river crossings, [...] to see the precipitation of Henry I's expansion policy ” . In the north-west of Saxony, however, such assignments are based exclusively on historical considerations that are archaeological, e.g. B. can neither be verified nor falsified by dendrochronological dating or reliable documentary mention. The approach is not based on the fact that the conquest of the area by Heinrich I inevitably had an impact on the development of ceramics, as is sometimes assumed, but on the not small number of castles and settlements that were abandoned at this time and ceramics of the Röthaer Keep a group in the inventory. In addition, new settlements and castles were built with changed topographical situations and new construction principles of the fortifications, from which there is also a slightly different ceramic. A connection with far-reaching processes of change such as the conquest of the area with an accompanying change of rulers seems obvious. On the one hand, however, the question must be asked whether the political change that culminated in Henry I's campaign in 928/929 was actually so strong in today's northwestern Saxony or whether another area east of the Saale had not been part of the East Franconian Empire for a long time . On the other hand, most of the newly built castles were probably only built or rebuilt from the second half of the 10th century when the Ottonian rule was finally secured and the Burgward organization was established . For example, Gerhard Billig wanted to combine the relocation of Altengroitzsch Castle to the place of Wiprechtsburg Groitzsch with the introduction of the Burgward organization in the second half of the 10th century.

From the oldest layers on the Burgberg in Meißen there are mainly smooth, angularly painted or slightly profiled edges. The Rötha group ceramics, named by Schmid-Hecklau as Röthaer type, reached their highest percentage in settlement horizon 1 from the period shortly before 930 to around 960, but is also more common in horizons 2 and 3 from the late 10th to the beginning of the 11th century verifiable. Such pieces are also known from Zehren Castle Hill, which is dated from the second half of the 10th century to around 1000, even if the majority is already more strongly, mostly thorn-like, profiled. In its predecessor, the castle wall "Bei den Spitzhäusern" in Zehren, which is dated to the 8th and 9th centuries, there is again ceramics that resemble that of the Rötha group. Ultimately, the question of when the time limit between the Röthaer and Groitzscher group is to be set cannot be clearly decided given the current status of research and publications. Most likely, however, it can be moved further into the second half of the 10th century.

The occurrence of the Groitzsch group from the end of the 10th to the end of the 11th century is archaeologically proven. There is a spur from Castle I von Groitzsch, which, according to Vogt , should " definitely belong to the 10th century, probably still to the first half" . A blue pearl with a quadrilateral cross-section from Castle I / II von Groitzsch can only generally be placed in the 10th and early 11th centuries. In addition, there are findings from the castellum Medeburu in Magdeborn, which, according to written sources, existed until the end of the 10th century and originates from ceramics that corresponds to that of Castles I and II of Groitzsch. The occurrence in the 11th century is documented by other metal finds, including a second spur from Castle II von Groitzsch and a brooch made of sheet bronze from Zauschwitz depicting a "Navicella" . The final dating is given by the stratigraphy of the Wiprechtsburg with the last quarter of the 11th century. With Castle III, which can almost certainly be connected with the castle of Count Wiprecht von Groitzsch and thus around 1080, a completely new type of ceramic appears, which - with the exception of a few late Slavic phenomena such as those up to the 13th century ongoing Kohrener Group - replacing Slavic ceramics in the north-west Saxon-East Thuringian region.

Brachmann's Rötha pottery type

Brachmann also selected the finds from the Rötha castle wall as characteristic for its ceramic structure. He defined pots of the Rötha type as “high, steep-shouldered vessels with a vessel upper part that is predominantly concave and that merges into the rim without forming a neck. The edge finish is generally strongly profiled. The steep wavy band that tilts to the left is characteristic. The vessels are formed using a bulge technique and the top is turned off on a slow disk ” . This type experienced its heyday in the 10th century, but its beginnings are believed to be as early as the 9th century. It is not to be confused with the Röthaer group according to Vogt, but rather corresponds to the ceramics of the Groitzsch group, in particular the vessel shape E of the Wiprechtsburg Groitzsch I / II, which is a high pot with a bulging edge, high, e.g. T. very short shoulder and mostly angular shoulder break is defined. According to Timpel, this type of vessel did not appear in Thuringia until the second half of the 10th and early 11th centuries.

In the entire West Slavic settlement area, the change from Middle to Late Slavic ceramics took place in the second half of the 10th and 11th centuries, i.e. to more high-shouldered and thin-walled vessels with pronounced necks and more profiled edges and one generally on the neck or neck. Shoulder limited ornament. This change was fluid and tied to a gradually developing pottery technique, because it was not until the second half of the 10th century or around 1000 that a fundamental change began in the entire West Slav area due to the technological innovation of turning vessels completely on a potter's wheel .

literature

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ This was suggested based on the terminology developed by Czech archaeologists. A ceramic circle is therefore a "production-territorial concept of interpretation that includes several groups bound to a broader period of time" ; K. Tomková, A. Bartošková, I. Boháčová, J. Čiháková, J. Frolík and L. Hrdlička: On the current status of the study of early medieval ceramics in Central Bohemia. In: Č. Staňa (Ed.), Slavic Pottery in Central Europe from the 8th to the 11th Century. Mikulčice colloquium 25-27 May 1993. International Conferences Mikulčice 1. Brno 1994, pp. 165–181, here p. 178.
  2. ↑ Pfau 1905, p. 31. Cf. especially ibid. 31 f., 39–41, 51–70
  3. ↑ Albrecht 1923; ders. 1925
  4. ↑ Knorr 1937.
  5. ↑ Schirmer 1938
  6. ↑ Grimm 1939; Kretzschmar 1937; Tackenberg 1937, esp. 22 f .; Kretzschmar 1942.
  7. ↑ Langhammer 1957; this. 1960; this. 1961. - Vogt 1988b summarizing the excavations in Leipzig with the older literature.
  8. ↑ See Brachmann 1978, 84; Vogt 1987, 174 note 102. - The statements made by Küas in 1976 on the first castle complex of the 10th century, which were largely listed in stone after him, also proved to be baseless. See Vogt 1988b, 497; Cheap 1989, 56 f .; 1994, 13.
  9. ↑ In summary, Coblenz 1988, here also the older literature. - See now Schmid-Hecklau 2003; another. 2004.
  10. ^ Vogt, Wiprechtsburg 1987
  11. ↑ Rempel 1959a; ders. 1959b
  12. ↑ Grimm 1972.
  13. ↑ Vogt 1968a
  14. ↑ That. 1968b.
  15. ^ Brachmann 1968.
  16. ↑ Brachmann, Slawische Stämme 1978, pp. 27–57. Brachmann already pointed to a certain commonality with the Menkendorfer group to the north . This term was therefore hardly used any more and the so-called Ützer group is now mostly no longer separated from the Menkendorfer ceramics.
  17. ↑ Brachmann, Slawische Stämme 1978, pp. 57–87, 91–102.
  18. ↑ Herrmann / Donat 1985. See also the comments on the system and structure ibid. VII – X.
  19. ↑ Wolfgang Timpel / Ineswalk (arrangement): Corpus of archaeological sources of the 7th-12th centuries Century in Thuringia . Langenweißbach 2014.
  20. ^ Vogt, Wiprechtsburg Groitzsch 1987
  21. ↑ Brachmann 1994, 107
  22. ↑ Timpel 1995, 104.
  23. ^ Mechelk 1997.
  24. ↑ Herrmann 2001
  25. ↑ Lange 2003
  26. ↑ Schmid-Hecklau 2004.
  27. ↑ Koch 2008. See also the same 2001.
  28. ↑ Geck 1997, dies. 2001. See also Lehmann 2008 on this.
  29. ↑ Oexle / Strobel 2004.
  30. ↑ Müller 2002.
  31. ↑ Hother 1999.
  32. ^ Grabolle, Johannisberg 2008
  33. ↑ Vogt 1987, 158
  34. ^ For the first time Brachmann 1978, 91-105; also Timpel 1995; Mechelk 1997 u. a.
  35. ↑ Westphalen 1996a, 100.
  36. ↑ Hoffmann 1998
  37. ↑ See the overview of the development of ceramics in Brachmann 1994.
  38. ↑ Brachmann 1978, 91-98; Vogt 1987, 160 f. Fig. 126; Timpel 1995, 27.
  39. ^ Vogt, Wiprechtsburg Groitzsch 1987, p. 162.
  40. ↑ Krüger 1967; Brachmann 1978, 16 fig. 7; Biermann 2000, 34.
  41. ↑ Brachmann 1994.
  42. ↑ Herklotz / Stuchly 1987, 226 note *, 234; Herklotz 1988.
  43. ↑ Herrmann / Heussner 1991, 282; Biermann / Dalitz / Heussner 1999, 243 No. 5.
  44. ^ Mechelk 1997, 47 note 77, 48-50.
  45. ↑ Timpel 1995, 92, 102 f.
  46. ↑ Biermann 2000, 34 f.
  47. ↑ Rempel 1966, 70, 157 cat.-no. 182 plate 82 A.
  48. ↑ Vogt 1987, 168.
  49. ↑ Vogt 1987, 47 f., 168, 172.
  50. ↑ Kempke 2001, 17.
  51. ↑ Vogt 1987, 160 f. Fig. 126.
  52. ↑ Vogt 1987, p. 168.
  53. ^ Vogt ibid .; Coblenz 1989a, 8-12 Figs. 1-2. In a more recent study of the sting spores by Goßler 1998, 528, 643 Cat.-No 100, one of the two spores is dated to the 10th century with reference to the ceramic dating by Brachmann and to comparative finds of spores with hooked ends. It is possible, however, that there is a mix-up between the Röther group according to Vogt and the Rötha type according to Brachmann.
  54. ↑ Vogt 1987, 168.
  55. ↑ Mechelk 1997, 44 f. Fig. 36,10, 39.
  56. ↑ Ibid. 48 f. - At the same time he pointed out ibid. 49 note 85, but also pointed out that “the time gradation 'Magdeborn before Groitzsch I / II' […] can no longer be maintained today.” In Magdeborn both ceramics come from Röthaer as well as the following Groitzsch group and the castle complex exists due to the equation with the castellum Medeburu mentioned in 969 and 984 AD until the end of the 10th century; ibid. 50.
  57. ↑ Brachmann 1969; ders. 1978, 68–71 Fig. 31.
  58. ↑ Brachmann 1975a; 1975b; the same in 1994.
  59. ↑ Krause / Vogt 1967; Vogt 1983; Herrmann / Donat 1985, 154/1; Vogt 1988a.
  60. ↑ Langhammer 1961, 494, stated that in the ceramic of the “black layer B” it is noticeable “that rounded edge profiles hardly appear, the edges are more accentuated and there are occasional approaches to undercut edges.” Cf. . 1957, 44-47 plates 5.9-13; 6.11-16; this. 1960, 91 f., 98 fig. 35 B, plate 13.
  61. ^ Grabolle, Johannisberg 2008.
  62. ↑ See Vogt 1987, 165, 168–171.
  63. ↑ Vogt 1987, 159. See also the comments Vogts ibid. 158-160, on the resulting difficulties in defining the ceramic groups and their dating.
  64. ↑ Vogt 1987, p. 48.
  65. ↑ Vogt 1987, p. 172.
  66. ↑ When the groups were first listed in 1968, Vogt only spoke of a “ greatly reduced” proportion of round and simply angular edges in group III (= Groitz group); Vogt 1968a, 10. Profiled edges and thorn edges together make up only 70% of the total material, which would speak more for the first-mentioned numerical relationships in Groitzsch Castle.
  67. ↑ Langhammer 1961, 494. Cf. also this. 1957, 48-54 plates 5, 15-23; 6.17-25; this. 1960, 94 f .; 96 f. Fig. 35 C; Taf. 14,9-15; 15th
  68. ↑ Baumann / Dunkel 1965, on this especially 82 f. Fig. 2–3.
  69. ↑ Baumann 1971, 144-146; 148 f. Fig. 38 f.
  70. ↑ Herrmann / Donat 1985, 154/49; Westphalen 1996b.
  71. ↑ Herrmann / Donat 1985, 146/8; ibid. 146/72; ibid. 147/19. Here also the older literature.
  72. ↑ Hoffmann 1998, 132 note 1.
  73. ↑ See Vogt 1987, 172–176. Hoffmann 1998, 115 f. Names two new sites with ceramics from the 10th and 11th centuries in Altenburg and Schkeuditz . However, here too it is only a matter of reading finds or finds that have been relocated secondarily.
  74. ↑ Rempel 1966, 106 cat. No. 79 plate 8 E.
  75. ↑ Vogt 1987, 46–56 Figs. 26–34.
  76. ↑ Vogt 1987, pp. 46, 54 Fig. 32,9-10.13.16.18; Timpel 1995, 37.
  77. ↑ Vogt 1987, 29.
  78. ↑ Vogt 1987, pp. 168-171.
  79. ↑ Vogt 1987, pp. 172, 175-178.
  80. ^ Cheap 1989.
  81. ^ Cheap 1994, 13.
  82. ↑ Coblenz 1961, 188 f. Fig. 1; ders. 1970, 139 fig. 2.2; Herrmann / Donat 1985, 116 / 34.6-10; Schmid-Hecklau 2004, on this especially 94 figs. 34, 160–164, 191–193, 292–296 figs. 269–273.
  83. ↑ Coblenz 1970, 139 fig. 2,3; Herrmann / Donat 1985, 116/34, 11-13; Schmid-Hecklau 2004, 297–300 Figs. 274–277.
  84. ↑ Coblenz 1961, 189-194 Fig. 4; ders. 1970, 146-148 Fig. 10; Herrmann / Donat 1985, 116/75; Coblenz 1988c; ders. 1989a, 13 f. Fig. 6.2; Schmid-Hecklau 2003.
  85. ↑ Coblenz 1970, 145 f. Fig. 8-9; Herrmann / Donat 1985, 116/74; Coblenz 1988a; Schmid-Hecklau 2003.
  86. ↑ Schmid-Hecklau 2004, 191–193, judges similarly, whereby his assessment of a runtime of the Rötha group up to the 11th century is to be assessed critically and should be checked in the core area of ​​the ceramic group. Martina Kotková has already commented on partial results, in particular the typological classification, the dating and the historical interpretation of the finds by Arne Schmid-Hecklau (dies. 2004/05; dies. 2006; dies. 2006/07, pp. 142–146) and Gerhard Billig (ders. 2006; ders. 2007) critical.
  87. ↑ Vogt 1987, 174. See ibid. 42 fig. 23,1, 57 f .; Coblenz 1989a, 16; Goßler 1998, 642 cat. No. 62.
  88. ↑ Vogt 1987, 43 fig. 24,4, 57 f.
  89. ↑ Mechelk 1997, 49 f.
  90. ↑ Vogt 1987, 42 fig. 23.2; 57 f., 174 plates 6: 1-2; Coblenz 1989a, 16; Goßler 1998, 643 cat. No. 97.
  91. ↑ Vogt 1987, 174 f. Fig. 133; Tear 1998.
  92. ↑ The results of the excavations in Groitzsch contradict Schmid-Hecklaus' observations, according to which ceramics of the Groitzsch type in Meißen were limited to the settlement horizons 5.1–5.2 and 5.3 of the period shortly after 1090 to around 1200; Schmid-Hecklau 2004, 193 f. According to his opinion, the ceramics of the Groitzsch group are supposed to be tangible, at least in Meissen, only since the late 11th century and an early regional development is to be found in the area south of Leipzig.
  93. ↑ Brachmann 1994, 98 f. See also ders. 1978, 85.
  94. ↑ Vogt 1987, 49-53 Figs. 28, 10-12, 29-30, 31.7-16.
  95. ↑ Timpel 1995, 36.
  96. ^ Brather 2000, 118.