Rechercher sur le site

  • Chercher les documents contenant un mot OU un autre : tapez simplement les mots à la suite => bracelet bronze
  • Chercher les documents contenant un mot ET un autre : utilisez le mot-clef AND => bracelet AND bronze
  • Chercher les documents contenant une expression exacte : taper l'expression entre guillemets => "bracelet en bronze"

Limiter votre recherche

Auteur
Type d'opération
Commune
Département
Date (Année)

797 résultats Exporter les résultats

Trier par Titre : ascendant / descendant
RAP00565.pdf ((56). quatre communes du Morbihan : carentoir)
  • covered, encompassing 772 hectares (4.01% of the surface area of the four communes). 30.99kg of pottery and 93.92kg of man-made building material were recovered from the transects; 45% of the pottery was médiéval, 53.6% post-medieval and 1.4% Roman. No pre-Roman pottery was found
  • and post-medieval pottery; 0221 had been classified as a 'possible site', with a prépondérance of médiéval pottery in an assemblage that included Roman wares; B216 was a 'blank' field which had produced no finds; B347 was classified as a 'site 1 , with Roman pottery predominating. Soil
  • ity readings did not vary much, but although médiéval and post-medieval pottery were gênerai ly distributed over the field, both Roman wares and brick and tile cl ustered in the north-west quarter. Although quantities of Roman pottery were small, those of brick and tile were
  • unusually large, and their distribution, together with the nature of the assemblage, suggests that the field once contained a Roman-period structure. Médiéval and post-medieval pottery, by contrast, probably arrived as a resuit of manuring. B216 lies on a slight north-west si ope at 65m
  • of brick and tile (50.82g). The assemblage included second-century Roman wares, fifteen fragments of tegul a and one of imbrex. Médiéval and post-medieval pottery were gênerai 1 y distributed over the field but both Roman pottery and brick and tile cl ustered in the north-eastern third
  • . As with field 0221, this cl ustering was sufficiently pronounced (and sufficiently distinct from the distribution of médiéval and post-medieval pottery) to suggest that a Roman-period structure once stood on the field. Magnetic susceptibil ity readings produced unusually high values
  • body of the lynchet and lay immediately below the modem plough soil. The loam and the plough soil produced 112 pièces of brick/tile and 92 sherds of pottery. Most of the pottery was of fabric 1 (64%), the most common médiéval type found in surface collections throughout the study
  • of the building, especially inside and immediately outside its walls, there were higher levels of 26-37 Si/kg and 200-300ppm. The experiment suggests that we might expect structures and middens in the study area to produce relatively high levels. Pottery from the 1984 season has been sorted
  • and classified by Astill, Cook and Wright, and compared with the existing fabric séries. No changes have been suggested for this séries, which now comprises 16 fabric groups for prehistoric, Roman, médiéval and early post-medieval pottery. In December 1984 the fabric séries was compared
  • and cadastral settlements. In the particular case of Roman wares, only small quantities have been recovered and the 'total' collections made from D221 and B347 both suggest that Roman sites generate little pottery on the surface, though they may produce large quantities of brick and tile. 0f
  • EAST BRITTANY SURVEY: QUST-VILAINE UATERSHED REPORT ON FIELDWORK IN MARCH-APRIL 1985 The fourth season in a programme of fieldwork, itself part of a larger, multi-discipl inary study of the rel ati onshi p between land-use and seulement during the last two thousand years, took
  • place between 21 March and 13 April in the communes of Ruffiac, Tréal , St-Nicol as-du-Tertre and Carentoir in the Morbihan in eastern Brittany. The aim of the study is to détermine when, how and why the exploitation of the environment changed direction within the historic period
  • ; in addition, environmental analysis and a survey of standing buildings is being undertaken. The larger study involves (amongst other éléments) analysis of documents, including the very detailed cadastral maps and records of the early nineteenth century (Asti 1 1 and Davies 1982a, 1982b
  • and in toto.) Of thèse concentrations, none produced predominantly Roman material although 4.8% produced s orne Roman material; 27.3% had predominantly médiéval, 38.5% predominantly post-medieval, and 8.6% more than the necessary minimum proportions of médiéval and post-medieval sherds
  • were the subject of more intensive study: four fields (A107, D221, B216, B347) were gridded in 5m squares so that everything on the surface of the fields, including schiste, might be collected. A107 had been classified as a 'possible site', with comparable amounts of médiéval
  • was recorded, the field being the same size and shape as at présent but divided into bandes; an area of 1 ande lay to the north and the nearest settlement (La Boulardaie) lay 130m away. Pottery, building material and schi ste were collected from an area of 1 hectare, distributed ail over
  • the field, with no obvious clustering; magnetic susceptibil ity readings did not vary very much. Quantities of pottery, and of brick and tile especially, were low: 0.41 sherds of médiéval pottery per square (2.72g), 0.55 sherds of post-medieval pottery per square (4.4g) and 0.29
  • similar to médiéval and modem pottery and could have been introduced on to the surface. The small quantities of archaeol ogical material recovered, and its gênerai distribution, suggest that it was brought on to the field in the course of manuring; quantities, pattern of distribution
  • expanses of meadow and woodl and and diversions of streams and roads for essentially aesthetic purposes [Astill and Davies 1982b: 22]). An area of 0.62 hectares was walked, yielding 0.31 Roman sherds per square (2.77g), 0.52 médiéval sherds (2.72g), 1.15 post-medieval sherds (4.1g
  • ) and 6.36 fragments of brick and tile (115.57g). The assemblage included second-century central Gaulish Samian and rims of third/fourth-century types; thirty-eight pièces of tegul a and twenty-nine of imbrex; three pièces of haematite (310g) and two worked flints. Magnetic susceptibil
RAP00568.pdf ((56). quatre communes du Morbihan : carentoir)
  • century as a metai rie (fig. 2). The field was permanent meadow in the early nineteenth century. In 1982 it was walked at 50m intervais and was classified as a 'médiéval site'; some Roman pottery was also recovered. In 1987 the field was gridded in 5m squares and walked for 'total
  • ' collection. Late IronAge/early Roman pottery was recovered (maximum 6 sherds per 5m square) and this tended to concentrate in two areas in the field. The much larger quanti ty of médiéval pottery (maximum 22 sherds per square) had a si mi 1 ar distribution, while the post— medi eval
  • in four 0.1m spits. Ail the spits produced appr ox i matel y the same relative proportions of pottery; the total 127 sherds comprised 6"/. pre-medieval (6 Iron-Age, 1 Roman), 88"/. médiéval and 67. post-medi eval wares. The médiéval pottery was very largely (947.) of Fabric 1
  • . The range o-f pottery recovered -from the top two spits was very différent -from the lowest spit. In the first twenty centimètres 45 sherds were -found; médiéval pottery predominated (837.), -followed by post-medi eval (157.) and a single sherd o-f Roman pottery (27.) ; 52 -fragments o-f
  • Roman site in the vicinity, and a few sherds in the topsoil, there is no trace of Roman settlement on this field and little to suggest Roman agricultural use. Présent évidence might suggest that the médiéval pottery in the plough soil derived from very heavy manuring, although
  • material was obtained from T29 (as was reflected by the results D -f the total collection) but more Roman pottery was found. Time ran ont and the sites had to be backfilled at the point, when ditches were recognised (Asti 13. and Davies 1987, 118-21). In 1988 the excavation was resumed
  • of ceramic roof tile were recovered (43.88kg, 167 fragments), and the pottery consisted of 3 sherds of grey coarse ware and one sherd of central Gaul ish Samian. The absence of Ir on-Age f abri es and terra-ni qra-type pottery «and the présence of so much roofing material would suggest
  • and ear 1 y Roman pottery in its fills, and the virtual absence of roof tile, implies that it had been filled before the buildings went put of use; the pebbly, foreign, nature of the fills shows that thèse were deliberate. This ditch may have been in existence before the structure
  • and A79 were first walked at 50m intervais in 1982; the material which was recovered concentrated where the two fields joined and was classified as a 'probable médiéval site'; Roman pottery was also noted. The field boundaries were subséquent 1 y changed and the eastern part of A31 has
  • been joined to A79. This new field, A31/79, therefore includes the area where the material had concentrated, as also part of the ridge and the whole valley side. In 1987 it was griddE*d in 5m squares for 'total collection. Relatively large quanti ti es of Roman pottery (1—3 sherds
  • sherd of late Iron-Age/earl y Roman pottery (Fabric 15) and one sherd of vessel glasB. This had a light olive-green colour. Further down the slope, within 10m of pit 17, two ditches were located which had a similar character; both had shallow 'U' shaped profiles; and were apparently
  • dug parallel, 6.4m apart. Ditch 19, 1.75m wide and 0.6 m deep, had within its fill (20) two sherd s of late Iron- Age/ear 1 y Roman pottery (Fabric 13) and 6 small pièces of iron— working slag. The more northerly ditch, 2:4, had a primary silt (60) with no finds and then a loam
  • produced several -features. On the highest part o-f the slope there was an irregular pit (44) appro;: i matel y 1.8m in diameter and 0.1m deep, whose -fill (45) produced 1 sherd o-f late Iron—Age/early Roman pottery (Fabric 12), 1 sherd o-f grey coarse ware (Fabric 57) and some roofing
  • tile (Fabric 1, 0. 778kg) . Another, smaller pit (27) had been eut into this fill (1.35m in diameter, 0.1m deep), and the fill (26) of this pit contained 1 sherd of late Ir on-Age/ear 1 y Roman pottery (Fabric 13). Farther down the slope (8m from pits 44 and 27) were three
  • intercutting pits. Pit 32 (0.62m in diameter, 0.15m deep) had been the first to be eut and bac kfi lied (31); it contained 1 sherd of late Iron-Age/earl y Roman pottery. Two pits were then dug partly into 32 and 31 and partly into the natural. Both were about 0.5m in diameter and 0.1m deep
  • ). There was a sub-rect anqul ar pit në;
  • there was a ditch terminal (34), 0.62m wide and 0.25m deep. The fill (33) produced the largest collection of pottery from the site - 25 sherds. The majority (13) were of a late Iron-Age/earl y Roman fabric (Fabric 12) , but there was also a terra-ni qra-type base D -f a bowl (Fabric 65), a rim
  • was probably used for agricultural purposes in the Roman period and hence that the distribution of Roman pottery on the surface derived from manuring. However, the concentrations of brick and tile found in 'total' collection cannot be expiai ned in this way, since the material occurs
  • material collected from this field originally suggested thaï i t was a likely site to find évidence of continuity from Roman into later periods, with its distribution of Roman, médiéval and post-medi eval pottery and brick and tile too, as wel 1 as earthworks. It is therefore very
  • did not dérive from the local bedrock (Brioverian shale). A small number of squares (7) had some Roman pottery (maximum 3 sherds per square) while the post-medi eval pottery (maximum 7 sherds per square) was evenly distributed over the field, as were the small quantities (maximum
RAP00566.pdf ((56). quatre communes du Morbihan : carentoir)
  • of man-made building mater i al were recovered frorn the transects; 6.47. of the pottery was Roman, 34.87. médiéval and 58.8?/;, post-medi evail » This is consi derabl y more brick and tile than recovered in each previous season, rather more Roman pottery and rather less médiéval. Ten
  • again stress the large quanti ti es of brick and tile, relatively large of Roman and smal 1 of médiéval pottery» The spatial distribution of this material i s as interesting as in previous years, and broadly consistent with it» There are 'blank' zones within the four communes
  • were walked (of which to be covered (see fig. B) » hectares (18% of the surface area 6 were in M), encompassing 257 of Transect N) . 7.86kg of pottery and 13.81kg of man-made building material were recovered from thèse transects; 1.37. of the pottery was pre-Roman „ 1% Roman, 29.7
  • T15 and T16 clearly do so. Although there is no défi ni te structural évidence, the assemblage coming from the pit group 7 can only be interpreted as settlement débris. The pottery forms suggest a very late Iron Age, or very early Roman , date» The similarity in form and fabric
  • , they are of a size and shape more typical of Roman sites; this impression requires confirmation after a wider study of comparative material» While T15 and T16 have produced settlement data, it is more difficult to interpret the features in the other trenches» Some (e.g. 56, 48, 64) resuit from
  • that outlying parts were contemporary» The absence of prehistoric pottery from the areas around thèse ditches may imply that they do not enclose other parts of the settlement» The occurrence of pits beyond the area of settlement that have been used for burning might argue for spécial i sed
  • of fieldwork, itself part of a larger, mul t i -di sci pl i nary study of the relationship between land-u.se and settlement during the last two thousand years, took place from 21 March - 5 April and 6 -- 27 September in the communes of Ruffiac, Treal, St~Ni col as-du-Tertre , Carentoir, La
  • Chapelle Gaceline, Caro, Reminiac, Augan and Campélieac in the Morbihan in eastern E
  • to test results5 complementary envi ronment al analysis is also being undertaken, as is a survey of ail standing buildings in the core. The complète study involves (amongst other éléments) analysis of documents, including the very détail ed cadastral maps and records of the early
  • thus covered, encompassi ng 372 hectares (1.947. of the surface area of the four communes). This brings the total surface area covered during five seasons to 18.54%, as mue h as can reasonably be e>:pected within the constraints of time and money. 12.49kg of pottery and 78. 42kg
  • pottery, and the saine conventions are hereby used to distinguish between thems fields in which more than two neighbouring units each produced five or more sherds of the same broad period (or five or more fragments of building material) have been termed 'sites'; fields in which one
  • s 10 (3.5) 24 (8.4) 23 (8.1) 57 (207.) 285 per transect and in tôt o. ) Of thèse concentrations, none produced predomi nantly Roman material although 17.57» produced some Roman material;; 12.37. had predomi nanti y médiéval, 22.87. predomi nant 1 y post-medi eval , and 8.8
  • ?/. more than the necessary minimum proportions of médiéval and post-medi eval sherds» 43.9% of concentrations had a prédominance of building material, at présent treated as undatable; the remainder had more than the necessary minimum of pottery and. building material» Thèse figures
  • of Transect G, from Métairie au Joly to Le Nouai-)» The figures quoted above demonstrate the remarkably high proportion of fields in G with large concentrations of surface material. The présence of tile scatters, sometimes with smal 1 quanti ties of Roman material associated, were notable
  • near the northern boundary of Transect D (a Roman road) and in the nei ghbourhood of Marsac , La Ruaudaie and La Roche Pèlerin» Analysis of the spatial distribution of imported local schi stes » parti cul arl y those used for roofing material s in the area, produces some equally
  • the ancien cadastre , as usua 1 . More than three-quarters of concentrations of pottery (76.7V.) 1 ay more than 100m away from early n i net eenth-century settlements and only 12» 5% 1 ay within 50m of them» (The former is only slightly higher than distances from modem settlements
  • obabl e ' Possi b 1 e ' N 4 .8 Î7 M ( 27. ) (8.97.) (13.3%) 3%) Total s 4 (1.9%) 20 (9.67.) 27 (12.97.) Fields wal ked 203 6 209 Tab 1 e Of thèse concentrations 9.87» produced some Roman and pré—Roman sherds; 9.87» had predomi nanti y médiéval, 54.97. prédominant! 1/ post
  • -medi eval , and 11.87. more than the necessary minimum proportions of médiéval and post-medi eval sherds. 13.77 had a. prédominance of building material and the rest had more than the necessary minimum of building material and pottery. Despite the changes in topography and land
  • management the proportion of sites located and quanti ti es of material collected is entirely comparable with those in the four core communes. However , there is less médiéval material than has usual 1 y been found there and it was a considérable contrast to collect pre-Roman sherds from
  • absorbing 42 working days. Two 6m squares were excavated (see fig. G), One, T3, was located on the highest part of the field, where surface prospection had identified both large amounts of pottery and concentrations of phosphates (Asti 11 and Davies 1983s 16, 18). The second, T4
RAP00567.pdf ((56). quatre communes du Morbihan : carentoir)
  • .) 219 (25.57.) 858 Table 2: concentrations of surface material (percentage of fields walked per transect and in toto) Of thèse concentrations none had predomi nanti y Roman or prehistoric pottery but a small proportion had some Roman or pre-Roman sherds. Some concentrations had
  • : P M R Some Some pre—Rom. Roman 7 . 47. 11 . 17. 10. 67. 1 . 37. 6. 57. Table 3: Médiéval Post-medi eval 11. 17. 8. 17. 6 . 57. 48. 27. 32.57. 35. 5% Med. + Brick Post-med . 11.17. 18. 57. 3.87. 45.67. 51 . 57. Brick + pottery 11. 17. 107. 6 . 5 "
  • of surface scatters Di scussi on Clearly the character of the surface material differs from transect to transect. Transects P and M had areas which produced a little pre-Roman pottery - as had Transect N - a phenomenon that is extremely rare in the core communes (Asti 11 and Davies 1986
  • of material (15.67. 'possible', 177. 'probable' and 4.57. 'site'). Transect M itself produced unusually high quanti ti es of brick and tile, and a high proportion of its concentrations were characterized by brick and tile - some of which had Roman pottery associated. Transect R was notable
  • for its very 1 ow proportions of médiéval pottery and very high of post-medi eval . Thèse results are striking by comparison with patterns of material recovered from the four core communes. Whereas the amounts of Roman material collected from the surface are mue h the same, the amounts
  • . It is also of note that no Roman material was found in fields near the River Vilaine nor in the large 'blank' zone in Bruc (M). As in the core, Roman pottery is nearly always found in association with a distinct scatter of brick and tile (though this was not so in four cases, M502
  • and nearby M509, M516, M542) , and as in the core the quantities of Roman pottery were very small. Thèse tile scatters were sometimes surprisingly extensive, being évident over a distance of 300, and sometimes even 600m. In two cases fields were walked in the vicinity of already known
  • EAST BRITTANY SURVEY 1987 PU EAST BRITTANY SURVEY - OUST/VILAINE WATERSHED EASTER 1987 The seventh season in a programme of fieldwork, itself part of a larger, mul ti -di sci pl i nary study of the relationship between 1 and-use and settlement during the last two thousand
  • years, took place from 20 March - 4 April in the communes surrounding Ruffiac, Treal , St-Ni col as-du-Tertre and Carentoir, in the departments of Morbihan and 1 1 1 e-et-Vi 1 ai ne in eastern Brittany. The aim of the study is to détermine when, how and why the exploitation
  • as, Treal and Carentoir, together with sélective geophysical and geochemical surveys, and small excavations to test results; compl ementary envi ronmental analysis is also being undert aken , as is a sùrvey of ail standing buildings in the core. The complète study involves (amongst other
  • of pottery, 161.72kg of man-made building material, 23 from thèse flints and 611.72g of haematite were recovered transects , together with two worked pièces of quartz (from M). This breaks down, by transect, as follows: Brick/tile kg 18. 49 P M 121 . 77 21 . 46 R Pre-Rom. Pottery 1 . 47
  • . 0. 767. 1 . 37. Table 1: Roman Medi eval Post -med . Wei ght Fl int Haemati te by no. kg Pot Pot Pot g 2. 72 1 3. 67 34 . 67. 61 . 17. 2. 97. 545 18 26. 01 347. 61. 57. 3 . 87. 64 4 86. 87. 3. 13 3.77. 8.27. proportions and quantities of material recorded As in the core
  • there were considérable variations in the concentration of recovered pottery, and the usual conventions are hereby used to distinguish between them: fields in which more than two neighbouring units each produced five or more sherds of the same broad period (or five or more fragments
  • and proportions of médiéval material are 1 ower (especially in R) - as in N - while those of post-medi eval material are considerably higher, though not as high as in N; in the core 507. of pottery collected from the surface was médiéval and 46.77. post-medi eval . The proportion
  • of concentrations characterized by médiéval pottery is much lower than in the core (where it was 54.77.), and that by post-medi eval much higher (20.47. in the core). The overall distribution of material nevertheless shares some characteristics with that in the core. Again there are 'blank
  • scatter with Roman material lies near the bourg of Comblessac and not on some distant periphery, as is more usual . In Transect M there were 'blank' areas on the banks of the River Aff and its tributaries but most notable was a very marked and very large 'blank' zone in the commune
  • significant. In Transect P there are none of thèse materials on the high ground west of Ruffiac boundary, precisely in those areas which produced no surface pottery either; there are also no pink schi stes in and around Malestroit and close to the River Oust. In Transect M there are none
  • Emailleries. It seems highly likely that most of this transect, beyond its western parts, lay beyond the normal area of distribution of this material, whose source we have recently localized to quarries immediately south west of Guer. In Transect R there were no 'roofing' schi stes
  • on the north-east side of the high land near the Carentoi r /Combl essac boundary and none by the wood in the Lande de Craon, both areas lacking surface pottery too. There was little or no pink material on the western and south-western si des of this high land, and none from Couè'dillan
  • examination o-F it. Preliminary examination of the pottery suggests that there are some distinctions between the fabrics collected between Pipriac and the Vilaine (Transect M, eastern portion) and those characteri sti c both of the core and of sample transects near it (N, P, R
RAP03967 (QUIBERON (56). Beg-er-Vil à Quiberon. Un habitat du Mésolithique sur le littoral du Morbihan. Rapport de fouille programmée 2020 )
RAP01557.pdf (PLOULEC'H (22). le Yaudet. rapport final de synthèse de fouille programmée 1996-1998)
RAP01768.pdf (le mésolithique en Bretagne. rapport de projet collectif de recherches)
RAP03495 (BADEN (56). Port-Blanc : un établissement de l'Antiquité tardive au cœur du Golfe du Morbihan. Rapport de diagnostic)
RAP00129.pdf (PLOULEC'H (22). le Yaudet. rapport de sondage et de prospection-inventaire.)
  • , C de A The Roman wall and maritime gate Le Yaudet. Mur romain et porte maritime (edge of cliff=abrupt de la falaise; excavation of 1953-5= fouilles de 1953-5; Trench 3 = tranchée n° 2; Iron Age wall= rempart de l'Age du Fer; approximate position of Roman wall=situation
  • D E T , P L O U L E C ' H , C de. A 0 1 2 3 4 5 Metres . L e Yaudet. Tranchée 2. Coupe est (Roman w a l l = mur romain; Iron Age wall F 31. Granite blocks set in clay= rempart de l'Age du Fer F 31, blocs de granite liés à l'argile ; Roman road surface = surface de la voie
  • abandon; medieval field and lynchet=parcelle médiévale et lynchet; medieval building and occupation=bâtiment et occupation d'époque médiévale; recent=occupation récente). Le Yaudet, 1991: trench 2 y Hill wash 2c Roman soil accumulation 2b Roman gate structure and road 2a Iron
  • ; Iron Age soil accumulation=niveau de l'Age du Fer; Roman gate structure and road=porte et voie romaines; Roman soil accumulation=niveau d'époque romaine; hillwash=colluvionnement). THE LE YAUDET PROJECT First Interim Report on the excavations 1991 by Barry Cunliffe and Patrick
  • o Le Pont Rous now runs. a h e i g h t o f 61 m. The headland i s of granite rising t o The 25 m contour marks, a p p r o x i m a t e l y , t h e edge beyond w h i c h t h e l a n d f a l l s s t e e p l y i n c l i f f s t o t h e shore. The v a l l e y which d i v i d e s t
  • h e headland from t h e mainland was u t i l i z e d as p a r t o f t h e d e f e n s i v e system i n t h e pre-Roman p e r i o d by t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a rampart along i t s n o r t h - w e s t e r n edge running from a prominent granite Beaumanoir, a t t h e
  • evidence b u t an e a r l y medieval date seems l i k e l y (Savidan 1935; Mazeres 1936). From 1952 u n t i l 1954 P r o f e s s o r F l e u r i o t examined t h e Roman w a l l a t t h e n o r t h - e a s t corner o f t h e s i t e b o t h west and s o u t h o f t h e Poste de Douane
  • . To t h e west he uncovered a Roman gate which gave access t o a convenient of t h e c l i f f s . The e x c a v a t i o n has n o t been p u b l i s h e d b u t i n t e r i m accounts were prepared 1954, 1955). landing place a t the f o o t ( F l e u r i o t 1952, 1953, 1954a
  • ; I n 1969 P r o f e s s o r e x p l o r a t o r y work. Garlan and M e r l a t undertook further The Roman gate was c l e a r e d o f v e g e t a t i o n and a s e r i e s o f sondages c u t i n p a r c e l l e s 22, 13, 20, 12, and 5 exposing Roman and medieval m a t e r i
  • r o n Age t h e s i t e c o n t i n u e d t o be occupied i n t h e Roman p e r i o d and a t some s t a g e , p o s s i b l y i n t h e l a t e t h i r d o r f o u r t h c e n t u r y was in defended by a w a l l t h e m i g r a t i o n p e r i o d t h e s e t t l e m e n t
  • m i t e d range o f s p e c i f i c g u e s t i o n s : how w e l l does a r c h a e o l o g i c a l evidence s u r v i v e ? what i s t h e n a t u r e o f t h e o c c u p a t i o n seguence i n t h e l e e o f t h e rampart? can t h e date o f t h e Roman m a r i t i m e gate
  • e rampart, t h e o t h e r (Trench 2) immediately adjacent m a r i t i m e gate. t o Fleuriot's excavation o f t h e Roman The aim o f Trench 1 was t o t e s t t h e s t r a t i g r a p h i e sequence i n an area where t h e s u r v i v a l o f a r c h a e o l o g i c a l
  • d e p o s i t s was l i k e l y t o be good, w h i l e Trench 2 was l o c a t e d t o examine t h e s t r a t i g r a p h y i m m e d i a t e l y behind t h e Roman d e f e n s i v e w a l l . results, as w i l l be apparent from t h e d e s c r i p t i o n The t o follow
RAP00465.pdf (PONT-CROIX (29). villa antique de Kervenennec. rapport de fouille programmée)
  • des informations partielles,traitant de certains types de céramiques paraissaient,tant en France( Annales de Bretagne et des Pays de l'Ouest , Figlina(à P.) qu'à l»étranger( cf Michael FULFORB ,"Pottery and Britain's foreign trade in the later Roman period", dans D.P.S PËACOCK(Ed
  • .), Pottery and early commerce, London, 1977,p 35-84), li manque encore à ce jour une publication d'ensemble des résultats obtenus:nous comptons nous y consacrer pendant l'année 1978 et ne demanderons donc pas d'autorisation de fouilles pour 1 9 7 8 . Pour mener à bien ces premiers travaux
RAP01402.pdf (PLOULE'H (22). le Yaudet. rapport intermédiaire de fouille programmée 1996-1998)
  • rp C < HH tri r o c _ir r m o V» ñ " o o O TI g -vi CO CO Ol £ O Fig. 6 Le Yaudet. Tranchées 11 et 15. Moyen Age LE YAUDET, PLOULEC'H Medieval F255 r o\jh Ò o o o O o -it, lì-: o o Post holes containing medieval pottery { Post holes without medieval
  • pottery ) 10 20 Metres Fig. 6. o F312 Fig. 7 Le Yaudet. Tranchées 12, 13 et 15. Coupes et plans Sections s Limpet & m u s s e l shells sw^ n / _ --.NE Pots Quern NW Granite F304 3 Metres Fig.8 Le Yaudet. Coupe des structures majeures de la tranchée 11 NW. WNW
  • 10 cms ,û6 Trench 11 Feature 377 Layer 3 ? 1222 1213 J 223 1211 ; •96 Trench 11 Feature 377 Layer 4 ( r& 1226 V\/s 1201 / A/x. 1202 '96 Trench 11 Feature 377 Layers 1,2 & 4 Samian ware 12371 V" 1236 3 0 5 Fig. 14 Le Yaudet. Céramiques du 1er siècle ap. de la
  • fosse F 377 Trenches 11 & 15 Stratified layers only Plough soil Gallo Roman Trench 12 Trench 13 (264)— —(260) Recent F301 (wall) Gallo Roman 263 Pre Roman 269 ( 270 Trench 17 Topsoil ) Trench 16 (north) Trench 16 (south) (^M) (282) Rubble Roman fill 286
RAP00530.pdf (VANNES (56). ruelle du Recteur. rapport de sauvetage urgent)
  • . ROGERS G. 1981 : Marbled sigillata from research in Britain and North-West Europe. Fréjus (VAR) B.A.R. : In Roman pottery International Séries 123 (i), Oxford, p.257-264. SIREAUDEAU J. archéologique 1989 ; : Amphores romaines des sites angevins et leur contexte
  • . MENEZ Y. 1986 : Les céramiques fumigées du Bourbonnais. Etude des collections de Châteaumeillant et Néris les Bains. Université de Paris IV. Paris, 130p. OSWALD F. 1931 : Index of potter's stamps on terra sigillata "samian ware" - Margidunum, East Bridgford, Notts, 428 p
RAP00401.pdf (SAINT-MALO (35). cité d'Alet - rue de Mesle. rapport de sauvetage urgent)
  • . FULFORD (M.), 1977. - Pottery and Britains Foreign trade in the later Roman period, in : - Pottery and Early Commerce, PEACOCK et AL.. HOFMANN (B.), 1980. - La céramique sigillée d'Alet, Dossiers du Ce.R.A.A.,~N°$, P.51-62. LANGOUET (L.), 1973. - Alet, ville ancienne, Thèse de Ille
  • . - Interpreting pottery, Batsford, London. CAMPION (L.), 1908. - L'enceinte romaine d'Alet, Revue Bretonne, p.165-178. FARRAR , 1968. - A late Roman blackburnished pottery industry in Dorset and its affinities, in : Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archeological Society, p.174-180
RAP00564.pdf ((56). l'arrondissement de Vannes. rapport de prospection inventaire)
  • * / | A o 0 Q pottibl* sitvs * Roman ittt* • m«di«val sittt ■ po*t mcditval litis Figure 1 253 - on ajoutera enfin que.de nombreuses enquêtes similaires ayant été entamées dans d'autres parties de la Bretagne au cours des dernières années, le matériel de comparaison est abondant, et
  • millénaires. (Traduction : Patrick GALLIOU, Université de Bretagne Occidentale, Brest) Notes. Cl) On consultera également : G.G. ASTILL,W.DAVlES,"Fieldwalking in East Brittany, 1982", Cambridge Médiéval Celtic Studies, IV , 1982, 19-31 ;id. , "Un nouveau programme de recherche sur le
  • mensuel de la Société Polymathique du Morbihan, n°1467 ,CX, 1983. EAST BRITTANY SURVEY A116 D142 B319 MEDIEVAL POT TER Y MEDIEVAL POTTERY MEDIEVAL D153 PHOSPHATE POTTERY MEDIEVAL POTTERY è en co PHOSPHATE KEY pottery:• • • • • phosphate > • 100-350 • 400-650 • 700-950 ppm
RAP02752_1.pdf (TRÉGUEUX (22). rocade d'agglomération briochine : enclos défensif, bâtiment public et habitat nucléé de la tène 2, et leurs développements à la période gallo-romaine et à l'époque médiévale. rapport de fouille)