Periodic Reporting for period 1 - EMPyr (Early medieval Pyrotechnologies. Mechanisms and factors of innovations in northwestern Europe)
Okres sprawozdawczy: 2021-06-01 do 2023-05-31
The Empyr project stems from a contemporary observation: today, innovation is fuelled by the sharing of knowledge and tools in factory incubators, fab labs, and online platforms. These developments are triggering major economic and social transformations. Similarly, during the early Middle Ages, between the late 7th and 9th centuries, northwestern Europe underwent significant political and social mobility, changes in settlement patterns, and technical innovation in craft production. The EMPyr project asks whether those historical dynamics can be compared to our current context, and what role innovators of that era played in these transformations.
Although innovations and changes are documented in the early Middle Ages, the underlying factors remain poorly understood. From a production standpoint, the project aims to explain the mechanisms behind the transformation of pyrotechnologies (glass, ceramics, and iron) and to assess whether these changes were driven by craftspeople themselves or required intervention from elites.
To do this, the project studied various sites of different social status: Oegstgeest (village), Germigny-des-Prés (aristocratic villa), Huy (agglomeration), and Stavelot (abbey). At these locations, glass, ceramic, and iron production occurred between the 7th and early 9th centuries. Selected materials were first examined archaeologically, then subjected to laboratory analyses.
For all the studied materials, the concept of the chaîne opératoire was applied to reconstruct all stages of the production process from raw material procurement to transformation and shaping. By considering the archaeological context and the status of each site, certain technical changes and innovations were identified. A cross-craft approach was also developed to compare these pyrotechnologies and explore intersections in their chaînes opératoires, whether in terms of materials or techniques. The goal was to understand how artisans might have shared knowledge, tools, or materials between crafts.
Finally, the results were contextualized within their broader historical, social, and economic frameworks. Each site was analysed in relation to its surroundings, including natural resources and communication networks. The specific nature of each craft was taken into account, given that the objects produced held different statuses. The project identified where innovations first emerged and how they influenced other craft traditions. While many changes appear to have originated with the artisans, elite intervention was sometimes necessary.
Although innovations and changes are documented in the early Middle Ages, the underlying factors remain poorly understood. From a production standpoint, the project aims to explain the mechanisms behind the transformation of pyrotechnologies (glass, ceramics, and iron) and to assess whether these changes were driven by craftspeople themselves or required intervention from elites.
To do this, the project studied various sites of different social status: Oegstgeest (village), Germigny-des-Prés (aristocratic villa), Huy (agglomeration), and Stavelot (abbey). At these locations, glass, ceramic, and iron production occurred between the 7th and early 9th centuries. Selected materials were first examined archaeologically, then subjected to laboratory analyses.
For all the studied materials, the concept of the chaîne opératoire was applied to reconstruct all stages of the production process from raw material procurement to transformation and shaping. By considering the archaeological context and the status of each site, certain technical changes and innovations were identified. A cross-craft approach was also developed to compare these pyrotechnologies and explore intersections in their chaînes opératoires, whether in terms of materials or techniques. The goal was to understand how artisans might have shared knowledge, tools, or materials between crafts.
Finally, the results were contextualized within their broader historical, social, and economic frameworks. Each site was analysed in relation to its surroundings, including natural resources and communication networks. The specific nature of each craft was taken into account, given that the objects produced held different statuses. The project identified where innovations first emerged and how they influenced other craft traditions. While many changes appear to have originated with the artisans, elite intervention was sometimes necessary.
Archaeological studies and macroscopic observations were conducted on materials from the four sites, including Germigny-des-Prés, Huy, and Stavelot. The corpus consisted of 6 kg of iron slags and objects, 7071 ceramic fragments (NR), 873 glass crucibles (MNI), and 250 glass items. Based on the initial results from Oegstgeest and Germigny-des-Prés, a general presentation on craft activities in the early Middle Ages was created and used in outreach activities.
LA-ICP-MS analyses were carried out on 45 glass tesserae from Germigny-des-Prés and 236 samples from glass objects and crucibles from Huy. These were accompanied by collaborative meetings to interpret the results. Petrographic analyses were performed on 20 thin sections from crucibles and ceramics from Huy and Stavelot. Ceramic analysis training sessions were delivered in 2024 and will be repeated in 2025 and possibly beyond. Iron objects and slag from Stavelot were analyzed through metallography (10 descriptions) and SEM-EDS (10153 data points). All results are available on HAL.
An experimental archaeology session was held in Germigny-des-Prés on July 2–3, 2022, and was open to the public. A scientific workshop took place in Orléans on January 26–27, 2023, with 26 speakers and 40 participants. A paper presented on the workshops in Huy has been written and is ready for publication in the proceedings, which are expected to be open-access by fall 2025.
The integration of these results is underway; a comprehensive synthesis paper is in preparation and should be submitted by the end of 2025.
LA-ICP-MS analyses were carried out on 45 glass tesserae from Germigny-des-Prés and 236 samples from glass objects and crucibles from Huy. These were accompanied by collaborative meetings to interpret the results. Petrographic analyses were performed on 20 thin sections from crucibles and ceramics from Huy and Stavelot. Ceramic analysis training sessions were delivered in 2024 and will be repeated in 2025 and possibly beyond. Iron objects and slag from Stavelot were analyzed through metallography (10 descriptions) and SEM-EDS (10153 data points). All results are available on HAL.
An experimental archaeology session was held in Germigny-des-Prés on July 2–3, 2022, and was open to the public. A scientific workshop took place in Orléans on January 26–27, 2023, with 26 speakers and 40 participants. A paper presented on the workshops in Huy has been written and is ready for publication in the proceedings, which are expected to be open-access by fall 2025.
The integration of these results is underway; a comprehensive synthesis paper is in preparation and should be submitted by the end of 2025.
Key scientific findings show that from the 8th century onward, ceramics were produced using kaolinitic clays, prompting potters to relocate their workshops. Iron production during Merovingian times relied on diverse ore sources, with smiths particularly active in settlements. From the late 7th century, smithing activities began to cluster around abbeys, where primary production may also have occurred. Although recycling is evident from the 7th century, raw glass imports from the Levant continued; until the late 8th century, natron glass was still in use. Some crucibles, once thought to be reused ceramics, were in fact purpose-made for glass production. Potters gradually adopted more suitable materials, including kaolinitic clays used for crucibles in the 9th century. From this time, potash glass began to be used for window panes in monumental architecture.
Experimental archaeology has shown that mastering metal and glass technologies (particularly gold, silver, and tesserae production) was more complex than previously assumed, certainly required the collaboration of multiple crafts. The project demonstrated that the cross-craft approach—novel for this period—offers new insights into the relationship between potters and glassmakers, usually studied in isolation. Innovations in ceramics helped glassmakers improve their tools, potentially allowing higher temperatures and the development of new recipes. The approach also suggests that iron production may have supported other crafts by providing tools, even if no major technical innovations in ironworking were identified.
The project confirms that Merovingian artisans were not merely repeating inherited traditions but were also innovators. They retained expert knowledge while adapting to changing material supplies and demands. No decline in skills was observed; rather, artisans experimented with new resources and better understood how to exploit their environment. From the Carolingian period onward, rising elite demand (e.g. for architectural glass and weapons-grade iron) stimulated innovation, often initiated by craftspeople. This also encouraged a renewed understanding of territory and resource management.
Ultimately, contacts between artisans and evolving production methods were likely key drivers of innovation. The role of each actor varied by craft, but all crafts were interlinked. Innovations often began at the artisanal level but occasionally depended on elite support. A focus on just one craft risks oversimplification, whereas a comparative approach across sites and materials yields a more nuanced view of this period not as a “dark age,” but as an era rich in creativity and innovation.
Experimental archaeology has shown that mastering metal and glass technologies (particularly gold, silver, and tesserae production) was more complex than previously assumed, certainly required the collaboration of multiple crafts. The project demonstrated that the cross-craft approach—novel for this period—offers new insights into the relationship between potters and glassmakers, usually studied in isolation. Innovations in ceramics helped glassmakers improve their tools, potentially allowing higher temperatures and the development of new recipes. The approach also suggests that iron production may have supported other crafts by providing tools, even if no major technical innovations in ironworking were identified.
The project confirms that Merovingian artisans were not merely repeating inherited traditions but were also innovators. They retained expert knowledge while adapting to changing material supplies and demands. No decline in skills was observed; rather, artisans experimented with new resources and better understood how to exploit their environment. From the Carolingian period onward, rising elite demand (e.g. for architectural glass and weapons-grade iron) stimulated innovation, often initiated by craftspeople. This also encouraged a renewed understanding of territory and resource management.
Ultimately, contacts between artisans and evolving production methods were likely key drivers of innovation. The role of each actor varied by craft, but all crafts were interlinked. Innovations often began at the artisanal level but occasionally depended on elite support. A focus on just one craft risks oversimplification, whereas a comparative approach across sites and materials yields a more nuanced view of this period not as a “dark age,” but as an era rich in creativity and innovation.