Mesopotamian glass from LBA Egypt, Romania, Germany and Denmark (co-author)

lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science xxx (2016) 1e11

Contents lists avai

Journal of Archaeological Science

journal homepage: http : / /www.elsevier .com/locate/ jas

Research papers

Mesopotamian glass from Late Bronze Age Egypt, Romania, Germany,and Denmark

Jeanette Varberg a, *, Bernard Gratuze b, Flemming Kaul c, Anne Haslund Hansen c,Mihai Rotea d, Mihai Wittenberger d

a Moesgaard Museum, DK-8270, Højbjerg, Denmarkb IRAMAT-CEB, UMR5060, CNRS/Univ. Orleans, Orleans, Francec National Museum of Denmark, DK-1220, København K, Denmarkd National History Museum of Transylvania, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 24 August 2015Received in revised form3 April 2016Accepted 5 April 2016Available online xxx

Keywords:Late bronze ageGlass beadsTrade networkLong distance exchangeNew Kingdom EgyptAmarnaMesopotamiaMycenaeRomaniaGermanySouth Scandinavia

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Va

fr (B. Gratuze), [email protected] (F. Kaul), andk (A.H. Hansen), [email protected] (M.(M. Wittenberger).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2016.04.0100305-4403/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Varberg, J.of Archaeological Science (2016), http://dx.d

a b s t r a c t

This article presents new evidence of the wide dispersion of Mesopotamian glass, 1400e1100 BCE. Thechemical analyses of glass material from Amarna, Egypt, demonstrate that glass of Mesopotamian originreached Egypt. The recently obtained physical evidence substantiates the words of the Amarna letters,referring to glass trade between Syria and Egypt. Furthermore, the chemical analyses of glass beads fromRomania, Northern Germany and Denmark demonstrate that they were made of Mesopotamian glass.The current results presented here contribute to our understanding of the long distance exchange net-works between the Mediterranean and the Nordic Bronze Age cultures. Finally, on the background of theanalysis results it is proposed that the chemical composition of some of the beads in question indicates amixture of glass of Mesopotamian and Egyptian origin. Probably, the mixture of the glass material tookplace at secondary workshops in the Mycenaean world.

© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

During the latest decades, the methods regarding chemical an-alyses of ancient glass have improved dramatically, along with theincreasing amount of material available for comparative studies(Shortland et al., 2007; Walton et al., 2009, 2012; Shortland, 2012;Gratuze, 2013; Rehren and Freestone, 2015). Recent chemical ana-lyses of glass beads found in well-dated burial contexts from1400e1100 BCE have demonstrated that glass from both Meso-potamia and Egypt reached Denmark e the Nordic Bronze Ageculture e during this early phase of glass production (Varberg et al.,

rberg), [email protected]@natmus.Rotea), [email protected]

, et al., Mesopotamian glass froi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2016.04.0

2015).Even though it has been demonstrated that glass from both

Mesopotamia and Egypt was exported to the Mycenaean states,there seems so far to be no clear physical evidence of Egyptian glassin Mesopotamia or for Mesopotamian glass in Egypt (Walton et al.,2009; Rehren and Freestone, 2015).

It is possible to attest more than 2000 annular glass beads from1400e1100 BCE found in Denmark, Germany and Romania. Such alarge material offers a great potential for research into the originand the dissemination of glass (Jantzen and Schmidt, 1999;Petrescu-Dîmbovita, 1977; Varberg et al., 2015). Two of the largestglass finds in Europe are the Cioclovina Cave hoard from WestRomania and the Neustrelitz hoard fromNorth Germany. A numberof beads from both hoards have been analyzed. The beads from theNeustrelitz hoard were analyzed by Stephanie Mildner (Mildneret al., 2010, 2014). In the present article the chemical compositionof the Neustrelitz beads, as presented by Mildner et al. is compared

om Late Bronze Age Egypt, Romania, Germany, and Denmark, Journal10

Delta:1_given name

Delta:1_surname

Delta:1_given name

Delta:1_surname

Delta:1_given name

Delta:1_surname

mailto:[email protected]








www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03054403

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2016.04.010



J. Varberg et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science xxx (2016) 1e112

with the composition of the steadily increasing amount of analyzedBronze Age glass material at hand.

The intention of this article is to trace the movement of earlyglass from its origin in Mesopotamia and Egypt into the Mediter-ranean, including centers such as Mycenae, and further towardsNorthern Europe and the Nordic Bronze Age culture. For this studywe have chosen four geographical areas that are rich in glass findsand represent the spread and exchange or trade with glass in theLate Bronze Age.

2. Glass from Amarna, Egypt

The iconographic and textual material seems to indicate a sub-stantive flow of glass into Egypt, but until now there has been nohard evidence for it. The discrepancy between the textual andiconographic evidence of glass import into Egypt and the lack ofchemical analytical evidence for such an import has been pointed atby Rehren and others (Rehren, 2014, 221, Shortland, 2012). In anumber of the Amarna letters, pharaoh Akhenaten (years of reign:1353e1336 BCE), requests deliveries of glass from local rulers in theLevant (Shortland, 2012, 147e152; Rehren, 2014, 219). About ahundred years earlier, during the rule of pharaoh Thutmosis III(1479e1425 BCE) glass was apparently already imported to Egyptfrom Syria. In the so-called Annals of Thutmosis III, which are foundon thewalls of the Karnak Temple, there is a depiction of ThutmosisIII donating the booty or tribute obtained from his Syrian warcampaigns to the temple. The most precious gifts are depicted inorder of value, gold and silver first, and then next seven basketswith precious stones (Fig.1). Probably three of these are in fact glassingots (Shortland, 2012, 55). Ingots of the same size and shape asthe depicted glass from Karnak are known from the 175 Egyptiandisk-shaped glass ingots almost all of blue color from the Uluburunshipwreck found near the south coast of Turkey (Pulak, 2008).Thutmosis III apparently donated large quantities of Syrian glass tothe Karnak temple, but until now there has been no sign of the glasstrade between Mesopotamia (here defined in quite a broad sense,even including larger parts of Syria, Lebanon and Southern Ana-tolia) and Egypt in the material analyses.

Chemical analyses were made of glass material from Amarna,Egypt, now part of the collection at the National Museum of

Fig. 1. Detail of a relief from Karnak, Luxor, Egypt. Glass ingots (partly colored blue inthe center of the photo) are seen among other tributes donated to the temple byThutmosis III after his Syrian war campaign. Photo: Jeanette Varberg, MoesgaardMuseum. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the readeris referred to the web version of this article.)

Please cite this article in press as: Varberg, J., et al., Mesopotamian glass frof Archaeological Science (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2016.04.0

Denmark. The chemical analyses were carried out at the in Institutde Recherche sur les Arch�eomat�eriaux, CNRS/Univ. Orl�eans, France.The material derives from excavations of one of the Amarna glassworkshops by W. M. Flinders Petrie in the last decade of thenineteenth century. The material from the Petrie excavations wassplit up among a number of European museums, including theNational Museum of Denmark (Shortland, 2012, 87e88). Ten piecesfrom the Amarna glass workshop debris, small glass rods and glasschips, from the collection at the National Museum of Denmark,were included in an earlier publication (Varberg et al., 2015, 169and Fig. 1). In the present article, the chemical analytical results ofadditional six samples from the Amarna workshop are included(see Tables 2 and 3). Altogether, the analyzed material comprisesthirteen pieces of glass rods of different colors, two blue glass chipsand a glass sherd with multicolor floral decoration. The glass rods,being considered as miniature ingots, were used for makingdecoration on glass vessels, as seen on the glass sherd (Fig. 2b), andfor inlays in pieces of gold jewelry, in stonework and in woodenobjects such as coffins and furniture (Kemp, 2012, 288).

Photo: Flemming Kaul, the National Museum of Denmark.

2.1. Glass from the Cioclovina Cave and Str. Banatului, Cluj-Napoca,Romania

In Western Romania glass beads were found in several burialsand hoards. In this study we have included two such glass findsfrom a hoard and a grave. The most prominent and most discussedRomanian glass find is the hoard from the Cioclovina Cave (Hune-doara County). It consists of approximately 7500 artifacts: Bronzeitems, horse cheek-pieces of bone, 2325 glass beads (Fig. 3), 570faience beads and 1770 amber beads. All were found during twoexcavation campaigns (Comsa 1966, 171; Em€odi, 1978, 487;Petrescu-Dambovita 1977, 89). The cave is regarded as an importantsacrificial cave, where a large number of votive offerings weredeposited between 1400 and 1100 BCE. The beads in question werepossibly part of one or two horse harnesses.

The second Romanian glass sample is from the archeologicalburial site of Banatului street, Cluj-Napoca. The site was discoveredby chance in 1934 along the shores of the Nad�as River and theexcavations were carried out in two stages in 1934e1936 and morerecently in 1998e2000. During the excavation campaigns a total of54 burials were discovered. Grave M 18 (Cluj 1) was a rich femaleburial and it contained a bronze pin, a bone pin, a fossil marinesnail, wild boar tusks and two glass beads. One of the glass beadswas chosen for chemical analysis. The grave can be dated to theNoua Culture c. 1400e1200 BCE (Wittenberger, 2001).

2.2. Glass from Neustrelitz, North Germany

In 1991 a large hoard was found at Neustrelitz, North Germany.A ceramic vessel contained 880 objects; most were of bronze, but179 annular glass beads (divided into two types one being slightlylarger than the other), one polychrome bead and 20 amber beadswere also part of the find. The objects were dominated by: femaleornaments (most typical for the region), a few bronze tools and aperforated boar tusk. The hoard is dated to the middle part of theMontelian period III (c. 1200 BCE) (Jantzen and Schmidt, 1999).

A chemical analysis of 12 blue glass beads (numbers 721, 722,752, 803, 814a, 856, 865, 878, 719, 864, 879 and 720) from Neu-strelitz has been carried out by the Stephanie Mildner researchteam at the University of Würtzburg, Germany, using the LA-ICP-MS analyses equipment/method, the same that was used by Insti-tut de Recherche sur les Arch�eomat�eriaux (Mildner et al., 2010).

Based on the published list of the chemical composition of theNeustrelitz beads (Mildner et al., 2010) we have included these


Table 1Composition of the studied Danish and Romanian glass beads and Amarna glass. Major and minor elements (Na2O, MgO, Al2O3, SiO2, P2O5, Cl, K2O, CaO and Fe2O3) are expressed as weight % of oxide, other elements (from TiO2 to PbO)are given in part per million of oxide (1 ppm ¼ 0.0001%). Corn A and NIST 612 values obtained for the same analytical runs are also given.

Reference Values in % Values in ppm

Na2O MgO Al2O3 SiO2 P2O5 Cl K2O CaO Fe2O3 TiO2 MnO CoO CuO NiO ZnO Li2O B2O3 V2O5 Cr2O3 As2O3 Rb2O SrO Y2O3 ZrO2 Nb2O3 SnO2 Sb2O3 BaO La2O3 CeO2 Nd2O3 PbO

Danish glass beadBHM 1600 16.4 7.65 0.91 61.9 0.18 0.46 4.52 6.67 0.67 394 483 317 1557 110 131 72 429 12 20 25 10 578 3.9 12 0.8 2 1135 32 2.6 5.3 2.7 647Romanian glass beadsCluj M18 1 17.9 5.25 1.26 65.0 0.16 0.77 3.04 4.91 0.45 422 483 14 10093 19 26 51 550 14 19 19 15 438 3.4 15 1.4 4.4 0.3 45 3.0 5.9 2.6 6.2Cioclovina a 18.2 5.64 1.12 61.9 0.17 0.43 3.23 6.65 0.62 587 453 15 17353 101 44 55 497 20 40 92 15 546 3.3 20 1.2 838 72 56 3.4 6.8 2.9 59Cioclovina b 18.0 5.66 1.15 61.9 0.16 0.43 3.19 6.75 0.61 598 456 15 17443 100 44 55 494 20 40 92 14 556 3.5 20 1.2 834 72 56 3.4 6.6 3.0 56Cioclovina c 18.1 5.17 1.19 61.8 0.16 0.51 3.24 6.01 0.82 635 447 6 19535 36 107 44 612 20 58 40 18 454 3.4 20 1.3 300 1685 90 3.3 7.3 2.9 5920Cioclovina d 18.1 5.28 1.15 62.1 0.16 0.45 2.92 5.90 0.87 616 443 6 20481 32 71 44 598 19 47 40 13 454 3.2 19 1.2 113 1689 96 3.2 7.5 2.9 5773Cioclovina e 17.1 5.22 1.28 61.4 0.18 0.29 3.40 7.18 0.65 664 462 17 28974 92 57 52 700 20 46 33 13 571 3.9 22 1.3 664 68 66 4.0 7.0 3.5 36Egyptian glass from Denmark National Museum used as comparison materialDANMK 7411 8 15.5 4.88 0.88 64.8 0.19 0.94 4.14 5.81 0.65 459 262 10 7928 26 630 62 354 15 25 32 18 482 2.8 18 1.0 20 2623 121 3.0 5.5 2.3 8684DANMK 7411 10 17.1 3.69 0.83 65.3 0.25 0.78 3.37 5.15 0.52 468 197 3.3 12312 20 1039 10 290 15 31 64 34 381 2.1 12 0.8 1.4 3049 74 1.7 3.2 1.7 12394DANMK 7411 11 17.7 4.26 0.57 62.0 0.13 1.02 1.78 9.92 0.34 558 164 4.3 12824 16 364 12 220 10 7.6 30 11 1114 2.4 36 1.2 1088 1479 39 2.3 4.6 2.3 4643DANMK 7411 12 13.6 3.56 1.16 64.7 0.16 0.79 2.95 9.35 0.72 1236 239 6.0 341 10 609 11 229 20 17 42 20 1297 4.6 78 2.4 9.2 3999 194 4.3 8.2 4.1 22291DANMK 7412 15.1 4.10 1.70 63.8 0.16 1.36 2.01 10.49 0.89 1829 250 4.5 149 8.4 27 12 344 30 19 0.5 13 552 7.0 122 3.7 2.7 49 96 6.9 13.5 6.7 3.3DANMK 7438bl 14.7 3.84 1.07 65.0 0.17 0.92 2.32 10.18 0.58 1077 177 5.9 7775 13 34 12 257 19 11 30 15 649 4.3 81 2.3 444 678 58 4.0 8.0 4.0 14DANMK 7438w 15.5 3.66 0.79 62.9 0.18 0.73 2.65 10.34 0.45 958 175 3.0 270 13 40 11 215 16 8 67 15 843 3.7 75 1.8 1.1 25400 54 3.7 7.1 3.6 26DANMK 7438y 14.8 3.95 0.87 62.2 0.18 0.62 2.50 10.89 0.71 867 226 3.8 212 8.0 3058 13 200 16 14 14 15 1017 3.8 73 1.8 44 4046 121 3.5 6.6 3.3 23498Average and standard deviation values obtained for Corning A and NIST 612 glass reference materials analysed as unknown samples with the studied glassesCorn A avr. 14.2 2.52 0.97 66.1 0.11 0.15 2.97 5.89 1.14 7595 10218 1716 11827 228 541 112 2153 63 29 30 97 1067 0.90 49 0.60 1790 15958 4766 0.49 0.29 0.17 586Corn A std. 0.7 0.12 0.08 1.6 0.01 0.00 0.10 0.29 0.07 20 776 133 786 18 15 6 169 0.8 0.5 1.2 8.7 91 0.03 0.28 0.03 130 419 281 0.05 0.02 0.02 58

NIST 612 avr. 13.5 0.020 2.03 72.6 0.015 0.062 0.001 11.56 0.004 68 51 44 46 47 46 90 113 68 43 42 35 89 46.2 49 42.2 44.9 37.2 40.4 43.5 46.4 41.7 30.2NIST 612 std. 0.5 0.001 0.10 1.1 0.003 0.004 0.001 0.51 0.002 0.7 2.6 2.2 2.3 2.2 0.5 1.7 2.2 0.5 4.9 1.5 1.2 4.3 0.2 0.9 1.1 1.9 1.6 1.1 3.9 4.1 0.7 0.01

Pleasecite

thisarticle

inpress

as:Varberg,J.,etal.,M

esopotamian

glassfrom

LateBronze

Age

Egypt,Romania,G

ermany,and

Denm

ark,Journalof

ArchaeologicalScience

(2016),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2016.04.010

Table 2Contents of others REE and elements of interest for the studied Danish and Romanian glass beads and Amarna glasses. Concentrations are given in part per million of oxide.Corn A and NIST 612 values obtained for the same analytical runs are also given.

Reference PrO2 Sm2O3 Eu2O3 Gd2O3 Tb2O3 Dy2O3 Ho2O3 Er2O3 Tm2O3 Yb2O3 Lu2O3 HfO2 Ta2O3 ThO2 UO2 Bi Ag

Danish glass beadBHM 1600 0.61 0.65 0.17 0.69 0.11 0.64 0.11 0.31 0.03 0.26 0.03 0.29 0.04 0.41 0.17 0.03 0.12Romanian glass beadsCluj M18 1 0.65 0.63 0.16 0.55 0.09 0.55 0.10 0.29 0.04 0.25 0.04 0.40 0.12 0.80 0.37 0.06 0.26Cioclovina a 0.73 0.65 0.17 0.60 0.10 0.55 0.11 0.29 0.04 0.27 0.04 0.47 0.06 0.65 0.23 0.56 1.74Cioclovina b 0.75 0.62 0.17 0.58 0.10 0.57 0.10 0.28 0.03 0.29 0.04 0.49 0.07 0.66 0.23 0.58 1.73Cioclovina c 0.74 0.66 0.16 0.57 0.09 0.54 0.11 0.30 0.04 0.30 0.04 0.45 0.07 0.67 0.23 0.79 4.06Cioclovina d 0.70 0.62 0.17 0.56 0.10 0.51 0.10 0.29 0.04 0.27 0.04 0.42 0.07 0.63 0.23 0.77 3.86Cioclovina e 0.86 0.76 0.19 0.67 0.11 0.64 0.12 0.32 0.04 0.33 0.05 0.50 0.08 0.76 0.25 1.50 7.09Egyptian glasses from Denmark National Museum used as comparison materialDANMK 7411 8 0.59 0.47 0.10 0.36 0.07 0.46 0.09 0.25 0.04 0.28 0.04 0.39 0.05 0.62 0.33 0.47 1.13DANMK 7411 10 0.38 0.38 0.11 0.44 0.06 0.34 0.07 0.21 0.03 0.19 0.03 0.27 0.04 0.39 0.20 0.31 1.54DANMK 7411 11 0.57 0.47 0.11 0.61 0.07 0.41 0.08 0.24 0.03 0.23 0.03 0.83 0.07 0.50 0.26 0.35 0.75DANMK 7411 12 1.00 0.83 0.22 1.07 0.13 0.73 0.15 0.46 0.06 0.46 0.06 1.73 0.13 0.94 0.47 0.16 2.87DANMK 7412 1.66 1.32 0.30 1.66 0.22 1.15 0.22 0.69 0.09 0.70 0.10 2.77 0.21 1.64 0.65 0.06 0.34DANMK 7438bl 0.95 0.81 0.18 0.98 0.13 0.72 0.13 0.41 0.06 0.43 0.06 1.74 0.12 0.90 0.39 0.05 0.41DANMK 7438w 0.83 0.72 0.15 0.84 0.11 0.63 0.12 0.36 0.05 0.36 0.05 1.62 0.09 0.81 0.29 0.01 0.17DANMK 7438y 0.80 0.69 0.18 0.84 0.11 0.63 0.12 0.38 0.05 0.37 0.05 1.62 0.10 0.75 0.39 2.50 2.24Average and standard deviation values obtained for Corning A and NIST 612 glass reference materials analyzed as unknown samples with the studied glassesCorn A avr. 1.11 0.11 0.30 0.19 8.9 15.6Corn A std. 0.09 0.01 0.03 0.02 1.06 1.37

NIST 612 avr. 43.9 43.7 40.9 40.6 40.8 39.2 41.2 39.9 38.3 43.7 39.2 41.2 33.9 39.3 38.5 29.4 20.9NIST 612 std. 2.0 0.2 1.4 7.9 1.1 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.6 0.8 1.1 0.8 3.5 2.4 0.7 0.5

Table 3Contents of others REE and elements of interest for the previously published Danish glass beads and Amarna glasses (Varberg et al., 2015). Concentrations are given in part permillion of oxide. Corn A values obtained for the same analytical runs are also given.

Type Reference PrO2 Sm2O3 Eu2O3 Gd2O3 Tb2O3 Dy2O3 Ho2O3 Er2O3 Tm2O3 Yb2O3 Lu2O3 HfO2 Ta2O3 ThO2 UO2 Bi Ag

Danish glass beads1 Ke 299/B2209 1.18 1.27 0.25 1.16 0.18 1.06 0.21 0.56 0.08 0.54 0.07 1.41 0.11 0.97 0.51 0.11 0.201 Ke2014A/D115 1.21 1.38 0.32 1.49 0.23 1.41 0.25 0.64 0.08 0.52 0.08 1.06 0.13 0.98 0.55 0.05 2.792 Ke243I/B15853 0.67 0.60 0.12 0.41 0.08 0.45 0.09 0.25 0.03 0.24 0.03 0.32 0.05 0.54 0.18 0.26 0.162 Ke3521D/B13707 0.62 0.53 0.11 0.43 0.07 0.41 0.09 0.23 0.02 0.21 0.03 0.40 0.07 0.55 0.29 0.06 0.252 Ke4045A/B17106 0.96 0.81 0.15 0.68 0.12 0.67 0.14 0.37 0.05 0.37 0.05 0.52 0.09 0.90 0.30 0.04 0.152 Ke793F/B15204 0.51 0.44 0.05 0.28 0.07 0.42 0.08 0.24 0.03 0.29 0.03 0.41 0.20 1.10 0.52 0.12 0.732 Ke793F/B15205 0.89 0.74 0.17 0.51 0.11 0.66 0.13 0.37 0.05 0.37 0.05 0.81 0.27 1.55 0.75 0.20 0.953 Ke4170/B7328 white 0.63 0.57 e e 0.08 0.49 0.08 0.25 0.03 0.27 0.03 0.45 0.15 0.90 0.43 0.06 3.243 Ke4170/B7328 amber 0.56 0.57 0.10 0.47 0.09 0.59 0.11 0.33 0.04 0.30 0.04 0.43 0.17 1.01 0.50 0.07 0.333 Ke4170/B7328 yellow 0.78 0.73 e e 0.09 0.61 0.12 0.36 0.04 0.33 0.05 0.67 0.22 1.27 0.59 0.22 9.833 Ke4170/B7328 blue 0.70 0.73 0.10 0.34 0.09 0.58 0.10 0.29 0.04 0.27 0.04 0.49 0.28 1.27 0.70 0.07 0.704 Ke1477A/B3289 a 0.75 0.69 0.14 0.59 0.09 0.60 0.11 0.29 0.04 0.30 0.04 0.49 0.07 0.73 0.25 1.97 17.74 Ke1477A/B3289 b 0.87 0.78 0.14 0.59 0.10 0.61 0.12 0.35 0.05 0.35 0.05 0.68 0.08 0.88 0.28 4.65 11.04 Ke1477A/B3289 c 0.67 0.61 0.10 0.46 0.09 0.50 0.10 0.27 0.04 0.27 0.04 0.44 0.06 0.62 0.22 2.06 12.54 Ke1477A/B3289 d 0.94 0.81 0.15 0.55 0.11 0.60 0.12 0.34 0.04 0.36 0.04 0.57 0.08 0.92 0.33 2.57 6.925 Ke4719I/FHM 1389a 0.67 0.53 0.05 e 0.08 0.48 0.10 0.24 0.03 0.30 0.05 0.40 0.07 0.74 0.61 0.11 0.615 Ke4719I/FHM 1389b 1.02 0.85 0.11 0.63 0.12 0.71 0.14 0.36 0.06 0.40 0.04 0.54 0.09 1.05 0.60 0.32 5.715 Ke4109/B611 a 0.55 0.51 0.11 0.26 0.06 0.40 0.07 0.20 0.03 0.23 0.04 0.31 0.06 0.46 0.34 0.15 0.635 Ke4109/B611 b 0.72 0.62 0.09 0.33 0.07 0.49 0.09 0.25 0.04 0.22 0.03 0.38 0.08 0.83 0.56 0.16 0.605 Ke4109/B611 c 0.62 0.51 0.06 0.24 0.08 0.42 0.09 0.24 0.04 0.29 0.03 0.40 0.05 0.61 0.51 0.24 1.855 Ke4109/B611 d 0.51 0.46 0.03 0.12 0.06 0.37 0.07 0.17 0.02 0.20 0.03 0.31 0.04 0.49 0.39 0.17 1.095 B7424 a/2177s185 0.72 0.55 0.12 0.45 0.08 0.48 0.09 0.26 0.04 0.27 0.03 0.43 0.06 0.68 0.47 0.73 5.885 B7424 b/2177s185 0.75 0.62 0.13 0.50 0.08 0.54 0.10 0.28 0.04 0.29 0.04 0.46 0.06 0.72 0.50 0.55 6.155 B7424 c/2177s185 0.85 0.68 0.13 0.55 0.09 0.54 0.11 0.31 0.04 0.30 0.07 0.48 0.07 0.77 0.54 1.12 7.865 B7424 d/2177s185 0.87 0.60 0.10 0.45 0.08 0.49 0.10 0.26 0.04 0.28 0.04 0.43 0.06 0.68 0.43 0.21 2.735 Ke4873/B3516 0.59 0.52 0.07 0.34 0.08 0.44 0.08 0.24 0.03 0.23 0.03 0.37 0.06 0.65 0.56 0.14 4.86Egyptian glasses from Denmark National Museum used as comparison material

DANMK 7410 1 2.13 1.94 0.42 1.65 0.28 1.51 0.29 0.77 0.10 0.78 0.11 2.44 0.20 1.84 0.65 0.04 0.48DANMK 7410 2 0.83 0.56 0.10 0.45 0.08 0.53 0.10 0.30 0.04 0.24 0.04 0.88 0.10 0.75 0.23 0.09 1.50DANMK 7411 1 0.88 0.72 0.11 0.58 0.11 0.54 0.11 0.35 0.04 0.33 0.05 1.54 0.09 0.90 0.30 0.01 0.09DANMK 7411 2 1.41 1.64 0.38 1.51 0.28 1.75 0.32 0.88 0.11 0.69 0.11 1.67 0.12 1.19 0.83 0.22 3.14DANMK 7411 3 2.07 2.00 0.49 1.74 0.35 1.76 0.33 0.87 0.11 0.72 0.10 1.74 0.12 1.30 0.51 0.04 0.05DANMK 7411 4 1.27 1.32 0.33 1.21 0.25 1.39 0.26 0.71 0.08 0.57 0.08 1.75 0.11 1.10 0.62 0.09 0.37DANMK 7411 5 1.20 0.94 0.16 0.73 0.14 0.78 0.17 0.47 0.06 0.51 0.07 2.70 0.13 1.39 0.40 0.29 1.98DANMK 7411 6 0.78 0.62 0.12 0.50 0.09 0.55 0.10 0.31 0.04 0.29 0.04 1.24 0.09 0.81 0.26 0.34 0.44DANMK 7411 7 0.70 0.56 0.06 0.40 0.08 0.45 0.10 0.27 0.04 0.24 0.04 1.17 0.07 0.68 0.25 0.12 0.25DANMK 7411 9 1.09 0.92 0.16 0.64 0.12 0.74 0.15 0.41 0.06 0.42 0.07 2.18 0.15 1.27 0.40 0.03 0.12

Average and standard deviation values obtained for Corning A glass standard analyzed as an unknown sample with the studied glassesCorn A avr 1.03 0.11 0.31 0.21 8.9 16.7Corn A std 0.12 0.02 0.04 0.02 1.0 1.9


Please cite this article in press as: Varberg, J., et al., Mesopotamian glass from Late Bronze Age Egypt, Romania, Germany, and Denmark, Journalof Archaeological Science (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2016.04.010

Fig. 2. a. The green glass rods 7411 8 & 10 from Amarna, Egypt, which show thechemical trace element signature of Mesopotamian glass. Length: 2.2 cm and 1.9 cm.Photo: Flemming Kaul, the National Museum of Denmark. Fig. 2b. Examples of Amarnaglass of Egyptian production, three glass rods, 741111e12 and 7412 and the glass sherd7438. The longest glass rod, 7412, length: 3.0 cm, the sherd: 2.0 � 1.2 cm. (For inter-pretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to theweb version of this article.)

Fig. 3. String of glass beads from the Cioclovina Cave Hoard. The J. Emodi collection.Photo: Mihai Rotea, National History Museum of Transylvania.

J. Varberg et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science xxx (2016) 1e11 5

beads in the present examination. As will be shown below, thecomparative analyses (Fig. 6) demonstrate that the compositions ofthe Neustrelitz beads are in accordance with that of Mesopotamianglass.

2.3. Glass from Puggegaard, Bornholm, Denmark

Recent analyses of Danish glass beads have demonstrated thatMesopotamian glass is represented in 10 Danish burials,1400e1100 BCE, from West Jutland in the west to the island ofBornholm in the east (Varberg et al., 2015) (Fig. 4).

The most recent analysis of the chemistry of a blue glass beadfrom Puggegaard, Bornholm, has yielded yet another Meso-potamian bead (Fig. 5). At an excavation in 1911, the remains of adisturbed female burial were uncovered. The glass bead seemingly


belongs to this burial from 1400e1100 BCE. An amber bead wasfound close to the glass bead and the burial also contained a bronzetutulus and bronze tubes for decoration of a corded skirt.

3. The chemical analyses

The following items have been analyzed by laser ablation-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS): Sixfragments of glass from Amarna (National Museum of Denmark),five glass rods (four green ones: 7411 8, 10 & 11 and 7412, and oneopaque yellow, 7411 12) and one polychrome vessel sherd (tur-quoise blue with trailed decoration in white and yellow, 7438), sixRomanian turquoise blue glass beads from the Bronze Age sites ofCioclovina (Cioclovina a-e) and Banatuliu str. (Cluj M18 1) and oneDanish dark blue glass bead unearthed from a Bronze Age burial atPuggegaard on the island of Bornholm (BHM 1600). The ablationsystem used here consists of an excimer laser working at 193 nm(Resolution M50E from Resonetics) coupled with a Thermo Elec-tron Finnigan ELEMENT XR mass spectrometer. The technique re-quires no special preparation of the samples and is virtually non-destructive (Gratuze, 2013, 2014).

The results obtained are comparablewith those of our precedingexamination of Danish glass beads and Amarna glass debris(Varberg et al., 2015), with those published for the coeval BronzeAge glass beads from Neustrelitz, Germany (11 blue/green beads721, 722, 752, 803, 814a, 856, 865, 878, 719, 864, 879 and one cobaltbead 720, Mildner et al., 2010) and Campu Stefanu, Corsica, France(25 turquoise blue glass beads, Peche-Quilichini et al. in press).

Chemical compositional results are shown in Table 1. All sam-ples are soda glass, with soda (Na2O, 13.6 to 18.2 wt%) as the pri-mary flux, and high magnesia and potash indicating a plant ashsource for the soda (MgO, 3.5 to 7.7 wt%; K2O, 1.8 to 4.5 wt%). Theiralumina, lime and iron contents present a large variability (Al2O3,0.8 to 1.7 wt%; CaO, 4.9 to 10.9 wt%; Fe2O3, 0.34 to 0.89 wt%) asmight be expected from the use of different source of silica (SiO2).These compositions show that the glass used to make the Danishand Romanian glass beads and the Amarna glass were fused frompowdered quartz or siliceous sands containing various amounts ofalumina and lime, mixed with the ashes of plants high in soda, suchas Salicornia sp. or Salsola sp.

The Danish glass bead from Bornholm is colored dark blue bycobalt oxide while copper is the main coloring agent for the tur-quoise blue Romanian glass beads. The zinc and nickel contents ofthe Bornholm glass bead are lower than those usually found inEgyptian cobalt from alum deposits, but slightly higher than thoseidentified in Mesopotamian glass (Walton et al., 2012; Varberget al., 2015). The tin/copper ratio measured for the Romanianglass beads suggests the addition of relatively pure copper for twoof them (M18 Cluj 1 and Cioclovina d), while in the four other cases(Cioclovina a-c and e), the tin levels indicate the use of bronze scrapcontaining from 1.5 to 4.6% tin.

For Amarna, three of the four green glass rods (74118,10 and 11)are colored with copper while the green shade of the third one(7412) is probably due to the presence of iron. The contents of lead(2.2% PbO) and antimony (0.4% Sb2O3) in the yellow glass rod (741112) suggest the presence of lead antimonate as opacifying andcoloring agent. The turquoise blue glass vessel body (7438bl) iscolored by copper, the yellow glass (7438) which exhibits the samecontents of lead and antimony (2.3% PbO and 0.4% Sb2O3) as theyellow glass rod is also certainly colored and opacified by leadantimonate while the white glass which contains 2.54% of Sb2O3 isprobably opacified with calcium antimonate. The tin/copper ratiomeasured for the rods and the glass body suggests the use of purecopper for two of the copper green glass rods (7411 8 and 10), andthe use of bronze scraps containing 5.3e7.7% of tin for the other


Fig. 4. Mesopotamian glass bead distribution including Neustrelitz in North Germany and the 10 Danish burial finds. Illustration: Thomas Bredsdorff.

Fig. 5. Glass bead (BHM 1600) from Puggegaard, Bornholm. Diameter: 1.0 cm Photo:Flemming Kaul, The National Museum of Denmark.


glass rod and the turquoise glass body (7411 11 and 7438b).As the major element compositions of the Danish and Romanian

glass beads and Amarna glass rods and vessel are characteristic of


Late Bronze Age Near Eastern glass, their trace element patterns(chromium, lanthanum, zirconium titanium and rare earths ele-ments) allow us to differentiate between two distinct primary glasspatterns associated with Mesopotamian and Egyptian glass pro-ductions (Shortland et al., 2007; Rehren and Push, 2005; Shortlandand Eremin, 2006; Walton et al., 2009; Jackson and Nicholson,2010; Varberg et al., 2015).

According to these criteria, all of the most recently studied glassbeads (Danish and Romanian) and two of the Amarna glass rods(the green rods 7411 8 and 10, Fig. 2a) share the patterns of Mes-opotamian glass while the remaining objects fromAmarna (see alsoVarberg et al., 2015), including the illustrated three glass rods 741111e12, 7412 and the glass fragment 7438, are associated withEgyptian productions (Fig. 2b).

Using the same criteria to compare the Danish and Romanianbeads, analyzed here, with the French and German coeval glassbeads from Campu Stefanu and Neustrelitz, it can be observed thatall these beads have a geochemical signature identical with that ofMesopotamian glass. However, it should be noted that one beadfrom Neustrelitz, colored by cobalt, appears to have an intermedi-ate REE pattern between Egyptian and Mesopotamian glass (Fig. 7).Yet, the position of that particular bead on the chromium/lanthanum versus zirconium/titanium graph cannot be associatedwith the Egyptian glass group (Fig. 6). When considering the datapresented by Shortland (Shortland et al., 2007), an importantvariability can be observed, shown on Fig. 6, as to the Cr/La ratios


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

- 5 10 15 20 Cr/La

1000

*Zr/T

i

Mesopotamian, Shortland et al.2007

Egyptian glass, Shortland et al.2007

Egyptian glass, Smirniou & Rehren2013

Ulu Burum glass, Jackson &Nicholson 2010 and Smirniou &Rehren 2013 Glass beads from Campu Stefanu,Corsica, Peche-Quilichini et al. inpressAmarna glass from the DenmarkNational Museum, this work andVarberg et al. 2015Danish beads made with Egyptianglass, Varberg et al. 2015

Danish beads made withMesopotamian glass, this workand Varberg et al. 2015Romanian glass beads fromCiclovina and Cluj

Glass beads from Neustrelitz,Germany, Mildner et al. 2010

Egyptian glass

Mesopotamian glass

Amarna green rods7411 8 & 10

BHM 1600

Neustrelitz cobalt glass bead n°720

Fig. 6. Comparison of chromium/lanthanum and zirconium/titanium concentration ratios of the Danish glass beads with those of Egyptian and Mesopotamian glasses.

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

Rb Y Zr Nb La Ce Pr Nd Sm Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Lu Hf Ta Th U

Con

cent

ratio

n in

gla

ss /

conc

entr

atio

n in

the

Con

tinen

tal E

arth

's C

rust

Danish glass beads made w ith Egyptian glass,Varberg et al. 2015Danish beads made w ith Mesopotamian glass,this work and Varberg et al. 2015Amarna glass from Egypt, this work andVarberg et al. 2015Amarna glass from Mesopotamia

Cluj M18 1

BHM 1600

Cioclovina

Campu Stefanu glass beads, Peche-Quilichini et al. in pressNeustrelitz glass beads, Mildner et al. 2010

Neustrelitz cobalt glass bead n°720, Mildner et al. 2010

Fig. 7. Extended REE pattern of the studied Danish, Romanian and Egyptian glass compared with those published for coeval material originating from Denmark, Germany, Franceand Egypt.


for Mesopotamian glass. Some of our beads are located at the limitbetween Egyptian andMesopotamian glass. In these cases, it seemsreasonable to consider the raw values of zirconium and titanium,which are usually higher in Egyptian glass than in Mesopotamianglass, whereas the lowest chromium contents for Mesopotamianglass can be of the same level as the highest chromium contents forEgyptian glass. However, some Egyptian glass seems to exhibit lowzirconium contents as shown by data published by Smirniou andRehren for glass from Lisht, Qantir, Amarna and Malkata (Smirniouand Rehren, 2013). Therefore, in some cases it may be unfeasible todistinguish between Egyptian and Mesopotamian glass, probablydue to the use of quartz proper or fairly pure siliceous sand as rawmaterial.

The Mesopotamian origin of the two green glass rods from


Amarna (7411 8 & 10) pointed out by their trace element patterns(Figs. 6 and 7) is confirmed by their major elements compositionsas shown on Fig. 8, where the potash and lime contents of thestudied glass objects are reported. On this figure, Mesopotamianglass appears to contain statistically more potash and less lime thanEgyptian glass. The positions of these two green rods on that dia-gram, with respectively 5.8e5.1% lime and 4.1e3.4% potash, are inagreement with that of Mesopotamian glasses. On this diagram, thecobalt glass bead from Neustrelitz appears well correlated withMesopotamian glass.

The results, concerning the green Amarna glass rods, 7411/8 and7411/10, are of great significance, since it is now for the first time


0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

0% 4% 8% 12%CaO %

K2O

%

Danish beads made w ith Mesopotamian glass, this w ork andVarberg et al. 2015Danish beads made w ith Egyptian glass (B 2209 and D115),Varberg et al. 2015Egyptian glass from Amarna, Denmark National Museumcollections, this work and Varberg et al. 2015Mesopotamian glass from Amarna, Denmark NationalMuseum collectionsRomanian glass beads from Ciclovina and Banat

Glass beads from Neustrelitz, Germany, Mildner et al. 2010

Glass beads from Campu Stefanu, Corsica, Peche-Quilichiniet al. in pressMycenaean glass from Egypt, Walton et al. 2009

Mycenaean glass from Mesopotamia, Walton et al. 2009

Egyptian glass, Jackson and Nicholson 2010

Average Egyptian glass, Smirniou and rehren 2013

Average Mesopotamian glass, Smirniou and Rehren 2013

Mesopotamian glass, Walton et al. 2012

7411 8 & 10

BHM 1600

Neustrelitz cobalt glass bead n°720

Fig. 8. CaO versus K2O binary diagram for the studied glass beads and Amarna glass compared with coeval glass beads from Denmark, Germany and France.


possible to document the physical presence of Mesopotamian glassin Egypt, by comparative analyses of the glass chemistry (see note1).1

3.1. Indication of mixing raw glass and secondary productions sites

As we pointed out in our preceding paper (Varberg et al., 2015),the Egyptian or the Mesopotamian origin of the glass beads can beconfirmed by the colorant composition for cobalt blue glass. In thecase of Egyptian cobalt extracted from alum deposits such as thoseat the Kharga and Dakhla oases, cobalt contents are correlated withthose of nickel, zinc, and manganese (Kaczmarczyk, 1986;Shortland et al., 2006, 2007). Walton has identified a second typeof cobalt ore containing lower amount of nickel, zinc and manga-nese in a series of Bronze Age glass axes from Nippur (Walton et al.,2012). This second cobalt ore seems to be, so far, more characteristicof Mesopotamian glass.

Among the previously studied Danish glass beads (Varberg et al.,2015), five are colored by cobalt: two of them (B2209 and D115)showed the typical Egyptian correlation between cobalt, nickel,zinc and manganese contents, while the three others (B13707,B15853 and B17106) can be related to cobalt colored glass fromMesopotamian finds. Here, it should be emphasized that whilenone of the Nippur glass samples published by Walton (Waltonet al., 2012) show the typical correlations of Cr, Ti and Zr, whichallow us make a clear distinction between Mesopotamian andEgyptian glass, matters are different when considering the threeDanish beads. The trace elements of these beads clearly demon-strate a close affiliation to Mesopotamian production.

When plotted on the graphs showing the content of the cobaltcolorant, the cobalt blue beads from Bornholm and Neustrelitzappear to have an intermediate position between Egyptian andMesopotamian cobalt (Figs. 9 and 10), the Neustrelitz bead beingmore similar with an Egyptian cobalt related composition thanwith Mesopotamian cobalt. Another Danish cobalt blue glass bead,from Esbjerg, Western Jutland (B 17106), previously analyzed(Varberg et al., 2015), presents a similar pattern.

1 In their paper about “Evidence for the trade of Mesopotamian and Egyptianglass to Mycenaean Greece” Walton et al. state “at present no Egyptian glass hasbeen found in Mesopotamia, nor have any Mesopotamian glasses been found inEgypt. However, as has been demonstrated here, both of these nations appear tohave been exporting their raw glass to the Mycenaean states” (Walton et al., 2009).


As mentioned above, the REE pattern of the cobalt glass beadfrom Neustrelitz shows some similarities with the REE pattern ofEgyptian glass. But considering other trace elements (Cr, La and Zr),the Neustrelitz bead in question (Neustrelitz no. 720), as well as therecently analyzed bead from Bornholm (BHM 1600), can be corre-lated to Mesopotamian glass. However, with regards to a generalassessment of the trace elements of these beads, they appear to bedifferent in their composition, even though, as mentioned, theyshow some similarities as to their content of trace elements asso-ciated with cobalt. Consequently, we propose that the two beadsreflect two types of glass originating from different workshops, butcolored by cobalt from similar cobalt ores.

According to their cobalt and copper concentrations, these twobeads enter into the group of cobalt-copper blue glass as defined bySmirniou and Rehren (Smirniou and Rehren, 2013). But as alreadynoted, these beads exhibit a distinct Mesopotamian signature,while, with the exception of three (ormaybe five) of theMycenaeanglass published by Smirniou and Rehren (number: 158906, 29793Band C but also in a less extent 15889019b and 15889008which havea high chromium content), most of their cobalt-copper glass arerelated to Egyptian productions. Using different sets of data,Smirniou and Rehren conclude that the cobalt alum sources prob-ably show a broader variability than previously expected and thatall the dark blue glass as well as the cobalt-copper blue glass of theMycenaeanworld is consistent with an Egyptian origin, while mostof the Mycenaean light blue copper-colored glass came fromMesopotamia.

Even though it is possible to determine with some probabilitythe origin of the raw glass used to make theses beads, Egyptian orMesopotamian, it seems more difficult to determine where theglass beads unearthed in Europe were made. As mentioned bySmirniou and Rehren (Smirniou and Rehren, 2013), the Uluburunshipwreck constitutes the best evidence of glass being movedacross long distances in the Eastern Mediterranean, not only in theform of finished objects but also in the form of ingots. It thus seemsthat during LHII (c. 1500e1400 BCE), most of the finished glassobjects unearthed in the Aegean world are of Egyptian or Meso-potamian styles, which shows that they have been directly im-ported into this region from Egypt andMesopotamia. But from LHIIIonwards (after c. 1400 BCE), glass-working start to develop in theMycenaean world and locally made glass beads, in Mycenaeanstyle, are found in large quantities throughout the Mycenaeanmainland and the Aegean. Even though if it is possible from a


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 500 1 000 1 500 2 000 2 500 3 000Co ppm

Ni p

pm


Egyptian glass, Shortland et al. 2007

Egyptian glass, Smirniou & Rehren 2013

Amarna cobalt blue glass from Denmark NationalMuseum, Varberg et al. 2015Ulu Burum glass, Jackson & Nicholson 2010and Smirniou & Rehren 2013 Danish cobalt blue beads from Mesopotamia, thiswork and Varberg et al. 2015Danish cobalt blue beads from Egypt, Varberg etal. 2015Neustrelitz cobalt glass bead n°720, Mildner et al.2010

Walton group 2b

Walton group 2a

Egyptian cobalt from alum deposits

BHM 1600

B17106

Fig. 9. Comparison of cobalt and nickel concentration of the Danish and German glass beads containing cobalt with those of Egyptian and Mesopotamian cobalt glasses.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 2 4 6 8 10 12Co/Ni

Co/

Zn


Egyptian glass, Shortland et al. 2007

Egyptian glass, Smirniou & Rehren 2013

Amarna cobalt blue glass from Denmark NationalMuseum, Varberg et al. 2015Ulu Burum glass, Jackson & Nicholson 2010 andSmirniou & Rehren 2013 Danish cobalt blue beads from Mesopotamia, thiswork and Varberg et al. 2015Danish cobalt blue beads from Egypt, Varberg etal. 2015Neustrelitz cobalt glass bead n°720, Mildner et al.2010

Walton group 2b

Walton group 2a

Egyptian cobalt from alum deposits

BHM 1600

B17106

Fig. 10. Comparison of cobalt/nickel and cobalt/zinc ratios for the Danish and German glass beads colored by cobalt with those of Egyptian and Mesopotamian cobalt glasses.


chemical point of view to relate raw glass to a geographical area ofproduction, it is not possible to draw such a conclusion for beads asthey could well originate from secondary glass workshops locatedfar away from where the raw glass was produced. Thus in our casesome, or all, of the Danish beads could have been manufactured inEgypt or Mesopotamia or in a Mycenaean workshop from rawEgyptian and Mesopotamian glass.

The particular pattern encountered for the cobalt blue glassbeads from Neustrelitz and in a less extent for the one fromBornholm (and Esbjerg, B 17106, Varberg et al., 2015), namelyMesopotamian glass associated with typical Egyptian cobalt, raisesnew questions about glass making during the Bronze Age period.Considering the weak concentration of cobalt in these beads(400 ppm for Neustrelitz and 250 ppm for Bornholm), we canpropose different interpretative scenarios.

The observed pattern reflects the mixing of glass in a secondaryworkshop: a large amount of naturally colored Mesopotamian glasswith a little amount of cobalt blue Egyptian glass. If the proportionof cobalt Egyptian glass is small, compared to the one of naturallycoloredMesopotamian glass, only theMesopotamian signaturewillremain.

The pattern could be seen as the result of adding Egyptiancobalt-copper colorant into naturally colored Mesopotamian glass,


either in a primary workshop or in a secondary workshop, this inorder to produce cobalt blue glass.

Since the presence of Mesopotamian glass in Egypt has nowbeen attested, the beads in question may have been made inworkshops located in Egypt.

However, the possibility remains that these beads were made atcenters along the trade routes of that period (Asia Minor, Rhodes,Greece, including Mycenae). Taking into account our knowledge ofglass making sites during the Late Bronze Age (Walton et al., 2009;Smirniou and Rehren, 2013), we cannot exclude the hypothesis thatsuch beads may have been produced in a Mycenaean workshopsupplied by Egyptian and Mesopotamian primary raw glass ingots.These beads are small pieces of a very large puzzle, which presentsmore questions than answers. Despite the increasing number ofavailable analyses, the understanding of glass making and glassexchange during the period is only at its starting point.

Considering the information supplied by the cobalt coloringagent, one may wonder whether a similar reasoning can be appliedto glass beads colored by copper. In other words, did Mesopotamianor Egyptian glassmakers use specific coloring agents or recipes toproduce blue green glass beads. Assuming that the main coloringagent used for copper are metallic scrap, Bronze Age glassworkerscould have added either pure copper or a mixture of copper and



bronze in variable proportions. The main associated elementsbrought by the coloring agent are therefore tin, and the trace ele-ments associated with copper: nickel, zinc, arsenic, antimony, sil-ver, lead, bismuth etc. As lead and antimony could also beintroduced by the opacyfier, their presence is not characteristic ofcopper. Silver and bismuth, which are associated with both copperand lead, are seemingly of no relevance. In a less extent, it is also thecase of nickel, zinc and arsenic, which could be introduced by co-balt. Consequently, the only relevant element seems to be tin. Aspointed out by Shortland (Shortland, 2005), its presence underlinesthe use of bronze and copper-scrap, while its absence indicates theuse of pure copper. In 2005, Shortland (Shortland, 2005) pointedout the absence of tin in Mesopotamian blue glass colored bycopper. In our data, no such clear tendency has been observed(Fig.11). As distinct from the data used by Shortland, our data revealthe use of bronze alloys containing between 4% and 7.5% tin in theMesopotamian glass beads discovered in Romania and in Denmark.However, from a general statistical point of view, it seems, asestablished by Shortland (Shortland, 2005), that Egyptian glass-makers used mostly bronze scraps for coloring glass, while Meso-potamian glassmakers seem to prefer pure copper. Furthermore, itcan be observed that Egyptian glass statistically contains less cop-per than Mesopotamian glass. But still, we have to consider thesmall size of our number of objects. Our analyzed material does notrepresent all the recipes used by Bronze Age glassmakers.

4. Glass trade and exchange in Late Bronze Age Egypt, NearEast and Europe

The new data give further evidence as to the passages regardingglass in the Amarna letters. Glass was important enough to warrantthe pharaoh's direct attention and involvement in procuring it, andproduction in Egypt was not sufficient to satisfy the demand ofglass products. Thus, Akhenaten requested significant quantities ofMesopotamian glass, despite the existence of glass workshops inAkhetaten, the ancient city of Tell el-Amarna: even though theEgyptian glass production was probably of a significant scale,foreign supplies were needed (Rehren, 2014, 220). The rulers inSyria did send raw glass to Egypt. As the Uluburun shipwreckshows, Egyptian raw glass also was traded as ingots, most probablyheading for Mycenae. Raw glass moved along the established traderoutes via ports like Ugarit, reaching central places such as Myce-nae. Perhaps more important, it cannot be excluded that secondaryglass workshops reworked the raw glass changing the color to fitthe customers' demand for luxurious blue glass beads by mixing

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

0% 2% 4% 6%% of CuO in the glass for turquoise and green glass conta

use

d as

col

ourin

g ag

ent

% o

f Sn

in th

e si

mul

ated

allo

y

Fig. 11. Comparison of tin content in the supposed copper alloy used as colorin


Egyptian cobalt blue or coloring agent with Mesopotamian natu-rally colored glass. This could have happened in Mycenae, whereboth Egyptian and Mesopotamian glass has come to light. Butnaturally, other centers located in Greece, such as Pylos and Tiryns,or in Egypt should be considered as well.

From theMycenaean central places, the trade routes weremany.During the fourteenth and thirteenth century BC, Mesopotamianglass reached the western parts of the Mediterranean. The finds of25 glass beads and 30 amber beads from a rich burial at CampuStefanu, Corsica, France, should be highlighted (Peche-Quilichiniet al. in press). From Corsica, it is possible to follow the north-south routes of exchange through the Central Alps, for instancealong the Rhone River. It is worth mentioning a blue glass beadfound at Sotciastel in the Badia Valley, North Italy, further east inthe Alps, on the routes south of the Brenner pass. It was found inthe upper layers of a defended settlement, occupied between c.1600e1300 BCE. Chemical analyzes have shown that the bead be-longs to a composition type of glass (HMG-glass), which wasprobably produced in Egypt or the Near East (Tecchiati, 1998, 267;Bellintani, 2002, 43). More precise chemical analyses are needed inorder to obtain better information as to the origin of the glass.

The eastern route follows the rivers of Mures, Donau, Oder andHavel going north through Europe. Western Romania is especiallyrich in glass finds. The Cioclovina Cave hoard is by far Europe'slargest find of glass beads. However, other Romanian hoards couldbe highlighted when discussing the glass exchange patterns. InDobrocina a ceramic vessel was found containing bronze items andseveral glass beads (Rusu, 1963, 194; Petrescu-Dambovita 1977, 57).In Pecica another hoard included bronze objects, eight amber beadsand two glass beads (Petrescu-Dambovita 1977, 101; Em€odi, 1978,490). Both finds are dated to 1300e1200 BCE, and they shouldprobably be considered as a part of the eastern glass exchangeroute. More precise chemical analyses are also needed here in orderto obtain better information as to the origin of the glass.

When including comparative Bronze Age glass material, usingsimple two-variable scatterplot as published by for instanceShortland (Shortland et al., 2007), Walton (Walton et al., 2012)Smirniou (Smirniou and Rehren, 2013) or Varberg (Varberg et al.,2015), it becomes clear that the glass material from Neustrelitzhas its origins in Mesopotamia e in accordance with the differentchemical parameters (Shortland et al., 2007; Walton et al., 2009,2012; Shortland, 2012; Varberg et al., 2015; Rehren andFreestone, 2015). Following the north-south river systems ofEurope and watersheds, there are a number of possibilities forconnecting the Romanian find spots with Neustrelitz, not far away

8% 10%ining more than 0.4% CuO

Danish beads made with Mesopotamian glass, thiswork and Varberg et al. 2015

Egyptian glass from Amarna, Denmark NationalMuseum collections, this work and Varberg et al. 2015

Mesopotamian glass from Amarna, Denmark NationalMuseum collections

Romanian glass beads from Ciclovina and Cluj

Glass beads from Neustrelitz, Germany, Mildner et al.2015

Glass beads from Campu Stefanu, Corsica, Peche-Quilichini et al. in press

Mesopotamian, Shortland et al. 2007

Amarna glass, Shortland et al. 2007

g agent for different Egyptian and Mesopotamian glass colored by copper.



from the Baltic Sea, the Island Bornholm and the rest of Denmark.The glass from the Neustrelitz hoard shows some of the samecharacteristics as the Romanian and the Danish material. It isthereby possible to follow the routes, almost step-by-step, fromMesopotamia to Denmark, including the Island of Bornholm.

5. Concluding remarks

Mesopotamian glass was widely distributed. It appears inAmarna, Egypt, in Romania, in France, in Germany, and in Denmarkin the far North. Mycenae could be considered as a secondary placefor workshops manufacturing the glass beads from raw glass fromMesopotamia and Egypt, and hopefully future research will be ableto shed new light on this. The study of glass composition appears tobe an important parameter for connecting different glass finds. Thepresence of Mesopotamian glass beads in Romanian, German andDanish finds highlights the Bronze Age routes of exchange betweenthe Mediterranean and South Scandinavia e which may be calledthe glass roads.

Acknowledgements

We thank J. Em€odi for giving permission to analyze beads fromhis Cioclovina Cave hoard collection, F.O. Nielsen, Museum Born-holm for giving permission to analyze glass bead BHM 1600, theNational Museum of Denmark and National History Museum ofTransylvania for assistance with glass samples. We thank J. Dammfor useful revision of the manuscript.

References

Bellintani, P., 2002. Bernsteinstrassen, Glasstrassen. Arch€aologische Zeugnisse ausdem Etschtal im Rahmen der Bezieungen zwischen den Mittelmeerl€andern unddem transalpinen Europa w€ahrend der Bronzezeit. In: Hach, B., R€ober, R.,Wesselkamp, G. (Eds.), Über die Alpen, Menschen, Wege, Waren. Arch-€aologisches Landesmuseum Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart, pp. 39e48.

Comsa, E., 1966. Le depot en bronze de Cioclovina (Carpates Meridionales). In: ActaArchaeol. Carpathica, vol. 8, pp. 169e174.

Em€odi, I., 1978. Noi date privind depozitul de la Cioclovina. In: SCIVA, vol. 29,pp. 481e495.

Gratuze, B., 2014. Application de la spectrom�etrie de masse �a plasma avecpr�el�evement par ablation laser (LA-ICP-MS) �a l0�etude des recettes de fabricationet de la circulation des verres anciens. In: Dillmann, Ph, Bellot-Gurlet, L. (Eds.),Circulation des mat�eriaux et des objets dans les soci�et�es anciennes, CollectionSciences Arch�eologiques. �Editons Archives Contemporaines, Paris, pp. 259e291.

Gratuze, B., 2013. Glass characterisation using laser ablation inductively coupledplasma mass spectrometry methods. In: Janssens, K. (Ed.), Modern Methods forAnalysing Archaeological and Historical Glass, vol. 1. John Wiley & Sons Ltd eds,pp. 201e234 chap 3.1.

Jantzen, D., Schmidt, J., 1999. Ein Hortfund derPeriode III aus Neustrelitz, Lkr.Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Jahrbuch Bodendenkmalpflegein Mecklenburg-Vorpom-mern 47, 7e127.

Jackson, C., Nicholson, P., 2010. The provenance of some glass ingots from theUluburun shipwreck. J. Archaeol. Sci. 37, 295e301.

Kaczmarczyk, A., 1986. The source of cobalt in ancient Egyptian pigments. In:Olin, J.S., Blackman, M.J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th International


Archaeometry Symposium. Smithonian Institution Press, Washington DC,pp. 369e376.

Kemp, B., 2012. The City of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. Amarna and its People. Thames& Hudson, London.

Mildner, S., Falkenstein, F., Schmidt, J., Schüssler, U., 2010. MaterialanalytischeUntersuchungen an ausgew€ahlten Glasperlen des bronzezeitlichen Hortfundvon Neustrelitz, Lkr. Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern,Mecklenburg-Strelitz, pp. 43e63. Jahrbuch 57, 2009.

Mildner, S., Schüssler, U., Falkenstein, F., 2014. Bronzezeitliches Glas im westlichenMitteleuropa Funde, Zusammensetzung, und die Frage nach seiner Herkunft.In: Nessel, B., Heske, I., Brandherm, D. (Eds.), Ressourcen und Rohstoffe in derBronzezeit. Nutzung-Distribution-Kontrolle, Brandenburg an der Havel,pp. 100e107.

Peche-Quilichini, K., Bellot-Gurlet, L., Canobbio, E., Cesari, J., Gratuze, B., Leandri, F.,Leandri, C., Nebbia, P., Paris, C., 2016. Campu stefanu (Sollacaro, Corsica) middlebronze age amber and glass beads analyses. A new Mycenaean traffics issue inCorsica?. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the EAA, September2013, Pilsen, Czech Republic (in press).

Petrescu-Dîmbovita, M., 1977. Depozitele de bronzuri din Romania. Editura Aca-demiei Republicii Socialiste Romania, Bucuresti.

Pulak, C., 2008. The Uluburun shipwreck and late bronze Age trade. In: Aruz, J.,Benzel, K., Evans, J.M. (Eds.), Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in theSecond Millennium B.C., the Metropolitan Museum of Art Exhibition Catalog,pp. 3999e4005.

Rehren, Th, Pusch, E., 2005. Late bronze age glass production at Qantir-Piramesses.Egypt. Science 308, 1756e1758.

Rehren, Th, 2014. Glass production and consumption between Egypt, Mesopotamiaand the Aegean. In: Pf€alzner, P., Niehr, H., Pernicka, E., Lange, S., K€oster, T. (Eds.),Contextualizing Grave Inventories in the Ancient Near East. Qatna StudienSupplements, vol. 3. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, pp. 217e223.

Rehren, Th, Freestone, I.C., 2015. Ancient glass: from kaleidoscope to crystal ball.J. Archaeol. Sci. 56 (2015), 233e241.

Rusu, M., 1963. Die Verbreitung der Bronzehorte in Transsilvanien vom Ende derBronzezeit bis in die mittlere Hallstattzeit. Dacia N. S. 7, 175e210.

Shortland, A.J., 2005. The raw materials of early glasses: the implication of new LA-ICP-MS analyses. In: Annales du 16e Congr�es de l0Association Internationalepour l0Histoire du Verre, London 2003, Nottingham, pp. 1e5.

Shortland, A., 2012. Lapis Lazuli from the Klin. Glass and Glassmaking in the LateBronze Age. Leuven University Press.

Shortland, A.J., Eremin, K., 2006. The analysis of second millennium glass fromEgypt and Mesopotamia, Part 1: new WDS analyses. Archaeometry 48/4,581e603.

Shortland, A.J., Tite, M.S., Ewart, I., 2006. Ancient exploitation and use of cobaltalums from the western oases of Egypt. Archaeometry 48/1, 153e168.

Shortland, A.J., Rogers, N., Eremin, K., 2007. Trace element discriminants betweenEgyptian and Mesopotamian late bronze age glasses. J. Archaeol. Sci. 34,781e789.

Smirniou, M., Rehren, Th, 2013. Shades of blue-cobalt-copper coloured blue glassfrom New Kingdom Egypt and the Mycenaean world: a matter of production orcolourant source? J. Archaeol. Sci. 40, 4731e4743.

Tecchiati, U., 1998. Sotciastel. Un abitato fortificato dell0et�a del bronzo in Val Badia.Istitut Cultural Ladin “Micur�a de Rü”, Soprintendenza ai Beni Culturali di Bol-zano, Alto Adige, Bolzano.

Varberg, J., Gratuze, B., Kaul, F., 2015. Between Egypt, Mesopotamia and Scandi-navia: late bronze age glass beads found in Denmark. J. Archaeol. Sci. 64 (2015),168e181.

Walton, M.S., Shortland, A., Kirk, S., Degryse, P., 2009. Evidence for the trade ofMesopotamian and Egyptian glass to Mycenaean Greece. J. Archaeol. Sci. 36,1496e1503.

Walton, M., Eremin, K., Shortland, A., Degryse, P., Kirk, S., 2012. Analysis of LateBronze Age glass axes from Nippur e a new cobalt colourant. Archaeometry 54/5, 835e852.

Wittenberger, M., 2001. Funerary Rite and Ritual of the Noua Culture in Transyl-vania. In: Serie Archeologie 3. Biblioteque Istro-Pontique, Tulcea.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0305-4403(16)30019-X/sref1















































































































































Documents

Mesopotamian glass from LBA Egypt, Romania, Germany and Denmark (co-author)