Ancient glass from ed-Dur (Umm al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.) 2. Glass excavated by the Danish expedition

Arab. arch. epig. 2000: 11: 87–128 Copyright C Munksgaard 2000Printed in Denmark. All rights reserved

ISSN 0905-7196

Ancient glass from ed-Dur (Ummal-Qaiwain, U.A.E.) 2. Glass excavated bythe Danish expedition

DAVID WHITEHOUSEThe Corning Museum of Glass, Corning, New York

Ed-Dur is a large archaeological site in theEmirate of Umm al-Qaiwain, on the westcoast of the Oman peninsula. The largenumber of foreign objects found at the siteindicate that it was a port. The main occu-pation took place in the first century ADand this is the date of most of the glassfrom the Danish excavations.

The first investigation of ed-Dur was byan Iraqi expedition in 1973 (1). The ex-pedition discovered evidence of contactsnot only with other parts of the ArabianGulf but also with the Roman Empire. Re-newed interest in the site followed the pub-lication of pottery collected on the surfacein 1980 and 1981 by J.-F. Salles. In additionto local wares, the pottery included a largenumber of Parthian glazed fragments fromsouthern Iraq or Khuzistan and severalsherds of Roman Eastern Sigillata (2). In1985, D. T. Potts began to study pre-Islamiccoins from the site. They included nu-merous Arabian issues, five coins of Chara-cene (a small state in southern Iraq andKhuzistan), one Indian coin, and a de-narius of the Roman emperor Tiberius (r.AD 14–37) (3). Clearly, the site was of ex-ceptional interest and when, in 1986, R.Boucharlat reported that it was threatenedwith destruction, a consortium of archaeol-

87

ogists from four European countries beganan extensive programme of survey and ex-cavation (4).

Two members of the consortium were aDanish expedition led by Prof. Potts and aBelgian expedition led by Prof. Ernie Haer-inck. Prof. Haerinck and his team spentnine seasons at ed-Dur and in an earlier re-port, I described the glass objects that theyrecovered (5). I am indebted to Prof. Haer-inck for allowing me to study this materialand for his hospitality at Umm al-Qaiwainin November, 1994. On the same occasion,at the invitation of Prof. Potts, I was ableto examine the glass discovered by theDanish expedition. The following pagescontain descriptions of all the glass (withthe exception of beads) found by theDanish team and a discussion of the com-bined Danish and Belgian discoveries,which together comprise the remains ofmore than 200 vessels.

The first glass vessels found at ed-Dur in-cluded forms that are well known fromRoman contexts of the first century AD, no-tably a knobbed beaker and several ribbedbowls (6). As the excavations continued andthe quantity of glass increased, the Romancharacter of the material seemed to becomeprogressively more pronounced (7). To a

D. WHITEHOUSE

great extent, these early impressions werejustified; most of the glass from ed-Dur veryprobably is Roman. However, given that weknow much more about the glass producedin the Roman Empire in the first and earlysecond centuries AD than about the glass ofthe same period produced by the Romans’eastern neighbours, we should be carefulnot to assume that all objects of Roman typewere made in the Roman Empire. Indeed,the principal challenge that confronted uswas to distinguish between Roman andnon-Roman objects. For this part of the in-vestigation, we had the invaluable assist-ance of Dr. Robert H. Brill, whose chemicalanalyses of selected fragments offered anapproach that released us from total de-pendence on typology. Dr. Brill’s analysesconfirmed that much of the ‘Roman’ glasswas indeed very probably made in theRoman Empire (8).

A second challenge was to recognise ob-jects that may be later than the first centuryAD. Generally speaking, the occupation ofed-Dur does not appear to have continuedmuch (if at all) after the first century. How-ever, excavations by a French team in AreaF revealed one large building constructed,used and probably abandoned in the thirdcentury. Subsequently, perhaps in the latethird and early fourth centuries, the ruinedbuilding became a burial ground (9). Thepresence of third- to fourth-century occu-pation in Area F reminds us that we cannottake for granted that all of the finds fromthe Danish excavations are earlier thanabout 100.

CATALOGUEThe objects are divided into the followinggroups:A. Cast vesselsA1. Monochrome vessels, either plain or

linear-cut (1–11)

88

A2. Mosaic glass vessels, either plain orlinear-cut (12–17)

A3. Monochrome ribbed bowls (18–24)A4. Mosaic glass ribbed bowls (25–32)B. Blown vesselsB1. Plain vessels (33–86)B2. Vessel with picked-up decoration (87)B3. Vessels with applied decoration (88–

96)B4. Vessels with mould-blown decoration

(97–105)As in the study of the material from theBelgian excavations, each entry in the cata-logue contains as much as is known of thefollowing information:1. Catalogue number and form.2. UF (unite de fouilleΩroom), locus andregistration numbers. The information onan object’s find-place comprises the exca-vation area generally, such as a room (UF)and within that a more precise ‘locus’number, referring to a particular feature(soil horizon, deposit on a floor, pit, etc.).‘Surface’ indicates that the object was col-lected from the surface of the site and hasno archaeological context. The registernumber is that assigned to the object in theexpedition’s register of finds.3. Dimensions. The following abbreviationsare used: D., diameter; Dim., dimension;H., height; L., length; Max., maximum;Min., minimum; Th., thickness (as a singledimension it describes an average and rela-tively consistent thickness; otherwise, it isgiven as a range: e.g., 0.4–0.5 cm); and W.,width.4. Description. Descriptions proceed fromthe top of the object to the bottom. Theglass is described as transparent, trans-lucent or opaque. The colours are de-scribed arbitrarily as pale, light or dark.The term ‘colourless’ is reserved for glassthat is assumed to have been intentionallydecolourised.5. Condition. An object that has been dam-aged and repaired without loss is described

ANCIENT GLASS FROM ED-DUR

as ‘complete’. The condition of other dam-aged objects is briefly stated, as is the ap-pearance and extent of the weathering.6. Comment. This may include informationon comparative material or any other ob-servations that contribute towards ourunderstanding of the object and its signifi-cance.7. Bibliography. This is restricted to publi-cations of the object in question and is in-cluded as a footnote to the object’s regis-tration number. Publications that describeparallels and related material are cited inthe comment.The drawings that accompany the cata-logue are reproduced at a scale of 1:1. Thephotographs vary in scale.

A. CAST VESSELSA1. Monochrome vessels, either plain orlinear-cutNumbers 1–11 are fragments of bowls andperhaps other vessels, which were formedby casting and finished by grinding andpolishing; sometimes, they are decoratedon the inside with groups of continuoushorizontal grooves (10). With the exceptionof 11, which is opaque white, all the frag-ments are of naturally coloured green orgreenish blue glass. Linear-cut bowls havebeen found throughout the Mediterranean,from the Syro-Palestinian region to Spain.Their presence in the cargo of the Tradal-iere shipwreck near Marseille shows thatthey were items of long-distance trade (11).The evidence from numerous sites in theMediterranean indicates that the type waspopular between the late first century BCand the early first century AD.

1. BowlE 147. UF 160. Locus 664.D. probably greater than 20.0 cm; Max.Dim. 4.1 cm; Th. 0.45–0.25 cm.

89

Colour unknown. Cast; polished.Bowl. Rim plain, with rounded outer edge.Two fragments. 1. Rim: four-sided, brokenon three sides; 2. Wall: broken on all sides.Both have opaque, glossy dark chocolate toblack weathering with lighter patches.

2. BowlE 97. UF 151. Locus 627.Max. Dim. 5.7 cm; Th. 0.25–0.3 cm.Light greenish blue. Cast.Bowl. Fragment of wall or floor.Broken on all sides. Remains of matt, dullbrown weathering; where this has beenlost, surface is silver to greyish brown.

3. Bowl (?)E 187 and E 192. UF 160. Locus 664.Max. Dim. 5.0 cm; Th. 0.4–0.25 cm.Transparent light greenish blue. Cast; ap-parently polished.Bowl (?). Four fragments from wall or,more probably, floor.All fragments broken on all sides and cov-ered with dull to matt, very dark brownweathering with lighter patches.

4. BowlS 3 (part of). UF 1025. Locus 1900D. about 17.0 cm; H. 3.0 cm; Max. Dim. 4.1cm.Transparent pale yellowish green. Cast;linear-cut and polished.Bowl. Rim plain, rounded; upper wallcurves steeply down and in. On inside, 0.75cm below rim, one horizontal groove.Fragment, broken on all sides except rim.Matt, opaque greyish brown weathering.

5. BowlAK 2. UF 2250. Locus 3955.Max. Dim. 2.5 cm; Th. 0.25–0.15 cm.

D. WHITEHOUSE

Transparent pale greenish blue. Cast.Bowl. Small fragment of wall. Outer sur-face rather rough.Broken on all sides. Dull, with traces oflight brown weathering or encrustation.

6. Bowl (?)1. Z 3. UF 1726. Locus 3301. 2. Z 39. UF1730. Locus 3311.1. Max. Dim. 2.8 cm; Th. 0.5–0.25 cm. 2.Max. Dim. 2.2 cm; Th. 0.4–0.25 cm.Transparent greenish blue. Cast.Bowl (?). Two fragments, one possiblyfrom lower wall and other from edge ofbase.Both broken on all sides. Pale brownweathering, especially on interior.Comment: The colour and the weatheringsuggest that the fragments belong to thesame vessel.

7. FragmentZ 21. UF 1727. Locus 3322.Max. Dim. 1.6 cm.Transparent yellowish green. Cast.Fragment, probably from thick-walled ves-sel.Broken in two pieces. Thick layer of dullbrownish yellow weathering.

8. FragmentE 117. UF 152. Locus 649.Max. Dim. 1.0 cm; Th. 0.3 cm.Colour unknown. Probably cast.Fragment of wall or floor.Broken on all sides.

9. FragmentE 117. UF 152. Locus 649.Max. Dim. 1.0 cm; Th. 0.3 cm.Colour unknown. Perhaps cast.Fragment: form indeterminate.

90

Broken on all sides. Covered with blackweathering.

10. FragmentAK 4. UF 2550. Locus 3955.Max. Dim. 0.9 cm.Transparent greenish blue. Probably cast.Chip from wall.No weathering.

11. BowlE 145 and E 148. UF 160. Locus 664.D. 18.0 cm; H. about 4.0 cm; Th. 0.3–0.15cm; Max. Dim. 8.7 cm.Opaque white. Cast; linear-cut andpolished.Bowl: shallow. Rim plain, rounded; wallcurves down and in, merging with base,which is almost flat. At centre of floor, cir-cular groove (D. 0.7 cm) surrounded bytwo concentric grooves (outer D. 4.5 cm).Smooth, except on outside, where traces ofuneven surface remain.

Fig. 1.11 (E 148).


Fig. 2.11 (E 145).

Two fragments: 1. with part of rim andwall; 2. with part of floor. Some lightbrown stain and darker patches; littleweathering.Comment: In all probability, the fragmentscome from the same object, despite the ap-parent incompatibility of Figs. 1 and 2.

A2. Mosaic glass vessels, either plain orlinear-cutNumbers 12–17 are examples of Romanmosaic glass made between the late firstcentury BC and the mid- to late first cen-tury AD. Roman mosaic glass includes ves-sels with spiral decoration or marbled ef-fects and objects made with compositecanes that combine rods of different shapesand sizes in multi-coloured patterns (e.g.17). Examples of mosaic glass have beenfound throughout the Roman world. Thefocal point of their distribution, however,appears to be Rome, where literally thou-sands of fragments have come to light, andGrose (12) has suggested that they wereamong the products of the new glass work-

Fig. 3.12 (E 196).

91

shops that sprang up in Italy during thereign of Augustus (27 BC-AD 14). Find-places of mosaic glass vessels of varioustypes (other than ribbed bowls) on andoutside the eastern frontier of the RomanEmpire include Dura-Europos in Syria (13),Axum in Ethiopia (14), Heis in Somalia(15), Qaryat al-Fau, 180 km northeast ofNajran in Saudi Arabia (16), Wadi-Dura inthe People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen(17), Taxila in Pakistan (18) and Begram inAfghanistan (19).

Some of the fragments from ed-Dur arevery small indeed. Being brightly coloured,they are highly visible (especially whenthey have lost their weathering) and sothey were much more likely to be pickedup than weathered fragments of plain ves-sels of comparable size.

12. BowlE 196. UF 159. Locus 659.H. 1.5 cm; Max. Dim. 2.0 cm.Very deep blue (?) with opaque white mar-bling, or blue and white spiral cane. Cast.

D. WHITEHOUSE

Fig. 4.4 (S 3).

Bowl. Rim plain, with rounded lip; walltapers.Triangular fragment (in two pieces) brokenon two sides. Surface matt but withoutweathering.

13. BowlS 3 (part of). UF 1025. Locus 1900.H. 1.2 cm; Max. Dim. 1.8 cm.Transparent deep blue and opaque whitespiral cane. Slices of cane fused to formblank, which was slumped in or saggedover mould; polished.Bowl. Rim plain, rounded.Fragment, with remains of greyish brownweathering.

14. Bowl (?)T 78. UF 1131. Locus 2124.Max. Dim. 1.8 cm; Th. 0.25 cm.Translucent purple and opaque whitespiral cane. Slices of cane fused to formblank, which was slumped in or saggedover mould; polished.Bowl (?). Fragment of wall or floor.Remains of opaque, matt brownish greyweathering.

15. BowlZ 27. UF 1726. Surface.H. 0.6 cm; W. 1.4 cm.Translucent purple and opaque white

92

spiral cane. Slices of preformed canes fusedto form blank, which was sagged in orslumped over mould; linear-cut andpolished.Bowl. Rim plain, rounded; wall possiblyslightly concave at top. On interior, immedi-ately below rim, one horizontal groove.Triangular fragment, broken on two sides.Dull and pitted, but without weathering.

16. Bowl (?)A 6. UF 2. Locus 2.Max. Dim. 1.1 cm.Translucent bright blue and opaque whitespiral cane. Slices of preformed canes fusedto form blank, which was either pressedand slumped or slumped and tooled.Bowl (?). Chip from wall.Dull, but almost without weathering.Comment: The fragment is very small andit could come from either a plain or aribbed bowl.

17. Bowl (?)P 5. UF 727. Locus 1302.Max. Dim. 1.6 cm; Th. 0.25 cm.Canes of opaque yellow in translucent greenmatrix, and opaque red. Slices of cane fusedto form blank, which was slumped in orsagged over mould; polished.Bowl (?). Fragment of wall or floor. Onecane has central dot and seven radiatinglines.


Fig. 5.18 (C 130).

Broken on all sides. Dull and somewhatpitted but without weathering.Comment: Cane slices with star-like pat-terns consisting of a central dot and nu-merous radiating lines are a characteristicfeature of Hellenistic mosaic glass (20).They are much less common in Roman mo-saic glass (21). The colour scheme of 17 in-dicates that it is Roman, not Hellenistic.

A3. Monochrome ribbed bowlsRibbed bowls were among the mostcommon varieties of late Hellenistic and

Fig. 6.18 (C 130).

93

early Roman glass tableware. They appearto have originated in the same Syro-Palestinian workshops that produced plainor grooved bowls similar to 1–11. Theearliest closely datable finds include frag-ments from Tel Anafa, which were buriedbetween about 95 and 80 BC (22), and fromDelos, where they were already in usewhen the city was sacked in 69 BC (23).These early ribbed bowls are either colour-less or naturally coloured brown to yel-lowish green, and they have ribs that areunevenly sized and spaced (24). By the latefirst century BC, they had been replaced byvessels that have a symmetrical pattern ofuniform, evenly spaced ribs, and may bebrightly coloured. During the reign of Aug-ustus (27 BC-AD 14), bowls of this latertype became available throughout theMediterranean region and their use quicklyspread to the northern provinces of theRoman Empire (25). Closely datableexamples include eight bowls from a shopat Herculaneum, where they were awaitingbuyers when the city was destroyed in AD79 (26). Ribbed bowls, usually of trans-parent bluish green glass, continued to bemade in the western provinces until theearly years of the second century (27).

Ribbed bowls were exported beyond theeastern frontier of the Roman Empire. They

D. WHITEHOUSE

Fig. 7.19 (E 149π156).

occur, for example, in Iran (28), and at Be-gram in Afghanistan (29), Taxila in northernPakistan (30), and Arikamedu and Dharani-kota in southeastern India (31).

Most of the ribbed bowls from ed-Durhave evenly spaced ribs that are large andtriangular, with a symmetrical cross section.

18. BowlC 130 (32). UF 101. Locus 409.H. 4.9 cm; D. 20.0 cm.Transparent greenish blue, with very fewbubbles. Either pressed and slumped orslumped and tooled.Bowl: shallow. Rim plain, rounded; wallcurves down and in; base flat. Decoratedwith fairly prominent ribs, which beginshortly below rim and extend to bottom ofwall. Seven ribs survive; the complete bowl

Fig. 8.19 (E 149π156).

94

probably had fourteen. Each rib is 0.9 cmdeep and 1.2 cm wide at top. Interior hasradial depressions corresponding to ribs onoutside.Incomplete. Seven fragments, which join toform nearly half of rim and wall, and smallpart of base. Large areas of glossy darkbrown weathering and, where this ismissing, iridescence.

19. BowlE 149π156 (33). UF 160. Locus 664.D. 16 cm; H. 3.8 cm.Transparent greenish blue. Either pressedand slumped or slumped and tooled.Bowl: shallow. Rim plain, rounded; wallcurves down and in. Decorated with largeribs, which descend from right to left. Fourribs survive; complete vessel may have hadtwelve. Interior has marks made bypressing or tooling.Two fragments, which join to make aboutone-quarter of rim and wall. Covered withrather variegated weathering that rangesfrom dark brown to pale yellow mottledwith brown.

20. BowlE 175. UF 159. Locus 659.D. perhaps about 15.0 cm; H. 3.1 cm; Max.Dim. 3.8 cm.Transparent, very pale greenish blue.


Fig. 9.20 (E 175).

Either pressed and slumped or slumpedand tooled.Bowl. Rim plain, rounded; wall is vertical oralmost vertical at top, then curves steeplydown and in. Upper part of one rathercurved rib, descending from right to left.Fragment, four-sided, broken on threesides. Thick, glossy, very dark brownweathering, flaking on outside and there-fore flecked with pale yellowish brown,with hint of iridescence.

21. BowlQ 64 (34). UF 825. Locus 1504.H. 5.1 cm; D. 11.9 cm.Transparent greenish blue. Either pressedand slumped or slumped and tooled.Bowl. Rim plain, rounded; wall curvesdown and in; base plain and flat but some-what uneven. Wall decorated with nineteen

Fig. 10.21 (Q 64).

95

vertical ribs, which begin 1.5 cm below lipand extend to bottom, continuing veryfaintly across base. Interior unpolished,with ridges and grooves made when blankwas pressed or tooled.Intact, except for chips on two ribs. Nearlyall of outside and most of inside are cov-ered with opaque brown to dark brownweathering with some iridescence.

22. BowlE 144. UF 158. Locus 657.H. 3.1 cm.Transparent pale greenish blue. Eitherpressed and slumped or slumped andtooled; polished.Bowl. Fragment of wall with top of one rib.Band between top of rib and rim carefullypolished, as is interior.Broken on all sides. Glossy opaque palegrey to bluish grey weathering.Comment: The glass is clear, with very fewbubbles, and the object was carefully fin-ished.

23. BowlE 191. UF 159. Locus 659.H. 3.1 cm; W. 1.4 cm; Th. (wall) 0.25 cm.Colour unknown. Either pressed andslumped or slumped and tooled; polished.Bowl. Fragment of wall with part of onerib, which is vertical and has rounded top.

D. WHITEHOUSE

Fig. 11.21 (Q 64).

Interior polished.Broken on all sides. Dull to glossy, opaque,dark brown weathering.

24. BowlZ 15. UF 1726. Surface.Max. Dim. 2.1 cm; Th. (wall) 0.1 cm.Transparent pale, slightly bluish green,with very few bubbles. Either pressed andslumped or slumped and tooled; perhapspolished.Bowl. Small fragment from wall, with partof one rib; interior smooth.Broken on all sides. Slight pitting but notrace of weathering.

A4. Mosaic glass ribbed bowlsNumbers 25–32 are fragments of ribbedbowls formed from blanks consisting ofslices of canes decorated with a whitespiral in a deep blue or yellowish brownmatrix, or from a marbled blank. They be-long to a fairly large group of bowls withflat or concave bases, evenly spaced ribs,and marbled or spiral decoration (35).Bowls of this type have been found in allparts of the Roman Empire, but especiallyin Italy and the western provinces (36).They are believed to have been made be-tween the late first century BC and themid-first century AD. Fragments of aribbed bowl with purple and white mar-

96

bling, evidently buried in AD 67, werefound in a tomb at Ganguan in Jiangshu,China (37).

25. BowlU 5. UF 1225. Locus 2300.H. 2.7 cm; W. 2.4 cm.Translucent deep blue and opaque whitespiral cane. Slices of spiral cane fused to

Fig. 12.22 (E 144).


Fig. 13.26 (B 31).

form blank, which was pressed andslumped or slumped and tooled; polished.Bowl. Fragment from upper wall with topof one prominent, fairly symmetrical rib.Broken on all sides. One surface has greyto brown weathering.

26. BowlB 31. UF 55. Locus 209.Max. Dim. 2.4 cm; Th. 0.3 cm.Translucent deep blue and opaque whitespiral cane. Slices of canes fused to formblank, which was pressed and slumped orslumped and tooled.Bowl. Fragment from upper wall with topof one rib, which is 0.9 cm thick at end.Broken on all sides. Dull and pitted, withtrace of weathering and slight iridescence.

27. BowlU 5. UF 1225. Locus 2300.Max. Dim. 2.4 cm.Translucent brownish yellow and opaquewhite spiral cane. Slices of canes fused toform blank, which was pressed andslumped or slumped and tooled; polished.Bowl. Fragment from wall with small partof rib.Dull, but virtually unweathered.

28. BowlQ 59. UF 826. Locus 1518.Max. Dim. 2.3 cm; Th. (wall) 0.25 cm.

97

Translucent yellowish brown with opaquewhite marbling, or brown and white spiralcane. Marbled chunks or slices of canefused to form blank, which was pressedand slumped or slumped and tooled.Bowl. Fragment of wall with small part oflower rib.Broken on all sides. Glossy to matt verydark brown to charcoal grey opaqueweathering of base glass; white glass isrelatively unweathered.

29. BowlU 4. UF 1225. Locus 2300.Max. Dim. 2.0 cm.Translucent deep blue and opaque whitespiral cane. Slices of cane fused to formblank, which was pressed and slumped orslumped and tooled.Bowl. Small fragment with part of wall andone rib.Broken on all sides. Dull, but virtually un-weathered.

30. BowlU 3. UF 1225. Locus 2300.Max. Dim. 1.9 cm; Th. (wall) 0.3 cm.Translucent deep blue with opaque whitemarbling, or blue and white spiral cane.Marbled chunks or slices of cane fused toform blank, which was pressed andslumped or slumped and tooled.Bowl. Fragment of wall, with part of onerib.Broken on all sides. Remains of greyishweathering.

31. BowlE 22. UF 152. Locus 615.Max. Dim. 1.7 cm; Th. (wall) 0.25 cm.Translucent deep blue with opaque whitemarbling, or blue and white spiral cane.Marbled chunks or slices of cane fused to

D. WHITEHOUSE

form blank, which was pressed andslumped or slumped and tooled; polished.Bowl. Small fragment of rim and upperwall.Broken on all sides. Surface has blackweathering and some iridescence.

32. BowlE 22. UF 152. Locus 615.Translucent deep blue and opaque whitespiral cane. Slices of preformed canes fusedto form blank, which was pressed andslumped or slumped and tooled.Bowl. Fragment of wall, with part of onerib.Broken on all sides. Black weathering, withsome iridescence.

B. BLOWN VESSELSAfter the discovery of glass itself, the mostsignificant innovation in the history of pre-industrial glassmaking was the discoverythat glass can be blown. This discovery en-abled glassmakers to produce a greatervariety of sizes and shapes, and to makevessels much more rapidly than was poss-ible with the traditional techniques ofcasting and core forming. Consequently, in-expensive glass objects became availablefor everyday use.

It is generally agreed that glass-blowingwas discovered in the Syro-Palestinian re-gion of the Roman Empire, where theearliest datable finds include a toilet bottlefrom Ein Gedi buried before 40–37 BC (38)and fragments of small, ‘tube-blown’ ves-sels from Jerusalem buried about 50–40 BC(39). A group of pear- and drop-shapedbottles from Priene in Turkey was associ-ated with a denarius of Augustus mintedbetween 2 BC and AD 11 (40). Indeed, bythe early first century AD small blownglass objects (mostly toilet bottles) wereavailable in Italy (41) and adjacent regions:

98

for example, at Frejus in France (42), Hal-tern in Germany (43) and Magdalensbergin Austria (44).

B1. Plain vesselsNumber 33 probably is a bowl, 34 is a cup,35–37 are jars, 38 is a dropper-flask, 39–48are small bottles of types usually identifiedas ‘toilet bottles’ or ‘unguentaria,’ 50–52 areother small containers and 53–86 are frag-ments of vessels, most of which are toosmall to identify. Small bottles are amongthe earliest known forms of Roman blownglass. Evidently, they were made to containsubstances that were used in relativelysmall quantities and many (perhaps themajority) of them probably contained per-fumes or medical preparations (45). In anycase, it is reasonable to suppose that, unlikethe cast tableware (1–32), they arrived ated-Dur as containers rather than as objectsof intrinsic value. Among the fragments, itis possible that scraps from single objectshave been assigned more than one cata-logue number.

33. BowlT 49. Surface.H. 0.8 cm; W. 2.9 cm; Th. 0.1 cm; D. 10.0cm.Colour unknown. Blown.Bowl or cup. Rim everted and made intodrooping flange with rounded edge; upperwall vertical.One fragment. Opaque, dark brownishgrey weathering with pale streaks.Comment: Perhaps a thin-walled bowl of

Fig. 14.34 (Q 44).


Fig. 15.35 (T 1a).

the first century AD. The overhanging rim,however, has no obvious first-century par-allel and it is possible that the object wasmade at a later date.

34. CupQ 44. UF 825. Locus 1504.H. 1.0 cm; D. 6 cm; Th. 0.1 cm.Colour unknown. Blown.Cup. Rim outsplayed, with rounded edgeand, at bottom, tubular downward-pointing flange made by folding.Two fragments. Opaque chocolate brownweathering with lighter patches.Comment: Cf. Isings form 69a.Isings form 69a has a wide distribution inthe Roman Empire. Numerous variantsexist: the wall may be relatively straight orconvex; the base may be hollow, have afoot ring, or it may consist of a pad (46).Isings listed examples from find-places inthe western provinces (47). Examples arealso known from the eastern Mediter-ranean (48). Isings noted that the find-places with datable contexts include Pom-peii (not later than AD 79), Katsch in Aus-tria (about AD 70–100) and Nijmegen inthe Netherlands (about AD 70–105), andshe suggested that the form came into usein the Flavian period. Subsequently, how-ever, Czurda-Ruth reported fragmentsfrom Claudian or earlier contexts at Mag-dalensberg and she proposed that the typeoriginated in the second quarter of the firstcentury (49).

Barag published two vessels of this type

99

from the Parthian cemetery at Warka, Iraq(50). Noting the poor quality of the glassand the indifferent workmanship, he sug-gested that they may have been made loc-ally. Three similar vessels are known fromthe Belgian excavations at ed-Dur (51).

35. Jar (?)T 1a. UF 1128. Locus 2107πT 9a-b. UF 1125.Locus 2100.H. 0.8 cm; D. 8.0–10.0 cm.Transparent or translucent bright green.Blown.Jar (?). Rim everted, with slightlythickened, rounded edge.Three scraps. Remains of brown weath-ering; where this is missing, surface ispitted and light green to bluish grey, withiridescence.Comment: 63 may be another fragment ofthe same vessel.

36. JarBO (52). UF 5901.H. 2.4 cm; D. 3.0 cm.Colour unknown. Blown.Fragment. Rim turned out, up, and in; neckcylindrical.Two small fragments, which join to makealmost half of rim and small part of upperneck. Opaque weathering, which varies incolour from ivory to deep charcoal grey.

37. Jar (?)T 54. Surface.H. 0.8 cm; D. 3.2 cm.Probably transparent green. Blown.Jar (?). Rim everted, with tubular edgemade by folding up and in.One fragment, comprising just under halfof rim. Patches of dull light grey weath-ering.Comment: Small jars with plain, globular or

D. WHITEHOUSE

onion-shaped bodies and outsplayed rimswith folded lips are common in many partsof the Roman Empire. Examples from theeastern provinces include Hayes 1975, p.60, no. 153, from Syria; Matheson 1980, p.100, no. 271, an indented example, alsofrom Syria; and Gawlikowska and As’ad1994, pp. 6–7, no. 6 and p. 10, no. 7, fromPalmyra (53). Usually, they are attributedto the third or the fourth century AD.Similar vessels occur in Mesopotamia, e.g.at Tell Mahuz (54) and Abu Skhair (55). It isbelieved that the Mesopotamian productscame into use in the Parthian period andcontinued to be made, with many vari-ations, in Sasanian times (56). An intact ex-ample was found by the Belgian team in anintrusive burial in the collective tomb (G5156) in Area AV at ed-Dur (57).

38. Dropper-flaskT 12. UF 1131. Locus 2118.H. 1.6 cm; D. (neck) 1.5 cm; Th. 0.1 cm.Translucent or opaque bright green. Blown.

Fig. 16.39 (Q 55).

100

Fig. 17.39 (Q 55).

Fragment of neck and wall. Lower neckcylindrical, tapering, with diaphragm atbottom made by folding; upper wallstraight, flaring.One fragment. Dull and pitted, with re-mains of opaque brownish yellow weath-ering.Comment: The diaphragm at the bottom ofthe neck shows that the object was a flaskintended for dispensing small quantities ofliquid, drop by drop. Presumably, there-fore, the intended contents were perfume,a flavouring agent or medicine. Anotherexample is also known from ed-Dur (58).

Dropper-flasks, usually with a bell-shaped mouth and a globular, ovoid orpear-shaped body, occur in both theRoman Empire (59) and Mesopotamia (60).

39. BottleQ 55. UF 829. Locus 1516.H. 6.9 cm; D. (rim) 3.0 cm.Transparent pale green. Blown.Bottle: pear-shaped. Rim everted, foldedup and in, and flattened to make horizontalflange; neck cylindrical, with constriction


at bottom; wall splays (wall at lowest sur-viving point is less than 0.1 cm thick).One fragment: whole of rim and neck, andsmall part of upper wall. Exterior dull,with remains of grey or brown weathering;interior of neck has crust of brown weath-ering.Comment: The vessel may have resembleda bottle of Isings form 28a, found in graveG 3847 at ed-Dur (61). Isings form 28a isone of the most common types of Romantoilet bottle. Datable parallels range be-tween the second quarter of the first cen-tury AD and the early second century.Among the finds noted by Isings (62) areseveral bottles from Pompeii and Hercul-aneum (which cannot be later than AD 79);and from Siphnos, grave 14, with a coin ofVespasian (r. AD 69–79) and grave 20, withcoins of Vespasian and Titus (r. AD 79–81).Stern provided a revised list of find-placesthroughout the Roman Empire (63).

40. BottleZ 36. UF 1726. Locus 3301.H. 1.8 cm; D. about 2.2 cm; Th. 0.1 cm.Transparent light purple. Blown.Bottle. Fragment of neck, cylindrical.Broken on all sides. Pitted but virtuallywithout weathering.

41. Bottle (?)Q 57. UF 829. Locus 1516.H. about 3.5 cm; Max. Dim. 3.9 cm; Th. –0.15 – 0.1 cm.Colour unknown: possibly yellowishbrown, but this may be the result of weath-ering. Blown.Bottle (?). Lower wall tapers, then curvesin at bottom, evidently to narrow base.One fragment, broken on all sides withmatt, opaque khaki-coloured weathering.

101

42. Bottle (?)T 4. UF 1129. Locus 2108.H. 2.2 cm; D. (base) 2.6 cm.Translucent or transparent purple. Blown.Bottle (?). Lower wall tapers, then curvesin at bottom; base plain, flat; annular pontilmark (D. 2.0 cm). Lower part of vessel islopsided.Fragment, broken on all sides. Glossy todull greyish brown weathering with creamspots and short, worm-like marks.

43. BottleT 17. UF 1125. Locus 2100.H. 2.0 cm; Max. Dim. 4.5 cm; Th. 0.15 cm.Colour unknown. Blown.Bottle. Lower wall tapers, then curves in atbottom; base plain, slightly concave.One fragment, broken on all sides. Opaque,matt grey to dark brown weathering;where this is missing, glass is pitted andappears purple to black.

44. Bottle (?)Q 68. UF 825. Locus 1504.H. 1.6 cm; Th. less than 0.1 cm.Colour unknown. Blown.Bottle (?). Lower wall curves in at bottom;base plain, perhaps slightly concave.Three small fragments. Glossy dark brownto black weathering with lighter streaks.

45. BottleQ 30. UF 825. Locus 1500.H 2.9 cm; D. (est.) about 2.0 cm; Th. 0.15 –0.1 cm.Transparent light brownish yellow. Blown.Fragment from cylindrical neck.Broken on all sides. Thick crust of lightbrown to cream enamel-like weathering.

D. WHITEHOUSE

Fig. 18.46 (Q 19).

Fig. 19.47 (T 35a)

46. Bottle (?)Q 19. UF 825. Locus 1500.H. 2.3 cm; D. (rim) about 2.7 cm; Th. (neck)less than 1.0 cm.Colour unknown. Blown.Bottle (?). Rim outsplayed, then folded upand in to make tubular edge; neck cylin-drical.One fragment, comprising about two fifthsof rim and small part of neck. Completelycovered with dull brown to grey opaqueweathering.Comment: Evidently part of a small vesselwith a rim (64).

47. Bottle (?)T 35a. Surface.H. 0.6 cm; D. about 3.0 cm; Th. (neck) 0.1cm.Transparent, pale yellowish green. Blown.Bottle (?). Rim everted, with tubular edgemade by folding up, in and down; upperneck cylindrical.Triangular, broken on two sides. Dull andpitted, with remains of weathering andslight iridescence.

48. Bottle (?)Z 74. UF 1726. Locus 3339.H. 3.3 cm; D. (est.) about 1.5 cm; Th. 0.1 cm.

102

Transparent pale green. Blown.Bottle or similar form. Fragment of cylin-drical neck, splaying slightly at bottom.One fragment and one scrap, mostly cov-ered with iridescent, variegated grey todark brown weathering.Comment: Where the weathering is missing,the surface is blue; but this is not the colourof the glass.

49. Bottle (?)Q 31. UF 825. Locus 1500.H. 1.5 cm; D. (neck) 1.5 cm; Th. less than0.1 cm.Colour unknown. Blown.Bottle (?). Small part of cylindrical neckwhich is short and splays at both ends.One fragment, broken on all sides. Opaqueblack weathering, which has flaked atedges and exposed corroded silver glass.Comment: Evidently a small bottle of thesame general form as a piece found in thecollective tomb (G 5156) in Area AV (65).The glass from this tomb suggests that itmay have been in use between about AD25–50 and 75 (66).

50. Ewer (?)Q 20. UF 825. Locus 1500.H. 1.6 cm; D. 4.2 cm; Th. (neck) less than0.1 cm.Translucent deep blue. Blown.Jar or ewer. Rim everted, with tubular lipmade by folding in and down; neck ver-tical at top.Two fragments, which join to make two-

Fig. 20.50 (Q 20).


Fig. 21.51 (T 1b).

thirds of rim and very small part of upperneck.Comment: It is possible that the rim comesfrom a vessel resembling two other objectsfrom ed-Dur (67). Both were found in thecollective tomb (G 5156) in Area AV which,as noted above, seems to have been usedbetween about AD 25–50 and 75.

51. Jug with trefoil mouthT 61 1. UF 1139. Locus 2136πT 1b 2. UF1128. Locus 2107.(Both) H. 2.6 cm.Translucent bright green. Blown.Jug with trefoil mouth. Rim outsplayed,with tubular lip made by folding up andin; neck cylindrical.Two small fragments. 1. Drab light greenweathering with pale yellow patches.2. Opaque matt grey with yellowish scales.Although the two fragment differ in ap-pearance, they seem to be parts of the samevessel.Comment: Isings form 56a.Isings provided a long list of jugs with tre-foil mouths (68). The earliest of these in-clude a cameo glass vessel from Pompeiiknown as the Auldjo Jug, which probablydates from the second or third quarter ofthe first century AD and in any case isearlier than 79 (69). More recent datablefinds were listed by Biaggio Simona (70).A fragment is known from Dura-Europos(71).

103

52. Flask with two handlesQ 65. UF 825. Locus 1504.D. (rim) 2.5 cm.Vessel perhaps transparent green; handleseither same or greenish blue to blue.Blown; handles applied.Flask: pear-shaped, egg-shaped or possiblyglobular, with two opposed handles. Rimeverted, then folded up and in; neck cylin-drical, splaying at bottom and mergingwith sloping shoulder. Handles, each withprominent ribs at edges, attached to top ofneck, immediately below rim.Broken into innumerable fragments.Comment: Although the object is shattered,it appears to have had a pear- or egg-shaped body (cf. Isings form 15) ratherthan to have been globular. If it was pear-or egg-shaped, it resembled a piece fromthe collective tomb (G 5156) in Area AV(72); if it was globular, it resembled asecond vessel, also from the collective tomb(73). As noted already, the glass from thetomb suggests that it was in use betweenabout AD 25–50 and 75.

According to Isings, who listed nu-merous examples of form 15 from datablecontexts (74), the type originated in the Tib-erian-Claudian period (AD 14–54), wasparticularly popular in Claudian-Neroniantimes (AD 41–68) and remained in use untilthe end of the first century. Numerousexamples of form 15 from datable contextshave been made since Isings’ original pub-lication (75). Summing up the occurrenceof form 15 in the cemeteries of CantonTicino in Switzerland, Biaggio Simonanoted that it is fairly common and usuallyoccurs in relatively rich graves, associatedwith earthenware drinking vessels (76).The earliest examples were buried betweenAD 20 and 50; the popularity of the typedeclined sharply after about AD 80. Findsfrom the Near East include vessels from atomb of the first century AD at Garny inArmenia (77) and from Warka in Iraq (78).

D. WHITEHOUSE

Small, two-handled globular jars occurin the Roman world and are sometimes de-scribed as aryballoi (oil flasks) (79), al-though typical aryballoi (Isings form 61) arerather robust objects with thick walls andsmall, ring-like handles (80).

The existence of examples of both formsat sites outside the Roman Empire ledBarag to conclude that the objects fromWarka are Parthian (81).

53. NeckT 36. UF 1131. Locus 2124.H. 2.3 cm; D. about 1.3 cm.Pale green. Blown.Fragment of cylindrical neck.Broken on all sides. Covered with lightbrown to lemon yellow weathering.

54. NeckT 36. UF 1131. Locus 2124.H. 2.8 cm; Th. less than 0.1 cm.Perhaps pale green. Blown.Fragment of cylindrical neck.Thick crust of dark grey to brown weath-ering.

55. BaseT 38. UF 1130. Locus 2116.H. 0.9 cm; D. 3.1 cm; Th. (wall) less than0.1 cm.Transparent light green. Blown.Base. Lower wall curves in at bottom;base has tubular foot-ring made by fold-ing.Complete base and scrap of wall. Mostly

Fig. 22.55 (T 38).

104

covered with dull yellow and brownweathering.

56. BaseT 23. UF 1134. Locus 2123.H. 1.6 cm; D. (base, est.) about 3 cm; Th.(wall) 0.1 cm; Max. Dim. 5.3 cm.Transparent bluish green. Blown.Base. Wall curves in at bottom; base plain,flat; probably no pontil mark (small gouge-like scar near centre does not look like scarfrom pontil).One fragment, broken on all sides. Opaqueyellowish brown weathering.

57. HandleT 55. Surface.H. 3.3 cm; W. (at bottom) 1.5 cm; (near top)0.95 cm.Colour unknown. Blown; applied andtooled.Handle with oval cross section. Applied towall, then drawn up and in; lower attach-ment impressed with tool, making hori-zontal depression above ridge of glass.Handle almost complete. Opaque brownweathering with patches of silvery grey.

58. HandleP 11. UF 272. Locus 1302.Max. Dim. 2.6 cm; W. (pinched flange) 1.0cm; (handle) 0.35 cm.Colour unknown. Applied, tooled.Handle. Lower attachment bulbous, withhandle drawn out and up from it; at baseof attachment, semicircular rest made bypinching.Fragment, completely covered withopaque, matt greyish brown weathering.

59. HandleT 50. UF 1138. Locus 2134.


Max. Dim. 0.5 cm.Colour unknown. Applied and drawn.Fragment from top of miniature handle.Yellowish green weathered surface.Comment: The form and dimensions areconsistent with identifying the fragment aspart of the handle of a small ‘Sidonian’vessel, possibly similar to 100.

60. Handle (?)T 54. Surface.Opaque red. Probably drawn.Fragment of small handle (?).Matt, with traces of yellow weathering.Comment: This is the only example knownto me of opaque red glass from ed-Dur.

61. FragmentS 2. UF 1025. Locus 1900.Max. Dim. 1.1 cm.Transparent brownish yellow. Possiblyblown and applied.Scrap, apparently convex, attached to verythin wall.Remains of light yellowish weathering.Comment: Perhaps this is part of a handleattachment and of a very thin wall or neck.

62. FragmentQ 6. Surface.Max. Dim. 3.8 cm; Th. 0.25–0.2 cm.Transparent yellowish green. Blown: poss-ibly mould-blown.Fragment, possibly from edge of base withkick.Broken on all sides. Remains of translucent,silver to grey weathering.

63. FragmentT 52. UF 1139. Locus 2136.Max. Dim. 2.8 cm; Th. less than 0.1 cm.Translucent bright green. Blown.

105

Fragment of wall.Broken on all sides. Brown to yellowishgreen weathering.Comment: 35 may be another fragment ofthe same vessel.

64. FragmentAK 12. UF 2551. Locus 3964.Max. Dim. 2.7 cm; Th. 0.1 cm.Possibly green. Blown.Fragment of wall.Broken on all sides. Thick film of weath-ering, grey to brown, which is flaking off,revealing iridescence.

65. FragmentT 37. UF 1126. Locus 2101.Max. Dim. 1.9 cm; Th. 0.1 cm.Translucent deep green; opaque lightgreenish yellow, with impurities.Green glass blown; yellow glass fused togreen.Fragment: wall of green vessel with amor-phous yellow lump fused to one side.Broken on all sides. Green glass has noweathering; greenish yellow is dull butalso apparently without weathering.Comment: The yellow glass does not appearto have been attached intentionally. Per-haps the fragments were subjected to in-tense heat, after the green vessel had beenbroken.

66. FragmentE 6. UF 151. Locus 601.Max. Dim. 1.8 cm.Transparent light green. Blown.Fragment.Broken on all sides. Remains of opaquebrownish grey weathering.

D. WHITEHOUSE

67. FragmentZ 98. UF 1735. Locus 3352.Max. Dim. 1.5 cm; Th. 0.1 cm.Transparent blue. Blown.Fragment of thin-walled vessel.Broken on all sides. Dull and slightlypitted, but without weathering.

68. FragmentAK 15. UF 2550. Locus 3959.Max. Dim. 1.2 cm; Th. about 0.1 cm.Transparent dark blue. Blown.Fragment of wall.Broken on all sides. Dull, with hint of iri-descence.

69. FragmentT 67. UF 1133. Locus 2119.Max. Dim. 4.0 cm; Th. 0.1 cm.Colour unknown. Blown.Fragment of wall.Broken on all sides. Opaque, light tan-col-oured weathering.

70. Eleven FragmentsQ 21. UF 825. Locus 1500.Max. Dim. (largest) 3.7 cm; Th. (all) up to0.1 cm.Colour(s) unknown. Blown.Fragments of vessel(s) with thin wall(s).All broken on all sides. Weathering ismore or less uniform dark brown to darkgrey opaque, with paler streaks andpatches.

71. VesselZ 9. UF 1727. Locus 3313.Max. Dim. 3.0 cm; Th. 0.2 cm.Colour unknown. Probably blown.Fragment, almost flat, from wall or base ofvessel.Broken on all sides. Matt, opaque brown to

106

dark grey weathering; where this ismissing, slight iridescence.

72. FragmentT 40. UF 1136. Locus 2129.Max. Dim. 2.6 cm; Th. less than 0.1 cm.Colour unknown. Blown.Fragment from shoulder and wall (?) ofsmall vessel.Broken on all sides. Surfaces rough, withvery dark brown weathering.

73. Nine FragmentsE 178. UF 160. Locus 664.Max. Dim. (largest) 2.1 cm; Th. (all) 0.1 orless than 0.1 cm.Colour(s) unknown. Blown.Fragments from at least three vessels, oneof which had very thin wall.All broken on all sides. Most have verydark, opaque brown weathering.

74. FragmentsQ 66. UF 825. Locus 1504.Max. Dim. (largest fragment) 2.1 cm; Th.(all) 0.1 or less than 0.1 cm.Colour unknown. Blown.Fragments from wall of vessel.All broken on all sides. Extensivelyweathered, mostly with usual very dark,opaque weathering, although three haveopaque ochre to tan-coloured enamel-likesurfaces.

75. Three FragmentsZ 43. UF 1728. Locus 3307.Max Dim. 2.0 cm. Neck: H. 1.9; D. about1.4 cm.Colour unknown. Blown.Fragments of cylindrical neck and wall.All broken on all sides. Extensivelyweathered, with dull to matt dark grey or


black surfaces and iridescence whereweathering is lost.

76. Four FragmentsQ 29. UF 825. Locus 1500.Max. Dim. 1.9 cm; Th. about 0.1 cm.Colour unknown. Blown.Fragments of wall.All broken on all sides, with dark brownweathering.

77. Two FragmentsE 110. UF 162. Locus 648.1. Max. Dim. 1.5 cm; 2. Max. Dim. 1.2 cm.Colour unknown. Blown.Fragments of wall.Both broken on all sides. Opaque very darkbrown weathering.

78. FragmentsT 76. UF 1136. Locus 2129.Colour(s) unknown. Blown.Very small fragments: mostly very thin.All broken on all sides, with opaque darkbrown weathering, but one has pale greencorrosion beneath yellowish brown en-amel-like weathering.

79. FragmentA 15. UF 1. Locus 7.Max. Dim. 1.0 cm.Transparent light greenish yellow. Blown.Fragment of wall.Broken on all sides.

80. FragmentA 15. UF 1. Locus 7.Max. Dim. 1.0 cm.Transparent brown. Blown.Fragment.Broken on all sides.

107

81. FragmentT 15. UF 1126. Locus 2101.Max. Dim. 1.0 cm; Th. 0.05 cm.Translucent deep greenish blue. Presum-ably blown.Fragment: very thin.Dull and pitted, but without weathering.

82. FragmentT 26. Surface.Max. Dim. 2.5 cm.Bright green. Blown.Fragment of wall.Broken on all sides. Covered with thickcrust of rather mottled brown to yellowishtan-coloured weathering.

83. FragmentT 26. Surface.Max. Dim. 2.6 cm; H. 1.5 cm.Colour unknown. Blown.Rim: everted, with rounded edge made byfolding in and down.Roughly triangular: broken on two sides.Thick layer of a matt light brown tobrownish yellow weathering.Comment: The rim may have been pinchedto form a trefoil, but a scrap of greenishglass fused to the outside suggests that theoriginal form has been distorted by ex-posure to intense heat. It is possible thatthe yellow weathering conceals brightgreen glass (cf. 82).

84. FragmentT 26. Surface.H. 0.8 cm; D. (base) 4 cm.Translucent purple. Blown: possibly mould-blown.Fragment: bottom of wall and base.Broken on all sides. Opaque dark brown toblack weathering.Comment: The fragment has neither decor-

D. WHITEHOUSE

ation on the wall nor any trace of a seam.However, the form suggests that the objectmay have been a small mould-blownvessel.

85. FragmentT 26. Surface.H. 2.0 cm; D. (neck) about 1.3 cm; Th. 0.1cm.Colour not known. Blown.Fragment of small bottle or jar.Broken on all sides.

86. FragmentT 26. Surface.Max. Dim. 1.0 cm.Transparent deep blue. Blown.Fragment of wall: very thin.Broken on all sides.

B2. Vessel with picked-up decorationNumber 87 belongs to a group of Romanvessels of the first century AD, which aredecorated with small fragments of glasspicked up on the paraison and either leftin relief or marvered until they are flushwith the wall. Fremersdorf divided theseobjects into three types: 1. vessels withsmall chunks fused to the wall; 2. vesselswith very small chips fused to the wall;and 3. vessels decorated by picking upchips, marvering and reheating the pa-raison until the surface was smooth andthen expanding the paraison by further in-flation (82). 87 is of the first type and apiece from the Belgian excavations at ed-Dur (83) belongs to the third type.

Ornament of type 1 occurs on a numberof forms, notably cylindrical or hemi-spherical cups of Isings form 12 (84) andtwo-handled cups of Isings form 38a (85).Examples of Isings form 12 have been re-ported from late Augustan contexts at

108

Magdalensberg in Austria (86), but thegreat majority of finds from datable con-texts were buried in the second and thirdquarters of the first century AD (87). Theform survived, however, until about 100(88). Van Lith reported examples of Isingsform 38a with picked-up decoration fromcontexts datable to the mid- or later firstcentury (89).

87. Jar or cupT 59. UF 1126. Locus 2101.Max. Dim. 3.9 cm; Th. 0.15 cm.Transparent yellowish green. Blown;picked up and possibly applied.Jar or cup: fragment of wall. Decorationconsists of chips of glass (same colour aswall) picked up on paraison but not mar-vered, so that they remained in relief, butbecame rounded when the object was re-heated. Above chips, suggestion of onehorizontal trail.Opaque, matt brownish yellow weath-ering.

B3. Vessels with applied decorationNumbers 88–96 were decorated by gath-ering a small quantity of molten glass onthe end of a rod, applying it to the paraisonand then drawing it over the surface in theform of a narrow trail. Usually, the trailswere applied to fully inflated forms. Insome cases, however, they were applied topartly inflated paraisons, which were thenmarvered until the applied glass was flushwith the surface; 88–92 were made in thismanner.

88. BottleQ 41. UF 825. Locus 1504.H. 13.0 cm; D. (rim) 3.8 cm; (max.) 7.8 cm.Transparent greenish blue; possibly opaquewhite. Blown; paraison probably trailed,


Fig. 23.88 (Q 41).

marvered and blown to full size.Bottle: conical. Rim outsplayed, folded upand in, and flattened to make horizontalflange; neck cylindrical, with constrictionat bottom; wall curves in at bottom; baseplain, slightly concave; pontil mark, faintand possibly annular. Heavy, evidentlyrather thick.Almost complete. Broken and repaired,with very small losses to body. Mostly cov-ered with glossy chocolate-coloured weath-ering, with pale streaks and spots. Someiridescence where weathering is spalled.Comment: Cf. Isings form 28a. See 39.

89. BottleT 50. UF 1138. Locus 2134.H. 0.5 cm; D. about 3.4 cm.Probably bluish green or green, with

109

opaque white trails. Blown. Paraison dec-orated with spiral trails, marvered, thenblown to full size.Bottle: fragment of rim. Rim, probablysomewhat distorted, everted and turneddown, then folded up and in.One fragment. Considerably corroded,with pits and fissures. Surface matt withbluish grey weathering, locally white, withlight brown accretion.

90. BottleT 64. UF 1139. Locus 2136.Max. Dim. 5.4 cm; Th. 0.15 cm.Colour unknown, evidently dark, possiblypurple, with trails of two different colours,

Fig. 24.88 (Q 41).

D. WHITEHOUSE

one producing greyish pink weatheringand the other perhaps white. Blown; twotrails of different colours applied to tip ofparaison and wound spirally around it, oneinside other, and marvered; paraison theninflated to full size.Bottle. Base convex; no pontil scar. Twoconcentric trails spiral out and up fromcentre of base.One fragment, representing centre of base.Thick layer of opaque pale yellowishbrown weathering and accretion.

91. FragmentE 186. UF 160. Locus 664.Max. Dim. 2.7 cm.Colour of base glass unknown; opaquewhite trail. Blown; paraison decorated withspiral trail, marvered and inflated to fullsize.Fragment.Broken on all sides, with very dark weath-ering. Some golden iridescence.

92. Bottle (?)T 73. UF 1136. Locus 2129.H. 0.7 cm; D. (base) about 4.5 cm.Possibly purple; opaque white trails.Blown. Paraison spirally trailed, marvered,then inflated to full size.Bottle (?). Wall curves in at bottom; baseplain, with slight concavity; no pontilmark. Double spiral of marvered trailscurves up and outward from near centre ofbase.

Fig. 25.93 (T 35b).

110

Fragment consisting of most of base, andfive scraps. Weathered surfaces are roughand deep grey, with grey to brown incrus-tation.

93. Bottle (?)T 35 (90). Surface.H. 0.5 cm; D. (base) 2.2 cm.Possibly transparent light green or green;opaque white. Blown; trailed.Bottle (?). Base plain, flat but with slightlyconvex surface. Trail begins at centre, thenspirals out and up.Circular fragment consisting of entire base.Base glass: matt grey to black opaqueweathering; white glass: grey to brownweathering.

A similar bottle, decorated with whitetrails, was found in the collective tomb (G5156) in Area AV (91). As noted above, theglass vessels from the tomb suggest that itwas in use between about AD 25–50 and75. Another example, also trailed, was re-covered from grave 1B at al-Hajjar, site 2,Bahrain (92).

94. HandleT 39. UF 1135. Locus 2127.Max. Dim. 3.5 cm; W. 1.9 cm; H. 3.3 cm.Colour of vessel and main colour of handle(perhaps same) unknown; opaque whitetrails in handle. Vessel blown; handle ap-plied.Handle of vessel with neck and roundedshoulder. Small but thick handle droppedonto shoulder, drawn up and in, and at-tached to neck; excess glass pulled downover handle and small amount of it forcedup between top of handle and neck.Fragment, comprising most of handle andarea of neck and shoulder behind handle.White glass is covered with matt pale yel-lowish brown weathering; other glass ismatt chocolate brown.


Fig. 26.96 (T 12).

Comment: The object may be part of aglobular flask (aryballos), cf. Isings form 61.In the Roman world, flasks of this typewere in use from the third quarter of thefirst century AD to the mid-third century(93). Another example is also known fromed-Dur (94) while comparable finds are at-tested at Assur (95), Warka (96) and in Bah-rain (97).

95. JarT 69. UF 1139. Locus 2136.H. 1.3 cm; D. 5 cm; Th. less than 0.1 cm.Colour unknown. Blown, trailed.Jar. Rim outsplayed, with rounded lip;upper wall splayed. Decorated at bottomof rim and top of wall with trail woundaround vessel at least twice.One fragment, completely covered withlight brownish yellow opaque, matt,weathering.

96. JugT 12. UF 1131. Locus 2118.Max. Dim. about 2.0 cm.Colour of base glass unknown; trail poss-ibly of another colour. Blown; trailed.Jug: fragment of trefoil mouth. Rimeverted, with tubular edge made byfolding up, in and down. Below lip, thickhorizontal trail.One fragment (broken in two). Opaque yel-lowish brown to pale yellow weathering.Comment: Vessels with a funnel-shaped ortrefoil mouth decorated with a thick hori-

111

zontal trail are a common feature of third-century and later assemblages in manyparts of the Roman Empire. At Sardis inTurkey, for example, they were attributedto the late Roman and Byzantine periods(98); at Trier in Germany they occur in dat-able contexts of the later third and fourthcenturies (99); and at Rome they have beenfound in fifth-century deposits (100).

B4. Vessels with mould-blowndecorationThe discovery, in the Syro-Palestinian re-gion of the Roman Empire, that objects canbe formed by inflating gathers of moltenglass was followed shortly afterwards bythe discovery, probably in the same region,that objects can be both formed and decor-ated simultaneously by inflating gathers indecorated moulds. The advantages of thiswere obvious and mould-blowing quickly

Fig. 27.97 (A 33).

D. WHITEHOUSE

became established as one of the standardmethods of making glass vessels in manyparts of the Roman Empire (101). Indeed,by about AD 35–45, mould-blown vesselswere present in Austria, France, Germany,Greece, Italy and Switzerland; and in the

Fig. 28.97 (A 33).

112

third quarter of the century they were usedin every part of the empire (102). It is notyet known when the technique of mould-blowing was first practised outside theRoman Empire, although Barag (103) drewattention to an unusual and rather crudeflask shaped like a date, found at Babylonin Iraq, which, he suggested, may be a localimitation of a common first-century Romanform (cf. 102).

97. Beaker, ‘lotus-bud beaker’A 33 (104). UF 1. Locus 1.H. 23.7 cm; D. (rim) 9.0 cm; (base) 5.4 cm.Transparent bluish green. Blown in mouldwith four vertical sections and base plate.Beaker; conical. Rim cracked off; wallstraight, tapering; base plain, very slightlyconcave; no pontil mark. Wall decoratedwith six horizontal bands of eight drop-shaped bosses; each row is offset from rowabove it so that bosses are arranged inquincunx. Bosses are least distinct at top ofwall and clearest at bottom, where theyhave three ‘steps’; between each pair ofbosses in uppermost row, one small ovalknob. Base decorated with small concentriccircle surrounded by pair of larger curves.Complete, but broken into many pieces.Weathering is glossy and mottled; it variesfrom dark brown speckled with greyishgreen and pale yellow to yellowish brownspeckled with brown.Comment: Isings form 31. This is a crisp ex-ample, evidently blown in an unwornmould.

Number 97 belongs to a large group ofvessels, almost all of which are truncatedconical beakers, decorated with pointed,three-tiered knobs, sometimes associatedwith other motifs such as circular bossesand theatrical masks. Occasionally, theknobs and other small elements are ac-companied by linear patterns or vinesprays (105). Uncertainty about the signifi-


cance of the knobs is reflected in the sev-eral names by which the objects are known:lotus buds (106), almonds (107) and knotsin the trunk of a tree (108). The clubwielded by Hercules, which was madefrom the trunk of an olive tree, is repre-sented with prominent knobs; examplesexist in many media, and include at leastthree club-shaped glass bottles (109). Theknobs on vessels like 97, Isings proposed,represent the knots in the club of Hercules.

Vessels decorated with tiered knobs havea wide, but uneven distribution in theRoman Empire, from St. Albans (RomanVerulamium), southern England (110) andCoimbra (Roman Conimbriga), Portugal(111) in the western provinces, to Masada,Israel (112) in the east. Remarking on theirpatchy distribution, Stern noted thatexamples are common in central Italy butrare in the northern part of the peninsula(113), and they do not seem to have beenreported in North Africa.

Finds from Pompeii and Herculaneum(114) show that beakers with tiered knobswere already in use in AD 79, when thecities were destroyed by an eruption ofVesuvius. It is not clear how long they con-tinued to be used after the late first century.

98. BottleT 51. UF 1139. Locus 2136.H. 1.2 cm; Max. Dim. 2.2 cm; Th. Less than0.1 cm.Transparent light blue. Mould-blown, per-haps in mould with three vertical sections.Bottle; probably six-sided. Fragment fromlower wall, which curves in and thenstraightens at bottom. Decorated in reliefwith horizontal band of triangular leavesor of triangular leaves alternating with ovalpetals.Broken on all sides. Slight iridescence; noother weathering survives.Comment: The fragment is part of a ‘Si-

113

donian’ bottle with a hollow foot. Theband of ornament above the base issimilar, or possibly identical, to the decor-ation on a variety of hexagonal bottledecorated with fruit (115). Stern attributedsuch bottles to the Syro-Palestinian re-gion, possibly Sidon, and she suggestedthat they were made in the secondquarter of the first century AD.

99. NeckT 36. UF 1131. Locus 2124.Max Dim. 4.0 cm.Colour unknown. Mould-blown.Fragment of neck and upper wall. Neckshort, perhaps with remains of upperattachment of handle.

100. HandleQ 32. UF 825. Locus 1500.Max. Dim. 3.0 cm.Handle from small jug or amphoriskos.Colour of base glass unknown; handle isof unknown colour marbled with opaquewhite.Mould-blown; handle applied.

101. Bottle, bowl or boxT 12. UF 1131. Locus 2118.H. 2.9 cm; Th. less than 0.1 cm.Translucent bright blue. Mould-blown.Fragment from wall, apparently more orless vertical, decorated in low relief withnarrow frieze containing multifoil leaf, orcluster of fruit or berries, above horizontalrib.Pitted, with remains of weathering indeepest impressions.Comment: Although it seems clear that thefragment is from a ‘Sidonian’ vessel of thefirst century AD, the decoration is indis-tinct and neither the form nor the motifscan be identified with confidence. For ex-

D. WHITEHOUSE

ample, the form may have been a bottle(116) or a cylindrical box (117). The verticalpart of the wall of the bottles noted abovehas a frieze containing three pairs of floralsprays that include ivy leaves in the formof rather bulbous trefoils. The boxes pub-lished by Stern are decorated with friezesof palmettes; but the ornament found onother examples of this form includes fes-toons of stems terminating in fruit, some ofwhich, especially at the bottom of thefrieze, are trefoil or multifoil (118).

102. Bottle shaped like dateAK 14. UF 2550. Locus 3968.Max. Dim. 2.9 cm; Th. Less than 0.1 cm.Translucent light yellowish brown. Mould-blown; body blown in mould with two ver-tical parts.Bottle: body shaped like date. Fragmentfrom wall with distinctive wrinkled sur-face.Broken on all sides. Weathering is matt ordull, and light greyish brown.Comment: Isings form 78d.Bottles shaped like dates are among themost common varieties of first-centurymould-blown vessels. Although they areusually yellowish brown, like the fruit, sev-eral other colours occur, e.g. a green ex-ample, also from ed-Dur (119). Specimensof date-shaped bottles have been dis-covered in most parts of the Roman Em-pire, with a concentration of find-places inand around the eastern Mediterranean(120). The earliest datable find appears tobe a bottle from Trier, Germany, which wasdiscovered in a grave of the Claudianperiod (AD 41–54) (121). Examples fromPompeii and Herculaneum (122) cannot belater than AD 79. The type continued in usethroughout the first century; a handful ofbottles from later contexts may representheirlooms. Two date-shaped bottles, oneprobably imported and the other perhaps

114

Fig. 29.103 (T 22c).

Fig. 30.103 (T 22c).

made locally, are known from Babylon inIraq (123).

Three other bottles in the form of a date


have been found at ed-Dur (124). One ofthese was discovered in the collective tomb(G 5156) in Area AV. The glass vessels fromthis tomb suggest that it was in use fromabout AD 25–50 to 75 (125).

103. Bottle shaped like citrus fruit orcedar coneT 22. UF 1132. Locus 2120πT 61. UF 1139.Locus 2136.Max. Dim. 6.5 cm.Translucent bright green. Mould-blown,probably in mould with two vertical sec-tions.Flask with wall decorated with small, bul-bous protrusions.Five fragments, broken on all sides. Yel-lowish green and greenish grey weath-ering.Comment: The fragments probably belong

Fig. 31.104 (T 18).

115

to a single bottle with a body shaped likea citrus fruit or a cedar cone, severalexamples of which have been found atPompeii (126). Scatozza Horicht suggestedthat the bottles from Pompeii may repre-sent the etrog, a fruit which played an im-portant role in Sukkoth, the Jewish Festivalof the Tabernacles. However, in a dis-cussion of the fruit-like motifs that occuron a group of first-century mould-blownglass bottles, Stern noted that the peel ofthe etrog is corrugated and she suggestedthat the bulbous protrusions on the glassbottles are more like the scales of a cedarcone (127).

104. Bottle shaped like bunch of grapesT 18. UF 1131. Locus 2124πT 75. UF 1133.Locus 2119.Max. Dim. 4.3 cm; Th. 0.1 cm.Transparent or translucent deep green.Mould-blown; body probably blown inmould with two vertical sections.Bottle. Two fragments of wall with overallpattern of bosses intended to imitate ex-terior surface of bunch of grapes.Both broken on all sides. Yellowish brownopaque, dull to matt weathering.Comment: Cf. Isings form 91a.Flasks with bodies shaped like a bunch ofgrapes have a wide distribution in theRoman Empire. Most of them belong toone of two groups: 1. small vessels withbodies shaped like three-lobed bunches ofgrapes (Isings form 78e) (128); and 2. largervessels with bodies in the form of pear-shaped bunches of grapes (Isings form 91a)(129). The second group contains two vari-ants: with two handles and withouthandles. The variant with handles occursin the western provinces and is datable tothe late second to third centuries (130). Thevariant without handles is found mainly inthe eastern provinces, where find-places in-clude Homs (131) and Dura-Europos (132)

D. WHITEHOUSE

in Syria, and sites in Egypt (133). 104 is al-most certainly an example of the variantwithout handles.

Although it might be supposed that thebottles without handles are of approxi-mately the same date as those withhandles, examples from Pompeii (134) andthe Monasteriaki Kephala cemetery atKnossos, Crete (135) show that they werealready in use in the second half of the firstcentury AD. This specimen and one otherfrom ed-Dur (136) are not the only bottlesof this type from beyond Rome’s easternfrontier; another was found among theRoman glass in the cache of luxury objectsfrom Begram, Afghanistan (Paris, MuseeGuimet, inv. 21846) (137).

105. Five fragmentsT 15. UF 1126. Locus 2101πT 1. UF 1128.Locus 2107πT 70. UF 1137. Locus 2131πT61. UF 1139. Locus 2136.Max. Dim. 1.8 cm; Th. (wall) 0.05 cm.Translucent canary yellow, with bubbles;opaque light apple green. Blown, perhapsmould-blown; applied.Five fragments of one small, extremelydelicate vessel, perhaps with pointed baseand mould-blown decoration. Attached tooutside is small blob of green glass(0.45¿0.5 cm) which appears to have beendrawn up, down or to one side, as if tomake vestigial handle.All broken on all sides. Surfaces dull, butwithout weathering.Comment: Although the fragments werefound in four different contexts, their un-usual colour and close similarity to one an-other suggest that they come from thesame vessel. The object appears to havebeen small, with a thin wall, which mayhave curved in at the bottom and ended ina nipple-like point. Faint irregularities inthe wall may be the result of inflating the

116

object in a mould. The delicacy andcharacter of the workmanship are con-sistent with a first-century date and Romanorigin; but no parallels are known to me.

DiscussionThe discussion is in four parts. The firstpart is a summary of information, pre-sented in the catalogue, on where the glasswas probably made. The second part is aprofile of the glass described in terms ofthe range of techniques employed to makethe objects (138) and how the objects mayhave been used. The third part is anattempt to establish the date at which theglass was made. The fourth and final partcontinues the discussion (139) about howthe glass may have reached the site. In eachsection, information about the glass fromthe Danish excavation is correlated with in-formation about the glass recovered by theBelgian team. It is encouraging to note that,in general terms, the Danish material re-inforces the picture that emerged fromstudying the glass found by the Belgianteam.

Where the glass was madeAs the catalogue indicates, most of theglass from the Danish excavations isRoman. All of the fragments formed bycasting (1–32) have numerous parallels inthe Roman Empire and no-one (as far asI am aware) has suggested that examplesfound outside the imperial frontier weremade near their find-places. Similarly,among the blown objects, many of the un-decorated, trailed, and mould-blown ob-jects (e.g., 39–51, 88–93 and 97–105) haveRoman parallels and it seems very likelythat they, too, were imported from theMediterranean. At least six objects (33–38),however, have a family likeness to Romanobjects but equally close or closer parallels


in Mesopotamia, and they may well beParthian or Sasanian.

Chemical analyses of fragments collectedby the Belgian expedition support the viewthat most of the glass from ed-Dur isRoman. The analyses revealed that thesamples are soda-lime-silica glasses withthe low potassium and magnesium contentsthat are characteristic of glass made withnatron. The presence of natron suggests thatthe objects were made along the easternshore of the Mediterranean or to the west ofit, since glasses made farther east usuallycontain soda derived from plant ash andconsequently contain relatively high potas-sium and magnesium contents (140).

The finds from ed-Dur are not the onlyRoman glass found in the United ArabEmirates. The museum at Sharjah containsglass and other Hellenistic and Roman ma-

Table 1. Major groups of glass vessels from the Danishexcavations at ed-Dur.

Technique Number Percentage

A. Cast vessels 32 30.5B. Blown vessels 73 69.5

Total 105 100.0

Table 2. Subgroups of glass vessels from the Danishexcavations at ed-Dur.


A. Cast vesselsA1. Monochrome, plain or 11 10.5

linear-cutA2. Mosaic, plain or linear- 6 5.7

cutA3. Monochrome ribbed 7 6.7

bowlsA4. Mosaic ribbed bowls 8 7.6

B. Blown vesselsB1. Plain 55 52.4B2. Picked-up 1 1.0B3. Applied 9 8.6B4. Mould-blown 8 7.6

Total 105 100.1

117

Table 3. Major groups of glass vessels from the Danishand Belgian excavations at ed-Dur.


A. Cast vessels 93 41.0B. Blown vessels 134 59.0

Total 227 100.0

Table 4. Subgroups of glass vessels from the Danishand Belgian excavations at ed-Dur.


A. Cast vesselsA1. Monochrome, plain or 28 12.3

linear-cutA2. Mosaic, plain or linear- 12 5.3

cutA3. Monochrome ribbed 35 15.4

bowlsA4. Mosaic ribbed bowls 8 7.9

B. Blown vesselsB1. Plain 94 41.4B2. Picked-up or splashed 2 0.9B3. Applied 14 6.2B4. Mould-blown 23 10.1B5. Wheel-cut 1 0.4

Total 227 99.9

terial excavated at Mleiha (141). The castglass from Mleiha includes fragments ofplain and linear-cut monochrome bowls,monochrome and mosaic glass ribbedbowls, and other monochrome tableware,comparable with finds from ed-Dur. Theblown glass includes fragments of a latesecond- to third-century vessel with ap-plied ‘snake-thread’ decoration, which hasno parallel at ed-Dur.

According to the Periplus of the Eryth-raean Sea, raw glass (cullet) was exportedfrom Roman Egypt to India in the first cen-tury AD (142). It is worth noting, therefore,that neither the Danish nor the Belgian ex-cavators recovered fragments which couldbe interpreted as cullet.

A profile of the glass vessels from ed-DurIn terms of manufacturing techniques, theglass vessels from the Danish excavations

D. WHITEHOUSE

Table 5. Glass vessels from the Danish excavationsclassified by presumed function.

Function Number Percentage

A. Eating and drinking 31 29.6B. Storing and dispensing 38 36.2Indeterminate 36 34.3

Total 105 100.1

Table 6. Glass vessels from the Danish excavationsclassified by form.


A. Eating and drinkingA1. Plate 0 0A2. Bowls 28 26.7A3. Cup 1 0.9A4. Beaker 1 0.9A5. Ewer 1 0.9

B. Storing and dispensingB1. Box 0 0B2. Bottles and jars 27 25.7B3. Jugs and flasks 6 5.7B4. Uncertain 8 7.6Indeterminate 33 31.4

Total 105 99.8

Table 7. Glass vessels from the Danish and Belgian ex-cavations classified by presumed function.


A. Eating and drinking 108 47.6B. Storing and dispensing 77 33.9Indeterminate 42 18.5

Total 227 100.0

fall into two major groups, which may bedivided into eight subgroups (Tables 1 and2). In several subgroups, the estimatednumbers of objects are subject to the pro-visos that objects may have been countedmore than once if fragments of them werefound in different places and (among theplain blown objects) indeterminate frag-ments of several vessels may have beencounted as one if they were found in thesame place. On balance, I suspect that the

118

fragments of plain blown vessels may rep-resent fewer objects than the catalogue in-dicates. If we combine these numbers withthe numbers of glasses found by theBelgian expedition (143) (Whitehouse1988b, p. 60), the profile of glass found ated-Dur is as shown in Tables 3 and 4 (withthe same provisos that were noted above).

It is noteworthy that 40.9% of the samplewas formed by casting and almost 59% byinflation. In the first category, fifty-three ofthe objects (57% of the cast vessels) areribbed bowls, twenty-eight (30.1%) areplain or linear-cut monochrome bowls andforty (43%) are made of mosaic glass. In thesecond category, ninety-four of the objects(70.1% of the blown vessels) are plain andtwenty-three (17.2%) have mould-blowndecoration. Evidently, much of the glassfrom the Belgian and Danish excavationsbelongs to a single period, at the beginningof which casting was still a major techniqueof glass forming and by the end of whichblowing, including inflation in moulds,was well established.

It is tempting to analyse the glass interms of function and in Tables 5 and 6 theglass is divided into two supposed func-tional categories and eight typological sub-

Table 8. Glass vessels from the Danish and Belgian ex-cavations classified by form.


A. Eating and drinkingA1. Plate 1 0.4A2. Bowls 90 39.6A3. Cups 10 4.4A4. Beakers 3 1.3A5. Ewers 4 1.8

B. Storing and dispensingB1. Box 1 0.4B2. Bottles and jars 49 21.6B3. Jugs and flasks 13 5.7B4. Uncertain 17 7.5Indeterminate 39 17.2

Total 227 99.9


categories. These tables analyse only thevessel glass from the Danish excavation,while Tables 7 and 8 analyse the combinedDanish and Belgian material.

If we eliminate the indeterminate frag-ments, 48.4% of the combined sample con-sists of flat or shallow vessels that mayhave been used primarily for eating, 6.9%are cups or beakers intended for drinkingand 2.1% are ewers that may have beenused for serving beverages. Twenty-six percent of the sample consists of small bottles,jars and boxes perhaps intended for storingand/or transporting cosmetic or medicinalpreparations: perfumes in the bottles andunguents in the jars and the box; and 6.9%may have been used for decanting ortemporarily storing small quantities ofliquid, again perhaps cosmetic or med-icinal preparations. None of the objects wasfor shipping or storing substances in bulkand none was intended primarily for dis-play.

The date of the glassMany of the contexts in which glass wasfound either cannot be dated or are datedonly approximately. The chronology of theglass, therefore, depends on parallels fromdated contexts elsewhere. Parallels for glassfrom the Belgian excavations led to the fol-lowing conclusions. The objects formed bycasting were made within the period be-tween about 25 BC and the early second cen-tury AD, while the most of the blown glassvessels were made between about AD 25and the second century. However, the ab-sence of two distinctive types of late first- toearly second-century glass (colourlessbowls and plates with overhanging rimsand facet-cut beakers), both of which occurat Dura-Europos in Syria (144), led me tosuggest that most of the glass from theBelgian excavations was made betweenabout 25 BC and AD 75 (145).

119

The finds from the Danish excavationsare consistent with this conclusion. The as-semblages of cast glass from the two exca-vations are closely similar, although eachincludes one fragment of a type not foundin the other: an example of fine tablewarefrom Italy in the Belgian material (146) anda fragment of mosaic glass with a poly-chrome ‘star’ cane (17) in the Danish ma-terial. Both fragments date from the earlyto mid-first century AD.

The two collections of blown glass arealso similar, in both cases comprising anoverwhelming majority of first-centuryvessels that are either Roman or closely re-semble Roman products and a muchsmaller number of vessels that are notRoman and were made at a later date. Theplain blown vessels from the Danish exca-vations include a cup of Isings form 69a(34), which came into use in the secondquarter of the first century AD and is wellattested in Flavian contexts; a small bottleof Isings form 28a (39), which was madebetween the second quarter of the first cen-tury and the early second century; a smallbottle (49) comparable to one found in thefirst-century collective tomb (G5156) inArea AV at ed-Dur (147); a jug of Isingsform 56a (51), which came into use in thesecond or third quarter of the first century;and a flask with two handles (52) similarto Isings form 15, which was current in thesecond and third quarters of the first cen-tury and declined rapidly thereafter.

Among the vessels with picked-up or ap-plied decoration, 87 was current betweenthe second quarter of the first century andabout AD 100; 88 resembles Isings form28a, which was in use between the secondquarter of the first century and the earlysecond century; and 93 resembles onefound in the first-century collective tomb(G5156) in Area AV (148).

Finally, the diagnostic fragments ofmould-blown glass are of types that were

D. WHITEHOUSE

used mainly or exclusively in the first cen-tury. 97 is a knobbed beaker of Isings form31, which was already in use when Pom-peii and Herculaneum were destroyed bythe eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79; 98 isfrom a first-century ‘Sidonian’ bottle, per-haps a hexagonal bottle decorated withfruit, which, according to Stern (149), wasintroduced in the second quarter of the firstcentury; 101 is another first-century ‘Si-donian’ vessel; 102 is a bottle in the formof a date (Isings form 78d), which appearedin the second quarter of the first centuryand remained in use until well after AD100; both 103, a bottle in the form of a citrusfruit or a cedar cone, and 104, a bottle inthe form of a bunch of grapes, have paral-lels at Pompeii.

Thus, the combined evidence of the castand the blown glass from the Belgian andthe Danish excavations, and the negativeevidence mentioned above, suggest thatmost of the Roman glass vessels reachedthe site between about 25 BC and AD 75.Twenty-five BC, however, is the earliestdate at which any of the cast glass couldhave been imported and it is possible thatthe first objects did not arrive until afterAD 1. With the possible exception of 96(see below), every type of Roman blownglass identified at ed-Dur was in use byAD 75; indeed, by this date, several ofthem were already going out of use. How-ever, the third quarter of the first centuryis the earliest date by which all of theRoman glass (with the possible exceptionof 96) could have arrived at ed-Dur and itis possible that the latest objects did not ar-rive until after AD 75.

Among the glass from the Belgian exca-vations are at least eight objects which maybe Parthian or Sasanian (150). The Danishexcavations also yielded a number of ves-sels, which may have been made in Meso-potamia in the Parthian or Sasanianperiods. For example, 35 is a bowl with a

120

rim resembling the rim of one of the vesselsfrom the late third to fourth century cem-etery in Area F (151), while 36 and 37 arejars of a type with a wide distribution notonly in the eastern provinces of the RomanEmpire but also in Mesopotamia. TheRoman examples are usually attributed tothe third or the fourth century. Similarly, 38is a dropper-flask that could be from theRoman Empire or Mesopotamia and in anycase is probably later than the first century.95 is a bowl or jar with a rim comparablewith the rim of 35–37 and it, too, may beParthian or, more probably, Sasanian.

One other object should be considered asperhaps being of a similar, relatively latedate: 96, a small fragment from a jug witha trefoil mouth. The exterior of the rim hasa thick horizontal trail, just below the lip.Similar trails sometimes were applied toRoman jugs, but not before the second halfof the third century. It is possible, therefore,that the fragment comes from a Romanvessel imported at the time of the third tofourth century reoccupation of Area F.

The source of the Roman glassThe presence at ed-Dur and Mleiha of asubstantial quantity of glass (and other ob-jects) from the Mediterranean raises thequestion: how did this material reach theU.A.E.? In my analysis of the glass fromthe Belgian excavations (152), I discussedthree possibilities: 1. that it arrived by seafrom Egypt; 2. that it was exported fromEgypt to India and re-exported to the Gulf;and 3. that it was carried overland to thehead of the Gulf and shipped from there tothe Oman peninsula.

Two types of evidence – literary and ar-chaeological – suggest that the Romanglass could have arrived at ed-Dur fromEgypt. The literary evidence indicates thatEgyptian ports in the Red Sea were alreadyengaged in long-distance trade in Ptole-


maic times. This trade expanded after theannexation of Egypt by Augustus in 30 BC.‘Previously, not 20 ships dared ... peep out-side the straits [at the mouth of the RedSea]; but now great fleets are sent as faras India and the farthest parts of Ethiopia,’wrote Strabo (Geog. 17.1.13) some forty orfifty years later. In his Natural History,which was dedicated in AD 77, Pliny twicecomplained about the high cost of tradewith India (at 6.101 and 12.84), and theeastward flow of money is reflected by nu-merous hoards of first-century Roman goldand silver coins found on the Indian sub-continent (153). At a slightly earlier date,the author of the Periplus of the ErythraeanSea provided a manual for traders whosailed from the Red Sea ports of Egypt tobuy, sell and barter along the coasts ofeastern Africa, southern Arabia and India(154). Together, these (and other) texts indi-cate that Roman traders (and traders ofother nationalities) were active in the Ar-abian Sea during the period at which ed-Dur flourished. Moreover, the Periplus (§6,7, 17, 39, 49 and 56) lists both raw glass andglass objects among the goods carried byRoman merchants.

The most pertinent archaeological evi-dence from Egypt consists of finds fromQuseir al-Qadim. Quseir is probably thesite of Leukos Limen, the main Red Seaport for trade between the Roman worldand the Indian Ocean in the first centuryAD. The Roman occupation seems to haveextended from the reign of Tiberius (AD14–37) to the second or early third century.The finds include some 373 diagnostic frag-ments of glass (155).

The strongest objection to the idea that theglass from ed-Dur could have arrived inships from the Red Sea is that the Periplusscarcely mentions the Arabian Gulf; indeed,the only passage (§36.3) that might refer toRoman ships sailing through the mouth ofthe Gulf is usually taken to mean that they

121

sailed past it. This almost total omission ofinformation about the Gulf is one of the rea-sons why Salles suggested that the Romanglass from ed-Dur arrived by way of India(156). Salles argued that the Periplus doesnot mention the Gulf because Roman shipsdid not go there. It was, however, fre-quented by Indians. Indeed, the Periplus(§36) states that ships from Barygaza (on theGulf of Cambay) exported copper andvarious kinds of timber to two ports of tradein Persis, one of which was Omana (possiblyed-Dur) and the other probably Apologos(at the head of the Gulf, presumably at ornear al-Ubullah, which in the Middle Ageswas the port of Basra) (157). The Peripluslists cullet among the Roman goods im-ported to Barygaza (§56.19) and glass ves-sels among the items imported to Barba-rikon (§39.9) in the Indus delta, and Sallesconcluded that Roman glass reached theGulf in Indian ships trading with Persis.

The third possibility is that the glass wasexported from the Roman world throughSyria, and that it was carried by caravan tothe Euphrates, probably by way of Pal-myra, whence it was taken down river toCharax and shipped to the Oman penin-sula. Late Hellenistic and Roman glass cer-tainly reached both Palmyra (158) andDura-Europos, a caravan city and frontierfortress on the west bank of the Euphrates(159). Just as the glass from Quseir al-Qadim provides a glimpse of the glass thatreached the Red Sea, so the finds fromDura-Europos indicate that Roman glasscommonly reached the Euphrates (Clair-mont catalogued fragments of 778 vessels).

Clearly, if Roman glass was available atDura-Europos in significant quantities, itcould have been sent on to Characene,which Pliny (NH 6.31.138–140) describedon the basis of reports from Roman mer-chants. The possibility that at least some ofthe glass found at ed-Dur arrived by thisroute (or some variant of it) is strengthened

D. WHITEHOUSE

by the presence there, and at Mleiha, of ob-jects that certainly came from Characene.Eleven of the thirty-two foreign coinsfound at ed-Dur and four of the fifteen for-eign coins found at Mleiha (31.9 % of theforeign coins from the two sites) wereminted in Characene (160). Moreover, some40% of the diagnostic pottery from ed-Durseems to have been made in southern Iraq(161). Summing up the evidence for tradein the Arabian Gulf in the first century AD,Potts described a ‘Characene corridor’ thatextended from Apologos to the Strait ofHormuz. The author of the Periplus, he ob-served, virtually ignored the Gulf, ‘notingonly the existence there of two significantports, Apologos and Omana. In fact, thesetwo sites, the former identical with earlyIslamic Ubulla near modern day Basra, andthe latter perhaps to be identified with ed-Dur ... represented the two most importantstaging points [in the Gulf], along a routewhich began at Palmyra and ended inIndia’ (162). It is likely, therefore, that mostof the Roman objects found at ed-Dur ar-rived by way of the Characene corridor.

AcknowledgementsThe Danish excavations at ed-Dur were funded by theDanish Research Council for the Humanities and theUniversity of Copenhagen. They were carried out withthe permission and assistance of HH Shaikh Rashid binAhmed Al-Mualla, Supreme Council Member andRuler of Umm al-Qaiwain. Particular thanks are due toHH Shaikh Khaled bin Rashid Al-Mualla, President ofthe Emiri Diwan, for all that he did to facilitate the exca-vations between 1986 and 1989. A number of studentsfrom the Carsten Niebuhr Institute of the University ofCopenhagen, most particularly Isabelle Kafe, TineKnudsen, Charlott Hoffman Pedersen, Lea LyngeRehhof and Anne-Mette Sørensen, were responsible forthe excavation of this material. The drawings pub-lished here were done by Hildreth Burnett Potts andthe photographs were taken by Dan Potts. Readersshould note that some details of folding in the manu-facture of a number of the glass vessels (e.g. near thelip of 34, 39, 46, 50, 55 and 88), which were observed oninspection, were not indicated on the original draw-

122

ings. When such inconsistencies occur, the descriptionsshould be regarded as definitive. Inconsistencies be-tween drawings, e.g. in the manner of conventions forrepresenting the section of a vessel as black, hatched orclear, stem from the fact that the drawings were inkedover a number of years. To all of those responsible forthe excavation of this material I should like to expressmy thanks. All of the finds from the Danish excavationsare at present stored in the Emiri Diwan, Umm al-Qai-wain.

Appendix. ConcordanceThe column on the left contains the registernumbers assigned to the objects by the exca-vators. The column on the right contains thenumbers used in this catalogue. In somecases, a single register number was assignedto a group of fragments, which is describedin more than one catalogue entry. Con-versely, some catalogue entries describefragments with more than one registernumber.A 6 16A 15 79A 15 80A 33 97AK 2 5AK 4 10AK 12 64AK 14 102AK 15 68B 31 26BO 36C 130 18E 6 66E 22 31E 22 32E 97 2E 110 77E 117 8E 117 9E 144 22E 145 11E 147 1E 148 11E 149 19


E 156 19E 175 20E 178 73E 186 91E 187 3E 191 23E 192 3E 196 12P 5 17P 11 58Q 6 62Q 19 46Q 20 50Q 21 70Q 29 76Q 30 45Q 31 49Q 32 100Q 41 88Q 44 34Q 55 39Q 57 41Q 59 28Q 64 21Q 65 52Q 66 74Q 68 44S 2 61S 3 4S 3 13T 1a 35T 1b 51T 1c 105T 4 42T 9 35T 12 38T 12 96T 12 101T 15 81T 15 105T 17 43T 18 104T 22 103T 23 56T 26 82T 26 83

123

T 26 84T 26 85T 26 86T 35a 47T 35b 93T 36 53T 36 54T 36 99T 37 65T 38 55T 39 94T 40 72T 49 33T 50 59T 50 89T 51 98T 52 63T 54 37T 54 60T 55 57T 59 87T 61 51T 61 103T 61 105T 64 90T 67 69T 69 95T 70 105T 73 92T 75 104T 76 78T 78 14U 3 30U 4 29U 5 25U 5 27Z 3 6Z 9 71Z 15 24Z 21 7Z 27 15Z 36 40Z 39 6Z 43 75Z 74 48Z 98 67

D. WHITEHOUSE

References1. al-Qaisy R. Archaeological investigations and

excavations at the State of the United ArabEmirates [sic]. Sumer 31: 1975: 75–156 (in Ar-abic).

2. Salles J-F. Ceramiques de surface a ed-Dour,Emirats Arabes Unis. AOMIM 1984: 241–270.

3. Potts DT. The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity, II. FromAlexander the Great to the Coming of Islam. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1990: 288–291. Cf. Potts DT. Ar-abia and the Kingdom of Characene. In: PottsDT, ed. Araby the Blest. Copenhagen: CNIP, 7:1988: 137–167; Potts DT. The pre-Islamic coinage ofeastern Arabia. Copenhagen: CNIP, 14: 1991; PottsDT. Supplement to the Pre-Islamic coinage of EasternArabia. Copenhagen: CNIP, 16: 1994; HowgegoCJ & Potts DT. Greek and Roman coins fromEastern Arabia. AAE 3: 1992: 183–189.

4. Boucharlat R, Haerinck E, Lecomte O, PottsDT & Stevens KG. The European ArchaeologicalExpedition to ed-Dur, Umm al-Qaiwayn (UAE):An Interim Report on the 1987 and 1988 Seasons.Mesopotamia 24: 1989: 5–72; Haerinck E, PhillipsCS, Potts DT & Stevens KG. Ed-Dur, Umm al-Qaiwain (U.A.E.). In: Finkbeiner U, ed. Ma-terialien zur Archäologie der Seleukiden- und Par-therzeit im südlichen Babylonien und im Golfgebiet.Tübingen: Wasmuth, 1993: 183–193.

5. Whitehouse DB. Excavations at ed-Dur (Umm al-Qaiwain, United Arab Emirates), Vol. 1, The GlassVessels. Louvain: Peeters, 1998.

6. Potts DT. The Danish Excavations. Mesopotamia24: 1989: Figs D and J; Potts, The Arabian Gulf inAntiquity: Fig. 22.

7. Haerinck E. Excavations at ed-Dur (Umm al-Qai-wain, U.A.E.) – Preliminary Report on the FourthBelgian Season (1990). AAE 3: 1992: 193–195.

8. Brill RH. Appendix. Chemical Analyses of Se-lected Fragments. In: Whitehouse, Excavations ated-Dur, Vol. 1: 69–76.

9. Lecomte O, Boucharlat R & Culas J-M. Les fou-illes francaises. Mesopotamia 24: 1989: 29–56;Potts, The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity: 278–282; Lec-omte O. Ed-Dur, les occupations des 3e et 4e s.ap. J.-C.: Contexte des trouvailles et materiel di-agnostique. In: Finkbeiner, Materialien zur Archä-ologie: 195–217.

10. Grose DF. The Syro-Palestinian Glass Industry inthe Later Hellenistic Period. MUSE 13: 1979: 63–65; Grose DF. The Toledo Museum of Art. Early An-cient Glass. Core-formed, Rod-formed, and Cast Ves-sels and Objects from the Late Bronze Age to theEarly Roman Empire. New York: Hudson HillsPress in association with The Toledo Museum ofArt, 1989: 247; Stern EM & Schlick-Nolte B. Early

124

Glass of the Ancient World, 1600 B.C. – A.D. 50.Ernesto Wolf Collection. Ostfildern: Gerd Hatje,1994: 324.

11. Pollino A. L’epave de la Tradeliere. In: L’Exploit-ation de la Mer. Antibes: VIe Rencontre Interna-tionale d’Archeologie et Histoire, 1986: 187.

12. Grose, The Toledo Museum of Art: 241–244.13. Clairmont CW. The Excavations at Dura-Europos.

Final Report IV, Part V. The Glass Vessels. NewHaven: Dura-Europos Publications, 1963: 20–12,nos. 8–23.

14. Morrison HM. The Glass. In: Munro-Hay SC, ed.Excavations at Aksum. An Account of Research atthe Ancient Ethiopian Capital Directed in 1972–74by the Late Dr Neville Chittick. London: Memoirsof the British Institute in Eastern Africa, 10: 1989:196, nos. 80–95; Bard KA, Fattovich R, ManzoA & Perlingieri C. Archaeological Investigationsat Bieta Giyorgis (Aksum), Ethiopia: 1993–1995Field Seasons. JFA 24: 1997: 398.

15. Stern EM. The Glass from Heis. In: Desanges J,Stern EM & Ballet P. Sur les Routes antiques del’Azanie et de l’Inde. Paris: Memoires de l’Acad-emie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, N.S., 13:1993: 47–51, nos. 24–27.

16. al-Ansary AR. Qaryat al-Fau: A Portrait of Pre-Is-lamic Civilisation in Saudi Arabia. London: CroomHelm, 1981: 80–81, Fig. 30.

17. Audouin R. Wada Dura’. In: Yemen: au pays de lareine de Saba, Paris: Flammarion, 1997: 213.

18. Marshall J. Taxila. Cambridge: University Press,1951: 688.

19. Menninger M. Untersuchungen zu den Gläsern undGipsabgüsen aus dem Fund von Begram/Af-ghanistan. Würzburg: Würzburger Forschungenzur Altertumskunde, 1: 1996: 16–22.

20. Grose, The Toledo Museum of Art: 189–192.21. For another example see Grose, The Toledo Mu-

seum of Art: 327, no. 537.22. Grose, The Toledo Museum of Art: 57–58.23. Nenna M-D. La Verrerie d’epoque hellenistique

a Delos. Journal of Glass Studies 35: 1993: 18–19.24. Grose, The Toledo Museum of Art: 195.25. Grose, The Toledo Museum of Art: 245–247.26. Scatozza Höricht LA. I vetri romani di Ercolano.

Rome: Bretschneider, 1986: 25–30, nos. 3–10.27. Cool HEM & Price J. Roman Vessel Glass from

Excavations in Colchester, 1971–85. Colchester:Colchester Archaeological Reports, 8: 1994: 15–26; Price J & Cottam S. Romano-British GlassVessels: A Handbook. York: Practical Handbooks14: 1998: 44–46. For discussions about the poss-ible methods of manufacturing ribbed bowls,see Gudenrath W in Tait H. Five Thousand Yearsof Glass. London: British Museum, 1991: 222


and Stern in Stern & Schlick-Nolte, Early Glass:72–79.

28. Kordmahini KA. Glass from the Bazargan Collec-tion. Tehran: Iran National Museum, 1994: 40–41;Lamberg-Karlovsky CC & Fitz W. Cairn Burialsin the Soghun Valley, Southeastern Iran. In:Gnoli G & Lanciotti L, eds. Orientalia Josephi TucciMemoria Dicata. Rome, IsMEO, 1987: 762, Fig. 8B,from the Soghun Valley.

29. Menninger, Untersuchungen zu den Gläsern: 26–27.

30. Marshall, Taxila: 688, type c, nos. 8–931. Stern EM. Early Roman Export Glass in India.

In: Begley V & De Puma R, eds. Rome and India:The ancient sea trade. Delhi: Oxford Univ. Press,1991: 117; Wheeler REM, Ghosh A & Deva K.Arikamedu: An Indo-Roman Trading-Station onthe East Coast of India. Ancient India 2: 1946: 102.

32. Potts, The Danish excavations: 18, Fig. J.1.33. Potts, The Danish excavations: 18, Fig. J.2.34. Potts, The Danish excavations: 18, Fig. J.3.35. Grose, The Toledo Museum of Art: 249; Stern &

Schlick-Nolte, Early Glass: 320–322, nos. 95–96.36. Cf. Harden DB, Painter KS, Pinder-Wilson RH &

Tait H. Masterpieces of Glass. London: British Mu-seum, 1968: 44–45, no. 51 ΩHarden DB, Hellen-kemper H, Painter K & Whitehouse D. Glass ofthe Caesars. Milan: Olivetti, 1987: 51, no. 27; Tait,Five Thousand Years of Glass: 58, Fig. 67; GoldsteinSM. Pre-Roman and Early Roman Glass in TheCorning Museum of Glass. Corning: The Museum,1979: 188–189, nos. 501–502; Ricke H. 2500 JahreGlaskunst in Europa. Sapporo: HokkaidoritsuKindai Bijutsukan, 1987: 40, no. 8; Matheson S.Ancient Glass in the Yale University Art Gallery.New Haven: Yale University Art Gallery, 1980:14, no. 40.

37. Taniishi T. Pre-Roman and Roman Glass Re-cently Excavated in China. Bulletin of theOkayama Orient Museum 3: 1983: 83–105.

38. Grose DF. Early blown glass: The Western evi-dence. Journal of Glass Studies 19: 1977: 11.

39. Avigad N. Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville,Camden & New York: Thomas Nelson, 1983:186–192; Israeli Y. The Invention of Blowing.In: Newby M & Painter K, eds. Roman Glass:Two Centuries of Art and Invention. London:Society of Antiquaries Occasional Papers, 13:1991: 46–55.

40. Platz-Horster G. Zu Erfindung und Verbreitungder Glasmacherpfeife. Journal of Glass Studies 21:1979: 27–31.

41. Grose, Early blown glass; Bonomi S. Vetri antichidel Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Adria, Corpusdelle collezioni archeologiche del vetro nel Veneto.

125

Venice: Giunta Regionale del Veneto & ComitatoNazionale Italiano della Association Intern-azionale pour l’Histoire du Verre, 2: 1996: Pls.15–16.

42. Beraud I & Gebara C. La Datation du verre desnecropoles gallo-romaines de Frejus. Annales du11e Congres de l’Association Internationale pourl’Histoire du Verre, Bale, 29 aout – 3 septembre 1988,Amsterdam: Association Internationale pourl’Histoire du Verre, 1990: 156–157.

43. Kropatscheck G. Ausgrabungen bei Haltern: DieFundstcke der Jahre 1905 bis 1907 (mit Aus-nahme der keramischen Funde). Mitteilungen derAltertums-Kommission für Westfalen 5: 1909: 372,no. 4.

44. Czurda-Ruth B. Die römischen Gläser vom Magda-lensberg. Klagenfurt: Kärntner Museumsschrift-en, 65: 1979: 108.

45. De Tommaso G. Ampullae vitreae. Contenitori invetro di unguenti e sostanze aromatiche dell’Italia ro-mana (I sec. A.C-III sec. d.C.). Rome: Bretschne-ider, 1990: 19–28; Taborelli L. I contenitori permedicamenti nelle prescrizioni di ScribonioLargo e la diffusione del vetro soffiato. Latomus55: 1996: 148–156.

46. Czurda-Ruth, Die römischen Gläser: 65, no. 515,from Magdalensberg in Austria; Whitehouse DB.Roman Glass in The Corning Museum of Glass, Vol.1. Corning: Corning Museum, 1997: 85–88, nos.116–126.

47. Isings C. Roman Glass from Dated Finds. Gron-ingen & Djakarta: Wolters, 1957: 89.

48. Vessberg O. Roman Glass in Cyprus. OpusculaArchaeologica 7: 1952: 147, Pl. 9.40–41, fromCyprus; Fortuna MT. Campagne di scavo adAkko, 1961–1962. Memorie dell’Istituto Lombardo-Accademia di Scienze e Lettere 29/4: 1966: 551, no.15, from Akko in Israel.

49. Czurda-Ruth, Die römischen Gläser: 62–65.50. Barag D. Catalogue of Western Asiatic Glass in the

British Museum, Volume I, London: British Mu-seum Publications, 1985: 94–95, nos. 122–123.

51. Whitehouse, Excavations at ed-Dur: 26–28, nos.62–64.

52. This piece is included here although it comesfrom the Belgian excavations. It was inadver-tently omitted from Whitehouse, Excavations ated-Dur.

53. Hayes JW. Roman and Pre-Roman Glass in theRoyal Ontario Museum: A Catalogue. Toronto:Royal Ontario Museum, 1975: 60, no. 153; Ma-theson, Ancient Glass: 100, no. 271, an indentedexample; Gawlikowska K & As’ad K. The Collec-tion of Glass Vessels in the Museum of Palmyra.Studia Palmyrenskie 9: 1994: 6–10, nos. 6 and 10.

D. WHITEHOUSE

54. Negro Ponzi MM. Sasanian Glassware from TellMahuz (North Mesopotamia). Mesopotamia 3–6:1968–1971: 330, nos. 19–23.

55. Negro Ponzi MM. Glassware from Abu Skhair(Central Iraq). Mesopotamia 7: 1972: 223–225, nos.12–20.

56. Negro Ponzi Mancini MM. Glassware fromChoche (Central Mesopotamia). AOMIM: 34,nos. 10–13; van Ess M & Pedde F. Glasgefässeder parthischen und sasanidischen Zeit. In: vanEss M, ed. Uruk: Kleinfunde II: Metall und Asphalt,Farbreste, Fritte, Glas, Holz, Knochen/Elfenbein,Leder, Muschel/Perlmutt, Schnecke, Schilf, Textilien.Mainz: Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka, Endber-ichte, 7: 1992: 165, nos. 1225–1226. For an ex-ample from Bahrain, see Boucharlat R & Salles J-F. The Tylos Period. In: Lombard P & KervranM, eds. Bahrain National Museum ArchaeologicalCollections: A Selection of Pre-Islamic Antiquities.Bahrain: Directorate of Museum and Heritage,Ministry of Culture, 1989: 111, no. 193.

57. Whitehouse, Excavations at ed-Dur: 40, no. 94.58. Whitehouse, Excavations at ed-Dur: 35–36, no. 80.59. Harden et al, Glass of the Caesars: 133–135, nos.

62–64.60. Negro Ponzi, Sasanian glassware: 336–341, nos.

31–43 etc, from Tell Mahuz; Negro Ponzi, Glass-ware from Abu Skhair: 229–230, nos. 34–38; vanEss & Pedde, Glasgefässe: 165, no. 1222 fromUruk.

61. Whitehouse, Excavations at ed-Dur: 29, no. 68.62. Isings, Roman glass from dated finds.63. Stern EM. Ancient Glass at the Fondation Custodia

(Collection Frits Lugt), Paris. Groningen: Archaeo-logica Traiectina Edita ab Academiae Rheno-Traiectinae Instituto Archaeologico, 12: 1977: 38–41, no. 8. For more recent reviews of the evidencefor the date and distribution of Isings form 28a,see Biaggio Simona S. I vetri romani provenientidalle terre dell’attuale Cantone Ticino. Locarno: Ar-mando Dado, 1991: 149–151; Whitehouse, Romanglass in the Corning Museum: 130–131, no. 209.

64. The pieces resembles Whitehouse, Excavations ated-Dur: 32, no. 74.

65. Whitehouse, Excavations at ed-Dur: 30–31, no. 71.66. Whitehouse, Excavations at ed-Dur: 64–65.67. Whitehouse, Excavations at ed-Dur: 39–43, nos. 92

and 101.68. Isings, Roman glass from dated finds: 74–75.69. Harden et al, Glass of the Caesars: 79, no. 34.70. Biaggi Simona, I vetri romani: 204–205.71. Clairmont, The Excavations at Dura-Europos: 29,

no. 122.72. Whitehouse, Excavations at ed-Dur: 34, no. 77.73. Whitehouse, Excavations at ed-Dur: 34–35, no. 78.

126

74. Isings, Roman glass from dated finds: 32.75. E.g. Grose DF. Roman Glass of the First Century

A.D.: A dated deposit of glassware from Cosa,Italy. Annales du 6e Congres de l’Association Inter-nationale pour l’Histoire du Verre, Cologne, 1–7 ju-illet 1973. Liege: Association Internationale pourl’Histoire du Verre, 1974: 31–52, from Cosa inItaly, buried no later than about AD 40–45; Zivi-ello A. I vetri. In: Ferrari O et al. Le collezioni delMuseo Nazionale di Napoli. Rome: De Luca, 1986:220, no. 23, from Pompeii, buried no later thanAD 79; Ludwig R. Das frührömisch Brand-gräberfeld von Schankweiler, Kreis Bitburg-Prüm. Trierer Zeitschrift 51: 1988: 96–97, fromSchankweiler in Germany, buried in the thirdquarter of the first century.

76. Biaggi Simona, I vetri romani: 209–213.77. Arakelian BN, Tiratsian GA & Khatchatrian GD.

Steklo Drevney Armenii (I-IV vv). Yerevan: Arkh-eologicheskie Pamiatniki Drevney Armenii 3:Pamiatniki Drevney Epokhi, 1: 1969: 45, no. 73.

78. Barag, Catalogue of Western Asiatic glass: 97, no.133.

79. Hayes, Roman and Pre-Roman Glass: 54, nos. 119–123.

80. Cf. Andrae W & Lenzen H. Die PartherstadtAssur. Leipzig: WVDOG, 57: 1933: 94–95, Pl. 46b,from a first century AD grave; Clairmont, Theexcavations at Dura-Europos: 30, 123, from tomb55; Arakelian, Tiratsian and Khatchatrian, StekloDrevney Armenii: 43, no. 66, from the Lake Sevanregion of Georgia; Barag, Catalogue of Western As-iatic glass: 97, no. 132, from the Parthian cemeteryat Warka in Iraq; van Ess & Pedde, Glasgefässe:161, no. 1191ΩStrommenger E. Gefäße aus Urukvon der neubabylonischen Zeit bis zu den Sasaniden.Berlin: Ausgrabungen der deutschen For-schungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka, 7: 1967: Pl.47.10, also from Warka; al-Tikriti WY. The Exca-vations at Bidya, Fujairah: the 3rd and 2nd Mil-lennia B.C. Culture. AUAE 5: 1989: Pl. 82B, fromBidya in the United Arab Emirates; Boucharlat &Salles, The Tylos period: 115, no. 201, from al-Hajjar site 2, grave 1B, on Bahrain.

81. Barag, Catalogue of Western Asiatic glass: 92.82. Fremersdorf F. Römische Gläser mit buntge-

fleckter Oberfläche. In: von Petrokovits H &Steeger A, eds. Festscrift für August Oxe zum 75.Geburtstag, 23. Juli 1938. Darmstadt: L. C. WittichVerlag, 1938: 116–121.

83. Whitehouse, Excavations at ed-Dur: 42–43, no.101.

84. Sternini M. La Verrerie romaine du Musee Archeolo-gique de Nımes, 2e partie. Siena and Paris: Cahiersdes Musees et Monuments de Nımes, University


of Siena and Direction des Musees de France, 8:1991: 134, nos. 541–543; Whitehouse, Roman glassin the Corning Museum: 208, no. 358.

85. E.g. Harden et al, Glass of the Caesars: 109, no.42; van Lith SME. First-Century Cantharoi witha Stemmed Foot: Their Distribution and SocialContext. In: Newby & Painter, Roman Glass: 99–102.

86. Czurda-Ruth, Die römischen Gläser: 37, nos. 324–418.

87. Cool and Price, Roman vessel glass: 64–66.88. Berger L. Römische Gläser aus Vindonissa. Basel:

Veröffentlichungen der Gesellschaft Pro Vindon-issa, 4: 1960: 43; Isings C. Glass from the CanabaeLegionis at Nijmegen. Berichten van de Rijksdienstvoor het Oudheidkundig Bodemondersoek 30: 1980:281.

89. van Lith, First-Century Cantharoi: 99–110.90. Potts, The Danish excavations: 22.91. Whitehouse, Excavations at ed-Dur: 43–44, no.

102.92. Vine P. Bahrain National Museum. London:

Immel, 1993: 68, far rightΩBoucharlat & Salles,The Tylos period: 117, no. 208.

93. Isings, Roman glass from dated finds: 78–81;Price & Cottam, Romano-British Glass Vessels:188–190.

94. Whitehouse, Excavations at ed-Dur: 35, no. 79.95. Andrae & Lenzen, Die Partherstadt: Pl. 46b.96. Strommenger, Gefässe aus Uruk: Pl. 47.10–11Ω

van Esse & Pedde, Glasgefässe: 161, nos. 1191–1192.

97. Boucharlat & Salles, The Tylos period: 121–122,nos. 216–221.

98. von Saldern A. Ancient and Byzantine Glass fromSardis. Cambridge: Archaeological Explorationof Sardis Monographs, 6: 1980: 85.

99. Goethert-Polaschek K. Katalog der römischenGläser des Rheinschen Landesmuseums Trier. Mainz:Trierer Grabungen und Forschungen, 9: 1977:352, forms 123 and 129.

100. Sternini M. Il vetro in Italia tra V e IX secoli. In:Foy D, ed. Le Verre de l’Antiquite tardive et du hautMoyen Age. Guiry-en-Vexin: Association Fran-caise pour l’Archeologie du Verre et Musee De-partemental du Val d’Oise, 1995: 279, nos. 119–120.

101. Stern EM. The Toledo Museum of Art. RomanMould-Blown Glass, the First through Sixth Cen-turies. Rome: Bretschneider, 1995: 65–69.

102. Price J. Decorated mould-blown glass tablewaresin the first century AD. In: Newby & Painter,Roman Glass: 56–75.

103. Barag, Catalogue of Western Asiatic Glass: 92, 94,no.120.

127

104. Potts, The Danish excavations: 14, Fig. D; Potts,The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity: 286, Fig. 22e.

105. Stern, The Toledo Museum of Art: 103–105.106. E.g. by Eisen G (assisted by Kouchakji F). Glass:

Its Origin, History, Chronology, Technic and Classifi-cation to the Sixteenth Century. New York: WilliamEdwin Rudge, 1: 1927: 290.

107. E.g. by Harden et al, Masterpieces of glass: 55, no.66.

108. First suggested by Isings C. Exchanged for Sul-phur. In: Festoen Opgedragen aan A. N. Zadoks-Josephus Jitta bij haar zeventigst vernhaardag. Gron-ingen: Scripta Archaeologica Groningana, 6:1976: 353.

109. Koltes J. Catalogue des collections archeologiques deBesancon. VII – La verrerie gallo-romaine. Paris:Annales Litteraies de l’Universite de Besancon,270: 1982: 62–63, no. 172; Stern, The Toledo Mu-seum of Art: 107, n. 38.

110. Charlesworth D. The Glass. In: Frere SS. Verula-mium Excavations. London: Society of Anti-quaries, 1: 1972: 197–198, Fig. 74.3.

111. Alarcao J. Verres. In: Fouilles de Conimbriga, v. 6,Ceramiques diverses et verres, Paris: Boccard, 1976:177, no. 45.

112. Barag D. The contribution of Masada to the his-tory of early Roman glass. In: Newby & Painter,Roman Glass: 139.

113. Stern, The Toledo Museum of Art: 104.114. Scatozza Höricht, I vetri romani di Ercolano: 19, Pl.

1, top centre; Scatozza Höricht LA. Syrian Ele-ments among the Glass from Pompeii and Her-culaneum. In: Newby & Painter, Roman Glass: 82,Fig. 16. a-b.

115. Cf. Stern, The Toledo Museum of Art: 129–133, nos.36–39, ‘Hexagonal bottle, fruit type, series A’.

116. Cf. Stern, The Toledo Museum of Art: 166–169, nos.75–78.

117. Cf. Stern, The Toledo Museum of Art: 169–172, nos.79–82.

118. The Constable Maxwell collection of ancient glass.London: Sotheby Parker Burnet Sale Catalogue,4–5 June 1979: 96, lots 153–154.


120. Stern, Ancient glass at the Fondation Custodia: 44–46.

121. Goethert-Polaschek, Katalog der römischen Gläser:96, no. 453.

122. Scatozza Höricht, I vetri romani di Ercolano: 52,no. 105.

123. Barag, Catalogue of Western Asiatic glass: 93–94,nos. 119–120.

124. Whitehouse, Excavations at ed-Dur: 47–48, nos.109–111.

D. WHITEHOUSE

125. Whitehouse, Excavations at ed-Dur: 64–65.126. Ziviello, I vetri: 226, no. 48, left; Scatozza

Höricht, Syrian elements: 83–84, Fig. 17.127. Stern, The Toledo Museum of Art: 130–132.128. Cf. Stern, The Toledo Museum of Art: 180, nos. 109–

110. For an example from the cemetery at al-Hajjar, Site 2, Bahrain, see Boucharlat & Salles,The Tylos Period: 115, no. 202.

129. Cf. Stern, The Toledo Museum of Art: 190–191,no. 119.

130. Isings, Roman glass from dated finds: 108–109;Whitehouse, Glass of the Caesars: 170, no. 91.

131. Masri A-R. Collection du verre du Musee deHama. Bulletin de l’Association Internationale pourl’Histoire du Verre 3: 1964: 72, no. 4 and perhapsAuth SH. Ancient Glass at the Newark Museum,Newark: The museum, 1976: 72, no. 71.

132. Clairmont, The excavations at Dura-Europus: 39–40, nos. 148–149.

133. Clairmont, The excavations at Dura-Europus: 39noted an example in the Egyptian Museum,Cairo.

134. Ziviello, I vetri: 226, no. 48.135. Carington Smith J. A Roman chamber tomb on

the southeast slopes of Monasteriaki Kephala,Knossos. Annual of the British School at Athens 77:1982: 280–281, nos. 70–71.


137. Clairmont, The excavations at Dura-Europus: 39.138. Students of glass usually classify objects in terms

of technique, cf. Whitehouse, Glass of the Caesars.139. Begun in Whitehouse, Excavations at ed-Dur: 65–

67.140. Brill, Appendix.141. Potts, The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity: 264–271;

Haerinck E. The Shifting Pattern of Overlandand Seaborne Trade in SE-Arabia: Foreign Pre-Islamic Coins from Mleiha (Emirate of Sharjah,U.A.E.). Akkadica 106: 1998: 22–40.

142. Casson L. The Periplus Maris Erythraei. Text withIntroduction, Translation, and Commentary. Prin-ceton: Princeton University Press, 1989: 41.

143. Whitehouse, Excavations at ed-Dur: 60.144. Clairmont, The Excavations at Dura-Europos: 22–

23, nos. 76–86 and 62, nos. 237–239.145. Whitehouse, Excavations at ed-Dur: 62–65.146. Whitehouse, Excavations at ed-Dur: 10, no. 17.

The museum at Sharjah has another specimen,from Mleiha.

128

147. Whitehouse, Excavations at ed-Dur: 30–31, no. 71.148. Whitehouse, Excavations at ed-Dur: 43–44, no.

102.149. Stern, The Toledo Museum of Art: 130.150. Whitehouse, Excavations at ed-Dur: 29–35, 43–46,

nos. 68–71, nos. 73–78, nos. 102–105.151. Lecomte, Ed-Dur: 214, Fig. 14.2.152. Whitehouse, Excavations at ed-Dur: 65–67.153. Turner PJ. Roman Coins from India. London: Royal

Numismatic Society Special Publications 22 andInstitute of Archaeology Occasional Publication12, 1989: 20–27; MacDowall DW. The Evidenceof the Gazetteer of Roman Artifacts in India. In:Ray HP & Salles J-F, eds. Tradition and Archae-ology: Early Maritime Contacts in the Indian Ocean.New Delhi: Manohar, 1994: 91–94.

154. Casson, The Periplus Maris Erythraei: 6–7.155. Meyer C. Glass from Quseir al-Qadim and the In-

dian Ocean Trade. Chicago: SAOC, 53: 1992: 4–5.156. Salles J-F. The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea and

the Arab-Persian Gulf. In: Boussac M-F & SallesJ-F, eds. Athens, Aden, Arikamedu. Essays on theInterrelations between India, Arabia and the EasternMediterranean. New Delhi: Manohar, 1995: 115–146.

157. Casson, The Periplus Maris Erythraei: 179–180.158. Fellmann R. Le Tombeau pres du Temple de

Ba’alsamen, temoin de deux siecles d’histoirepalmyrenienne. In: Palmyre: Bilan et Perspectives:Colloque de Strasbourg (18–20 octobre 1973). Stras-bourg: Centre de Recherche sur le Proche-Orientet la Grece Antique, 1976: 224, Fig. 7; Gawli-kowski & As’ad, The collection of glass vessels.

159. Clairmont, The Excavations at Dura-Europos.160. Haerinck, The shifting pattern.161. Haerinck, The shifting pattern.162. Potts DT. The Roman Relationship with the Per-

sicus sinus from the Rise of Spasinou Charax (127BC) to the Reign of Shapur II (AD 309–379). In:Alcock SE, ed. The Early Roman Empire in the East.Oxford: Oxbow Monographs, 95: 1997: 94.

Address:David WhitehouseThe Corning Museum of GlassOne Corning Glass CenterCorning, NY 14830-2253e-mail: whitehoudb/cmog.org

Documents

Ancient glass from ed-Dur (Umm al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.) 2. Glass excavated by the Danish expedition