Glass Analyses from Mycenaean Thebes and Elateia: Compositional Evidence for a Mycenaean Glass...

REPRINTED FROM

JOURNAL OF GLASS STUDIES

VOLUME 48 • 2006

Copyright © 2006 by The Corning Museum of Glass, Corning, NY 14830-2253

Kalliopi Nikita and Julian Henderson

Glass Analyses from Mycenaean Thebes and Elateia: Compositional Evidence for a Mycenaean

Glass Industry

71

ThIS ARTICLE presents and discusses the results of chemical analyses of glass jew-elry and frit from two Mycenaean sites

in mainland Greece: the palatial center of Thebes in Boeotia and the cemetery at Elateia in north-eastern Phokis (Fig. 1). The analyzed glass dates from the beginning of the Late helladic IIIA pe-riod (about 1425/1390–1390/1370 B.C.) to the Early Protogeometric period (about 1000/950 B.C.) (Table 1).1

The abundance, diversity, and standardization of this characteristic Mycenaean jewelry, and its wide distribution all over the Mycenaean world, show that a thriving glass industry existed dur-ing the principal Mycenaean period, the high point of the palaces, and the Mycenaean expan-sion to Crete, the Aegean, and Cyprus. What set the Mycenaean glass industry apart from con-temporaneous glass-producing centers in the Mediterranean and the Near East was the exclu-sive manufacture of glass jewelry and ornaments. References in Linear B tablets, as well as a de-cline in the number and quality of glass artifacts following the collapse of the palaces, suggest an intense industrial activity. Prehistoric glasses re-garded as “Aegean” embrace a great variety of objects that are widely distributed and broadly dated, which makes further characterization a logical necessity. Dark blue and turquoise were the favorite colors used in forming glass beads and relief plaques. By labeling glass a priori as Minoan, Mycenaean, Egyptian, or Mesopota-

mian, one is also involving cultural identities. Such labels may be deceptive because glass jew-elry with similar stylistic characteristics was pro-duced in different chronological periods.

We hope, through the chemical analysis of Late Bronze Age Aegean glass, to make a con-tribution to models of Aegean glass production, encompassing its origins, technology, and cul-tural attributes. More specifically, we hope that the raw materials used to make the glass will produce distinctive compositional groups. In

Acknowledgments. Debts of gratitude are owed to the Greek Ministry of Culture, General Directorate of Antiquities for grant-ing permission to study the glass from Thebes and Elateia. En-couragement and information were provided by Prof. Vassilios Aravantinos (ephor of the IXth Ephorate of Prehistoric and Clas-sical Antiquities, Archeological Museum of Thebes). Thanks are expressed to the excavators of the Elateia cemetery: Dr. Pha-nouria Dakoronia (former ephor of the XIVth Ephorate of Pre-historic and Classical Antiquities) and Prof. Sigrid-Deger Jalkot-zy (University of Salzburg–Institut für Alte Geschichte, Abteilung Ägäische Frühzeit). We are indebted to Dr. Georg Nightingale for suggesting that we work on the material from Elateia. Spe-cial thanks are owed to Mrs. Athina Papadaki and Mrs. Sonia Demaki for their assistance at the Museums of Thebes and Ata-lanti, where the materials are kept. Dr. Anastasia Dakouri-hild offered valuable information about recent research in the house of Kadmos. The P. Bakalas Foundation (Athens), the hellenic Foundation (London), and the Bead Study Trust–Guido Schol-arship Fund (London) funded the research that formed the basis of K.N.’s Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Nottingham.

1. Cynthia W. Shelmerdine, “Review of Aegean Prehistory VI: The Palatial Bronze Age of the Southern and Central Greek Mainland,” in Aegean Prehistory: A Review, American Journal of Archaeology Supplement 1, ed. Tracey Cullen, Boston: Ar-chaeological Institute of America, 2001, pp. 329–381, esp. p. 332, table 1.

Glass Analyses from Mycenaean Thebes and Elateia: Compositional

Evidence for a Mycenaean Glass Industry

Kalliopi Nikita and Julian Henderson

72

FIG. 1. Map of the Late Bronze Age Aegean, showing the sites mentioned in the text.

2. Kalliopi Nikita, “Mycenaean Glass Beads: Technology, Forms, and Function,” in Ornaments from the Past: Bead Studies after Beck, ed. Ian C. Glover, helen hughes-Brock, and Ju-lian henderson, London and Bangkok: Bead Study Trust, 2003, pp. 23–37.

3. Dan Barag, “Mesopotamian Core-formed Glass Vessels (1500–500 B.C.),” in Glass and Glassmaking in Ancient Mesopotamia: An Edition of the Cuneiform Texts Which Contain Instructions for Glassmakers, with a Catalogue of Surviving Objects, ed. A. Leo Oppenheim and others, Corning: Corning Mu-seum of Glass Press and London: Associated University Presses, 1970, repr. 1988, pp. 131–201, esp. p. 132.

4. P. R. S. Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: The Archaeological Evidence, Oxford: The Claren-don Press, 1994, repr. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1999, pp. 190–191.

5. horace C. Beck, “Glass before 1500,” in Ancient Egypt and the East, ed. F. Petrie, M. A. Murray, and D. Mackay, Brit-ish School of Archaeology in Egypt, London: Macmillan, 1934, pp. 7–21, esp. p. 14.

to isolated glass beads in Mesopotamia and Egypt dating to the late third millennium B.C.,4 it is not until about 2300 B.C. that true glass can be confidently identified. Beck’s original claim that regular glass production originated in West-ern Asia rather than in Egypt5 is still accepted,

addition, the results can be used to trace chron-ological changes in glass technology, to high-light inter- or intra-site variations in glass com-positions, and to compare Mycenaean glass compositions with contemporaneous glass from the Near East, Egypt, and the western Mediter-ranean. The question of whether this industry involved the primary production of glass or con-sisted of glassworking alone can also be ad-dressed using technological and scientific tech-niques.2 In sum, having produced the largest data set of Mycenaean glass compositions avail-able to date, we plan to use the analytical re-sults from Thebes and Elateia as a means of de-fining Mycenaean glass technology within the broader context of glass technology in the Late Bronze Age Mediterranean.

GLASS PRODUCTION IN ThE LATE BRONzE AGE MEDITERRANEAN

The origins and use of glass as an indepen-dent material, and its early history, are only vaguely known.3 Although there are references

73

and both the epigraphic and archeological evi-dence discussed by Oppenheim6 and Barag7 sup-port this theory. The emergence of a full-fledged glass industry in Egypt and contemporaneous Mesopotamia has been associated with the man-ufacture of glass vessels because of the large scale of their production.8

One principal glass composition, soda-lime-silica with magnesia levels of about 3%–7% (hMG), made from a plant-ash alkali source, was used from about 1500 to 800 B.C. in Mes-opotamia, southwestern Iran, Anatolia, Central Asia, Mycenaean Greece, Crete, and western Europe.9 A positive correlation between ele-vated potassium and magnesium oxide levels was attributed to the use of a plant-ash alkali source.10 A formulation with a low content of MgO, about 0.5%–1.0% (LMG), which ap-peared about 800 B.C., indicates a change to a mineral alkali source.11 Close similarities in the standard deviation range of a number of non-colorant oxides in glasses of the second millen-nium B.C. underline the innate conservatism of glass technology at that time.12 however, low magnesia levels have been detected in glasses from Minoan Crete, Tell Brak in Syria (14th cen-tury B.C.), and Pella in Jordan (13th–12th cen-

turies B.C.), while cobalt blue glasses from Tell el-Amarna form a tight group with a relatively low potassium content. LMGs have not been de-tected in glasses from Tell el-Amarna. Their in-cidence is a marked divergence from the domi-nant plant-ash glass technology.13

Late Helladic Period High Low Modified

Lh I About 1680–1600/1580 About 1600–1510/1500

Lh IIA About 1600/1580–1520/1480 About 1510/1500–1440

Lh IIB About 1520/1480–1425/1390 About 1440–1390+

Lh IIIA:1 About 1425/1390–1390/1370 About 1390+–1370/1360 About 1390+–1370

Lh IIIA:2 About 1390/1370–1340/1330 About 1370/1360–1340/1330 About 1370–1310/1300

Lh IIIB About 1340/1330–1190/1180 About 1340/1330–1185/1180 About 1310/1300–1190/1180

Lh IIIC About 1190/1180–1065/1060 About 1185/1180–1065 About 1190/1180–1065

TABLE 1 Late Bronze Age Chronologies of Mainland Greece

(after Shelmerdine [note 1], p. 332, table 1)

6. A. Leo Oppenheim, “The Cuneiform Texts,” in Glass and Glassmaking in Ancient Mesopotamia [note 3], pp. 1–104, esp. pp. 11–19 and 83–85.

7. Barag [note 3], pp. 131–134.8. Moorey [note 4], p. 190; Thilo Rehren and Edgar B.

Pusch, “Late Bronze Age Glass Production at Qantir-Piramesses, Egypt,” Science, v. 308, 2005, pp. 1756–1758.

9. Edward V. Sayre and Ray W. Smith, “Compositional Cat-egories of Ancient Glass,” Science, v. 133, 1961, pp. 1824–1826, table I, fig. 1.

10. Edward V. Sayre, “Summary of the Brookhaven Program of Analysis of Ancient Glass,” in Application of Science in Examination of Works of Art. Proceedings of the Seminar Held at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, September 7–16, 1965, Bos-ton: the museum, 1965, pp. 145–154, esp. p. 145.

11. Sayre and Smith [note 9].12. Sayre [note 10], p. 146.13. Julian henderson, The Science and Archaeology of Ma

terials: An Investigation of Inorganic Materials, London and New York: Routledge, 2000, pp. 56 and 58–59, fig. 3.28; idem, “Chemical Analysis of Ancient Egyptian Glass and Its Interpre-tation,” in Paul T. Nicholson and Julian henderson, “Glass,” in Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, ed. Paul T. Nichol-son and Ian Shaw, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 195–224, esp. p. 220, table 8.Ib, fig. 8.13.

74

A distinctly different glass composition, with low MgO of about 0.4%–1% and high K2O of about 6.5%–14%, has consequently been labeled LMhK (low magnesium–high potassium).14 It also contains low Na2O levels, indicating that an alkali source markedly different from that used in plant-ash glasses was employed to make it. At present, the site of Frattesina in northern Italy offers the best archeological evidence for work-ing this glass type, including the occurrence of ingots, although the precise nature of the flux used for the mixed-alkali glass has not been identified. In terms of its physical structure, the glass is quite distinct because of its high SiO2 content, up to about 80%.15 LMhK has been found in Italy, France, Switzerland, and Germa-ny, and as far west as England and western Ire-land.16

ChEMICAL ANALYSIS OF LATE BRONzE AGE AEGEAN GLASS

The first papers on Mycenaean glass, by hae-vernick,17 remain a source of reference, and Wie-ner-Stepankova18 provided the first overall ar-cheological review of glass finds and glassmaking in Mycenaean Greece. Chemical analysis of an-cient glass has a long history.19 Aegean glass and faience beads have tended to attract limited at-tention because they are often poorly preserved. Moreover, the small size of beads has often pre-vented sampling and subsequent scientific in-vestigation.20 The first qualitative analyses were carried out in order to establish whether the material was glass or faience.21 Objects regard-ed as significant, such as glass or faience vessels and “enigmatic” materials, were the focal point

14. Julian henderson, “Electron Probe Microanalysis of Mixed-Alkali Glasses,” Archaeometry, v. 30, pt. 1, 1988, pp. 77–91.

15. P. Santopadre and M. Verità, “Analyses of the Produc-tion Technologies of Italian Vitreous Materials of the Bronze Age,” Journal of Glass Studies, v. 42, 2000, pp. 25–40, esp. pp. 25–27 and 33–36; Andrew J. Towle and others, “Frattesina and Adria: Report of Scientific Analysis of Early Glass from Vene-to,” Padusa, v. 37, 2001, pp. 7–68, esp. pp. 7–10.

16. henderson [note 14], p. 89; idem, “Glass Production and Bronze Age Europe,” Antiquity, v. 62, 1988, pp. 435–461, esp. p. 439; idem, “The Scientific Analysis of Glass and Its Archaeo-logical Interpretation,” in Scientific Analysis in Archaeology and Its Interpretation, ed. J. henderson, Oxford University Com-mittee on Archaeology Monograph no. 19, and UCLA Institute of Archaeology Research Tools 5, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1989, pp. 30–62, esp. pp. 40–43; idem, “Chemical Analysis of Glass and Faience from hauterive-Champréveyres, Switzerland,” in HauteriveChampréveyres, v. 9, Métal et parure au Bronze final, ed. A.-M. Rychner-Faraggi, Neuchâtel: Musée Cantonal d’Archéologie, 1993, pp. 111–124; Robert h. Brill, “Chemical Analyses of Some Glasses from Frattesina,” Journal of Glass Studies, v. 34, 1992, pp. 11–22; J. Guilaine, B. Gratuze, and J.-N. Barrandon, “Les Perles de verre du Chalcolithique de l’âge du bronze: Analyses d’exemplaires trouvés en France,” in L’Age du Bronze Atlantique, Actes du Ier colloque du parc ar-chéologique du Beynac, September 10–14, 1990, Beynac and Cazenac: Association des Musées du Sarladais, 1991, pp. 255–266; G. hartmann and others, “Chemistry and Technology of Prehistoric Glass from Lower Saxony and hesse,” Journal of Archaeological Science, v. 24, 1997, pp. 547–560; Santopadre and Verità [note 15]; Towle and others [note 15]; Ivana Ange-lini and others, “Protohistoric Vitreous Materials of Italy: From

Early Faience to Final Bronze Age Glasses,” in Annales de l’Association Internationale pour l’Histoire du Verre, v. 16, Lon-don, 2003 (Nottingham, 2005), pp. 32–36.

17. Thea Elisabeth haevernick, “Beiträge zur Geschichte des Antiken Glases III: Mykenisches Glas,” Jahrbuch des RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz, v. 7, 1960, pp. 36–53; idem, “Mycenaean Glass,” Archaeology, v. 16, 1963, pp. 190–193; idem, Beiträge zur Glasforschung: Die wichtigsten Aufsätze von 1938 bis 1981, Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von zabern, 1981, pp. 72–83.

18. Jana Wiener-Stepankova, Glass Finds and Glassmaking in Mycenaean Greece: An Archaeological Study (reproduced from Ph.D. diss., Eberhard Karls Universität, Tübingen, 1981), Los Angeles, California: UCLA Press, 1983.

19. Earle Radcliffe Caley, Analyses of Ancient Glasses, 1790–1957: A Comprehensive and Critical Survey, Corning Museum of Glass Monographs, v. 1, Corning: the museum, 1962; Rob-ert h. Brill, “The Scientific Investigation of Ancient Glasses,” in Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on Glass, Sheffield, 1968, Sheffield: Society of Glass Technology, 1969, pp. 47–67, esp. p. 47.

20. Kalliopi Nikita, “A Review of the Chemical Analyses of Glass and Faience Beads in the Bronze Age Aegean,” Bead Study Trust Newsletter, no. 42, 2003, pp. 4–9.

21. Xavier Landerer detected cobalt in dark blue beads from Mycenae (the earliest glass found to date on the Greek main-land) and Tiryns. Cited in heinrich Schliemann, Mycenae: A Narrative of Researches and Discoveries at Mycenae and Tiryns, 1878, repr. New York: Arno Press, 1976, pp. 157–158; idem, Tiryns: The Prehistoric Palace of the Kings of Tiryns, 1885, repr. New York: Arno Press, 1976, pp. 82–83. The glass inlays of the stone frieze from Tiryns were colored by copper, as noted by Professor Virchow, cited in ibid., p. 291.

75

of earlier analyses. Indeed, the translucent tur-quoise vessel from Tholos B at Kakovatos has been subjected to compositional analysis three times.22 The first accurate chemical analysis of Mycenaean glass was conducted by Sayre and Smith23 on the basis of samples taken from a few ornaments and a fragment of the Kakovatos vessel, some beads from Ialysos on Rhodes, and a specimen from the Smith Collection.24 More recent studies include the analysis of copper blue plaques from the cemetery at Pylona on Rhodes by atomic absorption spectrometry25 and the ex-amination of six pieces of a glassy material from an area characterized as a workshop at Tiryns by a combination of atomic absorption spec-trometry and wavelength-dispersive X-ray spec-trometry.26 A discussion of the raw materials used to make blue frit, Minoan faience, and glass by Tite and his co-workers was based on rela-tively small numbers of chemical analyses.27

The few Mycenaean glass compositions pub-lished to date are of the plant-ash type. Research has often concentrated on the use of cobalt as a colorant in Mycenaean glass. Similarities be-tween Mycenaean and Egyptian blue glasses of the second millennium B.C. were discussed by Sayre and Smith.28 The levels of zinc, nickel, and manganese oxides in these glasses were noted as different from those in Mesopotamian ex-amples.29 Sayre had also suggested that cobalt blue glass may have been traded in the form of ingots long before the stunning discovery of the 14th-century B.C. Ulu Burun shipwreck.30 These compositional characteristics were also discussed by Kaczmarczyk and hedges in con-junction with the analyses of some cobalt blue glass from Thisbe.31 They also noted that the compositional differences between the cobalt blue and copper blue Mycenaean glasses of the 13th century B.C. were akin to such differences

22. Kurt Müller, “Alt-Pylos II: Die Funde aus den Kuppel-grübern von Kakovatos,” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung, v. 34, 1909, pp. 269–328, esp. p. 296; Sayre [note 10], p. 147; Alexander Kacz-marczyk and Robert E. M. hedges, Ancient Egyptian Faience: An Analytical Survey of Egyptian Faience from Predynastic to Roman Times, Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1983, p. 300, ta-ble XL, alluding to the results by Sayre and Smith [note 9]; h. Magou in Gladys Davidson Weinberg and M. C. McClellan, Glass Vessels in Ancient Greece: Their History Illustrated from the Collection of the National Museum, Athens, Publications of the Archaiologikon Deltion, no. 47, Athens: Archaeological Receipts Fund, 1992, p. 79 and n. 38.

23. Sayre and Smith [note 9].24. Edward V. Sayre, “Some Ancient Glass Specimens with

Compositions of Particular Archaeological Significance,” in Brookhaven National Laboratory, Atomic Energy Commission USA Reports, New York and Upton: The Brookhaven National Laboratory, 1964, pp. 1–25, esp. p. 9; idem [note 10], p. 147.

25. helen Mangou, “Chemical Analyses of Three Opaque Glass Beads and a Sword from the Pylona Cemetery,” in The Mycenaean Cemetery at Pylona on Rhodes, ed. Efi Karantzali, British Archaeological Reports International Series 988, Ox-ford: Archaeopress, 2001, pp. 117–118, esp. p. 117, table 1.

26. Marina Panagiotaki and others, “A Glass Workshop at the Mycenaean Citadel of Tiryns in Greece,” Annales [note 16], pp. 14–18.

27. Mike S. Tite and others, “Raw Materials Used to Pro-duce Aegean Bronze Age Glass and Related Vitreous Materi-als,” Annales [note 16], pp. 10–13.

28. Sayre and Smith [note 9]; Sayre [note 10], esp. pp. 147–149, figs. 2 and 5; Edward V. Sayre and Ray W. Smith, “Ana-lytical Studies of Ancient Egyptian Glass,” in Recent Advances in Science and Technology of Materials, v. 3, ed. Adli Bishay, New York: Plenum Press, 1974, pp. 47–70, esp. pp. 51–52 and fig. 3.

29. Edward V. Sayre, “The Intentional Use of Antimony and Manganese in Ancient Glasses,” in Proceedings of the VI International Congress on Glass. Advances in Glass Technology, pt. 2, ed. F. R. Matson and G. E. Rindone, history papers and dis-cussion of the technical papers, New York: Plenum Press, 1963, pp. 263–282, esp. p. 267, table I; Sayre [note 24], pp. 10–11, table IV; Sayre [note 10], p. 148, fig. 5; Sayre and Smith [note 28], pp. 51–54, figs. 5 and 6.

30. Sayre [note 10], p. 146.31. Kaczmarczyk and hedges [note 22], pp. 300–301; Alex-

ander Kaczmarczyk, “The Source of Cobalt in Ancient Egyp-tian Pigments,” in Proceedings of the 24th International Archaeometry Symposium, 1984, ed. J. S. Olin and M. J. Blackman, Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1986, pp. 369–376, esp. pp. 374–375, table 34.5.

76

in Egyptian New Kingdom faience.32 The infor-mation on the provenance of cobalt in Mycenae-an blue glass provided by Dayton is confusing at best33 and inaccurate at worst.34 Later, Rob-ert h. Brill reported that the blue ingots from the Ulu Burun shipwreck were of the same gener-al composition as Egyptian core-formed vessels and Mycenaean glass jewelry.35 Electron-probe microanalysis of six Mycenaean relief plaques at The Corning Museum of Glass has illustrat-ed compositional similarities, and further oxy-gen-isotope analyses have shown that Myce-naean dark blue glass seems to have been made from a silica source similar to that used in mak-ing some 18th-Dynasty Egyptian dark blue glass and a Mesopotamian vessel.36

Electron-probe microanalysis of glass and faience beads from Thasos dated to the end of the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age (11th–ninth centuries B.C.) has shown that none of them is compositionally related to the Myce-naean or contemporaneous Egyptian and Mes-

opotamian plant-ash glasses. Instead, they have mixed-alkali compositions, and one bead dating from the early Iron Age was made of potassium glass containing 15.7% K2O. This is unique, and it seems to be the earliest glass of its kind: it is compositionally different from Western medie-val potassium glasses.37

MATERIALS AND METhODS

Archeological Context and Dating of Samples

Thebes

Thebes was a major Mycenaean center during the time when the palace on the citadel known as Kadmeia was established (Fig. 2). Various glass and faience objects have been found in pa-latial buildings.38 A sizable building in the center of Thebes was attributed to Kadmos, the myth-ical founder of the city.39 The house of Kadmos

32. Kaczmarczyk and hedges [note 22], pp. 300–301, table XL (cf. tables X and XI1; Kaczmarczyk [note 31], p. 374, table 34.51.

33. John E. Dayton, “Geological Evidence for the Discovery of Cobalt Blue Glass in Mycenaean Times as a By-product of Silver Smelting in the Schneeberg Area of the Bohemian Erzge-birge,” Revue d’Archéometrie (Proceedings of the 20th Sympo-sium International d’Archéometrie, Paris, March 26–29, 1980), v. 3, no. 20, 1980, pp. 57–61, esp. p. 57; idem, “The Mycenae-ans and the Discovery of Glass,” in Interaction and Acculturation in the Mediterranean, ed. Jan G. P. Best and Nanny M. W. de Vries, Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress of Medi-terranean Pre- and Protohistory, Amsterdam, November 19–23, 1980, henri Frankfort Foundation, Amsterdam: Grüner, 1980, pp. 169–177, esp. p. 171; idem, “Cobalt, Silver and Nick-el in Late Bronze Age Glazes, Pigments, and Bronzes, and the Identification of Silver Sources for the Aegean and Near East by Lead Isotope and Trace Element Analysis,” in Scientific Studies in Ancient Ceramics, ed. M. hughes, British Museum Occa-sional Paper 19, London: The British Museum, 1981, pp. 129–142; idem, The Discovery of Glass: Experiments in the Smelting of Rich, Dry Silver Ores, and the Reproduction of Bronze Age–Type Cobalt Blue Glass as a Slag, Cambridge, Massachu-setts: harvard University, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, and harvard University Press, 1993.

34. Kaczmarczyk and hedges [note 22], pp. 301–302: “The composition matched number for number a previously reported composition of the blue pigment on a decorated Egyptian clay pot from Thebes.”

35. Robert h. Brill in George Bass, “A Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun (Kas), Turkey: 1984 Campaign,” American Jour

nal of Archaeology, v. 90, 1986, pp. 269–296, esp. p. 282; see also commentary in Cemal Pulak, “A Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun, Turkey: 1985 Campaign,” American Journal of Archaeology, v. 92, 1988, pp. 1–37, esp. p. 14 and n. 67.

36. Robert h. Brill, Chemical Analyses of Early Glasses, Cor-ning: The Corning Museum of Glass, 1999, v. 1, Catalogue of Samples, p. 49, IIIA, p. 312, table 2, O-33 and O-34, and p. 322, fig. 1, and v. 2, Tables of Analyses, p. 57, IIIA; idem, “Chemical Analyses of Various Glasses Excavated in Greece,” in Hyalos, Vitrum, Glass: History, Technology and Vitreous Materials in the Hellenic World, ed. George Kordas, 1st International Con-ference, Athens: Glasnet, 2002, pp. 11–19, esp. pp. 11–12, ta-ble 1.

37. Julian henderson, “The Scientific Analysis of Vitreous Materials from Kentria and Theologos-Tsiganadika Tombs,” in Protoistoiki Thasos: Ta Nekrotafeia tou Oikismou Kastri, ed. Chaidos Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Publications of the Archaio-logikon Deltion, no. 45, Athens: Archaeological Receipts Fund, 1992, pp. 804–806, esp. table 1, pl. 368.

38. Sarantis Symeonoglou, The Topography of Thebes from the Bronze Ages to Modern Times, Princeton, New Jersey: Prince-ton University Press, 1985, pp. 5–6, fig. 1.2, and pp. 13, 26–38, and 52–56.

39. Antonios D. Keramopoullos, “he Oikia tou Kadmou,” Archaiologike Ephemeris, v. 49, 1909, pp. 57–122; idem, “Ai Viomichaniae kai to Emporion tou Kadmou,” Archaiologike Ephemeris, v. 70, 1930, pp. 29–58; Anastasia Dakouri-hild, “The house of Kadmos in Mycenaean Thebes Reconsidered: Architecture, Chronology, and Context,” The Annual of the British School at Athens, v. 96, 2001, pp. 81–122.

77

yielded gold, agate, and quartz artifacts, as well as fragments of a procession fresco and numer-ous stirrup jars bearing Linear B inscriptions. The hundreds of glass, frit, and faience beads in Rooms N and Ξ (Fig. 3), and the gold jewelry and scraps of gold, bronze, and rock crystal in Room Ξ, led to its identification as a jewelry workshop.40 Because the palace was destroyed by fire, the glass and faience beads were poorly preserved.41 The destruction could be dated to the Late helladic IIIB:1 period (Table 1),42 so the beads may have been manufactured close to the proposed date of the destruction. The pala-tial building was called the Arsenal because of

FIG. 2. Topographical map of Thebes. Plan showing the relationship of the buildings of the Mycenaean palace, redrawn after K. Demakopoulou and D. Konsola, Archaeological Museum of Thebes: Guide, trans. H. Zigada, Athens: General Direction of Antiquities and Restoration, 1981, p. 21, plan 21.

FIG. 3. Lump of earth containing several glass, faience, and frit beads, from Room N at the House of Kadmos.

40. Keramopoullos, “he Oikia tou Kadmou” [note 39]; Symeonoglou [note 38], pp. 43 and 218; Iphiyenia Tournavi-tou, “Jewellers Moulds and Jewellers Workshop in Mycenaean Greece: An Archaeological Utopia,” in Trade and Production in Premonatery Greece: Production and the Craftsmen, ed. Car-ole Gillis, Christina Risberg, and Birgitta Sjöberg, Proceedings of the 4th and 5th International Workshops, Athens, 1994 and 1995, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature Pocket-book 143, Göteborg: Åströms, 1997, pp. 209–256, esp. p. 236; Nikita [note 2], pp. 25–26.

41. Keramopoullos, “he Oikia tou Kadmou” [note 39], pp. 78–79; idem, “Ai Viomichaniae” [note 39], pp. 36–37.

42. The date of the building is controversial. See Sarantis Symeonoglou, Mycenaean Finds from Thebes, Greece: Excavations at 14 Oedipus St., Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, no. 35, Göteborg: Åströms, 1973, pp. 74–75; idem [note 38], pp. 218–220; and Dakouri-hild [note 39], pp. 95–99, 103–104, and 106, figs. 8–10.

78

the bronze weaponry found in the fire-destruc-tion layer.43 Recent excavations very close to the Arsenal, under Pelopidou Street, have brought to light an extended area identified as the pala-tial archive of Linear B tablets. The Arsenal has been broadly dated to the Late helladic IIIB pe-riod on the basis of pottery, and it is directly con-nected with the Pelopidou Street strata dating to the Late helladic IIIB:2 period. The glass from Pelopidou Street, which was found in a Late helladic IIIC layer, probably came from a dis-turbed Late helladic IIIA:2/IIIB context.44

Elateia

The large Mycenaean cemetery at Elateia con-sists mostly of chamber tombs dug into the rock. Niches cut into the chamber walls and pits dug into the floor are common for primary inhuma-tions or ossuaries. A few burials were found in situ, with the dead in a crouched position. Rich offerings, placed mainly in the ossuary pits and the niches, are usual in this tomb type. Cave-like tombs lacking niches and pits usually had space for only one burial. The majority of the burials yielded a great number of glass and fa-ience beads, as well as relief plaques including many glass seals.45 The multiple, successive, and

disturbed nature of the burials is the usual ob-stacle when it comes to defining, interpreting, and dating the contexts of Mycenaean tombs. Although the earliest tombs date to the Late helladic IIIA–B periods, the peak periods of the cemetery are Late helladic IIIC and Sub-Myce-naean. The cemetery continued to be used dur-ing the transition to the Early Iron Age, the pe-riod known as Protogeometric (PG). The pottery and the bronzes date the later burials in the tombs to the first architectural type, and the cave-like tombs to the transitional period be-tween the end of the Late helladic IIIC/Sub-Mycenaean and Early Protogeometric periods.46 The Elateia glass came from securely and broad-ly dated contexts from the Late helladic IIIA period to the end of the Late Bronze Age and the transition to the Early Iron Age. The wealth of the grave offerings is important, but it de-clined following the Early Protogeometric peri-od. however, some of the Mycenaean pieces could have been heirlooms in Protogeometric burials.47

The Samples

The glass samples are described in Table 2. The bulk of these samples (81) came from Ela-

43. Nilolaos Platon and Evi Touloupa, “Kadmeion: Oiko-pedon A. and S. Tzortzi (Pindarou and Antigonis),” Archaiologikon Deltion, v. 20, Chronika B1, 1965, pp. 230–235, esp. pp. 233–235; Theodoros Spyropoulos, “Kadmeion: Oikope-don Dem. Paulogiannopoulou (odos Pelopidou),” Archaiologikon Deltion, v. 26, Chronika B1, 1971, p. 209, pls. 183e and s; Dakouri-hild [note 39], pp. 3–104.

44. Vassilios Aravantinos, “Thebes: Odos Pelopidou 28 (ar-cheio pinakidon Grammikis B),” Archaiologikon Deltion, v. 49, Chronika B1, 1994, pp. 271–277, esp. pp. 272–273, fig. 3; Ele-ni Andrikou, “The Pottery from the Destruction Layer of the Linear B Archive in Pelopidou Street, Thebes,” in Floreant studia Mycenaea, ed. Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy, Stefan hiller, and Os-wald Panagl, Akten des X. Internationalen Mykenologischen Colloquiums in Salzburg, May 1–5, 1995, Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1999, pp. 79–101; Vassilis L. Aravantinos, Louis Godart, and Anna Sacconi, Thèbes: Fouilles de la Cadmée, v. 1, Les Tablettes en Linéaire B de la Odos Pelopidou: Edition et commentaire, Instituti Edito-riali e Poligrafici Internazionali Pisa-Roma, Bibliotheca di “Pa-siphae,” 2001, pp. 12–14, plans 2 and 3; personal communica-tion with Prof. V. Aravantinos and Mrs. A. Papadaki, July 22, 2002.

45. Phanouria Dakoronia and Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy, “Ela-teia: Mykenaiko Nekrotafeio,” Archaiologikon Deltion, v. 43, Chronika B1, 1988, pp. 229–232, figs. 14 and 15; Phanouria Dakoronia, Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy, and Agne Sakellariou, “Die Siegel aus der Nekropole von Elatia-Alonaki: Kleinere griech-ische Sammlungen,” in Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel, ed. Ingo Pini, Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, v. 5, supp. 2, Mainz: F. Matz, 1996, pp. v–xxx and indexes I and II; William G. Cavanagh and Christopher Mee, A Private Place: Death in Prehistoric Greece, Studies in Mediter-ranean Archaeology, no. 85, Göteborg: Åströms, 1998, pp. 68 and 95.

46. Dakoronia and Deger-Jalkotzy [note 45], p. 232; Dako-ronia, Deger-Jalkotzy, and Sakellariou [note 45]; Irene S. Lemos, The Protogeometric Aegean: The Archaeology of the Late Eleventh and Tenth Centuries BC, Oxford Monographs on Classi-cal Archaeology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, pp. 171 and 204.

47. Dakoronia, Deger-Jalkotzy, and Sakellariou [note 45]; Lemos [note 46], p. 171.

79

teia. Samples from glass beads and relief plaques were found in 34 of the 91 tombs excavated. Eight glass and three “frit” samples from Thebes were made available. The Theban glasses included translucent dark blue and turquoise jewel-ry. Most of the Elateia monochrome beads and relief plaques sampled are translucent dark blue, light blue, and turquoise. One translucent pur-ple and three transparent colorless glass beads were examined, as well as a bichrome glass bead with a translucent turquoise core and inlaid opaque white decoration. One opaque turquoise bead was also sampled.

The terminology used to describe bead forms and relief plaques in Table 2 is based on earlier work on beads by h. C. Beck, the classification of Mycenaean jewelry by A. Xenaki-Sakella-riou, and descriptions of Elateia glass and fa-ience beads by G. Nightingale.48 Simple or com-posite beads in various geometric shapes were

manufactured either by molding or by winding filaments of glass around a mandrel. The glass bead from the house of Kadmos, in the form of an undecorated drop, was molded. The annular

TABLE 2

Samples from Glass Beads and Relief Plaques Found at Palatial Buildings on the Mycenaean Citadel of Thebes*

I. House of Kadmos

Unknown Area

The/129 Translucent dark blue. Undecorated hollow drop bead. Malformed. 6-3300-12. Lh IIIB:1. Unregistered.

The/133 Translucent turquoise. Volute with bar A. 6-3300-16. Lh IIIB:1. Unregistered.

The/134 Translucent dark blue. Volute with bar A. 6-3300-16. Lh IIIB:1. Unregistered.

Rooms Ξ –Π




II. Arsenal

The/138 Translucent turquoise. Reclining calf. Site 3, Kadmeia I-11. Lh IIIB. AM 283.

III. Pelopidou Street

The/140 Translucent dark blue. Argonaut A. Section II, OM52, Layer 1b. Lh IIIB:2–early Lh IIIC. AM 29187.

48. horace C. Beck, “Classification and Nomenclature of Beads and Pendants,” Archaeologia, v. 77, 1928, pp. 1–76; Agne Xenaki-Sakellariou, Oi Thalamotoi Tafoi ton Mykenon: Anaskafes Christou Tsounta (1887–1898) = Les Tombes a chambre de Mycénes: Fouilles de Chr. Tsountas (1887–1898), Paris: Dif-fusion de Boccard, 1985; Georg Nightingale, “Perlen aus Glas und Fayence aus der mykenischen Nekropole Elateia-Alonaki,” in Akten des 6. Österreichischen Archäologentages, ed. Thuri Lorenz and others, February 3–5, 1994, Universität Graz, Veröf-fentlichungen des Instituts für klassische Archäologie der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, Vienna: Phoibos Verlag, Roman Ja-cobek, 1996, pp. 141–148; idem, “Glas und Fayenceperlen der mykenischen Palastzeit: Aspekte einer mykenischen Schmuck-industrie,” Ph.D. diss., University of Salzburg, 1999; idem, “Glass and Faience Beads from Elateia-Alonaki Reflecting the Relationship between Centre and Periphery,” in The Periphery of the Mycenaean World, 2nd International Interdisciplinary Colloquium, Athens: Archaeological Receipts Fund, 2003, pp. 311–319.

*All of these objects are in the Archeological Museum of Thebes.

80

glass beads from Elateia were made by wind-ing; they fall into types A and B (Fig. 4).49 Type A consists of two nearly circular parts in the lon-gitudinal section, and it has two subtypes based on diameter: A1 (0.8 cm) and A2 (0.5 cm). Type B includes beads that, in transverse section, show that a single filament with a pointed end was used. This type has four subtypes based on diameter: B1 (1.2 cm), B2 (1 cm), B3 (0.7 cm), and B4 (0.5 cm). The annular B1–B4 beads dif-fer from the annular or ring-shaped beads that were found in Mycenaean chamber tombs.50 Another typologically unique bead from a My-cenaean context is the bichrome horned strat-ified eye bead (Fig. 5), which does not seem to have any parallels among published Mycenaean and Geometric beads. however, Beck defined it as an Italian Villanovan type.51 It was found over

a wide geographical area, and it was apparently employed over long periods of prehistory.52

The typical Mycenaean glass relief plaques were made in molds. The relief may be on the front, on the back, or in the round. These plaques consist of a tabular form in longitudinal section, and they were made in all of the basic geomet-ric shapes in the transverse section. They usually have ribbed borders through which tubular per-forations are positioned. Other similarly made

49. Cf. Beck [note 48], p. 19, fig. 18, A.I.a.50. Cf. Xenaki-Sakellariou [note 48], no. 31.51. Beck [note 48] p. 44, fig. 34a, A.7.e.1; cf. A.6.f.1 and p.

45, A.10.c; Nightingale [note 48], p. 147.52. Natalie Venclová, “Prehistoric Eye Beads in Central Eu-

rope,” Journal of Glass Studies, v. 25, 1983, pp. 11–17, esp. p. 16, fig. 2.11; Maud Spaer, Ancient Glass in The Israel Museum: Beads and Other Small Objects, Jerusalem: the museum, 2001.

FIG. 4. Elateia annular beads, grouped into types A and B on the basis of their diameters.

FIG. 5. Bichrome horned stratified eye bead from Tomb 57 at Elateia.

FIG. 6. Plaque of translucent deep turquoise glass in the form of a reclining calf, from the Arsenal (Site 3).

FIG. 7. Discoid pale blue frit bead with radial grooves, from Room N at the House of Kadmos.

81

relief ornaments were perforated by drilling. The plaques are in a cut-out style, or they form plaques bearing the motif. They are decorated with abstract designs that are curvilinear (heli-ces and spirals, such as a volute with a bar), rec-tilinear, or complex. They have a variety of mo-tifs, including floral, faunal, marine, and figural (Fig. 6).53

Two beads from the house of Kadmos were made of dark blue frit, one discoid and the other spherical with a rounded end and a perfo-rated knob for suspension. Another bead, made of pale turquoise frit, is discoid and radially grooved (Fig. 7). A close inspection of these beads reveals that they are malformed. This hap-pened either during their manufacture or dur-ing the fire in the building in which they were found.

Analytical Technique

Electron-probe microanalysis is a microde-structive technique for which samples as small as 0.5 mm in length are required.54 Samples were mounted in epoxy resin and polished flat, using a series of increasingly fine pastes to expose an unweathered section. Because glasses are poor conductors of electrons and heat, a thin carbon coating was applied to the polished sample sur-face in order to prevent localized charging and any resulting distortion and deflection of the elec-tron beam. A Cameca SX50 electron microprobe was operated at 15 kV and 20 nA, with a defo-cused 50-micron-diameter beam. Results were calibrated using Corning glass standards and ge-ological standards. Quantitative analyses were corrected using a “zAF” routine. The analyses established the major, minor, and trace compo-nents of the samples and allowed their colorants, opacifiers, and decolorizers to be identified.

RESULTS

The results from the electron-microprobe analyses are given in Tables 4 and 5. The analy-ses of eight samples from Thebes (Table 6) show that all of them are plant-ash glasses (Figs. 8–

10). Six translucent dark blue glasses from the house of Kadmos were colored by cobalt oxide ranging between 0.13% and 0.16%, associated with elevated levels of manganese, nickel, and zinc oxides (Table 7). A calf plaque from the Arsenal was colored by cobalt oxide (0.17%) and cupric oxide (0.13%). The elevated (0.89%) antimony trioxide level suggests that a calcium antimonate opacifier was used to brighten the otherwise deep blue of this glass. In the translu-cent turquoise argonaut plaque from Pelopidou Street, both cupric and cobalt oxides are slight-ly lower, at 0.11% and 0.07% respectively.

The results from Elateia are of two composi-tional types. The first is a plant-ash glass, while the second is a mixed-alkali (LMhK) glass (Figs. 8–10). The 81 glass samples from Elateia also vary in composition according to their color (Ta-ble 4). The results for 63 plant-ash glasses are summarized in Table 8. A subgroup of seven plant-ash Elateia glasses (Ela/3, 4, 15, 16, 18, 21, and 26) that is characterized by very low levels of potassium oxide (mean 0.45%) resem-bles four Theban glasses with low potassium oxide contents (The/133 and 135–137). Thirty-five plant-ash glasses from Elateia were translu-cent dark blue. The dominant colorant in these glasses is cobalt oxide ranging from 0.04% to 0.23% (Table 9). In sample Ela/50, a higher level of copper (0.62%) was found, counterbal-anced by an unusually high level of cobalt ox-ide (0.12%).

Fifteen glass samples were translucent light blue. A combination of cupric and cobalt ox-ides was responsible for the final color of these glasses. The level of cobalt oxide is lower than in the dark blue group (mean 0.06%), and the level of cupric oxide is higher (mean 0.34%), which helps to explain the paler hue (Table 10).

53. Nikita [note 2], pp. 28–31.54. henderson [note 14], pp. 78–80; idem, “The Scientific

Analysis of Glass” [note 16], pp. 31–33; idem, The Science and Archaeology of Materials [note 13], p. 17; idem, “Chemical Analysis of Ancient Egyptian Glass” [note 13], pp. 214–215.

Text continues on page 100.

82

Tomb 1

Ela/1 Translucent light blue. Cockleshell. Lh IIIB–C. AM 731.

Tomb 6: Chamber Eastern Side

Ela/3 Translucent light blue. Cockleshell. Lh IIIB–C. AM 735–739.

Ela/4 Translucent dark blue. Five-petaled rosette on oval plaque. Lh IIIB–C late/PG. AM 735–739.

Ela/5 Translucent turquoise. Undecorated small spherical flattened bead. Lh IIIB–C. AM 3770.

Tomb 7

Ela/6 Translucent light blue. Five-petaled rosette on oval plaque. Submycenaean. AM 717.

Tomb 12: Burial A

Ela/7 Translucent turquoise. Undecorated spherical flattened coiled bead. Lh IIIB–Submycenaean. AM 3804.

Ela/8 Translucent light blue. Eight-petaled rosette on discoid plaque. Lh IIIB–Submycenaean. AM 706–710.

Ela/9 Translucent light blue. Spiral in three-part plaque. Lh IIIB–Submycenaean. AM 706–710.

Tomb 12: Burial Γ

Ela/10 Translucent light blue. Double volute with bar A. Lh IIIB–Submycenaean. Unregistered.

Tomb 13: Chamber Northeastern Corner

Ela/11 Translucent turquoise. Undecorated small spherical bead. Lh IIIA:2/B:1– C. AM 3777.

Ela/12 Translucent dark blue. Undecorated small spherical bead. Lh IIIA:2/B:1–C. AM 3780.

Ela/13 Translucent colorless. Undecorated large spherical flattened bead. Lh IIIA:2/B:1–C. AM 3778.

Tomb 16

Ela/15 Translucent dark blue. Double volute with bar A. Lh IIIB–C. AM 3686.

Ela/16 Translucent dark blue. Undecorated cylindrical-tubular bead. Lh IIIB–C. Unregistered.

Ela/17 Translucent purple. Undecorated large spherical flattened bead. Lh IIIB–C. AM 3664.

Ela/18 Translucent dark blue. Two single confronted palmettes. Lh IIIB–C. AM 3682.

TABLE 3

Samples from Glass Beads and Relief Plaques Found in Burials in the Chamber-Tomb Cemetery at Elateia*

*All of these objects are in the Archeological Museum of Atalanti.

83

Ela/19 Translucent dark blue. Female figure. Lh IIIB–C. AM 3690.

Ela/20 Translucent light blue. Female figure. Lh IIIB–C. Unregistered.

Tomb 19

Ela/21 Translucent light blue. Undecorated spherical flattened coiled bead. Lh IIIB–C. AM 3782.

Ela/22 Translucent dark blue. Undecorated elliptical bead. Lh IIIB–C. AM 3784.

Tomb 20: Chamber Northwestern Side

Ela/23 Translucent colorless. Undecorated large spherical flattened bead. Lh IIIB–C late/PG. AM 3653.

Ela/24 Translucent dark blue. Double five-petaled rosette on oval plaque. LhIIIB–C late/PG. AM 3652.

Ela/25 Translucent dark blue. Curl of hair. Lh IIIB–C late/PG. AM 3657.

Tomb 23: Niche 1

Ela/26 Translucent light blue. Undecorated small spherical bead. Lh III. AM 3661.

Tomb 24

Ela/28 Translucent light blue. Undecorated annular A1 bead. Grave 2. Lh IIIA–B. AM 3511.

Ela/29 Translucent turquoise. Undecorated annular A1 bead. Chamber. Lh IIIA–B. AM 3637.

Ela/30 Translucent light blue. Undecorated annular A1 bead. Chamber. Lh IIIA–B. AM 3638.

Tomb 28

Ela/31 Translucent light blue. Double six-petaled rosette on rectangular plaque. Pit ∆. Lh IIIA–B. AM 3710.

Ela/32 Translucent light blue. Double six-petaled rosette on rectangular plaque. Pit A. Late helladic IIIC–PG. AM 3701.

Tomb 32: Pit Γ

Ela/34 Translucent light blue. Four radially joined ivy leaves on rectangular plaque with triangular projections. Lh IIIC late/PG. AM 643.

Ela/35 Translucent dark blue. Double six-petaled rosette. Lh IIIC late/PG. AM 750.

Tomb 33

Ela/36 Translucent turquoise. Undecorated annular A1 bead. Lh IIIB–C. AM 3482.

Ela/38 Translucent turquoise. Undecorated annular A1 bead. Tomb. Lh IIIB–C. AM 3480.

Tomb 35: Grave 3

Ela/42 Translucent dark blue. Undecorated annular A2 bead. Lh IIIB–C. AM 3489.

TABLE 3 (cont.)

84

Tomb 36: Chamber

Ela/43 Translucent dark blue. Double–eight-petaled rosette on rectangular plaque. Lh IIIA:1/C/PG. AM 635.

Tomb 38: Niche in Dromos East Wall

Ela/44 Translucent dark blue. Double curl of hair. Lh IIIC–PG. AM 3501.



Ela/47 Translucent dark blue. Double volute with bar A. Lh IIIC–PG. AM 3497.

Ela/48 Translucent dark blue. Double volute with bar A. Lh IIIC–PG. AM 725.

Tomb 41

Ela/49 Translucent dark blue. Spiral in three-part plaque. Chamber-Grave 1. Lh III. AM 747.

Ela/50 Translucent dark blue. Undecorated small spherical bead. Chamber. Lh III. AM 3776.

Tomb 45: Niche

Ela/53 Translucent turquoise. Undecorated small spherical bead. Late helladic III. AM 3658.

Tomb 46: Western Grave

Ela/54 Translucent dark blue. Undecorated annular B1 bead. Lh III/PG. AM 3799.

Tomb 49

Ela/55 Opaque turquoise. Undecorated small spherical flattened bead. Lh IIIC–PG. AM 3633.

Ela/56 Translucent dark blue. Undecorated juglet bead. Lh IIIC–PG.

Tomb 51: Grave ∆

Ela/58 Translucent turquoise. Amygdaloidal bead. Lh III. Unregistered.

Tomb 52

Ela/60 Translucent dark blue. Eight-petaled rosette on discoid plaque. Lh IIIB–C late/PG. AM 642.

Tomb 56: Pit A, Chamber

Ela/63 Translucent dark blue. Undecorated annular A1 bead. Lh IIIA–B. AM 3496.

Tomb 56: Pit E–F

Ela/66 Translucent dark blue. Double eight-petaled rosette on rectangular plaque. Lh IIIB–C. AM 634.

Tomb 56: Pit A, Chamber

Ela/67 Translucent dark blue. Double volute with bar A. Pit A. Lh IIIA–B. Unregistered.

TABLE 3 (cont.)

85

Ela/68 Translucent dark blue. Triple six-petaled rosette on rectangular plaque. Late helladic IIIA–B. Unregistered.

Ela/69 Translucent dark blue. Triple six-petaled rosette on rectangular plaque. Lh IIIA–B. Unregistered.



Tomb 57: Square 2

Ela/72 Translucent dark blue. Undecorated segmented bead. Late helladic IIIB–C late/PG. AM 3552.

Ela/73 Translucent dark blue. Undecorated annular B1 bead. Late helladic IIIB–C late/PG. AM 3553.

Ela/74 Translucent dark blue. Undecorated annular B1 bead. Lh IIIB–C late/PG. AM 3555.



Ela/79 Translucent turquoise. Undecorated annular B2 bead. Lh IIIB–C late/PG. AM 3537.







Ela/86 Translucent turquoise from the body of a bichrome horned stratified eye bead with impressed decoration of opaque white glass (Ela/87). Lh IIIB–C late/PG. AM 3857.

Ela/87 Opaque white from the impressed decoration of the horned stratified eye bead (Ela/86). Lh IIIB–C late/PG. AM 3857.

Tomb 62: Pit H, Quarter 2

Ela/90 Translucent dark blue. Two single confronted palmettes. Lh IIIB–C middle/Submycenaean. Unregistered.

Ela/91 Translucent dark blue. Double five-petaled rosette on oval plaque. Lh IIIB–C middle/Submycenaean. AM 3615.

TABLE 3 (cont.)

86

Ela/92 Translucent light blue. Double five-petaled rosette on oval plaque. Lh IIIB–C middle/Submycenaean. AM 3616.

Ela/93 Translucent light blue. Double five-petaled rosette on oval plaque. Lh IIIB–C middle/Submycenaean. AM 3617.

Tomb 62: Pit E, Quarter 4

Ela/94 Translucent dark blue. Undecorated cylindrical-tubular bead. Lh IIIA–C middle. AM 3586.

Ela/95 Translucent dark blue. Undecorated cylindrical-tubular bead. LhIIIA–C middle. AM 3585.

Tomb 62: Pit H, Quarter 2

Ela/96 Translucent dark blue. Double four-petaled rosette on rectangular plaque. Lh IIIB–C middle/Submycenaean. AM 3617.

Ela/97 Translucent dark blue. Double four-petaled rosette on oval plaque. Lh IIIB–C middle/Submycenaean. AM 3615.

Ela/98 Translucent dark blue. Double four-petaled rosette on oval plaque. Lh IIIB–C middle/Submycenaean. AM 3596.

Tomb 63

Ela/99 Translucent dark blue. Undecorated annular B2 bead. Lh IIIC–PG. AM 3576.

Tomb 64

Ela/100 Translucent turquoise. Undecorated annular B2 bead. T1. Lh IIIC early–IIIC late. AM 3527.

Tomb 95: Pit A

Ela/101 Translucent colorless. Undecorated large spherical flattened bead. Lh III. AM 3984.

TABLE 3 (cont.)

The/105 Dark blue. Discoid radially grooved bead. Room N. 6-1311-7. Lh IIIB:1. Unregistered.

The/117 Turquoise. Discoid radially grooved bead. Room N. 6-1311-7. Lh IIIB:1. Unregistered.

The/131 Dark blue. Undecorated hollow spherical bead. Unknown area. 6-3300-12. Lh IIIB:1. Unregistered.

Samples from “Frit” Beads Found in the house of Kadmos*

*All of these beads are in the Archeological Museum of Thebes.

87

TABLE 4

Glass Analyses from Thebes and Elateia, by Weight Percent of Oxides of 22 Elements

cls=colorless, db=dark blue, lb=light blue, op=opaque, pu=purple, tr=translucent, trq=turquoise, wh=white

Weight %The/129

tr dbThe/133

tr dbThe/134

tr dbThe/135

tr dbThe/136

tr dbThe/137

tr dbThe/138

tr dbThe/140

tr trq

Na2O 17.05 17.40 17.46 17.64 17.41 17.19 16.69 15.73

MnO 0.22 0.15 0.18 0.20 0.29 0.22 0.26 0.10

SO3 0.25 0.20 0.22 0.22 0.19 0.28 0.33 0.28

K2O 0.77 0.53 0.87 0.53 0.59 0.64 1.41 1.10

MgO 2.31 2.28 2.30 2.18 2.27 2.22 3.85 3.34

Fe2O3 0.51 0.57 0.56 0.62 0.61 0.57 0.71 0.69

SnO2 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.01

Cl 0.87 0.91 0.89 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.59 0.70

As2O5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CoO 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.13 0.17 0.07

CaO 5.30 5.25 5.15 5.22 5.16 5.29 7.89 7.30

PbO 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00

Al2O3 1.99 1.83 1.82 2.02 1.93 1.90 2.67 1.30

NiO 0.13 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.13 0.07 0.11 0.00

Sb2O3 0.47 0.43 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.47 0.89 0.02

BaO 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00

SiO2 68.79 69.20 68.87 69.25 69.27 69.65 63.14 68.40

CuO 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.13 0.11

TiO2 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.13 0.11

Cr2O3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

P2O5 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.28 0.19

znO 0.07 0.08 0.17 0.07 0.12 0.05 0.27 0.00

Total 99.30 99.40 99.48 99.97 99.93 99.86 99.57 99.45

88


TABLE 4 (cont.)

Weight %Ela/1tr lb

Ela/3 tr lb

Ela/4 tr db

Ela/5 tr trq

Ela/6 tr lb

Ela/7 tr trq

Ela/8 tr lb

Ela/9 tr lb

Ela/10 tr lb

Na2O 16.38 16.58 17.52 14.80 17.31 18.06 17.03 18.32 15.83

MnO 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.05 0.09 0.02 0.12 0.11 0.19

SO3 0.24 0.27 0.17 0.15 0.20 0.29 0.32 0.21 0.33

K2O 1.27 0.18 0.55 0.85 0.97 2.67 1.67 1.19 0.88

MgO 2.45 3.66 2.25 1.85 2.16 5.29 3.86 3.31 3.40

Fe2O3 0.56 0.58 0.49 0.36 0.55 0.36 0.91 0.77 0.49

SnO2 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00

Cl 0.81 0.76 1.19 1.09 1.09 0.88 0.47 0.73 0.81

As2O5 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.07 0.03 0.04

CoO 0.02 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.12

CaO 6.70 6.80 5.35 6.28 5.97 5.45 6.99 6.13 6.62

PbO 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00

Al2O3 2.31 2.35 1.94 1.16 1.98 1.55 2.77 2.45 2.23

NiO 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.11 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.13

Sb2O3 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01

BaO 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02

SiO2 64.75 65.39 69.33 66.73 68.59 62.86 63.35 64.97 64.82

CuO 0.11 0.15 0.05 2.68 0.18 0.94 0.10 0.22 0.32

TiO2 0.10 0.13 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.07 0.16 0.12 0.12

Cr2O3 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01

P2O5 0.15 0.17 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.15 0.20 0.14 0.15

znO 0.13 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.08 0.07 0.03 0.09 0.09

Total 96.24 98.39 99.38 97.81 99.61 98.89 98.19 98.93 96.62

89

TABLE 4 (cont.)

Weight %Ela/10tr lb

Ela/11 tr trq

Ela/12 tr db

Ela/13 tr cls

Ela/15 tr db

Ela/16 tr db

Ela/17 tr pu

Ela/18 tr db

Ela/19 tr db

Na2O 15.83 16.84 13.44 15.65 17.80 17.74 17.11 17.50 17.76

MnO 0.19 0.05 0.13 0.01 0.07 0.08 0.22 0.08 0.14

SO3 0.33 0.31 0.26 0.20 0.10 0.23 0.34 0.15 0.27

K2O 0.88 3.32 2.00 2.82 0.40 0.42 2.83 0.38 1.26

MgO 3.40 4.70 2.81 4.36 1.45 1.45 5.27 1.44 3.22

Fe2O3 0.49 0.32 0.84 0.29 0.48 0.05 0.28 0.43 0.48

SnO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00

Cl 0.81 0.89 0.54 0.64 1.09 1.11 0.58 1.20 0.83

As2O5 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.03

CoO 0.12 0.02 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.13 0.09

CaO 6.62 6.64 5.29 4.02 4.42 4.34 4.86 4.11 8.03

PbO 0.00 0.02 0.27 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01

Al2O3 2.23 1.34 1.51 0.73 2.18 2.17 2.01 2.11 2.51

NiO 0.13 0.06 0.12 0.02 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.13 0.10

Sb2O3 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

BaO 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01

SiO2 64.82 60.89 67.49 67.80 74.07 74.21 64.37 73.69 62.38

CuO 0.32 1.02 0.62 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.08

TiO2 0.12 0.06 0.10 0.06 0.11 0.08 0.05 0.14 0.12

Cr2O3 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01

P2O5 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.18 0.06 0.05 0.10 0.06 0.11

znO 0.09 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.15 0.15 0.06 0.27 0.01

Total 96.62 96.79 95.76 96.87 102.66 102.83 98.21 101.85 97.45

90


TABLE 4 (cont.)

Weight %Ela/20tr lb

Ela/21 tr db

Ela/22 tr db

Ela/23 tr cls

Ela/24 tr db

Ela/25 tr db

Ela/26 tr lb

Ela/28 tr lb

Ela/29 tr trq

Na2O 16.09 18.36 15.63 15.75 15.19 19.65 16.90 16.25 6.13

MnO 0.12 0.45 0.12 0.03 0.10 0.11 0.26 0.04 0.03

SO3 0.21 0.26 0.28 0.35 0.16 0.30 0.23 0.40 0.03

K2O 1.47 0.62 0.95 3.32 0.78 0.85 0.62 3.45 10.33

MgO 3.12 1.74 3.41 5.18 3.21 2.46 2.39 5.18 0.59

Fe2O3 0.51 0.47 0.52 0.31 0.55 0.49 0.71 0.40 0.39

SnO2 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.03

Cl 0.67 1.07 0.81 0.71 1.25 0.95 0.83 0.42 0.06

As2O5 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.01

CoO 0.07 0.04 0.11 0.02 0.05 0.12 0.14 0.02 0.00

CaO 8.92 5.34 7.12 7.68 8.45 5.05 7.41 4.59 1.34

PbO 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.03

Al2O3 2.64 2.55 1.27 0.83 2.09 2.15 2.28 0.84 1.49

NiO 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.18 0.01 0.00 0.08

Sb2O3 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.00

BaO 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02

SiO2 61.27 67.60 66.19 62.81 66.01 69.60 65.42 65.55 72.12

CuO 0.16 0.12 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.04 1.72 1.07 4.32

TiO2 0.10 0.09 0.12 0.04 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.02 0.03

Cr2O3 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.00

P2O5 0.13 0.03 0.09 0.15 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.18 0.12

znO 0.11 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.10

Total 95.74 99.00 96.88 97.24 98.25 102.32 99.51 98.69 97.25

91

Weight %Ela/30tr lb

Ela/31tr lb

Ela/32tr lb

Ela/34tr lb

Ela/35tr db

Ela/36tr trq

Ela/38tr trq

Ela/42tr db

Ela/43tr db

Na2O 5.74 18.82 18.82 16.88 17.55 15.43 14.65 5.65 18.07

MnO 0.04 0.14 0.14 0.39 0.16 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.17

SO3 0.11 0.26 0.29 0.27 0.20 0.19 0.28 0.02 0.22

K2O 9.89 1.35 1.37 0.89 1.19 0.79 1.86 10.21 0.93

MgO 0.90 2.93 2.93 3.51 2.18 1.37 3.75 0.84 2.15

Fe2O3 0.89 0.67 0.66 0.50 0.44 0.35 0.35 0.75 0.42

SnO2 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00

Cl 0.05 0.90 0.88 0.88 1.10 0.97 0.64 0.04 1.11

As2O5 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.09 0.35 0.02

CoO 0.16 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.18 0.10

CaO 2.03 4.66 4.59 6.89 6.52 6.80 6.41 1.89 6.19

PbO 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.02

Al2O3 1.86 2.19 2.15 2.27 2.07 1.11 1.60 1.88 2.02

NiO 0.30 0.03 0.08 0.09 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.32 0.01

Sb2O3 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 2.01 0.14 0.00

BaO 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.05

SiO2 73.17 69.02 68.89 65.62 67.94 68.57 63.75 73.53 69.48

CuO 0.87 0.18 0.15 0.46 0.13 2.79 1.73 0.49 0.18

TiO2 0.08 0.12 0.14 0.08 0.11 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.10

Cr2O3 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00

P2O5 0.16 0.14 0.11 0.14 0.10 0.06 0.10 0.15 0.15

znO 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.14 0.02 0.01 0.13 0.06 0.22

Total 96.38 101.66 101.31 99.25 99.86 98.72 97.52 96.64 101.60

TABLE 4 (cont.)

92


TABLE 4 (cont.)

Weight %Ela/44tr db

Ela/45tr db

Ela/46tr db

Ela/47tr db

Ela/48tr db

Ela/49tr db

Ela/50tr db

Ela/53tr trq

Ela/54tr db

Na2O 16.16 16.08 15.89 15.71 15.78 17.77 14.43 17.11 15.08

MnO 0.19 0.24 0.09 0.14 0.11 0.15 0.17 0.02 0.20

SO3 0.23 0.31 0.27 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.34 0.27 0.21

K2O 0.84 0.90 0.94 0.82 0.83 1.22 0.86 3.10 0.73

MgO 3.42 3.68 3.18 3.14 3.00 3.04 2.20 4.64 3.41

Fe2O3 0.49 0.49 0.47 0.46 0.43 0.92 0.38 0.34 0.85

SnO2 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cl 0.81 0.75 0.67 0.91 0.88 0.67 0.78 0.70 0.58

As2O5 0.00 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00

CoO 0.16 0.15 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.23 0.00 0.11

CaO 6.87 6.92 6.84 6.77 6.81 6.10 7.12 6.64 8.64

PbO 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.00

Al2O3 2.36 2.52 2.17 2.07 2.15 2.55 2.21 1.20 1.77

NiO 0.04 0.12 0.02 0.12 0.03 0.05 0.16 0.00 0.09

Sb2O3 0.03 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.13 0.06

BaO 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.04

SiO2 66.81 65.20 65.82 67.01 67.45 65.95 68.74 64.02 68.01

CuO 0.34 0.45 0.26 0.19 0.16 0.06 0.13 1.17 0.03

TiO2 0.09 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.16 0.06 0.05 0.11

Cr2O3 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00

P2O5 0.13 0.19 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.19 0.13 0.19 0.18

znO 0.11 0.21 0.03 0.01 0.18 0.13 0.23 0.00 0.00

Total 99.19 98.57 97.31 97.88 98.42 99.39 98.25 99.62 100.10

93

TABLE 4 (cont.)

Weight %Ela/55op trq

Ela/56tr db

Ela/58tr trq

Ela/60tr db

Ela/63tr db

Ela/66tr db

Ela/67tr db

Ela/68tr db

Ela/69tr db

Na2O 13.99 16.42 17.12 18.11 5.82 18.69 16.91 19.12 18.79

MnO 0.06 0.20 0.42 0.34 0.03 0.33 0.16 0.23 0.27

SO3 0.34 0.30 0.25 0.39 0.03 0.31 0.22 0.32 0.33

K2O 1.41 2.00 1.59 1.53 8.59 0.99 1.13 0.86 0.94

MgO 2.86 3.13 2.23 4.04 0.89 2.40 2.64 2.30 2.28

Fe2O3 0.58 0.87 1.44 0.56 1.28 0.86 0.55 0.76 0.79

SnO2 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.01

Cl 0.58 0.43 0.76 0.53 0.09 0.77 0.76 0.68 0.64

As2O5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CoO 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.18 0.10 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.05

CaO 6.10 6.52 7.87 7.23 2.39 5.91 5.49 5.27 5.38

PbO 0.05 0.14 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.04

Al2O3 1.52 1.96 2.14 2.18 2.85 2.60 1.86 2.21 2.36

NiO 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.09 0.24 0.04 0.10 0.09 0.05

Sb2O3 1.66 0.20 0.36 1.03 0.31 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.09

BaO 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00

SiO2 68.43 66.17 64.57 62.83 75.23 66.11 69.60 67.40 67.63

CuO 2.27 0.48 0.04 0.29 0.97 0.14 0.19 0.16 0.33

TiO2 0.05 0.11 0.15 0.08 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.13

Cr2O3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

P2O5 0.13 0.22 0.72 0.21 0.23 0.21 0.15 0.14 0.14

znO 0.02 0.08 0.01 0.33 0.00 0.06 0.17 0.13 0.12

Total 100.10 99.45 99.68 100.01 99.20 99.65 100.23 99.95 100.35

94


TABLE 4 (cont.)

Weight %Ela/70tr db

Ela/71tr db

Ela/72tr db

Ela/73tr db

Ela/74tr db

Ela/75tr db

Ela/77tr db

Ela/79tr db

Ela/80tr db

Na2O 18.80 18.95 6.10 5.87 5.74 5.80 5.83 5.97 5.75

MnO 0.22 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.01

SO3 0.34 0.31 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.00 0.10

K2O 0.87 0.96 8.57 9.05 9.23 8.79 8.66 11.53 8.67

MgO 2.34 2.22 0.87 0.89 0.90 0.88 0.87 0.54 0.86

Fe2O3 0.81 0.86 1.17 1.24 1.23 1.12 1.25 0.52 1.31

SnO2 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.15 0.00

Cl 0.70 0.61 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.04 0.09

As2O5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CoO 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.10 0.07 0.06 0.12 0.02 0.07

CaO 5.29 5.44 2.31 2.53 2.53 2.30 2.42 1.25 2.38

PbO 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00

Al2O3 2.28 2.40 2.83 2.77 2.79 2.77 2.76 1.64 2.87

NiO 0.04 0.08 0.18 0.23 0.24 0.21 0.23 0.00 0.28

Sb2O3 0.07 0.04 0.30 0.33 0.30 0.32 0.30 0.25 0.33

BaO 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00

SiO2 67.94 67.45 75.90 73.76 73.87 75.25 75.04 74.50 75.05

CuO 0.24 0.28 1.13 1.95 1.95 1.21 1.62 3.31 0.98

TiO2 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.13 0.10 0.13 0.12 0.05 0.13

Cr2O3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00

P2O5 0.16 0.17 0.24 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.23 0.13 0.26

znO 0.11 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.05

Total 100.47 100.38 99.91 99.22 99.35 99.30 99.69 99.90 99.18

95

TABLE 4 (cont.)

Weight %Ela/81tr db

Ela/82tr db

Ela/83tr db

Ela/84tr db

Ela/85tr db

Ela/86tr trq

Ela/87op wh

Ela/90tr db

Ela/91tr db

Na2O 5.90 5.88 6.62 5.64 5.89 7.77 10.10 20.23 18.40

MnO 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.23 0.13

SO3 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.37 0.36

K2O 9.41 9.47 9.31 9.24 8.46 8.39 6.01 1.04 1.39

MgO 0.93 1.05 0.63 0.98 0.86 0.70 1.10 2.36 2.96

Fe2O3 1.32 1.37 0.73 1.40 1.29 0.68 0.89 0.88 0.86

SnO2 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.43 0.00 0.01 0.00

Cl 0.07 0.06 0.01 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.60 0.64 0.60

As2O5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CoO 0.09 0.15 0.18 0.10 0.11 0.00 0.06 0.05 0.11

CaO 2.58 2.84 2.28 2.66 2.32 1.38 3.20 5.17 6.31

PbO 0.04 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.02

Al2O3 2.79 2.87 1.58 2.95 2.81 1.73 2.00 2.53 2.59

NiO 0.27 0.22 0.43 0.23 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.06

Sb2O3 0.31 0.28 0.43 0.38 0.30 0.17 0.16 0.10 0.07

BaO 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.04

SiO2 73.18 73.03 76.36 73.23 75.21 74.03 74.98 66.70 66.04

CuO 2.05 2.07 0.57 1.89 0.96 4.53 0.06 0.11 0.09

TiO2 0.14 0.12 0.05 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.09 0.16 0.15

Cr2O3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

P2O5 0.25 0.30 0.19 0.27 0.24 0.13 0.23 0.20 0.23

znO 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.20

Total 99.50 99.90 99.54 99.31 99.02 100.17 99.56 100.94 100.62

96


TABLE 4 (cont.)

Weight %Ela/92tr lb

Ela/93tr lb

Ela/94tr db

Ela/95tr db

Ela/96tr db

Ela/97tr db

Ela/98tr db

Ela/99tr db

Ela/100tr trq

Ela/101tr cls

Na2O 20.13 17.73 18.27 18.21 18.09 18.62 20.13 17.53 14.64 16.10

MnO 0.23 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.13 0.14 0.30 0.09 0.05 0.07

SO3 0.40 0.34 0.60 0.67 0.28 0.27 0.36 0.36 0.32 0.34

K2O 0.83 1.70 1.59 1.51 1.43 1.21 1.00 0.86 2.81 3.09

MgO 2.29 3.06 2.65 2.67 3.10 3.00 2.41 2.41 5.49 5.06

Fe2O3 0.94 1.18 0.60 0.56 1.06 0.83 0.85 0.61 0.35 0.49

SnO2 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00

Cl 0.73 0.55 0.21 0.19 0.61 0.74 0.71 0.57 0.45 0.48

As2O5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CoO 0.06 0.07 0.19 0.21 0.09 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.00

CaO 5.24 7.14 3.70 4.04 6.85 6.04 5.50 5.75 4.51 5.69

PbO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00

Al2O3 2.52 3.20 2.12 2.09 2.76 2.34 2.48 1.20 0.54 0.94

NiO 0.07 0.08 0.14 0.10 0.04 0.00 0.05 0.08 0.00 0.01

Sb2O3 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.39 0.05 0.03 0.13 0.07 0.08 0.05

BaO 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.05 0.01

SiO2 66.45 64.60 69.36 68.86 64.82 66.13 66.11 70.16 69.19 67.42

CuO 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.14 1.39 0.06

TiO2 0.16 0.15 0.04 0.06 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.09 0.03 0.06

Cr2O3 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

P2O5 0.16 0.29 0.17 0.17 0.29 0.23 0.18 0.16 0.20 0.19

znO 0.12 0.06 0.19 0.18 0.13 0.14 0.10 0.07 0.06 0.00

Total 100.50 100.47 100.22 100.22 99.97 99.99 100.66 100.22 100.27 100.06

97

TABLE 5

“Frit” Analyses from the house of Kadmos in Thebes

Weight %The/105

dblThe/117

trqThe/130

dbl

Na2O 4.47 11.49 3.11

MnO 0.37 0.29 0.13

SO3 0.10 0.28 0.14

K2O 6.67 1.94 2.57

MgO 6.31 2.85 7.70

Fe2O3 1.41 1.27 5.71

SnO2 0.01 0.00 0.01

Cl 0.20 0.29 0.01

As2O5 0.00 0.00 0.00

CoO 0.58 0.21 0.03

CaO 7.25 0.94 13.73

PbO 0.15 0.00 0.04

Al2O3 6.19 2.57 2.94

NiO 0.73 0.19 0.03

Sb2O3 0.24 0.02 0.02

BaO 0.03 0.00 0.02

SiO2 64.05 77.61 61.18

CuO 0.17 0.21 0.00

TiO2 0.12 0.09 0.14

Cr2O3 0.00 0.00 0.00

P2O5 0.20 0.12 2.14

znO 0.05 0.08 0.00

Total 99.30 100.45 99.65

98

All Thebes and Elateia glasses

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78

Weight % SiO2

Wei

ght %

Na 2

O

ThebesElateia

TABLE 6

Summarized Data for Major Components of Thebes Glasses and Some Associated Impurities (n=8)

Weight % Minimum Maximum MeanStandardDeviation

SiO2 63.14 69.65 68.32 2.13

Na2O 15.73 17.64 17.07 0.62

CaO 5.15 7.89 5.82 1.11

K2O 0.53 1.41 0.81 0.31

MgO 2.18 3.85 2.59 0.63

Fe2O3 0.51 0.71 0.61 0.07

Al2O3 1.30 2.67 1.93 0.37

FIG. 8. Soda versus silica in all of the glasses from Thebes and Elateia, by weight percent.

Thebes

Elateia

99


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Weight % MgO

Wei

ght %

K2O

ElateiaThebes

L M H K group

H M G group

Group with low potassium


0

5

10

15

20

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Weight % CaO

Weight%

Na 2O

ThebesElateia

Thebes

Elateia

FIG. 9. Soda versus calcium oxide in all of the glasses from Thebes and Elateia, by weight percent. The different contents of soda and calcium oxide plot in different areas, forming two major groups.

Thebes

Elateia

FIG. 10. Potassium oxide versus magnesium oxide for all of the glasses from Thebes and Elateia, by weight percent. Two major compositional types are shown: (a) the HMG plantash group, and (b) the LMHK mixedalkali group. In the HMG group, a set of five glasses is characterized by much lower potassium and lower magnesium oxide.

100

Eight samples from Elateia are a rich shade of translucent turquoise. These glasses were col-ored by cupric oxide averaging 1.47%, with the highest level of 2.79% (Table 11). A single sam-ple of translucent purple glass (Ela/17) was col-ored by 0.22% manganese. Three transparent colorless glasses (Ela/13, 23, and 101) are com-positionally similar. Neither manganese nor an-timony oxide was detected in an amount that could be described as a deliberate addition. Iron is found at relatively low levels (0.29%–0.31%) in the first two samples, and it rises to 0.48% in

TABLE 7

Summarized Data for Thebes Cobalt Blue Glasses and Some Associated Impurities (n=6)


CoO 0.13 0.16 0.15 0.01

CuO 0.02 0.09 0.06 0.02

Al2O3 1.82 2.02 1.92 0.08

MnO 0.15 0.29 0.21 0.05

NiO 0.07 0.16 0.11 0.04

As2O5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

znO 0.05 0.17 0.09 0.04

SO3 0.19 0.28 0.23 0.03

Weight % Minimum Maximum MeanStandard Deviation

SiO2 60.89 74.21 66.77 2.69

Na2O 13.44 20.23 17.12 1.55

CaO 3.70 8.92 6.09 1.18

K2O 0.18 3.45 1.35 0.80

MgO 1.37 5.49 3.05 1.02

Fe2O3 0.05 1.44 0.59 0.25

Al2O3 0.54 3.20 2.02 0.56

TABLE 8

Summarized Data for Major Components of Elateia hMG Glasses and Some Associated Impurities (n=63)

the third sample. Alumina levels are also low (0.73% and 0.83% in the first two samples, and 0.94% in the third sample). The only opaque bead analyzed (Ela/55) is turquoise, which is due to 2.27% cupric oxide and a calcium antimo-nate opacifier.

Eighteen mixed-alkali glasses were found among the Elateia samples. They have high levels of potassium oxide (6.01%–11.53%) and some-what lower soda contents (5.64%–10.10%). Magnesium oxide is very low (0.54%–1.10%) (Table 12). high levels of silica (72.12%–

101

alkali glasses. Ferric oxide is also higher (0.73%–1.40%) than was detected in the other mixed-alkali glasses. The single pale blue example (Ela/30) analyzed was found to have been col-ored by 0.06% cobalt oxide and 0.87% cupric oxide. Iron and alumina were at lower levels than in the group of dark blue glasses with con-tents of 0.89% and 1.86% respectively. Three examples of rich translucent turquoise mixed-alkali glasses (Ela/29, 79, and 86) were analyzed. Their main colorant was cupric oxide at levels

76.36%) result, in some cases, from silica crys-tals. Levels of calcium oxide are very low (1.25%–3.20%). The highest level, in the opaque white glass (Ela/87), is due to the formation of calcium antimonate crystals. Thirteen mixed-alkali glasses were colored by cobalt oxide (0.065%–0.18%); associated impurities are giv-en in Table 13. Arsenic was detected only in Ela/42 at a high level (0.35%). Noteworthy is the elevated alumina in these glasses (it averages 2.66%) in comparison with the other mixed-

TABLE 9

Summarized Data for Elateia hMG Cobalt Blue Glasses and Some Associated Impurities (n=35)

TABLE 10

Summarized Data for Elateia hMG Translucent Light Blue Glasses and Some Associated Impurities (n=15)


CoO 0.04 0.23 0.10 0.05

CuO 0.00 0.62 0.16 0.14

MnO 0.07 0.34 0.17 0.07

Al2O3 1.20 2.76 2.17 0.35

NiO 0.00 0.18 0.07 0.04

As2O5 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.02

znO 0.00 0.33 0.12 0.08

SO3 0.10 0.67 0.29 0.11


CoO 0.02 0.14 0.06 0.04

CuO 0.06 1.72 0.34 0.46

Al2O3 0.84 3.20 2.32 0.50

MnO 0.04 0.45 0.18 0.11

NiO 0.00 0.13 0.05 0.04

As2O5 0.00 0.08 0.03 0.03

znO 0.00 0.14 0.08 0.05

SO3 0.20 0.40 0.28 0.06

102

ranging from 3.31% to 4.53%. Ferric oxide in these glasses is low (0.39%–0.68%). Alumina is also much lower (it averages 1.62%) than in the dark blue cobalt glasses. A single white sam-ple (Ela/87) was opacified with calcium antimo-nate crystals.

The glass matrix of three “frit” beads from the house of Kadmos (Table 5) was analyzed. In The/105, silica was detected at 64.05%. Oddly enough, the dominant alkali is potassium oxide (6.67%), while soda is lower (4.47%). Magne-sium oxide, which is associated with the high po-tassium oxide, is also irregularly high (6.31%).

The calcium oxide level is 7.25%. The dark blue color is due to the presence of cobalt oxide at a level of 0.58%. This sample contains an un-usually high alumina level (6.19%). Impurities in the cobalt-rich mineral used are oxides of manganese (0.37%), nickel (0.73%), and zinc (0.05%). This unusual composition, including a very high level of cobalt, suggests that this sample may have been the product of a frit-mak-ing stage before glass manufacture, with partly and incompletely reacted raw materials.

The glass matrix of the light blue frit bead (The/117) consists of 77.61% silica, 11.49%

TABLE 11

Summarized Data for Elateia hMG Translucent Turquoise Glasses and Some Associated Impurities (n=8)

TABLE 12

Summarized Data for Major Components of Elateia Mixed-Alkali Glasses and Some Associated Impurities (n=18)


CoO 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.02

CuO 0.04 2.79 1.47 0.92

Al2O3 0.54 2.14 1.33 0.46

MnO 0.01 0.42 0.09 0.14

NiO 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.03

As2O5 0.00 0.09 0.03 0.04

znO 0.00 0.13 0.06 0.05

SO3 0.15 0.32 0.26 0.06


SiO2 72.12 76.36 74.30 1.14

Na2O 5.64 10.10 6.23 1.08

CaO 6.01 11.53 9.10 0.52

K2O 1.25 3.20 2.26 1.11

MgO 0.54 1.10 0.85 0.15

Fe2O3 0.39 1.40 1.05 0.32

Al2O3 1.49 2.95 2.40 0.56

103


CoO 0.06 0.18 0.11 0.04

CuO 0.49 2.07 1.37 0.57

Fe2O3 0.73 1.40 1.19 0.21

Al2O3 1.58 2.95 2.66 0.42

MnO 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.01

NiO 0.18 0.43 0.26 0.06

As2O5 0.00 0.35 0.03 0.10

znO 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.03

SO3 0.02 0.10 0.05 0.03

soda, 1.94% potassium oxide, and 2.85% mag-nesia (Table 5). It was colored by a combination of cobalt oxide (0.21%) and cupric ox-ide (0.21%). The levels of alumina (2.57%), manganese (0.29%), nickel (0.19%), and zinc (0.08%) are reminiscent of those found in the cobalt blue glasses (The/129 and 133–137). An-other unusual frit composition is the malformed bead The/130, which has 68.79% silica, 3.11% soda, 2.57% potassium oxide, and 7.7% mag-nesia. Its elevated calcium oxide level (13.73%) is very unusual, and the presence of 2.18% phosphorus pentoxide in the frit suggests that ground-up bone was added. The dark blue/black color of this piece can be explained by a high level of iron (5.71%). We are unable to find a comparable analysis of frit.

DISCUSSION

Raw Materials: Technological and Geographical Considerations

Silica

Two major groups of glasses can be distin-guished on the basis of their ferric oxide and sil-ica levels, which may indicate the use of differ-

ent silica sources (Fig. 11). In the majority of plant-ash glasses from Thebes and Elateia, sili-ca falls below 69.96%, with iron below 0.94%. LMhK glasses have higher silica levels (above 72.12%), and they divide into two groups ac-cording to their levels of iron. In seven LMhK glasses, the amount of iron is less than 1%, as is also found in most of the plant-ash glasses. The second (tight) cluster is characterized by the highest iron levels of all of the glasses. These are cobalt-colored glasses, which show that, in glasses containing more than 0.4%, some iron was introduced with the cobalt. All but one of the turquoise, purple, and colorless glasses from Elateia contain less than 0.4% ferric oxide. The non-blue (and probably the blue) glasses were therefore made with a relatively pure silica source (in terms of the iron impurity). The iron and aluminum oxide levels are positively cor-related in the glasses. Two parallel correlation lines can be distinguished, one mainly for blue glasses that contain more than about 1.7% alu-mina and the other mainly for non-blue glasses with less than about 1.7% alumina (Fig. 12). Two cobalt blue LMhK glasses are composition-ally similar to three Elateia hMG cobalt blue glasses, which have lower alumina contents than the other cobalt blue glasses. It is also notable

TABLE 13

Summarized Data for Elateia Mixed-Alkali Dark Blue Glasses and Some Associated Impurities (n=13)

104

that one purple and two turquoise plant-ash glasses, as well as one opaque white LMhK glass, contain high alumina levels similar to those found in the cobalt-rich glasses, so it is clearly unwarranted to assume that elevated al-umina levels are always connected with the use of a cobalt colorant in these glasses. These lev-els are more likely due to a higher alumina im-purity in the silica used. The relatively pure sil-ica employed in the manufacture of glasses from Thebes and Elateia55 would have been ei-

ther quartzite sand or specially selected crushed quartzite pebbles.

Elevated alumina levels in Egyptian glasses from Amarna,56 Malkata,57 and Lisht58 are prin-cipally based on the use of a cobalt-rich color-ant. Figure 13 shows that most of the glasses from Elateia and Thebes have silica levels above about 65% and that Elateia blue glasses contain-ing above about 2% alumina form a group that is relatively distinct from Egyptian blue glasses (cf. Fig. 25). Mesopotamian non-blue glasses

FIG. 11. Ferric oxide versus silica for all of the glasses from Thebes and Elateia, by weight percent.


0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2

1,4

1,6

60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78

Weight % SiO2

Wei

ght %

Fe 2

O3

Thebes HMG dark blueThebes HMG turquoiseElateia HMG dark blueElateia HMG light blueElateia HMG turquoiseElateia HMG opaque turquoiseElateia HMG purpleElateia HMG colourlessElateia LMHK dark blueElateia LMHK light blueElateia LMHK turquoiseElateia LMHK opaque white

Thebes hMG dark blue

Thebes hMG turquoise

Elateia hMG dark blue

Elateia hMG light blue

Elateia hMG turquoise

Elateia hMG opaque turquoise

Elateia hMG purple

Elateia hMG colorless

Elateia LMhK dark blue

Elateia LMhK light blue

Elateia LMhK turquoise

Elateia LMhK opaque white

55. W. E. S. Turner, “Studies in Ancient Glasses and Glass-making Processes. Part V. Raw Materials and Melting Process-es,” Journal of the Society of Glass Technology, v. 40, 1956, pp. 277T–300T, esp. pp. 281T–282T; Julian henderson, “The Raw Materials of Early Glass Production,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology, v. 4, no. 3, 1985, pp. 267–291, esp. p. 270; idem, The Science and Archaeology of Materials [note 13], pp. 26–27; A. J. Shortland, Vitreous Materials at Amarna: The Production of Glass and Faience in 18th Dynasty Egypt, British Archaeologi-cal Reports International Series 827, Oxford: Archaeopress, 2000, pp. 44–45, table 5-1.

56. Brill, Chemical Analyses [note 36], v. 2, p. 29, nos. 1515, 3350, and 3357–3364; henderson, “Chemical Analysis of An-

cient Egyptian Glass” [note 13], p. 215, table 8Ib; Shortland [note 55], p. 17, table 3-2.

57. Brill, Chemical Analyses [note 36], v. 2, p. 31, nos. 3900 and 3901; J. L. Mass, M. T. Wypyski, and R. E. Stone, “Mal-kata and Lisht Glassmaking Technologies: Towards a Specific Link between Second Millennium BC Metallurgists and Glass-makers,” Archaeometry, v. 44, no. 1, 2003, pp. 67–82, esp. p. 72, table 1, and p. 74, table 2.

58. Brill, Chemical Analyses [note 36], v. 2, p. 32, nos. 3940 and 3941; Mass, Wypyski, and Stone [note 57], p. 74, table 5, no. 11.151.352.

105


0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6

Weight % Fe2O3

Wei

ght %

Al 2O

3

Thebes HMG dark blueThebes HMG turquoiseElateia HMG dark blueElateia HMG light blueElateia HMG turquoiseElateia HMG purple Elateia HMG colourlessElateia opaque turquoiseElateia LMHK dark blueElateia LMHK light blueElateia LMHK turquoiseElateia LMHK opaque white

Thebes hMG dark blue

Thebes hMG turquoise

Elateia hMG dark blue

Elateia hMG light blue

Elateia hMG turquoise

Elateia hMG purple

Elateia hMG colorless

Elateia opaque turquoise

Elateia LMhK dark blue

Elateia LMhK light blue

Elateia LMhK turquoise

Elateia LMhK opaque white

FIG. 12. Alumina versus ferric oxide for all of the glasses from Thebes and Elateia, by weight percent. The lightercolored glasses generally have lower levels of alumina and iron, while the cobalt and cobaltrich HMG plantash glasses plot at areas with higher contents of alumina and iron. A quite distinct group of LMHK cobalt glasses is characterized by the highest values of both alumina and iron.

FIG. 13. Alumina versus silica for all of the HMG plantash glasses from Thebes and Elateia, by weight percent, compared with other contemporaneous Mycenaean, Egyptian, and Mesopotamian glasses, as well as the Ulu Burun glass ingots. The higher silica levels appear to be part of a Mesopotamian/Mycenaean recipe.

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

55 60 65 70 75 80

Weight % SiO2

Wei

ght %

Al2

O3

ThebesElateiaOther MycenaeanAmarnaMalkataLishtUlu BurunNuziTell Brak

Wei

ght %

Al 2O

3

Weight % SiO2

106

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

60 65 70 75 80 85

Weight % SiO2

Wei

ght %

Fe 2

O3 Elateia

ThasosFrattesinaPrato di FrabulinoPoviglio

from Nuzi59 and Tell Brak60 contain higher silica levels comparable to those found in glasses from Thebes and Elateia, and they have much lower levels of alumina (mostly below 1%). Six ingots from Ulu Burun61 are part of a cluster with the Theban and Elateia blue glasses (Fig. 13). The higher silica levels appear to derive from a Mes-opotamian/Mycenaean recipe, and it is there-fore possible that the 12 “Egyptian” glasses with silica levels above 65% were originally of Meso-potamian provenance.

In 10 of the Elateia LMhK glasses (Fig. 14), the elevated values of ferric oxide are quite strik-ing when compared with the iron contents of glasses and glassy faience from Thasos in the northern Aegean62 and the Italian sites of Fratte-sina,63 Prato di Frabulino,64 and Poviglio.65 Their silica and elevated alumina levels (with a mean value of 2.66% for Elateia) fall within the same range: the high ferric oxide contents in the Ela-teia LMhK glasses (the average is 1.19%) are all associated with the presence of cobalt (see be-low).

59. Pamela Vandiver, “Mid-Second Millennium B.C. Soda-Lime-Silicate Technology at Nuzi (Iraq),” in Early Pyrotechnology: The Evolution of the First FireUsing Industries, ed. Theodore A. Wertime and Steven F. Wertime, Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1982, pp. 73–79, esp. p. 84, ta-ble 3; idem, “Glass Technology at the Mid-Second-Millennium B.C. hurrian Site of Nuzi,” Journal of Glass Studies, v. 25, 1983, pp. 239–247, esp. p. 243, table 1, M79/1 and 30-2-7-1; Brill, Chemical Analyses [note 36], v. 2, p. 40, nos. 1209, 1210, 1214, 1216, 1217, and 1219–1221a.

60. Julian henderson, “Scientific Analysis of Glass and Glaze from Tell Brak and Its Archaeological Significance,” in David Oates, Joan Oates, and helen McDonald, Excavations at Tell Brak, v. 1, The Mitanni and Old Babylonian Periods, Cam-

FIG. 14. Ferric oxide versus silica for all of the LMHK glasses from Elateia, by weight percent, compared with glasses and glassy faience from Thasos in the northern Aegean and from Italian sites. The high ferric oxide contents in the Elateia glasses are associated with the presence of cobalt.

bridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Uni-versity of Cambridge, and British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1998, pp. 94–100, esp. p. 96, table 6b, nos. Br4, Br7–Br10, and Br12; Brill, Chemical Analyses [note 36], v. 2, p. 39, nos. 1230–1232 and 1235.

61. Brill, Chemical Analyses [note 36], v. 2, p. 53, nos. 5950, 5951, 5954–5957, 5961–5982, and 5995, and p. 57, nos. 5963, 5964, and 5969.

62. henderson [note 37], p. 805, table 1, nos. 2–4.63. Brill, Chemical Analyses [note 36], v. 2, p. 58, nos. 3410

and 3414; Santopadre and Verità [note 15], p. 31, table 1, F1–F8; Towle and others [note 15], pp. 27–30, nos. 1–27 and table.

64. Santopadre and Verità [note 15], p. 30, table 1, A1–A4.65. Ibid., p. 30, table 1, P1 and P2.

107

Alkalis

Figure 8 clearly shows the distinctive differ-ence in soda levels between the mixed-alkali LMhK glasses (about 6%–10%) and the plant-ash glasses (about 14%–20%). Potassium and magnesia are impurities associated with glass al-kalis. A plot of potassium oxide versus magne-sium oxide contents for all of the glasses from Thebes and Elateia (Fig. 10) shows that, in most of the plant-ash glasses, the levels of magnesium oxide fall between 2.15% and 4.04%, while the potassium oxide contents are below 2%. With-in the main cluster of the plant-ash glasses, a tighter group can be recognized, with between 2.15% and 2.43% magnesium oxide and 0.53% and 1% potassium oxide, all of which are blue. Another set of nine hMG glasses contains high-er magnesia (4.36%–5.49%) with associated higher potassium oxide levels, and all of these are non-blue glasses. The quite distinct group of LMhK glasses does not show the composition-al variation seen in the hMG glasses.

Ashes of maritime or semi-desert plants were used to make plant-ash glasses. Salsola soda, Salsola kali, Salsola vermiculata, Salicornia fruticosa, Salicornia europaea, and other species of halophytes are known to grow in the Aegean.66 These and other species also grow in the broad-er area of the eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East.67 In the Aegean, Salsola kali is used in the textile industry as a source of alkali for

degreasing fresh or dried wool.68 It grows abun-dantly in Crete. Seaside vegetation is sparse in Boeotia, although S. kali is found in Anthedon.69 There is an elevated potassium oxide content of 6.67% and a low soda level of 4.47% in the frit bead The/105 (Na2O/K2O = 0.67). This resem-bles the much earlier blue frit bead from the Vat Room Deposit at the Palace of Knossos (19th century B.C.), for which it has been suggested that a plant ash relatively rich in potassium and showing a compositional similarity with S. kali ash from western Crete was used in its produc-tion and for the production of Minoan faience.70 The composition of the plant ash would depend, in part, on the bedrock geology.71

A plot of potassium oxide versus magnesia in glasses from Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Ulu Bu-run shipwreck, Thebes, and Elateia shows that Tell Brak and Nuzi glasses are much richer in potassium oxide, with less soda than Egyptian glass. Of particular significance is the fact that the majority of cobalt blue glasses from Thebes and Elateia have lower potassium and magne-sium oxide contents than are found in Mesopo-tamian examples, and lower magnesia than in Egyptian glasses (Figs. 15 and 16). The relative-ly low amounts of potassium may argue against the use of plant ash.72 however, the low potas-sium could have resulted from a plant ash with a different ratio of potassium to magnesium, or from a two-batch plant-ash recipe.73 Therefore, although the Egyptian and Mycenaean cobalt

66. Karl-heinz Rechinger, Flora Aegaea, flora der inseln und halbinseln des Ägäischen meeres, Vienna: Springer Verlag, 1943, repr. Koenigstein: Otto Koeltz Antiquariat, 1973, pp. 123–124.

67. Eliyahu Ashtor and Guidobaldo Cevidally, “Levantine Alkali Ashes and European Industries,” Journal of European Economic History, v. 12, 1983, pp. 452–522; Youssef Barkou-dah and Julian henderson, “Plant Ashes from Syria and the Manufacture of Ancient Glass: Ethnographic and Scientific As-pects,” Journal of Glass Studies, v. 48, 2006, pp. 297–321.

68. Oliver Rackham, “The Vegetation of the Myrtos Re-gion,” in Myrtos: An Early Bronze Age Settlement in Crete, ed. Peter M. Warren, The Annual of the British School at Athens Supplement 7, London: Thames and hudson, 1972, pp. 283–298, esp. p. 297; Richard Doniert George Evely, Minoan Crafts: Tools and Techniques. An Introduction, v. 2, Studies in Medi-terranean Archaeology, v. 92, no. 2, Jonsered: Åströms, 2000, p. 488 (soapwort).

69. Oliver Rackham, “Observations on the historical Ecol-ogy of Boeotia,” Annual of the British School at Athens, v. 78, 1983, pp. 291–351, esp. p. 316.

70. Tite and others [note 27], p. 11.71. Barkoudah and henderson [note 67].72. henderson [note 60], pp. 96 and 99–100, table 6b, Br15

and Br16; Shortland [note 55], p. 45.73. Christine Lilyquist and Robert h. Brill, Studies in Early

Egyptian Glass, New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1993, repr. 1995, pp. 42–43 and n. 94, and p. 57, figs. 52–54; Thilo Rehren, “Aspects of the Production of Cobalt-Blue Glass in Egypt,” Archaeometry, v. 43, no. 4, 2001, pp. 483–489, esp. pp. 486–487; Mike S. Tite and Andrew J. Shortland, “Produc-tion Technology for Copper- and Cobalt-Blue Vitreous Materi-als from the New Kingdom Site of Amarna: A Reappraisal,” Archaeometry, v. 45, no. 2, 2003, pp. 285–312.

108

FIG. 16. Potassium oxide versus magnesia in HMG plantash glasses from Thebes and Elateia, by weight percent. The plot shows that Mycenaean glasses generally have less potassium and magnesium oxide than are found in Mesopotamian glasses, and lower magnesia levels than are found in most Egyptian glasses, which demonstrates that plant ashes with different chemical compositions were used to make them.

FIG. 15. Soda versus calcium oxide in HMG plantash glasses from Thebes and Elateia, by weight percent. The Mycenaean glasses have a different sodatocalcium oxide ratio from contemporaneous Egyptian glasses and many of the glass ingots from the Ulu Burun shipwreck.

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Weight % MgO

Wei

ght %

K2O

ThebesElateiaOther MycenaeanAmarnaMalkataLishtTell BrakNuziUlu Burun

Wei

ght %

K2O

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Weight % CaO

Wei

ght %

Na2

O

ThebesElateiaOther MyceneanUlu BurunAmarnaMalkataLishtTell BrakNuzi

Wei

ght %

Na 2O

Weight % CaO

Other Mycaenean

109

blue glasses have similarly low potassium levels (below 2%), the Egyptian glasses contain higher magnesia levels. This suggests that plant ashes with different chemical compositions were used to make Mycenaean and Egyptian plant-ash glasses. A number of factors may have produced this compositional variation, including the plant species used, the season it was harvested, the local geology in which the plant was growing, the way it was ashed, and any purification, frit-ting, and mixing of the plant-ash species. It is interesting that nine Elateia glass analyses are compositionally distinct from the rest of the My-cenaean examples, due mainly to their relatively high contents of potassium and magnesium ox-ides (Fig. 16). These glasses, which are turquoise, colorless, and purple annular and spherical beads, fall within the plotted data for Nuzi glasses (Fig. 16). The compositional similarities sug-gest either the importation to Greece as finished objects or the remelting of imported ready-made glass from Mesopotamia.

The alkali used for the LMhK glasses is dis-tinctly different. Brill has suggested that the

glassmaking flux was not a plant ash at all, but rather some form of manurial soil or efflores-cent salts from latrines that were rich in saltpe-ter (KNO3) and salts such as niter (NaNO3).

74 The hypothesized use of plant ashes is ques-tionable because of the lack of plants whose ashes contain small amounts of calcium car-bonate, chlorine, and phosphorus pentoxide.75 On the basis of their relative calcium oxide and phosphorus pentoxide contents, Elateia LMhK glasses plot mainly in areas that are distinctly different from those for the Thasian and Italian vitreous materials (Figs. 17 and 18). The pres-ence of phosphorus pentoxide in glass can be of discriminative value in the hypothesized use of plant ashes.76

FIG. 17. Calcium oxide versus potassium oxide for all of the LMHK glasses from Elateia, by weight percent, compared with glasses and glassy faience from Thasos in the northern Aegean and from Italian sites.

74. Brill [note 16], esp. pp. 17–18.75. Santopadre and Verità [note 15], p. 30.76. henderson, “The Raw Materials of Early Glass Produc-

tion” [note 55], p. 274.

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19

Weight % K2O

Wei

ght %

CaO

ElateiaFrattesinaThasosPrato di FrabulinoPoviglio

Wei

ght %

CaO

Weight % K2O

110

Calcium Oxide

The plant-ash and LMhK glasses form two major groups according to their calcium oxide levels (Fig. 9). Calcium oxide in plant-ash glass-es from Thebes and Elateia ranges from 3.70% to 8.92%, while the LMhK glasses show char-acteristically low levels (about 3%). The unifor-mity in the levels of calcium oxide within each compositional type is normally explained by its presence in plant ashes or in sands and not by a deliberate addition of lime (Figs. 9, 15, and 17).77 If sand was the source in LMhK glasses, then it must have contained relatively few shell frag-ments in comparison with the levels introducing calcium oxide in natron glasses.

Cobalt Blue Colorants

Cobalt was clearly one of the most satisfac-tory colorants, as is demonstrated by its contin-

ued use since prehistoric times.78 Although co-balt minerals are not abundant in nature, they have a fairly wide distribution on every conti-nent, and they are invariably associated with small amounts of other metals and trace ele-ments, such as copper, nickel, iron, arsenic, sul-fur, and silver.79 All of the cobalt-rich glasses analyzed are characterized by high alumina lev-els. The plant-ash glasses have weakly correlat-ed levels of manganese and alumina (Fig. 19),

77. Robert h. Brill, “The Chemical Interpretation of the Texts,” in Glass and Glassmaking [note 3], pp. 105–128, esp. p. 109; henderson, The Science and Archaeology of Materials [note 13], pp. 28–29; Santopadre and Verità [note 15], pp. 30–31.

78. Woldemar Anatol Weyl, Coloured Glasses, Sheffield: So-ciety of Glass Technology, 1951, repr. 1992, pp. 170 and 176–177.

79. R. W. Andrews, Cobalt, Overseas Geological Survey, London: h. M. Stationery Off., 1962, pp. 1–5, 32, 33, and 58; henderson [note 55], pp. 279–280; idem, The Science and Archaeology of Materials [note 13], pp. 30–32.

FIG. 18. Phosphorus pentoxide versus potassium oxide for all of the LMHK glasses from Elateia, Thasos, and Italian sites, by weight percent. Eleven of the Elateia glasses contain distinctively high levels of phosphorus pentoxide.

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3

0,35

5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19

Weight % K2O

Wei

ght %

P2O

5 ElateiaFrattesinaThasosPrato di FrabulinoPoviglioW

eigh

t % P

2O5

Weight % K2O

111

and most of them have at least 1.5% alumina. The LMhK cobalt glasses are of two types. The larger of these groups has higher alumina levels (2.76%–2.95%), with manganese oxide levels below 0.05%. Two other cobalt blue LMhK glasses contain alumina levels of 1.58% and 1.88%. Different types of cobalt-rich colorants can be distinguished by the nickel levels present (Figs. 19 and 20).

Three types of cobalt colorants can be recog-nized in blue plant-ash glass from Thebes: (1) the six dark blue glasses from the house of Kad-mos are arsenic-free in the presence of high man-ganese, low nickel, and high zinc oxides; (2) the calf plaque from the Arsenal is arsenic-free in the presence of elevated manganese, nickel, and zinc; and (3) the blue argonaut plaque from Pe-lopidou Street is also arsenic-free, with consider-ably lower manganese; nickel and zinc were not detected. Two sources of cobalt can be identi-fied in Elateia blue plant-ash glasses. For most of them, the cobalt source can be characterized

by high manganese, low nickel, high zinc oxide, and high arsenic contents. The rest contain sim-ilar levels of manganese, nickel, and zinc, but they are arsenic-free. In addition, the cobalt-con-taining plant-ash glass from the house of Kad-mos and most of the glasses from Elateia have considerably lower levels of total alkalis than the Egyptian cobalt blue examples (Figs. 21 and 22). Moreover, most of the glasses from Thebes and Elateia contain higher levels of alumina but low-er magnesia contents. Five of the Ulu Burun in-gots form a small compositional group, which is slightly different from the house of Kadmos glasses in magnesia levels, but they are similar in alumina contents (about 1.86%). Six other Mycenaean cobalt blue glasses seem to be closer to the Egyptian examples with respect to their alumina and magnesia levels (Fig. 23). The lev-els of zinc in the six cobalt blue glasses from the house of Kadmos are comparable to those in the cobalt blue Ulu Burun ingots (averaging 0.09%), lending additional support to the sug-

FIG. 19. Manganese oxide versus alumina for all of the cobaltcontaining glasses from Thebes and Elateia, by weight percent. The plot shows that different cobalt sources are associated with the distinct groups of plantash and LMHK glasses.

All Thebes and Elateia cobalt-blue glasses

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3

0,35

0,4

0,45

0,5

0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5

Weight % Al2O3

Wei

ght %

MnO

Thebes HMG dark blueThebes HMG turquoiseElateia HMG dark blueElateia HMG light blueElateia LMHK dark blueElateia LMHK light blue

112

gestion that the same cobalt source was em-ployed to color them.

As mentioned above, there has been much dis-cussion about the low potassium oxide levels de-tected in Amarna cobalt blue glasses and their possible connection with the use of natron as the alkali source.80 It has also been suggested that the cobalt-rich colorant could have been added to the glass after it was precipitated from a solu-tion of the alum as a complex cobalt-aluminum hydroxide, which may explain the high alumina concentrations.81 The addition of natron may have facilitated the precipitation of cobalt hy-droxide.82 An excess of alumina in the frit bead The/105 from the house of Kadmos may have been associated with this process. The use of alum as a mordant for the precipitation of the color during dyeing or tanning was well known in the Knossian textile and leather industries, and it is also referred to as turupute [rija] (that is, of alum) in the Linear B tablets at Knossos.83 An excess of alumina in the frit bead The/105 from the house of Kadmos (at 6.19%) may have been associated with this process, but the ele-

vated potassium oxide (6.67%) and magnesia (6.31%) levels do not fit this hypothesis. A num-ber of technical issues about the hypothesized addition of natron to the alum are problemati-cal, and they remain unresolved. Moreover, it is now generally accepted that lower potassium ox-ide levels in plant-ash glasses are more likely to have been caused by the use of a plant ash with lower potassium levels.

There is little evidence for the production of cobalt blue glass in Mesopotamia,84 although

FIG. 20. Nickel oxide versus manganese oxide for all of the cobaltcontaining glasses from Thebes and Elateia, by weight percent.

80. Andrew J. Shortland and Mike S. Tite, “Raw Materials of Glass from Amarna and Implications for the Origins of Egyptian Glass,” Archaeometry, v. 42, no. 1, 2000, pp. 141–151, esp. pp. 145–147, fig. 1; Shortland [note 55], p. 45; Tite and Shortland [note 73].

81. Rehren [note 73], p. 486. 82. Tite and Shortland [note 73], pp. 301–302. 83. Evely [note 68], pp. 492, 522, and 575. 84. harry Garner, “An Early Piece of Glass from Eridu,”

Iraq, v. 18, 1956, pp. 147–149; Bernhard Neumann, “Der babylonisch-assyrische kunstliche Lasurtein,” Chemische Zeitung, v. 51, 1927, pp. 1013–1015; Brill, Chemical Analyses [note 36], v. 2, p. 39, no. 1235.

All Thebes and Elateia cobalt-blue glasses

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3

0,35

0,4

0,45

0,5

0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3 0,35 0,4 0,45 0,5

Weight % MnO

Wei

ght %

NiO

Thebes HMG dark blueThebes HMG turquoiseElateia HMG dark blueElateia HMG light blue Elateia LMHK dark blueElateia LMHK light blue

113

FIG. 21. Potassium oxide versus soda for plantash cobalt blue glasses from Thebes, Elateia, Egypt, and the Ulu Burun shipwreck, by weight percent. Many Mycenaean glasses are characterized by low levels of alkalis.

FIG. 22. Potassium oxide versus magnesium oxide in cobalt blue glasses from Thebes, Elateia, Egypt, and the Ulu Burun shipwreck, by weight percent. The plot shows that plant ashes with different compositions were used to make most of the glasses from Mycenaean Greece and Egypt.

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Weight % Na2O

Wei

ght %

K2O

ThebesElateiaOther MycenaeanNew KingdomMalkataUlu BurunAmarna

Weight % Na2O

Wei

ght %

K2O

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

MgO

K2O

ThebesElateiaOther MycenaeanAmarnaUlu Burun W

eigh

t % K

2O

Weight % MgO

114

there is reference to it in the cuneiform texts of Ashurbanipal’s library at Nineveh (668–627 B.C.).85 Considerable amounts of arsenic have been detected in a piece of (raw) cobalt blue glass from Eridu in Mesopotamia (about 2200 B.C.),86 in several high-cobalt glazes and faience objects from Ugarit (14th–12th centuries B.C.),87 and in the Ptolemaic- and Roman-period faience from Egypt, which suggests an Iranian origin

for this particular type of cobalt.88 however, this Iranian cobalt-rich mineral ore has been de-scribed as manganese-free.89 The presence of con-siderable amounts of manganese in the first-mil-lennium B.C. Egyptian glasses and glazes has been explained as an independent addition to the glass, probably in the role of a clarifier.90 More-over, the cobalt-ferrous alums of the Dakhla and Khârga Oases in Egypt had been extensive-

85. Oppenheim [note 6], p. 41. 86. Garner [note 84], p. 148; Dan Barag, Catalogue of West

ern Asiatic Glass in the British Museum, v. 1, London: British Museum Publications Ltd. in association with Magnes Press, hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1985, pp. 35 and 111, pl. 20.

87. Kaczmarczyk [note 31], pp. 373–374; Valérie Matoïan, “Données nouvelles sur le verre en Syrie au IIe millénaire av. J.-C.: Le Cas de Ras Shamra-Ougarit,” in La Route du verre: Ateliers primaires et secondaires du second millénaire av. J.C. au Moyen Age, ed. Marie-Dominique Nenna, Lyons: Maison

FIG. 23. Alumina versus magnesium oxide in cobalt blue glasses from Thebes, Elateia, Egypt, and the Ulu Burun shipwreck, by weight percent. The plot shows that a similar cobalt source was used in coloring the Theban glasses (a cluster of six from the House of Kadmos), some of the glasses from Elateia, and the Ulu Burun glass ingots. Six unprovenanced Mycenaean blue glasses are closer to the Egyptian examples.

de l’Orient Méditerranéen–Jean Pouilloux, 2000, pp. 23–48; Valérie Matoïan and Anne Bauquillon, “Vitreous Materials in Ugarit: New Data,” in Culture through Objects: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of P. R. S. Moorey, ed. Timothy Potts, Michael Roaf, and Diana Stein, Oxford: Griffith Insti-tute, 2003, pp. 333–346.

88. Kaczmarczyk [note 31], pp. 373–374.89. Sayre [note 10], pp. 263–282; Kaczmarczyk [note 31],

p. 374.90. Sayre [note 29].

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

MgO

Al2O3

ThebesElateiaOther MycenaeanUlu BurunEgyptian New KingdomAmarnaMalkata

Wei

ght %

Al 2O

3

Weight % MgO

115

ly used for the Egyptian cobalt blue glasses and faience glazes of the mid-second millennium B.C., and they have a distinct composition.91

The analyses of LMhK blue glasses also re-veal the use of a cobalt source that was not em-ployed in the Elateia plant-ash glasses, and they have the highest levels of alumina (Fig. 19). The elevated amount of iron (averaging 1.19%) points to an iron-rich cobalt mineral, and these glasses are further characterized by copper lev-els that range between 0.49% and 2.07% (aver-aging 1.37%), high levels of nickel, an absence of arsenic (Figs. 24–26), and low levels of man-ganese (Fig. 20). Elateia and Frattesina cobalt blue LMhK glasses form distinct groups on the basis of their cobalt and copper oxide contents, showing that both were colored with a copper-rich cobalt mineral, but with copper at different levels (Fig. 24).92 Moreover, most of the Elateia glasses can be distinguished from their Frat-tesina counterparts by their much higher iron contents (Fig. 25). If data for mixed-alkali and

high-potassium cobalt blue glasses found at the Necropolis di Fondo zanotto and Mariconda di Melara in Italy93 are added to Figure 25 (not shown), the numbers increase for two groups of high-CuO/lower-Fe2O3 and low-CuO/medi-um-Fe2O3 glasses, but the distinctive high-Fe2O3

Elateia group is retained, showing that a differ-ent cobalt colorant was used. The high levels of nickel oxide also discriminate between sources of cobalt-bearing minerals (Fig. 26). A potential source of nickel and iron is the ferro-nickel ores found at Laurion and Larymna in Greece.94 how-ever, the positive correlation of copper and iron in Elateia blue LMhK glasses (Fig. 25) shows that this is unlikely.

91. Kaczmarczyk [note 31], pp. 370–373; Shortland [note 55], pp. 48–50.

92. Santopadre and Verità [note 15], p. 39; Towle and others [note 15], p. 23.

93. Towle and others [note 15], pp. 38–44, table.94. Andrews [note 79]; Tite and others [note 27], p. 12.

FIG. 24. Cobalt oxide versus cupric oxide in cobalt blue LMHK mixedalkali glasses from Elateia and Frattesina, by weight percent.

0

0,02

0,04

0,06

0,08

0,1

0,12

0,14

0,16

0,18

0,2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Weight % CuO

Wei

ght %

CoO

ElateiaFrattesina

116

FIG. 25. Cupric oxide versus ferric oxide in cobalt blue LMHK mixedalkali glasses from Elateia and Frattesina, by weight percent.

FIG. 26. Nickel oxide versus ferric oxide in cobalt blue LMHK mixedalkali glasses from Elateia and Frattesina, by weight percent.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6

Weight % Fe2O3

Wei

ght %

CuO

ElateiaFrattesina

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3

0,35

0,4

0,45

0,5

0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6

Weight % Fe2O3

Wei

ght %

NiO

ElateiaFrattesina

Weight % Fe2O3

Weight % Fe2O3

117

Translucent Purple, Turquoise, and Colorless Glass

The translucent purple color in a single plant-ash glass was caused by manganese oxide at 0.22%, and its general composition is similar to that of a number of Egyptian vessels from Malkata, Amarna, and Lisht, as well as one pur-ple Ulu Burun ingot. This suggests that a man-ganese-bearing mineral ore was used as a colo-rant.95 The colorant employed in the translucent turquoise glass is cupric oxide, with a mean of 1.47% in Elateia glass, which was made darker in the presence of elevated magnesia levels (see Table 11).96 Neither antimony nor manganese, both potential decolorizers, was detected in the transparent colorless Elateia hMG glasses. The use of a relatively pure silica source is reflected in the low levels of iron and alumina as a means of controlling the color of the glass batch. Fur-nace atmosphere must have played an impor-tant role in determining the colorless result. No manganese or antimony was detected in the col-orless glasses from Tell Brak and Nuzi, along with 18th- and 20th-Dynasty and other Egyp-tian examples,97 so the Elateia colorless glasses conform to the pattern. however, nine Elateia glasses contain potassium and magnesium oxide contents similar to those found in Nuzi glasses (Fig. 16).

Glass Composition, Object Form, and Dating

Plant-ash glass was used to make simple and composite forms of beads and all of the relief plaques from both Thebes and Elateia. LMhK glass was found only in Elateia beads. however, it is still premature to assign each composition-al type to an object form. LMhK has been used to make a collection of small undecorated annu-lar beads of types A and B, one plain segmented bead, and one bichrome horned stratified eye bead. Yet many annular beads are made of hMG glass.

The plant-ash and mixed-alkali composi-tions are contemporaneous, although LMhK

was found only in Elateia glass. Since most of the dated phases cover relatively broad time spans, the inevitable overlaps can be problem-atical to interpret. The Theban plant-ash glass came from Late helladic IIIB contexts. Most of the Elateia hMG glasses date to the Late hel-ladic IIIB–IIIC periods, and some examples ex-tend to the early Protogeometric period. The group of Elateia hMG glasses with low potas-sium oxide included only beads and plaques of Late helladic IIIB–IIIC and Sub-Mycenaean date (see chronological chart in Table 1). Most of the LMhK glass beads are broadly dated. The earliest unique example, from Pit A of Tomb 56, came from a Late helladic IIIA–IIIB con-text. Three beads from the chamber of Tomb 24 and from Tomb 35 have a secure Late helladic IIIB–IIIC date. Most of the LMhK beads came from Tomb 57, which also dates to the Late hel-ladic IIIB–IIIC and Protogeometric periods. Al-though the mixed-alkali bichrome horned strat-ified eye bead is recorded as having come from a securely dated context, this covers an extensive chronological range (probably dating to the Ear-ly Iron Age).

ARChEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION

Discussing the origins of glass in Mycenaean Greece, T. E. haevernick noted the extreme scar-city of glass in Crete and an absence of Myce-naean relief plaques in Egyptian tombs, point-ing to the distinct character of the industries.98

95. henderson [note 55], p. 283; idem, “Chemical Analysis of Ancient Egyptian Glass” [note 13], table 8Ib, no. 12; Lily-quist and Brill [note 73], p. 35 and p. 39, table 2, no. 31; Brill, Chemical Analyses [note 36], v. 2, p. 31, no. 3913, p. 32, no. 3950, and p. 54, no. 5968; Shortland [note 55], table 3-2, E5051.

96. Weyl [note 78].97. Mavis Bimson and Ian C. Freestone, “Some Egyptian

Glasses Dated by Royal Inscriptions,” Journal of Glass Studies, v. 30, 1988, pp. 11–15, esp. pp. 11–12; Lilyquist and Brill [note 73], p. 33 and p. 36, table 2, no. 3; Brill, Chemical Analyses [note 36], v. 2, p. 39, no. 1238, and p. 40, nos. 1215 and 1218; Andrew J. Shortland, “The Use and Origins of Antimonate Col-orants in Early Egyptian Glass,” Archaeometry, v. 44, no. 4, 2002, pp. 517–530, esp. p. 517 and p. 520, table 3.

98. haevernick, “Beiträge” [note 17], p. 39.

118

Glass casting is characteristic of Mycenaean glass production. There is a general consensus that its introduction to the Aegean resulted from a Mesopotamian technological influence, and molds have been found at several Myce-naean sites.99 Sporadic finds of glass vessels have prompted some researchers to suggest that the making of raw glass occurred in the Aegean.100 Although “literally nothing is known about My-cenaean glass making,”101 it has been generally accepted that the Mycenaean glass industry was dependent on flourishing glass-producing cen-ters in Mesopotamia or Egypt for the procure-ment of ready-made glass, which was remelted and shaped into jewelry. Nevertheless, “whether one could postulate the importation of blue glass ingots from Mesopotamia to the Aegean is a question that must be considered by glass tech-nologists.”102 Another intriguing question that has already been touched on here is, “how are the Ulu Burun finds and the glass of Egypt and the Mycenaean World related?”103

In the excavated palatial sites in mainland Greece and Crete, primary glass-making areas, such as that suggested for Qantir-Piramesses in Egypt,104 either have not been found or have not yet been identified securely. The minimal debris associated with glass-production processes, es-pecially when production is on a small scale, in-creases this archeological problem105 in terms of characterizing Mycenaean workshops and de-scribing their operation.106 Since glass has been uncovered principally in burials, reconstruct-ing the chronology of its production is connect-ed with the difficult task of defining and inter-preting robbed tombs, multiple burials, and the removal of offerings even by the Mycenaeans themselves.

Some Proposed Models for the Mycenaean Glass Industry

Thebes was a major palatial center in Myce-naean Greece. It had well-established contacts with other Mycenaean palaces, as well as with Egypt and the Near East. The cemetery at Ela-teia was associated with a thriving city. That city,

however, was culturally peripheral to the Myce-naean world, and it reached its peak after the palaces collapsed. Important aspects of its con-tacts with other Mycenaean centers are still un-der investigation.

In sum, the compositional evidence for glass from Thebes and Elateia provides insights into the structure and operation of the glass industry in the following ways:

1. Analytical evidence suggests that a glass industry in Mycenaean Greece could have oper-ated independently from those in Mesopotamia and Egypt for the primary production of raw glass and its subsequent shaping into jewelry. Raw plant-ash glass (hMG) may have been man-ufactured in Thebes. Sources of the necessary silica and alkali were available to Theban glass-makers, who appear to have used a recipe that is characteristic of the site. Cobalt blue ingots imported from an eastern glassmaking center may have been employed to color locally melted base glass. If the relatively small number of The-ban glasses that have been analyzed are even-tually found to be compositionally similar to the many other glass objects found there, the case for local production will be strengthened. Local glassmaking, however, does not exclude the possibility of importing ready-made glass for remelting and shaping into jewelry, leading to compositional overlaps. It can also be hypothe-sized that a major palatial center such as Thebes

99. Barag [note 3], pp. 187–193; V. E. S. Webb, “Aegean Glass: Continuity and Discontinuity,” in Early Vitreous Materials, ed. M. Bimson and I. C. Freestone, British Museum Occa-sional Papers 56, London: British Museum Publications, 1987, pp. 145–150, esp. p. 14.

100. Poul Fossing, Glass Vessels before GlassBlowing, Co-penhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1940, pp. 27–28; Barag [note 3], p. 187; Wiener-Stepankova [note 18], pp. 103–104 and 147.

101. Wiener-Stepankova [note 18], p. 103.102. Barag [note 3], p. 193.103. Brill, Chemical Analyses [note 36], v. 1, p. 310.104. Rehren and Pusch [note 8].105. Nikita [note 2], p. 24.106. Iphiyenia Tournavitou, “Towards an Identification of a

Workshop Space,” in Problems in Greek Prehistory: Papers Presented at the Centenary Conference of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, ed. Elizabeth Bayard French and K. A. Wardle, Manchester, April 1986, Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 1988, pp. 447–467; idem [note 40], pp. 209–256.

119

would have been both a primary manufacturer and a distributor of raw glass to other centers where beads and plaques were made.

2. The settlement of Elateia may have ob-tained raw glass from Thebes or from other My-cenaean palatial workshops with which it was connected. The relatively tight compositional group of base plant-ash glass at Elateia suggests that one supply center was involved. The pres-ence of various cobalt sources used for coloring fits this proposed model. Moreover, nine non-cobalt glasses from Elateia have compositional similarities with Mesopotamian glasses. This suggests the procurement of this glass either in raw form or as finished beads from a Mycenae-an palatial center that imported glass from a Mesopotamian glass-producing center and act-ed as a glass distributor. This would have been set within the economic and administrative sys-tem of the Mycenaean palaces.

3. The importation of raw cobalt blue glass in the form of ingots and of cobalt-rich mineral ores to color locally made glass cannot be ex-cluded. Indeed, the scarcity of cobalt-rich ores in the Aegean, coupled with a Mycenaean de-mand for dark blue glass jewelry to be used both in everyday life and in burials, supports this sug-gestion.

4. The demand for cobalt can also be seen in the use of mixed-alkali (LMhK) glasses, most of which are cobalt blue. These glasses may have been produced in a Mycenaean palatial work-shop. Whether there was an increase in LMhK manufacture during the Greek Early Protogeo-metric period, as appears to have been the case in Italy, is an issue that requires further inves-tigation. The archeological context in which this glass formulation has been found should be carefully examined for possible links between Elateia LMhK and other mixed-alkali glassmak-ing centers in Mycenaean Greece and elsewhere in western and southern Europe. An inherent problem in interpreting the occurrence of this glass type is its uneven distribution in the cem-etery and its presence in a limited number of tombs. It appears to have been employed as part of a specific burial practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the absence of complete industrial re-mains of glassmaking and the rarity of well-defined glassworking areas in the Late Bronze Age Aegean, chemical characterization of dated glasses can provide powerful evidence for lo-calized primary glass production. It may also be possible to distinguish between glass produc-tion centers on the basis of the extent to which a specific glass formulation is found in specific geographical areas. The occurrence of various glass compositions may have resulted from the importation and use of glass fused at distant production sites, or from the use of diverse rec-ipes.107

Chemical analyses of glasses from Thebes and Elateia have radically changed earlier views about a Mycenaean glass industry dependent on Eastern glass-producing centers for the pro-curement of raw glass and operating solely as a secondary glass production zone for the manu-facture of jewelry. Among the wealth of signifi-cant results, three are especially important:

1. The compositions of the Mycenaean plant-ash glasses analyzed here differ considerably from those of contemporaneous plant-ash glass-es made in Egypt and Mesopotamia. These dif-ferences can be recognized because this is the first comprehensive comparison between the fairly large number of Egyptian glass composi-tions and those from Mycenaean Greece. Al-though Mycenaean glasses fall within the broad compositional spectrum of Mesopotamian glass of the second half of the second millennium B.C., they are relatively coherent in their major components. A plant ash lower in magnesium oxide than that found in Egyptian and Mesopo-tamian glasses was used to make the base-glass composition of most of the analyzed glasses from Thebes and Elateia. This suggests that pri-

107. henderson [note 55], p. 286; idem, “The Scientific Analysis of Glass” [note 16], pp. 31 and 36; idem, “Some Chem-ical and Physical Characteristics of Ancient Glass and the Po-tential of Scientific Investigation,” The Glass Circle, v. 7, 1991, pp. 67–77, esp. pp. 70–73.

120

mary glass production occurred in Mycenaean Greece.

A high compositional variation was observed in the cobalt blue glasses, reflecting the use of different cobalt sources. Most of the cobalt-con-taining glasses from the house of Kadmos and Elateia are characterized by considerably lower levels of alkalis than are found in the examples of Egyptian cobalt blue glass, which is another indication of a separate center producing pri-mary glass. The alumina and zinc levels in six cobalt blue glasses from the house of Kadmos are comparable with the levels found in the slightly earlier cobalt blue Ulu Burun ingots, showing that they were all colored with a simi-lar cobalt source. One explanation for the com-positional variations observed in cobalt blue glasses is the probable trading of the cobalt-rich colorant that was added to the base plant-ash glass at primary production centers. Various ar-cheological interpretations have been offered for similarities and differences in the use of cobalt colorants.

2. The unusual compositions of “frit” from the house of Kadmos in Thebes suggest that they may be incompletely reacted raw materials for plant-ash glass production. There is a com-positional link between the frit bead The/117 and cobalt blue glass relief plaques from the house of Kadmos in terms of the cobalt col-orant and its associated impurities. The mal-formed spherical bead The/130 has a unique frit composition. The characteristic chemical com-position of the vitreous materials from the house of Kadmos suggests that primary glass produc-tion took place there. It may have been located in the immediate vicinity of the citadel, while rooms N and Ξ may have been involved only in the working and storage of glass jewelry. These unique compositions, in conjunction with their chemical variability, may constitute more evi-

dence of local production, although further an-alytical investigation of the “frit” is necessary before this can be claimed with any confidence. In addition, glassmaking furnaces need to be found.

A legend may offer additional evidence of glass production. At his splendid wedding, which was attended by all of the gods and the Muses, Kadmos, the mythical founder of Thebes, gave his bride, harmonia, a necklace. This necklace, which was later used to bribe Eriphyle, had been made by hephaistos, the god of technology.108 The hundreds of frit, faience, and glass beads found in the house of Kadmos have been asso-ciated with the myth of harmonia’s necklace. Kadmos was also credited with the invention of various arts and crafts, such as the mining and working of gold in Thrace, the working of bronze in Thebes, and the quarrying of stone.109 The sophistication of glass technology may be associated with the technological achievements attributed to Kadmos, although there is no ref-erence to his role in the invention of glass.

3. In many specimens from Elateia, a mixed-alkali (LMhK) composition was detected. This is the largest number of such glasses that has been reported from as far east as Greece. This composition differs from the contemporaneous one in Italy in terms of both its base-glass com-position and its use of a high-iron and -nickel cobalt colorant. It is therefore clear that a sepa-rate, possibly Greek, production center was in-volved.

108. Keramopoullos, “Ai Viomichaniae” [note 39], p. 36; Ruth B. Edwards, Kadmos the Phoenician: A Study in Greek Legends and the Mycenaean Age, Amsterdam: Adolf M. hak-kert, 1979, p. 20 and n. 28, and p. 153; Symeonoglou [note 38], p. 80.

109. Edwards [note 108], pp. 31–32.

Glass Analyses from Mycenaean Thebes and Elateia: Compositional Evidence for a Mycenaean Glass...

Documents

Transcript of Glass Analyses from Mycenaean Thebes and Elateia: Compositional Evidence for a Mycenaean Glass...