Excavations at Tel Zahara (2006–2009): Final Report

The Hellenistic and Roman Strata

Edited by

Susan L. Cohen

BAR International Series 25542013

Published by

ArchaeopressPublishers of British Archaeological ReportsGordon House276 Banbury RoadOxford OX2 7EDEnglandbar@archaeopress.comwww.archaeopress.com

BAR S2554

Excavations at Tel Zahara (2006–2009): Final Report. The Hellenistic and Roman Strata

© Archaeopress and the individual authors 2013

ISBN 978 1 4073 1175 3

Printed in England by Information Press, Oxford

All BAR titles are available from:

Hadrian Books Ltd122 Banbury RoadOxfordOX2 7BPEnglandwww.hadrianbooks.co.uk

The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com

103

Chapter 6. the glaSS

C. Swan

6.1 Overview

This chapter presents the glass fragments that were recovered from Strata IB and II at Tel Zahara as well as out-of-context finds. Only a small amount of glass was present in these layers, comprising approximately 153 vessel fragments, two bracelet fragments, and one bead. Almost 40 percent of the vessel fragments are from parts that are usually indicative or diagnostic (i.e., rims, necks, bases, and decorated wall fragments), although most of these shards are much too small to permit a confident identification of vessel type or a detailed reconstruction of vessel shape and size.1

6.2 Condition

The glass assemblage is of a highly fragmentary nature, with shards typically on the order of two to three cm in size. Diagnostic fragments such as rims and bases are broken in such a way that it is often virtually impossible to determine the shape, angle, and height of vessel walls or even the diameter of rims, necks, and bases—details that are necessary for the proper typological and chronological identification of an object. Another consequence of the fragmentary condition of the glass is that only a very small number of matches between different fragments from the same vessel can be made. Cat. 25 (Figs. 6.1.10–6.2) is the only complete vessel in the entire assemblage; it probably escaped extensive damage because of its very small size and compact shape, although even this object is missing a portion of its rim.

An additional challenge to typological analysis and interpretation is the rather poor state of preservation, as weathering layers can easily obscure glass color, clarity, decoration, and clues to manufacturing technique. The fragments studied here display different degrees of deterioration, but mainly show the same weathering patterns and weathering products; light to medium weathering is most common, with the exterior surfaces of vessels usually weathered to a greater extent than the interior surfaces. Fragments are typically pitted, with iridescence first forming in the pits and then spreading over the rest of the surface area and forming (often flakey) layers; more heavily weathered glass fragments typically have a thick

1 This chapter only describes the diagnostic pieces in the collection; all glass pieces found in Strata IB-II are listed in Appendices I and II.

metallic white layer covered by a dull, dark brown or black layer. These types and patterns of deterioration are a function of both the glass chemistry and the particular burial environment of the site.

6.3 Catalog

The catalog presented here is ordered by stratum, starting from the topsoil and continuing down through progressively older layers. The non-diagnostic fragments are briefly summarized, as most were either too small or weathered to provide very much information, or else they were generic body fragments that could belong to virtually any vessel type and are therefore of little assistance to analysis and interpretation.

Of the 156 fragments of glass recovered, 61 diagnostic fragments are described below in more detail and 25 of these are illustrated in Figs. 6.1, 6.3, and 6.4. Wherever possible, parallel examples are cited to help identify possible vessel type and approximate dates. The catalog is organized by stratum and diagnostic type (bases, rims, necks, and so forth).2

6.3.1 Topsoil

Five fragments of glass were recovered from the topmost layer of soil. Two of these were diagnostic, including the base of a small bottle and the base of a plate; because they are so fragmentary, however, and were made with simple forming techniques, these objects could be from almost any time period. The three non-diagnostic fragments are all small, curving body pieces of transparent natural aqua glass.

Cat. 1 Bottle, base Field Reference: MC 0003, SE.A.17.L0001Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Milky iridescent film.Description: Rounded bottom with a slight

kick from pontil pressure and a central pontil scar. Approximately five cm bottom diameter.

Cat. 2 Plate, base Field Reference: MC 0439.1, NE.A.8.L0001

2 If the registration number includes a decimal, this indicates that there was more than one fragment in that registered bag; each fragment was given a separate number for purposes of individual identification.

Excavations at Tel Zahara (2006–2009)

104

Color and Clarity: Obscured color and transparency.Condition: Pitting and iridescence covered

by dull brown weathering layer.Description: Large fragment of relatively

uniform thickness; perhaps one-quarter of the base of a plate with a flat bottom and shallowly rising walls. Thin trail applied as a base ring around the bottom, approximately three cm from the center of a shallow pontil scar. Approximately ten to eleven cm base ring diameter.

6.3.2 Stratum IB

By far the largest amount of glass recovered during excavation comes from Stratum IB, as does the largest number of diagnostic fragments; this is somewhat unfortunate, as the context is that of mixed fills and pits. Of 62 total fragments, 23 are diagnostic: 11 rims, six bases, two neck segments, two body shards with decoration, one complete vessel, and one bracelet section. Of the 39 non-diagnostic fragments, all were transparent natural aqua glass except for one transparent light green shard.

Cat. 3 Bowl, base ring (Fig. 6.1.1)Field Reference: MC 0378, NE.B.11.L0010Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Heavy pitting, iridescence, and

brown weathering layer.Description: Folded base ring with vertical rise;

no remaining vessel walls attached. Approximately six cm base ring diameter.

Parallels: Weinberg 988:44, Fig. 4–4(pushed-in base ring bowls); Pollak 2006:166–167, Fig. 132, Nos. 61 and 63 (pushed-in tubular bases); Jennings 2006:189, Fig. 8.3 (folded foot-ring bases).

Cat. 4 Flask, rim Field Reference: MC 0685.1, SE.A.6.L0021Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Pitting and iridescence.Description: Rim with a fire-rounded lip

the same thickness as the walls; funnel mouth. Approximately four cm rim diameter.

Cat. 5 Bowl or beaker, rim Field Reference: MC 0546, SE.B.6.L0006Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Pitting, iridescence, and black

weathering layer.Description: Rim with a thickened, fire-rounded

lip that creates a slight bulge in the exterior; unded walls. Approximately six cm rim diameter.

Cat. 6 Bowl or beaker, rim Field Reference: MC 0640, SE.B.6.L0013Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Milky iridescent film.Description: Cracked off rim with S-shaped

profile. Approximately seven cm rim diameter.

Cat. 7 Bowl, rim Field Reference: MC 0004, NE.A.10.L0005Color and Clarity: Colorless (?), transparent.Condition: Pitting, iridescence, and black

weathering layer.Description: Vertical rim with slightly

thickened, fire-rounded lip; vertical walls. Approximately ten cm rim diameter.

Cat. 8 Bowl, rim (Fig. 6.1.2)Field Reference: MC 0400.1, NE.B.11.L0011Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Metallic white iridescence.Description: Everted, almost horizontal rim

seven mm wide; slightly thickened, fire rounded lip. Approximately 12 cm rim diameter.

Cat. 9 Bowl, rim Field Reference: MC 0411, NE.B.11.L0012Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Pitting and iridescence.Description: Slightly everted rim; slightly

thickened, fire-rounded lip and gently tapering walls with little curvature. Approximately 18 cm rim diameter.

Cat. 10 Bowl (?), rim Field Reference: MC 0441, SE.A.6.L0020Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Pitting and iridescence.Description: Rim with a slightly thickened, fire-

rounded lip and thin walls. The rim is too short to determine the rim diameter or the shape of the vessel walls, although the color and finish are similar to other bowl fragments in the assemblage.

Cat. 11 Bowl, rim (Fig. 6.1.3)Field Reference: MC 0027.1, NE.A.10.L0005Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Pitting and iridescence.Description: Slightly everted rim with a

thickened and slightly squared lip. Approximately 12 cm rim diameter.

Cat. 12 Bowl (?), rim Field Reference: MC 0039.2, NE.A.10.L0005Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Slight iridescence.Description: Slightly everted rim with a

C. Swan: The Glass

105

thickened and squared lip. The rim is too short to determine the rim diameter or the shape of the vessel walls, although the color and finish are similar to other bowl fragments in the assemblage.

Cat. 13 Bowl/beaker, rim (Fig. 6.1.4)Field Reference: MC 0352.1, NE.A.11.L0013Color and Clarity: Dark blue, translucent.Condition: Iridescence and dull white

weathering layer on exterior surface.Description: Vertical rim with a slightly

thickened and fire rounded lip; thick, vertical walls with a slight horizontal bulge immediately below the rim. This is the only example of an intentionally and deeply-colored vessel glass from the site. The rim edge is too short to determine the rim diameter or shape of the vessel walls, but is estimated at 10.5 cm rim diameter.

Cat. 14 Bowl or dish/plate, rim with crimped trail (Fig. 6.1.5)

Field Reference: MC 0644, SE.B.6.L0013Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Pitting, iridescence, black

weathering layer.Description: Two fragments that join together,

recovered from an unsealed section of one of the drainage channels. The rim is folded over to a slightly flattened edge; a thick trail of glass (fat in the middle and thinner at the ends) of the same color is applied to approximately seven mm of the rim length, with crimped/tooled ridges perpendicular to the rim edge. Large vessel, approximately 19 cm rim diameter.

Parallels: Isings 957:59, Form 43 (bowlwith ribbed coil on rim); Weinberg 1988:54–55, Nos. 118–21; Fig. 4–16, Nos. 118 and 119 (crimped trails on rim); Israeli 2003:143, 156, object No.

Fig. 6.1 Illustrated items in the glass catalog from Stratum IB. Drawings by J. Rudman.

Excavations at Tel Zahara (2006–2009)

106

154 (a glass plate dated to the second century C.E.); Oliver 1990:98, Nos. 124–134 and Plate 12 (bowls with folded rim and corrugated trimming); Jennings 2006:73–75, Fig. 4.5, Nos. 1–2 (bowls with crimped handles and collar rims).

Comments: A crimped trail would have been the last detail added to a glass vessel as it was being made; a blob of molten glass is drawn evenly along a finished rim and then, while still hot, pushed inwards at regular intervals using a tool (modern glassblowers also use this technique, sometimes calling such an addition a “zipper bit”). A crimped trail on the rim of a bowl, dish, or plate was decorative as well as functional, as it provided a grip to hold the object. Although the trail can be wrapped completely around the circumference of the vessel, there are often only two short crimped trails on opposite sides of the rim; the latter style is probably the case for this particular vessel, as the trail tapers to a clear endpoint. This type largely dates from the first to early third century C.E. (Weinberg 1988:55); it was especially widespread in the first and second centuries C.E. and is found throughout Israel (Israeli 2003:155). Tableware with “corrugated trimming” on rims first appears in the second half of the first century C.E. and continues to the second century C.E. (Oliver 1990:98). Although Oliver says that he knows “of no specific evidence to indicate the survival of corrugated trimming into the third century” (1990:98), Jennings notes that examples of this type from Beirut date to the Mid-Roman period, ca. mid-second to fourth centuries C.E. (2006:73), and also cites two examples of bowls with such opposing grip handles from fourth to fifth century contexts (2006:75). Jennings also notes that although numerically this type is not particularly common, it is “a small but consistent element on many sites” both in the east and west, with eastern examples from sites such as Amorium, Samaria, Jalame, and Capernaum (2006:74).

Cat. 15 Bowl, base (Fig. 6.1.6)Field Reference: MC 0039.1, NE.A.10.L0005Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.

Condition: Light pitting and iridescence, black weathering layer in pits, cloudiness.

Description: Complete base with some wall fragments still attached; medium-deep kick with three scars from a large pontil rod. The vessel walls rise gently away from the bottom, and then become more vertical. The base ring is tall (1.2 cm) and almost vertical, three mm thick and 5.8 cm in diameter.

Cat. 16 Bowl or juglet (?), base ring Field Reference: MC 0525, SE.B.6.L0002Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Heavy black and white weathering

layer, pitting, iridescence; weathering layers also inside hollow section; flaking.

Description: An almost complete coiled trail of glass; hollow, slightly flattened, and of irregular thickness. Break edges inside and outside of the ring suggest this is a base ring that was separated from the rest of the vessel, but the breakage makes it difficult to determine the vessel type. Approximately five cm external ring diameter, and three to four cm internal ring diameter.

Cat. 17 Flask or bottle, base (Fig. 6.1.7)Field Reference: MC 0027.2, NE.A.10.L0005Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Pitting, iridescence, brown

weathering layer on exterior.Description: Complete base with part of one

wall that curves upwards and sharply inwards; rounded bottom with a high kick but no visible pontil scar; crack from center of the kick to the edge of the fragment. Approximately 5.5 cm base diameter.

Parallels: Isings 1957:97–99, Form 82,variation B2 in particular (candlestick unguentarium); Harden 1936:265–272, Pl. XX, Type A in particular, Nos. 797 and 799 (Class XIII: unguentarium or “toilet-bottles”); Jennings 2006: 119–120, Fig. 5.34, No. 4–8, 13–14 (unguentaria).

Comments: The toilet-bottle is one of the most widespread and constant shapes of Roman glass vessels, dating between the first and fifth centuries C.E. or even later (Harden 1936:265). The candlestick unguentarium developed mainly in Eastern centers but is found elsewhere in the first

C. Swan: The Glass

107

and second centuries C.E. (Isings 1957:97). Although the B2 variation of Form 82 probably originated in the first century, Isings believes it should be dated later, to the end of the second century or first half of the third century (1957:99). Harden’s Class XIII Type A unguentarium is a tall bottle with a hollow triangular body that is typically one-third of the total height of the vessel (1936:265), and appears to have been used from the second to fourth centuries C.E. (Harden 1936:267). Jennings dates examples of unguentaria from Beirut to the Late Roman period, the late fourth to early sixth centuries C.E. (2006:119).

Cat. 18 Flask or bottle, baseField Reference: MC 0200, SE.A.11.L0003Color and Clarity: Obscured color and transparency.Condition: Heavy layer of dull black and

white weathering over iridescence.Description: Two fragments join to form

a small, rounded bottom with a slight kick and no visible pontil scar; approximately three cm base diameter.

Cat. 19 Bottle (?), base (?) Field Reference: MC 0516, NE.A.6.L0001Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Pitting, iridescence, and black

weathering layer.Description: Angled walls curve outward,

upward, and then back inward; the vessel walls are also thicker at one end, which indicates this is perhaps the bottom of a bottle.

Cat. 20 Bottle, neck Field Reference: MC 0403, NE.B.11.L0007Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Pitting and iridescence; dull brown

weathering layer on exterior.Description: Long, irregularly broken fragment

with a narrow diameter and thin walls; a possible match with Cat. 21.

Cat. 21Bottle, neck (Fig. 6.1.8)Field Reference: MC 0352.2, NE.A.11.L0013Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Pitting, some white and black

weathering layer in pits.Description: Thin walls make the glass look

nearly colorless; the neck has a narrow diameter (approximately 1.5 cm) and one end flares outwards to the mouth or to the body; external incised horizontal line near the point

where the neck flares is filled with weathering layers. Possible match with Cat. 20.

Cat. 22 Bowl, double fold in wall Field Reference: MC 0455, NE.A.8.L0003Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Pitting, iridescence, and black

weathering layer on exterior.Description: Double wall fold, four mm wide

with two hollow (irregularly oblong) openings; very little of the rest of the vessel walls remain.

Parallels: Weinberg 1988:53–54, Nos. 108–117; Figs. 4–15, especially Nos. 109 and 112 (bowls with double fold in walls); Jennings 2006:105–106, Fig. 5.19, No. 4. Other probable parallels cited by these authors include first to third century C.E. examples from Migdal Ashqelon (Jennings 2006:106), Mesad Tamar, Nahariya, the Judean Desert caves, and Roman sites in Europe including Vindonissa, Hofheim in the Taunus, and Conimbriga (Weinberg 1988:53–54).

Comments: Although the exact form of vesselsmade with this decorative feature varies considerably, the double fold in the wall just below the rim would have been produced in the same manner (Weinberg 1988:53). To achieve this effect, during the blowing process the rim of the vessel was folded inward, then upward and down again, creating a slight bulging horizontal band around the interior and exterior of the vessel. Weinberg suggests this variety is local to the region around the site of Jalame even if it was not produced in Jalame proper; she dates this type to the first or second century and not later than the third century C.E. (1988:53).3 Jennings remarks the one example at Beirut (2006:105–106, Fig. 5.19 No. 4) derives from a late fourth century context, and notes that it is probably not locally made.

Cat. 23 Bowl or beaker (?), wall with groove Field Reference: MC 0529, NE.A.9.L0002Color and Clarity: Obscured color and transparency.

3 Although not outwardly affecting the observations made in this report, it should perhaps be noted that the chronology of the stratigraphy at Jalame is in the process of being reinterpreted (Slane and Magness 2005). The glass factory and associated sorting floors and dumps at Jalame belong to Phase 3 of the site, which Weinberg dated to ca. 351–378 C.E. using numismatic evidence; a reevaluation of the coins and pottery for Phase 4, however, suggests that Phase 3 could possibly extend into the fifth century as well (Slane and Magness 2005:261).

Excavations at Tel Zahara (2006–2009)

108

Condition: Pitting, iridescence, black and white weathering layers.

Description: Relatively thick fragment fromthe wall of an open vessel; one horizontal wheel-cut groove on the exterior surface, three mm wide.

Parallels: Isings 1957:44, Form 29 (beaker with wheel-cut lines); Weinberg 1988:92–98, Figs. 4–47, 4–48, 4–49, and 4–50 (beakers, cups, and bowls with grooved exterior decoration); Stern 2001:77–82, Nos. 19–23 (beakers). Jennings 2006:36, Fig. 2.7, Group 3 (bowls with external groove decoration); Jennings 2006:61–63, Fig. 3.4, Nos. 1–12 (cups/beakers with external grooves). Jennings also cites parallels from Delos and Tel Anafa (2006:36).

Comments: Although many of the Jalame examples of this decorative type come from second century C.E. dump context, “since techniques changed little during several hundred years, it is difficult to determine dates unless other criteria can be adduced” (Weinberg 1988:94). Bowls of this decorative type are “contemporary with both conical and hemispherical bowls” that date to the Hellenistic and Early Roman period (Jennings 2006:36), while cups and beakers with such decoration “are a common form throughout the Roman empire and are found on nearly all first century sites” (Jennings 2006:61–63). Although Stern’s examples derive from Western Europe, they also date to the first century C.E. Isings also largely dates beakers with this decoration to the first century C.E., although “occasionally the type seems to have survived the first century, unless [they] are considered as heirlooms” (1957:44).

Cat. 24 Bracelet, twisted cane (Fig. 6.1.9)Field Reference: MC 0306, NE.A.11.L0013Color and Clarity: Obscured color and transparency.Condition: Pitting, iridescence, metallic white

layer covered by dull tan layer.Description: Bracelet of twisted glass; it is not

possible to determine whether it is monochrome or polychrome. Three cm long fragment, approximately 0.5 cm diameter in section. Approximately nine cm exterior bracelet diameter.

Parallels: Spaer 1988:58–61, Fig. 11; Spaer 1992:49–50; Spaer 2001:194,Type

C, subtype 1 or 2 (spirally twisted bracelets); Spaer 2001:20, Pl. 33, Nos. 462–465 (plain twisted bracelets).

Comments: Spaer remarks “we find no indication of the existence of a fashion of glass bracelets in the eastern Mediterranean countries and nearby areas in the Hellenistic or early Roman periods,” and that bracelets only become common in the third century (1988:51). She also comments that spirally twisted bracelets “are unlikely to have appeared before the fourth century C.E.” and thereafter monochrome versions “remained popular throughout most periods and places” (2001:194).

Cat. 25 Bottle, complete (Figs. 6.1.10, 6.2)Field Reference: MC 0058, NE.A.9.L0009Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Pitting, iridescent and dull brown

weathering layer.Description: Small free-blown bottle with a

rounded bottom and slightly flattened, seven mm thick base with no kick; there is a faint mark from the pontil rod but no scar. The base is slightly wider than the rest of the vessel, which has short, almost vertical sides. The lip of the rim is seven mm wide and everted until almost completely horizontal. Approximately 3.5 cm tall with a 3.5 cm rim diameter, two cm neck diameter, and 2.5 cm base diameter.

Parallels: Harden 1936:276, Plates X and XX, Class XIII (toilet bottles), type E1(no distinction between neck and body and a solid base, No. 823); Isings 1957:41–43, Form 28,(unguentarium); Fleming 1997:35, Fig. 23: UPM 32–15–78 (from Beth Shean; 3.3 cm tall); Jennings 2006:68, Figs. 3.10–3.11, Nos. 1–4 (unguentaria, most similar to No. 4 in shape although smaller in size).

Comments: Jennings notes the form is from the first and second century C.E. (2006:68), while Fleming’s example from the University of Pennsylvania Museum is dated to the third to fourth centuries C.E. (Fleming 1997:35).

6.3.3 Stratum IIA

In this final phase of Roman occupation, 37 total fragments of glass vessels were recovered. Twelve of these are diagnostic: seven rims, two bases, one neck section, and

C. Swan: The Glass

109

two body fragments with decoration. Of the 25 non-diagnostic fragments, there was a small amount of shatter from light green glass as well as a small amount of shatter from yellow-brown glass; apart from these outliers, the rest of the glass was transparent natural aqua.

Cat. 26 Bottle or flask, rim (Fig. 6.3.1)Field Reference: MC 0026, SE.A.7.L0007Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Pitting, iridescence, brown and

white weathering layer.Description: The area around the exterior of the

mouth and just below the lip edge is thickened and slightly flattened, forming a somewhat triangular rim profile and a bulging band; on the interior, there is a groove just below the lip. The walls taper downwards toward the neck. Approximately 4.5 cm rim diameter.

Parallels: Clairmont 1963:104–107, Pl. XII,Nos. 487–88 and 500 (Middle Imperial period plain flasks, III C 5). Weinberg 1988:72–73, Fig. 4–34, No. 289–292 (bottles with ribbed rims). Weinberg also cites examples from Catacomb 20 at Beth Shearim and third to fourth century C.E. contexts at Rosh Ha-ayin (1988:72).

Comments: The examples from Jalame comefrom a dump context and it is possible that this type of rim antedates the Jalame factory, but there is not enough evidence to confirm this supposition (Weinberg 1988:72).

Cat. 27 Bowl, rim Field Reference: MC 0006, SE.A.7.L0007Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Pitting and iridescence, black

weathering layer.Description: Rim of large bowl with a slight

external swelling beneath the rim; slightly thickened, fire-rounded lip; walls taper gently. Approximately 14 cm rim diameter.

Cat. 28 Bowl, rim (Fig. 6.3.2)Field Reference: MC 0307.1, SE.B.7.L0004Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Very light pitting and iridescence.Description: Slightly thickened, fire-rounded

lip. A slight swelling in the wall just below the lip creates a ten mm wide horizontal band; the walls are almost vertical near the rim, but begin to round out below the horizontal swell. Approximately 12 cm rim diameter.

Cat. 29 Bowl, rim (Fig. 6.3.3)Field Reference: MC 0360.1, SE.B.7, L0004Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Very light pitting and iridescence.Description: Large vessel with a fire-rounded

lip and tapering walls. A slight swelling in the wall six mm below the lip which creates a ten mm wide horizontal band. Approximately 20 cm rim diameter.

Cat. 30 Plate/shallow dish or bowl, rim (Fig. 6.3.4)Field Reference: MC 0493, NE.B.10.L0014Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Pitting, white and black

iridescence on exterior.Description: Large vessel; rim is folded over

the exterior surface and almost completely flattened, making the rim look like a darker aqua color than rest of body. Approximately 20 cm rim diameter.

Parallels: Harden 1936:76–77, Pl. XII, No. 117–121 (shallow bowl with rim folded outward); Weinberg 1988:41–43, Fig. 4–3, Pl. 4–2 (bowls with outfolded rim, single fold); Isings 1957:58–60, Forms 42–45; Pollak 2006:156, Fig. 126, No. 1–7 (bowls with out-and-down folded rims); Jennings 2006: 171–174, Figs. 7.20–7.21 (bowls with external folded rims).

Comments: Weinberg notes that “for such a simple shape one would expect Western parallels,” but she observes the type seems to be limited to the

Fig. 6.2 Complete glass bottle (Glass Catalog 25). Photo by Z. Radovan.

Excavations at Tel Zahara (2006–2009)

110

eastern Empire and “such dishes and bowls were common in the Syro-Palestinian area, as well as Cyprus” (1988:43). Pollak notes that such bowls first appeared in the second half of the first century C.E. and continued in the second and early third centuries, but she also remarks that the Tel Tanninim dishes are more similar to vessels found in the fourth century dump contexts at Jalame (2006:156–157). Bowls with an external fold is a long-lived form, with examples from both the Roman and early Byzantine periods, but the more rounded folds tend to be earlier while flattened folds tend to be later in date (Jennings 2006:171).

Cat. 31 Bowl (?), rim Field Reference: MC 0047, SE.A.7.L0015Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Pitting and black iridescence.Description: A very small fragment with only

a slight curvature; the wall is somewhat thicker just beneath the fire-rounded lip.

Cat. 32 Bowl (?), rim Field Reference: MC 0319.1, SE.B.7.L0003Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Pitting and black iridescence.

Description: Slightly tapered, fire-rounded lip with a slight swell in the wall beneath the rim on the exterior surface; approximately 20 cm rim diameter.

Parallels: Weinberg 1988:45–47, Figs. 4–6(bowls with an exterior “horizontal rib”). Weinberg also cites examples from Hanita and Nahariya (1988:47).

Comments: Although this type appears frequently at Jalame, “the shape is not common elsewhere, or at least not published” (Weinberg 1988:47).

Cat. 33 Bottle or flask, base (heel) (Fig. 6.3.5)Field Reference: MC 0511, NE.B.10.L0014Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Pitting, iridescence, dull white and

brown weathering layer.Description: Curved fragment, flattened on

one side; probably the heel of a small bottle or flask. Approximately five cm base diameter and six cm lower body diameter.

Parallels: Isings 1957:41–43, Form 28b (unguentarium).

Cat. 34 Bowl or bottle (?), base ring Field Reference: MC 0020, SE.A.7.L0007Color and Clarity: Obscured color and transparency.Condition: Pitting, iridescence, dull black and

white weathering layer.Description: Small fragment of a hollow base

Fig. 6.3 Illustrated items in the glass catalog from Stratum IIA. Drawings by J. Rudman.

C. Swan: The Glass

111

ring; a tiny section of the vessel wall is still attached. The ring itself is approximately three mm in section, and the entire base ring is approximately four cm in diameter.

Cat. 35 Bottle or flask, neck/shoulder Field Reference: MC 0295.1, NE.A.11.L0011Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Pitting, iridescence, black weathering layer.Description: The junction of the neck and

shoulder of the vessel, with some slight swelling. Approximately three cm internal neck diameter at shoulder.

Parallels: Clairmont 1963:114–115, Pl. XII, III C 5, Nos. 558 and 562 (Middle imperial period plain flasks). Weinberg 1988:70–72, Fig. 4–32, No. 283 (globular bottles with conical neck); Jennings 2006:66–67, Fig. 3.8, No. 7–10) and 77–78, Fig. 4.10, No. 3 (miscellaneous flasks and bottles from second century contexts).

Comments: A constriction at the bottom of the neck and at the junction with the shoulder of a bottle or flask was made using a tool similar to modern jacks. Jennings observes that this feature is not common for flasks and bottles in Beirut, and cites examples from the souk dating to the first and early second centuries C.E. (2006:67, 77).

Cat. 36 Bowl or beaker, rim and wall with grooved band Field Reference: MC 0296.2, SE.B.7.L0003Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Pitting and iridescence.Description: Thick fragment, with a cracked-off

rim and vertical walls; immediately below the rim on the exterior there is a four mm wide horizontal groove Approximately 10 cm rim diameter.

Parallels: Isings 1957:44–45, Form 29 (“beaker with wheel-cut lines”); Weinberg 1988:92–98 (beakers, cups, and bowls with grooved exterior decoration, Figs. 4–47, 4–48, 4–49, and 4–50, especially bowls with cracked-off rim, grooved, Fig. 4–49, Nos. 474–476); Whitehouse 1997:225, Nos. 381–382; Stern 2001:77–82, Nos. 19–23 (beakers); Jennings 2006:61–63 (cracked-off rim cups/beakers with grooved exterior decoration; Fig. 3.5, especially No. 2 which dates to the first century C.E.).

Comments: Jennings observes that cups and beakers with such decoration “are a common form throughout the Roman

Empire and are found on nearly all first century sites” (2006:61); Isings also largely dates beakers with this decoration to the first century C.E., although “occasionally the type seems to have survived the first century, unless [they] are considered as heirlooms” (1957:44). Although Stern’s examples largely derive from Western Europe, they also date to the first century C.E. Weinberg notes that many of the Jalame examples of this decorative type come from a second century C.E. dump context (1988:94).

Cat. 37 Bowl (?), wall with abraded lines Field Reference: MC 0296.5, SE.B.7.L0003Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Pitting and iridescence.Description: Thin fragment with three incised

or lightly abraded horizontal lines on the exterior surface. The rim section is too small to determine the rim diameter or shape of the vessel.

6.3.4 Stratum IIB

Eleven fragments in total were found in Stratum IIB; three of these are diagnostic, including two rims and one neck. The eight non-diagnostic fragments are the typical transparent natural aqua glass, although one shard is of light green glass.

Cat. 38 Bowl, rim Field Reference: MC 0495, NE.A.10.L0013Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Pitting, iridescence, and brown

weathering layer on exterior.Description: The rim is slightly inverted to form

a sunken ring around the interior of the mouth; fire-rounded lip and gently tapering walls. Approximately 13 cm rim diameter.

Cat. 39 Bowl (?), rim Field Reference: MC 0109.1, NE.A.10.L0016Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Pitting and iridescence.Description: Slightly everted rim with a

thickened, fire-rounded lip. The rim is too short to determine the rim diameter or shape of the vessel.

Cat. 40 Bottle, neck Field Reference: MC 0426, NE.B.11.L0015Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Pitting and iridescence.Description: Fragment of a narrow neck with

long, straight walls. Approximately 1.5 cm internal neck diameter.

Excavations at Tel Zahara (2006–2009)

112

6.3.5 Stratum IIC

From this stratum there are 26 fragments in total, with 12 diagnostics: five rims, one neck, four decorated body pieces, one bracelet, and one bead. One of the diagnostics is possibly Hellenistic in date (Cat. 50), and one is certainly Early Islamic in date (Cat. 42);4 the bracelet (Cat. 51) is Middle or Late Islamic in date.5 This stratum also contains a small amount of transparent light green and yellow-brown shatter, but the majority of the non-diagnostic fragments are transparent natural aqua glass.

Cat. 41 Beaker or bowl, rim and wall with grooves (Fig. 6.4.1)

Field Reference: MC 0138, SE.A.7.L0028Color and Clarity: Uncolored (?) with light green

tinge, transparent.Condition: Light pitting and iridescence.Description: Cracked-off, squared rim. Three

wheel-cut, horizontal grooves: one groove is three to four mm wide and just below the lip, another is 20 mm below the first groove; a thin horizontal line is directly beneath the top groove. Approximately 10.5 cm rim diameter.

Parallels: (see Cat. 36) Comments: (see Cat. 36)

Cat. 42 Beaker, rim and wall (Fig. 6.4.2)Field Reference: MC 0081, NE.A.12.L0008Color and Clarity: Obscured color and transparency.Conditon: Heavy pitting, iridescence, flakey

black and white weathering layers completely cover all surfaces.

Description: Large fragment of a small beaker or cup with slightly rounded but mostly vertical walls and a thickened, fire-rounded rim. The vessel has a design in sunken relief that can be seen and felt on both the exterior and interior surfaces, which appears to be a geometric motif: indents form zigzag lines or triangles around the body and a band of flourishes is near the rim. Approximately 6–6.5 cm rim diameter.

Parallels: Kawatoko and Shindo 2009:26–28, Pl. 8 and Color Plate 14, object 2:RG–K1402 (ca. ninth century C.E. beaker with similar indents and impressed geometric pattern), and Plate 9, object 6:RG–3104 (which has a similar vessel shape). Other eighth to ninth century C.E. examples of

4 Although found in Stratum IIC, this shard is probably a contaminant from the large Stratum IB fills.5 This latter fragment (Cat. 51), although found in Stratum IIC, is most likely a later contaminant from the Stratum IA Muslim cemetery on top of the site (section 1.4, Chapter 11).

beakers with indented patterns can be found in Carboni (2001:268–269), ninth – tenth century fragments from Bet Shean (Hadad 2005:150–151, Pl. 31, Nos. 609–622 especially), and loosely dated fragments from Beirut (Jennings 2006:225–226, Fig. 10.5).

Comments: That the design is on both theinterior and exterior walls is an important detail, as it suggests a pinching technique using a tong-like tool (also described as impressing, pincering, or tonging) was used to manufacture this vessel rather than mold-blowing. This technique was used after the final vessel shape was completed and while the glass was still slightly soft, and most commonly decorated open beakers/cups/bowls with short, almost vertical sides and slightly thicker walls so that the entire surface of the vessel could take the pattern of the clamp. The shape of the vessel, its decorative technique, and its motif provide a clear Early Islamic date for this fragment.6 Tong-decorated objects are a ubiquitous type of fineware in Egypt and have been found throughout the Levant and Syria as well as in Iraq, Iran, and the Caucasus. Some believe these vessels “can be attributed with some degree of confidence to Egyptian workshops” dating to the ninth – eleventh centuries (Carboni and Whitehouse 2001:102-103), although others suggest “a shared koiné of pincered glassmaking throughout the caliphate” because “pincer-tongs could have traveled widely, needing little skill to produce cheaper local wares than the deeply cut Persian glass whose ornament they imitated” (O’Hea 1993:225). This koiné should be extended to the contemporary Byzantine world as well, because tonged vessels have been found in Turkey at Amorium (Gill 2002:60–61, 76, and Fig. 1/20, no. 304–308) and in Greece at Corinth (Davidson 1952:107, no. 687).

Cat. 43 Bowl, rimField Reference: MC 0440.1, NE.B.11.L0020Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Pitting and black iridescence.Description: Slightly everted rim with a

6 It is probable that this shard represents contamination from the large mixed fills of Stratum IB in this area.

C. Swan: The Glass

113

thickened, fire-rounded lip. The rim is too short to determine the rim diameter or vessel shape.

Cat. 44 Bowl, rim with crimped trail (Fig. 6.4.3)Field Reference: MC 0424.4, NE.B.11.L0018Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Iridescence, metallic white

weathering layer.Description: Tiny fragment of a vessel rim

with decorative crimped trail. The rim edge is folded and slightly flattened, leaving a small hollow; a notched trail of glass is attached to the top of the fold. Approximately 16 cm rim diameter.

Parallels: (see Cat. 14)Comments: (see Cat. 14)

Cat. 45 Unknown, rim Field Reference: MC 0643, NE.A.6.L0014Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Pitting and iridescence.Description: Flaring rim with a slightly

thickened, fire-rounded lip. The fragment is too small to determine the rim diameter or the shape of the vessel.

Cat. 46 Bottle or flask, neck and shoulder (Fig. 6.4.4)Field Reference: MC 0639, SE.A.6.L0022Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Pitting and iridescence.Description: Rounded swelling around the base

of the neck; neck tapers from the base upward to the mouth; possibly globular body. Approximately two cm internal neck diameter.

Fig. 6.4 Illustrated items in the glass catalog from Stratum IIC. Drawings by J. Rudman.

Excavations at Tel Zahara (2006–2009)

114

Comments: It is difficult to see just how much and how quickly the neck tapers towards the rim of the vessel; likewise it is difficult to determine the shape of the vessel body itself. It does appear as though the neck tapers quickly after the bulge just above the body, which could suggest a later date for this fragment (possibly the Islamic period).

Cat. 47 Bowl/beaker, wall with grooves Field Reference: MC 0082, SE.A.10.L0011Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Light pitting and iridescence.Description: Vertical wall with two three mm

wide wheel-cut, horizontal grooves on the exterior; between these grooves are two thin horizontal abraded lines.

Parallels: (see Cat. 23 and 36)Comments: (see Cat. 23 and 36)

Cat. 48 Bowl, wall with rib (Fig. 6.4.5)Field Reference: MC 0424.3, NE.B.11.L0018Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Iridescence and metallic white

weathering layer.Description: Thick, curving shard. The external

wall has one large ridge or rib, which is wider at one end and thinner at the other.

Parallels: Isings 1957:17–21, Form 3 (pillar-molded bowl both shallow or deep bowls); Grose 1979:54–65, Group C; Israeli 2003:68 and 80–81, Nos. 67–71; Jennings 2006:37–42, Figs. 2.10 and 2.13, Group 5 (ribbed bowls).

Comments: The thickness of the fragment andthe shiny finish of the exterior surface suggest that this vessel was cast or molded and then fire-polished on the outside. It has been widely observed that such vessels date typically from the first century B.C.E. to the end of the first century C.E. (Allen 1986:99; Oliver 1990:94–95); Jennings remarks that these bowls were made from the second quarter of the first century B.C.E. to at least the last quarter of the first century C.E., although a more precise identification of date and place of manufacture is usually attributable to size and spacing of ribs as well as vessel shape (2006:37). Pillar-molded or ribbed bowls were extremely common throughout the Roman Empire, and may be considered typical for finds of the first century C.E. (Isings 1957:17).

Cat. 49 Bowl (?), wall with abraded lines Field Reference: MC 0687, SE.B.7.L0012Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Pitting and iridescence.Description: Thick, curving body fragment.

Three thin horizontal abraded lines create a five mm wide band of decoration around the exterior surface.

Cat. 50 Bowl, wall with three interior grooves Field Reference: MC 0567, SE.B.8.L0004Color and Clarity: Obscured color and transparency

(yellowish?).Condition: Pitting, iridescence, black weathering

layer.Description: Three fragments with fresh breaks,

two of these join. Thick, curving walls with a light yellow tinge in the cross-section. Three horizontal grooves on the interior surface: one is thin and the other two are three mm wide and five mm apart. The thickness of the wall indicates the vessel may have been cast/molded rather than blown.

Parallels: Grose 1979:56, Group A (grooved bowls, dated to ca. 165–100 B.C.E.); Oliver 1990:95, Fig. 1, Nos. 88–89; Israeli 2003:79, No. 66; Jennings 2006:30–35, Fig. 2.4, Group 1 (conical grooved bowls), and Fig. 2.5, Group 2 (hemispherical grooved bowls; the size and spacing of bands and weathering characteristics are particularly similar to Fig. 2.5, Nos. 1 and 4).

Comments: This yellow-tinged color is common for this style of molded (or slumped) Hellenistic grooved bowls, which were rotary-polished on the inside and fire-polished on the outside. The examples from Beirut were found in contexts dating to mid to late first century B.C.E. (Jennings 2006:34). Jennings notes that this vessel type is “usually attributed to workshops in the Syro-Palestinian region because of the numbers found there” and suggests Tel Anafa in Upper Galilee as probably being one of these manufacturing centers (2006:32). Jennings also notes cast bowls with internal horizontal grooves that date to the Early Roman period (2006:42–247), which are often yellow in color but have much thinner walls.

Cat. 51 Bracelet (Fig. 6.4.6)Field Reference: MC 0614, SE.B.8.L0004Color and Clarity: Multicolored, opaque and translucent.

C. Swan: The Glass

115

Condition: Little weathering.Description: Translucent aqua bottom layer and

an opaque aqua top layer with black and white stripes sandwiched alternately between reddish-brown or yellow stripes. 2.5 cm long, semicircular section; eight cm external diameter and seven cm internal diameter.

Parallels: Spaer 2001:194–195, 204, and 369(Type D.1.d. semicircular in section with patches; Pl. 36 No. 477 especially in color: dark greenish blue with vertical patches of yellow, green, white, and black although this example dates to the nineteenth century Hebron); Spaer 1992:52, 55, Fig. 11 (orange-yellow-black-white-black-white-yellow-orange patches on blue surface coating); Grey 2000:127, 129–130, Nos. 33–35 (Ottoman period); Kawatoko and Shindo 2009:31 (Islamic bracelets ca. thirteenth to twentieth centuries C.E.) and Plate 30 (object 6:TO–734 and 510, opaque blue and aqua bracelets with patches of black, white, yellow, and orange or red).

Comments: As Spaer’s “type D is with fewexceptions Islamic” (2001:195), this object dates to the Islamic period, as such patch patterns were used in the region on all bracelet types since the Mamluk period (Spaer 1992:54).

Cat. 52 Bead (Fig. 6.4.7)Field Reference: MC 0655, SE.B.7.L0011Color and Clarity: Obscured color and transparency.Condition: Heavy pitting, iridescence, flakey

black and white weathering layer.Description: Large and spherical bead, slightly

uneven in shape. Difficult to determine color, but probably monochrome. 1.4 cm diameter, pierced by a 0.4 cm hole.

6.3.6 Out-of-context

Of the 15 total out-of-context fragments, eight diagnostic fragments include four rims, three bases, and one body; these fragments are quite small and make identification very difficult.

Cat. 53 Unknown, rim (?) (Fig. 6.4.8)Field Reference: MC 0688, NE.A.6, baulk cleaningColor and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Light weathering.Description: Slightly inverted rim (or possibly

a hollow, tubular base ring); folded edge with a large central hollow. Approximately six cm diameter.

Cat. 54 Bowl, rim Field Reference: MC 0368, NE.A.7, baulk cleaningColor and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Pitting, iridescence, dull black

weathering layer on exterior.Description: Thickened, fire-rounded lip. A slight

bulge on the exterior surface forms a ridge around the mouth. Approximately 17 cm rim diameter.

Cat. 55 Unknown, rim Field Reference: MC 0216, SE.C.5.L0003Color and Clarity: Obscured color and transparency.Condition: Iridescence covered by dull black

weathering.Description: Slightly everted rim with a thickened,

fire-rounded lip. Approximately 4.4 cm rim diameter.

Cat. 56 Bottle or flask, rim (Fig. 6.4.9)Field Reference: MC 0512, NE.A.8, east baulkColor and Clarity: Obscured color and transparency.Condition: Pitting, white metallic iridescence.Description: Slightly fire-rounded lip. Very thin,

straight walls taper inward to the neck. Approximately five cm rim diameter.

Parallels: Isings 1957:110, Form 92 (flask with funnel-mouth) and 123–125, Form 104 (flask with funnel mouth); Pollak 2006:176–179, Fig. 139, especially Nos. 117 and 121–126 (bottles with simple rims, funnel mouth or conical necks); Jennings 2006:132–133, Fig. 6.9 (narrow goblet rims, sixth – seventh centuries) and 176–180, Fig. 7.26 (funnel neck flasks, sixth century).

Comments: A flaring rim is a common feature of a variety of forms over the centuries, and could thus belong to a number of vessel types and periods. Isings comments that Form 92 is not very numerous and cites examples from the second century; alternatively, Form 104 appears in the third century but is mainly a fourth century type (1957:122). Pollak also notes that conical necks are characteristic of the Byzantine period, although they are found in earlier contexts as well (2006:177); she also notes it is most common for bottles with these necks to have a globular body with a slightly concave base. Jennings has examples of both thin-walled goblet rims and funnel neck flasks with similarly straight and sharply angled rims, dating to the sixth – seventh centuries.

Excavations at Tel Zahara (2006–2009)

116

Cat. 57 Bowl, base (Fig. 6.4.10)Field Reference: MC 0127, SE.A.10.L0006Color and Clarity: Obscured color and transparency.Condition: White iridescent layer covered by dull

black weathering layer.Description: Almost one-half of a slightly concave

base with no visible pontil scar. Part of a solid ring is still attached, which is five mm high and has a five cm diameter; almost nothing remains of the walls.

Cat. 58 Bowl or bottle (?), base ring Field Reference: MC 0201, SE.D.5.L0001Color and Clarity: Obscured color and transparency.Condition: Iridescent layer covered by dull black

weathering layer.Description: This base ring would have been

applied to the bottom of a bowl or bottle; a very small part of the vessel bottom is still attached. The hollow ring is four mm in diameter but not completely circular. Approximately five to six cm base ring diameter.

Cat. 59 Jug or bottle, base Field Reference: MC 0494, NE.A.8, west baulkColor and Clarity: Light green, transparent.Condition: Pitting, iridescence, and brown

weathering layer on exterior.Description: Very large and thick bottom broken

into two halves. No wall edges remain, so the exact size and shape cannot be determined. The center of base is thick with a slight kick and a scar from a large pontil rod (approximately 1.8–2.0 cm in diameter); bubbles in the glass are visible in the cross-section.

Cat. 60 Bowl, wall with external ribbing Field Reference: MC 0186.1, SE.A.10.L0010Color and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Pitting and iridescence.Description: Thin, curving fragment with two

almost-parallel, thin ribs. Weathering makes it difficult to see whether these ribs were mold-blown or tooled.

Parallels: Isings 1957:35–36, Form 17 (ribbed bowl); Jennings 2006:58–61, Fig. 3.2 (fragile ribbed bowls or Zarte Rippenschalen).

Comments: The thin and shallow ribs appear somewhat similar to the “fragile ribbed bowls,” or Zarte Rippenschalen, shown in Jennings. These vessels typically date to the first century C.E. and are most commonly found in Europe; however, fragile ribbed bowls “were also made locally in the Levantine area, but

these are different from the imported vessels in that they were made from pale natural colored glass, and none of the surviving fragments has any evidence of white trails” (Jennings 2006:58).

Cat. 61 Jar (?), rim Field Reference: MC 0746, NE.A.6, cleaningColor and Clarity: Natural aqua, transparent.Condition: Pitting and black iridescence.Description: The rim is slightly everted and the

walls gently taper inwards; a slightly thickened, fire-rounded lip. Approximately seven cm rim diameter.

6.4 Discussion

6.4.1 The Assemblage

Sixty-two percent of the 156 glass fragments studied here were deemed undiagnostic because they represented ambiguous body shards or because they were simply too small for identification. As can be seen in Table 6.1, three percent of the glass finds were recovered from the topsoil, 40 percent from the mixed fills of Stratum IB, 24 percent from the latest Roman phase of Stratum IIA, seven percent from the middle Roman phase of Stratum IIB, and 16 percent from the earliest Roman phase of Stratum IIC; about ten percent of the glass finds were out of context.

Almost half of the diagnostic fragments came from the rims of vessels, although bases/bottoms and decorated wall fragments are also very common (Table 6.2). In general, because of the small size and break patterns of the fragments it is quite difficult to identify any precise vessel shapes and styles; however, some general observations and conclusions may still be made. Open tableware forms such as bowls, cups, beakers, dishes, and plates make up about two-thirds of the identifiable vessel types while closed forms like bottles, jugs, jars, and flasks make up another one-third of the assemblage (Table 6.3). Although most of the glass fragments derive from vessels, there are a few small fragments of jewelry present at the site as well—two bracelet fragments (Cat. 24 and 51) and a bead (Cat. 52)—which at first seems to suggest a small degree of luxury at this site during the Roman period; however, these remains most likely originate from post-Roman activity at the site (discussed below).

6.4.2 Manufacture and Decoration

Most of the vessels present at the site are undecorated, free-blown tablewares; there is very little cast glass represented, which is not surprising considering blown glass began to dominate glassmaking practice on all sides of the Mediterranean during the first century C.E. The rims of the open tableware vessels come from a variety of forms—bowls, dishes/plates, and cups/beakers—and a variety of

C. Swan: The Glass

117

Table 6.1 Total number of glass fragments by stratum.

StratumnumBer oF dIagnoStIC FragmentS

numBer oF non-dIagnoStIC FragmentS

total numBer oF FragmentS

perCent oF aSSemBlage

Topsoil 2 3 5 3IB 23 39 62 40IIA 12 25 37 24IIB 3 8 11 7IIC 12 14 26 16Out-of-context 8 7 15 10Total count 60 96 156 100

Table 6.2 Number of glass fragments by diagnostic type.

Stratum rImSBottomS orBaSeS

neCkS orShoulderS

deCorated Body pIeCeS

Complete VeSSelS

jewelry

Topsoil 0 2 0 0 0 0IB 11 6 2 2 1 1IIA 7 2 1 2 0 0IIB 2 0 1 0 0 0IIC 5 0 1 4 0 2Out-of-context 4 3 0 1 0 0Total count 29 13 5 9 1 3

Table 6.3 Object types of glass fragments.

StratumBowlS orBeakerS

dISheS orplateS

jarS orFlaSkS

BottleS orjugS

BraCeletS BeadS unknown

Topsoil 0 1 0 1 0 0 3IB 12 2 1 8 1 0 39IIA 8 1 0 3 0 0 25IIB 2 0 0 1 0 0 8IIC 8 0 0 1 1 1 15Out-of-context 4 0 2 1 0 0 8Total count 34 4 3 15 2 1 98

sizes, with rim diameters ranging from six cm (small) to 20 cm (relatively large). The rims of the closed vessels are mostly from bottles and flasks (and possibly from some jars or jugs as well); some of these most likely served as toiletry vessels, including one small complete bottle (Cat. 25) and fragments likely from candlestick unguentaria and other types of bottles with long thin necks (Cat. 17, 20, 21, and 33).

The size, shape, and forming techniques of the vessels at Tel Zahara suggest that the manufacture of the majority of these items was a relatively simple affair: a free blown bubble of glass could be quickly shaped into the basic utilitarian shapes present in the assemblage, and the neck, rim, and base shaped with the help of tools like jacks and a pontil rod when necessary. Vessel decoration is largely absent or is limited to subtle additions like a body roll (Cat. 22), a

folded or rolled lip (Cat. 14, 30, 44, and 53), an applied foot ring (Cat. 16, 57, and 58), or crimped rim trails (Cat. 14 and 44). The fragments with more time-consuming decoration like wheel-cut grooves, abraded lines, or cast/molded ribbing (Cat. 23, 36, 41, 47, 48, 50, and 60) come from by far the fanciest vessels present at the site, which probably date to the Hellenistic and early Roman periods.

6.4.3 Color and Clarity

The majority of the fragments is of a very similar color range (Table 6.4) and are transparent or translucent in terms of clarity; although many fragments are weathered to such an extent that the color and clarity really cannot be determined, it may be reasonable to assume that the color and clarity of these fragments are largely the same as the rest of the assemblage.

Excavations at Tel Zahara (2006–2009)

118

Defining glass color is always somewhat subjective, especially when describing the natural tint of glass. Because there are natural iron impurities in the raw materials used for glassmaking, glass usually has a greenish or bluish tint and is therefore often referred to as “unintentionally-colored” glass. This natural tint can be further manipulated through control of the furnace atmosphere and, as a result, natural uncolored (which is distinct from decolored glass) glass can include a range of pale blue-green colors or tints.

The glass described in this catalog has been called “natural aqua” to indicate that the glass is not intentionally colored through the addition of other ingredients, but that it does have a hint of blue-green color. The intensity of this color in transparent and translucent glass depends on the thickness of vessel walls; for example, some of the thin fragments look almost colorless with a hint of aqua when looking straight through the fragment, while their cross-section appear more deeply blue-green. The similarity in color and clarity across the majority of the assemblage might be explained as the result of the glass having come from the same workshops or from a glassworking region that was using a similar supply of raw glass; however, natural blue-green glass was by far the most common color used to produce vessels in this region from the first century C.E. to the Early Islamic period, so the identification of more precise manufacturing locations for the items in this assemblage is not likely to be feasible without any chemical analysis.

While there was very little colored glass in the assemblage, the light green (out-of-context Cat. 59 and undiagnostic shatter from Strata IIA and IIC), yellow-brown (undiagnostic shatter from Strata IIA and IIC), and dark blue (Cat. 13 from Stratum IB) glass fragments may very well be from vessels imported from the West. Deeply colored glass was popular in the early Roman period, but “there seems to have been little or no attempt by the local [Syro-Palestinian] industries to emulate the fashion for strongly colored glass vessels so common in Italy at the time” (Jennings 2006:57).

6.4.4 Chronology

A fundamental challenge to dating glass vessels is that “unlike pottery, which can be dated by rim-types, glass ware has only slight variations in the manufacture of rims

and bases because of the limitations of this material,” and every-day household wares “did not change materially in shape or type over a long period of time” (Isings 1957:163). As a result of this, the plain vessel forms from one period can be difficult (or impossible) to distinguish from their counterparts of other periods when they are found in deposits of mixed date (Jennings 2006:57). In addition, the small size and weathered character of the Tel Zahara fragments also contribute to the difficulty of associating them with particular vessel types. Because of these conditions, not many dates have been suggested in the catalog. When recognition is possible, most vessels appear to date to the first and second centuries C.E.; we should still be cautious of precise dates, however, as the production of utilitarian types and simple forms often extended across the centuries and there may be “heirloom” objects from earlier periods (e.g. Cat. 50) present as well.

A further difficulty for the glass chronology at Tel Zahara is that some of the excavation areas or strata have been disturbed, which would explain why some objects seem “out-of-phase” with the majority of other finds. Three objects in particular are chronologically problematic for their strata: the two bracelet fragments (Cat. 24 and 51) and a pressed beaker fragment (Cat. 42). Bracelets are notoriously difficult to date in the first place and “it is not always possible to draw a clear distinction between pre-Islamic and Islamic bracelets” (Spaer 1988:52), but it is currently supposed that glass bracelets only became common in the Levant in the mid third century C.E. (Spaer 2001:19). Twisted bracelets were unlikely to have appeared before the fourth century C.E. and monochrome twisted bracelets did not become frequent until the late Byzantine period (Spaer 2001:194–195). The twisted bracelet fragment from Tel Zahara (Cat. 24), was found in the mixed fill of Stratum IB, and might reasonably be identified as Byzantine or Islamic in date. The semicircular bracelet with patches of multicolored glass (Cat. 51) is certainly Middle or Late Islamic in date despite the fact that it was recovered from the Early Roman context of Stratum IIC; this fragment is a close parallel to Spaer’s semicircular Type D bracelet with colored patches—a type that is “with few exceptions Islamic” (Spaer 2001:195).

Table 6.4 Glass colors.

Stratumnatural aqua

yellow-Brown

lIght green dark Blue multIColored ColorleSSoBSCured or unknown

Topsoil 4 0 0 0 0 0 1IB 56 0 1 1 0 1 3IIA 34 1 1 0 0 0 1IIB 10 0 1 0 0 0 0IIC 19 1 1 0 1 1 3Out-of-context 10 0 1 0 0 0 4Total count 133 2 5 1 1 2 12

C. Swan: The Glass

119

6.5 Summary

The exact typology and chronology of the glass vessels from Tel Zahara is difficult to fully assess because the fragments are generally quite small and details like the color, clarity, decoration, and method of manufacture are largely obscured due to post-depositional weathering. Despite these limitations, however, some general observations can still be made. The glass from the Roman period at Tel Zahara is a modest collection of mostly transparent, natural aqua glass with a few outliers of light green, yellow-brown, and dark blue glass that possibly represents a small number of imported items from the West. Open tablewares like bowls, cups, beakers, dishes, and plates dominate this small assemblage although there are some storage containers and possibly a few simple luxury items

like toiletry bottles and flasks as well. The presence of even a modest assemblage of glass on this small domestic site is not actually surprising. In the post-Flavian period glass and glass production had become much more widespread: increased quantities of glass objects were being produced around the Mediterranean while at the same time local production was also increasing. The Tel Zahara glass is also typical for the time and region: beginning in the first and second centuries C.E., natural colors became much more popular, vessel shapes were almost exclusively blown, and drinking vessels became more common. As Tel Zahara was located in the heart of what was for centuries an important glassmaking region, the simple character of the individual items and the nature of the overall assemblage make it likely that the vessels were largely produced locally rather than imported from far away.