Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T05:26:27.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gold-in-Glass Beads from the Ancient World

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

George C. Boon
George C. Boon
Affiliation:
Institute of the History of Material Culture, Warsaw National Museum of Wales, Cardiff
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Some years ago, with the encouragement of Dr D. B. Harden, I began the pursuit of a type of segmented bead apparently rare in Romano-British contexts, but curiously frequent in the graves of Meroitic Faras. A preliminary note appeared in 1966; now, there is much to add, including (by the generosity of Dr Maria Dekówna and Mme Hanna Pawłowska of the Institute of the History of Material Culture, Polish Academy of Sciences) analyses which in two cases hint at a common origin. But Faras and Britain are only the extremities of a distribution which proved, even when the Far East was excluded, to cover an immense area and a wide range of time. A particularly interesting thread is traceable for Roman times, suggestive of a link with the Mediterranean via eastern rather than western Europe.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 8 , November 1977, pp. 193 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © George C. Boon 1977. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Boon, G. C., Bull. Bd. Celt. Stud, xxii (1966), 104–9Google Scholar.

2 Dikshit, M. G., Ancient India viii (1952), 57Google Scholar, N. India 300 B.C.-A.D. 750; later, Lamb, A., Journ. Glass Stud, xiii (1965), 93Google Scholar, Malaya; Amsterdam trade-beads included the type, Sleen, W. G. N. van der, A Handbook on Beads (Liège 1967), 110Google Scholar.

3 Some of this construction have no foil, notably from the Iapodean cemeteries (note 18 below) kindly examined by Dr Marié (in litt., 1975); much later we find opaque glass coatings, e.g. in Poland, M. Dekówna, Ann. 4e Congrés des Journées internat. du Verre, 1967, 158.

4 Ribbed varieties occurred uncommonly in Coptic times, Forrer, R., Die frühchr. Alterthümer aus… Achmin-Panopolis (Strassburg 1893), Taf. 9, 13Google Scholar.

5 Brunton, G., Qau and Badari iii (1930), 27Google Scholar, ‘noteworthy feature’, cf. pls. 45, Nos. 64, 68; 46, Nos. 146–48 and (segmented) 194–200. Kisa, A, Das Glas im Altertume (Leipzig 1908) i, 127–8Google Scholar, quotes O. Tischler to the effect that the type goes back to the fourth century B.C.; but the basis of the remark is obscure, and it is unlikely to be correct.

6 E. A. W. Budge, The Mummy (1925 ed.), 267; B.M. 35119.

7 Griffith, F. LI., Liverpool Ann. Art and Arch, xi (1924), 144–5Google Scholar, and xii (1925), 57–63, for Faras datings; a modern view, P. L. Shinnie, Meroe: a Civilisation of the Sudan (1967).

8 Harden, D. B., Journ. Glass Stud, x (1968), 21–47Google Scholar. It is thought that the outer casing was laboriously ground to fit the already-decorated inner shell. Tutankhamun: A. Lucas, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries (1959 ed.), 219, plaques on throne.

9 Oliver, A., Journ. Glass Stud, xi (1969), 13–16Google Scholar.

10 Griffith, , Liverpool Ann. xii, 150Google Scholar, Grave 2337, cf. xi, pl. 62, 4.

11 Euxine beads have recently been classified by E. M. Alexeëva, Arheologiya SSSR GI-12 (1975). where a surprising range of Egyptian and imitative scarabs and other amulets is richly illustrated. Some are seen in the made-up necklaces from Kerch in the Ashmolean Museum.

12 Shelov, D. B., Materialy i Issledovaniya po Archeologii SSSR 98 (1961), 79–80Google Scholar.

13 Weinberg, G. D., Archaiologikon Deltion XXIV (1971), 143–51Google Scholar, esp. 148, 150, pl. 79d.

14 Canarache, V., Importul amforelor stampilate la Istria (Bucuresti 1957)Google Scholar; Gramatopol, M. and Poenaru-Bordea, Gh., Dacia xiii (1967), 127–282Google Scholar, table, 136–7; Tudor, D., Arheologia Moldovei v (1967), 37–80Google Scholar, note especially the stamps from Lunca Ciurii, a Bastarnian occupationsite; Boroseşti, Babeş, M., Memoria Antiquitatis ii (1970), 221Google Scholar, fig. 18; and Lukaševka II (U.S.S.R.), information from Prof. Poenaru-Bordea, as much in the following note.

15 Tomis, M. Bucovală, Pontica viii (1975), 383–4Google Scholar, fig. 9, from a first century B.C. tomb; Bastarnian graves, Poieneşti, Vulpe, R., Materiale Arheologice i (1953), 316–7Google Scholar, Grave 3 (120 beads); 360–3, Grave 147, our PL. xv. 4; 365–6, Grave 149 (15 beads); 409–11, Grave 339; 411–12, Grave 340: in general, 2 to 9 mm diam. Also, unpublished as yet, from M. Babes' excavations at Boroseşti. I have studied some of the Poieneşti beads; besides segmented, there are large well-made spheroids with wide canals, undoubtedly Hellenistic.

16 Stawiarska, T., Archeologia Polski xix (1974), 117–233Google Scholar, esp. 208–11, pl. 6.

17 Onaïko, N. A., Arheologiya SSSR DI–27 (1970), 54Google Scholar, 107–8.

18 There are no specimens in the Iapodean cemeteries of the Unatal, for example, Marié, Z., Wiss. Mitteil.d. Bosnisch-Herzegowinischen Landesmuseurns IA (1971), pls. 7, 15, 24–5Google Scholarpassim: see note 3 above. Those from Giubiasco mentioned in my 1966 paper (note 1 above) need by no means be our type, being described merely as ‘opalisierend’: Ulrich, R., Die Gräberfelder in der Umgebung von Bellinzona (Zürich 1914), 514Google Scholar, 612, 621, pls. A few from Perchting, Bavaria: Haevernick, T. E., Die Glasarmringe u. Ringperlen… (Bonn 1960), 29Google Scholar, note 145, end of La Téne.

19 Griffith, , Liverpool Ann. xii, 151Google Scholar, Grave 2376, cf. xiv (1927), 67, turn of first centuries B.C. and A.D. The pandants are of turquoise-coloured frit.

20 In fact only about 3 per cent of the 600-odd graves listed Liverpool Ann. xii, 85 ff., are slated to contain beads of our type. Not every occurrence is noted: e.g. not Grave 2337, ibid. xi, 112, pl. 62, 4, and not Grave 1091, which produced the long, graduated, mostly but not wholly opacified necklace mentioned and illustrated loc. cit. (note 1), from which a fragment in good condition was kindly spared by the Ashmolean Museum authorities for analysis (p. 202). The omissions are unlikely to affect the known percentage significantly.

21 Budge, loc. cit. (note 6).

22 L. Woolley and D. Randall-Maclver, Karanóg: the Romano-Nubian Cemetery (1910), 74-77.

23 D. Barag, in. litt., 1967.

24 Baer, P. V. C. in Kraeling, C., Gerasa: City of the Decapolis (New Haven, 1938), 546Google Scholar.

25 Information from Mme A. Vostščinina of the State Hermitage Museum, and Mme N. Sorokina of the State Historical Museum, Moscow.

26 Glassware, N. Sorokina, Ann 4e Congrès des Journées…, 67–79; glass made in the Crimea and Ukraine, Besborodov, M. A. and Zadneprovsky, J. A., Slavia Antiqua xii (1965), 125–42Google Scholar [in English]; and at Tomis, Bucovală, M., Vase antice de Sticiă1 la Tomis (Constanƫa 1968), 154–6Google Scholar.

27 Kindly sent for study by Mme Sorokina, and probably second to third century A.D.

28 Information from J. de Alarcão, in litt., 1975. See Fouilles de Conimbriga vi (1976), 212Google Scholar, No. 324.

29 Maczyńska, M., Archeologia Polski xvii (1972), 349–90Google Scholar, esp. 375, Table 4, ‘sklane ze złota. wkladka’. Cultural setting, described [in English], Godlowski, K., Prace Archeologiczne xi (1970), map p. 6. Cf. note 16Google Scholar above.

30 Herteig, A., Viking xix (1955), 70Google Scholar, fig. 2f.

31 M. Maczyńska, loc. cit (note 29), 390, makes this point for the barbaricum; but there seems to be no reason why it should not also apply to peripheral areas of the Empire where change was short. In Italy today, bonbons are given in change for the same reason.

32 Dio Cassius, lxxii, 16.

33 T. Sulimirski, The Sarmatians (1970), 174–76.

34 Chesters: ibid., and Grace Simpson, Britons and the Roman Army (1964), pl. 3; Newstead: half a chalcedony bead, recorded by Mrs Guido in Dr Mason's collection, Selkirk, 1947, and kindly notified by her.

35 It would be gratifying to be able to close the circle by referring to beads of appropriate date from Sarmatian cemeteries in their homeland. Many beads apparently of our type indeed shown by Párducz, M., Denkmäler der Sarmatenzeit Ungarns i–iii (Arch. Hungarica xxv (1941), xxviiiGoogle Scholar (1944) and xxx (1950)), but they are not described as having included foil: the whole discussion of beads in this work is perfunctory. Fourth-century specimens like some of ours (Group C) are described from Ócsa cemetery, Salomon, A., Folia Archaeologica xi (1959), Taf. 7, 5–6Google Scholar. For the flattened opaque green bead from Verulamium mentioned under C2, a common Sarmatian type, see however Párducz, Sarmatenzeit ii, Taf. 32, 10, etc. They go back to an early date, however, some occurring e.g. in the Poieneşti grave 147 (see note 15). See Addendum, p. 207.

36 Forrer, R., Strasbourg-Argentorate (Strabourg 1927), 324Google Scholar, Taf. 39, No. 1956, from the Weissturmtor cemetery.

37 Schwerzenbach, K. V. and Jacobs, J., Jahrb. f. Altertumskunde v (1911), 42Google Scholar, fig. 3 (Grave 560). Dr Haevernick kindly inspected the material: in this grave, three segments and one bobbin-shaped, gold-in-glass; other graves had clear segmented beads or beads where the foil was obscure or absent.

38 Keller, E., Die spätröm. Grabfunde in Südbayern (München 1971), 87Google Scholar, Abb. 26, Type 6(a), cf. Taf. 40, 3 and 41, 12.

39 Illus. loc. cit. (note 1), pl. 6, 4, centre. The small beads may be compared with the examples shown by Keller.

40 T. Stawiarska, loc. cit (note 16), 209.

41 Böhner, K., Die frank. Altertümer d. Trierer Landes (Berlin 1958), 82Google Scholar.

42 See e.g. Dannheimer, H., Die german. Funde d. spät. Kaiserzeit u.d.früh. Mittelalters in Mittelfranken (Berlin 1962), 65Google Scholar.

43 In litt., 1964.

44 Some of the main contributions are mentioned by Dr Dekówna in her papers, Ann. 3e Congrès des Journèes internat. du Verre, 1964, 116–28, and Ann. 4e Congrès…, 1967, 147–61. See also next note.

45 L'vova, Z. A., in ier Congrès internat. d'Archéologie Slave, 1965, (1970), v, 237–46Google Scholar.

46 Cf. T. C. Lethbridge's reference to ‘double-shelled’ beads with no mention of foil, and wrongly called ‘blown’, Recent Excav. in A.-S. Cemeteries… (Cambridge 1931), 14Google Scholar.

47 Leeds, E. T., Proc. Soc. Antiq. ser. 2, xxix (1916–1917), 54Google Scholar, fig. 6 (Grave 27), Ashmolean Mus.

48 Kennet, D. H., Journ. Northampton Mus. & Art Gallery x (1974), 31Google Scholar, pl. 5; I am indebted to W. R. Moore for further details and for testing the foil. The outer coat has gone in all but one case.

49 Grimes, W. F., Excav. on Defence Sites i (1960), 113Google Scholar, a ref. from Mrs T. M. Dickinson.

50 Harden, D. B. in Alcock, L., Dinas Powys (Cardiff 1963), 178–9Google Scholar, 186, fig. 41, suggesting a Coptic origin, indeed quite likely as an alternative, given the imported pottery, including Mediterranean wares, from this site.

51 Arbman, H., Birka I: Die Gräber (Uppsala 1940–1943)Google Scholar; Z. A. L'vova, loc. cit. (note 45), 239 for further refences.

52 Waterman, D. M., Archaeologia xcvii (1959), 96, fig. 22, 33Google Scholar.

53 Kindly notified by Dr Bréondan Ó Ríordáin, tenth-century or thereabouts, from his excavations in Winetavern Street.

54 Griffith, , Liverpool Ann. xii, 130Google Scholar; loc. cit. (note 1), pl. 6, 5–6 (radiograph).

55 See note 27.

56 A more detailed study of the results of these analyses appears in my forthcoming study ‘Several glass objects from Caerleon’, Bull. Bd. Celt. Stud. I wish to express my thanks to Mme A. Girdwoyń, of the Central Laboratory of the Institute of the History of Material Culture, for help in problems concerning the analyses.

57 Calcium may enter into the mass of glass either with the sand or as a separate addition. Since the provenance of the calcareous matter cannot be defined on the basis of analytical results, I have calculated two alternative totals of constituents penetrating into the mass with the sand: one taking account of CaO + MgO, the other omitting them. Manganese may enter into the mass either with the calcareous matter or with the sand.

58 For these see Ščapova, J. L., Materialy i Issledovaniya po Arheologii SSSR 103 (1962), 237–40Google Scholar (Panticapaeum); ibid. 127 (1965) (Tanais); eadem, in Keramika i Steklq Drevnej Tmutarakani(Moskva 1963), 173–4Google Scholar (Taman'); Belov, G. D., Sovetskaya Arheologiya 1965. 3, 237–9Google Scholar (Cherson); and E. M. A. Alexeëva and T. M. Arsen'eva, ibid. 1961.2, 176–8 (Tanais).