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

Journal of Archaeological Science xxx (2016) 1e11

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas

Research papers

Mesopotamian glass from Late Bronze Age Egypt, Romania, Germany, and Denmark Jeanette Varberg a, *, Bernard Gratuze b, Flemming Kaul c, Anne Haslund Hansen c, Mihai Rotea d, Mihai Wittenberger d a

Moesgaard Museum, DK-8270, Højbjerg, Denmark IRAMAT-CEB, UMR5060, CNRS/Univ. Orleans, Orleans, France National Museum of Denmark, DK-1220, København K, Denmark d National History Museum of Transylvania, Cluj-Napoca, Romania b c

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 24 August 2015 Received in revised form 3 April 2016 Accepted 5 April 2016 Available online xxx

This article presents new evidence of the wide dispersion of Mesopotamian glass, 1400e1100 BCE. The chemical analyses of glass material from Amarna, Egypt, demonstrate that glass of Mesopotamian origin reached Egypt. The recently obtained physical evidence substantiates the words of the Amarna letters, referring to glass trade between Syria and Egypt. Furthermore, the chemical analyses of glass beads from Romania, Northern Germany and Denmark demonstrate that they were made of Mesopotamian glass. The current results presented here contribute to our understanding of the long distance exchange networks between the Mediterranean and the Nordic Bronze Age cultures. Finally, on the background of the analysis results it is proposed that the chemical composition of some of the beads in question indicates a mixture of glass of Mesopotamian and Egyptian origin. Probably, the mixture of the glass material took place at secondary workshops in the Mycenaean world. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Late bronze age Glass beads Trade network Long distance exchange New Kingdom Egypt Amarna Mesopotamia Mycenae Romania Germany South Scandinavia

1. Introduction During the latest decades, the methods regarding chemical analyses of ancient glass have improved dramatically, along with the increasing amount of material available for comparative studies (Shortland et al., 2007; Walton et al., 2009, 2012; Shortland, 2012; Gratuze, 2013; Rehren and Freestone, 2015). Recent chemical analyses of glass beads found in well-dated burial contexts from 1400e1100 BCE have demonstrated that glass from both Mesopotamia and Egypt reached Denmark e the Nordic Bronze Age culture e during this early phase of glass production (Varberg et al.,

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Varberg), gratuze@cnrs-orleans. fr (B. Gratuze), fl[email protected] (F. Kaul), anne.haslund.hansen@natmus. dk (A.H. Hansen), [email protected] (M. Rotea), [email protected] (M. Wittenberger).

2015). Even though it has been demonstrated that glass from both Mesopotamia and Egypt was exported to the Mycenaean states, there seems so far to be no clear physical evidence of Egyptian glass in Mesopotamia or for Mesopotamian glass in Egypt (Walton et al., 2009; Rehren and Freestone, 2015). It is possible to attest more than 2000 annular glass beads from 1400e1100 BCE found in Denmark, Germany and Romania. Such a large material offers a great potential for research into the origin and the dissemination of glass (Jantzen and Schmidt, 1999; Petrescu-Dîmbovita, 1977; Varberg et al., 2015). Two of the largest glass finds in Europe are the Cioclovina Cave hoard from West Romania and the Neustrelitz hoard from North Germany. A number of beads from both hoards have been analyzed. The beads from the Neustrelitz hoard were analyzed by Stephanie Mildner (Mildner et al., 2010, 2014). In the present article the chemical composition of the Neustrelitz beads, as presented by Mildner et al. is compared

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2016.04.010 0305-4403/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

2

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

with the composition of the steadily increasing amount of analyzed Bronze Age glass material at hand. The intention of this article is to trace the movement of early glass from its origin in Mesopotamia and Egypt into the Mediterranean, including centers such as Mycenae, and further towards Northern Europe and the Nordic Bronze Age culture. For this study we have chosen four geographical areas that are rich in glass finds and represent the spread and exchange or trade with glass in the Late Bronze Age. 2. Glass from Amarna, Egypt The iconographic and textual material seems to indicate a substantive flow of glass into Egypt, but until now there has been no hard evidence for it. The discrepancy between the textual and iconographic evidence of glass import into Egypt and the lack of chemical analytical evidence for such an import has been pointed at by Rehren and others (Rehren, 2014, 221, Shortland, 2012). In a number of the Amarna letters, pharaoh Akhenaten (years of reign: 1353e1336 BCE), requests deliveries of glass from local rulers in the Levant (Shortland, 2012, 147e152; Rehren, 2014, 219). About a hundred years earlier, during the rule of pharaoh Thutmosis III (1479e1425 BCE) glass was apparently already imported to Egypt from Syria. In the so-called Annals of Thutmosis III, which are found on the walls of the Karnak Temple, there is a depiction of Thutmosis III donating the booty or tribute obtained from his Syrian war campaigns to the temple. The most precious gifts are depicted in order of value, gold and silver first, and then next seven baskets with precious stones (Fig. 1). Probably three of these are in fact glass ingots (Shortland, 2012, 55). Ingots of the same size and shape as the depicted glass from Karnak are known from the 175 Egyptian disk-shaped glass ingots almost all of blue color from the Uluburun shipwreck found near the south coast of Turkey (Pulak, 2008). Thutmosis III apparently donated large quantities of Syrian glass to the Karnak temple, but until now there has been no sign of the glass trade between Mesopotamia (here defined in quite a broad sense, even including larger parts of Syria, Lebanon and Southern Anatolia) and Egypt in the material analyses. Chemical analyses were made of glass material from Amarna, Egypt, now part of the collection at the National Museum of

Denmark. The chemical analyses were carried out at the in Institut
omate
riaux, CNRS/Univ. Orle
ans, France. de Recherche sur les Arche The material derives from excavations of one of the Amarna glass workshops by W. M. Flinders Petrie in the last decade of the nineteenth century. The material from the Petrie excavations was split up among a number of European museums, including the National Museum of Denmark (Shortland, 2012, 87e88). Ten pieces from the Amarna glass workshop debris, small glass rods and glass chips, from the collection at the National Museum of Denmark, were included in an earlier publication (Varberg et al., 2015, 169 and Fig. 1). In the present article, the chemical analytical results of additional six samples from the Amarna workshop are included (see Tables 2 and 3). Altogether, the analyzed material comprises thirteen pieces of glass rods of different colors, two blue glass chips and a glass sherd with multicolor floral decoration. The glass rods, being considered as miniature ingots, were used for making decoration on glass vessels, as seen on the glass sherd (Fig. 2b), and for inlays in pieces of gold jewelry, in stonework and in wooden objects such as coffins and furniture (Kemp, 2012, 288). Photo: Flemming Kaul, the National Museum of Denmark. 2.1. Glass from the Cioclovina Cave and Str. Banatului, Cluj-Napoca, Romania In Western Romania glass beads were found in several burials and hoards. In this study we have included two such glass finds from a hoard and a grave. The most prominent and most discussed Romanian glass find is the hoard from the Cioclovina Cave (Hunedoara County). It consists of approximately 7500 artifacts: Bronze items, horse cheek-pieces of bone, 2325 glass beads (Fig. 3), 570 faience beads and 1770 amber beads. All were found during two €di, 1978, 487; excavation campaigns (Coms¸a 1966, 171; Emo Petrescu-D^ ambovit¸a 1977, 89). The cave is regarded as an important sacrificial cave, where a large number of votive offerings were deposited between 1400 and 1100 BCE. The beads in question were possibly part of one or two horse harnesses. The second Romanian glass sample is from the archeological burial site of Banatului street, Cluj-Napoca. The site was discovered s¸ River and the by chance in 1934 along the shores of the Nada excavations were carried out in two stages in 1934e1936 and more recently in 1998e2000. During the excavation campaigns a total of 54 burials were discovered. Grave M 18 (Cluj 1) was a rich female burial and it contained a bronze pin, a bone pin, a fossil marine snail, wild boar tusks and two glass beads. One of the glass beads was chosen for chemical analysis. The grave can be dated to the Noua Culture c. 1400e1200 BCE (Wittenberger, 2001). 2.2. Glass from Neustrelitz, North Germany

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

In 1991 a large hoard was found at Neustrelitz, North Germany. A ceramic vessel contained 880 objects; most were of bronze, but 179 annular glass beads (divided into two types one being slightly larger than the other), one polychrome bead and 20 amber beads were also part of the find. The objects were dominated by: female ornaments (most typical for the region), a few bronze tools and a perforated boar tusk. The hoard is dated to the middle part of the Montelian period III (c. 1200 BCE) (Jantzen and Schmidt, 1999). A chemical analysis of 12 blue glass beads (numbers 721, 722, 752, 803, 814a, 856, 865, 878, 719, 864, 879 and 720) from Neustrelitz has been carried out by the Stephanie Mildner research team at the University of Würtzburg, Germany, using the LA-ICPMS analyses equipment/method, the same that was used by Insti
omate
riaux (Mildner et al., 2010). tut de Recherche sur les Arche Based on the published list of the chemical composition of the Neustrelitz beads (Mildner et al., 2010) we have included these

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

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

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

Values in %

Values in ppm

Na2O MgO Al2O3 SiO2 P2O5 Cl

K2O

CaO

Fe2O3 TiO2

MnO

CoO

CuO

NiO

ZnO

Li2O

B2O3

V2O5 Cr2O3 As2O3 Rb2O SrO

Danish glass bead BHM 1600 16.4 7.65 0.91 61.9 0.18 0.46 4.52 6.67 0.67 394 483 317 1557 110 131 72 429 12 20 25 Romanian glass beads Cluj M18 1 17.9 5.25 1.26 65.0 0.16 0.77 3.04 4.91 0.45 422 483 14 10093 19 26 51 550 14 19 19 Cioclovina a 18.2 5.64 1.12 61.9 0.17 0.43 3.23 6.65 0.62 587 453 15 17353 101 44 55 497 20 40 92 Cioclovina b 18.0 5.66 1.15 61.9 0.16 0.43 3.19 6.75 0.61 598 456 15 17443 100 44 55 494 20 40 92 Cioclovina c 18.1 5.17 1.19 61.8 0.16 0.51 3.24 6.01 0.82 635 447 6 19535 36 107 44 612 20 58 40 Cioclovina d 18.1 5.28 1.15 62.1 0.16 0.45 2.92 5.90 0.87 616 443 6 20481 32 71 44 598 19 47 40 Cioclovina e 17.1 5.22 1.28 61.4 0.18 0.29 3.40 7.18 0.65 664 462 17 28974 92 57 52 700 20 46 33 Egyptian glass from Denmark National Museum used as comparison material DANMK 7411 8 15.5 4.88 0.88 64.8 0.19 0.94 4.14 5.81 0.65 459 262 10 7928 26 630 62 354 15 25 32 DANMK 7411 10 17.1 3.69 0.83 65.3 0.25 0.78 3.37 5.15 0.52 468 197 3.3 12312 20 1039 10 290 15 31 64 DANMK 7411 11 17.7 4.26 0.57 62.0 0.13 1.02 1.78 9.92 0.34 558 164 4.3 12824 16 364 12 220 10 7.6 30 DANMK 7411 12 13.6 3.56 1.16 64.7 0.16 0.79 2.95 9.35 0.72 1236 239 6.0 341 10 609 11 229 20 17 42 DANMK 7412 15.1 4.10 1.70 63.8 0.16 1.36 2.01 10.49 0.89 1829 250 4.5 149 8.4 27 12 344 30 19 0.5 DANMK 7438bl 14.7 3.84 1.07 65.0 0.17 0.92 2.32 10.18 0.58 1077 177 5.9 7775 13 34 12 257 19 11 30 DANMK 7438w 15.5 3.66 0.79 62.9 0.18 0.73 2.65 10.34 0.45 958 175 3.0 270 13 40 11 215 16 8 67 DANMK 7438y 14.8 3.95 0.87 62.2 0.18 0.62 2.50 10.89 0.71 867 226 3.8 212 8.0 3058 13 200 16 14 14 Average and standard deviation values obtained for Corning A and NIST 612 glass reference materials analysed as unknown samples with the studied glasses Corn A avr. 14.2 2.52 0.97 66.1 0.11 0.15 2.97 5.89 1.14 7595 10218 1716 11827 228 541 112 2153 63 29 30 Corn A std. 0.7 0.12 0.08 1.6 0.01 0.00 0.10 0.29 0.07 20 776 133 786 18 15 6 169 0.8 0.5 1.2

97 1067 8.7 91

NIST 612 avr. NIST 612 std.

35 1.2

13.5 0.5

0.020 2.03 0.001 0.10

72.6 0.015 0.062 0.001 11.56 0.004 1.1 0.003 0.004 0.001 0.51 0.002

68 0.7

51 2.6

44 2.2

46 2.3

47 2.2

46 0.5

90 1.7

113 68 43 2.2 0.5 4.9

42 1.5

Y2O3 ZrO2

Nb2O3 SnO2

10

578

3.9

12

0.8

2

15 15 14 18 13 13

438 546 556 454 454 571

3.4 3.3 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.9

15 20 20 20 19 22

1.4 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.3

4.4 838 834 300 113 664

18 34 11 20 13 15 15 15

482 381 1114 1297 552 649 843 1017

2.8 2.1 2.4 4.6 7.0 4.3 3.7 3.8

18 12 36 78 122 81 75 73

1.0 0.8 1.2 2.4 3.7 2.3 1.8 1.8

0.90 0.03

89 46.2 4.3 0.2

49 0.28 49 0.9

44.9 1.9

BaO

La2O3 CeO2 Nd2O3 PbO

1135

32

2.6

5.3

2.7

647

0.3 72 72 1685 1689 68

45 56 56 90 96 66

3.0 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.2 4.0

5.9 6.8 6.6 7.3 7.5 7.0

2.6 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.9 3.5

6.2 59 56 5920 5773 36

121 74 39 194 96 58 54 121

3.0 1.7 2.3 4.3 6.9 4.0 3.7 3.5

5.5 3.2 4.6 8.2 13.5 8.0 7.1 6.6

2.3 1.7 2.3 4.1 6.7 4.0 3.6 3.3

8684 12394 4643 22291 3.3 14 26 23498

0.17 0.02

586 58

20 2623 1.4 3049 1088 1479 9.2 3999 2.7 49 444 678 1.1 25400 44 4046

0.60 1790 0.03 130 42.2 1.1

Sb2O3

15958 419 37.2 1.6

4766 281

0.49 0.05

40.4 43.5 1.1 3.9

0.29 0.02 46.4 4.1

41.7 0.7

30.2 0.01

4

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

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

PrO2

Sm2O3

Eu2O3

Gd2O3

Tb2O3

Dy2O3

Ho2O3

Er2O3

Tm2O3

Danish glass bead BHM 1600 0.61 0.65 0.17 0.69 0.11 0.64 0.11 0.31 Romanian glass beads Cluj M18 1 0.65 0.63 0.16 0.55 0.09 0.55 0.10 0.29 Cioclovina a 0.73 0.65 0.17 0.60 0.10 0.55 0.11 0.29 Cioclovina b 0.75 0.62 0.17 0.58 0.10 0.57 0.10 0.28 Cioclovina c 0.74 0.66 0.16 0.57 0.09 0.54 0.11 0.30 Cioclovina d 0.70 0.62 0.17 0.56 0.10 0.51 0.10 0.29 Cioclovina e 0.86 0.76 0.19 0.67 0.11 0.64 0.12 0.32 Egyptian glasses from Denmark National Museum used as comparison material DANMK 7411 8 0.59 0.47 0.10 0.36 0.07 0.46 0.09 0.25 DANMK 7411 10 0.38 0.38 0.11 0.44 0.06 0.34 0.07 0.21 DANMK 7411 11 0.57 0.47 0.11 0.61 0.07 0.41 0.08 0.24 DANMK 7411 12 1.00 0.83 0.22 1.07 0.13 0.73 0.15 0.46 DANMK 7412 1.66 1.32 0.30 1.66 0.22 1.15 0.22 0.69 DANMK 7438bl 0.95 0.81 0.18 0.98 0.13 0.72 0.13 0.41 DANMK 7438w 0.83 0.72 0.15 0.84 0.11 0.63 0.12 0.36 DANMK 7438y 0.80 0.69 0.18 0.84 0.11 0.63 0.12 0.38 Average and standard deviation values obtained for Corning A and NIST 612 glass reference Corn A avr. Corn A std. NIST 612 avr. NIST 612 std.

43.9 2.0

43.7 0.2

40.9 1.4

40.6 7.9

40.8 1.1

39.2 0.8

41.2 0.9

39.9 0.9

Yb2O3

Lu2O3

0.03

0.26

0.03

0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04

0.25 0.27 0.29 0.30 0.27 0.33

0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05

0.04 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.05 materials

38.3 0.9

Ta2O3

ThO2

0.29

0.04

0.41

0.17

0.03

0.12

0.40 0.47 0.49 0.45 0.42 0.50

0.12 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08

0.80 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.63 0.76

0.37 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.25

0.06 0.56 0.58 0.79 0.77 1.50

0.26 1.74 1.73 4.06 3.86 7.09

0.28 0.04 0.39 0.05 0.62 0.33 0.47 0.19 0.03 0.27 0.04 0.39 0.20 0.31 0.23 0.03 0.83 0.07 0.50 0.26 0.35 0.46 0.06 1.73 0.13 0.94 0.47 0.16 0.70 0.10 2.77 0.21 1.64 0.65 0.06 0.43 0.06 1.74 0.12 0.90 0.39 0.05 0.36 0.05 1.62 0.09 0.81 0.29 0.01 0.37 0.05 1.62 0.10 0.75 0.39 2.50 analyzed as unknown samples with the studied glasses 1.11 0.11 0.30 0.19 8.9 0.09 0.01 0.03 0.02 1.06

1.13 1.54 0.75 2.87 0.34 0.41 0.17 2.24

43.7 1.6

39.2 0.8

HfO2

41.2 1.1

33.9 0.8

39.3 3.5

UO2

38.5 2.4

Bi

29.4 0.7

Ag

15.6 1.37 20.9 0.5

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

Reference

PrO2

Sm2O3

Eu2O3

Gd2O3

Tb2O3

Dy2O3

Ho2O3

Danish glass beads 1 Ke 299/B2209 1.18 1.27 0.25 1.16 0.18 1.06 0.21 1 Ke2014A/D115 1.21 1.38 0.32 1.49 0.23 1.41 0.25 2 Ke243I/B15853 0.67 0.60 0.12 0.41 0.08 0.45 0.09 2 Ke3521D/B13707 0.62 0.53 0.11 0.43 0.07 0.41 0.09 2 Ke4045A/B17106 0.96 0.81 0.15 0.68 0.12 0.67 0.14 2 Ke793F/B15204 0.51 0.44 0.05 0.28 0.07 0.42 0.08 2 Ke793F/B15205 0.89 0.74 0.17 0.51 0.11 0.66 0.13 3 Ke4170/B7328 white 0.63 0.57 e e 0.08 0.49 0.08 3 Ke4170/B7328 amber 0.56 0.57 0.10 0.47 0.09 0.59 0.11 3 Ke4170/B7328 yellow 0.78 0.73 e e 0.09 0.61 0.12 3 Ke4170/B7328 blue 0.70 0.73 0.10 0.34 0.09 0.58 0.10 4 Ke1477A/B3289 a 0.75 0.69 0.14 0.59 0.09 0.60 0.11 4 Ke1477A/B3289 b 0.87 0.78 0.14 0.59 0.10 0.61 0.12 4 Ke1477A/B3289 c 0.67 0.61 0.10 0.46 0.09 0.50 0.10 4 Ke1477A/B3289 d 0.94 0.81 0.15 0.55 0.11 0.60 0.12 5 Ke4719I/FHM 1389a 0.67 0.53 0.05 e 0.08 0.48 0.10 5 Ke4719I/FHM 1389b 1.02 0.85 0.11 0.63 0.12 0.71 0.14 5 Ke4109/B611 a 0.55 0.51 0.11 0.26 0.06 0.40 0.07 5 Ke4109/B611 b 0.72 0.62 0.09 0.33 0.07 0.49 0.09 5 Ke4109/B611 c 0.62 0.51 0.06 0.24 0.08 0.42 0.09 5 Ke4109/B611 d 0.51 0.46 0.03 0.12 0.06 0.37 0.07 5 B7424 a/2177s185 0.72 0.55 0.12 0.45 0.08 0.48 0.09 5 B7424 b/2177s185 0.75 0.62 0.13 0.50 0.08 0.54 0.10 5 B7424 c/2177s185 0.85 0.68 0.13 0.55 0.09 0.54 0.11 5 B7424 d/2177s185 0.87 0.60 0.10 0.45 0.08 0.49 0.10 5 Ke4873/B3516 0.59 0.52 0.07 0.34 0.08 0.44 0.08 Egyptian glasses from Denmark National Museum used as comparison material DANMK 7410 1 2.13 1.94 0.42 1.65 0.28 1.51 0.29 DANMK 7410 2 0.83 0.56 0.10 0.45 0.08 0.53 0.10 DANMK 7411 1 0.88 0.72 0.11 0.58 0.11 0.54 0.11 DANMK 7411 2 1.41 1.64 0.38 1.51 0.28 1.75 0.32 DANMK 7411 3 2.07 2.00 0.49 1.74 0.35 1.76 0.33 DANMK 7411 4 1.27 1.32 0.33 1.21 0.25 1.39 0.26 DANMK 7411 5 1.20 0.94 0.16 0.73 0.14 0.78 0.17 DANMK 7411 6 0.78 0.62 0.12 0.50 0.09 0.55 0.10 DANMK 7411 7 0.70 0.56 0.06 0.40 0.08 0.45 0.10 DANMK 7411 9 1.09 0.92 0.16 0.64 0.12 0.74 0.15 Average and standard deviation values obtained for Corning A glass standard analyzed as Corn A avr Corn A std

Er2O3

Tm2O3

Yb2O3

Lu2O3

HfO2

Ta2O3

ThO2

UO2

Bi

Ag

0.56 0.64 0.25 0.23 0.37 0.24 0.37 0.25 0.33 0.36 0.29 0.29 0.35 0.27 0.34 0.24 0.36 0.20 0.25 0.24 0.17 0.26 0.28 0.31 0.26 0.24

0.08 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03

0.54 0.52 0.24 0.21 0.37 0.29 0.37 0.27 0.30 0.33 0.27 0.30 0.35 0.27 0.36 0.30 0.40 0.23 0.22 0.29 0.20 0.27 0.29 0.30 0.28 0.23

0.07 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.03

1.41 1.06 0.32 0.40 0.52 0.41 0.81 0.45 0.43 0.67 0.49 0.49 0.68 0.44 0.57 0.40 0.54 0.31 0.38 0.40 0.31 0.43 0.46 0.48 0.43 0.37

0.11 0.13 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.20 0.27 0.15 0.17 0.22 0.28 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06

0.97 0.98 0.54 0.55 0.90 1.10 1.55 0.90 1.01 1.27 1.27 0.73 0.88 0.62 0.92 0.74 1.05 0.46 0.83 0.61 0.49 0.68 0.72 0.77 0.68 0.65

0.51 0.55 0.18 0.29 0.30 0.52 0.75 0.43 0.50 0.59 0.70 0.25 0.28 0.22 0.33 0.61 0.60 0.34 0.56 0.51 0.39 0.47 0.50 0.54 0.43 0.56

0.11 0.05 0.26 0.06 0.04 0.12 0.20 0.06 0.07 0.22 0.07 1.97 4.65 2.06 2.57 0.11 0.32 0.15 0.16 0.24 0.17 0.73 0.55 1.12 0.21 0.14

0.20 2.79 0.16 0.25 0.15 0.73 0.95 3.24 0.33 9.83 0.70 17.7 11.0 12.5 6.92 0.61 5.71 0.63 0.60 1.85 1.09 5.88 6.15 7.86 2.73 4.86

0.11 2.44 0.20 0.04 0.88 0.10 0.05 1.54 0.09 0.11 1.67 0.12 0.10 1.74 0.12 0.08 1.75 0.11 0.07 2.70 0.13 0.04 1.24 0.09 0.04 1.17 0.07 0.07 2.18 0.15 the studied glasses 1.03 0.11 0.12 0.02

1.84 0.75 0.90 1.19 1.30 1.10 1.39 0.81 0.68 1.27

0.65 0.23 0.30 0.83 0.51 0.62 0.40 0.26 0.25 0.40

0.04 0.09 0.01 0.22 0.04 0.09 0.29 0.34 0.12 0.03

0.48 1.50 0.09 3.14 0.05 0.37 1.98 0.44 0.25 0.12

0.31 0.04

0.21 0.02

8.9 1.0

0.77 0.10 0.78 0.30 0.04 0.24 0.35 0.04 0.33 0.88 0.11 0.69 0.87 0.11 0.72 0.71 0.08 0.57 0.47 0.06 0.51 0.31 0.04 0.29 0.27 0.04 0.24 0.41 0.06 0.42 an unknown sample with

16.7 1.9

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

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

5

belongs to this burial from 1400e1100 BCE. An amber bead was found close to the glass bead and the burial also contained a bronze tutulus and bronze tubes for decoration of a corded skirt. 3. The chemical analyses

Fig. 2. a. The green glass rods 7411 8 & 10 from Amarna, Egypt, which show the chemical trace element signature of Mesopotamian glass. Length: 2.2 cm and 1.9 cm. Photo: Flemming Kaul, the National Museum of Denmark. Fig. 2b. Examples of Amarna glass of Egyptian production, three glass rods, 7411 11e12 and 7412 and the glass sherd 7438. The longest glass rod, 7412, length: 3.0 cm, the sherd: 2.0  1.2 cm. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

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

beads in the present examination. As will be shown below, the comparative analyses (Fig. 6) demonstrate that the compositions of the Neustrelitz beads are in accordance with that of Mesopotamian glass. 2.3. Glass from Puggegaard, Bornholm, Denmark Recent analyses of Danish glass beads have demonstrated that Mesopotamian glass is represented in 10 Danish burials, 1400e1100 BCE, from West Jutland in the west to the island of Bornholm in the east (Varberg et al., 2015) (Fig. 4). The most recent analysis of the chemistry of a blue glass bead from Puggegaard, Bornholm, has yielded yet another Mesopotamian bead (Fig. 5). At an excavation in 1911, the remains of a disturbed female burial were uncovered. The glass bead seemingly

The following items have been analyzed by laser ablationinductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS): Six fragments of glass from Amarna (National Museum of Denmark), five glass rods (four green ones: 7411 8, 10 & 11 and 7412, and one opaque yellow, 7411 12) and one polychrome vessel sherd (turquoise blue with trailed decoration in white and yellow, 7438), six Romanian turquoise blue glass beads from the Bronze Age sites of Cioclovina (Cioclovina a-e) and Banatuliu str. (Cluj M18 1) and one Danish dark blue glass bead unearthed from a Bronze Age burial at Puggegaard on the island of Bornholm (BHM 1600). The ablation system used here consists of an excimer laser working at 193 nm (Resolution M50E from Resonetics) coupled with a Thermo Electron Finnigan ELEMENT XR mass spectrometer. The technique requires no special preparation of the samples and is virtually nondestructive (Gratuze, 2013, 2014). The results obtained are comparable with those of our preceding examination of Danish glass beads and Amarna glass debris (Varberg et al., 2015), with those published for the coeval Bronze Age glass beads from Neustrelitz, Germany (11 blue/green beads 721, 722, 752, 803, 814a, 856, 865, 878, 719, 864, 879 and one cobalt bead 720, Mildner et al., 2010) and Campu Stefanu, Corsica, France (25 turquoise blue glass beads, Peche-Quilichini et al. in press). Chemical compositional results are shown in Table 1. All samples are soda glass, with soda (Na2O, 13.6 to 18.2 wt%) as the primary flux, and high magnesia and potash indicating a plant ash source for the soda (MgO, 3.5 to 7.7 wt%; K2O, 1.8 to 4.5 wt%). Their alumina, lime and iron contents present a large variability (Al2O3, 0.8 to 1.7 wt%; CaO, 4.9 to 10.9 wt%; Fe2O3, 0.34 to 0.89 wt%) as might be expected from the use of different source of silica (SiO2). These compositions show that the glass used to make the Danish and Romanian glass beads and the Amarna glass were fused from powdered quartz or siliceous sands containing various amounts of alumina and lime, mixed with the ashes of plants high in soda, such as Salicornia sp. or Salsola sp. The Danish glass bead from Bornholm is colored dark blue by cobalt oxide while copper is the main coloring agent for the turquoise blue Romanian glass beads. The zinc and nickel contents of the Bornholm glass bead are lower than those usually found in Egyptian cobalt from alum deposits, but slightly higher than those identified in Mesopotamian glass (Walton et al., 2012; Varberg et al., 2015). The tin/copper ratio measured for the Romanian glass beads suggests the addition of relatively pure copper for two of them (M18 Cluj 1 and Cioclovina d), while in the four other cases (Cioclovina a-c and e), the tin levels indicate the use of bronze scrap containing from 1.5 to 4.6% tin. For Amarna, three of the four green glass rods (7411 8, 10 and 11) are colored with copper while the green shade of the third one (7412) is probably due to the presence of iron. The contents of lead (2.2% PbO) and antimony (0.4% Sb2O3) in the yellow glass rod (7411 12) suggest the presence of lead antimonate as opacifying and coloring agent. The turquoise blue glass vessel body (7438bl) is colored by copper, the yellow glass (7438) which exhibits the same contents of lead and antimony (2.3% PbO and 0.4% Sb2O3) as the yellow glass rod is also certainly colored and opacified by lead antimonate while the white glass which contains 2.54% of Sb2O3 is probably opacified with calcium antimonate. The tin/copper ratio measured for the rods and the glass body suggests the use of pure copper for two of the copper green glass rods (7411 8 and 10), and the use of bronze scraps containing 5.3e7.7% of tin for the other

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

6

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

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

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

glass rod and the turquoise glass body (7411 11 and 7438b). As the major element compositions of the Danish and Romanian glass beads and Amarna glass rods and vessel are characteristic of

Late Bronze Age Near Eastern glass, their trace element patterns (chromium, lanthanum, zirconium titanium and rare earths elements) allow us to differentiate between two distinct primary glass patterns associated with Mesopotamian and Egyptian glass productions (Shortland et al., 2007; Rehren and Push, 2005; Shortland and Eremin, 2006; Walton et al., 2009; Jackson and Nicholson, 2010; Varberg et al., 2015). According to these criteria, all of the most recently studied glass beads (Danish and Romanian) and two of the Amarna glass rods (the green rods 7411 8 and 10, Fig. 2a) share the patterns of Mesopotamian glass while the remaining objects from Amarna (see also Varberg et al., 2015), including the illustrated three glass rods 7411 11e12, 7412 and the glass fragment 7438, are associated with Egyptian productions (Fig. 2b). Using the same criteria to compare the Danish and Romanian beads, analyzed here, with the French and German coeval glass beads from Campu Stefanu and Neustrelitz, it can be observed that all these beads have a geochemical signature identical with that of Mesopotamian glass. However, it should be noted that one bead from Neustrelitz, colored by cobalt, appears to have an intermediate REE pattern between Egyptian and Mesopotamian glass (Fig. 7). Yet, the position of that particular bead on the chromium/ lanthanum versus zirconium/titanium graph cannot be associated with the Egyptian glass group (Fig. 6). When considering the data presented by Shortland (Shortland et al., 2007), an important variability can be observed, shown on Fig. 6, as to the Cr/La ratios

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

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

Mesopotamian, Shortland et al. 2007

200 180

Egyptian glass, Shortland et al. 2007

Egyptian glass

160

Egyptian glass, Smirniou & Rehren 2013

140 1000*Zr/Ti

7

Ulu Burum glass, Jackson & Nicholson 2010 and Smirniou & Rehren 2013 Glass beads from Campu Stefanu, Corsica, Peche-Quilichini et al. in press Amarna glass from the Denmark National Museum, this work and Varberg et al. 2015 Danish beads made with Egyptian glass, Varberg et al. 2015

120 100

Mesopotamian glass

80

Amarna green rods 7411 8 & 10

60 40

Danish beads made with Mesopotamian glass, this work and Varberg et al. 2015 Romanian glass beads from Ciclovina and Cluj

20 BHM 1600

0 -

5

10 15 20 Cr/La Neustrelitz cobalt glass bead n°720

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

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

Concentration in glass / concentration in the Continental Earth's Crust

0.50 0.45 0.40 Danish glass beads made w ith Egyptian glass, Varberg et al. 2015 Danish beads made w ith Mesopotamian glass, this work and Varberg et al. 2015 Amarna glass from Egypt, this work and Varberg et al. 2015 Amarna glass from Mesopotamia

0.35 0.30 0.25

Cluj M18 1 0.20 BHM 1600 0.15

Cioclovina

0.10

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

0.05

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

0.00 Rb

Y

Zr

Nb

La

Ce

Pr

Nd

Sm

Tb

Dy

Ho

Er

Tm

Yb

Lu

Hf

Ta

Th

U

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

for Mesopotamian glass. Some of our beads are located at the limit between Egyptian and Mesopotamian glass. In these cases, it seems reasonable to consider the raw values of zirconium and titanium, which are usually higher in Egyptian glass than in Mesopotamian glass, whereas the lowest chromium contents for Mesopotamian glass can be of the same level as the highest chromium contents for Egyptian glass. However, some Egyptian glass seems to exhibit low zirconium contents as shown by data published by Smirniou and Rehren for glass from Lisht, Qantir, Amarna and Malkata (Smirniou and Rehren, 2013). Therefore, in some cases it may be unfeasible to distinguish between Egyptian and Mesopotamian glass, probably due to the use of quartz proper or fairly pure siliceous sand as raw material. The Mesopotamian origin of the two green glass rods from

Amarna (7411 8 & 10) pointed out by their trace element patterns (Figs. 6 and 7) is confirmed by their major elements compositions as shown on Fig. 8, where the potash and lime contents of the studied glass objects are reported. On this figure, Mesopotamian glass appears to contain statistically more potash and less lime than Egyptian glass. The positions of these two green rods on that diagram, with respectively 5.8e5.1% lime and 4.1e3.4% potash, are in agreement with that of Mesopotamian glasses. On this diagram, the cobalt glass bead from Neustrelitz appears well correlated with Mesopotamian glass. The results, concerning the green Amarna glass rods, 7411/8 and 7411/10, are of great significance, since it is now for the first time

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

8

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

6%

5%

BHM 1600

4%

7411 8 & 10

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

K2 O %

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

3%

Glass beads from Campu Stefanu, Corsica, Peche-Quilichini et al. in press Mycenaean glass from Egypt, Walton et al. 2009

2% Mycenaean glass from Mesopotamia, Walton et al. 2009 Egyptian glass, Jackson and Nicholson 2010

1%

Neustrelitz cobalt glass bead n°720

Average Egyptian glass, Smirniou and rehren 2013 Average Mesopotamian glass, Smirniou and Rehren 2013

0% 0%

4%

CaO %

8%

12%

Mesopotamian glass, Walton et al. 2012

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

possible to document the physical presence of Mesopotamian glass in Egypt, by comparative analyses of the glass chemistry (see note 1).1 3.1. Indication of mixing raw glass and secondary productions sites As we pointed out in our preceding paper (Varberg et al., 2015), the Egyptian or the Mesopotamian origin of the glass beads can be confirmed by the colorant composition for cobalt blue glass. In the case of Egyptian cobalt extracted from alum deposits such as those at the Kharga and Dakhla oases, cobalt contents are correlated with those of nickel, zinc, and manganese (Kaczmarczyk, 1986; Shortland et al., 2006, 2007). Walton has identified a second type of cobalt ore containing lower amount of nickel, zinc and manganese in a series of Bronze Age glass axes from Nippur (Walton et al., 2012). This second cobalt ore seems to be, so far, more characteristic of Mesopotamian glass. Among the previously studied Danish glass beads (Varberg et al., 2015), five are colored by cobalt: two of them (B2209 and D115) showed the typical Egyptian correlation between cobalt, nickel, zinc and manganese contents, while the three others (B13707, B15853 and B17106) can be related to cobalt colored glass from Mesopotamian finds. Here, it should be emphasized that while none of the Nippur glass samples published by Walton (Walton et al., 2012) show the typical correlations of Cr, Ti and Zr, which allow us make a clear distinction between Mesopotamian and Egyptian glass, matters are different when considering the three Danish beads. The trace elements of these beads clearly demonstrate a close affiliation to Mesopotamian production. When plotted on the graphs showing the content of the cobalt colorant, the cobalt blue beads from Bornholm and Neustrelitz appear to have an intermediate position between Egyptian and Mesopotamian cobalt (Figs. 9 and 10), the Neustrelitz bead being more similar with an Egyptian cobalt related composition than with Mesopotamian cobalt. Another Danish cobalt blue glass bead, from Esbjerg, Western Jutland (B 17106), previously analyzed (Varberg et al., 2015), presents a similar pattern.

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

As mentioned above, the REE pattern of the cobalt glass bead from Neustrelitz shows some similarities with the REE pattern of Egyptian glass. But considering other trace elements (Cr, La and Zr), the Neustrelitz bead in question (Neustrelitz no. 720), as well as the recently analyzed bead from Bornholm (BHM 1600), can be correlated to Mesopotamian glass. However, with regards to a general assessment of the trace elements of these beads, they appear to be different in their composition, even though, as mentioned, they show some similarities as to their content of trace elements associated with cobalt. Consequently, we propose that the two beads reflect two types of glass originating from different workshops, but colored by cobalt from similar cobalt ores. According to their cobalt and copper concentrations, these two beads enter into the group of cobalt-copper blue glass as defined by Smirniou and Rehren (Smirniou and Rehren, 2013). But as already noted, these beads exhibit a distinct Mesopotamian signature, while, with the exception of three (or maybe five) of the Mycenaean glass published by Smirniou and Rehren (number: 158906, 29793B and C but also in a less extent 15889019b and 15889008 which have a high chromium content), most of their cobalt-copper glass are related to Egyptian productions. Using different sets of data, Smirniou and Rehren conclude that the cobalt alum sources probably show a broader variability than previously expected and that all the dark blue glass as well as the cobalt-copper blue glass of the Mycenaean world is consistent with an Egyptian origin, while most of the Mycenaean light blue copper-colored glass came from Mesopotamia. Even though it is possible to determine with some probability the origin of the raw glass used to make theses beads, Egyptian or Mesopotamian, it seems more difficult to determine where the glass beads unearthed in Europe were made. As mentioned by Smirniou and Rehren (Smirniou and Rehren, 2013), the Uluburun shipwreck constitutes the best evidence of glass being moved across long distances in the Eastern Mediterranean, not only in the form of finished objects but also in the form of ingots. It thus seems that during LHII (c. 1500e1400 BCE), most of the finished glass objects unearthed in the Aegean world are of Egyptian or Mesopotamian styles, which shows that they have been directly imported into this region from Egypt and Mesopotamia. But from LHIII onwards (after c. 1400 BCE), glass-working start to develop in the Mycenaean world and locally made glass beads, in Mycenaean style, are found in large quantities throughout the Mycenaean mainland and the Aegean. Even though if it is possible from a

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

J. Varberg et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science xxx (2016) 1e11 1000

Mesopotamian glass, Walton et al. 2012

900

Egyptian cobalt from alum deposits

800

Egyptian glass, Shortland et al. 2007 Egyptian glass, Smirniou & Rehren 2013

700

BHM 1600

600 Ni ppm

9

Walton group 2b

500 400 300

Walton group 2a

200

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

100

B17106

0 0

500

1 000

1 500 Co ppm

2 000

2 500

3 000

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

30

Mesopotamian glass, Walton et al. 2012 Egyptian glass, Shortland et al. 2007

25

Egyptian glass, Smirniou & Rehren 2013

Co/Zn

20

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

Walton group 2b

15

Walton group 2a

10

Egyptian cobalt from alum deposits

5

B17106 BHM 1600

0 0

2

4

6 Co/Ni

8

10

12

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

chemical point of view to relate raw glass to a geographical area of production, it is not possible to draw such a conclusion for beads as they could well originate from secondary glass workshops located far away from where the raw glass was produced. Thus in our case some, or all, of the Danish beads could have been manufactured in Egypt or Mesopotamia or in a Mycenaean workshop from raw Egyptian and Mesopotamian glass. The particular pattern encountered for the cobalt blue glass beads from Neustrelitz and in a less extent for the one from Bornholm (and Esbjerg, B 17106, Varberg et al., 2015), namely Mesopotamian glass associated with typical Egyptian cobalt, raises new questions about glass making during the Bronze Age period. Considering the weak concentration of cobalt in these beads (400 ppm for Neustrelitz and 250 ppm for Bornholm), we can propose different interpretative scenarios. The observed pattern reflects the mixing of glass in a secondary workshop: a large amount of naturally colored Mesopotamian glass with a little amount of cobalt blue Egyptian glass. If the proportion of cobalt Egyptian glass is small, compared to the one of naturally colored Mesopotamian glass, only the Mesopotamian signature will remain. The pattern could be seen as the result of adding Egyptian cobalt-copper colorant into naturally colored Mesopotamian glass,

either in a primary workshop or in a secondary workshop, this in order to produce cobalt blue glass. Since the presence of Mesopotamian glass in Egypt has now been attested, the beads in question may have been made in workshops located in Egypt. However, the possibility remains that these beads were made at centers along the trade routes of that period (Asia Minor, Rhodes, Greece, including Mycenae). Taking into account our knowledge of glass making sites during the Late Bronze Age (Walton et al., 2009; Smirniou and Rehren, 2013), we cannot exclude the hypothesis that such beads may have been produced in a Mycenaean workshop supplied by Egyptian and Mesopotamian primary raw glass ingots. These beads are small pieces of a very large puzzle, which presents more questions than answers. Despite the increasing number of available analyses, the understanding of glass making and glass exchange during the period is only at its starting point. Considering the information supplied by the cobalt coloring agent, one may wonder whether a similar reasoning can be applied to glass beads colored by copper. In other words, did Mesopotamian or Egyptian glassmakers use specific coloring agents or recipes to produce blue green glass beads. Assuming that the main coloring agent used for copper are metallic scrap, Bronze Age glassworkers could have added either pure copper or a mixture of copper and

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

10

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

bronze in variable proportions. The main associated elements brought by the coloring agent are therefore tin, and the trace elements associated with copper: nickel, zinc, arsenic, antimony, silver, lead, bismuth etc. As lead and antimony could also be introduced by the opacyfier, their presence is not characteristic of copper. Silver and bismuth, which are associated with both copper and lead, are seemingly of no relevance. In a less extent, it is also the case of nickel, zinc and arsenic, which could be introduced by cobalt. Consequently, the only relevant element seems to be tin. As pointed out by Shortland (Shortland, 2005), its presence underlines the use of bronze and copper-scrap, while its absence indicates the use of pure copper. In 2005, Shortland (Shortland, 2005) pointed out the absence of tin in Mesopotamian blue glass colored by copper. In our data, no such clear tendency has been observed (Fig. 11). As distinct from the data used by Shortland, our data reveal the use of bronze alloys containing between 4% and 7.5% tin in the Mesopotamian glass beads discovered in Romania and in Denmark. However, from a general statistical point of view, it seems, as established by Shortland (Shortland, 2005), that Egyptian glassmakers used mostly bronze scraps for coloring glass, while Mesopotamian glassmakers seem to prefer pure copper. Furthermore, it can be observed that Egyptian glass statistically contains less copper than Mesopotamian glass. But still, we have to consider the small size of our number of objects. Our analyzed material does not represent all the recipes used by Bronze Age glassmakers. 4. Glass trade and exchange in Late Bronze Age Egypt, Near East and Europe The new data give further evidence as to the passages regarding glass in the Amarna letters. Glass was important enough to warrant the pharaoh's direct attention and involvement in procuring it, and production in Egypt was not sufficient to satisfy the demand of glass products. Thus, Akhenaten requested significant quantities of Mesopotamian glass, despite the existence of glass workshops in Akhetaten, the ancient city of Tell el-Amarna: even though the Egyptian glass production was probably of a significant scale, foreign supplies were needed (Rehren, 2014, 220). The rulers in Syria did send raw glass to Egypt. As the Uluburun shipwreck shows, Egyptian raw glass also was traded as ingots, most probably heading for Mycenae. Raw glass moved along the established trade routes via ports like Ugarit, reaching central places such as Mycenae. Perhaps more important, it cannot be excluded that secondary glass workshops reworked the raw glass changing the color to fit the customers' demand for luxurious blue glass beads by mixing

Egyptian cobalt blue or coloring agent with Mesopotamian naturally colored glass. This could have happened in Mycenae, where both Egyptian and Mesopotamian glass has come to light. But naturally, other centers located in Greece, such as Pylos and Tiryns, or in Egypt should be considered as well. From the Mycenaean central places, the trade routes were many. During the fourteenth and thirteenth century BC, Mesopotamian glass reached the western parts of the Mediterranean. The finds of 25 glass beads and 30 amber beads from a rich burial at Campu Stefanu, Corsica, France, should be highlighted (Peche-Quilichini et al. in press). From Corsica, it is possible to follow the northsouth routes of exchange through the Central Alps, for instance along the Rhone River. It is worth mentioning a blue glass bead found at Sotciastel in the Badia Valley, North Italy, further east in the Alps, on the routes south of the Brenner pass. It was found in the upper layers of a defended settlement, occupied between c. 1600e1300 BCE. Chemical analyzes have shown that the bead belongs to a composition type of glass (HMG-glass), which was probably produced in Egypt or the Near East (Tecchiati, 1998, 267; Bellintani, 2002, 43). More precise chemical analyses are needed in order to obtain better information as to the origin of the glass. The eastern route follows the rivers of Mures, Donau, Oder and Havel going north through Europe. Western Romania is especially rich in glass finds. The Cioclovina Cave hoard is by far Europe's largest find of glass beads. However, other Romanian hoards could be highlighted when discussing the glass exchange patterns. In Dobrocina a ceramic vessel was found containing bronze items and ^mbovit¸a 1977, 57). several glass beads (Rusu, 1963, 194; Petrescu-Da In Pecica another hoard included bronze objects, eight amber beads € di, 1978, and two glass beads (Petrescu-D^ ambovit¸a 1977, 101; Emo 490). Both finds are dated to 1300e1200 BCE, and they should probably be considered as a part of the eastern glass exchange route. More precise chemical analyses are also needed here in order to obtain better information as to the origin of the glass. When including comparative Bronze Age glass material, using simple two-variable scatterplot as published by for instance Shortland (Shortland et al., 2007), Walton (Walton et al., 2012) Smirniou (Smirniou and Rehren, 2013) or Varberg (Varberg et al., 2015), it becomes clear that the glass material from Neustrelitz has its origins in Mesopotamia e in accordance with the different chemical parameters (Shortland et al., 2007; Walton et al., 2009, 2012; Shortland, 2012; Varberg et al., 2015; Rehren and Freestone, 2015). Following the north-south river systems of Europe and watersheds, there are a number of possibilities for connecting the Romanian find spots with Neustrelitz, not far away

9%

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

% of Sn in the simulated alloy used as colouring agent

8%

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

7%

Mesopotamian glass from Amarna, Denmark National Museum collections

6%

Romanian glass beads from Ciclovina and Cluj

5% 4%

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

3%

Glass beads from Campu Stefanu, Corsica, PecheQuilichini et al. in press

2%

Mesopotamian, Shortland et al. 2007

1%

Amarna glass, Shortland et al. 2007

0% 0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

% of CuO in the glass for turquoise and green glass containing more than 0.4% CuO Fig. 11. Comparison of tin content in the supposed copper alloy used as coloring agent for different Egyptian and Mesopotamian glass colored by copper.

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

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

from the Baltic Sea, the Island Bornholm and the rest of Denmark. The glass from the Neustrelitz hoard shows some of the same characteristics as the Romanian and the Danish material. It is thereby possible to follow the routes, almost step-by-step, from Mesopotamia to Denmark, including the Island of Bornholm. 5. Concluding remarks Mesopotamian glass was widely distributed. It appears in Amarna, Egypt, in Romania, in France, in Germany, and in Denmark in the far North. Mycenae could be considered as a secondary place for workshops manufacturing the glass beads from raw glass from Mesopotamia and Egypt, and hopefully future research will be able to shed new light on this. The study of glass composition appears to be an important parameter for connecting different glass finds. The presence of Mesopotamian glass beads in Romanian, German and Danish finds highlights the Bronze Age routes of exchange between the Mediterranean and South Scandinavia e which may be called the glass roads. Acknowledgements € di for giving permission to analyze beads from We thank J. Emo his Cioclovina Cave hoard collection, F.O. Nielsen, Museum Bornholm for giving permission to analyze glass bead BHM 1600, the National Museum of Denmark and National History Museum of Transylvania for assistance with glass samples. We thank J. Damm for useful revision of the manuscript. References €ologische Zeugnisse aus Bellintani, P., 2002. Bernsteinstrassen, Glasstrassen. Archa €ndern und dem Etschtal im Rahmen der Bezieungen zwischen den Mittelmeerla € ber, R., dem transalpinen Europa w€ ahrend der Bronzezeit. In: Hach, B., Ro Wesselkamp, G. (Eds.), Über die Alpen, Menschen, Wege, Waren. Arch€ aologisches Landesmuseum Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart, pp. 39e48. Coms¸a, E., 1966. Le depot en bronze de Cioclovina (Carpates Meridionales). In: Acta Archaeol. Carpathica, vol. 8, pp. 169e174. €di, I., 1978. Noi date privind depozitul de la Cioclovina. In: SCIVA, vol. 29, Emo pp. 481e495.
trie de masse  Gratuze, B., 2014. Application de la spectrome a plasma avec
le vement par ablation laser (LA-ICP-MS) 
tude des recettes de fabrication pre a l0 e et de la circulation des verres anciens. In: Dillmann, Ph, Bellot-Gurlet, L. (Eds.),
riaux et des objets dans les socie
te
s anciennes, Collection Circulation des mate

ologiques. Editons Sciences Arche Archives Contemporaines, Paris, pp. 259e291. Gratuze, B., 2013. Glass characterisation using laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry methods. In: Janssens, K. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Analysing Archaeological and Historical Glass, vol. 1. John Wiley & Sons Ltd eds, pp. 201e234 chap 3.1. Jantzen, D., Schmidt, J., 1999. Ein Hortfund derPeriode III aus Neustrelitz, Lkr. Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Jahrbuch Bodendenkmalpflegein Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 47, 7e127. Jackson, C., Nicholson, P., 2010. The provenance of some glass ingots from the Uluburun shipwreck. J. Archaeol. Sci. 37, 295e301. Kaczmarczyk, A., 1986. The source of cobalt in ancient Egyptian pigments. In: Olin, J.S., Blackman, M.J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th International

11

Archaeometry Symposium. Smithonian Institution Press, Washington DC, pp. 369e376. Kemp, B., 2012. The City of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. Amarna and its People. Thames & Hudson, London. Mildner, S., Falkenstein, F., Schmidt, J., Schüssler, U., 2010. Materialanalytische Untersuchungen an ausgew€ ahlten Glasperlen des bronzezeitlichen Hortfund von Neustrelitz, Lkr. Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Mecklenburg-Strelitz, pp. 43e63. Jahrbuch 57, 2009. Mildner, S., Schüssler, U., Falkenstein, F., 2014. Bronzezeitliches Glas im westlichen Mitteleuropa Funde, Zusammensetzung, und die Frage nach seiner Herkunft. In: Nessel, B., Heske, I., Brandherm, D. (Eds.), Ressourcen und Rohstoffe in der Bronzezeit. Nutzung-Distribution-Kontrolle, Brandenburg an der Havel, pp. 100e107. Peche-Quilichini, K., Bellot-Gurlet, L., Canobbio, E., Cesari, J., Gratuze, B., Leandri, F., Leandri, C., Nebbia, P., Paris, C., 2016. Campu stefanu (Sollacaro, Corsica) middle bronze age amber and glass beads analyses. A new Mycenaean traffics issue in Corsica?. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the EAA, September 2013, Pilsen, Czech Republic (in press). Petrescu-Dîmbovita, M., 1977. Depozitele de bronzuri din Rom^ ania. Editura Aca^nia, Bucures¸ti. demiei Republicii Socialiste Roma Pulak, C., 2008. The Uluburun shipwreck and late bronze Age trade. In: Aruz, J., Benzel, K., Evans, J.M. (Eds.), Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C., the Metropolitan Museum of Art Exhibition Catalog, pp. 3999e4005. Rehren, Th, Pusch, E., 2005. Late bronze age glass production at Qantir-Piramesses. Egypt. Science 308, 1756e1758. Rehren, Th, 2014. Glass production and consumption between Egypt, Mesopotamia €lzner, P., Niehr, H., Pernicka, E., Lange, S., Ko €ster, T. (Eds.), and the Aegean. In: Pfa Contextualizing Grave Inventories in the Ancient Near East. Qatna Studien Supplements, vol. 3. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, pp. 217e223. Rehren, Th, Freestone, I.C., 2015. Ancient glass: from kaleidoscope to crystal ball. J. Archaeol. Sci. 56 (2015), 233e241. Rusu, M., 1963. Die Verbreitung der Bronzehorte in Transsilvanien vom Ende der Bronzezeit bis in die mittlere Hallstattzeit. Dacia N. S. 7, 175e210. Shortland, A.J., 2005. The raw materials of early glasses: the implication of new LAs de l0 Association Internationale ICP-MS analyses. In: Annales du 16e Congre pour l0 Histoire du Verre, London 2003, Nottingham, pp. 1e5. Shortland, A., 2012. Lapis Lazuli from the Klin. Glass and Glassmaking in the Late Bronze Age. Leuven University Press. Shortland, A.J., Eremin, K., 2006. The analysis of second millennium glass from Egypt and Mesopotamia, Part 1: new WDS analyses. Archaeometry 48/4, 581e603. Shortland, A.J., Tite, M.S., Ewart, I., 2006. Ancient exploitation and use of cobalt alums from the western oases of Egypt. Archaeometry 48/1, 153e168. Shortland, A.J., Rogers, N., Eremin, K., 2007. Trace element discriminants between Egyptian and Mesopotamian late bronze age glasses. J. Archaeol. Sci. 34, 781e789. Smirniou, M., Rehren, Th, 2013. Shades of blue-cobalt-copper coloured blue glass from New Kingdom Egypt and the Mycenaean world: a matter of production or colourant source? J. Archaeol. Sci. 40, 4731e4743.  del bronzo in Val Badia. Tecchiati, U., 1998. Sotciastel. Un abitato fortificato dell0 eta  de Rü”, Soprintendenza ai Beni Culturali di BolIstitut Cultural Ladin “Micura zano, Alto Adige, Bolzano. Varberg, J., Gratuze, B., Kaul, F., 2015. Between Egypt, Mesopotamia and Scandinavia: late bronze age glass beads found in Denmark. J. Archaeol. Sci. 64 (2015), 168e181. Walton, M.S., Shortland, A., Kirk, S., Degryse, P., 2009. Evidence for the trade of Mesopotamian and Egyptian glass to Mycenaean Greece. J. Archaeol. Sci. 36, 1496e1503. Walton, M., Eremin, K., Shortland, A., Degryse, P., Kirk, S., 2012. Analysis of Late Bronze Age glass axes from Nippur e a new cobalt colourant. Archaeometry 54/ 5, 835e852. Wittenberger, M., 2001. Funerary Rite and Ritual of the Noua Culture in Transylvania. In: Serie Archeologie 3. Biblioteque Istro-Pontique, Tulcea.

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