production-or-consumption-glass-beads-from-the-roman-villa ...

HAL Id: hal-03382954https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03382954

Submitted on 18 Oct 2021

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open accessarchive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-entific research documents, whether they are pub-lished or not. The documents may come fromteaching and research institutions in France orabroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, estdestinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documentsscientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,émanant des établissements d’enseignement et derecherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoirespublics ou privés.

Production or Consumption? Glass Beads from theRoman Villa of Aiano, Tuscany

Cristina Boschetti, Bernard Gratuze, Marco Cavalieri, Sara Lenzi, NadineSchibille

To cite this version:Cristina Boschetti, Bernard Gratuze, Marco Cavalieri, Sara Lenzi, Nadine Schibille. Production orConsumption? Glass Beads from the Roman Villa of Aiano, Tuscany. European Journal of Archae-ology, SAGE Publications, 2021, �10.1017/eaa.2021.34�. �hal-03382954�

Production or Consumption? Glass Beadsfrom the Roman Villa of Aiano, Tuscany

CRISTINA BOSCHETTI1 , BERNARD GRATUZE

1 , MARCO CAVALIERI2 ,

SARA LENZI2

AND NADINE SCHIBILLE1

1Institut de Recherche sur les Archéomatériaux, CNRS/Université d’Orléans, France2Institut des Civilisations, Arts et Lettres, Université Catholique de Louvain

(UCLouvain), Belgium

Excavations in the Roman villa of Aiano yielded twenty glass beads, a pendant, and a glass-recyclingfurnace, originally interpreted as a bead workshop. This article re-assesses the evidence of bead makingin light of new data obtained thanks to recent progress in archaeological glass studies. A detailed studyof the typology, technology, and chemical composition of the beads clearly excludes local production.Instead, two different forming techniques, four different base glasses (Roman, HIMT, Foy 2.1 and Foy2.1/HIMT), and numerous colouring and opacifying materials point to a well-established and extensivenetwork of the Roman bead trade, in which Aiano evidently participated. The majority of the beadscan be related to the monumentalization of the villa in the fourth to fifth century AD and represent asample of the ornaments worn by its inhabitants.

Keywords: Roman glass beads, glass recycling workshop, Late Antique Tuscany, Roman glasstrade, Roman villa

INTRODUCTION

Glass beads adorning the body were someof the earliest vitreous materials ever pro-duced in the late fourth millennium BC

(Moorey, 1994: 190–92). They becameincreasingly popular during the LateBronze Age, when glass production beganmore systematically, and beads were recov-ered in substantial numbers from templeand palatial complexes in Mesopotamiaand Egypt (Shortland, 2000: 81;Hodgkinson, 2017: 75–105). In theeastern Mediterranean, the products of

glass workshops were diverse and beadswere made alongside vessels, inlays, andfigurines (Shortland, 2000: 81). In thisearly period, beads were important com-modities, recognized for qualities thatwent beyond their aesthetic appeal(Nightingale, 2008). The outstandingsymbolic value attributed to beads isclearly reflected in the great distancescovered by their trade and their role inrituals. For example, in the fourteenthcentury BC, thousands of Egyptian glassbeads were transported by two ships sunkoff the Anatolian coast at Uluburun and

European Journal of Archaeology 2021, page 1 of 20This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, andreproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf ofEuropean Association of Archaeology doi:10.1017/eaa.2021.34Manuscript received 23 October 2020,accepted 13 July 2021, revised 18 March 2021

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2021.34Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 93.19.39.117, on 18 Oct 2021 at 11:32:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

Cape Kylidonia (Pulak, 1998; Jackson &Nicholson, 2010). At this time, Egyptianand Mesopotamian beads travelled as faras Scandinavia, where they have beenrecovered in Danish burials (Varberget al., 2015). In Mesopotamia (Moorey,1994: 192; Feldman, 2006), MycenaeanGreece (Nightingale, 2008, with earlierreferences), and in Egypt (Müller, 2018,with references), beads were buried in thefoundation deposits of temples, palaces,and tombs. In Egypt and Nubia, the useof beads in building rituals continuedwithout interruptions for nearly two mil-lennia, illustrated by the evidence fromPtolemaic and Roman temples (Then-Obl=====uska, 2017), and Coptic churches aslate as the seventh century AD (Then-Obl=====uska, 2013).In the eleventh to tenth century BC,

when glassmaking appeared for the firsttime in the western Mediterranean, beadswere the only products manufactured inthe workshops of Frattesina and othersites identified in the Po valley (Towleet al., 2001). These western productionsremained isolated and probably ceasedwith the decline of Frattesina at the endof the tenth century BC (Cavazzuti et al.,2019). Judging by some exceptionaleighth-century BC black beads documentedin Spain, Anatolia, Slovakia, and Italy(Conte et al., 2016), some western glassmaking and glass working may have con-tinued into the Iron Age. The dynamicsof bead production and trade during theIron Age are still insufficiently investi-gated, and the archaeological record lacksidentified bead-making workshops.However, the varied compositional make-up of Iron Age bead assemblages and theirtypological variability seem to reflect alively international bead trade (Conteet al., 2016, 2019). Glass beads werehighly popular at that time and they werestrung on necklaces or bracelets, but theywere also sewn onto clothing as evidenced

by finds in elite burials excavated incentral Italy and Greece (Gleba, 2017).Until the end of the Iron Age, glass

beads were formed exclusively by winding,a simple process involving coiling andtooling a mass of soft glass around ametallic rod (mandrel). Winding was prac-ticed in all the cultures that producedglass beads, in Asia, Europe, and Africa.The Hellenistic period, from the lastdecades of the fourth century BC, repre-sents a phase of technological innovationfor bead making, especially in Egypt andGreece where new and highly specializedtechniques were developed. The identifica-tion of these forming techniques is rele-vant, because technological and chemicalstudies show a link between specializedforming techniques and the area of pro-duction (Boschetti et al., 2020a, withreferences). A first innovation inHellenistic bead making is the inventionof drawing and segmenting. Segmentedbeads were formed from hollow glass rodsthat were divided into individual beadswith the help of shaping thongs or mouldswith indentations (Spaer, 1993). Thistechnique was popular in a variant knownas sandwich-gold glass, where a gold leafwas sandwiched between two layers of col-ourless glass (Spaer, 1993). At the end ofthe third century BC, a workshop inRhodes constitutes the first archaeologicalproof of the production of beads using thistechnique, which probably originated inEgypt in the fourth century BC (Weinberg,1983; Spaer, 1993). Another innovation inHellenistic Egypt is the mosaic technique,a variant of winding, in which sections ofpolychrome canes are gathered around themandrel. This mosaic technique was ori-ginally used to make inlays (Bianchi,1983) and beads from the second centuryBC onwards (Liu et al., 2017). Evidencefor the production of wound beads wasfound in a second-century BC context atDelos (Nenna, 1993). Currently Roman

2 European Journal of Archaeology 2021

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2021.34Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 93.19.39.117, on 18 Oct 2021 at 11:32:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

beads are poorly served by research: acomprehensive typology of Roman beadsdoes not exist, and technological studiesare lacking entirely. Two fourth- to sixth-century AD workshops identified inAlexandria, where segmentation andwinding were practised, are currently theonly archaeologically attested contexts ofbead making for the Roman and LateAntique period (Rodziewicz, 1984; Rifa-Abou El Nil & Calligaro, 2020). There isa complete absence of indicators of beadmaking in the Italian peninsula, in linewith the general lack of evidence forRoman glass working, particularly for theRepublican and early Imperial periods(Boschetti, 2020). Egyptian mosaic andsegmented beads continued to circulatethroughout the Mediterranean, but thereis no comprehensive map of their distribu-tion (Then-Obl=====uska, 2018).Thanks to the identification of bead

winding workshops in Scandinavia,Ireland, and the Netherlands, it is clearthat glass beads were manufactured inEurope during the Migration period(Boschetti et al., 2020a, with references).Egyptian mosaic and segmented beadswere nonetheless still sought after andtraded as far as Scandinavia (Callmer,1977) and the Caucasus (Bezborodov,1959). Beads made with a Mesopotamiancompositional signature also appear on theEuropean market in the seventh centuryAD, but their provenance is still unclear(Boschetti et al., 2020a, with references).The Migration period is a prolific timefor glass beads, which were used for jewel-lery as well as for beautifying textiles(Juwig, 2010; Pion & Gratuze, 2016).Interestingly, the tiny glass beads used fordecorating clothes were manufactured inIndia (Pion & Gratuze, 2016; Boschettiet al., 2020a), using a complex techniqueinvolving drawing, cold cutting, and hotpolishing (Francis, 1990). Asian beads cir-culated in Europe until the end of the

sixth century, but the origins of this com-merce are obscure. A detailed study ofHellenistic and Roman beads would behelpful to establish the beginning of thistrade, which could date back to as early asthe end of the third century BC (Francis,1988).Against this background of limited

archaeological evidence and fragmentarystudies, the discovery in 2008 of a glass-recycling furnace and seven glass beads inthe Roman villa of Aiano in Tuscany wasenthusiastically identified as a workshopfor the production of beads dating to theMigration period, allegedly the only onein Italy (Cavalieri & Giumlia-Mair,2009). The furnace dates to the sixthcentury AD, when the abandoned Romanbuilding was reoccupied to host artisanalactivities (Deltenre & Orlandi, 2016). Thediscussion of the chemical composition offour beads and a group of tesserae andother glasses from Aiano in 2009 waslimited to the identification of colourantsand opacifiers (Cavalieri & Giumlia-Mair,2009). Over the last decade, Roman andLate Antique glass studies have improvedsignificantly; it is now possible to identifydifferent base glasses and trace theirplace of origin by the heavy elementsintroduced as impurities in the silicasource (Freestone et al., 2018, with refer-ences). New data obtained during thearchaeological campaigns at Aiano since2009 cast doubt on the identification ofbead production in Aiano. After ten yearsof research, the building sequence is nowclear and there are enough elements tounderstand the relationship between thebeads found at Aiano and the history ofthis complex building.Here we present a re-assessment of the

Aiano beads, examining all the specimensrecovered between 2005 and 2019 anddiscussing their depositional history, typ-ology, forming technique, and chemicalcomposition. The main objective is to

Boschetti et al. ‒ Glass Beads from the Roman Villa of Aiano, Tuscany 3

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2021.34Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 93.19.39.117, on 18 Oct 2021 at 11:32:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

place the Aiano beads in a broadMediterranean and European context andto evaluate critically their previous inter-pretation as local products. We aim notonly to clarify the meaning and functionof the beads in Aiano, but also to reflecton the dynamics that regulated the pro-duction and circulation of glass beadsbetween Late Antiquity and the earlyMiddle Ages.

THE ROMAN VILLA OF AIANO

The Roman villa of Aiano is located inpresent-day Tuscany, in the district calledTuscia et Umbria since the beginning ofthe fourth century AD (Figure 1). Thebuilding occupies a central position in theElsa river valley, on top of a plateaucreated by a palaeo-landslide. The struc-tures, investigated between 2005 and2019, consist of a large central hall withthree apses, surrounded by a corridor withfive apses or lobes (N). The hall was pre-ceded on the south side by a quadrangularvestibule connected to a wide corridororiented north-south (R), which lookedonto three rectangular rooms on the westside (A, B, C). The eastern wing wasorganized as a sequence of small rooms.During the sixth-century AD reoccupationof the villa, this sector housed a series ofworkshops dedicated to the collection andrecycling of materials taken from thebuilding. The principal feature of thebuilding’s north wing is a large rectangularhall with four pilasters that opened on theeast side onto an open area framed by aporch (V). The building was occupiedfrom the end of the third century to themiddle of the seventh century AD and theanalysis of the features identified six majorphases (Cavalieri, 2020; Cavalieri &Peeters, 2020) (Figure 2, Table 1).The earliest phase (Phase 1) survives

only in rooms A and B, in the south-

western sector of the site. During Phase 2,the building twice underwent monumentalrenovations. The first intervention, datableto the second half of the fourth century,was the creation of a hall with six apses,surrounded by a corridor with five lobes,opening to the south onto a rectangularantechamber. The hall probably func-tioned as a passageway leading to the nor-thern sector of the villa. In a secondphase, possibly a few decades later, theformer project was radically modified.Three of the six apses of the main hallwere demolished, creating a space forthree rectangular rooms. The hall waspaved with an opus signinum floor deco-rated with tesserae, which is still in situ.This intervention was crucial in definingthe function of the rooms and transform-ing the central hall into a monumentalhall.At the end of the fifth century (Phase 3),

the villa was abandoned, and parts of thestructures collapsed. After a relativelyshort period of abandonment, the site wasreoccupied at the beginning of the sixthcentury. The building now served variousproductive activities, where all the materi-als used in the villa (marble, glass, lead,bronze, bricks) were systematically col-lected and recycled (Deltenre & Orlandi,2016). These activities were responsiblefor the fragmentation and dispersal of theresidual material from the earlier phases ofthe building. At the present stage of thearchaeological investigations, it is possibleto identify the south and north wing asthe two main sectors of artisan activity.Activities in the south wing are clearlyvisible archaeologically and include asmithy (Room B) and other pyrotechnolo-gical activities (Area 5000) (Cavalieri,2013: 302). The north wing housed acombination of pyrotechnological activitiesdifficult to interpret and service spaces.Interestingly, the rooms surrounding thethree-apsidal hall were characterized by a

4 European Journal of Archaeology 2021

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2021.34Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 93.19.39.117, on 18 Oct 2021 at 11:32:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

Figure 1. Map of Tuscany, with Aiano (Adapted from cartography of DARMC https://darmc.harvard.edu/).

Boschetti

etal.

‒Glass

Bead

sfrom

theRom

anVilla

ofAian

o,Tuscan

y5

https://ww

w.cam

bridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2021.34

Dow

nloaded from https://w

ww

.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 93.19.39.117, on 18 O

ct 2021 at 11:32:40, subject to the Cambridge Core term

s of use, available at

high level of specialization: Room I wasdedicated to the transformation of copperalloys, activity in Room H was probablylinked to a nearby pottery kiln (Room F),while Room L yielded traces of goldworking (Cavalieri et al., 2009; Cavalieri& Giumlia-Mair, 2009; Cavalieri, 2013;Deltenre & Orlandi, 2016). Particularlyrelevant for our present study is the dis-covery of a glass-recycling furnace in RoomO. The furnace was used to work bothcullet and glass mosaic tesserae, an activityclearly connected to Room A, where 6000mosaic tesserae, partially altered by heat,were found. In this space, the cullet was

stored before being recycled, and two pitswere used for roasting and washing thetesserae to remove the mortar. Hundredsof fragmentary glass inlays were recoveredfrom a series of small open spaces locatednext to the corridor (R), probably similarlydedicated to the storage of glass cullet(Cavalieri et al., 2016).The function of the spaces in the north

wing is more difficult to determine, but itis clear that Room U served as storage forfragments of floor mosaics for re-use(Cavalieri et al., 2013: 538, 543, figs 2–3).Part of this space also served the dailyneeds of the craftsmen. There were, forexample, a series of structures for cookingand possibly for baking in corridor K. Inshort, throughout most of the sixthcentury, the villa at Aiano was an open-air workshop devoted to collecting andtransforming materials spoliated fromthe abandoned building. Similar multi-activity recycling workshops are docu-mented in other Late Antique Tuscansites (Sebastiani, 2016: 66), glass-recyc-ling, for instance, is clearly documentedin Spolverino (Sebastiani & Derrick,2020).

Figure 2. Plan of the Aiano villa, after the 2018 excavation campaign, showing the distribution ofthe beads, divided by compositional group and forming technique (polychrome beads are classified accord-ing to the base glass used for the body) (adapted from a drawing by A. Novellini). © UCLouvain.

Table 1. Chronological phases of the Aiano villa.

Phase Chronology

1 End of third century–first half of fourth centuryAD

2 Second half of fourth century–second half offifth century AD

3 End of fifth century–first half of sixth century AD

4 Second half of the sixth–middle of seventhcentury AD

5 From the second half of seventh century AD

6 Modern era

6 European Journal of Archaeology 2021

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2021.34Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 93.19.39.117, on 18 Oct 2021 at 11:32:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

All productive activities came to an endand the building was finally abandonedduring Phase 4. The decline of the villa isevident from the second half of theseventh century (Phase 5) in the form ofcollapsed walls almost everywhere in thebuilding. The only traces of occupation arethe tombs of two individuals, possibly pil-grims, buried in rooms Q and Z. Modernagricultural activities are responsible fordamaging the features (Phase 6).

THE GLASS BEADS FROM AIANO:DEPOSITION AND DISTRIBUTION

Twenty glass beads and one pendant wereretrieved during the excavation campaignsconducted at Aiano from 2005 to 2019.The beads were all deposited in backfillsformed between the sixth and the seventhcentury, when the artisanal activities cameto an end and the area was abandoned(Table 1 and Supplementary MaterialTable S1). These backfills are character-ized by a high degree of residuality. Findsdating to the second half of the fourthcentury, the time of the monumentalrenovation of the villa, are accompanied bylate fifth- to seventh-century material.Earlier material is less frequent. The beadswere scattered across the vast area occu-pied by the villa, without any significantclustering, and no bead was deposited infills associated with the glass-recyclingfurnace excavated in the ambulatio of thefive-lobed hall (Room O). An importantconcentration of glass-working waste wasretrieved from Area 7000, located imme-diately outside the central hall and inter-preted as a zone used as dump, collectingthe waste generated by the craft activities.The visual examination of all the glass

finds from Aiano ascertained that there isno evidence that could be linked to beadworking, such as tools, glass canes, and/orfailed beads. The beads are a small group

of finished objects, which speaks against aproductive site. Some fragments of aceramic container with holes found nearthe furnace were described as a brazierused for bead making (Cavalieri &Giumlia-Mair, 2009). This identificationwas based on the representation of asimilar object in a Renaissance woodcutprint entitled Der Glasser (Cavalieri &Giumlia-Mair, 2009: 1026–27). A carefulexamination of the scene, however, revealsthat the woodcut print does not actuallydepict a glass-working scene, but theassembly of a stained-glass window.Moreover, braziers are unsuitable forglass working and the object excavated inAiano certainly had a different function.The glass-working waste from Area 7000includes fragments of vessels and tesseraedeformed by heat, fragments of refractorymaterial with adhering glass, and massesof tooled coloured glass (Figure 3). Thesefinds are evidence of the recycling of col-ourless and coloured glass, but it is impos-sible to ascertain whether this glass wasshaped into new objects at Aiano orwhether it was moved to secondary work-shops as unprocessed glass. As documen-ted during the fourth century AD atAquileia (Boschetti et al., 2016) andduring the ninth century at San Vincenzoal Volturno (Schibille & Freestone, 2013),colourless glass was recycled and colouredby adding mosaic tesserae. A similar recyc-ling process probably took place in Aiano,where the deposits associated with thefurnace yielded an exceptional concentra-tion of windowpanes and mosaic tesserae.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The technology for forming beads can beeasily identified by visual examination andis the main criterion adopted to classifythe beads from Aiano. All twenty beadsand the pendant were selected for

Boschetti et al. ‒ Glass Beads from the Roman Villa of Aiano, Tuscany 7

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2021.34Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 93.19.39.117, on 18 Oct 2021 at 11:32:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

chemical analysis (Figure 4). The cleanedbut unprepared samples were analysed byLA-ICP-MS (laser ablation coupled withinductive plasma mass spectrometry) atIRAMAT-CEB in Orléans (France),using a Resonetics M50E excimer 193 nmlaser and a Thermo Fischer ScientificELEMENT XR mass spectrometer. Theanalyses were conducted with 5 mJ energy,10 Hz pulse frequency and a beam diam-eter that ranges from 30 to 100 μmdepending on the transition metals andparticles present in the glass (Gratuze,2013).

Typology and forming technology

The current literature on the typology ofbeads circulating during the RomanEmpire and the early Middle Ages is verylimited, but sufficient to place the Aianobeads in a geographical and chronological

framework. While the Aiano beads areclearly different from the types circulatingin Migration-period Europe (Callmer,1977; Burgmann, 2004; Boschetti et al.,2020a), they are reminiscent of Romanand Late Antique types (Mandruzzato &Marcante, 2008). From the point of viewof the forming technique, the corpus ofAiano beads only contains wound and seg-mented beads, two of the four formingtechniques documented in the ancientMediterranean (Figure 4). Drawn, cold-cut, hot-polished, and mosaic beads areabsent.The majority of the Aiano beads (n =

17) and the pendant (TCC09) were madeby winding. Three small, monochromebeads (TCC01, 05, 015) can be identifiedwith types that were popular from thethird to the sixth century and imitate pre-cious stones (Swift, 2003). One light bluebead (TCC04) of this group belongs to atype well documented in Egypt and Nubia

Figure 3. Glass lumps and mosaic tesserae deformed from the heat of the furnace retrieved from thedump outside the villa (Area 7000).

8 European Journal of Archaeology 2021

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2021.34Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 93.19.39.117, on 18 Oct 2021 at 11:32:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

from the fourth to the sixth century(Then-Obl=====uska, 2018; Then-Obl=====uska &Wagner, 2017). Such beads were oftenmounted in gold or bronze jewellery incombination with real stones. Seven beadsand the pendant TCC09 from Aiano aredistinguished by the black glass from

which their body was made (TCC06, 07,11, 12, 13, 17, 18). This type of glass wasparticularly appreciated for making orna-ments from the third to the fifth century(Cosyns, 2011). The black bead with red,white, and light blue mottled decoration(TCC12) finds parallels in the Late

Figure 4. The Aiano beads, divided by forming technique and base glass composition, with indicationof the sample number, cobalt source, yellow and white opacifiers.

Boschetti et al. ‒ Glass Beads from the Roman Villa of Aiano, Tuscany 9

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2021.34Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 93.19.39.117, on 18 Oct 2021 at 11:32:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

Antique burials of the Fayoum and in thejewellery workshop excavated in the Dianaquarter in Alexandria (Boschetti et al.,2020a: 12, with references; Rifa-Abou ElNil & Calligaro, 2020). Similar beadshave been recorded in Italy from the firstto the fifth century (Mandruzzato &Marcante, 2008: 4, 158). The workshopof the Diana quarter also offers a parallelfor the spiral bead TCC18. Jug-shapedpendants, like an exemplar from Aiano(TCC09), are attested in the Levant andEgypt and were quite popular in theItalian peninsula during the second halfof the fourth and the first half of thefifth century (Mandruzzato & Marcante,2008: 4, 36–37, 74–75; Bolla, 2011;Mandruzzato, 2017). They are usuallyinterpreted as Christian amulets, and oftendeposited in burials of women and chil-dren (Spaer et al., 2001: 171; Bolla, 2011:33). A possible Egyptian origin can beassumed for the bead TCC21 since itsshape and decoration corresponds to LateAntique Egyptian spindle whorls (Spaeret al., 2001: 259–61).Interestingly, the few publications on

Roman beads tend to identify them as pro-ducts that circulated locally or on a regionalscale (Burgmann, 2004; Mandruzzato &Marcante, 2008). However, looking at thebeads from a broad geographic perspective,the scenario changes radically. Forexample, a bead from Aquileia, identical tothe large, spherical black bead TCC07decorated with crossed white trails andgreen and yellow eyes, is dated to thefourth to fifth century on the basis of paral-lels from present-day Austria, which isassumed to be its place of origin(Mandruzzato & Marcante, 2008: 64).Other examples of this type were recoveredfrom British burials of the middle of thefifth to the first quarter of the sixthcentury, where they are thought to belocally produced (Burgmann, 2004: 77,92). In the 1970s, Margaret Guido

discussed the circulation of this type ofbead in Britain and noticed some matchingparallels in fourth- to fifth-century contin-ental contexts, classifying this type as anexotic Roman product imported frommainland Europe (Guido, 1978: 101–02,232). A specimen excavated from a third-century burial in Classe, the port city ofRavenna, and associated with black beadsdecorated with coloured zig-zag trails,similar to Aiano bead TCC06, is evidenceof an earlier circulation of this type in Italy(Montevecchi, 2000). Other wound beadsfrom Aiano, like the melon bead TCC19,or the cylindrical beads TCC02, 03, and20, belong to very common types, and theirdate cannot be safely established on typo-logical grounds.Only three monochrome beads are

drawn and segmented (TCC08, 14, 16).The green bead TCC08 is furthermorefinished by hot polishing, as occasionallydocumented in beads of this kind (Spaer,1993). Drawn beads of this type areEgyptian products, popular in Europesince Late Antiquity, with a major diffu-sion from the fourth century AD onwards.

Chemical composition

To further refine the chronology and prov-enance of the glass beads from Aiano, wecan draw on the chemical analysis of theglass (Supplementary Material Table S1).Ancient glass can be classified into differ-ent primary production groups, accordingto the nature of the raw materials used bythe glassmakers. From the Hellenisticperiod up to the ninth century AD, thedominant trend in Mediterranean glass-making was the use of natron as the mainfluxing agent (Shortland et al., 2006).Indeed, all the beads and the pendantfrom Aiano are natron type glasses withlow MgO and K2O concentrations (<2%wt). Several samples have higher

10 European Journal of Archaeology 2021

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2021.34Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 93.19.39.117, on 18 Oct 2021 at 11:32:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

phosphorus and elevated potassium oxides,with lower chlorine contents. These fea-tures are markers of pollution probablydue to recycling and/or extended second-ary working (Schibille & Freestone, 2013;Jackson & Paynter, 2016). The differentcompositional groups of first-millenniumnatron glasses can be distinguished on thebasis of the ratios of Al2O3/Si2O andTiO2/Al2O3 that reflect the heavy mineraland feldspar contents of the silica source(Freestone et al., 2018). The glasses usedfor the Aiano beads are broadly consistentwith three major compositional groups(Figure 5). Most samples (n = 26) corres-pond to Roman glass made and circulatingthroughout the Roman Empire from thefirst to the third century (Jackson, 2005;Silvestri et al., 2008; Paynter & Jackson,2019). Antimony or manganese wereoften added directly during the primaryproduction in their capacity as decolouri-zers. The addition of manganese wastypical of Levantine glass making, whileantimony was preferred in Egypt. TheNa2O/SiO2 and CaO/Al2O3 ratios inRoman glasses can be used to distinguishEgyptian antimony-decolourized fromLevantine manganese-decolourized glassbecause it is currently believed that Romanand Late Antique glass made in Egypt hasa higher soda and lower lime content than

contemporary Levantine glass (Jackson,2005; Freestone, 2015, 2020). With a fewexceptions, the Aiano Roman glassesappear to represent a mixture of recycledRoman Sb and Mn glasses (Figure 6).A second group (n = 7), with higher

TiO2/Al2O3 can be identified as belong-ing to the so-called Foy 2.1 group, namedafter Danièle Foy, who identified it (Foyet al., 2003) (Figure 5). This compos-itional group is widely distributed inEurope and North Africa from the secondhalf of the fifth to the seventh century andis of Egyptian origin (Foy et al., 2003;Freestone et al., 2018; De Juan Ares et al.,2019; Barfod et al., 2020). A third group(n = 6), with even higher TiO2/Al2O3

ratios resembles HIMT (High Iron,Manganese, and Titanium) glass made inEgypt during the fourth and fifth centuries(Freestone et al., 2018, with references).However, these samples have exceptionallyhigh iron contents that would haveaugmented the titanium oxide levels andthus may be closer to Foy 2.1 (Figure 5,Table S1). Finally, one sample, with thehighest TiO2/Al2O3, has the typical valuesof HIMT glass (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Base glass characteristics of the Aianobeads, separated as a function of Al2O3/SiO2 andTiO2/Al2O3 ratios. Figure 6. Na2O/SiO2 and CaO/Al2O3 ratios of

the Roman samples from Aiano, compared to dif-ferent Roman glass reference groups (Roman Sb,Roman Mn, Roman mixed), based on the glassfinds from the Iulia Felix shipwreck (IF) (datasource: Silvestri, 2008; Silvestri et al., 2008).

Boschetti et al. ‒ Glass Beads from the Roman Villa of Aiano, Tuscany 11

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2021.34Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 93.19.39.117, on 18 Oct 2021 at 11:32:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

The identification of the colouringtechnology underlying the Aiano beadscan serve as an additional chronologicalmarker (Figure 4). The majority of theRoman glasses are opacified with calciumand lead antimonate that were commonlyused until the fourth century AD

(Boschetti et al., 2020b, with references).The transition to tin-based compounds isdocumented systematically from the fourthcentury, and this change emerged first inthe eastern Mediterranean (Tite et al.,2008). This new technology underlies oneyellow (TCC9) and two Roman whiteglasses (TCC 11, 12), and one sample ofthe Foy 2.1 group (TCC17). The cobalt-bearing raw materials can similarly serve asa temporal marker in so far as the highCo/Ni ratios typical of Roman glassesdecrease over time (Gratuze et al., 2018).In all, with the exception of two of theAiano Roman glass beads (TCC05, 21),the cobalt to nickel ratios are indeed high(Figure 7). The later cobalt signature canbe detected in all Foy 2.1 samples exceptone (TCC14) (Figure 7).

CHRONOLOGY AND PROVENANCE

The relationships between base glass,forming technology, typology, and, inpolychrome beads, the combination ofdifferent base glasses, colourants, andopacifiers are useful to establish theirrelative chronology and provenance. Thechemical composition is particularlyhelpful for the chronology of the mono-chrome wound beads because they aredifficult to date on typological grounds.Four beads are made with Roman glass:the colourless melon bead TCC19 andthree drop-shaped beads (TCC04, 05,15). In the opaque green bead TCC04,the association of Roman base glass withcalcium antimonate as an opacifier sup-ports a date not later than the fourth

century. By contrast, the blue beadTCC05 is opacified by tin oxide and ismost likely to be a post-fourth centuryartefact. The spiral black bead TCC18 ismade of Foy 2.1/HIMT glass and can bematched with similar black beads prob-ably made in Egypt during the fourth andfifth centuries (Cosyns, 2011). A similardate can be proposed for the simplebarrel-shaped colourless bead TCC01made from HIMT glass.The polychrome wound beads can be

divided into two groups. The first groupincludes six beads (TCC03, 06, 07, 10,13, 20), all made with recycled Romanglass, antimony-based opacifiers, andRoman cobalt with a high Co/Ni ratio(TCC13). These criteria imply a dateprobably in the fourth century at thelatest. Two beads (TCC06, 07) with typo-logical parallels from the third century,may be residual, originating from the firstphase of the villa. A second group, includ-ing four beads (TCC02, 11, 12, 21) andthe pendant TCC09, combines Foy 2.1and HIMT glass for the body and recycledRoman glass for the decoration of thebeads. The green Roman glass threadapplied on the HIMT/Foy 2.1 red beadTCC02 is opacified by calcium antimonate.In the other beads of this group and in thependant TCC09, the Roman glass is opaci-fied by tin oxide (TCC11, 12) calciumantimonate (21) and lead stannate(TCC09). Roman cobalt is present in theFoy 2.1 translucent body of one mottledbead (TCC11). The Roman blue thread ofthe bead TCC21, opacified by calciumantimonate, is coloured by a late source ofcobalt. Finally, one blue mottled bead(TCC17) is entirely made of Foy 2.1 glass.The translucent blue body is coloured by apost-fourth century cobalt raw material,and the white dots are opacified by tinoxide. This is the only bead where the baseglass, the cobalt raw material, and the opa-cifier point to a date not earlier than the

12 European Journal of Archaeology 2021

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2021.34Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 93.19.39.117, on 18 Oct 2021 at 11:32:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

middle of the fifth century. The Egyptianbase glass compositions and the typologicalparallels support the hypothesis that theAiano beads were imported from Egypt.This interpretation is highly probable espe-cially for the three mottled beads (TCC11,12, 17), the bead/spindle whorl TCC21,and the jug-shaped pendant TCC09.The three drawn-segmented beads

(TCC8, 14, and 16) are made with Foy2.1 glass. Both the base glass and theforming technology lead us to identifythese beads as Egyptian products, manu-factured between the fifth and theseventh century. The Roman cobalt iden-tified in the blue bead TCC14 suggests adate during the earliest phase of circula-tion of the Foy 2.1 base glass, in themiddle of the fifth century. The distribu-tion of the findspots of the beads, dividedby chemical composition and formingtechnology, does not reveal significantclustering. The exception are the threedrawn-segmented beads that were foundin contexts connected by a direct strati-graphic correlation. These three beadsmight have been strung together, butthere are too few elements to demonstratethis hypothesis (Figure 2).

CONCLUSIONS

The re-analysis of the corpus of theAiano glass beads changes their interpret-ation, date, and connection to the villaand the glass-recycling infrastructuresinvestigated there. The stratigraphic pos-ition of the beads and the lack of arch-aeological indicators of bead productionat Aiano rule out a local productionduring the reoccupation of the building.The results of the typological, techno-logical, and chemical analyses establish adirect link with the life of the villa duringits main period of prosperity. The middleof the fourth to the fifth century AD, towhich the majority of the beads and thependant belong, was the period in whichthe building underwent a fundamentalmonumentalization. It can be reasonablyassumed that the Aiano beads were orna-ments worn by the people who lived inthe villa before it was abandoned. A fewbeads can be dated to as early as themiddle of the third century and can beassigned to the first phase of the building.All the drawn beads and at least halfthe wound beads and the pendant areimports, probably from Egypt. Ratherthan being local products, the Aianobeads are objects obtained through anexchange network operating at aMediterranean and European level. Beadstravelled exceptionally long distances inthe period between the Bronze Age andthe Iron Age, and, later, during theMigration period. Contrary to previousperceptions of Roman beads as generallyworthless products, produced and con-sumed locally, the clear identification ofexotic beads among the finds from Aianoleads to a necessary re-assessment of thestatus of Roman glass beads in terms oftheir aesthetic, economic, and symbolicvalue. While the international dimensionof the bead trade during the Romanand Late Antique period or the extent of

Figure 7. Cobalt relative to nickel concentrationsdistinguish Roman from Late Antique cobaltsources and confirm the chronological separation ofthe Roman, Foy 2.1, and Foy 2.1/HIMT glassesused in the Aiano beads.

Boschetti et al. ‒ Glass Beads from the Roman Villa of Aiano, Tuscany 13

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2021.34Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 93.19.39.117, on 18 Oct 2021 at 11:32:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

its market is currently far from under-stood, the results obtained for the Aianogroup support a model of long-distanceexchange.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

To view supplementary material for thisarticle, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2021.34.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project has received funding from theEuropean Research Council under theEuropean Union’s Horizon 2020 researchand innovation programme (grant no.647315 to Nadine Schibille). The ‘RegioVII, The Elsa Valley during the RomanAge and Late Antiquity’ project hasreceived funding from the Belgian Fundfor Scientific Research (FSR-FNRS) andthe municipality of San Gimignano inItaly. For help with storage in SanGimignano and archaeological and topo-graphical drawing, we would like to thankDr Gloriana Pace and Dr AlessandroNovellini. For the excavation of the villaof Aiano, we are grateful to theSoprintendenza Archeologia, Belle Arti ePaesaggio of Siena, Grosseto and Arezzo.The funding organizations have had noinfluence in the study design, data collec-tion, analysis, decision to publish, or prep-aration of this manuscript.

REFERENCES

Barfod, G.H., Freestone, I.C., Lesher, C.E.,Lichtenberger, A. & Raja, R. 2020.‘Alexandrian’ Glass Confirmed by HafniumIsotopes. Scientific Reports, 10: 11322.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-68089-w

Bezborodov, M.A. 1959. Glasherstellung beiden slawischen Völkern an der Schwelle

des Mittelalters. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschriftder Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 8:187–93.

Bianchi, R.S. 1983. Those Ubiquitous GlassInlays. Journal of Glass Studies, 25: 29–35.

Bolla, M. 2011. Clastidium e l’area Pleba. In:R. Invernizzi, ed. …Et in memoriameorum. La necropoli romana dell’area Plebadi Casteggio:. Casteggio: Commune diCasteggio, pp. 39–269.

Boschetti, C. 2020. Vetro e blu egizio nelNinfeo di Segni: aspetti decorativi, tipolo-gici e tecnologici. In: F.M. Cifarelli, ed. IlNinfeo di Q. Mutius a Segni. Rome:Quasar, pp. 55–67.

Boschetti, C., Gratuze, B. & Schibille, N.2020a. Commercial and Social Significanceof Glass Beads in Migration-Period Italy:The Cemetery of Campo Marchione.Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 39: 319–42.https://doi.org/10.1111/ojoa.12200

Boschetti, C., Leonelli, C., Rosa, R.,Romagnoli, M., Ángel, M., Tévar, V. &Schibille, N. 2020b. Preliminary ThermalInvestigations of Calcium AntimonateOpacified White Glass Tesserae.Heritage, 2: 549–60. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage3020032

Boschetti, C., Mantovani, V. & Leonelli, C.2016. Glass Coloring and Recycling inLate Antiquity: A New Case Study fromAquileia (Italy). Journal of Glass Studies,58: 69–86.

Burgmann, B. 2004. Glass Beads from EarlyAnglo-Saxon Graves: A Study of theProvenance and Chronology of Glass Beadsfrom Early Anglo-Saxon Graves, Based onVisual Examination. Oxford: Oxbow.

Callmer, J. 1977. Trade Beads and Bead Tradein Scandinavia, ca 800–1000 AD (Actaarchaeologica Lundensia Series in 4o, 11).Lund: Gleerup & Bonn: Habelt.

Cavalieri, M. 2013. Quid igitur est ista villa?L’Etruria centro-settentrionale tardaAntichità e alto Medioevo. Nuovi dati evecchi modelli a confronto sulla villad’Aiano-Torraccia di Chiusi. In: G.Schörner, ed. Leben auf dem Lande. ‘IlMonte’ bei San Gimignano. Ein römischerFundplatz und sein Kontext. Vienna:Phoibos, pp. 283–319.

Cavalieri, M. 2020. Investigating Transformationsthrough Archaeological Records in the Heartof Tuscany: The Roman Villa at Aianobetween Late Antiquity and the Early

14 European Journal of Archaeology 2021

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2021.34Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 93.19.39.117, on 18 Oct 2021 at 11:32:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

Middle Ages. In: P. Cimadomo, R.Palermo, R. Pappalardo & R. PierobonBenoit, eds. Before/After: Transformation,Change, and Abandonment in the Romanand Late Antique Mediterranean. Oxford:Archaeopress, pp. 97–113.

Cavalieri, M. & Giumlia-Mair, A. 2009.Lombardic Glassworking in Tuscany.Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 24:1023–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10426910902987119

Cavalieri, M. & Peeters, A. 2020. Dalla villaal cantiere. Vivere in Toscana tra tardaAntichità ed alto Medioevo: la villad’Aiano (Siena). In: M. Cavalieri & F.Sacchi, eds. La villa dopo la villa.Trasformazione di un sistema insediativo edeconomico in Italia centro-settentrionale tratarda Antichità e Medioevo. Louvain:Presses Universitaires de Louvain, pp.61–78.

Cavalieri, M., Baldini, G., Giumlia-Mair, A.,Montevecchi, N., Novellini, A. &Ragazzini, S. 2009. San Gimignano (SI).La villa di Torraccia di Chiusi, localitàAiano. Dati ed interpretazioni dalla Vcampagna di scavo, 2009. Notiziario dellaSoprintendenza per i Beni archeologici dellaToscana: 492–517.

Cavalieri, M., Camin, L. & Paolucci, F. 2016.I sectilia vitrei dagli scavi della villaromana di Aiano-Torraccia di Chiusi(Siena, Toscana). Journal of Glass Studies,58: 286–91.

Cavalieri, M., Lenzi, S. & Cantisani, E. 2013.La fine della villa tardoantica di Aiano-Torraccia di Chiusi (San Gimignano,Siena): la sistematica distruzione dei suoiarredi. Nuovi dati archeologici su litotipi esistemi decorativi. In: C. Angelelli, ed.Atti del XVIII colloquio dell’associazioneitaliana per lo studio e la conservazioen delmosaico. Tivoli: Ante Quem, pp. 537–44.

Cavazzuti, C., Cardarelli, A., Quondam, F.,Salzani, L., Ferrante, M., Nisi, S., et al.2019. Mobile Elites at Frattesina: Flowsof People in a Late Bronze Age ‘Port ofTrade’ in Northern Italy. Antiquity, 93:624–44. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2019.59

Conte, S., Arletti, R., Mermati, F. & Gratuze,B. 2016. Unravelling the Iron Age GlassTrade in Southern Italy: The First Trace-Element Analyses. European Journal ofMineralogy, 28: 847–51. https://doi.org/10.1127/ejm/2016/0028-2572

Conte, S., Matarese, I., Vezzalini, G.,Pacciarelli, M., Scarano, T., Vanzetti A.,et al. 2019. How Much Is Known AboutGlassy Materials in Bronze and Iron AgeItaly? New Data and General Overview.Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences,11: 1813–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-018-0634-6

Cosyns, P. 2011. The Production,Distribution and Consumption of BlackGlass in the Roman Empire During the1st–5th Century AD: An Archaeological,Archaeometric and Historical Approach(unpublished PhD dissertation, FreeUniversity of Brussels).

De Juan Ares, J., Vigil-Escalera Guirado, A.,Cáceres Gutiérrez, Y. & Schibille, N.2019. Changes in the Supply of EasternMediterranean Glasses to VisigothicSpain. Journal of Archaeological Science, 107:23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2019.04.006

Deltenre, F.-D. & Orlandi, L. 2016. « Rien ne seperd, rien ne se crée, tout se transforme ».Transformation and Manufacturing in theLate Roman Villa of Aiano-Torraccia diChiusi (5th-7th Century AD) – Villaromana di Aiano-Torraccia di Chiusi.Postclassical Archaeologies, 6: 71–90.

Feldman, M. 2006. Diplomacy by Design:Luxury Arts and an ‘International Style’ inthe Ancient Near East, 1400–1200BCE. Chicago (IL): University of ChicagoPress.

Foy, D., Picon, M., Vichy, M. & ThirionMerle, V. 2003. Caractérisation des verresde la fin de l’Antiquité en Méditerranéeoccidentale : l’émergence de nouveauxcourants commerciaux. In: D. Foy & M.-D. Nenna, eds. Échanges et commerce duverre dans le monde antique. Actes duColloque de l’Association française pourl’archéologie du verre, Aix-en-Provence etMarseille, 7–9 juin 2001. Montagnac:Monique Mergoil, pp. 41–85.

Francis, P. Jr 1988. Glass Beads in Asia. PartI. Introduction. Asian Perspectives(Honolulu), 28: 1–21.

Francis, P. Jr 1990. Glass Beads in Asia, PartII: Indo-Pacific Beads. Asian Perspectives(Honolulu), 29: 1–23.

Freestone, I.C. 2015. The Recycling andReuse of Roman Glass: AnalyticalApproaches. Journal of Glass Studies, 57:29–40.

Boschetti et al. ‒ Glass Beads from the Roman Villa of Aiano, Tuscany 15

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2021.34Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 93.19.39.117, on 18 Oct 2021 at 11:32:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

Freestone, I.C. 2020. Apollonia Glass and itsMarkets: An Analytical Perspective. In: O.Tal, ed. Apollonia-Arsuf, Final Report ofthe Excavations, 2: Excavations Outside theMedieval Town Walls. Winona Lake (IN):Eisenbrauns, pp. 341–48.

Freestone, I.C., Degryse, P., Lankton, J.,Gratuze, B. & Schneider, J. 2018. HIMT,Glass Composition and CommodityBranding in the Primary Glass Industry.In. M.P. Rosenow, A. Meek & I.CFreestone, eds. Things that Travelled:Mediterranean Glass in the FirstMillennium AD. London: UCL Pres, pp.159–90.

Gleba, M. 2017. Tracing Textile Cultures ofItaly and Greece in the Early FirstMillennium BC. Antiquity, 91: 1205–22.https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2017.144

Gratuze, B. 2013. Glass CharacterisationUsing Laser Ablation Inductively CoupledPlasma Mass Spectrometry Methods. In:K. Janssens, ed. Modern Methods forAnalysing Archaeological and HistoricalGlass, 1: 201–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118314234.ch9

Gratuze, B., Pactat, I. & Schibille, N. 2018.Changes in the Signature of CobaltColorants in Late Antique and EarlyIslamic Glass Production. Minerals, 8:225. https://doi.org/10.3390/min8060225

Guido, M. 1978. The Glass Beads of thePrehistoric and Roman Periods in Britainand Ireland. London: Thames & Hudson.

Hodgkinson, A. 2017. Technology andUrbanism in Late Bronze Age Egypt(Oxford Studies in Egyptology, 1).Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jackson, C.M. 2005. Making Colourless Glassin the Roman Period. Archaeometry, 47:763–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2005.00231.x

Jackson, C.M. & Nicholson, P.T. 2010. TheProvenance of Some Glass Ingots fromthe Uluburun Shipwreck. Journal ofArchaeological Science, 37: 295–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2009.09.040

Jackson, C.M. & Paynter, S. 2016. A GreatBig Melting Pot: Exploring Patterns ofGlass Supply, Consumption and Recyclingin Roman Coppergate, York*.Archaeometry, 58: 68–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12158

Juwig, C. 2010. Die Gewandreliquie der heili-gen Bathilde. Überlegungen zur ihrem

Bildstatus und Funktionskontext. In: C.Juwig & C. Kost, eds. Bilder in derArchäologie –Archäologie der Bilder?(Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher, 8).Münster, New York, München & Berlin:Waxmann, pp. 197–211.

Liu, R.K., Holland, S. & Holland, T. 2017.Ancient Nubian Face Beads: TheProblem with Suppositions. Ornament,40(2): 34–39.

Mandruzzato, L. 2017. Vetro. In: F. Fontana,ed. Scavi ad Aquileia III. Aquileia, l’insulatra foro e porto fluviale: lo scavodell’Università degli Studi di Trieste 1, lastrada. Trieste: Editreg, pp. 293–301.

Mandruzzato, L. & Marcante, A. 2008. Vetriantichi del Museo Archeologico Nazionale diAquileia. Ornamenti, oggettistica e vetro pre- epost-romano (Corpus delle Collezioni delVetro in Friuli Venezia Giulia, 4). Roma:Arbor Sapientiae.

Montevecchi, G. 2000. Corredo funerario,Classe (Ravenna), via Romea sud, podereGiorgioni, tomba 29. In: M. MariniCalvani, ed. Aemilia. La cultura romana inEmilia Romagna dal III secoloa. C. all’età costantiniana. Venezia: Marsilio,pp. 159–61.

Moorey, P.R.S. 1994. Ancient MesopotamianMaterials and Industries: The ArchaeologicalEvidence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Müller, M. 2018. Foundation Deposits andStrategies of Place-Making at Tell el-Dab’a/Avaris. Near Eastern Archaeology,81: 182–90. https://doi.org/10.5615/near-eastarch.81.3.0182

Nenna, M.-D. 1993. La verrerie d’époquehellénistique à Délos. Journal of GlassStudies, 35: 11–21.

Nightingale, G. 2008. Tiny, Fragile,Common, Precious: Mycenaean Glass andFaience, Beads and Other Objects. In: C.Jackson & E.C. Wagner, eds. VitreousMaterials in the Late Bronze Age Aegean.Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 64–104.

Paynter, S. & Jackson, C. 2019. Clarity andBrilliance: Antimony in Colourless NatronGlass Explored Using Roman GlassFound in Britain. Archaeological andAnthropological Sciences, 11: 1533–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-017-0591-5

Pion, C. & Gratuze, B. 2016. Indo-PacificGlass Beads from the Indian Subcontinentin Early Merovingian Graves (5th–6thCentury AD). Archaeological Research in

16 European Journal of Archaeology 2021

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2021.34Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 93.19.39.117, on 18 Oct 2021 at 11:32:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

Asia, 6: 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2016.02.005

Pulak, C. 1998. The Uluburun Shipwreck:An Overview. The International Journal ofNautical Archaeology 27: 188–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1057-2414(98)80031-9

Rifa-Abou El Nil, P. & Calligaro, T. 2020.Un atelier de taille de pierre semi-précieuses à Alexandrie. In: M.-T. Dinh-Audouin, D. Olivier & P. Rigny, eds.Chimie et Alexandrie dans l’Antiquité. LesUlis: EDP Sciences, pp. 247–66.

Rodziewicz, M. 1984. Les habitationsromaines tardives d’Alexandrie à la lumièredes fouilles polonaises a Kom el-Dikka.Warsav: PWN, Éditions Scientifiques dePologne.

Schibille, N. & Freestone, I.C. 2013.Composition, Production and Procurementof Glass at San Vincenzo al Volturno:An Early Medieval Monastic Complexin Southern Italy. PLoS ONE, 8:e7647. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0076479

Sebastiani, A. 2016. Glass and Metal Productionat Alberese: The Workshops and theManufacturing District of Spolverino.Postclassical Archaeologies, 6: 63–70.

Sebastiani, A. & Derrick, T.J. 2020. ARegional Economy of Recycling over FourCenturies at Spolverino (Tuscany) andEnvirons. In: C.N. Duckworth & A.Wilson, eds. Recycling and Reuse in theRoman Economy. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Pres, pp. 359–82.

Shortland, A. 2000. Vitreous Materials atAmarna: The Production of Glass andFaience in 18th Dynasty Egypt (BARInternational Series 827). Oxford: BritishArchaeological Reports.

Shortland, A., Schachner, L., Freestone, I. &Tite, M. 2006. Natron as a Flux in theEarly Vitreous Materials Industry: Sources,Beginnings and Reasons for Decline. Journalof Archaeological Science, 33: 521–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2005.09.011

Silvestri, A. 2008. The Coloured Glass of IuliaFelix. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35:1489–1501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2007.10.014

Silvestri, A., Molin, G. & Salviulo, G. 2008.The Colourless Glass of Iulia Felix. Journalof Archaeological Science, 35: 331–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2007.03.010

Spaer, M. 1993. Gold-Glass Beads: A Reviewof the Evidence. BEADS: Journal of theSociety of Bead Researchers, 5: 9–25. https://surface.syr.edu/beads/vol5/iss1/5

Spaer, M., Barag, D., Ornan, T. & Neuhaus,T. 2001. Ancient Glass in the IsraelMuseum: Beads and Other Small Objects.Jerusalem: Israel Museum.

Swift, E. 2003. Late-Roman Bead Necklacesand Bracelets. Journal of RomanArchaeology, 16: 336–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1047759400013167

Then-Obl=====uska, J. 2013. Medieval TransculturalMedium: Beads and Pendants fromMakurianand Post-Makurian Dongola in Nubia. PolishArchaeology in the Mediterranean, 22: 679–720.

Then-Obl =====uska, J. 2017. Beads and Pendantsfrom the Late Harbor Temple and HarborTemenos in the Red Sea Port of Berenike:Techniques, Functions and Affiliations.Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean, 26:193–210.

Then-Obl =====uska, J. 2018. Beads and Pendantsfrom the Hellenistic to Early ByzantineRed Sea Port of Berenike, Egypt, Season2014 and 2015. Polish Archaeology in theMediterranean, 27: 203–33.

Then-Obl =====uska, J. & Wagner, B. 2017. GlassBead Trade in Northeast Africa in theRoman Period. In: S. Wolf & A. DePury-Gysel, eds. Annales du 20e Congrès del’Association internationale pour l’histoire duverre. Rhaden/Westf: Marie Leidorf, pp.248–56.

Tite, M., Pradell, T. & Shortland, A. 2008.Discovery, Production and Use of Tin-Based Opacifiers in Glasses, Enamels andGlazes from the Late Iron Age Onwards:A Reassessment. Archaeometry, 50: 67–84.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2007.00339.x

Towle, A., Henderson, J. & Bellintani, P.2001. Frattesina and Adria: Report ofScientific Analyses of Early Glass from theVeneto. Padusa, 37: 7–68.

Varberg, J., Gratuze, B. & Kaul, F. 2015.Between Egypt, Mesopotamia andScandinavia: Late Bronze Age GlassBeads Found in Denmark. Journal ofArchaeological Science, 54: 168–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.11.036

Weinberg, G.D. 1983. A Hellenistic GlassFactory on Rhodes: Progress Report.Journal of Glass Studies, 25: 37.

Boschetti et al. ‒ Glass Beads from the Roman Villa of Aiano, Tuscany 17

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2021.34Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 93.19.39.117, on 18 Oct 2021 at 11:32:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

Cristina Boschetti graduated in CuratorialStudies from the University of Parma in2001 and in Classics from the same uni-versity in 2005, followed by a diploma inConservation of Paintings from ENAIP,Brescia, in 2004 and a PhD inArchaeological Science from the Universityof Padua in 2009. She has since held post-doctoral positions at the universities ofNottingham, Padua, and Cairo. In 2008,she joined the Institut de Recherche sur lesArchéomatériaux at the University ofOrléans, as researcher on the ERC-fundedproject GlassRoutes, directed by NadineSchibille. Her research interests include thestudy of the economy and technology ofglass from the Hellenistic to the medievaleras and of mosaics and wall paintings ofthese periods, with a focus on workshoppractices.

Address: IRAMAT-CEB, UMR5060,CNRS/Université d’Orléans, 3D, rue de laFérollerie, 45071 Orléans cedex 2, France.[email:[email protected]].ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4499-779X.

Bernard Gratuze is director of research atthe CNRS, Institut de Recherche sur lesArchéomatériaux, University of Orléans.His research interests include the develop-ment of analytical protocols using laserablation inductively coupled plasma massspectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) for glass(as well as lithic materials) to study theirproduction and trade from protohistory tothe modern period. He studies glassmaking processes and recipes since thebeginning of the second millennium BC,with a particular interest for transitions(e.g. change from soda plant ash fluxes tonatron in the early first millennium BC, orfrom natron to forest plant ashes fluxes in

the late first millennium AD). He recentlyidentified, with colleagues, Indian glassbeads imports in early medieval westernEurope.

Address: IRAMAT-CEB, UMR5060, CNRS/Université d’Orléans, 3D, rue de la Férollerie,45071 Orléans cedex 2, France. [email:[email protected]]. ORCiD:https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6136-8085.

Marco Cavalieri graduated in Classicsfrom the University of Parma, followed bya Specialisation Diploma in Greek andRoman Archaeology from the Universityof Florence and a PhD in Archaeologyform the University of Perugia. He is fullprofessor of Archaeology and History ofAncient Art at the Université Catholiqueof Louvain (UCLouvain, Belgium), wherehe was appointed in 2003. His mainresearch interests include Roman archae-ology, with a focus on urbanism and top-ography of the Cisalpine region; urbanism,architecture and art, as expressions of theideology of Roman power; and the archae-ology of the Italic world and Roman pro-vinces. He is director of three UCLouvainarchaeological missions in Italy: Aianosince 2005, Cures Sabini, Rieti, since2014, and Ostia since 2019.

Address: Institut des Civilisations, Arts etLettres, Université Catholique de Louvain(UCLouvain), Place B. Pascal, 1, CollègeErasme, BP L3.03.13, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgique. [email: [email protected]]. ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9825-1910.

Sara Lenzi obtained an MA in Archaeologyfrom the University of Florence in 2011,with a dissertation on Roman paintedmarble slabs in the collections ofKunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. In

18 European Journal of Archaeology 2021

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2021.34Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 93.19.39.117, on 18 Oct 2021 at 11:32:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

2015 she obtained a PhD in Archaeologyfrom the University of Florence, a studythat investigated the polychromy of the so-called monochromes on marble fromPompeii and Herculaneum. She is an exter-nal collaborator at UCLouvain, as amember of the team excavating Aiano. Hermain research interests include polychromyon Roman sculpture, Roman wall painting,opus sectile, and the study of spoliation andrecycling during the early Middle Ages.

Address: Institut des Civilisations, Arts etLettres, Université catholique de Louvain(UCLouvain), Place B. Pascal, 1, CollègeErasme, BP L3.03.13, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgique. [email: [email protected]]. ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4057-3631.

Nadine Schibille obtained her PhD in theHistory of Art from the University of

Sussex in 2004. During her doctoralresearch she developed an interdisciplinarystrategy to investigate the material andaesthetic aspects of light in the art andarchitecture of Byzantium. Following anMSc from the Institute of Archaeology atUCL in 2005, Nadine has held postdoc-toral positions at Stanford University, theGetty Institute, and the University ofOxford. She joined the CNRS in 2015 aschargé de recherche to lead an ERC-2014-CoG project entitled GlassRoutes(ID: 647315) that traces Mediterranean-wide developments in the production, trade,and consumption of glass using scientificmethods, in particular LA-ICP-MS.

Address: IRAMAT-CEB, UMR5060,CNRS/Université d’Orléans, 3D, rue de laFérollerie, 45071 Orléans cedex 2, France.[email: [email protected]].ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9242-0392.

Production ou consommation? Les perles en verre de la villa romaine d’Aiano enToscane

Vingt perles en verre, un pendentif et un four de recyclage du verre, interprété dans un premier tempscomme celui d’un atelier de fabrication des perles, ont été découverts lors des fouilles de la villa romained’Aiano. Dans cet article, l’hypothèse d’une présence d’artisans perliers sur le site de la villa estconfrontée à de nouvelles données obtenues grâce aux progrès récents des études effectuées sur les verresarchéologiques. L’étude combinée de la typologie des perles, de leur technologie de production et de leurcomposition chimique met en évidence la présence de deux techniques de façonnage différentes (perlesenroulées et tubes étirés et segmentés), et de quatre verres de compositions différentes (Roman, HIMT,Foy 2.1 et Foy 2.1/HIMT). On observe aussi l’emploi de différents matériaux et techniques de colo-ration et d’opacification (opacification avec l’aide de composés d’étain et d’antimoine et utilisation dedeux minerais de cobalt). Ces résultats excluent clairement l’hypothèse d’une production locale des perleset montrent qu’Aiano était intégré au sein d’un large réseau de commerce antique de perles. La plupartdes perles qui y ont été trouvées peuvent être attribuées à la phase de monumentalisation de la villa duIVe au Ve siècle, et sont représentatives des éléments de parure portés par ses habitants. Translation bythe authors

Mots-clés: perles en verre romaines, four de recyclage du verre, Toscane à la fin de l’Antiquité,commerce du verre romain, villa romaine

Boschetti et al. ‒ Glass Beads from the Roman Villa of Aiano, Tuscany 19

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2021.34Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 93.19.39.117, on 18 Oct 2021 at 11:32:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

Herstellung oder Konsum? Die Glasperlen aus der römischen Villa von Aiano inder Toskana

Ausgrabungen in der römischen Villa von Aiano ergaben zwanzig Glasperlen, einen Anhänger undeinen Glasrecyclingofen, der ursprünglich als Perlenwerkstatt interpretiert wurde. Dieser Artikelbetrachtet erneut die Beweislage im Licht neuer Angaben und berücksichtigt dabei die jüngste Forschungin archäologischen Glasstudien. Eine detaillierte Untersuchung der Typologie, Technologie und che-mischen Zusammensetzung der Perlen schließt eine lokale Produktion eindeutig aus. Stattdessen deutetdas Vorkommen zweier unterschiedlicher Formgebungstechniken, vier verschiedener Rohgläser (römisch,HIMT, Foy 2.1 und Foy 2.1/HIMT) und zahlreicher Farbstoffe, Trübungsmittel und Techniken aufein gut etabliertes und weitverzweigtes Netz des römischen Perlenhandels hin, an dem Aiano offensich-tlich beteiligt war. Die Mehrzahl der Perlen können mit der Monumentalisierung der Villa im viertenbis fünften Jahrhundert in Zusammenhang gebracht werden und repräsentieren einen Teil der von denEinwohnern getragenen Ornamente. Translation by the authors

Stichworte: römische Glasperlen, Glasrecyclingwerkstatt, Toskana in der Spätantike, römischerPerlenhandel, römische Villa

20 European Journal of Archaeology 2021

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2021.34Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 93.19.39.117, on 18 Oct 2021 at 11:32:40, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at