Sixth-century AD glassware from Jelica, Serbia-an increasingly complex picture of late antiquity glass composition
Sixth-century AD glassware from Jelica, Serbia-an increasingly complex picture of late antiquity glass composition
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s12520-020-01031-3
复制
发表时间：
2020-03-26
影响因子：
2.2
通讯作者：
Smit, Z.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Balvanovic, R.;Smit, Z.
本文报道了公元6至7世纪初塞尔维亚耶利察的格拉迪纳拜占庭殖民地的42件玻璃器皿样品的化学分析结果，完成了对同一地点40件窗玻璃样品的研究。除了一种植物灰玻璃外，所有其他玻璃都是以天然碱为基础的，分为Foy 2.1（34），Foy 3.2（6）和Roman（2）。这批玻璃中的10个无色玻璃被锰脱色。五个玻璃杯故意用钴和铜染成蓝色，一个用铁染成黑色。四个蓝色玻璃是不透明的，一个用锑，一个可能用锡。一些被归类为Foy 3.2的Jelica玻璃发现的镁含量高于3.2系列的特征。分配到Foy 2.1组的Jelica眼镜进一步分为低铁（20），高铁（4）和非常高铁（6）亚组。被鉴定为Foy 2.1的Jelica样品的总体组成模式表明，在其制造过程中使用了具有不同重矿物套件和石灰来源的不同砂，以及不同水平的回收。我们的研究结果表明，Foy 3.2和Foy 2.1的成分模糊的原因不仅限于回收等技术原因，还包括砂矿物的变化。研究结果支持了公元6世纪在巴尔干半岛中部和东部以及马其顿-色雷斯海岸Foy 2.1和Foy 3.2类型玻璃占主导地位的观点。我们的研究结果，以及迄今为止报道的该地区明显缺乏黎凡特玻璃，表明不同的贸易路线向这些地区供应东地中海原料玻璃，这些原料玻璃来自亚得里亚海海岸。
In this paper, the chemical analyses of forty-two samples of glassware from the sixth to early seventh century AD Byzantine settlement of Gradina on Jelica, Serbia are reported, completing the previous study of forty windowpane samples from the same site. Apart from a single plant ash glass, all other glasses are natron-based, classified as Foy 2.1 (thirty-four), Foy 3.2 (six), and Roman (two). The ten colourless glasses from the assemblage are decolourised with manganese. Five glasses are intentionally coloured blue with cobalt and copper, one black with iron. Four blue glasses are opacified, one with antimony, one perhaps with tin. Some Jelica glass finds classified as Foy 3.2 are specific for having magnesium levels above those characteristic for serie 3.2. Jelica glasses assigned to Foy 2.1 group were further divided into low iron (twenty), high iron (four), and very high iron (six) subgroups. The overall compositional pattern of Jelica samples identified as Foy 2.1 suggest that different sands with different heavy mineral suites and sources of lime were used in their making, as well as different levels of recycling. Our findings indicate that the reasons for the compositional blurring of Foy 3.2 and Foy 2.1 are not limited to technological reasons such as recycling, but also include variations in the sand minerals. The results support the picture of the dominance of Foy 2.1 and Foy 3.2 types of glass in central and eastern Balkans and on the Macedonian-Thracian coast during the sixth century AD. Our findings, together with the apparent absence of Levantine glass from this region reported until now, suggest that different trade routes were supplying these regions with Eastern Mediterranean raw glass from those supplying Adriatic Sea coasts.