Preliminary Report on the 1996 Swiss-Liechtenstein excavations at ez Zantur
by Bernhard Kolb (with contributions by Daniel Keller and Regine Fellmann Brogli)
VII. Ez Zantur IV: Mosaic glass from ez Zantur
A fragment consisting of a number of polychrome sections of composite mosaic canes (fig. 15) was found in room 1, sounding 1 on EZ IV.
The individual elements of decoration are only inlaid in the front – they do not penetrate through to the back. The latter consists of a dark opaque matrix veined with pale stripes. The piece measures 3.1 x 2.8 cm, is 0.53 cm thick and is part of a mosaic glass inlay which was intended for view on only one side. The original rim border which protrudes slightly at the back is preserved on the left. The fragment is broken off on the top, the right and on the bottom. The pattern on the front of the fragment is recognizable despite a creamy layer of sinter. The colour of the background is the only thing which cannot be definitely determined but it was probably dark green. On the left, next to the rim are two flowers each with six white petals and six or seven red stamps on a yellow background; they probably represent narcissi. A stem with five white-veined, pale green leaves leads to the top of both these flowers. The lower part of a tulip consisting of red and yellow stripes and leafy stalk is still visible in the top right hand corner. A red petal with a white or yellow centre is recognizable further down, in the middle. The pattern can probably be reconstructed symmetrical to the fractured right edge Compare e. g.: Cooney 1976: pl. 2 middle.
Fig. 15: Front of mosaic glass Nr. 1 (photo: D. Keller)
As is clear from the description our fragment belongs to the group of mosaic glass inlays with floral decoration; these can be divided into two groups – one with a clear plant pattern on a dark blue ground and the other with a dark green background and less clearly defined plants. The fact that the floral motif on our fragment is not clearly offset from the background suggests that it belongs to the second group. These inlays are usually 12–15 cm long and 6–7 cm wide. The reverse side was sometimes reinforced with glass waste. Ten to eleven different plants could be portrayed on the front in a variety of ways. Besides narcissi and tulips, poppy flowers and capsules, ears of grain and lettuces have been identified Müller 1964: 162; Grose 1989: 355–356, fig. 167; Nenna 1993: 46–47; Stern and Schlick-Nolte 1994: 404–406. . Mosaic glass inlays with a floral motif have been found mainly in Egypt Alexandria: Breccia 1912: 104–106 nr. 338–345, figs. 70–77; Oxyrhynchos: Müller 1964: 162 nr. A 234 s–x; Grimm et al. 1978: nr. 133, 10; Schnitzer et al. 1978: 28 nr. 44 a; Sotheby’s 1992: 76 nr. 398; Antinoopolis: Cooney 1976: 133 nr. 1642–1643; Assiut: Cooney 1976: 134 nr. 1661; Dendara: Flinders Petrie 1900: 35. . Only a few finds are known from other regions – from Ptuj (Slowenia), Olympia and Dion (Greece) as well as from Upper Galilee Ptuj: Korosec 1982: 33–34, fig. 3; Dion (unpublished): see Nenna 1993: 47; Olympia: Furtwängler 1890: 207 nr. 1335; Three Trees (Upper Galilee): Davidson Weinberg 1973: 47–51, figs. 5–6. . The overwhelming quantity in Egypt and the scanty distribution elsewhere indicates that these inlays are of Egyptian provenance. How to date them is less clear. Neither the Egyptian pieces nor that from Galilee nor the two from Greece can be dated from their find contexts. Only the example from Ptuj gives any indication. It stems from a complex dated in the late first century BC to the early first century AD Korosec 1982: 33–36; Stern and Schlick-Nolte 1994: 404–405. . The piece from ez Zantur is also datable: the entire debris in room 1 contained almost exclusively phase 3a (20–70/80 AD) Nabataean fine ware with just a few earlier and later sherds FK 3019, Abs. 5, 90–91/AO. On Nabataean fine ware: Campaign 1993: 281–284; Schmid 1996a: 151–218. . It is therefore plausible that the fragment under consideration was in use during the second or third quarter of the first century AD. How much earlier it was produced cannot be determined. This result does not in any case contradict the dating of the mosaic glass inlays with floral decoration in the late first century BC – early first century AD.
The size of this fragment and its miniature plant motif make it unlikely that this glass inlay belonged to a wall tile from room 1 as does its status as a solitary individual find. It is much more likely that it was part of the revetment panel of a piece of wooden furniture. The unburnt fragments of wood which came to light in this room could point to the same solution For the use and attachment of these mosaic glass inlays: Stern 1987: 30–31; Grose 1989: 355; Nenna 1993: 47; Stern and Schlick-Nolte 1994: 404. . The predecessors of these floral mosaic glass inlays existed in Egypt from the period of the New Empire onwards and were used primarily for the decoration of sarcophagi and furniture (e. g. thrones) Bianchi 1983: 29–35. For the attachment of rectangular glass inlays (not opaque with mosaic glass inlay but translucent over gold foil) see e. g. the wooden kline from the so-called tomb of Phillip II in Vergina from the late fourth century BC (Andronikos 1984: 123–124, fig. 75). . An early find from Petra shows that the Egyptian mosaic glass inlay from ez Zantur is not an isolated phenomenon: a vegetative decor in black, red and green is inlaid in a narrow stripe of opaque yellow glass. A six-leaved palmette rises over two tendrils with side-volutes; half a lotus blossom above volute-tendrils is preserved next to it Horsfield 1942,: 200 nr. 458, pl. 47, 458. . Comparable pieces show that this is a late hellenistic/early Roman Egyptian glass inlay with alternating palmettes and flowers above tendrils Goldstein 1979: 222–223 nr. 643–644. Compare also a mosaic cane with a six-leaved palmette (Grose 1989: 362 nr. 628) and a mosaic cane with a lotus blossom (Stern and Schlick-Nolte 1994: 394 nr. 138), from which pieces were pinched off and melted together to produce such stripes.
VII. Ez Zantur IV: Mosaic glass from ez Zantur
The only rim sherd of a mosaic glass vessel from the excavations on ez Zantur belonged to a small shallow bowl with a rounded, slightly downward-curving rim (fig. 16).
The decor consists of peacock eyes surrounded by a heavily corroded glass mass, probably originally dark green. The eyes consist of two rings – the inner yellow and the outer red. The diameter of the bowl measured 13.8 cm and the wall is 0.57 cm thick at the broken edge. This fragment came to light during the 1989 campaign just north of the Nabataean house in square 104/L on EZ I. The find complex is homogenous with fine ware from phase 2a (50–25 BC) FK 148, Abs. 2, 104/L. On Nabataean fine ware: supra note 23. . This mosaic glass fragment would thus also be datable in the third quarter of the first century BC.
Fig. 16 b: Front of mosaic glass Nr. 2 (photo: D. Keller)
There are no published parallels among the mosaic glass bowls for the form of the ez Zantur rim fragment; a bowl decorated with peacock eyes and found near Koblenz (Germany) comes the closest Follmann-Schulz 1992: 10 nr. 1. . Peacock eyes as the only decorative element on mosaic glass vessels are not very common – fragments have been found only in Dura Europos, Rome and Alexandria besides the bowl from Coblenz just mentioned Dura Europos: Clairmont 1963: 10–12 nr. 20–23, pl. 18, 20–23; Rome: Fremersdorf 1975: 34 nr. 108, pl. 7, 108; Alexandria: Breccia 1912: 106 nr. 346, fig. 78. . Mosaic glass bowls with peacock eyes in combination with other motifs are commoner; there are published examples from Jerusalem, Aleppo, Luni (Italy), Augst (Switzerland), Haltern (Germany) and Velsen (Netherlands) Jerusalem: Ariel 1990: 155 156 nr. GL 23, fig. 29; Aleppo: Exposition des verres syriens 1964: 6 nr. 19, fig. 2; Luni: Roffia 1973: 464–465 nr. 2, CM 864, pls. 81, 1. 109, 2; Augst: Rütti 1991: 124; Haltern: Kühlborn 1988: 600–602 nr. 450; Velsen: van Lith 1977: 12 nr. 6, pl. 1, 6. . Apart from the late third century BC – first century AD Hellenistic and early Roman mosaic glass bowls On Hellenistic mosaic glass vessels see: Harden 1968: 21–47; Oliver 1968: 48–70; Grose 1989: 189–197; Stern and Schlick-Nolte 1994: 276–281 nr. 75–77; on early Roman mosaic glass vessels see: Grose 1989: 256–261; Stern and Schlick-Nolte 1994: 330–333 nr. 100–102. . There was also a later production in the second/third century AD. A pattern of peacock eyes belongs to the repertoire of millefiori decoration in the second/third century AD as well – as demonstrated by examples from Rome and the Germanic and Gaulish Roman provinces Rütti 1991: 126–133, figs. 77. 86, A. . The fragment from the Roman catacombs has a terminus post quem in the late second century AD Rütti 1991: 129. . But the bowl from Haltern (Germany) has a terminus ante quem of 9 AD Kühlborn 1988: 600–602 nr. 450. , some of the examples from Augst (Switzerland) were found in Tiberian/Claudian contexts Rütti 1991: 130. and the rim sherd from Jerusalem comes from a layer dated in the first century AD Ariel 1990: 155–156 nr. GL 23, fig. 29. . Mosaic glass bowls with peacock eye pattern can also be typologically dated by form: the bowls preserved whole with this decor are either cups with constricted curvilinear walls terminating in an everted lip or plates with oblique, externally fluted walls and everted lips e. g.: Goldstein 1979: 185 nr. 492; Grose 1989: 309. 311–312. 315–318. 320 nr. 439. 442. 450. 455. 475. 480. 489. 494. 502. . Both are common forms in the monochrome opaque or translucent glassware produced between 1 and 70 AD Isings 1957: 17 Form 2; Berger 1980: 25; Grose 1989: 254–258; Grose 1991: 1–11; Stern and Schlick-Nolte 1994: 328 nr. 99; Chirac 1996: 103–104. . The earliest plate with oblique, externally fluted wall and everted lip comes from Haltern (Germany) and has a terminus ante quem of 9 AD Kühlborn 1988: 601–602 nr. 451. . The same forms appear in the Italian and south Gaulish sigillata as well as in Eastern sigillata B from the late Augustean period onwards The cups with constricted curvilinear wall terminating in an everted lip is the equivalent of the Italian form Conspectus 32 (Ettlinger et al. 1990: 108, pl. 29), the south-Gaulish form Dragendorff 27 (Oswald and Pryce 1966: 186–188, pl. 49) and the ESB form 51 (Hayes 1985: 62, pl. 13, 13), the plate with the oblique, externally fluted wall and everted lip is the equivalent of the south Gaulish form Dragendorff 16 (Oswald and Pryce 1966: 172–173, pl. 41) and the ESB form 9 (Hayes 1985: 55, pl. 12, 1). . So patterns of peacock eyes are known at least from the early first century AD onwards. The fragment from ez Zantur shows that mosaic glass vessels with a decor of peacock eyes already existed in the third quarter of the first century BC. The mosaic glass bowls from the early first century BC from the shipwreck of Antikythera (Greece) could be cited as predecessors for this type of decoration. These vary from the usual spiral motif of hellenistic mosaic glass because the centre of the spiral consists of a peacock eye made up of two concentric rings Davidson Weinberg 1965: 35–37 nr. 4–8, figs. 11–17; Davidson Weinberg 1992: 108 nr. 66–70.
The location of the centres of production for mosaic glass vessels is disputed but in the modern literature Egypt, Syria and Italy are all mentioned Grose 1989: 257; Rütti 1991: 141; Stern and Schlick-Nolte 1994: 330–332 nr. 100–102. . Strabon mentions glassmakers in Alexandria during the early Augustean period who produce valuable polychrome vessels by which he probably meant mosaic glass vessels Strab. 16, 2, 25. . This literary reference stands contrary to the archaeological finds: only a small number of fragments of mosaic glass vessels have been found in Alexandria and the rest of Egypt up till now Alexandria: Breccia 1912: 102–106 nr. 323–347, figs. 65–79; Cooney 1976: 137–138 nr. 1698–1706; Oxyrhynchos: Cooney 1976: 137 nr. 1691–1692; Quseir al-Qadim: Meyer 1992: 36–37. 164, pl. 13. . However thanks to Strabon and the numerous mosaic glass inlays mentioned above we can assume that mosaic glass was part of the Egyptian glass production in the pre-Augustean and Augustean periods. The numerous mosaic glass vessels from Syria and Italy with shapes which appear first in the late Augustean period indicate a local Syrian and Italian production which begins in the early first century AD and draws the inspiration for its shapes from contemporary pottery forms On Syrian mosaic glass bowls: Harden 1960: 59–60; Abdul-Hak 1951: 164–166, pls. 57, 2. 58, 1–2; Exposition des verres syriens 1964: 6–7 nr. 14–20, fig. 2; Zouhdi 1964: 68–78; on Italian mosaic glass bowls: Harden 1960: 54–55. 57. 59–61; Kiechle 1974: 54. 60 note 34. . As the find from ez Zantur cannot be dated later than the third quarter of the first century BC it must be an import from Egypt. Mosaic glass bowls such as this with a decor of peacock eyes may have served as the model for the decor scheme of the painted Nabataean fine ware of phases 2c–3a in the early and middle first century AD Schmid 1996b: 133–134, pls. 28, 2. 29, 1).
The fragment of another mosaic glass bowl or plate is also known from Petra: it is a rim sherd with a horizontal lip and a rim folded downwards. Careless representations of red flowers are irregularly distributed on a creamy ground. The piece was found within a grave complex together with a lamp and Nabataean ceramic of the late first – early second century AD Murray and Ellis 1940: 11–12. 26 nr. 28, pl. 36, 28. . This dating is supported by the fact that the millefiori pattern is common in the first century AD Grose 1989: 257, fig. 143. . Whether the fragment stems from an Egyptian, Syrian or Italian glassworkshop is not determinable.
VII. Ez Zantur IV: Mosaic glass from ez Zantur
A small bichrome fragment consists of three stripes of translucent orange glass smelted together but divided from each other by a fine silvery-white line (fig. 17).
A spiral of turquoise glass is wound around one of the outer pieces of glass. The stripes of glass are bent at a right angle at one end of the fragment. The vessel wall is straight – only one end of the fragment curves slightly upwards. This sherd belonged to a broad shallow striped mosaic glass bowl with quadripartite pattern. Each of the four segments consists of stripes running at right angles to each other and meeting in the middle Grose 1989: 250–251, fig. 126. . The extreme thinness of the wall (0.1 cm thick), unusual in a formed mosaic glass vessel, is due to heavy corrosion.
Fig. 17: Front of mosaic glass Nr. 3 (photo: D. Keller)
Two striped mosaic glass bowls with quadripartite pattern were found in a graveyard near Adria (Italy) dating from the late first century BC to the early first century AD One is now in Corning (Goldstein 1979: 200–201 nr. 545, pls. 27, 545. 42, 545; Harden et al. 1988: 40 nr. 16), the other in Adria (Bonomi 1990/91: 308, Fig. 3; Bonomi 1996: 156 nr. 348, pl. 3, 348); see Stern and Schlick-Nolte 1994: 65 note 232. . A third, complete bowl was placed as a valuable antique in a grave in Hellange (Luxembourg) dating from the second half of the first century AD Kisa 1908: 252. 524–525, fig. 213; Isings 1957: 16 form 1; Wilhelm 1979: 11 nr. 1, colourpl. 1; Grose 1989: 251, fig. 127. . Rim fragments of two further such bowls have been found in Magdalensberg (Austria) in an Augustean layer Czurda-Ruth 1979: 19 nr. 1, pl. 17. and in Vindonissa (Switzerland) in a pre-Flavian context Berger 1980: 12–13 nr. 1, pls. 1, 1. 17, 11. . The production of striped mosaic glass bowls with quadripartite pattern during the late first century BC – early first century AD is postulated on the basis of these few datable finds Grose 1989: 252; Rütti 1991: 121 note 82. . This postulation is supported by the find from ez Zantur: it was found in a layer of sounding B on EZ I during the 1991 campaign FK 341, Abs. 9, 104/N. On the position of sounding B: Schmid 1995: 641, fig. 4; Schmid 1996a: plan 3. , which contained Nabataean fine ware phases 2a–2b i. e. from the second half of the first century BC and a sherd of an imported Augustean Pompeian red ware plate On fine ware: supra note 23; on import ceramic: Schneider 1996: 137 nr. 119. . This fragment is thus datable to the last two decades of the first century BC. The decorative pattern on striped mosaic glass vessels probably served as the pattern for painted Nabataean fine ware of phase 3a in the middle of the first century AD [79]Schmid 1996b: 133–134, pl. 29, 1.
The fact that striped mosaic glass bowls with quadripartite pattern including two undated bowls from Cherchel (Algeria) and from the area around Vesuv (Italy) (De Caro 1994: nr. 236) are found almost exclusively in the Western Roman Empire possibly indicates a production centre in the west. In the late first century BC Italy is the only area which really comes into question (Grose 1989: 251). Strabo mentions that there are glassworkshops in Rome during the Augustean period Strab. 16, 2, 25. . It thus appears that glass was imported to Petra not only from Egypt but also from Italy On the import of a few sherds of Italian terra sigillata during the Augustean period see: Schneider 1996: 136–137 nr. 106–114, figs. 532–533. 566–574.
Daniel Keller Schweizerisch-Liechtensteinische Ausgrabungen in Petra der Universität Basel Schönbeinstrasse 20 4056 Basel
