Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T23:37:18.121Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

GOLD GLASS TESSERAE SAID TO BE FROM THE ROMAN VILLA SITE AT SOUTHWICK, WEST SUSSEX

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 August 2013

Liz James ,
G J Leigh  and
Nadine Schibille
Liz James
Affiliation:
Liz James, Department of Art History, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9QN, UK. Email: e.james@sussex.ac.uk
G J Leigh
Affiliation:
G J Leigh, 43 Southview Road, Southwick, Brighton BN42 4TS, UK. Email: jeffery.leigh@sky.com
Nadine Schibille
Affiliation:
Nadine Schibille, Department of Art History, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9QN, UK. Email: n.schibille@sussex.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper seeks to characterise through elemental analysis some unusual gold glass tesserae said to have been found at a Roman villa site in Southwick, West Sussex. The site is no longer accessible, being underneath a Methodist chapel, but it has been excavated, to some extent, on several occasions. Glass tesserae are not common in a British setting but they are by no means unusual in Roman mosaics. Gold glass tesserae, however, in which gold leaf is sandwiched between two layers of glass, are very unusual: fewer than twenty such tesserae are known from Roman Britain and the seven examples from Southwick make up the largest single group. However, the provenance of these Southwick tesserae remains doubtful and so they were analysed and compared to gold glass tesserae from Roman London to try and establish whether they are compositionally related to typical Roman glass. For comparative reasons, the handful of coloured glass tesserae from Southwick were also analysed. Our results suggest that the tesserae said to be from Southwick are anomalous in relation to the other material and cannot be assigned to the Roman period.

Résumé

Cet article tente de caractériser, par une analyse élémentaire, des tesselles à feuille d'or, qui auraient été trouvées sur le site d'une villa romaine de Southwick, dans l'Ouest du Sussex. Le site, qui n'est plus accessible car il se trouve sous une chapelle méthodiste, a fait l'objet de fouilles, dans une certaine mesure, à plusieurs reprises. Les tesselles de verre ne sont pas courantes dans un cadre britannique, mais elles ne sont nullement inhabituelles dans les mosaïques romaines. Les tesselles qui contiennent une feuille d'or entre deux couches de verre, sont cependant très rares : moins de vingt de ces tesselles sont connues comme provenant de la période de domination romaine en Grande-Bretagne, et les sept exemples de Southwick en composent le groupe le plus important. Cependant, la provenance de ces tesselles de Southwick reste incertaine. C'est pourquoi elles ont été analysées et comparées à des tesselles à feuille d'or du Londres romain, afin d'essayer de savoir si, par leur composition, elles pourraient se rapprocher du verre romain typique. À des fins de comparaison, la poignée de tesselles en verre coloré de Southwick ont également été analysées. D'après nos résultats, les tesselles dites de Southwick sont anormales par rapport à d'autres matériaux et ne peuvent pas être attribuées à la période romaine.

Zusammenfassung

Diese Abhandlung versucht, einige außergewöhnliche Goldglastesserae, die am Standort einer römischen Villa in Southwick, West Sussex, gefunden wurden, mittels einer Elementanalyse zu charakterisieren. Die Fundstätte ist nicht mehr zugänglich, da sie unter einer Methodistenkirche liegt, doch wurden hier bereits mehrfach Ausgrabungen vorgenommen. Nur wenige Glastesserae sind aus Grossbritannien bekannt, in römischen Mosaiken sind Glastesserae jedoch keineswegs selten. Goldglastesserae, bei denen Blattgold zwischen zwei Glasschichten eingelegt wird, sind jedoch äußerst selten. Weniger als zwanzig dieser Art sind aus dem römischen Britannien bekannt und die sieben Beispiele aus Southwick stellen die größte Gruppe darunter dar. Allerdings ist die Provenienz dieser Southwick-Tesserae weiterhin zweifelhaft, weshalb sie analysiert und mit Goldglastesserae des römischen London verglichen wurden, um eine kompositionelle Verwandtschaft mit dem typisch römischen Glas festzustellen. Zum Vergleich wurde auch eine Handvoll farbiger Glastesserae aus Southwick analysiert. Unsere Ergebnisse legen nahe, dass die angeblich aus Southwick stammenden Tesserae im Vergleich zum anderen Material ungewöhnlich sind und nicht der römischen Periode zugeschrieben werden können.

Type
Papers
Information
The Antiquaries Journal , Volume 93 , September 2013 , pp. 93 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 2013 

Access options

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

References

Anonymous 1853. ‘Notes’, Sussex Archaeol Coll, 1, ix–xGoogle Scholar
Anonymous 1947. ‘Capel St. Mary’, Proc Suffolk Inst Archaeol Hist, 25 (2), 209Google Scholar
Bayley, J 2008. Lincoln: evidence for glass-working on Flaxengate and other sites in the city, Research Department Report Ser 68, Portsmouth: English HeritageGoogle Scholar
Canham, R A 1966. ‘Southwick Roman villa’, Sussex Notes Queries, 16, 280–281Google Scholar
Conventi, A, Neri, EVerità, M 2012. ‘SEM-EDS analysis of ancient gold glass mosaic tesserae: a contribution to the dating of the materials’, Materials Science Engineering, 32, 〈http://iopscience.iop.org/1757-899X/32/1/012007〉 (6 March 2013)Google Scholar
Cookson, N 1981. ‘Glass tesserae in Britain’, Mosaic, 5, 13–16Google Scholar
Cookson, N 1984. Romano-British Mosaics, BAR Brit Ser 135, Oxford: British Archaeological ReportsGoogle Scholar
Coppack, G 1973. ‘The excavation of a Roman and medieval site at Flaxengate, Lincoln’, Lincolnshire Hist Archaeol, 8, 73–114Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, H P 2004. ‘Roman Britain in 2003: 7. Greater London’, Britannia, 35, 300–301Google Scholar
Foy, D, Vichy, MPicon, M 2000. ‘L'ingots de verre en Méditerranée occidentale’, in Annales du 14ème Congrès de AIHV, 51–57, Amsterdam: Annales de l'Association Internationale pour l'Histoire de VerreGoogle Scholar
Foy, D, Picon, M, Vichy, MThirion-Merle, V 2003. ‘Caractérisation des verres de la fin de l'Antiquité en Méditerranée occidentale’, in Échanges et commerce du verre dans le monde antique (eds D Foy and M-D Nenna), 41–85, Montagnac: Éditions Monique MergoilGoogle Scholar
Freestone, I 2005. ‘The provenance of ancient glass through compositional analysis’, in Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology VII (eds P B Vandiver, J L Mass and A Murray), 195–208, Warrendale: Materials Research SocietyGoogle Scholar
Freestone, I 2006. ‘Glass production in Late Antiquity and the Early Islamic period: a geochemical perspective’, in Geomaterials in Cultural Heritage (eds M Maggetti and B Messiga), 201–216, Bath: Geological SocietyGoogle Scholar
Freestone, I, Ponting, MHughes, M J 2002. ‘The origins of the Byzantine glass from Maroni Petrera, Cyprus’, Archaeometry, 44, 257–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorin-Rosen, Y 1995. ‘Hadera, Bet Eli'ezer’, Excav Surveys Israel, 13, 42–43Google Scholar
Gorin-Rosen, Y 2000. ‘The ancient glass industry in Israel: summary of the finds and new discoveries’, in La route du verre (ed M-D Nenna), 49–64, Lyon: Travaux de la maison de l'orient méditerranéenGoogle Scholar
Henderson, J 1996. ‘Scientific analysis of selected Fishbourne vessel glass and its archaeological interpretation’, in Excavations at Fishbourne 1969–88 (eds B Cunliffe, A Down and D Rudkin), 189–192, Chichester Excavations 9, Chichester: Chichester District CouncilGoogle Scholar
Henderson, J, McLoughlin, S DMcPhail, D S 2004. ‘Radical changes in Islamic glass technology: evidence for conservatism and experimentation with new glass recipes from Early and Middle Islamic Raqqa, Syria’, Archaeometry, 46, 439–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, C M, Joyner, L, Booth, C A, Day, P M, Wager, E C WKilikoglou, V 2003. ‘Roman glass-making at Coppergate, York? Analytical evidence for the nature of production’, Archaeometry, 45, 435–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, ACampbell, E 1981. Dunadd: an early Dalriadic capital, Oxford: OxbowGoogle Scholar
Lilyquist, CBrill, R H 1993. Studies in Early Egyptian Glass, New York: Metropolitan Museum of ArtGoogle Scholar
Maloney, C 2004. ‘Fieldwork round-up 2003’, London Archaeol, 10, suppl 3, 82Google Scholar
Mirti, P, Pace, M, Negro Ponzi, M MAceto, M 2008. ‘CP-MS analyses of glass fragments of Parthian and Sasanian epoch from Seleucia and Ve Ardasir (central Iraq)’, Archaeometry, 50, 429–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neal, D SCosh, S R 2009. Roman Mosaics of Britain. Volume 3: South-East Britain, Part 2, London: Society of AntiquariesGoogle Scholar
Nenna, M-D, Vichy, MPicon, M 1997. ‘L'atelier de verrier de Lyon, du 1er siècle après J-C, et l'origine des verres «Romains»’, Revue d'Archéométrie, 21, 81–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paynter, S 2008. ‘Experiments in the reconstruction of Roman wood-fired glassworking furnaces: waste products and their formation processes’, J Glass Stud, 50, 271–290Google Scholar
Paynter, SKearns, T 2011. West Clacton Reservoir, Great Bentley, Essex: analysis of glass tesserae, Research Department Report Ser 44, Portsmouth: English HeritageGoogle Scholar
Ricciardi, P, Colomban, P, Tournié, A, Macchiarola, MAyed, N 2009. ‘A non-invasive study of Roman Age mosaic glass tesserae by means of Raman spectroscopy’, J Archaeol Sci, 36, 2551–2559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudling, D A 1985. ‘Excavations of the site of the Southwick Roman villa, 1965 and 1981’, Sussex Archaeol Coll, 123, 73–84Google Scholar
Sayre, E VSmith, R W 1961. ‘Compositional categories of ancient glass’, Science, 133, 1824–1826CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sear, F 1977. Roman Wall and Vault Mosaics, Heidelberg: T H KerleGoogle Scholar
Shortland, A J 2002. ‘The use and origin of antimonate colourants in early Egyptian glass’, Archaeometry, 44, 517–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shortland, A J, Schachner, L, Freestone, ITite, M 2006. ‘Natron as a flux in the early vitreous materials industry: sources, beginnings and reasons for decline’, J Archaeol Sci, 33, 521–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Standing, GLeigh, G J forthcoming. ‘Glass tesserae considered to be from Southwick Roman villa’, Sussex Archaeol CollGoogle Scholar
Tyson, R 2000. Medieval Glass Vessels Found in England c AD 1200–1500, CBA Res Rep 121, York: Council for British ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Verità, M 2006. ‘Glass tesserae and gold leaf in the mosaics of Aquileia’, Quaderni Fruiliani di Archeologia, 16 (1), 7–12Google Scholar
Webster, G 1948. ‘Lincoln Archaeological Research Committee excavation report 1947’, Archaeol News Letter, 1 (5), 14Google Scholar
Wedepohl, K HBaumann, A 2000. ‘The use of marine molluskan shells for Roman glass and local raw glass production in the Eiffel area (Western Germany)’, Die Naturwissenschaften, 87, 129–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weyl, W A 1953. Coloured Glass, Sheffield: Society of Glass TechnologyGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D RWright, R P 1964. ‘Roman Britain in 1963. I: Sites explored; II: Inscriptions’, J Roman Stud, 54 (1) and (2), 152–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winbolt, S E 1931. ‘Southwick Roman villa’, Sussex County Mag, July, 479–485Google Scholar
Winbolt, S E 1932. ‘Roman villa at Southwick’, Sussex Archaeol Coll, 73, 13–32Google Scholar
Winbolt, S E 1935. ‘Romano-British Sussex’, in The Victoria County History of Sussex. Volume 3 (ed L F Salzman), 1–70, London: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar