LRCW3 Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking ... - Historia Antigua

LRCW3Late Roman Coarse Wares,Cooking Wares and Amphoraein the MediterraneanArchaeology and archaeometryComparison between western and easternMediterraneanEdited bySimonetta Menchelli, Sara Santoro,Marinella Pasquinucci and Gabriella GuiducciVolume IIBAR International Series 2185 (II)2010

Published byArchaeopressPublishers of British Archaeological ReportsGordon House276 Banbury RoadOxford OX2 7EDEnglandbar@archaeopress.comwww.archaeopress.comBAR S2185 (II)LRCW3 Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeologyand archaeometry. Comparison between western and eastern Mediterranean. Volume II.© Archaeopress and the individual authors 2010Cover illustration : Eratosthenes map (drawing by Giulia Picchi, Pisa, after G. Dragoni, Eratostene e l'apogeo della scienzagreca, Bologna 1979, p.110).Papers editing: Giulia Picchi, PisaISBN 978 1 4073 0736 7 (complete set of two volumes)978 1 4073 0734 3 (volume I)978 1 4073 0735 0 (this volume)Printed in England by Blenheim Colour LtdAll BAR titles are available from:Hadrian Books Ltd122 Banbury RoadOxfordOX2 7BPEnglandwww.hadrianbooks.co.ukThe current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is availablefree from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com

SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI. DOES IT REALLY?WASTING SEVENTH CENTURY AD SAGALASSOS (SW TURKEY)JEROEN POBLOME, PHILIP BES, BEA DE CUPERE, VEERLE LAUWERS, KERLIJNE ROMANUS,ATHANASIOS K. VIONIS, MARC WAELKENSResearch Unit of Archaeology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Blijde Inkomststraat 21, 3000 Leuven, Belgium(jeroen.poblome@arts.kuleuven.be; philip.bes@arts.kuleuven.be;vionis.athanasios@ucy.ac.cy; marc.waelkens@arts.kuleuven.be)This contribution presents in detail a (late sixth/) seventh century AD archaeological context and associated finds from Sagalassos,SW Turkey. The entire ceramological assemblage is considered and placed alongside other artefactual and ecofactual categories.Apart from illustrating how such assemblages can instruct functional interpretation of archaeological spaces, the paper alsoattempts at explaining the final days of the ‘ancient’ local ceramological assemblage.KEYWORDS: MATERIAL CULTURE STUDIES, TRANSITION, LATE ANTIQUITY.THE RESEARCH QUESTIONSVionis et al. (in press) recently presented the Sagalassos potteryassemblage from the so-called early medieval Dark Ages. Thewares included a range of handmade, non-kiln-fired cookingpots, ‘Cypriot-type’ cooking pots, jugs in a micaceous brownfabric and pattern burnished wares. These, together, formed afunctional assemblage, with parallels in the Aegean, Anatolia,the Levant and beyond, hinting at comparable attitudes anddemands towards material culture in these regions, compatiblewith an early medieval ceramological koinè (c. AD 650-800).Two problems were touched upon in the above-mentionedpaper, but could not be elaborated on mainly because thestudied stratigraphical contexts were eloquently defined as‘knotty’. This complication understandably puts limits onaspects of wider interpretation. The first issue has to do withwhen the early medieval assemblage took root at Sagalassos.The second problem has to do with the absence of a tablewarefunction in the early medieval assemblage and whether or notthe local table ware, Sagalassos red slip ware (SRSW),continued to be produced beyond the middle of the seventhcentury AD. Our readership understands that both problems arepotentially linked.Therefore, this paper wishes to present a different and fairlywell-documented stratigraphical event that could help resolveboth issues, with the added advantage of documenting a (latesixth/)seventh century AD material culture assemblage fromSagalassos, contributing to the not necessarily well knownregional spectrum. While doing the latter, we will happilyignore the specific focus on Late Roman Coarse Wares,Cooking Wares and Amphorae, as we increasingly doubt thescientific rationale behind the separated study of ancientceramological categories. In our opinion, various recentconferences, including the one you are now reading, did notmatch the opulence of its organisational context with an equallysplendid parcours of disciplinary reflection and progress, asthey were mainly restricted to data presentation. Of course,there is always some degree of progress when becomingacquainted with masses of new data, but we believe that a shiftin focus from material category to material culture should be tothe benefit of our beloved sherds (Poblome et al. 2007).The material culture presented in this paper was excavated in2003 in Room 2 of the North-East Building, aptly located on thenorth-eastern corner of the Upper Agora at Sagalassos (Fig. 1-2). The rectangular building fills the space between two E-Wrunning streets, which lead towards the north-eastern corner ofthe Upper Agora and originate from different levels in the town.So far, only the western part of the building adjoining the agorawas excavated. In origin, the North-East building could haveserved an unknown public function and was dated to the laterAugustan period or slightly later. In the course of its use, thebuilding underwent many modifications. Basically, by the latefifth/sixth century AD, the interior space was subdivided by anarcade running through the length of the building, supporting (a)vaulted space(s) in the back part of the building. By the time ofour material culture assemblage, both the spaces behind and infront of the arcade were divided into smaller rooms. Room 2,upon which we will now focus, was installed in part of thevaulted arcade, somewhat secluded at the back of a multi-roomunit, which has not been completely excavated yet. Besidesforming a nice example of late antique encroachment, thefunction of the multi-room unit remains unclear. Room 2,located at the back, must have been a fairly dark space allowingonly artificial or indirect light in through two southernentrances. It measured 2.38 by 5m, or 11.9m 2 , but it should bementioned that the eastern end of the room was not reached yet.The finding of the corner of a brick pillar belonging to theoriginal lay-out of the arcade could indicate that Room 2 neednot have been much larger. The floor on which our assemblageaccumulated was of beaten earth and the only recognisablefurniture was a basin-like structure against its south wall and awall niche in the north-western corner. When pottery started toaccumulate in Room 2, both entrances were already partiallyblocked with walls of dry-laid rubble stones.This paper can profit from the PhD of Toon Putzeys (2007),who was involved in the later stages of the excavation of thisbuilding and brought the available material together for hiscontextual analysis. The floor level on top of which the basinwas installed and the rubble walls built contained potterydatable to Phase 9 of SRSW, dated by Poblome et al. (2005) toc. AD 550/75 – 650. Vionis et al. (in press) introduced somereasonable doubt about the end date of this phase. One thingseems to be sure, however,) the most recent floor level of Room2 is considered to have been laid out after an earthquake ofsome force had hit Sagalassos. Calibrated C 14 dates fromstratigraphically associated material represent a terminus antequem for the quake and are chronologically situated betweenAD 540-620, with the highest probability around 590 AD (De791

J. POBLOME, P. BES, B. DECUPERE, V. LAUWERS, K. ROMANUS, A. K. VIONIS, M. WAELKENS: SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDIPoblome et al. (2001) defined strong Cypriot influences in theceramic assemblage of Pamphylian Perge. Since this port townseems to have been the strongest link to the Mediterraneanthroughout the history of Sagalassos (Poblome in press), andtaking the contemporary SRSW morphology into account, it isprobable to consider SRSW within this sphere. When trying toplace these observations into a wider context, there isunfortunately not so much tableware documented from sitesalong the Mediterranean coast of Turkey. The available dataseem to suggest that PRSW had next to no showing inPamphylia and Rough Cilicia, in contrast to the west coast ofAsia Minor and Cilicia Pedias. ARSW is represented, albeitmainly at the larger port sites of Perge and Elaioussa Sebaste. Inthe study region, including western Cyprus, CRSW is onaverage the better represented type of ware, even when takinginto account the presence of one or more CRSW imitationwares. Indeed, in this period, CRSW seems to have made itsstrongest showing outside its core region of distribution (Bes2007).The Sagalassos potters also produced a range of jugs in the localtableware fabric. Three types are most common: a jug with aslender neck, small opening and short, grooved handle (Fig. 4,1), a round-bellied jug, with a constricted neck and wideopening (Fig. 4, 2) and a smaller, more squat jug with a trefoilshapedopening (Fig. 4, 3).One thin walled jug in a 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow fabric,containing some grog, few mica and the occasional piece oflime, could be identified as an import (Fig. 4, 4), as well as theoccasional LR unguentarium (Degeest et al. 1999).Although cook wares are not discussed in the same depth astable wares and amphorae, and therefore, many gaps in ourknowledge of regional culinary patchworks remain to be filledin the (late) Roman East. However, as with table wares andamphorae, a couple of cook ware traditions seem to be in aleague of their own. Perhaps less surprisingly, such cook waresare associated with regions in which the more populated citiesof the late Roman East are to be found, where there would be alarger number of mouths to feed and a wider network ofcontacts on which exchange could develop. Aegean greymicaceous cook wares (Waksman-Tréglia 2007) and Syrianbrittle wares (Vokaer 2005; 2007) are perhaps the most tellingexamples, each representing a header, grouping various linesand centres of production. In fact, this is very much the sameway as the African cook ware production was organized(Bonifay 2004). Productions of regional importance, whentaken together, displayed an at least as strong of a level ofoutput in morphological creativeness a single center productionsites, with examples at Xanthos (Pellegrino 2007) or Hierapolis(Cottica 2000; 2005), to name a few.‘Cypriot’ cook wares form another strong tradition in the lateRoman world, but are notoriously difficult to pin downgeographically and chronologically (Ferrazzoli-Ricci 2007, 673-4; Waksman et al. 2005). Morphologically, the Phase 9 cookwares (Fig. 5), possibly produced in the territory of Sagalassos(Degryse-Poblome in press), find their best parallels in the“bead rim” cooking pots from Periods III and IV, as excavatedat Dhiorios and dated from c. AD 650 to the early/middle eighthcentury (Catling 1972, 62-64). The sliced execution andplacement of the handles is different, however, as well as theoccurrence of round spouts below the rim at Sagalassos.Generically, the Sagalassos cook wares find a good parallel withthe spouted stewpot at Corinth (Warner Slane-Sanders 2005)Fig. 12, 4-28, belonging to Assemblage 4, dated to the middleor third quarter of the seventh century AD. This geographicallyremote parallel indicates how the early Byzantine worldretained some degree of internal morphological logic anddevelopment of its artisanal products and how difficult thedetermination of regional spheres is at this stage, especiallywhen concerning ‘Cypriot’ cook wares.Interestingly, the same “bead rim” ‘Cypriot’ cooking pots, in adifferent (imported?) fabric and (therefore) slightly differentmorphological execution are featured in the so-called Dark Ageassemblage at Sagalassos (Vionis et al., in press). The traditionseems to continue. However, the question to be asked is whichtradition? In which ways can links between Sagalassos andDhiorios be suggested, given the constricted nature of eachsite’s distribution? A safer course of action is to consider bothas part of some sort of koinè. This approach removes therequirement of a structural relationship between both studyareas. Nice as this suggestion may be, such should bedemonstrable in the general Pisidia/Pamphylia/RoughCilicia/West Cyprus area.To start with the negative evidence, the dissimilarities of theSagalassos cooking vessels with Syrian brittle wares and theAegean cook wares are easy to notice and, together with theabsence of the (Aegean) frying pan, are hinting at a differentsocio-cultural matrix as inspiration for the early ByzantineSagalassos cooking vessels (and possibly for the earlyByzantine Sagalassos tradition). As a matter of fact, frying panshad virtually disappeared from production by the end of PeriodII, circa the first half of the seventh century AD, at Dhiorios(Catling 1972, 64).Although the quality of information from Perge is notnecessarily exemplary, the cooking vessels seem to belong tothe same tradition (Atik, 1995: best parallels nos. 430-438 & p.202, classified as amphorae), and are considered to date fromthe sixth/seventh centuries AD. Sagalassos had a history ofdialectic, and at the same time dependent, relation with Perge(Poblome in press), which, given its urban size and the presenceof its harbour, offered of a much larger network potential.Unfortunately, Pamphylia, and also more westerly regions, arenot very well documented from a contemporary cook ware pointof view.When looking eastwards, the early Byzantine cook wares foundat Anemurium are mostly considered to originate from Cyprus,based on morphological parallels with the material fromDhiorios. Three main types are represented, yet the “bead rim”type is not one. Fig. 36, no. 401 in Williams 1989 is consideredto form part of the Dhiorios Period II “lipped” type (first halfseventh century AD) and is somewhat similar to the SagalassosPhase 9 cook wares. The cooking pot featuring in Fig. 1, 11 ofthe Byzantine well deposit at Anemurium (Williams 1977)could also be considered as a parallel, except for the innerledge, and was dated after AD 631 and before the end of theseventh century. Clearly, however, the variety of cook ware atAnemurium is larger than at Sagalassos.The excavated early Byzantine assemblages of Kilise Tepe, inthe Isaurian Göksu Valley, contain a range of cook wares,which is most similar to Anemurium, with a couple of dominantshapes. Possible parallels are Fig. 426, no. 1352, 1353, 1363and 1372, as well as Fig. 427, no. 1375. This material, however,does not offer additional chronological specificatons (Jackson2007). Neither does the limited assemblage from Alahan(Williams 1985) clarify chronological or typological matters.The Alahan material best fits its regional matrix.At Elaioussa Sebaste, most earlier cook wares are considered tobe Cypriot in origin, with folded rims and very wide-rangingstrap handles, while from the second half of seventh century AD793

LRCW3relationship between these vessel categories. In our opinion, agood degree of representation of utilitarian and table wares inarchaeological deposits, such as was the case inside Room 2,can be indicative of a certain time span during which suchdeposits were formed. Together with the fact that the observedconcentrations of dumped material inside Room 2 wereconsidered to result from discrete events, the degree and natureof the representation of serving and table wares provides furtherindication for the systemic nature of the refuse disposal in thestudied room.At the time of processing the material, it was not obviouswhether one or more dolia or storage vessels could bereconstructed, or whether these could possibly have been part ofthe furniture of Room 2. The very fact, however, that doliafragments form part of the assemblage, whether they stoodoriginally in Room 2 or not, indicates a certain time span ofdeposit formation, as these vessels are built for a relativelylonger use life, estimated at 25 years by J. Theodore Pena(2007, 324-325). Comparing the dolia use-life with that of otherwell-represented vessel categories, provides further indicationsfor the duration of waste dumping practices inside Room 2, aswell as the necessary association with a systemic occupationaldeposit from which the waste could originate.Finally, a non-ceramological indication for the latterobservation is given by the attested presence of rodents insideRoom 2. What can explain the presence of these smallmammals better than a fairly secluded and dark room in whichoccupational waste and mostly food remains were beingdumped, on an occasional, and yet regular enough, basis?In conclusion, upon careful consideration of the content ofRoom 2 of the North-East Building, we find ourselves indisagreement with the original conclusion of Toon Putzeys(2007), who considered the material to have accumulated uponthe abandonment of the multi-room structure. What we seem tobe dealing with are deposits that are best explained as resultingfrom occupational/domestic waste disposal practices associatedwith a systemic occupation on premise in the multi-room unit inthe (late sixth/)seventh century AD. In this sense, theassemblage inside Room 2 is best compared to that inside Room24, from the utilitarian area of the palatial mansion underexcavation at Sagalassos. In that case, other waste disposaldeposits were attested and associated with domestic occupationin the vicinity (Putzeys et al. 2004). In the next stage, we needto test whether the other parts of the multi-room unit correspondto encroached domestic occupation into this part of the North-East Building. These concluding observations augment ourdesire to continue this type of approach in other, alreadyexcavated rooms of the North-East Building, as well as in arange of contemporary structures at Sagalassos in order tocomplete the study of this most interesting early Byzantinedomestic(?) unit. Our mothers would hate us to state theobvious conclusion: long live waste!BIBLIOGRAPHYArthur, P., 2007, Pots and boundaries. On cultural andeconomic areas between late antiquity and the early middleages, in LRCW 2, 15-27.Atik, N., 1995, Die Keramik aus den Südthermen von Perge,Istanbuler Mitteilungen Beiheft 40, Tübingen.Bes, P., 2007, A geographical and chronological study of thedistribution and consumption of tablewares in the RomanEast, Unpublished PhD dissertation, KatholiekeUniversiteit Leuven.Bonifay, M., 2004, Etudes sur la céramique romaine tardived’Afrique, BAR Int. Ser. 1301, Oxford.Catling, H.W., 1972 An Early Byzantine pottery factory atDhiorios in Cyprus, Levant 4, 1-82.Cool, H.E.M., 2006, Eating and drinking in Roman Britain,Cambridge.Cottica, D., 2000, Late Roman imported and locally producedpottery from Hierapolis (Pamukkale, Turkey): preliminaryevidence, Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Actae 36, 49-56.Cottica, D., 2005, Perspectives on pottery production andexchange in late Roman and Byzantine Anatolia: thecommon wares from Hierapolis, Phrygia, in LRCW 1,655-666.De Cupere, B., Thys, S., Van Neer, W., Ervynck, A.,Corremans, M. and Waelkens, M., 2008, Eagle owl (Bubobubo) pellets from Roman Sagalassos (SW Turkey).Dinstinguishing the prey remains from nest and roost sites,International Journal of Osteoarchaeology,www.interscience.wiley.com DOI: 10.1002/oa.965.Degeest, R., Degryse, P., Ottenburgs, R., Viaene, W. andWaelkens, M., 2000, Miniature jars of Sagalassos. Ananalytical, quantitative and typological overview of a seriesof very small pottery vessels from late antiquity, inSagalassos 5 (eds. M. Waelkens and L. Loots), ActaArchaeologica Lovaniensia Monographiae 11, 697-708,Leuven.Degeest, R., Ottenburgs, R., Kucha, H., Viaene, W., Degryse, P.and Waelkens, M., 1999, The late Roman unguentaria ofSagalassos, Babesch 74, 247-262.Degryse, P. and Poblome, J., 2008, Clays for mass productionof table and common wares, amphorae and architecturalceramics at Sagalassos, in Sagalassos 6, Geo - andBioarchaeology at Sagalassos and in its territory (eds. P.Degryse and M. Waelkens), 231-254. Leuven.Ferrazzoli, A.F., 2003, Tipologia dei reperti ceramici e aspettidelle produzioni e della circolazione dei materiali, inElaiussa Sebaste 2. Un porto tra oriente e occidente (ed. E.Equini Schneider), Biblioteca Archeologica 37, 649-707,Rome.Ferrazzoli, A.F. and Ricci, M., 2007, Elaiussa Sebaste:produzioni e consumi di una città della Cilicia tra V e VIIsecolo, in LRCW 2, 671-688.Gregory, T. E., 2005, A history of Byzantium, Oxford.Hayes, J.W., 1972, Late Roman pottery, London.Jackson, M., 2007, Pottery from Level One, in Excavations atKilise Tepe, 1994-98. From Bronze Age to Byzantine inwestern Cilicia (eds. N. Postgate and D. Thomas), BritishInstitute at Ankara Monograph 30, 387-427, Cambridge.Kimpe, K., Jacobs, P. and Waelkens, M., 2002, Massspectrometric methods prove the use of beeswax andruminant fat in late Roman cooking pots, Journal ofChromatography A 937, 151-160.Lund, J., 1999, Trade patterns in the Levant from ca. 100 BC toAD 200 as reflected by the distribution of ceramic finewares in Cyprus, Münstersche Beiträge zur AntikenHandelsgeschichte 18, 1-22.Mitchell, S., 2000, The settlement of Pisidia in late antiquityand the Byzantine period: methodological problems, inByzans als Raum. Zu Methoden und Inhalten derhistorischen Geographie des östlichen Mittelmeerraumes(eds. K. Belke, F. Hild, J. Koder and P. Soustal),Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für die Tabula ImperiiByzantini 7, 139-152, Vienna.Pellegrino, E., 2007, Les céramiques de la maison du nord-estde l’acropole lycienne de Xanthos. Un ensemble originalde la fin du Vié-début du VIIe apr. J.-C., in LRCW 2, 659-669.Peňa, J.T., 2007, Roman pottery in the archaeological record,Cambridge.796

J. POBLOME, P. BES, B. DECUPERE, V. LAUWERS, K. ROMANUS, A. K. VIONIS, M. WAELKENS: SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDIPoblome, J., 1999, Sagalassos red slip ware. Typology andchronology, Studies in Eastern MediterraneanArchaeology 2, Turnhout.Poblome, J., Degryse, P., Cottica, D. and Fırat, N., 2001, A newEarly Byzantine production centre in western Asia Minor.A pterographical and geochemical study of red slipw arefrom Hierapolis, Perge and Sagalassos, Rei CretariaeRomanae Fautorum Acta 37, 119-126.Poblome, J., Bes, P. and Degryse, P., 2005, The decline and fallof Sagalassos. A ceramic perspective, Rei CretariaeRomanae Fautorum Actae 39, 225-230.Poblome, J., Malfitana, D. and Lund, J., 2007, Tempus fugit,“Facta” manent. Editorial statement, FACTA. A journal ofRoman material culture studies 1,13-20.Poblome, J., in press, Sherds and coins from a place under thesun. Further thoughts from Sagalassos, FACTA. A journalof Roman material culture studies 2.Putzeys, T., Van Thuyne, T., Poblome, J., Uytterhoeven, I.,Waelkens, M. and Degeest, R., 2004, Analyzing domesticcontexts at Sagalassos: developing a methodology usingceramics and macro-botanical remains, Journal ofMediterranean Archaeology 17, 31-57.Putzeys, T., 2007, Contextual analysis at Sagalassos.Developing a methodology for classical archaeology,unpublished PhD dissertation, Katholieke UniversiteitLeuven.Romanus, K., Poblome, J., Verbeke, K., Luypaerts, A., Jacobs,P., De Vos, D. and Waelkens, M., 2007, An evaluation ofanalytical and interpretative methodologies for theextraction and identification of lipids associated withpottery sherds from the site of Sagalassos, Turkey,Archaeometry 49, 729-747.Stern, E.M., 2001, Roman, Byzantine and Early MedievalGlass, 10 BCE-700CE. Ernesto Wolf Collection,Ostfildern-Ruit.Tomber, R., 1988, Multivariate statistics and assemblagecomparison, in Computer and quantitative methods inarchaeology (eds. C.L.N. Ruggles and S.P.Q. Rahtz), BARInt. Ser. 393, 29-38, Oxford.Vionis, A.K., Poblome, J. and Waelkens, M., 2009, The hiddenmaterial culture of the Dark Ages. Early medieval ceramicsat Sagalassos (Turkey): new evidence (c. AD 650-800),Anatolian Studies 59, 2009, 147-165.Vokaer, A., 2005, Typological and technological study of brittleware in Syria, in LRCW 1, 697-709.Vokaer, A., 2007, La Brittle ware byzantine et omeyyade enSyrie du nord, in LRCW 2, 701-713.Waksman, S.Y., Reynolds, P., Bien, S. and Tréglia, J.-C., 2005,A major production of late Roman ‘Levantien’ and‘Cypriot’ common wares, in LRCW 1, 311-325Waksman, S.Y. and Tréglia, J.-C., 2007, Caractérisationgéochimique et diffusion méditerranéenne des céramiquesculinaires “égéennes”. Etudes comparées des mobiliers deMarseille, de Beyrouth et d’Alexandrie (Ve s.-VIIe s.), inLRCW 2, 645-657.Warner Slane, K., 2003, Corinth’s Roman pottery.Quantification and meaning, in Corinth, the centenary1896-1996 (eds. C.K. Williams II and N. Bookidis)Corinth 20, 321-335, Athens.Warner Slane, K. and Sanders, G., 2005, Corinth: late Romanhorizons, Hesperia 74, 243-297.Williams, C., 1977, A Byzantine well-deposit from Anemurium(Rough Cilicia), Anatolian Studies 27, 175-190.Williams, C., 1985, The pottery and glass at Alahan, in Alahan.An early Christian monastery in southern Turkey (ed. M.Gough), Studies and Texts 73, 33-61, Toronto.Williams, C., 1989, Anemurium. The Roman and earlyByzantine pottery, Toronto.Fig. 1. Room 2 in the North-East building.Fig. 2. General view on Room 2 at the end ofthe excavation.797

LRCW3Fig. 3. A selection of SRSW table ware found in Room 2.798

J. POBLOME, P. BES, B. DECUPERE, V. LAUWERS, K. ROMANUS, A. K. VIONIS, M. WAELKENS: SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDIFig. 4. A selection of (SRSW) jugs in Room 2.799

LRCW3Fig. 5. A selection of cook wares from Room 2.800

J. POBLOME, P. BES, B. DECUPERE, V. LAUWERS, K. ROMANUS, A. K. VIONIS, M. WAELKENS: SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDIFig. 6. A selection of glass finds from Room 2.801