Corning Museum of Glass

Drinking with the Dead? Glass from Roman and Christian Burial Areas at Leptiminus
(Lamta, Tunisia)
Author(s): Allison E. Sterrett-Krause
Source: Journal of Glass Studies , Vol. 59 (2017), pp. 47-82
Published by: Corning Museum of Glass

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/90013818

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/90013818?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Corning Museum of Glass is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Glass Studies

This content downloaded from

78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Drinking with the Dead? Glass from
Roman and Christian Burial Areas
at Leptiminus (Lamta, Tunisia)
Allison E. Sterrett-Krause
T
HE SMALL city of Leptiminus in the Ro-
man province of Africa Proconsularis,
on the coast of modern-day Tuni­sia, has
long been the site of archaeological investiga-
tion (Fig. 1). In recent years, the international
Leptiminus Archaeological Project (LAP) has
used large-scale intensive surface surveys, non-
destructive imaging, salvage excavation, and tar­
geted stratigraphic excavation to develop an un­
derstanding of the city’s archaeological histo­ry
and its role in the Mediterranean economy. The
LAP has identified more than 300 individual
Acknowledgments: I am grateful to the current directors of the
Leptiminus Archaeological Project—Lea M. Stirling, Nejib Ben
Lazreg, and Susan T. Stevens—for permission to consult exca-
vation records and publish this subset of the glass. Comments
from the directors, my colleagues, and the editors and anony-
mous readers of the Journal of Glass Studies have improved this
essay tremendously; any errors that remain are my own.
1. Publications of the Leptiminus Archaeological Project, in
addition to several interim reports, include Nejib Ben Lazreg
and David J. Mattingly, eds., Leptiminus (Lamta) Report No. 1:
A Roman Port City in Tunisia, Journal of Roman Archaeology
Supplementary Series, no. 4, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan,
1992; Lea M. Stirling, David J. Mattingly, and Nejib Ben Lazreg,
eds., Leptiminus (Lamta) Report No. 2: The East Baths, Ceme­
teries, Kilns, Venus Mosaic, Site Museum and Other Studies,
Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series, no. 41,
Portsmouth, Rhode Island: the journal, 2001; and David L.
Stone, David J. Mattingly, and Nejib Ben Lazreg, eds., Leptimi-
nus (Lamta) Report No. 3: The Field Survey, Journal of Roman
Archaeology Supplementary Series, no. 87, Portsmouth, Rhode
Island: the journal, 2011.
This content downloaded from
78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
sites around the city, dating from the Punic,
Roman, and Byzantine periods (approximately
fifth century B.C.E. to seventh century C.E.).
Among the sites inventoried are Punic tombs,
Roman- and Byzantine-period public buildings
and infrastructure works, production sites for
amphoras and other trade goods, domestic sites,
and Roman and Byzantine cemeteries (Fig. 2).1
The East Cemetery (Site S304), on the inland
edge of the ancient city, has been subject to re-
cent stratigraphic excavation (Fig. 3).2 This study
revealed burial areas dating from the second to
2. Site S304 forms part of an extensive cemetery that ringed
the city of Leptiminus. Previous studies have excavated other
parts of this cemetery under the names of S200, S286, and S302.
Excavations at S304 were begun after the site was discovered
by looters in 1999. Following salvage excavations in 1999 and
2000, stratigraphic excavations took place there from 2004 to
2006, with seasons of study in 2007 and 2008. Two interim re-
ports on the excavation at the East Cemetery (S304) have previ-
ously appeared: Nejib Ben Lazreg, “Roman and Early Christian
Burial-Complex at Leptiminus: First Notice,” Journal of Ro­man
Archaeology, v. 15, pt. 1, 2002, pp. 337–345; and Nejib Ben
Lazreg and others, “Roman and Early Christian Burial Com-
plex at Leptiminus (Lamta): Second Notice,” Journal of Roman
Archaeology, v. 19, pt. 1, 2006, pp. 347–368. Preparation of
the final publication of the East Cemetery Excavations (S304)
is ongoing. In this article, I rely on the draft report of the ex­
cavators, who have generously shared their findings with me:
Lea M. Stirling and Jennifer P. Moore, “Graves, Structures, and
Stratigraphy in the East Cemetery,” in Leptiminus (Lamta) Re-
port No. 4: The East Cemetery, in preparation.
47
 FIG. 1. Location of Leptiminus in the central Mediterranean area, on the coast
of the Roman province of Africa Proconsularis (modern Tunisia).

FIG. 2. Plan showing surveyed fields and features in the area of ancient
Leptiminus, with location of the East Cemetery (S304) and previously
excavated cemetery sites, after Stone, Mattingly, and Ben Lazreg [note 1].

48

This content downloaded from

78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIG. 3. Plan of the East Cemetery (S304). (Drawing: Courtesy of the excavators)

seventh centuries3 and, among other arti­facts, cemetery, both in the tombs themselves and in
a substantial assemblage of glass, mostly vessel contexts outside of the tombs that are probably
fragments. Analysis of a subset of this assem- related to cemetery activity—offers an oppor­
blage—the vessels and objects found in the tunity to explore the nature of funerary and

3. Some residual ceramics, and one tiny fragment of mosaic
glass (not discussed in this essay), suggest that this area was a site
of human activities during the Punic period. The surface survey
of the Dhahret Slama ridge, where the East Cemetery S304 is
located, has identified areas of Punic tombs near the Roman and
Christian East Cemetery (David L. Stone and David J. Mat-
tingly, “Leptiminus: Profile of a Town,” in Leptiminus (Lamta)
Report No. 3 [note 1], pp. 273–288, esp. pp. 273–277). No
direct evidence for Punic burials at S304 has been noted (Stirling
and Moore [note 2]). Other categories of evidence suggest
continuities of practice in funerary and post-funerary rituals
between the Numidian, Punic, and Roman periods in North
Africa; it is not possible to comment on those continuities via
the glass evidence from the site (see David L. Stone and Lea M.
Stirling, “Funerary Monuments and Mortuary Practices in the
Landscapes of North Africa,” in Mortuary Landscapes of North
Africa, ed. David L. Stone and Lea Margaret Stirling, Toronto
and Buffalo, New York: University of Toronto Press, 2007, pp.
3–31, esp. pp. 22–25; and David J. Mattingly, “The African
Way of Death: Burial Rituals beyond the Roman Empire,” in
ibid., pp. 138–163).

49

This content downloaded from

78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
commemorative practice at the cemetery, par-
ticularly during the fifth and sixth centuries.
Limited evidence from earlier burials and ac­
tivity areas of the second–fourth centuries may
invite speculation as to the continuity of com­
mem­orative practice from earlier to later peri-
ods. Glass from demonstrably Christian areas
of the cemetery highlights the communal and
intentional nature of funerary and post-funerary
com­memoration of the dead and suggests spe-
cific locations where such rituals could have oc-
curred in the cemetery.
Extensive evidence from ancient literature4
and art5 indicates that funerary and commemo-
rative rituals in the Roman world regularly in-
cluded making sacrifices, eating meals in com-
pany, drinking wine, and pouring libations. Two
banquets framed traditional Roman mourning
rituals, marking at their beginning the family’s
isolation caused by death and at their end its
return to everyday life.6 Anniversaries and other
important dates in the ritual year (especially the
festivals of the Parentalia and the Feralia) were
marked by family members’ return visits to the
cemetery, at which time food and drink offerings
were made to commemorate the deceased; the
living family members probably also consumed
meals at the cemetery on at least some of these
4. E.g., Ovid, Fasti, II. 533–543; and Tertullian, “De resur-
rectione carnis,” I.1–3.
5. Robin M. Jensen, “Dining with the Dead: From Mensa
to Altar in Christian Late Antiquity,” in Commemorating the
Dead: Texts and Artifacts in Context. Studies of Roman, Jewish,
and Christian Burials, ed. Laurie Brink and Deborah Green,
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008, pp. 107–144, esp. pp. 120–
124; Paul-Albert Février, “À propos du repas funéraire: Culte
et sociabilité,” Cahiers Archéologiques, v. 26, 1977, pp. 29–45;
Katherine M. D. Dunbabin, The Roman Banquet: Images of
Conviviality, Cambridge, U.K., and New York: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 2003, pp. 187–190.
6. John Scheid, Quand faire, c’est croire: Les Rites sacrificiels
des Romains, Collection historique, Aubier, 2005, provides an
excellent overview of funerary practices, which included sacri-
fices, two banquets over a period of nine days, and other rituals.
For meals as markers of a family’s status during the mourning
period, see esp. ibid., pp. 219–220. For food at Roman funer-
als, see Hugh Lindsay, “Eating with the Dead: The Roman Fu-
nerary Banquet,” in Meals in a Social Context: Aspects of the
Communal Meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World, ed. Inge
50
This content downloaded from
78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
occasions.7 Architectural installations and ar-
chaeological evidence at cemeteries make it clear
that certain elements of the meals were to be
shared with the dead, even well after the burial
rites.8
Evidence from early Christian literature sug-
gests that these traditional rituals of commem-
oration were not incompatible with the prac-
tice of Christianity. Rebillard offers a summary
survey of this literature, concluding that ban-
queting and drinking wine were essential to the
act of commemoration, particularly in the third
century and later, when sacrifice rarely formed
part of funerary and commemorative rites.9
The well-known example of Augustine’s mother,
Monnica, being prevented in Milan from cele-
brating rituals at martyrs’ tombs, as she had
done in Africa,10 highlights several important
fea­tures of such commemoration.
While Rebillard is correct in urging caution in
interpreting this anecdote, noting its apologetic
nature,11 nevertheless a few useful observations
can be made. First, the practice of commemora-
tion occurred regularly and communally: Mon-
nica shared food and wine with her relatives,
and made these repeated episodes occasions for
piety. Second, those practicing the commemo-
rative ritual brought both prepared food and
Nielsen and Hanne Sigismund Nielsen, Aarhus Studies in Med-
iterranean Antiquity, v. 1, Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University
Press, 1998, pp. 67–80.
7. Lindsay [note 6]; Scheid [note 6], pp. 161–188.
8. Jensen [note 5], pp. 117–118; Lea M. Stirling, “Archaeo-
logical Evidence for Food Offerings in the Graves of Roman
North Africa,” in Daimonopylai: Essays in Classics and the
Classical Tradition Presented to Edmund G. Berry, ed. Rory B.
Egan and Mark A. Joyal, Winnipeg: University of Manitoba
Centre for Hellenic Civilization, 2004, pp. 427–451, esp. pp.
428–432; Février [note 5].
9. Éric Rebillard, “Commemorating the Dead in North
Africa: Continuity and Change from the Second to the Fifth
Century C.E.,” in Death and Changing Rituals: Function and
Meaning in Ancient Funerary Practices, ed. J. Rasmus Brandt,
Håkon Roland, and Marina Prusac, Studies in Funerary Ar-
chaeology, no. 7, Oxford, U.K., and Philadelphia: Oxbow
Books, 2014, pp. 269–286.
10. Augustine, Confessions, 6.2.2.
11. Rebillard [note 9], p. 271.
wine to the grave sites: Monnica brought por-
ridge, bread, and wine in a basket, and con-
sumed them at the cemetery. Other references
to commemorative rituals for the dead in pa-
tristic texts emphasize (and perhaps ex­aggerate)
the excessive wine drinking that frequently oc-
curred during such commemorations.12 Paint-
ings of banquet scenes in Christian catacombs,
which bear a strong resemblance to those in
traditional non-Christian burial locales, under-
score the importance of funerary and commem-
orative dining in both Christian and traditional
pagan ritual spheres.13
Archaeological evidence from North Africa
indicates that food and probably also drink were
regularly brought to cemeteries in both the Ro-
man and Christian periods. Architectural fea-
tures such as altars with libation tubes, dining
couches, and mensa-style tombs make it clear
that dining took place at the cemetery, and that
certain elements of the meals were to be shared
with the dead, even after the tomb had been
sealed.14 Paleoenvironmental sampling at other
burial sites around Leptiminus indicates that
drinking wine was one of a range of food-related
activities carried out at the time of burial, along
with depositing small amounts of food, and
prob­ably drink, in the grave after it was sealed,
via the libation tube.15
A variety of evidence, including the selection
of glass presented here, suggests that such com-
memorative rituals also took place at the East
12. Ibid., pp. 271–274, citing Augustine, Ep. 29.9; Cyprian,
Ep. 67; Ambrose, De Helia et ieiuno 17.62; and Augustine,
Enarratio in Psalmum 12, 15.
13. Paintings of banquets from the Christian catacombs at
Rome are generally now interpreted as representing funerary or
commemorative meals by mourners, although other interpreta-
tions are possible and multiple meanings may have been intend-
ed by the creators or patrons of these art works (see Dunbabin
[note 5], pp. 175–202 for discussion of polysemy and previous
interpretations).
14. Jensen [note 5], pp. 117–118; Stirling [note 8], pp. 428–
432; Février [note 5].
15. Stirling [note 8], pp. 438–441. Samples came from Sites
10 and 200 (David J. Mattingly, Nejib Ben Lazreg, and Lea M.
Stirling, “Rescue Excavation of a Roman Cemetery on the
Southeast Edge of Leptiminus (Site 10): Summary of Excava-
tions and Preliminary Typology of Burials,” in Leptiminus
This content downloaded from
78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Cemetery. While it is not possible to firmly con-
clude whether the rituals involved drinking
wine, pouring libations, or other activities in-
volving liquids, the glass provides circumstantial
evidence for drinking, probably wine, at or near
the tombs during funerary rituals and during
later commemorative visits to the cemetery. The
glass may therefore serve to underscore the syn-
cretic nature of Christian religious practice at
the cemeteries of Leptiminus, with local Chris-
tians adopting and adapting existing traditional
practices into new spaces and systems of reli-
gious belief.
Burial and Activity Areas in the East
Cemetery16
The find contexts of the glass vessels discussed
in this article can be divided into two catego-
ries: glass found in graves, deposited at the time
of burial; and glass found in nonburial contexts
formed while the cemetery was in use, probably
as a result of continued human activity there. I
argue that this second group of glass vessel frag-
ments represents repeated post-funerary com-
memorative activity at the cemetery.
Activity at the cemetery began in the second
century with burials in the southern portion of
the excavated zone.17 Burials, both of cremated
remains and of corpses in inhumations, took
place in rock-cut hypogea and at the level of the
surface, where graves were covered by a variety
(Lamta) Report No. 1 [note 1], pp. 301–333; David J. Mat-
tingly, Nigel Pollard, and Nejib Ben Lazreg, “A Roman Ceme-
tery and Mausoleum on the Southeast Edge of Leptiminus:
Second Report (Site 10, 1991 Excavations),” in Leptiminus
(Lamta) Report No. 2 [note 1], pp. 107–214; Nejib Ben Lazreg,
“Un cimetière romain sur Jebel Lahmar (Site 200) près de
Dhahret Slama: Fouille de sauvetage,” in ibid., pp. 409–411;
Lea M. Stirling, D. J. Welle, and David J. Mattingly, “General
Context of the Cemetery (Site 200) and the Grave Containing
the Terracotta Mask,” in ibid., pp. 412–414). Botanical samples
were also collected from some graves in the East Cemetery, S304
(Stirling and Moore [note 2]).
16. Descriptions of burial areas and dating evidence here
summarize preliminary conclusions detailed in Leptiminus
(Lamta) Report No. 4 [note 2].
17. Ben Lazreg [note 2], p. 345; Ben Lazreg and others [note
2], p. 348; Stone and Mattingly [note 3], p. 276.
51
of tomb markers. Many of the burial areas were
demarcated in some way by built structures;
the excavators have identified at least six such
burial compounds (see Figure 3). These com-
pounds may have served both as burial areas
and as loci for later commemoration, as the tes-
timony of Ovid and later authors suggests.18
Burials in the south­ern sector of the cemetery
had largely ceased by the fourth century. At that
time, underground chambers began to be exca-
vated and used for Christian burials in a north-
ern expansion of the cemetery.19 The Christian
catacombs were used extensively in the fifth and
sixth centuries, and were abandoned no later
than the early seventh century. Following is a
brief overview of selected burial areas, begin-
ning with those in the southern sector.20
Compound 2 (C2), a walled-off area in the
central zone of the excavated cemetery north-
west of Compound 1 (C1), included burials
found at the surface level and in the hypogeum
below. The hypogeum of C2, accessed by a stair-
way contained in the walled compound, had
two irregularly shaped lobes or alcoves and con-
tained at least 13 burials in a variety of stacked
grave structures along the alcoves’ walls. Nine
additional burials were located at the surface
level in C2, and five more were found outside its
walls. Datable ceramic material associated with
the burials indicates that they were interred in
the second and third centuries; the hypogeum
was gradually filled in the fourth and fifth cen-
turies, possibly as the result of a combination
of human and natural activities. At some point
after burial, the remains in C2’s hypogeum were
disturbed when a large rectangular shaft cut into
that chamber. In addition to damaging extant
burials, this shaft may have obliterated earlier
burials that had been placed in the hypogeum.
Compound 3 (C3) took a somewhat unusual
form. Located east of C2, C3 was discovered
dur­ing salvage excavation. C3 was further inves-
tigated during stratigraphic excavation in 2004.
Built from mortar and rubble, the structure
com­prises seven slots dug into the ground, each
deep enough for at least three stacked inhu­
mation graves. Limited ceramic dating evidence
52
This content downloaded from
78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
includes a fragment from the early second to
early third centuries in one of the graves.
In addition to burials and tomb structures
en­closed in or closely connected to delineated
compounds, burials were placed in unwalled
cemetery earth outside the burial compounds.
Outside C1, and possibly associated with it, is
a cremation burial that was placed in a cupula
tomb monument aligned with the northern wall
of the compound.21 This carefully decorated
monument appears to be broadly contempo­
raneous with activity inside C1, with ceramic
evidence dating from the second and third cen-
turies.
To the south of C2, west of C1, a relatively
large number of burials—20 or more—were
placed in unenclosed areas of the cemetery. Al-
though these burials were not po­sitioned inside
walled compounds, they were otherwise similar
to those inside the delineated burial areas: both
cremations and inhumations in a variety of tomb
structures.22
Not all of these graves were placed in the
same orientation or interred at the same time,
but burial activity in this area was broadly con-
temporaneous with activity inside the walled
compounds during the second and third centu-
ries.
18. Cf. Ovid [note 4], Tertullian [note 4], and Augustine
[note 10].
19. The presence of demonstrably Christian graves in the
northern sector of the cemetery does not preclude the possibility
that earlier burials belonged to individuals who identified as
Christians, but they are not incontrovertibly marked thus. For
the Christian and traditional Roman burials at the East Ceme-
tery, see Ben Lazreg [note 2]; and Ben Lazreg and others [note
2]. For so-called aniconic Christianity, see, for example, Paul
Corby Finney, The Invisible God: The Earliest Christians on
Art, New York: Oxford University Press, 1994, esp. pp. 99–145.
20. Several of the compounds excavated during the course
of study have not yielded glass finds that can be closely associ-
ated via their contexts with funerary and post-funerary activity
(Compound 1 [C1], Compound 5, and the southwestern unen-
closed area and unexplored Compounds 6 and 7). Because of
the challenges of interpreting these objects in their contexts,
they are not discussed in this article.
21. Grave G-071.
22. One of these contained ancient glass: G-012 (inhuma-
tion).
 While some burials included durable grave
offerings such as ceramic bowls, glass vessels,
and items of jewelry (see Table 1), deposition of
grave goods was relatively uncommon at the
East Cemetery, a pattern also known from other
cemetery sites in Roman North Africa.23 By con-
trast, excavations at the East Cemetery have re-
vealed abundant evidence that perishable grave
offerings were commonly left in tombs; offering
tables or altars with burned surfaces and libation
tubes were built into many grave structures.24
There is little evidence of burial activity dur-
ing the fourth century in the southern part of
the excavated cemetery, but a northern under-
ground extension of the burial ground, appar-
ently begun in the late fourth century, contained
multiple rooms and rock-cut tunnels or corri-
dors for burials.25 The burials in the northern
section of the East Cemetery were in some cases
marked by elaborate tomb mosaics with Chris-
tian iconography, including the Greek capitals A
and Ω, the sacred monogram of Christ, and im-
ages of the Good Shepherd.26
Of these several catacomb areas, among the
best understood is the Small Vaulted Room
(SVR), cleared in stratigraphic excavations in
2006, which served as a vestibule to the adja-
cent catacomb corridors and the Large Vaulted
Room. The northern underground expansion
of the East Cemetery was abandoned, perhaps
23. See, for example, Susan T. Stevens, “Commemorating
the Dead in the Communal Cemeteries of Carthage,” in Com-
memorating the Dead [note 5], pp. 79–103; and Naomi Nor-
man, “Death and Burial of Roman Children: The Case of the
Yasmina Cemetery at Carthage – Part I, Setting the Stage,”
Mortality, v. 7, no. 3, 2002, pp. 302–323, esp. p. 305.
24. See Ben Lazreg [note 2], pp. 344–345 and fig. 19; and
Ben Lazreg and others [note 2], pp. 349 and 352–357, and fig.
3. Stirling [note 8] provides an overview of food offerings in
Roman North African cemeteries, based on archaeological evi-
dence. Tubes, altars, and grave fills in North African cemeteries
have been found to contain (burned) food remains such as
seeds, eggshells, and animal bones; while literary and visual
evidence suggests that wine was also offered via these tubes,
such evidence is not generally recoverable via archaeological
excavation. In previously excavated cemeteries at Leptiminus,
where archaeobotanical sampling formed part of the excava-
tion program, several types of burned seeds were recovered
This content downloaded from
78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
in two phases, following the collapse of archi-
tectural features in the late fifth and sixth cen-
turies.27
At a later date, debris that had apparently
been removed from the rooms and tunnels of
the northern cemetery expansion was probably
deposited over the disused site of C3. Cleared
in salvage excavations, the upper layers of this
compound were found to contain a very large
quantity of artifacts, including approximately
375 fragments of vessel glass. From these frag-
ments, more than 100 individual glass vessels
can be identified (see below and Table 3). Selec-
tively retained for study as a discrete group, this
glass shares many characteristics with that from
the northern expansion; it probably represents
debris from the underground burial areas. It is
unclear whether the debris was deposited by
members of the community seeking access to the
underground burial areas after the collapse of
the vaulted ceiling in the fifth or sixth century,
or by the action of looters at a later date.
Glass as Elements of Funerary Ritual
and Grave Gifts
Glass finds follow the general pattern of rar-
ity also evident among other durable grave gifts
at the East Cemetery. 28 A few excavated graves
contained glass items such as jewelry and vessels
from burial contexts, including from burial structures with simi­
lar libation tubes (ibid., pp. 438–442). See also Arbia Hilali,
“Les Repas funéraires: Un témoignage d’une dynamique socio-
culturelle en Afrique romaine,” in Ritual Dynamics and Reli-
gious Change in the Roman Empire: Proceedings of the Eighth
Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire
(Heidelberg, July 5–7, 2007), ed. Olivier Hekster, Sebastian
Schmidt-Hofner, and Christian Witschel, Impact of Empire, no.
9, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2009, pp. 269–284.
25. Ben Lazreg and others [note 2], p. 349.
26. Ibid., pp. 365–367 discusses the stylistic features and
comparanda of the Christian tomb markers.
27. Ibid., pp. 349 and 363.
28. Stirling and Moore [note 2]. Grave gifts are rare at other
African cemeteries, as well (see, for example, Stevens [note 23];
Aïcha Ben Abed and Marc Griesheimer, eds., La Nécropole ro-
maine de Pupput, Collection de l’Ecole Française de Rome, no.
323, Rome: the school, 2004, esp. pp. 183–187).
53
 TABLE 1
Minimum Number of Glass Vessels and Objects in Tombs
in the East Cemetery (S304), Organized by Proximity to Burial

Burial Areas Glass inside Glass inside

with Glass Vessels Tomb Structures Disturbed Tombs, Glass in Unused
and Objects That Contained Burials Perhaps Intrusive Tomb Structures Total
Unwalled burials 2 11 3
Compound 3 (C3) burials 1 1 2
Compound 2 (C2) burials 10 10
Christian Small Vaulted 9 9
Room (SVR) burials
Totals 12 11 1 24

1. One additional glass object, found in LL1845, was unquestionably modern, introduced into the tomb
by animal activity. It is not discussed here or included in total MNV counts.

the practice of funerary rituals at the East Cem-

FIG. 4. Glass from Roman tombs (objects 1–3; see
Appendix).
(Table 1). Some of the glass finds within burials
are probably intrusive or may reflect multiple
phases of activity in some areas. Thus, the total
number of glass finds that can likely be identi-
fied as grave gifts or intentional depositions is
quite small. As Table 1 shows, only 12 glass ob-
jects (vessels and jewelry) can be securely identi-
fied as intentionally deposited in the graves. Sev-
eral of these may have been intended as grave
gifts for the deceased, while other items may
have been deposited in the tomb following their
use during funerary activity.29 These finds, from
both the Roman and Christian periods, offer
limited—but perhaps suggestive—evidence for
etery over an extensive period of use.
Several graves in the unwalled portion of the
cemetery near C1 and C2 contained glass vessels
(Fig. 4 and Appendix). From unenclosed burial
areas in the southern portion of the cemetery,
three fragments, which make up two vessels,
were recovered from two burials (Fig. 4.1, .2).30
The vessels—a flask and the base of a flask or
beaker—are simple forms, probably dating from
the third or fourth century or later. These vessel
fragments, found among the fill around a skele­
ton inside Grave G-012 and in the burned earth
beneath a cremation burial (G-071), are highly
fragmentary. They may have been deposited
near the tombs, not as grave gifts but as part
of the funerary ritual, with the beaker or flask
29. Such a practice is noted at other sites in Africa (Hilali
[note 24], p. 276) and elsewhere in the Roman Empire (cf.
Hilary Cool, “Bottles for Bacchus?,” in Artefacts and Archae-
ology: Aspects of the Celtic and Roman World, ed. Miranda J.
Aldhouse-Green and Peter Webster, Cardiff: University of Wales
Press, 2002, pp. 132–151).
30. A small lot of approximately 30 strongly colored body
fragments from modern vessels, and a plastic button, were re-
covered from Grave G-008. These fragments have not been in-
cluded in the totals and discussion of glass vessels from this site
because the context was clearly disturbed by animal burrows in
the modern period (Stirling and Moore [note 2]).

54

This content downloaded from

78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIG. 5. Glass from Christian tombs (objects 4–12; see Appendix).

having been broken, perhaps even deliberately,
and some pieces included in the filling of the
tomb.
Similarly, two fragmentary glass vessels were
found in tomb structures of C3, although only
one of them was associated with a burial.31 That
vessel base (Fig. 4.3) was discovered by the right
shoulder of a young adult whose body had
been covered in plaster during the burial, with
the glass fragment placed on top of the plaster
beneath dirt infill in a slab grave. Given its close
proximity to the skeleton, this vessel may have
been deposited with the body, perhaps as a grave
gift or as a symbol of the funerary ritual.
In demonstrably Christian contexts, inten-
tional deposition of glass in graves was appar-
ently similarly rare; it has been detected in only
two of the excavated burials at the East Ceme-
tery (Table 1 and Fig. 5.4–.12).32 In the SVR,
within one of a series of underground tomb
chambers used primarily for Christian burials,
two excavated graves contained a total of at
least nine glass vessels and objects. One grave,
that of an adult buried in the floor of the SVR,
held four fragments from three separate vessels:
beakers or bowls, at least one of which may
have been used as lamps (Fig. 5.4–.6).
A second burial, containing the remains of
two individuals, appears somewhat exceptional
at the East Cemetery, based on the number of
its glass finds, which include at least six objects:
a possible ring bezel and a bead (Fig. 5.7, .8),
31. The other fragment is apparently intrusive in the unused
grave structure; it is not discussed here.
32. Detailed study of other Christian burial areas at the cem-
etery, currently in very preliminary stages, may identify other
glass intentionally deposited in graves.

55

This content downloaded from

78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

FIG. 6. Glass from hypogeum of Compound 2 (ob-
jects 13–22; see Appendix).
three beakers (Fig. 5.9–.11), and a flask (Fig.
5.12). The similarity in the col­or and function
of the vessel fragments—all of these vessels were
probably used for drinking, pouring, or serving
liquids—hints at the possibil­ity of a drinking set
(somewhat heterogeneous in composition), of
which some fragments may have been deposited
in the tomb.33 Additional study of glass found
in graves from the Christian burial chambers
and corridors, currently in progress, may shed
33. Cf. sets of glass drinking and serving vessels found in
other contexts at Leptiminus, discussed below.
34. Although jewelry is generally rare among finds from the
East Cemetery, items of jewelry of various materials were found
in a small number of tombs of infants and young children in the
southern portion of the cemetery (Stirling and Moore [note 2]).
Differential treatment of children and infants, including patterns
of grave good deposition, in burials in North Africa is well es-
tablished: see Norman [note 23]; Naomi J. Norman, “Death
and Burial of Roman Children: The Case of the Yasmina Cem-
etery at Carthage – Part II, The Archaeological Evidence,”
Mortality, v. 8, no. 1, 2003, pp. 36–47; Solenn de Larminat,
“Le Mobilier déposé dans les sépultures d’enfants en Afrique
du Nord à l’époque romaine = Material in the Child-Burials of
Roman Africa in the Pre-Christian Era,” in L’Enfant et la mort
dans l’Antiquité, v. 3, Le Matériel associé aux tombes d’enfants,
ed. Antoine Hermary and Céline Dubois, Bibliothèque d’Ar­
chéo­logie Méditerranéenne et Africaine, no. 12, Aix en Pro­
vence: Centre Camille Jullian, 2012, pp. 293–312; and idem,
“Gestes et pratiques funéraires autour des inhumations en fosse
56
This content downloaded from
78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
further light on the nature of these burials—
whether they represent anomalous special treat-
ment of certain deceased individuals, an increase
in the practice of depositing glass intentionally
as grave goods in the fifth and sixth centuries,
or the use of more substantial quantities of glass
in funerary rituals.34
Glass related to burials in the hypogeum of
C2 presents a thorny problem of interpretation
because the vessel fragments were found in as-
sociation with disturbed burials. At the time of
excavation, most of these fragments were iden-
tified as the remains of fusiform toilet bottles
that presumably held perfumed oils and were
deposited at the time of burial in the third cen-
tury. Excavations at other cemetery sites in Lep­
timinus have demonstrated that such glass ves-
sels were occasionally placed in graves.35 The
true picture of glass use in this burial area, how-
ever, is far more complex than the initial inter-
pretation suggests.
Glass from these burials includes 10 objects
(Fig. 6) that were found in close proximity to
three disturbed graves. In one context (G-067),
an outfolded rim (Fig. 6.13) was found. In a
second grave (G-065), four fragmentary vessels
were discovered: one goblet or lamp (Fig. 6.14)
and three hollow stems, probably of lamps (Fig.
6.15–.17). Plaster fill immediately covered the
d’enfants en Afrique romaine à l’époque païenne = Funerary
Acts and Practices in Child Pit Burials of Roman Africa in the
Pre-Christian Era,” in L’Enfant et la mort dans l’Antiquité, v. 2,
Types de tombes et traitement du corps des enfants dans l’an­ti­
quité gréco-romaine, ed. Marie-Dominique Nenna, Etudes alex­
andrines, no. 26, Alexandria: Centre d’Études Alexandrines,
2012, pp. 501–538.
35. Site 250, burial 94-20: Joseph L. Rife, “Excavations Ad-
jacent to the House of the Venus Mosaic,” in Leptiminus (Lam-
ta) Report No. 2 [note 1], pp. 293–324, esp. pp. 317–318; cf.
Véronique Arveiller-Dulong and Marie-Dominique Nenna, Les
Verres antiques du Musée du Louvre, v. 2, Vaisselle et conte­
nants du 1er siècle au début du VIIe siècle après J.-C., v. 2, Paris:
Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 2005, esp. p. 417, nos. 1153–
1155; ibid., p. 459, no. 1287, fusiform toilet bottles of eastern
provenance in greenish glass, produced in the fourth century.
No fusiform toilet bottles were found in the graves at Pupput,
where all examples of toilet bottles were of the candlestick form
(Daniele Foy, “Les Verres de la nécropole de Pupput,” in Ben
Abed and Griesheimer [note 28], pp. 59–72, esp. p. 70).
skeleton inside the grave structure; on top of this
fill, the glass vessels and brightly colored stains
were found, and the excavator hypothesized
that such stains could have resulted from the
contents of the glass vessels.36 In a third grave
(G-061), hollow bases or stems of five vessels,
possibly lamps or toilet bottles, were found (Fig.
6.18–.22), along with a small ribbon of lead,
probably a wick holder.37 This disturbed grave
(G-061) also contained an intact third-century
ceramic jug, probably deposited as a grave gift.38
Close examination of the glass remains re-
veals that at least eight of the fragments belong
to lamps of the sixth or early seventh century,
not to toilet bottles, as they were originally iden­
tified. The solid-stemmed goblet (Fig. 6.14) has
clear parallels among sixth-century vessels, in-
cluding other examples from late contexts at the
East Cemetery in Leptiminus.39 Similarly, the
presence of a lead ribbon in proximity to a hol-
low glass stem securely identifies one object (Fig.
6.19) as a lamp.40 Other examples from C2 (Fig.
6.15–.18, .20) strongly resemble the stem of this
lamp and the stems and bodies of other lamps
from late contexts at Leptiminus, with a carinat­
ed bowl and a very narrow (about 1 cm) diam-
eter at the base. The folded rim fragment (Fig.
6.13) is most likely to have come from a lamp
rather than a beaker, given the profusion of lamp
stems in this area. The disturbance of the graves
in this area, and the presence of Byzantine glass
36. Stirling and Moore [note 2].
37. For the wick holder, see Danièle Foy, “Les Porte-mèche
des lampes en verre de l’Antiquité tardive,” Provence Histo-
rique, v. 61, 2011, pp. 207–238, esp. pp. 221–223. Two other
small lead strips were found above another disturbed burial
(G-063) in Hypogeum 2, but no glass was recovered in proxim-
ity to that burial (Stirling and Moore [note 2]). Small finds from
S304, including metal objects and jewelry, will be published by
Olfa Ben Aicha.
38. G-061 (Stirling and Moore [note 2]).
39. With a parallel at Leptiminus in the Christian debris
over C3.
40. For a parallel for the wick holder, see Foy [note 37], p.
222, fig. 5.
41. Lamps at Leptiminus have a diameter at the bottom of
the stem of 1.0–1.1 cm (objects 15–17 and 19). By contrast,
objects 21 and 22 have base diameters of 2.2 cm. Fusiform toilet
bottles from the Louvre have relatively wide diameters at the
bottom (about 2–2.5 cm); two complete Louvre examples of
This content downloaded from
78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
vessel forms in burials probably of the Roman
period, suggests renewed or continued activity
in the hypogeum of C2 in the sixth and seventh
centuries, although the nature of this activity re-
mains unclear.
The identification of the remaining glass ves-
sels from the hypogeum of C2 (Fig. 6.21, .22)
and their contextual relationship with other
finds invite a bit of speculation. These vessels
are somewhat distinct from the other lamp stems
found in the hypogeum of C2 because of their
deep green color, their uniformly thin walls of
stem and base, and their wide (about 2.2 cm)
diameter at the bottom. Their width and thin
walls recall some third- and fourth-century ex-
amples of fusiform toilet bottles rather than
lamps from Leptiminus.41 Although their dis-
turbed context makes positive identification dif-
ficult, the presence of an unbroken third-century
ceramic vessel suggests an earlier phase of ac-
tivity in the hypogeum. This activity may have
included the intentional deposition of grave
gifts in G-061, represented by the ceramic ves-
sel and these two possible fusiform glass toilet
bottles (Fig. 6.21, .22).
If these are in fact toilet bottles (and this
iden­tification must remain tentative), they may
indicate some level of special treatment for the
deceased individual(s) originally buried in this
spot.42 The narrow glass lamp stems also found
in this context further suggest that the burial in
fu­siform toilet bottles have pontil marks. Fusiform toilet bottles
from Site 250 at Leptiminus, found in a sealed burial context of
the third century, have a smaller base diameter, about 1.25–1.5
cm at the stem (Rife [note 35], p. 318, fig. 50a, b [measurements
taken by the present author from a published photograph]). By
contrast, sixth-century green glass lamps from Sidi Jdidi have a
stem whose base is about 1–1.5 cm in diameter, while seventh-
century blue lamps from Sidi Jdidi have a narrow stem (D. about
0.75–1.25 cm), more in keeping with the size of the Leptiminus
S304 lamp examples; several examples from Sidi Jdidi have
prominent pontil marks (e.g., Danièle Foy, “Les Verres,” in Sidi
Jdidi, v. 1, La Basilique sud, by Aïcha Ben Abed-Ben Khader
and others, Recherches d’archéologie africaine, no. 339, Rome:
Ecole Française de Rome, 2004, pp. 317–329, esp. pp. 324–326,
nos. 44 and 52–54 and figs. 189 and 190.
42. Toilet bottles were regularly deposited in graves at Pup-
put (Foy [note 35], pp. 70–71), but this practice appears to
have been unusual at Leptiminus, highlighting regional varia-
tions in funerary practice.
57
Grave G-061 was disturbed in the sixth century
by additional burial activity, commemorative
rituals, looting, or other activities in the same
space.
Glass found in tomb structures at the East
Cemetery therefore may reflect two distinct pat-
terns of use and deposition. The provision of
simple grave goods may appear in a burial in C2,
where two toilet bottles may have been deposited
at the time of burial (Fig. 6.21, .22). Similarly,
the small items of jewelry in the Christian SVR
(Fig. 5.7, .8) may have been included in the bur­
ial as personal effects of or gifts to the deceased.
Other glass vessels found in or immediately
around burials perhaps symbolize funerary ac-
tivity and commemorative ritual: possibly bro-
ken during use, with remnants deposited along
with the fill inside burial structures. These in-
clude the flasks, beakers, and lamps found in
C3, in the unenclosed graves of the southern
cemetery area, in C2, and in the Christian SVR.
With the exception of the lamps, all such vessels
apparently symbolize a drinking function and
were possibly used for drinking wine, pouring
libations, or other ritual activities at the ceme-
tery, a pattern more evident in the glass found
in contexts in the same areas formed during the
cemetery’s period of use.
Glass Vessels from Nonburial Contexts
Glass finds are far more numerous from con-
texts outside tombs at the East Cemetery (see
Table 2). These finds came from layers of soil
and artifacts deposited near graves and grave
structures, possibly as a result of human activi-
ty, while the cemetery was in use. Here I will use
the term “nonburial contexts” to indicate these
deposits. The concentration and density of glass
vessel fragments found in the soil matrix in non-
burial contexts indicate that they were probably
deposited after the time of burial, perhaps as
part of periodic or repeated commemorative
activities. Such regular graveside visits appear
to have been an important practice throughout
the cemetery’s existence, although the evidence
is stronger for later periods at the site.
58
This content downloaded from
78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Glass evidence from nonburial contexts at
Leptiminus further suggests that periodic com-
memorative activities in the cemetery, possibly
involving food and drink, may have been even
more important than banquets at the time of
the funeral; that drinking or pouring libations
was an important part of this activity; and that
the practice of drinking or pouring libations
dur­ing commemorative rituals may have been
especially important during the period when the
Christian cemetery was used, roughly from the
early fifth to late sixth centuries.
This rise in the glass evidence at Leptiminus
corresponds closely to the impression gleaned
from other material and literary sources about
the growing role of commemorative dining and
drinking during late antiquity.43 This promi-
nence is seen in the numbers of finds stored in
the SVR and related areas, and perhaps even
hints at a continuity of practice, with similar
types of vessels attested in the southern, Roman
portion of the cemetery and in its northern,
Christian expansion. Such continuity of prac-
tice, abundantly attested in other forms of evi-
dence, is suggested but not strongly evidenced
at the East Cemetery.
Glass from nonburial contexts in the earlier,
southern areas of the East Cemetery is, for the
most part, very fragmentary (Table 2 and Fig.
7).44 Only one vessel was found in the excava-
tion of nonburial contexts in C2: a beaker (Fig.
7.23) uncovered in a layer that was probably
deposited in the fourth or fifth century.45 Glass
from nonburial contexts inside C3 includes as
many as six flasks of greenish glass (Fig. 7.24–
.29).
Although these fragments clearly came from
different vessels, their similarities in form and
function are notable; all are almost certainly
43. Février [note 5]; Lindsay [note 6]; Dunbabin [note 5];
Hilali [note 24]; Jensen [note 5]; Rebillard [note 9].
44. No fragments were recovered from the clearance of
nonburial areas in C1, and fragments from the excavation of
C5 all derive from layers that overlie that area, deposited after
it fell into disrepair (Stirling and Moore [note 2]).
45. Also from this area was a piece of glass waste found in
a construction fill (Table 2). This object is not illustrated.
 TABLE 2

Minimum Number of Vessels and Glass Objects, Grouped by Find Context,

at the East Cemetery (S304)

Vessel and Object Forms (minimum number of objects)

Cemetery Burial Beaker/ Flask/ Bowl/ Unidentified Glass Total by
and Use Contexts Cup Toilet Bottle Goblet Lamp Plate Fragments Jewelry Waste1 Area
Unwalled burials near C1, C2 1 1   2
C3 burials   1 2
1   2
C2 burials 2* 3
8*   10*
Christian SVR burials 6 1 2   9
C2 nonburial contexts 1 1   2
C3 nonburial contexts   6*    6*
Unwalled nonburial contexts
near C1, C2 4 1 1 1 1 8
Christian SVR nonburial (?)
contexts (secondary deposition) 27 11 20 1 3 44 1 67
Totals by form 40 22 20 10 4 6 2 3 106
objects
Objects marked with an asterisk (*) are possibly intrusive finds.
1. These objects are included in the table for the sake of complete data, and are not considered further here.
2. This object was found in a sterile grave shaft. It is included in the table for the sake of complete data,
but it is not considered further in the text.
3. See discussion of these toilet bottles in text of article; their identification is tentative.
4. These vessels are represented only by miscellaneous body fragments that cannot be identified.
They are included in the table for the sake of complete data, and are not considered further here.

FIG. 7. Glass from enclosed Roman nonburial contexts (objects 23–29; see Appendix).

59

This content downloaded from

78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIG. 8. Glass from unenclosed Roman nonburial contexts (objects 30–37; see Appendix).

related to serving or pouring wine or other liq-
uids. All six fragmentary flasks were found in
one corner of the compound’s walled enclosure
in a series of superimposed layers. It is not, how-
ever, entirely obvious whether these layers rep-
resent primary deposition; they could also have
been formed by looting in the underground
chambers to the north. If these vessels represent
primary deposition in the corner of the C3 com-
pound walls, they may have been used at the
cemetery and accidentally broken, with some of
their fragments subsequently left in a corner of
the compound. In this case, it is tempting to see
in these fragments, deposited in a single corner
of the compound, a pattern of repeated use—
drinking or pouring libations—near the graves
in C3 and an accepted area for disposing of frag-
ments of vessels broken during use there. The
rituals probably took place at a time when the
graves were closed, leading to deposition of
fragments at or near the surface of the com-
pound.
On the other hand, if the layers were formed
as a result of looting in the Christian catacombs,
we can see these fragmentary vessels as repre-
sentations of drinking or other ritual activities
occurring underground, in proximity to the
Christian burials, as will be discussed below.
Although it is difficult to pinpoint the location
of the ritual activities associated with wine, evi-
dence of which was found in the corner of C3,
the presence of so many vessels for pouring liq-
uids in such a small area hints that the activity
probably occurred nearby.
From layers deposited in nonburial contexts
near unenclosed burial areas came fragments of
at least seven vessels in eight fragments (Table 2
and Fig. 8).46 There are four fragmentary beak­
ers (Fig. 8.30–.32, .34) from four nonburial
contexts outside C1, along with the base of a
beaker or flask (Fig. 8.33), one flask (Fig. 8.35),
and a small fragment that probably derives from
a deep ribbed bowl (Fig. 8.36). This fragment
of a ribbed bowl, found in a context possibly
dating to the sixth century, is probably residual
from an earlier period, although it may be a
fragment of an heirloom vessel for ritual use. It
is not clear whether the Leptiminus example was
cast or mold-blown. Cemetery deposits outside
C2 also produced a single vessel: probably a
beaker, bowl, or flask (Fig. 8.37).
These isolated finds cannot on their own shed
significant light on post-funerary behaviors at
the cemetery, although, taken in conjunction
with evidence from other areas, they may per-
haps suggest activities such as drinking, pouring
libations, or other behaviors involving liquids.
Along with the isolated finds from inside and
46. A piece of glassworking debris was also recovered in
this area (see Table 2). It is not illustrated here.

60

This content downloaded from

78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
near C2, these fragmentary vessels perhaps sug-
gest that such activities occurred near many of
the graves at the East Cemetery. Read in con-
junction with literary and artistic evidence from
the first and second centuries elsewhere in the
Roman world, and with archaeobotanical evi-
dence from other cemeteries at Leptiminus,47 it
is tempting to speculate, even if direct evidence
from the East Cemetery is limited, that these
glass beakers and flasks may have been used to
pour libations, drink wine, or perform other
ritual acts at graveside ceremonies commemo-
rating ancestors.
Similar evidence of drinking and serving ves-
sels found near tombs, but not inside them, came
from the SVR in the Christian area of the ceme­
tery. Caution is required because the glass ves-
sels were found in secondary deposition layers
inside the SVR, but the materials located there
do appear, in the opinion of the excavators, to
relate to activities that took place in the under-
ground chambers and corridors during the fifth,
sixth, and possibly early seventh centuries. Thus,
it is not possible to place these activities precise-
ly inside the underground burial complex, but
it may be possible to identify some of the activi-
ties for which the glass vessels were used. Exca-
vation of these layers yielded at least 66 glass
vessels, 62 of which can be at least tentatively
identified (Table 2 and Figs. 9 and 10).48 Al-
though the quantity of glass finds from the SVR
is significantly higher than that in nonburial
con­texts in the southern area of the cemetery,
the overall character of the glass vessels remains
consistent. Vessels probably used for drinking
and serving wine or other liquids (beakers, gob-
lets, and flasks) make up the lion’s share of the
finds, with a limited number of lamps and other
vessels.
Beaker rims in the SVR form a prominent
group, with three different types: one type with
an outfolded rim (Fig. 9.38–.43), one with an
unworked everted rim (Fig. 9.44, .45), and one
with a rounded rim (Fig. 9.46–.57). At least
some of these rims probably belong to the gob-
lets described below. Beaker(?) bases in the SVR
include a low foot (Fig. 9.58); pushed-in bases,
This content downloaded from
78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
some slightly thicker than their truncated coni-
cal walls (Fig. 9.59–.63); and a thickened, pad-
type base (Fig. 9.64).
The goblets appear in large numbers in the
Christian SVR. All were made with a stem ap-
plied separately with the use of the pontil. Most
examples are made of light green glass (Fig.
9.65–.82). One example (Fig. 9.82) should prob­
ably be associated with the rounded rims with
spiral trails from the same artifact deposit (Fig.
9.46, .47). Three goblets in this group (Fig.
9.76–.78) are multicolored, made with bright
blue stems and feet applied to greenish bodies.
The blue-stemmed examples are remarkable
only for their use of decorative color; their form
is otherwise identical to that of other goblets
from the same contexts. Two goblets (Fig. 9.83,
.84) are made of light green glass, but they are
slightly taller and thinner than the other goblet
stems, possibly forming a distinct group among
this deposit.
In glass vessels found in the SVR’s secondary
deposits, flasks are represented by as many as
11 vessels. Some narrow rims apparently derive
from flasks without handles (Fig. 10.85–.92);
flasks with handles and conical mouths are also
represented (Fig. 10.93–.95), although it is not
clear whether they derive from vessels with one
or two handles. There is at least one lamp repre-
sented by two upright, ear-shaped handles and
a rim (Fig. 10.96).49 There are fragments of per-
haps three large dishes (plates or large bowls,
Fig. 10.97–.99). Like nearly all of the beakers
47. Cf. Stirling [note 8].
48. In addition to the glass vessels, finds in these contexts
included one piece of glass waste, ceramic fine wares dated to
the sixth and seventh centuries, 42 coins, marble, and ceramic
building materials (Susan T. Stevens, personal communication).
49. The lamp(s) would originally have had three handles; it
is not entirely clear whether the handles found here actually be-
long to the rim, but in estimating quantities of vessels, caution
has been the rule. It is entirely possible that some of the vessels
discussed here as “beakers” may have been used as lamps, as
may some of the goblets (Danièle Foy, “Lampes en verre co-
niques et à pied tubulaire,” Lychnological Acts 1: Actes du 1er
Congrès International d’Études sur le luminaire antique (Nyon–
Genève, 29.IX–4.X.2003), ed. Laurent Chrzanovski, Mono­
graphies instrumentum, no. 31, Montagnac: Editions Monique
Mergoil, 2005, pp. 107–113 and pls. 41–45).
61
 FIG. 9. Glass from the Christian Small Vaulted Room (objects 38–84; see Appendix).

and goblets, the flasks, lamp(s), and plates are
made of natural green(ish) glass, nearly all with-
out added decoration.
The evidence for drinking or other ritual be-
havior involving liquids from the SVR can be
supplemented, although cautiously, with addi-
tional glass finds that were recovered from the
area above C3 during a salvage excavation.
These finds are numerous, closest in both the
quantity of finds and the glass colors and forms
present to the glass finds from the SVR. At least
157 vessels were recovered in excavating this
area (Table 3).
The forms of these vessels are familiar from
the Christian areas: beakers, many with rounded
rims and conical bodies and/or pushed-in bases;
lamps with hollow stems, most­ly in bluish green
glass; lamps with three vertical handles on folded

62

This content downloaded from

78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIG. 10. Glass from the Christian Small Vaulted Room (objects 85–99; see Appendix).

TABLE 3

Glass Vessels from Christian Debris over Compound 3 (C3)

Beaker Flask/ Bowl Unidentified

Christian Debris or Cup1 Toilet Bottle Goblet Lamp or Plate Vessel Fragments
Rounded rims 42 14 1
Folded rims   2   1   7 1
Unworked rims   6   1 1
Pushed-in or kicked bases 30   2
Flat bases   3
Solid stems 18   3
Hollow stems 10
Base-rings 3 2
Handles   1   3 1
Decorated body fragments   2 3
Totals 86 19 18 25 2 7

1. These rims could easily belong to goblets or lamps as well as beakers. The bases could belong to beakers or flasks.

rims; goblets in green, bluish green, and amber
glass, all with a slender, smooth profile; and
flasks with simple conical and cylindrical rims,
apparently without handles, and occasionally
decorated with spiral trails. While these objects
cannot be closely dated by their excavation con-
text, many of the forms can be dated to the sixth
century or later (e.g., goblets, stems of lamps
for polycandela), and the overall character of
these vessels is quite similar to that found in the
sixth-century layers of the SVR.
The goblets highlight the close relationship be­
tween the underground Christian burial cham-
bers in the East Cemetery’s northern expansion
and the deposits that covered C3. Goblets, found
at this excavation site only in these two areas

63

This content downloaded from

78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
and not in other burial areas or in the stratified
layers inside C3, do not appear before the end of
the fifth century. They are a characteristic find
of the sixth- to seventh-century Byzantine period
in North Africa.50 Despite this difference in form,
however, vessels from the SVR of the Christian
burial area are quite similar in supposed func-
tion to glass from the earlier, more southerly
burial areas, with vessels usually employed for
drinking and serving liquids predom­inant.
Commemorative Drinking Rituals
at the East Cemetery?
Glass from the East Cemetery at Leptiminus
suggests that mourners performed rituals or
drank (and possibly dined) there to commemo-
rate their dead, almost certainly in the Christian
period from the fifth to late sixth centuries, and
perhaps even over the entire period of the cem-
etery’s use, beginning in the late second or third
century.51 The changes visible in the increased
presence of glass in Christian burial areas at the
East Cemetery parallel changes present in other
patterns of behavior at the same site, particu-
larly the shift from burial in the southern half
of the cemetery, in graves both at the level of
the surface and underground, to burial in the
north­ern half of the cemetery, exclusively in un-
derground spaces. These changes may provide
insight into the nature of the shift toward Chris-
tian beliefs in the region.
The findspots of the glass vessels—both in-
side tombs and outside them in nonburial con-
texts formed during the cemetery’s use—could
indicate that drinking or other ritual activities
using drinking and serving vessels took place
at the time of the funeral and after the tomb
had been sealed and completed. Few vessels are
found in tombs in either the Roman or the
Christian areas of the cemetery (Figs. 4 and 5),
but they suggest a relationship to drinking and
perhaps also to eating (or to other rituals em-
ploying such vessels): eight beakers (four in each
sector), two flasks (one in each sector), and one
plate (in the Christian sector). Anointing the
body or the pyre during the funeral and burying
64
This content downloaded from
78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
the deceased with glass objects of personal
adornment are practices possibly evidenced via
the glass in only two graves (two possible toilet
bottles in C2 [Fig. 6.21, .22] and two pieces of
jewelry in a Christian grave [Fig. 5.7, .8]), al-
though some of the drinking or pouring vessels
found in the tombs may have been used to anoint
corpses or deposited as grave gifts.52
Finds of glass from outside burial areas, par-
ticularly those in the Christian catacombs, sug-
gest the presence of living visitors at the site who
used these vessels as props in longstanding ritu-
als of piety.53 The glass found in nonburial con-
texts—15 vessels from the Roman area (Figs. 7
and 8) and 62 from the redeposited strata in the
Christian SVR (Figs. 9 and 10)—probably indi-
cates that drinking or other ritual activities in-
volving wine took place at the cemetery at times
when the tombs were generally not open.
The glass evidence from the SVR suggests
that vessels used in later rituals (Figs. 9 and 10)
were similar to those deposited in the tombs
(Fig. 5.4–.6, .9–.12), with drinking and serving
vessels predominant. Evidence for the earlier pe-
riod is fragmentary and difficult to interpret, al-
though the absence of such drinking and serving
50. Danièle Foy, “Le Verre en Tunisie: L’Apport des fouilles
récentes tuniso-françaises,” Journal of Glass Studies, v. 45,
2003, pp. 59–89, esp. p. 73.
51. The well-known “Totenmahl” motif in visual media from
the classical world suggests that the meals and drinking (or re-
lated rituals) regularly occurred near graves (Dunbabin [note 5],
pp. 103–140); Monnica’s regular pious visits to the cemetery
(Augustine [note 10]) suggest a similar location.
52. It has been suggested, regarding fusiform toilet bottles,
that broken vessels in Romano-British tombs are symbols of
funerary ritual, not grave gifts per se (Cool [note 29], p. 146).
Vessels that are substantially complete are frequently interpreted
as grave gifts (cf. Philippe Leveau, “Une mensa de la nécropole
occidentale de Cherchel,” Karthago, v. 18, no. 1, 1978, pp. 127–
131 and pl. XXV–XXXI, esp. p. xxix, no. 2, and p. xxxi, nos.
3 and 4). Certainly no reconstructible or substantially complete
vessels have been identified among glass finds from the East
Cemetery at Leptiminus, although this might be a result of buri-
al processes and structures at the site rather than ritual activity.
53. Acts of piety are not, of course, limited to relatively
ephemeral commemoration; the location and position of the
grave and the construction of permanent markers also served to
maintain or publicly establish the connection between the de-
ceased and the living community (see, for example, Stevens
[note 23], pp. 98–101).
vessels in nonburial contexts in the hypogea of
C1 and C2 may indicate that commemorative
rituals took place aboveground. Another type
of commemoration could have occurred in the
hypogeum in C2, where many lamps were found
in association with burials (Fig. 6.13–.20), but
those glass vessels make it clear, even in the ab-
sence of ironclad stratigraphy (discussed above),
that such activity occurred in the sixth or early
seventh century, not during the second and
third centuries, when most of the cemetery’s
southern sector was initially used.
As residents of Leptiminus changed their
place of burial in the fifth and sixth centuries,54
so also they apparently changed the location of
their commemorative activities, moving into the
underground SVR of the cemetery’s northern
expansion. In this burial area, commemorative
rit­uals apparently took place near the graves,
and not at the surface. If this represents a change
from the earlier practice, it may be explained by
the lack of a surface-level structure or enclosure
in the Christian area, unlike those enclosures
found around the Roman spaces. Although we
lack stratigraphic resolution to support this
sup­position, it is possible that one of the rooms
underground served as a gathering space for
commemorative rituals, as the surface-level com­
pounds and grave markers possibly did during
the Roman period. Provision for lighting the
commemorative activity in the Christian rooms
and tunnels can be seen in the glass lamps exca-
vated in the SVR (Fig. 10.96) and found in the
Christian debris nearby (at least 25 examples).
Glass lamps may well have been permanently
installed in these underground areas; some evi-
dence for this has been recovered in the same
general area.55
There is little evidence for the Roman period
that glass vessels used in commemorative ritu-
als were stored near the graves themselves. In-
deed, the glass finds from the southern area are
so frag­mentary that it is tempting to see in them,
particularly in the fragments from C3 (Fig.
7.24–.29), a practice of leaving at the cemetery
only vessels broken accidentally during use, al-
though, with such a small assemblage of only 16
This content downloaded from
78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
vessels (Table 2: Roman nonburial contexts),
this suggestion can be little more than specula-
tion. Clearer evidence about the location of ves-
sel storage appears in the evidence from the
SVR; beginning in the fifth or sixth century, it
may have become accepted practice, at this cem-
etery at least, to store there vessels intended for
use in commemorative rituals.
Several identical groups of vessels can be dis-
cerned among the glass evidence in the Chris-
tian SVR, suggesting that the vessels were made
at the same time or in the same glass workshop.
The most ob­ vious of these are two related
groups of goblets and a group of beakers with
pushed-in bases. As noted above, one group in-
cludes at least 17 naturally colored green gob-
lets (Fig. 9.65–.75, .79–.84),56 and three goblets
with blue stems and greenish bowls (Fig. 9.76–
.78) form a similar group. At least two beakers
with pushed-in bases from the SVR (Fig. 9.60,
.61), and two additional ones from the Chris-
tian debris over C3,57 may make up another
group of drinking vessels.
In most instances in which sets of drinking
vessels have been identified by careful excava-
tion, several drinking vessels (beakers and cups)
accompany a serving vessel (flask or pitcher);
sometimes a plate or bowl is also included.58
Drinking sets may also have been grouped ac-
cording to function rather than appearance, be-
cause in other contexts, sets are sometimes found
with vessels made in several different colors of
54. Ben Lazreg and others [note 2].
55. These objects include bronze chains, rings, and hooks,
possibly used for suspending the lamps (Stirling and Moore
[note 2]). They will be published among the S304 small finds by
Olfa Ben Aicha.
56. It is unclear whether the two taller, thinner goblets (Fig.
9.83, .84) represent a variation of this set or a distinct group.
57. These objects are not illustrated.
58. Sets of glass tableware have been found at domestic sites
widely separated by time and space, including first-century
Herculaneum, fourth-century Karanis in Egypt (E. Marianne
Stern, “Roman Glassblowing in a Cultural Context,” Ameri-
can Journal of Archaeology, v. 103, no. 3, 1999, pp. 441–484,
esp. pp. 471–472), and fourth–fifth-century Petra (Daniel
Keller, “Die Gläser aus Petra,” in Petra, Ez Zantur: Ergebnisse
der Schweizerisch-Liechtensteinischen Ausgrabungen, v. 3, Terra
archaeologica, no. 5, Mainz: P. von Zabern, 2006, pp. 1–251
and plates, esp. on pp. 142–163).
65
glass or with variations in decorative tech-
nique.59 But there is some evidence to suggest
that glass was regularly bought in groups or sets
of similarly colored and decorated items,60 as
apparently occurred at Leptiminus at least in the
case of the 15–17 green goblets and the three
blue and green goblets from the SVR. Looking
more broadly at this glass, nearly all of the
drinking and serving vessels are of naturally col-
ored greenish glass, and all of them were prob-
ably employed at approximately the same time.
We could therefore consider that the 46 beak­
ers and goblets, as well as the 11 flasks (Fig.
10.85–.95), constitute a large drinking set that
was intended to accommodate many people at
the same time.61 The identification of three large
plates or bowls (Fig. 10.97–.99) among the glass
from the SVR does not detract from this in­
terpretation, because visual representations of
din­ing practices indicate that many banqueters
typi­cally shared plates, while each person had
an individual cup for wine or other beverages.62
The presence of many identical vessels—making
up several small sets or one large set—in the
SVR strongly suggests that sets were stored in
the underground chambers of the Christian sec-
tor of the cemetery. This is more likely than that
Christian visitors to the underground graves
discarded their broken glass vessels among the
tombs that they had previously positioned and
59. Krystyna Gawlikowska, “Glass Finds from the Mithrae-
um in Hawarte,” Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean, v.
21, 2012, pp. 496–503, esp. pp. 496–501; Keller [note 58], pp.
143–147.
60. Stern [note 58], p. 471.
61. It is, of course, possible that some of these vessels may
have been used as lamps, because the forms are frequently in-
distinguishable (see Foy [note 49]), but vessels functioning spe-
cifically as lamps have also been identified from the SVR and
the related Christian debris over Compound 3 (see Table 3).
62. For individual drinking vessels, see Katherine M. D.
Dunbabin, “Wine and Water at the Roman Convivium,” Jour-
nal of Roman Archaeology, v. 6, 1993, pp. 116–141; for shared
plates, see idem [note 5], pp. 150–163.
63. Many of the graves in the Christian areas of the East
Cemetery are covered with elaborate—and probably costly—
funerary mosaics (see Ben Lazreg and others [note 2]).
64. Cf. Keller [note 58], pp. 148–149 for storage contexts in
a fourth-century house. For storing objects in churches, see
Zbigniew T. Fiema, “Storing in the Church: Artefacts in Room I
66
This content downloaded from
78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
decorated with such care.63 Instead, the vessels
were probably stored in or near the burial areas,
close to where they were used.
Nearby storage is familiar from the excava-
tions of both houses and ritual spaces.64 While
the underground cham­bers at the East Cemetery
in Leptiminus are neither house nor church, they
are related to both: cemetery sites regularly in-
clude furnishings more familiar from domestic
contexts, especially dining furniture. And ritual
spaces, particularly Christian churches, often
included burial areas, even when the primary
purpose of the structures was nonfunerary.
It is not unrealistic, then, to suggest that
Chris­tian visitors to the underground burial
areas at Leptiminus were inclined to store their
glass drinking sets where they regularly and re-
peatedly used them. After the burial chambers
and tunnels went out of use, many pieces from
the glass drinking sets were deposited in the
SVR, and some were probably later removed as
debris.65
While it cannot be definitively determined,
it is tempting to see, in the large number of
glass vessel finds in the Christian areas, a sizable
group of pious cemetery visitors coming to-
gether to drink in memory of the dead.66 This is
particularly true if all of the glass vessels derive
from one large set rather than several small
ones.67 It is impossible to see obvious evidence
of the Petra Church,” in Objects in Context, Objects in Use,
ed. Luke Lavan and Ellen Swift, Late Antique Archaeology, no.
5, Leiden: Brill, 2007, pp. 607–623; and Vincent Michel, “Fur-
niture, Fixtures, and Fittings in Churches: Archaeological Evi-
dence from Palestine (4th–8th c.) and the Role of the Diakoni-
kon,” in ibid., pp. 581–606.
65. Such an explanation would account for the slightly bet-
ter state of preservation of the glass from the SVR and Chris-
tian debris, where a few joining fragments have been identified
and a few profiles tentatively reconstructed.
66. Growth in the audience for funerary commemoration is
noted in literary sources and archaeological evidence from
North African churches: Ann Marie Yasin, “Funerary Monu-
ments and Collective Identity: From Roman Family to Christian
Community,” The Art Bulletin, v. 87, no. 3, 2005, pp. 433–457,
esp. pp. 447–451.
67. The similarity, for example, between the forms of the
green goblets and the blue and green goblets might allow them
to be seen as a single set with a few distinct pieces, perhaps re-
served for the use of a few members of the group.
of drinking sets in the glass fragments from the
southern sector of the cemetery at Leptiminus,
given the small assemblage, but many sets from
domestic and ritual contexts include just a few
drinking cups, and images of banquets regu-
larly show fewer than 10 diners with individual
cups.68 Funerary observances expanded in the
Christian period, however, as martyrs and cler-
gy came to be seen as members of the wider
church family and thus, in some senses, as the
ancestors of ordinary Christians.69 Thus, com-
memorative drink­­­ing at important tomb sites
may have begun to involve larger groups than
the commemorative rituals of traditional Ro-
mans. While there is no evidence of martyrs’
graves at Leptiminus, it is entirely possible, fol-
lowing the evidence of Augustine’s mother,
Monnica, and other Christian testimonia cited
above, that a fairly large group of Christians
gathered in the cemetery at intervals to com-
memorate their dead collectively.
The glass vessels excavated at the cemetery
do not seem to be related to the celebration of
the Christian Eucharist. Although tomb paint-
ings of dining in the Christian catacombs at
Rome have sometimes been interpreted as de-
picting the liturgical feast, such explanations
have generally been rejected by modern schol-
ars because the scenes are so similar to motifs
found in pagan tomb contexts.70 Eucharistic cel-
ebrations at the tomb are rarely mentioned in
African contexts; Augustine specifically notes
that Italians who celebrate the Eucharist at a
tomb, in the presence of a corpse, do so in con-
trast to the normal African practice.71 Accord-
ing to papyrological sources and archaeological
finds, the liturgical apparatus for the Eucharist
generally included one or more chalices, along
with patens and other utensils. But it was prob-
ably rare for any but the largest churches to use
multiple chalices during the Eucharist. Even
some small, rural churches possessed liturgical
vessels in precious metal, and glass vessels do
not specifically feature in inventories of litur­gical
objects from eastern provinces.72 Storage areas
not far from the altar in Byzantine churches are
the typical location for the Eucharistic objects,73
This content downloaded from
78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
and neither an altar nor such a securable storage
area was noted in the excavated underground
burial area at Leptiminus.
It seems unlikely, therefore, that the vessels
from Leptiminus would have been used in the
celebration of the Eucharist in the underground
burial chambers of the northern sector of the
East Cemetery. Instead, these vessels were appar­
ently stored at the cemetery for use in the regu-
lar practice of commemorating the dead with
feasting, probably using the few large dishes
(Fig. 10.97–.99) as communal food dishes and
drinking wine or other beverages from the gob-
lets and beakers (Fig. 9.38–.84). Underground
lighting provided by hanging lamps (Fig. 10.96;
similar vessels were found in quantity among
debris above C3 [see Table 3]) afforded oppor-
tunities to dine and drink close to the deceased.
Underground lighting in the hypogeum of C2
(Fig. 6.13–.20), typologically dated to the late
sixth or early seventh century, may indicate that
the Christian community also visited earlier bur­
ial sites in the southern sector of the East Cem-
etery. Perhaps they recognized the grave of one
or more fellow Christians among the graves of
the hypogeum.
While no glass evidence suggests that fifth-
and sixth- to early seventh-century visitors
drank in this hypogeum, the presence of so
many lamps perhaps suggests the hypogeum of
C2 as another nexus of Christian commemo­
ration, with the lamps offered as another sort
68. Gawlikowska [note 59]; Keller [note 58], p. 145, table
51; Dunbabin [note 62]; Février [note 5], pp. 31–34.
69. Jensen [note 5], pp. 126–128, citing Cyprian Epp. 12.2.1
and 39.3.1. Février ([note 5], pp. 42–43) highlights the rela-
tionship between Christian charity or euergetism and funerary
feasts.
70. Jensen [note 5], pp. 120–124; Février [note 5]; Dunbabin
[note 5].
71. Augustine [note 10], 9.12.32; Jensen [note 5], p. 134;
Augustine, Sermones 361.6, cited in Éric Rebillard, “Church and
Burial in Late Antiquity,” Transformations of Religious Prac-
tices in Late Antiquity, trans. Aaron Pelttari, Variorum Collected
Studies Series, no. CS1028, Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate, 2013,
pp. 227–249, esp. pp. 244–245.
72. Béatrice Caseau, “Objects in Churches: The Testimony
of Inventories,” in Lavan and Swift [note 64], pp. 554–558 and
574–576.
73. See Fiema [note 64]; and Michel [note 64].
67
 of memorial to the deceased, as early Christian
leaders urged.74
From the inception of the East Cemetery at
Leptiminus, visitors to the cemetery may have
commemorated their dead near the tombs with
rituals related to drinking or pouring libations.
In the early Christian period, the practice of
commemoration with rituals related to drink-
ing became prominent, and perhaps more fre-
quent than in the Roman period. This is sig-
naled at Leptiminus in the combination of stor-
ing vessels near the tombs, using large sets of
nearly identical vessels possibly purchased for
this purpose, and perhaps gathering larger
groups of celebrants together for such rituals.
Limited, circumstantial evi­dence from the Ro-
man period at the cemetery suggests that this
Christian commemorative activity retained the
spirit of the Roman practice and transferred it
to a new religious context.75 Despite literary
evidence that suggests disapproval of commem-
orative banqueting and drinking—and the as-
sociated rowdy behavior—by church authori-
ties, the Christian citizens of Leptiminus prob-
ably considered regular visits to, and drinking
beside, the tombs of their loved ones to be an
important part of the honor due to the dead, re-
gardless of the origins of the practice in tradi-
tional Roman religious observances.
Allison E. Sterrett-Krause
Assistant Professor of Classics
College of Charleston
Charleston, South Carolina
sterrettkrauseae@cofc.edu

74. Constantine, “Oration to the Assembly of the Saints,”
12: “For as the martyr’s life is one of sobriety and obedience to
the will of God, so is his death an example of true greatness and
generous fortitude of soul. Hence it is followed by hymns and
psalms, words and songs of praise to the all-seeing God: and a
sacrifice of thanksgiving is offered in memory of such men, a
bloodless, a harmless sacrifice, wherein is no need of the fra-
grant frankincense, no need of fire; but only enough of pure
light to suffice the assembled worshipers” (trans. Schaff and
Wace, 1890).
75. Similar patterns of continuity are evident between other
traditional Roman and early Christian rituals and behaviors,
such as the use of commemorative architecture (Stevens [note
23], p. 103) and the differential treatment of deceased children
(Norman [note 34]; de Larminat, “Le Mobilier” [note 34]; idem,
“Gestes” [note 34]).

APPENDIX
Catalog of Selected Glass Vessels and Findspots from the East Cemetery, Leptiminus

Object Glass Context

No. Form Color Description Date Comparanda Location Context Type
1
1 Base: Bluish green Hollow tubular 2nd–3rd c. F.K. no. 409; Unwalled Fill around
beaker, base-ring or later Corning nos. cemetery Grave G-012
flask, or 99 and 150 earth (inhumation)
bowl
2 Flask Light green Two fragments: 3rd–4th c. F. K. nos. Unwalled Burned earth
rounded, or later 291 and 664; cemetery beneath
outsplayed Louvre2 nos. earth Grave G-071
conical rim; 1049 and (cremation)
pushed-in base 1052

1. F.K. = Sylvia Fünfschilling, “Gläser aus die Grabungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts in Karthago: Die Grabungen
‘Quartier Magon’ und Rue Ibn Chabâat, sowie kleinere Sondagen,” Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen in Karthago, v. 3,
ed. Friedrich Rakob, Mainz: P. von Zabern, 1999, pp. 435–529.
2. Louvre = Arveiller-Dulong and Nenna [note 35].

68

This content downloaded from

78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Object Glass Context
No. Form Color Description Date Comparanda Location Context Type
3 Base: Colorless Pushed-in ? Close C3 Above plaster
beaker base, possibly parallels fill over
or flask? with carinated unknown. skeleton in
walls(?) or Possibly S.C.3 Grave G-077
applied foot(?). no. 115 (inhumation)
Finished edge
preserved at
top (?); bottom
also finished; no
obvious breaks
indicating where
walls might have
been attached.
Faint annular
pontil mark
on concave
(bottom?)
surface
4 Beaker Bluish green Articulated 5th c. F.K. nos. Christian Inside burial
rounded rim 235–237 SVR fill with
with truncated skeleton
conical walls LL2704
(inhumation)
5 Beaker, Bluish green Outfolded rim 4th–7th c. F.K. nos. 269 Christian Inside burial
bowl, or and 274; SVR fill with
lamp F.SJ.4 nos. skeleton
49–51 LL2704
(inhumation)
6 Beaker Greenish Two fragments: 5th–6th c. Rim: F.K. nos. Christian Inside burial
or bowl rounded rim 235–237; SVR fill with
on a and base-ring; base: TB.S.5 skeleton
high presumed to nos. 24, 25 LL2704
foot be same vessel, (inhumation)
based on visual
inspection
of color and
weathering

3. S.C. = Mara Sternini, “I vetri provenienti dagli scavi della missione italiana à Cartagine (1973–1977),” Journal
of Glass Studies, v. 41, 1999, pp. 83–103.
4. F.SJ. = Foy [note 41].
5. TB.S. = Veronica A. Tatton-Brown, “The Glass,” in Excavations at Carthage: The British Mission, v. 1, The Avenue
du President Habib Bourguiba, Salammbo, ed. Henry R. Hurst, Sheffield, U.K.: University of Sheffield, Department
of Prehistory and Archaeology, 1984, pp. 194–212.

69

This content downloaded from

78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Object Glass Context
No. Form Color Description Date Comparanda Location Context Type
7 Ring Bright green Small, flat 1st c. or Corning6 nos. Christian Inside burial
bezel circular piece later 996–1002 SVR fill with
with cut edges skeletons
LL2703
(inhumations)
8 Bead: Black? Small round 1st c. or Israel7 no. Christian Inside burial
horned bead with later 109; S.C. no. SVR fill with
or applied dots of 158 skeletons
spotted? dark, probably LL2703
opaque color all (inhumations)
over its surface
9 Beaker Greenish Cylindrical 4th–6th c. Isings8 Christian Inside burial
beaker with 106/109; SVR fill with
everted, F.Tun.9 no. skeletons
cracked-off rim 37; F.K. nos. LL2703
208–222 (inhumations)
10 Beaker Greenish Rounded rim 4th–6th c. F.K. nos. Christian Inside burial
or bowl with cylindrical 646–648 SVR fill with
or (truncated?) skeletons
conical walls LL2703
(inhumations)
11 Beaker Greenish Rounded 4th–6th c. F.K. nos. Christian Inside burial
or bowl rim with 141–142b SVR fill with
(truncated?) skeletons
conical walls LL2703
(inhumations)
12 Flask Greenish Conical rounded 5th–6th c. F.K. nos. Christian Inside burial
rim, funnel- 293–294 SVR fill with
shaped neck, skeletons
sloping shoulder LL2703
(inhumations)
13 Lamp or Bluish green Outfolded rim 6th–7th c. F.K. nos. 269, Hypogeum Fill over
beaker 270; F.SJ. nos. of C2 skeleton inside
49–51 Grave G-067
(inhumation)

6. Corning = David Whitehouse, Roman Glass in The Corning Museum of Glass, v. 1, Corning: the museum, 1997.
7. Israel = Maud Spaer and others, Ancient Glass in the Israel Museum: Beads and Other Small Objects, Jerusalem: the museum, 2001.
8. Isings = Clasina Isings, Roman Glass from Dated Finds, Gronigen: J. B. Wolters, 1957.
9. F.Tun. = Foy [note 50].

70

This content downloaded from

78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Object Glass Context
No. Form Color Description Date Comparanda Location Context Type
14 Goblet Bluish green Conical body 6th c. F.K. nos. Hypogeum Fill inside
or lamp over very 534–538, 768 of C2 burial
slender, solid structure of
stem pulled out Grave G-065
from main mass (inhumation)
of glass
15 Lamp Bluish green Hollow stem 7th c. F.SJ. no. 50 Hypogeum Fill inside
with rounded, of C2 burial
thickened base; structure of
pontil scar on Grave G-065
bottom (inhumation)
16 Lamp Greenish Hollow stem 7th c. F.SJ. no. 50 Hypogeum Fill inside
with rounded, of C2 burial
thickened base; structure of
pontil scar on Grave G-065
bottom (inhumation)
17 Lamp Greenish Hollow stem 7th c. F.SJ. no. 50 Hypogeum Fill inside
with rounded, of C2 burial
thickened base; structure of
small, irregular Grave G-065
mass of glass, (inhumation)
used to attach
pontil to vessel
base during
manufacture,
retained on base
18 Lamp Bluish green Two fragments: 7th c. F.SJ. no. 50 Hypogeum Disturbed fill
body and of C2 over disturbed
bottom of Grave G-061
carinated bowl (inhumation)
19 Lamp Bluish green Three 7th c. F.SJ. no. 50 Hypogeum Fill over
fragments: of C2 skeleton inside
body, bottom of disturbed
carinated bowl, Grave G-061
and hollow stem (inhumation)
with rounded,
thickened base.
Lead ribbon
wick holder
found in same
context (not
illustrated)

71

This content downloaded from

78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Object Glass Context
No. Form Color Description Date Comparanda Location Context Type
20 Lamp Greenish Hollow stem 7th c. F.SJ. no. 50 Hypogeum Fill inside
with rounded, of C2 burial
thickened base; structure of
pontil scar on disturbed
bottom Grave G-061
(inhumation)
21 Toilet Green Hollow stem 3rd–4th c. Louvre nos. Hypogeum Fill inside
bottle(?) with thin, or 7th c. 1153–1155, of C2 burial
or lamp rounded base; 1287; cf. F.SJ. structure of
pontil scar on nos. 49–55 disturbed
bottom Grave G-061
(inhumation)
22 Toilet Green Hollow stem 3rd–4th c. Louvre nos. Hypogeum Fill inside
bottle(?) with thin, or 7th c. 1153–1155, of C2 burial
or lamp rounded base; 1287; cf. F.SJ. structure of
pontil scar on nos. 49–55 disturbed
bottom Grave G-061
(inhumation)
23 Beaker Bluish green Rounded rim 4th–6th c. Isings C2 Nonburial
with cylindrical 106/109; F.K. context in
or truncated nos. 646–648 C2; primary
conical walls deposition?
24 Base: Greenish Cylindrical, 4th–6th c. F.K. no. 397; C3 Nonburial
beaker slightly pushed- S.C. nos. context in
or flask in base 110–112 northwest
corner of C3;
primary or
secondary
deposition
25 Rim: Greenish Narrow, 4th–6th c. F.K. no. 670; C3 Nonburial
beaker rounded H.BK.10 no. context in
or flask cylindrical rim 41 northwest
corner of C3;
primary or
secondary
deposition

10. H.BK. = John W. Hayes, “The Glass Finds (1990),” in Susan T. Stevens and others, Bir el Knissia at Carthage:
A Rediscovered Cemetery Church. Report, Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series, no. 7,
Ann Arbor, Michigan: Kelsey Museum, 1993, pp. 289–294.

72

This content downloaded from

78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Object Glass Context
No. Form Color Description Date Comparanda Location Context Type
26 Flask Greenish Narrow, 4th–6th c. Isings C3 Nonburial
rounded rim, 106/109; F.K. context in
slightly funnel- nos. 646–648 northwest
shaped corner of C3;
primary or
secondary
deposition
27 Flask Greenish Handle attached 4th c. or F.K. no. 355; C3 Nonburial
to small later Louvre no. context in
fragment of 1011 northwest
funnel-shaped, corner of C3;
infolded rim primary or
secondary
deposition
28 Flask Greenish Thick, infolded 1st–3rd c. F.K. no. 673; C3 Nonburial
(or rim, with or later possibly context in
toilet cylindrical neck Corning nos. northwest
bottle?) 261–264; corner of C3;
possibly primary or
Isings 82 secondary
deposition
29 Flask Greenish Thick, 4th–5th c. TB.S. no. 93 C3 Nonburial
outsplayed rim, context in
infolded and northwest
decorated with corner of C3;
two thin spiral primary or
trails secondary
deposition
30 Beaker Greenish Cracked-off rim 3rd–5th c. F.K. no. 210 Unwalled Nonburial
cemetery context near
earth C1, LL1238
31 Beaker Greenish Rounded 4th–6th c. Isings Unwalled Nonburial
rim with 106/109; F.K. cemetery context near
(truncated?) nos. 646–648 earth C1, LL1238
conical walls
32 Beaker Greenish Rounded rim 4th–6th c. F.K. nos. Unwalled Nonburial
with cylindrical 235–237 cemetery context near
walls earth C1, LL1238
33 Base: Greenish Pushed-in base 4th–6th c. F.K. no. 397; Unwalled Nonburial
beaker with cylindrical S.C. nos. cemetery context near
or flask walls 110–112 earth C1, LL1238

73

This content downloaded from

78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Object Glass Context
No. Form Color Description Date Comparanda Location Context Type
34 Beaker? Indeter- Extremely 4th–6th c. F.K. no. 652 Unwalled Nonburial
minate fragmentary cemetery context near
rounded rim earth C1, LL1265
with curved
body
35 Flask Greenish Outsplayed, 5th–7th c. F.K. nos. 293, Unwalled Nonburial
rounded rim 300 cemetery context near
earth C1, LL1298
36 Bowl Bluish green Rounded rim 1st–3rd c. F.K. no. 623; Unwalled Nonburial
and one thick F.CO.11 no. cemetery context near
rib of deep 45 earth C1, LL1206
ribbed bowl (?)
37 Base: Colorless Small coiled 4th–5th c. S.C. no. 103 Unwalled Nonburial
beaker, foot cemetery context near
bowl, or earth C2, LL1903
flask
38 Beaker, Greenish Outfolded rim 4th–7th c. F.K. no. 269; Christian Secondary
bowl, or and (truncated?) TB.CH.12 SVR deposition,
lamp conical walls no. 4 LL2011
39 Beaker, Greenish Outfolded rim 4th–7th c. F.K. no. 269; Christian Secondary
bowl, or and (truncated?) TB.CH. no. 4 SVR deposition,
lamp conical walls LL2011
40 Beaker, Greenish Outfolded rim 4th–7th c. F.K. no. 269; Christian Secondary
bowl, or and (truncated?) TB.CH. no. 4 SVR deposition,
lamp conical walls LL2011
41 Beaker, Greenish Outfolded rim 4th–7th c. F.K. no. 269; Christian Secondary
bowl, or and (truncated?) TB.CH. no. 4 SVR deposition,
lamp conical walls LL2011
42 Beaker, Greenish Outfolded rim 4th–7th c. F.K. no. 269; Christian Secondary
bowl, or and (truncated?) TB.CH. no. 4 SVR deposition,
lamp conical walls LL2011
43 Beaker, Greenish Outfolded rim 4th–7th c. F.K. no. 269; Christian Secondary
bowl, or and (truncated?) TB.CH. no. 4 SVR deposition,
lamp conical walls LL2013

11. F.CO. = Danièle Foy, “Le Verre,” in Carthage, colline de l’Odéon: Maisons de la rotonde et du cryptoportique
(recherches 1987–2000), ed. Catherine Balmelle and others, Collection de l’Ecole Française de Rome, no. 457,
Rome: Ecole Française de Rome, 2012, pp. 765–796.
12. TB.CH. = Veronica A. Tatton-Brown, “The Glass,” in Excavations at Carthage: The British Mission, v. 2, The Pottery
and Other Ceramic Objects from the Site, ed. Henry R. Hurst, Sheffield, U.K.: University of Sheffield, Department
of Prehistory and Archaeology, 1994, pp. 282–290.

74

This content downloaded from

78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Object Glass Context
No. Form Color Description Date Comparanda Location Context Type
44 Beaker Greenish Unworked, 4th–5th c. Isings Christian Secondary
slightly everted 106/109; F.K. SVR deposition,
rim with nos. 208, 209 LL2011
cylindrical walls
45 Beaker Greenish Unworked, 4th–5th c. Isings Christian Secondary
slightly everted 106/109; F.K. SVR deposition,
rim with nos. 208, 209 LL2011
cylindrical walls
46 Beaker Greenish Rounded 5th–6th c. F.K. no. 238; Christian Secondary
rim with H.BK.12 no. SVR deposition,
(truncated?) 32 LL2014
conical walls;
spiral trails on
body
47 Beaker Greenish Rounded 5th–6th c. F.K. no. 238; Christian Secondary
rim with H.BK. no. 32 SVR deposition,
(truncated?) LL2014
conical walls
48 Beaker Greenish Rounded 5th–6th c. F.K. no. 238; Christian Secondary
rim with H.BK. no. 32 SVR deposition,
(truncated?) LL2013
conical walls
49 Beaker Greenish Rounded 5th–6th c. F.K. no. 238; Christian Secondary
rim with H.BK. no. 32 SVR deposition,
(truncated?) LL2011
conical walls
50 Beaker Greenish Rounded 5th–6th c. F.K. no. 238; Christian Secondary
rim with H.BK. no. 32 SVR deposition,
(truncated?) LL2011
conical walls
51 Beaker Greenish Rounded 5th–6th c. F.K. no. 238; Christian Secondary
rim with H.BK. no. 32 SVR deposition,
(truncated?) LL2010
conical walls
52 Beaker Greenish Rounded 5th–6th c. F.K. no. 238; Christian Secondary
rim with H.BK. no. 32 SVR deposition,
(truncated?) LL2011
conical walls
53 Beaker Greenish Rounded 5th–6th c. F.K. no. 238; Christian Secondary
rim with H.BK. no. 32 SVR deposition,
(truncated?) LL2011
conical walls

75

This content downloaded from

78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Object Glass Context
No. Form Color Description Date Comparanda Location Context Type
54 Beaker Greenish Rounded 5th–6th c. F.K. no. 238; Christian Secondary
rim with H.BK. no. 32 SVR deposition,
(truncated?) LL2011
conical walls
55 Beaker Greenish Rounded 5th–6th c. F.K. no. 238; Christian Secondary
rim with H.BK. no. 32 SVR deposition,
(truncated?) LL2011
conical walls
56 Beaker Greenish Rounded 5th–6th c. F.K. no. 238; Christian Secondary
rim with H.BK. no. 32 SVR deposition,
(truncated?) LL2011
conical walls
57 Beaker Greenish Rounded 5th–6th c. F.K. no. 238; Christian Secondary
rim with H.BK. no. 32 SVR deposition,
(truncated?) LL2011
conical walls
58 Beaker Bluish green Low foot, 4th–6th c. F.K. no. 434; Christian Secondary
pinched out Isings 109? SVR deposition,
from main mass LL2014
of glass
59 Beaker Greenish Pushed-in base 4th–5th c. F.K. nos. Christian Secondary
with ovoid walls 397–401; SVR deposition,
H.BK. nos. LL2011
25–27
60 Beaker Indeter- Pushed-in base 4th–5th c. F.K. nos. Christian Secondary
minate with truncated 397–401; SVR deposition,
conical walls H.BK. nos. LL2011
25–27
61 Beaker Greenish Pushed-in base 4th–5th c. F.K. nos. Christian Secondary
with truncated 397–401; SVR deposition,
conical walls H.BK. nos. LL2011
25–27
62 Beaker Greenish Pushed-in base 4th–5th c. F.K. nos. Christian Secondary
with ovoid walls 397–401; SVR deposition,
H.BK. nos. LL2016
25–27
63 Beaker Greenish Pushed-in base 4th–5th c. F.K. nos. Christian Secondary
with ovoid walls 397–401; SVR deposition,
H.BK. nos. LL2011
25–27

76

This content downloaded from

78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Object Glass Context
No. Form Color Description Date Comparanda Location Context Type
64 Beaker Colorless Folded, disk- 4th c. or Corning no. Christian Secondary
shaped foot and later 176; TB.S. SVR deposition,
conical(?) walls no. 36 (?) LL2011
65 Goblet Greenish Short, smooth, Second F.Tun. nos. Christian Secondary
slender applied half of 44–49 (type SVR deposition,
stem, of same 6th c. A) LL2011
thickness
throughout,
above rounded,
inturned foot;
open bowl
above
66 Goblet Greenish Short, smooth, Second F.Tun. nos. Christian Secondary
slender applied half of 44–49 (type SVR deposition,
stem, of same 6th c. A) LL2011
thickness
throughout,
above rounded,
inturned foot;
broad open
bowl above
67 Goblet Greenish Short, smooth, Second F.Tun. nos. Christian Secondary
slender applied half of 44–49 (type SVR deposition,
stem, of same 6th c. A) LL2011
thickness
throughout,
above rounded,
inturned foot
68 Goblet Greenish Short, smooth, Second F.Tun. nos. Christian Secondary
slender applied half of 44–49 (type SVR deposition,
stem, of same 6th c. A) LL2011
thickness
throughout
69 Goblet Greenish Short, smooth, Second F.Tun. nos. Christian Secondary
slender applied half of 44–49 (type SVR deposition,
stem, of same 6th c. A) LL2011
thickness
throughout;
open bowl
above

77

This content downloaded from

78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Object Glass Context
No. Form Color Description Date Comparanda Location Context Type
70 Goblet Greenish Short, smooth, Second F.Tun. nos. Christian Secondary
slender applied half of 44–49 (type SVR deposition,
stem, of same 6th c. A) LL2011
thickness
throughout
71 Goblet Greenish Short, smooth, Second F.Tun. nos. Christian Secondary
slender applied half of 44–49 (type SVR deposition,
stem, of same 6th c. A) LL2011
thickness
throughout;
open bowl
above
72 Goblet Greenish Short, smooth, Second F.Tun. nos. Christian Secondary
slender applied half of 44–49 (type SVR deposition,
stem, of same 6th c. A) LL2011
thickness
throughout
73 Goblet Greenish Short, smooth, Second F.Tun. nos. Christian Secondary
slender applied half of 44–49 (type SVR deposition,
stem, of same 6th c. A) LL2011
thickness
throughout
74 Goblet Greenish Short, smooth, Second F.Tun. nos. Christian Secondary
slender applied half of 44–49 (type SVR deposition,
stem, of same 6th c. A) LL2011
thickness
throughout
75 Goblet Greenish Short, smooth, Second F.Tun. nos. Christian Secondary
slender half of 44–49 (type SVR deposition,
applied stem, 6th c. A) LL2011
probably of
same thickness
throughout
76 Goblet Polychrome: Short, smooth, Second F.Tun. nos. Christian Secondary
green bowl slender applied half of 44–49 (type SVR deposition,
and blue stem, of same 6th c. A); F.SJ. no. LL2011
stem thickness 29
throughout.
Stem is bright
blue, applied to
open green bowl

78

This content downloaded from

78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Object Glass Context
No. Form Color Description Date Comparanda Location Context Type
77 Goblet Polychrome: Short, smooth, Second F.Tun. nos. Christian Secondary
green bowl slender applied half of 44–49 (type SVR deposition,
and blue stem, of same 6th c. A); F.SJ. no. LL2011
stem thickness 29
throughout,
above rounded,
inturned foot.
Stem and foot
are bright blue,
applied to open
green bowl
78 Goblet Polychrome: Short, smooth, Second F.Tun. nos. Christian Secondary
green bowl slender applied half of 44–49 (type SVR deposition,
and blue stem, of same 6th c. A); F.SJ. no. LL2011
stem thickness 29
throughout,
above rounded,
inturned foot.
Stem and foot
are bright blue,
applied to open
green bowl
79 Goblet Greenish Short, smooth, Second F.Tun. nos. Christian Secondary
slender applied half of 44–49 (type SVR deposition,
stem, of same 6th c. A) LL2011
thickness
throughout,
above rounded,
inturned foot;
open bowl
above
80 Goblet Greenish Short, smooth, Second F.Tun. nos. Christian Secondary
slender applied half of 44–49 (type SVR deposition,
stem, of same 6th c. A) LL2011
thickness
throughout
81 Goblet Greenish Short, smooth, Second F.Tun. nos. Christian Secondary
slender applied half of 44–49 (type SVR deposition,
stem, of same 6th c. A) LL2011
thickness
throughout,
above rounded,
inturned foot;
open bowl above

79

This content downloaded from

78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Object Glass Context
No. Form Color Description Date Comparanda Location Context Type
82 Goblet Greenish Short, smooth, Second F.Tun. nos. Christian Secondary
slender applied half of 44–49 (type SVR deposition,
stem, of same 6th c. A) LL2014
thickness
throughout,
above rounded,
inturned foot;
open bowl
above
83 Goblet Greenish Smooth, slender Second F.Tun. nos. Christian Secondary
applied stem half of 44–49 (type SVR deposition,
6th c. A) LL2011
84 Goblet Greenish Smooth, slender Second F.Tun. nos. Christian Secondary
applied stem half of 44–49 (type SVR deposition,
above rounded, 6th c. A) LL2011
inturned foot;
open bowl
above
85 Flask Greenish Narrow 4th–6th c. F.K. nos. Christian Secondary
rounded rim 315–322 SVR deposition,
LL2011
86 Flask Greenish Narrow 4th–6th c. F.K. nos. Christian Secondary
rounded rim; 315–322 SVR deposition,
cylindrical walls LL2011
87 Flask? Greenish Narrow, 4th–6th c. F.K. nos. Christian Secondary
thin rounded 315–322 SVR deposition,
rim; slightly LL2012
outsplayed
cylindrical walls
88 Flask Greenish Narrow 4th–6th c. F.K. nos. Christian Secondary
rounded rim, 315–322 SVR deposition,
slightly rolled LL2012
in; cylindrical
walls
89 Flask Greenish Narrow 4th–6th c. F.K. nos. Christian Secondary
rounded rim, 315–322 SVR deposition,
slightly rolled LL2011
in; cylindrical
walls

80

This content downloaded from

78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Object Glass Context
No. Form Color Description Date Comparanda Location Context Type
90 Flask Greenish Narrow 4th–6th c. F.K. nos. Christian Secondary
rounded rim, 315–322 SVR deposition,
slightly rolled LL2011
in; cylindrical
walls
91 Flask Greenish Narrow, 4th–6th c. F.K. nos. Christian Secondary
thin rounded 315–322 SVR deposition,
rim; slightly LL2011
outsplayed
cylindrical walls
92 Flask Greenish Narrow 4th–6th c. F.K. nos. Christian Secondary
rounded rim, 315–322 SVR deposition,
slightly rolled LL2012
in; cylindrical
walls
93 Flask Greenish Tall, slender 4th c. or F.K. no. 355; Christian Secondary
handle, circular later Louvre no. SVR deposition,
in profile, with 1011 LL2011
fold at upper
attachment
94 Flask Greenish Tall, slender 4th c. or F.K. no. 355; Christian Secondary
handle, circular later Louvre no. SVR deposition,
in profile, with 1011 LL2011
fold at upper
attachment;
conical rounded
rim
95 Flask Greenish Tall, slender 4th c. or F.K. no. 355; Christian Secondary
handle, circular later Louvre no. SVR deposition,
in profile, with 1011 LL2011
fold at upper
attachment
96 Lamp Greenish Two fragments, 4th–7th c. Handles: F.K. Christian Secondary
possibly no. 524; rim: SVR deposition,
associated: two F.Tun. no. 84 LL2011
vertical ear-
shaped handles
with circular
profile; hollow
outfolded rim
and conical
walls

81

This content downloaded from

78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Object Glass Context
No. Form Color Description Date Comparanda Location Context Type
97 Plate or Greenish Large, hollow 4th c. or F.K. no. 156; Christian Secondary
large tubular base later Louvre no. SVR deposition,
bowl 974 LL2011
98 Plate or Greenish Outfolded 4th c. or F.K. no. 140; Christian Secondary
large conical rim later Louvre no. SVR deposition,
bowl 1195 LL2011
99 Plate or Greenish Outfolded 5th–7th c. F.K. nos. Christian Secondary
large conical rim 116–119, 135 SVR deposition,
bowl LL2012

82

This content downloaded from

78.178.189.24 on Tue, 07 Feb 2023 21:20:39 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms