Marisia - Maros Megyei Múzeum Évkönyve 31/1. (2011)
Articles
180 Sz. P. PÁNCZÉL six petals (1, 3 and 7-8). The similarities in the technical execution of four of the rosettes (1, 3, 5, and 7), the visible use of compass and sketch marks (1, 5, 7 and 8), the presence of similar decoration concepts, like the combination of rosette and circle (7 and 8) and the use of concave lines in the corners (6 and 7) seem also to be typical for this workshop. The fact that at least some of them have been used in the workshop is proved by the presence of glass working debris, but also by the black deposit of organic origin9 present on all of the pottery moulds (8 and 14-16) and at least two of the marble moulds (2 and 9). If the organic material was used to prevent the glass to be stuck on the moulds or it is only a side effect of the glass working process needs further analyses. The question is interesting if we look at the seven preserved moulds, which clearly do not have this kind of deposit (1, 3-7, 10). From these, one (7) is clearly an unfinished piece and three other (3-5) have a damaged surface in the decoration area. In some cases the damage could be also the result of the excavation method, but it is rather improbable that all the three are to be included in this category. So this may indicate that they have not been used at all, and their discovery is also a result of the fact that they are wasters of the mould production process. Still we have two mould base pieces (1 and 6) and one possible side piece (10) which do not have any black deposit and are in good condition.10 11 We can state anyway, that both types of moulds (ceramic and marble) having the same type of design were used in this workshop. As far as the workshop concerns, we have to underline the physical and probably chronological links between at least four different industrial activities, pottery production (including local samian ware production), bone working, stone carving and glass working, in the same building, and in some cases in the same room. The strong connections between different workshop activities can offer us a deep insight in the organization of such an officina which needed in some cases highly specialized workforce, but still coexisted under the same roof and maybe under the same ownership. About the distribution of the glass bottles produced in this workshop and the range of other glass vessels, which might have been produced here, it is very difficult to formulate a thesis, due to the fact that the glass material from this building is not available for analyses11 and there aren’t any similar bottle marks published from Dacia. We can state that probably in the moulds square (AR 156/1 50),12 rectangular (AR 157/1 90) and hexagonal (AR 158) bottles and square jars (AR 119/1 62) have been produced as storage and transport vessels and they might be found in other provinces as well. 9 Microscopic analysis where made at the Institute of Archaeology from the University College of London by prof. Dr. Thilo Rehren. 10 One of the explanations could be that the mould 1 has a prominent compass line around the rosette which might suggest that it was not fully completed; being intended to be polished later, so they might not used it at all. The mould 6 do not has any decoration in the centre, maybe it was intended to look like 7 but it was not finished neither. This question can be answered easily if glass bottles having these marks will be recovered. 11 The most complex paper about the glass vessels from Apulum (Bälutä 1985) presents a high number of glass unguentaria as possible local products, which cannot be excluded from the start, but only their good state of conservation determined the author to include them in the paper. 12 AR is for the typology of Augusta Raurica (Rütti 1991), and I is for the Isings typology made for the Roman Empire (Isings 1957). About the forms, see: Price-Cottam 1998,194-195 (square bottle); Price-Cottam 1998, 198-200 (hexagonal bottle); Price-Cottam 1998, 200-202 (rectangular bottle); Price-Cottam 1998,135-136 (square jars). For the functional categories of the glass bottles and jars, see: Lith-Randsborg 1985, 416, fig. 9-10; Rütti 1991,180-181, fig. 117-118. For the potential of the glass bottles to trace down interprovincial trade, see for example: Price 1978, 75-76.
