A great wealth of archaeological material is contained within unpublished museum collections that have never received scholarly attention. This thesis will shed light on one such hitherto unexamined collection of ancient glass. The catalogue and illustrations add these vessels to the greater corpus of glass artefacts available to archaeologists. Beyond cataloguing the material this study also reconstructs the history of the Damon Collection, addressing issues that pertain to many similar collections of ancient glass. Relevant topics are defined in two time-frames: the context in antiquity and the post-excavation history, stretching from the 19th century to the present day. In both areas this thesis’ main focus is on the concepts of value and reception with regard to the objects themselves and the people associated with them. Situating objects in their ongoing context allows for accessibility and relevance to a greater audience. This will ensure the continuing importance of the collection, better equipping the Canterbury Museum to utilise and display objects otherwise relegated to storage.

The present study largely concerns glass vessels produced in the eastern Mediterranean, mostly during the Roman period. The craft was already long- established throughout the ancient world; glass is the oldest man-made material. Before the advent of glassblowing, glass shaping was a more arduous process, using techniques like core-forming or casting. The technique of glassblowing was invented in the 1st-century B.C.E., a discovery attributed to Sidon. Production of raw glass, typically using Egyptian natron and local sand, continued to be centred in the eastern Mediterranean. While evidence is emerging for raw glass manufacture elsewhere, such as Britain and Germany, glass was traded from the Syro-Palestine area across the Roman Empire as well as locally. Although glass manufacture did not reach the same industrial scale as pottery, it nevertheless became ubiquitous throughout the Roman Empire. Understanding of ancient technology and artisans has increased with research into manufacture, tools and techniques. Much of this work comes from Marianne Stern, who has also built on Mary Trowbridge’s considerable study into Greek and Roman literary references to glass.

Reflecting the ubiquity of manufacture and use, glass vessels are widely represented in antiquity collections. Roman glass perhaps first gained wide attention when Luigi Palma di Cesnola excavated Cypriot tombs in the 1860s and 70s, bringing huge quantities of ancient glassware to the antiquities market. Many artefacts uncovered in this period did not come from scientifically conducted excavations. Their original context is usually undocumented and was often destroyed. Inaccurate and mistaken identifications are also rife, frequently reflecting the collector’s own cultural mores.

In the past century, identification methods have been developed to address problems of unknown provenance. Clasina Isings’ 1957 typology of glass vessels from dated finds was the beginning of systematic classification that aids the identification of vessels from uncontrolled excavations. This work has been built on with further studies and increased access to material. Odile Dussart in particular made a major contribution with her typology of glass from the eastern Roman Empire. This study has primarily drawn upon Véronique Arveiller-Dulong and Marie-Dominique Nenna’s catalogue of the Louvre collection, which includes objects from both the western and eastern Empire and throughout the Roman period. The vessels are identified with extensive reference to parallel finds. With the entirety of the Louvre collection photographed and a vast quantity illustrated, this is a valuable source for comparative dating. Where the original context is unknown comparative dating remains the only adequate method of identification. Where context is known glass vessels are dated based on other material from that context, as chemical analysis does not offer more precision and requires the destruction of the original form1.

The excavation context whence the items originate presents additional challenges for dating. Objects may have been made long before they were deposited in a tomb. They may have been handed down through generations as Augustine describes when he uses glass as a simile:

Are we not frailer than if we were glass? For even if glass is fragile, if cared for it lasts a long time, and you find grandsons and great-grandsons drinking out of the cups of their grandfathers and great-grandfathers. Such fragile objects have been preserved throughout the years. (Sermo. 18.7)

Bearing this in mind, the vessels here are dated no more precisely than within a century. The problems thus far outlined are typical of most material excavated prior to the 20th century and are inherent to the collection examined here. Although these are considerable challenges, the archaeological value of the material should not be dismissed.

Unbeknownst to most people, the Canterbury Museum possesses a significant collection of ancient glass. This assemblage largely comprises a collection from Tyre, Sidon, and Cyprus, which was the personal possession of English geologist and antiquarian Robert Damon (1814-1889). It was purchased by the Museum in 1901. The remainder includes gifts bestowed in the 1940s and 50s to the Museum, and a selection probably acquired during the tenure of the founding director, Julius von Haast.

Since its inception the Canterbury Museum has struggled to balance collection size and display capacity, as noted in a local newspaper article from 1874:

The additions have been of a very important character, and though not requiring a large amount of space for display, it was only by packing other specimens out of sight until such a time as the buildings are increased, that accommodation could be found for them. Unfortunately, this method has had to be resorted to for a considerable time past, and there is now an immense number of valuable specimens practically lost for the time being to the public, added to which any more will doubtless come to hand ere long with no prospect of a better fate.

This situation extended to the glass held by the Museum, a situation which doubtless contributed to the sparseness of documentation regarding items’ provenance and identification. Little known though the collection is, it is far from insignificant. A large portion is from the sites of Tyre and Sidon, important ancient cities on the coast of modern-day Lebanon. Archaeological work at both sites has been hampered by war, which has limited documentation and survival of finds. Excavation of Tyre’s cemetery at al-Bass conducted by Maurice Chéhab between 1959 and 1975 uncovered a significant amount of grave goods, including glass. The glass vessels were photographed and are among the published finds, though it can be difficult to match forms with certainty due to the lack of illustrations and measurements. While Chéhab’s efforts saved the collection of the National Museum of Antiquities in Beirut during Lebanon’s civil war (1975-1990), the finds from Tyre were lost, and their whereabouts are still unknown.

In time, further excavations will hopefully provide more information on vessels like those in the Damon Collection, and will correct any inaccuracies presented here. Robert Damon did not conduct controlled excavations; his artefacts were more likely serendipitous finds encountered in the process of seeking geological specimens. Nevertheless, thanks to his penchant for labelling, we have some indication of their provenance. This collection thus builds on existing knowledge of Roman glass from the Levantine coast and extends the foundations for future study.

Chapter Two delves into the nineteenth- and twentieth-century history of the collection. Focus is primarily on the Damon Collection, for it is better provenanced, but a similar story may be told of the glass acquired by and gifted to Julius von Haast, who founded and directed the Canterbury Museum in the same period (1867-1887). The circumstances of early excavations often constitute a point of ethical dilemma. It is important to moderate our modern standards with an understanding of the various motivations of past excavators. So, too, must we endeavour to understand how such work and its results were received by the public of the time, how archaeology and antiquity were considered in daily life beyond the class of Grand Tours and elite education. Robert Damon’s acquisitions came from both official excavations and his own explorations. The artefacts of the past influenced the present, and the ideas of the 19th century influenced the perception of the past that has been handed down to our present.

Chapter Three explores the value of glass in the Roman period through both literary and archaeological evidence. Value is a multi-faceted concept, tied to trade, utility, status, and aesthetics. Evidence from the Damon Collection suggests that desirable aspects of glass stressed in literary sources do not always translate to actual use. The collection also allows comparisons between the glass of two cities, offering insight on the similarities and differences apparent on the same stretch of Levantine coast. Both Empire-wide connections and local tastes are evident.

Part II is a catalogue of the ancient glass artefacts of the Canterbury Museum. The catalogue divides the Damon Collection from remaining pieces of varying provenances. Both groups of material are introduced with descriptions of origin and date referencing the parallel objects used to identify them. The final section of the catalogue deals with objects mis-identified as ancient Roman. To support this catalogue are appendices that address terminology used to describe ancient glassware, including forms and techniques, and contain archaeological illustrations of every vessel.