Abstract
The long time period covered by the Hostivice cemeteries of the fourth century, late fifth–mid-sixth centuries and tenth century makes it possible to study the development of glass beads from the Late Roman period to the Early Middle Ages. Chemical analyses confirmed that the beads from central Europe reflect the principal transition from natron to plant ash glass during the eighth–ninth centuries. This study also shows that the beads made from natron glass were still distributed in the ninth–tenth centuries when new types of beads were made from this glass. Some of these beads are products of central European glass-working, where they occur alongside imported beads. Apart from that, high-boron glass, high-lead glass and a faience bead were also present at Hostivice in the tenth century. Limitations of chemical analysis in the study of beads related to compositional subgroups of natron glass and connected with the large scale of recycling and to the heterogeneity of opaque glass of beads are discussed. The recognition of supraregional and local types of beads, together with the synthesis of chemical and archaeological data, allowed us to characterize the reciprocal relations between chemical groups of glass and the typology and manufacturing techniques of the beads.
We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.
Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.
Introduction
Bead research offers fertile ground for the study of culture, technical progress, economy of glass-making and glass-working and distribution of glass and glass products. Beads are a source of valuable information on the relations between centres of glass production in the Near East, the Mediterranean and continental Europe, as well as remote parts of the world. The broad range of topics studied requires a multidisciplinary approach and international collaborations.
Long-distance networks, as well as interregional contacts and the artefacts themselves, underwent numerous changes between the fourth and tenth centuries CE, the time period this study focuses on. Of key importance were the changes in raw materials and in technologies for glass production and recycling (Freestone 2015; Jackson and Paynter 2016; Gliozzo 2017; Phelps et al. 2016; Neri et al. 2018; Gratuze et al. 2021a, b). Natron glass dominated in the fourth to eighth centuries, with only a marginal representation of plant ash glass. This was followed by a transition to plant ash glass from the late eighth century contemporaneous to fundamental changes in glass production in Egypt and Palestine (Freestone 2021; Phelps et al. 2016; Schibille et al. 2019). Until the tenth century, high-lead glass played only a minor role in central and eastern Europe. An increase in its use is evident only from the eleventh century (Mecking 2013; Pankiewicz et al. 2017; Siemianowska et al. 2019; Steppuhn 1997). At the same time, efforts to produce glass independently of imports led to the search for local sources in western Europe during the Carolingian period in the eighth–ninth centuries. These came in the form of slag from the processing of silver–lead ores as raw material for high-lead glass (Gratuze et al. 2017; Schibille et al. 2020) and ashes of trees and perhaps other plants that were used for the production of wood ash glass (Wedepohl and Simon 2010; Pactat et al. 2017). The above-mentioned changes are well reflected in the glass finds from central Europe, including those from the Czech Republic (Černá and Tomková 2017; Galuška et al. 2012; Sedláčková 2020; Tomková et al. 2017).
Bohemia (Czech Republic) lies to the north of the Danube and was never part of the Roman Empire. However, elites in the Barbaricum had access to Roman goods, including glass products, as well as to items of a more remote provenance. Contacts between central, western and southern Europe and the Mediterranean continued during the Merovingian period. Even after the end of the western Roman Empire, there was a socially structured society in Bohemia that generated a demand for glass products. Necklaces of glass beads are common grave goods from the late fifth to mid-sixth centuries. This changed in the late sixth and seventh centuries, when central European culture was transformed in the wake of the ‘Slavic expansion’, which had a significant impact on all aspects of life, including a change in burial rites from inhumation to cremation (Jiřík 2012; Profantová 2012). The absence of cemeteries and the presence of only isolated graves in Bohemia along with a reduction in grave goods mean that glass beads from 550 to 700 are rarely found. This trend continued in the following period, when local elites formed, hillforts were built and cremation burials in barrows became widespread in certain parts of Bohemia. A major change was the transition to inhumation around the year 850, when necklaces again became a part of grave inventories after their absence for three centuries. Bohemia, which previously had neither a unifying centre nor a market and was ruled by several princes known from ninth-century written sources, became a duchy ruled solely by the Přemyslid princes residing in Prague in the tenth century. Prague was the location of an important long-distance trade market described by Ibrahim ibn Yaqub in the 960s. In the tenth century, Bohemia’s previous cultural orientation towards the Frankish Empire and Great Moravia was replaced by contacts with Bavarian dukes and German Ottonian kings, with the Piasts in Poland and the Arpáds in Hungary (Profantová 2009; Tomková et al. 2017).
While glass of the ninth–tenth centuries from Bohemia has previously been extensively studied (Košta and Tomková 2012; Tomková and Křížová 2017; Tomková et al. 2017), glass of the fourth–sixth centuries has been neglected and has only recently attracted the attention of archaeologists and chemists (Venclová et al. 2014; Tomková et al. 2021). Glass beads from the three neighbouring cemeteries at Hostivice in Bohemia, covering the period between the fourth and tenth centuries, are thus an ideal assemblage for studying the continuity and discontinuity of the development of glass ornaments in the Early Middle Ages.
Archaeological and historical background
The Hostivice site in central Bohemia (50° 4′ 57.273″ N, 14° 16′ 21.619″ E) was investigated in 2001–2011 (Fig. 1: G, M, P). This site is unique in that burial components from three periods of the first millennium CE (fourth century, late fifth/mid-sixth century and tenth century) have been uncovered side by side over an area of 7 hectares. A post-medieval cemetery (Fig. 1: PM; Daněček et al. 2014) excavated at the same site is beyond the scope of this paper. The site is a typical representative of cemeteries of all three periods studied. Unlike many other cemeteries excavated in the past, it was investigated recently using modern methods. Thanks to painstaking excavation including a flotation of grave fills, the number of acquired glass beads, which are often of very small size, is relatively high.
Hostivice. G, graves from the Late Roman (German) period; M, Merovingian cemetery; P, cemetery from the tenth century; PM, post-medieval cemetery
The Late Roman period is represented by two isolated graves from the fourth century CE in the Hostivice assemblage, designated as Hostivice G. In both cases, these were rich female inhumation graves with large quantities of glass beads, accompanied by amber beads. Grave 2536 contained 74 beads, selected specimens of which were cursorily analysed earlier (Sankot and Theune 2012). Grave 1574 contained 39 beads, the samples of which are investigated in this study.
The Hostivice M cemetery with its 92 inhumation row graves (91 + 1 isolated grave) is dated to the Merovingian period or the Late Migration period in the central European periodisation, meaning the late fifth to mid-sixth century CE. In relative chronology, the finds are dated to the Thuringian phase, E1, and the Langobard phase, E2 (Droberjar 2008). The cemetery is the second largest of its kind from this period in Bohemia. Thirty-seven graves yielded a total of 393 glass beads. Only in rare instances did the graves contain single specimens, but more frequently dozens of beads, with Grave 2368 containing the highest number of beads (n = 73). The assemblages from graves (necklaces) consist mainly of monochrome and polychrome glass beads, often supplemented by beads and pendants made from other materials such as amber, metal and stone.
From the Late Roman to the Merovingian period, there is a clear continuity in production techniques as well as in the colour and decoration of glass beads (Tempelmann-Mączyńska 1985, Table 8). Wound and drawn beads represent the predominant production technique in both periods. The beads were made individually or in series (‘segmented beads’), which involved cutting individual beads from a long tube (Siegmann 2006; Greiff and Nallbani 2008; Sode et al. 2010; Staššíková-Štukovská and Plško 2015). Another technique was sandwich glass, in which a metal foil was inserted (Pöche 2005; Greiff and Nallbani 2008). In both time periods, the beads were made from translucent or opaque glass, with a preference for some colours and their combinations, especially brownish red, yellow, black and green, as well as blue, which had remained popular since prehistoric times. Colourless or weakly coloured glass was also common. In addition to monochrome and polychrome beads of simple rounded forms, polyhedral beads (more common in the Roman period) and ribbed and segmented beads are also represented. Exceptionally large as well as miniature beads appear, ranging from 40 to 2 mm in diameter. Polychrome beads feature circular and linear decorations. This whole array is particularly characteristic for western and central Europe (Koch 1977; Tempelmann-Mączyńska 1985; Sasse and Theune 1996; Müller et al. 2010; Höke 2013; Venclová et al. 2014; Jiřík et al. 2015).
The Merovingian assemblage from Hostivice M fully corresponds to the above assortment. One difference is the absence of millefiori beads which have been found at contemporary cemeteries, although they are generally more frequent in the Roman period (cf. Volkmann and Theune 2001; Siegmann 2003). Specific forms were recorded among segmented beads: drawn beads with long segments, large black wound beads decorated with spots and very small, black, carelessly made wound segmented beads which rather look like semi-products or rejects, but are found, nevertheless, in necklaces.
The Hostivice P cemetery with its 150 inhumation graves arranged in rows (146 + 4 isolated graves) has been dated to the tenth century and represents a typical rural cemetery of this period in Bohemia. A total of 66 glass beads were preserved in 12 graves. The graves usually contain individual items and small assemblages, only Grave 2325 provided a necklace with 41 beads. The size range is relatively narrow, from a diameter of 5 to 16 mm. Miniature beads known from other Bohemian cemeteries are missing, while larger beads are represented by an olive bead. With a single exception, the assemblages consist of monochrome glass beads, accompanied in several cases by amber and carnelian beads. One faience specimen is an exceptional find.
All beads from Hostivice P belong to types found in early medieval Bohemian cemeteries from the period of 850–1000 CE (Černá et al. 2005; Tomková and Křížová 2017; Tomková et al. 2017). However, their typological spectrum is not as rich given the rural character of the cemetery. In contrast to the Merovingian beads from the Hostivice M cemetery, beads made from translucent monochrome glass generally dominate, and the colour palette is also smaller and includes colourless, green, honey-coloured and blue. The strong representation of blue over green beads is atypical for cemeteries in Bohemia. Opaque yellow glass is also present. Amber beads bring the orange colour to the necklaces instead of orange and opaque red glass beads. The combination of blue glass and amber beads in Hostivice indicates a local specificity. Rounded, annular and cylindrical glass beads usually accompany segmented beads. Compared to monochrome segmented beads, metal foiled segmented specimens are more frequent, with a golden or silvery appearance depending on whether the silver foil on the colourless body of a bead was covered by a colourless or weakly coloured (yellowish) glass (for more on this and other segmented bead production techniques, see e.g. Greiff and Nallbani 2008, Sode 2004; Sode et al. 2010; Siegmann 2006; Staššíková-Štukovská and Plško 2015; Stolyarova 2018). Segmented beads occur at both Hostivice P and Hostivice M cemeteries, though some variants known from the Merovingian period are missing in the tenth century such as long segments, large polychrome and small black beads.
The Hostivice cemeteries reflect different political-cultural events in the fifth–sixth centuries compared to the tenth century. The Merovingian period is tied to the collapse of antique structures, though it is possible to assume they continued into the fifth–sixth centuries, albeit threatened by migrations and transformed by local conditions. This is also reflected in the economic area (Drauschke 2019). It can be concluded from the study of cemeteries that the life of the fifth–sixth-century elites was not restricted to strongholds in central Europe. Based on historical and archaeological knowledge, high mobility is assumed, facilitated by the system of routes created in Roman times. Glass beads of the fifth–sixth centuries fit within the whole range of imports in Bohemia. In this context, it is necessary to point out various types of fibulae, Baltic amber and Indo-Pacific shells of the panther cowry (Cypraea pantherina), as well as the occurrence of Byzantine coins and other artefacts of the same origin (Droberjar 2008; Militký 2013; Profantová 2008, 2013). Interregional contacts between Bohemia, Thuringia, the Danube region and marginally even Bavaria can be documented (Jiřík 2012). Moreover, the presence of warriors from the Frankish Empire and ‘Germanic’ territories is considered in areas controlled by the Byzantine Empire (Fourlas 2019), as is the use of forces from Bohemia in Bavaria and Langobardic Pannonia (Kuna and Profantová 2005).
In contrast, the period of the tenth century is tied to the establishment of early medieval regna/realms in Bohemia, Poland and Hungary. Bohemia was linked through political and cultural relations, interregional exchange and long-distance trade with the Holy Roman Empire and regions settled by the Slavs in its eastern periphery, with the Carpathian Basin and the Middle Danube region to the south and southeast of Bohemia, and with Poland to the north. Bohemia was engaged in the slave trade and the exchange of silver, and glass beads were one of the reciprocal items. The existence of a socially differentiated society in Bohemia is reflected in the dynamically developing network of strongholds and in differences between the cemeteries of the elite related to strongholds and cemeteries of the people from rural settlements. Glass beads were available in both environments, though in different amounts. Imported beads and even those made in Bohemia and central Europe could have reached their users in this period not only directly but also through princely redistribution (Kalhous 2012; Profantová and Tomková 2018; Štefan 2021).
Materials and methods
Given the strong regional and interregional contacts between central European populations of all the periods studied across Europe and outside the continent, it is not surprising that the range of glass beads is very diverse in terms of their types and the production techniques used.
When selecting samples, we made sure that all the main types of beads and production techniques of the individual periods are represented because one of the goals of our study is to shed light on the relationship between the glass composition, manufacturing techniques and bead types. A total of 56 beads were chosen for analysis. The number of analyses is higher than the number of beads, as in the case of polychrome bead glasses of different colours were analysed whenever possible. Opacifiers and inclusions were also studied. As such, a total of 82 samples were analysed within the present study. The sampled beads are described in Table 1.
Hostivice G cemetery – Late Roman, fourth century, Grave 1574: 7 beads were selected out of the total of 39 beads. Monochrome translucent rounded, ribbed and polyhedral beads typical for the period were analysed, as were polychrome beads with prunts or linear decoration. All the beads were made using the winding technique.
Hostivice M cemetery – Merovingian, late fifth to mid-sixth centuries: 21 beads were analysed. There are two groups of beads in this assemblage. The first group contains beads specific for the Merovingian period such as various types of wound polychrome beads with circular and linear decoration; wound segmented beads – large polychrome and small monochrome items; and also drawn miniature beads. The second group includes types chronologically continuous from the Merovingian period to the Early Middle Ages, i.e. drawn segmented beads including specimens made from sandwich foiled glass and wound monochrome rounded and biconical beads.
Hostivice P cemetery – early medieval, tenth century: 28 beads were analysed. In view of the comparative objectives, the main focus was on chronologically continuous types such as globular, rounded, annular, cylindrical and segmented beads. In the case of technologically variable segmented beads, those representing different manufacturing techniques were chosen. Drawn segmented beads and beads made using a sandwich technique with metal foil rank among traditional products. Blown segmented beads and segmented beads wound on a metal tube represent innovation in the Early Middle Ages. The latter beads, as well as ribbed olive and some globular beads wound on a tube, flat oval beads and a special variant of polychrome beads with crossed trails and dots, do not occur in Bohemia until the second half of the ninth century and the tenth century at inhumation cemeteries. One faience bead was also analysed.
The glass specimens were examined using an optical light stereomicroscope (Olympus SZX 16), which provided an indication of the best place for subsequent analysis. This pre-selected location was polished to obtain a smooth surface of unaltered glass. Very small specimens were examined without polishing. In the case of SEM–EDS analyses of opacifiers and inclusions, selected small areas on the samples were coated with a thin carbon layer.
Major, minor and trace elements were analysed by LA-ICP-MS at the Department of Chemistry at the Faculty of Science of Masaryk University in Brno. Until 2018, instrumentation included a laser ablation system UP213 (New Wave Research, USA) that emits laser radiation in a wave length of 213 nm with a pulse length of 4.2 ns. Aerosol produced by the laser was removed from the ablation chamber by a stream of He (flow rate 1.0 l min−1) to an ICP-MS spectrometer Agilent 7500ce (Agilent Technologies) with a quadrupole analyser and a collision/reaction cell. Since 2018, data have been acquired by the LA-ICP-MS system consisting of a LSX 213 G2 laser ablation device (Teledyne Cetac Technologies) and ICP MS Agilent 7900 (Agilent Technologies) equipped with a quadrupole analyser with a collision cell. With both systems, laser ablation was performed under optimised conditions (laser beam diameter of 65 µm, repetition rate of 10 Hz) at five places on the given sample, with a laser beam fluence of 15 J cm−2 and 8 J/cm2, respectively. External calibration using NIST610 with a total sum content correction was used for the quantification of results (Halicz and Gunther 2004; Vaculovič et al. 2017). The accuracy of the quantification has been confirmed by repeated analyses of certified reference material NIST 612 throughout the entire measurement.
Opacifiers and inclusions in selected glasses were determined using the scanning electron microscope (Tescan Vega 3XMU) coupled with an energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometer (Bruker X'Flash 5010) and with a multipurpose system of energy-dispersive analysis (Quantax 200). Analytical details were given, e.g. by Venclová et al. (2018). Accuracy and precision were established by analysing Smithsonian Microbeam Standards (SMS), using well-characterized reference materials, specifically Corning Glass A (NMNH 117,218–4; IGSN: NHB006UFI) and Corning Glass B (NMNH 117,218–1; IGSN: NHB006UFF). Mean sample compositions were obtained by averaging multiple analytical areas (minimum of three). The microscopic structure of glass was also examined by a backscattered electron (BSE) detector. Heterogeneities in glass, crystalline opacifying agents and unmelted particles in the glass matrix were observed. The GCDkit software was used for data handling and plotting (Janoušek et al. 2006). Principal component analysis (PCA) was used for initial classification purposes, in order to establish differences in chemical composition.
Results
The priority of this paper is to provide a view of the overall problem of major, minor and trace element compositions of the beads from Hostivice using LA-ICP analysis. Major element compositions of selected beads from Hostivice measured only by SEM-EDS are not discussed here. However, these data are available in Supplement S1. Here, we highlight SEM-EDS data only for opacifiers, dyes and inclusions. The proposed colourants and opacifiers are assumed based on the presence of higher concentrations of certain elements and inclusions detected by SEM-EDS or LA-ICP-MS and comparison with published data.
Principal component analysis (PCA) was used for ascertaining the dispersion of relative elemental concentrations (determining oxides: SiO2, Na2O, CaO, K2O, MgO, Al2O3, Fe2O3, TiO2; see Fig. 2). The main group represented in the analysed set is the group of soda-lime-silica glasses. It can be subdivided into two main types based on the contents of K2O and MgO: (i) natron glass (K2O and MgO < 1.5 wt%); (ii) plant ash glass (K2O and MgO > 1.5 wt%). This subdivision is taken from Lilyquist et al. (1993) but occasionally warrants adjustments due to possible contaminations caused by secondary working. Furthermore, the studied glasses include (iii) glass with elevated boron contents, (iv) high-lead glass and (v) faience (Tables 2 and 3).
Principal component analysis (PCA) shows a clear distinction between natron glass and plant ash glass, high-lead glass and marked samples with high contents of Pb and Fe as well as one faience sample
Soda-lime-silica glass of natron type
Most of the studied beads are soda-lime-silica natron (see Table 2) glasses, with a total of 35 beads. This type of glass was present in all studied periods (see Fig. 3a). Glasses with higher lead contents are assigned to the group of natron glasses (see Fig. 3b). These beads are opaque yellow (1694, 1703, 1722, 1742, 2137), brownish red (1697, 1718, 1739, 2138) and green (2134, 2142). Only one yellow sample 1749 with elevated lead is plant ash glass. Elevated contents of lead (4–50 wt% PbO) result from the addition of colourants and opacifiers into natron or plant ash glasses.
Binary diagrams of major element compositions of the studied glasses. a MgO and K2O concentrations distinguish glass groups based on the fluxing agents used; b SiO2 and PbO concentrations for high-lead glass and glass where Pb was added as a colourant/opacifier. See Fig. 2 for symbols
Ranges of minor and trace element compositions and rare earth element (REE) contents of natron glasses from the Roman and Merovingian periods plot in the same area (see Fig. 4a, b, c).
REE compositions of natron glass (a, b, c), faience (c) and plant ash and high-lead glasses (d) from Hostivice. Data sets were normalized to weathered continental crust (MUQ; MUd from Queensland; Kamber et al. 2005). Grey-shaded bands represent the range of the groups measured in this study
All analysed beads dated to the Late Roman period (Hostivice G) were made from soda-lime-natron glass representing typical late Roman glass groups, including recycled as well as non-recycled Roman Sb-decolourised and Roman Mn-decolourised glasses (Table 1). The two Roman glass groups are usually distinguished based on the presence or absence of manganese and antimony at levels above their natural occurrence in glass-making sands (Mn < 250 ppm, Sb < 30 ppm) as well as the amount of soda and the relative abundance of heavy minerals, feldspars and lime (Freestone 2021; Degryse 2014; Schibille et al. 2017; Schibille 2022). The body glass of Late Roman translucent green bead 2199 with yellow and brownish red decoration shows, contrary to other samples of this group, high contents of Fe2O3 (2.5wt%) and MnO (1.8 wt%). Blue bead 779 is the only one within the studied Roman glasses with elevated contents of K2O, MgO, P2O5 and Fe2O3, which can be taken as evidence of recycling. Three light green beads (777, 2197, 2199) show lower contents of manganese compared to the other studied samples from the Late Roman period.
The analyses of 21 beads dated to the Merovingian period (Hostivice M) including six polychrome beads show the variability of natron glasses, including Roman and late antique glass. The beads are mostly assigned to group Roman MnSb, Foy 2.1 and some to HIMT based on their high iron, manganese and titanium contents in comparison to the other glass categories (Tables 2 and 3, see Fig. 8 for more detail). Not only translucent but also opaque glasses are present in the studied sample set. Dispersion and diffusion of light are caused here by the presence of small particles contained in the glass. These particles have a different chemical composition and a different index of refraction than the surrounding glass, causing glass opacity. Figure 5 is an illustrative example of the different attitudes of optical microscopy and backscattered electron images (BSE), where chemical contrast is visible. The resulting colours of glass are induced by the presence of inclusions of different chemical compositions.
A comparison of optical microscopy (a, d) and corresponding backscattered electron (BSE) images (b, c, e, f) of two polychrome beads (a, b, c – bead 1691/1694/1697; d, e, f – bead 1701/1703/1705). BSE images (c, f) provide a detailed view of the typical microstructure features of translucent and opaque glasses
The observed brownish-red colour (1697, 1739, 2138) is probably affected by a combination of copper, iron, lead (> 0.6 wt% CuO, > 2 wt% Fe2O3, > 24 wt% PbO) and tin (> 0.5 wt% SnO2, see Tables 2 and 3). The studied low-copper and high-lead brownish-red glasses (> 0.6 wt% CuO, > 24 wt% PbO) show a notably browner colouration. This is explained by the use of reducing conditions and reducing substances. Iron (> 2 wt% Fe2O3) was used as the internal reducing agent. The resulting combination of lead and reduced copper creates probably a brownish shade (Volf 1978). The influence of lead in the colour formation of red glass has been discussed by several authors (e.g. Freestone 1987; Barber et al. 2009; Noirot et al. 2022). These brownish-red glasses contain an opacifier agent based on Pb–Sn-O (probably PbSnO3), small particles with copper (probably metallic copper Cu0), wollastonite CaSiO3 and sodium feldspar NaAlSi3O8.
Contrary to that, (bright) red decoration glass (1718) contains only 4.66 wt% PbO. These glasses are probably coloured with small particles of metallic copper. Under reducing conditions, an equilibrium is established in the glass, leading to the formation of metallic copper, as mentioned above. This glass revealed the presence of copper sulfide CuS and tin dioxide SnO2 inclusions.
The chemical similarity of opaque white glasses (1691, 1738, 2141 and 1701, 1733) is apparent. The fine bluish tint of white glass (1701) results from the presence of iron and copper (> 465 ppm; see Tables 2 and 3). All white glasses display elevated contents of antimony (> 650 ppm), which was used as an opacifier. Small (< 5 µm) inclusions of antimony oxide (Sb2O3) and also calcium antimonate (Ca2Sb2O7) were identified in sample 1701.
Chemical compositions of yellow opaque glasses, occurring as decorative features on beads (1691–1700, 1701–1705, 1721–1737, 1738–1747) and in one case as body glass (2137), were found to differ even within a single bead. This is the result of faulty and incomplete homogenisation after the addition of colourants and opacifiers into glass. The imperfect mixing and homogenisation of glass, where two areas are visible, is shown in BSE images (Fig. 6). The darker area shows lead-free glass, while the lighter area represents lead glass with colourants/inclusions of PbSnO3.The above-mentioned heterogeneities in yellow glass are very important for the determination of the type of colouring and opacifying components. They prove that a colourant and an opacifier on the basis of Pb–Sn-O, specially prepared in advance, were added (stirred) to raw colourless natron (Fig. 6a) or plant ash (Fig. 6b) glass. Yet other crystalline phases such as wollastonite and Na-feldspar were identified in yellow glass. The presence of feldspars also indicates the use of a lower temperature of melting than was needed for achieving homogeneous glass.
A backscattered electron image of inner structure of opaque yellow beads showing the distribution of the overall heterogeneous areas and PbSnO3 inclusions. a Sample 1721, natron glass; b sample 1749, plant-ash glass. Grey area: lead-free glass; white area and stripes: glass with lead and tin added
Two green, slightly opaque miniature beads (2134, 2142) are very similar not only in their green shade but also in their chemical composition. Copper (7800 ppm and 8900 ppm Cu) and iron (0.5 and 0.6 wt% Fe2O3) contributed to the green colour. These beads show also higher contents of lead (13 wt% and 7.3 wt% PbO) and tin (1.3 wt% and 0.9 wt% SnO2), which are related to opacity. Contrary to that, translucent green glass (1728) contains only 0.9 wt% Pb, 266 ppm Sn and 560 ppm Cu. Translucent blue glasses are coloured by various proportions of iron, cobalt and copper. Inclusions of Si-Ca-Sb-O and Si-Fe–O were identified in blue glasses 1751 and 1913, respectively.
The analysed black glasses (1706, 1710) contain only very small amounts of PbO (less than 1 wt%) but higher amounts of aluminium (> 2.3 wt% Al2O3). Black monochrome beads (2133, 2139) are enriched in iron (> 10 wt% Fe2O3). Crystalline phases of wollastonite and inclusions Fe–O (maybe Fe2O3 or Fe3O4) were found to be present.
Natron glasses dated to the Early Medieval Period, tenth century, comprise chemical groups Roman MnSb, Foy 2.1, Egypt 2 and a group characterized by relatively high boron concentrations (> 690 ppm). Natron glass of green segmented bead 1767 was coloured by Fe and Cu (1.4 wt% Fe2O3 and 0.1 wt% CuO). The blue colour of natron glass is mostly caused by various contents of Co, Cu and Fe (e.g. samples 1753, 1756) or only Cu and Fe (e.g. samples 1754, 1787, see Tables 2 and 3). An inclusion composed of ~ 24 wt% Sb2O3 and ~ 1.2 wt% PbO was found in blue glass sample 1751. Elevated contents of antimony (7345 ppm Sb) and lead (7703 ppm Pb) were also found in the glass of the same sample. Antimony (over 3600 ppm Sb) was observed in other glasses (1756, 1785, 1786, 1787) as well and is apparently related to the re-use of Roman and Late Antique glasses.
Soda-lime-silica glass of plant ash type
Plant ash glass was observed in ten segmented beads dated to the Early Medieval Period, tenth century (Hostivice P). Samples 1755 and 1753 are compositionally related to Sasanian glass from Veh Ardasir and can be attributed to a Mesopotamian production (e.g. Mirti et al. 2008 & 2009; Phelps et al. 2016; Neri et al. 2018; Phelps 2018; Schibille et al. 2018). The other eight beads share common features (e.g. MgO, K2O, CaO, Al2O3 contents) with glass from Samarra, more specifically Samarra 2 that has been assumed to originate from the area around Samarra itself (e.g. Schibille et al. 2018; Schibille 2022).
Plant ash glasses are located lower in the REE diagram than natron glass, which means that they are ‘depleted’ in REE (Fig. 4d). The blown bead – sample 1755 – deviates most of all. It is ‘enriched’ not only in REE, but also in Zr, Al, V and Cr (see Table 3) compared to the other studied plant ash glasses. Sample 1753 not only displays slightly elevated REE contents but – contrary to other plant ash glasses – also a positive Eu anomaly (Fig. 4d). This can be probably explained by the presence of some mineral responsible for this positive Eu anomaly in the raw material. This confirms the above conclusion that these samples (1753 and 1755) belong to a different group (Mesopotamian Type 1) than other samples (Samarra/Mesopotamian Type 2).
Glass with elevated boron contents
The elevated amounts of boron were observed in four blue beads (1758, 1766, 1783 and 1784) from the early medieval period. Three samples (1758, 1766 and 1783) have also elevated manganese, lithium, strontium and caesium contents (see Table 3). The contents of Sr and Mn in case sample 1784 are comparable to those of the other studied glasses.
High-lead glass
The polychrome bead – sample 2147 from tenth century Hostivice P – is made from high-lead glass (~ 64 wt% PbO, Table 2). This sample has the lowest contents of REE compared to other samples (see Fig. 4d) because it has the lowest silica concentration (~ 28 wt% SiO2), so all accessory elements are lower.
Faience
The material of bead sample 1762 was identified as faience based on optical (Fig. 7a) as well as electron microscopy with backscattered electron (BSE) images (Fig. 7b), and chemical analysis (Tables 2 and 3). It is made from fine sand or crushed quartz sintered together. Glass fills the gaps between the particles and bonds the individual silica grains together. Fluorapatite (1764) was also identified among the quartz grains (1765); see Fig. 7b. The surface is covered with a turquoise glassy phase which contains copper (2.65 wt% CuO).
A faience bead (1762) consisting of a mixture of silica crystals and glass. a A photo from optical stereomicroscope shows the typical appearance of the opaque turquoise colour of the faience bead. b A backscattered electron (BSE) image shows the microstructure of faience with a layer of glass on the surface and an inner structure mainly composed of quartz (Qz) and a grain of fluorapatite (Fap) in one case. Glass enriched in SiO2 (light grey areas) bonds the grains together. Abbreviations taken from Warr (2021)
Discussion
Natron glass
We refrain from assigning the beads to a specific primary production group in minute detail due to the highly variable and mixed character of beads. The classification of the beads in Table 1 is nonetheless indicative of the general base glass type. Some general observations can accordingly be made. The Roman beads seem to be predominantly made from a Levantine base glass, more specifically from Roman Mn and Roman blue-green glass with an admixture of some Roman Sb and/or HIMT-type glass. There is one colourless bead (776) that matches the composition of Roman Sb glass from Egypt. The Merovingian beads and the tenth-century beads with a natron composition show extensive recycling markers, with most of the glasses merging into the Foy 2.1 composition (Fig. 8). Foy 2.1 was first described by Foy et al. (2003) and has now been recognised among Late Antique glass assemblages throughout the Mediterranean region (e.g. Schibille 2022 with refs.). Its primary production dates to between the second half of the fifth century and the end of the sixth century but it was in circulation until the seventh and eighth centuries, probably in the form of cullet (e.g. Schibille et al. 2022). Beads of this type of composition are widespread during the Merovingian and Migration periods (e.g. Pion and Gratuze 2016; Boschetti et al. 2020).
Al2O3/SiO2 versus TiO2/Al2O3 ratios of the beads from Hostivice compared to known natron glass reference groups from Egypt and the Levant (left), and separated according to the date of the archaeological context (right). Please note that some of the reference groups are represented as means with error bars for clarity. The number of samples is then indicated in the legends. Data sources: for Levantine I: Phelps et al. 2016; for Roman Sb: Baxter et al. 2005; Degryse 2014; Gratuze 2018, Jackson 2005; Paynter 2006; Silvestri 2008; Silvestri et al. 2008; for HIMT: De Juan Ares et al. 2019; Foster and Jackson 2009; Freestone et al. 2018; for Foy 2.1: Ceglia et al. 2019; Foy et al. 2003; Schibille et al. 2017; for Foy 3.2: Balvanović et al. 2018; Cholakova and Rehren 2018; Foy et al. 2003; Gallo et al. 2014; Maltoni et al. 2015; for Egypt 1 and Egypt 2: Schibille et al. 2019
There are some notable outliers: there are five Merovingian beads with remarkably high alumina-to-silica ratios, four of which have also high lead concentrations, while one brownish-yellow sample (2143) has very high alumina levels in addition to considerable phosphorus and potassium contents that may point to contamination due to prolonged working of the glass. One tenth-century bead (1754) shows surprisingly low alumina and potassium contents, suggesting the use of a quartz-rich silica source poor in potassium feldspar. This sample cannot be attributed to any known primary production group.
Plant ash glass
All plant ash glass beads are dated to the tenth century. Eight plant ash-type beads display characteristics similar to the ninth-century glass groups of Samarra (Schibille et al. 2018; Schibille 2022)/ Mesopotamian Type 2 (Phelps et al. 2016; Phelps 2018; Neri et al. 2018). Two samples (1753 and 1755) were identified as Mesopotamian Type 1 (Fig. 9). The variability of plant ash glass is primarily derived from the type of sand used and, at the same time, from the type of ash. Chemical compositions of ash depend above all on the geology and climate of the area where the plants used were growing, and on plant species. Other factors affecting the final composition of ash include the temperature of ashing and subsequent cleaning of the ash (e.g. Barkoudah and Henderson 2006; Tite et al. 2006). REE are present in plant ash glass in small quantities (up to tens of ppm) and come primarily from sand (e.g. Be, Ge, Y, Nb, Mo, Te, Cs, La, Ta, W, Tl, Bi and Th; Shortland et al. 2007; Degryse and Shortland 2009; Wedepohl et al. 2011; Degryse 2014).
The diagram of magnesia-to-lime ratios versus alumina shows the subdivision of plant ash glasses into individual subgroups. The division into subgroups is taken from Schibille et al. (2018) with refs
Glass with elevated boron contents
Four blue beads (1758, 1766, 1783, 1784) from tenth-century contexts are notable for their relatively high boron and lithium contents. Glasses with higher than usual boron levels appear to be associated with Byzantine glass-making in Asia Minor, first remarked upon by Robert Brill in the late 1960s in connection with the sixth/seventh-century finds from Aphrodisias and Sardis (Brill 1969). Glass and glazes with these particular properties are known from numerous sites in Asia Minor (Brill 2005; Schibille 2011; Swan et al. 2018; Tite et al. 2016) and – in the form of mosaic tesserae – from the Umayyad Mosque in Cordoba (Gómez-Morón et al. 2021). Glasses with high boron contents are highly variable and may or may not have elevated magnesium, potassium, lithium and/or strontium contents. The four beads from the Hostivice P cemetery reflect this variability (Table 3).
Chemical composition of glass in the context of bead studies
Segmented beads are significant in the assessment of the continuity or discontinuity of bead types in connection with techniques and chemistry of glass. They form a large part of the analysed set, both at the Hostivice M cemetery dated to the late fifth to mid-sixth centuries and at the tenth-century Hostivice P cemetery (Table 1). Figure 10 shows the variability of forms, bead size and manufacturing techniques. While drawn, drawn foiled and wound segmented beads were found at both cemeteries, beads wound on tubes and blown segmented beads only came to light at Hostivice P.
Variability of segmented beads from Hostivice M (late fifth to mid-sixth centuries) and Hostivice P (tenth century) according to manufacturing techniques. Background colours: green – drawn foiled; yellow – drawn; pink – wound (1767 – wound on a tube); blue – blown
Segmented beads belong to a group of beads which, with some typological and technical variability, represent a continuous form, while the chemical composition of glass changes over time. The fifth to mid-sixth-century segmented beads made by both winding and drawing were produced from natron glass primarily represented by compositional group Foy 2.1. In the tenth-century set, only one bead (1767) made by the winding-on-tube technique atypical for segmented beads of that period was produced from natron glass (some Islamic Egypt 2 glass could have been mixed in as suggested by the relatively low Sr and elevated Ti and Zr). In contrast, the other 13 segmented beads (drawn, drawn foiled and blown) were made from plant ash glass (Fig. 11).
All studied foiled segmented beads were made from plant ash glass. When it was possible, both the outer and inner glass of foiled specimens were analysed. The outer and inner glasses of these beads were usually found to be very similar in their composition. An exception is bead 1907–1908 where SEM-EDS analysis revealed higher content of MgO (2.46 wt%) in the outer yellowish glass 1908 than in the inner colourless glass 1907 (see Supplement 1).
A silver foil between the outer and inner glasses was confirmed in some cases using the SEM-EDS method. In two beads (1780/1781, 1777/1778), notably higher contents of not only silver (29 ppm and 383 ppm) but also copper (144 ppm and 77 ppm Cu) were observed in outer glasses 1780 and 1777 compared to inner glasses 1781 and 1778 (Ag below the detection limit and 0.1 ppm Ag; 7 ppm and 8 ppm Cu, respectively). A similar phenomenon was also observed in plant ash segmented beads from Komani in Albania, where sample K 021 contained a higher proportion of Ag and Cu in the inner glass (Neri et al. 2018). These high contents could be revealed by point analyses, which can detect even a tiny part of a silver foil containing silver and copper between the two glasses.
A comparison of chemical composition of segmented beads from the late fifth to mid-sixth centuries and the tenth century
The Merovingian segmented beads from Hostivice M with a natron-based composition have parallels elsewhere in Europe (e.g. Pion and Gratuze 2016). Plant ash glasses in connection with (drawn) segmented beads were found at cemeteries of the ninth–tenth centuries in Bohemia (Prague–Lumbe Garden, Klecany, Zeleneč, after Hulínský et al. 2015; Tomková et al. 2014, 2020) and elsewhere in Europe (Staššíková-Štukovská and Plško 2015; Greiff and Nallbani 2008; Neri et al. 2018). Parallels to the rather exceptional segmented bead made from natron glass by the winding-on-tube technique from the ninth–tenth centuries at Hostivice P are known from central Europe, among others (Košta and Tomková 2011; Staššíková-Štukovská and Ungerman 2009; Tomková et al. 2014).
Since segmented beads, as a supra-regional and continuous type, reflect the transition from natron to plant ash glass, this would also be expected for other bead types which occur continuously in the bead culture of the sixth to tenth centuries, e.g. wound globular, rounded, annular and cylindrical beads. The analyses, however, show a more complex situation. It is interesting that all beads of these types from the tenth-century Hostivice P cemetery were made from recycled natron glass (Table 1). A question arises as to what this reflects. The colour, blue or turquoise, can be significant. Globular and rounded blue beads not only from Hostivice, but also from Prague–Lumbe Garden (Tomková et al. 2014) and Klecany (Hulínský et al. 2015) were also made from soda natron glass. Contrary to that, beads of the above-mentioned types but of other colours were made from plant ash glass (Klecany, Hulínský et al. 2015) or high-lead glass (Zeleneč, Tomková et al. 2020).
In addition to supra-regional and continuous types, it is also important to record regionally and temporarily restricted types. Drawn and cut miniature beads (2134, 2142) in light green colour occurred at the Merovingian Hostivice M cemetery. They are morphologically reminiscent of Indo-Pacific beads but they differ compositionally from the high-aluminous glass of the latter (Pion and Gratuze 2016; Gratuze et al. 2021a, b). Perhaps they could represent local “European” imitations?
The blue ribbed olive bead from Hostivice P (1751) is certainly a product of local central European secondary workshops in the eighth century–first half of the tenth century. Even if earlier recycled glasses contributed significantly to their production, contemporary glasses such as Egypt 2, plant ash glass and wood ash glass were available to their producers (Tomková et al. 2023).
It is apparent that not only simple, continuously manufactured beads, but also new types or – in the case of segmented beads – new variants produced by different techniques were made from natron glass and were in circulation until the tenth century, when plant ash glass was already established.
The polychrome bead with crossing trails and dots (2147) illustrates the use of high-lead glass. In Bohemia, such beads were recorded at cemeteries dated to the second half of the tenth century. The bead body consists of binary lead glass. The decoration is often only preserved in the negative due to corrosion. These beads form a significant, although not too strongly represented group in Bohemia (listed in Tomková et al. 2020). Due to their relatively frequent occurrence in the Carpathian Basin in the territory of ancient Magyars, it can be assumed that the beads with crossing trails and dots reached Bohemia together with other objects of the same origin from this region. It is worth mentioning that the remark of Ibrahim ibn Yacub about merchants from the land of the Turks, which means from the territory of Hungary, dates back to the 960s (Tomková and Křížová 2017; Tomková et al. 2020). It should be also noted that the earliest occurrence of high-lead glass in central Europe, so far unique, is represented by two purple annular beads decorated with a white wavy line from the Merovingian cemetery of Holubice in Moravia from the first half of the sixth century (Venclová et al. 2014).
The blue flat oval bead (1758) is unique for its elevated boron, lithium, strontium and caesium contents. This type of bead was found at several other cemeteries in Bohemia: in grave 120 in Prague–Lumbe Garden, in grave 68 in Prague–Motol and in grave 13 at Stehelčeves (Tomková et al. 2014) which have not yet been analysed by LA-ICP-MS. SEM-EDS analyses also revealed plant ash glasses in the first two cases, without specifying the boron contents. In the case of Stehelčeves, SEM-EDS analysis surprisingly identified natron glass (Tomková et al. 2014). While the chemical composition of bead 1758 from Hostivice indicates a Byzantine origin of glass (Schibille 2011; Tite et al. 2016), the workshop where this bead and other similar beads from Bohemia were made is unknown. The manufacture of flat oval beads at Haithabu was assumed by Steppuhn (1998) according to the relatively high accumulation of beads (138 items) and semi-products. A similar type of bead, not precisely dated, is known from Pattanam in India (Abraham 2021). Based on the above data, production at several workshops (and perhaps at different times) might be supposed. It is not clear yet whether this type of bead represents an example of an artefact linked with a certain type of glass, or whether any glass available at the moment was used for its manufacture.
The interdisciplinary research of beads could be considered prospective in defining regional fashions depending on the manufacture in secondary workshops and long-distance exchange, as indicated by archaeological research for the eighth century at the latest (e.g. Andersen and Sode 2010; Callmer 2007; Distelberger 2004; Siegmann 2003; Sode 2004; Tomková and Venclová 2014). The fact that some types of beads could have had different frequencies and occurrences in individual regions is exemplified by the blown segmented bead (1755) from Hostivice P, representing the latest example of this type. Its finds are rare at eighth–tenth-century cemeteries in Bohemia, contrary to Bavaria where blown segmented beads occur in large numbers in the eighth century (Pöllath 2002).
The case of the rural cemetery Hostivice P shows that the final consumer does not always have to be the elites. If we want to understand the process of creating regional fashions and the economic background, exchange and distribution of beads as well as glass, we also need to take into account different economic and social conditions in the territory of producers and consumers.
Conclusions
The cemeteries from Hostivice offer a glass collection that reflects key moments in the development of glass bead production, distribution and use between the fourth and tenth centuries. The main chemical groups of glass, known from other parts of Europe, were recorded at Hostivice and in Bohemia, with specific local and regional features. Although the change from natron to plant ash glass during the eighth–ninth centuries was universal, natron glass occurred at Hostivice as late as in tenth century when even new types of beads were made from natron glass in local secondary workshops while others were imported. Rare chemical groups such as high-lead glass and high-boron glass are also represented in the studied assemblage. The choice of a different chemical glass group could be connected with the technique of bead manufacture, as shown on the example of segmented beads.
Glass beads from Hostivice offer ample evidence of the recycling of natron glass. In the case of natron glass beads, there are certain limits in the knowledge of recycled glasses which can be several centuries distant from the time of their (primary) production. This specifically concerns opaque glass beads. It is worth mentioning that recycled Roman tesserae could have been used as the source of opacifiers in the period under study (Freestone 2015; Boschetti et al. 2016; Crocco et al. 2021). The need for additional information on the share of newly made, recycled or re-used old glasses in certain time periods and regions is apparent. Polychrome beads combining translucent and opaque glasses should be studied as to whether these components were made from “fresh” contemporary glass or from old glass, and whether they meet on one bead. In the collection of Merovingian beads at Hostivice M, the decorative glass of some beads (1691/1694, 1710/1715) was chemically different from the base glass. This means that opaque decorative glass was produced in different workshops or even in different time periods.
The recognition of supraregional vs. local, and continuous vs. time-specific types of beads, together with the combination of archaeological and chemical data in bead studies enables the study of the interrelationship among chemical glass groups in terms of the typology and manufacturing techniques of the beads.
It can be concluded that glass beads represent a very sensitive source whose complex study allows to track global trends, regional as well as long-distance relations, and the distribution of end products as well as glass ingots or cullet for secondary workshops in individual regions.
Data availability
Not applicable (all data generated or analysed within this research are included in the article and Supplement 1).
Code availability
Not applicable.
References
Abraham SA (2021) A review of selected glass bead types from the 2007–2009 seasons of excavation at Pattanam, India. In: Kanungo AK, Dussubieux L (eds) Ancient Glass of South Asia. Springer, Singapore, pp 345–359
Andersen JH, Sode T (2010) The glass bead material. In: Bencard M, Madsen HB (eds) Ribe Excavations 1970–76, vol 6. Jutland Archaeological Society Publications. Aarhus Universitetsforlag, Aarhus, pp 17–59
Balvanović R, Stojanović MM, Šmit Ž (2018) Exploring the unknown Balkans: Early Byzantine glass from Jelica Mt. in Serbia and its contemporary neighbours. J Radioanal Nuclear Chem 317(2):1175–1189
Barber DJ, Freestone IC, Moulding KM (2009) Ancient copper red glasses: investigation and analysis by microbeam techniques. Advances in the Study of Ancient Technology. In: Shortland J, Freestone IC, Rehren T (eds) From mine to microscope. Oxbow Books, pp 115–127
Barkoudah Y, Henderson J (2006) The use of halophytic plants in the manufacture of ancient glass: ethnographic evidence and the scientific analysis of plant ashes. J Glass Stud 48:297–321
Baxter MJ, Cool HEM, Jackson CM (2005) Further studies in the compositional variability of colourless Romano-British vessel glass. Archaeometry 47:47–68
Bertini C, Henderson J, Chenery S (2020) Seventh to eleventh century CE glass from Northern Italy: between continuity and innovation. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-020-01048-8
Boschetti C, Mantovani V, Leonelli C (2016) Glass coloring and recycling in Late Antiquity: a new case study from Aquileia (Italy). J Glass Stud 58:69–86
Boschetti C, Gratuze B, Schibille N (2020) Commercial and social significance of glass beads in Migration-period Italy: the cemetery of Campo Marchione. Oxf J Archaeol 39:319–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/ojoa.12200
Brill RH (2005) Chemical analyses of the Zeyrek Camii and Kariye Camii glasses. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 59:213–230
Brill RH (1969) The scientific investigation of ancient glasses. In: Proceedings of the eighth international congress on glass, 1968. Sheffield, pp 47–68
Callmer J (2007) Blue, white and red. Archaeologia Polona 45:85–97
Ceglia A, Cosyns P, Schibille N, Meulebroeck W (2019) Unravelling provenance and recycling of late antique glass from Cyprus with trace elements. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 11(1):279–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-017-0542-1
Černá E, Tomková K (2017) On the road from the Early to High Middle Ages: glass of the 9th – 13th centuries in Bohemia. Archaeologia Polona 55:189–210
Černá E, Tomková K, Hulínský V, Cílová Z (2005) Raně středověké korálky z Pražského hradu a jeho předpolí typologická a che-mická klasifikace nálezů. In: Tomková K (ed) Pohřbívání na Pražském hradě a jeho předpolích I. 1, Castrum Pragense 7. Archeologický ústav AV ČR Praha, Praha, pp 333–358
Cholakova A, Rehren T (2018) A late antique manganese decolourised glass composition: interpreting patterns and mechanisms of distribution. In: Rosenow D, Phelps M, Meek A, Freestone IC (eds) Things that Travelled: Mediterranean Glass in the First Millennium AD. UCL Press, London, pp 46–71
Crocco R, Huisman H, Sablerolles Y, Henderson J, van Os B, Nieuwhof A (2021) Hunting colours: origin and reuse of glass tesserae from the Wierum terp. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 13:155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-021-01391-4
Daněček D, Smíšek K, Korený R (2014) Předběžná zpráva o terénním výzkumu pohřebiště z mladší doby stěhování národů v polykulturní lokalitě Hostivice-Palouky, okr. Praha-západ. In: Komoróczy B (ed) Sociální diferenciace barbarských komunit ve světle nových hrobových, sídlištních a sběrových nálezů. Archeologie barbarů 2011. Spisy Archeologického ústavu AV ČR Brno 44, Brno, pp 407–418
De Juan Ares J, Schibille N, Vidal JM, Sanchez de Prado MD (2019) The supply of glass at Portus Ilicitanus (Alicante, Spain): a meta-analysis of HIMT glasses. Archaeometry 61:647–662
Degryse P (2014) Glass making in the Greco-Roman world: results of the ARCHGLASS project. Leuven University Press, Leuven
Degryse P, Shortland AJ (2009) Trace elements in provenancing raw materials for Roman glass production. Geol Belgica 12:135–143
Distelberger A (2004) Österreichs Awarinnen. Frauen aus Gräbern des 7. und 8. Jahrhunderts, Archäologische Forschungen Niederösterreich 3. Niederösterreichisches Institut für Landeskunde, St Pölten
Drauschke J (2019) Archaeological perspectives on communication and exchange between the Merovingians and the Eastern Mediterranean. In: Esders S, Fox Y, Hen Y, Sarti L (eds) East and West in the Early Middle Ages. The Merovingian Kingdoms in Mediterranean Perspective, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 9–31
Droberjar E (2008) Thüringische und Langobardische Funde und Befunde in Böhmen. Zum Problem der späten Phasen der Völker-wanderungszeit. In: Bemmann J, Schmauder M (eds) Kulturwandel in Mitteleuropa. Langobarden – Awaren – Slawen, Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte Band 11. Habelt, Bonn, pp 229–248
Foster HE, Jackson CM (2009) The composition of ‘naturally coloured’ late Roman vessel glass from Britain and the implications for models of glass production and supply. J Archaeol Sci 36:189–204
Fourlas B (2019) Early byzantine church silver offered for the eternal rest of Framarich and Karilos: evidence of “the army of heroic men” raised by Ziberius II Constantine? In: Esders S, Fox Y, Hen Y, Sarti L (eds) East and West in the Early Middle Ages. The Merovingian Kingdoms in Mediterranean Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 87–107
Foy D, Picon M, Vichy M, Thirion-Merle V (2003) Caractérisation des verres de la fin de l’antiquité en Méditerranée occidentale: l’émergence de nouveaux courants commerciaux. In: Foy D, Nenna M-D (eds) Echanges et commerce du verre dans le monde antique, Actes du colloque de l´AFAV, Aix-en-Provence et Marseille, 7–9 juin 2001. Editions Monique Mergoil, Montagnac, pp 41–85
Freestone I (1987) Composition and microstructure of early opaque red glass. Early Vitr Mater Occas Pap 56:173–191
Freestone IC (2015) The recycling and reuse of Roman glass: analytical approaches. J Glass Stud 57:29–40
Freestone IC (2021) Glass production in the first millennium CE: a compositional perspective. In: Klimscha F, Karlsen HJ, Hansen S, Renn J (eds) Vom künstlichen Stein zum durchsichtigen Massenprodukt. Innovationen in der Glastechnik und ihre sozialen Folgen zwischen Bronzezeit und Antike, Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 67. Humboldt-Universität, Berlin, pp 245–263
Freestone IC, Jackson-Tal RE, Taxel I, Tal O (2015) Glass production at an Early Islamic workshop in Tel Aviv. J Archaeol Sci 62:45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2015.07.003
Freestone IC, Degryse P, Lankton J, Gratuze B, Schneider J (2018) HIMT, glass composition and commodity branding in the primary glass industry. In: Rosenow D, Phelps M, Meek A, Freestone IC (eds) Things that Travelled: Mediterranean Glass in the First Millennium AD. UCL Press, London, pp 159–190
Gallo F, Marcante A, Silvestri A, Molin G (2014) The glass of the „Casa delle Bestie Ferite“: a first systematic archaeometric study on late Roman vessels from Aquileia. J Archaeol Sci 41:7–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.07.028
Galuška L, Macháček J, Pieta K, Sedláčková H (2012) The glass of Great Moravia: vessel and window glass, and small objects. J Glass Stud 54:61–92
Gliozzo E (2017) The composition of colourless glass: a review. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 9:455–483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-016-0388-y
Gómez-Morón MA, Palomar T, Cerqueira Alves L, Ortiz P, Vilarigues M, Schibille N (2021) Christian-Muslim contacts across the Mediterranean Byzantine glass mosaics in the Great Umayyad Mosque of Córdoba (Spain). J Archaeol Sci 129:105370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2021.105370
Gratuze B (2018) Contribution à l’étude des verres décolorés l’antimoine produits entre le 1er s et la fin du IIIe s de notre ère: nouvelles données analytiques. In: Foy D, Labaune JF, Leblond C, Martin Pruvot C, Marty M-T, Massart C, Munier C, Robin L, Roussel-Ode J (eds) Verres incolores de l´Antiquité romaine en Gaule et aux marges de la Gaule, Vol. 2: Typologie et Analyses. Archaeopress Roman Archaeology 42, Oxford, pp 682–714
Gratuze B, Guerrot C, Foy D, Arles A, Téreygeol F (2017) Les galets de verre au plomb carolingiens issus des scories de Melle: élaboration et distribution. In: Bompaire M, Sarah G (eds) Mine, métal, monnaie, Melle – les voies de la quantification de l´histoire monétaire du haut Moyen Age. Droz, Paris, pp 87–110
Gratuze B, Pion K, Sode T (2021a) Indian glass beads in Western and North Europe in Early Middle Age. In: Kanungo AK, Dussubieux L (eds) Ancient glass of South Asia. Springer, Singapore, pp 427–450
Gratuze B, Schibille N, Pactat I (2021b) Glass in the Middle East and Western Europe at the End of the First Millenium CE, Transition from natron to plant ash soda or forest glasses. In: Kanungo AK, Dussubieux L (eds) Ancient Glass of South Asia. Springer, Singapore, pp 21–38
Greiff S, Nallbani E (2008) When metal meets beads. Technological study of early medieval metal foil beads from Albania. Mélanges de l´Ecole française de Rome, Moyen Age (MEFRM) 120/2:355–375
Halicz L, Gunther D (2004) Quantitative analysis of silicates using LA-ICP-MS with liquid calibration. J Anal at Spectrom 19:1539–1545
Höke B (2013) Spätmerowingerzeitliche Bestattungsplatz von Neuburg a. d. Donau, St. Wolfgang Michael Lassleben, Kallmünz/Opf
Hulínský V, Jonášová Š, Tomková K (2015) Skleněné korálky z pohřebiště Klecany I z pohledu jejich chemického složení. In: Profantová N (ed) Klecany. Raně středověká pohřebiště. Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic Prague, Praha, pp 129–131
Jackson CM (2005) Making colourless glass in the Roman period. Archaeometry 47(4):763–780
Jackson CM, Paynter S (2016) A great big melting pot: exploring pattern of glass supply, consumption and recycling in Roman Coppergate, York. Archaeometry 58:68–95
Janoušek V, Farrow CM, Erban V (2006) Interpretation of whole-rock geochemical data in igneous geochemistry: introducing Geochemical Data Toolkit (GCDkit). J Petrol 47:1255–1259. https://doi.org/10.1093/petrology/egl013
Jiřík J (2012) Böhmen in der Spätantike und der Völkerwanderungszeit unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Beziehungen zu Baiern und Thüringen. In: Fehr H, Heitmeier I (eds) Die Anfänge Bayerns. Von Raetien und Noricum zur frühmittelalterlichen Baiovaria. EOS Verlag, St. Ottilien, pp 359–402
Jiřík J, Vávra J, Šmolíková M, Kuchařík M, a kol. (2015) Hroby barbarů v Praze-Zličíně: svět živých a mrtvých doby stěhování národů. Muzeum hlavního města Prahy, Praha
Kalhous D (2012) The anatomy of a duchy. Political and ecclesiastical structures of Early Přemyslid Bohemia. East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450. Brill, Leiden, Boston
Kamber BS, Greig A, Collerson KD (2005) A new estimate for the composition of weathered young upper continental crust from alluvial sediments, Queensland, Australia. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 69:1041–1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2004.08.020
Koch U (1977) Das Reihengräberfeld bei Schretzheim, 1–2. Germanische Denkmäler der Völkerwanderungszeit Series A, vol 13. Mann, Berlin
Košta J, Tomková K (2011) Olivovité korálky v raně středověkých Čechách a jejich postavení ve středoevropském kontextu. Památky archeologické 102:307–354
Košta J, Tomková K (2012) Olivenperlen – ein gemeinsames Kapitel der Geschichte der frühmittelalterlichen Kultur in Böhmen und Bayern. Fines Transire 21:199–221
Kuna M, Profantová N (2005) Počátky raného středověku v Čechách. Archeologický výzkum sídelní aglomerace kultury pražského typu v Roztokách. Archeologický ústav AV ČR Praha, Praha
Lilyquist C, Brill RH, Wypyski MT (1993) Studies in early Egyptian glass. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
Maltoni S, Chinni T, Vandini M, Cirelli E, Silvestri A, Molin G (2015) Archaeological and archaeometric study of the glass finds from the ancient harbour of Classe (Ravenna – Italy): new evidence. Heritage Science 3(1):13
Mecking O (2013) Medieval lead glass in central Europe. Archaeometry 55:640–662
Militký J (2013) Nálezy řeckých, římských a raně byzantských minci v Čechách (5. století před Kristem až 7. století po Kristu). Monumenta Numismatica 2. Filozofický ústav AV ČR and Archeologický ústav AV ČR Praha, Praha
Mirti P, Pace M, Negro Ponzi MM, Aceto M (2008) ICP–MS analysis of glass fragments of Parthian and Sasanian epoch from Seleucia and Veh Ardasir (Central Iraq). Archaeometry 50:429–450
Mirti P, Pace M, Malandrino M, Negro Ponzi M (2009) Sasanian glass from Veh Ardasir: new evidences by ICP-MS analysis. J Archaeol Sci 36:1061–1069
Müller K et al (2010) Gräber, Gaben, Generationen. Der frühmittelalterliche Friedhof (7. Jahrhundert) von der Fruebergstrasse in Baar (Kanton Zug). Amt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie des Kantons Zug, Basel
Neri E, Gratuze B, Schibille N (2018) The trade of glass beads in early medieval Illyricum: towards an Islamic monopoly. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 11:1107–1122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-017-0583-S
Noirot C, Cormier L, Schibille N et al (2022) Comparative investigation of red and orange Roman tesserae: role of Cu and Pb in colour formation. Heritage 5:2628–2645. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage5030137
Pactat I, Guérit M, Gratuze B, Aunay C, Raux S, Simon L (2017) Evolution of glass recipes during the early Middle Ages in France: analytical evidence of multiple solutions adapted to local contexts. Annales du 20e Congrès de l´Association Internationale pour l´Histoire du Verre Fribourg et Romont 2015. Verlag Marie Leidorf, Rahden/Westf., pp 334–340
Pankiewicz A, Siemianowska S, Sadowski K (2017) Wczesnośredniowieczna biżuteria szklana z glównych ośrodków grodowych Śląska (Wrocław, Opole, Niemcza). In pago Silensi. Wrocławskie Studia Wczesnośredniowieczne 3, Wrocław
Paynter S (2006) Analyses of colourless Roman glass from Binchester, County Durham. J Archaeol Sci 33(8):1037–1057
Phelps M (2018) Glass supply and trade in early Islamic Ramla. An investigation of the plant ash glass. In: Rosenow D, Phelps M, Meek A, Freestone IC (eds) Things that Travelled: Mediterranean Glass in the First Millenium CE. UCL Press, London, pp 236–282
Phelps M, Freestone IC, Gorin-Rosen Y, Gratuze B (2016) Natron glass production and supply in the late antique and early medieval Near East: the effect of the Byzantine-Islamic transition. J Archaeol Sci 75:57–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2016.08.006
Pion K, Gratuze B (2016) Indo-Pacific glass beads from the Indian subcontinent in early Merovingian graves (5th–6th century AD). Archaeological Research in Asia 6:51–64
Pöche A (2005) Perlen, Trichtergläser, Tesserae. Spuren des Glashandels und Glashandwerk auf dem frühgeschichtlichen Handel-splatz von Groß Strömkendorf. Landkreis Nordwestmecklenburg. Archäologisches Landesmuseum und Landesamt für Bodendenkmalpflege Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Schwerin
Pöllath R (2002) Karolingerzeitliche Gräberfelder in Nordostbayern: eine archäologisch-historische Interpretation mit der Vorlage der Ausgrabungen von K. Schwarz in Weismein und Thurnau-Alladorf. Arethousa Verlag, München
Profantová N (2008) Byzantine coins from the 9th–10th century from the Czech Republic. In: Woloszyn M (ed) Byzantine coins in Central Europe between the 5th and 10th century. Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego, Kraków, pp 1–9
Profantová N (2009) Archaeology and written sources on eight to tenth century Bohemia. Early Medieval Europe 17:286–310
Profantová N (2012) Cultural discontinuity and the migration hypothesis. The “Slavic migration” (6th century) in the light of new archaeological finds from Bohemia. The very beginning of Europe? Cultural and Social Dimensions of Early Medieval Migration and Colonisation (5th-8th cent). Relicta Monographien 7. Flanders Heritage Agency, Brussels, pp 255–264
Profantová N, Tomková K (2018) Strongholds and material culture of the Bohemian elite in the Early Přemyslid period. In: Kouřil P, Procházka R (eds) Moravian and Silesian strongholds of the tenth and eleventh centuries in the context of Central Europe. Spisy Archeologického ústavu AV ČR, Brno, vol 57, Brno, pp 261–282
Sankot P, Theune C (2012) Das germanische Grab 2536 in Hostivice, Okr. Praha-západ, Tschechien. Germania 90:145–184
Sasse B (2001) Ein frühmittelalterliches Reihengräberfeld bei Eichstetten am Kaiserstuhl. Theiss, Stuttgart
Sasse B, Theune C (1996) Perlen als Leittypen der Merowingerzeit. Germania 74:187–231
Schibille N (2011) Late Byzantine mineral soda high alumina glasses from Asia Minor: a new primary glass production group. PLoS One 6(4):e18970. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0018970
Schibille N (2022) Islamic glass in the making. Chronological and geographical dimensions. Studies in Archaeological Sciences 7. University Press, Leuven
Schibille N, De Juan Ares J, Garcia MTC, Guerrot C (2020) Ex novo development of lead glasmaking in early Umayyad Spain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117(28):16243–16249
Schibille N, Sterrett-Krause A, Freestone IC (2017) Glass groups, glass supply and recycling in late Roman Carthage. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 9:1223–1241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-016-0316-1
Schibille N, Meek A, Wypyski MT et al (2018) The glass walls of Samarra (Iraq): ninth-century Abbasid glass production and imports. PLoS ONE 13(5):7. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201749
Schibille N, Gratuze B, Ollivier E, Blondeau E (2019) Chronology of early Islamic glass compositions from Egypt. J Archaeol Sci 104:10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2019.02.001
Schibille N, Amorós Ruiz V, De Juan Ares J, Gutiérrez Lloret S (2022) Rare alkali elements as markers of local glass working in Medieval Tolmo de Minateda (Spain). ChemPlusChem 87
Sedláčková H (2020) Vessels, window panes and small glass artefacts in the material culture of the Mikulčice elites. In: Poláček L et al (eds) Great Moravian Elites from Mikulčice. The Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology Brno, Brno, pp 351–359
Shortland A, Rogers N, Eremin K (2007) Trace element discriminants between Egyptian and Mesopotamian Late Bronze Age glasses. J Archaeol Sci 34:781–789
Siegmann M (2003) Bunte Pracht. Die Perlen der frühmittelalterlichen Gräberfelder von Liebenau, Kreis Nienburg/Weser und Dörverden, Kreis Verden/Aller. Teil 2, Die Chronologie der Grabinventare. Beier & Beran, Langenweissbach
Siegmann M (2006) Bunte Pracht – Die Perlen der frühmittelalterlichen Gräberfelder von Liebenau, Kreis Nienburg/Weser und Dörverden Kreis Verden/Aller. Teil 5, Chronologie der Gräber, Entwicklung und Trägerweise des Perlenschmuck, Technik der Perlen. Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas 28. Beier & Beran, Langenweissbach
Siemianowska S, Pankiewicz A, Sadowski K (2019) On technology and production techniques of early medieval glass rings from Silesia. Archaeometry 61:614–646. https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12440
Silvestri A (2008) The coloured glass of Iulia Felix. J Archaeol Sci 35:1489–1501
Silvestri A, Molin G, Salviulo G (2008) The colourless glass of Iulia Felix. J Archaeol Sci 35:331–341
Sode T, Feveile C, Schnell U (2010) An investigation on segmented, metal-foiled glass beads and blown, mirrored glass beads from Ribe, Denmark. In: Theune C, Biermann F, Struvwe R, Jeute GH (eds) Zwischen Fjorden und Steppe, Festschrift für Johan Callmer zum 65 Geburtstag, Internationale Archäologie, Studia honoraria 31. Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH, Rahden/Westf., pp 319–328
Sode T (2004) Glass bead making technology. In: Bencard M, Rasmussen AK, Madsen HB (eds) Ribe excavations 1970–76, vol. 5. Jutland archaeological society publications 46, Aarhus University Press, Aarhus, pp 83–102
Staššíková-Štukovská D, Ungerman Š (2009) Sklené koráliky z včasnostredovekého pohrebiska v Dolních Věstoniciach. In: Dresler P, Měřínský Z (eds) Archeologie doby hradištní v České a Slovenské republice, Archaeologia mediaevalis Moravica et Silesiana – Supplementum 2. Masarykova univerzita, Brno, pp 136–149
Staššíková-Štukovská D, Plško A (2015) Differences between the findings of segmented beads in skeleton graves from the region of Middle Danube dated to 7th–11th centuries. In: Lazar I (ed) Annales du 19e Congrès de l´Association Internationale pour l´Histoire du Verre (Piran 2012) 19, pp 389–399.
Štefan I (2021) Slave and slave trade in early medieval Czech duchy: archaeology of slavery or slavery of archaeology. In: Biermann F, Jankowiak M (eds) The Archaeology of Slavery in Early Medieval Northern Europe. The invisible Commodity. Themes in Contemporary Archaeology. Springer and European Association of Archaeologists, Cham, pp 125–138
Steppuhn P (1997) Bleiglasperlen des frühen und hohen Mittelalters in Nordeuropa. In: von Freeden-Wieczorek U (ed) Perlen. Archäologie. Techniken. Analysen. Akten des Internationalen Perlensymposiums in Mannheim vom 11. bis 14. November 1994, Bonn, Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 1. Habelt, Bonn, pp 203–209
Steppuhn P (1998) Die Glasfunde von Haithabu. Berichte über die Ausgrabungen in Haithabu 32. Wachholtz Verlag, Neumünster
Stolyarova K (2018) The technology of manufacturing gold-glass beads of the Pre-Mongolian period in ancient Rus. In: Staššíková-Štukovská D (ed) Historické sklo. Multidisciplinárne o historickom skle III. Slovenská archeologická spoločnosť pri SAV, Bratislava, pp 155–163
Swan CM, Rehren T, Dussubieux L, Eger AA (2018) High-boron and high-alumina Middle Byzantine (10th–12th century CE) glass bracelets: a Western Anatolian glass industry. Archaeometry 60:207–232
Tempelmann-Mączyńska M (1985) Die Perlen der römischen Kaiserzeit und der frühen Phase der Völkerwanderungszeit im mitteleuropaischen Barbaricum. Von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein
Tite MS, Shortland A, Maniatis Y et al (2006) The composition of the soda-rich and mixed alkali plant ashes used in the production of glass. J Archaeol Sci 33:1284–1292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2006.01.004
Tite M, Shortland A, Schibille N, Degryse P (2016) New data on the soda flux used in the production of Iznik glazes and Byzantine glasses. Archaeometry 58(1):57–67
Tomková K, Křížová Š (2017) Aktuelle Aspekte des Studiums mehrfarbiger Perlen aus dem frühmittelalterlichen Böhmen. In: Fusek G (ed) Archäologische Studien zum frühen Mittelalter. Internationale Konferenz Nitra vom 18. bis 20. Oktober 2016, Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae, Communicationes 19. Archeologický ústav SAV, Nitra, pp 193–207
Tomková K, Venclová N (2014) Glasschmuck in Böhmen von der Bronzezeit bis ins Frühmittelalter: Archäologie und Archäometrie. In: Černá E, Steppuhn P (eds) Glasarchäologie in Europa. Regionen – Produkte – Analysen. Ústav archeologické památkové péče severozápadních Čech, Most, pp 221–237
Tomková K, Zlámalová Cílová Z, Vaculovič T (2014) Sklo z pohřebiště v Lumbeho zahradě z pohledu archeometrie. In: Frolík J (ed) Pohřebiště v Lumbeho zahradě na Pražském hradě. Díl II. Studie, Castrum Pragense 12. Archeologický ústav AV ČR Praha, Praha, pp 129–162
Tomková K, Jonášová Š, Zlámalová Cílová Z (2017) Glass in fashion and trade in Bohemia in the 9th–11th century (archaeology and archaeometry). In: Wolf S, Pury-Gysel A (eds) Annales du 20e Congrès de l´Association Internationale pour l´Histoire du Verre, Fribourg et Romont 2015. Verlag Marie Leidorf, Rahden/Westf., pp 374–378
Tomková K, Křížová Š, Vaculovič T (2020) Skleněné korálky ze Zelenče ve světle analýz chemického složení. In: Lutovský M, Špaček J (eds) Raně středověké pohřebiště v Zelenči. Archeologie ve středních Čechách Suppl. 1. Ústav archeologické památkové péče středních Čech, Praha, pp 87–99
Tomková K, Venclová N, Křížová Š, Vaculovič T, Faltusová V (2021) Sklo z doby stěhování národů ze Záluží u Čelákovic: archeologie a archeometrie. Archeologické rozhledy 73:259–292
Tomková K, Křížová Š, Faltusová V, Schibille N, Vaculovič T (2023) Archaeological and chemical variability of glass beads: olive and fusiform beads in central Europe. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-023-01717-4
Vaculovič T, Breiter K, Korbelová Z et al (2017) Quantification of elemental mapping of heterogeneous geological sample by laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Microchem J 133:200–207
Venclová N, Hulínský V, Jonášová Š (2014) Merovingian glass beads from Holubice in Moravia: a chemical and technological view. In: Čižmářová J, Venclová N, Březinová G (eds) Moravské křižovatky. Střední Podunají mezi pravěkem a historií. Moravské zemské muzeum, Brno, pp 815–826
Venclová N, Křížová Š, Dillingerová V, Vaculovič T (2018) Hellenistic cast monochrome glass vessels from Staré Hradisko, 2nd–1st cent. BCE. J Archaeol Sci Reports 22:540–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2018.08.003
Volf MB (1978) Chemie skla. Státní nakladatelství technické literatury, Praha
Volkmann A, Theune C (2001) Merowingerzeitliche Millefioriperlen in Mitteleuropa. Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 42:521–553
Warr LN (2021) IMA–CNMNC approved mineral symbols. Mineral Mag 85:291–320
Wedepohl KH, Simon K (2010) The chemical composition of medieval wood ash glass from central Europe. Chemie der Erde Geochem 70:89–97
Wedepohl KH, Simon K, Kronz A (2011) The chemical composition including the Rare Earth Elements of the three major glass types of Europe and the Orient used in late antiquity and the Middle Ages. Chemie der Erde – Geochemistry 71:289–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemer.2011.04.001
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for the access to collections of beads to the Museum of Central Bohemia in Roztoky. Our thanks for providing reference materials (Corning Glass A, B) are due to the Smithsonian Institution, Department of Mineral Sciences.
The study was conducted within institutional support RVO 67985831 of the Institute of Geology and RVO 67985912 of the Institute of Archaeology, Prague (Czech Academy of Sciences).
Funding
This research was funded by the Czech Science Foundation (GACR), project No. 19-23566S – Prehistoric and historical glass from the Czech Republic. Continuity of dialogue of archaeology and archaeometry.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
DD classified the archaeological material. KT and NV analysed archaeological data and interpreted them in the context of chemical analyses. TV and VF conducted the LA-ICP-MS analyses; ŠK provided SEM–EDS analyses and the evaluation of chemical data. NS evaluated the compositional groups and participated in data interpretation. The text was edited by KT, NV, NS and ŠK. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethics approval
Not applicable.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Tomková, K., Venclová, N., Křížová, Š. et al. Early medieval glass beads: witness to changes in central Europe – the case of Hostivice (Czech Republic). Archaeol Anthropol Sci 15, 60 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-023-01754-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-023-01754-z