REPRINTED FROM

JOURNAL OF GLASS STUDIES

VOLUME 55 2013
Copyright 2013 by The Corning Museum of Glass, Corning, NY 14830-2253
Hugh Willmott and Kate Welham
Late Seventh-Century Glassmaking
at Glastonbury Abbey
71
Glastonbury therefore remains one of the most
important production sites thus far excavated
northwest of the Alps (Fig. 1).
Despite the importance of Glastonbury Ab-
bey to early medieval studies, Radford was un-
able to publish a full account of his work, and
his most comprehensive interim report makes
little mention of the glassmaking.
3
This omission
is perhaps in part due to the fact that responsi-
bility for overseeing the excavation of the ar-
chaeological remains and the subsequent analy-
sis of the artifacts was assigned to Dr. Donald
Harden, who was invited to the site when the
rst furnace was discovered in 1955. Harden
and Radford corresponded about the nds un-
til the 1980s, and although Harden compiled a
brief unpublished catalog of the artifacts, regret-
tably no details of the excavation were produced
alongside it. In 1989, Dr. Justine Bayley began
the rst comprehensive study of the surviving
rec ords and glassmaking remains. This was pub-
lished in 2000,
4
and a report on the nished
products by Prof. Vera Evison appeared in the
same volume.
5
G
LASTONBURY ABBEY is one of the most
important early monasteries in the Brit-
ish Isles. It was founded in the late sev-
enth century in the kingdom of the West Sax-
ons (now located in the county of Somerset),
and it has been the subject of numerous exca-
vation campaigns over the past 100 years.
1
The
most signicant of these were interventions di-
rected by C. A. Ralegh Radford between 1951
and 1964, which produced substantial evidence
on the history and development of the late medi-
eval abbey and its earlier medieval predecessor.
Work undertaken by Radford over the summers
of 19551957 has received particular attention
from glass scholars, because it revealed the most
extensive evidence found to date for early me-
dieval glassworking in the United Kingdom. The
glassmaking site is exceptional, as it contains
not only the substantial remains of a number of
furnaces, but also a diverse range of artifacts as-
sociated with early glassworking practices. With
the exception of an unpublished example from
Barking Abbey,
2
no early medieval glass furnace
in England has produced such a rich assemblage.
Late Seventh-Century Glassmaking
at Glastonbury Abbey
Hugh Willmott and Kate Welham
Acknowledgments. The authors thank Prof. Roberta Gilchrist
and Dr. Cheryl Green of the Glastonbury Abbey Excavation
Archive Project Team at the University of Reading for initially
inviting them to take part in the project. We are also grateful to
Janet Bell, curator of the Glastonbury Abbey Museum, for fa-
cilitating our study, and to Dr. John Allan, archaeologist to
Glastonbury Abbey, for his comments on the pottery and cru-
cibles. Thanks are also due to Charlene Steele for taking the
photographs of the artifacts, to Jerneja Willmott for the line
drawings of the artifacts, and to Tom Cousins for the X-ray of
the blowpipe.
1. Philip Rahtz, The English Heritage Book of Glastonbury,
London: B.T. Batsford and English Heritage, 1993.
2. Kenneth MacGowan, Barking Abbey, Current Archae-
ology, v. 149, 1996, pp. 172178.
3. C. A. R. Radford, Glastonbury Abbey before 1184: In-
terim Report on the Excavations, 190864, in Medieval Art &
Architecture at Wells and Glastonbury, ed. Nicola Coldstream
and Peter Draper, British Archaeological Association Conference
Transactions, v. 4, 1981, pp. 110134.
4. Justine Bayley, Saxon Glass Working at Glastonbury
Ab bey, in Glass in Britain and Ireland, AD 3501100, ed.
Jennifer Price, British Museum Occasional Paper, no. 127, Lon-
don: the museum, 2000, pp. 161188.
5. Vera I. Evison, The Glass Fragments from Glastonbury,
in ibid., pp. 189199.
72
FIG. 1. Location of early medieval monastic sites mentioned in the text.
In 2009, the Glastonbury Abbey Excavation
Project
6
was created to enable the publication
and analysis of the full excavation archive. This
important initiative has provided a vital oppor-
tunity to re-evaluate all of the material relating
to the early medieval glassmaking on the site,
much of which had been unavailable to previous
researchers. A full stratigraphic and analytical
report is forthcoming,
7
but this article provides
the rst comprehensive overview of the glass-
making practices that took place at the abbey.
Dating the Glass Production at Glastonbury
The glassmaking remains at Glastonbury had
been thought to consist of four furnaces located
within the area of the later medieval cloister.
Fur naces 1 (uncovered in 19551956) and 2
(discovered in 1956) were situated in the north-
eastern corner of the cloister (Fig. 2). Furnace 1
overlay, and presum ably replaced, Furnace 2,
largely destroying any evidence of the earlier
structure. The presence of the earlier furnace
was attested only by a patch of burned clay and
associated superstructure debris. More than 600
artifacts were recovered from this area, includ-
ing both glassworking waste and portions of the
furnace struc ture.
6. Glastonbury Abbey Excavation Project, www.reading.
ac.uk/archaeology/research/Projects/arch-RG-Glastonbury.aspx
(accessed December 19, 2012).
7. Hugh Willmott and Kate Welham, Saxon Glassmaking,
in Roberta Gilchrist, Glastonbury Abbey: Excavations, 1904
1979, London: Society of Antiquaries of London, forthcoming.
73
FIG. 2. Location of furnaces within the cloister.
Furnace 3, excavated in 19561957, was dis-
covered to the west of Furnaces 1 and 2. Al-
though it was relatively undisturbed, there were
very few nds associated with this feature. The
reason for this paucity is unknown, but the pres-
ence of a well-preserved structure and some as-
sociated nds of vitreous slag demonstrate that
it was a glassmaking furnace. In 1957, Furnace
4 was uncovered under the western cloister
walk, and excavation in this area was conduct-
ed extremely rapidly. It is clear from Hardens
site notebook that he was unable to positively
identify a glassmaking structure, but he inferred
that one must have been present because of the
large quantities of glassmaking waste found
there. The recent re-evaluation of the records
for this area, some of which were apparently
drawn after Harden left the site, suggests that
he encountered the tops of two diferent glass
furnaces (Furnaces 4 and 5), although neither
was fully or even partly excavated.
Although these furnaces are clearly earlier
than the Norman Conquest of 1066, their pre-
cise dating, and therefore the dating of the glass-
making phase, has always been the subject of
de bate. When discussing Furnace 1 in a letter
writ ten to Harden in December 1955, Radford
stated, I hope next year to establish a strati-
graphical dating of pre-950, but at the moment
this is only a possibility for which there is not
sufcient evidence.
8
Harden and Radford
thought that Furnaces 2 and 3 were of similar
date, but in the absence of any identied in situ
remains, no such explicit assumption was made
for Furnace 4. Subsequent commentators have
continued to agree on a ninth- or 10th-century
date,
9
with the exception of Evison, who noted
that typologically the glass was more similar
to material found on early eighth- or even late
seventh-century sites.
10
As part of the Glastonbury Abbey Excava-
tion Project, a new dating program for the glass
8. Glastonbury Abbey Archive DBH01/12, letter 5.
9. See, for example, R. J. Charleston, English Glass and the
Glass Used in England, circa 4001940, London: George Allen
and Unwin, 1984, p. 15; Rahtz [note 1], p. 92; and Bayley [note
4], p. 175.
10. Evison conceded, however, that the glass may have been
old cullet, collected to be reworked at a much later date. See Evi-
son [note 5], pp. 193194.
74
furnaces was undertaken.
11
A number of char-
coal samples from within the structures exca-
vated in 1955 were identied, and ve of these
were selected for radiocarbon dating. Together,
they provide a broad date of 605882, but when
the ranges of overlap are considered, a date in
the late seventh century, and the 680s in par-
ticular, can be assumed.
12
This date is particu-
larly signicant because it places the operation
of the glass furnaces in the earliest phase of
known monastic activity at Glastonbury, coin-
ciding with the reign of King Ine of the West
Saxons, who founded the monastery sometime
shortly after his accession in 688.
13
Given this
association, it can reasonably be concluded that
the glassmaking operation was specically es-
tablished to provide window glass for the new-
ly constructed buildings of the abbey, as well as
vessel glass for use by the members of the reli-
gious community.
The samples available for radiocarbon dating
came only from the area of Furnaces 1 and 2,
and so they provide a precise date for these
structures. However, because of the close simi-
larity and dating of the material culture found
in the other two areas, it seems probable that
glassmaking took place across the site in a sin-
gle, relatively short phase.
Furnace Design and Operation
Despite the identication of ve separate fur-
nace structures at Glastonbury, any reconstruc-
tion of their original form can be based only on
Furnaces 1 and 3. Furnace 2 was destroyed by
the construction of Furnace 1, and Furnaces 4
and 5 were not sufciently excavated to provide
any details of their plan.
14
Furnace 1 was oval,
measuring 1.8 m by 1.2 m externally (Fig. 3). It
was oriented on a roughly eastwest alignment,
with a stokehole (W. 23 cm) on its western side,
anked by two large stones. Hardens plan of
the furnace shows that the outer wall was ap-
proximately 15 cm thick, although it survived
only to a maximum height of a few centimeters.
Unfortunately, this plan does not indicate how
the wall was constructed. However, a rare sur-
viving photograph in the site archive, taken
short ly after the furnace was discovered (but be-
fore it was excavated), shows a ring of tiles at
the location of the wall, suggesting that its low-
est portion was formed from clay-bonded tiles.
15

The oor of the structure was a shallow depres-
sion 12 cm deep in the center. It appears, from a
description in Hardens notebook, that the oor
was originally covered with reused Roman tiles,
11. The dating program was generously supported by a grant
from the Maltwood Fund, The Somerset and Natural History
Society.
12. A full report on the results (including discussion of the
delta 13C values and probabilities at 2 sigma) will be published
in Willmott and Welham [note 7].
13. George Norman Garmonsway, ed., The Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, London: Dent, and New York: Dutton, 1953, p. 40.
14. A detailed stratigraphic analysis of all ve furnaces will
be provided in Willmott and Welham [note 7]. What follows
here is a summary of the key features to permit the reconstruc-
tion of the original forms.
15. National Monuments Record GLA/SITE/7.
FIG. 3. Furnace 1 (after sketch plan by Donald Harden).
75
providing a hard surface, although most of these
tiles were missing and the clay beneath had been
burned hard red. Overlying the oor was a layer
containing a considerable amount of ash and
charcoal, presumably from the nal ring, as
well as burned clay and tiles from the collapsed
or demolished superstructure. Mixed within this
were a signicant number of glass and crucible
fragments.
Furnace 3 had a similar but more complex
form (Fig. 4). It was slightly larger than Furnace
1, measuring 2 m by 1.4 m externally, and was
built on a northwest to southeast alignment.
The outer wall survived at the northern portion
of the furnace as a layer of mortar (W. about 15
cm) resting on the clay. Although no tiles were
left in situ, it appears that this layer must have
formed the bedding and bonding for a tile-built
furnace wall. Several examples of displaced tiles
with mortar still attached were recovered from
this area of the excavation. The internal oor,
similar to that of Furnace 1, had a shallow de-
pression up to 24 cm deep in the center, but no
tiles were recovered from this layer. It is possi-
ble that they were never present, the depression
being the result of wear caused by the repeated
heating and raking-out of ashes, rather than an
intentional part of the original design.
Another feature at Furnace 3 was a stoking
or raking-out pit (1.9 m x 0.9 m) that joined the
furnace by a narrow stokehole (W. 23 cm). The
presence of a pit suggests that, unlike Furnace 1,
which was presumably built atop the external
clay surface, this furnace was slightly inset in the
ground and therefore required a pit to provide
access for the insertion of fuel and the removal
of ashes. The stokehole leading to the furnace
ap pears to have been stone-lined, and a portion
of at stone, with evidence for mortaring on its
edges, was recovered from this area (Fig. 5). The
stoking pit, although only partly excavated, was
found to contain a signicant quantity of ash,
charcoal, and burned material, coinciding with
its function, as well as portions of red-clay fur-
nace superstructure. Covering the oor of the
furnace itself was another layer of burned ma-
terial and charcoal, overlain by what was de-
scribed on one section drawing as reddened
clay including collapse of superstructure.
16

FIG. 4. Furnace 3 (after measured plan and sections
by Peter Hart).
FIG. 5. Stone with mortar on edges, recovered from
stokehole of Furnace 3 (scale 1:4).
16. Glastonbury Abbey Archive Section 16.
76
The structural remains of the furnaces, re-
tained after the excavation and still in existence
today, are detailed in Table 1. The limited re-
cording of nd locations and difculties in dif-
ferentiating between the individual structures
experienced by the excavators have meant that
it is not always easy to attribute specic nds
to individual furnaces, and therefore they are
grouped accordingly. Despite these challenges,
the assemblage is informative as to the original
form and construction of the furnaces. Frag-
ments of reused Roman tiles were recovered
from the excavated areas around Furnaces 1, 2,
4, and 5. Many, particularly from Furnaces 1
and 2, were not extensively vitried, suggesting
that they may have formed parts of the core of
the lower walls of the furnaces. Others, from
both furnace areas, had surfaces that had clear-
ly been afected by prolonged exposure to heat,
and they can be presumed to have come from
the oors or perhaps the inner wall face of the
furnace. A small number of tiles also had drips
of glass adhering; blue-green and turquoise ex-
amples were recovered from Furnaces 1 and 2,
and turquoise and olive ones from Furnaces 4
and 5. These tiles were probably set in the up-
per portion of the furnaces, and in at least one
case the drip of glass adhering seems to imply
that the tile was set with its face exposed, pos-
sibly as part of the siege shelf holding the cru-
cible (Fig. 6).
FIG. 6. Tile with blue-green glass adhering, from Fur-
nace 1 or 2 (scale 1:4).
TABLE 1
Summary of Furnace Structure Retained from Excavations
Material Count Surface Furnace
Tile 15 No deposits adhering 1, 2
Tile 5 Heavily vitried 1, 2
Tile 1 Blue-green glass adhering 1, 2
Tile 1 Turquoise glass adhering 1, 2
Aperture 9 Vitried 1, 2
Furnace lining 12 (930 g) Vitried 1, 2
Furnace lining 11 (324 g) Vitried, with blue-green glass adhering 1, 2
Furnace lining 3 (20 g) Vitried, with olive glass adhering 1, 2
Superstructure 162 (1,251 g) Fired 1, 2
Superstructure 10 (171 g) Fired 3
Tile 1 No deposits adhering 4, 5
Tile 3 Heavily vitried 4, 5
Tile 1 Turquoise glass adhering 4, 5
Tile 2 Olive glass adhering 4, 5
Aperture 7 Vitried 4, 5
Furnace lining 15 (683 g) Vitried 4, 5
Furnace lining 13 (113 g) Vitried, with blue-green glass adhering 4, 5
Superstructure 35 (803 g) Fired 4, 5
77
Finds of burned or red clay were present in
large quantities (Table 1) and could be divid-
ed into three types: curved apertures, furnace
lining, and general superstructure. Nine frag-
ments of apertures were found in association
with Fur naces 1 and 2, and seven with Furnaces
4 and 5. These openings, crudely molded when
the clay was still wet, were irregular and always
less than 15 cm in diameter (Fig. 7). Too small
to have been portions of gathering holes, they
are thought to have probably been the remains
of vents set in the roof of the furnace to allow
hot gases to escape, and they may have been
used to regulate the internal temperature. Por-
tions of red-clay furnace lining were also re-
covered (Fig. 8). These were characterized by at
least one smooth, highly red face, and there
was often evidence of tile impressions on the
internal surface, suggesting that the clay was
smoothed onto the inner face of the furnaces
tile wall as a protective covering. Furnace-lining
fragments were also found with drips of glass
on them, colored blue-green and olive from Fur-
naces 1 and 2, and turquoise and olive from Fur-
naces 4 and 5. The re maining nds of burned
clay were amorphous, but often in excess of 5 cm
thick. While some of these may have been part
of the lining, most prob ably came from the clay
roof of the furnaces.
Given the age of the assemblage and the num-
ber of the nds, any reconstruction of the orig-
inal form of the furnaces must be tentative at
FIG. 7. Aperture from area of Furnaces 4 and 5 (scale 1:6).
FIG. 8. Furnace lining from area of Furnaces 4 and 5 (scale 1:2).
78
best. However, the recently published experi-
mental work by Mark Taylor and David Hill
pro vides a useful comparison, and there are
strik ing similarities between some of their fur-
nace reconstructions and the Glastonbury evi-
dence.
17
Taylor and Hill experimented with two
types of Roman-style circular furnaces, the rst
of which had tile-built walls acting as the siege,
and the second provided with a separate shelf
to hold the crucibles. The former seems to be a
closer match for the archaeological evidence at
Glastonbury, and it allows for a potential re-
construction to be proposed (Fig. 9). Furnaces
1 and 3 ofer sufcient evidence of bonded tile
walls and a single stokehole, both only slightly
narrower than those used by Taylor and Hill in
their reconstructions. Another similarity with
the Glastonbury assemblage is the use of a clay-
built domed roof and what have been identied
as small thermal vents.
There are some diferences between the Glas-
tonbury furnaces and the Roman reconstruc-
tions. Although they are of similar size, Taylor
and Hills furnaces were circular, while the Glas-
tonbury examples are slightly elongated and
oval. The reason for the choice of this shape is
uncertain, but it may have resulted in a more ac-
cessible working area. In the Roman reconstruc-
tions, fuel enters the furnace at a level slightly
above the oor, while at Glastonbury wood was
inserted right at the base.
One nal element recovered during the exca-
vation was possible evidence of diferent vari-
eties of wood that may have been used as fuel
for the glass furnaces. Of the charcoal samples
that were sent for radiocarbon dating, one was
from an identiable fruitwood species (Prunus
sp.), probably cherry or plum, and two were
from the apple subfamily Maloideae, which can-
not be assigned a genus name.
18
It is very like ly
that the quantities of wood to maintain the re-
quired temperature during a glassmaking cam-
paign would have necessitated the use of cop-
piced hardwoods. However, this may suggest
FIG. 9. Reconstruction of Glastonbury furnaces (drawing on Taylor and Hill [note 17]).
17. Mark Taylor and David Hill, Experiments in the Re-
construction of Roman Wood-Fired Glassworking Furnaces,
Journal of Glass Studies, v. 50, 2008, pp. 249270.
18. Complete details will be found in Willmott and Welham
[note 7].
79
that all fuel was valued and that the glassmakers
were choosing to burn whatever was available
at the site. Indeed, the use of small and native
fruitwoods may indicate that the Glastonbury
furnaces burned natural vegetation that had
been cleared in the initial phase of building the
monastery.
Glassworking Practices
A comprehensive typological report on the
ves sel and window glass has already been un der-
taken by Evison,
19
and therefore this is not rep-
li cated here beyond a brief summary of counts
and color variations. Regrettably, many of the
original glass and crucible fragments rst re-
cord ed by Harden and others have subsequently
been lost.
20
Nevertheless, sufcient material re-
mains to permit a comprehensive analysis of the
working waste and the creation of a detailed
picture of the working practices at Glastonbury.
Thirty glass crucible fragments can be identi-
ed in the assemblage, and with the exception
of a single fragment from Furnaces 4 and 5, all
of them are associated with Furnaces 1 and 2
(Table 2). The crucibles are thin-walled vessels
made from rened ball clay, and the closest
matching deposit is on the Isle of Purbeck in
Dor set, 50 miles from Glastonbury. There is an
outcrop of this clay stratum in northern France.
21

Interestingly, the Glastonbury ceramic has the
same fabric as the single crucible fragment found
at the early medieval monastery at Jarrow,
22
per-
haps suggesting that they had a com mon origin.
19. Evison [note 5]. Although several of the reported pieces
can no longer be identied, no signicant new vessel or win-
dow glass fragments have come to light, so this very thorough
report can be seen as the denitive account of these categories
of material.
20. See Bayley [note 4], pp. 176186. Since this report was
published, additional fragments have not been located, but
glass previously unrecorded by Harden or Bayley has become
available.
21. Data from British Geological Survey NERC 2013.
22. S. Mills and R. Cramp, with J. Bayley, Crucibles and
Associated Evidence for Metal and Glass Working from Jar-
row, in Rosemary Cramp, Wearmouth and Jarrow Monastic
Sites, v. 2, Swindon, U.K.: English Heritage, 2006, pp. 470476.
TABLE 2
Summary of Crucibles and Waste Glass
Type Count Color Furnace
Crucible 29 Blue-green glass adhering 1, 2
Lump glass 2 Blue-green 1, 2
Lump glass 3 Blue-green glass with crucible adhering 1, 2
Lump glass 2 Mixed blue-green and turquoise 1, 2
Glass spill 1 Blue-green 1, 2
Glass moil 11 Blue-green 1, 2
Glass pull 9 Blue-green 1, 2
Glass pull 1 Emerald green 1, 2
Glass pull 4 Turquoise 1, 2
Glass rod 1 Turquoise and opaque white reticello 1, 2
Cast glass slab 1 Turquoise 1, 2
Crucible 1 Blue-green glass adhering 4, 5
Glass spill 3 Turquoise 4, 5
Glass moil 3 Blue-green glass 4, 5
Glass moil? 1 Turquoise 4, 5
Glass moil? 1 Amber 4, 5
80
All of the crucibles contain deposits of blue-
green glass, and they are often coated with sim-
ilarly colored dribbles and runs on the exterior
(Fig. 10); no other colors of glass are associated
with them. This pattern is duplicated in the nds
of lump glass, almost certainly the remains of
the melted batch, as is suggested by the portions
of crucible fabric adhering to some examples.
Exceptions are two lumps of poorly mixed blue-
green and turquoise batch from Furnaces 1 and
2, but they may represent an accidental con-
tamination rather than an intentional mixing
of colors. Finally, of the 16 moils found, all but
two are blue-green (Fig. 11), and the positive
identication of single turquoise and amber
moils is far from certain because of their highly
fragmentary state. Consequently, it seems very
probable that only blue-green glass was melted
and subsequently blown at the site.
The delicate nature of the crucibles, coupled
with the lack of any apparent evidence for the
use of raw materials at Glastonbury, suggests
that the glassmakers were remelting fully formed
glass and cullet.
23
Chemical analysis, undertaken
as part of the re-evaluation of the material,
24
has
shown that most of the glass has a typical Ro-
man soda-lime-silica composition with low lev-
els of potash, conrming earlier analytical work
by Bayley and observations by Evison.
25
These
analytical data also suggest that the Glaston-
bury nds derived from raw glass produced at
primary production sites in the eastern Medi-
terranean, which was likely to have been mixed
with a certain amount of recycled Roman cul-
let. It is worth noting that comparisons can be
drawn between the composition of the Glaston-
bury glass and some of the material from the
monastery at Wearmouth as characterized by
Brill.
26
A small number of colored glasses are present
in the assemblage. At Furnaces 1 and 2, in addi-
tion to nine blue-green pulls (usually associat -
ed with the application of trails on vessels), one
emerald green and four turquoise examples were
found, while a spill of turquoise glass was re-
cov ered at Furnaces 4 and 5. More diagnostic
are a single surviving nd of a preformed twist-
ed turquoise and opaque white reticello rod and
a small slab of turquoise glass (formed by pour-
ing molten glass onto a hard surface before al-
lowing it to cool, leaving a roughened under-
surface) from the area of Furnaces 1 and 2 (Fig.
12). Such rods were employed only for the dec-
o ration of vessels, and a number of vessel frag-
ments found at Glastonbury were ornamented
with similar if not identical trails.
27
The turquoise
23. The lack of primary glass production at Glastonbury was
suggested by Bayley [note 4], p. 174.
24. Complete details of the chemical analysis of the Glaston-
bury assemblage will be found in Willmott and Welham [note 7].
25. Bayley [note 4], pp. 172173; Evison [note 5].
26. R. Brill, Chemical Analyses of Some Glasses from Jar-
row and Wearmouth, in Cramp [note 22], pp. 126147.
27. Evison [note 5], pp. 190191.
FIG. 10. Crucible fragment with blue-green glass de-
posit, from area of Furnaces 1 and 2 (scale 1:1).
FIG. 11. Blue-green moils from area of Furnaces 1
and 2 (scale 1:1).
81
glass slab must also be associated with the dec-
oration of vessels, since it is too thick to be a
portion of window glass. It is almost certainly
an imported ingot of colored glass, in tend ed to
be broken up and melted.
In summary, the evidence from the working
waste indicates that larger quantities of blue-
green glass were melted in crucibles for blow-
ing into vessels and windows.
28
Colored glasses
were used for decoration, but they do not seem
to have been blown or even melted in the same
types of crucibles as the blue-green glass. Per-
haps it was normally sufcient to heat them on
a pallet within the mouth of the furnace. This
interpretation is broadly conrmed when the
nished glass is also taken into consideration
(Table 3), although this is complicated by two
factors. First, many of the smaller fragments of
what appear to be vessel glass may, in the ab-
sence of more diagnostic features, actually be
blowing waste. It is important to note that it has
not been possible to identify any other typical
types of blowing waste in the assemblage.
29
Sec-
ond, it is almost impossible to demonstrate that
a vessel or window glass fragment was denitely
made at the site. Although it is very unlikely that
blowing waste such as moils would have traveled
far from their point of origin, the fully formed
vessels recovered may well represent collected
cullet. A little more than 200 fragments (92 per-
cent) of the fully formed glass are blue-green, al-
though many fragments have additional colors
as surface treatments.
28. Ibid.
29. For a summary of types of working waste that might be
expected, see William Gudenrath, Techniques of Glassmaking
and Decoration, in Five Thousand Years of Glass, ed. Hugh
Tait, London: British Museum Press, 1991, pp. 213241; and
Hugh Willmott, A History of English Glassmaking, AD 43
1800, Stroud, U.K.: Tempus, 2005, pp. 1214.
FIG. 12. Turquoise and opaque white reticello rod
and turquoise slab from area of Furnaces 1 and 2
(scale 1:1).
TABLE 3
Summary of Finished Glass
Type Count Color Furnace
Uncertain 175 Blue-green 1, 2
Uncertain 4 Turquoise 1, 2
Uncertain 1 Olive 1, 2
Vessel 33 Blue-green 1, 2
Vessel 1 Emerald green 1, 2
Vessel 1 Turquoise 1, 2
Vessel 1 Red-purple 1, 2
Window 19 Blue-green 1, 2
Window 3 Amber 1, 2
Uncertain 3 Turquoise 4, 5
Uncertain 4 Amber 4, 5
Vessel 2 Blue-green 4, 5
Vessel 1 Opaque brown-red 4, 5
Window 1 Turquoise 4, 5
82
The nal unexpected and tentative evidence
for glassmaking activities at the site is the single
nd of a possible portion of a blowpipe (Fig.
13). Although this nd is heavily corroded, the
evidence of a hollow metal tube (L. 4.7 cm, in-
ternal D. about 1.0 cm) is visible by X-ray. This
is potentially signicant because, although blow-
pipes are known from Roman and Late Antique
sites in continental Europe, no known glass-
working tools have been found in England be-
fore the later Middle Ages.
30
Discussion
The recent investigation of the evidence from
Glastonbury, the rst comprehensive study of
the entire assemblage to have been made, has
revealed new insights into the nature of glass-
working at the abbey, and has begun to set this
activity into a wider technological and social
con text. Now positively dated to the late sev-
enth century, the furnaces are the earliest known
from early medieval Britain, and they are there-
fore crucial to an understanding of the develop-
ment of the post-Roman industry. Technologi-
cally, there appears to be a clear continuation
of Late Antique manufacturing traditions. The
furnaces at Glastonbury bear a striking resem-
blance to late Roman furnaces with round ring
chambers, and the construction methods em-
ployed at Glastonbury, including tile-built lower
walls and clay roofs with small apertures or
vents, mirror the experimental designs of Taylor
and Hill. It seems clear that these similarities
are not coincidental.
Compositional analysis has shown that much
of the raw glass used at Glastonbury was im-
ported from eastern Mediterranean production
centers, and that the Glastonbury glassmakers
were not simply scavenging Roman cullet. This
is to be expected, since recent isotopic research
has established that, in northern Europe, most
early medieval glass now appears to be related
in some way to large production centers discov-
ered in the Near East and the Mediterranean
30. The continental European nds are summarized in Hugh
Willmott, Irish Glassmaking in Its Wider Context, in Glass-
making in Ireland: From the Medieval to the Contemporary, ed.
John M. Hearne, Dublin and Portland, Oregon: Irish Academic
Press, 2010, p. 10.
FIG. 13. X-ray of possible blowpipe fragment from area of Furnaces 1 and 2 (scale 1:1).
83
region.
31
It seems probable that both glassmak-
ers and glass were imported to aid in the found-
ing of King Ines monastery. The reference by
Bede to the arrival of Gaulish glassmakers in
675 for the establishment of the monastery at
Wearmouth is well known,
32
and it is likely that
similar groups of continental European glass-
makers were brought in to work on other early
monasteries. Prof. Rosemary Cramp has high-
lighted the importance of glass used at other
late seventh- and early eighth-century monastic
sites,
33
and it is clear that there was a direct re-
lationship between the reintroduction of glass
produc tion and the Roman Church in early me-
dieval England. Consequently, it is essential that
any future discussion of early medieval glass-
mak ing in England place this evidence within its
wid er European context.
31. E.g., Robert H. Brill, Scientic Investigations of the Ja-
lame Glass and Related Finds, in Excavations at Jalame, Site of
a Glass Factory in Late Roman Palestine, ed. Gladys Davidson
Weinberg, Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1988, pp.
257294; Ian C. Freestone and Yael Gorin-Rosen, The Great
Glass Slab at Bet Shearim, Israel: An Early Islamic Glassmaking
Experiment?, Journal of Glass Studies, v. 41, 1999, pp. 105
116; La Route du verre: Ateliers primaires et secondaires du se-
cond millnaire av. J.-C. au Moyen Age, ed. Marie-Dominique
Nenna, Travaux de la Maison de lOrient Mditerranen, no.
33, 2000; and Marie-Dominique Nenna and others, Ateliers
primaires du Wadi Natrun: Nouvelles dcouvertes, Annales de
lAssociation Internationale pour lHistoire du Verre, London,
2003 (Nottingham, 2005), pp. 5963.
32. Charles Plummer, ed., Venerabilis Baedae historiam ec-
clesiasticam gentis Anglorum, historiam abbatum . . . , Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1896, p. 5:368.
33. R. J. Cramp, Anglo-Saxon Window Glass, in Glass in
Britain [note 4], pp. 105114.