nordest nuova serie, 191

Volume pubblicato con il contributo di:

Scuola di Dottorato in Scienze Umanistiche

Università degli Studi di Verona

In copertina: Tom Colbie Art, The Bridge.

isbn 978-88-5520-076-9

© 2020 Cierre edizioni

via Ciro Ferrari 5, 37066 Sommacampagna, Verona
tel. 045 8581572, fax 045 8589883
edizioni.cierrenet.it • edizioni@cierrenet.it
Humanities: approaches,
contamination and perspectives
Conference proceedings, Verona 17-18th October 2019

a cura di
Marta Tagliani, Vittoria Canciani e Francesco Tommasi
Indice

F. Tommasi, M. Tagliani, V. Canciani, Introduction 9

studying humanities:
methodology and theoretical framework

V. Canciani, Revising an archaeological context through the archival

excavation: the Duino Mithraeum as a case study 15

S. Calvi, Dizionari monolingue in classi di francese lingua straniera.

Il TLFi (Trésor de la Langue Française informatisé) e la
progettazione di un’unità didattica sull’acquisizione dei colori 27

E. Marrucci, Ricostruire prassi umane attraverso frammenti

eterogenei: la filiera tessile nell’antica società greca 39

F. Piangerelli, Un esempio dell’utilità del multifocal approach:

Platone e i Barbari 51

F. Righetti, A digital approach to the old English version of the

story of Apollonius of Tyre 61

reconstructing humanities: fragments and layers

M. Abballe, From scattered data to palaeolandscape reconstruction:

a case study from the Romagna plain, Italy 73
6 indice

L. Arioli, Roman glass lamps. Fragmented information in archaeological

literature and a failed hybridisation in ancient material culture 87

P.R. Costa León, Extralinguistic traces of Andean exoticness in

dictionaries. References to past and society in lexicographical
definitions of coca and llama 99

N. de Manincor, First insights into Lazzaro Bastiani’s underdrawing 109

C. Fiorotto, M. Carra, M. Cavalazzi, The castrum of Zagonara.

An archaeobotanical approach to the study of a medieval castle’s
human-environment dynamics 125

C. Pasetto, Frammenti poetici di età augustea: il caso di Vario Rufo

e la fortuna del Thyestes nella tragedia di I sec. d.C. 139

connecting humanities: hybridization

A. Arnieri, Harmony and Dissonance: Notes on Sound

Metaphorization in Shakespeare’s Othello 151
S. Cramerotti, Contamination of looks. Triangulation of
practitioners’ experience, experts’ knowledge and teachers’ self-reflection
for developing teaching professional competencies 163
M. Norris, Time and timelessness. New configurations in the
worldview of Zeno of Verona 171

F. Ramasso, “Voi, ad uccidere bruchi nei boccioli di rosa!”.

Elementi meticci ed ibridi nell’opera teatrale Perikızı. Un sogno
di Emine Sevgi Özdamar 185

C. Striolo, The reception of Titian’s models at the court of Brussels

in the 16th century 195

F. Tommasi, Hybrid Guide in the Study of Work: Temporal

Framework in Work and Organizational Psychology 209
indice 7

decoding humanities: ambivalence

T. Benevento, “Una grande, grande glossa ridicola e abissale”.

Ambivalenze ne Il brigante di Robert Walser 221

P. Bjelica, The ambivalence of Stavrogin: Benjamin’s reading of

Dostoevsky’s character as a precursor of Surrealism 231

A. Grimaldi, Ancient variant, emendation or error? Some notes

on Eratosthenes’ epigram on the De duplicatione cubi, line 2,
and the apographs of a lost manuscript belonging to Giorgio Valla 241

R. Zanoni, Cloud Atlas, individual identity in-between fiction

and reality 251
D. Panizza, La comprensione delle implicature indirette in tempo
reale negli adulti e nei bambini 261

List of Contributors 276

Introduction

The academic disciplines falling under the definition of Human-

ities are the product of a long historical reflection on both method
and subject of studies. Over time, scholars have renewed the interest
for new factual and control-factual insights on separate fields of re-
search, which has resulted in an impetus for deeper understanding,
controversial methodological debates, and enriching discoveries. The
current research within the Humanities has therefore developed in var-
ious and autonomous fields of study, which are nevertheless organized
around interconnected bunch of research. As a matter of fact, specific
research agendas can often lead researchers to interdisciplinary consid-
erations, which cover different domains of knowledge. On the basis of
this awareness, the international conference Humanities in the Third
Millennium: approaches, contaminations, and perspectives aims to be
an opportunity for reflection and discussion on the current challenges
of the Humanities among young scholars and researchers.
The different research approaches adopted within the fields of Hu-
manities share the effort of exploring the human potential which can be
expressed in various forms, ranging from the comprehension of man-
uscripts and trans-media to the critical evaluation of ancient authors;
from the study of foreign languages and literatures to the investigation
of psycho-behavioural phenomena; from the development of new chal-
lenging methods to explore human history to arts and archaeological
studies.
Nowadays, the Humanities are experiencing a challenging condi-
tion, as in the global marketplace of higher education, the disciplines
10 introduction

falling under this umbrella term are increasingly threatened by de-

creased funding. According to a report in Research Trends magazine, by
Gali Halevu and Judit Bar-Ilan, international humanities funding has
been in constant decline since 2009. In the United States, for instance,
the financing for humanities research in 2011 was less than half of one
percent of the amount dedicated to science and engineering research
and development. Furthermore, in countries such as Japan, Australia,
Italy and France a relative decline of about 25 percent of humanities
degrees has been reported over the past few years (from Ella Delany,
The New York Times 2013). Within this challenging academic frame-
work, the international conference Humanities is the Third Millenni-
um aims to provide young researchers with the opportunity to present
their own work by encouraging interdisciplinary and transversal dis-
cussion which can lead to the evaluation of new approaches to conduct
critical research in the fields of humanities.
At the beginning of 2019, the aim to create an opportunity for dis-
cussion for young PhD students of humanities disciplines has led to the
organization of this conference. Under the supervision of the Doctoral
School of Arts and Humanities of the University of Verona, we have
assiduously worked as organizing committee to create an open, vibrant
and stimulating floor for interdisciplinary discussions. This effort has
resulted in the two-day international conference titled Humanities in
the Third Millennium: approaches, contaminations, and perspectives:
more than 30 speakers specialized in large number of disciplines have
presented their work in front of a heterogeneous audience of students
and researchers, providing important insights and food for thought on
different subjects. Moments of discussion were organized in four broad
thematic areas, which we believed to represent some of the cornerstones
of the scientific research conducted in the fields of Humanities, name-
ly: theoretical framework and methodology in human science; frag-
ments and layers, hybridization and ambivalence. A call for papers or-
ganized in macro-thematic areas gave us the opportunity to encourage
young PhD students to go beyond the traditional limits of their fields
of research, and reflect on the interdisciplinarity and great potential
of the humanities disciplines. The challenge has been enthusiastically
accepted by many PhD students working in different fields of research:
introduction 11

arts, archaeology, philology, literature, performance studies, foreign lit-

eratures, languages, linguistics, education, philosophy and psychology.
Two young researchers, Daniele Panizza and Caterina Previato, shared
their experience with the audience of students and fellow researchers.
This fruitful gathering of researchers coming from universities across
different countries has led to the publication of the present volume,
with the aim of leaving a trail of the experience lived in Verona on the
17th and 18th of October 2019.
The publication of these proceedings would not have been possible
without the help and the suggestions of the Scientific Board of the
conference: Professor Andrea Rodighiero, Professor Manuela Lavelli,
Professor Attilio Mastrocinque, Professor Stefan Rabanus, and Profes-
sor Paolo Pellegrini. We also would like to thank our colleague Elia
Marrucci as part of the Organizing Committee. A special expression of
thanks is due to the reviewers who have kindly decided to take part at
the blind peer-review process which have undergone the articles pre-
sented in this volume. We would also like to thank Mrs Catia Cordioli
for her invaluable help throughout all the organizational steps of both
the conference and the publication process and Mr Andrea Dilemmi
who helped us with the design and layout of these proceedings. Lastly,
particular thanks go to the all the authors and all the researchers who
have attended the conference, who have made all this possible.

Francesco Tommasi
Marta Tagliani
Vittoria Canciani
Roman glass lamps. Fragmented information
in archaeological literature and a failed
hybridisation in ancient material culture
by Luca Arioli

Abstract: This paper will deal with an extremely rare Roman glass type: lamps
made of glass in the shape of the clay ones. Information on these lamps
is dispersed across different papers and catalogues; few recent studies have
considered them and previous attempts at synthesis have never provided a
complete account on this type. A more complete account will be proposed
here, together with some remarks on the distribution, date, morphology and
hypotheses on the production of this glass form. Due to their distribution
and extreme rarity, it is possible that glass lamps were designed in different
glass-working areas but – as glass is less performant than clay for this task –
were soon dismissed.

Keywords: Roman glass, Roman lamps, Roman material culture, Fragments,

Hybridisation

Introduction

Glass and light had a close relationship in Roman times: panels were
used for windows and suspended conical lamps became widespread in
Late Antiquity (Uboldi, 1995). Glass lamps in the shape of the clay
ones were instead an extremely rare lighting device. My aim is to pro-
vide an overview of this glass form, whose analysis provides an archae-
ological case-study on the issues of fragmentation and hybridisation.
The first part of the paper will deal with dispersion of data and in-
completeness of previous literature together with its consequences on
88 luca arioli

the understanding of a topic related to ancient material culture. The

second part will discuss the archaeological aspects of this type and the
issue of the transmission of models between clay and glass productions.

Literature on fragments or fragmented literature?

References to glass lamps can be traced in literature up to more

than one hundred years ago, but none who worked on this topic has
produced a complete account on this glass form or a complete list of
finds (Stern, 2001, p. 400, n. 14; Casagrande & Ceselin, 2003, p. 32-
33; Buljević, 2006, p. 111; Lightfoot, 2013). Most of these lamps were
published as unique or peculiar specimens in collection catalogues or in
dedicated studies. Indeed, up to now, only two papers have attempted
an in-depth analysis. In 2006, Zrinka Buljević (2006) presented two
new lamps from Dalmatia and determined their chronology through
context associations, while at the same time focusing on the morphol-
ogy of the lamps and on their comparison with other finds. In a more
recent paper, Chris Lightfoot (2013) analysed two peculiar glass forms,
often misinterpreted and confused: inkwells and lamps. Besides re-ana-
lysing two already published lamps in the Metropolitan Museum col-
lections, he focused on the definition of the form, and gave precise sug-
gestions for their identification, considering that a glass lamp should
possess the same functional parts as a clay one. He also pointed out that
many specimens published as lamps were actually inkwells due to their
lack of a wick-hole (Fremersdorf, 1961, pp. 36-37, pl. 47; Von Saldern
et al., 1975, pp. 203-204, n. 571-572; Bonnet Borel, 1997, p. 44, AV
V 113, pl. 32, 10; Wight, 2011, p. 124, fig. 95).
None of them detected or reported all the existing lamps. Both drew
data from different sources, as each one knew lamps unknown to the
other, and both missed some others. In fact, each paper mentions circa
2/3 of the lamps known at the time. The obvious consequence is that
even if both are excellent studies by authors of great importance in the
field of Roman glass studies, they are based on an incomplete dataset.
This may lead to erroneous final evaluations of any study, notably when
dealing with such a scarce number of specimens.
roman glass lamps 89

Incompleteness has its roots in deeper problems. Some lamps – as

those from Regensburg, one in the Toledo Museum of Art and a lost
specimen from Aquincum – were known to the earliest authors and
went “forgotten” by the later ones: they were mentioned in the com-
parison lists of old catalogues, being thus known to scholars working in
the ‘60s and ‘70s and disappeared in later works. At the same time, the
notice of a glass lamp found in Novae was possibly originated from a
misunderstanding of the first author to quote it (Barkoczi, 1988, form
190). This was reiterated in many following mentions, but could have
been avoided by checking the original source (Billewicz, 1975, p. 149).
In fact, it is evident at first sight that the published specimens are bot-
toms from conical Late Antique lamps.

A rare glass type: Distribution and chronology

I tracked twenty lamps (Fig. 1A). Sixteen lamps come from archaeo-
logical excavations or have a known findspot and four have an unknown
origin. Most of the finds are from the western part of the Empire (Fig.
1 B) and are distributed across Italy, Dalmatia and along the Rhine and
Danube frontier. Italy has provided a large share of these lamps, as three
are from Pompeii and one each from Voghenza, Vicenza and Ljublja-
na in Slovenia. Moreover, the lamp in the British Museum collections
allegedly came from Italy. Finds also occurred on the Adriatic coast, in
Vis and Split. Germany has provided specimens from Koln and Trier
and others were found along the Danube, in Regensburg and Acquin-
cum. Some other lamps were found in the Eastern Mediterranean, on
Cyprus and in the necropolis of Akko in Israel. Finally, the occurrence
of a lamp in Sedeinga (Sudan) is clearly the result of long-distance trade
(Cool, 1996, on Sudanese glass imports).
Apart from the Pompeii lamps, all the specimens are from funerary
contexts, but precise information on the grave content is not always
available. Nine out of twenty lamps can be archaeologically dated, main-
ly by pottery association. Seven lamps are from contexts or graves dated
to the late 1st (three from Pompeii, Voghenza, Akko) or late 1st – early
2nd century AD (Ljubljana, Split). In addition, the mould-blown lamp
90 luca arioli

from Cyprus derives from a clay prototype dated to 90-140 AD circa

(Bailey 1980, Pi type). The latest one is the lamp from Split, found in
a grave dated between the mid-2nd and the mid-3rd century AD. The
lamp of the Schloessinger Collection is unprovenanced and was prop-
erty of a collector interested in lamps from Syria, Palestina and Arabia
(Rosenthal & Sivan 1978). Its owner dated it to the 4th-6th century
AD (Schloessinger 1966, pp. 130-131, n. 9). This attribution is in my
opinion untenable, as the sole difference with other dated specimens is
the presence of the hanging rings on a lamp otherwise similar to early
Imperial specimens. Hanging rings are a common feature on bronze
and clay lamps throughout the whole Imperial period and they do not
provide a significant point to support such a late chronology. Moreover,
conical glass lamps were currently manufactured in Late Antique times
and the production of such a lamp would have been unlikely.

A rare glass type: Typology

All the lamps have a round body with a central filling-hole and an
applied, usually raised nozzle. The presence of a handle and a base-
ring is very common, but they do not always co-occur1. Except for the
dark-green Vicenza lamp, they are all made of naturally-coloured glass.
Establishing a strict typology for a form so scarce in numbers is possibly
hazardous, as each specimen modelled through free-blowing is poten-
tially unique. Also, due to different recording techniques, not all lamps
were documented in the same way (Fig. 2). Nevertheless, some remarks
are required. Three groups of similar (but not identical) lamps exist
and group most of the known specimens (See Fig. 1 A for attribution
details). They should not be considered as rigid categories but rather as
instrumental for purposes of grouping and description.
Buljević (2006) described the first two groups and noted that the
most significant distinction occur between lamps with high, curved
shoulders (here Group 1) and others with the topside flattened at noz-
zle level (here Group 2). Group 1 is the most common and counts
nine lamps, mostly coming from Italy or the Adriatic region. The three
lamps from Pompeii are mutually almost identical, as well as to the
roman glass lamps 91

British Museum lamp. Despite having curved shoulders, the lamp from
Split has the filling-hole marked by some grooves, a feature recalling
Group 2 lamps. The unprovenanced Schloessinger lamp as well is sim-
ilar to the Group 1 lamps, but in addition to the handle, it has three
suspension-rings on the shoulder.
Group 2 lamps are rarer and count four specimens. After blowing,
they were crafted in order to have a completely flattened upper part.
This is often simply plain, but the lamps from Vicenza and Vis have
some decorative circles recalling those of clay lamps.
A third and smaller group can be added (Group 3). The lamps from
Koln and Regensburg have round, squeezed and enlarged bodies with
a very large central filling-hole, flat nozzle and no handle. Both come
from Germany but due to the long distance between the findspots it
is difficult to infer or suppose a common origin. The unprovenanced
lamp in the Toledo Museum of Art is similar to these ones in body
shape, but has a handle.
Finally, some lamps stand apart these larger groups as exception-
al specimens. The Akko lamp is abnormally large, as it measures 20
cm. The free-blown lamp in the Metropolitan Museum collection has
a round, low and flattened body, with no nozzle and a cut wick-hole.
The glass inkwell of the Oppenlader Collection (Von Saldern et alii
1975, p. 203, n. 571) is almost identical but has no wick-hole, possibly
implying that such objects could be re-worked after blowing according
to necessity. The lamp from Cyprus was blown into the mould of a clay
lamp and subsequently squeezed in the middle.

From distribution to production

The distribution of the finds suggests that the lamps were produced
in western glass-working centres, but the scarcity of numbers offers few
certain data for their precise identification.
It is evident from the distribution map that northern Italy and the
Adriatic region are the richest area, and lamps found in this region are
mutually quite similar. Glassmaking activities in the region are well
documented in Imperial times. It is also probable that the iron blow-
92 luca arioli

pipe, which allowed a diversification of the morphological repertory

of free-blown glass, was introduced by Cisalpine glassmakers in the
first half of the 1st century AD (Stern 1999, p. 447). Aquileia was
the leading glass-making centre of the region: even if no lamps were
found there, the finds are distributed in areas which were part of its
catchment basin, reaching the central Po plain and the eastern Adriatic
coast (Buljević, 2007). Campania was another important glass-work-
ing region and glass workshops are known in Puteoli (Taborelli 2003,
pp. 229-30). The lamps from Trier and Koln can be attributed to the
well-known manufactures of Rhineland (Hopken & Schafer 2006).
Glass-makers from the Syro-Palestinian coast were probably responsi-
ble for the development of the mould-blowing technique (Stern, 1995).
As was already proposed by Chris Lightfoot (2013), the lamp from
Cyprus can be considered an experimental product from one of these
workshops. Many mould-blown glasses from the region were found in
Cyprus, testifying to close trade relations, and Aristeas, a prominent
Sidonian glass-maker, was himself a Cypriot (Lightfoot 2017, pp. 52-
55). Also, the Akko lamp can be considered an experimental product
due to its enormous size, unusual even for a clay lamp.
This brief examination points out that the distribution of the finds
relates most of them to different and important glass-working areas.

Conclusion – From clay to glass: a failed transposition

Glass lamps are one of the rarest forms of Roman glass. Two figures
can give a glimpse of the rarity of glass lamps, respectively in the wider
context of the Empire and within the limits of a single town.
Ennion is possibly the most famous Roman glassmaker. He pro-
duced high-quality mould-blown cups, bottles, pyxides and jugs deco-
rated according to the so-called Sidonian Style, and was active in Tibe-
rian-Claudian times (Lightfoot, 2014). Circa sixty vessels attributed to
this workshop have survived into our time. The total amount of glass
lamps is less than 1/3 of the output of a single workshop.
Pompeii provides one of the most important assemblages of Roman
glass, containing over 2000 vessels (Scatozza, 2013). It is also the rich-
roman glass lamps 93

est glass lamp findspot, as three lamps were found there, implying that
they are less than the 0,15% of the total finds.
The rarity of this form may be linked to some archaeological and
ancient-use issues. The first issue is the recognizability of the form in ar-
chaeological assemblages; that is, almost all known specimens are com-
plete lamps from funerary contexts. In settlement sites, glass is usually
fragmentary. This means that if lamp fragments were found there, it is
highly unlikely that they are correctly identified and attributed, and
they may be easily misidentified as unattributable fragments from more
common glass forms.
The second issue is their performance in use. Clay and glass are dif-
ferent materials with different properties. As noted by Lightfoot (2013,
p. 427), blown glass lamps are more difficult to manufacture than clay,
mould-made ones, as the process requires a longer time and more prac-
tical skills. Moreover, glass is a heat conductor: the flame, close to the
wick-hole, could have caused the cracking of the glass, with potentially
dangerous consequences.
Despite this problem, glass lamps were clearly manufactured in dif-
ferent regions, each one with a strong glass industry and different tradi-
tions. Experimentation, exchange with other productions and creation of
new forms and types are common aspects of prolific productions. A close
connection had always existed between glass, metal and clay tableware
forms (Tortorella, 2003). So, it is likely that when glass started being
easily worked to create common-use objects, experiments were made to
transpose in glass one of the most iconic objects of the Roman world:
the clay lamp. Given the distribution of finds and their geographical re-
lation with productive centres and regions, is thus likely that glassmakers
operating in different areas created glass lamps independently from their
colleagues when trying to diversify their production by designing new
glass objects in order to expand their trade in the market of daily-use
objects. They achieved general success with most of their products, but
glass lamps clearly proved unsuccessful. It is thus likely that - in different
places and in different times – they were designed, manufactured and
subsequently dismissed as not-so-brilliant ideas.
a.

b.

Fig. 1. a) Summary of information and selected literature on the finds;

b) Distribution map.
Fig. 2. Roman glass lamps. All the lamps were re-drawn by the author from the
sources reported in Fig. 1A; Images of the lamps from Regensburg and lamps in
the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Toledo Museum of Art are of public
domain. Scale 1:3. Toledo Museum of Art and Regensburg lamps are out of scale.
96 luca arioli

Notes
1. Sometimes foot-rings cannot be inferred from pictures. Also, some handles may
be missing from incomplete lamps.

References
Bailey, D. (1980). A catalogue of Roman lamps in the British Museum. 2. Roman lamps
made in Italy. Brtish Museum Press.
Barkoczi, L. (1988). Pannonische Glasfunde in Ungarn. Akademiai Kiado.
Benko, A. (1962). Uverglascorpus. Regeszeti Fuzetek, S. II, 11.
Beretta, M. & Di Pasquale, G. (Eds.) (2005). Vitrum. Il vetro tra arte e scienza nel mon-
do romano (Catalogo della mostra (Firenze, 27 marzo – 31 ottobre 2004). Giunti.
Billewicz, E (1975). Wyroby szklane. In S. Parnicki-Pudelko. Novae. Sektor zachodni
1972 (pp. 131-149). Poznan: Uniwersyet Im. Adama Mickiewicza.
Bonnet Borel, F. (1997). Le verre d’époque romaine à Avenches – Aventicum. Typologie
Générale. Association Pro Aventico.
Buljević, Z. (2006). Stakleni lucernae iz rimske provincije Dalmacije. Histria Antiqua,
14, 107-113.
Buljević, Z. (2007). Novità sul vetro soffiato a stampo della Dalmazia con alcuni paral-
leli italici. In M. Buora (Ed.), Le regioni di Aquileia e Spalato in epoca romana (pp.
163-184). Udine: Fondazione Cassamarca.
Casagrande, C. & Ceselin, F. (2003). Vetri antichi delle province di Belluno, Treviso e
Vicenza. AIHV- Association Internationale pour l’Histoire du Verre.
Cool, H.M. (1996). Sedeinga and the glass vessels from the kingdom of Meroe. Annales
du 13e Congrès de l’Association Internationale pour l’Histoire du Verre (Pays Bas,
septembre 1995) (pp. 201-212). Lochem.
Fortuna, M. T. (1965). I vetri soffiati della necropoli di Akko. Journal of Glass studies,
7, 17-25.
Fremersdorf, F. (1961). Römische Geformtes Glas in Koln. Verlag Der Löwe.
Goethert-Polaschek, K. (1977). Katalog der römischen Glaser der Rheinischen
Landesmuseum Trier. Trier: Philip von Zabern.
Hopken, C.C.C. & Schafer F., (2006). Glasverarbeitung und Glaswerkstatten in
Köln. In Cremers, G., Demarsin B. & Cosyns P. (Eds.), Roman Glass in Germania
Inferior. Proceedings of the International Conference, held in the Gallo-Roman
Museum in Tongeren (May 13th, 2005) (pp. 74-85). Publicaties van het Provin-
ciaal Gallo-Romiens Museum.
Lamprecht, H. (1906). Die grosse römischen friedhof aus Regensburg. Verhandlungen
des historischen Vereins von Oberpfalz und Regensburg, 58, 1-88.
Lightfoot, C. (2013). Write or light? Roman glass inkwells and lamps. In Tekocak M.,
Studies in honour of K. Levent Zoroglu (pp. 425-432). Matsi Mataaba Hizmetleri.
roman glass lamps 97

Lightfoot C. (2014). Ennion and the History of Ancient Glas. In Lightfoot C., Ennion.
Master of Roman Glass (pp. 15-48). Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Lightfoot, C. (2017). The Cesnola Collection of Cypriot art. Ancient Glass. Metropolitan
Museum of Art.
Petru, S. (1972). Emonske nekropole: odkrite med leti 1635-1960. Narodni Muzej.
Rosenthal, R., & Sivan, R. (1978). Ancient lamps in the Schloessinger collection.
Qedem, 8, 1-179.
Schloessinger, M. (1966). Blown lamp of green glass. In Recent Acquisitions made by
Public and Private collections in the United States and Abroad. Journal of Glass
studies, 8, 128-140.
Scatozza Horicht, A. (2013). L’instrumentum vitreum di Pompei. Aracne.
Stern, M. E. (1995). The Toledo Museum of Art. Roman mould-blown glass. The first
through sixth century. L’Erma di Bretschneider.
Stern, M. E. (1999). Glassblowing in a cultural context. American Journal of Archae-
ology, 103, vol. 3, 441-484.
Stern, M. E. (2001). Roman, Byzantine and Early Medieval Glass. 10 BCE – 700 CE.
Ernesto Wolf Collection. Hatje Cantz Publishers.
Tait, H. (Ed.) (1991). Five thousand years of Glass. British Museum Press.
Taborelli, L. (2003). Una produzione vetraria tra l’oriente mediterraneo e il cuore
dell’impero. In Defosse, P. (Ed.). Hommages à Carl Deroux (pp. 229-240). Lato-
mus.
Travagli Visser, A. (1984). Le «antichità» di Voghenza nella cultura antiquaria ferrare-
se. In Voghenza. Una necropoli di età romana nel territorio ferrarese (pp. 283-312).
Centro culturale Città di Ferrara.
Tortorella, S. (2003). Ceramica da mensa e materiali pregiati in epoca romana e impe-
riale. Archeologia Classica, 54, 387-409.
Uboldi, M. (1995). Diffusione delle lampade vitree in età tardoantica e altomedievale
e spunti per una tipologia. Archeologia Medievale, 22, 93-145.
Von Saldern, A., Nolte, B., La Baume, P., & Haevernick, T. H. (1975). Glaser der
Antike. Sammlung Erwin Oppenlander. Koln.
Wight, K. (2011). Molten Colour: Glassmaking in Antiquity. Getty Trust Publications.
 ottobre 2020

cierre gruppo editoriale

via Ciro Ferrari, 5
37066 Caselle di Sommacampagna, Verona
www.cierrenet.it

Stampato da
cierre grafica
tel. 045 8580900 - fax 045 8580907
grafica@cierrenet.it

per conto di
cierre edizioni
tel. 045 8581572 - fax 045 8589883
edizioni@cierrenet.it

distribuzione libraria a cura di

cierrevecchi srl
via Breda, 26
35010 Limena, Padova
tel. 049 8840299 - fax 049 8840277
fornitori@cierrevecchi.it