Though much Roman glass from Palestine and Syria exists in museums and collections, there are very few instances in which we know anything about the circumstances of its finding, and in still fewer instances are groups from the same tomb still preserved together. In recent years some tomb-groups of the early and later Roman period have been published in the Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine, and I myself was recently enabled, through the kindness of Mr. Henri Seyrig, to publish two groups of the later 1st century A.D. from Yahmur, near Bairut. These are the only published examples known to me from this area, and it therefore seems worth while to add two other probable groups to the list, one from Tyre and the other from Galilee. Both are late Roman, probably 4th century A.D.

This group was given to the Ashmolean Museum by the late Mr. C. D. E. Fortnum in 1888. It consists now of eight glasses (A.M., Fortnum collection, G. 22–29). In a MS. catalogue prepared by Mr. Fortnum himself nine pieces are mentioned, but one, described as a “cup, semi-globular of pale green glass of similar character to no. 23 [see below] but smaller” is now missing and I do not believe it ever reached the Museum. Fortnum adds in his catalogue: “The above nine pieces were found, presumably together, in the neighbourhood of Tyre, where I bought them.” He therefore believed them to be a group, and since, with one exception [see G. 29 below], they look thoroughly homogeneous both in ware and in date we may well accept them as such.

It is a curious fact that though remarkably little has survived of the jewellery worn by the women of Palmyra in the first centuries of our era, we know enough from sculptured representations of it to hasard the statement that it provides important evidence of the wide-flung commercial relations of that city at the zenith of its activity. For several decades past there have been coming into the museums of Europe and America large numbers of sculptured busts from the ruins of the desert city, each standing out in high relief on a square or oblong slab of stone, which also bears, to right or left of the head, a brief inscription in Palmyrene. The details of clothing and jewellery represented on these busts, the dressing of the hair and of the men's beards, the objects held in the hands, all are well worth study for the light they throw on the life and fashions of the times, and particularly on the commercial relations of the caravan city with other lands to east and west.

The inscriptions, in whose incised characters traces of the red paint with which they were originally embellished often still remain, are remarkably uniform: a formal word of regret, best translated as ‘Alas !’, and the name and genealogy carried back through the male line for two, and occasionally three or more, generations. Typical inscriptions read: ‘Alas ! Jarḥai, son of Jedī‘bel, son of Simon, (son of) Argan’; ‘Alas ! Elahsā, son of Taimisā, son of Samsigeram, (son of) Ḥabbazi’. A considerable number of Jewish names occur, and a sprinkling of Persian, Nabataean, Phoenician and other names, There are yet others of Greek and Roman form, of which the latter would appear to have been freely adopted by Palmyrene citizens of the later periods, e.g., the brothers Narqaios and Qallistus, sons of Šalman Marcellus. Occasionally the date was added, reckoned from the official beginning of the Seleucid era, October 7, 312 B.C. The inscription on one such dated bust reads: ‘Alas ! ‘Aha, daughter of Ḥalaftā, son of Bar‘ā, (son of) Zabd'atā … Month of September, 473’ (=A.D. 161).

Anatolian prehistory has had great pioneers: Myres, Ormerod, Frankfort, Götze and others. Yet, in its present form, it is one of the youngest branches of archaeology. We might say that it was born when the Alişar excavations were in progress, round about 1930, on which reckoning it is less than twenty years old. Unfortunately for us in England, it grew with the rapidity of adolescence between 1939 and 1945 when our attention was otherwise engaged.

During the war Turkish scholars were extremely active, and made some very important discoveries. German scholars were active too, at first in the field, later in research. The fresh material, like the comments thereon, has been published mainly in Turkish or in German works, the former being accessible but not always translated, the latter for the most part not available in England. Therefore a person whose opportunities and obligations have led to the study of both Turkish and German periodicals should try to make the results available: hence this paper. It is not, of course, confined strictly to the chronological and linguistic limits just mentioned, nor is it purely objective. For not only is a summary of facts needed, but also indications of the manner in which they might modify preconceived notions. Those indications may prove to be wrong. And whether much modification is needed depends on the notions. On almost every question one should keep an open mind, since excavation and exploration are still being carried on intensively, and new factors are continually introduced.