Our recent LA-ICP-MS analyses of glass ingots from the Uluburun shipwreck along with additional samples from Egyptian sites, primarily Amarna, encourage us to question how and where the ingots were produced. Because almost all the approximately 200 glass ingots are either greenish blue, colored by copper, or purplish blue, colored by cobalt, we focus here on these colorants and their attendant trace elements. Based on the evidence for copper and antimony in cobalt-blue glass, we conclude that the most likely explanation is the addition of glass cullet during ingot production, in accordance with suggested evidence from glassmaking texts thought to date to the Late Bronze Age. By comparing the Uluburun ingots with glass from Amarna using multivariate statistics and trace element ratios, we determine that while a few of the ingots might be consistent with Amarna manufacture, the great majority are not, but rather represent production from other workshops, probably following those at Amarna. The importance of these workshops is suggested by our finding that over half of the cobalt-blue Mycenaean relief beads for which trace element data is available were made with Egyptian glass closer to that of the Uluburun ingots than to glass found at Amarna.

我们最近对来自乌鲁布伦沉船的玻璃锭的 LA-ICP-MS 分析以及来自埃及遗址（主要是阿玛纳）的其他样品，鼓励我们质疑玻璃锭的生产方式和地点。因为几乎所有大约 200 块玻璃锭要么是绿蓝色，被铜着色，要么是紫蓝色，被钴着色，因此我们在这里关注这些着色剂及其伴随的微量元素。根据钴蓝玻璃中铜和锑的证据，我们得出结论，最可能的解释是在铸锭生产过程中添加了碎玻璃，这与被认为可以追溯到青铜时代晚期的玻璃制造文本的建议证据一致。通过使用多元统计数据和微量元素比率比较 Uluburun 锭与来自 Amarna 的玻璃，我们确定，虽然少数锭可能与 Amarna 制造一致，但绝大多数不是，而是代表其他车间的生产，可能遵循 Amarna 的生产。我们发现，超过一半的钴蓝色迈锡尼浮雕珠（可提供微量元素数据）是用埃及玻璃制成的，与在阿玛纳发现的玻璃相比，这些玻璃更接近乌鲁布伦锭的玻璃，这表明了这些研讨会的重要性。