This book constitutes the first publication of an important corpus of material, the Roman glass from Oea (modern Tripoli). The reworked research behind the volume was undertaken as part of the author's doctoral research at the Università degli Studi di Macerata. The work centres around Cingolani's corpus of 217 Roman and three Late Hellenistic glass vessels from Roman period funerary contexts, excavated in the period of Italian colonial involvement in Libya (1912–43). The audience for this volume is varied. Researchers working on Roman glass, funerary practices, Tripolitania, and the legacy of Italian colonialism on Libyan archaeology will all find this a key reference work.
The first chapter of the work (5–6) lays out the framework of, and the impetus behind, the research. The volume aims to add a valuable contribution to our understanding of the glass industry in North Africa (5) by fully cataloguing the glass from Oea and its surrounding necropoleis, an aim that is certainly achieved. The second chapter (7–10) gives a history of glass scholarship in the Maghreb in the second half of the twentieth century. Tripolitania is relatively understudied in comparison and Cingolani's volume can be seen as an extended update to the sole treatment to date (Price Reference Price, Buck and Mattingly1985).
The third chapter (11–12) outlines the approaches taken to the scholarly and practical difficulties that Cingolani has had to deal with in producing this book, the first of which is typology. Within the catalogue, the vessels are placed into a new function-based typology, which still provides abundant links to, and does not aim to replace, established typologies (11). The second is chronological: the burial contexts often have intrusive elements owing to the site biography and associated ceramic dating evidence can sometimes be unreliable. The approach taken to non-securely dated material is broadly morphological, through reference to existing typologies and by drawing parallels to more firmly dated examples from other Tripolitanian or North African sites. The final practical consideration is the premature conclusion of the recording due to the outbreak of civil war in 2011 and ongoing unrest in the region. The author, however, hopes to complete the work at a future date and, in the interest of completeness, refers to the missing vessels within the text.
The short chapter which immediately precedes the main catalogue is one in which the author aggregates the data collected and presents the trends which shed light on wider patterns of glass production, imports, exports, and consumption in Oea (13–16). The material from the site, aside from three Late Hellenistic vessels, ranges from the Augustan age to the fourth century AD, a period of many political and economic changes in the region. The zenith of glass consumption at Oea appears to have been between the second half of the first century AD and the second half of the second century. This is then attributed to the change in prosperity and demography initiated by the Augustan reorganisation of the province, which led to an increase of necropolis construction. Whether this process of change can be seen, with Cingolani, within the context of Romanisation (14) or within a more nuanced conceptual framework of socio-economic and political change is a debate for another time.Footnote 1 This same theoretical position is later applied to the necropoleis in the final chapter (91–96), which considers the symbolic role of glass within these funerary contexts.
Patterns which emerge in the material indicate a strong connection between Oea and the glass-blowing centres of Italy in the first century AD and the western provinces in the mid-second century, which later gives way to a reduction in the overall quality, quantity, and diversity of glass when these imports seemingly cease (15–16). Western imports are then replaced with eastern imports, based on morphological similarities, perhaps pointing to an origin of Asia Minor or Cyprus for several of the forms (16). There is also a small amount of evidence for local forms and variations and local glass-blowing is possible, although not directly evidenced (Price Reference Price, Buck and Mattingly1985). These sorts of insights elevate this volume above a simple catalogue.
The catalogue itself (17–64) is clear and each functional group of types is discussed at length and compared with other well-known and published assemblages from the Roman world. In glass studies, it is customary to do this in order to attribute likely centres of production and chronology. This concern with production and extraregional networks of exchange has long been a traditional approach to Roman material culture. This volume, therefore, adds an important Tripolitanian voice to the history of glass in the Roman world.
In making sense of the deposition at the necropoleis in the subsequent chapter (65–90), Cingolani makes it possible for the glass to be considered as part of individual graves where possible. Multiple relocations of the material – to safeguard it from World War II bombs amongst other threats – and the distance between the present day and when it was excavated by Salvatore Aurigemma has led to a progressive dismemberment of the original contexts. Nevertheless, Cingolani has managed to find specific funerary contexts for 85 of the 220 vessels from 17 contexts. This chapter includes many helpful photographs of the material and their excavations originally published by Aurigemma (Reference Aurigemma1958). The detailed, worthwhile, and comprehensive study of all of the available antiquarian data is clearly evidenced in this volume.
The volume is well presented and attractive. There is a clear system of cross-referencing between the text and catalogue images. All of the items catalogued, with only a few exceptions, are photographed and line-drawn in black and white, and an additional 20 are provided in colour. The catalogue images (105–73) are of high quality throughout and the line drawings are particularly appealing and clear.
In summation, this work is a well thought-out volume, which will be of tremendous reference value to researchers of several fields. It is hoped that Cingolani and other scholars can return to Libya soon and continue such detailed and holistic work on the archaeology of Tripolitania.
