The region in and around Jerusalem is of enormous interest for scholarship on the history of glass, given the production and great flourishing of this material in the Eastern Mediterranean during antiquity. The present volume by Tamar Winter (W.) homes in on the city of Jerusalem and its environs, from the mid-5th to 8th c. CE, exploring how glass artifacts “illuminate cultural and ethnic aspects of the various populations that had used them” (1). More specifically, glass is proposed as a mechanism to examine the nature of the transition from Byzantine to Islamic rule in greater Syria-Palestine.

Chapter 1 sets out the main objectives and scope of the volume (section 1.1), and the state of research (section 1.2). The main objective is twofold: to emphasize the contribution of material culture as a major and reliable tool of historical research, and to advocate the use of glass artifacts in particular (1–2). The geographical scope is Jerusalem and its environs within 10 km. Jerusalem was selected due to its unique status as a thriving Christian cosmopolitan metropolis that became a political and religious center for Islam in the first centuries following the Arab conquest (1). The chronological scope begins in the mid-5th c. CE with “the emergence of a ‘genuine’ Byzantine-natured glass tradition” and concludes at the end of the 8th c. CE.Footnote ¹

W. reviews the historical, archaeological, and cultural research regarding the transition to Islamic rule in the region (section 1.2.1), and typological research on Byzantine and Early Islamic glass in Israel and neighboring countries (section 1.2.2). Since 1980, studies have shown that the impact of the Arab conquests was more gradual and complex that previously perceived, and archaeological evidence has gained appreciation as a significant tool for examining such issues. Typo-chronological knowledge of the ceramics of the Byzantine and Early Islamic eras has notably improved, and W. clearly sees a similar opportunity for glass. Research on glass from the Near East is a relatively young field that was initially focused on museum collections and finds from early excavations such as Karanis in Egypt and Gerasa in Jordan.Footnote ²

Chapter 2 presents the historical setting of Jerusalem and its environs in the Byzantine and Early Islamic periods. W. identifies several key aspects, including settlement types and patterns, urban zoning, and the changing local communities. The “Christian eminence” of the city and the “continuity, expansion, and vitality of Christian life and pilgrimage” up to the late 10th–11th c. CE are underscored (18).

One of the most important contributions of the book is Chapter 3: a comprehensive and up-to-date typological-chronological investigation of the glass products prevalent in Syria-Palestine from the mid-5th to the 8th c. CE. This work is much needed, providing a clear and uniform database with good accompanying illustrations showing complete vessel profiles. The study is based nearly exclusively on glassware from regulated, well-documented archaeological excavations in Jerusalem and its environs, conducted mostly by the Israel Antiquities Authority during the last 25 years (19–21). Glass from excavations in other parts of Israel and neighboring countries is brought into the discussion (Map 1.2).Footnote ³

W.'s methodological annotations and considerations are crucially given in section 3.1. Of particular importance is the explanation of type categories and labels. Previous typologies have employed complicated systems of letters and numbers that are difficult to follow and cite (21). The method here uses type of vessel and features to construct the label. This admirable approach seeks a universal system applicable to any dataset. Two or three uppercase letters indicate vessel shape, followed by two or three lowercase letters indicating shape of the rim or base, or type of decoration (e.g., “BLor” indicates “bowls with an outfolded rim,” and “LBBwkt” indicates “Bowl- or beaker-shaped lamps with three handles with a wick tube”). The explanation and summary in Table 3.1 are essential, for although the rationale behind the abbreviations makes sense, the abbreviations are at times inconsistent or not immediately obvious.Footnote ⁴

The typo-chronology of glass vessels (section 3.2) is followed by a separate consideration of the major decorative schemes (section 3.3). When a decorative scheme is “numerous and/or well preserved” (64), it is also discussed by vessel type in section 3.2; this results in some back-and-forth flipping, but it also serves to reiterate certain observations. Section 3.2 includes a discussion of the archaeological evidence for contraptions associated with glass lamps (e.g., wick holders, metal hangers, multi-light devices, wall fasteners). Section 3.4 discusses “exceptional” vessels (type label EX) and artifacts (ART), including large goblets, multi-sided vessels, stamped vessels, rods, and horseshoe-shaped objects. Glass bracelets are notably absent.Footnote ⁵ Architectural glass products such as windowpanes, tesserae, and gold-glass tiles are surveyed in section 3.5.

Turning to the substance of Chapter 3, each object category receives ample formal description and archaeological references to where and when it was in use. W. does an excellent job of clearly and repeatedly explaining when different vessel types or styles first appeared, became widespread, and diminished.Footnote ⁶ Each major category – bowls, bowls/beakers,Footnote ⁷ wineglasses, jars, bottles, jugs, and lamps – is well illustrated (Figures 3.2.1–3.5). Patterns observed in the data show, for example, that bowls were one of the most common glass vessel types during the 3rd–4th c. but became less frequent from the 5th c. onward, when wineglasses emerged as the preferred drinking vessel; wineglasses were in turn gradually replaced by a new type of deep bowl/beaker that appeared in the 7th c. and became widespread during the 7th–8th c. (25, 27). Some object subtypes are shown to have coexisted; for example, wineglasses with hollow bases were often found alongside wineglasses with solid bases (36). When styles remained in fashion, newly introduced characteristics can often be observed, such as the popular contrasting dark turquoise- or blue-trailed decorations of bottles and bowls that were gradually replaced by trails of brown, yellow, or olive green (30).

Lighting was a major function of glass starting in the early Byzantine period. The typology and chronology of glass lamps and windowpanes are included in some depth in Chapter 3. These are revisited and examined more thoroughly in Chapter 4, which discusses the novelty of glass-related illumination schemes and touches on aspects such as the history of use, manufacturing techniques, formal variations, mounting methods, liturgical use, and symbolism.

Chapters 5 and 6 present many newly studied glass assemblages, excavated in Jerusalem and its environs, to construct a comprehensive picture of the local corpus of glass. These chapters serve to establish a foundation for the synthesis that is presented in Chapter 7. Most significant and immediately useful is Chapter 5, with glass assemblages examined for the first time ever or since their preliminary study, including some sites that may never see a final report (107). Sites are marked on Map 5.0 and discussed in geographical order.Footnote ⁸ Each begins with an overview of the site and its finds, and the glass is then reviewed with reference to the typology in Chapter 3. The glass is illustrated in accompanying figures, with summary tables featuring object number, locus, basket, and a complete description – a familiar format for individual site reports. A concluding summary with discussion is illuminating, at times confirming or challenging archaeological interpretations.Footnote ⁹ Many of the case studies in Chapter 5 support the conclusion in section 7.5 regarding the continuity of the glass repertoire during the 6th–8th c. CE. In Chapter 6, “a selection of additional, published glass assemblages from the Jerusalem area is evaluated” (3). The chapter is more of a list than an evaluation, and the actual data are published elsewhere. In its brief three pages of text, 11 sites are introduced; Table 6.12 provides a list of local funerary contexts with glass finds from the 5th to 7th c. CE.Footnote ¹⁰

Chapter 7 synthesizes the previous chapters, first reflecting on the data in Chapters 3, 5, and 6 (i.e., the mid-5th- to 8th-c. Jerusalem corpus), and then framing this reflection with questions posed in Chapter 1 and contexts established in Chapter 2. Section 7.1 opens with the characterization and perception of the glass, “addressing its features and production, its predecessors and innovations, and its general uniformity alongside a diversity of styles and variants” (177). The Jerusalem corpus is then scrutinized in section 7.2, “considering aspects of continuity, change, and innovation, as well as local trends of production” (177). Section 7.3 compares the Jerusalem corpus with well-dated glass assemblages from three major cities in the region: Caesarea Maritima, Bet She'an, and Ramla. Section 7.4 considers settlement issues and cultural-religious-ethnic contexts associated with the glass finds. A discussion in section 7.5 identifies trends of continuity and change in the glass industry, weighing their historical significance. W. asserts that the glass finds of Jerusalem and its environs “emphasize trends of continuity of Late Roman traditions into the 5th–6th c., and the continuity of Byzantine-natured trends all along the 7th and into the 8th c., while recognizing new emerging types and distinctive phenomena” (177).

Although the beginning of the Byzantine period in Syria-Palestine is traditionally marked by the year 324 CE, glass products follow a different chronology. The evidence presented here confirms an observation made by E. M. Stern, that 4th- to early 5th-c. glassware predominately consisted of types that reflected and maintained earlier Roman traditions:Footnote ¹¹ “these vessels bear typical ‘Roman’ features, and should therefore be regarded as ‘Late Roman’” rather than early Byzantine (177). W. unfortunately does not explain exactly what these Roman features are. A “‘genuine’ Byzantine-natured glass corpus developed around the mid-5th c., and crystallized during the 6th and 7th c.” (178): this comprised new vessel types (e.g., wineglasses, lamps, bottles) as well as “a decline in the quality of the glass fabric, a carelessness of execution, and a lower regard for details” (178).Footnote ¹² Compared to Roman-era glass, the mid-5th- to 7th-c. glass repertoire was more uniform and limited: the occurrence of dishes, bowls, and beakers dwindled, the diversity of bottles decreased, and jugs became scarce; wineglasses drove out beakers; and additional glass products were introduced (windowpanes, tesserae, inlays, tiles), associated with the numerous new ecclesiastical structures erected (178). The uniformity of everyday glass products in the Byzantine period “may be associated with the Christian hegemony and stability of the population, whereas the diversity of styles and variants…may be attributed to the tastes and whims of individual itinerant artisans or particular workshops” (182).

The end of the Byzantine period in Syria-Palestine is traditionally marked by the Arab conquests of 630/40 CE, yet again glass products follow a different chronology. Glass shows a continuity of fabrics, colors, and vessel types throughout the 7th c. and occasionally into the 8th c. (178). The 7th c. saw the gradual dwindling of certain forms or decorative schemes and the pioneering of new forms (e.g., beakers/bowls, bottle type BTTifr). Subtle shifts in taste or fashion may be observed,Footnote ¹³ for example, in changes in the color and application of decorative trails and in the fashioning of vessel bases. Several new products emerged in the second half of the 7th and the 8th c., including zoomorphic vessels, stamped vessels, alembics, horseshoe-shaped artifacts, and inscribed weights (73, 178); these forms were likely introduced by the newly settled Muslim populations because of their specific practical purposes (e.g., alembics and stamped vessels: 82–83, 183). Even with such innovations, however, most of the glass vessels from the mid-5th to 8th c. display similar fabrics and colors.

New fabrics and colors, as well as new techniques and vessel types, were introduced into Syria-Palestine in the late 8th or early 9th c. but predominated in the 9th–10th c.Footnote ¹⁴ Although W. brings glassmaking technology into the discussion (180–81), more emphasis could be given to chemical analyses that demonstrate fundamental changes in the raw material sources and recipes used to make glass during the 9th–10th c.Footnote ¹⁵ Such a discussion would support this study's observation of glass continuity into the 8th c., with more notable change characteristic of the 9th c. This emphasizes that the Arab conquests of the 7th c. had little impact on glass, but it also suggests that historical research of the Abbasid-era technological revolution and golden age could beneficially be brought into the conversation.Footnote ¹⁶

Three interesting observations are made about the glass corpus from the city of Jerusalem, summarized in section 7.2. The first concerns a lamp variation that is shaped like a wide shallow bowl with perforations below the rim for its suspension (type LCW). This was a highly uncommon type at other sites, represented by just two examples in and south of Jerusalem. Its rarity and presence exclusively in ecclesiastical settings suggest that it may have been a regional, church-related variant (58, 184–85). The second observation concerns multi-sided vessels (type EXMSV) that are traditionally considered pilgrimage or eulogia vessels. Contrary to accepted assumptions,Footnote ¹⁷ these vessels are not very uniform and may not have been manufactured in Jerusalem at all, but rather in several workshops in the region, and their date range may be broadened from the 6th–7th c. to the 6th–8th c. CE (78, 185). The third noteworthy observation concerns evidence of glass production in the city, including chunks of raw glass and furnace debris. Such material was recovered from several areas (185–86, Map 5.0),Footnote ¹⁸ which is important because no glass furnace installations or workshops have been documented in Jerusalem to date. These three observations highlight W.'s masterful command of glass, in terms of familiarity with the regional corpus (both published and unpublished) and ability to amass and interpret data to tease out such patterns.

Section 7.3 considers the sites of Caesarea Maritima, Bet She'an, and Ramla in greater depth:

After a short introduction to the history and significance of each city, the glass assemblages are evaluated and compared to the Jerusalem corpus. W. concludes that “despite their disparate histories and circumstances during the period in question, the occupants of these four cities employed a largely similar repertoire of glass vessels and artifacts, with a small variety of specific unique products manufactured only in local workshops” (191).

The comparison of glass from Jerusalem and the three provincial capitals leads into discussions of glass and its correlation with settlement categories (section 7.4.1), and glass as a possible marker of religious-ethnic affiliation (section 7.4.2). Although a similar repertoire was seen across all settlement categories, W. interprets certain trends as evidence of a strong and dominant Christian element within the region: “the absence of artifacts that were explicitly related to the Muslim administration may therefore imply that these monasteries and farmsteads continued to be run and inhabited by Christians long after the Arab conquest and while the land was governed by Umayyad caliphs, and possibly later, under Abbasid rule” (194). The artifacts mentioned are likely the stamped vessels (EXst) that are associated with the caliphal administrations (83).Footnote ¹⁹ Another key interpretation is that “the substantial consumption of glass vessels and artifacts in the churches and monasteries may allude to the role of the ecclesiastical institutions in the production and supply of glass” (194). The continuity of material culture through political transformation is underscored in section 7.5, where similar trends in the ceramic corpora are noted.Footnote ²⁰

Chapter 8 links the study's conclusions to the debate over continuity versus decline during the Byzantine–Islamic transition. Analysis of glass from Jerusalem and its environs establishes that the same types of glass objects were available and used at sites representing different settlement types. The uniformity of glass may be associated with the stability and hegemony of the Christian population, whereas the diversity of styles and variants may be attributed to individual tastes and whims of artisans and local workshops (197). There is no evidence for a break in the corpus through the major events of the mid-5th to 8th c.; new forms and techniques that were gradually introduced in the 7th c. seem not to be directly associated with historical events and dynastic divisions (197). In short, historical-political events had no immediate or direct effect on glassmaking trends, and the medium followed a separate development. Consequently, W. advocates the use of dates expressed in centuries for material culture, given that “historical-political terms and periodization prove inadequate and insignificant” (197).

This book is commendable for its breadth of data and its contribution to the history of glass. It serves as a valuable resource by compiling excavated materials and creating a useful typo-chronology for glass in Syria-Palestine of the mid-5th to 8th c. CE. The general continuity of glass in this era underscores the rationale of using centuries rather than binary terms such as Byzantine or Umayyad, and it directly contributes to the reexamination of traditional historical narratives. This is a must-read volume for glass specialists in particular, and for scholars of the Byzantine–Islamic transition in general.