Two Roman Egyptian Vessels in MECCJ

ORIENT Ⅵ)lume XLIV 2009 Two Roman Egyptian Vessels in MECCJ Kyoko YAMAHANA The Society f♭r Near Eastern Studies in Japan (NIPPON ORIENTO GAEEAI) Two Roman Egyptian Vessels in MECCJ Kyoko YAMAHANA* The museum of the Middle Eastem Culture Center in Japan (MECCJ) possesses two unlque Vessels which are broadly dated to Roman period･ Both vessels were purchased in Paris by Mr･ Kojiro Ishiguro, and joined the lshiguro Collection in MECCJ･ l These vessels are thought to have been made in Egypt, but their appearances are sounlque that they do not show any resemblance in the dynastic Egyptlan art Style. In fact, their overall shapes together with surface relief decorations show strong similarities to Greek and Roman art styles. The author would like to discuss shapes and decorative motifs of these vessels and discuss the infhence of eastem Mediterranean art style upon the Egyptian art around the lSt millennium BC･ Keywords: faience, Middle Eastem Culture Center in Japan, Roman, Ptolemaic, Memphis I. White Faience Vessel with the Motif of a Bird and Beasts (MECCJ M433) (Fig. 1) Although the upper‑part of the vessel is misslng, the overall shape resembles a slngle handled Greek oinochoe or olpe･ The remainlng height or the vessel is 15cm, With the bottom diameter approximately 8cm. The body that is bulging toward the bo杖om shows a character of a Corinthian olpe･ The bottom end of Fig･ 1 White Faience Vessel with Motif of a Bird and Beasts 辛 Lecturer, Tokal University Vol. XLIV 2009 151 the handle still remains just below the uppermost reglSter Of festoons or swags. deep re The protome at the bottom end of the handle looks like a human face, With a Tt nose and slight depressions for the eyes･ Yet, the attachments at the either side of handle the face (ears?) look unusually big･ They may represent a face of a satyrthat the color o potters of the eastem Mediterraneanoften apply at the end of the vase handle. the upr Altematively, they may rather be stylized rendering of thewings of eros. The vessel i parallels for this peculiarprotome are rare, only a few were found at Kom Helul, mi s sln圭 Memphis (Petrie, 191 I: pl. XV 76, 78)̲2 Although this vessel was said to have individ come from Naukratis, there may be a possibilitythatthe original production site glaze p was Memphis, since the parallel protome only occurs in Memphis･ Sl in low XVIII , RomaI】 from u and a (E49. 1 combil SurVIV】 II. Blt] Fig. 2 Relief Decoration of the Vessel There are fわur registers on the remaining vessel (Fig. 2). The uppemost register represents festoons or swags; the second register has a series of stylized vines, a bird, and a quadruped animal along with a set of unidentified plants･ The main part of the quadrupedanimal is destroyed, only hind legs remain. The head of the beast seems to be hidden Just underthe yellow protome･ Otherwisethe human face‑like protome was intentionally placed to serve as a face of the animal relief･ The bird, on the same reglSter, looks somewhat like a falcon, but the overall proportion is skewed and making it difficult to identify. The third reglSter is a.series of wave‑pattem･ The bottom fourth reglSter is a combination of palm leav?s and lotuspetals accompanied with butts･ Seven leaves andpetals chart 3PB 8･5/Ilo), and relief motifs are painted with dark blue (3PB 2.0/5.0) and purple (7P 2･0/5･0)･ Inside of the vessel is entirely covered with bright blue‑ green glaze (5B 4･0/10･0)･ There is neither a trace ofmould joint nor unevenness caused by presslng the fabric agalnSt mould. The thickness of the vessel was qulte unifbmed, which might indicate that the vessel was wheel made, then the 152 ORIENT 叫岬慧叫Ⅵ are depicted･ The surface is covered with a thick white glaze (Munsell color Two Roman Emtian Vessels in MECCJ deep reliefpattem was cut out by a skil岨ll hand･ The core fabric of the vessel is not visible except for two parts, One is at the handle break and another is around血e fわrelegs or the quadmped animal･ The color of the core is grayish white (N8.5)･ The core is not exposed in the area of the uppermost rim, although the upper part is broken and the entirerim of the vessel is misslng･ Instead, what we see is a trace of white glaze which bound the misslng upper part With the body･ The technique of assembling some individually made parts (i.e. individually glazed parts) into one vessel glued by glaze paste is commonly observed in many contemporary faience vessels･ such white faience is qulte rare; Petrie reports a few white glazed examples in low relief vessels found at Memphis (Petrie, 1911: 36, pl･XVII, 124, 125･ pl･ XVIII, 162, 163, 172). Some parallels were found丘om Hadra (The Graeco‑ Roman Museum, Alexandria, 55 13, 55 14, and 5745), another cylindrical vessel fromunknown provenance (The Graeco‑Roman Museum, Alexandria, 25462), and afragment of globular jar now in Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (E49.1946,unknown provenance)･ No oinochoe or olpe of the same color combination was however fわund, thus making this MECCJ example the unlque suⅣivlng Vessel. II. Blue‑green Globular Jar(MECCJ M434) (Fig･ 3) ､､､ ̲̲̲I 0 5 A ･ ･ ･ ･ l Cm Fig. 3 Blue‑green Globular Jar The appearance of globularJar With high relief decoration and thick blue‑green to green glaze is more frequently attested than the aforementioned white vessel･ Numerous fragments were uncovered at Memphis by Petrie,3 fewer are reported from alongside the Nile valley'4 others areknownfrom Athens and Rome･ Memphis was one of the main production centers of thistype of vessel, without Vol. XlⅣ 2009 153 of vessel from Kom Helul and its vicinity. The distribution of the vessel seems to co汀eSpOnd with the early Roman towns, especially with those places related to military Installations. The shape of the jar is not in the Egyptlan tradition, ltS Shape resembles rather closely an Assyrian fom･5 The prototype of the Egyptianversion would most likely be less globular with rather polnted bottom with widely flaring mouth･ Probably the Egyptians adopted a new oriental art style of the eastem Mediterranean that was in vogue during the lst millemium BC. There is a bold, high relief decoration of stylized grape leaves and vines on the uppermost neck register (Fig･ 4)･ Nine swags or festoons intercepted by vertical bands fill the uppermost reglSter On the body, and then three quadruped animals and a bird motif which are apparently the main theme of this vessel are depicted under the swags･ The bottom register is filled with fourteen stylized lo仙s petals･ The vessel lacks the supportlng base which might have been spreading out toward the bottom as in other examples･ Although it has usually been stated that this type of vessel is mould made, Some obseryations support that it is rather incised than mould‑made; I) The inner surfac9 0f the vessel is smooth･ There is no irregular bump caused by pressing the vessel against a mould･ Ashton (2003: 54) suggests that the smooth immer surface is achieved by throwlng On a Wheel a洗er molding･6 But the mouth of this vessel as well as the aforementioned white vessel is too narrow to let one's fingers inside for treatment. 2) There is an irregular number of vertical lines in between the swags, which may indicate that the lines were made to fill the gap･ 3) A torso of the antelope‑like animal is unusually longer compared to 154 ORIENT ∵∴∴∴∵㍉∴∴∴ Fig. 4 The Decoration on the Vessel ∴∴十二∴.㍉∴∴ doubt, as Petrie found not onlyfragments but also production wastes ofthistype Two RomanEgyptian Vessels in MECCJ other animals depicted･ It may not be too far off to assume thatthe artisan who was working freehand needed to adjust the spaclng by insertlng Plural vertical bands and elongating the animal shape･ A similar vessel is found from Haraga, now in Ashmolean Museum･7 The shape of the vessel is identical, and has fわur bands or decorations･ The meandering vine motif on the uppermost neck reglSter, the swags or festoon bands on the body reglSter, and the schematic petal decoration at the bottom reglSter, are all the same as the MECCJ vessel･ The mainmotif, the band of animals is di飽rent in depiction, but still shares the same artistic rendering･ The overall glaze is blue in this case, this Ashmolean example must have been produced at the same place as the MECCJ vessel･ The overall color of the vessel is bluish green; dark blue green (5BG 2･5/ 4.5) to deep blue green (5BG 3.5/810) where the glaze is thick, and so允 blue green (5BG 6.0/5.0) where it is thin. Petrie states that his glazed pottery of "high modeled reliefs of animals" commonly has dark blue over yellow‑green colorlng (petrie,1911: 36). Other colors such as green over purple, blue, purple on light blue, and blue on white are also reported (Petrie, 1911: 36‑37) to have been applied on the same type of the vessel･ The MECCJ vessel (M434) has 16cm in remaining height (the reconstmcted height would probably be 18･5cm)･ The maximum width of the torso is 15cm, and the uppermostrim measures approximately 1 1 ･5cm･ The base of the vessel is missing, therefore exposing the brownish sandy fabric (color varies from 8YR 6.0/6.5, light yellowish brown, to 8YR 7･0/6･5, softorange) at the bottom. Although no scientific analysis has been done on the vessel, the brownish color indicates that the fabric is iron‑rich, probably made of a mixture of faience fabric (silica‑soda‑lime) with clay. It is interesting to note that an effort to apply glaze over clay surface appears sometime during the Ptolemaic to early Roman period (Yamahana, 2008: 417)8 in Egypt･ Artisans discovered that lead containlng glaze which had been in use for faience since the begimmlng Of 也e Ptolemaic period also adhered well on clay suぬce･ They also discovered that mixing fFience fabric with clay (i･e･ making silica‑rich clay) could achieve better result in combination with lead glaze･ The vessel which we are dealing with is most probably one of the early examples of Hglazed pottery" found in Egypt. III. Artistic Motifs of Both Vessels Though the colors and vessel shapes differ considerably, many stylistic similarities direct to assumptlOn that也ese vessels were made by血e same artist Vol. XLIV 2009 155 separated by a horizontal narrow band･ Second,the detail descrlPtlOn Of birds and animals is drawn in the same manner; the depressions on the hind legs of the beasts, dotted lines along也e neck of birds, straight lines along the tail of birds, depiction of the eyes with eyelids, and inserting stylized plants in between the beasts. The high relief decoration and forelgn motifs showthe advent of new art style almost devoid in dynastic period･ The tradition to apply na仙ralistic realism which still existed on the relief vessels or the Third lnte‑ediate period gradually faded away by the end of the Late period,and a new, much schematic depiction beganto be favored･ The decorative motif of the relief vessels during the following Greek and Roman periods show that it was much influenced by the "orientalising" trend of contemporary easternMediterranean reglOn･ Nilotic subjects such as tilapia fish, marsh scenes or lotus flowers which had religious connotation and, therefore were popular among the dynastic EgyptlanS beganto be superseded by marine creatures, wlnged griffins, winged humans or gods, banquet scenes, geometrlC, Wave, rosette, and meandering vine pattems of the Medite汀anean. During the Ptolemaic period, the relief onthe vessel tends to be shallow. Glazing isthin, with its color varies from blue, blue‑green, green, yellowish green, and to yellow･ There are many small motifs depicted on a slngle vessel separated by reglSterS･ The decoration is highly standardized･ In血e fbllowlng phase, the wall of the vessel became thicker, and pottery‑like fabric began to be used･ The decorative motif is less standardized, giving free‑hand lively effect compared to the previous period･ Some motifs such as rosettes, braids or zlgZagS disappear･ The number orregister is reduced, and the size of the decorative motif became much larger･ The engraving became so deep as to glVe much bolder effect when it is glazed･ Corresponding with the deep engravlng, theglaze is thick; with its color essentiallythe same withthe previous period, but shows differences in textureand opaqueness; the glaze becomes more lustrous and transparent. The MECCJ vessels fall into the category of the later phases of the GraecoI Roman pottery･ If we suppose that the early phase represents the Ptolemaic period, then the later phase may fall into the end of Ptolemaic or early Roman period. IV･ A Discussion OJI ChronologicalIsslle Since the white faience oinochoe or olpe is said to have come from Naukratis, 156 ORIENT ∴∴㍉÷∴二十二∴二∴二二∴㌻∴二∴ or artist group･ First, the decoration is of high relief, each reglSter being Two Roman耳gyptianVessels in MECCJ there is a possibilitythat it was produced at a kiln at there. A faience kiln probably dates later than the Late period was discovered at Na血atis,9 but there is no direct indicationthat the vessel in question was actually made there･ on the other hand, Memphis seems to be one of the most probable production centers for faience vessels･ Pottery, faience, terracotta lamps and figurines obtained kom Petrie's work at Memphis (Petrie 1909:1415) suggest that the site is broadly dated from the latter part of the fourthcentury BC to the first half of the flrSt Century AD･10 The place of special attention is Kom Helul, where Petrie found a series of kilns and opened one of them. Many faience wasters along with terracotta lampsand kilnfumiture were virtually thrown into the discarded kiln (Petrie 1909: 14‑15). Among the wastersthere were vessel 丘agments of shallow relief which are usually a肘ibuted to Ptolemaic period, 丘agments of high modeled relief, simple open‑form bowls or platters without decoration,and some small figunnes. One of the important diagnostics to determine the date of the vessels from the Roman period is glazed lamps･ Petrie assunedthatthey might fall between the latter half of the first century BC and the beginnlng Of the first century ADI A recent study on pottery lamps by Bailey (1980: Q998, QIOOl, 1988: Q1920)ll also put the lamps in question somewhere around the first half of the first century AD. Other simple bowls or platters without any decoration have parallels during the late first century AD to the early second century AD･ The information of parallel finds of both lamps and earthenware puts the entire dates of the wasters find between the Ptolemaic and 也e early Roman period･ Due to the stylistic grounds mentioned above, the two MECCJ vessels can be dated most probably falls to the beginnlng Ofthe Roman period･ Summary Although these vessels look somewhat peculiar to eyes that are used to seelng theancient Egyptian dynastic art, the MECCJ vessels represent the developed forms of domesticart. From the second to the last quarter of the lst millennium BC was the era of "orientalization''especially ln the eastem Meditemnean region When Achaemenid andAssynan influence were especially prominent in vessel fbms and decorations. At that time, Egypt was under也e mle of Archaemenid Persia, and then the Ptolemaicand Roman reglmeS･ It is qulte natural to suppose that forelgnrule stimulated the exchange of material culture as well as population movement･ In the case of faience production, the hellenized fbm and decoration started to appear in Memphis and in Delta reglOn 丘om the Ptolemaic period and became one of the most widely traded product･ Vol. XlⅣ 2009 157 The new art style of Egyptian faience was created from the foundation of the preceding tradition of making relief vessels･ The two MECCJ vessels discussed in this paper seem to show that Egyptians people to adopt to a new culture or art style by modifying the existing tradition of material culture. Gratitude The author is grateful to Mr1 0kanoand Mr. Adachi of Middle Eastem Culture center in Japan, for their generous acceptance to examine the stored objectsI The author also would like to thank to Professor Joseph Manning of the Yale University, for proofreading this article･ His suggestions were especially helpful in revising the text. Notes I Middle Eastem Culture Center (ed.), The Late Mr and Mrs. Zshiguro Collection, 1993, Catalogue Numbers 20 1 1202. 2 W. M. F̲ Petrie, "Roman Glazing Kilns," in Knobel, E.B. et.al. (eds･), Historical Studies, British School of Archaeology in Egypt Studies, Vol･ II, London, 191 1, 34‑371 3 W･ M･ FI Petrie, MemphTS I, London, 1909, 15, pl･L; id., "Roman Glazing Kilns," 34137･ 4 parallel finds are from Giza, Saqqara, AnkyronlnllS, Fayum, Tuna el‑Gebel, Tehne el‑Gebel (AkoriS), Oxyrhnchos, Abusir el‑Meleq, Tel el‑Hel, Hawara, Haraga, Quseir el‑Qadim, for further discussion. See K. Yamahana, 『古代エジプトのファイアンス研究』 A Study on Ancient Egyptian Faience, Ph.D. dissertation submitted to Tokal University, Department of Letters, 2006, 94‑96, Figs. 85‑87. 5 There are many close parallels or seml‑globular Jars Wlthflarlng mouth ln Assyria･ For examples, see J. Oates, …Late Assyrian Pottery from Fort ShalmaneserM Iraq 21 (1959), 130‑ 146. For a close parallel in metal, see T. Adachi, (ed.) 『展示図録 器』 (BTOJ7Ze L'n ancL'entEuTaSJ'a),中近東文化センター附属博物館 古代ユーラシアの青銅 2006, 75, fig. 173･ 6 S‑A.Ashton, PetrLe 's ptolemalC and Roman Memphis, UniversityCollege London, 2003･ 7 AsllmOlean Museum, No. 1914.69a, h.16.0cm. 8 For detailed discussion, see Kyoko Yamal1ana, ｢古代オリエントでの粕薬の誕生｣ HBlrth of glaze ln the ancient Onent," in OR/ENTE 37 (2008), 4‑7･ 9 w M. F. Petrie, NaukratlS I, London, 1884‑5; E.A. Gardner, Naukratis II, London 1888･ 10 W. M. F. Petire, Memphis I, Bntish School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account, London 1 909. ll D. M. Bailey, A Catalogue of the Lamps in the British Museum IJ: Roman Lamps made ln Italy, London 19.80; idL A Catalogue of the Lamps in the Br,fish Museum Ill: Roman Provincial Lamps, BritlSh Museum Publications, London 1 988･ T I E N R 0 158