Two Roman Egyptian Vessels in MECCJ

Two Roman Egyptian Vessels in MECCJ

Kyoko YAMAHANA*

The museum of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (MECCJ)

possesses two unique vessels which are broadly dated to Roman period.
Both vessels were purchased in Paris by Mr. Kojiro Ishiguro, and joined
the Ishiguro Collection in MECCJ.1
These vessels are thought to have been made in Egypt, but their
appearances are so unique that they do not show any resemblance in the
dynastic Egyptian 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 influence of eastern Mediterranean art style upon
the Egyptian art around the 1st millennium BC.
Keywords: faience, Middle Eastern 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 missing,
the overall shape
resembles a single
handled Greek oinochoe
or olpe. The remaining
height of the vessel is
15cm, with the bottom
diameter approximately
8cm. The body that is
bulging toward the
bottom shows a
character of a Corinthian Fig. 1 White Faience Vessel with Motif of a Bird
olpe. The bottom end of and Beasts
* Lecturer, Tokai University

Vol. XLIV 2009 151

the handle still remains just below the uppermost register of festoons or swags.
The protome at the bottom end of the handle looks like a human face, with a
nose and slight depressions for the eyes. Yet, the attachments at the either side of
the face (ears?) look unusually big. They may represent a face of a satyr that the
potters of the eastern Mediterranean often apply at the end of the vase handle.
Alternatively, they may rather be stylized rendering of the wings of eros. The
parallels for this peculiar protome are rare, only a few were found at Kom Helul,
Memphis (Petrie, 1911: pl. XV 76, 78).2 Although this vessel was said to have
come from Naukratis, there may be a possibility that the original production site
was Memphis, since the parallel protome only occurs in Memphis.

Fig. 2 Relief Decoration of the Vessel

There are four registers on the remaining vessel (Fig. 2). The uppermost
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 quadruped animal is destroyed, only hind legs remain. The head
of the beast seems to be hidden just under the yellow protome. Otherwise the
human face-like protome was intentionally placed to serve as a face of the
animal relief. The bird, on the same register, looks somewhat like a falcon, but
the overall proportion is skewed and making it difficult to identify. The third
register is a series of wave-pattern. The bottom fourth register is a combination
of palm leaves and lotus petals accompanied with butts. Seven leaves and petals
are depicted. The surface is covered with a thick white glaze (Munsell color
chart 3PB 8.5/1.0), 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 of mould joint nor unevenness
caused by pressing the fabric against mould. The thickness of the vessel was
quite uniformed, which might indicate that the vessel was wheel made, then the

152 ORIENT
 Two Roman Egyptian Vessels in MECCJ

deep relief pattern was cut out by a skillful hand.

The core fabric of the vessel is not visible except for two parts, one is at the
handle break and another is around the forelegs of the quadruped 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 entire rim of the
vessel is missing. Instead, what we see is a trace of white glaze which bound the
missing 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 quite 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 from Hadra (The Graeco-
Roman Museum, Alexandria, 5513, 5514, and 5745), another cylindrical vessel
from unknown provenance (The Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria, 25462),
and a fragment of globular jar now in Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge
(E49.1946, unknown provenance). No oinochoe or olpe of the same color
combination was however found, thus making this MECCJ example the unique
surviving vessel.

II. Blue-green Globular Jar (MECCJ M434) (Fig. 3)

Fig. 3 Blue-green Globular Jar

The appearance of globular jar 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 are known from Athens and Rome.
Memphis was one of the main production centers of this type of vessel, without

Vol. XLIV 2009 153

doubt, as Petrie found not only fragments but also production wastes of this type
of vessel from Kom Helul and its vicinity. The distribution of the vessel seems
to correspond with the early Roman towns, especially with those places related
to military installations.
The shape of the jar is not in the Egyptian tradition, its shape resembles
rather closely an Assyrian form.5 The prototype of the Egyptian version would
most likely be less globular with rather pointed bottom with widely flaring
mouth. Probably the Egyptians adopted a new oriental art style of the eastern
Mediterranean that was in vogue during the 1st millennium 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 register 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
lotus petals. The vessel lacks the supporting base which might have been
spreading out toward the bottom as in other examples.

Fig. 4 The Decoration on the Vessel

Although it has usually been stated that this type of vessel is mould made,
some observations support that it is rather incised than mould-made; 1) The
inner surface of the vessel is smooth. There is no irregular bump caused by
pressing the vessel against a mould. Ashton (2003: 54) suggests that the smooth
inner surface is achieved by throwing on a wheel after 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
 Two Roman Egyptian Vessels in MECCJ

other animals depicted. It may not be too far off to assume that the artisan who
was working freehand needed to adjust the spacing by inserting 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 four bands of decorations. The
meandering vine motif on the uppermost neck register, the swags or festoon
bands on the body register, and the schematic petal decoration at the bottom
register, are all the same as the MECCJ vessel. The main motif, the band of
animals is different 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 3.5/8.0) where the glaze is thick, and soft 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 coloring
(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
reconstructed height would probably be 18.5cm). The maximum width of the
torso is 15cm, and the uppermost rim measures approximately 11.5cm. 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, soft orange) 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: 4-7)8 in Egypt. Artisans discovered that
lead containing glaze which had been in use for faience since the beginning of
the Ptolemaic period also adhered well on clay surface. They also discovered
that mixing faience 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 “glazed pottery” found in
Egypt.

III. Artistic Motifs of Both Vessels

Though the colors and vessel shapes differ considerably, many stylistic
similarities direct to assumption that these vessels were made by the same artist

Vol. XLIV 2009 155

or artist group. First, the decoration is of high relief, each register being
separated by a horizontal narrow band. Second, the detail description of birds
and animals is drawn in the same manner; the depressions on the hind legs of the
beasts, dotted lines along the 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 foreign motifs show the advent of new art
style almost devoid in dynastic period. The tradition to apply naturalistic realism
which still existed on the relief vessels of the Third Intermediate period
gradually faded away by the end of the Late period, and a new, much schematic
depiction began to 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 eastern Mediterranean region. Nilotic
subjects such as tilapia fish, marsh scenes or lotus flowers which had religious
connotation and, therefore were popular among the dynastic Egyptians began to
be superseded by marine creatures, winged griffins, winged humans or gods,
banquet scenes, geometric, wave, rosette, and meandering vine patterns of the
Mediterranean.
During the Ptolemaic period, the relief on the vessel tends to be shallow.
Glazing is thin, with its color varies from blue, blue-green, green, yellowish
green, and to yellow. There are many small motifs depicted on a single vessel
separated by registers. The decoration is highly standardized. In the following
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 zigzags
disappear. The number of register is reduced, and the size of the decorative motif
became much larger. The engraving became so deep as to give much bolder
effect when it is glazed. Corresponding with the deep engraving, the glaze is
thick; with its color essentially the same with the previous period, but shows
differences in texture and opaqueness; the glaze becomes more lustrous and
transparent.
The MECCJ vessels fall into the category of the later phases of the Graeco-
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 on Chronological Issue

Since the white faience oinochoe or olpe is said to have come from Naukratis,

156 ORIENT
 Two Roman Egyptian Vessels in MECCJ

there is a possibility that it was produced at a kiln at there. A faience kiln

probably dates later than the Late period was discovered at Naukratis,9 but there
is no direct indication that 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 from Petrie’s work at Memphis (Petrie 1909:14-5) suggest
that the site is broadly dated from the latter part of the fourth century BC to the
first half of the first 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 lamps and kiln furniture were virtually thrown into
the discarded kiln (Petrie 1909: 14-15). Among the wasters there were vessel
fragments of shallow relief which are usually attributed to Ptolemaic period,
fragments of high modeled relief, simple open-form bowls or platters without
decoration, and some small figurines. One of the important diagnostics to
determine the date of the vessels from the Roman period is glazed lamps. Petrie
assumed that they might fall between the latter half of the first century BC and
the beginning of the first century AD. A recent study on pottery lamps by Bailey
(1980: Q998, Q1001, 1988: Q1920)11 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
the early Roman period.
Due to the stylistic grounds mentioned above, the two MECCJ vessels can
be dated most probably falls to the beginning of the Roman period.

Summary
Although these vessels look somewhat peculiar to eyes that are used to seeing
the ancient Egyptian dynastic art, the MECCJ vessels represent the developed
forms of domestic art. From the second to the last quarter of the 1st millennium
BC was the era of “orientalization” especially in the eastern Mediterranean
region when Achaemenid and Assyrian influence were especially prominent in
vessel forms and decorations. At that time, Egypt was under the rule of
Archaemenid Persia, and then the Ptolemaic and Roman regimes. It is quite
natural to suppose that foreign rule stimulated the exchange of material culture
as well as population movement. In the case of faience production, the
hellenized form and decoration started to appear in Memphis and in Delta region
from 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 Mr. Okano and Mr. Adachi of Middle Eastern Culture
Center in Japan, for their generous acceptance to examine the stored objects. 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
1 Middle Eastern Culture Center (ed.), The Late Mr. and Mrs. Ishiguro Collection, 1993,
Catalogue Numbers 201-202.
2 W. M. F. Petrie, “Roman Glazing Kilns,” in Knobel, E.B. et.al. (eds.), Historical Studies, British

School of Archaeology in Egypt Studies, Vol. II, London, 1911, 34-37.

3 W. M. F. Petrie, Memphis I, London, 1909, 15, pl.L; id., “Roman Glazing Kilns,” 34-37.
4 Parallel finds are from Giza, Saqqara, Ankyronpolis, 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 Tokai University, Department of
Letters, 2006, 94-96, Figs. 85-87.
5 There are many close parallels or semi-globular jars with flaring mouth in Assyria. For

examples, see J. Oates, “Late Assyrian Pottery from Fort Shalmaneser” Iraq 21 (1959), 130-
146. For a close parallel in metal, see T. Adachi, (ed.)『展示図録 古代ユーラシアの青銅
器』(Bronze in ancient Eurasia ), 中近東文化センター附属博物館 2006, 75, fig. 173.
6 S-A. Ashton, Petrie’s Ptolemaic and Roman Memphis, University College London, 2003.
7 Ashmolean Museum, No. 1914.69a, h.16.0cm.
8 For detailed discussion, see Kyoko Yamahana,「古代オリエントでの釉薬の誕生」“Birth of

glaze in the ancient Orient,” in ORIENTE 37 (2008), 4-7.

9 W. M. F. Petrie, Naukratis I, London, 1884-5; E.A. Gardner, Naukratis II, London 1888.
10 W. M. F. Petire, Memphis I, British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research

Account, London 1909.

11 D. M. Bailey, A Catalogue of the Lamps in the British Museum II: Roman Lamps made in Italy ,

London 1980; id. A Catalogue of the Lamps in the British Museum III: Roman Provincial
Lamps, British Museum Publications, London 1988.

158 ORIENT