This document is part of the online version of the book Amheida II: A Late Romano-Egyptian House in the Dakhla Oasis / Amheida House B2 by Anna Lucille Boozer, which is available at http://dlib.nyu.edu/awdl/isaw/amheida-ii-house-b2/. It is published as part of the NYU Library's Ancient World Digital Library and in partnership with the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World (ISAW). Further information about ISAW's publication program is available on the ISAW website. Please note that while the base URI of this publication is stable, the exact content available at that address is likely to change over time.
The number of faience vessel fragments recovered in the area is not significant. The diagnostic pieces can be referred to ten vessels in total. The presentation of these few fragments, found in a context dated to the advanced third century, could however provide a contribution to the study of Roman faience vessel typologies and their dating. These pieces are comparable to common tableware forms widespread throughout Egypt in the early Roman period, confirming their use into the third century.↩#p2614
Egyptian faience has been the object of many scientific analyses,1 but few scholars focused on the typologies and dating of common Roman faience or simply glazed vessels. Moreover, attestations in contexts dated to the third century are so far rare.↩#p2615
Faience is a non-clay ceramic material included in the category of fine wares, like slip ware, thin walled wares, and glass. During the first and second centuries CE simply glazed faience vessels were common household items in Egypt, and many of the table-ware forms imitated contemporary Terra Sigillata. Nevertheless, the role of faience compared to the other ceramic categories is not yet clear. The analysis of quantitative data from recent excavations shows that faience vessels and glass vessels had different functions and were the products of different craft skills. Faience seems to have been used primarily in the production of tableware (bowls and dishes), and trays and containers for serving food, with glass mainly used for drinking vessels and small containers.2↩#p2616
The fragments recovered in B2 show that this subdivision of roles remained during the third century, even if the use of faience vessels clearly diminished and the glass vessels started to cover all functions.3↩#p2617
The faience fragments found mainly belong to collared bowls (T12.4),4 a bowl characterized by a molded rim and a collar just below it.5 This type of bowl, produced in two different sizes, is the most common form attested in Egypt from the first to the middle of the second century CE.6↩#p2618
In Area 1 as well, the form is documented in the two typical sizes: small (8 to 12 cm diam.) with a concave base, thickened and worked in a foot ring; large (16 cm diam.) with the foot ring made separately and then attached to the base. The small size is predominant; it has more or less rounded walls, rims both squared and rounded.7 The body of the vessels is granular in texture, hard and compact, and some of them are quite coarse with big grains. The color of the material is white, and the monochrome glaze, quite thick and hard-wearing, probably applied, is bright turquoise;8 only two fragments (Pl. 13.1-5) show traces of blue glaze, preserved in the concave areas of the surface less exposed to weathering.9 The inner surfaces of the walls show clear wheel marks, and the bases show the oval marks left by the small support used to stack the vessels in the kiln. ↩#p2619
These fragments find very close parallels in the faience assemblage recovered on Elephantine island, dated to the first two centuries CE, but comparisons can also be made with the faience vessels found at Mons Claudianus, which go up to the early third century. Other parallels recur in Quseir al-Qadim, Douch, Bakchias, and Al-Zarqa (Maximianon).↩#p2620
The carinated dish T13.3, another form widespread throughout Egypt in the first and second centuries CE,10 is here attested only by one fragment of rim (Pl. 13.11). The molding is not very pronounced, and the wheel marks are clearly visible. The body of the vessel is quite coarse with big grains; the glaze is very faded, but was probably originally bright turquoise. The piece finds comparisons in Douch.↩#p2621
One fragment of rim (Pl. 13.9), and probably one fragment of bottom with foot ring (Pl. 13.10), belong to a rounded bowl with flaring rim. The body of the vessel appears to be a little less coarse than the one of T12.4; the glaze is blue. No wheel marks on the wall and oval marks on the base are visible. These fragments also find close parallels in some bowls from Elephantine, a form that emerged from Ptolemaic pottery of black and red slip ware.11 The shape is comparable to type 7-162 from Mons Claudianus, where it is a recurrent form during the Severan period.12↩#p2622
The only piece that shows a decoration belongs to a closed form (Pl. 13.12). It is a fragment of everted rim and neck, too small to determine the shape of the vessel, but it could be compared with T20.2. The texture of the material is thin compared to those of other fragments introduced; the glaze is blue-green. On the rim a raised dot painted yellow within two concentric lines is visible.13↩#p2623
Only three diagnostic pieces, belonging to three different bowls, were found inside the house (B2).14 Nevertheless, like glass vessel fragments, they form with the fragments found in C2A (exterior courtyard), S1 (the street in front of the building), and 1.1 (nearby structure)15, a homogeneous group which confirms the correlation between these adjacent areas.↩#p2624
In the catalogue the description of objects follows the rules established in the preceding chapter on glass vessels.↩#p2625
Condition: fragmentary; worn out and abraded glaze, iridescent in places.↩#p2656
Description: six joining fragments of a collared bowl; nearly half of the bowl is preserved. On the inner surface wheel marks are visible. The base is concave, worked in a foot ring. One oval mark left by the small support used to stack the vessels in the kiln is visible on the underside of the foot.↩#p2657
Parallels: T12.4. Reddé, et al. 2004: fig. 215 n. 21.↩#p2658
Condition: fragmentary; worn out and abraded glaze, faded, iridescent in places.↩#p2678
Description: two joining fragments of rim and wall of a collared bowl. The rim is slightly squared. On the inner surface wheel marks are visible.↩#p2679
The original color of the glaze is preserved only on the concave areas of the surface (wheel impressions, above and below the collar); the glaze on the rest of the surface is faded.↩#p2680
Parallels: T12.4. Compare with Rodziewicz 2005:102, cat. No. 267, pl. 16.↩#p2681
Condition: fragmentary; worn out and abraded glaze, iridescent in places.↩#p2700
Description: fragment of wall and bottom with incomplete footring of a collared (?) bowl. The ring is made separately and then attached to the base. One mark left by the small support used to stack the vessels in the kiln is visible on the underside of the foot. The fragment is possibly part of the same vessel with catalogue 13.6.↩#p2701
Parallels: T12.4. Compare with Morini 2007:144 n. 78.↩#p2702
Condition: fragmentary; worn out and abraded glaze, faded.↩#p2710
Description: fragment of base with wide (2 cm) footring. The base is almost flat; the footring, made separately and then attached, is squared. One oval mark (1.6 x 1.4 cm) left by the small support used to stack the vessels in the kiln is clearly visible on the underside of the foot.↩#p2711
Parallels: T12.4 (?). Rodziewicz 2005:106, cat. No. 311, pl. 19.↩#p2712
Condition: fragmentary; worn out and abraded glaze, very faded, iridescent in places.↩#p2732
Description: fragment of wall and bottom of a bowl. The base is slightly concave, worked in a foot ring. The original color of the glaze is preserved only in places on the inner surface. The fragment is possibly part of the same vessel with catalogue 13.9.↩#p2733
Parallels: Compare with Rodziewicz 2005:103, cat. No. 278, pl. 17.↩#p2734
Condition: fragmentary, worn out glaze, iridescent in places.↩#p2753
Description: fragment of rim and neck of a closed form (?). The rim is everted and thickened; on it there remains a raised dot painted yellow within two concentric lines.↩#p2754
1 See among others, for a scientific description of the materials and techniques, Kaczamrcyz and Hedges 1983, Nicholson and Peltenburg 2000, Shortland 2005.
4 These typologies were established by Nenna and Seif El-Din in their study of Greek and Roman faience vessels. The type (T) refers to both shape and fabric of the object, and provides a dating on the basis of numerous comparisons throughout Egypt (Nenna and Seif el-Din 1993, Nenna and Seif el-Din 2000).
5 The form imitates a type of Terra Sigillata produced in North Italy from the end of the first century BCE to the middle of the first century CE.
7 In some instances the rounding of the rim is due to the abrasion of the piece. All the fragments found were in a poor state of preservation.
8 See for comparison Nenna and Seif el-Din 2000:n. 452, PL. B.
9 See for comparison Wuttmann et al. 1998:458, fig. 69c.
10 The form imitates contemporary Italic Terra Sigillata, the diameter is included between 15 and 17 cm, the height between 3 and 4 cm. Nenna and Seif el-Din 2000:151, 323, Fig. 13.
13 For this kind of decoration see Nenna and Seif el-Din 2000:67, Fig. 16a.
14 They come from occupational debris layers related to the second phase of activity of the house; the fragment found in Room 6, particularly, derives from DSU 47, an occupational debris layer above floor F16, sealed by the collapse of the upper courses of the room's walls.
15 All these fragments also derive from layers related to the second phase of B2.
