DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.3389#0020
12
THE PERIOD AND THE PEOPLE
I
but were partly in use at the same time. In Hawara,
p. 19, the order of introduction stated agrees with
what we now find as the order of extinction, namely
ball, hoop and then pendant; but the dating there
given should be extended somewhat earlier. The
bar with two pendant pearls often occurs in Pompeian
paintings, and must therefore be as early as 79 A.D.
We may examine the types on the ground of the
quality of the portraits, or on the ground of the
successive styles of hair-dressing described in the next
chapter on the dating.
Classing the portraits by quality we find :—
Ball-earring. Hoop. Pendant.
Good ... 5 3 2
Medium . . 1 o 5
Poor . . . o 1 1
Here the ball-earring is always with good painting,
the pendants generally with inferior work.
Classed by the style of hair (which may belong to
later dates than in Rome):—
Ball. Hoop. Pendant.
Flavian . . 3 (6) 1 (2) 2 (3)
Traj.-Hadrian .1 1 (2) 3
Antonine. . o (1) (1)
Commodus .0 o 1 (3)
The numbers in brackets are including those pre-
viously illustrated in Hawara.
The conclusion here again is that the ball-earring
is only found in the earlier class, and the pendant
increases in use later.
Regarding the necklaces, including those in
Hawara, the ball-earrings have no necklace in three
instances, a plain gold chain in five instances, and
only in one instance two rows of pearl and beryl. A
crescent pendant is on the necklace in five instances,
and never with any other type of earring.
The hoop-earrings have generally with them the
simpler forms of beryl necklace.
The pendant-earrings go with the more complex
and gaudy forms of necklaces.
The earlier portraits therefore have only plain
gold necklaces, and often crescent pendants ; the stone
necklaces and more complex ones came later.
CHAPTER IV
THE PERIOD AND PEOPLE.
25. The indications of date connected with these
portraits are indirect and seldom exact. The data
for previous styles are:—
(A) Wedge-faced mummy before papyrus of
Tiberius 14-37 A.D. {Hawara, 16).
(B) Gilt-faced head-piece with Flavian name {Ha-
wara, 16).
The data for the portraits are :—
(C) The Pollius Soter series of the age of Hadrian
Louvre {Hawara, 16).
(D) Papyrus copy of register of 127 A.D. on No. 18.
(E) Inscription of Kephalion (pi. xx, 7), older
than Nos. 7, 8, 9.
(F) Style of hair-dressing of women.
(G) General style and hair of men.
All of these are vague as to date. (A) The wedge-
faced mummy might have been long buried before
the papyrus was written, or the papyrus might be
a century old in rubbish thrown over the mummy.
(B) The gilt-faced head-piece of Titos Flavios De-
metrios might be as early as 70 A.D., if the man died
immediately on taking the imperial name; or he
might as an infant be named after Titus, 80 A.D., and
have lived to 140 A.D. or more. This head-piece is
probably before the portraits, but it might be coeval
with them. (C) The portraits of the family of Pollius
Soter, who was archon at Thebes under Hadrian,
give a fairly dated point of about 140 A.D.
(D) The papyrus containing copies of official
registers of 127 A.D. was folded up, and placed under
the border of portrait 18, vii A. The papyrus might
be of 127 A.D., and the portrait painted long before,
and only buried then. Or the registers are more
likely to have been searched and copied at a later
time, perhaps 200 A.D.; and the papyrus might have
been kept for a generation later. (E) The inscrip-
tion of Kephalion (pi. xx, 7) was turned face down
and built into the foot of a wall which was apparently
of the same age as the burial of Nos. 7, 8, 9 adjacent.
The omega with the open base occurs under Nero
{Illahun xxxii), Vespasian (///. xxxii), Titus {Milne
Hist. 187) and Antoninus {Milne 194). The w form
appears as early as 24 B.C. {Milne 183) and onwards
in the first century {Milne 184, 185; Koptos xxvii).
It was known in Greece as early as Alexander.
26. (F) The style of the hair-dressing of the
women has been principally studied by Mr. Edgar
{Catalogue . . . Graeco-Egyptian . . . Portraits, pp. xiv,
xv), and he bases the dating upon that. A portrait
could not be of an earlier date than when a certain
style which is shown in it came into Imperial fashion.
But fashion might linger in the Fayum long after it
changed in Rome, where the main styles were about
forty years apart. There were no fashion plates, and
THE PERIOD AND THE PEOPLE
I
but were partly in use at the same time. In Hawara,
p. 19, the order of introduction stated agrees with
what we now find as the order of extinction, namely
ball, hoop and then pendant; but the dating there
given should be extended somewhat earlier. The
bar with two pendant pearls often occurs in Pompeian
paintings, and must therefore be as early as 79 A.D.
We may examine the types on the ground of the
quality of the portraits, or on the ground of the
successive styles of hair-dressing described in the next
chapter on the dating.
Classing the portraits by quality we find :—
Ball-earring. Hoop. Pendant.
Good ... 5 3 2
Medium . . 1 o 5
Poor . . . o 1 1
Here the ball-earring is always with good painting,
the pendants generally with inferior work.
Classed by the style of hair (which may belong to
later dates than in Rome):—
Ball. Hoop. Pendant.
Flavian . . 3 (6) 1 (2) 2 (3)
Traj.-Hadrian .1 1 (2) 3
Antonine. . o (1) (1)
Commodus .0 o 1 (3)
The numbers in brackets are including those pre-
viously illustrated in Hawara.
The conclusion here again is that the ball-earring
is only found in the earlier class, and the pendant
increases in use later.
Regarding the necklaces, including those in
Hawara, the ball-earrings have no necklace in three
instances, a plain gold chain in five instances, and
only in one instance two rows of pearl and beryl. A
crescent pendant is on the necklace in five instances,
and never with any other type of earring.
The hoop-earrings have generally with them the
simpler forms of beryl necklace.
The pendant-earrings go with the more complex
and gaudy forms of necklaces.
The earlier portraits therefore have only plain
gold necklaces, and often crescent pendants ; the stone
necklaces and more complex ones came later.
CHAPTER IV
THE PERIOD AND PEOPLE.
25. The indications of date connected with these
portraits are indirect and seldom exact. The data
for previous styles are:—
(A) Wedge-faced mummy before papyrus of
Tiberius 14-37 A.D. {Hawara, 16).
(B) Gilt-faced head-piece with Flavian name {Ha-
wara, 16).
The data for the portraits are :—
(C) The Pollius Soter series of the age of Hadrian
Louvre {Hawara, 16).
(D) Papyrus copy of register of 127 A.D. on No. 18.
(E) Inscription of Kephalion (pi. xx, 7), older
than Nos. 7, 8, 9.
(F) Style of hair-dressing of women.
(G) General style and hair of men.
All of these are vague as to date. (A) The wedge-
faced mummy might have been long buried before
the papyrus was written, or the papyrus might be
a century old in rubbish thrown over the mummy.
(B) The gilt-faced head-piece of Titos Flavios De-
metrios might be as early as 70 A.D., if the man died
immediately on taking the imperial name; or he
might as an infant be named after Titus, 80 A.D., and
have lived to 140 A.D. or more. This head-piece is
probably before the portraits, but it might be coeval
with them. (C) The portraits of the family of Pollius
Soter, who was archon at Thebes under Hadrian,
give a fairly dated point of about 140 A.D.
(D) The papyrus containing copies of official
registers of 127 A.D. was folded up, and placed under
the border of portrait 18, vii A. The papyrus might
be of 127 A.D., and the portrait painted long before,
and only buried then. Or the registers are more
likely to have been searched and copied at a later
time, perhaps 200 A.D.; and the papyrus might have
been kept for a generation later. (E) The inscrip-
tion of Kephalion (pi. xx, 7) was turned face down
and built into the foot of a wall which was apparently
of the same age as the burial of Nos. 7, 8, 9 adjacent.
The omega with the open base occurs under Nero
{Illahun xxxii), Vespasian (///. xxxii), Titus {Milne
Hist. 187) and Antoninus {Milne 194). The w form
appears as early as 24 B.C. {Milne 183) and onwards
in the first century {Milne 184, 185; Koptos xxvii).
It was known in Greece as early as Alexander.
26. (F) The style of the hair-dressing of the
women has been principally studied by Mr. Edgar
{Catalogue . . . Graeco-Egyptian . . . Portraits, pp. xiv,
xv), and he bases the dating upon that. A portrait
could not be of an earlier date than when a certain
style which is shown in it came into Imperial fashion.
But fashion might linger in the Fayum long after it
changed in Rome, where the main styles were about
forty years apart. There were no fashion plates, and