After the firing of the figurines, which Burn and Higgins304 estimate would have taken place at 750-950°C, the last step in the manufacture process was the application of limewash and paint. Coroplasts typically covered the fired figurines (sometimes in their entirety, sometimes only on the visible front side) with a coat of white limewash305 before painting them, in order to create a white ground for the paint. During this part of the coroplastic process, four variables occasionally differ between the Athenian and Egyptian figurines: (1) the presence or absence of limewash and paint on the back, as well as the front, of the figurine; (2) the thickness of the limewash; (3) the practice of removing excess limewash with a burin; (4) the use of certain particular colors of paint; and (5) the use of plaster to repair damaged figurines
As with other aspects of the production process, Athenian coro-plasts seem to have prioritized the figurines’ aesthetic perfection, while Egyptian coroplasts appear more interested in minimizing production time Athenian craftsmen generally applied limewash to all sides of their products306, while their Egyptian counterparts usually contented themselves with applying limewash and paint to the front side alone307 . Additionally, Egyptian coroplasts do not appear to have one to the same effort as the Athenians in removing excess limewash from their figurines308, and in a few cases, the limewash on Egyptian terracottas is so thick as to obscure some of the details of their modeling309. The occasional Egyptian use of thick plaster to repair breaks in damaged figurines further suggests that the value of these figurines lay not only in their aesthetic value—for which the application of heavy plaster did not do any favors—but also perhaps in other factors, such as the symbolism of their iconography. Another difference in Egyptian and Greek post-firing manufacturing techniques lies in the use of green paint, which is much more common in Egyptian coroplastic collections than in those from the Greek world310 . Gilding, however, appears only in the Athenian sample, not the Cairene311 .
3.3.6 . Conclusions: Distinguishing Egyptian from Greek (Athenian) Manufacturing Techniques
Many of the differences between Egyptian and Athenian coroplastic methods (summarized in Table 11, below) appear to stem from different goals on the part of the coroplasts. Egyptian coroplasts frequently chose more time-efficient techniques over those that prioritized the aesthetic appearance of the figurine. However, the delicate modeling and innovative iconography of a number of Egyptian works312 indicates that many Egyptian craftsmen were capable of producing objects of great beauty when they so chose.
Ballet implies (1996: 113) that Greek coroplasts were more specialized than Egyptian coroplasts, who may not always have formed a separate group from potters However, Greek coroplasts may not always have specialized in figurines either313 . Additionally, the coroplastic workshop at Athribis314 seems to have been in a building separate from the nearby potters’ workshops, so Egyptian coroplasts may sometimes have been more independent of potters than in Ballet’s (1996) examples315 . In both Greece and Egypt, coroplasts probably possessed a varying range of both specialization and skill
The differences between Egyptian and Greek approaches to coroplastic production may reflect, not just different degrees of skill, but also purposeful choices. Why might Egyptian coroplasts have chosen to use methods that enabled them to produce as many figurines as possible in as short a time as possible, while Attic coroplasts preferred using methods that were more time-intensive but maximized the aesthetic appeal of the figurines? Part of the answer may lie in different conditions of production and consumption, as well as different cultural perceptions of what gave value to a figurine
At least some Egyptian figurines appear to have been produced en masse for certain festivals316 . Scheurleer and Willems (2000: 167-168) argue persuasively that the large-scale production of Sothic dog figurines in the second century CE was a response to the great New Year’s festival in year 2 of Antoninus Pius, when the date of New Year’s Day fell on the same day in both the civil and religious Egyptian calendars; just as the government struck special coins commemorating the occasion (e. g. , Willems and Clarysse, eds. 2000: no. 47), so did coro-plasts produce special figurines Additionally, terracotta figurines of small shrines, naiskoi, may relate to passages in the Memphis and “First” Philae Decrees instructing private citizens to set up miniature shrines in their homes in honor of a royal festival317; and a large percentage of Egyptian figurines depict participants in festival processions, such as priests carrying divine images (see discussion in Chapter 6.3) . If, in fact, Egyptian coroplasts often produced figurines in connection with certain festivals, then it would have made perfect sense for them to prioritize the rapid manufacture of numerous figurines in order to meet a high demand on these dates Spending hours on each individual figurine, laboriously assembling separately-molded limbs and removing all irregularities from the surface, would have been impractical under such circumstances318 . The manufacture of animal mummies provides a good parallel for the rapid production of cult objects for visitors to Egyptian sanctuaries319 .
Cross-culturally, many parallels exist for the mass production and consumption of religious icons at festivals320, particularly those that-entail some form of pilgrimage or travel321 . The products of “vendors and entrepreneurs who reproduce versions of devotional items and other religious practices for sale” (Olsen and Timothy 2006: 11) are often cheaply-made and not particularly aesthetically exalted. However, the necessities of mass production do not diminish the objects’ religious significance as tangible reminders of the experience of the festival, charged with power from their encounter with the sacred322 .
The possibility of figurines’ alluding to specific religious festivals raises the question of the craftsmen’s relationship to temples. Very few Egyptian coroplastic workshops have been excavated, but at least one workshop at Athribis appears to have been an independent establishment located in an artisans’ quarter, not attached to a tem-ple323 . A workshop need not be attached to a temple, though, to produce figurines with religious themes. If there were a demand for figurines commemorating a religious festival, an independent craftsman would probably have been happy to meet that demand in order to get business
Additionally, Egyptian coroplasts’ decision not to prioritize the figurines’ aesthetic qualities suggests that Egyptian consumers may have perceived figurines’ value as dependent upon something other than those qualities. As Chapter 4 will argue, the iconography of many Egyptian figurines makes many allusions to specific theological concepts. While coroplasts may have spent comparatively little time on the molding or surface treatment of their products, they appear to have exerted much more effort in composing religiously-charged imagery. In Egypt, then, the perceived value of terracotta figurines may have lain less in their decorative qualities, but more in their religious meaning
As a final note, given the diverse origins of the citizens of the Ptolemaic state, one might well ask whether coroplasts within Egypt would always necessarily have identified as Egyptian. Nachtergael324 observes that when Egyptian figurines bear the signature of the coroplasts, those signatures are usually Greek names written in Greek letters. However, as he also notes, people of indigenous ancestry often bore Greek names in Ptolemaic Egypt, so one cannot conclude too much from this fact325 . In addition, fewer than 1% of Egyptian figurines bear signatures (Nachtergael 1994: 413), so coroplasts who signed their work were not necessarily typical of their profession. Ultimately, an anachronistic attempt to determine the craftsmen’s “ethnicity” may be beside the point; since the Egyptian concept of “Egyptianness” relied less on biological ancestry than on linguistic and cultural practices326, any coroplast who could convincingly depict indigenous religious themes in his work might be said to present himself as “Egyptian ”
3.4 . COROPLASTIC MANUFACTURING TECHNIQUES ON DELOS
Having established some basic differences between Egyptian and Greek (Athenian) coroplastic manufacturing techniques, we may move on to the techniques of Delian coroplasts. An analysis of Delian craftsmen’s methods suggests that for the most part, they adhered much more closely to Athenian practices than Egyptian. Furthermore, the majority of Egyptianizing and non-Egyptianizing figurines from Delos demonstrate the use of extremely similar manufacturing techniques. While Delian coroplasts may have incorporated occasional Egyptian technical influences, the great majority of the Egyptianizing terracottas from Delos appear to belong to a basically Greek manufacturing tradition
World History
