2001.02

Fragment of a Cameo Glass Cup or Kantharos

Purchased. Formerly in the Sangiorgi collection. Max. ht ca 5.8cm; max, width 4.9cm.

The decorative appliqué is in a cream-white over a mid- to dark-blue ground. Quite well preserved although there is some wear to the surface of the appliqué; there is a patch of iridescence on the inner face. The fragment is from the lower wall and upper part of the stem, and it becomes remarkably thin below, towards the foot. On the lower wall there is moulded relief patternwork of leaves and tendrils (difficult to distinguish in the illustration); it is bounded by a shallow groove below. At the very bottom of the fragment there is part of a raised fillet, presumably at the stem above the foot.

The inner face has some fine striations.

The added decoration is in the form of a vine branch, the elaborate leaves with finely-incised veins.

Turn of the first centuries BC/AD.

There is a good introduction to the technique and chronology of so-called Cameo Glass by D.B. Harden in Glass of the Caesars (Milan 1987) 53-57 and then see the important article by K. Painter and D. Whitehouse, “Early Roman Cameo Glasses”, Journal of Glass Studies 32, 1990, 138-165 with its detailed discussion and listing of a range of examples, and the more broadly-based introduction by D. Whitehouse, “Cameo Glass”, in: M. Newby and K. Painter (eds), Roman Glass. Two Centuries of Art and Invention (Society of Antiquaries Occasional Papers, XIII, London 1991) 19-32. See below for new insights into the production of Cameo Glass.

Perhaps the best-known example of the technique is the Portland Vase in the British Museum on which one should consult the attractive study by P. Roberts et al., Roman Cameo Glass in the British Museum (London 2010); it considers the origins of cameo glass and its place in contemporary Roman art and craftsmanship. They also propose a relative and absolute chronology. Among recent publications, note also E. Dodero, “Il vetrocameo nella prima età imperiale: una sintesi. Con breve notizia di alcuni frammenti inediti del ‘Thorvaldsens Museum’ di Copenhagen”, Facta 2 , 2008, 39-60.

Compare with our fragment the treatment of the Auldjo Jug in the British Museum and originally from Pompeii, dated 15 BC – AD 25, e.g. Glass of the Caesars no. 34, Roberts 43-47, or the splendid vine on the glass amphora in Naples inv. 13521 also from Pompeii (the so-called ‘Blue Vase’ [il vetro blu], e.g. Glass of the Caesars no. 33, Painter and Whitehouse 138-141 no. A2; V. Sampaolo & L. Spina, Memorie del vaso blu (Oggetti rari e preziosi al Museo archeologico nazionale di Napoli. Milan 2016). Note also K. Wight and M. Swetnam-Burland, “The Iconography of the Cameo Glass Flask at the J. Paul Getty Museum”, in: F. Naumann-Steckner, B. Päffgen and R. Thomas (eds), Zwischen Orient und Okzident. Festschrift für Hansgerd Hellenkemper (= Kölner Jahrbuch 43, 2010) 839-846; G. Sena Chiesa, “Gli enigmi dei principi. Il caso del Vaso Portland e del Vaso Blu”, in: J. Bonetto et al., I mille volti del passato. Scritti in onore di Francesca Ghedini (Rome 2016) 165-180. For a ‘new’ Roman cameo vase, see M. Newby Haspeslagh, “A Roman Dionysiac Cameo Glass Vase”, in: J. Bayley, I. Freestone and C. Jackson (eds), Glass of the Roman World (Oxford 2015) 138-145. See also a flask fragment in the Metropolitan Museum of Art that was formerly in the Julien Greau collection (Inv. 17.194.366; W. Froehner, Collection Julien Gréau. Verrerie antique, émaillerie et poterie appartenant à M. John Pierpont Morgan, iii, Paris 1903, 83 no. 573, pl. 59.8; https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search#!?q=17.194.366).

Harden (op.cit.) concluded that the earliest date for any cameo vessel, whether made (as is often believed) in Egypt, or elsewhere, lay within the first century BC. He argued that the technique had quite a short life, perhaps for no more than about 75 years, from about 25 BC onwards. There is a similar approach to vine-and floral-work on contemporary silver vessels: see for example a piece in the British Museum (Antike Kunst 4, 1961, pl. 16, 2-4), some of the material in the Boscoreale treasure (F. Baratte, Le trésor d’orfèvrerie de Boscoreale [Paris 1986]; id., Revue du Louvre 1991:1, 24-32; A. Kuttner, Dynasty and Empire in the Age of Augustus: The Boscoreale Cups [Berkeley 1995], or the Hildesheim cups (E. Pernice and F. Winter, Der Hildesheimer Silberfund [Berlin 1901], U. Gehrig, Hildesheimer Silberfund in der Antikenabteilung [Berlin 1967]). For the symbolism of floral work on the contemporary Ara Pacis and elsewhere, see G. Schörner, Römische Rankenfriese (Mainz 1995); G. Sauron, L'histoire vegetalisée: ornement et politique à Rome (Paris 2000). A similar treatment in pottery occurs already in Pergamene appliqué ware of the second century BC; see for example G. Hübner, Die Applikenkeramik von Pergamon. Eine Bildersprache im Dienst des Herrscherkultes (Pergamenische Forschungen, 7, Berlin 1993) 105-127, pll. 17-23. Note also Hübner’s article “Plastische Dekor an griechischer Keramik. Gestaltungsprinzip und formaler Stellenwert”, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 108, 1993, 321-351, and esp. 348-350. One should still bear in mind the article by Schefold, “Vom Ursprung und Sinn römischer Reliefkunst”, in: K. Schauenburg (ed.), Charites: Studien zur Altertumswissenschaft (Bonn 1957) 187-196. Also to be borne in mind are the magnificent cameos of the same period, such as the so-called Gemma Augustea in Vienna.

The impact of the style on Josiah Wedgewood is well known.

There are good notes on the Sangiorgi Collection by Max Bernheimer on p. 6 of the Christie’s sale catalogue mentioned below. The principal catalogue of the collection itself (Giorgio Sangiorgi, Collezione di vetri antichi dalle origine al V secolo d.C. ordinati e descritti da Giorgio Sangiorgi, Milan ­– Rome 1914) does not seem to have included this piece – although there is a chance that it is referred to on p. 49 under no. 161 where two items of this general category are mentioned but not illustrated. (They were said to be from Rome.) As Bernheimer notes, the collection was in a state of constant flux. A number of other pieces from the collection are illustrated in Glass of the Caesars: see the Index on p. 307. There is a fragment similar to ours, also from the Sangiorgi collection, in the Corning Museum of Glass: Whitehouse, Corning i, no. 73.

The commonly assumed method of manufacture for Roman Cameo Glass is that it was blown, cased and engraved (Journal of Glass Studies 32, 1990). This process takes place when a bubble of glass is inflated (blown) and molten white glass is gathered over the blue. Once the cased vessels had been formed and cooled by the glass blower, an engraver carves the relief design through the white glass layer with traditional hand engraving tools. This blown and engraved technique for Cameo Glass has been used since at least the 4th century. The development of glass blowing to make cameo vessels does not align well, however, with the development of Roman glass. It appears that these cameo vessels were in circulation about 30-50 years before the earliest evidence of glass blowing. Furthermore, cased cameo glass blowing is a sophisticated technique; there are no other equivalent blown glass processes found for several centuries into the common era.

An alternative method of manufacture for Roman cameo vessels has been proposed by the independent German researcher, Rosemarie Lierke. Lierke proposed that a relief design was made in a plaster mould with white granulated glass backed into this design. The blue glass was then poured and pressed into the mould around a core that was used to create the vessel form. This theory had been given little attention until 2016 when ANU School of Art & Design staff member, Associate Professor Richard Whiteley, worked with Professor Elizabeth Minchin (Centre for Classical Studies, ANU) and Professor Tim Senden (Head of the Research School of Physics and Engineering, ANU) to investigate this alternative process. Scans of the ANU’s cameo fragment undertaken with a high resolution CT scanner (developed at the ANU) revealed a pocket of granulated white glass within the boundaries of sections of the blue and white glasses, consistent with the alternative proposed theory.

Several researchers have noted the markings on the inner surface of Roman cameo vessels and these same markings are present on the ANU fragment. These deep rotational scratches have usually been attributed to the engraving process, the carving process after blowing. Whiteley and Senden noted that most of the inner surface marks on the ANU fragment appear to have been formed while the glass was in a softened plastic state. If true, this would be consistent with Lierke’s alternative forming method, in which a plunger was used to press and form the interior of the vessel. Whiteley is continuing this research (now at the Corning Museum of Glass, Corning NY

Christie’s (New York), Ancient Glass formerly in the G. Sangiorgi Collection, 3 June 1999, no. 139 (part, colour ill.); Charles Ede Ltd (London), Ancient Glass (2001) no. 6b (ill.)