Starting in the latter half of the first millennium BCE, a number of circumstances gave rise to a multicultural Egyptian population, including: the immigration of traders and soldiers to Egypt, centuries of administration under the Greek-speaking Ptolemaic kings, and the eventual annexation of the state into the Roman Empire. These striking portraits depicting men crowned with golden wreaths both reflect Egypt’s cosmopolitan nature during the first centuries CE and attest to the endurance of native Egyptian beliefs and practices during that period. Funerary portraits painted onto linen shrouds or thin panels of wood (as with these examples) were created utilizing Greek and Roman artistic techniques and styles that were rooted in individualized, naturalist portraiture. Laid over the faces of mummified individuals and secured with strips of linen, the painted portraits continued the already millennia-old Egyptian tradition of protecting the deceased’s face with a funerary mask or other covering (compare cats. 107–9), and were one of several approaches to presenting the faces of the departed in Roman-period Egypt.^[1]1

As with earlier funerary masks, these painted funerary portraits played an essential role in the deceased’s transfiguration into an enduring semidivine being after death. The portraits themselves were just one component of the so-called portrait mummies, of which there were three styles: rhombic wrapped mummies (see fig. 1), which layered linen wrappings to create intricate patterns along the length of the body; red-shroud mummies (see fig. 2), which enveloped the deceased in a decorated red-pigmented shroud; and stucco mummies, which usually featured a portrait painted directly onto the shroud, decorated with sculptural elements.^[2] As part of a pared-down burial assemblage that no longer included the funerary figurines, coffins, or even individualized tomb chapels of earlier periods, the mummified person became the particular focus of funerary rituals. Gazing out from the intricately arranged mummy wrappings, the portraits enabled their owners to present their identities one final time, and served as an interface between the deceased and those commemorating them through funerary rites, which included burial, often in group tombs or catacombs.^[3]2

Western audiences were introduced to this unique class of object from Roman-Period Egypt starting in the late 1880s, when Viennese art dealer Theodor Graf toured a large collection of painted funerary portraits in Europe and the United States.^[4] The portraits in his collection came from er-Rubiyat, a necropolis of ancient Philadelphia in the Fayum, the region to the west of the Nile in northern Egypt that surrounds Lake Moeris. Around this time, the British archaeologist Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie’s excavations at the site of Hawara in the Fayum were unearthing large quantities of portrait mummies in various states of preservation.^[5] These early discoveries led the portraits to be closely associated with the region, so much so that they came to be known as “Fayum portraits.”^[6] This term is anachronistic, since subsequent discoveries have revealed that the use of painted funerary portraits during this period was geographically widespread, with examples attested from the Mediterranean coast all the way to Aswan at Egypt’s southern border. Their modern popularity as art objects resulted in the vast majority being removed from the mummified individuals to whom they were once attached.3

Today more than one thousand painted funerary portraits depicting men, women, and children are known from Egypt.^[7] Despite these large numbers, such portraits were actually quite rare in their time. In his excavations at Hawara, Petrie estimated that for every hundred mummified individuals prepared for burial during this period, only one or two incorporated painted panel portraits.^[8] The portraits’ subjects wear elaborate jewelry and display other trappings of wealth. Although it remains unclear whether such accoutrements reflect these individuals’ lived experiences or merely express the elevated state they aspired to in the afterlife, their presence suggests that only the most elite members of society could afford these painted funerary portraits. Careful observation of hairstyles can aid in dating the portraits within the period that they were produced, which lasted from the first to mid-third centuries CE. Using such criteria (notably the presence of beards), these two portraits have been dated to the middle of this range, in the first part of the second century CE.^[9] As is true for most panel portraits, the identities of these two men are not known.4

Portrait of a Man Wearing a Wreath (Cat. 110)

One portrait presents a slightly less than life-size image of the upper torso and face of a man. As is customary for funerary portraits of this type, the unnamed man is posed with his wide-eyed face turned toward the viewer while his left shoulder is angled away. A short beard and moustache accentuate his pointed face, its lifelike complexion rendered with mixtures of a lead-based white, red and yellow iron oxides, jarosite (a yellow-colored mineral), and Egyptian blue, with the latter observed above the upper lip, in the area between the eyes and, in smaller concentration, on the neck (fig. 3).^[10] The tunic is adorned by a vertical stripe (Latin clavus), visible on the proper right shoulder. The presence of both madder lake and Egyptian blue pigments suggests that the band was originally purple, possibly intended to imitate the more expensive shellfish purple.^[11] Six squares of gold leaf accentuate the neckline of his garments, and, as has been previously suggested, may have continued, forming a frame around the portrait when the wrappings were still intact.^[12]5

His head of curly dark hair is crowned with a delicate wreath added in gold, with heart-shaped leaves hanging from the vine-like thin gold band.^[13] Corcoran has suggested that the flora depicted here might be convolvulus (bindweed), a plant that the Egyptians favored because of its heliotropic nature; just as its flowers follow the sun throughout the course of the day, Egyptians planned to join the sun god on his cyclical journey of rebirth after death.^[14] This rare foliage wreath differs from the gilded laurel crowns that adorn the subjects of many funerary portraits, including the man represented on cat. 111.^[15] Unlike the elements of costume that reflect daily life, the gilded wreaths that appear on a small subset of funerary portraits seem to underscore their funerary function.^[16] Their precise meaning, however, remains ambiguous and was likely intentionally layered, reflecting the multicultural backgrounds of many Egyptians at this time. Within the Egyptian context, such wreaths evoke Spells 19 and 20 of the Book of the Dead, which are the spells for the wreaths of justification that symbolize a favorable verdict in the deceased’s final judgment before the tribunal of gods.^[17] Various vegetal wreaths also held significance in Greek and Roman cultures. While wreaths of laurel were emblems of victory, ivy wreaths could be attributes of Dionysos, who was a Greek counterpart to the Egyptian god of the underworld, Osiris.^[18]6

The painting was executed in a wax-based medium on a thin board of European lime (linden) wood that has been trimmed at the top to match the overall shape of the mummified body to which it was once attached.^[19] Overlapping pieces of straight-sided gold leaf around the figure create a gleaming background, further underscoring the otherworldly nature of the portrait.^[20] Resin and mummy wrappings still adhere to the surface of the wood panel.^[21]7

Portrait of a Man Wearing a Laurel Wreath (Cat. 111)

The other portrait depicts a young man with a fuller face, his large brown eyes gazing out toward the viewer. His pose is the same as that of the man depicted on cat. 110, with his shoulders at three-quarter view and his face shown frontally, a departure from traditional approaches to representing the human form in two-dimensional Egyptian art, where the face (but not the eyes) is shown in profile. The skin tones of this portrait were executed using varying combinations of a lead-based white, red and yellow iron oxides, and Egyptian blue, the latter of which was extensively used across the face (fig. 4).^[22] A white mantle, painted with a lead-based white, drapes over his left shoulder, covering a tunic that is decorated with a vertical dark purple clavus.^[23] Although clavi were markers of senatorial or equestrian rank in Rome, in Roman Egypt these decorative elements, which were woven into the fabric, did not hold such connotations.^[24] A laurel wreath made up of rhomboidal leaves of gold rests upon his head of thick curly hair. Gilding, likely added after the portrait had been affixed to the mummified body of its owner, embellishes the painting’s background.^[25]8

As with the other example (cat. 110), this portrait of an unknown man was painted with a wax-based medium onto a thin European lime (linden) board that is squared at the bottom but trimmed to a roughly rounded shape at the top.^[26] Textile and resin still adhering to the surface confirm that the portrait was once incorporated into mummy wrappings, preserving an echo of its intended function.9

Provenance

110.
Emily Crane Chadbourne (1871–1964), Paris, London, and Chicago; given to the Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.10

111.
Emily Crane Chadbourne (1871–1964), Paris, London, and Chicago; given to the Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.11

Publication History

110.
Thomas George Allen, A Handbook of the Egyptian Collection (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1923), 160, 161 (ill.); 162.12

Art Institute of Chicago, A Brief Illustrated Guide to the Collections (Chicago: Art Institute of Chicago, 1935), 9.13

Cornelius C. Vermeule III, “Greek and Roman Portraits in North American Collections Open to the Public: A Survey of Important Monumental Likenesses in Marble and Bronze Which Have Not Been Published Extensively,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 108, no. 2 (1964): 103.14

Klaus Parlasca, Mumienporträts und verwandte Denkmäler (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1966), 42n176.15

Barbara Borg, Mumienporträts: Chronologie und kultureller Kontext (Mainz: von Zabern, 1996), 92, 102, 107, 122, 186, pl. 24.16

David L. Thompson, “Four ‘Fayum’ Portraits in the Getty Museum,” J. Paul Getty Museum Journal 2 (1975): 92.17

Klaus Parlasca, Ritratti di mummie: Repertorio d’arte dell’Egitto greco-romano, series B, vol. 2, ed. A. Adriani (Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1977), 61, no. 373; pl. 90, fig. 3.18

Louise Berge, “Two ‘Fayum’ Portraits,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 72, no. 6 (Nov.–Dec. 1978): 1–4, cover illustration.19

Emily Teeter, “Egyptian Art,” in “Ancient Art at the Art Institute of Chicago,” special issue, Art Institute of Chicago Museum Studies 20, no. 1 (1994): 30–31 (ill.), no. 16.20

Art Institute of Chicago, Treasures from the Art Institute of Chicago. Selected by James N. Wood, Director and President, with commentaries by Debra N. Mancoff (Chicago: Art Institute of Chicago, 2000), 69 (ill.).21

Klaus Parlasca and Hans G. Frenz, Ritratti di mummie: Repertorio d’arte dell’Egitto greco-romano, series B, vol. 4, ed. Nicola Bonacasa (Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 2003), 160.22

Robert S. Nelson, “The Art Collecting of Emily Crane Chadbourne,” in To Inspire and Instruct: A History of Medieval Art in Midwestern Museums (Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008), 137, 224.23

Karen B. Alexander, “From Plaster to Stone: Ancient Art at the Art Institute of Chicago,” in Recasting the Past: Collecting and Presenting Antiquities at the Art Institute of Chicago, by Karen Manchester (Chicago: Art Institute of Chicago, 2012), 29.24

Sandra E. Knudsen, with contributions by Rachel C. Sabino, “Cats. 155–156, Two Mummy Portraits: Curatorial Entry,” in Roman Art at the Art Institute of Chicago (Chicago: Art Institute of Chicago, 2016).25

Rachel C. Sabino, “Cat. 155, Mummy Portrait of a Man Wearing an Ivy Wreath: Technical Report,” in Roman Art at the Art Institute of Chicago (Chicago: Art Institute of Chicago, 2016).26

Elisabeth Fugmann and Yvonne Schmuhl, “Das Mumienporträt eines Mädchens im Bonner Akademischen Kunstmuseum,” Kölner und Bonner Archaeologica 7 (2017): 198.27

Rachel Sabino, Ken Sutherland, Emeline Pouyet, Federica Pozzi, and Marc Walton, “Surprise Encounters with Mummy Portraits at the Art Institute of Chicago,” AIC Paintings Specialty Group Postprints 31 (2018), 1–14.28

Rachel Sabino, “Gilding the Dead: Mummy Portraits in Roman Egypt,” Art Institute of Chicago (blog), October 23, 2019.29

Rachel Sabino, “Egyptian Blue: The Mysterious Color in Mummy Portraits,” Art Institute of Chicago (blog), November 27, 2019.30

Ken Sutherland, Rachel C. Sabino, and Federica Pozzi, “Challenges in the Characterization and Categorization of Binding Media in Mummy Portraits,” in Mummy Portraits of Roman Egypt: Emerging Research from the APPEAR Project, ed. Marie Svoboda and Caroline Cartwright (Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2020), 8–15.31

Lorelei H. Corcoran, “‘They Leave behind Them Portraits of Their Wealth, Not Themselves’: Aspects of Self-Presentation in the Dress of the Deceased in Mummy Portraits and Portrait Mummies from Roman Egypt,” in Dress in Mediterranean Antiquity: Greeks, Romans, Jews, Christians, ed. Alicia J. Batten and Kelly Olson (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021), 152, 153, fig. 12.5.32

Giovanni Verri, Marc Vermeulen, Alicia McGeachy, Ken Sutherland, Clara Granzotto, Federica Pozzi, Rachel Sabino, Laura D’Alessandro, Alison Whyte, and Marc Walton, “Umbras dividendas ab lumine: Pigments, Their Mixtures, and Distribution on Mummy Portraits in Relation to Primary Sources,” in Mummy Portraits of Roman Egypt: Emerging Research from the APPEAR Project, vol. 2, ed. Marie Svoboda and Caroline Cartwright (Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum), forthcoming.
33

111.
Art Institute of Chicago, “Accessions and Loans,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 17, no. 1 (1923): 11 (ill.).34

Thomas George Allen, A Handbook of the Egyptian Collection (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1923), 160, 161 (ill.), 162.35

Art Institute of Chicago, A Brief Illustrated Guide to the Collections (Chicago: Art Institute of Chicago, 1935), 9.36

Eugen Fischer and Gerhard Kittel, Das antike Weltjudentum: Tatsachen, Texte, Bilder, Forschungen zur Judenfrage 7 (Hamburg: Hanseatisch, 1943), 150, 151, fig. 138.37

Cornelius C. Vermeule III, “Greek and Roman Portraits in North American Collections Open to the Public: A Survey of Important Monumental Likenesses in Marble and Bronze Which Have Not Been Published Extensively,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 108, no. 2 (1964): 103.38

Klaus Parlasca, Mumienporträts und verwandte Denkmäler (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1966), 42n176.39

David L. Thompson, “Four ‘Fayum’ Portraits in the Getty Museum,” J. Paul Getty Museum Journal 2 (1975): 92.40

Klaus Parlasca, Ritratti di mummie: Repertorio d’arte dell’Egitto greco-romano, series B, vol. 2, ed. A. Adriani (Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1977), 61, no. 373; pl. 90, fig. 3.41

Louise Berge, “Two ‘Fayum’ Portraits,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago 72, no. 6 (Nov.–Dec. 1978): 1, 2 (ill.); 3–4.42

Klaus Parlasca and Hans G. Frenz, Ritratti di mummie: Repertorio d’arte dell’Egitto greco-romano, series B, vol. 4, ed. Nicola Bonacasa (Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 2003), 160.43

Robert S. Nelson, “The Art Collecting of Emily Crane Chadbourne,” in To Inspire and Instruct: A History of Medieval Art in Midwestern Museums (Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008), 137, 224.44

Karen B. Alexander, “From Plaster to Stone: Ancient Art at the Art Institute of Chicago,” in Recasting the Past: Collecting and Presenting Antiquities at the Art Institute of Chicago, by Karen Manchester (Chicago: Art Institute of Chicago, 2012), 29, fig. 14.45

Sandra E. Knudsen, with contributions by Rachel C. Sabino, “Cats. 155–156, Two Mummy Portraits: Curatorial Entry,” in Roman Art at the Art Institute of Chicago (Chicago: Art Institute of Chicago, 2016).46

Rachel C. Sabino, “Cat. 156, Mummy Portrait of a Man Wearing a Laurel Wreath: Technical Report,” in Roman Art at the Art Institute of Chicago (Art Institute of Chicago, 2016).47

Rachel Sabino, Ken Sutherland, Emeline Pouyet, Federica Pozzi, and Marc Walton, “Surprise Encounters with Mummy Portraits at the Art Institute of Chicago,” in AIC Paintings Specialty Group Postprints 31 (2018), 1–14.48

Rachel Sabino, “Gilding the Dead: Mummy Portraits in Roman Egypt,” Art Institute of Chicago (blog), October 23, 2019.49

Rachel Sabino, “Egyptian Blue: The Mysterious Color in Mummy Portraits,” Art Institute of Chicago (blog), November 27, 2019.50

Ken Sutherland, Rachel C. Sabino, and Federica Pozzi, “Challenges in the Characterization and Categorization of Binding Media in Mummy Portraits,” in Mummy Portraits of Roman Egypt: Emerging Research from the APPEAR Project, ed. Marie Svoboda and Caroline Cartwright (Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2020), 8–15.51

Giovanni Verri, Marc Vermeulen, Alicia McGeachy, Ken Sutherland, Clara Granzotto, Federica Pozzi, Rachel Sabino, Laura D’Alessandro, Alison Whyte, and Marc Walton, “Umbras dividendas ab lumine: Pigments, Their Mixtures, and Distribution on Mummy Portraits in Relation to Primary Sources,” in Mummy Portraits of Roman Egypt: Emerging Research from the APPEAR Project, vol. 2, ed. Marie Svoboda and Caroline Cartwright (Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum), forthcoming.
52