This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Doris Behrens-Abouseif (ed.)
The Arts of the Mamluks in Egypt and Syria – Evolution and Impact
With 150 figures
V&R unipress Bonn University Press
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 . . . . . . . . . . . . Rachel Ward Mosque Lamps and Enamelled Glass: Getting the Dates Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roland-Pierre Gayraud (Laboratoire d’Archéologie Médiévale Méditérranéenne (LAMM) – CNRS Aix-en-Provence) Ceramics in the Mamluk Empire: An Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . University of Oxford) Late Mamluk Carpets: Some New Observations . . . . . . . . . . . Cambridge/MA) In Search of a Triumphant Image: the Experimental Quality of Early Mamluk Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rosalind A. . . . 7 9 11 13 21 37 55 77 95 Jon Thompson (Oriental Institute. . . Wade Haddon Mongol Influences on Mamluk Ceramics in the Fourteenth Century . . . . Nasser Rabbat (MIT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paris) The Louvre Kursi : Function and Meaning of Mamluk Stands .Contents Editorial note . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Ellen Kenney (American University in Cairo) A Mamluk Monument Reconstructed: an Architectural History of the Mosque and Mausoleum of Tankiz al-Nasiri in Damascus . . . . . . . . . . . . Sophie Makariou and Carine Juvin (both: Département des arts de l’Islam – Musée du Louvre. . . . . . . . . Foreword . Doris Behrens-Abouseif (SOAS. . . . . . . . . . . . University of London) The Arts of the Mamluks in Egypt and Syria: An Introduction . . . .
343 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Iman R. . . . . . . . M. . . . . . . . . .6 Contents Bernard O’Kane (American University in Cairo) James Wild and the Mosque of Bashtak. . . . . . . . . 283 Doris Behrens-Abouseif (SOAS. . . . . . . . Cairo . . . . . Abdulfattah and Mamdouh Mohamed Sakr (The Prince’s School of Traditional Arts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 Zeren Tanındı (Sabancı University. . . . . . . . . 163 Julien Loiseau (Université Montepellier 3) The City of Two Hundred Mosques: Friday Worship and its Spread in the Monuments of Mamluk Cairo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and Interpretation . . . 339 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 List of the Mamluk Sultans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cairo) Glass Mosaics in a Royal Mamluk Hall: Context. . . . . . . . . . . . . University of London) Mamluk Perceptions of Foreign Arts . Rogers (The Nour Foundation) Court Workshops under the Bahri Mamluks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 J. . . . . . 319 Map of the Mamluk Empire . 203 Julia Gonnella (Museum für Islamische Kunst. 323 Select Bibliography of Mamluk Art Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Staatliche Museen zu Berlin) Inside Out: The Mamluk Throne Hall in Aleppo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 Mehmed Baha Tanman (University of Istanbul) Mamluk Influences on the Architecture of the Anatolian Emirates . . . . . . Sakıp Sabancı Museum) Two Bibliophile Mamluk Emirs: Qansuh the Master of the Stables and Yashbak the Secretary . . . . . . . . . . Content. . . . . . . .
For example. a much larger body of material survives in archaeological contexts. There is no documentary evidence for how the technology was transferred and diaspora theories abound citing the fall of the Fatimids in the twelfth century. citing the eleventh-century scholar al-Biruni. A late twelfth-century work compiled by Nizami demonstrates that the Iranian world was fully conver4 sant with this technology by this period. certainly come under the umbrella of Byzantine and Frankish influence. The ceramic arts are ignored in the sources. There is no indication that ceramic designs rigidly followed political changes. Before examining this topic we need to define the Mamluk ceramics under consideration and establish what the Egyptian and Syrian potters were producing prior to the fourteenth century. which are discernible in various artifacts. and move craftsmen within their empire. but it is probable that new rulers introduced luxuries and motifs familiar to them which would have been absorbed gradually into the decorative vocabulary. and remain outside the scope of this paper. it did not resist Mongol influences. demon3 strated that the technology had reached greater Iran in his lifetime. and unlike glass and metalware unsuitable for recycling. including ceramics. it can be demonstrated . This contribution discusses the composite-bodied siliceous paste wares. frequently referred to as ‘fritwares’ or ‘stonepaste wares’ in English-language publications. Although the Mamluk world was not subject to the full thrust of Mongol expansion. a little later it was probably introduced to the Syrian workshops from where it 2 travelled to Iran. Archaeologically. as discussed by Bethany Walker and in this volume by Roland-Pierre Gayraud. but James Allan and colleagues. Wade Haddon Mongol Inﬂuences on Mamluk Ceramics in the Fourteenth Century The Mongols in their newly acquired territories were quick to absorb and adopt local styles into their artistic canon. the diagnostic glazed earthenware sgraffito ring-footed bowls and goblets with their slip-painted heraldic bla1 zons and incised decoration. which again is an unacceptable theory considering al-Biruni’s treatise. but being made of more robust materials. Syrian and Egyptian potters were familiar with this paste and it is generally accepted that it was the Fatimid craftsmen who re-established the technique in eleventh-century Fustat.Rosalind A. Arthur Lane saw this as happening in the twelfth century.
biconical bowls with straight rims. certainly well before the burning of Fustat in 1168. red. manganese black. The thirteenth-century archaeological levels in Egypt and Syria are not as clearly defined as is desirable for such a study. calligraphic. The earliest dated example comes from Iran for the year 575/1179. in addition to cobalt blue. a Kashan lustre bottle in 7 the British Museum’s collection. but it is possible to indicate the type of wares that were popular. These are styled ‘Ayyubid’ in publications.’ and a lack of 5 . white. sometimes turquoise or white glazes) examples. and occasionally turquoise (fig. or large jars. that early siliceous paste wares existed in Egypt from the mid-eleventh century. Due to their grouping under the general label ‘Ayyubid. or geometric designs. and are decorated under a transparent colourless or coloured glaze with figural. floral.96 Rosalind A. Islamic Ceramics Museum. and it is possible that the technology was known in Syria by the latter half of the 6 eleventh century. Red is never found in Iranian products. Generally speaking their shapes are either ring-footed 8 bowls with wide flat rims. Shape is almost as important as decoration in ceramic studies. Many of these pieces have underglaze iron red in their palette. In Anatolia it is found on enamelled tiles of the same technique. Cairo. 1). Wade Haddon Figure 1: Base fragment of an underglaze painted Ayyubid bowl. and I will demonstrate this later when describing diagnostic distinctions between Iranian and Mamluk products. except with overglaze enamelling in the polychrome minai (overglaze-painted) wares prior to the Mongol invasions and after them on lajvardina (or lapis lazuli overglaze decoration in gold leaf. and black enamels usually on an opaque cobalt blue glaze.
2). What it will not tell us though is where these polychrome Egypto-Syrian fragments with the iron red were manufactured. a comparable example of an Iranian stemcup in the Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) collection is dated 674/1276 by an inscription encircling the outer rim. When my current work on similar Syrian material from the Aleppo Citadel excavations has been finalised. who in 9 turn mentioned them in a report on an exhibition of Oriental art in Paris. Iran. a name coined by the Iranian dealer Dikran Kelekian.Mongol Inﬂuences on Mamluk Ceramics in the Fourteenth Century 97 Figure 2: Underglaze-painted stemcup dated Ramadan 674/1276. V&A. continued into the late thirteenth century (fig. with many near complete examples from the Danish excavations at Hama. indicating that this style of decoration. who discussed them with Charles Vignier. less well-executed version without the red. secure archaeological dating. In Syria they have been found in sound archaeological contexts. . now on display in the Syrian national museums at Hama and Damascus. there should be strong evidence to agree with this later dating. In early publications they were said to have been made in Rusafa. Examples of this ware are known from numerous Egyptian sites and are found in most museums’ Fustat collections. The Aleppo finds are fragmentary. as well as the Danish National Museum in Copenhagen. just south of Raqqa in northern Syria. but underglaze-red examples exist. However. they are arbitrarily dated pre-1250. albeit an Iranian. and published in the Dan10 ish report.
When the Mamluks overcame their Ayyubid overlords around 1250. which is part of a group of figural and geometric bowls whose decoration is much more finely executed.98 Rosalind A. did not resume. Then. Curiously. it is conceivable that there were no major changes in ceramic designs until they had consolidated their conquests in Greater Syria. so these could represent Figure 3: Possible interim style base. 3) in the Keir Collection. and this is currently under investigation. Keir Collection. there would have been a greater demand for luxuries. Syria or Egypt. While there was a wellestablished industry in both Fustat and Damascus. which included tablewares for the merchant classes and religious institutions that were mushrooming in the urban centres. . which became border posts and buffer zones against the Mongol threat. with the increased prosperity and stability of the early fourteenth century. Wade Haddon 11 especially amongst a newly-identified ware published by Julia Gonnella. There is a possibility 12 that Aleppo continued as a manufacturing centre too. and it is assumed that the artisans moved to Damascus. A considerable number of dishes and bowls were found in a storage context. but several more pieces have come to light in stratified contexts and are currently being processed. we do know from archaeological evidence that the pottery centres on the Euphrates at Raqqa and Balis/Meskene. London. We also have anomalies such as the magnificent base fragment (fig. examples from the whole group are rare on the Damascus Citadel.
following Aytamish’s 1326 mission and the deaths of the Ilkhanid and Mamluk renegades. and it is only with the help of scientific excavations that it is becoming possible to attempt to unravel these mysteries. possibly after the death of Abu Sa id in 1335. which they adapted. either to achieve maximum market gain or to protect their sources from would-be competitors. Rachel Ward argued convincingly in favour of Mamluk art not being influenced by Ilkhanid decorative themes until after the so-called Treaty of Aleppo was signed between 14 the two powers in 1323. and in archaeological contexts few imports are found. In a paper given at a 1995 Mongol Art Conference in Edinburgh. more artists were attracted by Mamluk patronage. as Michael Rogers had already discussed in relation to Mamluk dependency on the 17 arts of Iran at this time. It is easy to see that our knowledge is still limited in this field. Robert Irwin suggests that this did not happen until 1328. it was thought scientific analyses could assist in this quest and petrographic studies of the . and a further exchange of embassies in 1328. one can argue that a prototype would not have been necessary. It is the nineteenth. as reported on by the Mamluk ambassador Aytamish al-Muhammadi’s anonymous secretary or 15 dawadar. mosque in Tabriz. He surmises that it was after this that Ilkhanid Iran became a cultural influence on the Sultanate. The visual impact of this impressive monument. The free flow of antiquities has created a minefield for both collectors and academics. In the 1990s. to create a fusion of Mamluk–Mongol designs. Taj al-Din Alishah’s. and.Mongol Inﬂuences on Mamluk Ceramics in the Fourteenth Century 13 99 the early Mamluk interim period or they are examples from a particularly high quality earlier workshop. Meinecke did identify thirteen fourteenth century examples of 19 tile mosaic. commissioned to outdo the famous Sassanian vault at Ctesiphon. respectively.and twentieth-century dealers who have taken advantage of these gaps in our knowledge and attributed false provenances to certain vessels. indicating more Persian activity than hitherto thought. commented “we find no special resemblance 18 to anything executed in Persia at the time. there is little in the Mamluk ceramic repertoire to indicate this. with its towering iwan and minarets. specific diagnostic shapes are retained. and they could have adapted to local decorative tastes and culinary usage immediately. Bernard O’Kane presented a paper on the Ilkhanid vizir. But. At the same conference. A little later. continuing to use their own long-established palettes.” But. there is little evidence for this vogue remaining and citing the ceramic revetment on the minarets of the Mosque of al-Nasir Muhammad on the Cairo Citadel (1318–1335). which set the precedent for “a short-lived vogue for tile mosaic. writing a century later. However. It is possible that it was these imported ceramic specialists that inspired the Fustat potters to change their decorative styles. inspired Aytamish to invite the builders to 16 Cairo. if the potters themselves came. who was part of the 1322 embassy.” Other than this physical evidence he goes on to explain that the information comes from Maqrizi. Timurtash 20 and Qarasunqur.
the sheen of the apple to olive-green glazes. and as non-intrusive methods become more sophisticated it may still be possible to discern different workshops and pottery production centres. to be ousted in favor of the Chinese blue-and-white. Apart from Yuka Kadoi’s brief survey of the chinoiserie influences on Mongol 29 ceramics. fish. Unlike the earlier Northern Celadons. It is certainly helpful in establishing the provenance of clay-bodied wares. and examples of the genuine product are already on display in the Aleppo Museum. the scalloped-sgraffito linear designs deeply incised – all were faithfully copied by the Cairene potter (abundant wasters prove the capital to have been the site of manufacture)… Further. and were still available in quantity after 1400.100 Rosalind A. from Kaum al-Dikka in Alexandria to Aswan. we have no indication as to what three of a kind represented in this context. The individuality of the potter or local taste could not be suppressed. Marilyn Jenkins laid the foundations for this line of investigation in the 22 1980s and distinguished three different production centres. and connubial bliss. a ware popularly thought 23 to detect poisons in any food contents. which John Carswell is preparing for publication. I quote here from George Scanlon’s summary when assessing Fustat production: “No doubt the Chinese originals were on the markets of Cairo sometime after 1200. What is beyond question is the enormous influence that Chinese ceramics had on both Mongol and Mamluk pottery. The shape. One of the principal advocates of this technique. these models were imitated exactly and in bulk (seventy to one by our statistics). Examples of these are an imitation so-called Sultanabad or coloured-ground re28 lief ware bowl from Hama and a non-relief ware version from Aleppo. greater even than that of Samarra luster 24 wares within the Nile Valley. harmony. the most recent account on the topic in Iran is an article by Oliver Wat25 . Chinese celadons frequently had moulded motifs applied to the interior. being a symbol 26 of regeneration. even in other decorative techniques. Unfortunately. the Chinese ware and its local imitation have been found throughout Egypt. the picture on the Damascus Citadel is somewhat different. Robert Mason. As stated above by Scanlon. Scientists still have not ruled out the possibility of being able to distinguish between these pastes and glazes. however. but Aleppo has abundant supplies of both imports and imitations. Similarly. The American excavations at Fustat illustrate this in the case of the monochrome green celadons. Wade Haddon physical make up of these siliceous bodies could be the solution. and as far south in Nubia as Wadi-Halfa – a most extraordinary dispersal pattern for an import. has communicated verbally that he cannot distinguish categorically between Fustat and Damascus siliceous-bodied products 21 after all.” Curiously. but in the Mongol and Mamluk 27 worlds three or more of a kind was the norm. the sculpted decorative effects of chrysanthemums. in Iran celadons were enormously popular. and two fish were a common motif. and imitated.
but they are in earlier contexts. so-called Sultanabad. imitation celadon. The lajvardina technique is unknown in the Mamluk world. white wares.’ It is only the underglaze-painted. The five. yet it was certainly popular in the contemporary Golden Horde centres. It is tempting to say that the finer pieces are Ilkhanid and the coarser ones Mamluk. 14 (V&A 618. The Ashmolean bowl in fig. with regard to the panel-style category (see Gayraud fig. and it is impossible to tell who influenced whom. lajvardina . which could possibly refute this argument. However. and monochrome glazed wares – a group of large jars with moulded decoration. and black under turquoise. despite a skilled knowledge of glass enamelling. Earlier I suggested that a probable influence on Mamluk ceramic designs came from the employment of tile specialists after the peace treaty with the Mongols sometime between 1323 and 1328. Dividing the space into panels was a common practice in both cultures. These decorative differences are extremely useful when defining diagnostic shapes and for tracing trade patterns through the fragmentary remains of individual pieces. It is the geometric designs that are the most confusing and more difficult to distinguish at first glance.or six- . The Mamluk panel style characteristics are these bold circles defined in cobalt blue. and lustred cobalt wares that influenced or were copied by the Mamluk potters. Its Mamluk manufacture is certain. based on its shape – Ilkhanid examples have 32 a more curvaceous bottom section. underglaze-painted wares – subdivided into panel style. Several of the bowls published in Esin Atıl’s landmark 34 exhibition of Mamluk art are now recognised as being Ilkhanid. and white panels decorated with stippled black dots. I should add that some Kashan lustreware imports have been found at Syrian and Egyptian sites. such as the well-known lajvardina example 33 in the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s collection. There are some later Mamluk dated underglaze-painted panel style examples. polychrome painted. 14). 4 is much more finely executed and copies the Chinese hemispherical-shaped lotus bowls. the exterior has arcading imitating the lotus petals depicted in relief on the real celadon bowls. 5). even before the Mongol invasions. curiously cobalt and lustre vessels were seemingly more popular in the Mamluk centres than those of Mongol Iran.Mongol Inﬂuences on Mamluk Ceramics in the Fourteenth Century 101 30 son published in the proceedings of a conference held in Los Angeles in 2003. there is an albarello or pharmacy jar in the Museo di Capodimonte’s 31 (Naples) collection dated 717/1317. which should more correctly be styled as ‘monochrome relief wares. others purely decorative) on both closed and open forms (see Gayraud fig. palmette motifs partially outlined in blue. and prominent black inscriptions (some legible. which will be discussed with the imitation Sultanabad style below. He divided Mongol fineware ceramic production into the following categories: lustre. using Kashan lustre panel style examples as the prototypes for such a theory (fig. Sultanabad or colouredground relief wares – subdivided into grey wares and polychrome ones. and can be seen as a continuation of an existing skill.1864) for a good example of this type of decoration).
Figure 5: An Ilkhanid lustred panel-style hemispherical bowl.102 Rosalind A. . Wade Haddon Figure 4: An Ilkhanid panel style hemispherical bowl.
The decorative repertoire differs . The Ilkhanid examples are thought to have been made in Khurasan (fig. pseudo-epigraphy. The glazes on the Mamluk pieces are less well applied to their heavier bodies and frequently have exaggerated drips. and are characterised by cross-hatched blue bands. pointed star was possibly talismanic. Figure 7: Geometric underglaze-painted cobalt and blue on white Ilkhanid siliceous paste bowl from Khurasan.Mongol Inﬂuences on Mamluk Ceramics in the Fourteenth Century 103 Figure 6: Mamluk underglaze-painted cobalt and black on white bowl. but also a convenient way of dividing up a circle. 7). and stippled in black on white grounds on their interiors and continuous S-bands or spirals on the exterior.
central rosettes like those in fig. The T-rim bowl illustrated (fig. Vessels decorated in black under a transparent turquoise glaze had been popular in both cultures prior to the Mongols. 35 . with T-rim bowls in both 37 categories. When I interviewed archaeologists in Iran. Archaeologically. they told me that they regarded the fine zigzag lines that were used as fillers in both geometric and floral designs as being typically Ilkhanid. although there are many fragments of rather coarser examples of turquoise and black wares found in Mamluk contexts. where the American excavators found an assemblage of lajvardina and black under turquoise wares. in north-west Iran. and a band of angular S-shapes.104 Rosalind A. 6. we have further proof of this designation. we are certain that it is an Ilkhanid piece. which probably explains why Atıl did not include any in her 1981 exhibition. and continued to be so. there are few if any of museum quality. The angular S36 shaped bands are characteristically found on Mamluk sgraffito goblets and bowls. The only T-rim example that I have discovered to date in the Mamluk 38 world is an imported Kashan lustre fragment from Hama. so when we have a combination of the two. in this instance sandwiched between two plaited designs. Curiously. There is a category of vessels decorated in turquoise and black on white under a clear transparent glaze 39 which is recognised as being typically Mamluk. at the fortified Ilkhanid site of Hasanlu. too. with shell patterns. 8) is a diagnostic Iranian shape. Wade Haddon Figure 8: A diagnostic Ilkhanid T-rim bowl decorated in a typical Ilkhanid design in black under a transparent turquoise alkaline glaze.
or land holding originally granted to Toluids or Ilkhans in China. However. and on to Sultanabad.Mongol Inﬂuences on Mamluk Ceramics in the Fourteenth Century 105 Figure 9: A diagnostic Ilkhanid T-rim bowl decorated in slip-relief or coloured ground technique. surely there would have been a noticeable technological change if Chinese potters had been introduced to both centres. Morgan outlines the use of Chinese symbolic motifs in this context – the mythical phoenix (known as a simurgh in the Iranian world). with the raised decoration in white outlined in black on a grey ground. and would certainly account for the affinity between Golden Horde slip-relief wares (fig. knowing that craftsmen in other skills had been. the lotus. This is an attractive theory. and as late as 1319 apparently 2. probably had the most influence on one category of Mamluk ceramics. it does not account for the fact that the two 43 powers were constantly scrapping over disputed territories. or slip-relief coloured-ground grey wares (fig. even if the information is lacking for fourteenth-century Iran. whose industrial income Ghazan pursued in 1298.519 families liv42 ing in Henan still belonged to the Ilkhans. Lane’s theory that many of the . 9). 10) and their contemporaneous Ilkhanid products. Morgan goes on to say that 25. Morgan suggested that some potters amongst this group could have been moved to the Mongol capital of Qaraqorum and later to Saray Berke.056 families living in Henan were part of Hülegü’s appenage. Watson divided this type into polychrome and grey wares. based on Peter Morgan’s established 40 terminology. The Russian excavations at 44 Saray Berke have provided abundant evidence for ceramic production. and the dragon – and concludes that the most likely stimulus was Mongol felts and 41 Chinese stonewares manufactured in the Henan and Hebei provinces. Ilkhanid Sultanabad. nor does it explain the basic differences in kiln technology – the West Asian and Mediterranean medieval world uniformly used up-draught kilns and the Chinese world used crossdraught ones.
15) with the years 48 “forty-four” and “forty-five” written in a cursive Arabic – the seven hundred is 45 . Wade Haddon Figure 10: A typical Golden Horde ‘rosewater bowl’ decorated in slip-relief floral designs. and a richly caparisoned horse on many Mamluk ones. 11 and 12. As a general rule the Ilkhanid designs are much more rounded. for example. Both types are decorated with references to princely pursuits with animals. Textiles were highly valued tribute gifts and would have been ostentatiously exhibited in princely processions. whereas the Mamluk version has a pointed trilobed leaf which also appears in other media. Note the decorative difference on the two albarelli in figs. 14. There is a group of dated fragments (figs. metalware. hunting birds. which is restricted to cobalt blue and black in fourteenthcentury examples. such as the example in figure 13. Morgan demonstrated this through the detail on miniatures in an early fourteenth-century 46 copy of Rashid ad-Din’s History of the World. Mongol figures on some Ilkhanid pieces. and playing cards. Note the details of the princely blazon and some of the saddlery highlighted in red – this is another distinctive feature of Mamluk relief wares that does not occur in the non-relief version. no doubt inspiring skilled artisans to follow fashionable trends. although in this case there is no sign of a groom. enamelled glass. a popular device in Ilkhanid il47 luminated manuscripts. designs were transmitted through textiles remains the most plausible.106 Rosalind A. Perhaps the riderless horse is a reference to a prince or patron. which also demonstrate the diagnostic differences in shape between Ilkhanid and Mamluk vessels. with epigraphic panels on the interior alternating with comma-like motifs.
makes him rather guarded about their reliability.Mongol Inﬂuences on Mamluk Ceramics in the Fourteenth Century 107 Figure 11: The polychrome slip-relief Ilkhanid albarello. but none in the grey sliprelief with red highlights. There is one piece with traces of enamelling or lajvardina decoration in the Berlin collection. understood – which correspond to 1344 or 1345. The chronicles tell us nothing about the effects of the Black Death of 1348–49 on the ceramics industry. as well as placing all these wares firmly in the fourteenth century. that are found at most . which 51 should allay his fears. There are examples in both the panel style and non-relief imitation Sultanabad wares. In a Mamluk context there are a number of lead-glazed. citing two dated examples in American collections. and the jury is still out as to when the influence of Chinese blue and white began on both the Iranian and Egypto-Syrian potters. with inscribed benedictions. Watson included the monumental monochrome relief ware jars in his list of Mongol products. Morgan proposed that the Ilkhanid version was made until the late 49 fourteenth century. These serve to demonstrate how long fashions lasted in ceramic decorative motifs. dated 681/ 50 1282 and 683/1284. which was the next fashionable trend in both areas. earthenware moulded cups. The lack of archaeological contexts for such a ware. however fragmentary.
Wade Haddon Figure 12: Mamluk imitation example Sultanabad in the al-Sabah Collection. . Figure 13: Mamluk polychrome relief ware. or imitation Sultanabad. with a riderless. Kuwait.108 Rosalind A. richly caparisoned horse – bowl base fragment.
No examples of the Golden Horde material have been found to date in Iranian or Egypto-Syrian contexts. which reflect another instance of influence from the original prototype. there is a sub-group of grey relief wares. possibly indicating that they were exported as containers rather than empty vessels. Iranian examples are even rare in Mesopotamia. how. and their popularity is reflected in their imitations. but the copying of Sino-Mongol motifs such as the lotus and phoenix continued 52 . However. They are thought to have been made in Jerusalem. albeit with different decorative motifs. popular amongst the potters of all three fourteenth-century political centres. Many of them are stem-footed cups. Closed forms are more common. The limited vogue for tile revetments in Cairo introduced post 1323 only lasted a couple of decades. but 54 they have been in the West. judging by Gerald Reitlinger’s sherd collection in the Ashmolean Museum and various excavation reports. The widespread finds of 57 Mamluk drug jars include examples of the non-relief wares. 53 I was only able to locate one example amongst the British collections. The distribution picture is totally different for Mamluk products. in the Spanish and Italian potteries from the fifteenth century onwards. we have to rely on observations and archaeology to gain a clearer picture of who influenced whom.Mongol Inﬂuences on Mamluk Ceramics in the Fourteenth Century 109 Figures 14 and 15: Two dated fragments. Mamluk shapes and designs are more frequently found at Iraqi sites. pointing to trade contacts via the Euphrates corridor. but bear no relation to the monumental Ilkhanid jars. Some were certainly exported in their own right. could well be the key to the question of who influenced whom. which even found their way to 58 59 London. and when. purportedly produced in Khurasan and coined 55 ‘Bojnurd wares’ by the dealers. sites in Greater Syria. With the sources silent on most aspects of this craft. and continued into the fifteenth century with blue and white copies. The enigma of the coloured-ground slip-relief or Sultanabad designs. perhaps largely due to Mamluk control of the spice trade through the 56 Karimi merchants.
(Photo courtesy of the V&A Museum) Figure 12: Mamluk imitation Sultanabad example in the al-Sabah Collection. (Tehran National Museum no.vam. V&A C. (Photo courtesy of the V&A Museum) Figure 3: Possible interim style base. (Photo courtesy of the Dar al-Athar al-Islamiyya) Figure 13: Mamluk polychrome relief ware. KP 25355/1 A1-283. Iran. or imitation Sultanabad. (Courtesy of the Museum.uk/item/O85371/bowl. photo by the author) Figure 11: A polychrome slip-relief Ilkhanid albarello. (Gayer Anderson Museum. Syria or Egypt. (Photo by the author) Figure 4: An Ilkhanid panel style hemispherical bowl.1955–1910. 216 in Keir Collection.110 Rosalind A. V&A C. photo by the author) Figure 2: Underglaze painted stemcup dated Ramadan 674 AH (1276 AD). Cairo. photo by the author) Figure 5: Ilkhanid lustred panel-style hemispherical bowl. 3310.ac.52–1910.219–1912. LNS 187C. (Azov Museum of Local Lore. (Photo courtesy of the V&A Museum) Figure 6: Mamluk underglaze-painted cobalt and black on white bowl. photo by the author) Figure 8: A diagnostic Ilkhanid T-rim bowl decorated in a typical Ilkhanid design in black under a transparent turquoise alkaline glaze. 4930.1610. no. with the raised decoration in white outlined in black on a grey ground. V&A C. V&A C. photo courtesy of the museum) Figures 14 and 15: Two dated fragments. (Museum für Islamische Kunst – Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. photo by the author) .1650. photo by the author) Figure 7: Geometric underglaze-painted cobalt and blue on white Ilkhanid siliceous paste bowl from Khurasan. Cairo. (Ashmolean Museum Collection EA 1978. For further details see: http://collections. (Photo courtesy of the V&A Museum) Figure 10: A typical Golden Horde ‘rosewater bowl’ decorated in slip-relief floral designs. London. with a riderless. tile mosaic was never popular. 4457. largely in a blue and black on white format.53–1952. Kuwait. (Ashmolean Museum Collection EA1978. richly caparisoned horse – bowl base fragment inventory number I. with epigraphic panels on the interior alternating with comma-like motifs. 5280. Although tile revetments did return in the fifteenth century. Illustrations (with image credit) Figure 1: Base fragment of an underglaze painted Ayyubid bowl. Islamic Ceramics Museum no. Wade Haddon well into the fifteenth century. V&A 59–1941. (Photo courtesy of the V&A Museum) Figure 9: A diagnostic Ilkhanid T-rim bowl decorated in slip-relief or coloured ground technique.
(London. 2006). W132. 22 Marilyn Jenkins. Cairo.J. 170.” manuscript kindly supplied by the author. 73. Schweizer. G. 26. (Tehran. 2001). 2004). OA 1920. Islamic Ceramics Museum. M.” edited manuscript kindly supplied by the author. Shine Like the Sun: Lustre-Painted and Associated Pottery from the Medieval Middle East.Mongol Inﬂuences on Mamluk Ceramics in the Fourteenth Century 111 Notes 1 Bethany Walker. “Ceramic evidence for political transformations in early Mamluk Egypt.” Mamluk Studies Review 8/1 (2004). Cairo. 5 Robert B. 171.3-26. 1957). (London. (Paris. 108. 9 Charles Vignier. am¯ Vesel. note 47.” Damaszener Mitteilungen 11 (1999). numbers are those designated by myself when digitally recording the contents of two cabinets in Room F..M. 20 Robert Irwin.” Archaeology 24/2 (1971). with Raqqa implied – see Marilyn Jenkins-Madina. 45.19. 11 Julia Gonnella. 85–144. 387.aspx for a full description. (Damascus. Sciences. The Minarets of Cairo. no. 12 There are several wasters in the British Museum collection that are said to have been found at a factory site in the city of Aleppo.R. 1980). . 131–36 and 158–73. pl. Gayer Anderson Museum. citing an account preserved in the Mamluk history of al. no. cat. 8 For a relatively recent exhibition catalogue see the Institute du Monde Arabe’s L’Orient de Saladin: l’Art des Ayyoubides. “Notes sur la céramique Persane. (Ontario.. “The history of the so-called Egyptian faience in Islamic Persia: investigations into Ab¯ u’l-Q¯ asim’s treatise.” in eds. 3 J. 1260–1360. 1–114. 6 Ibid. 341–60. 17 J. 18 Ibid. ” Revue des Arts Asiatiques 2/3 (1925). Raqqa Revisited.1: see http://www. N. “The Fustat mounds: a shard count 1968. Mason. 14 Rachel Ward. 9. “Mamluk underglaze-painted pottery: foundations for future study. “Eine neue zangidisch-aiy¯ ubidische Keramikgruppe aus Aleppo. 614. 95–114.Ayn¯ ı’s Iqd al-jum¯ an. September 2009. 160–69. Scanlon. The Gayer Anderson Museum. 119. 26. no.britishmuseum. See also D. St. 23 G.” Archaeometry 15/2 (1973). 52B. 10 P. 2004). Chinese Celadon Wares. 2 Arthur Lane.W. The Middle East in the Middle Ages: the Early Mamluk Sultanate 1250–1382. J. Pourjavady and Ž. Llewellyn and F. 2010). New York. 4. “Le quatrième chapitre du jav¯ aher-n¯ ame-ye Nez¯ ı. Riis and Vagn Poulsen. 19 Michael Meinecke. fig. who indicated that Tiesenhausen’s nineteenth-century translation had omitted some vital parts of the text. (New York. and figural Gayer Anderson Museum. (Cairo. taken from al-Y¯ usuf¯ ı’s Nuzha – an Arabic copy was made available to O’Kane by Donald Little. Allan. an as yet unpublished paper given at a Mongol conference organised by R Hillenbrand. 7 of MS. “Die mamlukische Fayencemosaikendekorationen: Eine Werkstätte aus Tabr¯ ız in Kairo (1330–1350). 4 Yves Porter. 182–198. 418. (London. 13 See also geometric examples in the Damascus Museum (5790 – Catalogue du Musée National de Damas.org/ explore/highlights/highlight_objects/me/s/stonepaste_bottle. 1972). Metropolitan Museum of Art. 4/2 les Verreries et Poteries Médiévales. 1981). Techniques et Instruments dans le Monde Iranien X–XIX siècle. sf41–165-2a. 1957). nos.. Behrens-Abouseif. 108. . Hama. Cairo. 21 Email communication. Colloque Internationale sur l’Histoire du Caire. Edinburgh 1995 (1996). no. 15 Bernard O’Kane. Fouilles et Recherches 1931–38: vol. Cairo. Rogers and Magdi Wahba. 16 Ibid. 24 George T.” Muqarnas 2 (1984). (Beckenham. André Raymond. pl. 27 mars-5 avril 1969. J. an as yet unpublished paper. “Taj al-Din Alishah: the reconstruction and influence of his mosque in Tabriz. 230. “Mongol Mania at the Mamluk Court. ” in eds. Michael Rogers. (Copenhagen. Gompertz. “Evidence for Mamluk-Mongol relations.” Kunst des Orients 11 (1976–77). Early Islamic Pottery. 7 Lane. Early Islamic Pottery. 386. L. 70). 163–77. 1999). as opposed to the Governorate. 5371. 155–159.
68 and 69. Rashid al-Din. 9. 325–45. Wade Haddon 25 Personal communication from Véronique François. 1978). 36. 33 Komaroff and Carboni.A. A. Ceramiche Orientali a Firenze nel Rinascimento. 106. Arab Art.. 2002). James Allan. (Leiden. 43 Reuven Amitai. 39–73. 29 Yuka Kadoi. Danti. B. Standen. 51 I. “Some Far Eastern. 1984). Oxford Studies in Islamic Art. 2006). 48 Edward Gibbs.2. E. 44 G.” in ed. Gray. 200. 26 C.. (Philadelphia. 26. 33. (Florence. Renaissance of Islam: Art of the Mamluks. col. 47 See Linda Komaroff. formerly Dahlem no./ category/All%20objects/start/1300/end/1388/object/639-1978. 71. 36 Ibid. 50 Watson. 1981). 185. as yet unstudied. accessed 19. who has worked on the material from both citadels. (Leiden/Boston. “Pottery under the Mongols.” in ed.ashmolean. Frontiers in Question: Eurasian Borderlands 700–1700. MIKB – from the 1968 season.C. 1978). Outlines of Chinese Symbolism and Art Motives. revised edn. 1976). 57 and 58. 143 ff. 19–43. 756. “Pottery under the Mongols. Linda Komaroff. 10 (Oxford. BAR International Series 198 (Oxford. The Culture of the Golden Horde Cities. now at LACMA. fig. fig. 11.13/69. 37 Michael D. box TS 121. Marco Spallanzani. 45 Arthur Lane. fig. 46 Morgan. Hama. 1256–1353. 68–79.112 Rosalind A.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 140/3 (2008). military frontier and ethnic affinities. 1999).” Muqarnas 20 (2003). nos.aspx?page=69& sort=6&sortdir=asc&keyword=iran ceramics&fp=66&dd1=14&dd2=0&vw=1&collID=14& OID=140008756&vT=1&hi=0&ov=0. “Northern Syria between the Mongols and Mamluks: political boundary. F.” pl. fig. XLVII. 241. Encyclopaedia of Islam. Architecture and Material Culture: New Perspectives. vol. Islamic Art in the Ashmolean Museum part 2. “Unravelling the Enigmatic 14th Century Mamluk and Mongol Finewares: How to Solve the Problem. The Legacy of Genghis Khan: Courtly Art and Culture in Western Asia. 220. D. 39 Marcus Milwright.. fig. Robert H. 95. the Sharaf al-Abwani goblet in the Egyptian Embassy in Washington D. Beyond the Legacy of Genghis Khan. Jr. 384. general ed. Dyson. 31 Yolande Crowe. 38 Riis and Poulsen. 32 See argument in Rosalind Wade Haddon. 2nd edn. 10088. “Khazaf.” 31. 1971). 238. (Edinburgh. . Legacy. pl.. 41 Ibid. Power and N. 2004).” Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society (1998–99) 63 (2000). 2. 78. pls.. 2009). “Some Far Eastern elements in coloured-ground Sultanabad wares. 27 For an illustrated example see the Ashmolean website for a dish in this style: http:// jameelcentre. nos. 35 Ibid. Fedorov (Fyodorov)-Davydov. (Washington D. 3rd revised edition. “Mamluk ceramics (648–923/1250–1517).. 49 Morgan. (Edinburgh. (New York. The Ilkhanid Heartland: Hasanlu Tepe (Iran) Period I.” in ed. 45. 85–111. or for a web image: http://www. s. 35. 201.” 20.2011. Margaret Graves. 1976). “Turquoise and black: notes on an underglaze-painted paste of the Mamluk period. 34 Esin Atıl.” in eds. Hama. Legacy. 28 Riis and Poulsen. S. “Modest luxuries: decorated lead-glazed pottery in the south of Bilad alSham (thirteenth and fourteenth centuries). 1995). 213–224. 77. (New York.” 341. 40 Peter Morgan. 134. (London.org/collection/4/837/838/all/per_page/100/offset/0/sort_by/seqn. 2002. 13 and David Talbot Rice in ed. Fig. Linda Komaroff and Stefano Carboni. 4. nos. Later Islamic Pottery. 126. no. (Basingstoke.C. 30 Oliver Watson. August 2007 (in press). Hasanlu Excavation Reports vol.Williams.2305 and eds. figs. Islamic Chinoiserie: the Art of Mongol Iran. (proceedings of a graduate conference held at Edinburgh University).1. and Aleppo Citadel no. 52 Marcus Milwright. pl.metmuseum.v. “Some Far Eastern elements. 42 Ibid. 70. org/works_of_art/collection_database/islamic_art/covered_jar/objectview.
(London. 58 Jacqueline Pearce and Jean Martin.” paper delivered to the international conference in Nukus. Islamic Pottery of the Eighth to the Fifteenth Century in the Keir Collection.Mongol Inﬂuences on Mamluk Ceramics in the Fourteenth Century 113 53 Ernst Grube. De l’Orient à la table du Pape: L’importation des céramiques dans la region d’Avignon au Moyen Age Tardif (XIVe– XVIe siècles). 100.” in ed. and to be discussed at length in the author’s PhD thesis. 1. Uzbekistan.” Muqarnas 20 (2003).” Mamluk Studies Review 10/1 (2006).” devoted to the centenary of the outstanding researcher of Central Asia. (Avignon. 143–57. SOAS. 1995). 57 Jacques Thiriot. 155–56. fig. . “Céramiques fine et orientales. 54 Rosalind Wade Haddon. 59 Deborah Howard. opp. 1976). Sergey Pavlovich Tostov (in press).” Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society (2002–2003). “Slave traders and K¯ arim¯ ı merchants during the Mamluk period: a comparative study. Dominique Carru. pl. entitled “The Aral Sea Area on the Crossroads of Cultures” and the second field workshop. 55 A topic already explored at a graduate seminar. “Golden Horde Kashi Wares in Collections outside the Ulus Jochi. 56 Sato Tsugitaka. June 2009. 141–56. 137. “Oriental blue and white porcelain found at archaeological excavations in London: research in progress. 67 (2004). “Archaeology of the Ancient Tash-k’irman Oasis. 24–49. “Death in Damascus: Venetians in Syria in the mid-fifteenth century. October 2007.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.