Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:27:40.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Saljūq sign-manual represented on a sgraffiato potsherd

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

A. D. H. Bivar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Among the examples of sgraffiato pottery from the excavations at Takht-i Sulaymān in Iran shown by Dr. Rudolf Schnyder during the oral presentation of his paper “Medieval incised and carved wares from North West Iran”—read to the Percival David Foundation's Fourth Colloquy on Art and Archaeology in Asia, but not included amongst the published illustrations—was a specimen bearing a short Arabic inscription. I am grateful to Dr. Schnyder for allowing me to publish here, in developed form, my contribution to the subsequent discussion, and to him and the Musée National Suisse for providing the photograph reproduced in Plate I.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 111 , Issue 1 , January 1979 , pp. 9 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Watson, William (ed.) The art of Anatolia and Iran from the 11th to the 13th century A.D.: A colloquy held 25–28 June 1973 (Colloquies on the Art and Archaeology of Asia No. 4), Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1974, 85–95.Google Scholar

2 Stern, S. M., Fāṭimid decrees (All Souls Studies No. 3), London, 1964, 143–7.Google Scholar

3 I follow Eghbal, Abbas, ĪrĀn-i imrūz, 1319, No. 10, p. 25,Google Scholar who derives the term ṭughrā from a Turkish turqa or turghay “bow” (as quoted, admittedly with reservations, by Minorsky, V., Tadhkirat al-mulūk, 122 n. 1).Google ScholarCompare al-Bundarī, ed. Houtsma, , Leyden, 1889,Google ScholarReceuil de textes relatifs à I'histoire des Seljoucides, II, 83:Google Scholarfa-ja'alū ilayhi manṣaba 'l-tughrā, wa-qālū: hādhā '1-manṣabu lā yuḥtāju ila faḍlin, Wa-laysā illā majarradu dhālika '1-khaṭṭi '1-qawsī.

In spite of the doubts expressed by Minorsky and others (e.g. Cahen, C., “La ṭuĝrā seljuḳide”, JA, CCXXXIV, 1943–1945, 172,Google Scholar “Nous n'avons pas fait progresser le problème de l'etymologie du mot ṭuĝrā, qui evidement ne designe ni l'arc ni la flèche”), the theory of Eghbal has the merit of providing a systematic explanation of the origin and evolution of the term. The often-quoted dictionary definition of ṭughrā' as khaṭṭ bar shakl-i kamān would thus mean “line [not ‘script’] in the shape of a bow”, a clear enough description of the figure seen on coins of Ṭughril Beg.

4 See below, n. 21.

5 Fehérvári, G., Islamic pottery: A comprehensive study based on the Barlow collection, London, 1973, 61–2.Google Scholar

6 ed. Iqbāl, Muḥammad (Gibb Memorial Series), Leiden, 1921, 203 (Maḥmūd); 281 (Arslān).Google Scholar

7 al-Aḥmar, Abū 'l-Walīd b., Mustawdi' al-‘alāma wa-mustabdi' al-‘allāma, ed. Et-Tounsi, Mohammed Et-Tourki and Et-Tetouani, Mohammad Ben Tawit, ṭaṬwān, 1964, 21.Google Scholar

8 Fāṭimid decrees, 134,Google Scholar quoting Ḥulal,Google Scholar ed. Allouche, I. S., 19.Google Scholar

9 Ḥulal, 23.Google Scholar

10 Fāṭimid decrees, 126.Google Scholar

11 op. cit., 26.

12 IbnKhallikān, , Wafayāt al-a'yān, tr. de Slane, , Ibn Khallikān's biographical dictionary, London, 1842, I, 463;Google ScholarEncyclopaedia of Islam, 1st ed., s.v. “Ṭughrā'ī”. A detailed account of al-Ṭughrā'ī, is provided by Razook, Faraj in his unpublished thesis Studies on the works of al-Ṭughrā'ī, London, 1963, but he is not concerned with the calligraphy of the ‘alāma.Google Scholar

13 Fāṭimid decrees, Pls. 17 and 33. Cf. also Stern, S. M., “Two Ayyūbid decrees from Sinai”, in Stern, S. M. (ed.), Documents from Islamic chanceries, Oxford, 1965, 207, 213.Google Scholar

14 Ibn al-Aḥmar, 18, makes this clear: fa-innahum kānū yaktubūna 'l-'alāmata bi-aydayhim, wa-lam yaktubūhā lahum siwāhum, min awwalihim…ilā ākhirihim.

15 Tisserant, E. and Wiet, G., “Lettre de l'almohade Murtada au Pape Innocent IV”, Hesperis, VI, 1926, 27.Google Scholar

16 Olagnier-Riottot, M., “Restauration et nouvelle presentation de manuscrits au Musée Prosper Ricard, Rabat”, Museum, IX, 4, 1956, 257.Google Scholar

17 Stern, S. M., “Two Ayyūbid decrees from Sinai”, 35–6.Google Scholar

18 Fāṭimid decrees, 147.Google Scholar

19 Mustawfí-i-Qazwíní, Ḥamdulláh, Taríkh-i Guzída, Leiden, 1913, II, 105.Google Scholar

20 Bivar, A. D. H., “Qobeyrā 1976”, in Proceedings of the Vth Annual Symposium on Archaeological Research in IranGoogle Scholar (in the press). For the 11th-century date cf. Allan, J. W., “Incised wares of Iran and Anatolia in the 11th and 12th centuries”, Keramos, LXIV, 04 1974, 19, Pl. 4.Google Scholar

21 cf. Schnyder, Rudolf, “Saljūq pottery in Iran”, in Memorial volume of the Vth Inter national Congress of Iranian Art and Archaeology, Tehran-Isfahan-Shiraz, 11th–18th April 1968, II, Tehran, 1972, 196: “spread throughout the East in the wake of the Saljūq, advances”.Google Scholar

22 op. cit., 195, Fig. 4 (caption).