Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T14:03:10.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Working in metal: Mutual influences between the Islamic world and the medieval West

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

G. Fehérvári
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The enamelled Islamic dish which is in the Ferdinandeum at Innsbruck is well known to scholars of Islamic art. It is a unique and outstanding piece of work, yet, surprisingly, so far no monograph has been devoted to it. One of the earliest references to this object was made by Max van Berchem and J. Strzygowski. In 1910 it was on show at the famous Islamic exhibition in Munich. Then the dish was included in Alois Riegel's publication, which came out soon after World War I. The late L. A. Mayer mentioned it again briefly in connexion with a small glass bottle in the British Museum, which, like the dish, depicts dancing girls. Then an article by Hugo Buchtal referred to it once more. More recently the dish was described and illustrated by Sir Harry Garner.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 109 , Issue 1 , January 1977 , pp. 3 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1977

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

Notes

1 van Berchem, Max and Strzygowski, J., Amida, Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte des Mittelalters von Mesopotamien, Hellas und dem Abendlande, Heidelberg, 1910, 120f., 348f.Google Scholar; illustrated on p. 121, Fig. 53, and Pl. XXI, 1, the outside on p. 349, Fig. 295.

2 Diez, Ernst, “Die Metallarbeiten”, in F. Sarre and F. R. Martin, Die Ausstellung von Meisterwerken muhammedanischer Kunst in München, 1910, München, 1910, No. 3056, Pl. 159a, b.Google Scholar

3 Riegel, Alois, Die spätrömische Kunstindustrie nach den Funden in Österreich – Ungarn. Teil 2: Kunstgewerbe des frühen Mittelalters, Wien, 1923, Tafel XLVIII.Google Scholar

4 Mayer, L. A., “A glass bottle of the Atabek Zengi”, Iraq, VI, 1939, 101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Buchthal, Hugo, “A note on Islamic enamelled metalwork and its influence in the Latin West”, Ars Islamica, XI, 1946, 196–197, Fig. 2.Google Scholar

6 SirGarner, Harry, Chinese and Japanese cloisonné enamels, London, 1962, 23–24, Pl. 6–7.Google Scholar

7 The central part of the dish is illustrated in detail in Rice, David Talbot, Islamic art, London, 1965, 110, Fig. 109.Google Scholar

8 For recent colour illustrations of the inside of this dish, cf. Grube, Ernst J., The world of Islam: landmarks of world's art, London, 1966, 50, Fig. 24Google Scholar; Scerrato, Umberto, Metalli islamici, Milano, 1966, 85, Fig. 36Google Scholar; du Rye, Carel, Islamic art, New York, n.d., 103Google Scholar; Sourdel-Thomine, J. und Spuler, B., Propyläen Kunstgeschichte. Die Kunst des Islam, Berlin, 1973, Colour Pl. XLIIGoogle Scholar. The dish was recently exhibited in London, cf. The arts of Islam: An exhibition organized by the Arts Council of Great Britain in association with the World of Islam Festival Trust, Hayward Gallery, 8 April–4 July, 1976, London, 1976, 201, No. 238.Google Scholar

9 For the inscription cf. van Berchem and Strzygowski, op. cit., 120–1.

10 For the exterior of the dish cf. Sarre und Martin, Meisterwerke, Pl. 159b, and Garner, op. cit., Pl. 7.

11 A. V. Bank, Bizantinskoe Iskusstvo, Leningrad–Moskva, 1965, Colour Pl. 190.

12 Garner, op. cit., 24.

13 Van Berchem and Strzygowski, op. cit., 353.

14 This theory was put forward in one of his lectures.

15 Buchthal, art. cit. 197.

16 Sotheby's Catalogue, 8 December 1970, No. 79, p. 41. Formerly the bowl was in the Kevorkian Foundation, New York.

17 cf. Géza Fehérvári, Islamic metalwork of the eighth to the fifteenth century in the Keir Collection, London, 1976, 102–3, No. 127, Colour Pl. G, Pl. 42a–d.

18 Recently my reading was questioned by Dr. Melikian-Chirvani (cf. “Caskets, candlesticks, and calligraphy”, review of Islamic metalwork, in the TLS, 30 April 1976, 528. He suggested that it should be read as Ulugh Homāyūn, homāyūn being a Persian title meaning “august”. While I do not question the possibility that in fact the word could be read as homāyūn, neither does it give any sensible meaning, nor does it go with the Turkish title Ulugh which precedes it. Furthermore after a title like malik al-umarā' “prince of the amīrs”, one would expect a personal name rather than another title. In any case, no Ulugh Homāyūn is known, while there is definite evidence for the existence of Ulugh Qaymāz.

19 Ibn al-Athīr, Kitāb al-kāmil fī 'l-ta'rīkh, Cairo, 1301/1883–4, XII, 2.

20 Baer, Eva, Sphinxes and harpies in medieval Islamic art. An iconographical study, (The Israel Oriental Society, Oriental Studies and Notes, No. 9), Jerusalem, 1965, 77f.Google Scholar

21 Baer, op. cit., 74, Pl. LIII, Fig. 94.

22 Pope, A. U., Survey of Persian art, Oxford, 1939, Pl. 704Google Scholar; Arthur, Lane, Early Islamic pottery, London, 1947, Pl. 66.Google Scholar

23 Rice, D. S., The Wade Cup in the Cleveland Museum of Art, Paris, 1955, 12–15.Google Scholar

24 Ettinghausen, Richard, “The Wade Cup in the Cleveland Museum of Art, its origin and decorations”, Ars Orientalis, II, 1957, 331–341.Google Scholar

25 Ettinghausen, art. cit., 335, Fig. 12.

26 cf. Fehérvári, Islamic metalwork, No. 63, Pl. 19a.

27 Ettinghausen, R., “Evidence for the identification of Kāshān pottery”, Ars Islamica, III, 1936, 44–70, Fig. 9.Google Scholar

28 Lane, op. cit., Pl. 94A, B; Rice, op. cit., Pl. XIVa.

29 Fehérvári, G., Islamic pottery: A comprehensive study based on the Barlow Collection, London, 1973, No. 156, Pl. 64a, b.Google Scholar

30 I wish to express by thanks to Mr. Anthony North, Assistant Keeper in the Department of Metalwork, Victoria and Albert Museum, who called my attention to this piece.

31 Rice, D. S., “The seasons and labor of the montḥs”, Ars Orientalis, I, 1954, 1–39.Google Scholar

32 art. cit., 31.

33 Victoria and Albert Museum, Inv. no. M. 159–1919; cf. Chamot, M., English mediaeval enamels, London, 1930, No. 13, Pl. 86.Google Scholar

34 Gauthier, Marie-Madeleine, Émaux du moyen age occidental, Fribourg, 1972, 109, 114, Fig. 63.Google Scholar

35 Pinder-Wilson, R. H., “An Islamic bronze bowl”, BMQ, XVI, 1951, 85–87, Pl. XXXII.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 Rice, art. cit., 31.

37 Pinder-Wilson, art. cit., 86.

38 Rice, loc. cit.

39 Darkevich, V. P., Svetskoe iskusstvo Vizantii, Moskva, 1975, Figs. 1 – 82Google Scholar. My attention was called to this reference by Professor Oleg Grabar.

40 Darkevich, op. cit., 321f.

41 Schnitzler, H., Bloch, P., and Ratten, C., Email, Goldschmiede und Metallarbeiten Europäischer Mittelalter: Sammlung E. und M. Kofler-Truniger, Luzern, Luzern und Stuttgart, 1965, Bd. II, Cat. nos. E. 66–E. 76, pp. 28–30, Tafel 42Google Scholar. Others are in the Museum of Cluny.

42 Fehévári, Islamic metalwork, 103, No. 128, Pl. 43a.

43 The list of these objects was first published by Rice, art. cit., n. 31 above; also idem, “Inlaid brasses from the workshop of Aḥmad al-Dhakī al-Mawṣilī”, Ars Orientalis, II, 1957, 316.

44 It was first published by Dimand, M. S., “A silver inlaid bronze canteen with Christian subjects in the Eumorfopoulos collection”, Ars Islamica, I, 1934, 17 – 21Google Scholar ; and more recently by Laura T. Schneider, who has also repeated the list of the 14 objects with Christian scenes, cf. “The Freer canteen”, Ars Orientalis, IX, 1973, 137 – 56, illustrated in Atil, Esin, Art of the Arab world, Freer Gallery of Art, Washington, 1975, 69 – 73.Google Scholar

45 Meisterwerke, II, No. 3094, Pl. 147. Esin Atil, op. cit., 64 – 7.

46 Inv. no. 7545–1862.

47 Schnitzler, Bloch, and Ratten, op. cit., 49–50, Tafel 92.

48 Esin Atil, op. cit., 68.

49 Migeon, G., L'exposition des arts musulmans, Paris, 1903, Pl. 15Google Scholar; Homberg Octave the Elder, Catalogue des objets d'art et de haute curiosité orientaux et européens, Paris, 1908, No. 337; Rice, Ars Orientalis, II, 1957, 311 – 16, Pl. 3, 10 – 12, 13b, 15b, Fig. 36; Fehérvári, Islamic metalwork, 105, No. 131, Colour Pl. I.

50 Rice, Ars Orientalis, II, 1957, 320.

51 Cambel, Halet and Braidwood, Robert J., “An early farming village in Turkey”, Scientific American, 222, 3, 03, 1970, 50 – 56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar