Metalwork and material culture

in the islamic world

 Metalwork
and

material culture
i n t he

islamic world
A Rt, C r a f t and Text

E s s ays p r e s ented to
Ja m e s W. Allan

e d i t e d by

Venetia Porter and

Mariam Rosser-Owen
Published in 2012 by I.B.Tauris & Co. Ltd
6 Salem Road, London W2 4BU
175 Fifth Avenue, New York NY 10010
www.ibtauris.com

Distributed in the United States and Canada Exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan,

175 Fifth Avenue, New York NY 10010

Copyright © Venetia Porter and Mariam Rosser-Owen 2012

The right of the Venetia Porter and Mariam Rosser-Owen to be identified as the authors
of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act, 1988.

All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, or any part thereof,
may not be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of the publisher.

ISBN ?????????????????

A full CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
A full CIP record for this book is available from the Library of Congress
Library of Congress catalog card: available

Designed and typeset in Jenson by Dexter Haven Associates Ltd, London

Printed and bound in Great Britain by ???
 c o n t ents

Contributors ix

Introduction
Venetia Porter and Mariam Rosser-Owen 1

1 The Principle of Parsimony and the Problem of the

‘Mosul School of Metalwork’
Julian Raby 11

part 1 Metalwork from the Iranian world 87

2 Metalwork and Fourteenth-century Persian Painting:

a Footnote
Teresa Fitzherbert 89
3 The Die-engraver of Balkh (290/902–302/914)
Luke Treadwell 99
4 The Ugly Duckling of Iranian Metalwork? Initial
Remarks on Qajar Copper and Copper-alloy Objects in
the National Museums of Scotland
Ulrike al-Khamis and Katherine Eremin 115

part 2 iran and india 129

5 Gilding, Inlay and the Mobility of Metallurgy: a Case of

Fraud in Medieval Kashmir
Finbarr Barry Flood 131
6 A Tubular Bronze Object from Khurasan
Lorenz Korn 143
7 Persians Abroad: the Case of the Jami‘ Masjid of Gulbarga
Robert Hillenbrand 155
part 3 mamluk metalwork in focus 169

8 An Extraordinary Mamluk Casket in the Fitzwilliam

Museum
Rachel Ward 171
9 A Mamluk Tray and its Journey to the V&A
Tim Stanley 187
10 Arabic Titles, Well-wishes and a Female Saint: a Mamluk
Basin in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Luitgard Mols 201

part 4 egypt and syria: Artefact and text 215

11 A Bronze Tambourine Player

Doris Behrens-Abouseif 217
12 The Fatimid Bronze Hoard of Tiberias
Elias Khamis 223
13 A Group of Round Boxes from the Metal Hoard Found
in Caesarea
Ayala Lester 239
14 Islamic Embroideries from Egypt: Shifts in Taste, Change
in Status
Ruth Barnes 253
15 Metalworking in Damascus at the End of the Ottoman
Period: an Analysis of the Qāmūs al-S. inā‘āt al-Shāmiyya
Marcus Milwright 265

part 5 the islamic west 281

16 A Bronze Pillar Lampstand from Petralia Sottana, Sicily

Jeremy Johns 283
17 The Metal Mounts on Andalusi Ivories: Initial Observations
Mariam Rosser-Owen 301
18 The Marble Spolia from the Badi‘ Palace in Marrakesh
Nadia Erzini and Stephen Vernoit 317
part 6 ceramic technology and innovation 335

19 Glaze-decorated Unglazed Wares

Oliver Watson 337
20 Pearl Cups Like the Moon: the Abbasid Reception of
Chinese Ceramics and the Belitung Shipwreck
Jessica Hallett 349
21 Branding ‘Tradition’ in Contemporary Tin-glaze Pottery
from Puebla
Farzaneh Pirouz-Moussavi 363

part 7 studies in lustreware 377

22
The Lion, the Hare and Lustreware
Fahmida Suleman 379
23
Said el Sadr (1909–86) and Fatimid Lustreware:

a Succession
Alan Caiger-Smith 393
24
Potter’s Trail: an Abu Zayd Ewer in the Saint Louis
Art Museum
Oya Pancaroğlu 397

part 8 painting traditions and contemporary art 411

25 From the Workshops of New Julfa to the Court of Tsar

Aleksei Mikhailovich: an Initial Look at Armenian
Networks and the Mobility of Visual Culture
Amy S. Landau 413
26 Modern Palimpsests: What Defines a Fake?
Emilie Savage-Smith 427
27 ‘Neo-calligraphism’ and its Different Varieties in Modern
and Contemporary Iranian Art
Hamid Keshmirshekan 441
28 Meem 1958, by Siah Armajani
Venetia Porter 461

Bibliography of James Allan’s Publications 469

General Bibliography 473
Index 515
 1
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f pa rsimony and the
p ro b l e m o f t h e ‘ M osul School of
m e ta lwork’

d
julian raby

Lt
o
C
Depuis un siècle, Mossoul est célèbre en Occident. Pour les bronzes qu’elle n’a pas créés.
A.S. Melikian-Chirvani 1974
&

T
ris

he term ‘Mosul metalwork’ is reassuringly familiar, yet disconcertingly

elusive.1 In a generic sense it presents no issue, as it conjures up for any
au

student of Islamic art images of thirteenth-century brass vessels in a

limited range of distinctive forms, profusely inlaid with silver. It is the
precision of the word ‘Mosul’ that creates unease, as no one seems any longer willing
.T

to specify which objects were made in Mosul and which elsewhere by artists who had
emigrated from Mosul.2 Scholars over the last fifty years have increasingly treated the
I.B

issue of attribution with resignation or dubiety; few have been as brave as Souren
Melikian-Chirvani and dismissed Mosul’s claims altogether.3
Epigraphic, circumstantial and stylistic evidence exists, however, to permit a more
positive stance, and to enable us to attribute a core group of documentary items to
Mosul, and others to Damascus and to Cairo. While these can form the basis for
further attributions on stylistic grounds, there is, I hope, enough presented here to
begin to shape a picture of a metalwork ‘school’ in Mosul, and to identify one of
the principal ways in which its techniques and styles were transmitted to Mamluk
Cairo. I intend to show that this was a ‘school’ in multiple senses: relationships
existed between artists who shared techniques, styles and motifs that they developed

11
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

over the course of more than half a century; and they transmitted these through
apprenticeships; and there was a conscious sense of community that was expressed
not only in the persistent use of the nisbah ‘al-Mawsili’, but in the use of at least one,
if not two, identifying motifs.4

shifting scholarship on ‘ mosul metalwork ’

At first it seems almost perverse that there should be any uncertainty about inlaid
metalworking in Mosul, as no other group of artefacts from the medieval Muslim
world carries so much inscribed documentation, not even the contemporary ceramics

d
of Kashan (see Table 1.1 on pp. 58–66).5 Over the course of the thirteenth, and the

Lt
first decades of the fourteenth centuries we have 35 metal objects signed by some
27 craftsmen who style themselves ‘al-Mawsili’. And we have no less than eight with
inscriptions stating that they were made in Mosul or for the ruler of Mosul or for

o
members of his entourage. Current uncertainty is largely a reaction to the reductive
C
assertion at the turn of the twentieth century that Mosul was the principal production
centre of inlaid metalwork in the thirteenth century.
&
Silver-inlaid brasses of the first half of the thirteenth century were among the first
Islamic objets d’art to be studied in Europe. Examples reached Europe at an early date,
and were accessible, at least in Italy, well before the Orientalist fashion for scouring the
ris

bazaars of Egypt and the Levant from the mid-nineteenth century;6 and, well before the
emergence of art-historical studies, the objects offered iconographic and inscriptional
au

challenges that attracted scholars who were historians, epigraphers and numismatists.
Scholarship on the subject began with the publication of an ideal marriage of a
documentary object and literary documentation. In 1828 Joseph Toussaint Reinaud
.T

published the collection of the French royalist and antiquarian Pierre Louis Jean
Casimir (Duc) de Blacas d’Aulps (1771–1839), which included the only item known
I.B

– until recently – to record that it was produced in Mosul itself, the celebrated ‘Blacas
ewer’ made in 1232.7 Reinaud also translated the account by an Andalusian visitor to
Mosul in 1250, Ibn Sa‘id: ‘Mosul … there are many crafts in the city, especially inlaid
brass vessels which are exported to rulers.’8 In the 1840s Reinaud’s friend Michelangelo
Lanci published several items of thirteenth-century inlaid metalwork, including the
tray in Munich made for Badr al-Din Lu’lu’, the ruler of Mosul.9 Mosul’s reputation
was assured.
By the 1860s Mosul’s precedence was being questioned. Claiming to have studied
several hundred objects and to have found the names of some twenty artists, Henri
Lavoix concluded that Damascus, Aleppo, Mosul, Egypt, and unnamed cities on the

12
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

Mediterranean coast all produced inlaid metalwork. He provided no details, and

tested credence by listing names and places like litanies, and by claiming he had seen
works produced for a roll-call of famous twelfth-century rulers, works, incidentally,
that have still to surface.10 He adopted a more nuanced tone some fifteen years later,
when he acknowledged that the artists of Mosul deserved an independent chapter
in the history of Islamic art: their work, he said, can be distinguished by its figural
imagery, whereas in Syria and Cairo the engraver’s burin ‘imprisons itself, by contrast,
in ornament and lettering’.11 Lavoix was the first to draw attention to a ewer made by
Husayn ibn Muhammad al-Mawsili in Damascus in ‘659/1260’. He made little of this
crucial discovery, however, and the object itself disappeared from scholarly sight for the
next thirty years.12

d
Mosul was accorded precedence and primacy by Lavoix’s numismatic colleague,

Lt
Stanley Lane-Poole. Writing in the 1880s and 1890s,13 he proposed a Syrian school that
was intermediary between Mosul and Mamluk Cairo, but his arguments were slight, and
his proposal tentative, especially as he knew nothing of the ewer made in Damascus.14

o
A critical point came in the first decade of the twentieth century, when Gaston
C
Migeon’s over-enthusiastic advocacy of Mosul provoked a stern reaction whose influence
is still felt today.15 In the space of eight years, from 1899 to 1907, Migeon reached out
&
to a broad public, publishing a two-part article on ‘Cuivres Arabes’ in the generalist art
journal Gazette des Beaux-Arts, organising a major exhibition of Islamic art in Paris, and
writing the first comprehensive introduction to Islamic objets d’art. In these he vaunted
ris

the role of Mosul, and claimed its production of inlaid metalware ran from the twelfth
until the fifteenth century.16
au

He acknowledged in the article that his classification of inlaid metalwork was ‘de peu
doctrinal’, but three years later – in the 1903 Palais Marsan exhibition – he adopted
an even more doctrinaire classification, assigning the metalwork to three families:
.T

Mosul, Egypt and Persia. He recognised that other centres, such as Damascus, had
competing claims, and tempered his schema with caveats, but his labels and captions
I.B

were uncompromising.17 To Mosul he attributed a farrago of items we now know were

made in several different regions (Fig. 1.1).18 The striking differences in technique,
material and style must have been obvious to many visitors. Friedrich Sarre, a lender
to the exhibition, expressed serious reservations.19 Even a non-expert, the critic and
historian of French eighteenth-century painting Virgile Josz, raised doubts about the
classification.20 Such unease may explain why one of the scholars who collaborated
with Migeon on the Paris show, Max van Berchem, promptly wrote what amounts to
a disclaimer.21
Van Berchem’s classification seems at first even more rudimentary: his ‘Oriental’
group comprises works from Khurasan to Mosul, his ‘Occidental’ consists of items in the

13
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

d
Lt
Fig. 1.1 Gaston Migeon’s attributions of metalwork to Mosul
(‘Art de Mossoul’) in the album of photographs that

o
accompanied the Paris 1903 Exhibition.

C
&
name of Ayyubid rulers of Syria and Egypt, a group he said might even already be ‘syro-
égyptien’ – a prelude in other words to the presumed situation under the Mamluks.22
The difference, however, is that van Berchem’s approach was methodical, and based on a
ris

scrupulous reading of the epigraphic and historical evidence of works with documentary
inscriptions, whereas Migeon’s classification was an attempt to impose order on a large
au

miscellany of objects, the majority of which lacked historical inscriptions.

Over the next three years van Berchem twice returned to the topic of Mosul
metalwork, arguing that only six known silver-inlaid objects could be connected with
.T

Mosul itself, whereas many others must have been made in Syria and ultimately Cairo.23
He countered Migeon’s principal arguments in favour of Mosul: its access to regional
I.B

copper mines, Ibn Sa‘id’s praise for Mosul metalwork, and the large number of items
signed by artists who styled themselves ‘al-Mawsili’. Van Berchem argued that other
cities had access to those mines, and that the last two points merely testified to Mosul’s
fame as a metalwork centre. They did not justify treating all items in a comparable style
as if they came from a geographically restricted ‘school’, a term that should be used with
‘prudent reserve’.24
Van Berchem’s studied caution had an immediate effect not only on his co-author
Friedrich Sarre,25 but on Migeon himself, who in 1907 dedicated his book on Islamic
minor arts to van Berchem, and abandoned his three-part classification in favour of van
Berchem’s bipartite schema.26 Nevertheless, the notion of a ‘Mosul School’ was hard

14
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

to dislodge, and Maurice Dimand27 and Ernst Kühnel28 used the term liberally in the
scholarly and popular publications they produced between the two World Wars. This
was more than a matter of tradition and convenience, and more than a default label
because it was difficult to distinguish products from different centres.29 It was based
on what both considered to be positive evidence: the plethora of al-Mawsili signatures;
and the frequent occurrence of a personification of Luna, a figure holding a crescent
moon, which Dimand thought was probably the ‘coat-of arms’ of Badr al-Din Lu’lu’,
and Kühnel took to be an emblem of the city of Mosul, points we shall return to later.30
Many previously unrecorded objects were published in the interwar period, when
Gaston Wiet, among others, provided invaluable listings of metalwork in the name of
Atabek, Ayyubid, Rasulid and Mamluk dedicatees.31

d
In 1945 Mehmed Ağa-Oğlu published a study on incense-burners, using detailed

Lt
typological and decorative analysis to attribute groups to different regions of the
Central Islamic Lands. In the process he made strong assertions, and often highly
perceptive observations, about the style of both Mosul and Syrian inlaid metalwork,

o
with the result that his work proved influential.32 In his characterization of Mosul and
C
Syrian work, ‘The artists of Mosul were interested primarily in the general effect of
inlaid decoration, and were less particular about the engraving of details. The inlaid
&
metals of Syria, however, showed a marked tendency and a steadily increasing devotion
of the artist to the difficult engraving of details, be it the pattern of a gown, the plumage
of birds, or the fur of animals.’33
ris

There were, however, problems with Ağa-Oğlu’s method. He overlooked the

admittedly few items carrying express documentation that they were made in Syria,34
au

and instead made conclusions about a Syrian style based on several assumptions: that
items with Christian imagery were from Syria; that the Barberini vase was ‘most certainly
from a Syrian atelier’ as it bears the name of an Ayyubid ruler of Aleppo and Damascus;
.T

that a well-known incense-burner in the name of Muhammad ibn Qalawun was from
Egypt but under Syrian influence; and that the Baptistère de St Louis was definitively
I.B

from Syria. None of these assumptions are proven, though, and several illustrate a
tendency to retroject onto the thirteenth century ‘evidence’ from the fourteenth; this
is a particular problem given that Ağa-Oğlu tends to assume a static view of Mosul
metalwork of the thirteenth century, whereas, as we shall see, it exhibited considerable
stylistic change.
In the decade between 1949 and 1958 David Storm Rice transformed the study of
Islamic inlaid metalwork with a series of articles in which he combined van Berchem’s
epigraphic exactitude with, as he termed it, ‘searching’ examination of individual objects
– an examination that van Berchem had said was essential and that Ağa-Oğlu had shown
was possible.35 The results were magisterial, and have dominated the field for the last

15
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

half century. Rice’s erudition and observation were not, however, always matched by his
reasoning. What appear at first to be objective and inductive arguments seem coloured
from the outset by scepticism.
The quotation marks in the title of his earliest article – ‘The oldest dated “Mosul”
candlestick’ – are an instant signal of doubt that is clarified in the opening statement:
‘The name “Mosul bronzes” is often given to an important group of medieval silver-
inlaid Islamic brasses, although whether or not there was such a “school” still remains
to be proved.’36 By 1957, when he published his seminal article on the work of Ahmad
al-Dhaki and his assistants, Rice was unwilling to attribute to Mosul any more than the
six items van Berchem had granted it.37
Rice argued instead that over some two decades Ahmad al-Dhaki’s workshop

d
operated first in a ‘Mesopotamian’, then a ‘Syro-Egyptian’ style. Whatever it was, it was

Lt
not a ‘Mosul’ style.38 Rice pictured al-Dhaki moving from an Artuqid centre such as Amid
(Diyarbakır) to Ayyubid Egypt or more likely Syria. His argument rested on epigraphic
evidence purportedly relating to the patron, and art-historical evidence relating to

o
technique, style and iconography. Issues abound with both lines of argument.
C
The attribution to ‘Mesopotamia’ – that is, to Amid rather than Mosul – rests entirely
on Rice’s interpretation of two graffiti on a candlestick now in Boston, dated 622/1225
&
and signed by (‘amal) Abu Bakr ibn Hajji Jaldak, the ghulam of the naqqash Ahmad al-
Dhaki al-Mawsili. It is not inscribed with the name of a patron, but is incised with two
ownership marks, one that reads ‘The pantry of Mas‘ud [al-tishtkhanah al-mas‘udiyyah]’,
ris

the other dar ‘afīf al-muzaffar, which Rice translated as ‘For the harem (dār) (under
the supervision of ) ‘Afīf al-Muzaffarī’.39 Rice connected this Mas‘ud with Abu’l Fath
au

Mawdud, the last Artuqid ruler of Amid, and suggested the candlestick ‘may have been
made in Amida itself’.40 In the 1957 article he expanded the scenario by suggesting that
the Muzaffar mentioned in the second graffito referred to the ruler of Hama who gave
.T

refuge to al-Malik al-Mas‘ud after 1237. He might have added that an important figure
in Hama in the period was ‘Afif al-Din b. Marahil al-Salmani.41
I.B

Despite the coincidence of names, this was a tendentious argument for several
reasons. First, these were not the only candidates, and this was not the only historical
scenario. Second, the graffito referring to the pantry of al-Mas‘ud does not prove that
the candlestick was made for a Malik al-Mas‘ud. Third, even if it was made for the last
Artuqid ruler of Amid, this does not prove that the workshop was in Amid.
Other potential owners include al-Malik al-Mas‘ud, who was the Ayyubid ruler
of Yemen between 612 and 626 (1215 and 1228/9), but for no given reason Rice
dismisses him as someone ‘who might possibly, but not probably, have been the owner of
the candlestick’ (my italics).42 Rice presumably restricted his search to princes ruling
in 1225 when the candlestick was made, otherwise he might have mentioned al-Malik

16
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

al-Mas‘ud who was the last sovereign of the Zangid line (d.1251), ruled Jazirat ibn
‘Umar, and was the son-in-law of the overlord of Mosul, Badr al-Din Lu’lu’.43
As for ‘Afif and his owner or patron, al-Muzaffar, there were several rulers in Hama
with the regnal title of al-Malik al-Muzaffar and several in the Yemen, not to mention
the Ayyubid Shihab al-Din Ghazi of Mayyafariqin (1220–44) and even one of Badr al-
Din’s own sons.44 One could therefore imagine several different histories for this object,
one connected to the family of Badr al-Din Lu’lu’, another to the Rasulids of Yemen.
Which is the correct hypothesis is unclear, but Rice’s scenario seems an uncertain
foundation on which to posit a workshop in Amid.
A second difficulty is that the graffito referring to al-Mas‘ud does not prove that the
candlestick was made for a Malik al-Mas‘ud. It lacks the introductory phrase bi-rasm

d
(for) which is found on almost all objects where a graffito refers to the person for whom

Lt
the object was originally made. Neither of the graffiti on the Boston candlestick proves
who the original owner was, let alone who commissioned the candlestick.45
Third, even if the candlestick was made for the last Artuqid ruler of Amid, a single

o
commissioned object is scant reason on its own to argue that the ‘workshop of Ibn Jaldak
C
and his master was in Amida or in a place under the control of the Urtuqid branch
of Hisn Kaifa-Amida’. In 1949 Rice acknowledged his arguments were ‘admittedly
&
hypothetical’; a decade later hypothesis had hardened into near certainty.46
Rice attributed Ahmad al-Dhaki’s later work to Syria or Egypt on the evidence
of the basin that al-Dhaki made for the Ayyubid ruler al-Malik al-‘Adil II.47 Datable
ris

to between 1238 and 1240, almost two decades separates the Louvre basin from al-
Dhaki’s earliest surviving signed work, a ewer in Cleveland dated 622/1223, and from
au

the earliest work by al-Dhaki’s ghulam, the Boston candlestick of 1225. Rice pointed
out differences in technique and style between these phases (Figs 1.2a and 1.2b), but
his interpretations are problematic. He admits the technical differences might be ‘a
.T

matter of chronology rather than geography,’ but he attributes the differences in style to
a change in geography – they ‘denote an adaptation to Syro-Egyptian fashions’. For no
I.B

given reason, then, the change in technique was a question of time, the change in style
a question of location.48
An initial difficulty is that Rice provided no indubitably Syro-Egyptian object as a
comparison.49 Second, the items he principally compared to the Louvre basin were two
he attributed to Mosul – the Blacas ewer and the Badr al-Din Lu’lu’ tray in Munich.
He juxtaposed details from the Munich tray and the Louvre basin, but it is hard to see
why he claimed one was made in Mosul and the other was in an ‘Ayyubid Syrian’ style
(Fig. 1.3). Conversely, he is silent on their similarities: each has a frieze of double-T frets
interrupted by lobed medallions that occupy the full height of the frieze and that are set
off by thin contour lines tied into the top and bottom of the frieze by small loops; and

17
 d
Lt
a b

Fig. 1.2 above Changes

in the style

o
of Ahmad
C al-Dhaki’s
work over
fifteen years:
&
a) Cleveland
ewer, dated
1223; b) Louvre
ris

a b c basin, datable
to 1238–40.
Height of the
au

medallions
respectively 4cm
and 5cm.
.T

Fig. 1.3 left Rice’s

I.B

juxtaposition
of medallions
d e f from Ahmad al-
Dhaki’s Louvre
basin (a–d) and
the Munich tray
in the name of
Badr al-Din
Lu’lu’ (e–i).

g h i
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

the medallions enclose human and animal figures against a scroll background which
contrasts with the dense geometry of the frieze.
Rice did not illustrate the Blacas ewer, but it has similar geometric friezes
interrupted by comparable figural medallions.50 The Blacas medallions have twice as
many lobes as those reproduced from the Louvre basin or the Munich tray (Figs 1.4a
and 1.4b), but medallions with identical profiles to those on the Blacas ewer can be
found on the inside of the Louvre basin (Figs 1.4c and 4d).51 The stylistic distinction

d
Lt
o
C
&
ris

a b
au
.T
I.B

c d

Fig. 1.4 Medallions from the ‘Blacas’ ewer, dated Mosul 1232 (a
and b); the exterior and interior of Ahmad al-Dhaki’s
Louvre basin, datable to 1238–40 (c and d).

19
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

between the medallion friezes on these three object escapes me. There are differences
in the drawing and detailing of the figures, and in the treatment of some of the
background scrolls – as one would expect to find in the work of different craftsmen
– but there is no justification for defining two broad stylistic groups attributable to
two different regions.
Rice argued that Ahmad al-Dhaki worked in Amid and then in Syria (or Egypt),
with no mention of Mosul. He decried the term ‘Mosul School’ as ‘too specific and too
narrow to be useful’, and denied the existence of a ‘Mosul style’ as ‘a suggestion which
is not borne out by the facts’.52 Yet he was postulating an ‘Ayyubid Syrian’ style largely
from a single object made in the name of a ruler of Egypt and Syria, while denying that
the same style might be from Mosul, even though it appeared on an object indubitably

d
made in Mosul and on another made for the ruler of Mosul. This seems perverse,

Lt
especially as the Blacas ewer preceded al-Dhaki’s basin by almost a decade.
In summary, Rice’s argument that al-Dhaki’s basin is stylistically different from Mosul
work is not convincing. He made valid observations about the differences between al-

o
Dhaki’s early and later work – between work from the 1220s and work from the late
C
1230s – but failed to prove they stemmed from a change in location rather than the
passage of time. Rice’s work warrants a critique because it has dominated the study of
&
Atabek and Ayyubid metalwork for the last half century. In his sceptical stance on the
role of Mosul as a metalworking centre, Rice was heir to van Berchem’s circumspect
approach, which had been provoked by Migeon’s uncritical attributions.
ris

* * *
au

Rice’s initial premiss was doubt, and his case against a Mosul School was predicated on
a faulty inference and a questionable deduction. The inference was that the graffiti on
.T

the Boston candlestick by a pupil of Ahmad al-Dhaki indicated that al-Dhaki himself
was working in Amid/Diyarbakır. The deduction was that Ahmad al-Dhaki must have
I.B

been working later in Syria (or Egypt) because the Louvre basin was dedicated to an
Ayyubid who was briefly ruler of Egypt and of Syria.53
Rice and many others have tended to deduce provenance from two generalised
assumptions. One is that a dedicatee’s name indicates that he was the ‘patron’ of an
object. In other words that he actively commissioned the item rather than passively
received it.54 By blithely referring to dedicatees as ‘patrons,’ we subconsciously ignore
the possibility of gifts.
The second assumption is that Mawsili metalworkers were active where their
patrons were located. Taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean that for every
ruler for whom we have a surviving inlaid metal object there would have been a local

20
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

workshop. In an era when minor principalities proliferated, we would end up with no

less than nine production centres, best illustrated in a map (Fig. 1.5). No one in the
last half century has been prepared, it is true, to argue for this fully dispersed model
of production; on the other hand, no one has proposed a fully centralised model, with
Mosul as the sole production centre in the first half of the thirteenth century. The result
is that we are left with six objects long accepted as having been produced in Mosul;
Rice’s tendentious attributions to a ‘Syrian’ school; and numerous ‘orphan’ objects with
no specific attributions. We might do well to look for an alternative strategy.
In what follows I have adopted three of several possible strategies, though each
deserves more attention than I can give it here. One is to see whether the documentary
inscriptions on the metalwork reveal more than we have assumed. The second is to see

d
whether stylistic criteria can be used to identify workshop groupings. The third is to

Lt
look for stylistic relationships with other media known to have been produced in Mosul
or its immediate environs.

o
C
&
ris

Fig. 1.5 A ‘dispersed’
au

model of
production
of Atabek,
.T

Ayyubid
and Rasulid
inlaid
I.B

metalwork
in the first
half of the
thirteenth
century. Map
by Robert
Foy.

21
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

the ‘ principle of parsimony ’

We might begin by lancing the presumption of doubt engendered by van Berchem

and Rice, by invoking the principle of parsimony, the precept that opposes more
complex explanations when a simpler one will do.55 In this case, why assume an
unsubstantiated model of dispersed production when the simpler solution would
be that much of the inlaid metalwork of the first half of the thirteenth century was
produced in Mosul and exported?
This approach is supported by the express testimony of the Andalusian Ibn Sa‘id
who visited Mosul in 1250 and noted, ‘There are many crafts in the city, especially inlaid

d
brass vessels which are exported to rulers, as are the silken garments woven there.’ As

Lt
Rice observed, the phrase tuhmal minha ila’l-muluk means more ‘than just “is exported.”
The expression indicates that the vessels were of high quality and fit for kings.’ Rice
therefore added a parenthesis to the translation – ‘are exported (and presented) to

o
rulers’ – but he failed to pursue the implications.56
C
If Mosul exported metalwork commercially, why are we reluctant to attribute objects
to Mosul? If Mosul exported metalwork as princely gifts, why do we presume that an
&
object dedicated to the ruler of a rival city was produced there rather than in Mosul?
Paradoxically, we assume a different model for the first half of the thirteenth century
than for the second. In the 1290s the Mamluk sultan in Cairo ordered hundreds of
ris

candlesticks from Damascus, while an inlay workshop in Cairo was supplying metal
objects, complete with individualised dedications, to the Rasulids in Yemen.57 We are
au

content then with the idea of exports from two centres of production in the late thirteenth
century. Contrariwise, we tend towards a picture of dispersed production some half
century or so earlier, even though we are told that Mosul exported metalware.
.T

Metal craftsmen may well have emigrated from Mosul in the first half of the
thirteenth century, but the first certain evidence dates from the 1250s.58 By that
I.B

decade at least one workshop was established in Damascus, and by the 1260s another
in Cairo. In both the craftsmen signed themselves ‘al-Mawsili’. A shift in the centres
of production emerges clearly from Table 1.1a (pp. 58–62), which is an attempt at a
comprehensive list of documentary inlaid metalwork from the Jazira, Syria and Egypt
between 1200 and 1275.59 Table 1.1b is a partial continuation which highlights (1) all
the known items signed by Mawsili craftsmen over the subsequent fifty years, (2) all
the items with certain provenance, and (3) for the period 1275–1325 a selection of the
more important dedicatory objects.
Over the course of 125 years, starting in about 1200, we have 35 objects made by
some 27 craftsmen who used the nisbah al-Mawsili.60 This is a remarkably high ratio

22
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

of named artists to documentary objects. Of these 35, 28 are dated, of which four are
scientific instruments. Eighty per cent of the objects signed by craftsmen who used the
nisbah al-Mawsili can be assigned to between about 1220 and 1275, with the remaining
20 per cent from the next half century (Table 1.1b). Two objects are recorded to
have been made in Mosul, but none after 1255. Excluding astrolabes, no silver-inlaid
metalware is recorded to have been produced in Damascus or Cairo before 1257 and
1269 respectively. If we apply the principle of parsimony, the simplest explanation is
that some craftsmen moved from Mosul to Syria in the middle of the thirteenth century.
Our task is to see if this straightforward conclusion holds when we take a closer look at
the evidence for all three centres.

d
Lt
production in mosul : the evidence from inscriptions

The fifty years between van Berchem’s and Rice’s studies saw the publication of a large

o
number of previously unknown objects signed by Mawsili craftsmen. Rice, however,
C
accepted none of these as Mosul products, and adhered to the handful identified by
van Berchem, namely the Blacas ewer and five items bearing the name and titles of
&
Badr al-Din Lu’lu’. The last fifty years have seen several more Mawsili masters added
to the roster, and one item inscribed as having been produced in Mosul, and I would
suggest that over three times as many documentary objects can be linked to Mosul as
ris

van Berchem and Rice accepted – not six but 19.

Until recently the Blacas ewer was the sole object known to bear an inscription
au

identifying it as a product of Mosul. In 1997 the David Collection in Copenhagen

acquired a pen-box inlaid by ‘Ali ibn Yahya in Mosul in 653/1255–56.61 The artist is
previously unrecorded, and his hand cannot immediately be detected on other known
.T

objects. No other works by the artist of the Blacas ewer, Shuja‘ ibn Man‘a, are known
either, and two objects with a stated Mosul origin may seem a small number on which
I.B

to construct a ‘Mosul School’. There is, however, biographical information, in particular

relating to master–pupil relationships, that provides a fuller picture.
Shuja‘ ibn Man‘a belonged to a family of considerable importance in Mosul in the
first half of the thirteenth century.62 Shuja‘ must have had a workshop with at least one
assistant: Muhammad ibn Fattuh calls himself Shuja‘’s ajir (hireling) on a candlestick
that he inlaid.63 The candlestick was fashioned by al-Hajj Isma‘il, but his affiliation,
if any, with Shuja‘ is not mentioned. The candlestick is undated, but in terms of form
and decoration a date in the 1230s seems fitting.64 As Shuja‘ ibn Man‘a was working in
Mosul in 1232, that was presumably where Muhammad ibn Fattuh and al-Hajj Isma‘il
produced their candlestick; if they were working in another city, it would have been

23
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

curious for Muhammad ibn Fattuh to refer to his employer by name, whereas in Mosul
Shuja‘ was presumably a celebrated practitioner.
Another Mawsili master with several recorded assistants was Ibrahim ibn Mawaliya.
Isma‘il ibn Ward identified himself as Ibrahim’s tilmidh (pupil) on a box he decorated in
617/1220, and Qasim ibn ‘Ali signs himself as Ibrahim’s ghulam in 1232.65 A fortunate
item of evidence indicates that Isma‘il was active in Mosul. On 6 February 1249 (20
Shawwal 646) he finished transcribing a copy of al-Baghawi’s Masabih al-Sunna, signing
himself Isma‘il ibn Ward ibn ‘Abdallah al-Naqqash al-Mawsili. Only four months later
the manuscript was certified after a series of readings to religious scholars in Mosul,
which makes it very likely that Isma‘il was in Mosul when he copied the manuscript.66
This does not prove that he was working in Mosul almost thirty years earlier, when, as

d
a young pupil, he would have been in his teens. We can either surmise that he and his

Lt
teacher were working in an unknown city, to where they must have moved from Mosul,
as he refers to both himself and his teacher as Mawsili, and that he, with or without
his teacher, later moved back to Mosul, or we can adopt a simpler solution: that Mosul

o
was where Isma‘il was trained, worked and transcribed his manuscript.67 In that case,
C
Mosul by extension becomes the workplace of Ibrahim ibn Mawaliya, and by further
extension of Qasim ibn ‘Ali.
&
Ismai‘il ibn Ward was likely to have been active in Mosul for at least three decades.
We have no other works signed by him using the nasab Ward, but it is conceivable
that he was the al-Hajj Isma‘il who produced the candlestick decorated by Muhammad
ris

ibn Fattuh.68 Biographical information largely derived from their signed works suggests
that out of some twenty Mawsili metalworkers active before 1275 at least eight – or,
au

if Isma‘il ibn Ward and al-Hajj Isma‘il were two different individuals, nine – were
operating in Mosul. Two testify to the fact; in the case of Isma‘il ibn Ward the evidence
is circumstantial; in the case of the others the evidence is contingent; in the case of
.T

Ahmad al-Dhaki the evidence, as we shall see shortly, comes from a distinctive motif.69
Inscriptions bearing the name of the recipient provide further evidence. Five items
I.B

universally accepted as work from Mosul are the three trays, a candlestick (Fig. 1.6), and
a box carrying the name and titles of Badr al-Din Lu’lu’. None of these items records the
date or place of manufacture, but one, a tray in the Victoria and Albert Museum, bears
a graffito confirming it was destined for Badr al-Din’s commissariat. In addition, two
items can be connected to members of Badr al-Din’s court. One is a bowl in Bologna
that was a calque on a well-known contemporary ceramic shape from Kashan or Raqqa.
It was made for a Najm al-Din al-Badri. Rice acknowledged that Najm al-Din’s nisbah
made it likely he was an officer of Badr al-Din Lu’lu’, and he even wondered whether his
name Najm, which translates as star, was connected to the Badr (moon) of his master.
Yet no one has stated the obvious: if we accept that the metalwork made for Badr

24
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

Fig. 1.6 Candlestick
in the name
of Badr al-
Din Lu’lu’,
presumably
Mosul,
1230s or

d
1240s. St
Petersburg,

Lt
Hermitage
Museum.

o
C
&
al-Din Lu’lu’ was produced in Mosul, why not assume the same for a bowl made for
ris

one of his officers?70

The second item is a candlestick in the Louvre that has largely been overlooked
au

(Fig. 1.7).71 Inside the footring it bears two graffiti: one reads ‘By order of the buttery of
Amir Sayf, son [son?] of the Lord of Mosul’ (bi-rasm sharāb khānāh almīr [sic] sayf [?]
ibn ibn [sic] .sāh. ib al-Maws. il); the other ‘Sharaf the Coppersmith [Sharaf (?) al-nah. h. ās]’.
.T

Sharaf could have been the maker, as Leo Mayer suggested, but I would be cautious
about including him in the roster of Mawsili craftsmen, as his name is not prefaced by the
I.B

equivalent of fecit. The name on its own may indicate that Sharaf was a subsequent owner
of the candlestick. In contrast, the use of the phrase bi-rasm in the other graffito suggests
that the object was made for a member of the ruling household, and that it has almost as
good a claim to be a product of Mosul as the items inscribed in the name of Badr al-Din.
Another purported craftsman is Muhammad ibn ‘Isun, whose name appears on its
own in a small cartouche on the front of the great tray in Munich inscribed with the
names and titles of Badr al-Din Lu’lu’. Muhammad ibn ‘Isun’s name is inlaid in a similar
script to the main inscription, but is anomalous in its isolation and brevity. Two of the
most eminent epigraphers, Max van Berchem and Moritz Sobernheim, took him to be
the craftsman, but I would agree with Rice and advise caution, as the cartouche lacks

25
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

Fig. 1.7 Candlestick,
with a graffito
in the name
of the ‘… Son
of the Lord
of Mosul’.
Paris, Louvre
Museum.

d
Lt
o
C
&
ris

any equivalent of fecit.72 There is a formal, inlaid inscription – not a graffito – on the
au

back of the tray recording that Badr al-Din had the object made for a princess entitled
Khatun Khawanrah,73 and I wonder if Muhammad ibn ‘Isun might not have been the
groom. This could explain two of the graffiti on the back of the tray. One indicates that it
.T

was made for the buttery of a courtier of Badr al-Din (bi-rasm sharāb khānāh al-badrī).74
The other is in the name of al-Hasan ibn ‘Isun, which puzzled both van Berchem and
I.B

Sobernheim; however, if Muhammad ibn ‘Isun was the groom, ownership of the tray
might have passed to his brother.75
I would not, therefore, propose adding the name of either Sharaf or Muhammad
ibn ‘Isun to the roster of Mosuli metalworkers. On the other hand, the basin in Kiev
which bears the name and titles of Badr al-Din Lu’lu’ appears to have a signature
partially deciphered by Kratchkovskaya as ‘… Yusuf ’. She was unaware of any artist
with this name, but, as Oleg Grabar pointed out, the ewer in the Walters Art Gallery
is signed by Yunus ibn Yusuf al-Mawsili. The ewer does not mention a patron’s name,
nor where it was made, but it is dated 644/1246–47, which falls within the dates of
Badr al-Din’s admittedly long rule (1233–59).76 If the maker of the Kiev basin and

26
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

the Walters ewer were one and the same person, that would surely help localise the
ewer to Mosul.77 The basin can be dated to the latter part of Badr al-Din’s reign on the
basis of the titles used, and it and the ewer certainly belong to the same stylistic period,
with a common use of both arabesque and T-fret grounds; and several figures on both
objects have awkwardly thin arms. Nonetheless, I would caution against too hastily
assuming they were made by the same craftsman: though the Kiev basin is in very poor
condition, it is still evident that the outlines of the figures are uneven, whereas those
on the Walters ewer maintain a much firmer line.
Curiously, few of the objects signed by Mawsili craftsmen in the first half of the
thirteenth century bear personalised dedications (Table 1.1a). One is the geomantic
table by Muhammad ibn Khutlukh, but no one has yet identified the patron. Another

d
is Ahmad al-Dhaki’s Louvre basin made for al-Malik al-‘Adil II Sayf al-Din Abu Bakr.

Lt
The third is the ewer – now in the Freer Gallery of Art – made in 1232 by Qasim ibn
‘Ali, Ibrahim ibn Mawaliya’s ghulam. In this case signature and dedication appear to
offer contradictory evidence about where the object was made.

o
The ewer is inscribed in the name of a Shihab al-Din, who has plausibly been identified
C
as Shihab al-Din Tughril, the regent for the young Ayyubid sultan of Aleppo, al-Malik
al-‘Aziz Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad (r.1216–37). On the traditional assumption that
&
the domicile of the dedicatee indicates where the object was made, Qasim ibn ‘Ali is
alleged to have been active in Aleppo, or at least Syria.78 However, Qasim ibn ‘Ali’s
association – via Ibrahim ibn Mawaliya – with Isma‘il ibn Ward points to Qasim ibn
ris

‘Ali working in Mosul. By 1232 he could have moved to Aleppo. Alternatively, the ewer
may have been made for Shihab al-Din Tughril as a gift or commission, and produced
au

in Mosul.
The ewer is afigural, which was unusual for the period, and it may have been
designed for ritual ablutions or in deference to Shihab al-Din’s well-attested religious
.T

scrupulosity.79 It was produced in Ramadan of 629, a year after Shihab al-Din had
stepped down from the regency and handed the reins of government to al-Malik al-
I.B

‘Aziz; it was, in fact, the very month he was obliged to hand over his estates and castle
at Tell Bashir to the young sultan, who was surprised at how small Shihab al-Din’s
treasury was; and it was some 16 months before he died.80 Ramadan 629 was also the
month when al-Malik al-‘Aziz’s bride arrived from Cairo.
None of this allows us to determine whether the ewer was personally ordered by
Shihab al-Din,81 or by someone who was well aware of Shihab al-Din’s preferences.
The manner in which the inscription refers to Shihab al-Din as ascetic, devout and
god-fearing might suggest that the ewer was a gift from someone who admired his piety,
rather than that it was an expression of self-satisfaction. The wording (al-zāhid, al-‘ābid,
al-wari‘) is distinctive, and is not found on any published item of metalwork except one.

27
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

This is the bowl in the name of Najm al-Din al-Badri, where he is described as al-amīr
al-kabīr and zayn al-h. ajj, which may mean that he was in charge of the pilgrimage to
Mecca. Precisely the same epithets are used in the same order on both the Shihab al-
Din ewer and the Najm al-Din al-Badri bowl, suggesting they were a formula rather
than a special commission.82 As Najm al-Din is identified as a member of Badr al-Din’s
court, the implication is, first, that the ewer and the bowl were produced in Mosul, and,
second, that they were presentation items rather than commissions.
In the case of the ewer we cannot even rule out Badr al-Din Lu’lu’ himself as the
donor. Despite continuing struggles with the princes of Aleppo, he had strong contacts
with the city, and might even have wished to earn the goodwill of the former regent
at a time when he was effectively being marginalised.83 Indeed, Badr al-Din Lu’lu’

d
and Shihab al-Din Tughril were both patrons of ‘Izz al-Din ibn al-Athir, who was

Lt
effectively Badr al-Din’s court historian,84 and Ibn Khallikan records that towards the
end of 626/November 1229 he saw Ibn al-Athir staying at Shihab al-Din’s residence
in Aleppo as his guest.85

o
Contrary to common assumption, then, the ewer could have been made in Mosul,86
C
whereas it is somewhat unlikely it was made in Aleppo when there is no independent
proof – such as literary references, inscriptions or craftsmen’s nisbahs – and no subsequent
&
evidence from the Mamluk period that Aleppo ever produced inlaid metalwork,87
though the son of al-Malik al-‘Aziz, al-Nasir II Salah al-Din Yusuf (b.1230; r.Aleppo
1237–60) did build a metalwork market near the Great Mosque.88 Damascus, by
ris

contrast, certainly became a centre of metal inlay, but the earliest evidence, apart from
an astrolabe, dates almost thirty years later than the Freer ewer. The earliest dated inlaid
au

vessels that record a Damascus manufacture are a candlestick of 1257 and a ewer of
1259, the latter, intriguingly, also connected with al-Nasir II Yusuf (Table 1.1a).
Badr al-Din did make gifts of metalware: he is recorded to have presented a metal
.T

candlestick every year to the Mashhad ‘Ali, though it was of gold, not inlaid brass, and
weighed 1000 dinars.89 He may have given gold objects to secular recipients too, but
I.B

the Munich tray is proof that he gave inlaid metalwork. We should therefore allow
the possibility that he presented inlaid metalwork as diplomatic gifts, and that Mosul
could have been the source for some of the items that carry the names of Ayyubid
princes. Gifts served many purposes: they could be a gesture of submission in sporadic
instances, or on a recurrent basis the equivalent of tribute; they could be blandishments
and bribes; they could be a form of reward, or one of the many niceties of the diplomatic
protocol of the Muslim world. Badr al-Din used gifts in all these modalities.
Badr al-Din was not famed for his military victories, yet he managed to stay in power
for almost half a century, despite pressures from local Jaziran rivals, the Ayyubids of
Syria and Egypt, the Seljuks of Rum, not to mention the tidal wave of eastern invaders,

28
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

first the Khwarazmians and then the Mongols. He achieved this longevity through a
policy of appeasement and frequent realignments with the great powers. His realpolitik
is borne out by his scatter of marriage alliances, and by the changing allegiances that
appear on his coinage.90 Gifts too played their part, and it would have been natural if
Badr al-Din had used Mosul’s luxury products, such as its textiles and inlaid metalwork,
to lubricate his diplomatic efforts.91
For example, in the course of two years Badr al-Din lavished gifts on al-Malik al-
Salih Najm al-Din Ayyub, the son of the ruler of Egypt, al-Malik al-Kamil. In this
time the gifts went from the placatory to the celebratory. In 635/1237–38 Badr al-
Din used presents to try to dissuade al-Malik al-Salih from encouraging the dreaded
Khwarazmians to make raids on his territory – to no avail. In 636, following al-Malik

d
al-Kamil’s death and al-Malik al-Salih’s takeover of Damascus, the two erstwhile foes

Lt
were on the best of terms and Badr al-Din sent forty mamluks and ‘horses, and clothes,
garments, gold and dirhems. He sent [this][sic] to apologize for his previous behavior.
These two kings became as one after great hostility. Between them a friendship arose

o
which could hardly be interrupted.’92 No express reference is made to metalwork among
C
the presents, but it was very possible such objects were included. In the intervening
period al-Malik al-Salih had persuaded the Khwarazmians to attack Badr al-Din, and
&
he fled, abandoning his treasure and baggage train. There was evidently a surfeit of
inlaid metalwork, because items were being sold at a fraction of their normal cost – Sibt
ibn al-Jawzi (d.1256) says that an inlaid pen-box worth 200 dirhams sold for a mere
ris

5 dirhams, a ewer and basin for 20.93 If so much inlaid metalwork was available among
Badr al-Din’s possessions, it may have played a common role in his gift-giving. This, of
au

course, raises questions about whether any, or all, of the four known items in al-Malik
al-Salih’s name might have been commissioned by Badr al-Din as gifts.
Even in the case of a ruler such as al-Malik al-Nasir II Salah al-Din Yusuf, for whom,
.T

as we have seen, a ewer was produced in Damascus in 1259, we cannot rule out the
possibility that other known objects in his name – the Barberini vase in the Louvre and a
I.B

large basin in the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts (Table 1.1a) – might have been made
in Mosul. In 649/1251, for example, Badr al-Din Lu’lu’ sent al-Nasir Yusuf in Damascus
gifts worth 20,000 dinars, which Ibn Shaddad described as ‘horses, cloth, and articles’.
The nature of those ‘articles’ is not specified, but the word al-ālāt could certainly comprise
inlaid brasses, as it is used in this sense by al-Maqrizi, describing a market in Cairo.94
While the possibility of gifts makes the issue of the provenance of items with
dedicatory inscriptions more complicated than scholars have previously assumed,
several different forms of inscriptional evidence suggest that at least 14 items, some
signed by craftsmen who used the nisbah al-Mawsili, some bearing the name of Badr
al-Din Lu’lu’ or figures associated with his court, can be linked to Mosul with differing

29
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

degrees of probability: Table 1.2a (p. 67) comprises items with inscriptions that provide
direct, contingent or circumstantial evidence of a connection with Mosul. Table 1.2b
includes five works by Ahmad al-Dhaki and his assistant Ibn Jaldak. Their inscriptions
are not sufficient to prove that Ahmad al-Dhaki and Ibn Jaldak worked in Mosul, but
several features link their work to items with a strong connection to Mosul.
One of these is the remarkable similarity in size and, above all, form between the
ewers produced by Ahmad al-Dhaki in 1223 and Qasim ibn ‘Ali in 1232, a similarity
that extends to their cast handles (Fig. 1.8).95 Another is a highly distinctive motif – an
octagon filled with a complex geometry – that occurs on Ibn Jaldak’s two known works
and al-Dhaki’s 1238–40 basin, and on two core items in the Mosul corpus, the Blacas
ewer and the Munich tray. We have already seen that these last two are stylistically close

d
to Ahmad al-Dhaki’s basin.

Lt
This octagon appears on at least thirteen items over the course of three decades from
the 1220s to the 1240s (Fig. 1.9) (Table 1.2a–c). It does not occur, to my knowledge,
on any other published metalwork of the thirteenth century. The manner in which it

o
C
&
ris
au
.T
I.B

a b

Fig. 1.8 Ewers produced by (a) Ahmad al-Dhaki, dated 1223
(b) Qasim ibn ‘Ali, dated 1232. Respectively, Cleveland
Museum of Art and Freer Gallery of Art.

30
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

often interrupts the flow of the design arguably makes it look more like a ‘brand’ than
an integrated decorative motif. This is the case on the Blacas ewer, for example, and on
an incense-burner in the British Museum dated 1242–43 which has a conspicuous
example of the octagon on its lid. If the octagon functioned as workshop mark, perhaps
as a mark of master-craftsmanship, it would be one of the most important diagnostics
of the prime phase of Mosul inlaid metalwork.96
The octagon connects signed and unsigned objects. It occurs, for example, on the
candlestick made by Dawud ibn Salama in 646/1248–49, and, though most of the silver

d
Lt

Fig. 1.9 Octagon motif, identified
here as a possible workshop

o
or guild emblem, found on (a)
a b c
candlestick by Abu Bakr b.
C al-Hajj Jaldak al-Mawsili, 1225.
MFA Boston (b) candlestick,
c.1225–30. MIA Doha (cf.
&
Fig. 1.25d–f and note 145) (c)
candlestick. Nasser D.Khalili
Collection (see note 138) (d)
ris

d e f
candlestick. Metropolitan
Museum of Art, New York (cf.
Figs 1.20 and 1.21) (e) ‘Blacas’
au

ewer by Shuja‘ ibn Man‘a al-

Mawsili, 1232. British Museum
(f ) tray with titles of Badr al-
.T

Din Lu’lu’. Munich Staatliches

g h i Museum für Volkerkunde (g)
box. Sold London, Christie’s
I.B

2011 (see note 96) (h) incense-

burner, 1242. British Museum
(i) basin by Ahmad al-Dhaki.
Louvre (j) ewer by Yunus ibn
Yusuf al-Mawsili. Baltimore,
j k l Walters Art Museum (k)
candlestick by Dawud b. Salama
al-Mawsili, 1248. Louvre
Museum (l) pen-box by Abu’l
Qasim b. Sa‘d b. Muhammad.
Louvre Museum (m) jug made
for Isma‘il ibn Ahmad al-Wasiti.
m After Rice 1957b.

31
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

inlay of the figures has been replaced, this object has a clear stylistic link with the later
work of Ahmad al-Dhaki (Figs 1.13a and 1.13b).97 The octagon also occurs on three
impressive candlesticks which lack documentary inscriptions. Two of these have strong
links to the work of Ibn Jaldak,98 while the third, as we shall see later, has figurative
decoration that can be related to painting from Mosul (Figs 1.20 and 1.21). The octagon
connects about half of the principal artists who call themselves al-Mawsili between 1200
and 1250: Ahmad al-Dhaki, Ibn Jaldak, Shuja‘ ibn Man‘a, Dawud ibn Salama, and Yunus
ibn Yusuf, artists who belong to what we might term the second phase or generation
of Mosul metalwork (Fig. 1.11). The exceptions include Ibrahim ibn Mawaliya, who
belongs to the first phase, and members of his workshop.99 Others are Muhammad
ibn Khutlukh and Iyas, who may have been less closely linked to the main group of

d
metalworkers in that their primary focus was scientific instruments,100 and Husayn al-

Lt
Hakim ibn Mas‘ud.101 There is no documentary evidence to connect Husayn to the main
group either, but his only known work, a jug that came to light in the last few years, has
scenes whose iconography and style are intimately linked to works that bear the octagon,

o
such as a candlestick in the Metropolitan Museum and the ewer by Yunus ibn Yusuf
(Fig. 1.20).102 C
Intriguingly, the octagon seems to disappear from use after 1250. It does not occur
&
on objects made by al-Mawsili metalworkers documented to have worked outside
Mosul. Nor is it used by ‘Ali ibn Yahya, who records that the pen-box he decorated was
made in Mosul in 653/1255–56. The evidence suggests that, at least for the first half of
ris

the thirteenth century, the octagon may be a sufficient – but not necessary – indicator
that an object was made in Mosul.
au

Another feature that occurs on those two key items – the Blacas ewer and the
Munich tray – is a figure holding a crescent moon, used not as part of an astrological
cycle, but on its own. This motif recurs on many metal objects, and it has been the focus
.T

of controversy, as some scholars, notably Dimand and Kühnel, claimed it as diagnostic

of Mosul work, seeing it either as the badge of Badr al-Din himself, though Badr means
I.B

full moon, or as an emblem of the city of Mosul.103 This was a view sternly rejected
by Ağa-Oğlu and then by Rice. Both produced about five similar counter-arguments,
and Rice triumphantly concluded, ‘These last shattering revelations should suffice in
themselves to dismiss once and for all the thought that it is possible to attribute an
inlaid brass to Mosul at the mere sight of the “Moon figure” in its ornamentation.’104
It is not possible here to go into details, but none of Ağa-Oğlu’s or Rice’s arguments
survive close scrutiny. However, unlike the octagon, the independent personification of
the moon continued to be used well into the fourteenth century, and can also be found
on work by émigré Mawsili craftsmen. It is still to be determined, then, what import this
motif had for metalwork in the first half of the thirteenth century.

32
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

The octagon, on the other hand, suggests a stronger association between the principal
Mawsili metalworkers in the first half of the thirteenth century than the inscriptional
evidence alone indicates, and this is supported by a feature that has been largely overlooked
– a rosette, with ten or twelve leaves, that is sculpted in relief on the base of several
ewers and on the underneath of the shaft of two candlesticks (Fig. 1.10). The sequence
of examples extends over some forty years. The two by Ahmad al-Dhaki illustrate a
degree of change which is understandable given the fact that they are separated by some
twenty years. The last example, the rosette on the candlestick made by Dawud ibn Salama
in 646/1248–49, looks a rather depressed descendant at the end of a fine lineage.
It is perhaps not surprising that this rosette has been overlooked, as it is not normally
visible. While it makes sense on a ewer, providing a nice visual accent when the ewer

d
is tilted to pour, it serves no purpose on a large candlestick that would rarely be seen

Lt
tilted or upended. As the rosette served no practical purpose, it was understandable
that it got abandoned: it does not occur on the ewers by Yunus ibn Yusuf al-Mawsili
(644/1246–47) or ‘Ali ibn ‘Abdallah al-Mawsili, and does not occur, to my knowledge,

o
on any Mamluk ewers. It was, like the octagon, an idiosyncrasy of the first half of the
C
thirteenth century, and an idiosyncrasy of the same group of craftsmen.105 Unlike
‘Morelli’s earlobes’, the octagon and the relief rosette were not an unconscious signal of
&
a workshop’s practice; instead they seem to have been deliberate devices – one visible,
the other rarely seen. They required consummate, but very different, skills, and an
expenditure of time. This suggests that they were a craftsman’s flourish, and together
ris

these two seemingly minor features indicate a much closer relationship between the
majority of al-Mawsili metalworkers in the first half of the thirteenth century than has
au

previously been assumed. This can be best appreciated in graphic form (Fig. 1.11).
This chart suggests that Ibrahim ibn Mawaliya may have been a seminal figure, even
if neither he nor members of his workshop used the octagon. His influence can be
.T

detected in the benedictory inscriptions that are often dismissed as banal because they
consist of generalised good wishes and contain no documentary data. Nevertheless,
I.B

they can still be informative when the vocabulary and phraseology are distinctive. The
same or similar combinations of blessings and epithets occur on Ibrahim ibn Mawaliya’s
ewer, Isma‘il ibn Ward’s box, two candlesticks attributable to the 1220s – one by Abu
Bakr ibn Hajji Jaldak, the other a candlestick with crusader figures on it (Fig. 1.25) – the
ewer by Qasim ibn ‘Ali, the jug by Husayn al-Hakim ibn Mas‘ud, and the candlestick
by Dawud ibn Salama, to name just those it has been possible to confirm. The wording
is ornate compared to most later examples, though more such inscriptions need to be
recorded before a definitive picture emerges.106 This epigraphic connection is valuable
in that it directly links Ibrahim ibn Mawaliya’s work to at least four items that carry the
octagon motif (See Figs 1.9, 1.11 and Table 1.2a–c).

33
 a b

d
Lt
o
c
C d
&
ris
au
.T
I.B

e f

Relief rosettes decorating the base of ewers

Fig. 1.10

and candlesticks (a) Ibrahim b. Mawaliya ewer,

c.1200–10. Louvre Museum (b) Ahmad b. ‘Umar
al-Dhaki ewer, 1223. Cleveland Museum of Art
(c) Abu Bakr b. al-Hajj Jaldak candlestick, 1225.
MFA Boston (d) ‘Umar ibn Hajji Jaldak ewer,
1226. Metropolitan Museum of Art (e) Shuja‘ ibn
Man‘a ewer, 1232. British Museum (f ) Ahmad
b. ‘Umar al-Dhaki ‘Homberg’ ewer, 1242. Keir
Collection, on loan to Berlin MIK (g) Dawud b.
g Salama candlestick, 1248. Louvre Museum.
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

d
Lt

Fig. 1.11 Chart of a selection of Mawsili craftsmen thought to

o
have worked in Mosul in the first half of the thirteenth
C
century, showing their affiliations, where known,
and their use of comparable features: relief rosettes,
octagons, moon figures and similar ‘banal inscriptions’.
&
The chart also suggests that Ahmad al-Dhaki’s workshop was intimately connected
ris

to others in Mosul, and that, wherever he may finally have worked, he was surely not in
Amid/Diyarbakır in the 1220s, as Rice proposed.107
au

If we return to Table 1.1a, we see that it covers the period from about 1200 to
1275, which is three-fifths of the 125-year period for which we have the names of
al-Mawsili metalworkers. Similarities can be observed often in minor details, but the
.T

overall impression is one of diversity and invention – many hands and many styles.
Such diversity is not surprising given several factors. One is that there was a high
I.B

number of different makers who styled themselves al-Mawsili between about 1200
and 1275, and for most of these we know only a single documented object. Second,
work from even the same workshop differed considerably over time, as is the case with
Ibrahim ibn Mawaliya’s and Ahmad al-Dhaki’s ateliers (Fig. 1.2). Major differences
in style can be detected from the 1220s and 1230s, for example. Nonetheless, most
of the complex compositions in this list display an approach Richard Ettinghausen
eloquently described as ‘the monophonic co-ordination of equal parts has been replaced
by a polyphonic form, of graded subordination, in which the many different parts of a
complex composition are made to interact and interrelate’.108 This hypotactic system is
replaced by a simpler paratactic structure on two items on the list, the candlestick in

35
 d
Lt
a b

Fig. 1.12 Medallions showing figure reclining on a raised couch

(a) al-Dhaki ewer, dated 1223. Cleveland Museum

o
of Art (b) candlestick, Metropolitan Museum of Art,
C
New York, inv. no 1891 91.1.563 (see note 107).
&

Fig. 1.13 Medallions from (a) Ahmad al-Dhaki’s Louvre basin
ris

datable to 1238–40 and (b) Dawud ibn Salama’s

Louvre candlestick, dated 646/1248–49.
au
.T
I.B

a b

36
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

the name of Badr al-Din Lu’lu’ and the candlestick signed by Muhammad ibn Fattuh
(Figs 1.6 and 1.19).
There are marked contrasts between the documentary metalwork of the first
75 years of the thirteenth century (Table 1.1a) and that of the succeeding 25
(Table 1.1b). In the second period, which coincided with the ascendancy of the
Mamluks and the Mongols, few items exist in the name of a sovereign; in lieu of
Mosul as the attested place of manufacture, we have Damascus and Cairo; instead
of a plethora of different signatures, several of the most productive artists appear to
belong to a single family. Appropriately, then, in place of the stylistic diversity of the
first 75 years, there are strong stylistic connections between the work of these family
relatives, and, intriguingly, their preferred approach to composition is paratactic

d
rather than hypotactic.

Lt
Even a brief review of inlaid metalwork produced in Damascus and Cairo in the
second half of the thirteenth century enables us, on the one hand, to distinguish these
products from most earlier work by Mawsili artists, and, on the other, to identify

o
a link to a specific artist who worked in Mosul in the first part of the century. The
C
link, as we shall see, is not just artistic, and cautions us against assuming there was
a wholesale movement of metalworkers from Mosul to Syria and Egypt in the mid-
&
thirteenth century.
ris

P RO D U C T I O N I N DA M A S C U S A N D C A I RO :
T H E EV I D E N C E F RO M I N S C R I P T IO N S A N D S T Y L E S
au

Metalwork was certainly being inlaid in Damascus in the 1250s, and in Cairo by the
late 1260s. We know the names of five Mawsili craftsmen based in Damascus or Cairo
.T

in the second half of the thirteenth century (see Table 1.3 on p. 68).
We can see numerous connections in these artists’ works – there are links between
I.B

objects produced in the 1250s and the 1290s, and links between objects produced in
Damascus and objects produced in Cairo (Fig. 1.15a–d). Such connections are not
surprising given that at least three, if not four, of the makers were almost certainly
from the same family, different generations of which worked in Damascus and in Cairo.
Although none of the patronymics are unusual, Husayn ibn Muhammad of Damascus
is generally thought to have been the father of ‘Ali ibn Husayn ibn Muhammad. From
his name alone, we cannot be certain that Muhammad ibn Hasan was a relative, but
the decoration on his one documented work strongly suggests a relationship.109 While
there is nothing to indicate that ‘Ali ibn Kasirat was a blood relative of the other four
artists, his work shows affinities, and he too might have been shi‘ite.

37
 d
Lt
o
a
C
&
ris
au
.T
I.B

Knotted Kufic frieze inscriptions on (a) candlestick

Fig. 1.14

produced by Husayn b. Muhammad al-Mawsili in

Damascus in 655/1257–58; MIA Doha (b) a ewer
produced by his son (?) ‘Ali b. Husayn b. Muhammad al-
Mawsili in Cairo in 674/1275–6; Louvre Museum, Paris.
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

The earliest documented silver-inlaid vessels from Damascus are Husayn ibn
Muhammad al-Mawsili’s work from the late 1250s. There was evidently continuity
in Damascus in the second half of the century, as Husayn’s work can be linked to
candlesticks produced in the 1290s by two inscriptional features: the primary thulth-
muhaqqaq calligraphy and the secondary friezes of ‘knotted Kufic’ punctuated by
roundels (Figs 1.14–1.16).110 James Allan has attributed the candlesticks to Damascus,
on the twin grounds that one of them was produced by ‘Ali ibn Kasirat in Damascus for
the mihrab which Sultan Lajin (r.1296–99) renovated in Ibn Tulun’s mosque in Cairo,
and that Damascus was so noted for its candlesticks in this period that Sultan Ashraf
Khalil placed an order for 150 of them to be sent to Cairo in 1293.111
The earliest known silver-inlaid work from Cairo is a candlestick by Muhammad ibn

d
Hasan dated 1269, its inscription suggesting he had recently died, evidently before he

Lt
completed the work. The key figure for early Mamluk metalwork from Cairo is ‘Ali ibn
Husayn ibn Muhammad al-Mawsili. One can only surmise that he had moved to Cairo
from Damascus, where his father was working several decades earlier. Two objects ‘Ali

o
ibn Husayn produced in the 1280s illustrate, on the one hand, his dependence on a
C
style that originated in Mosul half a century earlier, and, on the other, his adoption of a
different, what we can call early Mamluk, idiom.
&
ris
au

a b
.T
I.B

c d

Fig. 1.15 Narrow friezes of knotted Kufic inscriptions on
candlesticks (a) inlaid by Muhammad ibn Fattuh,
probably in Mosul in the 1230s. MIA Cairo (b) produced
by Husain b. Muhammad in Damascus in 1257. MIA
Doha (c) produced for Katbugha between 1294 and
1296. MIA Cairo (d) produced for Sunqur al-Takriti
before 1298. MIA Cairo.

39
 a b

d

Fig. 1.16 Comparison of thulth-

Lt
muhaqqaq inscriptions
on candlesticks (a) (d)
produced by Husayn b.
Muhammad in Damascus

o
in 1257. MIA Doha (b)
C (e) produced by ‘Ali b.
Kasirat in Damascus for
the mihrab of Lajin in
&
1296. MIA Cairo (c) (f )
dedicated to Badr al-Din
Lul’lu. St Petersburg,
ris

Hermitage.
c
au
.T
I.B

d e f
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

The difference is most obvious in the decoration of the ground. On his candlestick of
681/1282–3 ‘Ali ibn Husayn used the double-T-fret found, for example, on the Blacas
ewer and Badr al-Din’s tray in Munich. On the basin he made in 684/1285–86 he
covered the ground with a small-scale Y-fret pattern. This form of Y-fret proves to be a
prime characteristic of work by ‘Ali ibn Husayn’s family: it barely features in the first half
of the century, with one notable exception we will come to, and is then used sparingly
on the neck of the candlesticks by Husayn ibn Muhammad (Damascus 1257), and
Muhammad ibn Hasan (Cairo 1269) before its liberal employment by ‘Ali ibn Husayn.
The Y-fret is a diagnostic of early Mamluk metalwork. Together with other features
we can identify several subgroups, and a broad and tentative chronology.
First, the use of wide, undecorated bands to create zonal divisions and to create

d
a contrast to an often dense ground can be associated with the third quarter of the

Lt
century.112 These bands feature on a basin bearing the titles of a dignitary associated with
two short-lived Mamluk sultans, al-Mansur Nur al-Din (r.1257–59) and al-Muzaffar
Sayf al-Din Qutuz (r.1259–60),113 as well as on a tray made for Amir Qulunjaq some

o
time between 1264 and 1277.114 They also occur on a tray made for the Rasulid ruler
C
Malik al-Muzaffar Shams al-Dunya wa’l-Din Yusuf I, though his long reign (647–94/
1250–95) does not aid the dating of this type.115
&
Second, a variant approach in which fields of dense decoration are contrasted with
larger undecorated zones occurs on basins in Baltimore and Doha. One of the few
documentary examples is a tray in the Metropolitan Museum that was also made for
ris

the Rasulid al-Malik al-Muzaffar Yusuf I. Although his extended rule makes it feasible
that this group dates, as has been suggested, to the middle of the century, I would
au

intuitively date it somewhat later, to the 1270s or 1280s.116

Third, the Y-fret occurs in selected areas on the tray made for Qulunjaq (1264–
77),117 and on a candlestick in Lyon in the name of the Rasulid al-Muzaffar Yusuf I.118
.T

Over time its use became more extensive. By the last quarter of the thirteenth century
the Y-fret was being used as an overall ground: it occurs on ‘Ali ibn Husayn’s basin of
I.B

1285, as well as on a basin in Boston which bears an extended dedication to Sultan

Qalawun (r.1280–90).119
Linking several objects in these different groups is the motif of an eagle attacking
a long-billed duck (Fig. 1.17). It occurs, for example, on the basin in Doha, on ‘Ali ibn
Husayn ibn Muhammad’s ewer of 1275, and, more prominently, on his 1285 basin.
This motif was certainly not ‘Ali ibn Husayn’s invention.120 Nonetheless, it becomes a
feature of this family’s work, and the duck’s long bill is distinctive.
In general, ‘Ali ibn Husayn’s works display a notable lack of dynamism in their
compositions. This applies to both the 1282 candlestick with the Mosul-style T-fret
and the 1285 basin with the Y-fret ground. On the candlestick he populated the body

41
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

with a rigid network of round and lobed medallions so close in size that the effect is
one of stasis rather than movement.121 The composition of his 1285 basin relies on
large figurative roundels linked by small roundels filled with the eagle-and-duck motif,
but the contrast in size does not produce the dynamic interchange of the hypotactic
compositions on many earlier al-Mawsili products.
A marked change occurs in the late thirteenth century in the work of Husayn ibn
Ahmad ibn Husayn, who employed a more linear, fluid style, with large-scale figures
under the influence of a graphic tradition.122 This marked a new departure in Mamluk
metalwork that culminated, I suspect, in the figural style of the Baptistère de St Louis.
This family’s output was seminal for later Mamluk metalwork, initiating, it seems,
two of the most characteristic features of fourteenth-century Mamluk metalwork:

d
large-scale inscriptional candlesticks (1257),123 and large multi-lobed medallions with

Lt
a wide border that eventually became filled with flying ducks.124
This family’s products also connect back to Mosul in the first half of the thirteenth
century. Several of the diagnostics occur on the candlestick inlaid by Muhammad

o
ibn Fattuh when he was the hireling of Shuja‘ ibn Man‘a: the Y-fret, the Kufic border
C
inscription (Fig. 1.15), the eagle-and-duck roundel, and the duck with a long bill
(Fig. 1.17) – the eagle-and-duck motif occupying a small but prominent position in
&
the centre of some of the large multi-lobed medallions.125
ris
au
.T
I.B

a b

Fig. 1.17 Eagle and duck motif on (a) basin produced by ‘Ali b.
Husayn al-Mawsili in 684/1285–86, presumably in
Cairo. Louvre Museum, Paris (b) candlestick made
by Hajj Isma‘il and inlaid by Muhammad b. Fattuh,
attributed here to Mosul 1230s. MIA Cairo.

42
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

d
Lt
o

Fig. 1.18
a C
Arabesques against a whorl-scroll ground on (a)
b
&
candlestick in the name of Badr al-Din Lu’lu’: St
Petersburg, Hermitage (b) ewer produced by Husain b.
Muhammad in Damascus in 1259. Paris, Louvre Museum.
ris
au

This family’s work also links to the candlestick in the name of Badr al-Din Lu’lu’
(Fig. 1.6), which has a form of arabesque – against a background of tight whorls – that
relates to those on the 1259 Damascus ewer (Fig. 1.18); a style of thulth-muhaqqaq that
.T

prefaces the inscriptions on the Damascus candlesticks (Fig. 1.16);126 and a paratactic
composition with a semée of small, independent figural roundels with a broad, plain frame.
I.B

The resemblances are not strong enough to assert that Badr al-Din’s candlestick was
made by Husayn ibn Muhammad, but it seems closer to his work than to Muhammad
ibn Fattuh’s or any other known Mawsili metalworker working in the second quarter
of the thirteenth century. Compositional simplicity can be seen to be a feature of this
family’s work at least until the 1290s, and Muhammad ibn Fattuh’s candlestick and the
Badr al-Din Lu’lu’ candlestick are compositionally among the simplest of the large-
scale works attributable to Mosul, and rather far from what Ettinghausen described as
‘graded subordination’.
One scenario, then, is that Muhammad ibn Fattuh, who worked in Mosul in the
1230s, was the father of Husayn ibn Muhammad, who may have worked in Mosul in

43
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

Fig. 1.19 Candlestick made by Hajj Isma‘il
and inlaid by Muhammad ibn
Fattuh, here attributed to Mosul,
1230s. Cairo MIA.

d
Lt
o
C
&
the second quarter of the century but was certainly in Damascus in the 1250s; and the
grandfather of ‘Ali ibn Husayn ibn Muhammad, who was in Cairo by the mid-1270s
ris

at the latest; and the great grandfather of Husayn ibn Ahmad ibn Husayn, who was
active at the turn of the next century, producing a major work for the Rasulid Sultan
au

al-Malik al-Mu’ayyad Hizabr al-Din Dawud b. Yusuf (r.1296–1321).127

The imprint of this family’s style can be found on many of the known major works
attributable to Cairo and Damascus in the second half of the thirteenth century, and,
.T

while it is possible that there were other Mawsili craftsmen who emigrated to Syria and
Egypt, the only two documented before the fourteenth century are Muhammad ibn
I.B

Khutlukh and ‘Ali ibn Kasirat, and the latter’s inscriptional style suggests that he was
part of this family’s milieu. We should be cautious, then, about assuming a large-scale
exodus of craftsmen from Mosul to the Mamluks.

P RO D U C T I O N I N M O S U L : T H E EV I D E N C E F RO M M I N I AT U R E PA I N T I N G

Objects with documentary inscriptions attest to a variety of craftsmen and styles

from the first sixty years of the thirteenth century, and a more narrow concentration
of artists and styles in the succeeding three decades. They reveal, however, only part

44
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

of the picture. The names of the craftsmen who made the majority of the surviving
objects will probably never be known, though in some cases anonymous objects can be
linked to named artists, as James Allan has shown in attributing the ewer in the name
of Abu’l-Qasim Mahmud ibn Sanjarshah to Ibrahim ibn Mawaliya’s workshop, which
he located in Mosul on the evidence that connects Isma‘il ibn Ward to the city.128 As a
further example one can cite a candlestick in the British Museum which may have been
decorated by Muhammad ibn Fattuh. These two examples merely underline how much
remains to be done on particularities of style.129
Likewise, a detailed study of forms will surely reveal affinities between objects we
can assign with confidence to Mosul and objects with no documentary evidence. Even
a small detail such as a cast openwork finial on a candlestick recently acquired by the

d
Burrell Collection in Glasgow can prove a clue.130 The only other known candlestick

Lt
on which such finials appear was made for Badr al-Din Lu’lu’ (Fig. 1.6). They point,
then, to a Mosul provenance for the Burrell candlestick. This object in turn affiliates a
candlestick in the Louvre which has very similar decoration, but lacks the finials.131

o
Another approach – the third of our principal strategies – is to compare works by
C
the Mawsili masters not to other metalwork, but to miniature painting from Mosul.
D.S. Rice believed that the ‘indebtedness of the metalworkers to the miniature
&
painters is most evident’ in works by Ibrahim ibn Mawaliya and by Ibn Jaldak from
the 1220s which had comparatively small-scale cartouches with figures executed
against a plain background in an outline style with relatively little surface modelling,
ris

and that this phase was superseded by a more ornamental approach.132 In fact, in the
second quarter of the thirteenth century several objects were decorated in a large-
au

scale figural style that parallels miniature painting, and the use of plain backgrounds
is not a vital criterion.
Rice and others have cited parallels with manuscripts such as the Paris Kitab al-Diryaq
.T

of 1199 or the undated copy of the same work in Vienna, but the precise provenance
of these manuscripts remains to be settled. While they were likely produced in the
I.B

Jazira, it is not certain if it was in Mosul itself. A more useful comparison is with the
six surviving frontispieces to the 20-volume set of the Kitab al-Aghani that was made
for Badr al-Din Lu’lu’ in the late 1210s, when he was still Regent but in the process
of usurping power.133 Iconographic parallels exist between these frontispieces and the
small-scale figures on the early works studied by Rice,134 but the scale is too small for
detailed stylistic comparison. On the slightly later group of metalwork with large-scale
figures, style and iconography combine to make a strong case for a Mosul provenance.
Two examples will have to suffice here.
One is a candlestick in the Metropolitan Museum which has depictions of an
enthroned ruler in both a frontal, and a three-quarter, pose.135 Excellent parallels exist

45
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

in the Kitab al-Aghani for both (Figs 1.20 and 1.21). The ruler wears a similar toque,
his face is elongated and he has a long, full beard, which is a distinguishing feature of
several of the images of Badr al-Din in the Kitab al-Aghani.136 The second example is a
candlestick in the British Museum which has several friezes of standing courtiers that
recall those on the frontispiece of volume XIX of the Kitab al-Aghani (Fig. 1.22).137
The rather fey pose of one of the courtiers on the candlestick compares nicely with that
found on two of the other frontispieces. These close connections between metalwork
and manuscript allow us to attribute both these candlesticks to Mosul.138
In addition, Christian miniature painting and objects from the Mosul area permit
us to assign to Mosul the most studied of the silver-inlaid vessels, the canteen in the
Freer Gallery of Art. The canteen is usually attributed to Syria, a claim which stems in

d
part from Dimand’s claim that its Crusader figures suggest it was made by a Christian

Lt
who had emigrated from Mosul to Syria.139 In fact, the figures of Crusader and Muslim
knights on the reverse of the canteen relate to those on a candlestick we have already

o
C
&
ris
au
.T
I.B

a b

(a) detail from candlestick, here attributed to Mosul

Fig. 1.20

1230s. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art,

acc. no 1891 91.1.563 (b) detail from the frontispiece
of vol. IV of the Kitab al-Aghani produced for Badr
al-Din Lu’lu’, c.1217. Cairo, National Library.

46
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

associated with Mosul, while the figurative imagery on the front has strong links not
to Syria but to Jacobite Syriac imagery connected to monasteries in Mosul and what is
now southeast Turkey.
On the front of the canteen three narrative scenes of the life of Christ encircle a
roundel of the Virgin Hodegetria. The scene of the nativity is iconographically close
to the version in two Syriac lectionaries,140 one of which is datable to 1216–20, while

d
Lt
o
C
&
ris
au

a b
.T

Fig. 1.21 Details showing seated ruler
receiving homage, from (a)
I.B

frontispiece of vol. XI of the Kitab

al-Aghani produced for Badr
al-Din Lu’lu’, dated 1217. Cairo,
National Library (b) candlestick,
here attributed to Mosul 1230s.
New York, Metropolitan Museum
of Art, acc. no 1891 91.1.563 (c) jug
dated 1239 by Husayn al-Hakim ibn
Mas‘ud, sold Christie’s, London.

47
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

the other was produced in a year that has traditionally been read as the equivalent of
1219–20 but is more probably 1260.141 Whether the earlier manuscript was produced
near Mardin or in Mosul is still debated, but the second was definitely made in the
monastery of Mar Mattai outside Mosul.142
Occupying the central boss on the front of the canteen is an image of the Virgin
Hodegetria that can be connected with Mosul in two ways. First, this particular
rendering of the Virgin was not especially common in Eastern Christian contexts, but
was employed by the Syriac community in Mosul in the thirteenth century: examples

d
Lt
o
a
C
&
Details from (a–b) candlestick,
Fig. 1.22
ris

here attributed to Mosul 1230s.

London, British Museum,
acc. no OA 1969 9-22 1 (c–d) b
au

the frontispieces of, respectively,

vol. XIX (image reversed)
and vol. XVII of the Kitab
.T

al-Aghani produced for Badr

al-Din Lu’lu’, these volumes
between 1217 and 1219.
I.B

c d

48
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

can be found in the two thirteenth-century lectionaries just referred to, as well as on a
stone sculpture from the Church of the Virgin in Mosul. Second, close parallels occur
on a pair of brass liturgical fans that can be linked to Mosul.
These brass flabella bear Syriac inscriptions indicating they were produced in
Anno Graecorum 1514/1202 (Fig. 1.24). They were found in the Deir al-Suriani
in the Wadi Natrun in Egypt, a monastery with a long history of relations with the
Jacobite communities of the Jazira, and at the end of the twelfth and the beginning
of the thirteenth century with Mosul especially.143 The flabella are engraved, and not

d
Lt
o
C
&
a
ris
au
.T
I.B

Entry into Jerusalem (a) taken from the Freer canteen,

Fig. 1.23

here attributed to Mosul 1240s or 1250s (image flattened

out and reversed) (b) composite image, right-hand section
taken from British Library MS Or.3372, from Monastery
of Qartmin early eleventh century, left section from
Vatican MS.Syr.559, dated probably 1260 (see note 142).

49
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

d
a b

Lt
o
C Virgin Hodegetria from (a, c) a pair
Fig. 1.24

of flabella produced in 1202, almost

certainly in Mosul, for the Dayr
&
al-Suryani in the Wadi Natrun in
Egypt, respectively in the Louvre
Museum and the Mariemont
ris

Museum, and (b) the Freer canteen,

here attributed to Mosul 1240s
or 1250s.
au
.T

c
I.B

inlaid with silver, but there is no evidence of such work in Egypt, and it seems most
likely that they were produced in Mosul and sent as gifts, which would make them
the earliest dated examples of Mosul metalwork, and important evidence of the
contribution of Christian metalworkers to the tradition that developed over the next
half century.144
It would be hasty, though, to assume that the canteen was produced by an isolated
Christian workshop. On the rear of the canteen there is a frieze showing a combat
between Crusader and Muslim knights, and the figures are a simplified version of
those found on a candlestick we earlier associated with Mosul – it bears the diagnostic
octagon motif, and uses banal inscriptions similar to those on the ewer by Ibrahim

50
 a d

d
Lt
o
C
&
ris

b e
au
.T
I.B

c f

Mounted knights in combat (a–c) from the ‘Freer

Fig. 1.25

canteen’, here attributed to Mosul, 1240s or 1250s

(d–f ) from a candlestick in the MIA, Doha, here
attributed to Mosul, late 1220s or 1230s.
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

ibn Mawaliya.145 The figures on the candlestick are considerably more detailed than
those on the canteen; and the flying pennants are intelligible on the candlestick in a
way that they are not on the canteen (Fig. 1.25). As the candlestick dates, I believe,
to the late 1220s or early 1230s, and the canteen to a decade or more later, we can
see the process of deformation over time. Yet the two objects seem ultimately to have
shared a common model. The relationship between the candlestick and the canteen
strengthens the attribution of the canteen to Mosul, and their dependence on a graphic
model confirms what we have seen from the other few examples cited: that there was a
phase of Mosul production in the second quarter of the thirteenth century that drew
on a pictorial tradition for inspiration.146

d
* * *

Lt
This paper has focused on metalwork attributable to Mosul in the period between about
1225 and 1250, and it has touched upon the emigration of one family from Mosul

o
to Damascus and Cairo between about 1250 and 1275. Both topics – efflorescence
C
and emigration – are often ascribed to the impact of the Mongol invasions, in driving
Iranian craftsmen to settle in the Jazira, and then in driving metalworkers from the
&
Jazira to the Mamluk realm. The topic of diaspora raises the question of whether Mosul
was an exclusive centre of silver-inlay production in the Arab-speaking world in the first
half of the thirteenth century, and, while I have attempted here to stress its importance,
ris

I would like in this last section to comment briefly on, first, the production of silver-
inlaid brass objects in Arab cities other than Mosul, and, second, the purported impact
au

of the Mongols on the genesis and decline of metalworking in Mosul. I would like
to conclude by considering what the evidence assembled here has revealed about ‘the
Mosul School’ of metalwork.
.T

The origins of inlaid metalworking in Mosul are still vague, and require further
research. Objects signed by metalworkers who dubbed themselves al-Mawsili span
I.B

almost exactly a century – from 1220 to 1323 (Table 1.1). Mosul, though, was a metal
centre long before that: al-Muqaddasi in the late tenth century noted that it exported
iron and finished goods such as buckets, knives and chains, and Ibn al-Azraq mentions
how in 544/1149–50 he sold iron in Mosul on behalf of the ruler of Mayyafariqin.147
Yet no object is known bearing the name of a Mosul metalworker before the thirteenth
century. Something changed, and that surely was the development of inlaying silver into
beaten ‘brass’.
The production of inlaid brasses and bronzes eventually ranged from Egypt to the
Punjab, and James Allan has brilliantly demonstrated how the technique was developed
in the twelfth century by silversmiths in Khurasan who were faced with a growing

52
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

shortage of silver.148 By the middle of that century metalworkers in Herat achieved a

high level of virtuosity, and from Khurasan the technique spread westwards. The craft
required relatively few tools, and émigré artisans could have taken their skills to several
centres in western Iran, Iraq and the Jazira.
The picture that emerges from Table 1.1 points, however, to few production centres
in the first half of the century. The picture may be partial, as we have to rely on a handful
of objects whose place of manufacture is clearly stated, and on the less certain evidence
of the maker’s nisbahs. Nonetheless, the available evidence is overwhelming. The Mawsili
nisbah was the pre-eminent appellation for metalworkers working in Iraq, the Jazira, Syria
and Egypt throughout the thirteenth century. Only two other geographical nisbahs are
known in connection with makers of silver-inlaid vessels – al-Is‘irdi, relating to Siirt, and

d
al-Baghdadi (Table 1.1). In both cases, however, we can identify a stylistic connection with

Lt
Mosul, including the use of the octagon (Fig. 1.9).149 From the thirteenth-century Arab-
speaking world no maker of silver-inlaid vessels is known who has a nisbah connected
with any city in Egypt or Syria, not even Cairo, Damascus or Aleppo. There is, however,

o
an exception – makers of scientific instruments in Syria. The available evidence suggests
C
they were the pioneers of silver inlay in Syria (Table 1.1).150
The earliest instrument known to have been inlaid with silver in Syria was produced
&
in 619/1222–23, more than three decades before the earliest dated inlaid vessels
indubitably produced there – those by Husayn ibn Muhammad al-Mawsili from
the 1250s. There was not necessarily a clear dividing line between the production of
ris

scientific instruments and objects of a domestic type, as is made clear by Muhammad

ibn Khutlukh, who made an elaborate geomantic table and an inlaid incense-burner. On
au

both objects he signs himself ‘al-Mawsili’. The geomantic table he made in 639/1241–
42, though it is not known where, and the incense-burner in Damascus, though it is
not known when.151 It remains uncertain, therefore, when he settled in Damascus, but
.T

it is possible he preceded Husayn ibn Muhammad in Damascus by a decade or more.

In short, scientific instruments warn us against oversimplifying the history of silver
I.B

inlay in the Middle East.152 Having underestimated Mosul for so long, we should not
now make the error of overestimating it. Nothing, however, can gainsay that the earliest
inlaid vessels documented as made in Syria all have a Mawsili connection.
In Mosul itself the technique seems to have been established by the turn of the
thirteenth century at the very latest. The Louvre ewer by Ibrahim ibn Mawaliya is
tentative in design and execution, and Rice dated it to around 1200, given that Ibrahim’s
pupil Ismail ibn Ward produced an accomplished object in 615/1220. The two flabella of
1202 are not inlaid with silver, but they evince an assured figural style and a background
of ‘cogged’ wheels and leafy scrolls that is a feature of much Mosul work in the first
half of the thirteenth century, including the Blacas ewer, indicating that this tradition

53
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

may well date from the closing decades of the twelfth century (Fig. 1.24).153 It is not,
though, until the 1220s that we have several signed and dated items, which probably
reflects the craft’s growing status and production. The next fifteen to twenty years saw
rapid innovations in technique, decoration and composition, and metalworkers drawing
inspiration from contemporary miniature painting of the Mosul area.
Comparing three ewers produced in Mosul over the space of some thirty years –
Ibrahim ibn Mawaliya’s, Ibn al-Dhaki’s (1223) and Shuja‘ ibn Man‘a’s (1232) – we can
see that stylistic and technical changes were rapid in the first decades of the century.
The difference between those of 1223 and 1232 is considerable, whereas the contrast
between the decorative style of Shuja‘ ’s Blacas ewer (1232) and al-Dhaki’s Louvre basin
(1238–40) seems comparatively insignificant (Fig. 1.4).

d
By the 1250s, in the vexed last years of the reign of Badr al-Din Lu’lu’, and as the

Lt
members of what I take to be the second generation of silver-inlay craftsmen may have
been drawing to an end of their working lives, we have the first certain evidence of a
metalworker from Mosul – a man who might have been the son of Muhammad ibn

o
Fattuh – operating elsewhere, in this case Damascus. Others, such as Muhammad ibn
C
Khutlukh, may have emigrated earlier, but there is no current proof.
This chronology raises questions over several common assumptions about the impact
&
the Mongols had on metalworking in Mosul: that it was pressure from the Mongols in
the early thirteenth century which forced craftsmen in Herat and its environs to move
westwards and to establish an inlay tradition in Mosul;154 that their attacks and exactions in
ris

the Jazira in the middle of the century drove Mosul craftsmen to flee to Syria and Egypt;155
and that the Mongol sack of Mosul brought on the demise of the industry there.
au

First, the tradition in Mosul began earlier than most have assumed, and its origins
were more complex than the arrival of metalworkers from Iran.156 Second, with the
exception of Muhammad ibn Khutlukh and ‘Ali ibn Kasirat, the only metalworkers
.T

known to have emigrated from Mosul belonged to a family whose earliest recorded
practitioner – Muhammad ibn Fattuh – was a hireling not the owner of a workshop.
I.B

His skills did not compare well to most of his contemporaries, and it may, therefore,
have been an issue of aptitude and economic standing rather than Mongol pressure that
persuaded his family to seek its fortune elsewhere, though I concede this is a highly
speculative suggestion.
As for the end of the tradition, instability following the death of Badr al-Din
Lu’lu’ in July 1259, and the Mongol siege and occupation of Mosul in July 1262 must
have caused local upheaval. Indeed, the dearth of documented metalwork that can
be associated with the Jazira in the second half of the thirteenth century contrasts
with the profusion of Mamluk and Rasulid material from Damascus and Cairo. This
surely indicates a shift in the centres of production, but we should not assume that

54
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

production ceased in Mosul, because there may also have been a shift in the process
of commissioning.
A considerable amount of inlaid metalwork, much of it related to the work of ‘Ali
ibn ‘Abdallah al-‘Alawi al-Mawsili, can be stylistically attributed to the second half of
the century, and none of the inscriptions connects the objects to the Mamluks. Some,
like the wallet in the Courtauld Gallery of Art, bear distinctly Ilkhanid iconography,
while it has been proposed that the candlestick in the Benaki Museum dated 717/1317–
18 and signed by ‘Ali ibn ‘Umar ibn Ibrahim al-Sankari al-Mawsili may have been made
for an Artuqid ruler of Mardin.157 Such work was not Mamluk, and may well have been
produced in Mosul, from where it fed, in a process that has yet to be fully defined, into
the west Iranian and Fars tradition of metal inlay in the fourteenth century.158 One factor

d
may have been the Mongol practice of corralling artisans, and we read that in 1283 one

Lt
of their advisors, Shams al-Din ‘Abd al-Rahman, the Greek who has the dubious fame
of having killed the last Caliph of Baghdad, al-Musta‘sim, collected craftsmen in Tabriz,
including jewellers, and ‘made everything to a royal pattern’.159 This was the centralised

o
production of an empire, very different from a model of small workshops working for
the open market and a plethora of petty princes. C
In short, the silver-inlaid brass industry in Mosul was not a straightforward import
&
from Iran occasioned by the invasions of the Mongols. Iranian artisans seem to have
played a role,160 but from the 1220s and 1230s production in Mosul had an internal
dynamic, following a model of innovation in which, after a period of experimentation, an
ris

early group of innovators establish in a burst of creativity the standards and techniques
that provide the basis for successive generations.
au

Three factors – the longevity of this tradition, spanning a hundred and twenty
years or more; the rapidity of stylistic change, at least in the opening decades; and
the diversity of craftsmen, at least in the first half of the century, when 19 items
.T

were produced by at least eight craftsmen – ensured a variety in production that

prompted Richard Ettinghausen to lament ‘how difficult it is to make attributions
I.B

of metal objects from this period’.161 Looking at minor details has, however, helped
us identify from the first half of century a core group of artists whose work was
interrelated. This was a period that witnessed a fecundity of ideas and imagery, in the
context of a cultural efflorescence that embraced Sunnis, Shi‘is and Christians in the
Mosul region in the first half of the thirteenth century, and in a period of material
prosperity for Mosul under Badr al-Din Lu’lu’, lauded, if the reading of an inscription
is correct, as the ‘killer of barrenness’.162
Even if some Mawsili metalworkers eventually moved away from the city, they seem
to have formed, in the 1220s and 1230s, a close-knit group. This closeness manifests
itself in several ways. First, there was a kinship in their products, in terms of shapes,

55
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

imagery, motifs and skills. In the case of the relief rosette, that skill was practiced even
though it would be rarely seen.
Second, while the high number of signatures reflects personal pride, the phrasing
attests to a sense of community, to a pride in the transmission of skills and professional
relationships. Whether or not the octagon was a guild or workshop motif, what is certain
is that these metalworkers declared their association in unparalleled fashion, for this is
the only body of metalwork from any period in the Muslim world on which we find
reference to the craft relationships between master and pupil, apprentice, perhaps slave,
and hireling – tilmidh, ghulam, and ajir.163 This was different from a master craftsman
expressing pride in his own work by prefacing his signature with the word mu‘allim.164
This was the pride of a pupil or apprentice at being attached to a master.165

d
Something similar occurs in Ottoman calligraphy, where calligraphers often indicate

Lt
their isnad, usually following the issuance of an ijaza, or certificate of competency, by
the master calligrapher. We have no such evidence for the metalworkers of Mosul, but
two items may provide physical proof of a system of workshop training. One is the

o
box by Isma‘il ibn Ward, on which he declares himself to be the tilmidh of Ibrahim
C
ibn Mawaliya. The complexity of decoration and fineness of execution seem to defy its
&
ris
au
.T

Diminutive bucket, here

Fig. 1.26

attributed to Mosul c.1225–

I.B

35, British Museum, inv.

no 1948 5-83. Height 8.3cm.
Photograph courtesy of the
British Museum.

56
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

diminutive size (6.3 by 3.6cm), and perhaps that is the very point. Was it an apprentice’s
or a journeyman’s tour-de-force on his quest to move into the guild of craftsmen?
The box was arguably large enough to have been of functional use, but that is
hardly the case with a miniature bucket in the British Museum (8.3cm) (Fig. 1.26)
which seems more like a jeu d’esprit – a known category of functional object but in
a size so small as to render it useless, yet decorated in elaborate fashion, including a
scene of an enthroned ruler whose hand is being kissed by an obeisant subject, and a
complex anthropomorphic inscription.166 If these two items were the credential work
of an apprentice or journeyman, it would be physical proof of a guild system that was
ubiquitous in the Muslim world at the time but rarely expressed in epigraphic terms as
it is on Mosul metalwork.

d
Craftsmen’s names reveal that the community of metalworkers was much more

Lt
inclusive than a few family networks, and that some of them were from Muslim families
of long standing, while others were recent converts, and others Christian.167 Pride in the
larger community of metalworkers and pride in their city were embodied in the nisbah

o
‘al-Mawsili’. Practitioners continued to use it for over a century with a dedication that can
C
only be paralleled by the potters of Kashan; and its aura – its ‘brand value’ – was evident
when it was used by Husayn ibn Ahmad ibn Husayn in Cairo in the 1290s, as he seems to
&
have been from a family that had not lived in Mosul for one or even two generations.168
Over the course of more than a century, Mawsili metalworkers displayed a conscious
sense of community and tradition, and, at least in the early years, a proud acknowledgement
ris

of transmission. Their products gained fame, were disseminated, and eventually emulated
in other centres. All of these are vital elements in the definition of an artistic school – in
au

this case what we are justified in calling the Mosul School of metalwork.
.T
I.B

57
 A ppendi x

Date Method Object Artist Geographical Made in Dedicatee Ruler of Collection Ref.
of dating nisbah

576/1180 Nov–Dec dated ka‘ba key al-Nasir li-Din Allah Abbasid Caliph Istanbul, Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi, inv. no 2/2210 1

1182–1231 reign date basin al-Malik al-Amjad Bahram Ba‘lbakk Cairo MIA; ex-Harari collection no 15 2
Shah

1200–25 approx. ewer Ibrahim b. Mawaliya al-Mawsili Mosul Paris, Louvre, inv. no K3435 3

1201–39 reign date candlestick Artuq Arslan ibn Il-Ghazi Mardin and Jerusalem, Haram al-Sharif Museum 4
I.B
Mayyafariqin

1208–51 reign date basin Abu’l Qasim Mahmud ibn atabek of Jazirat ibn Berlin MIK, inv. no I.3570; ex-Sarre collection 5
Sanjarshah ibn Ghazi ‘Umar
.T
1208–51 reign date door Abu’l Qasim Mahmud ibn atabek of Jazira ibn Istanbul, Türk ve Islam Eserleri Müzesi, inv. no 4282 6
Sanjarshah [ibn Ghazi] ‘Umar

1218–38 reign date dish al-Malik al-Kamil I Nasir Egypt/Damascus ex-Albert Goupil, Paris 7
al-Din Muhammad
au
1218–38 reign date ewer al-Malik al-Kamil I Nasir Egypt/Damascus Istanbul, Türk ve Islam Eserleri Müzesi 8
al-Din Muhammad

615/1218 dated pen-box al-Malik al-Adil Abu Bakr Egypt, Damascus, Athens, Benaki Museum, inv. no 13174 9
Aleppo
ris
617/1220 dated box Isma‘il b. Ward al-Mawsili Mosul Athens, Benaki Museum, inv. no 13171 10

618/1221 dated astrolabe Muhammad b. Abi Bakr al-Isfahani Oxford, Museum of the History of Science; ex-Lewis 11
Evans Collection
&
619/1222 dated astrolabe Siraj (inlay) al-Dimishqi al-Malik al-Mu‘azzam ‘Isa Damascus Istanbul, Deniz Müzesi 12

1220–30 approx. ewer Abu’l Qasim Mahmud ibn atabek of Jazira ibn Doha, MIA; ex-Nuhad es-Said collection 13
Sanjarshah ‘Umar
C
1220–47 reign date tray al-Malik al-Muzaffar Shihab Mayyafariqin Cairo MIA; ex-Harari Collection, no 356 14
al-Din Ghazi

620/1223 dated ewer Ahmad b. ‘Umar, al-Mawsili

o Cleveland Museum of Art, inv. no 1956.11; ex-Stora 15
known as al-Dhaki collection

1225–50 approx. bowl Mosul Najm al-Din ‘Umar al-Badri Bologna, Museo Civico Medievale, inv. no 2128 16

622/1225 dated candlestick Abu Bakr b. al-Hajji al-Mawsili Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, acc. no 57.148; ex-Stora 17
Jaldak collection
Lt
1225–50 approx. candlestick Mosul Almir Sayf ibn ibn [sic]
sahib al-Mawsil
d Paris, Louvre, inv. no 7431; ex-Delort de Gléon 18

table 1.1 a 1200–75: Near Eastern inlaid metalwork with documentary inscriptions,
including known makers and dedicatees. Bold type indicates a precisely
recorded date or provenance. Italics indicate a strong presumption.
Date Method Object Artist Geographical Made in Dedicatee Ruler of Collection Ref.
of dating nisbah

1225–50 approx. candlestick Hajj Isma‘il and al-Mawsili Mosul Cairo, MIA inv. no 15121; ex-Harari collection no 174 19
Muhammad b. Fattuh

1225–50 approx. casket Muhammad al-Baghdadi Location unknown; ex-Edward Falkener collection 20

1225–50 approx. candlestick Mosul al-sayyid ‘Abd al-Qadir b. London Art Market 2011 21
al-sayyid ‘Umar al-Qufa’i (?)

1225–50 approx. jug Isma`il b. Ahmad al-Wasiti location unknown 22

1225–50 approx. incense-burner Sinni-i Razi New York, Pierpoint Morgan collection 23
I.B
622/1225 dated globe Qaysar b. Abi‘l Qasim al-Malik al-Kamil I Nasir Egypt/Damascus Italy, Naples, Museo Nazionale, Capodimonte inv. 24
b. Musafir al-Din Muhammad no 1137; ex-Borgia Collection

623/1226 dated ewer ‘Umar ibn Hajji Jaldak al-Mawsili New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, acc. no 91 1 25
586
.T
625/1227 dated astrolabe ‘Abd al-Karim al-Misri al-Malik al-Ashraf Muzaffar Diyarbakir and later Oxford, Museum of the History of Science, CCA 103; 26
al-Din Musa Damascus ex-Lewis Evans Collection

627/1229 dated ewer Iyas, ghulam of ‘Abd al-Mawsili Istanbul, Türk ve Islam Eserleri Müzesi 27
al-Karim b. al-Turabi
au
1231–33 regnal box al-Malik al-Aziz Ghiyath Aleppo Italy, Naples, Museo Nazionale, Capodimonte, inv. no 28
titles al-Din Muhammad 112095; ex-Borgia Collection

629/1232 dated ewer Qasim b. ‘Ali al-Mawsili Shihab al-Din Tughril atabek of al-Malik Washington DC, Freer Gallery of Art, acc. no F1955.22 29
al-‘Azizi al-‘Aziz
ris
629/1232 dated ewer Shuja‘ b. Man‘a al-Mawsili Mosul London, British Museum, inv. no 1866 12–69 61; ex-Duc 30
de Blacas collection

1233–59 reign date box Mosul

&
Badr al-Din Lu’lu’ al-Malik Mosul London, British Museum, inv. no 1878 12-30 678; ex- 31
al-Rahim Henderson collection

1233–59 reign date candlestick Mosul Badr al-Din Lu’lu’ al-Malik Mosul St. Petersburg, Hermitage 32
al-Rahim
C
1236–60 reign date basin al-Malik al-Nasir II Salah Aleppo and later Montreal, Museum of Fine Arts 33
al-Din Yusuf Damascus

1236–60 reign date vase al-Malik al-Nasir II Salah

o Aleppo and later Paris, Louvre, inv. no OA 4090; ex-Barberini collection 34
al-Din Yusuf Damascus

634/1237 dated pen-box Abu’l Qasim b. Sa‘d b. al-Is‘irdi Jamal al-Din Ahmad ibn Cairo MIA, ex-Harari collection, no 226 35
Muhammad Ghazi

636/1238–1240 reign date basin Ahmad b. ‘Umar, al-Malik al-‘Adil II Sayf Egypt/Damascus Parls, Louvre, inv. no 5991 36
Lt
known as al-Dhaki al-Din Abu Bakr

636/1238–1240 reign date box al-Malik al-‘Adil II Sayf

d
Egypt/Damascus London, Victoria and Albert Museum, acc. no 8508– 37
al-Din Abu Bakr 1863

636/1238–40 reign date incense-burner al-Malik al-‘Adil II Sayf Egypt/Damascus Keir Collection, on loan to Berlin MIK 38
al-Din Abu Bakr

table 1.1 a (cont.)

Date Method Object Artist Geographical Made in Dedicatee Ruler of Collection Ref.
of dating nisbah

637/1239–40 dated jug Husayn al-Hakim ibn al-Mawsili Yusuf al-Kinabari (?) Location unknown 39
Mas’ud

1239–49 reign date basin al-Malik al-Salih Najm al- Egypt/Damascus Cairo MIA, inv. no 15043; ex-Harari collection no 37 40
Din Ayyub

1239–49 reign date bowl al-Malik al-Salih Najm al- Egypt/Damascus University of Michigan, Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, 41
Din Ayyub inv. no 28801x; ex-Sobernheim collection

638/1240 dated astrolabe ‘Abd al-Karim al-Misri? al-Malik al-Ashraf Musa Diyarbakir and later London, British Museum, inv. no 1855.7–9 1 42
Damascus
I.B
1240–65 approx. bowl Jamal al-Din Musa ibn Cairo MIA; ex-Harari collection no 125 43
Yaghmur

1240 approx. candlestick Abu’l Qasim b. Sa‘d b. al-Is‘irdi Sweden, ex-Lamm Collection 44
Muhammad
.T
1240–49 reign date tray al-Malik al-Salih Najm al- Egypt/Damascus Paris, Louvre, inv. no MAO360 45
Din Ayyub

639/1241 dated geomantic Muhammad b. al-Mawsili Damascus Muhammad al-Muhtasib London, British Museum, acc. no 1888 5-26 1 46
table Khutlukh al-Najjari
au
1225–50 approx. incense-burner Muhammad b. al-Mawsili Damascus Doha, MIA; ex-Aron collection 47
Khutlukh

1225–50 approx. pen-box ‘Umar al-Is‘irdi Moscow, State Museum of Oriental Art, inv. no 1590 48
ris
640/1242 dated ewer Ahmad b. ‘Umar, al-Mawsili Keir Collection, on loan to Berlin MIK; ex-Homberg 49
known as al-Dhaki collection

641/1243 dated incense-burner London, British Museum, acc. no 1878 12-30 678; ex- 50
& Henderson collection

643/1245 dated pen-box Abu’l Qasim b. Sa‘d b. al-Is‘irdi Paris, Louvre, inv. no K3438 51
Muhammad

c.1245 approx. pen-box Abu’l Qasim b. Sa‘d b. al-Is‘irdi

C Location unknown 52
Muhammad

c.1245–59 titles basin …Yusuf Mosul Badr al-Din Lu’lu’ al-Malik Mosul Kiev, Museum of the Academy of Sciences 53
al-Rahim
o
c.1245–59 titles tray Mosul Badr al-Din Lu’lu’ al-Malik Mosul London, Victoria & Albert Museum, acc. no 905-1907 54
al-Rahim

c.1245–59 titles tray Mosul Badr al-Din Lu’lu’ al-Malik Mosul Munich, Staatliches Museum für Volkerkunde 55
al-Rahim no 26–N–118
Lt
644/1246–47 dated ewer Yunus b. Yusuf al-Mawsili
d Baltimore, The Walters Art Museum, inv. no 54.456 56

1247–49 titles basin al-Malik al-Salih Najm al- Egypt/Damascus Washington DC, Freer Gallery of Art, inv. no F1955.10; 57
Din Ayyub ex-Duc d’Arenberg collection

646/1248 dated candlestick Dawud b. Salama al-Mawsili Paris, Louvre, inv. no MAD 4414; ex-Goupil Collection 58

table 1.1 a (cont.)

Date Method Object Artist Geographical Made in Dedicatee Ruler of Collection Ref.
of dating nisbah

646/1248 dated door ‘Umar b. al-Khidr al-Badri Mosul Mosul, Mausoleum of `Awn al-Din 59
al-Maliki

1250–64 reign tray al-Malik al-Mughith `Umar Karak Cairo MIA inv. no 8870 60
date

1250–95 reign bowl al-Malik al-Muzaffar Shams Yemen Harari Collection 61

date al-Din Yusuf I

1250–95 reign basin al-Malik al-Muzaffar Shams Yemen Athens, Benaki Museum, inv. no 13075 62
date al-Din Yusuf I
I.B
1250–95 reign basin al-Malik al-Muzaffar Shams Yemen Cairo MIA; ex-Harari Collection, no 321 63
date al-Din Yusuf I

1250–95 reign brazier al-Malik al-Muzaffar Shams Yemen New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. no 91.1.540 64
date al-Din Yusuf I
.T
1250–95 reign candlestick al-Malik al-Muzaffar Shams Yemen Lyons, Musée des Beaux-Arts, inv. no d.569 65
date al-Din Yusuf I

1250–95 reign basin al-Malik al-Muzaffar Shams Yemen Cairo MIA no 10839; ex-Paravicini Collection 66
date al-Din Yusuf I
au
1250–95 reign tray al-Malik al-Muzaffar Shams Yemen Paris, Collection Marquet de Vasselot 67
date al-Din Yusuf I

1250–95 reign tray al-Malik al-Muzaffar Shams Yemen Paris, Louvre; ex-Sivadjian Collection 68
date al-Din Yusuf I
ris
1250–95 reign tray al-Malik al-Muzaffar Shams Yemen Cairo MIA, inv. no 3155 69
date al-Din Yusuf I

1250–95 reign tray

&
al-Malik al-Muzaffar Shams Yemen Paris, ex-Homberg Collection 70
date al-Din Yusuf I

1250–95 reign tray al-Malik al-Muzaffar Shams Yemen Cairo MIA, inv. no 4022 71
date al-Din Yusuf I
C
1250–95 reign tray al-Malik al-Muzaffar Shams Yemen Cairo MIA, inv. no 15153; ex-Harari Collection no 12 72
date al-Din Yusuf I

1250–95 reign tray al-Malik al-Muzaffar Shams

oYemen New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. no 91.1.603 73
date al-Din Yusuf I

c.1250 approx. vase Abu Bakr ibn Ibrahim ibn Paris, Louvre 74
Isma‘il

650/1252 dated basin Dawud b. Salama al-Mawsili Badr al-Din Baysari Paris, Louvre, ex-Musée des Arts Décoratifs; ex-Albert 75
Lt
al-jamali al-Muhammadi Goupil
(graffito)
d
653/1255 dated pen-box ‘Ali b. Yahya al-Mawsili Mosul Copenhagen, David Collection, inv.no 6/1997 76

654/1256 dated casket Rumantiq (?) al-Sha’m ex-Peytel Collection 77

table 1.1 a (cont.)

Date Method of Object Artist Geographical Made in Dedicatee Ruler of Collection Ref.
dating nisbah

655/1257 dated candlestick Husayn b. Muhammad al-Mawsili Damascus Abu Durr Badr Doha MIA; ex-Homayzi Collection 78

657/1259 dated ewer Husayn b. Muhammad al-Mawsili Damascus al-Malik al-Nasir II Salah Paris, Louvre, inv. no OA 7428; ex-Delort de Gléon 79
al-Din Yusuf

657/1259 dated vase ‘Ali b. Hammud al-Mawsili Haqta or Qusta b. Tudhra Florence, Museo Nazionale del Bargello, inv.no 360 80

c.1260–70 basin (Anon. officer of) al- Doha MIA; ex-Homayzi Collection 81
Muzaffari al-Mansuri

1261–93 reign date basin Qara Arslan b. Il-Ghazi London, Sotheby’s, April 2012, lot 538 82
I.B
668/1269 dated candlestick Muhammad b. Hasan al-Mawsili Cairo Cairo MIA, inv. no 1657 83

669/1270 dated astrolabe Ibrahim al-Dimishqi London, British Museum, inv. no 90 3–15 3 84

673/1274 dated ewer ‘Ali b. Hammud al-Mawsili Emir Atmish Sa‘di Tehran, Iran-Bastan Museum 85
.T
1274 by basin ‘Ali b. Hammud al-Mawsili Tehran, Iran-Bastan Museum 86
association

table 1.1 a (cont.)

au
ris
&
C
o
Lt
d
Date Method of Object Artist Geographical Made in Dedicatee Ruler of Collection Ref.
dating nisbah

1275–1300 date range basin ‘Izz al-Din Aydamur Jamdar Viceroy of Syria in Cairo MIA; ex-Harari Collection no 7 87
Qaimari 1270, died Nov 1300

1275–1300 date range basin Rukn al-Din Baibars al‘Adili as amir Cairo MIA, no 8241 88

1275–1300 approx. ewer ‘Ali b. ‘Abdallah al-Mawsili Berlin MIK, inv. no I.6580 89

1275–1300 approx. basin ‘Ali b. ‘Abdallah al-Mawsili Berlin MIK, inv. no I.6581 90

674/1275 dated ewer ‘Ali b. Husayn b. al-Mawsili Cairo al-Malik al-Muzaffar Shams Yemen Paris, Louvre, inv. no UCAD 4412; ex-Goupil Collection 91
Muhammad al-Din Yusuf I
I.B
674/1275 dated globe Muhammad b. Hilal al-Mawsili London, British Museum, acc. no 71 3–1 1.a,b 92
(celestial) al-Munajjim

1277–79 titles handwarmer Badr al-Din Baysari London, British Museum, acc. no 78 12–30 682; ex- 93
Fould collection
.T
676/1277 title tray Sayf ad-Din Qulunjaq al- Paris, Musée Jacquemart-André 94
maliki al-Zahiri al-Sa‘idi

1277 date of hanging Damascus Tomb of al-Zahir Rukn al- Egypt and Syria Doha MIA; ex-Nathaniel Rothschild collection (?) 95
death lamp Din Baybars in Damascus
au
1277 date of hanging Damascus Tomb of al-Zahir Rukn al- Egypt and Syria Location unknown; ex-Schefer Collection; ex-Edmond 96
death lamp Din Baybars in Damascus de Rothschild Collection

1281–82 date of rule tray and Baha al-Din Qaraqush al- Governor of Qus and Cairo MIA 97
stand Aydamuri al-Nasiri Akhmin in 680
ris
680/1281 dated pen-box Mahmud b. Sunqur London, British Museum, acc. no 91 6–23 5 98

681/1282 dated candlestick ‘Ali b. Husayn b. al-Mawsili Cairo eunuch Imad al-Din Wasif Cairo MIA, inv. no 15127; ex-Harari Collection, no 39 99
Muhammad
&
al-Khalifati

684/1285 dated basin ‘Ali b. Husayn b. al-Mawsili Cairo Paris, Louvre; ex-Piet-Lataudri+P80e Collection 100
Muhammad

686/1287 dated candlestick ‘Ali b. Abi Bakr

C Eyrichshof, Baron Rotenhan 101

1290–93 titles candlestick Damascus Zayn al-Din Katbugha while an officer of al- Baltimore, Walters Art Museum, inv. no 54.459 (body); 102
Ashraf Khalil Cairo MIA inv. no 4463 (neck)
o
1290–93 reign date candlestick al-Ashraf Khalil Egypt and Syria Cairo Art Market 103
fragment

c.1284–95 titles bowl Damascus Sunqur al-As’ar when he was an amir in Athens, Benaki Museum 104
Damascus (?)
Lt
690/1291 dated astrolabe al-Ashraf ‘Umar b. Yemen al-Malik al-Muzaffar Shams Yemen New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 105
Yusuf al-Muzaffari al-Din Yusuf I
d no 91.1.535

table 1.1 b
1275–1325: a selection of Near Eastern inlaid metalwork with documentary
inscriptions, including all known makers and some dedicatees. Bold type indicates
a precisely recorded date or provenance. Italics indicate a strong presumption.
Date Method of Object Artist Geographical Made in Dedicatee Ruler of Collection Ref.
dating nisbah

694/1292-1311 titles basin Sayf al-Din Asandamur Cairo MIA; ex-Harari Collection no 120 106
Silahdar

695/1295 dated astrolabe ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Damascus London, Victoria and Albert Museum, inv. no 504–1888 107
Yusuf

1296–1321 reign date candlestick al-Malik al-Mu’ayyad Yemen Formerly Kraft Collection 108
Hizabr al-Din Dawud b.
Yusuf

1296–1321 reign date candlestick al-Malik al-Mu’ayyad Yemen Cairo MIA; ex-Harari Collection, no 54 109
Hizabr al-Din Dawud b.
I.B
Yusuf

697/1296 dated candlestick ‘Ali b. Kasirat al-Mawsili Damascus al-Malik al-Mansur Lajin Cairo MIA, no 128 110

1298 date of candlestick Damascus Amir Sunqur Takriti Cairo MIA, inv. no 7949 111
.T
death

698/1298 dated astrolabe Al-Sahl al-Asturlabi al-Naisaburi al-Malik al-Muzaffar Hama (?) Nuremberg, Germanisches Museum, inv. no WI 20 112
Mahmud

1296–1322 reign date tray al-Malik al-Mu’ayyad Yemen New York, MMA, inv. no 91.1.605; ex-Edward C. Moore 113
au
Hizabr al-Din Dawud b. Collection
Yusuf

1296–1322 reign date tray Husayn b. Ahmad b. al-Mawsili Cairo al-Malik al-Mu’ayyad Yemen New York, MMA, acc. no 91.1.602; ex-Edward C. 114
Husayn Hizabr al-Din Dawud b. Moore Collection
Yusuf
ris
702/1302 dated pen-box al-Malik al-Mu’ayyad Yemen London, Victoria and Albert Museum, inv. no 370–1897 115
Hizabr al-Din Dawud b.
Yusuf
&
704/1304 dated pen-box Paris, Louvre, inv. no 3621 116

708/1308 dated candlestick Boston MFA, inv. no 55.106 117

709/1309 dated ewer al-Hajj Muhammad ibn

C Paris, Louvre, inv. no OA 7427; ex-Delort de Gléon 118
al‘Amili o Collection

717/1317 dated candlestick ‘Ali b. ‘Umar b. Ibrahim al-Mawsili Athens, Benaki Museum, inv.no 13038 119
al-Sankari

718/1318 dated globe ‘Abd al-Rahman b. al-Mawsili Oxford, Museum of the History of Science, no 57- 120
(celestial) Burhan 84/181;ex-Chadenat Collection; ex-Billmeir Collection

723/1323 dated Qur’an box Ahmad b. Bara al-Mawsili Nasir al-Din Muhammad Egypt and Syria Cairo, Library of al-Azhar Mosque 121
Lt
table 1.1 b (cont.)
d
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

References, Table 1.1

1 Sourdel-Thomine 1971: 46–51, cat. no 2.

2 Wiet 1932: 171, no 43; RCEA vol. X: no 4026.
3 RCEA vol. X: no 3978; Rice 1953b: 69–79.
4 Hana Taragan forthcoming.
5 Sarre 1906: no 19.
6 RCEA vol. XI: no 4201; London 2005: 399–400, cat. no 87.
7 Lavoix 1878: 785; Ağa-Oğlu 1930c; Wiet Cuivres: 172, no 47.
8 Ağa-Oğlu 1930c.
9 Wiet 1932: 170, no 37; Ballian 2009.
10 Alexandria 1925: 77, cat. no 399; RCEA vol. X: no 3863; Rice 1953b: 61–65.
11 Mayer 1956: 59.
12 King 1996–97.
13 Allan 1982: no 6.
14 RCEA vol. XI: no 4241; Ward 2004: n. 47.
15 RCEA vol. X: no 3903; Rice 1957a: esp. 287–301; The Arts of Islam: 178, no 195; Paris 2001: 140, no 115.
16 Lanci 1845, vol. II: 124–25; Wiet 1932: 179, no 72; Rice 1953c: 232–38; The Arts of Islam: 177, cat. no 192.
17 Rice 1949; Rice 1957a: 317; Baer 1983: 27–28.

d
18 Corbin, Cottevielle-Giraudet and David Weill 1938: 194–95, cat. no 205; Mayer 1959: 83.
19 RCEA vol. XI: no 4361; Wiet 1932: 178, no 66; Cairo 1969: no 53; The Arts of Islam: 182–83; Paris 2001: 148, no 124; O’Kane 2006:

Lt
106–7, no 91.
20 Christie’s Art of the Islamic and Indian Worlds, London, 5 October 2010, lot 16.
21 Christie’s Art of the Islamic and Indian Worlds, London, 6 October 2011, lot no 129.
22 Rice 1957c: 495–500.
23 Ağa-Oğlu 1945: 38–44.

o
24 Wiet 1932: 170, no 40; RCEA vol. X: no 3924; Scerrato 1967: cat. no 38; Savage-Smith 1984: 218–9, cat. no 3; Paris 2001: 197.
25 RCEA vol. X: no 3960; Rice 1949: 339, n. 28; Rice 1957a: 317–19; al-Harithy 2001.
26
27
28
29
RCEA vol. X: no 3989; Mayer 1956: 29–30; Ward 2004.
Ağa-Oğlu 1930c; Rice 1953c: 229–32.
Scerrato 1968: cat. no 7, pp.7–12: Paris 2001: 51, no 43.
C
The ewer is dated Ramadan 1232, June–July 1232; Wiet Objets: 23, no 20; RCEA vol. X: no 3977; Rice 1953b: 66–9; Atıl 1975: no 26;
&
Atıl, Chase and Jett 1985: 117–24.
30 RCEA vol. XI: no 4046; Mayer 1959: 84–5; The Arts of Islam: 179, cat. no 196; Ward 1986.
31 Rice 1950b; Ward 1993: 80, Fig. 58.
32 Guzelian 1948.
ris

33 Apollo 1976: 38.

34 Lanci vol. II: 161; Migeon 1899; Wiet 1932: 181, no 77; Paris 1971: no 151; Paris 2001: 49, no 41.
35 Wiet 1932: 171, no 43; RCEA vol. X: no 4026.
36 RCEA vol. XI.1: no 4164; Rice 1957a: esp. 301–11; Paris 1971: no 150; The Arts of Islam: 181, cat. no 198; Paris 2001: 50, no 42.
37 Lane-Poole 1886a: 173–74, Fig. 80; RCEA vol. XI.1: no 4165.
au

38 Fehérvári 1968; Fehérvári 1976: 103–4, cat. no 129; Paris 2001: 143, no 118.
39 Christie’s London, 6 October 2009, lot 31.
40 RCEA vol. XI: no 4303; Wiet 1932: 66, app. no 58; ‘Izzi 1965; Paris 2001: 144, no 119.
41 Grabar 1961.
.T

42 RCEA vol. XI: no 4080; Mayer 1956: 30; Ward 2004 (correcting the date from 633 to 638AH).
43 Wiet 1932: 182, no 80; Mayer 1933: Pl. xxxiv.2.
44 Munich 1912,vol. II: Pl. 150; Wiet 1932: 175, no 5; RCEA vol. XI: no 4249.
45 Wiet 1958: 239–41; Paris 1971: no 153; Baer 1989: 10–13: Paris 2001: 144–5, no 120.
I.B

46 RCEA vol. XI: no 4202; Rice 1957a: 325, n. 12; Barrett 1949: p.xii, Pls 16–17; Savage-Smith 1980.
47 Allan 1986: 25–34, 66–69.
48 Mayer 1959: 88; Pevzner 1969.
49 Paris 1903: Pl. 15; Rice 1957a: esp. 311–16; Fehérvári 1976: 105, no 131; Paris 2001: 117, no 101.
50 Lane-Poole 1886: 171–72; Wiet 1932: 24, no 23; Ağa-Oğlu 1945: 33–34; Barrett 1949: Pl. 15c; Baer 1989: 7–10; Paris 2001: 113, no 96.
51 Wiet 1932: 24, no 25; 174, no 54; RCEA vol. XI: no 4249; Mayer 1959: 26–27.
52 Drouot-Richelieu, Paris, 25 September 1998, lot 5.
53 Rice 1950: 628; Kratchovskaya 1947; Grabar 1957.
54 Van Berchem 1906: 206; RCEA vol. XII: no 4456; Rice 1950b.
55 Lanci 1845 vol. II: 169ff; Munich 1910 (1912) vol. II: Pl. 145; Sarre 1906: 205–6; Sarre and van Berchem 1907; Rice 1950b; The Arts of
Islam: 180, cat. no 197.
56 RCEA vol. XI: no 4267.
57 Atıl 1975: no 25, with earlier bibliography; Atıl 1985: 137–47, cat. no 18; Baer 1989: 18–19; Paris 2001: 129.
58 RCEA vol. XI: no 4296; Mayer 1959: 40–41; Baer 1989: 17–18; Paris 2001: 116, no 99.
59 Sarre and Herzfeld 1911–20, vol. I: 21, no 22; vol.II: 269; vol.III: Pl.VIII; Mayer 1959: 88.
60 Wiet 1932: 70, 141–42, 185, no 70.
61 Alexandria 1925: Pl. 10; RCEA vol. XIII: 134–5, no 4992; Wiet 1932: 188, app. no 106; Allan 1986: 39–40, no 8.
62 Ballian 2009: 123–28.
63 RCEA vol. XIII: 135, no 4993; Wiet 1932: 66, 76,188, no 107; Allan 1986: 39–40, no 9.

65
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

64 Dimand 1931: 29–30; RCEA vol. XIII: no 5939; Dimand 1944: 151; Allan 1986: 39–40, no 12.
65 Wiet 1932: app. no 102; RCEA vol. XIII: 132, no 4988; Melikian-Chirvani 1970; Atıl 1981: 62, n. 3: Allan 1986: 39–40, no 11.
66 Wiet 1932: 188, app. no 109; RCEA vol. XIII: p.131, no 4987; Allan 1986: 39–40, no 10.
67 RCEA vol. XIII: 136–7, no 4995; Wiet 1932: 188, no 108; Allan 1986: 39–40, no 7.
68 Van Berchem 1904: 40–43; Wiet 1932: 71, 76, and app. no 104; RCEA vol. XIII: 133, no 4990; Allan 1986: list no 2.
69 Wiet 1932: 69–76, Pl. xlviii; RCEA vol. XIII: 130, no 4985; Atıl Renaissance: 62, n. 3; Allan 1986: 39–40, no 3.
70 Homberg Collection Sale Catalogue, Paris 1908: no 342 (ill.); RCEA vol. XIII: p.136, no 4994; Wiet 1932: 273; Allan 1986: 39–40, no 4
71 Wiet 1932: 103-4, Pl. xlvii; 186, no 101; RCEA vol. XIII: 130, no 4986; Allan 1986: 39–40, no 5.
72 Wiet 1932: 71, no 8; 187, no 105; RCEA vol. XIII: 134, no 4991, which says Collection Harari no 12; Atıl 1981: 62–63, cat. no 14: Allan
1986: 39–40, no 6; O’Kane 2006: Fig. 102.
73 Unpublished.
74 Wiet 1932: 13.
75 Van Berchem 1904: 23; RCEA vol. XI.2: no 4345; Mayer 1959: 41: with further bibliography.
76 Von Folsach 2001: 317, no 506.
77 Mayer 1959: 80.
78 Louisiana 1987: 91, cat. no 122; 62, pl.; Paris 1993: 469, no 373; Paris 2001: 148, no 125.
79 RCEA vol. XII: no 4439; Rice 1957a: Pl.13; Paris 2001: 147, no 123.
80 RCEA vol. XII, no 4454; Wiet 1931; Mayer 1959: 33–34; Scerrato 1966: 107, Fig. 42.
81 Louisiana 1987: 91, no 123: 26, pl.; Paris 2001: 149, no 126.

d
82 Lanci 1846–6, vol. II: 163; Melikian-Chirvani 1968.
83 Wiet 1932: 47; Rice 1955a: 206; Mayer 1959: 68–69; Atıl 1981: 57–58, cat. no 10; Ward 1995.

Lt
84 Gunther 1932: 238; Mayer 1956: 48.
85 Wiet 1931; RCEA vol. XII: no 4967; Harari 1938–39: 2497; Mayer 1959: 33–34.
86 Wiet 1931; RCEA vol. XII: no 4968; Harari 1938–39: 2497; Mayer 1959: 33–34.
87 Wiet 1932: 66, no 10; Mayer 1933: 84, Pl.xxx.1; RCEA vol. XIII: no 5109.
88 Wiet 1932: 137, Pl. XXXVII; RCEA vol. XIII: no 5094.

o
89 RCEA vol. XI.2: no 4363; Kühnel 1939.
90 RCEA vol. XI.2: no 4364; Kühnel 1939.
91
92
93
RCEA vol. XII: no 4708; Mayer; Pinder-Wilson. C
Van Berchem 1904; Wiet 1932: 183, no 84; Mayer 1959: 34–35; Rice 1957a: 325; Mayer 1959: 34–35; Allan 1986: 39–40, no 1.

Lane-Poole 1886: 174–77; Lane-Poole 1893–94: 905–6; Barrett 1949: Pl. 22; The Arts of Islam: 187, cat. no 210; Atıl 1981: 58–59, cat.
no 11.
&
94 van Berchem 1904: 36–37; Sobernheim 1905: 177–79; RCEA vol. XII: no 4729.
95 RCEA vol. XII: no 4727; Allan 2002: 20–21, cat. no 20; Los Angeles 2011: 70, Fig. 63, cat. no 85.
96 Cordier, 1898: 247; Lavoix 1878; Behrens-Abouseif 1995: 25–27, Pl. 14.
97 Al-‘Imary 1967: 133.
ris

98 Mayer 1959: 60; The Arts of Islam: 183, cat. no 202; Baer 1973–74; Atıl 1981: 61, no 13; Baer 1989: 188–89; Ward 1993: 90–91.
99 RCEA vol. XIII: no 4807; Wiet 1932: 185, no 94; Rice 1955a: 206; Mayer 1959: 35.
100 RCEA vol. XIII: no 4854; Mayer 1959: 35.
101 Wiet 1932: 186, no 96; Mayer 1959: 32–33.
102 Atıl 1981: 64–66, cat. nos 15–16.
au

103 Wiet 1932: 186, no 99.

104 Rice 1952b.
105 RCEA vol. XIII: no 5014; Mayer 1956: 83–84 (both with the erroneous date of 695).
106 Wiet 1932: 190, no 120; Mayer 1933: 79–80.
.T

107 RCEA vol. XIII: no 5012; Mayer 1956: 31.

108 Van Berchem 1904: 48–50, no v; Wiet 1932: 10, no 18; 194, no 143.
109 Wiet 1932: 9, no 17; 194, no 142.
110 Wiet 1932: 8–9, 189, no 110, Pl. xxx; Allan 1986: 49–50.
I.B

111 Wiet 1932: 135, Pl. xxviii; RCEA vol. XIII: no 5046; O’Kane 2006: no 143.
112 Mayer 1956: 82–83; Nürnberg 1983: 33–35, with a good colour illustration.
113 Dimand 1931: 230.
114 Atıl 1981: 80–81, cat. no 22, with bibliography.
115 Van Berchem 1904: 46–48; Dimand 1931: 230–34, 236; RCEA vol. XIII: no 5151.
116 RCEA vol. XIII: no 5181; Atıl 1981: no 23.
117 Los Angeles 2011: 57, Fig. 49, cat. no 80.
118 Wiet 1932: 20, no 37; 192, no 131.
119 Combe 1931: 51–52 (suggesting that it may have been made for Shams al-Din Salih, the Artuqid ruler of Mardin); Ballian 2009; Los
Angeles 2011: 67, cat. no 119 (where the nisbah is inccorectly given as Sunquri).
120 Mayer 1956: 31; Savage-Smith 1984: 247–48, cat. no 60, expresses doubts about the date.
121 Mayer 1959: 27; Atıl 1981: 87.

66
a) Date Object Artist Geographical Made Octagon/moon Dedicatee Collection
nisbah where

1200–25 ewer Ibrahim b. Mawa-liya- al-Mawsili Louvre

1220 box Isma’il b. Ward al-Mawsili Benaki

1232 ewer Qasim b. ‘Ali al-Mawsili Shahib al-Din Tughril Freer Gallery
al-Azizi

1232 ewer Shuja’ b. Man’a al-Mawsili Mosul octagon and moon British Museum

1225–50 candlestick Hajj Isma’il and al-Mawsili moon Cairo MIA

Muhammad b. Fattuh

1255 pen-box ‘Ali b, Yahya al-Mawsili Mosul David Collection

1233–59 basin Badr al-Din Lu’Lu’ Kiev

al-Malik al-Rahim

1233–59 box Badr al-Din Lu’Lu’ British Museum

al-Malik al-Rahim

1233–59 candlestick moon Badr al-Din Lu’Lu’ Hermitage

al-Malik al-Rahim

d
1245 tray octagon and moon Badr al-Din Lu’Lu’ Munich
al-Malik al-Rahim

Lt
1245 tray Badr al-Din Lu’Lu’ V&A
al-Malik al-Rahim

1248 door ‘Umar b. al-Khidr al-Badri Mosul

al-Maliki

o
1225–50 bowl Najm al-Din ‘Umar Bologna
al-Badri

1225–50 candlestick
C son of the Lord of
Mosul
Louvre

b)
&
1223 ewer Ahmad b. ‘Umar, al-Mawsili Cleveland
known as al-Dhaki

1238–40 basin Ahmad b. ‘Umar, al-Mawsili octagon al-Malik al-Adil II Sayf Louvre
known as al-Dhaki al-Din Abu Bakr
ris

1242 ewer Ahmad b. ‘Umar, al-Mawsili Keir Collection

known as al-Dhaki

1225 candlestick Abu Bakr b. al-Hajji al-Mawsili octagon Boston MFA

au

Jaldak

1226 ewer ‘Umar ibn Hajji Jaldak al-Mawsili octagon MET, New York

c) 1246 ewer Yunus b. Yusuf al-Mawsili octagon Walters Art

.T

Museum

1248 candlestick Dawud b. Salama al-Mawsili octagon Louvre

1225–50 candlestick octagon Nasser D. Khalili

I.B

Collection

1225–50 candlestick octagon Doha MIA

1225–50 candlestick octagon and moon MET, New York

1243 incense- octagon British Museum

burner

1225–50 box octagon ex-Christie’s

1245 pen-box Abu’l Qasim b. Sa‘d al-Is‘irdi octagon Louvre

bim Muhammad

1225–50 jug al-Wasiti octagon unknown

table 1.2 Inlaid metalwork attributable to Mosul: (a) items whose inscriptions
provide direct, contingent or circumstantial evidence of a connection
to Mosul (b) items by Ahmad al-Dhaki and his assistant Ibn Jaldak
(c) items that have no inscriptional evidence linking them to Mosul,
but include the octagon motif illustrated in Fig. 1.9.
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

Place Date Object Artist Dedicatee

Key
Damascus 655/1257 candlestick Husayn Muhammad Rasulid vizier
* The inscription indicates that the maker was
Damascus 657/1259 ewer Husayn Muhammad Ayyubid ruler
deceased.
Cairo 668/1269 candlestick Muhammad Hasan* anon. ** This is how the name is read in Dimand 1931, p. 324,
and RCEA vol. XIV, no 5454, which Mayer says is how
Cairo 674/1275–76 ewer ‘Ali Husayn Muhammad Rasulid ruler Martinovitch read it. However, it is given as Ahmad
Cairo 681/1282 candlestick ‘Ali Husayn Muhammad Imad al-Din eunuch b. Husayn by Mayer 1959: 29, and Atıl, Chase and
Jett 1985, cat. no 22: 80. The longer name has kindly
Cairo 684/1285–86 basin ‘Ali Husayn anon. been confirmed by Sheila Canby (correspondence
30 August 2011).
Cairo 1296–1322 tray Husayn Ahmad Husayn** Rasulid ruler

Damascus 1296–99 candlestick ‘Ali Kasirat Mamluk ruler

table 1.3 Al-Mawsili craftsmen documented in Cairo or

Damascus in the second half of the thirteenth century.

d
Lt
N otes

o
1 I write this article with a deep sense of indebtedness to James Allan, who has been my
C
teacher, mentor, colleague and friend. I hope he will accept it as a small token of thanks for
all his contributions to the study of Islamic metalwork, and for the inspirational lectures
he delivered on the subject in Oxford.
&
2 I owe special thanks to Robert Foy, who helped me in numerous ways, especially in
creating an illustrated database of documented items. Friends in numerous collections
ris

have been exceptionally obliging, providing information and images. In several cases, they
have spent a lot of time allowing me access to the objects, and for their patience and
generosity I would particularly like to thank: Venetia Porter at the British Museum; Tim
au

Stanley at the Victoria and Albert Museum; Sophie Makariou at the Louvre; Anatoli
Ivanov at the Hermitage; Stefan Weber at the Museum für Islamische Kunst, Berlin;
Sheila Canby at the Metropolitan Museum; Amy Landau at the Walters Art Museum;
.T

Laura Weinstein at the MFA, Boston; Bashir Mohamed on behalf of the Furusiyya
Foundation; and William Robinson and Sara Plumbly at Christie’s. Others have been
I.B

patient in dealing with enquiries and generous in supplying photographs. Here I would
like to thank Nahla Nassar at the Nasser D. Khalili Collection; Hélène Bendejacq at the
Louvre; Adel Adamova at the Hermitage; Jane Portal at the MFA, Boston; Ruth Bowler
at the Metropolitan Museum; Louise Mackie, Tehnyat Majid and Deirdre Vodanoff at
the Cleveland Museum of Art; Oliver Watson and Aisha al-Khater at the Museum of
Islamic Art in Doha; Dr Claudius Müller, then Director of the Staatliches Museum für
Volkerkunde, Munich; Kjeld von Folsach at the David Collection in Copenhagen; Bernard
O’Kane in Cairo; and Mariam Rosser-Owen and Moya Carey at the Victoria and Albert
Museum. I would also like to thank Rozanna Ballian of the Benaki for sending me a copy
of her recent article before it went to press. Sheila Blair was very generous in providing a
critique, but the remaining flaws are my responsibility.

68
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

3 Melikian-Chirvani 1974.
4 Given that a geographic sobriquet (nisbah) such as ‘al-Mawsili’ (a man from Mosul)
does not necessarily indicate that the respective individual was living in Mosul, I have
employed the term ‘Mawsili’ to refer to craftsmen who used the nisbah al-Mawsili
regardless of where they were active, and Mosuli only to those known to have been
based in Mosul itself.
5 Although Kashan ceramics include many dated objects, and a good number with
signatures, there are few instances where an artist signs himself ‘al-Kashani’; and there
are also few objects in the names of notables. On the other hand we do know a good deal
about family relationships (Sarre 1935; Watson 1985).
6 At about the time that Michelangelo Lanci (1845–46) published a good number of
silver-inlaid brasses of the thirteenth century, mostly from Italian collections, the eminent

d
collector and publisher in Paris Eugène Piot surprisingly said that he knew of only four

Lt
such objects (pace Reinaud’s publication of the Blacas Collection) (Piot 1844: 387). The
collection of the banker Louis Fould included by 1861 a sizeable number of examples of
inlaid metalwork, though the majority of these appear to have been fourteenth-century

o
Mamluk (Chabouillet 1861). The appeal of Islamic inlaid metalwork also lay in their
C
affiliation to the European azzimina tradition (see Lavoix 1862; Lavoix 1877: 27–28).
See also the contribution by Tim Stanley to this volume (Chapter 9).
7 The greater part of the collection was sold to the British Museum in 1866.
&
8 Cf. Rice 1957: 284.
9 Reinaud 1828; Lanci 1845–46 (the work was published, however, in only 125 copies).
ris

Lanci dedicated his study of a Kufic epitaph to Reinaud as a ‘dono di amicizia’ (Lanci
1819: esp. 4). See also Lanci 1845–46, vol. II: 107.
10 ‘Nous en avons vu de Nour-ed-din Mahmoud, de Salah-ed-din, de Masoud, de Zenghi,
au

de tous ces sultans qui vivaient à la fin du XIIe siècle’: Lavoix 1862: 66. There is a solar
quadrant inscribed to Nur al-Din Zangi, but it is not inlaid; see Casanova 1923; Paris
c.1993: 436.
.T

11 Lavoix 1878: 783. Cf. Lavoix 1885: 294, 296.

12 Lavoix 1878: 786. Lavoix’s dating was followed by van Berchem (1904: 22).
I.B

13 Lane-Poole 1886a: 151–200; Lane-Poole 1886b: 180–240; Lane-Poole 1893–94.

14 Lane-Poole 1886a: 159, 183–86; Lane-Poole 1886b: 189, 220–23.
15 Migeon played a major part in building the Louvre’s collection of inlaid metalwork:
Migeon 1899: 463. Cf. Henri Cordier 1898: 258.
16 Migeon (1899: 467–68) claimed two items in the Piet-Lataudrie Collection to be twelfth-
century Mosul work, but Friedrich Sarre (1903: 527–28) pointed out that the ewer of
1190 bears the name of the city of Nakhjavan in Azerbaijan, and the repoussé candlestick
belonged to a group all found in Iran. Cf. Migeon 1907: 179.
17 Migeon 1903: ‘Introduction’, 2–3 and Pls 9–22; Paris 1903: 15.
18 Differences occur in the attributions in the handlist and the commemorative album of the
1903 exhibition.

69
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

19 Sarre 1903: esp. 527–29.

20 Josz 1903: 818: ‘car rien n’est encore plus arbitraire que c’est classification’. Josz, who wrote
books on Watteau and Fragonard, even cited Migeon’s own doubts on the subject.
21 Van Berchem 1904: esp. 27ff.
22 Van Berchem 1904: 39–40. Three years later he claimed it was difficult to distinguish
‘Mosul’ from ‘Syro-Egyptian’ work, which suggests that he recognised the problems with
his classification (Sarre and van Berchem 1907: esp. 35.)
23 Van Berchem 1906: 210, n. 1; Sarre and van Berchem 1907: 33–37.
24 Van Berchem 1906: 210, n. 1; Sarre and van Berchem 1907: 33–37, esp. 35.
25 Sarre and van Berchem 1907: 18–19; cf. Sarre 1904: 49. See also Sarre and Mittwoch
1906: 12; cf. Sarre and van Berchem 1907: 35, n. 1.
26 Van Berchem 1904: 27ff; Migeon 1907: 165ff., see esp. 171–73; Migeon 1922: 16;

d
Migeon 1926: 34; Migeon 1927: 37–38.

Lt
27 Dimand 1926: 195; Dimand 1930: 110ff.; Dimand 1934: 18; Dimand 1941: 209;
Dimand 1944: 144–48.
28 Kühnel 1924–25: 100–1. Kühnel’s position evidently became more pro-Mosul with

o
time: Munich 1912, Text volume, unnumbered pages, but fifth page of section ‘Die
C
Metallarbeiten’, where he attributed some works to Aleppo; Kühnel 1925: 147; Kühnel
1971a: 169.
29 Cf. Kühnel 1939: 9; Dimand 1944: 148.
&
30 Dimand 1934: 18, 21; Dimand 1926: 196; Dimand 1930: 113; Kühnel 1939: 13–14.
31 Wiet 1932; Harari 1938–39.
ris

32 Rice 1957a: 320–21; Scerrato 1967: 8.

33 Ağa-Oğlu 1945: esp. 32, 35–37.
34 He did, however, know the ewer produced in Damascus in 1259; see Ağa-Oğlu 1945: 41.
au

35 Rice 1957: 286; van Berchem 1904: 33.

36 Rice 1949: 334.
37 Rice 1950b; Rice 1957a: 285.
.T

38 Rice 1957a: 320.

39 Rice 1957a: 320. The same graffito occurs, as Rice notes, on the other surviving object
I.B

by Ibn Jaldak, the ewer in the Metropolitan Museum. Alternative readings would be ‘the
harem of ‘Afif al-Muzaffari’ or ‘the wife of ‘Afif al-Muzaffari’. On the different meanings
of dar, see van Berchem 1903: 188; Wiet 1958: 245. See below, n. 40.
40 Rice 1949: 339.
41 Humphreys 1977: 173. He was not a eunuch, whereas Rice assumed ‘Afif was the eunuch
who supervised the harem.
42 Rice 1949: 339, n. 35.
43 Amedroz 1902: 804; Patton 1991, esp. 44–46, 87–88. The date of his father’s death is a
matter of dispute.
44 On Rasulid Muzaffars see van Berchem 1904: 71, n. 1. On Badr al-Din’s son, see Patton
1991, index, s.v. al-Muzaffar ‘Ali, ‘Ala al-Din b. Lu’lu’. One of the only inlaid medieval

70
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

items known to have been produced in San‘a was made for ‘Afif al-Dunya wa’l Din ‘Ali:
Wiet 1932: 49, and esp. 78–80, no 3259; 97, Pl. LXIV; Porter 1988: 229; Allan 1986e,
cat. p.37.
45 Rice (1957a: 319) compared it to several graffiti he termed ‘redundant’, where the
graffito refers to the person honoured in the vessel’s dedicatory inscription, and begins
with the phrase bi-rasm. Neither applies in this case, and these differences mean the
graffito may relate to a subsequent owner. The use of the phrase bi-rasm on graffiti is
complex. By itself it does not prove that the named individual was the original owner,
since it was often used to introduce the name of a later owner. Examples suggests
that, when used in grafitti, bi-rasm was necessary but not sufficient to indicate original
ownership; mutatis mutandis, the absence of bi-rasm was sufficient but not necessary to
indicate subsequent ownership.

d
46 Rice 1957a: 319.

Lt
47 In 1949 Rice thought al-Dhaki was working in Syria. In 1957 he proposed Syria or Egypt:
Rice 1957a: 311.
48 Rice 1957a, Pls 5 and 8. There are further contradictions in Rice’s argument, illustrated

o
by his discussion of the Blacas ewer (1957a, esp. 322), and I suspect that they may in part

49
C
result from unresolved changes prompted by an editor.
Rice assumed that inlaid objects with Christian motifs, such as the Homberg ewer, were
from Syria. He did not, however, invoke other pieces in his definition of a Syrian or
&
Egyptian style, such as the box in the Victoria and Albert Museum dedicated, like Ahmad
al-Dhaki’s Louvre basin, to al-Malik al-‘Adil II (Lane-Poole 1886a: 173–74 and Fig. 80;
ris

Lane-Poole 1893–94: 909).

50 The Blacas ewer uses a ‘straight’ and a ‘wavy’ version of the T-fret ground (Figs 1.4b and
1.4a, respectively). This is the earliest instance I know of the ‘wavy’ version.
au

51 These are rarely illustrated, but see Rice 1957a, Fig. 31a.
52 Rice 1957a: 320.
53 On the Louvre basin Ahmad al-Dhaki does not call himself ‘al-Mawsili’. His signature is
.T

in a key position on the outside of the basin, and it is even possible that such an object may
have been a gift from the artist himself (cf. Raby and Tanındı 1993: 89–90; Los Angeles
I.B

2011: 162–64, cat. 74).

54 See below, n. 76.
55 Also known as Occam’s Razor after the fourteenth-century Oxford scholar William of
Ockham.
56 Rice 1957a: 284, n. 9. Rice did not ask if al-Dhaki’s basin might have been an export or
a gift from Mosul, but he did wonder whether the Blacas ewer might have been made for
export ‘to be carried to princes’ and ‘designed to satisfy “foreign tastes”’, an idea he then
rejected (Rice 1957a: 322).
57 Rice 1952b: 573; Harari 1938–39: 2490, n. 3.
58 Muhammad b. Khutlukh al-Mawsili produced an incense-burner in Damascus, and a
geomantic table in 639/1241–42, but it has yet to be determined where that instrument

71
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

was made (see Table 1.1). If in Damascus too, he is the earliest of the Mawsili metalworkers
to be documented as having emigrated.
59 ‘Documentary’ here refers to objects with any combination of signatures, dedications and
dates, and Table 1.1 draws on the list of craftsmen compiled by Wiet (1932), Kühnel
(1939b), Rice (1957a: 286), Allan (1986: 39–40), and Auld (2009: 69–71).
60 The cautious expression ‘some 27’ reflects uncertainty over whether Isma‘il b. Ward and
al-Hajj Isma‘il were one and the same craftsman (see above, p. 24, and n. 68), and whether
Abu Bakr ibn Al-Hajji Jaldak and ‘Umar ibn Hajji Jaldak were the same person.
61 Acc. no 6/1997: von Folsach 2001: 317, no 506.
62 Kamal ibn Man‘a, for example, was a celebrated teacher of science, in particular geometry,
who was patronised by Badr al-Din Lu’lu’, though we do not know the family relationship
between him and Shuja‘: Patton 1991: 66. On some noted members of the family see Ibn

d
Khallikan (Paris 1842–45) vol. I: 90–92; II: 656–59; IV: 597–98.

Lt
63 RCEA vol. XI, no 4361; Wiet 1932: 178, no 66.
64 There are few dated candlesticks in Table 1.1 on which to build a morphology. However,
the body of Hajj Isma‘il’s and Muhammad ibn Fattuh’s candlestick has sides with a slight

o
curvature compared to the much straighter walls of Ibn Jaldak’s candlestick of 1225;
C
straighter sides seem to be a feature of the earliest examples and give way to slightly
curved walls in the 1230s. There are also some differences in the mouldings that relate to
candlesticks attributable to the 1230s and 1240s on stylistic grounds.
&
65 In 1953 Rice believed that Lanci’s attribution of Ibrahim ibn Mawaliya’s ewer to
Mosul had ‘much to commend it’ (Rice 1953b: 78), but he did not pursue the
ris

implications.
66 James 1980: 320. The number of months should read four not three.
67 James Allan accepts that Isma‘il ibn Ward worked in Mosul (1982: 56; 2009: 499).
au

68 His piety is not in doubt from the manuscript he copied later in life, but there he refers
to himself as a naqqash, and twice on the Benaki box to his work as naqsh. Al-Hajj Isma‘il,
however, takes credit for making (‘amal) the candlestick, not for inlaying it, which was
.T

done by Muhammad b. Fattuh: RCEA vol. XI, no 4361. Kühnel (1939: 10) wondered if
the two Isma‘ils were not one and the same person.
I.B

69 ‘Umar ibn Khidr al-Maliki al-Badri, whose nisbah clearly connects him to Badr al-Din
Lu’lu’, made a massive door for the shrine of Imam ‘Awn al-Din in Mosul in 646/1248–
49: RCEA vol. XI.2, no 4291; Sarre and Herzfeld 1911–20, vol. I: 21; vol. II: 269; vol.
III, Pl. viii. See Ward 2004: 349 on the multiple skills of some of the metalworkers of the
period, arguing against the assumption that metalworkers always specialised in only one
technique or material.
70 With regard to Najm al-Din, Rice (1957a: 285) overlooks his previous article on the
Bologna bowl (Rice 1953c: 232–38). However, Wiet (1932: 179, no 72) identified Najm
al-Din as a functionary of Badr al-Din.
71 Pace Corbin in Corbin, Cottevielle-Giraudet and David-Weill 1938: 194–95, cat. no 205;
Mayer 1959: 83.

72
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

72 Sarre and van Berchem 1907: 33–37, esp. 33; Sobernheim 1905, esp. 199. Kühnel (1939:
10) included Muhammad ibn ‘Absun (sic) in his list of Mosul metalworkers. Pace Rice
1950b: 634 and Mayer (1959), who did not include him in his Dictionary of Islamic
Metalworkers.
73 Van Berchem 1906: 205–6, and van Berchem 1978: 667–68.
74 As van Berchem (1906: 206, n. 1) observes, it does not mean it was made for Badr al-
Din’s buttery, which is, however, the way it is read in RCEA vol. XII: 38–39, no 4456.
It is worth noting that Rice’s reproduction of the graffito on the Badr al-Din Lu’lu’
tray in the Victoria and Albert Museum is a little misleading. It is clear that someone
originally wrote bi-rasm al-shara- b kha- nah al-malikı- and then altered it to al-malikiyya
al-badriyya.
75 Van Berchem (1906: 205) was unsure whether the reading should be ‘Absun or ‘Isun,

d
though subsequent scholars have mostly preferred ‘Absun. However, detailed photos

Lt
kindly provided me by Dr Claudius Müller make it clear that the reading should be ‘Isun.
as James Allan read the inscription in Allan 1976a: 180, cat. no 197. On the custom of
including inlaid metalwork in trousseaux in the Mamluk period, see Maqrizi 1853, vol. II:

o
105; Lane-Poole 1886: 165–66; cf. Ibn Battuta 1853–58, vol. I: 136.
76
77
Kratchkovskaya 1947: 19; Grabar 1957: 549. C
I am extremely grateful to Anatoli Ivanov for providing me with very useful images of this
basin.
&
78 Rice 1953c: 232: it ‘was made for the amir of an Ayyubid ruler and is almost certainly
Syrian’. Cf. Rice 1953b: 66–69. Atıl (1985: 117) expressly attributes it to Syria, though
ris

on p.120 she qualifies this: ‘it is more likely that Qasim ibn Ali worked in Syria, since his
patron, Shihab al-Din Tughril, was residing in Aleppo’; cf. Atıl 1975, no 26; cf. RCEA vol.
X, no 3977, with a faulty reading of the date.
au

79 Sauvaget 1941: 133; Rice 1953b: 68. Qasim ibn ‘Ali states he completed the ewer in the
month of Ramadan. For another afigural ewer, made by Iyas, see Rice 1953c: 230–32.
80 Ibn al-Adim-Blochet 1897: 82, 84. Tughril moved from the citadel to a residence opposite
.T

its main gate.

81 There was presumably a companion basin, but the only complete sets are those in Berlin
I.B

(Kühnel 1939b) and, arguably, in Tehran (Wiet 1931).

82 Rice 1953c: 234, where he also claims that this is ‘a set row of epithets which often appear
in the same sequence’. However, the only reference he gives is to the 1232 ewer. The
same combination of epithets but in the sequence al-‘ābid, al-zāid, al-wari‘ occur on two
tombstones from Mecca, one dated 592/1196 (Paris 2010: 514, cat. no 296), the other
627/1229 (RCEA vol. XI.1, no 4017). For the partial use of this group of epithets (al-
‘ābid, al-zāid without al-wari‘) on closely contemporary objects, see RCEA vol. XI.1: 117,
no 4176 (princely tombstone, Damascus c.642/1244); 172, no 4259 (tomb of mother
of Rum Seljuk sultan Kaykhusraw II, Kayseri, c.644/1246); cf. RCEA vol. XII: 155,
no 4633, anno 670/1271; RCEA vol. XIII: 206, no 5103, anno 700/1300. For a rare use
of some of these epithets (al-zāid, al-‘ābid) in an inscription referring to someone who was

73
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

not deceased, see RCEA vol. XII: 65, no 4488. The word al-wari‘ appears to occur in the
‘animated’ inscription of the Freer canteen. It is incorrectly given as al-wad‘ in Atıl, Chase
and Jett 1985: 124.
83 On al-Malik al-‘Aziz preferring the advice of younger companions, see Ibn Khallikan
1842–45, vol. IV: 432.
84 Patton 1991b: 85, n. 13.
85 Ibn Khallikan 1842–45, vol. II: 289.
86 A box now in Naples is inscribed in the name of al-Malik al-‘Aziz. In contrast to Tughril’s
ewer, its decoration includes lively figural scenes. On the basis of the titulature in the
dedicatory inscription, and the reference in a graffito to the Palace of Marble, which most
probably relates to the palace in the Citadel built by al-‘Aziz Muhammad in 628/1231,
Umberto Scerrato dated the box to between 1231 and 1233: Scerrato 1967, cat. 7: 7–12.

d
Two years earlier Scerrato (1966: 94, 107) dated it ‘circa 1230’, but without discussion of

Lt
the inscriptions. Where this box was made is not known. Whether it too was a present
from Mosul cannot be proved, but there were at least two major occasions when Badr
al-Din might have seen fit to send presents: one was when al-Malik al-‘Aziz assumed full

o
control of government in 629, or in Ramadan that year when his prospective bride, the

87
C
daughter of al-Malik al-Kamil, arrived from Cairo.
Pace Migeon 1900: 126, who believed the Barberini vase was produced in Syria, most
probably in Aleppo, as it is in the name of the Ayyubid al-Malik al-Nasir II Salah al-Din
&
Yusuf, who ruled Aleppo from 634/1237 until his death in October 1260. He failed to
notice, though, that Salah al-Din Yusuf was also ruler of Damascus from 648/1250, and
ris

that the ewer of 1259 was made for him in Damascus itself. Kühnel (1938: 24) attributes
another object, a candlestick in Istanbul dedicated to a Malik Ghiyath al-Din, to Aleppo,
but I suspect this is a misunderstanding of the inscription. The lack of evidence for
au

Aleppo producing inlaid metalwork compares vividly with the evidence for it producing
exceptional glassware. Cf. Auld 2009: 47.
88 Eddé 1999: 533; Ibn al-Shihna-Sauvaget 1933: 14; Sauvaget 1941: 150. Al-Nasir Yusuf
.T

was some seven years old when he acceded to the throne, and the regency was in the hand
of his grandmother Dayfa Khatun until her death in 1242. See Tabbaa 2000, esp. 19.
I.B

89 Al-‘Ubaydi 1970: 24, citing Ibn Kathir al-Bidāya wa’l-nihāya, vol. XIII: 214, anno 656.
90 Van Berchem 1906: 198 and van Berchem 1978: 660
91 On Mosul’s textiles, see von Wilckens 1989.
92 Patton 1991b: 96, quoting Qirtay al-‘Izzi al-Khizandari; cf. Patton 1991: 38.
93 Rice 1957a: 284. To get a sense of the comparative cost of such items, see Eddé 1999: 557.
94 Ibn Shaddad, Al-A‘lāq al-khat.ira fi dhikr umarā’ al-Shām wa’l Jazīra, Berlin Staatsbibliothek
Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung, MS Sprenger 199 (Ahlwardt, no 9800),
fol. 41a, line 18. Patton (1991: 85) translates ālāt as ‘articles’, Cahen (1934: 121) suggests
the 20,000 dinars were in addition to the presents. Every year between 649/1251 and
656/1258 Badr al-Din incorporated al-Nasir Yusuf ’s name on his coinage: Zambaur
1914: 153–57; Patton 1991: 46. See Maqrizi 1853, vol. II: 424, line 4.

74
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

95 This is most conveniently seen in the images in Atıl, Chase and Jett 1985: 117, 121,
Fig. 47. The handle of Qasim ibn ‘Ali’s ewer is slightly more fussy in the treatment of
the flanges that connect it to the body and neck, and in the round finial. Al-Dhaki’s
ewer is 36.5cm high, Qasim ibn ‘Ali’s 36.7cm, but the base of al-Dhaki’s has been
reworked.
96 Pace al-‘Ubaydi 1970: 174, scholars have ignored this octagon motif entirely, though its
possible importance was recognised in the auction catalogue entry for an inlaid metal
box sold at Christie’s London, Art of the Islamic and Indian Worlds, 6 October 2011,
lot 130. The motif appears in several different sizes, ranging from 16 to 33mm, including
sometimes on the same object. This suggests that it may have been worked from memory
rather than a cartoon. A related hexagon appears on other works, though these all appear
to be from the second half of the century. They include the ewer by ‘Ali ibn ‘Abdallah and

d
the candlestick made in Cairo in 1269, and it remains to be established what links, if any,

Lt
existed between these objects.
97 Despite a gap of seventy years, the layout of Dawud ibn Salama’s 1248 candlestick, with
two friezes of standing figures under lobed arcades framing the top and bottom of the

o
body, is closely echoed in the candlestick dated 1317 in the Benaki Museum (Combe
C
1931; Ballian 2009). As this was made in all probability for an Artuqid ruler of Mardin,
it seems likely that the schema was Mosuli, and that Dawud ibn Salama operated there
rather than in Syria, as is often assumed.
&
98 The candlestick in the Khalili Collection (see n. 138) has the same form of elaborate
arcading as the 1225 Ibn Jaldak candlestick in Boston; it also has figures against a plain
ris

ground, and figures arranged in several registers, sometimes with diminutive figures in a
lively scene in the bottom register; and both these candlesticks have a frieze of chasing
animals on the lower skirt. Both the Khalili and the Doha candlestick with a frieze of
au

mounted warriors, to be discussed later, are framed top and bottom by an inscriptional
band in knotted Kufic, punctuated by the octagon. There are knotted inscriptional bands
in the same positions on the Ibn Jaldak candlestick, but the Kufic is plainer and the hastae
.T

terminate in human heads. The candlestick in the Metropolitan Museum has a knotted
Kufic inscription but it encircles the middle of the body; overall, this candlestick is more
I.B

elaborate, and may date to a decade or so later than the others, as its ground displays a
similar ‘wavy T-fret’ as the upper body of the Blacas ewer of 1232.
99 Is it possible that the octagon served to indicate a level of status in the guild or workshop,
which would explain why it was not used by Muhammad ibn Fattuh, who was a hireling
(ajir)? It is clear, however, from Ahmad al-Dhaki’s work that a craftsman was not obligated
to use it.
100 Muhammad ibn Khutlukh is known for an incense-burner that he produced in Damascus,
but it seems likely that he was primarily a maker of scientific instruments such as the
geomantic table he made in 639/1241–42, as he introduces his name on both objects
with the word san‘at (work of ). This was used on objects whose ‘dimensions were based on
mathematical or astronomical calculations’, and was thus standard on instruments such

75
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

as astrolabes, but highly uncommon on table and other metalwares (Rice 1953c: 230; but
cf. Baer 1983: 339, n. 238). On Muhammad ibn Khutlukh, see Allan 1986: 66–69, cat.
no 1. Iyas also uses san‘at on his ewer of 627/1229–30, in which he records that he was
the ghulam of ‘Abd al-Karim ibn al-Turabi al-Mawsili, whom Rachel Ward has forcefully
argued was likely to have been the astrolabe-maker ‘Abd al-Karim al-Misri (Ward 2004:
248. See also below, n. 152).
101 It remains unclear whether al-Hajj Isma‘il is to be identified as Isma‘il b. Ward. See above,
p. 24 and n. 68.
102 Christie’s London 2009, lot 31.
103 Dimand 1926: 196; Dimand 1934: 16, 21; Kühnel 1939: 14–19; see also van Berchem
1906: 201; Karabacek 1908: 16.
104 Ağa-Oğlu 1945: 42–43; Rice 1957a: 321.

d
105 The relief rosette does not occur on the ewer by Qasim ibn ‘Ali. It has been queried

Lt
whether the current base is original, as it is poorly formed, but it has the same analytical
composition as the body (Atıl, Chase and Jett 1985: 122). Nor does the rosette occur
on the base of the ewer in the name of Abu’l Qasim Mahmud ibn Sanjarshah (see

o
Table 1.1). James Allan in his discussion of this ewer notes a 12-petal rosette, but
C
this refers to the entire base which is gadrooned, rather than to a small central relief
rosette on a stem (Allan 1982a: 54). The origins of the Mosul rosette may trace back
to Herat, as the Bobrinsky bucket has, in the centre of its base, a small disk on a stem,
&
with decorative petals inlaid with alternating cooper and silver petals rather than the
repoussé petals seen in the Mosul group: Glück and Diez 1925: 451, ill. For two later
ris

versions of the relief form of rosette, the first with eight lobes, the second with ten,
see the mosque lamp produced in Konya in 679/1280–81 (Rice 1955a, esp. Pl. 1)
and the underside of the Mamluk incense-burner made for Sultan Muhammad ibn
au

Qalawun (Allan 1982a: 86–89, cat. no 15). A similar-looking rosette is used as a finial
on an intriguing domed casket in the Furusiyya Art Foundation (Etude Tajan, Paris,
Art Islamique, 7 November 1995, lot 365). This object deserves fuller study. It is an
.T

unusual form, yet carries banal inscriptions of the Ibrahim ibn Mawaliya type (see the
following note).
I.B

106 On inscriptions that consist overwhelmingly of blessings, see Baer 1983: 208–12,
though she does not identify the peculiarities of the Mawsili group. The inscriptions
on the ewer by Qasim ibn ‘Ali and on the Freer canteen are related to, but simpler than,
what we might call the ‘Ibrahim b. Mawaliya type’ (Atıl, Chase and Jett 1985: 118,
124). Those on the ewer in the name of Abu’l Qasim Mahmud ibn Sanjarshah, which
Allan has attributed to the workshop of Ibrahim ibn Mawaliya (Allan 1982a: 54–57,
cat. no 6), are even simpler variants. Intriguingly, the Blacas ewer and the candlestick by
Muhammad b. Fattuh have banal inscriptions that differ from the ‘Ibrahim ibn Mawaliya
type’ (Allan 1976a: 179, cat. no 196; The Arts of Islam: 182, cat. no 200). Few catalogues
of such inscriptions have been published, but nothing similar is to be found in Sarre and
Mittwoch 1906, with the exception of p. 25, cat. no 53 (B147). In Melikian-Chirvani’s

76
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

catalogue of Iranian metalwork in the Victoria and Albert Museum, there are only three
inscriptions of this type. Cat. 72 is on a cast brass stem-bowl that Melikian-Chirvani
attributes to West Iran in the second or third quarter of the thirteenth century; James
Allan (1977c: 160) initially supported this attribution, but for his re-attribution of the
type to Anatolia or the Jazira, see Allan and Maddison 2002: 80, cat. no 25; see also
Rice 1955b: 14 on the example in Naples, which, it turns out, has a banal inscription of
the ‘Ibrahim ibn Mawaliya type’ (Scerrato 1967: 2–3, cat. 2). The two other items are
a candlestick and a ewer (respectively, V&A inv. nos 333–1892; 381–1897, Melikian-
Chirvani 1982: 166–73, cat. no 74–75); Melikian-Chirvani attributes both to western
Iran, and relates their inscriptions to items found in the Baznegerd hoard, found near
Hamadan (see esp. 172). Intriguingly, both these items make extensive use of the seated
figure holding a crescent moon. See Ağa-Oğlu 1945: 43, n. 132. The only instances of

d
the ‘Ibrahim ibn Mawaliya type’ of banal inscription cited by Lanci (1845–46, vol. II:

Lt
124, 129, 145) are from items signed by Mawsili artists or, in the case of the Bologna
bowl, here attributed to Mosul. See also Reinaud 1828, vol. II: 420–21, and Mittwoch
in Sarre 1905: 86.

o
107 Another connection can be found in what Rice (1957a: 295) described as ‘probably the
C
most remarkable among the unusual scenes of the Cleveland ewer’ – ‘a youth nonchalantly
reclining on a couch’. The same scene (Fig. 1.12b) can be found on the shoulder of the
candlestick in the Metropolitan Museum, inv. no 1891 91.1.563, which I have connected
&
to Mosul (see p. 45 and Figs 1.20 and 1.21).
108 Ettinghausen and Grabar 1987: 366; Ettinghausen, Grabar, Jenkins-Madina 2001: 247–
ris

48. Cf. Ağa-Oğlu 1945: 41.

109 Kühnel (1939: 11) says he is ‘Enkel von nr. 12 oder Neffe von Nr. 14’.
110 Husayn’s ewer was made in 657/1259 for the ruler of Aleppo and Damascus, al-Malik
au

al-Nasir II Salah al-Din Yusuf (r.1237–60). (Following Lavoix 1878: 786, van Berchem
[1904: 22] gives the date of the ewer as 659AH). The candlestick was made in 655/1257
for a Taj al-Din Abu Durr Badr, who has been identified as an amir of the Rasulid Sultan
.T

al-Malik al-Muzaffar Shams al-Din Yusuf. Abu Durr Badr actually died in 654AH,
but presumably news took time to reach Damascus from the Yemen. ( James Allan in
I.B

Louisiana 1987: 62 and 91, cat. no 62; Paris c.1993: 469, cat. no 373; Paris 2001: 148,
cat. no 125.) On Taj al-Din Badr’s architectural patronage in Yemen, see Giunta 1997:
123–30. On features of its main script, see below, p. 42 and Fig. 1.16. The Kufic on the
shaft of the neck of Husayn’s candlestick shares a number of idiosyncrasies with that on a
candlestick in the MFA Boston, acc. no 38.19. In turn the Boston candlestick relates in its
decoration to an unpublished candlestick in the Hermitage. The knotted Kufic friezes in
Fig. 1.15 are paralleled, however, by a band on the massive Ilkhanid basin in Berlin: Sarre
and Mittwoch 1904, Fig. 2; Enderlein 1973, Tafel 2.
111 Allan 1986: 49–50; Allan in Louisiana 1987, cat. no 122; Ward 1993: 26.
112 On ‘Ali ibn Husayn’s 1282 candlestick and 1285 basin the medallions are bordered by
thin frames.

77
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

113 James Allan in Louisiana 1987: 91, cat. no 123; see also Paris c.1993: 467. The titles ‘al-
Muzaffari’ and ‘al-Mansuri’ appear in that order, and suggest that the unnamed dedicatee
was connected to both sultans and that the object must therefore post-date 1259, while
the lack of the word maliki suggests that both were deceased. I wonder, therefore, if so
much importance should be placed on the graffito khizanat nuriyya Hasan ibn Ayyub,
which has been taken to indicate that the basin was made for the treasury of al-Mansur
Nur al-Din, and is thus datable to 1257–59. A further difficulty is that the inscription on
the exterior refers to the dedicatee as al-Mu’ayyadi. The Rasulids were ruled by al-Mansur
(1229–50), al-Muzaffar (1250–95), and al-Mu’ayyad (1296–1322), but the object surely
cannot belong to the first quarter of the fourteenth century stylistically.
114 Sobernheim 1905: 177–9; van Berchem 1904: 36; Mayer 1933: 190–91.
Cairo MIA no 15153 (ex. Harari no 12): see RCEA vol. XIII, no 4991; Atıl 1981: 62–63,

d
115
cat. no 14; O’Kane 2006, Fig. 102. Atıl dates the tray to circa 1290, but it more probably

Lt
dates to the third quarter of the century, a conclusion also reached by Ballian (2009).
116 Baltimore, Walters Art Museum, acc. no 54.526, unpublished. New York, Metropolitan
Museum of Art, acc. no 91.1.603. The basin now in Doha was formerly in the Nuhad

o
es-Said Collection, see Allan 1982a: 76–79, cat. no 12, where it is attributed to Syria

117
1240–60. C
Sobernheim 1905: 177–79; van Berchem 1904: 36; Mayer 1933: 190–91.
118 For the Lyon candlestick, see Melikian-Chirvani 1970: 46–53 (see also RCEA vol. XIII,
&
no 4988). For the undated Munich basin, Sarre and van Berchem 1907. For a basin in
Palermo, Spallanzani 2010: 121, Pl. 2. Melikian-Chirvani (1970: 148) emphasises the
ris

similarity in shape between the Lyon candlestick and that decorated by Muhammad b.
Fattuh in 1232. Ballian (2009) notes the use of Y-fret on a basin in the Benaki Museum,
perhaps made for the Rasulid al-Muzaffar Yusuf.
au

119 On the Boston basin (acc. no 50.3627), see Ward 2004: 353–54. She suggested it was
made for Shihab al-Din Ghazi, ruler of Mayyafariqin (d.1247), and was later reworked
for al-Nasir Yusuf II (d.1260). The main inscriptions have been tampered with, but there
.T

is a diminutive Kufic inscription on the interior which carries the full name and titles of
Sultan Qalawun. I hope to publish this in the near future, and am extremely grateful to
I.B

Laura Weinstein for allowing me to study it.

120 It occurs on the Barberini vase in the Louvre, which was made for the Ayyubid al-Malik
al-Nasir Salah al-Din Yusuf of Damascus and Aleppo, who died in 1260 (see Table 1.1a).
It can also be traced back to earlier work in Mosul, such as the Freer canteen; and Eva Baer
(1972) has shown how it was used over an extended period in both Iran and the Near
East in various media. Characteristic of this family’s work in both Damascus and Cairo is
a narrow border with an animal chase which is arguably distinctive in its choice of animals
and in the extreme elongation of their bodies. (There is no detailed study of this, but see
Baer 1983: 178–79; cf. Rice 1957a: 323; ‘Izzi 1965: 257, 259, Figs 10, 11.)
121 A candlestick in the Furusiyya Art Foundation can be attributed to ‘Ali ibn Husayn’s
workshop, as it uses similar ‘static’ roundels against a T-fret ground, though it differs in

78
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

having an inscriptional band running around the middle of the body. It must be close
in date to the 1282 candlestick, and was presumably also made in Cairo. However, the
script on the candlestick in the Furusiyya Art Foundation shows affinities to the examples
in Fig. 1.16, including the Lajin candlestick. This raises questions about whether these
examples should be attributed to Cairo rather than Damascus, or whether the same form
of scripts was used in both cities. This was perfectly possible, as both cities may have had
workshops that ultimately traced back to Husayn ibn Muhammad. Sotheby’s London,
Islamic Works of Art, Carpets and Textiles, 14 October 1987, lot 387.
122 Atıl 1981: 80–81, cat. no 22, with bibliography. This pictorial mode is well illustrated by
the boating scene on the inside base of a large basin in the Victoria and Albert Museum,
acc. no 2734-1856. The basin is not fully published, but see Lane-Poole 1893–94: 909;
Baer 1977: 329 and Fig. 21; Baer 1983: Fig. 195.

d
123 Allan 2009: 502, col. 2.

Lt
124 Baer 1983: 181, 184–85, Fig. 159 for the Muhammad ibn Fattuh candlestick; Atıl 1981:
57–8, cat. no 10 for the 1269 candlestick. When scrollwork ending in animal heads was
replaced by flying ducks is yet to be determined precisely, but it was certainly by the 1290s.

o
On misguided attempts to read the duck as the ‘armes parlantes’ of Sultan Qalawun, see

125
Mayer 1933: 7, 10, 26. C
It would seem from the prominent position of this motif on this candlestick, and its
recurrence on works by later generations of this family, that it may have held some
&
significance for them, but it is probably far-fetched to think that the eagle-and-duck was
an allegorical motif (like canting arms in heraldry) referring to Muhammad’s father’s
ris

name, Fattuh, which means ‘Little Victor’. For details of this motif on this candlestick,
see Baer 1983: 171 and Figs 142, 159.
126 Characteristic of these inscriptions is the use of ‘hanging’ letters; the lam of the lam–alif has
au

a short, strongly curved base, while the lower part of the alif is tangent, not conjunct. The
horizontal return of the kaf is set about one-fifth of the way down the hasta, and has a slight
concave swing. The terminal ya can be compact, with a reflex tail that angles back acutely.
.T

127 Atıl 1981: 80–81, cat. no 22.

128 Allan 1982a: 54–57, cat. no 6.
I.B

129 British Museum, acc. no 1954 0215 1.

130 Christie’s London 2011, lot no 129.
131 Louvre, acc. no OA 7439.
132 Rice 1949; Rice 1957a: 323.
133 Doubts have been raised about the connection of this manuscript with Badr al-Din Lu’lu’,
but, first, the scribe of at least volumes I to XI styles himself, in the colophon to volume
XI, as al-Badri; second, on the frontispieces to volumes XI, XVII, XIX and XX the main
figure wears tiraz bands that read Badr al-Din Lu’lu’ with or without bin ‘Abdallah. Bishr
Farès (1948, also 1953–54) queried the date of these inscriptions (see the rebuttal by
Stern 1957), but he overlooked the braided frame surrounding the frontispiece of volume
XVII, which has undecorated squares in its four corners that are inscribed, anti-clockwise

79
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

starting top right: (1) Badr (2) al-Din (3) Lu’lu’ (4) bin ‘Abdallah. This is a highly
unusual feature, and there is little doubt that the scheme and inscriptions are original.
See Rice 1953a: 130, and Fig. 18. (The frame inscriptions read more clearly in colour:
see Sourdel-Thomine and Spuler 1973, Pl. XXX.) On the turbulent period during
which this manuscript was being produced, when Lu’lu’ was fighting for survival, see
Patton 1991: 16ff.
134 Cf. for example, the central scene of an enthroned figure flanked by flying genii holding
a canopy or veil over his head (Rice 1957a: 288 and Fig. 3) and Farès 1948, Pl. XI. Note
too the unusual figure of the courtier looking away from the enthroned figure.
135 For a selection of such images, see Nassar 1985, Fig. 2. On the scene where the ruler is
seated in three-quarter pose, and having his hand kissed in obeisance, see Rice 1953a: 134.
On the candlestick in the Metropolitan Museum in New York, acc. no 1891 91.1.563, see

d
Dimand 1926; Dimand 1944: 146–47; Baer 1983: 264–65.

Lt
136 Some of the silver inlay has fallen out, making it possible to see that the ground has been
pitted where the long beard would have been, indicating that the silver inlay would have
been worked to highlight the beard.

o
137 British Museum, acc. no OA 1969 9–22 1: Baer 1983: 147, Fig. 124. Auld 2009: 62

138
C
attributes it to the Mamluk period. On the painting, see Farès 1955, Pl. III.
A relationship with miniature painting may have extended beyond a link to frontispieces:
scenes on a candlestick in the Nasser D. Khalili Collection (MTW 1252) have been linked
&
to narrative painting: Paris 2001: 140–41, cat. no 114; Auld 2009: 56–58. Fehérvári
(1976: 96) compares the enthronement scene on the Keir Collection candlestick to those
ris

in the Kitab al-Aghani, but it is considerably different in style and dates from the early part
of the fourteenth century (pace al-Harithy 2001: 366).
139 Dimand 1934. In subsequent studies boundaries of place and patronage and even sectarian
au

meaning became increasingly porous, and two of the most recent interpretations have
centred on the notions of porosity, liminality and portability – an object of no fixed abode.
Schneider 1973; Katzenstein and Lowry 1983; Baer 1989, passim; Khoury 1998; Hoffman
.T

2004. See Ecker and Fitzherbert 2012. This is not the place for a detailed discussion,
but I would contend that the imagery does not reflect a pan-sectarian concordat as some
I.B

have implied; the imagery on the rear of the canteen has a polemic cast, with the outer
band depicting the Annunciation followed by 25 saints, several of them military saints,
while the inner band depicts not a friendly tourney (pace Schneider 1973) but a mounted
battle between Muslims and Crusaders, who are clearly identifiable by their surcoats and
pennants (Baer 1989: 46). For comparable scenes of Christian and Muslim knights in
combat, see Paris 2003: 168, cat. nos 129–30. Some have doubted that the canteen shows
a battle, but I find it difficult to accept this as a tourney or a parade when several of the
figures are shooting crossbows. A more detailed rendering of a comparable scene occurs
on a candlestick now in Doha (see below, n. 151, and Fig. 1.25), and there arrows can be
seen flying. The two bands can be seen as complementary, one conveying a heavenly, the
other the mundane, protection of the Christian community. The presence of Crusaders

80
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

does not imply that the object must have been made in Syria, as Crusaders were a known
sight to some Mosulis, since there was a settlement of Mosul merchants in the Crusader
town of Acre in the thirteenth century, and, according to Fiey, Badr al-Din even allowed
the crusading army of St Louis to enter Mosul with pennants flying (Fiey [1959]: 46, but
with no reference).
The evidence of form, iconography and style suggests that the canteen was not an object
with generalised Eastern Christian imagery, nor a portable object made for a Christian
client in Syria. Its imagery has strong links to that employed by the Syrian Jacobites of
northern Iraq and eastern Turkey. It was more likely, then, to have been produced in
Mosul rather than Syria where the Syriac Orthodox church enjoyed a limited presence
at this time (Snelders 2010: 74, esp. no 20). The form of the canteen has encouraged
scholars to label it a ‘pilgrim flask’, and to assume that the deep hole on the rear was to

d
attach it to a pommel or a pole. There are, though, good structural reasons against this,

Lt
and an alternative explanation is that the recess was intended to receive a glass reliquary,
presumably intended to bless the large quantity of liquid contained by the canteen (see
Ecker and Fitzherbert 2012). The canteen weighs 5kg, and, with a capacity of 3.6 US

o
gallons, it would weigh 13.6kgs if filled with water, making a total of 18.6kg or 41lbs, a
C
very substantial weight for an allegedly portative object. (I owe thanks to Blythe McCarthy
for the information on the capacity.) The size of the canteen seems excessive if it contained
water, as it could have been refilled with comparative ease, while its remarkable state of
&
preservation suggests it was used infrequently and with care. The neck, which has an
internal filter, seems small in comparison to the body, suggesting that the liquid was to be
ris

dispensed sparingly. With such a large capacity, the canteen most likely contained a liquid
that would remain stable over a long period, such as an oil. An alternative explanation,
then, is that it was intended to hold a precious liquid such as chrism (Gk Myrrhon).
au

140 Baer (1994) argues for a more diverse set of sources.

141 Respectively, British Library Add. 7170; Vatican MS. Syr. 559. Leroy 1964: 280, 310–13;
and on the revised dating of the Vatican MS from Anno Graecorum 1531 to 1571/1219–
.T

20 to 1260, see Fiey 1975 and Brock 2002. For a full discussion, see Snelders 2010,
Chapter IV. It is still a matter of debate whether the London lectionary was produced at
I.B

Deir Mar Hananiya near Mardin, as Leroy proposed, or in or near Mosul.

142 The pictorial origin of another of the scenes – Christ’s entry into Jerusalem – is more
complex than has previously been assumed (Fig. 1.23), but here too the derivation is from
a Jacobite lectionary cycle, though the only known exemplar dates from the early eleventh
century and originates from near Mardin (British Library MS.Or.3372). This lectionary
has traditionally been dated to the twelfth or thirteenth century, but can now be definitively
attributed to the nephews of John of Qartmin, who was consecrated Bishop in 988 or a
decade later (see Brock and Raby forthcoming). The Monastery of Qartmin (Mar Gabriel)
is in the Tur ‘Abdin. This newly established dating and provenance means that there is
no immediate connection with Mosul in the thirteenth century. Yet a closer look at the
image on the canteen reveals links to the Mar Mattai manuscript, even if not directly.

81
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

If we reverse the image on the canteen and flatten out its curvature, the similarities and
contrasts between it and the scene in Or.3372 become more obvious still. (I would like
to thank Robert Foy for adjusting the images to make this comparison clearer.) The
principal difference is in the rendering of the building and its occupants. The building on
the canteen bears a close resemblance, though, to that shown in the entry into Jerusalem
in both the British Library lectionary datable to 1216–20 and the Mar Mattai lectionary
in the Vatican. Fig. 1.23 is a composite image that combines sections from the entry into
Jerusalem from Or.3372 and from the Mar Mattai lectionary. Liberty has been taken in
removing the tier of nimbed spectators in an upper window, but the result reveals how
closely related the building in the Mar Mattai manuscript is to the version on the Freer
canteen, and that even the posture of the hands of the front figure inside in the building
is similar. (The front figure in both manuscripts does not, however, carry a child on his

d
shoulders, as on the canteen.) This suggests that the craftsman who decorated the canteen

Lt
relied on a later derivative of Or.3372 that was closer in date and milieu to the Vatican
manuscript, that is to the Mosul region in the first half to mid-thirteenth century. This
derivative may also have included the Z-meander border which appears on both Or.3372

o
and the Freer canteen.
143 C
The flabellum in the Musée Royal de Mariemont in Belgium was published by Leroy 1974–
75, and recently by Snelders 2010: 104–50, with further references; he also publishes the
stone sculpture found in Mosul in 2005 (115–16). The second flabellum has, however,
&
been largely overlooked. It is in the Louvre, acc. no OA 7947; see St Petersburg 2008:
338, cat. no 251. On the close relations between the monasteries of the Mosul region and
ris

the Deir al-Suriani, see Snelders 2010: 127 ff., esp. 138–48, 194 on the political role the
Deir al-Suriani played in the schism affecting the Syriac community in the Jazira.
144 It is intriguing, however, that in the twelfth century – presumably some time between his
au

ordination in 1126 and his death in 1165 – Bishop John of Mardin ordered metal objects,
described as exceptional, not from Mosul but from Alexandria: Assemani 1719–28,
vol. II: 225.
.T

145 As already noted by Marian Wenzel in Sotheby’s London 1992, lot no 52.
146 The canteen has three roundels containing a seated figure holding a crescent moon, and
I.B

while the significance of this motif remains uncertain, it certainly occurs on several objects
of undoubted Mosul provenance (cf. Table 1.2a–c).
147 Muqaddasi-de Goeje: 145 (see also Lombard 1974: 166); Amedroz 1902: 787.
148 Allan 1976/77.
149 I hope to return to these two topics in another article. On Siirt as a metalworking
centre, see Allan 1977, Allan 1978, Allan 1982: 58–61 and Allan 2009: 499, col. 1;
cf. Atıl 1972; Soucek 1978, cat. nos 69–70; Melikian-Chirvani 1985. However, their
discussion is not primarily focused on the items signed by al-Is‘irdi craftsmen: see
Pevzner 1969.
150 By far the earliest evidence for brass inlaid with silver from Syria in this period is an
unusually large astrolabe made in Damascus in 619/1222–23 for al-Malik al-Mu‘azzam

82
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

‘Isa. It was constructed (sana‘ahu) by ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Sinan al-Ba‘labakki al-Najjar,
and the inlay work (ta‘tim) was signed by al-Siraj al-Dimashqi, a muezzin and himself
a maker of astrolabes. The positions of the markings were done by ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn
Abi Bakr al-Muqawwim al-Tabrizi. Three other examples of al-Siraj/Sarraj al-Dimashqi’s
work are known (King 1996–97; Mayer 1956: 83; van Cleempoel 2005: 210–16, for an
astrolabe made in Damascus in 628/1230–31, though it is not silver-inlaid). Whether
‘Abd al-Rahman al-Ba‘labakki had any connection with Mosul is not known, but his
Syrian contemporary, the celebrated mathematician, architect, engineer and globe-maker
Qaysar ibn Abi’l Qasim studied in Mosul with one of the greatest polymaths of the era,
Kamal al-Din ibn Yunus ibn Man‘a, who could have been a relative of Shuja‘ ibn Man‘a, the
maker of the Blacas ewer (see above, n. 62). In 622/1225–26 Qaysar made a globe for the
Ayyubid al-Malik al-Kamil Muhammad, inlaying the inscriptions in silver: Wiet 1932:

d
170, no 40; RCEA vol. X, no 3924; Mayer 1956: 80–81; Scerrato 1967, cat. no 38, who

Lt
provides a photograph of the inscription; Savage-Smith 1985: 218–19, cat. no 30. From
either the mid-century or the end of the century al-Sahl al-Naisaburi made an astrolabe
with silver-inlaid figures on the rete for a ruler of Hama with the title al-Malik al-Muzaffar

o
(Mayer 1956: 82–83, assigning it to the ruler from the close of the century; the object is
C
reproduced in colour in Bott, Willers, Holzamer 1983, cat. no 2; but see David King in
Paris c.1993: 432–34 for issues on the dating). Ibrahim al-Dimashqi 669/1270 made an
astrolabe, a plate of which is now in the British Museum (acc. no 90 3-15 3), but he only
&
inlaid the star points.
151 Allan 1986: 66–69, cat. no 1.
ris

152 See n. 100 above on ‘Abd al-Karim ibn al-Turabi al-Mawsili and Iyas, who produced an
inlaid ewer. (Cf. Baer 1983: 339, n. 242 on an astrolabist who made the cover of a pen-
box). If ‘Abd al-Karim ibn al-Turabi al-Mawsili and ‘Abd al-Karim al-Misri were one
au

and the same person, as Rachel Ward has argued (2004b), it is instructive: he is the only
Mawsili metalworker of the thirteenth century to employ a nisbah that indicated a royal
affiliation. In fact, he worked for no less than three Ayyubid princes, all brothers, his
.T

soubriquet ‘al-Misri’ referring not to Egypt but to his peripatetic attachment to different
regional centres and royal encampments (sing. misr). He illustrates how some makers of
I.B

scientific instruments may have enjoyed a closer connection to court circles, especially if
they were astrologers, whereas metalworkers in general belonged to a craft that ranked
low in status, lower than textile workers, for example. Indeed, it is conspicuous how
few of the Mawsili metalworkers in the first half of the thirteenth century signed works
for noted patrons. It seems likely that they operated on a market system rather than in
a court environment. At almost the same time that al-Siraj al-Dimashqi was inlaying
his astrolabe in Damascus, a craftsman who signs himself al-Ibari (the needle-maker)
al-Isfahani inlaid an astrolabe that prefaces, in its use of larger sheets of silver and, in
particular, incised linear detailing, Mosul work of the 1230s and 1240s. Although it is
not known where al-Ibari was working, the coincidence of production by a Dimashqi
and an Isfahani should caution us against assuming that Mosul somehow enjoyed a

83
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

monopoly on inlay work. Muhammad b. Abi Bakr b. Muhammad al-Rashidi al-Ibari

al-Isfahani in 618/1221–2: Gunther 1932, vol. I: 118–21, cat. no 5 (where the date is
wrongly given as 1223–24); Harari 1938–38: 2518, Pls 1312D, 1312E, 1398; Mayer
1956: 59.
153 Allan (2009: 498, col. 2) suggests that a silver-inlaid bronze Ka‘aba key dated 1180 may
have been made in Mosul or the Jazira area, as Sourdel-Thomine (1971: 46–51, cat. no 2)
proposed.
154 Cf. Kühnel 1939: 8; Ağa-Oğlu 1945: 44. The Khwarazmshahs’ invasion into Khurasan in
the last quarter of the twelfth century may have destabilised the economy.
155 Cf. Creswell 1952–59, vol. II: 161–70; see Wiet 1963: 206–7.
156 There was an important tradition of silver-inlaid bronze/brass doors in eleventh-century
Byzantium, some of which were made in Constantinople, and one of which bears

d
inscriptions in Syriac. Cyril Mango has suggested influence from Syrian Jacobites: see

Lt
Frazer 1973; Mango 1978: 249–51; Iacobini 2009; Ballian 2009. I am grateful to Cyril
and Marlia Mango for their thoughts on the topic. This is not to deny the possibility,
however, that well after the establishment of the industry in Mosul Iranian immigrants

o
may have arrived: cf. Ağa-Oğlu 1945: 40.
157 C
For the wallet, see Robinson 1967; Allan in London 1976a, cat. no 199. The candlestick
was subsequently donated in waqf to Medina by Mirjan al-Sultani, who is almost certainly
Mirjan ibn ‘Abdallah ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Sultani al-Uljayti, the Ilkhanid vizier
&
connected to Uljaytu, and who is well known for constructing the Mirjaniyyah madrasa
in Baghdad in 758/1357: Combe 1931; Ballian 2009; Los Angeles 2011: 67, Fig. 62.
ris

158 Meanwhile, see the important contributions on the subject made by James Allan (Allan
1995a); and Eva Baer 1973–74.
159 Barhebraeus 1932, vol. I: 468. This event occurred, however, shortly before he went to
au

Mosul.
160 See above, n. 100 on al-Turabi, whose nisbah suggests he or his family were from Merv.
See also Ağa-Oğlu 1945: 40
.T

161 Ettinghausen and Grabar 1987: 364; Ettinghausen, Grabar, Jenkins-Madina 2001: 247:
‘Many Mawsili artists worked in styles quite different from those attested by these six
I.B

pieces, and in the work of one single artist there are stylistic differences that may imply
various locales. This pattern reveals how difficult it is to make attributions of metal objects
from this period when historical inscriptions are lacking.’
162 For the inscription, see Grabar 1957: 549. On the so-called ‘renaissance’ among the Syriac
communities, see Snelders 2010: 69.
163 Mayer 1959: 13–14; Rice 1953b: 67. The most detailed discussion is Kana‘an 2012, where
she suggests that Qasim ibn ‘Ali’s ghulam status might indicate that he was manumitted or
could have had a contract towards manumission.
164 For instances of metalworkers who called themselves al-mu‘allim or ibn al-mu‘allim, see
Mayer 1959, passim; Rice 1950a; Rice 1951; Auld 2004; Behrens-Abouseif 1995: 13.
165 Kana‘an (2012) discusses the concept of employee and trainee solidarity and pride (wala’).

84
t h e p r i n c i p l e o f parsimony and the problem of the ‘mosul school of metalwork’

166 British Museum, acc. no 1948 5–8 3, unpublished.

167 Families played an important part in metalworking in Mamluk Damascus: see Ağa-Oğlu
1945: 34–35; Allan 1986: 52.
168 The enigmatic figure holding a crescent moon has been variously been taken to be an
emblem of the city of Mosul or of Badr al-Din Lu’lu’ himself. If either were to hold true,
it would be another indication of affiliation, but more work is needed before we can be
certain of its significance, even if none of Rice’s five ‘shattering revelations’ against the
emblematic significance of the motif hold true.

image credits

d
Fig. 1.1: after Paris 1903, Pls 10, 11, 14a, 14b, 15, 16a, 18, respectively top left to bottom right.

Lt
Figs 1.2a–b, 1.3a–i, 1.18b: after Rice 1957a.
Figs 1.2a, 1.8a, 1.10b, 1.12a: Cleveland Museum of Art. inv. no 1956.11 John L. Severance Fund.
Figs 1.4a–b, 1.22 a–b, 1.26: © the Trustees of the British Museum.

o
Figs 1.4c–d, 1.7 (detail), 1.9a, d, e, h, i, k, 1.10 a, c–g, 1.11, 1.13a–b, 1.14b, 1.16f, 1.24a:
photograph Julian Raby. C
Figs 1.6, 1.16c, 1.18a: courtesy of the Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg.
Fig. 1.7 (candlestick): Jean-Gilles Berizzi/Réunion des Musées Nationaux/Art Resource, NY.
&
Figs 1.8b, 1.23a, 1.24b, 1.25a–c: Freer Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
DC: Purchase, F1941.10.
ris

Figs 1.9b, 1.14a, 1.15b, 1.16a, d: Oliver Watson.

Fig. 1.9c: Nasser D. Khalili Collection of Islamic Art. Copyright Nour Foundation. Courtesy
of the Khalili Family Trust.
au

Fig. 1.9f: courtesy Staatliches Museum für Volkerkunde, Munich.

Fig. 1.9g: Christie’s, London.
Fig. 1.9j: © the Walters Art Museum; photograph Susan Tobin.
.T

Fig. 1.9m: after Rice 1957b.

Figs 1.12b, 1.20a, 1.21b: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Edward C. Moore Collection,
I.B

Bequest of Edward C. Moore, 1891 91.1.563; photograph Julian Raby.

Figs 1.15a, d, 1.17b, 1.19: after O’Kane 2006.
Fig. 1.15c: after Atıl 1981.
Fig. 1.16b, e: after Wiet 1932.
Fig. 1.17a: Gérard Blot/Réunion des Musées Nationaux/Art Resource, NY.
Figs 1.20b, 1.21a: after Rice 1953a.
Fig. 1.21c: Christies, London.
Fig. 1.22c–d: after Rice 1953a.
Fig. 1.23b: after Leroy 1964.
Fig. 1.24c: after Leroy 1974–75.
Fig. 1.25d–f: after Sotheby’s London 1992.

85
 g e n e r a l b i b liography

Abbri, F. and R. Mazzolini (eds). 1993. Storia delle Scienze: Natura e Vita, Dall’Antichità
all’Illuminismo. Turin
‘Abd al-Baqi, M.F. 1996. Al-Mu‘jam al-Mufahris. Cairo
Adamova, A.T. 2008. ‘Mediaeval Persian paintings: the evolution of an artistic vision’, tr.
from the Russian and ed. M. Rogers. Bienniel Ehsan Yarshater Lecture Series, SOAS
University of London (4–9 December 2003) no 3. New York
Aga Khan Trust for Culture. 2009. Los mundos del Islam: en la colección del Museo Aga Khan.
Barcelona
Aga Khan Trust for Culture. 2010a. Schätze des Aga Khan Museum: Meisterwerke der
islamischen Kunst/Treasures of the Aga Khan Museum: Masterpieces of Islamic Art. Berlin
Aga Khan Trust for Culture. 2010b. Treasures of the Aga Khan Museum: Arts of the Book and
Calligraphy. Istanbul
Ağa-Oğlu, M. 1930a. ‘Ein Prachtspiegel im Topkapu Sarayı Museum’. Pantheon 6/10,
pp. 454–57
Ağa-Oğlu, M. 1930b. ‘Two thirteenth-century bronze ewers’, Burlington Magazine 60, pp. 27–28
Ağa-Oğlu, M. 1932. ‘Islamische Metallarbeiten aus Istanbuler Museen’, Belvedere 11, pp. 14–16
Ağa-Oğlu, M. 1945. ‘About a type of Islamic incense burner’, Art Bulletin 37 (March),
pp. 28–45
Ahmad, A. 1977. ‘The early Turkish nucleus in India’, Turcica 9/1, pp. 99–109
Aimel, G. 1918. ‘Le Palais d’el Bedi’ à Marrakech et le mausolée des chorfa saadiens’, Les
Archives Berbères 3, pp. 53–64
Akansus, M. 1918. Al-Jaysh al-‘aramram, lithographic edition, 2 vols. Fez
Alarca: 54 Artistas Contemporáneos. 2005. Exhibition catalogue, Galería de Arte
Contemporánea y Diseño. Puebla and Talavera de la Reyna
Alfieri, B.M. 2000. Islamic Architecture of the Indian Subcontinent. London and New York
Ali, W. 1997. Modern Islamic Art: Development and Continuity. Gainesville, FL
Ali Ibrahim, L. 1978. ‘Clear fresh water in Medieval Cairene houses’, Islamic Archaeological
Studies 1, pp. 1–25
Allain, C. 1956. ‘La carrière saadienne et les chapitaux d’Imi N’Tala’, Hespéris 18, pp. 101–16

473
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

d’Allemagne, H.R. 1899. ‘Notice sur un basin en cuivre éxécuté pour Hugues IV de Lusignan
Roi de Chypre (1324–61)’, in C. Enlart, L’Art Gothique et la Renaissance en Chypre 2.
Paris, pp.743–58
d’Allemagne, H.R. 1911. Du Khorassan au pays des Bakhtiaris: Trois mois de voyage en Perse. Paris
Amedroz, H.F. 1902. ‘Three Arabic mss. on the History of the City of Mayyafariqin’, Journal of
the Royal Asiatic Society, pp. 733–84
An, J. 1991. ‘Dated Islamic glass in china’, Bulletin of the Asia Institute, new series, vol. 5,
pp. 123–37
Angel, P. 1996. ‘In praise of painting’, tr. M. Hoyle, with an introduction and commentary by
H. Miedema, Simiolus 24
Ansari, N.H. 1988. ‘Bahmanids’, Encyclopaedia Iranica
Arakelian, H.A. 1999. A Pictorial Guidebook to St Bethlehem Church of New Julfa, Isfahan. Tehran
Armajani, Siah. 1999. Exhibition, Museo Centro de Arte Reina Sofia. Madrid
Arnold, A. 1877. Through Persia by Caravan. 2 vols. London
Arruda, A.M. and C. Viegas. 2002. ‘Candelabro arquitectónico’, in A.M. Arruda, C. Viegas
and M.J. de Almeida (eds), ‘De Scallabis a Santarém’: Catálogo de la exposición. Lisbon
Arts of Islam, The. 1976. Exhibition catalogue, Arts Council of Great Britain. London
Artusi, S. 2009. ‘Architectural decoration from the palace of Mas‘ud III in Ghazni: brickwork
and brickwork with stucco, a preliminary analysis’, in A. Filigenzi and R. Giunta (eds),
Fifty Years of Research in the Heart of Eurasia. Rome, pp. 117–30
Ashmore, S. 2008. ‘Owen Jones and the V&A collections’, V&A Online Journal 1, http://
www.vam.ac.uk/res_cons/research/online_journal/journal_1_index/owen_jones/
index.html
Aslanian, S. 2007. ‘The circulation of men and credit: the role of the commenda and family
firm in Julfan society’, The Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 50/2,
pp. 124–71
Aslanian, S. 2011. From the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean: The Global Trade Networks of
Armenian Merchants from New Julfa. Berkeley, CA
Aslanian, S. and H. Berberian. 2011. ‘”Strangers everywhere in the world”: early modern
cosmopolitanism and the Sceriman/Shahrimanian family between Isfahan and Venice’,
Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies
Aslanian, S. and H. Berberian. ‘Sceriman family: a wealthy Armenian-Persian merchant
family’, Encyclopaedia Iranica online
Assemani, G.S. 1719–28. Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana. Rome
Atasoy, N. and J. Raby. 1989. Iznik: The Pottery of Ottoman Turkey. London
Atıl, E. 1972. ‘Two Il-Khanid candlesticks at the University of Michigan’, Kunst des Orients 8,
pp. 1–34
Atıl, E. 1973. Ceramics from the World of Islam. Washington, DC
Atıl, E. 1975. Art of the Arab World. Washington, DC
Atıl, E. 1981a. Kalila wa Dimna: Fables from a Fourteenth-Century Arabic Manuscript.
Washington, DC

474
 general bibliography

Atıl, E. 1981b. Renaissance of Islam: Art of the Mamluks. Washington, DC

Atıl, E. (ed.) 1990. Islamic Art and Patronage: Treasures from Kuwait. New York
Atıl, E. 1994. ‘Humor and wit in Islamic art’, Asian Art & Culture 7/3, pp. 13–20
Atıl, E., W.T. Chase and P. Jett. 1985. Islamic Metalwork in the Freer Gallery of Art.
Washington, DC
el-Attar, M. 1980. El Fannan Said el Sadr. Cairo
Auboyer, J. 1968. The Art of Afghanistan. Feltham
Auld, S. 1989. ‘Master Mahmud: objects fit for a prince’, in E.J. Grube (ed.), Atti del Primo
Simposio Internazionale sull’Arte Veneziana e l’Arte Islamica. Venice, pp. 185–201
Auld, S. 2004. Renaissance Venice, Islam and Mahmud the Kurd: A Metalworking Enigma.
London
Auld, S. 2009. ‘Cross-currents and coincidences: a perspective on Ayyubid metalwork’, in
Robert Hillenbrand and Sylvia Auld (eds), Ayyubid Jerusalem: The Holy City in Context
1187–1250. London, pp. 45–71
Ayatollahi, H. 1994. ‘Naqqashi-khatt hunar-i bi risheh’, Hunar-i mu’asir 4, 1373 S/,
pp. 13–15
al-Azdi, Muhammad ibn Ahmad. 1902. Hikayat Abi’l Qasim al-Baghdadi. Heidelberg
Azuar Ruiz, R. 1989. Denia islámica: arqueología y poblamiento. Alicante
Azuar Ruiz, R. and J.A. López Padilla. 1997. ‘Arquetas andalusíes de hueso y asta de ciervo (s.
XII–XIII): El taller del Castillo de la Torre Grossa de Xixona (Alicante)’, Arqueología
Medieval 5, pp. 163–76
Babaie, S. 1994a. Palaces at Isfahan: Continuity and Change, 1590–1666, PhD dissertation.
New York
Babaie, S. 1994b. ‘Shah ‘Abbas II, the conquest of Qandahar, the Chihil Sutun, and its wall
paintings’, Muqarnas 11, pp. 125–42
Babaie, S. 2008. Isfahan and its Palaces: Statecraft, Shi’ism and the Architecture of Conviviality in
Early Modern Iran. Edinburgh
Babayan, K., I. Baghdiantz McCabe and M. Farhad. 2004. Slaves of the Shah: New Elites of
Isfahan. London and New York
al-Badri, ‘Abd Allah ibn Muhammad. 1922. Nuzhat al-anam fi ma’asin al-sham. Cairo
Baer, E. 1968. ‘“Fish-pond” ornaments on Persian and Mamluk metal vessels’, Bulletin of the
School of Oriental and African Studies 31, pp. 14–27
Baer, E. 1972. ‘An Islamic inkwell in the Metropolitan Museum’, in R. Ettinghausen (ed.),
Islamic Art in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York
Baer, E. 1973–74. ‘The Nisan Tası: a study in Persian–Mongol metal ware’, Kunst des Orients 9,
pp. 1–46
Baer, E. 1977. ‘A brass vessel from the tomb of Sayyid Battal Ghazi: notes on the
interpretation of thirteenth-century Islamic imagery’, Artibus Asiae 39, pp. 299–335
Baer, E. 1983. Metalwork in Medieval Islamic Art. Albany, NY
Baer, E. 1989. Ayyubid Metalwork with Christian Images. Studies in Islamic Art and
Architecture. Supplements to Muqarnas 4. Leiden

475
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

Baer, E. 1994. ‘Foreign models and Islamic interpretations in thirteenth-century metalwork:

a preliminary note’, in The Art of the Saljuqs in Iran and Anatolia, Robert Hillenbrand
(ed.), proceedings of a symposium held in Edinburgh in 1982
Baghdiantz McCabe, I. 1999. The Shah’s Silk for Europe’s Silver: The Eurasian Trade of the Julfa
Armenians in Safavid Iran and India (1530–1750). Atlanta, GA
Bahgat, A. and A. Gabriel. 1921. Fouilles d’al Foustat. Cairo
Bahrami, M. 1944–45. ‘A master potter of Kashan’, Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society
20, pp. 35–40
Baibourtian, V. 2004. International Trade and the Armenian Merchants in the Seventeenth
Century. New Delhi
Bailey, G. 1998. The Jesuits and the Grand Mogul: Renaissance Art at the Imperial Court of India,
1580–1630. Washington, DC
Bailey, G. 1999. Art on the Jesuit Missions in Asia and Latin America, 1542–1773. Toronto
Baker, P.L. 1995. Islamic Textiles. London
Baladouni, V. and M. Makepeace. 1998. Armenian Merchants of the Seventeenth and Early
Eighteenth Centuries: English East India Company Sources. Philadelphia, PA
Balaghi, S. and L. Gumpert. 2002. Picturing Iran. London
Ballian, A. (ed.). 2006. Benaki Museum: A Guide to the Museum of Islamic Art. Athens
Ballian, A. 2009. ‘Three medieval Islamic brasses and the Mosul tradition of inlaid metalwork’,
Mouseio Benaki 9, pp. 113–41
Balog, P. 1980. The Coinage of the Ayyubids. London
Bamzai, P.N.K. 2007. A History of Kashmir, Political, Social, Cultural: From the Earliest Times
to the Present Day. New Delhi
Barhebraeus. 1932. The Chronography of Gregory Abu’l Faraj, the Son of Aaron, the Hebrew
Physician Commonly Known as Bar Hebraeus Being the First Part of His Political History of
the World, translated from the Syriac by Ernest A. Wallis Budge. London
Barnes, R. 1997. Indian Block-Printed Textiles in Egypt: The Newberry Collection in the
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 2 vols. Oxford
Barrett, D. 1949. Islamic Metalwork in the British Museum. London
Barrett, D. 1962. ‘Bronzes from northwest India and western Pakistan’, Lalit Kala 11, pp. 35–44
Barrucand, M. 1976. L’Architecture de la Qasba de Moulay Ismail à Meknes, 2 vols, Études et
travaux d’archéologie marocaine. Casablanca
Barrucand, M. 1985. Urbanisme Princier en Islam: Meknes et les Villes Royales Islamiques post-
Medievales. Paris
Barrucand, M. 1989. ‘Die Palastarchitektur Mulay Isma‘ils, Die Qasaba von Meknes’,
Madrider Mitteilungen 30, pp. 506–23
Barrucand, M. 1999. L’Egypt Fatimide son Art et son Histoire. Paris
al-Bayhaqi, M. 1999. Anwar al-‘uqul min ash‘ar wasi al-rasul, ed. Salman Kamil al-Juburi.
Beirut
Bazantay, P. 1936. Enquête sur l’Artisanat à Antioche: Les états du Levant sous Mandat Français.
Beirut

476
 general bibliography

Beckwith, J. 1960. Caskets from Cordoba. London

Beeston, A.F.L. 1980. The Epistle on Singing-Girls of Jahiz, Approaches to Arabic Literature 2.
Warminster
Behrens-Abouseif, D. 1988–89. ‘The Baptistère de Saint Louis: a reinterpretation’, Islamic Art 3,
pp.3–13
Behrens-Abouseif, D. 1995. Mamluk and Pre-Mamluk Metal Lamps. Supplément aux Annales
Islamologiques, Cahier no 15. Cairo
Behrens-Abouseif, D. 1997. ‘The lion-gazelle mosaic at Khirbat al-Mafjar’, Muqarnas 14,
pp.11–18
Behrens-Abouseif, D. 2007. Cairo of the Mamluks: A History of the Architecture and its Culture.
London and New York
Behrens-Abouseif, D. 2010. ‘A late Mamluk lidded tray with poetic inscriptions’, in J.
Frembgen (ed.), The Aura of Alif: The Art of Writing in Islam. Munich, pp. 173–84
Bel, A. 1917/1918/1919. ‘Inscriptions arabes de Fès’, Journal Asiatique 11/10 (1917), pp. 81–
182; 11/12 (1918), pp. 189–276; 11/13 (1919), pp. 5–96.
Bellafiore, G. 1975. Dall’Islam alla Maniera. Palermo
Bellafiore, G. 1990. Architettura in Sicilia nelle età islamica e normanna (827–1194). Palermo
Bénazeth, D. 1998. ‘Les encensoirs de la collection Copte du Louvre’, La Revue du Louvre et de
Musées de France 38, pp. 294–300
Bénazeth, D. 2001. Catalogue Général du Musée Copte du Caire, 1: Objets en Metal. Cairo
Berchem, M. van. 1903. Materiaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum, Egypte I. Paris
Berchem, M. van. 1904. ‘Notes d’archéologie Arabe, troisième article. Étude sur les cuivres
damasquinés et les verres émaillés, inscriptions, marques, armoiries. I: L’Exposition
des arts musulmans et le recueil des inscriptions arabes mobilières. II: Monuments et
inscriptions Rassoulides’, Journal Asiatique ( January–February), pp. 5–96
Berchem, M. van. 1906. ‘Monuments et inscriptions de L’atabek Lu’lu’ de Mossoul’, in
Orientalische Studien Theodor Nöldeke Zum Siebzigsten Geburtstag (2. März 1906), ed.
Carl Bezold. Gieszen, pp. 197–210
Berchem, M. van. 1978. Opera Minora. Geneva
Berlekamp, P. 2003. ‘Painting as persuasion: a visual defense of alchemy in an Islamic
manuscript of the Mongol period’, Muqarnas 20, pp. 35–59
Bertelli, C., G.P. Brogiolo, M. Jurković, I. Matejčić, A. Milošević, and C. Stella. 2001. Bizantini,
Croati, Carolingi. Alba e tramonto di regni e imperi. Milan
Bier, C.M. 1979. ‘The work of al-Hasan b. Muhammad, die engraver at Isbahan and al-
Muhammadiyya’, American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 24, pp. 243–56
Binning, R.B.M. 1857. A Journal of Two Years’ Travel in Persia, Ceylon etc., 2 vols. London
Bivar, A.D.H. 1966. ‘Review of Lucien Golvin, Recherches archéologiques à la Qal‘a Banu
Hammad’ (Paris, 1965), Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 29, pp.380–82
Blair, S.S. 1995. ‘A compendium of chronicles. Rashid al-Din’s Illustrated History of the World’,
in J. Raby (ed.), The Nasser D. Khalili Collection of Islamic Art, XXVII. London
Blair, S.S. 1998. Islamic Inscriptions. Edinburgh

477
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

Blair, S.S. 2008. ‘A brief biography of Abu Zayd’, Muqarnas 25, pp. 155–76
Blair, S.S. 1989. ‘On the track of the “Demotte” Shahnama manuscript’, in F. Déroche (ed.),
Les manuscrits du moyen-orient: Essais de codicologie et de paléographie. Istanbul and Paris,
pp.125–31
Blair, S.S. and J.M. Bloom. 2006. Cosmophilia: Art from the David Collection, Copenhagen,
no 118. Chestnut Hill, MA
Blake, S. 1999. Half the World: The Social Architecture of Safavid Isfahan, 1590–1722. Costa
Mesa
Bloom, J. 1987. ‘A Mamluk basin in the L.A. Mayer Memorial Institute’, Islamic Art II,
pp.15–26
Bloom, J. 2007. Arts of the City Victorious: Islamic Art and Architecture in Fatimid North Africa
and Egypt. New Haven and London
Boroujerdi, M. 1996. Iranian Intellectuals and the West: The Tormented Triumph of Nativism.
New York
Bosworth, C.E. 1973. The Ghaznavids: Their Empire in Afghanistan and Eastern Iran, 994–
1040. Beirut
Bosworth, C.E. 1994. The History of the Saffarids of Sistan and the Maliks of Nimruz: 247/861
to 949/1542–43. New York and Costa Mesa
Bosworth, C.E. ‘Ghurids’, Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI2)
Bosworth, C.E and P.M. Holt, ‘Mizalla’, Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI2)
Bott, G., J. Willers and K. Holzamer. 1983. Schätze der Astronomie. Nuremberg
Bouchoueva, N.V. 2010. ‘Icône: Vénération de la Croix’, in Durand et al., pp. 619–20
Bournoutian, G. 2001. Armenians and Russia (1626–1796): A Documentary Record. Costa Mesa
Bournoutian, G. 2010. Arak’el of Tabriz: Book of History. Costa Mesa
Boussieva-Davydova, I.L. 2010. ‘Le renouveau des arts sous Michel Ier et Alexis Ier Romanov’,
in Durand et al., pp. 570–75
Bradley-Birt, F. 1909. Through Persia from the Gulf to the Caspian. London
Brand, M. 2006. ‘The Sultanate of Malwa’, in A.N. Lambah and A. Patel (eds), The
Architecture of the Indian Sultanates. Mumbai, pp. 90–91
Brend, B. 2003. Perspectives on Persian Painting: Illustrations to Amir Khusrau’s Khamsah.
London
Brend, B. 2009. ‘A brownish study: the Kumral style in Persian painting, its connections and
origins’, Islamic Art VI, pp. 81–98
Brock, S.P. 2002. ‘Some basic annotation to “The Hidden Pearl”: the Syrian Orthodox Church
and its ancient Aramaic heritage, 1–3 (Rome, 2001)’, Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 5/1
Brockelmann, C. 1898–1902. Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur, 1st edn. Weimar/Berlin
Brockelmann, C. 1943−49. Geschichte der Arabischen Litteratur, 2nd edn. Leiden
Britton, N.P. 1938. A Study of Some Early Islamic Textiles in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
Boston
Britton, N.P. 1943. ‘Pre-Mamluke Tiraz in the Newberry Collection’, Ars Islamica 9, pp.158–66
Brown, P. 1956. Indian Architecture: The Islamic Period. Bombay

478
 general bibliography

Brühl, C. (ed.) 1987. Rogerii II regis diplomata latina (Codex diplomaticus Regni Siciliae: ser.1,
Diplomata regum et principum e gente normannorum), vol. 2, part 1. Cologne and Vienna
Bumiller, M. 2002. Kleinformate: Typologie Frühislamischer Bronzen der Bumiller – Collection,
Schriften des Museums für Frühislamischer Kunst in Bamberg, Band 7. Bamberg
Bürgel, J.C. 1989. ‘The lady gazelle and her murderous glances’, Journal of Arabic Literature 20,
pp. 1–11
Burton, A. 1988. ‘Richard Redgrave as art educator, museum official and design theorist’, in
S.P. Cateras and R. Parkinson (eds), Richard Redgrave 1804–1888. New Haven, CT and
London, pp. 48–70
Burton, A. 1999. Vision and Accident: The Story of the Victoria and Albert Museum. London
Burton-Page, J. 1986. ‘Daulatabad’, in G. Michell (ed.), Islamic Heritage of the Decca. Bombay
Caiger-Smith, A. 1985. Lustre Pottery, Technique, Tradition and Innovation in Islam and the
Western World. London and Boston
Caiger-Smith, A. 1995. Pottery, People and Time. Shepton Beauchamp
Caiger-Smith, A. 2010. Said el Sadr 1909–1986: Potter, Painter, Sculptor, Teacher. Aldermaston
Cairo. 1969. Islamic Art in Egypt 969–1517. Ministry of Culture, United Arab Republic.
Cairo
Campbell, C. and A. Chong (eds). 2005. Bellini and the East. London
Canard, M. ‘al-Basasiri’, Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI2)
Carboni, S. 1993. ‘L’influsso dell’arte Islamica in Italia’, in G. Curatola, Eredità dell ‘Islam – Arte
Islamica in Italia. Cinisello Balsamo, pp. 55–76
Carboni, S. 2002. ‘Synthesis: continuity and innovation in Ilkhanid art’, in L. Komaroff and
S. Carboni (eds), The Legacy of Genghis Khan: Courtly Art and Culture in Western Asia,
1256–1353. New Haven, CT and London, pp. 196–225.
Carswell, J. 1968. New Julfa: The Armenian Churches and Other Buildings. Oxford
Casanova, P. 1923. ‘La montre du Sultan Noûr ad dîn (554 de l’Hégire = 1159–60)’, Syria 4/4
(1923), pp.282–99
Castañada y Alcover, V. (ed.) 1958. ‘Diario del viaje que por orden de la sagrada congregación
de propagands fide hizo a la América septentrional en el siglo XVIII el P. Fray Francisco
de Ajofrín, capuchino, vol. 1’, Archivo documental español 12. Madrid
Castries, H. de. 1905–9. Sources Inédites de l’Histoire du Maroc, Archives et bibliothèques de la
France, Première Série, 2 vols. Paris
Castries, H. de. 1906–23. Sources Inédites de l’Histoire du Maroc, Archives et bibliothèques du
Pay Bas, 6 vols. Paris and The Hague
Castries, H. de. 1918–35. Sources Inédites de l’Histoire du Maroc, Archives et bibliothèques de
l’Angleterre, 3 vols. Paris and London
Castries, H. de. 1921a. Sources Inédites de l’Histoire du Maroc, Archives et bibliothèques de
l’Espagne. Paris and Madrid
Castries, H. de. 1921b. ‘Du nom d’Alhambra donné au palais du souverain à Marrakech’,
Journal Asiatique 17, pp. 133–38
Castries, H. de. 1921c. ‘Les signes de validation des chérifs saadiens’, Hespéris I, pp. 231–52

479
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

Castries, H. de. 1922–31. Sources Inédites de l’Histoire du Maroc, Archives et bibliothèques de la

France. Deuxième Série, 4 vols. Paris
Cénival, P. de. 1934–39. Sources Inédites de l’Histoire du Maroc, Archives et bibliothèques du
Portugal, 2 vols. Paris
Cervantes, E. 1939. La Loza Blanca y Azulejos de Puebla, vol. 1. Mexico
Chabouillet, A. 1861. Description des Antiquités et Objets D’art Composant Le Cabinet De
M.Louis Fould. Paris
Chaghtai, A. 1937. ‘Indian links with Central Asia in architecture’, Indian Art and Letters
11/2, p.87
Chardin, J. 1811. Voyages du Chevalier Chardin, en Perse, et Autres Lieux de l’Orient, ed. L.
Langlès, 10 vols. Paris
Chattopadhyaya, B. 1998. Representing the Other? Sanskrit Sources and the Muslims 8th to 14th
Century. New Delhi
Chaudhury, S. and K. Kévonian. 2007. Les Arméniens dans le commerce asiatique au début de
l’ère moderne/Armenians in Asian Trade in the Early Modern Era. Paris
Chen, C. 1985. ‘On the origin of the peacock blue glazed vase unearthed from the tomb of Liu
Hua at Fuzhou’, Haijiaoshi Yanjiu 8/2
Chen, D. 1995. ‘Chinese Islamic influence on archaeological finds in Southeast Asia’, in
Colloquies on Art & Archaeology in Asia, no 17: Art, Interaction and Commerce: Southeast
Asia and China. London, pp. 55–63
Cherid, H. 2010. ‘Bird’, in Discover Islamic Art (Algeria), http://www.discoverislamicart.org
Christie’s London. 2009. ‘Art of the Islamic and Indian Worlds’, 6 October, London
Christie’s London. 2011. ‘Art of the Islamic and Indian Worlds’, 6 October, London
Clavijo, R.G. de. 1928. Narrative of the Spanish Embassy to the Court of Timur at Samarkand in
the Years 1403–1406, tr. Guy Le Strange. London
Cleempoel, K. van (ed.). 2005. Astrolabes at Greenwich: A Catalogue of the Astrolabes in the
National Maritime Museum. Oxford
Clunas, C. 1991. Superfluous Things: Material Culture and Social Status in Early Modern China.
Cambridge
Combe, É. 1931. ‘Cinq cuivres musulmans datés des XIIIe, XIVe et XVe siècles, de la
Collection Benaki’, Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 30,
pp. 49–58
Commins, D. 1990. Islamic Reform: Politics and Social Change in Late Ottoman Syria. Oxford
and New York
Connors McQuade, M. 1999. Talavera Poblana: Four Centuries of a Mexican Ceramic
Tradition, exhibition catalogue, Hispanic Society of America. New York
Contadini, A. 1998. Fatimid Art at the Victoria and Albert Museum. London
Contadini, A. 1999. ‘Artistic contacts: current scholarship and future tasks’, in C. Burnett and
A. Contadini (eds), Islam and the Italian Renaissance. London, pp. 1–60
Contadini, A. (ed.). 2007. Arab Painting: Text and Image in Illustrated Arabic Manuscripts.
Handbuch der Orientalistik, 1, 90. Leiden

480
 general bibliography

Contreras Castro, J. 1999. ‘Tradition for the Future’, in Margaret Connors McQuade, Talavera
Poblana: Four Centuries of a Mexican Ceramic Tradition, exhibition catalogue, Hispanic
Society of America. New York, pp. 68–79
Cooper, A. 2004. ‘Cole, Sir Henry (1808–82)’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,
online edition, http://www.oxforddnb.com
Corbin, H., R. Cottevielle-Giraudet and J. David Weill. 1938. Les Arts de l’Iran: l’Ancienne
Perse et Bagdad: Bibliothèque Nationale. Paris
Cordier, H. 1898. ‘La Collection Charles Schefer’, Gazette des Beaux-Arts 20/3, pp. 245–58
Cott, P.B. 1939. Siculo-Arabic Ivories. Princeton, NJ
Cracraft, J. 2004. The Petrine Revolution in Russian Culture. Cambridge, MA
Craddock, P.T., S.C. La Niece and D.R. Hook. 1990. ‘Brass in the Medieval Islamic world’, in
P.T. Craddock (ed.), 2000 Years of Zinc and Brass. London, pp. 73–79
Creswell, Sir K.A.C. 1952–59 and 1978. Muslim Architecture of Egypt, 2 vols. Oxford,
reprinted New York
Crill, R. and K. Jariwala (eds). 2010. The Indian Portrait, 1560–1860, exhibition catalogue. London
Crowe, Y. 1976–77. ‘Early Islamic pottery and china’, Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic
Society, vol. 41, pp. 263–79
Cuinet, V. 1890–1900. La Turquie d’Asie: Géographique, Administrative, Statistique, Descriptive
et Raisonnée de chaque Province de l’Asie Mineure, 5 vols. Paris
Cuinet, V. 1896. Syrie, Liban et Palestine: Géographique, Administrative, Statistique, Descriptive
et Raisonnée. Paris.
Cunha, L.M. da. 1864. Memorias para a historia da Praça de Mazaga. Lisbon
Curatola, Giovanni (ed.). 1994. Eredita dell’Islam, Arte Islamica in Italia. Venice
Cusa, S. (ed.). 1868–82 and 1982. I diplomi greci ed arabi di Sicilia pubblicati nel testo originale,
tradotti ed illustrati, 2 vols: 1 only published in 2 parts. With short introduction by
Albrecht Noth. Palermo, reprinted Cologne and Vienna
Cutler, A. 1999. ‘A Christian ewer with Islamic imagery and the question of Arab
Gastarbeiter’, in R. Favreau and M.H. Debiés (eds), Iconographica: Mélanges offerts à
Piotr-Skubiszewski. Poitiers, pp. 63–69
Damascus. 1980. A Concise Guide to the National Museum of Damascus. Damascus
D’Angelo, F. 1978. ‘Terra e uomini della Sicilia medievale (secoli 11–13)’, Quaderni medievali 6,
pp. 51–94
Darby, M. 1996. ‘Owen Jones’, in J.S. Turner (ed.), The Dictionary of Art. London, updated
online edition http://www.oxfordartonline.com
Das, A.K. 1994. ‘Persian masterworks and their transformation in Jahangir’s Taswirkhana’,
Sheila Canby (ed.), Humayun’s Garden Party: Princes of the House of Timur and Early
Mughal Painting. Bombay, pp. 135–52
Davies, H. 1998. ‘John Charles Robinson’s work at the South Kensington Museum, Part
I: The creation of the collection of Italian Renaissance objects at the Museum of
Ornamental Art and the South Kensington Museum, 1853–62’, Journal of the History of
Collecting 10/2, pp. 169–88

481
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

Davies, H. 2004. ‘Robinson, Sir John Charles (1824–1913)’, in Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography, online edition, http://www.oxforddnb.com
Davis, R. 1997. Lives of Indian Images. Princeton
Dawriže‘c, I.A. 1990. Girk‘ patmut‘eanc‘, ed. L.A. Xanlaryan. Erevan
Deér, V.J. 1955. ‘Adler aus der Zeit Friedrichs II’, in P.E. Schramm, Kaiser Friedrichs II:
Herrschaftszeichen. Göttingen, pp. 123–24
Déléry, C. and S. Gómez Martínez. 2006. ‘Algunas piezas orientales y el problema del origen
de la técnica de cuerda seca’, in Al-Andalus, Espaçao de mudança, Homenagem a Juan
Zozaya Stabel-Hansen, Seminario Internacional, Mértola, 16, 17 e 18 de Maio de 2005.
Mértola, pp. 148–60
Denissova, L.N. 2010. ‘Portrait du patriarche Nikon’, in Durand et al., p. 615
Desai, Z.A. 1974. ‘Architecture: the Bahmanis’, in H.K. Sherwani and P.M. Joshi (eds), History
of Medieval Deccan. Hyderabad
Deverdun, G. 1952. ‘A propos de l’estampe d’Adriaen Matham: Palatium magni regis maroci
in Barbaria (Vue de la Casbah de Marrakech en 1641)’, Hespéris 39, pp. 213–21
Deverdun, G. 1953. ‘L’âge des tombeaux sa’adiens de Marrakech d’après des documents
nouveaux’, Hespéris 40, pp. 557–61
Deverdun, G. 1956. Les Inscriptions Arabes de Marrakesh. Rabat
Deverdun, G. 1959–66. Marrakech des ses Origines à 1912, 2 vols. Rabat
Diba, L.S. with M. Ekhtiar. 1998. Royal Persian Paintings: The Qajar Epoch 1785–1925.
London and New York
Di Giovanni, V. 1880. ‘Il monastero di Santa Maria la Gadera poi Santa Maria la Latina
esistente nel secolo XII presso Polizzi’, Archivio Storico Siciliano, new series 5,
pp.15–50
Dihkhuda, A.A. 1993–94. Luqhatnama, compiled by Muhammad Mu‘in and Sayyid Ja‘far
Shahidi, 15 vols. Tehran
Dimand, M.S. 1926. ‘Near Eastern metalwork’, Bulletin of The Metropolitan Museum of Art 21
(August), pp. 193–99
Dimand, M.S. 1930. A Handbook of Mohammedan Decorative Arts. New York
Dimand, M.S. 1931. ‘Unpublished metalwork of the Rasulid Sultans of Yemen’, Metropolitan
Museum Studies 3/2 ( June), pp. 229–37
Dimand, M.S. 1934. ‘A silver inlaid bronze canteen with Christian subjects in the
Eumorfopoulos collection’, Ars Islamica 1, pp. 17–21
Dimand, M.S. 1941. ‘A review of Sasanian and Islamic metalwork’, in ‘A Survey of Persian
Art’, Ars Islamica 8, pp. 192–214
Dimand, M.S. 1944. A Handbook of Muhammadan Art. New York
Diodorus Sicilius. 1933–67. Bibliotheca Historica, ed. Francis R. Walton, 12 vols. London
Dodds, J. (ed.) 1992. Al-Andalus: The Art of Islamic Spain, exhibition catalogue, Metropolitan
Museum of Art. New York
Dozy, R. 1854. Dictionnaire Détaillé des Noms des Vêtements chez les Arabes. Amsterdam
Dschingis Khan und seine Erben: Das Weltreich der Mongolen. 2005. Bonn

482
 general bibliography

Durand, J., D. Giovannoni and I. Rapti, assistés de R. Clavien. 2010. Sainte Russie: L’art russe
des origins à Pierre le Grand. Paris
Ecker, H. 2004. Caliphs and Kings: The Art and Influence of Islamic Spain, exhibition catalogue.
Washington, DC and New York
Elgood, R. 1995. Firearms of the Islamic World in the Tareq Rajab Museum, Kuwait.
London
Elisséeff, N. 1956. ‘Corporations de damas sous Nur al-Din: Matériaux pour une topographie
économique de damas au XIIe siècle’, Arabica 3, pp. 61–79
Ellis, M. 2001a. Embroideries and Samplers from Islamic Egypt. Oxford
Ellis, M. 2001b. ‘Embroideries from Islamic Medieval Egypt in the Newberry Collection,
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford,’ Textile History 32/1, pp. 61–74
Elwell-Sutton, L.P. 1975. ‘The ‘Ruba‘i’ in early Persian literature’, in R.N. Frye (ed.), The
Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 4: The Period from the Arab Invasions to the Saljuqs.
Cambridge, pp. 633–57
Emami, K. 1971. ‘Modern Persian artists’, in Yarshater, pp. 349–63
Emery, W.B. and L.P. Kirwan. 1938. Mission Archéologique de Nubia 1929–1934: The Royal
Tombs of Ballana and Qustul. Cairo
Encyclopaedia Iranica, ed. Ehsan Yarshater, 10 vols+. London and Costa Mesa, 1983+. See
also http://www.iranicaonline.org
Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd edition (EI2 ), eds P.J. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van
Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs et al., 12 vols with indexes and etc. Leiden, 1960–2005. See
also Brill online.
Enzensberger, H. (ed.) 1996. Guillelmi I regis diplomata (Codex diplomaticus Regni Siciliae: ser. 1,
Diplomata regum et principum e gente Normannorum, vol. 3. Cologne, Weimar and Vienna
Establet, C. and J.P. Pascual. 2001. ‘Café et objets du café dans les inventaires de pèlerins
musulmans vers 1700’, in Michel Tuchscherer (ed.), Le Commerce du Café avant l’ère des
Plantations Coloniales: Espaces, Réseaux, Sociétés (XVe–XIXe siècle), Cahiers des Annales
Islamologiques, vol. 20. Cairo, pp. 143–51
Esty, W. 2006. ‘How to estimate the original number of dies and the coverage of the sample’,
Numismatic Chronicle 166, pp. 359–64
Ettinghausen, R. 1943. ‘The Bobrinski kettle: patron and style of an Islamic bronze’, Gazette
des Beaux-Arts 24/6, pp. 193–208
Ettinghausen, R. 1959. ‘Further comments on the “Wade Cup”’. Ars Orientalis 3, pp. 197–200.
Ettinghausen, R. 1962. Die Arabische Malerei. Geneva
Ettinghausen, R. and O. Grabar. 1987. The Art and Architecture of Islam 650–1250.
Harmondsworth
Ettinghausen, R., O. Grabar and M. Jenkins-Madina. 2001. Islamic Art and Architecture
650–1250. New Haven, CT and London
Fallujah. 2007. Siah Armajani Apuntes de Estética, Artium 5
Fane, D. 2000. ‘Exhibition reviews: Talavera Poblana: four centuries of a Mexican tradition’,
Colonial Latin American Review 9/2, pp. 293–98

483
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

Farès, B. 1948. ‘Une Miniature réligieuse de l’école Arabe de Bagdad: Son climat, sa structure,
et ses motifs, sa relation avec l’iconographie Chrétienne d’Orient’, Mémoires de l’Institut
d’Egypte 51
Farès, B. 1953. Le Livre de la Thériaque, Manuscrit arabe à peintures de la fin du XIIe siècle
conservé à la Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris. Cairo
Farès, B. 1953–54. ‘L’art Sacré Chez Un Primitif Musulman’, Bulletin de l’Institut d’Egypte 36,
pp.619–77
Farmer, H.G and E. Neubauer, ‘Ziryab’, Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI2)
Favreau, R. 1982. ‘Mentem sanctam, spontaneam, honorem Deo et patriae liberationem.
Epigraphie et mentalités’, in R. Lejeune and J. Deckers, Clio et son Regard. Mélanges
d’Histoire, d’Histoire de l’Art et d’Archéologie Offerts à Jacques Stiennon. Liège, pp. 235–44
Fedorov, M., B. Kochnev, G. Kurbanov and M. Voegeli. 2008. Buhara/Samarqand; 15a
Mittelasien/Central Asia I, Sylloge Numorum Arabicorum. Tübingen
Fehérvári, G. 1966. Review of Lucien Golvin, Recherches archéologiques à la Qal’a Banu
Hammad, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (October), pp. 148–50
Fehérvári, G. 1968. ‘Ein Ayyubidisches Räuchergefäss mit den Namen des Sultan al-Malik
al-‘Adil II’, Kunst des Orients 5, pp. 37–54
Fehérvári, G. 1973. Islamic Pottery. London
Fehérvári, G. 1976. Islamic Art of the Eighth to the Fifteenth Century in the Keir Collection.
London
Fehérvári, G. 1976. Islamic Metalwork of the Eighth to the Fifteenth Century in the Keir
Collection. London
Fehérvári, G. 1988. ‘Metalwork’, in B.W. Robinson (ed.), Islamic Art in the Keir Collection.
London, pp.107–36
Fergusson, J. 1910. History of Indian and Eastern Architecture. London
Ferhat, N., N.A. Seba, K.H. Striedter et al. (eds). 2003. L’Algérie en heritage: art et histoire.
Paris
Ferrandis, J. 1935. Marfiles Árabes de Occidente, Tomo I. Madrid
Fiey, J.M. 1959. Mossoul Chrétienne: Essai sur l’histoire, l’archéologie et l’état actuel des monuments
Chrétiens de la ville de Mossoul. Beirut
Fiey, J.M. 1975. ‘Iconographie Syriaque: Hulagu, Doquz Khatun … et six ambons?’ Le Muséon
88, pp.59–68
Fitzherbert, T. 2001. ‘Bal‘ami’s Tabari’: An illustrated manuscript of Bal‘ami’s Tarjuma-yi
Tarikh-i Tabari in the Freer Gallery of Art, Washington (F57.16, 47.19 and 3021). PhD
dissertation, University of Edinburgh, online: EthOs Persistent ID: uk.bl.ethos.506389
Flandin, E. and P. Coste. 1851–54. Voyage en Perse de MM. Eugène Flandin, peintre, et Pascal
Coste, Architecte, Attachés à l’Ambassade de France en Perse, pendant les années 1840 et
1841, 6 vols. Paris
Fleisch, H. ‘Ibn Hisham’, Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI2)
Flood, F.B. 2009. Objects of Translation: Material Culture and Medieval ‘Hindu-Muslim’
Encounter. Princeton, NJ

484
 general bibliography

Floor, W. 1971. The Guilds in Qajar Persia. PhD thesis. Utrecht

Floor, W. 1979. ‘Dutch painters in Iran during the first half of the 17th century’, Persica 8,
pp.145–61
Floor, W. 2003. Traditional Crafts and Modern Industry in Qajar Iran. Costa Mesa
Flury, S. 1936. ‘Le décor épigraphique des monuments fatimides du Caire’, Syria 17, pp. 365–
76
Folsach, K. von. 2001. Art from the World of Islam in the David Collection. Copenhagen
Folsach, K. von. 2007. For the Privileged Few: Islamic Miniature Painting from the David
Collection. Copenhagen
Folsach, K. von and J. Meyer (eds). 2005. The Ivories of Muslim Spain. Papers from a
symposium held at the David Collection in Copenhagen, 18–20 November 2003,
Journal of the David Collection 2, 2 vols
Fowden, G. 2004. Qusayr ‘Amra: Art and the Umayyad Elite in Late Antique Syria. Berkeley,
CA and Los Angeles
Frazer, J.B. 1834. An Historical and Descriptive Account of Persia. Edinburgh
Frazer, M.E. 1973. ‘Church doors and the gates of paradise: Byzantine bronze doors in Italy’,
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 27, pp. 145–62
Frembgen, J. 2010. ‘Some reflections on the meanings and uses of the handfan in Sindh and
the Punjab’, in Anke Bentzin et al. (eds), Zwischen Orient und Okzident: Studien zu
Mobilität von Wissen, Konzepten und Praktiken. Festschrift für Peter Heine. Freiburg i. Br,
pp.234–41
Friedman, F.D. 1989. Beyond the Pharaohs, Egypt and the Copts in the 2nd to 7th Centuries.
Rhode Island
Gabrieli, F. and U. Scerrato. 1979. Gli Arabi in Italia: Cultura, Contati e Tradizioni. Milan
Galloway, D. (ed.) 2000. Parviz Tanavoli: Sculptor, Writer, Collector. Tehran
Garufi, C.A. 1899. I documenti inediti dell’epoca normanna in Sicilia (Documenti per servire alla
storia di Sicilia), 1st ser., vol. 18. Palermo
Gavin, R.F. 2003. Cerámica y Cultura: The Story of Spanish and Mexican Mayólica. New
Mexico, pp.189–91
Gayet, A. 1902. L’Art Copte. Paris
Gayraud, R.P. 1986. ‘Istabl ‘Antar (Fostat) 1985: rapport de fouilles’, Annales Islamologiques 22,
pp.1–26
Gayraud, R.P. 1999. ‘Le Qarafa al-Kubra, dernière demeure des Fatimides’, in L’Egypte
Fatimide, son Art et son Histoire. Paris
Gerabek, W.E. 1999. ‘The tooth-worm: historical aspects of a popular medical belief ’, Clinical
Oral Investigations 3, pp. 1−6
Gerber, H. 1985. Ottoman Rule in Jerusalem, 1890–1914, Islamkundliche Untersuchen 101.
Berlin
Ghouchani, A. 1992. Ash‘ar-i farsi-ye kashiha-ye Takht-i Sulayman. Tehran
Ghougassian, V. 1998. The Emergence of the Armenian Diocese of New Julfa in the Seventeenth
Century. Atlanta, GA

485
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

Giambruno, S. 1909. Il tabulario del monastero di S. Margherita di Polizzi (Documenti per

servire alla storia di Sicilia), 1st ser., vol. 20. Palermo
Gilman, S.L. and F.E. Glaze. 2005. ‘How science survived: medieval manuscripts as fossils’,
Science 307, p. 1209
Giunta, R. 1997. The Rasulid Architectural Patronage in Yemen: A Catalogue. Naples
Giuzalian, L.T. 1948. ‘Nadpis s imenem Badr al-dina Lulu na bronzovom podsvetchnike
Gosudartsvennovo Ermitazha’, Epigrafika Vostoka 2, pp. 76–82
Giuzalian, L.T. 1968. ‘The bronze qalamdan (pen-case) 542/1148 from the Hermitage
collection’, Ars Orientalis 7, pp. 95–119
Gladiss, A. von and J. Kröger (eds). 1985. Metall, Stein, Stuck, Holz, Elfenbein, Stoffe,
Islamische Kunst, Loseblattkatalog Unpublizierter Werke aus Deutschen Museen, band
2. Mainz and Rhein
Glück, H. and E. Diez. 1925. Die Kunst des Islam. Propyläen Kunstgeschichte. Berlin
Gluck, J., S.H. Gluck and C.J. Penton (eds). 1977. A Survey of Persian Handicraft. Tehran and
New York
Goepper, R. 1991–92. ‘Early Kashmir textiles? Painted ceilings in Alchi’, Transactions of the
Oriental Ceramics Society 56, pp. 47–74
Goetz, H. 1969. ‘The antiquities of Chamba state: an art historical outline’, in Studies in the
History and Art of Kashmir and the Indian Himalya by Hermann Goetz. Wiesbaden
Goitein, S.D. 1967. A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as
Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza, vol. 1: Economic Foundations. Berkeley,
CA and Los Angeles
Goitein, S.D. 1983. A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as
Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza, vol. 4: Daily Life. Berkeley, CA and Los
Angeles
Goitein, S.D. 1988. A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as
Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza, vol. 5: The Individual. Berkeley, CA
Golvin, L. 1965. Recherches archéologiques à la Qal‘a Banu Hammad. Paris
Gómez-Moreno, M. 1951. El Arte Árabe Español hasta los Almohades, Arte Mozárabe. Ars
Hispaniae: Historia Universal del Arte Hispánico, vol. 3. Madrid
Gonnella, J. 1999. ‘VI. Reliefkeramik’, in P. Miglus, Raqqa I: Die Frühislamische Keramik von
Tall Aswad. Mainz, pp. 55–75
Goulven, J. 1924. ‘Une ambassade Portugaise à la cour de Marrakech au XVIIè sièce’, France-
Maroc 97, pp. 209–12
Goury, J. and O. Jones. 1842–45. Plans, Elevations, Sections and Details of the Alhambra, 2 vols.
London
Grabar, O. 1957. ‘Review of Epigrafika Vostoka (Oriental Epigraphy) by V.A. Krachkovskaya’,
Ars Orientalis 2, pp. 547–60
Grabar, O. 1961. ‘Two pieces of Islamic metalwork’, Ars Orientalis 4, pp. 360–68
Grabar, O. 1984. The Illustrations of the Maqamat. Studies in Medieval manuscript
illumination, Chicago visual library text-fiche, 45. Chicago

486
 general bibliography

Grabar, O. 1990. The Great Mosque of Isfahan. New York

Grabar, O. 2002. ‘About a Bronze Bird’, in E. Sears and T.K. Thomas (eds), Reading Medieval
Images: The Art Historian and the Object, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 117–25
Grabar, O. 2009. Masterpieces of Islamic Art: The Decorated Page from the 8th to the 17th Century.
Munich
Grabar, O. and S.S. Blair. 1980. Epic Images and Contemporary History. Chicago and
London
Grañeda Miñón, P. 2008. ‘La explotación andalusí de la plata en Córdoba’, in A. Canto García
and P. Cressier (eds), Minas y metalurgia en al-Andalus y Magreb occidental: Explotación y
poblamiento. Madrid, pp. 19–36
Gray, B. 1961. Persian Painting. London
Green, N. 2006. ‘Ostrich eggs and peacock feathers: sacred objects as cultural exchange
between Christianity and Islam’, al-Masaq 18/1, pp. 27–66
Grohman, A. 1971. Arabische Paläographie. Vienna
Grube, E. 1963, ‘Three miniatures from Fustat in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New
York’, Ars Orientalis 5, pp. 89–95
Grube, E. 1976. Early Islamic Pottery. London
Grube, E. (ed.). 1994. Cobalt and Lustre: The First Centuries of Islamic Pottery. The Nasser D.
Khalili Collection of Islamic Art, vol. 9. London
Grube, E. and J. Johns. 2005. The Painted Ceilings of the Cappella Palatina: Islamic Art,
Supplement 1. Genoa and New York
Gunther, R. 1932. The Astrolabes of the World. Oxford
Guy, J. 2001–2. ‘Early Asian ceramic trade and the Belitung (‘Tang’) cargo’, Transactions of the
Oriental Ceramic Society, vol. 66, pp. 13–27
Guy, J. 2005. ‘Early ninth-century Chinese export ceramics and the Persian Gulf connection:
the Belitung shipwreck evidence’, Taoci 4, pp. 9–20
Haarmann, U. 1988. ‘Turkish in lineage: Mamluks and their sons in the intellectual life of
fourteenth century Egypt and Syria’, Journal of Semitic Studies 33, pp. 103–14
Haarmann, U. 1998. ‘Joseph’s law – the careers and activities of Mamluk descendants before
the Ottoman conquest of Egypt’, in T. Philipp and U. Haarmann (eds), The Mamluks in
Egyptian politics and society. Cambridge, pp. 55–84
Haase, C.P. 2003. ‘VIII. Inschriften der islamischen Zeit’, in Stefan Heidemann and Andrea
Becker (eds), Raqqa 2—Die islamische Stadt. Mainz
Haig, T.W. 1907–8. ‘Inscriptions at Gulbarga’, in Epigraphia Indo-Moslemica, 1–2
Hakhnazarian, A. and V. Mehrabian. 1992. Nor Djulfa. Venice
Hallett, J. 1999. ‘Trade and innovation: the rise of a pottery industry in Abbasid Basra’, PhD
thesis. Oxford
Hallett, J. 2005. ‘Iraq and China: trade and innovation in the early Abbasid period’, Taoci 4,
pp.21–29
Hallett, J. 2011. ‘Pearl cups like the moon: the Abbasid reception of Chinese ceramics’,
Shipwrecked: Tang Treasures and Monsoon Winds. Washington, DC, pp. 75–81

487
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

Halm, H. 1995. ‘Al-Šamsa. Hängekronen als herrschaftszeichen der Abbasiden und

Fatimiden’, in U. Vermeulen and D. de Smet (eds), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid,
Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras. Leuven, pp. 125–38
al-Hamdani, M. and M. Wenzel. 1966. ‘The worm in the tooth’, Folklore 77, pp. 60−64
Hamilton, R. 1988. Walid and His Friends: An Umayyad Tragedy. Oxford Studies in Islamic
Art. Oxford
Hanaway, W. 1971. ‘The concept of the hunt in Persian literature’, Boston Museum Bulletin 69,
pp.21–34
Hangloo, R.L. 1997. ‘Accepting Islam and abandoning Hinduism: a study of proselytization
process in Medieval Kashmir’, Islamic Culture 71/1, pp. 91–110
Harari, R. 1938–39. ‘Metalwork after the early Islamic period’, in Survey of Persian Art,
pp.2466–529
al-Harithy, H. 2001. ‘The Ewer of Ibn Jaldak (623/1226) at the Metropolitan Museum of
Art: the inquiry into the origin of the Mawsili School of Metalwork revisited’, Bulletin of
the School of Oriental and African Studies 64/3, pp. 355–68
Harley, J.B. and D. Woodward (eds). 1992. ‘Cartography in the traditional Islamic and South
Asian societies’, The History of Cartography, vol. 2/1. Chicago
Hasson, R. 1987. Early Islamic Jewellery. Jerusalem
Hayes, J.W. 1984. Greek, Roman, and Related Metalware in the Royal Ontario Museum,
exhibition catalogue. Toronto
Heidemann, S. 2003. ‘Die Geschichte von ar-Raqqa/ar-Rafiqa: ein Überblick’, in S.
Heidemann and A. Becker (eds), Raqqa 2: Die islamische Stadt. Mainz
Heidemann, S. 2006. ‘The history of the industrial and commercial area of Abbasid Al-Raqqa,
called Al-Raqqa Al-Muhtariqa’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies
69/1, pp.32–52
Heleniak, K.M. 2004. ‘Redgrave, Richard (1804–88)’, in Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography, online edition, http://www.oxforddnb.com
Herzfeld, E. 1936. ‘A bronze pen-case’, Ars Islamica 3, pp. 35–43
Herzig, E. 1990. ‘The deportation of the Armenians in 1604–1605 and Europe’s myth of
Shah ‘Abbas I’, in Charles Melville (ed.), Persian and Islamic Studies in Honour of P.W.
Avery. Cambridge, pp. 59–71
Herzig, E. 1991. ‘The Armenian merchants of New Julfa, Isfahan: a study in pre-modern
Asian trade’, unpublished PhD thesis. Oxford
Herzig, E. 1992. ‘The volume of Iranian raw silk exports in the Safavid period’, Iranian Studies
25, pp.61–81
Herzig, E. 1996. ‘The rise of the Julfa merchants in the late sixteenth century’, in Charles Melville
(ed.), Safavid Persia: The History and Politics of an Islamic Society. London, pp.305–22
El-Hibri, T. 1993. ‘Coinage reform under the Abbasid caliph al-Ma’mun’, Journal of the
Economic and Social History of the Orient 36, pp. 58–83
Hildburgh, W.L. 1906. ‘The manufacture of inlaid brasswork at Cairo’, Journal of the Society of
Arts 54, pp.215–16

488
 general bibliography

Hildburgh, W.L. 1921. ‘Note on a bronze polycandelon found in Spain’, The Antiquaries
Journal 1, pp. 328–37
Hillenbrand, R. 1986. ‘The use of spatial devices in the Great Mosque of Cordoba’, in A.
Sidarus (ed.), Islão e Arabismo na Peninsula Iberica: Actas do XI Congresso da União
Europeia de Arabistos e Islamogos. Evora
Hillenbrand, R. 1992. ‘Turco-Iranian elements in the Medieval architecture of Pakistan: the
case of the tomb of Rukn-i ‘Alam at Multan’, Muqarnas 9, pp. 148–74
Hillenbrand, R. 2002. ‘The arts of the book in Ilkhanid Iran’, in L. Komaroff and S. Carboni
(eds), The Legacy of Genghis Khan: Courtly Art and Culture in Western Asia, 1256–1353.
New Haven, CT and London
Hirschfeld, Y. 2004. Excavations at Tiberias, 1989–1994. Jerusalem
Hirschfeld, Y. and O. Gutfeld. 2008. Tiberias: Excavations in the House of the Bronzes: Final
Report, vol.I: Architecture, Stratigraphy and Small Finds, Qedem 48. Jerusalem
Ho, C. 1991. ‘Ceramics found at excavations at Ko Kho Khao and Laem Pho, Southern
Thailand’, Trade Ceramics Studies 11, pp. 53–80
Ho, C. 1994. ‘The significance of Middle Eastern ceramics in East and Southeast Asia in the
ninth and tenth centuries’, Trade Ceramic Studies 14, pp. 35–59
Ho, C. 1995. ‘Turquoise jars and other West Asian ceramics in China’, Bulletin of the Asia
Institute 9, pp. 19–39
Hobson, R.L. 1928. The George Eumorfopoulos Collection of the Chinese, Corean and Persian
Pottery and Porcelain, vol. 6: Chinese Pottery, Corean and Persian Wares, and Recent
Additions. London
Hoffman, E.R. 2004. ‘Christian–Islamic encounters on thirteenth-century Ayyubid
metalwork: local culture, authenticity, and memory’, Gesta 43/2 (‘Encounters with Islam’,
guest editors Robert Ousterhout and D. Fairchild Ruggles), pp. 129–42
Hond, J. de and L. Mols. 2011. ‘A Mamluk basin for a Sicilian queen’, The Rijksmuseum
Bulletin 59, pp. 6–33
Horne, J. 1925. Many Days in Morocco. London
Hoskins, L. 2004. ‘Jones, Owen (1809–74)’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, online
edition, http://www.oxforddnb.com
Höst, G. 1781. Nachrichten von Marokos und Fes. Copenhagen
Höst, G. 2002. Relations sur les Royaumes de Marrakech et Fès, Recueillies dans le Pays de 1760 à
1768, tr. Frédéric Damgaard and Pierre Gailhanou. Rabat
Hourani, G.F. 1995. Arab Seafaring in the Indian Ocean in Ancient and Early Medieval Times,
revised and expanded by J. Carswell. Princeton, NJ
Howard, D. 2003. ‘Death in Damascus: Venetians in Syria in the mid fifteenth century’,
Muqarnas 20, pp. 143–57
Hoyland, R. and B. Gilmour. 2006. Medieval Islamic Swords and Swordmaking: Kindi’s Treatise
‘On Swords and their Kinds’: Edition, Translation and Commentary. London
Huard, P. and M.D. Grmek. 1960. Le Premier Manuscript Chirurgical Turc Rédigé par Charaf
ed-Din, 1465. Paris

489
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

Hughes, L. 2006. ‘Cultural and intellectual life’, in Maureen Perrey (ed.), Cambridge History of
Russia, vol. 1: From Early Rus’ to 1689. Cambridge, pp. 640–62
Humphreys, R.S. 1977. From Saladin to the Mongols: The Ayyubids of Damascus. New York
Iacobini, A. 2009. Le Porte del Paradiso. Rome
Ibn al-‘Adim-Blochet. 1897. ‘L’Histoire d’Alep de Kamal-Ad-Dîn, version française d’après le
texte arabe’, Revue de l’Orient Latin 5/1–2, pp. 37–107
Ibn al-Athir, ‘Izz al-Din Abu’l-Hasan al-Shaybani. 1883–84. Al-Kamil fi’l-tarikh, 12 vols.
Cairo
Ibn Battuta, Muhammad ibn ‘Abdallah. 1853–1858. Voyages d’Ibn Batoutah: texte arabe,
accompagné d’une traduction, tr. C.F. Defrémery and B.R. Sanguinetti. Paris
Ibn Khallikan, Ahmad ibn Muhammad. 1842–45. Ibn Khallikan’s Biographical Dictionary, tr.
Bn Mac Guckin de Slane. Paris
Ibn al-Muwaqqit, Muhammad ibn Muhammad. 1917–18. Sa‘adat al-abadiyya fi al-ta‘rif bi
mashahir al-hadrat al-marakshiyya, lithographic edn, 2 vols. Fez
Ibn Shihna, Muhammad. 1933. ‘Les Perles Choisies’ d’ibn ach-Chihna, tr. J. Sauvaget. Damascus
Ibn Taghribirdi, Yusuf. 1963–71. Al-Nujum al-zahira fi muluk Misr wa’l-Qahira, 16 vols. Cairo
Ibn Zaydan, ‘Abd al-Rahman. 1990. Ithaf a‘lam an-nas fi jamal akhbar hadirat miknas, 5 vols.
Casablanca
Ibn al-Zubayr Ahmad ibn al-Rashid. 1959. Kitab al-dhaka’ir wa’l-tuhaf. Kuwait
Ibrahim, M.A. 2007. Tatawwur al-malabis fi ‘l-mujtama’ al-misri ila nihayat al-‘asr al-fatimi. Cairo
al-Idrisi, Muhammad ibn Muhammad. 1970–78. Opus geographicum, sive ‘Liber ad eorum
dlectationem qui terras peragrare studeant’ (Kitab nuzhat al-mushtaq), ed. Alessio Bombaci
et al. Rome
al-Ifrani, Muhammad al-Saghir. 1889. Nozhet-Elhâdi: Histoire de la dynastie saadienne au
Maroc 1511670, tr. Octave Houdas. Paris
al-Ifrani, Muhammad al-Saghir. 1995. Rawdat al-ta‘rif bi mafakhir mawlana Isma‘il ibn al-
Sharif, ed. A. Benalmansour. Rabat
Ilisch, L. 1979. ‘Stempelveränderungen an Islamischen münzen des mittelalters als quelle zur
münzstättenorganisation’, Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Numismatics.
Louvain-la-Neuve, pp. 777–83
Ilisch, L. 2007. ‘Iagttagelser angaende anvendelse af moentstempler under Abbasidekalifatets
Samarra-periode’, Nordisk Numismatisk Unions Medlemsblad III, pp. 101–5
al-‘Imary, A.A. 1967. ‘Studies in some Islamic objects newly discovered at Qus’, Annales
Islamologiques 7, pp. 121–38.
Inal, G. 1963. ‘Some miniatures of the Jami‘ al-tavarikh in Istanbul’, Topkapı Museum, Hazine
Library no 1654’, Ars Orientalis 5, pp. 163–67
Islamic Art in Egypt, 969–1517. 1969. Exhibition catalogue. Cairo
Ismail, A. 1982–93. Documents Diplomatiques et Consulaires Relatifs à l’Histoire du Liban et des
Pays du Proche-Orient du XVII siècle à nos Jours, Première Partie: Les Sources Françaises.
Correspondance Consulaire et Commerciale, 6 vols. Beirut
Issa, R. 2001. Iranian Contemporary Art. London

490
 general bibliography

‘Izzi, W. 1965. ‘An Ayyubid basin of al-Salih. Najm al-Din’, Studies in Islamic Art and
Architecture in Honour of Professor K.A.C. Creswell. Cairo and London, pp. 253–59
Jackson, P. 1999. The Delhi Sultanate: A Political and Military History. Cambridge
Jackson, P. 2000. ‘The fall of the Ghurid Dynasty’, in C. Hillenbrand (ed.), The Sultan’s Turret:
Studies in Persian and Turkish Culture, Studies in Honour of Clifford Edmund Bosworth,
vol. 2. Leiden, pp. 207–37
Jaffé, P. and S. Loewenfeld. 1885–88. Regesta Pontificum Romanorum ab condita ecclesiae ad
annum post Christum natum 1998, 2nd edn, 2 vols. Leipzig
al-Jahiz, ‘Amr ibn Bahr. 1970. Kitab al-Buldan. Cairo
al-Jahiz, ‘Amr ibn Bahr. 1979. Rasa’il, v. 13, ed. Ubaidallah b. Hassan. Egypt
Jain-Neubauer, J. 2006. ‘The many Delhis: town planning and architecture under the Tughluqs
(1320–1413)’, in Lambah and Patel, Architecture, pp.38–39
James, D. 1980. ‘An early Mosul metalworker: some new information’, Oriental Art 26/3
(Autumn), pp. 318–21
Javadi, H. 1984. ‘Ahu, ii. the gazelle in literature’, Encyclopaedia Iranica online
Jenkins, M. 1968a. ‘Muslim: an early Fatimid ceramist’, Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of
Art 26
Jenkins, M. 1968b. ‘The palmette tree: a study of the iconography of Egyptian luster painted
pottery’, Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 7, pp. 119–26
Jenkins, M. (ed.). 1983. Islamic Art in the Kuwait National Museum. London
Jiang Hua, 1984. ‘Tang ceramics unearthed in Yangzhou, Jiansu province’, Wenwu 3,
pp. 63–66
Joel, G., S. Makariou and A. Peli. 2005. Suse: Terres Cuites Islamiques. Paris
Johns, J. 1998. ‘The rise of Middle Islamic hand-made geometrically-painted ware in Bilad al-
Sham (11th–13th centuries A.D.)’, in Roland-Pierre Gayraud (ed.), Colloque International
d’Archéologie Islamique, IFAO, Le Caire, 3–7 février 1993, Textes Arabes et Etudes
Islamiques, vol. 36. Cairo, pp. 65–93
Johns, J. 2002. Arabic Administration in Norman Sicily: The Royal Diwan. Cambridge
Johns, J. 2010. ‘Le pitture del soffitto della Cappella Palatina’ (Saggi, pp. 353–86; Schede,
pp.429–56, 487–510, 540–665; Atlante I, Figs 158–94, pp. 133–47, Figs 369–84,
pp.286–303; Atlante II, Figs 473–1220, pp. 384–823), in Beat Brenk (ed.), La Cappella
Palatina a Palermo, 4 vols (Mirabilia Italiae 15). Modena
Jones, O. 1852. ‘Observations’, in Department of Practical Art: A Catalogue of the Articles of
Ornamental Art, Selected from the Exhibition of the Works of Industry of All Nations in
1851, and Purchased by the Government. London, pp. 6–9
Jones, O. 1856. The Grammar of Ornament. London
Jones, O. 1863. On the True and the False in the Decorative Arts: Lectures Delivered at
Marlborough House, June 1852. London
Jones, O. and J. Goury. 1842–45. Plans, Elevations, Sections and Details of the Alhambra, 2 vols.
London
Jones, P.M. 1984. Medieval Medical Miniatures. London

491
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

Joshi, M.C. 2007. ‘Introduction à l’art Gupta’, in L’Age d’or de l’Inde classique, l’empire des
Guptas. Paris, pp. 29–57
Josz, V. 1903. ‘L’Exposition des Arts Musulmans’, Mercure de France 6, pp. 817–21
Juzjani, M.a.D.A.Ua.U. 1963–64. Tabaqat-i Nasiri, 2 vols, ed. ‘Abd al-Hayy Husayni Habibi.
Kabul
Kahle, P. 1940–41. ‘Chinese porcelain in the lands of Islam’, Transactions of the Oriental
Ceramic Society 18, pp. 27–46
Kahle, P. 1961. Der Hebräische Bibeltext Seit Franz Delitzsch. Stuttgart
Kahya, E. 1990. The Treatise on Anatomy of Human Body and Interpretation of Philosophers by
[Shams al-Din] Al-‘Itaqi: A Special Contribution to the Project Series. Islamabad
Kalf. 1901–2. ‘Korte mededeelingen’, Bulletin Uitgegeven door den Nederlandschen
Oudheidkundigen Bond 3, pp. 300–4
Kalter, J. 1993. ‘Die Höfe – Zentren der Macht – Zentren der Kunst – Verbreiter des
Glaubens’, in Hermann Forkl et al. (eds), Die Gärten des Islam, exhibition catalogue.
Stuttgart, pp. 77–105
Kamiya, T. 2004. The Guide to the Architecture of the Indian Subcontinent. Hyderabad
Kampffmeyer, G. 1908. ‘L’Inscription de Safi (Maroc)’, Revue Africaine 249, pp. 182–89
Kana‘an, R. 2009. ‘The de jure “artist” of the Bobrinsky bucket: production and patronage
of pre-Mongol metalwork in Khurasan and Transoxiana’, Islamic Law and Society 16,
pp. 175–201
Kana‘an, R. Forthcoming 2012. ‘Patron and craftsman of the Freer Mosul Ewer of 1232:
a historical and legal interpretation of the roles of Tilmidh and Ghulam in Islamic
metalwork’, Ars Orientalis 42
Karabacek, J. von. 1884. ‘Zur muslimischen Keramik’, Monatsschrift f.d. Orient 12
Karabacek, J. von. 1908. ‘Zur orientalischen Altertumskunde. I. Sarazenische Wappen’,
Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften 157, pp. 1–25
Karev, Y. 2005. ‘Qarakhanid wall paintings in the Citadel of Samarqand: first report and
preliminary observations’, Muqarnas 22, Figs 16–17
Karimi, F. and M.Y. Kiani. 1985. Hunar-i sufalgari-yi dawra-yi islami-yi Iran. Tehran, pp.230–31
Karim’zadah Tabrizi, Muhammad. 1991. Aval va Asar-i Naqqashan-e Qadimi-ye Iran, vol. 3.
London
Kashefi, J. 1993. ‘Naqqashi-i mu’asir-i Iran (3)’, Fasl-nameh-i hunar (Art Quarterly) 15, pp.46–129
Katzenstein, R.A. and G.D. Lowry. 1983. ‘Christian themes in thirteenth-century Islamic
metalwork’, Muqarnas 1, pp. 53–68
Kennedy, P.F. 2002. ‘Zuhdiyya’, Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI2)
Kennedy, P.F. 2005. Abu Nuwas: A Genius of Poetry. Oxford, pp. 114–15
Kerr, Rose. Song Dynasty Ceramics. London, p. 96 and Fig. 97
Keshmirshekan, H. 2005. ‘Neo-traditionalism and modern Iranian painting: Saqqa-khaneh
school in the 1960s’, Iranian Studies 38/4, pp. 607–30
Keshmirshekan, H. 2006. ‘Discourses on postrevolutionary Iranian art: neotraditionalism
during the 1990s’, Muqarnas 23, pp. 131–57

492
 general bibliography

Keshmirshekan, H. 2007. ‘Contemporary Iranian art: the emergence of new artistic discourses’,
Iranian Studies 40/iii, pp. 335–66
Keshmirshekan, H. 2010. ‘The question of identity vis-à-vis exoticism in contemporary
Iranian art’, Iranian Studies 43, p. iv
Khamis, E. 2006. ‘Trends in the evolution of Islamic metalwork in the light of the Fatimid
bronze vessel hoard from Tiberias’, unpublished PhD thesis. Jerusalem
Khamis, E. and R. Amir. 1999. ‘The Fatimid bronze vessels hoard’, Qadmoniot 32/2, pp.108–14
al-Khamis, U. and G. Evans. 2004. ‘Faint echoes of past splendour: a group of brass plaques
from nineteenth-century Qajar Iran’, in Robert Hillenbrand (ed.), Shahnama: The Visual
Language of the Persian Book of Kings. Aldershot, pp. 129–42
Khan, A.N. 1990. Al-Mansurah: A Forgotten Arab Metropolis in Pakistan. Karachi
Khan, M.I. 1986. ‘The impact of Islam on Kashmir in the Sultanate period (1320–1586)’, The
Indian Economic and Social History Review 23, pp. 187–205
Khan, M.N. 1985. ‘A Ghaznavid historical inscription from Udegram, Swat’, East and West
n.s./35, pp.153–66
Khoury, N.N.N. 1998. ‘Narratives of the Holy Land: memory, identity and inverted imagery
in the Freer Basin and Canteen’, Orientations May, pp. 63–69.
King, D.A. 1996–97. ‘The monumental Syrian astrolabe in the Maritime Museum, Istanbul’,
Erdem/Aydın Sayılı Özel Sayısı, pp. 729–35
al-Kittani, Muhammad ibn Ja’far. 1897. Al-Azhar al-‘atirat al-anfas bi dhikr ba‘d mahasin qutb
al-maghrib wa taj madinat fas, lithographic edn. Fez
Klein, A., J. Zick-Nissen and E. Klinge (eds). 1973. Islamische Keramik, exhibition catalogue,
Hetjens-Museum. Düsseldorf
Knipp, D. (ed.). 2011. ‘“Siculo-Arabic” ivories and Islamic painting, 1100–1300: proceedings
of the International Conference, Berlin, 6–8 July 2007’, in Römische Forschungen der
Bibliotheca Hertziana, vol. 36
Koch, E. 2001. Mughal Art and Imperial Ideology: Collected Essays. New Delhi
Koechlin, R. 1928. Les Céramiques de Suse au Musée du Louvre, Mémoires de la Mission
Archéologique de Perse, vol. 19. Paris
Koehler, P.H. (tr. and annot.). 1937. Relation de la vie et de la mort de sept jeunes gens que
Moulay Hamet, roi du Maroc, tua parce qu’ils étaient chrétiens … écrite par un religieux de
la T. Ste Trinité et Rédemption des Captifs. Rabat
Koehler, P.H. 1940. ‘La Kasba saadienne de Marrakech d’après un plan manuscrit de 1585’,
Hespéris 27, pp. 1–19
Komaroff, L. 1994. ‘Paintings in silver and gold: the decoration of Persian metalwork and its
relationship to manuscript illustration’, Decorative Arts 2/1 (Fall 1994), pp. 2–34
Komaroff, L. 2002. ‘The transmission and dissemination of a new visual language’, in L.
Komaroff and S. Carboni (eds), The Legacy of Genghis Khan: Courtly Art and Culture in
Western Asia, 1256–1353. New Haven, CT and London
Komaško, N.I. 2003. ‘Živopisec Bogdan Saltanov v kontekste xudožestvennoj žizni Moskvy
vtoroj poloviny XVII veka’ (‘The painter Bogdan Saltanov in the context of the artistic

493
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

life in Moscow in the second half of the seventeenth century’), Rus’. Voprosy medievistiki 2,
pp.44–54
Kornioukova, I.A. 2010. ‘Portrait funéraire du tsar Feodor III Romanov’, in Durand et al.,
pp.656–57
Krahl, R. 2011a. ‘White wares of Northern China’, in Shipwrecked: Tang Treasures and
Monsoon Winds, exhibition catalogue, Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian
Institution. Washington, DC, pp. 200–7
Krahl, R. 2011b. ‘Tang blue-and-white’, in Shipwrecked: Tang Treasures and Monsoon Winds,
exhibition catalogue, Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution. Washington,
DC, pp.209–11
Krahl, R., J. Guy, J. Keith Wilson and J. Raby (eds). 2011. Shipwrecked: Tang Treasures
and Monsoon Winds, exhibition catalogue, Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian
Institution. Washington, DC
Kratchkovskaya, V.A. 1947. ‘Nadpis Bronzovovo Taza Badr Al-Dina Lulu’, Epigrafika
Vostoka 1, pp. 9–22
Kubiak, W.B. 1987. Al-Fustat: Its Foundation and Early Urban Development. Cairo
Kühnel, E. 1924–25. ‘Three Mosul bronzes at Leningrad’, The Year Book of Oriental Art and
Culture, pp.100–1
Kühnel, E. 1925. Islamische Kleinkunst. Bibliothek für Kunst- und Antiquitäten-Sammler
Band XXV. Berlin
Kühnel, E. 1938. Die Sammlung türkischer und islamischer Kunst im Tschinili Köschk.
Berlin
Kühnel, E. 1939. ‘Zwei Mosulbronzen und ihr Meister’, Jahrbuch der Preussischen
Kunstsammlungen 60, pp. 1–20
Kühnel, E. 1971a. The Minor Arts of Islam, Ithaca, NY
Kühnel, E. 1971b. Islamischen Elfenbeinskulpturen. VIII–XIII. Jahrhundret. Berlin
Kühnel, E. and L. Bellinger. 1952. Catalogue of Dated Tiraz Fabrics: Umayyad, Abbasid,
Fatimid. Washington, DC
Kuile, O. ter. 1986. Koper en Brons: Catalogi van de Verzameling Kunstnijverheid van het
Rijksmuseum te Amsterdam. ‘s-Gravenhage
Kumar, S. 2007. The Emergence of the Delhi Sultanate 1192–1286. New Delhi
Lair-Dubreuil, Me. F. et al. 1908. Catalogue des Objets d’Art et de Haute Curiosité Orientaux
& Européens. Composant la collection de feu M. O. Homberg et dont la vente aura lieu à
Paris – Galerie Georges Petit, 8, rue de Sèze – Du Lundi 11 au Samedi 16 Mai 1908,
à 2 heures
Lammens, S.J. 1904. ‘Correspondences diplomatiques entre les sultans Mamlouks d’Égypte et
les puissances chrétiennes’, Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 9, pp. 151–87, 359–92
Lanci, M. 1819. Lettera dell’Abate Michele Angelo Lanci sul Cufico Sepolcrale Monumento portato
d’Egitto in Roma. Rome
Lanci, M. 1845–46. Trattato delle simboliche rappresentanze Arabiche e della varia generazione
de’ Musulmani caratteri sopra differenti materie operati. Paris

494
 general bibliography

Landau, A.S. 2009. ‘Farangi-sazi at Isfahan: The Court Painter Muhammad Zaman, the
Armenians of New Julfa and Shah Sulayman (1666–1694)’, unpublished PhD thesis.
Oxford
Landau, A.S. 2011. ‘From poet to painter: allegory and metaphor in a seventeenth-century
Persian painting by Muhammad Zaman, master of Farangi-Sazi (the Europeanized
style)’, Muqarnas 28, pp. 101–31
Landau, A.S. 2012. ‘Adaptation of western religious iconography in Safavid Iran: the case of
Bethlehem Church’, in W. Floor and E. Herzig (eds), Iran and the World in the Safavid
Age. London
Landau, A.S. 2012. ‘Reconfiguring the northern European print to depict sacred history at the
Persian court’, in M. North (ed.), Mediating Netherlandish Art and Material Culture in
Asia. London
Landor, A.H.S. 1902. Across Coveted Lands or a Journey from Flushing (Holland) to Calcutta
Overland, 2 vols. London
Lane, A. 1939. ‘Glazed relief ware of the ninth century A.D.’ Ars Islamica 6., pp. 56–65
Lane, A. 1946–47. ‘Sung wares and the Saljuq pottery of Persia’, Transactions of the Oriental
Ceramic Society 22
Lane, A. 1947. Early Islamic Pottery, Mesopotamia, Egypt and Persia. London
Lane A. 1956. Islamic Pottery from the Ninth to the Fourteenth Centuries A.D. (Third to Eighth
Centuries) in the Collection of Sir Eldred Hitchcock. London
Lane, E.W. 1836, reprint 1860. The Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians. London
and New York
Lane-Poole, S. 1886. The Art of the Saracens in Egypt. London
Lane-Poole, S. 1893–94. ‘Saracenic metal-work’, English Illustrated Magazine 11,
pp.905–12
La Niece, S. 1983. ‘Niello: an historical and technical survey’, The Antiquaries Journal 63/2,
pp.280–97
Lavoix, H. 1862. ‘Les Azziministes’, Gazette des Beaux-Arts 12/1ere période, pp. 64–74
Lavoix, H. 1877. ‘Les Arts Musulmans: De l’Ornementation Arabe dans les oeuvres des
maîtres Italiens.’ Gazette des Beaux-Arts 16/19, 2e période, pp. 15–29
Lavoix, H. 1878. ‘La Galerie Orientale du Trocadéro’, Gazette des Beaux-Arts 18/2e période,
pp.769–91
Lavoix, H. 1885. ‘La Collection Albert Goupil’, Gazette des Beaux-Arts 32/27, 2e période,
pp.336–62
Lazard, G. 1970. ‘Ahu-ye kuhi… le chamois d’Abu Hafs de Sogdiane et les origines du robai’,
in Mary Boyce and Ilya Gershevitch (eds), W.B. Henning Memorial Volume. London,
pp.238–44
Łazaryan, M. and V. Oskanyan. 1986. Bogdan Salt‘anov. Erevan
Lentz, T.W. and G.D. Lowry. 1989. Timur and the Princely Vision: Persian Art and Culture in
the Fifteenth Century, exhibition catalogue, the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian
Institution and Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Washington, DC and Los Angeles

495
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

Leroy, J. 1964. Les Manuscrits Syriaques à peintures conservés dans les Bibliothèques d’Europe
et d’Orient. Contribution à l’étude de l’iconographie des Églises de langue Syriaque. Institut
Français d’Archéologie de Beyrouth, Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique, Tome
77. Paris
Leroy, J. 1974–75. Un Flabellum Syriaque daté du Deir Souriani (Egypte): Cahiers de
Mariemont, pp. 31–39
Les Andalousies de Damas à Cordoue. 2000. Exhibition catalogue, Institut du Monde Arabe.
Paris
Les Perses Sassanides: Fastes d’un Empire Oublie (224–642). 2006. Exhibition catalogue, Musée
Cernuschi. Paris
Lester, A. 2004. ‘Glass and metal objects’, in Y. Hirschfeld, Excavations at Tiberias, 1989–
1994. Jerusalem, pp. 59–68
Lester, A. 2008. ‘Fatimid period jewelry hoard from the excavations at Maz. liah. ’, Qadmoniot,
pp.35–39 (Hebrew)
Lester, A., Y.D. Arnon and R. Polak. 1999. ‘The Fatimid hoard from Caesarea: a preliminary
report’, in M. Barrucand (ed.), L’Égypte Fatimide, son Art et Histiore. Paris, pp. 233–48
Lévi-Provençal, E. 1950. Histoire de l’Espagne Musulmane, vol. 2: Le Califat Umaiyade de
Cordoue (912–1031). Paris
Le Tourneau, R. 1949. Fès Avant le Protectorat. Casablanca
Lévi-Provençal, E. 1991. Les Historiens des Chorfas. Casablanca
Lewicki, T. 1935. ‘Les premiers commerçants arabes en Chine’, Rocznik Orjentalistyczny,
vol. 11, pp.173–86
Li, Z. and C. Wen. 1984. Chinese Pottery and Porcelain. Beijing
Lo Bue, E. 1981. ‘Casting of devotional images in the Himalayas: history, tradition and
modern techniques’, in W.A. Oddy and W. Zwalf (eds), Aspects of Tibetan Metallurgy.
London, pp. 69–86
Lohuizen, J.E. van. 1981.‘The pre-Muslim antiquities of Sind’, in H. Khuhro (ed.), Sind
Through the Centuries: Proceedings of an International Seminar held in Karachi in Spring
1975 by the Department of Culture, Government of Sind. Karachi, pp. 43–58
Lombard, M. 1974. Les Métaux dans l’ancien monde de Ve Au Xie siècle. Paris
Los Angeles. 2011. Gifts of the Sultan: The Arts of Giving at the Islamic Courts: Catalogue of
Exhibition Held at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, ed. L. Komaroff. New Haven, CT
Louisiana. 1987. ‘Art from the world of Islam, 8th–18th Century’, Louisiana Revy 27/3
Loukonine, V. and A. Ivanov. 2003. Persian Art: Lost Treasures. London
Luo, Z. 1982. ‘The great significance of the blue-and-white porcelain unearthed from the
ruins of an ancient city of the Tang dynasty (AD 618–907) in Yangzhou’, Abstracts of the
International Conference on Ancient Chinese Pottery and Porcelain. Shanghai, p. 32
Ma, Q. 1990. ‘A brief account of the early spread of Islam in China’, Social Sciences in China,
pp.97–113
Macías, S. 1993. ‘A arqueta pintada do período islâmico do Museu de Moura’, V Jornadas
Arqueológicas, 2. Lisbon, pp. 295–98

496
 general bibliography

Mack, R.E. 2002. Bazaar to Piazza – Islamic Trade and Italian Art, 1300–1600. Berkeley, CA,
Los Angeles and London
Mackie, L. 1989. ‘Textiles’, in G. Scanlon and W. Kubiak, Fustat Expedition: Final Report,
vol. 2: Fustat-C. Winona Lake, IN
Maddison, F. and E. Savage-Smith. 1997. Science, Tools & Magic, Part 1: Body and Spirit, Mapping
the Universe, The Nasser D. Khalili Collection of Islamic Art 12. London and Oxford
Makariou, S. 2002. Nouvelles Acquisitions, Arts de l’Islam, 1988–2001: Musée du Louvre,
Département des Antiquités Orientales, catalogue. Paris
Makariou, S. 2010. ‘The al-Mughira pyxis and Spanish Umayyad ivories: aims and tools of
power’, in A. Borrut and P.M. Cobb (eds), Umayyad Legacies: Medieval Memories from
Syria to Spain. Leiden, pp. 313–35
Malaterra, G. 1927–28. De rebus gestis Rogerii Calabriae et Siciliae Comitis et Roberti Guiscardi
Ducis fratris eius, ed. Ernesto Pontieri. Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, 2nd ser., vol.2. Bologna
‘Man hichguneh qiyd va bandi ra baray-i hunarmand nimipaziram’, Ferdawsi 1970, p. 984
Mango, C. 1978. ‘Storia dell’arte’, in La Civiltà Bizantina dal IX all’ Xi Secolo. Aspetti e
Problemi. Bari
Mao, P.W.C. 1977. ‘Early “blue and white”’, Oriental Art 23/3, pp. 333–36
al-Maqqari, Ahmad ibn Muhammad. 1840–43. The History of the Mohammedan Dynasties in
Spain: Extracted from the Nafhu-t-tib min ghosni-l-Andalusi-r-rattib wa tarikh Lisanu-d-
Din Ibni-l-Khattib, tr. Pascual de Gayangos, 2 vols, London
al-Maqrizi, Ahmad b. ‘Ali. 1854. Kitab al-Mawa‘iz wa’l-i‘tibar bi-dhikr al-khitat wa’l-athar, 2
vols. Bulaq
al-Maqrizi, Ahmad b. ‘Ali. 1888–89, Kitab al-Mawa‘iz wa’l-i‘tibar bi-dhikr al-khitat wa’l-athar,
2 vols. Bulaq
al-Maqrizi, Ahmad b. ‘Ali. 1967–73. Itti‘az al-hunafa’ bi akhbar al-a’imma al-Fatimiyyin al-
khulafa’, ed. Jamal al-Din al-Shayyal, 3 vols. Cairo
Marçais, G. 1925. Coupole et Plafonds de la Grande Mosquée de Kairouan. Paris
Marçais, G. 1927. Manuel d’Art Musulman, 2 vols. Paris
Marçais, G. 1954. L’Architecture Musulmane d’Occident. Paris
Marçais, G. 1957. ‘Sidi abd er-Rahman, patron d’Alger et son tombeau’, Mélanges d’Histoire
et d’Archéologie de l’Occident Musulman, vol. 1: Articles et Conférences de Georges Marçais.
Algiers, pp.195–203
Marschak, B. 1986. Silberschätze des Orients: Metalkunst des 3–13, Jahrhunderts und ibre
Kontinuität. Leipzig
Martin, F.R. 1912. The Miniature Painting and Painters of Persia, India and Turkey from the
Eighth to the Eighteenth Century, 2 vols. London
al-Marwazi, T. 1942. Sharaf al-Zaman Tahir Marvazi on China, the Turks, and India, ed. V.
Minorsky. London
Marzolph, U. 2001. Narrative Illustration in Persian Lithographed Books. Leiden and Boston
Mason, R.B. 2004. Shine like the Sun: Luster and Associated Pottery from the Medieval Middle
East. Costa Mesa

497
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

Mason, R.B. and E.J. Keall. 1991. ‘The ‘Abbasid glazed wares of Siraf and the Basra
connection: petrographic analysis’, Iran 29, pp. 51–66
al-Mas‘udi, ‘Ali ibn al-Husayn. 1861–77. Maçoudi: Les Prairies d’Or, 9 vols., tr. C. Barbier de
Meynard and Pavet de Courteille. Paris
Masuya, T. 2000, ‘Persian Tiles on European Walls’, Ars Orientalis XXX, pp. 39–54
Matthee, R. 2009. ‘Russian–Iranian relations in the mid-seventeenth century’, in Aleksei
Konstantinovich Levykin (ed.), The Tsars and the East: Gifts from Turkey and Iran in the
Moscow Kremlin. Washington, DC, pp. 15–17
Mauldin, B. 2003. ‘Revival of Puebla Mayolica’, in Robin Farwell Gavin, Donna Pierce and
Alfonso Pleguezuelo (eds), Cerámica y Cultura. Albuquerque, NM, pp. 271–95
Mayer, L.A. 1933. Saracenic Heraldry: A Survey. Oxford
Mayer, L.A. 1952. Mamluk Costume: A Survey. Geneva
Mayer, L.A. 1956. Islamic Astrolabists and Their Works. Geneva
Mayer, L.A. 1959. Islamic Metalworkers and Their Works. Geneva
Mayer, T. 1998. Nord-und Ostzentralasien: 15 b Mittelasien 2, Sylloge Numorum Arabicorum.
Tübingen
Medley, M. 1981. T’ang Pottery and Porcelain. London
Meinecke, M. 1972. ‘Zur mamlukischen heraldik’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen
Instituts Abteilung Kairo 28, pp. 213–87 and Pls 52–67
Meinecke, M. 1982. ‘Islamische Zeit’, in K. Kohlmeyer and E. Strommenger (eds), Land des
Baal: Syrien–Forum der Völker und Kulturen. Mainz
Meinecke-Berg, V. 1999. ‘Fatimid painting on tradition and style: the workshop of Muslim’, in
Marianne Barrucand (ed.), L’Égypte Fatimide: Son Art et Son Histoire. Paris, pp. 349–58
and plates
Meisami, J.S. 1987. Medieval Persian Court Poetry. Princeton, NJ
Meisami, J.S. 1996. ‘Poetic microcosms: the Persian qasida to the end of the twelfth century’,
in S. Sperl and C. Shackle (eds), Qasida Poetry in Islamic Asia and Africa, vol. 1: Classical
Traditions and Modern Meanings. Leiden, pp. 172–73
Meisami, J.S. 2003. Structure and Meaning in Medieval Arabic and Persian Poetry: Orient
Pearls. London and New York
Melikian-Chirvani, A.S. 1968. ‘Le Bassin du Sultan Qara-Arslan ibn Il Gazi’, Revue des Etudes
Islamiques 35, pp. 263–78
Melikian-Chirvani, A.S. 1970. ‘L’art du métal dans les Pays Arabes’, II: ‘Deux chandeliers
Moussouliens au Musée des Beaux-Arts’, Bulletin des Musées et Monuments Lyonnais 4,
pp.45–63
Melikian-Chirvani, A.S. 1974a. ‘The white bronzes of early Islamic Iran’, Metropolitan Museum
Journal 9, pp. 123–51
Melikian-Chirvani, A.S. 1974b. ‘Bronzes inédits de Mossoul’, L’Oeil 228–29 ( July–August),
pp.46–47
Melikian-Chirvani, A.S. 1974c. ‘Venise, entre l’Orient et l’Occident’, Bulletin d’Etudes
Orientales 27, pp. 109–26

498
 general bibliography

Melikian-Chirvani, A.S. 1982. Islamic Metalwork from the Iranian World, 8th–18th Centuries.
London
Melikian-Chirvani, A.S. 1982–83. ‘Islamic metalwork as a source on cultural history’, Arts and
the Islamic World 1/1, pp. 36–44
Melikian-Chirvani, A.S. 1983. ‘Qajar metalwork: a study in cultural trends’, in E. Bosworth
and C. Hillenbrand (eds), Qajar Iran: Political, Social and Cultural Change 1800–1925.
Edinburgh, pp. 311–28
Melikian-Chirvani, A.S. 1985a. ‘Silver in Islamic Iran: the evidence from literature and
epigraphy’, in M. Vickers (ed.), ‘Pots and Pans: A Colloquium on Precious Metals and
Ceramics in the Muslim, Chinese and Graeco-Roman Worlds’, Oxford Studies in Islamic
Art 3. Oxford, pp. 89–106
Melikian-Chirvani, A.S. 1985b. ‘Anatolian candlesticks: the Eastern element and the Konya
School,’ Rivista degli Studi Orientali 59/1–4, pp. 225–66
Ménager, R.L. 1964. ‘Inventaire des familles normandes et franques émigrées en Italie
méridionale et en Sicile (XIe–XIIe siècles)’, in Roberto il Guiscardo e il suo tempo (Bari,
maggio 1973), Centro di studi normanno-svevi, Università degli Studi di Bari: Relazioni e
comunicazioni nelle prime giornate normanno-sveve (Fonti e studi del Corpus membranarum
italicarum, no 11, Rome, 1975; reprinted Bari 1991), pp. 259–390; reprinted with
important additions Ménager’s Hommes et institutions dans l’Italie normande (Variorum
Collected Studies, no 136). London
Menzel, H. 1964. Römische Bronzen: Bildkataloge des Kestner-Museum Hannover, vol.IV. Hanover
Merck, D.O. 2004. ‘Genre and occasion in the Ruba‘iyyat of ‘Umar Khayyam: the Ruba‘i,
literary history, and courtly culture’, in Beatrice Gruendler and Louise Marlow (eds),
Writers and Rulers: Perspectives on Their Relationship from Abbasid to Safavid Times.
Wiesbaden, pp. 133–47
Merklinger, E.S. 1975. ‘Seven tombs at Holkonda: a preliminary survey’, Kunst des Orients
X/1–2, p.196
Merklinger, E.S. 1976–77. ‘The Madrasa of Mahmud Ğawan in Bidar’, Kunst des Orients 11,
pp.144–57
Merklinger, E.S. 1981. Indian Islamic Architecture: The Deccan 1347–1686. Warminster
Merklinger, E.S. 2005. Sultanate Architecture of Pre-Mughal India. New Delhi
Meulensteen. 2011. Siah Armajani: 1957–1964, exhibition leaflet. New York
Meunier, J. 1957. ‘Le Grand Riad et les batiments saadiens du Badi‘ à Marrakech selon le plan
publié par Windus’, Hespéris 44, pp. 129–34
Meyerhof, M. 1945. ‘Arabic tooth-worm stories’, Bulletin of the History of Medicine 17, pp.203−4
Michell, G. and R. Eaton. 1992. ‘Firuzabad: palace city of the Deccan’, Oxford Studies in Islamic
Art 8, pp.10–11
Miedema, H. and M. Hoyle. 1996. ‘Philips Angel, Praise of Painting’, tr. M. Hoyle, intro. and
commentary H. Miedema, Simiolus 24, pp. 227–58
Migeon, G. 1899. ‘Les Cuivres Arabes: Le Vase Barberini au Louvre (Premier Article)’, Gazette
des Beaux-Arts 22/3ème période, pp. 462–74

499
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

Migeon, G. 1900. ‘Les Cuivres Arabes (Deuxième et Dernier Article): Le Baptistère De St.
Louis au Louvre’, Gazette des Beaux-Arts, pp.119–31
Migeon, G. 1903. ‘L’Exposition des Arts Musulmans à l’Uunion Centrale des Arts Décoratifs’,
Gazette des Beaux-Arts 29/45/3e période, pp. 353–68
Migeon, G. 1907. Manuel d’Art Musulman, vol. II: Les Arts Plastiques et Industriels. Paris
Migeon, G. 1922. Musée du Louvre, L’Orient Musulman: Cristaux de Roche, Verres Émaillés,
Céramique. Paris
Migeon, G. 1926. Les Arts Musulmans. Bibliothèque d’Histoire de l’Art. Brussels
Migeon, G. 1927. Manuel d’art Musulman, vol. II: Arts Plastiques et Industriels, 2nd edn. Paris
Miglus, P.A. 1999. Raqqa I: Die Frühislamische Keramik von Tall Aswad. Mainz
Milwright, M. 1999. ‘Pottery in written sources of the Ayyubid-Mamluk period, c.567–
923/1171–1517’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 62.3,
pp. 504–19
Milwright, M. 2008. ‘Imported pottery in Ottoman Bilad al-Sham’, Turcica 40, pp. 121–52
Milwright, M. 2009. ‘Written sources and the study of pottery in Ottoman Bilad al-Sham’,
al-Rafidan 30, pp. 37–52
Milwright, M. 2011. ‘An Arabic description of the activities of antiquities dealers in late
Ottoman Damascus’, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 143/1, pp. 8–18
Minasean, L. 1977. ‘Ustad Minas, Naqqash-i Mashhur-i Julfa’ (‘Master Minas, the celebrated
painter of Julfa’), Hunar va Mardum 17, pp. 28–30
Minasean, L. 1982. Mi k‘ani grawor pastat‘łt‘er ZĒ dari nkarič‘ Minasic‘ (Some Written
Documents about the 17th Century Painter Minas). Bazmavep, pp. 28–30
Minasean, L. 1992. Nor Jułayi Ekełec‘iner (Churches of New Julfa). New Julfa
Mitter, P. and C. Clunas. 1997. ‘The empire of things: the engagement with the Orient’, in
Malcolm Baker and Brenda Richardson (eds), A Grand Design: The Art of the Victoria
and Albert Museum. New York, pp. 221–37
Mocquet, J. 1617. Voyages en Afrique, Asie, Indes orientales et occidentales au Maroc. Paris
Mols, L. 2006. Mamluk Metalwork Fittings in their Artistic and Architectural Context. Delft
Montaigne, M. de. 1906. Journal de Voyage, ed. Louis Lautrey. Paris
Moore, K. 2004. ‘Redgrave, Richard (1804–1888)’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,
online edition, http://www.oxforddnb.com
Morier, J. 1818. A Second Journey through Persia, Armenia and Asia Minor to Constantinople
Between the Years 1812 and 1816. London
El Moudden, A. 1992. ‘Sharifs and Padishahs: Moroccan–Ottoman relations from the 16th to
the 18th Centuries’, PhD thesis. Princeton, NJ
Mouliérac, J. 1999. Céramiques du Monde Musulman: Collections de l’Institut du Monde Arabe
et de J.P. et F. Croisier. Paris
Munich. 1912. Die Ausstellung von Meisterwerken Muhammedanischer Kunst in München,
1910. Munich
al-Muqaddasi, Muhammad ibn Ahmad. 1906. Ahsan al-taqasim fi ma‘rifat al-aqalim, ed. M.J.
de Goeje, Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum, vol. 3. Leiden

500
 general bibliography

Murdoch, J.E. 1984. Album of Science: Antiquity and the Middle Ages. New York
al-Nasiri, A. 1956. Kitab al-istiqsa li akhbar duwwal al-maghrib al-aqsa, ed. J. al-Nasiri and
M. al-Nasiri, 9 vols. Casablanca
Nassar, N. 1985. ‘Saljuq or Byzantine: two related styles of Jaziran miniature painting’, in
J. Raby (ed.), The Art of Syria and the Jazira. Oxford, pp. 85–98
Naval Intelligence Division. 1944. Syria, April 1943, Geographical Handbook Series B.R. 513.
London
Newbury, B.D. 2005. ‘A non-destructive synchrotron X-ray study of the metallurgy and
manufacturing processes of Eastern and Western astrolabes in the Adler Planetarium
collection’, unpublished PhD dissertation, Lehigh University. Bethlehem, PA
Oddy, W.A., M. Bimson and S. La Niece. 1981. ‘Gilding Himalayan images: history,
tradition and modern techniques’, in W.A. Oddy and W. Zwalf (eds), Aspects of Tibetan
Metallurgy. London, pp. 87–102
Ohri, V.C. 1989. ‘Sculpture of Chamba: a brief survey’, in V.C. Ohri and A.N. Khanna (eds),
A Western Himalayan Kingdom: History and Culture of the Chamba State, collected
papers of seminar held at Chamba, 1983. New Delhi, pp. 161–70
O’Kane, B. 2006a. ‘The nine-bay plan in Islamic architecture: its origin, development and
meaning’, in Abbas Daneshvari (ed.), Studies in Honor of Arthur Upham Pope, Survey of
Persian Art, vol. XVIII. Costa Mesa, pp. 189–244
O’Kane, B. (ed.). 2006b. The Treasures of Islamic Art in the Museums of Cairo. Cairo and New
York
Olin, J. and M.J. Blackman. 1989. ‘Compositional classification of Mexican majolica ceramics
of the Spanish colonial period’, in R. Allen (ed.), Archaeological Chemistry 4. Washington,
DC, pp.87–112
Oliveras y Alberu, J.M. 2005. ‘Propuesto de hibridación tecnológica’, Diseño y Sociedad 19–20,
pp.34–43
Olmer, L.J. 1908. ‘Rapport sur une mission scientifique en Perse’, Nouvelles Archives des
Missions Scientifiques 16/1. Paris, pp. 49–61
O’Neill, J.P. (ed.). 1993. The Art of Medieval Spain AD 500–1200, exhibition catalogue,
Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York
Orsini De Marzo, N. (ed.) 2007. Stemmario Veneziano Orsini De Marzo. Milan
Paccard, A. 1979. Le Maroc et l’Artisanat Traditionnel Islamique dans l’Architecture, 2 vols.
Saint-Jorioz
Pakbaz, R. 1974. Contemporary Iranian Painting and Sculpture, tr. S. Melkonian. Tehran
Pakbaz, R. 1999. Encyclopaedia of Art. Tehran
Pakbaz, R. 2001. ‘Biographies of artists’, in Issa, pp. 127–37
Pakbaz, R. and M.R. Jowdat. 1965. ‘Fa’aliyyat-i ma keh dar Talar-i iran shikl migirad’, Kitab-i
sal-i Talar-i iran 198, pp. 1–3
Pal, P. 1973. ‘Bronzes of Kashmir: their sources and influences’, Journal of the Royal Society of
Arts 121, pp. 726–49
Pal, P. 1975. Bronzes of Kashmir. Graz

501
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

Pal, P. 1988. A Catalogue of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art: Indian Sculpture, vol. 2:
700–1800. Berkeley, CA, Los Angeles and London
Pal, P. 1989. ‘Metal Sculpture’, in P. Pal (ed.), Art and Architecture of Ancient Kashmir. Bombay,
pp.77–94
Pal, P. 1994. The Peaceful Liberators: Jain Art from India. Los Angeles
Pal, P. 2007. ‘Faith and form: religious sculpture in ancient Kashmir’, in The Arts of Kashmir.
Milan, pp.60–99
Pancaroğlu, O. 2002. ‘Serving wisdom: the contents of Samanid epigraphic pottery’, Studies in
Islamic and Later Indian Art from the Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University Art
Museums. Cambridge, MA, pp. 59–75
Pancaroğlu, O. 2007. Perpetual Glory: Medieval Islamic Ceramics from the Harvey B. Plotnick
Collection. Chicago, pp. 121–23
Paris. 1903. Exposition Des Arts Musulmans Au Musée Des Arts Décoratifs. Paris
Paris. 2001. L’Orient de Saladin: l’Art des Ayyoubides, catalogue of exhibition held at the
Institut du Monde Arabe, 23 October 2001–10 March 2002. Paris
Paris. 2010. Roads of Arabia: Archaeology and History of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,
catalogue of exhibition held at the Musée du Louvre. Paris
Parsamjan, V.A., V.K. Oskanjan and S.A. Ter-Avakimova. 1953. Armjano–Russkie
Otnoshenija v XVII-om veke: Sbornik Dokumentov (Armeno–Russian Relations in the
Seventeenth Century: Collection of Documents). Erevan
Patel, A. 2006. ‘Revisiting the term “sultanate”’, in The Architecture of the Indian Sultanates,
R.A.N. Lambah and A. Patel (eds), Marg 58/1, Architecture, pp. 9–12
Patton, D. 1991a. Badr Al-Din Lu’lu’, Atabeg of Mosul, 1211–1259. Seattle and London
Patton, D. 1991b. ‘Badr Al-Din Lu’lu’ and the establishment of a Mamluk government in
Mosul’, Studia Islamica 74, pp. 79–103
Pellat, C. 1969. The Life and Works of Jahiz, tr. D.M. Hawke. London
Pelliot, P. 1929. ‘Des artisans chinois à la capitale abbaside en 751–762’, T’oung Pao 26, pp.110–12
Pevzner, S.B. 1969. ‘Bronnzovï Penal B Sobranii Gosudarstvennogo Muzeya Kul’turi I
Iskusstva Narodov Vostoka’, Epigrafika Vostoka 19, pp. 51–58
Pézard, M. 1920. La Céramique Archaïque de l’Islam et Ses Origines (Texte et Planches). Paris
Philon, H. 1980. Early Islamic Ceramics, Ninth to Late Twelfth Centuries. Athens and London
Pinder-Wilson, R. 1959. ‘An Islamic bronze bowl’, British Museum Quarterly 16, pp. 139–43
Pinder-Wilson, R. 1961. ‘The illumination in the Cairo Moshe-B.-Asher codex of the
prophets completed in Tiberias in 895 A.D.’, in P. Kahle, Der Hebräische Bibeltext Seit
Franz Delitzsch. Stuttgart
Pinder-Wilson, R. 2001. ‘Ghaznavid and Ghurid minarets’, Iran 39, pp. 155–86
Piot, E. 1844. ‘Description d’un Vase Arabe du XIVème Siècle’, Le Cabinet de l’Amateur et de
l’Antiquaire 3, pp. 385–92
Ploug, G. and E. Oldenburg. 1969. Hama Fouilles et Recherches 1931–1938. Copenhagen
Pococke, C et al. 2011. Parviz Tanavoli. Dubai
Polak, J. 1865. Persien: Das Land und seine Bewohner. Leipzig

502
 general bibliography

Ponting, M.J. 2008. ‘The scientific analysis and investigation of a selection of the copper-
alloy metalwork from Tiberias’, in Hirschfeld, Yizhar and Oren Gutfeld (eds), Tiberias:
Excavations in the House of the Bronzes: Final Report, vol. 1: Architecture, Stratigraphy, and
Small Finds, Qedem Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology 48. Jerusalem, pp. 35–61
Pope, A. (ed.). 1939. A Survey of Persian Art, vol. 3. Oxford
Pormann, P.E. 2005. ‘The physician and the other: images of the charlatan in Medieval Islam’,
Bulletin of the History of Medicine 79, pp. 189−227
Porter, V. 1987. ‘The art of the Rasulids’, in W. Daum (ed.), Yemen: 3000 Years of Art and
Civilisation in Arabia Felix. Innsbruck, Frankfurt-am-Main and Amsterdam, pp. 232–36
Porter, V. 2006. Word into Art: Artists of the Modern Middle East. London
Porter, V. 2008. Word into Art: Artists of the Modern Middle East. London and Dubai
Porter, V. 2011. Arabic and Persian Seals and Amulets in the British Museum. London
Prasad, P. 1994. ‘The Turuska or Turks in late ancient Indian documents’, Proceedings of the
Indian History Congress, 55th Session, Aligarh. Delhi, pp. 170–75
Pucci di Benisichi, R. 1996. Scusate la polvere. Palermo
Pucci di Benisichi, R. 2000. Le stelle di Petralia. Palermo
al-Qaddumi, G. 1996. Book of Gifts and Rarities. Cambridge
al-Qadiri, Muhammad ibn al-Tayyib. 1981. Nashr al-mathani, ed. Norman Cigar. London
al-Qalqashandi, Ahmad ibn ‘Abdallah. 1915. Subh al-‘asha fi kitabat al-insha, vols 6 and 8. Cairo
Qantara: patrimoine méditerranén. Online, http://www.qantara-med.org/qantara4/public/
show_document.php?do_id=744&lang=fr
al-Qasimi, Muhammad Sa‘id, Jamal al-Din al-Qasimi and Khalil al-‘Azm. 1960. Dictionnaire
des métiers damascains, ed. Zafer al-Qasimi. Le Monde d’Outre-Mer passé et présent.
Deuxième série, Documents III, 2 vols. Paris and Le Haye
Rabat, N.O. 1995. The Citadel of Cairo: A New Interpretation of Royal Mamluk Architecture. Leiden
Raby, J. 1980. ‘El Gran Turco: Mehmed the Conqueror as a patron of the arts of Christendom’,
PhD thesis. Oxford
Raby, J. 1982. ‘A Sultan of paradox: Mehmed the Conqueror as a patron of the arts’, Oxford
Art Journal 5, pp. 3–8
Raby, J. 1985a. ‘Looking for silver in clay: a new look at Samanid pottery’, in M. Vickers (ed.),
Pots and Pans: A Colloquium on Precious Metals and Ceramics in the Muslim, Chinese and
Greco Roman Worlds. Oxford
Raby, J. (ed.). 1985b. ‘The Arts of Syria and the Jazira 1100–1250 A.D’, Oxford Studies in
Islamic Art 1. Oxford
Raby, J. 1986. ‘Fagfur, Mertaban and other terms for porcelain and celadon’, in R. Krahl and
J. Ayers (eds), Chinese Ceramics in the Topkapi Saray Museum in Istanbul. vol. 1. London,
pp.82–85
Raby, J. 1987. ‘Pride and prejudice: Mehmed the Conqueror and the Italian portrait medal’, in
J.G. Pollard (ed.), Italian Medals. Washington, DC, pp. 171–96
Raby, J. 1987–88. ‘Between Sogdia and the Mamluks: a note on the earliest illustrations to
Kalila wa Dimna’, Oriental Art 33/4, pp. 381–98

503
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

Raby, J. 1995. ‘Terra Lemnia and the potteries of the Golden Horn: an antique revival under
Ottoman auspices’, in S. Euthymiades (ed.), Bosphorus: Essays in Honour of Cyril Mango.
Amsterdam, pp. 305–42
Raby, J. and Z. Tanındı. 1993. Turkish Bookbinding in the 15th Century: The Foundation of an
Ottoman Court Style. London
Raverty, H.G. 1970. Tabaqat-i Nasiri, 2 vols. New Delhi
Rawson, J. 1989. ‘Chinese silver and its influences on porcelain development’, in P.E. McGovern
(ed.), Cross-craft and Cross-cultural Interactions in Ceramics, vol.4. Westerville, OH
RCEA. 1931–64. Répertoire Chronologique D’épigraphie Arabe, ed. É. Combe, J. Sauvaget and
G. Wiet. Cairo
Reedy, C.L. 1989. ‘Copper alloy casting and decorating technology’, in P. Pal (ed.), Art and
Architecture of Ancient Kashmir. Bombay, pp. 95–104
Reilly, J. 1992. ‘Damascus merchants and trade in the transition to capitalism’, Canadian
Journal of History/Annales Canadiennes d’Histoire 27/1, pp. 1–27
Reinaud, J.T. 1828. Description des Monumens Musulmans du Cabinet de M. Le Duc de Blacas
[sic]. Paris
Ricard, P. 1930. Guides Bleus: Le Maroc, 4th edn. Paris
Rice, D.S. 1949. ‘The oldest dated “Mosul” candlestick’, Burlington Magazine 91,
pp. 334–40.
Rice, D.S. 1950a. ‘The blazons of the “Baptistère de Saint Louis”’, Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies 12/2, pp. 367–80
Rice, D.S. 1950b. ‘The brasses of Badr Ad Din Lu’lu’’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and
African Studies 13, pp. 627–34
Rice, D.S. 1952. ‘Studies in Islamic metalwork I’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African
Studies 14, pp. 564–78
Rice, D.S. 1953a. ‘The Aghani miniatures and religious painting in Islam’, Burlington Magazine
95, pp.128–34
Rice, D.S. 1953b. ‘Studies in Islamic metalwork II’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African
Studies 15/1, pp. 61–79
Rice, D.S. 1953c. ‘Studies in Islamic metalwork III’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and
African Studies 15/2, pp. 229–38
Rice, D.S. 1953d. The Baptistère de Saint Louis. Paris
Rice, D.S. 1955a. ‘Studies in Islamic metalwork V’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African
Studies 17/2, pp. 206–31
Rice, D.S. 1955b. The Wade Cup in the Cleveland Museum of Art. Paris
Rice, D.S. 1956. ‘Arabic inscriptions on a brass basin made for Hugh IV de Lusignan’, Studi
Orientalistici in Onore di Giorgio Levi della Vida 2. Rome, pp. 390–402
Rice, D.S. 1957a. ‘Inlaid brasses from the workshop of Ahmad Al Dhaki Al Mawsili’, Ars
Orientalis 2, pp. 283–326
Rice, D.S. 1957b. ‘Two unusual Mamluk metal works’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and
African Studies 20, pp. 487–500

504
 general bibliography

Rice, D.S. 1958. ‘A drawing of the Fatimid period’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African
Studies 21/1, pp. 31–39
Rice, D.T. 1934. ‘The Oxford excavations at Hira’, Ars Islamica 1, pp. 51–73
Rice, D.T. 1976. The Illustrations to the ‘World History’ of Rashid al-Din, ed. B. Gray, Edinburgh
Richard, F. 1997. Splendeurs persanes: Manuscrits du XIIe au XVIIe siècle. Paris
Richards, C.A. 1984–85. ‘Early northern whitewares of Gongxian, Xing and Ding’,
Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society, vol. 49. London, pp. 58–77
Riefstahl, M.R. 1922. The Parish-Watson Collection of Mohammadan Potteries. New York
Riis, P.J. and V. Poulsen. 1957. Hama, Fouilles et Recherches de la Fondation Carlsberg, 1931–
1938: Les Verreries et Poteries Médiévales. Copenhagen
Roberts, K.B. and J.D.W. Tomlinson. 1992. The Fabric of the Body: European Traditions of
Anatomical Illustration. Oxford
Robinson, B.W. 1967. ‘Oriental metalwork in the Gambier-Parry Collection’, Burlington
Magazine 109, pp. 169–73
Robinson, C. 2007. ‘Love in the time of Fitna: “courtliness” and the “Pamplona” casket’, in
Revisiting Al-Andalus: Perspectives on the Material Culture of Islamic Iberia, ed. G.D.
Anderson and M. Rosser-Owen. Leiden, pp.99–112
Robinson, J.C. 1854. Board of Trade, Department of Science and Art: An Introductory Lecture on
the Museum of Ornamental Art of the Department. London
Robinson, J.C. 1856. Board of Trade, Department of Science and Art: A Catalogue of the Museum
of Ornamental Art at Marlborough House, Pall Mall (Part I), 3rd edition. London
Robinson, J.C. 1858. On the Museum of Art, Introductory Addresses on the Science and Art
Department and the South Kensington Museum, no 5. London
Rocco, B. 1991–92. ‘Epigrafe arabo-cristiana su un candelabro pasquale di Petralia Sottana
(Palermo) – sec. XI–XII’, Atti della Accademia di Scienze Lettere e Arti di Palermo, 5th
ser., vol. 12, Part 2 Lettere. Palermo, pp. 7–21
Rochechouart, C.J. de. 1867. Souvenirs d’un Voyage en Perse. Paris
Rogers, J.M. 1986. ‘Plate and its substitutes in Ottoman inventories’, Pots and Pans, Oxford
Studies in Islamic Art 3. Oxford, pp. 117–36
Rogers, J.M. 2007. The Arts of Islam: Treasures from the Nasser D Khalili Collection. Abu Dhabi
Rogers, J.M. (ed.) 2009. Arts de l’Islam: Chefs-d’oeuvre de la collection Khalili, exhibition
catalogue. Paris
Rogers, J.M., F. Çağman and Z. Tanandı. 1986. The Topkapı Saray Museum: The Albums and
Illustrated Manuscripts, tr., expanded and ed. J.M. Rogers from the original Turkish by F.
Çağman and Z. Tanındı. London
Rosen und Nachtigallen. 2000. Die 100-jaehrige Iran-Sammlung des Leipziger Philipp Walter
Schulz. Leipzig
Rosen-Ayalon, M. 1973. ‘Medieval Islamic compound vessels’, Eretz-Israel Archaeological,
Historical and Geographical Studies 11, pp. 258–62
Rosen-Ayalon, M. 1974. La Poterie Islamique: Mémoires de la Délégation Archéologique en Iran,
vol. 50. Paris

505
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

Rosenthal, F. 1989. ‘A small collection of Aesopic fables in Arabic translation’, in Maria

Macuch (ed.), Studia Semitica Necnon Iranica (Festschrift R. Macuch). Wiesbaden,
pp.233–56
Rosser-Owen, M. 2005. ‘Questions of authenticity: the imitation ivories of Don Francisco
Pallás y Puig (1859–26)’, in von Folsach and Meyer, vol. 2, pp. 248–67
Rosser-Owen, M. 2010. Islamic Arts from Spain. London
Rousseau, G. and E. Doutté. 1925. Le Mausolée des Princes sa’diens à Marrakech. Paris
Roxburgh, D.J. 2000. Prefacing the Image: The Writing of Art History in Sixteenth-century Iran.
Leiden, Boston, MA and Köln
Rugolo, C.M. 1993. ‘Elisabetta di Carinzia’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. XLII.
Rome, pp.484–86
Rührdanz, K. 2009a. ‘Turkish “Terra Sigillata” vessels from the 16th to 17th Century and
their counterparts in Europe and the New World’, in G. Dávid and I. Gerelyes (eds),
Thirteenth International Congress of Turkish Art. Budapest, pp. 309–22
Rührdanz, K. 2009b. ‘Magical properties: uncovering the long-forgotten: the potent origins of
a simple red jug’, ROM Magazine, pp. 16–19
Russell, G.A. ‘Ebn Elyas’, Encyclopædia Iranica
Ruy Sánchez-Lacy, A. 1989 (2nd edition 1995). ‘The world of Talavera’, Artes de México, vol. 3,
p.73
El Sadr, S. 1960. Medinat al Fukhar. Cairo
Sahai, S. 2004. Indian Architecture: Islamic Period 1192–1857. New Delhi
Saifuddin, J.M. 2000. Al-Aqmar: A Living Testimony to the Fatemiyeen. London
St Petersburg. 2008. Ot Kitaia Do Evropi Iskutsvo Islamskog Mira. Hermitage. St Petersburg
Saito, K. 1867. ‘Yuan blue-and-white and the Yuan drama in the middle of the 14th-century’,
Kobijutsu (18 July), pp. 25–40; (19 October), pp. 59–70
Salmon, G. 1905. ‘Le Culte de Moulay Idrîs et la Mosquée des Chorfa à Fès’, Archives
marocaines 3, pp. 413–29
de San Juan del Puerto, Francisco Jesús María. 1708. Mission Historial de Marruecos. Seville
Sarre, F. von. 1903. ‘Die Ausstellung Muhammedanischer Kunst in Paris’, Repertorium für
Kunstwissenschaft 26, pp. 521–33
Sarre, F. von. 1905. Islamische Tongefässe aus Mesopotamien: Jahrbuch der Königlichen
Preussichen Kunstsammlungen 26, pp. 69–88
Sarre, F. von. 1925. Die Keramik von Samarra: Die Ausgrabungen von Samarra II. Berlin
Sarre, F. von. 1934. ‘Die bronzekanne des Kalifen Marwan II im Arabischen Museum in
Kairo’, Ars Islamica I, pp. 10–15
Sarre, F. von. 1935. ‘Eine keramische Werkstatt von Kaschan in 13–14 Jh’, Istanbuler
Mitteilungen 3, pp. 57–69
Sarre, F. von and M. van Berchem. 1907. ‘Das Metallbecken des Atabeks Lulu von Mosul in
der Kgl. Bibliothek zu München’, Münchner Jahrbuch der Bildenden Kunst 2, pp. 18–37
Sarre, F. von and E. Herzfeld. 1911–20. Archäologische Reise Im Euphrat- Und Tigris-Gebiet.
Berlin

506
 general bibliography

Sarre, F. von and E. Mittwoch. 1904. ‘Ein Orientalisches Metallbecken Des Xiii. Jarhunderts
Im Königlichen Museum Für Volkerkunde Zu Berlin’, Jahrbuch der Königlich
Preussischen Kunstsammlungen 25/1, H, pp. 49–71
Sarre, F. von and E. Mittwoch. 1906. Sammlung F. Sarre: Erzeugnisse Islamischer Kunst, Teil 1:
Metall. Berlin
Sauvaget, J. 1941. Alep. Essai sur le Développement d’une Grande Ville Syrienne, des Origines au
Milieu du xixe Siècle. Paris
Savage-Smith, E. 1985. Islamicate Celestial Globes, Smithsonian Studies in History and
Technology 46. Washington, DC
Savage-Smith, E. 1992. ‘Celestial mapping’, in J.B. Harley and D. Woodward (eds),
Cartography in the Traditional Islamic and South Asian Societies, The History of
Cartography, vol. 2/1. Chicago
Savage-Smith, E. 2004. ‘Islamic geomancy and a thirteenth century divinatory device: another
look’, in E. Savage-Smith (ed.), Magic and Divination in Early Islam. Aldershot
Savage-Smith, E. 2007. ‘Anatomical illustration in Arabic manuscripts’, in Anna Contadini
(ed.), Arab Painting: Text and Image in Illustrated Arabic Manuscripts (Handbuch der
Orientalistik, 1, 90). Leiden, pp. 147−59 and Figs 1−6
Savage-Smith, E. 2011. A New Catalogue of Arabic Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library,
Oxford, vol. 1: Medicine. Oxford
Savage-Smith, E. with F. Maddison, R. Pinder-Wilson and T. Stanley. 1997. ‘Science, tools
and magic’, in J. Raby (ed.), The Nasser D. Khalili Collection of Islamic Art, vol. 9. Oxford
al-Sayrafi, F. 1960. ‘Excavations at ‘Ayn Dara’, Les Annales Archéologiques de Syrie 10, pp.87–102
Scaduto, M. 1947. Il monachismo basiliano nella Sicilia medievale: Rinascita e decadenza secc.
11–14. Rome
Scanlon, G.T. 1971. ‘The Fustat mounds, a shard count’, Archaeology 24/2, pp. 220–33
Scanlon, G.T. 1981. ‘Fustat expedition: preliminary report, 1972, part I’, Journal of the
American Research Center in Egypt 18, pp. 57–84
Scanlon, G.T. 1982. ‘Fustat expedition: preliminary report, 1972, part II’, Journal of the
American Research Center in Egypt 19, pp. 119–29
Scanlon, G.T. 1986. Fustat Expedition: Final Report, vol. 1. Winona Lake, IN
Scanlon, G.T. and W. Kubiak. 1989. Fustat Expedition: Final Report, vol. 1: Fustat-C. Winona
Lake, IN
Scarce, J.M. 1991. ‘Metalwork’, in P. Avery, G. Hambly and C. Melville (eds), The Cambridge
History of Iran, vol. 7: From Nadir Shah to the Islamic Republic. Cambridge, New York,
Port Chester, Melbourne and Sydney, pp. 939–45
Scerrato, U. 1959. ‘The first two excavation campaigns at Ghazni, 1957–1958’, East and West
10, pp.23–55
Scerrato, U. 1961. L’Afghanistan dalla preistoria all’Islam. Turin
Scerrato, U. 1966. Metalli Islamici. Milan
Scerrato, U. 1967. Arte Islamica a Napoli: Opere delle Raccolte Pubbliche Napoletane. Istituto
Universitario Orientale Di Napoli: Monografie 45. Naples

507
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

Scerrato, U. 1979. ‘I Metalli’, in Francesco Gabrieli and U. Scerrato (eds), Gli Arabi in Italia.
Milan, pp.541–70
Scerrato, U. 1985. ‘Research on the archaeology and history of Islamic art in Pakistan: excavation
of the Ghaznavid Mosque at Mt. Raja Gira, Swat’, East and West 35, pp.439–50
Schafer, E.H. 1963. The Golden Peaches of Samarkand. Berkeley, CA
Schimmel, A. 1990. Calligraphy and Islamic Culture. London
Schimmel, A. 1992. A Two-Colored Brocade: The Imagery of Persian Poetry. Chapel Hill, NC
and London
Schmitz, M. ‘Ka’b al-Ahbar’, Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI2)
Schneider, L.T. 1973. ‘The Freer canteen’, Ars Orientalis 9, pp. 137–56
Schwarz, F. 1995. Ghazna/Kabul; XIVd Khurasan IV, Sylloge Numorum Arabicorum. Tübingen
Schwarz, F. 2002. Balkh und die Landschaften am Oberen Oxus; XIVc Khurasan III, Sylloge
Numorum Arabicorum. Tübingen
Schwerin, A. 1913. ‘Volksleben in Teheran’, Geist des Ostens. Munich
Scott, R. 2004. ‘A remarkable Tang Dynasty cargo’, Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society
2002–2003, vol. 67, pp. 13–26
Secretaria de Cultura del Estado de Puebla. 1999. ‘Denominación de Origin Talavera’,
Talavera Contemporánea, exhibition catalogue. Puebla
Seidensticker, T. ‘Tardiyya’, Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI2)
Seipel, W. (ed.) 1999. Schätze de Kalifen, Islamische Kunst zur Fatimidenzeit, exhibition
catalogue. Vienna and Milan
Serjeant, R.B. 1972. Islamic Textiles: Material for a History up to the Mongol Conquest. First
published in Ars Islamica 9–16, 1942–51, new edition. Beirut
Serjeant, R.B. 1980. ‘Social stratification in Arabia’, in R.B. Serjeant (ed.), The Islamic City:
Selected Papers from the Colloquium held at the Middle East Centre, Faculty of Oriental
Studies, Cambridge, United Kingdom, from 19 to 23 July 1976. Paris, pp. 126–47
Shapur Shahbazi, A. 2004. ‘Hunting in Iran, i.: In the pre-Islamic period’, Encyclopaedia
Iranica online
Sherwani, H.K. 1985. The Bahmanid Dynasty of the Deccan. Delhi
Shishkina, G.V. and L.V. Pavchinskaja. 1992. Terres secrètes de Samarcande: Céramiques du
VIIIe au XIIIe Siécle, exhibition catalogue, Institut du Monde Arabe. Paris
Shokoohy, M. 1994. ‘Sasanian royal emblems and their reemergence in the fourteenth century
Deccan’, Muqarnas 11, pp. 65–78
Sievernich, G. and H. Budde (eds). 1989. Europa und der Orient, 800–1900. Berlin
Sijelmassi, Mohammed. 1991. Fès, Cité de l’art et du savoir. Paris
Simpson, M.S. 1981. ‘The narrative structure of a medieval Iranian beaker’, Ars Orientalis 12,
pp.15–24, Pls 1–7
Simpson, M.S. 1982. ‘The role of Baghdad in the formation of Persian painting’, in C. Adle
(ed.), Art et societé dans le monde iranien. Paris, pp. 91–116
al-Sirafi, Abu Zayd Hasan ibn Yazid. 1922. Voyage du marchand Arabe Sulayman en Inde et en
Chine rédigé en 851, tr. G. Ferrand. Paris

508
 general bibliography

Smith, G.R. 1981. ‘A new translation of certain passages of the hunting section of Usama ibn
Munqidh’s “I‘tibar”’, Journal of Semitic Studies 26, pp. 247–48
Smith, G.R. 1990. ‘Hunting poetry (Tardiyyat)’, in Julia Ashtiany et al. (eds), The Cambridge
History of Arabic Literature: ‘Abbasid Belles-Lettres. Cambridge, pp. 167–84
Smith, G.R. 1995. ‘Saluki’, Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI2)
Smith, J. 1704. The True Travels, Adventures and Observations of Captaine John Smith in
Europe, Asia, Affricke and America. London
Snelders, B. 2010. ‘Identity and Christian–Muslim interaction: Medieval art of the Syrian
Orthodox from the Mosul area’, Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta 198. Leuven
Sobernheim, M. 1905. ‘Arabische Gefässinschriften von der Ausstellung Islamischer Kunst in
Paris (1903)’, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 38, pp. 1176–205
Sotheby’s. 1992. ‘Islamic and Indian Art: Oriental Manuscripts and Miniatures’, 29 and 30
April. London
Soucek, P.P. 1978. Islamic Art from the University of Michigan Collections, exhibition, Kelsey
Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan, 4 February–16 April. Ann Arbor, MI
Soucek, P.P. 1992. ‘Ethnicity in the Islamic figural tradition: the case of the “Turk”’, Tarih 2,
pp.73–103
Soudavar, A. 1992. Art of the Persian Courts: Selections from the Art and History Trust
Collection. New York
Sourdel-Thomine, J. 1971. ‘Clefs et serrures de la Kaba: notes d’épigraphie, arabe’, Revue des
Études Islamiques 39/1, pp. 29–86
Sourdel-Thomine, J. and B. Spuler. 1973. Die Kunst des Islam. Propyläen Kunstgeschichte. Berlin
Soustiel, J. 1985. La Céramique Islamique: Le Guide du Connaisseur. Fribourg
Spallanzani, M. 2010. Metalli Islamici a Firenze nel Rinascimento, The Bruschettini Foundation
for Islamic and Asian Art. Florence
Sperl, S. 1989. Mannerism in Arabic Poetry: A Structural Analysis of Selected Texts. Cambridge,
pp.71–82
Staacke, U. 1997. I metalli mamelucchi del periodo bahri. Palermo
Stanley, T. 2004. Palace and Mosque: Islamic Art from the Middle East. London
Steenbergen, J. van. 2006. Order out of Chaos: Patronage, Conflict and Mamluk Socio-political
Culture, 1341–1382. Leiden
Steenbergen, J. van. 2011. ‘On the brink of a new era? Yalbugha al-Khassaki (d.1366) and the
Yalbughawiya’, Mamluk Studies Review 15/1
Stein, M.A. 1989–90. Kalhana’s Rajatarangini: a Chronicle of the Kings of Kasmir, 3 vols. Delhi
Stern, S. 1957. ‘A new volume of the illustrated Aghani manuscript’, Ars Orientalis 2, pp.501–3
Stillman, Y. 2003. Arab Dress from the Dawn of Islam to Modern Times. Leiden and Boston
Stillman, Y. and P. Sanders. ‘Tiraz’, Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI2)
Stochi, S. 1988. L’Islam nelle Stampe. Milan
Strong, D. and D. Brown. 1976. Roman Crafts. London
Stuszkiewicz, V. 1951–52. ‘Indo-Aryen Turuska (Tourouchka)’, Rocznik Orientalistyczny 17,
pp.295–305

509
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

Suleman, F. Forthcoming 2012a. ‘Making love not war: the iconography of the cockfight in
medieval Egypt’, in F. Leoni and M. Natif (eds), Images of Desire: On the Sensual and the
Erotic in Islamic Art. New York
Suleman, F. 2012b. ‘Reaching new heights: material culture, ceremonial and diplomacy
in Fatimid Egypt’, in M. Milwright and E. Baboula (eds), Image, Artefact and Text:
Canadian Contributions to the Study of Islamic Art and Archaeology. Leiden
Surmeyan, A. 1934. La vie et la culture arméniennes à Alep au XVIIè siècle. Paris
al-Suyuti, Jalal al-Din (pseudo-). 1938. al-Rahmah fi al-tibb wa-al-hikmah. Cairo
Tabbaa, Y. 2000. ‘Dayfa Khatun, Regent Queen and Architectural Patron’, in D. Fairchild
Ruggles (ed.), Women, Patronage, and Self-Representation in Islamic Societies. Albany, NY,
pp.17–34
Talbot, C. 1995. ‘Inscribing the other, inscribing the self: Hindu–Muslim identities in Pre-
colonial India’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 37/4, pp. 692–722
Tamari, V. 1984. Ninth-century White Mesopotamian Ceramic Ware with Blue Decoration. MA
thesis, University of Oxford. Oxford
Tamari, V. 1995. ‘Abbasid blue-on-white ware’, in J.W. Allan (ed.), Islamic Art in the
Ashmolean, Oxford Studies in Islamic Art 10, Part 2, pp. 117–46
al-Tamgruti, ‘Ali ibn Muhammad. 1929. En Nafhat el-Miskiya fi-s-Sifarat et-Turkiya (1589–1591):
Relation d’une ambassade marocaine en Turquie, tr. and notes Henri de Castries. Paris
Tanavoli, P. 2000. ‘Atelier Kaboud’, in D. Galloway (ed.), pp. 53–113
Tassinari, S. 1993. Il Vasellame Bronzo di Pompei. Roma
Tavernier, J. 1678. The Six Voyages of John Baptista Tavernier. London
Tavernier, J. 1930. Voyages en Perse et Description de ce Royaume. Paris
Tazi, A. 1960. Jami‘at al-Qarawiyyin. Mohammedia
Tazi, A. 1972–73. Jami‘ al-Qarawiyyin bi Fas, 3 vols. Beirut
Tazi, A. 1977. Qasr al-badi‘ bi marrakush min ‘aja’ib al-dunya. Rabat
Tēr Yovhaneanc‘. 1880–81. Patmut‘iwn Nor Jułayu, A History of New Julfa, 2 vols. New Julfa
Thackston, W.M. 1979. A Century of Princes: Sources of Timurid History and Art, Cambridge, MA
Theuerkauff-Liederwald, A.-E. 1984. Mittelalterliche Bronze- und Messinggefäße: Eimer
– Kannen – Lavabokessel. Berlin
Theuerkauff-Liederwald, A.E. 1988. Mittelalterliche Bronze- und Messinggefäße: Eimer
– Kannen – Lavabokessel. Berlin
Tite, M. and N. Wood. 2005. ‘The technological relationship between Islamic and Chinese
glazed ceramics’, Taoci 4, pp. 31–39
Tomkins, C. 1990. ‘Profiles, open available, useful’, New Yorker 19 (March), pp. 48–67
Treadwell, L. 2001. Buyid Coinage: A Die Corpus (322–445AH). Oxford
Treadwell, L. 2008. ‘The copper coinage of Umayyad Iran’, The Numismatic Chronicle 168,
pp.331–81
Treadwell, L. 2011. Craftsmen and Coins: Signed Dies of the Iranian World (Third to the Fifth
Century AH). Vienna
Trésors Fatimides du Caire. 1998. Exhibition catalogue, Institut du Monde Arabe. Paris

510
 general bibliography

Trilling, J. 1983. Aegean Crossroads: Greek Island Embroideries in the Textile Museum.
Washington, DC
Tye, R. 1988. ‘Headhunting in Medieval Punjab?’, Oriental Numismatic Society Newsletter 114,
pp.6–8
Al-‘Ubaydi, S.H. 1970. Al-Tuhaf al-Ma‘daniyya Al-Mausiliyya fi al-‘A?r al-‘Abbasi. Baghdad
Udovitch, A.L. 2000. ‘Fatimid Cairo: crossroads of world trade – from Spain to India’, in M.
Barrucand (ed.), L’Égypte Fatimide son Art et son Histoire, Actes du Colloque Organisé à
Paris, les 28, 29 et 30 mai 1998. Paris, pp. 681–91
Al-‘Ush, A.F. 1960. ‘Fakhkhar ghayr matli, I’, Les Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 10,
pp.135–84
Al-‘Ush, A.F. 1963. ‘Fakhkhar ghayr matli, II’, Les Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 13,
pp.25–52
Vainker, S.J. 1991. Chinese Pottery and Porcelain: From Prehistory to the Present. London
Valenstein, S.G. 1989. A Handbook of Chinese Ceramics. New York
Van de Put, A. 1910. The Aragonese Double-crown and the Borja or Borgia Device, Appendix 6.
London
Vasantha, R. and M.A. Mannan Basha. 2004. Islamic Architecture of Deccan: With Special
Emphasis on Rayalaseema Region. Delhi
Vernoit, S. 1997. Occidentalism: Islamic Art in the 19th Century, The Nasser D. Khalili
Collection of Islamic Art, vol. 23. London
Viegas Wesolowska, C. 2007. ‘Metal mounts on ivories from Islamic Spain’, Journal of the
Antique Metalware Society 15 ( July), pp. 30–35
Viegas Wesolowska, C. 2011. ‘Metal mounts on ivories of Islamic Spain’, in Beata Biedrońska-
Słota, Magdalena Ginter-Frołow and Jerzy Malinowski (eds), The Art of the Islamic World
and Artistic Relationships between Poland and Islamic Countries. Krakow, pp.189–98
Viguera Molins, M.J. 1981. Crónica del Califa Abdarrahman III al-Nasir entre los años 912 y
942 (Al-Muqtabis V), tr. M.J. Viguera and F. Corriente. Zaragoza
Viguera Molins, M.J. et al. 2001. El Esplendor de los Omeyas Cordobeses: La civilización
musulmana de Europa Occidental. 2 vols. Granada
Villa Sánchez, J. 1997. Puebla sagrada y profana, Informe dado a su muy ilustre ayuntamineto
el año de 1746. First printed in Puebla, 1835, with annotations by F.J. de la Peña, 3rd
edition, ed. F. Téllez Guerrero and M.E. López-Chanes. Puebla
Viré, F. 1967. Le Traité de l’Art de Volerie (Kitab al-Bayzara): Rédigé vers 385/995 par le Grand-
Fauconnier du Calife al-‘Aziz bi-llh. Leiden
Viré, F. ‘Fahd’, Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI2)
Viré, F. ‘Ghazal’, Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI2)
Viré, F. ‘Namir and namr’, Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI2)
Voragine, J. de. 1993. The Golden Legend: Readings on the Saints, tr. W.G. Ryan.
Princeton, NJ
Waines, D. 1992. ‘The culinary culture of al-Andalus’, in Salma Khadra Jayyusi (ed.), The
Legacy of Muslim Spain, vol. 2. Leiden, p. 730

511
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

Walzer, S. 1957. ‘An illustrated leaf from a lost Mamluk Kalilah wa-Dimna manuscript’, Ars
Orientalis 2, pp. 503–5
Ward, R. 1981. The Sources of Mamluk Painting, unpublished MPhil thesis. Oxford
Ward, R. 1986. ‘High life in Mosul: 1232 AD’, Arts of Asia (May/June), pp. 119–24
Ward, R. 1989. ‘Metallarbeiten der Mamlukenzeit hergestellt für den export nach Europa’, in
G. Sievernich and H. Budde (eds), Europa und der Orient 800–1900. Berlin
Ward, R. 1993. Islamic Metalwork. London
Ward, R. 1995. ‘Tradition and innovation in candlesticks made in Mamluk Cairo’, in Islamic Art in
the Ashmolean Museum, James Allan (ed.), Oxford Studies in Islamic Art. Oxford, pp.147–58
Ward, R. 1997. ‘Islamism, not an easy matter’, in M. Caygill and J. Cherry (eds), A.W. Franks
– Nineteenth-century Collecting and the British Museum. London, pp. 272–85
Ward, R. 1999. ‘The Baptistère de Saint Louis’, in C. Burnett and A. Contadini (eds), Islam
and the Italian Renaissance. London, pp. 113–32
Ward, R. 2000. ‘Augustus Wollaston Franks and the display of Islamic art at the British
Museum’, in S. Vernoit (ed.), Discovering Islamic Art: Scholars, Collectors and Collections,
1850–1950. London, pp. 105–16
Ward, R. 2004a. ‘Brass, gold and silver from Mamluk Egypt: metal vessels made for Sultan al-
Nasir Muhammad: a memorial lecture for Mark Zebrowski’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society, 3rd series, 14/1, pp. 59–73
Ward, R. 2004b. ‘The inscription on the astrolabe by ‘Abd Al-Karim in the British Museum’,
Muqarnas 21: ‘Essays in honor of J.M. Rogers’, pp. 345–57
Ward, R. 2007. ‘Plugging the gap: Mamluk export metalwork 1375–1475’, in A. Hagedorn
and A. Shalem (eds), Facts and Artefacts: Art in the Islamic World: Festschrift for Jens
Kröger on his 65th Birthday. Leiden and Boston, pp. 263–86
Waring, E.S. 1807. A Tour to Sheeraz by the Route of Kazroon and Feerozabad. London
Warzée, D. de. 1913. Peeps into Persia. London
Washington. 1985. Ebla to Damascus: Art and Archaeology of Ancient Syria, exhibition
catalogue, Smithsonian Travelling Exhibition Service, Washington, DC
Watson, O. 1985. Persian Lustre Ware. London
Watson, O. 1994. ‘Documentary mina’i and Abu Zaid’s bowls’, in Robert Hillenbrand (ed.),
The Art of the Saljuqs in Iran and Anatolia. Costa Mesa, pp. 170–80
Watson, O. 1999. ‘VIII. Report on the glazed ceramics’, in P. Miglus (ed.), Raqqa I: Die
Frühislamische Keramik von Tall Aswad. Mainz, pp. 81–87, taf. 94–99
Watson, O. 2004. Ceramics from Islamic Lands: The Al-Sabah Collection. London
Watson, O. 2005. ‘The Doha Box’, in von Folsach and Meyer, vol. 1, pp. 165–75
Wehr, H. 1994. Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, ed. J.M. Cowan, 4th edn. Ithaca, NY
Weis, F. 2004. ‘A painting from a Jahangirnama and its compositional parallels with an
engraving from the Evangelicae Historiae Imagines’, in R. Crill, S. Stronge and A.
Topsfield (eds), Arts of Mughal India. London, pp. 119–28
Weitzmann, K. (ed.). 1979. Age of Spirituality: Late Antique and Early Christian Art, 3rd to 7th
century. Exhibition catalogue, Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York

512
 general bibliography

Welch, A. 1979. Calligraphy in the Arts of the Muslim World. Austin, TX and New York
Welch, A. and H. Crane. 1983. ‘The Tughluqs: master builders of the Delhi Sultanate’,
Muqarnas 1, pp. 123–66
Wellcome Library for the History and Understanding of Medicine: The Annual Review 2002.
2003. London
Weyl Carr, A. 2005. ‘Art in the court of the Lusignan Kings’, in A.W. Carr, Cyprus and the
Devotional Arts of Byzantium in the Era of the Crusades. Aldershot, pp. 239–73
Whitcomb, D. 1989. ‘Coptic glazed ceramics from the excavations at Aqaba, Jordan’, Journal of
the American Research Center in Egypt 26, pp. 167–82
White Jr., L.T. 1938. Latin monasticism in Norman Sicily. Cambridge
Whitehouse, D. 1970. ‘Excavations at Siraf ’, Iran 8, pp. 1–18
Wiet, G. 1929. Lampes et Bouteilles en Verre Emaille. Cairo
Wiet, G. 1930. Album du Musée du Caire. Cairo
Wiet, G. 1931. ‘Un Nouvel Artiste De Mossoul’, Syria 12, pp. 160–62
Wiet, G. 1932 (reprinted 1984). Catalogue Général du Musée Arabe du Caire: Objets en Cuivre.
Cairo
Wiet, G. 1958. ‘Inscriptions mobilières de l’Égypte Musulmane’, Journal Asiatique 246,
pp.237–85
Wiet, G. 1963. ‘Review of K.A.C. Creswell, The Muslim Architecture of Egypt’, Syria 40, pp.201–8
Wiet, G. 1984. Catalogue général du Musée arabe du Caire. Cairo
Wilber, D. 1939. ‘The development of mosaic Faience in Islamic architecture in Iran’, Ars
Islamica 6, pp. 16–47
Wilber, D. 1987. ‘Qavam al-Din Ibn Zayn al-Din Shirazi: a fifteenth-century Timurid
architect’, Architectural History 30, pp. 31–44
Wilckens, L. von. ‘Seidengewebe des 12.–13. Jahrhunderts aus Nordmesopotamien und
Bagdad’, Jahrbuch des Museums für Kunst und Gewerbe Hamburg 8, pp. 27–44
Willem, M.F. 2003. Traditional Crafts and Modern Industry in Qajar Iran. Costa Mesa
Wills, C.J. 1891. In the Land of the Lion and Sun, or, Modern Persia: Being Experiences of Life in
Persia from 1866 to 1881, new edn. London
Wilson, S.G. 1896. Persian Life and Customs, with Scenes and Incidents of Residence and Travel
in the Land of the Lion and the Sun, 2nd edn. Edinburgh and London
Windus, J. 1725. A Journey to Mequinez. London
Wink, A. 1992. ‘India and Central Asia: the coming of the Turks in the eleventh century’, in
A.W. van den Hoek, D.H.A. Kolff and M.S. Oort (eds), Ritual, State and History in
South Asia in Honour of J.C. Heesterman. Leiden, pp. 747–73
Wood, N., M.S. Tite, C. Doherty and B. Gilmore. 2007. ‘A technological examination of
ninth–tenth century AD Abbasid blue-and-white ware from Iraq, and its comparison
with eighth century AD Chinese blue-and-white Sancai ware’, Archaeometry 49/4,
pp.665–84
Wulff, H.E. 1966. The Traditional Crafts of Persia: Their Development, Technology, and
Influence on Eastern and Western Civilizations. Cambridge, MA and London

513
 M e ta lwo r k a n d M at e r i a l C u lt u r e i n t h e I s l a m i c Wo r l d

Xač‘ikyan, S. 1988. Nor Ĵułayi hay vačaŕakanut’yunĕ ev nra aŕevtratntesakan kaperĕ Ŕusastani
het XVII–XVIII darerum (The Armenian Merchants of New Julfa and their trade
Relations with Russia in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries). Erevan
al-Ya‘qubi, Ahmad ibn Abi Ya’qub. 1892. ‘Kitab al-Buldan’, Bibliotheca Geographorum
Arabicorum, vol. 7. Leiden
Yarshater, E. and R. Ettinghausen. 1971. Iran Faces the Seventies. New York
Yazdani, G. 1928. ‘The Great Mosque of Gulbarga’, Islamic Culture 2, pp. 14–21
Yazdani, G. 1929. Mandu: The City of Joy. Oxford
Yazdani, G. 1947. Bidar, its History and Monuments. London
Zambaur, E.R. von. 1914. ‘Nouvelles contributions à la numismatique oriental’, Numismatische
Zeitschrift n.f. 7 (1914), pp. 115–90
Zbiss, S.M. 1955, 1960. Corpus des inscriptions arabes de Tunisie, 2 parts. Tunis
Zhang, G. and Zhu Ji. 1985. ‘Tang Dynasty blue and white pot sherds newly unearthed at
Yangzhou’, Wenwu 10
Zhang, J.Y. 1983. ‘Relations between China and the Arabs in Early Times’, Journal of Oman
Studies 6/1, pp. 91–109
Ziffer, I. 1996. Islamic Metalwork, exhibition catalogue, Philatelic and Postal Pavilion, Eretz
Israel Museum. Tel Aviv
Zozaya, J. 1967. ‘Ensayo de una tipología y una cronología’, Archivo Español de Arte 67,
pp.133–54
Zozaya, J. (ed.) 1995a. Alarcos: El Fiel de la Balanza. Toledo
Zozaya, J. 1995b. ‘Portacandiles de Elvira’, in Arte islámico en Granada. Propuesta para un
Museo de la Alhambra: exposición en Palacio de Carlos V, La Alhambra, 1 de abril–30 de
septiembre de 1995, no 35. Granada, pp. 230–31
Zozaya, J. 2011. ‘Aeraria de transición: Objectos con base de cobre de los siglos VII al IX en
al-Andalus’, Arqueologia Medieval 11, pp. 11–24
Zwettler, M. 1976. ‘Abu ‘Uthman ‘Umar bin Bahr al-Jahiz (776–869)’, in J.R. Hayes (ed.), The
Genius of Arab Civilization: Source of Renaissance. London, pp. 46–49

514