the palmette tree: a study of the iconography of egyptian lustre painted pottery

The Palmette Tree: A Study of the Iconography of Egyptian Lustre Painted PotteryAuthor(s): Marilyn JenkinsSource: Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Vol. 7 (1968), pp. 119-120, I-IX,122-126Published by: American Research Center in EgyptStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40000638 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 18:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Research Center in Egypt is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of the American Research Center in Egypt.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.158 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:34:54 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=arce

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40000638?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


The Palmette Tree: A Study of the Iconography of Egyptian Lustre Painted Pottery

Marilyn Jenkins

The history of the manufacture of lustre painted pottery in Egypt from early in the Islamic period until the coming of the Ayyubids in 1169 a.d. has been a widely debated subject since the early twentieth century. This dispute has centered, for the most part, around the question of the origin of such ware, some scholars believing that it originated in Egypt, others, that it originated in Iraq, and still others, in Persia. Because of the lack of con- clusive evidence which would prove or disprove any of these theories, the question must still remain unanswered, and for this reason I will not attempt to add a theory to the growing number. The iconographic study which follows does not depend on the solution of this problem.

Although this pottery has often been the subject of research and much of it has been excavated during the last sixty years, only two precisely datable Egyptian lustre painted ceramic objects, both of which are fragmentary plates, have come to light. One, in the Benaki Museum, Athens, can be placed, by means of its inscription, in the reign of the Fatimid caliph al-Hakim, who ruled from 996-1021 a.d., but a more exact dating is not possible.1 The other, in the Museum of Islamic Art, Cairo (PL I Fig. 1) decorated in brownish-yellow lustre, contains an inscription which has been trans- lated and analyzed by Hassan al-Bashah Hassan Mahmud. It reads: 'Tower and thriving to the master of the masters, the Commander-in-chief

Ghaban, the servant of the Commander of the Faithful al-Hakim bi \Amrillah, may Allah's blessings rest upon him and upon his pure an- cestors." From this inscription, it is clear that this object was made during the reign of al- Hakim. A still more precise date of manufacture can be established as Ghaban has been identified, and the years during which he bore the title of "Commander-in-chief are known. Ghaban's name first appeared in the histories of al-Hakim's reign in 1010, and on November 9, 1011, the title of Commander-in-chief was bestowed upon him by the caliph. Ghaban died in November, 1013, from punishments inflicted upon him at the order of al-Hakim. Therefore, the fragments in question can be dated between November 1011 and November 1013.2

The design on the interior of this plate con- sisted of eight equal, trapezoidal areas radiating from the center. The decoration of these regions is composed of two patterns which alternate with each other, four times, around the plate. One of these designs is composed of two highly stylized palmette trees, one above the other, both of which are circumscribed by two pairs of leaves which are not part of either tree. Each tree is made up of two pairs of leaves, and a greatly abstracted stem and blossom. The other design consists of a stylized bush with three paired bran- ches, which is growing from the upper leaves

1 G. Wiet, "Un Ceramiste de l'Epoque Fatimid," Journal A siatique 241 (1953) 249-253.

2 Hassan al-Bashah Hassan, Mahmud, "A Ceramic Plate with the name Ghaban Client of al-Hakim bi 'Amrillah," (In Arabic), Bulletin of the Faculty of Arts, Cairo University 18 part 1 (1958) 71-85.

119



120 JARCE 7 (1968)

of a palmette tree. Along the rim of the plate appears the Kufic inscription containing the historical information.

This beautifully designed and executed plate represents the epitome of Egyptian lustre painted ceramics with floral decoration. Behind this form of lustre painted decoration lies a long tradition which can be traced back to the polychrome lustre painted wares from ninth century Iraq.

Of the polychrome lustre painted ceramics found at Samarra, that object which perhaps best illustrates this iconographic tradition is a bowl now in the Hague Museum (PL I Fig. 2) which belongs to a group of pottery which was probably made in or near Baghdad after 836 a.d. , the year in which Samarra was founded. The decoration on this bowl, like that on the Egyp- tian monochrome lustre painted object, datable to 1011-1013, is divided into eight panels which radiate from the center of the bowl. Two designs, which alternate four times around the interior of the vessel decorate the eight sections. The principal motif of one of these consists of two palmette leaves with adjoined tips. The alternate areas consist of a stylized bush silhouetted on a lustre painted background. The center of this bowl is decorated with a four-pointed star.

Although these two bowls are separated by at least one hundred twenty years, it is fairly clear that there is a close iconographic connection between them. All of the basic elements of the bowl found in Samarra can be found on the "Ghaban" bowl: the eight-part division of the interior decoration consisting of two alternating designs and the actual form of the designs themselves, i.e. a palmette leaf motif alternating with a stylized bush motif.

The lustre painted tiles decorating the mihrdb of the mosque in Qairawan, Tunisia, provide the next step in tracing this iconographic tradition. The date and source of these tiles are provided in the text, Ma ^dlim al-imdn, a listing of the holy personages of the Aghlabid capital written by Ibn Naji (died in 1494). The passage which gives us this information concerning the tiles is believed to have been borrowed from an

earlier text by Abu Bakr *Atiq ibn Khalaf at- Tujibi (died in 1031).3 Creswell and Margais are both of the opinion that the emir referred to in the passage is Abu Ibrahim Ahmad, who ruled from 856-863, and that the decoration of the mihrdb was completed in the years 862/63.4

The Qairawan tiles can be divided into two distinct groups : polychrome lustre painted, and monochrome lustre painted, which show differences in design. The polychrome group has great iconographic affinity with the polychrome lustre painted pottery unearthed in Samarra. The monochrome group of tiles, however, has iconographic features which seldom or never occur on the polychrome lustre painted tiles, or on the polychrome lustre painted objects found at Samarra. Among the iconographic features on the series of monochrome lustre painted tiles in the mosque which occur only rarely on the polychrome group in this mosque and on the polychrome objects from Samarra, is epigraphic or simulated epigraphic decoration. Of the tiles with such ornamentation illustrated by Margais, three are of particular interest (PL II Fig. 3). They all have essentially the same basic design, consisting of four oval areas, with simulated Kufic writing, radiating from the center of the tile. These areas are separated, one from the other, by either hatched or scaled triangles, rhombi, or pentagons.

It seems that Ibn Naji actually speaks of two different sets of tiles in the Qairawan Mosque: one set imported from Baghdad for use in a reception room which Abu Ibrahim Ahmad wished to construct, and another, made by a man from Baghdad, which were added to the first group.5 It is quite probable that the polychrome lustre painted series at Qairawan had the same source of manufacture as the polychrome lustre painted objects from Samarra, i.e. that they are the first group mentioned by Ibn Naji, which was imported from Baghdad.

3 G. Mar9ais, Les Faiences a Reflets Mdtalliques de la Grande Mosquie de Kairouan, (Paris, 1928) 9-13.

4 Ibid. 10-11; K. A. C. Creswell, Early Muslim Architecture II (Oxford, 1940) 313-314.

5 Margais, op. cit. 10.



JENKINS, THE PALMETTE TREE I

Fig. i. Monochrome lustre painted fragmentary plate with the name of Ghaban. Egypt, Fatimid period, 1011-1013. Museum of Islamic Art, Cairo.

(After Yousuf, "Pottery of the Fatimid Period and Its Artistic Style")

Fig. 2. Polychrome lustre painted bowl. Iraq, 9th century. The Hague Museum, The Hague. (After Butler, "Islamic Pottery" )



II JARCE 7 (1968)

Fig. 3. Three monochrome lustre painted tiles, from the Great Mosque, Qairawan, Tunisia. Susa, 856-863. (After Marcais, "Les Faiences a Reflets Metalliques de

la Grande Mosquee de Kairouan" )

Fig. 4. Monochrome lustre painted fragmentary bowl, excavated in Susa. Local manufacture, mid-gth century. The Louvre, Paris.

(After Koechlin, "Les Cer antiques Musulmanes de Suse au Musee du Louvre" )



JENKINS, THE PALMETTE TREE III

Fig. 5. Monochrome lustre painted fragmentary bowl, excavated in Susa. Local manufacture, 10th century. The Louvre, Paris. (After Koechlin, "Les Cer antiques

Musulmanes de Suse an Musee du Louvre" )

Fig. 6. Silk Twill. Egypt, Akhmim, 6-7th century. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. (After Weibel, "Two Thousand Years of Textiles")



IV JARCE 7 (1968)

Fig. 7. Stucco dado from Samarra, Iraq, 9th century. (After Herzfeld, "Die Ausgrabungen von Samarra" )

Fig. 8. Two monochrome lustre painted sherds, excavated in Madlnat az-Zahra, Spain. Susa, 10th century.

(After Bosco, "Medina Azzahra y Alamiriya" )



JENKINS, THE PALMETTE TREE V

Fig. 9. Inside of monochrome lustre painted sherd, excavated in Nishapur, Iran. Susa, 10th century. Excavations of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1937,

Rogers Fund, 38.40.234

Fig. 10. Outside of monochrome lustre painted sherd, excavated in Nishapur, Iran. Susa, 10th century. Excavations of the Metropolitan

Museum of Art, 1937, Rogers Fund, 38.40.234

Fig. 11. Imitation lustre painted bowl, excavated in Nishapur, Iran. Local manufacture, 10th century. Excavations of the Metropolitan Museum of Art,

1939, 40.170.36

Fig. 12. Inside of monochrome lustre painted bowl. Egypt, Ikhshidid period, 10th century. Courtesy of the

Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore



VI JARCE 7 (1968)

Fig. 13. Outside of monochrome lustre painted bowl. Egypt, Ikhshidid period, 10th century. Courtesy of

the Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore

Fig. 14. Monochrome lustre painted bowl. Egypt, Ikhshidid period, 10th century. Courtesy of Staatliche

Museen, Berlin

Fig. 15. Fragment of monochrome lustre painted bowl signed by ibn Haldan or ibn Dahan. Egypt, Ikhshidid period, 10th century. Museum of Islamic Art, Cairo. (After Bahgat and Massoul, "La Cer antique Musulmane de I'Egypte")

Fig. 16. Monochrome lustre painted plate. Egypt, Ikhshidid period, 10th century. Courtesy of the Benaki Museum, Athens



JENKINS, THE PALMETTE TREE VII

Fig. 17. Monochrome lustre painted bowl. Egypt, Ikhshidid period, 10th century. Courtesy of the Benaki

Museum, Athens

Fig. 18. Monochrome lustre painted bowl. Egypt, Ikhshidid period, 10th century. Ettinghausen photograph



VIII JARCE 7 (1968)

3 a

<< g ^ a •-! O O Hh

P P 3 o

I i 3 : O *£

> $ 3- °

II •!?

p« O 0)1 H-

& '

§*

5 oj o

111

^?^ "Sob'

*-i CD <-+ w 3 Q

I! I M ^ P

|S 0^ P

S £ 3 g'



JENKINS, THE PALMETTE TREE IX

Fig. 21. Monochrome lustre painted bowl. Egypt, Fatimid period, ioth century. The British Museum, Lon- don. (After Pinder -Wilson, "An Early Fatimid Bowl Decorated in Lustre"

in Festschrift fur Ernst Kiihnel)

Fig. 22. Monochrome lustre painted bowl, signed by Muslim. Egypt, Fatimid period, ca. iooo. Museum of Islamic Art, Cairo. (After Hassan,

"New Pieces of Fatimid Lustre Pottery")

Fig. 23. Monochrome lustre painted bowl, signed by Ali al-Baitar. Egypt, Fatimid period, early nth century. Museum of Islamic Art, Cairo.

(After Yousuf, "Pottery of the Fatimid Period and its Artistic Style" )



THE PALMETTE TREE 121

However, since there were no monochrome lustre painted objects, of any kind, found at Samarra comparable to the monochrome series of tiles, it is possible that these tiles were produced in a center other than that which manufactured the polychrome pieces found at Samarra.

Among the Islamic pottery brought to light by the French excavations at Susa is a fragmentary monochrome lustre painted bowl containing an interior decoration which is closer to the designs on the monochrome lustre painted Qairawan tiles than any other single piece yet found (PL II Fig. 4). This object, measuring only 12 cm. in diameter, not only exhibits the same basic design as that on the Qairawan tiles, but the simulated writing is strikingly similar to that on the epigraphic tiles. Another similarity is the use of wide lustre painted outlines around the principal designs. A potter's kiln, containing several fragments of lustre painted pottery, tripods with lustre stains on them and a few lumps of the material used for lustre painting, was found in Susa in the area called "City of Artisans/'6 Thus, we can safely assume that this fragmentary bowl was made in Susa.7

Because of the close relationship between the monochrome lustre painted Qairawan tiles and this bowl, one would be inclined to date the Susa bowl to the same period as the tiles, i.e. 856- 863 a.d., and to say that the tiles were made in Susa, by a Baghdad ceramist, who during the civil strifes which threatened the dynasty, beginning with the murder of the caliph al-Muta- wakkil in 861, migrated to Susa where he produced the tiles which were then exported to Qairawan.

This theory would substantiate, to some extent, Koechlin's idea that after the collapse of Samarra, the ceramists emigrated back to

Susa, which he believed was their original home.8 In my interpretation, however, the potters left before the abandonment of the royal city in 892.

Thus, a specific connection between Samarra- Baghdad, Susa and Qairawan can be established, a connection which furnishes us with an important step in the development of Fatimid monochrome lustre painted ware, with floral decoration, from ninth century Iraqi polychrome lustre painted pottery.

The next step in this development might be sought in Egypt as Ahmad ibn Tulun provides a direct connection between Iraq and Egypt. There have been several theories concerning the ceramics of the Tulunid period. Lane believed that Ibn Tulun brought Baghdad ceramists with him into Egypt;9 Rudolph Schnyder believes that Iraqi potters came to Egypt, voluntarily, from Basra after the destruction of that city in 871 ;10 and other scholars have asserted that all of the ninth century ceramics found in Egypt were imported. The one point on which these various scholars agree is that the lustre painted ware found in Tulunid Egypt, whether of native manufacture or imported, is, for the most part,11 indistinguishable from that found at Samarra.

Because of the anarchic conditions which pre- vailed in Egypt between the fall of the Tulunid dynasty in 905 and the founding of the Ikhshidid dynasty in 935 which would not have been con- ducive to a ceramic industry of any importance, one must agree with Schnyder when he states : "Es scheint deshalb, als ob die dgyptische Pro- duktion von Lust erw are in dies en dreifiig Jahren, die zwischen den beiden Dynastien ver stricken, auf ein Minium reduziert war oder gar uberhaupt aussetzte."12

6 J. M. Unvala, "Note on the Lustred Ceramics of Susa/' Bulletin of the American Institute for Persian Art and Archaelogy 4 (1935) 79; R. Koechlin, "Les Ceramiques Musulmanes de Suse au Musee du Louv- re," Mdmoires de la Mission Archiologique de Perse 19 (1928) 5-6.

7 R. Schnyder, "Tulunidische Liisterfayence," Ars Orientalis 5 (1963) 55.

8 Koechlin, op. cit. 6-7. 9 A. Lane, Early Islamic Pottery (London, 1958) 20. 10 Schnyder, op. cit. 64. 11 Schnyder has attempted to show how the poly-

chrome lustre painted ceramics imported into Egypt from Iraq can be differentiated from those of local manufacture by means of slight differences in the foot- ring profiles. This appears to the writer to be a very tenuous method of determining provenance.

12 Schnyder, op. cit. 66.



122 JARCE 7 (1968)

For this reason, in addition to the fact that Tulunid ceramics are in no way novel but merely facsimiles of Abbasid polychrome lustre painted pottery, we cannot look to Egypt, at this time, for an additional step forward in the tradition which led from ninth century Iraqi polychrome lustre painted ceramics to eleventh century Egyptian monochrome lustre painted ceramics, but must look elsewhere.

As we have seen, the ceramists of Susa "kept alive' ' and elaborated upon the Samarra polychrome lustre iconography in monochrome lustre in the second half of the ninth century. Thus, it would seem logical to look to the ceramic products of that city for a possible connection with the monochrome lustre painted ware produced in Egypt after the fall of the Tulunid dynasty.

Such an important link between Susa and Cairo ceramics is found in the form of a small, fragmentary, monochrome lustre painted bowl, 12.5 centimeters in diameter (PL III Fig. 5), the interior of which contained a lustre painted decoration consisting of three, highly stylized, palmette trees, radiating from a central point. Each of these trees is composed of a central stem, a blossom and three pairs of leaves. One pair of large, triangular leaves grows from the top of the stem. Each of these leaves gives rise to a split palmette, one side of which is con- ventional, the other, greatly stylized. The blossom on each of these trees is not attached to the stem but has become an isolated, decorative element. All of these trees are interconnected. The large, empty space between each of the three trees is decorated with a line of simulated Kufic writing.

In using the palmette tree design, the artist who made this object was employing an iconographic motif which was to play a major part in the decoration of monochrome lustre painted ceramics for the next seventy-five years, and one which had its origin in the late classical candelabra tree as seen on the so-called Akhmim textiles (PI. Ill Fig. 6).

When this design appears among the ornament of the First Samarra Style, its basic com-

ponents, stem, blossom, and leaves, have been abstracted and adapted to such an extent that they are difficult to distinguish. On the stucco panel in PL IV Fig. 7 the Islamic adaptation of the late classical motif is seen in a complex but complete form.

The Islamic variation of the candelabra tree, as seen on the stucco object, is further abstracted in the decoration of the later Susa bowl.13

That this bowl, found at Susa, exhibits a further step away from the iconography as seen on the first Susa bowl discussed, while still maintaining an affinity to it is easily seen. The basic elements of the earlier bowl, i.e. areas consisting of a polygon alternating with areas filled with simulated Kufic writing, all of which radiate from a central point, are incorporated in the design of the later bowl, the polygon as a highly stylized, detached blossom and the simulated writing as a filler between the trees.

Because of the fact that the design on this bowl appears to be a further evolution of the decoration on the first Susa bowl and the Qairawan tiles, it appears safe to assume that it was manufactured after 863.

Two fragments which were found in Spain during the excavation of Madinat az-Zahra, the royal city of *Abd ar-Rahman III founded in 936 and which was ransacked, burned and abandoned in 1011, help to fix the dating of the Susa bowl more securely. Because of the short, seventy-six year existence of this city, the objects found there, like those found at Samarra, can be dated with relative precision.

From what remains of these two bowls, it is clear that one of them had the same interior decoration as the later Susa bowl, the other, only a slight variation (PL IV Fig. 8).

These two sherds, because of their close technical, stylistic and iconographic relationship

13 Further evidence for the continuation of Samarra style and iconography in Susa is seen in a stucco panel from Susa, dated by Ghirshman to the tenth or possibly early eleventh century. R. Ettinghausen, "The 'Beveled Style* in the Post- Samarra Period," Archaeologica Ovientalia in Memoriam Ernst Herzfeld 79-80 pl. XIV 3.




to the later Susa bowl, were probably imported from that city. If this is correct, the date of manufacture of the later Susa bowl would have a terminus post quern of 936.

The finding of another fragment of this ceramic type and its imitation, at Nishapur, also helps to confirm the late dating of the later Susa object in the Louvre. The lustre painted vessel found in Nishapur had the same diameter as its counterpart in Susa, and, from the remains of its interior design, it is quite certain that it had the same decoration (PI. V Fig. 9). The decoration of the outside is divided into sections (PL V Fig. 10). From what remains of this exterior design, it would appear that there were four petal-like areas, radiating from the foot, which contained lustre painted simulated writing on the white background. These four sections were separated from each other by areas containing various lustre painted geometrical motifs. Since no evidence of the production of lustre painted ceramics in Nishapur is attested,14 we can assume that this object was imported. That tenth century Nishapur ware was found at Susa is a well-established fact.15 Thus, since trade was going on between the two centers, it is not surprising that a contemporary Susa piece should be found in Nishapur. A tenth century imitation of this type of lustre painted ware was also found at Nishapur (PL V Fig. 11). The only change in the design is the reduction in the number of palmette trees to two instead of three and the further abstraction of the original motif.

The later Susa piece found during the Louvre excavation provides a strong link in the chain of ceramic tradition which led from ninth century Iraq to early eleventh century Egypt because of the fact that three pieces with precisely the same decoration as the Susa bowl and two other bowls with similar decoration have been found in Fust at.

The first of these bowls, now in the Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, measuring 21 centime-

ters in diameter, has an interior decoration, painted in monochrome lustre, consisting of the same design as is found on the later Susa bowl (PL V Fig. 12). The exterior of this bowl is divided into six sections, which radiate from the foot. Each of these partitions contains a

stylized half -palmette. On the foot of this object is an unintelligible potter's mark-(Pl. VI Fig. 13).

The second bowl, now in the Staatliche Museen, Berlin (PL VI Fig. 14), has the same interior decoration as the Baltimore vessel. The exterior, however, contains three sets of three concentric circles separated by a series of dots and dashes. This bowl is much smaller than the Walters object, measuring only 13.5 centimeters in diameter, and thus closer to the Susa and Nishapur bowls in this respect.

The third object of this type is a fragment in the Islamic Museum, Cairo (PL VI Fig. 15), which is large enough to indicate that the complete piece bore the same interior decoration as the two complete vessels discussed above. On the outside of this sherd, which is the base of the bowl, there is the signature of the ceramist : Ibn (?) Haldan or Dahan.16

The two bowls with decoration which is similar to that on the three bowls just discussed, are now in the Benaki Museum, Athens (Pis. VI-VII Figs. 16-17). One shows a further elaboration of the palmette tree motif, an elaboration which we shall see again on a Fatimid bowl, and the other introduces an animal motif which serves to further confirm our tenth century dating of these objects, as does the bowl in PL VII Fig. 18, the present location of which is unknown.

These six bowls, because of the type of clay used and the crackling and pitting of the glaze, must be considered of Egyptian manufacture. The question now arises as to who were the ceramists who created these objects.

We have seen that the collapse of the Tulunid dynasty brought about a cessation of lustre production in Egypt for approximately thirty years. Consequently, the possibility of these

14 C.K. Wilkinson, "The Iranian Expedition 1936' The Excavations at Nishapur/* BMMA 32 (1937) I^

15 Koechlin, op. cit. pl. XIV fig. 109.

16 A. R. A. Yousuf, "Ghaban's Plate and Ancient Fatimid Pottery/' Bulletin of the Faculty of Arts Cairo University 18 (1958) 92 note 2.



124 JARCE 7 (1968)

six pieces, which must be dated to the second quarter of the tenth century, being products of a native school of Egyptian ceramists is ruled out. Therefore, we must look elsewhere for the origin of the potters who made these objects.

We can assume from the Madinat az-Zahra excavations that ware with precisely the same design was being produced in Susa in or around 936. One year before this, in 935, the Ikhshidid dynasty was established in Egypt after a thirty year period of anarchy in the country. During the course of the thirty-five year reign of this dynasty, an attempt was made to recapture the luxury and former splendor of the Tulunid period. Therefore, it is possible that ceramists were imported to aid in the revival of the earlier prosperity.

By the time of the Ikhshidid rise to power, the "temporal sway of 'the commander of the faithful' had . . . disappeared/'17 Because of poor economic conditions in the Abbasid empire, ceramists may have migrated to Egypt, or they may have been imported by the founder of the dynasty, Muhammad ibn Tugh al-Ikhshid, a member of a princely family from Ferghana. Since the early Egyptian monochrome pieces so closely resemble the later Susa bowl in the Louvre, one may suggest that the ceramists working in Ikhshidid Egypt migrated or were imported from Susa sometime around 936.

Once in Egypt, the Susa potters continued to develop their style of decoration, which, as we have seen, was ultimately based on the Samarra polychrome iconography. Since Egypt was attempting at this time to emulate life during the Tulunid dynasty, and since the potters came into contact there with Tulunid stucco and wood decoration which had been inspired by work in the same media at Samarra, it is not surprising that the ware which they produced during the Ikhshidid period would exhibit decoration even closer to the Samarra style than the later Susa monochrome ware.

That Egyptian ceramic object which renders most faithfully and purely Tulunid iconography

and style and, consequently, Samarra iconography and style, is a small, complete bowl with a yellow lustre painted decoration on a white ground, measuring 19 centimeters in diameter, in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, (PL VIII Fig. 19) . A single floral design covers the entire central portion of the vessel which is the purest Islamic version of the late classical candelabra tree to be found on the objects discussed. In this representation, all of the basic elements of the original tree are clearly visible : the stem and blossom flanked on each side by leaves. In this rendering of the motif, as was the case on the Samarra stucco panel, the leaves of this tree, one growing out of another, anticipate a very characteristic form of later Islamic ornament, the arabesque.

Around the wall of the Metropolitan Museum bowl is a simulated, lustre painted Kufic inscription which contains the same basic elements as that on the earlier Susa bowl in the Louvre, and the Qairawan tiles. The exterior of this object is divided into five sections each of which contains a simulated Kufic word, a design similar to that on the Nishapur fragment and on the Walters' bowl. On the foot of this bowl, in a neat Kufic hand, is the signature of the artist, Ibn ( ?) Haldan or Dahan, (PI. VIII Fig. 20), the same name as that found on the sherd in the Islamic Museum, Cairo.

Because of the perfection with which this object is executed as compared to the technique exhibited on the later Susa bowl in the Louvre, and on the six Egyptian pieces previously discussed, one is inclined to place the manufacture of this bowl at the end of the Ikhshidid dynasty, i.e., ca. 969. On purely iconographic grounds, there is no question but that the design on this object is a continuation as well as a further development of that on the earlier bowls discussed, its principal decoration being a purifi- cation of the palmette tree motif which has been a major element in the decoration of the last twelve bowls discussed. In addition, however, to this purely visual proof, we have epigraphic evidence of such a close connection. As has been mentioned before, the signature on the Cairo

17 S. Lane-Poole, A History of Egypt in the Middle Ages (London, 1901) 83.




fragment and on the Metropolitan Museum bowl are the same; thus, it may be suggested that we have an early and a later example of one ceramist's work.

The ceramists working in Egypt during the Ikhshidid period, therefore, used the Tulunid objects around them, in addition to the ceramic tradition behind them, both of which were founded, ultimately, on Samarra iconography, to create a type of pottery which was to form the final step leading from ninth century Iraqi polychrome lustre painted ware to early eleventh century Egyptian monochrome lustre painted ware.

The development of a lustre painted ceramic tradition which we have traced from ninth century Iraq to the end of the Ikhshidid dynasty in Egypt continues in the Fatimid period. Since the transition from Ikhshidid to Fatimid rule was a relatively quiet one, there is no reason to believe that the various industries established in Egypt during the Ikhshidid period did not continue to exist in much the same form under the new regime.

That the ceramic industry, in particular, did continue without noticeable interruption from one dynasty to the next is proven by two Fatimid Egyptian monochrome lustre painted bowls, one of which is in the British Museum, London, the other, in the Museum of Islamic Art, Cairo.

The London object is a large, relatively complete bowl measuring 34.5 centimeters in diameter (PL IX Fig. 21). Like the polychrome lustre painted Samarra bowl in The Hague Museum, the Qairawan tiles discussed here, the earlier Susa bowl in the Louvre, and the Ghaban bowl, this plate has an interior decoration consisting of two designs which alternate with each other, four times. The principal decoration of this bowl consists of four highly stylized palmette trees radiating from a central point. Each of these trees is composed of a central stem, a blossom, and three pairs of leaves. One large pair of triangular leaves grows from the top of the stem. Each of these leaves gives rise to a half-palmette leaf which, in turn, gives rise to

another such leaf. The blossom on each of these trees is not attached to the stem but has become an isolated, decorative element. All of these trees are interconnected. These palmette trees are very similar to those on one of the Benaki bowls previously discussed (PI. VI Fig. 16). Within the large, empty spaces between each of the four trees is to be found a secondary motif: a highly stylized tree.

The exterior of this vessel is divided into petal-like sections which radiate from the foot. Each of these areas contains a line of simulated Kufic writing which is so stylized that it more closely resembles a half palmette. This form of exterior decoration was seen on the Nishapur lustre painted fragment, the Walters bowl, and the Metropolitan Museum bowl.

Since every detail of the decoration of this object can be found on at least one of the vessels previously discussed, it is safe to assume that this plate grew out of the tradition delineated above. However, since it exhibits a technical perfection and style closer to that found on the Ghaban bowl than to that on any other object previously discussed, its date of manufacture should be placed sometime between that of the Metropolitan bowl and the Ghaban bowl, i.e. 969-1013.

The other object, in the Museum of Islamic Art, Cairo (PI. IX Fig. 22), which serves to bridge the gap between the Metropolitan Museum vessel and the Ghaban bowl, also has an interior decoration consisting of two designs which alternate with each other, four times, around the vessel. One of these is a variation of the palmette tree motif. In this representation, however, the stem and blossom of the tree have been merely in- dicated by lustre painted dots and the two pairs of leaves have become the chief elements of the motif. The other design is a stylized bush or tree, outlined in lustre within a circle delineated in lustre. The center of this bowl consists of a medallion, outlined in lustre, which contains a lustre painted griffin silhouetted on the white ground.

This is the earliest bowl bearing the signature of one of the most prolific of Fatimid Egyptian



126 JARCE 7 (1968)

potters, Muslim >ibn al-Dahan. The full inscription, "Work of Muslim 5ibn al-Dahan,

" is found within the border design. We know, from the Benaki fragment mentioned at the very beginning of this article, that this potter was working during the reign of al-Hakim.18

The exterior decoration of this vessel consists of four sets of two concentric circles, the interior one of each pair being filled with streaks of lustre, which are also found in the areas between the sets of circles.

The next and final phase of the development we are following is represented by the Ghaban bowl (PI. I Fig. 1). In this phase, as was stated at the beginning of this article, the particular iconographical features under discussion are handled with the greatest dexterity, precision and imagination and, consequently, this object, which can be dated between the years 1011 and 1013, can be considered the height of the development.

One of the two alternating designs on this bowl shows yet another, more complex variation and further abstraction of the palmette tree motif. The addition of a second palmette tree below the principal one, as well as the two pairs of leaves which circumscribe the larger tree, add complexity to the basic design. All that remains of the stem and blossom is a geometrical abstraction of the original parts: a line crowned with a rhombus. The larger pair of leaves, with their segmented blades, forming the almond- shaped area, are a deviation from the simple Samarra and Tulunid leaf which preceded them. The other basic design, that of a stylized tree, is altered by the fact that, here, it is growing from the upper leaves of a palmette tree.

For these reasons, this bowl should be placed after the British Museum and Cairo "griffin" bowls which still retain the basic simplicity

common to all of the preceding objects discussed.

Either contemporary with or closely following the manufacture of the Ghaban bowl is a bowl in the Museum of Islamic Art, Cairo, which is signed by the artist Ali al-Baitar (PL IX Fig. 23) .19 The principal design on the interior of this vessel consists of four highly stylized palmette trees which radiate from the center of the bowl. Each tree is composed of a stem, a blossom and two pairs of leaves, one pair of which has segmented blades. As was the case on many of the bowls previously discussed, the stem and blossom of the trees on this object have become mere vestiges, and the leaves have assumed prime importance. The empty areas between the trees have been filled with a three-lobed leaf which grows from the lower left-hand leaf of each tree.

The central motif is a white four-pointed star containing a half-palmette in each of its four parts. An undulating leaf scoll covers the wide rim.

This bowl, to my knowledge, is the latest example of the use of the iconographic features and basic design under discussion, on Fatimid lustre painted ceramics.

After the production of this object, different motifs appear to take precedence in the decoration of Egyptian lustre painted ceramics, and thus, the evolution, which can be seen in outline form by following the various ramifications, during more than a century and a half, of one motif: the palmette tree, which had its origins in the late classical candelabra tree, and which we have been able to follow from ninth century Iraq, comes to an end in the second decade of the eleventh century in Egypt.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art

New York 18 M. Jenkins, "Muslim: An Early Fatimid Ceram-

ist/' BMMA 26 (1968) 359-369.

19 Yousuf is of the opinion that Ali al-Baitar made the Ghaban bowl.



the palmette tree: a study of the iconography of egyptian lustre painted pottery

Documents