Multi-Cultural Aspects of Pottery: a Christian Bowl Found in Mamluk Egypt in Its Cultural Context

0347-07_ECA_4(2007)_06 18-08-2008 12:58 Pagina 81

ECA 4 (2007), p. 81-94; doi: 10.2143 / ECA.4.0.2024668

Multi-Cultural Aspects of Pottery: A Christian Bowl found in Mamluk Egypt in its Cultural Context

Tasha VORDERSTRASSE

Pottery, like other objects of material culture, in this period and therefore this bowl provides a reflects the identity of the individuals who produced valuable example of this type of object. The bowl and consumed it. This statement, although it may should be seen as part of the multi-cultural art of seem obvious, has implications when we look at the the region, as Philon argues, but her attribution of iconography of pottery. The piece that is under style remains problematic. After discussing the examination here is a perfect case in point: this methodology adopted here, the article will look at bowl is decorated with the Deposition and was pro- the bowl in detail before finally discussing possible duced for Christians probably in Syria or Egypt, patrons for it by not only examining the Coptic possibly by a Christian potter, but it has been sug- community in Egypt, but also through comparison gested that it has Byzantine antecedents but was with Ottoman-period Armenian patrons of vessels Persian and ultimately Chinese in style. Fragments with religious scenes. of this bowl are conserved in the Benaki Museum in Athens (Plates 1 and 4)1, in the Museum of METHODOLOGY Islamic Art in Cairo (Plate 2), and in the Walters Art Museum in Baltimore (Plates 3 and 5). The The information about the piece indicates that the Benaki and Cairo pieces were published and stud- bowl was found in Egypt, but beyond that, issues of ied by Helen Philon in 1983 in a preliminary form, provenance and cultural affiliation become increas- as she planned to publish the bowl fully in the ingly complicated. I believe that the bowl should not forthcoming catalogue of the later Islamic ceramics been seen as ‘Syrian’, ‘Persian’, or ‘Mongol’, but from the Benaki Museum, but this never appeared2. rather part of the multi-cultural milieu of the The Walter piece has never been published and its thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. The connection with the Benaki and Cairo pieces has approach adopted here to the bowl is the same used not previously been recognized. In her short article, in the article ‘The Iconography of the Wine Drinker Philon recognized the importance of this bowl as a in ‘Port St Symeon’ Ware from the Crusader Era’5. cultural artifact stating: ‘The Christian theme In this article, it was shown that the figure of the painted on this object of Islamic origin raises a number of interesting questions relating to both the art-historical and socio-political landscape that pro- 1 Athens: inv. no. 823; Cairo: inv. no. 13724; Baltimore: inv. duced it.’3. At the end of the article she concluded no. 48.2734. I would like to thank Dr. Bernard O’Kane of that the bowl is a ‘compendium of styles, and icono- the American University in Cairo for his assistance in graphic themes originating in local Egyptian and obtaining a photo of the Cairo bowl and the American Uni- versity of Cairo Press for their assistance. I would like to Syrian traditions, Mongol Iran and Byzantium. To thank Dr. Anna Ballian of the Benaki Museum in Athens Byzantium one can trace the theme, to Egyptian for providing me with photos and information about the and Syrian origins one can trace certain stylistic fea- fragments in the Benaki Museum. I would like to thank tures, and to Mongol Iran, the painterly modes and Dr. Georgi Parpulov of the Walters Art Museum who coin- cidentally sent me a photo of the Walters Art Museum piece 4 certain iconography.’ . Since the bowl was only when this article was nearly completed and who generously studied in a preliminary form, there still remains provided me with photos, information, and permission to considerable scope for broadening our understand- publish this piece for the first time. 2 ing of how this bowl fits into the art-historical con- Philon 1983, 265-274. 3 Philon 1983, 265. text of Mamluk Egypt. As will be shown below, 4 Philon 1983, 270. Christian religious subjects rarely appear on pottery 5 Vorderstrasse 2005, 59-72.

81 0347-07_ECA_4(2007)_06 18-08-2008 12:58 Pagina 82

sitting drinking man is a common one throughout culturalism that was described there. In this the eastern Mediterranean, found in art produced instance, however, it is likely that the patron was under the Muslims, Cilician Armenians, and Cru- Christian-based upon the subject matter7. saders in different types of media. It was argued that one cannot term this type of art as ‘Muslim’ or POTTERY FRAGMENTS FROM THE BENAKI ‘Christian’, but rather that it should be considered MUSEUM, ATHENS, THE MUSEUM OF ISLAMIC ART, within the multicultural context of the period. In CAIRO, THE WALTERS ART MUSEUM, BALTIMORE this instance, it is art that is derived from a Byzan- tine context which is re-imagined in this milieu6. The bowl is a large one that is decorated with the Unlike the sitting drinking man, however, which Deposition of the Cross. It was found in Egypt. The was a secular symbol, the ‘Deposition Bowl’ clearly piece in the Cairo Museum was donated by Mau- has religious significance. Despite this, the art should rice Nahman in 1936, a famous Egyptian antiqui- not be termed Christian, although the subject mat- ties dealer8. The two pieces in the Benaki Museum ter is. This object, like other objects, was produced were purchased by Athonis Benaki (1873-1954) by local craftsmen for a variety of patrons who could from Phocion Tano(s) in 1939 in Egypt. Phocion have hailed from different cultural background and Tanos was a well-known antiquities dealer in Egypt religions. The deposition bowl should also be seen who regularly supplied collectors such as Benaki, as a reflection of the same phenomenon of multi- Chester Beatty, and King Farouk. He came from a line of antique dealers, who had first founded a shop in Cairo in 1870, and ran the Antiquities 9 6 The transformation of such iconography is a commonly dis- Gallery from 1937 until his death in 1972 . The cussed topic. See, for example, Collinet 2001, 130; fact that the Benaki and Cairo pieces were both Skalova/Gabra 2006, 112-113, 115; Weitzmann 1943, from Egyptian dealers argues strongly for the prove- 133; idem 1975, 37. nance of the bowl in Egypt. In contrast to the other 7 It should be kept in mind, however, that the presence of Christian symbolism does not automatically mean that the pieces, the piece in the Walters Art Museum in Bal- patron was Christian. For Islamic (in this instance, royal) timore was given to the museum in 1996, but owners of metalwork with Christian images, see: Atıl/ according to the donator, it was acquired by her Chase/Jett 1985, 137-146; Baer 1989, 40, 43; Hoffman ancestor Moritz Sobernheim (1872-1933) in Syria 2004. 8 O’Kane 2006, 142, n. 127. For more information on Mau- before WWI. This date and place does not accord rice Nahman (1868-1948), see: Capart 1947, 300-301; with the provenance information for the Benaki and Dawson/Uphill 1995, 305. Cairo pieces but Moritz Sobernheim is known to 9 Carswell 2000; Dawson/Uphill 1995, 410; Delivorrias have visited Egypt on a variety of occasions10. An 2000, 16; Maravella 2002, 83; Robinson 1981, 27-28. Information about date of acquisition from Dr. Anna examination of the other objects donated by the Ballian, Benaki Museum, Athens. Sobernheim family reveals that Moritz Sobernheim 10 Moritz Sobernheim was a German scholar who specialized also collected Egyptian filter neck jars. In fact, they in Semitic languages. He published extensively on Arabic form the largest part of the extant collection of his inscriptions on both buildings and on objects, and visited 11 the Middle East several times in the course of the nineteenth objects in the Walters Art Museum . This makes it and early twentieth century. In particular, he was active at possible that either Moritz Sobernheim acquired fil- the Baalbek excavations under Puchstein and published on ter necks and this piece on one of his visits, the Arabic inscriptions from the site. His travels to the Mid- although the exact date cannot currently be deter- dle East seem to have ceased after he began to work for the German government in 1919. Sobernheim documented at mined. This scenario seems more likely than the least one of his trips in print, see: Sobernheim 1899. The other idea that Moritz Sobernheim just happened number of all of his trips is not clear. For his other works to buy a piece that was extremely similar to the and activities, see Böhme/Schottroff 1979, 3; Kammerer- Benaki and Cairo pieces but was from a different Grothaus et al. 1999, 112; Kästner/Baher 1999, 88; Killy/Vierhaus 1998, 355; Sobernheim 1896; idem 1905; bowl. This also argues that there could be other idem 1909; idem 1921; idem 1922; Wininger 1925, 556. pieces of this bowl lying unrecognized in museums 11 I would like to thank Georgi Parpulov for patiently answer- or private collections (see further discussion below). ing all of my questions in regards to the acquisition history The bowl is of underglaze painted pottery made of the Sobernheim collection in the Walters Art Museum and for sending me photos of not only the piece I am pub- from a pale gritty yellow paste imitating frit ware, lishing here but also of the filter necks which allowed me covered with white slip and then painted in black, to confirm that they were Egyptian. blue, and brown under a clear glaze. Some of the

82 0347-07_ECA_4(2007)_06 18-08-2008 12:58 Pagina 83

Pl. 1. Benaki Museum, Athens: inv. no. 823 (© Benaki Museum Athens)

Pl. 2. Museum of Islamic Art, Cairo: inv. no. 13724 Pl. 3. Walters Art Museum, Baltimore: inv. no. 48.2734 (Photo from O’Kane 2006, no. 84. Image used with (Photo courtesy of the Walters Art Museum, Baltimore) permission of American University in Cairo Press and the Supreme Council of Antiquities)

83 0347-07_ECA_4(2007)_06 18-08-2008 12:58 Pagina 84

Pl. 4. Bottom; Benaki Museum, Athens: inv. no. 823 (© Benaki Museum Athens)

Pl. 5. Bottom; Walters Art Museum, Baltimore: inv. no. 48.2734 (Photo courtesy of the Walters Art Museum, Baltimore)

84 0347-07_ECA_4(2007)_06 18-08-2008 12:58 Pagina 85

slip has been raised for the leaf decoration and the decoration of dots on the maphorion on one of the appeared in the Paris 2001 exhibition on Saladin and the Mary’s on the left12. The piece dates to the first part art of the Ayyubids. See Catalogue Paris 2001. Ballian of the fourteenth century and is painted in colors 2006, 126, dates the bowl to the late thirteenth – first half 13 of the fourteenth century. typical of this type of underglaze painted pottery . 14 François 1999, 26; Jenkins 1984; Tonghini 1998, 52-53; Even though the piece was found in Egypt, it is dif- Watson 2004, 400. ficult to assign this type of underglaze painted ware 15 Ballian 2006, 126; Fehérvári 2000, 246; Lane 1957, 15, to either Syrian or Egyptian manufacture. There- 18; Poulsen 1957, 212, 216, 221; Watson 2004, 395, 400. 14 For imports of Persian pottery to Egypt see, for example, fore, the pieces are usually termed ‘Syro-Egyptian’ . Sauvaget 1948, 148-149. The attribution of the piece to Syrian and Egyptian underglaze painted pottery of the same potter as the individual who produced two pieces this period was influenced by Iranian prototypes, of Aghkand ware in the Louvre and the Art Institute of and this type of raised slip decoration, although Chicago is unlikely, however. 16 Fehérvári 2000, 249; Jenkins 1984, 95-114. Fehérvári sug- rare, appears in other examples of Syrian and Egypt- gests that underglaze polychrome painting owes its origins ian underglaze painted pottery of the first half of in Syria to potters from Iran. the fourteenth century, copying Iranian prototypes, 17 Philon 1983, 265. particularly from Hama15. It has even been sug- 18 Catalogue Paris 2001, 118. Ballian 2006, 126 also gives it a Syrian origin. gested that the Persian potters might have been 19 For Hama, see Poulsen 1957, 221, Fig. 762. He states that 16 active in Syria . According to Philon, it was made this piece resembles the bowl under discussion here in Syria or Egypt17, while the entry in the Paris although he incorrectly refers to it as a Crucifixion, rather 2001 exhibition catalogue states that it was made than Deposition. For the fragment in the Metropolitan 18 Museum of Art (X365), see Jenkins 1984, Pl. 5b. in Syria . The faces on the bowl closely resemble 20 One difficulty in finding good parallels to this piece is that those of the faces on the bowl from Hama, which there is a tendency to publish only the highly decorated side have also been compared to a human sphinx face of the pottery (that is the interior) unless there is a pottery from Fustat. Another depiction of a human face, signature or some other special decoration on the base, which means that the geometric decoration on the other which according to scientific analysis was produced side generally remains unpublished. For exceptions to this in Syria, does not closely resemble these other see François 1999, Figs 8.48-55, 57-59; Pls 2.48-52; 3.53- depictions19. The reverse of the pieces is decorated 55, 57 (her black-and-white drawings contain depictions of with a geometric pattern that is typical of Syrian- both sides but the black-and-white photos generally do not); Watson 2004. Although not every underside is pub- Egyptian underglaze painted ware of this period, lished, Watson’s study is still more complete than most pub- 20 once again copying Persian originals . lications of this material. The unusual nature of the bowl makes any attri- 21 In this discussion of Christian iconography on pottery, the bution to either Syria or Egypt problematic. There female figurines nursing infants from Iran and Syria have not been included. These female figurines remain problem- is simply nothing to compare it to. While Christ- atic and their use is unexplained. See Watson 2004, 344. ian symbols do appear on pottery in the Middle In the absence of further proof it cannot be stated that they East21, such as the crosses which appear on Cru- are depictions of the Madonna (as suggested by Kühnel sader-period Port St Symeon-ware pottery found 1914, 55-60, and also given as a possibility by Catalogue Berlin 1986, n. 124). For a detailed discussion of these fig- in the Kingdom of Cilician Armenia and the Prin- ures and their possible origin see Rogers 1969, 155-175. 22 cipality of Antioch , on Egyptian Fatimid lustre- 22 See Vorderstrasse, forthcoming. ware – one piece depicts Christ23, another piece a 23 This sherd has received considerable attention in publica- priest24, and another a horseman that seems to be tions. See, for example, Abbas 2006, 91. This is a sherd that 25 came from Fustat that shows Christ. The piece is broken, either Christian or derived from Christian models but presumably Christ would have been standing upright. – and a rider saint appearing on a bowl from His right hand is raised and it looks as if in his left hand Cyprus26, definite ‘Christian’ symbols on pottery he was probably holding a book. 24 Contadini 1998, 86, Pls 3a and 3b with bibliography; Lane 1957, Pl. 26a. 25 Meinecke-Berg 1999, 356, Fig. 15. She suggests that the 12 Philon 1983, 265. horseman is “strange” and the face may be modelled on a 13 Philon 1985, 117; the piece was recently dated to the Ayyu- Christian image; Zick-Nissen 1979, 542-543. She suggests bid period by El-Ra’uf Ali Yousouf and this was followed that it could be a saint but that the unusual water on the by Bernard O’Kane. Their reason for dating it to the Ayyu- saddle can be of a Muslim. This piece is in the Museum of bid period is not clear and they do not cite Philon. See Islamic Art in Berlin, inv. no. I 43/64.194. El-Ra’uf Ali Yousuf 1998, 21, 23, Fig. 6.4; O’Kane 2006, 26 Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1989, n. 29; idem 1999, 149, n. 87. 142, n. 127. This dating may also explain why the bowl She suggests this is St George.

85 0347-07_ECA_4(2007)_06 18-08-2008 12:58 Pagina 86

remain quite rare27. In addition, this piece of pot- are covering their faces in grief. Philon argued that tery, unlike the others, actually depicts an entire Nicodemus would have been kneeling at the feet of scene, rather than a single cross or saint. One rea- Christ (which was not presented in the pieces she son may have been because it was difficult to fit an saw), as is a common occurrence in depositions of entire scene in a dish or bowl28. this type29. Philon’s supposition was correct. Nicode- The artist of the bowl depicts a typical deposi- mus is depicted, probably kneeling (although the tion scene derived from Byzantine models, which lower part of his body is broken away), at the feet first developed in the tenth century and continued of Christ. He has a bald patch on top of his head until the fourteenth and that are found in Byzan- and his right hand has been drawn by the artist very tine-influenced art throughout the central and east- close to his body in a rather uncomfortable-looking ern Mediterranean and Transcaucasia. The bowl position holding pliers. It is possible to see the top shows Christ’s body being taken off the cross and half of the pliers which are about to pull the nail out held by his mother, the Virgin on his right, with of the foot of Christ. Nicodemus has a halo with- Joseph of Arimathea, who is also holding the body out any dots in it (similar to Jesus’ halo), but his of Christ, and St John the Evangelist on the right, halo has one strange feature. The halo has two ver- and two Mary’s on the far right. The three Mary’s tical lines that extend from the head of Nicodemus at the deposition scene are Mary, wife of Cleophas, to the outer edge of the halo. It appears almost as if Mary Salome, and Mary Magdalen. This would be the artist was attempting to draw a halo that would in keeping with Matthew 27:56-60 and Mark be more suitable for Christ (with the cross behind) 15:45-47. There is a person on the top right, and then realized his mistake and stopped. This halo directly opposite Joseph of Arimathea, whose face is has no parallels as far as I am aware. In addition, broken and only long trailing hair remains. Neither one can see the bottom part of the robe of Joseph the Virgin Mary or St John the Evangelist are of Arimathea directly behind Christ: he seems to be reported as appearing at the deposition in the Bible standing in front of the cross. When one looks at text, although they do appear in the Apocrypha of the feet of Christ, the artist seems to have made a Nicodemus. The act of the Virgin embracing mistake. There are three legs instead of two, possi- Christ was described in the sermons of George of bly done because the initial left leg behind the right Nicomedia in the late ninth century and Symeon leg of Christ did not have enough space to show the Metaphrastes in the late tenth century. Above the nail. This shows, therefore, that the artist made sev- cross are two angels on either side of the cross who eral mistakes in the lower part of the bowl. He also made mistakes on the far right part of the bowl. The Mary on the far side has certain unusual features 27 It seems quite likely that the bowl mentioned by Caiger- Smith 1973, 37 in the Cairo Museum that depicts the bap- associated with her hands. She is supposed to be tism of Christ is, in fact, the deposition bowl. See El-Ra’uf raising her hands, probably in a gesture of mourn- Ali Yousuf 1998, 21. He mentions other pieces in the Cairo ing. A close examination of those hands shows that Museum with Christian designs on them, but no baptism her right arm is in a very uncomfortable-looking bowl, as one would expect. 28 Hillenbrand 1994, 138. Indeed, the depiction of an entire position and the length of the arm is not correct scene on pottery recalls scenes on Persian pottery from the which means that her right hand is in a very odd Shah-Namma. See: Atıl 1999, 7-12; Guest 1943, 148-151; place on her body. Her left hand has been drawn Hillenbrand 1994, 134-135; Schmitz 1994; Simpson 1981, very strangely: a straight vertical line that bifurcates 15-24. 29 SS Mariam assistentem cruci, PG 100: 1457-1489 (trans- into two diagonal lines that go to the left and right lated by Maguire), PG 114: 216B-C (translated by divides her hand into three parts. One third includes Maguire); Ballian 2006, 126; Boskovits 1990, 139; Cata- her thumb and right palm, a smaller third, which logue Paris 2001, 118; Dale 1997, 59, 112-113; Maguire seems to have been added later and which contains 1977, 162-163; Millet 1916, 467-486; Nagatsuka 1979, 4, the three fingers, is connected to the middle of the 26, Type XIII-B; Philon 1983, 265-268; Velmans 1967, 47-57, Fig. 8 (Nerezi). For a discussion for what makes up thumb with a horizontal line (it is unclear why this a deposition scene, see The Painter’s Manual of Dionysius is here) and the other third of the hand includes the of Fourna (sixteenth/seventeenth century) translated by fifth finger. It does not seem unreasonable that the Hetherington 1974, 39. figure without the face is a female mourner with her 30 For depictions of such female mourners, see Maguire 1977, 131. Philon does not speculate about this individual’s iden- hair loose, although this would not be typical of tity. See Philon 1983, 265-266. such a Byzantine deposition scene30. The figure

86 0347-07_ECA_4(2007)_06 18-08-2008 12:58 Pagina 87

without a face could be Mary Magdalen, who is shown in Italian deposition scenes in this period 191, Fig. 17d), and a late thirteenth-century fresco of the with her hair loose31. The photo of the bowl is pub- Deposition at the Duomo in Siena. For examples of Mary’s lished by Philon, and she states that the face was face below Christ’s, see Duccio’s Maesta in Siena (Bellosi 1999, 230-231, 237; Millet 1916, Fig. 503); Saint-Nico- painted when the bowl was restored ‘recently’ and las-des-Champs Panel, Venetian Master of early fourteenth does not seem to copy an existing fragment. It is century (Coor-Acherbach 1957, Fig. 2; Seiler 2002, Fig. 6); possible, however, that it does. Given the fact that frescoes of SS Apostoli (Bettini 1974, Fig. 110); Ugolino there is at least one additional fragment unknown di Nerio, early fourteenth century in the National Gallery, London (Nagatsuka 1979, XV-604); Anonymous Rimini to Philon there is nothing against the idea that it School, early fourteenth century, Vatican Pinacoteca may, in fact, be copying another piece whose where- (Nagatsuka 1979, XV-605); Baronzio Giovanni, fourteenth abouts are currently known. Such a hypothesis century, Accademia (Nagatsuka 1979, XV-606); Pietro da would need further investigation, however and it is Rimini, Deposition, first half of the fourteenth century (Gowring 1987, 29); Segna di Bonaventura, former Cini certainly the case that pottery is often restored with Collection (Schmidt 2002, 398). additional features that bear no resemblance in real- 34 Icons where the Deposition occurs are strongly influenced ity32. In this instance, however, the restorer did not by Byzantine art. A thirteenth-century icon from Bawit, add any additional painting that did not exist in now in the Coptic Museum, has a panel that shows the Deposition of Christ depicting Mary holding Christ with reality with the exception of this face. In any case, her face above his. This icon was painted in the Byzantine if the depiction is Mary Magdalen, she does not style. Skalova 1999, 182-183, 200; Skalova/Gabra 2006, appear in this manner in Byzantine art in this 170-171. See Papageorgiou 1999, Pl. 53, which shows a period. Cypriot icon painted in Byzantine style that dates to the fourteenth century. Again, one can see Mary holding Christ It is interesting, however, that when one com- with her head above his. pares the way this deposition scene is depicted, that 35 See, for example, Catalogue New York 1997, 382, n. 252. it is found more commonly in Byzantine or Italian33 This manuscript, Staatbibliothek zu Berlin-Preussischer Kul- rather than eastern Mediterranean art. Deposition turbesitz Ms. Graec. Qu. 66, fol. 256v, depicts a deposition scene, but Mary is simply holding the arm of Jesus, while scenes, when they occur in eastern Mediterranean Joseph of Arimathea shoulders all of Christ’s weight. There art, usually depict Joseph of Arimathea holding the have been suggestions that the book is from the eastern body of Christ while Mary stands to the right side, Mediterranean. See Weyl-Carr 1987, n. 33. Similar scenes often putting her face against his right arm. Depo- are depicted in Armenian manuscripts such as in the Freer Gallery of Art, Ms. 32.18, 323, dating to the thirteenth sition scenes, in any case, do not appear frequently century (Der Nersessian 1993, Fig. 208); Jerusalem, Armen- 34 in icons and frescoes in the eastern Mediterranean, ian Patriarchate 1973, fol. 258 dating to A.D. 1346 (Der although they seem to be more common in manu- Nersessian 1993, Fig. 650); Lectionary of Prince Hethum, scripts35. Certain details on the bowl are clearly made in Cilicia in 1286 (Matenadaran Ms. 979, fol. 193r, see Weitenberg/Van Lint/Defoer/Wüstefeld 2001, n. 14); Walters Art Gallery 539, fol. 125 dating to 1262. Several Coptic manuscripts also depict this scene: Bibliothèque 31 Lorenzetti, Fresco of the Deposition in the Church of St nationale, Copte, 13, fol. 85r, but here the Deposition only Francis of Assisi, Assisi (Oertel 1966, Pl. 88); Simone Mar- depicts weeping women off to one side, see Leroy 1974, tini, Deposition in Antwerp of the fourteenth century (Oer- Pl. 58,1; and Institut Catholique I, fol. 75r (Leroy 1974, tel 1966, Pl. 82b; Schmidt 2002, 395); Pietro da Rimini Pl. 82). It also appears in Syriac manuscripts: London BM Deposition (Gowring 1987, 29); Anonymous early four- 7170, fol. 154v; Vatican Bibl. apost. Syr. 559, fol. 142v teenth-century Rimini School, Vatican Pinacoteca (Nagat- (Leroy 1964, Pl. 91) and Midyat (Leroy 1964, fol. 216v). suka 1979, XV-605). There are a few exceptions to this, however, and they prima- 32 Norman 2004, 72-73, 80-82. When this bowl was origi- rily seem to be Armenian and Georgian. The Armenian man- nally ‘restored’ certain parts of the bowl were painted in. uscripts are Mekharist Library 278 fol. 309. The deposition 33 A Byzantine reliquary in Esztergom dated to between 1150- miniature is cut but one can see that Mary is holding Christ’s 1200 has Mary standing holding her head up to Christ’s, body and that her head is above his (Der Nersessian 1993, in a position that looks quite similar to the bowl here. Fig. 455) and Mat. Cod. 212, fol. 148r, that dates to 1337. Esztergom Cathedral Treasury 64.3.1; see: Catalogue New This shows Mary cradling the body of Christ with her head York 1997, 81, n. 40; Wessel 1967, 160-162, 165, Abb. above his (Zakarian 1984). For more on this manuscript, see 49. For a discussion of the reliquary (although not of the Der Nersessian 1993, 42, n. 40. Interestingly, in another deposition scene), see Derbes 1996, 142. In Italy, the motif codex by the same artist, the Deposition is depicted in the does occur but the Virgin’s face often seems to be above the more typical manner (Mat. Cod. 6230 fol. 422, also pub- head of Jesus, rather than below. See, for example, late lished by Zakarian). For Georgian manuscripts, see a twelfth- twelfth-century frescoes in Aquileia Cathedral crypt (Dale century Gospel book from Jruchi, published by Weitzmann 1997, Pls III-IV, Fig. 87), Diptych of Bern which dates 1975, 35, Fig. 30. This shows Mary holding Christ, with her between 1290/1296 in Venice (published in Huber 1973, head above his; Poulsen 1957, 212, 216, 221.

87 0347-07_ECA_4(2007)_06 18-08-2008 12:58 Pagina 88

derived from Byzantine models, including the 36 This is in contrast to Philon who believes that the curls on clothes of the figures, the hairstyle of Joseph of Ari- Joseph’s head resemble Mamluk examples. See Philon 1983, mathea36, and the beards on Jesus and Joseph, 269. Similar hairstyles, however, are commonly found on although Philon has pointed out that these resem- Byzantine icons, such as the icon of John the Baptist 37 painted under Byzantine influence in the thirteenth cen- ble both Byzantine and Mamluk types . The angels tury, now in the Wadi Natrun (See Skalova/Gabra 2006, above the cross who are crying into their mantles 175, 197) and an early thirteenth-century icon in the Sinai; are typical of angels that appear, primarily in cruci- see Manafis 1990, Fig. 34. fixion scenes, in Byzantine art, and are taken up in 37 Philon 1983, 269. It is true that there are similarities between the depiction of Jesus and hairstyles in Mamluk the eastern Mediterranean. These angels first appear miniatures but I think that the artist was trying to copy in crucifixion scenes of the eleventh century but Byzantine rather than Mamluk models. See for instance, become more common in the later centuries38. This the early thirteenth-century icon of Christ in the Sinai, depiction of Nicodemus does not appear in the art whose hairstyle very closely resembles Christ on the Depo- sition bowl (Manafis 1990, Fig. 50). in the eastern Mediterranean and is uncommon in 39 38 Maguire 1977, 145. See, for example, several icons from Byzantine art . It is, however, far more common in the Sinai published by Manafis 1990, Fig. 28 (late twelfth Italian art40 and it would seem that the painter took century), Fig. 63 (last quarter of the twelfth century). his inspiration from Italian art in this instance, Angels also occur in the Deposition in the fresco of Curcer in Macedonia (Millet 1916, Fig. 515), Lectionary of Prince which would not be surprising for the art of the Hethum, made in Cilicia in 1286 (Matenadaran Ms. 979, eastern Mediterranean where it has been suggested fol. 193r, see Weitenberg/Van Lint/Defoer/Wüstefeld 2001, that there was Italian influence41. n. 14), and the Syriac manuscript in Midyat of the thir- Not all the aspects of this bowl are Byzantine or teenth century, fol. 216 (Leroy 1964, Pl. 26.3). Italian, however. The style of some of the painting 39 One possible example comes from Staro Nagoricino in Macedonia, depicting Nicodemus who appears to be bald- is eastern Mediterranean rather than Greek. The ing. See Todic 1993, Fig. 88. At Staro Nagoricino, Mary’s faces of the women and St John the Evangelist face is under Christ’s. The frescoes date about 1317-1318 closely resemble those found in illuminated Arabic, (Nagatsuka 1979, XVI-601, 223). 40 Such depictions of Nicodemus either mostly bald or with Syriac, and Coptic manuscripts, as well as on pot- 42 a bald patch appear in northern Italian art of the late thir- tery from Syria and Egypt . Philon has also teenth and fourteenth centuries, in particular at Siena. See, attempted to tie in some aspects of the piece with for example, Duccio’s Maesta in Siena (Bellosi 1999, 230- Mongol art. She suggested that St John the Evange- 231, 237; Millet 1916, Fig. 503); anonymous Italian- Byzantine master in the Bologna Pinacoteca (Garrison list looks ‘Mongol’, comparing his disheveled hair 1976, Fig. 664; Sandberg-Vavalà 1929, Fig. 252); Saint- to that of mourners in the Demotte Shah-Nammah Nicolas-des-Champs Panel, Venetian Master of early four- manuscript43. When one looks at Byzantine art, teenth century (Coor-Acherbach 1957, Fig. 2; Seiler 2002, however, there are depictions that show individuals Fig. 6); Magdalen Master and Master of San Groggo, late thirteenth century, Timken Museum of Art, San Francisco tearing at their hair in grief or letting it fall 44 (Garrison 1946, 344; Seiler 2002, Fig. 8); Amsterdam, unbound . Therefore, it seems more likely that the Rijksmuseum, inv. no. 3392 (Garrison 1976, Fig. 656; Van bowl under examination here is copying Byzantine Thiel 1976, 645); Vignosa da Siena, late thirteenth century prototypes, rather than the Persian Shah-Nammah45. (Bagnoli/Bartalini/Bellosi/Laclotte 2003a, 113; idem 2003b, 26). One piece that does not show a bald Nicodemus, Although it is a Byzantine motif, I am not aware of despite the drawing in Nagatsuka, is the Berne diptych any similar figures of St John the Evangelist who are (Nagatsuka 1979, XVII-505). It also appears in Catalan art, in Ferrer Bassa’s fresco of 1346 in the Monastère Santa Maria Pedralbe (Augé 2000, Pl. 248, 218; Gudiol/Alcolea i Blanch 1986, 43, n. 88, Fig. 193). This should not be 42 Philon 1983, 268; Poulsen 1957, Fig. 762; Vorderstrasse considered surprising since Ferrer Bassa was heavily influ- 2005. enced by the Sienese school. 43 Catalogue Paris 2001, 118; Philon 1983, 268-269. For the 41 Folda 2002, 127. He discusses a number of panel paintings Alexander the Great miniatures in this cycle, see: Hillen- which he suggests were painted in the eastern Mediter- brand 1996, 203-230. ranean with Italian influences. Whatever the ultimate ori- 44 Maguire 1977, 131. gin of these paintings (which can be difficult to determine 45 The two examples in the Demotte Shah-Namma are: Met- in absence of other evidence), they reflect a mixture of ropolitan Museum of Art 33.70 (The Bringing of Isfandi- Byzantine and Italian styles that clearly argues for contact yar’s Bier), see Grabar/Blair 1980, 100-101, n. 22, and Freer between the two regions. See Hunt 2000, 129-131, 152, Gallery of Art 38.3, see Grabar/Blair 1980, 134-135, n. 39. 187 and Skalowa/Gabra 2006, 172, who do discuss icons For Christian scenes copied by Persian painters, see Allen in Egypt which are painted by individuals who were influ- 1985, 121-133; Blair 1995, 68-69; Rice, 1976, 84-87, enced by Italian painting. 96-97.

88 0347-07_ECA_4(2007)_06 18-08-2008 12:58 Pagina 89

depicted in this way in a deposition scene. There- wealthy Egyptian Christian might have ordered this fore, the artist has made some artistic innovations on object either from Syria or an Egyptian craftsman. the bowl. Philon also suggested that the set of three Although the Coptic community had suffered some dots on the maphorion of the Mary on the furthest reverses by the early fourteenth century and seems right had Mongol antecedents46. The motif of the to have shrunk, there were still individuals who three dots is a particularly simple one and there is would have been able to afford this bowl56. There no reason to assume that it is specifically ‘Mongol’. were workshops of Coptic icon painters, for exam- Such designs appear on clothes of figures or else- ple, who were busy producing icons for Coptic where in Armenian manuscripts47, icons in the patrons, as well as manuscript illuminators and Sinai48, Crusader49, western European manuscripts50, fresco painters. In some instances, the workshops and wall paintings in Lebanon and Syria51. While produced items that appeared very Byzantine, while this type of dot motif certainly does appear in Per- sian manuscripts52 and on costumes of figures in Per- sian pottery53, it seems to be a common motif and there is no reason to think that the presence of three 46 Philon 1983, 269. dots was a sign of Persian influence. This type of 47 Armenian examples include: Mat. Ms. 7651, fol. 61v (end thirteenth century and 1320). motif could have easily been thought up by various 48 Manafis 1990, Fig. 71 (late thirteenth-early fourteenth cen- different artists: it is not particularly culturally dis- tury icon). tinctive and easy to reproduce. 49 Padua, Biblioteca Capitolare, C12 (Acre, third quarter of While the majority of ‘Mongol’ aspects of the the thirteenth century), fols 41r, 53r, 66v, 230r, 338v, published by Buchthal 1957, Pls 59d-f, 60e, 61e. It is found plate as suggested by Philon do not seem to be par- quite frequently in Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale 10175 ticularly ‘Mongol’, there is one particular motif on (Acre or Cyprus, ca 1270-1280). See, for example, fols 63r, the bowl that stands out from the others: the 68v, 71v, 74r, 79r (Buchthal 1957, Pls 93b, 94b, 95b, 97b). clouds in the background. They appear to be of London, British Museum Add. 15268 (Acre, ca 1285) fols 64r, 181r, 203r (Buchthal 1957, Pls 98c, 120c). Chinese style, which began to occur in Persian 50 Dublin, Chester Beatty Western Ms. 39, fol. 2, Lower Sax- manuscripts of the period, as a result of the increase ony, 1210-1220 (Plotzek 1987, 68); London, BL Add. of Chinese influence brought about by the Mon- 42555, fol. 6, England, thirteenth century (Lewis 1995, gol conquest54. In Christian contexts, the clouds Fig. 175); Paris, Bibl. Ste-Geneviève, Ms. 56, fols 72v, 75v, 87r, and 89r, Paris, 1160 (Wittekind 2004, Figs 259-263); appear in an Armenian manuscript as a background Wolfenbüttel, HAB, cod. Guelf. 522 Helmst, end minia- to a crucifixion scene, which is therefore compara- ture, Lower Saxony, second part of the thirteenth century ble to the bowl55. Similar clouds are not found in (Engelhart 2004, Fig. 461). If anything, the western Euro- Syriac, Coptic, or Armenian manuscripts or in pean examples seem to be earlier than the examples from the eastern Mediterranean. Islamic manuscripts from Syria and Egypt, as far as 51 Cruikshank Dodd 2001, Pls XII, XVIII, 19a-b, 22, 43-44, I am aware. The presence of these clouds makes the 54-55, 67-68, 72-73, 80c. deposition bowl unique. It appears to be one of the 52 Swietochowski 1994, Ms. 1974.290, fols 10r, 12r, 22r, 28r. few times that such a motif is produced in a Syr- 53 Watson 2004, 345, n. 15. Vessel in form of seated figure with three dots painted on the figure. It is, however, accom- ian or Egyptian context in the early fourteenth cen- panied by smaller dots painted in each of the interstices, so tury, which could point to the idea that the person it is not identical. Interestingly, the cheeks are also painted who painted it was familiar with Persian manu- with the three dot motif rather than the single circle that scripts produced at that time. This does not help is customary when cheeks are outlined. 54 Philon 1983, 269-270. See, for example Ms. or. suppl. per- with unravelling the provenance, however, since san 205, fols 1v and 2r, Kühnel 1959, 44, 46; Richard 1997, such an individual could have easily ventured to n. 7 (claimed it was made in Baghdad); Sims/Marshak/ either Syria or Egypt. Grube 2002, n. 198 (claimed it was made in Maragha). One can see Chinese-looking clouds in the background and also on the saddle of the horse. RODUCTION AND ATRONAGE P P 55 Kurdian 1941, 145-148. See also Miller/Fogg 1996, 24, who state that this manuscript dates between 1295 and The final question is that of the production and use 1304. For another Christian miniature in a Persian context of the bowl. The piece was found in Egypt and see Berlin Diez A fol. 71, leaf 31, n. 1. I≥iroglu 1964, 56, Taf. XIX; Rogers 1969, 161, n. 31. therefore presumably had been imported or pro- 56 Atiya 1991, 1517; Immerzeel/Jeudy 2007; Little 1976, duced there for the local Christian community. As 352-359; O’Kane 2006, 142, n. 127; O’Sullivan 2006, 65- has been suggested, it seems quite likely that a 66, 78; Tagher 1998, 142-160.

89 0347-07_ECA_4(2007)_06 18-08-2008 12:58 Pagina 90

others used Byzantine models but showed more comparative evidence for religious scenes on pot- signs of being influenced by local styles57. tery, one really has to look to the Ottoman period The Paris catalogue suggests that it might have where the Armenian potters inscribed their bowls been a paten to hold the celebration of the with inscriptions, which helps us to understand Eucharist and that it might have come from a who produced these bowls and why. In their study church58. The liturgical use for the piece with Christ of religious scenes on Armenian Ottoman-period on it was also proposed by O’Kane59. There is no Kutahya tiles and bowls, Carswell and Dowsett state evidence as to its use and it may have simply been that, although the bowls are painted with religious a display piece. The religious affiliation of the pot- scenes, their shape means that they could not have ter, however, is not clear and the fact that this piece served as either patens or chalices and therefore is unique does strongly argue that it reflects the would not have had any ritual purpose. Further, the choice of a particular patron. It is possible that it tiles and dishes decorated with biblical and religious was painted by a manuscript painter, but this is not subjects were donated by Armenian families to the clear. The artist may actually have been someone Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and more accustomed to painting miniatures than other churches and monasteries in the Ottoman bowls. Carswell and Dowsett have suggested that a period. In addition, some objects were used for spe- known miniaturist of the seventeenth century may cific use by a particular individual such as a bishop, also have been responsible for painting some or the German meissen bowls which were decorated Kutahya tiles60. Therefore, the idea that a miniature for a dragoman61. painter was responsible for painting the bowl is cer- While it seems unquestionable that the patron tainly possible. One reason to think that this was for this piece was a Christian, the identities of the the case is the fact that it is unique. A specific potter and painter are another question. It might be patron may have wanted a scene that was outside assumed that the potter was Christian and indeed, the expertise of a particular potter and therefore a this seems quite likely62. The fact remains, however, manuscript painter might have been brought in to that a Muslim might be familiar with the iconogra- paint the bowl. All of this suggests that it was prob- phy and could have produced this piece. The piece ably a very expensive piece. This makes the presence from Berlin (inv. no. I 43/64.194), which may of the mistakes rather interesting. Perhaps it can be depict a rider saint, is signed by someone named explained by the idea that a manuscript illumina- ‘Muslim’, who, with this name, is likely to have tor, who was not used to illuminating bowls, was been a Muslim rather than a Christian. This still the artist. does not necessarily mean, however, that the piece The idea that the bowl was painted for a specific in Berlin was produced by a Muslim named Mus- patron either for own use or to be donated to a lim. The reason for this is that the workshop of church or monastery seems more likely than that it Muslim is known from a variety of pieces which was produced for liturgical use. As there is so little vary in style and may actually be the work of different painters in Muslim’s workshop. There were definitively different painters working in the work- 57 Hunt 1996, 66; Skalova/Gabra 2006, 112-113, 115, 187. shop besides Muslim. For example, there are pieces 58 Catalogue Paris 2001, 118. This idea is followed by Ballian that are works of Ja’far countersigned by Muslim. 2006,126. As Muslims and Christians could work together, 59 Abbas 2006, 91. 60 Carswell/Dowsett 1972, 16. this could mean that the piece was still painted by 63 61 Carswell/Dowsett 1972, v, 13, 68, 102-103. There are also a Christian . The fact that this bowl has such seventeenth-century Dutch tiles, decorated with biblical detailed Christian iconography makes it more likely scenes, that were donated by the Armenian Zucar family that the painter was a Christian, although the pot- originally from New Julfa, who lived in Cadiz to a church there. See Carswell/Dowsett 1972, 17; Dos Santos Simões ter of the actual bowl might not have necessarily 1959, 103, 106-107. been. 62 Caiger-Smith 1973, 37; Contadini 1998, 86. Caiger-Smith states that the bowl with the priest on it must have been CONCLUSION produced by a Copt, while Contadini mentions the possibility that the bowl with the priest was produced by a Christian potter, but does not discuss it in any detail. The deposition bowl in the Benaki Museum, 63 Meinecke-Berg 1999, 356, n. 39; Zick-Nissen 1979, 542. Islamic Museum in Cairo, and Walters Art Museum

90 0347-07_ECA_4(2007)_06 18-08-2008 12:58 Pagina 91

is difficult to categorize because it is unique. The bowl is studied further, it is hoped that more spe- fact that it has been neglected in the discussions of cific information about its provenance can be deter- deposition depictions is therefore surprising, mined and that more pieces will come to light. although the reason for this is perhaps due to the fact that it is a piece of pottery, while most deposi- BIBLIOGRAPHY tions are depicted on frescoes, icons, or manuscripts. The bowl seems to have been produced for a Chris- Abbas, M. 2006, ‘The Fatimìds (969-1171)’, in: B. O’Kane tian patron, perhaps to be donated to a church. The (ed.), Treasures of Islamic Art in the Museums of Cairo, detail on the bowl and its uniqueness argue that it New York, 46-91. Allen, T. 1985. ‘Byzantine Sources for the J mi‘al-Taw r kh of may have been painted by an illuminator to meet a a a i Rashid al-Din’, AO 15, 121-136. specific order, rather than by a potter. In the past, Atıl, E. 1999, ‘The Freer Bowl and the Legacy of the Shah- the bowl has been presented by Philon as a bowl name’, DaM 11, 7-12. with Byzantine models produced for an Egyptian Atıl, E., W.T. Chase, P. Jett, 1985, Islamic Metalwork in the audience that owed a debt to eastern Christian, Freer Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. Mamluk, and Mongol art. As has been shown, how- Atiya, A.S. 1991, ‘Mamluks and the Copts’, in: CE V, 1517- ever, the bowl should be seen in its eastern Mediter- 1518. ranean context. The model for the bowl is Byzan- Augé, J.-L. 2000, L’art en Espagne et au Portugal, Paris. Baer, E. 1989, Ayyubid Metalwork with Christian Images, Lei- tine, as is the majority of its iconography. Even the den (Muqarnas Supplement IV). style of the bowl, aside from the faces of the indi- Bagnoli, A., R. Bartalini, L. Bellosi, M. Laclotte 2003a, Duc- viduals which closely resemble others from through- cio: Alle origini dell pittura senese, Milan. out the eastern Mediterranean, seem to be derived Bagnoli, A., R. Bartalini, L. Bellosi, M. Laclotte 2003b, Duc- from Byzantine, rather than Persian art. Philon’s cio: Siena fra tradizione bizantina e mondo gotico, Milan. suggestion that St John the Evangelist’s hair and Ballian, A. 2006, Benaki Museum: A Guide to the Museum of three dots on the maphorion of one of the Mary’s Islamic Art, Athens. Bellosi, L. (transl. E. Currie) 1999, Duccio: The Maestà, comes from Persian art does not seem to be tenable. London. The hair on St John the Evangelist could have eas- Bettini, S. 1974, Venezia e bisanzio. Venezia, Palazzo Ducale, 8 ily come from Byzantine depictions and the three guigno, 30 settembre 1974, Venice. dots motif is so general that it would be difficult to Blair, S.S. 1995, A Compendium of Chronicles: Rashid al-Din’s say that it should be culture-specific. Unrecognized Illustrated History of the World, Oxford (The Nasser D. by Philon because she did not see the sherd depict- Khalili Collection of Islamic Art Volume XXVII). ing Nicodemus and did not study the faceless fig- Böhme, A., W. Schottroff 1979, Palmyrenische Grabreliefs, ure in detail, is the influence of Italian art on the Frankfurt am Main. Boskovits, M. (transl. F.P. Chiarini) 1990, The Thyssen-Borne- bowl, something which is also seen in the eastern misza Collection. Early Italian Painting 1290-1470, London. Mediterranean in this period. Despite the fact that Buchthal, H. 1957, Miniature Painting in the Latin Kingdom the bowl may owe far more to Byzantine art than of Jerusalem, Oxford. has previously been recognized, it should also be Caiger-Smith, A. 1973, Tin-Glaze Pottery in Europe and the noted that this deposition bowl shows a number of Islamic World: The Tradition of 1000 Years in Maiolica, important innovations that were not seen in Byzan- Faience and Delft, London. tine art: the hair of St John the Evangelist, the face- Capart, J. 1947, ‘Maurice Nahman’, CdÉ 22, 300-301. Carswell, J. 2000, ‘The Greeks in the East: Alexandria and less figure and the Chinese-looking clouds in the Islam’, in: S. Vernoit (ed.), Discovering Islamic Art: Schol- sky over the cross. Even the presence of the angels ars, Collectors and Collections, 1850-1950, London, 138- in the sky and the fact that Mary places her cheek 146. beneath Christ’s rather than above it, is unusual, Carswell, J., C.J.F. Dowsett 1972, Kütahya Tiles and Pottery although it is still known in the art of this period. from the Armenian Cathedral of St. James, Jerusalem I. The Therefore, it is clear that, while the painter was Pictorial Tiles and Other Vessels, Oxford. familiar with Byzantine and Italian iconography, he Catalogue Berlin 1986, Islamische Kunst. Verborgene Schätze, Berlin. chose to paint the faces of the figures in the eastern Catalogue New York 1997, The Glory of Byzantium: Art and Mediterranean style and add a number of additional Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era A.D. 843-1261, New motives to the piece. What this points to, however, York. is the complex cultural interactions that took place Catalogue Paris 2001, L’Orient de Saladin: l’art des Ayyoubides, in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. As the Paris.

91 0347-07_ECA_4(2007)_06 18-08-2008 12:58 Pagina 92

Collinet, A. 2001, ‘Le métal ayyoubide’, in: Catalogue Paris, Problematics of Power: Eastern and Western Representations 127-130. of Alexander the Great, Berlin, 203-230 (Schweizer Asiati- Contadini, A. 1998, Fatimid Art at the Victoria and Albert sche Studien, Band 22). Museum, London. Hoffmann, E.R. 2004, ‘Christian-Islamic Encounters on Thir- Coor-Acherbach, G. 1957, ‘Two Trecento Paintings in the teenth-Century Ayyubid Metalwork: Local Culture, Church of Saint-Nicolas-des-Champs Paris’, Gazette des Authenticity, and Memory’, Gesta 43/2 129-142. Beaux-Arts 50, Sixth Series, 5-15. Huber, P. 1973, Bild und Botschaft. Byzantinische und Cruikshank Dodd, E. 2001, The Frescoes of Mar Musa al- venezianische Miniaturen zum Alten und Neuen Testament, Habashi. A Study in Medieval Painting in Syria, Toronto. Zürich. Dale, T.E.A. 1997, Relics, Prayer, and Politics in Medieval Vene- Hunt, L.-A. 1996, ‘Churches of Old Cairo and Mosques of al- tia: Romanesque Painting in the Crypt of Aquileia Cathedral, Qahira: A Case of Christian-Muslim Interchange’, Medieval Princeton. Encounters 2, 43-66. Dawson, W.R., E.P. Uphill (rev. ed. by M.L. Bierbrier) 1995, Hunt, L.-A. 2000, Byzantium, Eastern Christendom, and Islam: Who was Who in Egyptology, London. Art at the Crossroads of the Medieval Mediterranean, Vol. II, Delivorrias, A. 2000, A Guide to the Benaki Museum, Athens. London. Der Nersessian, S. 1993, Miniature Painting in the Armenian Immerzeel, M., A. Jeudy 2007, ‘Christian Art in the Mamluk Kingdom of Cilicia from the Twelfth to the Fourteenth Cen- Period’, Proceedings of the Symposium ‘Towards a Cultural tury, Washington, D.C. History of Bilad-al-Sham in the Mamluk Era. Prosperity or Derbes, A. 1996, Picturing the Passion in Late Medieval Italy: Decline, Tolerance or Persecution?’ Balamant 3rd to 7th May Narrative Painting, Franciscan Ideologies, and the Levant, 2005, forthcoming. Cambridge. I≥iroglu, M.S. 1964, Saray-Alben: Diez’sche Klebebände aus Dos Santos Simões, J.M. 1959, Carreaux céramiques hollandais den Berliner Sammlungen, Wiesbaden (VOHD Band au Portugal et en Espagne, Den Haag. VIII). Engelhart, H. 2004, ‘Der Hornplatteneinband. Eine charakter- Jenkins, M. 1984, ‘Mamluk Underglaze Painted Pottery: Foun- istische Form der Einbandgestaltung illuminierter Psalter- dations for Future Study’, Muqarnas 2, 95-114. handschriften des 13. Jahrhunderts’, in: F.O. Büttner (ed.), Kammerer-Grothaus, H., H. Remstrom, A. Nippa, U. Hüb- The Illuminated Psalter: Studies in the Content, Purpose and ner, H.C. Zankes 1999, ‘“Zu Gast bein den heliopolitanis- Placement of the Images, Turnhout, 441-458. chen Göttern”: Orientreisende in Baalbek’, in: M. van Ess, Fehérvári, G. 2000, Ceramics of the Islamic World in the Tareq T. Weber (eds), Baalbek im Bann römischer monumentalar- Rajab Museum, London. chitectur, Mainz, 105-130. Folda, J. 2002, ‘Icon to Altarpiece in the Frankish East: Images Kästner, V, S. Baher, 1999, ‘Baalbek und Europa: zur Rezep- of the Virgin and Child Enthroned’, in: V.M. Schmidt tion und Präsentation von Kunstwerken aus Baalbek in (ed.), Italian Panel Painting of the Duecento and Trecento, Europa’, in: M. van Ess, T. Weber (eds), Baalbek im Bann New Haven/London, 123-145. römischer monumentalarchitectur, Mainz, 88-104. François, V. 1999, Céramiques médiévales à Alexandrie, Le Caire Killy, W., R. Vierhaus 1998, Deutsche Biographische Enzyk- (Études Alexandrines 2). lopädie, Munich. Garrison, E.B. 1946, ‘The Oxford Christ Church Library Panel Kühnel, E. 1914, ‘Ein Madonnenmotif in der Islamischen and the Milan Sessa Collection; a Tentative Reconstruction Kunst?’, Amtliche Berichte aus den Königlichen Sammlungen of a Tabernacle and a Group of Romanizing Florentine Pan- 26, 55-60. els’, Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 321-346. Kühnel, E. 1959, ‘On Some Mongolian Miniatures’, Kunst des Garrison. E.B., 1976, Italian Romanesque Panel Painting: An Orients III, 44-65 Illustrated Index, New York. Kurdian, H. 1941, ‘An Armenian Ms. with Unique Mongolian Gowring, L. 1987, Paintings in the Louvre, London. Miniatures’, JRAS, 145-148. Grabar, O., S. Blair 1980, Epic Images and Contemporary Lane, A. 1957. Later Islamic Pottery: Persia, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, History: The Illustrations of the Great Mongol Shahnamma, London. Chicago. Leroy, J. 1964, Les manuscrits syriaques à peintures conservés dans Gudiol, J., S. Alcolea i Blanch 1986, Pintura Gótica Catalana, les Bibliothèques d’Europe et d’Orient, Paris. Barcelona. Leroy, J. 1974, Les manuscrits coptes et coptes-arabes illustrées, Guest, G.D. 1943, ‘Notes on the Miniatures on a Thirteenth- Paris (BAH 96). Century Beaker’, Ars Islamica 10, 148-151. Lewis, S. 1995, Reading Images: Narrative Discourse and Recep- Hetherington, P. (transl.) 1974, The ‘Painter’s Manual’ of Diony- tion in the Thirteenth-Century Illuminated Apocalypse, sius of Fourna, London. Cambridge. Hillenbrand, R. 1994, ‘The Relationship between Book Paint- Little, D. 1976, ‘Coptic Conversion to Islam under the Bahri ing and Luxury Ceramics in 13th Century Iran’, in: R. Hil- Mamluks, 692-755/1293-1354’, BSOAS 39, 352-369. lenbrand (ed.), The Art of the Saljuqs in Iran and Anatolia, Maguire, H. 1977, ‘The Depiction of Sorrow in Middle Byzan- Costa Mesa, 134-145. tine Art’, DOP 31, 123-174. Hillenbrand, R. 1996, ‘The Iskandar Cycle in the Great Mon- Manafis, K.A. (ed.) 1990, Sinai. Treasures of the Monastery of gol Sahnama’, in: M. Bridges and J.Ch. Burgel (eds), The St. Catherine, Athens.

92 0347-07_ECA_4(2007)_06 18-08-2008 12:58 Pagina 93

Maravella, A.-A. 2002, ‘Ancient Egyptian Inscribed Faience Sauvaget, J. 1948, ‘Une signature de potier persan sur un tes- Objects from the Benaki Museum in Athens I’, JNES 61, son d’al-Fustat’, Ars Islamica 13-14, 148-149. 81-109. Schmidt, V.M. 2002, ‘Portable Polyptychs with Narrative Meinecke-Berg, V. 1999, ‘Fatimid Painting: On Tradition and Scenes: Fourteenth Century de luxe objects between Italian Style’, in: M. Barrucand (ed.), L’Egypte Fatimide: son art et Panel Paintings and French Arts somptuaires’, in: V.M. son histoire, Paris, 349-358. Schmidt (ed.), Italian Panel Painting of the Duecento and Miller, B., S. Fogg 1996, Manuscripts of the Christian East, Trecento, New Haven/London, 395-425. London. Schmitz, B. 1994, ‘A Fragmentary mina’i’ bowl with scenes Millet, G. 1916, Recherches sur l’iconographie de l’évangile aux from the Shahnama’, in: R. Hillenbrand (ed.), The Art of XIVe, XVe et XVIe siècles d’après les monuments de Mistra, de the Saljuqs in Iran and Anatolia, Costa Mesa, 156-164. la Macédoine et du Mont-Athos, Paris. Seiler, P. 2002, ‘Duccio’s Maestà: The Function of the Scenes Nagatsuka, Y. 1979, Descente de Croix: son développement from the Life of Christ on the Reverse of the Altarpiece: A iconographique des origines jusqu’à la fin du XV siècle, New Hypothesis,’ in V.M. Schmidt (ed.), Italian Panel Tokyo. Painting of the Duecento and Trecento, New Haven/London, Norman, K. 2004, ‘Restoration and Faking of Islamic Ceram- 251-277. ics: Case Studies’ in: O. Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Simpson, M.S. 1981, ‘The Narrative Structure of a Medieval Lands, London, 69-90. Iranian Beaker’, Ars Orientalis 12, 15-24. Oertel, R. 1966, Die frühzeit des italienischen Malerei, Berlin. Sims, E., B.I. Marshak, E.J. Grube 2002, Peerless Images: Per- O’Kane, B. 2006, ‘The Ayyubids and Early Mamluks (1171- sian Painting and its Sources, Yale. 1382)’, in: B. O’Kane (ed.), Treasures of Islamic Art in the Skalova, Z. 1999, ‘Mourning with Indigo: A Re-Restored Museums of Cairo, New York, 92-161. Mediaeval Passion Triptych in the Coptic Museum, Cairo’, O’Sullivan, S. 2006, ‘Coptic Conversion and the Islamization in: K. Ciggaar, H. Teule (eds), East and West in the Crusader of Egypt’, Mamluk Studies 10, 65-80. States: Context-Contacts-Confrontations II, Leuven, 177-209 Papageorgiou, A. 1999, ‘The Byzantine Art of Cyprus (12th- (OLA 92). 15th Centuries)’, in: D. Papanikola-Bakirtzis (ed.), Byzan- Skalova, Z., G. Gabra 2006, Icons of the Nile Valley, Cairo tine Medieval Cyprus, Nicosia, 95-128. (2nd edition). Papanikola-Bakirtzis, D. 1989, Medieval Cypriot Pottery in the Sobernheim, M. 1896, Madrasit al-azwaj, Comodie, transcri- Pierides Foundation Museum, Larnaca. biert und aus dem Arabischen ins Deutsches úbers, Berlin. Papanikola-Bakirtzis, D. 1999, ‘Glazed Pottery in Byzantine Sobernheim, M. 1899, ‘Meine Reise von Palmyra nach Medieval Cyprus (12th-15th Centuries)’, in: D. Papanikola- Selemiye’, ZDPV 22, 189-196. Bakirtzis (ed.), Byzantine Medieval Cyprus, Nicosia, 129-160. Sobernheim, M. 1905, ‘Arabische Gefässinschriften von der Philon, H. 1983, ‘A Mamluk Deposition from the Cross’, Ausstellung islamischer Kunst in Paris (1903)’, ZDPV 28, Graeco-Arabica II, 265-274. 176-205. Philon, H. 1985, ‘Stems, Leaves and Water-weeds: Underglaze- Sobernheim, M. 1909, Matériaux pour un corpus inscriptionum Painted Pottery in Syria and Egypt’, in: J. Raby (ed.), The arabicorum. Deuxième partie. Syrie du Nord, Le Caire. Art of Syria and the Jazira, 1100-1250, Oxford, 113-126 Sobernheim, M. 1921, ‘Die Inschriften der Moschee von (Oxford Studies in Islamic Art 1). Hims, nebst Baubeschreibung von E. Herzfeld’, in: H. Plotzek, J.M. 1987, Andachtsbücher des Mittelalters aus Privatbe- Regling, H. Reich (eds), Festchrift zu C.F. Lehmann-Haupts sitz, Köln. Sechzigsten Geburtstage, Wien/Leipzig, 225-239. Poulsen, V. 1957, ‘Les poteries’, In: P.J. Riis, V. Poulsen (eds), Sobernheim, M. 1922, Baalbek in islamischer Zeit, Berlin. Hama: Fouilles et recherches 1931-1938. IV.2. Les verreries Swietochowski, M.L. 1994, ‘The Metropolitan Museum of et poteries médiévales, Copenhagen, 117-283. Art New York Small Shahnama’, in: M.L. Swietochowski, Ra’uf Ali Yousuf, A. el- 1998, ‘Syro-Egyptian Glass, Pottery and S. Carboni (eds), Illustrated Poetry and Epic Image. Persian Wooden Vessels’, in: R. Ward (ed.), Gilded and Enamelled Painting of the 1330s and 1340s, New York, 67-81. Glass from the Middle East, London, 20-23. Tagher, J. 1998, Christians in Muslim Egypt: An Historical Study Rice, D.T. (ed. B. Gray) 1976, The Illustrations to the ‘World of the Relations between Copts and Muslims from 640 to History’ of Rashid al-Din, Edinburgh. 1922, Altenberge (Arbeiten zum spätantiken und koptis- Richard, F. 1997, Splendeurs perses: manuscrits du XIIe au XVIIe chen Ägypten 10). siècle, Paris. Thiel, P.J.J. van 1976, Alle Schilderijen van het Rijksmuseum te Robinson, J.M. 1981, ‘From the Cliff to Cairo. The Story of Amsterdam. Volledig Geïllustreerde Catalogus, Amsterdam. Discoveries and the Middlemen of the Nag Hammadi Todic, B. 1993, Staro Nagoricino, Belgrade (in Serbian with Codices’, in: B. Barc (ed.), Colloque international sur les French summary). textes de Nag Hammadi (Québec, 22-25 août 1978), Lou- Tonghini, C. 1998, Qal’at Ja’bar Pottery: A Study of a Syrian vain, 21-58. Fortified Site of the Late 11th-14th Centuries, Oxford. Rogers, J.M. 1969, ‘On a Figurine in the Cairo Museum of Velmans, T. 1967, ‘Les valeurs affectives dans la peinture murale Islamic Art’, Persica IV, 141-179. Byzantine au XIIIe siècle et la manière de les représenter’, Sandberg-Vavalà, E. 1929, La croce dipinta italiana e l’iconogra- in: L’Art Byzantin du XIIIe siecle, Symposium de Sopocani, phie della passione, Verona. 1965 Svetozar Radojcic. Belgrade, 47-57.

93 0347-07_ECA_4(2007)_06 18-08-2008 12:58 Pagina 94

Vorderstrasse, T. 2005, ‘The Iconography of the Wine Drinker Wessel, K. 1967, Die Byzantinische Emailkunst vom 5. bis 13. in ‘Port St Symeon’ Ware from the Crusader Era’, ECA 2, Jahrhundert, Recklinghausen. 59-72. Weyl Carr, A. 1987, Byzantine Illumination 1150-1250: A Vorderstrasse, T., From Aghkand to Port St. Symeon, forthcom- Study of a Provincial Tradition, Chicago. ing. Wininger, S. 1925, Grosse Jüdische National-Biographie, Vol. 5, Watson, O. 2004, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, London. Cernowitz. Weitenberg, J.-J.S., Th.M. van Lint, H.L.M. Defoer, W.C.M. Wittekind, S. 2004, ‘Verum etiam sub alia forma depingere: Wüstefeld 2001, Armenië: Middeleeuwse Miniaturen uit het Illuminierte Psalmenkommentare und ihr Gebrauch’, in: Christelijke Oosten, Utrecht. F.O. Büttner (ed.), The Illuminated Psalter: Studies in the Weitzmann, K. 1943, ‘An Early Copto-Arabic Miniature in Content, Purpose and Placement of the Images, Turnhout, Leningrad’, Ars Islamica 10, 119-133. 271-280. Weitzmann, K. 1975, ‘The Study of Byzantine Book Illumina- Zakarian, L. 1984, Avag, Yerevan. ton, Past, Present, and Future’, in: K. Weitzmann, W.C. Zick-Nissen, J. 1979, ‘Einige Fatimidische Schalenmalereien’, Loerke, E. Kitzinger, H. Buchthal, The Place of Book Illu- ZDMG Supplement IV, 542-543. mination in Byzantine Art, Princeton, 1-60.