Mediaeval Iranian Lustre-painted and Associated Wares: Typology in a multidisciplinary study

British Institute of Persian Studies

Mediaeval Iranian Lustre-Painted and Associated Wares: Typology in a Multidisciplinary StudyAuthor(s): Robert B. MasonSource: Iran, Vol. 35 (1997), pp. 103-135Published by: British Institute of Persian StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4299964 .

Accessed: 20/12/2013 13:28

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].

.

British Institute of Persian Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Iran.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 142.150.190.39 on Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:28:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4299964?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


MEDIAEVAL IRANIAN LUSTRE-PAINTED AND ASSOCIATED WARES: TYPOLOGY IN A MULTIDISCIPLINARY STUDY

By Robert B. Mason Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto

INTRODUCTION

The study of ceramics in the mediaeval Middle East has traditionally been divided into two separate fields: those of archaeology and art history. Archae- ologists have generally focused on the finds from their own sites, seeking only precise comparanda for publication. High-quality glazed ceramics like lustre- wares were made in a restricted number of centres and distributed over a very large area, and are thus often a very small percentage of the total ceramic assemblage. No archaeologist so constrained has ever had the opportunity to examine the fine wares as a complete corpus. Broad all-encompassing approaches to the fine wares have only been attempted by art historians utilising traditional con- noisseurship techniques and focusing on the whole vessels which have appeared on the art market since the nineteenth century.

This paper provides the first attempt at providing a chronology for mediaeval Iranian lustre-painted and associated high-quality glazed wares based on the methodologies of archaeological ceramic study. This forms part of a more comprehensive multidisciplinary study, including petrographic analysis and the application of the scanning electron microscope (SEM) with X-ray spectroscopy (Mason 1994, 1995a), aimed at further understanding of the production of "dlite" glazed wares in the central Islamic lands from the beginning of Islam until the beginning of the fourteenth century. Three papers parallel to this one will report the typology of the Iraqi, Egyptian and Syrian wares (Mason forthcoming, in press a and b).

Analytical studies

Petrographic analysis is used to characterise the petrographically-defined fabric (petrofabric) of pottery (Mason 1991. 1995b), at least to characterise groups and hopefully to attribute wares to specific production centres (see Fig. 1). Groups which have merely been characterised are generally named after the side where samples were first examined (e.g. "Rayy 3" and "Rayy 4" petrofabrics). Petrofabrics which have been attributed to a particular site are named after the site of production, although sites

whose attribution is tentative are followed by a question mark in parenthesis (e.g. Gurgan (?)). To date five distinct stonepaste petrofabrics have been defined for pottery produced in Iran during the period covered in this paper (representative examples of the chief four of these defined to date are shown in Figs. 2 and 3). The Kashan (?) petrofabric is the largest of these by number of analyses (see appendix), but it should not be assumed that this is due to the admitted initial bias in sampling of Lustre-painted and "Minai" wares which are only found in this petrofabric. Sampling of a range of lesser-quality stonepaste wares, chiefly monochrome Incised wares (see below) at sites such as Ghubeyra, Gurgan and Rayy showed that the Kashan (?) petrofabric is dominant in all stonepaste wares, even at sites with evidence of manufacture (see Appendix). Attribution to Kashan is based on analysis of Iranian lustre-wares, for which there appears to be only one reliable attribution based on other evidence: Kashan (Mason 1991, 1994). Other petrofabrics include the Rayy petrofabric, defined from analysis of a waster from the site; two further petrofabrics first defined from analysis of pottery from Rayy ("Rayy 3" and "Rayy 4"); plus a further petrofabric first identified by analysis of pottery from Gurgan, and tentatively attributed to that site. Stonepaste petrofabrics have also been defined for a number of other Iranian sites based on analysis of later pottery (Mason 1995b, 1996), including sites which have produced evidence of production dateable to the period covered in this study, such as Nishapur.

The SEM study is aimed at the determination of technological attributes, and thereby at unravelling technological questions applicable to pottery made at the cutting edge of ceramic technological development (Mason 1995a). Some reference to the results of these analytical studies will be made where pertinent to the typological study, but their full reporting is best made elsewhere.'

The relevance of high-quality wares

Systems of production of pottery in the Islamic world are formed into a particularly well-developed hierarchy (Mason 1994, Mason et al. 1996). What may be called "elite" or "first quality" ceramics are

103



104 JOURNAL OF PERSIAN STUDIES

...........iiiiii•

!ii!.!i~i:-::..:..:..........

...K hr.u ha.?..a.a~q nd

::i~~iiiiii :jiii:jiiijiiiii jjjiiijjiiii

iijjijjji

jjiijiiiiiii?.

j

!!!!iii!!i!!iiiiiiiilliii-ii • , urasan B

Anir iiiiiiiiiii~i~Khorezm

v a Gurgan

Bukhaara R D. ..ascuHamadan

nv 9* Hamadan 77 Nishapur

v * Baghdad r v KashanBamiyan Fustat/Cairo * Herat

Ghazna. Kufa v vIsfahan

Basra

Basa a

-jiiQij' c•~iii~

Kerman ) ai Ghubeyra

•i!!iii!!iii!!!iiiiii~iiiiii• Sira f "& era

/O,.

.

~~i. . . . ...

Isla ic k~t~trin ites positively characterised byr

•.ijiiiiijii.. . . .. . .. .. .:.. . . . .

. . . ..

ii

ii............. iiiiijiiii~iiiiiiiijjjii:'::::::i "i

: ::: :::::

::: ::: •-"-

!::: ::

anlsi f in vdec

l i?liirir:''i!i!!!ii!!!i!ii:: .. . . . .. .

a Islamic kiln sites tentatively characterised to -

analysis~ ~ iti ofi: kiln evidenceii:.5~~ !ii!iiiil;ii::i::

iiil:i:iii:

iiiiiiiiii~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii•....... •ii,••:•ii•i!i:•!======================= %

a Is a c i n st st n i

ively cha rj~iraciii~iijteis t

o~ It:i???i?~i! ...... ........

"

varying degrees of confidence i•!illl

? Sites fro m w h ch Isl a ic pott ry:i:::::::::: has een::!!! :::!

:::

:::J::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::J:.::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::.:::: i: i

t sSites from which Islamic pottery ha:::::::s:been

9 Pre-Islamic and medieval non-Islamic sites from which pottery has been thin-sectioned * Other sites mentioned in text

......... .....:::'; ... ..............

... ..............e$~ii j~i~ijiiiiijii C:::: t~ji

... ........ Bukhara thn-sctine

a Othersites mn..........ex

si~ii:~:~.......................... ii

Fig. 1. Map showing sites mentioned in text and illustrating breadth of study.




105

Kashan Petrofabric I Mirgahslelm

.'chert,

... . . ..

a '8~O '='=''=X 4K-'' A. %LO~:::1

quartz ??:?

........ . .....

.. .. .. ..... . .. .. .

RYY09~,

... ..........x~ ???:: ? ..... ......?..?. ............. xe ........... ...... ......?:: ??: ?: ?? ?:??? ........ ...... ........:; A ?:: ??:.7 C??????l????( -?:' ..... .....:~T; ?~:~?::: ????: :?: ?::~ RYY13:

~: ?S?::?::?:~?i;;~;;: ?:?~:??:??:~::?:~?:: ??:0 r.? ?:??: ??: ??:?::?::?'?: ??: ??:?: :??:?~x its %.., :''

SRJ. 15V. 9.0

.... ...,, ... ... .........:~ ... .... ... . . ...... . .......... ..

GHB.08 RYY11~4~?~~?~:::::: ii

.?.?.?sr. ??~. 'e.*.%.e.,.*.*e..:::::::::e::::::::: e .... .. ......:::::: :?:?:?::~?: :?:?:?:.................... * .*.* ................. ....::?:?: ? .... .... ....% .. .... .... ... .... .... ... .... ... .. . ...

... . ....... ..

. .. ... ... ...

... .. .. . ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. ........ .......... . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . . . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . SRJ.15 ...... :.:..?:

....... .... .. ....... ..... .... .... ..... ... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 .... ... .... ... .... ... .... ... . .. ... .... ... .... .... .... ... ..

e .... ... .... .. G B .0

.... .. .......... ...... ..... ..... ..... ........

. . ... .. . . .... . ....

......................... ....~.:'' --.?. %*,. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .* * ... ....... . ?-?:~ ??~~??~~?""" .............. : ...........'='=== ''== ?===

. .. ........ . .

. GHB.?05'fS~ 55~ ~ ?Xss~. .. ................ .. . ?~~??~~;~::?~??~~:' ~ -

GRG.13~~~~f?~~ ::::~~~~~ ???????? :::~:::::~':~~':~ ~ ~ --? - ???.~ ??~~?? ??-

5.~~?~: '''~~'''~~''~~~' :.f~~??~~?????.:??~~?~~ ??~~:~~:: 10c??: m ?

~f ~ ~ . ?~.?~~?.tt?-?.?~~??.??~??~: :~?~;??;??;??I;?::GHB.07::~ ........ .......... i :~?:~~~::~~::~:~::::~i

ROM.06 ~ ~ :::~~:::

Fig. 2. Selected samples of Kashan (?) Petrofabric.

defined by their technically innovative techniques of manufacture combined with decoration executed in an artistically sophisticated manner, and production in a very restricted number of centres with a very wide distribution.

Technological innovations first used in the elite

wares include tin-opacified glazes, overglaze enamel-

pigments, lustre-pigment, the stonepaste ceramic

body, and underglaze pigment. Lustre-pigment is

applied after the firing of the vessel, and consists of an amalgam of silver, copper, ochre and a fixative. The pigment is fixed in a further low-temperature




Gurgan(.) Petrofabric ..

........ ?::?::===== ??....... =..... ..... ..=;.;==

/(-- ,"--- unattributed:~::

.. .. .. . .. ..: ......

? .. ..-%..................::...

",• .• •:.../. ....--. - ROM.192

AAH.51

AASH.60

Rayy Petrofabric Micrograph scale Imm:::::::~;~ ::~~::::::::~:: .. . ........... natfibute ..... ........~??.=

.............. .........??:??: '2??'?

... ........ .... . ..... .. .. .. ..

.. . .. . . :0--.:. ... .. ..

.. .. .. . .... .... ....

..... ....... .

.... ....... ..

. ... .. .. ..... .... .. . .. ........ ... ...

... ...

"R yy3"Ptrfarc SH5

Of 0 0 ASHJt Rayy etroabric:? zo

ROM.19hscle= m

Fig. 3. Selected samples of Gurgan (?), Rayy, and "Rayy 3" Petrofabrics.




107

anaerobic firing, in which the metallic elements fuse to the surface of the vessel producing a metallic lus- trous design. A stonepaste body is a mixture of crushed quartz mixed with clay and glass roughly in the proportions of 10:1:1 (Mason and Tite 1994).

The scale of production comprises very few centres, with a wide distribution. A good example for this would be Basra, in Iraq, the sole production centre for lustre-wares between about 800 and 975, the products of which were transported the full extent of the Old World, from Spain to Thailand and China, and south to the tip of Africa (see Mason forthcoming). The consistency of product would argue for a principal manufactory at the production centre, certainly in some cases including division of tasks.

The last attribute of the elite group is the degree of ability of the decorator, including what might be called artistry. This is often the realm of rather sub- jective observations about the confidence and regu- larity in the brush-stroke and the general composi- tion which might be better assessed by an art historian than by myself, but in many cases the degree of time and attention gone into the decoration forms a more objective means of assessment. Another more objective attribute is the originality of designs, which will only be derivative of yet more prestigious art forms, if they are derivative at all. Forming practices will also exhibit a combination of competency and also a willingness to take extra time and attention, for instance with further re-working of the vessel by turning.

Archaeological contexts for these d1ite wares certainly include 61ite contexts, such as caliphal palaces, but the scale of production would argue that the bulk would have been made for the well-developed urban elite of the Islamic world, consisting of mer- chants, bureaucrats, craftsmen, clerics and soldiers. Where sufficient dating evidence is available, elite wares tend to change rapidly through time, with distinct styles having a life of about twenty to fifty years (see below, also Watson 1985).

The "second class" group of wares are distinguished from the first elite group by a simpler and/or more conservative technology, a less exten- sive distribution, and stylistic attributes being largely derivative of the first group. The technology may include techniques which had been previously innovative at the first calibre centres, but very advanced technology or very demanding techniques were not used. For instance, amongst earlier wares they may have tin-opacified glazes, or amongst later wares they may have stonepaste bodies, but they will not have lustre-pigment. This group also includes wares of simpler technologies, for instance, the lead-glazed classes of slip-incised or slip-painted wares, the former having a pale slip over a darker body with decoration executed by incision through the pale slip to

reveal the dark body beneath (known in Europe as sgraffito), the latter having decoration executed by application of different-coloured slips. Decoration with slips is, of course, a very traditional technology, while lead glazes appear to have been an undemand- ing technology. This "second quality" group will have a large number of production centres relative to the elite group, perhaps five in Iraq of the ninth century, perhaps ten in Iran at the same time. The distribution will be limited, and very rarely extend beyond the scale of the modern states of the region, usually less.

The degree of originality and competency exhib- ited in this group may be very high in some regions distant from centres of the first calibre, in particular north-eastern Iran of the ninth century. Here the criteria of technology and scale of production and distribution provide a valid assessment of rank, while it may also be noted that, in the case of the example cited, the wares were supplanted by pottery imitating products of the first or 61ite group. In those cases where the technology being used is largely the same as in the first group, for instanced, incised wares or underglaze-painted wares, they may be separated by their poorer quality of execution in potting (irregu- larity, etc) or painting (poor design, lack of fluidity, etc).

Further down on this hierarchy of production are glazed wares which use the most limited technology, have very restricted distribution, and their decoration is of a limited and functional level. They never include stonepaste bodies, and glazes are simple lead or sodic-fluxed types. They are, however, wheel- made and moderately mass-produced, although their market is local. Change is considerably less pro- nounced through time than in the preceding groups. Individual motifs may be derived from heir- loom pieces as old as a century, and used in conjunction with motifs derived from contemporary fine wares. Below this on the present hierarchy, but probably equal to at least the previously described group in structural organisation of the industry, are

unglazed wares, including wheel-thrown wares. Below that again, hand-made wares were also made, presumably for the most part for home consump- tion. This general hierarchical model of production fits comfortably with those of researchers dealing with similarly developed systems of production, such as the Roman world (Peacock 1982: 8-10, see also Rice 1987: 184-87).

Of all these classes of wares, it is the glazed wares, particularly those of the first class, that will be discussed here. Glazed wares are not necessarily dominant amongst the ceramic corpora of archaeological sites, but neither are they rare, at least in regard to sites which represent the principal residences of the bulk of the population. As a rough guide Robert




Adams, who surveyed and excavated extensively in Iraq and Iran, considered an Islamic site with less than 10% glazed wares to be a small rural site (Adams 1970). Larger percentages would be expected for urban sites, for example ninth-century Siraf had 17% (Hodges and Whitehouse 1983: 148). Only in regions of considerable impoverishment of the cultural record do glazed wares become at all rare; examples include most of Jordan which seems to have rapidly declined to a pastoral economy, apart from sites of strategic military importance, after the first centuries following the hijra.

The relevance of the fine wares lies not only in their significance to art history and the history of technology but in their general relevance to archaeology. By producing a chronology for these rapidly changing wares it will be possible to correlate sites across the Islamic world and beyond. Further, the above discussion makes it clear that by providing dating of elite wares, one is also providing dating of wares which imitated them.

Methodology The corpus of pottery assembled for this study

consists of sherds from excavations and surface collection (Fig. 1), and unattributed but diagnostic whole vessels. Published material has also been included where possible. In the larger study (Mason 1994) the pottery has been classified in a hierarchal taxonomic structure. The highest division is the ceramic Class, essentially defined by surface technology (slips, glaze). This includes such classes as Opaque-glazed, Alkali-glazed, and so on. Although these terms often appear general, they are based on obvious differences in appearance supported by dis- tinctions in microstructure and chemistry. Classes are in turn divided into ceramic Types defined by the method of decoration (e.g. lustre, underglaze, slip- incised, etc). The final division is ceramic Style, defined by a combination of vessel form and the styles of decorations, usually expressed as an assemblage of motifs. This system of classification does not always work, and in particular it falls short with regard to the material being discussed in this paper, as Iranian lustre-painted wares may be found on both opaque and clear glazes, even on the same vessel. Hence in this case it is necessary only to focus on the Type classifications, comprising Lustre-painted, Underglaze-painted (including true pigment paints and "slip"-painted styles such as "Silhouette" ware), Overglaze-painted ("Minai" and "Lajvardina" wares) and Relief-decorated (including Moulded and Incised wares), each with their various styles divisions.

Form is studied by reference to sherds and whole vessels studied in person, or published examples

with drawn profiles. In the figures of pottery drawings the objects drawn by myself have shaded profiles whereas those taken from other publications have un-shaded profiles. This is to enable distinction between pieces for which the accuracy of the drawing may be vouched for from those for which it may not. In the larger study (Mason 1994), sherds tend to be the most significant due to the much larger and therefore more significant sample size available; however, most of the material used in this paper are whole vessels. Open forms and particularly bowls are the most common shape in this corpus, and so particular attention is given to rim and base profile as well as general vessel form (see Fig. 4). Each type of rim or base is defined by a very specific geometry.

Decoration is analysed by reference to design elements, rather than to overall effect. Particular weight is given to those motifs and design elements which are essentially structural, repetitive, and common (see Fig. 5). These are thought to represent expres- sions to which the painter gave little thought, being more concerned with the overall effect of the piece.

Once these design elements are identified, their occurrence within a type is tabulated together with vessel form, and is thus subjected to seriation (Table 1 and 2). The seriated attributes correlate in an assemblage of design elements and forms. This assemblage defines a group of pottery with the same Style. At times a style group is distinct from others, with few or no motifs held in common with other assemblages. At other times individual motifs may cross-over from one assemblage to another in an interrelated sequence of motif assemblages. In some circumstances the cause of such stylistic divisions may represent distinct, perhaps contemporary, workshops. In the majority of cases, each stylistic group within a type represents a progressive series of developments, which is best explained by chronologically successive groups. This may be seen in the relevant table where the assemblage shifts to the right down the table, in what is considered to approximate a chronological progression. Also, the forms studies generally show a continuous line of development (Figs. 6-10) even with an eye to the realities of potting precision (cf. Miller 1985: Fig. 9).

Unfortunately, it is impossible, given the space, to include a full record of every sherd, vessel or other object used in the study. Only vessel profiles and a record of which motifs are found on selected examples are reported. This provides all the data considered in the study, but provides a poor impression of the appearance of the pottery. A limited number of vessels are fully illustrated to give one an idea of what the pottery looked like (Pls. XVIII-XX), while the Appendix provides reference to illustrations of some other pieces.




109

....... ....... ....... ........ .... ....... ...... . .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. ~iiiii............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..i~

... .. .. .. ..... .. .. . .. .. X;x .. .. . . . ...... ........ ....... .. . . .. .. .. . . .. .. .. . . .. . . .. . . . . .X . . .. . ..... . . . .. .. . . .. .. . .

X, .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. ..... a . .... .. . .. .. .. .... ... .... ... ...

..... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. . . . . . . . .. . ......... . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . .

. . . .. .. . . . .. .. . . . .. ...... .. . . ~ii~'~'~iiiiiii... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . % . . . . . . .j i~ili~

...................... ... a ...........?~+i;;~::?: ??: ? . .. .. . . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . . .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. .

Proto-bic nical b. . . . . . . . . . . . . o ..... .. . . . . .. .. . ... . .. . . . .. .. .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . ... .. . .....

. . . .. .. . . . .. .. . . . .. .. . .

.. . . .. . . . ..... . . . . .. . . . . . .

. . . .. . . ... . . . . . . . .ed b . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . .

Fig. 4. Geometry of principal bowl forms (not to scale). Many of these forms may have rims other than those shown.




Motif KL.1 Motif KL.2 MotifKL.3 Motif KL.4 Motif KL.5 MotifKL.6

Motif KL. 12 Motif KL. 13

MotifKL.7 Motif KL.8 MotifKL.9 Motif KL.10 Motif KL.11 Motif KL.14

Motif KL.15 Motif KL.16 Motif KL.17 Motif KL.18 Motif KL.19 Motif KL.20 group

Motif KL.21 Motif KL.22 MotifKL.23 Motif KL.24 MotifKL.25 MotifKL.26

A

"x" group motifs

x group motifs Motif KL.27 oupMotif KL.28 Motif KL.29

"decayed bracket-line" "kidney-palmette" roup

Motif KL.30 group Motif KL.31 group Motif KL.32 MotifKL.33 group

Motif KL.34 group Motif KL.35 Motif KL.36 Motif KL.37

Motif KL.38 Motif KL.39 Motif KL.40 Motif KL.41 "line-leaf' motif

Fig. 5. Kashan Lustre-painted motifs (not to scale).




111

A TYPOLOGY FOR IRANIAN STONEPASTE WARES: c. 1100-1340

Lustre-painted wares and associated pottery made of stonepaste appear to have been suddenly and simultaneously introduced into Iran, and rapidly made other wares unfashionable. This would argue for the actual movement of potters, as the stonepaste technology would be beyond the skill of the average Iranian craft potter of the day, as would lustre-painting (Mason and Tite 1994).2 Some of the traditional lead-glazed and clay-bodied wares continued in con- temporaneity, and of course for large and coarse vessels clay was still used, but on the whole it is the stonepaste vessels of varying quality which dominate assemblages quite soon after their introduction. Lustre-wares form the dominant fine-ware from the introduction of stonepaste ceramics up until the mid- fourteenth century. Other important fine-wares include the Overglaze-painted wares, including "Minai" ware, decorated in different-coloured paints over a tin-opacified glaze. The Relief-decorated wares generally had a monochrome glaze, either tin- opacified or alkali, and decoration obtained by incision, excision or moulding. Underglaze-painted wares were decorated with metallic oxide pigments under a clear alkali glaze, and may be divided into two groups. The first group had the oxide pigment applied in a medium of crushed quartz, effectively a continuation of traditional slip-painting technology, while the second group had the oxide pigments applied with no surviving medium.

The entire Iranian lustre corpus may be attributed to Kashan with moderate confidence. All samples of Iranian lustre-ware have either been of the petrofabric attributed to Kashan, or have been of Safavid date. The moderation in this confidence is due to the fact that no kiln evidence from Kashan has been sampled, the attribution relying on the fact that the only reliable evidence for manufacture of lustre-wares impli- cates Kashan (Watson 1985: 37-44), while only one highly distinct petrofabric has been found in Iranian lustre-wares of the relevant period (Mason 1991, 1995a), the overglaze-painted "Minai" wares are also solely attributed to Kashan, while other types are produced at Kashan and other centres, including Rayy, Gurgan and presently unknown centres.

Unlike the corpus of Iraqi and Egyptian pottery assembled for the larger study, the bulk of materials available for study of the Iranian wares comprise whole vessels with no information regarding their origin. This is dominated by vessels in the collections of the Ashmolean Museum and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, plus some from the Royal Ontario Museum and the British Museum, with a number of published profiles of pieces from the Gulbenkian Collection, Victoria and Albert Museum, and the

Khalili Collection (respectively Mota 1988, Watson 1985).3 A large number of date-inscribed objects have been included from published sources, including those by Watson (1985), Pope (1938) and Bahrami (1949). For the analytical study, samples were available from excavations at Rayy, Siraf, Ghubeyra, Gurgan and Ani (see Pls. XVIII-XX and Figs. 2, 3).

To some degree the understanding of the beginnings of production in Iran are dependent on understanding of the sequence of production in Egypt (Mason in press a) and Syria (Mason in press b). As these sequences are to be published elsewhere and would be too long to include here anyway, it must suffice to say that the same methodologies were applied to these wares as are reported below for Iranian wares, and a sequence developed for each. Egyptian lustre-wares can be divided into four major sequential groups, to which may be attributed the following dates: Group One c. 975-1025, Group Two c. 1025-75, Group Three c. 1075-1125 and Group Four c. 1125-75. The various types of epigraphic and archaeological evidence actually provide a more reliable chronology for these wares than is suggested by the equal fifty-year times spans. Although there is some archaeological evidence for the dating of the Syrian wares, the beginning of this sequence is dependent on the dating of the Egyptian sequences, as the first Syrian lustre group (known elsewhere as "Tell Minis" ware) can be directly linked to practices transitional between Egyptian Groups Two and Three. The Syrian stonepaste-bodied wares, including lustre-wares and underglaze-painted wares, may be divided into seven groups. Group One, comprising "Tell Minis" Lustre-painted and "Lakabi". Polychrome-relief wares attributed to western Syria, is dated to c. 1075-1100 or 1125; Group Two, comprising Lustre-painted wares possibly attributed to Raqqa and elsewhere, is dated to c. 1125-50; Group Three, comprising polychrome underglaze-painted wares attributed to Damascus, is dated to c. 1125-50; Group Four, representing Lustre-painted wares from Raqqa, polychrome underglaze-painted wares from Damascus, and bichrome underglaze-painted wares from Ma'arrat al-Nu'man, is dated to c. 1150-75 or 1200; Group Five, comprising polychrome underglaze-painted wares from Damascus and Raqqa, is dated c. 1150 or 1175-1200; Group Six, comprising bichrome underglaze-painted wares from Raqqa and Ma'arrat, is dated to c. 1150 or 1175-1200; and Group Seven, comprising Lustre-painted wares attributed to Raqqa, is dated to c. 1200-50. It may be noted that these are not sequential, but different approaches to forming and decoration in some of the groups, together with the petrographic evidence, would indicate that they were made in different workshops, or even different centres.




Iranian Lustre-painted wares

Iranian Lustre-painted wares can be found with opaque glazes and also clear glazes, hence they do not respect the technological divisions into Classes based on glaze technology. There is generally no chronological or stylistic division at all between Iranian wares with different glaze technologies, indeed, they may be both found on the same vessel.

The characteristics of each piece are broken down into a motif typology (Fig. 5-named KL sequence for Kashan Lustre-painted) and a form of typology (Figs. 6-10). The two are brought together in seriation tables relating the different phenomena (Tables 1 and 2), and a further table relating the typology to dated pieces (Table 3). The various examples studied can be broken down into a number of groups, which in some circumstances can be linked sequentially in a chronological arrangement. Initially, ten groups were indicated by the motif and form study, with seriation putting all sequential except Groups Five and Six. However, integration of the large corpus of date- inscribed pieces indicated a large gap between Groups Seven and Eight. Rather than re-number the whole sequence, the few pieces in this gap have been melodramatically named as Group "x".

Although this material has been divided into groups before, most recently by Watson (1985), new terms will be used here. This is because two of the groups (the Monumental and Miniature styles often traditionally attributed to Rayy) have been broken down into a number of smaller groups; the third group (Kashan) was named after where they all appear to have been made; and the fourth (Ilkhanid) was a general dynastic name, not specific to any feature. Hence it was thought preferable to undertake the typological study without the baggage of previously-defined style-names. The chronology for lustre- wares will be considered collectively at the end.

Kashan Lustre-painted Group One (KLPl): "Egyptianising". This group reflects Egyptian traditions. Examples are apparently most often found as broad dishes, with slightly flattened rims; short, at times slightly splayed ring feet; and usually an internal ridge, concentric with the rim and directly above the foot (Fig. 6). All of these characteristics may be shown to have derived from the Egyptian Group Two practice, notably including the flattened rim (the "camel 2" rim of Mason 1994, in press a). Small bowls are also attributable to this first Iranian group, with a form between a simple segmental profile and a splayed conical shape, with a vertical base (Fig. 6: MMA.47, ASH.54). This cono-segmental bowl form (see Fig. 4), although not a particularly distinguished profile, will continue into the succeeding groups. At least two other similar vessels are published with typical Kashan Group One motifs

(Watson 1985: pl. 16 and 20, the former may be closer to the hemispherical form common in Kashan Group Two, see below). Prototypical constructions may be found in Fustat Group Two forms for these bowls also (see Mason in press a), notably in conical bowls and hemispherical forms. The slightly angular conjunction between vessel sides and base in ASH.54 (Fig. 6) may suggest a relationship with Fustat Group One and Two conical bowls. A tall footed form included in this group (Fig. 6: MMA.07) also has close parallels in Egyptian Group Two.

General designs on dishes in the first Iranian Group most often represent a central figure, surrounded by scrolling foliage, and a crescent-motif on the rim (P1. V; also cf. Watson 1985: Plate 12). In the general and the specific, this can also be related to Egyptian Group Two practice. Motifs include the diagnostic crescent rim (Fig. 5: motifKL.1), which is found on the flat rims of dishes, in exactly the same manner as it was used on Egyptian "camel" rims, or draped down from the rim on the exterior of the small bowls. Other motifs include the "knobbed stem" (motif KL.2), "knobbed palmette" (KL.3), and the "circle-lkm" motif (KL.4), which continues into the succeeding group. A motif found only on the bowls is a line of calligraphy around the exterior, which again may be interpreted as a continuation from the Egyptian Group Two practice of inscribing such words as al-yumn and sa'd in various locations, but most characteristically on the exterior. This motif also carries on into the next group, but may conceivably be differentiated on the readability of the text. The Group One texts are always readable, and include one signature (Abu Tahir ibn Muhammad Hamza ibn al-Hasan), whereas the Group Two inscriptions are generally poorly executed and are often meaningless. An apparently uniquely Iranian characteristic is the cobalt-blue coloured reverse, found in the first and a number of subsequent Iranian groups. In all analysed pieces the blue back has been of an alkali glaze, while the white front has been tin-opacified.

Kashan Lustrepainted Group Two (KLP2): "script- back ". Dishes in this group are generally similar to that of the preceding group, but the internal circular ridge is considerably less distinct and in one case is replaced by a gouged line (Fig. 6: MMA.49); they tend to have wider flat rims; and may also have an exterior ridge at or just below the join between rim and body. The bowls are dominated by the cono-segmental form, and a newly defined profile in the hemispherical bowls of Iranian Group Two, which all have a splayed foot (e.g. Fig. 6: ASH.03, ASH.16). This also shows links to Egyptian Group Two prototypes, and probably had Iranian Group One prede- cessors. Some of these hemispherical bowls show weak carinations (e.g. Fig. 6: ASH.12), precursors of




113

the bowls of the succeeding group. Motifs in this group include continuations of the

circle-ldm motif from Group One, and also the calligraphy on the reverse of the bowls, although at times this is actually just a running scroll derived from the script motif (motif KL.9; see P1l. XIXb,c). In this group the script will not be accompanied by a crescent pattern on the rim as in Group One, but just a simple band. Characteristic motifs include the calligraphy-rim (motif KL.6), consisting of an inscription or pseudo-inscription running along the flat rims of the dishes (cf. Watson 1985: pl. 13); the solid palmette (motif KL.7); and the "big-eye" motif (KL.8). It is in pieces of this group that we first find examples of the seated figure with crossed legs and one arm crossing the body, the palm up-raised on the lap (cf. Watson 1985: pl. 14). This will become an important element of the succeeding two groups (see P1. XIXd). Another feature in some ex-amples is a radial-panel pattern, usually consisting of eight parts, with alternate panels coloured blue (cf. Watson 1985: pl. 23).

Kashan Lustre-painted Group Three (KLP3): "knot- back" Although no large dish forms have been drawn in this group, presumably they would be inter- mediate between the dishes of Group Two (Fig. 6: ASH.48) and Four (Fig. 7: ASH.63). The simple conosegmental bowl form of Group Two seems to continue in this group, but more common are varieties of carinated bowls with slightly splayed feet (Fig. 7), in shallow and deep styles, including some lobed variants (e.g. ASH.43). These bowls often have a raised ridge on the exterior, just below the rim. One example in this group appears to have an early representation of the biconical form so important in later groups (Fig. 7: GUL.13).4 The interior decoration of this piece (Mota 1988: 54-5) has a radially- arranged pattern of calligraphically-inscribed bands with intervening calligraphy painted on the white ground, although none of the inscriptions appear legible. Such motifs are more common in later groups, but inscribed bands were an important motif in Egyptian Group Two Lustre-painted wares, while the "knot-back" motif and possibly also the prototypical biconical shape would argue for inclusion in the present group. Although the continuity appears more explicit in Syrian wares (Mason in press b), the particular form of this piece is a logical link between the conical bowls of Fustat Groups One and Two, and the later biconical bowls.

The diagnostic motif of this group is the "knot- back", an arrangement by which the reverse of the vessel is divided into panels, which contain inter- weaving lines resembling illustrations in a boy- scout's book of knot-tying (motif KL.10; see also P1. XIXd,e). This motif may be derived from the pseudo-calligraphic scroll noted in the preceding

group (a link actually best illustrated by some Syrian wares, see Mason in press b).

Kashan Lustre-painted Group Four (KLP4): "chequer- tree". Forms in this group (Fig. 7) include dishes which show the continuing trend in broadening of the rim, straightening of the angle between body and rim, and also the ridge on the exterior at the angle between rim and body. Bowls include repre- sentatives of the long-lived cono-segmental bowl form, and possibly carinated vessels similar to those of Group Three. An apparently new bowl form is the "hammer-rim" style (ASH.19), which will continue into subsequent groups.

Motifs for this group (Fig. 5) include the "pineapple" (motif KL.11), a cross-hatched lozenge commonly framed by two birds and integrated into a network of lines and sold palmettes. This motif may be one of the earliest motifs characteristic of this group, as it occurs on some of the earliest dated pieces (Watson 1985: pl. 37), on the transitional piece ASH.46, and may be ancestral to the chequer tree itself. Even more diagnostic is the "chequer-tree" (motif KL.12), and the "sprout-frond" (motif KL.13; see also P1. I: RYY.08), so-named because the dots along the sides resemble Brussels sprouts on a stem. A further motif, often found on the rim interiors, is the "knot-idm" (motif KL.14), a calligraphically- derived motif with two Arabic characters, the 1dm, knotted together in the middle.

The carinated bowl ASH.46 has been included in this group, although the form and knot-back is characteristic of the preceding group, as is the "knot- lam" rim pattern which also occurs in Group Three (e.g. ROM.11). Characteristic Group Four motifs on ASH.46 include the "pineapple" and "sprout- fronds", but there is no chequer-tree, instead its place is taken by areas of zig-zag pattern. This transitional piece, probably one of many, could just as easily be placed at the end of the preceding group.

Kashan Lustrepainted Groups Five, Six and Seven (KLP5-7): general characteristics. These three large contemporary groups may collectively be called the "spiral-field" supergroup, as they share a number of features in common. One is that they are often found as tiles, which are not as sensitive to change as vessels, and hence provide less data than the previous groups. Further, tiles do not have motifs on the reverse, an important feature for grouping vessels. The decoration is commonly done in reserve with the lustre-paint field incised through to the white glaze in spirals (motif KL.19), which is the diagnostic feature of this supergroup. Another common feature is the lustre band inscribed with calligraphy (motif KL.18). A number of motifs are embellished by radiating lines with a row of dots at some distance from the ends of the lines ("ray-dot" group). This includes the large "ray-dot ring" often found on the exterior of vessels or




the lower registers of closed vessels (motif KL.17), palmettes (KL.20), birds (KL.21) and fishes (KL.22).

Kashan Lustre-painted Group Five (KLP5): "bird and leaf". This group is commonly found as tiles, but vessels (see Fig. 8) include dish forms similar to those of Group Four, weakly carinated bowls (e.g. ROM.05), and wavy-walled plates (e.g. Watson 1985: pl. E). Decorative schemes are most often represented by figures in reserve (e.g. Pope 1938: P1. 722B; Watson 1985: pl. 107), surrounded by scrolling tendrils with palmette-leafs (motif KL.20) and rather chubby birds (KL.21), with the lustre-painted field incised through to the white glaze in spirals (motif KL.19). Another motif found in this group are lines radiating from the central design which have been crossed ("crossed-ray", motif KL.25). There is a high incidence of pieces with these motifs having the signature of Abu Zaid, and so these may be his products or those of his workshop, although it might also be pointed out that the much earlier Abu Zaid "Minai" pieces include water, a characteristic of Lustre Group Six (see Pope 1938: pl. 688).

Kashan Lustre-painted Group Six (KLP6): 'fish and frond ". This group is found in the same range of forms as given for Group Five, again with a heavy incidence of tiles. Diagnostic decorative schemes involve an area of water at the bottom of the central design (e.g. Watson 1985: pl. 63), with fish (motif KL.22), and a zone of "curled grass" between the water and the land (KL.23). On the land is a sprout- ing frond, with lobed leaves each side (KL.24).

Kashan Lustre-painted Group Seven (KLP7): 'fish and bird". Forms in this group appear to be dominated by biconical bowls (most biconical bowls in Fig. 8 are of this group), although other shapes also occur (e.g. a dish upheld by harpies, Watson 1985: pl. 74). Basic motif elements from both Groups Five and Six occur, including birds, palmettes, fronds, fish and curled-grass, although they differ somewhat in execution (what an art historian might call "a different hand"), and are generally lower quality. This amalga- mation will include some anomalies, such as the sub- stitution of a snake for the fish (Watson 1985: pl. 74a). Many of the pieces attributed to Gurgan in the past would be of this style (Bahrami 1949: pls. 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 68, 72, 73).

Kashan Lustre-painted Group "x" (KLPx): As noted above, consideration of the total available and published corpus wares would have indicated no gap between groups seven and eight, were it not that date-inscribed pieces indicated a gap of production of about thirty years between the two. The few pieces that were made in this period would have been considered "transitional" and allocated to the preceding or succeeding groups. Of the few dated pieces one continues the "spiral-incised" field, with a rudimentary lobed-frond, while the scrolling foliage has the

last expression of the palmette originally imported from Egypt, a kidney-shaped affair perhaps ancestral to some of the fleshy foliage of later styles (see Fig. 5). A further piece also has an incised field derived from the "spiral" practice, kidney-shaped palmettes, and a decayed "bracket-line" motif.

Kashan Lustre-painted Group Eight (KLP8): "ear- muff". Forms in this group (Fig. 9) include dishes derived from the earlier dish form, but the vessel is often poorly thrown and has a small angle between the rim and the vessel wall (ASH.45, ASH.21). Other forms derived from earlier practice are also found, such as biconical bowls (ROM.23, MMA58), although many bowls have tall stem bases (e.g. GUL.10, ASH.04, MMA.01). Imports of Yiian celadons from China introduce two new forms, the hemispherical bowl with a narrow foot (Yiian bowl: ASH.62, MMA.31) and the wide shallow dish, with a very curved wall and flat or slightly dished rim (Yifan dish: none noted in this group, but see following). There are also a large number of tiles (see Table 2).

Motifs in this group include some derived from earlier groups, due to the continuance of the general arrangement of having fish in water, with "curled grass" as a border with the land, with lobed stems as foliage (see Fig. 5). Much of the foliage, including the lobed fronds, will be embellished with large dots, and strings of smaller ones ("spotted-leaf', motif KL.27; see P1. XXa). The "curled grass" will have sub- sidiary lines coming up between each curved line ("curled grass 2", motif KL.28; see also P1. XXc). The fish may be represented solely by their heads. Other characteristic motifs include leaves and palmettes filled with spirals ("spiral-leaf', motif KL.29); lobate foliage embellished with a single large dot, found as flowers, medallion-motifs on vessel exteriors, and three-lobed fronds found in various locations, including as a background for large-scale tile-work, such as mihrdb (motif KL.30); and a flower with radiating stamens (motif KL.31). Diagnostic for this group is the technique of incision through the lustre field to expose the white glaze or body, which is done by incising a dot, often linked by a curving line to form an "ear-muff' shape (motif KL.32). Further motifs which are also important in the following group include patterns of medallion-like motifs arranged on the reverse of some vessels ("medallion- back", motif KL.33); a derivation of the spotty leaf in which the line of dots has become a simple line ("dot-line" group, motif KL.34); a derivation of the spiral leaf in which the leaf is filled with circles con- taining dots ("frog-spawn leaf", motif KL.35); a motif that resembles a procession of dead worms on a hot pavement ("dead-worm", motif KL.36); a leaf in which veins are rendered in a naturalistic manner ("vein-leaf", motif KL.37); a scrolling pattern of fleshy leaves ("fleshy-scroll", motif KL.38); and the



MEDIAEVAL IRANIAN LUSTRE-PAINTED AND ASSOCIATED WARES:

TYPOLOGY IN A MULTIDISCIPLINARY STUDY

115

petal-like motifs on the rear of Yuian bowl forms (motif KL.39).

Kashan Lustre-painted Group Nine (KLP9): "dot- incised". Examples in this group are apparently entirely represented by the Yilan-influenced vessel forms and tiles (Fig. 9; P1. XXd-f). A number of motifs which commenced in the previous group and continue in this group include the "frog-spawn" leaf, the "dead-worm" motif, and the "veined-leaf', but these tend to be more common than previously and become more formularised. This is particularly so in the case of the "fleshy-scroll", which is reduced to two rounded leaves with a long tongue-like leaf extending between them, to stop behind the rounded leaves of the next sequence. Apparently new motifs include a band of circles with central dots ("frog-spawn band", motif KL.40). The diagnostic "ear-muff" pattern of the preceding group is largely replaced by simple dot incisions, usually placed in a line, and rarely linked by an incised line, which when it does occur may be S-shaped (e.g. Pope 1938: pl. 723c).

Kashan Lustre-painted Group Ten (KLP1O): Motifs commonly found in Group Eight are never found in this group, while new developments include the "bulge-vein" leaf motif (KL.41) and other derivative versions of earlier motifs such as the "line-leaf' (see Fig. 5).

Kashan Lustre-painted wares: dating. Iranian lustre- painted wares are often blessed by having their dates of manufacture inscribed on them. This lends considerable aid to constructing a chronology for these wares in particular, and also for testing the viability of the methodolgy applied in this study generally (see Mason 1994, in press a and b, and forthcoming). However, the restriction of the period of lustre- painted ware in Iran to the range of inscribed dates is not to be assumed in this study.

What is considered to be the earliest Lustre-ware group produced in Iran, Group One, has general designs, motifs and forms derived from earlier Egyptian Lustre painted wares, particularly Fustate Lustre Group Two (c. 1025-75). When this decorative and formal data is coupled with data concerning the technological relatedness of the two groups, this study comes to the conclusion that this derivation is due to potters moving from Egypt to found the pot- teries of Iran, but that is not of direct relevance to the present question of dating. The formal features which link the Iranian Group One to the earlier Egyptian wares include the flattened "camel" rim, the short square-profiled ring foot, the internal ridge, and the taller slightly splayed foot of the bowls (see Mason 1994, in press a). The internal ridge and short ring-foot have parallels in Egyptian Group One (975-1025), and so dating much earlier in the eleventh century might be entertained. However,

many of these characteristics may also be noted in Egyptian Group Two, while the taller slightly splayed foot of the smaller bowls could only be from Egyptian Group Two (1025-1075). Hence it must be concluded that the Iranian wares are derived from Egyptian Group Two practice.

The end of Egyptian Group Two is put at about 1075; however, it may be useful to estimate what error there may be in that date. By stretching the Egyptian data to its limits, it might be possible to push the date to 1100, but the evidence would not allow it to be pushed further. In the other direction it is also poss-ible that the characteristics that influence the Iranian models may date to the middle of the period of Egyptian Group Two production, rather than to the end, but the Egyptian prototype would have to be considerably advanced from the well-dated Egyptian pieces of the c. 1010s (Mason 1994, in press a). Hence we have a maximum time range of between c. 1050 and 1100. Given this range it may simplify matters to consider the point where the Egyptian tradition moves to become, or influ- ences, the Iranian tradition, to be in about 1975, but the margin of possible error should be kept in mind. However, the Egyptian evidence would seem to insist that the date of the Egyptian influence could not be significantly later than 1100.

If the first production of Iranian wares is caused by a movement of potters from Egypt, then it may be desirable to suggest a small interval of time between departure and arrival. In the cases of the Iraqi- Egyptian and Egyptian-Syrian transitions (see Mason 1994, in press a and b) it is in a few cases impossible on stylistic grounds to differentiate a product of one country from another, suggesting that production was practically continuous. For the Egyptian-Iranian transition there is a discernible difference between the first Iranian products and the Egyptian products of the nearest tradition, indicating a possible gap in production. Syrian production is also considered to have been the result of a direct movement of potters with stonepaste and lustre technology and Egyptian potting traditions from Egypt to Syria. The first Syrian forms and technology indicate a relationship to practices of a transitional nature between Egyptian Groups Two and Three, put at 1075 by the Egyptian chronology. Some circumstantial archaeological evidence would support a commencement of production of these first Syrian wares by 1100 (Mason in press b). Hence it may have been in Syria that the lustre potters had their sojourn before moving on to Iran; certainly, some forms and motifs in the first Syrian group form an effective link between Egypt and Iran. This delay in transmission would therefore put the commencement of Iranian Lustre- painted wares in about 1100. This dating is obviously tenuous in its detail, but the data would collectively




indicate that the link between Egyptian and Iranian wares was certainly very much closer to c. 1075 than to c. 1175, which is the most widely-cited date for the movement of potters from Fustat to Iran.

The earliest Iranian lustre-wares with dates inscribed on them are of Group Four, the "chequer- tree" style. These range from 1179 to 1193, with the subsequent group having an earliest date of 1199 (a sherd of the "spiral-incised" supergroup but which may not be assigned to a specific group). If it is suggested that this style was associated with the concept of dating from the beginning (a large but not entirely baseless leap of logic), this may suggest a time-range for Group Four of about twenty-five years (1175-1200). As the earlier groups would appear to represent a chronologically sequential arrangement, it is possible to attribute similar periods of production to each (Group One 1100-25, Group Two 1125-50, Group Three 1150-75). As usual with such attributions, there may be some overlap, and an equal possibility that there are gaps between groups, while the time-ranges probably also differ for each group. For instance, if change were constant, Group One would appear to be the shortest lived, but then again change never is constant. Although there appears to be no published archaeological evidence that can be applied to this problem, the Iranian wares are closely paralleled in form and motifs by the Syrian stonepaste-bodied wares, and here there is some limited archaeological evidence that may be used to support the above chronology (see Mason in press b).

Theoretically, Group Five and Group Six would appear contemporary with each other, with Group Seven following later. Consideration of the available dating evidence, which consists of those which have been published with clear and usable illustrations, lends some support to this. The Group Five "bird and leaf" style has inscribed dates between 1207 (Watson 1985: pl. E) and 1219, at least three of which had been signed by Abu Zaid. Of Group Six, the "fish and frond" style, there are dated pieces of 1210 (Watson 1985: pls. 63, 66). Of the "bird and fish" group there are examples of 1214 (Bahrami 1949: 129-30) and 1219. Hence it would seem that there is certainly some overlap between all three groups, but both the "bird and leaf" and the "fish and frond" groups appear to have earlier origins than the "bird and fish" group. Of course, what this may mean is that Group Seven represents the bulk of products at the time, while Groups Five and Six represent the products of particular potters or their workshops.

The "spiral-incised" supergroup that Kashan Lustre-painted Groups Five, Six and Seven collectively form can be seen to have a number of dates (see Tables 1 and 2), but these dates tail off quite quickly in about 1220. The next major spate of dated pieces

is in the 1260s with the Group Eight wares, which leaves a gap of about forty years (see Table 3). Although there is some continuity of motifs and forms, overall it must be considered to be a major change between the last of Group Seven and the first pieces of Group Eight, including new forms, new motifs, and particularly a fundamental change in the way of incising the lustre-painted field, from the spiral-incised to the dots and "ear-muffs". Without the aid of the dates, it might be assumed on the vol- ume of material that that there was a rapid transition between the two groups. However, the dated vessels suggest that very few pieces are being produced in this intervening period, and these are hence making a limited impact on both excavated assemblages and museum collections. Hence between Groups Seven and Eight there must be a missing group: Group "x".

As stated above, of the few dated Group "x" pieces, one of 1227 (Pope 1938: pl. 722D) and another of 1261 (Mansour 1979) continue the "spiral- incised" field, with a rudimentary lobed-frond, scrolling foliage with a kidney-shaped palmette, and a decayed "bracket-line" motif (see Fig 5). This would suggest that these do indeed form a cohesive group. Consideration of the available material appears to indicate that this Group "x" is not only rarely found with dates on them, but is indeed rare itself.

Group Eight is inscribed with a series of dates from 1262 (Watson 1985: pl. K) to 1279 (P1. XXc) suggesting a time-range of about 1260-85. Although a number of vessels have been attributed to Group Nine, only tiles have dates, ranging from 1286 (P1. XXd) to 1310 (Watson 1985: pl. 119). Dates inscribed on Group Ten objects, entirely represented by tiles notably including a group published by Ettinghausen (1936, figs. 15-21), range from 1312 (Watson 1985: pl. 124) to 1338 (Watson 1985: pl. 122).

In summation the suggested dates for the various Iranian lustre groups are: Group One 1100-25, Group Two 1125-50, Group Three 1150-75, Group Four 1175-1200, Group Five 1200-20, Group Six 1200-20, Group Seven 1210-30, Group "x" 1225-60, Group Eight 1260-85, Group Nine 1285-1310, Group Ten 1310-40.

Monochrome Relief-decorated wares: Incised, Carved and Moulded

This is a varied group, due to a long time-range and also due to probable production in a number of centres. Collectively, all members of this group have stonepaste bodies with decoration applied by the creation of relief by incision or excision (carving) of the surface, or from moulding of the vessel. The glaze is generally monochrome, and may have tin- opacified opaque alkali-lead glazes or transparent alkali glazes. These have prototypes in the Mono-




117

chrome-incised wares of Egypt, equivalent in date to Egyptian Lustre Group Two (c. 1025-75), and so the type was probably also introduced by potters from Egypt. Unlike the Egyptian models, which are often in different forms from the lustre-painted wares, the Iranian examples more closely follow contemporary Lustre-painted forms.

By comparison with the chronology suggested for Lustre-painted wares, it is possible to suggest dating for the Monochrome incised wares. For example, sample no. SRJ.20 (Fig. 2) can be equated with the dish form of Iranian Lustre Group Two (compare to ASH.64 and ASH.13, Fig. 6). Rather roughly- executed wares of this type appear to rapidly become the chief second-quality pottery at sites such as Ghubeyra, Rayy and Gurgan (see Figs. 2 and 3), where they largely supplanted the clay-bodied and lead-glazed wares by the end of the twelfth century.

In some pieces the incised or carved decoration was worked through the body, creating holes in the vessel wall which subsequently filled with glaze. This "fenestrated" ware was possibly made to emulate the translucency of Chinese porcelain imported at this time. Again, it is sometimes possible to suggest dating for individual pieces based on comparison of form to that of the Lustre-painted wares, for instance the biconical bowls common to the first half of the thirteenth century (compare Fig. 3: ROM.19 and Fig. 8). However, in other cases the forms do not match those of the Lustre-wares, which would suggest different sites of manufacture, an hypothesis confirmed in at least one case by petrographic analysis.

Moulded wares, by their specific nature, may vary considerably in form from those vessels which have been thrown, which is probably the case in most Lustre-ware forms. Of the few pieces carrying date inscriptions (Ettinghausen 1938), most appear to be quite late, including members of a large group of big jars (Pope 1938: pl. 759-764, including a dated piece of 1282).

Overglaze-painted "Minai" style. Also called haft rang or seven-colour

ware, pieces in this group have a stonepaste body, generally a white opaque glaze and decoration applied as different coloured over-glaze pigments. Common general layouts include figural designs often suggested as being reminiscent of contemporary manuscript and wall painting (e.g. Pope 1938: pls. 688, 689), although more geometric designs are also known (e.g. Mota 1988: 82-83). It has traditionally been considered that the pigments required lower firing temperatures than the glaze, and had a number of subsequent firings at temperatures suitable to the pigments being applied. This has never, however, been proven, and preliminary research by

the author indicates that the paints would have possibly required a higher temperature to achieve matu- ration than the main glaze. All petrographic analyses of these wares have resulted in attribution to the Kashan (?) Petrofabric.

Forms in this style (see Fig. 10) are very close, indeed identical, to those used in lustre-wares, and so comparison of form provides a useful aid to dating the "Minai" wares. These forms include rather evolved cono-segmental bowl forms, equal to later versions found in the Lustre-painted wares (e.g. GUL.06, in Lustre Group Four). Other forms include distinctly carinate forms with slightly splayed bases (e.g. GUL.01), equivalent to those of Lustre Group Three (e.g. ASH.07); and more weakly carinated forms also with slightly splayed bases (GUL.07, GUL.14), equal to forms found in Lustre Groups Two to Five (e.g. ASH.12 in Group Two, GUL.03 in Group Three, and ROM.05 in Group Five). Most of these have a raised ridge slightly below the rim on the exterior, which is generally more a character of Lustre Groups Two to Four. Biconical forms are also found (MMA.06), but these appear to always be of the prototypical form (see Fig. 2) suitable to Lustre Group Three and probably Group Four. A vessel form that the current author has not come across in lustre is a small beaker (Lane 1947: pl. 70B; Mota 1988: 100); while amongst the varieties of closed vessels, a spouted pot with two opposing feline handles (Lane 1947: 70A) is paralleled exactly by a Lustre Group For example (Watson 1985: pl. 42), and less exactly by a "spiral-incised" supergroup (i.e. either Group Five, Six or Seven) example (Bahrami 1949: pl. 47).

The very high status and detailed painting appear to have caused some confusion in the motif assemblages when compared with the lustre-wares. Motifs which would be paralleled by the "script-back" and "circle-lkm" of Lustre Groups One and Two are found on the same vessel as cross-hatched patterns akin to the "pineapple" of Group Four and the "ray- dot" palmette of Group Five (e.g. Mota 1988: 82-83). Presumably the amount of time and effort required for producing these wares, coupled with the high status indicated by the high cost of production, has made the painter incorporate both archaic and innovative decorative motifs in his repertoire. In these cases the "general impression" produced by a motif, or what it is "reminiscent" of will not be considered. Only precise parallels between lustre and "Minai" motifs will be used. Such motifs include a large number exactly paralleling Lustre-painted Group Four motifs. These include the "sprout- frond" (Lane 1947: pl. 68B, 69A; Bahrami 1949: 31; Mota 1988: 94-95); very close parallels with the "pineapple" motif, including the flanking birds (Lane 1947: pl. 70A); a "chequer-tree" (Pope 1938:




pl. 688); and a "knot-lkm" rim motif (Pope 1938: pl. 1938). It is also possible to find a "lobe-frond" of Group Five, although this should probably be considered ancestral (Mota 1988: 90-81); and at least one "Minai" piece has an epigraphically-inscribed lustre band, mostly associated with Groups Five and later, although the piece also has typical Group Four "sprout-frond" motifs (Watson 1985: pl. 57).

Collectively, the forms and motifs of the "Minai" style world suggest a strong temporal relationship with the Lustre Group Four (c. 1175-1200). Pub- lished "Minai" pieces with dates on them include three examples of 1187 (Pope 1938: pls. 686, 688, 689), one of which is signed by the potter Abu Zaid, while Ettinghausen (1938) mentions one dated 1186 and Watson (1985: 70) mentions another. Ettinghausen (1938) also describes inscribed pieces of 1219-20 (Pope 1938: 692) and 1242 (Pope 1939: 662, Lane 1947: pl. 72A). The figures of this latter piece do not appear entirely happy this late, and although the opaque turquoise glaze and arabesque network would be suitable to the "Lajvardina" style, which was current in this period, it must be suggested that the reading is in error.

"Lajvardina" style: This group generally has an opaque coloured glaze, often of a dark cobalt-blue colour, and the overglaze decoration is applied in more abstract geometric arrangements, commonly in white and red, often with a heavy use of gilding. If "Minai" is trying to appear as a manuscript miniature painting, "Lajvardina" is probably more evocative of carved and bejewelled precious stones. Forms for this group range from weakly carinate bowls, perhaps suitable to Groups Three to Five or Seven, more likely the latter (Mota 1988: 76); to a much larger group of Yian-inspired bowls and dishes (e.g. Lane 1947: pls. 74B, 75A) as used in Lustre-painted Groups of Eight to Ten (1275-1340).

Underglaze-painted As stated above, the focus of research has been

Lustre-painted wares, and only a limited incorpora- tion of underglaze-painted wares into this study has been attempted. From a review of available material and published objects, it has been possible to de- velop a preliminary typology, which will be the basis of my future research on these wares. The limited amount of analytical work that has been done on the underglaze-painted work appears to produce two main conclusions. One is that these wares are often made at sites other than Kashan, although they are cer-tainly also known from Kashan. The second is that when compared to Syrian technology, Iranian underglaze-painted wares appear considerably less advanced. Not only the early "Silhouette" wares but also more obviously "painted" wares that might be

put in the twelfth century (e.g. ASH.58, Fig. 3) all have their pigment applied as "slip" paint, although befitting the stonepaste body the "slip" is actually crushed quartz rather than clay. Contemporary Syrian wares are "true" underglaze-painted wares, having the pigment applied alone. No Iranian underglaze pigment-painted wares (e.g. ASH.60, Fig. 3) may be positively put earlier than 1200, which gives Syria a precedence of two to three generations.

"Silhouette" style: This group has the greater part of the stonepaste vessel covered in a black pigment comprising chromium-oxides in a medium crushed quartz, which is then carved away to create the decoration.

Vessels include a number of pieces of the cono- segmental bowl forms (e.g. ROM.10, Fig. 10), and at least one example of the small beaker (Lane 1947: pl. 51B) paralleled by "Minai" forms (see above), hence it could be suggested that some pieces were made at the same centre as produced Lustre-painted wares. General decorative schemes include a number with a central figure surrounded by scrolling foliage, derivative of Iranian Lustre Groups One and Two, or possibly of Egyptian prototypes (Lane 1947: pls. 48, 49A, 51A; see also Fig. 3). In many cases this decoration, although striking, appears rather clumsy, while the varieties of vessel forms would indicate production for some examples at centres other than those making Lustre-painted wares. Other decorative schemes include broad vertical bands of pigment (Lane 1947: pls. 50B, 51B, C), which although not paralleled by a lustre-painted motif, is generally found on those pieces with similar forms. A number of pieces have a black band with an inscription inscribed through it, as became very common in lustre-paint in the first half of the thirteenth century. This last parallel may, however, be misleading, as the bulk of comparative evidence suggests a dating for this material through the twelfth century. Conceivably the type developed in centres that were competitors with Kashan in the early twelfth century, being able to emulate (or steal) the stonepaste body technology but not the lustre-pigment technology.

"Willow-scroll" style: This group may be the earliest of the wares decorated with foliage which may be referred to as the "willow-weed" motif, here comprising a continuous rolling scroll (Fig. 1: ASH.52, Fig. 2: ROM.06; also Lane 1947: pl. 86). There appears to be no firm dating evidence for these wares, but continued research on forms should allow correlation to the lustre-ware sequence. One sample of this type has been found to be of the Kashan (?) Petrofabric (Fig. 2: ROM.06-see Appendix). This particular piece has a hammer-rim profile which is closer to early thirteenth examples (see Fig. 8: MMA.67 for a Kashan Lustre Group Seven example) than it is to late twelfth century versions (e.g. Fig. 7 ASH.19).




119

"Pin-wheel" style: This group is characterised by a circular or lozenge-shaped motif, constructed of black pin-shaped structures arranged with their points pointing to the centre, or in the case of the lozenges arranged in a "herring-bone" manner (e.g. Pope 1938: pl. 734). The whole area of this motif is coloured blue. Other motifs include epigraphically- inscribed bands, either radially arranged, or as a circular band below the rim on the exterior, or mid-way down the interior; small "fleur-de-lys" type motifs, derived from some silhouette style motifs; areas filled with small crosses ("cross-field" motif): and restrained "willow-reed" patterns. Forms are predominantly weakly carinated bowls, perhaps equal to Group Five, and biconical bowls (see Fig. 10). Of two published dated pieces, one has a date of 1211 (Pope 1938: pl. 735), the other of 1214 (Pope 1938: pl. 734); while the "cross-field" motif is used on lustre vessels with dates of 1210 (Bahrami 1949: pl. 54) and 1214 (Watson 1985: pl. 74). Pope (1937) has published a wasters of Underglaze-painted wares of the "Pin- wheel" style from Kashan.

"Willow-panel" style: This appears to be generally found in biconical bowls, with exterior decoration divided into panels, with vertical willow-weed motifs between (Fig. 3: ASH.51; Fig. 10: MMA.54 and MMA.61 are also of this group). Other motifs include the "spotty-leaf' motif paralleled in lustre pieces with dates in the 1260s (Watson 1985: pl. 110, pl. K) but which is used as early as 1211 (Pope 1938: pl. 722B), and the "cross-field" motif with dates of 1210 and 1214 (see above). Petrographic analysis of one example of this group has attributed the piece to the "Rayy 3" Petrofabric, a large and important group first defined from analysis of pottery from Rayy, but of unknown origins as yet (Fig. 3). A closely related group with identical motifs on the interior of vessels has a scrolling leafy stem on the exterior (Fig. 3: ASH.60; Fig. 10: MMA.45 is also of this group), and this has also been attributed to the "Rayy 3" Petrofabric. Correlating closely with the motifs, the forms of these wares are related to those of lustre- wares of the first half of the thirteenth century.

"Blue-stripe" style: This group is decorated by broad blue lines contrasting with the white ground of the transparent glaze over the white body. On bowls these stripes are arranged radially, while on closed vessels they consist of vertical lines. Dating for this group may be made by comparison with forms of Lustre-painted vessels. For example, biconical bowls (Bahrami 1949: pl. 13) are predominantly associated with the first half of the thirteenth century. Although the forms are commonly closely paralleled by Kashan products, the only piece sampled of this type is of the "Rayy 3" Petrofabric (ZZZ.01; see Appendix), while a related piece is of the petrofabric attributed to Gurgan (see Fig. 3: ASH.58).

CONCLUSION

The conclusions of this study will be broken down into observations regarding the utility of the methodology, and the general significance of the findings.

Methodology As stated above, this study was envisaged as a mul-

tidisciplinary study integrating the typology with the results of analytical research on provenance and technology. The strength of this approach is clearly indicated by the findings. The basis of the classification is technology. Glaze chemistry, body technology and decorative technique are what define the distinct types of Islamic pottery, and providing further data on these attributes has strengthened the typology. Input from the provenance study has allowed the distinction of different traditions of forming and decorative practices in different centres. This has allowed the resolution of a sequence of ceramic production attributed to Kashan, apparently the most important centre in Iran at the time. Products of other centres may thereby be omitted, which may otherwise sufficiently complicate the picture so as to make sequencing impossible. Hopefully, similar sequences may be developed for other Iranian centres in the future, although it is already clear that products of Kashan set the trend.

In turn the chronology developed for the ceramics, or at least the sequence if not the absolute dating, has enabled the technological findings to be put in order. Hence whereas other studies of the technology of Islamic pottery may average two centuries of development, it has been possible here to gain some understanding of that development. The strength of the provenance study has been aided by the ability to sample a stylistically varied selection of pieces. this is particularly true of the ability to attribute all Lustre-painted and Enamel- painted wares to Kashan. Had certain styles been omitted, it might have been possible to specu- late that these styles were in fact made at other centres.

The approach of breaking the ceramics down into a number of attributes, primarily motifs and forms, and subjecting these attributes to seriation, appears to have been highly effective. The absolute dating is at times based on rather flimsy evidence, but the sequence and interrelationships between regions is as sound as the evidence allows. Further, the absolute chronology does provide a framework which may be tested in future work.

The detailed study of ceramic forms by accurate measured drawings and by presentation of these drawings in figures of the same scale is a standard approach in archaeology. This enables subtle but significant differences to be brought out that would




otherwise be ignored. That this approach has not been applied commonly in the study of art- historically significant pottery is an omission which must be rectified. The overwhelming majority of the pottery studied here was wheel-thrown, and then subsequently turned. To recognise significant change in form it is necessary to recognise significant change in the motor habit pattern of the potter. Potters of the status we are dealing with here tend to be innovatory, but they will always be constrained by their motor habit patterns. Apparently major differences in forms may be less significant than they seem. In order to assess the significance of the change it is necessary to re-create the process of con- struction in one's mind and determine what was a major change in the actions of the potter.

The breaking-down of designs into structural elements, or motifs as they have been called in this study, is also an element of archaeological study of ceramics. These must be classified strictly, and be as regular as a signature. What it being characterised is again the motor habit pattern of the painter. These motifs will be painted in the same way, wherever they are put on the pot. Change in motifs may reflect small differences in the movements of the painter which accumulate into significant visual change.

Different sectors of the decorated surface of the vessel appear to receive different degrees of innovation. In particular, the decoration on the reverse tends to be highly standardised for each typological group. Rim motifs, particularly for flattened rims such as the "camel" rims or later Syrian flat-rimmed bowls, also tend to be highly standardised. Motifs in these areas appear to be particularly useful for defin- ing groups.

A further conclusion of relevance to the typological study is the significance of provenance. To create a typological sequence, it is necessary to ensure that one is in fact studying a single continuing tradition, usually in the same place. Hence the pottery from one centre will not necessarily fit into the typological sequence of another. Despite this, the impact of traded wares and regional imitation appears to produce synchronic formal uniformity across the region.

Technology and innovation with chronology

Arnold (1985: 202-28) relates technological change to a progressive movement towards greater production due to increased efficiency. This does not appear to have been a factor with the highest status Islamic wares. Innovations such as stonepaste and decorative techniques such as lustre-paint that require secondary firings, clearly make the potter less productive.

The potters that made the higher-status wares

studied here are clearly well-disposed towards technological innovation. Potters are often considered to be a highly conservative in their approach to technology and other aspects of manufacture, including decoration. This is justifiably based on a number ethnographic studies illustrating the point. In studies of other fields, there seems to be a strong case for varying levels of innovation at different levels of craftsmanship (Homans 1961; Silver 1981). This may be thought of as a threefold division. Craftsmen at the bottom of the hierarchy, who have just entered the craft and have no reputation, are inclined towards innovation through desperation. The overwhelming majority of established artisans, who have regular markets and steady trade, do not innovate. The very highest calibre of craftsman does innovate, in order to maintain the prestige accorded his rank. Many of the potters that made the lustre- wares, "Minai", underglaze-painted and other wares studied here clearly fit into this third category. In each period the potters with the highest status would innovate to attract the custom of the most status- conscious buyer.

This innovation is underlined in the rapid changes observed in the elite glazed wares, where each style may be seen to have a longevity of as little as twenty years. This issue has relevance to the inter- pretation of ceramic typology generally.

General significance to ceramic studies

A significant question for ceramic studies generally are the phenomena that induce a change in the archaeologically-perceived ceramic record: specifi- cally, why does pottery form stylistic groups? As stated above, the pottery considered in the wider study (Mason 1994, in press a and b, and forthcoming; see also Mason et al. 1996) has been divided into a hierarchial typological system, consisting of ceramic classes, types and styles. Many types defined in this study, such as lustre-painted wares, are divided into stylistic groups which appear to reflect a linear chronological arrangement, with an earlier group leading on to the next later group, although contemporary groups also exist. Each style group consists of a number of typical examples, often easily distinguished from other style groups, and a smaller number of "transitional" pieces, less easily distinguished from the groups they are considered transitional towards or from. In some cases the transition from one group to another appears abrupt, with major changes in forming, painting and technology. At other times the transition is less marked, perhaps with less major differences between the groups in question.

The hypothetical significance of the differences between each group is worth considering. They




121

could represent wares made by different people or different workshops; alternatively, they could mark the march of time and change of fashion in a single workshop. Although the answer in any single case may be complex, there are three cases which may throw some light on this amongst the dated and signed wares of Iran.

The first of these relates to the work of the Kashani potter Abu Zaid, whose dated and signed pieces ranged from 1186 to 1219. This bridged a major division between two different styles in lustre production in Iran, although Abu Zaid's work was clearly of the very highest quality of the period for whatever style he worked in. This suggests, in this case at least, that fashion was a major driving force. How the fashion was set is unclear, it may have been Abu Zaid and perhaps one or two other master potters (such as the Abu Tahir family) who dictated the style, setting the trend for the period and producing designs which were then copied by their apprentices and lesser co-workers (see discussion of innovation, above).

This same period reveals a second observation regarding the nature of the difference between groups. This relates to the transition from the Iranian Lustre-painted Group Four style to the succeeding "Spiral-incised" supergroup. The last dated

Group Four piece carried a date of 1193, while the earliest dated "Spiral-incised" piece carried a date of 1199 (see Tables 1 and 2). Although the forms do not seem to change that radically at the transition between the two groups, the decorative scheme represents a major change. Hence it may be inferred that in this case at least, the change between groups represented a short burst of innovation, between longer periods of more gradual innovation.

However, a third observation may be made which is contrary to the concept of rapid change between groups. It may be noted that Group "x", made between c. 1225 and 1260, would have been considered to represent a number of transitional pieces connection Group Seven and Group Eight, were it not for the dated pieces. The reality of the situation

appears to be that the bulk of the "Spiral-incised" super-group, being Groups Five, Six and Seven, were made between c. 1200 and 1225, while for the remainder of the half century production shrank considerably. Hence although the "spiral-incised" super-group may be said to have been produced between 1200 1260, the style would have been defined by the largest number of products, i.e. those made before 1220. Group "x" lustre-wares are made over as

long a period of time, but their scarcity in the archaeological record distorts this reality.




Kashan Lustre-painted Group One: "Egyptianized"

ASH.64 ASH.13

MMA.19

MMA.47 ASH.54 MMA.07

Kashan Lustre-painted Group Two: "Script-back" -- ----om

ASH.06 ASH.48

MMA.49

MMA.11

ASH.05

ASH.15 ASH.20

..ASH.08 ASH.16 ASH.03 ASH.12

Fig. 6. Form typology for Kashan Lustrepainted Groups One and Two.




123

Kashan Lustre-painted Group Three: "Knot-group"

ROM.11 ASH.01 MMA.02 ASH.07

ASH.43 MMA. 12

ASH.i02 GUL.933 Kashan Lustre-painted Group Four: "Chequer-tree" loom

ASH.46

ASH.19

ASH.63 ASH.47

GUL.06

MMA.41 MMA.33

Fig. 7. Form typology for Kashan Lustre-painted Groups Three and Four (GUL. nos. after Mota 1988).




ASH. 10 MMA.44

V&A.10

ROM.05

MMA.67 MMA.32

10cm

MMA.13 ASH.44

BRM.12

ASH.17 MMA.15 V&A.09 MMA.60 MMA.43

Fig. 8. Form typology for Iranian Lustre-painted Groups 5, 6 and 7 (V&A nos. after Watson 1985).




125

Kashan Lustre-painted Group Eight:: "Ear-muff'

ASH.45ASH.21

GUL.10 ASH.04 MMA01

ASH. 62 ROM.23

MMA.31

Kashan Lustre-painted Group Nine: "Dot-incised"

MMA.23 ASH.14

HASH.241__

\ GUL.15 ASH.22

IMMA.03 GUL. 11

Fig. 9. Form typology for Kashan Lustre-painted Groups Eight and Nine (GUL. nos. after MOTA 1988).




Minai

ROM.22

ROM.12 GUL.14

.M ..ROM.21 ROM.07

MMA.5MMA.52 MMA.42

MMA.53

ROM.20 GUL.01

GUL.02

MMA.14 MMA.06

Underglaze-painted

ROM..10

MMA.61

ASH.60

MMA.45 GUL.08 MMA.54 GUL.09

Fig. 10. Selected forms of various types (GUL nos. after Mota 1988).




127

Table 1: Incidence of motif and form: Kashan Lustre-painted Sample no. I Date (AD)-signed motif (see Figure 5)

I vessel type 11 3 1 5 1 7 19 11 113 1151 17119121 123 1251 ceramic type I 2 4 1 6 8 10 112 114 116 18 20 22 124 126

Kashan Lustre-painted Group One ASH.13 Lustre 1 dish 1 * - * - - ASH.64 Lustre 1 dish 1 * - - * LVR.01 Lustre 1 bowlI * - * - *- -. KHA.01 Lustre 1 bowl2 AT * - * * *- - - - - - - -

. . MMA.07 Lustre 1 bowl1 * - - * *-- .. Kashan Lustre-painted Group Two MMA.49 Lustre 1/2 dish 2 * - - * - - - * - - - - - - - - - - ASH.15 Lustre 2 bowl 1 - - - - - - - - - - - ASH.48 Lustre2 dish2 --- * - * * ASH.06 Lustre 2 bowl 2 - - - * - * * - - - - - - - - ASH.03 Lustre2 bowl2 - - -* * - *- ASH.08 Lustre 2 bowl 2 - - - * - * MMA.16 Lustre 2 dish2 - - - * * - - * ASH.20 Lustre 2 bowlI - - - * - - - ASH.16 Lustre 2 bowl 2 -*---* - * * Kashan Lustre-painted Group Three ASH.07 Lustre 3 carinated * * -- - - - ASH.05 Lustre 3 bowl 1 - - - - -- -- - * -- ASH.01 Lustre 3 bowl 1 *---

--------* - ASH.02 Lustre 3 carinated - - - ----------- *- ROM. 11 Lustre3 bowl1 --- * *- * - - - *.. . .. . . ASH.43 Lustre 3 carinated -- -------*-- - - - ---- ---- -- GUL.13 Lustre 3 bicon - - - - - - - * - - ----- -- -- - *- MMA.02 Lustre 3 bowl 1 - - - - - - * - * - - MMA. 12 Lustre 3 carinated- - - - - - - - - -* *- MMA. 34 Lustre 3/4 carinated - ----------------* - * * ..

Kashan Lustre-painted Group Four ASH.46 Lustre 3/4 carinated- - - - - - - - - -* - - * *. BRM.04 Lustre 4 bottle 1179 -* - - - - - - * - - - BRM.06 Minai bowl 1187 ------------* BAH.01 Lustre 4 bottle 1191-AZ-* *

- - - - - - - - *

ASH.63 Lustre 4 dish 3 - - - - - * - - - * * CHC.01 Lustre 4 dish 1191 - ---- ------------- * KHA.02 Lustre 4 dish 1193 ---------------- ------* * GUL.06 Lustre 4 bowl 1 - - - - - - - - * - * * * * - ASH.47 Lustre 4 dish 3 ------*---- - **........ .- ASH.19 Lustre 4 hammer - - - - - - - - * - * * *

-. . * -

MMA.33 Lustre 4 carinated -------------------* * * MMA. 41 Lustre4 carinated *----- ---* * *

Kashan Lustre-painted Groups Five & Six MIK.01 Lustre 5 or 6 bottle 1199 - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - BIP.01 Lustre 5 dish 1199 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * MMA.44 Lustre 5

. .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * *

V&A.07 Lustre 5 plate 1207 ------------------* * * * BOS.01 Lustre 5 star 1208-AZ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * * MMA.18 Lustre6 bowl 1210-SD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- * * - - * - * - FRR.01 Lustre6 plate 1210 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * - * * * - ASH.44 Lustre6 bicon--------- --- - *

. * . .. -. * * . IBM.02 Lustre 5 bowl 1211-MA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- * * * * - - - * - BOS.02 Lustre 5 star 1211-AZ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * *

Motifs: KL1: crescent-rim; KL2: knob-stem; KL3: knob-palmette; K4IA: circle-lam; KL5: calligraphy-back; KL6: calligraphy-rim; KL7: solid-palmette; KL8: big-eye; KL9: pseudo-calligraphy back; KL10: knot; KL11: pineapple; KL12: chequer tree; KL13: sprout-frond; KL14: knot-lam; KLl5: saw-tooth rim; KL16: bracket-line; KL17: ray-dot circle; KL18: inscribed band; KL19: spiral-incised field; KL20: ray-dot palmette; KL21: ray-dot bird; KL22: ray-dot fish; KL23: curled grass 1: KL24: simple lobed frond; KL25: crossed-rays; KL26: cross-field. Signatures: AT - Abu Tahir ibn Muhammad Hamza ibn al-Hasan; AZ - Abu Zaid; Shams al-Din al-Hasani; MA - Muhammad ibn al-Hasan; MN - Muhammad ibn Abi Nasr ibn al-Husaini.




Table 2: Incidence of motif and form: Kashan Lustre-painted sample no. Date (ad) motif

I vessel type | 16 118 120 22 I24 26 \ 28 30 32 34 36 38 140 ceramic type I 117 19 21 123 25 127 29 31 133 135 37 139 141

Kashan Lustre-painted Group Seven MMA.32 Lustre 7 carinated - *------ * --------- ZZZ.07 Lustre7 odd 1214-MN - - * * * * * - * * * V&A.08 Lustre 7 bicon 1217 - - * * ----* KNM.01 Lustre 7 odd 1218 - - * * * * * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - HAA.01 Lustre 7 bowl 1219-AZ - - * * * * * - - * MMA. 13 Lustre 7 bicon - *------ *-------- V&A.09 Lustre 7 bicon MM - * * * - - * * - - -

ASH.10 Lustre 7 dish 3 * - - - * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Kashan Lustre-painted Group "x" KEV.01 Lustre "x" star 1227 -- - - - - - - -

ROM.08 Lustre "x" bicon - - * * *- * - - - - - - - - - - - - - ZZZ.09 Lustre "x" jug 1261 * - * * MMA. 23 Lustre "x" hammer * - *-------- *---

Kashan Lustre-painted Group Eight ASH.45 Lustre 8 dish 3 ------- -------------* * - *------ V&A.02 Lustre 8 star 1262 - - - - - * - * - - * - * - - - - - GUL. 10 Lustre 8 stem -

*--------------* - ----- * *-

LVR.02 Lustre 8 star 1266-7 m---------------------* * - - * - * - V&A.04 Lustre 8 mihrab 1266 - - - - - - - - - - - * - * - * - - - - - - ASH.04 Lustre 8 stem - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -* * - - - - - - - ASH.62 Lustre 8 bowl4 *---- *------- * - - DVD.01 Lustre 8 dish 4 1268 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -* * * * * IBM.01 Lustre 8 mihrab 1268-71 - - - - - - - - - - -- - - * - - - - - *

BRM.11 Lustre 8 jug 1270-1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * - - * V&A.03 Lustre 8 frieze (1270-5) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * - * - * ASH.21 Lustre 8 dish 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * - * * V&A.05 Lustre 8 frieze (1270-5) - - - - - - - - - - - - -* - * - - - * -

ROM.16 Lustre 8 star 1279 -- -----------* * - * ----- GUL. 15 Lustre 8 dish 4 -------------------*-- - * - - MMA.01 Lustre 8 bowl m*-- ------------ - - * - - -

Kashan Lustre-painted Group Nine MMA.31 Lustre 9 yuan bowl - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * - - * - - - * - - GUL. 11 Lustre 9 yuan dish - -------------------------------* - *- ASH.23 Lustre 9 yuan dish --------------------------------* --- * - * - ROM.17 Lustre 9 star 1286--------------------* V&A.01 Lustre 9 frieze 1308 ----------------- - - - BOS.03 Lustre 9 star 1310 --- - -------------------* - * ASH.14 Lustre 9 yuan bowl - - - - - - - - - - - - - * - * * - - ASH.24 Lustre 9 yuan bowl - - - - - - - - - - - - * - - - * * - Kashan Lustre-painted Group Ten MMA.03 Lustre 10 yuan dish *-------- - - -* * ---- -- - - * SVR.01 Lustre 10 tile 1312 - --- - ----- ----------* -----* BRM.01 Lustre 10 tile 1329 -------------------- - - - - - - - * - - - * BRM.02 Lustre 10 tile 1329- - -------- -------------------------* BRM.03 Lustre 10 star 1338 -*----------------- ----

MotifKL16: bracket-line; KL17: ray-dot circle; KL18: inscribed band; KL19: spiral-incised field; KL20: ray-dot palmette; KL21: ray-dot bird; KL22: ray-dot fish; KL23: curled grass 1: KL24: simple lobed frond; KL25: crossed-rays; KL26: cross-field; KL27: spotted-leaf; KL28: curled grass 2; KL29: spiral-leaf; KL30: big-dot frond; KL31: lollipop-flower; KL32: ear-muff incised field; KL33: medallion-back; KL34:dot-line flower, KL35: frog-spawn leaf; KL36: thick-line; KL37: vein-leaf, KL38: fleshy-leaf scroll; KL39: petal-back; KL4A0: frog-spawn band; KL4A 1: bulge-vein leaf Signatures AZ - Abu Zaid; MN - Muhammad ibn Abi Nasr ibn al-Husaini; MM - Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Nishapuri



rtl

H c.

CD t)

CD

CD

CD

0?

2.)

o

CD W)

U)

C)~

C)?

(-

U2

*

,---

Group One Group Two Group Three Group Four i-Five- ceven - Group x x Seven -- iGroup Eight: "Egyptianized" "Calligraphy- "Knot-back" i"Chequer tree" Group Nine Group Ten

back" "Spiral-incised"supergroup

I .a a .o IIII I....-.-. 1a+a-sh ,@ME , S 11 1

__: B lls 1;1 111

-1LL - _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ,

i L I

Bu Tahir Husain Muhaunad ibn Abi Tahir Ali ibn Muhammad Yusuf ibn Ali

SAbu:Tahi_-_ibnMuhammad a . ..R..o 1' * ua uh m al Mdf

Hamza ibn al-Hasan Abu Zaid ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Zaid al-Naqqash All ibn hmad ibn Ali al-Husaini

Muhammad ibm Abi al-Husan al-Muqri Ustad Jamal Naqqash

al-Hasan il~n Arabshah al-Naqqash Abu Muhammad al-Husain

Muhammad ibn Abi Mansur al-Kashi

Muhammad ibi Abi Nasr ibn al-Husaini

Shams al-Din al-Husani

Muhammad ibn Muhammad al:Nishapuri

0

n

0

00

CL

0

5A




Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following for permitting

the sampling and study of their collections for the research reported in this paper: James Allan (Ashmolean Museum), Esin Atil (Ani pottery), Sheila Canby (British Museum), Renata Holod (Rayy pottery) and Jean Soustiel (Kiefer and per- sonal collection). Thanks are also due to M. S. Tite and E. J. Keall for discussions regarding various aspects of this study. Certain aspects of the general study were supported in part by grants from the British School of Archaeology in Iraq and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

IA series of papers for Achaeometry is envisaged for the SEM study (e.g. Mason and Tite 1994).

2 The suggestion of earlier use of stonepaste in Iran (Morgan 1994) is based on two stonepaste vessels which predate the traditional chronology and some textual evidence. The two vessels, one a monochrome moulded piece of a date equivalent to 1139 the second an underglaze-painted piece equivalent to 1166, are easily included in the chronology proposed in this study, which puts introduction of stonepaste into Iran at about 1100. Of the textual evidence, one is considered to be of about 950, although is preserved as part of a compilation written by YXaqilt (1179- 1225), and refers to opaque glass made in Fars. No archaeological evidence is provided to support the existence of this material or for its development into stonepaste. The second reference is by Birfini in a text written in Ghazna and dedicated in c. 1041-50, in which he states that "here" it is possible to make "Chinese pottery" from quartz and clay. As usual, it is possible to debate the meanings of terms, for instance "here" is used in the context of China-could it mean "here" in Ghazna or "here" in the Da-r al-Islim? Birfini's further reference to this technology as being "half-bred, impure Nabateans" may even refer to an origin in Basra. As this is a nebulous account and considerably later than the prototypical practices being used in Iraq, particularly a protostonepaste piece at Raqqa of c. 800 (Mason and Keall in press), and even later than the more common protostonepaste vessels of Egypt (c. 975-1025, Mason and Tite 1994). Given the archaeologically demonstrated continuity of progress from Iraqi practice to full Egyptian development, and the total lack of evidence for earlier stonepaste in Iran, the case for introduction is considered to best fit the evidence. Use of the recently published drawings of the Khalili collection (Grube 1995) is prevented by the realisation that some, at least, are self-evidently inaccurate. The otherwise minor point that they have been published at too small a scale is surmountable, but if some are self-evidently wrong, then what of the rest?

4The biconical bowl (Fig. 5) is thought by some to be derived from metal shapes, but consideration of the sequence of production of elite ceramics in Egypt, Syria and Iran shows a line of continuity from simple conical forms, through the "protobiconical" form, to the later true biconical bowls. This can be particularly noted in the Syrian wares (see Mason forthcoming c).

Bibliography

Adams, R. McC., 1970, "Tell Abu Serifa: A Sassanian Islamic Ceramic Sequence from South Central Iraq", AO VIII, pp. 87- 119.

Allan,J. W., 1971, Medieval Middle Eastern Pottery, Oxford. - 1973, "Abu3l-Qasim's Treatise on Ceramics," Iran XI,

pp. 111-20.

- 1981, "Islamic Ceramics", in Eastern Ceramics and Other Works from the Collection of Gerald Reitlinger, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.

Arnold, D. E., 1985, Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process, Cambridge.

Bahrami, M., 1949, Gurgan Faiences, Le Scribe Egyptien, Cairo. Dimand, M. S., 1949, "Recent Additions to the Near Eastern

Collections", BMMA, VII,January: 136-45. Ettinghausen, R., 1936, "Evidence for the Identification of Kashan

Pottery," Ars Islamica, V. 3, pp. 44-76. - 1939, "Dated Faience", in Pope 1939. Grube, E. J., 1965, "The Art of Islamic Pottery", BMMAIA, XXII,

pp. 209-28. - 1994, Cobalt and Lustre: The First Centuries of Islamic Pottery,

Nour Foundation, Oxford. Hodges, R. and Whitehouse, D. 1982. Mohammed, Charlemagne and

the Origins ofEurope. Gloucester: Duckworth. Homans, G. C., 1961, Social Behaviour: Its Elementary Forms,

Harcourt Brace and World, New York. Jenkins, M., 1977, Oriental Ceramics: The World's Great Collections-

vol. 12 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (Islamic Section), Kodansha, Tokyo.

- 1983, Islamic Art in the Kuwait National Museum, Sotheby's London.

Lane, A., 1947, Early Islamic Pottery, Faber and Faber, London. Mansour Gallery 1979, Exhibition of Islamic Art: Iranian Lustreware of

the Thirteenth Century (catalogue) 13-29 June 1979, Mansour Gallery, London.

Mason, R. B., 1991, "Petrography of Islamic Ceramics", in Recent Developments in Ceramic Petrology, A. Middleton and I. C. Freestone, editors, British Museum Occasional Paper No. 81, London, pp 185-209.

- 1994, Islamic Glazed Pottery 700-1250, D.Phil. diss., University of Oxford.

- 1995a, "New Looks at Old Pots: Results of Recent Multidisciplinary Studies of Pottery from the Islamic World", Muqarnas XII, 1-10.

- 1995b, "Criteria for the Petrographic Characterization of Stonepaste Ceramics", Archaeometry XXXVII 307-22.

- 1996, "The Response I: Petrography and Provenance of Timurid Ceramics, " in L. Golombek, R. B. Mason and G. Bailey, Tamerlane 's Tableware: A New Approach to the Chinoiserie Ceramics of Fifteenth and Sixteenth Century Iran, Mazda Press and Royal Ontario Museum.

- in press a, "Medieval Lustre-Painted and Associated Wares from Egypt: Typology in a Multidisciplinary Study,"Journal of the American Research Centre in Egypt.

- in press b, "Medieval Lustre-Painted and Associated Wares from Syria: Typology in a Multidisciplinary Study." Levant.

- forthcoming, "Early Medieval Lustre-Painted and Associated Wares from Iraq: Typology in a Multidisciplinary Study". Iraq.

Mason, R. B., Bailey, G., and Golombek, L., 1996, "Stylistic Groups and Their Production Centres" in L. Golombek, R. B. Mason and G. Bailey, Tamerlane's Tableware: A New Approach to the Chinoiserie Ceramics of Fifteenth and Sixteenth Century Iran, Mazda Press and Royal Ontario Museum.

Mason, R. B. and E. J. Keall, in press, "Between Basra and Samarra: Petrographic Analysis of Tall Aswad pottery," in ar- Raqqa I. Die Keramik vom Tall Aswad by P. A. Miglus et al. Deutsches Archiaologisches Institut Damaskus.

Mason, R. B. and M. S. Tite, 1994, "The Beginnings of Islamic Stonepaste Technology", Archaeometry 36: 77-91.

Mayor, A. H., 1957, "The Gifts that Made the Museum", BMMA, XVI, November: 97.

Migeon, G., 1907, Manuel d'art musulman, Paris. Miller, D., 1985, Artefacts as Categories: A Study of Ceramic Variability

in Central India, Cambridge. Morgan, P., 1995, "Iranian Stone-Paste Pottery of the Saljuq

Period. Types and Techniques," in E.J. Grube, Cobalt and Lustre:




131

The First Centuries of Islamic pottery, Nour Foundation Oxford: 155-69.

Mota, M. M., 1988, Loucas seljucidas, Lisbon. Peacock, D. B. S., 1982, Pottery in the Roman World: An

Ethnoarchaeological Approach, London: Longman. Pope, A. U., 1937, "New Findings in Persian Ceramics of the

Islamic Period," BAIIAA V, no. 2, pp. 149-69. - 1938, A Survey of Persian Art, vol. V, Oxford University Press. Rice, P. R., 1987, Pottery Analysis- A Sourcebook. Chicago: University

of Chicago Press. Silver, H. R., 1981, "Calculating Risks: The Socioeconomic

Foundations of Aesthetic Innovation in an Ashanti Carving Community," Ethnology XX, pp. 101-14.

Sotheby's, London 1993 lot 60. Watson, 0., 1985, Persian Lustre Ware, Faber and Faber, London.

Appendix: Catalogue of objects studied.

The following is a catalogue of all pottery of Iranian origin used towards this study, although material from some very recently studied sites are omitted. Each site or collection is provided with a three-letter designation, and the samples are ordered in the alphabetical order of these designa- tions so as to enable easy cross-referencing with the text and figures. Together with the numeric sequence for each designation this constitutes the catalogue number of each piece.

In the column headings "Other Numbers"

includes museum accession numbers, field numbers and similar designators. "Class/Type" refers to the typology as developed in this study, and includes Class (AL = alkali-lime glaze, OG = opaque-glaze), Type (Lustre-painted, Underglaze-painted etc), and style (Groups 1 to 10). Colourants other than those specific to the typology are also provided (Cr-b = cromium black, Cu-g = copper green, Cu-t = copper-turquoise, Fe-y = iron yellow, Fe-b = iron brown, Fe-r = iron red, Sb-y = antimony yellow, Mn-b = manganese black, Mn-p = manganese purple), for coloured glazes the colourant precedes the glaze (e.g. Cu-t AL is a turquoise alkali-lime glaze). Colourants are not included for every sample, but every illustrated sample certainly includes this data. (W) after the description signifies that the sample is a waster. "Petrofabric" is defined by Mason, (1994, 1995). Under "Illustration" are columns signifying which illustrative figure in this paper contains the sample, "Full" signifying a full drawing or photograph (Roman numerals) while "Profile" signifies a profile drawing alone. Publication of the sample previously is in the next column, while the last column cites reporting of the results of SEM analysis of the samples.

Catalogue Other Number Number Class/Type ANI: Ani excavations (courtesy Esin Atil) ANI.02 - Lustre ANI.04 - Lustre 2 ANI.05 - UGP ANI.07 - Lustre 2 ANI.10 - Lustre

ASH: Ashmolean collection ASH.01 x3060 Lustre 3 ASH.02 x3064 Lustre 3 ASH.03 x3065 Lustre 2 ASH.04 x3066 Lustre 8 ASH.05 x3119 Lustre 3 ASH.06 x3122 Lustre 2 ASH.07 x3127 Lustre 3 ASH.08 x3128 Lustre 3 ASH. 10 x3443 Lustre 5-6 ASH. 11 343 Lustre ASH.12 1956.28 Lustre 2 ASH.13 1956.51 Lustre 1 ASH.14 1956.68 Lustre 9 ASH.15 1956.108 Lustre 2 ASH.16 1956.118 Lustre 2 ASH.17 1956.169 Lustre ASH.19 1956.172 Lustre 4 ASH.20 1962.118 Lustre 2 ASH.21 1964.62 Lustre 8 ASH.22 1978.1667 "Sultanabad" ASH.23 1978.1669 Lustre 9 ASH.24 1978.1682 Lustre 9 ASH.43 1978.2258 Lustre 3 ASH.44 1978.2263 Lustre 5-6 ASH.45 1978.2268 Lustre 8 ASH.46 1978.2304 Lustre 3

Illustration Published Petrofabric Full Profile Date illustration SEM study

Kashan (?) IV - - -

Kashan(? IV - - -

"Rayy 3" IV - - -

Kashan(?) IV - - - Mason 1994 Kashan(?) IV - - -

- - 7 - - - - 7 -

- VI 6 - - 9 -

- - 8 - - - - 6 - - - 7 - - 6 - - 8 Kashan (?) - - - 6 - V 6 - Mason 1994: Pl. 5a - - XI 9 - Allan 1971: pl. 32 - - 6 - - 6 - Mason 1994: P. 5c - - - 8 - - 7 - - - - 6 - - 9 -

"Rayy" - 9 - - 9 - Allan 1981: No 320 - - - 9 -

- - 8 - - - - 9 - - 7




Catalogue Other Illustration Published Number Number Class/Type Petrofabric Full Profile Date illustration SEM study ASH.47 1978.2308 Lustre 4 - - 7 ASH.48 1978.2317 Lustre 2 - - - - - Mason 1994 ASH.49 1978.2320 Iran Kashan(?) -- - - -

ASH.51 1978.2338 AL UGP Cr-b, Co-b "Rayy 3" 3 10 - - Mason 1994 ASH.52 1978.2346 AL UGP CR-b, Co-b - 3 - - - Mason 1994 ASH. 54 1978.2370 Lustre 1 Kashan(?) - 6 - - Mason 1994 ASH.57 1978.2422 AL "Silhouette" Cr-b Gurgan(?) 3 - - - Mason 1994 ASH.58 1978.2425 AL UGP Cr-b, Co-b Gurgan(?) 3 10 - - Mason 1994 ASH.59 1978.2497r AL UGP Cr-b, Co-b "Rayy 3" - 10 - - ASH.60 1978.2498r AL UGP Cr-b, Co-b "Rayy 3" 3 10 - Mason 1994 P1. 5x Mason 1994 ASH.61 1978.2498b AL UGP Cr-b, Co-b Gurgan(?) - 10 - Mason 1994 P1. 5x ASH.62 1992.75 Lustre 8 Kashan(?) - 9 - - Mason 1994 ASH.63 1992.81 Lustre 4 - - 7 - - ASH.64 1992.82 Lustre 1 Kashan(?) - 6 - - Mason 1994 ASH.65 1992.99 Cu-t AL "Silhouette" Cr-b Kashan(?) - - -

BAH: Bahrami collection (source: publication) BAH.01 - Lustre 4 - - - 587/1191 Bahrami 1949: P1. 9b -

BIP: British Institute of Persian Studies (source: publication) BIP.01 - Lustre 5-6 - - - 595/1199 Watson 1985: P1. 55 -

BOS: Boston (source: publication) BOS.01 07.6705 Lustre 5-6 - - - 607/1210 Watson 1985: P1. 107 - BOS.02 07.9036 Lustre 5-6 - - - 608/1211 Watson 1985: P1. 106 - BOS.03 31.729 Lustre 9 - - - 710/1310 Watson 1985: P1. 119 -

BRM: British Museum BRM.01 - Lustre 9 - - - 729/1329 Pope 1938: P1. 723D - BRM.02 1907 6.10 2 Lustre 9 - - - 729/1329 Pope 1938: P1. 723C - BRM.03 OA+1123 Lustre 9 - - - 739/1338 Watson 1985: P1. 122 - BRM.04 1920 2-26 1 Lustre 4 - - - 575/1179 Watson 1985: P1. 37 - BRM.06 1945 10-17 261 Minai - - - 583/1187 Pope 1938: P1. 688 -

BRM.11 G.1983.242 Lustre 8 - - - 669/1270-1 Pope 1938: P1. 718.B - BRM.12 1928 4-21,1 Lustre 7 - - 8 - - BRM.14 1952 2-14 2 UGP - - - 610/1213-4 Pope 1938: P1. 734 -

CHC: Art Museum of Chicago (source: publication) CHC.01 - Lustre 4 - - - 587/1191 Pope 1938: P1. 638

DVD: David Collection, Copenhagen (source: publication) DVD.01 ISL.96 Lustre 8 - - - 667/1268 Watson 1985: P1. 89a -

FRR: Freer Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution (source: publication) FRR.01 41.11 Lustre 5-6 - - - 607/1210 Watson 1985: P1. 63 -

GHB: Ghubeyra excavations (source: publication) GHB.01 973.16.41 Lustre Kashan(?) - GHB.02 973.16.60 Mn-p AL Mono Kashan(?) - GHB.03 973.16.74 Lustre Kashan(?) - GHB.04 973.16.75 Lustre Kashan(?) - GHB.05 973.16.77 Cu-t AL Mono Kashan(?) 2 GHB.06 973.16.85a Cu-t OG Mono Kashan(?) -- - - -

GHB.07 973.16.85e 1 Mn-p AL Mono Kashan(?) 2 - - -

GHB.08 973.16.85e 2 Cu-t AL Mono Kashan(?) 2 - - -

GHB.09 973.16.85e 3 Co-b AL Mono Kashan(?) 2 - - -

GHB.10 973.16.85e 4 Mn-p AL Mono Kashan(?) - - - -

GHB.11 973.16.85e 5 Mono Kashan(?) - GHB.12 973.16.85e 6 Mono Kashan(?) - GHB.13 973.16.85e 7 Cu-t AL Mono Kashan(?) - GHB.14 973.16.85e 8 Cu-t/g AL Mono Kashan(?) - GHB.15 973.16.115 Mn-p AL Mono Kashan(?)

-.. GRG: Gurgan excavations (Ashmolean Museum) GRG.10 P9542 Cu-t AL Mono Kashan(?)

-.- GRG.11 P9543 Cu-t AL Mono Kashan(?) -.. GRG.12 P9544 Cu-tAL Mono Gurgan(?) 3 -

GRG.13 P9545 Cu-tAL Mono Kashan(?) 2 -

GRG.14 P9546 Cu-t AL Mono - - - - - Mason 1994 GRG.15 P9547 Cu-t AL Mono Kashan (?)

-.. GUL: Gulbenkian collection (source: publication) GUL.01O 135 Minai - - 10 - Mota 1988: No. 16 - GUL.02 300 Minai - - 10 - Mota 1988: No. 17 -




133

Catalogue Other Illustration Published Number Number Class/Type Petrofabric Full Profile Date illustration SEM study GUL.03 301 Lustre 3 - - 7 - Mota 1988: No. 2 - GUL.04 302 Lajvardina - - 10 - Mota 1988: No. 18 - GUL.06 893 Lustre 4 - - 7 - Mota 1988: No. 1 - GUL.07 897 Minai - - 10 - Mota 1988: No. 19 - GUL.08 901 UGP - - 10 - Mota 1988: No. 33 - GUL.09 902 UGP - - 10 - Mota 1988: No. 34 - GUL.10 906 Lustre 8 - - 9 - Mota 1988: No. 3 - GUL.11 923 Lustre 9 - - 9 - Mota 1988: No. 4 - GUL.12 932 Minai - - 10 - Mota 1988: No. 21 - GUL.13 933 Lustre 3 - - 7 - Mota 1988: No. 8 - GUL.14 938 Minai - - 10 - Mota 1988: No. 25 - GUL.15 947 Lustre 8 - - 9 - Mota 1988: No. 9 -

HAA: Haag HAA.01 OC(1)55-1932 Luster 5-6 - - - 616/12197 Watson 1985: P1. 67 -

IBM: Bastam Museum, Tehran (source: publication) IBM.01 3289 Lustre 8 - - - 667-70/ Watson 1985: P1. 113 -

- 1268-71 IBM.02 82248 Lustre 5-6 - - - 608/1211 Watson 1985: P1. F -

KEV: Kiev Museum (source: publication) KEV.01 Pope.722D Lustre "x" - - - 624/1227 Pope 1938: Pl. 722D -

KHA: Khalili collection (source: publication) KHA.01 -9 Lustre 1 - - - - Watson 1985: P1. 16 - KHA.02 - Lustre 4 - - - 590/1193 Watson 1985: P1. 39 -

KNM: Kuwait National Museum KNM.01 LNS 210C Lustre 5-6 - - - - Jenkins 1983: 54

LVR: Louvre, Paris (source: publication) LVR.01 MAO 485 Lustre 1 - - - - Watson 1985: Pl. 20 - LVR.02 6319 Lustre 8 - - - 664-5/ Watson 1985: Pl. 110 -

- 1266-7

MIK: Museum fur Islamische Kunst, Berlin (source: publication) MIK.01 1 46/70 Lustre 5-6 - - - 595/1199 Watson 1985: Pl. 54 -

MMA: Metropolitan Museum of Art MMA.01 09.22.1 OG Lustre 8 igl Co-b, Cu-t {Kashan} - 9 - - MMA.02 10.44.3 AL Lustre 3 IKashan) - 7 - - MMA.03 10.44.4 OG Lustre 10 {Kashan} - 9 - - MMA.06 12.206.1 OG Minai (Kashan} - 10 - - MMA.07 16.87 OG Lustre 1 {Kashan) - 6 - Jenkins 1977: Fig. 84 - MMA.08 19.105.2 AL (Co-b rev) Lustre 2 IKashan} - 6 - - MMA.11 20.120.54 Co-b OG Lustre 1/2 {Kashan} - 6 - - MMA.12 20.120.79 OG Lustre 3 {Kashan} - 7 - Migeon 1907: Fig. 210 MMA.13 20.120.89 OG Lustre 7 {Kashan} - 8 - Pope 1939: P1. 720A - MMA.14 21.49.1 Cu-t OG Minai (Kashan} - 10 - - MMA.15 27.13.9 OG Lustre 7 igl Co-b {Kashan} - 8 - - MMA.16 35.52.3 OG Lustre 2

IKashan} - 6 - Lane 1947: P1. 58b -

MMA.18 41.119.1 Lustre 5-6 IKashan) - - 607/1210 Watson 1985 MMA.19 41.139 OG Lustre 1 {Kashan} - 6 - - MMA.23 41.199.3 OG Lustre 8 (Kashan) - 9 - Mayor 1957: p. 97 MMA.31 48.113.20 OG Lustre 8 (Kashan) - 9 - - MMA.32 48.113.21 OG Lustre 7 {Kashan} - 8 - Mayor 1957: p. 97 MMA.33 48.113.22 OG Lustre 4 {Kashan} - 7 - - MMA.34 48.113.23 OG Lustre 3/4 {Kashan} - 7 - - MMA.41 56.185.13 OG Lustre 4 {Kashan} - 7 - Jenkins 1977 MMA.42 57.36.2 OG Minai {Kashan} - 10 - Pope 1939: P1. 672 - MMA.43 61.40 OG Lustre 7 {Kashan} - 8 - - MMA.44 62.226 OG Lustre 5? (B&L) {Kashan} - 8 - - MMA.45 63.16.1 Cu-t AL Co-b, Cr-b UGP - - 10 - Grube 1965: Fig. 29 - MMA.47 63.158.1 OG Lustre 2 {Kashan}

- 6 - Grube 1965: Fig. 20 - MMA.49 64.60.3 OG (Co-b AL rev) Lustre 2 (Kashan} - 6 - Grube 1965: Fig. 21 - MMA.51 64.178.1 OG Minai (Kashan} - - - Grube 1965: Fig. 30 - MMA.52 64.178.2 OG Minai {Kashan} - 10 - Pope 1939: P1. 686 - MMA.53 64.178.2 OG Minai {Kashan} - 10 - Pope 1939: P1. 686 - MMA.54 64.256 Iran AL Co-b, CR-b UGP - - 10 - Jenkins 1977: Fig. 87 - MMA.58 64.301 Kashan OG Lustre IKashan} - 9 - -




Catalogue Other Illustration Published Number Number Class/Type Petrofabric Full Profile Date illustration SEM study MMA.60 68.215.10 Kashan OG Lustre 7 {Kashan) - 8 - - MMA.61 69.186 Iran AL Co-b, Cr-b UGP - - 10 - - MMA.67 1979.462.1 Kashan OG Lustre 7 {Kashan} - 8 - -

ROM: Royal Ontario Museum collection ROM.05 946.66.10 Lustre 5-7 - - 8 - - ROM.06 946.66.22e "Willow-scroll" Kashan (?) - - - -

ROM.07 951.1.1 Minai Kashan (?) - 10 - - ROM.08 956.169 Lustre "x" - - - - ROM.10 959.187.39 UGP - - 10 - - ROM.11 959.187.40 Lustre 3 - VII 7 - - ROM.12 959.187.46 Minai Kashan (?) - 10 ROM.16 961x167.1 Lustre 8 - IX - 678/1279 - ROM.17 961x167.3 Lustre 9 - X - 685/1286-7 - ROM.19 L985.13.2 "Fenestrated" "Rayy 3" 3 - - -

ROM.20 925.13.81 Minai - - 10 - - ROM.21 946.66.9 Minai - - 10 - - ROM.22 959.187.17 Minai - - 10 - - ROM.23 972.339 Lustre 8 - VIII 9 - -

RYY: Rayy excavations RYY.6 RB1022/5? Lustre Kashan(?) I - - - Mason 1994 RYY.7 RB1136/1 Lustre Kashan(?) I - - - Mason 1994 RYY.8 RG3360 Lustre Kashan(?) I/2 - - - Mason 1994 RYY.9 RD2200 Lustre Kashan(?) I/2 - - - Mason 1994 RYY.10 - Lustre Kashan (?) I - - -

RYY.11 RG8243 Lustre Kashan(?) I/2 - - - Mason 1994 RYY.12 - Cu-t AL Mono - II - - -

RYY.13 FV1032/9 Cu-t AL Mono Kashan(?) 3 - - -

RYY.14 RB1135/? Cu-t AL Mono "Rayy 4" II - - -

RYY.19 RG8526 AL Mono "Rayy 3" II - - -

RYY.25 RG7888 Minai Kashan (?) III - - -

RYY.26 RCH1232/2 Minai Kashan(?) III - - - Mason 1994 RYY.27 - Minai Kashan (?) III - - -

RYY.28 RG8352/2 Minai Kashan(?) III - - -

RYY.29 RCH584/17 Minai Kashan(?) III - - - Mason 1994 RYY.30 RD3068 Minai Kashan (?) III - - -

RYY.39 RF3228 Cu-t OG Mono Kashan (?) II - - -

RYY.48 - Lajvardina? Rayy III - - -

RYY.49 - Cu-t AL Mono (W) Rayy 3 - - -

SMK: Samarqand: Institute of Archaeology and Samarqand Museum SMK.13 A108.5 Lustre Kashan(?) -- - - -

SMK 14 A108.9 Lustre Kashan (?) - - - -

SRF: Siraf excavations (Royal Ontario Museum) SRF.18 986.407.620 Lustre Kashan (?) - - - -

SRF.19 986.407.850 Lustre Kashan(?) -- - - -

SRJ: Sirjan survey and excavations (Ashmolean Museum) SRJ.15 1 (35-1) AL Mono Co-b splashed Kashan(?) 2 - - -

SRJ.16 50.1 Mono Kashan(?) -- - - -

SRJ.17 50.2 Mono Kashan(?) -- - - -

SRJ.18 50.4 Mono Maybud - - -

SRJ.19 WS.1 Cu-t AL Mono Kashan (?) - - -

SRJ.20 WS.2 Cu-t Mono Kashan(?) 2 - -

STL: Soustiel collection (including Kiefer collection) STL.02 rim Minai Kashan (?) - STL.03 appliq Minai Kashan(?)

-.. STL.04 lion Minai Kashan (?) -.. STL.05 base Minai Kashan (?) -..

SVR: Sevres SVR.01 22688 Lustre 9 - - - 711/1312 Watson 1985: P1. 124 -

V8cA: Victoria and Albert Museum V&A.01 1495-1876 Lustre 9 - - - 707/1308 Watson 1985: P1. 116 - V&A.02 1837-1876 Lustre 8 - - - 661/1262 Watson 1985: P1. K - V&A.03 1841-1876 Lustre 8 - - - 1270-5 Watson 1985: P1. La - V&A.04 469-1888 Lustre 8 - - - 665/1266 Watson 1985: P1. 111 - V&A.05 541-1900 Lustre 8 - - - 1270-5 Watson 1985: P1. Lb -




135

Catalogue Other illustration Published Number Number Class/Type Petrofabric Full Profile Date illustration SEM study V&A.07 C51-1952 Lustre 5-6 - - - 604/1207 Watson 1985: Pl. E - V&A.08 C160-1977 Lustre 5-6 - - - 614/1217 Watson 1985: Pl. 70 - V&A.09 C162-197710 Lustre 5-7 - - 9 - Watson 1985: Pl. G - V&A.10 C163-1977 Lustre 5-7 - - 9 - Watson 1985: Fig. 4 - ZZZ: Miscellaneous private collections ZZZ.01 - "Blue-line" "Rayy 3" - - - Sotheby's 1993: lot 60 - ZZZ.02 CALT 2 Lustre Kashan (?) - ZZZ.04 Ades Colln Lustre 5-6 - - - - Watson 1985: Pl. 78 ZZZ.05 - Minai - - - - Pope 1938: Pl. 689 - ZZZ.06 Etchecopar Lustre 5-6 - - - 611/1214 Watson 1985: Pl. 74a - ZZZ.08 Mansour Lustre "x" - - - 660/1261 Mansour 1979 - ZZZ.09 Tilinger Lustre 5-6 - - - 607/1210 Bahrami 1949: Pl. 61 -

NOTES 5. Signed by Abu Zaid. 6. Signed by Abu Zaid. 7. Abu Zaid. 8. Signed Muhammad ibn Abi al-Husain. 9. Signed Abu Tahir ibn Muhammad Hamza ibn al-Hasan.

10. Inscribed by Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Nishapuri.



Documents

Mediaeval Iranian Lustre-painted and Associated Wares: Typology in a multidisciplinary study