.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
Visitors arriving at the courts of Indian rulers from the 17th century onwards were unanimously impressed by their material splendour. The lavishness of the interiors that greeted them, highlighted with small accents provided by enamelled and jewelled vessels and utensils, has been recorded time and again. Sir Thomas Roe, who was sent as an embassy to Jahangir in 1615-18 described the Mughal court as 'the treasury of the world' (Susan Strong, Nima Smith and J.C.Harle, A Golden Treasury. Jewellery from the Indian Subcontinent, London, 1989, p.27). The present lot, as well as the others from the same collection (lots 43-50) are examples of the type of jewelled object that would have created this rich impression. Such objects were a way of expressing wealth, and by implication status and military prowess. As discussed in the note to lot 50, the styles used in many of these jewelled objects, including the bright enamels and kundan technique of inlaying stones, spread across the subcontinent and were used not only in the imperial Mughal court, but also in local centres.
In India metal objects, and particularly gold, was habitually melted down if damaged or if fashions changed. The invasion of Nadir Shah of India in 1739 saved for posterity a number of jewelled pieces which he either took back to Iran as booty or, in an overt display, sent with embassies to the rulers of Russian and Turkey. These however constitute the only substantial group of royal Mughal decorative arts in gold to have survived - the St. Petersburg items comprise the largest group of Mughal jewelled objects which survive together. Zebrowski writes that nothing survives in India itself (Mark Zebrowski, Gold, Silver and Bronze from Mughal India, London, 1997, p.52). The present group therefore represents an important addition to the known cache of jewelled objects of imperial quality.
This fine set of jewelled lidded bowl and stand is an impressively complete survival. In his article entitled 'The Jewelled Objects of Hindustan', Assadullah Souren Melikian- Chirvani, writes that no complete set of jewelled bowl-shaped wine cup with matching cover and salver has been recorded (Assadullah Souren Melikian-Chirvani, 'The Jewelled Objects of Hindustan', Jewellery Studies, Vol. X, London, 2004, p.16). Although too large for a wine vessel, this present set adds an interesting comparison to the small group and a suggestion of what comparables would have looked like.
The technique of translucent green champlevé enamelling that covers engraved designs, found on the underside of the lid and stand of this box is similar to that found on an octagonal box attributed to North India, circa 1700, which is in the Khalili Collection (Pedro Moura Carvalho, Gems and Jewels of Mughal India. The Nasser D. Khalili Collection of Islamic Art, London, 2010, pp.26-7, no. 3). There the undersides are carved with central flowerheads within a lattice of leafy lozenges. A more inventive design is seen on a small box, also in the Khalili collection (Pedro Moura Carvalho, op. cit., pp.30-1, no.4) where the interior of the lid is engraved in a similar style with engraved overlapping leaves. The present engraving is reminiscent of the Khalili octagonal box with the leaf lattice. However on the present example, this surrounds the playful figure of a lion. Like the Khalili examples the quality of the decoration is rarely observed in extant pieces and suggests a possible royal commission.
The floral sprays that adorn the sides of the vessel recall those on the sides of a Mughal huqqa set, formerly of the Clive of India Treasure and now in the Museum of Islamic Art, Doha. In that example, a lattice of similar isolated diamond-set floral sprays, each with five petals and issuing two leaves decorated the blue enamelled ground. That set was attributed to Lucknow, circa 1750 on the basis of the colours of the enamels found under the base. For a short note on the techniques used for this group, please see the note to lot 49. A discussion on the Deccani or Mughal attribution can be found in the note to the jewelled parrot, lot 50.
In India metal objects, and particularly gold, was habitually melted down if damaged or if fashions changed. The invasion of Nadir Shah of India in 1739 saved for posterity a number of jewelled pieces which he either took back to Iran as booty or, in an overt display, sent with embassies to the rulers of Russian and Turkey. These however constitute the only substantial group of royal Mughal decorative arts in gold to have survived - the St. Petersburg items comprise the largest group of Mughal jewelled objects which survive together. Zebrowski writes that nothing survives in India itself (Mark Zebrowski, Gold, Silver and Bronze from Mughal India, London, 1997, p.52). The present group therefore represents an important addition to the known cache of jewelled objects of imperial quality.
This fine set of jewelled lidded bowl and stand is an impressively complete survival. In his article entitled 'The Jewelled Objects of Hindustan', Assadullah Souren Melikian- Chirvani, writes that no complete set of jewelled bowl-shaped wine cup with matching cover and salver has been recorded (Assadullah Souren Melikian-Chirvani, 'The Jewelled Objects of Hindustan', Jewellery Studies, Vol. X, London, 2004, p.16). Although too large for a wine vessel, this present set adds an interesting comparison to the small group and a suggestion of what comparables would have looked like.
The technique of translucent green champlevé enamelling that covers engraved designs, found on the underside of the lid and stand of this box is similar to that found on an octagonal box attributed to North India, circa 1700, which is in the Khalili Collection (Pedro Moura Carvalho, Gems and Jewels of Mughal India. The Nasser D. Khalili Collection of Islamic Art, London, 2010, pp.26-7, no. 3). There the undersides are carved with central flowerheads within a lattice of leafy lozenges. A more inventive design is seen on a small box, also in the Khalili collection (Pedro Moura Carvalho, op. cit., pp.30-1, no.4) where the interior of the lid is engraved in a similar style with engraved overlapping leaves. The present engraving is reminiscent of the Khalili octagonal box with the leaf lattice. However on the present example, this surrounds the playful figure of a lion. Like the Khalili examples the quality of the decoration is rarely observed in extant pieces and suggests a possible royal commission.
The floral sprays that adorn the sides of the vessel recall those on the sides of a Mughal huqqa set, formerly of the Clive of India Treasure and now in the Museum of Islamic Art, Doha. In that example, a lattice of similar isolated diamond-set floral sprays, each with five petals and issuing two leaves decorated the blue enamelled ground. That set was attributed to Lucknow, circa 1750 on the basis of the colours of the enamels found under the base. For a short note on the techniques used for this group, please see the note to lot 49. A discussion on the Deccani or Mughal attribution can be found in the note to the jewelled parrot, lot 50.