.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
This delicate tankard (hanap) is a fine example of the tombak production of the late 16th/early 17th century.
It is closely related to two examples, one in Keir Collection (no.110;, Claus-Peter Haase (ed.), A Collector’s Fortune, Islamic Art from the Collection of Edmund de Unger, Berlin, 2007, p.129) and the other in the Museum Kunstpalast in Düsseldorf (KM16160; Diplomaten und Wesire. Krieg und Frieden im Spiegel Türkischen Kunsthandwerks, exhibition catalogue, Munich, 1988, no.51, p.86). All these vessels are roughly of the same size and decorated with notably deeply carved floral design. All are completed with a matching lid and have a lower band filled with vegetal scrolls and flowers contained within cartouches. The Düsseldorf tankard differs in that it is partly decorated with blue enamel. Ours, and that in the Keir Collection are both however monochrome and there is no indication that they would ever have had similar enamel decoration. Another similar example, now in the Walters Art Gallery bears a similar decoration, with intricate foliage all around the body The lower band, however, is decorated with a continuous flow of scrolls and is not divided into sections like ours. It is also now lacking the lid (54.512, Yanni Petsopoulos (ed.), Tulips, Arabesques and Turbans. Decorative Arts from the Ottoman Empire, London, 1982, no.4, p.20). Interestingly part of its central body is decorated with plain cartouches with benedictory inscriptions. The presence of a benedictory inscription, whilst is not unusual on Islamic metalwork, is not common on tombak pieces. Esin Atil writes that “it is possible that the prosaic inscriptions were an afterthought and these cartouches were originally intended to have more elaborate designs, such as applied filigree panels or enameled designs” (Esin Atil, The Age of Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent, exhibition catalogue, Washington, 1987, p,122).
The decoration on our tankard is denser and more intricate in comparison with the few other known examples. Whilst in the Walter’s tankard the space was densely but freely decorated, in our example, there was clearly an intention to divide and regularize the space. There are no plain cartouches or big trees which break the rhythm of the decoration.
It is closely related to two examples, one in Keir Collection (no.110;, Claus-Peter Haase (ed.), A Collector’s Fortune, Islamic Art from the Collection of Edmund de Unger, Berlin, 2007, p.129) and the other in the Museum Kunstpalast in Düsseldorf (KM16160; Diplomaten und Wesire. Krieg und Frieden im Spiegel Türkischen Kunsthandwerks, exhibition catalogue, Munich, 1988, no.51, p.86). All these vessels are roughly of the same size and decorated with notably deeply carved floral design. All are completed with a matching lid and have a lower band filled with vegetal scrolls and flowers contained within cartouches. The Düsseldorf tankard differs in that it is partly decorated with blue enamel. Ours, and that in the Keir Collection are both however monochrome and there is no indication that they would ever have had similar enamel decoration. Another similar example, now in the Walters Art Gallery bears a similar decoration, with intricate foliage all around the body The lower band, however, is decorated with a continuous flow of scrolls and is not divided into sections like ours. It is also now lacking the lid (54.512, Yanni Petsopoulos (ed.), Tulips, Arabesques and Turbans. Decorative Arts from the Ottoman Empire, London, 1982, no.4, p.20). Interestingly part of its central body is decorated with plain cartouches with benedictory inscriptions. The presence of a benedictory inscription, whilst is not unusual on Islamic metalwork, is not common on tombak pieces. Esin Atil writes that “it is possible that the prosaic inscriptions were an afterthought and these cartouches were originally intended to have more elaborate designs, such as applied filigree panels or enameled designs” (Esin Atil, The Age of Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent, exhibition catalogue, Washington, 1987, p,122).
The decoration on our tankard is denser and more intricate in comparison with the few other known examples. Whilst in the Walter’s tankard the space was densely but freely decorated, in our example, there was clearly an intention to divide and regularize the space. There are no plain cartouches or big trees which break the rhythm of the decoration.