.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
The form of this bowl is one that had been popular throughout the Mamluk period, but it is clearly one of the rare examples dating from the last few decades before the Ottoman invasion in 1517. The most spectacular surviving example from this period is a bowl made for Sultan Qaitbay, now in the Turk ve Islam Museum in Istanbul which retains almost all the original silver and gold overlay (inv.no.TIEM 2959; Ahmet Ertug and Oleg Grabar, In Pursuit of Excellence, Works of Art from the Museum of Turkish and Islamic Arts, Istanbul, 1993, pp.107-9; also Sheila S. Blair and Jonathan Bloom, The Art and Architecture of Islam 1250-1800, New Haven, 1994, no.142, p.111). Another fine example made for the same patron is in the Victoria and Albert Museum (inv.1325-1856; Tim Stanley, Miriam Rosser-Owen and Stephen Vernoit, Palace and Mosque: Islamic Art from the Middle East, London, 2004, p.56, p.98, p.134 and plate 112), while a third, more rubbed, is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (inv.91.1.565; Esin Atil, Renaissance of Islam. Art of the Mamluks, exhibition catalogue, Washington D.C., 1981, no. 35, pp.102-3). Similar bowls made for lesser patrons but sharing the same decorative elements are in the Musée des arts décoratifs (no.20254, L’Islam dans les collections nationales, 1977, no.100, p.81), and one sold in these Rooms 23 April 2015, lot 25.
With its vertical panels terminating with lower rounded elements our bowl copies the same format as these others, but using engraving rather than repoussé work. This also has the effect of breaking the entire decoration up into small panels. This is a feature, albeit in less rectilinear fashion, that is found on a basin made for Sultan Qansuh al-Ghuri sold in these Rooms 26 April 2012, lot 131.
The technique used here is extremely unusual in a Mamluk bowl. At first glance the bowl appears to be a brass bowl that was originally intended to be overlaid, and the overlay has now, as is frequently the case, disappeared. However, in this late Mamluk period it seems that various different approaches were taken to the surface inlay or overlay. The Metropolitan Museum bowl noted above, similarly engraved, is only overlaid with silver dots. On our bowl there are extensive remains of gilding remaining in all areas that are not raised. That the Mamluks occasionally gilded bowls is demonstrated by a large gilt copper bowl sold in these Rooms 17 April 2007, lot 25. It seems probable that the gilding here covered the entire bowl and that the black composition was then applied to enhance the very finely engraved design and make it stand out. The original impact must have been very comparable to that of the Qaitbay bowl in Istanbul noted at the beginning of this essay.
Another remarkable feature of this bowl is the decoration on the underside. This raises a question about the use of such bowls, and whether it changed over time. Another very finely decorated underside was on a bowl from the Edward Falkener Collection sold in these Rooms 25 April 1997, lot 172; the base of the Istanbul Qaitbay bowl is clearly as spectacular as the sides. Did the function of such vessels subtly change in the later 15th century so that the underside became more frequently exposed and therefore was thought to need more decoration?
With its vertical panels terminating with lower rounded elements our bowl copies the same format as these others, but using engraving rather than repoussé work. This also has the effect of breaking the entire decoration up into small panels. This is a feature, albeit in less rectilinear fashion, that is found on a basin made for Sultan Qansuh al-Ghuri sold in these Rooms 26 April 2012, lot 131.
The technique used here is extremely unusual in a Mamluk bowl. At first glance the bowl appears to be a brass bowl that was originally intended to be overlaid, and the overlay has now, as is frequently the case, disappeared. However, in this late Mamluk period it seems that various different approaches were taken to the surface inlay or overlay. The Metropolitan Museum bowl noted above, similarly engraved, is only overlaid with silver dots. On our bowl there are extensive remains of gilding remaining in all areas that are not raised. That the Mamluks occasionally gilded bowls is demonstrated by a large gilt copper bowl sold in these Rooms 17 April 2007, lot 25. It seems probable that the gilding here covered the entire bowl and that the black composition was then applied to enhance the very finely engraved design and make it stand out. The original impact must have been very comparable to that of the Qaitbay bowl in Istanbul noted at the beginning of this essay.
Another remarkable feature of this bowl is the decoration on the underside. This raises a question about the use of such bowls, and whether it changed over time. Another very finely decorated underside was on a bowl from the Edward Falkener Collection sold in these Rooms 25 April 1997, lot 172; the base of the Istanbul Qaitbay bowl is clearly as spectacular as the sides. Did the function of such vessels subtly change in the later 15th century so that the underside became more frequently exposed and therefore was thought to need more decoration?