.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
The inscription around the fish-pond reads:
al-'izz li-mawlana al-sultan al-a'zam malik-i riqab al-umam al-sultan , salatin al-'arab w'al-'ajam , al-kamil al-fazil (la) al-mu'ayyad al-mujahid al-'alim
(Glory to our Lord, the great Sultan, the master who curbs all nations, the Sultan of [all] the sultans of the Arabs and the Persians, the perfect one, the learned, the one assisted [by God], the holy warrior, the intelligent).
The inscription written in separate words around the interior walls below the animals reads:
'amal-i 'abd , al-da'if , haji , muhi , al-kafani(?)
(The work of the servant of the weak Hajji Muhi al-Kafani)
This remarkable bowl has a quality of drawing almost never encountered on Persian metalwork of the mediaeval period. Instead of the single figure compositions, most of which are fairly stiff, we see here a complexity of composition, particularly in the main band, which is outstanding. One of the very few pieces whose style comes close is a massive tray in the Fine Arts Museum, Tiblisi (Loukonine, Vladimir and Ivanov, Anatoli: L'Art Persan, Bournemouth and Saint Peteresburg, 1995, no.147, p.155; for a drawing of the figural roundel in the centre see Komaroff, Linda: The Golden Disc of Heaven, Metalwork of Timurid Iran, Costa Mesa, California, 1992, fig.4, p.11). In contrast to most pieces, these share a vitality of figural style, an interrelation between animated indiviuduals within the composition, an overlapping of various figures by others rather than each being in its own space, a great variety of headdresses and detailing of costumes.
The great abundance of detail within the figural scenes enables the similarities between this and the great Mongol manuscripts to be very apparent. The arab style wrapped turbans, passing also under the chin in the hunting scenes are also seen in the World History of Rashid al-Din (Blair, Sheila A.: A Compendium of Chronicles, London, 1995, fig.34, p.69 for example). Similarly the energy of the horsemen in battle resembles that of some of the miniatures in the 'Demotte' Shahnameh, such as one in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris (Sakisian, Armenag: La Miniature Persane du XII au XVII siècle, Paris and Bruxelles, 1929, fig.31). Mongol headdresses can clearly be seen in the procession; it appears that the front half of the procession has four figures wearing fur-trimmed hats (for comparison in the 'Demotte' Shahnameh see the attendant figures in the scene of the enthronement of Shah Zav (Lowry, Glenn D. and Namazee, Susan: A Jeweller's Eye: Islamic Arts of the Book from the Vever Collection, Washington D.C., 1988, pl.10, pp.82-3). Many others can similarly be compared to minitures of the time.
The central figure in the procession has an even more significant headdress; she appears to be a woman. The headdress is very similar to that worn by Roudaba leaning out of her window waiting for Zal to scale the wall in another miniature from the 'Demotte' Shahnameh (Sakisian, Armenag: op.cit, fig.36). This would appear to be confirmed by the three figures above and behind the palanquin, one of whom wears the same headdress, another of whom has an even more certainly female headdress, while the third has gone to extraordinary lengths to cover her face. Two further female attendants are near the back of the train. This makes it almost certain that a particular historical event is depicted here. That there was a tradition of giving women prominence in some artistic decorative schemes is shown by two other inlaid brass vessels. A candlestick in the name of Jamal al-Din Abu Ishaq, the same patron as lot 266, shows an enthroned woman with female attendants (Allan, J.W.: 'The Candlestick of Abu Ishaq Inju', in Fullerton, A. and Fehervari, G.: Kuwait Arts and Architecture, a Collection of Essays, Kuwait, 1995, pp.66-75; detail reproduced in Hillenbrand, R.: Islamic Art and Architecture, London, 1999, pl.160, p.205), while a bowl formerly in the Harari Collection shows a princess with attendants in one of the roundels (Pope, Arthur Upham: A Survey of Persian Art, Oxford University Press, 1938, pl.1366D).
The bowl, by comparison to manuscripts, would appear to date from the second quarter of the 14th century. This would accord with the dating given by Komaroff to the Tiblisi dish mentioned above, although Loukonine and Ivanov opt for the first quarter of the century. The shape of the bowl and the decorative frieze around the rim are both very similar to a bowl in the Victoria and Albert Museum dated by Melikian to the late 14th century (Melikian-Chirvani, A.S.: Islamic Metalwork from the Iranian World, 8th-18th centuries, London, 1982, no.102, pp.220-221). The decorative frieze with its meandering lotus design is also found on a candlestick dated 1360-61, formerly in the Harari Collection (Pope, A.U.: op.cit, pl.1371). One other Fars bowl has been published from the Victoria and Albert Museum Collection which has the figural decoration in a continuous frieze (Pope, A.U.: op.cit., pl.1368; Melikian-Chirvani, op.cit, no.104, pp.223-9). The figures are all conceived separately against a band of vegetation; the composition appears slightly stiff in comparison to ours. The Victoria and Albert Museum is interesting in that it also bears a signature and the date of 752 (1351-2 AH).
The interior of this bowl is a tour de force. Working to the precise detail combined with force needed to engrave and inlay the interior walls of this bowl is an extraordinary achievement. There appears to be no other published bowl decorated in this way. And while the composition is not so complex as on the exterior, the drawing of the individual plants and animals is beautifully executed, each in its own space. It is appropriate that the craftsman should have signed it in this area. His name is unrecorded by L.A.Mayer (Islamic Metalworkers and their Works, Geneva, 1959). It is a hand that not only has great strength in composition, but obviously one that took delight in smaller details. One of the best details of the frieze is the figure who brings up the rear of the procession. He is the merchant who supplies the train. Depicted slightly smaller than the other figures and mounted on a mule, he turns with his hand steadying the large load on the back of the animal, while the large water bottle hangs below its belly. There is a wealth of comparable detailing in this bowl which is rare to find, even in miniatures.
al-'izz li-mawlana al-sultan al-a'zam malik-i riqab al-umam al-sultan , salatin al-'arab w'al-'ajam , al-kamil al-fazil (la) al-mu'ayyad al-mujahid al-'alim
(Glory to our Lord, the great Sultan, the master who curbs all nations, the Sultan of [all] the sultans of the Arabs and the Persians, the perfect one, the learned, the one assisted [by God], the holy warrior, the intelligent).
The inscription written in separate words around the interior walls below the animals reads:
'amal-i 'abd , al-da'if , haji , muhi , al-kafani(?)
(The work of the servant of the weak Hajji Muhi al-Kafani)
This remarkable bowl has a quality of drawing almost never encountered on Persian metalwork of the mediaeval period. Instead of the single figure compositions, most of which are fairly stiff, we see here a complexity of composition, particularly in the main band, which is outstanding. One of the very few pieces whose style comes close is a massive tray in the Fine Arts Museum, Tiblisi (Loukonine, Vladimir and Ivanov, Anatoli: L'Art Persan, Bournemouth and Saint Peteresburg, 1995, no.147, p.155; for a drawing of the figural roundel in the centre see Komaroff, Linda: The Golden Disc of Heaven, Metalwork of Timurid Iran, Costa Mesa, California, 1992, fig.4, p.11). In contrast to most pieces, these share a vitality of figural style, an interrelation between animated indiviuduals within the composition, an overlapping of various figures by others rather than each being in its own space, a great variety of headdresses and detailing of costumes.
The great abundance of detail within the figural scenes enables the similarities between this and the great Mongol manuscripts to be very apparent. The arab style wrapped turbans, passing also under the chin in the hunting scenes are also seen in the World History of Rashid al-Din (Blair, Sheila A.: A Compendium of Chronicles, London, 1995, fig.34, p.69 for example). Similarly the energy of the horsemen in battle resembles that of some of the miniatures in the 'Demotte' Shahnameh, such as one in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris (Sakisian, Armenag: La Miniature Persane du XII au XVII siècle, Paris and Bruxelles, 1929, fig.31). Mongol headdresses can clearly be seen in the procession; it appears that the front half of the procession has four figures wearing fur-trimmed hats (for comparison in the 'Demotte' Shahnameh see the attendant figures in the scene of the enthronement of Shah Zav (Lowry, Glenn D. and Namazee, Susan: A Jeweller's Eye: Islamic Arts of the Book from the Vever Collection, Washington D.C., 1988, pl.10, pp.82-3). Many others can similarly be compared to minitures of the time.
The central figure in the procession has an even more significant headdress; she appears to be a woman. The headdress is very similar to that worn by Roudaba leaning out of her window waiting for Zal to scale the wall in another miniature from the 'Demotte' Shahnameh (Sakisian, Armenag: op.cit, fig.36). This would appear to be confirmed by the three figures above and behind the palanquin, one of whom wears the same headdress, another of whom has an even more certainly female headdress, while the third has gone to extraordinary lengths to cover her face. Two further female attendants are near the back of the train. This makes it almost certain that a particular historical event is depicted here. That there was a tradition of giving women prominence in some artistic decorative schemes is shown by two other inlaid brass vessels. A candlestick in the name of Jamal al-Din Abu Ishaq, the same patron as lot 266, shows an enthroned woman with female attendants (Allan, J.W.: 'The Candlestick of Abu Ishaq Inju', in Fullerton, A. and Fehervari, G.: Kuwait Arts and Architecture, a Collection of Essays, Kuwait, 1995, pp.66-75; detail reproduced in Hillenbrand, R.: Islamic Art and Architecture, London, 1999, pl.160, p.205), while a bowl formerly in the Harari Collection shows a princess with attendants in one of the roundels (Pope, Arthur Upham: A Survey of Persian Art, Oxford University Press, 1938, pl.1366D).
The bowl, by comparison to manuscripts, would appear to date from the second quarter of the 14th century. This would accord with the dating given by Komaroff to the Tiblisi dish mentioned above, although Loukonine and Ivanov opt for the first quarter of the century. The shape of the bowl and the decorative frieze around the rim are both very similar to a bowl in the Victoria and Albert Museum dated by Melikian to the late 14th century (Melikian-Chirvani, A.S.: Islamic Metalwork from the Iranian World, 8th-18th centuries, London, 1982, no.102, pp.220-221). The decorative frieze with its meandering lotus design is also found on a candlestick dated 1360-61, formerly in the Harari Collection (Pope, A.U.: op.cit, pl.1371). One other Fars bowl has been published from the Victoria and Albert Museum Collection which has the figural decoration in a continuous frieze (Pope, A.U.: op.cit., pl.1368; Melikian-Chirvani, op.cit, no.104, pp.223-9). The figures are all conceived separately against a band of vegetation; the composition appears slightly stiff in comparison to ours. The Victoria and Albert Museum is interesting in that it also bears a signature and the date of 752 (1351-2 AH).
The interior of this bowl is a tour de force. Working to the precise detail combined with force needed to engrave and inlay the interior walls of this bowl is an extraordinary achievement. There appears to be no other published bowl decorated in this way. And while the composition is not so complex as on the exterior, the drawing of the individual plants and animals is beautifully executed, each in its own space. It is appropriate that the craftsman should have signed it in this area. His name is unrecorded by L.A.Mayer (Islamic Metalworkers and their Works, Geneva, 1959). It is a hand that not only has great strength in composition, but obviously one that took delight in smaller details. One of the best details of the frieze is the figure who brings up the rear of the procession. He is the merchant who supplies the train. Depicted slightly smaller than the other figures and mounted on a mule, he turns with his hand steadying the large load on the back of the animal, while the large water bottle hangs below its belly. There is a wealth of comparable detailing in this bowl which is rare to find, even in miniatures.