.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
The verses on the rim in vernacular Arabic are undeciphered. A suggested reading for the signature cartouches is, bi-rasm muhammad ibn barakat? ibn 'umar?.. al-'ajami
A covered cylindrical box in the collection of the Courtauld Institute of Art displays almost identical decoration to that on our bowl, (inv. O.1966.GP.203., Sylvia Auld, Renaissance Venice, Islam and Mahmud the Kurd. A Metalworking Enigma, 2004, no. 3.2, p. 200). Auld, commenting on the engraved and silver inlaid design of split palmettes on a ground of engraved arabesques common to both vessels, confirms the quality and finesse of the workmanship. She proceeds to attribute this specific design to the workshop of the master craftsman Zain al-Din. The panels on the side of our bowl give us the name of a previously unknown further master craftsman of the same school as Zain al-Din
There has been some debate as to the attribution of items from the group identified as from the workshop of Zain al-Din. Sylvia Auld has suggested that they were produced in an Ottoman context whereas Doris Behrens-Abouseif has argued for a Mamluk provenance, (Doris Behrens-Abouseif, 'Veneto-Saracenic Metalware, a Mamluk Art', in Mamluk Studies Review, vol. IX/2 , Chicago, 2005, p. 148). Crucially, Abouseif pointed to an Arabic inscription in verse on the rim of a comparable signed bowl to our own in the Khalili Collection, (inv. MTW 1542, Behrens-Abouseif, op.cit. fig 15, p. 169). The Arabic vernacular inscriptions on our bowl and on the Khalili bowl confirm that these vessels were produced in the Arabic speaking Mamluk world rather than in the Persian courts of Anatolia or Iran. This bowl therefore forms part of an important and rare group of vessels which confirm the Mamluk origins of these pieces.
A covered cylindrical box in the collection of the Courtauld Institute of Art displays almost identical decoration to that on our bowl, (inv. O.1966.GP.203., Sylvia Auld, Renaissance Venice, Islam and Mahmud the Kurd. A Metalworking Enigma, 2004, no. 3.2, p. 200). Auld, commenting on the engraved and silver inlaid design of split palmettes on a ground of engraved arabesques common to both vessels, confirms the quality and finesse of the workmanship. She proceeds to attribute this specific design to the workshop of the master craftsman Zain al-Din. The panels on the side of our bowl give us the name of a previously unknown further master craftsman of the same school as Zain al-Din
There has been some debate as to the attribution of items from the group identified as from the workshop of Zain al-Din. Sylvia Auld has suggested that they were produced in an Ottoman context whereas Doris Behrens-Abouseif has argued for a Mamluk provenance, (Doris Behrens-Abouseif, 'Veneto-Saracenic Metalware, a Mamluk Art', in Mamluk Studies Review, vol. IX/2 , Chicago, 2005, p. 148). Crucially, Abouseif pointed to an Arabic inscription in verse on the rim of a comparable signed bowl to our own in the Khalili Collection, (inv. MTW 1542, Behrens-Abouseif, op.cit. fig 15, p. 169). The Arabic vernacular inscriptions on our bowl and on the Khalili bowl confirm that these vessels were produced in the Arabic speaking Mamluk world rather than in the Persian courts of Anatolia or Iran. This bowl therefore forms part of an important and rare group of vessels which confirm the Mamluk origins of these pieces.