.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
"Sometime towards the end of the 15th-century Ottoman potters started manufacturing blue-and-white ceramics of a technical standard unmatched in the Muslim world since the early thirteenth century pottery of Kashan. The vessels, often of impressive size, had a hard, dense fritware body covered with a brilliant white slip, onto which were painted elaborate arabesques and floral scrolls in a rich cobalt which had depth and texture - the 'heap and piled' effect - of the first Yuan blue-and-white porcelains from China. Over this was a compact, colourless glaze which adhered tightly to the body and showed no flaws of crackle and tendency to pool". Thus Julian Raby introduces the highly innovative wares that began to be made at Iznik at this time (Nurhan Atasoy and Julian Raby, Iznik, the Pottery of Ottoman Turkey, London, 1989, p.77). His summary of the developments that took place at Iznik clearly acknowledges the debt to previous scholars, notably Arthur Lane who in 1957 was the first to put stricter rigour into the chronology of the development of Iznik pottery (Arthur Lane, "Ottoman Pottery of Isnik", Ars Orientalis, vol.II, 1957, pp.247-281). It was Lane who first differentiated between the different early blue and white vessels, establishing a progression in style and execution. Both Raby and Lane were in agreement that the vessels of the earliest period were those "painted with tightly drawn arabesques reserved in white on a dense, often brackish, cobalt ground" (Atasoy and Raby, op.cit, p.77). Vessels painted in blue on a white ground are dated to a slightly later period, just into the sixteenth century.
The form of this ewer is clearly borrowed from a Chinese prototype. Three Ming vessels of precisely this form, one dated to circa 1400, the others to the early 15th century, and all with 15th/early 16th century Ottoman mounts, were exhibited in the "Turks" exhibition in the Royal Academy (David J. Roxburgh (ed.), Turks. A Journey of a Thousand Years, 600-1600, exhibition catalogue, 2005, nos.270, 273 and 354, pp.310-11 and 362). All three of these examples are in the Topkapi Saray. Whilst the potters of Iznik freely adapted and re-interpreted elements of the decorative repertoire of their Chinese forebearers, and lots 223 and 241 in the present sale demonstrate this, curiously they did not, with as much abandon, copy the form of these ewers which they must have encountered. In his discussion of one of the Topkapi's Ming ewers, Roxburgh comments that sets of ewers and basins were used by the Ottomans both for religious ablutions and for washing hands before and after meals - the latter mostly in palaces and private homes. Indeed, large numbers are known in gold, silver and copper. Few Iznik examples exist however. One ewer, though with tall cylindrical neck and slightly stouter body, dated to circa 1530-40 is in the Gezira Museum, Cairo (no.470, Atasoy and Raby, op.cit., no.180, p.119). Another, later in date (circa 1570), but closer in form with everted spout and longer body, is in the Hetjens Museum, Düsseldorf (inv.no.12245, Atasoy and Raby, op.cit., no.448, pp.240-41). The form is very rare.
The decoration of our ewer is found on other contemporaneous or near contemporaneous Iznik pottery, and also clearly draws its inspiration from China. A Yongle period ewer (1403-25) of our form which clearly gives a precedent for the decorative style was recently offered in these Rooms, 11 November 2011. Other examples are in the Iran Bastan Museum (previously in the Ardebil Shrine) and the Topkapi Saray Museum demonstrating the movement of Chinese ceramics into the Islamic world and the esteem in which they were held when they arrived there (T. Misugi, Chinese Porcelain Collections in the Near East, Hong Kong, vol. III, no. A80; J. Ayers and R. Krahl, Chinese Ceramics in the Topkapi Saray Museum, Istanbul, 1986, vol. II, nos. 617-621, pp.519-20).
One of the Yongle ewers in the Topkapi Saray Museum has silver gilt mounts to the spout and the handle (TKS 15/1410, Ayers and Krahl, op.cit., no.618, p.519). These mounts take the form of dragon heads, and are Ottoman, circa 1500. A charming, and unusual feature of our ewer is the dragon form handle - known only in one other Iznik vessel, the so-called "Godman Ewer" in the British Museum (Atasoy and Raby, op.cit., no.96, p.97). The "Godman Ewer" bears an Armenian inscription under the foot which states that 'this vessel is in commemoration of Abraham, servant of God, of Kcotcay [Kutahya], in the year 959 [1510 AD], March 11th'. It is tempting to suggest that the maker of our ewer were inspired by the Chinese one in the Topkapi.
Our ewer is likely dated to the same period as the Godman ewer. The chevron-band around the foot, as well as the small band of scrolls at the centre of some of the flower heads and the chequered filler motif used within the design all recall the Iznik production of the earliest period. The first two of these features can be found on a footed basin, of circa 1520, in the Gulbenkian Museum (no.821, David J. Roxburgh (ed.), Turks. A Journey of a Thousand Years, 600-1600, exhibition catalogue, 2005, no.274, pp.312-13). The last of the features is harder to parallel, but is found on a large charger sold in these Rooms, 4 April 2006, lot 101, now in the Detroit Institute of Arts. That was convincingly dated to circa 1480-1500. Our ewer, which just slightly post-dates the Detroit dish, is an example of the earliest production of Iznik at its grandest and most inventive.
The form of this ewer is clearly borrowed from a Chinese prototype. Three Ming vessels of precisely this form, one dated to circa 1400, the others to the early 15th century, and all with 15th/early 16th century Ottoman mounts, were exhibited in the "Turks" exhibition in the Royal Academy (David J. Roxburgh (ed.), Turks. A Journey of a Thousand Years, 600-1600, exhibition catalogue, 2005, nos.270, 273 and 354, pp.310-11 and 362). All three of these examples are in the Topkapi Saray. Whilst the potters of Iznik freely adapted and re-interpreted elements of the decorative repertoire of their Chinese forebearers, and lots 223 and 241 in the present sale demonstrate this, curiously they did not, with as much abandon, copy the form of these ewers which they must have encountered. In his discussion of one of the Topkapi's Ming ewers, Roxburgh comments that sets of ewers and basins were used by the Ottomans both for religious ablutions and for washing hands before and after meals - the latter mostly in palaces and private homes. Indeed, large numbers are known in gold, silver and copper. Few Iznik examples exist however. One ewer, though with tall cylindrical neck and slightly stouter body, dated to circa 1530-40 is in the Gezira Museum, Cairo (no.470, Atasoy and Raby, op.cit., no.180, p.119). Another, later in date (circa 1570), but closer in form with everted spout and longer body, is in the Hetjens Museum, Düsseldorf (inv.no.12245, Atasoy and Raby, op.cit., no.448, pp.240-41). The form is very rare.
The decoration of our ewer is found on other contemporaneous or near contemporaneous Iznik pottery, and also clearly draws its inspiration from China. A Yongle period ewer (1403-25) of our form which clearly gives a precedent for the decorative style was recently offered in these Rooms, 11 November 2011. Other examples are in the Iran Bastan Museum (previously in the Ardebil Shrine) and the Topkapi Saray Museum demonstrating the movement of Chinese ceramics into the Islamic world and the esteem in which they were held when they arrived there (T. Misugi, Chinese Porcelain Collections in the Near East, Hong Kong, vol. III, no. A80; J. Ayers and R. Krahl, Chinese Ceramics in the Topkapi Saray Museum, Istanbul, 1986, vol. II, nos. 617-621, pp.519-20).
One of the Yongle ewers in the Topkapi Saray Museum has silver gilt mounts to the spout and the handle (TKS 15/1410, Ayers and Krahl, op.cit., no.618, p.519). These mounts take the form of dragon heads, and are Ottoman, circa 1500. A charming, and unusual feature of our ewer is the dragon form handle - known only in one other Iznik vessel, the so-called "Godman Ewer" in the British Museum (Atasoy and Raby, op.cit., no.96, p.97). The "Godman Ewer" bears an Armenian inscription under the foot which states that 'this vessel is in commemoration of Abraham, servant of God, of Kcotcay [Kutahya], in the year 959 [1510 AD], March 11th'. It is tempting to suggest that the maker of our ewer were inspired by the Chinese one in the Topkapi.
Our ewer is likely dated to the same period as the Godman ewer. The chevron-band around the foot, as well as the small band of scrolls at the centre of some of the flower heads and the chequered filler motif used within the design all recall the Iznik production of the earliest period. The first two of these features can be found on a footed basin, of circa 1520, in the Gulbenkian Museum (no.821, David J. Roxburgh (ed.), Turks. A Journey of a Thousand Years, 600-1600, exhibition catalogue, 2005, no.274, pp.312-13). The last of the features is harder to parallel, but is found on a large charger sold in these Rooms, 4 April 2006, lot 101, now in the Detroit Institute of Arts. That was convincingly dated to circa 1480-1500. Our ewer, which just slightly post-dates the Detroit dish, is an example of the earliest production of Iznik at its grandest and most inventive.