Eurasian Studies - unora.unior.it · Eurasian Studies Editor-in-Chief Michele Bernardini...

Eurasian Studies

Eurasian Studies Editor-in-ChiefMichele Bernardini (University of Naples “L’Orientale”)Jürgen Paul (Orientalisches Institut der Martin-Luther Universität Halle-Wittenberg)

Assistant EditorAlessandro Taddei (“Sapienza” University of Rome)

Book Review EditorLuca Berardi (University of Naples “L’Orientale”)

Editorial BoardJean-Louis Bacqué-Grammont (cnrs, Paris) Serpil Bağcı (Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara) Giampiero Bellingeri (University of Venice Ca’ Foscari) Jean Calmard† (cnrs, Paris) Maria Vittoria Fontana (“Sapienza” University of Rome) Vincent Fourniau (ehess, Paris) Beatrice Forbes Manz (Tufts University, Medford) Bert G. Fragner (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien) Masashi Haneda (University of Tokyo) Roxane Haag-Higuchi (Universität Bamberg) Angeliki Konstantakopoulou (University of Ioannina) Giancarlo Lacerenza (University of Naples “L’Orientale”) Claudio Lo Jacono (Istituto per l’Oriente C.A. Nallino) Paul E. Losensky (Indiana University, Bloomington) Angelo Michele Piemontese (“Sapienza” University of Rome) Giorgio Rota (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien) Maria Szuppe (cnrs, Paris) Natalia L. Tornesello (University of Naples “L’Orientale”) Roberto Tottoli (University of Naples “L’Orientale”)

Volumes published in this journal are listed at brill.com/eurs

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Eurasian Studies

VOLUME 15/1 (2017)

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface.

ISSN 1722-0750e-ISSN 2468-5623

Copyright 2018 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands.Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense and Hotei Publishing.All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.Brill has made all reasonable efforts to trace all rights holders to any copyrighted material used in this work. In cases where these efforts have not been successful the publisher welcomes communications from copyright holders, so that the appropriate acknowledgements can be made in future editions, and to settle other permission matters.

This journal is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Need support prior to submitting your manuscript? Make the process of preparing and submitting a manuscript easier with Brill’s suite of author services, an online platform that connects academics seeking support for their work with specialized experts who can help. Go to authorservices.brill.com/.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/24685623-12340027

EURASIAN Studies 15/1 (2017) 80-124brill.com/eurs

Artisans’ Signatures from Pre-Mongol Iranian Metalwork. An Epigraphic and Palaeographic Analysis

Valentina Laviola‘Alma Mater Studiorum’ – University of Bologna

[email protected]

Abstract

The paper focuses on Iranian and Eastern Iranian artisans who signed metalwork dat-able up to the Mongol period. An updated list gathers 37 names, for the most already known but scattered in many different publications. The epigraphic and palaeograph-ic analysis, supported by drawings of signatures, highlights general rules and specific exceptions.

Keywords

Islamic metalworkers – signatures – Iran – Khurasan – Sistan

How much do we know about medieval artisans from the Iranian and Eastern Iranian area and the metalwork they created? Artisans were most probably analphabetic; they left no written trace other than their own works.1 At these we should look then. Starting from Mayer’s work (1959),2 this paper will be the occasion for assessing the state of the art, mostly from an epigraphic and pal-aeographic point of view, about artisans’ signatures.

* Arabic transliteration has been chosen throughout the paper, with the exception of artisans’ names spelled in Persian in the original inscriptions.

1 Allan, James W., Persian Metal Technology 700-1300 A.D. (London: University of Oxford, 1979): p. 3.

2 See Mayer, Leo Ari, Islamic Metalworkers and their Works (Geneva: Albert Kundig, 1959).

81Artisans’ Signatures from pre-Mongol Iranian Metalwork

Eurasian Studies 15/1 (2017) 80-124

Typically, metalwork bear benedictory inscriptions, which give no informa-tion of historical interest. Texts attesting the manufacturing are rare: they usu-ally limit to the artisan’s name, only in exceptional cases giving the date and place of production, or the name of the recipient and/or patron who ordered the work.

From a terminological point of view, we know that silversmiths were di-versified from goldsmiths already in the Sasanian period.3 Such an ancient distinction confirms the development of different specializations. Most prob-ably, valuable artefacts from the mid-12th century onward were the outcome of a joint work of at least two different professional figures: the artisan that made the object (the coppersmith or goldsmith), who was responsible for its manufacturing, and the person who conceived and executed the decoration, the designer. The latter could be an engraver, a chiseller and inlayer. Such work distribution emerges from few inscriptions that bear more than one artisan’s name and specify their role.

Specialized artisans served the wealthy clientele, while the humbler ones made objects of daily use or working tools for common people.4 Some works, such the manufacturing of scientific and medical instruments, and some deco-rations, as the incision on silver to host the niello, required a specific training and highly skilled hands.5 These capable people probably represented a sort of élite among the artisan class. Moreover, goldsmith and merchants of precious metals were for the majority non-Muslim, in consideration of the Islamic or-thodoxy ban on the matter.6

This brief study has faced some limits, such as the unavailability of images portraying all the recorded signatures, and doubts about chronology or even authenticity raised by some metalwork. Notwithstanding, thirty-seven arti-sans’ names, generally introduced by the term ʿamal, ‘the work of ’, are includ-ed within the geographical and chronological boundaries of this list. The first group gathers sixteen signatures ending in a nisba, ‘adjective of geographic re-lation’, while the second group those without nisba. They appear in the English alphabetical order among each group. The epigraphic and palaeographic

3 Allan, Persian Metal: p. 19.4 Melikian-Chirvani, Assadoullah Souren, Islamic Metalwork from the Iranian World 8th-18th

centuries (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1982): pp. 71-3; Baer, Eva, Metalwork in Medieval Islamic Art (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983): pp. 300-2.

5 Gyuzalyan, L.T., “The Bronze Qalamdan (Pen-Case) 542/1148 from the Hermitage Collection (1936-65): To My Teacher, the Academician I. A. Orbeli”, Ars Orientalis, VII (1968): p. 115.

6 Cahen, Claude, “Mouvements populaires et autonomisme urbain dans l’Asie du moyen âge II”, Arabica, VI/1 (1959): pp. 26-32.

82 Laviola


analysis have been led on the available pictures, helped by drawings of 30 sig-natures (24 made by the author).

Names Ending in a nisba [16 entries]

ʿAbd al-Razzāq b. Masʿūd al-Nīšābūrī7 – بور��ي� �ا ��ل�ب��ي��ش �ب�ب ��عود اي

� ا �لررب �ع��ب�د ا

1. Inkwell, copper alloy inlaid with copper and silver, undated: probably sec-ond half of 12th c., yet in the Brummer Collection, then in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (Inv. No. 48.108).8

The signature (Pl. I.1) appears in a continuous band running on the flat shoulder of inkwell’s lid. The band, interrupted by three series of four roundels each (framing the zodiac signs) includes a benedictory inscrip-tion, in two sections; the third section is occupied by the artisan’s name. The text disposes, as in other sections, in two superimposed lines, clearly divided by a copper inlaid fillet. All the inscriptions are inlaid with silver: unfortunately, the signature portion is in a bad state of preservation; the inlay is completely vanished making the reading more difficult. The script is a plain kufic with vegetal scrolls running on the background.

ʿAmal introduces the artisan’s name, which is composed by an ism, ‘name’, a nasab, ‘genealogy’, and a nisba indicating the city of Nishapur.

The signature is part of the object decorative scheme: it shares the same position of the benedictory text and follows the closing expression li-ṣāḥibi-hi; the writing and decorative style are coherent as well.

2. Perfume-sprinkler, copper alloy inlaid with copper, undated: probably 12th c., yet in the Sarre Collection, then in the Museum für Islamische Kunst, Berlin.9

7 Mayer, Metalworkers: p. 23.8 Ağa-Oğlu, Mehmet, “A Preliminary Note on two Artists from Nishapur”, Bulletin of the Iranian

Institute, VI (1946): pp. 122-3, figs. 1-2; Barrett, Douglas, Islamic Metalwork in the British Museum (London: British Museum, 1949): p. ix; Allan, James W., The metalworking indus-try in Iran in the early Islamic period (PhD thesis, Oxford University, 1976): pp. 290, 727, no. B/3/5; Melikian-Chirvani, Assadoullah Souren, “Les bronzes du Khorassan – VI: L’oeuvre de Hasane Bā Sahl de l’emploi de l’unité modulare et des nombres privilégiés dans l’art du bronze”, StIr, VIII (1979a): p. 8; Id., Islamic Metalwork: p. 72. I wish to thank Martina Rugiadi, assistant curator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, who provided me with useful pictures.

9 Sarre, Friedrich, Erzeugnisse islamischer Kunst, I. Metall (Berlin: Kommissionsverlag von K. W. Hiersemann in Leipzig, 1906): p. 9; Wiet, Gaston, L’Exposition persane de 1931 (Cairo:



No clear picture of the signature is published, but some information is available. The signature lies vertically along the object’s body, introduced by ʿamal. The script is kufic with diacritical dots: three dots appear under the so demarcated šīn in the term Nīšābūrī, while the first yāʾ is omitted according to an archaic custom. The object bears also some Persian maxims.10

…Abū Bakr b. Aḥmad al-Marwazī11 – ي�� ل�مرورب ح��د ا �بو �ب��لر �ب�ب ا ا

1. Cauldron, copper alloy, undated: probably second half of 12th-early 13th c., former Stuart C. Welsh Collection, Cambridge, Massachusetts.12

The signature (Pl. I.2) is framed by a trapezoidal cartouche on the back flange of the cauldron. The text disposes mainly on a single line, but the last term – the nisba – appears above it. The upper margin of the car-touche ends, in the corners, in a vegetal motif. Series of two and three deep nicks repeat above the cartouche on the flange margin.

The script is floriated kufic, with sharp triangular apices; some letters, namely the kāf in Bakr and the ḥāʾ in Aḥmad end up in a curl. The termi-nal of the lām in ʿamal traces a kind of step and ends in a little curl as well. Few dots appear above and below letters without any diacritical role; vegetal elements (leaves) are visible on the background and origi-nating from the letters. The text exceeds cartouche margin on both lat-eral sides; further decorative elements appear outside of it.

The artisan’s name is introduced by ʿamal and is composed by a nasab and a nisba indicating the city of Merv. The signature is richly decorated by many added elements. The script itself generates some of them. It would be worthy to remind that signatures usually are the only kind of text appearing on cauldrons.

Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1933): p. 29; Pope, Arthur Upham and Ackermann, Phyllis (eds.), A Survey of Persian Art From Prehistoric Times to the Present (London-New York: Oxford University Press, 1938-9) (henceforth: Survey): pp. 2489, no. 4, 2528, 2941, pl. 1311d-e; Ağa-Oğlu, “Preliminary Note”: p. 121; Barrett, Islamic Metalwork: p. ix; Melikian-Chirvani, “Bronzes – VI”: p. 8.

10 Melikian-Chirvani, Islamic Metalwork: p. 72.11 Mayer, Metalworkers: p. 24; Allan, Metalworking: pp. 191, 193.12 Scerrato, Umberto, “Oggetti metallici di età islamica in Afghanistan. II: Il ripostiglio di

Maimana”, AION, N.S., XIV/2 (1964): p. 689, figs. 56-7.

84 Laviola


2. Cauldron, undated: probably second half of 12th-early 13th c., Art Museum of Georgia, Tbilisi (Inv. No. 1/3).13

The signature (Pl. I.3) is extraordinarily similar to the previous one: same position, frame, text and its disposition, script, and decorative elements. The two differ in few tiny details. The nicks, engraved between the flange edge and cartouche margin, are again in alternating series of two and three, but they appear slightly moved toward the right. The trilobed flow-er above the rāʾ in the term Marwazī is less defined in its petals.

Other unsigned cauldrons, spread in many collections, were probably issued by the same workshop.14

…Abū Naṣr Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Sijzī15 – ي�� رب ��ب ح��د ا �بو �ب��صرمحمد �ب�ب ا ا

– Bowl, copper alloy, undated: probably late 10th c., yet in the Martin Collection, then in the Brummer Collection, and finally in the Sydney Burney Collection, London.16

The signature (Pl. I.4) runs into a band below the external rim of the bowl. The text disposes on a single line, with the exception of the starting mīm in Muḥammad and the lām and sīn in Sijzī, which are in a higher position. The script is a kufic with ornamental apices. Drop-shaped elements and chev-rons appear above short letters, probably to fill the empty spaces. The inner circle of the mīms defines a four-petalled vegetal element.

The artisan’s name is introduced by ʿamal, and is composed by a kunya, ‘patronymic’, an ism, a nasab and a nisba, the latter pointing to the region of Sijistan, largely known as Sistan.

13 Ivanov, Anatoli, “119. Cauldron”, in Loukonine, Vladimir and Ivanov, Anatoli (eds.), Lost Treasures of Persia. Persian Art in the Hermitage Museum (Washington, DC: Mage Publishers, 1996): p. 139.

14 One from the Moser Collection, Historisches Museum, Berna (Inv. No. 91-14), one men-tioned in a hand-written note by van Berchem. See Scerrato, “Maimana”: p. 689; Ivanov, “119. Cauldron”: p. 139.

15 Mayer, Metalworkers: p. 65.16 Wiet, Gaston, Les objets mobiliers en cuivre et en bronze à inscriptions historiques (Cairo:

Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1932): p. 19, no. 3; Répertoire Chronologique d’Épigraphie Arabe (Cairo: IFAO, 1935), VI: no. 2153; Harari, Ralph, “The Arts of Metalwork. Metalwork after the Early Islamic Period”, in Survey: pp. 2482, 2526, fig. 811a; Ağa-Oğlu, Mehmet, “A Brief Note on Islamic Terminology for Bronze and Brass”, JAOS, LXIV (1944): p. 221; Id., “Preliminary Note”: p. 121.



The signature is part of a longer text of unknown content.17

…Abū Sahl al-Harawī – هرو��ي�� بو ��ه�ل ا see Muḥammad b. Abī Sahl al-Harawī :ا

…Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Hārūn al-Harawī18 – هرو��ي�� ا

رو�ب ح��د �ب�ب م�ح��د �ب�ب �ه�ا ا

– Lampstand shaft, copper alloy, undated: probably 12th c., former N. Heeramaneck Collection, New York.19

There is no available picture of this signature. The artisan’s name is intro-duced by the term ʿamal and followed by a maxim certainly concerning its work: li-kull ʿajal kitāb wa li-kull ʿamal ṯawāb, ‘every moment is inscribed, and every work is rewarded’.

…ʿAlī b. (…) al-Isfīrāʾinī20 – ي�

�ئ�ب ��يرا��س�هب لا ع��ل�ي �ب�ب (…) ا

– Small ewer, copper alloy, undated: probably late 12th c., yet in the Peytel Collection, now in the Louvre Museum (Inv. No. MAO428).21

The signature (Pl. II.1) lies on the ewer’s body, approximately near the lower junction point of its handle. It runs horizontally, unframed, in the free space comprised between a continuous band and a cartouche. The script is cur-sive; there are some dots, but it is unclear whether they play a diacritical role or not.

The artisan’s name is introduced by ʿamal and is composed by an ism, a nasab and a nisba pointing to a city on the north-west of Nishapur. The nasab composition is unclear: the name ʿUmar is reported by Mayer, while

17 Unfortunately, the full inscription has never been published.18 Mayer, Metalworkers: p. 30.19 Grabar, Oleg (ed.), Persian art before and after the Mongol Conquest (Catalogue of the

Exhibition April 9-May 17 1959), (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Museum of Art, 1959): no. 38; Allan, Metalworking: pp. 281, 714, no. 5.

20 Mayer, Metalworkers: p. 38.21 Wiet, L’Exposition: p. 32; Répertoire Chronologique d’Épigraphie Arabe, IX (Cairo: IFAO,

1937): no. 3585; Harari, “The Arts of Metalwork”: pp. 2491, 2527; Survey: pl. 1309d.

86 Laviola


on the Louvre Museum website Awf is proposed.22 The state of preservation in that portion makes it impossible to read more. The following term, mu-waqqit according to the Louvre record, would be an epithet.

The signature must have been added to the object later than the man-ufacturing time, since it is clearly extraneous to the decorative scheme. According to Melikian Chirvani it could date to the 13th century and it would confirm that artisans’ signatures increased the artefacts value, so that it became worthy to add some fakes ones.23 Recently, the microscope analy-sis of the ewer has revealed that the signature lies on a stratigraphic level different from that of other inscriptions, thus confirming the addition.24

…Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. Sijzī – ي�� رب �ح��ل�ب �ب�ب م�ح��د �ب�ب ��س��ب

– Ewer with lamp-shaped spout, copper alloy, undated: probably late 10th-early 11th century, former Rawza Museum, Ghazni (Inv. No. 32).25

The signature (Pl. II.2), split in two sections, lies along two sides of the ewer’s neck: in the first section (ʿamal Ḥasan b.), the inscription proceeds downward, while it goes upward in the second one (Muḥammad b. Sijzī). This peculiar scheme recurs on another signed ewer from Transoxiana (see Aḥmad).

The text is unframed and vertically disposed. The signature is the only inscription on the object. Artisan’s name is introduced by ʿamal, and is com-posed by an ism and a double nasab, the second term of whom happens to be a nisba indicating the region of Sistan. Unusually, it lacks the article.

The writing style is a peculiar kufic script, characterized by ornamental triangular apices and decorative additional terminals (see for example the ḥāʾ in the term Ḥasan). The mīm has a pointed drop-shaped body.

22 https://www.photo.rmn.fr/CS.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&VBID=2CO5PCHC16WJK&SMLS=1&RW=1920&RH=1059.

23 Melikian-Chirvani, Islamic Metalwork: p. 72.24 I am indebted to Annabelle Collinet, curator of the Islamic Department at the

Louvre Museum, who has kindly shared first results of her project ‘ISLAMETAL, an Archaeometallurgical Study of the Louvre Iranian World Collection of Metalwares, 10th-15th century AD’.

25 Melikian-Chirvani, Assadoullah Souren, “Les bronzes du Khorassan – III. Bronzes in-édits du Xe et du XIe siècles”, StIr, IV (1975b): pp. 199-201, pls. XIII-XIV, figs. 9-10; Laviola, Valentina, Islamic Metalwork from Afghanistan (9th-13th c.). The Italian Archaeological Mission Archives (1957-1978): in print.



…Ḫājakī Ṭūsī – ك�ي طو��ي� �ب �ب�ا

– Cauldron, quaternary alloy, undated: probably 13th century, Ashmolean Museum (Inv. No. 1969.87).26

The signature lies on the cauldron’s flange opposite to the pouring one. Unfortunately, the object is unpublished and no further information is available. Artisan’s name is composed by an ism (possibly derived from a title) and a nisba pointing to the city of Tus.

…Maḥmūd b. Muḥammad al-Harawī27 – هرو��ي�� م�ح�ل��ود �ب�ب محمد ا

– Ewer, copper alloy inlaid with copper and silver, šaʿbān 577/10th December 1181-7th January 1182, Museum of Georgian History, Tbilisi (Inv. No. MS 135).28

An Arabic inscription containing the signature and the date goes down from top to bottom of one ewer’s flute; other ten flutes are occupied by Persian verses.29 The text is horizontally disposed and framed into a long cartouche. On the background runs a complex vegetal motif, observed also on the non-epigraphic flutes, which makes the reading difficult.

The artisan’s name is introduced by al-ʿamal – awkwardly provided with the article – and al-naqqāš, ‘the decorator’.

The place of manufacturing, Herat, unusually is stated in the inscription. According to Allan, this ewer along with the Bobrinsky bucket (see below Masʿūd b. Aḥmad) would be enough in support of al-Qazwīnī’s appreciation of silver inlaid (ṣufr) artefacts from the city of Herat.30

The script is cursive as in the Persian inscription as well, but no specific picture of the signature is published.

26 Allan, Metalworking: pp. 191, 607 no. A/5.27 Mayer, Metalworkers: p. 59.28 Survey: p. 1774; Ağa-Oğlu, Mehmet, “The Use of Architectural Forms in Seljuq Metalwork”,

Art Quarterly, VI (1943): p. 93; Ettinghausen, Richard, “The Bobrinsky Kettle, Patron and Style of an Islamic Bronze”, Gazette des Beaux Arts, XXIV (1943): p. 195; Ağa-Oğlu, “Preliminary Note”: p. 121; Barrett, Islamic Metalwork: p. IX; Ivanov, Anatoli, “117. Ewer”, in Loukonine, Ivanov (eds.), Lost Treasures of Persia: pp. 136-7.

29 The Persian inscription attests that the ewer was meant for ablutions, and not for serving drinks.

30 Allan, Metalworking: pp. 228-9.

88 Laviola


…Maḥmūd al-Qazwīnī31 – ي�

و�ي�برب��ل�هي م�ح�ل��ود ا

– Cauldron, copper alloy, undated: probably 12th-13th c., formerly in the Bobrinsky Collection, now in the Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg (Inv. No. KI.3554).32

The signature (Pl. II.3) lies on the cauldron’s pouring flange, framed in two cartouches that flank the central ornamental grill. The flange is broken in one corner, but the damage affects just the cartouche margin, not the in-scription. Each cartouche has a straight and a concave side; the text disposes on two lines. Spiralling scrolls run on the background.

The artisan’s name is introduced by ʿamal and is composed by an ism and a nisba pointing to the city of Qazvin.

The script is a kufic characterized by sharp apices and pentagonal mīms. The mīm in the term Maḥmūd is raised above the ḥāʾ, as it usually occurs in writing this name and Muḥammad one; the final dāl is elevated half way between the lām of ʿamal and the wāw in Maḥmūd: the latter is concave-cut to host it. The apices topping the article hastae in the term al-Qazwīnī are awkwardly affronted to fit one another, instead of being addorsed.

The inscription is well integrated in the cauldron decorative scheme.

…Muḥammad b. Abī Sahl al-Harawī33 – هرو��ي�� ب�ي ��ه�ل ا م�ح��د �ب�ب ا

– Inkwell, copper alloy inlaid with copper and silver, undated: second half of 12th-early 13th c., Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore (Inv. No. 54.514).34

The signature (Pl. II.4) is on the lid side, framed into a cartouche. The text lies mainly on a single line; few letters dispose above it. The script is a plain kufic, characterized by the hāʾs written as in final position regardless to the position they occupy (see the terms Sahl and al-Harawī).

31 Mayer, Metalworkers: p. 59.32 Scerrato, “Maimana”: p. 691, no. 25; Ivanov, Anatoli, “118. Cauldron”, in Loukonine, Ivanov

(eds.), Lost Treasures of Persia: p. 138.33 Mayer, Metalworkers: p. 65.34 Ettinghausen, “Bobrinsky”: fig. 4; Ağa-Oğlu, “Preliminary Note”: p. 121; Barrett, Islamic

Metalwork: p. ix; Allan, Metalworking: p. 290; Melikian-Chirvani, Assadoullah Souren, “State inkwells in Islamic Iran”, Journal of the Walters Art Gallery, XLIV (1986): p. 75.



A richly budded spiralling scroll runs on the background. The inscription is inlaid with silver, just as any other epigraphy on the inkwell. The signa-ture follows a standard benedictory text, which occupies the other two car-touches on the lid side. So, it is perfectly integrated in the object’s decorative scheme.

The artisan’s name is introduced by ʿamal and is composed by an ism, a nasab and a nisba, the latter pointing to the city of Herat.

…Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Sijzī – ي�� رب ��ب ح��د ا م�ح��د �ب�ب ا : see Abū Naṣr Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Sijzī

…Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Iṣfahānī35 – ي�

�ب �ه�ا �ص�ه�ب لا م�ح��د �ب�ب ع��ل�ي ا

– Small bowl, copper alloy, 611/1214-5, formerly in the Peytel Collection, current owner unknown.

The artisan’s name is introduced by the term ʿamal and is composed by an ism, a nasab and a nisba pointing to the city of Isfahan. No picture of the bowl has been found.

…Muḥammad Ṭūsī36 – م�ح��د طو��ي

– Incense burner dish, undated: probably late 12th-early 13th c., found at Old Serakhs, the Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg (Inv. No. IR-2282).

The signature (Pl. II.5) lies on the inner bottom, framed into a band inter-rupted by four roundels: three sections include a benedictory sequence, while the fourth contains the signature. All the inscriptions share the same background, filled with luxuriant foliated vegetal scrolls ending in trilobed flowers, and the same cursive script.

35 Mayer, Metalworkers: p. 66.36 Ivanov, Anatoli, “125. Incense burner”, in Loukonine, Ivanov (eds.), Lost Treasures of Persia:

p. 142. He reports that the Tehran Museum houses a similar object by the same artisan.

90 Laviola


ʿAmal introduces the artisan’s name, composed by an ism and a nisba with no article pointing to the city of Tus, in Khurasan.

The text disposes mainly on two lines, but many exceptions are visible: the round mīm in the term ʿamal descends below the main writing line, while the first three letters in the term Muḥammad (mīm-ḥa ʾ-mīm) are su-perimposed one another. The sīn in the term Ṭūsī is raised above the preced-ing wāw and the following yāʾ shows a descending terminal.

Letters like ʿayn, mīms, ṭāʾ and wāw tend to a full rounded shape. Some others are significantly bigger than the others: see the lām, ḥā’ and dāl.

The signature is so deeply integrated in the object decorative scheme not to differ in any respect from the inscription it is put along. Clearly, it was not meant to stand alone, but to be read continually. The vegetal motif is engraved with a depth similar to that of letters, so that, thanks also to the cursive script, the two elements tend to camouflage together.

…Nāṣir b. Asʿad al-Nīsābūrī37 – بور��ي� ��ل�ب��ي��ا ��س�ع�د ا �صر �ب�ب ا �ب�ا

– Inkwell, copper alloy inlaid with copper and silver, undated: probably second half of 12th c., yet in the Brummer Collection, then in the Adrienne Minassian Collection, New York.38

The signature (Pl. III.1) lies on the lid side, framed in a cartouche, following a benedictory inscription closed by the expression li-ṣāḥibi-hi. The text dis-poses on a single line. The script is a plain kufic, whose features reveal close similarities with the signature by ʿAbd al-Razzāq b. Aḥmad al-Nīšābūrī (see above).

The artisan’s name is introduced by ʿamal and is composed by an ism, a nasab and a nisba, the latter pointing to the city of Nishapur.

This is one of the few Seljuq metalwork bearing Persian inscription be-side Arabic ones.39

…

37 Mayer, Metalworkers: p. 76.38 Ağa-Oğlu, “Preliminary Note”: p. 124, figs. 3-5; Melikian-Chirvani, Islamic Metalwork: p. 72.39 The expression muẓaffar bād, ‘be he victorious’, has been detected among the Persian

inscriptions running on the inkwell box. See Ağa-Oğlu, “Preliminary Note”: p. 124.



Pāydār b. Marzabān al-Qāʾinī – ي��ئ�ب ��ل�هي�ا �ب ا �ب�ا

ر �ب�ب �مررب ا �ي�د �پ�ا

– Polylobed tripod base of lampstand, copper alloy inlaid with copper and sil-ver, undated: probably late 12th-early 13th c., the Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg (Inv. No. IR-1545).40

The signature (Pl. III.2) runs unframed on the base shoulder, divided in three sections by four roundels and followed by benedictory terms. The text is inlaid with silver.

The artisan’s name is introduced by ʿamal and is composed by an ism, a nasab and a nisba, the latter pointing to the city of Qāʾin, in the region of Kuhistan, southern Khurasan. The names are clearly of Persian origin.

The script is cursive, characterized by wide terminals of the nūns. The text disposes on a single line, but the second alif in the term Pāydār and the mīm in Marzabān are elevated above the letters preceding them; moreover, the alif shows an erroneous ligature with the following rāʾ. The mīm in the first term ʿamal remains open at its top as a half-circle. An elongated chev-ron appears above the final yāʾ at the end of the inscription. No other sign or background decoration is visible. This hand-written-like style is limited to the signature, and differs significantly from the other scripts employed for benedictory texts on the object: cursive along the base polylobed rim and kufic around the neck. The signature was given a well visible position on the object, even enhanced by the silver inlay and the different script.

…Šāḏī (al-Harawī)41 – ( ��هرو��ي ��ي (ا دب �ا ��سش

1. Pen-box, copper alloy inlaid with copper and silver, 607/1210-1, probably from Merv, Freer Gallery, Washington DC (Inv. No. 36.7).42

The signature (Pl. III.3) lies on the pen-box lid side. Even if unframed, the inscription was comprised in the central section by the two now missing

40 Gyuzalyan, “Qalamdan”: p. 107, figs. 7-8; Allan, Metalworking: pp. 281, 710, no. B/3; Melikian-Chirvani, Islamic Metalwork: p. 72; Ivanov, Anatoli, “122. Base of lamp-stand”, in Loukonine, Ivanov (eds.), Lost Treasures of Persia: p. 141.

41 Mayer, Metalworkers: p. 82; Melikian-Chirvani, Assadoullah Souren, “Les bronzes du Khorassan – VII. Šāzī de Herat, ornemaniste”, StIr, VIII (1979); Id., “State inkwells”: p. 85-6.

42 Herzfeld, Ernst, “A Bronze Pen-Case”, Ars Islamica, III/1 (1936): p. 39, fig. 1; Répertoire Chronologique d’Épigraphie Arabe, X (Cairo: IFAO, 1937): p. 51; Harari, “The Arts of Metalwork”: p. 2521, figs. 841a-b; Ağa-Oğlu, “Preliminary Note”: p. 122; Barrett, Islamic Metalwork: p. x; Melikian-Chirvani, “Bronzes – VII”: p. 223-4.

92 Laviola


closing plates. The text is split in two sections by an elaborated knot. In the first, the artisan’s name, composed by an ism and the nisba al-naqqāš, ‘the decorator’, is introduced by ʿamal; while the second section contains the date (fī šuhūr sana sabʿ wa sittumiya). The text disposes on a single line, with the exception of some letters raised on an upper line in the second section: in particular, the rāʾ in the term šuhūr, whose hāʾ is also written as in final position; the conjunction wāw between the terms sabʿ and sittumiya, and the last two letters of the latter.

The script is a kufic traced by a thin line and characterized by half-lance-shaped apices. Additional hastae with an apice evolving in a half-palmette pair with the lām in the term ʿamal and the alifs in Šāḏī and al-naqqāš. The final yāʾs in the artisan’s name and in the term fī are treat-ed as a knot with up-ending terminal in form of a duck head. The latter feature repeats in the terminal of the final šīn in the term al-naqqāš. A knotted lām-alif group is suspended as a chevron to fill the empty space left above the terms sana sabʿ: with its horizontally disposed apices it echoes the additional hasta at the beginning of inscription (see the term ʿamal).

The inscription is perfectly integrated in the decoration and equally silver inlaid.

2. Portable pen-box (provided with a tiny inkwell), copper alloy inlaid with copper and silver, undated: most probably early 13th century, retrieved in Badghis, northeast of Herat.43

The signature (Pl. III.4) lies on top of the pen-box, framed into an isolat-ed trapezoidal area. The text disposes on a single line; letters are quite tight together, given the short space available. The script is a bold kufic, characterized by šīns with degrading teeth. Ligatures are either rounded, descending below the writing line, or flat and short. Hastae show half-lance-shaped apices; an additional hasta is put beside the lām and be-hind the mīm in the term ʿamal, so to create a pair; nonetheless, its apice does not mirror the lām’s one, but evolves in a bigger vegetal leaf. The terminal of the final šīn climbs up ending as a hasta with apice. The most interesting letter in the composition is by far the yāʾ in the term Šāḏī: it is shaped as a knotted bow, with an up-ending terminal, just as in other pen-boxes signed by the same artisan. This peculiar drawing makes it a sort of artistic mark.

43 Melikian-Chirvan, Assadoullah Souren, “Les bronzes du Khorassan – I”, StIr, III (1974): pp. 29-30; Id., “Bronzes – VI”: p. 8.



The epigraphical background is minutely ring-dotted and tripartite flowers emerge from delicate thin stems and scrolls, filling the empty spaces above short letters. The whole decoration is inlaid with silver.

The artisan’s name is introduced by ʿamal and is composed just by the ism, followed by the nisba naqqāš.44 This last term is written without ar-ticle, in smaller and thinner letters.

The inscription appears very neat; the refined background is coherent with that visible on the bigger section of the object’s top.

The name of the patron/recipient, Majd al-Mulk al-Muẓaffar, vizier of sultan ʿAlāʾ al-dīn Muḥammad Ḫwārizm-šāh, is also expressed.45 Considered his high profile, the object was likely made in the reign’s capital.

3. Pen-box provided with a tiny inkwell, copper alloy inlaid with copper and silver, undated: probably first quarter of 13th century, Louvre Museum (Inv. No. MAO2228).

The signature (Pl. IV.1) occupies the same position as in the preceding two pen-boxes. The test disposes on a single line, with the exception of the final šīn in the term al-naqqāš, which is obliquely raised on an upper line for space lacking. The letter terminal overlaps the preceding hasta. The script is a plain kufic with some recurring features typical of Šāḏī: the additional hasta above the mīm in the term ʿamal, so to pair the lām’s one; the knotted yāʾ in his name; the alternate squared flat or rounded ligatures between letters.

Letters are boldly engraved as in the pen-box from Badghis, but the silver inlay is far thinner, so that the inscription looks different. An inlaid cursive benedictory inscription runs on both the object sides, and a third one, just engraved, is framed in cartouches on the backside. All inscrip-tions share the same ring-dotted and vegetal background.

4. Bird-shaped toilet flask, copper alloy inlaid with silver, undated: most prob-ably early 13th century, purchased in Kabul where it arrived directly from Herat.46

44 Mayer (Metalworkers: p. 12) underlined that the term naqš could mean either decoration or design, thus indicating a practical or theoretical work. Herzfeld, instead, interpreted it as ‘engraver’.

45 The presence of a pedigree on an object of this period is exceptional; the only other spec-imen is a bowl entitled to the vizier of Khurasan (Melikian-Chirvani, “Bronzes – VII”: p. 232). Such use spread in particular in the 14th century.

46 Melikian-Chirvani, “Bronzes – VI”: p. 8; Id., “Bronzes – VII”: p. 224.

94 Laviola


The signature lies on the larger area of the almond-shaped object, framed into a cartouche and horizontally disposed. The inscription is inlaid with silver, as the whole decoration.

The text disposes on a single line. The script is kufic, with half-lance-shaped apices. Again, an additional hasta appears beside the lām in the term ʿamal.

The artisan’s name is introduced by ʿamal and is composed by an ism, the professional designation al-naqqāš and the nisba al-Harawī. The lat-ter element appears only on this object, while it usually is omitted from other works by the same artisan.

The signature is in a bad state of preservation and not clearly visible in the available picture.

These objects were probably made between Merv and Herat. Other unsigned works can be ascribed to his workshop, if not to the artisan himself.47

…ʿUmar b. Abīʾl-ʿAlā b. Aḥmad Iṣfahānī48 – ي�

�ب �ه�ا �ص�ه�ب ح��د ا �ب�ب ا ��ع��ل� �ب�ي ا �ع�مر �ب�ب ا

– Pen-box, copper alloy, 569/1173-4, formerly in the Siouffi Collection, present owner unknown.49

Unfortunately, there is no available picture of the object. The artisan’s name is composed by an ism, a kunya used as a name by his father, a second nasab related to his grandfather and a nisba referring to the city of Isfahan.

47 A high tin bronze spoon, engraved and inlaid with silver, coming from Kabul bāzār and sold in Paris in 1978 (Melikian-Chirvani, “Bronzes – VII”: p. 235), and a round tray from the Louvre Museum (Melikian-Chirvani, “Bronzes – I”: p. 31-42; Id., “Bronzes – VII”: p. 237-8).

48 Mayer, Metalworkers: p. 87.49 Wiet, Cuivres: pp. 19 no. 7, 23 no. 7, 81 no. 2, 166 no. 18; Répertoire Chronologique d’Épigraphie

Arabe, IX (Cairo: IFAO, 1937): no. 3314bis; Harari, “The Arts of Metalwork”: pp. 2491, foot-note no. 1, 2520: he reports that the object has disappeared.



Names without nisba [21 entries]

Abūʾl-Fatḥ – ي��ح�� ل�هب �بو ا ا

– Sub-globular ribbed ewer, copper alloy, undated: probably 11th-12th c., Kabul Museum ( former collection, Inv. No. 58.2.19).50

The signature (Pl. IV.2) occupies one of the ewer’s ribs. A long rectangular cartouche goes vertically down the rib defined by two fillets of cuts; the text disposes into it. The inscription is preceded by an engraved decorative loz-enge, and a hole left by the missing spout.

The artisan’s name is introduced by ʿamal, and is composed just by a kunya. The script is a bold kufic, characterized by cut sloping letters and sharply pointed mīm and fāʾ. The final ḥāʾ in the term al-Fatḥ shows a flat-tened terminal, which comes back below the letter itself.

The background is ring-dotted, and the inscription deeply engraved to outstand onto it. Some additional signs – big dots – appear above the wāw in the term Abū and above the horizontally raised ligature between the tāʾ and the ḥāʾ in Fatḥ. A palmette included into a spiralling scroll is added at the end of cartouche, while a vegetal stem raises before the inscription begin-ning, then falling on the ʿayn.

The signature disposes into a space naturally provided by the object mor-phology and defined by the same decorative feature – the fillets with cuts – employed on other ribs.

After the term al-Fatḥ there are two signs more, which can be interpreted in many ways. They could even be a couple of hastae, with no meaning, used just to fill the empty space remained. It could be a wāw with an up-ending terminal paired by an additional hasta; or it can be read as bin,51 then as the artisan’s name would continue. In this regard, it would be worthy to note that the ewer bears four cartouches, conceived and disposed in axial pairs: two include a benedictory text; the third cartouche is the signature’s one and the fourth is empty, but well defined and complete of vegetal elements at its beginning and end. So, one could suppose that the fourth cartouche was meant to host the second part of artisan’s name, or even the name of a second artisan, if the letter closing the signature’s cartouche is a wāw.

50 Melikian-Chirvani, “Bronzes – VI”: pp. 27-9, pl. XIV, figs. 18-9; Laviola, Islamic Metalwork: in print.

51 No other nūn among those inscribed on the ewer shows an up-ending terminal, nor any wāw.

96 Laviola


…Abūʾl-Munīf (?) b. Masʿūd52 – ل��ب��ي�ب (؟) �ب�ب ��عود�� بو ا ا

– Incense burner, copper alloy inlaid with gold and silver, undated: probably early 13th c., Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (Inv. No. 46.1135).53

The signature (Pl. IV.3) lies on the backside of the object’s upper half. The latter is divided in three sections: the central, rectangular one bears a car-touche, whose silver inlaid margin generates in the centre a knot dividing the space in two sections. There the signature disposes vertically, mainly on a single line. The inscription and its vegetal background are inlaid with silver, just as the other decorative elements on the object. The vegetal scrolls running on the background of all inscriptions are richly foliated and floriated.

The script is a peculiar kind of kufic, characterized by slim letters tight one another, the hastae, the sīn teeth and the nūn are particularly elongat-ed; the mīms show pentagonal bodies, the wāw in the term Abū is similarly pointed, while the ʿayn draws a perfect upturned triangle. The wāw in the term Mas’ūd, instead, looks composed by interlacing squared segments: the upper one is probably flattened to consent the little final dāl to dispose above it. Both the final fāʾ in al-Munīf and the nūn in the term bin have climbing up terminals. The fāʾ, in particular, facing directly the knot inter-ruption mirrors in a far rigid way its shape.

The artisan’s name is introduced by ʿamal and is composed by a kunya and a nasab.

…Abū Bakr b. Aḥmad54 – ح��د �بو �ب��لر �ب�ب ا ا

– Padlock, copper alloy, 541/1146-7, retrieved in the ruins of Wolga-Bulghar, Bilyarsk, Kazan Museum.55

52 Mayer, Metalworkers: pp. 25-6.53 Ağa-Oğlu, Mehmet, “An Iranian incense burner”, Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts

(Boston), XLVIII (1950).54 Mayer, Metalworkers: p. 24.55 Répertoire Chronologique d’Épigraphie Arabe, VIII (Cairo: IFAO, 1936: no. 3132; Ağa-Oğlu,

Mehmet, “About a Type of Islamic Incense Burner”, Art Bulletin, XXVII (1945): p. 31.



The artisan’s name is composed by a kunya, employed as the ism, and a nasab.

There is no available picture of the object.

…Aḥmad (…) – ) […] ح��د ا

– Ewer with lamp-shaped spout, copper alloy, undated: probably 10th c., retrieved in Šāhristān, Usrūšāna (Transoxiana, modern-day Tajikistan).56

Signature’s first section – the only part deciphered by archaeologists – reads from top to bottom the artisan’s ism, introduced by the term ʿ amal; the name probably continues in the second section, disposed on the other side of the ewer.

This object is part of a numerous group of signed ewers from Transoxiana, which shares some morphological and decorative features with the ewer signed by Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. Sijzī (see above).

…al-Faḍl or Bā Faḍl – ل� �ل / �ب�ا ��ب��صب ��صب ��ل�هب ا

– Sub-globular ribbed ewer, copper alloy inlaid with copper, undated: late 10th-early 11th c., Museum of Georgian History, Tbilisi (Inv. No. MS 134).57

The signature (Pl. IV.4) lies along the rib below the ewer’s pouring lip. It disposes horizontally on a single line, framed in two rectangular cartouches, with concave short sides, alternated to three roundels. In the first cartouche, unfortunately not published, the introductive term ʿamal is followed by an additional hasta. The background is ring-dotted.

The script is kufic with sharp apices. All the letters are linked together: that would represent an orthographic error in the reading Bā Faḍl – since the alif should be separated from the fāʾ – as well as in the reading al-Faḍl – since the article alif should be separated from the lām.

Two additional drop-shaped elements appear on the ground, respec-tively above the fāʾ and below the ḍād: they are maybe meant to represent leaves. The first letter is probably a bāʾ, given its shortness in respect to the

56 Melikian-Chirvani, “Bronzes – III”: pp. 199, 201.57 Ivanov, Anatoli, “104. Ewer”, in Loukonine, Ivanov (eds.), Lost Treasures of Persia: p. 126.

98 Laviola


following lām, whose height is paralleled just thanks to a decorative vegetal element emerging from the apice.

The decorative composition observed on the signed rib repeats with the same scheme on another rib, bearing a benedictory expression, also in-laid with copper. The writing style is the same, just as the other decorative elements.

…ʿAlī b. Abī Naṣr – ب�ي �ب��صر� ع��ل�ي �ب�ب ا

– Feline-shaped incense burner, copper alloy, undated: probably 11th c., retrieved in the excavation of Khulbuk (southern Tajikistan) in 1978, Donish Institute of History, Dushambe (Inv. No. 571/1).58

The available picture portrays a long trapezoidal cartouche, with concave short sides, on one side of the feline body. It frames the maxim kull ʿamal rijāl, ‘to every work [its] accomplisher’, disposed on a single line. The script is kufic with sharp apices; most of letters’ terminals climb up and evolve in bipartite vegetal elements.

The signature should precede it, on the other side of the feline. Artisan’s name is introduced by ʿamal and is composed by an ism and a nasab.

…ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. Abūʾl-Qāʾim – م

�ئ ��ل�هي�ا �بو ا ع��ل�ي �ب�ب محمد �ب�ب ا

– Aquamanile in shape of three sculptured animals, copper alloy, muḥarram 603/August-September 1206, the Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg (Inv. No. Az-225).59

The signature (Pl. V.1) goes down one side of the cow’s throat, unframed and obliquely disposed following the object’s shape. The whole inscription deploys along both sides of the cow’s neck and throat and continues on its

58 The Antiquities of Tajikistan. Exhibition Catalogue (Dushanbe, 1985): no. 716; Oxus. 2000 Jahre Kunst am Oxus-Fluss in Mittelasien. Museum Rietberg, (Zurich, 1989): no. 93; Ivanov, “100. Incense burner”, in Loukonine, Ivanov (eds.), Lost Treasures of Persia: p. 124.

59 Barrett, Islamic Metalwork: p. x; Gyuzalyan, “Qalamdan”: pl. 3, figs. 4-5; Ivanov, Anatoli, “127. Aquamanile”, in Loukonine, Ivanov (eds.), Lost Treasures of Persia: p. 145; Piotrovsky, Mikhail (ed.), Earthly Art – Heaven Beauty. Art of Islam (London: Lund Humphries, 1999): no. 124, p. 195.



snout as well. It states that the three zoomorphic elements of the sculpture-like vessel were cast in one and expresses the name of the patron, Rūzbih bin Afrīdūn (bin) Burzin, and that of his brother the recipient, Šāh-Burzin bin Afrīdūn (bin) Burzin. The inscription was originally inlaid with silver: just traces remain.

A cut split in two the first term, ʿamal, which introduces the artisan’s ism, two nasabs (one composed by an ism, the second by a kunya), and the professional nisba al-naqqāš, ‘the decorator’. The second nasab usually is reported as Abūʾl-Qāsim: Abūʾl-Qāʾim seems to suit better the inscription lettering.

The text disposes on a single line, but some words show superimposed letters (i.e. the term ʿamal, Muḥammad, al-Qāʾim). The script is cursive, characterized by hastae enlarging toward the top, final yā’s, wāws, nūns and šīns with wide terminals. Chevrons appear above short letters such as the initial ʿayns in ʿamal and ʿAlī, and the bāʾ in bin; other two evolve in an up-turned trilobed flower: just before the term Muḥammad and above the yāʾ in the term al-Qāʾim.

This peculiar aquamanile shows a decoration composed by both free ele-ments and scenes framed into cartouches. The long inscription follows the cow’s shape as a sort of collar; once silver inlaid as the near seven-disc ro-settes, it should have been of strong effect.

…Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad60 – ر �ب�ب م�ح��د

�ع�ل�هب �ح�لب

– Incense burner, 577/1181-2. The artisan is mentioned by Mayer in the Chronological List of Metalworkers

and ascribed to Persia, but there is no further information about his work, or available picture of the incense burner.

The artisan’s name is composed by an ism and a nasab.

…

60 Mayer, Metalworkers: p. 101.

100 Laviola


Ḥasan-i Bā Sahl61 – ح��ل�ب �ب�ا ��ه�ل�

1. Cylindrical ewer, copper alloy, undated: probably late 12th-early 13th c., sold at Sotheby’s in 1971.62

The signature is in a very bad state of preservation and very few details are visible in the available picture, which consents no drawing. A rectan-gular cartouche, with slightly concave short sides, frames the text hori-zontally disposed. Artisan’s name is introduced by ʿ amal and is composed by an ism and a nasab spelled in Persian. The kufic script runs against an almost disappeared vegetal background.

2. Cylindrical ewer, undated: probably later than the previous one, Herat National Museum (Inv. No. 02.26.86).63

The signature (Pl. V.2) lies in the upper register of the ewer’s body, framed into a rectangular cartouche with slightly concave short sides. The in-scription is inlaid with copper as the crescents on the bucket. Spiralling scrolls ending in bilobed leaves run on the background.

The text in plain kufic disposes on a single line: the ḥāʾ is the only letter to show a sort of apice. Lāms draw a typical flat ninety-degree angle; the hāʾ is written as it was in final position; the mīm shows a vertical segment departing from its body. The nūn is rounded and has a high vertical termi-nal. Similar features recur on other works by the same artisan.

The signature is perfectly integrated in the decorative scheme: it shares spaces, style and colours with the other elements.

3. Bucket, copper alloy, undated: probably early 13th c., from Herat (?), former-ly in the Coiffard Collection, then sold.64

The signature (Pl. V.3) lies on the bucket’s body, framed in its upper regis-ter and isolated from the following benedictory sequence by two roun-dels. The latter is a typical feature employed to interrupt continuous bands on buckets.

The text disposes on a single line, occupying the whole height avail-able. The hastae are extremely high, especially compared to sīns’ teeth, which are quite short and degrading. The script is a plain kufic. The initial ḥāʾ in the term Ḥasan climbs up and split in two vegetal terminals. The

61 Melikian-Chirvani, “Bronzes – VI”: p. 8.62 Ibid.: pp. 9-12, pls. I-III, figs. 1-5.63 Ibid.: pp. 12-5, pls. I-III, figs. 6-8; Müller-Wiener, Martina, “Metalwork from the 10th to

the 13th century”, in Franke, Ute and Müller-Wiener, Martina (eds.), Herat Through Time. The Collections of Herat Museum and Archive (Stuttgart: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin-Preußischer Kulturbesitz, 2016 [Ancient Herat, 3]): Cat. No. M98.

64 Melikian-Chirvani, “Bronzes – VI”: pp. 15-23, figs. 10-1.



hāʾ in Sahl is written as a final letter, regardless the middle position it holds; it is similar to the mīm in shape, but bigger in size.

Artisan’s name is introduced by ʿamal and is composed by an ism and a nasab spelled in Persian.

The inscription is inlaid with copper, just as the crescents included in the roundels that flank it. Floriated spiralling scrolls are engraved thinly on the background. The signature is perfectly integrated in the decorative scheme: it occupies the space usually hold by the main benedictory in-scription, interrupted by roundels with crescents. Also, the background is the traditional one.

Observing the bucket decoration, Melikian-Chirvani reckoned that Ḥasan-i Bā Sahl was a naqqāš.65 Other unsigned works can be assigned to the same artisan.66

…Ḥasan b. Ḥusayn – ح��ل�ب �ب�ب �ح��ي�ب�

– Mortar, copper alloy inlaid with copper and silver, undated: probably early 13th c., former Mazar-i Sharif Museum (without Inv. No.).67

The mortar bears two benedictory inscriptions, in cursive and kufic script, on the body; a third inscription, read by Melikian-Chirvani, runs on the rim divided in seven sections: it includes the signature, followed by another benedictory text. The artisan’s name is introduced by ʿamal and is com-posed by an ism, a nasab and a third term, which remains incomprehen-sible. Unfortunately, no picture of the signature is available.

…Maḥmūd Aḥmad68 – ح��د م�ح��ود ا

– Mortar, copper alloy, undated: probably 12th-13th century, unknown owner.

65 Ibid.: p. 19.66 Unsigned works in the style of Ḥasan-i Bā Sahl: sub-globular ewer with cup-shaped open-

ing and conical lid, sold in London in 1978 (Ibid.: pp. 24-7).67 Melikian-Chirvani, Islamic Metalwork: p. 67, fig. 35; Scerrato, Umberto, s.v. “Mortaio”,

in Enciclopedia dell’Arte Medievale (Roma: istituto dell’Enciclopedia Italiana Giovanni Treccani, 1983): pp. 35-40; Laviola, Islamic Metalwork: in print.

68 Grabar, Persian Art: no. 32; Scerrato, “Mortaio”: p. 36.

102 Laviola


ʿAmal introduces the artisan’s name, composed by two isms and followed by another incomprehensible term. The signature is reported, but not pub-lished in a picture.

…Masʿūd b. Aḥmad69 – ح��د ��عود �ب�ب ا

– Bucket, copper alloy inlaid with copper and silver, muḥarram 559/December 1163, Herat, purchased in Bukhara, formerly in the Count Bobrinsky Collection, then in the Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg (Inv. No. IR-2268).70

The name of the patron who ordered the work, al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Rašīdī, starts the inscription on the rim, introducing the names of two artisans, whose roles are distinguished by the verb ḍaraba and the profes-sional designation al-naqqāš, ‘the decorator’ (Pl. V.4). The first is related to Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wāḥid, thus responsible for the manufacturing; the second to Masʿūd b. Aḥmad, the inlayer, whose name is preceded by the title ḥājib, ‘chamberlain’, introduced by ʿamal. Both artisans’ names are composed by an ism and a nasab. Finally, the name of the recipient, ḫwāja Rukn al-Dīn ʿAzīzī b. Abūʾl-Ḥusayn al-Zinjānī, is followed by a good wishing formula (‘may his glory last long’). Names of patron and recipient include a nisba, while the artisans’ ones lack it.

The text runs framed into a semi-circular band with concave short sides; it disposes on a single line, but many letters are raised over the wide termi-nal of the preceding ones, in order to save space.

The inscription has partially lost its silver inlay, revealing the engraved substratum. Given also the semi-circular shape of the object, some terms result obliquely written, in particular the term ʿAbd, which repeats in the name of the patron and that of the manufacturer.

69 Mayer, Metalworkers: p. 61.70 Dimand, Maurice Sven, “Near Eastern metalwork”, Bulletin of The Metropolitan Museum

of Art, XXI (1926); Survey: pl. 1308; Ağa-Oğlu, “Preliminary Note”: p. 121; Ettinghausen “The Bobrinsky”; Dimand, Maurice Sven, “A Saljuq Incense Burner”, The Metropolitan Museum Art Bulletin, New Series, X/5 (1952): p. 152; Barrett, Islamic Metalwork: p. IX; Rice, David Storm, “Studies in Islamic Metal Work – V”, BSOAS, XVII/2 (1955): p. 206; Gyuzalyan, “Qalamdan”: pl. 4, fig. 6; Jones, Dalu and Michell, George, The Arts of Islam. Exhibition Catalogue. Hayward Gallery, 8 Aprile-4 July 1976 (London: The Arts Council of Great Britain, 1976): no. 180; Ivanov, Anatoli, “30. Bucket”, in Masterpieces of Islamic Art in the Hermitage Museum (Kuwait: Dār al-Āthār al-Islāmiyya, 1990); Suslov, Great Art: no. 406; Ivanov, “116. Bucket”: p. 134.



The script is a slightly rigid cursive. Hastae tend to insert in the terminal of preceding letters. Tiny chevrons appear above the bāʾ in the term ḥājib and the qāf in al-naqqāš; a rounded chevron appears above the šīn in al-naqqāš. The name Muḥammad is written with its first three letters superim-posed. Two additional letters appear at the band’s end.

The place of manufacturing is exceptionally stated mentioning explicitly the city of Herat, and not inferred by a nisba – which makes it a certain fact. The presence of a double signature is another unusual feature.

The bucket presents an extraordinary elaborated decoration, including three epigraphical bands on the body, in kufic and cursive (with animated script), expressing good wishing. Texts containing historical information, instead, are not considered part of the decoration; nonetheless, these in-scriptions are inlaid with silver to stand out clearly on the surface metal. Their writing style is also far simpler than those adopted in the decoration.

…Muḥammad71 – م�ح��د

– Inkwell, copper alloy inlaid with copper and silver, undated: probably 12th c., formerly in Possession Demotte, then in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (Inv. No. 35.128).72

The signature (Pl. VI.1) lies on the flat shoulder of the inkwell’s lid, split into three roundels alternated to as many cartouches, the latter framing a cursive benedictory inscription. The same scheme recurs in another inkwell, signed by Šāh Malik (see below). The artisan’s name is introduced by ʿamal and is composed by an ism, followed by the professional nisba al-bayyāʿ, ‘the dealer’.

The script is a very simple kufic. The initial ʿayn in ʿamal is quite squared and appears slightly compressed; the mīm is round and barely pointed. The term Muḥammad is interestingly different from the common script: all let-ters lie on the same line, just the terminal of the ḥāʾ goes back below the writing line, as the ligature between the second mīm and the dāl. The bāʾ

71 Mayer (Metalworkers: pp. 64, 67-8) enlists the same artisan two times, under the names of Muḥammad and Muḥammad al-bayyāʿ, but the object seems to be the same.

72 Harari, “The Arts of Metalwork”: p. 2527, no. 8; Dimand, Maurice Sven, A Handbook of Muhammadan Art (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 19442): p. 140, fig. 82. See footnote no. 9.

104 Laviola


and yāʾ in al-bayyāʿ differ in height; the final ʿayn draws a ninety-degree angle.

The background is minutely ring-dotted. The engraved letters stands out thanks to a black compound. Both the roundels and signature are inlaid with copper, to distinguish them also through colour from the cursive bene-dictory inscription inlaid with silver.

…��د ��وا م�ح��د �ب�ب �ع��ب�د ا – Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wāḥid: see Masʿūd b. Ahmad.

…Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan (?) – (؟) ل�ح��ل�ب� م�ح��د �ب�ب ا

– Cauldron, copper alloy, undated: probably 11th-12th c., former Mazar-i Sharif Museum (without Inv. No.).73

The signature (Pl. VI.2) is still unpublished. It runs on the cauldron’s flange opposite to the pouring one, framed into a trapezoidal cartouche. The text disposes on a single line, with the exception of the first mīm in the term Muḥammad, which is raised.

Artisan’s name is introduced by ʿamal and is composed by an ism and a nasab. The latter term is severely deteriorated and almost unreadable. The knotted article is still clear on the contrary of following letters: given the similarity between the first of whom and the ḥāʾ in the term Muḥammad, and taken into account the residual space, the name Ḥasan looks the most plausible.

The script is a rigid foliated kufic characterized by sharply pointed letters and apices. The apice of the ḥāʾ in Muḥammad originates a bipartite pal-mette. At least four chevrons appear at different heights above short letters. Further stylized vegetal elements are visible on the epigraphical ground.

Three groups of two nicks are engraved on the flange margin. Cartouche ground is engraved so to let the inscription standing out as the geometrical and vegetal decoration on the pouring flange: this feature attests that in-scription and decoration were conceived in same style.

…

73 Laviola, Islamic Metalwork: in print.



Nāṣir74 – صر� �ب�ا

– Ewer, copper alloy inlaid with copper, undated: probably 11th-early 12th c., the Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg (Inv. No. SA-12680).75

The signature (Pl. VI.3) lies on the ewer’s round shoulder, framed into a trap-ezoidal cartouche, with concave short sides, and flanked by two roundels including a lozenge. The cartouche background is minutely dotted. Two ele-ments extraneous to the inscription appear above the last two letters.

ʿAmal introduces the artisan’s name, which is composed only by an ism. The script is a kufic characterized by sharp sloping apices and straight

flat ligatures, with the exception of the descending round one between the ʿayn and mīm in ʿamal. The mīm resembles a hāʾ in final position. The alif in the term Nāṣir descends the writing line, while the final rāʾ climbs up with its terminal.

The inscription and the decorative structure are inserted into a big-ger band filled with a cursive benedictory text against an intricate vegetal background: since the signature interrupts such decoration, it is clear that its presence in that area was planned from the very beginning. Moreover, both the text and the roundels’ margin are inlaid with copper to make them stand out.

…Nūširwān b. Muḥammad – ب�ب م�ح��د�

�ب روا و��صش�ب

– Semi-circular box, undated: probably early 13th c., formerly in the Harari Coll., then in the Museum of Islamic Art, Cairo (Inv. No. 15195).76

The signature (Pl. VI.4) lies inside the lid.77 The artisan’s name is introduced by ʿamal and is composed by an ism and a nasab. No picture of the signature is available, but a drawing traced by Rice shows a cursive script complete of almost every diacritical dot. The majority of letters’ terminals – squared in the lām of ʿ amal and the first wāw in Nūširwān, round in the nūn of Nūširwān and the bāʾ in bin – descends below the writing line. The first mīm in the name Muḥammad is raised, while other letters dispose on a single line.

74 Mayer, Metalworkers: p. 76.75 Ivanov, “124. Ewer”, in Loukonine, Ivanov (eds.), Lost Treasures of Persia: p. 142.76 Répertoire Chronologique d’Épigraphie Arabe, IX (Cairo: IFAO, 1937): no. 3584; Id.: X, p. 269;

Harari, “The Arts of Metalwork”: p. 2528; Survey: pl. 1305c; Rice, “Studies – VI”: p. 235.77 There is no available picture of the signature, but a drawing traced by Rice.

106 Laviola


…Pāydār – ر ا �ي�د �پ�ا

– Ewer with lamp-shaped spout, copper alloy inlaid with copper and silver, undated: probably late 12th c., Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (Inv. No. 54.64).78

The inscription (Pl. VII.1), divided in two sections, starts with the owner’s name, al-šayḫ al-faqīh Aḥmad b. ʿAlī al-Sijzī, introduced by the term ṣāḥibu-hu.79 The nasab and nisba appear in the second section, which con-tinues with the artisan’s name introduced by ʿamal. Melikian-Chirvani has wondered if this artisan could be identified with Pāydār b. Marzabān al-Qāʾinī (see above).80 Unfortunately, the signature limits to the ism without giving any other specification, thus leaving the doubt open. Should they be the same person, the nisbas on his works, al-Qāʾinī and al-Sijzī (from the ewer’s owner), would indicate two bordering regions where a possible cen-tre of production could have been based.

The signature runs unframed on the ewer’s body, above the zoomorphic cartouches that flank the central arch. It is marked by the niello and inlaid with silver, as other inscriptions on the object, but written in a peculiar kufic script, characterized by sharply angular letters, triangular mīms, just hinted round apices on the hastae. The final yāʾ in the name ʿAlī goes back below the writing line. This writing style is employed also for an unframed bene-dictory inscription on the lower side of the spout, but has nothing in com-mon with another kufic adopted in the benedictory band running on the ewer’s lower body.

…Ṣāʿid b. Aḥmad81 – ح��د ع�د �ب�ب ا �ص�ا

1. Casket, copper alloy inlaid with silver, undated: probably late 12th c., for-merly in the Sassoon Possession, then in a private collection.

78 Melikian-Chirvani, Islamic Metalwork: pp. 75-6, figs. 43-44.79 The name of a later owner (Aḥmad b. Muḥammad) is traced with niello, in cursive, on the

ewer’s lower body.80 See Melikian-Chirvani, Islamic Metalwork: pp. 75-6.81 Rice, “Studies – VI”: p. 227-36.



The signature (Pl. VII.2) lies on the casket front wall. A silver inlaid cur-sive band, running against an intricate background made of tight spiral-ling scrolls, frames the central decoration. The upper line reads the artisan’s name (ism, nasab and the title al-faqīh) introduced by ʿ amal. The dāls in the terms Ṣāʿid and Aḥmad have a peculiar wavy upper terminal. The bāʾ in bin is raised in respect to the following nūn.

2. Fragmentary handle of incense burner, copper alloy, undated: probably late 12th c., formerly in the British Museum (Inv. No. 96-5-12-2), then lost.

The signature (Pl. VII.3) runs horizontally along the handle top, framed into a rectangular cartouche with concave short sides flanked by two roundels. ʿAmal introduces the artisan’s name, which is composed by the ism followed by the title al-faqīh and an interrupted further term, most probably a nisba starting with al-mar(wazī) or al-maw(ṣilī). Lacking the nasab, in this case, one can assume that the title is directly related to the artisan and not to his father (see object no. 1).

The text disposes on a single line. Hastae show just hinted apices; the dāl in the name Ṣāʿid has a curl-shaped up-ending terminal.

Two further epigraphical bands run on both handle sides including a benedictory text: all inscriptions on the object are in kufic against a veg-etal background.

…Šāh Malik82 – ه ��ل�ك �ا ��سش

1. Inkwell, copper alloy inlaid with copper and silver, undated: probably 12th-early 13th c., yet in the Peytel Collection, then in the Kofler Collection, Lucerne.83

The signature (Pl. VII.4) lies on the inkwell’s lid, into three roundels that interrupt benedictory cartouches (cf. the inkwell by Muḥammad al-bayyāʿ). The artisan’s name is introduced by ʿamal and is composed by two elements originally indicating titles that should be read as one ism.

The script is a plain kufic on empty background. The hāʾ in the term Šāh is written correctly as a final letter, with its double up-ending termi-nal interlaced. The hastae in Šāh and Malik are straight and descend the

82 Mayer, Metalworkers: p. 82, Pl. XIII.83 Harari, “The Arts of Metalwork”: p. 2527; Survey: pl. 1311a; Ağa-Oğlu, “Preliminary Note”:

p. 121; Mayer, Metalworkers: p. 82, pl. XIIIa-b.

108 Laviola


writing line. The final kāf in the term Malik shows a zigzag shaped up-ending terminal.

The signature appears very neat, precise and its peculiar arrangement provides it with a strong visual impact. It is integrated in the object’s dec-orative scheme, occupying roundels usually including vegetal motifs and employed as separators. The different script in respect to the main text immediately draws the attention. As far as visible from the black and white picture, the signature looks inlaid with silver while the benedictory inscription with copper: a colour detail that again marks an immediate difference between the two.

2. Inkwell, copper alloy inlaid with silver, undated: probably 12th-early 13th c., Baron Carnap Collection, Cairo.84

No picture of this signature has been published so far.

…ʿUmar b. al-Faḍl b. Yūsuf85 – ل �ب�ب �يو��س�ب� ��صب ��ل�هب �ع�مر �ب�ب ا

– Pen-box, copper alloy inlaid with copper and silver, 20 ḏūʾl-qa‘da 542/April 11th 1148, the Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg (Inv. No. SA-12688).86

The signature lies on top of the object, framed into a band running close to the box outer perimeter. The inscription includes the name of the recipient, ʿAlī b. Yūsuf b. ʿUṯmān al-Ḥajj, and the date of manufacturing as well. The ar-tisan’s name is introduced by ʿamal and is composed by the ism, two nasabs and the nisba al-bayyāʿ, ‘the dealer’.

The inscription is inlaid with silver just as the cursive others, expressing good wishing, present on the object. Vegetal scrolls run on the background. The script is a plain kufic. ʿAmal is still well visible, at least in its first two letters that preserve the inlay; then, the inscription becomes more obscure because of the bad state of preservation and the partial loss of silver inlay. The date is introduced by the term bi-ta ʾrīḫ.

The signature is perfectly integrated in the object’s decorative scheme and treated as other inscriptions; its thematic difference is marked by the different writing style.

84 Harari, “The Arts of Metalwork”: p. 2527; Taragan, Hana, “The ‘Speaking’ Inkwell from Khurasan: Object as ‘World’ in Iranian Medieval Metalwork”, Muqarnas, XXII (2005): p. 37.

85 Mayer, Metalworkers: p. 87.86 Barrett, Islamic Metalwork: p. VIII; Gyuzalyan, “Qalamdan”: p. 98; Ivanov, “28. Qalamdan

(Pen-Case)” in Masterpieces of Islamic Art in the Hermitage Museum: p. 16.



…Yūsuf b. al-Yaʿqūb – و�ب

��ل�ي�ع�ل�هي �ب�ب ا�يو��س�ب

1. Pen-box, copper alloy, undated: 12th-13th c., formerly in the Marquet de Vasselot Collection, present owner unknown.87

The signature (Pl. VIII.1) lies on top of the object, at the beginning of the actual pen-box section, after the one devoted to the included inkwell. It is framed by a cartouche and silver inlaid as the whole decoration. A vegetal motif is just hinted on the background.

The artisan’s name is introduced by ʿamal and is composed by an ism and a nasab, the latter awkwardly provided with an article. The text dis-poses mainly in two lines. The script is kufic, characterized by foliated apices in form of bilobed leaves; also, short letters’ terminals reposing on the writing line show further vegetal elements (see for example, the fāʾ in the term Yūsuf and the nūn in bin). Some letters are significantly smaller than others – the mīm in ʿamal, the sīn and fāʾ in Yūsuf. All the composi-tion is based on the delicate joint of letters in the short space available. Above the sīn in the term Yūsuf there is a sort of chevron.

Additional hastae appear in the text: some are suspended such the one above the initial ʿayn and beside the lām to create a pair; some, instead, are full bodied such as the pair at the end of the cartouche, which seems to have no role in the text meaning. This group of letters is crossed by the suspended final bāʾ. The wāw in al-Yaʿqūb has an up-ending terminal with apice: the latter is mirrored by an additional one, so to create the effect of a lām-alif group.

The inscription is part of the object’s decorative scheme, with its own devoted space; it also employs the same line and silver inlay.

…To be thorough, it would be worthy to mention few signatures more that have been left out of this list. A bird-shaped aquamanile from the Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg (Inv. No. IR-1567) would be the most ancient dated object (180/796-7), if confirmed.88 The date could be read as 280/893-4 as

87 Wiet, Cuivres: pp. 19, 81, 169; Répertoire Chronologique d’Épigraphie Arabe, IX (Cairo: IFAO, 1937): no. 3579; Harari, “The Arts of Metalwork”: p. 2492, 2527; Survey: pl. 1317c, d.

88 Mayer, Metalworkers: p. 92; Ivanov, “84. Figure of an eagle” in Loukonine, Ivanov (eds.), Lost Treasures of Persia: p. 111; Ivanov, Masterpieces: no. 1: pp. 10, 70-1.

110 Laviola


well. The place of production, stated in the inscription running around the bird neck, is variously interpreted by scholars: madīna ʾl-Fazz (or al-Fuzz), a quarter of Nishapur; Kashan, Iran; Kasan, in Central Asia. The artisan’s name, Sulaymān, gives no further information about it. Since no picture portrays the whole inscription, there are no elements to prefer one hypothesis to another.

The famous ‘Fould bucket’ from the Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg (Inv. No. IR-1668), signed by Muḥammad b. Nāṣir b. Muḥammad al-Harawī fig-ures out of the list because of the persuasive reasons offered by Ivanov in sup-port of its mid-13th century Anatolian provenance.89 Among these, the Mongol origin of the laqab bahādur al-Islām, ‘champion of the Islam’, part of the recipi-ent’s name, which should have entered the Arabic/Persian language after the Mongol conquest (circa 1220). At first, the object was assigned by Gyuzalyan to the mid-12th century Khurasan, probably also relying upon the artisan’s nisba, which indicates the city of Herat.

Ḥasan al-Qāšānī signs the controversial silver salver dated to 459/1066-7 and dedicated to the Seljuq sultan Alp Arslān (r. 1063-1072).90 The object raises doubts so strong about its authenticity that the Museum of Fine Arts of Boston (Inv. No. 34.68), where it is housed, reports in its on-line record that the salver could be a modern forgery.91 Moreover, the precious metalwork was left out of the recent exhibition held at the Metropolitan Museum of New York devoted to the Seljuqs.92 The signature is part of a long inscription in foliated kufic, run-ning in a band below the inner rim. The artisan’s name unusually is introduced by the term ṣanʿa, ‘workmanship’.

89 Survey: p. 1774; Ettinghausen, “Bobrinsky”: p. 196; Ağa-Oğlu, “Preliminary Note”: p. 121; Barrett, Islamic Metalwork: p. ix; Melikian-Chirvani, Islamic Metalwork: p. 71; Islam. Art and Culture (Stockholm: The Museum of National Antiquities, 1985): p. 137, no. 2; Ivanov, Anatoli, “126. Bucket”, in Loukonine, Ivanov (eds.), Lost Treasures of Persia: p. 144; Id., “A second ‘Herat bucket’ and its congeners”, Muqarnas, XXI (2004).

90 Répertoire Chronologique d’Épigraphie Arabe, VII (Cairo: IFAO, 1936): no. 2661; Harari, “The Arts of Metalwork”: pp. 2500-19, fig. 825, pls. 1347-8; Barrett, Islamic Metalwork: p. vii; Mayer, Metalworkers: p. 44.

91 See http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/salver-dedicated-to-alp-arslan-ruled-1063% E2%80%931072-inscribed-with-an-islamic-date-equivalent-to-1066%E2%80%9367-but-possibly-a-modern%E2%80%93day-forgery-17905. In this regard see Watson, Oliver, “Fakes and Forgeries in Islamic Pottery”, in Finster, B., Fragner, C. and H. Hafenrichter (eds.), Kunst Und Kunsthandwerk im Islam 2. Bamberger Symposium Der Islamischen Kunst 25.-27. Juli 1996 [OM, n.s. XXIII/2] (Rome: Istituto per l’Oriente C.A. Nallino, 2004).

92 “Court and Cosmos. The Great Age of the Seljuqs”, April 27th-June 24th.



Conclusive Remarks

The large majority of signatures is fully integrated in the objects decorative scheme, occupying a space that is traditionally decorated and receiving the same treatment reserved to the other elements: for example, when the inscrip-tions on the object are inlaid, signatures are as well. The inlay, in most cases made with silver, is important to make the text stand out on the surface, so to make the information well visible.

Signatures usually are framed by cartouches; sometimes they run in con-tinuous bands as part of a longer inscription, which can include further infor-mation or be a benedictory one. Two inkwells (by Muḥammad and Šāh Malik) represent a smart way of putting the signature in relation with a benedictory inscription maintaining the two texts strictly separate on a graphical ground.

Unframed signatures represent limited cases. The vertically disposed ones, with the artisan’s name split in two sections, date back to the 10th century (see Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. Sijzī and Aḥmad); later ones, even if unframed are somehow in accordance with the object decoration, and often inlaid. Just one of these signatures, on the ewer by ʿAlī b. (…) al-Isfīrāʾinī, seems to have been added later.

Artisan’s name is always introduced by ʿamal that could also be interpreted as the verbal passive form ʿamila, ‘made by’. In the rare occasion of a double signature – detected so far only on the Bobrinsky bucket – ʿamal is replaced by more specific terms, such as the verb ḍaraba to indicate the object manufac-turer and al-naqqāš for its decorator.

The term al-naqqāš recurs before the name (see Maḥmūd b. Muḥammad al-Harawī) or after it (see Šāḏī al-Harawī, ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. Abūʾl-Qāʾim, Masʿūd b. Aḥmad): according to its position in the name sequence, it can hold the role of a professional designation or that of a nisba, derived from the person’s job.93 Another professional nisba related to the artisan activity is al-bayyāʿ, ‘the dealer’, recurring two times after the name (see Muḥammad and ʿUmar b. al-Faḍl b. Yūsuf).

Titles unrelated to the professional field are extremely rare in signatures: ḥājib, in its one and only occurrence, precedes the name Masʿūd b. Aḥmad. According to Ettinghausen, the use of high rank titles by common people

93 Nisbas derived from professional designations differ from the other kinds, usually relat-ed to a social group, a place, etc., because the final adjectival -ī is optional. See Sublet, Jaqueline, s.v. “Nisba”, in EI2 VIII (1995): p. 54.

112 Laviola


from the eastern Iranian area should be regarded as a progressive degradation of titles themselves.94

Artisans’ names usually are composed by an ism and a nasab; in few cases, the ism is replaced by a kunya; just in one occasion, a kunya and an ism precede the nasab. The latter usually goes back to the previous generation, only in five cases up to the grandfather. Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. Sijzī represents the rare circumstance of a nasab entirely composed by a nisba (the ism should have been omitted).

Sixteen among recorded names end in a geographical nisba, which cannot be taken for granted as the artisan actual birthplace. Since it usually follows the nasab, it could refer to his ancestors. Sometimes, a nisba is attributed to characterize someone who has travelled or has spent part of his life in a region different from his origin’s one. Moreover, the artisan’s provenance not always coincides with the object’s place of manufacturing, since artisans’ mobility and travelling work are well attested facts. The Bobrinsky bucket and the Tbilisi ewer dated to 577/1181-2 are unusual exceptions because their provenance from Herat is explicitly stated in the inscriptions.

Still standing the above-mentioned limits, the detected nisbas can provide a hint about the artisan’s origin. Tracing on the map the cities and areas indicat-ed by the nisbas, the Khurasan region definitely stands out through many dif-ferent cities: Herat (five signatures), Nishapur and Tus (two signatures each), Merv, Isfīrāʾin and Qāʾin (one signature each). Other two nisbas indicate the Sistan region, while Isfahan (two signatures) and Qazvin (one signature) speak for the proper Iranian area (Pl. VIII.2).

Four cases (Ḫājakī Ṭūsī, Muḥammad Ṭūsī, Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. Sijzī and ʿUmar b. Abīʾl-ʿAlā b. Aḥmad Iṣfahānī) represent an exception to the rule that commends the nisba to be accompanied by the article.

Very rarely signatures are followed by further expressions: no religious for-mula has been identified, but two maxims related to the artisan profession follow the signatures of Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Hārūn al-Harawī and ʿAlī b. Abī Naṣr.

Some of these signed metalwork inform about other people beyond arti-sans. Two names of patrons are expressed: al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Rašīdī, who patronized the famous Bobrinsky bucket, and Rūzbih bin Afrīdūn (bin) Burzin, who had an extraordinary aquamanile made for his own brother Šāh-Burzin bin Afrīdūn (bin) Burzin. Majd al-Mulk al-Muẓaffar, vizier of sultan ʿAlāʾ al-dīn Muḥammad Ḫwārizm-šāh, could have been either the patron or recipi-ent of a pen-box by Ṣāḏī.

94 See Ettinghausen, “Bobrinsky”: p. 202.



Names of recipients include the ḫwāja Rukn al-Dīn ʿAzīzī b. Abūʾl-Ḥusayn al-Zinjānī, the merchant the Bobrinsky bucket was made for, and ʿAlī b. Yūsuf b. ʿUṯmān al-Ḥajj, who received a pen-box dated to 542/1148 signed by ʿUmar b. al-Faḍl b. Yūsuf. The term ṣāḥibu-hu introduces al-šayḫ al-faqīh Aḥmad b. ʿAlī al-Sijzī on a ewer from the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Inv. No. 54.64). The name is particularly interesting since it ends in a nisba adopted by two ar-tisans. Finally, the name ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Ṭājī appears on a feline-shaped incense burner from the Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg (Inv. No. IR-1565), datable to the 11th-12th century.95 The name, inlaid with silver, is framed in a rectangular cartouche on the feline breast, thus in a prominent position, but since ʿamal lacks, it is impossible to determine whether it is the artisan or recipient name.

Turning to strictly epigraphical issues: the kufic script is generally preferred to cursive in signatures and declined in its many variants. Ornamental apices of two kinds at least, sharp sloping or half-lance-shaped, have been detected. In some cases, vegetal elements appear on the epigraphical ground or originate from letters. Chevrons of varying shape and size are employed to fill empty spaces and with a decorative intent, rather than playing a diacritical role. Traditional spiralling scrolls occur as a background in those signatures that are most similar to benedictory inscriptions present on the object. Otherwise, the background can be dotted or ring-dotted, or even plain.

Arabic language is still dominant, but Persian is becoming popular in 12th-13th century inscriptions, characterizing some names or employed beside Arabic for inscriptions of different content on the same object.

Some general rules emerge from this analysis: the signature holds a clear visible position, still keeping a balanced role in respect to other inscriptions and decorative elements; a standardized terminology and sequence of terms

95 Harari, “The Arts of Metalwork”: p. 2527; Islam: p. 129, no. 5; Soucek, P. Priscilla (ed.), Content and Context of Visual Arts in the Islamic World: papers from a colloquium in memory of Richard Ettinghausen: Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, 2-4 April 1980 (Philadelphia-London: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1988): p. 172, pl. 4; Ivanov, Anatoli, “18. Incense burner”, in Masterpieces of Islamic Art in the Hermitage Museum, with related references; Suslov, V.A., Great Art Treasures of the Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg (New York: Harry N. Abramas, 1994): no. 403; Ivanov, “101. Incense burner”, in Loukonine, Ivanov (eds.), Lost Treasures of Persia: p. 124. The early date of 11th cen-tury is supported by Ivanov (“28. Qalamdan (Pen-Case)”, in Masterpieces of Islamic Art in the Hermitage Museum; Mayer (Metalworkers: p. 37) enlists this name among artisans. The 11th century looks the most correct date, taking into account the pierced five-lobed-palmette design. The kufic benedictory inscriptions composed by terms with no article supports as well such early dating.

114 Laviola


is adopted in composing it. On the other hand, some space is left for creativity to those artisans gifted with a stronger artistic taste, whose signatures reveal a specific and recognisable style.

Bibliographical References

Ağa-Oğlu, Mehmet, “The Use of Architectural Forms in Seljuq Metalwork”, Art Quarterly, VI (1943): pp. 92-8.

Ağa-Oğlu, Mehmet, “A Brief Note on Islamic Terminology for Bronze and Brass”, JAOS, LXIV (1944): pp. 218-23.

Ağa-Oğlu, Mehmet, “About a Type of Islamic Incense Burner”, Art Bulletin, XXVII (1945): pp. 28-45.

Ağa-Oğlu, Mehmet, “A Preliminary Note on two Artists from Nishapur”, Bulletin of the Iranian Institute, VI (1946): pp. 121-4.

Ağa-Oğlu, Mehmet, “An Iranian incense burner”, Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts (Boston), XLVIII (1950): pp. 8-10.

Allan, James W., The metalworking industry in Iran in the early Islamic period (PhD thesis, Oxford University, 1976). http://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:278c6978-9421- 46af-af61-a062a2044591.

Allan, James W., Persian Metal Technology, 700-1300 A.D. (London: University of Oxford, 1979).

Baer, Eva, Metalwork in Medieval Islamic Art (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983).

Barrett, Douglas, Islamic Metalwork in the British Museum (London: British Museum, 1949).

Cahen, Claude, “Mouvements populaires et autonomisme urbain dans l’Asie du moyen âge II”, Arabica, VI/1 (1959): pp. 25-56.

Dimand, Maurice Sven, “Near Eastern metalwork”, Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, XXI (1926): pp. 193-9.

Dimand, Maurice Sven, “Saljuq Bronzes from Khurasan”, Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, IV (1945): pp. 87-92.

Dimand, Maurice Sven, “A Saljuq Incense Burner”, The Metropolitan Museum Art Bulletin, New Series, X/5 (1952): pp. 150-53.

Dimand, Maurice Sven, A Handbook of Muhammadan Art (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 19442).

Ettinghausen, Richard, “The Bobrinsky Kettle, Patron and Style of an Islamic Bronze”, Gazette des Beaux Arts, XXIV (1943): pp. 193-208.

Gyuzalyan, L.T., “The Bronze Qalamdan (Pen-Case) 542/1148 from the Hermitage Collection (1936-65): To My Teacher, the Academician I.A. Orbeli”, Ars Orientalis, VII (1968): pp. 95-119.



Grabar, Oleg (ed.), Persian art before and after the Mongol Conquest (Catalogue of the Exhibition April 9-May 17 1959), (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Museum of Art, 1959).

Harari, Ralph, “The Arts of Metalwork. Metalwork after the Early Islamic Period”, in Pope, Arthur Upham and Ackerman, Phyllis (eds.), A Survey of Persian Art from Prehistoric Times to the Present (London-New York: Oxford University Press, 1938-9): III, pp. 2466-529.

Herzfeld, Ernst, “A Bronze Pen-Case”, Ars Islamica, III/1 (1936): pp. 35-43.Islam. Art and Culture (Stockholm: The Museum of National Antiquities, 1985).Ivanov, Anatoli, “18. Incense burner”; “28. Qalamdan (Pen-Case)”; “30. Bucket”, in

Masterpieces of Islamic Art in the Hermitage Museum (Kuwait: Dār al-Āthār al-Islāmiyya, 1990): pp. 13-14; 16-7.

Ivanov, Anatoli, “84. Figure of an eagle”; “100. Incense burner”; “101. Incense burner”; “104. Ewer”; “117. Ewer”; “118. Cauldron”; “119. Cauldron”; “122. Base of lamp-stand”; “124. Ewer”; “125. Incense burner”; “126. Bucket”; “127. Aquamanile”; in Loukonine, Vladimir and Ivanov, Anatoli (eds.), Lost Treasures of Persia. Persian Art in the Hermitage Museum (Washington, DC: Mage Publishers, 1996): pp. 111; 124; 126; 136-9; 141-2; 144-5.

Ivanov, Anatoli, “A second ‘Herat bucket’ and its congeners”, Muqarnas, XXI (2004): pp. 171-9.

Jones, Dalu and Michell, George, The Arts of Islam. Exhibition Catalogue. Hayward Gallery, 8 Aprile-4 July 1976 (London: The Arts Council of Great Britain, 1976).

Laviola, Valentina, Islamic Metalwork from Afghanistan (9th-13th c.). The Italian Archaeological Mission Archives (1957-1978) (Leiden: Brill Publisher, 2018, in print).

Mayer, Leo Ari, Islamic Metalworkers and their Works (Geneva: Albert Kundig, 1959).Melikian-Chirvani, Assadoullah Souren, “Les bronzes du Khorassan – I”, StIr, III (1974):

pp. 29-50.Melikian-Chirvani, Assadoullah Souren, “Les bronzes du Khorassan – II. Une école in-

connue du XIIe siècle”, StIr, IV (1975): pp. 51-71.Melikian-Chirvani, Assadoullah Souren, “Les bronzes du Khorassan – III. Bronzes in-

édits du Xe et du XIe siècles”, StIr, IV (1975): pp. 187-205.Melikian-Chirvani, Assadoullah Souren, “Les thèmes ésotériques et les thèmes mys-

tiques dans l’art du bronze iranien”, in Seyyed Hossein Nasr (ed.), Mélanges offerts à Henri Corbin (Tehran: McGill and Tehran Universities, 1977): pp. 367-406.

Melikian-Chirvani, Assadoullah Souren, “Les bronzes du Khorassan – VI: L’oeuvre de Hasane Bā Sahl de l’emploi de l’unité modulare et des nombres privilégiés dans l’art du bronze”, StIr, VIII (1979): pp. 7-32.

Melikian-Chirvani, Assadoullah Souren, “Les bronzes du Khorassan – VII. Šāzī de Herat, ornemaniste”, StIr, VIII (1979): pp. 223-43.

Melikian-Chirvani, Assadoullah Souren, Islamic Metalwork from the Iranian World 8th-18th centuries (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1982).

116 Laviola


Melikian-Chirvani, Assadoullah Souren, “State inkwells in Islamic Iran”, Journal of the Walters Art Gallery, XLIV (1986): pp. 70-94.

Müller-Wiener, Martina, “Metalwork from the 10th to the 13th century”, in Franke, Ute and Müller-Wiener, Martina (eds.), Herat Through Time. The Collections of Herat Museum and Archive (Stuttgart: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin-Preußischer Kulturbesitz, 2016 [Ancient Herat, 3]): pp. 89-138.

Oxus. 2000 Jahre Kunst am Oxus-Fluss in Mittelasien. (Zurich: Museum Rietberg, 1989).Piotrovsky, Mikhail (ed.), Earthly Art – Heaven Beauty: Art of Islam (London: Lund

Humphries, 1999).Pope, Arthur Upham and Ackermann, Phyllis (eds.), A Survey of Persian Art From

Prehistoric Times to the Present (London-New York: Oxford University Press, 1938-9).

Répertoire Chronologique d’Épigraphie Arabe, vols. VI to IX (Cairo: IFAO, 1935-7).Rice, David Storm, “Studies in Islamic Metal Work – V”, BSOAS, XVII/2 (1955): pp. 206-31.Rice, David Storm, “Studies in Islamic Metal Work – VI”, BSOAS, XXI/1-3 (1958):

pp. 225-53.Sarre, Friedrich, Erzeugnisse islamischer Kunst, I. Metall (Berlin: Kommissionsverlag

von K. W. Hiersemann in Leipzig, 1906).Scerrato, Umberto, “Oggetti metallici di età islamica in Afghanistan. II: Il ripostiglio di

Maimana”, AION, n.s., XIV/2 (1964): pp. 673-714.Scerrato, Umberto, s.v. “Mortaio”, in Enciclopedia dell’Arte Medievale (Roma: Istituto

dell’Enciclopedia italiana G. Treccani, 1983): pp. 35-40.Soucek, P. Priscilla (ed.), Content and Context of Visual Arts in the Islamic World: papers

from a colloquium in memory of Richard Ettinghausen: Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, 2-4 April 1980 (Philadelphia-London: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1988).

Sublet, Jaqueline, s.v. “Nisba”, in EI2 VIII (1995): pp. 53-6.Suslov, V.A., Great Art Treasures of the Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburgh (New York:

Harry N. Abramas, 1994).Taragan, Hana, “The ‘Speaking’ Inkwell from Khurasan: Object as ‘World’ in Iranian

Medieval Metalwork”, Muqarnas, XXII (2005): pp. 29-44.The Antiquities of Tajikistan. Exhibition Catalogue (Dushanbe: 1985).van Berchem, Max, “Notes d’archéologie arabe (III): Etude sur les cuivres damasquinés

et les verres émaillés. Inscriptions, marques, armoiries”, JA, X/3 (1904): pp. 5-96.Watson, Oliver, “Fakes and Forgeries in Islamic Pottery”, in Finster, B., Fragner, C. and

H. Hafenrichter (eds.), Kunst und Kunsthandwerk im Islam 2. Bamberger Symposium Der Islamischen Kunst 25.-27. Juli 1996 [OM, n.s. XXIII/2] (Rome: Istituto per l’Oriente C.A. Nallino, 2004): pp. 517-39.



Wiet, Gaston, Les objets mobiliers en cuivre et en bronze à inscriptions historiques (Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1932).

Wiet, Gaston, L’Exposition persane de 1931 (Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1933).

Biographical Note

Valentina Laviola has devoted her PhD research to eastern Iranian metalwork and is about to publish a volume of Islamic metalwork from Afghanistan. She is a member of the Italian Archaeological Mission in Afghanistan and Adjunct Professor of Islamic Art and Archaeology at the University of Bologna.

118 Laviola


plate i.1 Signature by ʿAbd al-Razzāq b. Masʿūd al-Nīšābūrī (after Ağa-Oğlu, “Preliminary Note”: fig. 2).

plate i.2 Signature by Abū Bakr b. Aḥmad Marwazī no. 1.

plate i.4 Signature by Abū Naṣr Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Sijzī (after Harari, Survey: fig. 811a).

plate ii.1 Signature by ʿAlī b. (…) al-Isfīrāʾinī.

plate i.3 Signature by Abū Bakr b. Aḥmad Marwazī no. 2.



plate ii.2 Signature by Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. Sijzī.

plate ii.3 Signature by Maḥmūd al-Qazwīnī.

plate ii.4 Signature by Muḥammad b. Abī Sahl al-Harawī.

plate ii.5 Signature by Muḥammad Ṭūsī.

plate iii.1 Signature by Nāṣir b. Asʿad Nīsābūrī (after Ağa-Oğlu, “Preliminary Note”: fig. 5).

120 Laviola


plate iii.2 Signature by Pāydār b. Marzabān al-Qāʾinī.

plate iii.3 Signature by Šāḏī (al-Harawī) no. 1.

plate iii.4 Signature by Šāḏī (al-Harawī) no. 2.

plate iv.1 Signature by Šāḏī (al-Harawī) no. 3.

plate iv.2 Signature by Abūʾl-Fatḥ.



plate iv.3 Signature by Abūʾl-Munīf (?) b. Masʿūd.

plate iv.4 Signature by al-Faḍl.

plate V.2 Signature by Ḥasan-i Bā Sahl no. 2.

plate v.1 Signature by ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. Abūʾl-Qāʾim.

plate v.3 Signature by Ḥasan-i Bā Sahl no. 3.

122 Laviola


plate v.4 Signature by Masʿūd b. Aḥmad.

plate vi.1 Signature by Muḥammad.

plate vi.2 Signature by Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan (?).

plate vi.3 Signature by Nāṣir.



plate vi.4 Signature by Nūširwān b. Muḥammad (after Rice, “Studies – VI”: p. 235).

plate vii.1 Signature by Pāydār.

plate vii.2 Signature by Ṣāʿid b. Aḥmad no. 1 (after Rice, “Studies – VI”: fig. 2).

plate VII.3 Signature by Ṣāʿid (b. Aḥmad) no. 2 (after Rice, “Studies – VI”: fig. 9).

plate VII.4 Signature by Šāh Malik.

124 Laviola


plate VIII.1 Signature by Yūsuf b. al-Yaʿqūb.

plate VIII.2 Cities mentioned by artisans’ nisbas (re-worked by the author after GoogleEarth).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/24685623-12340032

EURASIAN Studies 15/1 (2017) 175-176brill.com/eurs

Abbreviations

AAS Asian and African StudiesAION Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli /Università “Orientale”

di NapoliAO Archivum OttomanicumAOAH Acta Orientalia Academiae Scentiarum HungaricaeArOr Archiv OrientálníBF Byzantinische ForschungenBSOAS Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African StudiesCaCe Cahiers d’Asie CentraleCAJ Central Asiatic JournalEB Études BalcaniquesES Eurasian StudiesEI Encyclopédie de l’Islam/Encyclopaedia of IslamEIr Encyclopaedia IranicaİA İslam AnsiklopedisiIJMES International Journal of Middle East StudiesIrSt Iranian StudiesJA Journal AsiatiqueJAOS Journal of American Oriental SocietyJBS Journal of Balkan StudiesJESHO Journal of the Economic and Social History of the OrientJIS Journal of Islamic StudiesJNES Journal of Near Eastern StudiesJOS Journal of Ottoman Studies/Osmanlı AraştırmalarıJRAS Journal of the Royal Asiatic SocietyJTS Journal of Turkish StudiesMES Middle Eastern StudiesMHR Mediterranean Historical ReviewOM Oriente ModernoREI Revue des Études IslamiquesRMM Revue du Monde MusulmanREMM Revue des Mondes Musulmans et de la MéditerranéeRO Rocznik Orientalistyczny

176 Abbreviations


StIr Studia IranicaStIs Studia IslamicaWO Die Welt des OrientsWZKM Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des MorgenlandesZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft

Eurasian Studies - unora.unior.it · Eurasian Studies Editor-in-Chief Michele Bernardini...

Documents

Transcript of Eurasian Studies - unora.unior.it · Eurasian Studies Editor-in-Chief Michele Bernardini...