Enchanting the Eyes, Blessing the Soul: a Study on the Meaning and Role of

Epigraphy on Sāmānid Pottery based on Three Dutch Collections

Leiden University

Research Master Area Studies: Asia and the Middle East, Comparative Studies

Pleșa Alexandra Daniela, S1050915

Coord.: Prof. Dr. Petra M. Sijpesteijn

Second Reader: Dr. Matt Immerzeel

Leiden,

September 2012

Contents :

Abbreviation Table 6

Transliteration Table 7

Acknowledgements 8

Introduction 11

1. Background 15

1.1. Historical and Terminological Background 15

1.1.1. Sāmānids, Qarākhānids, Ghaznawids and Saljuks 15

1.1.2. The Sāmānid Pottery. Is it an appropriate term? 17

1.2. The Research on the Topic 18

1.2.1. The Archaeological Research on Sāmānid Pottery 19

1.2.2. Directions of Research in Art History 21

1.2.3. Research in Epigraphic Studies 24

1.2.4. Explaining the Meaning of Writing on Pottery: Aesthetics, Symbolism and

Communication 25

1.2.5. Conclusions on the Scholarship on Sāmānid Pottery 27

1.3. Contextualizing the Study: why a study on epigraphic Sāmānid pottery? What are its

outcomes? 28

1.4. Methodological Challenges 29

1.4.1. The Selection of the Material 29

1.4.2. The Question of Representative Material 29

1.4.3. Medium-Quality vs. Top-Quality Wares 30

1.4.4. Additional Concerns regarding the “Museum Pieces” 30

1.4.5. Technicalities 32

2. The History of the Museum Collections: Policies of Acquisition, Publication and Display of

Sāmānid Pottery 33

2.1. The Gemeentemuseum Collection 33

2.2. The Rijksmuseum Collection 35

2.3. The Princessehof Collection 37

2.4. The Publication of the Three Collections 41

2.5. The Display of the Collections 42

2.6. Conclusions 44

3. Description and Analysis of the Corpus 45

3.1. The Chronology and Geographical Distribution of the Material 46

3.2. Defining and Analyzing Ceramic Features (Variables) 47

3.2.1. The Ceramic Typology 47

3.2.2. The Ware Quality 53

3.2.3. The Script Legibility 55

3.2.4. The Script Styles 58

3.2.5. The Inscription Types and Content 60

3.2.6. The Inscription Position 62

3.2.7. The Inscription Repetition 63

3.3. Analysis of the Ceramic Features (Variables) 64

3.3.1. Correlating Typology with Script Legibility 64

3.3.2. The Interconnection of Typology and Quality 65

3.3.3. Relating Pottery Quality to Styles of Script 67

3.3.4. Types of Inscriptions, their Content, Position and Repetition 69

3.4. Conclusions of the Analysis 72

4. Interpreting Writing on Sāmānid Pottery 73

4.1. The Aesthetics of Writing 75

4.2. The Symbolic Dimension of Writing 76

4.2.1. Writing in Arabic Language and Script 76

4.2.2. Writing in Kūfic Style 77

4.3. Religious and Mystical Use of Inscriptions: Religious, Pious and Well-being Texts 79

4.4. Writing as Communication 81

4.4.1. Visual Recognition of Script and Inscriptions: Theories of Reading, Literacy and

Pictorial Literacy 82

4.4.2. Visual Recognition of Content: Pious and Religious Concepts, Script Legibility 83

4.4.3. The Process of Manufacturing Inscriptions: the Five Most Popular Aphorisms on

Pottery 85

Conclusions 91

Bibliography 95

Appendices

Appendix A: The Catalogue

Appendix B: Previously published illustrations used in the catalogue

Abbreviation Table

AI Archéologie Islamique

AO Ars Orientalis

BAI Bulletin of the Asia Institute

BMM Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art

CHI The Cambridge History of Iran

EI II Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition

EV Epigrafika Vostoka

Iran BIPS Iran: Journal of the British Institute of Persian

Studies

MDAFA Mémoires de la Délégation Archéologique Française

en Afghanistan

MET The Metropolitan Museum of Art

OKS Ottema-Kingma Stichting

SPA A Survey of Persian Art: Fom Prehistoric Times to

the Present

Transliteration Table

For the present study, the IJMES (International Journal for Middle Easter Studies) transliteration

system was used.

Consonants Vowels ا or ى ’ ء ā

ū و b ب

ī ي t ت

th ث

j ج

ḥ ح

kh خ

d د

dh ذ

r ر

z ز

s س

sh ش

ṣ ص

ḍ ض

ṭ ط

ẓ ظ

‘ ع

gh غ

f ف

q ق

k ك

l ل

m م

n ن

h ه

w و

y ي

a ة

Acknowledgements

At many stages in my research I benefitted from the support, advice and expertise of other

academics, organizations and fellow students. I would like to express my appreciation to my

supervisor, Prof. Petra Sijpesteijn whose support, advice, and ideas have contributed many

times to the crystallization of my research focus. Her commitment to excellence in scholarship

impelled me to work with seriousness, dedication and lucidity. I am thankful to my second

reader, Dr. Mat Immerzeel, for providing his expertise to the art historical domains of my

research, but also for his unconditional availability for advice. Several other academics

accepted to share with me their expertise. I am indebted to Dr. Luit Mols from Rijksmuseum

Volkenkunde in Leiden, for proofreading a first version of this study and for sharing her

knowledge on medieval Islamic metalwork, which challenged and reshaped many of my ideas.

Dr. Tasha Vorderstrasse proofread my manuscript and provided new bibliographical

information on the Russian publications in the field.

In working with museum material I depended on the enthusiasm and openness of

several individuals. At Gemeentemuseum, Mr. Titus Eliëns and Mr. Jef Teske provided me with

information on the collection and on the relevant bibliography. I especially thankful to Ms.

Joyce Quast-Fleur, not only for her information on the history of the collection, but also for the

motherly care with which she made sure that I had proper breaks and enough tea. At

Rijksmuseum, Mr. Jan van Campen and Mr. Jan de Hond received me with enthusiasm and

shared their knowledge on the history of the collections. Mr. René Bleckman provided me with

the entire museum database in digital form. At Princessehof, I was dependent on the help of

Mr. Wilbert Helmus and Ms. Nynke Spahr, who ensured my access to the collection and

publications. Finally, Ms. Hillegonda Janssen has kindly received me to her house to analyze

some ceramic pieces, and accepted to share with me her passion for Islamic ceramics.

I must thank Nicola Verderame and Luca Foti for sharing their thesis manuscripts with

me, and Vakhtang Karamyan, who generously gave many hours of his time for translating the

Russian literature used in this study, and for transcribing and translating the Russian titles in

the bibliography. Finally, I am indebted to Viorel Grigorescu for the painstaking task of

formatting the catalogue.

Leiden, September 2012

Introduction

On a dusty afternoon of June, I was wandering on the shopping streets of modern Jarash, in

search for a souvenir from the city acknowledged as one of the most flourishing Late Antique

urban centers in the Middle East. We randomly entered a jewelry shop, and after long

deliberation, we chose a silver pendant rendering a small Qur’ān page containing a sūra

fragment. After the traditional negotiation, the jeweler offered to sell the pendant provided

that it should not be worn when bathing. Interestingly, the main issue was not that the

pendant containing the Qur’ānic fragment would be worn by the non-Muslim, European

woman that I am, but rather how one should handle the piece, what was permissible when

handling the sacred text, and what was not.

Some 650 years earlier, the celebrated Shāfi‘īte jurist Taqī al-Dīn al-Subkī (d. 1355)1 was

manifesting similar concerns regarding the use of objects inscribed with various pious texts

and blessings2. Asked if it is permissible to step on a carpet on which recognizable blessings

were written, al-Subkī takes a rather negative attitude, responding that since the letters were

the creation of God, they were primarily intended to reproduce His Word. In this respect, those

knowledgeable about their true purpose should not step on them. However, those ignorant of

the true purpose of letters and their sacredness would not commit a sin if stepping on them.

By means of being created by God to spread His word, writing was to be revered, and used, - as

Subkī mentions -, only for the spread of the true word and of all kinds of helpful knowledge, al-

‘ilm al-nāfi‘3. Writing was sacred in itself.

The two situations I described echo a larger discussion regarding the uses of the Qur’ān

and of sacred texts that constituted one of the key subjects of theological discussions since the

1 Unless specified otherwise, all dates in this study belong to the Common Era.

2 Al-Subkī’s fatwā was also used by Rosenthal in his discussion on the sacredness of Arabic language and script in

Islam, see Franz Rosenthal, "Significant Uses of Arabic Writing," AO 4 (1961): 15. See further, Taqī al-Dīn b. ‘Abd al-

Kāfī Al-Subkī, Fatāwā, vols. ( eirut Dār al-Maʿrifa, 1983), 563-65. 3 Al-Subkī, Fatāwā, 564.

10

early days of Islam, and which continues today with the same vigor and strength. The accounts

give us insight into the importance of proper handling of the Qur’ān and sacred texts, on the

sacredness of writing in Arabic, and lastly, on the use of writing on material culture for

protection and benediction. What links the jeweler’s pendant and the carpet in al-Subkī’s

fatwā is the fact the both are material culture objects, inscribed with sacred texts, used in the

day-to-day life, to provide benefit and protection for their users. Indeed using text, and

particularly sacred texts on material culture objects of various sorts is one of the most

widespread customs since the beginning of Islam, and commonly acknowledged as one of the

defining features of Islamic art.

It is one of these various material culture objects that forms the core of this study.

Equally foreign from al-Sūbkī’s carpets or the jeweler’s pendant, the class of objects is mostly

known as the Sāmānid pottery, a type of glazed, slip-painted ceramics that were produced

largely between the ninth and late eleventh centuries in the regions of Khurāsān and

Transoxiana, during the rise of the Sāmānid dynasty. Produced and circulated only east from

Isfahān and Rayy, they received as main decoration moralistic and pious inscriptions written

in Arabic in kūfic or cursive scripts. This luxurious glazed production constitutes one of the

most beautiful and elegant ceramic varieties in Islam, that have attracted the praise of modern

scholars on many occasions.

Despite the scholarly praise, Sāmānid pottery is still an under-published topic, where

the basic knowledge about production, consumption, social meaning, chronology or

epigraphic vocabulary is far from clarified. The methods of research are almost completely

restricted to the art-historical comparative analysis that focuses of the aesthetic, typological

and decorative aspects of ceramics. Statements about decoration and writing on pottery are

not funded on solid quantitative analyses, but on the study of individual pieces. Moreover, no

agreement was reached regarding the meaning and role of the inscriptions or of the pseudo-

script phenomenon, scholars favoring either their aesthetic, symbolic or communicative

aspects4.

This study engages with the topic of writing on pottery, and aims to respond to the

question of meaning and role of epigraphy on Sāmānid pottery. How can we interpret the

4 See chapter 1 for an assessment of the research on the meaning of writing on pottery.

11

appearance of epigraphy on pottery? What was the significance that it holds in relation to the

users of ceramics? In order to answer these questions, it uses as material a 65 pieces corpus

belonging to three Dutch museum collections, - The Gemeentemuseum in The Hague, The

Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, and the Princessehof Museum in Leeuwarden. Contrarily to the

art historical research applied so far to Sāmānid ceramics, a quantitative analysis of ceramic

features is designed. The formal characteristics of writing on pottery, legibility, script style,

position and repetition of scripts are compared and juxtaposed with other ceramic features

such as typology and quality, in order to observe patterns of manifestation of writing. The

analysis tracks several sub-questions how is writing on pottery “behaving”? What are the

patterns that we can observe when performing a quantitative analysis on ceramic inscriptions,

and how can we explain them? How can they contribute to understand the significance of

writing on pottery, the reasons for which it was produced, or the use of it? Lastly, it interprets

the results of the quantitative analysis by making appeal to primary sources of the time and by

theoretical works on literacy and communication.

The structure of the study gradually follows the objective. The succession of the four

chapters supplemented by a catalogue appendix aims to introduce the reader to the topic

progressively, and to create the avenues for a discussion on the meaning of writing on

Sāmānid pottery. In this sense, the first two chapters are introductory, providing the

historical, scholarly and museum acquisition background of the material. Chapter 3 develops

two successive tracks: it offers a general description of the corpus, as well as a classification

and description of ceramic variables or features. Finally, it proposes a statistical analysis of the

defined variables with a focus on script features and distinguishes several patterns of

interaction between them. Chapter 4 builds primarily on the results of the quantitative

analysis, and offers an initial explanation for its results. It goes beyond the analysis results, by

focusing on the content and display of inscriptions, by engaging with theoretical works on

literacy and communication, as well as primary sources of the time, all in order to arrive at a

more balanced view on the role and function of epigraphy on Sāmānid pottery. The catalogue

was included as an appendix in order to facilitate further reference without appealing to the

body of the study.

Chapter 1. Background

A study on the epigraphy of Sāmānid pottery not only needs to be contextualized in the larger

scholarly literature, but also has to address the many theoretical and methodological

challenges involved. The present chapter is designed to introduce the topic of study and the

research conducted in the field so far, to motivate my approach, and to offer an account

diverse methodological traps and pitfalls that I encountered. My point of departure is the

historical and terminological background of Sāmānid pottery. Who were the Sāmānids, what is

the Sāmānid pottery, and how did it become a label?

1.1. Historical and Terminological Background

1.1.1. Sāmānids, Qarakhanids, Ghaznawids and Saljuks

Cradle of a population of largely Iranian descent, still in a great proportion subject to different

religions than Islam, and other communication languages than Arabic1, the provinces of

Khurāsān and Transoxiana were gradually subdued to the power of the Sāmānid dynasty in the

course of the ninth century. The Sāmānid family, whose uncertain origins points to a rather

Soghdian than Arabic descent2, was governing Transoxiana under the Ṭāhirids (821-891)3 since

the early ninth century. Taking advantage of the loosening of Ṭāhirid power towards the end

of the ninth century, the Sāmānids laid the foundations of an autonomous political power,

while continuing their formal recognition of the ‘Abbāsid caliph in Baghdad as sovereign.

Under the Sāmānids this region underwent a cultural boom. The Sāmānid rule rapidly

came to incorporate the northern region of Khwazarm, the Khurāsān, as well as Sīstān in the

1 Claude Cahen, "Tribes, Cities and Social Organization," in CHI. Volume 4: The Period from the Arab Invasion to the

Saljuqs, ed. Richard N. Frye (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 306. 2 Yolande Crowe, "Sāmānids," EI II, accessed July 7, 2012, http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/

encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/samanids-COM_0995. 3 G.R. Smith, "Ṭāhirids," EI II, accessed September 10, 2012, http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/

encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/tahirids-COM_1152.

Chapter 1 16

south and Ṭabaristān in the west. With a government and administration that emulated the

Baghdād model, the Sāmānids were recognized as patrons of culture. Their newly established

capital Bukhārā was one of the most renowned centers or literature, arts and sciences of the

time. Concomitantly with the dynasty rising in power, but to a larger extent in the later part of

the tenth century, the Turkish tribes that were relied on to assure army effectives and to

protect the borders, began infiltrating high positions within the governmental apparatus,

being capable finally to render the Sāmānid amīrs as puppets. The end of the tenth century

(999) marks the dismemberment of the Sāmānid rule, and the re-distribution of power in

Central Asia between the Qarākhānid Turks at the north of Oxus River, and the Ghaznawids,

dynasty of equal Turkic origin south of the same river.

The Ghaznawids largely continued the bureaucratic, administrative and cultural

program of their predecessors. With the headquarters in the capital Ghazna in eastern

Afghanistan, they ruled the former Sāmānid territories apart from Transoxiana, which fell to

the Qarākhānids. Pressured by Saljuk attacks however, they lost power in Khurāsān around

1040, being pushed to eastern Afghanistan and northern India, where they survived as a

dynasty for some 130 years more in a much reduced territory4. The Saljuks, equally of Turkic

origin and initially descending from Siberia, established themselves southwestward of the Aral

area and Khwazarm, on the outskirts of Islamic rule. Following a long tradition that goes back

to the Sāmānids, Turkish troops such as the Saljuks were usually planted on the fringes of the

empire to secure the borders from nomadic aggression, or used as mercenary troops in the

army. They rose to military power and started to strike the Ghaznawids and the Qarākhānids,

eventually overpowering them in Khurāsān. By advancing towards the central Islamic lands,

they eventually even put an end to the Būyid rule around 1055 in Baghdād5. The important

aspect of the arrival of the Seljuk Turks is that it changed the ethnic and linguistic status quo in

northeastern Iran and Central Asia, starting a long process of turkification of the native

Iranian descent population.

4 C.E. Bosworth, "The Early Ghaznavids," in CHI. Volume 4: The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, ed. Richard

N. Frye (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 196. 5 R.E. Darley-Doran, " Sald jūḳids," EI II, accessed July 8, 2012, http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/

encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/saldjukids-COM_0984.

Background 17

1.1.2. The Sāmānid Pottery. Is it an appropriate term?

As the name already mentions, the Sāmānid pottery is a slip-painted glazed ceramic family

produced and commercialized between the later part of the ninth century and the end of the

eleventh, with short survivals into the twelfth, in the area ruled by the Sāmānids and in its

adjacent territories. It comprises a few ceramic types that were not imported to western

Islamic lands, being peculiar for the northeast Iranian and Central Asian material culture of

the period. The term does not refer to the entire ceramic production, glazed and unglazed, but

it is used only in connection with the glazed variety.

Part of the luxury ceramic production of the time, the slip painted Sāmānid wares were

not only decorated by means of epigraphy, but also by other zoomorphic, vegetal and

geometric patterns, executed in equal quality and artisanship. Based on the production

technique and decoration the wares are divided in several ceramic types. These are the

buffwares, black-on-white wares, the polychrome-on-white wares, the slip-painted wares on colored

engobe, the yellow staining black wares, the Abbasid blue-on-white imitations, and lastly, the

lustreware imitations. What makes them a “family”, besides the roughly coherent time-

geographical framework, is also the manufacture technique, in which the decoration is painted

with colored slips under a transparent glaze. Colored slips were usually applied on a clay

coating layer, - the slip, or the engobe - , which served to smooth the body of the ware and to

provide an even application of the decoration. Though the Sāmānid production consisted also

of wares directly painted over the bare ceramic body, it is the painting on the engobe that is

most frequently encountered, being a mark of high quality production. The decoration

consists of various vegetal, geometric, zoomorphic and anthropomorphic motifs, as well as of

inscriptions of various degrees of legibility and types of script. Their production covers more

than two centuries, stretching well over the end of the Sāmānid rule. The polychrome-on-

white wares for example, continue to be manufactured to the end of the eleventh, possibly

beginning of the twelfth century6. Though a precise production end cannot be pointed out,

they seem to disappear completely in the first part of the twelfth century, under the

6 For a group of similar polychrome-on-white wares produced under the Ghaznawid rule in the first part of the

eleventh century, see the catalogue in Jean-Claude Gardin, Lashkari Bazar II. Les trouvailes. Céramique et monnaies de

Lashkari Bazar et de Bust, MDAFA (Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck, 1963).

Chapter 1 18

emergence of new techniques and types, such as the engraved sgraffiato wares or the Saljuk

wares.

As the previous two discussions suggest, a discrepancy exists between the label, and the

actual geographical and chronological coordinates of the ceramic family. The period in which

our ceramic corpus was produced was far more colored politically than their name leaves us to

grasp. Surviving the Sāmānid times, it was popular under the Ghaznawids, as well as for a short

period of the Saljuk rule, up to the end of the eleventh century. Moreover, the ceramic types

were produced and consumed in centers adjacent to the Sāmānid realm, such as Rayy. Though

scholars in the field do not have problems in understanding what the label signifies, the use of

Sāmānid pottery formula, a politically charged label, misinforms and does not make justice to

the production extent in both time and space.

The anachronism was criticized and new terms were advanced, such as Iranian slip-

painted pottery7. The latter has the downfall of mixing this peculiar group with other Iranian

ceramics that share the same technical qualities. The use of the formula has persisted, yet with

the specification that what should be understood by Sāmānid in the context of pottery

production is not the same as Sāmānid rule per se, but the larger area and time in which the

Sāmānid culture radiated and had an impact. The more fluid, cultural understanding of the

term Sāmānid enables us to continue to work with the labeling. By virtue of its long and

established usage, the term was equally used in the present study.

Having drawn a broad historical and terminological fabric of Sāmānid pottery, the next

focus is the literature on the topic. Its brief survey enables a general view of the research

agendas so far, and informs my research approach.

1.2. The Research on the Topic

The scholarship on Sāmānid pottery can be conveniently asserted to three main areas of

expertise: archaeology, art history and epigraphy. It is within these three fields that the vast

majority of the publications on Sāmānid pottery can be labeled, therefore the next concern is

7 See discussion on the inappropriateness of the term Sāmānid pottery, as well as the use of the new formula in

Andrew Williamson, "Regional Distribution of Mediaeval Persian Pottery in the Light in Recent Investigations," in

Syria and Iran. Three Studies in Medieval Ceramics, ed. James Allan and Caroline Roberts (Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1987), 22.

Background 19

track the research agendas and history of scholarship in each. As we will see in the following, a

general pattern of scholarship can be outlined, which resumes in short terms to the study of

typology, style and its evolution, chronology and iconography. Lately, new interests in

contextualization, social history, production and commerce of Sāmānid pottery, as well as in

using them as material for a history of ideas and mentalities can be traced.

1.2.1. The Archaeological Research on Sāmānid Pottery

With a tradition of scholarship on chronological, long-term development of sites, echoed in

monumental architecture and urban planning studies, archaeological scholarship usually

relegated Sāmānid pottery a subsidiary importance. A look at the most important excavations

and publications gives a good indication of the agendas and interests, as well as the status of

pottery studies in the field.

Among the first to publish extensively on Sāmānid pottery was Charles Wilkinson, who

used the material from the MET excavations at Nishapur from 1935 to 1947. He produced not

only an extensive ceramic monograph, offering a first coherent typology of Sāmānid pottery

still in use today, but also a series of articles which touched on subjects such as the

manufacture process, the pottery commerce, dining customs and religious minorities

associated with pottery usage8. However, Wilkinson neither offered a clear chronological

sequence of pottery, nor committed to the reading of the inscriptions on them. Furthermore,

the significance of writing on pottery was only offered limited attention9, and no further

insights into the social use of pottery were advanced.

Concomitantly, Russian scholars carried out excavations at Afrasiyab, the old

Samarqand, accompanying their field campaigns with publication of extensive reports, and

specialized articles on architectural remains, urban plans and topography, and on the material

8 Charles K. Wilkinson, Nishapur: Pottery of the Early Islamic Period (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1974);

Idem, "The Glazed Pottery of Nishapur and Samarqand," The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 20, no. 3 (Nov.

1961): 102-15; Idem, "Ceramic Relationships between Nishapur, Merv and Samarqand," in The Memorial Volume of

the Vth International Congress of Iranian Art & Archaeology, Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz, 11th-18th April 1968, ed. M.Y.Kiani and

A.Tajvidi (Tehran: Ministry of Culture and Arts, 1972), 242-45; Idem, "Christian Remains from Nishapur," in

Forschungen Zur Kunst Asiens. In Memoriam Kurt Erdmann, 9 September 1901 - 30 September 1964., ed. Oktay Aslanapa and

Rudolf Naumann (Istanbul Baha Matbaasi, 1969), 79-87. 9 Wilkinson, Nishapur, 92-94.

Chapter 1 20

culture remains. Generous in number, the publications are scattered among the Russian

journals of the period10, with a particular concentration in the Afrasiab serial, - especially

created for the purpose. Larger volumes dedicated to the matter have also appeared11 . Many

of these articles focus on the pottery production, and concentrate mainly on the production

places, techniques, commercial exchanges and imports, chronology and typology. Despite the

abundance of studies, no monograph on the pottery of Samarqand has seen the print so far.

Since 1989, the excavations were continued by a French-Uzbek team, which produced so far a

number of insightful articles on the topography if the Islamic city and the changes in urban

planning characteristic of the period12, but without hitherto paying attention to the pottery

corpus13. Other important urban centers of Khurāsān and Transoxiana were excavated, among

them Merw, Gūrgān, Otrar and Lashkari-Bazar. At Merw, a first systematic digging was carried

10 For a bibliography on the major publications see the footnotes in Franz Grenet and Claude Rapin, "De la

Samarqand antique à Samarqand islamique: continuités et ruptures," in Colloque International d'archéologie

islamique, Ifao, Le Caire, 3-7 Février 1993, ed. Roland-Pierre Gayraud (Cairo: Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale,

1998), 388. The impressive number of publications from the Russian journals that appeared since the 1930s cannot

be assessed here. The most comprehensive articles for the present discussion are I. Ahrarov, "K Istorii

Keramicheskogo Proizvodstva na Gorodishe Afrasiab [On the History of Ceramic Production in Afrasiab]," Afrasiab

1 (1969): 301-311; L.I. Albaum, "O Goncharnom Proizvodstve na Afrasiab X-XI vv. [Concerning the Pottery

Production in Afrasiab in the X to XI c.]," Afrasiab 1 (1969): 256-67; Sh. S. Tashkhodzaev, "Voprosy Istoricheskoĭ

Klassifikatsii Polivnoĭ Keramiki Afrasiaba [The Questions of Historical Classification of Glazed Ceramics of

Afrasiyab]," in Iz Istorii Iskusstva Velikogo Goroda (K 2500-Letiyu Samarkanda) [The History of the Art of a Great City ( 2500

Years of Samarqand)], ed. Galina A. Pugachenkova (Tashkent: The Gafur Gulam Art and Literature Publishing House

1972), 185-205; Idem, "Keramicheskoe Proizvodstvo Afrasiaba i Voprosy Organizatsii Truda Remeslennikov X —

nachala XIII vv. [The Ceramic Production of Afrasiab and the Issues of Labour Organization of Craftsmen between

10th-13th c.], " Afrasiab 4 (1975): 58-68. 11 Galina A. Pugachenkova, Iz Istorii Iskusstva Velikogo Goroda (K 2500-Letiyu Samarqanda) [the History of the Art of a

Great City ( 2500 Years of Samarqand)] (Tashkent: The Gafur Gulam Art and Literature Publishing House, 1972). 12 The excavation have been thoroughly published in a series of articles in the Comptes rendus de l'Academie des

Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (CRAI); in addition to that, see Yury Karev, "Samarqand in the Eighth Century: the

Evidence of Transformation," in Changing Social Identity with the Spread of Islam. Archaeological Perspectives, ed.

Donald Whitcomb (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2004), 51-66; Grenet and Rapin,

"De la Samarqand antique à Samarqand islamique". 13 A sole article addresses the topic of Chinese imports in Samarqand, see L. Sokolovskaia and A. Rougeulle,

"Stratified Finds of Chinese Porcelain from Pre-Mongol Samarqand (Afrasiab)," BAI 6 (1993): 87-98.

Background 21

on by the YuTAKE Russian team in the 1950s, which comprehensively published its research in

Russian journals14. Between 1992 and 2000, the International Merv Project envisaged not only the

continuation of the previous YuTAKE work, but also a grand scale conservation and restoration

of the town citadel. No publication was dedicated to pottery so far, though the finds were

briefly mentioned in the interim reports15. The diggings at Gūrgān were only very briefly

published in a general monograph16, and the scarce references to early Islamic pottery render

it practically unusable. Otrar in Transoxiana was excavated by several Russian teams

throughout the 20th century, and a considerable number of publications have seen the print17,

but no pottery report. The other excavation that concluded with a pottery monograph was

that of the 1949-1952 French mission at Lashkari Bazar and Bust in Afghanistan18. The

extensive typology, the attempt at a clear manufacture chronology as well as the wealth of

published pieces make it one of the basic works that this study relies on.

1.2.2. Directions of Research in Art History

Substantial acquisitions of Oriental ceramics in Western museums such as Victoria and Albert,

Louvre, or the State’s Museum in Berlin in the late nineteenth and early 20th centuries fostered

a general interest in Islamic pottery and marked the beginnings of the art historical

14M.E. Masson, "Yuzhno-turkmenistanskaĭa Arkheologicheskaĭa Kompleksnaĭa Ekspeditsiya

(YuTAKE) [Comprehensive Archaeological Expedition in South Turkmenistan (YuTAKE)]," Trudy Yuzhno-

Turkmenistanskoĭ Arkheologischeskoĭ Kompleksnoĭ Ekspeditsii [Works. South Turkmenistan Expedition] 2 (1951): 7-72; S.B.

Lunina, "The Pottery Industry in Merv from the 10th to the Beginning of the 13th Century," Trudy Yuzhno-

Turkmenistanskoĭ Arkheologischeskoĭ Kompleksnoĭ Ekspeditsii 11 (1962): 217-418. 15 The very few pictures and drawings, and only one attempt at chronology seriating and percentage of ware types

are still insufficient concerning the Islamic material on such an important production center, see Georgiana

Herrman, K. Kurbansakhatov, et al., "The International Merv Project: Preliminary Report on the Third Season

(1994)," Iran BIPS 33 (1995): 31-60. 16 Mu ammad ūsuf Kiyānī, The Islamic City of Gurgan (Berlin: Reimer, 1984). 17 For a discussion of the history of the excavations and publications related, see Karl Baipakov, "Les fouilles de la

ville d'Otrar," AI 3, (1993): 87-110. 18 The final report and the findings were published in the MDAFA series: Daniel Schlumberger, Marc Le Berre, and

Jean-Claude Gardin, ashkari a ar une r sidence royale gha n ide. L'architecture (Paris : Diffusion de Boccard, 1978);

Gardin, Lashkari Bazar II. They were supplemented with smaller articles mainly in the Afghanistan and Syria

journals.

Chapter 1 22

scholarship on Sāmānid pottery. The material reaching Western collections originated mostly

from commercial diggings or from the art market, and lacked any archaeological context. As

very few excavations were carried out, scholarship on Sāmānid pottery, - and equally on the

larger Islamic pottery corpus - , was in the first part of the 20th century largely an “arm-

chaired”, art-historical domain. Using as material the so-called “top-pieces”, - unique,

luxurious artifacts that filled museums’ deposits - , the research was concentrating on their

decoration and aesthetic qualities.

The historians of Islamic art have long been preoccupied to recreate a chronological

and geographical sequence of ceramic production, as well as to trace the evolution of ceramic

styles and decorations. For a long time the style analysis was in fact the objective of research19,

with relative meager efforts to understand how ceramics function within society. Only in the

later part of the twentieth century, under the influence of historical studies, scholars began to

relate the production of Sāmānid ceramics to larger social and cultural contexts.

Contemporarily, the art historical studies still focus on style evolution, iconography,

production and usage locations, using stylistic comparison as their main research tool.

However, starting with the second part of the 20th century, new questions related to the social

meaning of these objects, the identity producers and the purchasers, as well as the motifs of

purchase were raised20.

The first to have related the ceramic production with specific social categories was the

historian Richard Bulliet. His argument, which envisaged that the buffwares, respectively the

black-on-white wares were consumed by two opposing factions in Nishapur, the “elitists”, and

the “populists”21. Although his argument was dismissed due to the lack of archaeological

evidence, it led to a common agreement that the production of highly distinct ceramic types

was a result of specific tastes and markets22. Concerning the purpose of their use, scholars still

19 The best example is the milestone study of Arthur Lane, Early Islamic Pottery: Mesopotamia, Egypt and Persia

(London: Faber and Faber, 1947). 20 For a brief but edifying account on the shift of topics in the art history research on Islamic ceramics, see Oliver

Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands: Kuwait National Museum, the Al-Sabah Collection (Thames & Hudson in assoc.

with the Al-Sabah Collection, Dar al-Athar al-Islamiyyah, Kuwait National Museum, 2004), 12. 21 Richard Bulliet, "Pottery Styles and Social Status in Medieval Khurasan," in Archaeology, Annales, and Ethnohistory,

ed. A.B. Knapp (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 81. 22 Opinion expressed also in Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 48.

Background 23

doubt if they were used as tableware or were purely decorative, official pieces. As arguments

sustaining both practices were advanced, no common agreement was reached so far23.

Efforts were also directed towards explaining the meaning of writing on pottery, what

was the role of it for the people using ceramics, why was it exhibited. A common endeavor of

art historians and epigraphists, the subject constitutes the start of the interpretation of

writing on pottery in chapter 4, and will be treated in length then. Whatever the progress in

the field, art historians are still only bound to conjecture the social meaning and use of

ceramics. Progress awaits the disclosure of the still under-published archaeological material.

Lastly, a look at the publications in the field shows that Sāmānid ceramics attracted less

attention than other early Islamic types such as the ‘Abbāsid, or the later Kashan lustrewares.

When studied, they usually occupied specific sections within more general museum catalogues

or synthetic works of Islamic ceramics24. Alternatively, scholarship on Sāmānid ceramics

remains within the boundaries of specialized journal articles. The result is that apart from a

recent work on the ceramics of Samarqand25, no synthesis was dedicated to the Sāmānid

ceramics thus far.

23 Whereas Grube still questions if the black-on-white wares were intended for practical use, see Ernst Grube,

Cobalt and Lustre: The First Centuries of Islamic Pottery (London: The Nour Foundation, 1994), 53, Watson rightly

shows that the appearance of drink and food related formulas indicate their use as tableware, see Watson,

Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 208. Blair conjectures that the gradual reveal of the inscription while eating and the

intricacy of the script would have entertained the guests, see Sheila S. Blair, Islamic Inscriptions (Edinburgh:

Edinburgh University Press, 1998), 8. 24 Referential works that include substantial chapters on Sāmānid pottery are Géza Fehérvári’s two works on the

Barlow collection and on the Tareq Rajab museum collection, see G za eh rv ri, Islamic Pottery: A Comprehensive

Study Based on the Barlow Collection (London: Faber and Faber, 1973), and Idem, Ceramics of the Islamic World. In the

Tareq Rajab Museum (London, New York: I.B. Tauris & Co., 2000); Ernst Grube’s study on the Keir and respectively

Khalilli collections, see Ernst Grube, Islamic Pottery of the Eighth to the Fifteenth Century in the Keir Collection (London:

Faber and Faber, 1976), and Grube, Cobalt and Lustre; James Allan’s work on the Ashmolean museum collection, see

James W. Allan, Medieval Middle Eastern Pottery (Oxford: Ashmolean Museum, 1971). More recently, Oliver Watson’s

publication of the Kuwait museum collection contributed substantially to the study of Sāmānid pottery, see

Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands. 25 Galina V. Shishkina, L.V. Pavchinskaya, et al., Terres secretes de Samarcande. Céramiques du viiiè au xiiiè siècle (Paris,

1992).

Chapter 1 24

1.2.3. Research in Epigraphic Studies

Equally to the art historical research, scholarship in epigraphic studies concentrated on the

topics of typology, chronology and evolution, applied in this case to script. The primary task

was to establish a coherent script typology, accompanied by a chronology of form

development, both undertaken in the earlier part of the 20th century26. A subsequent research

track was the documentation of inscriptions, usually with meager interest in contextualization

and meaning. Epigraphists concentrated on the study of scripts on monumental architecture

and inscriptions, and paid lesser attention to their neighboring development on decorative art

objects. The only ones to have thoroughly documented the ceramic inscriptions were the

Russian scholars27, which based their work on the large corpus of pottery excavated in

Samarqand.

As for how Sāmānid epigraphic wares were published, they were either the subject of

specialist articles, or included larger synthesizes on epigraphy and calligraphy28. Similarly,

apart from one important publication of Ghouchani29, no study was dedicated so far solely to

the epigraphy of the Sāmānid ceramics.

26 Samuel Flury was the first one to propose a kūfic typology, see S. Flury, "Ornamental Kufic Inscriptions on

Pottery," in SPA, ed. Arthur U. Pope and Phyllis Ackerman (London, New York: 1939), 1743-69. It was followed by

Adolf Grohman’s study on the development of the kūfic script, see Adolf Grohmann, "The Origin and Early

Development of Floriated Kufik," AO 2 (1957): 183-214, and by an insightful research of Lisa Golombeck, that

proposed the evolution of plaited kūfic on pottery as method for dating, see Lisa Volov [Golombek], "Plaited Kufic

on Samanid Epigraphic Pottery," AO 6 (1966): 107-34. 27 A series of five articles on the content of the Afrasiyab ceramic inscriptions were published in EV, see O. G.

Bol'shakov, "Arabskie Nadpisi na Polivnoĭ Keramike Sredneĭ Azii IX-XII vv. [Arabic Inscriptions on Glazed

Ceramics of Central Asia, IX-XII c.]," EV 12-19 (1958-1969). See also V. A. Krachkovskaya, "Evolyutsiya

Kuficheskogo Pis'ma v Sredneĭ Azii [The Evolution of Kufic Writing in Central Asia]," EV 3 (1949): 3-27. 28 Sāmānid pottery is only of subsidiary interest for syntheses on calligraphy, being only used to illustrate the

stages of kūfic evolution. See for example Annemarie Schimmel, Islamic Calligraphy (Leiden: Brill, 1970), plates 6

and 7, and āsīn āmid afadī, Islamic Caligraphy (London: Thames and Hudson, 1978), plate 128. 29 Assadulah Ghouchani, Inscriptions on Nishabur Pottery (Tehran: Reza Abbasi Museum, 1986). Although the work

represents the basis for any study dealing with inscriptions on Sāmānid pottery, it has only a limited use, since

the author did not approach any interpretation or contextualization of inscriptions, and limited only to offer a

catalogue.

Background 25

1.2.4. Explaining the Meaning of Writing on Pottery: Aesthetics, Symbolism and

Communication.

The discussion related to the meaning of inscriptions on pottery represents a small part of a

larger endeavor of explaining the appearance of writing on pottery. The commonest

explanation in epigraphic and art historical studies regarding the significance of writing on

pottery is that epigraphy on pottery mirrors the general Islamic custom of writing on

monumental and material culture. Writing as main decorative tool in Islam is the complex

result of the beauty of the Arabic script, the interdiction of figurative representations, as well

as of the importance of the word30 being perceived as physical presence of God. Writing in

Arabic was intrinsically significant, due to its quality as language of Qur’ānic revelation31, so it

acquired sacredness in itself.

The content of the inscriptions, mainly blessings and moralizing aphorisms, though

occasionally consisting of adith and Qur’ānic passages, have been traditionally interpreted as

representing piety and faith. The high occurrence of ‘Alīd sayings32 caused some scholars to

point out the importance of the veneration of the Prophet’s family, and to interpret them even

as manifestations of Shī‘ite tendencies33. As the script was found in diverse legibility degrees

and complexities on a large range of ware qualities, research aimed to analyze the relation

between its communicational, symbolic, and aesthetic qualities. Though earlier scholars were

emphasizing the aesthetics of writing over its communicative aspect34, not discussing symbolic

communication, some of the more recent arguments, such as the intricacy of the script in the

decorative patterns, the rate of literacy, the language of the inscriptions, - Arabic, which was

not the mother language for all the inhabitants under Islam - , the lack of diacritical marks in

kūfic, or occasional misspellings, explain writing on pottery to be symbolic rather than

30 This statement has been numerously repeated in works on calligraphy and Islamic art. See Blair, Islamic

Inscriptions, 11. 31 Don Aanavi, "Devotional Writing: Pseudo Inscriptions in Islamic Art," BMM 26, no. 9 ( May 1968): 354. 32 For a large selection, see Ghouchani, Inscriptions on Nishabur Pottery, 8. 33 Blair, Islamic Inscriptions, 150. 34 Flury, "Ornamental Kufic Inscriptions on Pottery," 1748, and Wilkinson, Nishapur, 93. The same opinion appears

in a recent work, Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 91 and 206.

Chapter 1 26

communicative35. It is the lettering itself, the application of writing on something, that

transmitted a message36. In addition, individuals would have been able to recognize and

perceive the meaning of the lettering visually, and not through the process of reading37. It was

the phenomenon of pseudo-script, - which was (only) discussed in connection with the

apparently illegible and the meaningless combination of letters -, that prompted further

discussion. Initially, it was proposed that the misspellings and illegible combinations of letters

were due to illiterate potters that would have endlessly copied a “prototype”38. The same

phenomenon was put in connection with the repetitive nature of the industrial production of

ceramics, that would have affected the quality of the work39, and gradually transformed

meaningful inscriptions into simple decorative patterns. However, scholars have drawn the

attention to the fact that the so-called pseudo-script might hide magical and mystical religious

symbolism. Far from being meaningless, many of the strange letterings were mystical formulas

based on the numerical values of letters40. The other common interpretation of the pseudo-

script is that it appears from a successive orientation towards decoration and aesthetic

qualities of pottery, which gradually eclipsed legibility and meaning of script41. The decorative

– communicative qualities of writing find lighter or heavier overtones in the literature, up to

35 Opinions as such are hold in Grube, Keir Collection, 59; Idem, Cobalt and Lustre, 53; Aanavi, "Devotional Writing,"

358. 36 Richard Ettinghausen, "Arabic Epigraphy: Communication or Symbolic Affirmation," in Near Eastern Numismatics,

Iconography, Epigraphy, and History: Studies in Honor of George C. Miles, ed. Dikran Kouymjian (Beirut: 1974), 307. 37 Blair, Islamic Inscriptions, 80; Ettinghausen, "Arabic Epigraphy," 309. See also Irene A. Bierman, "The Art of the

Public Text: Medieval Islamic Rule," in World Art: Themes of Unity in Divesity. Acts of the Xxvith International Congress of

the History of Art, ed. Irving Lavin (University Park, London: Pennsylvania University Press, 1989), 285. 38 Wilkinson, Nishapur, 93. 39 Blair, Islamic Inscriptions, 149. 40 Aanavi, "Devotional Writing," 356. In his thoughtful article, Aanavi raises serious concerns over the

interpretation of pseudo-inscriptions as illiterate work, or decorative patterns. His arguments, such as the

numerical correspondence of letters forming “meaningless” inscriptions, or the presence of different legibility

levels of inscriptions on the same ware does neither exclude the potters being illiterate, nor the proposed

manufacture procedure of copying inscriptions “blindly”. Secondly, his argument does not encompass all the

pseudo-inscriptions available, but refers to only what I have coined here as abstracted script inscriptions, leaving

outside much material. 41 Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 91.

Background 27

the assumption that pseudo-inscriptions, devoid of any meaning, were aimed to be purely

decorative42.

1.2.5. Conclusions on the Scholarship on Sāmānid Pottery

The previous overview shows that Sāmānid pottery occupies a subsidiary niche in the larger

archaeological, art-historical, and epigraphic scholarship. It is not approached as a subject on

its own, but rather as a part of larger studies on ceramics, inscriptions, or calligraphy.

Although several advances were made in its study and much material has been published,

scholars are far from producing a full understanding of the production, use and meaning thus

far.

An important drawback is the lack of a coherent chronology and geographical

distribution of the pieces, in addition to an inconsistent typology, which hinders any attempt

at a synopsis of the long-term production and development of Sāmānid ceramics. The paucity

of archaeological studies has a direct influence on the art historical research. Although the art

historical research reoriented lately towards a contextualization of Sāmānid ceramics, it lacks

the archaeological information that would help responding to the questions of use, reasons for

purchasing, or social strata where the consumption took place.

Another shortcoming in the field refers to the methods of research. The art historical

and epigraphic research still largely persists in using the stylistic comparison and the study of

individual artifacts as unique research tools, ignoring the quantitative study of the material, or

a statistic approach. The direct repercussion is a virtual vacuum of empirical and statistic

research43on Sāmānid ceramics.

Regarding the discussion on the meaning of writing, the art historical scholarship is too

polarized in ascertaining predominance to one of the three acknowledged values of writing:

the aesthetic, symbolic and communicational. It adopts a “divisionist approach”, as I will call it

later, which does not encourage a balanced view on the relationship between the three values.

42 Ibid. 43 I have knowledge of only one attempt at percentages of excavated Sāmānid ceramics at Merw, see Herrman,

Kurbansakhatov, and al., "The International Merv Project," 44-6. Regarding the historical contribution to the

field, Richard Bulliet seems to be the only using statistic results in Bulliet, "Pottery Styles and Social Status in

Medieval Khurasan".

Chapter 1 28

Moreover, important features of writing, such as the legibility degree and the script style of

the inscriptions have been largely ignored in the analysis of the function and role of epigraphy

on pottery.

1.3. Contextualizing the Study: Why a study on epigraphic Sāmānid pottery? What are its

outcomes?

The previous literature review showed that important drawbacks can be pointed out regarding

the scholarship on Sāmānid pottery: the lack of publication of pieces, a lack of statistical and

quantitative analyses, and a disagreement in the literature regarding the meaning and role of

writing on pottery. This study engages particularly with these shortcomings of the research in

the field. It mainly envisages a contribution to the interpretation of the meaning of writing on

Sāmānid pottery. Secondarily, it enriches the previously known corpus of Sāmānid ceramics

and inscriptions, by publishing 65 pieces belonging to Dutch museum collections. Hardly

published in local journals, the corpus is virtually unknown to the larger Academia.

Additionally, the catalogue designed at the end of the study, containing comprehensive,

individual descriptions of the pieces, can be used as starting point for any new research. The

information of the same catalogue, in corroboration with chapter 2, - especially designed to

recreate the history of the collections - , benefits adjacent research on museum acquisition

policies, as well as on faking and embellishment of Islamic pottery.

Another outcome of the study relies in its method of work: the quantitative analysis

centered on script-related features can be successfully used for other museum collections,

either with the same purpose, or for the study of other aspects related to the larger medieval

Islamic pottery corpus. Designed with a focus on epigraphy and writing variables as it is in the

present case, it secures previous assessments on the manifestations and characteristics of

scripts on Sāmānid pottery, which though observed by generations of scholars, have not been

empirically quantified. The same quantitative analysis provides new insights in the study of

scripts on ceramics: it takes into consideration for the first time the script style and various

legibility degrees of texts on Sāmānid pottery in order to explain the significance of writing.

Background 29

1.4. Methodological Challenges

Considering its quantitative breath, the research was challenged at various points by many

methodological difficulties, several which could not be surpassed. The following account

provides an overview of the various dangers of a quantitative study on museum pottery, as

well as of the decisions that have been taken at various points within the research.

1.4.1. The Selection of the Material

The material was especially selected to suit the study of writing on Sāmānid pottery. rom the

larger Islamic ceramic collections in The Netherlands, only the epigraphic Sāmānid material

datable to the ninth-eleventh centuries was selected. The main reason for selecting this

particular material was my proximity to Dutch museums. An additional reason was the that

the Dutch material has received little scholarly attention so far made it more appealing than

other well studied Sāmānid material such as the Ashmolean museum corpus for example.

1.4.2. The Question of Representative Material

Compiling a coherent corpus is not only a matter of scholarly choice, but also of the available

material. Moreover, the lack of balance between different ceramic types can easily detour the

results of a statistical analysis. A look at the collection composition aims to identify the

possible weak points of the quantitative analysis. Is the corpus representative for the Sāmānid

epigraphic output? Is it suitable for a quantitative analysis?

irstly, let us concentrate on the common understanding of the term “representative”,

and offer a brief critique. “Representative”, as the term usually appears with reference to

various collections indicates that the museum material offers a good overview of a range of

artifacts produced at a certain point in time and space. In other words, that it includes not only

a comprehensive range of classes of artifacts (metalwork, textiles, ivory, and so on), but also of

the entire range of types for each class (metal cups, beakers, plates, bowls, for example).

However, a “representative” collection is still a biased assemblage of artifacts, as it does not

show the popularity of certain artifacts compared to others, their degree of use or rarity.

Moreover, it does not provide information on regional differences in amount and types of

artifacts used. The only assemblage that can “represent”, - that is to provide a clear picture of

types, amount and relations between various artifacts - , is the archaeological material.

Chapter 1 30

Therefore, the present collection cannot, and should not be considered to be

representative of the Sāmānid production. What it represents is a good coverage of the types

of pottery on which epigraphic decoration was applied, though two of our Sāmānid pottery

types are underrepresented44. The paucity of the two types obliged me to ignore them

regarding some of the quantitative analysis points. Moreover, the quantitative analysis still

including them needs subsequent confirmation, and it should not be taken for granted. The

same remark goes for the ‘Abbāsid blue-on-white imitation group, which needs further

investigation giving the limited representation within the corpus.

1.4.3. Medium-Quality vs. Top-Quality Wares

In conjunction with the previous discussion is the issue of “mediocre wares”. The composition

of the corpus includes many medium-quality ceramics45, and echoes the curatorial and

collecting policies of the three museums in question. As a section of chapter 3 is dedicated to

the investigation of how these policies might have shaped the content of the present corpus46,

the present concern is whether the large number of mediocre wares influences the results of

the quantitative analysis or not.

Anew, a context of what the term “medium-quality wares” and its version, “mediocre

wares” is applied to the art-historical literature needs to be provided. The term appears in

rather negative assessments, being used to criticize collections that do not possess

aesthetically or technically meritorious pieces. Not only is the elevation of “top-pieces” an

utterly subjective endeavor, but their use as unique material biases our knowledge on the

actual ceramic production of that time. Various archaeological studies have shown that glazed

ceramics are a fraction of the actual ceramic industry output. The slip painted wares, and

further, those decorated with inscriptions are minute fraction of the glazed production47. Not

only a rarity in museums nowadays, they were most probably a rarity in medieval times also.

44 Namely the lustreware imitations and the slip-painted wares on colored background. See discussion in the

Conclusions section of chapter 2. 45 See Ware Quality section in chapter 3. 46 See Conclusions section in chapter 2. 47 Williamson identifies slip painted pottery as a “substantial” presence, when more than 3 percent of the glazed

ceramic on site. See Williamson, "Regional Distribution of Mediaeval Persian Pottery," 20. At Merw, the analysis of

Background 31

The large amount of mediocre pieces in museum collections does not produce a larger

bias than the presence of the top-pieces. If we are to be concerned about the actual

composition of ceramic production at that time, - which the museum collections cannot

provide anyway, since they are contemporary assemblages of artifacts -, containing a large

proportion of mediocre-wares might bring museum collections closer to the reality of the

production than a high-quality assemblage. The large proportion of medium-quality wares

bears weight, as the corpus analysis will show, on the types of inscriptions and script legibility

degrees that appear, reflecting on the high number of illegible and abstracted scripts, as well

as “decorative pattern” inscriptions. Since the quality of the wares on which these inscriptions

appear is also marked, the results of the quantitative analysis do not downgrade the general

assessment on quality of scripts or inscription content.

1.4.4. Additional Concerns regarding the “Museum Pieces”

Among the drawbacks of working with museum pieces are processes of ceramics

embellishment and faking. The present corpus does not make exception to this unfortunate

phenomenon, a large number of pieces exhibiting various modern manipulations. Efforts were

made to track and point out the modern interventions on pieces, and were reported

individually in the catalogue. The objective was not only to obtain a comprehensive

documentation of the corpus, but also to avoid errors within the ceramic feature analysis. As

the pieces were visually examined only, a limited range of modern manipulations could be

observed. Some pieces were suspected as being “sherd-assemblages”, pieces created from the

random combination of alien sherds. Though these examples are usually excluded from

catalogues, considering that no final assessment on their falsehood could be made, and that

they required publishing and documentation, they were included in the analysis.

the limited ceramic finds in Gyaur Kala Area 4 suggested that the ensemble of glazed pottery represented 9

percent of the total, see Herrman, Kurbansakhatov, et al., "The International Merv Project," 45.

Chapter 1 32

1.4.5. Technicalities

A few remarks concern the examination of the pieces and the use of previously existing

information. The vast majority of the pieces were personally investigated48. At times, previous

information, such as inscription reading was appropriated, and consequently indicated in the

catalogue in appendix A. A series of previously published photographs were used, and a list of

them was provided in appendix B.

48 The pieces that were not personally investigated are: Cat. Nos. 12, 16, 28 and 46.

Chapter 2. The History of the Museum Collections: Policies of Acquisition,

Publication and Display of the Sāmānid Pottery

To understand the composition of the pottery corpus, I investigate the history and policies of

acquisition, the publications and the display techniques of the Islamic pottery belonging to the

three museums. The following account successively details the composition of the Islamic

pottery collections, their status among the larger departmental collections, and lastly the

history of the acquisition and the policies that entangled them1. I round up with an assessment

of the Dutch publications issued so far, the display visibility of the Islamic pottery within the

museums, as well as with a few remarks on how the methods and policies of acquisition have

shaped the range of ceramic types of the present catalogue.

2.1. The Gemeentemuseum Collection

The collection of Islamic pottery at Gemeentemuseum, The Hague is part of a larger

collection of oriental ceramics and material culture. It comprises pieces spanning from the

first century of Islam up to the twentieth century, with the predominance of medieval pottery

numbering approximately 250 pieces. The pottery collection is the result of a long chain of

curatorial acquisitions, to which we can add a small number of donations and long term loans.

Recently, some 40 pieces of early Islamic pottery and glass, part of the former collection of Ms.

A.M. van't Zelfde-Zevenbergen were received as legacy.

Gemeentemuseum is the only of the three institutions to have had a direct interest in

purchasing Islamic artifacts, as well as a related acquisition policy for almost a century. The

establishment of an Islamic ceramic collection, as well as other oriental collections, aimed to

contextualize the Delftware ceramics collection within earlier, contemporary and later

material culturally and technologically linked to the Dutch production. Starting from the

1 As only two pieces come from the Volkenkunde Museum in Leiden, the museum collection will not be analyzed

here.

Chapter 2 34

second decade of the 20th century, acquisitions covered the Mediterranean area, the Middle

and Far East, with a stress on the Islamic and Chinese material, but paying attention also to

Spanish and Italian pieces.

H. E. van Gelder (1912-1941), the museum director at that time, aimed not only to

contextualize Delft ceramics, but also to acquire good quality international art2.

Administratively, the purchases were the task of the head curator of the Department of

Applied Arts, with the previous agreement of the Advies Commissie, the museum board

deciding expenditures and purchases polices. The first to purchase Islamic ceramics was the

head curator H.C. Gallois (1919-1937), who took the opportunity of a prolonged study stage in

Paris between 1921 and 1922 to make the first acquisitions. His suppliers, - in what was by that

time the perfect market for antiquities among which Oriental ceramics -, were well-known art

dealers such as Ms. Demotte, the Kalebjian brothers and Nazare Aga. Not only took Gallois an

active interest in oriental ceramics, but in order to understand the Islamic epigraphic

inscriptions he learned Arabic. He cultivated his expertise being a member of the London

Oriental Ceramic Society and of the Dutch Circle of Friends of the Asian Art, and by

maintaining close connections with scholars such as Ernst Kühnel3. Gallois was one of the few

to publish series of articles on Islamic ceramics in international periodicals of the time4. His

acquisition policy followed the lines drawn previously by van Gelder, and concentrated on the

acquirement of the so-called chief qualitative “top-pieces”, that would nonetheless

contextualize the Delftware production.

Following the sudden death of Gallois, van Gelder experienced difficulties in finding an

equally trained and valuable curator. The period until the accession of Béatrice Jansen in 1954

was marked by frequent changes in the composition of the department, not very well

recorded. What is clear is that the next curator was W.S. van Thienen (1938-1943).

Béatrice Jansen started her career at the Gemeentemuseum as a volunteer before the

First World War. She obtained her diploma in Art History after having spent some years within

2 Titus Eliëns, "Een Verzameling Rond de Kunsten van het Vuur. Het Verzamelbeleid Ten Tijde van Van Gelder,

Gallois en Béatrice Jansen (1912-1979)," Jaarboek Haags Gemeentemuseum Jubileumnummer (1995/96): 119. 3 Ibid., 123. 4 Henri C. Gallois, "Y Avait-il de la porcelaine en Iran au Moyen-Age?," in Mémoires du IIIè congrès international d'art

et d'archéologie iraniens, Leningrad, septembre 1935 (Moscow: Académie des Sciences de l'URSS, 1939), 67-69.

The History of the Museum Collections 35

the museum, and acceded as both head curator of the Applied Decorative Arts and adjunct

director in 19545. In order to enrich the Islamic pottery collection, Jansen made three visits to

Teheran in the years 1968, 1969 and 19766. Jansen took an active interest in the later turquoise

glazes, which can be easily grasped by looking at the purchases of this time. Furthermore, she

seems to have aimed at a balance between the already established tradition of “top pieces”

acquisitions and supplying the collection gaps. She could not pursue her initial thoughts due to

financial difficulties and started acquiring rather “medium quality” than “top-pieces”.

Consequently in 1976, the Advies Commissie openly disapproved with her purchase methods.

However, Janssen did not expressively state that the medium quality pieces were to better re-

create the society and culture of those times, but rather that she was looking for the perfect

balance between the museum budget and the pieces on the market7.

After Béatrice Jansen’s retirement, Jef Teske hold the curatorial position until his

retirement in September 20018. He took an active interest not only in early Islamic pottery, but

also in Islamic glass. At present, curator of the Middle Eastern Department of the museum is

Mr. Titus Eliëns, under whom no acquisitions of Islamic ceramics can be traced.

The A.M. van't Zelfde-Zevenbergen Legacy

In 2011 the museum received as legacy the largest part of the early Islamic ceramics collection

of the late A.M. van't Zelfde-Zevenbergen. The collection comprises a total of 41 Iranian

artifacts, from which the majority of 21 pieces are ninth to eleventh century Islamic pottery

from Khurāsān and Transoxania9. They are accompanied by 15 later examples going up to the

nineteenth century10, as well as by five glass pieces11. Unfortunately, nothing can be said about

5 Eliëns, "Een Verzameling Rond De Kunsten Van Het Vuur," 129. 6 Ibid., 134. 7 Ibid. 8 Ms. Joyce Quast-Fleur has been kind to provide the information via email in July 2012. 9 11 of these pieces are decorated with inscriptions and are presented in the catalogue; the 10 non-epigraphic.

pieces are the following : Ob. No. 1043489, a polychrome-on-white bowl; 1043491, a “Sārī” polychrome-on-white

bowl; 1043797, a black-on-white small bowl; 1043798, a black-on-white bowl; 1043800, black-on-white bowl;

1043810, a splashed sgrafiatto bowl; 1043812, a yellow-glazed sgrafiatto bowl; 1043811, a splashed sgrafiatto bowl. 10 Ob. Nos. 1043801, a twelfth c. luster-painted bowl; 1043802, a twelfth c. green celadon bowl; 1043803, early

fourteenth c. bowl from Sultanabad area; 1043805, twelfth-thirteenth c. Mina’i small vase; 1043807, thirteenth

Chapter 2 36

how the collection was formed, as no documentation is available. A certain interest in early

Islamic pieces, and specifically in epigraphic decorated pieces can be concluded from the

pieces collected12.

2.2. The Rijksmuseum Collection

The present ceramic collection of the Rijksmuseum comprises 286 pieces13 from early Islam to

the nineteenth century. The largest part is composed of 18714 Iranian pieces, part of the former

Oosterbaan-Lugt collection. The museum collection is a rather random result of subsequent

presents, donations, long-term loans and bequests during the 20th century, to which we can

add only a few purchases. Neither had the museum an official policy of acquisition of Islamic

ceramics, nor a specialized curator in Middle Eastern art. These aspects, in addition to the lack

of archival information on the few acquisitions hinder any attempt at reconstructing how the

purchases at Rijksmuseum were undertaken15.

century blue and black on white bowl; 1043811, twelfth c. incised slip bowl; 1043814, fourteenth c. bowl from

Sultanabad area; 1043815, twelfth-thirteenth c. turquoise glazed can; 1043954, twelfth c. black slip on turquoise

glaze bowl; 1043957, twelfth-thirteenth c. black slip on turquoise glaze bowl; 1043966, thirteenth c. small black

slip on turquoise glaze plate; 1043970, 1043972 and 1043973, and 1043806 all nineteenth c. Ottoman jar lids used in

depositing honey (identification made by Prof. Dr. Hans Theunissen, Leiden University, and Dr. Luit Mols,

Rijksmuseum Volkenkunde, Leiden). 11 Some ambiguities surround the donation of the collection: five pottery pieces mentioned in the donation

papers have not reached the museum, and their present whereabouts are unknown. Four of the five glass pieces,

as well as three pottery pieces that have not been officially donated arrived. The three newly arrived ceramic

pieces are ob. nos. 1043802, 1043804, and 1043806. I do not have knowledge on the identification of any of the

glass pieces, nor if the other four, non-declared pieces received object numbers so far. 12 In addition to the already mentioned 11 pieces ninth to eleventh c. epigraphic pieces we can add another three

of later manufacture. 13 Aginta van't Klooster, "Islamic 'Porcelain'. Examples from the Rijksmuseum Collection," The Rijksmuseum Bulletin

59, no. 1 (2011): 74. 14 Ibid. 15 Mr. Jan van Campen and Mr. Jan de Hond from Rijksmuseum Amsterdam have been kind enough to confirm that

neither an official acquisition policy of Islamic ceramics, nor a specialized curator in Middle Eastern art exist.

Additionally, they have generously offered information on purchases: at the beginning of the 20th century, several

Islamic ceramic purchases were made by the Het Netherlands Museum director. For later times, in charge of the

purchases was the curator of the Applied Arts Department, - of which the ceramic collection was part -. For the

The History of the Museum Collections 37

The Oosterbaan-Lugt Collection: History and Content

More can be said about a specific part of Rijksmuseum’s holdings, namely the ceramics of the

former Oosterbaan-Lugt collection. At present, the collection comprises 187 pieces, largely

tableware of different shapes and functions16, in addition to a few tiles. Chronologically, the

largest part is composed of medieval pieces from ninth to fourteenth centuries17, and only of a

few modern examples. It is the result of 30 years of collecting activities of prof. dr. Oosterbaan

and his wife.

Prof. Oosterbaan (b. 1910/ d. 1998) and his wife, Ms. Oosterbaan-Lugt (b. 1910/ d.2000)

have been always attracted by ceramics as art objects. When they started collecting Islamic

pieces, they were already in possession of a collection of Chinese, Japanese, English, Delft and

Maastricht pottery. Their interest in Islamic pottery began in the 1970s, and was the product of

a more or less accidental encounter, when visiting an exhibition at the castle Keukenhof in

Lisse18. Since then, they made regular purchases from art-dealers in The Netherlands, but also

in Geneva, London and Paris19. Time passing, the considerably large collection on display at

their residence became more and more problematic to maneuver, so they decided to entrust it

to Rijksmuseum Amsterdam. The several pieces that were given on long-term loan in the

1970s, were followed by successive donations in the 1980s and 1990s, and by a final legacy in

2000, after Mr. and Ms. Oosterbaan passed away20.

1960s and 1970s, it was the head curator Bram den Blaawen that purchased Islamic ceramics. The Museum was

interested in Dutch applied art and traditions that influenced it, so it is in this respect that the Islamic pottery was

purchased. The information was obtained via email discussions in May 2012. 16 The collection comprises 167 tablewares and 20 tiles. Within the tableware group, 127 bowls were identified.

Other ceramic forms are represented by two bottles, one board, 15 cans, seven pitchers, four jars, four plates, two

platters, five vases, one candlestick and one pitcher fragment. 17 A discussion on chronology is problematic due to the lack of archaeological context of the pieces, as well as

their prolonged manufacture timeline. The following account is only informative: 74 pieces are attributed to the

ninth-eleventh c., 103 pieces to the twelfth-thirteenth c., and 14 pieces belonging to the fourteenth-eighteenth c. 18 Agnita van't Klooster, "De Collectie Oosterbaan-Lugt. Iraanse Keramiek van Gepassioneerde Verzamelaars,"

Vormen uit Vuur 195, no. 2/2006 (2006): 9. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid., 5.

Chapter 2 38

We do not have a direct knowledge on what were the aims of acquisitions, the policy

and the constraints. However, Ms. Oosterbaan-Lugt seems to have had a certain preference for

the early Islamic cobalt-blue wares21. Looking at the collection composition, it is rather the

Islamic pottery of the twelfth-fourteen centuries that forms the focus, whereas the early

Islamic pottery of the ninth to eleventh centuries numbering only 47 pieces of the 187. In

terms of typology of the ninth to eleventh centuries pieces, a favor for polychrome-on-white

and black-on-white wares can be observed, whereas the Abbasid blue-on-white and Lustreware

imitations are the least represented22. Neither the ninth to eleventh centuries epigraphic

wares seem to be of specific interest, since they number only 18 examples23, slightly more than

one third of the 47.

2.3. The Princessehof Collection

The Princessehof collection of Islamic ceramics is part of a larger “Islamic collection”

containing 776 objects, which surprisingly contains pre-Islamic objects along with Islamic

pottery, glass, bronze or silver. The specific inclusion of these pre-Islamic objects, as well as

the lack of dating and database illustrations make a precise assessment of the number of

Islamic pottery at Princessehof unfortunately impossible. A number of about 150 tableware

pieces24 ranges from the early Islamic period up to the 20th century.

The acquisitions of Islamic pottery at Princessehof lacked a coherent policy. The main

interests were the purchase of Dutch, - specifically Frisian manufacture -, or East Asian pieces,

21 Klooster, "Islamic 'Porcelain'," 76. 22 In terms of typological repartition, 12 pieces are of the polychrome-on-white type, 15 pieces are black-on-white

and variations type, three pieces have a polychrome painting on colored engobe, three are buffwares, six are of

sgrafiatto type, two are ‘Abbāsid blue-on-white imitations, and three are lustreware imitations, and two are

yellow stained black wares. 23 The 18 examples are part of the present catalogue and can be consulted there. The difference up to 22 pieces

that appear in the catalogue as from Rijksmuseum is given by the cat. Nos. 7, 26, 36 and 37, which were acquired

through different methods. 24 The estimation was made using the Princessehof online database. Unfortunately, out of the 776 Islamic objects,

only 597 are recorded. I have been informed that the difference represents the number of Islamic tiles, which

would have not been registered online; this is not however the case, since tiles do appear in the online search. The

matter on the difference in numbering still awaits clarification.

The History of the Museum Collections 39

so Islamic pottery was of secondary interest. The pottery collection is thus the result of a

lasting chain of long-term loans, bequests, several purchases, in addition to the recent

donation of the Hillegonda Janssen collection, which includes among others 155 Islamic

pottery pieces.

Regarding individual purchases, the museum appealed to the Ottema-Kingma

foundation in Leeuwarden to finance the purchases. Since the foundation had its own policies

of financing, a brief account on its history and aims will clarify the relation between the

institutions, as well how the acquisitions were carried.

The Ottema-Kingma Foundation (OKS)

The foundation bears the name of Nanne Ottema (b. 1874/d. 1949), a notary in Leeuwarden25

and passionate collector of oriental artifacts. He laid the basis of the Princessehof Museum in

1917, and donated his Chinese pottery collection as a core. The foundation aims to continue

the artistic heritage and acquisition policies of the Ottema family, namely “promote art and

cultural history in Friesland”26, and does so by collaborating with public institutions in

Friesland and purchase artifacts at their request. For that, the OKS follows a certain policy of

purchase, that can be better expressed in their own words:

The board of directors of the OKS carefully assesses these requests, founding their

judgment both on the objectives of an institution and on the role the object might play

within the context of the existing collection. Requests for ‘more of the same’ are

generally not granted. Nor are objects acquired which, according to the board, are too

far removed from the rest of the collection of an institution, or lacking in quality. The

OKS also buys objects without in first instance having a certain institution in mind. Not

until later is it considered which collection the object concerned would suit most.27

In other words, the Princessehof Museum depended on the agreement of the OKS in order to

purchase artifacts. Moreover, the items purchased via OKS are the property of the foundation,

being disposed in the museum as long-term loans.

25 Saskia Bak, Nanne Ottema. Een Kleurrijk Verzamelaar (Uigeverij Van Wijnen-Franeker, 1999), 13. 26 Ottema-Kingma Stichting, “The OKS, an Introduction”, accesed May 14, 2012, http://www.oks.nl/index.php?

keuze =oks. 27 Ibid.

Chapter 2 40

The Hillegonda Janssen Collection

The collection Janssen represents a substantial part of the Islamic ceramic collection at

Princessehof. Only part of the 367 artifacts is Islamic ceramics, a large amount of bronzes as

well as some textiles being included28.

The collection was more or less randomly formed, following Ms. Janssen’s early passion

for Iranian art and archaeology29. She started in the 1960s by collecting Luristān bronzes, then

broadened her interests to pre-Islamic ceramics, and only afterwards passed to Islamic

ceramics. The main methods of acquisition were travels to Iran and acquisitions from the local

art-market, but also auctions in London and Paris30.

Ms. Janssen started to donate Islamic pieces to Princessehof via OKS in the 1990s. Larger

donations of both Islamic and pre-Islamic pieces were made in 1997, 1999, 2000, followed by

several punctual donations from 1999 to 2005. Though officially the entire collection was

donated to Princessehof Museum through OKS, it was agreed that Ms. Janssen would still keep

a small number of pieces at her residence31.

As for the policy of acquisition, Ms. Janssen did not target a specific ceramic group, but

she was rather fascinated, in her own words, “by everything that was beautiful” and in

conformity with her financial possibilities32. A compromise between aesthetic qualities and

budget seems to have directed the acquisitions, in a similar manner as regarding the

Gemeentemuseum purchases.

28 The composition of the collection is the following: 83 ceramic pieces from the pre-Islamic period, 155 Islamic

ceramic pieces, 129 pre-Islamic bronzes and a few Islamic textiles from the nineteenth century, cf. Sarah A.

Bosmans and Hillegonda Janssen, Keramiek uit het Islamitisch Cultuurgebied: De Collectie Hillegonda Janssen

(Leeuwarden: Leeuwarden Museum het Princessehof, 2011), 10. 29 Ibid., 9. 30 Ibid. 31Among the pieces still at Ms. Janssen’s residence are pre-Islamic Iranian bronzes and largely thirteen to fourteen

century Islamic turquoise glazed pottery. Two of the pieces in the catalogue, Cat. Nos. 46 and 65 are also kept

there. 32 Information obtained from Ms. Janssen, who kindly responded to some questions related to her purchases in

Iran, on the occasion of my visit in May 2012.

The History of the Museum Collections 41

2.4. The Publication of the Three Collections

The various purchases and donations have entailed a series of publication, whose quick

overview let us grasp the degree of scholarship on Islamic ceramics in The Netherlands.

At Gemeentemuseum, acquisitions have been occasionally published in the Museum’s

Mededeelingen33 in the first part of the 20th century. None of these articles mentions the early

Islamic pieces however. A first leaflet of the Islamic pottery collection, intended mainly for the

general public was produced by Béatrice Jansen in 195634, and reprinted in 1972. It was Jef

Teske who would produce two more elaborate catalogues of the collection, the first in 199135,

on the occasion of an exhibition, and a second one in 199936, both including a limited number

of early Islamic pieces. They were supplemented also by an article by the same author, that

though treating Islamic glass, referred to one of the early Islamic lustreware imitations which

is included in the present catalogue37.

At Rijksmuseum, the Islamic pottery collection entailed a scantier interest. The only

two publications that were issued so far, a general catalogue and an article were entailed by

the donation of the Oosterbaan-Lugt collection38.

Regarding the publications of Islamic pottery at Princessehof, a collection catalogue

and a number of articles motivated by subsequent donations from the Hillegonda Janssen

collection, were included in the museum’s journal, Keramika39.

33 Two articles were published, Henri C. Gallois, "Islamische Kunst in het Gemeente-Museum," Mededeelingen van

den Dienst voor Kunsten en Wetenschappen der Gemeente 'S-Gravenhage (1924), 151-176, and Idem, "Islamitische

Ceramiek (Nieuwe Aanwinsten)," Mededeelingen van den Dienst voor Kunsten en Wetenschappen der Gemeente 'S-

Gravenhage (1930), 219-22. 34 Béatrice Jansen, Ceramiek uit de Landen van de Islam: Haags Gemeentemuseum (The Hague: Haags Gemeentemuseum,

1956; reprint, 1972). 35 Jef Teske, Islamitische Kunstnijverheid in het Haags Gemeentemuseum (The Hague: Haags Gemeentemuseum, 1991). 36 Idem, Ceramiek uit de Oriënt. Ceramics from the Orient (Zwolle: Waanders Uitgevers, 1999). 37 The piece is our current Cat. No. 17, see Jef Teske, "Between Animal Style and Enamel Painting: A Samanid

Relief-Cut Drinking Glass in Leiden," in Annales du 15è congrès de l'association internationale pour l'histoire du verre

(New York: Corning, 2001), 122-6. 38 Klooster, "De Collectie Oosterbaan-Lugt"; Idem, "Islamic 'Porcelain'". 39 A catalogue of the Janssen collection exhibition in Princessehof, W.J. Terlouw, "Keramiek uit Iran. Schenking

Mevrouw Hillegonda Janssen," Keramika 2 (1997), which was followed by several articles Idem, "Aanwinsten:

Chapter 2 42

The discussion above outlines several traits of the publication of Islamic and especially

early Islamic pottery. The foremost is that, although important collections of Islamic pottery

exist in The Netherlands, they have received little scholarly attention so far. The few

publications are general in scope, and largely descriptive. The publications are always focusing

a particular collection or group of ceramics, and no synthetic view on the Islamic pottery in

The Netherlands has been offered so far. Further, the early Islamic pottery of the ninth to

eleventh centuries occupies an even more meager place, only a fraction of the material being

published. The fact that the majority of the works are published in Dutch, in journals which

are hard to obtain makes the Islamic pottery collections to be virtually unknown to the larger

international audience.

2.5. The Display of the Collections

The Islamic pottery in Dutch collections, - the early Islamic wares not making exception -, is

largely handled as “study material”, that is material intended for research, and not necessarily

for display. Of the three museums in discussion, it is only Princessehof that allocated a

permanent display area to its Islamic pottery, opened on the occasion of the abovementioned

Janssen donation. The Islamic pottery at Rijksmuseum and Gemeentemuseum is preserved in

the deposit, and used in temporary exhibitions related to Islamic art or other themes.

2.6. Conclusions

The short outline of the history of the three museum collections, policies of purchase, display

and publications helps us to reconstruct the context from which the present corpus belongs, as

well as to explain its composition.

Generally, the epigraphic pieces do not seem to have represented a priority within the

early Islamic pottery acquisition, though the amount of epigraphic pieces compared to the

non-epigraphic ones of the same period varies greatly from museum to museum.

Keramiek uit Iran," Keramika 1 (1999): 22-28; Idem, "Wijziging Vaste Presentatie: Een Nieuwe Afdeling Perzisch

Aardewerk," Keramika 4 (2000): 11-6; S. Groot, "Historisch Aardewerk uit Perzië," Keramika 4 (2004): 24-5; finally, a

collection catalogue was published when final part of the Janssen collection legacy was received, see Bosmans and

Janssen, De Collectie Hillegonda Janssen.

The History of the Museum Collections 43

The “top-pieces” policy of acquisition within Gemeentemuseum, echoed by Ms.

Janssen’s admiration for ceramic beauty can justify thus the large presence within the corpus

of black-on-white and polychrome-on-white wares, which are the most visually spectacular.

Additionally, the same trend seems to have hindered the acquisition of the perceived as

visually less attractive ‘Abbāsid-blue-on-white and lustreware imitations, which are by far the

weakest represented ceramic types. However, the lack of museum funds in the case of

Gemeentemuseum, mirrored by Ms. Janssen’s choice for reasonable priced pieces can be seen

in a large proportion of, as was already defined as “medium” quality wares40.

40 For a discussion of the “mediocre ware” label see chapter 1. For a discussion on ware quality, as well as for the

analysis that echoes these particular acquisition policies, see subchapter Ware Quality within chapter 3.

Chapter 3. Description and Analysis of the Corpus

The previous chapter on the history of the museum collections offered the context of

acquisition of the Islamic pottery from which the present corpus draws, and concluded in

explaining how the policies of acquisition shaped the composition of the material. The present

chapter aims at a deeper understanding of the corpus and its characteristics, among which

chiefly the phenomenon of inscriptions on pottery. Starting with a comprehensive description

of the material, supplied by brief methodological discussions when appropriate, it proposes

the analysis of several ceramic features. Following the focus on the phenomenon of writing on

pottery, these ceramic features are quantitatively juxtaposed with writing features, with the aim

of observing patterns of manifestation of writing on pottery. Finally, drawing on these

patterns, it proposes an explanation for the meaning of writing on pottery, which will be

pursued further in the next chapter.

My starting point is an assessment of the corpus composition. The assembled material

comes from the Gemeentemuseum in The Hague, the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, the

Princessehof Museum in Leeuwarden, as well as Volkenkunde Museum in Leiden. In terms of

composition, 30 pieces come from Gemeentemuseum1, 22 pieces from Rijksmuseum2, nine

pieces from Princessehof Museum3, and two from Volkenkunde Museum.

1 Within these pieces, 11 are part of the A.M. van't Zelfde-Zevenbergen legacy, whereas the rest of 19 were

obtained through other means such as purchase or individual donations. 2 17 pieces are part of the former Oosterbaan-Lugt collection, three were donated by the Association of Friends of

Asian Art, whereas the other two were subject of purchase. 3 Six of them are part of the former Hillegonda Janssen collection, whereas three are long-term loans from the

Ravesteijn family.

Description and Analysis of the Corpus 46

3.1. The Chronology and Geographical Distribution of the Material

The corpus is formed entirely of the so-called “museum pieces”, which entirely lack

archaeological context, so any attempt of dating or positioning is delicate, and is open to

further confirmation. That is why a few words on how I proceeded are worth mentioning.

Due the pieces lacking an archaeological context I could only use as dating tool the

stylistic comparison with already dated examples. I aimed as much as possible at a comparison

with excavated material, so I mainly used the published examples of Sh. S. Tashkhodzaev

regarding the Afrasiyab production 4, the material published in the Lashkari-Bazar monograph

for the later eleventh century period 5, to which I added the material dated by Lisa Volov by

means of her kūfic-based chronology 6. Nonetheless, in order to supplement the information

not contained in the previous works, I used several other catalogues7. Though occasionally

more restricted timelines could be proposed, considering the unknown provenance of pieces,

as well as the large manufacture span of some ceramic types, I preferred to date only by

centuries. As such, the chronological division of the pieces indicates that seven pieces belong

to the ninth to tenth century, 39 pieces to the tenth century, other 18 pieces to a two centuries

period from tenth to eleventh century, whereas only one piece dates to the eleventh to twelfth

century. The corpus represents mainly the production of the tenth and eleventh centuries in

Khurāsān and Transoxiana.

Likewise, the provenance attribution was undertaken using the stylistic comparison,

and remains thus open to discussion. I prefer to indicate larger geographical units,

supplemented on occasion by possible production centers. A provenance site is indicated only

when the specific characteristics of the piece pointed to such an assertion. The matter of

discovery vs. production site deserves a brief discussion. As for the vast majority of the pieces

4 Tashkhodzaev, "Voprosy Istoricheskoĭ Klassifikatsii Polivnoĭ Keramiki Afrasiaba". 5 Gardin, Lashkari Bazar II, 134. 6 Volov [Golombek], "Plaited Kufic on Samanid Epigraphic Pottery". 7 The works that I utilized the most are eh rv ri, Ceramics of the Islamic World; Grube, Cobalt and Lustre; Watson,

Ceramics from Islamic Lands. For the indication of which catalogue was used for comparison, see the Related Pieces

section on each catalogue entry.

Chapter 3 47

the discovery site remains obscured, the provenance refers here to the possible production

center. In addition, when collector or art dealer reports on the discovery site survived, I

supplied the information next to the provenance indication.

3.2. Defining and Analyzing Ceramic Features (Variables)

In order to gain a better understanding of the corpus and to offer an interpretation to the

meaning and role of writing on Sāmānid pottery, I developed a quantitative analysis centered

on writing variables. I defined, analyzed, and ultimately correlated several features of the

material the ceramic typology, the ware quality, with writing variables, such as the script type, the

script legibility, the types of inscriptions, the script position, and the script repetition. Occasionally,

when a lack of previous scholarly agreement demanded, they were supplemented by

terminological and methodological discussions.

3.2.1. The Ceramic Typology

The material covers satisfactorily the ceramic production of the Khurāsān and Transoxiana

area from ninth to eleventh century, despite less representation concerning the colored

engobe slip-painted wares, the ‎‘‎Abbāsid blue-on-white imitations or the lustreware imitations,

which were already subject of discussion8. For the basis for dividing the material, is the well-

known ceramic typology coined by Ch. K. Wilkinson in his monograph of the 1935-1947 MET

excavations in Nishapur9. Using as delimitation between ceramic types decoration and glazing

techniques, and to a lesser extent ceramic shape, and despite some inconveniences of

denomination, especially related to the buffware type10, it is currently the typology in use.

Occasionally, I found that Wilkinson’s typology did not take into consideration some important

features of decoration and engobe application, so I went for a different separation in

typological groups. On some other occasions, I decided to group two of Wilkinson’s distinctive

8 See the chapter 1 for a discussion on the suitability of the corpus, as well as chapter 2, for the reasons which led

to such a composition. 9 Wilkinson, Nishapur. 10 The main criticism brought to the term is that is a “weak” criterion for typological classification, since many

other ceramic types present a buff body, and as many coined as buffwares present a rather ivory color.

Description and Analysis of the Corpus 48

types, due to resemblance in technique and decoration. All these changes are detailed in the

appropriate typological sections.

The Buffware

The first representative group of the corpus is the buffware type, which is exemplified by 12

pieces11. Named by Wilkinson due to the buff aspect of the clay body, it is a sub-type of the

slip-painted ware under a lead glaze. The decoration colors are restricted to black/ dark

brown, yellow and green, which are applied either on a nude/ivory engobe, or directly on the

buff body, the latter being also the case of some corpus examples. The decoration is covered in

a transparent, colorless lead-glaze that runs usually up to the foot on the exterior side. The

decorative repertoire encompasses animate or inanimate designs, from which only the

animated group seems to contain inscriptions. A peculiar feature of this type is the horror vacui

phenomenon, in which the decorative area is virtually crammed with vegetal, geometric and

animate motifs either randomly, or in concentric bands or triangular areas. The common

decorative devices are vegetal motifs such as rosettes, small flowers, branches, leafs, or

geometric designs such as triangles, lozenges and circles. The zoomorphic decoration

comprises quadrupeds such as deer, ibexes, or birds of various sorts. In addition to that,

human figures also appear, represented in “banqueting” scenes or mounted on horses,

although not on the examples of the corpus. In terms of chronology and provenance, its

production is attested in Nishapur between the ninth and the eleventh centuries12 , as well as

in Merw13, where the discovered pieces appear to belong to the ninth to tenth centuries

habitation level. Positive evidence for imports of the Nishapur buffware to Gūrgān came to

light.

The ‎‘‎Abbāsid Blue-on-white Imitation

A second group of wares, imitations of the Iraqi blue-on-white ware contains four examples in

the catalogue14. As the name suggests, the type imitates in technique and decoration an

11 Cat. Nos. 1-12. 12 Wilkinson, Nishapur, 3. 13 Herrman, Kurbansakhatov, et al., "The International Merv Project, " 56. 14 Cat. Nos. 13-16.

Chapter 3 49

opaque-glazed, in-glaze painted Iraqi type. Interestingly, the Iraqi product was manufactured

as an imitation of the original Chinese porcelains imported at the ‎‘‎Abbāsid court in the eighth

and ninth centuries15. The Iraqi ware presents a buff body covered in an opacifying tin-glaze,

which is painted directly in the glaze, using cobalt blue and occasionally green pigments16.

‎‘‎Abbāsid wares found in Nishapur offer a positive proof for imports being carried on, which

would have facilitated its local imitation. Due to the fact that Khurāsānī wares are more

grayish in appearance than the Iraqi ones, as well as to the use of black instead of cobalt blue

for decoration, the local imitation can be easily differentiated from the prototype. Despite

differences in appearance, the manufacture technique is the same: a buff ceramic body was

covered in a lead-tin glaze with an opaque appearance, and painted directly on the glaze in

black manganese. Subsequent copper based green decoration was added, almost always in the

shape of splashed lines on the upper wall, which trickled on the lower wall under the

gravitation effect. The black was reserved for a short “inscription”, which placed on the

interior, was positioned either centrally or radially climbing the upper wall. Only rarely is

green used to draw the inscription17. Contrary to the Iraqi prototype, whose inscriptions

contain readable small blessings, religious formulas and potter signatures, the Khurāsānī

inscriptions are almost always illegible script-imitations. The four catalogue examples are

typical for the decoration of this imitational type, including entirely a black painted

inscription, and green splashed lines of the wall.

The ware seems to have been produced during the ninth and tenth centuries in

Nishapur, in a more brownish decoration and more yellowish glaze in Rayy, and in a variation

of green dots on the white background in Afrasiyab18.

The Lustreware Imitation

The group is represented only by two pieces within the corpus19. As the name recalls, it

imitates with modest means the luxurious ‎‘‎Abbāsid lustrewares, manufactured between the

15 Wilkinson, Nishapur, 180. 16 Anne Marie Keblow Bernsted, Early Islamic Pottery: Materials & Techniques (London, 2003), 2-5. 17 One example in the catalogue has an inscription drawn in green: Cat. No. 15. 18 Wilkinson, Nishapur, 181. 19 Cat. Nos. 17 and 18.

Description and Analysis of the Corpus 50

ninth and eleventh centuries most probably in Basra. The copies were probably realized in

contact with the imported products, as the findings from Nishapur and Afrasiyab suggest20.

The original was the result of a set of procedures which included coating a buff body with an

opaque tin-glaze, firing it, then painting it in a metal-oxide luster, and finally firing it for a

second time, in a reduction kiln21. The result was a lavishly decorated, luxurious product,

whose particularity was the gold-like iridescence. Unfamiliar with the technique and unable to

procure the expensive metallic pigments, the potters of Khurāsān imitated it using the slip-

painted technique: on a reddish body, a white slip was applied, which then received an olive-

green or brownish slip decoration emulating the golden luster, and was coated finally in a

transparent glaze. The result, though similar in terms of decoration, exhibits neither the

golden iridescence, nor has the quality of the original. Moreover, whereas the ceramic types

used for producing the Iraqī lustreware were similar to those used for the blue-on-white

wares, and had hemispherical shape and flaring rims, the Khurāsānī versions used the local

ceramic forms, deep bowls with straight, oblique walls, plates, and even cans.

The decoration palette of the Khurāsānī products follows closely the ‎‘‎Abbāsid originals,

containing a large array of geometric patterns such as hemispheric festoons, hatched and

dotted areas, stippled and “eye” motifs. Zoomorphic motifs, such as birds or quadrupeds

occupy usually the center of the piece, surrounded by geometrical and vegetal patterns. Floral

and vegetal patterns are more rarely, though not uncommonly found. The two examples in the

catalogue shows the common vegetal and bird decorations of the type. The ceramic forms are

typical for the Khurāsānī products, Cat. No. 17 being a rare example of an albarello decorated

in lustre imitation. The colors used are most commonly the olive-green and a warm brown.

The Yellow Staining Black Ware

The type, represented by 11 pieces of the corpus22, was firstly recognized as an individual

pottery group by Wilkinson23. Its manufacture procedure is identical with the other slip

20 Wilkinson, Nishapur, 182. 21 For the later Saljuk lusterware that Kebelow Bernshed mentions three firing procedures, see Keblow Bernsted,

Early Islamic Pottery, 8. 22 Cat. Nos. 19-29. 23 Wilkinson, Nishapur, 213-5.

Chapter 3 51

painted lead glazed types we have discussed. The shape typology and the decoration resemble

closely that of the black on white wares.

What constitutes the peculiarity of the group is the use of two different black pigments,

the usual manganese, and a chrome-based one, which in contact with the lead glaze stains the

area nearby to a lemon or gold yellow. The two pigments were usually used together, the

manganese one to draw the outlines of the decoration, whereas the chrome for filling in

designs. The colors used for the decoration are darker or softer varieties of black, the chemical

resulted yellow, and to a less extent red. The decoration is similar to the black on white,

though it occupies more of the decorative area usually. It concentrates on the cavetto and rim

areas, and consists of one or more bands containing more or less legible inscriptions,

accompanied by geometrical patterns of hatched lines, circles or peacock eyes. The bottom of

the ware is outlined by various motifs, the simplest being a polka dot, a circle, but also stylized

birds, other quadrupeds and small inscriptions. The corpus wares are largely of the subsequent

decoration friezes type, with a central bird, other zoomorphic motif, or small inscription on

the bottom.

As no wasters of this product were discovered so far, no sure manufacture center can

be determined, though Nishapur is thought to be a possible one. The ware was also found in

Afrasiyab and Shahr-i-Daqianus, and seems to be a common product of Transoxiana, rather

than Khurāsān24. Its life duration corresponds to the other ceramic types, between the late

ninth and eleventh centuries.

The Black-on-white Slip Painted Ware and Variations

The type is the best represented in the corpus, by 21 pieces25. Its manufacture involved the

application of a white engobe on a red body, the decoration in black manganese pigment, and

then the coating in a transparent lead glaze. Depending on the quality of execution and

24 Ibid., 214. 25 Cat. Nos. 30-50. Three of these pieces, cat. Nos. 48, 49 and 50, are manufactured in the white-on-black technique,

on which white slip decoration was applied on a black slip. Though Wilkinson includes the white-on-black in his

wares with colored engobe type, I consider that the restricted number of examples, as well as the obvious typological

resemblances in both shape and decoration of the present wares justify the correlation of the two groups, under

the title black-on-white wares and variations.

Description and Analysis of the Corpus 52

materials used, the engobe could be applied on the entire ware or only up to a certain limit on

the outer wall, its color could vary from glistering white to ivory or grey. Additionally, the

pigment used for decoration varies from pure black to purplish or brownish hues. The best

quality wares exhibit however, a white engobe and a pure black decoration.

The decoration, particular for this group, as well as for the best examples of the

polychrome-on-white group, consists usually of black drawn inscriptions, displayed circularly

on the cavetto or the rim area, and occasionally crossing the interior from one end to the

other. They are accompanied by a sole polka dot or stylized bird, situated in the bottom center.

At times, the black inscriptions are accompanied by hatched rims, serrated bands, small

arabesques or medallions. Part of the same type, though not the subject of this study, are also

wares that do not exhibit inscriptions, but whose decoration consists of simple geometric

motifs, bands or zigzags, as well as stylized birds. The decoration has been much admired so far

for the elegance and use of blank space, the inscriptions occupying only a meager area of the

decorative field. The ware has been produced in Nishapur and Afrasiyab between the late

ninth to eleventh centuries, and has been found also in other centers such as Tashkent,

Gūrgān, Merw and Lashkari Bazar26.

The Polychrome-on-white Slip Painted Ware

A neighboring type of the black-on-white wars in both shape and decoration, the group

contains 12 examples27. Its manufacture is identical with the previous type, with the difference

that the decoration was drawn in many more colors and in a larger variety of designs.

The decoration was realized most often in black or brown, tomato red, olive-green, but

also yellow and white, and consists of a variety of geometrical, vegetal, zoomorphic and

epigraphic motifs, which are combined with each other. The geometrical motifs include

circular bands, occasionally dotted, rows of polka dots, hemispherical festoons, serrated bands,

or circles, whereas the vegetal vocabulary ranges from simple motifs such as small stylized

flowers, rosettes, to more elaborate intertwined vegetal scrolls with branches and leafs, or

vegetal inspired arabesques. Quadrupeds appear also in this type, though less commonly.

26 Wilkinson, Nishapur, 90. See also Gardin, Lashkari Bazar II, 5. 27 Cat. Nos. 51-62.

Chapter 3 53

The inscriptions on the polychrome-on-white type are largely more stylized and repetitive

than on the black-on-white, and include the repetition of short words/formulae, usually

developed in decorative patterns. The ware was produced in Nishapur, Afrasiyab during the

ninth to eleventh centuries and Lashkari-Bazar during the eleventh, but also in many other

provincial centers. It was reported also among the finds from Merw, Gūrgān and Sārī28.

The Slip Painted Ware on Colored Background

Only three examples of this ware are represented in the catalogue29. Its technique of

manufacture and ceramic shape are common with the other already mentioned types30. The

decoration is somehow distinctive however, including mainly geometric motifs arranged

variably, as well as script imitational motifs transformed in decorative patterns. The

ornamental inventory includes simple or dotted bands, accompanied or not by script imitation

patterns, hatched, dotted or stippled areas, serrated lines, as well as small vegetal motifs as

leafs and rosettes. Stylized birds appear occasionally, as in one of the catalogue examples. The

patterns are arranged around a main motif, usually of geometric or vegetal inspiration.

The ware appears in Nishapur and Afrasiyab within the late ninth to eleventh century

timeline31, but also in Lashkari Bazar in the eleventh century level32.

3.2.2. The Ware Quality

The next ceramic feature, ware quality, is a delicate task to approach, since differentiating

between “better” and “poorer” quality ceramics includes a large degree of personal

subjectivity and aesthetic taste. I attempted to avoid the bias by analyzing ceramic quality in

terms of artisanship, and not of aesthetics of decoration. It follows that the investment of

time, material and workmanship, even when taking into consideration distorting effects due to

28 Wilkinson, Nishapur, 129. 29 Cat. Nos. 63, 64 and 65. 30 The ware was included by Wilkinson in the wares with colored engobe type, see Wilkinson, Nishapur, 158-60.

Considering that two of the present examples, namely Cat. Nos. 64 and 65, do not present and actual engobe, I

decided to refer to this group as slip painted ware with colored background. 31 Ibid. 32 Gardin, Lashkari Bazar II, plate 23.

Description and Analysis of the Corpus 54

local availability of materials, skilled workmen and tools, can be used as a way of measuring

relative quality and costs of the objects.

The material was labeled according to three levels of quality, quality 1(one), quality 2(two)

and quality 3(three), where the first represents the lowest quality ceramics. In asserting quality,

the variables taken into consideration were the composition and texture of the ceramic body,

the shape of the ware, the glaze, and the decoration. Regarding the ceramic body, I looked at

clay texture, whether is fine and smooth or on the contrary, if it was coarse, with obvious clay

impurities. In relation to the shape, I analyzed how accurately the ware was thrown, whether

it exhibited an evenly designed body, or conversely, fabrication flaws such as non-symmetrical

walls, misplaced handles or clay scars, grooves or fingerprints, all typical marks of careless

manipulation. Considering the engobe, I firstly controlled its presence or absence. If positive, I

examined until where on the vessel it was applied: entirely, only up to the half wall or only on

the interior. The absence of the engobe, or its partial application, would result in lesser time

and energy spent on a ware, and would result in a diminished quality. Considering the glaze, I

looked for clarity and evenness, whether it was applied uniformly or in excess, creating

thicker areas or small drops on the margins. It must be said that related to the glaze and

decoration color, I did not take deviations from common decorative repertoires as quality

diminishing. As for the decoration, it was analyzed mainly in terms of manufacture care and

complexity. Though a visible difference between the quality of the potting and the quality of

the decoration is not an unknown phenomenon regarding Sāmānid pottery, for the present

corpus the decoration and potting qualities go hand in hand.

Along these lines, the lowest quality wares were those of relatively coarse body, in

which small particles of sand or other clay compounds were present. The clay body presented

lines, grooves and small scars on the outer wall, as well as less evened areas. The engobe was

only partly present, and if so, it was applied solely on the ware interior. Both engobe and glaze

were applied without care for uniform application, which resulted in areas with an engobe

and/or glaze surplus, occasionally presenting drops trickling from the borders. The decoration

was hastily drawn, rather splashed than properly painted. The decorative units frequently

intermingled, with both outlines and fillings overlapping. The decoration slip was carelessly

applied, with many areas of slip excess that trickled on the lower wall, or on the contrary, in

Chapter 3 55

an insufficient quantity to cover the desired area, which resulted in dull or transparent hues.

In this category fall 28 pieces of the corpus33.

The second level consists of wares with a finer clay body, which show less throwing

marks on the outer wall. However, small clay impurities as well as fine lines and scars on the

outer wall were observed still. The engobe and occasionally the glaze, ran up to the mid outer

wall. Their borders, not carefully confined, ran uncontrolled on the outer surface of the wall.

The decoration was more carefully drawn, though overlaps between outline and filling were

still visible on a considerable number of pieces. Interestingly, the decoration presented the

same complexity as the previous category, securing that what separates the three levels is not

necessarily the decoration intricacy, but rather the care in execution. A number of 29 wares

are part of the second level34.

The third level, representing the best quality pieces of the corpus, comprises wares in

whose manufacture a considerable amount of care and time were invested. The clay body is

usually evenly thrown and presents a smooth profile. A particular trait is the decrease in wall

thickness, closer to the so-called “eggshell” ideal, as well as considerable lightweight. The

engobe covers both interior and exterior, being doubled by a fine, transparent coat. Engobe

and glaze exhibit sometimes excess areas, yet run regularly up to the bottom exterior of the

wares. The decoration was carefully painted, and in some cases probably sharpened with a

tool. No overlapping of contours and fillings was present. The smallest number of pieces, only

eight35, belongs to this group.

3.2.3. The Script Legibility

In order to position my classification of the next ceramic feature, script legibility, I examine

briefly how scholarly literature has handled the matter so far. After outlining what are the

pitfalls and minuses of the current approach to script legibility, I develop a new classification

of degrees of script legibility, which I ultimately apply to the corpus material.

33 The 28 pieces part of the first quality level are the following: Cat. Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 22,

23, 24, 28, 33, 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 51, 60, 64‎, and 65. 34 The 29 pieces part of the second quality level are the following: Cat. Nos. 3, 8, 9, 11, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25, 26, 27, 29,

30, 31, 35, 37, 38, 39, 43, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 59, 61, 62 and 63. 35 The eight pieces that belong to the third quality level are as follows: Cat. Nos. 32, 34, 36, 40, 45, 54, 57, and 58.

Description and Analysis of the Corpus 56

Inscriptions on Sāmānid wares come in various degrees of complexity and legibility.

For those inscriptions which defy reading, or if read, do not make sense, scholars have applied

the generic term pseudo-inscriptions. Consequently, script was coined as pseudo-script, with

further specification when the type was recognized, as for example the pseudo-kūfic. Though

regularly no further elaboration on the degree of abstraction of script is performed, further

description of the pseudo-scripts employs qualifications such as abstracted, stylized, corrupted,

abstracted pattern, meaningless repetition of letters, calligraphesque, calligraphic pattern, highly

abstract calligraphy, or kufesque. These qualifications are mainly used to describe scripts, and not

to typify them, or to produce classifications. The byproducts of this approach are a lack of

terminological coherence, and ignorance towards the various degrees of script legibility.

In the following, I aim to substantiate the knowledge on various degrees of legibility

and intelligibility of inscriptions on pottery, by proposing a classification of the so-called

“pseudo-scripts”. The initiative provides me with a coherent terminology for the corpus

analysis, but it also aims at a normative value.

I start with a brief look at the uses of the combining form pseudo- , which is used as a

prefix indicating a falsehood, a fake, a pretense of the adjoined concept36. Consequently, the

term pseudo-scripts indicates the faking, the concealment, of an original script, and it is with the

same sense that scholars apply it on Sāmānid inscriptions. The problem is that the term is

applied indiscriminately to apparently illegible combinations of letters37 and writing

imitations altogether, based on a rational scholarly assumption that ideally, inscriptions

should have a decipherable meaning and should be communicative. Since many of the coined

pseudo-inscriptions’ meaning can be traced back to an “original”, and since as I will argue in

36 “Forming nouns and adjectives with the sense false, pretended, counterfeit, spurious, sham; apparently but not

really, falsely or erroneously called or represented, falsely, spuriously”, cf. Oxford English Dictionary, "Pseudo-,

Comb. Form," accessed August 31, 2012, http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/153742. 37 Don Aanavi rightly argued that some apparently illegible combinations of letters, coined as pseudo-inscriptions

have in fact a religious and mystical symbolism, which would have been perceived by medieval Muslims.

However, Aanavi refers mainly to illegible combinations of letters. He does not separate different levels of script

legibility, and refers only in passing to writing imitation. His argument, though thoughtful, does not exclude the

existence of pseudo-inscriptions and writing imitation for its own sake, especially since findings such as those of

Lashkari Bazar proved the existence of script degradation from meaningful to meaningless. See Aanavi,

"Devotional Writing," 354 and Gardin, Lashkari Bazar II, plate 14.

Chapter 3 57

the last chapter, communication does not imply the existence of a perfectly sound text38, I

propose to draw the distinction between script and pseudo-script on the basis of script

recognition. In other words, as long as letter forms are discernible, regardless how intelligible

is the linguistic construction is, they can be still understood as manifestations of script. In the

sphere or recognizable scripts however, in order to produce further classifications on

abstractization of scripts we are inevitably looking for meaning. It is only by tracing the

inscription back to a certain “original”, that we can assess what is the degree of abstractization

of an inscription, and it is what I do in the following. Keeping these remarks in mind, I arrive at

the following categorization of scripts and pseudo-scripts:

- Pseudo-scripts:

Script imitation = illegible signs that imitate the Arabic alphabet, but are not recognizable as

proper letters.

- Scripts:

Highly abstracted script = script whose composite letters can still be read, but whose meaning

can be traced back with difficulty, only on the basis of similarities of form with intelligible

inscriptions. The reading of the highly abstracted script is not sure, and can be subject to

further investigation.

Abstracted script = script whose composite letters can be read, and whose meaning can be

traced back with great probability despite the absence of a certain number of letter signs.

Intelligible script = script whose meaning can be perfectly understood, despite accidental errors

such as misspellings of letter omissions.

The distinction made has the advantage of differentiating between script and pseudo-

script based on identification of the Arabic alphabet, and to qualify levels of abstractization of

script, which enable a better understanding of how inscriptions “behave” in combination with

other ceramic features. Following the classification of script legibility, the corpus material

divides as follows: 28 wares39 present pseudo-script decoration, 11 wares40 a highly abstracted

script decoration, 13 contain abstracted script inscriptions41, whereas 14 a legible script

38 See chapter 4, subchapter The Visual Recognition of Scripts and Inscriptions. 39 Cat. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 26, 27, 28, 42, 55, 56, 60, 64 and 65. 40 Cat. Nos. 21, 25, 28, 30, 31, 41, 46, 51, 52, 61, and 62. 41 Cat. Nos. 22, 33, 39, 43, 44, 47, 50, 53, 55, 57, 58, 59, and 63.

Description and Analysis of the Corpus 58

decoration42. Interestingly, a number of three wares present inscriptions in various degrees of

legibility43.

3.2.4. The Script Styles

The inscriptions were drawn in rectilinear and cursive scripts, in various complexities and

adornment scales. Two families of scripts were used for the corpus material, the kūfic and the

cursive. As no universal terminology exists regarding script styles, and many terms are still

debated44, I mention under which understanding I use specific terms, giving further

information in footnotes, when a particular debate exists.

The first style “family” used on the corpus pieces is the kūfic. On Sāmānid pottery it

appears in various sub-styles and complexity levels, fact echoed by examples of the corpus in

which its simple, foliated, floriated, plaited and broken versions are present. The simple kūfic,

understood here as the undecorated form of kūfic, appears on 31 pieces of the corpus45. The

foliated kūfic, the style in which the letter apices and tails are embellished by palmette and

vegetal motifs, appears on a number of 17 examples46 within the corpus. Its more elaborated

and embellished form, the floriated kūfic in which vegetal motifs not only decorate the apices

and letter tails, but also spring from their bodies, appears on three wares47. For a long time, the

distinction between the foliated and the floriated kūfic was unclear. Generally, foliated kūfic was

described as the kūfic embellished with vegetal motifs, and floriated kūfic was taken to be a

42 Cat. Nos. 18, 23, 25, 29, 32, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 45, 48, 54 and 55. 43 Cat. Nos. 25: legible and highly abstracted script; 55: legible and abstracted script, and 58: abstracted script and

script imitation. 44 The distinction between different styles of kūfic has been debated for a long time, and occupied many pages of

scholarly works; without entering any debate on script typology, I offer a brief bibliographical account:

The first to identify different types of kūfic was Samuel Flury, see Flury, "Ornamental Kufic Inscriptions on

Pottery"; Adolf Grohman has drawn the attention of the errors in differentiating foliated from floriated kūfic, see

Grohmann, "The Origin and Early Development of Floriated Kufik". Lisa Volov has contributed to a classification

of plaited kūfic, and the specific internal modifications of letters that it produces, see Volov [Golombek], "Plaited

Kufic on Samanid Epigraphic Pottery". For a general discussion of types of angular and cursive scripts, as well as

for the debate around the Qarmatian/Eastern kūfic, see Blair, Islamic Calligraphy, 150-7. 45 Cat. Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 29, 31, 35, 36, 42, 44, 45, 46, 49, 51, 53, 55, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, and 63. 46 Cat. Nos. 21, 22, 23, 25, 30¸ 32, 33, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 47, 48, 52, 53, and 55. 47 Cat. Nos. 28, 35, and 50.

Chapter 3 59

more evolved, and thus possibly a later development of the first. It is facile to realize that the

separation between foliated and floriated was a matter of each researcher’s appraisal. Adolf

Grohman has drawn the attention to the often confusing labeling, and established norms of

recognition between the two48. His definition is also what I adopt for the present study, and it

states that the difference between the floriated and the foliated kūfic lies in the former

exhibiting floral elements and vegetal motifs springing also from the medial zone of the

letters, whereas the latter only presented palmette or leafed motifs springing from the letter

apices or ends.

The interlaced or plaited kūfic, in which letter bodies are twisted and then intertwined in

a plaited pattern either by themselves, or in combination with vegetal motifs, appears only

once within the corpus, namely on Cat. No. 54. The last kūfic style to be represented within the

corpus is the broken kūfic49, which appears twice50. It is characterized by thinner and more

elongated letter bodies as to the simple kūfic, the short space between letters, as well as the

oblique lines of short letters.

The second script used on the corpus material is the calligraphic cursive, which differs

from kūfic both in utilization and formal shape: the cursive was mainly used in the manuscript

production, and exhibited a round, continuous ductus in comparison with the angularity of

kūfic. It is only represented once within the corpus, accompanied by an inscription in simple

kūfic, on Cat. No. 58. As in the previous case of script legibility, a number of four pieces exhibit

inscriptions in two different script styles51.

48 Grohmann, "The Origin and Early Development of Floriated Kufik," 183-5. 49 Many terms have been proposed for the style, among which the most encountered are the Qarmatian kūfic, the

Eastern kūfic, and more recently, the broken cursive, see Blair, Islamic Calligraphy, 144. Since I do not find any of the

terms proposed so far to be entirely satisfactory, my choice to label it broken kūfic is purely conventional. 50 Cat. Nos. 34 and 38. 51 Cat. No. 35: floriated and simple kūfic; Cat. No. 53: foliated and simple kūfic; Cat. No. 55: foliated and simple

kūfic; Lastly, Cat. No. 58: simple kūfic and cursive.

Description and Analysis of the Corpus 60

3.2.5. The Inscription Types and Content

Only about a third of the corpus pieces contain legible or possibly52 legible inscriptions.

Though the number of legible inscriptions is not so numerous, their content is diverse and

covers almost all formulas that are usually encountered on the Sāmānid pottery of the time53.

The Wishes of Well Being Group

The group is represented by 24 examples within the corpus54. The concepts that were used are

al-yumn, “good fortune, prosperity”, al-baraka, “blessing”, al-surūr, “happiness” and al-baqā,

“long life”. Al-baraka is the commonest, and appears either alone55, or in combination with

other concepts in longer inscriptions56. It is also found in the longer version baraka min Allāh,

“blessing from God”, accompanied by the name of the potter57. Al-yumn is also often

encountered, largely alone58, but also in combination with al-baraka (see previously referred

52 Despite exhibiting a clearly legible script, a number of three pieces defied reading; they are the following: Cat.

No. 17, 37, and 49. Further, for Cat. No. 18 and 54 the reading is unsure. As a result, they were not taken into

consideration for the present discussion.

Jef Teske associates the Cat. No. 17 inscription with the type baraka wa-sa’āda wa salāma[…]li-ṣahibihi, though it is

not clear if he actually propose this reading for the piece, or asserts it in the same group of blessings. I personally

did not manage to read those specific words in the inscription. See Teske, "Between Animal Style and Enamel

Painting," 124. 53 The inscription contents encountered so far on Sāmānid pottery are blessings and wishes of well being of

various lengths and complexities, proverbs and aphorisms, eating and drinking related good wishes, a range of

potter or painter signatures and to a lesser extent ḥadīth excerpts. To my knowledge, only one example,

published by G za h rvari contains a Qur’ānic passage. See eh rv ri, Ceramics of the Islamic World, 56-7. 54 Cat. Nos. 21, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, 41, 43, 47, 48, 50, 51, 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, and 62. 55 Cat. No. 21, in a very abstracted pattern; Cat. No. 22, in an abstracted form; Cat. No. 23 clearly repeating twice;

Cat. No. 25 very abstracted script; Cat. No. 28, in a very stylized form; Cat. No. 33, in an abstracted form; Cat. No. 35

in legible script; Cat. No. 39 in highly stylized kūfic; Cat. No. 41 in highly stylized kūfic; Cat. No. 43 in highly

stylized kūfic; Cat. No. 50 in abstracted kūfic. See also chart 5. 56 Cat. Nos. 29 and 48. 57 Baraka min Allāh, ‘Abd al-Wāḥid, bin Yūsuf, on Cat. No. 35. 58 Cat. No. 30, in a highly abstracted script; Cat. No. 32, in legible script; on Cat. No. 47, in an abstracted kūfic; on

Cat. No. 51 in a highly abstracted form; Cat. No. 52, in a highly abstracted script; Cat. No. 53, centrally and fully

legible, as well as in the abstracted decorative pattern; Cat. No. 55 clearly legible; Cat. No. 57, abstracted script;

Chapter 3 61

examples), forming larger inscriptions. The other good wishes do not appear alone, but only in

the abovementioned examples, forming larger inscriptions. Interestingly, Cat. No. 36 contains

a more elaborate good wish, tajuzzu birran, “may you be well rewarded”.

The Religious Utterances Group

The corpus is also ‎ rich in religious references, present on nine wares59. The name of God is

mentioned either under the common saying al-mulku li-llāh, “the power is God’s”60, or simply li-

llāh61, probably a reminiscent of the former. The example in which it appears in combination

with al-baraka on Cat. No. 35 has been already discussed. Interestingly, Cat. No. 58 presents the

repetition of the word al-mulk in a stylized form, which can be interpreted as an abbreviation

of the same saying, by dropping the two last words. Several wares exhibit the repetition of the

letter ’alif, which can be interpreted as an abbreviation and symbol for the name of God62.

The Proverbial Group

Apart from good wishes and religious formulae, three pieces exhibit inscriptions with proverbs

or moralizing aphorisms63. Each proverb is present only once within the corpus, as follows: Cat.

No. 34 exhibits the saying man ṣabara qadara, “he who exercises patience, possesses ability”;

Cat. No.38 contains the aphorism al-ḥamdu yabqā dhukhuruhu li-’l-fatā wa-’l-mālu lā yabqā li-

arbābi, mā[lun]?, “praise will remain as savings for the generous youth, although wealth does

not remain with any owner, [with] w[ealth]?”; Cat. No. 45 exhibits the proverb al-ḥurru ḥurrun

wa-['in] massahu 'l-durr, “the free man is still free [even if] touched by harm”.

Cat. No. 59, highly abstracted script; Cat. No. 61, in a highly abstracted script; Cat. No. 62, in a highly abstracted

script. See also chart 5. 59 Cat. Nos. 25, 31, 35, 40, 44, 46, 55, 58 and 63. 60 Cat. No. 40 in completely readable form. 61 Cat. No. 25, in a clearly legible script; Cat. No. 44, in a highly abstracted script; Cat. No. 46, in a highly stylized

script. 62 Cat. Nos. 31, 55, and 63. 63 Cat. No. 33, 37, and 44.

Description and Analysis of the Corpus 62

3.2.6 The Inscription Position

The vast majority of the pieces, 60 in number, present inscriptions on the interior side. The

other four are closed forms, which explains the distribution of the decoration on the outside,

in an area more keen to be seen.

When situated at the interior, inscriptions can occupy various places, and can be drawn

in equally numerous shapes. The position and form of the inscription correlates with its

length, short inscriptions occupying more various places than the long ones, whereas the long

ones being displayed usually in a circular area on the wall. A total of 15 pieces present interior

central inscriptions64, all short. Among these, a number of seven wares65, which contain more

inscriptions, present the short one in the center, whereas the longer ones on the cavetto in a

circular, or a radial shape.

Regarding the circular inscriptions, the majority are long. The largest number of the

corpus pieces, 38 wares66, present circular inscriptions that are disposed at various heights on

the wall. Another type of inscription placement on the interior side is the transversally on the

wall. Belonging to this group are five wares67. The inscriptions’ length within this last group

varies from short to medium. The length of the inscriptions enables them to be positioned as

such, giving the requirements of space. A small group of three pieces68 presents inscriptions

randomly drawn on the interior surface of the ware. As a rule, the inscriptions are very short

and great in number. Another small group exhibits inscriptions placed radially around the

center, in a most probably aesthetical quest. To the radial inscriptions group belong

inscriptions that are positioned transversally, but which through their frequency and number

create a radial pattern, or inscriptions that though positioned circularly, create radial patterns

virtue of letter elongations, that justified their placement in this specific group. A total

number of four wares69 exhibited inscriptions in a radial disposition.

64 Cat. Nos. 2, 3, 7, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, 25, 33, 34, 35, 53, 56, and 57. 65 Cat. Nos. 2, 3, 7, 10, 25, 35, and 53. 66 Cat. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20, 21, 25, 28, 29, 32, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54,

55, 58, 59, 60, 61, and 62. 67 Cat. Nos. 5, 15, 23, 27, and 42. 68 Cat. Nos. 6, 9, and 30. 69 Cat. Nos. 31, 53, 59, and 63.

Chapter 3 63

3.2.6. The Inscription Repetition

Certain inscriptions appear on wares either once, or in a repetitive manner. As a rule, included

in this repetitive group are only the short inscriptions, which by virtue of limited length can

be multiplied. The number of repetitions varies greatly from one example to another, and

seems to be governed by aesthetic purposes. When repeated in lesser number, inscriptions are

always displayed in a symmetrical manner, creating a certain design rhythm. When repeated

numerously, they are successively displayed on the cavetto in a circular shape, forming

“longer” inscriptions. Many of the “long” inscriptions are in fact composed of numerous

repetitions of a sole word, linked in a flowing circular lettering on the wall.

As the number of repetitions seems to govern the placement and “behavior” of the

inscriptions, I find useful to differentiate between types of repetition, by introducing the

concept of decorative pattern. The distinction that I made are as follows: when repeated up to

three times and including, I indicate the number of repetitions; when repeated four times and

more, I consider that the inscriptions enter decorative patterns, which I explain in the

following.

Decorative patterns do not refer only to inscriptions, but comprise also diverse

geometrical and vegetal decorations. Although inscriptions and other decorative devices

within decorative patterns create the same aesthetic effect through rhythm and symmetry,

the focus of the discussion are only the inscriptions as decorative patterns. The inscriptions

referred as decorative patterns are thus inscriptions repeated over four times. Through

rhythm and symmetry, they create a pleasing aesthetic effect, which seems to be the more

important than their actual content. Such decorative patterns are displayed by 39 examples

within the corpus70. Additionally, some of the pieces which do not exhibit inscriptions as

decorative patterns, but as unique wording or concept, present at the end the repetition of a

certain letter groups. Such is the case for Cat. No. 32 and Cat. No. 55, on which the unique

inscription rendering the word al-yumn received the definite article al- also at the end.

Grammatically illogical, the choice must have been governed by aesthetic purposes, since the

70 Cat. Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 39, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58,

59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, and 65.

Description and Analysis of the Corpus 64

repetition of the article creates symmetry and a rhythmic effect: both beginning and ending of

the inscriptions contain elongated letter bodies.

3.3. Analysis of the Ceramic Features (Variables)

During the description of the ceramic features applied on the corpus material, certain

relations between individual features can be already observed. An analysis of groups of

features was designed, intended to uncover these interrelations. Features such as typology and

quality were correlated with script-related ceramic features, such as script legibility, script

style, inscription content, and the results were arranged in graphics and charters. The

practical questions that guide the analysis were: is there a direct connection between types of

script, styles of script, length of inscriptions, their position or repetition and the typology of

the wares? If so, what are the specifics of these relations, and ultimately, how can we explain

them? The analysis aims at a better understanding of how writing “behaves” on pottery, and

by using this “behavior”, to produce answers concerning the meaning of epigraphy on pottery.

3.3.1. Correlating Typology with Script Legibility71

Chart 1 indicates the relationship between typological forms and the script legibility degree

appearing on them. It shows that certain degrees of script legibility are associated with

particular ceramic types. The ceramic types were arranged as to correspond to an increase of

script legibility from right to left, in the typological sequence ‎‘‎Abbāsid blue-on-white imitation

– buffwares – polychrome-on-white wares – yellow staining black wares - black-on-white and

variations wares. While the ‎‘‎Abbāsid blue-on-white imitations and the buffwares present

exclusively illegible script imitations, the polychromes-on-‎white already contain an important

number of highly abstracted and abstracted script inscriptions. Although the yellow ‎staining

black wares exhibit a lesser proportion of highly abstracted and abstracted scripts than the

71 Occasionally, wares exhibit inscriptions in different degrees of script legibility (see footnote 43). When so, each

inscription was numbered separately, resulting in more inscriptions than actual ware numbers. The result is not

affecting the statistics, since inscriptions were multiplied inside each type. Additionally, as the inscriptions on

Cat. Nos. 17, 37 and 49 were not read, the three pieces were not considered for any analysis related to script

legibility.

Chapter 3 65

polychromes on white, they present more perfectly legible scripts. The black-on-white and

‎variations pieces exhibit the largest quantity of perfectly legible scripts. ‎

3.3.2. The Interconnection of Typology and Quality

Further, a very close series resulted by comparing the same ceramic types to the ware quality

(chart 2): the ‎‘‎Abbāsid blue-on-white imitations were entirely of lowest quality, the buffwares

were predominantly alike, but contained second quality wares too, whereas the yellow

staining black wares contained first and second quality category examples in an almost equal

proportion. Only the polychrome-on-white and the black-on-white types exhibited the best

quality examples.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Abbasid blue-on-white

immitations

Buffwares Polychrome-on-white

Yellowstaining black

Black-on-white andvariations

Number of Pieces

The Pottery Types

Chart 1. Script legibility on pottery typology legible script

abstracted script

highly abstractedscript

pseudo-script/script imitation

Description and Analysis of the Corpus 66

It follows that the quality of the wares is in a close relation with the ware typology:

although various examples of the same type could have different qualities, specific types are

generally more qualitative than others are. The buffwares and the ‎‘‎Abbāsid blue-on-white

imitations seem to be the least qualitative, whereas the polychromes-on-white and the black-

on-white and variations wares the most qualitative products. Secondly, quality and script

legibility increase in an almost identical typological sequence, which indicates that generally,

better quality wares have an increased chance of presenting legible inscriptions. The result

echoes my previous definition of quality, which stated that more time and care invested result

generally in a better qualitative ware.

One exception deserves attention: the yellow staining black wares are of a poorer

quality than the polychrome-on-white pieces, but despite that, they exhibit more legible

0

5

10

15

20

25

Abbasid blue-on-white

immitations

Buffwares Yellow stainigblack

Polychrome-on-white

Black-on-whiteand variations

The Number of Pieces

The Pottery Types

Chart 2. The variation of quality in pottery types

Quality 3(good)

Quality 2(medium)

Quality 1(poor)

Chapter 3 67

inscriptions than the latter. This result indicates that although script legibility generally

increases with quality in the already mentioned typological sequence, it is not the rule. This

interesting feature can be exploited further if correlated with script style. The objective is to

assess what is the relation between ware quality, script legibility, and the style of script.

3.3.3. Relating Pottery Quality to Styles of Script

Many pieces exhibit more than one inscription, usually in the same degree of legibility and

script style. It is not always the case, as some examples contain either inscriptions in different

degrees of legibility but in the same style, inscriptions in equal degrees of legibility but

different script styles, or inscriptions in both different degree of legibility and script style. The

numbers in the next two charts, differently from the previous examples, do not indicate the

number of wares, but the incidence number of types (legibility degrees) or styles of script.

The results presented in chart 3 show several patterns: a first trend is the increase of

script style variation and complexity with the quality of the wares. The first and second quality

examples exhibit similar repartitions of script styles, apart from the following: one cursive

style example in the second quality group, the double amount of floriated kūfic examples, and

half reduction of the un-definable scripts of the second quality group in comparison with the

first.

Interestingly, the first category group, though the least qualitative, presents a rich

amount of recognizable scripts. Despite being finer than the former, the second category is

still exhibiting un-definable, imitational scripts. Taking into consideration the script legibility

also, a few important remarks can be added: simple kūfic is the most popular style, regardless

ware quality or legibility of script, closely followed by the foliated kūfic and by its floriated

version. When abstracted script in different degrees is present, the simple kūfic is still the

most used, followed by the foliated type. Lastly and most interestingly, the script-imitation

group still contains about half examples with recognizable script styles. That is that whereas

the “pseudo-inscriptions” are not legible, their script style can still be recognized as simple

kūfic. Moreover, though the employed graphic signs cannot be recognized as letters of the

Arabic alphabet, their appearance mimics the angular shape, flaring endings of simple kūfic

letters.

Description and Analysis of the Corpus 68

In short, what charts 3 and 4 illustrate is that firstly, though generally the ‎legibility of

the script increases with the quality of the wares, and on the same line, the ‎complexity and

diversification of script styles increase with legibility, thus with the quality of ‎the wares, at a

closer look, paradoxes arise. A substantial amount of medium qualitative wares ‎do display non-

legible scripts, the first quality wares do present a rich diversity of script styles, ‎and finally and

most importantly, while the script is not legible, it still exhibits the traits of ‎simple kūfic,

which make it recognizable as script.‎

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

script imitation highlyabstracted

script

abstractedscript

legible script

Number of script style

apppearances

The Script Type

Chart 4. The relation between script legibility and script style

plaited kūfic

floriated kūfic

foliated kūfic

simple kufic

broken kūfic

cursive

un-definable script

Chapter 3 69

3.3.4. Types of Inscriptions, their Content, Position and Repetition

Having studied the relation between typology, quality, script legibility and script style, I am

now concentrating on the inscriptions and analyze their content, placement and repetition.

The vast majority of the inscriptions are placed at the interior. The wares with interior

inscriptions are entirely opened forms (bowls and plates), whereas the wares with exterior

inscriptions are closed forms (cans and jugs). The placement of the inscriptions is thus justified

by the largest display area available firstly, and by the most easy to notice area. They are

placed where they can be seen. Only one open form within the corpus exhibits both interior

and exterior decoration, namely Cat. No. 26. Further, individual short terms or short formulae

are largely placed on the bottom center, whereas longer inscriptions are always placed

circularly along the cavetto.

Regarding the relation between inscription content, its repetition rate and the script

type, the comparison result shows that the word repetition, the shortness of the inscription

and the abstractization of script are linearly increasing (charts 5 and 6). Practically, single

concepts are rarely exhibited alone, but are repeated and included in decorative patterns,

concomitantly with losing their legibility. From legible they transform into purely aesthetical

designs. However, they retain the peculiarities of the script styles in order to be recognized

still.

Description and Analysis of the Corpus 70

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Number of occurences of

different repetition patterns

Types of inscription content

Chart 5. The relation of degree of repetition and inscription content

Decorative pattern

Wording/ conceptrepetition 2-3 times

Uniquewording/concept

17

11

11

1

Chart 6. Script legibility degrees on decorative pattern inscriptions

script imitation

highly abstracted script

abstracted script

legible script

Chapter 3 71

Since script legibility was already known to generally decrease with the ware quality,

and decorative patterns to increase in appearance with the same decrease in script legibility,

chart 7 was designed to test if indeed decorative patterns increase in appearance on lower

quality wares. Surprisingly, the results show that only a slight increase of decorative patterns

can be observed on lower quality wares: the first and second quality wares show an almost

equal proportion of decorative patterns, 57 percent for the first quality, and 57.5 percent for

the second quality wares. The third quality wares contain 50 percent of the epigraphic

decoration in decorative patterns still. Decorative patterns are the most encountered form in

which inscriptions are drawn, regardless the quality of the wares, fact that further indicates a

constant concern for the aesthetics of ceramic decoration.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Quality 1(poor) Quality 2(medium) Quality 3(good)

The number of decorative patterns incidence

The Ware Quality

Chart 7. The incidence of decorative patterns on different quality wares

Unique concept/wording

2-3 times repetition

Decorative pattern

Description and Analysis of the Corpus 72

3.4. Conclusions of the Analysis

Several trends can be observed regarding the corpus: particular qualities of manufacture are

linked with specific pottery types. Simple kūfic is the most popular writing style on all the

ware qualities and in all script legibility degrees. Pseudo-scripts exhibit in great number the

recognizable features of simple kūfic. Generally, better ware quality equals better script

legibility. However, examples of lower quality wares exhibiting legible inscriptions, as well as

better quality wares presenting illegible inscriptions are not uncommon. Lastly, only a

fraction, the high end of this otherwise luxury production, exhibits clearly legible scripts.

Short blessings and religious concepts form the largest part in terms of inscription content,

and they are prone of being abstracted and multiplied in decorative patterns. Decorative

patterns occur largely in less legible scripts, but interestingly, do not consistently increase in

less qualitative wares. Decorative patterns represent about 60 percent of the inscriptions on

the first and second quality wares, while 50 percent on the third quality wares, - the best

examples of the corpus. Considering all these results, two main trends can be observed at work

within the corpus examples. The first relates to the use of recognizable styles of scripts, mainly

the simple kūfic and its more elaborated foliated and floriated version regardless the script

legibility degree, and the second relates to the overwhelming appearance of decorative

patterns on pieces of all quality degrees.

Chapter 4. Interpreting Writing on Sāmānid Pottery

Several questions arise from the quantitative study, which I address shortly: why is it that

within an already luxurious production, only a fraction of the wares contains clearly legible

inscriptions? Why are the majority of inscriptions short pious and religious terms? How can

we explain that script legibility does not necessarily increase with quality, and that while the

script is illegible, it is still identifiable as simple kūfic? Why is simple kūfic the most popular

script style on the lower quality wares, while it is also appearing on a consistent amount of the

best quality wares? Lastly, why are the decorative patterns the most used form of rendering

inscriptions on all quality levels? The interpretation that I propose is that firstly, the vast use

of inscriptions in decorative patterns indicates a strong concern for the aesthetic appeal of the

pieces, and secondly, that the vast use of kūfic for inscriptions of all legibility degrees attests

the interest in the recognition of script. The very fact of possessing an aesthetically pleasant,

written piece, was more important the content of the inscriptions.

This interpretation is one of the few explanations currently proposed in the literature

on the topic, as the bibliographical survey of the first chapter showed. It is part of a larger

discussion that relates the meaning and values of writing on pottery to the relation between

its aesthetic, symbolic and informative values. The discussions however are often carried in a

comparative manner, which favors one of the three aspects. The types of questions that shape

research are: is writing on Sāmānid pottery symbolic or communicational? Is it purely

aesthetical or informative? Asserting priority to one of the three, though a justified endeavor

in itself, has not been supported by any quantitative study so far. Moreover, when

contradictory opinions arise, in order to sustain their argument of communicational, aesthetic

or symbolic meaning of inscriptions, scholars use only particular segments of the material that

suit their ideas. Not once were the most qualitative wares selected for a discussion on the

communicability of inscriptions, whereas the least qualitative ones for an argument on their

aesthetic predominance over the content. The discussion rarely takes into consideration the

literate abilities of the public, or the multiple layers of meaning that objects can entail, which

Chapter 4 74

depend on the knowledge and preparation of their users. Finally, the very distinction between

the symbolic and the communicational aspects of writing is flawed, since symbols also

communicate as I argue later.

The types of questions addressed favor a dualistic, restrictive view on the matter, and

do not encourage a balanced view on the relation between the three features. This

“divisionist” approach does not suit a discussion on writing meaning, and that the three

abovementioned qualities are keen to a much more complex relation. Far from a unique

“recipe”, accounting on which feature is prevalent over the other, there are various ways in

which the three combine or interplay, ways which are as much the result of the intrinsic

characteristics of the ceramic material, as of the apprehension capabilities of those individuals

that used and purchased ceramics.

My task in the following chapter is to arrive at a more balanced view on the relation

between the aesthetics, the symbolic, and the informative values of inscriptions on Sāmānid

pottery, by qualifying the results of the quantitative analysis. I explain how we should

understand a preeminence of aesthetic and symbolic values over the content of the

inscriptions, and which the mechanisms stand at its base. I argue that the results of the

statistic analysis should not make us arrive at the conclusion that the communicational aspect

of inscriptions is to be ignored, but on the contrary, that what needs to be rethought is how

communication takes place, and what are its various degrees. I look at each of the three values

of writing on pottery, the aesthetic, the symbolic and communicational, and by using the

results of the quantitative analysis, combined with examples from the corpus and the analysis

of the inscriptions content, I explain why the aesthetic and symbolic values of inscriptions

were prevalent. I bring into discussion the consumers, and their literate abilities, in order to

arrive at a conclusion about how these inscriptions might have been perceived and

understood. In order to understand how literate abilities function, I appeal to theoretical

literature on literacy and communication. Finally, I concentrate on a set of aphorisms on

Sāmānid pottery and seek to find out how were they manufactured, and how would that

provide us with a better understanding of the relation between the three values of writing on

Sāmānid pottery.

Interpreting the Meaning of Writing on Pottery 75

4.1. The Aesthetics of Writing

One of the features for which writing in Islam was used as main decorative theme was the

beauty of the Arabic alphabet1. An entire discipline, calligraphy, - the art of writing beautifully

- , developed in the tenth century2, and figured among the most praised crafts in medieval

Islam. Numerous medieval scholars, poets and others have praised Arabic script for its beauty,

leaving as testimony depictions of their veneration and emotion caused by the contact with

beautiful writing. The most common among these are the metaphorical comparisons of

calligraphic writing with various precious materials or praised flowers and plants3. The

harmonious, geometrically defined writing was appreciated for the rhythm and symmetry that

the combination of various letters was creating. Its vast use on monumental and material

culture objects of all sorts in medieval Islam indicates a specific aesthetic sensitivity with

regards not only to script, but also to its characteristics: rhythm, symmetry, and repetition.

The corpus examples provide a similar picture of the use of writing for aesthetic

purposes: over 50 percent of the wares in all qualities exhibit decorative patterns. Not only the

decorative patterns were used to enhance the aesthetic appeal of inscriptions, but also

symmetrical constructions, such as the repetition of words or fragments of words opposed on

the wall or in cross-like position on the cavetto. On Cat. No. 23, a cross-shaped construction

was realized by writing the word baraka and its last two letters –ka at regular intervals on the

cavetto. An illogical linking of words which can be explained only when thinking in aesthetic

terms can be observed on Cat. Nos. 32 and 55, where the article al- was attached to the end of

the word al-yumn, obscuring the text, but creating a pleasant, symmetric effect. Another

common procedure was the embellishment by means of vegetal elements, which gave the

foliated, floriated and plaited versions of kūfic. Underlining script was also used, as it is the

case for Cat. Nos. 42, 47 and 51. Geometric constructions attached to letter bodies are equally

1 Oleg Grabar, The Mediation of Ornament (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press 1989), 63. 2 The development of calligraphy as discipline is traditionally associated with Ibn Muqla (d. 940), see Schimmel,

Calligraphy and Islamic Culture, 18. 3 One of the most vibrant accounts is that of Ismā‘il al-Kātib, who wrote about beautiful writing that: “If it were a

plant, it would be a rose;/ If would be pure metal, it would be gold;/If it were something to taste, it would be

sweet;”, in Ibid.

Chapter 4 76

often encountered, as for example the straight lines spring from the body of the letter mīm of

the word al-yumn, on Cat. Nos. 55 and 57.

The procedures of writing embellishing present on the pieces of the corpus attest a

desire to appeal to a public having a specific sensitivity for decorative patterns and writing as

decorative motif. These consumers were familiar with the many other mobile objects and

monumental architecture examples in which writing was used with the same decorative

purpose. As pottery was a product to be sold, it had to appeal to their tastes and their

familiarity with the aesthetics of the day.

4.2. The Symbolic Dimension of Writing

It was not only the beauty of writing in Arabic script that motivated the manufacture of

inscriptions on pottery, but also its peculiar symbolism. Interestingly, it is not only the Arabic

script that lends itself to such an interpretation, but also the style of writing, the kūfic.

4.2.1. Writing in Arabic language and Script

The main symbolism that writing in Arabic carried was its association with God. Arabic

language was considered sacred due to it being the language in which God’s word, The Qur’ān,

was revealed. The prestige of Arabic was transferred to the script itself, so that other

languages written in Arabic script, such as Persian, were also carriers of sacredness. The

already mentioned opinion of Al-Subkī is only one example of the pious esteem which Arabic

script was granted. Consequently, the use of Arabic script on material culture objects or

monumental architecture created a connection with God, and conferred sacredness to the

objects inscribed. The sacredness of writing was to imbue the written object too, transforming

it into a beneficial, benedictory tool.

The fact that writing was considered sacred in itself, regardless of the content comes

clearly when looking at the great amount of script-imitational inscriptions within the corpus,

whose “letters” are designed to resemble to the original Arabic letters. Such efforts of

imitating Arabic attest the importance that both producers and consumers were according to

writing vehicle of sacredness, and a tool to obtain God’s benediction.

Interpreting the Meaning of Writing on Pottery 77

4.2.2. Writing in Kūfic Style

A similar situation can be observed regarding the use of kūfic. In its simple, unadorned

version, it was one of the oldest scripts used to write in Arabic4. One of its main uses was the

writing of Qur’ānic manuscripts and through that it achieved a status of traditional script, of

notoriety and prestige. In addition, it was used in virtually all media and on all objects since

the early days of Islam in the larger Muslim world, as well as in the territories of Khurāsān and

Transoxiana. As decorative tool on material culture objects it was embellished with vegetal

and floral motifs and developed into what was labeled as foliated, floriated, and plaited kūfic. A

brief review of these objects and media can account its vast use and popularity.

Metalwork was often decorated with simple kūfic, and examples include several

personal bronze objects such as an amulet case5 inscribed with the name of God and three belt

fittings, all found at Nishapur in the middle stratigraphic levels. The first belt fitting contains

the phrase al-mulku li-llāh6, and the last two, forming a pair, contain the name of God7. Also at

Nishapur a bronze handle inscribed also with the phrase al-mulku li-llāh was found8, suggesting

that day-to-day, functional, metal objects were embellished in the same way. Tableware

bronzes attributed to Khurāsān found in museums throughout the world show an analogous

decoration, such as a small bronze casket dated eleventh century, decorated in foliated kūfic

this time9, and a bronze cup, dated tenth century10.

Jewellery equally exhibited inscriptions in Arabic drawn in simple kūfic script, and

examples that have survived are silver ring engraved with niello, attributed to Gūrgān, and

4 The term kūfic, traditionally used to indicate the angular script used for writing on diverse media in early Islam

was recently discredited due to the fact that it overshadows the diversity of angular scripts that were used in the

first centuries. Terms such as Meccan, Medinan or ijāzī script were proposed to indicate regional differences

between angular scripts. For a discussion on the matter see Blair, Islamic Calligraphy, 105-28. 5 Allan, Nishapur: Metalwork of the Early Islamic Period, 60, fig. 1. 6 Ibid., 61, fig. 8. 7 Ibid., 62, figs. 9 and 10. 8 Ibid., 98, fig. 160. 9 Eva Baer, Metalwork in Medieval Islamic Art (Albany: State University of New York Press 1983), 80, fig. 60a. 10 Assadullah Melikian-Chirvani, Islamic Metalwork from the Iranian World, 8th-18th Centuries (London: Her Majesty's

Stationery Office, 1982), 28, fig. 3.

Chapter 4 78

dated tenth century11, a silver ring with an engraved cornelian stone, attributed to Nishapur,

dated eleventh century12, a silver ring with a rock crystal stone, engraved with the phrase “‘Alī,

son of Aḥmad…in God”, attributed to Nishapur, and dated tenth to eleventh centuries13. In

Nishapur, three bronze pendants containing the shahāda were found14. Other objects that often

received as decoration simple kūfic inscriptions were the textiles, from which an example is a

silk piece containing a prayer formula in floriated kūfic, dated eleventh to twelfth centuries,

reportedly from Rayy15. Other media such as wood received the same decoration, as an

example of a wooden panel belonging to a bier, attributed to Iran and dated tenth century16.

Coins were one of the most encountered objects that received simple kūfic inscriptions17.

Along with the portable objects, monumental architecture was equally often inscribed

in the same script style but also in the more elaborated forms of the script, as the miḥrāb of

the Imām-i Khurd mosque in Sar-i Pul, Afghanistan, dated eleventh century18, or the tomb of

Subuktegīn in Ghazna, dated tenth century, and embellished with an inscription in foliated

kūfic19, show. In addition to the monumental architecture, various inscriptions in stone have

also survived, many of them being found in Ghazna and dating to the eleventh century20.

Its constant presence on all objects of daily life testifies its popularity and must have

awakened a certain familiar feeling when seen, admired or read. Its appearance on official

monumental architecture is proved by the few mosques in the area that have survived to

11 Marian Wenzel, Ornament and Amulet. Rings of the Islamic Lands (Oxford: The Nour Foundation in association with

Azimuth Editions and Oxford University Press, 1993), 38, Cat. No. 106. 12 Ibid., 40, Cat. No. 112. 13 Ibid., 40, Cat. No. 120. 14 Allan, Nishapur: Metalwork of the Early Islamic Period, 69, fig. 60 and 70, fig. 61. 15 Sheila Blair, "Note on the Prayers Inscribed on Several Medieval Silk Textiles in the Abegg Foundation," in

Islamische Textilkunst Des Mittelalters: Aktuelle Probleme, ed. Muḥammad ʿAbbās Muḥammad Salīm iggisberg:

Abegg-Stiftung, 1997), 132-33, figs. 72-3. 16 Blair, Islamic Inscriptions, 136, fig. 10.59. 17 Examples of ninth century coins were published in Henri Lavoix, Catalogue des monnaies musulmanes de la

Bibliotèque Nationale. Khalifes orientaux, vol. 1 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1887), 234. For those minted at Merw,

see pages 242 and 249; for those minted at Samarqand, see page 276. 18 Schimmel, Islamic Calligraphy, plate 14a. 19 Flury, "Le décor épigraphique des monuments de Ghazna," Syria 6 (1925): 62-65, plate 6, 1-2. 20 Ibid., 70-6.

Interpreting the Meaning of Writing on Pottery 79

present, must have created a link between the script and the idea of power and political

legitimization, which was observed not only once21. Additionally, its continuous use in

manuscripts of the revealed word, long after the new, round calligraphic styles achieved

predominance for any other writing purposes22 indicates the intimate connection between the

divine revelation, the Qur’ān, and its script, the kūfic. Therefore, writing inscriptions in kūfic

created a strong connection of the inscribed object with God, and imbued it with sacredness.

The sacralised object has the role to bless and protects the user, and leads me to assess that

Sāmānid epigraphic ceramics could have been used as talismanic objects. A look at the types of

inscription contents on these wares would make clearer what was aimed to through the

messages on ceramics.

4.3. Religious and Mystical Use of Inscriptions: Religious, Pious and Well-being Texts

It was demonstrated so far that the Arabic script itself, was a guarantee of sacredness and

conferred the object a divine persuasion. The large number of wares containing religious and

pious concepts and short phrases indicate to the same extent a concern for piety and

religiosity23. The inscription vocabulary and its links with the magic and popular beliefs

indicate an interest in gaining protection and benediction by using inscribed pots.

Vocabulae such as Allāh, al-mulk, al-yumn, or al-baraka, in both individual and formulaic

contexts, are common not only on the present pottery corpus, but also on other material

objects since the early days of Islam. They partake in a “talismanic vocabulary”, since many of

them appear on talismans and amulet boxes at all times since medieval up to the present

21 Irene Bierman argues for example that the sudden rise of floriated kūfic under the Fātimids in Egypt was one of

the ways in which the new rulers signaled the change in both political power and religious allegiance to their

subjects. See Bierman, "The Art of the Public Text: Medieval Islamic Rule," 284. 22 Kūfic as the script of the Qur’ān started to be challenged by the appearance and adoption of round scripts. The

introduction of round scripts is acknowledged to be the work of Ibn al-Bawwāb, in the eleventh century.

However, other two centuries had to pass in order for kūfic to be replaced as the main script used on manuscripts

of the revealed Word. See a discussion of the adoption of round scripts in Yasser Tabbaa, "The Transformation of

Arabic Writing: Part 1, Qur'anic Calligraphy," AO 21 (1991): 130-42. 23 Helen Philon, ed. Early Islamic Ceramics: Ninth to Late Twelfth Centuries. The Benaki Museum, Athens (London: Islamic

Art Publications 1980), 303.

Chapter 4 80

times24. They were used, along with other concepts, in a larger ensemble of divination

practices that ensured the well being and protection of believers, as many manuals on magic

account25. Along these religious concepts on pottery, baraka is chiefly used26. Its appearance is

important due to its intertwined religious and mystical nature. What was the meaning of

baraka and how it was achieved is useful for our own analysis of its meaning on pottery.

Baraka and its derivates appear in the Qur’ān 31 times27, and can be usually translated

as “blessing”, or “benediction”. The concept was conceived as a charismatic force that living

saints, pilgrimage places and objects could emanate, and that could actively provide protection

for believers28. Obtaining the baraka from a living saint or by visiting a pilgrimage place was a

deeply rooted in the Muslim popular culture of the time, as well as in the Jewish and Christian

tradition. Though obtaining the baraka was connected with mystical practices of popular

flavor, its existence was also “legalized” as concept and practice in religious works, one of

these conceptualizations being of particular interest for our case. The main source of baraka is

God, and its most immediate emanation is his written word, the Qur’ān. Consequently, each of

the letters and words with which phrases were formed were beneficial for those entering in

contact with them, by means of reading, recitation, or simple physical contact. Interestingly,

what is crucial for the acquisition of baraka is the physical contact with the blessed object/

person/ place.

24 Al-‘izz wa-’l-iqbāl.., “glory and prosperity…” is a fragment that appears on a thirteenth century amulet from Iran,

see Ralph H. Pinder-Wilson, "A Silver Ladle and Amulet Case from Persia " The British Museum Quarterly 25, no. 1/2

(1962): 33; al-mulk, probably the abridged version of the phrase al-mulku li-llāh , “the power is God’s”, appears on a

eleventh century amulet discovered in Transoxiana, see T.J. Arne, La Suède Et L'orient (Upsala: 1914), fig. 48;

mentions of the name of God separated from text are very frequent still on modern and contemporary amulets,

see Alexander Fodor, "Amulets from the Islamic World," The Arabist: Budapest Studies in Arabic 2 (1990), nos. 132,

193, 236, 244, 249, 288, and 291; baraka min Allāh, “blessing from God”, appears on an eleventh c. amulet box from

Spain, see Kjeld von Folsach, Islamic Art. The David Collection (Copenhagen: 1990), 219, no. 376. 25 For an overview of some of the most important medieval texts on magic, see Sylvain Matton, La Magie Arabe

Traditionnelle (Paris: Retz, 1976). 26 See chapter 3, section Inscriptions Content. 27 Dietrich von Denffer, "Baraka as Basic Concept of Muslim Popular Belief," Islamic Studies 15, no. 3 (1976): 167-86. 28 Joseph W. Meri, "Aspects of Baraka (Blessings) and the Ritual Devotion among Medieval Muslims and Jews,"

Medieval Encounters 5, no. 1 (1999): 46.

Interpreting the Meaning of Writing on Pottery 81

Its constant appearance on pottery suggests the same endeavor of obtaining

benediction and blessing29 by direct contact with the object. Writing baraka on a ceramic piece

would firstly act on the ceramic piece, imbuing it with the presence of the divine. The position

of the blessing on ceramics gives us an indication of how it is transferred further: baraka

occurs, - apart from the closed pottery forms already discussed - , on the interior, many times

in a privileged central bottom position, as main decorative motif. Baraka would have been

transmitted thus to the aliments that were disposed inside, and further to those eating them.

The placement of religious symbols, such as the letter ’alif , that represented the name of God,

the pious and religious concepts and formulae, among which baraka was chiefly used, attests a

concern for not only inscribing wares with writing, which was sacred and so beneficial in itself,

but also with specific vocabulae that were meant to benefit their users.

4.4. Writing as Communication

The results of the quantitative analysis, which showed the interest for aesthetic appeal of the

pieces, and the desire for the recognition of painted lettering and as inscription, can be

explained by the familiarity that the users of ceramics had with these two decorative

procedures. The appeal to simple kūfic on so many examples within the corpus can be

explained by the appeal to the same familiarity of medieval Muslims with writing in kūfic

script on material culture objects. That familiarity would have enabled them to identify

immediately the fact that the pottery decoration was in fact an inscription in Arabic

alphabet30. As script was sacred in itself, it would have rendered the object sacred, and would

have made the subject aware of the divine proximity. Presence and recognition of writing

itself, regardless of the content meaning already communicates at a symbolic level: it

communicates the presence of God. Not only was writing on pottery conferring sacredness to

29 A similar opinion in Manijeh Bayani-Wolpert, "Inscriptions on Early Islamic Ceramics: 9th to Late 12th

Centuries," in Early Islamic Ceramics: Ninth to Late Twelfth Centuries. The Benaki Museum, Athens, ed. Helen Philon

(London: Islamic Art Publications 1980), 302. The author believes the appearance of baraka on pottery indicates

the benedictory function of inscriptions. Baraka would have protected the object from breaking, as well as assure

the luck of the possessor. 30 The argument has been brought so far in the context of kūfic on monumental architecture, see Bierman, "The

Art of the Public Text: Medieval Islamic Rule," 285.

Chapter 4 82

the object inscribed, but that sacredness was benefiting the users. The content of the vast

majority of the inscriptions demonstrates that a talismanic function of the wares was aimed.

By using these wares, individuals envisaged protection from all sorts of misfortunes.

An aspect regarding the relation between aesthetics, symbolic and informative aspects

of writing remains to be clarified, namely the relation between the symbolic and the

communicative aspects of writing. The various explanations proposed so far make a sharp

distinction between the symbolism and the communicational values of writing. The distinction

is inappropriate, because symbols can also communicate. The presence of writing on pottery

communicated to the users the presence of God, as well as the idea of benefit and protection,

which the sacralised vessel could assure. What we need in ascertaining what is different in the

way that writing as symbol and writing as communication work, is a differentiation between

the two types of communication. The symbolic communication was expressed so far by the use

of Arabic script and kūfic style, and the content based communication, which I will analyze

further, was engendered by the stereotypical content of the inscriptions. I try to answer if,

considering the evidence of the quantitative analysis of a much larger importance of aesthetic

and symbolic values of writing, the content-based communication could have still taken place,

and how it worked. The main question is how content-based communication could have taken

place. In this sense I review some theoretical works on literacy and communication, and then

look again at the content of the inscriptions, as well as their legibility degrees.

4.4.1. Visual Recognition of Script and Inscriptions: Theories of Reading, Literacy and

Pictorial Literacy

Writing recognition has raised many debates in the literature so far, many scholars insisting

that the inscription content could not have been read. I approach it by proposing the existence

of a visual literacy, of a visual recognition of scripts primarily, which can finally lead to

apprehension of the literal meaning of inscription.

The term visual literacy has been intensely discussed by scholars of Medieval Europe,

with reference to the ability of illiterate and partially literate laymen to understand the

meaning of religious iconography. They would have been able to recognize various biblical

cycles on display in churches, on the basis of their visual familiarity, and not on their written

Interpreting the Meaning of Writing on Pottery 83

titles31. Although the argument refers to iconographical or pictorial recognition, it does not

lose strengths when applied in our case, since script is, above all, visual, and thus can be

visually recognized. What are the means through script can be recognized visually?

Various works on literacy have approached the topic of script and writing recognition,

with interesting insight into the process of recognizing letters and words, and to a more

elaborate degree, understanding the meaning of a text. Of interest for my discussion is

Geoffrey Sampson’s Writing Systems, in which he clearly explains that within the process of

reading, subjects do not literally read all letters in a word or all the words in a phrase, but

rather “map” the ensemble and guess the identity of words from the context. Further, any

successfully decoded word stays as a “fixed datum” for the other parts of a context, whose

meaning needs to be disentangled still32. Though the argument was considering mainly scripts

in Latin alphabets, and a range of literate readers, it is still useful for our purpose, in showing

that highly abstracted and abstracted script inscriptions could still have a good chance of

being disentangled based on shape resemblance with their original forms.

Furthermore the work of Brian Street on literacy among villagers in prosperous villages

in Iran in the 1970s argues for a visual recognition of the Arabic alphabet and words among the

Qur’ānic, “maktab” students. He observed that the attendance of the local Qur’ānic school

enabled students with a limited literacy to recognize and recite passages of the Qur’ān based

on their layout, exterior appearance, and familiarity33.

4.4.2. Visual Recognition of Content: Pious and Religious Concepts, Script Legibility.

An interesting aspect of the content of the inscriptions came to light in the analysis of the

talismanic role of inscriptions on Sāmānid pottery. The majority of inscriptions are pious and

religious concepts or short phrases. Moreover, a large amount of the highly abstracted and

abstracted script inscriptions of pious and religious concepts and formulas keep a close shape

with that of the legible ones, though they are “incomplete”. The inscriptions containing the

31Michael Camille, "Seeing and Reading: Some Visual Implications of Medieval Literacy and Illiteracy," Art History

8, no. 1 (1985): 34. For a full theorization of visual/ pictorial literacy, see Franz H. Bäuml, "Varieties and

Consequences of Medieval Literacy and Illiteracy," Speculum 55, no. 2 (1980): 237-65. 32 Geoffrey Sampson, Writing Systems. A Linguistic Introduction (London [etc.]: Hutchinson, 1985), 93. 33 Brian Street, Literacy in Theory and Practice (Cambridge[etc.]: Cambridge University Press 1984), 133.

Chapter 4 84

word baraka usually miss the letter rā or the definite article al-, but maintain the overall shape

of the complete word34. The inscriptions containing the word al-yumn also drop the definite

article al-, and sometimes the final nūn35. However, they are part of a “stock” of religious

phrases and concepts that were stereotypically used on all material culture objects of the

time36 that would have made users very familiar with their visual appearance.

But who are the users of these ceramics, and what were their visual recognition and

literate capabilities? Neither the literary sources, nor the pottery inscriptions contain

information on who was using these ceramics. A common agreement in the scholarly

literature identifies them as an urban elite or bourgeoisie, or more generally, prosperous

individuals that afforded to buy glazed ceramics37. They might have been as well less

prosperous individuals that invested in acquiring these expensive products, in the same way in

which individuals save money for luxurious products nowadays. This population lived in urban

centers where most of our pottery corpus comes from. We cannot be sure of their literate

capabilities. Some of them might have enjoyed a basic madrasa teaching, others might have

been completely illiterate. All however were in contact with various forms of writing on

monumental buildings, objects of day-to-day life, and all must have had access of Qur’ānic

recitation and sermons. The familiarity, both in terms of script form and content of the

inscriptions, must have lead them to develop a visual literacy that would have enabled them to

recognize many of the pious concepts and short formulas as pictures. Those individuals with a

semi-literate, madrasa teaching background would have been able to go even further, and

recognize formulas if not passages of the Qur’ān or of the prayers that they were daily reciting,

in the same visual manner in which the “maktab” Iranian students did. The issue of highly

abstracted and abstracted inscriptions would not have constituted an unbridgeable problem in

terms of recognition, if we consider how Sampson has explained the process of reading, which

is centered on context mapping of script, and not letter-by-letter reading, and if we remember

that abstracted concepts and formulas retain an identical overall shape with the original ones.

34 Such is the case for Cat. Nos. 21, 25, 28, 35, and 39. 35 Examples are Cat. No. 52, where the definite article al- was omitted, and Cat. Nos. 53, 57, and 59, where the

final nūn disappeared. 36 See the examples within section Writing in Kūfic Style, as well as footnote 24. 37 Sheila S. Blair, Islamic Inscriptions, 11.

Interpreting the Meaning of Writing on Pottery 85

What I defined as content-based communication could have been fairly possible for the

users of epigraphic Sāmānid pottery, not by means of actual reading, but rather by formal

familiarity with pious concepts and formulas, and their visual appearance. Writing becomes

communicational in this way, one might say, because it transmits a literal meaning. However,

is perceiving literal meaning changing the symbolic value of writing on pottery? If perceived,

the texts were religious and pious, and were still primarily writing in Arabic, expressions of

God’s power and protection. Perceiving the actual literal meaning does not efface any of the

symbolic communicational traits previously mentioned, but only adds to the knowledge of the

user. Therefore a distinction between the symbolic communication of writing on Sāmānid

pottery and its content-based communication is superficial. Content-based communication

only deepened the knowledge of those able to recognize the literal meaning of inscriptions,

and enhanced through content the same bond with sacredness and protection from God. Since

writing was itself sacred and rendered object beneficial, and since the content of inscriptions

manifests the same concerns, both ways of writing as communicator intertwine and build on

each other, rather than excluding.

4.4.3. The Process of Manufacturing Inscriptions: the Five Most Popular Aphorisms on

Pottery

Valuable insight into the meaning of writing on pottery can be further gained by looking at the

specific category of representation of aphorisms. In the following it is argued that their format

explains their manufacture, and ultimately how they were handled, and understood. By

comparing the appearance of a small group of five proverbs on pottery to their manifestation

in the moralistic literature of the time, a relation in terms of their format and content was

established. The objective was to observe how proverbs on pottery “behave”, whether they

retain an identical form or exhibit versions, and on the other, and to what extent they are

paralleled by similar forms or versions in the moralistic literature of the time.

In order to arrive at a suitable corpus of proverbs, each with a good appearance rate,

proverb appearance was traced in a number of well known works in the field, starting with

Inscriptions on Nishabur Pottery of Ghouchani, which is the richest catalogue of Sāmānid

epigraphic pottery published so far. A corpus of five commonest proverbs on pottery, of which

Chapter 4 86

one is appears also in the present 64 pieces corpus38 was compiled. The sample includes the

following proverbs : al-‘ilmu ashrafu al-aḥsaba wa-’l-murū’atu ashbaku/ashyadu al-ansāba,

“knowledge is the noblest of (personal) values, and the manliness is the most intertwined with

nobility”39; al-jūdu min akhlāqi ’ahli ’l-janna, “generosity is a quality of the people of paradise”40;

al-‘ilmu zaynun li-’l-fatā, wa-’l-‘aqlu tājun min dhahab, “knowledge is an ornament for the youth,

and intelligence is a crown of gold”41; al-ḥamdu yaqbā dhukhuruhu li-’l-fatā wa-’l-mālu lā yaqbā li-

arbābi, which translates “praise will remain as savings for the generous youth, though wealth

does not remain with anyone”42; finally, al-’anātu qabla ’l-ra’y, “ Have) patience before stating)

38 As the corpus material has been weak in examples of aphorisms on pottery, containing only three examples,

man ṣabara qadara, “he who exercises patience possesses ability”, on Cat. No. 34, al-ḥamdu yabqā dhukhuruhu li-’l-

fatā wa-’l-mālu lā yabqā li-arbābi, mā[lun]?, “praise will remain as savings for the generous youth, although wealth

does not remain with any owner, [with] w[ealth]?” on Cat. No. 38, and al-ḥurru ḥurrun wa-['in] massahu 'l-durr; “the

free man is still free [even if] touched by harm” on Cat. No. 45. The latter is in fact a well recorded saying,

attributed to Imām ‘Alī, and has been already studied by Ghouchani in Inscriptions on Nishabur Pottery, together

with other sayings attributed to him. Part of the following analysis is only the proverb on Cat. No. 38.

.See Ghouchani, Inscriptions on Nishabur Pottery, 108, no. 49 . العلم اشرف االحساب والمرؤة اشبك االنساب 39

A number of eight appearances have been registered, six published by Ghouchani, see Ibid., nos. 7, 15, 49, 67, 82

and 108, and three by Bol’shakov, of which one is identical with Ghouchani’s no. 108, see Bol'shakov, "Arabskie

Nadpisi IV," 56-8.

الجود من اخالق اهل الجنة. 40

The proverb appeared 39 times, as follows: eight times on bowls from various collections published by Ghouchani,

see Ghouchani, Inscriptions on Nishabur Pottery, nos. 3, 27, 41, 55, 68, 101, 126, 139; on one bowl in Tareq Rajab

Museum, see Feh rv ri, Ceramics of the Islamic World, 56, no. 53; on two pieces in the Khalili Collection, see Grube,

Cobalt and Lustre, 76, no. 64 and 77, no. 66; on two pieces in the Kuwait Museum, see Watson, Ceramics from Islamic

Lands, 206, Cat.Ga. 1, and 16, Cat.Ga.15; finally, on 24 pieces published by Bol’shakov, see Bol'shakov, "Arabskie

Nadpisi III," 37-46.

تاج من ذهب.عام زين للفتى والعقل ال 41

The proverb appears on nine pieces, of which four published by Ghouchani, belonging to various museums, see

Ghouchani, Inscriptions on Nishabur Pottery, nos. 11, 28, 73, 138; one piece in the Tareq Rajab Museum, see

Feh rv ri, Ceramics of the Islamic World, 58, no. 55; one in the Kuwait Museum, see Watson, Ceramics from Islamic

Lands, 216, Cat.Ga.15; finally, on three examples published by Bol’shakov, see Bol'shakov, "Arabskie Nadpisi IV,"

59.

.see Ghouchani, Inscriptions on Nishabur Pottery, no. 114 , الحمد يبقا ذخره للفتى والمال ال يبقا الرباب. 42

Interpreting the Meaning of Writing on Pottery 87

opinions”43. The moralistic compendia chosen for comparison have been written between the

eighth and eleventh centuries in Iraq and Iran, and have been selected to parallel the temporal

and spatial coordinates of the ceramic production. They are the anthologies written by Abū ’l-

Faḍl al-Maydānī d. 1124 CE)44, Abū ‘Ubayda al-Rayḥānī d. 834 CE)45, Ḥamza b. al-Ḥasan al-

Isbaḥānī d. 935 CE)46 and al-Thaliqānī d. eleventh c. CE)47. The analysis on proverbs in the

moralistic literature was performed by searching not only identical forms of the pottery

proverbs, but also close versions and finally, all aphorisms that contained the concepts

expressed in the pottery examples, or that hinted at the same values and norms as those48.

The five proverbs showed almost no variations on pottery. Vocabulary and word

ordering were nearly identical for all cases. The variations were given by the omission of the

final word(s)49 or inclusion of various blessing and good-wish formulas at the end50. The

It totalizes six examples, three published by Ghouchani, belonging to various museums, see Ghouchani,

Inscriptions on Nishabur Pottery, nos. 114, 118, and 135; One piece in Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, Inv. No. AK-MAK-

1489, unpublished; one piece in the Khalili Collection, published in Grube, Cobalt and Lustre, 103, no. 101; finally,

one piece in Museo Civico, Torino(?), published in Ventrone, "Inscrizioni Inedite su Ceramica Samanide in

Collezioni Italiane," 229, fig. 7.

االناة قبل الرأى. 43

All three examples were published by Ghouchani, Inscriptions on Nishabur Pottery, nos. 96, 137 and 140. 44 Freytag, Arabum Poverbia. 45 Zakeri, Persian Wisdom in Arabic Garb. 46 Al-I fahānī, Al- urra al- ākhira fī al-Amthāl al-Sāʾ ira. 47 Al-Ṭāliqānī, isālat al-amthāl al-ba dādiyya allatī tajrī bayn al-ʿ āmma. 48 For clarification, A proverb version is understood here as a very close form to the pottery original, which exhibits

a small amount of differences regarding vocabulary and word ordering, and might include minor additions of

various grammatical function or, on the contrary, less vocabulae. Further, the concepts (keywords) defined, and

that have consequently searched for, are the following: المال المرؤة ,االحساب ,العلم ,الرأى ,اآلناة ,الجنة ,

,التاج ,العقل ,الفتى ,الزين ,االنساب , . الذهب 49 The only internal variations that I encountered relate to the first proverb al-‘ilmu ashrafu al-aḥsaba wa-’l-

murū’atu ashbaku/ashyadu al-ansāba, where al-aḥsāb, misses in one case, see Ghouchani, Inscriptions on Nishabur

Pottery, no. 7, and the second half, wa-’l-murū’atu ashbaku al-ansāba, misses in another case, see Ghouchani,

Inscriptions on Nishabur Pottery, no. 15. 50 The additions that I encountered are the following: the first proverb, al-‘ilmu ashrafu al-aḥsaba wa-’l-murū’atu

ashbaku/ashyadu al-ansāba appears accompanied by baraka li-’l-sakhī in Ghouchani, Inscriptions on Nishabur Pottery,

Chapter 4 88

addition of blessings did not change in any way the original word order or the meaning of the

proverbs. They act as inter-changeable fillers, as separate formulas.

The literature of the time does not contain even one identical form with the pottery

examples, whereas close version, meaning here the use of the same words, or a similar topic,

are very rare51. What we can find in the literature are paraphrases of the pottery examples at

best, and completely different types in both topic and vocabulary, that sent us to the same

moral values as the pottery examples52. Further, the proverb compendia examples embody the

same values and norms as the pottery examples, as it is clear from the abovementioned

examples. Interestingly, whereas the pottery examples remain in “quasi-frozen” forms for

no. 49, and by bi-’l-yumn in Bol'shakov, "Arabskie Nadpisi," 56, no. 2; the second, al-jūdu min akhlāqi ’ahli ’l-janna, is

supplemented only once by wa-’l-salāmatu baraka, “and good health is a blessing” in Ghouchani, Inscriptions on

Nishabur Pottery, no. 68; the third, al-‘ilmu zaynun li-’l-fatā, wa-’l-‘aqlu tājun min dhahab, is accompanied once by al-

yumn, al-baraka in Ghouchani, Inscriptions on Nishabur Pottery, no. 11, another time by al-ni‘ma in Ibid., no. 28, and in

another example by bi-’l-jannati, Ibid., no. 138; the fourth, al-ḥamdu yaqbā dhukhuruhu li-’l-fatā wa-’l-mālu lā yaqbā li-

arbābi, appears accompanied by bi-’l-barakati li-ṣāḥibihi wa-mālin, “blessing and wealth to the owner” in Ghouchani,

Inscriptions on Nishabur Pottery, no. 118, bi-’l-salāmti wa-mālin, “with good health and wealth” on Ibid., no. 135, and

by the name of the potter, ‘Alī, on a Khalili collection example, see Grube, Cobalt and Lustre, 103, no. 101. 51 The only close form found in the literature refers to proverb number three. An almost identical form of the first

part appears in Zakeri, Persian Wisdom in Arabic Garb, vol. 2, no. 798: al-‘ilmu zayyana li-’l-fatā, “knowledge

embellishes the youth”. 52 The literature exhibits a wealth of examples that send to the same norms and values as the five selected

proverbs. I will give here only a brief account: for proverb number one, similar understanding have zaynu kulli al-

bashari al-‘ilm, “knowledge is the beauty of all mankind” in Zakeri, Persian Wisdom in Arabic Garb, vol. 2, no. 798, and

uṭlubu al-’adaba fa-’innahu ‘aūnu ‘alā ’l-murū’ati fī ’l-‘aqli wa-ṣāḥib, “seek adab for it is an aid to manliness, an increase

in intelligence… in Ibid., vol. 2, no. 81, 2; for proverb number two, the same values are contained in al-jūdu

sū’dudun, “generosity is a virtue” in Ibid., vol. 2, no. 254, 10, and in al-jūdu maḥabbatun, wa-’l-bakhlu bighḍatun,

“generosity is love, miserliness is hate” in Ibid., vol. 2, no. 452, 31; for proverb number three, meaning

correspondences can be traced with zaynu ’adabin bi-hatara kaha jalaba dhahab, “the ornament of virtue is better

than gold” in Ibid., vol. 2, no. 444, 23 or with al-’adabu zīnatu al-‘aqli, “ adab is the ornament of the mind”, in See

Ibid., vol. 2, no. 12, 2; for proverb number four, two examples send to the same values, namely māluhu ’aḥāla wa-

’ajrāba, “ be aware), one’s possessions become scabby” in Freytag, Arabum Poverbia, vol. 2, chapter 24, no. 130 and

‘indahu min al-māli, ‘aīratu ‘ayn, “that who is wealthy, his eyes are blind” in Ibid., vol. 2, chapter 18, no. 12; for

proverb number five, unity of meaning have ṣabru sā‘atin ’aṭūlu li-’l-rāḥa, “the patience of moment prolongs the

rest periods)” in Ibid., vol. 1, chapter 14, no. 127 and al-ṣabru miftāḥu al-faraj, “patience is the key of joy” in Ibid.,

vol. 1, chapter 14, no. 131.

Interpreting the Meaning of Writing on Pottery 89

three centuries, the moralistic literature contains proverbs in a continuous process of

transformation, both in topic and vocabulary. Concepts are intermingled with each other and

described through various metaphors that interchange, creating a wealth of combinations.

It is this frozen form that the proverbs on pottery exhibit which proves their

manufacture production: they did not change form because they were carefully copied by

generations of manufacturers, which added, most probably to fill in the remaining blank space

of a decoration, the rest of the pious good-wishes. Further, the careful copying of proverbs

attests that they were not expressively designed for specific buyers, but produced on a large

scale. Contrarily to metalwork inscriptions, - in which votive formulas mentioning their

owners, which were largely written on order - , the proverbs on pottery were industrially

manufactured, and not commissioned.

Conclusions

The present study engaged with the topic of writing on Sāmānid ceramics, aiming to offer a

more balanced interpretation of the meaning and role of inscriptions on pottery. It did so by

using as material 65 pieces from three Dutch collections largely unpublished so far. It applied a

quantitative method that interrelated ceramic with writing features in order to arrive at a

solid, empirical knowledge about epigraphy on pottery. Several patterns of writing behavior

were observed, among which the vast use of kūfic on all quality wares and on all inscription

legibilities, the high presence of inscriptions rendered in decorative patterns, as well as a

preeminence of pious and religious texts. They led to the premise that the aesthetic and

symbolic values of writing on pottery were more important than the content of the pottery

inscriptions, fact that has been addressed so far in the literature in the field, though with an

unbalanced favor for one of the three features, and not supported by empirical data. A

subsequent analysis of the aesthetic, symbolic and communicational values of writing, to

which insights into the corpus examples, the content of the inscriptions, the theoretical

literature on literacy and communication, as well as a comparative study with the moralistic

literature of the time were added, indicated that the relation between the three roles of

writing on Sāmānid pottery is far more complex, and depends as much on the intrinsic

qualities of the ceramic pieces as on the apprehension capabilities of their public.

The embellishing of inscriptions on pottery mirrors a larger custom of calligraphic

writing on monuments and material culture objects. Calligraphic writing was highly praised by

contemporaries, and compelled glorifying, revering and acclamatory sentiments when viewed

or described. The contemporaries had a specific sensitivity for aesthetics of writing, which

included the qualities for which calligraphy was often praised: harmony, symmetry, repetition.

The examples from the corpus present writing embellishments that enhance the symmetrical

display or repetitive aspect of inscriptions, which attests the concern to fit the tastes and

aesthetic familiarity of users with calligraphic designs. Pottery, a product designed for the

92

market and intended for sale had to appeal to aesthetic familiarity and ideas on beauty of its

consumers.

The symbolic value of inscriptions on Sāmānid pottery finds roots in the religious

association of writing in Arabic script with the divine revelation and with God. By means of

being used to record the Qur’ān, the Arabic language, and subsequently the Arabic script

acquired sacredness in themselves, transferring this charismatic power to the objects on

which they were inscribed. These objects became beneficial and protective tools for their user.

When contemplated, writing was symbolically communicating the presence of God. Not only

were the alphabet and the language communicating symbolically to the users, but also the

script style. Kūfic in its most encountered unadorned version, but also in its more elaborate

foliated, floriated and plaited forms, was one of the oldest scripts used for writing the Qur’ān,

as well as on various other material culture objects. By that, it came to acquire a connection

with the sacredness of the revelation, a connection with tradition, power, authority and

prestige was created. Conversely, the individuals who bought epigraphic ceramics must have

been familiar with the symbolic values of the Arabic alphabet and language, and must have

been acquainted with the appearance of kūfic script. All these enabled the consumers of

ceramics to apprehend the inscriptions on pottery as a guarantee of sacredness, protection

and prestige. The content of the largest part of the corpus inscriptions, pious and religious

terms or formulae attest the same interest of acquiring protection and benefit. The use of the

same formulae on a vast amount of other material culture objects, as well as the use of the

frequently encountered word baraka, blessing attest both a familiarity with the visual

appearance of these inscriptions, but mainly their use as talismanic and amuletic vehicles.

The same inscription content, stereotypical pious and religious concepts and formulas

suggest that the users of pottery might have perceived not only the symbolic meaning of the

inscription, but also their literal content. Due to the religious and restricted nature of the

vocabulary used, as well as to the fact that consumers were most probably urban inhabitants,

familiar with inscriptions as decorative tools on monuments and objects, Qur’ānic preaching,

and possibly with madrasa teaching, inscriptions literal meaning could have been

apprehended by visual recognition of form, and not by reading per se. However, the perception

of the literal meaning of the inscription would not have effaced the symbolic role of writing, as

the content of inscriptions also refers to religious and pious concepts. Symbolic and

93

communicational aspects of inscriptions on pottery intertwine, and are not antagonistic, as

perceiving the literal meaning of the inscriptions would only add to the knowledge of users.

Several avenues of research which were observed throughout the study of the corpus

would enable us to get a better understanding of the phenomenon of epigraphy on Sāmānid

pottery. A further productive track is the application of a quantitative analysis based on script

features to other museum collections, and the comparison of results. During the research it

was observed that types of inscriptions are correlated with particular typologies, which

enables us to conjecture that inscriptions content and degrees of legibility were designed for

particular products. Further mapping of material would enable us to confirm if content and

legibility are directly linked with typology, or if the same epigraphic vocabulary was used for

the entire production. That would enable us to ascertain is different types of wares were

produced for different markets.

The process of script legibility degradation seems to be generally connected with a

decrease in quality. Since no coherent chronology has been proposed so far, we are unable to

determine if this is a contemporary phenomenon, in which luxury products on the market are

imitated with poorer means, or if it is a long term process, in which initially intelligible writing

looses meaning under subsequent copying. Several blessing and good wish inscriptions show

patterns of script legibility degradation, which can be further explored by mapping them on

the model that Gardin has already inaugurated in the Lashkari Bazar monograph. Such

research, combined with a close study of the relation between quality and script legibility,

would clearly establish what was the procedure of manufacture of ceramic inscriptions: if

design on luxurious wares, possessing legible inscriptions, were copied over and over in lesser

qualitative wares, or not. Such a study can explain diachronic changes in the tastes and

aesthetic sensitivities of the inhabitants of these regions.

A distinct avenue of research, that draws to a lesser extent from the material used in

the present study, but regards much material in other collections, is the study of writing errors

within legible inscriptions. The wares that were embellished with the legible aphorisms

contain many “mistakes”, such as the erroneous connection of separate words, wrong case

endings, apparently meaningless additions of one or more letters at the end of an aphorism, or

confusions in spelling of words (confusions between the emphatic and non-emphatic letter

forms such as sīn and ṣād). Specific errors might be linked with illiteracy, whereas others with

94

lack of attention in the process of copying. The close study of these errors, would provide

insights, - as the research on manuscript scribal errors has already demonstrated - , into the

technique of manufacture of pieces, qualifications which the literature so far has not been able

to provide.

The application of inscriptions on Sāmānid pottery mirrors the larger custom of

inscribing objects of material culture and monumental architecture in medieval Islam.

Customary objects such as metalwork tableware and jewellery exhibit to a great extent the

vocabulary used on Sāmānid pottery, and attest the profound concern for divine protection.

The combined study of these inscriptions provides us with a unique opportunity to understand

the concerns, fears, tastes and sensitivities of their users. Moreover, it helps us to build

knowledge on the intricate historical paths in which these concerns and sensitivities were

inherited by contemporary Muslims, of which our jeweler and his ideas about the use and

handling of the sacred text are only a minute fragment.

95

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Al-Subkī, Taqī al-Dīn b. ‘Abd al-Kāfī. Fatāwā. l . u Dā al-Maʿ rifa, 1983.

Al- fa ānī, a a b. al- a an. a - a a -Fā a a - t ā a - āʾ ira. edited by ʿ Abd al-

a īd a ā . a Dā al-maʿ ā f b - , .

Al-Ṭāl qānī, ‘Alī b. al-Faḍl. In ā at a -a t ā a - a ā a a at ta a a -ʿ ā a, edited by

Louis Massignon. Cairo, 1913.

Freytag, G.W. Arabum Poverbia 2ed. 3 vols. Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag, 1968.

Zakeri, Mohsen. Persian Wisdom in Arabic Garb: ʿ ʿ a a a - a ā a

awā a - a wa-Fa āʾ a - a . 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

Secondary Sources:

Aanavi, Don. "Devotional Writing: Pseudo Inscriptions in Islamic Art " Bulletin of the

Metropolitan Museum of Art 26, no. 9 ( May 1968): 353-58.

Ahrarov, I. "K Istorii Keramicheskogo Proizvodstva na Gorodishe Afrasiab [On the History of

Ceramic Production in Afrasiab]." Afrasiab 1 (1969): 301-11.

Albaum, L.I. "O Goncharnom Proizvodstve na Afrasiab X-XI vv. [Concerning the Pottery

Production in Afrasiab in the X to XI c.]." Afrasiab 1 (1969): 256-67.

Allan, James W. Medieval Middle Eastern Pottery. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum, 1971.

-------. Nishapur: Metalwork of the Early Islamic Period. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of

Art, 1982.

Arne, T.J. La Suède et l'Orient. Upsala: 1914.

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

Baipakov, Karl. "Les fouilles de la ville d'Otrar." Archéologie islamique 3 (1993): 87-110.

Bak, Saskia. Nanne Ottema. Een Kleurrijk Verzamelaar. Uigeverij van Wijnen-‎Franeker, 1999.‎

96

Bäuml, Franz H. "Varieties and Consequences of Medieval Literacy and Illiteracy." Speculum,no.

2 (1980): 237-65.

Bayani-Wolpert, Manijeh. "Inscriptions on Early Islamic Ceramics: 9th to Late 12th Centuries "

In Early Islamic Ceramics: Ninth to Late Twelfth Centuries. The Benaki Museum, Athens edited

by Helen Philon, 293-302. London: Islamic Art Publications, 1980.

Bierman, Irene A. "The Art of the Public Text: Medieval Islamic Rule." In World Art: Themes of

Unity in Divesity. Acts of the xxvith International Congress of the History of Art, edited by

Irving Lavin, 283-90. University Park, London: Pennsylvania University Press, 1989.

Blair, Sheila S. "Note on the Prayers Inscribed on Several Medieval Silk Textiles in the Abegg

Foundation." In Islamische Textilkunst des Mittelalters: Aktuelle Probleme, d d b

u a ad 'Abbā u a ad Salī , -38. Riggisberg: Abegg-Stiftung, 1997.

-------. Islamic Inscriptions. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1998.

-------. Islamic Calligraphy. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007.

l' ak , O. G. "A ab k Nadp Na P l n ĭ K a k S dn ĭ A X-XI vv. IV [Arabic

Inscriptions on Glazed Ceramics of Central Asia, IX-XI c. - IV]." Epigrafika Vostoka 17

(1966): 54-62.

———. "A ab k Nadp Na P l n ĭ K a k S dn ĭ A X-XII vv. V [Arabic Inscriptions on

Glazed Ceramics of Central Asia, IX-XII c. - V]." Epigrafika Vostoka 19 (1969): 42-50.

———. "A ab k Nadp Na P l n ĭ K a k S dn ĭ A X-XII vv. II [Arabic Inscriptions on

Glazed Ceramics of Central Asia, IX-XII c. - II]." Epigrafika Vostoka 15 (1963): 73-87.

———. "A ab k Nadp Na P l n ĭ K a k S dn ĭ A X-XII vv. [Arabic Inscriptions on

Glazed Ceramics of Central Asia, IX-XII c.]." Epigrafika Vostoka 12 (1958): 23-38.

———. "A ab k Nadp Na P l n ĭ K a k S dn ĭ A X-XII vv. III [Arabic Inscriptions

on Glazed Ceramics of Central Asia, IX-XII c. - III]." Epigrafika Vostoka 16 (1963): 35-55.

Bosmans, Sarah A., and Hillegonda Janssen. Keramiek uit het Islamitisch Cultuurgebied: De ‎Collectie

Hillegonda Janssen. Leeuwarden: Leeuwarden Museum het Princessehof, ‎‎2011.‎

Bosworth, C.E. "The Early Ghaznavids." In The Cambridge History of Iran. Volume 4: The Period from

the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, edited by Richard N. Frye, 162-97. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1975.

97

Bulliet, Richard. "Pottery Styles and Social Status in Medieval Khurasan." In Archaeology,

Annales, and Ethnohistory, edited by A.B. Knapp, 75-82. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1992.

Camille, Michael. "Seeing and Reading: Some Visual Implications of Medieval Literacy and

Illiteracy." Art History 8, no. 1 (1985): 26-49.

Cahen, Claude. "Tribes, Cities and Social Organization." In The Cambridge History of Iran. Volume

4: The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, edited by Richard N. Frye, 305-28.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975.

w , Y land . "Sā ān d ." Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Accessed July, 7 2012.

http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/samanids-

COM_0995.

Curatola, Giovanni. Persian Ceramics from the 9th to the 14th Century. Milan: Skira, 2006.

Darley-Doran, R.E. "Sald jūḳids." Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Accessed July, 8 2012.

http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/saldjukids-

COM_0984.

Denffer, Dietrich von. "Baraka as Basic Concept of Muslim Popular Belief. " Islamic Studies 15,

no. 3 (1976): 167-86.

Eliëns, Titus. "Een Verzameling Rond de Kunsten van het Vuur. Het Verzamelbeleid ten ‎Tijde

van Van Gelder, Gallois en Béatrice Jansen (1912-1979)." Jaarboek Haags ‎Gemeentemuseum

Jubileumnummer (1995/96): 114-47 and 209-10.‎

Ettinghausen, Richard. "Arabic Epigraphy: Communication or Symbolic Affirmation." In Near

Eastern Numismatics, Iconography, Epigraphy, and History: Studies in Honor of George C. Miles,

edited by Dikran Kouymjian, 297-317. Beirut, 1974.

, G a. Ceramics of the Islamic World. In the Tareq Rajab Museum. London, New York: I.B.

Tauris & Co., 2000.

———. Islamic Pottery: A Comprehensive Study based on the Barlow Collection. London: Faber and

Faber, 1973.

Flury, Samuel. "Le Décor Épigraphique Des Monuments De Ghazna " Syria 6, no. 1 (1925): 61-90.

-------. "Ornamental Kufic Inscriptions on Pottery." In A Survey of Persian Art: from Prehistoric

Times to the Present edited by Arthur U. Pope and Phyllis Ackerman, 1743-69. London,

New York: 1939.

98

Fodor, Alexander. "Amulets from the Islamic World." The Arabist: Budapest Studies in Arabic 2

(1990): 1-192.

Folsach, Kjeld von. Islamic Art. The David Collection. Copenhagen: 1990.‎

Gallois, Henri C. "Islamische Kunst in het Gemeente-Museum." Mededeelingen van den Dienst ‎voor

Kunsten en Wetenschappen der Gemeente 'S-Gravenhage (1924): 151-76.‎

‎———. "Islamitische Ceramiek (Nieuwe Aanwinsten)." Mededeelingen van den Dienst voor ‎Kunsten

en Wetenschappen der Gemeente 'S-Gravenhage (1930): 219-22.‎

‎———. "Y avait-Il de la porcelaine en Iran au Moyen-Age?" In Mémoires du IIIè ‎congrès

international d'art et d'archéologie iraniens, Leningrad, septembre 1935, 67-9. Moscow:

Académie des Sciences de l'URSS, 1939.

Gardin, Jean-Claude. Lashkari Bazar II. Les trouvailes. Céramique et monnaies de Lashkari Bazar et de

Bust Mémoires de la délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan. Paris: Librairie

C. Klincksieck, 1963.

Ghouchani, Assadulah. Inscriptions on Nishabur Pottery. Tehran: Reza Abbasi Museum, 1986.

Grabar, Oleg. The Mediation of Ornament. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press,

1989.

Grenet, Franz, and Claude Rapin. "De la Samarkand antique à Samarkand islamique:

continuités et ruptures." In Colloque international d'archéologie islamique, IFAO, Le Caire, 3-7

février 1993 edited by Roland-Pierre Gayraud, 387-402. Cairo: Institut Français

d'Archéologie Orientale, 1998.

Grohmann, Adolf. "The Origin and Early Development of Floriated Kufik." Ars Orientalis 2

(1957): 183-214.

Groot, S. "Historisch Aardewerk uit Perzië." Keramika, no. 4 (2004): 24-25.‎

Grube, Ernst. Cobalt and Lustre: The First Centuries of Islamic Pottery, The Nasser D. Khalili

Collection of Islamic Art London The Nour Foundation, 1994.

———. Islamic Pottery of the Eighth to the Fifteenth Century in the Keir Collection. London: Faber and

Faber, 1976.

Herrman, Georgiana, K. Kurbansakhatov, et al. "The International Merv Project: Preliminary

Report on the Third Season(1994)." Iran. Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies 33

(1995): 31-60.

99

an n, a . Ceramiek uit de Landen van de Islam: Haags Gemeentemuseum. The ‎Hague: Haags

Gemeentemuseum, 1956. Reprint, 1972.‎

Karev, Yury. "Samarqand in the Eighth Century: The Evidence of Transformation." In Changing

Social Identity with the Spread of Islam. Archaeological Perspectives, edited by Donald

Whitcomb, 51-66. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2004.

Keblow Bernsted, Anne Marie. Early Islamic Pottery: Materials & Techniques. London, 2003.

K ānī, u a ad Yū uf. The Islamic City of Gurgan. Berlin: Reimer, 1984.

Klooster, Agnita van 't. "De Collectie Oosterbaan-Lugt. Iraanse Keramiek van Gepassioneerde

Verzamelaars." Vormen uit Vuur 195, no. 2/2006 (2006).

———. "Islamic 'Porcelain'. Examples from the Rijksmuseum Collection." The Rijksmuseum

Bulletin 59, no. 1 (2011): 74-87.

Knappert, J. "Mathal." In Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Accessed May, 25 2012.

http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/mathal-COM

_0707.

Krachkovskaya, V. A. "Evolyutsiya Kuficheskogo Pis'ma v S dn ĭ A [The Evolution of Kufic

Writing in Central Asia]." Epigrafika Vostoka 3 (1949): 3-27.

Lane, Arthur. Early Islamic Pottery: Mesopotamia, Egypt and Persia. London: Faber and Faber 1947.

-------. Islamic Pottery from the Ninth to the Fourtenth Centuries A.D. ( Third to Eighth Centuries A.H.) in

the Collection of Sir Eldred Hitchcock. London: Faber and Faber, 1956.

Lavoix, Henri. Catalogue des monnaies musulmanes de la Bibliotèque Nationale. Khalifes Orientaux. 3

vols. Vol. 1. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1887.

Lunde, Paul, and Justin Wintle, eds. A Dictionary of Arabic and Islamic Proverbs. London [etc.]:

Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984.

Lunina, S.B. "The Pottery Industry in Merv from the 10th to the Beginning of the 13th

Century." Trudy Yuzhno-T e ta oĭ eo og c e oĭ o p e oĭ Ė pe t 11

(1962): 217-418.

Masson, M.E. "Yuzhno- u k n an kaĭa A k l g kaĭa K pl k naĭa Ekspeditsiya

(YuTAKE) [Comprehensive Archaeological Expedition in South Turkmenistan

(YuTAKE)]." Trudy Yuzhno-T e ta oĭ eo og c e oĭ o p e oĭ Ekspeditsii

[Research of the South Turkmenistan Archaeological Expedition] 2 (1951): 7-72.

Matton, Sylvain. La magie arabe traditionnelle. Paris: Retz, 1976.

100

Melikian-Chirvani, Assadullah. Islamic Metalwork from the Iranian World, 8th-18th Centuries.

London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1982.

Meri, Joseph W. "Aspects of Baraka (Blessings) and the Ritual Devotion among Medieval

Muslims and Jews." Medieval Encounters 5, no. 1 (1999): 46-69.

Philon, Helen, ed. Early Islamic Ceramics: Ninth to Late Twelfth Centuries. The Benaki Museum, Athens

London: Islamic Art Publications, 1980.

Pinder-Wilson, Ralph H. "A Silver Ladle and Amulet Case from Persia. " The British Museum

Quarterly 25, no. 1/2 (1962): 32-35.

"Pseudo-, Comb. Form". Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Accessed

August, 31 2012. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/153742.

Pugachenkova, Galina A. Iz Istorii Iskusstva Velikogo Goroda (K 2500-Letiyu Samarkanda) [ From the

History of the Art of a Great City ( 2500 Years of Samarkand)]. Tashkent: The Gafur Gulam Art

and Literature Publishing House, 1972.

Rijksmuseum Amsterdam. "Keuze uit de Aanwinsten." Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 26, no. 3

(1978): 127-40.

Rosenthal, Franz. "Significant Uses of Arabic Writing." Ars Orientalis 4 (1961): 15-23.

afadī, Yā īn ā d. Islamic Caligraphy. London: Thames and Hudson, 1978.

Sampson, Geoffrey. Writing Systems. A Linguistic Introduction. London [etc.]: Hutchinson, 1985.

Schimmel, Annemarie. Islamic Calligraphy. Leiden: Brill, 1970.

-------. Calligraphy and Islamic Culture. New York, London: New York University Press, 1984.

Schlumberger, Daniel, Marc Le Berre, and Jean-Claude Gardin. Lashkari Bazar e e ce

o a e g a e a c tect e, d la d l ga n a l g qu an a n

Afghanistan. Paris: Diffusion de Boccard, 1978.

Shishkina, Galina V., L.V. Pavchinskaya, et al. Terres secretes de Samarcande. Céramiques du VIIIè

au XIIIè siècle. Paris: 1992.

Sokolovskaia, L., and Axelle Rougeulle. "Stratified Finds of Chinese Porcelain from Pre-Mongol

Samarkand (Afrasiab)." Bulletin of the Asia Institute 6 (1993): 87-98.

Soustiel, Jean. La céramique islamique. Fribourg: Office du Livre, 1985.

Street, Brian. Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge[etc.]: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

101

Smith, G.R. "Ṭā d ." The Encyclopedia of Islam, Second Edition. Accessed September, 10 2012.

http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/tahirids-

COM_1152.

Tabbaa, Yasser. "The Transformation of Arabic Writing: Part 1, Qur'anic Calligraphy." Ars

Orientalis 21 (1991): 119-48.

Tashkhodzae , S . S. "V p k ĭ Kla f ka P l n ĭ K a k Af a aba [The

Questions of Historical Classification of Glazed Ceramics of Afrasiyab]." In The History of

the Art of a Great City ( 2500 Years of Samarkand), edited by Galina A. Pugachenkova, 185-

205. Tashkent The Gafur Gulam Art and Literature Publishing House 1972.

-------. " Keramicheskoe proizvodstvo Afrasiaba i voprosy organizatsii truda remeslennikov X

— nachala XIII vv. [The Ceramic Production of Afrasiab and the Issues of Labour

Organization of Craftsmen between 10th-13th c.]." Afrasiab 4 (1975): 58-68.

Terlouw, W.J. "Keramiek uit Iran. Schenking Mevrouw Hillegonda Janssen." Keramika, no. 2

‎‎(1997).‎

-------. "Aanwinsten: Keramiek uit Iran." Keramika, no. 1 (1999): 22-28.‎

‎———. "Wijziging Vaste Presentatie: Een Nieuwe Afdeling Perzisch Aardewerk." ‎Keramika, no. 4

(2000): 11-16.‎

Teske, Jef. Islamitische Kunstnijverheid in het Haags Gemeentemuseum. The Hague: Haags

‎Gemeentemuseum, 1991.‎

-------. Ceramiek uit de Oriënt. Ceramics from the Orient. Zwolle: Waanders Uitgevers, ‎‎1999.‎

-------. "Between Animal Style and Enamel Painting: A Samanid Relief-Cut Drinking Glass in

Leiden." In Annales du 15è congrès de l'Association Internationale pour l'Histoire du Verre, 122-

6. New York: Corning, 2001.

The University of Iowa Museum of Art. Calligraphic Ceramics from Eastern Iran. Early Islamic

Pottery from the Collection of Ulfred Wilke. November 7 through December 15, 1974. The

University of Iowa Museum of Art, 1974.

‎Ventrone, Giovanna. "Inscrizioni Inedite su Ceramica Samanide in Collezioni Italiane." In

Gururajamanjarika: Studi in Onore di Giuseppe Tucci, 222-32. Naples: 1974.

Volov [Golombek], Lisa. "Plaited Kufic on Samanid Epigraphic Pottery." Ars Orientalis 6 (1966):

107-34.

102

Watson, Oliver. Ceramics from Islamic Lands: Kuwait National Museum, the Al-Sabah Collection.

Thames & Hudson in assoc. with the al-Sabah Collection, Dar al-Athar al-Islamiyyah,

Kuwait National Museum, 2004.

Wenzel, Marian. Ornament and Amulet. Rings of the Islamic Lands, The Nasser D. Khalili Collection of

Islamic Art. Oxford: The Nour Foundation in association with Azimuth Editions and

Oxford University Press, 1993.

Wilkinson, Charles K. "Ceramic Relationships between Nishapur, Merv and Samarkand." In The

Memorial Volume of the Vth International Congress of Iranian Art & Archaeology, Tehran,

Isfahan, Shiraz, 11th-18th April 1968, d d b .Y.Kī anī and A.Tajvidi, 242-45. Tehran:

Ministry of Culture and Arts, 1972.

‎———. "Christian Remains from Nishapur." In Forschungen zur Kunst Asiens. In Memoriam ‎Kurt

Erdmann, 9 September 1901 - 30 September 1964, edited by Oktay Aslanapa and ‎Rudolf

Naumann, 79-87. Istanbul: Baha Matbaasi, 1969.‎

‎———. Nishapur: Pottery of the Early Islamic Period. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, ‎‎1974.‎

-------. "The Glazed Pottery of Nishapur and Samarkand." The Metropolitan ‎Museum of Art

Bulletin, no. 3 (Nov. 1961): 102-15.‎

Williamson, Andrew. "Regional Distribution of Mediaeval Persian Pottery in the Light in

Recent ‎Investigations." In Syria and Iran. Three Studies in Medieval Ceramics edited by

James Allan and Caroline Roberts, 11-22. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.‎

The Catalogue

Introduction to the Catalogue The following catalogue presents offers a comprehensive description of each of the 65

pieces that form the material of this study. Some explanatory remarks would facilitate the

reader‟s orientation and browsing.

Differently from the usual custom, each piece is allocated a two-pages entry, of which

the first page contains a large picture and the basic details, and the second the information

about the piece.

The arrangement of pieces was made typologically, and mirrors the description of the

pottery types in chapter 3, in the following order the buffwares, the „Abbāsid blue-on-white

imitations, the lusterware imitations, the yellow stained black wares, the black-on-white slip

painted wares and variations, the polychrome-on-white slip painted wares, and the slip

painted wares on coloured background. Inside each typological group, pieces were arranged

by museum provenance in the order Gemeentemuseum, Rijksmuseum and Princessehof

Museum and Volkenskunde Museum, then by inventory number in an alphabetical order.

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 1. Bowl, 10th c., Khurāsān. Location and Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. Inventory Number: OCE-1958-0001; OC (I) 1-58 Acquisition: 1958, auction at Hauswedell, Hamburg. Dimensions (D x h): 17.5 x 7 cm. Technique: Rosé earthenware, covered in ivory slip. Polychrome coated in a

transparent lead glaze. Conservation and Assembled from pieces. Small missing shards were filled up with Restoration: plaster painted to fit the original. Unfortunately, the head of the

character, part of his clothing and segments of the surrounding inscriptions are repainted.

Description: Bowl with spherical walls, inverted rim and low standing base. Painted

on both interior and exterior in brown, yellow, black and green slip. The interior decoration consists of a male character situated centrally and surrounded by simple kūfic inscription imitations on both sides, as well as by small floral and geometrical motifs. The character wears a large robe with wide, long sleeves, painted in green and decorated in a

pattern of circles and dots, and large earrings containing a cross-like decoration. The exterior area of the rim was decorated with a band of stylized leafs, alternatively painted in green, yellow, or contoured in brown.

Inscription: The two simple kūfic pseudo-inscriptions were heavily repainted,

making any attempt of reading impossible. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Wilkinson, Nishapur, 44, fig. 59; Lane, Early Islamic Pottery, plate 20. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 3-53. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 2. Bowl, 10th -11th c., Khurāsān. Location and Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. Inventory Number: OCE-1968-0047; OC (I) 47-68 Acquisition: 1968, purchase from Mr. Soleiman Aaron, Teheran. Dimensions (D x h): 19.5 x 5 cm. Technique: Ivory earthen body covered in creamy slip, painted in black, yellow

and green under a transparent lead glaze. Conservation and Assembled from a few large fragments; the decoration was slightly Restoration: repainted, not refashioning the original. Description: Bowl with convex walls, everted rim and straight, low standing base.

The decoration exhibits the so-called horror vacui decoration: on the interior, two central affronted birds, upside-down one from each other, are delimited in a round medallion. The background area is filled with small vegetal motifs and imitations of short inscriptions. On the cavetto, two circular bands with pseudo-kūfic inscriptions follow each other. Situated right after the central medallion, the circular frieze contains the repetition of a single word. The rim frieze contains again a pseudo- kūfic inscription which springs up from the line separating the two bands. The inscriptions developed into script imitational decorative patterns. On the exterior, the rim area was embellished by a succession of leaf-like motifs.

Inscription: Imitation of kūfic script, in two concentric friezes on the cavetto and

in the central medallion. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Grube, Cobalt and Lustre, 72, fig. 60. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 3-53. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 3. Bowl, 10th c., Khurāsān. Location and Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. Inventory Number: Ob. No. 1043813 Acquisition: 2011, donation A.M. van't Zelfde-Zevenbergen. Dimensions (D x h): 21 x 9 cm. Technique: Ivory body covered in beige slip, painted in manganese black, green

and yellow, covered in transparent lead glaze. Conservation and Assembled from small fragments. The joins, as well as the black Restoration: decoration and the yellow splashes were entirely repainted. It is

indeed one of the most dramatic “restorations” in the Gemeentemuseum collection. Though the black decoration was redone, it followed the original shape, which is still traceable under the modern paint.

Description: Hemispherical bowl with globular walls and straight standing base.

The decoration in black, green and yellow covers both sides. On the interior, it exhibits the horror vacui phenomenon, so common on the buffwares of the period: a main round medallion that covers the bottom, and two concentric friezes, situated on the wall, surround it. The rim area was enhanced by a continuous black band. The small teeth springing from it at regular distance seem to be modern

additions. The bottom medallion contains a central pseudo-kūfic inscription. Three birds surround it symmetrically. The background contains scattered small vegetal motifs, as well as splashes of green and yellow. The two concentric friezes contain an identical pseudo- kūfic decorative pattern, to which splashes of yellow and green were randomly added. At the exterior, a band of alternating yellow, green and black outlined leafs runs near the rim.

Inscription: Two friezes of a pseudo-kūfic decorative pattern presumably

developed from li-ṣāḥibihi, “to its owner” calligraphy, and a central pseudo-kūfic inscription.

Previous -

Publication: Related Pieces: Grube, Cobalt and Lustre, 72, fig. 60. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 3-53. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 4. Bowl, 10th c., Khurāsān. Location and Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. Inventory Number: Ob. No. 1043795 Acquisition: 2011, donation A.M. van't Zelfde-Zevenbergen. Dimensions (D x h): 20 x 7.8 cm. Technique: Rosé body, covered in creamy slip and painted in manganese black,

green and yellow under transparent lead glaze. Conservation and Assembled from pieces; the decoration was repainted along the joins, Restoration: and where the original one faded away, including some inscriptions. Description: Hemispheric bowl with globular walls, slightly inverted rim and round

standing base. The horror vacui decoration covers the interior entirely, as well as the exterior of the rim. Drawn in manganese black, yellow and green, it consists of a central medallion surrounded by two concentric friezes. The central medallion contains a herbivore and a bird. The background was filled with splashes of green and yellow, as well as vegetal motifs drawn in manganese black. The frieze surrounding the medallion contains pseudo-kūfic decorative pattern, whereas the frieze bordering the rim consists of a series of yellow

circles on a black background. Inside each circle, a four-leafed rosette is coloured by a green splash. The rim exterior is embellished by a circular band of oval leafs, half of them having faded away.

Inscription: Frieze with pseudo-kūfic decorative pattern probably a stylization of

li-ṣāḥibihi, “to its owner”. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Grube, Cobalt and Lustre, 73, fig. 61. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 3-53. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 5. Bowl, 10th c., Khurāsān. Location and Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. Inventory Number: Ob. No. 1043794 Acquisition: 2011, donation of A.M. van't Zelfde-Zevenbergen. Dimensions (D x h): Not measured. Technique: Rosé body, covered in a creamy slip and painted in manganese black,

green and yellow under transparent lead glaze. Conservation and Assembled from pieces; the painting was retouched on the shard joins, Restoration: and partly over the central bird. Apart from these, the decoration is in

the original state. Description: Small hemispherical bowl shallow walls, slightly inverted rim and

round standing base. It was completely covered in a creamy slip and a transparent glaze up to the standing base. The decoration, the horror vacui type, was painted in dark brown, green and yellow. On the interior, a large bird is the central decorative motif. It is surrounded by

vegetal motifs, and starting from the left of the bird's head, a pseudo- kūfic inscription. On the exterior, a hatched band was painted circularly along the rim.

Inscription: Pseudo-kūfic inscription along the bird‟s body. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: - Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 3-53. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 6. Bowl, 10th c., Khurāsān. Location and Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. Inventory Number: OCE-1968-0045; OC (I) 45-68 Acquisition: 1968, purchase from art dealer. Dimensions (D x h): 22.5 x 7.7 cm. Technique: Light yellow body covered in a beige slip, painted in black, green and

yellow under a transparent lead glaze. Conservation and Some areas exhibit original decoration carelessly erased and Restoration: substituted with alien decorative motifs, though the original is still

visible. Considering these, the ware might be a shard assemblage, though nothing can be said until the painting clearance. The piece is heavily overpainted, including the black outlines of the decoration.

Description: Bowl with evenly curved walls, everted and round rim, and a slightly

concave standing base. It was painted on both exterior and interior in black, green and yellow. The decoration of the interior consists of two central affronted birds, upside down from each other and connected by a bead row uniting their beaks. Other eight quadrupeds surround them more or less circularly. They are recognizable as three ibexes, two birds and two hyenas (?). The background is cramped with stylized branches and flowers, all splashed randomly with yellow and green

paint. Three short inscriptions in pseudo-kūfic run along the rim. The outside wall is decorated by a circular lozenge pattern containing stipples and four vertical lines.

Inscription: Three small pseudo-kūfic inscriptions. Previous Teske, Ceramics from the Orient, no. 11. Publication: Related Pieces: Wilkinson, Nishapur, 51, fig. 74a-b, and 53, fig. 88a. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 3-53. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 7. Bowl, 10th c., Khurāsān. Rijksmuseum,

Amsterdam. Inv. No. AK-

MAK-1486.

Location and Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Inventory Number: AK-MAK-1486 Acquisition: 1996, lent by the Association of the Friends of Asian Art. Dimensions (D x h): 15.6 x 6.2 cm. Technique: Beige body, completely covered in an ivory slip, painted in dark brown

manganese, green and yellow, and covered in a transparent lead glaze. Conservation and Assembled from pieces, whose join areas were filled with plaster; the Restoration: decoration on the shard joins was completely redone, whereas other

large portions were over painted, respecting though the original shapes, which can be still seen under the modern paint.

Description: Creamy earthenware bowl with hemispherical shape, evenly curved

walls and slightly everted rim, sitting on a flaring standing base. The decoration consists of a central round medallion covering the bottom and surrounded by a circular band on the upper wall. The central medallion contains an herbivore, possibly a deer, accompanied in the rear by a pseudo-kūfic inscription. The background is embellished with numerous flowers. The thick line separating the large band from the central medallion serves as a base for the repetition of a script- inspired decorative pattern. The vertical line of the “lam” divides the band in equal squares coloured alternatively in green and yellow, and containing each a rosette. The upper outer wall was embellished with a band of alternating leafs and lines.

Inscription: Pseudo-kūfic inscription on the bottom and script-imitational

decorative pattern on the cavetto. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Soustiel, La céramique islamique, 62, fig. 45. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 3-53. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 8. Bowl, 10th c., Khurāsān. Rijksmuseum,

Amsterdam. Inv. No.

BK1981-64.

Location and Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Inventory Number: BK-1981-64 Acquisition: 1981, donation prof. dr. J.A. Oosterbaan and his wife. Dimensions (D x h): 18 x 6.8 cm. Technique: Buff body covered in a beige slip and painted in brown manganese,

yellow and green under a transparent lead glaze. Conservation and Assembled from pieces; large sections of the decoration were painted Restoration: over, especially the black outlines. A second coat of transparent glaze

seems to have been applied. Description: Hemispherical bowl with vertical rim, curved walls and straight

standing base, painted in black, yellow and green on both sides. On the interior, two black lines disposed in a cross-like shape divide the decorative field in nearly equal quadrants. The opposites form

identically decorated pairs. The first pair‟s decoration consists of a herbivore drawn on a yellow background filled with stylized flowers. The second pair received a more elaborate decoration: a frieze containing the repetition of a single word in pseudo-kūfic occupies the area adjoining the rim. The remaining space was decorated by a triangle-shaped vegetal arabesque outlined in black and painted in green and yellow. The upper exterior wall was decorated with a succession of green and yellow ovoid leafs, each separated by black lines.

Inscription: Script-imitational decorative pattern, containing the repetition of a

sole word, most probably an abstraction of li-ṣāḥbihi, “to its owner”. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: - Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 3-53. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 9. Bowl, 10th c., Khurāsān. Rijksmuseum,

Amsterdam. Inv. No. BK-

2000-64-J.

Buffwares Location and Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Inventory Number: BK-2000-64-J Acquisition: 2000, donation prof. dr. J.A. Oosterbaan and his wife. Dimensions (D x h): 24 x 6.8 cm. Technique: Buffware covered in a beige slip and painted in black, yellow and green

under a transparent lead glaze. Conservation and Preserved in full but broken in a few large sherds; the lead glaze Restoration: decayed, appeasing the painting glow; a good part of the decoration

was repainted, especially on the shard joins. Description: Bowl with oblique walls, everted rim and straight, round standing

base. The creamy slip is covered in black, yellow and green paint on both sides. The decoration, very close to that of Cat. No. 6, consists of a wealth of vegetal, geometrical epigraphic and zoomorphic motifs covering the entire interior. A central pseudo-kūfic inscription is surrounded by three animas, a lynx, an herbivore and a bird. Inserted between each of these are other three pseudo-kūfic inscriptions. Surrounding the first group are seven birds, symmetrically disposed one after another. The rim is decorated with hemispherical and half lozenge festoons at irregular intervals. The background space is entirely filled with vegetal and floral patterns, as well as with small, sketched writing imitations. On the exterior, a circular repetitive leaf pattern surrounds the upper wall.

Inscription: Four central pseudo-kūfic inscriptions and smaller, short writing imitations disposed randomly on the interior.

Previous Klooster, “De Collectie Oosterbaan-Lugt”, 13, fig. 8. Publication: Related Pieces: Wilkinson, Nishapur, 51, fig. 74a-b; Féhérvari, Ceramics of the Islamic

World, 52, no. 44. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 3-53. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 10. Bowl, 10th c., Khurāsān. Location and Princessehof Museum, Leeuwarden. Inventory Number: BP 2005-056 Acquisition: 06.09.2005, loan Ravesteijn family. Dimensions (D x h): 22 x 8 cm. Technique: Creamy body covered in a beige slip, painted in black, green and

yellow under a transparent lead glaze. Conservation and Preserved in large shards that were assembled together. The small Restoration: missing parts were filled up with plaster and possibly with alien

shards. The decoration was substantially repainted and embellished, as for example the complex vegetal motif springing from the central medallion contour. Most probably, the latter what was writing imitation pattern (as in Cat. No. 7), altered to background decorative pattern through modern intervention.

Description: Hemispherical buffware covered in a beige slip, painted on both sides

in black, yellow and green. The decoration covers the interior completely, and occupies the upper exterior wall. On the interior, a central medallion contains a gazelle and an ibex traced in black, and accompanied by small, stylized flowers and branches. A short pseudo- inscription occupies the area between the horns of the two quadrupeds. The line delimitating the medallion from the cavetto was most probably functioning as the basis for the repetition of the letter lam, which appears on other bowls of the type, but has been embellished and prolonged in virtually all undecorated areas as an underlining background pattern. On the cavetto, seven identical birds are disposed circularly. Their body colour alternates from green to yellow. At the exterior, a pattern of alternating long leafs and conifer branches occupy the upper wall.

Inscription: Pseudo-kūfic decorative pattern. Previous - Publication:

Related Pieces: Soustiel, La céramique islamique, 62, fig. 45; Wilkinson, Nishapur, 52, fig. 77.

Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 3-53. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 11. Bowl, 10th c., Khurāsān. Location and Princessehof Museum, Leeuwarden. Inventory Number: GMP 1996-116 Acquisition: 1996, donation Ms. Hillegonda Janssen. Dimensions (D x h): 21.7 x 8.7 cm. Technique: Buff body covered in beige slip, painted in black, yellow and green

under a transparent lead glaze. Conservation and Preserved in full, but broken and assembled from a few large sherds. Restoration: The black decoration was repainted keeping with the original design;

the joins and the small missing parts were filled in with plaster and painted over.

Description: Hemispherical bowl with evenly curved walls and a low, straight

standing foot. The decoration, typical for the type, covers the entire interior and the upper exterior wall. It is outlined in black and filled in with green and yellow. At the interior, the largest part of the decoration comprises a lavishly decorated bird, whose wings are adorned with vegetal arabesques, and whose tail exhibits a complex pattern of lozenges enhanced by splashes of green and yellow. A polylobed medallion containing a stylized branch extends from above the bird's head towards the rim. The remaining area of the rim was filled in by circles containing lozenges, and splashes of green and yellow. Margining the area between the edge and the left wing of the

bird, a script-inspired pattern was drawn. At the exterior, a band of green, yellow and uncoloured long leafs surrounds the upper wall.

Inscription: Script imitational decorative pattern. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: - Reference Literature: Wilkinson, Nishapur, 3-53.

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 12. Bowl, 10th c., Khurāsān. Location and Princessehof Museum, Leeuwarden. Inventory Number: OKS 1999-048 Acquisition: 1999, collection Hillegonda Janssen. Dimensions (D x h): 18.5 x 7.3 cm. Technique: Buff body covered in a beige slip, painted in black, yellow and green

under a transparent lead glaze. Conservation and Not investigated personally. Restoration: Description: Hemispheric bowl with evenly curved walls and a straight, low

standing foot. It was decorated on both sides in black, green and yellow, at the interior completely, whereas at the exterior only on the upper wall. At the interior, five identical birds are disposed one in the centre and the other four following circularly around the former. They

are drawn in black, completely covered in yellow, and randomly splashed with green. The area between the birds is filled with yellow circles dotted in green on a black background. Circularly along the rim and alternating with the upper part of the four birds are four bands containing a kūfic imitation pattern. At the exterior, a row of alternating yellow and green long leaves is disposed along the rim.

Inscription: Pseudo-kūfic decorative pattern. Previous Bosmans and Janssen, Collectie Hillegonda Janssen, 37. Publication: Related Pieces: - Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 3-53. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 13. Bowl, 9th-10th c., northeastern Iran, poss. Nishapur. Location and Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. Inventory Number: OCE-1990-0030; OC (I) 30-90 Acquisition: 1990, Sotheby‟s, Amsterdam. Dimensions (D x h): 24 x 8 cm. Technique: Beige body covered in an opaque beige slip, in-glaze painted in black

and splashed with green slip over the glaze. Conservation and Surviving in full but broken and assembled from few pieces. The Restoration: inscription was also repainted, apparently respecting the original. Description: Beige earthenware bowl with a flaring standing base and spherical

walls. The decoration consists of three groups of stripes splashed on the interior rim at equal distances and trickling down the wall. They alternate with three triangles disposed also at equal distance on the rim. The bottom received a pseudo-kūfic inscription in black.

Inscription: Pseudo-kūfic inscription on the bottom centre. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Wilkinson, Nishapur, 197, fig. 12; Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands,

176, Cat.D.7. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 179-197; Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 171- Literature: 181.

Appendix: The Catalogue Cat. No. 14. Bowl, 9th-10th c., northeast Iran, poss. Nishapur. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.

Inv. No. BK-1983-115.

Location and Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Inventory BK-1983-115 Number: Acquisition: 1983, donation prof. dr. J.A. Oosterbaan and his wife. Dimensions (D x h): 20.5 x 6 cm. Technique: Yellowish body, creamy opaque tin-glaze, painted over in

green lead-glaze and black manganese. Conservation The piece is preserved almost in full. A missing thin part and along the rim was replaced by plaster. When fired the Restoration: supporting tripod attached to the body, leaving scars in

the green decoration; a modern restorer re-coloured the scars, as well as a small fragment of the inscription.

Description: Conical shallow bowl with a slightly flaring, circular

standing base and an everted rim. Completely covered in beige, opaque tin-glaze, then painted in green lead-glaze and manganese black. The decoration consists of four splashed thick lines in green and a pseudo-kūfic inscription in the centre, in black manganese. The four lines trickled towards the bottom during firing.

Inscription: Pseudo-kūfic inscription in the centre bottom. Previous Klooster, “Iraanse Keramiek”, 14, picture 9. Publication: Related Pieces: Wilkinson, Nishapur, 197, fig. 12; Watson, Ceramics from

Islamic Lands, 176, Cat.D.7. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 179-197; Watson, Ceramics from Literature: Islamic Lands, 171-181.

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 15. Bowl, 9th-10th c., northeastern Iran, poss. Nishapur. Rijksmuseum,

Amsterdam. Inv. No. BK-

1983-116.

Location and Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Inventory Number: BK-1983-116 Acquisition: 1983, donation prof. dr. J.A. Oosterbaan and his wife. Dimensions (D x h): 20.1 x 6.5 cm. Technique: Yellowish body, covered in a creamy opaque tin-glaze, and over

painted in green lead-glaze. Conservation and Preserved in full but broken and assembled from large shards. The Restoration: shard joins were repainted in grey. Description: Conical bowl with straight standing base and an everted rim. The walls

have a slightly convex profile near the bottom. The decoration covers only the interior, and it is composed of three green triangle-like

strokes disposed at regular intervals on the rim, and a radial inscription beginning on the rim and continuing toward the bottom. The green strokes and the inscription form a cross like shape.

Inscription: Pseudo-kūfic inscription. Though the inscription was read as

Muḥammad, none of the letter-signs justifies this reading. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: - Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 179-197; Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 171- Literature: 181.

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 16. Bowl, 9th-10th c., northeastern Iran. Volkenkunde Museum, Leiden.

Inv. No. 4203-21.

„Abbāsid blue-on-white imitations Location and Volkenkunde Museum, Leiden. Inventory Number: 4203-21 Acquisition: Unknown. Dimensions (D x h): 6 x 20.5 cm. Technique: Yellowish body, creamy opaque tin-glaze, painted over in green lead-

glaze and black manganese. Conservation and Not investigated personally. Restoration: Description: Conical shallow bowl with a slightly flaring, circular standing base and

an everted rim. Completely covered in beige, opaque tin-glaze, painted in green lead-glaze and manganese black. The decoration consists of four splashed thick lines in green, placed in a cross-like position on the upper wall, and a pseudo-kūfic inscription in the centre, in black manganese. The four lines trickled towards the bottom during firing.

Inscription: Pseudo-kūfic inscription in the centre bottom. Previous - Publication: Related pieces: Cat. No. 14; Curatola, Persian Ceramics, fig. 29. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 179-197; Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 171- literature: 181.

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 17. Albarello, 11th c., Transoxiana. Location and Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. Inventory Number: OCE-1958-0006; OC(I) 6-58 Acquisition: 1958, auction at Hauswedell, Hamburg. Dimensions (D x h): 14.5 x 16 cm. Technique: Rosé earthenware, covered with a beige slip, painted in olive green and

coated in a transparent lead glaze. Conservation and The piece is preserved in full. The slip flaked off here and there, and Restoration: was filled in with modern plaster, then repainted to fit the original.

The inscription was slightly retouched by a green underline, without major distortions of the original though.

Description: Cylindrical albarello with standing foot, straight walls and flaring

neck. The decoration on the belly consists of three consecutive birds. The space between them was filled here and there with irregularly shaped medallions containing dots and strokes. On the slanted wall connecting the belly with the neck, a circular kūfic inscription was drawn. It was underlined in a green line which was partially restored, and separated from the upper part of the neck by means of two thick lines, also in green.

Inscription: Teske proposes baraka wa sa’āda wa salāma … li-ṣāhibihi (see the

reference on the Previous Publication section). Although the inscription could not be read, the letter shapes and order did not indicate such a reading.

Previous Teske, “Between Animal Style and Enamel Painting”, 125, fig. 6. Publication: Related Pieces: Unique piece. Its profile resembles to the eleventh century production

in Transoxiana, see Gardin, Poteries de Bamiyan, plate 6, no. 69. The decorative vocabulary is typical for the open forms imitating the lustreware, see Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 239, Cat.Ge.1. and Wilkinson, Nishapur, 202, fig. 44a.

Reference Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 239. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 18. Bowl, 10th c., northeastern Iran. Location and Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. Inventory Number: OCE-1964-0007; OC (I) 7-64 Acquisition: 1964, purchase at Bluett & Sons, London. Dimensions (D x h): 22.5 x 7 cm. Technique: Orange earthenware covered in white slip, painted in olive green slip,

and covered in a transparent lead-glaze. Conservation and Preserved in fragments and assembled together with some alien Restoration: pieces, which were covered plaster and then painted over. The shard

joins were over-painted, as well as good part of the interior decoration; the bottom was left untouched, so the inscription is in the original form.

Description: Large orange earthenware bowl with a conical shape and low, flaring

foot. Completely covered in white slip and embellished on both sides with olive green painting imitating lustre. The interior decoration consists of three polylobed leafs which alternate with three long petals. The spaces in between were filled with irregular dotted areas, bordered near the rim by a circular band. On the bottom, a short inscription in foliated kūfic is surrounded by a vegetal motif. On the exterior, the decoration consists of three medallions containing stroke patterns, alternating with three stylized lilies.

Inscription: Simple kūfic inscription situated on the bottom centre. The reading is

unsure, either [لك نه]اي و ايزم , kul han[iyyan wa mariyyan], “may everything be wholesome” or ṣabru mif[tāhu ’l-faraji], “patience is the key[-al] , ] ال[رتص مف]حات الفجز[

to hapyness”. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: -

Reference Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 239. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 19. Bowl, 10th – 11th c., northeastern Iran. Location and Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. Inventory Number: 1043489 Acquisition: 2011, donation A.M. van‟t Zelfde-Zevenbergen. Dimensions (D x h): 23 x 10 cm. Technique: Red earthenware covered in a creamy slip, painted in manganese

brown, which gave a yellow hue in reaction with the glaze, coated in transparent glaze.

Conservation and The piece is preserved fragmentary and assembled from many small Restoration: shards, of which some might be alien to the original. The decoration

on the interior walls was almost entirely repainted. The decoration on the exterior wall is a modern addition. No intervention on the medallion on the bottom.

Red earthenware conical bowl with straight and long rim, and a

Description: circular flaring standing base. The decoration on the interior consists of a round medallion on the bottom, accompanied by two consecutive circular friezes on the cavetto. The medallion contains two herbivores surrounded by a dotted background. The larger one occupies the centre, whereas the smaller one is situated on the backside of the first. Three thick brush bands surround the medallion upwards on the wall. Further up, a frieze delimitated by two thick brush lines contains a script-inspired pattern drawn in brown, which alternates with leaf-like

designs. The last register consists likewise of a script-inspired repetitive pattern.

Inscription: Script-inspired decorative pattern. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Wilkinson, Nishapur, 224, fig. 2.

Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 213-226. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 20. Bowl, 10th – 11th c., northeastern Iran. Location and Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. Inventory Number: 1043492 Acquisition: 2011, donation A.M. van‟t Zelfde-Zevenbergen. Dimensions (D x h): 25 x 9.5 cm. Technique: Rosé earthenware covered in white slip up to mid outer wall, painted

in manganese brown that produced a yellowish hue in reaction with the glaze, coated in transparent glaze.

Conservation and Preserved in small fragments that were fit together with plaster. Some Restoration: small missing shards were supplied in the same manner, and then

repainted. The decoration around the interior rim was almost entirely overpainted.

Description: Hemispherical bowl with a low, round and flaring standing base and a

slightly inverted upper wall. It was decorated on both sides in manganese brown. On the bottom, a small motif resembles to a circle. It is accompanied by a circular frieze surrounding the upper wall, which contains a script-inspired repetitive pattern. On the exterior, the only decorative devices are two triangle-shaped areas, situated oppositely on the rim, each containing three strokes.

Inscription: Script-inspired decorative pattern. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Wilkinson, Nishapur, 224, fig. 2. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 213-226. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 21. Bowl, 10th – 11th c., northeastern Iran. Location and Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. Inventory Number: 1043796 Acquisition: 2011, donation A.M. van‟t Zelfde-Zevenbergen. Dimensions (D x h): 13.5 x 6.5 cm. Technique: Orange earthenware completely covered in white slip, painted in

manganese brown and coated in a transparent glaze. Conservation and Preserved fragmentarily and assembled from pieces, from which at Restoration: least one does not belong to the original. The interior decoration was

heavily overpainted, whereas the exterior one is a modern addition. The repainted decoration, as well as the great number of shards raises the suspicion of a “jigsawed piece”.

Description: Conical bowl with straight rim and a flaring standing base. The

decoration was applied in manganese brown originally only on the interior. Typical for this type, the manganese brown reacted with the glaze, creating a yellowish area around it. On the interior, a small stylized bird occupies the bottom, surrounded at halfway toward the rim by a circular band, which serves as basis for a repetition in a floriated kūfic, highly abstracted script of a single word. The original can still be recognized as baraka.

Inscription: Floriated kūfic decorative pattern, repeating in a highly abstracted

form the word baraka. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Féhérvari, Ceramics of the Islamic World, 61, no. 64. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 213-226. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 12. Small jug, 10th – 11th c., northeastern Iran. Location and Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. Inventory Number: 1043799 Acquisition: 2011, donation A.M. van‟t Zelfde-Zevenbergen. Dimensions (D x h): 9.5 x 11.5 cm. Technique: Red earthenware body, completely covered in white slip including the

foot, painted in manganese brown and coated in a transparent glaze. Conservation and The ware is preserved in full. It is in a good condition, apart from Restoration: minor glaze cracks and chippings, which left the slip uncovered. It was

considerably embellished though: the three circular bands that surround the neck, as well as the wavy decoration on the handle were painted over, whereas the thin, green festooned band near the rim, together with the green dots on the handle are modern additions.

Description: Small, pear-shaped jug with a low, round standing base, bulging

cylindrical neck and slightly flaring rim. A ribbon-like, 90° angled handle springs from the neck and meets the body on the belly. The manganese brown decoration reacted with the glaze giving a yellowish hue around it characteristic to the type. The design covers the belly and rises towards the neck, and consists of an abstracted inscription

drawn in foliated kūfic. Dotted irregular areas alternate with each letter, reminding of the background filling technique of the Samarkand wares.

Inscription: Circular, abstracted inscription, rendering a stylized form of the word

baraka. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Similar in decoration though not in shape, Wilkinson, Nishapur, 225,

fig. 9. Reference Literature: Wilkinson, Nishapur, 213-226.

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 23. Small jug, 10th – 11th c., northeastern Iran. Location and Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. Inventory Number: OCE-1927-0014; OC (I) 14-27 Acquisition: 1927, purchase art dealer, Paris. Dimensions (D x h): 17.4 x 6.3 cm. Technique: Red earthenware body, covered in white slip and transparent lead

glaze only on the interior. Conservation and The piece survives in fragments assembled together. They were fit Restoration: together using plaster, and then painted over. The ware preserved

rather poorly: large parts of the glaze decayed leaving brownish areas on the slip, and some parts of the slip flaked off, leaving the red body uncovered. Two of the small inscriptions have minor restorations, not affecting the original shape and consequently the reading.

Description: Hemispherical, red earthenware bowl with low, flaring foot and evenly

curved walls. Both slip and glaze were applied only on the interior, with the glaze slightly running on the exterior of the rim.

The decoration consists of four inscriptions drawn in foliated kūfic, painted in dark brown and positioned in a cross-like shape on the upper wall.

Inscription: Four foliated kūfic inscriptions, forming two identical pairs, which

read جكزب , baraka, respectively رب[كج[ , [bara]ka. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Similar in decoration though not in shape, Cat. No. 22. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 213-226. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 24. Bowl with lid, 10th – 11th c., northeastern Iran. Location and Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. Inventory Number: OCE-1985-0017a, b; OC(I) 17-85a, b Acquisition: Unknown. Dimensions (D x h): Not measured. Technique: Red earthenware covered in beige slip, painted in yellow and dark

brown manganese, and then covered in a transparent glaze. Conservation and Assembled from few shards; the painting was retouched here and Restoration: there, without affecting the original design. Description: Small, red earthenware bowl with. The bowl has globular walls and a

conical foot; the lid has a slightly convex profile, and an everted rim. The bowl is covered entirely in white slip, apart from the foot. The decoration consists of a frieze situated on the belly and delimitated on the upper and lower margins by thick bands. On a yellowish

background, a series of festoons contain a decorative pattern of script inspiration. The lid matches the decoration of the bowl.

Inscription: Script-inspired decorative pattern. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Wilkinson, Nishapur, 228, fig. 28. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 213-226. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 25. Bowl, 10th – 11th c., northeastern Iran. Location and Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. Inventory Number: OCE-1988-0004; OC (I) 4-88 Acquisition: 1988, purchase from Ms. Buying, Vinkeveen. Dimensions (D x h): 22.5 x 10.5 cm. Technique: Red earthenware covered in white slip, painted in two different

browns, a manganese and a chrome-based one, the former reacting with the glaze and giving a yellow hue; coated in a transparent glaze.

Conservation and Preserved in fragments, which were fit together. On the outside, the Restoration: glaze partially decayed, giving the painting a dull colour. The

decoration was retouched here and there, mainly on the exterior side. Description: Conical bowl with a slightly inwards upper wall, lying on a flaring

standing base. It was decorated on both sides in two different dark brown pigments. A short foliated kūfic inscription reading li-llāh is placed on the interior bottom. Three concentric lines surround it, of which the outer one serves as the basis of the repetition of the word baraka, again in foliated kūfic. The circular inscription alternates with

an irregular dotted pattern, and is bordered towards the rim by a subsequent band. The edge was decorated by a series of hatchings. Only the upper wall was decorated on the exterior, by means of a frieze containing ovals with stylized birds.

Inscription: On the bottom هلل , li-llāh in legible script, and on the cavetto a decorative pattern repeating جكزب , baraka in highly abstracted script, both in foliated kūfic.

Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Féhérvari, Ceramics of the Islamic World, 61, no. 64. Reference Literature: Wilkinson, Nishapur, 213-226.

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 26. Large plate, 10th c., northeastern Iran. Location and Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. Inventory Number: OCE-1988-0039 Acquisition: 1988, purchase from Ms. De Vries-Kruyt, Vinkeveen. Dimensions (D x h): 31.5 x 5.5 cm. Technique: Rosé earthenware covered in white slip, painted in manganese, dark

brown, and dark, olive green, then coated in a transparent yellowish glaze.

Conservation and The ware survived in two large sherds, which were assembled Restoration: together. A consistent part of the outside decoration faded away and it

was supplied in modern times. Description: Large plate with slightly oblique walls and standing foot covered in

white slip and painted on both interior and exterior in dark brown manganese and dark olive green. At the interior, the rich design includes a central four leafed rosette, encircled in an olive green band. On the cavetto there are eight pendants in the shape of lobed arcades, identical with the four leafs of the rosette. Interestingly, each of these lobed arcades is filled with a script inspired pattern, and embellished with a central stylized bird. On the exterior, a row of round medallions

filled with the same script inspired pattern is completed by a second band composed of stylized birds.

Inscription: Pseudo-script decorative pattern. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Allan, Islamic Ceramics, 14-5, no. 6; Grube, Cobalt and Lustre, 64, no. 47. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 213-226. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 27. Bowl, Late 10th – 11th c., northeastern Iran. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

Inv. No. BK-1978-11.

Location and Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Inventory Number: BK-1978-11 Acquisition: 1978, purchase Aalderink art gallery, Amsterdam. Dimensions (D x h): 18.7 x 7.3-8 cm. Technique: Red earthenware with an ivory slip, dark brown manganese

decoration and coating in transparent lead glaze. Conservation and The bowl has survived fragmentarily and was assembled from pieces, Restoration: with the possible addition of alien shards. The shard joins which were

repainted. Moreover, the lower bottom decoration seems to have been added in modern time, as a further embellishment of the vegetal decoration on the upper cavetto. The two lines underlining the upper wall hemispherical medallions are also modern additions. a second transparent coat was applied over the embellishment.

Description: Hemispheric bowl with standing base completely covered in ivory slip

and a transparent lead-glaze. The decoration was applied on both interior and the exterior, in manganese and chrome pigment, the

former producing a yellowish hue at the edges in contact with the lead-glaze. The interior decoration consists of two large hemispherical festoon-shaped medallions, terminated with a thick curved band on the lower side, and with a straight band on the rim side. The upper line surrounds the rim. Each of the “festoons” was divided in three by a V-shaped motif, the lateral fields containing spirals, whereas the central one a writing imitation decorative pattern. Alternating with the festoons and opposite to each other, identical vegetal patterns unfold towards the bottom. Their design reminds of a tree branch with leafs. Lastly, the rim was decorated by the means of a continuous band, with small festoons springing from it. On the exterior, three hatched triangle-shaped are displayed on the rim area at regular intervals.

Inscription: Writing imitation decorative pattern inside the medallions. Previous Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, “Keuze uit de aanwinsten”, 127 and 132, Publication: picture 6.

Related Pieces: Wilkinson, Nishapur, 225, fig. 1a-b; Curatola, Persian Ceramics, 36. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 213-226. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 28. Bowl, 10th – 11th c., northeastern Iran. Rijksmuseum,

Amsterdam. Inv. No. BK-

1983-117.

Yellow stained black wares Location and Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Inventory Number: BK-1983-117 Acquisition: 1983, donation prof. dr. J.A. Oosterbaan and his wife. Dimensions (D x h): 35.7 x 14 cm. Technique: Rosé body, covered up to the foot proximity in white slip, decorated in

dark brown manganese and chrome-based black, covered in a lead- glaze.

Conservation and Surviving in fragmentary state and assembled from shards, some of Restoration: them possibly alien. Missing areas were filled in with modern plaster.

The decoration was largely repainted, respecting however the original shape. The lead-glaze decayed and produced stained spots on the slip, especially on the bottom.

Description: Conical bowl with straight walls and a flaring standing base completely

covered in white slip and painted only on the interior in chrome black and brown manganese. The decoration consists of a central cross motif outlined by a band. The upper wall was adorned with three rectangular panels, each containing a highly abstracted repetition of the word baraka . Alternating with the vertical tails are dotted triangles in chrome black. On the rim, corresponding to each of the triangles‟ base, a modern festoon shaped embellishment was applied.

Inscription: Three rectangular panels, each containing a highly abstracted

repetition of the word baraka in foliated kūfic, from which the rā’ misses. Interestingly, the al- was added in the end most probably to mirror the beginning and to create and artistic effect.

Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Wilkinson, Nishapur, 226, fig. 10a-b. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 213-226. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 29. Bowl, 10th c., northeastern Iran. Location and Princessehof Museum, Leeuwarden. Inventory Number: GMP 1996-065 Acquisition: 1996, donation Ms. Hillegonda Janssen. Dimensions (D x h): 22.5 x 10. 5 cm. Technique: Red earthen body covered in a white slip, painted in dark brown

manganese and chrome black, then coated in a transparent lead glaze. Conservation and Not examined personally. Restoration: Description: Hemispherical earthenware bowl with evenly curved walls and

straight rim, standing on a low foot. The decoration was painted two pigments, a dark brown manganese one and a chrome one, the first

reacting with the glaze and giving a yellow hue. The interior decoration consists of a central stylized bird, surrounded on the cavetto by a circular kūfic inscription. The upper limit of the inscription is underlined by a continuous band, whereas the rim is enhanced by a band of hemispherical festoons. In between the tails and bodies of the letters, irregular areas were filled with a decorative pattern containing dots and “eyes”. On the exterior upper wall, four four-leafed rosettes, each contained in a circle and drawn in manganese brown, were displayed at regular intervals.

Inscription: The circular inscription on the cavetto was drawn in simple kūfic, and

reads: ]جكزب نويو رسو]رو , baraka wa-yumn wa-sur[ūr], “blessing and happiness and joy”.

Previous Bosmans and Janssen, Collectie Hillegonda Janssen, 36. Publication: Related Pieces: The same inscription and writing style on a black-on-white example,

see Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 213, Cat.Ga.9. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 213-226. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 30. Bowl, 10th c., northeastern Iran. Location and Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. Inventory Number: 1043793 Acquisition: 2011, donation A.M. van‟t Zelfde-Zevenbergen. Dimensions (D x h): 17.5 x 5 cm. Technique: Orange earthenware, completely covered in ivory slip, painted in dark

brown manganese and coated in a transparent glaze, apart from the foot.

Conservation and Partially “jigsawed piece”, preserved in fragments and assembled from Restoration: small shards, gaps being filled with plaster; the inscription on the

interior was repainted entirely. Description: Small conical bowl with straight walls and a flaring, low round base.

The decoration was applied only on the interior in dark brown manganese. It consists of a small stylized bird on the bottom and two rectangular panels, opposing each other on the cavetto. The panels contain an identical highly stylized version of the word al-yumn, written in reserve. The rim was embellished with a simple band, which was serrated when passing the panels.

Inscription: Four times the repetition of the letters yā’ and nūn ; they indicate a

highly stylized version of the word نوي [al-]yumn. Written in foliated kūfic.

Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: University of Iowa Museum of Art, Calligraphic Ceramics from Eastern

Iran, 32, no. 38. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 91-127; Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 206- Literature: 220.

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 31. Bowl, 10th c., northeastern Iran. Location and Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. Inventory Number: 1043808 Acquisition: 2011, donation A.M. van‟t Zelfde-Zevenbergen. Dimensions (D x h): 16 x 5 cm. Technique: Red earthenware, completely covered in white slip, decorated in dark

brown manganese and covered in a transparent glaze. Conservation and The piece is “jigsawed” from the fragments of at least two recognizable Restoration: wares. The bottom and the area around the lower inscription in the

picture belonged together. They were assembled together with large, plain white shards that were painted with the same inscription and rim band to fit the original. This can be observed when looking at the different wall curving that the two areas have, as well as at the rim orientation, which is outwards for the original decorated area, and inwards for the filling shards.

Description: Conical bowl with round and low standing base. The decoration was

kept to a minimum, and comprises a band running on the rim, three dots on the bottom and highly abstracted inscriptions on the rim, at

equal distances. In between them, three pairs of small dents were added. Unfortunately, the decoration is a modern fake painted to suit an original area containing the bottom of the ware and the lower inscription in the photo. However, the original inscription can still be analyzed however, and represents a stylized form of Allāh.

Inscription: Three inscriptions, each repeating three times the letter

’alif, the abbreviation and symbol of God. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Lane, Early Islamic Pottery, plate 14A; Lane, Islamic Pottery, plate 6.

Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 91-127; Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 206- Literature: 220.

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 32. Bowl, 10th c., northeastern Iran. Location and Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. Inventory Number: 1043809 Acquisition: 2011, donation A.M. van‟t Zelfde-Zevenbergen. Dimensions (D x h): 13.5 x 4.5 cm. Technique: Red body covered in white slip, painted in dark brown manganese, and

coated in a transparent lead-glaze. Conservation and Preserved almost in full, but broken and assembled from small shards. Restoration: All of them seem to belong to the original, apart from a meager rim

fragment situated on the left of the inscription in the picture. Although the inscription was painted over, the original is still observable.

Description: Conical bowl with oblique walls and a cylindrical standing base.

Whereas the white slip covers the bowl entirely, the transparent whitish glaze runs only up to the foot. The decoration, painted originally in dark brown manganese, and retouched in a darker hue, was disposed only on the interior. It consists of a polka dot in the centre, and of a short inscription in foliated kūfic on the upper wall,

reading the word al-yumn. Interestingly, the definite article al- was supplied also at the end for aesthetic purposes.

Inscription: Foliated kūfic inscription reading نويال ال , al-yumn al, “good-fortune”. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Ghouchani, Inscriptions on Nishabur Pottery, no. 93; University of Iowa

Museum of Art, Calligraphic Ceramics from Eastern Iran, 30, no. 34. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 91-127; Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 206- Literature: 220.

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 33. Small bowl, 10th c., northeastern Iran. Location and Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. Inventory Number: OCE-1951-0110; OC (I) 110-51 Acquisition: 1951, purchase art dealer, Paris. Dimensions (D x h): 14.2 x 5.5 cm. Technique: Red earthenware covered in a beige slip, painted in dark brown

manganese, and coated in a transparent glaze only at the interior. Conservation and The piece survives in full, though broke and assembled from a few Restoration: constituent shards. Minor repainting on the wall, not affecting the

inscription. Description: Small, shallow, globular bowl, with a low cylindrical base ring and

inverted rim. The body is covered on both sides with a beige slip. A dark brown inscription in foliated kūfic occupies the bottom and the lower wall. It is accompanied by two opposing arrow-like motifs, diametrically on the upper wall.

Inscription: Foliated kūfic inscription, rendering the word baraka in an abstracted

form. Previous Jansen, Ceramiek uit de Landen van de Islam, no. 1. Publication: Related Pieces: Grube, Cobalt and Lustre, 94, no. 89; Curatola, Persian Ceramics, 32. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 91-127; Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 206- Literature: 220.

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 34. Bowl, 10th c., northeastern Iran. Location and Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. Inventory Number: OCE-1958-0002; OC (I) 2-58 Acquisition: 1958, auction at Hauswedell, Hamburg. Dimensions (D x h): 21.8 x 6.2 cm. Technique: Red earthenware, covered in a white slip and decorated in black, then

covered in a transparent glaze. Conservation and The piece is most probably an assembled ware, with many alien Restoration: fragments especially on the upper wall, in addition to some plaster

fillings. However, the bottom inscription is an original, but whether belonging together with the other shards or not is still unclear.

Description: Conical bowl with flaring standing base and oblique walls. The

decoration was kept to minimum, comprising a central kūfic inscription and a continuous band on the rim, both in black.

Inscription: Central inscription in broken kūfic style, reading: نن رتص ردق man ṣabara qadara, “he who exercises patience possesses ability”. The

inscription was read also by Jef Teske as man ṣabara qadira, “he who exercices patience is powerful”. See Teske, Ceramics from the Orient, no.13.

Previous Teske, Ceramics from the Orient, no. 13. Publication: Related pieces: Ghouchani, Inscriptions on Nishabur Pottery, nos. 8 and 107. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 91-127; Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 206- literature: 220.

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 35. Large bowl, 10th c., northeastern Iran. Location and Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. Inventory Number: OCE-1967-0005; OC (I) 5-67 Acquisition: 1967, acquisition unclear: either purchase at auction in Frankfurt; or

donation from the Vereeniging van de Haags Museumvrienden. Dimensions (D x h): 35 x 11 cm. Technique: Red earthenware covered in a white slip, painted in dark brown and

coated in a yellowish, transparent lead glaze. Conservation and Surviving in many fragments assembled together with plaster; the Restoration: inscription was repainted in many places, though keeping with the

original format. Description: Large earthenware bowl with a conical shape and a flaring standing

foot. The decoration was applied only on the interior and consists of a floriated kufic inscription on the bottom, surrounded by a circular vegetal pattern and by a larger circular inscription in foliated kūfic on the cavetto, all in black.

Inscription: Two inscriptions, one on the bottom and the other one surrounding

the cavetto. The small inscription on the bottom is an abstracted form of the word al-baraka. The large, circular inscription reads the following: جكزب نن دتع،هللا دحاوال نة فسوي , baraka min Allāh, ‘Abd al- Wāḥid, bin Yūsuf, “blessing from God ,„Abd al-Wāḥid, son of Yūsuf”. The name Yūsuf contains one additional letter at the end that could not be read.

Previous - Publication: Related pieces: Similar central inscription in Grube, Cobalt and Lustre, 104, no. 102. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 91-127; Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 206- literature: 220.

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 36. Bowl, 10th c., northeastern Iran. Location and Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. Inventory Number: OCE-1978-0005; OC (I) 5-78 Acquisition: 1978, purchase art dealer, Vinkeveen (poss. Hillegonda Janssen). Dimensions (D x h): 14.5 x 4.8 cm. Technique: Orange body, covered in white slip, painted in black slip and coated in

a transparent lead glaze. Conservation and Preserved in large fragments and assembled by inserting one or two Restoration: possible alien shreds on the cavetto. The inscription was completely

repainted, though keeping with the original. Description: Conical bowl with a low standing-base and oblique walls. It was

completely covered in white slip including the foot, and then embellished with four small kūfic inscriptions in a cross-like position on the upper wall. The inscriptions are grouped two by two, repeating twice a good-wish formula.

Inscription: Foliated kūfic inscription repeated twice, and reading: سجت ارب , tajuzzu birran, “may you be well rewarded”.

Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 208, Cat. Ga. 3; Ghouchani,

Inscriptions on Nishabur Pottery, no. 61. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 91-127; Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 206- Literature: 220.

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 37. Small bowl, 10th c., northeastern Iran. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Inv. No. AK-MAK-1488.

Black-on-white slip painted wares and variations Location and Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Inventory Number: AK-MAK-1488

Acquisition: 1996, lent by the Association of Friends of Asian Art.

Dimensions (D x h): 11.5 x 3.7 cm.

Technique: Earthenware, rosé body, covered in an ivory slip, painted in dark brown slip under a transparent lead glaze.

Conservation and Preserved in fragments and assembled together. The small missing Restoration: parts were filled up with modern plaster. The first three letters of the inscription were lost and were supplied in modern times, possibly corrupting the phrase.

Description: Small and shallow bowl with flattened bottom and short, vertical walls. It was completely covered in a white slip, and then decorated on the interior with a dark brown manganese inscription. The inscription is drawn in foliated kūfic, and runs across the bottom. It is accompanied by four dots disposed on a cross-like position as follows: the upper and lower inscription dots were placed on the cavetto, whereas the pair from the right, respectively the left of the inscription, was drawn directly on the rim.

Inscription: The inscription could not be read.

Previous - Publication:

Related Pieces: The same ceramic type, but different inscription in The University of Iowa Museum of Art, Calligraphic Ceramics from Eastern Iran, no. 12.

Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 91-127; Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 206- Literature: 220.

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 38. Large bowl, 10th c., northeastern Iran. The Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Inv. No. AK-MAK-1489.

Black-on-white slip painted wares and variations Location and The Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Inventory Number: AK-MAK-1489 Acquisition: 1996, lent by the Association of Friends of Asian Art. Dimensions (D x h): 23 x 7.7 cm. Technique: Pale orange earthen body, completely covered in an ivory slip and

painted in dark manganese brown, then coated in a transparent lead glaze.

Conservation and Surviving in fragments, it was assembled from large shards joined with Restoration: plaster. The glaze has much decayed, presenting numerous small

cracks, and giving the decoration a dull appearance. Parts of the inscription that were situated on the joins were repainted. Two words were obscured by the modern painting: the restorer wrongly inserted a tā’ marbuṭa between the lām from al-mālu and the negative particle lā, uniting them. The last word, li-arbābi, was wrongly connected with two separate letters situated at the end of the proverb, and which can be read as mā[lun]?. The two letters seem to be a meaningless ancient addition, most probably the beginning of a word which existed on the prototype from which the designed was copied, but which did not fit on the present ware.

Description: Large conical bowl with a flaring standing base and oblique walls. It

was decorated by the means of a circular inscription on the upper wall and a small x-shaped motif on the bottom, both in dark brown manganese. The inscription start was elegantly marked by a triangular, polylobed pendant.

Inscription: The inscription reads: ?]دهحال اقثي هزخذ ىتفلل الهالو ال اقثي تاتزال ام]ل Al- ḥamdu yabqā dhukuruhu li-’l-fatā wa-’l-mālu lā yabqā li-arbābi, mā[lun]?, “praise will remain as savings for the generous youth, although wealth does not remain with any owner, [with] w[ealth]?”.

Previous - Publication: Related pieces: Ghouchani, Inscriptions on Nishabur Pottery, nos. 114, 118, and 135.

Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 91-127; Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 206- literature: 220.

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 39. Bowl, 10th – 11th c., northeastern Iran. The Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.

Inv. No. BK-1974-150.

Black-on-white slip painted wares and variations Location and The Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Inventory Number: BK-1974-150 Acquisition: 1974, purchase, the Mansour art gallery in London. Dimensions (D x h): 25 x 8.5 cm. Technique: Orange earthenware covered in a creamy slip and painted in dark

brown manganese on the interior; completely covered in a transparent lead glaze.

Conservation and The bowl is a “jigsawed piece”, in which a fragmentary ware was Restoration: completed using many foreign shards. The main, original fragments

around which the piece was assembled can be identified as the complex on the left and down of the picture. The piece was “proficiently” assembled, since some of the shards differ in colour and texture from the “originals”. Moreover, the rim and the cavetto have an irregular shape due to the misfit and different curvature of the fragments used. The inscription on the right and up of the picture is a modern addition.

Description: Conical bowl with low, straight, standing base and oblique walls.

The decoration consists of a stylized bird on the bottom and a circular repetitive inscription on the cavetto. It is largely a modern “fake”: the bird on the bottom, as well as about 60 percent of the inscription, located in the right and up of the catalogue picture were drawn to suit the “original” fragments used. However, the initial inscription can still be assessed as a repetition of a stylized form of the word baraka.

Inscription: Circular inscription on the cavetto, containing the repetition of a

abstracted form of baraka, “blessing”. Previous Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, “Keuze uit de aanwinsten”, 180-1, picture Publication: 10. Related Pieces: Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 214, Cat. Ga. 11 and 12. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 91-127; Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 206- Literature: 220.

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 40. Large bowl, 10th c., northeastern Iran. The Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Inv. No. BK-1981-56.

Black-on-white slip painted wares and variations Location and The Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Inventory Number: BK-1981-56 Acquisition: 1981, donation prof. dr. J.A. Oosterbaan and his wife. Dimensions (D x h): 33.5 x 10.8 cm. Technique: Rose-orange earthenware body, covered in a white slip, decorated in

brown glaze and coater in a transparent lead glaze. Conservation and Partially “jigsawed piece” assembled from different shards around an Restoration: original occupying more than half of the ware surface. The main areas

that contain the alien shards are the right and down of the picture. Another alien fragment is situated above the inscription in the picture. The upper part of the inscription seems to have been present in the original, but has been painted over; the lower part was most probably added in modern times. What indicates this possibility is that Sāmānid pieces with this particular phrase never split the words.

Description: Circular bowl with flaring standing base and oblique walls.

The decoration consists of two inscriptions in foliated kūfic, opposing each other on the cavetto, and a row of dents situated on the rim on the inscription areas. On the bottom of the bowl a small stylized bird is rendered.

Inscription: Previous Publication: Related Pieces: Reference Literature:

The inscription reads: كلوال هلل, al-mulku li-llāh, “the power is God‟s”, but the second part seems to have been painted in modern times. Klooster, “De Collectie Oosterbaan-Lugt”, 22-3, picture 14. Wilkinson, Nishapur, 117, fig. 22. Wilkinson, Nishapur, 91-127; Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 206-220.

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 41. Bowl, 10th – 11th c., northeastern Iran. The Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.

Inv. No. BK-1981-58.

Black-on-white slip painted wares and variations Location and The Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Inventory Number: BK-1981-58 Acquisition: 1981, donation prof. dr. J.A. Oosterbaan and his wife. Dimensions (D x h): 26.5 x 8 cm. Technique: Pale orange earthenware body covered in a white slip, decorated in

brown slip and coated in a transparent lead glaze. Conservation and Partially “jigsawed piece”, with many small alien sheds, including in Restoration: the inscription area; to a main fragmentary piece, of a beige-rose slip

and brown manganese inscription, the shards of a second ware, - containing the same inscription but with a more greenish glaze, and decorated in a darker brown hue – , have been added. The missing parts were filled up with other small alien shards.

Description: Circular bowl with flaring standing base and oblique walls. The

decoration consists of a circular inscription band that runs on the cavetto which contains the repetition of a stylized form of baraka in foliated kūfic. On the bottom, a small, stylized bird is rendered, whereas the interior part of the rim was decorated by a continuous band.

Inscription: Circular inscription on the cavetto, rendering the repetition of a

highly abstracted form of the word baraka, in foliated kūfic. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Cat. No. 38; Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 214, Cat. Ga. 11 and 12. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 91-127; Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 206- Literature: 220.

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 42. Bowl, 9th -11th c., northeastern Iran. The Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.

Inv. No. BK-1981-61.

Black-on-white slip painted wares and variations Location and The Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Inventory Number: BK-1981-61 Acquisition: 1981, donation prof. dr. J.A. Oosterbaan and his wife. Dimensions (D x h): 18.9 x 7.5 cm. Technique: Orange body covered in an ivory slip, painted in dark brown

manganese and coated in a transparent lead glaze. Conservation and The piece survives in full, but was broken and then assembled from the Restoration: constituent shards. Some small retouching of the two inscriptions did

not alter their original form. The glaze has numerous small cracks, and sometimes it flaked off, leaving the white slip, or the orange clay body unearthed.

Description: Hemispherical bowl with evenly curved walls, vertical rim and a

straight, low standing base. The brown manganese decoration consists of two stylized birds and two short pseudo-inscriptions disposed in a cross-like shape, on the upper wall. The birds and the lettering form

identical pairs, opposing each other. The pseudo-inscriptions are underlined by a thin brown line, and run down from the rim to the bottom. Lastly, the rim was outlined with a continuous brown band. On the outside, the decoration must have consisted of two or three stylized flowers disposed at regular intervals under the rim, out of which only one survives.

Inscription: Script imitational inscription in simple kūfic, rendered twice. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Similar inscription decoration in Wilkinson, Nishapur, 210, fig. 4a-b. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 91-127; Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 206- Literature: 220.

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 43. Bowl, 10th -11th c., northeastern Iran. The Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.

Inv. No. BK-2000-64-A.

Black-on-white slip painted wares and variations Location and The Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Inventory Number: BK-2000-64-A Acquisition: 2000, legacy, Ms. Oosterbaan-Lugt. Dimensions (D x h): 21.8 x 6.9 cm. Technique: Red body covered in a white slip, decorated in manganese brown,

coated in a transparent lead glaze. Conservation and Preserved in full, but broken and assembled from several large shards. Restoration: Largely well conserved and having the original decoration, without

further re-works. Description: Conical bowl with oblique walls and large, straight standing base.

The decoration consists of a stylized bird on the bottom and of a circular inscription running on the medial cavetto. The inscription renders in an abstracted kūfic script the word al-baraka.

Inscription: Decorative pattern rendering in abstracted kūfic script the word al- baraka.

Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Grube, Cobalt and Lustre, 100, no. 98; Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 91-127; Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 206- Literature: 220.

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 44. Bowl, 10th c., northeastern Iran (poss. provincial production). The Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.

Inv. No. BK-2000-64-E.

Black-on-white slip painted wares and variations Location and The Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Inventory Number: BK-2000-64-E Acquisition: 2000, legacy, Ms. Oosterbaan-Lugt. Dimensions (D x h): 18.6 x 7.6 cm. Technique: Yellowish body, covered in a beige slip and painted in manganese

brown, then coated in a transparent lead glaze up to halfway on the outer wall.

Conservation and The piece is preserved almost in full, and conserved well. The Restoration: decoration was painted over here and there, not affecting the original. Description: Conical bowl with slightly convex walls and a straight standing base.

The decoration was applied only on the interior, in manganese brown. It consists of a central large bird, whose body occupies the bottom of the ware, and whose head and tail prolong on the upper wall, margining the inscription on the rim. The inscription, disposed circularly along the edge is underlined by two concentric lines. It exhibits a decorative pattern in abstracted kūfic, reading li-llāh or Allāh.

Inscription: Circular inscription on the rim, exhibiting a decorative pattern in

abstracted kūfic, reading li-llāh or Allāh. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Cat. No. 45; Lane, Islamic Pottery, plate 6. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 91-127; Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 206- Literature: 220.

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 45. Bowl, 10th c., northeastern Iran. Location and Princessehof Museum, Leeuwarden. Inventory Number: BP 2005-053 Acquisition: 06.09.2005, loan from Ravesteijn family. Dimensions (D x h): 26.5 x 8.5 cm. Technique: Red earthenware, covered in white slip, painted in dark brown

manganese and tomato red, and coated in a transparent lead glaze. Conservation and The ware does not survive in full. It was assembled from numerous Restoration: shards, about 20 percent of then not belonging to the original. The

alien shards are concentrated on the area between the bottom and the rim corresponding to the words wa-'in massahu. However, the rim piece containing massahu is the original, only the wall being replaced. The foreign shards were repainted and obscured the original inscription in the area corresponding to wa’in. The red decorative pattern belongs to the foreign insertion, that is why the ware figures still under the black- on-white type. On the exterior, especially in the rim area, considerable portions of the slip faked off, revealing the red body.

Description: Conical bowl with oblique walls and a straight round standing foot.

The decoration was applied only on the interior, and consists of a circular inscription bordering the rim, drawn in dark brown manganese.

Inscription: Circular, legible inscription surrounding the rim, drawn in simple

kūfic, reading رحال رح و]نا[ هسن رضال , al-ḥurru ḥurrun wa-['in] massahu 'l-ḍurr, “the free man is still free [even if] touched by harm”.

Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Ghouchani, Inscriptions on Nishabur Pottery, nos. 21 and 109. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 91-127; Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 206- Literature: 220.

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 46. Bowl 10th - 11th c., northeastern Iran. Location and Princessehof Museum, Leeuwarden. Inventory Number: GMP-1996-147 Acquisition: 1996, donation Ms. Hillegonda Janssen. Dimensions (D x h): Not measured. Technique: Orange earthenware covered in white slip up to the foot, painted in

manganese brown, and coated in a transparent lead glaze up to half of the exterior wall.

Conservation and Good conservation state. It was assembled from two constituent Restoration: shards. No interventions on the painting could be observed.

Conical bowl with flared standing base, oblique walls and slightly Description: inverted rim. The decoration was applied only at the interior, and

consists of a circular frieze on the upper wall, margining the rim on the upper border, and containing a repetitive, abstracted kūfic pattern.

Inscription: Decorative pattern containing the word Allāh. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Cat. No. 43; Lane, Islamic Pottery, plate 6. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 91-127; Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 206- Literature: 220.

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 47. Bowl 10th - 11th c., northeastern Iran. Volkenkunde Museum, Leiden.

Inv. No. 3719-1.

Black-on-white slip painted wares and variations Location and Volkenkunde Museum, Leiden. Inventory Number: 3719-1 Acquisition: Unknown. Dimensions (D x h): 22.2 x 6.8 cm. Technique: Red earthenware covered in an ivory slip on both sides, painted in

dark brown manganese and coated in a transparent lead glaze. Conservation and Not examined personally. Restoration:

Earthenware bowl with evenly curved walls and straight, flaring Description: standing base. The decoration was applied in brown manganese only at

the interior, and consists of three polka dots disposed at regular intervals on the wall and on the bottom centre and two identical

inscriptions opposing each other on the rim. The inscriptions were outlined each with a double line and a serrated band, whereas the rim was underlined in a black band.

Inscription: The inscriptions repeat a stylization of the word al-yumn in abstracted,

simple kūfic. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: The University of Iowa Museum of Art, Calligraphic Ceramics from Eastern

Iran, no. 28. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 91-127; Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 206- Literature: 220.

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 48. Can, 9th-10th c., northeastern Iran. Location and Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. Inventory Number: OCE-1964-0008; OC (I) 8-64 Acquisition: 1964, purchase auction in London. Dimensions (D x h): 12.3 X 11 cm. Technique: Orange earthenware covered at the exterior by a dark brown

manganese glaze, decorated in white slip, and coated in a transparent lead glaze.

Conservation and The ware survived in full, in a good condition of preservation. Parts of Restoration: the letters of the inscription have slightly faded away. No modern

restoration or embellishment was observed. Description: Small red earthenware can with convex walls, a flaring standing-base

and everted rim. The decoration consists of a circular, foliated kūfic inscription that surrounds the upper part of the belly, delimitated by two thick lines on the lower and superior borders. The inscription was drawn in white slip.

Inscription: Circular foliated kūfic inscription, reading: جكزب...نويو و...و رورس اقثو ... , ...barakatun... wa yumnun wa… wa surūrun wa baqā, “…blessing…and

good fortune and…and happiness and long life”. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Similar inscription on the same ware type, though not the same shape.

Ghouchani, Inscriptions on Nishabur Pottery, no. 13. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 158-178; Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 206- Literature: 220.

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 49. Bowl, 10th c., northeastern Iran. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Inv. No. BK-1982-119.

Location and Inventory Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Number: BK-1982-119 Acquisition: 1982, donation prof. dr. J.A. Oosterbaan and his wife. Dimensions (D x h): 16 x 4.8 cm. Technique: Red earthenware, covered in a black slip up to half of the

exterior wall, painted in white slip on the interior, and coated in a transparent lead glaze.

Conservation and Restoration: Assembled from pieces of different preservation condition.

The glaze has numerous cracks and wore off in some areas, leaving the black and white slip uncovered. The white inscription was repainted on the shard joins.

Description: Conical, shallow bowl with low, circular base and oblique

walls. Covered in a black slip up to half of the exterior wall. It was decorated only on the interior with a circular kūfic inscription drawn in white. The inscription repeats twice a short phrase. A white polka dot marks the bottom of the piece.

Inscription: The inscription could not be read. Previous Publication: - Related Pieces: Ghouchani, Inscriptions on Nishabur Pottery, no. 78. Reference Literature: Wilkinson, Nishapur, 158-178; Watson, Ceramics from Islamic

Lands, 206-220.

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 50. Bowl, 10th c., Transoxiana, poss. Afrasiyab. Location and Princessehof Museum, Leeuwarden. Inventory Number: BP 2005-057 Acquisition: 06.09.2005, loan from Ravesteijn family. Dimensions (D x h): 21 x 5.8 cm. Technique: Orange earthenware covered in dark brown slip, painted in white slip

under a greenish, transparent lead glaze. Conservation and Preserved in full, but broken and assembled from shards. Grey plaster Restoration: was used to fill in the small missing parts. The decoration suffered

minor retouches in grey paint on the shard joins, without affecting the original design.

Description: Conical, shallow bowl with oblique walls, straight rim and a low

standing base. The decoration occupies both sides and was drawn in white slip. At the interior, it consists of a circular inscription

surrounding the upper wall, which contains an abstracted form of the word baraka four times. The letters are still individually recognizable, but the ending tā’ marbuta is constantly omitted and placed on the top of kāf instead, only as a decorative element. The ’alif of the definite article was also omitted. The bottom was underlined by a large polka dot, and the cavetto was embellished by an cross shaped, toothed decorative pattern containing dots and "eyes". The latter occupies the span between the lām bodies.

Inscription: Foliated kūfic inscription, containing an abstract form of the word

baraka repeated four times. Previous - Publication: Related pieces: Ghouchani, Inscriptions on Nishabur Pottery, no. 24; The University of

Iowa Museum of Art. Calligraphic Ceramics from Eastern Iran, no. 30. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 158-178; Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands, 206- literature: 220.

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 51. Bowl, 10th c., northeastern Iran. Location and Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. Inventory Number: 1043488 Acquisition: 2011, donation A.M. van 't Zelfde-Zevenbergen. Dimensions (D x h): 19 x 7.7 cm. Technique: Red earthenware covered in a beige slip, painted over in tomato red,

manganese violet and olive green, then coated in a transparent glaze. Conservation and Preserved in fragments that were assembled together. A considerable Restoration: part of the rim was missing so it was filled in with plaster, and then

repainted. The interior decoration is visibly overpainted on the shard joins.

Description: Red earthenware bowl with flaring standing ring and slightly convex

walls. The body was covered in a creamy slip apart from the foot, whereas coated in a transparent glaze only to midway on the exterior wall. The decoration, found only on the interior side, follows the pattern of concentric bands and friezes, spanning from the bottom upwards on the wall. On the bottom, an olive-green rosette is surrounded by a band of manganese violet buttons. A red band with white dots surrounds it creates a circular medallion on the bottom, which repeats some centimeters upwards. The two identical red bands delimit a frieze containing a decorative pattern, highly abstracted inscription inspired from the calligraphy of the word al-yumn, which is typically found on these wares. Further, the rim has been dotted in the same manganese violet.

Inscription: Decorative pattern inspired from the calligraphy of the word al-yumn. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Cat. No. 52 and 62; Wilkinson, Nishapur, 151, fig. 20a-b. Reference Literature: Wilkinson, Nishapur, 128-157.

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 52. Bowl, 10th c., northeastern Iran. Location and Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. Inventory Number: OCE-1951-0108; OC (I) 108-51 Acquisition: 1951, purchase art dealer, Paris. Dimensions (D x h): 20.1 x 7.5 cm. Technique: Red earthenware body, covered in white slip only at the interior, then

coated in a transparent glaze; decoration painted in polychrome slips. Conservation and Preserved in a fragmentary state and assembled from numerous Restoration: composing shards. A reasonably large part was missing, so it was filled

up with modern plaster, and then painted over to fit the original design.

Description: Conical bowl with a low, cylindrical foot and slightly inward rim. The

decoration, applied only at the interior, is composed of a central rosette, surrounded by three concentric friezes that occupy the cavetto up to the rim. The lowest frieze represents an interwoven pattern underlined in brown and coloured in red. The next contains a repetitive vegetal pattern in dark brown, delimitated on both upper and lower margins by thick lines. The last frieze, which also borders the rim on the upper part, contains pattern drawn in black on a tomato red background. The decorative pattern repeats in a highly abstracted kūfic the word al-yumn. Lastly, the interior rim was decorated by a row of black dots.

Inscription: Decorative pattern in foliated kūfic, rendering an abstracted form of

al-yumn. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Bol‟shakov, "Arabskie Nadpisi II”, picture 10, no. 5. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 128-157. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 53. Bowl, 10th c., northeastern Iran. Location and Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. Inventory Number: OCE-1951-0109; OC (I) 109-51 Acquisition: 1951, purchase art dealer, Paris. Dimensions (D x h): 19.9 x 7.9 cm. Technique: Red earthenware covered in a beige slip, decorated in tomato red, light

green and manganese purple, then coated in a transparent glaze. Conservation and The piece was broken and then assembled from the constitutive Restoration: pieces. As parts of the shards forming a narrow strip on the wall were

missing, they were filled out with plaster, and repainted. The inscription was repainted here and there, respecting the original shape.

Description: Conical bowl with low, cylindrical foot and slightly inverted rim. Glaze

and decoration were applied only at the interior. The decoration comprises a central inscription, reading [al-]yumn, outlined in manganese purple and painted in light-green. It is surrounded by a small interwoven motif and three other small circles, all in red paint and purple outlining. A decorative pattern repeating an abstract form of al-yumn again surrounds the wall. The aesthetic of the pattern was clearly more important than the meaning of the word itself, as the decorative stripes inserted between the long tails of the letter indicate. Towards the rim, two thin strokes, one in red and the other one dotted in purple can be observed.

Inscription: Two inscriptions: the central one, reading [al-]yumn, and a repetitive

one, reading the same word in a stylized form, both in kūfic. The yumn in the decorative pattern inscription misses the final nūn.

Previous Teske, Ceramics from the Orient, no. 6. Publication: Related Pieces: Cat. No. 50; Wilkinson, Nishapur, 151, fig. 20a-b. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 128-157. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 54. Bowl, 10th -11th c., northeastern Iran. Location and Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. Inventory Number: OCE-1976-0013; OC (I) 13-76 Acquisition: 1976, purchase art dealer, Teheran. Dimensions (D x h): 15.3 x 3.8 cm. Technique: Red earthenware, covered in white slip apart from the foot; dark

brown and tomato red decoration, coated in a transparent glaze. Conservation and Assembled from several fragments, and having the joining surface Restoration: repainted; the decoration was overpainted here and there,

unfortunately obscuring parts of the inscription. Description: Red earthenware, conical bowl with low standing ring. The decoration

was applied only on the interior, and consists of several concentric friezes and bands. A central round medallion contains a stylized

vegetal motif. It is surrounded by a plaited, red band, and further by a band containing a floriated kūfic inscription. The inscription seems to contain four words, out of which three are repetitions of the same. Upper from the inscription frieze, a plaited motif surrounds the immediate area of the rim, which was decorated in its turn with a serrated line.

Inscription: Floriated kūfic inscription repeating three times the same lettering;

the inscription reads most probably the word al-yumn. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Bol‟shakov, “Arabskie Nadpisi II”, 86, picture 15a-b; Grube, Cobalt and

Lustre, 80, no. 69. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 128-157. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 55. Bowl, 10th c., northeastern Iran. Rijksmuseum,

Amsterdam. Inv. No. BK-

1982-108.

Polychrome-on-white slip painted wares Location and Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Inventory Number: BK-1982-108 Acquisition: 1982 , donation prof. Oosterbaan and his wife. Former acquisition

place, Vecht Collection, Amsterdam. Dimensions (D x h): 20.5 x 7.5 cm. Technique: Rosé body covered in an ivory slip, painted in dark brown manganese

and tomato red, coated in a transparent lead glaze. Conservation and Preserved in full, but broken and assembled from several pieces. Some Restoration: small missing shards were filled out with modern plaster. The

inscription was not retouched. The glaze has decayed, leaving stained areas on the slip, particularly on the interior. Both glaze and slip have flaked off in a considerable number of places, leaving the rose body on view.

Description: Conical bowl with a flaring standing base and oblique walls.

The decoration was painted only at the interior, and consists of two short opposing inscriptions along the rim. The fist one is the repetition of a single letter, and was contoured in dark brown manganese, then filled with brownish red. The second, drawn in kūfic in dark brown manganese, reads al-yumn al.

Inscription: Short benediction in cursive kūfic running along the interior rim area,

reading al-yumn al; a second one contains the repetition of the letter ’alif, which can be interpreted as the name of God.

Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Wilkinson, Nishapur, 150, fig. 19. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 128-157. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 56. Bowl, 10th c., northeastern Iran. Rijksmuseum,

Amsterdam. Inv. No. BK-

1982-109-A.

Polychrome-on-white slip painted wares Location and Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Inventory Number: BK-1982-109-A Acquisition: 1982, donation prof. dr. J.A. Oosterbaan and his wife. Dimensions (D x h): 19 x 7.6 cm. Technique: Rosé body, completely covered in a white slip, painted in dark brown

manganese and tomato red, then covered in a transparent lead glaze. Conservation and The piece was assembled from fragments joined together with plaster. Restoration: The restoration and embellishing were particularly intense: the

painting is largely redone, with at least half of the decoration area being added to the original version. The writing imitation on the bottom was however not touched. The ware is preserved in a poor condition: the glaze decayed, leaving stained spots on the slip, so the exposed decoration disappeared. Around both sides of the rim, glaze and slip faded away.

Description: Conical bowl with straight standing base. In the present state, the

decoration comprises four triangle shaped, flower inspired arabesques, occupying the rim and upper wall area at regular distance. The smaller ones are drawn only in dark brown and are not painted on the interior. The unpainted area is triangle shaped, and prolongs in a double line to the centre of the ware, which in its turn ends in a flower, with red

petals are brown manganese dots. The other two larger arabesques have a central, triangular shape area covered in red, and are united by a line that crosses the centre of the ware. The line exhibits on both sides a repetitive geometrical pattern, inspired from angular kūfic. Inserted between each of the four arabesques there are grey flowers, identical with the previous red ones. They prolong towards the ware bottom by a double line and end each in a small stylized dark frown flower, with six petals and a centre each made of dots. Lastly, hemispherical brown festoon occupies the area between the arabesques and the intertwined flowers on the rim.

Inscription: Script-inspired decorative pattern. Previous -

Publication: Related Pieces: Wilkinson, Nishapur, 150, fig. 22; Watson, Ceramics from Islamic Lands,

225, Cat.Gb. 8 and 9. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 128-157. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 57. Bowl, 10th c., northeastern Iran. Rijksmuseum,

Amsterdam. Inv. No. BK-

1982-110.

Polychrome-on-white slip painted wares Location and Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Inventory Number: BK-1982-110 Acquisition: 1982, donation prof. dr. J.A. Oosterbaan and his wife. Dimensions (D x h): 26.5 x 9.7 cm. Technique: Red earthenware, covered in a white slip, painted and incised

decoration in tomato red, olive green and manganese brown; covered in a transparent lead glaze.

Conservation and The piece is assembled from shards, fit together with plaster. The Restoration: interior decoration was largely painted over: some of the floral

elements, originally incised, were painted in black instead. The central inscription was slightly repainted, without interfering with the original shape. The glaze wore off on the bottom of the ware.

Conical bowl with straight standing base and oblique walls, covered in

Description: a white slip up to the foot. The interior decoration consists of a central round medallion, surrounded on the walls by six floral inspired medallions of two types. The central medallion contains an abstracted version of al-yumn, as well as four festoons in manganese brown, tomato red and white were applied and two small, spiral-shaped medallions. On the walls, the larger vegetal medallions are composed of two “leafs”, outlined in brown, and coloured in brown and tomato red. They surround a core, represented by a thick brown line ending in a triangle-shaped, olive-green medallion. Each of these three medallions ends on the rim in a brown festoon. Alternating with the large ones is a second type of pear shaped medallions, decorated by incising vegetal scrolls in the manganese brown. Inserted between each alternating medallions are triangle shaped pendants, composed of three small brown triangles and a circle shaped core painted in tomato red. The decoration of the exterior consists of a band of winding lines, partially redrawn, originally in brown manganese.

Inscription: Abstracted form of al-yumn, repeated four times in the central round

medallion; the final nūn was omitted.

Previous Klooster, “De Collectie Oosterbaan-Lugt”, 24, picture 20. Publication: Related Pieces: Grube, Cobalt and Lustre, 85, no. 75. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 128-157. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 58. Bowl, 10th c., northeastern Iran or Transoxiana, poss. Afrasiyab. Rijksmuseum,

Amsterdam. Inv. No. BK-

1982-111.

Polychrome-on-white slip painted wares Location and Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Inventory Number: BK-1982-111 Acquisition: 1982, donation prof. dr. J.A. Oosterbaan and his wife. Dimensions (D x h): 25.6 x 10.6 cm. Technique: Rosé earthenware, completely covered in white slip, painted in dark

brown manganese and red, under a transparent lead glaze. Conservation and Preserved in fragments and assembled possibly including alien sherds. Restoration: The piece is in a poor state of preservation: the glaze, and occasionally

the slip wore off. Though repeated restorations can be traced down, the ware is still very fragile, small parts of the slip being in danger of flaking off. The piece was repainted and recoated in modern times, making difficult to recognize the original from the modern embellishments.

Description: Hemispherical bowl with inverted rim, globular walls and a low

standing base. A vegetal and interlaced decoration was painted in manganese brown and red on both sides. The decoration, - largely the result of modern repainting and redrawing - , consists of a central medallion containing an interlaced vegetal pattern, disposed in the shape of a three-branched spiral; a surrounding frieze, separated from the wall decoration by thick continuous lines and containing a pseudo- inscription, alternates with irregularly shaped areas outlined in red and filled with small black dots. These irregular dotted areas filling in the space between letters are a trademark of the Samarkand ateliers. The last frieze, situated on the upper wall, consists of repetition of a single word in cursive kūfic. Alternating with the letter tails, small irregular areas were drawn. The rim seems to have been outlined in a black band, of which only little survives at present. At the exterior, only one, out of possibly three stylized flowers in dark brown manganese survive.

Inscription: Two inscriptions, one imitating script and the other rendering an

abstracted and partially corrupted version of the word al-mulk.

Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Lane, Early Islamic Pottery, plate 15B; Wilkinson, Nishapur, 149, fig. 11a-b. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 128-157. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 59. Bowl, 10th c., northeastern Iran. Rijksmuseum,

Amsterdam. Inv. No. BK-

1982-112.

Polychrome-on-white slip painted wares Location and Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Inventory Number: BK-1982-112 Acquisition: 1982, donation prof. dr. J.A. Oosterbaan and his wife. Dimensions (D x h): 21 x 7.5 cm. Technique: Red earthenware covered in white slip up to the foot and painted in

orange and dark brown manganese. Covered in a transparent lead glaze up to the exterior of the wall, half distance from the foot.

Conservation and The ware is not fully preserved: its bottom belongs to an alien piece, Restoration: was fit in with plaster, observable from both sides.

It is one of the most dramatic restorations in the Rijksmuseum collection. About half of the surface of the wall inscription was painted over , in a compact thick brown line, ignoring the peculiarities of writing; at a subsequent moment in time, when realizing the mistake, the space between letters was repainted in white, to fit the original.

Description: Conical bowl with oblique walls and a low, circular standing base.

The decoration was drawn only on the interior, and it is composed of geometrical patterns and a circular inscription on the wall. The central medallion, part of the foreign bottom, is painted in a darker red and outlined in black in a repetitive pattern of “scales”. Inside each “scale”, three small white dots were applied. The immediate area of the medallion is underlined by a circular thick red line. Further, the walls are covered by a kūfic inscription repeating a stylized version of al- yumn, drawn in manganese brown and underlined by another thick tomato red line. Apparently only with aesthetical purpose, of a vertical line in the middle of each word, which creates a pleasing radial, rhythmic pattern. The rim area was decorated by a continuous row of polka dots in brown.

Inscription: Circular kūfic inscription, repeating a stylized version of al-yumn, in

which the final nūn was omitted. Previous Klooster, “De Collectie Oosterbaan-Lugt”, 23, pictures 18 and 19. Publication: Related Pieces: Cat. No. 52; Wilkinson, Nishapur, 151, fig. 20a-b.

Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 128-157. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 60. Bowl, 10th c., northeastern Iran ( poss. provincial production). Rijksmuseum,

Amsterdam. Inv. No. BK-

1982-113.

Polychrome-on-white slip painted wares Location and Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Inventory Number: BK-1982-113 Acquisition: 1982, donation prof. dr. J.A. Oosterbaan and his wife. Dimensions (D x h): 17.5 x 6.4 cm. Technique: Red earthenware covered in a creamy slip, painted in manganese

brown, olive green, tomato red and yellow, and then coated in a transparent lead glaze.

Conservation and Preserved in fragments that were assembled together. The decoration Restoration: on the interior was partially repainted, such as important parts of the

circular pseudo-inscription, the concentric green bands, the white slip on the bottom, as well as the pseudo-inscriptions near the ibex. On the exterior, a second coat layer can be observed on the shard joins, probably to assure the fixation.

Description: Conical bowl with slightly convex rim and a flaring, low standing base.

The interior decoration consists of a central, round medallion containing an ibex, surrounded by small, stylized flowers and two pseudo-inscriptions, one near its thorns, and the other one above the head. The central medallion is underlined by an olive green band with white polka dots. Together with an identical band that runs parallel on the upper wall, they border a pseudo-inscription in kūfic, repeating a single sequence of 2-3 “letters”. A thin, red line, followed by a thicker brown band run along the rim.

Inscription: A set of two pseudo-inscriptions in the central medallion, altered by

the modern repaint; a pseudo-kufic inscription running on the cavetto. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Grube, Cobalt and Lustre, 91, no. 84. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 128-157. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 61. Bowl, 10th -11th c., northeastern Iran, poss. Sari. Rijksmuseum,

Amsterdam. Inv. No. BK-

1983-132.

Polychrome-on-white slip painted wares Location and Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Inventory Number: BK-1982-113 Acquisition: 1983, donation prof. dr. J.A. Oosterbaan and his wife. Dimensions (D x h): 16.8 x 6 cm. Technique: Dark red body, covered in a white slip up to the foot, decorated in

olive-green, brownish red and manganese brown, coated in a whitish, transparent glaze.

Conservation and The ware was broken and assembled from the constituent shards. The Restoration: painting was retouched only on the joins, leaving the original design

intact. Description: Conical bowl with straight, oblique walls, and a vertical standing base.

It was painted only on the interior in black manganese, olive-green and brownish red. The decoration runs circularly in the rim area alone, and consists of three concentric motifs: a highly abstracted inscription

drawn in olive green and underlined in black manganese; a red line running along the rim; lastly, a row of manganese dots.

Inscription: Decorative pattern repeating a highly abstracted form of al-yumn,

situated on a frieze along the rim. Interestingly, the diacritic marks were preserved.

Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: The University of Iowa Museum of Art, Calligraphic Ceramics from Eastern

Iran, nos. 25 and 26. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 128-157. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 62. Bowl, 10th c., northeastern Iran. Location and Princessehof Museum, Leeuwarden. Inventory Number: OKS 1999-057 Acquisition: 1998, purchase from Ms. Hillegonda Janssen. Dimensions (D x h): 20.3 x 8 cm. Technique: Red earthenware covered in white slip and painted in purple

manganese, olive green, white and tomato red; coated in a transparent lead glaze up to the mid outer wall.

Conservation and Preserved in full and in a good conservation state. All original features Restoration: survived, apart from small portions of the graze on the bottom that

flaked off, and of a semicircular rim piece of about five centimeters that was missing and was replaced (most probably by an alien shard)

and covered in beige plaster. Description: Conical bowl with oblique walls and a flaring standing base, decorated

in polychrome paint only at the interior. The decoration consists of a central circle containing a dot in dark purple manganese. Margining the medallion is a thick red, white dotted band. It is followed above by concentric rows as follows: a frieze that contains a highly abstracted form of the word al-yumn, a second frieze, margined on both sides by purple, white dotted lines, and drawn in olive green and containing a row of purple white dotted triangles. Lastly, the rim was enhanced by red and purple lines.

Inscription: Decorative pattern on the cavetto, rendering a highly abstracted form

of the word al-yumn, from which only the beginning ’alif or lām and the nūn were painted.

Previous Bosmans and Janssen, Collectie Hillegonda Janssen, 22. Publication: Related Pieces: Cat. No. 50; Wilkinson, Nishapur, 151, fig. 20a-b. Reference Literature: Wilkinson, Nishapur, 128-157.

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 63. Bowl, 10th c., northeastern Iran. Location and Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. Inventory Number: OCE-1964-0006; OC (I) 6-64 Acquisition: 1964, purchase Bluett & Sons. Dimensions (D x h): 23.5 x 7.3 cm. Technique: Orange earthenware, covered in a dark brown glaze and painted in

polychrome slips, then coated in a transparent glaze. Conservation and The piece preserved in full, but it was broken and assembled from the Restoration: compound pieces. The glaze has very much decayed, so the exposed

slip started to worn off, phenomenon particularly observable on the left of the catalogue photograph. The decoration was overpainted here and there, especially on the shard joins.

Description: Conical bowl with slightly flaring standing base and thickened rim.

The brown glaze covers both exterior and interior, apart from the foot and its immediate vicinity. The decoration covers only the interior, and it is painted in tomato red, light brown and white. A stylized lily occupies the bottom. On the walls, some other four stylized lilies alternate with an equal number of thick stripes. The stripes, which are radially disposed on the wall, contain a repetition the letter ’alīf, evolved into a decorative pattern.

Inscription: Decorative pattern repeating the letter ’alif, the abbreviation and

symbol of the name of God. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Repetition of letter nūn on a coloured engobe ware in Curatola, Persian

Ceramics, 36. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 158-178. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 64. Large bowl, 10th – 11th c., northeastern Iran Location and Gemeentemuseum, The Hague. Inventory Number: OCE-1976-0005; OC (I) 5-76 Acquisition: 1976, purchase art dealer Teheran. Dimensions (D x h): 29.2 x 8.6 cm. Technique: Red earthenware, painted directly on the body in polychrome slips,

and coated in a transparent glaze. Conservation and The piece was assembled from large compound shards. The decoration Restoration: was overpainted here and there, keeping with the original design. Description: Red earthenware bowl with evenly curved walls and flaring standing

base. The decoration was applied directly on the body, and consists of geometric and vegetal motifs realized by means of a white band on which a black, writing-imitation pattern was applied. The band forms in the bottom interior a small rosette, and the immediate round medallion that encircles it. Upwards on the cavetto, four motifs spring at regular intervals: two stylized leaf branches opposed to each other, inlayed with two v shaped motifs. On the rim, a white serrated band appears. On the exterior two hatched triangle shaped motifs, and two arrow heads are displayed at regular intervals.

Inscription: Writing imitation decorative pattern. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Wilkinson, Nishapur, 174, fig. 34. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 158-178. Literature:

Appendix A: The Catalogue Cat. No. 65. Bowl, 11th-12th c., northeastern Iran. Location and Princessehof Museum, Leeuwarden. Inventory Number: OKS-2005-419 Acquisition: 2005, donation Ms. Hillegonda Janssen. Dimensions (D x h): 26.4 x 8 cm. Technique: Orange earthenware, painted directly on the body in black and pale

yellow slip, covered in a transparent glaze. Conservation and The ware was broken and assembled from constituting shards. On a Restoration: substantial part of the rim, glaze and slip decoration flaked off. No

intervention on the decoration could be traced, apart from the join repaints.

Description: Conical bowl with flaring standing base, oblique walls, and a slightly

convex lower wall. The decoration was applied only at the interior, directly on the body, and consists of a central medallion outlined in yellow slip and decorated with a row of undulating lines, and a central

bird. The bird is dawned with the same yellow slip, which is additionally covered in a script-inspired pattern. Other similar five medallions occupy the cavetto, separated by small circles. The rim is bordered by the same pattern as the central medallion.

Inscription: Script-inspired pattern, situated on the white bands that form the

decoration. Previous - Publication: Related Pieces: Wilkinson, Nishapur, 174, fig. 34. Reference Wilkinson, Nishapur, 138-78. Literature:

Appendix B Illustrations used in the catalogue: Cat. No.7 Source: Rijksmuseum, “Kom met een bok in het plat”. Accessed September 4,

2012. http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/collectie/AK-MAK-1486/kom-met-een-

bok-in-het-plat. Cat. No. 8 Source: Rijksmuseum Database. Cat. No. 9 Source: Rijksmuseum Database. Cat. No. 12 Source: Princesehof Museum, “Kom met decor van polychrome vogels en

pseudo(?)-schrift”. Accessed September 5, 2012. http://collectie.princessehof

.nl/portal/object/Princessehof/F123DD327C7A788ED33E0070EDF352453658E

B1D.html?query=OKS+1999048&start=1&startPage=1&pageId=brd&view=tabl

e.

Cat. No. 15 Source: Rijksmuseum Database. Cat. No. 16 Source: Volkenkunde Museum, “Schaal met inscriptie van Arabische tekst”.

Accessed September 5, 2012. http://www.volkenkunde.nl/collections/zoom.

aspx?image=J5002\5002002.JPG.

Cat. No. 27 Source: Rijksmuseum Database. Cat. No. 28 Source: Rijksmuseum Database. Cat. No. 29 Source: Bosmans, Keramiek uit het Islamitisch Cultuurgebied, 36. Cat. No. 37 Source: Rijksmuseum, “Kom met pseudo-schrift”. Accessed September 5,

2012. http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/collectie/AK-MAK-1488/kom-met-

pseudo-schrift. Cat. No. 38 Source: Rijksmuseum, “Kom met een (Arabische) inscriptie langs de

binnenwand”. Accessed September 5, 2012.

http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/collectie/AK-MAK-1489/kom-met-een-

arabische-inscriptie-langs-de-binnenwand. Cat. No. 39 Source: Rijksmuseum Database. Cat. No. 40 Source: Rijksmuseum Database. Cat. No. 41 Source: Rijksmuseum, “Kom met een kleine vogel en een band van pseudo-”.

http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/collectie/BK-1981-58/kom-met-een-kleine-

vogel-en-een-band. Cat. No. 42 Source: Rijksmuseum Database. Cat. No. 43 Source: Rijksmuseum Database. Cat. No. 44 Source: Rijksmuseum Database. Cat. No. 47 Source: Volkenkunde Museum. Accessed September 5, 2012.

http://www.volkenkunde.nl/collections/zoom.aspx?image=J5001\5001864.J

PG. Cat. No. 49 Source: Rijksmuseum Database. Cat. No. 55 Source: Rijksmuseum Database. Cat. No. 56 Source: Rijksmuseum Database. Cat. No. 57 Source: Rijksmuseum Database. Cat. No. 58 Source: Rijksmuseum Database. Cat. No. 59 Source: Rijksmuseum Database. Cat. No. 60 Source: Rijksmuseum Database. Cat. No. 61 Source: Rijksmuseum Database.