British Institute of Persian Studies · PDF fileBritish Institute of Persian Studies Safavid Potters' Marks and the Question of Provenance Author(s): Lisa Golombek, Robert B. Mason,

British Institute of Persian Studies

Safavid Potters' Marks and the Question of ProvenanceAuthor(s): Lisa Golombek, Robert B. Mason, Patty ProctorReviewed work(s):Source: Iran, Vol. 39 (2001), pp. 207-236Published by: British Institute of Persian StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4300605 .Accessed: 15/01/2012 12:22

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

British Institute of Persian Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Iran.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bips

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4300605?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

SAFAVID POTTERS' MARKS AND THE QUESTION OF PROVENANCE

by Lisa Golombek, Robert B. Mason and Patty Proctor Royal Ontario Museum

1. INTRODUCTION

From the eighth century onward, Islamic pottery showed remarkable inventiveness in both technology and design. Simulating gold with lustre-painting, mimicking illustrated manuscripts and mural paintings with "minai" overglaze, and perfecting the technique of underglaze colour, potters in the Islamic world had always looked to their own visual culture for models. This began to change with the arrival of the Mongols in the thirteenth century, and in the following century the advent of Chinese blue-and-white porcelain turned the tables irreversibly. Almost as soon as Chinese porcelain painted in cobalt on a white ground left the kilns of Jingdezhen in the mid-fourteenth century, it became an international success story. The response of potters in Southeast Asia and the Middle East was nearly instantaneous.1 By the end of the fourteenth century, potters in Syria and Egypt were producing acceptable adaptations of Yuan designs in their traditional underglaze-painted stonepaste technology. These craftsmen migrated to Samarqand when Damascus fell to Timaiir in 1401.2 Setting up shop in Samarqand, the Syrian potters reproduced Yuan designs and imitated early Ming imports as they arrived in the Timurid court. Timtir and his successors became avid collectors of Chinese porcelain, which they received as gifts from the Ming emperor or obtained through shipments by sea.3 Many examples of these porcelains appear in early Timurid manuscript illustrations.4 By the middle of the fifteenth century, potters in at least five centres5 across the Timurid world were turning out blue-and-white Chinoiserie tablewares for both princely consumption and for the bazaar. Two of these centres, Nishapur6 and Tabriz, continued production into the early Safavid period, and a third, Mashhad, was revived in the seventeenth century, as we shall see. The Timurid period set the course for the subsequent history of the ceramic industry in Iran. While Persian potters continued to produce pottery of high quality in terms of

both the technique and design, Chinese exports set the standards. However, to ignore later Persian pottery because of its imitative character is to miss one of the most fascinating stories about the response of a local industry to foreign competition. The story is far from monolithic, and there are many twists and turns that will be perceived as a reward for probing deeply into the evidence.

This study will focus on the reign of Shah 'Abbas (1588-1629) and the second Safavid century. All of the craft industries in Iran seem to have undergone dramatic changes during this period as a result of the entry of Iran into the global market.7 The extent to which the presence of European trading companies (the English East India Company, founded in 1600, and the Dutch Veerenigde Oost Indische Compagnie, founded in 1602) had an impact on these industries, either directly or indirectly, has yet to be assessed.8 The figure of Shah 'Abbas looms large in this story, as most crafts were under the supervision of government officials.9 For the ceramics industry, this does not seem to have been the case, and yet it is difficult not to suspect the hand of Shah 'Abbas and his successors behind many of the developments of the industry.

Like the Timurid princes, the Safavid shahs were also collectors of Chinese porcelain. Shah 'Abbas donated their accumulated holdings, including many fine Yuan and early Ming pieces, to the restored Shrine of Ardabil in 1611.10 Perhaps he considered them too valuable for table use, or perhaps his own taste was shifting to the new style of blue-and-white which was overtaking the international market, characterised by panelled borders and languid landscapes. Known as "Kraak" wares because they arrived in Amsterdam in the large ocean-going carracks, they were sought after in both Europe and the East.'1 Persian potters had to keep up with the change in style, and the quality of design and draughtsmanship now rose to meet the challenge. The quality of Persian wares was so high that merchants in Europe could pass them off as Chinese

207

208 JOURNAL OF PERSIAN STUDIES

originals.12 Responding to this market, Persian potters began to imitate the marks found on the base of many Chinese vessels. To the unschooled eye, these Persian vessels must have seemed authentic enough.

2. DEFINING THE QUESTION

These are the basic outlines of the story, so well defined by Arthur Lane almost fifty years ago in his seminal monograph Later Islamic Pottery (1957). He wove together the evidence available at that time in an effective but cautious way, using the reports of European travellers, documents of the European trading companies, the dated Safavid vessels and the datable Chinese models for the Persian imitations. In an appendix to his monograph, Lane cited the most important European references (all dating from the second half of the seventeenth century) to centres of production: Kirman, Mashhad, Zarand, Yazd, Isfahan and Shiraz.13 No stylistic differentiation was made by these sources, but Kirman and Mashhad are noted as producers of the "best" wares, especially Kirman. Wares from Kirman and Mashhad were sold in the same caravansaray in Isfahan.'14

Without any archaeological evidence, Lane assigned groups of Safavid pottery to these two major centres, and his attributions have never been challenged. He attempted to differentiate the centres on the basis of palette, assigning those with cobalt painting alone to Kirman and those with black-outlining to Mashhad. He also assigned each of the three major types of potters' marks to these centres: the square seal-mark to Mashhad, the tassel-mark to Kirman and the character- mark to some lesser sites. He noted that square seal- marks tended to accompany wares with black-outlining, and tassel-marks were only found on cobalt-painted and polychrome slip-painted wares. It is not clear how Lane arrived at his assignment of the tassel-marked group to Kirman, as he does not claim to have seen the survey materials from the Kirman area which would have supported this attribution. He affnirms that the Mashhad attribution is based entirely on textual references. While Lane had remarkable insights and urged caution,15 his conclusions were based on very little scientific evidence. Unfortunately, many scholars since have ignored Lane's cautions and adopted his narrative uncritically.

The other area in which research on Safavid pottery has concentrated is the question of Chinese models.

These studies have generally demonstrated that Persian imitations responded rapidly to the arrival of new designs from China but that local potters were also inclined to copy earlier imports, sometimes combining motifs from several generations.16 Parallels have been drawn to aid in dating the Safavid imitations, but the significance of the variations in these imitations has not been questioned. Some are superb copies that could have passed for the original. Others may be copies of copies, and still others are very creative re-workings inspired by the originals.17 The variations could be related to provenance, chronology, different markets or some other socio- economic phenomenon.

With these larger questions in mind, a multi- disciplinary team from the Royal Ontario Museum began collecting data on the Safavid ceramics industry.18 The methodologies and approaches of this study build on those developed in earlier studies made by the team.19 This involves studying the attributes of the ceramics, including accurate drawing and study of vessel form, examination of forming and decorative technology, plus analysis of decoration by structure and motif as well as by composition and execution. The wares thus defined are provided with a chronology by reference to available dating evidence, which in the case of Safavid ceramics includes the sequence for Chinese prototypes and Iranian wares bearing dates. In tandem with this is the physical characterisation of the wares using petrographic analysis (see below). This technique allows the wares of the same production origin to be grouped together, and if provided with characterisation for a production centre, will allow attribution of the wares of the same characteristics to that site of manufacture. Having put the ceramics into order of time and place of production, the ceramics are considered in the light of their contemporary context, including economic history.

The Safavid Ceramics Project of the Royal Ontario Museum now has a database of almost 1,300 pieces. The objects in this study have been assigned Project Numbers, which consist of an abbreviated form of the name of museum or collector and sequential numbering. In this article reference to specific objects will use this system in order to avoid excessive footnotes. A key to the abbreviations and numbers will be found as a preface to the Appendix, which summarises the relevant data and references for each

object.

SAFAVID POTTERS' MARKS AND THE QUESTION OF PROVENANCE 209

3. SAFAVID POTTERS' MARKS AND THE EVIDENCE OF CERAMIC PETROGRAPHY

(a) Petrography and Provenance

Our discussion will re-examine the significance of "potters'marks," introducing the evidence of petrography which has proved so useful in sorting out the history of Timurid ceramics.20 Petrographic analysis is a method developed in the earth sciences to allow microscopic examination of rocks and minerals. Its application in the study of pottery allows the characterisation of the ceramic body, and, if possible, the attribution of these characteristics to specific production centres. The characterisation of production centres is enabled by the analysis of evidence of manufacture, such as objects ruined in the firing and discarded on the site, other material from the kilns, such as kiln furniture, and vessels with their place of manufacture inscribed upon them.

Eighty-three samples of Safavid wares of the date relevant to this paper, including fifty-seven samples from archaeological fieldwork, were subjected to petrographic analysis.21 Five distinct groups were defined from this analysis, which may be called Safavid Petrofabrics One to Five. Group One is predominant in most of Iran, especially the north-east and along the main east-west land trade routes, which might be taken as evidence that this is the petrofabric of Mashhad except that another petrofabric is already attributed to this site (see below). However, there are distinct similarities between this and the known Mashhad Petrofabric, so it is possible that this is from another workshop at Mashhad using slightly different raw materials. Safavid Petrofabric Two samples comprise eight fragments from archaeological fieldwork, generally undistinctive blue-and-white wares. The distribution of the finds is thinly dispersed across western and central Iran. Safavid Petrofabric Three samples comprise twenty-eight archaeological finds and a further seven objects of unknown origin. Distribution strongly concentrates in the region of Kirnan and at port and trade sites outside of Iran. Given the documentary importance of Kirman in the trade in ceramics, this distribution would strongly argue for the tentative attribution of Safavid Petrofabric Three to Kirman. Safavid Petrofabric Four includes thirteen samples, of which only three are archaeological, and

these are widely dispersed, plus a sample obtained from the Bahari workshop of potters in Qumisha (more recently called Shahreza) located 75 km. south of Isfahan.22 Although they import material used today, they claimed that the pot from which the sample came was made about thirty years ago using a local source of materials. This group also includes "Kubachi" slip- painted wares which have already been suggested as originating near Isfahan,23 as well as the blue-and-white imitations of Wanli porcelain. Hence this group is attributed to the Isfahan region. Safavid Petrofabric Five represents four Safavid vessels which have an unknown find-spot, but the petrofabric is very similar to that petrofabric already defined for Mashhad based on analysis of fifteenth-century pottery with inscriptions attesting Mashhad as their place of manufacture.24 Collectively the fifteenth-century Timurid objects analysed and determined to be of that petrofabric formed a group of fifteen samples. We will be discussing only the petrofabrics which can be correlated with potters' marks.

(b) Safavid Potters' Marks

At least 337 of the objects in the database bear potters' marks on the base.25 These have all been scanned on a flat-bed scanner from close-up photographs and carefully traced in Corel-Draw to produce accurate line-drawings.26 We have sorted them into the three types described by Lane: square seal- marks, tassel-marks, and character-marks. A selection of these are reproduced in Figs. 1 and 22, and the groups are presented in systematic form in Tables 2-7.27 Wherever possible we have chosen examples from the large collection of Safavid pottery in the Royal Ontario Museum, most of which has never been published.

The discussion will first comment on the formal characteristics of the mark itself. If this type of mark is found on several vessels sharing certain stylistic or technical characteristics, these will be described and the suggestion made that this particular form of mark is associated with a certain grouping. If the petrofabric of one or more vessels in the group has been identified, the group will be assigned to that petrofabric group. When the provenance of the petrofabric group is known, we will associate that particular potter's mark with a specific place.


(c) Seal-marks

These marks are believed to imitate the square- framed reign-marks and marks of commendation often found on the base of Chinese porcelains (Table la). The Safavid seal-mark consists of a square box, often drawn as a triple frame, containing various graphic elements, such as hatching, curved lines, dots, crosses and so

forth, in imitation of the Chinese characters. The more

complex Safavid seal-marks can be divided into two classes: (Group Sil: Table 2) those which are "formal"

compositions, in which the internal graphic elements are balanced or symmetrically arranged and the elements are carefully drawn; and (Group S2: Table 3) those drawn in an "informal" or sketchy manner. Each

Group has three subgroupings. A third group (Group 3:

TABLE 1. Chinese Marks.

a.1 a.2

b.1 b.2c.1 b.1 b.2

a. 1. Mid-16th-century bowl: fu gui jia qi ('fine vessel for wealth and honour"), enclosed in a rectangle (Krahl, fig. 968).

a. 2. Second half of 16th-century dish: Mark of Longqing period (1567-72) (Rinaldi, pl. 32). b. 1. Second half of 16th-century dish: Hongzhi nian zhi ("made in the Hongzhi period" = 1488-1505)

(Krahl, fig. 1754). b. 2. Wanli period bowl: Six-character-mark of the Wan-li period (1573-1620) (Pope, pl. 84).

c. 1. Mid-16th-century ewer: chang sheng bu lao ("A long life without aging"), enclosed in a double ring (Krahl, fig. 1016).


Table 4) is comprised of unrelated square marks, probably derived from one of the more complex types in the other two groups.

Seal-Mark Group S1 (Table 2; Fig. 1) The seal-marks in Group S1 (a, b and c) have a

strong family resemblance. Three straight lines form the sides of the square. The lines are evenly spaced. In Groups Sila and b the centre of the square is occupied by a large element, and other rectilinear motifs and pseudo-characters are arranged around the periphery. In S athe central element is divided in half, one side filled with hatching, the other void (V&A.29, V&A.74). In S 1b the central element is a character, and the peripheral elements are symmetrically arranged around the edges of the square (ASH.10, TRO.01, V&A.76, V&A.78, V&A.79, V&A.83). Notable is the "H" or "X" -shaped character with dotted strokes (ASH.10, V&A.83). This feature also appears in Slc (BER.01), but here two rectilinear grids are attached to opposite corners (BER.01; Lane No. 43;28 ZZZ.134; SEV.02; ROM.54). Often the comers of the outer square will be dotted (ASH.10, V&A.78, V&A.83).

Vessels bearing seal-marks of the Group S1 type are among the finest Safavid wares in terms of the execution of their decoration. Marks of the type shown in Group S 1a are unique to two large "matching" dishes

(Fig. 2, V&A.74; Fig. 3, V&A.29). Their designs are based on the Yuan cloud-point pattern, but neither is a slavish reproduction. The painter has created a strong, graphic design, with bold black accents on the white reserved ground. Although very close in composition to the Chinese, there is more emphasis on line.29 Compared with other Safavid Chinoiserie pottery, these dishes show unusual gradations in the palette. The band outlining the cloud-point medallions is painted with a deeper tone of cobalt than the wash that fills the background of the flowers inside the medallion. A third grisaille-like tone is suggested by the black striations on top of a pale cobalt wash grading to white, giving texture to the Yuan-like serpentine wave border and the in-fill between the cavetto and the central design. Although the two dishes are very similar, as are their seal-marks, there are variations in the execution of detail, which suggest that two different hands have been involved (compare Figs. 2 and 3).

Vessels bearing marks belonging to Group Slb include some of the finer imitations of Wanli period (1573-1620) pottery that might have passed for Chinese

originals. One features a Chinese seascape with Kraak panels surrounding it (V&A.76). Another shows a typical Wanli collection of emblems in a planter set on a tree-root stand, bordered by ovoid medallions bearing very finely detailed images of figures, plants and emblems (V&A.78). Others reproduce Wanli

Fig. 1. Seal-marks: a. V&A.29; b. V&A.83; c. ASH.10; d. BER.01; e. ASH.18; f V&A. 74; g. V&A. 76 (Lane, no. 47); h.V&A. 78; i. ROM 54;j. ROM 80.


TABLE 2. Seal-marks: Group SL.

a V&A.29 V&A.74

b Lane #47 ASH.10

BER.01 ROM.54 C

landscapes with birds or deer (Fig. 4, V&A.83; V&A.79). Group Slc also includes Wanli-inspired vessels, such as the Berlin "salt-container" (namakdin; Fig. 5, BER.01), which is linked with Group S lb through the dotted "X"-shaped character in its seal- mark. The vessel bears the date 1037/1627-28, thus allowing us to pinpoint the date of at least Groups SIb and Sc to the third decade of the seventeenth century.

A third type of decoration found on vessels with the Group SI mark is comprised of large animals, usually only one, set against a background of fiery clouds, dense vegetation or similar motifs, painted in reserve, recalling the dramatic effect of Yuan reserve-painted wares. The horses on a ground of winged clouds (Figs. 6-7, ASH. 10) or waves and the grinning dragon against fiery clouds (Figs. 8-9, ROM.54) depart from the


Fig. 2. V&A. 74: Dish, cobalt blue with chromium black outlines, painted under an alkaline glaze (Courtesy of the Victoria and Albert Museum, 1140-1876).

Fig. 4. V&A.83: Dish, cobalt blue with chromium black outlines, painted under an alkaline glaze (courtesy of the Victoria and Albert Museum, 243-1884).

Fig. 3. V&A. 29: Dish, detail of central design, cobalt blue with chromium black outlines, painted under an alkaline glaze (courtesy of the Victoria and Albert Museum, 458-1878).

Chinese models that inspired them and draw on the Persian tradition of manuscript illumination and

drawing.30 The flying horses found in bands on Chinese bowls are rearranged in circular format framed by a ring of fluttering wings. The once sinuous Chinese dragon's tail is coiled to encircle a domesticated feline head, its

eyes staring straight out and its mouth turned up in a sort of grin. For the outer border and the reverse the painter resorted to various Yuan floral scrolls (see especially ASH.10 and V&A.29). The dish with the horses has a mark belonging to Group Slb, while the dragon dish

belongs to Group S1c. Both dishes have the petrofabric


Fig. 5. BER. 01: Salt-container (namakddn), cobalt blue with chromium black outlines, painted under an alkaline glaze, dated 103 7/1627-8 (courtesy of the Staatliche Museen, Berlin, 14231).

Fig. 6. ASH. 10: Dish, cobalt blue with chromium black outlines, painted under an alkaline glaze (courtesy of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 1978.2167).

Fig. 7. ASH.10: Detail of Fig. 6.


TABLE 3. Seal-marks: Group S2.

MMA.70 V&A.126

b ROM.80 V&A.14

lASH.21M.81 ASH.09

ASH.21 ? OM.81 ASH.09 C________________

assigned to Kirman (Safavid Petrofabric Three), thus permitting us to place Group Si at Kirman within the third decade of the seventeenth century. All of the subgroups appear to be roughly contemporary as they share many stylistic elements.

Seal-Mark Group S2 (Table 3) Frames are drawn in thin, sketchy strokes. The

elements within appear scattered but are consistently

similar: a rectilinear grid, a motif consisting of concentric curves, and a circle. There are at least three

subgroups: 2a has very pronounced concentric curves and the grid is all but absent; 2b has one rectilinear grid; 2c has very loose elements, some of which tend to be

pointy, and there is no real grid form. The seal-mark of Group S2b seems to be typical for

a well-defined class of dishes, characterised by their

lightly carved white cavetto and a Wanli-style diaper scroll band with trefoils setting off the central


Fig. 8. ROM.54: Dish, cobalt blue with chromium black outlines, painted under an alkaline glaze (Royal Ontario

Museum, 909.25.4).

composition. The practice of leaving the cavetto and rim blank harks back to the late sixteenth century,31 and the landscapes found in the central design draw inspiration from models of the second half of the sixteenth century.32 The diaper border is common on Kraak wares of the early seventeenth century.33 Most of the dishes in this class have a white exterior with a narrow band of diaper scroll just above the footring (Figs. 10-12, ROM.80; V&A.14; V&A.142). Typically the band has a half-blossom emerging alternately from the top and bottom edges. In addition to Chinoiserie landscapes, reserve paintings of animals on foliage or clouds characteristic of the Group S1 workshop are also found (V&A.142, which features a vase instead of an animal; V&A.60). This seal-mark group is so consistent with regard to the presence of the white carved cavetto, the diaper frame, and the border around the footring that it is likely that they all came from one workshop. No Chinese model exists that puts all of these features together in the same way, so the artists could not have arrived at this scheme independently. The Toronto piece has the Safavid Petrofabric One, to which no secure provenance has yet been assigned, but which may be a north-eastern centre, as suggested by distribution, possibly even a second Mashhad petrofabric. The S2b group may be viewed as contemporary with the S1 Kirman group.

Fig. 9. ROM.54: Back ofFig. 8.

Related to the designs on vessels of the S2b group (and to the S1 Kirman group) is another variation of this composition. The central area is surrounded by a Yuan floral scroll cavetto, painted in reserve, instead of the carved white ground (Fig. 13, BRM.14; ASH.14; V&A. 104). The rim frames the dish with a diaper scroll. The drawing is strong and animals are rendered with the same bold calligraphic strokes as those of the S1 group. On the reverse is painted a loose floral scroll, often with floral forms unfilled by pigment. This variation has a seal-mark incorporating some of the elements of S2b, but it is sufficiently different to constitute a separate group.

Similar compositions appear on dishes bearing seal- marks of the S2c type. If the central design is in reserve, the lotus scroll may not be in reserve (Figs. 14-15, ROM.81; FMK.07). If the central design is painted on a white ground, the lotus scroll is in reserve (V&A.21). The designs on other shapes bearing this mark do not seem to be related to those found on the dishes, with the exception of the border patterns (Fig. 16, ASH.21; ASH.09, BRM.17). The two objects with the S2c seal- mark that have been sampled have Safavid Petrofabric Five (similar to the Timurid Mashhad Petrofabric) (ROM.81, ASH.21).

Vessels with the S2a seal-mark are problematic.34 There does not seem to be a consistency in the designs,


Fig. 10. ROM.80: Dish, cobalt blue with chromium black outlines, painted under an alkaline glaze (Royal Ontario Museum, 995.143.1).

Fig. 11. ROM.80: Back. Fig. 12. ROM.80: Detail.


but some observations may be made. Two are painted only with cobalt and lack black outlines (Fig. 17, MMA.70; V&A.127). The seal-mark is also done in cobalt. Both are bowls strongly reminiscent of their Chinese prototypes. The Chinoiserie figural scene on the larger bowl (MMA.70) relates to "Transitional" wares of the second quarter of the seventeenth century.35 These figural scenes also occur on a large group of vessels attributable to Kinnrman, bearing tassel-marks (see below; Fig. 26, ASH.15). We would tentatively

date these seal-marks to the moment when Kirman potters were moving toward the cobalt palette but had not yet taken up the exclusive use of the blue tassel- mark.

Seal-Mark Group 3: Derivative and Miscellaneous (Table 4)

These are usually schematic renderings and may appear in black or in cobalt. One group (S3a) has

TABLE 4. Seal-marks:Group S3.

aASH.13 V&A.124

b BER.08 BER.26

ROM.50 V&A.225 C


Fig. 13. BRM.14:

Detail of dish, cobalt blue with chromium black outlines, painted under an alkaline glaze (courtesy of the British Museum, 78.12-

30.620).

Fig. 14. ROM 81: Dish, cobalt blue with chromium black outlines, painted under an alkaline glaze

(Royal Ontario Museum, 995.155.1).

multiple frames with cursory characters written over them. A second (3b) has multiple frames, but the

diagonals of the square are void, leaving an "X"-mark in reserve. A third (3c) is a collection of simplified forms, probably not related to each other except that

they all seem to imitate something else. The group includes the small bulbous jar with raised

shoulders and short, narrow neck (usually called a

Fig. 15. ROM 81: Back.

"spittoon"), painted with panels containing emblems of the sort popular on Kraak ware, and bearing the date on its base of 1034/1624-25 (Figs. 18-19, ASH.13). This is an early example of this shape, which seems to enter the Safavid potter's repertory only in the seventeenth

century. Its precise origins are unknown, although its

sharp carination suggests a metalwork prototype. It would seem an impractical shape for a spittoon (which should have a flat turned out lip) and may be an

inkpot.36 The quality of the decoration is mediocre, and


Fig. 16. ASH.21: Flower ("tulip") vase with three spouts projecting from shoulder, cobalt blue with chromium black outlines, painted under an alkaline glaze (courtesy of the

Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 1978-1707).

Fig. 18. ASH. 13.: Jar ("spitoon"), cobalt blue with chromium black outlines, painted under an alkaline glaze, dated 1034/1624-25 (courtesy of the Ashmolean Museum,

Oxford, x1213).

Fig. 17. MMA. 70: Deep bowl, cobalt blue painted under an alkaline glaze (courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Bequest of

Nellie Kuh, Louis V Bell Fund, and funds from various donors, 1967, 1967.67.108).


Fig. 19. ASH.13: Base.

the cobalt is thinly spread. Most of the outlining is done in a darker cobalt, but there appears to be either some very dark cobalt or some black used sparsely to draw lines. The petrofabric belongs to Kirman

Fig. 21. ROM.50: Dish, cobalt blue with chromium black outlines, painted under an alkaline glaze (Royal Ontario

Museum, 908.22.1).

Fig. 20. BER.26: Dish, cobalt blue painted under an alkaline glaze (courtesy of the Staatliche Museen,

Berlin, 14210).

(Safavid Petrofabric Three), making this the earliest dated evidence for a Kirman workshop. Another vessel with similar seal-mark is painted in cobalt alone

(V&A.124). It features a sinuous dragon in reserve

among flames, has a lotus scroll tondo and a leaf and basket-weave border, stylistic features associated with Kirman.

Seal-mark Group S3b is comprised of vessels with decoration reminiscent of Chinese models of the

Kangxi period (1662-1722) (Fig. 20, BER.26).37 A related sherd found at Derbent (D74-31) had Safavid Petrofabric One, but no complete vessels bearing this mark have been sampled.

Seal-mark Group S3c follows no pattern as each seal is unique. A black-line dish with a landscape in the centre and around the cavetto, both derived from Chinese prototypes of the second half of the sixteenth

century,38 has a black seal-mark consisting of embedded

squares (Fig. 21, ROM.50). Its petrofabric (Group Four) identifies it as a product of the same Isfahan/Qumisha workshop that mass-produced copies of Wanli porcelain using incised lines and cobalt oxide.39 This workshop rarely used a potter's mark, and in this unusual example the intent must have been to imitate the work of Kirman or Mashhad. Another unique seal-mark appears on a

slip-painted and carved dish from the late seventeenth

century (V&A.225).40


(d) Tassel-marks

This name refers to marks in the shape of an inverted pyramid, with an extension at the bottom, forming a "tail," hence the name "tassel". No such marks appear on Chinese porcelain. However, vertical columns of Chinese normal script could have been interpreted as tassel-like forms (Table Tlb). Typically, two columns of three Chinese characters on the base of a porcelain designated the reigning emperor. What Lane saw as the "complex" tassel was based on one of these vertical columns of three characters, at the top of which was a horizontal bar with some strokes protruding, and at the bottom of which may have been one or more curving strokes that became the "tail" of the tassel.41 An early form of this mark may be what appears on the British Museum canteen of 1036/1626-27 (Figs. 30-31 BRM.09). Here there are three characters connected by a line. In successive phases the characters become

closer together and the line disappears. This object was sampled and attributed to the Kirman workshop (Safavid Petrofabric Three).42

Tassels may occur singly or in multiples, arranged in circular form, often with a tassel in the centre of the base. There is great variation among tassel forms, even on the same object, but certain characteristics appear to be significant. These are: the elements along the top or "head" and the nature of the "tail". Other elements intruding into the body will be mentioned as they may signify different workshops or craftsmen. However, the discussion of the crowning and terminal elements will isolate the major groups.

Group T1 ( Table 5) These marks are distinguished by crenellations or

cresting, consisting of "teeth" of square or angular shape along the uppermost horizontal bar. Variations

TABLE 5. Tassel-marks: Group TI.

V&A.55 Rapoport #5 BRM.05

b V&A.24 BER.32 BER.04


Fig. 22. Tassel-marks: a. BER.30; b. V&A.168; c. V&A.143; d BRM 05; e. MAG.15; f MMA.09.

occur in the number of such teeth and in the form of the tail. A large group (Group Tla) have multiple (five to seven) teeth. Most of these have two strokes for the tail, perhaps in imitation of certain Chinese characters. One example has a sinuous tale with a short stroke across it (Rapoport Mark No. 3).43

One dish bearing a TI tassel-mark has a large central area lightly carved with a flowering plant and left unpainted. It is surrounded by an inscription band in black through which Persian verses and the date 1077 H. (1666-67) have been scratched (V&A.55). Others are painted in cobalt, red, olive green or tan, the common palette of Kirman polychrome slip-painted ware (BRM.05, MAG.15). The identification of this type of polychrome ornament with the Kirman workshop has long been suspected and was confirmed through comparison of the maritime survey sherds with a polychrome pear-shaped bottle (ASH.39). This

Fig. 23. BRM.05: Bowl, cobalt blue andpolychrome slip- painted under an alkaline glaze (courtesy of the British

Museum, 96.6.26.4).

technique is reminiscent of pietra dura, the inlaying of marble with coloured hardstones, which was so much in favour in Mughal India since the reign of Shah Jahan.44 The polychrome palette, used in a flowering plant design, is usually contrasted on the same vessel with a blue-and-white palette, used to execute a Chinoiserie design.

A second group (Group TIb) has a reduced number of teeth in the cresting, usually three. There is a great deal of variation in the body, but the tails consist either of two lines (V&A. 24;45 Rapoport Mark Nos. 4, 646) or of one or two dots placed vertically (BER.32, V&A.143, V&A.151, MSH.08, MMA.11). The latter mark appears on an ogival bottle with long cylindrical

Fig. 24. BER.32: Bottle, cobalt blue outlines painted under an alkaline glaze (courtesy of the Staatliche

Museen, Berlin, 172.766).


Fig. 25. ROM 89: Dish, blue painted with black outlines, inscription scratched through greenish-grey paint, dated

1084/1673-74 (Royal Ontario Museum, 2000.48.1).

neck, painted in blue lines with no colour wash (Fig. 24, BER.32). A dated dish (1080/1669-70) painted in blue, with an inscription scratched through a greenish-black band, has a tail consisting of only one dot (BER.04). Marks of the Tlb type sometimes appear in black, one of which bears the signature of "Khvaja Muhammad" (V&A.24). This dish has four pairs of deer placed radially, while another dish, recently acquired by the Royal Ontario Museum, has two pairs of very similar deer, pivoting around its centre. Its tassel-mark is also black, and the Persian verses encircling the rim end with the date 1084/1673-74 (Fig. 25, ROM.89). Black tassel-marks occur on a wide variety of wares, including Kraak-imitations (e.g. Fig. 22c, V&A.143) and imitations of polychrome slip-painted but with black outlines (e.g. MMA.10).

Many if not all of the T1 vessels would appear to be from the same production centre (Kirman), although perhaps not from the same workshop. The earliest dated pieces in Groups Ti1a and TIb are only three years apart (V&A.55 and BER.04). The diminution of the number of crenellations may or may not be indicative of relative chronology as there is no significant stylistic difference in the decoration. Vessels with blue outline designs like the Berlin bottle (Fig. 24, BER.32) have been found to have a Kirman petrofabric.47 The use of blue outlines

Fig. 26. ASH.15: Dish, cobalt blue painted under an alkaline glaze (courtesy of the Ashmolean Museum,

Oxford, 1978-2166).

with no colour-wash also follows a contemporary Chinese convention (referred to as "pencil" style).48 The dating for the TI group, based on the two dated pieces, would be upwards from c. 1665. The techniques are wide-ranging and include the cobalt palette, the black incised band style, the polychrome slip-painted, and the cobalt outline style.

Group T2 (Table 6) [C] The distinguishing feature of this group is the

difference in the shape of the teeth. Group T2a has a cresting of rounded teeth and the tails may be double or, more commonly, single (Fig. 26, ASH.15; ASH.16; V&A.18; V&A.163; ROM.83). Group T2b has a cresting of teeth in the form of single strokes, forming a "fringe" (FZW.05, double tail; BRM.02, single tail, black incised band, dated 1109/1697-98) or "dot" (Fig. 27, MMA.13, double tail). Group T2a includes several very large plates with Chinese "Transitional Style" landscapes spread around the cavetto as well as in the centre (Fig. 26, ASH.15; ASH.16). Similar Chinese plates were produced in the second quarter of the seventeenth century.49


TABLE 6. Tassel-marks: Group T2.

ASH.15 ASH.15 Rapoport #1

a

1 L

FSW.05 ROM.83 MMA.13 b

A third variant combines the square teeth with the fringe (Fig. 22e, MAG.15). Possibly a fourth variant, some tassel-marks have a "Y"-shaped filament sprouting from the tassel's head, and instead of a row of teeth the mark has a pair of "hills" (see Fig. 22f, MMA.09). Another example locates the "hills" on a shelf within the body (LOU.08). In both forms the tail is double. A variant of this tassel was used for black-line vessels, painted in the style of Kirman wares (MSH.03). Fragments of three vessels excavated at Qandahar show a line of such characters on the vessel's face.50

A number of tassel forms do not fit in either of the two major groups, nor do they constitute a single group. They are characterised by complexity of body form. Monochrome vessels have tassel-marks with bodies that look like a monogram with square-tooth cresting (MAG.08 slip-painted; V&A.222, slip-carved, Lane No. 52) or round teeth (BRM.23, slip-carved). They have an "A"-shaped character for a tail, like the tassel- mark shown in Lane's No. 30, which has pointed teeth (see also Rapoport Mark No. 7). These odd shapes seem peculiar to the monochrome slipped wares, whether

painted or carved. The monogrammatic quality of the marks may indicate a specialised workshop or craftsman within the Kirman region. A reductive form of the monogrammatic tassel appears on a large plate with an eight-pointed star, carved in the white ground, and floral designs in cobalt filling interstices (ZZZ.261; compare with BRM.23). This dish belongs to a class of Kirman wares (found in the maritime sherd surveys) with medallions arranged as a geometrical pattern on a white ground, usually carved with scales.51 The mark also has the "A"-shaped character below the body of the tassel. The earliest dated slip-painted monochrome vessel is a kalian of 1049/1639-40 (V&A.57). Sampled monochrome slip-painted sherds have a Kirman petrofabric, and a considerable number of the large Kirman-style platters have exteriors painted in monochrome blue (e.g. V&A.342, 609, 627).

The significance of the variations in tassel-marks is not clear. All of the sherds and vessels with tassel-marks that have been sampled have the Kirman petrofabric, including sherds found in the survey collections from the Kirman region. The great variation may be


Fig. 27. MMA.13: Back of dish, cobalt blue and

polychrome slip-painted under an alkaline glaze (courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 91.1.92).

Fig. 28. ROM.53: Dish, cobalt blue painted with chromium black outlines under an alkaline glaze (Royal

Ontario Museum, 909.25.2).

Fig. 29. ROM.22: Deep bowl, cobalt blue painted with chromium black outlines under an alkaline glaze (Royal Ontario Museum,

909.26.33).

indicative of the proliferation of workshops in the

region, attempting to meet an increased demand for their products, while yet retaining certain distinctively recognisable features. The situation may have been similar to that of the potters' village of Qumisha today, which still has at least thirteen workshops operated by different families (some of whom are related). Several of these produce vessels that resemble each other so

closely that they could not be easily distinguished. They

probably use the same materials and so their wares would have the same petrofabric. One of the shared characteristics of the diverse products of Safavid Kirman was the combination of polychrome resembling marble inlay with Chinoiserie designs in cobalt. Certain motifs also appear repeatedly, although not always executed in the same style, such as the "curly leaf' encircled by vines which fill the background (Fig. 23, BRM.05).52 Another is the lotus scroll found on the


Fig. 30. BRM 09: Base of canteen, cobalt blue painted with chromium black outlines under an alkaline glaze, dated 1036/1626-27, (courtesy of the

British Museum, 1950.10-191).

Fig. 31. Potter's mark from BRM 09 with date

1036/1626-27.

reverse of dishes, featuring what appears to be a large folded lotus leaf, often resembling a fungus (Fig. 27, MMA.13; ROM.83, ASH.15). This design was used throughout the second half of the century, as testified by the dish dated 1697-98 (BRM.02).53

The dated tassel-marked wares all fall within the second half of the seventeenth century. However, if we interpret the mark found on the British Museum's canteen of 1626-27 (Fig. 30, BRM.09) as a "proto- tassel", based on the linking of three Chinese characters horizontally (rather than vertically, as is usual in Chinese script, Table lb), the development of the tassel- mark could have preceded the rapid expansion of the Kirman industry in the second half of the century. Stylistically the canteen belongs to the Kirman seal- mark group, so it may represent a transitional phase before the seal-mark was abandoned and the tassel was finally adopted. The transition also involved a change in palette whereby black outlining all but disappeared. What is not clear is the significance of tassel-marks painted in black, usually on vessels with black-outlines (e.g. V&A.143). Were these peripheral to the main Kirman workshops or imitations by outlying provincial potters, competitors further afield, perhaps at Mashhad?

(e) Character-marks (Table 7)

Chinese marks could also appear as four unframed characters (Table 1c), and this form may have inspired the grouping of four pseudo-characters on many Safavid pieces. A fifth character often appears in the centre. There is also a small group of late Safavid wares with Armenian monograms, inspired by the Safavid potter's imitation of Chinese marks.

One form of the Cl mark consists of a circle intersected by a zig-zag line. A sampled dish (Fig. 28, ROM.53) in black-line style with five of these marks in black has the Safavid Petrofabric Five (Mashhad), also found in vessels with the S2c seal-mark. Most of the character-marks are formed by a curving "V"-shaped line or loop, intersected at right angles by a series of straight parallel lines. These characters are found on a deep bowl, painted with black-outlines and cobalt, imitating the classic Ming bowl with round dragon medallions (Fig. 29, ROM.22). It also has Safavid Petrofabric Five (Mashhad).

The C2 mark is a single large character in the form of the Chinese character for "Great", commonly found in Chinese reign marks, which Lane dated to the eighteenth century (Lane No. 51). A third type (C3)


TABLE 7. Character-marks.

C1

•

I

-t

i

ROM.53 ROM.22 MMA.21

MMA.20

C2

V&A.129 Lane #38

C31 iw4

+--++ +

t1w+

MSH.07 Lane #54 Lane #40

C4

ZZZ.111


perhaps derived from the first, is a cross-shaped mark. A fourth type of character-mark (C4) consists of single Armenian letters, found on vessels stylistically comparable to vessels bearing the single character-mark (ZZZ.111, 112, 113). These have not been sampled, but proximity to an Armenian community, such as Isfahan, seems likely. A lustre-painted dish (BER.14), stylistically datable to the end of the seventeenth century, bears a blue character-mark consisting of an "S"-shaped line, intersected by a "T" on its side and a series of lines parallel to the bar of the "T". Two sampled Safavid lustre vessels without potters' marks have Safavid Petrofabric One.54

The examples bearing the Cl mark show such a consistency of style that it is suggestive of a specific group of craftsmen (Fig. 29, ROM.22; V&A.121; FZW.08; MMA.21; MMA.20; V&A.158). This ware is characterised by the use of black outlines and a certain heaviness to the design in contrast to renditions of the same designs by other workshops, particularly in the depiction of animals in foliage or fiery clouds. Scroll bands are very wide and their elements are thick and "clumsy". Except for the large bowl mentioned above (Fig. 29, ROM.22), none of the group has yet been sampled. Notable is the absence of Kangxi influence. On this basis we would tentatively date this workshop to the mid-seventeenth century, at which time it was perhaps the continuation of the S2c group at Mashhad.

It is instructive to follow the same Chinese model through its renditions by the various workshops (Fig. 29, ROM.22). For example, a typical Ming mid- sixteenth century deep bowl, one example of which was found in Syria,55 was widely imitated. Two fine versions are known from Iran, one by a superb Persian potter, probably at Kirman (ASH. 19), where the outside border includes a squirrel-like animal and leaf on a long stem. This genre with its circular medallions on the exterior, separated by a pair of "T"-shaped fungi motifs, is also reproduced on a bowl with S2c seal-mark (ASH.09), associated with Mashhad. The body of the dragon inside the medallion twists over itself as in the first example. The complex squirrel-and-leaf (with grapes) border has been exchanged for the diaper scroll border. Finally, on the bowl with the Cl marks (Fig. 29, ROM.22) the squirrel-and-leaf border has been simplified and the dragon is reduced to a simple curl with a mop-like hair- piece. While the Mashhad seal-mark version (ASH.09) may already have been based on Persian imitations of the Chinese, such as the Kirman bowl (ASH.19), the

Mashhad character-mark vessel (ROM.22) appears to be a further simplification and, therefore, of later date.

Character-marks seem to have appeared in the second half of the seventeenth century. They were certainly used by the Mashhad potters (Safavid Petrofabric Five), but potters residing elsewhere may also have employed them. The case of lustre-wares may be different, as this technique is highly specialised and may well have been limited to one workshop, as suggested by the striking homogeneity. The style of the decoration on the lustre-painted dish described above (BER.14) is closely affiliated with the "stylised chrysanthemum" group found in abundance at Qandahar.56 Similar sherds from Derbent proved to have the Safavid Petrofabric One, thus supporting an attribution to a centre in the north-east, possibly also Mashhad.

4. CONCLUSION

How do these findings revise our commonly held notions about Safavid ceramics? While there remain many questions to be resolved, some new conclusions can be drawn. First, it has become clear that the square seal-mark is not indicative of provenance, but rather of date. The seal-mark was popular for all workshops operating in the first half of the seventeenth century. After that a derivative form of the mark was used by provincial workshops. However, there do seem to have been distinctive ways of drawing the seal-mark, which may be used to identify individual workshops. We have proposed, in particular, assigning the very formal square with symmetrically arranged elements to Kirman (S 1).

Secondly, black outlining was practiced in almost all centres, certainly in both Mashhad and Kirman, at different times in the century. In fact, the earliest dated vessel from Mashhad lacks the black outlines which have always been thought to be characteristic of this centre (1025/1616 or 1027/1617-18, BRM.08). By the third decade of the seventeenth century, black outlining appears at both Mashhad and Kirman, as petrographic analysis testifies. Towards the middle of the century, however, the cobalt palette seems to take over in most Kirman workshops and is joined by polychrome slip- painting. The black pigment does not disappear, however, as it is used as the ground through which

inscriptions and other border designs are scratched. Black outlines continued to be used in the workshop of


Khvaja Muhammad late in the century, together with a celadon-like grey. The location of this workshop has recently been identified as Kirman. Black outlining also was characteristic of the late production of Mashhad (with character-marks), and cobalt-painting is found on the late Safavid works of an unknown centre using a single large character-mark. The large output of polychrome slip-painted vessels and tiles, once attributed to Tabriz, known as "Kubachi" wares, is now securely assigned to the Isfahan region, possibly even to the village of Qumisha, which is still producing pottery.

Beyond these statements we can only hypothesise about the Safavid ceramics industry. The following "scenario" may be proposed as a working hypothesis. The story begins with Shah 'Abbas. Soon after the move to Isfahan, the workshops in Qumisha, active at least since the early sixteenth century, began to produce an attractive polychrome pottery in the contemporary style of painting. The painters may well have been potters attracted from Qazvin or Tabriz. At about the time that Shah 'Abbas made his pilgrimage to Mashhad on foot and undertook the renovation of the Shrine of the Imam

Ri2,57 the kilns that had been active under the Timurids resumed production. The British Museum water- container, painted in cobalt and dated 1616 (or 1617-18; BRM.08), is signed by two craftsman, the decorator, Zri, and the maker of the pot, Mahmiid mi' ?mr al-Yazdi, possibly the same individual who built (or rebuilt) the gold dome over the tomb of the Imam Riz at Mashhad in 1015/1606-7.58 The next dated

vessel, the spittoon/jar of 1624-25 (ASH.13), painted with black outlines, comes from Kirman. The

resumption of control over the Persian Gulf by Shah 'Abbas in 1622 may have fostered the growth of Kirman and promoted an expansion of the local ceramics industry. Shortly thereafter, by 1626-27 (the date of the British Museum canteen, BRM.09) some of the finest painters of decorative arts began to apply their skills to Kirman pottery. Imitations of Wanli style "Kraak" porcelains were so well done that they could pass for Chinese originals in European (and certainly in

Persian) markets. The demand for Persian substitutes must have increased after 1644 with the fall of the Ming dynasty, and particularly after the Dutch could no longer export porcelain from China after 1652.59 Mashhad

potters did not fall far behind their competitors in

Kirman, and both centres enjoyed a brisk trade in the

Isfahan bazaar by the mid-century. Kirmnnan was already beginning to produce imitations of the lively "Transitional" wares in a cobalt palette and introduced the use of the tassel-mark to distinguish its products from those of Mashhad. Kirman potters developed an innovative design, contrasting Chinoiserie elements

painted in cobalt with polychrome floral designs, resembling the crispness and botanical likeness of inlaid

marble, perhaps inspired by Mughal architectural decoration.

All of this brilliant flowering of ceramic arts in Persia seems to have come to an end when China resumed large-scale production of porcelain under the

Kangxi emperor in 1683. Quality declines in both Kirman and Mashhad, affecting not only the richness of the pigments but also the quality of the draftsmanship. Imported goods became affordable and were readily available in the bazaar. Domestic potters now catered to local taste, possibly even to the resident Indian merchant communities, and, eventually, to lower and lower income levels until it hardly paid for the skilled

potter and painter to enter this humbled craft.

Notes

1 J. Carswell, Blue and White (Chicago, 1985); for the

response of Iran during the fifteenth and early sixteenth

centuries, see L. Golombek, R.B. Mason and G.A. Bailey, Tamerlane's Tableware: A New Approach to the Chinoiserie Ceramics of Fifteenth-sixteenth Century Iran (Costa Mesa, Calif., 1996) (hereafter cited as GMB).

2 Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo, Embassy to Tamerlane, tr. G. Le

Strange (London, 1928), pp. 287-88. 3 Chinese sources describing diplomatic exchanges between

the Timurid embassies and the Ming court are translated by E. Bretschneider, "Chinese Intercourse with the Countries of Central and Western Asia in the Fifteenth Century", The China Review, V, (1876-77), 1, 13-40; 2, 109-32; 3, 165-82; 4, 227-41. See discussion by G.A. Bailey in GMB, Chapter 2: "The Stimulus: Chinese Porcelain and Trade with Iran."

4 Basil Gray points this out in "Blue-and-White Vessels in Persian Miniatures of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries", Transactions of the Oriental Ceramics Society, XXIV (1948-49), 23-30; he questioned whether these were Chinese originals or Persian imitations. It is most likely that

patrons would have wanted to show off their authentic

(Chinese) collections in their illustrated manuscripts. If this


were, indeed, the case, it does not mean that imitations were made only later.

5 R.B. Mason, "The Response. I: Petrography and Provenance of Timurid Ceramics", in GMB, pp. 39-45.

6 The latest dated Nishapur piece, which has an inscription naming Nishapur as its provenance, was made in 1522-23 (A.H. 929; Tokyo, Middle East Culture Centre, no. 75) (L. Golombek and R.B. Mason, "New Evidence for Safavid Ceramic Production at Nishapur", Apollo, CXLII/401 (July 1995), 33-36). While this piece was not sampled for petrographic analysis, a dish with similar border was found to have the petrofabric associated with pieces coming from the Nishapur kilns (see Royal Ontario Museum 992.117.1; GMB, Fig. 4.1: B3(III)1/1/2). A dish in the Victoria and Albert Museum with two figures, a musician and dancer, depicted in the style of the Shdh Tahmisp period, has the double-scroll exterior design (GMB, Fig. 4.9: F22(IV)2/1/1/1) which was the trademark of Nishapur (A. Lane, Later Islamic Pottery [London 1957], pl. 53b). It probably dates from the third or fourth decade of the sixteenth century. Although this dish has additional colours (manganese and copper oxide), it should not be considered as part of the Isfahan polychrome group that comes later (erroneously referred to as "Kubachi" wares, see Lane, p. 79).

7 "Under 'Abbas these arts [ceramics, textiles, and carpets] became, in large measure state industries, fostered quite as deliberately as Colbert encouraged the textile and ceramic manufactures of Louis XIV's France" (A. Welch, Shah 'Abbas and the Arts of Isfahan [New York, 1973], p. 19). The impact of Shah 'Abbts on the arts has often been discussed but has never been systematically studied as a problem. Which arts were most affected and how this was accomplished (e.g., through monopolies, guilds, commissions), would make an interesting subject for a symposium.

8 See studies by W. Floor, "Economy and Society", in C. Bier (ed.), Woven from the Soul, Spun from the Heart: Textile Arts of Safavid and Qajar Iran (sixteenth-nineteenth Centuries) (Washington, D.C., 1987), pp. 20-32; idem, in C. Melville (ed.), "The Dutch and the Persian Silk Trade", Safavid Persia: the History and Politics of an Islamic Society, Pembroke Persian Papers, 4 (London, 1996), 323-65; R.P. Matthee, The Politics of Trade in Safavid Iran: Silk for Silver 1600-1730 (Cambridge, 1999); I.B. McCabe, The

Shah's Silk for Europe's Silver: The Eurasian Trade of the

Julfa Armenians in Safavid Iran and India (1530-1750), Armenian Texts and Studies, University of Pennsylvania, no. 15 (Atlanta, Ga, 1999).

9 M. Keyvani, Artisans and Guild Life in the Later Safavid Period: Contributions to the Social-economic History of Persia (Berlin, 1982).

10 J.A. Pope, Chinese Porcelains from the Ardebil Shrine

(Baltimore, 1956). 11 M. Rinaldi, Kraak Porcelain: a Moment in the History of

Trade (London, 1989). 12 Raphael Du Mans, Estat de la Perse en 1660, ed. C. Sch6fer

( Paris, 1890), pp. 196-97; Jean Chardin, Voyages du Chevalier Chardin, en Perse, et autres lieux de l'Orient

(Paris, 1811), vol. IV, pp. 128-30; VII, p. 403; Lane (1957) has gathered most of the relevant texts in the Appendix, pp. 119-23.

13 Chardin notes that ordinary pottery is made everywhere, but that the finest pottery comes from five centres (Shiraz, Mashhad, Yazd, Kirman and Zarand) (op.cit., vol. IV, pp. 128-30; VII, p. 403, for Kirman and Mashhad products); of these only Kirman is mentioned by other European sources: Du Mans, op.cit.; Jean-Baptiste Tavemrnier, The Six Voyages of John Baptista Tavernier ... through Turkey into Persia and the East Indies (London, 1678), p. 41; excerpted in Lane, 1957, pp. 119-120.

14 Chardin, vol. VII, p. 403. 15 See p. 97, where Lane reminds the reader that the evidence

for attributions is based on textual sources (travellers' reports and documents) and that "as yet practically no evidence about local origins has been derived from archaeological excavations in Persia" (p. 74).

16 Y Crowe, "Persian Variations on a Chinese Motif', Faenza, LXV (1979), pp. 390-98; eadem, "Aspects of Persian Blue and White and China in the Seventeenth Century", Transactions ofthe Oriental Ceramics Society (1979-1980), XLIV (1981), pp. 15-30; eadem, "Once Upon a Time: the

Story of Blue and White as Seen from Persia", in The International Ceramics Fair (London, 1995), pp. 20-27; eadem, Chapter 10, "Glazed Ceramics", in Excavations at

Qandahar 1974 and 1975, Society for South Asian Studies,

Monograph No. 1 (Oxford, 1996), pp. 313-64; Marina D. Whitman, Persian Blue-and-white Ceramics: Cycles of Chinoiserie, New York University, PhD diss., 1978; eadem, "The Scholar, the Drinker and the Ceramic Pot-painter", in P. Soucek (ed.), Content and Context of Visual Arts in the Islamic World, College Art Association Monographs, XLIV

(1988), pp. 255-77. 17 A detailed study of this phenomenon is being prepared by

Patty Proctor for the final report of the Project. It would be interesting to know where the potters found their models, whether in the royal collections, such as Ardabil, or in

private hands, or even among the merchants of porcelain in the bazaar. No designs that could have been transferred to

pottery have been found on the many album sheets of the fifteenth century although designs for other decorative arts

proliferate (such as those in the Topkapi Museum), and no

comparable workshop drawings are known from the seventeenth century.


18 The Safavid Ceramics Project was initiated in 1994, supported by generous grants from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Royal Ontario Museum. The team consists of Lisa Golombek (Project Director; Safavid history and art historical analysis); Robert B. Mason (ceramic petrography and archaeology), Patty Proctor (Chinese history and Chinese models for Persian imitations), and Eileen Reilly (research assistant and artist). The project has been greatly helped by the invaluable contributions of other research assistants over the years: (in alphabetical order) Patricia Ferguson, Angela Lee, Jennifer Pittman and Rachel Taylor. They together have compiled the impressive database, photographed and drawn many objects, and researched shapes, marks, and motifs.

19 R.B. Mason, To Shine Like the Sun: Lustre-painted and Associated Pottery from the Early Islamic World (Costa Mesa, Cal., 2000); GMAB.

20 GMB. 21 R.B. Mason and L. Golombek, in press. 22 Qumisha was visited by Golombek, Mason and Rachel

Taylor in the summer of 1996. 23 A.U. Pope reported finding at Qumisha and Sava slip-

painted wares similar to those found at Kubachi and had suggested Qumisha as the place of origin of the polychrome slip-painted wares with figures painted in the style of the Isfahan workshop of Rid 'Abbisi (Survey, vol. II, pp. 1648, 1655).

24 Two such examples are known from the fifteenth century, a small jar in the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh (RSM 1888.570), dated 848/1444-45, and a dish in the State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg (VG.2650), dated 878/1473-74 (see GMB, pl. 55-56; pp. 131-32, 135), both made in Mashhad; and one from the sixteenth century, a blue-and-white dish in the Middle East Culture Centre, Tokyo (no. 75), dated 929/1522-23, made in Nishapur (see Golombek and Mason, 1995). Although tiles and pottery may not have been produced in the same workshop, it is significant that a blue-and-white tile dated 15 Rabi' II 939 (14 November 1532) gives its place of manufacture as Qumisha (sAkht dar mawdi'a [misread in the auction catalogue as "Qumis", Christie's, London sale of Islamic Art and Indian Miniatures, 18 October 1994, lot 314] ), this being a town just south of Isfahan (see below).

25 Photographs of the base were not available for all objects studied; more examples of potters' marks may come to light as work on the Project progresses.

26 We are grateful to our research assistant, Eileen Reilly, for her input into the sorting process, her superb drawings, and her maintenance of the database.

27 These tables include marks published by Lane (1957, pp. 115-18), I.V. Rapoport ("Kermanskaia Keramika s rospisiia kobaltom xvi-xviii v. v sobranii Ermitazha", Trudy

Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha X (1969), 168-85), and Carswell (1985, pp. 141, 143).

28 Lane, p. 117. 29 Compare, for example, Pope, 1981, pl. 17. 30 See medallion with combat of dragon and lions from an

album in the Topkapi Saray Library (H. 2161, f. 2a; ill. J.M. Rogers, Islamic Art andDesign 1500-1700 (London, 1983),

fig. 18; Rogers suggests this type of drawing as a model for the ceramics but dates the group to the mid-sixteenth century, p. 123).

31 Pope, 1981, pl. 108. 32

R. Krahl, ed., Chinese Ceramics in the Topkapi Sarayi

AhMuseum (London, 1986), vol. 11, figs. 1127, 1138-40. 33 Op. cit., vol. II, figs. 1406-70. 34 The base of a vase(?) with the date 1037/1627-28 painted

beside its black seal-mark (fragmentary, but suggestive of the S2c type) might provide important petrographic information if sampled (V&A. 117).

35 For a Chinese parallel, see Krahl, 1986, vol. II, fig. 1611. 36 There was no tradition in Iranian culture for spitting prior to

the seventeenth century, when it may have come in with tobacco use or the chewing of betel leaves (A. Reid, "From Betel-Chewing to Tobacco-Smoking in Indonesia", Journal

of Asian Studies XLIV (1985), 529-47). However, tobacco

chewing does not seem to have accompanied the smoking of tobacco, which came from the New World, nor does betel chewing (and spitting) seem to have played the same role in Persian society as it did in India. Nevertheless, reference is made to this custom by John Fryer, who visited Persia in the 1670s: "The Rooms are spread with Carpets as in India, and they have Pigdans, or Spitting Pots of the Earth of this Place, which is valued next to that of China, to void their Spittle in" (A New Account ofEast-India and Persia ... begun in 1672, and finished 1681 [London, 1698], vol. II, p. 163). Reid (1985, p. 537) suggests that tobacco chewing arrived in Indonesia with the Portuguese and Dutch sailors, who chewed tobacco rather than smoking it on board, which was forbidden. Perhaps Fryer witnessed the betel-chewing of Indian merchants resident in Iran (both Hindu and Muslim, see S. Dale, Indian Merchants and Eurasian Trade, 1600-1750 (Cambridge, 1994), especially Chapter 3). The vessel represented by ASH. 13 and many other examples of this type could not have been used by a large circle of people, with the spittoon placed in the centre of the circle as was the practice in India, because it lacks the wide rim for

catching the projectile. If anything, such vessels might have been used for personal, private betel or tobacco chewing (Pope, Survey, vol. II, p. 1448, fig. 519, called it a "hand

spittoon"). Late seventeenth-century versions appear in album paintings (see S. Canby, The Golden Age ofPersian Art (London, 1999), pl. 144, c. 1670; pl. 156, dated

1694-95).


37 For the border, see Krahl, 1986, vol. II, fig. 2217; for the floral scroll elements, compare Krahl, vol. II, fig. 2045.

38 Rinaldi, 1989: pl. 53; Krahl, 1986, vol. II, fig. 1119; landscape with deer continues into the seventeenth century, see Rinaldi, pl. 84.

39 These are the pedestrian blue-and-white "Kubachi" wares, executed rapidly by floating cobalt oxide over incised lines, which gives a blurry effect. Most books on Persian pottery ignore them, although the polychrome slip-painted wares are generally included; one of the largest collections is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

40 Lane, 1957, pl. 90B (V&A.225). 41 Lane's drawings of tassel-marks are complemented by the

drawings published by Rapoport, 1969, p. 177, fig. 9. 42 It demonstrates that the earliest dated Kirman wares had

black outlines, in contrast to the widely-held notion that the exclusively cobalt palette (and polychrome) identifies Kirman ware.

43 Rapoport, 1969, p. 177, fig. 9. 44 Rogers has suggested that carved slip-wares were designed

for the Mughal market (1983, p. 124), but an even better case can be made for the polychrome wares. Perhaps both catered to Indian taste, not only for those in India but also for the many Indian merchants who served as brokers throughout Iran, and especially in Kirman (S. Dale, 1994); on pietra dura see E. Koch, Shah Jahan and Orpheus: the Pietre Dure Decoration (Graz, 1988); P. Pal, et al., Romance of the Taj Mahal (Los Angeles, 1989).

45 Drawn by Lane, No. 50. 46 Rapoport, p. 177, fig. 9. 47 A baluster vase in the collection of John Carswell; a sherd

from the Yemen (WSW-22). 48 Krahl, 1986, vol. II, fig. 1404 (late sixteenth-early

seventeenth century, possibly inspired by wood-block prints).

49 Compare ASH.15, Kirman petrofabric, with plate in Topkapi, No. 15/2122 (Krahl, 1986, vol. II, fig. 1611).

50 Crowe, 1996, p. 317. 51 Discussed by Crowe, 1979, p. 27. 52 SCT-11, found at Tabriz; TRK-66; YC-4; ASH.39. 53 For a possible Chinese source, see Krahl, 1986, vol. II, fig.

1611. 54 Sampled vessels include ROM nos. 908x25.6 and

910.116.2.

5s Carswell, op. cit., no. 44; Krahl, 1986, vol. II, fig. 993. 56 Crowe, 1996, p. 317; Crowe, 1979, pp. 390-91, dates the

Qandahar fragments with leaf and "tassels" to c. 1667, on the basis of a dated Chinese model in the Ashmolean Museum.

57 The pilgrimage took place in 1010/1601 (C. Melville, "Shah 'Abbas and the Pilgrimage to Mashhad", in Melville

(ed.), Safavid Persia: the History and Politics of an Islamic

Society (London, 1996), pp. 191-229).

58 Lane, 1957, p. 99; L. Mayer, Islamic Architects and Their

Works (Geneva, 1956), p. 86, citing SanI al-Dawlah: "Work of Kamal al-Din Mahmud al-Yazdi in 1015

(1606-7)". 59 Lane, 1957, p. 75.

Bibliography

Ashmolean Museum. Eastern Ceramics and Other Works of Art from the Collections of Gerald Reitlinger: Catalogue of the Memorial Exhibition (Oxford, 1981).

Canby, Sheila. The Golden Age of Persian Art, 1501-1722

(London, 1999). Carswell, John, et al. Blue and White: Chinese Porcelain and

its Impact on the Western World (Chicago, 1985). Crowe, Yolande. "Aspects of Persian Blue & White and China

in the Seventeenth Century." TOCS (1979-80) XLIV (1981), pp. 15-30.

- "A Preliminary Enquiry into Underglaze Decoration of Safavid Wares", in M. Medley (ed.), Decorative

Techniques and Styles in Asian Ceramics: A Colloquy held 26-28 June 1978 (London: Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art, 1978), pp. 104-25.

- "Once Upon a Time: the Story of Blue and White as Seen from Persia." The International Ceramics Fair (London, 1995), pp. 20-27.

Ettinghausen, Richard. "Important Pieces of Persian Pottery in London Collections." Ars Islamica II (1935), pp. 45-64.

Ferrier, R.W. (ed.), The Arts of Persia (London, 1989): J.M.

Rogers, "Ceramics," pp. 255-69. Grube, Emrnst J. "The Art of Islamic Pottery," BMMAL (February,

1965). Hayward Gallery. The Arts oflslam (London, 1976). Jenkins, Marilyn. Islamic Pottery: a BriefHistory [reprint from

BMMAIA (Spring, 1983)]. Lane, Arthur. Later Islamic Pottery: Persia, Syria, Egypt,

Turkey (London, 1957). Pope, A.U. A Survey ofPersian Art (London, 1938). Rinaldi, Maura. Kraak Porcelain: a Moment in the History of

Trade (London, 1989). Rogers, J.M. Islamic Art & Design 1500-1700 (London, 1983). Soustiel, Jean. La CUramique islamique (Paris, 1985). Staatliche Museen 1979: Staatliche Museen Preussischer

Kulturbesitz, Museen fir Islamische Kunst, Katalog (Berlin, 1979).

Staatliche Museen 1986: Islamische Kunst Verborgene Schdtze

(Berlin, 1986). Whitman, M.D. Persian Blue-and-white Ceramics: Cycles of

Chinoiserie (New York University, PhD dissertation, 1978). - "The Scholar, the Drinker and the Ceramic Pot-painter", in

P. Soucek (ed.), Content and Context of Visual Arts in the Islamic World (University Park, PA, 1988), pp. 255-77.

Wilkinson, Charles K. Iranian Ceramics (New York, 1963).

z

tal

?o

z C/)

CI)

M

cn

Appendix 1. Abbreviations for Collection Names

ASH Ashmolean Museum, Oxford BER Staatliche Museum, Dahlem & Bode, Berlin BRM British Museum, London FMK Museum fir Kunsthandwerk, Frankfurt FZW Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge LOU Mus6e du Louvre, Paris MAG Magdalen College, Oxford MMA Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York MSH Miras-i Farhangi, Mashhad ROM Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto SEV Musee du S vres TRO Troesch Collection, Switzerland V&A Victoria and Albert Museum, London ZZZ Private Collection

Appendix 2. Objects mentioned in this study.

Project No. Collection Accession No. Obiject Type Date References

ASH.09 Ashmolean 1978.1778 bowl Black-line Ashmolean Museum 1981, no. 346 ASH.10 Ashmolean 1978.2167 dish Black-line Ashmolean Museum 1981, no. 347 ASH.13 Ashmolean X1213 jar Black-line 1034 (1624-25) Whitman 1978, fig. 202 ASH.14 Ashmolean 1978-1784 dish Black-line Whitman 1978, fig. 251 ASH.15 Ashmolean 1978-2166 dish B&W ASH.16 Ashmolean Barnett loan dish B&W ASH.19 Ashmolean 1978-1777 bowl Black-line ASH.21 Ashmolean 1978-1707 tulip vase Black-line ASH.39 Ashmolean 1978-1709 bottle B&W polychrome BER.01 Staatliche:B 14231 salt-dish Black-line 1037 (1627-28) Lane 1957, pl. 78A BER.04 Staatliche:D 145/68 dish B&W* 1080 (1669-70) Staatliche Museen 1979, no. 624 BER.08 Staatliche:D 172768 tulip vase B&W Staatliche Museen 1979, no. 621 BER.14 Staatliche:D 14192 dish Lustre-painted BER.26 Staatliche:B 14210 dish B&W Staatliche Museen 1986, no. 291 BER.32 Staatliche:B 72.766 bottle B&W

0. H. H

t?

C/)

z.

H j

t> C

?~ H

0

z• 0

0

tZ z z

Project No. Collection Accession No. Obiect Type Date References BRM.02 British M. 96.6-26.5 dish B&W Curly-leaf* 1109 (1697-98) Lane 1957, pl. 72B; Crowe 1978, pl. 5d;

Canby 1999, fig. 162 BRM.05 British M. 96.6.26.4 bowl B&W/Polychrome BRM.08 British M. 1902.5-21.1 water pot B&W 1025 (1616) or Pope 1938, pl. 785A; Canby 1999, fig. 105

1027 (1617-18) BRM.09 British M. 1950.10-19.1 bottle Black-line 1036 (1626-27) Rogers 1983, fig. 154; Canby 1999, fig. 106 BRM.14 British M 78.12-30.620 dish Black-line Crowe 1979-80, figs. 6-7 BRM.17 British M. 91.6-17.6 spittoon Black-line BRM.23 British M. 1970.2-7.1 dish Slip-carved Rogers 1983, fig. 172; Hayward Gallery

1976 no. 399; Canby 1999, fig. 32 FMK.07 Frankfurt V1 dish Black-line Rogers 1983, fig. 17; Ferrier 1989, fig. 24 FZW.05 Fitzwilliam C.482-1991 dish B&W FZW.08 Fitzwilliam C.481-1991 dish Black-line LOU.08 Louvre MA0688 kalian B&W/Polychrome Soustiel 1985, pl. 308 MAG.08 Magdalen S6 kalian Monochrome Slip-painted MAG.15 Magdalen S8 dish B&W/Polychrome MMA.07 MMA 14.64.2 bottle B&W/Polychrome Wilkinson 1963, pl. 86 MMA.09 MMA 66.107.9 spittoon B&W/Polychrome MMA.10 MMA 91.1.129 dish B&W/Polychrome* Pope 1938, pl. 800B MMA.11 MMA 14.64.3 bottle B&W/Polychrome MMA.13 MMA 91.1.92 dish B&W/Polychrome* Jenkins 1983, no. 56 MMA.20 MMA X.33 dish Black-line MMA.21 MMA 64.109 bowl Black-line Grube 1965, figs. 34-35 MMA.70 MMA 1967.67.108 bowl B&W Carswell 1985, fig. 83 MSH.03 Miras-i XXIA sherd Black-line MSH.07 Miras-i XVIB sherd Black-line MSH.08 Miras-i GP3-1 sherd B&W ROM.22 ROM 909.26.33 bowl Black-line ROM.50 ROM 908.22.1 dish Black-line ROM.53 ROM 909.25.2 dish Black-line ROM.54 ROM 909.25.4 dish Black-line ROM.80 ROM 995.143.1 dish Black-line ROM.81 ROM 995.155.1 dish Black-line ROM.83 ROM 994.183.1 dish B&W* ROM.89 ROM 2000.48.1 dish Black-line 1084 (1673-74) Bonhams London Oct. 11, 2000 lot no. 697 SEV.02 Sevres 8388 dish Black-line Soustiel 1985, pl. 307 TRO.01 Troesch dish Black-line Sotheby's London, Oct. 12, 1981 lot no. 176;

Rinaldi 1989, pl. 271

0 c z

0

0-4 cn

Project No. Collection Accession No. Object Type Date References V&A.14 V&A 1152-1876 dish Black-line Lane 1957, pl. 80B; Rinaldi 1989, pl. 270

Crowe 1979-80, fig. 18 V&A.18 V&A 2811-1876 dish B&W Crowe 1979-80, figs. 9-10 V&A.21 V&A 1008-1876 dish Black-line Rogers 1983, fig. 15 V&A.24 V&A C1974.1910 dish Black-line* Rogers 1983, fig. 164; Lane 1957, mark

no. 50 V&A.29 V&A 458-1878 dish Black-line V&A.55 V&A 931-1886 dish B&W* 1077 (1666-67) Ettinghausen 1935, fig. 16; Crowe, 1978,

pls. 4 d,e V&A.60 V&A 2897.1876 dish Black-line Rogers 1983, fig. 1 V&A.74 V&A 1140.1876 dish Black-line Rogers 1983, fig. 158; Crowe 1978, fig. 2e V&A.76 V&A 419-1874 dish Black-line V&A.78 V&A 244-1884 dish Black-line V&A.79 V&A 245-1884 dish Black-line V&A.83 V&A 243-1884 dish Black-line V&A.104 V&A c1971-1910 dish Black-line V&A.117 V&A 460-1888 sherd Black-line 1037 (1627-28) V&A.121 V&A 1004-1876 dish Black-line Crowe 1995, fig. 2; Whitman 1978, fig. 254 V&A.124 V&A 599-1889 dish B&W V&A.126 V&A 1112-1876 bowl Black-line V&A.127 V&A 916-1876 bowl B&W V&A.142 V&A 1150-1876 dish Black-line V&A.143 V&A 451-1878 dish Black-line Whitman 1988, fig. 27; Lane 1957, mark

no. 45 V&A.151 V&A 2809-1876 dish B&W Curly-leaf V&A.158 V&A 408-1874 dish Black-line V&A.163 V&A 1273-1876 dish B&W Rogers 1983, fig. 156; Crowe 1979-80, fig.8 V&A.222 V&A spouted bowl Slip-carved Lane 1957, pl. 89A V&A.225 V&A dish Slip-carved Lane 1957, pl. 90B ZZZ.111 dish B&W Sotheby's London April 30, 1992 lot no. 116 ZZZ.112 dish B&W Sotheby's London April 30, 1992 lot no. 116 ZZZ.113 dish B&W Sotheby's London April 30, 1992 lot no. 116 ZZZ.134 kalian Black-line Soustiel 1985, pl. 320A; Hayward Gallery

1976, no. 398 ZZZ.261 dish B&W Soustiel 1985, pl. 327

*with incised black band

Documents

British Institute of Persian Studies · PDF fileBritish Institute of Persian Studies Safavid Potters' Marks and the Question of Provenance Author(s): Lisa Golombek, Robert B. Mason,