American University in Cairo

AUC Knowledge Fountain

Theses and Dissertations

2-1-2012

Fatimid metalwork
Gregory Bilotto

Follow this and additional works at: https://fount.aucegypt.edu/etds

Recommended Citation

APA Citation
Bilotto, G. (2012).Fatimid metalwork [Master’s thesis, the American University in Cairo]. AUC Knowledge
Fountain.
https://fount.aucegypt.edu/etds/888
MLA Citation
Bilotto, Gregory. Fatimid metalwork. 2012. American University in Cairo, Master's thesis. AUC Knowledge
Fountain.
https://fount.aucegypt.edu/etds/888

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by AUC Knowledge Fountain. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of AUC Knowledge Fountain. For more
information, please contact [email protected].
 THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF CAIRO

School of Humanities and Social Sciences

FATIMID METALWORK

A thesis submitted to

The Department of Arab and Islamic Civilizations

by
Gregory Bilotto
BA Medieval Studies
BA Art History

(under the supervision of Dr. Bernard O’Kane)

January 2013
 Dedication

This work is dedicated to my professors, Drs. Bernard O’Kane and George Scanlon, for
teaching precision and the “remembering eye,” Dr. Amr El-Gohary for his selfless help and
finally to my mother for her unwavering support and encouragement.

ii
 Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my professors Drs. Bernard O’Kane and George Scanlon for their
great enthusiasm and excellence, which inspired me in the field of Islamic art, architecture and
archaeology. For teaching me to be critical, analyze, precise and be independent in my work and
research.
I am thankful to Dr. Amr El-Gohary at the National Research Centre in Dokki, Cairo. He
is truly a great friend and scientist. I am indebted to his tireless help with a range of issues and
for his great kindness.
It is important that I acknowledge the staff of the Sackler Museum of Art at Harvard
University in Cambridge. Gratitude should be extended to Kathryn Eremin, Karen Manning and
Mary McWilliams for their exceptional assistance and generosity in sharing their museum’s
collection and publications.
Finally, I would like to thank the staff of the New York Public Library, Arts and
Architecture Division in New York. Their dedication and flexibility in meeting the various
unique requirements of each researcher was greatly appreciated. Their collection is notably one
of the best in the world.

iii
Preface

A recent work regarding Islamic metalwork and specifically the Fatimid contributions came to
the author’s attention after the submission of this thesis. The work listed below is noted and will
be reviewed for any additional Fatimid metal objects that might impact this thesis.

Mariam Rosser-Owen and Venetia Porter, eds., Metalwork and Material Culture in the Islamic
World: Art, Craft and Text: Essays Presented to James W. Allen (London: 2012).

iv
Table of Contents

I. Historical Introduction 1

Metalwork in Egypt and the Greater Islamic World under the 4

Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid Dynasties

A Concentration on Fatimid Metalwork 8

II. Umayyad and Abbasid Metalwork 9

Introduction to Umayyad Metal Objects 10

Umayyad Metalwork and Figural Usage 11

Umayyad Precious Metal Objects 14

Umayyad Metalwork with Zoomorphic and Figural Usage 18

Umayyad Metalwork with Christian Imagery and Themes 24

Auxiliary Umayyad Metal Objects 30

Introduction to Metal Objects of the Abbasid Period in Greater Persia, 30

Egypt and Syria

Abbasid Metalwork with Persian Themes 32

Abbasid Metalwork with Figural Usage and Zoomorphic Decoration 37

The Continuation of Abbasid Metalwork in Egypt from the 9 th-10th Century 42

Additional Metal Objects of the Abbasid Period 45

III. Fatimid Metalwork with a corpus of all known objects 46

Introduction to Fatimid Metalwork 46

The Fatimid Identity and Development of Metalwork 47

Figural Metal Objects with an Aesthetic Raison d’être in the Fatimid Period 47

Fatimid Zoomorphic, Foliate and Figural Metalwork 54

v
 Utilitarian Metalwares and Precious Metals in the Fatimid Period 67

The Fatimid Hoards 76

Fatimid Metal Objects with an Uncertain Origin 80

A Conclusion to Fatimid Metalwork 87

IV. The Griffon from Pisa 88

Historical Introduction to the Pisa Griffon 89

A Review of Existing Literature Concerning the Pisa Griffon and a 89

Comparison with Similar Figural Metalwork

A Probable Provenance of the Pisa Griffon 94

V. Conclusion 96

Metalwork from the Early Islamic Period and the Fatimid Contribution 96

Bibliography 98

List of Figures 104

Umayyad and Abbasid Metalwork Figures 175

Fatimid Metalwork Figures 312

Appendix I 508

List of Figures 508

Figures 512

Appendix II 544

Concise Table of Important Dates and Dynasties in Egypt 622-1517 CE 544

vi
Chapter 1

Historical Introduction

Metalwork in the Islamic world encompasses a large geographical area from Spain to

India, over an enormous time-period with the earliest dynasty, the Rashidun Caliphate in 632 CE

to the present. Islamic metalwork includes numerous categories of artisanship incorporating

arms, armor, vessels, utensils, coins, jewelry, tools, scientific instruments, figurines and

polycandela. The focus of this writing however will be to analyze the four categories of metal

objects into which the vast bulk of Fatimid metalwork falls, namely vessels, utensils, figurines,

lamps and polycandela

The Fatimids (909-1171) were an Islamic dynasty of Shi ‘i origin which at one time

occupied much of North Africa and other areas comprising modern Egypt, Sudan, Libya, the

Maghreb, Malta, Sicily, the Levant and the Hijaz (app. I, A). The Fatimids began their conquest

eastward from Tunisia in the 10th century and captured Egypt in 969 CE from the Ikhshidid

dynasty, a vassal state of the Abbasids. The founding of the city Cairo was the result and it

became a new seat for their caliphate. Emerging from the Fatimid capital would be a tremendous

wealth of decorative art, including ceramics, ivory, woodwork, glass and today’s much-neglected

medium of metalwork.

The bulk of Islamic metalwork in existence consists of luxurious metal objects made of

copper, brass, bronze, tin and iron. These objects can be whole or inlaid, i.e., brass inlaid with

silver or gold. It is estimated that there are only 70-80 surviving solid silver objects from the

medieval Islamic world.1 The scarcity of solid gold and silver metal objects in existence today

was due to their portability and the need for their value during a financial crisis or war. Often

they were melted down and reused to pay debts. In other cases, their high value and easy

1
Allan, Pots and Pans 57.

1
mobility made them prized booty through invasions and wars, such as the allegedly looted Pisa

Griffon (fig. 313).2 Gold and silver metal objects however were abundant in the Islamic world

especially during the Fatimid period. The 11th century Persian traveler Nasir-i Khusraw having

visited the Ka’ba in Mecca mentioned the wealth of precious metals used to furnish the mosque.

He particularly noted the silver plated doors, door rings, six silver mihrabs with gilt and niello

decoration and silver mosque lamps. 3 Nasir-i Khusraw in another journey to the Dome of the

Rock in Jerusalem recorded the presence of silver lamps donated from the Fatimid Caliph al-

Zahir with his name inscribed in gold on the base. 4 Another reason for the scarcity of expensive

metal objects was the prohibition of their usage in funerary burial under the praxis of Islam. The

utilitarian class of metal objects, those that were made coarsely, also does not boast many

examples as the substance of this category was often melted for scrap when no longer functional

or desired.5 Finally, although accounts of vast Fatimid wealth in silver and gold were recorded,

there was a shortage of silver in the Near Eastern Region during the 11 th and 12th centuries. 6 This

might account for the limited number of surviving Fatimid metal objects, as fewer were

produced toward the decline of the Fatimid Caliphate. There was also a revolt in the 11th century

that resulted in a sacking of the royal treasury in Cairo and consequently many objects were lost.

Islamic metalwork is found today in museums and private collections, with new objects

appearing in auctions and exhibitions occasionally. In some instances religious organizations,

ecclesiastical and Islamic houses of worship still host some fine examples. The treasuries of

Christian-European religious organizations, churches and monasteries dating from the medieval

period were a known source of Islamic decorative arts including metalwork. Their collections of

2
Dodds et al., Al-Andalus 216.
3
Ward, Islamic Metalwork 14.
4
Bloom, Arts City Victorious 100.
5
Ward, Islamic Metalwork 14.
6
Allan, Pots and Pans 58.

2
Islamic metal objects often emerged from the spoils of the returning Crusaders (a supposed

example would again be the Pisa Griffon, fig. 313)7 or through trade. Additional sources of

Islamic metalware and particularly precious metal objects would be from archaeological

investigations such as the recent discovery of the Fatimid hoard in Caesarea or the another

Fatimid hoard from Tiberias. In the first example, a family that probably fled the violence from

the city of Caesarea during the Fatimid era secretly buried their metal possessions for safety to be

retrieved during more stable times.8 In the second example, a metalsmith, fleeing from the city of

Tiberias, buried the contents of his workshop for later retrieval. 9 The Tiberias hoard was actually

the largest known discovery of Fatimid metalwork in the world. 10 Other possible sources for

hoards are shipwrecks, such as the cache of metalwork discovered in the 11th century shipwreck

at Serçe Limani, Turkey. In this instance, a joint Fatimid-Byzantine commercial ship sank, which

preserved a hoard of Islamic metalwork from both the eastern and western spheres, including

some from Fatimid Egypt and Syria. 11 A treaty was signed in 1037 between the Fatimid and

Byzantine Empires which provided for peaceable relations and improved joint commerce. 12 The

result was an increase in the wealth of metal objects and acquisition of new skills to produce

metalwork from the Byzantines.13 All of the hoards will be discussed in Chapter Three.

In sum, we understand that most of the existing Islamic metalwork today that is pre-1200

was preserved in mosques, European religious organizations, churches and monasteries of the

Middle Ages and indirectly in buried hoards and shipwrecks. The remaining metal objects

survived because they were too valuable to be melted for scrap and not valuable enough to be

7
Dodds et al., Al-Andalus 216.
8
Arnon et al., Fatimid Hoard Caesarea 246.
9
Dayagi-Mendels et al., Chronicles of the Land 196-200.
10
Ponting, Scientific Analysis Tiberias 35.
11
Allan et al., Metal Vessels 348-50.
12
Hasson, Islamic Jewellery 56.
13
Ibid., 56-7.

3
melted down to pay debts. A typical post-1200 example would be a brass object inlaid with

silver. Although the silver was valuable, it needed to be extracted from the brass to have any

monetary benefit. Consequently, few solid gold and silver metal objects survive today and the

utilitarian objects, which were discarded or melted down when no longer of any use, remain few

in number.

Metalwork in Egypt and the Greater Islamic World under the Umayyad, Abbasid and

Fatimid Dynasties

“It is generally accepted that Islamic art has its roots in the Eastern Mediterranean area, in

Byzantine and Coptic arts on the one hand and in Sasanian and Central Asian arts on the

other.”14 This applies especially to early Islamic metalwork production concerning pre-Islamic

influences however it should be noted that the term Greater Persia over Central Asian better

characterizes part of the metalwork in this research. Metalware from Egypt can be characterized

as combining exterior influences from neighboring cultures with traditional crafts and techniques

native to Egypt prior to the Islamic conquest. The Islamic triumph over Egypt led to familiarity

with Byzantine and Coptic metalworking techniques and styles. Numerous subsequent Islamic

dynasties were established in Egypt and brought their own version of artisanship and skills from

foreign lands but not without having been influenced from pre-Islamic techniques and styles to

varying degrees. This explains the difficulty in establishing a concrete provenance for some

metalwork in the Early Islamic Period (622-1200) and specifically Fatimid metalwork. In some

instances, the metal object might have come from Syria or parts of North Africa controlled by

the Fatimid Caliphate, but through stylistic evaluation could be attributed to the Byzantine

period. For our purposes, all metalwork produced during the Fatimid Caliphal period (909-1171)

14
Fehérvári et al., 1400 Years Islamic Art 23.

4
in Egypt and its surrounding territories, whether for Christian or Muslim patrons, is considered

Fatimid.

An additional factor, which further complicates attribution of an exact origin for metal

objects to the Fatimid period and both the Umayyad and Abbasid periods is that metal objects are

portable. Metalware could have been produced in any of the territories of the Umayyads,

Abbasids and Fatimids and then have been transported throughout the land through trade or

spoils of war and sometimes as gifts to neighboring states.15 Transportation of metal objects to

their findspots makes a secure provenance difficult to discern and consequently, reliance on

stylistic analysis provides the strongest evidence for attribution to one of the three dynasties.

Alternatively, some museums and private collectors use scientific testing of the metals in

the objects to attempt to provide a more reliable dating or provenance. These tests are expensive

and often require a sample piece to be removed from the object. Additionally, metalwork

produced in the Early Islamic Period sometimes re-utilized scraps from the pre-Islamic world.

Fatimid metal objects might be divided and reused with later period metal objects, i.e., an

incomplete Fatimid lampstand in the Sackler Museum of Art at Harvard University in

Cambridge (fig. 202). The middle section of the lampstand is datable to the Fatimid period but

the top and bottom sections were not and are stylistically a Persian design, especially in regard to

the feet. A test of the metals in the object therefore might produce inconclusive results. Scientific

analysis of metalwork is not as reliable as it is for ivory, wood or other decorative arts, due to the

vagaries of melting, remolding and soldering.

The usage of stylistic evidence to support identification of metalwork from the Umayyad,

Abbasid and Fatimid periods does not necessarily produce a secured origin. Nonetheless, it

remains an important factor in the identification of pieces from the three dynasties. Although
15
Hasson, Islamic Jewellery 58-9.

5
very few metal objects created in gold and silver remain from the three Caliphal periods in

Egypt, historical and literary evidence provide accounts of their existence. 16 A review of existing

examples and historical and literary texts indicates that during the Fatimid period gold and silver

metal objects were more common than in the Umayyad and Abbasid periods. This is partially

supported through archaeological finds from the Umayyad period in Egypt, Syria and Jordan,

which seldom provide any examples of precious metals. A majority of the surviving precious

metal objects from the Umayyad period or earlier transitional Rashidun Caliphate (632-661)

originated from Iran, although it was probable that during the Umayyad period, a large quantity

of their precious metalwork was produced at their capital in Damascus. Undoubtedly, the great

wealth the Fatimids commanded had a strong influence on the types of materials used in the

creation of decorative arts. Regarding stylistic analysis, metalwork styles from the Fatimid

period demonstrated a more distinctive influence of pre-Islamic decoration as compared to metal

objects from the Umayyad and Abbasid periods. The Fatimid adoption of pre-Islamic ideas,

especially from Egypt, developed into their distinctive conception of themes and decoration.

The hadith forbade the use of precious metals for any Muslim e.g., “He who drinks from

a silver vessel will have hellfire gurgle in his belly.”17 Nevertheless, precious metal objects were

prevalent during the Islamic periods of rule in Egypt and its adjacent territories. Figural

decoration was also usually avoided in the Islamic world in a religious context. While not

expressly condemned in the Holy Quran, it was generally forbidden because it was reminiscent

of earlier religions that practiced idolatry and iconography. 18 Human and animal decorations

were very common however in Islamic decorative arts. Surprisingly, during the Fatimid period

human decoration specifically on metalware remained scarce although it was very prevalent on

16
Bloom, Arts City Victorious 99-100.
17
Ward, Islamic Metalwork 14.
18
Ibid., 19.

6
other mediums such as carved ivory, wood and ceramics. As mentioned previously human

figural imagery, particularly nude women during the Umayyad period seemed to be far more

prevalent on metalwork than in the Fatimid period. One example from the Umayyad period is a

bronze and iron brazier with two nude females from al-Fudayn, Jordan (fig. 1). The only

surviving freestanding human figural example of metalwork remaining from the Fatimid period

is the tambourine player from the Islamic Museum of Cairo (fig. 126). Although other figural

imagery and two abstract figures were also known in Fatimid metalwork, they are not

comparable to the female musician. There is no evidence to explain the disproportionate usage of

human figural imagery employed on other mediums of the decorative arts except for metalware

during the Fatimid period. Animal and zoomorphic decoration remained a common Fatimid

theme. Numerous Fatimid zoomorphic metal objects survive such as aquamaniles, ewers,

figurines, incense burners, lampstands and waterspouts, incorporating both realistic and fantastic

animals such as birds, gazelle, hare, lions and griffons; these will be discussed in Chapter Three.

The response to a need for decoration other than figural in the Islamic world led to the

creation and advancement of geometric, vegetal and epigraphic forms and designs. These forms

of decoration were widespread throughout the Dar al-Islam and dominated the artistic program in

the individual Islamic dynasties of Egypt. Elaborate epigraphy was developed on certain

metalwork with intricately detailed arabesques or vegetal designs that filled the background and

in some cases interacted with the epigraphic bands. It was in the Fatimid period that geometric,

vegetal and epigraphic decoration particularly blossomed in the form of scrolling vines and

palmettes. In the medium of Fatimid metalwork, epigraphy was not a common theme however

one should note that some of the identified Fatimid metal objects do indeed contain epigraphy

such as a silver spice box (fig. 233), a bucket (fig. 229) and a cylindrical box (fig. 236), despite

7
the contrary opinion of some scholars.19 Numerous Fatimid metalwork examples had some form

of epigraphic details, even simple utilitarian objects.

A Concentration on Fatimid Metalwork

Metalwork produced during the Fatimid presence in Egypt yielded some of the finest

metal objects in the Islamic world. Although metalwork manufactured under the Umayyads,

Abbasids and Ayyubids was worthy of great regard, even with the Ayyubid usage of metal inlay

work in Egypt, a novel 12th century technique, 20 Fatimid metalwork surpassed the other dynasties

as with most of their contributions to the decorative arts. Even the simplest most utilitarian object

such as a cast bucket for washing (fig. 229) or a silver mirror-back (fig. 234) were decorated.

The bucket was made of cast copper and contained patterns around the lip and below the Kufic

inscription, which was situated just below the lip. 21 The mirror reverse was made of hammered

silver; the decoration consisted of a heart-shaped scrolling motif with three guard bands and two

Kufic inscriptions, one of which circled around a large boss at the center.22 The great attention to

detail and effort to provide some form of decoration even to simple metal items during the

Fatimid period was evident from their work. It was this detail and decoration, which enabled

Fatimid metalwork to develop and surpass the quality and style of previous Islamic dynasties in

Egypt.

Attention to Fatimid metalwork is also warranted due to the modern world’s inadequate

knowledge regarding Fatimid metal objects and the incorrect information regarding those that are

in existence. The scarcity of metalware from the Fatimid period, for the reasons previously

mentioned and the uniqueness of the surviving metalwork as compared with that produced in

19
Bloom, Arts City Victorious 97.
20
Ward, Islamic Metalwork 71.
21
Bloom, Arts City Victorious 98-9.
22
Ballian et al., Benaki Museum 71.

8
other dynasties thus requires a thorough review and for a corpus to be created, something not

attempted before. An example of this uniqueness in Fatimid metalwork is the silver mirror-back

(fig. 234), which came from a European collection assembled in Alexandria in the late 19th and

early 20th centuries. The mirror-back might be from the period of the Fatimid Caliph al-

Mustansir whose treasury was sacked by rebelling mercenaries.

Chapter 2

Umayyad and Abbasid Metalwork

The Umayyads (661-750), having succeeded the transitional Rashidun Caliphate (632-

661), ruled from their capital at Damascus over a vast territory, which would grow as the

Umayyad Caliphate expanded and then later end with their expulsion under the Abbasids (app. I,

A-D). The Umayyads who escaped would later reestablish their Caliphate in Spain at Córdoba

(756-1031). It was the first Umayyad Caliphate in the Early Islamic Period and their metalwork

production however that is most relevant to the Fatimid period. During the advent of Islam and

under the development of an Islamic praxis, pre-Islamic cultures were an influential force on

Islamic thought, culture and civilization. This was also apparent in the decorative arts, especially

metalwork.

Metalwork produced during the Umayyad period was heavily dependent on Sasanian,

Byzantine and Coptic styles, themes and imagery. As the Caliphate emerged, Umayyad

metalwork developed its own characteristics. Although Christians, Zoroastrians and other non-

Muslims were still produced metalwares into the Umayyad period that can also be classified as

Umayyad metalwork. As a result a large quantity of metal objects of this period, particularly

from Egypt and Syria are Christian themed, including bowls, censers, crosses, incense burners

and other objects (figs. 4-6).

9
 In the Abbasid period (in Egypt 750-969), metalwork advanced from the Umayyad

period though retained certain common styles, themes and designs. Metalwork from the Abbasid

Caliphate could have been produced in their capital at Baghdad and the styles copied in Egypt

from imported examples. The development of metalwork between the Umayyad, Abbasid and

Fatimid periods does have certain clear delineations. The differences are based mostly on style

and in the Fatimid period additionally through theme, shape and greater attention to detail.

Introduction to Umayyad Metal Objects

In order to trace the development of Islamic metalwork that was produced in the Fatimid

period, it is necessary to begin with a brief survey of that produced in the Umayyad and Abbasid

periods. The majority of metalwork produced in the Umayyad period and that survives today can

be classified as utilitarian. Such objects include basins, bottles, bowls, braziers, cups, ewers,

flasks, kettles, keys, kitchen utensils, lamps, lamp-handles, lampstands, polycandela, trays, vases

and weights. Additional objects include censers, crosses, incense burners, ornaments and throne

embellishments, which cannot be considered utilitarian and instead were for decorative or

ceremonial use. In the Umayyad period figural decoration of the decorative arts, although more

prevalent in the Fatimid period, consisted only of small human, animal and zoomorphic features,

which decorated some utilitarian and ceremonial metal objects. In the few examples of figural-

shaped objects in the Umayyad period, their purpose is utilitarian such as two alleged spice

boxes in the shapes of an elephant and ram (figs. 7-8). On the contrary, in the Fatimid period

freestanding figures existed such as a tambourine player (fig. 126) and gazelle (fig. 129).

In Umayyad metalwork, the materials employed are bronze, brass, copper and iron,

which are mostly cast. There are few examples of gold or silver metalware objects that are

known to survive and the few known have been revealed through archaeological investigation.

10
Some of the limited examples of gold and silver objects include ewers datable to the 6th-7th

centuries in Persia and a silver stand from the Umayyad period. These objects will be discussed

in further detail. Additionally, several silver objects of non-utilitarian function or of unknown

function were produced at the Umayyad court of Córdoba. These will be discussed in detail with

a comparison to the Pisa Griffon in Chapter Four.

Umayyad Metalwork and Figural Usage

An example of human figural work as embellishment can be found on a bronze and iron

brazier discovered at al-Fudayn, Jordan (fig. 1). The brazier probably consisted of four eagles

used as protomes to support the arcaded sides, only one of which remains that consists of two

eagle protomes and an arcade (fig. 1.2). In each of the niches of the arcade are figures in bas-

relief. Above each of the two eagle protomes rests a nude woman, typical of the Umayyad style;

each woman holds an eagle in her right hand (fig. 1.3). The brazier is mobile, as a wheel is

disguised under each of the talons of the two eagle protomes (fig. 1.4). Another example of

human figural use from the Umayyad period can be found at the Musée du Louvre at Paris, a

copper female in the nude that likely comes from Egypt is strikingly similar to the al-Fudayn

figures (fig. 2). The figure is adorned with a necklace; the same as the al-Fudayn figures and

with a related animated pose, except in the Louvre example the figure holds crotales or clappers,

instead of a perched eagle. The close resemblance between the Louvre and al-Fudayn figures

cannot be overlooked, nor their similitude with Coptic imagery of nude women commonly found

in the decorative arts especially on textiles, metalwork and ceramics. Two nude female figures in

the Musée du Louvre at Paris (app. I, E-F) are datable to the pre-Islamic Byzantine period in

Egypt, they both reflect Coptic styles in their shape and appearance. A comparison of these two

nudes with the Umayyad period examples indicates the stylistic development that occurred in

11
Egypt between the pre-Islamic and Umayyad periods. It seems that in the Early Islamic Period

the usage of pre-Islamic human figural imagery was explored and led to an Umayyad ideal as the

praxis of Islam developed. Examples of the Umayyad ideal can be found in stucco architectural

embellishments and figures; examples are found at Khirbat al-Mafjar in Jericho, Palestine (app.

I, G) and a later example is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art at New York (app. I, H). The

Umayyad adaptation of human figural embellishment utilizes a partially nude female although

physically different than the earlier examples, but still employs the necklace. The later example

that is datable to the early Abbasid period revives the nude female and again is adorned with a

necklace.23 This is a far contrast from the usage of human figural metalwork in the Fatimid

period, notably the tambourine player (fig. 126), which is a female figure fully clothed and more

naturalistic. While the opinion of other scholars is that the Louvre example is datable to 500-

1000 in the Fatimid period,24 without any other metalwork examples from the Fatimid period and

given the similarity to the al-Fudayn example it seems highly unlikely. A bronze bottle in the

Byzantine Art Museum of Berlin and datable to Egypt from the 5th-8th century is unique in some

of its features including the usage of architectural elements or arcades framing nude female

figures (fig. 3). A comparable theme to the al-Fudayn example, again with arcades and nude

female figural imagery, the shape of the bottle and its crowned top, although its hinged lid is

missing, would be reminiscent of the Persian regional style that will be discussed in the next

section. The usage of the arcades, female nudes, three feet and indications of a hinged lid

however allude to an Egyptian origin in the Early Islamic Period of the Umayyads.

Other Umayyad examples of figural decoration include ewers and a throne leg, while

zoomorphic decoration was common on many censers, incense burners and lampstands. The

23
Jenkins et al., Islamic Jewelry 29.
24
Byzantine and Islam 195-6.

12
remnants of a cast bronze throne from Persia is datable to the late-Sasanian or early-Umayyad

period consists of a throne leg (fig. 9) composed of an engaged griffon or protome (detail fig.

9.2), which was likely one of two or four. A griffon represented royal power in the Zoroastrian

faith. It has been speculated that the griffon, a noted pre-Islamic theme, was adapted after the

Umayyad conquest of Sasanian Persia in an effort to exert control and demonstrate legitimacy

through imagery over the vanquished Sasanians.25 A bronze ewer datable to 7th century

Umayyad Persia that had been originally inlaid and is decorated with an intricate plant motif was

also adorned with figural decoration (fig. 10). The figure, a leopard acts as the handle of the ewer

(fig. 10.2). The leopard’s cranium and frontal paws are attached to the lip of the ewer, its torso is

stretched abstractly and its hind legs are attached to the ewer’s body. Another bronze Umayyad

leopard handle datable from the 7th century, resides in the Bumiller Collection at the University

Museum for Islamic Art in Bamberg, Germany (fig. 11). The Bumiller leopard is detached from

a ewer or similar vessel; it is related to the previous leopard in shape and style, although the torso

of the Bumiller leopard is not stretched as abstractly. This type of figural decoration serving on a

utilitarian object was not common in Fatimid period metalwork. Figural decoration expressed on

the handles of vessels or other utilitarian objects is seen on Umayyad and later Abbasid

metalwork. Abbasid examples include a leopard (fig. 12) and a lion (fig. 13), both from private

collections, which adorned handles of vessels similarly to the Metropolitan and Bumiller

examples. The leopard figural form and other animals utilized on the handles of vessels extended

from the Umayyad into the Abbasid periods in Greater Persia, particularly Iran. It seems

probable that this adaptive usage of figural decoration was not seen in any Fatimid metalwork of

similar style since none is known to exist today, the exception would be a gazelle aquamanile

(fig. 181) that will be discussed in Chapter Three. Indeed since all of the above-mentioned
25
O’Neil et al., Metropolitan Museum Islamic Art 15.

13
examples (figs. 10-13) are Greater Persian or specifically Iranian, perhaps the geographical

distance hindered the importation of this type of figural usage to Fatimid Egypt. Its origin

probably stemmed from earlier pre-Islamic decoration of Sasanian or Luristan cultures in Iran.26

Examples of completely figural Umayyad objects include two hinged bronze cases, one

in the form of an elephant, the other a ram (figs. 7-8). Located on the upper dorsal sections of

both the elephant and ram is an interlocking mechanism, which would support a pin or lock (fig.

7.2). This indicated that the two cases were produced with the intention of carrying something

valuable such as spices. A further example is a kettle in the abstract shape of a load bearing

camel datable to the 8th-9th century (fig. 14), discovered in excavations at Umm al-Walid, Jordan.

The shape and figural usage of the kettle however are not typical of the Abbasid period,

regardless of the later date. The kettle has a large hinged lid attached to the handle. This hinge

design is similar to several hinged keys in the collection of the Musée du Louvre dated to the

Umayyad period in Egypt (figs. 15-6). The employment of three legs, instead of a camel’s four,

the long neck reminiscent more of a giraffe than a camel, the large spherical chamber and the

large cylindrical spout are more expressive of an Umayyad abstraction rather than an Abbasid

one, no similar themed or shaped objects exist from the Abbasid period. The unique figural

shape and exaggerated features certainly are uncommon in Fatimid metalwork, which followed

more conventional and realistic figural modes.

Umayyad Precious Metal Objects

A silver stand with four engaged eagles used as protomes datable to the 7th-8th century

from Iran is one of the few known examples of precious metalwork from the Umayyad period

(fig. 17). The stand probably served as a base for a jar or other vessel, since objects of this

26
Pal, Nasli Heeramaneck Collection 161.

14
function exist from the Sasanian period. 27 The closeness in style of the eagles and the utilitarian

object they adorn are similar to the Sasanian tradition both in the theme of the eagle and the

actual utility of the stand. Eagles served a major purpose in Zoroastrianism and were

representative of royal power or authority. The physical appearance of the eagles, with its

defined features, sharp beak, folded wings and feathers is reminiscent of Sasanian metalwork. An

almost identical silver eagle figure in the Brooklyn Museum, likely detached from its principal

object is datable to the Parthian period (3rd century CE, fig. 18). The pre-Islamic link of eagle

figural usage in metalwork and its subsequent use in the Early Islamic Period cannot be

overlooked. Similarly to the griffon imagery (fig. 9) mentioned previously, it was in an effort to

exert legitimacy over the vanquished and a repeat of pre-Islamic themes in metalwork. Although

the eagle was a common iconographical theme in the Roman, Byzantine, Parthian and Sasanian

periods, the silver eagle stand was an Umayyad creation attributable to Iran, which would

indicate a Parthian or Sasanian direct influence and thus was likely the source for Umayyad

adaptation for this post-Sasanian object. Additionally, a Sasanian throne leg with a griffon

protome in the collection of the Musée du Louvre is datable to the 3rd century from Iran (app. I,

I). The throne leg was ascribed to the court of Ardeshir I and represented royal authority. This

example further supports the Umayyad usage of the same theme and imagery with the post-

Sasanian Metropolitan throne leg (fig. 9). The identical function of the Sasanian griffon throne

essentially verifies the Umayyad version with its role and origin. Another additional example

will be discussed in the next section.

Several ewers and a plate from various museum collections datable to the 6th-9th centuries

in Iran and produced in gold, silver or bronze all are representative of the metalwork produced

during the transitional period from pre-Islamic Sasanian culture to the Islamic Umayyad dynasty
27
Atil et al., Islamic Metalwork Freer Gallery 56.

15
(figs. 19-21).28 A 7th century gold ewer from the Hermitage Museum at St. Petersburg (fig. 19)

shows a simple design with a teardrop-shaped body, handle, spout and a knob-shaped base. The

second ewer, in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art at New York would certainly

be more reminiscent of a Sasanian theme (fig. 20). The 6th-7th century vessel is similar in shape

to the Hermitage ewer, yet it lacks a full knob-shaped base and detailed human figural decoration

in bas-relief adorns its exterior. The image depicts a female figure in silver over a mercury-gilt

background holding festival related objects. Although the theme is Sasanian, the ewer was

produced in the transitional Islamic period and should be considered a product reminiscent of the

pre-Islamic influence still present in Islamic metalwork. The post-Sasanian attribution for the

object arises from the imagery, a cultic female figure in an unrealistic twisted form. This style of

female figural imagery was seen only in a late Sasanian context,29 which transitioned into the

Early Islamic Period. Additionally, the increasing secularization of Sasanian cultic imagery in

the Early Islamic Period allowed for their continued usage during the changeover from Sasanian

to Islamic and in some cases was later readapted to fit within an Islamic praxis. 30 The third ewer

is located at the Walters Art Gallery of Baltimore and is made of bronze in the 8th-9th century

(fig. 21). The Walters vessel has a diminished base and neck in comparison with the two earlier

ewers that have elongated necks and knob-shaped bases. The Walters ewer serves as an

important link in the transition from pre-Islamic to the Islamic type, but would be dated to the

Early Islamic Period because of its teardrop-shaped body and the absence of a knob-shaped base

that was a common Sasanian style. The ewer is similar to the Hermitage and Metropolitan

vessels, it lacks a large base however has a slender neck and a palmette serves as the handle. The

decoration of the body consists of a rinceau motif that continues into the stem of the handle

28
Atil et al., Islamic Metalwork Freer Gallery 62-3.
29
Byzantine and Islam exh.
30
Sasanian Silver 80.

16
culminating with the palmette at its apex. The Walters example serves as the typical Umayyad

and later Abbasid decorative ewer. The use of bronze for the Walters ewer, which is datable to

the early Umayyad period, again fits the notion that precious metals were possibly a less

common commodity for metalwork under Umayyad rule.

The mention of a plate (fig. 22) grouped with the three previously discussed ewers (figs.

19-21) should be examined to further understand the genesis of Islamic metalwork. The 7 th-8th

century plate from the Metropolitan Museum of Art at New York has Sasanian iconography. The

Sasanian Empire collapsed in 651 with the advent of the Arab conquest in 642. It is decorated

with a female figure displaying royal accouterments while riding a griffon over a representation

of water, earth and sky. This plate would be considered post-Sasanian due to the stylistic

differences between those produced during the Sasanian Empire and those from the Early

Islamic Period, namely the Metropolitan plate contains the imagery of a figure, which is twisted

in an abstract form. This type of abstraction is seen on wall paintings at the citadel in Sasanian

Penjikent, now Tajikistan and subsequently after the Arab conquest from the 7th-8th century and

not during the Sasanian period.31 As previously mentioned, certain Sasanian themes were

readapted to satisfy popular notions of Islamic decoration, 32 the Metropolitan example with the

female royal figure is reminiscent of Sasanian appearance but with a posture common only in the

Early Islamic Period. Evidence for the usage of Sasanian themes in Early Islamic Period

metalwork, particularly under the Umayyads, comes from the remaining figural decoration

present on Umayyad architecture in Syria. Metalwork decorated with imagery was easily

portable and its themes were transferred to architectural embellishment. 33 The Umayyads had

direct access to Sasanian metalwork through the conquest of Iran and its active metal workshops

31
Arab Lands exh.
32
Sasanian Silver 80.
33
Ibid., 80-1.

17
but also as tribute and taxes from conquered Iran that were paid in metalwork to the Umayyads

during the Early Islamic Period. 34

Precious metals were readily used in a pre-Islamic environment as evidenced through the

quantity of gold and silver metal objects surviving today in various collections and from the

discovery of buried hoards such as two 6th-7th century treasures from Syria, the silver gilt

treasure from Attarouthi 35 and the silver treasure at Hama. 36 The post-Sasanian 6th-7th century

Metropolitan and 7th century Hermitage ewers are representative of the transitional period

between the pre-Islamic and Umayyad stages: they are closer chronologically to the pre-Islamic

world and retain numerous pre-Islamic attributes. The usage of precious metals for the

previously discussed ewers and other objects were the product of the transitional period and after

its close it is possible metalwork ceased to be produced in gold and silver. It is more likely

however that other metalwork made of gold and silver was produced in the later Umayyad period

but none survives today. Perhaps this was a consequence of gold and silver needed for debts,

resulting from expansion under the Umayyads as they extended their empire, from the increasing

disdain for precious metals as the praxis of Islam developed or another reason as was discussed

previously in Chapter One. Nevertheless, precious metal vessels were more common at the end

of antiquity then during the advancement of the Early Islamic Period, as evidenced from the

quantity surviving today. The next largest period of precious metal production was during the

Fatimid period.

Umayyad Metalwork with Zoomorphic and Figural Usage

Objects with zoomorphic and figural decoration include censers, ewers, incense burners

and lampstands that were usually cast in bronze or brass. Anthropomorphic stylized

34
Sasanian Silver 81.
35
Byzantine and Islam 41-2.
36
Ward, Islamic Metalwork 40-1.

18
characteristics are not seen in any metalwork of the Early Islamic Period. This was different from

human figural imagery, which utilized the whole image of a human being, such as the women of

the Umayyad brazier (fig. 1) or the Fatimid tambourine player (fig. 126) and not human

segments or characteristics. Other examples of Umayyad metalwork with zoomorphic and figural

usage that are Christian themed will be discussed in the next section.

Perhaps the most famous example of zoomorphic metalwork produced during the

Umayyad period is a cast brass ewer discovered at Abu Sir al-Malaq at al-Fayyum, Egypt, which

is currently in the Islamic Museum at Cairo (fig. 23).37 The ewer was thought to have been the

personal property of the Umayyad caliph Marwan II along with several other metal objects, since

it was alleged that he was buried within one mile of Abu Sir al-Malaq. Although this idea was

advanced by numerous scholars, along with the misconception that the ewer is cast in bronze and

not brass, 38 no evidence exists to support the burial place of Marwan II in al-Fayyum. 39

Nevertheless, several similar ewers survive and have been attributed to the Umayyad period

based upon style and location; they include key zoomorphic features like those of the Marwan

ewer. The Marwan ewer is decorated with a rooster (fig. 23.2), birds, intricately pierced vegetal

and geometric motifs (fig. 23.3), stylized acanthus leaves for the length of the handle and

culminating with zoomorphic features reminiscent of dolphin heads (fig.23.4) and a series of

dots (fig. 23.5) common on other metal or ivory objects of the Byzantine and Umayyad period. A

parallel can be drawn between the intricate decoration of the Marwan ewer and the Umayyad

architectural ornamentation at Qasr al-Mshatta or Khirbat al-Mafjar (app. I, J-L).40 Both

structures are adorned with carved stucco or stone embellishment of elaborate geometric and

37
Bloom et al., Islamic Arts 121.
38
No known testing conducted: object is probably bronze
39
Bloom et al., Islamic Arts 121.
40
Ali, Arab Contribution Art 45.

19
vegetal patterns that were frequently found on metalwork decoration, including the Marwan

ewer. The ewer is in the shape of a sphere with an elongated neck, a footed base, a long

exaggerated handle and was hollow cast with a jointed neck. The pierced motif at the high point

of the neck acted as a filter for water.41

A cast bronze ewer with features corresponding to the Marwan vessel and from the

Islamic Museum at Cairo is datable to the 8th century (fig. 24). The ewer has an elongated neck

with a less intricately pierced vegetal and geometric water filter than the Marwan example and

has a heart-shaped palmette below the spout (24.2). The ewer is spherical, has a rooster spout

and a beaded ring handle. The finial atop the handle is damaged and the remaining detail cannot

be identified definitively. The hollow cast ewer is styled in a similar shape to the Marwan ewer

and has a jointed neck. 42 Another cast bronze ewer from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in

New York is datable to the 8th-9th century and may have originated from Syria (fig. 25). The

vessel is extremely close in size, shape and design to the Marwan ewer. The Metropolitan ewer

has a detailed rooster as the spout, an intricate foliate water filter, an acanthus plant handle and a

globular-shaped body. There is a small footed base and the ewer is fitted from individually cast

pieces. The Metropolitan ewer was formerly in Count Bobrinsky’s collection from Russia; this is

an issue which will be discussed later. The discussion regarding the series of ewers above and

the one below, with origins suggested in Syria, Egypt or even Iraq indicate the difficulty in

establishing secure provenances for metalwork. The probability that the ewers were created in

the Umayyad capital of Damascus rather than other areas of their empire is high but still not

definitive.

Further examples of Umayyad metalware with zoomorphic and figural usage are difficult

41
Bloom et al., Islamic Arts 121.
42
Arts of Islam 165.

20
to discern from those of the later Abbasid period and undeniably, there was a blend in the styles

of certain metal objects between the close of Umayyad rule and beginning of Abbasid rule. The

metal objects which were representative of this period include ewers and incense burners. A

ewer that is an example from the overlap period and currently resides in the Hermitage Museum

at St. Petersburg is attributed to the 8th-9th century from Iraq (fig. 26). Although the ewer is akin

to the Marwan vessel in both shape and style it is attributed to the Abbasid period, possibly even

originating from Baghdad. 43 Evidence supporting this comes from the detail below the bird spout

on the ewer, an unidentified insect. It was suggested the insect derived from Turkish tribal art in

Central Asia. 44 The interaction between Turkish tribes and Muslims in Central Asia occurred in

the late-8th to early-9th centuries. Other scholars have indentified the insect as a butterfly and

together with the figural bird and palmette decoration below the handle attribute the vessel to

Central Asian design. 45 The bronze ewer stylistically resembles Umayyad design with an

intricately pierced vegetal and geometric water filter at the summit of the neck. The large bird

that is either a hawk or eagle used as the spout with this particular example, the long handle

resembling a stylized acanthus that culminates in a trefoil, the pomegranate and leaf handle

ornamentation all indicate Central Asian influence. The spherical body has a simple leaf or lotus

design; a theme more common on Egyptian based metalwork whereas Iranian metalwork utilized

bosses in the shape of almonds.46 A pre-Islamic example from Egypt of a teardrop-shaped bottle

with a lotus design was produced in the Roman or Byzantine periods (app. I, M) and is in the

Musée du Louvre. An Umayyad bottle datable to the 7th-8th century from Egypt and in a

teardrop-shape has a subtle leaf pattern (fig. 27), another bronze bottle from the 7th-9th century

43
Piotrovsky et al., Beyond Palace Walls 5.
44
Ibid., 5.
45
Piotrovsky et al., Heaven on Earth 80.
46
Allan, Treasures of Islam 252.

21
with a similar shape and leaf decoration is in the Keir Collection at Berlin (fig. 28). Examples of

Abbasid vessels with almond stylized bosses are in the Keir Collection (figs. 29-30) and another

from the Musée d’Art et d’histoire at Geneva (fig. 31). All three of these teardrop-shaped bottles

are made of bronze and decorated with stylized almond bosses. The teardrop-shape was a

common theme in Egypt and Iran: Sasanian precious metal ewers or bottles were likely the

source of influence. 47 Comparison of the leaf or lotus-shaped vessels indicates the vast stylistic

differences in floral decoration. The varying lotus decoration of the two vessels indicates it was

present in Umayyad Egypt and was later expressed in Abbasid Iraq with innovation of design.

The Hermitage ewer and the analysis of its style, decoration and theme make the vessel datable

to the transitional period between the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates and reinforcing the

notion that there was an overlap in metalwork variety and influence between the two dynasties.

The Hermitage ewer is suggested to be Abbasid and even from Baghdad, yet evidence

can be ascertained from its provenance before the Hermitage acquired it, which contests an Iraqi

origin. The ewer was first in the collection of Count Aleksei Aleksandrovich Bobrinsky. It was

confiscated at the initiation of the Russian Revolution in 1917. Count Bobrinsky was an

archaeologist and most of his collection came from sites he excavated throughout the Russian

Empire, including Persia and Central Asia or purchase from a collection at Dagestan north of

Iran. It might be possible that the ewer originated from Abbasid influenced Iran, especially with

the presence of the leaf and pomegranate handle ornamentation, a common theme with Sasanian

and Iranian metalwork. Nevertheless, the difficulty in determining a firm provenance for Early

Islamic Period metalwork is evident, especially regarding the Hermitage ewer (fig. 26). The

notion of a transitional period between the Umayyads and Abbasids cannot be dismissed, as

metal objects like the Hermitage ewer demonstrate.

22
 An incense burner with zoomorphic and figural metalwork from the collection of the

Freer Gallery in the Smithsonian Museum at Washington DC and datable to the 8th-9th century is

an example from the transitional period (fig. 32). The incense burner is square-shaped with a

body pierced geometric pattern. A large dome rests on the top, surrounded by four smaller

domes. A large handle protrudes from the center of the body, there are two hinges allowing the

body to open and four legs support the burner at its base. The ornate detail of the incense burner

can be classified as figural and zoomorphic. The handle culminates with the head of a gazelle

and the four legs resemble those of a turtle, above each leg is the face of a lion. The domes are

all pierced with a foliate pattern and birds stand above two of the five domes, although it is likely

birds crowned all the domes. Finally, encompassing the domes are several crenellations with a

vegetal design. The shape of the body has been compared with incense burners in Egypt since it

was an already common form in the Byzantine period.48 The shape of the Freer incense burner

has also been compared to Byzantine church architecture where five domes were common. 49

Incense burners produced during the Abbasid period in both Egypt and Greater Persia however

are very similar in style and theme to earlier Umayyad examples; these will be reviewed under

Abbasid metalwork.

The major issues with much of the Islamic metalwork produced in the Umayyad and

Abbasid periods remain the previously addressed concerns of portability and reuse of materials.

There was a transitional period however between the Umayyads and Abbasids. Several of the

objects discussed were from the collection of Count Bobrinsky in Russia through his purchase

from the north of Iran and therefore it seems likely that some of these objects may have come

from Iran. This is also supported from stylistic analysis and iconography evident on the

48
Atil et al., Islamic Art Freer Gallery 59.
49
Bloom et al., Islamic Arts 120.

23
Hermitage ewer (fig. 26). Although the attribution of Count Bobrinsky’s collection was Abbasid

and probably from Iraq, some of the objects may have been produced at the close of the

Umayyad period or in the transition to the Abbasid influenced period in Iran. Nevertheless, the

style, shape, design and even theme of metal objects with zoomorphic and figural decoration

produced during the Umayyad and Abbasid periods were not seen in the later Fatimid periods

i.e., the eccentric pierced rinceau water filters from such objects as the Marwan ewer or from the

Hermitage example disappeared with the development of Fatimid metalwork.

Umayyad Metalwork with Christian Imagery and Themes

Christians in the Early Islamic Period contributed to the development of Umayyad

metalwork. Metal objects for Christian patrons continued to be produced and form a portion of

the Umayyad metalwork known today. Similar metal objects were also produced in the Fatimid

period and will be discussed in Chapter Three. A review of certain key objects from this group

will better illustrate the advancement of Umayyad metalware and any influences upon this work.

A copper hanging lamp datable to the 6th-7th century in the shape of a peacock is in the

collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art at New York and is of the early Umayyad period

(fig. 33). The peacock represented a common theme in Christian iconography and was later

adapted in Islam becoming synonymous with paradisal imagery. In metalwork, peacock imagery

continued to be used into the Umayyad period as evidenced from numerous examples including

an 8th century Syrian pierced basin (fig. 34). The bronze basin is decorated with a pierced rinceau

motif and several peacocks. Another image is expressed on the 8th century fragment of a bronze

lamp-handle from the Keir Collection at Berlin; the imagery consists of two peacocks divided

with the tree of life (fig. 35). An almost identical 8th century bronze lamp-handle was discovered

in excavations at al-Fustat in 1921 and is presumed to be in the collection of the Islamic Museum

24
at Cairo, it has the same imagery consisting of two peacocks separated with a tree of life (fig.

36). A further example from a private collection is a double-headed peacock handle likely from a

chest or other vessel with a flat side (fig. 37). The double-headed peacock handle is datable to

the 8th-9th century from Persia, but might be either Umayyad or Abbasid in origin as a definite

period is difficult to identify. A form of the peacock image survived into the Abbasid period, one

example is a bronze rooster-shaped incense burner with the characteristics of a peacock that is

attributed to 11th century Iran (fig. 38). The Umayyads continued the peacock theme after their

flight to Córdoba in 972; a peacock aquamanile now in the Musée du Louvre (fig. 39) is

produced in bronze with prominent features and other examples from Egypt in the 10th-11th

century will be discussed in Chapter Three.

Another form of Christian imagery appears on a copper censer in the collection of the

Metropolitan Museum of Art; it was Egyptian made and is datable to the 6th-8th century in the

Umayyad period and was likely suspended with a chain (fig. 6). The imagery of the censer is the

lion hunting a boar, which was probably reminiscent of earlier pre-Islamic symbolism regarding

royal authority. This was expressed in the Dar al-Islam commonly as the lion attacking the

gazelle. The animal figures surmounted a base with zoomorphic feet stylized as a lion.

Comparable bronze examples can be found the collection of the Musée du Louvre and date from

Byzantine rule in Egypt. An example from the Early Islamic Period is the Umayyad mosaic

panel at Khirbat al-Mafjar (app. I, N).

A group of bronze censers that were produced in Egypt are datable to the 7 th-10th

centuries all share the same theme with scenes of Christ. A pair of censers from the group

currently resides in the collection of the Sackler Museum of Art in Harvard University at

Cambridge (figs. 42-3). The two censers are bronze and bowl-shaped, except one of the pair has

25
six sides (fig. 43). The Sackler censers contain scenes illustrating the life of Christ, several

brackets are present on either the top or the lip of the censers. The purpose of the brackets would

be for suspending a chain. Some oil lamps however are formed in a similar way for resting on

the pricket of a lampstand rather than suspension from a chain. Essentially the basic design of oil

lamps and censers was very similar in metalwork from the 6th-10th centuries. Another possibility

is that these oil lamps or censers are parallel in design to serve as an interchangeable object, to be

suspended from a chain or fit to a pricket; one of the censers is pierced to serve this function (fig.

42). Another bronze censer in the group is from the Coptic Museum at Cairo and is datable to the

Early Islamic Period in Egypt (fig. 44). The censer is akin to the Sackler examples in that it is

similar in shape, has scenes of Christ and brackets for suspension with a chain. Three examples

from the group are in the collection of the Musée du Louvre and datable to the Early Islamic

Period in Egypt (figs. 43-5). The three censers are all made of bronze, are bowl-shaped and

contain images of Christ. Two of the three censers have chain brackets on the lip (figs. 42-5). A

final example from the group is a bronze censer from the David Museum at Copenhagen; it is

also similar to the other censers (fig. 4). The David censer however has one significant difference

from the others in the group, it has an Arabic inscription around its base. The inscription reads

“…made by Yaqub son of Isaq of Damascus.” The censer is datable to the 8th century from

Palestine or Syria. This would indicate it was possibly produced at the Umayyad capital during

the end of their rule. The David censer demonstrates that metal objects with Christian imagery

were produced by Muslim artisans and therefore further validates that all of these objects are

indeed Umayyad metalwork. The inscription of the David censer however is supplementary

evidence, since the censers were all likely produced in the Umayyad period.

26
 A further group of metal objects from the Umayyad period for Christian use are lamps,

lampstands and polycandela. These objects although with ecclesiastical overtones later

influenced the development of metalwork in the Early Islamic Period, including that of the

Fatimids. The basic form and design of the lamps and lampstands produced during the 6th-12th

centuries can be traced throughout classical antiquity. Lampstand decoration in Egypt usually

consisted of zoomorphic features and sometimes figural ornamentation. These characteristics,

especially pertaining to zoomorphic features continued to be expressed on lampstands produced

in the Fatimid period. Examples of 6th-8th century datable lampstands are found in the Sackler

Museum of Art in Harvard University at Cambridge (fig. 46), Musée du Louvre at Paris (fig. 47),

Hermitage Museum at St. Petersburg (fig. 48) and a pair in the Coptic Museum at Cairo (figs.

49-50). These lampstands all have almost identical features and the same basic shape. They have

tripod feet with zoomorphic characteristics such as the webbed feet of a duck (fig. 50), paws of a

lion (fig. 46) or hooves of an ungulate (figs. 47-9). The lampstands are all cast in bronze sections

and in almost all of the examples the shaft is composed of geometric knobs and discs. The

pinnacle of the shaft ends in a pricket for an oil lamp. Nearly all of the lampstands have a drip-

tray. The zoomorphic features of the feet and the general shape and style of the Umayyad period

lampstands are seen on later Fatimid period examples and other metalwork. The Umayyad

lampstands reflect a parallel style to the pre-Islamic lampstands fashioned under the Byzantine

Empire in Egypt and Syria before the Arab Conquest. Examples of the Byzantine lampstands in

Egypt and Syria from the 5th-6th century are found in the Metropolitan Museum of Art at New

York (figs. 51-52).50 These two copper examples also illustrate an oil lamp fitting on a pricket,

the same function in the Early Islamic Period.

50
These two oil lamps have a possible dating to 600-700 in the Umayyad period

27
 Metal oil lamps produced during the 6th-8th centuries retain the same basic design and

style from the Byzantine period into the Islamic world, especially with those created in Egypt.

Examples of Egyptian oil lamps from the Byzantine period in the 5th-6th century are in the

Metropolitan Museum of Art at New York (figs. 51-52), although these were perhaps datable to

600-700. Another oil lamp from Egypt is in the collection of the Musée du Louvre and is datable

to the Byzantine Period (in Egypt 4th- early 7th century, app. I, O). The significance of the lamp

stems from its exterior decoration, which contains a series of dots (app. I, P) similar to those

present on the Marwan ewer (fig. 23.5). Although the designs of the two vessels are not an exact

match, the usage of a dotted motif is seen in the pre-Islamic decorative arts. An oil lamp

produced in the Umayyad period with Christian symbols is currently in the Sackler Museum of

Art in Harvard University at Cambridge (fig. 53). The object is made of bronze in the Eastern

Mediterranean region, probably Egypt and exists as an example of a Christian utilized oil lamp in

Umayyad metalwork.

Polycandela were frequently produced metal objects that were mostly used to adorn

churches and mosques. The polycandelon itself is a metal plate with a punched or cast design

that allows slots for the placement of lamps for illumination of interior spaces (app. I, V). The

polycandelon was a pre-Islamic invention that developed in the Islamic world through different

styles and designs, especially in the Fatimid period. The range of patterns is enormous, from the

simplest metal ring void of any design, to complicated cast geometric and cruciform motifs.

Certain types of polycandela produced in Egypt and Syria had Christian themes. After the

introduction of Islam in Egypt and into the Early Islamic Period, some polycandela retain

Christian themes and are a part of Umayyad metalwork. Later polycandela with Islamic

geometric designs were more common in Fatimid Ifriqiyya and Egypt than in the Umayyad and

28
Abbasid periods. In the collection at the Sackler Museum of Art in Harvard University at

Cambridge, a 6th-8th century bronze polycandelon reflects Christian themes from the Umayyad

period (fig. 54). The Sackler polycandelon is Egyptian cast with the shape of a cross and has

brackets allowing suspension from a chain. There are also several circular punches for the glass

lamps. Another example of a 6th-8th century polycandelon is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art

at New York (fig. 55). The polycandelon is cast in copper and suspended from a chain. The

design is a combination of crosses and geometric motifs. In the collection of the Musée du

Louvre are numerous bronze polycandela from Egypt representative of the 6th-8th century. The

variety of designs is wide with a simple bronze ring (fig. 56) from Edfu and datable closer to the

Abbasid period to intricately cast bronze patterns (figs. 57-9). The elaborate polycandela consist

of two with geometric and cruciform motifs radiating from the center (figs. 57 and 59) while one

is a cruciform (fig. 58) almost identical to the object in the Sackler Museum (fig. 55). The most

elaborate example is from the Coptic Museum at Cairo (fig. 60), a 6th-8th century bronze

geometric and cruciform polycandelon radiating from a central cross.

A final example of metalwork produced during the early Umayyad period of the 6 th-7th

century in the Near Eastern region is a griffon lamp-handle (fig. 61). Analogous in appearance to

the Umayyad griffon throne from Persia (fig. 9), the griffon handle from the Metropolitan

Museum of Art at New York demonstrates that imagery of the griffon in Islamic metalwork is

used as embellishment for utilitarian objects. The only known exception is the Pisa Griffon,

which is an entire figure in itself. The griffon lamp-handle is made of copper with the face of a

griffon fashioned at the end of the curved handle. The handle is decorated with pointed studs and

functioned similarly to the handle of a typical period oil lamp. These studs are essentially

pomegranate ornamentation, a noted Persian theme continued in the Early Islamic Period and

29
further evidence for an Umayyad provenance. These details will be discussed in great detail in

the next section. An example of a complete oil lamp with a similar handle design is from the

Musée du Louvre and is datable to the Byzantine period in Egypt (app. I, Q). The curvature of

the handle and its placement on the body in the Louvre example is similar to the way the griffon

lamp-handle would have been fitted to a lamp.

Auxiliary Umayyad Metal Objects

Numerous metal objects produced during the Umayyad period either through the hands of

Muslims, Christians or other groups are all classified as Umayyad metalwork. These objects

include basic utilitarian objects and decorative remnants of metalware but without any unique

contribution for the purposes of this research. It is important to note however that these objects

comprise a significant portion of the remaining metalwork known to exist from the Umayyad

period. These objects are therefore relevant for comparison and are subsequently listed with the

other examples of Umayyad and Abbasid metalwork (figs. 60-6).

Introduction to Metal Objects of the Abbasid Period in Greater Persia, Egypt and Syria

The Umayyad period was witness to the birth of Islamic culture and was the first

enduring Islamic dynasty after the death of the Prophet. The development of an Umayyad

decorative arts produced distinctive results especially in metalwork. The influence of pre-Islamic

cultures and in some cases their continued existence under Umayyad rule however was a large

factor in the creation of their metalwork. In the Abbasid period metalwork began to evolve from

its Umayyad foundation, yet certain styles continued.

The Abbasid Caliphate spanned a large geographical area, the principal concentration of

its empire was in Greater Persia. Its capitals of Baghdad and later Samarra were in Iraq. Abbasid

control in Iran and Iraq remained firm while its other provinces became rebellious and gained

30
autonomy, such as in Egypt. In comparison, the Umayyads were of Meccan origin but

established their sphere of influence in Syria and Jordan securely with only brief domination of

Persia. The result expressed in the decorative arts therefore is evident; Abbasid metalwork

retains more of a pre-Islamic influence from Persia, namely from the Parthian-Sasanian periods,

while the Umayyads generally preserved the Greco-Roman and Byzantine traditions. After the

Abbasid expulsion of the Umayyads in Syria, Jordan and Egypt, Persian influenced metalwork

was produced in Egypt under the Abbasids and merged with the traditional metalware styles of

the region.

In Egypt two states emerged in succession that ruled independently of the Abbasid

Caliphate, the Tulunids and Ikhshidids. The metalwork produced during these independent

periods is almost impossible to distinguish from Abbasid work and of the limited number

tentatively identified, very few remain. 51 Although the creation of two emirates in Egypt and in

other places such as parts of Iran under the Samanids afforded autonomy, it seems that the

artistic influence was centered at Baghdad and thus the style and imagery utilized, certainly in

metalwork, should be considered overall Abbasid. There are some examples of metal objects that

demonstrate a clear delineation from the Abbasid ideal, namely certain regional styles that were

popular in Egypt remained prevalent and were incorporated with the influential Baghdad

decorative program. These regional examples are few in number but are easy to distinguish from

typical Abbasid metal objects, which can generally be classified as having a sole Persian

influence. These metal objects in Egypt, although retaining their unique regional influence create

a dilemma in identification. The examples are certainly Egyptian in design, though the style is

often indistinguishable from the Tulunid, Ikhshidid or with some examples from the early

Fatimid period. Therefore, it is necessary to classify these objects to the probable region of
51
Scholars dispute exact provenance of Tulunid and Ikhshidid period metalwork

31
origin, in this case Egypt and datable to the 9th-10th century. As the Abbasid hegemony of Egypt,

Syria and the surrounding territories began to decline and with the eventual establishment of the

Fatimid Caliphate, the metalwork styles of Abbasid Egypt became increasingly similar to those

of the Fatimids with some differences though, these will be discussed in Chapter Three.

Abbasid metalwork can be grouped into categories of function and distinguished through

style, zoomorphic or figural use and other miscellaneous decoration. The majority of the Abbasid

metal objects produced and that remain today include ewers, vases and bottles. Additional

examples include incense burners, censers and assorted other objects such as a mosque lamp.

The vast quantity of these objects were all of utilitarian function and most contained simple

embellishment or minimal zoomorphic decoration with the exception of some unique examples.

Conversely, specific objects particularly incense burners, are cast with elaborate zoomorphic

characteristics and utilize figural protomes. Figural protomes are occasionally applied to ewers,

usually situated on the handle or integrated into the handle and body of the ewer. Few precious

metal objects remain from the Abbasid period likely for the reasons previously discussed,

although historical narrations recount stories of extraordinary wealth at the Abbasid court in

Baghdad. One commentary reported that the members of the Abbasid court dined on precious

metalware encrusted with jewels while entertainment was provided from a golden and silvered

tree with mechanized chirping birds. 52

Abbasid Metalwork with Persian Influences

Certain metal objects can be grouped into the category of utilitarian vessels, namely

bottles, ewers and vases, other miscellaneous objects such as bowls and mortars should also be

included. These objects generally contain limited decoration if any and are produced in the

regional styles with themes from the objects’ origin, in combination with an underlying influence
52
Ward, Islamic Metalwork 45.

32
from Baghdad. The typical teardrop-shape of the bottles, ewers and vases traces its origin to

Sasanian Iran and infrequently to classical Roman examples. Stylistic decoration however is

regionally based, in Egypt leaf designs are common on these vessels (figs. 27-8 and app. I, M)

while in Greater Persia, almond bosses are popular. It is known that almond bosses are present

on Roman period vessels usually used for storing oils and thus the bosses made the vessel easier

to grasp.53 The function of the almond bosses set aside, the stylistic choice of the bosses is a

characteristic that was not employed outside of Persia during the Early Islamic Period. This

decoration although possibly with Roman origins can be classified as an Iranian theme in the

Early Islamic Period, again because it was utilized exclusively in Greater Persia. Examples of the

almond bossed vessels include 8th-10th century bronze bottles of varying sizes (figs. 29-31 and

69-71) from a private collection in Germany as well as from the Keir Collection in Berlin and

Khalili Collection in London. Further examples include a 9th-10th century bronze bowl (fig. 72)

and a later example, a 10th-11th century mortar (fig. 73) all from the Keir Collection in Berlin.

These objects are from Abbasid influenced Iran and demonstrate the affinity for almond bossed

decoration even after the decline of direct Abbasid supremacy in Iran as evidenced by the later

period mortar (fig. 73). The result of this analysis indicates that almond bossed decoration,

although having origins in Roman decorative arts, was developed and maintained as a Persian

style in the Sasanian and Early Islamic Period of Greater Persia and subsequently after 1200

exclusively in Iran and possibly Iraq. The absence of the almond bossed style on metalwork

produced in Egypt or Syria even with Abbasid influence provides further evidence that it was a

regional style sustained completely in Greater Persia especially Iran.

Another important attribute of Abbasid metalwork with an underlying Persian style is the

decoration of handles on metalwork vessels. Ewers, jugs, cups, essentially any metal object with
53
Ward, Islamic Metalwork 61.

33
a handle are sometimes adorned with a superficial ornament for aesthetic reasons. The ornament

is typically a bead, knob, leaf, pomegranate, blooming flower or another abstract form: the

flower primarily relates to Abbasid period incense burners and will be discussed in the following

section. An alternative view that the handle decoration serves as a thumb-piece and was thus

utilitarian is probable 54 however the elaborate detail of the ornaments, particularly the leaf

designs indicates that aestheticism is a major concern.55 Zoomorphic figures are also applied but

infrequently, these will be discussed separately in the section below. The use of a decorative

ornament for the handles of metal objects is a Persian theme as it is seen on Sasanian metalware

and continued into the Early Islamic Period with the Umayyads, the trend sustained beyond the

Abbasid Caliphate into successive periods in Iran. The ornament appears on vessels in Egypt

datable to the 9th-10th century during the period of the Tulunid and Ikhshidid emirates, but was

probably a migration from Baghdad to Cairo. The style seemed to fade during the Fatimid period

in Egypt as limited vessels were treated with ornamental handle details; the known examples of

handle ornamentation were usually zoomorphic. Examples of vessels with handle ornamentation

include a jug from the Bumiller Collection at the University Museum for Islamic Art in

Bamberg, Germany (fig. 74) and ewers from a German private collection (fig. 75), David

Collection at Copenhagen (fig. 76), al-Sabah Collection at the Kuwait National Museum (figs.

77-9) and Keir Collection at Berlin (fig. 80). The bronze jug and ewers datable to the 8th-10th

century from the Bumiller, David, Keir and German private collections are all decorated with

knobs serving as handle ornamentation. The bronze ewers datable to the 8th-9th century from the

Sabah Collection are all adorned with stylized pomegranates handles. Two of the ewers are

shaped with longer slender bodies, short necks, knobbed feet and elongated handles with either

54
Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir, 35.
55
Gladiss, Collector’s Fortune 109.

34
beaded decoration (fig. 77) or a scrolling vine (fig. 78). The third ewer (fig. 79) is spherical-

shaped with scrolling vine decoration, a slender elongated neck, a knobbed foot and long handle,

the shape of this ewer is similar to the earlier Umayyad produced ewers of Egypt, Syria and Iraq

(figs. 23-6). The ewers from the David, Keir and German private collections are spherical-shaped

with long handles and wide elongated necks, two have knobbed feet (figs. 75 and 80) while the

other lacks a base (fig. 76). The Bumiller jug is globular-shaped with a wide shortened neck and

is also without a base (fig. 74). Further expression of the pomegranate and leaf ornamentation is

also seen on the previously discussed Hermitage ewer (fig. 26). The Hermitage ewer is likely an

example of the transitional period between Umayyad and Abbasid rule as evidenced from the

combination of both Umayyad and Abbasid shapes, themes, imagery and decorative elements,

whether produced in Egypt, Iran or Iraq. Nevertheless, the use of the leaf and pomegranate

handle ornamentation on the Hermitage ewer remains an example of a Persian influence.

The final style of handle treatment utilized mostly on Abbasid metalwork is leaf

decoration, which originated with Sasanian period metalwork. The Arab conquest of Greater

Persia led to an adaptation of the regional decorative styles and the leaf use continued briefly on

handles of Umayyad and later Abbasid metalwork. Handled leaf ornamentation is expressed

mostly on ewers and it was employed typically in the territory held briefly under the Umayyads

and later the Abbasids in Greater Persia, namely Iran and Iraq. The use of the leaf handle

decoration was not generally seen in Egypt or Syria under Umayyad or Abbasid influence and

was not a style readily applied by the Fatimids. Nonetheless, there are a few unique examples of

leaf handle ornament applied in Egypt datable to the 9th-10th century, which could be attributed

to the Tulunid, Ikhshidid or early Fatimid periods. These metal objects are ewers shaped in the

regional Egyptian style and contain leaf handle decoration. This indicates that leaf

35
embellishment is a Persian theme limited generally to Iran and Iraq, developed prolifically

during the Abbasid period and was not especially popular in Egypt or Syria. An example of an

8th century Umayyad ewer with leaf decoration on the handle is in the Walter’s Art Gallery at

Baltimore (fig. 21). Examples of Abbasid metalwork with leaf decoration on the handles include

a ewer from the Keir Collection at Berlin (fig. 81) and from the Museum of Art at Tiflis, Iran

(fig. 82). An example of a regional Egyptian style ewer with leaf handled decoration is in the

Keir Collection at Berlin (fig. 113); the Egyptian regional style will subsequently be discussed in

the next section. The Keir ewer (fig. 81) is made of bronze in Iraq and datable to the 8th century,

it is teardrop-shaped with a knobbed foot, fluted neck and elongated handle culminating with a

leaf ornament. The Tiflis example is made of bronze and through an inscription is tentatively

dated to 785 and produced under Ibn Yazid in Basra, Iraq.56 The ewer is teardrop-shaped with a

knobbed foot, fluted neck and has an elongated handle with beads or pearls culminating with leaf

ornamentation. This type of metalwork decoration would be considered an Abbasid adaptation of

a Persian style, meaning it appeared primarily on Abbasid metalwork. It adorns few Umayyad

examples and is used on objects in Egypt datable to the 9th-10th century, essentially during the

period of Abbasid influence. Evaluation of the Persian themes used in Islamic metalwork from

the Umayyad and Abbasid periods indicated that the pre-Islamic influence was hard to overcome

during the formation of an Islamic identity and that certain pre-Islamic themes utilized shifted in

popularity as trends and personal taste wavered and with the eventual establishment of

independent Islamic styles.

It should also be noted that the actual teardrop-shape in the majority of ewers from the

Abbasid period of metalwork production emphasized a previous pre-Islamic style. Ewers created

under the Sasanian Empire in Persia particularly Iran, were based primarily of the teardrop-shape
56
Scholars dispute exact date: range is 689, 785 and 882 CE.

36
or some close variation. 57 The adaptation of this shape in the Umayyad period and continuation

under the Abbasid period indicate its popularity and regional influence within their metalwork.

Abbasid Metalwork with Figural Usage and Zoomorphic Decoration

During the Abbasid Caliphal period, figural usage was developed either as decoration or

in some examples, whole objects were figural shaped. Additionally, certain metal objects were

decorated with zoomorphic features and designs. This convention was not uncommon as it was

observed in the Umayyad and the later Fatimid periods. Certain styles, themes and figural

imagery were more common however in the Abbasid period than in other Islamic dynasties. A

common theme in Umayyad figural metalware were eagles, especially utilized as protomes (figs.

1.2, 17-8 and 83) and griffons (figs. 9 and 61). The use of eagles and griffons was likely a pre-

Islamic influence carried over into the Umayyad period. In the Abbasid period, eagles and

griffons were less common in metalwork, although eagles were seen adorning incense burners

mostly produced in Egypt and Syria, a former territory of Umayyad central power. Lion figures

and protomes were more prevalent in Abbasid examples and scarcely found in the Umayyad

period. Lion figures decorated 8th-11th century bronze ewers and jugs (figs. 84-5) while lion

protomes were attached to the handles or utilized as feet of 8th-11th century bronze ewers, incense

burners and censers (figs. 87-94).58 The absence of griffons in Abbasid metalwork is unusual

considering the griffon is a major theme in Sasanian decorative arts, even utilized as a bronze

throne leg protome (app. I, I), a 3rd century antecedent to later Umayyad examples (figs. 9 and

61). It was also unusual since the Abbasids largely inherited Persian styles and themes more so

than the Umayyads. Additionally, while lions were largely non-existent in Umayyad metalwork,

other species from the Panthera genus were utilized such as leopards (figs. 10-1). The usage of

57
Allan, Treasures of Islam 252.
58
Allan, Nishapur 53.

37
leopards also continued into the Abbasid period (fig. 12) although less frequently than lions.

Nearly all of the lion protomes (figs. 85-94) were attached to 10th-11th century bronze incense

burners and censers to embellish handles or legs. The typical design consists of a frontal view

with two legs, varying stylizations of paws, a portion of the body and the head of a lion depicted

in various forms, some more realistic and others highly stylized. The lions are usually hollow-

cast in bronze, the reverse side of the lion is soldered to the handle. Lions utilized on Abbasid

jugs or ewers (figs. 84-6) rest on the handle rather than integration into the handle as seen with

the Umayyad leopard example (fig 12).

Although the majority of Abbasid period ewers were previously discussed as a group

above, there remain some exceptional examples, which are atypical of the general trend. Four

ornithromorphic examples are in the collections of the Hermitage Museum at St. Petersburg,

Islamic Art Museum at Berlin and St. Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai, Egypt; three figural

and the other with zoomorphic decoration deserve further analysis and represent an important

development in Abbasid metalwork. The Hermitage example (fig. 95) is a bronze aquamanile

essentially in the shape of a perched eagle. The hollow-cast bronze body rests on talons spread to

provide a stable base, there is a pierced beak and the handle is missing. The Kufic inscription on

the body indicates it is made in 796-7 by the artisan Sulayman, probably in Iraq. The second

object is an almost identical bronze eagle aquamanile (fig. 96) datable to the 8th century from

Iran. The Berlin aquamanile differs from the Hermitage eagle in that the handle is complete

however it is without feet. The third object is from St. Catherine’s Monastery and consists of

another eagle aquamanile, made of copper and datable to the 9 th century in Iraq (fig. 97). The St.

Catherine’s example is alike the previous two except the handle is in the shape of a lion or

another related species. The usage of the handle figure is unusual in the Abbasid period as no

38
other comparable examples exist; it is a characteristic more common in the Umayyad period

(figs. 10-2). Nevertheless, the three eagle aquamaniles are likely produced in Iraq and datable to

the 8th-9th century in the Abbasid period, without other supporting evidence for the figural handle

on the St. Catherine’s example, the originality of the handle to the aquamanile should be

questioned. The fourth object is a bronze ewer datable to the 8th-9th century in Iraq (fig. 98) and

contains zoomorphic decoration, namely the teardrop-shaped body is engraved with a stylized

date-palm tree flanked with a peacock on each side. There is a small base, curving handle,

elongated neck and finally the spout is reminiscent of a bird’s beak, a zoomorphic shape. The

theme of the peacocks divided with the tree of life in symmetry reflects the pre-Islamic imagery

of Sasanian themes, further evidence of Abbasid adaptation of Persian subject matter likely

produced at Baghdad. Although it is important to note that the tree of life and peacock themes

developed in Umayyad art as well. Peacock imagery is utilized in Umayyad metalwork; a censor

(fig. 33), a pierced basin (fig. 34) and three handles (figs. 35-7) are the previously mentioned

examples although one handle might be Abbasid (fig. 37), while the mosaic tree of life is seen at

Khirbat al-Mafjar (app. I, N).

Another important part of Abbasid metalwork that combined figural and zoomorphic

decoration is incense burners. Abbasid period incense burners produced in Iran and Iraq are cast

with different zoomorphic themes or figural imagery than those made in Egypt and the Levant,

those produced in the latter will be discussed in the next section; they do however have common

designs and styles. Abbasid incense burners datable to the 8 th-10th century or those that are pre-

Fatimid generally follow the same trend, a squared chamber supported with four zoomorphic

legs or a cylindrical chamber supported with three zoomorphic legs, a pyramidal or bulbous

upper chamber is sometimes used. All incense burners are pierced with geometric or vegetal

39
decoration59 and crowned with a blooming flower, bud, pomegranate or knob. The crowning

ornamentation serves as a handle, but similarly to the thumb-piece on Abbasid ewers, surpassed

its utilitarian function and became more of an embedded aesthetic element in Abbasid

metalwork. A protruding handle usually pierced and culminating in zoomorphic or figural

decoration is common on most Abbasid period burners. Incense burners found in the Levantine

region can be datable to the transitional period between the Umayyads and Abbasids however

most retain the later characteristics of Abbasid influenced Greater Persia. The primary influence

from Iran and Iraq would be the cylindrical shape of incense burners, which is reminiscent of

architecture found in Sasanian Persia and remained during the Early Islamic Period. The design

of pre-Islamic architecture in Persia is unique and was not found in the western Islamic world,

namely Egypt or the Levant.60 Examples of the architecture that probably influenced Abbasid

incense burners are depicted on wall paintings in Soghdian at Piandjikent, Iran and from the

architecture of the Early Islamic Period mosque of Chahr Sutun at Termez, Iran.61 Moreover, the

feet of Abbasid incense burners produced in Greater Persia are shaped in a simple style common

with other comparable metal objects. In comparison and contrary to some scholars, western

Islamic metalwork utilized feet that were larger and had more detailed zoomorphic features.

Essentially zoomorphic feet stylization is regionally based, in the Early Islamic Period the

territory was divided under the control of the different dynasties: the result was that the western

centered dynasties generally retained the Byzantine and Roman styles as evidenced through the

feet of similar 4th-6th century incense burners and lampstands, while the eastern dynasties

retained the distinctive and simple Iranian or Sasanian style.62 Metalwork produced in 4th-12th

59
Baer, Metalwork Medieval Islamic Art 45.
60
Ibid., 47-8.
61
Ibid., 49.
62
Ibid., 45.

40
century Egypt can be classified through the use of certain stylistic characteristics including

distinctive zoomorphic features, notably lion paws and certain figural decoration; this is a part of

the Egyptian regional style and is expressed on Fatimid period incense burners that is discussed

in Chapter Three.

Examples of Abbasid incense burners with distinctive Persian influences are in the L.A.

Mayer Memorial Museum at Jerusalem (fig. 99-100), several in the collection of the Coptic

Museum at Cairo (figs. 101-3) and two from the Madaba Archaeological Museum in the

Kingdom of Jordan (figs. 104-6). The L.A. Mayer bronze incense burners are datable to the 8th-

10th century from Greater Persia, probably Iran, one is square-shaped and stands on four legs

with simple zoomorphic feet and has a pierced pyramidal upper chamber crowned with a

blooming flower surrounded with four knobs (fig. 99). The other burner (fig. 100) is cylindrical

in shape with a pierced bulbous chamber and crowned with a knob, although the crown is

probably a depiction of a flower yet to blossom or a bud. The burner stands on three legs with

minimal zoomorphic feet and has a slender handle capped with a knob. The three bronze burners

(figs. 101-3) from Cairo’s Coptic Museum are datable to the 8th-10th century and likely Iranian in

origin. The three are cylindrical with pierced bulbous upper chambers crowned with blooming

flowers, have slender handles and three legs with simple zoomorphic feet, one of the burners

however is damaged (fig. 103). The Madaba bronze burners (figs. 104-5) datable to the 8th-10th

century are also cylindrical with pierced bulbous upper chambers, stands on three legs with

simplified zoomorphic feet, are crowned with blooming flowers and have slender handles. Other

scholars note the pearl band present on a Madaba burner (fig. 105) as a link to the antique world,

namely to a Roman or Sasanian influence 63 but neglect the most important evidence, which is the

handle ornamentation and is indicative of a Persian origin. The Freer incense burner (fig. 31) that
63
Byzantine and Islam 152.

41
is datable to the 8th-9th century in Egypt or the transitional period between the Umayyad and

Abbasid caliphates in Egypt provides further evidence for the regional based influences on Early

Islamic Period metalwork. The zoomorphic feet of the Freer burner are stylized lion paws that

are typical of metalwork from 4th-6th century Byzantine Egypt and later in the Early Islamic

Period under the Fatimids. The figural decoration of the Freer burner was commonly applied in

Egypt from the 4th-12th centuries as evidenced through other metalware examples. Additionally,

the shape of the Freer burner although likely inspired by Byzantine church architecture, 64 another

reason for an Egyptian origin, has been compared to the architecture from the Dome of the Rock

and Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem as possible sources for influence, further proving a Western

Islamic and Egyptian origin. 65

The Continuation of Abbasid Metalwork in Egypt from the 9th-10th Century

After the decline of Abbasid hegemony in Egypt and the Levant, their influence on the

decorative arts continued. As a result, Tulunid and Ikhshidid produced metalwork cannot easily

be distinguished from that produced at Baghdad or from Iran. The majority of the metal objects

produced in Egypt and the Levant under the Tulunid and Ikhshidid emirates can thus be more

accurately described as Abbasid metalwork datable to the 9th-10th century in Egypt. Certain

Abbasid metal objects in Egypt were blended with the regional Egyptian style more than other

objects; these include ewers and incense burners. Classification of these objects is difficult as

they were possibly produced in Egypt from the 9th-12th centuries with slight stylistic differences.

Some ewers although all similar are likely datable to Abbasid Egypt despite the opinion of other

scholars, which allude to a Fatimid period origin. 66

The typical ewers are bronze or brass and usually have a teardrop-shaped body consistent

64
Bloom et al., Islamic Arts 120.
65
Baer, Metalwork Medieval Islamic Art 47-8.
66
Ward, Islamic Metalwork 64-5.

42
with Abbasid style bottles (figs. 29-31, 69 and 71). The ewers are also similar in shape to pre-

Islamic and Umayyad period bottles datable to the 5th-8th century from Egypt (figs. 22-8 and app.

I, M). The ewers have a knobbed base, long ringed neck, a slender S-shaped handle and are

topped with a lid crowned with a knob or another ornament. The handle has a hollowed and

pierced box in its center; the handle ornament consists of knobs or figures common with other

Abbasid metal objects of Persian origin. Examples of these ewers are in the Metropolitan

Museum of Art at New York (fig. 106), Keir Collection at Berlin (figs. 107-9) Islamic Museum

at Cairo (fig. 110), British Museum at London (fig. 111) and other collections. The combination

of the shape, style and ornament of the Abbasid ewers produced in Egypt and datable to the 9th-

10th century is not seen elsewhere in the Early Islamic Period. Although similar ewers have been

found in Lebanon, Mallorca, Sicily and Spain, 67 the shape of the ewers support an Egyptian

origin. The portability of metalwork from plunder or trade is considered for their findspot outside

of Egypt but the shape of the ewers, which is similar to those from Umayyad Egypt and the use

of three feet seen on a ewer (fig. 106) correspond with kettles from Egypt, therefore indicating a

likely Egyptian origin. The S-shaped handle with its Abbasid style ornament is not common on

any other metal object in Greater Persia however the use of lion and horse figural decoration

used as handle ornamentation on ewers from the Keir Collection (fig. 107), British Museum (fig.

111) and a ewer fragment from a private collection (figs. 13 and 13.2) is similar to those on other

Abbasid ewers (figs. 82-3 and 112) and was not common in the Fatimid period, another

indication for a 9th-10th century or pre-Fatimid dating. The shape of the ewers, the unique handles

and other stylistic details, which are not utilized in Greater Persia would be considered the

Egyptian regional style and indicate an Egyptian origin, the use of certain Abbasid themes

including the figural handle ornamentation denote an Abbasid influence, thus making the ewers
67
Ward, Islamic Metalwork 64.

43
datable to the 9th-10th century in Abbasid Egypt. It should be noted that other scholars have

alluded to an Egyptian origin, namely at Alexandria from 700-900.68 There is no extant evidence

to support an Alexandrian origin or such an early dating. The shape of the ewers is similar to pre-

Islamic precious metal vessels however; the S-shaped handle and figural ornament are not. It is a

possibility that the Alexandrian port could have served simply as a center for export across the

Mediterranean, which would also provide for such a wide range of sources for these ewers.

Additional bronze ewers produced in Egypt datable to the 9th-10th century share a

common shape, a bulbous chamber with a slender fluted neck, a spout, looped handle and three

simple feet. These ewers often contained two types of ornamentation consisting of a leaf or knob

on the handle and a multi-lobed finial on the spout. Examples include a ewer from the Keir

Collection at Berlin (fig. 113), Islamic Museum at Berlin (fig. 114), Islamic Museum at Cairo

(figs. 115-6) and Musée d’Art et d’histoire at Geneva (fig. 117). The shape of the ewers

including the spout and the three feet indicate an Egyptian origin as they are seen on comparable

pre-Islamic and Early Islamic Period metal objects exclusively in Egypt. 69 Numerous examples

of Byzantine metal objects from pre-Islamic Egypt are in the collection of the Musée du Louvre.

Nevertheless, these ewers were produced during the transitional period in Egypt between the

Abbasid and Fatimid periods and create a dilemma in dating however based upon the handle

ornamentation, which was popular under the Abbasids; it is likely they are pre-Fatimid.

Incense burners produced in Abbasid Egypt and datable to the 9 th-10th century are found

in the Khalili Collection at London (fig. 118) and numerous from the collections of the Coptic

Museum at Cairo and Musée du Louvre, yet three examples which define the trend are in the

Coptic Museum (fig. 119) and the Musée du Louvre (figs. 120-1). The incense burners are all

68
Allan, Metalwork Aron Collection 16-7.
69
Allan, Treasures of Islam 253.

44
bronze and cylindrical in shape with pierced geometric and vegetal bulbous upper chambers,

handles frequently culminating with flowers, three zoomorphic feet and crowned with blooming

flowers or knobs. The zoomorphic feet are representative of the regional Egyptian style; they are

reminiscent of animal hooves over the simple Iranian stylized feet, while the use of the handle

ornamentation indicates a distinctive Persian influence. The ewers and incense burners

previously discussed (figs. 106-11 and 113-21) serve as examples of Abbasid metalwork blended

with the regional Egyptian style, which can be defined through a shape, placement of a handle or

style of zoomorphic feet, in any case these metal objects would only be created in Egypt.

Additional Abbasid Metal Objects

There remain some additional metal objects produced during the Abbasid period that

form an important part of overall Abbasid metalwork. These objects include a pierced brass

mosque lamp in the David Collection at Copenhagen (fig. 122), a bronze basin from a German

private collection (fig. 123) and two bronze mirror-backs in the collection of the Musée d’Art et

d’histoire at Geneva (figs. 124-5). The mosque lamp datable to the 10th century from Iran or Iraq

is pierced with a geometric motif and has an intricate chain. The basin datable to the 8th-11

century from Iran is punched and carved with an elaborate geometric motif. The mirror-back

(fig. 124) datable to the 10th-11th century from Iran contains imagery of a princely hunt on its

reverse; a reference to an earlier Sasanian theme readapted in an Islamic context 70 and includes a

Kufic inscription with good wishes. The reverse of the second mirror-back (fig. 125) contains

imagery of animals from the hunt surrounded with a pearl border and a Kufic inscription. These

objects are the few surviving examples of alternative types of Abbasid metalwork that utilized

decoration and styles previously discussed.

70
Sasanian Silver 80.

45
Chapter Three

Fatimid Metalwork

Metalwork of the Fatimid period began in Ifriqiyya early in the 10th century and consisted

primarily of simple utilitarian objects, however it developed into elaborate and distinctive

aesthetic examples after the Fatimid conquest of Egypt and the surrounding territory.

The pre-Islamic cultural influence and the regional Egyptian style were adapted under the

Fatimids and this was reflected in their metalwork. A transitional period existed between the

Abbasid Persian influence in Egypt and the Fatimid expansion that led to metalwork production

inspired through their decorative arts program. Included in part of this chapter is the most

complete body of all known examples of Fatimid metalwork from institutions both public and

private, auctions, exhibitions and private collections. A comprehensive catalog of all Fatimid

metalwork has never before been completed; it serves as only part of this chapter. The second

part is the analysis of Fatimid metal objects and their relation to Umayyad and Abbasid objects.

Introduction to Fatimid Metalwork

The Fatimid period in Egypt (969-1171) was marked with great achievements in the

decorative arts, especially metalwork. The metal objects they produced were innovative with

highly intricate detail; even the most utilitarian object was often decorated. This was a contrast

from the metalwork produced in Fatimid Ifriqiyya, which was simple and less ornate. It seems in

Egypt, the Fatimids were unable to resist the stimuli of other pre-Islamic cultures and previous

Islamic dynasties with their own styles and designs. Nevertheless, the Fatimids began to create

examples in metal that had never been produced nor were repeated in successive Islamic

dynasties. This applies especially to the idea of freestanding figural objects, both human and

animal, with no purpose other than for aestheticism. In addition, they fashioned other metal

46
objects mostly in bronze, brass, copper, iron and silver: these include aquamaniles, boxes, bowls,

buckets, candlesticks, door knockers, fans, faucets, hinges, incense burners, keys, ladles, lamps,

lampstands, lamp-chains, lids, mirror-backs, plates, plaques, polycandela, protomes, tools and

waterspouts. There are few surviving examples of precious metal objects from the Fatimid

period, for the reasons discussed in Chapter One, the few surviving however will also be

reviewed.

The Fatimid Identity and Development of Metalwork

The Fatimid reliance on pre-Islamic cultures of Egypt and the Levant and the lesser

influence from Persia can be explained through geographical limitations. The origins of Fatimid

culture can be traced to Ifriqiyya and their gradual conquest of North Africa, the Levantine

region, Hijaz and the eventual domination of the Mediterranean Sea with its numerous islands.

Not in their territory was Abbasid-controlled Mesopotamia and Greater Persia. In contrast, the

cultural origins of the Umayyads and Abbasids included Egypt and Syria however especially in

the Abbasid period were greatly influenced with pre-Islamic Iran and Iraq. This helps to explain

the unique position Fatimid metalwork retains in comparison to other metal objects of the Early

Islamic Period. Consequently, never before had the pre-Islamic influence of Egypt taken such a

prominent role in Islamic metal arts before the Fatimids. The influence of pre-Islamic Egypt

provided the Fatimids with a foundation to develop their own unique style.

Figural Metal Objects with an Aesthetic Raison d’être in the Fatimid Period

As previously discussed, the figural form was disparaged in the Islamic world and as the

praxis of Islam was defined the figural image was seen less frequently than in other dynasties of

the Early Islamic Period. The disdain for the figural image did not however prevent its use

altogether and it is seen in numerous mediums of the decorative arts including metalwork. The

47
Fatimid use of animal figures as utilitarian objects is again not uncommon, as seen in previous

metal examples from the Umayyad (figs. 7-9) and the Abbasid periods (figs. 95-7). The Fatimid

use of human and animal figures as freestanding metal objects with an aesthetic raison d’être was

a new concept. A unique experiment in Islamic metalwork occurred under Fatimid rule in Egypt.

It can be classified as experimental largely because it was not seen in previous or successive

Islamic periods with the same emphasis. Although the figural form was utilized in later Abbasid

Iran and Iraq as well as in several successive Islamic dynasties in Greater Persia, the metalwork

was not as naturalistic and usually accompanied a utilitarian object as embellishment such as

protomes or was a zoomorphic detail. Fatimid figural work was often stylized yet the animal

themes were numerous and unlike those produced in Islamic Persia. The figures can be grouped

into the camel, gazelle, goat, hare, ibex, leopard and lion. There is only one surviving human

figural example, the tambourine player at the Islamic Museum in Cairo (fig. 126). Although

other animals were employed in Fatimid metalwork, they either served a utilitarian function or

were considered zoomorphic detail and embellishment; they will be discussed in the next section

along with two abstract human forms, one found on a bronze oil lamp.

The human figural example, the tambourine player from the Islamic Museum at Cairo

(fig. 126), is unique in Fatimid metalwork. The figure is made of cast bronze and datable to the

11th century from Fustat, Egypt. The female musician holds a tambourine and is bejeweled with

anklets, bracelets, a diadem and necklace, she has long hair and almond shaped eyes reminiscent

of human figural imagery from Fatimid ceramics. 71 The figure uniquely serves an artistic

purpose with no other function. Previously, as discussed in Chapter Two, human figural imagery

was used in the Umayyad period to adorn utilitarian metal objects. The appearance of the

tambourine player, although stylized, is more realistic than the highly exaggerated Umayyad
71
Abbas, The Fatimids 79.

48
examples (figs. 1.3-2). The use of jewelry on the tambourine player attests to the great wealth the

Fatimids commanded and their interest in fine gold and silver metals: in comparison the

Umayyad examples are not crowned and wore jewelry that appears simpler. The significance of

the Fatimid musician is that she was produced in a period when an emphasis on aestheticism in

the decorative arts flourished. Although this is the only example from the Fatimid period, the

elaborate detail indicates a later dating, likely in the 11th century.

The first example of an animal figural object is a camel, the sole piece found in the Keir

Collection at Berlin (fig. 126). The bronze camel, datable from the 10th-12th century in Egypt is

supported with four legs, the hind two bent. The body is inscribed with a floral pattern, common

in Fatimid figural metalwork. Intricate floral and vegetal roundels, scrolls, arabesques and other

decorative designs were commonly used to enhance the unique detail of these objects. This style

of embellishment was not previously seen on any other metalwork in the Early Islamic Period

similar ornamentation on Islamic bronze animals was found in the Western Mediterranean;72 this

will be discussed in Chapter Four with the Pisa Griffon. Another type is the gazelle of which

there exist numerous examples. The gazelle, often misidentified by other scholars as a deer, was

a popular Fatimid theme. The incorrect identification likely stemmed from damaged or

incomplete examples of the gazelle figures that are without large antlers characteristic of the

gazelle. Close examination of all the known Fatimid period examples reveals stylistically they

are extremely similar and the damaged figures indicate the probable presence of gazelle-like

antlers. The figures are likely modeled specifically after the Nubian Ibex, a species in the Gazella

genus, which was indigenous to Fatimid period Egypt (app. I, R). The gazelle figures are found

in the Islamic Museum at Berlin (fig. 128), Islamic Museum at Cairo (fig. 129), at the 1910

72
Gierlichs et al., Islamic Art Germany 131.

49
Munich exhibition (fig. 130),73 David Collection at Copenhagen (fig. 131), a private collection

consigned at Christie’s (fig. 132) and Keir Collection at Berlin (fig. 133). The six bronze gazelle

figures are all datable to the late 10th-12th century in Egypt. They are freestanding and supported

on four legs, with the exception of the Munich (fig. 130) and David (fig. 131) examples which

are fragmented and missing their hind legs: additionally the David example is missing its side.

Five of the gazelle figures are decorated with exterior ornamentation consisting of scrolling

floral and vegetal motifs. The Cairo (fig. 129) and Christie’s (fig. 132) examples contain the

most elaborate ornamentation that include encircled pomegranate motifs and pronounced frontal

legs with, as one scholar described it, a shield design.74 The well-defined legs and shield design

would become more common with Fatimid metalwork. The Christie’s example is the best

preserved and the most complete, yet it lacks the deep cut pomegranate detail of the Cairo

example. The other gazelle from the Keir Collection (fig. 133) is highly stylized and has the least

amount of detail in the group of six, however it is worn and original decoration may have been

lost. It is more reminiscent of an ibex than the other five, but is part of the overall Gazella genus.

The feet of the gazelle figures are similar to the stylized zoomorphic type common on Central

Asian incense burners (figs. 101-3): the only exception are the Christie’s example (fig. 132) with

zoomorphic hooves appropriate for a gazelle and the Berlin example (fig. 128) that is without

hooves at all, the likely result of damage. These figures are certainly from Fatimid Egypt;

supporting evidence derives from comparison with ceramics produced in Egypt in the same

period that are decorated with gazelles.75 Additionally the Nubian Ibex, an animal almost

exclusive to Egypt, closely resembles these figures and was native in the Fatimid period. It is

very interesting to note that the gazelle figures are produced with such a wide variety of designs,

73
Current whereabouts unknown: Last exhibited 1910 Ausstellung Muhammedanischer Kunst in München
74
Abbas, The Fatimids 76.
75
Christie’s, Arts Islamic and Indian Worlds April 2011 92.

50
styles, sizes and details, perhaps more so than any other zoomorphic group in Fatimid

metalwork.

Another animal figure common in the Fatimid period is the goat; three examples are

found in the Keir Collection at Berlin (figs. 134-6), all bronze and datable to the 10th-12th century

in Egypt. One of the goat figures, perhaps the most detailed of the group (fig. 134) is decorated

with four human figures seated under arches. The appearance of their faces and clothing indicate

a Fatimid origin. 76 The use of human figural decoration on the Keir goat differed from human

figural use previously in the early Islamic approach of protomes and embellishments to

utilitarian objects. In the case of the Keir goat, no other similar human figural decoration remains

on any other Fatimid metalwork examples, therefore it cannot be determined if this was

experimental or a common stylistic technique. Also the goat is inscribed in floriated Kufic,

however only an ineligible trace remains. The Keir goat has stylized features (fig. 134). It is

freestanding on four legs; although only one side of the object remains, the feet and horns are

lost. The second Keir goat (fig. 135) is like the former in style, shape and decoration, except

without human figural imagery. This goat is also missing its second half and horns; the feet are

simple zoomorphic hooves. It seems a number of the animal figures from the Fatimid period are

without a second half, since most of the figures are cast in halves. Over time the joint split and

the other side was lost. The third goat (fig. 136) is devoid of any decoration and heavily worn. It

is wrapped in a textile likely from the period that has shielded the exterior surface. The figure is

complete, freestanding with four legs and has stylized feet.

An extremely popular theme in Fatimid Egypt is the hare, used to decorate ceramics,

ivory, rock crystal, woodwork and of course metalwork. Perhaps the most prolific of animal

figural objects produced in the Fatimid Caliphate, hare examples are found in the collections of
76
Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir 49.

51
the David Collection at Copenhagen (fig. 137), Keir Collection at Berlin (fig. 138), Islamic

Museum at Cairo (fig. 139), L.A. Mayer Museum of Islamic Art at Jerusalem (fig. 140), Musée

du Louvre at Paris (fig. 141) and a private collection on loan to the Metropolitan Museum of Art

at New York (fig. 142);77 other examples will be discussed in the next section. The hare figures

are all cast in bronze and datable to the 10th-12th century in Egypt. Three of the hare objects (figs.

138-9 and 142) are more realistic in appearance although stylized while the others (figs. 137 and

140-1) are highly stylized with swinish features or those reminiscent of another mammal. Three

in the group (figs. 137 and 139-40) might have served an additional purpose other than purely

aesthetic, possibly as a waterspout or miniature aquamanile. Other scholars have alluded to this

possible function,78 however without any evidence or additional examples the alternative purpose

remains conjecture.79 Additionally, markings and piercings that indicate another function may

not be original to the object.80 The various forms of the hare cast in Egypt suggest the varying

appeal of the theme. The L.A. Mayer hare (fig. 140) shows a defensive pose, the Keir hare (fig.

138) an action position and the Metropolitan hare (fig. 142) is seated with its ears alert. The

exterior decoration of the hare figures is mostly foliate and vegetal decoration: the L. A. Mayer

(fig. 140) and Metropolitan (fig. 142) examples both share the same tri-lobed design while the

Keir example (fig. 138) is engraved with marks representative of ribs, a decorative element that

became a highlight of Fatimid figural metalwork and is not seen on metal objects from any other

Islamic period. It is also a common Fatimid decorative element with animal figures on other

mediums such as ceramics.

77
Other Scholars have incorrectly cited this object as part of Harvard University’s collection: this hare figure was in
the Stoclet Collection of Belgium, published under Migeon, Manuel D’Art Musulman 1927: exhibited in Harvard
University Collection, Cambridge (at least in 1998) and Metropolitan Museum of Art Collection, New York 2011
from anonymous private collection
78
Baer, Metalwork Medieval Islamic Art 156-7.
79
Scholars have suggested alternative functions: no research, testing or evidence exists supporting this argument
80
Islamic Art Egypt 55.

52
 Finally, the last four examples of animal figural metalwork are the leopard (fig. 143) and

three lions (figs. 144-6) from the Islamic Museum and Keir Collection at Berlin and a previous

exhibition held at Munich. The four from the Panthera genus are all cast bronze and datable to

the 10th-12th century in Egypt. It is difficult to discern the exact species of the four objects since

they are all stylized and worn. The leopard (fig. 143) and a lion from the group (fig. 145) that are

from the Keir Collection at Berlin are both similar in their pouncing stance; detailing can be seen

on the leopard indicative of spots. A second lion in the group (fig. 146) is so worn that individual

details are hard to discern; it is likely to be datable to the earlier Fatimid period, since it is highly

stylized and simplistic. Another lion from the group (fig. 144) is cast in a seated position with the

exterior rib markings, a noted Fatimid attribute. Other scholars have alluded to a Fatimid origin

from Sicily and an alternative function other than artistic for one lion in the group (fig. 145).81

There is no evidence, testing or comparative material to support either argument, however a

Southern Italian origin from the Fatimid period is not impossible. Additionally, limited

information is available for the leopard (fig. 143) and a lion example in the group (fig. 144),82

that previously shown at the 1910 Munich exhibition. The difficulty in precisely dating the

Fatimid period animal figures originates from the wide span of their production, not only in

Egypt but throughout the Mediterranean, Levant and Iran. In Egypt animal figures were

produced in ancient Egyptian, Roman and Byzantine art.83 They were produced in the Early

Islamic Period as embellishments or utilitarian objects and in the Fatimid period the same

function continued with an added purely aesthetic purpose. Nevertheless, in the absence of dated

objects and stratified archaeological material much evidence can be drawn from stylistic

81
Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir 48.
82
No known publication since 1910 Ausstellung Muhammedanischer Kunst in München: current whereabouts
unknown
83
Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir 43.

53
comparison and from related datable media such as ceramics. 84 It can be said that the objects in

motion and with sophisticated decoration are more likely to be from the later Fatimid period,85

compared to the simplistic metal objects produced at Kairouan and the nonexistence of animal

figural metalwork. These difficulties might account for earlier scholars incorrectly attributing

almost all animal figural metalwork from the Early Islamic Period to a Fatimid origin. 86 The

differences of Fatimid figural metalwork and those produced in the Early Islamic Period, notably

under the Umayyads and Abbasids, are well defined. Fatimid examples were sometimes

produced with the idea of an artistic raison d’être not seen in the previous periods; their attention

to certain stylistic details such as the pronounced leg, rib marking, more realistic appearance of

the figures and difference in popularity of certain animals are all elements not common on

Umayyad and Abbasid metalwork.

Fatimid Zoomorphic, Foliate and Figural Metalwork

In the Fatimid period especially in Egypt, metal objects with a function were sometimes

embellished with zoomorphic, foliate and figural details. These objects differed from those in the

previous section, which were solely for artistic reasons; these objects were functional with

decoration. The bronze and a few silver objects produced are aquamaniles, fans, faucets, hinges,

incense burners, lamps, lampstands, lamp-chains, lids, plaques, protomes and waterspouts. The

animals employed with this category of metal objects are more diverse than those used in

metalwork probably in any other part of the Islamic world. These include the bear, birds

(stylized), eagles, gazelle, hare, lions, a mouse, parrots, peacocks and worms. Certain

zoomorphic features were applied to metal objects including stylized animal feet and vegetal or

84
Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir 43.
85
Ibid., 43.
86
Migeon in Manuel Musulman 374-83, including other early scholars incorrectly attribute almost all animal figural
metalwork to Fatimid Egypt

54
foliate decoration. Additionally, some of the objects were adorned with human figural imagery,

namely angels and abstract human forms.

Animal figural objects that served as protomes, decoration or had a function were

numerous in the Fatimid period. The parrot is used prolifically in Fatimid metalwork in Egypt

and until a complete example was discovered, currently in the Keir Collection at Berlin (fig.

147), its true purpose was unknown. The bronze parrot figures from Egypt and datable to the

10th-12th century are engaged as part of the lamp-chain that was suspended above a pierced

bronze globe decorated with animals, namely gazelles and hares, as well as scrolling palmettes.87

Numerous other parrot examples are found in the Keir Collection; they all are pierced to allow

the lamp-chain to pass through (figs. 148-54). One parrot (fig. 148) has incised decoration

indicating feathers, wings and registers with pseudo-Egyptian hieroglyphics that suggest an

Egyptian origin. 88 The ornate detail of this parrot (fig. 148) is indicative of an advanced date in

the Fatimid period, likely 11th-12th century, while the other parrots are void of exterior decoration

with only pronounced wing markings. A final parrot example, also in the Islamic Museum at

Berlin, is cast in bronze and datable to the 10th century in Egypt (fig. 155). This parrot is

different from the other examples in that it has several piercings including through its center,

beak, eyes and wings. Although it is void of any decoration, the wings are much more

pronounced than the others and it was likely used for the same purpose with lamp-chains.

Previously in the Early Islamic Period animal figural forms are only utilized as protomes or

embellishment to objects. Parrots in Fatimid metalware become a major artistic component of the

object, in this case a lamp-chain, even adapting pre-Islamic writing as decoration, a dynamic use

not seen in Islamic metalwork previously.

87
Fehérvári, Metalwork 120.
88
Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir, 52.

55
 The lion in Fatimid Egypt was used largely as waterspouts; other uses such as protomes

can be attributed to the early Fatimid period. On Umayyad and Abbasid metalware the lion was

only used as a protome. In the transitional 10th century between the Abbasid and Fatimid

administration of Egypt, their remained a period of Persian influence on the decorative arts and

Fatimid metalwork reflected this impact, an example is the lion protome from the Keir

Collection at Berlin (fig. 156). The cast bronze lion datable to the 10th century in Egypt has a

pouncing stance and is devoid of decoration. Its position and looped tail indicate it was attached

to another object. Another cast bronze lion protome datable to the 10 th century in Egypt (fig.

157) and also in the Keir Collection reiterates a common theme in Islamic imagery, the lion

attacking the gazelle (app. I, N). These two animals together likely crowned a lid,89 which would

be a Fatimid development, since Umayyad and Abbasid metal objects are crowned with

pomegranates and flowers, etc., but not animals. The decoration consists of detailed markings,

including ribs, a noted Fatimid theme. Evidence for the lion and gazelle theme in the Fatimid

period appears on wood carvings from the royal palace and in Cairo and variations from Fatimid

period churches.90

The application of the lion evolved in Fatimid work to become in the 11th and 12th

centuries a waterspout. The three known examples are found in the Islamic Museum at Cairo

(fig. 158), Islamic Museum at Berlin (fig. 159) and from the Hessisches Landesmuseum at

Kassel in Germany (fig. 160): the lion waterspout was a new concept in art from the Early

Islamic Period in Egypt. The 12th century Cairo waterspout (fig. 158) is cast in bronze with a

pierced mouth, stomach and hollow interior. The lion is stylized and the decoration consists of

dots, lines and triangles to denote its features including the eyes, nose, paws and whiskers (fig.

89
Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir 51.
90
Ibid., 44.

56
158.2). The lion has pronounced legs and ears; the leg detail is a recurring Fatimid theme. The

tail is ribbed and culminates with the head of a dragon,91 imagery more common with later

period aquamaniles or waterspouts from Greater Persia and Umayyad Spain. Further evidence

for a Fatimid attribution comes from historical references to a contemporary lion waterspout at

the Nilometer in Cairo.92 The Berlin waterspout is cast in bronze and datable to the 12th century

in Egypt (fig. 159). The lion is stylized with the Fatimid rib marks, has a pierced mouth and

stomach, pronounced legs in the Fatimid tradition, is hollow and has exterior decoration

consisting of dots with vegetal motifs. The feet are highly stylized with a Persian theme and the

tail ending is unique; the ears match the Cairo lion. Most importantly, the Berlin lion has an

inscription that states it is made for the governor of lower Egypt and Cairo, Shams al-Dīn. The

third lion, from Kassel, is made of cast bronze and datable to the 11th-12th century in Cairo,

Egypt (fig. 160). This waterspout is also inscribed with Kufic that states it is made by the

sculptor Abdullah al-maththal. This was likely produced close to the Fatimid court in Cairo,93

although other scholars have indicated its style is a migration from the type formed in Islamic

Spain.94 The Kassel waterspout does have parallels with Islamic bronzes in Umayyad Spain,

notably with the sleek face and highly detailed paws with an emphasis on realism. The body

lacks decoration or markings other than the inscription and has eyes and ears unlike the previous

two lion examples and should therefore be dated earlier than the previous two. The body is

hollow, the mouth and stomach are pierced. Other scholars have alluded to its function as an

aquamanile and not a waterspout,95 citing markings that might indicate a handle. 96 The origin of

91
Abbas, The Fatimids 74.
92
Ibid., 74.
93
Gierlichs et al., Islamic Art Germany 131.
94
Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir 43.
95
The Arts of Islam 165.
96
No known evidence exists: absence of tail

57
these large Panthera waterspouts can be traced to Persian pierced incense burners in animal form

from the 11th and 12th centuries of Abbasid or Seljuk rule. 97 The trend began in Khorasan98 and

was later adapted by the Fatimids that produced distinctive examples of waterspouts. Perhaps the

lion waterspouts functioned similarly to those carved in stone at the Alhambra in 11th century

Umayyad Spain (app. I, S-T) or like the Fatimid stone lion waterspout in the Hermitage Museum

at St. Petersburg (app. I, U). Although there is no information about how Fatimid waterspouts

were used in situ, their grandeur, similar high esteem in Umayyad Spain and political patronage

as evidenced from the inscriptions suggest they were probably employed at the Fatimid royal

palaces in Cairo.

A menagerie of animals utilized in the Fatimid period consisting of the bear, stylized

birds, eagles, hare, mice, peacocks and worms were all used as protomes or decoration to adorn

particular objects. In some examples multiple animals and zoomorphic features are present, a

development in metalwork not seen in Umayyad and Abbasid examples, some objects become

entirely anthropomorphic. In the Sabah Collection at the Kuwait National Museum are two

peacock protomes, both cast in bronze and datable to the 10th-11th century in Egypt or possibly

Syria (figs. 161-2). The two peacocks are stylized with limited decoration signifying a date in the

early Fatimid period. The second peacock (fig. 162) is situated on a faucet whose opening

consists of a lion’s head. The al-Sabah examples differ from the peacock themes in Byzantine

and Umayyad metalwork in Egypt (figs. 33-9) in that they were used to a lesser extent, notably

in the Fatimid period, as protomes. Earlier they were seen as figural aquamaniles, censers and

incense burners, pierced in bowls and on plaques. The range of objects and popularity of the

peacock is thus evidenced in Umayyad metalwork, while in the Fatimid period the style changed

97
Kühnel, Minor Arts Islam 158-60.
98
Ibid., 158-60.

58
or popularity waned as the peacock was used infrequently. In the Keir Collection at Berlin are a

bear cast in iron and a mouse cast in bronze, both datable to the 10th-11th century in Egypt (figs.

163-4). The bear is upright but heavily corroded and the animated mouse is positioned on a loop.

The two protomes were likely attached to a larger vessel probably from the earlier Fatimid

period during the transition from Abbasid rule. The mouse has correlations with similar animals

situated on loops for ornamentation, namely the ewers datable to the 9 th-10th century in Egypt

(figs. 106-12).

Various stylized birds, too nondescript or corroded to identify precisely the species, are

found on several Fatimid objects including incense burners and plaques; others exist today as

loose figures that are protomes, ornaments and finials that were likely attached to vessels.

Examples of loose bird figures are in the Islamic Museum at Cairo (fig. 165) 99 and the Keir

Collection at Berlin (fig. 166). The Cairo bird is stylized and is likely a finial; it is cast bronze

and datable to the 11th century in Egypt. The Berlin bird is formed in silver, a rare surviving

example of precious metal from Fatimid metalwork; it is from Egypt and datable to the 10th-11th

century. The bird is stylized yet the feathers and wings are marked; it is integrated into a loop

and is attached to a silver ewer. It is Egyptian in origin since stylistically it correlates with bird-

themed jewelry fashionable in Fatimid Egypt.100 A plaque in the collection of the Sackler

Museum of Art in Harvard University at Cambridge features two birds perched above a cast

brass pierced vegetal arabesque (fig. 167). The arabesque surrounds a rosette and a flowering

crown divides the birds equidistantly, a reference to the tree of life. The plaque is datable to

Egypt in the 10th century or transitional period, due to the absence of detail on the birds and the

flowering crown between them, which is in the Persian style. The stylized birds that adorned

99
Collection of Islamic Museum Cairo: Missing from Inventory and last published in Islamic Art Egypt exh. cat.
1969
100
Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir 44.

59
incense burners often are paired with another bird popular in the Fatimid era, the eagle. The

eagle is seen most often crowning incense burners and lids, but almost always is depicted with

spread wings and in an active position, sometimes with another animal, i.e. with a worm in its

beak (fig. 168). This representation differed from Umayyad period eagles, which are often

perched, sometimes with spread wings and have stationary attributes (figs. 1.2 and 17-8). The

Fatimid eagles, although stylized like their antecedents, have an animated twisted shape that

implied locomotion. Examples of several loose eagles that likely crowned incense burners and

lids are in the Keir Collection at Berlin (figs. 169-70) and the Musée du Louvre (fig. 172). These

eagles are all cast bronze and datable to Egypt in the 10th-12th century. The birds are stylized and

utilize dots with vegetal designs as decoration and to distinguish feathers, a noted Fatimid motif.

An eagle from the group in the Keir Collection (fig. 169) has a notably later dating in the 12th

century, the detail of its beak, wings and tail are more defined than the earlier Fatimid eagles,

although all in the group are worn.

Eagles that topped lids are found in the collections of the Islamic Museum at Berlin (figs.

173-4) and the Islamic Museum at Cairo (fig. 175). The three bronze lids are datable to the 11th-

12th century in Egypt and are inscribed in Kufic. The three lids are likely covers for braziers or

incense burners: all of the eagles have spread wings, are animate and stylized, although worn.

The stylization and lack of detail indicate a Fatimid dating probably in the 11th century,

especially in comparison with two of the individual Keir eagles (figs. 170-1) that are datable to

the 11th century and most likely from lids. Eagles used to adorn 10th-11th century Egyptian

incense burners are in the collections of the Musée du Louvre (figs. 168 and 176) and the Coptic

Museum at Cairo (figs. 177-9), although only a partial eagle remains from one of the Louvre

examples (fig. 176). These cast bronze incense burners consist of a combination either with

60
cylindrical or squared bases with domed or squared lids; they are all pierced with vegetal motifs

and scrolling vines. Certain features of the burners relate to earlier ones produced under the

Umayyads, Abbasids and pre-Islamic Byzantine Egypt. These features include the blooming

flower crowning four in the group (figs. 168 and 177-9), the pierced vegetal and scrolling vines

decorating all of the examples and the shapes of the burners which are seen on earlier Byzantine

and Islamic examples and other metal objects: these earlier features were discussed in Chapter

Two. The characteristics of these incense burners that allow for a Fatimid period dating are the

abundance of the hare used as protomes (a popular Fatimid theme), the eagle form that

stylistically is Fatimid, the presence of rib marks and the numerous birds used as protomes or

ornaments. The incense burners produced under the Fatimids in Egypt became a veritable

menagerie and are unlike any produced in the Early Islamic Period. The burners are Egyptian

because certain stylistic elements strongly suggest an Egyptian origin, especially the zoomorphic

feet with hooves from the regional Egyptian style. Use of the crowning flower ornament

however is a well-known Persian style. The Fatimids placed eagles and other birds above the

flowering crown (figs. 168 and 177-9) one burner in the group has an eagle with a dangling

worm (fig. 168), unseen imagery previously in the Early Islamic Period. The burners would then

be datable to the 10th-11th century in Egypt, largely due to the Persian flower usage probably

conveyed during the transitional period in Egypt and the detailed eagle protomes that were seen

later in the Fatimid period. The hare protomes integrated as legs (figs. 168 and 177) are unique in

Islamic metalwork and suggest another Fatimid stylistic development. Further evidence for a

Fatimid provenance can be seen on the hare protomes (fig. 168), which have rib marks (fig.

168.2) common with other Fatimid animal figures. Although the group is without handles; the

joint of a handle is visible on three (figs. 168 and 176-7), while the other two examples (figs.

61
178-9) are incomplete and only the lids remain from the actual burners.101 These incense burners

were likely used in ecclesiastical ceremonies, 102 including the Umayyad attributed Freer burner

(fig. 32). It should also be noted that some of the incense burners are missing the eagle protome

crown however remnants remain and it is presumed that they are eagles through stylistic

comparison of similar incense burners with surviving eagle protome crowns.

The final example of an animal figure in Fatimid metalwork is the gazelle aquamanile

currently in the collection of the Oriental Department in the Museum of Ethnology at Munich,

Germany (fig. 180). The cast bronze freestanding gazelle is datable to the 11th century in Egypt;

it is hollow and has a pierced mouth. Several other piercings throughout the object are related to

wear and not original, with the exception of two joints that possibly indicated the existence of a

handle. The figure can be attributed to the Fatimid period as it has the pronounced legs, rib

markings and scrolling floral or vegetal motifs, all of which are seen on other Fatimid animals.

There are two issues with the gazelle aquamanile; the first that some scholars have classified the

animal as a deer. Although this is plausible the majority of the physical features suggest an

animal from the Gazella genus, especially in comparison to the known Fatimid gazelle (figs.

128-33). The antlers or horns of the Munich example however are more reminiscent of a deer.

The second issue concerns the possible missing handle; since the handle is absent a definitive

provenance cannot be made, nonetheless a comparison is often made with another Fatimid

attributed gazelle aquamanile (fig. 181) that will be discussed in the next section with its Persian

handle. The lack of a handle for the Munich aquamanile aside, affirmation that the object is

Fatimid is suggested through the known Fatimid styles. The realistic appearance of the gazelle

101
Some scholars have incorrectly classified these incense burners as censers: the joint for a handle is visible on
three of the five in the group and no indications for suspension via chain exists
102
Atil et al., Islamic Metalwork Freer 59.

62
aquamanile is also similar to those on Fatimid ceramics, 103 further evidence for a Fatimid

provenance.

The other known examples of human figural imagery in Fatimid metalware used as

embellishment to objects, aside from the Keir goat (fig. 134), are angels found on Christian fans

and two abstract human forms from oil lamps. The silver fans in the collections of the Brooklyn

Museum at New York (fig. 182-3) and Coptic Museum at Cairo (fig. 184) are decorated with

figural imagery consisting of humans and animals. These fans or rhipidia are liturgical objects

produced for churches in Egypt and are datable to the 11th-12th century. The Brooklyn rhipidia

contain imagery of an ox and lion on one (fig. 182) and of an angel with an eagle on the other

(fig. 183). The Cairo rhipidion, similar in shape and appearance to the Brooklyn rhipidia is

decorated with imagery of the four beasts from the Book of Revelations in the Holy Bible,

namely cherubim and seraphim or different angels. The significance of these fans is that they

were produced with Christian figural imagery far into the Early Islamic Period in Egypt 104 and

especially unique is that they were produced in silver, which was less common in Fatimid Egypt

than under the Umayyads. The other examples of human figural ornamentation are on oil lamps

datable to the 10th century in the Medieval and Later Department of the British Museum (fig.

185) and the Musée du Louvre (fig. 186). The figures are both highly conceptual and almost

impossible to identify as human, however the possibility that one from the pair might be a bird

protome cannot be dismissed; it consists of a lone figural ornament separated from the lamp (fig.

186). The other example is situated on an oil lamp above the spout (fig. 185). The style of the

figures is unusual and not something seen in the decorative arts of the Islamic world. Scholars

have attributed the appearance of the two figures to elaborately festooned lamps from classical

103
Trésors Fatimides Caire 120.
104
Byzantine and Islam 74.

63
antiquity (figs. 51-2).105 It has been suggested that Louvre figure can be attributed to the

Byzantine period in Egypt, however there are no other comparable examples and the similar

British Museum figure is attached to a Fatimid period oil lamp, therefore the two examples likely

both are Fatimid.

A group of metalwork from the Fatimid period that is comprised of zoomorphic features,

foliate and vegetal shapes is a common theme on the numerous objects, but this decoration

differed from the previous group of objects that included human and animal figures or figural

imagery. The largest category of known objects in this second group that undoubtedly was

widely used in the Fatimid period are lampstands. These form part of the collections in the

Islamic Museum at Cairo (fig. 187), Islamic Museum at Berlin (fig. 188), Coptic Museum at

Cairo (figs. 189-91), Department of the Faculty of Arts in Cairo University at Giza (fig. 192),

David Collection at Copenhagen (fig. 193), a German private collection (fig. 194), Nubia

Museum at Aswan (fig. 195), al-Sabah Collection in the Kuwait National Museum (fig. 196),

three previously offered at Christie’s (figs. 197-9), Victoria and Albert Museum at London (fig.

200) and an anonymous loan to the British Museum (fig. 201). The fifteen known lampstands

include the aforementioned; there are also numerous incomplete sections from the Coptic

Museum at Cairo (figs. 202-12) and Sackler Museum of Art in Harvard University at Cambridge

(fig. 213) as well as some complete examples in the four Fatimid hoards (fig. 286). The

lampstands are produced in bronze or brass and all followed a certain design which can be

classified as the Fatimid type. This differed from other lampstands produced in the Early Islamic

Period that usually followed pre-Islamic models such as several Umayyad period lampstands

datable to the 7th century (figs. 46-52). The lampstands produced in the Fatimid period have

developed beyond the Umayyad ideal to create a type with a combination of geometric designs
105
Ward, Islamic Metalwork 62.

64
and a zoomorphic theme transposed from Byzantine Egypt. The zoomorphic theme includes

animate feet for each of the lampstands in the traditional animal stylization of Egypt, not Persian

as was common with other examples of Early Islamic Period metalwork; although some

lampstands had additional decoration of incised vine scrolls and floral motifs. All of the Fatimid

lampstands are datable to the 10th-12th century in Egypt and consist of three parts, a plate, shaft

and base that are cast in three sections. The shaft is designed with a cylindrical or hexagonal

column that might be fluted, not to be confused with Persian models that have elongated and

often pierced shafts; on either side is a spherical knob that might have lozenge-shaped facet

decoration, bosses or triangles. The exact shape, length and degree of ornament varies slightly on

each lampstand. The upper plate is a flat tray that holds the candle or lamp and is sometimes

decorated as the David example demonstrates (fig. 193). The base is supported above three feet

of varying stylized animal themes, usually hooves, which hold a drip-tray and the shaft, although

one lampstand has Persian stylized feet (fig. 200). The drip-tray is either circular or in a star

pattern with varying degrees of decoration, differing on each lampstand. Certain examples are

inscribed with a Kufic benediction; the Cairo lampstand is dedicated to Ibn al-Makki106 (fig. 187)

and the Sabah lampstand states there is a blessing from God (fig. 196). Some scholars have

asserted that the elaborate design and ornament of certain lampstands (figs. 188, 194 and 200-1)

are early Fatimid, while the less detailed lampstands are later (figs. 186, 192-3 and 195-9).107

The transition from complex to minimal decoration however is contrary to the general trend of

metalwork in the Fatimid period; it is more likely that the elaborate details are a stylistic

influence in tandem with the simpler styled lampstands and that both styles developed in the

106
Translation 1932 Gaston Wiet, Objets en Cuivre, No 8483 PL XXV: Other scholars dispute translation
107
Baer, Metalwork Medieval Islamic Art 14.

65
same period.108 The significance of these lampstands would be that they are representative of a

unique Fatimid type that is distinguishable from earlier lampstands in the same region. Although

metalwork can be melted, soldered and conglomerated as discussed earlier, the Fatimid type is

recognizable and the shaft or base can easily be identified among pirated lampstands (figs. 201

and 209-13). Composite lampstands can include parts from the Pharonic, Abbasid influenced

Greater Persian and the Fatimid periods or any number of age unknown pieces.

The final objects with foliate decoration from the Fatimid period are three plaques in the

Islamic Museum at Cairo (figs. 214-5) and Sackler Museum of Art in Harvard University at

Cambridge (fig. 167), hinges from the Islamic Museum at Berlin (fig. 216) and two oil lamps

from the Coptic and Islamic Museums in Cairo (fig. 217-8). The plaques are cast bronze (figs.

214-5) and brass (fig. 167), datable to the 10th-12th century in Egypt. Vegetal designs of trefoils,

leaves and scrollwork are the principle decoration for the Cairo plaques; they are used as chest

armatures.109 Affirmation for their use comes from the nail holes positioned centrally on the

plaques (fig. 214). The Sackler example is a flower surrounded with an arabesque, two birds

crown the top with a tree of life theme as previously discussed; it is used in equestrian

harnesses.110 The pair of bronze hinges in the Islamic Museum at Berlin (fig. 216) are used to fit

a glass box from Egypt datable to the 11th century. The box was taken to Europe for use as a

reliquary, however the importance is the stylization of the hinges that represent a trefoil and leaf.

This is evidence that the most basic of utilitarian metal articles were stylized in zoomorphic or

foliate form for artistic purposes. The two oil lamps in the Coptic and Islamic Museums of Cairo

are unique in that they are the lone surviving of their type with foliate decoration. The bronze

108
Regarding (fig. 213): Eva Baer, Metalwork in Medieval Islamic Art 14, cited Sackler lampstand 1940.164, as
evidence for argument: Modern testing Sackler lampstand reveals three separate sections and are not original, a
combination
109
Islamic Art Egypt 58-9.
110
Glory Prosperity exh.

66
lamps are datable to the 10th century in Egypt and are similar in shape to typical ceramic lamps

from the period; the typical Fatimid lamp will be reviewed in the next section. The distinguishing

features of the two lamps are the known ornaments and an S-shaped handle on the Islamic

Museum example from Cairo (fig. 218). The Islamic Museum example from Cairo is consistent

with ewers and jugs datable to the 9th-10th century in Egypt with the same S-shaped handles

(figs. 106-12). The S-shaped handle is a regional Egyptian style and on the typical Fatimid oil

lamp (fig. 218), it demonstrated that the origin is Egypt. The knob ornament on both examples

from the Coptic and Islamic Museums is a blooming flower (fig. 217) and a pomegranate (fig.

218); both ornaments are imported Persian features common on Abbasid metalwork in Egypt,

namely ewers and incense burners(figs. 116-7 and 119-23). These objects are datable to Egypt in

the 9th-10th century; the oil lamps are Fatimid shaped with popular Abbasid type ornament and

thus are datable to the later transitional period in Egypt of the 10th century. The oil lamps

represent a development of Fatimid metalwork in Egypt; the lamps are shaped in the Fatimid

type that originated in Ifriqiyya and was produced throughout their Caliphate.

Utilitarian Metalwares and Precious Metals in the Fatimid Period

A large group of metal objects were produced in the Fatimid period lacking or with

limited decoration that consists of geometric patterns or Christian symbols. These objects are

utilitarian and most are heavily worn. The principal utilitarian object in this group is the bucket,

numerous plain buckets were produced in Fatimid Egypt. The buckets are not comparable to

grand waterspouts or aquamaniles likely made for the Fatimid palaces of Cairo. Nevertheless,

some are decorated and inscribed. Eleven principal buckets can be found in the Islamic Museum

and Keir Collection at Berlin (figs. 219-24), Hermitage Museum at St. Petersburg (fig. 225),

Musée du Louvre (fig. 226), Sackler Museum of Art in Harvard University at Cambridge (fig.

67
227), al-Sabah Collection in the Kuwait National Museum (fig. 228), Victoria and Albert

Museum at London (fig. 229) and additional buckets were found at the various Fatimid hoards,

notably at Serçe Limani and Tiberias (figs. 235 and 287); other examples will be discussed in the

next section. They are all in bronze or brass (apart from one copper example), datable to the 10th-

11th century in Egypt or possibly the Levant. They are inscribed with bands of Kufic; some

examples are floriated and have benedictions expressing good wishes to the owner or relating to

God. Some are decorated with incised registers of arabesques or geometric patterns with

chevrons or circles; this decoration may be continued on the rims and handles. Nearly all are

shaped alike, circular with straight walls, an open top with an encircled a rim, a rounded bottom

and a semicircle handle attached via pins on either side. This differed from the typical Persian

buckets that rest on three feet and have bulbous or pitched walls. The absence of feet from the

Fatimid buckets despite their use on contemporary Persian examples is unusual especially since

they are seen on ewers datable to the 9th-10th century in Egypt (figs. 113-5 and 117) and they are

generally not utilized on Persian metalwork in the early Islamic centuries. The two buckets found

in the Fatimid hoard at Tiberias are not of the Fatimid type, in that they have a bulbous body,

which is an indication of a Persian design (fig. 287). The portability of metalwork as well as the

lack of serious study and examination of the hoard objects likely eliminates the Tiberias buckets

as Fatimid in origin. Other buckets discovered in the Fatimid hoard at Serçe Limani have a

deviation in the handle from the principal eleven abovementioned examples, suggesting they are

were produced outside of Egypt (fig. 285).111 Modern testing and the evidence from the Fatimid

hoards indicate that some of the eleven buckets or certainly others were at least produced in

Levantine coastal cities. 112 Regardless of the bucket production in Egypt or the Levant, the

111
Contadini, Fatimid Art 113.
112
Gladiss, Collector’s Fortune 111-2.

68
eleven examples are all Fatimid. The purpose of the buckets was to transport water and for

washing; they likely served affluent owners. 113 In pre-Islamic Persia comparable buckets are

depicted in Assyrian sculpture at Ashur-Nasir-Pal from the 9th century BCE.114 The Assyrian

relief sculpture shows the buckets utilized in religious ceremonies relating to fertility;115 perhaps

this accounts for the Fatimid religious use of the buckets for ablutions and their benedictory

inscriptions as seen on an example from the Keir Collection in floriated Kufic relating to God

and the patron (fig. 222). It should also be noted that the central part of the handles are pierced

with a hole and some have rings suspended from these holes; they could have been suspended

either for storage, use, etc., the exact purpose is unknown.

Another corresponding object both in appearance and function are bowls. Examples are

found in the Musée du Louvre (figs. 230-1), Sackler Museum of Art in Harvard University at

Cambridge (fig. 232) and the Fatimid hoard at Tiberias (fig. 287). They are all datable to the 11th

century in Egypt and made of copper. Three are almost identical in shape and style (figs. 231-2

and 287); two have exterior incised decoration (figs. 231-2) while the third is heavily worn and

thus decoration is difficult to discern (fig. 287); the fourth bowl is void of any decoration (fig.

230). The dots on the Louvre bowl (fig. 231) are analogous to those from the Umayyad ewer in

the Islamic Museum at Cairo (fig. 23.5), this design will be seen on other Fatimid objects in

Egypt. The Sackler bowl (fig. 232) included the cross repeated with registers of pseudo-Kufic

and a perpetual abstract design. Its shape, similar to the Louvre and Tiberias examples, show that

it was a common Fatimid design utilized both for secular purposes and Christian patrons in

Egypt and possibly the Levant assuming the hoarded bowl was produced in Tiberias. The bowls

113
Gladiss, Collector’s Fortune 111.
114
Ettinghausen, Bobrinsky 205.
115
Ibid., 205.

69
are hammered with pitched walls that sprung from their knobbed bases; only one had a rim (fig.

230).

As noted earlier, Fatimid metalwork produced from precious metals is scarce, however

three examples of utilitarian objects survive, a silver ewer and mirror-back both in the Benaki

Museum at Athens (fig. 233-4) and a silver spice box from the Real Colegiata de San Isidoro at

León, Spain (fig. 235). The León spice box and fragmented Benaki ewer are both inscribed with

Kufic in niello; the ewer is floriated and both are datable to Egypt in the 11th century. The spice

box has an inscription stating it is made for the patron Sadaqa ibn Yūsuf, who from 1044-7 was

vizier to the Fatimid Caliph al-Mustansir. This provides a clear provenance in Cairo; the silver

and niello ewer was probably created for the Fatimid palaces in Cairo, similarly to the spice box.

The ewer is shaped in the style common in the Early Islamic Period of Persia with a knobbed

base, tear-drop shape and a knobbed neck. Aside from the niello inscription, the spice box has a

geometric spiral in repeat that covers its four sides. The hinges of the box are cut deeply with

possibly a foliate or abstract scroll, but it is not readily identifiable hence its categorization in

this group of metalwork, although the decoration is reminiscent of the foliate hinges from the

Islamic Museum at Berlin (fig. 216). Other scholars have suggested the spice box is unusual in

Fatimid metalwork due to its combination of precious metal, inscriptions and geometric

patterns.116 This argument cannot be proven since there are so few known precious metal objects

from the Fatimid period. Scholars have also suggested the ewer is Persian in origin, based upon

an Iranian discovered hoard datable to 1000.117 This argument again cannot be substantiated as

there are no comparable Fatimid precious metals, although the Benaki ewer is evocative of a

Persian style. The Tiberias hoard datable to the Fatimid 11th century contains some Abbasid

116
Bloom, Arts City Victorious 97.
117
Ballian et al., Benaki Museum 71.

70
period metalwork; any hoard, especially the Tiberias one, might hold examples from earlier

periods. The Benaki silver mirror-back is datable to Egypt in the 11th century and it is plausible

that it follows the trend of precious metal production for the Fatimid palaces of Cairo (fig. 234).

The mirror-back is inscribed with Kufic that is read in a band around its circumference and is

decorated with heart-shaped motifs. In the center of the mirror-back is a pierced boss that would

allow for its suspension.118 The three silver objects from the 11th century are extremely rare and

follow the trend in Fatimid metalwork that the more detailed and elaborate examples were

produced later in the Fatimid period.

Other objects classified in this group are lamps, polycandela, a box and candlestick.

These utilitarian objects are mostly decorated and are cast in bronze, brass and copper. A

cylindrical box from the Islamic Museum at Berlin (fig. 236) is hammered in copper and is

datable to the 11th century in Egypt. The box is almost unique in its shape and design; a similar

example is known from the Tiberias hoard (fig. 287). It stands on three feet with two hinges and

a clasp. It is incised with an interlaced strapwork and a benedictory Kufic inscription wraps

around the circumference. The closeness to the box from the Tiberias hoard (fig. 287) and other

hoards including one in the cathedral treasury at Bari119 reveals that this object was likely a

popular example of Fatimid metalwork created for the upper class. The use of the three small

feet on the box suggests an Egyptian origin again as previously seen on ewers (figs. 113-5 and

117). The feet (fig. 236.2) of the box are unusual120 those seen on the 9th-10th century ewers are

simple with no detail, while those of the box are cylindrical, segmented and with rounded sides.

Perhaps the 11th century box with the ornate feet was a development in Fatimid metalwork and

followed the trend of later dated examples with more detail and ornament than those earlier.

118
Bloom, Arts City Victorious 97.
119
Ibid., 98.
120
Trésors Fatimides Caire 125.

71
Further examination of the other boxes especially from the hoards and the detailed feet would be

needed to establish a secure provenance.

Polycandela provided the same function as in the pre-Islamic world and other dynasties

from the early Islamic centuries, most of the Fatimid examples are from both Kairouan and

Egypt. They range from simple to highly complex in design and theme. The simpler examples

were likely from the 10th century in Kairouan and developed into elaborate geometric patterns in

Egypt datable to the 11th century. The polycandela are cast discs of bronze or brass with punched

geometric designs that would have been suspended, most commonly in mosques or churches; the

punched design includes several equidistant circular holes to support the tubular glass lamps

(app. I, V).121 All of them have a design that originates in the center and radiates outward

displaying the various patterns. Bronze examples are in the Musée du Bardo at Tunis (figs. 237-

9),122 Great Mosque at Kairouan (figs. 240-1), St. Anthony’s Monastery, Egypt (figs. 242-3) and

a private collection in Cairo (fig. 244):123 three additional brass polycandela are also from the

Great Mosque at Kairouan (figs. 245-7). The three most developed models with elaborate motifs

are punched in brass and are from the Great Mosque at Kairouan (figs. 245-7). These

polycandela have sophisticated heart-shaped patterns, abstract designs and various geometric

shapes. The 11th century datable patterns were said to match the mihrab of the Great Mosque at

Kairouan, tombstones and book bindings from Fatimid Ifriqiyya. 124 The significance of the 11th

century Fatimid brass polycandela is that the designs for these objects had advanced into

elaborate ornamentation far beyond what was produced in the Umayyad Caliphate as evidenced

from the earlier polycandela (figs. 54-60). Additionally, the Fatimid brass polycandelon had

121
Early ecclesiastical example, Jerusalem: polycandelon with glass lamp to demonstrate function
122
Last location cited in Objets Kairouanais 1952
123
Collection owner referenced in Objets Kairouanais 1952: current whereabouts unknown
124
Marçais et al., Objets Kairouanais 459.

72
mirrored other decorative arts in their beautiful designs, namely book binding, as well as

religious accouterments like the mihrab and tombstones, something not apparent in the Umayyad

or Abbasid periods. Some of the Umayyad polycandela however are similar to those produced in

10th-11th century provincial Egypt (figs. 242-4), an indication that the styles popular outside

Cairo changed little in the early Islamic centuries. Undoubtedly, the Fatimid elite were less

interested in provincial styles and themes proliferated in the provinces.125 It should be noted that

other scholars have suggested certain polycandela have leaf and other vegetal forms in the

designs,126 however the designs are so abstract that it is difficult to determine these details. The

sophisticated polycandela found in 11th century Tunisia indicate that they were probably gifted

from Cairo to Friday Mosques and important religious centers such as Kairouan, or possibly they

were purchased by wealthy congregations for their mosques. Byzantine period polycandela

indicate they were assigned to wealthy churches and that those parishes without means were

unlikely to receive or buy them;127 the same circumstances likely continued in the Early Islamic

Period, regarding mosques. The simpler examples were likely from the 10th century in Kairouan

and developed into elaborate geometric patterns in Egypt and gifted to provincial mosques.

Fatimid lamps are very distinctive from those created in the Umayyad period, which

generally follow a pre-Islamic design based on Roman and Byzantine models. Although the

Fatimid lamp design stemmed from earlier Mediterranean examples, 128 it was developed and

differentiated from those in the previous early Islamic centuries. The geographic origin of its

development is unknown129 however since most of the examples are found in Ifriqiyya and

nearby Mediterranean countries, it is possible it expanded across North Africa to Egypt. Further

125
Bloom, Arts City Victorious 87.
126
Allan, Metalwork Aron Collection 18.
127
Cradle of Christianity 105.
128
Allan, Metalwork Aron Collection 17.
129
Ibid., 17.

73
evidence for this argument can be traced to ceramic lamps in Egypt that undoubtedly were based

on the metal example.130 The lamps are cast in bronze and datable to the 11th century in Sabra al-

Mansuriyya and other places likely near Kairouan in Ifriqiyya; although more were probably

produced throughout the whole Fatimid Caliphate and during every century. The surviving

examples are datable to the 11th century in the Museum of Islamic Art at Raqqada in Tunisia and

Musée du Bardo at Tunis (figs. 248-50)131 and some in the Coptic Museum at Cairo (figs. 251-

5). Other known comparable lamps will be discussed in the next section. The most distinguishing

characteristic of Fatimid lamps is the long spouts, noted on every metal example and most

ceramics. The lamps are produced with fluted spouts that jut from an ovoid or globular body, the

neck is either narrow or enlarged but always tapered and usually with a simple hinged lid. The

handles varies, ranging from unadorned loops to elaborate ones with an extended abstract finial.

The finial might have been a thumb-piece but they are unnecessary and were added more for

decoration than functionality (figs. 217-8 and 248-50), like Abbasid ewers and jugs (figs. 74-82)

and 9th-10th century Egyptian ewers and jugs (figs. 107-15 and 117). Some lamps rest on a

knobbed base (figs. 217 and 249) while others have a drip-tray (fig. 218); the majority are

without bases (figs. 248 and 250-55). One of the lamps in the group is currently in the Islamic

Museum of Art at Raqqada in Tunisia (fig. 247) and was discovered at Sabra al-Mansuriyya, the

Fatimid royal capital founded in 946 outside of Kairouan. The lamp must have been made prior

to the city’s destruction in 1016. The lamp has three elongated spouts that differs from the single

one on the other lamps. The components remain the same as the other lamps but the three-

spouted version was certainly not as common. It suggests that, although it is datable to the 11th

century and produced in a time long after the Fatimid transition to Egypt was completed,

130
Allan, Metalwork Aron Collection 17.
131
Musée du Bardo examples last cited in Objets Kairouanais 1952: current whereabouts unknown

74
advanced metalwork design was still possible in Ifriqiyya. It also could have been imported from

Cairo or Alexandria at a later date.

The other type of lamps created in the Fatimid period were expected to be used in

mosques and other religious institutions. these include three known today in the Musée du Bardo

at Tunis (figs. 256-7)132 and Museum for Turkish and Islamic Art at Istanbul (fig. 258). These

consisted of punched geometric and abstract designs in bronze or brass. The Istanbul brass lamp

was taken from the Great Mosque in Damascus and both Tunis bronze examples both from the

Great Mosque at Kairouan, an indication that Fatimid metalwork was gifted to mosques or other

religious foundations, like the previously discussed polycandela. The larger bronze lamp from

Tunis (fig. 256) is inscribed in Kufic with the name of the patron, al-Mu’izz, providing for an

11th century dating in Egypt, while the Istanbul lamp is dated by the inscription to 1090 and

likely from Egypt. One of the lamps in the group has a spherical body with a large flared neck

(fig. 258), another has an ovoid-shaped body with a wide tapered neck (fig. 256) and both have

small bases. The third is spherical with a flared neck; the body culminates in a pinnacle

reminiscent of a pomegranate but likely is an abstract finial, again probably from Egypt in the

11th century. The punched designs of the lamps, aside from geometric and abstract patterns,

sometimes contain additional detail. The Istanbul example has a seal of Solomon and some

scholars have argued that vegetal designs are present, although the design is too abstract to

discern. Two of the lamps are suspended via chains however the larger lamp in Tunis is

suspended via three bars of pierced bronze plaques attached to a bulbous clamp and hook. These

three examples are highly detailed and the superior quality of their designs further suggests a

later Fatimid dating and probable Cairene attribution. The significance of these religious lamps is

that they were likely produced in Cairo and could be inscribed with the name of the patron, the
132
Musée du Bardo examples last cited in Objets Kairouanais 1952: current whereabouts unknown

75
caliph to be distributed to the large congregations of Friday Mosques in major Fatimid cities, e.g.

at Kairouan and Damascus. Understandably Fatimid caliphs were concerned with the metalwork

gifts toward religious institutions in major metropolitan areas, while ignoring the styles and

metalwork produced in provincial areas.

Several other metal objects from the Fatimid period which are not significant enough to

discuss individually yet are worthy of mention are a bowl, keys, ladles, a plate and tools. These

objects are all made of bronze, heavily worn, contain limited decorative detail if any and are

utilitarian. Two simple bronze ladles datable to Egypt in the 10th century in the Musée du Louvre

(fig. 259) and Keir Collection at Berlin (fig. 260) were used for cooking purposes; the Louvre

example has no decoration. The Keir ladle is decorated with engraved abstract designs, dots and

a repeated Kufic benediction; related examples are found in the hoards. A copper plate in the

Benaki Museum is datable to 11th century Egypt and its influence can be traced to comparable

silver dishes (fig. 261).133 The plate, although modeled after precious metals, is a daily use object

with engraved geometric, interlacing and entrelac decoration; several dotted bands circle the

plate, again reminiscent of precious metalware. Finally, a Kufic benediction wraps around the

circumference. The remaining objects are keys (figs. 262-76) and tools (figs. 277-81) all datable

to the 10th century and made of iron in the Musée du Louvre, they hold limited information

regarding the development of Fatimid metalwork, though should still be noted.

The Fatimid Hoards

In addition to the Fatimid metalwork held in public and private collections, sold at

auctions and in religious institutions, there exist four known Fatimid hoards with metal objects.

The four hoards of Caesarea, Denia, Serçe-Limani and Tiberias have all yielded vast amounts of

metal objects from Fatimid workshops and merchant or mercantile inventories as well as great
133
Ballian et al., Benaki Museum 69.

76
sources of information. More research and investigation of all the known hoards is required to

fully understand the significance of metalwork, trading, exchanges and metals employed. The

full scope of Fatimid metalwork from these sources is still uncertain.134

The first hoard from Caesarea, Palestine, amounted to 118 brass objects among other

decorative arts examples including ceramics and glass. The brass vessels mainly consist of

basins, bowls, boxes, braziers, buckets, ewers, handles, ladles, lampstands, protomes and trays

that are datable to the late 10th- early 11th century in Egypt or the Levantine area. The dating is

determined through the stratigraphic study and the epigraphy present on much of the ceramics,

indicating no disturbance occurred to the hoard in situ.135 Based on the utilitarian nature of the

items and the absence of any tools used in a metal workshop, the hoard was likely the contents of

a household buried to avoid loss from an invasion, possibly from crusading Christian armies or

another threat.136 Stylistic comparison of certain Caesarean brass objects in comparison to known

Fatimid metalwork, namely the boxes, buckets and lampstands, provide for an 11th century

dating based on the highly detailed and decorative elements that are not known on earlier

Fatimid period metal objects (fig. 282). Two cylindrical boxes almost identical to the example

from the Islamic Museum at Berlin (fig. 236) are significant; they indicate the object again was a

popular Fatimid design and further substantiate its origin in the Fatimid repertoire. Comparison

of the brass objects reveals parallel pieces found at Fustat 137 and demonstrates that either the

items were produced in Fustat or Cairo and transported to the Levant, showing the portability of

metalwork, or that the brass items were produced in the Levant and were part of a common

Fatimid theme among metalwork production throughout the caliphate; in any case the boxes

134
Scholars writing about the hoards have published preliminary reports: other writing has been noted as
forthcoming
135
Arnon et al., Fatimid Hoard Caesarea 234.
136
Ibid., 241.
137
Ibid., 241.

77
were certainly a common design in the Fatimid Empire.

The second Fatimid hoard from Denia, Spain, is located near Valencia and is datable to

the 11th century. The port city of Denia was a trading post in the Fatimid realm and possibly even

under Fatimid administration. 138 The store was discovered in ceramic vessels traced to Egypt,139

similarly to the Tiberias metal and Caesarean jewelry hoards (app. I, W). There are nearly 150

objects discovered at Denia including bronze metalwork; the most important are lamps and

lampstands. The hoard is part of a larger archaeological site in Denia and more individual

research and analysis of the metal objects is needed. Nevertheless, the bronze metalwork was

probably the inventory of a merchant or merchants, buried to prevent loss at that time.

Examination of a bronze lampstand from a ceramic vessel reveals it is similar to the later Fatimid

geometric type, providing for an 11th-12th century dating (fig. 283). A pierced incense burner

with a scrolling vine motif and pomegranate or blooming flower crown is indicative of 9th-10th

century metalwork in Egypt. This suggests these earlier styles were still popular or traded in at

least the 11th century at Denia; the two objects above are part of this hoard. Other metalwork

from the city of Denia, indicate it was imported from at least three defined production centers in

Egypt, Iran and al-Andalus. This alludes to the fact that Denia was a major commercial center.140

The third Fatimid hoard from Serçe Limani, Turkey, was discovered on a joint Fatimid-

Byzantine shipwreck that was sailing from Egypt or the Levantine coast,141 to possibly Corinth

on the Byzantine coast.142 The wreck is datable to the 11th century based upon the ceramics

found in the cargo; the ceramic decoration indicated a Fustat origin. Included in the ship’s cargo

are 15 metal vessels, nine of which have stylistically been labeled Fatimid in origin. The objects

138
Hirschfeld, Post-Roman Tiberias 203.
139
Ponting, Damascus to Denia 86.
140
Azuar, Denia Islámica 52.
141
Doorninck, Medieval Shipwreck 49.
142
Ibid., 51.

78
made of copper amounted to a box, bottle-necks, buckets, a jug, various assorted tools and four

unusual heart-shaped objects with an unknown purpose. The small selection of metalwork and

the utilitarian use for most of the objects indicates they were perhaps used onboard the ship. The

assertion that the ship was a Fatimid vessel is based upon the anchor markings. 143 This is further

supported through the crockery supplied on the ship as a Fatimid proprietor would probably draw

on local metalwares for supplies. The box mentioned as part of the ship’s inventory is similar in

design to the Berlin example (fig. 236), yet the ship’s version, although hinged and cylindrical,

seems smaller and has almost no decoration (fig. 284). The presence of the box on the ship

alludes again to the popularity of the style and the contrasting types indicate elaborate examples

were likely used in both affluent households and simpler examples for general use on ships and

elsewhere. The hoards of Fatimid objects provide an invaluable source of information for both

the context of Fatimid metalwork and for the role the various objects had in the Fatimid world,

since limited examples survive today, the hoards are the lone sources for this information. Other

objects on the ship, especially the buckets, are analogous to the eleven known buckets in public

and private collections today and discussed previously (figs. 219-29). It should be noted that

there was a handle deviation on the Serçe-Limani buckets (fig. 285); possibly they were

provincial or are added cargo as the ship entered ports while on journey. The most interesting

group of objects was the copper bottle-necks (fig. 286), a daily use item for pouring, none are

known to exist other than from the Fatimid shipwreck for numerous reasons such as low value or

remelting.

The last Fatimid hoard, from Tiberias, Israel, is datable to the 11th century and consists of

numerous copper objects (fig. 287). The frequency of metal hoards attributed to the Fatimid

period in the 11th century at Palestine, including a minor jewelry hoard from Caesarea (app. I,
143
Doorninck, Medieval Shipwreck 50.

79
W), attests to the great peril to which the area was subjected during the Crusades. The Tiberias

hoard is the buried inventory of a metal workshop. This can be ascertained through the

approximately 1000 objects found in three large ceramic vessels and since much of the inventory

are tools and scrap parts for metal working. 144 The objects have stylistically been attributed to

Fatimid Egypt based upon the angular Kufic script, benedictory inscriptions, themes, figural

imagery and the large range of the objects. The most significant items are boxes, bowls, buckets,

lamps, and lampstands. Most of the objects display decorative styles developed in Egypt. Certain

objects in the cache, including the buckets, bowls, cylindrical box and lampstands, have been

compared above to other known Fatimid examples; there are also some hinged lamps and

pouring cups that are of inexact origin and will be discussed in the next section.

Fatimid Metal Objects with an Uncertain Origin

In the field of medieval metalwork production, particular objects form a group that share

one common distinction, they are similar to Fatimid examples but their Fatimid identity is

uncertain or contested. A separate discussion of these objects as a group is necessary to fully

understand the Fatimid identity in metalwork. The most distinguished object is the Pisa Griffon,

which will be discussed in the next chapter, but there are minor examples, notably from Southern

Italy, possibly Persia, the Levant, the Iberian Peninsula and Ifriqiyya. The first selection of

metalwork in the group is attributed to Southern Italy, Sicily and Malta or the territories briefly

under Fatimid rule or influence. The objects in the Italian group are a cast bronze cup in the

Metropolitan Museum of Art at New York (fig. 288), bronze and niello doorknocker in the

David Collection at Copenhagen (fig. 289) and a bronze incense burner in the Aga Khan

Collection at Geneva (fig. 290). The cup is attributable to Southern Italy or possibly Sicily in

1100-1150; it has a braided handle and figural imagery of a fantastic animal, namely the griffon
144
Dayagi-Mendels et al., Chronicles of the Land 196.

80
separated by fluted columns that support a frieze of scrolling vines. The griffon was a popular

Islamic image in many of the decorative arts but is seldom seen in metalwork; the known

examples from the Early Islamic Period, other than the Pisa Griffon, are the Umayyad throne leg

and lamp-handle (figs. 9 and 61). The griffons on the Metropolitan cup are depicted with stylized

fire emitting from the mouth, a detail not seen on other Islamic imagery. The cup likely is the

product of an Italian artist with an Islamic influence, probably from Fatimid textiles or ceramics.

The use of the fluted columns, stylized fire and braided handle are also not common on Islamic

metalwork. Often with imagery in Islam the figures would oppose each other, usually separated

with a tree or another object that are references to the tree of life theme; this is not the case with

the cup. The absence of an inscription praising the owner of the object that undoubtedly paid for

it is another reason to doubt a Fatimid provenance. The scrolling vine and griffon imagery

however are Islamic, therefore the cup is probably Southern Italian in origin with a later period

Fatimid influence from the 12th century.

The doorknocker (fig. 289) is attributed to Southern Italy in the 11th-12th century; it is

adorned with a lion-faced protome serving as the knocker surrounded with its stylized mane. A

rooster protome is integrated into the knocking ring and a floriated Kufic inscription is repeated

around the circumference. The inscription professes faith to God and Islam while the rooster

protome is suspended from the mouth of the lion. The idea that the knocker audibly and visually

declared or roared devoutness to Islam has been suggested.145 Although there is no object similar

to the doorknocker in the Early Islamic Period, the great detail of the lion head and its stylization

are reminiscent of Fatimid waterspouts. The impressive floriated Kufic inscription with its clear

declaration of Islam indicate the doorknocker is Islamic, as Western imitations would have used

pseudo-Kufic. Considering the parallels with Fatimid waterspouts a suggested provenance would
145
Bloom et al., Cosmophilia 183.

81
be in 11th-12th century of Fatimid Egypt or parts of Southern Italy under their rule. The figural

incense burner depicted as a bird is ascribed to the 11th-12th century in the Islamic Mediterranean

region; it stands on two feet, has a sharp beak, an intricate pierced interlacing design around its

neck and wings, another intricate design around the pierced eyes and the head is hinged to allow

for incense. The bird is like those created in Fatimid Egypt, especially the parrot lamp chains,

however no Fatimid parrot incense burners are known. The parrots are often inscribed with Kufic

and are more stylized but with less decoration than the Aga Khan bird; the Berlin parrot (fig.

155) is the closest Fatimid example. The pierced interlacing motif on the neck and wings as well

as the design around the eyes are highly detailed and not known on any Fatimid metalwares. The

origin of this object in all probability is Persian 11th-12th century; there a similar pierced interlace

design is known and bird incense burners are common. The attribution to Southern Italy might be

possible however it must have been modeled after a Persian example. The Fatimid dominance of

Southern Italy was known at this time, so it would be unexpected but not impossible for Italian

artists to select a Persian model.

The next group of metalwork although ascribed to the 11th-12th century in Egypt and the

Levant would more realistically be Persian 10th-12th century. The metal objects are a bronze bowl

in the Islamic Museum at Cairo (fig. 291), a brass bowl from a private collection consigned at

Bonham’s (fig. 292), bronze gazelle aquamanile in the Museo di Capodimonte at Napoli (fig.

181), three bronze mirror-backs in the Islamic Museum at Berlin (fig. 293), a brass bucket in the

British Museum at London (fig. 294) and a candlestick in the Keir Collection at Berlin (fig. 295).

The Cairo bowl is accredited to 11th century Fatimid Egypt, it has incised decoration of

medallions, dots and other abstract motifs; there is a running hare with a branch in its mouth. The

imagery of the bowl is known from Fatimid luster ceramics in Egypt, yet there is another bronze

82
bowl in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art at New York that is nearly identical to

the Cairene model with a Persian attribution specifically from Iran and is datable to the 10th-11th

century (app. I, X) and a further brass example that was consigned at Bonham’s in 2009 (fig.

292). The Iranian bowl has a Kufic inscription with blessings to the owner and an abstract

trilobed design. The designs, shapes, sizes and types of metal for both bowls are related, with the

exception of the hare and Kufic inscription. Hare imagery is known in Persia, though not as

commonly as in Egypt. The Bonham’s brass bowl is datable to Egypt in the 12th century and

contains arabesques, interlaces and a floriated Kufic inscription. It also has heart-shaped and

trilobed designs. The Bonham’s bowl has a later dating than the previous two and has similar

decoration to the Iranian bowl. Review of the three bowls indicates they might be Persian in

origin or possibly Egyptian from the 10th-12th century. The similarities between the three bowls

combined with some decorative elements that are seen in Iran including the trilobed design and

floriated Kufic make an exact origin difficult to determine. Regarding the three bronze mirror-

backs from Berlin (fig. 293), two are indeed probably Persian, despite an earlier attribution to

12th century dating in Syria (figs. 293.2 and 293.3). The imagery of a double harpy of one and

the other with an abstract design frequently used in Iranian metalwork. The third mirror-back has

a Kufic inscription encircling the perimeter with a running hare and predatory animals that are

surrounded with a dotted band; there is a central boss. The hare imagery and style of the Kufic

could suggest Fatimid Egypt, but they are also employed in Iranian metalwares. The additional

predators chasing the hare are not seen on Fatimid metalwork, it is also varied from the Benaki

mirror-back (fig. 234). The third mirror-back is probably 12th century Iranian and not Syrian. The

bucket (fig. 294) in the British Museum labeled as Mediterranean 11th-12th century is simply

Persian in origin. It does not match any known Fatimid type from the group of eleven (figs. 219-

83
29) or from the four hoards. The bucket has a distinct handle that partially matches those from

the Serçe Limani shipwreck, which were likely added cargo and not Fatimid. It has feet and

slanted walls that correspond with the Bobrinsky model, but the Fatimid type has straight walls

without feet. It has an incised angular Kufic inscription but the style of running animal imagery

is not observed on Egyptian examples, therefore the bucket would be datable to Persia and

specifically Iran in the 11th-12th century. The last object, a candlestick in Berlin’s Keir

Collection, although previously attributed to 12th century Fatimid Egypt is probably from Siirt

and of Persian design (fig. 295). A similar bronze example is in the collection of the Victoria and

Albert Museum at London datable to the mid-13th century (app. I, Y).

The gazelle aquamanile in the Archeologico Nazionale department of the Museo di

Capodimonte at Naples is often been compared with the Fatimid example in Munich (fig. 180),

yet limited analysis of the Naples piece has been made. The Naples aquamanile is bronze and has

been dated to Egypt in the 11th century. The gazelle stands on four legs with realistic hooves as

feet, has a figural handle that supports a pouring cup, antlers and a minute tail. The Christie’s

gazelle (fig. 132) is the only example from the group that has similar realistic feet with hooves in

comparison to the supposed Persian designed Naples model, an unusual choice since the gazelle

models (figs. 128-33) are all Fatimid and mostly have Persian stylized feet unlike the Fatimid

type. The Naples aquamanile is the least reminiscent to the Nubian gazelle of all the previous

examples (figs. 128-33 and 180); it has a figural handle that is stretched abstractly and the figure

is likely a member of the Panthera genus, a feature absolutely unknown on any Fatimid

metalwork. The only similar examples are 7th century Umayyad (figs. 10-1) and 9th-12th century

Abbasid (figs. 12 and 96). The eyes, mouth and antlers are all unlike the other gazelle figures and

the neck is unusually long; the head and neck are also disproportionate to the body. The mouth

84
specifically is reminiscent of an Iranian type and is also related to details of the Pisa Griffon. The

use of the pouring cup is another feature unknown in Fatimid metalwork, none exist. An

analogous Persian aquamanile with a pouring cup is in the Hermitage Museum at St. Petersburg

and belonged to Count Bobrinsky (app. I, Z). All of these points amount to negation for a

Fatimid or even Egyptian origin. There are however features which do support a Fatimid origin,

namely the rib marks, pronounced legs and the overall gazelle theme, but these do not detract

from the overwhelming evidence in affirmation of a Greater Persian, specifically Iranian origin

datable to the 11th-13th century. The most difficult components to overcome are the Panthera

handle and pouring cup that emphatically cannot be Fatimid.

The final objects in this group trace their origins to the Levant, Ifriqiyya and the Iberian

Peninsula; a few lamps discovered in Spain and Portugal and another probably from the same

region last listed in the collection of a French aristocrat, are made of cast bronze and dated to the

11th century in Fatimid Ifriqiyya. 146 The three have ovoid bodies, thin flared necks, single spouts,

knobbed bases, hinged tops and ringed handles with elaborate ornamentation and protomes. The

lamp from Spain (fig. 296) is like the Kairouan models (figs. 248-9) in shape and size; the

complex handle with its ornamentation in particular is comparable. The lamp from Portugal (fig.

297) is also related to those from Kairouan but it has two bird protomes, one located on the

handle, the other on the spout. This theme is known on Fatimid incense burners (fig. 177) but not

usually seen with oil lamps, except those of a Persian origin. The third lamp, last in a French

private collection (fig. 298), is again similar to that previously mentioned and those from

Kairouan, however it is incised around the body, spout, neck and base with figural and foliate

imagery. The decorative themes are running hares and scrolling vines. There are no other known

examples of Fatimid lamps with the decoration found on the two from Portugal and France.
146
These three examples last cited in Objets Kairouanais 1952: current whereabouts unknown

85
Although it is possible they are Fatimid and might have been imported from Ifriqiyya or Egypt

without other models it seems hard to place them. The lamp from Spain stylistically looks

Fatimid, but it was discovered in Spain and lamps produced in the Iberian Peninsula datable to

the 10th-12th century stylistically resemble the Fatimid type. A ceramic example is in the

Hispanic Society of America Museum at New York; the lamp is datable to the 10th century from

Spain (app. I, AA). Additionally the bird protomes, hare and scrolling vine imagery are common

on Iberian metalwork and other decorative arts. The possibility that the three lamps are Fatimid

remains, yet evidence to support that argument is lacking, therefore the three are datable to the

11th-12th century with a possible Fatimid origin.

The objects with a Levantine or Egyptian provenance are in the Coptic Museum at Cairo

(figs. 299-308) and Musée du Louvre (figs. 309-12), other examples are found in the Tiberias

hoard (fig. 287). The Cairene metal objects consisted of numerous hinged lamps; they are all

copper and datable to the 11th century. The lamps are all double spouted and are two types, one

square with four supporting feet (figs. 299-305) and the second ovoid without feet (figs. 306-10).

The hinged lamps were discovered close to Cairo, Fustat and in various places throughout Egypt.

Most of them are worn with limited or no decoration; the decoration that is identifiable are a

series of dots (figs. 305-7) and pomegranate knobs (fig. 305) that serve as the handle

ornamentation, both common on previously discussed metalwork. The hinged lamps found in the

Levant at Tiberias are square and single spouted; they both have pomegranate knobs except one

is placed on a handle serving only as ornamentation (fig. 287). Regarding the Tiberias lamp with

its artistic pomegranate is related to a Fatimid lamp in the Islamic Museum at Cairo (fig. 218) in

that the pomegranate is not functional. Other metal objects in the Tiberias hoard are known to be

from Persia and datable to the 9th-11th century. The lamps found in Egypt and the Levant but

86
might be of Egyptian, Levantine or Persian in origin. If the lamps are Egyptian or Levantine

from the 11th century they would be Fatimid however not enough information is established for

this to be proven.

The four pouring cups from the Louvre (figs. 309-12) match two in the Tiberias hoard.

They are all small handled cups with three symmetrically placed ornamental stylizations. One

from the Tiberias workshop has zoomorphic feet. The four in the Louvre were referenced as

possibly from the Byzantine period in Egypt,147 assuming this dating and origin are correct their

discovery in the Tiberias workshop and one with a slight variation would eliminate an Egyptian

exclusive provenance, unless through movement of metalwork. Nevertheless, the pouring cups

are probably Fatimid 10th-11th century. The hinged lamps, pouring cups and some related objects

from Tiberias certainly prove that not all of the metalwork found in the hoard is Fatimid and

again further research and examination is required to fully understand all of the objects and their

context.

A Conclusion to Fatimid Metalwork

The overall body of Fatimid metalwork comprises a large span of objects with varying

styles, themes, shapes and decoration. Certain regional and pre-Islamic influences continued to

be expressed in Fatimid metalwork as they were with the decorative arts of earlier Islamic

dynasties. The Fatimids through their metalwork surpassed that produced under the Umayyads

and Abbasids largely with their emphasis on aestheticism, detail and ability to provide ornament

or decoration to almost every single object and especially through their conception of artistic

raison d’être metal objects. Additionally, the unique identity of Fatimid metalware production

was aided from their dependence on the Egyptian pre-Islamic influence, more so than in earlier

periods and having been the only dynasty from the Early Islamic Period to originate in Ifriqiyya
147
Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 52-3.

87
spreading to Egypt, the Levant, the Mediterranean and Hijaz without Greater Persia.

Consequently, they produced the first Islamic decorative arts program without a significant

Greater Persian and specifically Iranian beginning and this provided for the distinctive Fatimid

identity noticeably embodied in metalwork.

Chapter Four

The Griffon of Pisa

The Pisa Griffon, perhaps the most studied individual piece of Islamic metalwork that has

been attributed to the Fatimid period, holds a distinctive position in history. Currently in the

collection of the Cathedral Museum at Pisa in Italy, the bronze mythical beast however has a

disputed origin and has been ascribed to numerous dynasties in the Islamic world. A review of

the known literature and a comparison to similar metalwork examples will help to illuminate a

probable source for the Pisa Griffon and define its unique place in Islamic metalwork.

Additionally, recent scientific study conducted on the Pisa Griffon and the appearance of related

metalwork have afforded a better perspective on its probable origin and function, since

previously mainly stylistic comparison was used to determine its origin and purpose.

The griffon stands 107cm high on four feet that are stylized like those of a lion or other

feline. It has four shield designs on pronounced legs; above the front two are a pair of swooping

wings. The face is stylized like that of a chicken or other bird. It has two pointed ears and wattles

below the neck. The body is large and measures 90 cm in length and 46 cm in width; it has a

prominent chest. There are Kufic inscriptions in registers that run on either side of the body, the

remainder is decorated with incised markings. Further detail will be discussed in the next

sections.

88
Historical Introduction to the Pisa Griffon

The Pisa Griffon is said to have been placed atop the cathedral at Pisa, the resulting

plunder of Crusaders returning from the Holy Land in the Levantine region.148 Symbolic

evidence for the existence of the griffon dates to the early 1400s, an inlay example being from

the choir stall in the Pisa cathedral (app. I, BB), while the first textual evidence dates from the

1540s. 149 The first pictorial representation does not appear until around 1643, consisting of a

watercolor painting by Paolo Tronci. In 1705 Giuseppe Martini made three engravings of it.

Finally there was an examination datable to 1787-93 by Da Morrona.150 The accounts all allude

to a bird rather than a griffon, except for the 1705 engravings and the 1787-93 dated examination

that properly illustrate a griffon, but all perceive an antique origin. 151

A Review of Existing Literature Concerning the Pisa Griffon and a Comparison with

Similar Figural Metalwork

A brief review of the existing scholarship concerning the Pisa Griffon and an analysis of

the arguments is necessary to understand its complex history. A comparison to similar metalware

and finally an analysis of its latest examination will supply the foundation for arguments

concerning its provenance and function. In 1839 J.J. Marcel published the first scholarly article.

He correctly identified the Kufic inscriptions and decorative markings as Islamic, although the

reading was not accurate. Nevertheless, the griffon was now seen as Islamic rather than antique,

as previously ascribed. Marcel attributed the animal to Southern Italy or Sicily, as an object

made for the Normans by Muslim artisans. 152 Marcel also recorded the traditional Pisan

148
Dodds et al., Al-Andalus 216.
149
Contadini et al., Beasts that Roared 66.
150
Ibid., 66.
151
Ibid., 66-7.
152
Marcel, Monument Arabe Pise 87-8.

89
explanations for the griffon’s origin as spoils of war from the Balearic Islands153 in the Middle

Ages, which at that time, particularly Mallorca, were under either Islamic rule or influence. He

also notes another Pisan account of it having been found in the debris of Hadrian’s palace, the

same site the cathedral now occupies. 154 Marcel’s account alludes to a pre-1400 dating for the

griffon. His presumption that the griffon derives from Southern Italian or Sicilian hands should

not be dismissed, as two other important metalwork examples of Islamic origin probably were

produced there as well; these include the griffon cup (fig. 288) and lion doorknocker (fig. 289),

as previously discussed.

The next significant study was published by Gaston Migeon in 1927. He classified the

Pisa Griffon as Fatimid produced in Egypt, along with numerous other metalwork examples with

similar features.155 As noted above, many early Islamic scholars including Migeon grouped

almost all figural metal objects into Fatimid Egypt, an undoubtedly inaccurate classification. In

1978 Marilyn Jenkins noted an account of Italian plunder in Ifriqiyya that resulted in a large haul

of fine objects that were used to adorn the Pisan cathedral, namely a griffon. The report mentions

a naval battle of the Pisan and Genoese against Fatimid controlled territory in 1088. 156 Jenkins

thus proposes a Fatimid North African rather than Egyptian origin. Unfortunately, no evidence

directly indicates a griffon was part of the large haul of objects involved, therefore the argument

cannot be substantiated. Assadullah Melikian-Chirvani in 1968 made a compelling argument for

its Iranian origin. His comparisons utilized include the Kufic inscriptions, the appearance of the

face and other physical features.157 A Persian influence is highly possible, especially in

comparison to similar metalwares including the griffon protome throne leg from the Umayyad

153
Dodds et al., Al-Andalus 216.
154
Ibid., 216.
155
Migeon, Manuel Art Musulman 374-83.
156
Jenkins, New Evidence Pisa Griffin 80.
157
Melikian-Chirvani, Griffon Iranien de Pise 71-6.

90
period (fig. 9); the face and foot greatly resemble the Pisa example. The feet however, do not

represent the typical stylized version common in Persia. Although they match the throne leg, the

feet also resemble those from a Fatimid lion waterspout (fig. 160). Corollaries in the appearance

of the face of the Pisa Griffon and the gazelle aquamanile (fig 181), probably of Persian origin,

also offer more evidence for an Iranian production. Additionally, a bronze lion pomander in the

collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art at New York (app. I, CC) attributed to Iran under

the Seljuks in 1182, has similar Kufic inscriptions, decoration and a physical stance. The

pomander exemplifies large figural metalwork production of Persia in the medieval period and

its similarity with the Pisa Griffon suggests that the latter should be close to the pomander’s date

of 1182.

The next group of scholars, Umberto Scerrato in 1966, Janine Sourdel-Thomine et al. in

1973, Anna Contadini et al. in 2002 and Oliver Watson in 2008 have all concluded that the Pisa

Griffon is of Spanish origin produced under Islamic rule around 1000-1200. This suggestion is

supported through comparison with other known figural examples from Spain, stylistic analysis,

the Kufic and other details that will be reviewed below. Scerrato cites Spanish textiles produced

under the Umayyad Caliphate in Iberia datable to the 11th century as proof of a Spanish origin. 158

Indeed the registers of Kufic on the griffon resemble inscriptions found in these tirāz textiles.159

This is contrary to normal Fatimid figural decoration, yet it was not an entirely unknown choice

as evidenced from the Keir goat (fig. 134), which is draped in a textile. Although tirāz textiles

are indicative of Fatimid use, they were also used in Umayyad Spain. Sourdel-Thomine similarly

reaffirms an 11th century Spanish origin for the griffon. 160 Contadini both in 2002 and presently,

has conducted the most extensive research and experimentation on the Pisa Griffon. Contadini

158
Scerrato, Metalli Islamici 78-80.
159
Dodds et al., Al-Andalus 218.
160
Sourdel-Thomine et al., Kunst Des Islam 263.

91
has argued that the griffon is not a waterspout as previously thought, identification echoed by

other scholars, rather it is a noise-producing metal object. Watson has affirmed this point and

cites a treatise written in the 13th century by Ibn al-Razzaz al-Jazari that mentions automata noise

makers, 161 or self powered horns. Contadini conducted a broad examination of the Pisa Griffon

and determined that the interior has a hollow chamber that leads to another hollow chamber with

rims in the rear of the beast (fig. 313.2). The purpose of this dual chamber system, the griffon’s

body and the interior one, is to allow air to pass through, emitting a loud noise.162 The automated

noise maker would probably be placed in an elevated position where the ability to emit sounds

was viable and could be heard.

Two figural metalwork examples with comparable features and similar origins are from

Spain; they are the Monzón Lion and a hind. The Monzón Lion (app. I, DD) in the collection of

the Musée du Louvre at Paris is a bronze lion waterspout datable to the 11th-12th century. It was

discovered in the remnants of an Islamic fortress at Palencia in northern Spain. The lion stands

on four legs with an unusual stylization for the feet, not seen on any other example of metalwork

from the Early Islamic Period. The tail is stylized in the Persian tradition, but is also reminiscent

of the lion’s tail from the Islamic Museum at Cairo (fig. 158). The Monzón Lion lacks the

detailed incised decoration found on the other Spanish examples, although there is some limited

decoration. The Monzón lion is similar to the griffon in theme, as well as certain decorative

elements including the floral motifs. The hind from the Islamic Museum at Doha in Qatar (app. I,

EE) is made of bronze, attributed to Córdoba in Spain and the 10th-11th century. The Spanish

Umayyad animal is likely a waterspout; it stands on four legs with hoofed feet, in common with

the Munich aquamanile (fig. 180). The hind is almost identical to another from Córdoba that was

161
Watson, Beyond Boundaries 56.
162
Contadini et al., Beasts that Roared 65.

92
discovered in the ruins of Madinat al-Zahra. 163 The possibility that large figural metalwork was

widespread in Umayyad Spain is credible, especially with the mention of golden fountain heads

from the Córdoban court.164 Research of the metals employed in the creation of the hind match

those used to produce the Pisa Griffon, both originated in Cyprus.165 This further suggests a

Spanish origin for the Griffon. The suggestion that the hind is draped in a textile is plausible;166

animals of the royal collection were clothed in fine fabrics. 167 These two examples provide a

basis for comparison with the Pisa Griffon and create a perspective for the griffon to be placed in

the scheme of large figural metalwork formed in the Islamic world. The Monzón lion and hind

are both Spanish in derivation; they present a view of the variety of figural metalwork from

Spain in the 10th-12th century, the same period the griffon is alleged to have been produced.

Contadini compares the Mari-Cha Lion (app. I, FF), a bronze alleged waterspout also

from Spain and datable to the 11th-12th century with the Pisa Griffon. Indeed, both the griffon

and Mari-Cha Lion, in a private collection at Hong Kong, China, are very similar. They both

utilize the same Kufic that is seen with tirāz textiles, they have a related position with a striking

stance and pronounced legs or shield design. Additionally, the Mari-Cha Lion has the same

double chamber as the griffon, displaying a hollowed body with a hollowed inner chamber in the

rear.168 The decoration of the lion is unique. An incised griffon image is present on the body and

a bird that is likely an eagle is on the leg. A similar bird, also likely an eagle, appears on the Pisa

Griffon’s leg (fig. 313.3); the resemblance to known Fatimid eagles is strong.

Contadini suggests an Italian source for the Mari-Cha Lion, based upon the type of

bronze used and in comparison with Early Romanesque stone lion sculpture common to central
163
Allan, Metalwork Treasures Islamic Courts 19.
164
Ibid., 19.
165
Ibid., 19.
166
Khemir, Cordoba to Samarqand 112.
167
Allan, Metalwork Treasures Islamic Courts 19.
168
Contadini et al. Beasts that Roared 81.

93
and southern Italy. 169 Although the alloys used might be the same as those from the Italian

peninsula, trade throughout the Mediterranean in the 11th-12th century was frequent, and the raw

materials could have easily been transported to Spain. The lion does resemble counterparts

produced in stone and Islamic influence in Southern Italy was widespread at this time. This

might account for the similarity in style and shape between those produced in Spain and Italy.

The faces of the lion doorknocker (fig. 289) and three lion figures from the Keir Collection at

Berlin (figs. 145 and 156) and the Hessisches Landesmuseum at Kassel in Germany (fig. 160)

are all reminiscent of the Mari-Cha Lion’s face (app. I, GG). The doorknocker is attributed to

Fatimid production in Italy and the lions are from Fatimid Egypt but might have been produced

under a Fatimid aegis in Italy. Nevertheless, the Mari-Cha Lion is the closest in relation to the

Pisa Griffon both in shape, style, decoration and the function of a noise maker.

A Probable Provenance of the Pisa Griffon

Having reviewed all of the research and publication concerning the Pisa Griffon and after

a careful study and compilation of all known Fatimid metalwork, the evidence seems to support

an Umayyad or Taifa origin in 11th-12th century Spain. The design of the griffon and its function

seem to be in common with those produced in Spain, especially in regard to the Mari-Cha Lion,

which I also attribute to Spain (app. I, FF). There is overwhelming evidence however that

suggests Fatimid influence, if not production. The port city of Denia in the 11th century was

controlled by the Taifa Caliphate, yet recent archaeological evidence such as the hoard of Denia

indicate a Fatimid presence and influence, with the possibility of even Fatimid administration at

the port.170 The portability of metalwork and the volatile circumstances in the Mediterranean and

during the 11th-12th century suggest that Fatimid metalwork with its unique styles, decoration and

169
Contadini et al., Beasts that Roared 73.
170
Hirschfeld, Post-Roman Tiberias 203.

94
themes, exchanged ownership easily and was conceivably transported to Spain. The usage of the

pronounced legs and shield design is not seen on other metalwork of the Early Islamic Period or

later. The complex decoration including the animals and birds incised on the griffon, particularly

the bird wings (fig. 313.3) reveals a striking resemblance to known Fatimid imagery (figs. 170-

5). Indeed griffon imagery was not wholly unknown to the Fatimid world as the cup (fig. 288)

and carved wooden panels in churches of Cairo (app. I, HH) affirm. The doorknocker (fig. 289)

with the face of a lion has an inscription that asserts the authority of God, the Prophet and Islam;

the knocker strikes the boss and produces a visual pun,171 the visualization of the lion roaring

(through the knocking sound) announces the Islamic faith proclaimed in Kufic around the border.

Perhaps this was a precursor to the audible noise makers produced in Islamic Spain.

Additionally, the doorknocker and lion waterspout at the Islamic Museum in Cairo (fig. 158.2)

resemble the face of the Mari-Cha Lion (app. I, GG). Fatimid influence seems to be apparent

with regard to the Pisa Griffon, although the majority of the influence probably comes from the

Abbasids in Iraq or Seljuk Persia. The relation of the griffon, especially its face, to comparable

Persian metalwork (figs. 9, 181 and app. I, CC) is certainly evident. The desire of the Umayyads

and other Islamic dynasties in Iberia to imitate the Abbasid court at Baghdad came from the

cultural exchange between the courts. Abbasid musicians and undoubtedly artisans along with

other tradesmen appeared were renowned in the Andalusian court, an Iraqi singer named Ziryab

being one of these musicians.172 The Abbasid court was already familiar with automata

metalwork, the chirping bird tree being one example. 173 The automata technology therefore

existed in Abbasid Iraq and possibly in Persia and might have been transferred to Spain as well

as the styles of the figural metalwork, since the Iberian courts idealized the eastern Islamic

171
Bloom et al., Cosmophilia 183.
172
Jenkins, Art of Medieval Spain 76.
173
Ward, Islamic Metalwork 45.

95
world. It seems that the Pisa Griffon is a conglomeration, produced in Islamic Spain in the 11th-

12th century with Fatimid Egypt, Abbasid and Persian influences, based upon the known

information available today.

Chapter Five

Conclusion

Islamic metalwork production in Egypt beginning in the mid 7th century passed through

many stages of development and evolved to form sophisticated and refined objects in the Fatimid

dynasty of the 10th-12th century. Numerous influences contributed to its advance both from

Egyptian pre-Islamic styles to external regional stimuli from the Levant, Ifriqiyya and especially

Greater Persia. In order to understand the impact and the uniqueness of Fatimid created metal

objects, a brief review of that made under the preceding dynasties will be made. This will allow

for the separation of the Fatimid contribution to be better appreciated.

Metalwork from the Early Islamic Period and the Fatimid Contribution

In Egypt, metalwork under the Umayyad dynasty was highly influenced by the Greco-

Roman and Byzantine worlds that had previously ruled there. This became the regional Egyptian

style in the Islamic period and would later influence the Abbasid and Fatimid Caliphates. The

Umayyads introduced the Persian styles in Egypt and they grew even stronger when they were

defeated by the Abbasids. Abbasid Egypt and even the later Tulunid and Ikhshidid periods

utilized the regional Egyptian styles, but also the decorative arts styles centered at Baghdad in

addition to pre-Islamic Sasanian influence. Most Abbasid metalwork in Egypt is easily

distinguished from the Fatimid type through Persian stylizations. The defeat of the Ikhshidids

along with an end to the Abbasid connection in Egypt brought Fatimid hegemony in the early

10th century and a new class of metalwork.

96
 The Persian-inspired Abbasid styles remained in Egypt only briefly during the

transitional 10th century as the Fatimids perfected their own decorative arts program. Fatimid

metalwork produced impressive floriated Kufic inscriptions, elaborate geometric, zoomorphic

and foliate decoration, a menagerie of animal and even some human themed objects and finally

sophisticated pieces such as waterspouts. Fatimid metalwares are distinct from that produced in

other periods specifically because of the beautiful, complicated and highly developed ornament

and decoration carefully applied to almost every metal object. Including all of their other worked

materials such as ivory, rock crystal and woodwork, metalwork became the arguably the most

important as it was used in every aspect of daily life and was the most expensive, at least the

precious metals. Although few precious metal examples survive from the Fatimid Caliphate, the

number produced was probably enormous. The metalwork that endures today, approximately

three hundred objects, from the Fatimid workshops is meager compared to the enumerable

quantity from Greater Persia; yet it is in many ways superior both in quality, style and

individuality.

97
Bibliography

Mohamed Abbas, "The Fatimids (969-1171)," in The Treasures of Islamic Art in the Museums of
Cairo, ed. Bernard O'Kane (Cairo: 2006), 46-91.

Wijdan Ali, The Arab Contribution to Islamic Art from the Seventh to the Fifteenth Centuries
(Cairo: 1999).

James W. Allan, "Metalwork," in Treasures of Islam, ed. Toby Falk (London: 1985), 248-93.

———. “The Survival of Precious and Base Metal Objects from the Medieval Islamic World,”
in Pots and Pans: a Colloquium on Precious Metals and Ceramics in the Muslim, Chinese and
Graeco-Roman Worlds, ed. Michael Vickers (Oxford: 1985), 57-70.

———. Metalwork of the Islamic World: the Aron Collection (London: 1986).

———. Metalwork Treasures from the Islamic Courts (Doha: 2002).

———. Nishapur: Metalwork of the Early Islamic Period (New York: 1982).

James W. Allan and Robert H. Brill, "Metal Vessels: Chemical Analyses of Some Metal
Objects," in Serçe Limani: An Eleventh-Century Shipwreck, ed. George F. Bass et al. (College
Station, Texas: 2004), 345-60.

Arab Lands and Iran in the Umayyad and Abbasid Periods: (7th-13th centuries), exh. (New York:
2012).

Yael D. Arnon et al., "The Fatimid Hoard from Caesarea: A Preliminary Report," in l'Égypte
fatimide: son art et son historie, ed. Marianne Barrucand (Paris: 1999), 233-48.

Reynold Arnould and Jean-Paul Roux, l'Islam dans les collections nationales (Paris: 1977).

The Arts of Islam, exh. cat. (London: 1976).

Mohammad Al-Asad et al., The Umayyads: the Rise of Islamic Art (Vienna: 2000).

Esin Atil et al., Islamic Metalwork in the Freer Gallery of Art (Washington DC: 1985).

Rafael Azuar Ruiz, Denia Islámica: Arqueología y Poblamiento (Alicante, Spain: 1989).

Eva Baer, Metalwork in Medieval Islamic Art (Albany: 1983).

Aly Bahgat and Albert Gabriel, Fouilles d’al Fousṭâṭ (Paris: 1921).

Anna Ballian et al., Benaki Museum: a Guide to the Museum of Islamic Art (Athens: 2006).

98
Philip Bamborough, Treasures of Islam (New York: 1977).

Dominique Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire: Objets en métal (Cairo:
2008).

———. l'Art du métal au début de l'ère chrétienne (Paris: 1992).

Martha Bernus-Taylor et al., Arabesques et jardins de paradis: collections françaises d’art

Jonathan M. Bloom, Arts of the City Victorious (Cairo: 2008).

Jonathan M. Bloom and Shelia Blair, Islamic Arts, 7 ed. (London: 2008).

———. Cosmophilia: Islamic Art from the David Collection, Copenhagen (Boston: 2006).

Bonham’s, Islamic and Indian Art, auc. cat. London, 2 April 2009.

Klaus Brisch et al., Museum für Islamische Kunst Berlin (Berlin: 1980).

———. et al., Islamische Kunst Loseblattkatalog Unpublizierter Werke aus Deutschen Museen:
Metall, Stein, Stuck, Holz, Elfenbein, Stoffe (Berlin: 1985).

Byzantium and Islam: Age of Transition 7th-9th century, exh. (New York: 2012).

Byzantium and Islam: Age of Transition 7th-9th century, exh. cat. (New York: 2012).

Christie’s, Arts of the Islamic and Indian Worlds: Including Art from the Collection of Dr.
Mohammed Said Farsi, auc. cat. London, 5 October 2010.

———. Arts of the Islamic and Indian Worlds, auc. cat. London, 7 April 2011.

———. Arts of the Islamic and Indian Worlds, auc. cat. London, 4 October 2012.

———. Islamic Art and Manuscripts, auc. cat. London, 23 April 2002.

———. Islamic Art, Indian Miniatures, Rugs and Carpets, auc. cat. London, 19 October 1993.

Anna Contadini, Fatimid Art at the Victoria and Albert Museum (London: 1998).

Anna Contadini et al., "Beasts that Roared: The Pisa Griffin and the New York Lion," in Cairo
to Kabul: Afghan and Islamic Studies presented to Ralph Pinder-Wilson, ed. Warwick Ball and
Leonard Harrow (London: 2002), 65-83.

Cradle of Christianity, exh. cat. (Jerusalem: 2006).

99
Monika Dahncke, Frühislamische Bronzen der Bumiller Collection: Georgeville, Canada
(Panicale, Italy: 1988).

Michal Dayagi-Mendels and Silvia Rozenberg, eds., Chronicles of the Land: Archaeology in the
Israel Museum Jerusalem (Jerusalem: 2010).

Jerrilynn D. Dodds et al., Al-Andalus: the Art of Islamic Spain (New York: 1992).

Frederick H. v. Doorninck, "The Medieval Shipwreck at Serçe," Graeco-Arabica 4 (1991): 45-

Richard Ettinghausen, “The Bobrinsky Kettle: Patron and Style of an Islamic Bronze,” Gazette
de beaux-arts 24 (1943): 193-208.

Géza Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork of the Eighth to the Fifteenth Century in the Keir Collection
(London: 1976).

———. “Metalwork,” in B.W. Robinson et al., Islamic Art in the Keir Collection (London:
1988), 107-36.

Géza Fehérvári and Yasin H. Safadi, 1400 Years of Islamic Art: A Descriptive Catalog (London:
1984).

Kjeld v. Folsach, Art from the World of Islam in the David Collection (Copenhagen: 2001).

Gaballa A. Gaballa, Nubia Museum (Aswan: n.d.).

Joachim Gierlichs and Annette Hagedorn, eds., Islamic Art in Germany (Mainz am Rhein: 2004).

Almut v. Gladiss, “Islamic Metal Art,” in Claus-Peter Haase et al., A Collector’s Fortune:
Islamic Art from the Collection of Edmund de Unger (Berlin: 2007), 106-29.

———. “Metalwork,” in Oriental Splendour: Islamic Art from German Private Collections, ed.
Claus-Peter Haase et al., (Hamburg: 1993), 152-81.

Glory and Prosperity: Metalwork of the Islamic World in the Arthur M. Sackler Museum, exh.
(Cambridge: 2002).

Heinrich Glück and Ernst Diez, Die Kunst des Islam (Berlin: 1925).

Zaky M. Hassan, Moslem Art in the Fouad I University Museum (Cairo: 1950).

Rachel Hasson, Early Islamic Jewellery (Jerusalem: 1987).

———. Masterworks from the Collections of the L.A. Mayer Museum for Islamic Art
(Jerusalem: 2000).

100
Yizhar Hirschfeld, “Post-Roman Tiberias: Between East and West,” in Post-Roman Towns,
Trade and Settlement in Europe and Byzantium, ed. Joachim Henning 2 (Berlin: 2007), 193-208.

Islamic Art in Egypt 969-1517, exh. cat. (Cairo: 1969).

Islamische Kunst Verborgene Schätze, exh. cat. (Berlin: 1986).

Marilyn Jenkins, "Islamic Spain," in The Art of Medieval Spain: AD 500-1200, ed. John P.
O'Neill (New York: 1993), 72-109.

———. Islamic Art in the Kuwait National Museum: the al-Sabah Collection (London: 1983).

Marilyn Jenkins, "New Evidence for the History and Provenance of the So-Called Pisa Griffin,"
Islamic Archaeological Studies 1 (1978): 79-85.

Marilyn Jenkins and Manuel Keene. Islamic Jewelry in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (New
York: 1982).

Benoit Junod, Spirit and Life: Masterpieces of Islamic Art from the Aga Khan Museum
Collection (Geneva: 2007).

Nasser D. Khalili, Islamic Art and Culture: Timeline and History (Cairo: 2008).

Sabiha Khemir, From Cordoba to Samarqand: Masterpieces from the Museum of Islamic Art in
Doha (Doha: 2006).

Ernst Kühnel, The Minor Arts of Islam (Ithaca: 1971).

Georges Marçais and Louis Poinssot, Objets Kairouanais, IX au XIII Siècle: Reliures, Verreries,
Cuivre et Bronzes, Bijoux (Tunis: 1952).

J. J. Marcel, "Sur un monument arabe conservé à Pise," Journal Asiatique 3:7 (1839): 81-8.

Assadullah Souren Melikian-Chirvani, "Le griffon iranien de Pise: Matériaux pour un corpus de
l'argenterie et du bronze iraniens III," Kunst des Orients 2:5 (1968): 68-87.

Melanie Michailidis, Glory and Prosperity: Metalwork of the Islamic World in the Arthur M.
Sackler Museum (Cambridge: 2002).

Gaston Migeon, Manuel d'art musulman: Arts plastiques et industriels, 2 ed. (Paris: 1927).

Gaston Migeon and Henri Saladin, Art of Islam (New York: 2009).

John P. O’Neil et al., The Metropolitan Museum of Art: the Islamic World (New York: 1987).

101
Pagan and Christian Egypt: Egyptian Art from the First to the Tenth Century AD, exh. cat.
(Brooklyn: 1941).

Pratapaditya Pal, ed., The Nasli M. Heeramaneck Collection: Islamic Art (Los Angeles: 1973).

Edmond Pauty, Les bois sculptés d'églises coptes (époque fatimide) (Cairo: 1930).

Mikhail P. Piotrovsky and Anton D. Pritula, eds., Beyond the Palace Walls: Islamic Art from the
State Hermitage Museum (Edinburgh: 2006).

Mikhail P. Piotrovsky and J. M. Rogers, eds., Heaven on Earth: Art from Islamic Lands
(London: 2004).

Matthew J. Ponting, “From Damascus to Denia: Scientific Analysis of Three Groups of Fatimid
Period Metalwork,” Historical Metallurgy 37 (2003): 85-105.

———. “The Scientific Analysis and Investigation of a Selection of the Copper-Alloy

Seracettin Şahin, The Museum of Turkish and Islamic Arts: Thirteen Centuries of Glory from the
Umayyads to the Ottomans (New York: 2009).

Friederich Sarre, Die Kunst des Alten Persien (Berlin: 1922).

———. et al., Die Ausstellung von Meisterwerken Muhammedanischer Kunst in München 1910
(Munich: 1912).

Sasanian Silver: Late Antique and Early Medieval Arts of Luxury from Iran, exh. cat. (Ann
Arbor, Michigan: 1967).

Umberto Scerrato, Metalli islamici (Milano: 1966).

Schätze der Kalifen: Islamische Kunst zur Fatimidenzeit, exh. cat. (Vienna: 1999).

Janine v. Sourdel-Thomine and Bertold Spuler, Die Kunst des Islam (Frankfurt am Main: 1973).

Thomas Tunsch, "The Fatimids (909-1171) and Sicily," in Volkmar Enderlein, et al., Museum of
Islamic Art: State Museums of Berlin (Mainz: 2008), 29-40.

Trésors fatimides du Caire, exh. cat. (Paris: 1998).

Alicia Walker, “H`ome: A Space Rich in Blessing,” in Byzantine Women and their World, ed.
Marsha Pomerantz (Cambridge: 2003), 161-214.

Rachel Ward, Islamic Metalwork (London: 1993).

102
Oliver Watson, Beyond Boundaries: Islamic Art Across Cultures (Doha: 2008).

Gaston Wiet, Catalogue général du musée arabe du Caire: objets en cuivre (Cairo: 1932).

103
List of Figures

A. Name
B. Material
C. Date
D. Dynasty
E. Origin
F. Dimensions
G. Source
H. Inventory Number or Institution

Umayyad and Abbasid Metalwork No. 1-125

1.
A. Brazier
B. Bronze
C. 8th century
D. Umayyad
E. Al-Fudayn, Kingdom of Jordan
F. H 47 cm – 18.5 in
G. Photograph by Author, National Archaeological Museum, Amman, Kingdom of
Jordan
H. J15700, 15701, 15705

1.2
A. Brazier Detail (Eagle Protome)
F. H 15.2 cm – 6 in
G. Photograph by Author, National Archaeological Museum, Amman, Kingdom of
Jordan

1.3
A. Brazier Detail (Figure Woman w/ Eagle)
F. H 10.2 cm – 4 in
G. Photograph by Author, National Archaeological Museum, Amman, Kingdom of
Jordan

1.4
A. Brazier Detail (Hinged Wheel)
F. D 2.5 cm – 1 in
G. Photograph by Author, National Archaeological Museum, Amman, Kingdom of
Jordan

2.
A. Female Figure
B. Copper

104
 C. 7th-8th century
D. Umayyad
E. Egypt
F. H 22 cm – 8 in
G. Photograph from Byzantine and Islam 195.
H. E25393
3.
A. Bottle w/ Female Figures
B. Bronze
C. 5th-8th century
D. Umayyad
E. Egypt
F. H 17.3 cm – 6 in
G. Photograph from Byzantine and Islam 197.
H. 12.79

4.
A. Christian Censer
B. Bronze
C. 8th century
D. Umayyad
E. Syria or Palestine
F. D 10 cm – 3.9 in, H 11cm – 4.3 in
G. Photograph from von Folsach, Art David Collection 295.
H. 7.1994
5.
A. Cross
B. Bronze
C. 7th-8th century
D. Umayyad
E. Kingdom of Jordan
F. H 30.5 cm – 12 in
G. Photograph by Author, Archaeological Museum of Madaba, Kingdom of Jordan
H. Department of Antiquities Jordan

6.
A. Censer (Lion Hunting Boar)
B. Bronze
C. 500-700
D. Umayyad
E. Monastery of Epiphanius, Luxor, Egypt
F. L 12.7 cm – 5 in, W 10.2 cm – 4 in, H 5.1 cm – 2 in
G. Photograph by Author, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
H. 1944.20.A.B

7.

105
 A. Elephant Case
B. Bronze
C. 8th century
D. Umayyad
E. Al-Fudayn, Kingdom of Jordan
F. H 10.2 cm – 4 in
G. Photograph by Author, Citadel Archaeological Museum, Amman, Kingdom of Jordan
H. J016514

7.2
A. Elephant Case Detail (Hinge)
G. Photograph by Author, Citadel Archaeological Museum, Amman, Kingdom of Jordan

8.
A. Ram Case
B. Bronze
C. 8th century
D. Umayyad
E. Al-Fudayn, Kingdom of Jordan
F. H 10.2 cm – 4 in
G. Photograph by Author, Citadel Archaeological Museum, Amman, Kingdom of Jordan
H. J016515

9.
A. Throne Leg (Griffon Protome)
B. Bronze
C. 7th-8th century
D. Umayyad
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. H 57 cm – 22.4 in
G. Photograph by Author, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
H. 1971.143

9.2
A. Throne Leg Detail (Griffon Protome Face)
G. Photograph by Author, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

10.
A. Ewer w/ Leopard Handle
B. Bronze
C. 7th century
D. Umayyad
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. H 48.5 cm – 19.1 in
G. Photograph by Author, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
H. 1947.100.90

106
10.2
A. Ewer w/ Leopard Handle Detail (Leopard)
G. Photograph by Author, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

11.
A. Bumiller Leopard
B. Bronze
C. 7th century
D. Umayyad
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. L 38 mm – 1.5 in
G. Photograph from Dahncke, Bronzen Bumiller Collection 4.
H. BC429

12.
A. Heeramaneck Leopard
B. Bronze
C. 12th- 13th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. L 20.2 cm – 8 in
G. Photograph from Pal, Nasli Heeramaneck Collection 181.
H. M73.5.316

13.
A. Lion Handle
B. Bronze
C. 9th-10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Egypt
F. H 5.1 cm – 2 in
G. Photograph by Author, Private Collection of Author
H. 2011.80

13.2
A. Lion Handle Detail (Face)
B. Photograph by Author, Private Collection of Author

14.
A. Zoomorphic Kettle (Camel)
B. Bronze
C. 8th-9th century (likely 8th)
D. Umayyad
E. Umm al-Walid, Kingdom of Jordan
F. H 14 cm – 5.5 in
G. Photograph by Author, Archaeological Museum of Madaba, Jordan

107
 H. 668

15.
A. Hinged Key
B. Iron
C. 7th-10th century (likely 7th-9th)
D. Umayyad
E. Edfu, Egypt
F. L 19.5 mm – 11 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 250.
H. AF10362

16.
A, Hinged Key
B. Iron
C. 7th-10th century (likely 7th-9th)
D. Umayyad
E. Edfu, Egypt
F. L 8.5 mm – 0.33 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 249.
H. AF10364

17.
A. Stand w/ Eagle Protomes
B. Silver
C. 7th-8th century
D. Umayyad
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. D 17.8 cm – 7 in H 8.5 cm – 3.3 in
G. Photograph from Atil et al., Metalwork Freer Gallery 55.
H. 53.92

18.
A. Eagle Protome
B. Silver
C. 3rd-8th
D. Parthian - Umayyad
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. H 7.6 cm – 3 in
G. Photograph from Atil et al., Metalwork Freer Gallery 57.
H. 50.91

19.
A. Ewer
B. Gold
C. 7th century

108
 D. Umayyad
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. H 43.7 cm – 17.2 in
G. Photograph from Atil et al., Metalwork Freer Gallery 63.
H. Z524

20.
A. Ewer
B. Silver
C. 6th-7th century
D. Umayyad
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. H 34 cm – 13.4 in
G. Photograph by Author, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
H. 1967.10

21.
A. Ewer
B. Bronze
C. 8th-9th century
D. Umayyad
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. H 37.2 cm – 14.6 in
G. Photograph from Walter’s Art Gallery, Baltimore, Maryland
H. 54.457

22.
A. Plate
B. Silver
C. 8th century
D. Umayyad
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. D 20.6 cm – 8.1 in
G. Photograph by Author, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
H. 1963.186

23.
A. Ewer (So-Called Marwan)
B. Bronze
C. 8th century
D. Umayyad
E. Abu Sir al-Malaq, al Fayyum, Egypt
F. D 28 cm – 11 in, H 41 cm – 16.1 in
G. Photograph by Author, Islamic Museum, Cairo, Egypt
H. 9281

109
23.2
A. Ewer (So-Called Marwan) Detail (Rooster)
G. Photograph by Author, Islamic Museum, Cairo, Egypt

23.3
A. Ewer (So-Called Marwan) Detail (Pierced Vegetal and Geometric Motifs)
G. Photograph by Author, Islamic Museum, Cairo, Egypt

23.4
A. Ewer (So-Called Marwan) Detail (Dragon’s Tail)
G. Photograph by Author, Islamic Museum, Cairo, Egypt

23.5
A. Ewer (So-Called Marwan) Detail (Dots)
G. Photograph by Author, Islamic Museum, Cairo, Egypt

24.
A. Ewer
B. Bronze
C. 8th century
D. Umayyad
E. Syria
F. D 10.5 cm – 4.1 in, H 35.5 cm – 14 in
G. Photograph by Author, Islamic Museum, Cairo, Egypt
H. 15241

24.2
A. Ewer Detail (Heart Shaped Palmette)
G. Photograph by Author, Islamic Museum, Cairo, Egypt

25.
A. Ewer
B. Bronze
C. 8th-9th century
D. Umayyad
E. Syria
F. H 31.4 cm – 12.4 in
G. Photograph by Author, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
H. 1941.65

26.
A. Ewer
B. Bronze
C. 8th-9th century
D. Umayyad - Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iraq

110
 F. H 40.5 cm – 15.9 in
G. Photograph from Piotrovsky et al., Beyond Palace Walls 4.
H. I.R2316

27.
A. Bottle w/ Leaf Design
B. Bronze
C. 7th-8th century
D. Umayyad
E. Egypt
F. H 17 cm – 6.7 in
G. Photograph from Allan, Treasures of Islam 252.
H. Musée d’Art et d’histoire, Geneva, Switzerland

28.
A. Bottle w/ Leaf Design
B. Bronze
C. 7th-9th century
D. Umayyad
E. Egypt
F. D 5 cm – 2 in, H 18 cm – 7.1 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 20.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

29.
A. Bottle w/ Almond Bosses
B. Bronze
C.9th-10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. D 4 cm – 1.6 in, H 13.4 cm – 5.3 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 12.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

30.
A. Bottle w/ Almond Bosses
B. Bronze
C. 9th-10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. D 3.8 cm – 1.5 in, H 12 cm – 4.7 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 13.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

31.
A. Bottle w/ Almond Bosses

111
 B. Bronze
C. 9th-11th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. H 17 cm – 6.7 in
G. Photograph from Allan, Treasures of Islam 255.
H. Musée d’Art et d’histoire, Geneva, Switzerland

32.
A. Incense Burner (Zoomorphic)
B. Bronze
C. 8th-9th century
D. Umayyad/ Abbasid
E. Egypt
F. H 32.5 cm – 12.8 in
G. Photograph from Freer Gallery Smithsonian Museum, Washington DC
H. 52.1

33.
A. Incense Burner (Peacock)
B. Copper
C. 500-700
D. Umayyad
E. Egypt
F. H 15.2 cm – 6 in
G. Photograph by Author, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
H. 1961.111.A.B

34.
A. Pierced Bowl w/ Peacock Rinceau Motif
B. Bronze
C. 700
D. Umayyad
E. Syria
F. D 11.8 cm – 4.6 in, H 6.6 cm – 2.6 in
G. Photograph by Author, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
H. 1993.319

35.
A. Peacock Panel from Lamp-handle
B. Bronze
C. 8th-9th century
D. Umayyad
E. Egypt
F. H 6 cm – 2.4 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 19.

112
 H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

36.
A. Peacock Panel from Lamp-handle
B. Bronze
C. 8th-9th century
D. Umayyad
E. Fustat, Egypt
F. ≈ H 6 cm – 2.4 in
G. Photograph from Bahgat et al., Fouilles d’al Fousṭâṭ PL XXIX.
H. Current whereabouts unknown: presumed Islamic Museum, Cairo, Egypt

37.
A. Peacock Handle
B. Bronze
C. 8th-10th century
D. Umayyad/ Abbasid
E. Greater Persia
F. L 5.1 cm – 2 in
G. Photograph by Author, Private Collection of Author
H. 2012.150

38.
A. Incense Burner (Peacock)
B. Bronze
C. 11th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. H 28 cm – 11 in
G. Photograph from Junod, Spirit and Life 83.
H. AKM00602

39.
A. Aquamanile (Peacock)
B. Bronze
C. 972
D. Umayyad
E. Spain
F. H 39.5 cm – 15.6 in
G. Photograph from Qantara
H. MR1519

40.
A. Christian Censer
B. Bronze
C. 7th-10th century (likely 7th-9th)

113
 D. Umayyad
E. Palestine
F. D 8.1 cm – 3.2 in, H 8.3 cm – 3.3 in
G. Photograph from Walker, Byzantine Women 202.
H. 1975.41.140

41.
A. Christian Censer (Pierced and Six Sided)
B. Bronze
C. 11th-12th century (likely 7th-9th)
D. Umayyad
E. Egypt
F. D 9 cm – 3.5 in
G. Photograph by Author, Sackler Museum of Art, Harvard University, Cambridge
H. 1975.41.142

42.
A. Christian Censer
B. Bronze
C. 8th-12th century (likely 7th-9th)
D. Umayyad
E. Egypt
F. D 14.6 cm – 5.7 in, H 13 cm – 5.1 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 317.
H. 5144

43.
A. Christian Censer
B. Bronze
C. 7th-9th century
D. Umayyad
E. Akhmim, Egypt
F. D 15.5 cm – 6.1 in, H 8.5 cm – 3.3 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 88.
H. E11270

44.
A. Christian Censer
B. Bronze
C. 7th-9th century
D. Umayyad
E. Egypt
F. D 9.5 cm – 3.7 in, H 9.7 cm – 3.8 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 90.
H. E11709

114
45.
A. Christian Censer
B. Bronze
C. 7th-9th century
D. Umayyad
E. Egypt
F. D 10.8 cm – 4.3 in, H 9.5 cm – 3.7 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 92.
H. E11710

46.
A. Lampstand
B. Bronze
C. 6th-7th century
D. Umayyad
E. Eastern Mediterranean or Egypt
F. H 24.6 cm – 9.7 in
G. Photograph by Author, Sackler Museum of Art, Harvard University, Cambridge
H. 1975.41.141

47.
A. Lampstand
B. Bronze
C. 6th-7th century (likely 7th)
D. Umayyad
E. Edfu, Egypt
F. H 25.3 cm – 10 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 160.
H. AF1328

48.
A. Lampstand
B. Bronze
C. 6th-7th century
D. Umayyad
E. Akhmim, Egypt
F. H 27.3 cm – 10.7 in
G. Photograph from Piotrovsky et al., Beyond Palace Walls 4.
H. 10584

49.
A. Lampstand
B. Bronze
C. 6th-7th century
D. Umayyad
E. Qus, Egypt

115
 F. H 31.5 cm – 12.4 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 58.
H. 5186

50.
A. Lampstand
B. Bronze
C. 6th-7th century
D. Umayyad
E. Egypt
F. H 35 cm – 13.8 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 79.
H. 5184

51.
A. Lampstand
B. Copper
C. 400-500 (perhaps 600-700)
D. Byzantine-Umayyad
E. Syria
F. H 16.3 cm – 6.4 in
G. Photograph by Author, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
H. 1961.1142.A.B

52.
A. Lampstand
B. Copper
C. 400-500 (perhaps 600-700)
D. Byzantine-Umayyad
E. Syria
F. H 14.7 cm – 5.8 in
G. Photograph by Author, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
H. 1961.1141.A.B

53.
A. Oil Lamp
B. Bronze
C. 6th-7th century
D. Umayyad
E. Eastern Mediterranean (Egypt or Syria)
F. H 9.8 cm – 3.9 in
G. Photograph from Walker, Byzantine Women 197.
H. 1975.41.138

54.
A. Polycandelon

116
 B. Bronze
C. 7th-10th century
D. Umayyad
E. Bawit, Egypt
F. D 57.4 cm – 22.6 in
G. Photograph from Pagan and Christian Egypt 195.
H. 1975.41.137

55.
A. Polycandelon
B. Copper
C. 500-700
D. Umayyad
E. Egypt
F. D 26.5 cm – 10.4 in
G. Photograph by Author, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
H. 2002.483.7

56.
A. Polycandelon (Ring)
B. Bronze
C. 7th-10th century (likely 7th-8th)
D. Umayyad
E. Edfu, Egypt
F. D 28.5 cm – 11.2 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 164.
H. AF1329

57.
A. Polycandelon (Cruciform and Geometric)
B. Bronze
C. 7th-10th century (likely 7th-8th)
D. Umayyad
E. Egypt
F. D 25.2 cm – 9.9 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 165.
H. E11916

58.
A. Polycandelon (Cruciform and Geometric)
B. Bronze
C. 7th-10th century (likely 7th-8th)
D. Umayyad
E. Egypt
F. D 57.5 cm – 22.6 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 166.

117
 H. AF11873

59.
A. Polycandelon (Cruciform and Geometric)
B. Bronze
C. 7th-10th century (likely 7th-8th)
D. Umayyad
E. Egypt
F. D 24.5 cm – 9.6 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 166.
H. AF11711

60.
A. Polycandelon (Elaborate Cruciform and Geometric)
B. Bronze
C. 6th-8th century (likely 7th-8th)
D. Umayyad
E. Egypt
F. D 48 cm – 18.9 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 211.
H. 5222

61.
A. Lamp-handle (Griffon)
B. Copper
C. 6th-7th century
D. Umayyad
E. Egypt (likely Iran)
F. L 17.6 cm – 6.9 in
G. Photograph by Author, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
H. 1987.441

62.
A. Lid
B. Bronze
C. 7th-8th century
D. Umayyad
E. Umm al-Walid, Kingdom of Jordan
F. D 7.6 cm – 3 in
G. Photograph by Author, Archaeological Museum of Madaba, Kingdom of Jordan
H. 672

63.
A. Mortar and Pestle
B. Bronze
C. 7th-8th century

118
 D. Umayyad
E. Umm al-Walid, Kingdom of Jordan
F. D 7.6 cm – 3 in, H 12.7 cm – 5 in
G. Photograph by Author, Archaeological Museum of Madaba, Kingdom of Jordan
H. 673.4

64.
A. Bottle
B. Bronze
C. 7th-8th century
D. Umayyad
E. Kingdom of Jordan
F. H 15.2 cm – 6 in
G. Photograph by Author, Archaeological Museum of Madaba, Kingdom of Jordan
H. M4862

65.
A. Bottle
B. Bronze
C. 7th-8th century
D. Umayyad
E. Kingdom of Jordan
F. H 10.2 cm – 4 in
G. Photograph by Author, Archaeological Museum of Madaba, Kingdom of Jordan
H. unknown

66.
A. Plate
B. Bronze
C. 7th-8th century
D. Umayyad
E. Umm al-Walid, Kingdom of Jordan
F. D 5.1 cm – 2 in
G. Photograph by Author, Archaeological Museum of Madaba, Kingdom of Jordan
H. 787

67.
A. Ornaments
B. Bronze
C. 7th-8th century
D. Umayyad
E. Ayala, Kingdom of Jordan
F. All +/- 2.5 cm – 1 in
G. Photograph from Al-Asad et al., Umayyads 187.
H. AM 47, 45, 46, 546 and 44

119
68.
A. Weight
B. Bronze
C. 7th-8th century
D. Umayyad
E. Kingdom of Jordan
F. D 1.3 cm – 0.50 in, H 1.3 cm – 0.50 in
G. Photograph by Author, Private Collection of Author
H. 2009.41

69.
A. Bottle w/ Almond Bosses
B. Bronze
C. 8th-10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. D 7.5 cm – 3 in, H 14 cm – 5.5 in
G. Photograph from Gladiss, Oriental Splendour No. 95.
H. German Private Collection

70.
A. Bottle w/ Almond Bosses
B. Bronze
C. 9th-10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. H 16 cm – 6.3 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 14.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

71.
A. Bottle w/ Almond Bosses
B. Bronze
C. 9th-10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. H 21 cm – 8.26 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári et al., 1400 Years Islamic Art No 33.
H. Khalili Collection London, England

72.
A. Bowl w/ Almond Bosses
B. Bronze
C. 9th-10th century
D. Abbasid

120
 E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. D 15.2 cm – 6 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 15.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

73.
A. Mortar w/ Almond Bosses
B. Bronze
C. 11th-12th century
D. Abbasid or later
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. D 16 cm – 6.3 in, H 12.5 cm – 4.9 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 88.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany
74.
A. Jug w/ Knob Ornament
B. Bronze
C. 8th-10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. H 20.2 cm – 7.6 in
G. Photograph from Gladiss, Oriental Splendour No. 98.
H. BC.1506

75.
A. Ewer w/ Knob Ornament
B. Bronze
C. 9th-10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran/ Iraq
F. H 32 cm – 12.6 in
G. Photograph from Gladiss, Oriental Splendour No. 96.
H. German Private Collection

76.
A. Ewer w/ Knob Ornament
B. Bronze
C. 9th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran/ Iraq
F. H 27.7 – 10.9 in
G. Photograph from Bloom et al., Cosmophilia 150.
H. 17.2001

77.
A. Ewer w/ Pomegranate Ornament

121
 B. Bronze
C. 8th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. H 35.5 cm – 14 in
G. Photograph from Jenkins, Islamic Art Kuwait Museum 36.
H. LNS85M

78.
A. Ewer w/ Pomegranate Ornament
B. Bronze
C. 8th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. H 25.5 cm – 10 in
G. Photograph from Jenkins, Islamic Art Kuwait Museum 37.
H. LNS84M

79.
A. Ewer w/ Pomegranate Ornament
B. Bronze
C. 9th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. H 29.2 cm – 11.5 in
G. Photograph from Jenkins, Islamic Art Kuwait Museum 38.
H. LNSI32M

80.
A. Ewer w/ Knob Ornament
B. Bronze
C. 9th-10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. H 13.6 cm – 5.4 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 8.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

81.
A. Ewer w/ Leaf Ornament
B. Bronze
C. 8th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iraq
F. H 30 cm – 11.8 in
G. Photograph from Gladiss, Collector’s Fortune 109.

122
 H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

82.
A. Ewer w/ Leaf Ornament
B. Bronze
C. 782
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Basra, Iraq
F. H ~ 33.02 cm – 13 in
G. Photograph from Khalili Research Center Image Archive
H. I.5

83.
A. Eagle Protome
B. Bronze
C. 7th-8th century
D. Umayyad
E. Syria/ Kingdom of Jordan
F. L 6.4 cm – 2.5 in, H 3.8 cm – 1.5 in
G. Photograph by Author, Private Collection of Author
H. 2011.79

84.
A. Ewer w/ Lion Handle
B. Bronze
C. 8th century
D. Abbasid
E. Egypt/ Syria
F. H 26.2 cm – 10.3 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári et al., 1400 Years Islamic Art No 32.
H. Khalili Collection, London, England

85.
A. Jug w/ Lion Handle
B. Bronze
C. 11th-12th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. H 20 cm – 7.9 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 61.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

86.
A. Lion Protome
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century

123
 D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. H 5.7 cm – 2.25 in
G. Photograph by Author, Private Collection of Author
H. 2011.69D

87.
A. Lion Protome
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. H 5.1 cm – 2 in
G. Photograph by Author, Private Collection of Author
H. 2011.69A

88.
A. Lion Protome
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. H 5.7 cm – 2.25 in
G. Photograph by Author, Private Collection of Author
H. 2011.69B

89.
A. Lion Protome
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. H 7 cm – 2.75 in
G. Photograph by Author, Private Collection of Author
H. 2011.69C

90.
A. Lion Protome
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. H 3.2 cm – 1.25 in
G. Photograph by Author, Private Collection of Author
H. 2011.91

124
91.
A. Lion Protome
B. Bronze
C. 10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Nishapur, Iran
F. H 6.3 cm – 2.6 in
G. Photograph by Author, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
H. 1940.170.258

92.
A. Lion Protome
B. Bronze
C. 10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Nishapur, Iran
F. H 6 cm – 2.4 in
G. Photograph from Allan, Nishapur No 173.
H. Tehran, Iran

93.
A. Lion Protome
B. Bronze
C. 10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Nishapur, Iran
F. H 6 cm – 2.4 in
G. Photograph from Allan, Nishapur No 176.
H. Tehran, Iran

94.
A. Lion Protome
B. Bronze
C. 11th-13th century
D. Abbasid or Later
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. H 8 cm – 3.1 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 116.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

95.
A. Aquamanile (Eagle)
B. Bronze
C. 796-7
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iraq

125
 F. H 38 cm – 15 in
G. Photograph from Migeon et al., Art of Islam 116.
H. NP1567

96.
A. Aquamanile (Eagle)
B. Copper
C. 9th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iraq
F. H. 36.1 cm – 14 in
G. Photograph from Byzantine and Islam 65.
H. St. Catherine’s Monastery, Sinai, Egypt

97.
A. Aquamanile (Eagle)
B. Bronze
C. 8th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran/ Iraq
F. H 34.5 cm – 13.6 in
G. Photograph from Tunsch, The Fatimids and Sicily 28.
H. I.5623

98.
A. Ewer w/ Zoomorphic Decoration
B. Bronze
C. 8th-9th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iraq
F. H 39.2 cm – 15.4 in
G. Photograph from Piotrovsky et al., Beyond Palace Walls 7.
H. KZ5753

99.
A. Incense Burner
B. Bronze
C. 8th-10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. ≈ H 26 cm – 10.2 in
G. Photograph from Baer, Metalwork Medieval Islamic Art 48.
H. M12870

100.
A. Incense Burner

126
 B. Bronze
C. 8th-10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. ≈ H 17 cm – 6.7 in
G. Photograph from Baer, Metalwork Medieval Islamic Art 49.
H. M12170

101.
A. Incense Burner
B. Bronze
C. 8th-10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. H 17 cm – 6.7 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 348.
H. 5141

102.
A. Incense Burner
B. Bronze
C. 8th-10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. H 10.5 cm – 4.1 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 350.
H. 1201

103.
A. Incense Burner
B. Bronze
C. 8th-10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Persia specifically Iran
F. H 6.4 cm – 2.5 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 357.
H. 1203

104.
A. Incense Burner
B. Bronze
C. 8th-10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. ≈ H 11 cm – 4.3 in
G. Photograph by Author, Archaeological Museum of Madaba, Kingdom of Jordan

127
 H. Archaeological Museum of Madaba, Kingdom of Jordan

105.
A. Incense Burner
B. Bronze
C. 8th-10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. ≈ H 8 cm – 3.1 in
G. Photograph by Author, Archaeological Museum of Madaba, Jordan
H. 667

106.
A. Ewer
B. Bronze
C. 9th-10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Egypt
F. H 28.4 cm – 9.76 in
G. Photograph from Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
H. 1949.49

107.
A. Ewer
B. Bronze
C. 9th-10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Egypt
F. H 23 cm – 9 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Metalwork No M3.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

108.
A. Ewer
B. Bronze
C. 9th-10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Egypt
F. H 25 cm – 9.8 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Metalwork No M4.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

109.
A. Ewer
B. Bronze
C. 9th-10th century

128
 D. Abbasid
E. Egypt
F. H 14.5 cm – 5.7 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 21.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

110.
A. Ewer
B. Bronze
C. 9th-10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Egypt
F. ≈ H 25 cm – 9.8 in
G. Photograph by Author, Islamic Museum, Cairo, Egypt
H. unknown

111.
A. Ewer
B. Brass
C. 9th-10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Egypt
F. ≈ H 25 cm – 9.8 in
G. Photograph from Ward, Islamic Metalwork No 47.
H. 1894.5-17.4
112.
A. Jug
B. Bronze
C. 9th-10th or 12th-13th century
D. Abbasid
E. Persia specifically Iran
F. H 21 cm – 8.2 in
G. Photograph from Gladiss, Collector’s Fortune No 88.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

113.
A. Ewer
B. Bronze
C. 9th-10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Egypt
F. H 28.5 cm – 11.22 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 3.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

114.

129
 A. Ewer
B. Bronze
C. 9th-10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Egypt
F. H 21 cm – 8.3 in
G. Photograph from Brisch et al., Islamische Kunst Loseblattkatalog No. 232.
H. I.6758

115.
A. Ewer
B. Bronze
C. 9th-10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Egypt
F. ≈ H 25 cm – 9.8 in
G. Photograph by Author, Islamic Museum, Cairo, Egypt
H. unknown

116.
A. Ewer
B. Bronze
C. 9th-10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Egypt
F. ≈ H 25 cm – 9.8 in
G. Photograph by Author, Islamic Museum, Cairo, Egypt
H. unknown

117.
A. Ewer
B. Bronze
C. 9th-10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Egypt
F. H 43 cm – 17 in
G. Photograph from Allan, Treasures of Islam No 253.
H. Musée d’Art et d’histoire, Geneva, Switzerland

118.
A. Incense Burner
B. Bronze
C. 9th-10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Egypt or Syria
F. ≈ H 30.48 cm – 12 in

130
 G. Photograph from Khalili, Islamic Art and Culture 110.
H. Khalili Collection, London, England

119.
A. Incense Burner
B. Bronze
C. 9th-10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Egypt
F. H 9.9 cm – 4 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 351.
H. 1202

120.
A. Incense Burner
B. Bronze
C. 9th-10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Egypt
F. H 21.5 cm – 8.5 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 102.
H. E11653

121.
A. Incense Burner
B. Bronze
C. 9th-10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Egypt
F. H 20.3 cm – 8 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 104.
H. E11655

122.
A. Lamp
B. Brass
C. 10th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran/ Iraq
F. D 40 cm – 15.7 in, H 26 cm – 10.2 in
G. Photograph from Folsach, Art David Collection No. 459.
H. 17.1970

123.
A. Basin
B. Bronze

131
 C. 8th-11th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. D 43.2 cm – 17 in
G. Photograph from Gladiss, Oriental Splendour No. 101.
H. German Private Collection

124.
A. Mirror-back
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. D 10.1 cm – 3.9 in
G. Photograph from Allan, Treasures of Islam No 259.
H. Musée d’Art et d’histoire, Geneva, Switzerland
125.
A. Mirror-back
B. Bronze
C. 12th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. D 13.9 cm – 5.4 in
G. Photograph from Allan, Treasures of Islam No 260.
H. Musée d’Art et d’histoire, Geneva, Switzerland

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

126.
A. Figure Female Tambourine Player
B. Bronze
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 5 cm – 2 in, W 3 cm – 1.2 in
G. Photograph by Author, Islamic Museum, Cairo, Egypt
H. 6983

127.
A. Camel Figure
B. Bronze
C. 10th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 7 cm – 2.8 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Metalwork No M6.

132
 H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

128
A. Gazelle Figure
B. Bronze
C. 10th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 13.7 cm – 5.4 in
G. Photograph by Request from Islamic Museum, Berlin, Germany
H. I.4388

129.
A. Gazelle Figure
B. Bronze
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. D 21.5 cm – 8.5 in, H 28 cm – 11 in
G. Photograph by Author, Islamic Museum, Cairo, Egypt
H. 15062

130.
A. Gazelle Figure
B. Bronze
C. 10th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. ≈ H 15.24 cm – 6 in
G. Photograph from Sarre et al., Ausstellung Muhammedanischer Kunst in München
No 3121.
H. current whereabouts unknown

131.
A. Gazelle Figure
B. Bronze
C. 11th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 6.5 cm – 2.6 in
G. Photograph from von Folsach, Art David Collection 299.
H. 50.1979

132.
A. Gazelle Figure
B. Bronze

133
 C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 19.5 cm – 7.7 in
G. Photograph from Christie’s, Arts Islamic Indian Worlds April 2011 No 86.
H. Consignment at Christie’s London

133.
A. Gazelle Figure
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 6.5 cm – 2.6 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 31.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

134.
A. Goat Figure
B. Bronze
C. 11th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 11.5 cm – 4.5 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 29.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

135.
A. Goat Figure
B. Bronze
C. 10th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 12 cm – 4.7 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 29A.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

136.
A. Goat Figure
B. Bronze
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 6 cm – 2.3 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 30.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

134
137.
A. Hare Figure
B. Bronze
C. 11th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 13.5 cm – 5.3 in, H 5.6 cm – 2.2 in
G. Photograph from von Folsach, Art David Collection 299.
H. 33.2000

138.
A. Hare Figure
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 4 cm – 1.6 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 33.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

139.
A. Hare Figure
B. Bronze
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 8 cm – 3.1 in
G. Photograph by Author Islamic Museum, Cairo, Egypt
H. 15301

140.
A. Hare Figure
B. Bronze
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. ≈ L 14 cm – 5.5 in
G. Photograph from Hasson, Masterworks L.A. Mayer Museum 31.
H. L.A. Mayer Memorial Museum, Jerusalem, Israel

141.
A. Hare Figure
B. Bronze
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid

135
 E. Egypt
F. L 14 cm – 5.5 in
G. Photograph from Taylor et al., Arabesques et jardins de paradis 146.
H. AF2020

142.
A. Hare Figure
B. Copper
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. ≈ H 7.6 cm – 3 in
G. Photograph by Author from Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
H. L.2011.62

143.
A. Leopard Figure
B. Bronze
C. 10th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. ≈ H 5 cm – 2 in
G. Photograph from Sarre et al., Ausstellung Muhammedanischer Kunst in München
No 3008.
H. current whereabouts unknown

144.
A. Lion Figure
B. Bronze
C. 10th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. ≈ H 5 cm – 2 in
G. Photograph from Sarre et al., Ausstellung Muhammedanischer Kunst in München
No 3009.
H. current whereabouts unknown

145.
A. Lion Figure
B. Bronze
C. 10th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 16 cm – 6.3 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 27.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

136
146.
A. Lion Figure
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 4 cm – 1.6 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 32.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

147.
A. Parrot Figure w/ Chain
B. Bronze
C. 11th-12th
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 9.5 cm – 3.7 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Metalwork No M5.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany
148.
A. Parrot Figure
B. Bronze
C. 11th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 21 cm – 8.3 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 40.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

149.
A. Parrot Figure
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 21 cm – 8.3 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 41.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

150.
A. Parrot Figure
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt

137
 F. L 11 cm – 4.3 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 42.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

151.
A. Parrot Figure
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 14 cm – 5.5 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 43.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

152.
A. Parrot Figure
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 13 cm – 5.1 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 44.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

153.
A. Parrot Figure
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 7.5 cm – 3 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 45.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

154.
A. Parrot Figure
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 5.5 cm – 2.1 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 46.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

155.
A. Parrot Figure

138
 B. Bronze
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 11 cm – 4.3 in
G. Photograph from Trésors fatimides du Caire 119.
H. I.5610

156.
A. Lion Protome
B. Bronze
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 6 cm – 2.4 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 34.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

157.
A. Lion w/ Gazelle Protome
B. Bronze
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 9.5 cm – 3.7 in
G. Photograph from Schätze der Kalifen No 62.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

158.
A. Waterspout (Lion)
B. Bronze
C. 12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 21 cm – 8.3 in, L 20 cm – 7.9 in
G. Photograph by Author, Islamic Museum, Cairo, Egypt
H. 4305

158.2
A. Waterspout Detail (Lion)
B. Photograph by Author, Islamic Museum, Cairo, Egypt

159.
A. Waterspout (Lion)
B. Bronze
C. 12th century

139
 D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 11.5 cm – 4.5 in L 14.5 cm – 5.7 in
G. Photograph from Migeon et al., Art of Islam 107.
H. I.1959

160.
A. Waterspout (Lion)
B. Bronze
C. 11th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 29.5 cm – 11.6 in, L 31 cm – 12.2 in
G. Photograph from Gierlichs et al., Islamic Art in Germany 132.
H. BVIII.115

161.
A. Peacock Protome
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 7.2 cm – 2.8 in
G. Photograph from Schätze der Kalifen No 64.
H. LNS5M

162.
A. Faucet (Peacock)
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 18.3 cm – 7.2 in
G. Photograph from Schätze der Kalifen No 65.
H. LNS166M

163.
A. Bear Protome
B. Iron
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 4.6 cm – 1.8 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 35.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

140
164.
A. Mouse Protome
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 7.5 cm – 3 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 39.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

165.
A. Bird Protome
B. Bronze
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 5.5 cm – 2.1 in
G. No Photograph: Missing from Inventory, Islamic Museum, Cairo, Egypt
H. 23131

166.
A. Bird Protome
B. Silver
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 4.7 cm – 1.9 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 38.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

167.
A. Plaque w/ Birds
B. Bronze
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 10 cm – 3.9 in
G. Photograph by Author, Sackler Museum of Art, Harvard University, Cambridge
H. 1975.41.148

168.
A. Incense Burner w/ Eagle, Worm, Hare and Bird Protomes
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt

141
 F. H 28 cm – 11 in, L 17.8 cm – 7 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 27.
H. E11708

168.2
A. Incense Burner Detail (Hare)
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 27.

169.
A. Eagle Protome
B. Bronze
C. 12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 7 cm – 2.8 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 47.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

170.
A. Eagle Protome
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 8 cm – 3.1 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 48.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

171.
A. Eagle Protome
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 8.5 cm – 3.3 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 49.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

172.
A. Eagle Protome
B. Bronze
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 9.6 cm – 3.8 in
G. Photograph from Arnould et al., l'Islam collections nationales No 158.

142
 H. AO8199

173.
A. Lid w/ Eagle Protome
B. Bronze
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 19.5 cm – 7.7 in
G. Photograph from Schätze der Kalifen No 66.
H. I.1485

174.
A. Lid w/ Eagle Protome
B. Bronze
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 19.2 cm – 7.6 in
G. Photograph from Islamische Kunst Verborgene Schätze No 71.
H. I.5694

175.
A. Lid w/ Eagle Protome
B. Bronze
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. ≈ H 19 cm – 7.5 in
G. Photograph by Author, Islamic Museum, Cairo, Egypt
H. 15206

176.
A. Incense Burner w/ Eagle Protome
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 19 cm – 7.5 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 105.
H. E11707

177.
A. Incense Burner w/ Eagle Protome
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century

143
 D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 18 cm – 7 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 358.
H. 5205

178.
A. Incense Burner w/ Eagle Protome
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 10 cm – 4 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 360.
H. 1205

179.
A. Incense Burner w/ Eagle Protome
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 8.2 cm – 3.3 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 361.
H. 5912

180.
A. Aquamanile (Gazelle)
B. Bronze
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 46 cm – 18 in, L 30 cm – 12 in
G. Photograph from Sarre et al., Ausstellung Muhammedanischer Kunst in München
No 3123.
H. 26N1

181.
A. Aquamanile (Gazelle)
B. Bronze
C. 11th-13th century
D. Fatimid or likely Abbasid
E. Egypt or likely Greater Persia specifically Iran
F. ≈ H 46 cm – 18 in, L 30 cm – 12 in
G. Photograph from Scerrato, Metalli islamici 73.
H. Museo di Capodimonte, Dep. Archeologico Nazionale, Napoli, Italia

144
182.
A. Fan w/ Figural Imagery (Rhipidion)
B. Silver
C. 11th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. D 22 cm – 8.6 in
G. Photograph from Byzantium and Islam 73.
H. 1946.126.1

183.
A. Fan w/ Figural Imagery (Rhipidion)
B. Silver
C. 11th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. D 22.7 cm – 9 in
G. Photograph from Byzantium and Islam 73.
H. 1946.126.2

184.
A. Fan w/ Figural Imagery (Rhipidion)
B. Silver
C. 11th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. ≈ D 22 cm – 8.6 in
G. Photograph from Byzantium and Islam 73.
H. 1597

185.
A. Oil Lamp w/ Human Figure Protome
B. Bronze
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 11.5 cm – 4.5 in
G. Photograph from Ward, Islamic Metalwork 62.
H. 1757.8.15.36A

186.
A. Human Figure Protome
B. Bronze
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid

145
 E. Egypt
F. H 3.6 cm – 1.4 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 229.
H. AF1134

187.
A. Lampstand
B. Bronze
C. 11th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 50 cm – 19.6 in
G. Photograph Schätze der Kalifen No 190.
H. 8483

188.
A. Lampstand
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. ≈ H 50 cm – 19.6 in
G. Photograph from Glück et al., Die Kunst des Islam 459.
H. I.5683

189.
A. Lampstand
B. Bronze
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 46.3 cm – 18.2 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 80.
H. 4295

190.
A. Lampstand
B. Bronze
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 43 cm – 17 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 81.
H. 4296

191.

146
 A. Lampstand
B. Bronze
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 61 cm – 24 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 84.
H. 1216

192.
A. Lampstand
B. Bronze
C. 11th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 48 cm – 19 in
G. Photograph from Hassan, Moslem Art 103.
H. 1511

193.
A. Lampstand
B. Bronze
C. 11th- 12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 37 cm – 14.6 in
G. Photograph from Folsach, Art David Collection 299.
H. 16.1970

194.
A. Lampstand
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 60 cm – 23.6 in
G. Photograph from Gladiss, Oriental Splendour No 106.
H. German Private Collection

195.
A. Lampstand
B. Brass
C. 11th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Qasr Ibrim at Nubia, Egypt
F. ≈ H 50 cm – 19.6 in

147
 G. Photograph from Gaballa, Nubia Museum 68.
H. Nubia Museum, Islamic Section, Aswan, Egypt

196.
A. Lampstand
B. Bronze
C. 11th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 51 cm – 20 in
G. Photograph from Jenkins, Islamic Art Kuwait Museum 66.
H. LNS120M
197.
A. Lampstand
B. Bronze
C. 11th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 64.7 cm – 25.4 in
G. Photograph from Christie’s, Islamic Art and Manuscripts April 2002 No 85.
H. Consignment at Christie’s London

198.
A. Lampstand
B. Bronze
C. 11th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 66.7 cm – 26.2 in
G. Photograph from Christie’s, Arts Islamic Indian Worlds October 2010 No 130.
H. Consignment at Christie’s London

199.
A. Lampstand
B. Bronze
C. 11th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 40.8 cm – 16 in
G. Photograph from Christie’s, Arts Islamic Indian Worlds October 2012 No 92.
H. Consignment at Christie’s London

200.
A. Lampstand
B. Bronze
C. 10th century

148
 D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 20.5 cm – 8 in
G. Photograph from Bamborough, Treasures of Islam 100.
H. IS.132.1954

201.
A. Lampstand
B. Brass
C. 11th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 58 cm – 23 in
G. Photograph from Ward, Islamic Metalwork 63.
H. Anonymous Loan: British Museum, London

202.
A. Incomplete Lampstand
B. Bronze
C. 10th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. D 28.7 cm – 11.3 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 82.
H. 4298

203.
A. Incomplete Lampstand
B. Bronze
C. 10th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. D 27 cm – 10.7 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 83.
H. 4299

204.
A. Incomplete Lampstand
B. Bronze
C. 11th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 27.6 cm – 11 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 85.
H. 5896

149
205.
A. Incomplete Lampstand
B. Bronze
C. 10th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 16.5 cm – 6.5 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 86.
H. 5168

206.
A. Incomplete Lampstand
B. Bronze
C. 10th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 11 cm – 4.3 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 87.
H. 5206

207.
A. Incomplete Lampstand
B. Bronze
C. 10th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 9 cm – 3.5 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 88.
H. 5203

208.
A. Incomplete Lampstand
B. Bronze
C. 10th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 14.8 cm – 5.8 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 89.
H. 5169

209.
A. Incomplete Lampstand
B. Bronze
C. 10th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt

150
 F. D 29.5 cm – 11.6 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 91.
H. 5172

210.
A. Incomplete Lampstand
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 26 cm – 10.2 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 92.
H. 1372

211.
A. Incomplete Lampstand
B. Bronze
C. 10th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 39 cm – 15.3 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 94.
H. 1612

212.
A. Incomplete Lampstand
B. Bronze
C. 10th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 22.5 cm – 9 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 95.
H. 3802

213.
A. Incomplete Lampstand
B. Bronze
C. 11th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 31.75 cm – 12.5 in
G. Photograph by Author, Sackler Museum of Art, Harvard University, Cambridge
H. 1940.164

214.
A. Plaque

151
 B. Bronze
C. 12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 11 cm – 4.3 in
G. No Photograph: Missing from Inventory, Islamic Museum, Cairo, Egypt
H. 20787

215.
A. Plaque
B. Bronze
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 6.5 cm – 2.6 in
G. Photograph from Bahgat et al., Fouilles d’al Fousṭâṭ PL XXIX.
H. 1967.8

216.
A. Hinges
B. Bronze
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 15.6 cm – 6.1 in
G. Photograph from Trésors fatimides du Caire 229.
H. I.2199

217.
A. Oil Lamp
B. Bronze
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 13.5 cm – 5.3 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 185.
H. 5205

218.
A. Oil Lamp
B. Bronze
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. ≈ H 18 cm – 7 in
G. Photograph by Author, Islamic Museum, Cairo, Egypt

152
 H. 15228

219.
A. Bucket
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 14 cm – 5.5 in
G. Photograph from Brisch et al., Islamische Kunst Loseblattkatalog No 235.
H. I.1770

220.
A. Bucket
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 14 cm – 5.5 in
G. Photograph from Brisch et al., Islamische Kunst Loseblattkatalog No 236.
H. I.1482

221.
A. Bucket
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. 18 cm – 7 in
G. Photograph from Brisch et al., Islamische Kunst Loseblattkatalog No 237.
H. I.1496

222.
A. Bucket
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 12.5 cm – 5 in
G. Photograph from Gladiss, Collector’s Fortune 112.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

223.
A. Bucket
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century

153
 D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 12.5 cm – 5 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 25.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

224.
A. Bucket (Small)
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 6.5 cm – 2.6 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 26.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

225.
A. Bucket
B. Bronze or Brass
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 12.5 cm – 5 in
G. Photograph from Piotrovsky et al., Beyond Palace Walls 14.
H. IR.1427

226.
A. Bucket (Small)
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 4.1 cm – 1.6 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 38.
H. AF1336

227.
A. Bucket
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 11.5 cm – 4.5 in
G. Photograph by Author, Sackler Museum of Art, Harvard University, Cambridge
H.1979.353

154
228.
A. Bucket
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 10.45 cm – 4.1 in
G. Photograph from Schätze der Kalifen No 192.
H. LNS894M

229.
A. Bucket
B. Copper
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 15.8 cm – 6.2 in
G. Photograph from Bloom et al., Arts City Victorious 99.
H. M25.1923

230.
A. Bowl
B. Copper
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 9.3 cm – 3.6 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 38.
H. AF1336

231.
A. Bowl
B. Copper
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 7.6 cm – 3 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 39.
H. E13881

232.
A. Bowl
B. Copper
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt

155
 F. H 15.75 cm – 6.2 in
G. Photograph by Author, Sackler Museum of Art, Harvard University, Cambridge
H. 1975.41.143

233.
A. Spice Box
B. Silver
C. 1044-1047
D. Fatimid
E. Cairo, Egypt
F. L 12.4 cm – 5 in
G. Photograph from Bloom et al., Arts City Victorious 97.
H. Real Colegiata de San Isidoro, León, Spain

234.
A. Mirror-back
B. Silver
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. D 18 cm – 7 in
G. Photograph from Ballian et al., Benaki Museum 71.
H. 13770

235.
A. Ewer
B. Silver
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 16 cm – 6.3 in
G. Photograph from Schätze der Kalifen No 194.
H. 13774

236.
A. Cylindrical Box
B. Copper
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. D 11.5 cm – 4.5 in
G. Photograph from Schätze der Kalifen No 71.
H. I.3679

236.2
A. Cylindrical Box Detail (Feet)

156
 G. Photograph from Brisch et al., Islamische Kunst Loseblattkatalog No 238.

237.
A. Polycandelon
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Ifriqiyya or Egypt
F. D 23.5 cm – 9.3 in
G. Photograph from Marçais et al., Objets Kairouanais No 98.
H. Presumed Location: Musée du Bardo, Tunis, Tunisia

238.
A. Polycandelon (Fragment)
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Ifriqiyya or Egypt
F. D 44.5 cm – 17.5 in (Reconstructed)
G. Photograph from Marçais et al., Objets Kairouanais No 103.
H. Presumed Location: Musée du Bardo, Tunis, Tunisia

239.
A. Polycandelon
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Ifriqiyya or Egypt
F. D 41.4 cm – 16.3 in
G. Photograph from Marçais et al., Objets Kairouanais No 100.
H. Presumed Location: Musée du Bardo, Tunis, Tunisia

240.
A. Polycandelon
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Ifriqiyya or Egypt
F. D 29 cm – 11.4 in
G. Photograph from Marçais et al., Objets Kairouanais No 99.
H. Presumed Location: Great Mosque of Kairouan, Tunisia

241.
A. Polycandelon
B. Bronze
C. 11th century

157
 D. Fatimid
E. Ifriqiyya or Egypt
F. D 26 cm – 10.2 in
G. Photograph from Marçais et al., Objets Kairouanais No 104.
H. Presumed Location: Great Mosque of Kairouan, Tunisia

242.
A. Polycandelon
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. St. Anthony’s Monastery, Egypt
F. D 30 cm – 11.8 in
G. Photograph from Marçais et al., Objets Kairouanais No 107.
H. Presumed Location: St. Anthony’s Monastery, Egypt

243.
A. Polycandelon
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. St. Anthony’s Monastery, Egypt
F. D 30 cm – 11.8 in
G. Photograph from Marçais et al., Objets Kairouanais No 113.
H. Presumed Location: St. Anthony’s Monastery, Egypt

244.
A. Polycandelon
B. Bronze
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. D 40 cm – 15.7 in
G. Photograph from Marçais et al., Objets Kairouanais No 112.
H. Presumed Location: Private Collection from Cairo, Egypt

245.
A. Polycandelon
B. Brass
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Ifriqiyya
F. D 32 cm – 12.6 in
G. Photograph from Ward, Islamic Metalwork 68. (Top to Bottom)
H. Great Mosque of Kairouan, Tunisia

158
246.
A. Polycandelon
B. Brass
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Ifriqiyya
F. D 30 cm – 11.8 in
G. Photograph from Ward, Islamic Metalwork 68. (Top to Bottom)
H. Great Mosque of Kairouan, Tunisia

247.
A. Polycandelon
B. Brass
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Ifriqiyya
F. D 34.5 cm – 13.6 in
G. Photograph from Ward, Islamic Metalwork 68. (Top to Bottom)
H. Great Mosque of Kairouan, Tunisia

248.
A. Oil Lamp
B. Bronze
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Sabra al-Mansuriyya, Ifriqiyya
F. L 15 cm – 6 in
G. Photograph from Qantara
H. BR112

249.
A. Oil Lamp
B. Bronze
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Sabra al-Mansuriyya, Ifriqiyya
F. L 15.1 cm – 6 in
G. Photograph from Marçais et al., Objets Kairouanais No 115.
H. Presumed Location: Musée du Bardo, Tunis, Tunisia

250.
A. Oil Lamp
B. Bronze
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Sabra al-Mansuriyya, Ifriqiyya

159
 F. L 13.7 cm – 5.4 in
G. Photograph from Marçais et al., Objets Kairouanais No 116.
H. Presumed Location: Musée du Bardo, Tunis, Tunisia

251.
A. Oil Lamp
B. Copper
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 12 cm – 4.7 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 180.
H. 1577

252.
A. Oil Lamp
B. Copper
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 11.7 cm – 4.6 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 181.
H. 3960

253.
A. Oil Lamp
B. Copper
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 11.3 cm – 4.5 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 182.
H. 1257

254.
A. Oil Lamp
B. Copper
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 11.4 cm – 4.5 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 183.
H. 1257

255.
A. Oil Lamp

160
 B. Copper
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 10.8 cm – 4.3 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 184.
H. 9169

256.
A. Lamp
B. Bronze and Copper
C. 11th century during reign of Caliph al-Mu’izz
D. Fatimid
E. Cairo, Egypt
F. H 29.5 cm – 11.6 in
G. Photograph from Marçais et al., Objets Kairouanais PL LXV.
H. Presumed Location: Musée du Bardo, Tunis, Tunisia

257.
A. Lamp
B. Bronze
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 24 cm – 9.5 in
G. Photograph from Marçais et al., Objets Kairouanais No 94.
H. Presumed Location: Musée du Bardo, Tunis, Tunisia

258.
A. Lamp
B. Brass
C. 1090
D. Fatimid
E. Cairo, Egypt or Damascus, Syria
F. H 33 cm – 13 in
G. Photograph from Şahin, Museum Turkish Islamic Arts 52.
H. 192

259.
A. Ladle
B. Bronze
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. H 3.7 cm – 1.5 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 72.

161
 H. AF1331

260.
A. Ladle
B. Bronze
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 33 cm – 13 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Islamic Metalwork Keir No 23.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

261.
A. Plate
B. Copper
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. D 37.5 cm – 14.8 in
G. Photograph from Ballian et al., Benaki Museum 69.
H. 13144

261.2
A. Plate Detail (Drawing)
G. Photograph from Ballian et al., Benaki Museum 69.

262.
A. Key
B. Iron
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid
E. Edfu, Egypt
F. L 9.4 cm – 3.7 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 252.
H. AF1393

263.
A. Key
B. Iron
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid
E. Edfu, Egypt
F. L 8 cm – 3.2 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 252.
H. AF1394

162
264.
A. Key
B. Iron
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid
E. Edfu, Egypt
F. L 9 cm – 3.5 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 252.
H. AF1395

265.
A. Key
B. Iron
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid
E. Edfu, Egypt
F. L 14 cm – 5.5 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 253.
H. AF10363

266.
A. Key
B. Iron
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 11.8 cm – 4.6 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 253.
H. AF11647

267.
A. Key
B. Iron
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid
E. Edfu, Egypt
F. L 12.5 cm – 5 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 253.
H. AF1392

268.
A. Key
B. Iron
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid
E. Edfu, Egypt

163
 F. L 4.3 cm – 1.7 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 258.
H. AF1402

269.
A. Key
B. Iron
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid
E. Edfu, Egypt
F. L 6 cm – 2.4 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 259.
H. AF1399

270.
A. Key
B. Iron
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid
E. Edfu, Egypt
F. L 5.2 cm – 2.1 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 259.
H. AF1400

271.
A. Key
B. Iron
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid
E. Edfu, Egypt
F. L 5 cm – 2 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 260.
H. AF1401

272.
A. Key
B. Iron
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid
E. Edfu, Egypt
F. L 4.2 cm – 1.7 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 260.
H. AF1403

273.
A. Key

164
 B. Iron
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 4.3 cm – 1.7 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 260.
H. AF1127

274.
A. Key
B. Iron
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 4.7 cm – 1.9 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 261.
H. AF862

275.
A. Key
B. Iron
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 2.7 cm – 1.1 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 261.
H. AF1128

276.
A. Key
B. Iron
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid
E. Edfu, Egypt
F. L 3.4 cm – 1.3 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 261.
H. AF1404

277.
A. Tool
B. Iron
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid
E. Edfu, Egypt
F. L 13.7 cm – 5.4 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 267.

165
 H. AF1408

278.
A. Tool
B. Iron
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid
E. Edfu, Egypt
F. L 15.1 cm – 5.9 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 272.
H. AF10347

279.
A. Tool
B. Iron
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid
E. Edfu, Egypt
F. L 14.4 cm – 5.7 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 272.
H. AF1416

280.
A. Tool
B. Iron
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid
E. Edfu, Egypt
F. L 11.2 cm – 4.5 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 272.
H. AF1417

281.
A. Tool
B. Iron and Leather
C. 10th century
D. Fatimid
E. Edfu, Egypt
F. L 25.2 cm – 9.9 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 27.
H. AF1420

282.
A. Caesarea Hoard Lampstand (Drawing)
B. Bronze
C. 11th century

166
 D. Fatimid
E. Caesarea, Palestine
F. H 50-60 cm – 19.7-23.7 in
G. Photograph from Arnon et al., Fatimid Hoard Caesarea 239.
H. Israel Antiquities Authority

283.
A. Denia Hoard Lampstand
B. Bronze
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Denia, Spain likely from Egypt
F. ≈ H 35 cm – 13.8 in
G. Photograph from Azuar, Denia Islámica 51.
H. El Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Alicante, Alicante, Spain

284.
A. Serçe Limani Hoard Cylindrical Box (Drawing)
B. Copper
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Serçe-Limani Shipwreck likely from Levant or Egypt
F. H 6.5 cm – 2.5 in
G. Photograph from Allan, Metal Vessels No MV9A.
H. GW313

285.
A. Serçe Limani Hoard Bucket (Drawing)
B. Copper
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Serçe-Limani Shipwreck likely from Levant or Egypt
F. H 12.5 cm – 5 in
G. Photograph from Allan, Metal Vessels No MV8.
H. GW970

286.
A. Serçe Limani Hoard Bottle-Neck (Drawing)
B. Copper
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Serçe-Limani Shipwreck likely from Levant or Egypt
F. H 5 cm – 2 in
G. Photograph from Allan, Metal Vessels No MV11.
H. GW531

167
287.
A. Tiberias Hoard Metal Objects
B. Bronze and Copper
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Tiberias, Israel likely Egypt or Levant
F. (Various Heights)
G. Photograph from Dayagi-Mendels et al., Chronicles of the Land 198-9.
H. Israel Antiquities Authority in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem, Israel

288.
A. Cup w/ Griffon Imagery
B. Copper
C. 12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Southern Italy
F. H 9.1 cm – 3.6 in
G. Photograph by Author, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
H. 1964.101.1406

289.
A. Doorknocker
B. Bronze w/ Niello
C. 11th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Southern Italy
F. D 44.3 cm – 17.5 in
G. Photograph from Bloom et al., Cosmophilia 183.
H. 50.2000

290.
A. Incense Burner (Bird)
B. Bronze
C. 11th-12th century
D. Fatimid
E. Southern Italy or Greater Persia
F. L 22.5 cm – 8.9 in
G. Photograph from Junod, Spirit and Life 82.
H. Aga Khan Museum Collection, Geneva, Switzerland

291.
A. Bowl
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt or Greater Persia

168
 F. D 17.2 cm – 6.8 in
G. Photograph from Islamic Art In Egypt PL VI.
H. 14487

292.
A. Bowl
B. Brass
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid or Abbasid
E. Egypt or Greater Persia
F. D 26 cm – 10.2 in
G. Photograph from Bonham’s, Islamic and Indian Art April 2009 No 54.
H. Consignment at Bonham’s London

293.
A. Mirror-back
B. Bronze
C. 12th century
D. Fatimid or Abbasid
E. Egypt or Greater Persia
F. D 9 cm – 3.5 in
G. Photograph from Islamische Kunst Verborgene Schätze 96.
H. I.1615

293.2
A. Mirror-back
B. Bronze
C. 12th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia
F. D 9 cm – 3.5 in
G. Photograph from Islamische Kunst Verborgene Schätze 96.
H. I.5135

293.3
A. Mirror-back
B. Bronze
C. 12th century
D. Abbasid
E. Greater Persia
F. D 7.9 cm – 3.1 in
G. Photograph from Islamische Kunst Verborgene Schätze 96.
H. I.5643

294.
A. Bucket

169
 B. Brass
C. 11th-12th century
D. Fatimid likely Seljuk
E. Egypt likely Greater Persia
F. H 15 cm – 5.9 in
G. Photograph from Byzantium and Islam 182.
H. 1953.0217.1

295.
A. Candlestick
B. Bronze and Copper
C. 12th century
D. Seljuk
E. Siirt, Greater Persia (Turkey)
F. H 20 cm – 7.9 in
G. Photograph from Fehérvári, Metalwork M7.
H. Keir Collection, Berlin, Germany

296.
A. Oil Lamp (Drawing)
B. Bronze
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid likely Umayyad
E. Spain
F. ≈ L 13.7 cm – 5.4 in
G. Photograph from Marçais et al., Objets Kairouanais No 117.
H. Current whereabouts unknown

297.
A. Oil Lamp (Drawing)
B. Bronze
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid likely Umayyad
E. Southern Portugal
F. ≈ L 13.7 cm – 5.4 in
G. Photograph from Marçais et al., Objets Kairouanais No 118.
H. Current whereabouts unknown

298.
A. Oil Lamp (Drawing)
B. Bronze
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid likely Umayyad
E. Egypt or Ifriqiyya or Spain
F. ≈ L 13.7 cm – 5.4 in
G. Photograph from Marçais et al., Objets Kairouanais No 119.

170
 H. Current whereabouts unknown

299.
A. Hinged Lamp
B. Copper
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 11.8 cm – 4.6 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 187.
H. 5207

300.
A. Hinged Lamp
B. Copper
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 12.2 cm – 4.8 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 188.
H. 3827

301.
A. Hinged Lamp
B. Copper
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 14 cm – 5.5 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 189.
H. 4984

302.
A. Hinged Lamp
B. Copper
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 10.1 cm – 4 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 190.
H. 9130

303.
A. Hinged Lamp
B. Copper
C. 11th century

171
 D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 10.7 cm – 4.2 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 191.
H. 1600

304.
A. Hinged Lamp
B. Copper
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 17.5 cm – in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 192.
H. 5208

305.
A. Hinged Lamp
B. Copper
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 12.7 cm – 5 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 193.
H. Inv. No Unknown: Coptic Museum, Cairo, Egypt

306.
A. Hinged Lamp
B. Copper
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 9.8 cm – 3.9 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 195.
H. 7445

307.
A. Hinged Lamp
B. Copper
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 9.7 cm – 3.8 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 196.
H. 1602

172
308.
A. Hinged Lamp
B. Copper
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 12.3 cm – 4.8 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, Catalogue général du musée copte du Caire 197.
H. 1604

309.
A. Pouring Cup
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 11.2 cm – 4.4 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 52.
H. AF11418

310.
A. Pouring Cup
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 9.6 cm – 3.8 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 52.
H. AF5281

311.
A. Pouring Cup
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt
F. L 10 cm – 3.9 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 53.
H. E22192

312.
A. Pouring Cup
B. Bronze
C. 10th-11th century
D. Fatimid
E. Egypt

173
 F. L 7 cm – 2.8 in
G. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 53.
H. E22189

313.
A. Pisa Griffon
B. Bronze
C. 11th century
D. Fatimid likely Umayyad
E. Spain
F. H 107 cm – 42.1 in
G. Photograph from Dodds et al., Al-Andalus 217.
H. Pisa Cathedral Museum, Pisa, Italy

313.2
A. Pisa Griffon Detail (Interior Chamber)
G. Photograph from Pisa Griffon Project

313.3
A. Pisa Griffon Detail (Bird Decoration)
G. Photograph from Dodds et al., Al-Andalus 216.

174
Umayyad and Abbasid Metalwork Figures No. 1-125

1. Brazier

175
1.2 Brazier Detail (Eagle Protome)

176
1.3 Brazier Detail (Figure Woman w/ Eagle)

177
1.4 Brazier Detail (Hinged Wheel)

178
2. Female Figure

179
3. Bottle w/ Female Figures

180
4. Christian Censer

181
5. Cross

182
6. Censer (Lion Hunting a Boar)

183
7. Elephant Case

184
7.2 Elephant Case Detail (Hinge)

185
8. Ram Case

186
9. Throne Leg (Griffon Protome)

187
9.2 Throne Leg Detail (Griffon Protome Face)

188
10. Ewer w/ Leopard Handle

189
10.2 Ewer w/ Leopard Handle Detail (Leopard)

190
11. Bumiller Leopard

191
12. Heeramaneck Leopard

192
13. Lion Handle

193
13.2 Lion Handle Detail (Face)

194
14. Zoomorphic Kettle (Camel)

195
15. Hinged Key

196
16. Hinged Key

197
17. Stand w/ Eagle Protomes

198
18. Eagle Protome

199
19. Ewer

200
20. Ewer

201
21. Ewer

202
22. Plate

203
23. Ewer (So-Called Marwan)

204
23.2 Ewer (So-Called Marwan) Detail (Rooster)

205
23.3 Ewer (So-Called Marwan) Detail (Pierced Vegetal and Geometric Motifs)

206
23.4 Ewer (So-Called Marwan) Detail (Dragon’s Tail)

207
23.5 Ewer (So-Called Marwan) Detail (Dots)

208
24. Ewer

209
24.2 Ewer Detail (Heart Shaped Palmette)

210
25. Ewer

211
26. Ewer

212
27. Bottle w/ Leaf Design

213
28. Bottle w/ Leaf Design

214
29. Bottle w/ Almond Bosses

215
30. Bottle w/ Almond Bosses

216
31. Bottle w/ Almond Bosses

217
32. Incense Burner (Zoomorphic)

218
33. Incense Burner (Peacock)

219
34. Pierced Bowl w/ Peacock Rinceau Motif

220
35. Peacock Panel from Lamp- handle

221
36. Peacock Panel from Lamp- handle

222
37. Peacock Handle

223
38. Incense Burner (Peacock)

224
39. Aquamanile (Peacock)

225
40. Christian Censer

226
41. Christian Censer (Pierced and Six Sided)

227
42. Christian Censer

228
43. Christian Censer

229
44. Christian Censer

230
45. Christian Censer

231
46. Lampstand

232
47. Lampstand

233
48. Lampstand

234
49. Lampstand

235
50. Lampstand

236
51. Lampstand

237
52. Lampstand

238
53. Oil Lamp

239
54. Polycandelon

240
55. Polycandelon

241
56. Polycandelon ((Ring)

242
57. Polycandelon (Cruciform and Geometric)

243
58. Polycandelon (Cruciform and Geometric)

244
59. Polycandelon (Cruciform and Geometric)

245
60. Polycandelon (Elaborate Cruciform and Geometric)

246
61. Lamp-handle (Griffon)

247
62. Lid

248
63. Mortar and Pestle

249
64. Bottle

250
65. Bottle

251
66. Plate

252
67. Ornaments

253
68. Weight

254
69. Bottle w/ Almond Bosses

255
70. Bottle w/ Almond Bosses

256
71. Bottle w/ Almond Bosses

257
72. Bowl w/ Almond Bosses

258
73. Mortar w/ Almond Bosses

259
74. Jug w/ Knob Ornament

260
75. Ewer w/ Knob Ornament

261
76. Ewer w/ Knob Ornament

262
77. Ewer w/ Pomegranate Ornament

263
78. Ewer w/ Pomegranate Ornament

264
79. Ewer w/ Pomegranate Ornament

265
80. Ewer w/ Knob Ornament

266
81. Ewer w/ Leaf Ornament

267
82. Ewer w/ Leaf Ornament

268
83. Eagle Protome

269
84. Ewer w/ Lion Handle

270
85. Jug w/ Lion Handle

271
86. Lion Protome

272
87. Lion Protome

273
88. Lion Protome

274
89. Lion Protome

275
90. Lion Protome

276
91. Lion Protome

277
92. Lion Protome

278
93. Lion Protome

279
94. Lion Protome

280
95. Aquamanile (Eagle)

281
96. Aquamanile (Eagle)

282
97. Aquamanile (Eagle)

283
98. Ewer w/ Zoomorphic Decoration

284
99. Incense Burner

285
100. Incense Burner

286
101. Incense Burner

287
102. Incense Burner

288
103. Incense Burner

289
104. Incense Burner

290
105. Incense Burner

291
106. Ewer

292
107. Ewer

293
108. Ewer

294
109. Ewer

295
110. Ewer

296
111. Ewer

297
112. Jug

298
113. Ewer

299
114. Ewer

300
115. Ewer

301
116. Ewer

302
117. Ewer

303
118. Incense Burner

304
119. Incense Burner

305
120. Incense Burner

306
121. Incense Burner

307
122. Lamp

308
123. Basin

309
124. Mirror-back

310
125. Mirror-back

311
Fatimid Metalwork Figures No. 126-313

126. Figure Female Tambourine Player

312
127. Camel Figure

313
128. Gazelle Figure

314
129. Gazelle Figure

315
130. Gazelle Figure

316
131. Gazelle Figure

317
132. Gazelle Figure

318
133. Gazelle Figure

319
134. Goat Figure

320
135. Goat Figure

321
136. Goat Figure

322
137. Hare Figure

323
138. Hare Figure

324
139. Hare Figure

325
140. Hare Figure

326
141. Hare Figure

327
142. Hare Figure

328
143. Leopard Figure

329
144. Lion Figure

330
145. Lion Figure

331
146. Lion Figure

332
147. Parrot Figure w/ Chain

333
148. Parrot Figure

334
149. Parrot Figure

335
150. Parrot Figure

336
151. Parrot Figure

337
152. Parrot Figure

338
153. Parrot Figure

339
154. Parrot Figure

340
155. Parrot Figure

341
156. Lion Protome

342
157. Lion w/ Gazelle Protome

343
158. Waterspout (Lion)

344
158.2 Waterspout Detail (Lion)

345
159. Waterspout (Lion)

346
160. Waterspout (Lion)

347
161. Peacock Protome

348
162. Faucet (Peacock)

349
163. Bear Protome

350
164. Mouse Protome

351
165. Bird Protome – No Photograph Available – Missing from Inventory

352
166. Bird Protome

353
167. Plaque w/ Birds

354
168. Incense Burner

355
168.2 Incense Burner Detail (Hare)

356
169. Eagle Protome

357
170. Eagle Protome

358
171. Eagle Protome

359
172. Eagle Protome

360
173. Lid w/ Eagle Protome

361
174. Lid w/ Eagle Protome

362
175. Lid w/ Eagle Protome

363
176. Incense Burner w/ Eagle Protome

364
177. Incense Burner w/ Eagle Protome

365
178. Incense Burner w/ Eagle Protome

366
179. Incense Burner w/ Eagle Protome

367
180. Aquamanile (Gazelle)

368
181. Aquamanile (Gazelle)

369
182. Fan w/ Figural Imagery (Rhipidion)

370
183. Fan w/ Figural Imagery (Rhipidion)

371
184. Fan w/ Figural Imagery (Rhipidion)

372
185. Oil Lamp w/ Human Figural Protome

373
186. Human Figure Protome

374
187. Lampstand

375
188. Lampstand

376
189. Lampstand

377
190. Lampstand

378
191. Lampstand

379
192. Lampstand

380
193. Lampstand

381
194. Lampstand

382
195. Lampstand

383
196. Lampstand

384
197. Lampstand

385
198. Lampstand

386
199. Lampstand

387
200. Lampstand

388
201. Lampstand

389
202. Incomplete Lampstand

390
203. Incomplete Lampstand

391
204. Incomplete Lampstand

392
205. Incomplete Lampstand

393
206. Incomplete Lampstand

394
207. Incomplete Lampstand

395
208. Incomplete Lampstand

396
209. Incomplete Lampstand

397
210. Incomplete Lampstand

398
211. Incomplete Lampstand

399
212. Incomplete Lampstand

400
213. Incomplete Lampstand

401
214. Plaque

402
215. Plaque: No Photograph and Missing from Inventory, Islamic Museum, Cairo, Egypt

403
216. Hinges

404
217. Oil Lamp

405
218. Oil Lamp

406
219. Bucket

407
220. Bucket

408
221. Bucket

409
222. Bucket

410
223. Bucket

411
224. Bucket

412
225. Bucket

413
226. Bucket

414
227. Bucket

415
228. Bucket

416
229. Bucket

417
230. Bowl

418
231. Bowl

419
232. Bowl

420
233. Spice Box

421
234. Mirror-back

422
235. Ewer

423
236. Cylindrical Box

424
236.2 Cylindrical Box Detail (Feet)

425
237 Polycandelon

426
238. Polycandelon

427
239. Polycandelon

428
240. Polycandelon

429
241. Polycandelon

430
242. Polycandelon

431
243. Polycandelon

432
244. Polycandelon

433
245. Polycandelon

434
246. Polycandelon

435
247. Polycandelon

436
248. Oil Lamp

437
249. Oil Lamp

438
250. Oil Lamp

439
251. Oil Lamp

440
252. Oil Lamp

441
253. Oil Lamp

442
254. Oil Lamp

443
255. Oil Lamp

444
256. Lamp

445
257. Lamp

446
258. Lamp

447
259. Ladle

448
260. Ladle

449
261. Plate

450
261.2 Plate Detail (Drawing)

451
262. Key

452
263. Key

453
264. Key

454
265. Key

455
266. Key

456
267. Key

457
268. Key

458
269. Key

459
270. Key

460
271. Key

461
272. Key

462
273. Key

463
274. Key

464
275. Key

465
276. Key

466
277. Tool

467
278. Tool

468
279. Tool

469
280. Tool

470
281. Tool

471
282. Caesarea Hoard Lampstand (Drawing)

472
283. Denia Hoard Lampstand

473
284. Serçe Limani Hoard Cylindrical Box (Drawing)

474
285. Serçe Limani Hoard Bucket (Drawing)

475
286. Serçe Limani Hoard Bottle-neck (Drawing)

476
287. Tiberias Hoard Metal Objects

477
288. Cup w/ Griffon Imagery

478
289. Doorknocker

479
290. Incense Burner (Bird)

480
291. Bowl

481
292. Bowl

482
293. Mirror-back

483
293.2 Mirror-back

484
293.3 Mirror-back

485
294. Bucket

486
295. Candlestick

487
296. Oil Lamp (Drawing)

488
297. Oil Lamp (Drawing)

489
298. Oil Lamp (Drawing)

490
299. Hinged Lamp

491
300. Hinged Lamp

492
301. Hinged Lamp

493
302. Hinged Lamp

494
303. Hinged Lamp

495
304. Hinged Lamp

496
305. Hinged Lamp

497
306. Hinged Lamp

498
307. Hinged Lamp

499
308. Hinged Lamp

500
309. Pouring Cup

501
310. Pouring Cup

502
311. Pouring Cup

503
312. Pouring Cup

504
313. Pisa Griffon

505
313.2 Pisa Griffon Detail (Interior Chamber)

506
313.3 Pisa Griffon Detail (Bird Decoration)

507
Appendix I

List of Figures

1. Name
2. Date & Location
3. Source

A.
1. Map of Fatimid Caliphate
2. 909-1171 CE
3. Map from Wikipedia

B.
1. Map of Rashidun Caliphate
2. 632-42 CE
3. Map from Wikipedia

C.
1. Map of Umayyad Caliphate
2. 661-750 CE
3. Map from Wikipedia

D.
1. Map of Abbasid Caliphate
2. 750-1258 CE
3. Map from Wikipedia

E.
1. Female Figure Protome, Bronze, H 15.4 cm – 6 in
2. Byzantine, 4th-6th century Egypt
3. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 220.

F.
1. Female Figure Protome, Bronze, H 7.3 cm – 2.8 in
2. Byzantine, 4th-6th century Egypt
3. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 221.

G.
1. Female Figures, Stucco
2. Umayyad, 8th century Khirbat al-Mafjar, Jericho, Palestine
3. Photograph from Ali, Arab Contribution to Islamic Art 41.

H.
1. Female Figure, Stucco, H 15.6 cm – 6.1 in
2. Abbasid, 9th-10th century Greater Persia specifically Nishapur, Iran

508
 3. Photograph by Author from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

I.
1. Throne Leg (Griffon Protome), Bronze, H 32 cm – 12.6 in
2. Sasanian, 3rd century Greater Persia specifically Iran
3. Photograph from Arnould, et al., l'Islam dans les collections nationales No. 24.

J
1. Qasr al-Mshatta (Façade Detail)
2. Umayyad, 743-44 Amman, Kingdom of Jordan
3. Photograph by Author, June 2011

K.
1. Qasr al-Mshatta (Façade Detail)
2. Umayyad, 743-44 Amman, Kingdom of Jordan
3. Photograph by Author, June 2011

L.
1. Qasr al-Mshatta (Façade Detail)
2. Umayyad, 743-44 Amman, Kingdom of Jordan
3. Photograph by Author, June 2011

M.
1. Bottle w/ Lotus Design, Bronze, D 8.1 cm – in, H 14.3 cm – 5.6 in
2. Roman or Coptic, 5th-6th century Egypt
3. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 59.

N.
1. Khirbat al-Mafjar (Mosaic Panel)
2. Umayyad, 8th century Jericho, Palestine
3. Photograph from Ali, Arab Contribution to Islamic Art CPL 16.

O.
1. Oil Lamp, Bronze H 7.2 cm – 2.8 in
2. Byzantine, 5th-6th century Egypt
3. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 122.

P.
1. Oil Lamp Detail (Dots), Bronze, H 7.2 cm – 2.8 in
2. Byzantine, 5th-6th century Egypt
3. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 21

Q.
1. Oil Lamp, Bronze, L 24.5 cm – 9.6 in
2. Byzantine, 5th-6th century Egypt
3. Photograph from Bénazeth, métal au début de l'ère chrétienne 128.

509
R.
1. Nubian Ibex Gazella Genus
2. 2012
3. Photograph from Wikipedia

S.
1. Alhambra Lion Fountain, Stone
2. Umayyad, 11th century Granada, Spain
3. Photograph from Jenkins, Art of Medieval Spain 72.

T.
1. Alhambra Lion Fountain, Stone
2. Umayyad, 11th century Granada, Spain
3. Photograph from Jenkins, Art of Medieval Spain 82.

U.
1. Lion Waterspout, Stone
2. Fatimid, 11th-12th century Egypt
3. Photograph from Piotrovsky et al., Beyond Palace Walls 14.

V.
1. Polycandelon, Bronze
2. Byzantine, 4th-6th century Syria or Palestine
3. Photograph from Cradle of Christianity 107.

W.
1. Jewelry Hoard
2. Fatimid, 10th-11th century Caesarea, Palestine
3. Photograph from Schätze der Kalifen 124.

X.
1. Bowl, Bronze, D 13.3 cm – 5.2 in
2. Abbasid, 10th-11th century Greater Persia
3. Photograph from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

Y
1. Candlestick, Bronze D 19.6 cm – 7.7 in
2. Seljuk, mid-13th century Siirt, Greater Persia (Turkey)
3. Photograph from the Victoria and Albert Museum, London

Z.
1. Aquamanile, Bronze, H 35 cm – 14 in
2. Abbasid, 9th-11th century Greater Persia specifically Iran
3. Photograph from Sarre, Kunst Alten Persien 138.

510
AA.
1. Oil Lamp, Ceramic
2. Umayyad, 900-999 Córdoba, Spain
3. Photograph by Author from Hispanic Society of America Museum, New York

BB.
1. Pisan Cathedral Marquetry Panel, Wood
2. Italian, 1400s Pisa, Italy
3. Photograph from Contadini et al., Beasts that Roared 82.

CC.
1. Lion Pomander, Bronze, H 85.1 cm – 33.5 in
2. Seljuk, 1182 Greater Persia specifically Iran
3. Photograph by Author from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

DD.
1. Monzón Lion, Bronze, H 30 cm – 11.8 in
2.Umayyad/ Taifa/ Almoravid/ Almohad, 11th-12th century Palencia, Spain
3. Photograph from Qantara

EE.
1. Hind, Bronze, H 48.1 cm – 18.9 in
2. Umayyad, 10th century Córdoba, Spain
3. Photograph from Allan, Metalwork Treasures Islamic Courts 18.

FF.
1. Mari-Cha Lion, Bronze, H 73 cm – 28.7 in
2. Umayyad/ Taifa, 11th-12th century Spain
3. Photograph from Pisa Griffon Project

GG.
1. Mari-Cha Lion Detail (Face), Bronze
2. Umayyad/ Taifa, 11th-12th century Spain
3. Photograph from Islamic Art 1993 1.

HH.
1. Griffon Panel, Wood
2. Fatimid, 11th century Church of St. Barbara, Cairo, Egypt
3. Photograph from Pauty, Bois Sculptés Pl IX.

511
Appendix I

Figures

A. Map Fatimid Caliphate 909-1171 CE

B. Map Rashidun Caliphate 632-42 CE

512
C. Map Umayyad Caliphate 661-750 CE

D. Map Abbasid Caliphate 750-1258 CE

513
E. Female Figure Protome

514
F. Female Figure Protome

515
G. Female Figures

516
H. Female Figure

517
I. Throne Leg (Griffon Protome)

518
J. Qasr al-Mshatta (Façade Detail)

519
K. Qasr al-Mshatta (Façade Detail)

520
L. Qasr al-Mshatta (Façade Detail)

521
M. Bottle w/ Lotus Design

522
N. Khirbat al-Mafjar (Mosaic Panel)

523
O. Oil Lamp

524
P. Oil Lamp Detail (Dots)

525
Q. Oil Lamp

526
R. Nubian Ibex Gazella Genus

527
S. Alhambra Lion Fountain

528
T. Alhambra Lion Fountain

529
U. Lion Waterspout

530
V. Polycandelon

531
W. Jewelry Hoard

532
X. Bowl

533
Y. Candlestick

534
Z. Aquamanile

535
AA. Oil Lamp

536
BB. Pisan Cathedral Marquetry Panel

537
CC. Lion Pomander

538
DD. Monzón Lion

539
EE. Hind

540
FF. Mari-Cha Lion

541
GG. Mari-Cha Lion Detail (Face)

542
HH. Griffon Panel

543
Appendix II

Concise Table of Important Dates and Dynasties in Egypt 622-1517 CE

Byzantine Empire (Province of Egypt) 380-642

Birth of Islam 622

Death of the Prophet Muhammad 632

Rashidun Caliphate 632-642

Arab Conquest 642

Umayyad Caliphate (661-1031) in Egypt 661-750

Abbasid Caliphate (750-1258) in Egypt 750-909

Tulunid Emirate 868-905

Abbasid Caliphate (Partial Restoration) 905-935

Ikhshidid Emirate 935-969

Fatimid Caliphate (909-1171) in Egypt 969-1171

Ayyubid Sultanate (1171-1341) in Egypt 1171-1250

Mamluk Sultanate 1250-1517

544