Shine Like the Sun: Chapter 7: Pottery and History INTRODUCTION The pottery studied in this work was produced during a historical period, and although the author does not claim an authoritative grasp of the various schools of historical research, there is some utility in considering that history here. Many phenomena beg an explanation that may be provided by an examination of history, for example, the apparent movement of lustre-ware potters from one part of the Islamic world to another. For the sake of my colleagues in the field of archaeological science and those archaeologists of a processual bent who specialize in different regions or periods yet are interested in my findings, it is required that I make some attempt at this. They are not deterred by my protestations that I do not have a sufficient grasp of, for example, the numismatic history of Kashan. Such approaches are becoming the requirement for any such study, with the Annalistes' suggestions of an assessment of a Braudelian longue durée, the followers of Fred Matson calling for an understanding of ceramic ecology, and the post-processualist demanding contextual understanding. Although pottery may be considered a part of economic history, necessarily this chapter invites the refutation by some of any relationship between material culture and normative historical events such as wars, dynasties, and so on. As stated by Dean Arnold (1985:1) "the evidence from historical documents and archaeology does not support the relationship of ceramics and political, social or cultural history." The work of Bill Adams (1979) on mediaeval Nubian pottery is still commonly cited as disproving any such relationship. This is an opinion I have often held in the past, probably due to my earlier research and academic background. My total tally of fieldwork is still dominated by an early involvement in the archaeology of southern England, chiefly from the Middle Saxon to the Post- Medieval period (c. 700 to after 1500). For instance, the Norman invasion of England in 1066 appears to have had no immediate effect on, say, pottery forms or styles of decoration. Why should similar events cause such changes in the Islamic world? There is no such thing as Angevin pottery, why should there be ‘Abbasid pottery? Hence, I generally used to harangue colleagues whenever they referred to Iraqi pottery as being "Abbasid," as though the caliphs themselves got down and threw the pots. This was augmented by an academic background in archaeology as practised in the anthropology departments of most North American universities, with their strong interest in theory. Here discussion of the problem was dominated by hypotheses inferred from prehistoric contexts (e.g., Rice 1984). It might have been subsequently pointed out that pottery assemblages from northwest Europe and the Middle East are completely different. Medieval pottery from northern Europe consists predominantly of rude cooking vessels and jars for pouring liquids at the table. The entire class of glazed serving vessels, a major component of Islamic contexts, is replaced in northern European contexts by stale bread, wood, and metal. Apart from exotic imports, pottery in Europe simply did not enjoy the status that it had in Islamic lands, and certainly would not have been as sensitive to its social environment. From the theoretical archaeology viewpoint, there are very few studies that may be used as models. This is because it is necessary to have a history of events to which the changes in material culture can be related—impossible in the numerous studies of prehistoric ceramics. The reason that Bill Adams' (1979) work on Nubian pottery is so often cited is because it can be linked to documented historical events. However, fuller and more recent publication of the same research (Adams 1986, fig. 2) provides a much looser chronology for the Nubian wares, one that could be interpreted as supporting the link between material culture and historical events if one wished. Although there are numerous papers positively relating history to ceramic change by authors who come from a tradition in which such relationships are taken for granted, the Adams study appears to still preeminent as a critical study of the relationship of historical events to material culture change. Calls for such studies date back more than thirty years (Matson 1965). Given that the present study provides new data on dating, technological change, change in centres of production, and stylistic change, these being most of the archaeologically determinable aspects of ceramic material culture change, it must be argued that it would be appropriate here to consider any possible link between pottery and history. To this study may be added a major collaborative program of research into ceramics made in the Islamic world between about 1350 and 1550 AD (Mason 1996; Mason et al. 1996). Hence, this chapter will cover the period from the beginning of Islam to about 1450. As stated above, the author does not claim an authoritative grasp of Islamic history, including economic history, and all sources used are standard historical texts (Bosworth 1968, 1996, Lambton 1968, Boyle 1968, Holt 1986, Morgan 1988, Kennedy 1986, Runciman 1951, plus numerous entries from the Encyclopaedia of Islam and other cited works). Indeed, the following may be considered a simplistic account by some, although this will probably not be a problem for the bulk of my readership, providing it is as accurate as is possible. To this end I asked C. Edmund Bosworth, an eminent historian of the Islamic world, to read through it. He kindly obliged, and corrected me on a number of points. For those other historians among the readership who find this aspect of the study wanting, I warmly and genuinely welcome them to produce a superior version. However, it should also be recognized that an authoritative historian would not be in a position to produce the data used in this study, and so the task of first relating the phenomena observed to historical events must remain that of the author. ISLAMIC POTTERY AND HISTORY The seventh century saw the rapid expansion of the Islamic state. At the death of Mohammed in 632, Islamic authority was confined to Arabia, but within ten years the Byzantine lands in Egypt and Syria-Palestine had been taken, the Sasanian army had been defeated at al-Qadisiyya, and the conquest of Iran was under way (Kennedy 1986:50-56). The succession to Mohammed never seems to have been satisfactorily decided, at least in the opinion of some of his successors, and this divergence of opinion broke out into open warfare in 656. Conflict seems to have intermittently afflicted the Islamic state until the accession of the Umayyad caliph ‘Abd al-Malik in 685. The pottery of this period throughout the Islamic world effectively represents a continuation of pre-Islamic practices and techniques. The pottery from the important Umayyad sites is in many cases indistinguishable from that of earlier periods. There are a few wares that might be assigned to this period, including certain lead-glazed moulded wares derived from Romano- Byzantine practice, but there is nothing that anyone would call "Umayyad" in anything other than date. Iraq Damascus may have been the centre of political power in this early period, but Iraq was very important for a number of reasons. It had quickly become accustomed to Muslim rule, having had large Arab communities in the pre-Islamic period and having received large colonies of Arab settlers at Basra and Kufa. Iraq had rapidly become the economic powerhouse of the Islamic world, with relative stability (unlike Iran), a large population of Arab-speaking residents since before Islam, a growing Muslim population (unlike Egypt), many of whom were receiving military stipends, and enormous wealth being created by a substantial agricultural economy in the Sawad of the southern plain (unlike Syria). Trade was also very important, with a major network spreading out from Basra to all points of the Indian Ocean and to China. It is in this region of stability and prosperity that we find what are probably the first uniquely "Islamic" wares, the cobalt Blue-painted and Opaque-glazed wares of Basra. The glazes appear to have been the first to be opacified with tin, although the glaze technology was otherwise derived from previous Mesopotamian traditions, indicating continuity in the region. The overglaze blue pigment does not appear to have pre-Islamic origins, so the actual application of both tin and cobalt appears to have been entirely innovative. According to the chronology established in this study, this ware was introduced in c. 700. In this regard it is then pertinent to note that there was no great caliphal court in Iraq, which indeed could also be said of Syria, for the Umayyads did not have the degree of courtly sophistication that was had by the ‘Abbasids, having small private palaces rather than immense palace-cities. Hence it would appear that the first distinctly Islamic pottery was made for wealthy merchants, landholders, and military "pensioners." Rule by the Umayyad dynasty of caliphs in the Middle East (it would continue in Spain for subsequent centuries) effectively ended in 750, with their defeat at the hands of forces supporting the succeeding ‘Abbasid dynasty of caliphs. Although this event closely correlates with the ceramic chronology, the historical event, effectively representing a single battle, would have had limited immediate impact. Probably of more relevance would be the influence of Chinese imports, given that the greatest difference between Basra Opaque-glazed Groups One and Two is that the latter appears to emulate the forms of the imports. Hence, one may postulate a rapid change in fashion due to demands from the merchant clientele, many of whom would have travelled to China by this date. In 762 the ‘Abbasids founded Baghdad as a palace-city and a centre of commerce where the Silk Road crosses the Tigris, and also where the two rivers of Mesopotamia come close, providing excellent communications with Basra and points east and south, and to Raqqa and points west and north. The ‘Abbasids founded a court on the standard models of the great courts of ancient Mesopotamia and Iran. The extensive bureaucracy of secretaries (the kuttab) and powerful palace servants (the hujjab), together with an enormous coterie of courtiers and what might be considered hostages, including rival parties within the Prophet's family, begins to lend some credence to the idea of "court pottery." It is perhaps unlikely that sultans and certainly caliphs ate off of anything but precious metals, but given the size of the court, a population equal to that of a small city would have to have been supplied with wares of sufficient quality. A "golden age" of the ‘Abbasid caliphate was under Harun al-Rashid, who ruled from 786 to 809. Allegedly during his reign fine Chinese court ceramics were sent by the governor of the eastern province of Khurasan to the caliph's court (Lane 1947:10). Lane conjectures on the effect that these wares would have on contemporary potters, but white glazed wares had been made in Iraq since pre-Islamic times, while Chinese wares may have influenced Iraqi forms since about 750 (see Chapter 3). Perhaps it is more relevant to conjecture what effect these wares would have had on the court itself, and on the demand for wares that reflected the taste of the Islamic court just as the imports reflected the taste of the Chinese court. Conceivably it may have shown the ‘Abbasid court that pottery was worthy of interest. Whether this event had this effect or not, the reign of al- Rashid seems to mark the beginning of one of the high points in Islamic ceramic production. This high point is expressed by a rich diversity of types exhibiting considerable artistic and technical accomplishment, which appear to have been produced in considerable numbers and transported over a very wide distribution, from western Europe to east Asia, and south to the tip of Africa. Wherever these wares went, one may speculate that they would have had the same effect on their viewers as previously the Chinese court wares had on the ‘Abbasid court. Documents from the medieval period onwards in the Islamic world show that observers often judge ceramic quality by the source, perhaps even more so than by physical attributes. Hence, just as the great architecture in the cities would have reminded people of the wealth and munificence of their rulers, the Basra Lustre-wares and other types may have symbolized the power and authority emanating from Iraq, the source of both pot and caliphal authority. The death of al-Rashid in 809 was followed by several years of civil war, with conflicts throughout the Islamic world, most particularly in and around Baghdad. This period of unrest is moderately close to the transition between Basra Opaque-glazed Groups Two and Three, but there is nothing to indicate a causal link. Basra does not seem to have been embroiled in the hostilities, and wares of this period certainly found markets elsewhere, for instance, fragments found at Ko Kho Khao in Thailand and Mantai in Sri Lanka include representatives of this period. Although exports to Egypt would be significant only in later periods, it is worth noting that the wares from Fustat provide a substantial part of the Basra Lustre-ware corpus of this study. The following period of stability was effectively another golden age for the ‘Abbasid caliphate, including the foundation of the palace-city of Samarra' in 836. Although stability and prosperity probably continued for the bulk of the population, considerable conflicts existed in the court and led to wider problems. These conflicts regularly occurred between the kuttaband the hujjab, and involved the new military corps of slaves or ghilman, recruited at youth from the Turkic tribes at the northeastern border of the Islamic world. This particularly existed during the Samarra' "anarchy" of 861 to 870 in which four caliphs ruled in succession, three of whom were murdered. The second caliph in this period fled to Baghdad, which was again besieged. The "early Samarran" period, prior to the anarchy, may be considered to be largely contemporary with Basra Opaque-glazed Group Three, which was the largest group of ceramics produced by excavations considered to be in contexts dating to the period of caliphal occupation at Samarra'. Although again it might be possible to argue that the ceramic chronology division and historical events coincide, once more Basra itself does not figure significantly in these events, and much of the pottery studied does not come from Iraq at all, but from sites such as Fustat and Siraf. Events in the second half of the ninth century certainly do involve Basra, including the revolt of the Zanj, the black slave labourers of the agricultural plantations in the Sawad, mostly of east African origin. Rebelling first in 869, in 871 the Zanj took Basra, and controlled most of the region until they were defeated in 883. The Zanj controlled Basra for twelve years, insignificant in archaeological time but a very long time in an individual's life. It is not known how sympathetic the Basran community, and specifically the potters, were to the Zanj cause, or, perhaps more importantly, how the potters fared under the Zanj. There was allegedly considerable slaughter in Basra, but some communities, such as the Shi‘a, seemed to have escaped unscathed. If the potters were Shi‘a, they may have been able to continue production. The pottery attributed to this period, Basra Opaque-glazed Group Four, comprises two separate Lustre-painted subgroups, one larger polychrome group, which gave rise to subsequent groups, found in Fustat, Susa, and Samarra' (BOG 4a), and a second smaller monochrome group found only in Susa and Qayrawan (BOG 4b). It is conceivable that the nature of the monochrome group, its apparently short duration, and its lack of derivative later groups may be related to the Zanj revolt. Perhaps it reflects a workshop that ended at this time, or that existed only under the Zanj. It may be noted that some of the Qayrawan tiles are thought to have been made by "a man from Baghdad" (see Chapter 3). However, the polychrome group is certainly continuous with the previous and subsequent groups. Perhaps more serious disasters were to befall Basra some forty years later, with major attacks by the Qaramita of Bahrain. These raiders sacked Basra in 923, and in 927 they attacked Baghdad. Looting and destruction in Basra appears to have been far worse, at least according to the sources, and, perhaps more importantly, a halt to trade was probably caused by the sea-going Qaramita in the Gulf, effectively cutting off Basra's market abroad. This event coincides almost exactly with the end of the short period of production of Basra Opaque-glazed Group Five wares, and the final end of Polychrome Lustre-ware production in Iraq; unfortunately, this date is the least reliable in the Basra chronology. Although the tenth century is considered a period of economic decline due to political incompetence and disruption (Adams 1965:84-111), there were always people ready to build wealth on the misfortunes of others. In this regard one may witness the rise of the Baridi family of Basra, tax-farmers in the second quarter of the century (Kennedy 1986:195-96). Such people would presumably have created a market for pottery. It was primarily the court that was having problems in this period. The Sawad revenues, a primary source of wealth for the government, decreased to a third of their early ninth century value by 918-19, probably because of skimming by tax-farmers and the lack of investment in this period on the canals and irrigation works, which would eventually spell calamity. Tax income from the provinces, such as Egypt and Iran, was now kept back by effectively independent dynasties of governors. The political instability allowed Iraq to be taken by the Iranian Buyid dynasty, with the financial aid of the Baridis of Basra, in 945. The Buyid family were originally Daylamite mercenaries from south of the Caspian Sea, but over the preceding twenty years they had gradually taken all of western Iran. The Buyids occupied Baghdad without a battle, and so were required to support their own forces and the caliph's Turkish ghilman, leading to tremendous hardship for the civilians. The countryside was divided into quasi-feudal land grants or iqtas, leading to a drop in the need for bureaucrats to administer the system, many of whom left for Egypt (Kennedy 1986:223). Eventually conflicts with the ghilman were to lead to a major civil war in which Baghdad was devastated in 975. Following this the Turkish leader of the ghilman, Alptakin, left for Egypt with 300 men (Kennedy 1986:207). The only wealth in the country was by now in the hands of the relatively few government servants, the military, and the absentee iqta holders. Trade appears to have ceased altogether, and many wealthy families, such as the Banu ‘l-Furat, migrated to Egypt (Kennedy 1986:227). This period up to 975 was the last significant phase of the production of fine wares in Iraq. Only Monochrome Lustre- painted wares were produced, with unoriginal formularized decoration. The civil war of 975 coincides closely with the suggested final end of Lustre-painted ware production in Iraq. Given this exodus of the wealthy from Iraq to Egypt, it is hardly surprising that it is at this time that we see lustre-potters leaving Iraq for Egypt, a hypothesis further supported by historical evidence indicating that other individuals also made this move at the time (Kennedy 1986:207, 223, 227). The Basra potters seem to have continued production during, or at least recovered after, the Zanj and the Qaramita disturbances, but could not survive the continuing decline in the market under the Buyids. The economy of Iraq continued to decline alongside continuing failure to invest in agricultural infrastructure. Baghdad became a divided city, separated into mutually hostile fortified sectarian quarters. There were periods of prosperity under Buyid authority, but a wise Buyid ruler always focused his resources in Iran, particularly Fars, the centre of Buyid power. Some changes followed the conquest of Iraq by the Seljuq Turks in 1055, notably in the position of the previously largely powerless ‘Abbasid caliphs, as at least the Seljuqs were of the same sectarian party as the caliphs. But the decline of Iraq could not be reversed, and the focus of the Seljuq rulers would always be Iran. Iraq would never again be the home of a major production centre. The relationship between typology and history appears at best nebulous for the Basra and other Iraqi wares. The widespread distribution of the Basra wares would mean that any events that had a negative affect on demand or production would need to be directed almost specifically at Basra itself. Otherwise there would always be somewhere in this global market to find a buyer for the Basra wares, and production could continue unabated. Although possible correlations between important events and the ceramic chronology do occur, there is insufficient evidence to prove causality. Some assertions may be made on the effects of positive agents on demand and production. For instance, it may be noted that the beginnings of production were in no way related to the presence of a caliphal court, but to the patronage of merchants and similar individuals. The role of Iraq as the political and economic powerhouse of the Islamic world in this period could easily explain the juxtaposition of caliphal court and the most important ceramic production centre in the Islamic world. Equally, the general economic decline of Iraq due to the bureaucratic sclerosis of the arteries of trade, agriculture, and political authority led to the eventual abandonment of the region by the elite potters. However, if we consider the periods in which there was little or no court influence (c. 700-750 and c. 925-975), we find one main high-quality type in a very standardized product with regard to both forms and decoration. In contrast, during the period in which there may have been influence from the caliphal court (c. 750-850), we see a great variety of types, each in turn containing considerable stylistic variety, produced using advanced aesthetic and technical ability. A further dichotomy that may be noted in this period is a switch from an almost entirely non-figural suite of designs, to an almost entirely figural design for Basra Lustre Group Six (i.e., after c. 925). This certainly would suggest that the clientele had gone from having a concern for the strictures against figural art, to being less concerned, perhaps reflecting the strength of the religiously heterodox Shi'a community in this period and the authority of the nationalistic Buyids, who favoured reference to pre-Islamic iconography and symbolism in art and literature (note in particular a Group Six piece with a design derived from Assyrian tree genies [Grube 1976, no. 38]). The unorthodoxy of the Buyids is well illustrated by their claim to the traditional Iranian title of shahanshah, which was anathema to Muslims (Madelung 1969). Egypt The history of Islamic Egypt begins with its rapid conquest early in the Islamic period. Until the later tenth century the region was a province of the ‘Abbasid empire, albeit a very prosperous and at times an effectively autonomous one. Egypt's governors were often very powerful, founding dynasties which at times had effective independence, but nonetheless received their political legitimacy from the ‘Abbasids. For some time the native, mostly Coptic-speaking, Christian Egyptians were slow to convert to Islam, but remained acquiescent while continuing their local culture. This political position seems to be reflected in the ceramics, with continuation of indigenous ceramic types, and more "Islamic" ceramics being imported, along with political legitimacy, from Iraq. The main types among the fine pottery consist of unglazed wares such as slip-painted Coptic and red- slipped samian or terra sigillata style pottery, together with the unusual ware with a thin slip-paint and a partly glazed surface referred to here as Semi-glazed ware. These wares collectively seem to be made in a number of centres in Egypt, probably reflecting a pre-Islamic system of production and distribution. Imports from Basra and elsewhere in Iraq would lead to some modification of this typology, but the imports themselves seem to dominate the fine ware assemblage. During the ninth and early tenth centuries Egypt appears to have received significant amounts of pottery from ‘Abbasid Iraq, particularly Lustre-painted wares from the Basra kilns (even given the bias towards collecting these wares by early non- archaeological excavators). The local wares also show this Iraqi influence, and are stylistically and technically more in the mainstream of Islamic ceramics than the preceding Egyptian wares, with opacified glazes and splashed slip-incised wares. The wealth of Egypt explains the growing market for fine pottery, but the Egyptians clearly did not choose to buy wares derived from local traditions. Perhaps this "Islamicization" of the pottery is reflected in the gradual Islamicization of the population, and its identification with the rest of the Islamic world. It is perhaps also strange that the wealth of Egypt is not reflected in local production centres for the very finest of wares until the late ninth century. To attain the very highest technical quality, it was necessary for potters to come to Egypt from Iraq. The mechanism for this is worth further discussion. The potters of Basra had had a market for their pottery in Egypt since the early ninth century, but had found no reason to emigrate to Egypt prior to the end of the tenth century. Although it may have been important to know that there was a market at Fustat, some specific agency must have caused the final move from Basra to Fustat. As discussed previously in regard to the end of the Basra Lustre production, there were a number of incidents that might have encouraged emigration, notably the Zanj revolt and particularly the Qaramita attacks. However, it was more probably the gradual decline of the Iraqi economy that put an end to the Iraqi manufactories. The movement of potters to Egypt coincides very closely with the establishment of the Fatimid caliphal court in Egypt. We have already shown how the ‘Abbasid pottery of Iraq spread all over the Islamic world and beyond, and have hypothesized its effectiveness in communicating the riches and authority of the caliphal court wherever it went. This hypothesis would be tested by the emplacement in Egypt of the Fatimid caliphate in 969. Surely, in that context ‘Abbasid pottery would be intolerable. Hence, the appearance of Fatimid Lustre-painted pottery would lend credence to this hypothesis. It would also explain why we may find Fatimid wares in the Egyptian sphere of influence or with European trading partners, but never in Iraq or Iran. Another conceivable reason for the attractiveness of the Fatimids to the lustre-potters is that they claimed legitimacy as caliphs through Muhammad's daughter Fatima, wife of ‘Ali (Bosworth 1996:63). The Fatimids would therefore have been more attractive to Shi‘a partisans than the Sunni ‘Abbasid caliphs. Hence, if the lustre-potters were Shi‘a, this may have been a factor. In 1020 the caliph al-Hakim allegedly ordered his corps of Sudan, black slave warriors, to loot and burn Fustat, committing atrocities on the inhabitants (Canard 1971). For a whole week the disruption continued, as the Berber and Turkish corps tried to defend the city. Further disruptions occurred with the famine of 1024, in which the populace was obliged to eat all the domestic animals. Although unpleasant events occurred at other times, these events were of considerable scale, and would have affected Fustat and its market directly. These events coincide quite closely with the date of 1025, suggested in this study as the period of transition between Fustat Lustre Groups One and Two. Here it may be possible to start suggesting causality. It seems reasonable to suppose that people recovering from famine and insurrection would create little demand for the highest quality of pottery. If this lack of demand was reflected in lack of production, perhaps a switch to wares of lesser quality, then the apparently "rapid" change may have been spread over a decade or so of reduced production. Support for this may indeed be found in the lesser quality wares, where "transitional" forms are relatively more common (see Chapter 4). Minor events occurred during the next fifty years, but then there was a famine lasting seven years, from 1065 to 1072, which was so terrible that people were reduced to eating dogs, cats, and even each other. This was accompanied by severe civil unrest, including open warfare between the Sudan and Turkish corps. Order was restored by the renowned vizier Badr al- Jamali, but he was unable to prevent the Seljuqs from removing Syria from the Fatimid sphere, while a Seljuq army besieged Cairo in 1076. This period is contemporary with the suggested date of 1075 for the transition from Fustat Lustre Group Two to Group Three. This change is reflected not only in ceramic style, but also technology, including the apparent loss of stonepaste, the switch from the Nile clay mixture to a highly calcareous clay, and the change from tin-opacified glazes to a clear lead-alkali glaze with a calcium-silicate "wollastonite-slip" technology (see Chapter 4). It might even be suggested here that the degree of severity of the event is proportional to the relative apparent change in typology. Not only was this period of transition significant for Egypt, but the dating of the Lustre-ware sequences for Syria, Iran, and possibly also Spain (the latter discussed in Chapter 4) suggests that potters left Egypt for these countries in this period. The contemporaneity of these occurrences with what must have been a period of severe suffering for the people of Egypt appears to be rather more than intriguing. Some events during the next century of Egyptian history may have been significant. The invasion by a crusader army in 1117, including the burning of Farama the following year, was cut short only by the death of its leader, Baldwin I of Jerusalem. Although certainly not having a major effect on Fustat, it would have had some impact on the market, particularly if the populace was worried about a full Crusader invasion. Given the brutality of Crusader attacks elsewhere, the threat of such events would not have been conducive to spending liquid assets on fine pottery. At the assassination of the caliph al-Amir in 1130, there followed a number of coups d'état, instigated at first by the vizier Kutayfat, which threatened the very existence of the Fatimid state (Magued 1971). Again this turmoil may have increased uncertainty in the fine pottery market. The transition from Fustat Lustre Group Three to Group Four, dated to c. 1125 in this study, is not as marked as earlier Fatimid transitions, with unchanged technical attributes and considerable stylistic continuity. Perhaps of greater significance was influence from the burgeoning Syrian pottery industry. Following the disturbances of the 1130s effective rule had generally been in the hands of viziers. This meant that political power belonged to anyone with the strength to take it, so intrigues, coups d'état, and open warfare continued in this period. At the end it became a mêlée of combatant viziers, Syrian generals, and Crusader armies. In 1168, when the Crusaders threatened Cairo, Fustat was set on fire to deny it to them. In 1169 the Syrian general Shirkuh seized the viziership, to be followed after his death two months later by his nephew Salah al-Din (Saladin). By 1171, after years of warfare, including extensive street-fighting in Cairo and what was left of Fustat, Salah al-Din had exterminated what remained of the Fatimid army, and the ‘Abbasid caliph was proclaimed as Salah al-Din's suzerain. This was the end of the Fatimids. Egypt was incorporated into the Syrian polity, soon to be headed by Salah al-Din and his Ayyubid family. The political authority that now governed Egypt was based at the Ayyubid court in Damascus, and Egypt's resources were expended fighting the Crusaders. This was the period of production of Egyptian Lustre Group Four (c. 1125-1175), following which the production of Lustre- painted pottery ceases altogether in Egypt, although Underglaze- painted and also Incised wares possibly continued to be produced. Underglaze-painted wares would appear to have had a much larger part of the total production during Group Four, indicating that the lustre-potters were switching to wares that were more cheaply produced. This may have been due to their targeting a lower niche in the pottery market, or a general lowering in the wealth, or at least the available wealth, of the populace. Essentially no fine pottery appears to have been made in Egypt after this date, except perhaps Incised wares, until the time of the Egypt-based Mamluk dynasty. The integration of ceramic material culture with historical events may be more fruitful in the study of the Egyptian wares. Here the principle production centre, the chief market, the primary consumers, and the court were all in one place: Cairo and its industrial and commercial suburb of Fustat. Unlike the Basra products, the pottery from Fustat had a much more restricted distribution, primarily within Fatimid controlled areas in Palestine and down the Red Sea to Yemen, and with trans- Mediterranean trading partners. Any historical event taking place at Cairo/Fustat is therefore far more likely to have had consequences on the archaeological record than, for instance, events in Baghdad would have had on the production of pottery in Basra. Syria Since its early predominance under the Umayyad caliphs, the region of modern Syria seems to have become something of a backwater for the production of ceramics. Our interest begins in the eleventh century, a politically and militarily unsettled time in Syria partly due to incursions from the Seljuqs and their followers. The Seljuqs were of Turkic extraction, but unlike the later Mongol invaders, the Seljuqs and their tribal followers, the Ghuzz, had already been substantially converted to Islam. They did not come to destroy the pre-existing order, but their leaders were to become the new rulers of the conquered areas. They first entered Iran in 1035, and in 1055 they took Baghdad. Part of Syria was initially conquered by a Ghuzz warlord, but in 1079 he was killed and his conquests were seized by the Seljuq Sultan. Seljuq intentions in Syria in this period appear to be unambitious at first, restricting themselves to encouraging anti- Fatimid governors. By 1086 Syria was effectively brought under the power of the Sultan. Although these events did involve warfare, this appears to have taken place in the field, and in the appropriate season. According to the dating suggested in this study, this was the period of production of the first Syrian stonepaste-bodied and lustre-painted wares. Syrian Group One included Lustre-painted (often known as the "Tell Minis" style), Incised, and Polychrome-relief ware ("Laqabi" wares) which were prototypical Underglaze-painted pottery. Technically and stylistically, this group is considered to have derived from the period of transition between Egyptian Fustat Lustre-painted Groups Two and Three in c. 1075, while other evidence also supports their production during the late eleventh century (see Chapter 5). No significant contribution has been made towards assigning a provenance for these wares, but there may be a predominant distribution in western Syria. Group One appears to be short-lived, and although there is continuity there is a major change between it and subsequent groups, including a technical change from a alkali-lead glaze to the simple alkali glaze of all later Syrian groups. As the historical evidence from Egypt suggests that the elite potters may have been driven away from Egypt, rather than attracted by something else, it is not strictly necessary to determine what that attractive aspect was. Indeed, if stability and prosperity were encouragements, then the potters would have gone directly to Iran in c. 1075, as it was undergoing a golden age under the Seljuq Sultans at that time. The ceramic evidence indicates that the earliest pottery in Iran is not directly related to Egyptian prototypes, indicating an intervening period, whereas the first Syrian group displays a direct correlation with Egyptian prototypes. Conversely, the political situation may have been an attractive aspect. If the lustre-potters were Shi‘a, for instance, they may have preferred not to live in the well-ordered Sunni realm of the Seljuqs, and there was considerable Shi‘a settlement in Syria around this time. What is certain is that if these potters were active in western Syria in this period after 1075, the year 1098 would have been a very good time to move on. In this year the Frankish knights of the First Crusade seized most of Syria, taking Jerusalem the following year. The Crusaders were not like the average military force moving through Syria at this time. It would appear that on the whole if a Muslim ruler brought a city under his authority, it was simply a matter of defeating the previous ruler's warriors in the field (if necessary), and then changing the coinage and the pledge of allegiance made in the khutba at the mosque each Friday. In contrast, conquest by the Crusaders could mean slaughter or slavery for any Muslim. If the dating of Syrian Group One to the period c. 1075-1100 and its production in western Syria are correct, then the presence of the Crusaders would certainly have had a detrimental effect on the demand for fine pottery. This situation may have improved as the political arrangement stabilized, but it is more likely that the potters moved to more secure Muslim areas, such as Raqqa and Damascus. During the second quarter of the twelfth century we see the Muslim recovery against the Crusaders under ‘Imad al-Din Zangi, the atabeg of Mawsil. Zangi began his expansion by bringing under his authority Muslim towns in western Syria. In 1137 the Crusader castle of Barin (Mont Ferrand) was taken, and in 1144 Zangi took Urfa/Edessa, seat of one of the Crusader states, and the long process of reconquest began. What is pertinent in all this is not the religious war; indeed, it is perhaps more significant that following the initial conquests and ignoring zealots, relations were generally cordial between the Frankish and mostly Turkic Muslim rulers unless an opportunity for advancement presented itself. Of more relevance is that the region was being brought together under a single authority, to encourage stability and prosperity. Zangi was killed in 1144 but his son, Nur al-Din Mahmud, continued his work from Aleppo, repulsing the Second Crusade's siege of Damascus in 1148, and incorporating this city under his authority in 1154. Although the Zangid dynasty ends with the death of Nur al-Din in 1174, it is immediately replaced by the Kurdish Ayyubid dynasty under Salah al-Din. This remarkable individual appears to have combined a magnanimous good-will with a consistent policy of expansion, particularly in the direction of the Crusader states. He almost obliterated the Frankish presence after the battle of Hattin in 1187, and built the single largest cohesive polity in the Islamic world at the time. This empire was fragmented by his successors, but the wealth and stability of Syria founded by his rule only really ended in 1260 with the arrival of the Mongol Il Khan Hulegu and his successors. This is a high point in the production of ceramics in Syria. From the beginning of this period we start to see a number of groups. The Syrian Group Two wares are mostly Lustre-painted, while the contemporary Syrian Group Three is the first true Underglaze-painted ware, and is associated with Damascus. Throughout this period we seem to find differing contemporary groups made at a number of centres, including Damascus, Raqqa, Aleppo and presently unknown centres. It even appears possible to have the same style made at more than one centre. This apparent confusion in Syria is unusual in the history of pottery in the Islamic world, most especially as the situation seems to have continued for more than 150 years. In the overwhelming majority of other cases, a specific style group is associated with a single centre, and in most instances there is only one style group in a particular centre at a time. This may be explained by the political fragmentation of the early period, whereas under the Ayyubids the somewhat confused situation had crystallized into a static state. During the Mongol invasion, Hulegu practised the usual Mongol routine of accepting submission from those cities that offered it (such as Damascus), while any city that offered resistance (such as Aleppo) was subjected to slaughter and destruction. The Mongol army reached Gaza, and Egypt was in imminent danger of being invaded, when news of the death of the Great Khan reached Hulegu, and he hurried back to Iran. Syria west of the Euphrates passed into the hands of the Egyptian Mamluks, successors of the Ayyubids, but the rest of Syria remained a frontier zone and Mongol armies returned a number of times until the last invasion of 1313. The Mongol hostility appears to be well reflected in the low or nonexistent output of ceramics in Syria at this date, and eventual recovery of ceramic production in Damascus, which was spared from Mongol destruction. This city appears to emerge as the sole production centre of stonepaste-bodied wares in Syria after 1250. Late thirteenth century Syrian wares are dominated by Underglaze-painted wares, chiefly of a geometric overall design, although including some imitations of the Iranian "Sultanabad" slip-painted and underglaze-painted style. Later production is exemplified by wares imitating or influenced by the first imports of Chinese Blue and White porcelains of the fourteenth century. When this occurred precisely is unknown, but there appears to be little stylistic development in this Damascus Blue and White group, and so it may be restricted to the last decades of the fourteenth century. Iran As with Syria, our interest in Iran really begins in the late eleventh century. Prior to this date there were a number of dynasties of independent native rulers who governed various parts of Iran, including the Buyids discussed in the above section on Iraq. Some dynasties, such as the Samanids of northeast Iran, have traditionally had styles of ceramics associated with them in the art-historical literature. Although there is some evidence presented in this study that may support chronological and spatial associations such as this, there is insufficient to take this to any length. As mentioned in the Syrian section, above, the Turkic Seljuqs entered Iran in 1035 and had the entirety subdued within twenty years. The later eleventh century was something of a golden age for Iran under the Seljuq sultans Alp Arslan, who ruled from 1063 to 1073, and Malik Shah, who ruled after him until 1092. During this time the sultan's authority ran from Syria to Central Asia, and the political stability this produced led to tremendous wealth and prosperity. The roads received unparallelled security, transit dues and market tolls were cut or abolished, while the wealth of the powerful went on roads, city walls, charitable and educational institutions, mosques, and palaces (Bosworth 1968:85-87). Although the authority of later sultans declined, this period laid the foundations of prosperity in Iran until the Mongol incursions of the thirteenth century. Hence, although this "Golden Age" had ended before the suggested date for the first introduction of the technologically demanding stonepaste-bodied and Lustre-painted wares, it had laid the economic and social foundations that would enable this production to flourish. Traditionally these wares have been described as "Seljuq" in the art-historical literature, which is somewhat surprising as the traditional chronology puts the introduction of these wares after the period of Seljuq rule. The period between 1100 and the first Mongol incursions in c. 1220 was generally a somewhat unsettled time throughout Iran, although this was also the apogee for Iranian ceramics. Following the death of Malik Shah in 1092, Iran was plunged into a succession dispute that lasted until the accession of Sultan Muhammad in 1105. Muhammad's personal authority was diminished in comparison with his father, Malik Shah, particularly because of his powerful uncle, Sanjar, who ruled Khurasan, but of more relevance to ceramic production is that prosperity is considered to have continued in Muhammad's reign. His brother and successor Mahmud (r. 1118-1131) had to deal with greater problems, which appear to have worsened for the third brother and successor, Mas‘ud (r. 1131-1152). These problems appear to have stemmed from increasing independence of regional governors, the atabegs or "father-commanders." At first the atabegs were responsible for the education and protection of Seljuq princes, but later they merely used the princes as fronts and eventually dispensed with the fiction entirely while retaining the title of atabeg. Sanjar also aided in diminishing the power of his nephews, as did the renaissance of the political authority of the caliph in Baghdad. After the death of Mas‘ud in 1152, Sanjar became sultan until his death in 1157, following which there was no major authority in Iran, and regional powers vied with each other. Only towards the end of this period, just before the Mongol invasion, did a regional power, the Khwarazm-Shahs, establish a larger polity based on their centre in Khwarazm. It is in this period that we see the sudden commencement of production of stonepaste-bodied wares, with tin-opacified lead- soda and/or clear soda glazes, decorated in lustre-pigment, in forms and motifs derived from Egyptian prototypes. The relationship with the Egyptian prototypes and the complete lack of any evidence that these technologies existed in Iran previously is taken as evidence of the movement of potters into the region ultimately from Egypt. This is not to say the movement was direct, for the parallels with the Egyptian prototypes are not precise, and there is what might be considered a lapse between the departure from Egypt and the beginning of production in Iran. The "exodus" from Egypt may be suggested to have occurred in about 1075, while the commencement of production in Iran is put at about 1100, probably after a sojourn in western Syria. The migrating potters established their manufactories at Kashan, and Lustre-wares were made in Iran solely at this site until production largely ceased in the fourteenth century. Why the potters would leave Syria for Iran might be easily explained by the problems in western Syria immediately prior to 1100, specifically the Crusaders. The wealth and size of the market in Iran would also be attractive, but this appears to have been a factor for perhaps fifty years previously. Other factors may also be conjectured; for instance, if the potters were Shi'a, they possibly would only have been attracted to Iran in a period when the central authority of the Sunni Seljuqs had waned. It may be worth noting that Kashan was an important centre of Iranian Shi‘sm. Although prosperity continued throughout the twelfth century, it is clear that the political situation was unsettled. Many of the hostilities in this period might be dismissed as representing the meeting of cavalry forces in the field, not involving the great cities, but in other cases there is clear evidence of suffering. Perhaps what is significant is that the potters of Kashan did not have to rely on any single area for their trade. As with the Basra potters whose global market would always create a demand for their product, the Kashan potters could rely on markets from Egypt to central Asia; for instance, the large Iranian province of Kirman was stable throughout most of this period. Kashan itself does not appear to figure in the histories as a desirable prize, unlike the great commercial and administrative cities like Rayy, Isfahan, and Marw. Even these cities, if seized by one power, would have been stringently taxed to pay the military, but the military may have been a part of the ceramic market, so trade, administration, and also the market for fine pottery continued. So throughout this period, it would have been possible for ceramics to have continued in production; indeed, the multitude of courts may have encouraged it. The continued prosperity in the face of political disturbance is explained by a well-recorded aspect of the philosophy, or a mentalité, of the period. As stated in a document issued by the Seljuq Sultan Sanjar: "The foundation of kingship and the basis of rulership consist in making [the world] prosperous; and the world becomes prosperous only through justice and equity" (Lambton 1968:209-10). Such philosophies were expounded in a number of works written to educate rulers in their roles. In summation of such literature Lambton (1968:210-11) writes: "The sultan was to order the world so that people might be secure in their various pursuits, and he was to strive to make the world prosperous by such means as the improvement of irrigation and communications and the building of cities." The often racial division between rulers, administrators, warriors, merchants, and other groups may also have lead to a conceptual "division of labour," in which the business of one group was not intended to interfere with that of others. This attitude, in which rulers owed it to the ruled to maintain order and prosperity would come apart frightfully under Mongol rule. Answers to demands for what might be called "ancient liberties" were answered by annihilation. The Mongol invasion, from 1219 onwards, was undertaken on two main fronts. What was by Mongol standards a minor reconnaissance swept through Khurasan and western Iran, accepting submission from those towns that offered it, and attacking those that showed hostility. Hence Hamadan was at first spared, but Rayy was sacked, while many areas throughout western Iran and the south coast of the Caspian were ravaged in 1221. The main invasion, put at up to 200,000 men under Chingiz Khan himself, started with the conquest of Bukhara and Samarqand in 1220. These cities may have been dealt with relatively leniently, for in 1221 the cities of Tirmidh, Balkh, Harat, Nishapur, and Bamiyan were captured and the entire populations were put to the sword. The natives of Nishapur and Bamiyan in particular were unfortunate in having been responsible for the deaths of relatives of Chingiz Khan. These cities were razed and ploughed, with not a single creature spared, not even dogs and cats. Such descriptions are not idle exaggeration. The accounts of the systematic and conscientious Mongols' taking particular efforts to ensure absolutely no-one was left alive, even returning several days later to finish off anyone who struggled out of hidden places, have a grim truth to them, and many of these once important cities remain desolate to this day. It must be suggested that this wholesale slaughter of populations and complete destruction of cities would have had some impact on the demand for high-quality ceramics. Following these initial invasions the western part of Iran had a respite from Mongol occupation for a few years under Jalal al- Din, the last of the Khwarazm-Shahs. However, this was a period of continuous warfare, as Jalal al-Din attacked all of his neighbours and continued in battles against the Mongols. Mongol rule in Iran was not conducive to prosperity for the people of the country. Large areas suffered complete desolation and the remainder were oppressively taxed, while any Mongol warlord that was given responsibility for the region seemed to spend a lot of time returning to Mongolia to defend his position at court. As described in Chapter 6, the Kashan Lustre-wares were divided into ten different style groups with what was considered to be a major division between Kashan Lustre-ware Groups Seven and Eight. When the sequence of date-inscribed vessels was considered in the light of this division it was clear that rather than a short abrupt transition, there seemed to be a long period in which little or no pottery was produced. The few pieces with dates suitable to this period, together with like examples, formed a further group, melodramatically labelled Group "X." It is perhaps not surprising that throughout this period, the dated vessels of Kashan Lustre-painted and other high-quality wares disappear almost completely, while the typological analysis of the current study would seem to indicate that wares that would have been made in this period (Group "X") are very rare indeed. Stability returned with the dispatch of Hulegu, brother of the then Great Khan Mongke, to govern Iran and annihilate any remaining resistance left in the region. The Mongol army arrived at Samarqand in 1255, and immediately reconstruction of cities began, some at the expense of the treasury. There was some military activity in the west, notably the sack of Baghdad including the death of the last ‘Abbasid caliph who could claim any true political power, and the almost total extirpation of the Ismaili "Assassins"; but most authorities chose to submit to the Il Khan, Hulegu. Even in these newly destroyed areas there was some eye to the future, for Hulegu ordered that Baghdad was to be immediately rebuilt, and its markets opened. In Iran the founding of the Il Khanate saw a new floruit for Iranian pottery. Consideration of the pieces with inscribed dates, and also the abundance of wares of the same style, shows that production of Kashan Lustre-wares saw a major increase. This situation continued as one Il Khan peacefully succeeded another, until the death of Il Khan Arghun in 1291 led to four years of uncertainty and civil strife. This corresponds closely with an apparent gap in production, as indicated by dated vessels, yet is not long enough to mark a change in ceramic style. With the accession of the Il Khan Ghazan stability returned, and there were relatively peaceful successions until the death of Abu Said in 1335, following which the Il Khanid empire disintegrated. This last phase of the Il Khanids corresponds with the last phases of production of Kashan Lustre-wares, and probably of all the fine wares of fourteenth-century Iran. The occurrence of dated objects falls off precipitously after the death of Abu Said, and it would appear that only pottery of second or lesser quality was made in Iran for the remainder of the fourteenth century. This apparent dearth of production of pottery of the first quality warrants some consideration. Even in Egypt and Syria it is difficult to find any technically and artistically demanding wares attributable specifically to this period, unless we move the production of the Yuan-influenced Damascus Blue and White wares to before 1380, which does not seem to fit the evidence. Perhaps this has some relationship to the Black Death, which is considered to have killed a quarter to a third of the population in some regions of the Islamic world in its initial outbreaks of c. 1348 (Dols 1981). At the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth century we may witness the career of Timur. This conqueror of Mongol extraction followed a similar tactic of wreaking considerable carnage in his conquests. This is particularly noted in the province of Sistan, formerly a prosperous and populous region, and subsequently a ruinous desolation which would eventually form the border between Iran and Afghanistan. This historical situation appears to be reflected in ceramic material culture by the commencement of production at Samarqand (Mason 1996). Stylistically these wares strongly indicate Syrian influence, while the use of sand for the quartz of the stonepaste bodies, in this case an unreliable raw material, may also suggest Syrian influence, as the Iranian potteries generally appear to have used stream cobbles. Historical records indicate that Timur took potters and other artisans from Damascus, which he conquered in 1402, to his capital of Samarqand (Mason et al. 1996). The forced emplacement of these Damascus potters could explain why the Samarqand potters used sand, and also why they were constrained to work with poor raw materials. The diversity of petrofabrics and also evidence of production for the late fourteenth century shows that the numerous smaller centres producing ceramics ended production during Timur's campaigns, in most cases never to start again. Following Timur's death in 1405 the capital was switched to Harat, but Samarqand continued to be important. Historical records indicate that in 1411 the governor of Samarqand passed an edict that allowed all the craftsmen to leave if they wished. After about 1420 new centres do develop, at sites such as Nishapur and Mashhad, and at other more tentatively identified locations, such as Diyar Bakr and Shiraz; some of these, particularly Nishapur, would continue into the sixteenth century. DISCUSSION The significance (or otherwise) of this potted history has two main areas of relevance in the study of ceramics: the traditionally held relationship between dynasty and pottery, and the relationship between material culture and history. The ruler and the thrown The new provenance and chronological data presented in this study do seem to indicate a marked temporal and spatial coincidence of technically and art-historically important ceramic groups with major dynasties. There may be nothing in this, as economically powerful regions with a good market for pottery may also be good bases for powerful rulers; conversely, those authorities that wisely invest in infrastructure, notably agricultural works and roads, may encourage the prosperity that creates markets for fine pottery. A notable phenomenon is the absence of Egyptian Lustre- wares and associated ceramics in the rest of the Islamic world. Lustre-wares from Basra are certainly found in Fustat, as are Syrian and Iranian products of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Although Lustre-wares were made in Fustat only between about 975 and 1075, they do not appear to occur in Islamic contexts except in those regions influenced by the Fatimids, such as parts of Palestine and theYemen. Trade around the Indian Ocean was certainly important in this period, perhaps one of the most significant archaeological indicators of this activity being Whitehouse's "Late Sgraffiato" (Whitehouse 1983); also called elsewhere "Iranian Hatched Sgraffiato" (Mason and Keall 1988, which reminds the author that this ware has been neglected in the present volume). That these distributions certainly overlapped is shown by the surface- collection at Ghulayfiqa on the Tihama coast of the Yemen (see Appendix C), where Fatimid Lustre-wares and associated Fustat products are found with Iranian Hatched Slip-incised ware. That Lustre-wares, a highly desirable product before and after this period across the Islamic world, should be strangely undesirable at this period is difficult to explain. The only explanation that occurs to the author, other than the vagaries of archaeological preservation, is that this product of the realm of the Ismaili Sh‘iFatimid caliphate was undesirable in the rest of the Sunni or mainstream Sh‘i Islamic world. There may be a case for a more direct link between ruler and potter. In this regard the Il Khan Ghazan (r. 1295-1304) was notable for the diversity and extent of his interests rather than for the general principle of having interests. Apart from the arts (including numerous languages) and sciences (natural history, medicine, astronomy, and chemistry or alchemy), he was conversant with numerous crafts, and was considered expert at many of them (Boyle 1968:396-97). Unfortunately, pottery is not mentioned, but it certainly is mentioned in the treatise of Abu ‘l-Qasim, written under Ghazan's patronage c. 1300 (see Chapter 6). An interest in the scientific aspects of ceramics is not the same as an interest in the industry itself, but there are a number of incidences where the link between an Islamic ruler and industry is explicit. In the period covered in this study, the reference to potters from Basra and Kufa being brought to Samarra is significant (see Chapter 3). It has been suggested that a similar event occurred with the foundation of the ‘Abbasid palace at Raqqa (see Chapters 3 and 5). Two further pertinent references are from periods post- dating those covered in this study. The first of these concerns the Spanish envoy to Timur's court, Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo. He records that after Timur's conquest of Damascus in 1402, artisans of various types, including potters, were brought to Samarqand to start a manufactory there. Clavijo describes the use of pottery in feasts held at Samarqand, which may have included wares made by the potters from Damascus. In many regards this sponsorship of industry is merely a continuation of Mongol practice, in which the artisans of a city were spared, and shipped back to Mongolia. But it must be noted that the effect would be the same as if Timur was an engaged and interested patron: production commenced in Samarqand. The second case concerns the Safavid Shah of Iran, Abbas I. In 1598 he moved his capital from Qazvin, perilously near the frontier with the Ottomans, to Isfahan, at the centre of the realm. Again industrial suburbs were developed, with artisans brought in from various parts of the realm, possibly including the potters of Isfahan mentioned by Jean Chardin. In many regards this is also similar to the Timurid account, with the ruler merely interested in augmenting the commercial viability of his capital. But again the effect is the same: direct intervention by the ruler creates a new production centre. In this case it may even be conceivable that Shah ‘Abbas was an engaged patron. Although the court, or courts, of a region may be the engine that drives demand for fine wares in new fashions, it is probably the prosperity and security of the rest of the population that leads to greater demand for wares that are subsequently produced in archaeologically significant numbers. The role of the powerful in ensuring peace and prosperity for the population is explicit in Islamic culture. The responsibilities each ruler had to his or her people may be behind the quality and diversity of Iranian ceramics in what was a politically unsettled time between c. 1150 and the Mongol conquests of 1220. Such economic and industrial stability would not have occurred under alien invaders such as the Crusaders or the Mongols; or times of socially or religiously motivated conflict such as with the Qaramati or the rivalries of the Fatimid corps; or when natural disaster, such as the Egyptian famines, caused widespread deprivation. Another factor here is not just the loss of prosperity, but also the loss of confidence in the economy. During times of uncertainty, it would be unwise to invest liquid assets into unwieldy and fragile property such as fine pottery. The period of succession dispute in Iran in the 1290s does not appear to have led to serious warfare or suffering, certainly no more than occurred a century earlier, but a gap in production of dated pieces coincides precisely with this period. The deprivations of early Mongol rule would still have been within living memory, and under the threat of repetition it would be unlikely that there would be a strong market for fine ceramics. History and pottery As stated in Chapter 2, the pottery considered in this study has been divided into a hierarchical typological system, consisting of ceramic classes, types, and styles. Many types defined in this study, such as Lustre-painted wares, are divided into stylistic groups which appear to reflect a linear chronological arrangement, with an earlier group leading on to the next later group, although contemporary groups also exist. Each style group consists of a number of typical examples, often easily distinguished from other style groups, and a smaller number of "transitional" pieces, less easily distinguished from the groups they are considered transitional towards or from. In some cases the transition from one group to another appears abrupt, with major changes in forming, painting, and technology (for instance, from Fustat Lustre Group Two to Group Three). At other times the transition is less marked, perhaps with fewer major differences between the groups in question. The exact significance of the differences between style groups is worth considering. The different groups could represent wares made by different people or different workshops; alternatively, they could mark the march of time and change of fashion in a single workshop. Although the answer in any single case may be complex, there are three cases that may throw some light on this among the dated and signed wares of Iran. The first of these relates to the work of the Kashani potter Abu Zaid, whose dated and signed pieces ranged from 1186 to 1219. These pieces bridge a major division between two different styles in lustre production in Iran, although Abu Zaid's work was clearly of the very highest quality of the period for whatever style he worked in. This continuity across the stylistic division suggests, in this case at least, that fashion was a major driving force. How the fashion was set is unclear. It may have been Abu Zaid and perhaps one or two other master potters (such as the Abu Tahir family) who dictated the style, setting the trend for the period and producing designs that were then copied by their apprentices and lesser co-workers. This same period reveals a second observation regarding the nature of the difference between groups. This relates to the transition from the Kashan Lustre-painted Group Four style to the succeeding "spiral-incised" supergroup. The last dated Group Four piece carried a date of 1193, while the earliest dated "spiral-incised" piece carried a date of 1199. Although the forms do not seem to change radically at the transition between the two groups, the decorative scheme represents a major change. Hence it may be inferred that, in this case at least, the change between groups represented a short burst of innovation, between longer periods of more gradual innovation. However, a third observation may be made which is contrary to the concept of rapid change between groups. It may be noted from above that Group"X," made between c. 1220 and c. 1260, would have been considered to represent a number of transitional pieces connecting Group Seven and Group Eight, were it not for the dated pieces. The reality of the situation appears to be that the bulk of the "spiral-incised" group (Groups Five, Six, and Seven) was made between 1200 and 1220, while between c. 1220 and 1260 production shrank considerably, an understandable consequence of the Mongol invasion. Hence, although the "spiral-incised" group may be said to have been produced between 1200 and 1260, the style would have been defined by the largest number of products—those made before 1220. Group"X" Lustre-wares are made over as long a period of time, but their scarcity in the archaeological record distorts this reality. In the case of Kashan Lustre-ware Group"X" it is clear that historical events have an effect on our perception of the material culture, and this may be happening in other instances. Many of the stylistic groups in this study have been allocated time periods of roughly fifty years (i.e., particularly for Iraq and Egypt). Although biases may be introduced by the study of whole vessels in the part dealing with Iran, it seems that with better dating evidence the average timespan for a defined ceramic style is about twenty-five years. If it were assumed that time were constant, then in the given fifty-year time period of a certain stylistic group, the actual definitive style itself may the product of twenty-five years. The "few" transitional pieces may have been produced through an equal amount of time, but have a reduced effect on the archaeological record. Hence, the actual nature of the stylistic group itself may be the product of short periods of increased ceramic productivity in a continuum of slowly changing attributes. This seems to work particularly well for Egypt, where it appears that the cheaper wares actually show proportionally greater abundance of intermediate forms than do the Lustre-wares. These periods of reduced production may therefore be considered a mechanism by which changes in material culture may be linked to plagues and battles. If these events have the effect of reducing the demand for fine pottery, it will not be produced to fill the archaeological record. Reducing production may even have the effect of inducing change, as memory of the formerly standard product becomes less immediate and motor- habit patterns have a chance to wander. Return to Table of Contents