an early Ṭirāz from egypt

8/12/2019 An Early irz from Egypt

1/9


2/9

N ~ ? i*a,4

.: _

;P . yjr" ?:. r,~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .~t .... c ' .?..",~lllmll~'': .'1I~~~~~ri~~~~~~lr.~~~~~~~~~~~~r I? ;i -?;..t.?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:....~~i'~

il~~~~~tti~ f: : jir.,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ??; r

,. ~~~~~~~~~~,...:?;u 1Ru e. wit birds. Detail fGround l-r ?g i dsne gy, , hi~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:.' . . . " ,"'i,...F~ ~

, ~ ~I . ..:

i./ "?.~~it'*.?., ,n .?I' . . .

Freedom and verve of the drawing are characteristic of Islamicart.

An Early Tirdz from EgyptThe tiraz, or royal weaving factory, wasone of themost cherished institutions ofthe early Muhammadan rulers. Its originis, no doubt, to be traced back to preIslamic times to the system of royal

weaving workshops which existed underthe Sasanian kings of Persia and perhapsalso to the imperial gynaecea of theByzantine rulers.History has not recordedexactly how or when the tiraz system cameinto being. The first positive evidence ofits existence is provided by the fragmentsof a textile which have survived and onwhich there is an inscription containingthe name of an Umayyad caliph and thestatement: "Made in the tiraz in Ifriqiyah."' Under the succeeding dynasty,theAbbasid, the tiraz system became fullyestablished and from about themiddle ofthe eighth century we begin to have anever increasing number of historical refer

ences as well as actual textiles containinginscriptions on which to rely for information regarding both the tiraz factories andthe textiles they produced.The word tiraz isnot limited to the factory alone, but itmay equally mean textiles which were woven in such a factory.It can perhaps best be defined by quotingdirectly from the Encyclopedia of Islam:The word is borrowed from the Persianand originally means "embroidery"; itthen comes tomean a robe adorned withelaborate embroidery, especially one ornamented with embroidered bands withwriting on them,worn by a ruler or person of high rank; finally, it means theworkshop inwhich suchmaterial or robesare made.'The tiraz factories were responsible for thegreat quantities of textiles and clothingneeded for the caliph, his court and hishousehold, and for gifts which itwas the

7

This content downloaded on Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:17:44 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/9

Figure 2.Wool and linen tapestry-wovenpanel.Egypt, Abbasid Period, FirstHalf ofIX Century A.D. 32% x 31 H inches.Purchase from the J. H. Wade Fund, 1959.

custom to bestow upon favored subjects, highranking officials, and foreign sovereigns. Noone had the right to wear such an inscribedtextile or garment except those upon whom thecaliph had specifically bestowed it.3The Museum has recently acquired a beautiful tapestry panel which was made in such atiraz factory (Figure 1, 2).4Across the top, justbelow the border is the simple inscription: "Inthe name of God, blessing from God to itsowner. What has been made in the tiraz." Itcomes tantalizingly close to-and yet is farfrom-telling us where it was woven and forwhom. Lacking this documentation and without precise archeological data, the evidence ofdate and place of manufacture must be soughtby other means. The comparative method mostusual in such cases offers little direct help inthis instance for there are no other known textiles with which it can readily be compared.We may begin with the assumption that thistextile was woven in Egypt on the basis of itsgeneral stylistic and technical relationship tothe large family of wool and linen tapestrywoven textiles, generally loosely referred to asCoptic, which have come from Egyptian burying grounds. Among the masses of these fabrics which have survived there appears to bean unbroken continuity from pre-Islamic toIslamic times. The native Egyptians, theCopts,who continued in Islamic times to be the principal weavers in Egypt, carried on in their

weaving under theMuslims, as they had underByzantine and before under Greek and Romandomination, a tradition that had apparentlybeen uninterrupted since Pharaonic times.Slowly a truly Egypto-Arabic style evolvedwhich first existed side by side with the moretraditional Coptic style. It was not until thetenth century, after the Fatimids had established an independent dynasty in Egypt, thata clearly definable Islamic style is to be recognized.

* .S '

' A. iA::

? 1~~~~~I?a".

*:?.. ' ;~"

?:.,,,::,,'....':'

?: a? cl 11 J

8



4/9

. ....',," ..~i. . . . '?', "~J.,

. -

A"

*


5/9

t~~~~~jb r0, ~~~~~~~~~~L+;b~~~~~~~ti)?bli~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1,-,That theMuseum's textile belongs to the

pre-Fatimid period is assured not only byits obvious early style but more particularly by the early character of the epigraphy.

The inscription iswritten in a curious and,so far, unique style of ornamented Kuficwith short, squat letters, all written abovethe base line and with almost no distinction between the normally tall and shortletters (Figure 3). The majority of theletters terminate in simple wedge-shapedforms; but others, particularly on theright side of the inscription, are split intotwo elements having an added curvedstroke just below the terminal wedge giving a leafy outline to the tops of the letters.There are no close parallels to the form ofthis inscription among other known Islamic textiles and, indeed, it has not beenpossible to find parallels in other media.One can only hope to date it by referenceto what we know of the general historicaldevelopment of ornamental Kufic writing.5 The principal source for Egyptianepigraphy is a series of inscribed and datedtombstones.6 From these and a few other,more rare, inscriptions on wood and metaland on a very few early dated textiles itis possible to trace, at least roughly, thedevelopment of ornamental Kufic writingin Egypt. The earliest inscriptions arelimited to a very simple alphabet withshort, squat letters showing no trace ofornamentation. But very early there is atendency to increase the height and tomake amore clear distinction between thetall and the short letters and to elaboratethe tops, particularly of the tall letters. Atfirst the ornamentation is very restrained,being limited only to a wedge-shaped development of the apices of the letters or toa stroke growing out from the side, justbelow the top, to give a forked effect. Bythe beginning of the ninth century, thetops of the letters had evolved into a threeleaf palmette and by mid-century a fullydeveloped floriated Kufic had beenachieved.

The leafy forms terminating the lettersin the Museum's tiraz, on the basis ofcomparison with these lapidary inscriptions, would appear to stand at the beginning of the development of the foliatedKufic style, i.e., just after the beginning ofthe ninth century. It is, of course, unwiseto draw definite conclusions from comparisons in such different media as stoneand fabric which impose very differentproblems and limitations for their respective craftsmen. It is necessary to examine whatever evidence is provided bytextiles themselves. From the periodcovering something over a hundred yearsof Abbasid rule in Egypt, until the governor, Ahmad b. Tulun, wrested almostcomplete independence from the caliphsin Baghdad and set up a virtually independent dynasty in Egypt in 868 A.D., wehave in all only some seventeen Egyptiantiraz towhich to turn for comparison.7 Ofthese all but three are simple linen clothswith no other ornament than the embroidered inscriptions.These embroidered tirazrepresent a development quite independent of that of the main stream of Copticand Egypto-Arabic textile design andoffer little basis for comparison with theMuseum's richly ornamented textile. Theremaining three are tapestry-woven, as istheMuseum's textile. The earliest is in the

Museum of Islamic Art in Cairo;8 it isdated 168 H./785 A.D. and was woven atQais in Upper Egypt. The inscription isvery simple in form with only the mostrudimentary wedge-shaped terminals ofthe letters. The next is an anonymous andundated textile in the Textile Museum,

Washington, D. C.,9 whose inscriptiontells us only that it was made "In theprivate tiraz at Misr." This textile hasbeen assigned by Dr. Kuhnel, on stylisticand epigraphic grounds, to about 800A.D.; ithas a somewhat more evolved anddecorative calligraphic style, but the apicesof the letters are perfectly plain withoutany sign of elaboration. The third in the

10



6/9

d. A

Berlin Museum,?1 has an inscription withthe name of the caliph al-Rashid (786-809A.D.) but it does not include the place ordate of manufacture. The epigraphy showsevidence of even further ornamental development with small squarish projectionsjust below the tops of the letters but thereisno trace of foliated forms. These inscriptions are characterized by low squat letters,all written above the base line with littledifferentiation in height. They, and theMuseum's tapestry-woven inscription, arevery different from the embroidered tirazinscriptions and appear to come muchcloser to themonumental style of writingfound on the tombstones.In general, the Museum's inscription,though more evolved than the other three,has much in common with them. Certainspecific analogies can be made, particularly with the Textile Museum's tirdz. Forexample: the use of the reversed ya', whichis also to be seen on many of the tombstones, and in the curious form of theletter ta' inwhich the rounded part of theletter is greatly exaggerated and extendedhorizontally while the normally long upright is reduced to a tiny, slanting projection. The form of the letter mim on theMuseum's tirazwhich has a little "handle"rising from the right side of the letter andslanting over it toward the left is unique;it has been impossible to find any closeparallels for it.However, in the tirdz of theTextile Musem, the mim has a little projection rising straight from the center ofthe letter which appears to be related tothe projection on themim in theMuseum'sinscription; in the Berlin tirdz there is atleast a suggestion of this form in the lettermim of theword min. On the basis of thecomparison of the epigraphic style of theMuseum's textile with the few availabletextiles, we can say that our inscriptionwhile unquestionably showing early characteristics is nevertheless clearly demonstrated to be later in date than the twotextiles in Berlin and Washington from

Figure 3.Kufic inscription (reads romright to left): "In the name of God,

blessing from God to its owner.What has been made in the tiraz."

the period of al-Rashid. On the otherhand, the comparison with the lapidaryinscriptions indicates a date before themiddle of the ninth century by which timefloriated Kufic had fully evolved. In other

words, the stylistic evidence provided bythe epigraphy indicates a date in the firsthalf of the ninth century.Turning to the content of the inscrip

tion, we find further evidence for the earlydating of theMuseum's textile. Normallyin Islamic countries all important communications, whether verbal or written,are opened with the invocation of thename of Allah, almost invariably following the formula called the basmala-thephrase "In the name of God, themerciful,the compassionate." After this generallyfollow additional phrases asking "Blessingfrom God," "Help from God," etc., uponthe person who is the subject of the communication. The basmala is already present on one of the earliest dated Arabicinscriptions known, an epitaph from Cy

prus dated 29 H./650 A.D., and it ispresent on the earliest epitaph from Egyptdated 31 H./652 A.D.1"But there are important exceptions inwhich, instead of thefull basmala, there is only the phrase "Inthe name of God" followed directly by"Blessing from God."An examination of tiraz inscriptions reveals the frequent use of this shortenedformula until the reign of al-Mutawakkil(847-61 A.D.). Of the seventeen earlyAbbasid textiles mentioned above, onlyseven belong to the period before alMutawakkil. Of these, two are incomplete,one has the full basmala, and the remaining four have the short formula. To theinscriptions on the textiles can be addedfourmore whose texts have been recordedby contemporary Arab writers.12 Each ofthem has the short formula. They bring

11



7/9

to eight the known tiriz inscriptions frombefore the reign of al-Mutawakkil whichhave the short formula while only onehas the basmala. There are five knowntiraz belonging to al-Mutawakkil,13 ofwhich only the earliest has the shortenedformula, the others have the full basmala.After this time the full basmala appearsregularly on all Egyptian tirdz,with rarestexception, until late Fatimid times. Fromthis evidence itwould seem that the useof the basmala was the exception ratherthan the rule on tirtz inscriptions until thetime of al-Mutawakkil, and that beforethat time the preferred formula was simply"In the name of God, blessing from God."It is exactly this phrase which opens theinscription on the Museum's textile, indicating thereby that it cannot have beenwoven later than during the first years ofthe reign of al-Mutawakkil which beganin 847 A.D. It would seem therefore, fromthe evidence provided by both the styleand the content of the inscription, that theMuseum's newly acquired textile can safely be dated to the first half of the ninthcentury at which time theAbbasid caliphsin Baghdad still held Egypt firmly undertheir control.

The Museum's new acquisition adds aunique example to the all-too-few demonstrably Abbasid textiles from Egypt. It isunique from the standpoint of its size andcompleteness; of the quality and characterof the design; and, of course, the form ofits epigraphy. Unfortunately, the reproduction fails totally to give an impressionof the brilliant and jewel-like quality ofthis textile in which is used a beautiful,though limited, palette with red and greenpredominating, supported by golden yellow and white. The manner inwhich thepattern has been executed is also unique.The central panel is divided down thecenter into two fields, the left green, theright red; they are joined by relativelylarge triangular projections alternatingfrom one side to the other. From the details of the design, one has the impressionthat the work must have been done bytwo weavers working side by side-butperhaps not on speaking terms for eachworked out his details independently of

the other This is particularly evident inthe inscription which, though golden yellow throughout, shows in the letters onthe right side a very different characterthan those on the left side. It isonly in theletters on the right that the foliate terminals occur; those on the left aremuch simpler in form and show no foliate tendency.There are many other amusing points ofvariance. The weaver on the right, forexample, pointed up his letters by fillingthe round parts with yellow encircled bydark green; the other used white set off byred and separated his main field from theframing border by narrow bands of yellowand red which do not occur on the right.The artist on the left has combined theentire palette-red, green, white, andyellow-for the birds while the artist onthe right has limited himself to red, yellow,and white. More agreement, however, appears to have been reached in the borderswhich are uniform throughout. They consist, after the plain white linen finishingedges, of an outer band of dark green withfour widely-spaced rosettes in yellow outlined in red; a plain golden-yellow band;and then themain ornamental band whichappears to simulate a strip cut from another textile-perhaps a woven silk-inwhich white, green, and yellow are usedon a red ground. Plain yellow bands framethe double row of white pearls, the spacesbetween which are filled with dark greenon the outer edges and red between thetwo rows.

The Museum's textile presents as greata problem stylistically as itdoes epigraphically since we are equally lacking documents with which it can be compared fromthis point of view. The piece is a completepanel preserving both selvedges and whatwe presume are the beginning and finishing edges. In itwe have a rare opportunity to see in so early a textile the total design concept; other Egypto-Arabic tapestries which we know are only fragmentsgiving no clue to their part in the totaldesign. The all-over pattern of pearlframed roundels enclosing birds is reminiscent of Sasanian textile designs, butthe freedom and verve of the drawing ofthe birds is clearly Islamic in style. Paral

12



8/9

?i "]B~~~~~~"?B~~~a%%~~~Ws~~~ssr~~~sp~:',i?~

i i

Figure 4. Tapestry-woven fragment in TextileMuseum, Washington, D.C. Inscribed with name,

Marwan, Umayyad caliph from 744-750 A.D.A textile such as this may have providedsource of design of the Cleveland panel.Reproduced courtesy of the Textile Museum.

lels for the composition are to be found ina group of otherwise, seemingly, unrelated textiles, also from Egypt, which unfortunately are represented only by frag

mentary pieces whose designs are too incomplete to be properly compared withthe Cleveland panel. Among these, afragment in the Textile Museum, Washington, D. C.14 (Figure 4), which evidentlyhad an all-over pattern of roundels enclosing pairs of confronted cocks with anornamental border above, provides theclosest parallel. There is a line of inscription just below the border which, thoughincomplete, appears to contain the name,

Marwan, which probably refers to thesecond Umayyad caliph by that name whoruled from 744 to 750 A.D.Although thereis a relationship in the general composition of these textiles, they are very different in style. There are also importanttechnical differences. In the textiles of the

Marwan group there is no linen but bothwarp and weft are of wool. In the Museum's panel the linen and wool yarnsare twisted left; in the Marwan group theyears are twisted right, presumably indicating, at least, a different center oforigin. Dr. Kiihnel and Miss Bellingerhave assumed that the linen and the rightspinning of the yarns, supported by thestrong Sasanian influence, point to Mesopotamia or Persia as the place of originof the Marwan textile. Regardless ofwhether the textiles of theMarwan groupwere actually imported from abroad orwoven inEgypt, judging from the numberof fragments of this type preserved there,they must have been popular in Egypt inthe eighth century and may easily haveprovided the source for a design such asthat on the Museum's textile which isroughly a hundred years later in date.

Unfortunately, documents showing theintermediary stages through which iswastransmitted are so far lacking.As to the actual place in Egypt wherethe Museum's textile may have been

woven, we have very little evidence to goon. It seems certain that weaving in wooland linen survived much longer and moreclosely followed Coptic tradition in theworkshops of the Fayyum and Upper

13



9/9

Egypt than in the Delta. The writings ofthe early Arab historians and geographersabound with references' to the fine linenstuffs and the silks of the Delta cities, andthey mention particularly the wool andlinen stuffs of such cities in the Fayyum as

Bahnasa, Qais, Ahnas, and Misr and wecan only surmise that our textile representsthe product of one of these workshopsin the Fayyum which, while still workingin the Coptic tradition, reflects in thefreedom of its drawing the extent to whicha truly Islamic style had developed.It is clear from the organization of thepattern, the size, the shape, and the textureof the piece that the Museum's textilewas never intended for use as clothing butwas probably originally conceived of as apanel, most probably for use as a wallhanging. The content of the inscriptionsupports this assumption as it is not thefamiliar tirdz inscription used on fabricswhich were intended for garments for thecaliph's use. The inscription here wouldappear to be primarily decorative in purpose for which the designer borrowedfrom the usual tiraz inscription only anabbreviated text to fill the required space.One can only wish that he had "thoughtahead" and saved room to include thename of the city where his tiraz was located

Whether this textile was actually wovenin a royal tiraz and the inscription abbreviated because of its different purpose,or whether itwas woven in an independentfactory which either styled itself a tiraz orborrowed the term for the purposes of theinscription, cannot be judged for lack ofother similar textiles with which it could

be compared. The great quantities of tirizfabrics which have survived in the Egyptian burying grounds have done so pri

marily because they served as garments inwhich the bodies were interred. The survival of a purely decorative piece such asthe Museum's panel is a matter of rarechance and perhaps explains why it isunique among the known Egypto-Arabictextiles. Uniqueness is a quality much tobe admired, often enhancing the value ofan object, but for the art historian facedwith the problem of identifying such an

object, it is a mixed blessing. The aboveis, at best, a tentative effort to fix theplace and date of manufacture of thisunique textile based on such evidence ascould be brought to bear.

DOROTHY G. SHEPHERDCurator of Textiles and Near Eastern Art

'F. E. Day, "The Tiraz Silk of Marwan,"Archaeologica Orientalia in Memoriam ErnstHerzfeld, New York, 1952, pp. 39-61.2IV (1934), 785.'At first the privilege of the tiraz was strictlylimited to the caliphs but with the breakup ofthe Muhammadan empire this prerogative wasusurped by numerous governors, princes, andkings who established their own tiraz factories.4Accession number 59.48. 31-1/2" H. x 32-3/4"W. Purchase from the J. H. Wade Fund.Through a printer's error the caption on thephotograph of this textile published on p. 225in the December Bulletin for the "Year in Review" was switched with that of the textileillustrated on p. 214.

5See, for example, the study of Adolf Grohman:"The Origin and Early Development of Floriated Kufic," Ars Orientalis, II (1957), 183-213.6The majority of these are in the Museum ofIslamic Art in Cairo. Cf. Hassan Hawary andHussein Rached, Catalogue general du MuseeArabe du Caire; stelesfuneraires, Vol. I, Cairo,1932. Cf. particularly numbers 103, 1193,1506/46, and 3904.'These figures are based on those recorded in the

Repertoire chronologique d'epigraphie arabe andother obvious sources, a more careful searchmight reveal a few others.8No. 14473. Illustrated in Grohman, op.cit., pl.2, fig. 4. It has evidently also been published,in an Arabic publication not available to thiswriter, by Muh. Abdul Aziz Marzuq.9No. 73.447. Cf. E. Kuhnel and L. Bellinger, TheTextile Museum, Catalogue of Dated TirazFabrics, Washington, D. C., 1952, p. 83, pl.XLIII.

"No. 4505. Cf. E. Kiihnel, Islamische Stoffe,Berlin, 1927, p. 16, pl. I."Repertoire, Vol. I, nos. 5 and 6."Ibid., nos. 44, 45, 78, and 80."Four are in the Textile Museum, Washington,D.C., cf. Kuhnel and Bellinger, op.cil., pp. 6-8;one is in the University of Michigan, cf. F. E.Day, "Dated Tiraz in the Collection of theUniversity of Michigan," Ars Islamica, IV(1937), 421-2, fig. 1."No. 73.524. Cf. Kuhnel and Bellinger, op.cit.,pp. 5-6, pl. I."R. B. Serjeant, "Material for a History ofIslamic Textiles up to the Mongol Conquest,"Ars Islamica, XIII-XIV (1948), 107 ff.

14

This content downloaded on Fri 14 Dec 2012 16:17:44 PM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

an early Ṭirāz from egypt

Documents