Lab #2

This lab will build on the work that we started last week with describing artifacts. The goal of this lab will be to think about the categories that archaeologists often use in their own descriptions and what such categories might begin to tell us about the objects. One reason why archaeologists have begun to develop a standard set of categories is to facilitate comparison of object both from within a site and among different sites. However, this standardization often devolves into various levels of idiosyncrasy as each scholar feels that his or her categories are more useful than those of others in the filed. Regardless, there persists and underlying principle that argues that the recognition of differences and similarities in form, decoration and production technique serve as the basis from which to think about higher order topics such as trade patterns, technological innovation, stylistic influence, and consumption practices.

Agenda

Review descriptions of objects
Organizing descriptions through categories
Discuss the utility and limits of categories
Comparison
Finding parallels

Activity

Each of you will rewrite your object description in light of our discussion of categories and which categories are appropriate given the particular artifact that you are examining. In writing that description you will think not only about what the object is but what it is not. In this sense you are already making implicit comparisons. You will then start the process of making explicit comparisons. Depending on your object there will be other objects in the collection which you can serve as useful parallels or there may be images of similar objects from other collections or excavations that relate seem to serve as useful comparative material. Once you have found a parallel object or set of objects you will begin to record the similarities and differences and begin to speculate about what those might mean in terms of where and when the object is from, how it was produced and used, and what it might tell us about the people and societies with which it came in contact.

Finally, you will publish your findings here on the wiki in the space below.

Posted at Mar 08/2011 09:13AM:
ian: Please post your updated descriptions here!

Laila Handoo:

Originally I gave a general description of my artifact: From what I can tell, my object is a broken clay piece with a bright blue ceramic glaze. It is 8 cm deep and it has a circular shape with Arabic inscription on the inside of it.

After researching and analyzing this artifact in greater detail, I have found that this is made partially from stone paste, a material that contributes to its longevity and strength. Also, after comparing it to other artifacts in A Collector’s Fortune Islamic Art from the Collection of Edmund de Unger I have concluded the ink and opaque pigment have been used to write the inscription. Additionally, it is still unclear if the inscription is definitively Arabic. Because there is only a fragment of the inscription, even after looking at other inscriptions, it becomes hard to decipher if it is Arabic, Persian, or Turkish.

Blue and white are the colors used on this piece. After looking at Thames and Hudson’s Ceramics from Islamic Lands, it becomes clear that this artifact has Chinese roots. This does not mean that the artifact is from China, just that the art from this time originated from Chinese traditions/ideas. Chinese “lue” and “white painted porcelain” was becoming more prominent in the Middle East at this time, almost making this kind of ceramic décor the new “norm.” (42)

Thames and Hudson’s book also helped me decipher more about its form and location. Similar “sherds,” which is what my fragmented piece was called, was found in Syria and Egypt during the 13th and 14th centuries. Thames and Hudson write, “they show a wide range of designs and show that the industry was large, productive, and creative.” (404) Also, Fustat is the region with the largest amount of sherds from this region so many associate sherds with the original location of Egypt. Lastly, sherds were known to have come from a panel style bowl, which proves its decorative form and explains the hole in the base of my piece. To clarify the link, a panel style bowl implies it has a decorative form because those tend to be the ornaments most often hung on walls. Thus, my artifact was blue painted onto an opaque white glaze, which was a common theme undergoing mass production in Egypt during the 15th and 16th centuries.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Steph:

Mine was a very small vessel, made of what seems to be glass. It could only hold very small amounts of liquid or whatever may have been put inside of it. It is fairly plain, no detailing except for where the glass had been cut. After some research the only objects I could find that looked similar to mine were from Syria and used as a medicine vessel sometime during the 3rd or 4th century or from somewhere in the Byzantine empire. The other vessels that looked similar also has an iridescent look on the inside and outside similar to what was on my object. There were also markings where it looked as though your fingers may fit on these vessels which looked somewhat like the way the glass was cut on my vessel.

I think that the vessel may have been used to hold some form of liquid because inside there was some residue that was somewhat silver and brown in color and iridescent. It may have been used by an apothecary to hold remedies and medicines because it can only hold a very small volume of anything. The cuts on the glass made perfect impressions for my fingers, making it easier to hold. This leads me to believe it may have been kept on a shelf and the impressions make it easier to grab.

It seems to have been made of glass that was blown because of the small imperfection on the bottom where the blow-pipe may have been. The glass was also cut, but the cuts seem to be more for function than looks. It looks as though it was made by a craftsman, but one who does not make aesthetically pleasing vessels.

The vessel does not seem to be for decoration because it is not especially beautiful or intricate. It was probably kept in a kitchen or in a medicine cabinet in the home or was used by a doctor and kept in a shop or and office type setting.

This kind of object can tell us about medicine and health at that time. Were medicines kept in the house or only with the doctor? It also may tell us what kind of socio-economic classes were able to afford medicine.

Posted at Mar 09/2011 11:45AM:
Aniqa:

Manufacture/materials: My object was a fragment of what seems to be a wide bowl or platter. It is made out of clay and its base color is white-beige and has been glazed. It is smooth and only under a microscope can some bumps and small holes be detected. It seems that these just developed over time and were not intentionally made as part of the piece.

Style/aesthetics: The design on the fragment includes a small goldish-brown bird that is inscribed in a circle of the same color. Traces of other patterns are visible, but because the fragment is so small it is hard to distinguish what they are. Upon further research, I found that this piece falls into the category of “lusterware,” a type of pottery that has a metallic glaze, giving it the appearance of iridescence. Hence what I initially thought was a polychrome glaze is actually the metallic sheen of the lusterware.

The bird on the piece is well drawn but not exceedingly detailed and the designs around the duck are clearly hand drawn but intricate. This indicates that effort and dedication went into making this piece but it was not of an extremely high caliber; perhaps it was made by some kind of craftsman, but not an amateur. Upon further examination and research, I found that different classes off artisans commonly made this type of lusterware. It would make sense, then, for my artifact to appear to be made by an artisan that was not very attentive to intricate detail. This type of lusterware was probably made in the Fatimid period in al-Fustat. The Fatimids ruled from 909-1171 and spearheaded a cultural renaissance under their reign. Many artisans were based in al-Fusat in this time period and pottery became more widespread and aesthetically beautiful.

Lusterware from this period typically had a red/brown/gold coloring on beige, which matches the coloring of my artifact. Another reason to think my artifact has something to do with this kind of pottery is the striking similarity between the bird drawn on my artifact and the kind of birds and other animals that are found from this period in Fustat. Of the animal designs, birds were most common in this period in Fustat. Lusterware of this type popularly included an animal circumscribed by intricate designs or Kufic inscriptions—I am curious as to whether or not my entire piece would have included such inscriptions.

Form/ Function: The underside of the fragment reveals that it is the base of something: it is circular and elevated like the bottom of a decorative bowl or platter. Hence it would be stable on a table-top or other flat surface. The fragment is too wide/shallow for the original to have been a vase. There is no indication that it was hung on a wall in the fragment, but it is possible that it could have been. It was meant to be decorative and immobile—there is no evidence that it was portable, especially because the fragment is of a reasonable weight and it can be assumed that the original piece was quite heavy. The diameter of the base is approximately 10 centimeters, indicating that the entire piece must have been of a rather large size. There are no inscriptions and seemingly no religious value associated with this piece. In many Islamic societies, animals are strictly not associated with anything related to religion, which could indicate that the piece was meant for home use and not anything ritualistic.

Use/ Consumption: The condition of the fragment (e.g. that it looks clean, and only contains visible scratches when examined underneath a magnifying class) suggests that it was not used everyday and supports the idea that it was decorative. This conclusion is also supported based on further research—lusterware was used for decorative purposes.

Posted at Mar 09/2011 11:55AM:
ethan: Most of the conjectures I previously made on my object are correct. It is indeed a liquid container designed to be portable. Specifically, it is called “pilgrim flask”, a kind of flat-sided vessel that was originally used as a water canteen by travelers in the Middle East. Originally, travellers on pilgrimages would carry their flasks tied to their belt. The functions, materials, and physical forms of pilgrim flasks evolved and diversified over time (there are metal ones, glass ones, ones with bottom, and even ones with feet). My object is made of pottery, the traditional material.

The pattern on the flask, the double-headed eagle, is a image typically associated to Byzantine Empire and Holy Roman Empire culture. However, in Byzantine usage, the eagle was almost always connected with imperial power, which I assume is not relevant to this pottery vessel. I found that, the double-headed eagle was later adopted by the Turkish, and by the Arabians it was known as the Roc. I guess that this image is brought into the Islamic world during the Byzantine-Arab wars. Therefore this flask should be made sometime after 634 AD.

Interestingly, in ancient Mesopotamian culture, the double eagle is also associated with the sun. So such a pattern on pilgrim flasks might symbolize the "light" of knowledge and wisdom that pilgrims look forward to.