A Tale of Two Legacies: Byzantine and Egyptian Influences in the Manufacture and Supply of Glass Tesserae under the Umayyad Caliphate (661–750 AD)

Sara Fiorentino

doi:10.3390/heritage4040158

Abstract

The connection between Umayyad and Byzantine mosaic manufacture is a debated issue: on the one hand, Arab sources report that Umayyad caliphs received craftspeople and materials to adorn religious buildings from the Byzantine emperor; on the other hand, the reliability of these texts has long been disputed among scholars, and other possible influences have been hypothesised. Was early Islamic mosaic manufacture related to Byzantine tradition and to what extent? Were materials and artisans gathered from Byzantium and/or territories under the Byzantine control? Based on a multi-analytical approach, glass tesserae from Khirbat al-Mafjar, the Great Mosque of Damascus, and the Dome of the Rock have been analysed. Results speak of a tale of two legacies, demonstrating that, parallel to a continuity with the manufacture of glass tesserae in the late antique Levant—pointing, more specifically, to a re-use of materials from abandoned buildings—legacies other than Byzantine occurred. It emerged that Egypt definitively played a role in mosaic making during the Umayyad caliphate, acting as a supplier of skilled artisans and materials.

Highlights

A combined SEM-EDS and micro-Raman approach allowed an in-depth analysis of the micro-structures of the tesserae belonging to Natural Colour System Index chart (NCS)-Blue category, and the results demonstrated that they were all opacified with powdered bone ash
On the one hand, having found both Apollonia-type and Foy-2 base glasses points to a continuity with the manufacture of mosaic glass tesserae in the late antique Levant
The occurrence of Egypt I glass clearly distinguishes Umayyad tesserae, providing a tangible proof of legacies other than the Byzantine one. This shows that Egypt definitively played a role in the manufacture of mosaics during the Umayyad caliphate, acting as a supplier of artisans, but materials as well

Summary

Introduction

Hamilton Gibb stated that they “were not confined to simple national or regional hostility, but governed by more ambivalent attitudes of both attraction and opposition” [1] (p. 223).

Methods

Results

Conclusion