DOI Heft:
Nr. 3-4
DOI Artikel:Cutler, Anthony: Mistaken novelty: problems of ivory carving in the Christian East (12th and 13th centuries) =
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.35032#0280
270 A. CUTLER, "PROBLEMS OF IVORY CARVING IN THE CHRISTIAN EAST ( 1ŻTH AND ł 3TH CENTURIES)'
7. /?OX, OVC7T?// VICIV IVÜ/V 7T/7?AcrgÉST'ACV
than that they do not seem to /ooÆ //Ac earlier, dateable pieces in our medium. Some are
assigned date' dates because they are said to resemble objects that are in themselves mis-
takenly dated.^ Others, said to be objects of the 12th century, were in fact carved in bone
when this cheaper material was still widely worked.^ Even when elephant ivory is cor-
rectly identified as the substance employed, the date assigned to an artefact is rarely corre-
lated with what we know of the substance's availability in Constantinople or further east.
The fact remains that no single sure example survives from the 12th,^ 13th or 14th centu-
ries; from the early-15th century we have only a tiny circular box showing members of the
Kantakouzenos family, apparently datable to 1403/4 and quite possibly made in
Salonika.^ Given this dearth, it is of some importance to scrutinise the small number of
objects which, with carefully reasoned (if, in my view, faulty) argumentation, have been
ascribed to a late' period in the eastern Mediterranean.
^ Thus the diptych with the Koimesis and Crucifixion in the Hermitage Museum; see V. N. ZALESSKAYA in
Y. PtATNITSKI et ai., ed., 5mm, ßvzonhMi??, Ri/wT. Orf/io&or Yrf/rom i/n? SaT/: to 7it'<?m;<v/i Ccnmry, London
2000,92, no. B69. Simiiariy, two boxes in Edinburgh, both with bone piaques, are said to be ivory; see David TALBOT
RICE, 'Two Unpubiished Rosette Caskets in the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh', AeZi. Xptci. 'Ap%. 'El., ser. 4,
4(1966), pp. 25-30.
^ The covers now detached from the Psaiter of Queen Meiisende (London, BL, Egerton MS i 139) are always assumed
to have been carved in Jerusalem at the same time as the manuscript was prepared. This is by no means certain (a case
can be made that they are French or English) and the material, unusually thin at 4mm, offers little sign that it is elephant
ivory. Cf. J. LOWDEN in D. BUCKTON, ed., ßyzmimmi.' Yrf anJ Cn/mr^ (London, 1994), pp.
165-66, no. 181.
' N. OIKONOMIDES, 'John VH Palaeologus and the Ivory Pyxis at Dumbarton Oaks'. DOE 31(1977), pp. 329-37.
7. /?OX, OVC7T?// VICIV IVÜ/V 7T/7?AcrgÉST'ACV
than that they do not seem to /ooÆ //Ac earlier, dateable pieces in our medium. Some are
assigned date' dates because they are said to resemble objects that are in themselves mis-
takenly dated.^ Others, said to be objects of the 12th century, were in fact carved in bone
when this cheaper material was still widely worked.^ Even when elephant ivory is cor-
rectly identified as the substance employed, the date assigned to an artefact is rarely corre-
lated with what we know of the substance's availability in Constantinople or further east.
The fact remains that no single sure example survives from the 12th,^ 13th or 14th centu-
ries; from the early-15th century we have only a tiny circular box showing members of the
Kantakouzenos family, apparently datable to 1403/4 and quite possibly made in
Salonika.^ Given this dearth, it is of some importance to scrutinise the small number of
objects which, with carefully reasoned (if, in my view, faulty) argumentation, have been
ascribed to a late' period in the eastern Mediterranean.
^ Thus the diptych with the Koimesis and Crucifixion in the Hermitage Museum; see V. N. ZALESSKAYA in
Y. PtATNITSKI et ai., ed., 5mm, ßvzonhMi??, Ri/wT. Orf/io&or Yrf/rom i/n? SaT/: to 7it'<?m;<v/i Ccnmry, London
2000,92, no. B69. Simiiariy, two boxes in Edinburgh, both with bone piaques, are said to be ivory; see David TALBOT
RICE, 'Two Unpubiished Rosette Caskets in the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh', AeZi. Xptci. 'Ap%. 'El., ser. 4,
4(1966), pp. 25-30.
^ The covers now detached from the Psaiter of Queen Meiisende (London, BL, Egerton MS i 139) are always assumed
to have been carved in Jerusalem at the same time as the manuscript was prepared. This is by no means certain (a case
can be made that they are French or English) and the material, unusually thin at 4mm, offers little sign that it is elephant
ivory. Cf. J. LOWDEN in D. BUCKTON, ed., ßyzmimmi.' Yrf anJ Cn/mr^ (London, 1994), pp.
165-66, no. 181.
' N. OIKONOMIDES, 'John VH Palaeologus and the Ivory Pyxis at Dumbarton Oaks'. DOE 31(1977), pp. 329-37.