¹ Watson, William (ed.) The art of Anatolia and Iran from the 11th to the 13th century A.D.: A colloquy held 25–28 June 1973 (Colloquies on the Art and Archaeology of Asia No. 4), Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1974, 85–95.Google Scholar

² Stern, S. M., Fāṭimid decrees (All Souls Studies No. 3), London, 1964, 143–7.Google Scholar

³ I follow Eghbal, Abbas, ĪrĀn-i imrūz, 1319, No. 10, p. 25,Google Scholar who derives the term ṭughrā from a Turkish turqa or turghay “bow” (as quoted, admittedly with reservations, by Minorsky, V., Tadhkirat al-mulūk, 122 n. 1).Google ScholarCompare al-Bundarī, ed. Houtsma, , Leyden, 1889,Google ScholarReceuil de textes relatifs à I'histoire des Seljoucides, II, 83:Google Scholarfa-ja'alū ilayhi manṣaba 'l-tughrā, wa-qālū: hādhā '1-manṣabu lā yuḥtāju ila faḍlin, Wa-laysā illā majarradu dhālika '1-khaṭṭi '1-qawsī.

In spite of the doubts expressed by Minorsky and others (e.g. Cahen, C., “La ṭuĝrā seljuḳide”, JA, CCXXXIV, 1943–1945, 172,Google Scholar “Nous n'avons pas fait progresser le problème de l'etymologie du mot ṭuĝrā, qui evidement ne designe ni l'arc ni la flèche”), the theory of Eghbal has the merit of providing a systematic explanation of the origin and evolution of the term. The often-quoted dictionary definition of ṭughrā' as khaṭṭ bar shakl-i kamān would thus mean “line [not ‘script’] in the shape of a bow”, a clear enough description of the figure seen on coins of Ṭughril Beg.

⁴ See below, n. 21.

⁵ Fehérvári, G., Islamic pottery: A comprehensive study based on the Barlow collection, London, 1973, 61–2.Google Scholar

⁶ ed. Iqbāl, Muḥammad (Gibb Memorial Series), Leiden, 1921, 203 (Maḥmūd); 281 (Arslān).Google Scholar

⁷ al-Aḥmar, Abū 'l-Walīd b., Mustawdi' al-‘alāma wa-mustabdi' al-‘allāma, ed. Et-Tounsi, Mohammed Et-Tourki and Et-Tetouani, Mohammad Ben Tawit, ṭaṬwān, 1964, 21.Google Scholar

⁸ Fāṭimid decrees, 134,Google Scholar quoting Ḥulal,Google Scholar ed. Allouche, I. S., 19.Google Scholar

⁹ Ḥulal, 23.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Fāṭimid decrees, 126.Google Scholar

¹¹ op. cit., 26.

¹² IbnKhallikān, , Wafayāt al-a'yān, tr. de Slane, , Ibn Khallikān's biographical dictionary, London, 1842, I, 463;Google ScholarEncyclopaedia of Islam, 1st ed., s.v. “Ṭughrā'ī”. A detailed account of al-Ṭughrā'ī, is provided by Razook, Faraj in his unpublished thesis Studies on the works of al-Ṭughrā'ī, London, 1963, but he is not concerned with the calligraphy of the ‘alāma.Google Scholar

¹³ Fāṭimid decrees, Pls. 17 and 33. Cf. also Stern, S. M., “Two Ayyūbid decrees from Sinai”, in Stern, S. M. (ed.), Documents from Islamic chanceries, Oxford, 1965, 207, 213.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Ibn al-Aḥmar, 18, makes this clear: fa-innahum kānū yaktubūna 'l-'alāmata bi-aydayhim, wa-lam yaktubūhā lahum siwāhum, min awwalihim…ilā ākhirihim.

¹⁵ Tisserant, E. and Wiet, G., “Lettre de l'almohade Murtada au Pape Innocent IV”, Hesperis, VI, 1926, 27.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Olagnier-Riottot, M., “Restauration et nouvelle presentation de manuscrits au Musée Prosper Ricard, Rabat”, Museum, IX, 4, 1956, 257.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Stern, S. M., “Two Ayyūbid decrees from Sinai”, 35–6.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Fāṭimid decrees, 147.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Mustawfí-i-Qazwíní, Ḥamdulláh, Taríkh-i Guzída, Leiden, 1913, II, 105.Google Scholar

²⁰ Bivar, A. D. H., “Qobeyrā 1976”, in Proceedings of the Vth Annual Symposium on Archaeological Research in IranGoogle Scholar (in the press). For the 11th-century date cf. Allan, J. W., “Incised wares of Iran and Anatolia in the 11th and 12th centuries”, Keramos, LXIV, 04 1974, 19, Pl. 4.Google Scholar

²¹ cf. Schnyder, Rudolf, “Saljūq pottery in Iran”, in Memorial volume of the Vth Inter national Congress of Iranian Art and Archaeology, Tehran-Isfahan-Shiraz, 11th–18th April 1968, II, Tehran, 1972, 196: “spread throughout the East in the wake of the Saljūq, advances”.Google Scholar

²² op. cit., 195, Fig. 4 (caption).