Lecture 4: Global Medieval Art

Conceptions of the ‘Medieval’ (2) + Timeline

• Middle of classical & early modern art

  • Between:

    (1) The fall of the Roman Empire in 476 CE

  • The rise of early Modern Europe & the Renaissance (1400-1500 CE)

• Clear division in time periods was a result of Renaissance scholarship

  • E.g. The Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects by Giorgio Vasari

    • Spoke of ‘rebirth’

    • Split the past into 2 separate categories: ‘antiquus’ vs. ‘vetus’

      • ‘antiquus’: antiquity; distant past; viewed positively & revered by Vasari

      • ‘vetus’: medieval; more immediate past; viewed as a decline

• Brief timeline (500-1500 CE):

1. Early Medieval art

2. Carolingian art

3. Byzantine art

4. High middle ages

5. Romanesque art

6. Gothic art

7. Duecento (early proto-Renaissance), trecento (transitional period between the medieval era and the Renaissance), quattrocento (early Renaissance) art

Problems w/ the study of Medieval art

1. Western lens

   • Sole focus on Western Europe & Eurasia

   • In reality, the development of Medieval art was influenced by a broad range of cultures, including non-European ones

2. Issues viewed in black and white

   • Discussion of connections vs. differences in Medieval art as if they are strictly separate & contrasting qualities

   • Project rigidity & linearity on its development (direct ‘evolution’ from bad art → good art)

3. Focus on canonical ‘masters’

   • Spotlight trained on exceptional artistic personalities

     • Partially because (1) many art historians were also collectors and (2) works by ‘famous’ artists yielded greater financial returns

   • DESPITE the fact that most medieval art was anonymous

     • German art historian Hans Belting: ‘the year of the artist really only began in the Renaissance period’

     • BUT this theory artificially separates the medieval from the Renaissance = might not always be useful

4. Much of medieval art is associated w/ religion (Christianity)

   • BUT this is because Church treasuries excelled in preserving artworks

   • May have led to overrepresentation of religious art from the medieval era

   • Some existing evidence of medieval art for non-religious/non-serious purposes

     • Comedic/silly objects seemingly made for fun (e.g. caricature of a Viking (beserker) as the Rook piece in chess)

What is globalisation?

Traditional narrative: started w/ Christopher Columbus

• Landed in the Caribbean in 1492

• Associates globalisation w/:

  • Transatlantic maritime expansion

  • Industrialisation

  • Slave trade

BUT some scholars argue that globalisation already existed much earlier

• E.g. evidence of international trade & cultural influences

• E.g. The Year 1000 by historian Valerie Hansen

  • Proposes that globalisation began around this time

  • Due to important advancements in technology & cartography

    • E.g. Al-Idrisi’s world map (1152) - includes latitudes & longitudes, coordinates of various places in the world

    • Islamic map w/ Mecca as the centre

    • E.g. Islamic polymath Abu Rayhan al-Biruni recognised that the Earth is a sphere (1000)

Difficult to define

• What criterion should we use to measure:

  • Distances of connections?

  • Number of networks?

  • Extent of differences between regions?

• To what extent should these criterion be measured? (e.g how far? how many differences?)

Difficulties & Problems w/ the study of Global Medieval art

1. Difficulty w/ defining globalisation

   • What criterion should we use to measure:

     • Distances of connections?

     • Number of networks?

     • Extent of differences between regions?

     • To what extent should these criterion be measured? (e.g how far? how many differences?)

2. Limitations in scope of study

   (1) Temporal spotlighting

   • Focus on the Mongol period & 14th century (classical period)

   (2) Eurocentrism

   (3) Methodological limitations

   • Scholars tend to focus on either:

     (A) Interconnectivity (everything is connected)

     (B) Differences

   • Unnecessarily polarised/discrete

     • Can we combine these approaches to give a more nuanced picture of globalisation?

Golden figure of King David (ca. 1280 & ca. 1320)

Reliquary

• Holding a scroll w/ an inscription: tells you it’s King David

  • An Old Testament ancestor of Christ

• Holding a mini figure of the Virgin Mary & the Christ child

• Golden parts were made in the 13th & early 14th century

• Face is a separate piece from the 1st century CE

  • Antique gem of a Medusa head

  • Reused & incorporated to form this late medieval ensemble

  • Spolia: derived from the Latin word for "spoils" or "booty”; involves repurposing art and architectural elements from previous constructions or demolished structures

Helgö Hoard

Historical context

• Norsemen/Vikings

• A hoard is an accumulation of objects

• Helgö Hoard was a ship burial

  • Found in Lake Malaren, west of Stockholm

Description

• Included objects from other countries/continents and time periods

  • Objects come from the Silk Road, the Muslim world, and Europe across a range of time periods

  • E.g. Egyptian ladle

  • E.g. Buddha statuette from Modern day Pakistan (~500 CE)

Chess (9th-15th century)

Historical context

• Originated in India

  • Later spread East & West via the Silk Road

• Originated in the 6th century

  • By 1000 CE, was a popular game in Africa, Asia, & Europe

• Played by people across social strata

  • Evidence:

    • Many medieval chess sets which are relatively unadorned & produced w/ low quality survive

    • Chess pieces made of varying materials (ivory vs. wood)

• Many variations of rules & ways to play: There was never a single game of ‘medieval chess’

• Chess has rarely been studied in art history: considered a decorative/functional art

  • Benefits of studying the development of chess: helps detach from a Eurocentric perspective as its history is entangled w/ so many regions & periods

Depiction of chess in The Shahnameh (Book of Kings)

Historical context

• Persian epic (c. 1300-30 CE)

• 14th century image of a 6th century event

• Narrative:

  • In order to avoid paying tribute to the Sasanians, the Rajah of Hind (India) sent an envoy challenging the Iranian ruler to figure out how this game was played

  • Unfortunately, the clever vizier Buzurjmihr secured the tribute for his (Sasanian) king by solving the problem

Visual analysis

• Clothing:

  • Iranians dressed in Mongol costume

  • Erudite vizier Buzurjmihr wears 14th century Persian-style tunic and turban (fashion of contemporary audience)

  • Indian envoy

    • Dark-skinned man

    • Wearing baggy clothes and a loose turban

    • All alone among the Iranians as if underscoring his defeat at the game

• Significance of colour:

  • NOT always black & white pieces

    • E.g. E.g. black & red was quite popular for Islamic chess sets

  • Chess is ultimately a game of war: colours are crucial in differentiating armies

Interpretation

• Centrality of chess in a cross-cultural interaction

Elephant chess figure (bishop) from the ‘Charlemagne set’ (1080s)

Provenance

• Charlemagne’s personal chess set

  • Was the Holy Roman Emperor in the early 9th century

  • Luxury chess set fit for an emperor: huge, elaborately-carved pieces

• Chess set was carved in 11th/12th century Southern Italy

• Elephant ivory

  • Possibly from Africa or India

Visual analysis

• Iconography of the elephant

Interpretation

• Evidence of international trade

  • Ivory: sourced from Africa/India, carved in southern Italy, ended up in Paris

• Adaptations of chess piece designs as a result of cultural influence

  • Chess piece designs were believed to have been influenced by the late antique Indian army

    • 4 main constituents:

      (1) Infantry

      (2) Calvary

      (3) Chariots

      (4) Elephants

  • In the 12th century, elephant pieces —> bishops

    • Formal resemblance:

      • Elephants have 2 tusks

      • Episcopal bishops wear hats that have 2 pointy ends (mitre)

Bishop chess piece from the Lewis set (c. 1150-1200)

Provenance

• Part of the Lewis chess set

  • Part of a large hoard buried on the Isle of Lewis, Scotland

  • All pieces carved to resemble human pieces EXCEPT pawns

• Made from walrus tusk & bears’ teeth

  • Unusual material

  • Walrus ivory was traded through Scandinavian ports

  • Quite hard to work with in comparison to elephant tusk

    • Walrus tusk is thinner & has a larger cavity

    • Less of the shiny, outer layer (which is more decorative)

      = requires much skill to work w/

• Carved in 12th century Norway

  • Evidenced by elaborate carvings on the back

  • Resemble carvings in the Nidaros cathedral (Norway)

Visual analysis

• Appearance of new imagery

  • In the 12th century, elephant pieces → bishops

    • Formal resemblance:

      • Elephants have 2 tusks

      • Episcopal bishops wear hats that have 2 pointy ends (mitre)

Interpretation

• Evidence of international trade

  • Walrus tusk traded through Scandinavian ports

• Adaptations of chess piece designs as a result of cultural influence

Christina Normore, “Editor’s Introduction: A World within Worlds? Reassessing the Global Turn in Medieval Art History”

1. Interdisciplinary conference in 2014

   • Of new work in the fields of Byzantine, Islamic, and European medieval art history

   • Stated aim: to “explore the disciplinary and interdisciplinary situation and stakes of the field.”

2. Deliberate attempt to select scholars w/ a variety of expertise

   • Early career scholars, defined as those at the postdoctoral, assistant professor, or recently tenured level

   • Who all shared a sustained research interest in global interactions

3. BUT limitations remained (e.g. the absence of specialists in Indian Ocean and Baltic studies)

   • Vs. higher representation of scholars specialising in the Mediterranean basin & Silk Roads

     • Reflective of the priorities of academic art history in North America at the time (favoured these 2 exchange routes as synecdoches for the larger problem of cross-cultural interaction)

     • Selective funding & training of art historians

       = uneven levels of representation even within supposedly global studies of art history

Ongoing struggle between a gradual attitudinal shift towards the pursuit of globality, and the existing limitations inherent to the art historical discipline (e.g. dependence of research & education on selective funding)