^{page 8 note 1} Mayer, L. A., “Islamic glassmakers and their works,” Israel Exploration Journal, iv, 1954, pp. 262–5Google Scholar.

^{page 8 note 2} Garstang, J., Prehistoric Mersin, Oxford, 1953, p. 261Google Scholar.

^{page 8 note 3} Ettinghausen, R., “An early Islamic glass-making center,” Record of the Museum of Historic Art, Princeton University, i, 1942, pp. 4–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 9 note 1} The long upright stroke at the end of the letter ṣād is indeed unusual, it is almost as long as the lām. The “parallels in inscriptions on pottery” to which the reader is referred in the above quoted passage, is an alphabet drawn by Herzfeld in Sarre, F., Die Keramik von Samarra, Berlin, 1925, fig. 174Google Scholar. But I have come to wonder whether the ṣād given in that table is really a ṣād. I failed to find it upon examination of the inscriptions given in the same volume. The only “text” which seemed to contain it is a small fragment of two letters (fig. 113 on p. 48), but there the first character can equally well, if not better, be read kāf—as in baraka.

^{page 9 note 2} Lane, A., “Glazed relief ware of the ninth century a.d.,” Ars Islamica, vi, 1939, figs. ID, 2C, 7Google Scholar. The name on the BM condiment dish must be read Abū Nuṣair. It is unlikely that the same potter should use a ṣād with a “tooth” in Abū Naṣr, and without a “tooth in al-Baṣrī.

^{page 9 note 3} For examples see Bahgat, A. and Massoul, F., La céramique musulmane d'Egypte, Cairo, 1930, pls. VIII–IXGoogle Scholar.

^{page 9 note 4} Mayer, op. cit., p. 263.

^{page 10 note 1} Lamm, C. J., Mittelalterliche Gläser, Berlin, 1930, i, p. 59Google Scholar; ii, pl. 13.

^{page 10 note 5} Harden, D. B. in A History of Technology, Oxford, 1956, iiGoogle Scholar.

^{page 10 note 3} Lamm, op. cit., i, p. 59; ii, pl. 13 (6).

^{page 10 note 4} Herzfeld, E., Geschichte der Stadt Samarra, Hamburg, 1948, p. 280Google Scholar. (For “6.scl.” an obvious missprint read “4.scl.”, see David-Weill, J., in Syria, 1952, p. 163Google Scholar.)

^{page 11 note 1} Smith, R. W., Glass from the Ancient World, Corning Museum of Glass, 1957, No. 469Google Scholar.

^{page 11 note 2} I am indebted for the photograph reproduced here to David-Weill, M. Jean, who discussed the object fully in Bulletin des Musées de France, 07, 1937, pp. 103 ffGoogle Scholar. He also expressed himself in favour of dating the specimen in Paris earlier than that in the British Museum.

^{page 12 note 1} A number of glass fragments in the R. W. Smith collection, op. eit., item No. 500 in the Museum of Islamic Art, Cairo (No. 8190), and in Berlin (No. 1–4381) show a single word , repeated several times (on the Cairo piece, cf. Lamm, Mittelalterliche Gläser, pl. 19 (5)) or isolated, on the specimen in the Smith collection. The reading Hishām which has been advanced tentatively is quite impossible, the first letter being a clear ḥa. Ḥusām is just possible but does not account for the extra “tooth” after shīn. The name is not preceded by the word 'amal and is, on one occasion, repeated several times it may not be the name of a craftsman and has therefore been omitted.

^{page 12 note 2} Permission to photograph and study this object was kindly granted by Mr. Blake-More Godwin, Director of the Toledo Museum of Art.

^{page 13 note 1} I owe the facilities for photographing and studying thia juglet to Mr. James J. Rorimer, Director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

^{page 15 note 1} Eisen, G. A. and Kouchakji, F., Glass, New York, 1927, i, pl. 55d; ii, p. 609Google Scholar.

^{page 15 note 2} Cf. Haynes, E. Barrington, Glass, London, 1948, pl. 8bGoogle Scholar. I am indebted to the late Mr. Haynes for permission to take the photographs reproduced on Pl. VI. The juglet was previously in the Eumorfopoulos collection. It is doubtless identical with the one described by Lamm, C. J., Das Glas von Samarra, Berlin, 1948, p. 41Google Scholar, as a “Henkelkanne mit degenerierter Inschrift in einem Fries um den Leib”. The same author in a later work (Mittelalterliche Gläser, i, p. 59) refers to three such pieces in the Eumorfopoulos collection. A. Churchill, Ltd., possess in effect a slightly smaller specimen. It may be one from the mould which produced the New York and Lucerne pieces, but the inscription is so badly weathered that I cannot affirm this. There is no trace of the third item mentioned by Lamm.

^{page 15 note 3} At one time I had considered looking for the missing dāl in the first letter on the second half of the mould and reading mā 'umila instead of mimmā 'umila. But, after examination of the London example, where the letter is clearer than on that in Toledo, I have decided against this reading.

^{page 16 note 1} Cf. the coin catalogues and Kühnel, E. and Bellenger, L., The Textile Museum, Catalogue of dated ṭirāz fabrics, Washington, 1952, p. 122Google Scholar, and the examples (none before 300 a.h.) quoted there.

^{page 16 note 2} Elsberg, H. E. and Guest, R., “Another silk woven at Baghdad,” Burlington Magazine, lxiv, 1934, pp. 270–2Google Scholar.

^{page 13 note 3} Shepherd, D. G., “The Hispano-Islamic textiles in the Cooper Union Collection,” Chronicle of the Museum for the Arts of Decoration of the Cooper Union, i, 1943, p. 365 and fig. 7Google Scholar; also the corrections of Day, F. E., in Ars Orientalis, i, 1954, p. 191 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 13 note 4} Kendrick, F. and Guest, R., “A silk fabric woven at Baghdad,” Burlington Magazine, xlix, 1926, pp. 261–7Google Scholar.

^{page 13 note 5} Lamm, , Mittelalterliche Gläser, ii, 498Google Scholar.