ART IN IRAN

ART IN IRAN i. NEOLITHIC TO MEDIAN

Geography as a determinant for the development of art. Topographically Iran is a varied country and its art is regionally diversified. This variation in the artistic products from different areas of the country sets off the art of Iran as a whole from that of countries in which greater uniformity can be observed, such as Mesopotamia where major differences exist only between north and south. The artistic provinces of Iran do not remain constant, however. In the earliest periods, when art, insofar as it is preserved, consisted of clay figurines, painted pottery, and engraved stamp seals, the principal areas of its production can be enumerated as follows:

1. South and southwest Iran, the modern provinces of Fārs and Ḵūzestān with the Susiana, the area around Susa, artistically the most significant.

2. Central west Iran, the modern provinces of Luristan (Lorestān) and Kermānšāh, where the sites of Tepe Giyan (Gīān) and Godīn Tepe yielded the longest sequences. 3. Northwest Iran, the provinces of Azerbaijan and Kurdistan, where the sites of the Ḥasanlū project have provided most of the available information.

4. The area southeast of the Caspian Sea, and the adjacent regions of Gurgan (Gorgān, Jorǰān), and Khorasan where the most important sites are Tepe Hissar (Ḥeṣār) and Tureng Tepe, closely related to the Namazga (Namāzgāh) sequence and other sites in Turkmenistan of the USSR.

5. Central south Iran, mainly modern Fārs with the prehistoric site of Tell Bākūn close to where Persepolis was to rise several millennia later. In the same general area the all-important site of Tell Malyān was discovered, which later texts serve to identify with Anshan, which vied with Susa for being the most significant site of Elam.

6. Southeast Iran, the modern province of Kermān, Sīstān, and Balūčestān with the sites of Tell Elbīs, Tepe Yaḥyā, Bampūr, and Šahr-e Soḵta.

Dependence of the chronology of art on archeology. From the listing of archeological sites it is obvious that the study of the art of Iran depends for criteria of geographical origin and date on the results of excavation. This is also true for the historical periods. Only very few works of art, found with one or two exceptions at Susa or neighboring Čoḡā Zanbīl, can be dated on the basis of their inscriptions. Most of the dates which will be cited in this survey are therefore approximations based on the stratigraphyç of sites where objects, which are related to those selected here as significant for the study of art, were found. Unfortunately, several of these objects come from unknown or insufficiently recorded excavations.

Iconographical motifs as links between regions and periods. The links which connect works of art made in various periods and regions of Iran are all iconographic. Of these the representation of animals is the most distinctive. Studies of early food production (F. Hole and K. V. Flannery, Proceedings of the Prehistorical Society 33, 1976, pp. 147-206), have shown that man in Iran had a remarkable talent for the domestication of different species of horned animals. This implies a feeling for and understanding of the psyche of animals such as was expressed in animal representations throughout Iranian art, from the clay figurines of the seventh to the fourth millennium B.C. to the elegant rams and bucks of the Sasanian silver plates.

Another important element of the art of Iran is the presence of composite beings. One type, here called demon, is a combination of man and animal walking on two legs. An example is the demon with the head of a mountain goat or a moufflon (Figure 26d). That type of creature was especially long lived, lasting from early stamps of Luristan (P. Amiet, Revue du Louvre, 1973, pp. 215-24 passim) to the stele of Untash-Napirisha (Figure 26k) and to a Sasanian stamp seal (unpublished, Moussa collection, impression in the Pierpont Morgan Library, New York).

Figure 26. Illustrations to ART IN IRAN i.View full image in a new tab

The second type, called here monsters, consists of creatures composed of several animals walking on four legs. The most important of these for the history of art in general is the griffin with the foreparts and wings of a bird of prey and the rest of the body that of lion. The griffin was one of several monsters created in the earliest phase of cylinder seal engraving (see Fig. 26f).

Serpents with feline heads are another type of monsters which had a long life in the art of Iran; the earliest clearly recognizable creatures of this type are found on carved vessels of chlorite or steatite, especially a vase in the British Museum said to have come from Ḵafaǰa (Plate X, 7; E. Sollberger, Syria 52, 1975, pl. X). Moreover, serpents with or without feline heads were widespread in Iranian art, probably because their undulating bodies were equated with the winding courses of streams of life-giving water. Representations may show the entire body of the serpent in monumental size, as in an offering table from Susa (P. Amiet, Elam, Auvers-sur-Oise, 1966, p. 383, fig. 291 ), or in very small size, as in the diadem of the archer on the Ḥasanlū bowl (Figure 27).

Plate X. Illustrations to ART IN IRAN i.View full image in a new tab

Figure 27. Gold Bowl from Ḥasanlū (Drawing by Maude de Schauensee)View full image in a new tab

Other iconographic use of animals seems to have been limited in time and space; for example, leonine, bovine, or other horned creatures acting like humans (Plate X, 5) are portrayed in small sculptures of the period called by Amiet paléo-élamite (Elam, pp. 93ff) or protourban (Arts Asiatiques 26, 1973, pp. 3-45, esp. 7f.) and appear to correspond to the Jamdat Nasr phase of Mesopotamian art. Cylinder seals of what is here traditionally called proto-Elamite style, showing animals acting like humans (Figure 26g) may be slightly later. Mesopotamian representations of animals acting like humans as on the sound box of a harp from Ur, may have to be traced to influence from such proto-Elamite representations (Amiet, Glyptique mésopotamienne archaïque, Paris, 1961, p. 158).

The relatively frequent representation of women is also distinctive of the art of Iran. This applies not only to the small clay figurines of the Neolithic age (see the examples from Iran, Propyläen Kunstgeschichte XIII, 1974, pl. 47) which are found from Asia to Europe and which survived as a popular type of ritual or magical object in various contexts of later periods, but to such representations as kneeling female votaries in alabaster of about 3000 B.C. (Plate X, 3) or to standing figures of glazed faience of the middle and late second millennium B.C. from Susa and Čoḡā Zanbīl (Amiet, Elam, p. 361, fig. 268, and Porada, Propyläen Kunstgeschichte XIV, 1975, pl. 288.)

Variety of styles. In contrast to the iconographic motifs, some of which are found in widely different areas and periods but which demonstrate a measure of coherence in religious or magical concepts, the style of a work of art, that is, the manner and expression by which an iconographical motif is represented, varies strikingly from region to region and from period to period. This creates great difficulties for the chronological and geographical classification of objects, especially of those which do not come from controlled excavations.

The art of the early village cultures, eighth to fourth millennium B.C. Of the extant objects produced by the art of the early village cultures: clay figurines, painted pottery and stamp seals, the clay figurines of females found in levels of the seventh and sixth millennia B.C. show the great variety in style mentioned above. The examples from Tepe Sarāb, however, manifest a feature which is characteristic of some of the artistic production in Iran in several periods and regions: the figures are not made in one piece but are fitted together from several parts.

Clay figures of animals in this early period are simpler than those of humans, but a small boar from Tepe Sarāb (Figure 26a, Porada, Art of Ancient Iran, New York, 1965, p. 20) is a very expressive creature with its large head, small eyes, and curved back and legs extended in a posture of speedy movement. Incisions on the body may indicate wounds. Later cuneiform texts of Mesopotamia indicate that sympathetic magic played a great role in magical procedures; thus, use of pictorial incisions to indicate the effects of a successful huntsman’s spear may have been intended to work magic for a future hunt. Such use of magic would explain the intensity of expression in many early sculptures.

With the beginning of pottery painting in Iran in the seventh millennium B.C. one can discern certain stylistic phases, although no one sequence established on the basis of a single site can be applied to the artistic development of the country as a whole because of the regional differentiation mentioned before. Nevertheless, the basic stylistic observations made by R. Ghirshman in reference to the early pottery of Tepe Sialk (Fouilles de Sialk I, Paris, 1938, pp. 74ff.) can still be maintained. In the seventh and sixth millennia B.C. linear patterns, partly derived from basket weaving—parallel lines, often zigzags or lozenges—served as the basic elements of design on bowls of various shapes and sizes (P. Mortensen, “A Survey of Prehistoric Settlements in Northern Luristan,” Acta Archaeologica 45, 1974, p.23, fig. 23 [here Figure 26b]). Some early patterns were also derived from the imitation of veined stone vessels (L. S. and R. J. Braidwood et al., Prehistoric Archaeology along the Zagros Flanks, Chicago, 1983, fig. 105).

Gradually, the potentialities of painting on pottery were more fully explored. Thick bands of paint were juxtaposed with lighter patterns of thinner lines. The full development of pottery was reached in the early fourth millennium B.C. but only the finest painted potteries will be characterized here: those of Susa (Plate X, 1; Mémoires de la Délégation française en Perse [MDFP] 13, 1912, pl. I, 4) and Tell Bākūn (Plate X, 2; A. Langsdorff and D. E. McCown, Tall-i Bakun A, Chicago, 1942, pls. 4:2, 62:8). The pottery found at Susa, a ware also excavated and recorded with modern precision at Jaʿfarābād, owes its pleasing quality in large part to the organization of the decoration in bands whose width was judiciously chosen in relation to the size and shape of the vessel. There was also a balance between thick and thin lines, a thin one often accompanying a thick one. Geometric patterns are usually composed of straight or only slightly curved lines, while impressively sweeping curves are often shown in the horns of animals, the same degree of curvature being retained within the animal form (see the great bucks in the goblet from Susa in Plate X, 1 ). Thus the animal and its frame are clearly separated. Such a juxtaposition of animate with inanimate forms adds interest to the designs from Susa.

The pottery of two sites in Fārs, Tell Bākūn and neighboring Tell Noḵodī (McCown and Langsdorff, ibid., and Clare Goff, “Excavations at Tall-i-Nokhodi,” Iran 1, 1963, pp. 43-70) is related to that of Susa and other sites of the Susiana by shape and design. Variations from the scheme employed in the Susiana, however, are distinctive. In the Susiana, geometric patterns on the outside of goblets and bowls are dominated by a vertical axis and horizontal friezes. Variations in these orthogonal arrangements are introduced by forms of animals or birds. In the pottery designs of Fārs, however, wide bands of pattern are frequently dominated by diagonal lines which create a sense of rapid progression around the vessel. Furthermore, the patterns are often heavier than those of the Susiana, especially those with the frog-like forms (Plate X, 2), or they are wider; in short, the sophisticated balance observed at Susa is lacking here. Lastly, the patterns of Fārs have elements approximating denticulation which may link these patterns with those potteries found further to the east, all the way to Turkmenistan and northwest India(V. M. Masson, Srednyaya Azia i drevniĭ Vostok, Moscow, 1964, p. 149, fig. 25, Gioksiour, and S. Piggot, Prehistoric India, Penguin Books, 1950 p.74, fig. 3). The pottery of Tell Bākūn, however, is far more varied and therefore more interesting than that of any of the more eastern sites.

Stamp seals paralleled in their decoration the development observed in painted pottery. From about 4500 to 3500 B.C. and even later, the majority are shaped like buttons or low hemispheroids, that is, with a plain raised back and a circular or oval base which served as a sealing surface. The earliest such seals have linear geometric designs carved on the base. These are often surprisingly similar to those seen at the same early period, the sixth millennium B.C., in the sites of northern Mesopotamia or north Syria, hundreds of miles to the west, suggesting some form of exchange and connection across the northern trade routes from Iran to Syria.

In the late fifth and early fourth millennia B.C. many seal designs were based on the cross which divides the sealing surface into four quadrants, each filled by chevrons or by parallel lines in rows slanting in alternating directions, as in examples excavated at Seh Ḡābī (Archaeology 27/4, 1974, p. 276) and the numerous seals from Susa of this type (Amiet, Glyptique susienne II, pls. 38, 39, 42, 43). Most of the seals from sites in Fārs have an elaborately shaped sealing surface decorated with attractively grouped, deeply cut incisions, often forming designs based on a cross or triangle (Langsdorff and McCown, Tall-i Bakun, pl. 81: figs. 16-33, pl. 82: figs. 1-14 and Iran 1, 1963, fig. 7:4 p. 49 from Tell-e Noḵodī).

Gradually animal figures, mostly horned, appeared in the seal designs of western Iran but those of eastern sites like Tepe Ḥeṣār continued geometric patterns. Iconographically most interesting are those seals which have a semi-human figure with the head of a goat or moufflon, holding, or restraining, or perhaps being menaced by one or two serpents (R. D. Barnett, Syria 43, 1966, pp. 259-76, and P. Amiet, Revue du Louvre, 1973, pp. 218-22). The subject was especially favored in Luristan, from which the examples illustrated by Amiet are said to come, but recent excavations at Susa have yielded such a goat demon on a sealing found in level 25, equated by Amiet with level Ba of Le Breton (CDAFI 1, 1971, fig.35:2 and p. 219; and here, Figure 26d).

The art of the emerging urban development, late fourth to early third millennium B.C. The period of early urban development covers the Mesopotamian phases of protohistoric art (Late Uruk and Jamdat Nasr phases) and the First Early Dynastic period. In terms of the recent excavations on the Acropolis of Susa this period comprises levels 18-14B (A. Le Brun, “Suse, Chantier "Acropole I",” Paléorient 4, 1978, pp. 177-92.) In both Iran and Mesopotamia the history of art of this period is based on impressions of cylinder seals which came into use at that time to be rolled over clay lumps marking jars or round balls enclosing counting devices or, somewhat later, tablets inscribed with numerals and, at a still later stage, tablets bearing texts. Very few original cylinders belonging to the earlier part of this period have been found. In what seems to have been the first style of cylinder seals the figures were hollowed out with a bow drill. The deep, round cavities produced by that instrument created a massive relief in the clay impressions of the cylinders. An original of this type, made of gypsum, was found at Uruk in the clay fill of the Anu Ziggurat between levels C and D-E (8. Uruk Vorbericht APAW 13, 1936, pl. 49, W. 16658). The massive relief style of the figures is now recognized as being not of the Jamdat Nasr period, as was first thought, but probably of a date before Uruk Eanna IV b (Amiet, Glyptique susienne 1, pp. 69-70). At Susa figurines in the style of such massive relief comprise an extraordinarily rich repertory of animals, monsters, and occasionally humans (see especially Amiet, Glyptique susienne II, nos. 463-70, 579-84, 594-98, etc; here an example in Figure 26e; Amiet, ibid., no. 582).

Well-proportioned, carefully executed small figures constituting a new style appear to have developed from the first style, although this sequence can not be precisely documented. The subjects represented at Susa, craftsmen at work—for example weavers or potters—agricultural workers (here Plate X, 4 as an example; Amiet, op. cit., nos. 636ff. and 663), or hunters (Amiet, ibid., nos. 600ff. passim; and A. Lebrun and F. Vallat in CDAFI 8, 1978, pp. 51-53, figs. 6, 7 and pls. Iff.) differ from those represented at Uruk, where ritual themes predominate. The sealings found at Čoḡā Mīš reflect a choice of themes related to those of Susa (H. Kantor, Memorial Volume of the Vth International Congress on Iranian Art and Archaeology, Tehran, 1968, p. 32, pl. X a-b). These divergences may indicate differences in the meaning and use of cylinders in Iran and Mesopotamia at that time.

A third style found among the impressions from Susa is called proto-Elamite after the script which came into use about 3000 B.C., roughly contemporary with the Jamdat Nasr phase of Mesopotamia and continuing into what was the First Early Dynastic period there (P. Amiet, Arts Asiatiques 26, 1973, p. 10). The relation of this style to that of the foregoing one with small carefully carved figures can not yet be clearly recognized. Figures of animals in various combinations or in connection with plants are often hollowed out of the stone in subtle relief but are then forcefully outlined by deep engraving which deprives the designs of the naturalism manifested in the earlier ones. The most interesting group among the proto-Elamite cylinders shows animals acting like humans (Amiet, Glyptique mésopotamienne archaïque, nos. 559-91; here an example in Figure 26g, Amiet, Glyptique susienne, no. 1012) as distinctive of the subject matter of this group of cylinders. Often the same figure is repeated as if a twin image were desired. Another compositional peculiarity of these proto-Elamite cylinders is an indication of a balance of power: in one sealing (Amiet, Glyptique mésopotamienne archaïque, no. 585) a lion is shown dominating two small bulls and a bull dominating two small lions. All this seems to foreshadow religious concepts of a much later age.

Most of the examples of proto-Elamite sealings were found at Susa, but sealings of proto-Elamite style on tablets with proto-Elamite numerals were also found at widely distant sites: at Tepe Yaḥyā in Kermān, at Šahr-e Soḵta in Sīstān, at Tepe Sialk near Kāšān, at Godīn Tepe near Kangāvar, and at Tepe Malyān in Fārs.

The small sculptures produced early in this period are as distinctive in their subjects as the cylinders. They are figures of kneeling votaries of alabaster, carved with a feeling for the sculpture as an object conceived in the round, a trait characteristic of the art of Iran about 3000 B.C. (see Plate X, 3; P. Amiet, Elam, p. 129, fig. 92). This quality is also shared by a leonine creature made of ivory-white luminous magnesite, standing upright in human posture with clasped paws (Plate X, 5; Porada, JAOS 70, 1950, pp. 223-26). The nature of the great beast of prey, which seems immutable and timeless, was used here to express some supernatural power. A bovine creature of silver (D. Hansen, Metropolitan Museum Journal 3, 1970, pp. 5-14) also seen in human pose, seems more like a servant figure. It is not impossible that the animal figures in human poses portrayed in cylinders were copied from models such as the two sculptures just discussed, which may have been made at an earlier date than the cylinders.

The relation of the leonine and the bovine figures, two consummate works of art (which one assumes to have been made at Susa) to works produced at sites, further east is difficult to determine. Animal figures from Tepe Yaḥyā (Propyläen Kunstgeschichte XIII, pl. 68) may be contemporary. Monstrous male figures found in a group of six (of which the one in the Louvre is reproduced here as Plate X, 6) in a place a few kilometers southeast of Shiraz may be later, and may belong to a style which preserved characteristics of protohistoric style long after it had disappeared in Mesopotamia. The monster-men (W. Nagel, Berliner Jahrbuch f. Vor- und Frühgeschichte 8, 1968, pp. 99-136) have scaly bodies with the exception of one, called a bull-man. They have a scar running from the forehead to the corner of the mouth and hold under one arm a round object which has been interpreted as a drum (U. Seidl, Berliner Jahrbuch f. Vor- und Frühgeschichte 6, 1966, p. 202). It is possible, however, that these figures foreshadow protective figurines of a later age, such as those buried in Assyrian times (e.g. M. E. L. Mallowan, Nimrud and its Remains I, London, 1966, pp. 226ff.). The object which the figures hold under one arm may be a serpent, and their repulsive appearance could be thought to ward off equally ugly demons.

Aspects of the art of the third millennium B.C. in Iran. From the second quarter of the third millennium B.C. onward, the art of the Susiana was under the influence of Mesopotamia. In the east of Iran, however, an artistic province, which had relations with Afghanistan on the one hand and the areas of the Gulf on the other, was partially revealed by the tantalizingly limited finds from Tepe Yaḥyā and Šahdād. Tepe Yaḥyā was the source for some of the chlorite carvings, which have attracted the interest of archeologists for many years because of their distinctive iconography: serpents, animals, monsters, occasionally humans, and architectural and decorative patterns (see P. A. Kohl, Expedition 18/1, 1975, pp. 18-31) as well as their wide distribution in Iran, Mesopotamia, Syria, and the Gulf areas. The most extensively figured bowl is one in the British Museum (Plate X, 7; E. Sollberger, Syria 52, 1975, pl. X) said to be from Kafaǰa in the Dīāla area of Iraq, where it was probably brought from somewhere in southeastern Iran. A fine piece with architectural decoration was found at Tepe Yaḥyā in a level later than IV B-1 which yielded the workshop of chlorite objects (C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, “Excavations at Tepe Yahya,” Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research 27, 1970 pls. 19-26). In date, these chlorite objects probably span the second and third quarters of the third millennium B.C. A number of carvings which have very close stylistic relations with objects in the Uruk and Jambat Nasr styles, such as the bowl in the British Museum, may be earlier. Investigations by S. Salvatore and M. Vidale of “a good half of the site of Šahdād” (Rivista di archeologia 6, 1982, pp. 5-10) resulted in an extension of the lower time limit of the Šahdād complex into the fourth millennium B.C.

In addition to chlorite vases with architectural and ornamental decoration the excavations of graves in Šahdād (ʿA. Hakemi, Catologue de l’exposition: Lut Shahdad, Xabis, Tehran, 1973) yielded statues of clay which have retained some of their paint and which are characterized by wide, angular shoulders and long, thin arms (Plate X, 8). The finest object from the graves is a standard, presumably of copper, surmounted by a well-sculptured bird. On the “flag” of the standard is a representation, produced in repoussé and chasing, of an enthroned, long-haired figure surrounded by squatting women. Characteristic of the style are difference in the size of the figures according to their importance, the postures of the women with their legs folded beside or under their bodies, faces with low foreheads, noses jutting out horizontally, very small waist and exaggeratedly long arms. It is interesting that in Yašt 17.22 Zarathuštra is described as well formed “with long arms.” Perhaps a characteristic feature of an ancient southeast Iranian dynasty later came to be considered a trait of beauty in that region.

Instead of influence from Mesopotamia, the works of the artistic province of Šahdād evoke relations with the art of India of a much later period; postures and facial characteristics make one think of Jain paintings of the late sixteenth century A.D. (W. N. Brown, Journal of the Indian Society of Oriental Art 5, June-December, 1937, pp. 2-12).

The characteristics of human figures in the larger works of art of southeast Iran are also found in cylinder seals. The largest and finest cylinder from Šahdād (Figure 26h) was engraved with considerable use of a mechanical drill in a manner reminiscent of the Jamdat Nasr style. For this reason, the cylinder was (Propyläen Kunstgeschichte XIV, p.380, s.v. 283b) previously dated in an earlier period than the one to which it actually belongs, on the basis of its subject matter. Two female figures, presumably goddesses, are represented, one who has ears of grain sprouting from her body and is seated on the ground, the other, who stands upright, has horns of a goat rising from her head. Horned animals with different types of horns and hornless ones are placed in the remaining space, perhaps they represent different species and the difference between calves and mature animals. A plant in the field suggests the vegetal domain of the seated deity.

Influence of the art of Akkade on the later third millennium art of Iran. Two major works of Iran of the last quarter of the third millennium B.C., a silver vase and a copper head, show the influence of the art of the Dynasty of Akkade which at times dominated large areas of Iran.

The silver vase (Plate X, 9) is said to have been discovered near Persepolis (W. Hinz, Altiranische Funde und Forschungen, Berlin, 1969, pp. 11ff.). It shows two female figures, one seated, the other standing as on the cylinder from Šahdād. Moreover the end of the robe of the seated figure projects in a point beside her body, exactly as the robe of the seated grain goddess in the cylinder from Šahdād. Since that site has yielded another cylinder with the same feature, these resemblances should serve to establish unequivocally the authenticity of the vase, which has often been questioned. In view of the close similarity in the postures of the two figures, seated close to the earth, it seems likely that the figure on the silver vase also represents a deity concerned with the plants that grow from the earth. The standing figure would then be the corresponding goddess whose concern may have been animal life, to judge by the horns which she wears on the cylinder. Occasionally the second figure seems to be male, but both in the cylinder from Šahdād and on the silver vase there seem to be two goddesses shown.

A new element in the design of the standing goddess on vase, however, is the noble profile of that figure, which does not conform to any known works of southeast Iranian art. Instead, it resembles the profile of the great copper or bronze head of the Akkadian ruler from Nineveh (E. Strommenger, 5000 Years of the Art of Mesopotamia, Berlin, 1964, pls. XXII, XXIII). The vase thus manifests the existence of an accomplished style of metalworking in which an artist combined an Akkadian facial type with garments and postures of southeast Iran. To the same period and stylistic configuration of a strong Akkadian influence on the court arts of Iran, probably belongs the great copper head of an Elamite in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. I. M. Diakonoff dated that head in the time of the Akkadian ruler from Nineveh (Musée de l’Ermitage, Travaux du départment oriental IV, Leningrad, 1947, pp. 117-18). After four decades in which the head was regarded as belonging to the second millennium B.C., opinion has now swung back to Diakonoff’s Akkade-period date. It is a work of extraordinary power and dignity, sharing with other Elamite works an expression of calmness. Perhaps some of this effect is produced by the contrast between the asymmetrical turban and the symmetry of the bearded face. The moustache, which lies heavily on the closed mouth also adds to the silence, which seems to emanate from this head. Its frequently noted general resemblance to the head of the Akkadian ruler can be supported by the presence of the lines on the forehead, as pointed out by H. Pittman in a lecture (April 29, 1984).

The difference between the goddesses of the silver vase and the probably contemporary statue of the goddess Narundi from Susa (A. Spycket, Syria 45, 1968, pp. 67-73) which also reflects Akkadian influence, concerns posture and costume. Obviously, the statue from Susa is closer to Akkadian prototypes than the figures of the silver vase. Thus the standing figure of the silver vase and the head of an Elamite have a distinctive character of their own, to which the Akkadian elements merely contribute what seems to be an almost individual quality.

It is interesting that artists in Iran were able to produce masterworks at the same time as artists in Mesopotamia although these works are imbued with a completely different character. Especially the standing female figure has the willowy grace of a living person for which there is no parallel among the stiffer and more abstract Akkadian figures known.

Minor arts of the late third and early second millennium B.C. in eastern Iran. Small objects of copper and chlorite constitute distinctive products of eastern Iran. Most characteristic of the copper objects are the circular openwork, copper seals with a loop handle, which were used to stamp pottery as could be shown by examples from Šahdād. Such compartmented seals were found at Tepe Ḥeṣār in Gurgan (E. F. Schmidt, Excavations at Tepe Hissar Damghan, Philadelphia, 1937, fig. 118, H. 2697) at Šahdād in Kermān (ʿA. Ḥākemī, Catalogue … Lut, nos. 305ff., p. 38 pl. XXI-B.; Salvatori, Rivista di archeologia 6, figs. 6, 5 and 6), Bampūr in Balūčestān (B. de Cardi, Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, New York, 1970, fig. 47:15), Damin in Balūčestān and Šahr-e Soḵta in Sīstān (M. Tosi, East and West 24/1-2, March-June, 1974, figs. 20-22), and at the sites in Turkmenistan, where this type of seal appears to have originated (see H. Pittman in Art of the Bronze Age; Southeastern Iran, Western Central Asia, and the Indus Valley, 1984, pp. 52ff.).

To the sites here enumerated should be added single occurrences at sites outside this general area, like one from Susa (P. Amiet, Revue d’assyriologie 68, 1974, fig. 14, pp. 97, 108, 110).

The pottery on which the seals were impressed was dated in the second half of the third millennium B.C. From the rather simple design of these functional seals appear to have developed what may be called display types of much larger size, sometimes made of silver like the example here reproduced (Plate XI, 11; M. H. Pottier, Iranica Antiqua 15, 1980, pp. 167-74). It shows a female figure seated on a lion monster. From her upper arms and shoulders emerge the foreparts of two leaping gazelles. Her hands are clasped and her elbows project outward in the same posture as the goddess on the silver vase and the lion monster of the protohistoric period. The lion monster, the goddess of the vase and the goddess on the monster in the silver seal probably all portray the same great deity who may have been worshiped in the area indicated by the spread of the compartmented seals.

Plate XI. Illustrations to ART IN IRAN i.View full image in a new tab

Small figurines of chlorite or serpentine garbed in voluminous robes (Plate XI, 12; R. Ghirshman, Artibus Asiae 30, 1968, pp. 237-48) can also be associated stylistically with the goddess on the silver vase, though they may be somewhat later to judge by their relation to the representation on a cylinder dated by its inscription to an Ebarat, probably of the nineteenth century B.C. (W.-G. Lambert, Iraq 41, 1979, pl. V:42).

In addition to the figurines, small containers of chlorite or serpentine decorated with center dot circles but also occasionally with designs of animals and monsters constitute another common artifact in the area of east Iran and Bactria (P. Amiet, Iranica Antiqua 15, 1980, pp. 155-66).

Elamite art of the second and first millennia B.C. For many years Elamite art was considered synonymous with the works of art excavated at Susa. The present survey of the art of Iran has shown that the regions east of Susa have produced works of great interest and beauty, while Susa has come to be recognized as the western outpost of the large area which was probably united by the language which we call Elamite. (For the history and archeology of Elam see E. Carter and M. W. Stolper, Elam, Chicago, 1984).

In the second and first millennia B.C. the major works of Elamite art are still those discovered in many seasons of excavation at Susa. Haft Tepe, however, has yielded important information about the architecture and minor arts of the mid-second millennium B.C. (E. O. Negahban, “Haft Tepe Roundels, an Example of Middle Elamite Art,” American Journal of Archaeology 88, 1984, pp. 3-10) and painstaking work on the glyptic art of Malyān-Anshan by H. Pittman will modify our knowledge about Elamite seals in the second millennium B.C.

a) Old Elamite art, ca. 2100-1600 B.C. This period comprises the time of the Third Dynasty of Ur, the Isin-Larsa Dynasties and the First Dynasty of Babylon in Mesopotamia and covers the time of the kings of Simash and of the Sukkalmah at Susa in Ḵūzestān. At Malyān-Anshan, in Fārs, the co-capital of Susa, the period was named Kaftarī by the excavators.

Most of the works of art characteristic of the period found at Susa are small bronze figures and seals, the earlier ones of which can be distinguished from contemporary Mesopotamian cylinders of Ur III to Isin-Larsa by special forms of horned crowns and other details. At Malyān stamp seals were more common than elsewhere. Cylinders of the eighteenth and seventeenth centuries at Susa are characterized by deep cutting and ritual scenes often with landscape elements. The minor works in metal show a distinctively Elamite character in their manneristic execution, for great care is placed on hair and dress, and loops and curls are elaborately stressed (see the fish-goddess in the British Museum and the god in a chariot from Susa, Propyläen Kunstgeschichte XIV, pls. 286 and XXXIV). Two votive hammers from Susa (ibid., pl. 301a, b) one of which is dated by its inscription in the time of king Shulgi of Ur (2093-2046 B.C.) resemble in their shape modern metal hammers for jewelry and were probably intended to represent that type of tool, enlivened by the heads of animals, probably serpents or tortoises, although they have also been called birds’ heads (Amiet, Elam, p. 243). Weapons and vessels are also adorned with animal heads or foreparts. Especially characteristic appear to have been axes with lion heads where the lion seems to vomit the blade, (Propyläen Kunstgeschichte XIV, pl. 301c) a type which continued into the Middle Elamite period.

A stand and vessel of bitumen uses effectively the motif of the bodies of mountain goats as supports for the bowl (Propyläen Kunstgeschichte XIV, pl. 302b). Other such vessels made of bitumen, a material favored at Susa, where it was easily available, are carved in relief on the outside (ibid., pl. 302a), on still others animal or human figures are carved in the round (Amiet, Elam, pp. 278-79). Fine cloisonne goldwork, unique at that time in western Asia, is represented at Susa in the form of a falcon with spread wings (Porada, Ancient Iran, p. 53, pl. 9). The remains of well-built houses from the Old Elamite period at Susa are preserved (H. Gasche, MDAFP 47, 1973, figs. 3-6; M. J. Steve, ibid., 46, 1971, pp. 37 and 60, figs. 3-4). They contained an impressive formal hall as the principal room of the complex.

b) Middle Elamite art, ca. 1600-1150 B.C. Few works of art found at Susa can be assigned to the period of about 1600 to 1200 B.C. The likelihood that during these centuries, especially in the 14th and 13th century B.C., the site now called Haft Tepe replaced Susa as the most important center of Elam was suggested by E. Carter (Elam in the Second Millennium B.C., Dissertation, Chicago Univ., 1971). The possibility that the gap in the artistic development of Susa might be filled by works found at Haft Tepe by the excavator, E. O. Negahban, must therefore be considered. Examples are two probably funerary heads (Figure 26j) which have a more precise, archaic appearance than several of the more freely modeled heads from Susa (Propyläen Kunstgeschichte XIV, pl. 294a, b). A series of cylinder seal impressions from Haft Tepe in the refined and mannered Elamite style derived from the Old Babylonian, shows greater variety than the sealings of the early second millennium B.C. from Susa. Thus, Haft Tepe had good seal cutters in the early second millennium B.C. As far as the incompletely published material permits judgment, good artists also were at work in the middle of the millennium (see Negahban, ibid., pp. 3-10). Earliest in the series are seals of Nuzi style. There was also architecture, cultic and funerary, discovered at Haft Tepe (see Negahban, ibid., III. 2).

The fully developed Elamite style of religious architecture, however, was revealed at Čoḡā Zanbīl (Plate XI, 14). There Ghirshman (Tchoga Zanbil I and II, [MDAFI 39 and 40], Paris, 1966 and 1968) uncovered a ziggurat built by king Untash-Napirisha (ca. 1265-1240 B.C.) An outer covering consisting of a layer of baked brick of two meters in thickness assured the preservation of the ingeniously structured solid brick building. Its center was built as a separate block, chained by beams to the surrounding masonry. The technical proficiency of the builders is also obvious from the abundant use of vaulting. A sanctuary built into the first floor of the ziggurat was interpreted by Ghirshman (Tchoga Zanbil I , p. 34) as the lower temple in contrast to one on top, the existence of which he deduced from colored enameled bricks thought to have come from this upper temple. Such enameled bricks as well as insets and rods of colored glass constituted the decoration in Elamite sanctuaries. A distinctive building at Čoḡā Zanbīl is one called a hypogeum by Ghirshman (Tchoga Zanbil I, pp. 59-74) which contained five subterranean vaults, in some of which had been deposited the cremated remains of what were doubtless exalted persons, though not necessarily kings. The hypogeum contained a large hall in which fifteen square stone tables were aligned, possibly for funerary banquets of offerings. The munificence with which this building and a number of temples had been erected and the vastness of the entire complex manifest the wealth of the Elamite king, which probably corresponded to his political power.

The two best-known works of Elamite are the stele of Untash-Napirisha (Figure 26k, copied from D. Ladiray, Iranica Antiqua 16, 1981, pl. VIII) and the headless bronze statue of his queen Napirasu (Plate XI, 15). She stands with the quiet gesture of crossed hands which also characterizes figurines of female votaries of faience (Propyläen Kunstgeschichte XIV, pl. 288). The impression of calmness and solidity conveyed by the figure is created by her bell-shaped outline and the stressed horizontals in the composition and also by the restrained naturalism of the upper body and the abstract, stereometric form of the lower one. Not only the figure but also the elaborate patterns of her robe were cast. Most striking is the soft undulation of the fringes at the bottom, which suggest flowing water.

Some idea of the appearance of the head of Napirasu may be several funerary heads from Susa which generally show a round face with large eyes and heavy eyebrows, full curved lips and a small chin (ibid., pl. 194a). It is possible, however, that such funerary heads, of which Ghirshman found a fine example laying on the head of the deceased (Amiet, Elam, p. 454, with reference to Ghirshman’s publications), had a more individual character than was the case with a statue like that of Napirasu.

In the stele of Untash-Napirisha (Figure 26k) the ruler appears in the middle field between two female figures, of which only queen Napirasu is identified by an inscription. The exceptional role played by that queen in Elamite art may be explained by the descent of the rulership in Elam through the female line.

In the lower register of the stele are two goddesses, only one of which is fully preserved. She has fish scales on her body and a fishtail from which rise streams of water like undulating serpents. In another register, below the fish goddesses, are moufflon-horned demons grasping a tree. Again, only one demon is preserved, he has the head and upper body of a man and lower body and tail of an animal. These figures illustrate the Elamite practice of personifying elements of nature in creatures which are given relevant animal features but act like humans. Behind such a personification was probably the thought that such beings could be manipulated like humans by gifts and entreaties and, magically, by pictorial means. The main representation of the stele is in the uppermost field where a god is enthroned holding his emblem, a serpent with a feline head. (For a penetrating discussion of this representation, see P. de Miroschedji, Iranica Antiqua 16, 1981, pp. 1-25). The appearance of serpents in divine scepters and diadems (Propyläen Kunstgeschichte XIV, pl. 291) indicates the importance of serpents in the religious thought of ancient Elam. This is also shown in the great bronze altar table from Susa in which gigantic serpent goddesses holding vases are depicted (ibid., pl. 292a). Deities in association with water and serpents are also represented on a rock relief at Kūrangūn (Amiet, Elam, pp. 386-87, figs. 294-95), where a god is enthroned on a serpent and courses of water flow about him and the goddess behind him. The date of the relief of the second millennium B.C. is not universally accepted and Miroschedji dates the main scene in the 17th century B.C. (Iranica Antiqua 16, 1981, p. 8) and my later date for the rows of worshipers is also subject to discussion (J. Börker-Klähn, Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und vergleichbare Felsreliefs, Mainz, 1982, p. 176, cites all previous datings, and remains with middle-Elamite for the principal scene).

A glimpse into the rituals of the Elamite period is provided by the model of a ceremony (Plate XI, 16; Amiet, Elam, pp. 392-93) from the time of king Shilhak Inshushinak (ca. 1160 B.C.). Two nude human figures, probably priests, perform a rite among temple towers, trees, sacrificial vessels, and other objects. A march of warriors in a bronze relief from Susa (Propyläen Kunstgeschichte XIV, pl. 298) is a motif favored in the thirteenth and twelfth centuries B.C. also in the art of the Kassites in Mesopotamia as well as in Iran. The highly stylized figures seem to correspond to the general character of art in the reigns of Kutir-Nahhunte (1155 B.C.) and Shilhak-Inshushinak (1150-1120 B.C.). Examples are the stylized figures in the molded bricks of a temple begun by Kutir-Nahhunte but completed by his successor (Plate XI; 17; Amiet, Elam, p. 397). Another set of molded bricks representing a male and a female figure, according to the inscription, King Kutir Nahhunte and presumably his consort, was reconstructed by P. Amiet (Arts Asiatiques 32, 1976, pp. 13-28),

The motifs on Elamite cylinder seals of the thirteenth to twelfth centuries B.C. have very little connection with those represented in larger works of art. Two groups can be distinguished on the basis of material, technique, and subject matter: elegantly carved cylinders made of glass or stone and the heavily carved cylinders of faience. In the glass cylinders, which show the influence of Kassite glyptic art, deities are often represented within an architectural frame accompanied by trees, birds, or other symbols. Archers also are often depicted (E. Porada, Tchoga Zanbil IV [MDAFI 42], 1970). In the faience cylinders the gods are portrayed relatively less often and the principal subject is a ritual banquet, though rows of animals and other motifs also appear.

c) Neo-Elamite art, ca. 1000-600 B.C. The dates here indicated for neo-Elamite art are not based on securely dated material; rather, they are intended as an approximate span of time into which a number of neo-Elamite works of different date may be fitted. The relief of a lady spinning from Susa (Plate XII, 18; Amiet, Elam, p. 450) somewhat resembles the so-called situlas or drop beakers which P. Calmeyer associated with works of Babylonian style of the tenth and ninth centuries B.C. (He noted the relationship to the small relief from Susa in Reliefbronzen in babylonischem Stil, Munich, 1973, p. 203). The further relation of the works of this style with the relief boundary stone carved for the Babylonian king Nabu-mukin-apli (977-942 B.C.; L. W. King, Babylonian Boundary Stones, 1912, pl. LXXIV) perhaps indicates that these stylistic relations reflect historical ones, though these are only dimly perceived in texts relating to this period: Nabu-mukin-apli’s predecessor was called a descendant of Elam in the Babylonian Dynastic Chronicle (noted by J. A. Brinkman, A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia [Analecta Orientalia 43, 1968], p. 165). Hence in the time of Nabu-mukin-apli Elamite influence in art may have been a heritage from the preceding reign.

Plate XII. Illustrations to ART IN IRAN i.View full image in a new tab

A second important relief from Susa represents king Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak (653-648 B.C.). It is executed in a delicate, linear manner as if the decoration of the garment were chased in metal (Plate XII, 19; for reconstruction of the entire relief see P. Calmeyer, AMI, N. F. 9, 1976, p. 57, Abb. 2). The head piece with what looks like a horn in front may be an exaggerated version of the caps worn by the soldiers in the Middle Elamite bronze relief (Propyläen Kunstgeschichte XIV, pl. 293) and may be the image referred to by the term “horned soldiers” cited by W. Hinz from an account of a campaign by Shilhak-Inshushinak in Babylonia (The Lost World of Elam, New York, 1973, p. 132).

The stiff and linear style of the relief of Atta-hamiti-Inshushinak can be compared to that of a number of neo-Elamite reliefs concentrated near Īza (L. Vanden Berghe, Iranica Antiqua 3, 1963, pp. 22-39). A few of these can be ascribed to one Hanne whose major relief bears a long inscription, identifying this prince and his officials. Others belong to a somewhat different style in which P. Calmeyer has noted the long rows of figures in several registers as a possible prefiguration of a feature of the reliefs of Persepolis (AMI, N.F. 6, 1973, p. 150). The interpretation of these reliefs has been undertaken by E. de Waele, who has also provided an accurate listing of the various inscriptions (Le Muséon 89/3-4, 1976, pp. 441-50).

In contrast to the monotony of several of these reliefs, neo-Elamite cylinder seals are generally lively, delicately and naturalistically modeled (P. Amiet, Arts Asiatiques 26, 1973, pp. 3-32 esp. pp. 22ff. Most frequently they represent hunting scenes in which an archer aims at his prey or gallops after it on his horse. The latter type was still in use by the officials of the Achaemenid kings. In general, the fine modeling of these cylinders appears to have influenced the seal cutters of the Persian court.

The art of Iran beyond Elam in the Iron Age. Information concerning the artistic provinces of Iran beyond Elam in the Iron Age, about 1350 to 550 B.C., preceding the Persian empire, is far more limited than for the prehistoric periods. Only western Iran and the areas from Qazvīn to the southern coast of the Caspian Sea have been extensively explored. In that area, Ḥasanlū in west Azerbaijan has had the longest program of excavation and has produced the most extensive sequence of levels with the largest exposure. As a result, most of the works of art from different periods which can serve as guideposts for other excavations come from Ḥasanlū. Thus Ḥasanlū V, about 1350 to 1100 B.C., corresponds to the period covered by the tombs of Mārlīk. Ḥasanlū IV, about 1100 to 800 B.C., has no more parallels at Mārlīk but provides criteria for dating objects found without proper stratigraphy at Ḵorvīn and as far south as Luristan. Ḥasanlū III B, about 750 to 600 B.C., is the period of Urartian art on Iranian soil in west Azerbaijan and also covers the period of finds assembled as coming from Zīwīya in Kurdistan. With few links to the north but strongly influenced by Elam in the south, bronzework flourished in Luristan from about 1200 to 700 B.C. with most characteristic objects: cheekpieces, finials, wands, etc., produced between about 900 to 700 B.C.

The picture here outlined is incomplete. The material excavated by ʿA. Ḥākemī at Kalūraz was only selectively published in preliminary form (Archaeologia Viva 1, November, 1968, pp. 63-65). Many ancient Iranian works of art in western museums are unprovenanced, though their origin in Gīlān and Māzandarān can often be assumed. In the rest of the country only the long-known site of Sialk (R. Ghirshman, Fouilles de Sialk II, Paris, 1939) provides criteria for chronological and and geographic classification of works of art from other sites.

Iron Age I. Finds from Mārlīk, Ḥasanlū V, and unidentified sites, ca. 1350 1100 B.C. The graves of Mārlīk have produced works of art of different cultural levels from primitive figures of clay to the finest gold vessels (Plate XII, 20, 21; Propyläen Kunstgeschichte XIV, pl. 307) which were probably imported from as yet unknown sources though there was also a local style which can be observed in a variety of gold objects. A male and a female clay figure, each holding a vessel, bring to mind a ritual detail in a Vedic sacrifice in the course of which a male and a female vessel with food were buried. Figures here called demonic because they seem to express visions of a fetus, unborn but nevertheless able to act like an adult human, associated with vessels, are also known from Luristan (C. Goff Meade, Iran 7, 1969, pl. III) and also from Ḥasanlū (R. Ghirshman, The Arts of Ancient Iran, New York, 1964, p. 24). They thus constitute a type of object, which was probably made over several centuries for specific rituals in western Iran. At Mārlīk clay figures with big weapons also have been found in graves possibly having been placed there to defend the dead. The potters who produced such figures surely did not belong to the craftsmen of high rank, not even those who shaped the impressive bovine vessels (Plate XII, 22) many versions of which can now be seen in public and private collections of Europe and the United States, often bigger and not as well proportioned as those of Mārlīk. Likewise the fine pottery (E. O. Negahban, Preliminary Report on Marlik Excavation, Tehran, 1964, fig. 25, 26) was probably made by far simpler workmen than those who produced the gold beakers.

The magnificent gold beaker with bulls standing on either side of a sacred tree (Plate XII, 20) suggests that it and those related to it among the finds of Mārlīk were made by a goldsmith familiar with the stylistic predilections of Elamite, Assyrian, and Babylonian craftsmen. The animals which turn their heads at right angles to the direction of the body into the surrounding space share this feature with the animals of a bronze vase from Susa (Amiet, Elam, pp. 472 73). The short heads of the bulls on the gold beaker and perhaps the form of their horns may also be Elamite. But details like the patterning of the bulls’ bodies have Assyrian and Babylonian parallels (cited by P. Calmeyer, Reliefbronzen, p. 192, nn. 385, 386), as does the elaborate tree design (see the alabaster vase from Assur, Propyläen Kunstgeschichte XIV, pl. 254, and tree designs of the Second Dynasty of Isin on Babylonian boundary stones and cylinder seals cited by Calmeyer, ibid., pp. 194 95, nn. 402 3).

A more distinctively Iranian style is seen in the second beaker with bulls from Mārlīk (Plate XII, 21). The animals are arranged in the picture plane of the vessel in two rows, one above the other, walking in opposite directions. Although these bulls are wingless, they nevertheless create the impression that they are heavenly creatures, stepping only lightly upon the earth, as if they were floating above it. The impression is created by the delicacy of the wing like curls of hair on legs and back and the abstract patterning of the bodies which negate all earthly gravity. To this style belong several gold vessels of unknown provenience such as the gazelle cup in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Propyläen Kunstgeschichte XIV, pl. XXXVII) and the gold cup with serpentine monsters in the Louvre (A. Parrot, Syria 35, 1958, pp. 175 81, pl. XV, and figs. 4, 5). In view of the observable tendency in Iranian art of the late second and early first millennium B.C. toward increasing stylization and patternization of animal bodies, the second bull beaker and the related vessels are here thought to belong to a later style.

Between the styles of the two beakers from Mārlīk, the first of which is tentatively assigned to the thirteenth or the twelfth century B.C. and the second to the eleventh century B.C., may be placed the narrative style of the gold bowl of Ḥasanlū (R. H. Dyson, Jr., Expedition 1, 3, 1959, pp. 12 14; E. Porada, The Art or Ancient Iran, pls. 23 and 24, pp. 98 101). Other vessels of precious metal which show a narrative style related to the gold bowl are one from Mārlīk (Negahban, Preliminary Report on Marlik Excavation, pl. IV) and the second from an unknown site in Iran now in the Louvre (P. Amiet, Syria 42, 1965, pp. 235 51). The gold bowl from Ḥasanlū which has become known in its entirety through the drawing of Maude de Schauensee (Figure 27), shows in the uppermost part of the bowl a sacrifice before the great gods in their chariots; below there is a battle of god and monster and other mythological scenes represented in an extraordinarily lively, linear manner with loving care applied to all the details of the garments of the human figures, the fleece of the animals, the scales of a mountain and serpent monster, and the feathers of the soaring eagle or falcon. Of all the gold vessels which have appeared since the discovery of the Ḥasanlū bowl, it remains the most important work for an insight into the mythology of northwest Iran.

Iron Age II, ca. 1100 800 B.C. For the first time in the history of architecture in Iran outside of Elam, the major buildings of a site, Ḥasanlū in its level IV B (Figure 28, from R. H. Dyson’s plan in O. W. Muscarella, The Catalogue of Ivories from Hasanlu, Iran, University Museum Monograph 40, 1980, p. 3), can be seen to form a coherent complex around a court. The niched facades of the buildings giving onto the court leave no doubt about the fact that this area was planned as the center of an architectural unit. In the major buildings at Ḥasanlū, not all of which are directly connected with the court, a standard architectural plan appears to have been followed. It consisted of an anteroom, a side stairway room, a columned hall, and auxiliary storage rooms. Not only is the columned hall of major importance for the subsequent development of official architecture in Iran, indicating how the need for a large place of assembly in inclement weather could be met by Iranian architects, but columns were also used at the entrances of buildings, to which they gave the grandeur and dignity which such architectural elements impart to the structures in which they are used.

Figure 28. Ḥasanlū Level IV B.View full image in a new tab

In the works of art of level IV B at Ḥasanlū such as the silver beaker (Plate XII, 23; Survey of Persian Art XIV, 1960, pl. 1488), human representations play a larger role than in other regions. This may correspond to a specific tendency, a wish to see humans and gods acting directly instead of suggesting their actions through the symbolic language of animal representations. Works like the beaker give a lively picture of the appearance of the people who inhabited and ruled Ḥasanlū. They were men with large noses, long stringy hair, and equally stringy beards. The lips appear to have been exceptionally thin, or so they are shown although the beard often covers them (R. H. Dyson, Jr., Archaeology 17, 1964, pp. 3 11). The same features can be noted on the gold bowl of Ḥasanlū. Thus the type did not change from the bowl of the late second millennium B.C. to the time of the beaker in the early part of the first millennium. But the large noses and the small, egg-shaped heads are exaggerated, perhaps as a result of simplification. Nevertheless, the representation of humans remains within the limits of credibility. Not so the animals, which constitute a world of forms of its own; by stresses and changes certain parts of the body, like the jaws of the lions are transformed into hooks on the lion pins of Ḥasanlū (Plate XII, 25; Porada, Art of Ancient Iran, pl. 29, p. 115). Furthermore, the sharp division of the single parts of the body such as the legs, created by sharply lining them and by marking them with different patterns, was a means of making the animals appear different from what they are in nature.

In addition to works which are considered to have been made in the local style of Ḥasanlū, there are objects which manifest the influence of other styles. A wall tile and knob of faience, the latter sculptured in the round in the form of a human headed bull (R. H. Dyson, Jr., Survey of Persian Art XIV, 1960, pl. 1484: B.), point directly to Elam. Other works, especially cylinder seals, are either Assyrian imports or artifacts made under strong Assyrian influence. Ivories are largely of local style but there was a group imported from north Syria and another, somewhat smaller one, of ivories in Assyrian style (Muscarella, op. cit., p. 222). Stylistic and iconographic relations between the art of northwest Iran and that of north Mesopotamia and north Syria, which are manifested in the works of Mārlīk and in the gold bowl of Ḥasanlū (M. J. Mellink, Iranica Antiqua 6, 1966, pp. 72 87), were obviously also present in the early first millennium B.C., side by side with some local production and probable imports from other parts of Iran.

The full panorama of works of art of the early first millennium in western Asia was summoned by I. J. Winter to serve as possible source material for the stylistically enigmatic decorated breastplate from Ḥasanlū (A Decorated Breastplate from Ḥasanlu, Iran, University Museum Monograph 39, 1980). By having the stylistic relations with far flung areas pointed out to him, the reader is made aware of the intensity of contacts which Ḥasanlū must have had with the rest of the world of which it was a part.

Iron Age III, ca. 800 600 B.C. The excavations of this period in western Iran from Azerbaijan and Kurdistan to Luristan have yielded mostly fortified sites; numerous Urartian fortresses, Zīwīya, Godīn Tepe, and Bābā Jān. The village and Manor 2 of the last named site, however, were probably built earlier, at the end of the ninth century B.C. in the Iron II period (C. Goff, Iran 8, 1970, p. 155). The striking examples of metal work which constitute the major works of art of this period: gold repousse’ said to come from Zīwīya and most of the cast and hammered bronzes from Luristan, unfortunately lack—with few exceptions—all information about the circumstances of their discovery. Their dates are therefore only gradually being determined, while the context of the objects is forever lost.

Urartian fortresses. A large number of fortresses was discovered by W. Kleiss in northwest Iran, west of Ardabīl. They are usually sited at the rim of a plain, overlooking and protecting its villages and major settlements as well as the course of a river and the road running parallel to it. The most important of these fortresses was the one called today Basṭām, Rusahinili in antiquity, which flourished in the seventh century B.C. It was probably a royal residence comparable in size to two such fortresses, one on Lake Van, the other near it in Turkey. At Basṭām characteristics of Urartian stone architecture are exemplified; these are of importance for the understanding of some of the architectural features in the Achaemenid structures of Persepolis, which differed from the usual Near Eastern tradition in using dressed stone, little employed in the predominantly mud brick architecture of earlier times as at Ḥasanlū and Čoḡā Zanbīl. For example, the rock cut bedding for stone foundations of mud brick walls was noted by W. Kleiss below the fortification wall at Persepolis; this consisted of a socle of dressed ashlar masonry on which rested the mud brick walls of the upper construction (Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 103, 1971, pp. 69 73). Perhaps even the planning of the fortification walls with strong corner towers and salients at regular, carefully planned intervals goes back ultimately to the accomplished Urartian fortification architecture.

The most important structures at Basṭām contained gigantic columnar halls. Those which had only two naves were probably used as magazines whereas those with three naves were doubtless rooms for large assemblies like the smaller ones of Ḥasanlū and the even bigger ones of Persepolis. Temples square in plan with stressed corners and very thick walls were probably rightly considered by D. Stronach to have been prototypes for the two tower temples of Pasargadae and Naqš e Rostam (JNES 26, 1967, pp. 278 88).

Unfortunately, the yield of art works from Basṭām has been limited so far to a drinking vessel in the form of a gazelle head (W. Kleiss, AMI, N.F. 6, 1973, p. 92, fig. 2). The vessel is related to one said to come from Zīwīya (Propyläen Kunstgeschichte XIV, pl. XXXVIII), which may thereby be classified as related to a Urartian example. Another drinking vessel seen by Kleiss in Leylān, northeast of Mīāndoāb (AMI, N.F., 5, 1972, p. 157, fig. 30, pl. 39) may show the distinctive stylization of lion heads used in the Urartian areas of Iran.

In addition there are imprints of fine cylinder seals which show characteristics of Urartian art such as diaper patterns, scroll forms, and a host of composite monsters (to be published by U. Seidl and P. Calmeyer).

The Treasure of Zīwīya. Zīwīya is a small village about 85 km southeast of Ḥasanlū in Kurdistan. Behind the village lies an eminence, once fortified, the walls of which were 7.50 m wide. The paved stairway, 30 meters of which have been excavated, led to the top. The connection between this fortress and the treasure purported to have been washed out of the mountain or, alternatively, to have been found in a hidden spot in mountain, has not been established. The following groups of objects were ascribed to the treasure: ivory plaques and sculptures in the round, repousse’ gold appliqués of relatively large dimensions, silver jewelry for horse gear, and pieces of a bronze trough or sarcophagus (A. Godard, Le trésor de Ziwiye, Haarlem, 1950; C. K. Wilkinson, Iraq 22, 1960, pp. 213 20). The whole lot was handled by dealers, not one piece having been excavated under scientific control. For that reason even the determination “Zīwīya” as the place of origin of certain pieces is subject to doubt (O. W. Muscarella, Journal of Field Archaeology 4/2, 1977, pp. 197 219). The ivories, which appeared first on the market, seem to be older than the objects made of gold; they may therefore come from different finds. An interesting ivory plaque shows two figures apparently concluding a treaty (R. Ghirshman, The Arts of Ancient Iran, p. 102), carved in the local style of Ḥasanlū. This may mean that the style was more widely distributed than our knowledge has so far permitted us to assume. Most of the ivory works associated with this group, however, depend on Assyrian motifs, though often with a patternization which is reminiscent of metalwork (C. K. Wilkinson, Ivories from Ziwiye, Abegg Stiftung, Bern, 1975, cover). The date of these ivories can not be set before Tiglathpileser III (744 27 B.C.) (Wilkinson, ibid., p. 16) and probably falls into the reign of that king, at the latest in that of Sargon II (721 05 B.C.).

Goldwork said to come from Zīwīya is exemplified here by an epaulette (Plate XII, 24; The Pomerance Collection of Ancient Art, Brooklyn Museum, New York, 1966, pp. 46f.; and C. K. Wilkinson, “Assyrian and Persian Art,” Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art 13, 1955, p. 220). The piece can be related to several examples of such goldwork published by Godard. The monsters which appear in the broad border: sphinx, lion griffin, winged bull (with and without horned feather crown), horned lion dragon with scorpion’s tail, are all found in the so called pectoral from Zīwīya (Godard, Trésor, figs. 15 25) and in several other pieces of gold repousse’ said to come from the same site. Incidentally, the same monsters are also found at Persepolis in various contexts, from gate figures to opponents of the royal hero.

The central figure in the Pomerance epaulette is a bird of prey with spread wings and curled up crest. Below his head, perhaps meant to be in the grasp of his beak, is a human head. Facing the big bird is a small defiant lion. Two small animals are clutched in the bird’s talons. The representation was doubtless meant to benefit the wearer for whom the piece was made; perhaps it was a portent of victory. The bird is paralleled in Urartian art (Urartu, Katalog der Ausstellung, Munich, 1976, p. 49, fig. 41). This is a powerful indication for classifying works of this type as Urartian, thereby taking up a suggestion made earlier by H. J. Kantor (JNES 19, 1960, pp. 1 14). The Syrian influence in this Urartian art, strongly stressed by M. N. van Loon (Propyläen Kunstgeschichte XIV, p. 455) is as important an ingredient as the later Scythian. The most pleasing pieces like the bracelet with lions (Plate XII, 25; ibid., pl. 314) owe their shining beauty to the Scythian taste for smooth surfaces. The international art, which manifested itself especially in valuable materials and which could also be seen at Mārlīk and Ḥasanlū probably indicates mobility on the part of the most qualified workers. The great Persian king Darius may have increased to gigantic proportions the number of craftsmen brought from all parts of his empire, but the practice had probably been very old in Iran.

Bābā Jān and the bronzework of Luristan. In the Luristan region of the Zagros mountains, which for many decades had been known only by the bronzes which have been found there, architectural complexes have been excavated in recent years. Bābā Jān near Nūrābād in the heart of Luristan was excavated by Clare Goff. The site had a village and a fortified manor which was protected by nine towers in its earlier stage (Iran 7, 1969, pp. 115 22) and at that time had an assembly area which was probably an open interior court. In the later form two of the towers in the middle of the building were transformed into open porticus installations and the inner court became a columnar hall. Historically, this means that there was a greater sense of security among the inhabitants. Nevertheless, the manor was destroyed about 700 B.C. In the period when the manor was still inhabited by its original owners there was a small fortress on a low hill and beside it a building which housed a painted chamber, an irregularly shaped hall measuring approximately 10.40 ⨉ 12.50 m; this was either a throne room or a temple, in the opinion of the excavator (Iran 8, 1970, p. 147). The tiles which were found on the floor of the hall and which must have fallen from above (ibid., pl. III) have striking patterns (R. C. Henrickson, Iranica Antiqua 18, 1983, pp. 81 96) paralleled by designs on pottery from Tepe Sialk (R. Ghirshman, Fouilles de Sialk II, pls. IX XI). These geometric designs were therefore not isolated inventions of a given area but were widely used and may even have had meanings associated with them. Together with gaily painted red on white pottery showing the kite and cross (Iran 6, 1968, p. 118) genre Luristan, these tiles create a colorful background for the Luristan bronzes. The connection of the bronzes with the settlement at Bābā Jān was provided by the discovery of a pin in the shape of a lion stylized in the abstract, stereometric manner characteristic of Luristan bronzes (Iran 6, 1968, p. 129, fig. 12).

It is surely in such substantial settlements as Bābā Jān that the intricate work on the bronzes must have proceeded as suggested by P. R. S. Moorey, who mentioned even larger, urban sites (Iran 7, 1969, p. 138), although the principal patrons of the bronze workers may well have been tribesmen like those described by C. Goff as living during the summer in settlements “on the summit of the Kakawand Aftabron plateau or along the Badavar and Khangari river valleys.” Such settlements consist of a few mud brick houses, a large number of tents and a cemetery. When the main part of the tribe migrates to warmer pasture of the west only a few families remain behind to caretake (Iran 6, 1968, p. 109).

In the cemeteries of such tribes which lived in these regions in the early first millennium B.C., were found cast and hammered bronzes which have been greatly appreciated by lovers of modern art because of their elegant forms and fascinating combinations of animal and human forms into monsters which seem to emerge from a demonic world of their own. Hence the high monetary value of the bronzes which has resulted in the pillaging of cemeteries and the destruction of the archeological context. Only in recent years has L. Vanden Berghe succeeded in finding undisturbed graves in cemeteries of Luristan (e.g., Archaeology 24, 1971, pp. 263 70; Iranica Antiqua 10, 1973, pp. 1 79; Archaeologia 63, 1973, pp. 24 36 and 108, 1977, pp. 52 63).

The bronzes were classified in P.R.S. Moorey’s standard catalogue (Catalogue of the Ancient Persian Bronzes in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 1971) into categories of tools and weapons, horse harness parts, finials, figurines and other statuettes, pins and personal ornaments. Stylistic and iconographic motifs connect these cast bronzes with repousse’ work, in which disk shaped pins and quiver covers as well as covers for shields were the principal categories. The intense expression of these bronzes affects the viewer, even if their precise interpretation remains closed because there are neither texts nor an unbroken tradition which would provide clues to their meaning. Yet the discovery by L. Vanden Berghe of a finial, lying beside the head of the deceased in a grave at Chinan (Plate XII, 26; Archaeology 24, 1971, p. 265) has revealed the principal purpose of such objects: they were meant to ward off demons as terrifying as the likenesses were themselves. The more monstrous the demon image, the more certainly the actual demon would be able to ward off others of his or her kind. Also, the animals surely had a meaning which transcended that of the animal itself. They were probably acolytes and symbols of deities who shared with these beings the ability to help man and protect him against evil forces. Very precise observation of the representations indicates what qualities of animals seemed especially important, notably, strength and courage. One can feel how these animals were viewed with admiration, with fear, even with hate, but always with respect for the divine life within them.

ART IN IRAN ii. MEDIAN ART AND ARCHITECTURE

Median art and architecture. The Median period is one of the least well defined periods of Iranian Archeology. To speak of Median Art means, first of all, mentioning the huge gaps in our knowledge of Median history. We know that Medes were mentioned in neo Assyrian annals from the year 836 B.C. onwards; as late as in King Esarhaddon’s vassal treaties (672 B.C.) they are represented by petty princes: central kingship had not yet been established, the foundation of which was later ascribed to the legendary judge, Deïokes (Herodotus 1.96ff.). When the Assyrian empire fell in 615 612 B.C., the Medes played a major role (D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of the Chaldaean Kings, London, 1956, pp. 13, 15, 57). The end of their dynasty is shrouded by legends around Cyrus the Great (Isaiah; Herodotus; Xenophon).

Apart from these few facts, most of the history and geography of the Median empire remains obscure. We do not know when the Medes first entered the Iranian plateau, nor from where they came; accordingly, the many theories connecting special wares or cultures with the immigrating Indo Aryans, Medians, or Persians are mere guesswork. Even if we are concerned with archeological material from the right period—i.e., late ninth to early sixth century B.C.—we often do not know whether the place it comes from really was already Median at that time. The boundaries of the two provinces, Media Magna and Media Atropatene, were formed by Alexander the Great and his successors; in the eighth/seventh centuries, however, the greater part of modern Azerbaijan was definitely part of the Urartian empire, or within the sphere of influence of its civilization, as shown by the fortresses of Bastam (Basṭām) or Libliuni (W. Kleiss, Archäologischer Anzeiger, 1979, pp. 145ff.; idem and St. Kroll, AMI 12, 1979, pp. 183ff.) and the reliefs at Doğubayazit (D. Huff, Istambuler Mitteilungen 18, 1968, pp. 58ff.) or Evoğlu (in Bastam I = Teheraner Forschungen, ed. W. Kleiss, Berlin, 1979, pp. 186f., table 44.1). Another culturally independent province was that of ancient Mannai, represented by Ḥasanlū III with its Urartian type city wall and the (unpublished) cemetery of Ziwiyeh (Zīwīya) with its seals and impressions in Assyrian and Urartian style. Outside of Media proper, on its southern border, there is the sanctuary of Surkh i Dum (Sorḵ e Dom) in southern Luristan (Lorestān) with its peculiar style of seal engravings and its bronze reliefs that show Elamite influence (O. Muscarella and E. Williams Forte, Journal of Field Archaeology 8, 1981, pp. 327ff.; the greater part is not published).

It is between these three lands that we have to look for truly Median material: near to the old route “to Khorassan”, used for the East West trade during the Iron Age as well (L. Levine in Le plateau iranien et l'Asie centrale des origines aà la conquête islamique = Colloques internat. du CNRS no. 567, Paris, 1976, pp. 17ff.), between modern Kermānšāh and Hamadān, the capital of ancient Media Magna; probably a large part of the central Iranian plateau north of there also belonged to Media from the beginning or became Median in the course of Median history. This would include the material from the excavations at Godīn Tepe in the Kangāvar valley, Nūš e Jān near Malāyer, and perhaps Sialk near Kāšān and Bābā Jān in northern Luristan.

These excavations and some adjoining surveys give us some general features of the architecture and the ceramics of the area. The columned halls of Godīn, Bābā Jān, and Nūš e Jān form an important link between pre Median (Ḥasanlū IV) and proto Achaemenid (Pasargadae) forms; the temple and fortress at Pasargadae are unique but may also be called typically Zagros architecture of the Iron III phase, as attested to on the reliefs of Sargon II. (For a more detailed evaluation see under ARCHEOLOGY ii. Median and Achaemenid, with Figures 6 and 7.)

The pottery shows more diversification. The vessel types, partly derived from the earlier Iron Age phases, can be compared from one region to the other; the wares, however, differ widely and ornaments, incised, painted, or absent, do not fit into one homogeneous culture. L. Levine has drawn our attention to the fact that the “festoon” ware at Pasargadae (D. Stronach, Pasargadae, Oxford, 1978, p. 183) is associated with post Achaemenid coins: there seems to be no candidate for a pre Achaemenid or even early Achaemenid common type of pottery. The often quoted gray pottery is too early, and found too far north, to be characteristically or exclusively Median. The painted wares of Sialk B (date: R. Boehmer, Archäologischer Anzeiger, 1965, pp. 802ff.) and Bābā Jān, stylistically not much related to each other, are perhaps local products of population groups under Median domination or government.

Pictorial art, however, has so far been excavated in surprisingly small quantities and rather disappointing quality. The two probably most important objects, shown in the late 1920s to E. Herzfeld at Hamadān, have not yet been properly excavated. One is a firman in favor of an Assyrian merchant, in the name of a king of Abbadana, a petty kingdom known to have been situated west of the Assyrian outposts; it shows the king himself, as if speaking the text, in a dress similar to Babylonian dresses from the Late Kassite period (Figure 29). Human figures in a related style can be found on a group of Assyrianizing bronze quivers in private collections (Calmeyer, AMI 17, 1984, pl. 11). The only other inscribed object is a cylinder seal, now vanished, with a hero fighting a monster (Figure 30); the style of both the scene and the inscription is related to the latest Elamite style at Susa, but the hero’s headdress is the one typical of the Medes on Achaemenid palace reliefs. From Nūš e Jān comes an impression of a cylinder seal in crude, perhaps provincial style with the typical neo Assyrian motif of an archer and a huge snake (Figure 31), and the bronze head of the well known Assyrian demon Pazuzu (Curtis, op. cit., pp. 33f., pl. XIII no. 296). Reportedly from the ruins as well as from the vicinity of Hamadān came, in 1980, cylinder seals in different Mesopotamian styles, amongst them some of 8th 7th century workmanship. All this shows heavy influence of the civilizations, but no trace of a genuine Median art.

Figure 29. Bronze plaque with an inscription of a king of Abbadana, seen by E. Herzfeld at Hamadān before 1930; now in The Metropolitan Museum, New York.View full image in a new tab

Figure 30. Cylinder seal with owner's inscription, seen by E. Herzfeld at Hammadān before 1930.View full image in a new tab

Figure 31. Cylinder seal impression from Nūš-e jān in provincial neo-Assyrian style.View full image in a new tab

Local workmanship is seen at least in the bronze jug, fragments of which were found in 1914 by a French mission on the very top of Mound Hamadān (the traces of the dig could be located by the present excavator M. Sarraf); it was reconstructed (Figure 32), but the most important part has been preserved in the Louvre: the en face figure of a rather crude winged demon or angel (Calmeyer, op. cit., 1974, Abb. pp. 3ff; ibid., p. 120 n. 27: the spout does not belong to the same vessel; cf. Muscarella, op. cit., p. 31, figs. 7f.). Similar bronze jugs, with the same knobs around the spout, have been excavated in an area that could correspond to Media or part of it (Figure 33); some others, from art market, bear related winged figures. One piece from Samos sets the date of the group to around 700 B.C.

Figure 32. Reconstruction of a bronze jug from Hamadān by L. Le Breton.View full image in a new tab

Figure 33. Distribution map of spouted bronze jugs with knob decoration.View full image in a new tab

Architectural painting, attested both at Bābā Jān and Nūš e Jān, can be compared with the not very sophisticated geometric style of the painted Sialk B. ware. In spite of Herodotus’ description of the rich Medians, especially of their capital Ecbatana, so far the search for a court style has not led to convincing attributions. Sometimes, it seems, the search even led to the production of falsifications. In the case of the rock tombs, H. v. Gall has argued convincingly that they are much later than was assumed by E. Herzfeld, who attributed them to the independent Median princes.

Of the other approaches to Median art, only one should be mentioned: R. D. Barnett has argued, that the so called Scythian style, more precisely the earliest phase of this style, appears roughly at the same time in southern Russia (Kelermes; Melgunov), in northern Urartu (Karmir Blūr), and in the “Treasure” of Zīwīya. Consequently, it would be reasonable to assume that it also was part of the contemporary (late 8th 7th cent. B.C.) Median art; especially since exactly the same forms occur on (ethnically) Median objects, daggers, and pickaxes in the Achaemenid period. So far, however, this theory has been neither proved nor disproved.

It seems that Median pictorial art was heavily influenced by Babylonians and Assyrians, Elamite seal cutters (and scribes), and finally perhaps by the earliest Near Eastern phase of “animal style,” wherever its origins may have been.

See also MEDIA.

ART IN IRAN iii. ACHAEMENID ART AND ARCHITECTURE

The time of Cyrus the Great.

The genealogy of the Achaemenid family which has been accepted by most scholars follows Cyrus’ cylinder inscription from Babylon, combined with Darius’ rock inscription from Bīsotūn; a “Kuraš, king of Parsumaš,” mentioned by Assurbanipal, was added to this picture by E. F. Weidner (Archiv für Orientforschung 7, 1931 32, pp. 2, pp. 1ff.; see also ACHAEMENID DYNASTY). Cyrus the Great, the founder of the Persian empire, would in this reconstruction be the great great grandson of Achaimenes, the second of his name. There are, however, at least, two more possible reconstructions: H. Winckler in 1889 (Untersuchungen zur altorientalischen Geschichte, Leipzig, 1928) pointed out that Cyrus himself does not mention Achaimenes. He has been followed by G. Cameron, P. de Miroschedji (forthcoming) and, most detailed, J. Wiesehöfer, who conclude that Cyrus was not an Achaemenid at all; Darius only pretended to be his relative and consequently must have falsified all the inscriptions at Pasargadae where Cyrus is proclaimed “descendant of Achaimenes” (Kent, Old Persian, p. 116). The third possibility is offered by the long genealogy given by Herodotus (7.11.2); here Cyrus again appears as an Achaemenid, the third of his name; thus all the inscriptions contain correct, albeit shortened genealogies (H. H. Schaeder, OLZ 41, 1938, pp. 105 ff., followed by W. Eilers, P. Calmeyer, W. Nagel). Fortunately, the date of only a few of the buildings and reliefs of the period is involved in this discussion.

No work of architecture or art can be attributed with certainty to an Achaemenid earlier than Cyrus the Great. Only a cylinder seal, now lost, but several times used on later bullae at Persepolis, can possibly have belonged to an older member of the family: it bears the inscription “Kuruš, the Anzanite son of Teïspes,” and a combat scene in the style of the latest Elamite or proto Achaemenid seals (see above); the owner may have been Cyrus’ grandfather as crown prince, or an unknown prince of the same family, as ancient Mesopotamian civilization seals were often reused long after their owner’s death (even royal ones, e.g., that of Ibi Sin of Ur in an Old Assyrian colony).

With the monuments of Pasargadae we are for the first time within the realm of history. On the basis of written sources E. Herzfeld was able to identify the site of Mašhad e Morḡāb with Pasargadae (Pasargadae, Inaugural Dissertation, Berlin, 1907, pp. 7ff.); from other Greek sources we know that it was founded by Cyrus the Great to commemorate his victory over Astyages at that place, and bilingual and trilingual, inscriptions point to Cyrus as the owner and builder of the three palaces (Figure 34). The significance of the inscriptions would be the same, even if they were actually written in the time of Darius I. Moreover, the building technique of all the main constructions at Pasargadae is definitely pre Persepolitan, as shown by C. Nylander and D. Stronach; the strong Ionian influence makes a date after the capture of the Lydian kingdom plausible. This is also the case with the buildings without inscriptions: the fortress “Taḵt e Mādar e Solaymān” which apparently was left unfinished for a long time after Cyrus; the two plinths in the “Sacred Precinct” west of the palaces, but in the center of the fortified city area (Stronach, Pasargadae, pp. 138 ff.; cf. fig. 3) probably once crowned by fire “altars” (more correctly: hearths, i.e., Greek eskhárai); and the tomb, which until a few years ago was venerated as that of Solomon’s mother and formerly used as a mosque (W. Kleiss, AMI 12, 1979, pp. 281ff., pl. 44); G. F. Grotefend’s identification of it with the Greek descriptions of Cyrus’s tomb has at times been questioned (A. Demandt, Archäologischer Anzeiger, 1968, pp. 520f.), but has now been convincingly defended by D. Stronach (op. cit., pp. 24ff.), who was the first to notice a raised disc in the center of the gable in the form of two concentric rosettes. This symbol was first noticed in the seventeenth century by J. A. Mandelslo (A. Sh. Shahbazi apud P. Calmeyer, ZA 70, 1980, pp. 299 n. 12) and has been explained as the sun disc, several times connected with the name of Cyrus, and as a further Ionian element (H. von Gall, AMI 12, 1979, pp. 271ff., pls. 39ff.).

Figure 34. Pasargadae: Garden with (from down left to upper right) Gateways, "Reception Hall," Pavilion, and Throne Building. Reconstruction by Fr. Krefter.View full image in a new tab

The “Zendān e Solaymān,” a tower shaped, enigmatic structure, forms an exact counterpart of the “Kaʿba ye Zardošt” at Naqš e Rostam, with elements inherited both from Urartian (D. Stronach, JNES 26, 1967, pp. 278ff.) and Ionian art (A. Demandt, op. cit.; C. Nylander, Ionians in Pasargadae, Uppsala, 1970, pp. 139ff.). A small fragment of an inscription found there has so far been of little use; it may contain the word Ku u ša, in which case it must be later than the capture of Ethiopia by Darius.

In the area of the palaces (Figure 34) D. Stronach excavated several watercourses, a bridge, and two pavilions; the three main buildings, baptized P (“Pfeiler”), S (“Saule”) and R (“Relief”) by E. Herzfeld, are much better understood now: the most important find was that of the stone substructure of a throne in the southern portico of P, which we may now, confidently, call the residential palace; furthermore, the throne gives a raison d'être for its ground plan, the huge portico, and the non symmetrical doorways (P. Calmeyer, ZA 70, 1980, pp. 300ff.). The reliefs, a king and an attendant standing on either side of each door, are iconographically and stylistically counterparts of those in the Persepolis tačara. According to many scholars the inscriptions “by Cyrus” on those reliefs are actually later than Cyrus, so the reliefs must be dated on the basis of their own features (Farkas, Achaemenid Sculpture; Stronach, Pasargadae, pp. 93ff.; E. Porada in Highlights of Persian Art, ed. R. Ettinghausen and E. Yarshater, Boulder, 1979, pp. 69ff.; and others). Only W. Nagel (MDOG 111, 1979, pp. 82ff.) explains the style by assuming two sculptor’s schools, one at Bīsotūn and another, working first at Pasargadae, much ahead of its time, and then at Persepolis. It is beyond doubt, however, that the inscriptions correctly identify the owner of this palace as Cyrus, to be venerated on occasion of the royal investiture (Plutarch, Artoxerxes 3.1) by all his successors.

The southernmost “palace” R, with the famous winged genius (Figure 35), can be compared with the monumental gates at Persepolis and Susa (Stronach, op. cit., pp. 44ff.). That is also the case with the reliefs in the main doorways: winged bulls in the southeast—facing the outer world—and probably bulls with human faces facing the palaces (Herzfeld’s drawings: P. Calmeyer, AMI 14, 1981, pp. 27ff.). The only extant relief, the four winged genius, combines Elamite garments and a Syrian/Egyptian crown (R. D. Barnett, Mélanges de l'Université Saint Joseph 45, Beirut, 1969, pp. 416ff.); it faces inwards (Stronach, op. cit., p. 48 n. 34), and must, together with its counterparts in the other side doors, have protected the king or his statue within the building.

Figure 35. Pasargadae: Winged genius in the side door of the Gateway Building.View full image in a new tab

Palace S is the most difficult building to understand. There is no trace of a podium of a throne, and it is hard to imagine one in the midst of a hall open to all sides. On the other hand, the sculptures suggest a highly representational function: The main door, leading to the northeastern main facade, again in the form of a wide portico, was guarded by human figures and the side doors by mythical creatures, facing outwards as usual; the back door shows feet of bulls and men, as if going from the main hall into the southwestern (smaller) porch. The columns were crowned by protomai of lion dragons and perhaps horses (P. Calmeyer, AMI 14, 1981, pp. 31ff. The originals were believed to be lost but some have now been found in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem, and will be published by R. Merhav). All these sculptures are definitely pre Persepolitan in style and Babylonian/Assyrian in iconography (Farkas, op. cit., pp. 10ff.). In this building, on the way between gate and throne portico, gifts to the king may have been solemnly deposited.

The architecture and the sculpture of this period have been shown to be highly eclectic: The use of different kinds of stone, the false windows, and the quadrangular tower came from Urartu; the multicolumn halls from Urartu via Media; the porticos attached to these halls in many variations (perhaps better called “stoai”), the bases and shafts of the columns from Greece; and the form of the “altars” from Media. Oriental types are perhaps seen in the monumental gates (without stoai) and tents. In iconography Elamite, Syrian, and Babylonian/Assyrian prototypes have been cited; workmanship and style of the reliefs are (with the exception of those of palace P) more Neo Babylonian than anything else.

Aside from Pasargadae it is only at Borazjān, 50 km from Bandar e Būšehr (Bushire), that relics of a palace or pavilion in Cyrus’ style have been found (A. A. Sarfarāz, Bastan Chenassi va Honar e Iran 7/8, 1971 , pp. 22 ff.). From the “cylinder inscription” (11.33 34) we know that Cyrus “brought back the gods … to their places and made them enter their eternal abodes,” i.e., among other places, to Susa and the land Gutium. Of this building activity nothing has been found yet.

ART IN IRAN iv. PARTHIAN Art

The monuments generally included in discussions of Parthian art come from the periphery of the Parthian world—Syria, Mesopotamia, the edges of the Iranian plateau—for the art of the Parthian capitals at Hecatompylos (Šahr e Qūmes), Hamadān, and Ctesiphon is almost totally lost. What survives are those works produced for vassals, independent noblemen, dwellers in cities under loose Parthian control, or in some cases, as with Palmyra and Commagene, in areas that lay totally outside Parthian political control. Nonetheless, for the period from the 3rd century B.C. to about the middle of the 3rd century A.D., the region extending from the Syrian desert through Iran and into Central Asia forms an artistic unit with certain definable characteristics: frontality, rigidity, great interest in representing details, especially the elaborately decorated “Parthian dress” and jewelry worn throughout the region, and conceptually, an intellectual rather than a visual approach to the depiction of figures and costumes (H. Seyrig, Syria 20, 1939, p. 180; see also M. I. Rostovtzeff’s classic article, “Dura and the Problem of Parthian Art,” Yale Classical Studies 5, 1935, pp. 155 304). As is to be expected across such a vast region, both the forms of art and their functions differ from site to site; in many cases, these differences can be explained by the influence of earlier local traditions. In general, Parthian art is characterized by eclecticism, a willingness to borrow style and motifs from Greek and earlier Near Eastern cultures and to recombine them to create new forms. In order to appreciate both the underlying unity and the regional variations, it is necessary to survey the art of areas under Parthian political control site by site. This essay will not discuss Palmyra, which was never under Parthian political control, Dura Europos, which, although ruled by the Parthians for over 200 years, was a remote outpost, or the kingdom of Commagene, which remained independent until it became a Roman province; material from these western sites will be used only for comparative purposes.

The Seleucid period is poorly represented in Iran and Central Asia. The most important site, the Greek colony of Āy Ḵānom (Aï Khanum) in Bactriana (modern Afghanistan) was destroyed about the middle of the second century B.C. The art of the earliest Parthian capital, Nisa, which is located in Soviet Central Asia, is strongly Hellenizing. Two small marble statues may indeed be Greek imports. One represents a draped goddess; the other, an Aphrodite Anadyomene type, is identified by the excavators, probably incorrectly, as Rhodogyne, a daughter of Mithradates (M. E. Masson and G. A. Pugachenkova, “Mramornye statui parfyanskogo vremeni iz Staroĭ Nisy (Predvarit. publikatsiya),” [Marble statues of the Parthian period from Old Nisa], Ezhegodnik Instituta Istorii Iskusstv Akademii Nauk 7, 1956, pp. 465 83; G. A. Koshelenko, Kul'tura Parfii, Moscow, 1966, pp. 36 38; R. Ghirshman, Persian Art, 249 B.C. A.D. 651, New York, 1962, p. 29, fig. 38). The “Square Hall” was apparently the center of a dynastic cult. The clay statues which stood in the gallery on the second level probably represent ancestors of the Arsacids. Some figures wore Greek, others Parthian dress (M. E. Masson and G. A. Pugachenkova, Iuzhno Turkmenistanskaya Arkheologicheskaya Kompleksnaya Ekspeditsiya, Trudy, IV, Moscow, 1958, pp. 355 62; D. Schlumberger, L'Orient hellénisé, Paris, 1970, pp. 35f., fig. 11; Colledge, Parthian Art, p. 75, fig. 13). The technique of sculpture in clay or stucco over a wooden core appears to have been particular to Bactriana, as shown by its use for statues of the Greek period from the “temple à redans” at Āy Ḵānom in Afghanistan (P. Bernard, Comptes rendus de l'Académie des inscriptions et belles lettres, 1969, p. 244, figs. 19 20) similar sculptures in high relief, also probably representing heroized ancestors, are known from the Kushan complex at Khalchayan, also in Central Asia (G. A. Pugachenkova, “La sculpture de Khaltchayan,” Iranica Antiqua 5, 1965, pp. 116 27; idem, Skul'ptura Khalchayana, Moscow, 1971), and the technique survives in the Buddhist sculptures of Hadda. The ivory rhytons found in the treasury show more clearly a mixture of elements derived from different cultures. The small figured friezes that decorate the open ends represent Greek scenes, in a roughly Greek style, largely Dionysiac, and must have been based on Hellenistic models. Some of the fantastic animals carved on the small ends are related to Achaemenid forms (e.g., a horned lion), others to Greek ones (e.g., a centaur) (Masson and Pugachenkova, Ekspeditsiya; Ghirshman, Persian Art, pp. 29f., fig. 4; Schlumberger, L’Orient hellénisé, pp. 36, 170, 173; Colledge, Parthian Art, Ithaca, 1977, pp. 115f., fig. 43). The Nisa objects probably date to the 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C.

It is particularly difficult to discuss the art of Iran during the period of Greek and Parthian rule, since so little can be accurately dated, and the cultural context is often unclear. Greek iconography was introduced into Iran in the Seleucid period; the stone lion of Hamadān has been convincingly compared to the lions of Charonea and Amphipolis and tentatively interpreted as a cenotaph for Hephaistion (H. Luschey, “Der Löwe von Ekbatana,” AMI, N.S. 1, 1968, pp. 115 22, pls. 45 50).

Rock reliefs were a traditional form of royal expression in Iran and continued during the Seleucid and Parthian periods. On a relief at Bīsotūn (Behistun) dedicated to Herakles Kallinikos by a Seleucid satrap in 148 B.C., the reclining hero is placed above a lion from a much earlier relief, which is made to function like a lion skin. Herakles holds a cup, and his club and bowcase are carved on the background (W. Kleiss, “Zur Topographie des "Partherhanges" in Bisotun,” AMI, N.S. 3, 1970, pp. 145 47, fig. 11, pl. 66). Also at Bīsotūn are two very badly damaged Parthian reliefs, one probably commemorating Mithradates II (ca. 110 B.C.), the other Gotarzes (ca. A.C. 50) (E. Herzfeld, Am Tor von Asien, Berlin, 1920, pp. 36ff.; Colledge, Parthian Art, p. 91, pl. 16; Ghirshman, Persian Art, p. 53, fig. 65). While these reliefs are carved against the face of the cliff, another group of reliefs, dated to the 2nd century A.D. on the basis of comparisons with Hatra, are cut on an isolated boulder. On the south face is a dignitary offering an incense sacrifice, while on each flanking face is a worshiper or an officer; all wear an unadorned form of Parthian dress (Kleiss, “Zur Topographie,” pp. 147 49, fig. 13; Ghirshman, Persian Art, 1962, p. 53, fig. 66; Colledge, Parthian Art, p. 91, pl. 16).

A relief carved on a boulder at Ḵong e Nowrūzī in Ḵūzestān seems to provide new material for the discussion of the vexed question of the origins of “Parthian frontality.” The relief shows a rider, whose head resembles that of Mithradates I (ca. 171 138 B.C.), followed by a page and advancing toward a group of four nobles. The rider and the page are in profile and apparently wear Greek dress. The nobles, clad in a simple form of Parthian dress—trousers and an undecorated tunic, the hem of which falls in three points—stand frontally. The rider and the page wear their hair relatively short, in the Greek fashion, but the nobles have a Parthian tripartite hairdo. The man closest to the rider is distinguished by his greater size, his sword, and the fact that an eagle flies toward him. The rendering also follows two different conventions: the frontal figures are carved in a more linear fashion than are the rider and his page (L. Vanden Berghe, “Le relief parthe de Ḫung i Naurūzī,” Iranica Antiqua 3, 1963, pp. 158 68, pls. LII LVI; Schlumberger, L’Orient hellénisé, pp. 40f., 176, S.I. 6). This frontality and linearity also characterize the later reliefs of Artabanus V from Susa, dated to A.D. 215 (Ghirshman, Persian Art, pp. 56f., fig. 70), as well as the rock reliefs of Tang e Sarvak (see below), Tang e Botān (A. D. H. Bivar, “The Inscriptions at Shimbar,” BSOAS 27, 1964, pp. 265 90), and Bīd Zard (Vanden Berghe, “Le relief parthe,” p. 167, pl. LVI.2), all in Elymais, and the figures on the isolated boulder at Bīsotūn. The contradictions in style and composition make the dating of the relief from Ḵong e Nowrūzī difficult; it is possible that the figures of the rider and the page were deliberately archaized for some now unknown historical reason. The scenes carved on one of a group of isolated boulders in Tang e Sarvak (Ḵūzestān) provide a good illustration of the range of subject matter considered suitable for rock reliefs in the Parthian period. On the north face the investiture of a king identified in the inscription as Orodes is shown. He reclines on an eagle footed couch, holding a wreath in one hand. He wears a tunic, trousers, and a helmet. Behind him stands a god, perhaps Bel, who also wears a helmet; the two standing figures at the left side of the relief are perhaps Athena Anahita and Mithras. The male figures all wear their hair in two bunches over the ears, a characteristic Parthian hairdo. Below the investiture scene is a panel containing three standing figures. To the right of the investiture, and on a corner of the boulder, is carved an altar on which stands a huge baetyl tied with a fillet. This baetyl is being worshiped by a huge figure on the adjacent face of the rock. This face is divided into two major registers. At the ends of the upper register are two seated figures, perhaps a king and queen, between whom are carved standing figures. The lower register contains four figures standing with upraised right arms, probably a gesture of homage to the seated figures above them; to the right of this group is a hunter on horseback. Below this register an isolated panel contains a scene of a man strangling a lion. These scenes, then, include investiture, worship, homage to royalty or nobility, and animal combats illustrating the prowess of a ruler or nobleman. The similarity of style to the stele of Artabanus V from Susa suggests a date in the later 2nd or early 3rd centuries A.D. (N. C. Debevoise, “Rock Reliefs of Ancient Iran,” JNES 1, 1942, pp. 97 101, pl. IIb; W. B. Henning, “The Monuments and Inscriptions of Tang i Sarvak,” Asia Major 2, 1952, pp. 151 71, pls. i xx; H. Seyrig, “Sur un basrelief de Tang i Sarvak,” Syria 47, 1970, pp. 113 16, pl. IX.3).

A number of votive images of worshipers, both in relief and in the round, apparently decorated the terraces of the sanctuary at Bard e Nešānda and, to a lesser extent, that of Masjed e Solaymān, located in the southern part of Elymais. The images at Bard e Nešānda represent for the most part worshipers clad in a rather unadorned form of Parthian dress and standing either with the right hand raised in worship or offering sacrifice at an altar. The most complex relief, which is incomplete, contains five figures. The principal figure, probably identified as a king or noble by his elaborate Parthian dress and high tiara, offers sacrifice. Behind him stand two figures in decorated Parthian dress, while another figure in simpler garments salutes him across the altar. The fifth figure is probably an attendant. All of the figures from Bard e Nešānda are rigidly frontal.

On the basis of comparisons with Hatra and Dura Europos, Ghirshman suggests that the sculptures date to the 2nd century A.D. at the latest and that some might belong in the 1st century (“Bard e Néchandeh,” Syria 41, 1964, pp. 315 21, figs. 14 16, pl. XX; Syria 42, 1965, pp. 300 10, figs. 9 15, pls. XX, XXI; Terrasses sacrées de Bard è Néchandeh et Masjid i Solaiman [MDAI 45], Paris, 1976, I, pp. 2l 23, fig. 11 and pl. XIII; for other sculpture from the site see pp. 30 38). The workmanship is simpler than at Hatra, presumably because the sites were located far from the centers of the Parthian court. Vestiges of Greco Roman influence, in motif if not in style, are present in the high relief sculpture of Herakles and the Nemean lion from Masjed e Solaymān (Ghirshman, “Masjid Solaiman ou Mosquée de Salomon,” CRAI, 1968, pp. 11 15, fig. 3; Terrasses Sacrées, pp. 119 22, pl. LXXXI, 5; 23, 24, GMIS 30; for other sculpture from the site, see pp. 122 30). The popularity of Herakles throughout the Parthian world is notable. The relief of Herakles from Bīsotūn shows that he was introduced into Iran during the period of Seleucid control. In addition to Masjed e Solaymān, Herakles is attested during the Parthian period at Tang e Botān in the Šīmbār valley (Elymais) (Bivar, “Inscriptions,” pp. 265 90; Colledge, Parthian Art, p. 92, pl. 18), and the figure strangling a lion from Tang e Sarvak is probably based on Herakles as well. He is one of the few deities of Greek origin to be popular at Hatra, Dura Europos, and (to a lesser extent) Palmyra (S. B. Downey, The Excavations at Dura Europos, Final Report III, part 1, fasc. 1: The Hercules Sculpture, New Haven, 1969). In Iran, he may have been associated with VərəΘraγna, in Mesopotamia, perhaps with the old Mesopotamian “nude hero.”

Sculpture of the Seleucid and Parthian periods in Iran is also represented by chance finds from a number of sites, including Susa, the Mālamīr mountains, Nehāvand (Ghirshman, Persian Art, pp. 18f., figs. 23, 24), and Dīnāvar (ibid., p. 18, figs. 21, 22). A female head from Susa, signed by Antiochus, son of Dryas (Ghirshman, Persian Art, p. 96; Colledge, Parthian Art, pp. 83f., pl. 9c), demonstrates the presence of Greek art, perhaps even of Greek artists. The head, frequently identified as a portrait of Musa, the consort of Phraataces (ca. 2 B.C. 4 A.D.), is more likely a Tyche, since she wears a mural crown. Its stepped battlements resemble those of Achaemenid and Parthian architecture (H. Frankfort, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, Baltimore, 1969, pls. 181, 183; Ghirshman, Persian Art, fig. 42) and suggests that in spite of its superficially Hellenistic appearance, the head was carved in Iran. Another sculpture of Hellenistic style, representing a goddess or a woman clad in a distinctively Greek garment, was found in the Baḵtīārī mountains (Ghirshman, Persian Art, p. 22, fig. 28).

The most important group of sculpture in the round from Iran, including works in both Greek and Parthian styles, was found in an open air complex, perhaps a dynastic sanctuary, at Šāmī in Ḵūzestān. The date of both the complex and the sculpture is uncertain (K. Schippmann, Die iranischen Feuerheiligtümer, Berlin and New York, 1971, pp. 277ff.). Ghirshman has argued, on the basis of the possible identification of a bronze head as a portrait of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175 164 B.C.), that the complex is one of his sanctuaries destroyed by Mithradates I (Persian Art, pp. 19 21, fig. 26). The bronze statue of a noble, probably a local dynast, is hard to date far lack of securely dated comparative material from Iran. Ghirshman places it in the 2nd century B.C. (Persian Art, pp. 87 89, fig. 99), Godard in the 1st century A.D. (“Les statues parthes de Shami,” Athār é Irān 2, 1937, pp. 285 305). The figure wears a rather peculiar form of Parthian dress; a tunic crossing on the chest, and chaps worn over a sort of undergarment. This form of tunic is known also at Hatra (e.g., Ghirshman, Persian Art, p. 86, fig. 98), and chaps worn over trousers appear also on an unusual figure from Hatra (F. Safar and M. A. Mustapha, Hatra: The City of Sun God, Baghdad, 1974, p. 78, fig. 24) and on two figures from Qaṣr al Abyaż at Palmyra (H. Seyrig, “La grande statue parthe de Shami et la sculpture palmyrénienne,” Syria 20, 1939, pp. 180f., pl. XXX). The head is too small for the body and was cast separately, perhaps at Susa, the nearest city. As Seyrig notes, the general stylistic features of the statue—its stiff frontality, the conventional rendition of the folds of the tunic and trousers, the generalized facial features—link it to the art of Palmyra, far to the west (Seyrig, “La grande statue parthe,” pp. 177 81). A stone figure of lesser quality shows a nobleman in a tunic with his right hand raised, presumably in a gesture of worship or respect; his features are also treated in a generalized, non portrait like manner (Ghirshman, Persian Art, p. 27, fig. 36). A female head in Greek style, perhaps representing Aphrodite, was also found in the complex (ibid., p. 19, fig. 25).

The so called Frātadāra temple at Persepolis probably dates to the 3rd century B.C. (Schippman, Feuerheiligtümer, pp. 177 85, but see Boyce, Zoroastrianism II, Leiden, 1982, pp. 226f.). Low relief carvings of a prince (or a priest) and a princess, each holding barsom s (a bundle of sacred rods), are placed on the insides of a window frame (Ghirshman, Persian Art, p. 26, fig. 34). The placement of sculptures in this position clearly recalls Achaemenid practice, as does the figure style, although the relief is lower and the carving simpler.

The only surviving paintings in Iran attributed to the Parthian period were found in a palatial religious complex at Kūh e Ḵᵛāja in Sīstān, at the eastern limits of Iran. The paintings, which decorated a vaulted corridor, are attributed to a relatively early phase, since they were later covered by a layer of bricks. Stein considered them Buddhist, while Herzfeld associated them with the first building phase, which he dated to the 1st century B.C., the period of Arsacid rule in Iran and Saka rule in the East (A. Stein, Innermost Asia, Oxford, 1928, II, pp. 913 21; E. Herzfeld, Iran in the Ancient East , London and New York, 1941, pp. 291 97). Gullini, who had divided the site into five phases (one Achaemenid, two Parthian, one Sasanian, and one Islamic), confirms Herzfeld’s attribution of the paintings to the period of Parthian political control in Iran, loosely defined between the 3rd century B.C. and the 3rd century A.D. (G. Gullini, Architettura iranica dagli Achemenidi agli Sasanidi, Turin, 1964, pp. 443 53). Herzfeld recognized the mixed character of their style and iconography: a ceiling with painted coffers containing rosettes and riding Erotes, derived from Greek art; a group of three male figures in three quarter view, perhaps gods, wearing Greek dress and in one case a winged helmet. Another group, traditionally identified as a king and queen, is seated in three quarter view on an elaborate throne and wears dress and ornaments akin to those of Parthian Hatra and Dura Europos. Herzfeld assigned these last two groups, as well as a remarkable head of a man in three quarter view, to a late phase of Greco Bactrian art. Recently, the eclectic style and the lack of frontality, as well as a reevaluation of Gullini’s stratigraphy, have led some scholars to consider lowering the date to the end of the Parthian or the beginning of the Sasanian period (Schlumberger, L’Orient hellénisé, pp. 53 59). On the other hand, the stucco decoration of Kūh e Ḵᵛāja, with its all over patterns of interlocking circles and meanders alternating with stepped battlements, finds parallels in the decoration of the Parthian structures of Qalʿa ye Yazdegerd, Warka, and Assur (Ghirshman, Persian Art, pp. 37, 41, fig. 54; Schlumberger, op. cit., pp. 55f., fig. 25).

Qalʿa ye Yazdegerd lies on the westernmost slope of the Iranian plateau and belongs culturally to the borderland between Iran and Mesopotamia. Keall has dated the site to the Parthian period on the basis of its stucco decoration and has suggested that it might have been the stronghold of an independent nobleman. At this stage of the excavations, it is not possible to analyze the plan of the building (a palace?), but Keall’s hypothesis that some of the rooms were ayvāns is plausible. The walls of important rooms were covered with decorative stuccoes, some of which are used to articulate the wall surface. The patterns used in the stuccoes of Qalʿa ye Yazdegerd—meanders, stylized vegetal patterns framed in squares or semicircles, battlements—are similar to those seen at Parthian Uruk Warka and Assur. Likewise, the pseudo Corinthian capitals found at Qalʿa ye Yazdegerd are similar to those from a Parthian house at Warka. An unusual capital from Qalʿa ye Yazdegerd shows a female nude, probably Aphrodite, between dolphins which take the place of volutes. Unlike the stuccoes from Warka and Assur, which utilize purely abstract patterns, those of Qalʿa ye Yazdegerd include many figural motives derived from Greco Roman art, such as Erotes, nude females, Attis like figures, dancing figures, both nude and draped, and animals being hunted. Heraldically confronted griffins are also derived from the Greco Roman repertoire, but another type of griffin has a curved wing that suggests the sēnmurw of Sasanian art; unfortunately, all specimens discovered so far are broken just behind the wing, so that it is impossible to tell whether the rest of the body was present. Other types, such as a ring enclosing a male bust with a billowing Parthian hairdo and wearing a torque, and a panel with intertwined dragons, recall motives used at Hatra. Enough traces of the bright paint that once covered the stuccoes remain to make possible an eventual reconstruction of the color scheme (E. J. Keall, “Qalʿeh i Yazdigird: The Question of its Date,” Iran 15, 1977, pp. 1 9; W. Andrae and H. Lenzen, Die Partherstadt Assur, Leipzig, 1933, repr. Osnabruck, 1967, pp. 53f., pls. 14 21; J. Schmidt, XXVI. und XXVII. vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Uruk Warka, Berlin, 1972, pp. 46 55, pls. 32 39).

The three most important sites of the Parthian period in modern Iraq are Hatra and Assur in the north and Uruk Warka in the south. Hatra is the most impressive; though there is some evidence, so far unpublished, of remains from the Assyrian period. The city as we know it was probably founded in the late 1st century B.C. and flourished until its fall to the Sasanians in A.D. 240/41. Excavation has been concentrated on the religious structures that dominate the site—the great temple of Šamaš and the smaller temples grouped around it. There are vast quantities of stone sculpture, including architectural decoration; religious sculptures, both in relief and in the round, representing the numerous deities of the Hatran pantheon; and statues of the kings, princes, and nobility of Hatra.

The temple of Šamaš was heavily decorated: The voussoirs of the arches of the five ayvāns were filled with the high reliefs, presented as full figures, isolated heads, or animal protomes. Subjects include deities, nobles, and satyrs. The idea of placing sculpture in the voussoirs of arches is probably derived from the Roman world, but the sheer quantity surpasses that of Roman examples (H. von Gall, “Zur figuralen Architekturplastik des grossen Tempels von Hatra,” Baghdader Mitteilungen 5, 1970, pp. 7 33). The arches of the so called temples of the triad are similarly decorated. Other sculpture from the temple of Šamaš is probably apotropaic, including a bizarre male Medusa, the consoles near the entrances to the ayvāns, the victories on the upper walls, and the masks placed high on the walls inside the main ayvān. The eagles on the cornice of this same ayvān surely symbolize either Šamaš or the eagle god Samya, while the bull protomes in the northernmost ayvān perhaps stand for Hadad. (Safar and Mustapha, Hatra, figs. 92, 394f.; Ghirshman, Persian Art, fig. 49).

The divinities represented at Hatra fall into two main categories: sculpture in the round and cult reliefs. Some freestanding sculpture was probably imported from the Greco Roman world, most notably a group of marbles representing Poseidon, Apollo, and Eros, found near the temple dedicated to Bar Maryn, the son of the triad (Safar and Mustapha, Hatra, pp. 120 23). Most of the sculpture was probably made locally and is eclectic both in motif and in style. In several sculptures of Herakles the nude hero is shown in his Greek form, but the patterning of the lion skin recalls Assyrian work, and a statue dedicated by the Roman military tribune Petronius Quintianus in the mid 3rd century A.D. shows Herakles wearing local necklaces (Downey, Dura Europos, pp. 83 96, pls. XVII XXIV). Another statue represents a god identified as Assurbel on the basis of inscriptions, but the image bears a striking resemblance to the bearded Apollo of Hierapolis as described by Macrobius. The god wears a Greek cuirass but also a Parthian torque. On his back is a cloak with scales and a Medusa mask, a variant on the Greek aegis. The cylindrical character of the statue and the abstract patterning of the beard recall Assyrian art. At his feet kneels a female figure in a mural crown, obviously derived from a Greek Tyche but transformed in style; she is flanked by eagles, a symbol of a local god (Ghirshman, Persian Art, fig. 1; R. Du Mesnil du Buisson, “De Shadrafa, dieu de Palmyre, aà Baʿalshamin, dieu de Hatra,” Mélanges de l'Université St. Joseph 38, 1962, pp. 151 55; Schlumberger, L’Orient hellénisé, pp. 143f.). A high relief sculpture of Allāt, dressed as Athena and flanked by two goddesses in the local dress, all standing on the back of a lion, again illustrates the eclectic character of Hatran art (Ghirshman, Persian Art, p. 92, fig. 103). The so called “Cerberus relief” shows a god, his consort, and a three headed dog. The god stands frontally, clad in Parthian dress somewhat like that worn by the bronze figure from Šāmī; an eagle perches on his horned diadem (which surely recalls the earlier Mesopotamian horned crown), and snakes spring from his waist and shoulders. In his upraised right hand he holds an axe; in his left, a sword and the leash of the dog. While the triple headed dog is clearly based on the Greek Cerberus, here he identifies the god as the underworld god Nergal. His consort, seated frontally on a throne flanked by griffins, is crowned by an eagle. In her right hand she holds a feather; in her left, the standard, an important Hatran religious symbol. Her footstool is decorated with fish. The standard, the eagle, and the fish probably identify her as Atargatis, the goddess of the Syrian city of Hierapolis. Additional animal attributes are associated with these and other Semitic deities (H. Ingholt, “Parthian Sculptures from Hatra,” Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 12, New Haven, 1954, pp. 17 33; Ghirshman, Persian Art, p. 87, fig. 98).

Other types of religious sculpture at Hatra include model shrines, some with standards carved on the columns, and cult banks with images of divinities, such as Herakles and a centaur, or Herakles, Allāt, and another goddess (S. B. Downey, “Cult Banks from Hatra,” Berytus 16, 1966, pp. 97 109; idem, Dura Europos pp. 88 90). The Hatran kings and nobility dedicated statues of themselves in the numerous temples of city, a practice that presumably continued the old Mesopotamian custom of placing surrogate statues in temples to offer prayers for the dedicant. Most figures, both male and female, raise the right hand in a gesture of worship; some hold a leaf, probably an attribute of holiness, in their left hand. The male figures, normally bearded, are clad in richly decorated Parthian dress; they normally carry a sword and a dagger and may wear headdresses of various types, such as a high, decorated tiara (Uthal, an unknown figure) or an eagle crowned diadem (Sanatrūk). The headdresses are presumably an indication of status, but too many figures remain unidentified to allow secure interpretations. The garments are often elaborately decorated in abstract patterns meant to represent embroidery and applique (Ghirshman, Persian Art, pp. 90 94, figs. 100, 102, 105; J. Teixidor, “The Kingdom of Adiabene and Hatra,” Berytus 17, 1967 68, pp. 1 11). Similarly elaborate Parthian dress appears, in slightly varying forms, as far east as Sorḵ Kotal and even Mathurā in the Kūšān kingdom (Colledge, Parthian Art, p. 87, figs. 14 a, b; D. Schlumberger, “The Excavations at Surkh Kotal and the Problems of Hellenism in Bactria and India,” Proceedings of the British Academy 47, 1961, pp. 77 95) and as far west as the Anatolian kingdom of Commagene and the city of Palmyra in the Syrian desert (F. K. Dörner and T. Goell, “Arsameia am Nymphaios,” Istanbuler Forschungen 23, Berlin, 1963, pp. 197 227, pl. 48; M. A. R. Colledge, The Art of Palmyra, Boulder, Col., 1976, pp. 64 80, and passim; Ghirshman, Persian Art, pp. 57 68, figs. 79 80). Both the poses and the features of the Hatra statues tend to be stereotyped: youths are beardless, with aureole hairdos and bland features, while men wear mustaches, spade shaped beards, and either aureole or tripartite hairdos. While these statues are not portraits in the Roman sense, there are signs of individuality. For example, Sanatrūk’s face is extremely flat, and the head of an unidentified noble has a wrinkled forehead, which may be a sign of Roman influence. Most of the men have distinct pot bellies, perhaps a sign of affluence in a region in which food cannot have been plentiful.

The statues of women also place great emphasis on the detailed depiction of distinctive local dress and an abundance of rich jewelry. The degree of elaboration varies considerably and probably reflects differences in status. Šāprī (Shapry), the daughter of Sanatrūk, wears an elaborate series of necklaces, and her high tiara is decked with strings of jewels. Ubal, daughter of Jabal, wears a simplified version of the same costume, and the stylizations of the drapery, especially the whorl patterns over the breasts, are more simplified also (Ghirshman, Persian Art, pp. 93 95, figs. 104, 106; D. Homès Fredericq, Hatra et ses sculptures parthes, étude stylistique et iconographique, Istanbul, 1963, pp. 17 36). This female costume is known, with slight variations, from Palmyra (Colledge, The Art of Palmyra, pp. 69 72) and Dura Europos (A. Perkins, The Art of Dura Europos, Oxford, 1973, pp. 38 41, pl. 10) to Kūh e Ḵᵛāja in the east (Ghirshman, Persian Art, p. 42, fig. 56). As in the male statues, it appears that the sculptors made some attempts to suggest individual traits within the confines of their highly schematic system. What evidence there is suggests that most of the sculpture was the work of local artists. It varies considerably in quality, from poor adaptations of western types (e.g., some of the figures of Herakles), to works of considerable originality judged on their own terms (e.g., the statues of Sanatrūk and Šāprī, and especially the figure of Assurbel).

After a period of decline following its capture by the Babylonians, Assur revived as a Parthian city, apparently in the 1st century B.C. The major remains of the Parthian period are architectural. The palace, probably built in the 1st century A.D., has as its main feature four ayvāns facing onto a central court. The façades of these ayvāns are covered with an elaborate three tiered decoration of engaged columns and pilasters flanking doors on the ground level and blind niches on the upper levels. The columns are topped with pseudo Ionic capitals, the pilasters with moldings decorated with motives of classical origin used in unclassical combinations. The columns “support” friezes covered with geometric and floral all over designs similar in concept to the stucco decoration of Kūh e Ḵᵛāja, Qalʿa ye Yazdegerd, and Warka (Andrae, Assur, pls. 14 21). These architectural elements were brightly painted. Little sculpture was found at Assur but three stelae from the Gate House provide important evidence about the date of the introduction of frontality into Parthian art. Each stele shows a standing man in undecorated Parthian dress. On two of the stelae the figures are in profile; one of these bears the date of 89/8 B.C. (if Seleucid era) or A.D. 12/13 (if Arsacid era). This figure holds a feather in his left hand, while his right hand is raised toward images of the sun and the moon carved in low relief on the background. The style of the third stele, in which the figure is frontal, is so similar to that of the other two as to suggest that it is roughly contemporary (ibid., pp. 105f., pl. 59a d; Schlumberger, L’Orient hellénisé, pp. 120f., fig. 42). A graffito on a pithos is perhaps based on a painting in a temple. It represents two men clad in Parthian dress offering incense sacrifices to two deities, one seated and the other (perhaps a nude goddess) reclining. All figures are rigidly frontal. Bits of figured wall paintings were found in the palace but are too badly preserved to allow reconstruction (Andrae, Assur, pp. 109 12, fig. 46, pls. 61f.).

The remains of the Parthian period at Warka have been little explored. The temple of the otherwise unknown god Gareus, dated to about A.D. 110 on the basis of an inscription, is decorated on the outside with engaged pilasters topped with brick reliefs of monsters, an elongated, long necked griffin like those on the frieze of the temple of Bar Maryn at Hatra, and a dog in a similar style. Part of a life size bronze foot clad in a soft shoe is probably all that remains of the cult statue (E. Heinrich, “Sechster vorläufiger Bericht über die von der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk Warka unternommenen Ausgrabungen,” Abh. der Preussichen Akad. der Wissenschaften, phil. hist. Kl. 2, Berlin, 1935, pp. 33 35, pls. 25a; 26a, b; 30; Safar and Mustapha, Hatra, p. 347). The only other artistic remains at Warka are the decorative stuccoes from a Parthian house, already discussed in connection with Qalʿa ye Yazdegerd.

Our uneven knowledge of Parthian art, especially the great lacunae in the evidence from their Iranian homeland, make the assessment of the Parthian achievement difficult. The functions of art varied widely from site to site, apparently responding in large part to differing economic and social conditions. Thus, at Hatra, Šāmī, and probably also Nisa and Kūh e Ḵᵛāja, portraits of rulers are prominent. At major religious centers, such as Hatra and Bard e Nešānda, much of the sculpture has religious subjects, and the nobility is strongly represented. Art forms also appear to have been influenced by the traditions of previous cultures in the wide area that fell under Parthian control: rock reliefs with religious and dynastic subjects are particularly prominent in Iran, while sculptured images of worshipers most often appear in temples at Hatra. Perhaps because so much of the art, whether religious or aulic, was ceremonial, the sculpture and painting has a solemn, almost hieratic quality. The emphasis on details of decoration of clothing and on the depiction of ornaments is perhaps the result of a desire to emphasize rank.

The almost constant frontality of figures even in narrative scenes, whether it is of Greek origin (E. Will, Le relief cultuel gréco romain, Paris, 1955, pp. 219 55; Schlumberger, “Descendants non méditerranéens de l'art grec,” Syria 37, 1960, pp. 253 81) or Iranian (Rostovtzeff, “Dura and the Problem of Parthian Art,” pp. 238 41), or (as seems more likely) an invention of the peoples of Syria and Mesopotamia during the period of Parthian rule (Colledge, The Art of Palmyra, pp. 126 28; S. B. Downey, “The Stone and Plaster Sculpture: Excavations at Dura Europos,” Monumenta Archaeologica 5, Los Angeles, 1977, pp. 283 87), seems to result from a desire for direct contact between the viewers and the figures—whether divine or human—in a work of art. This frontality gives a ceremonial quality to even relatively humble works of art. Perhaps the Parthian achievement lies in the ability to select from art produced by other peoples the elements best suited to its purposes and to create from these diverse elements an art that responds to the varying needs of the rulers of the Parthian empire.

ART IN IRAN v. SASANIAN ART

The art of the ancient Near East during the four centuries of Sasanian rule is richly documented. There are major remains of many different types: monumental rock reliefs, silver vessels, stucco architectural decoration, and seals. Objects in other media are less numerous but still sufficient to give a varied impression of the art of the period: textiles, wall paintings, floor mosaics, glass, and pottery. Nonetheless, the development of Sasanian art remains unclear because reliable criteria for dating (inscriptional, numismatic, and archeological) are rarely available. The original provenance of the objects is often unknown. While the dynastic rock reliefs are in situ and other architectural decoration was found during the course of scientific archeological excavations, a wider variety of works of art is without a meaningful archeological context. Included in this class are the silver vessels, the seals, and nearly all examples of the minor arts. There has never been a comprehensive excavation of a Sasanian site, revealing an extensive series of structures dating from one period or, alternately, establishing an unbroken sequence over a long time span. Undoubtedly the most significant contributions to the study of Sasanian art will come with the future archeological exploration of Sasanian cities and buildings.

Rock reliefs. Of the major remains, the dynastic rock reliefs are unquestionably the most important. In addition to illustrating the stylistic and chronological development of one branch of Sasanian art, they offer important evidence concerning the nature of the early Sasanian state, society, and religion. The majority of the reliefs have representations of Sasanian kings, identifiable through the form of their crowns. The series begins with the first ruler, Ardašīr I (226-41), and continues with few exceptions through the reigns of his successors until Šāpūr II (309-79). There are no reliefs that can be attributed with certainty to Šāpūr II (Ghirshman, 1971, pp. 79-88; Lukonin, 1969, p. 193) but two, at Ṭāq-e Bostān, were commissioned by his successors Ardašīr II (379-83) and Šāpūr III (383 88) (Fukai and Horiuchi, 1972, pls. 64-92). After the fourth century there is an interruption in the sequence, and the final carvings, in a rock cut arched enclosure at Ṭāq-e Bostān, are dateable, in all probability, to the reign of Ḵosrow II (591-628) (Fukai and Horiuchi, 1969, pls. 4-102; idem, 1972, pls. 1-62).

Changes in the designs and in the styles of carving occur on the rock reliefs. In part, these changes are due to the passage of time but another important factor is the geographical location of the monuments. Although most of the reliefs are in Fārs in southern Iran, there are notable examples elsewhere—at Ṭāq-e Bostān in central Iran, at Salmās in Azerbaijan (Hinz, 1965, pp. 148-60), and at Ray (Herzfeld, 1938, p. 135, fig. 18), south of the modern city of Tehran. The style and appearance of the late 4th century reliefs at Ṭāq-e Bostān is strikingly different from those of the 3rd and early 4th century in Fārs in the south. This may be explained by the passage of almost half a century, but it is probably also the result of the geographical separation of the two groups of monuments. Within Fārs, the reliefs are grouped around a number of centers: 1) Fīrūzābād, 2) Naqš-e Rostam, Naqš-e Rajab, Barm-e Delak, 3) Dārābgerd, 4) Bīšāpūr, Naqš-e Bahrām, Tang-e Qandīl, Gūyom, and Sar Mašhad. The distance between these centers is sufficient to suggest that even within the southern region different groups of craftsmen may have worked at the various locations. At Bīšāpūr, the presence of foreign artisans, transported as prisoners of war by Šāpūr I from the West, is historically documented (Gagé, 1964, p. 287), and their activity is apparent in the architecture of the royal city. The unusual design of some of the victory reliefs of Šāpūr I in the neighboring river gorge is undoubtedly also the result of the presence of captive Syrian workers.

The formal development of the dynastic rock reliefs was governed by the nature of the monuments. These are proclamatory works of art, expressions of political, social, and religious concepts. As part of an official state art, the reliefs are conservative in form and conventional in design. They are slow to reflect changes in taste and fashion and do not necessarily illustrate contemporary styles of dress or appearance. This is evident in the representations of clothing, jewelry, and weapons (Trousdale, 1975, p. 95).

The significance of the reliefs is usually clear. Some are victory monuments and record historical events, but the purpose of the majority is the glorification of the dynasty, as represented by the monarch, and of the religion, in the form of the divinity who invests the ruler with kingship. The reliefs clearly demonstrate the close relationship between secular and religious power at the beginning of the period.

The monuments of Ardašīr I depict two subjects: the historical defeat of the last Arsacid ruler and the granting of kingship to Ardašīr by the god Ohrmazd (Herrmann, 1969, pp. 65-74). The latest relief of Ardašīr I at Naqš-e Rostam illustrates this last theme and becomes one of the standard types throughout the reigns of successive rulers. Two equestrian figures confront each other, their horses standing on the bodies of dead enemies. One horseman is the king, Ardašīr, under whose horse is the defeated Arsacid monarch, Ardavān. The other horseman, bestowing upon Ardašīr the ring of royal authority, is the god Ohrmazd. His enemy, the Evil Spirit (Ahriman), lies beneath the horse’s hooves; around the demon’s head is a diadem of reptiles, and his legs are in the form of two serpents, a detail first observed by H. von Gall. The artisans have arranged the full sculptural forms in a well defined and balanced composition, the culmination of a long development in the course of Ardašīr’s reign from low flat relief (Fīrūzābād) and crowded scenes (Naqš-e Rajab) to a clearly composed and sculptural presentation of the subject matter.

The same type of scene is represented on the reliefs of two later Sasanian kings, Ardašīr’s son Šāpūr I (Herrmann, 1969, pp. 75-83), and Bahrām I (273 76), his successor (Ghirshman, 1971, pp. 76-77). Šāpūr also introduces a new series of victory monuments. They are unrelated in form to the earlier battle scene, executed during the reign of Ardašīr at Fīrūzābād, in which three pairs of contestants are depicted in a horizontal file, one behind the other. The theme of the victory scenes of Šāpūr I is the capture of the Roman emperor Valerian and the defeat of two other Roman armies. Considerable discussion has centered on the identities of the chief prisoners, represented fallen, kneeling, and standing. The generalized portrayal of the human features prevents the recognition of specific individuals although it is probable that Gordian III, Valerian, and Philip the Arab are intended (MacDermot, 1954, pp. 76-80; Ghirshman, 1971, pp. 163-72; Mackintosh, 1973, pp. 181-203).

As sculptures, the figures on the reliefs of Šāpūr I demonstrate the full modeling of the latest works carved during the reign of Ardašīr I. However, a sense of movement and rich decoration are introduced by the exaggerated curvilinear folds of the drapery and the fluttering wind blown ribbons of the royal dress.

The rock reliefs from the reign of Bahrām II (276 93) reveal new trends in the social structure of the Sasanian state. A few of the sculptures represent persons other than the king of kings. The priest Kartīr added his image and his inscriptions to already existing royal rock reliefs and to the rock faces beside these reliefs. Two sculptures, at Barm-e Delak and Tang-e Qandīl, show a female with a male who wears the cap of a prince or noble but not a royal crown. The identity of the persons in these two carvings is disputed, and it has been suggested that the males on the reliefs are royal figures who do not wear the standard Sasanian crown (Hinz, 1969, pp. 224-28; idem, 1973, pp. 201ff; Frye, 1974, pp. 188-90; Herrmann, 1977 and 1983).

The increasing power of the high nobility and the establishment of a priestly hierarchy under the leadership of Kartīr during the reign of Bahrām II are recorded in historical sources (Gagé, 1964, pp. 317-28). The reliefs described above may illustrate the rise to power of these classes of society. Kartīr and others of high rank who had previously been excluded from commissioning such dynastic monuments apparently achieved sufficient status and authority to assume this prerogative under Bahrām II and possibly during the short period of the rule of Bahrām III.

On the royal reliefs, Bahrām II is represented with his wife and members of his family (Herrmann, 1970, pp. 165-71), a subject already appearing on a relief of Šāpūr I at Naqš-e Rajab. The other reliefs of Bahrām II illustrate the theme of royal authority in a new fashion. At Naqš-e Bahrām, the king is enthroned in a frontal position (Hinz, 1969, pp. 198-209). This type of image occurs in a large, unfinished victory relief with a representation of an unknown monarch at Bīšāpūr (Lukonin, 1969, p. 193; Ghirshman, 1971, pp. 79-88) and on a badly worn monument at Naqš-e Rostam (Schmidt, 1970, pl. 94), but only at Naqš-e Bahrām does the subject achieve definitive form. The balanced presentation, with the king seated between two pairs of standing figures, is typically Sasanian.

A more radical design occurs at Sar Mašhad, where the king, Bahrām II, is portrayed in a unique scene as the slayer of lions and the protector of the figures placed beside him, his wife(?), Kartīr, and another male (Hinz, 1969, pp. 215-19; Herrmann, 1970, pp. 165-71; Trümpelmann, Sar Mašhad, 1975, pp. 3-11; P. Calmeyer in Calmeyer and Gaube, 1985, pp. 43-49). This is the earliest dynastic monument illustrating a royal hunt(?), a theme that was to become later, on the court silver plate, the primary expression of Sasanian majesty.

Some of the rock carvings of Bahrām II continue the rich high relief style of Šāpūr I. Others are carved in low relief (10 cm), a feature interpreted by Herrmann as an indication that they are later in date (Herrmann, 1970, pp. 170-71 ).

In the single relief attributed to his reign, Narseh (292 303), the son of Šāpūr I, returned to a more conventional statement of royalty (Schmidt, 1970, pl. 90). The king receives the ring of investiture from the goddess Anāhīd. Both figures are on foot rather than on horseback, a pose presumably not appropriate for the goddess. The basic composition resembles the investiture of Ardašīr I at Naqš-e Rajab where the monarch stretches his arm toward the god Ohrmazd. In both reliefs, the smaller figure of a descendant, and future king, is placed between the ruler and the divinity; this return to an earlier scheme was probably deliberate on the part of Narseh, who was the grandson of Ardašīr I. The over life size figures on the rock carving at Naqš-e Rostam are executed in high relief but are poorly proportioned. The linear details—drapery fold, spiral hairs curls—give a particularly decorative appearance to the monument.

A number of battle scenes in the form of equestrian combats between two protagonists are contemporary with the reliefs of the late 3rd century (Schmidt, 1970, pls. 89, 91, 95). This type was first commissioned by Ardašīr I at Fīrūzābād and is illustrated on a much smaller scale on the relief carved blocks from a building constructed during the reign of Šāpūr I at Bīšāpūr (Ghirshman, 1971, pls. 35, 36, fig. 15). The later examples, all at Naqš-e Rostam, have a simple composition and more limited subject matter than the Fīrūzābād relief. The figures do not always wear recognizable Sasanian crowns, and it is possible that in at least two instances the warrior is a member of the royal family or the high nobility rather than the king (Schmidt, 1970, pls. 89, 95). On one of the reliefs, the three pronged headgear worn by the central combatant may be a special form of helmet rather than a crown (Herzfeld, 1938, pp. 136-37).

These battle scenes have a narrative, pictorial quality lacking in the more conventional investiture and victory reliefs. A wealth of detail covering the animal and human bodies gives the representations a rather decorative appearance.

The reliefs at Ṭāq-e Bostān follow by more than half a century the latest rock carved monuments in Fārs and reveal a change in style (Fukai and Horiuchi, 1972, pls. 64-92). Commissioned by Ardašīr II (379-83) and in all probability, Šāpūr III (383-88), they are primarily proclamations of legitimacy. During this troubled period in the history of the Sasanian monarchy, the natural succession was interrupted by the accession of Ardašīr II who was then succeeded by Šāpūr III, the son of Šāpūr II (Herzfeld, 1928, p. 138).

The relief of Ardašīr II is the more conventional of the two monuments in type and design. Within the customary rectangular panel three figures carved in high relief are standing side by side. The monarch, in the center, grasps the ring of investiture extended to him by the figure on his left, possibly the god Ohrmazd, although the headdress is that of the deceased Šāpūr II. On the other side is the god Mithra, rays emanating from his head, a barsom bundle in his hands, and standing on an Indian lotus. This same divinity is associated with a Sasanian ruler of the Kushan territories who has been identified as Ardašīr II (Lukonin, 1967, p. 27). Beneath the king and the figure holding the symbol of office lies a dead enemy, probably the Roman emperor Julian (Trümpelmann, “Triumph,” 1975, pp. 107-11; Carter, 1981, pp. 74-98). In the arrangement of the figures the scene resembles the investiture of Narseh, but the king wears a new form of royal dress: A beaded halter, strapped around the chest, has replaced the cloak held by a clasp, and the tunic, drawn up at the sides, falls in a rounded curve along the lower hem. The style of the carving is also distinctive. The drapery folds are rendered as a series of curving concentric lines covering the body; this stylization gives the surface of the relief an extremely decorative appearance. The crude, almost grotesque treatment of the facial features is particularly noticeable since the heads are turned outward in a three quarter view. These changes in style and quality of workmanship suggest that the monument was executed by local artisans lacking the skills of the carvers who had worked on the royal monuments in the south. Noting the apparent inexperience of the craftsmen, Herzfeld suggested that the reliefs were the work of painters rather than sculptors (Herzfeld, 1928, p. 139).

The adjacent relief with the figures of Šāpūr II and III is carved in a similar style, but the subject and the setting are new (Fukai and Horiuchi, 1972, pls. 64-73). The two kings, standing side by side, are represented on the back wall of a deep arched niche. They are almost full sculptures in the round. Inscriptions on either side of the heads give the names of the monarchs (Herzfeld, 1924, pp. 123-24). Since no divinity is included in the scene and the emphasis is on the relationship between the two royal personages, father (Šāpūr II) and son (Šāpūr III), it is appropriate that the setting resembles an arched hall similar to the audience halls of Sasanian palaces. Šāpūr III does not wear the crown appearing on his coins and it is possible that the relief was executed before he became king of kings, during the reign of Šāpūr II (Herzfeld, 1938, pp. 113-14).

The latest relief at Ṭāq-e Bostān (Fukai and Horiuchi, 1969; idem, 1972, pls. 1-62) is generally attributed to Ḵosrow II (591 628) (Herzfeld, 1920; idem, 1938, pp. 91-158; Ghirshman, 1963, pp. 293-311; Peck, 1969, pp. 101=2) in spite of some arguments for an earlier date in the reign of Pērōz (Erdmann, 1937, pp. 79=97; idem, 1951, pp. 87=123; von Gall, 1984, pp. 179=90) and one suggestion that the monument was executed during the reign of Ḵosrow I (Gropp, 1970, p. 282). This great ayvān similar in shape but larger than that of Šāpūr II/III may well celebrate the victory of Ḵosrow II over the usurper Bahrām VI (Čōbīn) (Marshak and Krikis, 1969, p. 65; Soucek, 1974, pp. 34=35). Two winged females placed in the spandrels of the arched facade give it the appearance of a Western triumphal monument. The divinities, Ohrmazd and Anāhīd, stand on either side of Ḵosrow II. All three figures are carved on the top of the back wall of the niche. The gods do not surpass the king in height; rather, they appear as supports to the royal person. Beneath the standing figures on the back wall is a horseman in full armor, holding a lance and a shield. The identity of this horseman is uncertain. A royal device (Figure 46a) and a sēnmurw, the fantastic creature believed to be the bearer of prosperity, on his garment suggest that this is the warrior king.

Figure 46aView full image in a new tab

An alternative suggestion is that the rider is the fravahr or genius of the king (von Gall, 1971b, p. 233; J. Kellens, Iranica Antiqua 10, 1973, pp. 133=38 [von Gall, 1984, has now retracted this suggestion]). The close relationship in form between the mounted warrior and certain monumental sculptures in the late antique world has also been observed (Soucek, 1974, p. 34).

Entirely new in form and design are the low relief hunting scenes carved on the side walls of the ayvān of Ḵosrow II at Ṭāq-e Bostān (Fukai and Horiuchi, 1969, pls. 29-102). These resemble wall paintings or mosaics rather than rock sculptures and may be stone imitations of the wall decorations in similarly shaped audience halls in Sasanian palaces. The rock cut monument at Ṭāq-e Bostān, the last attributable to the Sasanian period, is a magnificent expression of royal authority. The large scale figures are solid masses, the body hidden beneath heavy drapery. A rich and elaborate style of workmanship is apparent in the treatment of the hair and dress. On the side walls similar attention is paid to minute details—the textiles, patterns, hair, and equipment of the human figures as well as the surface of the animal and landscape motifs. It is impossible to know whether all three parts of the decoration—royal investiture, mounted warrior, and hunting panels—are contemporary in date. Differences in style and equipment may indicate that the reliefs were executed over a period of time (Trousdale, 1975, p. 98).

A few final observations can be made concerning the Sasanian rock reliefs. It is evident that some rulers added to the reliefs of their predecessors. This is the case at Bīšāpūr where, on the relief of Bahrām I, Narseh substituted his own name in the inscription and added a dead enemy, possibly Bahrām III, beneath the royal mount (Schmidt, 1970, p. 129; Iran 13, 1970, pls. III, IV; Herrmann, 1981 [ = Bishapur, pt. 2], p. 19). It has been suggested that the relief at Dārāb was begun by Ardašīr I and reworked into a victory monument by his son Šāpūr I (Trümpelmann, “Triumph,” 1975, pp. 3-20).

Another fact is that the monuments are frequently unfinished, with some portions carved only in outline. The interruption of historical events (death, war, social upheavals) might explain this phenomenon in occasional instances. However, the large number of reliefs with unfinished details is surprising, and it is possible that paint or some other material was originally used to complete the scenes (Herrmann, 1980 83).

Other stone sculpture. Four busts of Narseh decorate the sides of a square tower erected by that king at Paikuli (Herzfeld, 1924, pp. 7-l0); the inscription describes his assumption of royal power. Much weathered and damaged, the busts are unique examples of a type of royal sculpture that may once have existed in greater quantity.

More unusual and much better preserved is a three times life size statue in the round of Šāpūr I (241 272) at Bīšāpūr, which is the only sizeable stone sculpture in the round to have survived from Sasanian times. The figure is carved from a natural column of stone in a grotto above the river running past the Bīšāpūr rock reliefs (Ghirshman, 1971, pp. 179ff., pls. 28-32). The king’s informal stance, frontal but with arms bent, one hand resting on his hip, presumably placed on the hilt of a now missing sword, is without parallel in Sasanian art and reflects ultimately the influence of Greco Roman prototypes. Another stone figure, terribly worn and mutilated (the entire lower portion is missing) was found at Ṭāq-e Bostān (Fukai and Horiuchi, 1972, pl. 63). Probably this is Ḵosrow II (591 628), but the surface is much abraded and no details are observable. The pose is related to that of the Bīšāpūr statue in that the royal figure grasps his sword, but the weapon is, in this instance, centered on the body.

A Middle Persian text carved on a stone column at Bīšāpūr mentions another statue of king Šāpūr I erected by Apasāy, his secretary (Ghirshman, 1936, p. 126). Regrettably nothing remains of this work of art.

Silver plate. During the long period from the end of the 4th century to the end of the 6th century, royal rock reliefs were no longer carved, perhaps because the firm establishment of the dynasty eliminated the political reasons for this type of monumental royal sculpture. In any event, the second half of the Sasanian period, beginning with the latter part of the reign of Šāpūr II (309 79), is characterized by another medium of dynastic art: silver vessels with the image of the king hunting (Harper and Meyers, 1981). A few vessels with representations of nobles and princes of the royal family pursuing animal quarry precede the adoption and exclusive use of this motif by the king himself in the latter part of the 4th century. Two examples have survived, both found west of Iran in the Caucasus (Fajans, 1957, p. 61, pl. 5, fig. 11; Lukonin, 1961, p. 59, pl. 11) and Soviet Azerbaijan (Harper and Meyers, 1981, pl. 8). A third plate, now lost but known through a drawing, was acquired in Afghanistan (Erdmann, 1936, pp. 226-27; Harper and Meyers, 1981, pl. 11 a b). The hunters on all three of these plates may be rulers of newly acquired realms: on the example found in the western Caucasus the inscription names Bahrām, probably the son and heir apparent of Bahrām I.

The earliest silver vessel with an image of a Sasanian king is also from the western part of the empire. Bahrām II, his wife, and son appear on a two handled cup discovered at Zargveshi in Georgia (Lukonin, 1961, p. 57, pls.12 15; idem, 1967, pl. 207; Harper and Meyers, 1981, pl. 12). The royal figures are enclosed within medallions, a form of portraiture employed by princes and nobles on silver plate of the 3rd and early 4th centuries (Harper, 1974, pp. 61-80). Late in the 4th century, the medallion portrait was superseded on the royal court silver by the hunting scene, and this became the standard type, strictly reserved for the king of kings. Existing evidence suggests that from the 4th century until some time in the 6th, no person other than the Sasanian king was permitted to represent himself or his family on silver vessels.

The images on the royal silver plate are stereotyped and the representations remain largely unchanged in style and form for several centuries. Only minor variations occur in the iconography and design. Particularly distinctive is the representation of drapery in a series of short, paired lines. Gilding covers the figural scene or, on the latest examples, the background shell of the plate. Specific weapons are used, customarily the bow, occasionally a lasso. The compositions combine horizontal (horse and dead animals) and vertical (king and the bodies of the living quarry) elements. In general, there is a trend from simple compositions with few figures to more elaborate arrangements in which the numbers and species of animals increases (Erdmann, 1936, pp. 192-232; idem, 1937, pp. 79-97; idem, 1951, pp. 87-123; Herzfeld, 1938, pp. 91-158; Harper and Meyers, 1981).

The date of these vessels with royal hunters is suggested in part by the appearance of the royal crown, often identifiable through a comparison with Sasanian coins. Details of dress and equipment compared with images on securely dated monuments (reliefs, coins, seals) also provide some guidance in establishing a chronological sequence (Harper and Meyers, 1981).

Contemporary with the royal vessels are imitations of the Sasanian hunting plates produced in the countries bordering on Iran to the east and west. In the past, these works have often been confused with original Sasanian products (Erdmann, 1938, pp. 209-17; idem, 1943, pls. 61, 65, 66; Marshak and Krikis, 1969, pp. 51-81). However, on many of the provincial imitations, the differences in design, style, and notably the use of non Sasanian crown types are sufficient to make the distinction between the imitation and the original obvious. Instead of the paired line drapery style of the Sasanian court silver, there is a schematization of the folds in the form of overall parallel lines. The composition is often laid out in a triangular scheme. Gilding is applied to different parts of the design in a coloristic fashion.

A few provincial plates are closer in design and style to the Sasanian court products (Lukonin, 1967, pls. 148, 149, 150). In these instances the stylistic attribution of the vessels to provincial rather than central Sasanian workshops is substantiated by the analysis of the metal.

The use of neutron activation analysis to determine silver composition has revealed that vessels that may be called Sasanian court products on the basis of style and design are produced from silver derived from a single source (Meyers et al., 1973, pp. 67-78; Harper and Meyers, 1981, pp. 144-86). The composition of the metal of the vessels identifiable as provincial works is entirely different; the silver is derived from a number of different ores and in no instance is it the same as that from which the Sasanian royal plate is made. It is evident therefore that the extraction of silver for use at court or state workshops was controlled by the Sasanian government. Beyond the limits of direct Sasanian authority, local rulers obtained silver from various sources and produced hunting plates modeled on Sasanian court products.

Although the image of the frontal king enthroned in state was not popular as a dynastic image either on the luxury vessels or on the rock reliefs, there are two representations of the motif that may be Sasanian. On a silver plate in the Hermitage Museum (Orbeli and Trever, 1935, pl. 13; Erdmann, pl. 67), the enthronement scene (which resembles the rock relief of Bahrām II at Naqš-e Bahrām) is placed over a small hunt in the exergue. The crown of the enthroned king is the same as that appearing on the coins of six late Sasanian rulers from Kavād I to Kavād II. A more elegant gold, glass, and rock crystal bowl in the Bibliothèque Nationale has a central medallion with the frontal enthroned king, seated alone, carved in relief (Sarre, 1922, pl. 44; Ghirshman, 1962, p. 205, fig. 244). The king wears the same crown as the figure on the Bibliothèque Nationale silver plate.

Other Sasanian silver vases and ewers are decorated with motifs that refer less directly to the king of kings. These include the ram (Romans and Barbarians, 1976, pl. 219), possibly a symbol of (xwarrah or the royal fortune, and birds wearing long, jeweled necklets (Romans and Barbarians , 1976, pl. 220). A ewer in the Hermitage Museum (Erdmann, 1943, pl. 77) has figures of a (sēnmurw(. This creature appears on the garments of the king at Ṭāq-e Bostān but is otherwise rarely represented in Sasanian art (Riboud, 1976, pp. 21-42). It was probably a royal motif, and objects decorated with it may therefore be connected specifically with the monarchy (H. P. Schmidt, 1980).

A number of Sasanian silver vessels bear cult or ceremonial scenes lacking any specific reference to the king. The most numerous are vases and ewers decorated with dancing female figures holding particular attributes: vessels, fruit, plants, and animals (Harper, 1971, pp. 503-15). In its form, this type of subject is clearly associated with Dionysiac imagery. Some scholars believe that it was adopted by the Iranians in connection with the cult of Anāhīd, the Iranian goddess of water and fertility (Shepherd, 1964, pp. 66-92; Ettinghausen, 1967/68, pp. 29-41; Trever, 1967, pp. 121-32). More probable are suggestions that the images are associated with seasonal festivals (Harper, 1971, pp. 503-15; Carter, 1974, pp. 171-202).

Plates with mythological images are rather rare, and the precise meaning of this type of subject matter, often modeled on Greco Roman prototypes (Harper, 1978, nos. 8, 13), is uncertain.

A small class of hemispherical bowls is important because the figural subjects are unrelated to royal iconography and provide illustrations of court life and activities. Manufactured in all probability during the 6th and 7th centuries for noble (āzād) rather than royal patrons, the vessels have scenes of vintaging, banqueting, and marriage ceremonies as well as simple geometric, plant, and animal designs (Harper, 1978, nos. 14, 15, 25). The alloy from which these small bowls (average diameter: 14 cm) are made has a high copper content and is, in this sense, inferior to the silver of the court plate. Elliptical bowls with Christian motifs, specifically crosses, also exist (Sasanian Silver, 1967, no. 53). The shape of these vessels suggests a date at the end of the Sasanian period; the production probably reflects the growing prestige and prosperity of the Christian community following the separation of the Nestorian church (484) from the Christian community in the West.

Regrettably, almost none of the surviving silver vessels, Sasanian or provincial, comes from controlled archeological excavations. Many were found in the Soviet Union, particularly in the Perm region in the Ural mountains, an area to which they were sent as articles of barter or trade in antiquity (Orbeli and Trever, 1935, pls. 5, 13, 28, 36, 39 41, 44-47). In recent years, countless other examples have been recovered, by chance, on Iranian soil. The precise use of the vessels, their general purpose, and significance is consequently uncertain. It is probable that the central Sasanian court plates with images of the king were part of a state propaganda production since both the form of the designs and the source of the material were rigidly controlled. Ancient sources speak frequently of gifts of silver plate, some with images of the king, to allies and neighboring rulers whom the monarch intended to impress (Sasanian Silver, 1967, p. 34ff.).

A few objects made of silver are unique. A spectacular, almost lifesize head of a Sasanian king, perhaps Šāpūr II, is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Harper, 1966, pp. 136-46). Although images of rulers and emperors executed in stone and metal are familiar in the West, most large scale representations of Sasanian royalty are in relief sculpture. The original provenance of the silver head of a king in the Metropolitan Museum is allegedly Iran, but the circumstances of discovery and therefore the function of this work of art are unknown.

Other sculptures in the round made of silver also survive from the Sasanian era, but they represent animals rather than humans. Vessels in the shape of complete animals and heads of animals as well as rhyta terminating in animal heads were probably originally the property of members of the royal family and nobility (Harper, 1978, nos. 1, 5, 16; Sasanian Silver , 1967, no. 49). Nothing in the design or decoration of these objects refers specifically to the king.

The Middle Persian inscriptions appearing on both the Sasanian and the provincial vessels give their weight and sometimes the name of the owner (Henning, 1959, pp. 132-34; idem, 1961, pp. 353-56; Lukonin and Livshits, 1964, pp. 55-76; Brunner, 1974, pp. 109-21; Frye, 1973, pp. 2-11; Harmatta, 1973, 1974; Gignoux, 1975, 1982). This practice appears to have been customary from the 3rd century to the end of the period.

Stucco. The absence of stone architectural decoration in the Sasanian Near East is, to some extent, compensated for by the use of gypsum plaster—stucco—molded into designs and applied to the walls and ceilings of court and noble buildings. Originally brightly painted, particularly in red and blue, the stucco reliefs include a variety of subjects: hunts, banquets, royal figures, and, in great quantity, plant, animal, and geometric designs. The stucco is usually fragmentary, and the reconstruction of the overall scenes is difficult since the pieces uncovered in excavations are usually scattered over a large area. Sites that have produced a considerable quantity of this material are Kīš (Baltrusaitis, 1938, pp. 601-30; Pope, 1938, pp. 631-45; Moorey, 1976, pp. 65-66; idem, 1978; Harper, Royal Images, 1977, pp. 75-79) and Ctesiphon (Kühnel and Wachtsmuth, 1933; Schmidt, 1934, pp. 1-23; Kröger, 1977; 1982) in Iraq and Tepe Ḥeṣār (Schmidt, 1937, pp. 327-50) and Čāl Ṭarḵān Ešqābād (Thompson, 1976) in Iran. The last named site is, strictly speaking, not Sasanian since it has recently been convincingly dated to the late 7th or 8th century, but the designs remain close to Sasanian forms. A small amount of Sasanian stucco, consisting solely of plant designs, was discovered by the French expedition at Bīšāpūr in southern Iran (Ghirshman, 1956, pp. 149-75).

The conservatism apparent in the style and form of works produced in stucco makes it impossible to establish an absolute chronology in the absence of precise archeological data. The same motifs continue to be repeated in essentially the same form for centuries. In part, this is due to the method of manufacture: the use of molds undoubtedly encouraged the repetition of designs. Roger Moorey (1976, pp. 65-66) and Jens Kroger (in Harper, 1978, pp. 101-4 and in Kröger, 1982) have argued that the stucco from Kīš belongs to the 5th century, that from Ctesiphon and Ḥeṣār to the 6th or early 7th. These opinions are based on the archeological evidence as well as on small variations in the plant and geometric patterns. Until further works in this material are unearthed in controlled archeological excavations, the dating of stucco found in Mesopotamia and Iran will remain unclear.

Gems and seals. This large category is one of the most fruitful for the study of the art and iconography of the Sasanian period. Although the surface of the stamp seals is small, the carved images are more varied than those that have survived in any other medium. In recent years, moreover, specialists in the Middle Persian language have provided a means of establishing a relative chronology based on the changing forms of the Middle Persian letters in the inscriptions, which can then be applied on a comparative basis for those seals without inscriptions (Borisov and Lukonin, 1962; Bivar, 1969; Brunner, 1978; Lukonin, 1976, pp. 158-66; Gignoux, 1978).

Motifs are generally represented in a standard fashion. Single animals stride or are recumbent; animals attack each other; heads of animals radiate out from a central point; pairs of rams are antithetically placed on either side of a plant. Single flowers or bunches of three flowers are common, as is the human hand holding a plant or simply making a gesture in which the forefinger and the thumb are touching. Only a small number of seals represent specific Zoroastrian divinities or cult practices. The most common religious scene is the fire altar with or without attendants. Perhaps associated with a cult are single nude or draped females holding plants or fruit. Royal subjects are rare although a few examples of royal busts and full length figures have survived (Harper, 1978, pp. 142, 147). Human representations vary from simple “portraits,” in the form of a bust facing right in the impression, to elaborate images of high officials and priests dressed in the full regalia of their office. They wear tall caps decorated with floral motifs and devices or signs denoting family or rank.

A star and crescent frequently appear in the field on the face of Sasanian seals, and the inscriptions are customarily carved around the edge of the stone. In recent years many of the designs have been convincingly interpreted in terms of astrological and religious significance (Brunner, 1978; Borisov and Lukonin, 1962, pp. 31-45). A small group of Christian seals can also be identified on the basis of the subject matter (Lerner, 1977, pp. 1-74; Shaked, 1977).

The most common shapes of Sasanian seals are pierced hemispheroids and oval bezels, the latter designed to be set in finger rings, worn on armbands, or mounted as pendants. Stones are varied, chalcedony being one of the most popular.

Textiles. The sixth seventh century rock reliefs on the side walls of the ayvān of Ḵosrow II at Ṭāq-e Bostān illustrate a variety of woven and embroidered plant, animal, and geometric patterns on the garments of assorted personages (Herzfeld, 1920, pp. 121-39; Fukai and Horiuchi, 1969, 1972; Peck, 1969, pp. 101-46; Bier in Harper, 1978, pp. 119-25; von Falke, 1913); presumably these are textiles of Sasanian manufacture. Other fabrics found in tombs at Antinoë (Guimet, 1912; Pfister, 1948, pp. 46ff.; idem, 1932) in Egypt, in Central Asia (Stein, 1928), and in the Caucasus (Yerusalimskaya, 1972, pp. 5 46) have also been attributed to Iranian workshops on the basis of their similarity to the textile patterns at Ṭāq-e Bostān and to designs on other Sasanian monuments. None of the existing textiles can be absolutely identified as Sasanian with the exception of a few simply decorated fabrics excavated in a Sasanian grave at Šahr-e Qūmes in northeastern Iran (Hansman and Stronach, 1970, pp. 142-56). Wall paintings and graffiti. Literary sources mention the decoration of palaces with wall paintings (Ammianus Marcellinus 24.6) but only a few fragmentary murals from Susa (Ghirshman, 1962, fig. 224), Ayvān-e Ḵarka (Ghirshman, 1952, p. 21), and from Ḥeṣār (Schmidt, 1937, pp. 336-37) offer evidence for the appearance of works in this medium. The painting from Susa is a monumental hunting scene. At Ayvān-e Ḵarka, a royal headdress was depicted on the upper part of an apse. The fragments of Ḥeṣār illustrate the head of a horse and the leg of a rider. Recently excavated murals of Ḥājīābād in southern Iran—near Dārābgerd—also illustrate figural motifs (Azarnoush, 1983, pp. 172f.).

A crude fresco with battle scenes and a banquet was found in the Syrian city of Dura Europos. Middle Persian inscriptions associate it with the period of the 3rd century Sasanian occupation at this garrison city on the Euphrates River (Little in Baur, Rostovtzeff, and Bellinger, 1933, pp. 182-222). Graffiti at Persepolis belong to the decades immediately preceding the rise of the dynasty under Ardašīr I (Schmidt, 1953, pl. 199; Herzfeld, 1941, figs. 401, 402; Calmeyer, 1976, pp. 63-68). The representations include equestrian and standing figures as well as a lion and ram.

Mosaics. Although mosaics have survived in greater quantity than textiles and paintings, they come almost exclusively from a single site, Bīšāpūr, where eighteen panels with masks and heads, female dancers, musicians, and garland makers have been excavated (Ghirshman, 1956). Ghirshman interprets these 3rd century scenes as Dionysiac motifs and believes them to be an appropriate subject for the decoration of a banquet hall. Von Gall has suggested that there is a specific connection between the themes appearing on the mosaics and the victory reliefs of Šāpūr I in the nearby river gorge and considers both series of monuments illustrations of a Dionysiac pomp or victory celebration. (“Die Mosaiken von Bishapur,” 1971, pp. 193-205).

At Ctesiphon, mosaics decorated the walls and ceilings of the noble residences. Some of the cubes recovered by the German expedition are made of gold glass and the original effect must have been impressive (Reuther, 1929, pp. 442-43). Syrian craftsmen from Antioch, brought east as prisoners of war in the 3rd and 6th centuries, probably played an important role in the development of this craft within the Sasanian kingdom.

Gold. References to gold received by the Sasanians as tribute and booty abound in the ancient literature (Procopius 2.6, 7, 8, 9, 11), but there was no substantial source of gold within the lands permanently under Sasanian rule. This situation may explain the fact that there was never an extensive gold coinage and that the court plate was made of gilded silver. A few gold vessels of late Sasanian date come from the tomb of a Khazar chieftain in Pereshchepina in the Caucasus (Marshak, 1972; Werner, 1984). More numerous are the golden belts and swords found by chance in recent years on Iranian soil (Ghirshman, 1963, pp. 293-311; Nickel, 1973, pp. 131-42; Harper, 1978, pp. 83-84). The form of the swords, with P shaped mounts on one side of the scabbard, differs from those appearing on early Sasanian rock reliefs. This distinctive form of suspension was adopted by the Sasanians possibly as early as the 5th century from the Hephthalites but certainly by the 6th century from Turkic invaders in the lands northeast of Iran (Trousdale, 1975, p. 94).

Glass and pottery. Recent excavations by a Tokyo University expedition in the area of Daylamān in northwestern Iran (Sono and Fukai, 1968, pl. XLI) and by an Italian mission at Choche (Venco Ricciardi, 1967, pp. 93-104) in southern Iraq have provided some information concerning the chronology and typology of Sasanian glass and pottery. Strong influence from the Mediterranean world is apparent in the forms and designs of the glass ware, an industry prominent in the east Roman empire (Clairmont, 1963, pp. 65-67; von Saldern, 1963, pp. 7-16; idem, 1968, pp. 32-62; Harper, 1978, pp. 150-59; Fukai, 1977). The large number of Sasanian glasses decorated with wheel cut facets suggests that this form of surface embellishment was particularly popular within Iran, the alleged source of most vessels with wheel cut designs.

Early Sasanian ceramics continue many of the traditional Parthian forms. Monochrome glazed wares are common in Iraq and in those areas of Iran, around Susa, that are naturally an extension of the Tigris Euphrates valley. Other Iranian wares of Sasanian date have a red burnished surface (Wilkinson, 1963, fig. 16). Until extensive excavations have been undertaken at Sasanian sites in different parts of Iran and Iraq, it is impossible to reconstruct a comprehensive ceramic typology and establish a chronological sequence for the period.

Conclusion. Sasanian art is an expression of the social and religious institutions that developed in Iran during the first half of the first millennium A.D. A powerful central authority, the monarchy, and an established state religion, Zoroastrianism, dominated and ordered daily life. In Sasanian art there is a clear emphasis on order and clarity of design. Considerable repetition occurs in the subject matter and in the ways of portraying standard motifs. To some extent this can be explained by the fact that many of the surviving works of art had a particular political or cultic significance, and their appearance was regulated by the demands of dynastic or religious doctrine. The adherences to formal rather than realistic images predominates even in the minor arts, on seal stone, bronzes, and textiles.

Although many Sasanian motifs are familiar from earlier periods of Near Eastern art (plant forms, rams confronting a tree, human headed winged bulls, bull and lion combats, birds of prey attacking animals, there are a number of designs newly adopted from Western sources (populated vine scrolls, vintaging scenes, winged victory figures). Toward the end of the period, influences from the East—India and Central Asia—increase. These regions may be the source of the narrative and genre scenes appearing on some late silver plate (Harper, 1978, pp. 74-76). It is also probable that many of the Greco Roman designs reached the Sasanians from their eastern neighbors rather than directly from the Mediterranean world. In return, Sasanian landscape, geometric, and figural patterns were adopted and used in the art of Central Asia.

At present, only those monuments reflecting the life and beliefs of the ruling classes have been recovered and studied in depth. Future archeological excavations at Sasanian centers may provide a better understanding of the material remains and broaden our knowledge of the art of this important period in Iranian history.

See also SASANIAN ROCK RELIEFS.

ART IN IRAN vi. PRE-ISLAMIC EASTERN IRAN AND CENTRAL ASIA

Geographical and historical background. Eastern Iran and Central Asia comprise that vast tract of land, referred to as Turkestan, that extends from the Caspian Sea to the Kansu province of China. The present political boundaries of Central Asia embraces Afghanistan north of the Hindu Kush, the Soviet Central Asian republics that comprise Russian or Western Turkestan (Figure 48), and the Chinese province of Sinkiang (Serindia) that corresponds with Chinese or Eastern Turkestan. Watered by the Āmū Daryā (Oxus) and the Syr Daryā (Jaxartes) rivers and their tributaries, the cultivated valleys of northern Afghanistan and Russian Turkestan are surrounded by desert wastes, steppes, and mountains.

Figure 48. Map of eastern Iran and Soviet Central Asia showing early medieval sites.View full image in a new tab

Although archeological investigation has revealed the existence of sedentary communities in eastern Iran and Transoxiana from the Neolithic period (see under Archeology, Pre Islamic Central Asia), monumental works of art of the pre-Islamic age are there evidenced only from the early medieval period that corresponds with the Parthian and Sasanian dynasties in Iran. The development of the early medieval Central Asian civilization and its traditions of monumental art was evidently directly related to the establishment of the Silk Route that connected China to India and the West (Figure 47). Sustained by the transcontinental traffic and inspired by the cultures of Buddhist India, pre-Islamic Iran, the Greco Roman West and early medieval China, the sedentary civilizations of Central Asia underwent a period of rapid development from the first century A.D. until the Arab conquest in the eighth. From Tunhuang in Kansu province the trade routes followed either the northern or the southern rim of the Taklamakan desert to join again east of the Pamirs at Kashgar. From Kashgar one route followed the middle course of the Oxus to Marv where it joined a second principal route from Kashgar that passed through the Ferghana valley and Transoxiana. From Marv the route continued westward across the Iranian Plateau to Syria and the Mediterranean world.

Figure 47. Silk routes of Central Asia.View full image in a new tab

The pre-Islamic civilizations of eastern Iran and Central Asia are identified with at least five Middle Iranian linguistic groups (Sogdian, Khotanese Saka, Parthian, Choresmian, and Bactrian) and with the Tokharian language current in Kucha and related centers in Serindia. Uighur Turkish found currency in the easternmost oases of Serindia only from the eighth century A.D. Sogdian which replaced Khotanese Saka as the lingua franca of early medieval Central Asia, was the language of Sogdiana in the basins of the Zarafšān and Kashak (Kāšak) rivers in Transoxiana. Parthian, Choresmian and Bactrian constituted the native speeches respectively of Parthia, which corresponds with the province of Khorasan in Iran, Choresmia (Ḵᵛārezm) in the lower Oxus, and Bactria or Kushan Toḵārestān on both banks of the Oxus along its middle course. Thus, the geographical distribution of the east Iranian linguistic groups follows roughly the limits of the easternmost provinces of the Achaemenid empire of the fifth century B.C. East Iranian Saka dialects were known in Khotan, Tumšuq, and Murtuq in Serindia. The occupation of the Greco Bactrian kingdom by Saka tribes and the migration of the Yüeh chih hordes from the northeastern borders of China to Bactria familiarized the Chinese with the commercial potential of the fertile lands of the Oxus. With the establishment of Chinese diplomatic relations with Parthia, Chinese silks were introduced in the West and Western and Indian influences were transmitted to China. In the first century A.D., the Yüeh chih expanded beyond the Oxus into Transoxiana and India, creating the Kushan empire, the Kūšānšahr, which reached its apogee under Kanishka in the early part of the second century A.D., but became subject to the Sasanian king Šāpūr I in A.D. 241. The political role of the Kushans in Toḵārestān was gradually assumed by the Huns, the Chionites of Ammianus Marcellinus, and, with the decline of Chinese power in Central Asia in the 3rd century was coupled with the penetration of the Tarim basin by the White Huns, or Hephthalites. After the defeat of the Hephthalites by the combined forces of Sasanian Iran and the Western Turks in A.D. 557, the eastern portion of Hephthalite lands fell under Turkish control. In the Far East the Chinese eventually subjugated Serindia but lost it to the Arabs in A.D. 751.

Eastern Iran and Bactria. The Hellenistic artistic tradition that was transplanted in the Orient in the wake of Alexander’s conquest of the Achaemenid empire provides the common denominator in the earliest monumental works of art from eastern Iran and Bactria. The Hellenistic contribution to Parthian art of the first century B.C., a period when the Arsacids had made their greatest territorial gains in Western Asia, is documented in the material remains from the early Parthian capital at Nisa, near Ashkhabad, (ʿEšqābād) in Soviet Turkmenistan. Hellenistic marble sculpture, royal images in painted clay and the carved ivory rhyta from Nisa testify to the prevalence of Hellenistic artistic patterns in the east Iranian artistic workshops (Plate XIII). The survival of the Greco Iranian artistic tradition in the latest art of the Parthians in eastern Iran, is evidenced by the Hellenistic iconography and style of some of the figures depicted in the murals from the palace at Kūh e Ḵᵛāja, in Sīstān.

Plate XIII. Marble sculpture from the early Parthian capital at Nisa, in Soviet Turkmenia.View full image in a new tab

The earliest monumental works of art from Bactria are exemplified by marble sculptures from the Hellenistic city at Aï Khanum (Āy Ḵānom) situated near the confluence of the Oxus and Kokcha rivers in northern Afghanistan. The Greco Bactrian artistic style survived the nomadic occupation of Bactria around 100 B.C., and provided the basis for the art of the early Kushan rulers of Bactria. The murals and painted clay sculpture from the early Kushan palace at Khalchayan (Ḵalčayān) near Denau, in southern Uzbekistan, combine the idiom of Greco Bactrian art with symbols of dynastic legitimacy that pervade Kushan art from other parts of Kūšānšahr (Plate XIV). The splay kneed posture of the enthroned figure depicted on a terra cotta plaque from Khalchayan, repeats the formula found in royal portraits from the Kushan dynastic shrines at Surkh (Sorḵ) Kotal, in northern Afghanistan, and at Mathurā, in India. Similar symbols of dynastic legitimacy are found in Parthian art of the first and second centuries (cf. portraits from Šamī, Bard e Nešānda, and Hatra).

Plate XIV. Painted clay image of a princely personage from the early Kushan palace at Khalchayan, southern Uzbekistan SSR. 1st-2nd century A.D.View full image in a new tab

With the establishment of the Buddhist religion in Kushan Bactria, Indian artistic canons were introduced in the monumental arts of Toḵārestān. Incipient traces of Buddhist art are found in the busts of musicians from the alabaster relief from Airtam, Near Termeḏ (2nd 3rd cents. A.D.), in stone reliefs and murals from Termedò and nearby Kara tepe (2nd 4th cents. A.D.), and in the painted stucco portraits of donors from Dālverzīn tepe, near Denau (2nd 4th cents. A. D.). The principal source for the transmission of early Buddhist art to Serindia was Gandhara, in southern Afghanistan. Situated south of the Hindu Kush at the intersection of the roads to the Oxus, India, and Serindia, the Gandharan school is identified with schist and stucco sculpture restricted to Buddhist themes and an Indian iconography expressed according to the idiom of Greco Bactrian art. Gandharan art of the fourth and fifth centuries A.D., exemplified by stucco sculpture from Hadda which manifests the influence of Roman art and a tendency towards abstraction, provided the ultimate model for the Buddhist clay images of Serindia. Such clay sculpture was molded around a wooden armature and completed by the application of a layer of plaster that was gilded or coated with paint.

This method was modified in the execution of the gigantic Buddha images from Bāmīān. The 53 m and 35 m Buddhas from Bāmīān, northeast of Kabul, in turn served as prototypes for the colossal Buddha images in the rock cut shrines of Serindia and China. The plastered rock cut niches of the Bāmīān Buddhas were decorated with murals that display varying degrees of Greco Bactrian, Indian, and Sasanian influences. The hieratic compositions, rigid disposition of flying ribbons, ornaments, and royal crowns depicted in the murals from the niche of the 35 m Buddha, follow Sasanian stylistic and iconographic patterns of the sixth and seventh centuries. A similar style is suggested for the Indian style of the murals from the niche of the 53 m Buddha. The Mahāyāna pantheon depicted in the latter murals prevails in the paintings from the Buddhist caves at Kakrak, northeast of Bāmīān, and in the murals and painted clay sculpture from the Buddhist monastery at Fondukistan, southeast of Bāmīān. The graceful curve of the long waisted bodies, the sensuous faces and delicate hand gestures of the images from Fondukistan perpetuate the mannered elegance of the Gupta art of India in this northerly outpost of Indian culture.

The influence of the Buddhist art of Fondukistan, dated to the seventh and eighth centuries, is reflected in the contemporaneous art of northern Toḵārestān, exemplified by the murals and clay sculpture from the Buddhist monastery at Adzhina tepe, near Kurgan Tyube, in southern Tajikistan. The colossal image of a recumbent Buddha (originally 12 m) from this site, recalls the gigantic Buddha image of Bāmīān, noted by the Chinese pilgrim Hsüan tsang in the seventh century, and other large Buddha images uncovered in western Turkestan (from Krasnaya rechka near Frunze, Kuva in Ferghana [Farḡāna], and Marv). The linear and two dimensional style and iconography of the secular themes depicted in the murals from Adzhina tepe, find parallels in the secular murals from Balalyk tepe, in southern Uzbekistan, in the murals from the vault of the 35 m Buddha at Bāmīān, and in the murals from Dālverzīn in northern Afghanistan. The shallow space, linear and flat forms, matted hair and distinctive costume and capes of the male and female figures in these murals distinguish these paintings as products of the seventh century regional school of Toḵārestān.

The origins of a distinctive Iranian Islamic culture are to be sought in eastern Iran, particularly Khorasan. During the Islamic conquest the indigenous population had been augmented by Arab settlers. From this mixture of Arab and local groups arose a PersianIslamic culture in both its religious and secular manifestations. The critical role that Khorasan and the adjacent parts of Central Asia had played in the establishment of the ʿAbbasid dynasty also gave the region close ties to Iraq. Even when ʿAbbasid political control over the region declined with the establishment of strong local rulers under the Taherids (206-60/821-73) and Samanids (204-395/819-1005), cultural links to Iraq remained significant. At the same time, however, these dynasties and their successors, the Ghaznavids (367-582/977-1186) also encouraged the development of local traditions. In its formative stages, therefore, the art of eastern Iran combines features reflecting the taste of the ʿAbbasid capital with those of local origin.

Ḵᵛārazm (Choresmia). Pre-Islamic Choresmia witnessed two periods of urbanization that preceded and followed the Sasanian dynasty in Iran. The “classical” phase, also known as “Kang kyo” (K'ang chü of the Chinese sources), refers to the pinnacle of the Choresmian civilization during its first period of urban development. Reflections of Greco Iranian and Greco Bactrian art are found in the realistically proportioned human figures executed in painted clay and terra cotta, and in the illusionistic drapery effects in murals from the “classical” phase of Choresmian art. If the softly rounded contours, robust proportions and large oval face of the terra cotta female figure from the Ko¥ krylgan kala necropolis recall ultimately Hellenistic prototypes, the proportions and facial features of a male ossuary figure from the same site parallel contemporaneous developments in late Parthian art (Plate XV). Regional iconography and dress are combined with Hellenistic illusionistic drapery effects and realistic proportions in the monumental painted sculptures from the “Hall of Kings,” at the Choresmian royal palace at Toprak kala, northeast of Bīrūnī. The murals and clay sculptures from Toprak kala and from the fort at Ko¥ krylgan kala, east of Bīrūnī, may be dated on the basis of Choresmian inscriptions from these sites to the end of the first period of Choresmian urbanization. S. P. Tolstov, the director of the Choresmian excavations, believed that the penetration of Choresmia in the third and fourth centuries A.D. contributed to the downfall of the Choresmian towns. However, W. B. Henning has noted that since Toprak kala and Ko¥ krylgan kala were doubtless among the towns that were abandoned after the defeat of the Choresmians by the Sasanian king Šāpūr I (A.D. 240 72), during the latter’s first regnal year, the third century A.D. may be regarded as the terminal date for the “classical” phase in Choresmian art. The Choresmian necropolis at Tok kala, near Nukus, has yielded painted alabaster ossuaries dated on the basis of inscriptions to the second period of Choresmian urbanization in the seventh and eighth centuries. Scenes of mourning, depicted in a linear and sketchy style on these ossuaries, follow the conventions adopted in the funerary art of other east Iranian traditions. A painted ash urn from Marv, and a Sogdian mural from Temple II, at Panjikent, offer sixth century antecedents for the formula used for the illustration of the mourning scene on the Choresmian ossuaries.

Plate XV. Terra-cotta ossuary figure from the Choresmian fort at Koĭ-krylgan-kala, Uzbekistan SSR, 2nd-3rd century A.D. The Hermitage Museum, Leningrad.View full image in a new tab

Sogdiana. The development of the monumental arts of pre-Islamic Sogdiana is limited chronologically to the fifth through the first quarter of the eighth century A.D., when Sogdian merchants acted as principal agents in the promotion of the transcontinental trade along the Silk Route. Sogdian art known primarily from urban centers in Transoxiana, reflects the values and lifestyle of the landed aristocracy (dehqāns) and the feudal lords, as well as those of the Sogdian merchants who contributed to the enrichment of the cities.

Wall paintings which decorated the plastered mud brick architecture of the urban centers, constituted the principal medium of artistic expression in Sogdiana. As an economical and dispensable art form, wall paintings found widespread use in Sogdian private residences, palaces and sanctuaries uncovered at the Sogdian capital city of Samarkand, at Panjikent situated 40 miles east of Samarkand, at Varakhsha (Varaḵša) in the Bukhara oasis, and at Shahristan (Šahrestān) in the easternmost Sogdian principality of Osrūšana. The earliest Sogdian paintings, datable on archeological grounds to the early sixth century, have been uncovered in the northern precincts of a Sogdian public sanctuary, referred to as Temple II, at Panjikent. The presence in these early Sogdian paintings of iconographic and stylistic parallels to the secular painting tradition of Toḵārestān is to be expected in the non Buddhist context of Sogdian art. Noteworthy, however, are the reminiscences of the Greco Buddhist conventions of Gandharan art met in the oval, beardless and somewhat idealized male heads and in the treatment of drapery. The Sogdian tradition of painting, like that of Toḵārestān, was thus built in part upon conventions developed earlier in the arts of the Kushans, the Parthians, and the Choresmians. But a pressing demand existed for an art that would adequately express the spirit of the new age within the cultural context of non Buddhist Central Asia. This demand resulted in a search for new stylistic and thematic standards and was met in the choice of a linear and two dimensional style in wall painting and in the development of a distinctive artistic idiom for the representation of continuous pictorial narration. The principal contribution of Sogdian painting lies in its exploitation of the potential of these stylistic objectives, and in the development of a richly narrative and locally meaningful thematic repertory.

The earliest Sogdian murals from Panjikent picture the native Sogdian pantheon that included a large number of Iranian deities. The Iranian gods Mithra and Wyšprkr, the goddess Nana of the Sumero Akkadian pantheon, and a funerary cult associated with the royal dynasty have been identified in Sogdian murals and in wood carvings preserved in charred fragments from Panjikent and Shahristan. Conclusive identifications are lacking, however, for a large number of religious themes, such as the representation of marine life on a carved clay relief panel (30 x 3 ft) from the portico of Temple II, at Panjikent. The major body of the Sogdian wall paintings was discovered in private residences, where they had a primarily secular function (Figure 49). Scenes of heroic, historic, and popular interest frequently comprise the exclusive ornament of walls of large residential units where they are distributed around a divine image depicted on the wall facing the entrance. By contrast to the hieratic and self contained compositions of religious imagery, heroic and epic cycles are generally depicted as a sequence of episodes in one or more registers of continuous narration (Figure 50). The importance of the epic and historic themes is suggested by their allocation to a medial position on the walls, the monumental dimensions of the figures and the use of brilliant colors. Legendary themes are distinguished, furthermore, by formal conventions and iconographic formulae that identify them as illustrations of heroic cycles. Like the heroic and secular literature of entertainment, the Sogdian murals were cultivated by professional artists who served the demands and interests of a warlike and aristocratic society.

Figure 49. Reconstruction of part of a Sogdian private residence at Panjikent, datable to the late seventh to early eighth century CE.View full image in a new tab

Figure 50. Sketch of a mail-clad warrior from a heroic cycle in a Sogdian mural from Panjikent VI. 55, north wall. Late seventh to early eighth century CE.View full image in a new tab

The heroic legend preserved in the triple register of continuous narration from Panjikent VI:41, represents a rare example of a narrative sequence for which positive identification has been offered. The exploits of the hero depicted in these murals were compared by their excavator A. M. Belenitski¥ to those of the hero Rostam whose legend is recorded in a Sogdian fragment from Tun huang. Moreover, variations between the Sogdian Rostam fragment and the later Rostam cycle, recorded in Ferdowsi’s Šāh nāma, suggest the existence in eastern Iran of an elaborate cycle of Rostam legends in pre-Islamic times. With the exception of the Rostam cycle and the Żoḥḥāk story from Panjikent I (north wing of ayvān), the content of the innumerable heroic epics depicted in Sogdian painting remains elusive. The local significance and origin of the latter, however, is suggested by the novelty and complexity of the epic cycles. Connections between the names of known heroes and legends familiar from Persian epics are indeed lacking in the one instance where Sogdian inscriptions provide the names of the battling heroes (Panjikent XXII, walls flanking altar of main hall). Legendary figures and heroized individuals are frequently identified by means of specific marks, attributes, or associations that distinguish them from heroes of popular themes and living individuals in historic documentaries. A concern for realistic detail and accuracy characterizes the representations of historic documentaries such as those uncovered in the murals from the Panjikent citadel and from an aristocratic residence at Samarkand. The formula adopted for heroic and historic themes is modified in the illustrations of fables and scenes of daily life (cf. Panjikent VI:4l, lowermost register). The latter are depicted synoptically in condensed and independent compositions, restricted to small panels, that may reflect their derivation from book painting.

Serindia. Works of art associated with the Saka tribes that roamed the region east of the Jaxartes and the Pamirs in the first millennium B.C. are limited to animal shaped artifacts that display a greater affinity to the Scythian “Animal Style” of the Eurasian steppe belt than to the subsequent monumental arts of the Saka speaking communities of Serindia. The earliest monumental arts of the oases of Khotan, Niya, and Mīrān on the southern trade route, display a direct dependence upon Indian culture and Gandharan art of the Kushan period. The representation of episodes from the Buddhist Vessantara Jātaka and the use of Greco Bactrian iconographic and stylistic conventions in the murals from shrine M. V. at Mīrān, suggest a direct link between Gandhara and this early school of Buddhist art in Serindia.

A broader range of artistic influences is found in the monumental arts of the Saka speaking kingdom of Khotan, datable to the seventh and eighth centuries. The hieratic Buddhist images, formulaic rows of Buddhas and laconic panel compositions of Khotanese art were inspired by tantric and Mahāyāna Buddhist literary sources and occasionally by local legends. Despite its debt to the artistic traditions of Gupta India, Toḵārestān, China, and Sogdiana, the Khotanese artistic school evolved a distinctive style that left its impact upon the arts of T'ang China and Tibet. The influence of Khotanese art may be seen also in the tantric images in painted clay from Kuva, Ferghana, and in the representation of a frontal four armed goddess and demoniac figures in the Sogdian murals from Shahristan, Osrūšana.

A reduced pantheon limited to Hinayāna Buddhist themes pervades the arts of the majority of oases on the northern trade route. The mold made clay images from Temple B, at Tumšuq combine Gandharan features with the distinctive facial mask that was evolved in the more easterly Serindian schools of Qïzïl and Šorčuq. Tumšuq was politically part of the Tokharian speaking kingdom of Kucha, which prior to its subjugation by T'ang China in A.D. 647, was a flourishing oasis with a chivalric society dedicated to Hinayāna Buddhism. The extensive series of murals uncovered in Buddhist establishments in the kingdom of Kucha fall within two general stylistic categories. An Indianizing style, represented by the Indian type and relatively complex compositions, may be distinguished from a regional style, referred to as “Indo Iranian” or “Central Asian,” characterized by a linear and mannered representation of the human form, flat and ornamentalized background and a cool and exquisite palette (Plate XVI). The standardized human figures in the latter category of murals are provided with white highlights and broad bands of colored accents along the contours that are ultimately derived from the less schematic chiaroscuro effects of Gandharan art. By contrast to the graceful pliant bodies of celestial figures and the inventive compositions used in representations of Jātaka stories (cf. “Cave of the Swordbearers” at Qïzïl) the secular figures of donors are rigidly frontal and arranged in processions against a flat flower strewn background. The splay toed posture of the male donors from the “Devil’s Cave” at Qïzïl (Plate XVII), recalls the posture of the donors in Sogdian murals of the sixth century (cf. northern precinct of Temple II, Panjikent) and ultimately Sasanian prototypes found in the rock reliefs from the reign of Šāpūr I.

Plate XVI. Representation of a Bodhisattva, in a mural from the Māyā Cave, Qïzïl. Museum für Indische Kunst, Staatliche Museen, Berlin.View full image in a new tab

Plate XVII. Representation of donors in a mural from the Devil's Cave, Qïzïl.View full image in a new tab

The artistic school of Kucha evidently provided the impetus for the development of the more easterly regional workshops of Šorčuq and Qarašahr, on the northern trade route. With the subjugation of Qarašahr by the Chinese in A.D. 668, twenty years after the fall of Kucha, the center of artistic activity in Serindia shifted east to the Turfan oasis. Turfanese art of the eighth and ninth centuries manifests the Chinese palette and style, as well as the Mongoloid facial features that characterize T'ang paintings from the Thousand Buddha Caves at Tun huang, in the Kansu province of China. From the synthesis of Chinese and Serindian artistic conventions, the Turfanese school evolved a regional style that flourished in the Buddhist sites of the ninth century. The subject matter of Turfanese art was considerably expanded with the establishment of the Uighur Turks in A.D. 843 at the Turfanese capital, Kao Ch'ang (Qočo, Qara khoja). Manicheism, Nestorian Christianity, and Mahāyāna Buddhism provided themes for the murals, painted fabrics, and illuminated manuscripts produced in Turfan under Uighur patronage. Turfan, which remained a repository for the pre-Islamic artistic traditions of Central Asia until the eleventh century, served as a source of artistic inspiration not only for the Far East, but also for the arts of the Turkish and early Mongol dynasties of the Islamic West.

ART IN IRAN vii. ISLAMIC PRE-SAFAVID

This article will present the broad history of artistic development in Iran from the Islamic conquest to the advent of the Safavids in four chronological sections. The first section will deal with the artistic heritage of the region and its effect on the formation of Islamic taste; the second will analyze trends during the formative period of the eighth to eleventh centuries; the third will consider the period of fulfillment in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries; and the final section will consider developments between the Mongol invasions and the sixteenth century. For each period the principal media considered will be: calligraphy and manuscript production, ceramics, and metalwork.

A.Heritage of the past and its influence.

Of especial importance for the development of art in Islamic Iran was the cultural and artistic legacy of the immediate past: that of the Sasanians for the western regions and that of the city states of Central Asia for the eastern ones. The Sasanian empire was noted for its production of luxurious silk fabrics, and a direct continuity probably existed between textiles produced in the Sasanian and Islamic periods (R. B. Serjeant, Islamic Textiles, Beirut, 1972, pp. 711; Christensen, Iran Sass., pp. 12627). Sasanian literature, particularly the Xwadāy-namāg, also provided a link between the two epochs. This text and other literary works served to perpetuate knowledge of pre-Islamic taste and traditions for Islamic scholars and artists (Christensen, ibid., pp. 5962).

Ruled by local princely families, the oasis cities of Khorasan and Central Asia had populations that were religiously and ethnically diverse. Local merchants, particularly the Sogdians who traveled widely dealing in silk thread and cloth, provided a link between this region and distant areas of Asia and Europe. In both its eclecticism and its enthusiasm for luxury goods, the taste of this region appears to have influenced Islamic culture.

Especially significant was an appreciation of wall painting that can be seen from the frescoes which decorated princely dwellings and sanctuaries at Panjikent and Afrāsīāb. Some paintings show links with the art of India or China (A. M. Belenizki, Mittelasien: Kunst der Sogden, Leipzig, 1980, pp. 21319). The local appreciation of figural painting may have influenced both Islamic art and literature. Islamic poets of the region often describe human beauty in terms of its similarity to the ideal of a Buddhist image. It has been suggested that this literary terminology was paralleled by the imitation of the physical traits of Buddhist images in paintings on pottery and in other media during the Islamic period (A. S. Melikian-Chirvani, “Le legs littéraire du bouddhisme iranien,” Le monde iranien et l’Islam 2, 1974, pp. 171).

B. The formative period: 8th to 11th centuries.

During these centuries, the political center of the Islamic world lay outside of Iran—at first in Arabia, then in Syria and finally in Iraq. Hence, artistic developments in Iran were often affected or even caused by trends having their origin elsewhere.

Little is known of artistic developments in Iran during the first Islamic century, but it is evident that the rise of the ʿAbbasid dynasty and the establishment of its center at Baghdad was probably of crucial importance for Iran. During the 3rd/9th and 4th/10th centuries the cultural influence of Baghdad was felt in various regions of Iran.

In western Iran, the cultural dominance of Baghdad was of even longer duration. Indeed, despite the political and military ascendancy of the Buyid dynasty (320-450/932-1062) over the caliphate, western Iran does not appear to have acquired an independent artistic identity before the late eleventh century when Isfahan became the center of the Saljuq empire.

The origins of a distinctive Iranian Islamic culture are to be sought in eastern Iran, particularly Khorasan. During the Islamic conquest the indigenous population had been augmented by Arab settlers. From this mixture of Arab and local groups arose a PersianIslamic culture in both its religious and secular manifestations. The critical role that Khorasan and the adjacent parts of Central Asia had played in the establishment of the ʿAbbasid dynasty also gave the region close ties to Iraq. Even when ʿAbbasid political control over the region declined with the establishment of strong local rulers under the Taherids (206-60/821-73) and Samanids (204-395/819-1005), cultural links to Iraq remained significant. At the same time, however, these dynasties and their successors, the Ghaznavids (367-582/977-1186) also encouraged the development of local traditions. In its formative stages, therefore, the art of eastern Iran combines features reflecting the taste of the ʿAbbasid capital with those of local origin.

1. The introduction of the Arabic language and alphabet. One of the fundamental changes brought by Islam was the introduction of the Arabic language and of the script in which it was written. At the present time it is difficult to separate the history of Iranian calligraphy from that of Iraq. The development of calligraphy in the Islamic world is often linked to innovations made by scribes in government employ. Thus, scripts created by scribes working at the Omayyad court in Damascus (1st/7th-2nd/8th centuries) are probably the basis of the script known as kūfī that was widely used for Koranic manuscripts and monumental epigraphy in the Islamic world, including Iran (A. Grohmann, Arabische Paläographie II, Vienna, 1971, p. 7192).

During the ninth to eleventh centuries, scribes working in Iraq developed a number of cursive hands for use in government correspondence and in the copying of manuscripts. Although the evolution of these scripts was probably gradual, their formalization is traditionally associated with two ʿAbbasid calligraphers: Ebn Moqla (272328/885940) and Ebn al-Bawwāb (d. 413/1022). The latter calligrapher also served the Buyid ruler of Shiraz Bahāʾ-al-dawla, so that it would be logical to expect strong Iraqi influence among western Iranian scribes (D. S. Rice, The Unique Ibn al-Bawwab Manuscript in the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin, 1955, pp. 5, 78). Unfortunately the absence of dated and localized manuscripts hinders the investigation of this question.

A particular development, probably centered in eastern Iran and Central Asia, was the adaptation of the kūfī script for copying manuscripts other than the Koran. An early example of this combination is seen in a manuscript on the biographies of grammarians written by ʿAlī b. Šāḏān Rāzī in 367/986 (N. Abbott, “Arabic Paleography,” Ars Islamica 8, 1941, p. 82).

During the course of the eleventh century a script known as “Eastern Kūfī” that combines angular and curvilinear features became popular in eastern Iran and Afghanistan, where it was used extensively for the copying of Korans. This script is characterized by extremely elongated vertical letters that are contrasted with strongly curving letter terminals (M. Lings, The Quranic Art of Calligraphy and Illumination, London, 1976, nos. 1119).

Although eastern Iran thus appears to have developed its own style of calligraphy, the region was, in other respects, closely tied to intellectual currents of Iraq. During the late eighth and early ninth centuries scholars working in Iraq translated into Arabic a number of texts in Greek, Pahlavi, and other languages. Subsequently, revisions or translations of these texts were produced in eastern Iran and Central Asia. The De Materia Medica of Dioscurides translated in Iraq by Ḥosayn b. Esḥāq was revised by the Khorasani scholar Natīlī who prepared an illustrated copy of the text in 990-991 for a Samanid notable. A copy of this version made in 1083 is preserved in Leiden (M. M. Sadek, The Arabic Materia Medica of Dioscuride, Quebec, 1983, pp. 11-13, 15). Ebn al-Moqaffaʿ’s Arabic translation of Kalīla wa Demna was translated into Persian and illustrated for a Samanid amir (T. W. Arnold, Painting in Islam, Oxford, 1928, pp. 2526).

2. Ceramics during the formative period. The degree of artistic attention accorded to ceramics in Islamic art is one of its distinguishing features, and those of Islamic Iran are noted for the variety of their techniques of decoration and for their colorful glazes. During both the Sasanian and Omayyad periods ceramics appear to have served only utilitarian purposes. It is probable that the diversification of ceramic wares associated with Islamic Iran arose only in the ʿAbbasid period. Two factors have been suggested to account for the variety and quality of ceramics in Islamic Iran: religious scruples against the use of vessels made of precious metals, and a new consciousness, created by an acquaintance with Chinese vessels, of the decorative potential of ceramic wares (A. Lane, Early Islamic Pottery, London, 1947, pp. 10-11). Although religious concerns may indeed have been a catalyst for the development of Islamic ceramics, several features of those vessels suggest that Chinese models were influential in determining the course of that evolution.

a. The influence of China and Iraq. Ceramic finds from Sīrāf, a port on the Persian Gulf, demonstrate that by the year 184/800 trade links with China were well established (D. Whitehouse, “Chinese Stoneware from Siraf: the Earliest Finds,” in South Asian Archaeology, ed. N. Hammond, London, 1973, pp. 250-53). Texts mention gifts of Chinese porcelain to the caliph Hārūn al-Rašīd (r. 170-194/786-809) and indicate that already by his time Chinese vessels had acquired a reputation of excellence that was tinged with elements of magic—they were said to reveal the presence of poisons or provide a glimpse of the future (P. Kahle, “Chinese Porcelain in the Lands of Islam,” Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society, 1940-41, pp. 27-46). Fragments of Chinese ceramic vessels have been recovered in the excavations of a number of important Islamic sites in Iran, but the evidence from Sīrāf is the most detailed. The earliest arrivals appear to have been glazed stoneware storage vessels that were imported along with their contents. These were followed by painted stoneware and later by green and white wares some of which were decorated with irregular splashes of color (Whitehouse, op. cit., pp. 244-50).

Sometime during the ninth century the importation and appreciation of Chinese ceramics gave rise to their imitation. Iraq seems to have played a crucial role in the creation of these new types of Islamic ceramics. The most popular vessel type was a shallow bowl with a white glazed surface. Although similar in shape to Chinese vessels, the Islamic ones differed in both technique and decoration. In place of the clear glazes and porcelaineous body found in Chinese vessels, Islamic potters used an opaque white glaze over an earthenware body. They also usually added painted decoration in various colors, blue and green being the most popular (Lane, op. cit., pp. 1014).

Another important innovation of the ʿAbbasid era was the use of luster-painting over a surface covered with an opaque glaze. The exact place and date where this technique originated is still unknown—some would place it in Iraq, specifically Baghdad, while others would connect it with Egypt and link it to techniques of glass production in that region (Lane, op. cit., pp. 1416). Wherever or however it originated, luster-painted ceramics became the hallmark of Islamic taste. Potters in ninth and tenth-century Iraq used both abstract decorative schemes and figural designs. Iraqi luster vessels were widely exported and have been found at various Iranian sites.

A third type of ceramics popular in the ʿAbbasid period, known as “splash ware,” has often been ascribed to Chinese influence. This category includes several different decorative schemes. Sometimes the decoration consists merely of spots or dashes of green, yellow or brown applied under a clear glaze. In other examples a design is also incised into the vessel’s fabric. Vessels with both dotted and incised designs were excavated in Iraq at Samarra and therefore assumed to be of tenth-century date. The Samarra finds also included fragments of Chinese vessels decorated with similar colors and it has been widely believed that Near Eastern “splash ware” was created under Chinese inspiration (Lane, op. cit., p. 12; Whitehouse, “Islamic Glazed Pottery in Iraq and the Persian Gulf: the Ninth and Tenth Centuries,” Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli 39, [N.S. 29], 1979, pp. 4950). Excavations in both China and the Near East (Sīrāf, Susa, Taḵt-e Solaymān [Takht-i Sulaiman], and Laškarī Bāzār) have cast doubt on these assumptions. The Chinese ware long assumed to be the prototype of the Islamic vessels appears to have been primarily a funerary ware and its production diminished sharply after the middle of the eighth century whereas finds from Sīrāf, Susa, Taḵte Solaymān and Laškarī Bāzār suggest that “splash ware” using spots of color was an indigenous Near Eastern type that became popular during the tenth century. The use of incised patterns began later, probably during the eleventh century, and may have remained in use into the twelfth century. This ware may have been developed in Iraq and spread from there to other centers (Y. Crowe, “Early Islamic Pottery and China,” Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society 41, 1975-77, pp. 268-71; Whitehouse, op. cit., pp. 50-52, 54, 56; J. C. Gardin, Céramiques et monnaies de Lashkari Bazar et de Bust. Lashkari Bazar II: Les trouvailles, Paris, 1963, pp. 133-44).

b. Iranian ceramics in the formative period. The earliest Islamic ceramics from western Iranian sites such as Sīrāf, Susa, and Eṣṭaḵr closely resemble those excavated at Samarra. The influence of Iraq was strong in eastern Iran as well, and glazed ceramics appear to have been introduced there only in the ʿAbbasid period. Most clearly connected to Iraqi models are the bowls with an opaque white glaze. Some appear to copy designs from Iraqi vessels decorated in cobalt blue. Also linked to Iraqi taste is the widespread use of green, yellow, and brown decoration with and without incised patterns. Although during the ninth and tenth centuries the use of the luster-painting technique appears to have been confined to Iraq, Iranian potters copied the designs used on luster vessels in other techniques (C. Wilkinson, Nishapur: Pottery of the Early Islamic Period, Greenwich, 1973, pp. 5458, 17982). How and when luster painting was introduced to Iran is uncertain, but by the twelfth century it was being produced in the city of Kāšān (see below).

A more distinctive local tradition is evident, however, from sites in eastern Iran, Transoxiana, and Afghanistan. These areas appear to have used similar ceramic vessels. Best known are wares from Nīšāpūr [Nishapur], where several different types of ceramics were in use simultaneously. One type having figural decoration in yellow, green, and black over a buff colored ground is known principally from Nīšāpūr, although it may have links to a pre-Islamic decorative tradition (Wilkinson, op. cit., pp. 3-53). Another, using slips of various hues, had a wide distribution. It has been found from Marv and Samarkand in Transoxiana to Bāmīān and Laškarī Bāzār in Afghanistan (Wilkinson, op. cit., pp. 90-178; Gardin, Céramiques, pp. 55-100). These pieces have a wide variety of decorative themes with calligraphy and vegetal motifs being among the most striking. Where legible, the calligraphy contains moralistic texts in Arabic, a reminder of the importance of Arabic for the culture of eastern Iran (L. Volov, “The Plaited Kufic on Samanid Epigraphic Pottery,” Ars Orientalis 6, 1966, pp. 107-33).

The exact chronology of the use of these various ceramic types is not yet clear, but those imitating Iraqi wares are probably mainly of ninth or tenth-century date. Excavations suggest that slip-painted vessels were produced primarily in the eleventh century, while “splashware” using incised patterns along with green, yellow, and brown decoration was probably produced during the eleventh or twelfth centuries.

c. The metalwork of the formative period. Metal, particularly bronze or brass, was used in the Islamic period to fashion objects that served a wide variety of utilitarian purposes: cooking, lighting, and the storage of personal effects. Most utilitarian objects were undecorated and had standard shapes. Distinct fashions are discernible, however, in the shaping and decoration of a select group of metal objects. These often have inscriptions, either incised or inlaid, as well as geometric, vegetal, or figural decoration. The act of writing was elevated by the use of decorated inkwells and pen boxes. Other objects must have been used primarily on festive or ceremonial occasions: bottles, cups, ewers, basins, trays, candlesticks, and incense burners. A number of important pieces from the twelfth to fifteenth centuries are known, but for the earlier centuries dated pieces are few and their place of production is usually uncertain, making it difficult to reconstruct the beginnings of metalworking in Islamic Iran.

Silver vessels of the Sasanian period established a tradition of royal imagery focusing on the ruler as hunter or enthroned with his entourage (P. Harper, Silver Vessels of the Sasanian Period I: The Royal Imagery, New York, 1981, pp. 4-42, 57-72). Utilitarian objects such as ewers were probably made from various metals; surviving examples are in both silver and bronze. Ewers of the Islamic period sometimes show affinities of shape with those of the Sasanian period but their decorative schemes differ.

The Islamic world had a double attitude toward metalwork objects. On the one hand religious scruples could lead to the avoidance of vessels made from precious metals. On the other hand both surviving objects and literary sources indicate that vessels of precious metal continued to be made and used (J. Allan, “Silver: the Key to Bronze in Early Islamic Iran,” Kunst des Orients 11, 1976, pp. 13-21). Despite this ambiguity it is true that Islamic metalworkers devoted considerable attention to the fabrication and decoration of vessels in less precious materials. In particular, alloys were created that mimicked the appearance of silver. Also, bronze and brass were embellished through creation of relief patterns, or small areas of the vessel’s surface were inlaid with silver or copper (E. Baer, Metalwork in Islamic Art, Albany, 1983, pp. 283-85).

For understanding the metalworking of Islamic Iran, vessels from Central Asia, particularly from its cities, are of critical importance. Studies of these objects by Soviet scholars have demonstrated how metalworking in that region reflected the cosmopolitan culture of its inhabitants. Because of the farflung ties of Sogdian merchants, links can be established between Sogdian vessels and those of Byzantium and China. After the Islamic conquest, Sogdian metalworkers produced vessels for their Muslim rulers. Consequently there is a direct continuity between the pre-Islamic and Islamic traditions of metalworking in eastern Iran (B. I. Marshak, Sogdiĭskoe serebro, Moscow, 1971, pp. 150-55). Studies by V. H. Marshak and A. S. Melikian-Chirvani have demonstrated the principal areas of continuity in vessel shape, decorative techniques, and decorative repertoire. Some of the most distinctive Sogdian vessels are lobed cups and bowls decorated with gracefully stylized foliage and figures of recumbent animals. The impact of these vessels can be seen in the shaping of cups and in the decoration of both ewers and drinking vessels. Some of these cups, manufactured of hightin bronze, provide close analogies in form to those of the Sogdian vessels. Drinking vessels of this material are mentioned as a product of Transoxiana by the tenth-century geographer Moqaddasī. The popularity of hightin bronze during the ninth and tenth centuries has been explained as a reflection of prohibitions against the use of gold and silver vessels introduced to Iraq under al-Ḥajjāj (A. Melikian-Chirvani, “The White Bronzes of Early Islamic Iran,” Metropolitan Museum Journal 9, 1974, pp. 123-26).

The misgivings of the religiously inclined, however, did not eliminate the creation of vessels from precious materials. Although relatively few objects made from gold or silver have survived, a surprising number of such vessels probably date from the tenth or eleventh centuries. Among them is the gold pitcher in the Freer Gallery, Washington (F. G. A., 43.1), bearing an inscription in the name of the Buyid ʿEzz-al-dawla Baḵtīār b. Moʿezz-al-dawla Aḥmad (r. 356-367/967-978). Aside from the inscription around the vessel’s rim, the lower part of the body has linked roundels of single figures of animals or birds. In general design this object has clear affinities with the Sogdian tradition (Allan in Kunst des Orients 11, 1976, pp. 13-21 ).

Sogdian metalworkers also seem to have forged connections between the Sasanian and Islamic traditions of royal iconography. The studies of B. V. Marshak have demonstrated that certain objects containing royal depictions clearly derived from Sasanian models, are of Central Asian manufacture and date from the eighth or ninth centuries. These pieces can, in turn, be linked to later representations of rulers from the Buyid and Ghaznavid eras demonstrating how Central Asia served to link the pre-Islamic and Islamic traditions of the region (B. I. Marshak, op. cit., pp. 146-48).

Despite the considerable share Sogdian craftsmen had in the development of Islamic metalwork, some evidence remains concerning the survival of Sasanian traditions as well. Islamic authors mention that portraits of Sasanian rulers were used not only on coins but also on various types of textiles and even in manuscript illumination. Royal portraiture was not extensively used by the ʿAbbasids, but medals were struck bearing the likenesses of some ʿAbbasid caliphs. In some cases these images clearly follow Sasanian models. A similar pattern exists for the Buyids. Particularly noteworthy is a medal struck for ʿAżodaldawla where the analogies to Sasanian portraiture are striking in both image and titles (J. Sourdel-Thomine et al., Die Kunst des Islam, Berlin, 1973, no. 203, pp. 226-27).

A medal in the Freer Gallery has also been associated with the Buyids by M. Bahrami (“A Gold Medal in the Freer Gallery,” in Archaeologia Orientalia in Memoriam Ernst Herzfeld, New York, 1952, pp. 520). The proof of this connection has yet to be established.

C. Iranian Art: 12th-13th centuries.

During this period the art of medieval Iran reached a climax in both the quality and diversity of the objects produced. In contrast to the earlier Islamic period, the twelfth and thirteenth centuries witnessed artistic activity in most regions of Iran, and many of the innovations appear to be of local rather than foreign origin. There was some regional specialization: eastern Iran continued its dominance in metalworking, whereas ceramic production flourished in central and western Iran.

1. Islamic Iranian metalwork in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The region of Khorasan, particularly the city of Herat, was the creative center for metalworking, and this period brought new tendencies. They include a shift in body type as well as in decorative technique and repertoire. A number of new shapes appeared: ewers with fluted bodies, candlesticks with protruding bosses, and inkwells with domed lids. A preference for more complex shapes may have stimulated a shift from creating vessels in molds to their production by beating (Allan in Kunst des Orients 11, pp. 6-13). Chief among the decorative innovations was the wide use of inlaying in silver, copper, and gold. Grooves were cut into the vessel’s surface and thin sheets of metal were placed within the resulting depressions. Normally, silver was used both to provide the key elements of the decoration, whereas copper and occasionally gold were used to create highlights (J. Allan, Islamic Metalwork: The Nuhad Es-Said Collection, London, 1982, pp. 13-16, 32-53; A. Melikian-Chirvani, Islamic Metalwork from the Iranian World, London, 1982, pp. 54-135).

New decorative themes also came into prominence. These include bands with groups of revelers or animal files and medallions containing symbols of the planets and zodiacal constellations. Some objects combine these various elements (Baer, Metalwork in Islamic Art, pp. 291-93). An example of the inlaid decoration used on Khorasani metalwork can be seen on a cast brass bowl inlaid with silver known as the “Wade Cup” (now in the Cleveland Museum of Art). Studies by D. S. Rice and R. Ettinghausen have explored the significance of the decorative scheme that covers most of the vessel’s surface. On the exterior, the vessel’s rim and foot are demarcated by inscriptions. The upper one in animated script has human figures projecting from its letter shafts, figures that interact in a manner quite independent of the inscription’s content. The lower inscription is “human-headed:” it has vertically elongated letter shafts with human faces. Between these inscriptions is a zone crisscrossed by bands of running animals. In between those bands are cartouches containing symbols of the planets and of the zodiacal constellations with which they are associated. One could say that the placing of zodiacal and constellation images on the vessel’s exterior draws an analogy between the object and a heavenly sphere. That theme is also alluded to by various concentric patterns on the interior including intertwined sphinxes, fish, and radial motifs (D. S. Rice, The Wade Cup in the Cleveland Museum of Art, Paris, 1955; R. Ettinghausen, “The Wade Cup,” Ars Orientalis 2, 1957, pp. 329-66, figs. 1, 2). Sometimes the theme of zodiacal and planetary imagery is used on vessels of twelvelobed shape where each lobe can be equated with one segment of the zodiacal belt. This scheme is especially popular on a group of ewers of beaten brass. On a well-preserved example in the Nuhad al-Said collection the decoration also includes human-headed inscriptions at the top and bottom of the vessel’s sides and figures of lions in sculptural relief on the neck and spout. (Allan, Islamic Metalwork, pp. 46-53). The comparison of a vessel to celestial phenomena is made explicit in the verses inscribed on a ewer made in Herat in 577/1181 (now in the Georgian State Museum, Tiflis). In these verses the planetary decoration of the vessel is invoked as a protection for the vessel’s maker as well as for its future owners and users (Allan, op. cit., pp. 49-53).

The seminal influence of the Khorasani tradition on the subsequent development of metalwork is evident in objects attributed to both western Iran and northern Iraq. A series of ewers and candlesticks attributed to western Iran in the late thirteenth century mimic the shapes and decorative themes of those produced in Khorasan some decades earlier. Among them are candlesticks with projecting bosses on their bodies and ewers having felines in relief on their necks and spouts. On such ewers astrological imagery is also popular. Another continuity with objects from Khorasan is in the use of animated inscriptions and of human-headed letters. These similarities may derive from the influence of Khorasanian objects or from the migration of metalworking artisans displaced by the Mongol invasions of the early thirteenth century (Melikian-Chirvani, Islamic Metalwork, pp. 136-147).

Another significant factor in the development of metalwork in western Iran during the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries was the style of objects produced in northern Iraq at Mosul (Mawṣel). Objects from Mosul, in turn, often show affinities with the Khorasani tradition. Artisans working in Mosul often used shapes of local origin in combination with decorative themes and techniques previously used by Khorasani craftsmen. The practice of inlaying beaten or molded brass with silver, copper, or gold popular in Khorasan since the twelfth century appears to have been used in Mosul only during the thirteenth century. Decorative themes used both in Mosul and Khorasan include animal files, scenes of hunting and court entertainment as well as depictions of the planets and the zodiacal constellations (Baer, Metalwork in Medieval Islamic Art, pp. 293-95).

Mosul metalwork is, however, unusual for its extensive pictorial repertoire. New emphasis is given to activities of the ruler and his close associates. Royal audiences and processions, court entertainments, and hunting expeditions are all depicted. Also used are some scenes of agriculture and other images of everyday life. This expanded repertoire of Mosul metalworkers may indicate that the craftsmen were familiar with the themes used by book illustrators. Certainly many of the themes and compositions found on Mosul metalwork have close parallels in the illustration of both contemporary and later manuscripts. Similar themes appear on the frontispieces of a copy of a Ketāb alaḡānī manuscript inscribed with the name and titles of Badraldīn Loʾloʾ, the ruler of Mosul between 1231 and 1259 (D. S. Rice, “The Aghani Miniatures and Religious Painting in Islam,” Burlington Magazine 95, 1953, pp. 128-34).

2. Ceramics: twelfth to thirteenth centuries. During this period a dramatic shift occurred in ceramic production. Whereas previously artistic activity was centered in eastern Iran, during this period the western and central regions were the most vigorous. The city of Kāšān, in particular, produced a large volume of ceramics in a wide range of techniques. Furthermore, whereas in earlier centuries the influence of Iraq was of paramount importance, the changes of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries may have been largely of local inspiration. The most significant innovation for ceramics was the widespread use of a body composed largely of finely ground quartz fritted with borax. These materials made the ceramic body less malleable and stimulated the development of molds both to give the basic contours of the vessels and to provide decorative embellishments. Molds discovered at Nīšāpūr created figural relief decoration on the vessel’s body. Similar molded vessels have been found in various Central Asian centers (Wilkinson, Nishapur, pp. 259-87). The motives behind this technological shift have been debated. Its use has been linked with a desire to emulate the appearance of Chinese porcelain, and some objects made from it do imitate the shapes of Chinese vessels (Lane, Early Islamic Pottery, pp. 29-32). For the most part, however, Islamic potters used this material to create objects not reflective of Chinese taste. When properly prepared, this type of body is nearly white, and, therefore, a good surface for painted decoration. Underglaze painting was widely employed by Iranian potters, especially in Kāšān. Alkaline fluxed glazes are most appropriate to this body, and with them Iranian ceramics acquired a new palette: turquoise, dark blue and purple. Although this body type was not employed everywhere to the exclusion of the clay bodies previously used, it did become the chief medium for ceramic innovation and experimentation (Lane, Early Islamic Pottery, pp. 33-36).

Excavations at Sīrāf, Laškarī Bāzār, and Nīšāpūr suggest that this new body type came into use gradually during the late eleventh or twelfth century. At those sites it replaced the polychrome lead-glazed earthenware previously used. Although elaborate molds found at Nīšāpūr demonstrate that this alkaline-glazed ware was produced there, vessels excavated at the site suggest that its introduction coincided with a general decline in ceramic quality (Wilkinson, Nishapur, pp. 262-63). A similar diminution in quality has been noted in alkaline-glazed ceramics from Laškarī Bāzār and Sīrāf (Whitehouse, “Islamic Glazed Pottery,” pp. 12, 14; Gardin,Céramique et monnaies de Lashkari Bazar, pp. 105-10, 138). At Kāšān, however, this material was used to create both architectural revetments and tableware, and these objects were decorated with underglaze, overglaze, and luster painting (R. Ettinghausen, “Evidence for the Identification of Kashan Pottery,” Ars Islamica 3, 1936, pp. 44-70).

The potters of Kāšān were exceptionally skillful in exploiting the technical and decorative possibilities of this new ceramic technique. That city was wellendowed with the raw materials needed for its fabrication. Indeed, Kāšān merchants exercised a virtual monopoly on the sale of cobalt ore, a popular colorant in alkaline glaze. It is uncertain when Kāšān first began to produce ceramics, but signed and dated objects demonstrate that this center was active from the late twelfth to midfourteenth century and production probably continued on a reduced level until the fifteenth century (O. Watson, “Persian Lustre Ware from the 14th to the 19th Century,” Le monde iranien et l’Islam 3, pp. 65-80). It was particularly during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, however, that Kāšān appears to have dominated ceramic production in Iran. During this period Kāšān potters produced a great variety of ceramics simultaneously. We know this both from a large number of objects that have directly or indirectly been connected with that site, and from the treatise on ceramic production written by a member of the major ceramic-producing family in that region—Abuʾl-Qāsem Kāšī. His treatise written in the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century refers both to contemporary and past practices of the atelier (J. Allan, “Abu’l Qasim’s Treatise on Ceramics,” Iran 11, 1973, pp. 111-20).

The Kāšān workshop was most famous for its ceramic revetments—meḥrābs and wall tiles with luster and underglaze-painted decoration. These objects were widely used for architectural embellishment in both sacred and secular structures. Many examples of luster-painted tableware were also produced there, as well as an even larger volume of underglaze-painted wares. Both the architectural revetments and many of these objects were formed in molds, so that standard sizes existed. There is also considerable repetition in the patterns used to decorate both the tiles and the vessels. Inscriptions, arabesque festoons, and other foliage patterns are ubiquitous. Many objects and tiles also have depictions of human or animal figures (Ettinghausen, “Kashan Pottery,” pp. 44-70).

The most elaborate form of ceramic decoration used in twelfth and thirteenth-century Iran combined under and overglaze painting. Often described in modern publications as mīnāī, this ware’s original name was probably haftrangī or “sevencolor.” It was used primarily for tableware and often for relatively small vessels, particularly bowls and drinking cups. Some of the best known pieces of this type are signed by a craftsman known to have worked in Kāšān, and indeed that city was probably the main production center for such vessels (O. Watson, “Persian Lustre-painted Pottery: the Rayy and Kashan Styles,” Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society 40, 1973-75, pp. 1-20). A few of these vessels have decoration that reflects themes popular in Iranian literature: the heroism of Ferīdūn, the hunts of Bahrām Gūr, or the story of Bīžan and Manīža. One large plate in the Freer Gallery probably commemorates the exploits of a contemporary military leader (Lane, Early Islamic Pottery, pp. 41-43).

Dated pieces demonstrate that the Kāšān workshop continued to flourish even after the Mongol period (Ettinghausen, “Kashan Pottery,” figs. 12-21). Some adjustments were made in the decorative repertoire in order to include new motifs reflecting the themes of particular significance to Iran’s new rulers, such as Chinese dragons and floral motifs.

D. Iranian art after the Mongol conquest

1. The effects of the Mongol invasion. The Mongol invasion had a dramatic and significant impact on the course of Iranian artistic development. Some of the changes resulted from the dislocation and destruction that accompanied the conquest proper and others are connected with the cultural legacy of the Mongols themselves. The invasion came in two stages. The first began in Transoxiana and Khorasan ca. 616/1219 at a time when crafts and architecture were flourishing, and lasted until 619/1222. In the course of this phase the principal cities of eastern Iran and Central Asia were devastated and their populations decimated. This devastation effectively stifled artistic developments in that region for about 150 years—until its revival under the Timurids. The first stage also stimulated the migration of craftsmen from eastern Iran to western Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Anatolia. These new arrivals who were absorbed by the local populations had an impact on the artistic development of western Iran and Iraq during the 1230s (ca. 628-38), and of Anatolia and Syria later in the same century.

During the second stage of the Mongol conquest, led by Hülegü (Hūlāgū), control over Iran was consolidated and Baghdad captured. For Iran, this conquest was less devastating than the earlier one, and some cities were spared any serious damage. As a result, the artistic and architectural development of western Iran and Iraq flourished, at least from the late thirteenth century onward.

The Mongol conquest initiated a new phase of artistic development in Iran. Several factors affected its nature. At that time, Iraq appears to have been culturally more active than Iran, and the artistic traditions of Baghdad and Mosul were particularly influential during the later half of the thirteenth century on the development of Iranian metalwork and calligraphy. In the course of the conquest proper the Mongols often removed the artisans from conquered cities and sent them to their encampments, thereby creating court workshops. The use of such workshops forged closer ties between artistic evolution and political developments. Thus, in the Mongol period a new dual system of artistic production began. Some craftsmen were attached to the Mongol encampments, while others continued to work in the bazaars of various cities, which the Mongols may also have patronized. Mongol links to Central Asia and China also widened the cultural horizons of Iran and fostered the creation of a new hybrid culture fusing Near and Far Eastern taste. The Mongol cultural and political legacy was a major influence also on several dynasties that ruled Iran during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. From an artistic point of view the most important are the Injuids (702-55/1303-54) and Muzaffarids (714-96/1314-93) of Fārs, the Jalayerids of Iraq and Azerbaijan (737-836/1336-1432), and the Timurids (772-911/1370-1506); the latter sought to recreate the Mongol empire by uniting Iran with Iraq and Central Asia.

2. Cultural links between Iraq and Iran. The Mongols followed the lead of the previous nomadic invaders, the Saljuq Turks, in their appreciation of Azerbaijan. The earliest traces of their activity are found in areas adjacent to their encampments such as Marāḡa, Taḵt-e Solaymān, Tabrīz, and Solṭānīya. During the winters the Mongols often resided in the warmer region of Iraq. For this and other reasons new cultural bonds were forged between Iraq and western Iran. This connection was particularly important after Ghazan (Ḡāzān) Khan’s conversion to Islam in 695/1295.

Calligraphy gives the strongest evidence of continuity between the ʿAbbasid and Mongol periods. Surviving manuscripts show that the style of calligraphy associated with Yāqūt Mostaʿṣemī continued to flourish in both Iraq and Iran during the fourteenth century. A good example of this Iraqi taste is a Koran now in the British Library copied for Sultan Öljeitü (Ūljāytū) in Mosul during 713/1313 by ʿAlī b. Moḥammad Ḥosaynī (M. Lings, The Quranic Art of Calligraphy and Illumination, London, 1976, nos. 52-53, p. 119). Written in moḥaqqaq script, the manuscript has elaborate geometric frontispieces to its several volumes. Several other Korans are known that were copied in Iran or Iraq using the canon of Yāqūt during the late fourteenth or early fifteenth centuries. Textual sources also stress the debt of fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Iranian calligraphers to the canon of Yāqūt. Iraqi-trained calligraphers working in both Tabrīz and Shiraz helped to spread the popularity of Iraqi traditions. Among them was Yaḥyā Jamālī Ṣufī, who copied a Koran in Shiraz during 745/1344-45. Written in gold moḥaqqaq script, it exemplifies the disciplined Iraqi style (Lings, op. cit., no. 50, p. 102).

Another area of continuity between Iran and Iraq is in the production of inlaid metalwork. Relatively few pieces are known bearing the names and titles of the Mongol rulers themselves, but examples such as the “Nisan Tasi” now in Konya suggest that their creators were of Iraqi origin (E. Baer, “The Nisan Tasi. A Study in Persian-Mongol Metalware,” Kunst des Orients 9, 1973-74, pp. 39-46). Metalwork produced in Shiraz during the first half of the fourteenth century also shows close affinities in both shape and decoration with objects produced in Mosul (L. Komaroff, “The Timurid Phase in Iranian Metalwork: Formulation and Realization of a Style,” Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1984, pp. 31-32, 36-38). It is unclear, however, whether this link between the metalworking traditions of Mosul and Shiraz was created by the movement of craftsmen or simply through an imitation of the objects themselves.

3. The artistic legacy of the Mongols. The Mongol period was notable for stimulating links between the artistic traditions of Iran and those of China. A new Far Eastern decorative repertoire can be seen in much of the ceramics, painting, and metalwork produced in fourteenth century Iran. The dynasties that followed the Mongols in Iran also sought connections with China, and Chinese taste continued to be influential with Jalayerids and Timurids. The earliest results of Mongol artistic patronage are difficult to reconstruct. One exception is the summer residence of Abaqa Khan (q.v.; r. 664-80/1265-1281) at Taḵt-e Solaymān where important ceramic finds were made. The architectural tiles excavated at Taḵt-e Solaymān are notable both for their technical variety and their use of Far Eastern decorative motifs such as the dragon and sīmorḡ or phoenix. These designs are executed in several different techniques. Some are luster-painted, others combine glazed and unglazed portions, and still others have gilded portions (R. Naumann, Die Ruinen von Tacht-e Suleiman und Zendan-e Suleiman, Berlin, 1977, pp. 80-103). A kiln excavated at the site indicates that some of the ceramics were made there perhaps by artisans from Kāšān. Several of the decorative themes prominent at Taḵt-e Solaymān were later used extensively by the Kāšān workshop, which produced both architectural revetments and tableware in quantity during the Il-khanid period (Survey of Persian Art, pls. 727a, b, 723d).

The new cultural climate of Il-khanid Iran is also evident in their patronage of manuscripts and painting. Mongol interest in scientific questions stimulated the production of books on medicine and astronomy. Some of these manuscripts may have been produced at Marāḡa, the site of an astronomical observatory established by Hülegü, others probably were produced in Tabrīz, the Il-khanid capital under Ghazan Khan. A desire to put the Mongol achievement in a wider historical context led them to commission historical texts such as Rašīd-al-dīn’s monumental compilation, the Jāmeʿ al-tawārīḵ. Illustrated copies of that work were probably made under the direct supervision of Rašīd-al-dīn in workshops located near Tabrīz (N. Titley, Persian Miniature Painting, Austin, 1983, pp. 17-19). The Mongol period also witnessed a popularization of earlier texts such as Ferdowsī’s Šāh-nāma. Some lavishly illustrated versions such as the one formerly owned by a dealer named Demotte suggest that this epic was viewed as much as an historical as a literary work. Thus, its illustrations could be used to emphasize incidents that presented a parallel to the experience of contemporary rulers (O. Grabar and S. Blair, Epic Images and Contemporary History, Chicago, 1980, p. 13-27).

The Il-khanid period appears to establish the importance of artistic patronage as one of the attributes of a ruler. This precedent is particularly influential for the Mongols’ successor dynasties such as the Injuids, Muzaffarids, Jalayerids, and Timurids, who appear to have used the patronage of art—especially metalwork, manuscripts, and architecture—as a vehicle to enhance their own prestige.

4. Shiraz as an artistic center. It is in the Mongol period that Shiraz first became prominent as a center of artistic patronage. Amīr Šaraf al-dīn Maḥmūd Ènjū, the local Mongol governor, his descendants, and high officials were active as patrons of metalwork, illustrated manuscripts, and possibly calligraphy. The style of these objects has links to Iraqi traditions, but a distinctive local idiom is also discernible. Illustrated manuscripts were produced in Shiraz from at least 707/1307-8 onward. The earliest known text is a copy of Kalīla wa Demna executed in a distinctive style better known from a group of manuscripts dated between 731/1330 and 741/1341. These manuscripts are characterized by their strongly colored paintings and relatively crude execution. One of the latest of these manuscripts, a copy of Ferdowsī’s Šāh-nāma contains a dedication to Qawām-al-dīn Ḥasan, the vizier of Abū Esḥāq Īnjū (N. Titley, Persian Miniature Painting, pp. 35-39). It is because of this dedication that the entire series of manuscripts has been attributed to Shiraz and linked with the Injuid dynasty. It is unclear, however, to what extent these manuscripts represent the patronage of the dynasty proper and to what extent they were produced by a commercial atelier located in Shiraz. A more definitive link between the dynasty and artistic patronage occurs in metalwork. Pieces produced as early as 705/1305 are signed by Shirazi craftsmen, but the first firmly documented metalwork object is dated to 733/1332. It is a bucket (now in the Hermitage Museum) made for a certain Amīr Sīāvoš and signed by one Maḥmūd Šāh al-Šīrāzī who describes himself as the “servant of Amīr Šaraf al-dīn Īnjū” (Melikian-Chirvani, Islamic Metalwork from the Iranian World, pp. 148, 155). Although this object was not made for a member of the dynasty proper it does suggest that the ruler of Shiraz maintained a metalwork atelier.

Typical of the vessels that can be associated with Shiraz during the period of Injuid rule are bowls of convex profile in which inscription panels alternated with figural medallions. The inscription panels normally contain a doʿā invoking God’s blessings on an anonymous ruler often identified as the “inheritor of Solomon’s kingdom,” a traditional title assumed by the rulers of Shiraz because of its proximity to the Achaemenid ruins of Persepolis and Pasargadae, both of which were understood to be connected with Solomon. Between the text cartouches are medallions depicting a ruler enthroned, or a rider on horseback (Melikian-Chirvani, op. cit., pp. 147, 152). It is probable that both the inscriptions and the figural medallions were intended to attest the power of the Injuid rulers. Shiraz continued to be an important artistic center under the Muzaffarid rulers during the second half of the fourteenth century. Continuity appears to be greatest in metalwork and calligraphy. Objects made in the early years of Muzaffarid rule such as the lid of the “Nisan Tasi” (now in Konya) bearing the name of Abuʾl-Mojāhed Shah Solṭān have strong links in figural and epigraphic style with objects produced under the Injuids (Melikian-Chirvani, op. cit., pp. 148-155). By the third quarter of the fourteenth century, however, a new taste is discernible. Emphasis is placed on an ornamental repertoire of geometric designs, arabesque patterns, and floral elements, whereas inscription cartouches or figural decoration decline in importance. When figural medallions are used the scale of the figures becomes smaller, and greater emphasis is given to a richly patterned floral background (Melikian-Chirvani, op. cit., nos. 95-98, pp. 209-214). Particularly characteristic is a loose, flowing design of plant motifs used on metalwork as well as manuscript illumination, even for copies of the Koran. In manuscripts, ornamental features such as chapter headings and frontispieces are elaborated. The style of the calligraphy proper, however, retains its close connection with the canon favored by Yāqūt and his followers (Lings, The Quranic Art of Calligraphy, no. 60, p. 119).

A further stylistic transformation is also evident in manuscript illustration of the Muzaffarid period, where a new canon of proportion is used in which the figures become attenuated and the background against which they are placed is more prominent than it was in earlier Shiraz paintings. A flat tapestry-like landscape setting is a popular background in Muzaffarid painting (Titley, Persian Miniature Painting, pp. 39-42).

5. The Jalayerid dynasty. Among the successor dynasties, the Jalayerids were particularly concerned to perpetuate Mongol traditions. Their areas of political control—Iraq and northwest Iran—strengthened the ties between these regions and led to the revival of Baghdad as an artistic and cultural center. Artists associated with the Jalayerid created distinctive styles in calligraphy, manuscript illumination, and illustration. Some metalwork objects are also inscribed with Jalayerid titles. Most influential of the Jalayerid contributions was the development of nastaʿlīq script. Originally it may have developed from a cursive chancery hand, but it became the favored medium for the copying of poetic texts. Fifteenth- and sixteenth-century authors normally attribute its creation to Mīr ʿAlī Tabrīzī (q.v.), a calligrapher active in Tabrīz during the last decades of the fourteenth century (M. Bayānī, Aḥwāl wa āṯār-e ḵoš-nevīsān. Nastaʿliq-nevīsān, pt. 2, Tehran, 1346 Š./1967, pp. 441-46). One manuscript by his hand (now in the Freer Gallery, Washington) shows a fluid yet precise hand (P. Soucek, “The Arts of Calligraphy,” in The Arts of the Book in Central Asia, Boulder, 1979, pl. I). Other calligraphers of the period used related hand, but that of Mīr ʿAlī gained greater recognition in part because it was perpetuated by his students, particularly Jaʿfar Tabrīzī, one of the leading calligraphers of Timurid Herat (Soucek, op. cit., figs. 10-11 ).

In Jalayerid manuscript illumination a preference was shown for elaborately divided cartouches with floral and arabesque grounds and delicately executed calligraphic headings (Soucek, op cit., pls. I, V). A similar style of ornament can be found on metalwork objects of this period. Despite its finely executed decoration, Jalayerid metalwork is somewhat cruder of execution than are contemporary Muzaffarid vessels. Silver inlays are less prominent and some pieces are actually of tinned copper (Komaroff, “The Timurid Phase in Iranian Metalwork,” pp. 95-115). In manuscript illumination Jalayerid painters also favored attenuated figures executed in a diminutive scale. Most unusual, however, is the interweaving of courtly settings and narrative illustration. This feature is particularly marked in the most famous Jalayerid manuscript, a Ḵamsa of Ḵʷājū Kermānī made in Baghdad during 799/1396 for Sultan Aḥmad Jalāyer (Titley, Persian Miniature Painting, pp. 26-30). Its painter, Jonayd, is mentioned in fifteenth-century sources as the teacher of artists active in Timurid employ. Some of the compositions used in this manuscript of Ḵʷājū Kermānī’s poetry have very close parallels in illustrations made for the Timurid princes Eskandar Solṭān and Bāysonḡor b. Šāhroḵ (Titley, Persian Miniature Painting, pp. 31-32).

6. Art under the Timurids. The conquests of Tīmūr during the last years of the fourteenth century and first years of the fifteenth century created a new political and artistic climate in Iran and Central Asia. Following his conquests, artisans moved voluntarily or involuntarily to his capital Samarkand. This produced a new artistic synthesis in which trends previously characteristic of different regions of Iran were merged. A similar fusion is also evident in objects connected with Tīmūr’s sons and grandsons. The movement of rulers from one region to another as well as rivalry and even warfare among them contributed to this process of inter-regional borrowings. In various places and at various times a synthesis of different regional trends is evident in calligraphy, manuscript illustration, and metal work. It is also evident in the design and embellishment of architecture built under Timurid patronage.

For the reign of Tīmūr himself this process is most evident in metalwork such as lampstands from the shrine of Ḵoja Aḥmad Yasawī, a structure erected between 799/1396-97 and 800/1397-98. Whereas Shirazi architects appear to have been responsible for the structure itself, the lampstands are more closely linked to metalworking traditions of northwest Iran. The titles used on the candleholders follow a formula much used in the Mamluk empire (Komaroff, “The Timurid Phase in Iranian Metalwork,” pp. 213-15). The calligraphers who served Tīmūr were also gathered from various regions under his control.

Several of Tīmūr’s descendants were also important as patrons of the arts. Some, such as his son Šāhroḵ, were particularly active in patronage of architecture, others, such as his grandsons Eskandar Solṭān, Ebrāhīm Solṭān and Bāysonḡor, are mainly remembered for their interest in calligraphy and manuscripts. The use of Timurid princes as governors of various territories created a new pattern of artistic development.

a. Timurid Patronage in Shiraz. The first among Tīmūr’s descendants to develop his own circle of artists appears to have been Eskandar Solṭān b. ʿOmar Šayḵ who shared the control of Isfahan, Shiraz, and Yazd with his brothers Rostam and Bāyqarā. A manuscript atelier may have accompanied Eskandar Solṭān on his peregrinations but the principal locus of his patronage seems to have been Shiraz. Several surviving manuscripts testify to Eskandar Solṭān’s wide-ranging interests in literature, history, mathematics, astronomy, astrology, medicine, and theology. A distinctive feature of manuscripts prepared for him is his preference for anthologies containing texts on a wide variety of topics. These manuscripts are also noted for their illumination and use of designs similar to those found on Muzaffarid metalwork. The calligraphy of these volumes also appears to develop directly from the traditions of Muzaffarid Shiraz but their illustrations have close parallels in manuscripts executed for Sultan Aḥmad Jalāyer, suggesting that a painter previously employed in that earlier ruler’s workshop may have moved to Shiraz from Baghdad (Titley, Persian Miniature Painting, pp. 43-48).

A rebellion by Eskandar Solṭān led to his defeat by Šāhroḵ in 817/1414 and presumably to the disruption of his manuscript workshop. Some of its occupants probably continued to live and work in Shiraz for Eskandar’s successor, Ebrāhīm Solṭān b. Šāhroḵ. Others may have moved to Herat and worked there for other members of the Timurid dynasty. A manuscript prepared for Šāhroḵ appears to have been painted by an artist who had earlier worked in Shiraz for Eskandar Solṭān (Titley, op. cit., fig. 25). Manuscripts produced in Herat for Šāhroḵ’s son Bāysonḡor also contain illustrations similar to those found in manuscripts from both Shiraz and Baghdad (Titley, op. cit., pp. 50-53).

Shiraz was a major manuscript-producing center still during the decades following Eskandar Solṭān’s death. His successor as governor of Shiraz, Ebrāhīm Solṭān b. Šāhroḵ, was himself an accomplished calligrapher and patron of poets and scholars. It is not, however, clear whether the manuscripts produced for Ebrāhīm Solṭān were created in his private workshop or whether they were merely commissioned in a local commercial one (Titley, op. cit., pp. 49-50).

b. Timurid patronage in Herat. After Tīmūr’s death in 808/1405, Samarkand declined in importance and Herat became more prominent. Tīmūr’s son Šāhroḵ ruled there until his death in 851/1447. Historical sources such as Dawlatšāh stress the importance of Šāhroḵ’s son Bāysonḡor as a patron of the arts. He resided in Herat serving his father in various capacities. Bāysonḡor was a noted calligrapher and leaves from an oversized Koran manuscript are commonly attributed to him. He is also remembered for his manuscript atelier where a number of handsome, illustrated manuscripts were produced. The noted calligrapher Jaʿfar Tabrīzī, a student of Mīr ʿAlī Tabrīzī is said to have served as director of Bāysonḡor’s workshop. Historical accounts give the names of calligraphers and painters who worked for Bāysonḡor but unfortunately this information is insufficient to identify the works of specific artists among the surviving manuscripts. The roots of the style used by Bāysonḡor’s painters appear to lie in the Jalayerid period, as does the type of nastaʿlīq script used in these examples (Titley, op. cit., pp. 54-57).

The preparation of a copy of the Šāh-nāma with a new preface said to have been written by Bāysonḡor himself was one of the principal accomplishments of this workshop (Gray and Godard, Iran: Persian Miniatures—Imperial Library, pls. 1-18).

The fate of Bāysonḡor’s workshop after his death in 837/1433 is uncertain. Some evidence suggests that it was kept as a unit, passing first to his son Bābor and then to his brother Uluḡ beg under whose auspices it was transferred to Samarkand. Whatever the mechanism of its continuity, various paintings suggest that the artistic traditions of the Bāysunḡori atelier survived at least until the third quarter of the fifteenth century.

Despite this evidence of continuity, however, the death of Šāhroḵ in 851/ 1447 signaled the beginning of a period of transition in the Timurid realm. Battles for succession occupied his heirs for the next fifteen years during which time artistic development seems to have been suspended. It is only with the rise to power of first Abū Saʿīd and then Ḥosayn Bāyqarā that a new artistic phase began. This second period of Timurid patronage was marked by outstanding achievements in calligraphy and painting. A new phase of metalwork production also occurred. Best known among the calligraphers was Solṭān ʿAlī Mašhadī. He is especially remembered as the perfector of a particular canon of nastaʿlīq that was widely admired and imitated. His career was linked with the patronage of both Sultan Ḥosayn Bāyqarā and ʿAlī-Šīr Navāʾī (Soucek, “The Arts of Calligraphy,” fig. 16).

Most famous among the painters of this period was Behzād (q.v.), who also worked for the same patrons. Despite his historical fame, the exact nature of Behzād’s personal contribution is unclear. The sole manuscript universally accepted as his work is a copy of Saʿdī’s Būstān, now in Cairo. Judging by its contents, Behzād’s art differs in degree rather than in kind from that of his contemporaries. Characteristic of his work are carefully planned compositions in which color, mass, and movement are all closely controlled. Despite these conventions, his use of poses and gestures in the portrayal of individual figures can be quite telling from a psychological point of view (A Survey of Persian Art, pls. 886, 887).

c. Metalwork under the Timurids. In metalwork two distinct trends appear during the late fifteenth century. One is the exclusion of figural themes from its decoration and the other is the complexity of the remaining decorative elements, whether vegetal or geometric. Most characteristic of this system are a number of drinking vessels of cast brass inlaid with gold and silver. Prominent on them are inscriptions, some of which describe the vessel’s function or give literary allusions about its significance. For example, on a jug (now in the Nuhad al-Said collection) made in Herat during 889/1484, the verses relate to the theme of Ḵeżr and the waters of life. In this group of inscriptions, an interest in poetry and mystical themes seems to be most significant (Allan, Islamic Metalwork, no. 23, pp. 110-13).

A second group of metalwork objects, executed in tinned copper, display another facet of fifteenth-century taste, the fascination with Far-Eastern objects and motifs. Both shape and decoration of these vessels often mimic Chinese ceramics. Prominent shapes include a shallow bowl, as well as drinking vessels and covered containers (Melikian-Chirvani, Islamic Metalwork, pp. 240-41, 250-54). Although few examples survive, textual sources indicate that Chinese porcelains were also imitated in the ceramic medium during the fifteenth century in Iran. One piece now in the Royal Scottish Museum bears an inscription stating that it was produced in Mašhad during 849/1445 (M. Whitman, Persian Blue and White Ceramics: Cycles of Chinoiserie, Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1978, pp. 26-27, figs. 23a-c).

d. The artistic development of western Iran. Aside from the existence of an active workshop in Shiraz, little is known about the artistic climate of western Iran during the first half of the fifteenth century. During the second quarter of that century Timurid control over the region waned and Turkoman rulers gained control first of Tabrīz and northwest Iran and then of the central Iranian cities of Isfahan, Shiraz, and Yazd. It does not appear that this change in political control had an immediate impact on artistic development. A change did take place, however, after the death of Šāhroḵ in 850/1447 when quarrels among the various Timurid princes gave the Turkoman leaders an opportunity to consolidate their territorial gains. The brief Turkoman invasion of eastern Iran led by the Qara Qoyunlū ruler Jahānšāh, during which he briefly controlled Herat, also had important artistic results. It is probable that some calligraphers and painters accompanied the Turkomans on their return to western Iran. Manuscripts produced shortly after this time for Jahānšāh’s son Pīr Būdak, then ruler of Shiraz, show close affinities with those produced earlier in Herat (Titley, Persian Miniature Painting, pp. 67-68). This similarity was probably the result of a transfer of calligraphers and painters from Herat to the Qara Qoyunlū domains. During the course of his short but tumultuous career, Pīr Būdak was forced to evacuate his capital, Isfahan, and to move to Baghdad where he was eventually besieged by his own father and killed. Manuscripts produced in Baghdad demonstrate that his atelier moved with him. During this same period it is evident that workshops in Shiraz, probably organized on a commercial basis, continued to produce manuscripts in some quantity.

After the demise of Pīr Būdak and other internecine quarrels had weakened the political power of the Qara Qoyunlū dynasty, all of western Iran came under the control of the Āq Qoyunlū Turkomans who made Tabrīz their capital. During the last quarter of the fifteenth century Tabrīz became a cultural and artistic center that rivaled Herat. Manuscripts were produced for the Āq Qoyunlū rulers, particularly Yaʿqūb Beg (r. 883-96/1478-90). Most famous among his manuscripts is a Ḵamsa of Neżāmī illustrated by very original painters. This manuscript provides insight into the question of workshops and how they were created. It has a postscript which mentions that the book was begun for one of the Timurid princes, Bābor b. Bāysonḡor, and then continued under the patronage of the Qara Qoyunlū prince Pīr Būdak. After his death the still unfinished manuscript and presumably the workshop responsible for its creation passed to the Āq Qoyunlū prince Ḵalīl b. Uzun Ḥasan, and finally to Yaʿqūb Beg. This lineage gives an outline of artistic development of western Iran during the second half of the fifteenth century. It indicates the manner in which royal workshops and the manuscripts they produced had come to symbolize royal taste and prestige. Appropriately enough, this same volume was to receive a final embellishment at the hands of an early supporter of Shah Esmaʿīl Ṣafawī to whom it may have been given. Indeed, the court artists of Sultan Yaʿqūb played an important role in the formation of manuscript illustration under the Safavids (Titley, op. cit., p. 71).

This special evolution of royal ateliers existed apart from the commercial workshops of book production still centered, it seems, in Shiraz. Manuscripts continued to be produced there in considerable numbers throughout the fifteenth century and indeed beyond it into the Safavid period. Painting in Shiraz during the second half of the fifteenth century also had a wider importance because artists from that center traveled to many distant places carrying with them their traditions of book production as well as their personal style. Manuscripts executed in the style of fifteenth-century Shiraz are known to have been produced in Egypt, Turkey, and India.

ART IN IRAN viii. ISLAMIC CENTRAL ASIA

Under Islam the sculpture and mural painting previously displayed in Central Asia almost completely disappeared, and ornament took pride of place. In the 2nd/9th to 5th/12th centuries artistic handicrafts—ceramics, metalwork, jewelry, and textiles—flourished to an exceptional degree.

In the ceramics of that period, some types of artistic pottery were common to all Central Asia, but regional schools can also be distinguished, as in northern Khorasan, Ḵᵛārazm, Transoxiana (Mā Warāʾ al-Nahr) (Samarkand, Bukhara, and Ṭoḵārestān), and northern Turkestan (Šāš, Farḡāna, Semirechie). The main achievements of this artistic pottery were connected with the use of glazes (opaque and translucent), the introduction of color and polychrome painting, and the elaboration of distinct principles for the decoration of ceramics. Thus Central Asian glazed pottery evolved from uncomplicated, blurred green ornamental painting under a somewhat cloudy glaze, and the use of a three-hued, spreading, mottled coloring to the clear ornamental painting of the 4th/10th-6th/12th centuries. The paint was applied on a white background in brownish black, reddish, and pistachio green colors, or on a black background with thick white and red angob colors. Monochrome glazes of green (sometimes with an under-glaze, engraved design) or bright azure were used. The main ornamental motifs included auspicious Arabic inscriptions in a ceramic cursive variety of Kufic that gradually degenerated into ornamental pseudo-inscriptions; stylized plant motifs—a wavy or coiling tendril (eslīmī), tulip, pomegranate, palmette, or vine leaf; geometric interlace, and fantastic birds and beasts from the realm of folklore. The unglazed pottery of northern Khorasan (Nisa) was frequently decorated by engraving with a sharp point in obvious imitation of the motifs and technique of metalwork. In the 6th/12th century Marv was the center for the production of die (kelebe)-stamped ceramics. The motifs, occurring singly and in combinations, were extremely varied: geometric interlace, fronds and rosettes, zoomorphic images (birds, fish, the chase), and courtly scenes (enthronements, musicians, horsemen, and couples). With the discovery of silicate ( kašīn) baked clay in the 6th/12th century there appeared in Khorasan thin-walled bowls with milky and pale blue glazing and underglaze designs or graining. In Dahestān, luster ceramics of the Iranian type were produced, including gold luster and mīnāʾī with minute, stylized plant ornamentation, cursive inscriptions, and sometimes pictorial subjects. The post-Mongol period saw a different style of glazed ceramics with a black outline design under pale blue glaze, and another with dark blue and greenish-black abstract motifs on a white background. At the end of the 8th/14th-9th/15th centuries a completely new style evolved under the influence of Chinese porcelain: on a snow-white kašīn background, twigs, flowers, and fruit were painted with cobalt, and Khorasan ware often depicts birds, animals, and human beings. During the following centuries pottery products coarsened, kašīn was no longer used, and the ornamentation acquired an abstract, decorative character.

Medieval Central Asian metalwork, with its use of chasing, over-chasing, and punching, follows the general style of medium in the Muslim East. Dishes, jugs, kettles, lamps, stands, and other objects were fashioned, sometimes in precious metals but usually of bronze alloy. The ornamentation of these objects is disposed in concentric bands and rosettes; epigraphic motifs (Kufic and nasḵ scripts) alternate with stylized plant motifs. Extensive use was made of folkloric fairy-tale subjects in the representation of birds, griffins, sphinxes, hunting scenes, and quite frequently human beings.

Central Asian textiles were widely renowned in the Middle East. In the 4th/10th century particular fame was enjoyed by the ṭerāz from Marv and finely patterned textiles produced for export in the royal workshops of Bukhara. Regions inhabited by Turkmans were renowned for their carpets and were mentioned by Marco Polo in the 7th/13th century. Reproductions of carpets with a graphically clear geometrical design of deep reds, very close to the modern Turkman traditional carpets, can be found in Persian miniatures and in European paintings of the 9th/15th-10th/16th centuries. Apparently the practices observed in Kirghiz carpet weaving are no less deeply rooted.

The end of the 8th/14th-9th/15th centuries is marked by a revival of pictorial art in Central Asia. Details of landscape painting survive in the Samarkand mausoleums of Šīrīn-bika-āqā, Bībī Ḵānom, and Tūman Āqā. According to the historical literature, some of the Samarkand palaces of Tīmūr (e.g., Bāḡ-e Šemāl and Bāḡ-e Delgošā) were decorated with painted portraits of the ruler, his wives, sons, and companions-in-arms, and with battle and feasting scenes. Their style seems to have been very close to that of the miniature paintings.

The arts of the book began with the selection of paper, the best kinds of which were prepared from silk combings (Samarkand was particularly famous for its production), and embraced the work of calligraphers, illuminators, miniature painters, and binders. A distinct school of miniature painting evolved in Central Asia, and it is quite possible that some of the 8th/14th-9th/15th-century miniatures in the so-called Istanbul albums (Topkapi Saray, Istanbul, and the State Library, Berlin) are connected with the Turkic milieu. Under Tīmūr the miniaturist ʿAbd-al-Ḥayy was brought from Baghdad and put at the head of the Samarkand artists; also well known is the miniaturist Bāḡ-e Šemālī, who may have decorated the palace in the garden Bāḡ-e Šemāl near Samarkand with monumental paintings. Only a few examples of the 9th/15th-century school of Central Asian miniaturists have so far been found. While its style has much in common with that of Herat, its original traits include a Turkic orientation in costume and furnishings and the depiction of the Central Asian landscape. Typical examples include “Uluḡ Beg Surrounded by his Family and Courtiers” (ca. 1441-42, Freer Gallery, Washington, D.C.); “Mountain Scene” (Keir collection, London), illustrations to the Ḵamsa of Neẓāmī (1446-47, Topkapi Saray, Istanbul), executed by Solṭān ʿAlī Bāvardī and another artist; and miniatures for the Šāh-nāma (Institute of Oriental Studies, Leningrad), also the work of two artists. All of these miniatures exhibit outstanding professional craftsmanship.

The two trends in their style—the romantic and the genre—continue in the Central Asian (Transoxiana) miniature painting of the 10th/16th century cultivated at the courts of the Shaibanids in Samarkand, Bukhara, and Šāhroḵīya. There, local Central Asian masters and artists who had fled from the excesses of the Qezelbāš in Herat worked together during the first part of that century. The latter group remained faithful to the manner of Behzād; the fineness of their drawing, the vividness of the palette, and variations on traditional compositions are displayed in the miniatures to the Būstān of Saʿdī (1522-23, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York), Mehr o Moštarī (1523, Freer Gallery, Washington, D.C.), a Dīvān (1529, State Public Library, Leningrad), and Maḵzan al-asrā r of Neẓāmī with miniatures by Maḥmūd Modòahheb (1544, Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris). The artists of the local school show original traits of their own, such as economy of artistic means, static balance of compositions, strong line, and close attention to local realities and specifics of nomad life. These features can be seen in the illustrations to the Fatḥ-nāma (ca. 1507), Anwār-e Sohaylī and ),Tārīḵ-e Abuʾl-Ḵayr), (ca. mid-16th century; all at the Institute of Oriental Studies, Tashkent), the Ḵamsa of Navāʾī (State Public Library, Leningrad), and the Golestān (1547, Bodmer Fund, Geneva). During the second half of the 10th/16th century two trends emerged in the Bukharan miniature. One group of painters followed a hedonistic orientation toward a festive representation of events and personages, luxurious ornamentation, and wealth of figures and colors; this is illustrated by the miniatures of the Golestān of 1556-57 and the love scenes by the artist ʿAbdallāh in the Būstān of 1575-76 (both in Leningrad, State Public Library). The other group of miniaturists preferred naive genre scenes illustrating folk characteristics, as in the Toḥfat al-aḥrār of the 1670s (Chester Beatty Library, Dublin, and State Public Library, Leningrad).

Miniature art of the 11th/17th century, as practiced at the Astarkhanid courts, entered a new stylistic phase. In the early 11th/17th century, a certain Moḥammad Morād Samarqandī illustrated a Šāh-nāma manuscript (Institute of Oriental Studies, Tashkent). A somewhat austere landscape with few figures, a strong angular line, contrasting patches of color, and dynamic poses endow his miniatures with an epic force and an inner tenseness. Some painters turned to popular, fabulous, or didactic everyday subjects, working in a naive style. Such are the illustrations to the Šāh-nāma of 1602-3 (State Public Library, Leningrad) and Majles al-ʿoššāq (end of the 11th/17th or beginning of the 12th/18th century, Institute of Oriental Studies, Tashkent). Other artists developed a romantic style, endowing the miniatures with tenseness by the dynamism of the figures, an uneasy landscape, and contrasting colors as in the Šāh-nāmas from Samarkand (1628) and Bukhara (1664; both in Tashkent, Institute of Oriental Studies). A third group continued the classical “Behzād” style, found in Neẓāmī’s Ḵamsa (Chester Beatty Library, Dublin). Certain miniaturists, such as Farhād, show a tendency toward the style of the Indian miniature. The names of a number of 11th/17th-century miniaturists are known—Moḥammad Šarīf, Moḥammad Darvīš Samarqandī, who in 1616 illustrated the Būstān (Chester Beatty Library, Dublin), Moḥammad Ṣāleḥ, Ḵᵛāja Gadū, Āvāz Moḥammad, Moḥammad Amīn, and Behzād. The last three illustrated the Ḵamsa of Neẓāmī (1668-71, Chester Beatty Library, Dublin) in their respective manners. Some Central Asian artists were working at that time at the Mughal court in India, among them the above-mentioned Moḥammad Morād and Moḥammad Nāder Samarqandī, who had brought with them Central Asian traditions.

Early in the 12th/18th century, miniature painting degraded with the general decline of Central Asian culture. Certain styles revived in the early 13th/19th century, along with handicrafts. The works in wood and stone, pottery, metal, textiles and carpets, embroidery and gold embroidery are distinguished by expressive forms and diverse designs. Predominant motifs in ornamentation were stylized plants and abstract patterns; where color was used (textiles, carpets, ceramics), a lively and diversified color scale is found. Silk, cotton, and woolen textiles were embellished with rainbow or striped designs. An important part in the decoration of interiors was played by carpets and other weavings, and embroideries. Turkman and Kirghiz tribes became famous for their carpets woven with a strictly geometrical design, while the Uzbeg and Tājīk sūzanī were distinctive among embroidered wall hangings, embodying the idea of a blossoming garden in conventional multicolored forms. The traditions of popular applied arts continued to be handed down by craftsmen after the incorporation of Turkestan and Transcaspia by Russia, and have been preserved to this day in the republics of Central Asia.

ART IN IRAN ix. SAFAVID TO QAJAR PERIODS

The unity of Safavid art. The arts of the Safavid period show a far more unitary development than in any other period of Iranian art. This characteristic is due not simply to the political domination of one family but also to the steady move toward a centralized autocracy supported by a skilled bureaucracy in a single city; it is this political evolution that broke down feudal powers, united Iran as a single cultural entity, and replaced the several provincial styles of the 9th/15th century with a uniform art emanating from the capital. Within this course of development three definite chronological divisions can be distinguished.

In the first period, from the beginning of the reign of Esmāʿīl I to the end of the reign of Moḥammad Ḵodābanda (907-96/1501-87), centrifugal forces were still strong. Under a distinguished patron such as Ṭahmāsp a lavish and refined court style developed but did not exclude provincial centers, such as Shiraz, which continued to produce manuscripts of lesser quality throughout the 10th/16th century. Shah Esmāʿīl I, Shah Ṭahmāsp, and Shah Esmāʿīl II can all be typified as princely esthetes akin to the Timurid prince Bāysonḡor and the Mughal emperor Bābor. Under the particular aegis of Shah Ṭahmāsp, court artists created a brilliant synthesis of Iran’s various styles; nonetheless it remained a court rather than a national style.

The reign of ʿAbbās I (996-1038/1588-1629) encompasses the second period, in which governmental centralization not only provided the ruler with more far-reaching and extensive power than ever before in Iran’s Islamic history but also concentrated potential patrons in the capital city of Isfahan. While new classes emerged as patrons, Iran’s provinces lost virtually all their political and cultural autonomy. State workshops for arts of especial economic importance further imposed unitary styles so that art emanating from Isfahan (or Mašhad or Kermān) was coterminous with Iranian national art.

In the third period, from the accession of Shah Ṣafī to the death of Shah Solṭān Ḥosayn (1038-1134/1629-1722) the styles established during Shah ʿAbbās’s reign were perpetuated, and new elements further developed. Increased naturalism, portraiture, and realism coexisted with traditional Iranian idealism and studied elegance and grace. Monarchs, as well as lesser patrons, exhibited eclectic taste for foreign arts that were now less readily synthesized than before, and as in economics and politics, Iran was less sequestered from other cultures than it had been.

Safavid, pre-Safavid, and foreign art. As the Safavid order actively pursued the creation of a unified nation-state in Iran by bringing together disparate and formerly feuding elements, so, too, Safavid art emerged out of several previously distinct strands. Most important were those roughly corresponding to the historical division of Iran between its eastern and western halves; in the later 9th/15th century these were controlled respectively by the Timurids from Herat and the Turkmans from Tabrīz. Whether in architecture, calligraphy, or the figural arts, it was the blending and synthesizing of these two cultural traditions that was essential to the creation of Safavid art.

By the middle of the 10th/16th century the arts of Safavid Iran had already begun to exert considerable impact upon its neighbors. To Mughal and Deccani India the appeal of Safavid architecture, textiles, calligraphy, and painting was enormous, and large numbers of skilled Iranians emigrated to India to serve patrons there. But Safavid Iran also exerted a noticeable effect upon its chief rival, the Ottoman empire, although this impact is chiefly recognizable in calligraphy and painting.

Beyond these neighboring states Iran’s cultural influence was less impressive, and it did not exert the same attractive force for Europeans as did Mughal India or Ming China. Yet it is likely that Safavid fashions in clothing and in garden architecture, transmitted by way of European printed travel books, were important influence on 11th/17th-century culture in Europe.

Safavid art and religion. During the Safavid period orthodox Islam’s official abhorrence of figural imagery was challenged on a theoretical and a practical level. Three important figures in Safavid art history—Dūst Moḥammad, a painter and calligrapher under Shah Ṭahmāsp; Ṣādeqī Beg, a painter and poet under Shah ʿAbbās I; and Qāżī Aḥmad, a historian working under the same monarch—argued at length that figural painting is an art to be esteemed as highly as calligraphy and that this attitude is indeed sanctioned by the faith, since ʿAlī was a painter and a calligrapher. This new theory did not occasion an increased production of figural imagery in the period; it merely sought to justify what was already there. But it does perhaps account for the more frequent illustration of certain, ostensibly religious subject matter, whether in the mystical works of poets like Neẓāmī and Jāmī or in the considerable number of hagiographies produced in the 10th/16th and 11th/17th centuries.

Artist and patron. The role of royal patron was of central importance in Safavid architecture and the arts. While this patronage was sometimes unsteady, the royal court set both taste and direction of the arts. There was scant commissioning of portable arts by members of the Shiʿite religious establishment, and the shah had the financial and governmental power to attract Iran’s leading artists to his court. Several masters who began their careers working for leading aristocrats were unceremoniously commandeered by the shah when the range of their abilities became well known. An extensive system of artistic interconnections, established either through master-pupil relationships or through carefully fostered family ties, also helped to ensure that a well-trained and talented artist would receive an appointment at court, if the shah was a committed patron. Safavid rulers tended to be indulgent toward their artists and tolerated conduct that would have been injurious to those in other professions.

Throughout the Safavid period there was a steady growth in artistic individuality. The anonymity that had characterized earlier Iranian art was largely abandoned architectural inscriptions were signed; manuscripts bore the names of painters and calligraphers and illuminators; textiles were provided with the names of their designers. Differences in individual styles also became more readily apparent, and originality became as prized a feature as adherence to tradition. This altered attitude reflected not simply the artists’ own sense of their own worth and the distinctiveness of their respective styles but also a new attitude on the part of their patrons, who regarded artistic identification as an important part of a work of art.

In the second century of Safavid rule other patrons of note emerged, not in the provinces but instead in the capital. Not simply aristocrats, but also merchants, officials, and professionals either bought or commissioned works of art, and the role of these new patrons significantly altered the types and content of Safavid painting and drawing in particular.

The esthetic basis of Safavid art. No artist or historian of the Safavid period presents a complete conceptual framework for the arts, and an understanding of the esthetics of this period must be derived from both literary documentation and visual evidence. Qāżī Aḥmad’s Calligraphers and Painters makes a central distinction between the two qalams of art—the vegetable reed of the calligrapher and the animal brush of the painter. The reed was the first created thing, and since it is essential to the writing of the Koran, it is the “key to the gates of happiness.” Fine writing then is akin to an act of worship, and the relationship in this art between the religious and the esthetic impulse is obviously close. The various styles of calligraphy are described, and central to the quality of each are clarity, balance, and elegance of form.

For the esthetics of painting the most complete statement is to be found in Ṣādeqī Beg’s Qānūn al-ṣowar (Canon of paintings). Much of the treatise is concerned with technical data of painting, but some more general esthetic concepts emerge. Ṣādeqī differentiates decorative painting (naqqāšī) from figural painting (ṣūratgarī). The former is limited to inanimate subjects, especially floral and vegetal patterns used in illuminated margins, and the practitioner of this art should base his designs on the valued works of his predecessors. In the latter the painter is dealing with animate subjects, whether animals or human beings. In order to render animals properly, a painter should turn to model works from earlier traditions, especially Behzād. Up until this point, Ṣādeqī deems it both appropriate and necessary for a contemporary painter to look to the past. But in rendering human beings he makes a crucial distinction, which would appear to be central to the esthetics of later Safavid painting.

The portrayal of human beings should be based upon direct observation. The purpose of representing the appearance or outer form (ṣūrat) of a human being is to reveal his or her inner reality or real nature (maʿnā). A likeness is therefore intended to lay bare what is intrinsically real about a person. The two terms, ṣūrat and maʿnā, are frequent in the language of Islamic mysticism and philosophy, and Ṣādeqī skillfully exploits the additional, artistic meaning of ṣūrat in order to supply a metaphysical basis for his profession. Ideally, original subject and painterly likeness should create the same response in a viewer, since both reveal the inner form.

The visual evidence of Safavid art also prompts certain conclusions concerning the esthetics of this culture, though these remarks deal more with our perception of it than with its philosophical underpinnings. Whether in paintings illustrating literary texts or in inscriptions bordering the portals of mosques and tombs, the Safavid artist sought linear grace and rhythmic continuity. Elegance of line, whether figural or calligraphic, was more important than solidity of image or legibility of epigraph. Similarly, surface values whether the sheen of a silk carpet, the luster glaze of a pot, or the reflective surface of a polished steel vessel were more esteemed than a sense of heavy substance. Inlaid gold was replaced by gilding, and figural images are rendered with attention to texture of clothing and flesh rather than volume. Within these canons idealized images coexist with those which appear more inclined toward naturalism, both perhaps views of the same inner reality of which Ṣādeqī speaks.

Early Safavid period (907-96/1501-87). According to literary accounts, the first Safavid ruler, Shah Esmāʿīl I (907-30/1501-24), was an active builder, but few monuments survive to testify to his architectural patronage. Portal inscriptions on two extant monuments, the Harūn-e Welāyat tomb and the Masjed-e ʿAlī in Isfahan, do indicate that the public proclamation of official Shiʿite doctrine was of central importance to the king. This kind of strident statement is rarely encountered in the portable arts of the Safavid period, which usually express milder, more mystical attitudes. Thus the articulation of Shiʿite Islam and the shah’s special relationship to it, which is found in the inscriptions on a brass inkwell, likely made for Esmāʿīl himself, is extremely uncommon. During the first Safavid century portable luxury artifacts are predominantly private arts that convey personal taste rather than official conviction.

The evidence for Esmāʿīl’s patronage of the precious manuscript is more extensive than for his activity as a builder. Like his contemporary Bābor in India, the young monarch had a developed appreciation for fine painting and calligraphy, as well as for the classics of Iranian literature. But while the Mughal emperor’s esthetic inclined toward the cerebral architectonics of the late-Timurid master Behzād, Esmāʿīl’s taste was for the more turbulent and emotional paintings and drawings done for the Āq Qoyunlū Turkmans of western Iran, where Esmāʿīl had come of age. This continuity of taste can be demonstrated by a manuscript of fundamental importance. Begun under the Āq Qoyunlūs in Tabrīz in 1481, this Ḵamsa of Neẓāmī (Topkapi Palace Museum, H. 762) was incomplete when Esmāʿīl took that city in 1501. The nine illustrations finished before the shah acquired the manuscript are among the finest creations of Turkman art: they show a natural setting far livelier and more colorful than in Behzād’s work; this master’s concern with psychological relationships and logical space and proportions is also largely absent. Much of this wilder ambience is visible in the natural and architectural settings of the ten pictures added to the manuscript about 911/1505 by Shah Esmāʿīl’s atelier, though faces have become rounder and figures somewhat stockier in this page attributed to Solṭān Moḥammad. The new shah had inherited the artists of the Turkmans.

Present research has not yet been able to define the later development of painting under Shah Esmāʿīl. In 928/1522 the shah’s heir, eight-year-old Prince Ṭahmāsp, was recalled to Tabrīz from Herat where he had been nominal governor since 922/1516. It is likely that the Herat master Behzād accompanied him, for this painter was appointed director of the royal library on 24 April 1522. The appointment must have been to Ṭahmāsp’s liking: educated in Herat, he would presumably have identified correct painting with Behzād’s style. A small roundel by Behzād in the Freer Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., depicts a youth and old man and indicates that the aging master was still a powerful and imaginative painter. His immediate influence on the Tabrīz court artists is demonstrated by a small copy of ʿĀrefī’s Gūy o Čowgān, completed in 931/1524-25 and presented by Ṭahmāsp to his tutor, Qāżī Jahān. The scribe was the young prince himself, and the paintings were done by the leading masters at the court, surely including both Behzād and Solṭān Moḥammad, who with consummate skill had accommodated himself to the controlled, Behzādian art favored by Ṭahmāsp.

In the same year Ṭahmāsp became shah and despite his youth emerged as a patron of imagination and discernment. The next twenty years saw the production of a series of manuscripts that rank among the finest works of Iranian painting and calligraphy. Shortly after his accession he ordered the creation of a royal Šāh-nāma, and the production of this great book of 759 pages and 258 paintings by the leading masters in the king’s library was to continue for the next two decades. (This manuscript, to be referred to as the Shah Ṭahmāsp Šāh-nāma, was formerly in the Rothschild collection and is now dispersed in many locations.) Its pages necessarily reflect the development of painting during the early part of Ṭahmāsp’s reign. The earliest pictures are still very much in the Tabrīz mode, and it has been ably argued that Solṭān Moḥammad was consciously trying to win the young shah over to less Behzādian art. Apparently he succeeded, for paintings datable to about 933/1526-27 show the emergence of a synthesis of Behzādian reason and Turkman energy and fantasy. In 951/1544 Dūst Moḥammad referred to Shah Ṭahmāsp’s great Šāh-nāma and singled out Solṭān Moḥammad’s rendering of the “Court of Gayūmart¯” for special praise; it was regarded as the zenith of Safavid painting, and “the hearts of the boldest of painters were grieved and they hung their heads in shame before it.”

The process of producing a precious book was complex. The patron first chose a skilled master, usually a calligrapher though sometimes a painter, as the director of the project. Perhaps in consultation with the patron, the director would determine the size and quality of the desired manuscript and would then select the team of masters to produce it—paper-makers, calligraphers, painters, illuminators, and binders. Scenes to be illustrated had to be selected in advance so that the scribe could leave appropriate areas blank. A manuscript as large as the Shah Ṭahmāsp Šāh-nāma probably utilized the skills of several calligraphers; at least fifteen painters made major contributions to the book.

If this great Šāh-nāma occupied the attention of many masters for many years, it did not monopolize their time. Other, smaller manuscripts were also produced, three of them for Ṭahmāsp’s brother Sām Mīrzā a Ḵamsa of Neẓāmī in 932/1525 (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art); a Dīvān of Mīr ʿAlī-Šīr Navāʾī in 933/1526 (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale) and a Dīvān of Ḥāfeẓ in about 934/1527 (Cambridge, Mass., Fogg Art Museum), which contains brilliant, signed works by Šayḵzāda, a close follower of Behzād, and Solṭān Moḥammad.

The culmination of the shah’s patronage is the 946-50/1539-43 Ḵamsa of Neẓāmī (London, British Museum). Entirely written by one of the greatest of Safavid calligraphers, Šāh Maḥmūd Nīšāpūrī, known as Zarīn-qalam (Golden pen) because of the splendor of his script, it was also illuminated and provided with fourteen contemporary miniatures by the leading court painters—Solṭān Moḥammad, his son Mīrzā ʿAlī, Āqā Mīrak, Mīr Sayyed ʿAlī (the son of Mīr Moṣawwer), and Moẓaffar ʿAlī. In its sustained elegance this manuscript must be considered the most perfect of Safavid precious books.

While these selected manuscripts represent the high points of Shah Ṭahmāsp’s favored art, they do not delineate it completely. Other books, less lavish but still fine, were produced for patrons at the royal court and in provincial centers of power, where a local aristocrat might commission manuscripts for his own library. Commercial workshops also existed, both in the capital and in other cities, notably Shiraz, where a number of ateliers were actively producing the many dozens of handsome books known to have originated there. Provincial centers of art, whether for book making or metal working or pottery, had existed in Iran from early Islamic times with recognizable regional identities. What distinguishes the Safavid period is that by the end of the 10th/16th century the cultural hegemony of the royal court was such that provincial centers of patronage either tended to disappear or to become stylistically indistinguishable from the capital.

Manuscript making was not the only activity open to painters and calligraphers. The former drew and painted single pages that were not intended for inclusion in literary texts but were rather designed for precious albums (moraqqaʿ); these were not haphazard assemblages of valued works but carefully composed, harmonious entities. The increased attention to the single page and the moraqqaʿ is one of the most significant developments of later Safavid art. Although paintings bearing artists’ names (sometimes signatures but far more often contemporary or later ascriptions by patrons, collectors, or librarians) are preserved from earlier times, it is in the late Timurid and Safavid periods that artists’ names abound. Artists and collectors seem to have been far more aware of individual differences of style; this heightened sense of artistic individuality is accompanied, around the mid-10th/16th century, by a more developed sense of artistic history. Dūst Moḥammad’s valuable 951/1544 account of the master at Ṭahmāsp’s court has already been noted; later painters, such as Ṣādeqī Beg, and historians, such as Qāżī Aḥmad, composed similar records (and from such documents it is possible to reconstruct the careers of major Safavid masters).

The life of the scribe Šāh Maḥmūd Nīšāpūrī serves as a good example, illustrating the vicissitudes of a Safavid artist’s career. He was the nephew and pupil of Mawlānā ʿAbdī, a calligrapher, and was famed as the peer of the earlier masters Solṭān ʿAlī and Mīr ʿAlī. While the great Shah Ṭahmāsp Šāh-nāma of about 931-51/1524-44 may very well be the work of his hand, he did sign the British Museum Ḵamsa, which he wrote between 946/1539 and 950/1543. At the peak of his power he lost his patron when Shah Ṭahmāsp turned away from painting and calligraphy and dismissed the members of his atelier, apparently without giving them any remuneration for their past services. Without grants of land or patronage or pension, Šāh Maḥmūd moved to Mašhad, where he supported himself for many years by writing architectural inscriptions, samples of calligraphy, and a few manuscripts for occasional patrons. When the shah’s nephew Ebrāhīm Mīrzā was appointed governor of Mašhad in 964/1556, he began the creation of a magnificent copy of Jāmī’s Haft owrang (Washington, D.C., Freer Gallery of Art) and hired the aging scribe to write a major portion of it. It was his last endeavor: Šāh Maḥmūd died in 972/1564-65 and was buried in Mašhad beside Solṭān ʿAlī.

Ṭahmāsp’s devotion to the arts of the precious manuscript was almost single-minded; his patronage of other arts was much less intense. In pottery there occurred nothing like the great production of 10th/16th-century Ottoman Turkey, and while the few dated examples of early Safavid pottery indicate that figural style closely followed that of the court painters, the artistry of both potter and pottery painter was less fine. There is a similar shortage of dated metalwork, but examples in the Topkapi Palace Museum indicate that heavily bejeweled vessels were the fashion at court. Metal objects depicted in painting of the period appear to be less fine and more restricted in type than in earlier times.

Fine designers, some of them surely painters, were employed in the production of precious textiles (many of which are also represented in contemporary painting), their silk material enlivened with brilliant colors and figural iconography based on literary texts and traditions. The Ardabīl carpets are by common consent the finest carpets ever produced in Iran and were presumably presented by Shah Ṭahmāsp to the family shrine in Ardabīl. Other carpets, both in silk and wool, have richly figured scenes of hunts or delineate the forms of ideal gardens, a central metaphor of Iranian poetry. The finest examples preserve the classic Safavid symmetry of design the composition is divided into four identical quadrants, but individual elements, whether human, plant, or animal, are rendered with considerable naturalism.

Despite these important developments and his own key role in the history of Safavid painting, Shah Ṭahmāsp’s pursuit of esthetic gratification slackened. Through reawakened formal piety or through more active attention to politics and government the thirty-year-old shah ceased to function as an effective patron and kept his distance from the court arts for the rest of his long reign. Some of his painters, such as Mīr Sayyed ʿAlī, left to join the court of the Mughal emperor Homāyūn. A few others moved west to work for the Ottomans or sought the support of provincial patrons.

Although the court style survived these unfortunate years, it was sustained in undiminished power by only one patron, Ṭahmāsp’s nephew Ebrāhīm Mīrzā, who, between 964/1556 and 973/1565 assembled an atelier of painters and calligraphers that was as impressive as what had existed under Ṭahmāsp. The 28 unsigned paintings of the Freer Gallery Haft owrang already mentioned in connection with Šāh Maḥmūd reflect an ethos somewhat removed from the controlled elegance of the 946-50/1539-43 Ḵamsa: figures are more attenuated, color combinations more daring, sensuality more overt, and humor even ribald. Its painters almost certainly included Mīrzā ʿAlī, the son of Solṭān Moḥammad; Moẓaffar ʿAlī, the grandnephew of Behzād and the son of the early Safavid painter Ḥaydar ʿAlī; and Šayḵ Moḥammad, the son of the calligrapher Kamāl Sabzavārī. Among the calligraphers similar familial relationships are found: Malek Daylamī was the son of the famous calligrapher Šahrā-Mīr Qazvīni; Rostam ʿAlī was also Behzād’s nephew and worked for Ebrāhīm’s father, Bahrām; and Moḥebb ʿAlī was Rostam ʿAlī’s son. Family ties and connections were obviously of central importance in landing important commissions in Safavid Iran.

After Ebrāhīm Mīrzā was recalled to Qazvīn in 973/1565, his painters apparently found employ with provincial aristocrats and with princes and nobles at the royal court. Some even went to work for commercial ateliers. Thus in the 980s/1570s painters probably trained in Ebrāhīm’s atelier perpetuated a provincial version of his style which has been aptly dubbed the Khorasan school.

Shah Ṭahmāsp died in 984/1576 and was briefly succeeded by his son Esmāʿīl II, a distinguished warrior who had been confined to prison for the last twenty years by his jealous father. Esmāʿīl’s eighteen-month reign had a damaging effect on the immediate future of Iranian art: he executed his brilliant cousin Ebrāhīm as well as nearly all the other princes of royal blood, thereby removing many of Iran’s potential patrons. Despite his own rapacity, he undertook the creation of an impressive Šāh-nāma intended to rival that of his father. While a number of excellent masters were gathered together in Qazvīn for this purpose, their talents did not match those of Ṭahmāsp’s artists. Now widely dispersed, the Šāh-nāma of Esmāʿīl II was never completed. All of its masters were third- or fourth-generation Safavid artists, and few of them were the scions of earlier painters or calligraphers. The two leading masters were Sīāvoš and Ṣādeqī, painters trained by Moẓaffar ʿAlī.

The turbulence of Esmāʿīl II’s reign did not end with his death. The political chaos of Iran demanded a strong and more imaginative ruler than his elder brother, Moḥammad Ḵodābanda (985-96/1577-87). Nearly blind, the new shah was fit neither as monarch nor patron. While the country drifted into civil war, economic stagnation, and political disintegration, there was no apparent patronage of any of the arts or architecture, and masters such as Ṣādeqī (whose valuable personal record, Majmaʿ al-ḵawāṣṣ, allows the reconstruction of his career) wandered through Iran in search of stable patronage. Some officials and lesser aristocrats emerged as minor patrons during this period, in which drawings flourished, perhaps because they were cheaper than manuscripts or paintings, but many members of the artistic and intellectual elite emigrated to India, including the calligrapher, Mīr Ḥosayn Sahwī, who penned the quatrain accompanying Ṣādeqī’s drawing.

Middle Safavid period (996-1038/1587-1629). This dismal condition ended with the accession of Shah ʿAbbās, one of the most energetic patrons in Iranian history. Whereas Ṭahmāsp’s primary interest had been in the art of the precious book, ʿAbbās’s patronage extended into many areas—architecture, precious books, single pages of painting and calligraphy, ceramics, textiles, carpets, and metals. His fostering of the arts was also of a different kind from that of his grandfather, and it must be understood in the context of his political activities. His passion for architecture was part of a larger fascination with urban planning, which mirrored his own ambitious economic and social policies. Authority, whether political or religious, was increasingly centralized in Isfahan, while trade with Europe and the Far East was increased; the existence of provincial centers of patronage ceased, and the role of non-royal patrons centered in Isfahan, where aristocrats, officials, professionals, and merchants lived. The importation of objects from Europe, India, and China made Iran’s arts more cosmopolitan than they had been for centuries.

The new shah was a man of definite tastes. He held the paintings and drawings of Ṣādeqī and Reżā in high esteem and prized the calligraphies of ʿAlī Reżā and Mīr ʿEmād. The careers of these four individuals reveal some of the complexities and politics of the royal workshops. About 996/1587 Ṣādeqī, already a well-established master, was appointed director of the royal library; the much younger painter Reżā had recently joined the staff. From their association came a Šāh-nāma, now in a fragmentary state in the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin, which was commissioned by the shah near the beginning of his reign and finished by about 1004/1595. Five of the surviving fourteen illustrations were done by Reżā and number among his finest works. Three were done by Ṣādeqī, clearly under the influence of his new colleague. Stylistically, these paintings are closely linked to the court style of Ṭahmāsp and Esmāʿīl II and indicate that the youthful ruler’s esthetic sense followed predictable lines.

According to contemporary accounts, Ṣādeqī was a difficult individual. He was dismissed from his post in 1005/1596-97 and succeeded by his enemy, the calligrapher ʿAlī Reżā, who apparently prevented Ṣādeqī from receiving further important commissions. In the following year the painter retaliated by lodging a formal complaint with the shah that the new director had been derelict in his duties. The countercoup failed; ʿAlī Reżā was a tough man who adroitly outmaneuvered attacks on his position and successfully protected himself from rivals, including Mīr ʿEmād, who was murdered in 1024/1615-16 in a plot apparently organized by ʿAlī Reżā. Despite his ruthless art politics, ʿAlī Reżā was active as a scribe and a designer of architectural inscriptions and was honored with choice commissions in Mašhad and Isfahan.

Calligraphers had long performed multiple duties they wrote official letters for the court, often served as directors of libraries and of specific manuscript projects, wrote new copies of treasured literary works and produced single pages of calligraphy for albums. They also were called upon to design inscriptions for a variety of purposes exteriors and interiors of mosques, shrines, and tombs needed appropriate epigraphs; so too did objects—metalworks, ceramics, carpets, textiles, and tiles. The calligrapher’s role was central to the production of art in the Safavid world.

In 1023/1614 Shah ʿAbbās commissioned a second Šāh-nāma, which is in many ways a visual rejection of 10th/16th-century painting. Its illustrations are based upon the high court style of Prince Bāysonḡor of Herat many of them are, in fact, copies or pastiches of paintings in the Šāh-nāma (Tehran, Golestān Library) produced for that prince about 834/1430. While archaistic renderings of earlier works are not uncommon in Iranian painting, such a concerted effort by an imperial patron is unique in the history of Iranian painting. During the same period the shah’s taste for Timurid-revival forms of architecture (e.g., the Masjed-e Šāh in Isfahan) was also most pronounced, and it may be that this conscious return to 9th/15th-century forms reflected the monarch’s ambition to create an Iranian state as powerful as that of Timur’s descendants.

The Timurid revival was brief and evidently limited to the monarch alone. In other areas of painting and drawing and in other arts the establishment of new directions affected the course of Iranian art for the rest of the Safavid period. In painting, drawing, and calligraphy the single page replaced the lavish illustrated manuscript as the dominant mode. Quicker and cheaper to produce, yet authentically revealing the hand of a master whose work was prized, small works of this sort were eagerly sought, not only in Iran but also by connoisseurs in India and the Ottoman empire.

In comparison with earlier, literary subject matter, the content of painting became fragmented; and scenes that had been small parts of earlier illustrations were now fit to be independent works of art, promoting an attention to naturalism comparable to that in contemporary Mughal India. Idealized beauties became the most common image of all, visual metaphors of the ideal beloved of Iranian mystical poetry. Thinner pigments and more daring colors were also used, and line became sketchier, so that the impression of polished and enduring finish of 9th/10th- and early 10th/16th-century painting is replaced by visions of greater transience.

Many of the images of graceful dandies that abound in Safavid painting are also to be found on ceramics, particularly of the “Kubachi” type produced in northwestern Iran and yet virtually identical with figures of the so-called Isfahan school. But these are not the most common type of ceramic of this period. Recognizing the importance of a widely based trade with Europe, where Chinese pottery fetched high prices, Shah ʿAbbās brought Chinese potters to his state-operated workshops in Isfahan, Mašhad, Kermān, and other cities where they and Iranian potters produced skillful variants on Chinese types for sale in Europe and Iran. In keeping with Safavid attention to pre-Safavid arts, lusterware pottery, not seen in Iran since the Il-khanid period, was produced again in the early 11th/17th century.

Though Safavid metalwork does not appear to have been widely exported, there are important changes in the mid-Safavid period. Stocky candlesticks of Saljuq and Il-khanid times were replaced by more attenuated shapes that relied on simpler decorative patterns, gilding and silvering instead of inlays, and mystical verses for their ornamentation. Much Safavid metalwork of the period was made of cut steel, a new material in the Islamic repertory.

Textiles too are sometimes inscribed with mystical verses. Both figures and poetry were supplied by painters and calligraphers employed as designers in royal workshops producing cloths for the aristocracy and for export, primarily to Mughal India. Techniques are varied weaves of silk and metal thread had been dominant in the 10th/16th century, but brocades became the most common form of decorative technique in the 11th/17th.

Carpets were an important source of revenue, and the industry rested to a large extent under the shah’s control. While designs were selected to appeal to European customers and sometimes even incorporated European insignia, technique tended to be showier and less fine than in early Safavid times.

Later Safavid period (1032-1135/1629-1722). ʿAbbās’s paranoia resulted in the death or incapacitation of all his sons, and he was succeeded by his grandson, Ṣafī I (1039-52/1629-42), who was barely interested in architecture and merely brought to completion projects begun by his predecessor. The royal workshops continued to produce ceramics, textiles, and carpets that were stylistically and technically scarcely distinguishable from those of ʿAbbās I. The master painter Reżā continued to paint until his death in 1045/1635, and his students dominated 11th/17th-century painting. But the reign of Ṣafī I marks no new directions in either art or politics.

His son, ʿAbbās II (1052-77/1642-66), is the only one of the later Safavids whose reign could be called impressive. An important patron of architecture, he also encouraged Reżā’s many students. Reżā’s son Ṣafī was a gifted still-life painter and one of the court’s principal textile designers. Moḥammad Qāsem and Moḥammad Yūsof specialized in single-page drawings and paintings of elegant youths. ʿAbbās II commissioned several sumptuous Šāh-nāmas in traditional styles but also brought a number of Europeanizing painters to his court, most notably ʿAlī-qolī Jabbadār and Moḥammad Zamān.

ʿAbbās II’s successor Solaymān (1077-1106/1666-94) is amply described by several contemporary European visitors, especially Chardin and Tavernier: an unstable personality, he showed little interest in government or architecture but was a gifted and eclectic patron of painting and drawing, encouraging not only the Europeanizing masters “inherited” from his father but also the gifted Moʿīn Moṣawwer, who produced some of his finest, “journalistic” renderings of contemporary Isfahan life during the shah’s reign. Erotic subject matter, already apparent during the reign of Shah ʿAbbās I, received wider attention, not only in paintings and drawings but also occasionally in ceramics. For the most part, however, ceramics, textiles, and carpets continued to utilize designs and motives established under Shah ʿAbbās I.

The last of the reigning Safavids, Solṭān Ḥosayn (1106-35/1694-1722), appears to have abrogated responsibilities in patronage as well as in government. No manuscript can be confidently attributed to his patronage, though he commissioned ʿAlī-qolī Jabbadār and Moḥammad Zamān to portray the Russian ambassador to the Safavid court. Portraiture too had been introduced at an earlier period, but it seems to have been both more realistic and more abundant in the last years of the dynasty. In 1135/1722 the shah ordered Moḥammad Zamān’s son, Moḥammad ʿAlī to paint a group portrait of king and court; it is impressive both for its forbidding gloom and as a final testimony to the Safavids.

ART IN IRAN x.1 ART AND ARCHITECTURE OF THE QAJAR PERIOD

The Qajar period is now increasingly recognized as a time of significant change in Persian society. Perhaps the most obvious influence was the impact of Western ideas and technology, which accompanied the diplomats, military and technical advisers, merchants, travelers, and missionaries who flocked into 19th-century Persia. Qajar art, which reflects such influences, has been treated with scant sympathy. Viewed through eyes accustomed to the standards of earlier periods of Persian art, it has been dismissed as garish and unoriginal, instead of being considered on its own terms. Qajar art is in fact firmly rooted in Persian tradition while giving accurate visual expression to the changes in 19th-century Persia, and any study of it must reflect this duality. A balanced assessment is still difficult because the basic information has not yet been systematically classified: there are no comprehensive indexes of surviving monuments and few catalogues, with the possible exception of paintings. The bibliography is equally meager, as the standard works of Persian art stop with the decline of the Safavids in the early 18th century (as for example, Survey of Persian Art). The most lucid and satisfactory account still is that of Robert Murdoch Smith who, during his career as director of the Persian Telegraph Department from 1865 to 1888 systematically built up collections of Persian art for the Victoria and Albert Museum and viewed Qajar art with a sympathetic yet critical eye (R. Murdoch Smith, Persian Art, London, ca. 1876). The priority of Qajar art studies is therefore to catalogue its monuments and artifacts, supplementing firsthand examination and description of this wealth of material with references from secondary sources such as European travel accounts and official reports, Persian chronicles, and archives (for example, see ʿA.-Ḥ. Sapantā, Awqāf-e Eṣfahān, Isfahan, 1346 Š./1968).

Main characteristics. Qajar art is characterized by an exuberant style and flamboyant use of color, which became more emphatic as the 19th century progressed; here Persian art may be compared with developments in 19th-century Europe, where technological mastery made virtuoso forms of decoration possible (for example the ceramic wares of the Minton Factory Stoke; see E. Aslin and P. Atterbury, Minton 1798-1910, catalogue of an exhibition held at the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, August-October, 1976). In the meticulous painting of detail and shading of color, there are also close similarities among such media as painted lacquer (papier maché), enameled gold and copper, and, on a somewhat larger-scale, overglaze painted tilework. In such works and also in certain groups of textiles, the quality of craftsmanship is high. A particularly important feature of Qajar art is the richness of its iconography. Flowers (especially roses and irises), foliage, and fruit function both as central and supporting motifs. There are views of pastoral landscapes and buildings mainly inspired by imported European illustrations. There are also many narratives. Nostalgia for Persia’s past is reflected in scenes of Sasanian rulers, traditional themes of Persian literature, and more recent battles with the Ottoman Turks and Mughals. The contemporary world is seen in the portrayal of Qajar rulers in both official and informal situations and in scenes of everyday life treated with varying degrees of naturalism; here European influence intrudes in such features as the military uniforms worn by Nāṣer-al-dīn Shah and his officers. Perhaps however the most significant and interesting iconography is drawn from the themes of popular folklore, which are found in the oil paintings decorating the walls of coffee houses, paintings on glass, colored lithographs, and tilework panels. Unique to the Qajar period, these images undoubtedly represent the survival of a tradition whose earlier history has been lost. Here the tragic events of Shiʿite martyrology and the exploits of legendary heroes such as Rostam are depicted. (For an account of popular imagery see H. Masse, “L'imagerie populaire de l'Iran,” Arts asiatiques 7, 1960, pp. 163-73). Rostam’s role is a dual one because he appears both as a respected character of the Šāh-nāma and as a more earthy folk hero.

Architecture. Architecture and the various techniques used for its decoration offer possibly the most comprehensive illustration of the qualities of Qajar art. From the surviving monuments it is clear that the Qajars pursued an energetic building program; the majority of buildings date from the two longest reigns, those of Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah (1212/1797-1250/1834) and Nāṣer-al dīn Shah (1264/1848-1313/1896). There are also some interesting large-scale buildings found in the reign of the last Qajar, Aḥmad Shah (1327/1909-1342/1924). Surviving examples are found throughout Persia, while the main concentration of buildings is in the capital, Tehran, which was drastically altered by Nāṣer-al-dīn Shah’s construction program begun in 1284/1867 (G. N. Curzon, Persia and the Persian Question I, London, 1892, pp. 305-8). Interesting groups of buildings have also survived in Qazvīn, Isfahan, Shiraz, Kāšān, Kermān, Rašt, Semnān, and Zanjān. Traditional building materials were used: Kiln-fired clay brick for the main sections of construction, stone more sparingly for features such as columns and dados, wood for doors and window frames. Decoration was applied in various techniques, including polychrome tile, carved and molded stucco, painted wood and plaster, inlaid mirrorwork, carved and pierced woodwork.

Religious architecture. This was predominantly urban and concentrated on the mosque and madrasa, which were constructed on the classic Persian plan of an open court with four ayvāns. Far from being a limiting factor, the simplicity of this plant permitted considerable flexibility in that extensions could be built beyond the confines of the court, with freedom to vary the proportions and details of its component units. Three large mosques, the Masjed-e Šāh of Qazvīn (Plate XVIII) built in 1221/1806 (H. Southgate, Narrative of a Tour through Armenia, Kurdistan, Persia and Mesopotamia, New York, 1843, II, pp. 53f.), of Zanjān built in 1243-45/1827-29 (G. Keppel, Personal Narrative of a Journey from India to England, London, 1827, II, p. 158), and of Semnān built in 1244/1828 (X. Hommaire De Hell, Voyage en Turquie et en Perse …, Paris, 1854-56, II, p. 317) have a common feature in a prominent entrance. Because a Persian mosque is surrounded by adjacent buildings and has no exterior in the European sense, the entrance is a towering structure with a vaulted arch lined with moqarnas (stalactites) vaulting and set within a massive rectangular frame. The entrance in turn is linked to the north ayvān of the mosque by a vestibule leading to the open court. The Masjed-e Šāh of Qazvīn has a single story of arches lining its court, while that of the Masjed-e Šāh at Semnān has two stories, the upper set well back from the lower to form an open, terraced walk. The proportions of the four ayvāns are also variable; the Qazvīn and Zanjān mosques have four ayvāns of similar height, but in the Semnān mosque the north and south ayvāns are much taller and more imposing than those on the west and east. They are all constructed on similar principles—lofty recesses with moqarnas decoration in their vaults—and in all cases the south ayvān is the most significant and most lavishly decorated as it leads into the maqṣūra, or sanctuary. The traditional construction of the maqṣūra is seen most clearly at Qazvīn, where it is a square chamber set with a squinch at each corner to effect transition to the dome; the meḥrāb, emphasized by its polychrome tilework decoration, is centered in the south wall.

Plate XVIII. Qazvīn, Masǰed-e Šāh. Mosaic tilework. Early 19th century.View full image in a new tab

Later Qajar mosques continue the open-court, four ayvān plan but are more varied in the treatment of it, as can be seen in two mosques from the period of Nāṣer-al-dīn Shah; the Masjed-e Naṣr-al-molk built at Shiraz 1293-1305/1876-88 (Ministry of Culture and Arts, La mosquée Nasirolmolk, Shiraz, n.d.) and the Masjed-e Sepahsālār built at Tehran 1299-1308/1881-90 (Curzon, Persia, pp. 329-30). The Shiraz mosque is unusual in that emphasis is shifted from the sanctuary area. Its open court, reached from an elaborate entrance situated on the northwest corner, is lined with a single row of arches opening on the west to a columned winter prayer hall. There are no ayvāns, and the north side is more elaborate than the south or qebla side. This north side has two stories of open arches framing a spacious central niche that opens into a high chamber flanked by a series of vestibules opening out of one another; at the back of this chamber is a meḥrāb. In contrast, the south side consists of a wide central niche in place of a meḥrāb, and smaller niches on each side. The Masjed-e Sepahsālār was basically constructed as a grand-scale version of the orthodox plan, with a vast two-storied open court and four monumental ayvāns; the south one leads into a large domed sanctuary. Two minarets flank the entrance on the west and four minarets with engaged columnar bases are spaced at intervals along the south facade. Qajar madrasas adapted the open-court plan, usually by constructing rooms behind the arcades lining the court. The mosque and madrasa of Āḡā Bozorg at Kāšān, built in 1248/1832 (H. Narāqī, Āṯār-e tārīḵī-e šahrestānhā-ye Kāšān wa Naṭanz, Tehran, n.d., pp. 254-61) combines both functions in an original manner. It is an elegantly proportioned building with a single-storied open court. In the center of this court a rectangular sunken garden lined with rooms forms a madrasa at basement level.

The remaining Qajar religious buildings, especially the emāmzādas, or shrines, are somewhat less explicit in structure. Of early foundation they have developed into large complexes through centuries of pious donations. The Qajars were diligent patrons, and their work can be seen at the important shrines of Imam Reżā at Mašhad, Fāṭema Maʿṣūma at Qom, ʿAbd-al-ʿAẓīm at Ray, Neʿmatallāh Walī at Māhān, and Šāh Čerāḡ and Mīr Moḥammad at Shiraz. Their contributions took various forms: additional courts at Māhān, domed chambers at Qom and Shiraz. Šāh Čerāḡ has a cruciform chamber elaborately decorated with mirrorwork centered over the shah’s tomb and surmounted by a conspicuous tiled dome. These Qajar structures date from 1250/1834 but have been restored many times since. The takīa, or arena for the performance of the taʿzīa passion play associated with the martyrdom of the imams Ḥasan and Ḥosayn, is a special type of religious building for which there is seemingly no evidence before the Qajar period. Few examples have survived because they were either set up temporarily for the occasion or have since been destroyed (J. M. Scarce, “Isfahan in Camera,” Art and Archaeology Research Papers, London, 1976, fig. 9; H. R. D’Allemagne, Du Khorassan au pays des bakhtiaris, Paris, 1911, III, p. 224; J. Feuvrier, Trois ans aà la cour de Perse 1889-1892, 1st ed., Paris, 1899, map). One of the rare surviving examples however is the takīa of Moʿāwen-al-molk at Kermānšāh (Plate XIX), parts of which were built as late as 1347/1929. It is a rambling structure consisting of two open rectangular courts with a central domed cruciform chamber. The tilework decoration is related to the taʿzīa or to Sufi imagery.

Plate XIX. Kermānšāh, Takīa of Mo ʿāwen-al-Molk. Overglaze painted tile in "photographic" black and white. Portrait of the late Shaik Aḥmad.View full image in a new tab

Secular architecture. More secular architecture survives from the Qajar than from any earlier period, mainly as royal palaces, large private houses, and city gates. The Qajar court maintained several establishments divided between town and country palaces for winter and summer respectively. In practice the distance of migration was small, as most of the summer residences were located in the Šemīrānāt, the hills around Tehran that now form the northern suburbs of the city. The town residence that also served as an administrative center was the Golestān Palace situated in the south of the present city. It consists of a rambling series of buildings set in walled gardens (Y. Ḏokāʾ, Tārīḵča-ye sāḵtamānhā-ye arg-e salṭanatī-e Tehrān. Rāhnamā-ye Kāḵ-e Golestān, Tehran 1349 Š./1971); as seen today it is essentially the work of Nāṣer-al-dīn Shah, who drastically altered Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah’s buildings and built new ones. Today about a quarter of his structures remain along the north, east, and south sides, grouped according to function, with private and public areas strictly segregated (Feuvrier, Trois ans, map). Originally to the west were extensive ranges of guardhouses and stables. Along the north side were the Taḵt-e Marmar, a deep-columned porch or tālār dating from Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah’s reign, and audience hall. The andarūn (women’s quarters), pulled down in the 1960s, were discreetly concealed behind the audience hall. On the east side Šams-al-ʿemāra functioned as Nāṣer-al-dīn Shah’s private quarters, while buildings on the south side included houses for court employees such as Dr. Feuvrier, the shah’s private physician from 1889 to 1892. Together these buildings show the combination of tradition and novelty. The form of the tālār of the Taḵt-e Marmar can be traced back to Achaemenid times. Nāṣer-al-dīn Shah’s buildings show much innovation resulting from European influence: the audience hall is two-storied with a monumental columned porch and a facade punctuated by deep windows; the Šams-al-ʿemāra, a multi-storied tower with two balconied turrets, shows the same concern with external appearance as 19th-century European architecture.

Few of the summer palaces that once occupied the Šemīrānāt now remain. Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah’s palace, Qaṣr-e Qājār, located 6 km north of Tehran, has now vanished completely. From drawings, plans, and descriptions, it is possible to discuss the monument and compare it with the more eccentric constructions of Nāṣer-al-dīn Shah (P. Coste, Monuments modernes de la Perse, Paris, 1867, pls. LVIII-LXI). Two features are especially striking: that the palace is constructed as a series of terraces, each contained within a brick retaining wall and ascending to the royal apartments of the summit, which takes the form of a two-storied rectangular enclosure with rooms within the walls, looking inward to a garden, and that the proportion of open space far exceeds that of the buildings. Parts only of two of Nāṣer-al-dīn Shah’s palaces, ʿEšratābād and Salṭanatābād (Plate XX; Plate XXI) constructed in the 1880s, have survived (for ʿEšratābād see Curzon, Persia, p. 342; D’Allemagne, Du Khorassan pp. 230-31; for Salṭanatābād see Curzon, p. 341; E. Stack, Six Months in Persia, London, 1882, II, pp. 155-56). Their plan shows that the symmetry of Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah’s buildings had been abandoned and that certain European influences were introduced. ʿEšratābād’s main surviving structure is the multistoried turret of Nāṣer-al-dīn Shah’s own apartments comparable to the Šams-al-ʿemāra of the Golestān palace. Grouped around a lake were seventeen single-storied chalets (only six survive today), which served as the andarūn apartments. This same asymmetry is also seen at Salṭanatābād, where the two surviving units are a three-storied rectangular building and a pavilion with a polygonal turret.

Plate XX. Tehran, summer palace of ʿEšratābād: andarūn.View full image in a new tab

Plate XXI. Tehran, summer palace of Salṭanatābād.View full image in a new tab

Winter and summer residences were also adopted by private citizens sufficiently wealthy to afford them. Enough town houses survive to enable the principles of their architecture to be deduced. They were approached by a discreet entrance that could be centered as in the Nāranjestān at Shiraz built about 1292/1875 (T. O’Donnell, The Narenjistan, Shiraz, n.d.) or could be situated at one side as in the Ḥosaynīya-ye Amīnī of Qazvīn built between 1290/1873 and 1296/1878. Entrances led via vestibules or corridors into open rectangular or square courts with central pools and water channels and rooms constructed in the walls. Each house had two courts, the bīrūnī and andarūnī. The bīrunī was usually the most lavish in scale and decoration, with rooms grouped according to function. There was always a columned tālār along one side leading into a reception area flanked by smaller rooms on each side and opening out of one another. Blocks of rooms on the other sides of the court included both living and kitchen quarters. Such houses also had basements reached from the court by short flights of steps. The summer house, set within a garden concealed from the outside by a brick wall, could therefore present a more inviting external appearance; the Bāḡ-e Eram built at Shiraz about 1292/1875 is a good example of this. As in Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah’s Qaṣr-e Qājār, it is enclosed in a large terraced garden intersected by water channels, which leads up to the two-storied house with a columned tālār and a roof faced by three semicircular pediments.

The remaining examples of secular architecture may be grouped together as public buildings mainly concentrated in urban commercial quarters. Long intersecting domed streets lined with shops on either side were built as new bazaars or were added as extensions to existing ones; for example the 18th-century Bāzār-e Wakīl of Shiraz was extended on the north by the Bāzār-e Now and crossed on the south by the Bāzār-e Mošīr. Bazaar areas were also furnished with ḥammāms, or public baths, whose appearance was usually advertised by a doorway decorated in colorful tilework (for example, the ḥammām of Semnān built in the 1880s has panels of tiles depicting soldiers on each side of the doorway). Ḥammām construction varied in detail but was essentially based on a vaulted central chamber containing a pool leading into a series of secondary rooms. The last examples of secular architecture are the gates that pierced the brick walls encircling Persian cities. Few of the distinctive, gaudily tiled Qajar gates have survived; the best-known examples are the north gate at Semnān built in 1302/1884, the Darb-e Kūšk and the Darvāza-ye Qazvīn in Tehran, and the Darvāza-ye Bāḡ-e Mellī of Tehran built in 1341/1922. The first three are constructed with three entries surrounded by semicircular pediments and separated by minaret-like engaged columns. The Tehran gate of 1922 retains the triple entry but has abandoned the semicircular pediment in favor of a horizontal lintel.

Architectural decoration. Tilework. Both religious and secular architecture owed much of its impact to decoration. One of the most frequently employed techniques was polychrome ceramic tilework, mainly produced in Tehran, Shiraz, and Isfahan (J. M. Scarce, “Function and Decoration in Qajar Tilework,” in Islam in the Balkans. Persian Art and Culture of the 18th and 19th Centuries, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh, 1979, pp. 75-86). Three basic techniques were used: mosaic with geometrical designs worked in square or rectangular pieces of turquoise, white, yellow, and black tile; overglaze-painted cuerda seca with increasingly elaborate patterns painted in a vivid palette of pink, purple, yellow, shades of blue, green, and orange in a meticulous enameled style; and underglaze painting, with a more subtle arrangement of colors modified by the use of black for shading and outlining, used only from about 1880 onward. Tilework was used to emphasize structure. This is particularly noticeable in religious architecture, where bands and panels of tilework decorated the entrance and ayvāns of mosques and madrasas. In Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah’s buildings mosaic and cuerda seca techniques are blended harmoniously; mosaic panels in fine geometric patterns were used to outline verticals, adorn the facets of moqarnas, and also to surface domes. Cuerda seca tiles in graceful compositions, including rose and iris motifs and arabesque foliage, were used to cover arch spandrels and surfaces where bands and panels of clear pattern would be seen to best effect. The religious buildings of Nāṣer-al-dīn Shah’s reign continued in this tradition but employed a much more extensive range of designs. Mosaic tiling continued in geometrical patterns, but cuerda seca was enlivened by the use of such motifs as bouquets and vases of abundant roses and groups of fruit—melon, grapes, pomegranates—all framed in garlands and drapery swags. The style has a decidedly Victorian flavor heightened by the intrusion of such motifs as scenes of European landscapes obviously copied from imported contemporary postcards and magazine illustrations. (Fine examples of such tilework can be seen in the Masjed-e Sepahsālār, Tehran.) Probably the most extraordinary use of tilework in a religious building is seen in the takīa of Moʿāwen-al-molk at Kermānšāh (Plate XIX), decorated with large panels of cuerda seca tiles depicting a sequence of events from the taʿzīa drama and Sufi themes; in the composition and use of color they are treated as paintings. Also included are portrait tiles of local civil and religious dignitaries worked in a hatched and stippled technique in black on white, obviously influenced by lithographs and photographs. (For the importance of photography in Persia see A. M. Piemontese, “The Photographic Album of the Italian Diplomatic Mission to Persia (Summer 1862),” East and West 22, 1972, pp. 261-62).

The tilework of secular buildings was used to panel facades, as in the Golestan Palace (Plate XXII; Plate XXIII; J. M. Scarce “The Tile Decoration of the Gulestan Palace at Tehran: An Introductory Survey,” Akten des VII. Internationalen Kongresses für Iranische Kunst und Archäologie. München 7-10. September 1976, Berlin, 1979, pp. 635-41), to line courtyards and form decorative interior friezes as in some of the late Qajar houses of Shiraz and to adorn city gates. It shared the floral landscape designs of religious buildings but there was more opportunity for narrative scenes, which were worked in cuerda seca technique on a large scale, resulting in poster-like images, with colors applied either in clear washes or in varying depths of intensity. Themes included subjects from popular literature such as Rostam combating the White Dīv boldly splashed across the central pediment of Semnān’s city gate and contemporary subjects ranging from a full-scale portrait of Nāṣer-al-dīn Shah on horseback decorating the facade of the Bāḡ-e Eram, to realistically depicted soldiers in combat in World War I featured on Tehran’s Darvāza-ye Bāḡ-e Mellī. Underglaze painted tiles are best seen in the friezes within the main vestibules of the Golestān Palace and lining the walls of the reception salon at Salṭanatābād. Treated in a hatched and shaded naturalistic style they depict such events as Nāṣer-al-dīn Shah listening to a piano recital or reviewing his troops, groups of European women in fashionable dress, and a later series of Parthian and Sasanian kings inspired by coins and lithograph illustrations (for a discussion of one of the craftsmen who made tiles in this technique see J. M. Scarce, “Ali Mohammad Isfahani—Tilemaker of Tehran,” Oriental Art, N.S. 22, 1976, pp. 278-88).

Plate XXII. Tehran, Golestān: Garden wall, polychrome overglaze painted tiles. Late 19th century.View full image in a new tab

Plate XXIII. Tehran, Golestān Palace: Interior.View full image in a new tab

Stonework. Stone was used comparatively sparingly in architectural decoration as slabs of cream-colored limestone or greenish marble, either supplied in Shiraz from the nearby mountains or brought in from Azerbaijan or Yazd. The slabs were generally made up into dados running along the facades of courts of both religious and secular buildings, ornamented with designs carved in fine shallow relief or openwork. In the Masjed-e Sepahsālār at Tehran these dados were carved with highly wrought floral designs while at Shiraz a more delicate pattern using iris and rose motifs was favored. An interesting local development confined to Shiraz was the copying of figure scenes from the Achaemenid reliefs of Persepolis, notably the processions of servants from the palaces of Darius and Xerxes.

Glasswork. Glass was used in three principal ways. First, stained glass was made up of insets of red, blue, emerald, and yellow set within openwork wood panels used for fanlights and sliding sash windows. Here the Ḥosaynīya-ye Amīnī of Qazvīn is notable because a stained-glass rose window is also painted with twelve zodiac symbols. Second, mirrorwork mosaic, a technique used in late Safavid times to sheath a surface, was fully developed in the Qajar period. It was used to cover the inner surface of an ayvān or tālār as for example in the shrine of Shah ʿAbd-al-ʿAẓīm at Ray and the reception area of the Nāranjestān at Shiraz, while the inner chamber of Šāh Čerāg at Shiraz is completely lined with it. Third, in domestic architecture friezes of repeating floral and scroll patterns were inlaid in pieces of colorless red, green, and blue glass against a smooth white stucco ground. Stucco as a form of architectural decoration in its own right has a long history in Persia. In Qajar times, especially during the reign of Nāṣer-al-dīn Shah, it became a highly elaborate means of decorating the ceilings, walls, and fireplaces of domestic architecture and was molded in prominent relief in a repertoire of designs closely resembling those of contemporary tilework; thus the ornate bouquets and bowls of roses and medallions containing fruit and bird motifs are found contained within foliage.

Painting (Plates XXIV; Plate XXV; see also below). The last important means of architectural decorations is painting, which was used mainly in domestic interiors. On ceilings a mosaic of interlocking wooden shapes would be painted with still-life compositions, landscapes, groups of Victorian women, and traditional motifs such as a lion and snake in combat, all framed in rose foliage and ribbon strapwork. Alternatively such designs would be painted on a ceiling of horizontal wooden beams. The parallels with motifs used in tilework and stucco are obvious. When used as wall decoration painting was employed to panels based on flower and bird compositions and also large figure scenes, which might be treated as paintings in their own right rather than as architectural accessories.

Plate XXIV. Girl acrobat balancing on a knife. Ca. 1840.View full image in a new tab

Plate XXV. Portrait of a prince holding a flintlock. Moḥammad Ḥasan. Early 19th century.View full image in a new tab

Qajar painting stressed different values from those current in earlier periods. The European influence that had been introduced into late Safavid painting continued and was indeed to be given fresh life in the mid-19th century. Large-scale oil painting, which had flourished in the Zand period, was to become the major form of painting at the expense of manuscript illustration. Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah, the first Qajar to patronize the arts, gathered around him an atelier of painters such as Mīrzā Bābā, Mehr-ʿAlī, and ʿAbdallāh Khan. Mīrzā Bābā (ca. 1200-46/1785-1830), his earliest court painter, was commissioned to illustrate a copy of Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah’s poems as a gift to George III, but usually concentrated on large-scale oil paintings, including several magnificent portraits of Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah (W. Foster, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Paintings etc. in the India Office, 5th ed., London, 1924, no. 116, painting of Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah by Mīrzā Bābā dated 1225/1810). These paintings were meticulously executed icons stressing the details of costume and accessory that proclaimed the ruler’s status. Often the figure was posed against a landscape painted in soft colors with elements of perspective. Other large-scale oil paintings were employed as mural decoration. The painter Mehr-ʿAlī, in addition to painting superb portraits of Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah (S. J. Falk, Qajar Painting, London, 1972, p. 15), spent much of his time working on large murals; an enormous canvas of Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah among his sons is attributed to him. Apart from these royal subjects themes for oil paintings included lively portraits of court women and dancers, hunting scenes, women in European dress, and religious figures. (See Falk, op. cit., for good illustrations of these themes). Oil painting received fresh impetus from the work of Nāṣer-al-dīn Shah’s court painter Abuʾl-Ḥasan Ḡaffārī (d. 1283/1866), who was sent to Italy in 1267/1846 to study painting for three years. His work shows how well he had absorbed a European training, as in his great canvas depicting Nāṣer-al-dīn Shah, his sons, and courtiers, executed for the Neẓāmīya Palace (now in the Tehran Archaeological Museum), each character a subtle and realistic portrait. He could also turn his talents to illustration, and he was responsible for supervising and designing a sumptuous manuscript of the Arabian Nights completed in 1272/1855.

Lacquerwork. Closely related to painting was the art of lacquer that flourished during the Qajar period. In effect, the skills required for miniature painting were concentrated on lacquer objects—mirror cases, pen boxes (qalamdāns; Plate XXVI), book-covers, caskets, and spectacle cases. They were made in papier maché coated with plaster and painted with the required design in water colors; the finished work was then sealed with a coat of transparent lacquer or varnish. Lacquer painting in Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah’s reign reached a very high standard following directly in the tradition of the 18th-century painter Ašraf, whose work survives in exquisitely detailed compositions of roses, irises, and birds. Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah’s artists extended the repertoire to include hunting and court scenes. The close relationship between painting and this applied art is demonstrated by the fact that Mīrzā Bābā worked also in lacquer; the book covers of the manuscripts given to George III were painted by him. As the 19th century progressed lacquer objects were produced using an increasing number of European-influenced motifs, especially young women in Victorian costume and even Christian scenes such as the Holy Family. The most important contribution was made by members of the Najaf family of Isfahan, in particular Moḥammad Esmāʿīl. Court painter to Nāṣer-al-dīn Shah, he specialized in accomplished renderings of historical events as is shown by his masterful casket in the Bern Historical Museum depicting Moḥammad Shah’s siege of Herat; the casket is signed and dated 1283/1865 (B. W. Robinson, “Persian Lacquer in the Bern Historical Museum,” Iran 8, 1970, pp. 47-50).

Plate XXVI. Lacquer qalamdāns. Iran, mid-19th century.View full image in a new tab

Enameled work (Plates XXVII; XXVIII). Gold and silver enameled in opaque shades of pink, blue, red, yellow, green, white, and violet were much associated with the Qajar period. Enameled wares were used for luxurious domestic and personal accessories: sets of vases, dishes, boxes, and qalyān (nargileh or water pipe) bases, and were executed in a technique similar to that of lacquer painting, using designs of birds among roses and irises, portraits of women in both European and Persian dresses, and so forth. Although artists worked in both media, one artist distinctive for his enamels was ʿAlī, who painted the back of an oval hand-mirror with a portrait of Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah framed in a garland of irises, tulips, and carnations (V. B. Meen and A. D. Tushingham, Crown Jewels of Iran, Toronto, 1968, pp. 70-71).

Plate XXVII. Cup, painted enamel. Iran, 19th century. McClean Collection. Height 5½"View full image in a new tab

Plate XXVIII. Gold enameled qalyān bowl by Kāẓem b. NaǰafʿAlī. About 1870. Private collection.View full image in a new tab

Apart from this group of enamels, Qajar metalwork consists of a wide range of utensils worked in brass or copper. These included everyday objects such as cooking pots, washing basins, and more elaborately shaped and decorated ewers and candlesticks, lamps, and cosmetic boxes. These were generally worked in brass or copper, their engraved and/or pierced designs were usually based on a continuous series of medallions containing a repertoire of figural motifs ranging from conventionalized royal figures to fantastic creatures of legend and myth. These medallions were reserved against a background of finely worked spiraling and interlacing floral scroll. Elaborately worked armor was not made after the reign of Moḥammad Shah, as the army reforms of his reign introduced European-type uniforms. The roughly worked pieces that continued to be made were in the nature of theatrical costume, insofar as they were worn in the taʿzīa performances.

Ceramics. Qajar ceramic wares are seemingly less interesting than contemporary tilework, presumably for two reasons: quantities of technically superior wares from Europe were imported at the expense of local industry, and the demand for tiles as architectural decoration meant that the best workmanship and design was directed to production. The ceramic wares have not been completely classified or studied nor have their production centers been fully listed. Tehran, Shiraz, Isfahan, and Nāʾīn appear to have been the main centers. Apart from unglazed earthenware pottery, with their virtually unchanged functions and shapes, Qajar ceramics may tentatively be classified into three main groups. (1) Vessels made in a thin, textured white composite clay and frit paste with a thin alkaline glaze and rather sketchy floral designs in blue, purple, brown, and olive green, probably produced in the early 19th century. Related to them technically is a distinctive group made at Nāʾīn with designs painted in blue and black employing a repertoire of motifs such as sprigs of flowers and Chinese-style willow patterns, possibly influenced by contemporary Staffordshire imports, fish motifs and stepped lozenge bands. Dated examples show that such pieces covered a long time span, from 1809 (A. Lane, Later Islamic Pottery, 2nd ed., London, 1971, pl. 91) up to 1935 when production ceased as Nāʾīn went over to carpet making (M. Centlivres-Demont, Faïences persanes des XIXe et XXe siècles, Bern, 1975). (2) Bowls, jars, and jugs were made in a buff earthenware decorated with overglaze enamels in a palette of bright pink, blue, yellow, green, and black. The crudely executed designs of butterflies, floral borders, and groups of pagodas inhabited by people in Chinese dress, are mainly of interest because they are derived from Chinese “famille-rose” porcelain. A few examples, such as a bowl signed and dated by ʿAlī-Akbar of Shiraz 1262/1846, are painted to a higher standard with scenes of Persian men and women framed in a pastoral landscape (A. Lane, Later Islamic Pottery, pl. 62B). (3) More sophisticated underglaze-painted wares were made in Tehran from about 1880 onward. Using a body fabric of hard white composite clay and frit paste, and designs painted in muted color schemes, they resemble the underglaze-painted tilework that came into fashion at that time. The ware was shaped into elegant if somewhat contrived chalice- and shield-shaped vases and painted with fluent patterns based on floral and leaf scroll and peony blossoms—motifs used as background fillings to tile designs.

Textiles. If ceramic production was somewhat limited, the versatility of Qajar textiles is more than adequate compensation. Textiles were the main items of domestic furnishing—floor coverings, cushions, bed-quilts, tablecloths, costumes, especially the wide trousers later replaced by ballet-like skirts, and jackets or women’s dress. Textiles may be conveniently classified according to technique. The tradition of complex silk weaves continued using floral motifs derived from Safavid sources but modified to cover the textile surface with rich, closely textured design. A speciality of Kermān was a fine wool twill woven with a polychrome design of repeating botta or floral cone motifs. These Kermān twills were woven in a rich color scheme dominated by red, yellow, blue, and green; they were much used for men’s frock coats and long robes. Another textile mass produced in large quantities was block-printed cotten calico or qalamkārī, a specialty of the Isfahan bazaar, where its production still continues. Designs were printed on a cloth using pear wood blocks variously carved with peonies, lotus, carnations, cypress trees, peacocks, tigers, floral stripes and bands. These units were combined to form a wealth of patterns printed in indigo blue, deep red, and yellow. Pieces were frequently stamped with the maker’s name and date so that some idea of the chronological range can be deduced; most of the surviving pieces date from about 1870 through to the early 20th century (for example, a hanging inscribed “work of Akbar-ʿAlī 1295/1878,” private collection). Qalamkārī was much in demand for covers and hangings and was also used for women’s jackets and linings to silk brocade garments.

Great versatility was also shown in the embroidered textiles that ranged from domestic needlework to the work of professional craftsmen. Velvets and silks embroidered with floral motifs in couched gold and silver threads were used for luxurious covers and saddlecloths and were clearly professional works. A lighter form of colored embroidery attributed to Kāšān, Isfahan, Yazd, and Shiraz were the cloths and covers worked with graceful compositions of floral medallions, sprays, and scrolls in silks on a cream background. Kermān produced a type of wool embroidery that resembled the design and color scheme of the famous woven textiles. Here motifs of cypress trees, floral cones, and so forth were worked on a fine twill in small flat stitches to imitate the effect of the Kermān weave. A type of embroidery that seems to be confined to the 19th century is wool work of Rašt, featuring elaborate compositions based on flowers and birds and sometimes figure subjects built up in a combination of patchwork and appliqué with details embroidered in silk (an elaborate example of Rašt patchwork is a hanging in the Bern Historical Museum worked into a portrait of Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah). An important category of domestic embroidery was white work, where combinations of small geometrical motifs were worked into a formal repeating pattern using the techniques of needle weaving and cut and drawn threadwork in white silk on finely woven cotton. This type of needlework was used for small covers, cloths, and the face veils that featured a drawn thread lattice at eye level (see J. M. Scarce, “The Development of Women’s Veils in Persia and Afghanistan,” Costume 9, 1975, pp. 4-14). Finally the production of a class of textile—the knotted pile carpet—perhaps considered most characteristic of Persia continued. Fine pieces were produced, especially in the centers of Khorasan and the nomad areas of Kurdistan, but the indigenous tradition had increased to contend with Western influence introduced through the agents of European carpet enterprises and the import of aniline dyes in the mid-19th century.

See also ABUʾL-ḤASAN KHAN ḠAFFĀRĪ.

ART IN IRAN x.2 QAJAR PAINTING

The Qajar artistic style, like the Timurid style centuries before, had its origins outside the historical period from which it derives its name. It was in the late Safavid period that a thoroughgoing Europeanized style began to oust the old native traditions, and by the beginning of the 12th/18th century the new style was completely dominant. In the middle and later years of that century its foremost exponent was Ṣādeq, who, like most of his successors, worked in various media—oils, miniature painting, and lacquer. Some of his large-scale works survive in the Pārs Museum at Shiraz and in the Negārestān Museum, Tehran. He seems to have had a long working life that spanned most of the second half of the 12th/18th century: Texier reports a current tradition that in 1738 he executed the large mural in the Čehel Sotūn at Isfahan depicting the victory of Nāder Shah at Karnal over the Mughal emperor Moḥammad Shah, while there are lacquer pieces bearing his signature coupled with dates in the last decade of the century (possibly the work of his pupils).

The unsettled political situation following the death of Karīm Khan in 1193/1779 left little opportunity for schools of painting to flourish and develop. But even before their rise to supreme power in 1211/1796 the Qajars had captured the services of at least one painter who set a high standard for the first generation of their rule. Mīrzā Bābā, originally, it is said, a native of Isfahan, has left a very fine small drawing of a dragon and a phoenix, formerly in the Pozzi collection, which is signed and dated “at Astarābād” 1203/1788-89. Astarābād was the seat of the Qajar family during their struggle for the throne. Once the dynasty was established he was able to undertake various works on a larger scale. Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah (r. 1212-50/1797-1834) made him naqqaāš-bāšī, or painter laureate, and he was accordingly entrusted with important commissions, including the manuscript of the king’s own dīvān that was taken to England by his ambassador Mīrzā Abuʾl-Ḥasan Khan Ilčī (q.v.) as a present to King George III, and is now in the Royal Library at Windsor Castle. The beautiful painted lacquer covers, the lavish illuminations and marginal decorations, and two very fine miniature portraits of Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah himself and his uncle, the founder of the dynasty, are all the work of Mīrzā Bābā. He also painted the life-size portrait of Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah, dated 1213/ 1798-99, that was presented to the East India Company in 1806 and now hangs in the Commonwealth Relations Office, London. Like most top-ranking artists of his time, Mīrzā Bābā showed his versatility in the various available media, including painted enamel and églomise ’ (under-glass painting). Virtually nothing is known of him beyond his actual works, the latest of which so far known bears the date 1225/1810.

Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah’s inordinate vanity, and admittedly handsome appearance, ensured full employment for any painter who could convey an adequately resplendent impression of the royal person. Mīrzā Bābā’s chief rivals in this field were Mehr-ʿAlī, ʿAbdallāh Khan, and Moḥammad-Ḥasan Khan. Mehr-ʿAlī seems to have made his debut with a full-length portrait of the king sent as a present to the amirs of Sind in 1800; Sir John Malcolm’s Sketches of Persia describes the local governor and villagers prostrating themselves as the securely packed and boxed-up portrait was embarked for Sind at Abūšehr (Bushire), and a large portrait of Fatḥ-ʿAlī, signed by Mehr-ʿAlī and dated 1212/1797-98, has made its way to the Victoria Memorial Hall, Calcutta, most probably among the spoils of the 1843 Sind war. Mehr-ʿAlī followed this work closely with two fine portraits of the king, dated 1218/1803-4 and 1219/1804-5 respectively, for the Hall of the Marble Throne in the Golestān Palace, and another entrusted to Napoleon’s envoy, M. Jaubert, as a present for the emperor in Paris. The latter, which now hangs in the museum at Versailles, was finely engraved at the time by Ruotte after a copy by Grégorius. Several other excellent portraits of Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah were executed by Mehr-ʿAlī, the latest bearing the date 1230/1814-15. By far the finest, formerly in the Amery collection, is now in the Negārestān Museum, Tehran, and shows the king, full-length and life-size, wearing his huge crown (compared by Texier to the crown of the Achaemenids), clad in a gorgeous robe of gold brocade, and holding a jeweled staff of majesty surmounted by Solomon’s hoopoe. By this time (1220/1805) Mehr-ʿAlī’s style had improved enormously; his early portraits give Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah a squat neck and round face, but in the later ones the proportions are much more pleasing as well as flattering. Mehr-ʿAlī also executed large portraits of Fatḥ-ʿAlī and his sons in églomisé, or under-glass painting. Because the paint is applied behind the glass, this difficult technique required the image to be built up in reverse, beginning with highlights and other surface details and finishing with the background color. The idea probably reached Persia from Germany, where the art was extensively practiced. Few Persian examples have survived because of the vulnerability of the thin sheets of glass.

Like his colleagues, Mehr-ʿAlī was also employed in painting wall murals; Sir William Ouseley saw a series of portraits of early Persian kings “painted within ten or twelve years by … Mehr-ʿAlī of Tehran” in a palace at Isfahan. He may also have been responsible for an enormous canvas depicting Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah crowned and bejeweled, hunting with a large number of his sons. This was formerly in the India Office, London, but was handed over to the government of India in 1929, and now hangs on the ceiling of the ballroom at Rashtrapati Bhavan, the former viceroy’s residence at New Delhi. One last glimpse of Mehr-ʿAlī is provided by a small watercolor study of a man’s head, inscribed as having been executed by him in 1829 for his pupil Abuʾl-Ḥasan Khan Ḡaffārī Ṣanīʿ-al-molk who became the foremost Persian painter in the mid-19th century.

ʿAbdallāh Khan (b. ca. 1770) grew old in the service of the Qajar dynasty. His greatest achievement was the celebrated mural covering three sides of the old Negārestān Palace interior (see ʿABDALLĀH KHAN).

Moḥammad-Ḥasan Khan was of a slightly lesser stature than the other three, but his work is competent and conscientious, and in a set of three portraits of princes, one with a child, now in the Negārestān Museum, Tehran, he reaches a high level. There are several pictures of young women in which his hand may be detected from his soft method of rendering the features, a fondness for a sort of foxy red, and a vase of flowers that is almost a trademark. He has also left some excellent miniature paintings, usually in the form of monochrome portraits.

One other artist of the earlier part of Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah’s reign deserves notice, though nothing is known of him personally, and only one composition by him is known to have survived, and that in a fragmentary state. This was Abuʾl-Qāsem, who painted three of the best pictures of young women in the Negārestān Museum, and a portrait of the king, seated, in a private collection. One of the former bears his signature and the date 1231/1815-16. The fact that these all have the same continuous architectural background and are on the same scale makes it almost certain that they originally belonged to a single long composition, which may have been that described by Binning as adorning the house he occupied at Shiraz about 1855: “The upper part of the wall is occupied by a representation of his late majesty Fath Alee Shah sitting in state, and attended by ten ladies. The figures, which extend round three sides of the room, are nearly as large as life, and gaudily coloured.” The portrait of the king does not stand up to those by Mīrzā Bābā or Mehr-ʿAlī, but the women are quite beautiful.

Among the second generation of court painters, active toward the end of Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah’s reign and during that of his successor, Moḥammad Shah (1250-64/1834-48), the best is probably Aḥmad, who, to judge from his early style, may well have been a pupil of Mehr-ʿAlī. Two fine portraits of Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah carry his signature. The first, showing the king in armor seated on a chair-like throne, is dated 1234/1818-19; unfortunately the face has been almost entirely repainted. The other, dated 1238/1822-23, has been in the British embassy at Tehran ever since its establishment; here the king sits on a jeweled carpet with an elaborate qalyān beside him. Later Aḥmad’s style became much more Europeanized, as in a large painting, dated 1260/1844, of Moḥammad Shah reviewing his troops, in the Hall of the Marble Throne, and a fine bust portrait of the same monarch, dated two years later, in a Persian private collection.

Another artist of this time who stands out as an individual may have been named Moḥammad. His painting of a young woman in the Forūḡī collection, Tehran, bears the inscription yā Moḥammad, presumably one of the punning invocation-signatures so popular among the Zand and Qajar painters, and the date 1258/1842. His plump, moon-faced women, somewhat resembling Renoir’s, are easily recognized, and good examples may be seen in the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Negārestān Museum, and elsewhere. His male figures are less successful.

Sayyed Mīrzā makes a third in this slightly later group. His most impressive work, now in a Tehran private collection, is a very large group of Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah enthroned with sons and courtiers; it was formerly in the Hašt Behešt palace in Isfahan. Two rather stiff portraits of princes by him, dated 1245/1829-30 are reproduced by Schulz, but his charm and skill are most evident in the Negārestān Museum painting of Yūsof, represented as a handsome young Qajar nobleman against a landscape background. Sayyed Mīrzā was also an outstanding artist in painted lacquer and has signed the front cover of the new binding commissioned by Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah for the great Neẓāmī manuscript of Shah Ṭahmāsp in the British Museum; the subject of this high-quality work is the favorite one of the king hunting with his sons.

The back cover of the same volume, also portraying the king on a hunting expedition, is signed by Moḥammad-Bāqer, who may be associated with a group of royal painted enamels on gold bearing the signature Bāqer, since the first element of such a name might often be omitted and, with allowances made for the different medium, the styles are very similar. Several of Bāqer’s finest enamels are in the Persian crown jewels collection, and an extremely fine gold bowl, cover, saucer and spoon, enameled with astrological subjects, and bearing his signature, together with a poetical dedication to Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah, are in a private collection (see Iran 10, 1972, pp. 25-30). ʿAlī was another notable painter in enamel, close to Bāqer in both style and date, who has signed what is perhaps the finest of all the painted enamels in the Persian crown jewels collection, a magnificent oval hand-mirror with handle of carved jade and the back enameled with a portrait of the king seated within a rich floral frame. He was also responsible for another portrait, dated 1233/1817-18, enameled on the gold center of a nephrite dish presented to the emperor Franz I and now in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. The only other enamel painter from this period who calls for special mention is Moḥammad Jaʿfar, who seems to have been much employed on objects intended for official presentation. His signature is to be found on the two massive gold enamel dishes presented by his royal master to Sir Gore Ouseley (dated 1228/1813) and the East India Company (dated 1238/1822-23), the latter now in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London. He also executed insignia of the Order of the Lion and Sun, instituted in honor of Sir John Malcolm, as well as lesser objects such as qalyān-bowls and snuffboxes. In general, Persian painted enamels of the Qajar period are often the most attractive manifestations of the painter’s skill; even so severe a critic as the Comte de Rochechouart was enchanted by them, and compared them favorably with imported Swiss enamels that he saw at the same time (cf. Plate XXVII).

Lacquer painting, fully described by the Comte de Rochechouart, consisted in coating papier-mâché (or, less frequently, wood) with a fine gesso or plaster, upon whose surface the design was painted in water-colors, the whole being finally covered with a transparent lacquer or varnish, usually of a pale golden hue, which warmed and enriched the whole effect. One family may be regarded as the foremost specialists in painted lacquer during the early Qajar period. The first of them was Najaf-ʿAlī, whose dated work spans the period 1230-73/1815-56, and who always signed with the punning invocation yā šāh-e Najaf. He was followed by his sons and a younger brother, and between them they were responsible for much of the finest lacquer produced in Persia down to about 1308/1890.

In lacquer, as in other branches of painting, the taste for European mannerisms and subjects continued unabated, but unfortunately the only models normally available to the Persian painters seem to have been French and other prints of poor quality and often execrable taste, from which are derived the dissipated young men in dressing gowns and smoking caps and the young women of dubious reputation simpering coquettishly under their poke-bonnets, which constitute such a popular element in the Persian lacquer painter’s repertory. Sometimes religious (Christian) subjects were incongruously attempted, and the Holy Family in various garbled forms had been a popular theme for mirror cases since the eighteenth century. But the most frequently encountered designs on lacquer work of all periods are variations on the rose and nightingale (gol o bolbol) theme.

Najaf’s younger brother Moḥammad-Esmāʿīl, and his three sons Moḥammad-Kāẓem, Jaʿfar, and Aḥmad, all excelled in lacquer painting; Esmāʿīl attained the title of naqqāš-bāšī. His masterpiece is a box or casket in the Bern Historical Museum covered with scenes from Moḥammad Shah’s siege of Herat and containing literally hundreds of tiny figures; it is dated 1282/1865-66. Kāẓem’s painted enamels (Plate XXVIII) are almost finer than his lacquer, and examples may be seen in the crown jewels collection. It is, in fact, largely owing to the work of this talented family that the third quarter of the 19th century is the most brilliant period in the history of Persian lacquer and enamel painting. Another outstanding lacquer-painter is Āqā Bozorg Šīrāzī whose finest piece is a pen-box in the Museum of Decorative Arts, Tehran, dated 1269/1852-53. Not only is it painted with penetrating portraits of all the ministers of the governor, Farhād Mīrzā, but also—an almost unique feature—with a self portrait of the artist, modestly relegated to the butt-end and showing him in the act of painting a qalamdān.

Abu’l-Ḥasan Khan Ḡaffārī Ṣanīʿ-al-Molk (fl. 1814-66) is by far the most important painter during the reign of Moḥammad Shah and the early years of Nāṣer-al-Dīn Shah, though some fine work was produced by his contemporaries, notably Moḥammad-Ḥasan Afšār. He designed and supervised the illustration of a Persian translation of the Arabian Nights (Hazār o yak šab), a six-volume manuscript in which pages of text alternate with pages of miniature painting, each page carrying at least three compositions. Many of them are of extremely fine quality with vivid coloring and imaginative treatment, with the costumes and details those of mid-19th century Iran. His second major project was a set of seven enormous wall panels for the Neẓāmīya palace, now in the Īrān-e Bāstān Museum, Tehran; they depict Nāṣer-al-Dīn Shah surrounded by sons and courtiers and attended by foreign ambassadors, with each figure a life-like and lively portrait. Preliminary sketches for many of them are preserved in the same museum (see ABUʾL-ḤASAN KHAN ḠAFFĀRĪ).

Lithographed books with illustrations had begun to appear in Persia in the 1840s. Many of them were popular story books, the illustrations of which, despite their naiveté and charm, are often crude and incompetent. Better, though sometimes duller, work is to be found in illustrated editions of the classics. ʿAlī-qolī of Koy was prominent in this field; his Neẓāmī (1848) and Šāh-nāma (1850) are noteworthy, the former containing a full-page illustration of various stages in the lithographic process. A later Tehran Šāh-nāma (1891) was illustrated by the excellent lacquer painter Moṣṭafā. But in this field, as in every other that he touched, Abuʾl-Ḥasan Khan had no serious rivals.

Although the art of manuscript illustration was still being practiced, with the notable exceptions of Mīrzā Bābā’s Dīvān of Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah and Abuʾl-Ḥasan’s Hazār o yak šab, it had passed into the background. There is little of any great merit to record apart from the Anwār-e Sohaylī in the Mahboubian collection, dated 1203/1788-89, with unsigned miniatures possibly by Mīrzā Bābā, and copies of the Šāh-nāma (a voluminous epic celebrating the reign of Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah) in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, the India Office Library, the Nationalbibliothek, Vienna, and the Majlis Library, Tehran, each containing fifty-odd miniatures of a somewhat routine character. The only other volume that should be mentioned is a copy of the Šāh-nāma formerly the property of the poet Weṣāl’s family, illustrated at Shiraz between 1854 and 1864, mainly by Loṭf-ʿAlī Khan, but with a few miniatures by the sons of Weṣāl, some of startling originality.

Loṭf-ʿAlī Khan was chiefly, and justly, renowned for his flower paintings, a favorite branch of the miniaturist’s art since Safavid times; as a rule they were executed as separate album-pictures. He had an eminent predecessor in the field in the person of Moḥammad-Hādī, whom Claudius Rich met as a very old man at Shiraz in 1821; flower paintings of the greatest delicacy and beauty were produced by many other Qajar painters, notably Moḥammad-Bāqer.

One other considerable class of miniature paintings calls for attention. This consists of single figures illustrating Persian types, costumes, and manners, painted on plain backgrounds. The parallel with contemporary “Company painting” in India and the “rice-paper paintings” of Canton is close and striking. In all three groups genuine native styles of painting are simplified and adapted to make them acceptable to European purchasers, as a sort of superior tourist art. In Persia they were evidently a profitable line, and Sir William Ouseley relates that “many hundreds were brought for inspection to our tents, and offered daily for sale in the shops of Isfahan,” though some of them were “unfortunately of such a description as precludes further notice.” Actually the erotic or pornographic element in Persian art, compared with that of, say, India or Japan, is very small indeed.

The remainder of the period, after the death of Ṣanīʿ-al-Molk in 1283/1866, does not call for extended treatment. One of the distinctions conferred by Nāṣer-al-Dīn Shah on that eminent artist had been the supervision of the painting department of the newly founded Dār al-Fonūn intended by the king—himself an enthusiastic amateur—for the instruction of Persian painters in the European style. Prominent among its early alumni was Esmāʿīl Jalāyer, a great favorite of the shah, and a painter of talent and originality. His style was meticulous, thoroughly Europeanized on the surface, but fundamentally Persian and touched with a sort of gentle melancholy. Among his oil paintings a group of women around a samovar (London, Victoria and Albert Museum), Abraham about to sacrifice Isaac (Tehran, private collection, illustrated by Schulz), and a representation of the handsome young dervish Nūr-ʿAlī Šāh surrounded by animals and birds in a luxuriant landscape, the last two executed entirely in monochrome, are outstanding. His miniatures of saints and dervishes are in one of the albums in the Golestān Library. But the most notable figure in Persian painting of the later nineteenth century was Moḥammad Ḡaffārī, nephew of Ṣanīʿ-al-molk, who is usually known by the title of Kamāl-al-Molk, which he received in 1892. His mature style is dignified and impressive but completely Europeanized, as can be seen in many portraits, landscapes, and genre scenes in the Persian public collections. He died in 1940 at the great age of ninety-two. Another skilled painter in European style was Mīrzā Moḥammad Khan Malek-al-šoʿarāʾ (Poet Laureate) who has left some almost photographic views of the royal palaces and gardens.

In the art of painted lacquer the Emāmī family of Isfahan came to prominence in the second half of the 19th century. Reżā Emāmī, for example, executed the best piece of lacquer in the Victoria and Albert Museum collection—a mirror case covered with flowers and gold scroll-work, made especially for the Paris Exhibition of 1867. Other notable Emāmīs were Moḥammad Ḥosaynī, an excellent lacquer painter in the traditional style during the 1870s, and Naṣrallāh, who displayed a penchant for introducing hazelnuts into his compositions. Fatḥallāh Šīrāzī is yet another lacquer painter of great distinction toward the end of the century, as were ʿAbd-al-Laṭīf and ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn, both known as Ṣanīʿ-al-homāyūn, whose work continued into the early 1900s. The style of all these, was markedly European.

After the death of Moḥammad-Kāẓem about 1885, the art of enamel painting declined. The same is true of lithographed book-illustration; Persian book illustrators were unable to adapt the technique satisfactorily to the more strongly Europeanized style then in vogue. Meanwhile miniature painting dwindled into a sterile imitation of Safavid prototypes, chiefly of the school of Reżā ʿAbbāsī, and it is often difficult to draw the line between conscientious pastiche and deliberate forgery. It may, in fact, be true to say that it was at the end of the Qajar period, or thereabouts, that Persian painting in its several branches, reached its nadir. The last half-century, has seen a considerable renaissance, helped by the foundation of art schools in various parts of the country.

ART IN IRAN xi. POST-QAJAR

Chronological survey. The beginnings of modern art in Iran can be traced back to Moḥammad Ḡaffārī, also known as Kamāl-al-molk (A. H. 1268-1319 Š./1852-1940) the last court painter of the Qajar shahs. During the latter half of the 19th century, when Iranians were being gradually introduced to the marvels of new technology, and photography was a novelty, Kamāl-al-molk broke with the formal stereotyped painting style of his day, and adopted instead a naturalistic style that competed with the photographic lens in the rendering of fine detail.

Abuʾl-Ḥasan Khan Ḡaffārī, another eminent Qajar painter, had visited Italy in mid-19th century to study European painting techniques in the museums of Rome and Florence, but what he had learned from the European Masters affected his own work only. Kamāl-al-molk’s study, and adoption, of the academic style—undertaken first at Tehran’s newly created polytechnic, the Dār al-Fonūn, and several years later at the Louvre (ca. 1320/1902) and elsewhere in France and Italy, created a more fundamental change that affected the norms of painting and its appreciation in Iran over the next several decades. The traditional mediums of miniature, manuscript illustration, and lacquer-work were finally replaced by Western-style easel painting as the Iranian artist’s primary medium of expression.

Not only had Kamāl-al-molk’s meticulously detailed canvases made him a legendary figure in his own lifetime, as the painter par excellence, but the school of fine arts, Madrasa-ye ṣanāyeʿ-e mosṭażrafa, that he established in Tehran in 1329/1911 and personally directed until his retreat to Nīšābūr in 1307 Š./1928, helped train and launch a host of disciples who popularized the new style at the expense of the traditional styles that still survived. All through the twenties, thirties, and even forties, while in Europe cubists, surrealists, expressionists, abstractionists, etc. changed places at the vanguard of modernism, in Iran the accepted types of “modern” painting were mostly academic renderings, in oils or water colors, of Iranian subject matter: family gatherings, street scenes, landscapes, and floral still lifes. Less serious practitioners made oil or water-color copies of Central European landscapes featuring snow-capped peaks, scenic lakes, and chateaus. Although suffering a severe decline, some of the traditional arts continued to be produced in the early decades of the 20th century and “popular art” continued to flourish. Murals and oil paintings were used to decorate local coffee houses, from which their appellation “Qahwa-ḵāna” painting is derived. They were used inter alia by local storytellers in their recounting of the stories of the Šāh-nāma and the accounts of the sufferings of the Shiʿite martyrs. Votive art, such as those employed in shrines and saqqā-ḵāna , banners, standards, and symbols of martyrdom used in the Shiʿite mourning ceremonies and processions, provided another level of expression for Iran’s artists and would prove a rich source of iconography for later painters. The establishment of Tehran University in 1313 Š./1934, and the creation of its School of Fine Arts in 1219 Š./1938 where several disciples of Kamāl-al-molk occupied key positions, held back for another decade or so Iran’s modernism to a level that would admit only the impressionists while miniature painting in the Safavid style would continue to be practiced by a residual school of artists best represented by Ḥosayn Behzād.

During World War II Iran was invaded (1320 Š./1941) and occupied by the Allied Forces, causing among other things contacts with Western culture to increase. In the wake of the war, many young Iranians traveled to Europe and America to pursue their education abroad, and some of them studied art. Meanwhile, a number of group exhibitions were organized in Tehran in which most of the practicing modernists participated. The most noteworthy of these were the 1325 Š./1946 exhibition at the [Iran ]Soviet Cultural Society (VOKS), and the series of exhibitions held at Mehragān club, home of the National Teachers’ Association during the early fifties. These shows were still dominated by canvases of the Kamāl-al-molk school.

Real modernism intruded onto the scene with the return of a number of foreign-educated Iranian artists from France and Italy in particular. Fired by examples of rapid modernization in many aspects of Iranian life and culture, they too embarked on a course to inject avant-gardism in visual arts into the minds of the Iranian public. Jalīl Żīāʾpūr (1307 Š./1928-), a graduate of Tehran University’s School of Fine Arts, who had freshly returned from a sojourn of several years in France, where he had studied with the Cubist painter André Lhote, started with the help of his friends an art club and a monthly publication called Ḵorūs-e Jangī (The fighting cock) [1328 Š./ 1949] which soon became the unofficial battle cry of modernism, and around which avant-garde painters, poets, and dramatists rallied. With the exhibition of quasi-cubist or -expressionist and even abstractionist canvases at Tehran’s first art shows, a public debate on the merits of modern art got underway, which continued, side by side with the “new vs. classical poetry” controversy, for two or three decades.

About the mid-1950s, Iranian modernists started to receive official encouragement via the Department General of Fine Arts (later to become the Ministry of Arts and Culture). It had become apparent that a major exhibition, organized nationally on a regular basis, was needed to give impetus to the modern art movement while paving the way for the participation of Iranian artists in such international venues as the Venice Biennale. Marcos Gregorian (b. 1304 Š./1925), an Italian-educated Iranian modernist who initially worked in an expressionist vein but shifted to abstract earthworks, had returned to Iran in 1954 and pioneered in starting one of Tehran’s first art galleries—Galerie Esthétique, became the moving spirit behind the organization of the new biennial exhibition, which came to be known as the Tehran Biennale.

Since each of the five Biennale exhibitions that were held in Tehran are landmarks in the short history of modern art in Iran, a brief review of these events appears in order.

First Tehran Biennale. Inaugurated on 25 Farvardīn 1337 Š./14 April 1958, it was held at the Abyaż Palace within the Golestān Palace compound. The show brought together the works of 49 artists—45 painters and four sculptors. Among the well-known participants—well-known then or now—one finds the following: Sohrāb Sepehrī, Jalīl Żīāʾpūr, Manūčehr Šeybānī, Nāṣer Ovīsī, Parvīz Tanāvolī, and Marcos Gregorian himself. Judging by the exhibition catalogue one can find all the major modernist schools represented, with the quasi-cubist works having perhaps a slight edge.

Second Tehran Biennale. Held during Farvardīn-Ordībehešt, 1339 Š./April-May, 1960 at Abyaż Palace. The number of participants was increased to 68 and one finds the following among them: Bahman Moḥaṣṣeṣ, Sohrāb Sepehrī, Abuʾl-Qāsem Saʿīdī, Jazeh (Žāza) Ṭabāṭabāʾī, and Moḥsen Vasiri- (Vazīrī-) Moqaddam. Abstract canvases were on the increase while some artists exhibited, as in the First Biennale, explicitly Iranian subject matter.

Third Tehran Biennale. Held during Farvardīn-Ordībehešt, 1341 Š./April-May, 1962 at Abyaż Palace. The number of participants had once again risen, this time to 101. Some of the better known participants: Ḥosayn Kāẓemī, Ḥosayn Zendarūdī, Ms. Manṣūra Ḥosaynī, Ms. Leylī Matīn-Daftarī, Masʿūd ʿArabšāhī, and Bahman Borūjenī. Zendarūdī’s paintings in the exhibition were the first specimens of a type that will bear the label of “Saqqā-ḵāna School” (see below). The majority of the works on display were highly diverse, a collection of clashing styles and techniques. The writer of the introduction to the Biennale catalogue, however, discerned “a vein of independent national art with local coloring.”

Fourth Tehran Biennale. Farvardīn-Ordībehešt, 1343 Š./April-May, 1964, held at the Abyaż Palace. The number of participants now reached 113, amongst whom one finds Kāmrān Kātūzīān, ʿAbd-al-Reżā Daryā-beygī, Ṣādeq Barīrānī as well Ms. Behjat Ṣadr, Ḥosayn Zendarūdī and Ḥosayn Kāẓemī. The number of abstract paintings had increased, a phenomenon that the writer of the introduction to the official catalogue considered a natural consequence of the three previous Biennales and the prizes awarded to nonrepresentational works. But there was still a good deal of attention paid to Iranian subject matter and an increasing number of artists were seen to draw on the esthetic qualities of the Persian calligraphy in their work.

Fifth Tehran Biennale. Tīr, 1345 Š./June-July, 1966, held at the Ethnographical Museum. The Biennale had become this time “regional,” i.e., it had brought together modern canvases and sculpture pieces not only from Iran but also from Turkey and Pakistan, the country’s partners in R. C. D. (Regional Cooperation for Development). The organizers of the event had high hopes of turning the Tehran Biennale into an Asian affair, and so considered its regionalization only “an intermediate step.” 38 artists from Iran had been joined by 37 artists each from Turkey and Pakistan. The Iranian participants had no doubt been cut down (from the record 113 in the previous Biennale) to create an equality of participation among the three neighboring states. The Iranian section appeared stronger as a result of the pruning job undertaken by the selection committee. The number of abstract canvases had decreased to make room for works with explicitly Iranian subject matter.

The Fifth Tehran Biennale was the final one in the series. The reasons for its demise were never publicly explained. Besides the Biennale, a number of galleries which opened in the 1960s and early 1970s helped stimulate activity in the art field. These included the galleries Qandrīz, Ṣabā, Negār, and Borghese, the Mess gallery, the Seyḥūn gallery, and, later, Zand and Sāmān. An unofficial avant-garde artists’ club, the Club Rašt, founded by Parvīz Tanāvolī, the sculptor, Roxanna Ṣabā, and Kāmrān Dībā, an architect, painter, and artistic catalyst, served for a few years in the 1960s as a locale where ideas were traded between painters, musicians, and writers. Foreign cultural societies such as the Iran-America Society and the Goethe Institute also encouraged young artists by exhibiting their work. The interest and encouragement of Queen Faraḥ and of the government helped to impart to the modern art movement a measure of legitimacy beyond their grass-root support. Artists were sent abroad to study and given the means to participate in art exhibitions such as the Salon d'Automne in Paris and the Venice Biennale, and government ministries were encouraged to give public commissions to the artists. Eventually a number of museums concerned with modern art were founded. Moreover, by the 1960s the number of the private collectors of Iranian modern art was increasing, and by the 1970s even corporate collectors began to emerge. (The leading among them, the Behšahr Group, possessed by the late 1970s 400 works of contemporary Iranian painting.)

Two more landmarks in the history of modern art in Iran should be discussed further: the establishment of the School of Decorative Arts (Madrasa-ye honarhā-ye tazyīnī) in 1340 Š./1961, and the inauguration of the Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art (Mūza-ye honarhā-ye moʿāṣer) on 30 Mehr 1356 Š./22 October 1977.

School of Decorative Arts. This was created to give degrees in the field of applied arts such as interior decoration and graphic arts to, among others, the graduates of Iran’s Secondary Schools of Fine Arts for Boys and Girls who were not admitted to Tehran University’s School of Fine Arts. A number of the more successful Iranian modernists were graduates of the School of Decorative Arts, a fact that led some observers to give it higher marks than the School of Fine Arts as a breeding ground for artists. The first group of professors and instructors assembled at the College of Decorative Arts (as it was initially called) were in fact instrumental in instilling in the students a fresh outlook, especially when it came to the choice of subject matter and treatment of materials. Graduates of Tehran University’s School of Fine Arts of the same generation were found to be more formal, and less flexible, in their approach to art.

Museum of Contemporary Art. The creation of the museum had been a dream of many artists, but it remained a long dormant project until it was finally allotted a plot of land in the park on the northern edge of Tehran University and construction work was started in the early seventies. The museum’s collection, when it was finally opened in 1976 in a week-long gala-celebration that appears surrealistic in retrospect, included paintings and sculpture by many internationally known artists, from the impressionists down to the cubists, expressionists, and abstractionists. Since the museum was conceived as devoted rather to international modern art, works representing later movements such as Action Painting, Pop Art, and Op Art were also present. The museum continues to function even today (1984).

The development of modern Iranian painting. An observer of the local art scene searching for significant trends in the course of the developments that have shaped the art movement in Iran during the 20th century is struck by the diversity of the works created during this period and often finds it very difficult to discern links between contemporary creations and Iran’s cultural past. On the other hand, it would be much simpler to accuse many of the modernists of being copyists and faddists who have merely jumped on the latest fashionable artistic bandwagon and have completely forgotten their homeland’s cultural heritage. Things are not of course all that simple, and Iran’s modern painters and sculptors should not be judged in isolation. Similar trends are to be observed in many other art forms, poetry and drama in particular, and the whole question should be evaluated within the framework of Iranian society’s experiences with Western-style modernization.

Qajar art was of course traditional, even though it was no longer so pure and unadulterated as, say, Safavid art which preceded it. In the course of the country’s contacts with Russia and western Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries, certain innovations had been introduced, but these were mainly in the use of materials (for instance oils) or in the manner of execution (use of gradation instead of applying colors as totally flat surfaces of uniform intensity) rather than in outlook. When Kamāl-al-molk spent five years painting his famous canvas Tālār-e āyīna (Hall of mirrors), patiently observing and recording the reflections of light in each single mirror fragment, his more tradition-bound colleagues were still laboring over pen cases and jewel boxes, peopling their outer surfaces with idealized stereotypes emanating from the world of myths and legends, and not from everyday reality. Their subjective view of the scene determined the size of the personages depicted, and not the distance of the figures from the viewer.

Kamāl-al-molk introduced a basic change in outlook. He turned an objective eye on nature, and spared no effort in recording the minutest details of what he observed. Here was the artist as the master draftsman and as the supreme colorist. And he and his disciples could go on rendering the world in this way over and over again except that this “new” process, several centuries old in Europe, was already on its way out there. Just as Kamāl-al-molk was patiently reconstructing the world of reality on his canvases, the first cubists were breaking it down. And if the Iranian public was happy with the work of Kamāl-al-molk and his followers in mid-20th century, the aspiring artists and art students sent to Paris and Rome to study the new techniques could not be.

So, during the fifties and sixties all types of works executed under the banner of impressionist and post-impressionist schools were to be found in the exhibition halls of Tehran side by side with the naturalistic offerings of the modernists of an earlier generation. The art movements that had taken nearly seventy years to unfold were seen in action, amid much public outcry, almost simultaneously within the same decade.

A question that must have bothered many of the young modernists at this time was the quality or the properties that distinguished their work from the works of similar artists elsewhere. What was “Iranian” in their work? What was the relationship between the paintings and sculptured pieces that they were turning out and their country’s cultural heritage? They were encouraged in this soul searching by the officials of the cultural establishment who strongly desired the creation of a “national school,” with clear links with the glorious periods of Persian art: Achaemenid, Sasanian, or Safavid.

With these intentions or reservations, some aspirants turned their attention to the type of subjects that would be immediately recognized as “Iranian,” while others tried to work with motifs or figures borrowed from the bas-reliefs of Persepolis or from the sumptuous pages of some ancient manuscript: a bazaar filled with turbaned men and čādor-clad women executed “prismatically;” a family gathered around a kerosene lamp painted “cubistically;” or the stylized form of a seated figure worked into an otherwise free-form abstract composition. This marriage of local materials with modernistic techniques did not always succeed, and it certainly won no major prizes from the Biennale juries, but efforts to do something “Iranian” continued.

Saqqā-ḵāna School. Saqqā-ḵāna is a small public watering place where passersby may help themselves to a cool drink. It is to be found in the older sections of every town and village in Iran. It is set up usually in a recessed niche—with its cistern and brass bowl—as a good religious deed in memory of Imam Ḥosayn, the third Shiʿite imam who was martyred with his followers at Karbalā (in present-day Iraq) in a battle with the forces of Yazīd, the Omayyad ruler in 61/680 in the course of two hot waterless days. The saqqā-ḵāna, therefore, is treated as a sacred place, where candles are often kept burning and green and black drapes are displayed. The protective wrought-iron grillwork and the sides of the cistern are all engraved with decorative motifs and Koranic words and the ensemble may be considered a specimen of religious folk art.

When Ḥosayn Zendarūdī displayed for the first time in the Third Tehran Biennale canvases that brought together geometric patterns covered with talismanic writings on a base of colors (green, yellow, orange, red, and black) that reminded the viewer of Shiʿite religious ceremonies, the word saqqā-ḵāna was used (first by the present writer) to describe the mood invoked by Zendarūdī’s new paintings (Saqqā-ḵāna, Tehran, Museum of Contemporary Art, 1977, p. 2). The appellation caught on and later became a label to distinguish the works of all artists who relied heavily on Iran’s storehouse of decorative motifs and/or Persian calligraphy to create modern compositions, as distinct from other modernists who could be associated with specific European or American art movements or even from those who combined explicitly Iranian subject matter with modern painting techniques (see Yarshater, “Contemporary Persian Painting,” pp. 367f.).

The Saqqā-ḵāna artists, who were also labeled neo-traditionalists, came closest to what had been a long sought-after goal, namely the creation of a “national” school, with works that were “modern” and “Iranian” at the same time, and drew positive responses from viewers, and jury-members, both inside and outside Iran. The traditional motifs could be manipulated in many different ways, singly or in combination, to create visual rhythms or texture effects or even to make humorous statements. The flexibility with which the artist could use these motifs and patterns in conjunction with the colors of his choice was the key to his success, where others had failed before. And Saqqā-ḵāna canvases or sculpture pieces bore direct links with Iran’s cultural heritage; these artists could be in fact considered descendants of Iran’s famous craftsmen of earlier centuries—illuminators, goldsmiths, engravers, and calligraphers—who beautified a thousand and one utilitarian objects with intricate floral scrolls or calligraphic lines.

A few of the better-known names associated with this school are the following:

Ḥosayn Zendarūdī (b. 1316 Š./1937) was a graduate of Tehran’s Secondary School of Fine Arts for Boys, and briefly a student at the newly-established School of Decorative Arts. From his earliest iconographic works he moved to calligraphic compositions which combined thousands of word fragments to create lattice-like visual rhythms over a base of shifting colors. During a later period Zendarūdī utilized seal impressions in his paintings to create similar effects. He is considered to be one of Iran’s leading contemporary painters.

Parvīz Tanāvolī (b. 1316 Š./1937), the leading Iranian sculptor, has worked with different materials and highly diverse techniques. He is a graduate of Tehran University’s School of Fine Arts and the Berrera Academy in Milan, where he studied with Mario Marini. His search for ancient Iranian sculptured pieces—in the absence of statues made during the Islamic period—has led him to a study of traditional metal-work, such as utensils, decorative birds, even locks. He is equally engrossed with the legend of Farhād, the rock carver of Bīsotūn who died for the love of Šīrīn and whose story is echoed throughout the pages of Persian literature. Tanāvolī’s most typical Saqqā-ḵāna work is a pair of hands gripping the grillwork of a shrine in a gesture of beseeching. During one of his later periods, Tanāvolī created a series of sculptures in which the Persian word hīč (nought), laden with mystical connotations, is seen twisting and turning in space like some fantastic dragon.

Farāmarz Pīlārām (1319-62 Š./1937-83), a graduate of Tehran’s School of Decorative Arts, was a modernist painter and an accomplished calligrapher. Initially he produced paintings in which geometric forms borrowed from Shiʿite iconography were painted yellow, gold, and silver and then embellished with seal impressions (one such work of Pīlārām’s is now in the collection of New York’s Museum of Modern Art). Then he turned to calligraphy in compositions that were also characterized by bold coloring and large size. One of Pīlārām’s last creations, before his premature death from a heart attack, was a gigantic word fragment made of wood.

Masʿūd ʿArabšāhī (b. 1314 Š./1935) is another graduate of the School of Decorative Arts. He works with ancient motifs borrowed from Achaemenian or even Assyrian and Babylonian rock carvings in decorative and colorful compositions. He has refrained from drawing explicitly on Shiʿite iconography, but is considered akin to the Saqqā-ḵāna artists in spirit and outlook. During the seventies he received several commissions to decorate walls and facades of public buildings (such as that of the Ministry of Industries and Mines) with bas-reliefs of his own design.

Ṣādeq Tabrīzī (b. 1317 Š./1938), is another successful graduate of the School of Decorative Arts. He has tried his hand at pottery, collage, and painting, drawing on elements borrowed from calligraphy, folk art, and the more formal figures of Persian miniatures with equal success. His earliest paintings were executed on parchment in lively color combinations. Later on he shifted to relatively large canvases. An element that pervades his works in all its different periods is a strong sense of humor.

Manṣūr Qandrīz (1314-44 Š./1935-65), was a student of the School of Decorative Arts; his life was cut short by an automobile accident. From quasi-surrealistic paintings he moved to a period in which he would combine decorative motifs, taken from a wide range of sources, to create synthetic ensembles. By contrast, he was economical during this period in his palette and would often limit himself to two or three key colors.

Nāṣer Ovīsī (b. 1313 Š./1934), a modern painter who has pursued, all the while, a diplomatic career. Ovīsī works in a figural style reminiscent of Saljuq, Safavid, or even Qajar art. He embellishes his figures with calligraphy or decorative patterns directly transferred from the wooden blocks of the qalamkār (printed cotton) maker. His idiom has remained more or less constant, but his style has gradually evolved from relative simplicity to elaboration, with a profusion of silver and gold in his later works. After a “Spanish period” in the late seventies resulting from his diplomatic post in Spain, he has returned to his old motifs in which figures of women and horses are prominent.

Jazeh (Žāza) Ṭabāṭābāʾī, painter and sculptor. Jazeh may be reluctant to call himself a Saqqā-ḵāna artist as he started to draw on motifs borrowed from Iranian folk arts a year or two before this school had a name. He is also one of the pioneers of the modern art movement in Iran, having established a gallery (the Iran Modern Art Gallery) which was very active during the sixties. In his paintings, Jazeh often satirizes Qajar stereotypes, combining them with decorative elements taken from different sources—qalamkār blocks, book illustrations , calligraphy metal engraving, etc. Jazeh’s sculpture pieces are also combinations of different elements found in the scrap heap but imaginatively and humorously put together. In this fashion, Jazeh created a number of “fantastic” dragon-birds that adorned the exhibition halls of the last two Tehran Biennales. Among his other works the doors for the shrine of Imam Reżā (1971) may be mentioned.

Besides the Saqqā-ḵāna school artists, a wide range of tendencies could be discerned among other contemporary artists. Some took their inspiration from nature, often with elements from the Iranian landscape.

Sohrāb Sepehrī (b. Kāšān 1307 Š./1928, d. Tehran 1359 Š./1980) was a leading contemporary painter and an outstanding modernist poet. A graduate of Tehran University’s School of Fine Arts (Dāneškada-ye honarhā-ye zībā), he participated in the first and second Tehran Biennale, studied lithography at the Beaux Arts, Paris, in 1336 Š./1957, and woodcut techniques at Tokyo in 1339 Š./1960. A year later he held his own exhibition of paintings at Tālār-e Reżā ʿAbbāsī, revealing clear impressions of Japanese designs. In the next two decades, he created a large number of paintings—which he showed at various exhibitions, and several collections of poems, proving his earnest preoccupation with both means of expression. His paintings attracted attention both in Iran and abroad, following successful participation in such group shows as the Venice Biennale (1337 Š./1958), the Sao Paolo Biennale (1963), and solo exhibitions such as those held at the Benson Gallery in New York (1971) and Galerie Cyrus in Paris (1972). Sepehrī worked in a simple, semi-abstract style with a watercolor effect that reflected the landscapes of the countryside around his native city of Kāšān and in his later years concentrated his attention on a series devoted to tree trunks. The stark simplicity and serenity of his paintings were illuminated and complemented by his poetry.

Abuʾl-Qāsem Saʿīdī (b. 1305 Š./1926) was trained at the École des Beaux Arts in Paris and eventually specialized in highly colorful, light-filled renditions of trees in bloom, often with a strong calligraphic quality to his line.

Nāṣer Assar (ʿAṣṣār; b. 1370 Š./1928) another Paris-based artist also paints large, almost monochrome canvases in soft hues.

Artists such as Marcos Gregorian, Parvīz Kalāntarī (b. 1310 Š./1931), and Sirak Melkonian have all been drawn to the desert and local village architecture as formal sources.

Other artists should more properly be called artist-calligraphers: Moḥammad Eḥsāʾī (b. 1318 Š./1939), Reżā Māfī (b. 1322 Š./1943), and Ṣādeq Barīrānī can be numbered among artists who took their inspiration from the Saqqā-ḵāna formal idiom but in the mid-70s concentrated solely on script.

Monīr Farmānfarmāʾīān developed the decorative and formal possibilities inherent in the glass painting of the 19th century to create modern mixed-media work combining painting and sculpture.

Although modern Iranian painting is generally more decorative and concerned with formal questions, there were young artists who could be called expressionistic and produced powerful works of art—Nīkzād Nojūmī, Bahman Nāyfar (b. 1324 Š./1945), Hānībāl Alḵāṣ, the cartoonist Ardašīr Moḥaṣṣeṣ, (b. 1317 Š./1938), and Nāhīd Ḥaqīqat.

Qāsem Hājīzāda (b. 1326 Š./1949) is a young artist who in the 1970s put to innovative use old 19th-century photographs as the basis of highly personal representational paintings.

All of the above artists to one degree or another draw upon Iran’s past in their search for a contemporary statement but there are others , reckoned among the more established, who work in a thoroughly international idiom, among them Manūčehr Yaktāʾī (b. 1301 Š./1922), who creates still lifes and portraits with a strong abstract-expressionist flavor, Bahman Moḥaṣṣeṣ (b. 1309 Š./1930), who developed a forceful personal imagery of minotaurs and nightmare creatures in landscapes of despair, Behjat Ṣadr, an abstract painter of rhythmic geometric designs whose signature style can be seen in a series of paintings based on the artist’s brushstroke, and Mortażā Sāzgār, whose painting has led to basically geometric designs worked into fine textures.

To sum up: during the 70s, some fifty-sixty Iranians considered themselves full-time artists, holding at least one exhibition a year in the ten-twelve art galleries that were active at the time in Tehran or some key provincial center, such as Shiraz or Isfahan. There were also some artists who made impressive gains in the fields of applied arts—as illustrators of children’s books (e.g., Faršīd Met¯qālī, Bahman Dādḵᵛāh, Parvīz Kalāntarī) or in the field of graphic arts (e.g., Mortażā Momayyeż and Qobād Šīvā), or in making animated films (e.g., Nūr-al-dīn Zarrīn-kelk).

The artistic scene is very different ever since the 1978 revolution. With the market, and the official patronage of avant-gardism gone, practically no ultramodern works mimicking the very latest European or American styles are produced. The Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art has been sponsoring a number of group shows for works that may be classified, for convenience, as revolutionary art, wholly naturalistic (harking back to Kamāl-al-molk) and propagandist, side by side with surrealistic canvases illustrating the theme of martyrdom. This last genre combines pictorial elements with the same sort of source material that the Saqqā-ḵāna artists have been tapping—elements from Shiʿite folk art and the Persian/Arabic script. As a matter of fact, calligraphic paintings (best exemplified by the works of Reżā Māfī) are the only type of work that have received no setback.

Of the remaining painters still active in the country, a few are producing still lifes (e.g., Maḥmūd Javādpūr, Bahman Dādḵᵛāh, Parvāna Eʿtemādī), some are painting landscape (e.g., Ḥosayn Maḥjūbī), while some others try to explore the relationship between the country’s cultural heritage and present-day realities by reinterpreting the formalism of the traditional art forms [e.g., Aydin Aghdashloo (Āydīn Āḡdāšlū)]. The canvases have shrunk in size, no public exhibitions of such works are held, and so for the time being it is difficult to pass judgment on the quality of the art which is being produced in post-revolutionary Iran. But a soulsearching and reappraisal is definitely in progress.

ART IN IRAN xii. IRANIAN PRE-ISLAMIC ELEMENTS IN ISLAMIC ART

Numerous Iranian pre-Islamic elements have contributed significantly to the formation and development of Islamic art, and they can be easily recognized in various contexts, from town-planning to architecture, from the continuity of techniques of both manufacture and decoration to iconography and some of its symbols. Among the latter, one may mention the Sasanian crowns illustrated in the mosaic of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem (dated 691), or the interesting image on the reverse of an Arab-Sasanian dirham of 694-99, preserved in four examples (Treadwell, n. 95) and showing a lance within an arch. The lance “was one of the formal symbols of the Prophetic and caliphal power” (Grabar, p. 94; see also Whelan, n. 77), and when placed within an arch, it also represented an axis mundi connecting the earth to the sky, in the sense of the vault of heaven (see Fontana, forthcoming).

The most striking example of such town-planning is the round city of Baghdad, the ʿAbbasid capital founded by caliph Abu Jaʿfar al-Manṣur in 762. This circular plan, originally derived most probably from the structure of Assyrian military camps (circular or oval enclosures), was a characteristic feature of major Parthian and Sasanian towns. Baghdad is particularly similar to the Sasanian circular cities of Ardašir I, especially Ardašir Ḵorra, later known as Firuzābād, which according to Ebn al-Faqih was built on the model of Dārābjerd (see DĀRĀB ii). There is evidence in the Islamic architecture of some planimetric solutions and building techniques suggesting that they were derived from pre-Islamic Iranian precedents.

The plan of the Sasanian čahār ṭāq (q.v.) has met with considerable success in Iranian religious architecture. According to some scholars (cf. Finster, p. 91, n. 320), the mosque (of uncertain date) in the village of Yazd-e Ḵᵛāst, on the border between Fārs and Isfahan, was established on a čahār ṭāq (Siroux; see also Smith, p. 106). The Masjed-e Diggarān at Ḵazāra, near Bukhara (11th cent.; Nil’sen, fig. 76), had a similar plan, surrounded by a corridor (on the Islamic čahār ṭāq functioning as emāmzāda , see Huff, 1982; Boucharlat).

Two buildings in Dāmḡān share similar significant features, namely a Sasanian building at Tepe Hissar/Ḥeṣār (FIGURE 1) and the Tārik-ḵāna (a mosque dating from the 8th century, FIGURE 2). The vestibule of the Sasanian building (divided into three aisles) shows two arcades resting on massive round piers and side walls supporting three parallel tunnel-vaults opening into the courtyard, a layout also used in the Tārik-ḵāna (Schroeder, p. 934). Both in the Sasanian building and in the Tārik-ḵāna, the round piers, constructed of baked bricks, are set vertically and horizontally in alternate courses, without foundations (the same alternate courses are employed also in the Masjed-e Diggarān at Ḵazāra, see Nil’sen, fig. 8); moreover, their diameters are nearly the same. The later Friday Mosque (Masjed-e jāmeʿ) of Nāʾin (dating from ca. 960, Schroeder, p. 935), while possessing narrower round pillars, is entirely covered with stucco decoration like the Sasanian building at Tepe Hissar (for other Iranian mosques deriving from Sasanian architectural prototypes, see Monneret de Villard, pp. 115-16).

Figure 1. The plan and the ayvān longitudinal section of the Sasanian building at Tepe Hissar (Dāmḡān, Iran), 6th century (after A Survey of Persian Art, figs. 166 and 167b).View full image in a new tab

Figure 2. The plan and a round pier of the Tārik-ḵāna at Dāmḡān (Iran), 8th century (after Creswell and Allan, figs. 163 and 164).View full image in a new tab

Lionel Bier was skeptical of the supposed influence of Sasanian palace architecture on early Islamic architecture. Making reference to Gertrude Bell (pp. 44-51), who in Bier’s words, in her survey of the Sasanian palaces “was sometimes obliged to make analogies with the better-preserved palace at Ukhaidir [Oḵ-ayżer] in Iraq to fill in the missing parts,” Bier sarcastically states: “Put less delicately, it seems to me a fine example of how Sasanian architecture can be influenced by early Islam” (1993, p. 59).

Although the ayvān and the domed chamber are certainly the most important elements of Sasanian architecture surviving in the Islamic context, Bier hesitates to acknowledge a precise correspondence between the continuity of the Sasanian court ceremonial which survived into the Islamic period, and the continuity of form and function of the architectural background, which is not clearly recognizable either in the sources or from the archeological evidence (Bier, 1993, p. 59). Concerning the Umayyad throne complex at Mošattā/Mšattā (dated to 743-44), now a ruined structure in Jordan, Bier states: “neither the triconch nor the pillared hall is known in Sasanian palace architecture …, the Sasanian audience was connected primarily, if not exclusively, with the iwan hall, with or without a domed chamber in back” (1993, p. 59). With regard to the affinity between the pillared hall/ayvān with a square domed chamber at Tepe Hissar near Dāmˊgān and the ʿEmārat-e Ḵosrow at Qaṣr-e Širin (dated 590-628; FIGURE 3), Bier (1993, p. 60) says: “the Imaret-i Khusraw is a fantasy based partly on Damghan itself, the arrangement at Damghan must remain an anomaly.” However, the same complex is in the dār-al-ʿemāra at Kufa, in Iraq (FIGURE 4; II level, most probably dating back to the reconstruction of Ziād b. Abihi, 670-67), and, as regards the three-aisled hall, Masʿudi (VII, pp. 192-93, rev. ed., V, p. 6), in the 10th century, makes reference to the prototype of Ḥira. The last section of Bier’s study, however, is focused on the most probable methods of transmission of elements from Sasanian to Islamic architecture.

Figure 3. A detail of the plan of the ʿEmārat-e Ḵosrow at Qaṣr-e Širin (Iran), 590-628 (after Enciclopedia Universale dell’Arte, Rome, 1972, XII, fig. at column 221).View full image in a new tab

Figure 4. A detail of the plan of the dār al-ʿemāra at Kufa (Iraq), II level, most probably 670-672 (after Creswell and Allan, fig. 2).View full image in a new tab

The Sasanian four axial ayvāns fronting a domed room (see the “domed chamber” of the so-called “fire temple” at Bišāpur, 3rd century; Huff, 1993, p. 54; Azarnoush, pp. 84-86) can be found in ʿAbbasid palaces of the 8th and 9th centuries (see the dār-al-ʿemāra of Marv, dated 747-55; FIGURE 5, the most important palaces of Sāmarrāʾ, and probably al-Manṣur’s palace in Baghdad).

Figure 5. Four axial ayvāns fronting a domed room in the Abbasid dār al-ʿemāra of Merv (Turkmenistan), 747-755 (after Creswell and Allan, fig. 136).View full image in a new tab

The synthesis of the Parthian four ayvāns opening in a courtyard and the Sasanian complex formed by an ayvān and a domed chamber in the back is also used in the Ghaznavid palaces at Laškari Bāzār (11th cent.; Schlumberger, 1978) and Ḡazni (12th cent.; Scerrato, 1959). In the Islamic religious buildings, the four ayvāns opening on a courtyard (with a domed chamber) appear later in Iranian Saljuq architecture.

The triple-ayvān structure of Parthian origin (see some examples in Hatra, Reuther 1938a, fig. 105a, c-d), is clearly recognizable in the Bāb-al-ʿĀmma, the monumental facade of the ʿAbbasid palace called Jawsaq al-Ḵāqāni, built at Sāmarrāʾ by the caliph al-Moʿtaṣem in 836, overlooking the Tigris. The palace of Firuzābād features a particular bayt formed by an ayvān flanked by two rooms that can also be seen in Sarvestān (Bier, 1986, argues convincingly for its 9th-century date); an ayvān with a pair of flanking rooms and a portico of three arches is in the ʿEmārat-e Ḵosrow at Qaṣr-e Širin and the castle of Oḵayżer (2nd half of the 8th cent., FIGURE 6 a-b), located about 50 km south of Karbalāʾ.

Figure 6. A bayt formed by an ayvān with a pair of flanking rooms and a portico of three arches in the ʿEmārat-e Ḵosrow at Qaṣr-e Širin (Iran), 590-628 (left), and at Oḵayżer (Iraq), second half of the 8th century (after Creswell and Allan, fig. 85C-D).View full image in a new tab

While the horseshoe shape of the arches of the transepts and the lower arcade arches of the Omayyad mosque at Damascus (705-15) derive from Syrian Christian architecture, the horseshoe arches of ʿAmmān and Oḵ-ayżer originate from Sasanian prototypes, such as those at Ṭāq-e Gerrā, probably dating back to the Middle Sasanian period, and al-Maʿāriż, a 6th-century residential house at Ctesiphon (Reuther, pp. 509-14).

The two staircase minarets of both mosques at Sāmarrāʾ (9th cent.), as well as the minaret of the mosque of Ebn Ṭulun in Cairo (876-79), derive their forms from the ancient ziggurats (see the famous Iranian example of Čoḡā Zambil, 13th century BC.E.). The ziggurats are at the origin of an important Islamic architectural pattern, namely the stepped elements employed as crenellations. Probably an ancient symbol of the sacred mountain (see Garbini), its iconography originated in the Iranian plateau in the 4th millennium BCE. (see Elamite seals from Susa, dating back to ca. 3000BC.; Garbini, p. 89, and note 30). This architectural feature was employed for the first time as crenellation of religious buildings (temples, altars, ziggurats) in Assyria in the 2nd-1st millennium BCE., retaining its original symbolic value, but possibly with the addition of the apotropaic one as well. From Assyria it spread over the Near East, both as an architectural element and as a symbolic-decorative motif derived from it, and in the Achaemenid Persia as well (crenellations are employed in the Apadāna, at Persepolis; cf. Genito for stepped fire altars; see also the coins of the independent sovereigns of the post-Achaemenid Fars; cf. Callieri). In its original meaning of sacred mountain, it represents the axis mundi and the sovereign as the guarantor of the world order (the rock-cut relief of Bisotun, shows Darius wearing a crenellated crown). During the following Parthian and Sasanian periods stepped elements were employed in similar ways (elements of crowns, crenellations of buildings, components of architectural decoration; cf. Reuther pp. 521-23; fire altars on coins). Stepped elements lost a great deal of their significance in the Islamic period, although they were employed as crenellations in many buildings, beginning with the Umayyad era (see, e.g., the palaces of ʿAmmān and Ḵerbat-al-Mafjar, but also the Great Mosque of Cordoba, and the Fatimid mosques in Cairo). The apotropaic meaning of crenellations was probably preserved only in Yemen. In continuity with the Iranian pre-Islamic past, stepped elements have also been employed, with their symbolic significance, in several products of the early Islamic period, including coins, architectural decoration, various art objects, etc. (see al-Khamis; Fontana, 2003).

The apotropaic function of quadrupeds (felines and horned animals) and birds (birds of prey) placed near the spouts of ewers or other wares is no longer evident in Islamic art crafts, yet these zoomorphic sculptures survive as decorative motifs in metalwork from the Umayyad period (e.g., the so-called “Marwān ewer,” bronze, ca. 750, held at the Museum of Islamic Art, Cairo; [see Sarre]; or the 12th-13th century brass ewers from Khorasan, inlaid with copper and silver; FIGURE 7).

Figure 7. Brass ewer inlaid with copper and silver from Khorasan, 12th-13th century, Modena, Galleria Estense, inv. No. 6921 (after Eredità dell’Islam, ed. G. Curatola, Milan, 1993, ill. 125).View full image in a new tab

The anthropomorphic or, more frequently, zoomorphic ware shape (askoi) is another pre-Islamic artistic feature that was widely employed in Persia and continued to be used in the Islamic period (for ceramic specimens, see Ettinghausen, 1969; Melikian-Chirvani, 1990, esp. figs. 99-101, pl. IA-B; idem, 1991). Furthermore, the Islamic metalwork produced bronze zoomorphic sculptures that were used as ewers, with a small reservoir that retained its ancient function (see, e.g., the askoi from northern Persia, FIGURE 8, and the bronze deer-shaped ewer, FIGURE 9).

Figure 8. A ceramic vessel in the shape of a deer, Northern Iran, 1200-900 B.C.E., Tehran, National Museum, inv. No. 2441 (after 7000 Jahre persische Kunst, ed. W. Seipel, Vienna, 2000, ill. 95).View full image in a new tab

Figure 9. A bronze deer-shaped ewer, Egypt, 11th century, Naples, Museo di Capodimonte, inv. No. A.M. 138798 (after U. Scerrato, Metalli islamici, Milan, 1960, fig. 31).View full image in a new tab

The quintessential example of continuity of techniques, both in manufacture and decoration, are the metal vessels that were produced with similar stylistic features even after the Sasanian Empire had ceased to exist as a political entity, and retained the same shapes and the same iconographic themes, including investitures, audiences, hunts, battle scenes, and animal motifs. In Islamic painting and sculpture we can observe the preservation either of typical Sasanian motifs (Arnold) or of Iranian-Central Asiatic somatic-stylistic features (see the Central Asiatic paintings from Mirān, 3rd century C.E., National Museum, New Delhi; M. Bussagli, ills. pp. 18, 24-25), recognizable, for example, in an Omayyad painting from Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Ḡarbi (National Museum, Damascus; Schlumberger, 1986, pl. 37), in a stucco sculpture from Ḵerbat al-Mafjar (Archeological Museum, Jerusalem; Otto-Dorn, color pl. p. 71), and, further, in the famous Sāmarrāʾ paintings (9th cent.).

A major vehicle of transmission of Iranian pre-Islamic elements in the Islamic art was iconography (Grube, 2005a, p. 24, ns. 74 and 88; idem, 2005b, pp. 270-72), such as the so-called “flying gallop” (see a Parthian painting from the mithreum of Dura Europos, 2nd century C.E., Musée du Louvre, Paris, and a Sasanian painting from Susa, 4th century, in Ghirshman, figs. 49-50, 224), frequently combined, in the Sasanian period, to a fluttering ribbon (see, e.g., the Sasanian 5th-cent. plate in gilded silver, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv. No. 34.33; see also the hunting scene in Splendeurs des Sassanides, pl. p. 189), as we can see in a floor painting from Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Ḡarbi, 724-727 (FIGURE 10). Brief mention should also be made to other iconographic themes and their diffusion (see Rosen-Ayalon), such as the senmurv (see Harper; Schmidt), the male or female figure lifted by an eagle (see Grube and Johns, pp. 244-47), and popular legendary episodes such as the hunt of the Sasanian king Bahrām Gōr with his slave (Simpson; Fontana, 1986, idem, 2000; for other important iconographies, see Ettinghausen 1969; idem 1972).

"Figure 10. A detail of a floor painting from Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Ḡarbi (Syria), 724-727, Damascus, National Museum (after Otto-Dorn, pl. at p. 67)."View full image in a new tab

Survival of Iranian pre-Islamic elements in Islamic art can be traced up to the Safavid, Qajar and Pahlavi periods, in architecture, iconography, stone relief, and a variety of decorative arts (see Huff 1971, pp. 164 ff.; Melikian-Chirvani 1990; idem, 1991; idem, 1996; Lerner 1980; idem, 1998; Luschey-Schmeisser; Grube, p. 24, ns. 74, 88, and pp. 270-72).