Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:05:27.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Safavid Metalwork: A Study in Continuity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

A.S. Melikian‐shirvani
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The history of Iranian metalwork has yet to be written. Published material is scanty compared with the number of pieces on record in public institutions, not to mention private collections. But no period has been so blatantly neglected as the Safavid period and the half century of Timurid rule during which the foundations of much of Safavid art were laid.

The first substantial body of material was if not published stricto sensu, at least illustrated in the Survey of Persian Art. Fourteen bronze, brass, and tinned copper vessels, plus a number of “steel” implements and weapons, a couple of bronze ensigns and astronomical instruments which will not be considered in this paper, were dealt with in a short text of general content. Alas not a few errors, which crept into the text as well as the brief captions, marred the reader's pleasure. There was no attempt to read the Persian and Arabic inscriptions except for dates.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Iranian Studies , Volume 7 , Issue 3-4: Studies on Isfahan: Proceedings of the Isfahan Colloquium, Part II , Summer-Autumn 1974 , pp. 543 - 585
Copyright
Copyright © Association For Iranian Studies, Inc 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Pope, A.U., A Survey of Persian Art (Tokyo-New York: 1965)Google Scholar, vol. XII.

  • 1) pl. 1376A, a jug in the British Museum (not a vase as stated in the caption; the handle is missing, as often happens) of the type called kūzah

  • 2) pl. 1377B, a candlestick (?), not fifteenth but late sixteenth century, possibly Shūh ᶜAbbūs period

  • 3) pl. 1381, a mashᶜal or torch-stand, so-called pillar-candlestick

  • 4) pl. 1382, same type

  • 5) pl. 1383A, same type

  • 6) pl. 1383B, same type

  • 7) pl. 1384A, same type

  • 8) pl. 1384B, same type

  • 9) pl. 1385A, a bowl (tās) dated 942/1535-36 according to the editors’ reading

  • 10) pl. 1386A, a kashkūl, second half of the sixteenth century

  • 11) pl. 1386B, a wine bowl or bādiyah dated 1030/1621

  • 12) pl. 1387A, a combined inkwell and pencase, called davāt in the poem. It is not datable to the seventeenth but to the early sixteenth century

  • 13) pl. 1387B, a hawking drum (not just a “kettledrum“) or tabl-i bāz. Not “seventeenth or eighteenth” but late sixteenth century

  • 14) pl. 1388C, an inkwell, possibly of the late Safavid period. It is not dated “1119 H.” as stated in the caption and on p. 2525. Several mistakes crop up in the lists of dated and signed metalwork. Some can be inferred without even seeing the pieces. Ṭashtī is an impossible nisbah in Iran, and Tabībī not a common one. One assumes Ṭabasī to be the correct reading of the owner's name mentioned on p. 2525 (n. 49).

2. Melikian-Chirvani, A.S., Le bronze iranien (Paris: 1973).Google Scholar

  • 1) Inkwell (dāvat), pp. 100-01. The double barelled cylindrical case for quills is missing. Previously illustrated by Mayer (see note 31), early sixteenth century

  • 2) Jug (kūzah), pp. 102-03, signed by Quṭb al-Dīn on body, the full signature Quṭb al-Dīn Muḥammad b. ᶜAbdullūh, elegantly engraved on underside. Previously recorded by H. Lavoix, “La Galerie orientale à I'exposition du Trocadero,” Gazette des Beaux Arts, 2e periods (1878), p. 785, but not identified as Persian. Further listed by Mayer as Muḥammad b. ᶜAbdullᶜh, Islamic Metalworkers (Geneva: 1959), p. 65, who neither dated nor located the object and using Lavoix's description was presumably unaware of its Persian character

  • 3) Ewer (tung), sixteenth century, p. 105

  • 4) Bath pail (saṭl) late sixteenth century, pp. 106-07. The poem is probably by Sharmī or Sharqī Qazvīnī (no dīvān available at the time of writing)

  • 5) Bath pail (saṭl), late sixteenth century, p. 108.

  • 6) Bowl for keeping jems (ḥuqqah), late sixteenth century, p. 109

  • 7) mashᶜal or shamᶜdān (both names were used as suggested by the verses in the objects where the shamᶜ or candle is constantly referred to. See further pp. 110-12. It is dated 996/December 1587-November 1588

  • 8) Bowl (tās), late sixteenth-early seventeenth century, p. 113

  • 9) Bath pail (as suggested by verses, but shaped like a pouring bowl), dated 998/1590-91, p. 114

  • 10) Bowl (tās), second half of sixteenth century, p. 115

  • 11) mashᶜal or shamᶜdān, late sixteenth century (see above note 7), pp. 116-17

  • 12) āftābah (a kind of ewer), late sixteenth to early seventeenth century, pp. 118-19

  • 13) āftābah, eastern ewer of similar shape, probably sixteenth century, p. 119

  • 14) wine-bowl (bādiyah), first half of seventeenth century, similar in shape to a bowl dated 1030/1620-21 (correct my misprint, p. 120), pp. 120-21

  • 15) bowl (tās), seventeenth century, p. 122

  • 16) mashᶜal or shamᶜdān, seventeenth or eighteenth century, pp. 124-25. I have now identified the author of the poem: Ahlī Torshīzī, also known as Ahlī Khurasānī (see Ms. Supp. Pers. 1408, fol. 48A and 48B)

3. A.A. Ivanov, “O pervonačalnom naznačenij tak nazivaye mikh iranskikh ‘podsvečnikov’ XVI-XVII V.V.,” Orbeli, A., ed., Issledovaniia po istorii kulturi narodov Vostoka, Moscow (Leningrad: 1960), pp. 337-45Google Scholar.

4. Illustrated in Survey, XII, pl. 1385A. Listed by Mayer, op. cit., under Imami; the listing is not correct. The name, or to be accurate the nisbah, is al-Īmāmī al-Ḥusaynī from al-Īmām al-Ḥusayn and not just any of the twelve imams.

5. See appended list, no. 1. Also, the writer's forthcoming “Les bronzes et les cuivres étamés du Khorassan au XV siècle.“

6. A.A. Ivanov, “Gruppa Khorasanskikh mednykh i bronzovykh izdelii vtoroi polovyny XV vv.,” Trudi gosudarstvennovo Ermitazha X, 7 (Leningrad: 1969), p. 100.

7. Illustrated in the Survey, pl. 1376B, by Mayer, op. cit., pl. V (profile) and IVa (signature and date on underside).

8. E. Kühnel, “Neuerwerbungen,” Berliner Museen, vol. LVI (1935), p. 71. Listed in Mayer, op. cit., p. 31 under Alā' ad-Dīn al-Birjandī, pp. 31-32. A second jug with the same signature recently appeared on the market. See Christie's Western Asiatic,Byzantine and Islamic Antiquities (23.X.1972), nr. 77. Signature illustrated pl. 10. This reads Amal aqall al-ᶜibād ᶜalā’ (wa) al-dīn b. Shams al-dīn Muḥammad al-Birjandī shahri Ramaān al-mubārak sanati thamāna wa tisᶜamiᶜ-atin (Made by the humblest of servants ᶜAlā’ al-Dīn b. Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Birjandī in the holy month of Ramazan of the year 908). The phrase “the humblest of servants” shows that only one man has signed.

9. Illustrated in the Survey, pl. 1376A. The signature on the underside, first mentioned by the anonymous writer of Christie's catalogue (see note 8), p. 28 might have to be corrected.

10. Christie's, op. cit., pl. 10, no. 77 showing underside with the date and signature.

11. M. Bussagli, Arte Iranica (Rome: 1956), pl. LXIX, no. 282 bis. The caption reads “Made in Venice by a Syrian artist working in the Persian manner. End of XVth century.“

12. Such jugs when illustrated in manuscripts of the late Timurid period have indeed the shorter neck. See, for example, B. Robinson, Persian Miniature Painting (London: 1967), pl. 41 from a manuscript dated 1478 made, interestingly enough, in Shirvan. However, the problem is complicated by the fact that representations of metalwork are often not factual in Persian painting but can also reflect a conventional repertoire. Moreover, it is not always possible to be sure that a shape illustrated purports to depict metalwares and not some other medium. This type of jug is by no means an invention of the sixteenth of even fifteenth centuries, but goes back to a prototype of the early thirteenth century. L. Katz in Asian Art from the collections of Ernest Erickson and the Erickson Foundation (New York: 1963), p. 36, no. 65 illustrates such a piece without attempting to locate it or date it more closely that “12th-14th century.” Its Khurasanian origin and dating can be established by the style of the animated Kufic in scription, so close to that of the pen-box made by Shazi in 607/1210, now in the Freer Gallery.

13. This is suggested by the signatures which all include nisbahs from the East. Birjand is in the Kūhistān of Khurasan. Kūistānī is a nisba suggesting the carrier was born in the countryside from the same area. Bahārjān is not recorded in Yāqūt. Such nisbas do not mean per se that the artists carrying them were active in the area, contrary to an assumption made all too often. A nisbah may have been carried by an artist working thousands of miles away. It is through their number that they can be considered significant, or taken in conjunction with other elements.

14. Le bronze iranian, op. cit., p. 105.

15. Melikian-Chirvani, A.S., “Les bronzes et les cuivres des pays islamiques,” Arts de l'Islam (Paris: 1971) p. 101Google Scholar and pl. 145.

16. A vase with a similar grooved body is carved in low relief on a decorative panel in a palace called Kākh-i Khurshīd at Kalāt-i Nāir in Khurasan. See Hunar-i Mardom, 98 (1349/1970), cover photo.

17. A. Lane, Later Islamic Pottery (London: 1957), pp. 71, 108 and pl. 94.

18. A.A. Ivanov, “Tri pridmeta so stikhamy Djami,” Epigrafika Vostoka XX (1971), illustrated fig. 4, p. 101, text pp. 102-103.

19. Le bronze iranien, op. cit., pp. 106-08.

20. Epigrafika Vostoka XX, op. cit., where Ivanov mentions three“Ṣatl of analagous form” in note 31, p. 103. They are dated 989/1581, 1011/1602-03 and 1054/1644-45. One hopes our colleague will publish them soon.

21. Le bronze iranien, op. cit., p. 114, dated 998/ 1590-91.

22. See reference in Epigrafika Vostoka, op. cit., pl. 160-161.

23. A.A. Ivanonv, “Mednaya časa 811 g. sh. (1408-1409 g.) so stikham.y Khafiza,” Soobščeniia Gosudarstvennovo Ermitazha XIX (1960), pp. 41-44.

24. Numerous unpublished pieces. A Kabul specimen is to be published shortly by this writer.

25. Epigrafika Vostoka XX, op. cit., fig. 1, p. 100. The Timurid ḥuqqah is convincingly dated c. 1475-76 on the basis of its ornamentation which compares closely with that of the dated candlestick in fig. 2. A Khurasanian Safavid ḥuqqah also published in the article (fig. 3, p. 101; text pp. 100-01) might perhaps be a little earlier than “the late 17th-early 18th century.” A Timurid prototype earlier than the ḥuqqah datable around 1475-76 is in existence. This is a small bowl of similar shape minus the short foot, thus establishing a link with previous fourteenth century shapes. The superbly cast olive-colored bronze has retained its silver and gold inlay and bituminous black paste filling in the minute details of decoration. It is datable to the mid-fifteenth century at the latest. Formerly in the Peytel collection, it was exhibited in 1903 in the Musee des Arts Decoratifs exhibition as “Egyptian” and is, in fact, Iranian, probably Khurasanian (Herat?).

26. Le bronze iranien, op. cit., p. 109.

27. A well-known example of Safavid kashkūl is illustrated in the Survey, pl. 1386A. Its decorative pattern which cannot be analyzed at length here dates it to the latter half of the sixteenth century. Another unpublished kashkul preserved in the Victoria and Albert Museum, no. 775-1889 was probably made in the closing years of the fifteenth century, if not the very beginning of the sixteenth century, somewhere in Khurasan. This earlier version harks back to a model of the late twelfth to early thirteenth century, known to us through glazed wares only. However, the latter unquestionably reflect the imitation of metalwork for which we actually have bronze prototypes (note grooving on base and sharp edge of slanting, short everted rim, etc.). A boat-shaped piece of this type is in the Metropolitan Museum; see E.J. Grube, “The Art of Islamic Pottery,” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin XXIII, 6 (February, 1965), p. 217, fig. 14. Recent excavations in Nishapur have yielded pottery molds decorated with motifs so closely comparable to those of the boat-shaped glazed ware of the Metropolitan as to leave little doubt regarding the eastern origin of the latter. See S. Kāmbakhash-i Fard and A. Amīr-Māhānī, Kāvishhā-j Nishāpūr va sofālgarī-i Īrān dar ṣadah-i panjum u sishum-i hijrī (Tehran: 1349/1971), text pp. 55-56, pl. 27, 28.

28. Le bronze iranien, op. cit., p. 115: no other example has been published apart from this one and its companion bowl mentioned in the text. Again there are many more in existence.

29. See so-called pillar-candlesticks illustrated in the Survey, mentioned in note 1. The origins of this model are far from clear at this stage. It is a strange coincidence that the two earliest surviving pieces were both made in Lahore according to the inscriptions they carry. One is merely recorded in the Survey, p. 2524, no. 42, where it is said to be dated 965/1558 and “signed: the poor slave ᶜAbd al-Wahhāb Al(l)āh-Dād town of Lahore.” It would be interesting to check the signature which suggests that of the well-known astrolabist. The other piece is in the Āstān-i Quds at Mashhad to which it was donated as a waqf.

30. Le bronze iranien, op. cit., two versions, one western Iranian, late sixteenth or very early seventeenth century, the other Khurasanian sixteenth century; imitated by potters as illustrated by pieces in the Victoria and Albert Museum (A. Lane, op. cit., pl. 75), the British Museum (Survey, pl. 785A). According to the caption, the object is dated 1025/1616.

31. L.A. Mayer, op. cit., pl. IXa and p. 63ff. Inscriptions published in Le bronze iranien, op. cit., pp. 100-01.

32. On the first Khwājah Mīrak's death, see T.W. Arnold, Painting in Islam (New York: 1965), p. 139, quoting from Khwāndamīr. On the second Khwājah Mīrak see Qāī Aḥmad-i Qummī whose Gulistān-i Hunar has been translated by V. Minorsky under the title Calligraphers and Painters. A treatise by Qāī Aḥmad, son of Mīr-Munshī (Washington: 1959), p. 92. Correct my p. 101; pp. cit. The Khwājah Mīrak who was munshī al-mamālik was the second Khwājah.

33. Le bronze iranien, op. cit., pp. 92-93. Invert the words buland and sipahr in order to read (as on p. 103) sipahr-i buland.

34. On Sulṭān Muḥammad of Tabriz, see Qāī Aḥmad translated by V. Minorsky, op. cit., p. 180. On Sulṭān Muḥammad of Herat, see p. 134.

35. Halālī Ulughtāᶜi, ed. S. Nafīsī, Dīvān (Tehran: 1337/ 1959), p. 7 first ghazal. The five distiches are engraved as they read in the printed version. Halālī died in 936 according to Sām Mīrzā(see introduction, page 10), 935 according to Hasan Beg Rūmlū (ibid., p. 10). This is the first record of verses by Halālī, one of the great mystical poets of the late fifteenth century, on any Persian bronze.

36. Survey, pl. 1385A.

37. Ibid, pl. 1388A. On the Hermitage piece, see note 3.

38. This is probably the one listed as no. 45 in the Survey, p. 2524, in a Cairo collection at the time.

39. Le bronze iranien, op. cit., pp. 110-12. Detail showing date, p. 112.

40. Ibid., pp. 118-19.

41. Survey, pl. 1386B.

42. See, for example, the two specimens in the Musée des Art Decoratifs (Le bronze iranien, op. cit., pp. 106-07 and 108). Tinned copper pieces in the reserves of the Musée des Beaux Arts, Lyon (no. 1970-747, transferred from the Musée Guimet in Lyons—not to be confused with the Paris Museum) and the reserves of the Muza-i Mellī, Kabul, both to be published shortly by the writer. Both are marked Khurasanian.

43. A bronze ḥuqqah is in the Musée des Arts Decoratifs, Paris (Le bronze iranien, op. cit., p. 107). A tinned brass specimen in the Hermitage was published by Ivanov (see note 25).

44. Of the type illustrated in Le bronze iranien, op. cit., p. 113.

45. Ibid.,

46. Acc. no. 91.1.570.

47. Herat art market, autumn 1971. To be published shortly.

48. Inventory no. 1970-747. Height 16.9 to 17.3 cms. Overall height 31.3 cms. The verses consist of two distiches of a ghazal, probably by Sharqī Qazvīnī, to be read also on the path pail 20332 in the Musée des Arts Decoratifs (Le bronze iranien, op. cit., p. 107). followed by a formula often encountered on eastern wares, but not western ones: “O God, make the end a happy one.“

49. Inventory no. 58-2-133. Height 12 to 12.2 cms. Widest diameter 20.9 to 21 cms.

50. inventory no. 35.115.473.

51. Inventory no. 72.2.27. Overall height 42.7 cms. Diameter of base including width of rim 20.43 cms. Diameter of neck from outer edge to edge 12.3-12.43 .

52. Le bronze iranien, op. cit., p. 119.

53. Blue and white wares discussed by Lane, op. cit., pp. 98-99, possibly from Mashhad, include this shape (pi. 75A).

54. Jāmī, ed. M. Towḥīdīpūr, Mafaḥāt al-'uns min ḥazrat ul-quds (1337). Saᶜdī is called one of the most eminent Sufis (az afāzal-i Sūfīyah), p. 600. Of Ḥāfiẓ, Jāmī writes (p. 614) “although one does not know whether he accepted the guidance of a master (pīr) … his verses fit the style (mashrab) of this group so nicely that none could have struck upon it by accident.“

55. Not identified previously either in the Survey or by Mayer. Corresponding text in Ḥāfiẓ, ed. Sayyid A. Andjavī, Dīvān (Shiraz: 1346/1968), p. 90 and 25. The ghazals read from top to bottom, the first ghazal split into two halves, one at the top, the other at the bottom. If Ivanov is right in accpeting the date 811/1408-09 on a Hermitage bowl (see “Mednaya Čaša 811 g.kh./1408-1409 so stikhamy Khafiza,” op. cit., pp. 41-44) there would be an even earlier example of Khurasanian metal ware with verses by Ḥāfiẓ. It remains to be seen whether the figures should not be read 911/1510-11.

56. A.S. Melikian-Chirvani, “Un bassin iranien de l'an 1375,” Gazette des Beaux Arts LXXIII (1969), pp. 5-18.

57. Hālalī, op. cit., see note 35, poem p. 7.

58. Ibid., p. 10 (introduction).

59. Jāmī, ed. H. Rāzī, Dīvān-i Kamil (Tehran: 1341/1963), p. 413, ghazal no. 11-760. The fifth bayt is missing on the bowl.

60. See note 25. Text on Hermitage bowl. Published by A.A. Ivanov, “Tri pridmeta so stikhamy Djami,” p. 994. For text of printed edition (see note 59) of Divan, p. 388, ghazal no. 1-565, line 7400.

61. Ivanov, ibid., p. 101. Illustrated fig. 3, p. 101. There the distich is followed by the second distich from the same ghazal as it is found in Razi's edition of the Dīvān whereas on the late fifteenth century huqqah the second distich is replaced by another version.

62. Le bronze iranien, p. 109.

63. Jāmī, Dīvān, p. 794.

64. Ivanov, “Djami,” p. 103. Piece illustrated p. 101, fig. 4.

65. See note 3.

66. On Kātibī Torshīzī's dates see Khāyampūr, Farhang-i Sukhanvarān (Tabriz: 1953), p. 478. The poem was first identified by Ivanov, “Djami,” p. 98 where he refers the reader to his article, mentioned in note 3, written ten years before.

67. Khayāmpūr, p. 179. Other details in Ivanov (see note 3), quoting Ch. Rieu, p. 345.

68. On Ahlī Khurasānī, see Khayāmpūr, p. 68 who refers the reader to Sām Mīrzā, Tuhfah-i Sāmī (Tehran: 1314/ 1940), pp. 108-09. No printed edition of Ahlī Khurasānī 's work seems to be in existence. This writer used a manuscript in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, Supp. Pers. 1408, fol. 48a-b.

69. Survey, pl. 1386b.

70. Le bronze iranien, pp. 100-01.

71. Survey, pl. 1387A. This writer has not handled the piece. It seems obvious from the Survey plate that the texts are the same as on the Victoria and Albert inkwell 2-1883 published in Le bronze iranien. It would be interesting to check whether it is not equally signed. Perhaps this is the piece carrying the date wrongly given by Mayer to an inkwell in the Victoria and Albert (see note 72).

72. No. 454-1888 mentioned by Mayer, p. 63, no. 1. But it is neither signed nor dated 902/1496-97 contrary to Mayer's statement.

73. Le bronze iranien, pp. 100-01. This type of combined inkwell and double-barrelled quill-case is represented in a miniature by Bihzād done in 1489. See L. Binyon, J. Wilkinson and B. Gray, Persian Miniature Painting (London: 1933), pl. LXX, no. A.83: the object lies close to the knee of a mulla sitting on his knees in the background. It was still depicted over half a century later in Bukhara. See A.U. Pope, Masterpieces of Persian Art (London; 1960), pl. 127, p. 169. The miniature cannot be dated 1496, for it was “made for the library of” the Shaybanid ruler “Abuᶜl Ghāzī ᶜAb-dullāh Bahādur Khān” as the scribe wrote in the epigraphical band over the structure and is therefore datable to the mid-sixteenth century.

74. Ace. no. 91.1.607.