The Perso-Islamic Garden: a reclassification of Iranian Garden Design after the Arab Invasion
Download 315.59 Kb. Pdf ko'rish
|
|
Halsted 32
The lion is not the only symbol used at Chihil Sutun. Rudimentary, unadorned flower designs are repeated on the paving stones of the garden and serve as water spouts into pools. The flower design, repeated again and again is anachronistic in nature. It appears out of place among the graceful arabesques decorating the palace pavilion. Interestingly, this flower does not originate at this garden. It appears to have a much longer history. Surrounding the reliefs of lions and bulls at Persepolis, bands of decoration form borders to the action within. On these bands, a single image, a flower with twelve petals, is repeated hundreds, perhaps thousands of times. It is a straightforward rendering of the flower, merely a small circle surrounded by twelve oval petals, resembling a water lily or lotus (Fig. 18). But this repeated pattern, seen over and over again on all Achaemenid monuments reflects how deeply nature as a whole (and perhaps gardens) had insinuated itself in the psyche of the Persian people. In fact, the symbolism of the lotus seen here reflects the continuous narrative of Iranian gardens with its representation of rebirth and renewal.
74 It is a prime example of how pre-Islamic motifs were repeated in Islamic societies, allowing the new Islamic culture and the ancient Iranian tradition to coexist in the garden. The lotus is repeated at Persepolis and other Achaemenid monuments as though the builders simply stamped it over and over again into the stone. The flower can be traced to Egypt and India through its resemblance to the lotus, a common motif in both ancient Egyptian and Buddhist iconography. The same flower is seen on later Sassanian monuments and is usually associated with the Zoroastrian god Mithra, the guardian of The Waters. 75 with Zoroastrianism, as a representation of one of its four holy elements, water. Interestingly, this exact flower, in this peculiarly simplistic style, is prevalent in gardens in Iran after the introduction of Islam. 74 Khansari, 34. 75 The Waters represent sacred primordial water as well as the source of all life in the Avesta, the Zoroastrian holy text. Duchensne-Guillemin, 106.
Halsted 33
The flowers previously described at Chihil Sutun can be identified as the Achaemenid lotus (Fig. 19). It is repeated over and over again, on floor tiles, stairs, moldings, and paving stones. The symbol is still widely used in Iran today and can be seen on the gates of gardens, on the sides of overpasses, and on curbs. While the Islamic depiction of flowers is gracefully calligraphic in nature, with curving arabesques and delicate lines, this clumsy, rudimentary flower is the antithesis of Islamic decoration and rather a continuation of ancient tradition. The stark contrast between the style of this rudimentary flower and that of Islamic, calligraphic designs is worth examination. The prominence of the art of calligraphy in the Islamic faith is universally recognized. Islam, as a faith tradition that generally avoids figural representation, emphasizes vegetal and calligraphic images. Its depictions of flowers, when compared to the Achaemenid flower, are far more refined. The primary example of this can be seen in illuminated manuscripts from the Safavid period, which frequently include illustrations of various varieties of flower. Painted tiles also depict floral designs. They are depicted elegantly, with curving stems, delicate petals, and twisting vines (Fig. 20). 76 When compared to this level of detail and care, the Achaemenid flower appears rudimentary and simplistic, almost childish. Why then, would a society which is clearly capable of sophisticated rendering of plants, as evidenced by decorated tiles, choose to instead depict a simplistic, millennia-old flower? While the artists living after the introduction of Islam into Iran could have depicted flowers on the walls, tiles, and paintings of gardens in the Islamic fashion alone, they chose to continue to use the Achaemenid flower, knowing all too well its significance as a symbol of the might of the ancient Iranians. 77 It is significant for many reasons, but at its most basic level, the 76 Wilbur, 10. 77 Hobhouse, 27. Halsted 34
use of this design suggests that later dynasties were knowledgeable about the origins of their civilization and recognized its enduring importance by appropriating one of its symbols. The allusion to pre-Islamic Iran in the use of this flower is perhaps the most overlooked of the potential evidences against the “Islamic” quality of Iranian gardens. While a foreign visitor to a garden decorated with this design, like Chihil Sutun, would not see anything remiss or un- Islamic about it, anyone familiar with pre-Islamic Iranian iconography would recognize the ancient Persian source of this anachronistic flower. Chihil Sutun and other gardens of this period reflect considerable pre-Islamic influence. They are classified as Islamic by most garden historians, though, because they were commissioned by Muslim rulers and are ascribed certain Islamic symbolism. The way to reconcile this opposition, as posited here, is to label them “Perso-Islamic” in recognition of their dual nature. These gardens represent the height of the gardening tradition in Isfahan, but the “Perso-Islamic” garden is not limited to this city alone. Several gardens outside the Safavid capital of Isfahan also followed a hierarchical, terraced design during the Safavid period. 78 Built into hills, they featured a large palace, looking down onto a several-stepped or leveled garden (Fig. 21). The terraced garden is an excellent example of the need to view the garden from above and its subsequent hierarchical interpretation, and is best evidenced at Bagh-i Takht, a seventeenth century garden in Shiraz. It was a seven terraced garden with a large palace at the top, whose talar looked out over the lower terraces. A water channel spilled down the various levels from the palace and was collected at the lowest level by a large pool. 79
Unfortunately, none of these gardens are extant today. 79 Ruggles, 190-191. Halsted 35
The presence of Persian and Zoroastrian elements in Safavid gardens might have been dismissed as a peculiarity of that particular empire. But the presence of the same motifs in the later Qajar period suggests that the Perso-Islamic garden is not unique to one period, but rather a continuing tradition. In Shiraz during the later Qajar period, several extant gardens remain which exhibit a Perso-Islamic quality. The most famous is Bagh-I Eram, built in 1795. It is a multi- leveled garden, though not traditionally terraced, with a large, several storied palace at the center.
80 On the second floor of the palace is a monumental porch from which the entirety of the garden can be seen (Fig. 22). In keeping with the “Perso” quality of this “Perso-Islamic” garden, the monumental porch is decorated with images of kings, dignitaries, and lions. Furthermore, the Achaemenid lotus marks almost every surface of the garden, from the rills to the paving stones. Even gardens built in Iran today exhibit the same conventions and combination of Islamic and pre-Islamic ideology. Certainly, there can be no stronger evidence than a contemporary, twenty first century garden exhibiting the same elements seen at Persepolis. The Iranian Garden, or Bagh-I Irani, is a recently built public garden in Tehran (Fig. 23). Completed in 2010, it is a
serves no current purpose, and is ornamental. The pavilion, rills, and paving stones are marked with the Achaemenid lotus. This garden is currently used by the public for a variety of activities, but one can at any given time find theologians discussing the Qur’an in the shade of its monumental pavilion (Fig. 24). The pavilion reflects here all that is permanent and preexisting, and the theologians reflect the new Islamic uses that these pre-existing elements have been given.
Porter, 124.
Halsted 36
Conclusion For years, the gardens of Iran have been placed under the vague label of “Islamic”, without consideration for the various contributions of their pre-Islamic heritage. It is only through acknowledging this pre-Islamic heritage that their hybridity becomes apparent. They can, if one proscribes to the arguments put forth here, be called Perso-Islamic. Their Islamic nature cannot be denied, but it should not be exaggerated, and they are distinct from gardens that lack the Persian influence they exhibit. Because of the assimilative nature of Islam’s introduction to Iranian gardens, there can be no clear segregation between Islamic and Persian gardens in Iran after the Invasion. The duality and hybridity posited here, then, requires a combination of these two classifications.
Upon visiting a Perso-Islamic garden, one feels more than the presence of Islamic mysticism in its geometric architecture and design. This tradition, this form, this paradise has been and still remains one of the strongest and oldest footprints of Iranian culture. As a result, the most celebrated gardens in Iran combine the country’s long and ancient history with a newer theology. While Islam represents the modern Iranian identity in many ways, it did not erase all that came before it. In light of the strength of Islam’s influence in the Middle East today, it is important to remember that the traditions in Iran before its arrival are still present, and in many cases, just as important as they were thousands of years ago. If Cyrus visited one of the Safavid gardens, he would likely marvel at its similarity to his own garden. If a Muslim ruler was able to visit Pasargadae in its original splendor, he would likely find it very familiar. “Islamic” does not seem, therefore, to suffice to describe these gardens. They deserve a term that spans their thousands of years of history. They deserve to be called “Perso-Islamic”.
Halsted 37
Post Script This discussion has examined Perso-Islamic gardens in Iran, but it is important to note that Perso-Islamic gardens exist outside of the Iranian Peninsula as well. Persian culture permeated the kingdoms surrounding Iran. Perhaps the most illustrious example of a Perso- Islamic garden outside Iran is the Taj Mahal (Fig. 25). The Safavids and the neighboring Mughals in India had strong diplomatic relations, and the Mughals were greatly influenced artistically by their Iranian counterparts. The Edict of Sincere Repentance during the Safavid period in Iran caused most artists and craftsmen to relocate to the neighboring empire of Mughal India (which provided modern day India with some of Iran’s greatest artistic traditions). The Edict represented a desire of the Safavids to return to more traditional forms of Islam, with less emphasis on the visual arts. The Mughals were descended from both the Turks and the Mongols, as the first Mughal emperor, Babur, was descended from both Timurlane and Ghengis Khan. They chose Farsi as their court language and Mughal emperors intermarried with Persian princesses. One such emperor, Humayun, even spent years in Safavid Iran during a period of exile. As a result of this blending of cultures, much of Mughal art and architecture exhibits direct Persian influence. The Taj Mahal was built according to Persian garden standards, with added elements of native Indian architectural design. Built in 1648 by the Mughal emperor, Shah Jahan, the monumental tomb of the Taj Mahal sits at the end of an enormous chahar bagh garden. 81 Although the garden is no longer in its original condition, the massive, multi-storied monument rises up from a platform, with fenestration that allows one to view the entirety of the garden from its proud heights. 82 Several 81 Clark, 17. 82 Barbara Brend, Islamic Art (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991), 201. Halsted 38
other Mughal tomb gardens, like that of Jahangir in Lahore replicate this pattern of a raised platform topped by a monumental tomb in the midst of a chahar bagh garden. 83 It is important to note that the Mughals were, like the Safavids, Muslim, but one cannot classify their gardens as purely Islamic. The Taj Mahal, and many other similar Mughal gardens, can join the gardens of Iran in their classification as Perso-Islamic.
83 Clark, 17. Halsted 39
Figure 1. Ruins of stone rills, Cyrus’ garden at Pasargadae, 7 th century BCE, Pasargadae, Fars, Iran.
Halsted 40
Figure 2. View approaching raised terrace of Persepolis, 6 th century BCE, Persepolis, Fars, Iran.
Halsted 41
Figure 3. Tomb of Darius, 6 th century BCE, Persepolis, Fars, Iran.
Halsted 42
Figure 4. Simulation of Cyrus’ garden at Pasargadae exhibiting quadripartite division.
Halsted 43
Figure 5. Diagram of qanat system
Halsted 44
Figure 6. Painted Vessel, 1000 BCE, Isfahan, Museum of Iranian Antiquities, Tehran, Iran.
Halsted 45
Figure 7. Painted Bowl, 7 th century BCE, Azerbaijan, Museum of Iranian Antiquities, Tehran, Iran.
Halsted 46
Figure 8. Chahar bagh garden design.
Halsted 47
Figure 9. Court of the Lions, the Alhambra, 1362-1391, Granada, Spain.
Halsted 48
Figure 10. Maidan-i Naqsh-i Jahan, 16 th century, Isfahan, Iran.
Halsted 49
Figure 11. Ali Qapu Palace, 1609, Maidan-i Naqsh-i Jahan, Isfahan, Iran. Halsted 50
Figure 12. Plan of Chahar Bagh Boulevard, 17 th century, Isfahan, Iran. Halsted 51
Figure 13. Hasht Behesht, 1670, Isfahan, Iran.
Halsted 52
Figure 14. Detail of wall painting, Hasht Behesht pavilion interior, 1670, Isfahan, Iran.
Halsted 53
Figure 15. Chihil Sutun, 1647, Isfahan, Iran.
Halsted 54
Figure 16. Lion carving on base of column, 1647, Chihil Sutun, Isfahan, Iran.
Halsted 55
Figure 17. Relief carving of lion attacking bull, 6 th century BCE, Persepolis, Fars, Iran.
Halsted 56
Figure 18. Relief carvings of Achaemenid flower, 6 th century BCE, Persepolis, Iran.
Halsted 57
Figure 19. Achaemenid flower spout, 1647, Chihil Sutun, Isfahan, Iran.
Halsted 58
Figure 20. Detail of painted tile work, 1629, Masjid-i Shah, Isfahan, Iran. Halsted 59
Figure 21. Plan of Bagh-i Takht, 17 th century, Shiraz, Iran.
Halsted 60
Figure 22. Bagh-i Eram, 1795, Shiraz, Iran.
Halsted 61
Figure 23. Bagh-i Irani, 2010, Tehran, Iran.
Halsted 62
Figure 24. Scholars and theologians meeting at Bagh-i Irani, 2013, Tehran, Iran.
Halsted 63
Figure 25. Taj Mahal, 1648 CE, Agra, India.
Halsted 64
Bibilography Afshar, Eraj. Iranian Carpets. Terhran, Iran: Jamal Honar Publishing. 2013. Al-Ghazali. Translated by Aaron Spevack. Ghazali on the Principles of Islamic Spirituality. Woodstock, VT: Skylight Paths Publishing. 2012. Armajani, Yahya. Iran. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. 1972. Boyce, Mary. Zoroastrians. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 1979. Brend, Barbara. Islamic Art. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 1991. Brookes, John. Gardens of Paradise. New Amsterdam, NY: The Meredith Press. 1987. Carroll, Maureen. Earthly Paradises. London, UK: The British Museum Press. 2003. Clark, Emma. The Art of the Islamic Garden. Wiltshire, England: The Crowood Press Ltd. Daniel, Elton. The History of Iran. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. 2001. Duchensne-Guillemin, Jacques. Symbols and Values in Zoroastrianism. New York, NY: Harper and Row. 1966. Eshrati, Parastoo. Interview by Author. Personal Interview. Tehran, Iran. July 6 2013. Garthwaite, Gene. The Persians. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 2005. Hanachi, Pirooz. Interview by author. Personal Interview. Tehran, Iran. June 17, 2013. Herzfeld, Ernst. Iran in the Ancient East: Archaeological Studies Presented in the Lowell
Hoag, John. Islamic Architecture. New York, NY: Harry N. Abrams, Inc. 1977. Halsted 65
Hobhouse, Penelope Gardens of Persia. Hong Kong, China: Kale Press, Inc. 2004. Hobhouse, Penelope. The Story of Gardening. New York, NY: Dorling Kindersley Publishers Ltd. 2001. Hoexter, Miriam. The Public Sphere in Muslim Societies. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 2002. Jackson, Peter. The Timurid and Safavid Periods . Vol. 6 of The Cambridge History of Iran. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 1986. Javahiran, Faryar. Iranian Gardens: Ancient Philosophy, New Perspectives. Tehran, Iran : The Museum of Contemporary Iranian Art. 2004. Khansari, Medi. Mohammad Reza Moghtader. Menush Yavari. Bagh-haye Irani: Baztabi az
Kleiner, Fred. Gardner’s Art Through the Ages. Wadsworth, BA: Cengage Learning. 2008. Lehrman, Jonas. Earthly Paradise: Gardens and courtyard in Islam. Berkeley, CA. University of California Press. 1980. Naima, Gholam Reza. Bagh-i Irani (Iranian Gardens). Tehran, Iran: Payam Publishing. 2011. Nassiri Javad. The Persian Carpet. Terhran, Iran: Mirdashti Publication. 2010. Porter, Yves. Palaces and Gardens of Persia. Paris, France: Flammarion. 2003. Rezaeian, Farzin. Iran: Seven Faces of a Civilization. Toronto, Canada: Sunrise Visual Innovations Ltd. 2007. Ross, Denison. The Persians. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 1931. Halsted 66
Ruggles, D. Fairchild. Islamic Gardens and Landscapes. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. 2008. Schimmel, Annemarie. Islam: An Introduction. New York, NY: State University of New York Press. 1992. Shahcheraghi, Azadeh. Paradigms of Paradise. 3 rd edition. Tehran, Iran: Jahad Daneshgahi. 2012. Vreeland, Herbert. Iran. New Haven, CT: Human Relations Area Files. 1957. Wilber, Donald. Persian Gardens and Garden Pavilions. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. 1979.
Zangheri, Luigi. Il Giardino Islamico. Translated from Italian to Farsi by Majid Rasekhi and Farhad Tehrani. Tehran, Iran: Cultural Research Bureau. 2006. Download 315.59 Kb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
|