Skills and Style in Heritage: The Woodworker Faḫr al-Dīn and his Son ʿAlī in the Mazandaran (Iran, ca. 1440-1500)
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
EURASIAN Studies 15 (2017) 283-303
brill.com/eurs
Skills and Style in Heritage: The Woodworker
Faḫr al-Dīn and his Son ʿAlī in the Mazandaran
(Iran, ca. 1440-1500)
Sandra Aube
CNRS UMR7528 Mondes iranien et indien, Paris
sandra.aube.lorain@gmail.com
Abstract
In the region of Mazandaran (Northern Iran) is preserved an outstanding corpus of
wooden works associated with fifteenth-century tomb-towers. A large portion of these
wooden panels bear the signature of a woodworker (or “carpenter”, najjār). These con-
stitute a significant resource for the study of woodworking and woodworkers. This
article presents two woodworkers from this exceptional corpus: Master Faḫr al-Dīn
and his son, Master ʿAlī. The first is recorded in Sārī around the 840s/1440s, the latter
in Bābul and Bābulsar between 876/1471-2 and 906/1500. Through an analysis of their
remaining works of art, this article examines the stylistic evolution of these two crafts-
men and the transmission of skills and models through a professional and familial
regional network.
* This paper follows a talk given during the second Congrès du GIS “Moyen-Orient et Mondes
musulmans”, held in Paris in July 2017, as part of the panel organized by the DYNTRAN pro-
gram: “Dynamics of Transmission: Families, Authority and Knowledge in the Early Modern
Middle East (15th-17th centuries)” cofounded by the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche
(ANR) and the German Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) (ANR-14-FRAL-0009-01).
I am deeply indebted to Ehsan Shavarebi as well as to Viola Allegranzi, Maxime Durocher,
Francis Richard, Maria Szuppe and Bulle Tuil Leonetti for their remarks on specific points in
this paper. A shorter preliminary version of this article is published online: Aube, Sandra, “A
Family of Woodworkers. The work of Master Faḫr al-Dīn and his son ʿAlī in the Māzandarān
(Iran, end 15th c.)”, DYNTRAN Working Paper, 25 (June 2017), online edition: http://dyntran
.hypotheses.org/1886 (last access: August 28th, 2017).
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/24685623-12340039
Downloaded from Brill.com10/29/2020 01:04:07AM
via free access
284 Aube
Keywords
Mazandaran – craftsmanship – woodworking – family networks – transmission of
models – Sārī – Bābul – Bābulsar – fifteenth century
The woodworkers’ milieu in medieval Iran is little known to us. Unlike cal-
ligraphers or architects, woodworkers usually do not appear in biographical
or other Persian sources. Many wooden works of art have now vanished, and
woodworkers’ corporations have been little studied.1 In this context, the re-
markable corpus of wooden works found in the province of Mazandaran
(Northern Iran) provides new perspectives and suggests that the corporation
benefited from an improved status during this period.
About forty mausoleums dating from the Mar ʿašī (ca. 760/1359-second half
of the sixteenth century) and Bāduspānid (late eleventh to sixteenth centuries)
dynasties are still standing in Mazandaran.2 Many of these tombs housed
wooden cenotaphs and doors; and about thirty wooden furniture pieces have
already been identified, dating from the fifteenth or early sixteenth century.
Problematically, most of these mausoleums have been restored or rebuilt over
1 Few studies exist on Iranian woodworkers; see however: Smith, Myron Bement, “The Wood
Mimbar in the Masd̲ ji̲ d-i D̲ j̲amiʿ, Nāʿīn”, Ars Islamica, V (1938): pp. 21-35; Mayer, Leo Ary,
Islamic Woodcarvers and Their Works (Geneva: Albert Kundig, 1958); Curatola, Giovanni,
“Some Ilkhanid Woodwork from the Area of Sultaniyya”, Islamic Art, II (1987): pp. 97-116; or
more recently Gierlichs, Joachim, “Tabrizi Woodcarving in Timurid Iran”, in Pfeiffer, Judith
(ed.), Politic, Patronage and the Transmission of Knowledge in 13th-15th Century Tabriz (Leiden:
Brill, 2014): pp. 357-70.
2 The study of the Mazandarani “tomb-towers” is the aim of my current research; for prelimi-
nary results, see especially: Aube, Sandra, “Le mausolée Zeyn al-ʿĀbedin à Sāri: Contribution
à l’étude des tours-tombeaux du Māzanderān au XV e siècle”, StIr, XLIV/1 (2015): pp. 33-54,
and Aube, Sandra, “Le mausolée d’Āqā Shāh Bāluzāde à Āhudasht (Iran). Architecture et dé-
cors des structures funéraires dans le Māzanderān au XV e siècle”, StIr [forthcoming, 2018].
A catalog of the monuments of Mazanderan was published by Sutūda, Manūčihr, Az Āstārā
tā Astārbād, 7 vols. (Tehran: Anjumān-i as̱ār-i millī, 1349-66š./1970-88). See also Rabino,
Hyacinthe Louis, Mázandarán and Astarábád. Safar-nāma-yi Māzandarān va Āstarābād
(London: Luzac & Co, 1928); Šāyān, ʿAbbās, Māzandarān: jūġrafīyah-i tārīḫī wa īqtīṣadī
(Tehran: Čāpḫāna-yi Mūsavī, 1336š./1957): pp. 301-2; Miškātī, Nuṣratullāh, Fihrist-i banāhā-yi
tārīḫī va amākin-i bāstānī-yi Īrān (Tehran: Sāzmān-i millī-yi ḥifāżat-i as̱ar-i bāstānī-yi Īrān,
1349š./1970); Hillenbrand, Robert, “The Tomb Towers of Iran to 1550” (PhD dissertation,
University of Oxford, Trinity College, 1974): pp. 336-96; and the entries authored by Robert
Hillenbrand in Golombek, Lisa, and Wilber, Donald, The Timurid Architecture of Iran and
Turan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988): I, pp. 429-44.
EurasianDownloaded
Studiesfrom
15Brill.com10/29/2020
(2017) 283-303 01:04:07AM
via free access
Skills and Style in Heritage 285
the last decades, and many of the wooden panels have been dismantled or
have disappeared.3 Despite this complicated situation, this corpus constitutes
a remarkable source for the study of wooden productions. More than forty dif-
ferent craftsmen’s names appear on the wooden monumental inscriptions,
and most of them belong to woodworkers (or “carpenter”, najjār).4
This paper traces two generations of master (ustād) woodworkers: Ustād
Faḫr al-Dīn b. Ustād ʿAlī and his son, Ustād ʿAlī b. Ustād Faḫr al-Dīn b. Ustād
ʿAlī. Three pieces of their work have been identified: one wooden door made by
Faḫr al-Dīn and two doors signed by Ustād ʿAlī at different stages of his career.
The case of this family is of great interest for understanding the legacy of a
master, Faḫr al-Dīn, as it was passed on to his son and disciple, ʿAlī. The work
of the latter also gives us a rare opportunity to analyze the evolution of a single
woodworker over the course of his professional life. This paper thus presents
their works consecutively, introducing new readings of inscriptions, as well as
dating and analysis of their carved work. Through a comparative approach, the
final discussion here will encompass the regional transmission of skills and
models through a professional and familial network.
3 Several vanished wooden panels are fortunately known to us from descriptions in the
few studies about Mazandarani patrimony, although they were never photographed. See
among others: Rabino, Mázandarán and Astarábád; Miškātī, Fihrist; Sutūda, Az Āstārā; and
Bivar, Adrian D. H., and Yarshater, Ehsan (eds.), Eastern Māzandarān I Portfolio I, plates 1-72
(London: Lund Humphries, [Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum, Part IV: Persian inscriptions
down to the early Safavid period, vol. VI, Māzandarān province], 1978).
4 The term najjār refers to a “carpenter” or “woodworker”, i.e. “a person who makes and re-
pairs wooden objects and structures” (Oxford English Dictionary). However, the terms
“woodcarver” or “woodworker” are preferred in many publications on the subject (see, among
others: Mayer, Islamic Woodcarvers; Gierlichs, “Tabrizi Woodcarving”; Blair, Sheila, Bloom,
Jonathan, “Signatures on Works of Islamic Art and Architecture”, Damaszener Mitteilungen,
XI [1999]: pp. 49-66; Tabbaa, Yasser, “Originality and Innovation in Syrian Woodwork of the
Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries”, in Talmon-Heller, Daniella, and Cytryn-Silverman, Katia
[eds.], Material Evidence and Narrative Sources. Interdisciplinary Studies of the History of the
Muslim Middle East [Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2015]: pp. 188-215). We know little of the hierarchy
that may have existed among these craftsmen: which type of craftsman would have been in
charge of the heavy work on these wooden structures and furniture pieces, and which would
have designed or sculpted their decorations? Consequently, I have chosen to use the term
“woodworker” here because it has a broader meaning than “woodcarver”.
Eurasian Studies 15 (2017) 283-303 Downloaded from Brill.com10/29/2020 01:04:07AM
via free access
286 Aube
The Work of Faḫr al-Dīn b. Ustād ʿAlī Najjār in Sārī
The name of the woodworker Faḫr al-Dīn b. Ustād ʿAlī is recorded in a mauso-
leum nowadays known as Imāmzāda Yāḥyā in Sārī. The monument was dedi-
cated to the children of the Imam Mūsā al-Kāẓim: Yāḥyā, Ḥusayn and Sakīna.5
It is a circular brick tomb-tower, surmounted by an inner cupola and an exter-
nal pyramidal roof (twelve sides); a modern prayer hall is currently attached to
the medieval tomb-tower.6
The mausoleum is undated, but it once contained a group of wooden furni-
ture pieces dating back to the years 846-9/1442-6. Among these wooden panels
was a mashrabiya (panjara) dated to the year 846/1442.7 A wooden door in the
Īrān Bāstān Museum in Tehran (inv. 1135/3308) displays the same date and sig-
nature (ʿamal-i Ustād Ḥasan [or Ḥusayn?]-i Ustād Muḥammad al-Najjār Gīl);8
consequently, it is assumed to have originated from the same monument. The
wooden cenotaph of the mausoleum was sculpted in 849/1445-6. Its inscrip-
tion records the patron’s name, Ḫwāja al-Ḥasan al-Gīlānī, and indicates that the
woodworker(s)9 worked alongside a calligrapher named Faḫr al-Dīn Muṭahhar
5 According to Rabino, Mázandarán and Astarábád: p. 55; Bronstein, Leo, “Decorative
Woodwork of the Islamic period”, in Pope, Arthur Upham (dir.), A Survey of Persian Art: From
Prehistoric Times to the Present (Ashiya/Tehran: SOPA/Soroush Press, 1981 [1st ed. 1938]): VI,
p. 2622 n. 3/7; and Šāyān, Māzandarān: pp. 301-2, their names were given on the cenotaph
inside the building. Godard mentions another inscription giving these three names, but
Hillenbrand expresses doubts about this; see Godard, André, “Les coupoles”, Athār-é Īrān, IV
(1949): n. 15 p. 314, and Hillenbrand, “Tomb Towers”: pp. 380-1.
6 Concerning the architectural features of this building, see Rabino, Mázandarán and
Astarábád: p. 55 (brief description), Miškātī, Fihrist: p. 184; Hillenbrand, “Tomb Towers”:
pp. 380-1.
7 Bivar and Yarshater, Eastern Māzandarān: p. 8.
8 The signature on the mashrabiya was deciphered as belonging to two different craftsmen:
Ustād Ḥusayn Najjār and Ustād Muḥammad Najjār-i Gīl (according to Rabino, Mázandarán
and Astarábád: p. 22 [Persian text], Mayer, Islamic Woodcarvers: pp. 40-1, Bivar and Yarshater,
Eastern Māzandarān: p. 8, O’Kane, Bernard, Timurid Architecture in Khurasan [Costa Mesa:
Mazdâ Publishers, in assoc. with Undena Publications, 1987]: p. 375 no. 37). No image of this
wooden panel is available to confirm this reading. However, the inscription on the wooden
door clearly gives one single name instead of a co-signature. For an illustration of this wood-
en door, see The Arts of Islam. Hayward Gallery, 8 April-4 July 1976 [Catalog of exhibition]
(London: The Arts Council of Great Britain, 1976): cat. 458 p. 292.
9 Rabino and Mayer deciphered the names of two different woodworkers, Ustād Ḥusayn
Najjār and Ustād Muḥammad Najjār-i Gīl, instead of one single name as on the aforemen-
tioned wooden door (Rabino, Mázandarán and Astarábád: p. 22 [Persian text]; Mayer,
Islamic Woodcarvers: pp. 40-1; Bivar and Yarshater, Eastern Māzandarān: p. 8). This is
EurasianDownloaded
Studiesfrom
15Brill.com10/29/2020
(2017) 283-303 01:04:07AM
via free access
Skills and Style in Heritage 287
b. ʿAbdullāh al-Dāʿī al-Āmulī.10 It is interesting to highlight the point that the
protagonists involved in these three wooden pieces are clearly related to the
region of the Southern Caspian Sea (see their nisbas: Sāravī, Āmulī, Gīlānī),
indicating the strong regional aspect of this production.
The interior of the mausoleum of Imāmzāda Yāḥyā has been completely
transformed: the inner architectural decoration is modern, and all the wood-
en panels were removed from this mausoleum. However, an undated wood-
en door is still standing inside the building (Fig. 1). The door is found at the
entrance to the tomb-tower itself. It is composed of two symmetrical leaves.
Its decoration follows the traditional pattern of Mazandarani wooden doors
made during this period: each leaf is composed of three decorative panels (one
large in the central register and two smaller ones at the top and bottom) sur-
rounded by a network of borders. The two panels at the bottom (Fig. 2, panel
D) give the following inscription, written in Naskhi:11
ن ن ن ت � ف�خ
ع�م�ل�را �ل�د�ي� �ب� ا ����س���ا د ع��لى ج��ا ر
ت ن
ح ب���ه ر��س� ا � نب� � ظ����ا
�ص
�
م م
(1) Work of Faḫr al-Dīn, son of Master ʿAlī the Woodworker
(2) Rustam, son of Niẓām, is the owner
The Arabic ṣāḥibuhu Rustam ibn Niẓām can be also understood as “Rustam,
son of Niẓām, is the patron”.12 This door is the only known evidence of Faḫr
al-Dīn b. Ustād ʿAlī’s work. His signature indicates that his father was a master
also (ustād). His work is not dated but my analysis of the remaining pieces of
work, below, leads me to date it around the years 846-9/1442-6.
The design that Faḫr al-Dīn created is typical of fifteenth-century wood-
working productions in Mazandaran. The main central panel is ornamented
with a large floral medallion filled with floral designs. The background of the
medallion shows a “fishscale” pattern (Fig. 2, panel B). The upper panel is
astonishing because one single name can clearly be read on the wooden door (see above,
note 8). Unfortunately, the reading of the cenotaph’s inscription cannot be verified.
10 Bivar and Yarshater, Eastern Māzandarān: p. 8; see also: Miškātī, Fihrist: p. 184.
11 Šāyān, Māzandarān: p. 301, Bivar and Yarshater, Eastern Māzandarān: p. 8.
12 Bivar and Yarshater, Eastern Māzandarān: p. 8. This formula leads the authors to hypoth-
esize that the door could have been brought from a private residence in order to replace
the original doors, transferred to the museum. In any case, such a formula, without any
qualifier, is quite unusual in a funerary context.
Eurasian Studies 15 (2017) 283-303 Downloaded from Brill.com10/29/2020 01:04:07AM
via free access
288 Aube
ornamented by a frieze of tripartite arches overlaying a background pattern
of trefoil flowers with bilobed petals (Fig. 2, panel C). Although almost com-
pletely absent from the decorative repertoires of Timurid and Turkmen archi-
tecture, this kind of bilobed petals flower is employed almost systematically in
Mazandarani floral compositions. Finally, the borders framing the three main
panels form two interlaced braids with knots (Fig. 2, panels A, B’, C’ and D’).
This type of border is the most frequently executed pattern in the woodwork-
ing repertoire throughout the fifteenth century and up to the beginning of the
sixteenth.
In the modern reorganization of the building, a wooden mashrabiya has
been placed above this undated wooden door (see Fig. 1). The central panel of
this mashrabiya records restoration works undertaken in 1353š./1974-5 while
this central panel was presumably sculpted at this time, the bottom panels are
related to the fifteenth century. This part presents two panels with a frieze of
tripartite arches beneath an openwork scroll with palmette leaves: the general
composition is quite similar to the one seen on the undated door (see Fig. 2,
panel C). The window also features two kinds of borders: a trefoil frieze and a
two-stem braid. Both are typical of the Mazandarani repertoire. The two bot-
tom panels of the window frame a vertical inscription:
��م�د �ز ا د � � تا �خ ����سن����ة �ت��س ا ��ع�� ن ث�� م�ا ن�� م�ا ئ�ة
ا �م ه ا ����ست���ا د �ع�ز ا �ل�د � ن � ن د � ش�� حم
� �� �� و ر ب ی� و �
ع �ر ي� فی ری � ی� ب� روی ر
Ordered [by] Ustād ʿIzz al-Dīn son of Darvīš Muḥammad Zarrādī in the
year eight hundred and forty-nine13
The inscription thus clearly dates from the year 849/1445-6. It delivers con-
textual elements to most of the associated panels of this wooden window –
although it is worth recalling that the general composition of the window was
recently restructured. Considering that the mashrabiya and the undated door
present some similar panels, and that all recorded wooden works associated
13 The first reading of this inscription was done by Ehsan Shavarebi in 2017. I am deeply
indebted to him for the photos he took of this wooden panel in May 2017. It is worth
emphasizing how unusual this inscription is, since it suggests that the craftsman himself
ordered the window. I am grateful to Francis Richard for having indicated me that the
formula amarahu appears also in colophons of manuscripts. He also pointed the am-
biguous understanding of zarrādī, which could refer to a geographical origin (but a place
called Zarrād has not been localized) or to a professional nickname (i.e. the armourer).
(Personal communication, September 2017).
EurasianDownloaded
Studiesfrom
15Brill.com10/29/2020
(2017) 283-303 01:04:07AM
via free access
Skills and Style in Heritage 289
Figure 1 Undated wooden door signed Figure 2 Imāmzāda Yāḥyā in
by Ustād Faḫr al-Dīn b. Ustād Sārī: Decorative scheme
ʿAlī, Imāmzāda Yāḥyā in Sārī. of the door signed by
© courtesy of ehsan the woodworker Faḫr
shavarebi 2017. al-Dīn b. Ustād ʿAlī,
ca. 846-9/1442-6.
© Sandra Aube 2017.
with the monument are dated around the years 846-849/1442-6, one could sug-
gest dating Faḫr al-Dīn’s door to the same phase of production. Consequently,
this establishes that Faḫr al-Dīn b. Ustād ʿAlī was active ca. 846-9/1442-6.
The Wooden Work of Ustād ʿAlī b. Ustād Faḫr al-Dīn Najjār
The woodworker Ustād ʿAlī, son of Ustād Faḫr al-Dīn b. Ustād ʿAlī, is known for
having signed two wooden doors. His case is interesting since these two doors
illustrate two stages of his career: the first one in 876/1471-2 and the second in
906/1500.
Sulṭān Muḥammad Ṭāḥir b. Mūsā Mausoleum in Bābul
The first door appears in Bābul, on the mausoleum nowadays known as
Imāmzāda of Sulṭān Muḥammad Ṭāḥir b. Mūsā (Fig. 3). This building is an
octagonal tomb-tower surmounted by an inner cupola and an external pyramidal
Eurasian Studies 15 (2017) 283-303 Downloaded from Brill.com10/29/2020 01:04:07AM
via free access
290 Aube
roof.14 Its type belongs to a well identified group of Mazandarani tomb-towers
of the fifteenth century.15 Inside the monument is a wooden cenotaph, now cov-
ered by a large sheet of cloth. But in the early twentieth century Rabino was able
to record the text inscribed on the tomb. According to his reading, it established
the long chain of patrons related to the building: Amīr Murtażā al-Ḥusaynī, then
Amīr Muḥammad al-Ḥusaynī, and his sons, ʿAbd al-Karīm and ʿAbd al-Raḥīm.
The inscription indicated that the tomb (qabr) was ordered by Amīr Riżā al-Dīn
al-Ḥusaynī, and that the architect (miʿmār) was Ustād Mawlānā Šams al-Dīn b.
Naṣrullāh al-Muṭahharī. It ended with the date 875/1470-1.16
The mausoleum has two wooden doors, of which only the side door is origi-
nal. This door is composed of two symmetrical leaves. Its decoration follows the
traditional scheme of Mazandarani wooden doors made during this period. An
inscription has been placed between the upper and middle registers (Fig. 4, panel
E). It is constituted of two horizontal bands (one on each leaf) in Naskhi script:
�ع�م� ا ����ست���ا د ع�� � ن ا ����ست���ا د ف��خ ا ��د � ن ن��ا ا �� ����سن����ة ����س� ت ����س���ع�� ن ث�� م�ا ن�� م�ا ئ�ة
� �� �� � و ب ي� و ر ل ی� ج ر ر ضی �لی ب ل
ّٰ ن ت
� �م لا ن�ا �ش�����م�� ا �ل�د � ن �ذ
�صرا �ل��ل�ه �م���ط�هر�ى
��� �ي س �م�ع���م�ا ر �ه� ا ا �ل�ع���م�ا ر و
(1) Work of Master ʿAlī son of Master Faḫr al-Dīn the willing (?) wood-
worker (najjār-i rāżī) in the year eight hundred seventy-six
(2) The architect of this building [is] Mawlānā Šams al-Dīn Naṣrullāh
Muṭahharī
The signature of Ustād ʿAlī establishes that he is the son of the woodworker
Faḫr al-Dīn. This first evidence of his work dates back to the year 876/1471-2.17
His work on this wooden door traces back to the original construction project
14 For a presentation of the architecture of the mausoleum of Sulṭān Muḥammad Ṭāḥir b.
Mūsā in Bābul, see Šāyān, Māzandarān: pp. 296-7; Miškātī, Fihrist: p. 181; Hillenbrand,
“Tomb Towers”: pp. 354-6; Golombek and Wilber, Timurid Architecture: I, pp. 435-6.
15 An introduction to this octagonal group is given in Aube, “Le mausolée d’Āqā Shāh
Bāluzāde”.
16 Rabino, Mázandarán and Astarábád: n. 76 p. 159 and pp. 18-9 (Persian text) and Miškātī,
Fihrist: p. 181. Hillenbrand read the year as 873/1468-9 (in Golombek and Wilber, Timurid
Architecture: I, p. 435).
17 It is worth mentioning that the date of the following inscription was read in very dif-
ferent ways: it was read 872/1467-8 by Hillenbrand in Golombek and Wilber, Timurid
Architecture: I, p. 435; the year 875/1470-1 was read in Mayer, Islamic Woodcarvers: p. 119
and O’Kane, Timurid Architecture: p. 379 no. 73; while 896/1490 was read by Miškātī,
Fihrist: p. 181. I am greatly indebted to Viola Allegranzi and to Bulle Tuil-Leonetti for their
help in deciphering the date of this inscription.
EurasianDownloaded
Studiesfrom
15Brill.com10/29/2020
(2017) 283-303 01:04:07AM
via free access
Skills and Style in Heritage 291
Figure 3 Door of the Figure 4 Bābul, Imāmzāda
Imāmzāda Sulṭān Sulṭān Muḥammad
Muḥammad Ṭāḥir b. Ṭāḥir b. Mūsā:
Mūsā in Bābul. Decorative scheme of
© Sandra Aube the door signed by the
2014. woodworker Ustād
ʿAlī b. Ustād Faḫr al-
Dīn in 876/1471-2
© Sandra Aube
2017.
of the building, directed by the architect Šams al-Dīn b. Naṣrullāh al-Muṭahharī;
only one year separates the completion of the two wooden works associated
with this monument. Perhaps it is possible that Ustād ʿAlī might have sculpted
the cenotaph, too; however, because of the lack of images, it is not possible to
propose any stylistic comparison.
The wooden door that Ustād ʿAlī produced in Bābul illustrates the style of
Mazandarani wooden productions well. Its main register is composed of a geo-
metrical panel centered on a ten-pointed star (Fig. 4, panel B). The upper panel
is ornamented with a different geometrical network (Fig. 4, panel C). Both net-
works are filled with a fine openwork vegetal and floral decoration. The bottom
panel is structured by a series of four-lobed medallions, whose lines are thinly
incised (Fig. 4, panel D). This composition is filled with a vegetal decoration, in
the same style as the filling of the geometrical panels. It also recalls the lower
panels that Ustād ʿAlī designed later in Bābulsar (Fig. 6, panel D).
Different kinds of borders are used all around these three main registers.
This door has been repainted so many times that it is sometimes difficult to
recognize the original motif. But a thin frieze composed of two interlaced
Eurasian Studies 15 (2017) 283-303 Downloaded from Brill.com10/29/2020 01:04:07AM
via free access292 Aube
braids with knots can be identified around each panel (Fig. 4, panels B’ and C’).
A frieze of trefoil flowers with bilobed petals separates the bottom and middle
registers (Fig. 4, panel F). This trefoil flower frieze is also very widespread in
the repertoire of the Mazandaran region during the fifteenth and early six-
teenth centuries. Friezes of two interlaced braids frame the whole door (Fig. 4,
panel A).
Ibrāhīm Abū Javāb Mausoleum in Bābulsar
Thirty years later, Ustād ʿAlī signed another wooden door in Bābulsar (Fig. 5),
located about twenty kilometers north of Bābul. The mausoleum, now known
as Imāmzāda of Ibrāhīm Abū Javāb, is an octagonal tomb-tower with a pyrami-
dal roof. It belongs to the same architectural type as the mausoleum of Sulṭān
Muḥammad Ṭāḥir b. Mūsā in Bābul.18 The monument has been largely trans-
formed in recent decades, especially by the adjunction of a vast modern prayer
hall surrounding the original tomb-tower.
Inside this mausoleum, four pairs of wooden doors once bore witness to
two phases of patronage, but only the earliest survives (Fig. 7).19 The north-
ern, eastern and western doors were ordered by Sayyid ʿAzīz b. Sayyid Šams
al-Dīn, member of the Bābulkānī family, between 841/1437 and 858/1454.
They were all signed by a woodworker named Ustād Muḥammad b. Ustād ʿAlī
Najjār-i Rāżī. In 905/1499, Sayyida Bībī Fiżża Ḫātūn bint Amīr Sāʿid ordered a
door for the southern entrance of the mausoleum. This door was cosigned by
two woodworkers named, according to Rabino, Ḥasan b. Ustād Bāyazīd Najjār
and ʿAlī b. Ustād Ismāʿīl Najjār bi-Rāżī.20 It was still standing at the beginning
of the twentieth century, but it had already been replaced by August 1968.21
Sayyida Bībī Fiżża Ḫātūn also ordered another door, which interests us specifi-
cally. This fifth wooden door was formerly in a building adjacent to the tomb-
tower. The monument was already in ruins at the beginning of the twentieth
century.22 It has now vanished and the door has been replaced alongside the
18 Concerning this type, see Aube, “Le mausolée d’Āqā Shāh Bāluzāde”. For a description
of this mausoleum, see Rabino, Mázandarán and Astarábád: pp. 46-7 (who erroneously
describes a round tower with a conical roof), Hillenbrand, “Tomb Towers”: pp. 350-3, and
id. in Golombek and Wilber, Timurid Architecture: I, pp. 436-7 and II, fig. 158.
19 About these wooden doors, see Rabino, Mázandarán and Astarábád: p. 19-21 (Persian
text); Bronstein, “Decorative Woodwork”: p. 2622 n. 3/2; Šāyān, Māzandarān: pp. 298-
9; Mayer, Islamic Woodcarvers: pp. 39, 55-6; Miškātī, Fihrist: p. 180 (mentioned briefly);
Hillenbrand, “Tomb Towers”: pp. 351-2; Id., in Golombek and Wilber, Timurid Architecture:
I, pp. 436-7; O’Kane, Timurid Architecture: p. 375 no. 31 and p. 382 no. 106.
20 The Arabo-Persian text is given in Rabino, Mázandarán and Astarábád: p. 20 (Persian part).
21 After Rabino, Mázandarán and Astarábád: p. 47, and Hillenbrand, “Tomb Towers”: p. 352.
22 See Rabino, Mázandarán and Astarábád: p. 47.
EurasianDownloaded
Studiesfrom
15Brill.com10/29/2020
(2017) 283-303 01:04:07AM
via free accessSkills and Style in Heritage 293
main mausoleum (Figs. 5, 6). The original wooden door contains the following
inscription, written in Naskhi:23
ن �ن �ة ف �ة ا � �ش ف �ة ع��ل � �ة �ذ
� �ه خ��ا ت�و� ب��� ت� ا �مي��ر�ص�ا ع�د ح� �ض�� ر ����سي���د ب���ی�بی ����ض ب�ا �نی �ه� ا ا �ل�ع���م�ا ر ل�� ر�ي����� ي��ا
� ن����ة �مث��وا ه
�ي� ط�ا � ث�را ه و ج� ��ع� ب ج � ��س��ل��ط�ا ن الا �ع���ظ� ��س��ل��ط�ا ن ا �م�� �ش�����م�� ا �ل�د � ن ح
ل ب � ير س م � رم
���ت���ه ا ح�م�د � ن � ن ن ن ن ت ن ت ف�خ ت �
���ح��سي �ب ع�م�ل ا ����س���ا د ع��لى �ب� ا ����س���ا د �را �ل�د�ي� �ب� ا ����س���ا د ع��لى ج��ا ر�ك ب
حرا ����سن����ة ����س� ت� و�ت��س�ع���م�ا ��ة �جه
�ر�ة ا �ل��ن��بو��ة ع��لي��ه ا �ل��س�لا ف�ى �ش����ه م
�حر ا �ل
�
م ي ي ر م م
(1) The builder of this high noble building is Her Excellency Sayyida Bībī
Fiżża Ḫātūn daughter of Amīr Ṣāʿid
(2) Wife of the Supreme Sultan Amīr Sulṭān Šams al-Dīn – may he be wel-
comed and rest in Paradise –
(3) Work of Master ʿAlī son of Master Faḫr al-Dīn son of Master ʿAlī the
Woodworker, written by Aḥmad son of Ḥusayn
(4) [Completed] in the sacred month of Muḥarram of the year nine hun-
dred and six of the Hegira of the Prophet, Peace be upon Him
In Muḥarram 906/August 1500, the woodworker Ustād ʿAlī worked with a cal-
ligrapher named Aḥmad b. Ḥusayn. Their shared signatures give an example
of a team of craftsmen and illustrate the division of this type of work.24 It is
interesting to note that Ustād ʿAlī specifies his genealogy, establishing that his
grandfather was a master (ustād), too, and bore the same name. Hence, this
signature confirms the complete genealogy that was already given by his fa-
ther, Faḫr al-Dīn, in Sārī.
The general composition of the door that Ustād ʿAlī completed in Bābulsar is
quite similar to the one he used for the Bābul door. The central and top panels
are decorated with a geometrical network: the middle one is centered around
a ten-pointed star (Fig. 6, panel B), and the second one is based on an unusual
four-pointed star (Fig. 6, panel C). All networks are filled with the same style
of openwork floral patterns. The two panels at the bottom of the door present
23 The inscription was transcribed by Rabino, Mázandarán and Astarábád: p. 21 (Persian text),
quoted by Kalus, Ludvik (ed.), Thesaurus d’Epigraphie Islamique (Paris/Geneva: Fondation
Max Van Berchem, 2017), online edition: http://www.epigraphie-islamique.org/epi/texte_
acceuil.html (last connection: August 3rd, 2017): no. 13535; an English translation is partly
given by Hillenbrand in Golombek and Wilber, Timurid Architecture: I, pp. 436-7.
24 Collaboration between calligraphers and woodworkers is especially evidenced in Mayer,
Islamic Woodcarvers: p. 18.
Eurasian Studies 15 (2017) 283-303 Downloaded from Brill.com10/29/2020 01:04:07AM
via free access294 Aube
Figure 5 Bābulsar, Imāmzāda Figure 6 Bābulsar, Imāmzāda
of Ibrāhīm Abū Javāb: of Ibrāhīm Abū Javāb:
Wooden door signed by Decorative scheme of the
Ustād ʿAlī b. Ustād Faḫr door signed by Ustād ʿAlī
al-Dīn in 906/1500. b. Ustād Faḫr al-Dīn in
© Sandra Aube 2014. 906/1500.
© Sandra Aube 2017.
Figure 7
Bābulsar, Imāmzāda of
Ibrāhīm Abū Javāb: Wooden
door signed by Ustād
Muḥammad b. Ustād ʿAlī
Najjār-i Rāżī in 841/1437.
© SANDRA Aube 2014.
EurasianDownloaded
Studiesfrom
15Brill.com10/29/2020
(2017) 283-303 01:04:07AM
via free accessSkills and Style in Heritage 295
a frieze of tripartite arches, designed with an incised line (Fig. 6, panel D). A
thick floral network with trefoil and bilobed flowers filled this arched decora-
tion. Each panel is framed by friezes of trefoil motifs (Fig. 6, panels C’ and B’).
The outer limits of the door’s leaves are surrounded by another kind of border:
a frieze of two repeated half-leaves facing each other around a central tripar-
tite flower (Fig. 6, panel A).
It is interesting to note the close similarities between Ustād ʿAlī’s door and the
door made in Muḥarram 841/July 1437 by Ustād Muḥammad b. Ustād ʿAlī Najjār-i
Rāżī for the same monument (Fig. 7).25 Both doors display exactly the same central
geometrical network filled with interlacing flowers and leaves (panels B), and the
same frieze of trefoil patterns surrounds both compositions. Beyond the strong re-
gional style, such a comparison emphasizes the coherent decorative program that
certainly organized the whole monument starting with its edification.
A last comparison deserves to be noted between Ustād ʿAlī’s door and the ceno-
taph standing in the mausoleum of Ibrāhīm Abū Javāb (Fig. 8). Unfortunately,
this tomb is enclosed in a cage, thus largely hidden from the public. The images
of it have never been published and it is not possible to decipher the inscrip-
tion surrounding the cenotaph because access to the tomb is too limited. But the
few approachable decorated areas demonstrate close connections with the door
made by Ustād ʿAlī. The trefoil borders are identical, and the vegetal and flower
repertoires display many connections. But the most meaningful relationship is
probably the exact repetition, on the cenotaph, of the geometrical top panel of
the door, with its very specific four-pointed stars (Fig. 8). It is also interesting to
compare the two kinds of interlaced braid friezes employed on the cenotaph,
which were also used in 876/1471-2 on the door that Ustād ʿAlī sculpted in Bābul.
Such connections lead us to wonder whether Ustād ʿAlī b. Ustād Faḫr al-Dīn
Najjār could also be the woodworker who created the wooden cenotaph stand-
ing in the mausoleum of Ibrāhīm Abū Javāb in Bābulsar. Further investigations
on this cenotaph would be necessary to verify this hypothesis.
Skills and Style in Heritage
The signatures of Ustād Faḫr al-Dīn and Ustād ʿAlī enable us to establish at
least three generations of masters. According to Faḫr al-Dīn’s name, his father
25 Bronstein, “Decorative Woodwork”: p. 2622 n. 3/2; Mayer, Islamic Woodcarvers: p. 55;
Šāyān, Māzandarān: pp. 298-9; Miškātī, Fihrist: p. 180; Hillenbrand in Golombek and
Wilber, Timurid Architecture: I, p. 436; id., “Tomb Towers”: pp. 351-2; O’Kane, Timurid
Architecture: p. 375 no. 31. For the reading of the door’s inscription: Rabino, Mázandarán
and Astarábád: pp. 19-20 (Persian text).
Eurasian Studies 15 (2017) 283-303 Downloaded from Brill.com10/29/2020 01:04:07AM
via free access296 Aube
Figure 8
Bābulsar, Imāmzāda of Ibrāhīm Abū
Javāb: Wooden cenotaph.
© SANDRA Aube 2014.
was a craftsman, too (Ustād ʿAlī), whose work remains unknown. Ustād Faḫr
al-Dīn was a woodworker active in Sārī around the 840s/1440s. His son, who
bears the name of his grandfather, is known for having worked in Bābul and
Bābulsar. The two pieces of work he signed document a career of at least 30
years, between 876/1471-2 and 906/1500. Ustād ʿAlī b. Faḫr al-Dīn b. Ustād
ʿAlī could have been born in the 830s/ca. 1425-35 or in the 850s/ca. 1445-55
as well.
Another familial connection might be established with Ustād Muḥammad
b. Ustād ʿAlī Najjār-i Rāżī, who worked for Ibrāhīm Abū Javāb Mausoleum in
Bābulsar prior to Ustād ʿAlī. In 841/1437, he signed a wooden door that intro-
duced the same patterns and composition employed sixty-five years later by
Ustād ʿAlī (see the aforementioned door in Fig. 7). This craftsman proclaims
a similar genealogy to that of Faḫr al-Dīn (b. Ustād ʿAlī Najjār-i Rāżī). His pro-
fessional activity is recorded at least between 841/1437 and 858/1454,26 which
corresponds roughly to the same period as Ustād Faḫr al-Dīn’s career. It is in-
triguing to think that they may have been brothers – although nothing more
specific can confirm such a proposition. In any case, the work of this genera-
tion of woodworkers completely assimilates the local stylistic standards from
Mazandaran.
The work of Ustād Faḫr al-Dīn and Ustād ʿAlī is evidenced in the neigh-
boring towns of Bābul, Bābulsar and Sārī over six decades (ca. the 840s/1440s
to the 900s/1500s). This lineage gives us the opportunity to examine the
transmission of skills and models from masters to disciples. It is not known
whether they constituted a specific atelier or not, but it is interesting to won-
der how much of Ustād ʿAlī’s style was inherited from his father, Faḫr al-Dīn.
Their wooden doors present close stylistic similarities. The general tripartite
26 We have seen above that only one of the three doors made by this craftsman remains.
EurasianDownloaded
Studiesfrom
15Brill.com10/29/2020
(2017) 283-303 01:04:07AM
via free accessSkills and Style in Heritage 297
composition is the same, as on most Mazandarani wooden doors of this pe-
riod. Only panels E and F differ: they repeat the general frame on Faḫr al-Dīn’s
door (Fig. 2, panel A), while they are filled by a different pattern on ʿAlī’s doors
(Fig. 4 and 6, panels E-F). The main central decoration on each of their doors
differs, too: Faḫr al-Dīn’s door is characterized by the central “fishscale” back-
ground pattern (Fig. 2, panel B), while geometrical networks dominate the
decoration of ʿAlī’s doors (Fig. 4 and 6, panels B). Despite these differences,
both use the same repertoire. Both productions, for instance, have a border of
two interlaced braids with knots (see all borders of Fig. 2 and Fig. 4, panels A,
B’ and C’), as well as a repertoire with preeminent trefoil flowers with bilobed
petals (see in particular on the frieze illustrated in Fig. 4, panel F and Fig. 6,
panels B’, C’, D’). Some of the panels are even repeated exactly: the composi-
tion of tripartite arches made of fine incised lines, overlaying a background
pattern of trefoil flowers with bilobed petals, is repeated on Faḫr al-Dīn’s door
made ca. 849/1445-6 (Fig. 2, panel C) and on the door that ʿAlī made in 906/1500
(Fig. 6, panel D). The same models were clearly shared and repeated over a
period of about sixty years. Stylistic changes seem to be quite limited.
Additionally, it is interesting to examine the stylistic evolution of one indi-
vidual craftsman over the length of his career. The extant works of Ustād ʿAlī
allow us to compare his style at two different stages of his career. The general
composition is similar on both doors. Their main panels develop very simi-
lar geometrical networks, characterized by unusual ten-pointed stars in the
middle of the composition (Fig. 4 and Fig. 6, panels B). The floral decorations
in the polygons of the networks are also identical on each door. Both doors
repeat the same repertoire, with the same frieze of trefoil flowers (see Fig. 4,
panel F and Fig. 6, panels B’, C’, D’, already quoted). Even the aforementioned
panel with tripartite incised arches on the door sculpted in 906/1500 (Fig. 6,
panel D) – imitated from Faḫr al-Dīn’s door – finds a close parallel in the door
made in 876/1471-2 (Fig. 4, panel D). Octagons replace arches, but there is still
an incised polygon overlaying a background pattern of leaves and flowers.
Ustād ʿAlī b. Ustād Faḫr al-Dīn thus demonstrates a coherent style that does
not evolve much over the course of thirty years. The comparison between his
two wooden doors illustrates how much the decorative models were repeated
over the years. It also illustrates the legacy of his father’s style. Fashionable
models evolved little and were transmitted over generations.
It is important, however, to understand that these models were common to
a large part of the woodworking repertoire used in Mazandaran throughout
the fifteenth century. Developing an individual artistic style is clearly not the
purpose of artistic expression in this context.
For instance, the general tripartite composition of each leaf is common to
all doors made in the region. The extant wooden doors from the mausoleum of
Eurasian Studies 15 (2017) 283-303 Downloaded from Brill.com10/29/2020 01:04:07AM
via free access298 Aube
Qāṣim b. Mūsā in Bābul (sculpted in 890/1495, Fig. 9) or from the mausoleum
of Šāhzāda Ḥusayn in Sārī (896/1490-1, Fig. 10) illustrate this decorative organi-
zation. The inscriptions can be present on panels D, E, F, or even in C.
The “fishscale” pattern seen on Faḫr al-Dīn’s door in Sārī is largely used in the
woodworking repertoire. More than fifty percent of remaining wooden pieces
displays this kind of composition. The examples are numerous (Fig. 10), starting
from 833/1429-30 in Bābul on a cenotaph inside Darvīš Faḫr al-Dīn Mausoleum
(Fig. 11) until 925/1519 on another cenotaph sculpted for the mausoleum of
Ibrāhīm in Āmul.27 Although the “fishscale” composition does not appear in
Ustād ʿAlī’s repertoire, it is however used throughout the fifteenth century and
into the early sixteenth century by other Mazandarani woodworkers. The pat-
tern recalls bookbinding aesthetics – although not as widespread – and the
same motif became fashionable on ceramic ware in the fifteenth century.28
More generally, the repertoire employed by Faḫr al-Dīn and his son is shared
by most of the woodworkers in the region. The “fishscale” background pattern
surrounded by a frieze of two interlaced braids with knots (ex. Fig. 2, panels
A, B’, C’, D’) is for instance repeated on the cenotaphs in Darvīš Faḫr al-Dīn
Mausoleum in Bābul and inside the mausoleum of Ibrāhīm in Āmul,29 as well
as around the central panel of Šāhzāda Ḥusayn’s in Sārī (Fig. 10, panels B and
B’). This knotted frieze is one of the most common features of the Mazandarani
wooden repertoire. The frieze of trefoil flowers with bilobed petals is very
widespread too; it is exemplified on many pieces of wooden furniture, such
as the respective cenotaphs from the mausoleums of Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn, from
the Šāhzāda Ḥusayn’s in Sārī,30 and from the Darvīš Faḫr al-Dīn’s in Bābul
(Fig. 11). This latter also displays a frieze of two interlaced braids, with thinly in-
cised lines (Fig. 11, bottom): a model that is later also employed by Ustād ʿAlī in
Bābul (Fig. 4, panel A). The style of the incised arches and medallions observed
on Ustād Faḫr al-Dīn’s and Ustād ʿAlī’s doors (Fig. 2, panel C, Fig. 4, panel D,
Fig. 6, panel D), is in some ways found in other wooden panels, for example on
the cenotaph inside the mausoleum of Ibrāhīm in Āmul or on the door of Bībī
27 For an image of the cenotaph in Āmul, see Hillenbrand, “Tomb Towers”: pl. 315a.
28 See, specifically, the rims of ceramics in the fifteenth century, which develop such a pattern;
examples are given in Golombek, Lisa, Mason, Robert B., and Bailey, Gauvin A., Tamerlane’s
Tableware. A New Approach to the Chinoiserie Ceramics of Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century
Iran (Costa Mesa/Toronto: Mazda Publishers/Royal Ontario Museum, 1996): see especial-
ly fig. 4.1 p. 61, and for an example pl. 41 p. 200.
29 For later examples of this, see the image in Hillenbrand, “Tomb Towers”: pl. 315a.
30 Both are illustrated in Aube, “Le mausolée Zeyn al-ʿĀbedin à Sāri”: fig. 7-9.
EurasianDownloaded
Studiesfrom
15Brill.com10/29/2020
(2017) 283-303 01:04:07AM
via free accessSkills and Style in Heritage 299
Figure 9 Wooden door, mausoleum Figure 10 Wooden door, mausoleum
of Qāṣim b. Mūsā in Bābul of Šāhzāda Ḥusayn in Sārī
(890/1495). (896/1490-1).
© SANDRA Aube 2014. © SANDRA Aube 2014.
Sakīna in Bābulsar31 (now vanished). Finally, the Mazandarani wooden panels
display a common manner in filling the geometrical networks with interlacing
vegetal motifs (see for instance: the door of Qāṣim b. Mūsā’s Mausoleum in
Bābul, Fig. 9, the cenotaph in the mausoleum of Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn in Sārī,32 or
another door from Ibrāhīm Abū Javāb Mausoleum in Bābulsar, Fig. 7). Wooden
works in Mazandaran share thus a common repertoire over almost a hundred
years. The constant repetition of these patterns well illustrates the transmis-
sion of models over the generations of woodworkers.
Medieval craftsmen have long been considered to have had a rather modest
social status and to have remained mostly anonymous.33 But the remarkable
prevalence of Mazandarani woodworkers’ signatures illustrates the social rec-
ognition of the corporation during this period. It has been demonstrated that
some artists received specific credit in biographical sources when they were
31 See Hillenbrand, “Tomb Towers”: pl. 317b for an illustration of this door.
32 Aube, “Le mausolée Zeyn al-ʿĀbedin à Sāri”: fig. 7-8.
33 Such a statement is today questioned. See among others: Blair, and Bloom, “Signatures on
Works of Islamic Art and Architecture”.
Eurasian Studies 15 (2017) 283-303 Downloaded from Brill.com10/29/2020 01:04:07AM
via free access300 Aube
Figure 11
Cenotaph (detail) in the mausoleum of Darvīš Faḫr
al-Dīn in Bābul (833/1429-30).
© SANDRA Aube 2014.
associated with an intellectual activity (such as calligraphers for instance, or
even painters, since they worked in kitāb-ḫāna) or when they combined several
practical skills.34 Some artists or architects associated with a sovereign or with
the ruling elite also enjoyed a higher status.35 But the Mazandarani woodwork-
ers fit into none of these categories. One could wonder whether their asso-
ciation with holy structures might have contributed to their increased status.36
Yasser Tabbaa explains the number of woodworkers’ signatures in medieval
Syria as a “sign of pride in workmanship and, from the patron’s point of view,
something like a certificate of quality”,37 which is certainly an interesting in-
terpretation. In a certain context, the paucity of available raw wood material
also enhanced the prestige of woodworkers, who proudly signed their works.38
But Mazandaran differs from most parts of the Middle East in that it has al-
34 See for example: Rabbat, Nasser, “Architects and Artists in Mamluk Society: The
Perspective of the Sources”, Journal of Architectural Education, LII/1 (1998): pp. 34-6 (in a
Mamluk context).
35 Ibid.
36 See Tabbaa, “Originality and Innovation in Syrian Woodwork”: p. 190, who questions how
much the association with a religious object or monument might explain the posterity
that some woodworkers met in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in Syria.
37 Tabbaa, “Originality and Innovation in Syrian Woodwork”: p. 189.
38 This idea is especially developed by Blair, and Bloom, “Signatures on Works of Islamic
Art and Architecture”: pp. 53-4, about Fatimid woodworks: “By medieval times the de-
forestation of the eastern Mediterranean had made wood expensive. For fine mosque
furnishings, this precious commodity was enhanced with complicated techniques such as
EurasianDownloaded
Studiesfrom
15Brill.com10/29/2020
(2017) 283-303 01:04:07AM
via free accessSkills and Style in Heritage 301
ways been largely forested, due to its specific humid subtropical climate. This
probably explains why the region produced so much woodwork during the
pre-modern period. This context might also help explain why the woodwork-
ers experienced greater recognition in the region. In any case, the tendency of
Mazandarani woodworkers to sign their work clearly indicates the improved
status that they achieved at this time.39 The way in which they sign also dem-
onstrates their prestige. Their names are located in quite an outstanding place,
often on one of the main doors of a holy structure. In Sārī, the signature of
Faḫr al-Dīn is found on the same level as the name of the patron or owner:
their names appear on each leaf of the door, on the bottom part (Fig. 1 and
2, panel D). The size of each panel is equal, the same script is employed, and
Faḫr al-Dīn’s name is even placed before his patron’s, since it is sculpted on the
right side of the door. In Bābul, ʿAlī’s signature can be clearly seen on the upper
register (Fig. 3 and 4, panel E – right door), on the same level as and even before
the name of the architect (left door). In Bābulsar, he placed his signature on the
bottom register, but alongside the name of the calligrapher (Fig. 5 and 6, panel
F). The script employed for all these signatures does not differ from the rest of
the inscription, which was unusual for this time.40 There is clear evidence of
teamwork here, whereas only one master is usually mentioned.41 Mayer stress-
es the great skillfulness required to sculpt and assemble wooden furniture.42
He thus gives many examples of woodworkers “who combined forces in order
to produce a given work of art”.43 The high standards for such work probably
elaborate joinery, marquetry and inlay with rare woods and ivory. Like ivory carvers, the
most accomplished woodworkers proudly signed their finest works.”
39 A similar remark has already been made by Yasser Tabbaa concerning Syrian wood-
works of the twelfth-fourteenth centuries (Tabbaa, “Originality and Innovation in Syrian
Woodwork”: p. 189).
40 For examples of such a practice on stone and tile panels in Iran during the fifteenth cen-
tury, see Aube, Sandra, La céramique dans l’architecture en Iran. Les arts qarâ quyûnlûs et
âq quyûnlûs (Paris: PUPS/IFRI, 2017).
41 The inscription on Bābulsar’s door was thus sculpted by ʿAlī after a model calligraphed by
Aḥmad b. Ḥusayn. More generally, inscriptions were signed by the calligrapher but rarely
by the tile cutter or the stone carver who sculpted them. Such a practice is a sign of the
strong hierarchy that dominated the different corporations at this time. On the hierarchy
among craftsmen and corporations, see Aube, La céramique dans l’architecture en Iran:
pp. 28-35.
42 Mayer quotes the case of an Egyptian woodworker, Abū Bakr b. Yūsuf, who travelled to
Mecca in order to assemble all the components of a miḥrāb he had sculpted (Mayer,
Islamic Woodcarvers: p. 18). This illustrates well the high standards required by such a
profession.
43 Mayer, Islamic Woodcarvers: p. 18.
Eurasian Studies 15 (2017) 283-303 Downloaded from Brill.com10/29/2020 01:04:07AM
via free access302 Aube
explain the extensive evidence of teamwork occurring throughout the Middle
Ages, all over Iran and Syria.44 Individuals and – through them – workshops
suddenly leapt out from the shadows. Their signatures illustrate a remarkable
moment during which the woodworkers benefited from specific recognition.
Bibliographical References
Aube, Sandra, “Le mausolée Zeyn al-ʿĀbedīn à Sārī: Contribution à l’étude des tours-
tombeaux du Māzanderān au XVe siècle”, StIr, XLIV/1 (2015): pp. 33-54.
Aube, Sandra, La céramique dans l’architecture en Iran. Les arts qarâ quyûnlûs et âq
quyûnlûs (Paris: PUPS/IFRI, 2017).
Aube, Sandra, “Le mausolée d’Āqā Shāh Bāluzāde à Āhudasht (Iran). Architecture et
décors des structures funéraires dans le Māzanderān au XVe siècle”, StIr [forthcom-
ing, 2018].
Bivar, Adrian D. H., and Yarshater, Ehsan (eds.), Eastern Māzandarān I. Portfolio I, plates
1-72 (London: Lund Humphries, [Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum, Part IV: Persian
inscriptions down to the early Safavid period, vol. VI, Māzandarān province], 1978).
Blair, Sheila, and Bloom, Jonathan, “Signatures on Works of Islamic Art and
Architecture”, Damaszener Mitteilungen, XI (1999): pp. 49-66.
Bronstein, Leo, “Decorative Woodwork of the Islamic period”, in Pope, Arthur Upham
(dir.), A Survey of Persian Art: From Prehistoric Times to the Present (Ashiya/Tehran:
SOPA/Soroush Press, 1981 [1st ed. 1938]): VI, pp. 2607-27 and XIII, pls. 1460-75.
Curatola, Giovanni, “Some Ilkhanid Woodwork from the Area of Sultaniyya”, Islamic
Art, II (1987): pp. 97-116.
Gierlichs, Joachim, “Tabrizi Woodcarving in Timurid Iran”, in Pfeiffer, Judith (ed.),
Politic, Patronage and the Transmission of Knowledge in 13th-15th Century Tabriz
(Leiden: Brill, 2014): pp. 357-70.
Godard, André, “Les coupoles”, Athār-é Īrān, IV (1949): pp. 259-325.
Golombek, Lisa, Mason, Robert B., and Bailey, Gauvin A., Tamerlane’s Tableware. A New
Approach to the Chinoiserie Ceramics of Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century Iran (Costa
Mesa/Toronto: Mazda Publishers/Royal Ontario Museum, 1996).
Golombek, Lisa, and Wilber, Donald, The Timurid Architecture of Iran and Turan, 2 vols.
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988).
Hillenbrand, Robert, The Tomb Towers of Iran to 1550 (PhD dissertation, University of
Oxford, Trinity College, 1974).
44 Tabbaa gives other examples of teamwork, including woodworkers in Syria during the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries. See among others: Tabbaa, “Originality and Innovation
in Syrian Woodwork”: p. 208.
EurasianDownloaded
Studiesfrom
15Brill.com10/29/2020
(2017) 283-303 01:04:07AM
via free accessSkills and Style in Heritage 303
Kalus, Ludvik (ed.), Thesaurus d’Epigraphie Islamique (Paris/Geneva: Fondation Max
Van Berchem, 2017), online edition: http://www.epigraphie-islamique.org/epi/texte
_acceuil.html (last connection: August 3rd, 2017).
Mayer, Leo Ary, Islamic Woodcarvers and Their Works (Geneva: Albert Kundig, 1958).
Miškātī, Nuṣratullāh, Fihrist-i banāhā-yi tārīḫī va amākin-i bāstānī-yi Īrān (Tehran:
Sāzmān-i millī-yi ḥifāżat-i ās̱ār-i bāstānī-yi Īrān, 1349š./1970).
O’Kane, Bernard, Timurid Architecture in Khurasan (Costa Mesa: Mazdâ Publishers, in
assoc. with Undena Publications, 1987).
Rabbat, Nasser, “Architects and Artists in Mamluk Society: The Perspective of the
Sources”, Journal of Architectural Education, LII/1 (1998): pp. 30-7. DOI: 10.1111/ j.1531
-314X.1998.tb00253.x
Rabino, Hyacinthe Louis, Mázandarán and Astarábád. Safar-nāma-yi Māzandarān va
Āstarābād (London: Luzac & Co, 1928).
Tabbaa, Yasser, “Originality and Innovation in Syrian Woodwork of the Twelfth and
Thirteenth Centuries”, in Talmon-Heller, Daniella, and Cytryn-Silverman, Katia
(eds.), Material Evidence and Narrative Sources. Interdisciplinary Studies of the
History of the Muslim Middle East (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2015): pp. 188-215.
The Arts of Islam. Hayward Gallery, 8 April-4 July 1976 [Catalog of exhibition] (London:
The Arts Council of Great Britain, 1976).
Šāyān, ʿAbbās, Māzandarān: juġrāfiyā-yi tārīḫī va īqtīṣadī (Tehran: Čāpḫāna-yi Mūsavī,
1336š./1957).
Smith, Myron Bement, “The Wood Mimbar in the Masd̲ ji̲ d-i D̲ j̲amiʿ, Nāʿīn”, Ars Islamica, V
(1938): pp. 21-35.
Sutūda, Manūčihr, Az Āstārā tā Astārābād, 7 vols. (Tehran: Anjumān-i ās̱ār-i millī,
1349-66š./1970-88).
Biographical Note
Sandra Aube (PhD in Islamic Art, Paris-Sorbonne University, 2010) is currently
employed as researcher at the CNRS – UMR 7528 Mondes iranien et indien
(Paris). She is member of the DYNTRAN project: “Dynamics of Transmission:
Families, Authority and Knowledge in the Early Modern Middle East (15th-
17th c.)” (ANR-DFG, 2015-2018). Her research focuses on the transmission of
skills and artistic traditions in pre-modern Iran and Central Asia. She authored
a book on the history of ceramic tiles in 15th century Iran (La céramique dans
l’architecture en Iran au XVe siècle, Paris: PUPS/IFRI, 2017), and coedited with
Éric Vallet and Thierry Kouamé the volume Lumières de la Sagesse. Écoles
médiévales d’Orient et d’Occident (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne/IMA,
2013).
Eurasian Studies 15 (2017) 283-303 Downloaded from Brill.com10/29/2020 01:04:07AM
via free accessYou can also read
