Iconological Analysis of the Crown Element in the Altar Carpets (Mihrābi Rug) of the Qajar Era Case Study: The Mihrābi Rugof Mozaffar al-Din Shah

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Art and Architecture, University of Sistan and Bluchestan. Zahedan, Iran.

2 Ph.D. Student of Islamic art, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Lecturer, Faculty of Art and Architecture, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj,Iran.

Abstract

Problem statement: Problem Statement: Carpets and rugs have always been used as a context for conveying the concepts of Iranian history and culture. The position of specific elements and motifs in carpets can manifest the idea of ​​the time in which the work was created. One of the prevalent elements in altar rugs during the Qajar era is the crown. This element was replaced by a cresset form (Ghandil) or the great name of God in some altar rugs during the Qajar era, which was positioned lower than the forehead of the altar, as it was common in previous times. Another specific feature of this element is its association with tree or vase elements. Among the Qajar carpets with crown elements having a special place, there is a rug that is kept in the Carpet Museum of Iran that has a verbal and visual text and both refer to the coronation of Muzaffar al-Din Shah. Moreover, on the forehead of the altar, the crown element is associated with the lotus flower and similar icons. This study aims to answer the reason (why) and the manner  (how) of the relationship between the name of Mozaffar al-Din Shah, the lotus flower, and the crown, below the forehead of the altar, and seeks to explain and analyze the verbal and visual icons which are associated with the crown element.
Research objetive: This study attempts to analyze and explain the patterns used in the altar rug of Mozaffar al-Din Shah by addressing the crown element.
Research method: This research used a descriptive-analytical method. To study the altar rug of Mozaffar al-Din Shah, the iconology method was used for analysis on three levels.
Conclusion: Reviewing and analyzing the rug, has shown that according to the discourse of Archaism, the crown has a different identity in this kind of carpet. The resemblance between Taj-e Kiani (The Royal Crown) and FarreKiyâni (Faravahar), and its placement beneath the forehead of the altar, the position of the Quran Verse of Light (āyat an-Nūr) makes it a substitution for the Light of God (Nūr Allah).
Moreover, its association with the ‘lotus flower’, the ‘tree’, and the name of ‘Muzaffar al-Din Shah’ refers to the granting of divine splendor (Farr or Farrah) to him. It also emphasizes the establishment of a new government by Muzaffar al-Din Shah.
Research Objective: To indicate the role of the crown and its accompaniment with plant motifs in the Niche rugs of the Qajar period
Research Method: In this research, altar rugs are analyzed by descriptive-analytical method and Panofsky iconological method. Therefore, in three levels or three layers, the altar carpet attributed to Muzaffar al-Din Shah is analyzed
Conclusion: To summarize the results, it is shown that there is a correspondence between Kiani Crown and Farr-e Kiyâni. Also, its association with the lotus flower, the tree and the name of Muzaffar al-Din Shah refers to the granting of divine grace to him. In addition, he emphasizes the creation of a new government by Muzaffar al-Din Shah.

Keywords


Abrahamian, E. (1999). Iran between the two revolutions (A. Golmohammadi & M. E. Fattahi, Trans.). Tehran: Ney Publishing.
Azadud-Dowleh, A. M. (1983). Tarikh-e Azadi [History of Azadi]. Tehran: Sarv Publishing Institute
Azhand Y., Namvarmotlagh B. & Erfanmanesh, S. (2021). Analysis Of Meaning In The Niche Rug Of The Metropolitan Museum By Iconoloical Method. Kimiya-Ye-Honar, 9(37), 71-85.
Amanat, A. (2001). The kayanid Crown and Qajar reclaiming of Royal Authority. Iranian Studies, 34 (1/4), 17-30.
Bolkhari, H. (2019). Secrets of a flower. Tehran: Iranian Academy of the Arts.
Bigdelo, R. (2001). Bastan-Garayi dar Tarikh-e Mo’aser-e Iran [Archaism in the Contemporary History of Iran]. Tehran: Markaz Publishing.
Colombier, P. (1964). La Methode iconologique. Journal de savants, (3), 235-240.
Dadgar, L. (2001). Carpet with Tree Patterns. Tehran: Ministry of Culture & Islamic Guidance Publications.
Erfanmanesh, S, Amani, H. & Nemat Shahrbabaki, A. (2021). A comparative study of verbal cues in the Mihrab frontal part in the Mirabi (niche) rugs of Safavid and Qajar eras. Art and Civilization of the Orient, 9(34), 35-44.
Erfanmanesh S., Azhand Y. & Namvarmotlagh, B. (2021). Analysis of meaning in the Niche rug of the Solomon by iconology method. Honar-Ha-Ye-Ziba, Honar-Ha-Ye-Tajassomi, 26(3),99-108.
Faranbagh Dadegi (Bondaheshin). (1995). (M. Bahar, Trans.). Tehran: Tous.
Floor, W. M. (2002).  Art (Naqqashi) and Artists (Naqqashan) in Qajar Persia (Y. Azhand, Trans.). Tehran: Il-e Shahsavan-e Baghdadi.
Ghani, A. (2018). The Iconology of Fereshteh (Angel) Lozeng in a Chaleshtorlozeng Rug by Erwin Panofsky. Theology of Art, (14), 43-66.
Ghani, A. & Mehrabi, F. (2018). An Iconological Study of the Bakhtiari Pictorial Carpet by Panofskyâ s Methodology. Iranian Handicrafts Studies, 1(2), 95-11.
Ghani, A. (2021). The Iconology of Dast-e Delbar (Beloved’s hand) Motif in a ChaleshtorLozeng Rug. Theoretical Principles of Visual Arts, 6(2), 104-113.
Hajizadeh, M. A., Khajeh Ahmad Attari, A. & AzimiNejad, M. (2017). Comparative Study of the Design and Pattern in Prayer Carpets of Safavid and Qajar Periods.  Greater Khorasan, 6(25), 51-72.
Heshmati Razavi, F. (2000). Tarikh-e Farsh [The history of the carpet]. Tehran: Samt.
Javadian, A. A. (1994). Gozide-ye Ghaliche-ha-ye Nafis-e Mouze-ye Dafine [Selection of gorgeous carpets of Dafineh Museum]. Tehran: Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, Dafineh Museum.
Keshavarz, H. & Pourmand, H. A. (2017). A Survey of Formation and Developments of the Islam School’s Carpet Weaving in Tehran. The Historical Studies of Islam, 9(32), 135-166.
Nazem al-Eslam Kermani, M. (1988). Tarikh-e Bidari-ye Iranian [History of Iranian Awakening]. Tehran: Agah.
Kia, S. (1969). Taj [Throne]. Tehran: Ministry of Culture and Arts Publications.
Mokhtarian, B. (2007). Peyvand-e Menare-ha va Gonbad ba Nemd-e Se-Tayi-ye Moghadas [The relation between minarets and domes with the symbol of the Holy Trinity]. Retrieved September 20, 2020, from https://anthropologyandculture.com
Moin, M. (2003). Moin Encyclopedic Dictionary. Tehran: Sigol.
Moghaddam, M. (2006). Jastar Darbare-ye Mehr va Nahid [A study in Mehr & Venus]. Tehran: Hirmand.
Meen, V. B. & Tushingham, A. D. (1968). Crown Jewels of Iran. Toronto: university of Toronto Press.
Panofsky, E. (1972). Studies in Iconology; Humanistic Themes in the Art of the Renaissance. New York: Harper & Row.
Panofsky, E. (2012). On the problem of describing and interpreting works of the visual arts. Critical Inquiry, 38(3), 467-482.
Shariati Rad, A. (2005). Fare-ye Izadi in the political thought of ancient Iran. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
Tabatabai, M. H.(1995). Tafsir-e Al-Mizan (M. B. Mousavi Hamedani, Trans.) Qom: Eslami.
Vermazen, M. (2004). Mithra, cedieuMysterieux (B. Naderzadeh, Trans.). Tehran: Cheshmeh.
Zaka, Y. (1965). Tarikh-che-ye Taghirat va Tahavolat-e Derafsh va Alamat-e Dowlat-e Iran [The history of evolutions and developments of the Flag and the Symbol of Iranian government]. Mardom va Honar, (35), 32-37.