Review of Sandra Aube, La céramique dans l’architecture en Iran au XVe siècle ; les arts qarâ quyûnlûs et âq quyûnlus, (original) (raw)
Related papers
Preserving Transcultural Heritage: Your Way or My Way? Questions on Authenticity, Identity and Patrimonial Proceedings in the Safeguarding of Architectural Heritage Created in the Meeting of Cultures, 2017
ABSTRACT This paper examines the religious structures constructed during the golden period of the Ilkhanid architectural patronage, around 1300, in Central Iran. These structures reflect the cosmopolitan character of the golden age of the Ilkhanid architectural proliferation, marked by the reigns of Ghazan Khan (r. 1295-1304) and Oljeitu (r. 1304-1316). It aims to contribute towards a reappraisal of the value of these monuments and to shed light on the issues surrounding the architectural heritage preservation of the Silk Routes. The paper discusses the history of restoration interventions on these structures and debates the challenges regarding the preservation of Ilkhanid and Islamic stucco revetment in situ.
Iran
This paper is an investigation into the western extent of a regional school of funerary architecture that developed in the Ildegüzid ruled lands of northwest Iran in the sixth/twelfth century. The formal, decorative and epigraphic elements of two octagonal tombs, the Yūsuf ibn Kuthayyir tomb in Nakhchivan, (Azerbaijan) and the Mengücek Ghazi tomb in Kemah, (Turkey) are examined in detail. By comparing these two buildings, and demonstrating the similarities and differences, the dynamic nature of the architectural development in Anatolia in the late sixth/twelfth century may be better understood.
2020
The developmental process of architectural tradition of tower tombs in Azerbaijan during the 12th – 14th centuries (AD) is one of the basic questions in the Iranian history of architecture. Historically, the architectural constructions and decorations were developed in Nakhchivan by the end of 12th century. Based on the formulated doctrines of the former USSR academy, the late Seljukid architecture in Nakhchivan was indigenous and originated from the local innovations. Turkish art historians have classified the late Seljukid architecture in Nakhchivan as a variety of Turk – Islam tradition in the post- USSR years. These kinds of de- historized studies have not considered the socio- cultural relationships among Qazvin, Maragheh, Tabriz and Nakhchivan within the Iranian cultural context. The main aim of this study is to investigate the general specifications of the 12th – 14th centuries (AD) architecture of the tower tombs in Nakhchivan and Maragheh to examine their artistic and tech...
have revolutionised modem understanding of this subject. For a start, they have documented how much survives: 257 monuments, with another 140 vanished structures mentioned in literary sources. 3 But these studies have also cast a flood of light on the mechanics of patronage, 4 the various local schools, 5 how buildings were designed and constructed, 6 and what functions they discharged in Timurid society. 7 It will take many years for modem scholarship to absorb these new findings and the purpose of this paper is not to summarise them but merely to isolate certain leitmotifs of Timurid architecture and discuss them in detail. Naturally this means ignoring other aspects of the theme. Accordingly, attention will be concentrated on the role of just three factors in this period: the large scale of the principal buildings, vaulting and applied decoration. Rather than simply describing what happens in these three categories, this paper will tackle the rather more elusive problem of what each structure reveals about the attitudes and intentions of those responsible for the buildings.
2013
The Artistic Culture of Central Asia and Azerbaijan in the 9th-15th centuries. Volume III. Architecture. — Samarkand-Tashkent: IICAS, 2013. — 280 p. Project Manager: Sh. Mustafayev Academic Editorial Board: K. Baypakov, Sh. Pidaev, A. Khakimov In charge of the publication: M. Mamedov. R. Muradov Authors: B. Glaudinov, M. Glaudinova (Kazakhstan) B. Amanbaeva, V. Kolchenko, K. Sataev (Kyrgyzstan) R. Mukimov (Tajikistan) M. Mamedov, R. Muradov (Turkmenistan) A. Arapov (Uzbekistan) J. Giyasi (Azerbaijan) Translation into English: A. Ulko This book is published as a part of the project The artistic culture of central asia and azerbaijan in the 9th–15th centuries, carried out by the International Institute for central asian Studies. The objective of the project is to systematise the academic knowledge and data related to a wide range of items of the material and artistic culture of the 9th–15th centuries, including ceramics, architecture, glass making, toreutics and other forms of applied arts. The publication is aimed at specialists as well as at the general public interested in the culture of the East.
LIBRI, 2020
Firstly, this review enquires into the meaning of the term West Asia employed in the title of this book of conference proceedings and finds it carries a confusion of meanings in respect to the geographical area and the countries that are indicated through the use of this modern term. Secondly this review suggests that the statement that the constructional materials employed determines the difference between Great Seljuk and Rum Seljuk architecture fails to address the matter of the finished appearance of these buildings and, in part has been made possible through the modern mis-translations of the words mâhir ressâmlar recorded in a primary source describing the external appearance of Rum Seljuk architecture. To state that the scale of buildings in Seljuk Iran were greater than those of Rum Seljuk Anatolia, without establishing the size of the respective Muslim urban populations, 80% to about 10%, and the length of time that there was a population of Muslim inhabitants in a Muslim ruled country, respectively of more than 500 years to less than 200 years is likewise misleading, as is the statement that the Christians were minorities in Seljuk-Turkish ruled territory in 13th c. Anatolia. Öz: Bu eleştiri yazısı öncelikle konu edindiği kongre bildirileri kitabının başlığında yer alan “Batı Asya” terimini ele alır. Bu terim tanımladığı coğrafi bölge ve onun içerdiği ülkeler bağlamında bir anlam karmaşasına neden olmaktadır. Ele alınan ikinci konu ise yayında yer alan “kullanılan yapı malzemelerinin Büyük Selçuklu ve Anadolu Selçuklu mimarisi arasındaki farklılıkların nedeni olduğu “yargısının bu iki devletine ait yapıların ele alınmasında zayıf kalmış olmasıdır. Makale bu konudaki eksikliğin dönem kaynaklarında yer alan “mahir ressamlar” kavramının modern kaynaklar tarafından yanlış yorumlanmasından kaynaklandığına işaret etmektedir. Müslüman nüfus oranının Anadolu’da %10 iken doğuda %80 olduğu gerçeğini ve ülkelerin Müslüman yönetiminde olduğu süreler arasındaki farkı (200 yıla karşı 500 yıl) göz önüne almadan Büyük Selçuklu yapılarının Anadolu Selçuklu yapılarından daha büyük ölçekli olduğunu ileri sürmenin yanı sıra, 13. Yüzyıl Anadolusu’nda Hıristiyanların azınlık olduklarını belirtmek tarihsel açıdan yanıltıcıdır.