Abstract:
AbstractSharing and exchange of cultural traditions between Iran and India reached its peak during the Gurkhani period. The main field of objectification of cultures should be sought in art and literature. The main area offind objectivityculturesshould be sought in art and literature. This paper focuses upon one of the examples of this cultural connection, namely painting and the illustrated version of Khamseh Nezami, which was illustrated by the painters of the Iranian HinduSchool during the Gurkhani period in India, and also deals with the effects of Tabriz school painting features on this version. Indeed, to this end, the question raised here is how the system of painting of the Safavid school of Tabriz was translated in Semiosphere as a sign of the Gurkhans of India? What is the effect of this translatability on the illustrations of the Khamseh Nezami versions illustrated during the reign of Akbar Shah? Being qualitative in nature, the present study adopts a descriptive approach to content analysis with the Semiosphere approach is a sign based on Yuri Lutman''s views and the aim of the article is to read the influential signs of Safavid painting on Gurkhani Indian painting and how this effect is in illustrating the Khamseh Nezami paintings during the reign of Akbar Shah. In this context the results of the study indicate that the illustration of the Khamseh Nezami version in India, due to the migrations of Iranian painters to India, is influenced by the painting of the Tabriz Safavid School. The effects of these characteristics are clearly seen in most of the five military drawings, including composition, characterization,decorative motifs, forms, and textures. IntroductionThe exchange of cultural traditions between Iran and India reached its peak during the Gurkani Period. Since cultures are mainly objectified in art and literature, this study investigates one of the examples of this cultural relation, i.e., the illustrated version of Khamsa of Nizami, illustrated by Iranian-Hindu-School painters during the Gurkani Period in India. It also deals with the effects of Tabriz-School painting features on this version. The research uses a descriptive-analytical method and takes Yuri Lotman’s Semiosphere approach. The purpose of this study is to find the Safavid painting symbols affecting the Gurkani painting in India and their manifestation in illustrating the Khamsah of Nizami during the reign of Akbar Shah. The results showed that the Indian illustration of the Khamsah of Nizami is influenced by the paintings of Tabriz School during the Safavid Period due to the migration of Iranian painters to India. The effects of these features are clear in most of the paintings of the Khamsah of Nizami, including composition, characterization, decorative motifs, forms and textures. Accordingly, questions arise regarding the illustrations of the illustrated version of Khamsa of Nizami during the reign of Akbar Shah: 1) How was the symbolic system of Tabriz-School paintings translated into the Indian semiosphere during the reign of the Gurkanis. 2) What was the effect of this translatability on the paintings of the illustrated version of the Khamsah of Nizami during the reign of Akbar Shah? Research Methodology The present study has been conducted using a descriptive-analytical method and taking a semiosphere approach, as a subset of the “Cultural Semiotics of the Tartu-Moscow School”, based on the views of Yuri Lotman. In this research, first the relations between the Safavids and Gurkanis have been studied, then the effect of Tabriz School of painting on Mongol Indian illustrations and the paintings of the Khamsah of Nizami illustrated in Akbar Shah’s royal workshop have been studied taking a semiosphere approach. Therefore, Khamsah’s paintings have been analyzed and read inside the text as components considered as cultural examples. After that, the characteristics taken and adopted from the foreign culture, i.e., the Safavid culture of Iran have been identified. The coexistence of the cultural components inside the text, i.e., the Gurkanis of India, as a cultural self and the components outside the text, i.e., the Safavid of Iran, as the other was studied. Finally, this coexistence and eclecticism in the inner space was also explained by the mechanism of translation, leading to the adoption or rejection of the text in the semiosphere and the emergence of a new symbol and text. DiscussionOne of the important factors in the continuation of the cultural relationship between the Gurkanis and the Safavids was “the great interest of the Gurkani kings in Iranian painting and calligraphy” (Souchak, 2009, p. 126). For them, the works of the Iranian artists were considered as the quality measurer of the works of art. Due to his stay in the Safavid court, Homayoun Shah became interested in Persian culture, art and literature and invited many artists to India, including “Mir Seyyed Ali”, “Khajeh Abdul Samad Shirinqalam” (Gharavi, 2006, p. 39), and “Maulana Dust/Dust Divane” (Qazi Ahmad, 1973, p. 136). The peak of Gurkani School of painting was during the reign of Akbar Shah. With his support, more than one hundred Indian painters were trained under the supervision of the Iranian painters (Koosha, 2004, p. 43). In the early decades of his reign, he became interested in illustrated literary manuscripts and commanded that a large number of literary manuscripts from Arabic and Sanskrit be translated into Persian and illustrated by royal painters (Beach, 1992, p. 31). Another important factor in these relations was the role of Sufism and its spread in India. The reign of the Safavids and Gurkanis was the peak of Sufism (Ershad, 1986, p. 221). Babur, the founder of the Gurkani government in India, and Homayoun Shah had positive views towards Islamic sects, especially Shiism (Gulbadan Beygum, 2004, pp. 33-35). Akbar Shah also grew up in an atmosphere where Sufis and Shiites had power. His teachers such as “Mullah Pir Mohammad Khan” and “Mir Abdul Latif Qazvini” had Shiite tendencies (Jahani & Mahmoudi, 2012, p. 5). He had many mystical tendencies and respected “Khajeh Moinuddin Cheshti”, the founder of the Cheshti Dynasty (Alami, 1877, p. 350). Due to his great interest in the mystical concepts of the books Masnavi Manavi, Kimia Saadat Ghazali, Golestan Saadi and books like this, he paid attention to poems and concepts of the Khamsa and commanded to make the illustrated version of the Khamsa of Nizami in Agra. He wanted this version to be completed by 1004 AH, at the fortieth year of his reign (Rogers, 2003, p. 74). In cultural semiotics, cognition is achieved through the study of two reciprocal cultures. These two cultural spheres are formed in opposition to each other and are distinguished from each other by a border which is the most important aspect of the semiosphere. Semiosphere is one of the most basic concepts of cultural semiotics. This sphere is a conditional space without which symbolism (process of meaning-making) is impossible. It is the concept of boundary that determines the position and functional structure of this space. This boundary has a dual mechanism that translates external texts into internal language and internal texts into external language (Kull & Kotov, 2011, p. 182). Accordingly, the art of painting as a cultural example and as a dividing line between the two spheres was a sign of the Gurkani School inside the sphere and the Safavid School outside the sphere. The symbolic system of painting was located in the center of the Indian semiosphere, derived from the cultural identity of the Gurkans. With the entry of the system of the Safavid painting symbols in the Indian semiosphere, a dialogue was formed in which a part of that system created a Creole text in the processes of adoption, rejection translation or transformation. The semiosphere borders of Gurkanis and Safavids included cultural borders, Sufism and the art of painting. ConclusionAfter examining the relations between the Safavids and the Gurkhanis, the influence of Tabriz School of painting on the formation of the Gurkani School of painting in India was proved and the Khamsah of Nizami, with 41 illustrations, illustrated at that school was shown to be evidently affected by Tabriz School of painting. In answer to the research questions, it should be acknowledged that due to the migration of the Iranian artists and painters to India and the interest of Gurkani kings and princes in Persian language and literature, cultural components and symbols along with the characteristics of the Iranian painting have been reflected in the works of art and the paintings of the Gurkani Period, including the Khamsah of Nizami, illustrated in the royal workshop. The entry of the Iranian cultural symbols in paintings transferred to the semiosphere and paintings of India by artists showed their previous identity functions and components. After entering the system of Gurkani symbols, these symbols showed their cultural and artistic identity through the procedures of adoption or rejection in the Indian semiosphere. This is how the system of painting symbols of Tabriz School are translated into the semiosphere of the Gurkanis of India. This translatability can be clearly observed in most paintings, including composition and page layout, characterization and people’s faces and clothing, as well as peoples’ and horses’ war clothing, geometric, Eslimi and Khatai ornaments, form and texture of rocks, processors of plants and trees, color palette of the drawings (used here with more contrast), engraved lines, the use of simultaneity factor in the illustrated narration of the events and the written columns as well as the use of Nastaliq calligraphy. References1. Alam, Nemat Esmael. (2003). Middle Eastern arts in the Islamic era. Translated by Abbas AliTafazoli. Mashhad: Astan Quds Razavi Publications.2. Allami, Abolfazl. (1877). Akbarnameh, edited by Ahmad Ali and Abdur Rahim, Calcutta:Publication of Asiatic Society of Bengal.3. Badayuni, Abd al-Qader. (2001). Muntakhab-al-Tawarikh. Edited by Molavi Abdol-Hamid.Tehran: Anjoman asar va mafakher farhangi Publications.4. Barkazai Khales, Sultan M. Khan. (2019). Tarikh Sultani (The History of Sultani) the History ofthe Governor of Lodian, Syrian, Goldzhayyans and Sadoozians. Edited by Atiq Arwand. Kabul:Amiri Publications.5. Beach, Milo C. (1992). Mughal and Rajput Painting, Part 1. Volume 3. Cambridge UniversityPublications.6. Brend, Barbara. (1995). The Emperor Akbar's Khamsa of Nizami. British Library Publications.7. Brown, Percy. (1924). Indian Painting under the Moghul, Oxford University Publications.8. Durant, Will., Durant, Ariel. (1999). The Story of Civilization. Group of translators. Tehran: ElmiFarhangi Publications.9. Ebadi, A. Alimardi, M. (2016). A Survey of the Effective Factors behind the Promulgation ofDeen-e Elahi by Akbar, the Mughal Emperor of India. Religious Research. 3(6). 117-137.10.Ershad, Farhang. (2000). The historical immigration of Iranians to India. Tehran: Institute forHumanities and Cultural Studies.11.Fadaei, Nawab Nasrullah Mirza Khan. (1962). Invaders to India. Tehran: LithographyPublications.12.Fagheihi. Huseen. (2001). Persian language in the Indian subcontinent. Persian language (6).13.Gharavi, Mehdi. (2006). The magic of color. Tehran: Ministry of Culture and Islamic GuidancePublications.14.Gulbadan Begum. (2004). Humayun-nama. Tehran: Mahmoud Afshar Foundation Publications.15.Hekmat, Ali-Asghar. (1958). Land of India. University of Tehran Publications.16.Hekmat, Ali-Asghar. (1958). Persian Inscriptions on Indian Monuments. Tehran: Ibn sinaPublications.Journal of Subcontinent Researches, Vol 14, Issue 43 23217.Jahani, Roshanak, Mahmoudi, Abolfazl. (2012). Akbar peace at the end of the first IslamicMillennium. Journal of Religious Studies, 12, 1-31.18.Jalali Naini, Seyyed Mohammad Reza. (1997). India at a Glance, Tehran: Shirazeh Publications.19.Kefayat, Kosha. (2004). Migration of Iranian artists to India in the Safavid period. Mirror ofHeritage (Ayene-ye Miras), 26, 32-57.20.Kerry Welch, Stuart and Yahya Zokka. (1995). Miniatures of the Iranian and Indian School,translated by Zahra Ahmadi and Mohammad Reza Nasiri, Tehran, Yasavoli Publications.21.Kull, K and Kotov, K. (2011). Semiosphere Is the Relational Biosphere, Towards a SemioticBiology, 179-194, 2011.22.Ljungberg, C. (2003). Meeting the Cultural Other: Semiotic Approaches to InterculturalCommunication. Studies in Communication Sciences, 3(2), 50-77.23.Ljungberg, C. (2003). Meeting the Cultural Other: Semiotic Approaches to InterculturalCommunication, Studies in Communication Sciences, 3(2), 50-77.24.Losty, J.P., Roy, Malini. (2013). (Eds), Mughal India: Art, Culture and Empire, British LibraryPublications.25.Lotman, Y. B, A. Uspenskij. (2017). On the Mechanism in the semiotics of culture. Translatedby: Farzan Sojoudi. 2nd edition. Tehran: Elm Publications.26.Lotman, Y. (2005). On the Semiosphere, Sign System Studies, 33(1): 205–229.27.Lotman, Yury. (2017). On the semiosphere. Translated by: Farzan Sojoudi, 2st edition. Tehran:Elm Publications.28.Nafisi, Nushin. (1964). History of Asian Paintings and Its Effects (India). Art and people. 19,35-45.29.Nehru, Jawaher-Lal. (2004). Glimpses of world history. Translated by Ahmad Tafazzoli. Tehran:Amir kabir Publications.30.Pezashk, Manouchehr. (2001). Akbar Shah; Great Islamic Encyclopedia, Volume 9, under thesupervision of Kazem Mousavi Borujerdi, Tehran: Great Islamic Encyclopedia Center Publications.31.Pourjafar, Mohammad Reza., Farzaneh FarrokhFar. (2007). Comparative study of painting ofTabriz school and Gorkani school of India, Journal of Fine Art Architecture and Urbanism(Honare-Ziba:Memari va Shahrsazi), University of Tehran, 35, 124-115.32.Qazi Ahmad Qomi. (1974). Golestan Honar, edited by Ahmad Soheili Khansari. Tehran: BanianFarhang Iran Publications.33.Randviir, A. (2007). On spaciality in Tartu-Moscow cultural semiotics: The semiotic subject,Sign Systems Studies, 35(1): 137–159.34.Rojers, M.J. (2003). Mughal miniatures, translated by Jamileh Hashem Zadeh. Tehran: DolatmandPublications.35.Romello, Hasn beyg. (1996). Ahsan au-l Tvarikh. Edited by Abdul Hussein Nawai. Tehran: BabakPublications.36.Sadeghi naghd alioliya, F. Emami, N. (2018). Akbarshah Gvrkany's Approach to PersianPoetry and Farsi Poets in the Indian Subcontinent (Based on Ghazali Mashhadi, FeiziFayyazi,Orfi Shirazi, Nazari Nishabouri and Qasem Kahi). Journal of Subcontinent Researches,10(35), 79-98.37.Semenenko, Aleksei. (2017). The Texture of Culture. Translator: Hossein Sarfaraz. Tehran: ElmiFarhangi Publications.38.Senson, Goran. (2019). the concept of text in cultural semiotics, translated by: Farzan Sojuodi, inthe book Collection of articles on cultural semiotics, the group of translators under the efforts ofFarzan Sojuodi, Tehran: Nashre- Elam Publications.39.Shahabei, Ali Asghar. (2013). Literary relations between Iran and India. Tehran: Central PrintingPublications.233 Signs of the Safavid school of Tabriz in the illustration of the Khamseh Nezami of Akbar Shah…40.Siori, Rojer. (2013). Iran in the Safavid era, translated by Cambiz Azizi, Tehran: Nahr-e-MarkazPublications.41.Smith, V. (1917). Akbar the Great Mogul 1542-1605, Oxford at the Clarendon Publications.42.Soucek, Priscilla. (1987). Persian Artists in Mughal India: In fluences and Transformations,Marana’s, Vol. 4, Brill Article stable Publications.43.Titley, Norah. M. (1983). Persian Miniature Painting, and its Influence on the Art of Turkey andIndia, University of Texas Publications.44.Torop, p. (2002). Introduction: Re – reading of Cultural Semiotics, Sign Systems Studies, 30(2),395-404.45.Torop, P. (2002). Translation as translating as culture, Sign Systems Studies, 30(2), 593–605.46.Torop, p. (2016). Cultural semiotics and culture, translated by Farzan Sojuodi. Tehran: NashreElam Publications.47. Turkman, Iskander Beig. (2002). Tarikh Alam-arai Abbasi, vol. 1, under the supervision of IrajAfshar, Tehran: Amir Kabir Publications.
(
, 
, 
)
