Changes

On the other hand, the location of the principal centers of carpet production during the Safavid period and later<ref>see ix-xi, below</ref> is generally known from contemporary texts and travelers’ reports, even though it is usually not possible to associate particular carpets with them. It seems generally accepted that it was the Safavids who raised the status of carpet weaving in Persia from a nomadic and rural craft to national industry, the products of which constituted a significant item of export to India, the East Indies, the Ottoman empire, and Europe. Nor is there much doubt that it was the Safavids who established the first independent carpet factories in some of Persia’s major urban centers<ref>Varzī, p. 59</ref>.<br>

On the other hand, the location of the principal centers of carpet production during the Safavid period and later<ref>see ix-xi, below</ref> is generally known from contemporary texts and travelers’ reports, even though it is usually not possible to associate particular carpets with them. It seems generally accepted that it was the Safavids who raised the status of carpet weaving in Persia from a nomadic and rural craft to national industry, the products of which constituted a significant item of export to India, the East Indies, the Ottoman empire, and Europe. Nor is there much doubt that it was the Safavids who established the first independent carpet factories in some of Persia’s major urban centers<ref>Varzī, p. 59</ref>.<br>

It is not reasonable, however, to postulate that the Safavid carpet masterpieces came into being ex nihilo. Spuhler raises the pertinent question of why no definitely Timurid carpets, or even carpet fragments, are extant<ref>p. 700; see viii, below</ref>. He points out that the Milan hunting carpet, possibly dated only a few years after the Uzbeks had brought Timurid rule to an end in Transoxania (906/1500-01) and Khorasan<ref>913/1507; Savory, 1987, p. 78; see ix, below</ref>, is in excellent condition and speculates that perhaps some “early Safavid” carpets are really “late Timurid” carpets. Although Spuhler’s hypothesis cannot be proved, the current consensus is that Erdmann went too far in claiming that Safavid carpets represent a complete break from previous knotted pile carpets<ref>1977, pp. 53-54; cf. Helfgott, p. 113</ref>. Beattie has found design elements on floor coverings depicted in miniature paintings of the 9th/15th century and earlier that portend those of Safavid carpets, including hints of Chinese influence<ref>Beattie, p. 8; cf. viii, below</ref>. Leonard Helfgott’s verdict is “Whether or not a transitional period in carpet production preceded this fusion [of carpet-weaving skills with designs from the arts of the book, ceramics, and textiles], or whether this fusion began in a primitive state as a result of contacts with urban culture, or existed as a tendency or undercurrent as a result of Chinese influence, is impossible to determine at this time”<ref>p. 114</ref>.<br>

It is not reasonable, however, to postulate that the Safavid carpet masterpieces came into being ex nihilo. Spuhler raises the pertinent question of why no definitely Timurid carpets, or even carpet fragments, are extant<ref>p. 700; see viii, below</ref>. He points out that the Milan hunting carpet, possibly dated only a few years after the Uzbeks had brought Timurid rule to an end in Transoxania (906/1500-01) and Khorasan<ref>913/1507; Savory, 1987, p. 78; see ix, below</ref>, is in excellent condition and speculates that perhaps some “early Safavid” carpets are really “late Timurid” carpets. Although Spuhler’s hypothesis cannot be proved, the current consensus is that Erdmann went too far in claiming that Safavid carpets represent a complete break from previous knotted pile carpets<ref>1977, pp. 53-54; cf. Helfgott, p. 113</ref>. Beattie has found design elements on floor coverings depicted in miniature paintings of the 9th/15th century and earlier that portend those of Safavid carpets, including hints of Chinese influence<ref>Beattie, p. 8; cf. viii, below</ref>. Leonard Helfgott’s verdict is “Whether or not a transitional period in carpet production preceded this fusion [of carpet-weaving skills with designs from the arts of the book, ceramics, and textiles], or whether this fusion began in a primitive state as a result of contacts with urban culture, or existed as a tendency or undercurrent as a result of Chinese influence, is impossible to determine at this time”<ref>p. 114</ref>.<br>

It is possible that Tabrīz was the principal center of carpet production during the early 10th/16th century, for Shah Esmāʿīl I (907-30/1501-24) was initially master only of Azerbaijan; it required ten years of hard fighting to bring the rest of Persia and Mesopotamia under Safavid control. The process was completed only with the capture of Herat in 916/1510<ref> Savory, 1987, pp. 17, 79-80</ref>. There is no agreement among scholars, however, as to whether or not Esmāʿīl or his successor, Shah Ṭahmāsb (930-84/1524-76), established a carpet factory at Tabrīz, the first capital of the Safavid state. Esmāʿīl is known to have assembled there an array of men skilled in the arts of the book: calligraphers, illuminators, and miniature painters. A major category of Safavid carpets is known as “medallion” carpets<ref>naqš-etoronj, toronj-dār; see iv, below</ref>, for which, according to Pope, the “most immediate and exact models... are to be found in book covers...” Both bookbindings and carpets were frequently designed by the illuminators of manuscripts<ref>Pope, p. 2312</ref>. But did Esmāʿīl establish a carpet factory at Tabrīz? Edwards thought that the shah’s military preoccupations precluded such a move, though he admitted the possibility that Ṭahmāsb might have done so<ref>p. 4</ref>. Maurice Dimand, on the other hand, categorically states, on stylistic grounds, that “All these early medallion rugs may be assigned to northwest Persia, particularly to Tabrīz, the Safavids’ main artistic center”<ref>Dimand and Mailey, p. 42</ref>. He also assigned the Milan hunting carpet<ref> to see Plate CVIII in ix, below</ref> and the “Emperor’s carpet” in Vienna<ref>and its companion piece, now in The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; see Plate CX in ix, below</ref> to Tabrīz in the period of Shah Esmāʿīl<ref>Dimand and Mailey, pp. 42, 46; cf. ix, below</ref>. Ṭahmāsb is known to have been personally interested in the technicalities of carpet production, for example, details of dyeing, design, and weaving, and is personally credited with having created some carpet designs<ref>Varzī, p. 58</ref>. Furthermore, Dimand claimed that the [[Ardabīl Carpet|Ardabīl carpet]]s, which were woven during his reign, must have come from a Tabrīz workshop<ref>Dimand and Mailey, p.46; cf. Gans-Ruedin, p. 38; see ardabīl carpet</ref>. There is thus a strong possibility that there was a carpet factory at Tabrīz, but, if so, production must have been interrupted by the Ottoman invasions of Azerbaijan and brief occupations of Tabrīz in 940/1533-34, 941/1534-35, and 955/1548.<br>

It is possible that Tabrīz was the principal center of carpet production during the early 10th/16th century, for Shah Esmāʿīl I (907-30/1501-24) was initially master only of Azerbaijan; it required ten years of hard fighting to bring the rest of Persia and Mesopotamia under Safavid control. The process was completed only with the capture of Herat in 916/1510<ref> Savory, 1987, pp. 17, 79-80</ref>. There is no agreement among scholars, however, as to whether or not Esmāʿīl or his successor, Shah Ṭahmāsb (930-84/1524-76), established a carpet factory at Tabrīz, the first capital of the Safavid state. Esmāʿīl is known to have assembled there an array of men skilled in the arts of the book: calligraphers, illuminators, and miniature painters. A major category of Safavid carpets is known as “medallion” carpets<ref>naqš-etoronj, toronj-dār; see iv, below</ref>, for which, according to Pope, the “most immediate and exact models... are to be found in book covers...” Both bookbindings and carpets were frequently designed by the illuminators of manuscripts<ref>Pope, p. 2312</ref>. But did Esmāʿīl establish a carpet factory at Tabrīz? Edwards thought that the shah’s military preoccupations precluded such a move, though he admitted the possibility that Ṭahmāsb might have done so<ref>p. 4</ref>. Maurice Dimand, on the other hand, categorically states, on stylistic grounds, that “All these early medallion rugs may be assigned to northwest Persia, particularly to Tabrīz, the Safavids’ main artistic center”<ref>Dimand and Mailey, p. 42</ref>. He also assigned the Milan hunting carpet<ref> to see Plate CVIII in ix, below</ref> and the “Emperor’s carpet” in Vienna<ref>and its companion piece, now in The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; see Plate CX in ix, below</ref> to Tabrīz in the period of Shah Esmāʿīl<ref>Dimand and Mailey, pp. 42, 46; cf. ix, below</ref>. Ṭahmāsb is known to have been personally interested in the technicalities of carpet production, for example, details of dyeing, design, and weaving, and is personally credited with having created some carpet designs<ref>Varzī, p. 58</ref>. Furthermore, Dimand claimed that the [[Ardabil Carpet|Ardabīl carpet]]s, which were woven during his reign, must have come from a Tabrīz workshop<ref>Dimand and Mailey, p.46; cf. Gans-Ruedin, p. 38; see ardabīl carpet</ref>. There is thus a strong possibility that there was a carpet factory at Tabrīz, but, if so, production must have been interrupted by the Ottoman invasions of Azerbaijan and brief occupations of Tabrīz in 940/1533-34, 941/1534-35, and 955/1548.<br>

In 955/1548 Ṭahmāsb relocated the Safavid capital from Tabrīz to Qazvīn, and presumably, the production of carpets under royal patronage was also moved. The Safavid court remained at Qazvīn for fifty years until it was transferred to Isfahan by Shah ʿAbbās I in 1006-07/1598. N. Aram-Zanganeh<ref>p. 64</ref> claims that the royal workshops were moved from Tabrīz to Qazvīn to Isfahan as each city successively became the capital, which is what would be expected, but Erdmann noted that “the manufacture of carpets at Qazvīṇ... cannot be authenticated”<ref>1977, p. 36</ref>. The Hungarian ambassador to the court of the Ottoman sultan Solaymān reported the arrival in 975/1567 of gifts from Shah Ṭahmāsb, which included carpets made in Hamadān and Dargazīn; no mention was made of carpets from Qazvīn<ref>J. von Hammer, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches III, pp. 520-21; cf. Pope, p. 2335</ref>. The Spanish traveler Father Florencio del Niño Jesús reported that in the early 11th/17th century there was an abundance of silk and brocade carpets at Qazvīn<ref>p. 100; cf. Spuhler, p. 702</ref>.<br>

In 955/1548 Ṭahmāsb relocated the Safavid capital from Tabrīz to Qazvīn, and presumably, the production of carpets under royal patronage was also moved. The Safavid court remained at Qazvīn for fifty years until it was transferred to Isfahan by Shah ʿAbbās I in 1006-07/1598. N. Aram-Zanganeh<ref>p. 64</ref> claims that the royal workshops were moved from Tabrīz to Qazvīn to Isfahan as each city successively became the capital, which is what would be expected, but Erdmann noted that “the manufacture of carpets at Qazvīṇ... cannot be authenticated”<ref>1977, p. 36</ref>. The Hungarian ambassador to the court of the Ottoman sultan Solaymān reported the arrival in 975/1567 of gifts from Shah Ṭahmāsb, which included carpets made in Hamadān and Dargazīn; no mention was made of carpets from Qazvīn<ref>J. von Hammer, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches III, pp. 520-21; cf. Pope, p. 2335</ref>. The Spanish traveler Father Florencio del Niño Jesús reported that in the early 11th/17th century there was an abundance of silk and brocade carpets at Qazvīn<ref>p. 100; cf. Spuhler, p. 702</ref>.<br>

On the basis of textual sources and travelers’ reports, most authorities seem to agree that there were royal Safavid carpet workshops at Isfahan, Kāšān, and Kermān<ref>Florencio, p. 102; Tavernier, I, pp. 397, 589; Chardin, III, p. 120; cf. Beattie, p. 9; Erdmann, 1976, pp. 37, 41, 42</ref>. On the basis of Jean Chardin’s report of thirty-two royal workshops<ref>boyūtāt-e ḵāṣṣa-yešarīfa, boyūtāt-e salṭanatī</ref> employing an average of 150 craftsmen each, the total number employed in such workshops has been estimated at approximately 5,000<ref>VII, p. 329; according to Taḏkeratal-molūk, tr. Minorsky, p. 50/fol. 20a, in ca. 1139/1726 there were thirty-three royal workshops; cf. Helfgott, p. 113</ref>. Of course, members of many different crafts and trades were employed in these workshops, and the number of weavers may have been quite small. The workshops not only produced luxury carpets for the Safavid shahs’ mosques and palaces, for gifts to neighboring rulers like the Ottoman sultan, and for the export trade; they also fulfilled commissions from members of the nobility and other private citizens. In at least one instance toward the end of the 11th/17th century, the court seems to have contracted out the production of carpets and other textiles to specialized craft guilds, a process known as taḥwīl-eaṣnāf<ref>see Taḏkeratal-molūk, tr. Minorsky, p. 30</ref>. The shah or another client put up the capital in the form of raw materials and paid weavers regular wages while work was in progress. Sometimes the Malek al-tojjār<ref>state supervisor of textile guilds</ref> played this role<ref>Floor, p. 23</ref>.<br>

On the basis of textual sources and travelers’ reports, most authorities seem to agree that there were royal Safavid carpet workshops at Isfahan, Kāšān, and Kermān<ref>Florencio, p. 102; Tavernier, I, pp. 397, 589; Chardin, III, p. 120; cf. Beattie, p. 9; Erdmann, 1976, pp. 37, 41, 42</ref>. On the basis of Jean Chardin’s report of thirty-two royal workshops<ref>boyūtāt-e ḵāṣṣa-yešarīfa, boyūtāt-e salṭanatī</ref> employing an average of 150 craftsmen each, the total number employed in such workshops has been estimated at approximately 5,000<ref>VII, p. 329; according to Taḏkeratal-molūk, tr. Minorsky, p. 50/fol. 20a, in ca. 1139/1726 there were thirty-three royal workshops; cf. Helfgott, p. 113</ref>. Of course, members of many different crafts and trades were employed in these workshops, and the number of weavers may have been quite small. The workshops not only produced luxury carpets for the Safavid shahs’ mosques and palaces, for gifts to neighboring rulers like the Ottoman sultan, and for the export trade; they also fulfilled commissions from members of the nobility and other private citizens. In at least one instance toward the end of the 11th/17th century, the court seems to have contracted out the production of carpets and other textiles to specialized craft guilds, a process known as taḥwīl-eaṣnāf<ref>see Taḏkeratal-molūk, tr. Minorsky, p. 30</ref>. The shah or another client put up the capital in the form of raw materials and paid weavers regular wages while work was in progress. Sometimes the Malek al-tojjār<ref>state supervisor of textile guilds</ref> played this role<ref>Floor, p. 23</ref>.<br>