datable to c 1300 Even though it portrays a scene
culture through the agency of the Mongols The
from Iran’s epic past, the riders are depicted as
syncretism reflected in the miniature referred to
ethnically Mongolian and/or Turkic, identifiable
above may be regarded as another example giving
by their countenance and their apparel The depic-
visual form to the transitory period of a “melding
tion may once again il ustrate the conscious effort
of Mongol and Persian cultural identities and
of the Mongols to use ancient Iranian legends “to
traditions ”163 Hence it appears that during the
create a visual connection between past and pres-
second half of their reign the Ilkhanids had inte-
ent, equating, and thus legitimizing, Mongol rule
grated Chinese and Central Asian elements into
and rulers with that of Iran’s legendary and his-
a visual language of their own, gradually forging
torical dynasties ”161 The horsemen are shown
a syncretic Ilkhanid dynastic ideology which
with a giant horned dragon with a powerfully
merged with local visual traditions
sinuous once looped body (fig 197) 162 In stylistic
Over the following decades the “Saljuq-style”
terms the representation of this dragon essential y
dragon gradually gave way to a “Chinese-style”
continues Saljuq traditions The giant ophidian
dragon which is also exemplified, for instance, in
body is still rendered in looped form without legs
the depictions of the dragons portrayed in a man-
and dorsal or pectoral fins yet the head of the
uscript of al-Qazwīnī’s ʿAjāʾib al-makhlūqāt pre-
mythical creature is now crowned by cervid-type
served in the British Library, London (Ms Or
antlers that project horizontally from the top of
14140) Probably executed in the years between
the head, a feature that emerged as part of the
694/1295 and 701/1302 – and perhaps in Mosul
Chinese-style koiné of the dragon in the period
under the patronage of the governor Fakhr al-Dīn
after the Mongol invasion In spite of the intro-
ʿĪsā (d 701/1302)164 – the London Qaz wīnī dis-
duction of this new aspect of the head, the giant
tinguishes between an acquatic ( al-tinnīn; fol 48r)
serpentine knotted body dominates the image It
and a terrestrial (the giant serpent, al-thaʿbān;
is thus reasonable to assume that, in particular
fol 127r) dragon 165 The antlered head of the sea-
in the case of the representation of a scene from
dragon is closely related to the heads of the drag-
the Shāh-nāma, this stylistic modification did not
ons of the Viār sculptures or the Takht-i Sulaimān
have a bearing on the dragon’s iconological con-
tiles, whereas its body still follows intrinsically
tent Overall it may be noted that the imagery of
the “Saljuq-style ” Its marine quality is underlined
the “Saljuq-style” dragon, at least the main char-
by undulant serpents springing from from the
acteristics such as the long gaping snout with
nape of the neck in lieu of the customary tufts of
upturned tip and long knotted ophidian body,
hair The Chinese-style head is accentuated by
exhibited a remarkable longevity, especially in
the depiction of small floating Chinese-inspired
the Anatolian region
clouds, sometimes read as fungus-shaped or mag-
However, just as Salm, Tūr, and Iraj are de -
ical fungus lingzhi 166 The so-called giant serpent
picted with Mongolian physiognomies and
is portrayed with a closely related head and, at
matching attire, so too the dragon, one of the key
first sight, appears to have a similar scaly serpen-
sinicising motifs introduced into Islamic art,
tine body yet instead of the conventional knot,
slowly acquired certain Chinese or Chinese-
the fluidly rendered sinuous body, now accentu-
inspired Mongol aspects mirroring the process
ated with a crest along the spine, has acquired
of a gradual penetration of East Asian art and
two muscular striding forelegs with two or three
161 Simpson, 2007, p 385 Cf Melikian-Chirvani, 1997b
pent-like fish ( al-tinnīn; fol 38r) living in the Persian sea
162 In the same manuscript a closely related huge knot-
and the big dragon ( al-tinnīn al-ʿaẓīm; fol 47r) living in
ted dragon is portrayed in the illustration of Isfandiyār’s third
the Caspian sea; cf Carboni, 1988–9, pp 20–1, 26 For
labour: he fights the dragon (Ms F1930 4b, f 085v), whereas
al-Qazwīnī’s description, see Kitāb ʿajāʾib al-makhlūqāt,
the dragons in the scenes of Gushtāsp killing a dragon in Rūm
ed Wüstenfeld, 1849, repr 1967, pp 109 and 128–9;
(Ms F1929 46, f 074v) and Bahrām Gūr killing a dragon in
also Badiee, 1978, pp 112 and 120–1 For a discussion
India (Ms F1930 10b, f 121v) are rendered in much more
of the dragons in the London Qazwīnī, see Carboni,
sinicised fashion, characteristed by bulging bead-like eyes,
1992, pp 495–7 The London Qazwīnī dragons shown on
straight, slightly gaping, jaws with fleshy flews arranged in
fols 33 and 47 are more clearly identifiable as giant ser-
folds and long flowing beards springing from the chin and
pents yet it is worthy of note that they are rendered with
the back of the head
the typical elongated snouts ending in a rolled-up upper
163 Simpson, 2007, p 385
lip and the massive bodies knotted with a large single
164 On the provenance and patronage of the manuscript,
loop, features that are more characteristic of the “Saljuq-
see the discussion in Carboni, 1992, pp 523–38
type ”
165 Kadoi, 2008, p 146, figs 4 20 and 4 21; also the ser-
166 On the lingzhi motif, see Rawson, 1984, p 139
228