7/20/2016
Source: MESA I R o M E S I48 1& 2 I 201
ABBAS DANESHVARI .Of Serpents and Dragons in Islamic Art: An Iconogra phic Study. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2011. 260 pages, figures and plates, footnotes, bibliography, index. Cloth, $59.00 ISBN 1-5685-9264-0
Although 2011 was not the official Year of the Dragon, it was an auspicious one for those interested in the abundant imagery of dragons and other fabulous beasts in Islamic art. In addition to the study under review, the year brought forth Sara Kuehn's The Dragon in Medieval East Christian and Islamic Art (Brill), and Peris Berlekamp's Wonder, Image and Cosmos in M edieval Islam (Yale University Press). For two decades, Abbas Daneshvari has been unraveling the iconographic significance in Islamic art of rabbits, peacocks, scorpions, sphinxes, cups, branches, birds, fish, and more. Here, he tackles dragons in a book-length study, which has been-as the author acknowledges-long in the making (ix)
The book opens with "A Note on the Sources," an erudite overview of Persian and Arabic literature related to serpent and dragon imagery. The chapter titled "Background Information" actually provides a critical review of selected secondary studies on dragon and serpent iconography, while the next chapter offers a succinct but thorough taxonomic overview of the various types of serpentine creatures found in Islamic imagery, as well as a genealogy of their pre-Islamic ancestries. Chapter 3, "The Intrepid Hero," deals briefly with th
iconography of dragon combat vignettes. It is in the following chapter, entitled "The Astrocosmological Symbolism of the Dragon, "that Daneshvari launches the main thrust of his argument. He illuminates the dual nature of the dragon and refutes the chain of early scholarship that overplays its destructive, ecliptic, and evil associations. Furthermore, he asserts that the dragon's role as producer of light and regeneration was more important than its dark side. His assertions are amply supported with examples of poetic verse that evoke positive associations of dragons and serpents. Daneshvari also explores the contingency of such imagery on its setting, finding the "dragon of light" represented on a range of objects such as candlesticks, luster-painted ceramic bowls , and containers of wine-"liquid sun" (77); the protective dragon depicted over archways; and dragons of both light and protection on door knockers, standards, and swords
The next chapter further emphasizes the positive nature of the serpent dragon, with explication of the beast's apotropaic associations in specific settings. Starting with a group of scenes depicting enthroned rulers flanked by dragon images, Daneshvari weaves together the king's throne and God's throne, the serpent surrounding that throne, the serpentine form of al-Sakina at the Kacba, and representations of the ouroboros dragon. In "Hybrid Representations of Dragons and Serpents," he focuses on the motifs of serpentine dragons' heads that sprout from the roots of trees, the splayed wings of double-headed eagles, the tails of lions, and both the wings and tails of harpies and sphinxes. The short chapter that follows explores the use of confronted and double-headed dragons to represent the duality in the medicinal concept of "the dragon as the cure for the dragon's bite" (192). Finally, in "Dragons in the Cult of the Saints;' the author discusses the dragon-as-treasure-guardian motif in Sufi analogies between material and spiritual wealth
Daneshvari's examples of Islamic period dragons are drawn from Iran, Central Asia, the Jazira, Iraq, Syria, and Egypt and range in date from the tenth to the nineteenth centuries. Throughout, Daneshvari deftly reaches into pre Islamic visual and literary traditions to trace iconographic histories. While this long view is impressive in scope and refreshing given the field's increasing periodization, it can result in problematic generalities: "These remind us of the seamless continuity of ideas and images across three thousand years" (138). Insistence on continuity, in turn, sometimes leads the author to reject alternative readings or simultaneous bivalence in interpretation (e.g., 178-180). A few typographical errors have escaped Mazda's editorial process; in some places closer editing would have clarified meaning (e.g., 156 top, 180 bottom), and the unusual format of the bibliography detracts from its usefulness. But these are minor points
Daneshvari's interpretations of Islamic iconography have long been influential. The application of his interpretive methods to the important theme of dragon imagery offers rich perceptions and persuasive alternatives to early scholarship on the subject and has already begun to make a mark in recent scholarship after its presentation in a 2004 lecture series, making the publication of this study all the more relevant
Ellen Kenne
The American University in Cairo