The Authentic Layout of the Main Avenue of Fin Garden in Kashan

HAMIDREZA JAYHANI and MARYAM REZAEIPOUR UNIVERSITY OF KASHAN / RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF CULTURAL HERITAGE AND TOURISM, TEHRAN

THE AUTHENTIC LAYOUT OF THE MAIN AVENUE OF FIN GARDEN IN KASHAN

In Memoriam Professor Chahryar Adle

SUMMARY Study of the current planting plan for the cypress trees and borders of the plots in the main avenue of Fin Garden in Kashan reveals some irregularities. These irregularities occurred during the Qajar period and some later repairs. In this article, the irregularities are identified and a proposal for the restoration of the authentic layout of the garden will be arrived at by relying upon the ages of the trees and their location in the garden and on certain specific plots. The results reveal a meaningful difference between the authentic layout of the main avenue and its current condition as well as the plan drawn up by Donald Wilber. Keywords: Historic garden; dendrochronology; restoration; Kashan; Fin Garden (Bāgh-i Fīn).

RÉSUMÉ L’étude sur le plan de la plantation actuelle des cyprès et des bordures des lotissements dans l’avenue principale du Jardin de Fin à Kāshān montre quelques irrégularités. Ces irrégularités et quelques réparations sont arrivées plus tard à l’époque qājār. Dans cet article, l’identification des irrégularités et de la restauration de dessin authentique du jardin avec l’aide des âges des arbres et de leur emplacement dans le jardin et certains lotissements précis sera réalisée. Les résultats révèlent une différence importante entre le dessin authentique de l’avenue principale et la situation actuelle et aussi à un plan dessiné par Donald Wilber. Mots clés: jardin historique ; dendrochronologie ; restauration ; Kashan ; Jardin de Fin (Bāgh-i Fīn). * * *

89 STUDIA IRANICA 45, 2016, pp. 89-126 90 H. J A Y H A N I & M. R E Z A E I P O U R StIr 45, 2016

INTRODUCTION1 Recently, some new studies have raised doubts about the authenticity of the layout of the main avenue of Bāgh-i Fīn (Fin Garden).2 In 2002, the results of dendrochronology studies revealed some new evidence that can change our current perception of the garden. This Safavid garden, located in the Fin region six kilometres to the southwest of Kashan (Iran), has always been known as an important template for Persian or Islamic gardens due to its specific plan. This rectangular garden has usually been considered to represent a fourfold pattern garden. Following this pattern, the central part of the garden lies at the intersection of two longitudinal and latitudinal avenues, each of which has an equal spatial value. This repeating image of the Fin Garden, along with many other descriptions, can be seen in an early plan drawn up in 1939 by Donald Newton and Margaret Surre Wilber (fig. 1);3 which was published for the first time in 1940 in The Persian Garden by Donald Wilber and Phyllis Ackerman and served as the main source for information on the garden during the following decades.4 Wilber draw a fourfold pattern for Fin Garden which is almost the same as the layout usually referred to as ‘chahārbāgh’. Wilber’s plan was redrawn many times, including a version belonging to Nader Ardalan (fig. 2).5 Wilber and Ackerman referred in their early book in 1940 to ‘the world divided into four quarters’6 and Ardalan, whose traditional points of view are well known, presents a plan very similar to the Wilber’s.7 The plans drawn up by Wilber and Ardalan show an equal spatial quality for both the longitudinal and latitudinal avenues as would normally be seen in Mughal gardens in India. However, unlike the latitudinal path, the main avenue includes three parallel paths, a median path (fig. 3) and two sidewalks, from the sardar-khāna (garden gate) to the kūshk-i Ṣafavī (Safavid or central pavilion) (fig. 5). It is not clear why those two sidewalks had been ignored by Wilber and it seems that, although Wilber had sufficient opportunity to

1 Persian words and names are transcribed according to the Encyclopaedia of Islam (Brill) system for Persian, simplified (‘kh’, instead of ‘kh’, ‘q’ instead of ‘ḳ’, etc.). Words, names and terms that are commonly used in English, such as ‘Shah’ (except for an element of a personal name), ‘Isfahan’, are not transcribed. 2 It is known also as Bāgh-shāh-i Fīn or Fin royal garden. 3 See Wilber and Ackerman 1940, p. 4. 4 The plan was published again by Donald Wilber in his Persian Gardens and Garden Pavilions, a detailed study on Persian garden. See Wilber 1962, p. 222 (plate 112). 5 See Lehrman 1980, p. 126; Brookes 1987, p. 109; Moore, Mitchell and Turnbull 1988, p.14; Khansari, Moghtader and Yavari 1998, p. 82; Abdul Rehman 2001, p. 74; Ardalan 2002, p. 11. 6 Wilber and Ackerman 1940, p. 5. 7 Ardalan 2002, pp. 9-18. And also see Ardalan and Bakhtiar 1973, p. 34, 68. T H E A U T H E N T I C L A Y O U T O F B A G H - I F I N 91 survey the garden, he paid no attention to the specifications of the main avenue. It is probable that Wilber doubted the authenticity of those three parallel paths in the main avenue that ran between the garden gate and the central pavilion. Wilber’s plan has been cited in a large number of studies and, in the absence of any reliable images from Fin Garden, his layout has been accepted as the exact image of the garden despite this major divergence from the actual layout.

Fig. 1 : Plan of Fin Garden drawn by Donald Newton and Margaret Surre Wilber in 1939. In this plan the spatial quality of the main avenue is shown as equal to the latitudinal one. It appears that the plan was drawn according to a four-fold pattern formed as a result of two crossing passages. (© Courtesy of Tuttle Publishing, North Clarendon, VT.)

92 H. J A Y H A N I & M. R E Z A E I P O U R StIr 45, 2016

Fig. 2: Plan of Fin Garden by Nader Ardalan, 1970 (© Courtesy of Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library, Columbia University). T H E A U T H E N T I C L A Y O U T O F B A G H - I F I N 93

Fig. 3: Median walk of the main avenue, from the garden gate to the central pavilion (Photograph: H. Jayhani, 2003). 94 H. J A Y H A N I & M. R E Z A E I P O U R StIr 45, 2016

Moreover, it seems that some alterations were made to the garden’s layout and planting plan:8 It is thought that the layout of the garden has been changed throughout the life of the garden9 and this has been the subject of some new studies.10 The current study, however, aims to focus on the age of the cypress trees which play a major role in the garden’s layout (fig. 4). A major alteration occurred with the planting of cypress trees in certain spots, which do not follow the authentic pattern of the garden or the arrangement of a particular plot. These trees, which were planted both during Qajar period alterations and in the twentieth century, make it hard for us to rediscover the authentic layout. These major irregularities could be seen along the main avenue, as illustrated in plots S1 and S5 in figure 6. Having paid attention to the altered layout and repairs, as well as to Wilber’s drawing, the main question that arose then was: ‘What had been the authentic layout of the main avenue in the Safavid period?’

Fig. 4: Bird’s eye view of Fin Garden by Jasem Ghazbanpour, 1996. The cypress trees play a major role in the garden’s layout ( © Courtesy of the Urban Development and Revitalization Organization, Iran).

8 For example, some non-native species, most prominently Oriental species, such as flowers and ground covering plants. There was a row of willow trees in the northern edge of the garden and two rows of quince trees along sidewalk P3 which were removed in the 2000s. 9 See Jacobs and Shandiz 2005, and also Jayhani and Emrani 2007, pp. 343-352. 10 For instance, several different types of documents have been considered in order to define the layout of the garden. See Jacobs and Shandiz 2005. T H E A U T H E N T I C L A Y O U T O F B A G H - I F I N 95

BS2 BS1

N11 N2 N1

S2 S1

N4 N3

S4 S3 N6 N5

S5 N8 N7

S6 N10 N9

Fig. 5: Plan of Fin Garden, surveyed in 2002 (Plan drawing: H. Jayhani) showing: (1) garden gate; (2) Safavid or central pavilion; (3) main hall; (4) three-door rooms; (5) Qajar palace, including a ṣuffa (roofed platform), and (6) a pavilion connected to the ṣuffa; (7) Čishma-yi Zanāna; (8) Safavid baths; (9) Qajar baths; (10) main avenue, including the median walk P1 and sidewalks P2 and P3; (11) main pool; (12) long pool; (13) bubbling pool; (14) latitudinal avenue; (15) paths surrounding the entire green zone; (16) Maẓharkhāna; (17) Karīm Khan’s private house; (18) remains of a Qajar private house; (19) library; (20) open space opposite the central pavilion; (21) longitudinal avenue in front of the Qajar palace; (22) museum. 96 H. J A Y H A N I & M. R E Z A E I P O U R StIr 45, 2016

BS2 BS1

N11 N2 N1

S2 S1

N4 N3

S4 S3 N6 N5

S5 N8 N7

S6 N10 N9

Fig. 6: Planting plan of the garden and its plots, surveyed in 2002 (Plan drawing: H. Jayhani). T H E A U T H E N T I C L A Y O U T O F B A G H - I F I N 97

RESEARCH METHOD This article focuses on two sets of information about the cypress trees: their age and their locations in the garden and in their plots. For this purpose, major irregularities in the main avenue and its sub-spaces will be scrutinized which may have occurred as a result of alterations during repairs undertaken after 1935, or even earlier when Qajar period additions were added to the Safavid layout. Following this and based on the age of the cypress trees and their locations, those rows that do not belong to the original layout will be identified and removed, and the unclear, or perhaps missing but authentic, rows of trees will be identified and highlighted. In accordance with this the authentic layout of the main avenue, which was not sufficiently well scrutinized by Wilber and Ardalan, will be retrieved and clarified. In addition, this article makes reference to the results of a dendrochronology study, which introduced the relationship between the diameter and the age of the cypress trees in Fin Garden (fig. 7).11 Based on 19 selected trees that are listed in Table 1, the ages of 579 cypress trees12 are given as determined in 2002 (Tables 1 and 2).13 For the purposes of the current study, the plots related to the main avenue will be studied. The authentic layout of the main avenue will be restored by identifying the planting plan of the garden, which will be specified on the basis of more authentic rows of cypresses which have been revealed by referring to the older cypresses in the rows. It should be noted that in Fin, as a Persian garden, the trees had been planted in such a way as to create rows of trees

11 Following cypress trees’ coding, the diameter at the height of 1.3 meters was measured for each coded tree. As a result, cypress trees were classified in nine different diametrical classes. After that, nineteen trees were selected for sampling using 400- and 500-mm Swedish increment borers. Then, the holes were plugged with carved wooden sticks that were impregnated by mercury chloride solution (2%) to prevent fungi infection. After that, the samples were brought to the lab of wood industry in Natural Recourses Faculty of the University of Tehran. Finally, the ages were determined by counting annual circles and numerate the years that a tree needs for longitudinal growth. As a result, the relationship between the diameter and the age for each tree was specified. There were 579 cypress trees counted in Fin Garden with specified diameters. Moreover all these trees have been planted in a rather small area of about two hectares, with equivalent climatic or micro-climatic condi- tions, water and soil; the relationship between the diameter and the age that had been obtained from case studies were used for all trees. See Karīmī 2002; also Jayhani and Emrani 2007, pp. 375-392. 12 Because of technical problems such as damaged trunks, five trees were left out of the process. 13 Due to the dendrochronological study in Fin Garden, this 3rd order equation reveals the correlation between diameter (X) and age (Y): Y=0.0005X3-0.0547X2+4.787X- 12.73. See Karīmī 2002. 98 H. J A Y H A N I & M. R E Z A E I P O U R StIr 45, 2016 and these rows have played a major role in forming the plan of the garden.14 In this article, it is assumed that the presence of an elderly tree in a row can significantly determine the authenticity of that row and, so, it is believed that finding an old cypress can allow us to identify a hidden and/or missing row.

Table 1: Codes, diameters, ages, annual growth, heartwood and sapwood of 19 selected cypress trees of the sample (Research Institute of the Iranian Cultural Heritage, Handi- crafts and Tourism, 2002).

Tree Diameter Annual Heartwood Sapwood No. Age Code (cm) growth (mm) (%) (%) 1 N5C11 5 15 1.67 0 100 2 N5C10 10.51 35 1.43 40 60 3 O1C8 15.29 45 1.67 33.4 66.6 4 N8C16 20.7 67 1.49 60 40 5 S1C14 25.16 80 1.55 68 32 6 MC4 30.25 85 1.76 73.4 26.6 7 N4C23 35.83 93 1.88 82.86 17.14 8 N11C4 40.13 115 1.74 85 15 9 BS2C3 45.54 140 1.61 80 20 10 MC21 50.23 167 1.50 82 18 11 S5C17 55.89 213 1.29 85.46 15.54 12 S5C21 60.67 220 1.36 80 20 13 N11C10 65.29 228 1.43 90.8 9.2 14 S2C13 69.59 234 1.49 87.15 12.85 15 S2C28 75.80 238 1.58 97.67 3.33 16 S1C10 80.89 294 1.36 92.5 7.5 17 S4C40 85.99 311 1.37 87.06 12.94 18 BS2C1 94.9 386 1.22 91.5 8.5 19 S2C23 95.06 460 1.50 88.5 11.5 Average — 180 1.50 73.91 26.09

14 ‘Abdī Bayg-i Shīrazī describes the trees which had been planted along the main avenue of Bāgh-i Sa‘adatābād in Qazvin as ‘the row of prayers’ in 960s/1550s, and Abū Naṣr-i Haravī mentions trees should be planted along the canal, in 921H./ 1515 A.D. See ‘Abdī Bayg 1974, pp. 35-36, and Haravī 1967, p. 280. For details and reconstructed maps, see Subtelny 1993, and Subtelny 1995. T H E A U T H E N T I C L A Y O U T O F B A G H - I F I N 99

Table 2. Codes and determined ages of the trees quoted in this article arranged alphabe- tically. The trees marked with (*) were used for sampling and it is better to refer to their age as mentioned in Table 1. All of determined ages for cypress trees mentioned in this article refer to their ages in 2002.

Tree Diameter Trees Diameter No. Age No. Age Code (cm) Code (cm) 1 BS1C4 84.87 305 24 S3C6 64.81 204 *2 BS2C1 94.9 376 25 S4C42 83.12 294 3 BS2C2 79.78 275 26 S4C43 63.38 198 4 MC1 17.68 58 27 S5C1 11.15 35 5 MC10 71.66 233 28 S5C2 53.5 163 6 MC14 81.53 285 29 S5C3 40.29 124 7 MC23 57.01 175 30 S5C4 30.89 98 8 MC24 76.91 259 31 S5C5 9.87 30 9 N2C17 57.64 177 32 S5C6 20.86 68 10 N3C9 57.01 175 33 S5C7 24.84 80 11 N5C23 63.69 199 34 S5C8 17.83 58 12 N10C17 62.42 195 35 S5C28 7.64 21 13 N10C20 57.64 177 36 S5C30 6.40 16 14 N11C1 19.90 65 37 S5C31 33.92 106 15 N11C2 13.38 43 38 S5C32 35.99 112 *16 N11C10 65.29 206 39 S5C33 66.24 210 17 N11C15 64.33 202 40 S5C34 61.15 190 *18 S1C10 80.89 281 41 S5C35 26.11 84 19 S1C41 34.71 108 42 S5C38 20.22 67 20 S1C42 31.53 99 43 S5C39 28.98 84 *21 S2C13 69.59 224 44 S5C41 36.62 114 22 S2C15 66.56 211 45 S5C43 48.09 157 *23 S2C23 95.06 378

100 H. J A Y H A N I & M. R E Z A E I P O U R StIr 45, 2016

Fig. 7: Diagram showing the relationship between the diameter and the age of cypress trees in Fin Garden, based on selected samples for dendrochronology studies (Diagram by ‘A. Karīmī, 2002).

FIN GARDEN: THE HISTORY OF RELOCATION AND ALTERATIONS Up until the sixteenth century, texts mention Fin as a region with a spring and gardens. Ḥasan Qumī in the Tarīkh-i Qum (The History of Qom) written in 378/988 says that Fin and its qanats were built by Bishtāsf (Vishtasp),15 a king of the Kayanian dynasty of Iran.16 Yaqūt, in the early thirteenth century, mentioned Fin among the villages of Kashan17 while Ḥamdullāh Mustawfī referred to Fin’s qanat system and an earthen castle known as Fin outside Kashan in the fourteenth century18 and Amīn Aḥmad Rāzī referred to the spring and gardens of Fin in 1010/1601.19 Since the seventeenth century, ‘the great mansion of Fin spring’ was mentioned, for example, by Muḥammad Maʿṣūm and Vāleh Iṣfahānī.20 Muḥammad Ṭāhir

15 Bushtāsb, Bishtāsb, or Gushtāsb. He was a king of Iranian traditional history and patron of Zoroaster. See Shahbazi 2003, pp. 171-176. 16 Qumī 2002, p. 77. 17 Yāqūt 1965, p. 933. 18 Mustawfī 1957, pp. 73-74. 19 Rāzī 1999, p. 1007. 20 Muḥammad Maʿṣum 1989, p. 285; and Vāleh Iṣfahānī 1993, p. 300. T H E A U T H E N T I C L A Y O U T O F B A G H - I F I N 101

Ḳazvīnī makes reference to the mansion of Fin spring as a template for palaces and canals of Paradise in 1070/1659.21 Writing in the eighteenth century, Ᾱẕar Bīgdilī (1134-1195/1722-1781) clearly describes the Fin Garden in his verses giving the chronogram of the date of the garden’s repair following the 1168/1755 earthquake.22 ‘Abd al-Raḥīm Kalāntar-i Ḍarrābī refers specifically to two royal gardens in 1287/187023 while, in his work Tārīkh-i Kāshān (The History of Kashan), he noted the existence of a distance of about 500 zarʿ24 between old and new gardens25 with a wide, paved avenue (khīyābān) connecting the two gardens.26 He has also stated that the old garden was ruined at the time when his book was written.27 Ḍarrābī says that Shāh ‘Abbās I (996-1039/1587-1629) and his successor Shāh Ṣafī (1039-1052/1629-1642) founded the new garden,28 and continues by stating that the ramparts, the central pavilion and the large baths had been built sometime during the reign of Shāh ‘Abbās I or Shāh Ṭahmāsb (930-984/1524-1576) (see fig. 5).29 It is noteworthy that a massive earthquake destroyed the Fin region almost completely in 982/1574.30 Based on Ḥasan Narāqī’s study, we understand that the new garden had been established closer to the spring in the reign of Shāh ‘Abbās I and was developed in the reign of Shāh Ṣafī (1039-1052/1629-1642).31 The ruins of the old garden called Bāgh-i Kuhna still exist at the downward of Fin Garden. It seems, therefore, that all the references predating the early seventeenth century refer to the former location and form of Fin Garden, which is now known as the Bāgh-i Kuhna. Despite the fact that exact date remains unknown, the relocation of

21 Vahīd Ḳazvīnī 1951, pp. 263-264. 22 Karīmī 1989. Ᾱẕar Bīgdilī has composed these two verses ending with a chronogram (tārīkh) showing the date of the repair following the 1168/1755 earthquake: Dar ‘ahd-i Karīm ān Shah-i mulk-i Qubād / bā sa‘y-i salīm-i ḥākim-i pāknahād // Ta‘mīr ču yāft bāgh-i Fin Ᾱẕar guft / ‘ābād shuda imārat-i Fin ābād (In the reign of Karīm [Khān], the King of the land of Kavād / with the diligence of the decent king, When Fin Garden was repaired, Ᾱẕar said: / ‘The mansion of Fin flourished’). According to the count of abjad numerals, the phrase ‘ābād shuda imārat-i Fin ābād’ indicates 1176, i.e. the year 1176/1762. See Jayhani and Emrani 2007, p. 52. For more information about the 1755 and 1778 earthquakes, see Ambraseys and Melville 1982, p. 53. 23 Ḍarrābī 1999, pp. 73-76. 24 A local unit for distance: the measure is different in different regions but, in most cases, it is between 1.04 and 1.12 cm. See Dihkhudā 1998, p. 11497. 25 Ḍarrābī 1999, p. 75. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid, p. 64. 29 Ibid, pp. 73-74. 30 Tatavī and Vazīrī 1999, p. 738. 31 Narāghī 1995, pp. 46-47. 102 H. J A Y H A N I & M. R E Z A E I P O U R StIr 45, 2016

Fin Garden is supported by the aforementioned evidence: the remains of Bāgh-i Kuhna and the consistency of Ḍarrābī’s definition with a sketch of Pascal Coste which shows the path (khīyābān) in front of Fin Garden gate in the nineteenth century (fig. 8). The earthquakes of 1168/1755 and 1192/1778 inflicted extensive damage on the region and the garden was subsequently repaired on both occasions on the orders of Karīm Khān.32 Fin Garden began to flourish during the reign of Fatḥ ʿAlī Shāh (1212-1250/1797-1834) who was extre- mely interested in the garden and added many constructions to the Safavid garden. The most prominent of these are the Qajar palace, including a ṣuffa (roofed platform), a pavilion connected to the ṣuffa, and an avenue in front of them (fig. 5).33 After Fatḥ ʿAlī Shāh, the garden received less attention but it was repaired and developed again by Prince Jalāl al-dīn Iḥtishām al- mulk in 1286/1869 during the reign of Nāṣir al-dīn Shāh (1264-1313/1847- 1896). The greatest damage to the garden was incurred when it was occupied by Nāyibīyān rebels at the end of the Qajar period and during the constitutional movement.34 Finally, in 1935, Fin Garden was registered as a national monument and, following this, there have been extensive and repeated repairs and several restorations and alterations have been carried out.35 Fin Garden is a castle garden with ramparts enclosing the main courtyard (fig. 4) which includes paths, water courses and pools, plots and a central pavilion. The garden’s buildings are located beyond the walls and they open into the main courtyard, with only the Qajar palace and the garden gate penetrating into the central open space. The garden comprises three longitudinal paths, one of which serves as the main avenue, the second of which runs in front of the Qajar palace and the third lies at the west of the main avenue. The garden has one latitudinal avenue36 and four

32 Also, see ftn. 22 above. 33 Other buildings added to the garden in this period include: the large stable, and Niẓām al-dawla’s yard (andarūn or women’s quarters) built by the order of Fatḥ ʿAlī Shāh’s son in law, Niẓām al-dawla (the ruler of Kashan). The site of this yard now accommodates the Kashan Museum. See Wilber 1962, p. 222 (plate 112) and Siroux 1949, p. 114. 34 Narāqī 1995, p. 65 and Dihbāshi 1989, pp. 151, 153 and 174. Some official documents mention damage in 1330 H. See the letter no. 2232, dated 1st of Saraṭān 1330/ 1912, from the government of Kashan to the honorable Minister of Interior. .[Iran National Archives Organization ,240019170-119 الف اب الف ا :°Document n] See also: Navāyī and Baḳāyī 2000, p. 140. 35 Narāqī 1995, p. 65. This garden and eight others were inscribed as a World Heritage Site in 2011. 36 Presence of old cypresses with the 211, 234, 294, 175, 199 and 198 year-old trees (respectively, S2C15, S2C13, S4C42, N3C9, N5C23, S4C43) gives witness to the age and authenticity of this avenue. See Jayhani and Emrani 2007, pp. 384-392. T H E A U T H E N T I C L A Y O U T O F B A G H - I F I N 103 paths37 which surround the entire green area. The main avenue extends from garden gate to the main hall and is divided into two sections. The first part, which is located between the garden gate and central pavilion, comprises three paths. The median path (P1) which comprises the main part of the avenue has a water canal in the middle while, although the two sidewalks (P2 and P3) are narrower, their presence effectively turns the main avenue into the fundamental structure for the garden, enhancing the quality of the space. The second part, located between central pavilion and the main hall (see fig. 5), currently only has one path with a long pool in the middle and is the subject of severe scrutiny in this research.

Fin Garden has been repaired several times during the twentieth century.38 In 1935, the Ministry of Education and Endowment became responsible for restoring the garden and it was continued until the 1980s.39 The repair work conducted from the 1930s to 1980s included a wide variety of activities such as: restoration of the garden gate, the central pavilion and the Qajar palace; replacing the Kashan Museum on the former

37 The authenticity of these paths can be approved by the oldest cypress tree of the garden of 460 years old at the border of plot S2, and two other 386 and 275 year-old cypress trees close to Fatḥʿalīshāhī ṣuffa (BS2C1 and BS2C2) known among the gardeners as Laylī and Majnūn. See: Tables 1 and 2. 38 For instance, Nāyibīyān rebels have repaired the buildings of Fin Garden in the early twentieth century when they had occupied the garden. See Dihbāshi 1989, pp. 437- 438. 39 For more information about the restoration and repair work, see Jacobs and Shandiz 2005, pp. 287-290. 104 H. J A Y H A N I & M. R E Z A E I P O U R StIr 45, 2016 site of a Qajar private house; reconstruction of the hall at the eastern end of the latitudinal avenue for a new library; and, more importantly, repair work in the main courtyard. Those activities also included modification of some Qajar elements in the garden gate and central pavilion in order to emphasize the Safavid layout. While an attempt was made to restore the buildings of the garden, the open spaces only benefited from repairs and these sometimes resulted in damage to the authentic layout of the garden. During this period, the planting plan and the layout of the garden had not been sufficiently well studied and were restored incorrectly, but the plots’ edges have been repaired or reconstructed. In addition, some earthen paths were paved and grooved. For instance, a longitudinal path in western part of the garden running parallel with the main avenue has been covered by stone blocks.40 An overview of such alterations in the main avenue also suggests that some changes had also occurred with the pavement and grooves there, namely in the sidewalk P3. The historical texts have not provided the exact date of the establish- ment of the garden in its new site and the garden has been developed over a more extended period. By 2002, the ages of the trees had been estimated41 and, as a consequence, an attempt was made to ascertain the age of the garden in its current location during studies conducted between 2002 and 2005, in addition to the evidence gathered from historic texts or field studies of the buildings of the garden. As the main species in the garden, cypress trees can be a good indicator of the garden’s age. Their locations could also help to clarify parts of garden’s planting plan which was formed mostly on the basis of rows of cypress trees. A dendrochronology study on cypress trees was undertaken as one of the studies through which the garden was carefully surveyed, and the location of all trees in the garden was also recorded. The Faculty of Natural Resources of the University of Tehran was responsible for this part of the research and it was the first time that a dendrochronology study was performed in a historic garden in Iran. Although, in response to the unclear history of Fin Garden up until the seventeenth century, that study was aimed at clarifying the age of the garden in its new location, the results uncovered further details about the garden which raised significant doubt about the authenticity of the altered layout of the garden. In order to be more specific, the results of dendrochronology will be compared with the other available information such as the garden’s plan and the location of trees in the garden and their plots.

40 This covering was installed in the middle 1990s. 41 For instance, the two trees BS2C1and BS2C2 known were known to be the oldest trees in the garden. After dendrochronology studies, it has been proved that they are younger than previously thought and that the oldest tree in the garden is S2C23. T H E A U T H E N T I C L A Y O U T O F B A G H - I F I N 105

GARDEN’S PATHS AND PLOTS Currently, there are 17 plots in the garden, some of which probably had a different shape in the past. In addition to these plots, there are rows of trees, seemingly part of plots in the past, which were separated as a result of later alterations. The main plots have been named ‘N’ and ‘S’ and the linear plots, named ‘BS’, are rows running next to the plots S1 and S2 while the linear plot ‘M’ includes two rows along the main walk. The borders of plots S1, S3, S5, N2, N4, N6, N8, N10, N11 and two linear plots M and BS1 shape the main avenue (fig. 6). Among the most aged, there are two rows of trees flanking the median path of the main avenue and creating the main walkway of the garden. The central avenue includes cypresses and three plane trees42 and parts of garden’s watercourse, such as the main pool and the water canal with its fountains and long pool and bubbling pool.

RETRIEVING THE LAYOUT OF THE MAIN AVENUE Regarding to the plots and their layouts, some irregularities can be observed in relation to the main avenue: Some disordered plots, which form the main avenue, will be the center of attention here. This section is organized on the basis of the distinction between ‘M’, ‘S’, and ‘N’ plots.

Plot ‘M’ The dendrochronology study shows that the trees in the two rows of plot M are old enough to indicate the authenticity of this part of the garden as confirmed by the 285 year-old MC14 and several other old trees (see fig. 6).43 The median walk of the main avenue forms a formal view in the garden from the garden gate to the central pavilion. This formal view requires symmetrical plots and planting plans. In spite of the symmetrical rows of cypresses, the different width of their beds and planting of a row of quince trees attached to the western linear plot conflicts with the symmetry. In order to achieve the required symmetrical appearance, these linear beds should be in symmetry and so are in need of some adjustment. The authentic rows of trees that define the western border of the main avenue are the rows of cypresses to the eastern side of plots N8 and N10. These rows lie along the corresponding cypress rows to the eastern side of plots N2, N4 and N6. A row of quince trees has also been planted on the eastern edges of plots N8 and N10. Another row of quince trees has been

42 These plane trees are MP1, MP2and N8P1. 43 The other trees are MC10, MC23 and MC24 with 233, 175 and 259 years old. For the codes and ages of the cypress trees quoted in this article, see Table 2. 106 H. J A Y H A N I & M. R E Z A E I P O U R StIr 45, 2016 planted on the other side of sidewalk P3 (fig. 6) creating a main path with fruit trees on both sides, which is wholly unusual in such a formal garden. Furthermore, the old gardeners confirmed that these trees were planted during the 1980s44 and photographs from 1934 do not show any fruit trees at that period. It seems, therefore, that fruit trees did not flank this path in the authentic layout of the garden. In addition, the brick pavement and benches and the added flowerbed also reveal a major alteration in sidewalk P3 (fig. 9). These pavements and benches have no other examples in other parts of the garden and were constructed around the 1980s. Planting these new rows of quince trees has reduced the width of sidewalk P3 and, hence, ruined the symmetry of the main avenue.45 Apart from the quince trees, only one cypress tree—MC1—at only 58 years old does not belong to the row of cypresses and so should be ignored because of its age. Two rows of plot M provide the most formal view of the main avenue: The trees in those two rows are symmetrical and it seems that only the plot’s borders should be adjusted in order to reveal its hidden symmetrical geometry.

Fig. 9: View of the sidewalk P3 (Photograph: H. Jayhani, 2003).

44 Personal communication from Mr. Yūnisī (former gardener of Fin Garden), 2004. 45 These trees have recently been removed. T H E A U T H E N T I C L A Y O U T O F B A G H - I F I N 107

‘S’ plots Plot S5 is the longest plot in the garden and two rows of trees on its western border were planted very disorderly: One is a row of cypress trees that lies along the longitudinal edge of the plot, while the second row is located roughly at a distance of 3.5 m from the first one. The oldest cypress tree—S5C2—at 163 years old indicates that the maximum age of the outer row at the western border of S5 might be about this age while, in the inner row, the presence of two cypress trees S5C33 and S5C34 at 210 and 190 years old clearly shows that this row is older. Furthermore, the average age of ten trees in the inner row is ca. 114 years while, for eight trees in the outer row, it is approximately 82.46 This proves that the inner row is more authentic than the outer one (fig. 10). Here it is necessary to pay attention to the tolerance range of the determined ages of trees and its influence on the results. This distinction between two inner and outer rows at the western edge of plot S5 represents the most critical situation in this study. The tolerance range for cypress trees S5C2 and S5C33 at 163 and 210 years old is 12.6 and 14.3, respecti- vely47 and so the maximum age range will be between 150-176 years for S5C2 and 196-224 years for S5C33. This proves that the tolerance range of the study could not influence the result in the key plot S5. Study of the age and location of old trees in plot S3 and S1 shows that the inner row of plot S5 has been extended beyond it. Among the row of trees on the western edge of plot S3, at 204 years old S3C6 stands exactly along the inner row of cypress trees in plot S5 including S5C33 and S5C34 in the row. It seems the extension of this row can be also traced in plot S1 (fig. 11). In order to trace the extension of the inner row of plot S5, it is necessary to take into consideration the settings of the old trees in the L-shaped plot S1, where the cypress trees have been planted in a more disorderly manner than in any other plots, and also the immediate linear plot BS1 (fig. 6). Two massive pillars from the northern part of the Qajar palace have been replaced at the southeastern and southwestern corners of the primary forms of plots S1 and S2 and, so, two cypress trees should be removed (fig. 6). It is probable that, after the Qajar palace penetrated into the garden in 1226/181148 which militates against the garden’s historical

46 The average ages have been counted for S5C30, S5C31, S5C32, S5C33, S5C34, S5C35, S5C38, S5C39, S5C41 and S5C43 in the inner row, and for S5C1, S5C2, S5C3, S5C4, S5C5, S5C6, S5C7 and S5C8 in outer row. All of these trees are located exactly in the inner or outer rows. 47 According to the dendrochronology study in Fin Garden, this equation reveals the maximum tolerance rang (R): R2=(0.9754)x(Y). Here (Y) is the age determined for each tree and (0.9754) is a constant factor. See Karīmī 2002. 48 Narāqī 1995, pp. 50-53. 108 H. J A Y H A N I & M. R E Z A E I P O U R StIr 45, 2016 layout the linear plots BS1 and BS2 became separated from their mother plots in order to provide better access for walkers. Also, the narrow paths between linear plots and the two plots S1 and S2 were made of earth until 1990s.49 We must also add the fact that the southern (upper) sides of the current pattern of plots S1 and S2 do not have any old cypresses and this demonstrates that the two linear plots BS1 and BS2, which include old cypress trees, have been separated from S1 and S2. Regarding the absence of any old trees in southern border of plot S1 and the non-authentic earthen path between S1 and BS1, linear plot BS1 was one part of the ‘L-type’ plot S1 in its authentic layout while BS2 can be attached to plot S2 (fig. 12). The old cypress tree BS1C4 at 305 years old stands exactly in line with the inner row of trees in S5 and the western row in S3. The location of BS1C4 at the end of the previously mentioned axis of cypress trees indicates the authenticity of that row, which is not exposed in the current layout of the garden but which extends along the entire garden (fig. 11). The ages and locations of the two cypresses BS1C4 and S1C1050 at 305 and 294 years old can lead us to trace a straight path between two rectangular plots inside plot S1. This vertical path has been replaced by a couple of young cypresses, namely S1C41 and S1C42 which are 108 and 99 years old, respectively. While the two cypresses BS1C4 and S1C10 prove the theory of separation, the traceable path between two more authentic plots S1-1 and S1-2 lies along the path running between the row of cypresses at the western border of plot S3 and the eastern side of the central pavilion (fig. 13). The extension of this path is also compatible with plot S5 and runs along sidewalk P2 in the authentic pattern when the outer row of cypresses at the western border of plot S5 is ignored. In this way, sidewalk P2 can be recognized as a path running along the entire garden. It is matched with the more authentic cypress row in plots S1, S3 and S5 and is concordant with the central pavilion and the open space opposite it. In the garden’s current condition, the western side of plot S5, in which the oldest tree is 163 years old, is not in line with the corresponding row of trees in plots S3 and does not match the authentic form of S1 (S1-1, see fig. 13). This becomes clearer when we note the point at which the authentic layout of plot S5 connects with the northeastern corner of the open space opposite the central pavilion. S5C1 and S5C28, at 35 and 21 years old, render the point connecting the sidewalk P2 and the open space

49 This path, along with another one in the western part of the garden, was roughly paved with granite stone blocks in middle 1990s. The granite stones and the pavement texture and colour are not concordant with other parts of the garden which is paved with rubble stone. 50 S1C10 was one of the cases for sampling and has been referred to here; its age is given in Table 1. T H E A U T H E N T I C L A Y O U T O F B A G H - I F I N 109 opposite the central pavilion less plausible. This irregularity can be clear when the aforementioned point of connection is compared with its symmetrical point at the other side of the open space (fig. 14). It seems that the connection point of the open space opposite central pavilion and sidewalk P3 is more authentic than that of sidewalk P2, when two rows of quince trees are ignored.

S5 S5

Fig. 10: Plot S5 and its planting plan in its current (left) and more authentic (right) layout. The authentic and very narrow form of plot S5 could make clear that the avenue in front of the Qajar palace had been transformed from a narrow path to a wide avenue. Narrow parts of plot S5 and also plots S3 and S1 could also be attached to the path (Plan: H. Jayhani). 110 H. J A Y H A N I & M. R E Z A E I P O U R StIr 45, 2016

BS2 BS1

S2 S1

S4 S3

Fig. 11: The recovered row of cypresses in plots S1, S3 and S5 based on the cypresses BS1C4, S3C6, S5C33 and S5C34 (Plan: H. Jayhani). T H E A U T H E N T I C L A Y O U T O F B A G H - I F I N 111

S2 S1

Fig. 12: Plan of plots S1 and S2 in front of the Qajar palace. The avenue in front of the Qajar palace has probably been widened from western side (Plan: H. Jayhani).

S1 S1-1 S1-2

Fig. 13: The current (left) and authentic (right) layout of plot S1. The newly revealed layout presents two separated plots S1-1 and S1-2. We should note that, in a more authentic layout, the north western pillar of the Qajar palace should be located exactly in the south-eastern corner of new plot, namely S1-1 (Plan: H. Jayhani). 112 H. J A Y H A N I & M. R E Z A E I P O U R StIr 45, 2016

Fig. 14: Plan of the open space opposite the central pavilion (Plan: H. Jayhani). T H E A U T H E N T I C L A Y O U T O F B A G H - I F I N 113

‘N’ plots The eastern side of plots N6, N8 and N10 comprises a row of cypress trees as one of the formative elements of the main avenue. The trees in this row are planted in almost one line (fig. 6). At the western side of the garden the trees are younger, but the presence of two trees—N10C17 and N10C20, which are 195 and 177 years old respectively—in plot N10 is a reminder of the authenticity of this part of the main avenue and the eastern row of cypress trees in N10. The eastern side of plot N4, one of the components of the main avenue, has been damaged: While the trees have been orderly planted in one line, the eastern border of the plot oddly has a step. On the western border of the main avenue all cypress trees are located in one line but the plot borders have irregularity. Based on the material of the curbs in the aforementioned plots, these irregularities occurred during repair work carried out in the twentieth century. These irregularities are obvious in the linear beds of quince trees attached to plots N8 and N10 and the eastern border of plot N4. In plot N2, the 177 year-old tree N2C17 shows the authenticity of the cypress row close to the eastern border of the plot. This row has been extended along the eastern border of plots N4, N6, N8 and N10. Having contained the two cypresses N11C1051 and N11C15 of 228 and 202 years old, the eastern and southern rows of the cypresses in plot N11 can be considered as more authentic rows than those on the other sides. Its northern row of cypresses is along with the cypress S1C10 with 294 years old in northern row in plot S1-2, which was retrieved previously in this article (fig. 6 and fig. 13). Plot N11, therefore, has three authentic rows or sides of cypress while its fourth side does not have any cypress row except for two very young cypresses (N11C1 and N11C2) at 65 and 43 years old, respectively. Regarding the symmetrical form of the main avenue, the defective western cypress row of plot N11 should be adjusted symmetri- cally with the eastern row of the rediscovered plot S1-2 (fig. 15). Under this new arrangement the authentic and narrower form of plot N11, which is now balanced with plot S1-2, can be recovered and the triple structure of the main avenue made by a median walk and two sidewalks can be extended behind the central pavilion. The median walk in this part of the main avenue accommodated the long pool and two sidewalks located at the western side of the authentic form of plot N11 and the eastern side of plot S1-2.

51 N11C10 was one of the cases for sampling and has been referred to here; its age is given in Table 1. 114 H. J A Y H A N I & M. R E Z A E I P O U R StIr 45, 2016

N11 N2 N11 N2

N4 N4

Fig. 15: The current (left) and authentic (right) layout of the combination of plots N2, N4 and N11 (Plan: H. Jayhani).

THE AUTHENTIC LAYOUT OF THE MAIN AVENUE For those three walks that lie inside the main avenue, there are four rows of cypress trees. The western side of plot S5 contains two rows of cypress trees and the inner row should be considered to be the eastern side of the sidewalk P2. The 163 year-old cypress in the outer row must have been planted in around 1255/1839,52 a date that is contemporaneous with two princes who were permitted to reside in Fin Garden after Fatḥ ʿAlī Shāh’s death in 1250/1834 but who had not been allowed to before.53 The date is also about three decades after Fatḥ ʿAlī Shāh ordered Ḥājī Ḥusayn Khān Ṣadr-i Aʿẓam Isfahānī, the governor of Kashan, to repair the Sultani School and Fin Garden.54 These repairs were finished in 1226/1811.55 It is

52 Dendrochronology study was performed in 2002 and all of ages determined for cypress trees mentioned in this article refer to their ages in this year. 53 The princes Ṭahmāsb Mīrzā Mu’ayyid al-dawla, Bahman Mīrzā Bahā’ al-dawla, Fatḥallāh Mīrzā Shu‘ā‘ al-salṭana and Shāhrukh Mīrzā received a residence permit as Governor of Kashan respectively in 1251/1835, 1252/1836, 1255/1839 and 1264/ 1848. Before them, ʿAlī Muḥammad Khān Niẓām al-dawla, the Governor and Fatḥ ‘Alī Shāh’s son-in-law, in an exceptional situation stayed in the garden after 1242/1827 and added the Qajar private house. See Narāqī 1995, pp. 56-57. 54 Narāqī 1995, p. 50. 55 In the remaining part of a long inscription, the verses by Mīr Ma‘ṣūm Kūzakanānī, whose nom de plume is Khavarī, describe the order given by Fatḥ ‘Alī Shah to Ḥājī T H E A U T H E N T I C L A Y O U T O F B A G H - I F I N 115 not clear whether the alteration in the 1250s/1830s had been made intentionally or by mistake. Although the shah paid more attention to his favourite palace, which had an avenue in front of it (see fig. 5) after 1226/1811, the 163 year-old cypress proves that he had not applied any alteration to the planting plan of the main avenue. It seems that both the new planting plan and the alteration in the layout of the main avenue occurred within a short time when the garden had numerous residents. It is possible that the main avenue receded into the background when Fatḥ ‘Alī Shāh developed the garden and built an avenue parallel to the main one, which is now the famed Fatḥ‘alī-shāhī Avenue. Furthermore, the deficien- cy of accuracy has intensified the alteration by new residents after him. The cypress rows at the eastern sides of plot N8 and N10 should be recovered in accordance with the authentic row in the western side of plot S5. To achieve the formal view of the main avenue and a combination between the avenue and open space opposite central pavilion requires a symmetrical plan and a planting plan. The quince trees along the sidewalk P3, therefore, should be ignored. Plot S1 is the most disordered one among all in the garden. It contains a few trees of between 50-100 years old in the middle, all planted out of the garden’s planting order. Also, the L-shaped plot does not resemble any other plot in the garden’s layout and is formed by merging the two rectangular plots S1-1 and S1-2 which formerly existed there as authentic ones. The western one (S1-2) is symmetrical with plot ‘N11 to be’ (fig. 15) and both plots have formed the main avenue between the central pavilion and the main hall. On the other side of the long pool, a combination of plots N2, N4 and N11, with a slight correction, signifies greater authenticity compared with a combination of S1-1 and S1-2. Young trees like N11C1 and N11C2 should be ignored (fig. 15).

Ḥusayn Khān Ṣadr-i A‘ẓam Iṣfahānī to build a palace. These verses include a chronogram which gives the date of its construction: Dar īn khurram sarā-bustān nahād īn kākh rā bunyān / čenān kāmad khijil Nuʿmān zeh vaḍʿ-i kākh-i nuʿmānī Beh pāyān kākh-i sulṭānī ču āmad Khavarī guftā / ke ‘jāvīd az julūs Shah bādā kākh- i sulṭānī’ ([The Shah] established his palace in this pleasant garden / in such a way that Nu‘mān felt ashamed of his own palace [Khavarnaḳ], When the royal palace had been established, Khavarī said/ ‘This royal palace to be eternal due to the Shah’s enthronement’). According to the abjad numeral count, the phrase ‘jāvīd az julūs Shah bādā kākh-i sulṭānī’ indicates the number 1226, that is the year 1226/1811. See Narāqī 1995, pp. 52-53, and also Meshkātī 1967. 116 H. J A Y H A N I & M. R E Z A E I P O U R StIr 45, 2016

Apart from the open space opposite the central pavilion, which accommodates the main pool, the rest of the main avenue comprises three paths. That part of the main avenue which is located between the garden gate and the central pavilion currently enjoys its authentic form although it is slightly disordered. The other part needed more adjustment in order to reveal its original form and the extension of the two sidewalks P2 and P3 needs to be recovered (fig. 16). These parts of the sidewalks run exactly along the other parts between the garden gate and the central pavilion. However, it is not possible to achieve a precise measurement of the width of the two linear plots M; if we take into consideration only one row of the cypress trees in each linear plot, these linear plots may be narrower than plots S1-2 and N11. Hence, the two sidewalks P2 and P3, running between the garden gate and the central pavilion, could be wider than the extension of P2 and P3 behind the central pavilion. Based on the corrections mentioned in this article, the plan of the main avenue that has been recovered can be seen in the figure 17 while the role of the main avenue in the spatial structure of the garden is clearly shown in figure 18. Although the axis of the median walk and the main hall are the same, the axis of two ‘three-door rooms’ and of those two sidewalks are not the same. These irregularities occurred because those two ‘three-door rooms’ were built after the layout of the main avenue had been altered.56 It is now possible to explain why Wilber presented a plan with a different and incorrect layout. He may have followed C. M. Villiers- Stuart’s study57, published in 1913, or been influenced by Pope and Ackerman who had accepted and closely cited Villiers-Stuart’s study.58 They placed an emphasis on a four-fold pattern, which they applied to most Persian and Mughal gardens. Pope and Ackerman’s study was carried out in the 1930s and published in 1938-1939 while Wilber and Ackerman jointly published their inspiring book in 1940. It seems that the pioneer studies on Mughal gardens in India and their two axial-symmetric plans exerted an excessive influence on understanding of Persian garden.

56 The main hall and ‘three-door rooms’ were built on the royal order during the reign of Muḥammad Shāh (1250-1264/1834-1848), in 1256/1840. See Jacobs and Shandiz 2005, pp. 284-285. 57 See Villiers-Stuart 1913, especially chapter II. 58 See Pope and Ackerman 1939, p. 1432. T H E A U T H E N T I C L A Y O U T O F B A G H - I F I N 117

BS1

N11 N2

S3 N6

S5 N8

N10

Fig. 16: Authentic plan of the main avenue and the present irregular cypress trees that should be ignored (Plan: H. Jayhani). 118 H. J A Y H A N I & M. R E Z A E I P O U R StIr 45, 2016

BS2 BS1

N11 N2 N1

S2 S1

N4 N3

S4 S3 N6 N5

S5 N8 N7

S6 N10 N9

Fig. 17: New plan for Fin Garden based on the authentic layout of the main avenue (Plan: H. Jayhani). T H E A U T H E N T I C L A Y O U T O F B A G H - I F I N 119

Fig. 18: Authentic layout of the main avenue and its spatial structure which changes the general image of the garden (Plan: H. Jayhani). 120 H. J A Y H A N I & M. R E Z A E I P O U R StIr 45, 2016

Another point to be considered could be the garden’s condition in the 1930s: Bāgh-i Fin was disordered and almost destroyed as a result of the rebels’ activity which has previously been mentioned. Although Wilber and Ackerman did not present any photographs of the garden, Myron Bement Smith who visited the garden in 1934 took some photographs and drew a quick sketch of the garden’s layout. Smith focused on the vaults and so he probably had not studied or was not influenced by the results of Mughal/Islamic gardens studies, which have flourished during the period from the 1910s to 1930s. Smith’s photos in the Freer and Sackler Archives show two paths behind two rows of plot M on both sides while they give the impression of an earthen path and seem to be part of the plots (fig. 19). Therefore, in the aforementioned sketch he perceived the main avenue to be wider than the other paths in the garden, especially the latitudinal path, and his sketch is very similar to the authentic layout of the garden which is the focus of this article (fig. 20). It seems that, in addition to the old trees such as the 163 year-old S5C2 (planted outside the authentic plots), the sidewalks P2 and P3, which had been ruined and demolished, caused Wilber’s incorrect perception. This ruined condition of the garden may have been reflected in another plan, drawn in 1934 two months before Smith’s visit. Ḥusayn ʿAlī Miʿmār Tasalluṭ-i Kāshānī prepared the plan in order to point out both the ruined and the repairable areas (fig. 21). His plan, which seems to have been prepared as a primary plan for identifying the problems and destructions, focused on buildings and constructed areas and has not included any plots, trees or curbs. Mentioning the existence of Smith’s photos, the sidewalks P2 and P3 in this plan were attached to the roughly drawn planted areas. According to Ḥusayn ʿAlī’s note in the plan, he has focused on the buildings and only avenues with a watercourse and fountains which should normally be located within paved paths. It seems, therefore, that he ignored the earthen sidewalks. Although it did not focus on the planted areas and trees his plan is close to the one published by Wilber, and it is indeed possible that Wilber developed this primary plan for the purpose of his own work.

T H E A U T H E N T I C L A Y O U T O F B A G H - I F I N 121

Fig. 19: Photograph by Myron Bement Smith (1934) showing two paths behind two rows of plot M on both sides of the median walk of the main avenue (© The Myron Bement Smith Collection, Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur M. Sackler Gallery Archives, Smith- sonian Institution, Washington, D.C.).

Fig. 20: Sketch of Fin Garden by Myron Bement Smith, 1934 (Photograph © The Myron Bement Smith collection, Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur M. Sackler Gallery Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.). 122 H. J A Y H A N I & M. R E Z A E I P O U R StIr 45, 2016

Fig. 21: Plan of Fin Garden drawn by Ḥusayn ‘Alī Mi‘mār Tasallut-i Kāshānī, 1934 (Photograph © Archives of Cultural Heritage and Tourism Organization, Iran). T H E A U T H E N T I C L A Y O U T O F B A G H - I F I N 123

CONCLUSION By taking into consideration the information drawn from dendrochronological dating, the history of the garden’s development and its current plan, we can identify the lines which appear the closest to the original layout of the garden. This article has mostly focused on the main avenue, which has been understood differently from its original layout, and tried to find its authentic plan. In its restored layout, the row of cypress trees on the western side of plots S5, S3 and S1-1 are all in a single line that forms the eastern border of the main avenue, while its western border is marked by cypress trees on the eastern side of plots N2, N4, N6, N8 and N10. Finally, in addition to the issue of the authentic plan of the main avenue, we should pay attention to the following important points: a) Regarding the planting plan for the main avenue with its three components, this space has a unique form and role in the garden. The great extent of the main avenue, which is traceable throughout the garden, makes it the peerless path in the garden. The main avenue and its components form a spatial structure present from the garden gate to the main hall. b) As a result of the development of the garden in the reign of Fatḥ ʿAlī Shāh, the evidence suggests that the garden had experienced some alterations in its older parts as a result of so many additions. Study of these alterations can make clear how they affected the garden’s layout. It seems, also, that irregularities in the line of the main avenue and the presence of the disordered row of trees have affected the perception of the form of the main avenue and, as a result, punctilious researchers such as Wilber understood the authentic layout of the garden differently.

Hamidreza JAYHANI Maryam REZAEIPOUR School of Architecture and Art, Research Institute of Cultural Heritage & Tourism, University of Kashan, N°2, Melal-e Mottahed Str., Ghotb-e Ravandi Blvd, 30th Tir Ave., Kashan, 87317-51167 Tehran, 11369-18111 Iran Iran < [email protected] > < [email protected] >

124 H. J A Y H A N I & M. R E Z A E I P O U R StIr 45, 2016

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

‘Abdī Bayg 1974 ‘Abdī Bayg-i Shīrazī, Zayn al-‘ābidīn ‘Alī, Rawḍat al-ṣafat: Mathnavī-yi avval az Jannāt-i ‘adn, ed. A. Raḥīmov, Idārah-yi Intishā- rāt-i Dānish, Moscow, 1974. Abdul Rehman 2001 Abdul Rehman, Earthly Paradise: The Garden in the Times of the Great Muslim Empires, Habibur Rehman Research Foundation, Lahore, 2001. Ambraseys and Melville 1982 Ambraseys, N. N., and C. P. Melville, A History of Persian Earth- quakes, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge-London-New York, 1982. Ardalan 2002 Ardalan, N., “Simultaneous Perplexity: The Paradise Garden as a Quintessential Visual Paradigm of Islamic Architecture and Beyond,” in A. Petruccioli and K. K. Pirani, Understanding Islamic Architecture, Routledge Curzon, New York, 2002. Ardalan and Bakhtiar 1973 Ardalan, N., and L. Bakhtiar, The Sense of Unity: the Sufi Tradition in Persian Architecture, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973. Brookes 1987 Brookes, J., Gardens of Paradise: The History and Design of the Great Islamic Gardens, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1987. Ḍarrābī 1378/1999 Kalāntar-i Ḍarrābī, ‘Abd al-raḥīm, Tārīkh-i Kāshān yā Mir’āt-i Qāsān, ed. Īraj Afshār, Amīr Kabīr, Tehran, 1378sh./1999. Dihbāshi 1368/1989 Dihbāshi, Muḥammad-Reḍa, Ṭughyān-i Nāyibīyān dar jaryān-i inqilāb-i mashrūṭīyat-i Īrān [Rebellion of Nāyibīyān during Iran’s Constitutional Revolution], Behnigār, Tehran, 1368sh./1989. Dihkhudā 1377/1998 Dihkhudā, ʻAlī Akbar, Muḥammad Muʻīn, and Jaʻfar Shahīdī, Lughatnāma, vol. VIII, Muʼassasa-yi Intishārāt va Čāpp-i Dānishgāh-i Tihrān, Tehran, 1377sh./1998. Haravī 1346/1967 Haravī, Qāsim ibn Yūsuf Abū Naṣr, Irshād al-zirā‘a, ed. M. Mushīrī, Intishārāt-i Dānishgāh-i Tihrān, Tehran, 1346sh./1967. Jacobs and Shandiz 2005 Jacobs, P., and M. H. Shandiz, “Analyse du Jardin Royal de Fin en Perse (fin XVIe–début XVIIe) d’après les sources historiques”, Journal of Studies in the History of Gardens & Designed Landscapes 25/4 (2005), pp. 273-296. Jayhani and Emrani 1386/2007 Jayhani, H., and S. M. A. Emrani, Fin Garden, Pizhūhishgāh-i Mīrās̲ -i Farhangī, Ṣanāyiʻ-i Dastī va Gardishgarī (Research Institute of Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism), Tehran, 1386sh./2007. Karīmī (‘A.) 1381/2002 Karīmī, ‘A., Muṭali‘a va sāmāndihī-yi gīyāhān-i bāgh-i Fīn (Study and enhancement of the plants in Fin Garden), unpublished report, Iran Cultural Heritage Organization, 1381sh./2002. T H E A U T H E N T I C L A Y O U T O F B A G H - I F I N 125

Karīmī (F.) 1368/1989 Karīmī, Fāțima, “Kāshān”, in Muḥammad Yūsif Kīyānī, Shahrhā-yi Iran, vol. III, Intishārāt-i Jahād-i Dānishgāhī, Tehran, 1368sh./1989, pp. 203-233. Khansari, Moghtader and Yavari 1998 Khansari, M., M. R. Moghtader, and M. Yavari, The Persian Garden: Echoes of Paradise, Mage Publishers, Washington, DC, 1998. Lehrman 1980 Lehrman, J. B., Earthly Paradise: Garden and Courtyard in Islam, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1980. Meshkātī 1346/1967 Mishkātī, Nuṣratallāh, “Sarvistānī dar rub‘-i maskūn yā bāgh-i tārīkhī-yi Fīn”, Hunar va Mardum 5/58 (1346sh./1967), pp. 8-15. Moore, Mitchell and Turnbull 1988 Moore, C. W., W. J. Mitchell, and W. Turnbull, The Poetics of Gardens, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1988. Muḥammad Ma‘ṣum 1368/1989 Muḥammad Ma‘ṣum ibn Khvājagī Iṣfahānī, Khulāṣat al-sīyar, ‘Ilmī, Tehran, 1368sh./1989. Mustawfī 1336/1957 Mustawfī [Qazvīnī], Ḥamdallāh, Nuzhat al-qulūb, ed. M. Dabīr Sīyāqī, Ṭahūrī, Tehran, 1336sh./1957. Narāqī 1374/1995 Narāqī, Ḥasan, Ᾱthār-i tārīkhī-yi shahristānha-yi Kāshān va Naṭanz, Anjuman-i Ᾱthār va Mafākhir-i Millī, Tehran, 1374sh./1995. Navā’ī and Baqā’ī 1379/2000 Navā’ī, ʿAbd al-Ḥusayn, and Muḥammad Baḳā’ī Shīrjīnī, Nāyibīyān-i Kāshān, Intishārāt-i Sāzimān-i Asnād-i Millī-yi Īrān, Iran, 1379sh./ 2000. Pope and Ackerman 1939 Pope, Arthur Upham, and Phyllis Ackerman, “Gardens,” in Arthur Upham Pope, A Survey of Persian Art, vol. II, Oxford University Press, London and New York, 1939. Qumī 1381/2002 Qumī, Ḥasan ibn Muḥammad ibn Ḥasan, and Ḥasan ibn ‘Alī, Tārīkh-i Qum, ed. J. Ṭihrānī, Tūs, Tehran, 1381sh./2002. Rāzī 1378/1999 Rāzī, Amīn Aḥmad, Tadhkira-yi haft iqlīm, vol. II, ed. S. M. Ṭāhirī, Surūsh, Tehran, 1378sh./1999. Shahbazi 2003 Shapur Shahbazi, A., “Goštāsp”, in E. Yarshater (Gen. Ed.), Encyclo- paedia Iranica, vol. XI, Bibliotheca Persia Press, New York, 2003. Siroux 1949 Siroux, Maxime, Carvansérails d’Iran et petites constructions routieres, Imprimerie de l’institute Francais d’archeologie Orientale, Le Caire, 1949. Subtelny 1993 Subtelny, Maria E., “Medieval Persian Agricultural Manual in Context: The Irshād al zirā‘a in late Timurid and Early Safavid Khorasan,” Studia Iranica 22/2 (1993), pp. 167-217. ——— 1995 Subtelny, Maria E., “Mirāk-i Sayyid Ghiyās and the Timurid Land- scape Architecture: Further Notes to ‘A Medieval Persian Agricultural Manual in Context’,” Studia Iranica 24/1 (1995), pp. 19-60. Tatavī and Vazīrī 1378/1999 Tatavī, Qāḍī Aḥmad, and Ᾱṣifkhān Vazīrī, Tārīkh-i Alfī, ed. ʿAlī Ᾱl-i Dāvūd, Fikr-i rūz, Tehran, 1378sh./1999. 126 H. J A Y H A N I & M. R E Z A E I P O U R StIr 45, 2016

Vahīd Qazvīnī 1329/1951 Vahīd Qazvīnī, Muḥammad Ṭāhir, ‘Abbāsnāma yā Sharḥ-i zindigī-yi 22 sāla-yi Shāh ‘Abbās-i thanī, ed. Ibrāhīm Dahgān, Kitābfurūshī-yi Dāvūdī, Arak, 1329sh./1951. Vāleh Iṣfahānī 1372/1993 Vālah Iṣfahānī, Muḥammad Yūsuf, Khuld-i barīn, ed. Mīr Hāshīm Muḥaddith, Bunyād-i Mawqūfāt-i Duktur M. Afshār, Tehran, 1372sh./ 1993. Villiers-Stuart 1913 Villiers-Stuart, C. M., Gardens of the Great Mughals, A. & C. Black, London, 1913. Wilber 1962 Wilber, D. N., Persian gardens and garden pavilions, Tuttle, Tokyo, 1962. Wilber and Ackerman 1940 Wilber, D. N., and P. Ackerman, The Persian Garden, The Iranian Institute [of America], [New York], 1940. Yāqūt 1344/1965 Yāqūt ibn ʻAbdallāh al-Ḥamavī, Muʻjam al-buldān, vol. III, Maktabat al-Asadī, Ṭehran, 1344sh./1965.