An Analysis of the Iranian Perception of the Symbolic Meaning of the Dragon Based on Archaeological Evidence from the Ilkhanid and Timurid Periods
Subject Areas : Archaeology
1 -
Keywords: Dragon, Ilkhanid, Demon, Miniature, Timurid, Symbolic Meaning.,
Abstract :
The symbolic image of the dragon, as seen in Chinese art, did not exist in Iranian artworks up to the Ilkhanid period (657–735 AH); however, in ancient Iranian thought, this mythical creature was imagined as a giant serpent. With the emergence of the Ilkhanids and under the influence of Chinese art and philosophy, the dragon in its Chinese form—symbolizing benevolence and prosperity—became a prominent motif in Iranian art. During the periods of the local dynasties (735–777 AH) and the Timurids (777–912 AH), as Mongol power waned and the role of Iranians in governance increased, the dragon began to appear as a demonic symbol in the artworks of the western Timurid territories, in line with Iranian beliefs. In the eastern Timurid regions, influenced by both Chinese and Iranian ideologies, the dragon was sometimes a symbol of power and good fortune, and at other times, bore a demonic connotation. In this study, through fieldwork and library research, various representations of the dragon in Iranian art from the Ilkhanid, local dynasties, and Timurid periods were collected and analyzed using a descriptive-analytical method with a comparative approach. The author, drawing on archaeological data found in museums and libraries, examines the symbolic concept of the dragon in Iranian thought during the Ilkhanid, local dynasties, and Timurid eras. The differing depictions, illustrations, and motifs of dragons in Ilkhanid and Timurid archaeological objects and miniatures reflect the evolving ideological perspectives regarding the symbolic meaning of the dragon in Iran from the beginning of the Ilkhanid period to the end of the Timurid era.
Introduction
The symbol of the dragon occupies a significant yet complex role in the cultural imagination of different civilizations. While in East Asian traditions, particularly Chinese, the dragon represents prosperity, good fortune, and cosmic harmony, its symbolic connotation in Iranian thought has historically been much more ambivalent. In pre-Islamic and early Islamic Iranian mythology, dragons are frequently associated with chaos, malevolence, and demonic forces, often portrayed as adversaries of national heroes such as Rustam and Bahram Gur. This dichotomy becomes particularly prominent during the Ilkhanid and Timurid periods (13th–15th centuries CE), when Mongol and Chinese cultural elements entered Iran through conquest and cross-cultural interactions. This study investigates how the image of the dragon, transformed by Chinese influence, evolved within the framework of Iranian symbolic systems. Using archaeological artifacts, illustrated manuscripts, and decorative motifs from architecture, ceramics, and metalwork, the paper explores how the dragon transitioned from a destructive mythological creature to a more nuanced and multifaceted symbol in Iranian visual culture. The study also explores regional variations in the portrayal of the dragon across eastern and western parts of the Timurid realm. In western Iran, the dragon continued to embody malevolent connotations consistent with pre-Islamic Iranian beliefs, while in the east, the influence of Chinese cosmology and religious symbology allowed for hybridized interpretations. Ultimately, this paper seeks to illustrate how foreign iconography was not merely imported but selectively recontextualized and redefined within the Iranian cultural and ideological worldview.
Methodology
This research adopts a descriptive-analytical methodology incorporating comparative visual analysis. The investigation is grounded in both fieldwork—documenting rock carvings, ceramic reliefs, and museum artifacts—and extensive library research. Visual data were drawn from manuscripts, particularly illustrated versions of the Shahnameh, and a range of decorative arts from the Ilkhanid to Timurid periods. Written sources include epigraphic inscriptions, historical chronicles, and artistic treatises. Through comparative iconographic analysis, the study identifies stylistic and symbolic shifts in the portrayal of dragons and relates these to changes in political power and cultural ideology. Chinese and Iranian perspectives on the dragon are systematically compared, tracing the evolution of its meaning across different geographic and dynastic contexts.
Discussion
The dragon, a mythological creature deeply rooted in the belief systems of multiple cultures, takes on diverse meanings in Iranian art, especially during the Ilkhanid and Timurid periods. Initially absent in early Iranian artistic traditions, the Chinese-style dragon was introduced during the Mongol rule, particularly the Ilkhanid dynasty, which brought with it not only political domination but also extensive cultural exchange. Under the influence of Chinese cosmology, dragons began appearing in Iranian art as symbols of prosperity and celestial favor. This stood in contrast to the traditional Iranian depiction of serpentine creatures as demonic forces, which is evident in Zoroastrian texts and pre-Islamic epics such as the Shahnameh. In these earlier narratives, dragons are often adversaries, symbolizing chaos and evil, ultimately defeated by heroic figures like Rustam or Bahram Gur.
During the Ilkhanid era (13th–14th centuries CE), this symbolic divergence became artistically manifest. Dragons appear not only in manuscript illustrations but also in architectural elements and decorative ceramics. The duality of the symbol is especially evident in rock carvings from sites like Dashkasan, where dragon motifs combine Chinese aesthetic styles with Persian architectural frameworks. In some instances, dragons are depicted flanking religious structures, possibly symbolizing protection—reflecting their positive role in Chinese tradition. However, in western Iranian territories, the iconography often retains its negative connotations, with dragons shown in combative scenes, often facing heroic slayers. These depictions reflect the persistence of native Iranian belief systems despite external influences.
The Timurid period further amplified this symbolic complexity. In the eastern territories of the Timurid Empire, particularly in Herat and Samarkand, the dragon motif often appears in decorative arts, such as jade vessels, ceramic bowls, and illuminated manuscripts. Some of these images exhibit clear Chinese artistic influence, including symmetrical compositions and stylized dragon forms, often intertwined with floral motifs and Arabic calligraphy. An outstanding example is found in a Timurid-era copy of the Shahnameh housed in the Chester Beatty Library, where Bahram Gur is portrayed slaying a vividly painted blue dragon. While the scene echoes Iranian mythological themes, the visual style is markedly East Asian.
Interestingly, in western Iranian artworks of the same era, dragons are more frequently shown as monstrous beings, often locked in combat with heroes or contained within symbolic frames—signifying their dangerous nature. The regional divergence illustrates the differing receptions and adaptations of the dragon symbol: the west leaning toward traditional demonization, the east toward hybridized representation.
Even within the same manuscript traditions, such as the Shahnameh, variations are apparent. Some folios depict dragons as dangerous yet majestic, others as grotesque and clearly malevolent. This inconsistency reflects the ideological negotiations at play during the Ilkhanid and Timurid periods—times when Mongol rulers adopted Islam but maintained aspects of their ancestral belief systems. The dragon became a canvas upon which these ideological tensions and cultural fusions played out.
Moreover, the spatial context of these images—whether appearing in sacred architecture, royal manuscripts, or everyday objects—also influenced their meaning. A dragon on a jade bowl in Herat might signal auspicious power, while one on the threshold of a mosque might warn against evil intrusion. Thus, the meaning of the dragon was not static but dynamically molded by its cultural setting, artistic medium, and intended audience.
In conclusion, the dragon in Iranian art from the Ilkhanid to Timurid periods was a deeply flexible symbol. It simultaneously conveyed notions of cosmic balance, imperial authority, spiritual protection, and existential danger, depending on its artistic, geographic, and temporal context.
Conclusion
This study has traced the transformation of the dragon symbol in Iranian visual culture from the Ilkhanid through the Timurid periods. Introduced primarily through Chinese influence, the dragon underwent significant reinterpretation within the Iranian cultural and ideological framework. Initially perceived as a malevolent creature aligned with chaos and destruction, the dragon gradually acquired dual connotations—sometimes a demon to be vanquished, other times a guardian or emblem of prosperity. This symbolic duality reflects broader sociopolitical and cultural shifts occurring in Iran as Mongol and Chinese influences merged with local Islamic and pre-Islamic traditions. The study demonstrates that dragons in Iranian art were not merely ornamental motifs but ideologically charged symbols, shaped by cross-cultural interaction, religious transformations, and evolving notions of kingship and cosmic order. By analyzing artistic depictions in manuscripts, ceramics, architecture, and metalwork, the research highlights the adaptability of cultural symbols across time and space. The dragon’s evolving imagery underscores the broader dynamics of cultural fusion, resistance, and reinterpretation in Iranian history. Future research may explore how this symbol continued to develop in post-Timurid art or compare its trajectory with that in other regions similarly influenced by Mongol rule and Chinese visual culture.
اکبری، تیمور (1389). تاریخ هنر نقاشی و مینیاتور در ایران. تهران: انتشارات سبحان نور.
بارنز، جینا ال. (1383). خواستگاه تمدن در آسیای شرقی. ترجمه زهراباستی. تهران: انتشارات سمت.
بلر، شیلا؛ بلوم، جاناتان (1381). هنر و معماری اسلامی. ترجمه اردشیر اشراقی. تهران: انتشارات سروش.
بیانی، شیرین (1382). مغولان و حکومت ایلخانی در ایران. تهران: انتشارات سمت.
پاکباز، رویین (138۴). نقاشی ایران. تهران: انتشارات زرین و سیمین.
تالبوت رایس، دیوید (138۴). هنر اسلامی. ترجمه ماه ملک بهار. تهران: انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی.
گودرزی، مرتضی (138۴). تاریخ نقاشی ایران از آغاز تا عصر حاضر. تهران: انتشارات سمت.
توحیدی، فائق (1۴86). مبانی هنرهای فلزکاری، نگارگری، سفالگری، بافتهها و منسوجات، معماری، خط و کتابت. تهران: انتشارات سمیرا.
تیموری، بایسنقر میرزا (1350). نسخه چاپی از شاهنامه مصور بایسنقرمیرزای تیموری. تهران: انتشارات کتابخانه کاخ موزه گلستان.
رویایی، حمیدرضا، حسامی، وحیده، نوبری، فاطمه (1396). مطالعه تطبیقی نماد اژدها در آثار هنری ایران و چین. سومین همایش ملی باستانشناسی.
طاهری، علیرضا (1388). سیر تحول و طبقهبندی اژدها در نگارگری ایران. مطالعات هنر اسلامی، ۷-۲۱.
عکاشه، ثروت (1380). نقاشی ایران. ترجمه غلامرضا تهامی. تهران: انتشارات سازمان تبلیغات اسلامی.
کیانی، یوسف (1362). مقدمهای بر هنر کاشیگری ایران (چاپ اول). تهران: انتشارات رضا عباسی.
گری، بازل. (1369). نقاشی ایران. ترجمه عربعلی شروه. تهران: انتشارات عصر جدید.
مسعودی امین، زهرا، صادقی مهر، سمانه (1۴01). مطالعۀ نقشمایۀ اژدها بر کاشیهای زرینفام با تأکید بر نمادشناسی و پیشینۀ تاریخی. باغ نظر، 19(106)، 99-106.
ملکی، قدریه (1۴00). مطالعه تطبیقی نقش اژدها در سفالینههای دوره تیموری و صفوی ایران و مینگ چین. شباک، ۴(7)، 13۴-123.
میر فتاح، سید علی اصغر (1376). معبد صخرهای داشکسن. مجله گزارشهای باستانشناسی، مهرماه، 238-2۴9.
نایب زاده، راضیه؛ سامانیان، صمد (1395). اژدها در هنر ایران و چین. تهران: انتشارات خاموش.
ننگفو، هوانگ (1379). اژدها در هنر و اساطیر چین. ترجمه کیمیا بالازاده. کتاب ماه هنر، (27 و 28)، ۸۹-۹۱.
