“The Painter in Two Frames”: An Archaeological Investigation of Kamal-ol Molk’s Agency in the...

“The Painter in Two Frames”: An ArchaeologicalInvestigation of Kamal-ol Molk’s Agency in the Fieldof Art and Politics

Maryam Dezhamkhooy & Arman Massoudi

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract An agent’s actions in different fields and its changes can leave materialtraces. Therefore, archaeology in its broadest methodological meaning surveys materialculture and seeks to investigate an agent’s action in a process. Our archaeologicalexcavation in Neshat Garden led to the discovery of material traces of lifestyle changesof a well-known agent from the late Qajar/early Pahlavi era. Mohammad-e Qafari,nicknamed Kamal-ol Molk, was a famous painter of the Qajar court. He left the court inmiddle age and entered politics as an agent of opposition. Kamal’s journey to Europewas a turning point that extended to the end of his life. At the same time, Iran’ssociopolitical context experienced significant evolution, including the MashrouteMovement and the rise of Pahlavi dynasty to power. Such mutations made Kamal-olMolk abandon/change his activities in the field of art, sponsored by the power structure,to engage in political activity. His exile/compulsory migration to a faraway village innortheastern Iran is the outcome of his political activities. The present research is basedon archaeological surveys and excavations in two sites: Kamal-ol Molk’s house andNeshat Garden. The archaeological investigation of Kamal’s life in context, his paint-ings, letters, and photos as a long-term process reveals an artist who was also political.His agency in politics was so effective that in order for the “holy honorable party” tosurvive, he sometimes ordered assassinations.

Keywords Kamal-olMolk .Field .Agency.Qajardynasty.Pahlavidynasty.Opposition

“Think of the darkness and the great coldIn this valley, which resounds with misery.”

Brecht, Threepenny Opera

Int J Histor ArchaeolDOI 10.1007/s10761-014-0271-4

M. Dezhamkhooy (*)Department of Archaeology, University of Birjand, Birjand, Irane-mail: [email protected]

A. MassoudiGolestan University, Gorgan, Irane-mail: [email protected]

Introduction

The investigation of the “recent past” is often defined as within the territory of history.This understanding has led to descriptive approaches to the subject. Extreme relianceon written sources has overshadowed the archaeological evidence of agency.

Neshat Garden, a late Qajar-early Pahlavi site, is located in Taqi Abad-e Salar,Neishabour in the northeastern part of Iran. Archaeological investigations including oneseason of survey and one season of excavation in the spring and summer of 2011.Before that, the site had been recorded in the National Monuments Index as a“historical garden.” The Iranian Cultural Heritage, Handicraft and Tourism Organiza-tion thus defined Neshat as a regular garden. It had only experienced basic restorationand nothing else (Fig. 1).

How did Neshat Garden become an archaeological subject? Firstly, the spatial-temporal context of the garden’s construction was significant (see below). Secondly,it reflected its creator’s agency and activities. Therefore, as archeologists, we decided toinvestigate Neshat in its sociopolitical context. Archaeological research in Neshatrequired placing it in historical context. It challenged the basic view that the gardenfunctioned as a place for neshat, or “exhilaration.” Archaeological data, found duringsurvey and excavation, revealed that Neshat Garden was a place for opposition, whereits agents were its owner, political activists, and exiled people (Papoli Yazdi et al.2013).

Archaeological explanations and interpretations are tied to agency. Archaeologistscan pave the way for presenting new versions of past studies and discovering lost ormissed information and connotations (Hodder and Huston 2003). This is the case withNeshat Garden and its agents. Accepting the agency of Neshat Garden presents a newreading of the site, as one related to opposition groups. Disregarding such agencymeans that Neshat is simply a “beautiful traditional Iranian garden”; a stereotypicallypredefinition that overlooks agency.

Fig. 1 Arial map of Neshat Garden and Taghi Abad Village (Google Earth)

Int J Histor Archaeol

Excavation at Neshat familiarizes us with a multidimensional person with variousidentities who extended his agency in different fields. The research offers an archae-ological narration from Kamal ol-Molk/Mohammad-e Qafari’s agency as a structural(painter)/anti-structural agent (opposition figure) based on his activities in differentfields as well as his interaction with Iranian sociopolitics.

We attempt to render an archaeological reading of different periods of M. Qaffari’slife. The narrative structure provides the chronological framework of specific incidentsand concentrates on individual agency. Kamal ol-Molk is considered one of the mostprominent artists in contemporary Iranian history. He managed to take the Iranianpainting style out of its traditional and miniature forms (Floor 2005). The narrations ofthe first frame are based on historical documents; the dialogues are arranged based onthe same documents.

Theoretical Framework

Iran’s contemporary history is fueled by agents who act as opposition agents indifferent levels of power and hegemony (Sariolghalam 2010, p. 13). They are able toact in different fields at specific points in time, especially politics, and often they areeffective on the micro scale. These agents, however, become the target of “physicalremoval” by the power structure, and this is the end of their activity within the field. So,what is the relationship between an individual’s agency and the power structure? Doessuch an approach—a tendency toward physical omission—also exist among the agentsthemselves when they confront the structure? Bourdieu (1998) considers the relation-ship between human agents and the structures in with they operate as a reciprocal anddialectic relationship (also see Parker 2000, p. 44). He employs the concepts of field,capital, habitus, and structure. Field provides the ground for the agent’s action, whichhas a dialectic relation to rules concerning will, agency, and structure (Bourdieu andWacquant 2002, p. 19; Dornan 2002). It is influenced by structure, yet it also affectsthem. Habitus includes an individual’s understanding and perception of the world andhis attitude (Bourdieu 1977). In Bourdieu’s sense, habitus is almost unconsciously anddeeply placed within the body. It is not a permanent phenomenon but a fluid processwhich changes during a lifetime (Pinto 1996). As a result, structures—even structuresof dominance—are not ahistorical, but subject to change. Habitus not only influencesan individual’s agency, but also the fields selected for the agent’s action. Hence, agencyis not a self-motivated stream independent of context (Bourdieu 1998; Martin 2003, p.7).

Kamal-ol Molk’s actions can be first traced in the field of art. His first activity appearswithin the structure as an artist: the favorite painter of the Qajar court. In such a context,all the agents who enter the world of art are positioned in a superior status because of therelationship they have with the power structure. They themselves, however, are agentsunder control in the field of power (Swartz 1997). Since the field of art has interactionswith the field of politics, significant evolution in the latter can influence the former(Bourdieu 1996). As the painter of the Qajar court, Kamal-ol Molk’s paintings indicatestructural effects on his habitus. His taste as a painter reveals how power structures arereflected in the habitus. Bourdieu (2001) refers to this issue as symbolic power. Since hespent his adolescence and youth in the Qajar court, the dominance of the power structurein his work is evident (Ayatollahi and Haghshenas 2003). Kamal’s activity in the field of


art lasted until the end of his life; however, his political and artistic attitudes were not thesame in the long term. The change in his political attitude after his trip to Europemanifests itself in his abstaining from playing the role of a court artist in the field ofpower. His activity in the field of politics during the second half of his life means that hislife can be investigated in two phases: before his trip to Europe, and after it. As a long-term process, Kamal the intra-structural agent was transformed into Mohammad Qafari,an agent against the structure. Europe was not only an academic and artistic experiencefor Kamal, it also gave him things that prevented him from acting as a sincere, court-dependent artist. His activity in the new field, politics, could be discerned in ourarchaeological excavations through its materiality.

In the context of his second life phase, the analysis of his paintings and writtendocuments reveal another aspect of Kamal ol-Molk’s character. Material culture pro-vides a new field of Kamal’s activity: acting in the field of politics as an opposingagent. This subject has been lost to history. History introduces Kamal’s agency as aliberal painter who only observed the political issues of his country, with his only directobjection to the polity manifested in his absence from the court (see Dehbashi 1989).

But why does Kamal’s activity in the field of politics seem insignificant whencompared to his activity in the field of art? In Bourdieu’s sense, the status of each agentis determined through all his or her property (Bourdieu 1984; also see Swartz 1997, p.122). In the field of art, this property is cultural, and agents with greater amounts ofproperty can exercise more power in practice (Robbins 2000). As a matter of fact, theartists are dominated by their property (Bourdieu 1996, p. 216). Accordingly, Kamal whoowned a great deal of artistic property, had power within the field of art (Bourdieu 1993).

As Kamal obtained more power in the field of art—through his capital and intra-structural relationships with the Qajar dynasty—his activity in the field of art has drawnthe most attention. Archeology has provided a basis to pursue Kamal’s activity in thefield of politics.

From Zel ol-Lah’s Dictatorship to the Authoritative Dictatorship under Reza Khanboots

After a period of weakness and interregnum, the Qajar dynasty rose to power in 1785C.E. when “Aqa Mohammad Khan-e Qajar” (1785–97) eventually crushed the internalrebellions and put an end to the Zand dynasty’s rule (Perry 2006, p. 94), Under theQajar dynasty, Iran experienced challenging relationships with Europe, especiallyFrance, Britain, and Russia.

One of the most significant outcomes of relations with Europe, which probablyturned the king into an opponent, was the Enlightenment. By this time, a considerablenumber of newspapers were being published, but their presence did not decrease theauthoritarian tendencies of the Qajar kings. During the Qajar period, power wasembodied in the figure of the Shah, who was paradoxically both powerful and weak.Entitled “Zel ol-Allah,” the shadow of God, he could also manifest a religious identity(Sariolghalam 2010, p. 26). During this period, Iran lost some of its territory(Farmanfarmaian 2008). The first reforms occurred during the reign of the fourth Qajarking, Naser al-Din Shah (Amanat 1997, p. 74).

As new thoughts and ideas appeared during the Qajar dynasty, it seemed that themost plausible ways to affect change in society were either through intra-system agents


with political hegemony, like chancellor of Naser al-Din Shah, Amir Kabir (Adamiat1983, p. 7); through intellectuals, people who had traveled to Europe; or throughpublications such as “Daftar Tanzimat” or the newspaper “Qanoun” (Sariolghalam2010, p. 41). It was since the reign of Naser al-Din that royal trips to Europe began(Bosworth 1983). These experiences forged interactions between Iran and Europe.Naser al-Din Shah’s sharp interest in works of art and antique artifacts led to thedevelopment of both art and culture in different fields, including photography, theater(passion play), story writing, and so forth (Keddie 1999). One of the most importantresults produced by Iran-Europe interactions was the entrance of the Enlightenmentinto Iran, an event not approved by the Shah. At this time, even though severalnewspapers were published, none of them could question the Shah’s power. Dictatorial,totalitarian regimes require complete obedience, and difference is regarded as deviation(Adorno 1950). In fact, in this period anyone with the ability to criticize the govern-ment’s policies was forced to immigrate to Russia, the Ottoman Empire, or Europe. Tobe different or think differently was treated as a crime (Zaker 1998). Many reforms didnot last in the long term since they had been made by a single person. For example,Amir Kabir implemented reforms such as founding Dar al-Fonoun (the first moderncollege in Iran) and making legal changes, but since he was just a lone individual, hecould not establish a party or an organization (Adamiat 1983). He was finally assas-sinated upon Naser ol-Din Shah’s order with the implicit agreement of the court.

To transform “absolute reign” into a “conditional” one was one of the mostsignificant political changes made by Mozafar-ol Din Shah, the son of Naser-ol DinShah, which is known as the Mashroute Revolution (Kasravi 2004). Iran’s population isestimated to have been between 9 to 10.5 million by the time of Mashroute. Peasantsconstituted more than half of the population, one fourth of which was tribal and onefifth was the civil population (Hambly 1991). Farmers constituted most of the civilpopulation at the beginning of the twentieth century (Floor 2003; Vanessa 1989).

On the whole, three dissident groups can be recognized during the Mashrute era:clergymen, businessmen, and intellectuals. Ordinary people went on strike under theleadership of these groups. Protests were organized around three main political approaches:nationalism, Islamic tendencies, and liberalism (Abrahamian 1982). Long-term protestsresulted in Mozafar-ol Din Shah’s agreement with Mashrute, but he passed away a fewdays later and his sonMohamadAli Shah came to power. As a dictator,MohamadAli Shahstruggled with Mashrute, bombed the parliament, and executed some of the Mashruteleaders (Vanessa 1989). He attempted to strengthen the king’s dictatorial position and hismonopolies. This period is called “Estebdad Saqir,” or short-term autarchy.

Mohamad Ali Shah’s policies caused several rebellions in different parts of Iran,among which the rise of the Tabriz opposition was important. These oppositions forcedMohamad Ali Shah to take refuge in the Russian Embassy, and finally to escape toRussia. With the Mashrute re-conquest, Ahamd Shah, the son of Mohamad Ali Shah,was appointed as the legitimate king of Iran by the second parliament. During thisperiod, different political councils and parties had developed throughout Iran. Amongthem was the Jangal Partisan Movement in Gilan, the rebellion under Sheikh MohamadKhiabani’s leadership in Tabriz, Mohamad Taqi Khan Pesyan Nationalistic Movementin Khorasan, and Sheikh Khazal’s rebellion in Khuzestan. These oppositions wereviolently suppressed by Reza Khan-e Mirpanj (1878–1944), an Iranian Cossack armyofficer, who was assigned to be “war minister.”


The Russian Communist revolution was contemporary with Iran’s political changes,and this event caused some changes in the Iranian tripartite equation of thought. Assuch, Marxist thoughts were introduced in Iran, especially in Azarbyjan, as the fourthdimension (Abrahamian 1982).

“Reza khan” was appointed prime minister by Ahmad Shah in 1923 in recognitionof his service. A few days later, Ahmad Shah travelled to Europe. Finally, Reza Khanarranged a coup d’état, with Britain support, dismissed Ahmad Shah Qajar, and came tothrone as the new king of Iran and the first Shah of the Pahlavi dynasty in 1921(Ghaniand Ghani 2001; Keddie 1999). With the rise of Reza Khan, a new period oftotalitarianism started under the project of modernization (Atabaki and Zurcher 2004).

How should the agency of Kamal ol-Molk/M. Qaffari be read? Mohamad-e Qafari’slife as the special painter of the Naseri court, as a person who experienced the reign offour Qajar kings, and the rise of Pahlavi dynasty should be subtly investigated (Parsaee2001). He was an artist who worked for the Qajar court, travelled to Europe, andwitnessed important events such as Mashrute, Short Term Autarchy, public movements,and finally the Pahlavi coup d’état. What kind of agency could he have had in thedictatorial system? To answer this inquiry, we flashback to Qajar Tehran.

First Frame

The painter is from Kashan. He is from a family most of whom have been famous Qajarartists, like his father and uncle. Probably the most important step in his progress hadbeen the time when Naser al-Din Shah paid a visit to Dar al-Fonoun, invited him to hiscourt, and gave him a place in Badgir Mansion in Shams ol-Emareh (Soheilie Khansari1989). The art of the painter is subject to the will of Qebley-e Alam (the Qajar king’stitle), Naser al-Din Shah. His portraits beside his paintings of camps and palaces allreflect the king’s taste:

Tehran, Qajar Capital, Howzkhane Building, 1884

The painter is a rather tall young man. He roams around the palace gently and finds hisfavorite views. Then he talks about them to Naser-ol Din Shah and starts painting.

Painter! Paint a tableau from Hozkhane. I am interested in it so much…

Certainly, my Majesty.

The painter teaches his majesty how to paint. Naser-ol Din Shah has bestowed a titleupon him: “Naqashbashi, his special painter.” The painter avoids the traditional rules ofIranian painting, which is called miniature, attempting to create a new style based onrealism. Therefore, he practices perspective, something practiced professionally in the“Mirror Hall” painting for the first time. He is a realist painter drawing portraits anddetails in a realistic style.

Let’s stroll in Golestan Palace and have a look at Mirror Hall tableau. Mirror Hall islocated beside the tableau installation place. The hall has been designed by Sani-olMolk, Mohamad Qaffari’s uncle. Has the tableau brought fame for this hall or the hallhas brought fame for the tableau?


Tehran, Naser-ol Din Shah Capital, Golestan Palace, Mirror Hall, 1888

His Majesty, Naser-ol Din Shah is sitting on a chair gazing majesticallyat a point inspace. The painter has taken the brush, his eyes following His Majesty, and drawn somelines on the canvas. He has painted Mirror Hall, His Majesty’s favorite place, evenmore beautiful than what it actually is (Fig. 2). Painting it took about 7 years. Hismajesty was so impressed that gave

him the title of Kamal-ol Molk. Thereafter, M. Foruqi, a Qajar politician, supportedKamal-ol Molk in this process: “Chancellor, as Mirza Mohamad Khan Naqashbashirenders services honestly, and makes us happy, he is granted a special title. We honorhim with the title ‘Kamal-ol Molk.’ We hope he attempts more and more in giving ushis services. 1889 A.D.” (Golestan Place, Documents Archive).

Royal Camp in Sorkhe Hesar, Near Tehran

Nowadays, Kamal ol-Molk accompanies His Majesty, Naser ol-Din Shah everywhere,on his trips and to his palaces. Today he is in His Majesty’s company, who is on ahunting and pleasure trip to beautiful places near Tehran. The painter is painting whitetents of the king and his court on the slopes of the hills. He has already painted some ofthese trips, including the king’s horse in Mobarak Abad, the view of Kojur inMazandaran, and the squib celebration in Qelqeli Spring. His Majesty is interested inholding such camps and the painter has the opportunity to paint landscapes. Kamal ol-Molk’s canvases show a Qajar dynasty interested in pleasure seeking and a royallifestyle.

Fig. 2 Mirror Hall, painted by Kamal-ol Molk


Portraits of Courtiers

Courtiers are also interested in Kamal ol-Molk’s portrait painting. They want to beimmortalized on his canvas, too. Portrait painting is popular during the Qajar period(Diba 1998), and many of the nobility are having their portraits painted. Manypaintings of His Majesty, the palaces, and noblemen have been all painted, includingseveral portraits of Naser ol-Din Shah, Mirza Hedayat, Abd ol-Ali khan, and others. Forthe painter, the world is confined to the glorious Qajar court. Over these years, he signshis paintings as: Special painter of the king, Mohammad Qafari and Kamal ol-Molk.There is now no trace of Mohammad Qafari.

Between Two Frames

Travel to Europe

Naser ol-Din Shah passed away. Actually, he was assassinated by Mirza RezaKermani’s gunshot in his 50th celebration of his absolute reign over Iran. Mirza Rezawas one of the students of Seyed Jamal al-Din Asad Abadi who had started opposingthe Qajars many years earlier (Ashtiani 1963). Mozafar ol-Din Mirza took the place ofhis father. But Kamal did not want to stay in the court, so he journeyed to Europe:“When Naser ol-Din Shah was murdered, I decided to travel to Europe. I did not matchwith Mozafar ol-Din Shah.” (from Kamal’s letters, 1893; Golestan Place, DocumentsArchive).

Kamal-ol molk had portrayed Mozafar-ol Din Shah during his princehood. Mozafar-ol Din Shah was so pleased that he accepted Kamal’s request for travel to Europe(Shabahang and Dehbashi 2000). Kamal went to Europe to study painting and to obtainmore experience. He wanted to know how painters work and what they know. He alsowondered about the world beyond Iran’s royal territory.

Kamal ol-Molk visited Paris, Florence, and Rome, and settles in Italy (SoheilieKhansari 1989, p. 47). How different life is from the king’s territory, where the streetsare full of dust, women wear black veils, epidemics of ringworm persist, and HisMajesty—who is Zell ol-lah on earth—is the source of felicity for Iranians. Peopleshould pray for his holy blessed personality. Europe is such a colorful territory andpeople look healthy! The government is quite different from that of Iran. There is noZel ol-Alah. Kamal is very surprised. Why is there so much difference? While Europewas experiencing impressionism, Kamal was still enchanted by realism. Painters’ self-portraits carry him away, the portraits of Rembrandt and others, as if he has come backto himself. He was so loyal to the court that he had forgotten himself. This time thepainter depicts himself and signs his work as follows: “Muhammad Qaffari, Kamal ol-Molk” (Fig. 3).

The painter is disconsolate. His world is destructed, as if his eyes have been openedto a new world. To paint the Howzkhane of the royal palace is not his serious concernanymore. He practices painting and reads more. He is now familiar with Jean-JacquesRousseau, and he knows the name of Anatole France (Parsaee 2001, p. 61). These dayshe is studying European intellectuals’ ideas on the state and freedom. Freedom inRousseau’s viewpoint is equality. Freedom! What a strange concept for Iranian people.The world is much vaster and different from the land of “Zel-ol Lah.”


Kamal visits Mozafar-ol Din, the son and successor of Naser-ol Din Shah, while heis travelling in Europe. The new king asks him to return to Iran (Floor 2005). What adifficult suggestion for Kamal, for an individual who has made the acquaintance of anew world.

Returning to Iran

Kamal re-entered Iran in 1897. His artistic souvenir for his homeland was not impres-sionism; it was the same classical art that had now become systematic. He was grantedthe first-grade medal as well as the court’s special green bandolier (Parastesh andMohammadi Nezhad 2010, p. 111). But the middle-aged man returning to Iran did notwant to be the special royal painter of the Qajars. Iran’s condition is critical; theMashroute Movement has been forming over those years. Iranian intellectuals, whomostly had experienced living in Europe, wrote against and criticized the Qajarkingdom. They wrote about law and parliament, and explained the monarchy systemas dictatorial.

But Mozafar-ol Din Shah, reluctant to Mashroute, invited Kamal-ol Molk to hiscourt, as did his ancestors. He wanted his father’s special painter to make portraits ofhim. But Kamal-ol Molk, as he himself said, was no more the “former Kamal-ol Molk.”He was reluctant to paint the majestic portraits of the king and his courtiers. His brushand his hands were keen to experience something different. Finally, he went to Iraqunder the pretext of a pilgrimage.

Once in Iraq, Kamal focused on the people and their daily lives, their hopes, wishes,and beliefs. The outcome of his new point of view appears in tableaus such as “BaqdadiAugur,” “Karbala Square,” “An Egyptian Man,” and “Boy Selling Eggs.” People havecome to the foreground for Mohammad Qaffari. When “Baqdadi Augur” is comparedwith his other work, “Augur” (1887), the painter’s freedom from royal limitations canbe recognized. Unlike “Augur,” in “Baqdadi Augur” women uncover their faces whilelaughing and talking (Fig. 4).

After such experiences in Iraq, Kamal decided to return to Iran. He pretended to beill to release him from the Qajar court. Mozafar-ol Din Shah was worried about hishealth, asking “How are you Kamal-ol Molk? What are you doing these days? I amsending 100 Tooman with this letter. March 1900 A.D.” (Golestan Place, DocumentsArchive). Kamal had a more important concern than mere art: politics. Enthusiasticabout freedom, Kamal visited leaders of Mashroteh. He painted portraits of Ali QoliKhan, known as Sardar Asad, and Zaka-ol Molk (Fig. 5). As a matter of fact, the liberalleaders of Mashrote took the place of the Qajar figures and their royal palaces.

Fig. 3 Kamal-ol Molk Self Portraits


Mozafar-ol Din Shah was ill. He agreed to the establishment of the NationalParliament during his final days. The parliament was established, but everything ledto violence in the short term, with both sides, courtiers and reformists, taking armsagainst one another (Foran 1993).

The political condition of Iran was daily undergoing serious changes. Finally, RezaKhan came to power. Again violence and bloody conflicts started. Most of thedissidents were executed or deported, and leaders of the rebellion were severelysuppressed. Within Reza Khan’s authoritative system, “management, individualityand individual originality were oppressed, and absolute unquestioned loyalty wasexpected” (Arent 1951). Reza Khan’s dictatorship, with its totalitarian tendencies,sought absolute control (at least theoretically) of an individual’s mind. In such asituation, Kamal-ol Molk desired to improve Iranian art and culture. He believed thatIran was no longer the absolute land of a king but now belonged to all Iranians.Therefore, he founded the “College of Fine Arts” in 1908 (Shabahang and Dehbashi2000). He was not interested in working with the new system, so Reza Khan becamesuspicious of him. The only way for intellectuals such as Kamal was compulsoryimmigration whether of their own will or imposed by the power structure. But where togo?

Second Frame

First act: Neishabour, Taqi Abad-e Salar Village, Neshat Garden, Summer 2011

We excavated Neshat Garden, 22 km west of Neishabour, near a small villagecalled Taqi Abad-e Salar, located on the former Tehran-Mashhad road. We focusedon understanding why the garden and village had been established in such an ariddesert. The garden is large and is surrounded with a rectangular wall; each sidehas a garret. The entrance is located on a north–south axis. The garden has twomain buildings, one is located in the center and the other in the north. A cistern islocated near the northern building (Fig. 6). The entire garden is covered with pine,apricot, and pistachio trees. Pine trees have cocooned the main building like aring, which results in the invisibility of the garden, especially the main centralbuilding.

Fig. 4 Left: Baqdadi Augur; right: Augur


At the start, we knew that Neshat Garden belonged to Salar Motamed-e Ganji, thelord of Taqi Abad who, after a period of inhabiting the village moved to Neshat Garden,outside the village walls. The villagers said that “Khan would often hold parties in theGarden.” But our archaeological research reveals another side.

Our spatial-architectural analysis recognized three phases of construction. Thenorthern building and the first floor of the central building were constructed first.The second floor of the central building was constructed next. Several excavatedtrenches showed that during the third phase, sudden changes in the plan of the secondfloor were realized. In different parts of the garden, especially in front of the centralbuilding, were beautiful waterwheels and canals, showing that water once circulatedthroughout the garden. The northern building waterwheel has been destroyed, but

Fig. 5 Sardar Asaad

Fig. 6 Left: central building; right: northern building


traces of it and some parts of the brickwork were discovered during the excavation. Inthe second phase, pavement was replaced probably to let carriages pass (Fig. 7)

What about archaeological materials? In the course of the primary surveys in NeshatGarden, a considerable amount of ornamental and non-ornamental bricks, kiln waste,and special pits for brick processing were discovered on the surface. It seemed thatbrick processing was done in the garden. Also, the use of metal scraps in theornamentation of the façade is a probable reason for the existence of metal near orinside the garden. A significant artifacts found in the excavated trenches is a shell for atype of Mauser called the Greveher Caliber, which was the favorite weapon of Iranian

Fig. 7 The plan of the central building


partisans (Fig. 8). Gun-cleaning implements were also discovered during theexcavation.

Documents, images, and letters reveal Salar Motamed’s true identity, his activities,and eventually his suspicious death. He was an exiled rich Khan from the countrysideof Qazvin, and according to the reports of the British consulate, he was a rebelliousleader from Neishabour (Mirza Saleh 1987, p. 117). Salar Motamed died in Mashhadsuspiciously and was buried in the Imam Reza holy shrine. His agency was so profoundthat they named a chamber “Salar.”

Photographs are especially interesting. In one, taken near the northern building, is afamiliar person among the people accompanying Salar: a huge man wearing a pair ofcircle glasses with a thick mustache, Kamal-ol Molk (Fig. 9). In addition, Kamal’sletters denote his close relationship with Salar:

Arman: But what did Kamal-ol Molk do in Neshat Garden? How was he relatedto Salar Motamed? kamal had chosen an area near Neshat Garden to live: HoseinAbad village. Why had Kamal chosen such a remote area to live? He was fromKashan; why an outlying village on the northeast?

“I am by no means interested in living in Mashhad or other big cities. I wish tomove to Hosein Abad even farther. I am neither interested in amusement in widestreets nor can I bear general misery,” said Kamal ol Molk (Dehbashi 1989, p.82).

In summary, sudden changes in the garden plan, the suspicious death of SalarMotamed, and our archaeological findings convincingly demonstrate that Neshat wassomething more than a garden for holding celebrations and parties. Kamal’s activity inthe field of politics gradually became distinct. His letters from his private house inHosein Abad are quite noteworthy.

Fig. 8 Shells from a Mauser, a shotgun shell, and a wire for cleaning the shotgun


Second Act: Neishabour, Hosein Abad-e Kamal Village, Kamal’s House, 1923

Salar Motamed arranged a formal document and entrusted part of his property inHosein Abad to Kamal, who would live there. It is a traditional Iranian house madeof both mud and fired bricks and plastered walls. The rooms are located on the west andeast sides with a pool in the center. A stable is beside the house as is a champ (a farmthat includes fruit trees) (Fig. 10). Kamal lead a simple life there.

Former friends often visited him, including Mohammad Ali Forouqi, a politiciancalled Zaka-ol Molk in the Qajar government who was appointed prime minister in thePahlavi government. In 1934, he wrote:

During Kamal-ol Molk residency in Hosein Abad, I visited him once. It waswinter. I had been assigned as Prime Minister for the second time. I was on anofficial trip to Khorasan and was accompanied by Seyed Baqer Khan Kazemi, theForeign Minister. In our return trip I visited him, and it made me so happy.Unfortunately he had grown old and lost his eyesight (Dehbashi 1989).

Fig. 9 Photograph of Kamal and Salar in Neshat Garden


Mohamad Qaffari wrote letters to his friends and children. Sometimes he drawssomething, perhaps a portrait of himself: a profile of an old man wearing glasses with aserious look on his face and a styled mustache. Mashhadi Naser, his loyal servant, is thesubject of his work, too. At this time he signed his letters and paintings with his ownname: Mohammad Qaffari, and sometimes as “former Kamal-ol Molk.” He readsbooks on the subject of freedom, including those of France and Rousseau. SalarMotamed, becoming his closest friend during these years, often visits Neshat Garden.However, during one of his visits, he lost one of his eyes and became blind in 1925.Numerous documents explain how Kamal became blind (e.g., Shabahang andDehbashi 2000), but Kamal decided to conceal the real reason for this incident. Butliving in Hosein Abad just at the time that Reza Khan came to power and the Qajardynasty has been overthrown had its own difficulties:

Some gangsters have murdered Einollah, the son of Abdolali Meikadeh and SalarMotamed’s relative, because of wearing “Pahlavi Hat.” My family is reallyfrightened. So, they have concealed the hat you donated to me as well as allmy French books. They believe if the gangsters find this hat and books, they willkill all of us. I have kept silent and read Quran instead. I am no longer interestedin Rousseau and France. I just believe in reading Quran and devolved everythingto God (Dehbashi 1989).

On another day in 1931, he wrote:

It’s time to discuss our party. As I believe this world is quite nasty and useless, weshould pay attention to the other world. We should save the others, people such as“poor Haj Kazem” who is interested in the mundane pleasures and has lost hismental purity. Hence, treating him requires an enema made of these materials:

Fig. 10 Kmala’s house in Hossein Abad


200G limestone, 200G arsenic, 10G ammonium and 24G rat poison. It will helphim die purely and go to heaven and rest beside Kowsar Pool. I hope Mr.Islambolchi does his best and attempts to improve and extend this holy honorableparty (Dehbashi 1989).

Kamal decided to sell his works. He confessed that his royal works were worthless.Kamal ol-Molk, as an independent artist, does not need help and assistance from thecourt anymore; he can sell his works of art. He sold his paintings to the Parliament from1933 to 1940 (Parsaee 2001).

Third Act: Neishabour, Taqi Abad-e Salar Village, Neshat Garden, 1923

Some people have gathered in Neshat Garden as if there is a party there. Salar Motamedis the host. But what does it mean to hold a party in these critical days? Among thepeople is a familiar face: Mohamad Qaffari, the well-known special artist of Naser-olDin Shah-e Qajar. The painter is drawing a dead partridge while concentrating on thediscussions. He seems thoughtful, as if he is thinking about his trajectory: from aspecial painter of the Qajar court to a liberal activist with a simple life in a farawayvillage.

Reza Khan, a Cossack officer, has made the Qajars abdicate. He also has a seriousstruggle with tribe leaders, revolutionists, and separatists at the same time. Iran’spolitical condition is critical. The guests are discussing the situation excitingly andcautiously. They are talking about the Khorasan revolution. Colonel Mohamad TaqiKhan-e Pesyan, the commander of the anti-rebellion police force, has refused to obeythe central government. So he is now under pressure by both the central governmentand the Kurdish rebels (see Bayat 1999). Salar Motamed speaks slowly, quoting fromhis sister-in-law’s husband, colonel Moazez-e Bojniurdi: “Colonel Pesyan has askedMoazez for military support” (Bayat 1999). Everyone has an idea, but all of them areworried. What will happen at the end?

Outside the garden walls, the villagers think that Salar has held a party and happyguests have gathered around the painter. In fact, Neshat Garden with all those water-wheels, trees, and beautiful sunshades is a wonderful place for celebration. Nonethe-less, during the time when power is transferring to the Pahlavis, while most of Salar’sguests are political activists and exiled persons, such as M. Qaffari and Salar himself,the party is probably a pretext for political meetings and practical actions involvingviolence.

Fourth Act: Archaeologist’s Office

We have gathered in our office. Kamal’s paintings are on one wall and hisphotos on the other. The desk is covered with historical documents, includingKamal’s letters and plans of excavated sites. According to the excavationresults, the exact period of each architectural phase can be investigated usinga contextual viewpoint and taking human agents into account. The first phasecan be attributed to Salar’s rise to power; the second phase dates back to hispolitical activities; and the third phase is likely related to the secret activities ofthe opposition.


Putting the archaeological data and the documents together, on the one hand, helpsfill the gaps, and on the other hand, makes it possible to investigate the agents’ agencyand activity in different contexts. In fact, material agency, not being passive, interactswith individual agency. Neshat Garden is never as passive as Kamal’s House in HoseinAbad village. Although the archaeological findings in Kamal’s House were small innumber (Fig. 11), their contexts close to and in relation with Neshat Garden areinterpretive. Kamal-ol Molk’s agency associates the two sites.

Actually, besides the field of art, the second field for Kamal’s agency is the field ofpolitics. He acts as an opposition agent, as he did by his paintings, and in themetaphorical act of returning to his former name, Mohammad-e Qaffari. Afterexperiencing Europe, Kamal played the role of an intellectual in the field of liberalism,as a main movement in the field of politics for the Qajar opposition. He improved hissituation in this field as one of its significant agents, and his activity can be tracedarcheologically. Kamal’s familiarity with intellectuals such as Rousseau and Franceculminated in translating their works, and his acquaintance with Iranian intellectualssuch as Mohammad Ali Forouqi furthered his political activism. Kamal’s immigration/exile from the capital to a remote village in eastern Iran, his letters, and his relationshipwith Neshat Garden reveal the serious and continuous nature of his actions in this field.

One of our most important pieces of information from Kamal ol-Molk is a photoshowing him among a number of politicians and intellectuals who are all members ofFreemasonry Bidari Lodge (Ashraf and Diba 2010), whose center was in Paris.However, it is not known whether “the holy honorable party” is identical with BidariLoge or another party which has not been recognized yet (Fig. 12).

Conclusion

People’s status in different social settings leads to different and paradoxical stances(Pinto 1996). As in the case of Kamal and his paintings, it seems that his habitus,namely his dispositions and perceptions, changed gradually during his lifetime. Due tothese changes, his fields and actions also changed. The transformation is clear in the

Fig. 11 Floor of Kamal’s House after excavation


archaeological evidence in Neshat Garden, the date of which is in accordance withKamal’s paintings and the change in his name and signature. Kamal’s agency, affectedby the Qajar-Pahlavi sociopolitical context, finally opposed the power structure.Kamal-ol Molk, as a special painter of the Qajar court, gradually moved from painting“Mirror Hall” to drawing opposition leaders’ portraits and finally building relationshipswith the Bidari Lodge (Freemasonry) and deported politicians. The portraits of theMashroute leaders began to replace the king’s portraits. Painting aspects of everydaylife indicates a considerable change in his lived experience and his relation toward theworld. Moreover, he painted at least three self-portraits depicting his last years,especially one created in 1961 (1300 AH; After Hijrat). It seems as if the painterconsciously evaluated himself. Kamal’s latter self-portraits are considerably differentfrom his first ones. In 1276 AH, he appeared in a suit wearing a bow tie. He had theappearance and glasses of an intellectual. On the whole, gradual changes in his habitustransform Kamal-ol Molk into Mohammad-e Qafari and introduced a new lifestyle.

Agency is a fluid matter (Johnson 1989). It acts in relation with the field and isinfluenced by habitus. Agents can act multidimensionally and affect the field and at thesame time be influenced by it (Bourdieu 1984; also see Barret 2001). In a Foucauldiansense, even agencies and oppositions occur in the discourse. In truth, everything occursin the discourse; nothing exists outside it. Violence as a dominant feature of discourseseriously affects the agency of individuals. In such a condition, agency cannot intro-duce constant changes into the power structure. Hossein Abad presents informationrevealing the personal life of a lonely old man. Ayene Hall depicts a royal artist, andNeshat Garden portrays a political activist. An opposing voice, looking for freedom,brimming with anger and rebellious emotions believes in “physical omission” ofstructural agents. In short, the context of agency can influence it. Influenced bythe context of violence, agency can be transformed into “negative agency,”provoking undesirable outcomes. Giddens (2004), discussing the process of deci-sion making, introduces the “unintentional” as the distinct characteristic of humanaction. The terror machine that started to work during the Pahlavi era was fueledby the violent acting of the opposition.

Fig. 12 Kamal and the Freemasonry Bidari Lodge members


Recognizing the second aspect of Kamal’s personality, namely, Mohammad-eQaffari as an opposition agent, entails archaeology and archeological agency. Kamal’sagency appears in all these contexts—Neshat, Hossein Abad, and the Naseri court—while influenced by the field, it acts differently. Neshat Garden is a context that hasbeen built out of the walls of Taqi Abad with some modification. It has undergoneintentional changes as a physical embodiment of (some part of) the political field. It is acenter for activities and meetings of activists, such as Salar Motamed, Kamal-ol Molk,governmentally rejected political activists, and intellectuals in one period of history(late Qajar and early Pahlavi eras). Archaeological data and historical documents revealthe violent, probably armed, nature of these group activities. According to Kamal-olMolk’s letters, presumably the tendency to remove structural agents was not confinedto Khorasan Province. Finally, the suspicious death of Salar Motamed and Kamal putan end to this phase of Neshat Garden’s life.

Neshat Garden is today abandoned and desolate. Since its agency has been removedit has been registered as a “beautiful traditional Iranian garden” in the NationalMonuments Index. But archaeological excavations introduce it as the site of oppositionagainst structural violence. Neshat Garden, its agents, and Kamal’s letters reveal mutualviolence: on the one hand, they are the objects of violence, while their approach againstviolence is violence and physical omission. Bourdieu (2001) defines symbolic violenceas a form of violence that is imposed by the complicity of the object of violence,practically and through institutionalizing habitus. Generally and in a long term process,the imposition of violence by opposition groups strengthens the reproduction ofstructural violence and physical omission. Hence, such an approach complies withthe power structure’s intentions as dominant structures experiencing little permanentchange. The power structure has an excuse to pursue the exertion of violence.

It should be noted that the oppositions’ perceptions and habitus are practicallyinfluenced by the structurally dominant view. The dominated uses categoriesconstructed by the dominant view that appear “natural.” Such divisions are deeplyinscribed on the body and constitute an individual’s social being. Hence, anindividual can assist in imposing symbolic violence, however unconsciously, touse violence is an act defined in the dominant structure and institutionalized byhabitus. Therefore, an individual and a group’s agency serve symbolic violence(Bourdieu 2001). Hence, such agency does not end the cycle of violence butreproduces it.

Kamal-ol Molk and Salar Motamed’s agency was not organized as a party despiteseveral years of activism against the government. Therefore, it did not bring about long-term, stable changes but rather their elimination. The Neshat Garden oppositionstopped (or was stopped) after the death of Salar and Kamal. Within such a context,the people’s agency usually works at an individual level; organized interactions andsocial networks are uncommon. Thus, such an agency has short-term efficacy thatmakes its recognition in archaeological data rather difficult. Qajar Iran is a goodexample of this condition. Most of reformist/opposition agents such as Amir Kabirbecame the victims of violence as a result of operating within a dominant paradigm.Most of such agents were removed as objects of (compulsive) immigration or physicalelimination. To omit an agent physically has been supported by the Iranian powerstructures because most of the sociopolitical actions have been conducted at anindividual level. Thus, the rate of journalists, poets, reformists, and opposition figures


murdered or exiled by the system is high and the structure reproduces its pattern ofpower.

To what extent can the physical removal of the actor’s body be pursued? The inquiryprojects the continuity of symbolic violence through individual and group agencyunwittingly and unwillingly and as a serious challenge in the long term. Theoretically,and in a Bourdieuan sense, the way is to create deep change in the social condition ofproduction, attitudes, and habitus that made the dominated accept the dominant outlookand its definition in relation to him/herself.

Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to Dr. Leila Papoli Yazdi for her insights on our work. We alsothank E. Garazhian, M. Naimi and our students in University of Neishabuor who accompanied us during theexcavation. Miss N. Mousa Tabar is appreciated for her support in the investigation of Kamal-ol Molk’s lettersand documents.

References

Abrahamian, E. (1982). Iran between Two Revolutions, Princeton University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.Adamiat, F. (1983). Amir Kabir and Iran, Kharazmi, Tehran (in Farsi).Adorno, T. W. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality, Harper and Row, New York.Amanat, A. (1997). The Pivot of the Universe: Nasir al-Din Shah Qajar and the Iranian Monarchy, 1831–

1896, I. B Tauris, London.Arent, H. (1951). The Origins of Totalitarianism, Schocken, New York.Ashraf, A., and Diba, L. (2010). Kamal-Al-Molk, Mohammad affari. Encyclopedia Iranica 15: 417–433.Ashtiani, E. (1963). History of Kamal ol Molk’s Life. Honar va Mardom 7: 57–81.Atabaki, T., and Zurcher, E. J. (2004). Men of Order: Authoritarian Modernization under Ataütrk and Reza

Shah, I. B Tauris, London.Ayatollahi, H., and Haghshenas, S. (2003). The Book of Iran: The History of Iranian Art, Alhoda, London.Barret, J. (2001). Agency, the duality of structure, and the problem of the archaeological record. In Hodder, I.

(ed.), Archaeological Theory Today, Wiley-Blackwell, London, pp. 141–164.Bayat, K. (1999). Khorasan Revolution, Research Institute for Culture Studies, Tehran (in Farsi).Bosworth, C. E. (1983). Qajar Iran: Political, Social and Culture Change, Mazda Publishers, Costa Mesa,

CA, pp. 1800–1925.Bourdieu, P. (1977).Outline of a Theory of Practice. Nice, R. (trans.), Cambridge University Press, NewYork.Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction, Nice, R. (trans.), Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Bourdieu, P. (1993). The Field of Culture Production. Johnson, R. (trans.), Columbia University Press, New

York.Bourdieu, P. (1996). The Rules of Art: Genesis of Structure of the Literary Field. Emanuel, S. (trans.), Stanford

University Press, Palo Alto, CA.Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action. Johnson R. (trans.), Stanford University

Press, Palo Alto, CA.Bourdieu, P. (2001). Langage et Pouvoir Symbolique, Seuil, Paris.Bourdieu, P., and Wacquant, L. (2002). An Invitation to Reflective Sociology, University of Chicago Press,

Chicago.Dehbashi, A. (1989). Kamal ol Molk Letters, BehNashr, Tehran (in Farsi).Diba, L. (1998). Royal Persian Painting: The Qajar Epoch, I. B Tauris, New York, pp. 1785–1925.Dornan, J. L. (2002). Agency and archaeology: past, present, and future directions. Journal of Archaeological

Method and Theory 9: 303–329.Farmanfarmaian, R. (2008). War and Peace in Qajar Persia: Implication Past and Present, Routledge,

London.Floor, W. M. (2003). Agriculture in Qajar, Mage Waldorf, Washington DC.Floor, W. M. (2005).Wall Painting and other Figurative Mural Art in Qajar, Mazda Publishers, Costa Mesa,

CA.


Foran, J. (1993). Fragile Resistance: Social Transformation in Iran From 1500 to the Revolution, Boulder,CO., Westview.

Ghani, C., and Ghani, S. (2001). Iran and the Rise of Reza Shah: From Qajar Collapse to Pahlavi Rule, I. BTauris, New York.

Giddens, A. (2004). Basic Sociology. Sabouri, M. (ed.). Nei, Tehran (in Persian).Hambly, G. (1991). In Avary, P., Hambly, G., and Melville, C. (eds.), The traditional Iranian city in Qajar

period. Cambridge History of Iran, 7th ed, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 542–589.Hodder, I., and Huston, S. (2003). Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Johnson, M. (1989). Conceptions of agency in archaeological interpretation. Journal of Anthropological

Archaeology 8: 189–211.Kasravi, A. (2004). History of Mashroote Iran, AmirKabir, Tehran (in Farsi).Keddie, N. R. (1999). Qajar Iran and the rise of Reza Khan, 1976–1925, Mazda Publishers, Costa Mesa, CA.Martin, J. L. (2003). What is field theory? American Journal of Sociology 109(1): 1–49.Mirza Saleh, G. (1987). Kolonel Mohamad Taghi Khan Movement, Nashr-e Tarikh, Tehran (in Farsi).Papoli Yazdi, L., Dezhamkhooy, M., and Naeimi, M. (2013). A report on a party and the guests.

Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress 9: 132–161.Parastesh, S. H., and Mohammadi Nezhad, M. (2010). Social analysis of Kamal al Molk artwork in the Iranian

Painting Field. Sociology of Art and Literature 1: 103–134. in Farsi.Parker, J. (2000). Structuration, Open University Press, Buckingham.Parsaee, K. (2001). Kamal al Molk, Dabir, Tehran (in Farsi).Perry, J. R. (2006). Karim Khan Zand (Makers of the Muslim World), One World, London.Pinto, L. (1996). The theory of field and sociology of literature: reflections on the work of Pierre Bourdiou.

International Journal of Contemporary Sociology 32: 177–186.Robbins, D. (2000). Bourdieu and Culture, Sage, London.Sariolghalam, M. (2010). Iranian Authoritarianism during the Qajar period, Farzan Rooz, Tehran (in Farsi).Shabahang, B., and Dehbashi, A. (2000). Obituary of Kamal al Molk, Chakameh, Tehran (in Farsi).Soheilie Khansari, A. (1989). Kamal-e Honar (Perfection of Art: Life and works of Mohammad Ghaffari,

Soroush, Tehran (in Farsi).Swartz, D. (1997). Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu, University of Chicago Press,

Chicago.Vanessa, M. (1989). Islam and Modernism: The Iranian Revolution of 1906, Syracuse University Press,

Syracuse, NY.Zaker, A. (1998). The Political Literature of Iran in Mashroote Era Nashr- e elm, Tehran (in Farsi).


“The Painter in Two Frames”: An Archaeological Investigation of Kamal-ol Molk’s Agency in the...

Documents

Transcript of “The Painter in Two Frames”: An Archaeological Investigation of Kamal-ol Molk’s Agency in the...