Hi Jeff,
I do apologize for my indecently late answer to your last post. I believed that I already answered it, discovering my error only a few days ago. Old age, I guess!!
Yes, indeed, we drifted far from the original topic, but neither Steve nor Filiberto have raised the red card, so far. They are rather tolerant people
. With hindsight we should perhaps have started a new thread.
I fully agree with your views. Imperial workshops must have worked for the elite and not only for the Emperor’s residences.
The following examples of Timurid- and Il-khanid dragons, show (again) the very strong Chinese influence on Persian art, at least from the Mongol conquest onwards.
In FIG 1 and 2 the dragon is not airborne, as in most later Chinese representations, but is very similar to examples from the Song dynasty.
However, I wonder whether the concept of a
hero fighting and slaying the dragon is truly Chinese (1) or was not rather based on Turko-Mongol mythology. For Chinese tradition the dragon was supposed to be beneficial, not hostile. Do you agree?
(1) Contrary to the fight of the phoenix and dragon.
FIG 1. Il-khanid period. 1341. Shiraz school. Bahram gur slays the dragon. Freer Sackler
FIG 2. Timurid period 1420-1450 . Herat school. Warrior slaying a dragon.
FIG 3. Timurid period 1420-1450. Cover of Ulugh Bey’s wooden box.
Best regards
Pierre