Six Women in an Illumination of Humayun.

This piece in the Indian Museum of Kolkata is part of the digital collection of the Museums of India online... which is a decent resource. Somehow there aren't as many images as I would like to see... I suspect British Imperialism has much to do with the fact that there are far more Mughal illuminations held in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

But this small painting is of interest. It's presented as a Nama-style page, but the artwork -- it seems like the figures are larger than that of other pages, particularly because there's just the one level of figures rather than the stacks of people on different levels. The page is blue with gold overlay, while the border of the illumination is the traditional cream.

Here, there are several figures, particularly female figures, to study.  The description:

Humayun seated on throne enjoying music and dance with young Akbar along with attendants. This painting is registered as a Persian painting, but it is Mughal painting and might be a folio from Akbar-nama.

Each of the female figures within draws particular interest.

Right off the bat, I do need to apologize for resolution - unfortunately, I haven't been able to find an adequate way to request a full size download. These are all screen captures.

The first of the six ladies across the bottom is eating the world's longest, straightest stick of licorice. I kid. I have no idea if she's trying to play an instrument, eating something or if the artist simply did not finish whatever this woman was supposed to be doing. There are several elements of interest to me here. She is wearing a long scarf that is white with red - but of course at this size it's hard to determine if this is embroidered or printed. There are bracelets that may include bells at the wrists, and those bottle-like string-borne containers at the neck (as I previously noted here). She appears to be wearing a veil UNDER and behind her hat - or, perhaps, has wrapped her hair. Her slant-topped hat is dark green, and there appears to be a gem or piece of jewelry at its top center.

Her dark hair peeks out from below the cloth secured under her hat, and what might be a jewelled loop dangles from the hat's center front. There is no sign of a band or veil holding the hat into place.

She wears something green over something orange - whether the outer layer is one of the open-front dresses, a del or a jama-type del is left undetermined. She is apparently a musician, but she wears the hat of the Mughals.

The second of the women - the dancer in red - is in what appears to be a very impossible position, though it may just be a sign that she's a very skilled dancer. She is clearly wearing pants - which indicates she may be an entertainer of some sort - along with an open-front dress over an undershift.

I have to start at the top on this one. LOOK AT HER PLUME.

Unlike many other plumes illuminated in period, this one is fat, wide and austentatious. At first, before I zoomed in on it, I wasn't certain what I was looking at - because the black was along the line of the background. But on closer inspection, WOW.  I still can't tell if this is a feather plume for certain or if it's of some other material, but the base is a piece of jewelry, some sort of brooch that's on the front of the hat. The hat itself is decorated, either an embroidered pattern on the fabric that covers it or additional pieces of jewelry. I am leaning towards the former - the blue streak doesn't seem very jewelry-like, and the red flowers disappear behind the edge of the overveil. There appear to be two separate pieces of cloth here - one under the hat, and one from the back. One is striped while the other appears to be printed with a floral or round motif. Once again, there appears to be a loop of jewelry at the front.

This hat excites me. Could the piece of fabric on the bottom of the hat actually be part of the hat?

The method of the medium leaves me with more questions, though, particularly about the scarves. Most of the images I've seen of the women dancing has just the one scarf that's wrapped loosely around the body and left to fly as the dancers swirl. This woman has two such scarves - or are they separate scarves. The one that passes between her breasts is striped like the overveil that hangs from her hat. The depiction includes a slight change of color both on and over the back of the dancer on the painting. We've seen in other illuminations a very thin muslin or silk "disposable." single-wear outer garment - could this be a voluminous, transparent but edged overveil over her? It's different from the second scarf, with a scalloped edge. But what is this?

The golden line that falls at the edge of the posterior then crosses over and behind her raised foot - could very well be a full transparent veil with an edge.

Let's start with the third woman in the golden overdress. What's she holding in her hands? They appear to be pairs of sticks, but I haven't been able to find any sort of musical instruments that they replicate. And I'm uncertain what else their purpose might be.

She has the ties or bells at her wrists, and she wears the slant-topped boqta hat. Her overveil, which I am guessing goes down the back of her outfit, is a bright orange. Her hat is brightly striped with what may be a smaller jewel at the front bottom, with no plume. Her plaid-like scarf floats around her. There's no scarf or veil under the hat, and her curly hair floats around her face.

Unlike most of the other outfits I have seen like this, the overdress here does not reach the bottom. Add in a couple of other elements, and I believe we may be looking at a deel. The bottom is pointed, which could be a very late period men's jama style. But there's also the dress itself. It's gold, but there are splotches of orange that don't make any sort of pattern or sense. I'm wondering if the top layer of the original illumination is missing - if that's the case, any marks on top of a gold or applied color that might have flaked off would have been lost - which would have included the top to bottom crease that would have gone off at a diagonal to the corner.

Her full underdress barely shows some bright orange pants.

The fourth woman, the drummer in pink, has a completely different hat, a rounded hat that may or may not have a small peak at the top. The bottom of her hat has either a brass circlet or coronet of some sort or a golden scarf... it's impossible to tell. Her open front dress has nothing underneath, and has either tight tiny stripes or a woven stripe pattern. The angle of her arms prevents an evaluation of what sort of overgarment she's wearing, whether it's a gathered overdress or a jama-style deel, and of course the bottom of the image doesn't reveal its lower hem.

The fifth woman is wearing an identical hat to the third woman with its bold stripes. The overveil again is orange - but this time, there are orange scarf ends floating around her. She is clearly wearing a Mughal coat over her underdress, a gold coat with either black lining or an edging in black. The purple underdress goes all the way to the wrist.

The sixth woman, with the shenhai, is also wearing a Mughal coat - I think it's the first black example I've seen. Her hat is pink, but I can't tell if her veil is pink and over the whole thing or white... there's not much of her to consider here.

Other thoughts on this illumination:

Could the things I'm seeing at the wrist be straps at the end of the sleeves instead of bracelets? Could they be bells? Without extant examples of the clothing, there may never be an answer to this question.

These shoes:

We don't see shoes on the women, but we do see this boy and these men.  The boy on the left appears to be wearing purple slippers. The man on the right has what could be covered-toe sandals - because of deterioration of the scroll it's hard to determine if they're just jewelled slip-ins or curled toe shoes.

The man in the center, though, is clearly wearing heeled boots that have been decorated. It's stunning and incredibly clear.

Once again, this is an illumination most likely conscripted to an artist by Akbar, Humayun's son. The attire may be period to Humayun or it may be contemporary to the artist whom Akbar gave the assignment. My hope is that there will be at some point in the future some recovered items of clothing that could be dated to the early Mughal period that could confirm or dismiss my assumptions about Mughal clothing of the error.

A Bevy of Boqta Hats and Ways To Wear Them, or A Study of Young Akbar Recognizes His Mother.

Today's dive is into a folio from the Akbarnama, specifically the one titled Young Akbar Recognizes His Mother, held at the Freer-Sacker Museum and provided online by the Smithsonian.

First off, I have to commend the Smithsonian for proviing such a complete image on its website. The extraordinary amount of magnification possible really brings out a lot of details I haven't been able to see clearly in other illuminations. This one is key. Do click through the link to peruse the entire page.

This is a rare Akbarnama page with images of many, many women. It also provides something else - a study in how the women in this image wore and accessorized their slant-topped boqtas (as compared to the taqi, or flat-topped boqtas) presented in the works of other artists. There is scant variation in color here - all hats being white, gold or a combination of the two - but there are so many ways the hats, veils, jewelry and costumes of each woman, that this illuination becomes a precious resource for those attempting an early Mughal aesthetic in their clothing.

It should be noted that Akbar commissioned this work, which means the rendition is not contemporary to the actual date of what it represents; namely, Akbar's birth. The potential for fashion assumption from another time (think how Mother and Child renditions of the Virgin Mary and Christ are portrayed in the Renaissance) is quite possible. The piece is dated to 1590, which still leaves us in-period.

So, the women.

The image centers around Emperor Humayun and one of his wives, Hamida Banu Begun, with Akbar as a boy. Humayun's hat is rather impressive in itself - in fact, I'm not certain how it could have been constructed, but that's not my concern here. Hamida's boqta is delicately illuminated, showing what appears to be either a decorative element incorporated into the brocade itself of the hat or if it's something applied after the material was sewn onto its understructure.

The marvelously digitalized image allows a very close inspection. The proportions of the hat to Hamida's head don't seem quite right - but then, if illuminations were perfect, we wouldn't have all the questions of how Mughal women dressed, now would we? The pattern on the hat would indicate it comes to some sort of point in the front; however, the shape of Hamida's head bears it out as a smooth, un-tipped edge. The fine detail of the quill used in expressing her features shows her hair escaping from the edge, as well as the leaves and stripes of the fabric. There's what appears to be the fold of fabric in the back, either a depiction of the edge of the veil attatched to the top, falling over the back of the hat or a fold in the fabric of the hat itself. The design on the front is enhanced with red. The translucent veil falls over her shoulders. She is wearing a coat but no del underneath, over a wrist- and floor-length gown, with pearls at the neck. She is wearing earrings and has a ring on her thumb.

The women of the harem surround the couple and their child. Every one of them is wearing a full gown that reaches the wrist, slant-topped boqta hats and jewelry. The different jewelery pieces include pearls at the neck and wrists; bandolier-style chains with gold pendants; necklaces with similar gold pendants; and earrings. Some of the women wear coats, others wear scarves. The few feet we see are bare.

Many of the women also have what appear to be bottles in pairs suspended by a common string, with gold caps.

The variation of the hats draws my notice - I have seen this image before but not at this size before. Not knowing the identities of the other women is a problem - it's hard to determine whether these ladies are of the royal family, are artists or workers or even concubines.

What I do notice is this woman who apparently is using a string of pearls rather than a veil to keep her hat on.

There are also servants with veils on their hats - I assume they're servants because they're rendered below the royal couple and appear to be carrying items to them. One has a solid white veil.

The other's veil is TEAL. It's the only colored veil in the entire piece, and her boqta appears to have been painted white over whatever was there originally.

None of the women are wearing scarves or turbans under their hats. Many have braids down their backs.

The earrings are also of note - most in the traditional spot we're accoustomed to in the mundane world, but at least one on the back or upper lobe of the ear.

The fct that Humayun is wearing a del under his coat and the women of the harem are not, plus the bare feet, should confirm that this is a harem scene. Once into the 17th century, these sorts of scenes become rather debauched (think the Kama Sutra) but here, the harem is a community of women. I'm bookmarking this one to come back for later study on the printing of several of the dresses and on the pillow on which Humayun is perched; I suspect a bit more research into period textiles and tiles might allow us to find a suitable design to render into one of Grav's woodcuts, which I might then be able to use to print the fabric for a dress.

And... I want this peacock fan. I need to figure out how to make that happen.

Mughal Hats are for Mughal Nobility: The Theologian and the Slave-Girl.

Today's examination is another of Akbar's commissioned works saved at the Bodleian Library at the University of Oxford. The description:

The theologian and the slave-girl. Abdullah Ibn Jafer presents the singing girl to the scholar who has been distracted from his studies and religion by his overpowering love for her. Illustration of Baharistan, by Jami.

Let's lighten this up. Jami's works come from the 15th century - he was an active artist from 1414 to 1492. This piece was created by an artist named Mukund. I haven't been able to find the story.

But I don't really need a story to see what's going on here. The description is all I need. What I find intriguing is that the only person named is Abdullah Ibn Jafer, who is apparently the man kneeling at the scholar's feet. The other three are the scholar, a woman who appears to be making a statement, and a girl behind her.

If the slave-girl is being presented, I would assume the girl on the right is said slave-girl. She wears a veil but no hat.

The woman who appears to be presenting her along with Abdullah IS wearing a taqi, complete with veils. Everything about her appears to be of early Mughal costume - a long dupatta-like veil, an underdress, her jewelry.

If she is Mughal, this slave-girl might have been of her harem. And slaves weren't Mughal. Mughal is an adopted culture, not a heritage. This seems to be borne out here.

Perhaps.

Two Mughal Ladies from The Singer on the Balcony.

Currently diving into the online holdings of the Bodleian Library at the University of Oxford - which, for some reason, presents everything very dark.

Today's look is into The singer on the balcony. Illustration of Baharistan, by Jami. Emperor Akbar, as I've previously mentioned on this website, commissioned many great works of literature to be illuminated by artists in his court. Of those, the works of the poet Jami (1414-1492) are depicted in the collected folio Baharistan by Jami.

This illumination appears in the online book, Mughal Miniatures of the Earlier Period, from the Bodleian Library's collection. It's a free download, but sadly it's a black and white text with black and white panels that do not quite capture the beauty of the images.

I have had no luck finding the associated story.

The image is rather dark on the Bodleian site, so I've utilized a program to lighten it. That's much clearer.

From this image, I'm particularly inspecting two hat-wearing women. The lady at the top is playing what appears to be a Kurdish rubab with a curved bow. On the side of her taqi, there appears to be either a feather inserted in the side (which would be rather unusual) or a seam. The seam would indicate that the frame of the taqui is wrapped with fabric - I've been incorporating the finished edge of the material I've been using on some of the taqis I've recently made. It provides a much cleaner finish than the straight up-and-down seam. Unfortunately, since I sent all of those hats to Pennsic to sell, I don't have one to shoot at the moment.

The lower lady in the image is of greater interest to me. Because of the small size and low resolution in the download, it's hard to view this clearly. But it certainly looks as if this lady is wearing both an underveil and an overveil on her taqi. Note the sweep of fabric under her chin and how it rolls up into the top of the hat. Now note the layer over that, which progresses down her back. I'm pretty certain this is a use of two veils, one taqi.

Akbarnama - Elements of Mughal Dress in an End of Period Illumination.

More examination today from the collection at the Cleveland Museum of Art - this from an Akbarnama. The image is A Circumcision ceremony for Akbar’s sons, painting 126 from an Akbar-nama (Book of Akbar) of Abu’l Fazl (Indian, 1551–1602), c. 1602-1603. Like other images from the museum's collection, there's no description of action in the online presence.

This particular image does have a name for its artist - Dharam Das. The colors here pop beautifully - and the image is well-preserved, complete with goldworked borders.

Of interest in my Mughal women's dress research are the dancers. I've seen several examples of late period long dressed with the plunging neckline, but most of them have been depicted in pink or red. Here, a green example emerges. The women are wearing boqta or taqi hats with veils, apparently underneath or tacked to the back of the hat, while dancing. Perhaps at this juncture (in the last decade before 1600) the hats were a throwback, traditional wear for ceremonies and celebrations.

Note the lady in the green has a spread plume, which would bring it more in line of the idea of feathers instead of horsehair.

The artist's details in depicting the sheer muslin or silk veils is particularly lovely.

There's also this lady to the right side, presumably in another room. Her sheer veil is definitely coming off the top and back of her hat, and she appears to have no underveil or neck strap.

SHE'S WEARING A BINDI.

For the most part, bindi don't appear on Mughal women in period. Yet here is this woman, in her taqi hat and veils, long dress (which does not appear to have the plunging neckline), jewels and a mark on her forehead. Looking through the entire illumination, all the women appear to have bindi - but none of the men do.

So did Dharam Das depict these women with bindi, or were they added later?

An Impressive Hat, and Confusion.

The piece, Folios A and B from the "Five Treasures" (Panj Ganj) of Jami, 1520-1607, resides at the Cleveland Museum of Art, which Grav plans to visit on his way back from Pennsic this year. The website offers little information, no description of what's happening and a very large span of time in which it could have been created.

What interests me in this Indian or Mughal illumination, is this woman.

She appears to either be topless or in a very thin muslin shirt, a skirt, and a boqta hat. There are no veils, but there is a plume and the edges appear to be pearled.

It is different in shape from the boqta seen in much of the Baburnama - which, as I 've mentioned before, was illustrated by illuminators during Akbar's reign - with their slightly shorter appearance and the attachment of veils. What's more remarkable to meis the combination of elements - she's dressed in Hindi attire rather than Mughal, with what appears to be nothing more than a petticoat and... actually, on closer inspection, this appears to be a transparent scarf. She's obviously bare above the midriff save for jewelry and this enormous hat.

Sadly, thanks to the lack of interpretation here, I have nothing more to go on. Google search has nothing, no strings to follow.

One thing I can draw from is the fine detail the illuminator used in depicting rugs and... wallpaper?... and

wait, WHAT ARE THOSE LADIES DOING TO HER?

Are they flogging her with cotton candy? What?

A smaller portion of the upper left of the scroll shows a couple where a woman is wearing a more traditional bogta, possibly a taqi, and more traditional garb.

And the cheery inter-scene illumination is a cheetah and deer...

Oh deer.

I suspect this image is actually post-period. Another illumination in the Cleveland Museum of Art's collection depicts women in skirts and pants with the ultra sheer muslin shirts and skirts over in this illumination from the early 17th century, certainly a nod to Shah Jahangir's clothing aesthetic. Look, nipples.

Got you to look.

These hats are most decidedly without veils. The costumes are most decidedly un-SCA-able in their current fashions. I do recall meeting a woman at SCA50 who was dressed Indian-fashion but with a skin-colored leotard under her necklaces and pants.

The coats I am wearing may be bulky and thick, but at least I don't feel naked.

What I am getting here are the uses of various jewelry and some shoes - complete with CURLY TOES. Still, it's out of period by a few years, and because of the particular style of illumination and clothing worn, I'm going to make the assumption that the first illumination is also slightly out of period.