Raised in the historic city of Isfahan, Mohammad Gharipour received
his Ph.D. in Architectural Theory and History from Georgia Institute of
Technology in 2008 and Masters of Architecture from the University of Tehran in
2000. He teaches architecture at Morgan State University and is the Director and Founding Editor of the International Journal of Islamic Architecture. His
areas of research include Japanese traditional and contemporary architecture,
Persianate gardens and architecture, and restorative environments. He is the
recipient of Spiro Kostof fellowship award from the Society of Architectural
Historians (SAH) in 2008 and the author of several publications including Persian Gardens and Pavilions: Reflections in
Poetry, Arts and History(I.B. Tauris, 2013). in 2014, Dr. Gharipour was presented with the National Endowment for Humanities Faculty Award for his research on Synagogues of Isfahan, Iran.
Bartsch, Katharine and Elise Kamleh. "Karbala in Lucknow: An Itinerary of Architectural Mobility." In International Journal of Islamic Architecture, Volume 3, Number 2 (pp. 267-302), edited by Mohammad Gharipour, Bristol: Intellect, 2014.
Under the Shi’a Nawabs, the city of Lucknow connected the north Indian province of Awadh westward to Mughal Shahjahanabad, Persia and beyond. To the east, terrestrial and waterborne traffic linked Awadh to Bengal (under the East India Company), and on to China. Locating Lucknow amid political, economic, intellectual and spiritual routes, this article draws attention to the hybrid architecture that materialized diverse ideas and techniques, from the work of Vanbrugh to the Indo-Gangetic vernacular. Most intriguingly, the article examines portable models (known as taziya and zareeh) that were paraded through Lucknow to mourn the martyrdom of Shi’a Imam Husayn during Muharram. The travelogue of Mirza Abu Taleb Khan, who served in the sophisticated court of Asaf-ud-Daula (r.1775–97), offers an itinerary to interpret the intentionally hybrid architecture of Lucknow – including the imambaras where the models were housed – and to connect it to the city’s regional, continental and global networks. This hybridity has been criticized for its excess or dismissed as mimesis. However, a number of recent heritage surveys prompt fresh analysis. Despite this new scholarship, Lucknow has not been duly recognized as one of the most significant sites of exchange amidst a vast network of Eurasian architectural mobility in the eighteenth century.