The few sources that actually outline parameters for these modalities represent them as octave scales. Thus Safi al-Din Urmawi referenced twelve modalities he called shadd and he presented each shadd as an eight-note scale with the first note representing the scale’s last note a register lower. Safi al-Din placed these shadd into a theoretical schema for scale creation that Safi al-Din referred to as adwar (adwār). In this theoretical adwar, Safi al-Din defined seven possible consonant tetrachords and twelve possible consonant pentachords that could combine to create different scale possibilities. The shadd represented twelve scales located at various placed in the adwar. The full adwar presented eighty-four possible distinct individual scales (dā’irah), and while each scale had a set numbered position in the totality of the scales (adwār) the twelve shadd were each labeled with a distinct proper name: Oshshaq (‛oshshāq), Nawa (nawā), Busalik (būsalīk), Husayni (ḥūsaynī), Hijaz (ḥijāz), Rahavi (rāhawī), Iraq (‛irāq), Rast (rāst), Zangulah (zankūlah), Zir-Afkand (zīrāfkand), Bozork (bozork), and Isfahan (iṣfahān). Safi al-Din further provided charts showing the possible transpositions of these specific scales, independent of the logic of his adwar.
Beyond these twelve shadd, Safi al-Din further designated six other named scales as avaz (awāzah): Gardaniya (kardāniya), Gawasht (kawāsht), Nawruz (nawrūz), Maya (māyah), Shahnaz (shahnāz), and Salmak (salmak). The musicologist Owen Wright has noted that while the shadd had a consistent octavorganization that fit well within Safi al-Din’s adwar, the avaz represented a mixture of modal possibilities, some that were structurally similar to the tetrachord/pentachord structure represented in the shadd and others that represented smaller sets of pitches.4 What distinguished both the shadd and the avaz from the rest of the scales in the adwar, however, was their apparent relation to practice. While Safi al-Din forwarded a seminal theory of scale creation that united concerns of theory with the realities of practice, the shadd and avaz were established aspects of practice, for which his theory of adwar could only partially account.
The unique phenomenon of the adwar notwithstanding, Safi al-Din wrote about two core features that would ultimately define the parameters of the twelve-maqam system over centuries. First was the notion of two distinct categories of twelve primary and six secondary pitch modalities that maintained meaningful associations with each other. Second was the notion that functional pitch modalities should derive from previously established consonant organizations of pitch. While Safi al-Din’s specific use of pentachords and tetrachords would only ring true in certain places for a short period of time, the centrality of systematic modal derivation from previously established modal material within closed parameters lasted for the duration of the system’s relevancy and defined its premise for legitimate consonant mode creation.
These two phenomena manifested in a different presentation in the writings of Nishaburi, who described twelve primary pitch modalities he called pardeh and six secondary modalities he called sho‛beh (sho‛beh). The terminology in his scheme was different than Safi al-Din’s, and his description was less technical. He also wrote in generalities without outlining any specific scales. Yet Nishaburi highlighted the systematic derivation concept by emphasizing that the six secondary modalities derived from specific pairings of the twelve primary pitch modalities: each pardeh could be paired with another specific pardeh, and between the two a new modality was created, one of six sho‛beh total.
Greeco-Arab Influences of Twelve-Maqam System
