1341-08_Vermeulen&D'Hulster_Voorwk
02-08-2010
14:23
Pagina III
ORIENTALIA LOVANIENSIA
ANALECTA
————— 183 —————
EGYPT AND SYRIA
IN THE FATIMID, AYYUBID
AND MAMLUK ERAS
VI
Proceedings of the 14th and 15th International Colloquium organized at
the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in
May 2005 and May 2006
U. VERMEULEN
and
K. D’HULSTER
(eds.)
UITGEVERIJ PEETERS
LEUVEN – PARIS – WALPOLE, MA
2010
1341-08_Vermeulen&D'Hulster_Voorwk
02-08-2010
14:23
Pagina V
CONTENTS
CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
V
PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VII
PROGRAMME OF THE INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIA AT THE K.U.LEUVEN
– Fourteenth Colloquium, May 19 & 20, 2005 . . . . . . . .
– Fifteenth Colloquium, May 17, 18 & 19, 2006 . . . . . .
IX
X
ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII
Keynote
1.
M. BRETT, “The Fifteenth Colloquium on the History of Egypt
and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras” . . .
1
Fatimids
2.
M. BRETT, “The Ifriqiyan Sijill of al-MustanÒir, 445/1053-4”
3.
J. DEN HEIJER, “La révolte de l’émir NaÒir al-Dawla b. Î amdan
contre le calife fatimide al-MustanÒir billah (deuxième partie)” 17
4.
S. LAOR-SIRAK, “The Contribution of Armenian Architecture
to the Origin of the Stone Muqarnas in Syria” . . . . . . . .
27
U. VERMEULEN, “La lettre de QayÒar à Kisra dans une recension fatimide du Sirat {Antar” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45
5.
9
Ayyubids (& Seljuqs)
6.
7.
8.
9.
P.-V. CLAVERIE, “Une source méconnue sur la bataille de La
Mansourah: La chanson de Guillaume Longue-Épée” . . . .
49
M. FRENKEL, “Constructing the Sacred: Holy Shrines in Aleppo
and its Environs” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
63
H. HANISCH, “Zu zwei Problemen bei der Untersuchung der
ayyubidischen Torbauten der Zitadelle von Damaskus” . . .
79
H. HANISCH, “Armenische Bauweise im mittelalterlichen Wehrbau in Syrien” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
95
10. L. RICHTER-BERNBURG, “Between Marvel and Trial: al-Harawi
and Ibn Jubayr on Architecture” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
1341-08_Vermeulen&D'Hulster_Voorwk
VI
02-08-2010
14:23
Pagina VI
CONTENTS
11. J.J. YESHAYA, “‘Your Poems are like Rotten Figs’: Judah
al- Î arizi on Poets and Poetry in the Muslim East” . . . . . 147
Mamluks
12. F. BAUDEN, “D’Alexandrie à Damas et retour. La poste privée
à l’époque mamlouke à la lumière d’une commission accomplie
pour le compte d’un Vénitien (821 A.H./1418 è.C.)” . . . . 157
13. P.-V. CLAVERIE, “Les relations islamo-chrétiennes à l’aune du
récit de pèlerinage de Jacques de Vérone (1335)” . . . . . . 191
14. N. COUREAS, “Commerce between Mamluk Egypt and Hospitaller Rhodes in the Mid-Fifteenth Century: The Case of Sidi
Galip Ripolli” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
15. N. COUREAS, “The Reception of Arabic Medicine on Latin
Cyprus: 1200-1570” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
16. K. D’HULSTER, “‘Sitting with Ottomans and Standing with
Persians’:The Sahname-yi Türki as a Highlight of Mamluk Court
Culture” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
17. J. DRORY, “A Palestinian Saint” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
18. J. DRORY, “Yunus al-Dawadar” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
19. Y. FRENKEL, “Mamluk ‘ulama’ on Festivals and Rites de
passage: Wedding Customs in 15th Century Damascus” . . . 279
20. A. PETERSEN, “Medieval Bridges of Palestine” . . . . . . . 291
21. M. PIANA, “From Montpèlerin to ™arabulus al-Mustajadda:
The Frankish-Mamluk Succession in Old Tripoli” . . . . . . 307
22. G. SCHALLENBERGH, “The Invocation of God (dhikr) and Audition (sama‘) in the Spirituality of Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya
(d. 751/1350)” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
23. TH.M. WIJNTJES, “Ibn al-Jazari’s Al-ÌiÒn al-ÌaÒin (Damascus
791/1389): A Case of Non-Violent Resistance (?)” . . . . . 369
24. TH.M. WIJNTJES, “Sultan al-Åahir Barquq as Seen by His
Contemporaries Ibn Khaldun and Bertrando de Mignanelli” . 383
1341-08_Vermeulen&D'Hulster_04
02-08-2010
14:31
Pagina 27
THE CONTRIBUTION OF ARMENIAN ARCHITECTURE TO
THE ORIGIN OF THE STONE MUQARNAS IN SYRIA
In this article I hope to contribute to the ongoing debate on the development of the architectural device known as muqarnas. One of the controversial issues that are discussed by many scholars is the origin of the
Mediterranean stone muqarnas in Syria. I am proposing a new source:
The Armenian architecture. The Armenian mason and architect’s knowledge in working with stone could have influenced the design of the
Mediterranean Stone muqarnas.
The muqarnas is one of the most characteristic features of Islamic
architecture and is used throughout most of the Muslim world. The
muqarnas is a vaulting system based on the replication of units arranged
in rows (tiers), one on top of the other1. The muqarnas can be constructed
from stucco, wood or stone. The design can be plain or decorated.
The first muqarnas are dated to the 10th century and can be found in
various parts of the Muslim world such as Northeastern Iran, North Africa
and Iraq2. One of the earliest stucco muqarnas was found in Nishapur
(fig. 1). It is composed of 9 small niche-shaped panels and is dated to the
10th century. The niches are very shallow but their pointed arch is projected forward. The backs of the curved surfaces seem to have been joined
to another plaster surface. Morris Dimand concluded, after the Metropolitan Museum’s excavation at Nishapur (1937), “the niches are part of
a series of multiple or stalactite squinches which supported a dome over
a square room”3.
Another early muqarnas-like example is found in the squinches of the
late 10th century ‘Arab Ata Mausoleum in Tim, Uzbekistan (fig. 2).4 The
earliest example of a full muqarnas dome is in the shrine called Imam alDawr, located some twenty kilometers north of Samarra (fig. 3). It was
built between 1075 and 1090. The mausoleum consists of an elongated
1 G. Necipoglu, The Topkapı Scroll: Geometry and Ornament in Islamic Architecture
(Santa Monica, 1995), p. 349.
2 Ibid.
3 M.S. Dimand, “The Iranian Expedition, 1937 The Museum’s Excavation at Nishapur”, The Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 33(1938): 6.
4 R. Ettinghousen & O. Grabar, The Art and Architecture of Islam 650-1250 (Hong
Kong, 1987), p. 221.
1341-08_Vermeulen&D'Hulster_04
28
02-08-2010
14:31
Pagina 28
S. LAOR-SIRAK
chamber with walls about 12 meters high and a muqarnas dome almost
of the same height5.
From the 12th century the muqarnas is widespread in Syria and the
rest of the Muslim world. Ernest Herzfeld was the first scholar to study
and classify the Syrian muqarnas and was followed by Yaser Tabbaa
and Terry Allen. Ernest Herzfeld provides a typology of the Syrian
muqarnas vaults. In his three articles from 1968 he classifies these
muqarnas vaults into what he terms “Mediterranean” type and “Iranian”
type. The Mediterranean muqarnas type is a vault formed on a pendentive, while the Iranian muqarnas vault type is formed above a cornice.6
An example of the earliest Syrian Iranian muqarnas vault type is found
in the portal of Bimaristan Nur al-Din Zengi in Damascus of 1154
(fig. 4). This muqarnas portal is made of stucco. Another example of the
earliest Syrian Mediterranean muqarnas vault type can be seen in the
portal of Mashad al-Dikka in Aleppo, dating from 1189 (fig. 5). This
portal is made of stone.
However, Herzfeld does not refer to the material from which the different muqarnas domes and vaults are made — whether these are from
stucco, brick or stone.7 Yaser Tabbaa in his book “Constructions of Power
and Piety in Medieval Aleppo” deals with the Syrian muqarnas in general and in Aleppo in particular. He distinguishes between stone and
stucco muqarnas but continues to use Herzfeld’s classification.8 Tabbaa
argues that although the muqarnas portal of the Bimaristan Nur al-Din
Zengi in Damascus is chronologically prior to the muqarnas portal of
Mashad al-Dikka in Aleppo, it cannot be its architectural model. The two
types of vaults are unrelated in terms of their material, technique and
overall design. The earliest stone muqarnas examples appear in Damascus in the early 13th century. According to Tabbaa the stone muqarnas
are indigenous to Aleppo and in no way modeled after the stucco vaults
from Damascus. Therefore, Tabbaa suggests two possible theories for the
origin of the Mediterranean stone muqarnas: either a brick prototype that
has only survived in later examples or an independent evolution based on
local traditions of stone masonry.
One may add a third possible idea to the debate on the origin of the
Mediterranean stone muqarnas in Syria. Both the design and construction
of this device can be seen in Armenian architecture from the 11th century
5
6
7
8
Y. Tabbaa, “The Muqarnas Dome: Its Origin and Meaning”, Muqarnas (1985): 62.
E. Herzfeld, “Damascus: Studies in Architecture III”, Ars Islamica, 11-12 (1968): 15.
Herzfeld, “Damascus”, p. 15.
Y. Tabbaa, Construction of Power and Piety in Aleppo (Pennsylvania, 2003), p. 145.
1341-08_Vermeulen&D'Hulster_04
02-08-2010
14:31
Pagina 29
THE ORIGIN OF THE STONE MUQARNAS IN SYRIA
29
onward. The Armenian masons and architects who were highly skilled
stone craftsmen fragmented the transition zone between the square room
and the copula with squinches. They used the squinches not only as a
constructive device but also as a decorative element. In addition, they
transformed the Iranian muqarnas, which were made from stucco and
brick, into stone.
The Armenians began to use the squinch as a constructional device
since the 5th century. They adopted it from the Iranian brick architecture
and built it in stone. In the Sassanian palace of Sarvistan dating from the
5th or the 6th century, there are four brick squinches under the main dome
(fig. 6). This same structure, but of stone, can be seen in the Armenian
church of Odzun from the 6th or the 7th century (fig. 7). The church is
a large cruciform inscribed within a rectangle with 4 standing piers supporting the central cupola. The transition zone from a square central bay
to the octagonal drum is made with the use of squinches.
Already in the 7th century the squinch was used not only as a constructional device but also as a decorative element. For example in the
church of St. Heripsime dated from 615 to 628 there are very shallow
squinches decorated with shells under the hemispherical dome (fig. 8, 9).
The decorative aspect was further developed when the squinches were
structured in rows, one on top of the other as seen in the church of Pemzashen from the 7th century (fig. 10, 11). Here the transition zone is composed of three rows of squinches and niches. Pemzashen is a small cruciform plan church with central dome, which is now in ruins. The interior
of the drum contains a series of 8 niches with squinches above and below
them. The niches are crowned with arches while the small squinches
above the drum are carved with wedge-like segments crowned with motifs
such as horseshoe shaped arches, circles, six-petal rosettes and small circles. The squinches under the drum are undecorated. Another example of
the use of squinches in rows can be found in the Oshk monastery of the
10th century (fig. 12). The main church in the monastery is a centrally
planned domed structure. The central dome is supported by 4 piers. In the
south entrance there is an open arcade, surmounted by a roof with 4
domes. One of the domes is supported by four squinches decorated with
shells that turn the square room into an octagon. Above the corners of this
octagon are 8 shallow decorated squinches. This construction of several
layers of squinches, one above the other, represents a significant innovation in the aesthetics of the transition zone.
In the 9th century the Armenians further developed the transition zone
into a combination of a pendentive and a squinch, which is similar to the
1341-08_Vermeulen&D'Hulster_04
30
02-08-2010
14:31
Pagina 30
S. LAOR-SIRAK
decorative composition of the Mediterranean stone muqarnas. It appears
in two churches in Northeastern Turkey, in the region of Erzurum. The
first is in the church of Ishhan from the 9th century (fig. 13) and the second is in the Oshk monastery from the 10th century mentioned above
(fig. 14). In these two monuments the main dome is supported by pendentives. The lower part of these pendentives is decorated with shallow
squinches shaped as shells. The same design with the addition of two
small niches above the decorative squinches appears at the main domed
church in the monastery of Haho from the 10th century (fig. 15). Here
the pendentives are composed of 3 squinches. Haho is a centrally planned
domed building with cruciform plan and an elongated west arm. The eastern apse is a semicircular niche surmounted by half a dome, while the
north and south transepts are rectangular and vaulted. The transition from
the central bay to the circular base of the drum of the dome is achieved
through the use of two sets of squinches, one above the other, inside a
pendentive. The 3 squinches occupy the triangular area between the
arches and the base of the drum.
I suggest that the design of the fragmented pendentives, which was
developed as early as the 10th century in Armenian architecture, could
have influenced the evolution of the Mediterranean stone muqarnas. In
both cases the pendentive area is composed of muqarnas cells or mininiches. In addition to the use of multiple niches in the transition zone, the
Armenians transformed the Iranian muqarnas, which were made of stucco
and brick, into stone. The Armenian masons and architects who were
highly skilled stone craftsmen were able to construct these with no difficulty. Stone muqarnas were used in Armenian and Muslim buildings of
Anatolia from the 11th century. This Anatolian muqarnas are of the Iranian type but decorated with shells. Therefore, in spite of being built in
stone, they could not have served as a source for the Mediterranean stone
muqarnas.
The Mosque of Manuchehr at Ani is the earliest known example of the
stone muqarnas in the Islamic architecture of Eastern Turkey and
Mesopotamia (fig. 16). During the beginning of the 11th century Ani was
the capital of the Bagratid Armenian kingdom, which covered much of
present day Armenia and eastern Turkey. The mosque of Manuchehr was
built after the conquest of Ani in 1064 by the Seljuk army led by Alp
Arslan.9 An inscription on one of the walls of the Mosque indicates that
9 V.L. Parsegain (Project Director), Armenian Architecture, Microform Collection,
Books I-VII (Leiden, 1980), I: mf 113.
1341-08_Vermeulen&D'Hulster_04
02-08-2010
14:31
Pagina 31
THE ORIGIN OF THE STONE MUQARNAS IN SYRIA
31
the building was constructed between 1072 and 1092. Most of the scholars agree that the building was originally Armenian and there is no doubt
that Armenian masons were involved in transforming the building into a
mosque. The mosque is divided into 12 bays and in two of them there are
Iranian type muqarnas made of stone. These are the earliest stone muqarnas in Anatolia and predate all the stone muqarnas in Mesopotamia.
These Iranian type Stone muqarnas were used as an archetype for later
Armenian churches.10 For example the muqarnas under the dome and on
the columns in the Teghenats monastery, from 1167, are similar to those
in the mosque of Manuchehr (fig. 17, 18). Muqarnas decoration appears
also at the Gosh monastery in the Mother of Jesus church from 1197
(fig. 19). The columns here are decorated with three muqarnas cells.
This brief overview of several examples of stone muqarnas in Islamic
and Armenian architecture during the 11th-12th centuries could lead to a
conclusion that the local Armenian masons were familiar with the construction of stone muqarnas and used them frequently. They could have,
and very well may have, developed the Armenian fragmented pendentive
into the Mediterranean stone muqarnas. The question is how the Armenian knowledge and design reached Aleppo.
T. Allen’s research of the Ayyubid architecture in Damascus and
Aleppo shows that builders and masons were local workers who worked
in the same city. Damascus and Aleppo had their one unique local style
that was developed by local groups of masons. Therefore, only architects
were able to bring about new architectural and stylistic elements into the
local designs.11 North Syrian architects worked under Muslim patronage
in Mesopotamia and Egypt since the 11 century. As a first example, we
have the Fatimid gates of Cairo, built in 1087, ordered by Badr al-Jamali.
Al-Maqrizi mentions that “three brothers that came from al-Ruha} to
Cairo built the 3 big gates”.12 Considering the decorative elements of the
gates, these three brothers were probably Armenians.13 A second example is the Gök Madrasa at Sivas, from 1271. An inscription above the
main portal mentions that the architect’s name was Kaloyan, which could
be an Armenian name. A third example is in the Hekim Han near Malatya
10 B. Karamagarlı, “Ani Ulu Camii (Manuçehr Camii)”, in The 9th International Congress of Turkish Art, Turkish Art (Istanbul, 1991), p. 329.
11 T. Allen, http://www.sonic.net/~tallen/palmtree/ayyarch/index.htm, 1999, chap 2.
12 Al-Maqrizi, AÌmad b. {Ali Taqiy al-Din, Kitab al-Khîtæt al-Maqriziya (al-Shaykh,
Lubnan, 1959), I: 381.
13 S. Laor-Sirak, The Fatimid Gates of Cairo Bab al-FutuÌ, Bab al-NaÒr and Bab
Zuwayla: Their Architectonic and Decorative Sources (Tel-Aviv, 1998), p. 76.
1341-08_Vermeulen&D'Hulster_04
32
02-08-2010
14:31
Pagina 32
S. LAOR-SIRAK
from 1218. In the khan there is an inscription in Armenian that reads: “In
the year 667 of the Armenian era I built this inn.” That could indicate that
an Armenian architect was involved in constructing the building14.
Therefore, the Armenian architects who worked for Muslim patrons
could have transferred Armenian architectural design and construction
into Syria. They may have developed in Syria the Mediterranean stone
muqarnas based on models known to them from the earlier Armenian
architecture of Anatolia.
SHARON LAOR-SIRAK
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
14
H. Stierlin, Turkey from the Seljuq to the Ottomans (Milan, 1998), p. 73.
1341-08_Vermeulen&D'Hulster_04
02-08-2010
14:31
Pagina 33
THE ORIGIN OF THE STONE MUQARNAS IN SYRIA
1. Carved and painted stucco panel, 10th Century, Nishapur, Iran
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
(after Dimand, “The Iranian Expedition”).
2. Mausoleum of {Arab Ata, 997-998, Tim, Uzbekistan
(after Ettinghousen & Grabar, The Art and Architecture).
33
1341-08_Vermeulen&D'Hulster_04
34
02-08-2010
14:31
Pagina 34
S. LAOR-SIRAK
3. Shrine of Imam al-Dawr, 1075-1090, Iraq
(after Tabbaa, “The Muqarnas Dome”).
4. Bimaristan of Nur al-Din,
1154, Damascus, Syria (after
http://www.sonic.net/~ tallen/
palmtree/ayyarch/index.htm).
1341-08_Vermeulen&D'Hulster_04
02-08-2010
14:31
Pagina 35
THE ORIGIN OF THE STONE MUQARNAS IN SYRIA
5. Mashhad al-Dikka, 1189, Aleppo, Syria
(after http://www.sonic.net/~tallen/ palmtree/ayyarch/index.htm).
35
1341-08_Vermeulen&D'Hulster_04
36
02-08-2010
14:31
Pagina 36
S. LAOR-SIRAK
6. Sarvistan palace, 5th or 6th century
(after A.U. Pope, A Survey of Persian art (Tokyo, 1964-)).
7. Church of Odzun, 6th or 7th century, Armenia (after E. Utudjian,
Les Monuments Armeniens du IV au XVII siècle (Paris, 2003)).
1341-08_Vermeulen&D'Hulster_04
02-08-2010
14:31
Pagina 37
THE ORIGIN OF THE STONE MUQARNAS IN SYRIA
8. Church of St. Heripsime, 615-628, Armenia
(picture by S. Laor-Sirak, 2005).
9. Church of St. Heripsime, 615-628, Armenia
(picture by S. Laor-Sirak, 2005).
37
1341-08_Vermeulen&D'Hulster_04
38
02-08-2010
14:31
Pagina 38
S. LAOR-SIRAK
10. Church of Pemzashen, 7th century, Armenia, view of the drum
(after Parsegain, Armenian Architecture).
11. Church of Pemzashen, 7th century, Armenia, Niches above the drum
(after Parsegain, Armenian Architecture).
1341-08_Vermeulen&D'Hulster_04
02-08-2010
14:31
Pagina 39
THE ORIGIN OF THE STONE MUQARNAS IN SYRIA
39
12. Oshk monastery, 10th century, Turkey (picture by S. Laor-Sirak, 2005).
1341-08_Vermeulen&D'Hulster_04
40
02-08-2010
14:31
Pagina 40
S. LAOR-SIRAK
13. Church of Ishan, 9th century, Turkey
(after Parsegain, Armenian Architecture).
14. Oshk monastery, 10th century, Turkey (picture by S. Laor-Sirak, 2005).
1341-08_Vermeulen&D'Hulster_04
02-08-2010
14:31
Pagina 41
THE ORIGIN OF THE STONE MUQARNAS IN SYRIA
15. Haho monastery, 10th century, Turkey
(after Parsegain, Armenian Architecture).
16. Manuchehr Mosque, 1072-1092, Ani, Turkey
(after Karamagarlı, “Ani Ulu Camii”).
41
1341-08_Vermeulen&D'Hulster_04
42
02-08-2010
14:31
Pagina 42
S. LAOR-SIRAK
17. Teghenats monastery, 1167, Armenia
(after Parsegain, Armenian Architecture).
18. Teghenats monastery, 1167, Armenia
(after Parsegain, Armenian Architecture).
1341-08_Vermeulen&D'Hulster_04
02-08-2010
14:31
Pagina 43
THE ORIGIN OF THE STONE MUQARNAS IN SYRIA
19. Gosh monastery, 1197, Armenia
(after Parsegain, Armenian Architecture).
43