ola183 richter bernburg

7/27/2019 OLA183 Richter Bernburg

1/34

ORIENTALIA LOVANIENSIA

ANALECTA

183

EGYPT AND SYRIAIN THE FATIMID, AYYUBID

AND MAMLUK ERAS

U. VERMEULEN

and

K. DHULSTER

(eds.)

UITGEVERIJ PEETERS

LEUVEN PARIS WALPOLE, MA

2010

VI

Proceedings of the 14th and 15th International Colloquium organized at

the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in

May 2005 and May 2006


2/34

CONTENTS

CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII

PROGRAMME OF THE INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIA AT THE K.U.LEUVEN

Fourteenth Colloquium, May 19 & 20, 2005 . . . . . . . . IX

Fifteenth Colloquium, May 17, 18 & 19, 2006 . . . . . . 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-Mustanir, 445/1053-4 93. J. DEN HEIJER, La rvolte de lmir Nair al-Dawla b. amdan

contre le calife fatimide al-Mustanir billah (deuxime partie) 17

4. S. LAOR-SIRAK, The Contribution of Armenian Architecture

to the Origin of the Stone Muqarnas in Syria . . . . . . . . 27

5. U. VERMEULEN, La lettre de Qayar Kisra dans une recen-

sion fatimide du Sirat {Antar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Ayyubids (& Seljuqs)

6. P.-V. CLAVERIE, Une source mconnue sur la bataille de La

Mansourah:La chanson de Guillaume Longue-pe . . . . 49

7. M. FRENKEL, Constructing the Sacred: Holy Shrines in Aleppo

and its Environs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

8. H. HANISCH, Zu zwei Problemen bei der Untersuchung der

ayyubidischen Torbauten der Zitadelle von Damaskus . . . 79

9. H. HANISCH, Armenische Bauweise im mittelalterlichen Wehr-

bau in Syrien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

10. L. RICHTER-BERNBURG, Between Marvel and Trial: al-Harawi

and Ibn Jubayr on Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115


3/34


4/34

BETWEEN MARVEL AND TRIAL:AL-HARAWI AND IBN JUBAYR ON ARCHITECTURE

In an earlier essay, I examined purposely descriptive, non-poetic, rep-resentations of architecture in Arabic geographical texts from the third andfourth/ninth and tenth centuries;1 apart from the coincidence that this isthe period covered by the reference editions in Bibliotheca geographo-

rum arabicorum, by its end human geography had consolidated into abody of knowledge which subsequently came to exert an often unques-tioned, quasi extra-historical authority.2 While thus on the one hand,human geography frequently turned into mere book learning or as it were,into armchair travel, on the other hand writing by actual travellers con-tinued, expanded and diversified. And in order not to oversimplify, notall authors fit such a neat dichotomy, viz. al-Sharif al-Idrisiand Yaqut each one in quite different ways. As for the authors perception of archi-tecture and its aesthetic potential, which will here again be the focus of

inquiry, a certain change or at least a certain broadening, of perspectivemay also be detected after the turn of the fifth/eleventh century. Con-ceivably this resulted from a much more comprehensive consoli-dation of cultural self-awareness. Such religious or utilitarian reserva-tions against ambitious architecture as al-Muqaddasi in his youth stillvoiced vis--vis the Umayyad mosque in Damascus, to cite only one obvi-ous example, appear at least to have receded, if not disappearing alto-gether, in later geographical and travel literature.3 Some other motive

1 In the eye of the beholder: the aesthetic (in)signifance of architecture in Arabicgeography, AH 250-400, The Arabist Budapest studies in Arabic, 26-27 (2003): 295-316; for general reference, cf. D. Behrens-Abouseif, Schnheit in der arabischen Kultur(Mnchen, 1998); here quoted from its trl. asBeauty in Arabic culture (Princeton, 1999),pp. 149-54, 165-80 (and notes). Our purpose here is far more modest than hers, based asit is on a narrowly circumscribed range of sources from a limited period.

2 For the sake of convenience, reference may here be made again to Andr Miquelsgroundbreaking study: La gographie humaine du monde musulman jusquau milieu duXIe sicle [Civilisations et socits; volumes 7, 37, 68, 78] (Paris, etc., 1967, 1975, 1980,1988). Ifpace Miquel, periodization here is based on the turn rather than the middle ofthe fifth/eleventh century, it is for no other reason than Naer-e Khosrows (b. 394/1004)upbringing and education, or differently put, the formation of his sensibilities, antedating

his journey (437-44/1045-52) by a few decades.3 As for a certain negatively accentuated lack of interest in the built environment in

Muslim tradition, see the still thought-provoking study by Goldziher Igncz [Ignaz Gold-ziher], Az iszlm pitszeti emlkei, kapcsolatban a muhammedn vilgnzettel [Islamic


5/34

may also have contributed to an increased density in architecturaldescriptions, namely the respective writings function as, often devotional,guidebooks guidebooks at that which, with minimal exceptions, dis-pensed with graphic illustrations.4

Such exceptions include an annotated map cum elevation of the Fri-day mosque in Jerusalem, i.e., the precinct later to be called al-aramal-Sharif, in al-Bakris compilation al-Masalik wa l-Mamalik5 and a fewrough sketches of the Alexandrian Pharos and other Egyptian monumentsin Tufat al-albab by Abu amid al-Gharnai.6

On a more fundamental level, all the witnesses of potential import in

the present context, such as Naer-e Khosrow, Abu amid al-Gharnai,Yusuf b. al-Shaykh al-Balawi, {Alial-Harawi, Ibn Jubayr, {Abd al-Laifal-Baghdadi, and Yaqut shared the long-established, common-placenotion of {aja}ib, mirabilia, which can with but little exaggeration becalled a constituent of medieval civilizations East and West;7 evidently,it had to be accounted for in my earlier study as well. In the period hereunder discussion roughly to the end of the Ayyubids8 noteworthy

116 L. RICHTER-BERNBURG

architectural monuments in relation to the Muhammadan worldview], in id., Az iszlm

(Budapest, 1881), pp. 271-98 (for an abstract see B. Heller, Bibliographie des uvresde Ignace Goldziher [Publications de lcole nationale des langues orientales vivantes,vie srie, volume 1] (Paris, 1927), p. 33f; a debt of gratitude to Istvn Ormos for pointingout this reference is happily acknowledged!). An echo of the earlier pietist rejection ofgrand building is found in Yaqut. After quoting, with approval, a number of laudatoryevocations of the Umayyad mosque in Damascus, he dutifully adduces a tradition whichtypically features {Umar b. {Abd al-{Aziz, the sunnite embodiment of the pious prince; herehe is said to have abstained from stripping the mosque of lavish appointments (and in theprocess replenishing the treasury) only after learning about the humiliating effect it hadon Byzantine envoys (Yaqut,Mu{jam al-buldan, ed. F. Wstenfeld, volumes I-VI (Leipzig,1866-1873), II: 595:3-14).

4 cf., from quite a different, complementary rather than altogether contradictory per-

spective, G. Calasso, Les tches du voyageur: dcrire, mesurer, compter, chez IbnJubayr, Naer-e Khosrow e Ibn Baua, RSO, 73 (1999): 69-104; even if with somereservations, mention has to be made also of two studies by I.R. Netton, Basic Struc-tures and Signs of Alienation in the Rila of Ibn Jubayr, JAL, 22 (1991): 21-37, andTouristAdab and Cairene Architecture: The Medieval Paradigm of Ibn Jubayr and IbnBauah, inLiterary heritage of classical Islam: Arabic and Islamic studies in honor ofJames A. Bellamy, eds. M. Mir & J.E. Possum (Princeton, NJ, 1993), pp. 275-84.

5 Abu {Ubayd {Abdallah b. {Abd al-{Aziz al-Bakri, Kitab al-Masalik wa-l-mamalik,eds. A.P. van Leeuwen & A. Ferr, volumes I-II (Qaraj [Tunis], 1992), I: 472.

6 Abu amid Muammad b. {Abd al-Raim al-Gharnai, Tufat al-albab, ed. G. Ferrand,JA, 207 (1925): 1-148, 193-304 and pls. I-VIII, esp. II-VI (=A. Ramos, Spanish trl. [FuentesArbico-Hispanas, volume 10] (Madrid, 1990), lminas II-III, betw. pp. 48-49).

7 cf., e.g., M.B. Campbell, The Witness and the Other World Exotic European TravelWriting, 400-1600 (Ithaca - London, 1988).

8 In the Mamluk period, a second stage of sedimentation of sources set in; compila-tion became a hallmark of prose writing, even if by gradual transition rather than rupture


6/34

architecture continued to be an instance of {ajaib; however, it wouldseem that the notion of wonder underwent a process of, even contra-dictory, differentiation. If a certain levelling was implied in extendingthe term to contemporaneous, or near contemporaneous monuments, suchlevelling could still signify, or even mask, a variety of tendencies depend-ing on the respective authors education and worldview. At one end ofthe spectrum, as with {Abd al-Laif al-Baghdadi, it might express a cer-tain naturalism, rejecting the notion of supernatural or superhuman agen-cies; at the other end, as with Ibn Jubayr, this very notion might havebeen broadened to subsume under it constructions such as the domed

transept of the Damascus mosque, let alone ancient Egyptian or Graeco-Roman monuments. Yet again, an author such as al-Harawi mighthave ignored the question of human or superhuman agency altogether bycategorizing everything curious as {ajiba; or finally, he may havewavered between contradictory notions, as witness, again, Ibn Jubayr.Clearly, the different attitudes as here alluded to cannot be explainedsolely with reference to a given writers individuality, ignoring the over-arching ideological climate which affected him and to which he had toadjust. Thus ostensible contradictions may either simply express negli-

gent, inconsequent thinking or to the contrary, may serve as carefullyplanted hints for the attentive reader or initiate.For practical reasons, but it is hoped, not without intrinsic justifica-

tion, the current discussion will initially focus on just two authors, {Alial-Harawi9 and Ibn Jubayr,10 who seem particularly well suited for com-parison and contrast. Their travels covered much of the same territory in

BETWEEN MARVEL AND TRIAL 117

(and without ignoring exceptions). Suffice it, by way of example, to cite Ibn Bauas or his redactors, which here amounts to the same completely assuming this predeces-sor Ibn Jubayrs persona in describing the Damascus mosque; cf. J.N. Mattock, Ibn Bat-

tutas use of Ibn Jubayrs Rihla, in Proceedings of the ninth congress of the UnionEuropenne des Arabisants et Islamisants [UEAI], Amsterdam 1978 [Publications ofthe Netherlands Institute of Archaeology and Arabic Studies in Cairo, volume 4], ed.R. Peters (Leiden, 1981), pp. 209-18, and idem, The travel writings of Ibn Jubair andIbn Batuta, Transactions of the Glasgow University Oriental Society, 21 (1965-66) [Hert-ford, 1967]: 35-46. Yaqut, clearly marking an earlier stage on this path, at least still gavea brief outline of al-Aqa himself before turning the rostrum over to al-Muqaddasi(Yaqut,al-Buldan, IV: 594:4-16, 600:3-9 vs. 594:-1 598:18).

9 Born Mossul at unknown date, d. Aleppo, 611/1215, and author ofKitab al-Isharatila ma{rifat al-ziyarat (J. Sourdel-Thomine, ed. and French trl., as Guide des lieux deplerinage (Damascus, 1953-1957, resp.; cf. eadem, al-Harawial-Mawili, inEI2, III:178a-b.

10 Muammad b. Amad al-Kinani, Valencia 540 Alexandria 614/1145-1217, authorof the famous rila, Tadhkira bi l-ikhbar {an ittifaqat al-asfar, The Travels of Ibn Jubayr,eds. W. Wright & M.J. de Goeje [E. J. W. Gibb Memorial Series, volume 5] (Leyen -London, 1907); cf. Ch. Pellat, Ibn $ubayr,EI2, III: 754b-755a.


7/34

al-Jazira al-Furatiya, Bilad al-Sham and al-Diyar al-Miriya (NorthernMesopotamia, Syria and Egypt) and within a short interval at that,al-Harawis largely during 569-72/1173-7711 and Ibn Jubayrs in578-80/1183-85; also, from an expressly pious perspective, they bothevince lively interest in sacred sites and religious subjects generally. Fur-ther, and more to the point here, the two writers shared attention tonotable architecture is, in agreement and disagreement, liable to provideevidence on the issue at the heart of the present inquiry to wit, thequestion of the existence and in the affirmative case, of the defining fea-tures of a period mentality a Zeitgeist as regards the perception

and appreciation of architecture. Given the two works difference in pur-pose, al-Harawis being matter-of-fact information rather than circum-stantial narrative as Ibn Jubayrs, any overlap between them would onlyseem to corroborate their testimony. Further, the fact that both authorsrecord firsthand experience, notwithstanding stylistic constraints anddependence on literary predecessors, lends their accounts special value asvoices of and witnesses to, their own age.

In order to gage our sources perceptiveness of architectural featuresit may be best to begin with structures which the authors, either by con-

vention or their own prompting, did not heavily invest with extra-archi-tectural meaning. In Ibn Jubayrs account of the Friday mosque at ar-ran a number of motifs are encountered which may be of more thanindividual import.12 Thus apart from unspecifically extolling its extremebeauty, the author mentions fine ashlar masonry; the columns of threecanopied fountains and one large-size column underneath a tower-liketreasure dome in the courtyard; the wide span of arches in the prayerhall; the length of the roof-beams in its wide aisles. Intricate workman-ship, ambitious engineering, as it were, and expensive materials elicit

attention and admiration. To our writer, the courtyard faade of theprayer-hall combines these features: its high and wide central arch(8.20 m span) resembles large city gates, and the finely-wrought wooden


11 At least these were the years of his sojourn in the Frankish kingdom of Jerusalemand in Egypt; as for Syria and the Jazira, neither the preceding decade nor the 580s canbe ruled out (see Sourdel-Thomine, Guide, p. XVIIsq).

12 Ibn Jubayr, pp. 246:7 247:1; see G. Fehrvri, arran, inEI2, III: 227-30, esp.229b-230a, pl. Xb; K. Archibald Cameron Creswell,Early Muslim architecture I: UmayyadsA.D. 622-750 (repr. Oxford, 1969), pt. ii, pp. 644-48, fig. 688 and pls. 139, 140a (= id.,AShort Account of Early Muslim Architecture, J.W.Allan, rev. and suppl. (Alderschot, 1989),

pp. 218-21); T. Allen, A classical revival in Islamic architecture (Wiesbaden, 1986), esp.pp. 41-46 (trl. of Ibn Jubayr, p. 42f), 53-56, 149-66/figs. 64-90; critical comments on Allensnotion of a classical revival in J. Raby, Nur Al-Din [sic], the Qastal al-Shu{aybiyya andthe Classical Revival,Muqarnas, 21 (2004): 289-310, esp. 303ff, 310.


8/34

screens in the nine flanking doors to its right and left,13 respectively,remind of princely reception halls similarly, in the courtyard ofAleppos Friday mosque, the widely spanned arches of the portico arenoted for their palatial aspect14 (whereas the fine minaret goes entirelyunnoticed15). In the arranian mosque, though, details of the structure anddecoration of the faade are passed in silence, especially, the carved archi-volts on engaged columns fronting and framing the lateral arcade properwith its supports of piers. Thus Ibn Jubayrs description not to men-tion his erroneously counting five instead of four aisles in the prayer hall

would only yield bare outlines for a reconstruction of the arranian

mosque after its Zangid restoration.16

However, before embarking on crit-icism, at least two observations are in order. First, it was largely IbnJubayrs emotional involvement with a given structure, which determinedthe amount of detail he provides; he clearly never intended to write anarchitectural guide. Second, notwithstanding all his preoccupation withsacred history and sites and holy men, he does have a far keener eye fortopography and the built environment than, e.g., Yaqut who did not seefit to mention the mosque at arran at all.17

Yaquts entry on arran was evidently compiled from written sources,

but it would seem unlikely that he did not know the place from eyesight.To cite just one more of many similar examples of his indifference toarchitecture, he comments on the remarkable growth of Dunaysir fromvillage to city (mir) within thirty years, but ignores its splendid newmosque in favor of its natural setting and flourishing markets.18


13 The number nine on either side includes the bay next to the respective outer wall,which would not have been visible from the courtyard, provided a portico surrounded it;see Allen (as preceding note), pp. 149f/figs. 65f.

14 p. 252:19f.15 s. Allen,A classical revival, pp. 23-29, 47f, 129-32.16 Completed in 570/1174 (Allen, A classical revival, p. 160/fig. 79); the mosques

Ayyubid east gate, of 588/1192, postdates Ibn Jubayrs visit by eight years (ibid., p. 159).17 Yaqut,Mu{jam al-Buldan, II: 230:-2 232:15.18 ibid. 612:4-8; the interval of thirty years between Yaquts two visits virtually rules

out the possibility that by the second time Dunaysirs new mosque of 601/1204 should nothave been in full function (s. T. Sinclair, Early Artuqid Mosque Architecture, in TheArt of Syria and the Jazira 1100-1250 AD [Oxford Studies in Islamic Art; volume 1], ed.J. Raby (Oxford, 1985), pp. 49-67, esp. pp.53/fig. 4, 60, 62-65; cf. A. Altun,AnadoludaArtuklu Devri Trk Mimarisi}nin Gelimesi [Kltr Bakanlg Yaynlar, volume 264 Trk Sanat Eserleri Serisi, volume 3] (Istanbul, 1978), esp. pp. 79-99; R. Hillenbrand,

Islamic Architecture (Edinburgh, 1994), p. 617 [index], s.v. Dunaysir, and color pl. 17).Yaqut dates his first visit to his youth (when he was a abi), always to be counted fromthe year of this birth, 574-75/1178-79; even at the earliest, this would defer his second visitinto the 1220s. Rudolf Sellheim suggests the years 594/1197 and 618/1220; see id., Neue


9/34

Turning to {Ali al-Harawis Kitab al-isharat ila ma{rifat al-ziyarat, itpresents, true to its title and as alluded to above, a quick and sober run-down of destinations of cultic visits; the authors own pious dispositionnotwithstanding, he critically comments on many a popular local tradi-tion. Now and then he adds topographical and architectural observations,which he promises to expand in a future work on wonders, monumentsand idols. To our loss, though, he appears to have changed his mind lateron and given up his project at any rate, his planned book has not beenidentified to date.19 Considering al-Harawis unsystematic approach, itcannot surprise that he does not elaborate on arran beyond a fairly dry

list of venerable sites. The fact that he gives similarly short shrift toAleppo, his own residence, suggests that personal involvement on his partdoes not stand in direct relation to the degree of descriptive detail heexpends on his subjects. In order to meet the first qualification of mean-ingful comparison between al-Harawi and Ibn Jubayr as outlined above,structures of similarly moderate extra-architectural significance as the ar-ranian mosque carried for Ibn Jubayr will have to be identified in al-Harawis work. Two buildings in the vicinity of Jerusalem might serve thepurpose, the tomb of Maryam, mother of {Isa, in the Kidron valley20 and


Materialien zur Biographie des Yaqut, in Forschungen und Fortschritte der Kata-logisierung der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland [Deutsche Forschungs-gemeinschaft: Forschungsberichte, volume 10], ed. W. Voigt (Wiesbaden, 1966), pp. 87-118, pls. XI-XXXIV, esp. p. 94, n. 7.

19 Kitab al-{aja}ib wa l-athar wa l-anam, p. arab. 34:16f/tr. 80 (and often); usuallythe author abridges the title of his planned book as kitab al-{aja}ib. In a later passage, heregrets the loss of most of his notes in a shipwreck off the coast of Sicily; it had sappedall his resolve to collect adith and pursue related studies, p. 91:13 92:3/208f. Mostlikely this also affected his planned book of monuments since he specifically mentionsamong the lost materials notes of measurements and figures which he had taken of suchstructures as the Umayyad mosque of Damascus, the Holy Sepulcher, Saint Sophia, etc..

20 p. 28/67f; the translation as here given in the next sentence tries to preserve the impre-cision of the original as closely as possible; in particular, Sourdel-Thomines rendering ofar-rukham al-mani{as granite remains mere speculation as does the authors identifi-cation of certain columns as red and green marble (this color scheme recalls the juxtapo-sition of columns of green Thessalian breccia and Egyptian porphyry in the ground floor exe-drae in Saint Sophia, Constantinople; cf. F.W. Deichmann, Die Spolien in der sptantiken

Architektur[Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse,Sitzungsberichte , H. 6] (Mnchen,1975), p. 91. Further, al-Harawis reference to a dome(qubba) would seem to suggest a canopy above the tomb itself (see H. Vincent & F.-M. Abel,

Jrusalem, t. II: Jrusalem nouvelle (Paris, 1926), pp. 805-31, pls. 81-84, esp. p. 815,fig. 346); the Byzantine rotunda which originally formed the upper church had long beendestroyed (a reconstructed ground plan ibid., p. 827); by the time of al-Harawis visit a

crusader basilica rose in its place (s. K. Bieberstein & H. Bloedhorn,Jerusalem: Grundzgeder Baugeschichte vom Chalkolithikum bis zur Frhzeit der osmanischen Herrschaft,volumes I-III [Beihefte zum Tbinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients: Reihe B, Geistes-wissenschaften, volume 100] (Wiesbaden, 1994) esp. III 251-56; A.J. Boas,Jerusalem in thetime of the crusades (London - New York, 2001), pp. 119ff, figs. 12.5-6, 233.


10/34

the church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Concerning the former the authormentions a descending stairway of thirty-six (sic! actually forty-six) steps,a domed structure on sixteen columns, of which eight were of red andeight of green marble, and four gates with six columns of hard marbleeach; the church there which had since been turned into a martyrion(mashhad) of Ibrahim contained numerous and wondrously wrought art-works (athar) and columns. The church in Bethlehem boasts, as regardswondrous art-works and construction, marble, gilt mosaic and columns.21

The items in these two sketches, referring to materials and features ofstructure and decoration marble of different hues and hardness,22

columns, mosaic form a large part of the descriptive repertory whichal-Harawiand Ibn Jubayr had inherited and were not alone in drawing on.To avoid misunderstanding, if it be claimed that such a repertory existed,it is not to feign ignorance of the actual reality of architecture in the East-ern Mediterranean; marble, granite and porphyry were precious com-modities and since late antiquity usually available as spolia only. Thus especially monolithic columns, capitals, bases, and marble panellingand floors commanded admiration quite naturally. However, al-Harawisremarks on the church of the Nativity can by no means be dismissed as

merely stereotypical, considering the basilicas four rows of monolithiccolumns (fourty-four altogether) for supports of its nave and aisles and itsjust completed mosaic cycle on the walls of the clerestory and triconchchoir.23


21 p. 29/69f.22 s. n. 21 supra on the problem of identification; cf. M. Milwright, Waves of the

Sea: responses to marble in written sources (ninth-fifteenth centuries), in The iconog-raphy of Islamic art: studies in honour of Robert Hillenbrand, ed. B. OKane (Edinburgh,2005), pp. 211-21; cf., on the availability of marble in the Roman and early Byzantine

periods, Classical marble: geochemistry, technology, trade [NATO A[dvanced]S[cience]I[nstitutes] series: Ser. E, Applied sciences, volume 153], eds. N. Herz & M. Waelkens(Dordrecht, etc., 1988); Marmi antichi, volumes I-II [Seminario dArcheologiaLaSapienza, Studi Miscellanei, 26 (1981-83), 31 (1993-95)], ed. P. Pensabene (Roma, 1995,1998); M.L. Fischer, Marble Studies: Roman Palestine and the Marble Trade [Xenia,volume 40] (Konstanz, 1998), e.g., p. 246, fig. D 8, showing marble, granite and porphyryquarries in the Roman empire. Greece, Asia Minor and Egypt were major or sole suppli-ers whereas the entire Levant was a client region.

23 The year 1169 is expressly mentioned in a mosaic inscription; s. G. Khnel, DieKonzilsdarstellungen in der Geburtskirche in Bethlehem, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 87(1993/1994): 86-107 and pls. VI-XI [with further refs.!], esp. p. 91 and n. 26; cf. idem,The twelfth-century decoration of the church of the Nativity: Eastern and Western con-

cord, inAncient churches revealed, ed. Y. Tsafrir (Jerusalem, 1993), pp. 197-203 and pls.XII-XIV, and idem, Wall painting in the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem [Frankfurter Forschun-gen zur Kunst; volume 14] (Berlin, 1988) pp. 1-147 and pls. I-XXXVII, here esp. pp. 1-5and pls. I-II, XXXVI-XXXVII. For more illustrations, see G. S. P. Freeman-Grenville, Thebasilica of the Nativity in Bethlehem (Jerusalem, 1993), esp. pp. 20, 22, 45-55.


11/34

Perhaps reproducing local tradition or confusing dates in differenteras? al-Harawi, allegedly reading off a wood-carved inscriptionwhich notably had withstood the passage of time, exaggeratedly fixes theage of the church of the Nativity at more than twelve centuries. As is hishabit, he takes care to add that the Franks had left untouched a prayer-niche (mirab) attributed to {Umar b. al-Khaab.

Al-Harawis not at all singular observation on Frankish, i.e.,Crusader respect for ancient monuments24 gives occasion to point to anobvious difference from Ibn Jubayr in his reactions to manifestations ofChristian power and civilization. Both authors travelled in Christian ter-

ritories and recorded noteworthy buildings in them. While they unre-markably shared a fundamental antagonism to Christian political power,their level of aggressiveness and plausibly, anxiety, as well as their atti-tude to Christian art and architecture markedly differs25. Ibn Jubayr, giv-ing free rein to his hatred, calls Baldwin IV, the king of Jerusalem, andhis mother pigs26 and even William II of Sicily (r. 1166-89) whom hecannot quite deny some grudging respect a polytheist.27 In spite of wit-nessing, to his surprise, lively commercial travel between Crusader andAyyubid territories at the time of continuous armed conflict,28 he may

simply have lacked the courage to pay pious visits to holy sites in thekingdom; otherwise his failure to do so would seem hard to explain, givenhis pious eagerness to partake of the reputed baraka of Muslim sanctu-aries wherever he could. Hazarding a guess, one might even interpret hisverbal assault on the crusaders as overcompensating a guilt feeling sincehe had not payed his respects to the holy sites of al-Quds. Al-Harawi,while having reason to resent Richard Cur de Lion in particular and by


24 cf. his account of the sites in what later came to be called the aram in Jerusalem

(pp. 24ff/62-65; cf. Boas,Jerusalem in the time of the crusades, esp. pp. 89-93, 109f); onthe other hand, he matter-of-factly reports on the attempted Frankish transformation ofand transgression against, a Muslim shrine at the cattle spring at Acre, which allegedlyrelated to {Ali b. a. alib (p. 22:14-18/57; Ibn Jubayr, unlike his usually hostile tonetowards the crusaders, in his account of the dual sanctuary there without any polemicreports on the peaceable religious-coexistence between Muslim and Christian worship-pers, p. 303:17-21). Al-Harawimentions, just as coolly, unmarked and unknown burialsof saints and successors (al-awliya} wa l-tabi{in) in the cemeteries of Gaza, Ascalon andother cities up to Sidon along the Littoral (p. 33:1f/76); possibly though, their falling intooblivion is not at all to reflect on Frankish desecration of graves, but only to the attractionof the holy land for countless pious believers from early Islam onwards.

25 On Ibn Jubayr, cf. Netton, Basic structures.26 Its (i.e., Tibnins) mistress is a sow who is known as queen she is the mother of

the pig-king, the master of Acre (p. 301:3f).27 ibid., pp. 321:20 322:20, 324:15 etc., 333:7f.28 ibid., pp. 287:13 288:9, 298:19f.


12/34

extension all crusaders,29 does not let his emotions get the better of him.If he remains equanimous towards the crusaders, he is quite complimen-tary to the emperor Manuel for his graciousness30 towards him. More tothe point in the present context, al-Harawidoes not hide his admirationfor diverse monuments on Christian soil, especially in Jerusalem andConstantinople, but this by no means supersedes his basic perspective ofMuslim expansionism. Constantinople, he writes, even surpasses theglowing reputation it enjoys, and he offers a prayer for Gods renditionof the city to Islam.31 His open-mindedness permits him to call the churchof the Holy Sepulcher one of the much-cited wonders of construction; he

was going to discuss in detail its sanctuary and its appointments in hisplanned book of wonders.32 Given his usually scant references to sub-jects to be treated more fully there, his comments on Saint Sophia (Ayaufiya) in Constantinople are remarkably circumstantial.33 Not surpris-ingly in the overall context of shrines (ziyarat), his curiosity is sparkedby the wondrous story of an angel alighting in a certain spot in it, whichhad been enclosed by a golden grille;34 but while he marks this as the firstitem for future discussion among the memorable features of Saint Sophia,he continues with architectural and constructive detail: the disposition

(tartib) of the church and its sanctuary, its elevation, its gates and theirheight, its length and breadth and the columns in it.35 As for the numer-able and measureable elements on his list, they are not exceptional indrawing medieval witnesses attention to themselves; yet if a guess behazarded, al-Harawis mention of the buildings disposition would seem


29 pp. XVI, 3/5, 30/72; al-Harawis effects were seized during a Frankish raid on anEgyptian caravan under Richards command. The authors diplomatic? statusinduced Richard to invite him and to promise amends, but al-Harawiwould not hear of it.

30 Manuel Comnenus (regnabat1143-80).31 p. 57:1f/128; in more detail, al-Harawirecords his prayer for the return of a beau-tiful city to Islam in the context of his visit to Ascalon for there, the prophet himself vouch-safed him the fulfilment of his wish in a dream vision (p. 32:13-19/76).

32 ibid., p. 28/68; s. here infra.33 Of the ample bibliography of Saint Sophia, see here just the following titles:

C. Mango & A. Ertug,Hagia Sophia: a vision for empires (Istanbul, 1997);Hagia Sophiafrom the age of Justinian to the present, eds. R. Mark & A.. akmak (Cambridge, 1992);R.J. Mainstone, Hagia Sophia: architecture, structure and liturgy of Justinaians GreatChurch (London, 1988).

34 This story would seem to reflect the legend of the captured gardian angel as toldin thePatria; s. G. Dagron, Constantinople imaginaire tudes sur le recueil des Patria

[Bibliothque Byzantine tudes, volume 8] (Paris, 1984), pp. 200f, no. 10, and 230-33.35 ibid., p. 56:13-16/127f; according to a statement infra, he lost the measurements he

had taken of Aya Sofya, together with most of his papers, in a shipwreck and subsequentlylost all incentive to pursue that line of study (pp. 91:13 92:3/208f).


13/34

to permit construing it as a reference to architecture proper. Moreover,al-Harawi appears to stand out from among his contemporaries for thedetached attitude toward monuments in the Islamic realm, which derivesfrom his experience of art and architecture in Christian lands, and specifi-cally in Constantinople.36 Thus he coolly subordinates the lighthouse(manara) of Alexandria which to him no longer qualifies as a wonderafter the loss of its famed reflecting or alternatively, burning mirror, todiverse wondrous mana}irin Constantinople.37

Al-Harawis use of manara/mana}ir appears disconcertingly vague,covering as it does any tall vertical shaft, be it a massive and truly tow-

ering structure such as the AlexandrianPharos, which he himself likensto a burjor a slender pillar-shaped structure like an obelisk or a histori-ated column. In the Constantinopolitan hippodrome (al-Burum), not onlyTheodosiuss obelisk falls under this category, but apparently also thetriple serpentine bronze column close by, and other memorial columns inthe city.38


36 The art-works (al-athar) the likes of which do not exist in the Muslim quarter(i.e., of the inhabitable earth), p. 56:12/127.

37 ibid., p. 49f/113ff.38

He reports the first of the mana}ir in his list as fastened with lead and iron andswaying so much on its base in strong winds that potsherds and walnuts could be insertedto see them crushed (a migrant motif in folk tradition);pace Schefer and following him,Sourdel-Thomine this structure is not to be identified as Constantine Porphyrogennetuss,but rather as Theodosiuss obelisk in the Hippodrome. Identification of the followingmonument as the serpentine tripod stand from Delphi may be less ambiguous, the authordescribing it as of copper and molded (qulibat) in one single piece, without the possi-bility to insert anything underneath it (on the Hippodrome and its monuments, seeW. Mller-Wiener,Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls (Tbingen, 1977), pp. 64-71).Although in this excursus on Constantinople propos of the lighthouse of Alexandria al-Harawidoes concentrate on columnar structures, the citys magic leads him furtherafield into a mixture of reality and myth, incorporating both his personal observation and

excerpts from available older authors. Here it may suffice to mention, from among theactual monuments he refers to, the column and equestrian statue of Justinian in theAugusteion (s. Mller-Wiener,Bildlexikon, p. 248f; R. Janin, Constantinople byzantine[Archives de lOrient chrtien, volume 4A] (repr. Paris, 1964), p. 74ff, no. 3) and ahistoriated column in the market istabrin which elicits his admiration; if a guess behazarded, the transcription is to represent the Greek Starion, a open square to the westof Constantines forum, between it and the Tauros or Theodosian forum, where theeponyms historiated column stood (s. Mller-Wiener,Bildlexikon, pp. 258-65; Janin,Constantinople byzantine, p. 81f, no. 8); the relative proximity of the two locations mayexplain the authors confusion, especially since the Staurion could also boast a column,surmounted by a cross and latterly identified as that of Phokas (but cf. Janin, Constan-tinople byzantine, p. 80, no. 7, re Artopoleia); s. P. Magdalino, Aristocratic Oikoi inthe Tenth and Eleventh Regions of Constantinople, inByzantine Constantinople: mon-uments, topography and everyday life [The Medieval Mediterranean, volume 33], ed.N. Necipoglu (Leiden, etc, 2001), pp. 53-69, esp. 65f. Less likely, but not to be ruled out,al-Harawimeant to refer to the Arcadian forum and column (Mller-Wiener,Bildlexikon,pp. 250-53; Janin, Constantinople byzantine, p. 82ff, no. 9).


14/34

Al-Harawis sober attitude also applies to Muslim monuments. Thus hereadily concedes that as for the beauty of architecture, after al-Masjidal-Aqa in Jerusalem no place of worship in Islam equalled the Friday i.e., the Umayyad mosque at Damascus; nevertheless the gold mosaicsin its dome did not overawe him in comparison with those he saw inByzantine sanctuaries.39

Ibn Jubayrs reaction to anything he cannot automatically dismiss onChristian soil is more ambivalent than al-Harawis. He is too keen andhonest an observer simply to ignore what strikes him as positive in cru-sader and Norman dominions,40just as he does not, in spite of his fulsome

praise of Saladin,41

pass in silence the abuses of his immigration and cus-toms officials in Egypt.42 Perhaps the apparent contradiction between hisencomium of Saladin as efficient ruler in perfect control and the law-lessness of his functionaries dissolves when the entire account is read asa veiled appeal for redress; yet it was only on his second pilgrimage,after Saladins reconquest of Jerusalem, that Ibn Jubayr felt he could, byway of congratulatory panegyric, also extend his good counsel to Sal-adin, to right the customs officials abuses.43 Conversely, when observ-ing the crusaders or the Sicilian Normans equitable treatment of their

Muslim subjects, he feels compelled to take refuge in some pious invo-cation from the trial of faith (fitna) he professes this represents and whichhe dutifully records some as having failed by converting to Christian-ity.44 His obvious unease would seem to suggest either that he recoiledfrom a sudden shock of recognition of his own seducibility or that hetried to regain the firm ground of respectability before the virtual tribunalof his princely? audience.


39 ibid., p. 15:7-11/38f; literally, gilt mosaic (al-fa al-mudhahhab, as previously,

with reference to the church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, p. 29:4/70). It is not withoutirony that as for devotion to learning and adith, he gives the palm to the great mosquesof Herat, Balkh and Sijistan (i.e., Zaranj), far-away places he never visited himself; con-versely, this would seem to imply that wherever he did go, scholarship did not flourish thatmuch.

40 e.g., pp. 301:18 302:9 on the lenient crusader regime of their Muslim subjects;detailed account of Muslims under William II of Sicily begins p. 324:3.

41 e.g., p. 55:12 56:20, stressing Saladins abolition of illegal and extortionist Fatimidtaxes (mukus).

42 pp. 39:11 40:14; 62:17 64:1.43 Isan {Abbas, Dirasa fi l-raala Ibn Jubayr al-Andalusi al-Balansi al-Kinani

wa atharih al-shi{riya wa l-nathriya (Bayrut, 2001), pp. 48-53, no. 8, esp. vv. 30-47, and

cf. pp. 58-64, no. 13.44 Possibly an alternative interpretation of such apparently contradictory passages is

not to be ruled out, namely as veiled criticism of Muslim governance in al-Andalus andappeals to its princes to reform; on Ibn Jubayrs troubled fixation on Christendom, cf.Netton, Basic structures.


15/34

A similar ambivalence of feeling also governs Ibn Jubayrs perceptionof Christian art and architecture. The locus classicus of his evocations of more or less contemporaneous Christian monuments is his enthu-siastic account of Santa Maria dellAmmiraglio in Palermo;45 the authorsusual stereotyped rhetoricism cannot veil the deep impression this build-ing made on him. Two aspects, of which one is in a strict sense archi-tectural, elicited his particular admiration. Perhaps not atypically, hebegins with troublingly beautiful (fitna!) surface sensations, viz. thedecoration of the interior walls with a revetment of colored marble and glass mosaic; characteristically, he uses the imagery of jewelry: the

walls are incrusted with gold tesserae and crowned with trees of greentesserae.46 Dazzlingly radiant light illuminates everything from gilt win-dows of glass. This somewhat vague description of the windows raisesthe question of whether reference is to gilt tracery, to gold mosaic sur-rounding the window niches or to stained glass.


45 pp. 332:20 333:11; cf. U. Rizzitano, Ibn Giubayr dal tempio della Mecca allaChiesa della Martorana di Palermo,Levante, 19 (Roma, 1972): 37-50 [in French and Ara-bic; Italian version: id., Storia e cultura nella Sicilia saracena [Biblioteca di letteratura estoria saggi e testi, volume 5] (Palermo, 1975), pp. 305-17]. The churchs now current

name la Martorana derives from that of the donor of an adjacent Benedictine monastery(founded 1193-94); s. E. Kitzinger,I mosaici di Santa Maria dellAmmiraglio a Palermo con un Capitolo sullarchitettura della chiesa di Slobodan Curcic [Istituto siciliano distudi bizantini e neoellenici: Monumenti, volume 3] (Bologna, 1990) (=E. Kitzinger, Themosaics of St. Marys of the Admiral in Palermo: with a chapter on the architecture ofthe church by Slobodan Curcic [Dumbarton Oaks Studies, volume 27] (Washington, D.C.,1990); cf. L. Russo,La Martorana (Palermo, 1969). The admiral in question was Georgeof Antioch (d. 1151) al-Anaki to Ibn Jubayr who accurately calls him vizier of thegrandfather of this polytheist king, his title being admiratus oradmiratus admiratorum;s. H. Houben,Roger II., Herrscher zwischen Orient und Okzident(Darmstadt, 1997), esp.pp. 35f, 120, 135, 152, 155, 160. In Georges autograph in the endowment charter for hischurch, of May 1143, and the attached lead seal, the formulary reads tnrxitwn

fxwn Gefgiov mjfv; s. J. Johns,Arabic administration in Norman Sicily: the RoyalDiwan (Cambridge, 2002), esp. pp. 109-11, 112-13, 277f, 306, no. 20, and cf. id. & N.Jamil, Signs of the times: Arabic signatures as a measure of acculturation in NormanSicily, Muqarnas, 21 (2004): 181-92, esp. 182ff (figs. 1-2), 191 (cf. S. Cusa, I diplomigreci ed arabi di Sicilia, I,1-2 (Palermo, 1868, 1882) [repr. ed. A. Noth (Kln & Wien,1982)], I,1: 68ff, no. V;Let normanna e sveva in Sicilia: mostra storico-documentariae bibliografica, ed. Assemblea Regionale Siciliana [Rosario La Duca] (Palermo, 1994), pp.58-61, figs. 13a-c).

46 cf. A. Paribeni & A.A. Aletta, Il ruolo degli alberi nel programma decorativo deimosaici della Martorana a Palermo, inAtti del VI colloquio dellAssociazione italianaper lo studio e la conservazione del mosaico, eds. F. Guidobaldi & A. Paribeni (Ravenna,2000), pp. 669-84; while either author points to the Byzantine tradition of arboreal motifs

in both sacred and secular contexts, Paribeni specifically refers to mosaics in Palermi-tan buildings such as the chapel in the Norman palace (Cappella Palatina), the Sala diRuggero in the same palace and the fountain hall in the Zisa palace (p. 670f). For illus-trations of the Martorana mosaics under discussion see Kitzinger, I mosaici di Santa

Maria dellAmmiraglio, pls. XIII, 126-42, 174f.


16/34


17/34

Admittedly, Ibn Jubayrs unsystematic thought and easy impression-ability limit far-reaching conclusions; in Damascus, safely within the bor-ders of Muslim territories and under Saladins rule at that, he remarksadmiringly on figural representations in the church of St. Marys whichin his words, was the second-most revered sanctuary of Christendom.49

Possibly, in his view, the Damascene Christians status as ahl al-dhimmaeven rendered their iconolatrous art innocuous.

The closest parallel to Ibn Jubayrs description of la Martorana as amemorable Christian building to be found in al-Harawi may be his admittedly only too brief reference to the Holy Sepulcher which he

mentions as the most venerated pilgrimage site of Christendom (al-millaal-masiiya) in Jerusalem.50 Not only does he, as noted above, count itamong the conventionally known architectural wonders,51 but he consid-ers it de rigueur to include a description of its sanctuary in his comingwork on monuments (athar), without evincing, in the way of Ibn Jubayr,any anxiety about its attraction. When compared to his coolness towardsthe Umayyad mosque at Damascus, his appreciation of the Holy Sepul-cher would appear somewhat surprising in purely architectonic and artis-tic terms notwithstanding the crusaders extensive work of reconstruc-

tion on the anastasis rotunda and addition of a basilica and bell-tower.Although obviously forever inconclusive, the speculation may be venturedthat al-Harawis attitude owed something to the veneration the site washeld in. It is to be regretted, even if understandable in the context of hiswork on sacred sites, that he immediately goes on to list the places of par-ticular Christian veneration in the Sepulcher, such as the tomb itself, thesplit rock of Adams grave underneath the cross, and the garden of Josephthe Veridical, a confusion with Joseph of Arimathaea. Even thoughreasserting, with reference to the Gospel, qumama (dungheap) as the

sites correct name against Christian claims that it be qiyama (resurrectionor: Anastasis) and repeatedly marking his distance as a mere reporter ofChristian beliefs, he does not engage in polemic, not even as regards theproduction (amal) as he puts it of the paschal fire.52

A comparison, as here envisaged, between al-Harawiand Ibn Jubayrfor their architectural sensibility if that is not too grand a word


49 p. 283: 4-8.50 p. 28: 11-19/68f; on the church s. J. Krger,Die Grabeskirche (Regensburg, 2000).51 wa-{imaratuha min al-{aja}ib al-madhkura (p. 28:11f/68); the somewhat free version

as here proffered still conveys the meaning of the original, it is hoped.52 On the purported miracle, which numerous medieval Muslim authors debunk aspriestly fraud, cf. M. Canard, La destruction de lglise de la Rsurrection par le califeHakim et lhistoire de la descente du feu sacr, Byzantion, 35 (1965): 16-43, esp. 22 f,25-43; Krger,Die Grabeskirche, pp. 150-53, 241; H. Halm,Die Kalifen von Kairo: dieFatimiden in gypten 976-1074 (Mnchen, 2003, pp. 144-146, 224 f, 437, 448.


18/34

clearly requires more solid foundations than have hitherto been laid inorder to yield tangible results; it needs passages of text which are informedof roughly corresponding positive authorial interest, show similar detail,if possible, and concern structures of approximately equal rank. Given thatal-Harawis architectural digressions are consistently far shorter than IbnJubayrs, allowances will have to be made for disparity of length. How-ever, the other two qualifications can be met by al-Harawis descriptionof the mosque precinct the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and IbnJubayrs of the Umayyad mosque in Damascus. Perhaps regrettably,the two authors do not share similar enthusiasm about the same objects,

al-Harawi, as indicated above, maintaining a cavalier approach to theUmayyad mosque and Ibn Jubayr unaccountably shying away from a visit

to Jerusalem.Al-Harawis visit to Jerusalem preceding Ibn Jubayrs journey and also

because of his brevity, his account of in later parlance the aramwill best be discussed first.53 One feature common to either author, andpossibly numerous others is a pronounced disregard of topographic orsystematic order. Al-Harawis attention wavers between the rock and thereligious traditions attaching to it and its physical shape on the one hand

and on the other, the artefacts designed to reflect and enhance its sacredmeaning.54 The dome (al-qubba) and by extension, the building as suchdoes not figure in the picture at all at first, except by name and as thelocus of an inscription of the Throne Verse (sura II: 256) on the ceiling;however, the author deemed it worth mentioning that it was done in goldmosaic.55 Inscriptions repeatedly caught his eye and if they did not cause


53 pp. 24-27/62-66; for general reference to the site, s., e.g., O. Grabar, The shape ofthe holy: early Islamic Jerusalem, with contributions by Mohammad al-Asad, Abeer

Audeh, Sad Nuseibeh (Princeton, 1996); A. Kaplony, Thearam of Jerusalem 324-1099:temple, Friday mosque, area of spiritual power [Freiburger Islamstudien, volume 22](Stuttgart, 2002); S. Nuseibeh & O. Grabar, The Dome of the Rock(New York, 1996);J. Raby & J. Johns,Bayt al-Maqdis, volumes I-II [Oxford Studies in Islamic Art; IX 1-2](Oxford, 1992, 1999); M. van Berchem,Matriaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabi-carum, II ii: Jrusalem aram [MIFAO, volume 44] (Cairo, 1925-27).

54 Most importantly, he does not seem to distinguish between the rock in its entiretyand the specific spot of Mohammeds footprint, as witness the dimensions he cites for therock. The noted iron grille surrounded the entire rock, not merely the footprint; cf., e.g.,Boas,Jerusalem in the time of the crusades, pp. 110, 231.

55 It has not been preserved, at least not among the mosaic inscriptions (Sourdel-Thomine unquestioningly accepts van Berchems transference of the authors description

to the original mosaic inscriptions); however, a post-Crusader gilt gesso (?) inscription ofthe Throne verse surrounds the apex of the dome (s. Nuseibeh & Grabar, The shape of theholy, p. 53). It may well replace an earlier, textually identical inscription, which had falleninto disrepair (viz. the inscription circling the base of the dome, which commemorates


19/34

surprise they at least made him remark on their being left intact by theFranks. Christian imagery naturally did not pass unnoticed either; inthe context of the four doors of the Dome of the Rock, al-Harawidoesnot only mention a caliphal inscription on each of them,56 but also imagesof Solomon and Christ close by. Before passing on to the mosque al-Aqa, he mentions the priests house north of the Dome of the Rock.Clearly because extensive comments on it would have been extraneousto his present context, he defers discussion to his planned work on build-ings and art-works, but not without reference to the columns in it and thewonders of workmanship ({aja}ib al-ana).57 In comparison to the

unadorned simplicity of his account of the Dome of the Rock up to thispoint, such appreciative remarks do stand out.In the mosque al-Aqa,58 it is again the Franks seeming respect for

Muslim sacred sites59 which first calls for his comment, to be followedby the quotation of an inscription on the ceiling of the dome of al-Aqa};the Koranic verse on Mohammads night journey (XVII 1) is followed bythe record of the restoration of the dome and its gilding under theFatimid imam-caliph al-ahir.60 As before concerning the inscription in


Saladins restoration work (ibid. and van Berchem,Matriaux, pp. 289-98, no. 225); theextant interior decoration of the cupola dates from the restoration of 1874). The questionof technique and precise location remains open, unless al-Harawibe credited with a mis-perception in taking polychrome parti-gilt gesso for mosaic; cf. Max van Berchems viewof his parallel assertion about al-Aqa; van Berchem,Matriaux, pp. 381, 385, and see hereinfra.

56 p. 25:12/63, erroneously reading al-Qaim instead of al-Mamun; see van Berchem,Matriaux, esp. p. 254f.

57 Reference is to the college erected for the Augustinian canons of the TemplumDomini, as the Dome of the Rock was known to the Crusaders, and razed by Saladin afterreconquest in 1187. The beauty of its cloister, which extended along the north side of theesplanade of the Rock, also impressed al-Idrisis clearly Christian informant (a. {Abd

Allah Muammad b. Muammad al-Idrisi, Opus geographicum, eds. A. Bombaci et al.,fasc. I-IX (Neapoli Romae, 1970-84), here esp. IV: 360:16 361:1; cf. Boas,Jerusalemin the time of the crusades, pp. 91f, 110, including western sources from the Crusaderperiod). The variety of trees is noted as well as are marble columns intertwined by mostastounding workmanship (a{midat rukham mafura bi abda{i ma yakunu mina l-an{a);thus al-Harawis blanket assertion of wonders can be thrown into relief (cf. Nuseibeh &Grabar, The shape of the holy, p. 168, two of such columns as reused for the portal of an-Nawiya).

58 pp. 25:17 26:7/64f; s. R.W. Hamilton, The structural history of the Aqsa mosque:a record of archaeological gleanings from the repairs of 1938-42 (Jerusalem London,1949); id., Once again the Aqsa, in Raby & Johns, Bayt al-Maqdis, pp. 141-44;for Crusader times see Boas, Jerusalem in the time of the crusades, pp. 91ff, 228;cf. Creswell, Early Muslim architecture I, pp. 373-80 and pl. 63; Early Muslim archi-tecture II(repr. New York, 1979), pp. 119-37; id., Short Account, pp. 73-82, 90.

59 e.g, {Umars prayer niche, p. 25:17/64.60 van Berchem,Matriaux, pp. 381-92, no. 275; Wiet, ibid., p. 452f.


20/34

the cupola of the Dome of the Rock, al-Harawinotes that the inscriptionand the foliage were done in gilt mosaic.61

From al-Aqa the author perhaps directed his steps toward the northenclosure wall of the precinct since what follows is a quotation of theinscription of the measurements in the north portico,62 and it may havebeen these figures, which made him continue his description with a some-what more detailed account of the Dome of the Rock. His, as it were, pos-itivist interest in measurements and figures, which he shares with manyother geographers and travel writers, expresses itself straight away:

The structure of the portico (riwaq) is supported by sixteen marble

columns and eight piers its octagonal ground plan has to be inferred bythe reader. The structure of the dome inside it is supported by four piersand twelve columns; sixteen windows surround it. The circumference ofthe dome is one hundred and sixty cubits, and the circumference of thegreater structure, which encompasses everything, is three hundred andeighty four cubits. The circumference of the entirety, together with the Domeof the Chain and adjacent structures, is four hundred and eighty cubits. Theelevation of the iron grille, which surrounds this Rock is two fathoms. TheDome of the Rock has four iron doors, Follow the directions of thedoors in relation to other structures in the mosque precinct except for thesouthern door which he simply says, faces the qibla. Only after mention-

ing the Dome of the Chain and its circumference and after a circumstantialaccount of the Cave of the spirits underneath the Rock does al-Harawicontinue with his description of the Dome of the Rock. The width of theportico is fifteen paces and its length from the qibla side to the north isninety-four paces.

After this rundown of the Domes dimensions he adds a few corre-sponding measurements of al-Aqa:


61 Today, the interior decoration of the cupola dates from 728/1328, during the reignof the Mamluk sultan al-Nair b. Qalawun (see Nuseibeh & Grabar, The shape of the holy,p. 143; van Berchem,Matriaux, p. 421f, no. 282). Again the question arises of whetheral-Harawimisapplied the term ceiling to vertical surfaces decorated in mosaic, such asthe drum of the dome (ibid.), or mistook the technique of the decoration in the cupola formosaic. The style and appearance of al-Harawis Fatimid inscription and vegetal decora-tion can be visualized by comparison with the similar inscription on the northern face ofthe northern dome-supporting arch and the decoration of its spandrels and the pendentivesand drum of the dome itself (Wiet in van Berchem,Matriaux, p. 452f, no. 301; Hamil-ton, The structural history, p. 9 and pls. II and III, 1; cf. Nuseibeh & Grabar, The shapeof the holy, pp. 152-55, figs. 79-82). Clearly, the author was struck by the fact that theKoranic content of and caliphal titles in, the inscriptions on the door leaves of al-Aqa did

not rouse Frankish aggression.62 Not without omitting the unit and ten from the measure of length, as pointed out by

Sourdel-Thomine, Guide des lieux de plerinage (p. 26:7-10/65 [with n.1], with ref. to vanBerchem,Matriaux, pp. 84-97, no. 163).


21/34

The height of the cupola of al-Aqa is sixty cubits, its circumference ninetysix cubits, and the circumference of the square structure underneath is one

hundred and sixty cubits; the length of al-Aqa from the qibla to the northis one hundred and forty-eight cubits.

Al-Harawiconcludes his account of the mosque precinct with a brieflist of additional sites located within or adjacent to, it.63

There can be no doubt about the authors positive or more correctly,reverential attitude toward the mosque precinct of Jerusalem; propos ofthe Umayyad mosque in Damascus he had passingly referred to themosque al-Aqa here probably meaning the entire esplanade on the

Temple Mount as the most beautiful sanctuary of Islam. However, inhis actual description he hardly expresses an aesthetic appreciation at all;it is only by way of factual detail and as it were statistical informationthat his own involvement can be guessed at. The only seeming exceptionsare inscriptions, and to a lesser degree vegetal motifs in gold mosaic,which catch his attention, although here too, he limits himself to statingfacts. Thus the only colors mentioned are gold and implicitly, by refer-ence to foliage, green; the columns in the Dome are said to be marble,but the fact that they are not uniform nor least of all, white, but green,

rose and mottled goes unmentioned. As far as architectural features areconcerned, it is cupolas and columns not excluding their sheer size which impress themselves most clearly on al-Harawis sensibility. Thusit would seem permissible to conclude even from al-Harawis sober sparewords that the Dome of the Rock drew his admiration for its layout andstructure as well as for its mosaics. His quotation of the Fatimid inscrip-tion in al-Aqa, including as it does the name and profession of theresponsible master craftsman, {Abd Allah b. al-asan al-Mirial-Muzaw-wiq, may indeed underline his interest in the decoration even ifmuzawwiq

is too vague a term to interpret it as mosaicist tout court.64Whether for differences between the two authors innate temperaments

or experiences or some combination of both not to forget differentstyles of writing the contrast between al-Harawis subdued account ofJerusalem and Ibn Jubayrs report of his visit to the Umayyad mosque in


63 In the substructures of the esplanade next to the prayer hall, the Stables of Solomonand Cradle of Jesus, and outside the north enclosure wall, the Pool of the Children ofIsrael (p. 27:6-9/66).

64 As does van Berchem,Matriaux, p. 388f, on the grounds that al-Harawiexpressly

describes the inscription as mosaic; however he identifies as the object of the muzawwiqswork the gilding of the cupola which may refer to both the molding and painting and gild-ing of gesso in the cupola itself and to the entire production cycle of the mosaics on theadjacent wall surfaces.


22/34

Damascus is palpable even making allowances for the latters some-times hackneyed rhetoricism. Evidently it was not only the number ofholy sites on the premises which captivated him but also the mosquescharacter as a monument. After his customary initial set-piece, a highlyornate evocation of the citys character,65 he immediately turns to thevenerable Friday mosque; in his words, it counts among those Fridaymosques of Islam which are most famous for beauty, assurance of con-struction, marvels of workmanship, lavish decoration and ornament.66

Indeed, its renown in these respects was so readily accepted as to ren-der longwinded ecphrasis redundant. Obviously, this is sheer rhetoric since

Ibn Jubayr engages in precisely that which he professes not to do. Hisaccount covers the history of the site and the present building including allmanner of legendary detail which he quotes without any reservation; evenin the first few lines he attributes to its wondrous station that it wasimmune to spider webs and swallows which he repeats further on.67

Considering Ibn Jubayrs diaristic mode of writing not to mention

other, collective literary traditions which militated against systematic

order it is only to be expected that in his long chapter on Damascus,

the architectural description of the Umayyad mosque does not form a

separate section, but is interspersed into his account of its history and thevenerated sites in it. The very first concrete feature he mentions is the

mosaic revetment of its walls;68 the profusion of gold and the finely

nuanced hues of the arboreal representations in it move him to profess

being blinded by their sparkle and to claim that their elegant workman-

ship miraculously incapacitates anybody who would attempt an ecphra-

sis; of course, the term mu{jiz which he employs here resonates withKoranic overtones. Ibn Jubayrs attribution of nearly supernatural pow-

ers to the architecture and appointments of the edifice may be less

expressive of his appreciation of artisanal and artistic competence and tal-ent than of a readiness to ascribe these human achievements and gifts to

direct and counter-natural divine intervention as becomes even more

obvious further down.


65 pp. 260:13 261:9.66 On the Umayyad mosque generally see Creswell,Early Muslim architecture I, pt.i,

pp. 151-210, esp. 151-80; id., Short Account, pp. 46-73, 89 f; Hillenbrand,Islamic Archi-tecture, p. 616c [index]; F.B. Flood, The Great Mosque of Damascus studies on themakings of an Umayyad visual culture [Islamic History and Civilization, volume 33](Leiden, etc., 2001).

67 p. 261:9-12: general praise of mosque, to be followed by legend on missing spiderwebs and swallows (12f) and first historical digression involving al-Walid (13-17).

68 pp. 261: 17 262: 3; like al-Harawihe uses the familiar if unspecific wordfa formosaic, but here he also introduces the technical termfusayfisa}.


23/34

Plausibly it was the combination of holiness and aesthetic quality inthe Umayyad mosque which inspired Ibn Jubayr to his detailed descrip-tion; indeed, his intention may well have been to permit readers of trans-lating his words into a visual image in their minds. Thus he sets out, asannounced in a separate heading, to give measurements of length andbreadth and surface and the numbers of doorways and windows; actually,he does much more than that.69 In his sketch of the prayer hall and thearcades around the courtyard, his careful distinction between columns andpiers permitted Creswell to reconstruct the faade of the prayer hall withthe same alternation of two columns and one pier as found in the pre-

served sections of the other porticoes and also counted by Ibn Jubayr.70

Similarly, he enumerates the windows of the prayer hall, indicating theirdistribution in the courtyard and qibla walls and in the vaulting of thetransept;71 his description of them as of glass, gilt and stained, raises thequestion, previously asked propos of the Martorana, of whether hetermed a specific yellow hue of glass golden or whether he may havereferred to window niches lined with gold mosaic. His receptiveness tosurface sensations was noted before; it is no wonder that polychrome mar-ble incrustations in the shape of prayer niches and intricate geometric

designs on the piers of the prayer hall are among those decorative ele-ments, which elicit his admiring comments. Nor does his attention to mea-surements and figures, such as the number and width of the aisles and thesize of the piers in the prayer hall and, as far as applicable, in the por-ticoes come as a surprise. However, in the Umayyad mosque it is theorganization of spatial volumes, i.e., architecture itself, which impresseshim.


69 pp. 263:8 265:3. At the level of basics, he gives equivalents of the units of length

the pace (khawa) and square the maghribi measure marji{ in terms of thecommon unit, the cubit (dhira{).

70 Creswell,Early Muslim architecture I, pt. i, pp. 170-73, fig. 89.71 In Wright-de Goejes text, the total number of windows as given, seventy-four

(p. 264:19), does not tally with the sum of the subtotals: twice twenty-two in the wingsof the qibla wall, fourteen in the qibla-most vault and transept wall, ten underneath the cen-tral dome, six in the vault next to the courtyard and forty-seven in the courtyard wall;only by subtracting the last figure does the sum come out correctly not to mention thatin this last figure the two corner bays are included which are obscured by the adjacent por-ticoes. One may ask whether Ibn Jubayr consciously figured these two bays in or simplytransferred the numbers of the qibla wall; there are indeed three windows in the courtyardfront of the transept. In order to be clear, it has to be added that vaults in the preceding

sentence follows Ibn Jubayrs usage; actually, in the transept, all windows, except four inthe central dome, are in the side walls, not in the vaults proper (see Phen Spiers apudCreswell, Early Muslim architecture I, pt. i, pp. 165, 167, figs. 84, 86; Creswell, ibid.,fig. 83 after p. 160; Flood, The Great Mosque of Damascus, ill. 31).


24/34

The architectural feature which dominates the elevation of the mosque,the dome, caught Ibn Jubayrs eye if not immediately, at least, fol-lowing his text, as soon as he had accounted for the ground plan and thelead covering of the roofs.72 What is most impressive in this blessedFriday mosque is the lead dome in its center, which adjoins the prayerniche; it rises high into the air and is of impressive circumference, beingsupported by an immense structure which is its gable. Underneath it, fromthe prayer niche to the courtyard, there are three contiguous domes, oneadjoins the wall on the courtyard, one the prayer niche, and one is inbetween, underneath the lead dome; in the center, the leaden dome

reaches up so high as to compress the air. When you face it you beholda splendid sight and an awesome view. After citing the image of theeagle for the dome, the gable of the transept and the long aisles, hemeasures thirty paces as the width of the transept. The height of thedome is not measured but indicated by its visibility from all around, asif it were suspended from the air.

As noted above, Ibn Jubayrs account of the Damascus mosque doesnot follow a systematic order but the adab mode of variation as itwere, out ofhorror taedii as well as the contingent sequence of diary

notes. Here his observations, as far as pertaining to architecture, havebeen integrated into a sequential account with the exception of thehighpoint of his Damascus chapter, his ascent to the cupola of themosque.

Next, after another historical digression concerning the prayer niches,Ibn Jubayr notes the structure of the courtyard faades.73 He evinces plea-sure in the beauteous sequence of twenty doors in the wings of theprayer hall and above them, as he puts it, wall arches with tracery, all inthe shape of windows. With similarly pleased approval, he comments on

the elevation of the colonnaded porticoes around the other three sides ofthe courtyard with arched doors supported on small columns abovethem.

Passing on to the interior of the mosque, it is, again, the decorationwith gold mosaics and marble, of miraculous workmanship (al-mu{jizal-an{a), which moved our author to enthusiastic reactions, but whichhad mostly been destroyed by two outbreaks of fire.74 The only sections


72 For the dome as it appeared before the fire of 1893, see Spiers apud Creswell, Early

Muslim architecture I, p. 168, fig. 87; Messrs. Bonfils (?) apudCreswell,Early Muslimarchitecture I, pt. i, pl. 40a.

73 p. 266:3-9.74 p. 268:7-19.


25/34

that were relatively well preserved (or restored) were the qibla wall withprayer niche and the transept with the three domes.

In Ibn Jubayrs opinion, the prayer niche was one of the most won-derful in Islam; it was virtually flaming with gold, the main niche deco-rated with lesser niches on twisted columns, as if they had been turnedon a lathe, and some of them as red as coral.

Indeed, in architectural terms, this very transept, the triple-domed hallbefore the prayer niche, made the deepest impression on Ibn Jubayr. How-ever, just as clearly and well enough to understand and sympathize with,color and light held him in thrall more than anything else; the gilt

stained-glass windows filtered the brilliant sunlight so that multicoloredrays filled the space and hit the eye of the beholder.Ibn Jubayrs account of the Umayyad mosque omits neither minarets

nor gateways nor ablution facilities nor various later other later additions,often with digressions about their appointments, functions, diverse relatedanecdotes and Damascene customs involving the mosque; among thenoted items there are marble columns, gold mosaics with vegetal motifs,hydraulic installations such as fountains and a clepsydra, lesser oratories,etc.

As noted, the author completes, if in diaristic fashion adhering tochronology, his detailed description of the Damascus mosque75 with thereport of an excursion to the dome, which he took together with a groupof companions from the Maghrib.

In his customary way, he opens it with a highly polished passageextolling the impressiveness of the sight, the sanctuarys awesome archi-tecture, its miraculous workmanship and mastery, rhetorically concedingthat any ecphrasis must needs fall short of the mark. After thus express-ing his humility and complying with the demands of his own conscience

and the expectations of his intended audience, he proceeds step-by-stepin his account. While crossing the roofs from a staircase in the westernportico to a ladder up to a walkway around the dome, he notes the mea-surements of the lead sheets of the roof. Because of strong wind, the com-pany stepped inside through an opening in the lead dome and foundthemselves between the outer and the inner cupola, being able to lookdown inside the mosque through one of the arches. As before, his ad hocarchitectural observations will here be presented in sequential order.


75 His sojourn in Damascus lasted from Thursday, 24 Rabi{ I, to Wednesday night, 5Jumada II 580 / 5 July 12 September 1184 (pp. 260:7 298:17); his outing to the cupolaof the mosque is dated to Monday morning, 18 Jumada I / 27 August (s. pp. 292:2 294:17).


26/34

Ibn Jubayr carefully describes the stone and carpentry constructionboth of the exterior, lead-covered and the interior cupola. Their base wasa circle of immense stone blocks, which in turn rested on supports inthe masonry underneath;76 short upright stone shafts on this circle alternating with windows then in one way or another carried thewooden superstructure,77 essentially consisting of wooden ribs which metin a wooden ring at the top and were held in place by iron ties. Size andintricate geometric designs in the gilt and polychrome woodwork of theinterior cupola draw his admiration. As before, he also takes down mea-surements and figures; the circumference of the exterior dome, having

forty-eight ribs, is eighty paces equivalent to 260 spans.The eagle, the gabled roof of the transept calls for comment next, asdoes the complex construction and decoration of the ceiling above theprivileged area (maqura) in front of the prayer niche.78

The size of the stone blocks in the walls fills Ibn Jubayr with wonder;his incomprehension of methods of hoisting weights immediately takes apious turn, expressing itself in a koranic formulation (qanair muqanara).He attributes this achievement as not subsisting in human nature79 to directand specific divine inspiration for His signs to manifest themselves at the

hands of His favored creatures.80

Similar irrational credulity is found in thereaffirmation, by his own eyewitness, of the absence of spider webs andswallows from this mosque which he had quoted as a local tradition inthe opening lines of his account of the mosque.

To conclude his section on the Umayyad mosque, Ibn Jubayr repeatsthe expression of his wonderment at the marvellous construction and highelevation of its dome in similarly florid terms as he had more than onceused before.


76 wa qad udkhilat fi l-jidari kullihi da{a}im li l-qubbatayn, p. 293:18.77 The contact zone between masonry and carpentry is left unmentioned; so to speak,

the (vertical) ribs of the cupola(s) meet the short stone piers underneath head on(cf. p. 294:1-4 with 292:19 293:1, 293:8-11).

78 Spiers apudCreswell,Early Muslim architecture I, pt. i, p. 168, fig. 87.79 al-ta}atti li ma laysa mawjudan fi aba}i{ihim, p. 293:22.80 {Abd al-Laif al-Baghdadi takes quite a different attitude in his description of the

arched aqueduct built by Saladins eunuch emir Qaraqush in Gizeh (Kitab al-ifada wal-i{tibar, K.H. Zand & J.A. and I.E. Videan, eds., trls., as The Eastern Key (London, 1964),p. 108f; L. Richter-Bernburg, Past glory and present ignorance Abd al-La if al-Bag-dadion {Ayyubid Egypt, in Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras

V, eds. U. Vermeulen & K. Dhulster [OLA, volume 169] (Leuven, 2007), pp. 349-68, esp.353, 355). This example shows that then as now there were alternatives; it would be anoversimplification to accept Ibn Jubayr testimony unquestioningly as the only valid expres-sion of the spirit of his age.


27/34

Yet here, he goes beyond referring to its miraculous disposal (al-mu{jizwa{uh), additionally citing a tradition according to which there is, on theentire face of the inhabitable earth, no more wonderful sight, no higher-rising or more marvellous structure than this dome with the exceptionof the dome of the House of the Sanctuary (i.e., Jerusalem).

The reputation of the dome of Jerusalem, mere hearsay in his words,leaves Ibn Jubayr undaunted; he simply restates once more that ascent andentrance to the Damascus dome offered views and insights which rankedamong the most marvellous topics in conversations about the wonders ofthe world ({aja}ib al-dunya).81

To sum up Ibn Jubayrs textual representation of the Umayyad mosque,it would not seem exaggerated to credit him with an eye no less for archi-tecture itself than the arts of decorating surfaces; architecture as the art oforganizing and molding spatial volumes appears to be no less accessible tohim than all the arts which are deployed in the beautification of the surfaceswhich define and delimit architectural spaces. However, Ibn Jubayrs enthu-siasm has to be put in perspective. Art and architecture as displayed in theDamascus mosque did not fascinate him for their own sake alone, butimportantly also as manifestations of the glory of Islam.82 The question

may be asked of whether his obvious lack of interest in Jerusalem did notpartly derive from a notion of its being contaminated, if not to say, defiledby the Crusaders so that even its Islamic sites lost their attraction to him.

Besides average historic structures which were not fraught with extra-architectural meaning on the one hand and on the other, outstanding Mus-lim monuments of precisely such high symbolic value, in a third categoryantiquities present themselves as promising subjects of comparison andcontrast between al-Harawis and Ibn Jubayrs approaches to architec-ture. Egypt, which either author visited, is the given locale for our inquiry

since Syrian sights figure hardly or not at all in their texts.Whereas Ibn Jubayr did not visit Baalbek which he took to be in Frank-

ish hands,83 al-Harawionly cursorily acknowledged its citadel as one ofthe wonders of the world and unequalled anywhere except by the ruinsin the district of Iakhr which were said to have been built for Solomonby the jinn.84


81 In his habitual pious mode, he adds an expression of submission to the power of Godthe Vanquisher as a final flourish, p. 294:17.

82 The transport he experienced in the transept climaxed in the invocation that God letthe profession and creed of Islam prosper in this mosque, p. 268:18f..

83 p. 258:3.84 p. 10:11-14/24.


28/34

Naturally, one of the best-known and most often described monumentswas the Pharos of Alexandria.85 As noted above, al-Harawitook a ratherdismissive attitude, denying it the character of wonder after the disap-pearance of its famed mirror.

Its possible function as a burning mirror by which to destroy hostilevessels at a distance clearly intrigued him so that he presented a reasonedargument in support of this tradition.

His interest in the mirror extended to its reputed size, for which henoncommittally quoted a figure; and only within this quotation does thefigure of three hundred cubits for the elevation of the Pharos appear.

However, remaining unimpressed with it in terms of architecture, he dis-pensed with further detail and merely classified it in its then shape as asort of watchtower by the seashore, while the truly wondrous lighthouses ifmana}ircan be thus translated for the moment were to be foundin Constantinople. Considering that earlier authors as well as al-Harawiscontemporaries treated the lighthouse of Alexandria with deference, it isdifficult to avoid the question of al-Harawis motive in dismissing it. Per-haps he wanted to impress his audience with hard to verify reports aboutConstantinoples fabulous mana}ir which on the other hand, he may

well have sincerely admired; however, this meant that he ignored theuniqueness of the Alexandrian Pharos as a highrise building to usemodern parlance and its categoric difference from the Constantino-politan monuments.

Ibn Jubayr, on the other hand, was grateful for the Pharos as a land-mark while still at sea and subsequently visited it, again praising its util-ity as a signpost and invoking divine protection for what to him was theproduct of Gods agency to begin with.86 Although the attribution of hisown safe arrival to its existence may have owed something to conven-

tional hyperbole, at the same time it expresses genuine appreciation,which includes the construction of the tower; yet the only measurementhe professes having taken himself was the length of one side of the squareat base (some fifty paces [ba{]), whereas he limits himself to quoting around figure (one hundred and fifty qama) for its elevation,87 and the


85 A comparative study of its representation in all major texts of the period here underreview, while certainly worth the effort, is beyond the scope of the present essay.

86 pp. 38:18-20, 41:6-19.87 Following Andalusi-Arabic usage, ba{(fathom in classical Arabic) is here under-

stood as synonym ofkhawa, which Ibn Jubayr himself defines as one-and-a-half cubits(p. 263:9-11) and which approximately measures 0.75m (s. F. Corriente, A dictionary ofAndalusi Arabic [Handbuch der Orientalistik, I 29] (Leiden, etc., 1997), p. 71a). If IbnJubayrs claim of having taken the measure is to be accepted, the resulting base length


29/34

evocation rather than description of the astounding and as it were,labyrinthine interior is not free of earlier stereotypes. Moreover, as atmost, if not all, other places his approach was not one of detached cul-tural interest but informed by pious concerns. Here it was kindled bythe reputed baraka of the masjidat the top; in order to partake of it, IbnJubayr and his party undertook the ascent and performed a ritual prayerthere.

Utilitarian and aesthetic aspects combined to make Alexandrias under-ground system of water supply and storage a special sight. Both al-Harawiand Ibn Jubayr clearly admired it as witness their use of the term won-

der(s) ({aja

}ib) yet their respective sensibility just as clearly differed.Besides the solidity, spaciousness and elevation of the subterranean struc-tures and the value of their materials, marble columns and slabs, IbnJubayr expressly and with his usual, by habit devalued effusiveness notestheir beauty.88 Al-Harawi, on the other hand, concentrates on quantifi-able and tangible features; his admiration for this citywide network ofwater conduits expresses itself in the simile of Alexandria swimming,with the rise of the Nile, on its water like a glass bottle. Just like IbnJubayr, he notes the spaciousness of the underground passages, but

observes more precisely on the regularity of their orthogonal in hiswords, chessboard-like triple-level layout.89

As for the monuments of pharaonic Egypt, the two authors here underreview belong with the medieval Muslim mainstream; however, this is notto restrict their observations to commonplace notions to be found in otherwriters in identical form. While al-Harawi as well as Ibn Jubayr liberallyexploited earlier sources, they each maintain their own perspective,


would not seem incredible. Likewise, even allowing for a merely conventional round

figure, an elevation of one hundred and fifty qama (stature), at the ratio of 2:1 betweenstature and cubit i.e., simply taking numerically half the equally conventional threehundred cubits (cf. al-Harawi, supra) would not strain credibility too badly, yielding anelevation of c. 150 m. The same numerical operation, but applied to the qama measureas equivalent of pace (at the ratio of 1.5: 1 between pace and cubit), would reduceelevation to c. 130-35 m.

88 pp. 40:18 41:5; according to a local tradition quoted by the author, some of thesesubterranean structures served as foundations of palatial residences for philosophers andleaders. The medieval identification of classical remains in Alexandria as domiciles ofphilosophers or philosophical schools will be taken up in a separate study in future.

89 p. 48:3-6/112; to date, Alexandrias antique and medieval network of cisterns andcanals has not been entirely uncovered and mapped. However, some of the accessible

structures agree precisely with the texts here examined, especially with al-Harawi; seeJ.-Y. Empereur,Alexandria Rediscovered(London, 1998) [originally French, Alexandrieredcouverte (Paris, 1998)], esp. pp. 124-43; M. Herz, Les citernes dAlexandrie,Bulletin du Comit de conservation des monuments de lart arabe (1898): 81-86, 147,pls. V-VII.


30/34

whether or not this can truly be called individual. As noted above in thecontext of al-Harawis account of Jerusalem, his descriptions usually arequite brief; but then, we miss his promised work onMonuments and Won-ders in which he planned to include a detailed exposition of all the notableEgyptian antiquities, pyramids, temples, statuary. As it is, happily he didnot altogether refrain from commenting on historic sights in his Guide;thus the wonderful temple of Akhmim Ibn Jubayrs description of itwill be examined shortly draws attention for its scale, its wonderfulimagery, astounding art-work and profuse hieroglyphic inscriptions.90

Al-Harawi reports having measured one of the huge slabs of the roof

and found it to be twenty by five by five cubits.As regards Luxor, he regrettably does not go into any detail concern-ing its architecture although he calls the place incomparable for the num-ber of art-works, palaces, idols, images of wild and domestic animals.91

What really captivates him is the size of a colossus and at the sametime the ruin and decay visited upon it.

The measurement of seven cubits he reports having taken of the giantsforearm, from the elbow to the wrist, does not by any means appear exag-gerated.92 He also claims having applied, with a palm-branch for a pen, a

dated inscription across the statues chest, which proclaimed the transienceand vanity of earthly glory. Expectedly, the Koran furnished him with anappropriate quotation linking the disappearance of earlier generationsstronger and more active as tillers and cultivators of the land to their dis-regard of prophetic messages;93 a second adage, a qi{a, formulates thewell-worn pietist clich of the ruin of the great Sasanian kings with alltheir power and treasures. Only indirectly, by way of the quoted Koranicverse, does al-Harawiappear to subscribe to the widespread notion that theancient Egyptian monuments were erected by a race of giants.

Al-Harawis Luxor experience points to a fundamental ambivalenceabout ancient monuments, which in most places he does not express

with similar directness;94 usually, Egypts monuments and variety of

produce elicit his admiration.95


90 p. 43:11-14/103.91 pp. 43:17 44:13/104f.92 See R.H. Wilkinson, The complete temples of ancient Egypt (London, 2000), esp.

p. 252c [index], s.v. colossi.93 Surah XXX: 9.94 His observation on the futility of the pyramids as treasuries of their builders mate-

rial and intellectual goods shows the same tendency (p. 40:8-12/96).95 pp. 50:15 52:15/118-20; here al-Harawiquotes from the spurious correspon-

dence between {Amr b. al-{A and {Umar on the peculiarities of Egypt and the welfare ofits people.


31/34

Ibn Jubayrs detailed account of the temple of Akhmim there mayhave been two originally has long been in the focus of modern schol-arship.96 A good half century ago, the Egyptologist Serge Sauneron under-took to measure Ibn Jubayrs description against the reality of ancientEgyptian temples, both those dating back to the New Kingdom and thoseerected in or expanded until, the late periods of the Ptolemies or even theRoman empire.97 He found the measurements reported by Ibn Jubayr tobe within the bounds of verisimilitude even if tending towards the upperlimit and generally, nothing inherently incredible in his representation ofthe temple. The problematics of the literariness of ostensibly realistic nar-

ratives like Ibn Jubayrs and consequently, of the tangibility of their extra-textual referents, which have gained much currency in recent criticism,need not overly concern us here.

However, a warning note has to be sounded nevertheless. Fortunately,Ibn Jubayrs measurements can be checked against another, somewhatlater description of the temple of Akhmim, which has been preserved ina travelogue by the Moroccan al-Qasim b. Yusuf al-Tujibial-Sabti.98 Hisfigure of thirty-eight columns is inherently more probable than IbnJubayrs forty, a conventionally round figure; similarly, a reported col-

umn circumference of forty-one spans sounds more likely than IbnJubayrs fifty. As for the distribution of the pillars in the temple, al-Sabti


96 pp. 60:21 62:17; for a more recent collection and review of most of the pertinentArabic sources, in addition to Ibn Jubayr, see K.P. Kuhlmann,Materialien zur Archolo-gie und Geschichte des Raumes von Achmim [Deutsches Archologisches Institut Abteilung Kairo, Sonderschrift 11] (Mainz, 1983), esp. pp. 25-47.

97 S. Sauneron, Le temple dAkhmm dcrit par Ibn Jobair,Bulletin de lInstitutFranais dArchologie Orientale, 51 (1952): 123-35. In addition to a review ofmedieval as well as modern sources on the existence of fragments on the ground at

Akhmim, Sauneron refers to the large New Kingdom structures at Luxor as well as tolate examples such as the temples of Edfu, Kom Ombo, Philae and especially Den-dera, viewing its lack of a forecourt as similar to what Ibn Jubayr makes us understandof the temple of Akhmim; cf., in addition to Kuhlmann, Materialien, and Wilkinson,The complete temples, D. Arnold, Temples of the last pharaohs (New York Oxford,1999), index, and idem, Die Tempel gyptens: Gtterwohnungen, Kultsttten, Bau-denkmler(Zrich, 1992), esp. pp. 164-68 (Dendera) and 174-76. Arnold, however,unfazed by Sauneron (whom he cites), construes Ibn Jubayr as suggesting a structurelike Edfu (ibid., pp. 98-102).

98 s. U. Haarmann, Krok

ola183 richter bernburg

Documents