Ayyubid Jerusalem (1187–1250): An architectural and archaeological study 9781407300429, 9781407330969

Citation preview

BAR S1628 2007  HAWARI  

Ayyubid Jerusalem (1187–1250) An architectural and archaeological study

AYYUBID JERUSALEM (1187–1250)

Mahmoud K. Hawari

BAR International Series 1628 9 781407 300429

B A R

2007

Ayyubid Jerusalem (1187–1250) Anarchitectural and archaeological study

M ahmoud K.Hawari

BAR International Series 1628 2007

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1628 Ayyubid Jerusalem (1187–1250) © M K Hawari and the Publisher 2007 COVER IMAGE S

Front cover: Qubbat al-Mi’raj with the Dome of the Rock in the background Back cover: Qubbat Musa and Qubba al-Nahiwiyya with the Dome of the Rock in the background Photos: author The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. ISBN 9781407300429 paperback ISBN 9781407330969 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407300429 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2007. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from: BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK E MAIL [email protected] P HONE +44 (0)1865 310431 F AX +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

To my mother Diba and in memory of my late father Kamel With love and gratitude M. K. H

CONTENTS Abs t r act Ar abi cAbs t r act Acknowl edgement s Not esonTr ans l i t er at i on,Dat esandRef er ences Li s tofPl at es Li s tofFi gur es

v vi vi i i x xi xvi i

I nt r oduct i on

1

Chapt er1 TheAyyubi dSt at e:A Hi s t or i calSummar y

3

Chapt er2 J er us al em undert heAyyubi ds–TheSour ces

7

Chapt er3 J er us al em i nt hePol i t i calCont extoft heAyyubi dSt at e

10

Chapt er4 Ar chi t ect ur alChangesi nJ er us al em undert heAyyubi ds

19

Chapt er5 Cat al ogueofAyyubi dBui l di ngsi nJ er us al em Not eonMet hodol ogy Not eonSur veyandFi el dwor k Not eont heOr gani zat i onoft heCat al ogue

34 34 34

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

Kh«nq«hal ¶al «¯i yya( endowed585/ 1189) Z«wi yaal Khat ni yya( endowed587/ 1191) J«mi ‘ al Af ±al( conver t ed589/ 1192) Si q«yatal ‘ ªdi l( 589/ 1193) J «mi ‘al Ni s «’( conver t edca.590/ 1194) J «mi ‘al Magh«r i ba( ca.590/ 1194) Masj i dMu¯«r i b( 595/ 1198) B«bal Si l s i l a/ B«bal Sak» na( bef or e595/ 119899) Qubbatal Mi ‘ r «j( r ebui l t597/ 120001) Z«wi yaal J ar r «¯i yya( bef or e598/ 1201) QubbatSul aym«n( ca.597/ 1200–604/ 1208) Qubbaal Na¯awi yya( 604/ 120708) ¶a¯r » jal Mal i kal Mu‘ aam ( 607/ 121011) Sout heastQan«³ i r( r est or ed608/ 121112) Nor t hPor t i coAyyubi dsect i on( 610/ 1213) B«bal ‘ At m( ca.610/ 1213) Madr asaal Badr i yya( 610/ 121314) Madr as aal Mu‘ aami yya( 614/ 121718) Por choft heAq·«Mosque( 614/ 121718) B«b®i ³ ³ a( r econs t r uct ed617/ 1220) QubbatM‡s«( 647/ 124950) Qubbaal Qaymur i yya( bef or e648/ 1251)

Appendi xI : Ayyubi dbui l di ngswhi chhavebeenr ebui l ti nl at erper i ods Appendi xI I : Ayyubi dbui l di ngsonl yknownf r om i ns cr i pt i onsandl i t er ar ys our ces Appendi xI I I : Ayyubi dsegment sofbui l di ngs

iii

35 45 49 52 57 64 71 74 84 97 103 112 127 131 134 137 141 146 161 166 171 178 183 186 192

Appendix IV: Ayyubid inscriptions Chapter 6 Ayyubid Architecture: Methods and Materials of Construction and Decoration Patrons, Architects and Craftsmen

196 199

Conclusion

200

Abbreviations Bibliography

203 205

194

iv

ABSTRACT Theconques tofJ er us al em by¶al «¯al D» ni n583/ 1187,af t ernear l yni nedecadesofFr anki s hr ul e,openedanew er aof cul t ur al ,s oci oeconomi candar chi t ect ur alchanges .Thust her enewedpol i t i calf er vourt hatf ol l owedi tgaveaf r es h i mpet ust oanext ens i vebui l di ngact i vi t yi ni t i at edbyt heAyyubi ds ,whi chs i gni f i edar enai s s ancei nt hes t yl eofI s l ami c ar chi t ect ur e.Suchs t yl ei sexempl i f i edi nal ar gevar i et yofmonument swhi chwoul dcomet oi nf l uencet hemagni f i cent Medi evalI s l ami car chi t ect ur eofJ er us al em. Theai m oft hebooki st opr ovi deacompr ehens i vear chi t ect ur alandar chaeol ogi cals t udyoft heAyyubi dmonument s t hats t i l lr emai ni nt heOl d Ci t y ofJ er us al em.Thes emonument sar edes cr i bed and r ecor ded by meansofs ur vey dr awi ngsandphot ogr aphs ,pr ovi di nges s ent i alar chaeol ogi caldat a,t huscompl ement i ngt heepi gr aphi c,ar chi valand l i t er ar yhi s t or i calevi dence. Thebookcompr i s ess i xchapt er s .A br i efhi s t or i calover vi ew oft heAyyubi ds t at e,t hemaj orf act or sonwhi chi twas bas ed,makest hef i r s tchapt er .Thes our cesofi nf or mat i onut i l i s edi nt hi sr es ear char ei l l us t r at edi nt hes econdchapt er . Chapt ert hr eedeal swi t hJ er us al em i nt hepol i t i calcont extoft heAyyubi ds t at e:t her ol eJ er us al em pl ayed i nt he pr opagat i on ofjih«d agai ns tt heFr anks ;t headmi ni s t r at i veanddemogr aphi cchangesi nt r oducedbyt heAyyubi ds . Chapt erf ourexami nest hear chi t ect ur alchangest hatwer ei nt r oducedbyt heAyyubi ds ,emphas i s i nghow pol i t i caland s oci oeconomi cf act or sdet er mi nedcons t r uct i onpr oj ect si nt heci t y.Chapt erf i vecons t i t ut est hecor eoft hebook:a cat al ogueoft heext antAyyubi dbui l di ngsi nJ er us al em.Thes ear egr oupedchr onol ogi cal l y,wi t hdet ai l edar chi t ect ur al , ar chaeol ogi caland hi s t or i calanal ys i s ,as wel las i nt er pr et at i ons oft hei rs t r uct ur alevol ut i on.I n addi t i on,f our appendi cesl i s tAyyubi dbui l di ngswhi chwer er ebui l ti nl at erper i ods ,bui l di ngswhi chnol ongerexi s tknownf r om i ns cr i pt i onsandl i t er ar ys our ces ,s egment sofbui l di ngs ,andanupt odat el i s tofAyyubi di ns cr i pt i onsf oundi nt heci t y and i t ss ur r oundi ngs .Chapt er s i x di s cus s es t he var i ous as pect s and pr i nci palf eat ur es char act er i s i ng Ayyubi d ar chi t ect ur ei nJ er us al em andi t suni ques t yl easanamal gamat i onofAyyubi dSyr i an,Cr us aderandl ocalt r adi t i ons . Bl ackandwhi t ephot ogr aphsanddr awi ngsofpl ans ,s ect i ons ,el evat i onsandot heri l l us t r at i onsoft hes ebui l di ngsar e i ncl udedi nt hi sbook.

v

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This book is largely based on my doctoral thesis which I submitted to the University of London in 1998 with the support and assistance of many individuals and institutions. It is now a pleasure to express my gratitude to them. Firstly, my most sincere gratitude goes to my thesis advisor, Dr. Geoffrey King, from the Department of Islamic Art and Archaeology, at the School of Oriental and African Studies ( SOAS) , for his valuable advice and constant encouragement throughout the study. He read drafts of my thesis and made constructive comments and offered countless helpful suggestions. I am also grateful to Prof. Géza Fehérvari, under whom I completed my MA degree at SOAS, for encouraging me from the earliest stages of my academic career and from whom I acquired a great deal of knowledge of Islamic art and architecture. I would like to express my appreciation to Prof. Robert Hillenbrand from the University of Edinburgh and Prof. Saleh Lamei Mostafa, Director of the Centre of Islamic Architectural Heritage, Cairo, with both of whom I discussed my research proposal, for offering me valuable advice and encouragement. I am indebted to the late Prof. Dr. Michael Meinecke of the Islamic Museum in Berlin, who by correspondence encouraged me to pursue the project and provided me with new sources of information. Special thanks are due to Dr. Michael Burgoyne for his excellent advice and kind support. I am grateful to him for reading a part of the thesis and also for offering valuable and constructive remarks. I have benefited enormously from his expertise and profound knowledge of Islamic architecture in Jerusalem during our discussions and field tours in the Old City. I am also grateful to him and the Council for British Research in the Levant ( CBRL) , for allowing me to use numerous drawings from his monumental publication “Mamluk Jerusalem”. I am very grateful also to Prof. James Allan, former keeper of the Department of Eastern Art in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, for his enthusiastic interest in my study. Both he and Dr. Teresa Fitzherbert kindly allowed me to examine old photographs from both the Creswell and the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem ( BSAJ)archives at the museum, some of which are reproduced here by permission. The BSAJ archive has been transferred in 2006to the Palestine Exploration Fund in London. My trips for research and archive work to the UK and Egypt would have been impossible without the generous financial support of the British Council in East Jerusalem. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Christopher McConville, and to Peter Skelton, both former directors. The first year of my fieldwork ( 1992-93)was made possible due to the generous financial support of the Barakat Trust ( UK)at the University of Oxford. I would like to convey my gratitude to Dr. Julian Raby, former Administrator of the Barakat Trust, for his support and encouragement; I am grateful to the Barakat Trust for providing me with a grant in 2005 to cover the costs of digitising all drawings and most of the photographs that are included in this book. In Jerusalem, thanks go to Adnan al-Husayni, Director of the Awq«f Administration, who gave me permission to use the drawings and photographs of Ayyubid buildings surveyed by the Department of Islamic Archaeology. I owe a particular debt to my friend and colleague Dr. Yusuf Natsheh, Director of the Department of Islamic Archaeology, who from the start helped me formulate the idea of studying Ayyubid architecture in Jerusalem. I enjoyed his enthusiastic co-operation, and various questions found solutions in our long and valuable discussions. Moreover, I am grateful to him, to his deputy Ahmad Taha, to the Department’ s photographer Kamal Munayer and other members of the department for offering me a great deal of support and practical assistance during my fieldwork and research. I also would like to thank Khader Salameh, Curator of the Islamic Museum and librarian of the Aq· « Library at the ®aram alShar»f, for providing me with new data from the Sijill ( registers)of the Shar‘ » Ottoman Court in Jerusalem concerning some Ayyubid buildings in Jerusalem. He also helped me in many other ways during my fieldwork. I am greatly indebted to the former British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem ( BSAJ) , now the Kenyon Institute, which was particularly interested in my project from the start. Sincere thanks go to Dr. Graeme Auld, former Honorary Secretary of the school, and to Dr. Sylvia Auld for their support and encouragement; and to the late Prof. Roger Moorey, former President of the School, for granting me permission to use photographs from the Jerusalem Archive at the Ashmolean Museum in my study.

vii

Apart from the moral support, the former BSAJ provided me with practical help in surveying two Ayyubid buildings in Jerusalem.I n the summer of 1994, a school’ s team from the Medieval and Ottoman Survey ( MOS)assisted me in surveying the Mu‘ aamiyya Madrasa and the Qubba alQaymuriyya, of which they produced high quality drawings.I would like to thankall members of the team Andrew Petersen, James Birch, Sophie Coe, I mogen Grundon, Lucy Lavers and Elizabeth Nettleship.Ialso wish to thankMatthew Bradley ( surveyor)and my friend Basim ‘ Alayyan ( architect)for their assistance in surveying the Jarr«¯iyya Z«wiya. Iam particularly grateful to Mr.Richard Harper, the former director of the BSAJ, for his kind support and hospitality and for providing me with assistance during the long years of research at the library of the school in Jerusalem.Iwould like to thankalso Dr.Joan Clark, the former acting director of the BSAJ for her support of my research. During the course of my research Iconsulted a large number of libraries and archives.Iam grateful to the directors and staff of these institutions for giving me access and for their friendliness and cooperation.These include -in the UK:the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London;University of London Library, the Senate House;the Courtauld I nstitute of Art, University of London;the Palestine Exploration Fund, London ( containing a large collection of photographs and other related archival records) ;Department of Photographs, the I mperial War Museum, London;the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford ( containing the K. A. C.Creswell and the Jerusalem Archives) ;the Oriental Department of the Bodleian Library, Oxford;I n Egypt –The Rare Books and Special Collections Library, the Main Library, the American University in Cairo;Faculty of Archaeology, University of Cairo;I n Jordan –the British I nstitute at Amman; I n Jerusalem – The former British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem ( Kenyon I nstitute) ;the German Protestant I nstitute of Archaeology;the École Biblique et Archéologique;the Palestine Archaeological ( Rockefeller)Museum ( containing the library and archives of the Department of Antiquities of the Government of Palestine, 191848) ;the Hebrew University at Mount Scopus;the L. A.Mayer Memorial I nstitute;the Aq· « Library at the ®aram;the Department of the Revival of I slamic Heritage, the Awq«f Administration, Abu Deis ( containing the Sijills of the Ottoman Shar‘ »Court in Jerusalem) ;the Budayr»Library. Iindebted to friends and colleagues who were most understanding and offered help in many ways.Among them I would like to mention Elias Khamis, Andreas Kaplony, Geraldine Chatilard, Shimon Gibson, Martin Dow, David Myres, §«fer Shurbaj » , and Lyn Welshman. A number of friends and members of my wife’ s family in England have generously offered me hospitality during my research visits to London and Oxford.Among them Iwish to mention:Margaret, Judith and I an, Angus and Gill, Katie and Jo, John, Maggie and George. Special thanks go to Prof.Denys Pringle for reading the text as an external examiner of the thesis and for offering valuable comments and corrections;to Mark Roughley of the former BSAJ for preparing many of the drawings reproduced in this book;to my brother Hasan for taking numerous photographs of the monuments;to Dr.Robert Schick of the W.A.Albright I nstitute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem for devoting skilful assistance in the tedious taskof proofreading of the text, and providing me with his English translation of Bieberstein and Bloedhore ( 1994) German workon Jerusalem. Finally, my deepest gratitude goes to my family.My children Tariqand Yara, who occasionally accompanied me in my fieldwork, and who have not understood why it takes their father so many years to be a “Doctor of Stones”.My wife Helen deserves a special gratitude for being extremely considerate and understanding and putting up patiently with the long years of “I mustgobacktowork”refrain.Her unwavering support and sense of purpose saw me through many moments of frustration and despair. I n closing these acknowledgements, Iwish to dedicate this bookto my mother and in memory of my late father, both of whom from early years of school encouraged me to pursue an academic career. MKH Oxford, February 2007

viii

NOTES Note on transliteration Arabic transliteration follows the system introduced by R. B. Serj eant and R. L. Bidwell ( eds.)( 1974)in Arabian St udies ,I ,London. I t is basically derives from that of the Encycl opaedia ofI s l am but with some changes,notably for j » m and q«f . This system has been increasingly used by scholars. Specific names with a standard accepted English spelling ( for example,Mecca)would normally be spelt that way. Where the words occur in such forms in the Oxford dictionary,English plural endings ( -s)have been substituted for Arabic plurals. Note on dates Specific dates are given in the I slamic hij r»calendar first,with the Christian equivalent following after an oblique stroke. The same system is also used for approximate dates and centuries. Note on references Citations are arranged according to the Harvard system with the text. These usually contain firstly the author’ s surname, and then followed by year of publication,page,figure or plate numbers,etc. General note This bookis based on a doctoral thesis which has been presented to the University of London in 1998. For this reason the text principally deals with state of scholarshipuntil that date,and obviously does not include most recent studies relevant to the study of Ayyubid J erusalem.

ix

LIST OF PLATES 1. Kh«nq«h al-¶al«¯iyya Pl. 1.1 Pl. 1.2 Pl. 1.3 Pl. 1.4 Pl. 1.5 Pl. 1.6 Pl. 1.7 Pl. 1.8 Pl. 1.9 Pl. 1.10 Pl. 1.11 Pl. 1.12 Pl. 1.13 Pl. 1.14

General view of the kh«nq«h and its minaret, looking north Interior doorway presumably belonging to the Crusader Patriarch’s palace (before restoration) Interior doorway presumably belonging to the Crusader Patriarch’s palace (after restoration) The blocked Gate of St Mary, the Crusader west doorway to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre West elevation Shallow recess in west elevation Street façade in the1920s (courtesy of the Creswell Archive, the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford) Portal Trefoil arch and ablaq decoration of the portal Courtyard, looking south-west Large buttress on west side of courtyard Mosque or assembly hall looking south Mi¯r «b Inscription

2. Z«wiya al-Khatniyya Pl. 2.1 Pl. 2.2 Pl. 2.3 Pl. 2.4 Pl. 2.5 Pl. 2.6 Pl. 2.7

Double tower south of the Aq·« Mosque with the z «wiya on the upper part, looking north-east Double tower south of the Aq·« Mosque with the blocked entrance to the Double Gate (on the right), looking north-west General view of western hall looking north Western hall showing surviving groined vault and wall piers looking south-east Eastern hall showing at the rear the arches of the Double Gate Westester wall of eastern hall showing Crusader blocked window, looking north-west Flight of steps leading to the lower floor of the tower

3. J«mi‘ al-Af±al Pl. 3.1 Pl. 3.2 Pl. 3.3 Pl. 3.4 Pl. 3.5 Pl. 3.6 Pl. 3.7

Outer entrance portal Façade of prayer hall Eastern bays of prayer hall, looking south Door to staircase leading to the top of minaret South-western bay showing mi¯r«band a small door to the west extension Inscription New renovated extension of the mosque, looking north-west

4. Siq«yat al-‘ªdil Pl. 4.1 Pl. 4.2 Pl. 4.3 Pl. 4.4 Pl. 4.5 Pl. 4.6 Pl. 4.7 Pl. 4.8

General view of the outer porch, looking south Western elbow capital Eastern elbow capital Masonry on the left-hand side of the frontal arch. Entrance into the present day Ablution Place for men. Entrance doorway into the s iq«ya Western muqarnascapital Eastern muqarnascapital

5. J«mi‘ al-Nis«’ Pl. 5.1 Pl. 5.2 Pl. 5.3 Pl. 5.4 Pl. 5.5 Pl. 5.6 Pl. 5.7

®aram frontage, looking south Entrance doorway Vaulting springers in the ®aram frontage, west of entrance Vaulting springers in the ®aram frontage, east of entrance Bay in southern aisle with window, looking south Arch and division wall between J«mi‘ al-Nis«’ and the Aq·« Mosque South aisle (now part the Islamic Museum), looking east xi

Pl. 5.8 Pl. 5.9 Pl. 5.10 Pl. 5.11 Pl. 5.12 Pl. 5.13

West wall of south aisle with splayed window, looking west Arch and grilled window in far south-western bay, looking south South ®aram wall, looking north Arch in the most western end of south wall Vertical joint in the masonry of south wall which abuts the Aq·« Mosque West ®aram wall

6. J«mi‘ al-Magh«riba Pl. 6.1 Pl. 6.2 Pl. 6.3 Pl. 6.4 Pl. 6.5 Pl. 6.6 Pl. 6.7 Pl. 6.8 Pl. 6.9 Pl. 6.10 Pl. 6.11 Pl. 6.12

General view looking south (courtesy of the BSAJ Archive, the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford) North façade, general view looking south Elbow bracket Western doorway (Fakhriyya entrance) Eastern ®aram frontage, looking south-west Filled-in archways in eastern elevation Ottoman entrance façade, south of entrance Filled-in archway in eastern elevation, north of entrance North façade of the Fakhriyya which is built in the west Ayyubid hall Blocked openings in the west “spine” wall looking north-east Eastern hall (now part of the Islamic Museum) with mi¯r«b Pierced mi¯r«b with re-used Crusader columns and capitals

7. Masjid Mu¯«rib Pl. 7.1 Pl. 7.2 Pl. 7.3

Street frontage of mosque with the adjacent three shops Inscription Interior of mosque hall

8. B«b al-Silsila/B«b al-Sak»na Pl. 8.1 Pl. 8.2 Pl. 8.3 Pl. 8.4 Pl. 8.5 Pl. 8.6 Pl. 8.7 Pl. 8.8 Pl. 8.9 Pl. 8.10 Pl. 8.11 Pl. 8. 12 Pl. 8.13 Pl. 8.14 Pl. 8.15 Pl. 8.16 Pl. 8.17 Pl. 8.18 Pl. 8.19 Pl. 8.20 Pl. 8.21 Pl. 8.22 Pl. 8.23

Outer porch, general view looking north-east An eight-pointed star set within a circle Rosette motif Design of lapidary shield on central pier Engaged columns on south face of central pier Capital and impost on north face of pier Consul or “elbow capital” Dome raised on squinches in the zone of transition at B«b al-Silsila South squinches in the zone of transition at B«b al-Silsila Dome raised on squinches in the zone of transition at B«b al-Sak»na North squinches in the zone of transition at B«b al-Sak»na Northern side of the outer porch and entrance into the Baladiyya Madrasa Inscription (right) above northern lateral arch at B«b al-Sak»na (courtesy of the BSAJ Archive, the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford) Inscription, left (courtesy of the BSAJ Archive, the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford) Doorway at B«b al-Silsila Doorway at B«b al-Sak»na Capitals at B«b al-Silsila Capitals at B«b al-Sak»na Capitals at B«b al-Sak»na B«b al-Silsila / B«b al-Sak»na, general view from ®aram looking west B«b al-Silsila, inner porch B«b al-Sak»na, inner porch Central pier of inner porch, with an inscription

9. Qubbat al-Mi‘r«j Pl. 9.1 Pl. 9.2 Pl. 9.3 Pl. 9.4 Pl. 9.5

General view with the Dome of the Rock in the background looking south-east General view,north side looking south-east The structure before 1997when dome was covered with lead sheets West side,looking east Masonrybetween the piers and lead j oints in the bases of the columns xii

Pl. 9.6 Pl. 9.7 Pl. 9.8 Pl. 9.9 Pl. 9.10 Pl. 9.11 Pl. 9.12 Pl. 9.13 Pl. 9.14 Pl. 9.15 Pl. 9.16 Pl. 9.17 Pl. 9.18 Pl. 9.19 Pl. 9.20 Pl. 9.21 Pl. 9.22 Pl. 9.23

Capitals of Group A: plain with turned-down leaves Capital of,Group B( left) : two tiers of acanthus leaves Capital,of Group B: with a motif of palmette enclosed bystems or ribbons Capital of Group B: with figurative motifs in the form of birds I nscription slababove entrance door South side with mi¯r«b Mi¯r«b exterior General view ( from the roof of the Dome of the Rock)showingdome covered with lead plates before beingstripped Finial above dome Corner post of a cenotaph ( found at DI A,AA) Entrance portal I nterior: mi¯r«b decorated with ceramictiles I nscription of mi¯r«b Panel A with k‡f icinscription Panel Bwith k‡f icinscription Panel C with k‡f icinscription 17I nterior,zone of transition I nterior of dome

10. Z«wiya al-J arr«¯iyya Pl. 10.1 Pl. 10.2 Pl. 10.3 Pl. 10.4 Pl. 10.5 Pl. 10.6 Pl. 10. 7 Pl. 10.8 Pl. 10.9 Pl. 10.10 Pl. 10.11 Pl. 10.12 Pl. 10.13

General view lookingeast ( courtesyof the BSAJarchive,the Ashmolean Museum,Oxford) General view lookingnorth West side of complexwith main entrance and remains of the s ab» l( right) Outer chamber abuttingto the tombchamber on the west Dedication inscription Tombchamber lookingnorth Roof with domes lookingsouth-west Vestibule,lookingwest Ante-chamber,lookingnorth Tombchamber,lookingnorth towards the entrance door Squinches and dome of tombchamber Cenotaph and mi¯r«b West wall with banners and drums

11. Qubbat Sulaym«n Pl. 11.1 Pl. 11.2 Pl. 11.3 Pl. 11.4 Pl. 11.5 Pl. 11.6 Pl. 11.7 Pl. 11.8 Pl. 11.9 Pl. 11.10 Pl. 11.11 Pl. 11.12 Pl. 11.13 Pl. 11.14 Pl. 11.15 Pl. 11.16

General view from west North side with entrance South side South side: detail showinggrooves for columns Exterior of zone of transition with small arched windows Entrance portal I nterior of qubbalookingnorth Arabicgraffiti on interior of door lintel Floor with polychrome tiles Natural rockin the floor surrounded bymetal railing Engaged marble columns Arched windows raised on columns and capital Engaged capitals with broken leaves Mi¯r«b Zone of transition I nterior of dome

12. Qubba al-Na¯awiyya Pl. 12.1 Pl. 12.2 Pl. 12.3 Pl. 12.4 Pl. 12.5 Pl. 12.6

General view from the roof of the Dome of the Rocklookingsouth-west General view lookingnorth-east North façade Filled-in archwayin the façade,east of the main entrance Façade ( after Wilson 1865,pl. 5b) Location of s ab» lthat no longer exists xiii

Pl. 12.7 Pl. 12.8 Pl. 12.9 Pl. 12.10 Pl. 12.11 Pl. 12.12 Pl. 12.13 Pl. 12.14 Pl. 12.15 Pl. 12.16 Pl. 12.17 Pl. 12.18 Pl. 12.19 Pl. 12.20 Pl. 12.21 Pl. 12.22 Pl. 12.23 Pl. 12. 24 Pl. 12.25 Pl. 12.26 Pl. 12.27 Pl. 12.28 Pl. 12.29 Pl. 12.30 Pl. 12.31 Pl. 12.32 Pl. 12.33 Pl. 12.34 Pl. 12.35 Pl. 12.36 Pl. 12.37 Pl. 12.38

Main entrance portal Capital on the right-hand side of portal North side of western domed chamber Blocked windows in the north side of the western domed chamber East elevation South elevation Window flanked by two buttresses and a window with cusped arch above it Door in the archway with inscription slab above the lintel (courtesy of DIA) Inscription (courtesy of DIA, AA) South side of western domed chamber Windows in the south side of western domed chamber West elevation Windows in the west upper side of western domed chamber Entrance door into the lower level Dome above west chamber Cross-vaulted hall looking east Blocked windows in the north wall of western domed chamber Zone of transition in western domed chamber looking south-west Zone of transition in western domed chamber looking west Inscription within squinch looking north Carved stone medallion Interior of dome Double arches resting on a column leading into eastern chamber Pair of window in the eastern domed chamber Lower floor, cross-vaulted corridor looking east Easternmost cell with window looking south Easternmost cell and door looking south j ust before renovation in early 1980s (courtesy of DIA) Well-head used for storage of oil (courtesy of DIA) Hall with semicircular arches showing large storage j ars for oil (courtesy of DIA) Roofing above semicircular arches (courtesy of DIA) Wall of the Dome of the Rock terrace looking south-east Wall along the flight of stairs to the West Colonnade looking south-west

13. ¶a¯r» jal-Malik al-Mu‘ aam Pl. 13.1 Pl. 13.2 Pl. 13.3 Pl. 13.4 Pl. 13.5 Pl. 13.6 Pl. 13.7 Pl. 13.8

General view of adj oining chambers, looking south-east Exterior of outer chamber Interior of outer chamber A, turned cross-vault, looking north Inscription on the outer north-western corner of chamber A Chamber B, looking east towards entrance of the cistern Mamluk inscription Ayyubid inscription Cistern (chamber C)

14. South-east Qan«³ ir Pl. 14.1 Pl. 14.2 Pl. 14.3 Pl. 14.4

Colonnade facing south Fatimid inscription Colonnade facing north Ayyubid inscription

15. North Portico-Ayyubid Section Pl. 15.1 Pl. 15.2 Pl. 15.3 Pl. 15.4 Pl. 15.5

General view of portico with B«b al-‘ Atm on the left, looking north-east Inscription on pier 29 Piers 28-31, including B«b al-‘ Atm Inscription on pier 31 Extension of portico west of B«b al-‘ Atm

16. B«b al-‘ Atm Pl. 16.1

Outer porch of gateway from ²ar» q B«b al-‘ Atm

xiv

Pl. 16.2 Pl. 16.3 Pl. 16.4 Pl. 16.5

Inner porch of gateway looking south West wall of inner porch of gateway King Fay· al’ s inscription B«b al-‘Atm and two adjoining bays, view from the ®aram looking north

17. Madrasa al-Badriyya Pl. 17.1 Pl. 17.2 Pl. 17.3 Pl. 17.4 Pl. 17.5 Pl. 17.6 Pl. 17.7 Pl. 17.8 Pl. 17.9 Pl. 17.10

Vaulted street frontage Main entrance with the foundation inscription above Inscription Vaulted passage, looking west Courtyard looking south-east Chambers on the north side of courtyard, looking north-west Tomb in the south-west corner of courtyard and doorway into an assembly or prayer hall Tomb and remains of archway in west wall of courtyard Mi¯r«b in assembly or prayer hall Chamber on upper floor

18. Madrasa al-Mu‘aamiyya Pl. 18.1 Pl. 18.2 Pl. 18.3 Pl. 18.4 Pl. 18.5 Pl. 18.6 Pl. 18.7 Pl. 18.8 Pl. 18.9 Pl. 18.10 Pl. 18.11 Pl. 18.12 Pl. 18.13 Pl. 18.14 Pl. 18.15 Pl. 18.16 Pl. 18.17 Pl. 18.18 Pl. 18.19 Pl. 18.20 Pl. 18.21 Pl. 18.22 Pl. 18.23 Pl. 18.24

General view from ²ar»q al-Muj«hid»n looking west Street frontage Street frontage Mamluk inscription plaque on the base of minaret General view from east in c. 1875, showing minaret tower and the small entrance door of the madrasa (courtesy of the Fine Art Library, Harvard University) Stone carved with lobed motif in re-use Courtyard pavement º w«n, looking south into the courtyard º w«n,looking north, before it was filled with modern construction Profile of impost Masons’marks º w«nand inscription Inscription Cells on south side of courtyard with filled-in archways Cell at south-west corner of courtyard (courtesy of DIA) Cell at west side of the courtyard in 1970s (courtesy of DIA) Cemetery, looking south-west Cemetery, looking south-east Blocked window in the south wall of cemetery Detail of blocked window with holes for grill Mi¯r«b Tombstone (Tomb 1) Upper floor, Room D, looking west Blocked doorway and remains of a staircase to upper floor

19. Porch of the Aq· « Mosque Pl. 19.1 Pl. 19.2 Pl. 19.3 Pl. 19.4 Pl. 19.5 Pl. 19.6 Pl. 19.7 Pl. 19.8 Pl. 19.9 Pl. 19.10 Pl. 19.11

General view of the porch looking south-west The porch looking west The porch looking south-east Central arch of the porch Crusader elbow brackets on wall pier of central bay Façade of central bay of the porch Inscriptions above central arch Right-hand side of archivolt of the central bay West double recess East double recess Dome in the central bay

xv

20. B«b ®i³³a Pl. 20.1 Pl. 20.2 Pl. 20.3 Pl. 20.4 Pl. 20.5 Pl. 20.6 Pl. 20.7 Pl. 20.8

General view from ²ar»q B«b ®i³³a, looking south Outer porch, looking south Door in the inner porch looking north Inner porch Miniature columns and arches View from the ®aram, looking north Cornice above inner porch B«b ®i³³a and two blocked bays of the North Portico to the west

21. Qubbat M‡s« Pl. 21.1 Pl. 21.2 Pl. 21.3 Pl. 21.4 Pl. 21.5 Pl. 21.6 Pl. 21.7 Pl. 21.8 Pl. 21.9 Pl. 21.10 Pl. 21.11 Pl. 21.12

General view, looking south-west General view with free-standing mi¯r«b, looking north-east North façade Door in north façade Foundation inscription Dome Interior of the qubba Mi¯r«b Duplex corner arches and conches in the zone of transition Zone of transition Interior of dome Coloured marble mosaic in the pavement

22. Qubba al-Qaymuriyya Pl. 22.1 Pl. 22.2 Pl. 22.3 Pl. 22.4 Pl. 22.5 Pl. 22.6 Pl. 22.7 Pl. 22.8 Pl. 22.9 Pl. 22.10

General view from the north-east, a photo taken in the 1920s (courtesy of the Creswell Archive, the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford) General view looking south-west South side of the domed structure The dome and flight of stairs Entrance portal Entrance portal in the 1920s (courtesy of the Creswell Archive, the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford) Interior showing tombs and mi¯r«b, looking south Mi¯r«b Splayed slit-window Zone of transition

xvi

LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4

The Old City of Jerusalem (courtesy of Burgoyne 1987) Map showing distribution of Ayyubid buildings in the Old City of Jerusalem Map showing Ayyubid defences around the city walls Plan of the ®aram al-Shar»f (after Catherwood in Fergesson 1867)

1. Kh«nq«h al-¶al«¯iyya Fig. 1.1 Fig. 1.2 Fig. 1.3

Location plan Ground plan (after Schick 1885) Interior doorway of the Patriarch’s palace, showing location of inscription “a”(after Vincent and Abel 1914)

2. Z«wiya al-Khatniyya Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.2 Fig. 2.3

Location plan Ground plan (re-drawn after DIA) Ground plan (after Schick 1892)

3. J«mi‘al-Af±al Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2

Location plan Ground plan

4. Siq«yat al-‘ªdil Fig. 4.1 Fig. 4.2 Fig. 4.3

Location plan Ground plan (after DIA) Elevation of the porch (after DIA)

5. J«mi‘ al-Nis«’ Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2 Fig. 5.3 Fig. 5.4 Fig. 5.5 Fig. 5.6

Location plan Ground plan (after Catherwood 1833) Ground plan, western part (courtesy of Burgoyne 1987, 259, fig. 22.2) Elevation of ®aram frontage (courtesy of Burgoyne 1987, 266, fig. 22.7) North-south section through the Fakhriyya (courtesy of Burgoyne 1987, fig. 22.6) Stratigraphic analysis of west ®aram wall (courtesy of Burgoyne 1987, fig. 22.8)

6. J«mi‘ al-Magh«riba Fig. 6.1 Fig. 6.2 Fig. 6.3 Fig. 6.4 Fig. 6.5

Location plan Ground plan (courtesy of Burgoyne 1987, fig. 22.2) North facade (courtesy of Burgoyne 1987, fig. 22.4) East facade (courtesy of Burgoyne 1987, fig. 12.2, fold-out at back) Ground plan, a detail of south part (courtesy of Burgoyne 1987, fig. 22.3)

7. Masjid Mu¯«rib Fig. 7.1 Fig. 7.2 Fig. 7.3

Location plan Elevation of street frontage Ground plan

8. B«b al-Silsila/ B«b al-Sak»na Fig. 8.1 Fig. 8.2 Fig. 8.3

Location plan Ground plan (courtesy of Burgoyne 1987) Reconstruction of the original ground plan of the gate (after Ben-Dov) xvii

Fig. 8.4 Fig. 8.5

Elevation of B«b al-Sak»na /B«b al-Silsila, looking east Elevation of double gate within the West Portico (courtesy of Burgoyne 1987)

9. Qubbat al-Mi‘r«j Fig. 9.1 Fig. 9.2 Fig. 9.3 Fig. 9.4

Location plan Ground plan (after DIA) Plan, with section lines (after DIA) Dome plan (after DIA)

10. Z«wiya al-Jarr«¯iyya Fig. 10.1 Fig. 10.2 Fig. 10.3 Fig. 10.4

Location plan Ground plan of the complex Ground plan of the z«wiya Sketch of west elevation

11. Qubbat Sulaym«n Fig. 11.1 Fig. 11.2 Fig. 11.3

Location plan Ground plan (after DIA) South-north elevation and section lines (after DIA)

12. Qubba al-Na¯awiyya Fig. 12.1 Fig. 12.2 Fig. 12.3 Fig. 12.4 Fig. 12.5 Fig. 12.6 Fig. 12.7 Fig. 12.8 Fig. 12.9

Location plan Plan of upper floor Ground plan of lower floor (after Tamari) Reconstruction plan of upper floor (First Phase) Reconstruction sketch of the façade (First Phase) Sketch plan of upper floor (Second Phase) Reconstruction sketch of the façade (Second Phase) Sketch plan of south-western corner of the Dome of the Rock platform Reconstruction sketch of SW corner of the Dome of the Rock platform

13. ¶a¯r»j al-Malik al-Mu‘aam Fig. 13.1 Fig. 13.2

Location plan Ground plan

14. South-east Qan«³ir Fig. 14.1 Fig. 14.2

Location plan Sketch plan of colonnades (after van Berchem 1927)

15. North Portico-Ayyubid section Fig. 15.1 Fig. 15.2

Location plan Elevation of the west part of the North Portico (courtesy of Burgoyne 1987)

16. B«b al-‘Atm Fig. 16.1 Fig. 16.2 Fig. 16.3 Fig. 16.4

Location plan Ground plan (courtesy of Burgoyne 1987) Section north-south (courtesy of Burgoyne 1987) Elevation of ®aram façade (courtesy of Burgoyne 1987)

17. Badriyya Madrasa Fig. 17.1 Fig. 17.2 Fig. 17.3

Location plan Ground plan Street frontage xviii

18. Mu‘aamiyya Madrasa Fig. 18.1 Fig. 18.2 Fig. 18.3 Fig. 18.4 Fig. 18.5 Fig. 18.6 Fig. 18.7 Fig. 18.8 Fig. 18.9 Fig. 18.10 Fig. 18.11 Fig. 18.12 Fig. 18.13 Fig. 18.14 Fig. 18.15 Fig. 18.16 Fig. 18.17 Fig. 18.18

Location Plan Sketch plan of the Mu‘aamiyya (after van Berchem 1922) Ground floor plan Elevation of street frontage Detail of moulding and carved motif West-east section through »w«n, looking north Elevation of »w«n, looking north Upper-floor plan Elevation of south wall of courtyard Elevation of west wall of courtyard, upper-floor North-south section, looking east Elevation of south wall of cemetery Elevation of north wall of cemetery South-north section through east window of cemetery, looking west A survey sketch plan of the cemetery showing levels of various features Reconstruction of the original ground plan of the assembly hall/cemetery Sketch reconstruction of the elevation of the street frontage Sketch reconstruction of the Ayyubid street frontage, looking north

19. Porch of the Aq·« Mosque Fig. 19.1 Fig. 19.2 Fig. 19.3 Fig. 19.4 Fig. 19.5 Fig. 19.6

Location plan Ground plan of the Aq·« Mosque (after Hamilton 1949) Ground plan of the porch (after Hamilton 1949) Section through nave and porch, looking east (after Hamilton 1949) Porch north elevation (after Hamilton 1949) Porch long section, looking south (after Hamilton 1949)

20. B«b ®i³³a Fig. 20.1 Fig. 20.2 Fig. 20.3

Location plan Ground plan of gateway adjacent to the Aw¯adiyya (courtesy of Burgoyne 1987) Section south-north (courtesy of Burgoyne 1987, 172)

21. Qubbat M‡s« Fig. 21.1 Fig. 21.2 Fig. 21.3 Fig. 21.4 Fig. 21.5 Fig. 21.6 Fig. 21.7

Location plan Ground plan of platform and exterior mi¯r«b (after DIA, with changes) Ground plan of the qubba (after DIA, with changes) North elevation (after DIA) East-west section (after DIA) Section through zone of transition (after DIA) Roof plan (after DIA)

22. Qubba al-Qaymuriyya Fig. 22.1 Fig. 22.2 Fig. 22.3 Fig. 22.4 Fig. 22.5 Fig. 22.6

Location plan Ground plan East elevation North-south section, looking east East-west section, looking south Roof plan

xix

INTRODUCTION

In 1968, the British School of Archaeology in J erusalem ( BSAJ )embarked on a project to survey J erusalem’ s medieval Islamic monuments. This project resulted in the monumental publication by M. Burgoyne and D. Richards: Mamluk Jerusalem ( 1987) . It was complemented by a two-volume study edited by S. Auld and R. Hillenbrand with an architectural survey by Y. Natsheh:Ot t oman Jerusalem, The Li vi ng Ci t y 1517 – 1917( 2000) . In addition, Crusader J erusalem has been explored by two important studies:D. Bahat ( 1992) , in his unpublished thesis, deals with topography and toponomy and D. Pringle is concerned with churches in a series of three volumes:The Churches oft he Crusader Ki ngdom ofJerusalem:A Corpus,vol. I ( 1993) , vol. II ( 1998) , and vol. III [ The Ci t yofJerusalem]( forthcoming 2007) .

of Cairo, Damascus and Aleppo is vast and uniform, in J erusalem, they faced a uniquely serious challenge:the re-islamisation and the restoration of a city which has been under Crusader rule for nearly nine decades. Such activity took various forms:the re-sanctification of the ®aram area, an urgent task required for the renewal of Islamic worship; the demolition of many Crusader buildings and the conversion of many for Muslim use; and the construction of new buildings as well. A variety of pious and welfare foundations were established. An ample programme to strengthen the city’ s fortification was undertaken, with the result that long stretches of the walls were rebuilt and numerous massive towers were constructed. Above all, the Ayyubids brought to J erusalem important cultural changes, specifically a new style in Islamic art and architecture which would constitute a prelude for the magnificent architecture of the Mamluk period.

My decision to write a PhD thesis on Ayyubid architecture in J erusalem therefore grew out of a great desire to fill this gap in the study of medieval Islamic J erusalem.

This comprehensive study includes over forty Ayyubid buildings situated in and around the Old City, of which some are intact, a few have been partly altered, and others have disappeared long ago. Only twenty-two buildings survive and are included in the catalogue. They are described, many of them for the first time, and recorded by means of photography and surveying. Some buildings have been largely rebuilt in later periods, and others that no longer survive are known from contemporary or near contemporary literary sources and inscriptions;these are described in the appendices. An up-to-date list of all Ayyubid inscriptions found in J erusalem has been compiled. Fieldwork was supplemented by scanning the historical sources and the archival material, seeking clues for these buildings.

I began my preliminary research in the summer of 1992, relying on published inventories and catalogues of Islamic monuments in the Old City. Equipped with a detailed and amended inventory of my own, I embarked on extensive fieldwork which would occupy me for several years, involving photographic documentation, architectural surveying and description of the existing Ayyubid buildings. The Ayyubid period in Jerusalem ( 583/ 1187-648/ 1250) has remained unexplored by archaeologists and art historians. This may be explained by the fact that most scholars have underestimated the scope of the Ayyubids’ architectural projects in J erusalem during a short and turbulent period, and have consequently attributed many of their monuments to the previous Crusader period or to the subsequent Mamluk period.

The surviving buildings provide us with a wide range of religious, civil and military functions, and allow us to form a fairly good idea of what the city must have been like under Ayyubid rule. Furthermore, new architectural elements and ideas were introduced into J erusalem through these monuments, which were later adopted in the Mamluk and Ottoman periods and became integral components of J erusalem’ s style of architecture.

Following the reconquest of J erusalem by ¶al«¯al-D» n in 583/ 1187, the Ayyubids initiated an extensive rebuilding scheme that is reminiscent of the original Umayyad transformation of the city. While the scope of the Ayyubid’ s architectural activities in their regional centres

1

FIG.1 THE OLD CITY OFJERUSALEM (COURTESY OFBURGOYNE 1987,FIG.1)

2

CHAPTER1

THEAYYUBID STATE:A HISTORICALSUMMARY

Introduction During thef irs t quarter ofthef ourth/ tenth century,the Abbas id s tate witnes s ed an irrevers ibl e decl ine.Local dis turbancescombined withincreas ingdependenceofthe cal iphsupon s l avecorps ,particul arl yTurks ,f or mil itary protection weakened theAbbas id cal iphateand gradual l y stripped it ofrealpower.Thisprepared theground f or the ris e ofa Sh» ‘ »dynas ty f rom Dayl am in North Pers ia, known astheBuwayhids ,who occupied f irs t theIranian pl ateau and then Baghdad and Abbas id Iraq.Al though theynominal l yrecognis ed thes uzeraintyoftheAbbas id cal iph,they es tabl is hed their own rul e control l ing the s tated»w«n ( medievalequival ent ofaminis try)withits j udicial ,adminis trativeand mil itaryf unctions .Theyal s o reinf orced thes ys tem ofi q³ «‘( mil itarygrant ofl and)asa 1 meansf or payingthearmy. I q³ «‘ was particul arl y devel oped by the Sal j uqs and becameas ourceofrevenue.It wasanonhereditarygrant ofl and by arul er ( ul timatel y thes ul tan)to amil itary commander or al ocalgovernor ( muq³ a‘ )who managed it. TheSal j uqswereaSunn»Turkis hdynas tywho control l ed mos t ofCentralAs ia,Iraq,Syriaand Anatol iaf rom the f if th/ el eventh to the s eventh/ thirteenth centuries .Af ter their conques t ofBaghdad in 447/ 1055,theyas s ociated thems el veswiththeAbbas id cal iphateand as s umed the titl eofs ul tan.Ascertain s ul tansdied bef oretheir s ons reached maturity,the s tate wasdivided among young heirs ,whichs erious l yweakened theSal j uqauthority.The practiceofSal j uqrul ersto appoint an at «beg,or am»r ,as guardian to managetheaf f airsofcrown princes ,l ed in the s ixth/ twel f th century to the ris e of independent at «begswho tookadvantageofthedecl ineoftheSal j uq s tate. Oneofthes eat «begswas‘ Im«d al D» n Zang»ofMos ul , who gained controlofNorthIraq,theJ aziraand mos t of Syriain theearl ys ixth/ twel f thcentury.Heand hiss on N‡r al D» n wereamongthemos t ef f icient agentsofthe Mus l im counterCrus adeagains t theFranksand l aid the es s entialbas isf or thes ucces sof¶al «¯al D» n,hims el fa Zang» d cl ient,at theend ofthes ixth/ twel f thcentury. When the Fatimid vizier of Egypt Sh«war was overthrown in 558/ 1162,it wasquitenaturalf or him to as kN‡r al D» n’ shel pin regaininghispos t.TheZang» d rul er of Mos ul , Al eppo and Damas cus was al ways interes ted in increas ing his inf l uence in Egypt. His s chemesf or theNil eVal l ey weredetermined by three 1

f actors .Firs t,thedeterioratingcondition oftheFatimid cal iphatemadeEgypt vul nerabl eto theFranks ,agains t whom N‡r al D» n had decl ared j i h«d ( hol ywar) .Second, hewis hed to us eEgypt’ seconomic revenuesto f und his mil itarycampaignsagains t theFranks .Third,heas pired to res toreSunn»( Orthodox)Is l am to Egypt. Between 558/ 116263 and 564/ 1168,Egypt wasinvaded byAmal ric,Frankis hkingofJ erus al em,and N‡r al D» n threetimeseach,cul minatingin Amal ric’ ss iegeofCairo and hisf inalwithdrawalbef orethearrivalofN‡r al D» n’ s army.TheZang» d expeditionsto Egypt wereheaded by Shirk‡h,aKurd by origin,who al ong with hisbrother Ayy‡b b. Sh«dh» , had risen through N‡r al D» n’ s adminis trativeand mil itaryapparatusto beres pectivel y thecommander ofZang» d armiesand thegovernor of 2 Shirk‡h, who was accompanied by his Damas cus . nephew ¶al «¯al D» n b.Ayy‡b,s ucceeded in s tabil is ing theaf f airsofEgypt,l eadingto theexecution ofthevizier Sh«war and hisown as s umption oftheof f ice.But when hedied s uddenl ynineweeksl ater ( 564/ 1169) ,¶al «¯al D» n,who had proven hims el fat theageofthirtyto bean experienced and ambitious mil itary of f icer,s ucceeded him in the pos t of the Fatimid vizierate and as commander oftheZang» df orcesin Egypt. Duringthef ol l owingtwo years ,¶al «¯al D» n es tabl is hed hims el fastheundis puted l eader ofEgypt beinginves ted both by the Fatimid,and then by the Abbas id cal iph, whil eremainingat thes ametimeavas s alofN‡r al D» n. Af ter thef inalabol ition oftheFatimid cal iphateand the of f icialres toration ofEgypt to Sunn»Is l am and thedeath ofthel as t Fatimid cal iphal ‘ ª±i±in 567/ 1171 ¶al «¯al D» n becamethes ol eand def act o rul er ofEgypt.This perhaps was the ef f ective beginning of the Ayyubid 3 State. Al though by this time ¶al «¯ al D» n s til l expres s ed subordination to N‡r al D» n,rel ationsbetween thetwo deteriorated. That woul d doubtl es s have l ed to conf rontation,had N‡r al D» n not died in 569/ 1174. Rival riesamong N‡r al D» n’ sheirsand their weaknes s created avacuum in theregion which¶al «¯al D» ns oon f il l ed.He undertook a s eries ofmoves to extend his power f rom Egypt to Syria.Hisadoption oftheideaof j i h«d,whichwasabandoned byN‡r al D» n’ ss ucces s ors , 2

On the Kurdis h originsofthe Ayyubidsand their s ervice ofthe Zang» dssee:Cahen 1960,796797;Ehrenkreutz1972,2533. 3 For detail ed accountson theoccurrencesl eadingto theris eof¶al «¯ al D» n to therul eofEgypt see:Gibb1955,563565;LanePool e1964, 77110;Ehrenkreutz1972,3559.

For an outl ineofthedevel opment oftheiq³ «‘s ee:Cahen 1953;1960.

3

AY Y U B ID JE R U SAL E M :AN AR C H IT E C T U R AL AND AR C H AE O L O G IC AL ST U D Y

and his claim to be the unified command of Muslim forces against the Franks won him a great popularity.4 ¶al«¯ alD» n’ s strategy was based on two principal targets:the annihilation of the Frankish states along the SyrioPalestinian coast,andthe revival of Sunn»I slam. Firstly, ¶al«¯ alD» n made considerable military achievements,beginning with the spectacular victory over the Frankish army in the battle of ®i³ ³ » n in 583/ 1187 andthe recapture of J erusalem,together with all Frankish cities and fortresses,except Antioch,Tripoli and Tyre. The conquest of J erusalem by ¶al«¯ alD» n had a particularly remarkable impact on both I slam and Christian Europe. However,the ThirdCrusade ( 585/ 1189 587/ 1192)andthe recapture of Acre along with Caesarea andJ affa markeda setback for ¶al«¯alD» n’ s policy and curtailedhis gains. Secondly,¶al«¯alD» n restoredSunn» I slam to both Egypt and Yemen and weakened Sh» ‘ » influence there. Yet one of the most significant factors that contributedto the survival of the Ayyubiddynasty was the institution of the sultanate. The post andtitle of sultan originatedin the Ayyubidfamily with ¶al«¯alD» n.5 His ostensible policy of affirmation of Sunn»I slam and the expression of allegiance to the Abbasidcaliph in Baghdadby sending letters andlavish gifts hadpositive results. I t gainedhim a caliphal diploma establishing his legitimacy. I n fact,his sovereignty represented the first example of an independent ruler in Egypt and Syria who exercised Sunn»law andrecognisedthe spiritual hegemony of the Abbasidcaliphate in Baghdad. Under ¶al«¯ alD» n’ s sovereignty,a state arose which extendedbeyondthe heritage of N‡r alD» n andwas built on more solidgroundthan that of its predecessor. I t lasted some eighty years andincludedEgypt,Muslim Syria and Palestine,the J azira,Hij azandYemen,with alternately both Cairo and Damascus as its capitals. Ultimately, ¶al«¯alD» n dividedhis new state into a set of appanages with a loose confederation among them,which were the nuclei of the later Ayyubid petty principalities ( Humphreys 1977,41) . The history of the Ayyubid state can be effectively dividedinto three subperiods:a formative periodunder ¶al«¯alD» n( 569/ 1174 -589/ 1193)andhis two sons,alMalik alAf±al and alMalik al‘ Az» z,which we may consider as the apogee of the Ayyubidstate;a periodof organisation and consolidation under ¶al«¯ alD» n’ s

brother,alMalik al‘ ªdil ( 597/ 1200615/ 1217)and his son,alMalik alK«mil ( 615/ 1217635/ 1238)in Cairo; and a period of rapid decline under alMalik al¶«li¯ Ayy‡b ( 643/ 1245647/ 1249) .6 The Ayyubid state in Egypt andSyria came to an abrupt endwith the brutal coup d’état by al¶«li¯’ s own Mamluk commanders in Cairo in 648/ 1250. Following ¶al«¯alD» n’ s death in Damascus ( 589/ 1193) , alAf±al,his eldest son anddesignatedheir as sultan,and his younger son al‘ Az» z simultaneously proclaimed themselves sultans in Damascus andCairo. I n addition, senior members of the Ayyubidfamily,such as ¶al«¯alD» n’ s son alMalik al§«hir and his brother al‘ ªdil, carvedout various provinces for themselves. I ndeed,the state became effectively dividedinto various dominions andfrom that time on it was never fully unitedunder any single Ayyubid sultan. I n fact,many of the Ayyubid princes claimed to rule in their own right and their independent policies weakened the dynasty both politically andmilitarily. Moreover,when al‘ Az» zdied in 595/ 119899,a struggle for power broke out among ¶al«¯ alD» n’ s heirs which soon developed into a civil war. I n the midst of this political turmoil,al‘ ªdil emerged as the dominant figure in the Ayyubidfamily and ultimately proclaimed himself sultan in Cairo in 597/ 1200.7 The reign of al‘ ªdil was markedby relative stability as a result of his signing a series of truces with the Franks. He brought Syria andEgypt under his sultanate andentrusted their territories to the hands of his three sons:alK«mil Mu¯ammad became his father’ s deputy in Egypt,alMu‘ aam ‘ º s«receivedDamascus andalAshraf M‡s« the J azira. AlK«mil continuedhis father’ s policy of détente with the Franks andsubsequently agreedto surrender J erusalem to them ( 626/ 1229) . He adoptedthis policy presumably to strengthen commercial relations with Europe and to weaken the potential for further crusader campaigns, particularly those targeting Egypt. I ndeed,relative peace was maintainedwith the Franks of the SyrioPalestinian coast. Following alK«mil’ s death,another interfamilial civil war erupted,at the endof which alK«mil’ s eldest son,al¶«li¯rose to the throne of the sultanate ( 643/ 1245) . Al¶«li¯use of the Khwarizmian tribesmen against his rivals causedmuch destruction in Syria andthe J azira andhada devastating effect on the disintegration of the Ayyubid State. I t also provoked a coalition of his foes,alN«· ir D«w‡dof Karak andal¶«li¯I sm«‘ » l of Damascus with the Franks,and ultimately the crusade of St. Louis of 647/ 1249. Furthermore, al¶«li¯ Ayy‡b’ s policy of massive recruitment of Turkish maml ‡ks ( slave soldiers)

4 On the achievements of ¶al«¯alD» n,see:Gibb1952,4660;Richards 1995,910911. 5 The eponym of the family,Ayy‡bb. Sh«dh»b. Marw«n,belongs to the Hadhban»Kurdish tribe. His son ¶al«¯alD» n acquiredwhile in Egypt the title alMalik ( “the King”) ,which senior members of the family subsequently adopted. The Ayyubids terminated their titles with the words alD» n( ‘ religion’ ) ,insteadof the wordAll«h usedby the caliphs: ¶al«¯alD» n ( “the Saviour of Religion”) ,Sayf alD» n ( “the Swordof Religion”) ,for instance. Sometimes the titles were emphatic or glorious, like alMalik alN«· ir ( “the Victorious King”) ,alMalik al‘ ªdil ( “the J ust King”) ,alMalik alMu‘ aam ( “the Glorious King”) .

6 An outline of the history of the Ayyubid dynasty is discussed by Cahen 1960. 7 On the I nternal Ayyubid struggle and the rise of al‘ ªdil see: Humphreys 1977,87123.

4

TH E AY Y U B ID STATE :A H ISTO R IC AL SU M

as the backbone of the Egyptian mil itary prepared the way for the overthrow of his dynasty after his death in 8 647/1249. The Army Fundamental l y, ¶al «¯al D» n’ s army,9 which grew out of N‡r al D» n’ s Zang» d army was mainl y based on KurdoTurkish troops, as wel las some Fatimid and Arab tribal contingents.¶al «¯ al D» n’ s Egyptian army in 577/1181 was composed of 111am»rs, 6,976³ aw«s h» ( caval rymen) and 1,153qaraghul «m ( second grade caval rymen)( Gibb 10 I n addition to the 1962, 77; Husayn 1986, 105) . dominant contribution of Egypt, each urban centre in greater Syria and the J azira maintained contingents depending on its resources, which were cal l ed by ¶al «¯ al D» n when needed.The estimated total of 16,000 regul ar caval ry were directl y subj ect to ¶al «¯ al D» n’ s command, in addition to 4000troopers which Mosuland the other Zang» d principal ities suppl ied ( Gibb 1962, 77; Humphreys 1977, n.9, p.416) .I t was with the l arge bul k of this army, some 12,000caval rymen, that ¶al «¯al D» n defeated the Frankish forces at ®i³ ³ » n and achieved his l ater conquests. The Ayyubid army stil ll argel y consisted of freeborn sol diers, al though the sul tan, princes and am»rs had their own personalmaml ‡k contingents.These, for instance, incl uded the Asadiyya ( after Asad al D» n Shirk‡h) , the ¶al «¯iyya, the ‘ ªdil iyya, the K«mil iyya, etc.The l ack of unity and the rival ries between these contingents eventual l y weakened the Ayyubid army.Furthermore, a few traces of ethnic hostil ity may have existed between Kurds, who were freeborn, and Turks who general l y made up the maml ‡k contingents ( Humphreys 1977, 2930;Ayal on 1979, 810) .

M AR Y

increasing dangers of the Frankish fl eets, ¶al «¯ al D» n made some attempts to restore and reorganise the Fatimid navy.For this task, he appointed I bn Shukr as director of the navy in 576/1180( Humphreys 1977, n.31, p.437) . Al though he used it to l aunch a few successfulattacks against Frankish ports, it ul timatel yl ost controlof the sea during the Third Crusade ( Ehrenkreutz1955, 100116) . Fortresses, urban citadel s and city wal l s were constructed or rebuil t as part of the mil itary effort to counter external enemies, who incl uded the Rum Sal j uqs, the Artukides, the Georgians and the Franks, and interfamil y rival s. The Administration / Bureaucracy The Ayyubid administrative structure evol ved as an amal gamation of Fatimid and Zang» dSal j uq traditions, and was subsequentl y inherited by the Maml uk regime. As noted above, the Ayyubid regime consisted of appanages forming a l oose confederation under the centralcontrolof a sovereign/sul tan in Cairo and/or Damascus.The individualappanages were governed by various members of the Ayyubid famil y who were converted from general s and administrators into autonomous princes. They enj oyed compl ete independence in administering them but owed al l egiance to the sovereign.The farther rel atives and am»rs in the famil y structure rul ed smal l er territories within these principal ities. Obviousl y this was far from being a cohesive and united regime and was onl y abl e to work under the authority of a central administration. Otherwise, internal frictions within the rul ing Ayyubid famil y often prevail ed, cul minating in mil itary confrontations.Whil e the titl e s ul ³ «nwas onl y occasional l y used by certain princes ( as in the case of al Mal ik al Mu‘ aam) , the principalidea of the sul tanate was general l y respected.

Al though the army was paid by j «maki yya ( monthl y sal ary) , am»rs ( mil itary officers)were often assigned i q³ «‘ ( grants of revenueproducing properties, usual l yl and)by the sul tan or other rul ers;from the income of these properties they were required to provide a specific number of ful l y equipped and trained caval rymen upon the rul er’ s cal l toarms.The muq³ a’ s were granted the 11 Littl e is free disposalof the revenues of their i q³ «‘ s. known about how the Ayyubids graded their officer corps.Perhaps the mil itary titl es such as am»r, am»r kab»r, am»r i s f ahsal «r, which appear in inscriptions on some Ayyubid buil dings, may refer to different ranks ( Humphreys 1977, 373) .

Often an n«’ i b( deputy)was nominated to repl ace the sul tan on his absences from Damascus and/or Cairo. ¶al «¯al D» n did not appoint a vizier probabl y because he came to power in Egypt as one or perhaps because he himsel f ful fil l ed the functions of vizier.For l ong periods, ¶al «¯ al D» n entrusted his brother al ‘ ªdil with the administrative affairs of Egypt, which constituted the economic and mil itary mainstay of the Ayyubid State.He al so appointed the prestigious al Q«d»al F«±il , who was a chief civil ian administrator in the Fatimid regime, to direct the state administration.Al ‘ ªdiland al K«milhad as their vizier I bn Shukr, who directed ¶al «¯ al D» n’ s navy ( Cahen 1960, 801;Humphreys 1977, 140, n.31, pp. 437438) .

As a resul t of the expansion of trade in the Mediterranean especial l y with the I tal ian trading cities and the

I n general , the Ayyubid state was administered by a decentral ised bureaucracy, the aspects of which wil l probabl y al ways remain uncl ear. However, this bureaucracy was divided into four maj or d»w«ns ( government ministries or divisions) :the Army ( d»w«n al j ays h) , which deal t with recruitment, equipment and

8

On the regime of al ¶«l i¯Ayy‡b and the l ast years of the Ayyubid dynasty see:Humphreys 1977, 283307. 9 On ¶al «¯al D» n’ s army, its structure and organisation see especial l y Husayn 1986. 10 Their figures are derived from Maqr» z» , khi³ a³ 11 The Ayyubid system of iq³ «‘was discussed by Cahen 1953 and Humphreys 1977, 371375.

5

AYYUBID JERUSALEM :AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

religious ideals that he propagated, ¶al«¯ alD» n abolished some taxes ( muk‡s)which were deemed by Islamic f iqh ( law)as illegal.As a result of the vast military expenditure, the decline of income and the exhaustion of Egyptian gold led to a serious devaluation of the coinage.However, due to various military and economic reforms, especially reduction of the redundancies in the military and administrative personnel and the largescale of military iq³«‘, ¶al«¯ alD» n succeeded in stimulating the economy ( Ehrenkreutz1972, 101105;Cahen 1960, 798, 800) .

inspection of the troops, including the affairs of military iq³«‘ and salaries;the Treasury ( al d» w«n)which dealt with matters concerning taxation, income and expenditure;the Chancellery ( d» w«nal insh«’ )or Bureau of Official Correspondence which functioned as a sort of 12 the combined ministry of foreign affairs and interior; Religious Endowments ( d» w«n al ¯ub‡s) . The civil bureaucracy consisted of members of the ‘ul am«’or mut a‘amim» n( religious scholars) , q«±» s ( j urists) and 13 administrators. The Religious Establishment As a protagonist of Sunn»Islam, ¶al«¯alD» n abolished the Fatimid Sh» ‘ »caliphate, waged an heterodoxpurge in Egypt and Yemen, and restored the spiritual sovereignty of the Abbasid caliphate. Under the Ayyubids, the promotion of Sunn»Islam, and the Sh«fi‘ »madhhab in particular,14 against heresy was reflected in the construction of madr asas ( theological colleges)in Syria and the J azira, where many similar institutions already existed during Zang» d times, and their introduction to Egypt.S‡f»( mystic)orders were encouraged and various khanq«hs ( convents for mystics)were founded for them. The ‘ul am«’and the mut a‘amim» n( mentioned above) , who received religiolegal education in the madr asas, often occupied a large portion of the civil administration. Internal Economy and International Trade Once the military campaigns against the Franks had relaxed, internal stability and security in Egypt and Syria nurtured reasonably favourable conditions for the development of agriculture, manufacturing, and domestic and foreign commerce.In an attempt to conform to the

12 Under ¶al«¯alD» n, it was directed by the Q«±»alF«±il.In addition, ‘ Im«d alD» n alI· fah«n» , who was the sultan’ s private secretary, composed many of his official letters. 13 Humphreys, using the literary sources, estimates their number in the empire about 3000persons:1977, 24, n.18, pp.416417. 14 ¶al«¯ alD» n adhered to the Sh«fi‘ »madhhab, in which he was followed by the maj ority of members of his dynasty.

6

With the restoration of the Fatimid navy in Egypt, ¶al«¯ alD» n renewed the commercial relations with Italian trading cities such as Pisa, Genoa and Venice.In addition to customs revenues for the Ayyubid treasury, raw materials required for armament were imported ( Cahen 1960, 798) . In later years the Ayyubids adopted a policy of détente with the Franks and a strict financial rule, in particular by al‘ ªdil and alK«mil have increasingly revived the economy.This was perhaps thanks to the experienced vizier Ibn Shukr, who served as the head of administration under both sultans.However, during the reign of the last sultan, al¶«li¯ Ayy‡b, the Ayyubid confederation was severely weakened as a result of the internal succession struggles and civil war, and the renewal of military confrontation with the Franks.The Ayyubid state then faced its deepest and final political and socioeconomic crisis.This perhaps provided an ideal condition for the coup d’ ét at in 648/ 1250 which ultimately brought Egypt and then Syria under two and a half century of rule by the maml uks.

CHAPTER2

JERUSALEM UNDERTHEAYYUBIDS –THESOURCES

The purpose oft his chapt er is nott o give comprehensive assessment of al lt he sources,medieval or modern, Middl e East ernor West ern,f or t he hist ory ofJerusal em int he Ayyubidperiod. Thatwoul dbe anenormous t ask. Rat her,my int ent ion is t o describe t he mostimport ant andmostof t enusedsources f or t his st udy. They incl ude t he cont emporary and nearcont emporary Arabic chronicl es and biographicaldict ionaries,as wel las t he West ern chronicl ers and pil grims’ account s; t he epigraphic and archivalmat erial ;and various works of modern research in numerous l anguages. As f or t he ot hers,andt he vastsecondary l it erat ure,cit at ions int he bibl iography mustsuf f ice. Primary Sources Gl impses of preCrusader st ruct ures in Jerusal em, part icul arl yt he ®aram al Shar» f ,are f oundint he Arabic chronicl es,geographical indexes and fa±«’il al-Quds ( Merit s ofJerusal em)l it erat ure,not abl y dat ed t o t he Fat imidperiod. Amongt hese works,whichcont ribut et o our underst anding ofhow cert ain Ayyubid monument s evol ved,are t he descript ions writ t enby I bnal Faq» h( ca. 290/ 903) ;I bn‘ AbdRabbihi ( 300/ 913) ;al Muqaddas»( ca. 375/ 985) ;I bn al Muraj j « ( 1030/ 421431/ 1040) ; and N«·iri Khusraw ( 438/ 1047) . For Crusader Jerusal em t he principalFrankishsource is t he Hist or ia by Wil l iam ofTyre whichcont ains f irst hand inf ormat ionunt il580/ 1184. He undert ookt he ambit ious t ask ofrecording t he hist ory oft he Frankish kings of Jerusal em. He was appoint ed chancel l or oft he Lat in Kingdom of Jerusal em in 570/ 1174 and was made archbishopofTyre int he f ol l owingyear. But most cont emporary account s are f ound in t he narrat ives ofpil grims,t oo numerous t ol istindet ailhere. However,itis necessary t o ment iont hose f requent l y used in t his st udy:Saewul f( 110203) ;AbbotDaniel( 110607) ;JohnofWurzburg( 11601170) ;Theoderic ( 1169) ; Anonymous pil grim ( 1187) . Transl at ions of t hese pil grims’account s have beenpubl ishedby t he Pal est ine Pil grims’TextSociet y( 18861892) . Ot her account s are t ransl at ed by t he St udium Bibl icum Franciscanum in Jerusal em ( 1941onward) . There is a variet y ofWest ern sources f or t he Ayyubid periodinJerusal em. Amongt hese are:H. Michel antand G. Raynaud,I t inérares áJérusal em,Publ ns de l a Soc. De l ’ Orientl at in,sér. Géogr., 3 ( Geneva 1882) ; J.C.M. Laurent ( ed.) , Mag. Thiet mari Pregrinat io [ 1217]

7

( Hamburge 1857) ;Wil brandofOl denburg,Peregrinat io [ 121112] ,inJ.C.M. Laurent( ed.) ,Peregrinat ores Medii Aeui Quat uor ( Leipzig 1964) ,pp. 15991;Ol iver of Paderborn( died1227) ,ed. H. Hoogeveg,bibl iot hekdes l it t erarischen Vereins in St ut t gart ,vol . 202 ( Tubingen 1894) . There are al so various cont inuat ions ofWil l iam of Tyre,Engl ish chronicl es of t he Third Crusade,and Germansources oft he t ime ofFrederckI I . For t he hist ory oft he AyyubidperiodinJerusal em,t he cont emporary Arabic narrat ive sources are numerous. ‘ I m«dal D» nal I ·f ah«n» ,knownas al-K«t ib(secretary) (I ·f ah«n 519/ 1125Damascus 597/ 1201) i s one ofthe most i mportant chroni cl ers ofthe rei gnof¶al «¯al D» n. He worked as N‡r al D» n’ s and then ¶al «¯al D» n’ s secretary.Si nce j oi ni ng ¶al «¯ al D» ni n 570/ 1174,he accompani edhi mi nhi s mi l i tary campai gns andvi si ts tovari ous parts ofthe empi re.Hi s bookal-fat¯ al-quss» f»’ l fat¯ al-quds» (“Ci ceroni an El oquence on the Conquest ofthe Hol y Ci ty”),whi ch i s an anthol ogy wri tteni nornate poeti c Arabi c,covers the conquest of Jerusal em unti l¶al «¯al D» n’ s deathi n589/ 1193.Hi s other work,al-barq al-sh«m» (“Li ghtni ng ofSyri a”) records ¶al «¯ al D» n’ s l i f e and ti mes f rom 573/ 1175 onwards.From thi s workonl y vol s.3and5survi ve i n MS. ; the others were summari zed wi th vari ous contemporary materi al s by Ab‡ Sh«m« i n ki t«b alraw±atayn (“The Book ofthe Two Gardens”).Both works of‘ I m«d al D» n are an accurate and f ai thf ul source f or ¶al «¯al D» n’ s career andf or events i nSyri a andthe Jazi ra,i nwhi chthe author hi msel fpl ayedan i mportant rol e. Bah«’al D» nI bn Shadd«d (Mosul539/ 1145632/ 1234) became q«±» to¶al «¯al D» n’ s army i n582/ 1188andl ater hi s f ai thf uladvi sor.Hi s bi ography of¶al «¯ al D» n alnaw«di r al-sul³ «ni yya wa’ l ma¯«si n al-y‡sufi yya (“Sul tanl y Anecdotes and J osephl y Vi rtues”) i s an i mportant hi stori calsource.I t gi ves us the most compl ete portrai t of¶al «¯al D» nf rom 582/ 1186.I t al socontai ns val uabl e hi stori caldocuments,treati es andl etters. ‘ I zzal D» nI bnal Ath» r’ s (J az» rat I bn‘ Umar,555/ 1160630/ 1233) most i mportant workal-k«mi l f»’ l t«r »kh(“The Perf ect Hi story”) i s anenormous generalhi story ofthe I sl ami c worl df rom preI sl ami c ti mes to the year 628/ 1231.For the earl y peri od unti lthe f ourth/ tenth century he copi es f rom al ²abar» ’ s hi story (t«r »khal-r usul wa’ l mul‡k).For the l ater peri od,hi s work i s a ri ch col l ecti on of materi al ,whi ch ai ms at presenti ng the essenti al f acts i n a cl ear and si mpl e manner.Such

AY Y U B ID JE R U SAL E M :AN AR C H IT E C T U R AL AND AR C H AE O L O G IC AL ST U D Y

qualities deservedly make it one of the most influential works of Islamic historiography. His narratives of the Ayyubid period (vols. IX, X) are mostly derived from ‘Im«d al-D»n and Bah«’ al-D»n. He has a tendency to be prejudiced towards ¶al«¯ al-D»n and in favour of the Zangids, rulers of Mosul.

Al-‘Umar»’s measurements are fairly accurate and evoke a pioneering survey of constructions around the Haram. In fact he acknowledges that he copied the dimensions from another book silsilat al-‘ asj ad f» · ifat al-· akhra wa’l-masj id written by T«j al-D»n A¯mad Ibn Am»n alMulk. He compiled his book in about 745/1345.

Ab‡ Sh«m«’s (Damascus 599/1203-665/1267) work kit«b al-raw±atayn f» akhb«r al-dawlatayn al-N‡riyya wa’l ¶al«¯iyya (“The Book of the Two Gardens, in the History of the Two Dynasties, the N‡riyya and the ¶al«¯iyya”) compiles valuable material on Ayyubid Jerusalem. He quotes known works such that of Ibn alQal«nis», ‘Im«d al-D»n, Bah«’ al-D»n, Ibn al-Ath»r, as well as the lost work of Ibn Ab»’l ²ay (d. 632/1234), a Shi‘ite historian of Aleppo. Ab‡ Sh«m«’s book is especially important for it contains unique accounts of ¶al«¯ al-D»n’s activities in Jerusalem and reproduces numerous letters of al-Q«±» al-F«±il, ¶al«¯ al-D»n’s chief of administration and chancellery. His other work tar«j im rij «l al-qarnayn al-s«dis wa’l s«bi‘(“Indexof the Men of the Sixth/Eleventh and Seventh/Twelfth Centuries”) known as al-dhayl ‘ l« al-raw±atayn (“Appendix to the Two Gardens”), which records concise biographies of contemporary public figures, is an equally important source.

The second is written by Muj»r al-D»n al-‘Ulaym» al®anbal» (Jerusalem 860/1456-92/1522), who became q«±» of Ramla in 889/1484, and three years later Chief Q«±» in Jerusalem. As a native of Jerusalem, he witnessed the city’s apogee at the late Mamluk period. His catalogue of monuments al-uns al-j al»l bi-t«r»kh al-Quds wa’l Khal»l, which he completed in less than four months, is indispensable and accurate. The book consists of several sections. One deals with the significance of Jerusalem in the religious consciousness of Islam and a description of its most holy places. Another summarises the history of Jerusalem in the Islamic period. A third includes valuable topographical information with epigraphic analysis. A fourth is a collection of biographies of notables and scholars who were associated with Jerusalem in Ayyubid and Mamluk times. The last section is a chronicle of Sultan Qay³ b«y’s reign from 872/1468 to 900/1495. Additional chronicles, which are used, were written by later historians. These include Ibn Kath»r, Ibn al-Fur«t, al-Maqr»z», Ab‡’l Fid«’, Ibn Taghribard», all of which are cited among the primary sources of the bibliography.

Sib³ Ibn al-Jawz» (Baghdad 582/1186-Damascus 654/1256) was a well-known preacher who lived in Damascus and was closely associated with the Ayyubid princes, especially al-Mu‘aam, al-N«·ir D«w‡d and al¶«li¯ Ayy‡b. His universal history mir’«t al-zam«n (“The Mirror of Time”) is a first-hand source for the history of Damascus and the Ayyubids in Syria, and the reign of alMu‘aam in particular. Ibn W«·il (®am«t 604/1207-697/1298) occupied several posts under the later Ayyubids and became the great q«±» of his native town. His prestigious work:mufarrij al-kur‡b f» akhb«r ban» Ayy‡b (“The Dissipater of Anxieties Concerning the History of the Ayyubids”) has valuable information concerning ¶al«¯ al-D»n’s reign and his successors, including the Mamluks until 680/1282. He makes heavy use of other contemporary historians such as Ibn al-Ath»r and Ab‡ Sh«m«. Probably only with the death of al-K«mil (635/1238) is his work drawn from eyewitnesses. In general it is marked by its breadth and evenness of coverage and gives a clear and coherent survey, which makes it one of the most important sources for the history of the Ayyubid dynasty.

Later topographical descriptions of Jerusalem throw much light on its condition during the Ottoman period, including valuable information on some of the existing Ayyubid buildings. Among those are two important works. The first is that of Evliya Celeb», a Turkish traveller, siy«¯atn«me(“Travels”), which is based on his visits to Jerusalem both in 1059/1649 and 1071/1660-61. The second is the work of ‘Abd alGhan» al-N«buls», a Damascene mystic, al-¯a±ra alunsiyya f»’l ri¯la al-qudsiyya, in which he describes his visits to the Holy City both in 1101/1690 and 1105/1693.

These sources are supplemented by a number of nearcontemporary literary sources, of which the most important are two historico-topographical descriptions.

In addition to these descriptions there is an extremely important primary source for the history of Ayyubid Jerusalem:the epigraphic material. Dozens of Ayyubid inscriptions still survive, part of which are dedication inscriptions on buildings. These (in most cases) give explicit accounts of what the purpose of the constructions was, who built them and when they were completed. They also throw much light on titulature, local governorship and sovereignty, etc. Other inscriptions were not found in situ.

The first is Ibn Fa±lall«h al-‘Umar»’s (700/1300Damascus in 749/1349) book mas«lik al-ab· «r f» mam«lik al-am·«r which lists buildings around the ®aram including the principal measurements of various features.

Most of the epigraphic material from Jerusalem have been published by Maxvan Berchem in his monumental Corpus of Arabic inscriptions (1922; 1927) and was reproduced in the Répertoire Chronologique d’Epigraphie 8

JERUSALEM UNDER THE AYYUBIDS – THE SOURCES

Arabe, vols. IX-XI concerning the Ayyubid period (1931in progress, ed. by Sauvaget, Wiet et al.); Burgoyne and Ab‡’l-Hajj (1979) had supplemented van Berchem’s material with new inscriptions; Walls and Ab‡’l-Hajj have compiled a hand list of all existing Arabic inscriptions in Jerusalem (1980). Additional inscriptions have been recovered in recent archaeological explorations in and around the Old City and were ultimately published.

Among the most important publications which were consulted in this study are those of de Saulcy (1853, 1854), de Vogue (1860), Wilson (1865), the Survey of Western Palestine of the Palestine Exploration Fund (Warren and Conder 1884), Clermont-Ganeau (1896/1899), Vincent and Abel (1914-1926), Schick (articles in the Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement between 1872 and 1904). From the 1850s, drawings, engravings and photographs are particularly valuable for documenting buildings which no longer exist. Some of these are preserved in various archives around the world.

Another significant primary source is the large body of documentary material extant in the Ottoman Shar‘» court archives of Jerusalem. These archives contain a massive collection of sixteenth-century and later sijills (legal records). Although the main concern of these records is the Ottoman period, they may include detailed information relevant to later architectural development of Ayyubid buildings. In addition, the archives possess copies of waqfiyyas (endowment documents) which give us valuable data on the foundation of some Ayyubid buildings.

Since 1967, extensive excavations have taken place under Israeli auspices around the Old City walls. Although most of them were clearance works, they revealed various sections of medieval fortifications including those of the Ayyubid period. In 1969, the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem embarked on a project to record the medieval Islamic architecture of the Old City, which until then was not well known. The result was the publication of the magnificent volume of Mamluk Jerusalem by M. Burgoyne and D. Richards (1987). It is a meticulous study of Mamluk architecture, its evolution, styles, methods and materials of construction and decoration, coupled with a detailed historical analysis, making it an indispensable tool for any investigation of Jerusalem’s Islamic and medieval architectural heritage. Naturally this book has remarkably benefited from it. In numerous cases, the authors deal with Ayyubid structures which were incorporated within the fabric of Mamluk architecture.

Secondary Sources Topographical exploration and description of Jerusalem was carried out by successive Western travellers and scholars who visited the city during the nineteenth century and until the first half of the twentieth century. In 1833, Frederich Catherwood, an English architect, produced a detailed and accurate plan of the ®aram, which was published for the first time by Ferguson (1847). Three decades later, the Italian architect Ermete Pierotti prepared a more precise plan of the ®aram (1864).

9

CHAPTER3

JERUSALEM IN THEPOLITICALCONTEXTOFTHEAYYUBID STATE

Introduction

to havebeen aturning point in thehis tory ofIs l amic Syria.AsGibbil l us tratesit:

Thecombined period of‘ Im«d al D» n Zang»( 520/ 1126541/ 1146)and hisson N‡r al D» n( 541/ 1146565/ 1174) was characteris ed by the beginnings of the counterCrus ade which cl imaxed under ¶al «¯ al D» n with the conquest ofJerusal em in 583/ 1187.Duringthisperiod, es pecial l yf ol l owingthecaptureofthecityofEdes s a( al Rah«)by‘ Im«d al D» n f rom theFranksin 539/ 1144,a great revivalin theideol ogy and propagation ofjih«d ( hol ywar)occurred,ref l ected in contemporaryl iterature, mainl y in poetry, of f icial l etters and treatis es of j uris prudence.Thishis toricalevidence,aswel lasthe is s ueofideol ogyand propagandain theIs l amic reaction to the Crus ades ,hasbeen dis cus s ed meticul ous l y in a s eriesofs tudiesbyEmmanuelSivan ( 1967;1968;1991) . Indeed,both Zang» d rul ers empl oyed poets in their propagandacampaign,ofwhom themos tf amousareIbn Mun» r ( 473/ 1080548/ 1153) and Ibn al Qay·ar«n» ( 478/ 108586548/ 1153) ,who were ref ugees f rom the Pal es tinian coas t ( Ibn Khal l ik«n,I,138143;II,82;III, 155158) .Sivan s ugges tsthat thef ocusoftheMus l ims ’ attention on Jerus al em isprobabl ydueto thes etwo men ( Sivan 1967,154155) .But their work was not in a vacuum.They werepreceded by apopul ar l eader,the j udgeIbn al Khas hs h«b,who expended great ef f ortsin def endingthecityofAl eppo and in urgingitsrul ersand inhabitantsto f ight agains t theFranks( al Tabbaa1982, 1213) .Al Tabbaacl aimsthat thisj udgewas“themos t important f igurein theearl yhis toryofjih«d agains t the Crus aders ,thef ounder ofthepopul ar movement which wasto ins pireN‡r al D» n and other heroesofthecountercrus ade”( al Tabbaa1982,259) . The taking ofEdes s a by ‘ Im«d al D» n won him s uch s obriquetsasal mur«bi³( thedef ender ofthef aith)or al mal ikal n«·ir( thevictoriousking)and other titl esf rom theAbbas id cal iphand Mus l imsin general( Ibn al Ath» r, X,53;Gibb 1969,461) .For hispart,he real is ed the power ofrel igious propaganda as a toolto motivate Mus l imsto takeupthes truggl eofwres tingterritoryf rom theFranks .Bef orehisdeath in 541/ 1146,hedecl ared jih«d agains t theFranksand s pecif ied Jerus al em and the Aq· «Mos queasitsprimarygoal( Goitein 1986,332) . N‡r al D» n continued his f ather’ s mil itary campaigns agains t the Frankswith al mos t unabated s ucces s ,and endeavoured to promotejih«d withgreater f ervour.His s pectacul ar victoriesover theFrankis hcol oniesofnorthwes tern Syriaand theSh» ‘ iteAs s as s insofMa· yafs eem

10

In the eyes of al lIs l am he had become the champion ofthef aith,and henow cons cious l ys et hims el fto f ul f ilthedutiesofthat rol e. . .Thenew countercrus adewashencef orthto bepl aced under the banner oforthodoxy,and N‡r al D» n gave active encouragement to al lthe el ements that coul d contributeto therevivalofthef aith,bythe f oundation ofs chool s ,mos ques ,and Suf i( Arabic, s‡f » )convents ,and to theunityofpopul ar f eel ing, by the s ervice of preachers , poets , and romancers . . .Whatever part privateambition may havehad in hispol icy,it cannot bequestioned that in thetwentyf iveyearsthat l ayahead ofhim he wasto go f ar towardscreatingthegeneralunity and even exal tation ofs pirit amongs t theMus l ims ofSyriaofwhichSal adin wasto reapthebenef it af ter him ( Gibb1969,515516) . Therehasbeen,however,acertain decl inein thedrive agains t theFranksand areduction ofinteres t in Jerus al em when theByzantinesinvaded N‡r al D» n’ sterritoriesin 552/ 115758,at atimewhen theMus l im campbecame increas ingl y divided.Such decl inemay havecoincided with the death of N‡r al D» n’ s two principal propagandis ts :Ibn al Mun» r and Ibn al Qay· ar«n» .But thiss tateofaf f airswasonl y temporary,s incethenext decadewitnes s ed theris eofanew remarkabl ef igurewho continued thework ofhispredeces s orsin propagating jih«d.Thisf igurewas‘ Im«d al D» n al I·f ah«n»( 519/ 1125 597/ 1201) ,rhetorician,poet and historian,who wrotea chronicl eil l us tratingtheeventsl eadingto theconques t of Jerus al em ( Ibn Khal l ik«n,III,300306;s eeal s o Chapter 2) . In al etter s ent by N‡r al D» n to theAbbas id cal iphin 569/ 1173 in whichhes tated hispl ans ,thes ignif icanceof the conques t ofJerus al em is es pecial l y apparent.His principalaim was“theexpul s ion ofthewors hippersof the cros sf rom the Aq· « Mos que. . .the conques t of Jerus al em. . .and the controlofthe coas talpl ain ( Ab‡ Sh«ma,I,215) .Another as pect ofthe propagation of jih«d under N‡r al D» n,apart f rom thel iteraryevidence, isexpres s ed in hisins criptionsand monuments .N‡r al D» n’ s jih«d titl es and epithets that appear in his ins criptionshavebeen s tudied byEl is s éef f( 1954,187191) , and by al Tabbaa, who deal s with the propagandis tic f unction of thes e ins criptions and the monumentsthat borethem ( al Tabbaa1982,256287) .

JERUSALEM IN THE POLITICAL CONTEXT OFTHE AYYUBID STATE

compulsion of those unwilling to take part in the common fight. ¶al«¯ al-D»n was aware, as his predecessor N‡r al-D»n had been, that in order to expel the Franks from the Levant, it was necessary to unite the forces of Egypt, Syria and the Jazira and that this might required waging war on Muslims to force them to perform their duty in the jih«d.

‘Im«d al-D»n Zang» maintained a set of titles that perhaps were the longest in medieval protocols. They consist of Persian-derived titles such as isfihsal«r (commander of the army), shahriy«r (protector of a province) and Turkish titles such as alpgh«z» (invader hero) and «gh arsl«n (white lion) (Herzfeld 1955, 188-192). Yet the absence of titles that associates him with jih«d is quite evident. By contrast, inscriptions of N‡r al-D»n contained Arabic titles which emphasised his dedication to jih«d as well as to the affirmation of Sunn» Islam and the establishment of justice (al-Tabbaa 1982, 260). The title al-muj«hid (fighter in the Holy War) in addition to a number of composite epithets of jih«d, such as h«fi alt hugh‡r (keeper of the outposts), ghiy«t h al-jumh‡r (saviour of the public), q«hir al-mut amarrid»n (vanquisher of the rebels), q«t il al-kafara wa’ l-mushrik»n (killer of the infidels and polytheists), were employed (alTabbaa 1982, 271).

For nearly thirteen years after he gained control of Damascus in 570/1174, ¶al«¯ al-D»n was mostly involved in the affairs of the Jazira, subduing Zang»d and Artuq»d princes to his authority and waging swift attacks into the territory of the Latin Kingdom. During this period, he also used Jerusalem to serve his political aims. In 571/1175 he sent a letter to the Abbasid caliph in Baghdad asking for a confirmation of investiture as the sole sovereign of Syria from which military operations would be launched to liberate Jerusalem (Ab‡ Sh«ma, I, 243). In his correspondence with Zang»d rulers of Aleppo and Mosul, ¶al«¯ al-D»n emphasised the need for unity and expressed his dislike of the in-fighting among Muslims, preferring rather “to fight the infidel and to liberate Jerusalem” (Ab‡ Sh«ma, I, 259).

N‡r al-D»n employed another medium to assert his sovereignty and to propagate his ideology of jih«d: the construction of minbars. Under N‡r al-D»n there are indications that the minbar served among other functions as a podium from which the khu³ba fulfilled a political function (Al-Tabbaa 1982, 273). In 564/1169, N‡r al-D»n built a minbar for his mosque in Hama and he commissioned another one for the Aq·« Mosque in Jerusalem. Both minbars portrayed a strong message of his sovereignty and jih«d. The minbar for the Aq·« Mosque, which was installed by ¶al«¯ al-D»n after his conquest of Jerusalem in 583/1187, bore rich inscriptions proclaiming the victory of Islam and the defeat of the infidels, as well as containing numerous titles and formulas of sovereignty, justice, humility and jih«d. These include typical jih«d titles such as al-muj«hid (fighter of the Holy War), al-mur«bi³ (defender of the faith), rukn al-I sl«m wa’ l muslim»n (pillar of Islam and Muslims) (van Berchem 1927, 394, no. 277; see Appendix III, no. 1).

The long-awaited military campaign was finally launched by the beginning of 583/ Spring 1187. ¶al«¯ al-D»n’s forces and allies met the full army of the Frankish states in battle at the Horns of ®i³ ³ »n on Saturday, 24 Rab»‘ II 583/4 July 1187. The result was a crushing defeat for the Franks, followed by the fall of all the coastal cities from Gaza to Jubayl, apart from Tyre. On 27 Rajab/ 2 October in the same year Jerusalem, the symbolic goal of jih«d, surrendered.

Jerusalem and the Propagation of Jih«d Under ¶al«¯ al-D»n, who was the spiritual and the de fact osuccessor to N‡r al-D»n, the propagation of jih«d and the call for the liberation of Jerusalem reached its zenith. Sivan thoroughly examines the ways in which the ideals of the jih«d were fostered and the message spread through Islamic society under ¶al«¯ al-D»n (Sivan 1968, Chapter 4; 1991). He also emphasises the centrality of Jerusalem in ¶al«¯ al-D»n’s propaganda campaign.

For the impact of the conquest of Jerusalem on the Muslim public opinion one can learn from the large quantity of ¶al«¯ al-D»n’s correspondence. He sent about seventy letters, written by his secretary ‘Im«d al-D»n alI·fah«n», to various leaders throughout the Islamic world announcing his triumph. In return, he received numerous letters to congratulate him on this spectacular occasion (Ab‡ Sh«ma, II, 96). The city continued to be the object of eulogistic prose and poetry, much of it composed by members of the Ayyubid elite. Legends about the taking of the city appeared already during ¶al«¯ al-D»n’s lifetime and comparisons were drawn between his conquest and the surrender of Jerusalem to Caliph ‘Umar ibn al-Kha³ ³ «b in the early first/seventh century (Ab‡ Sh«ma, II, 110; Sivan 1967, 163). While no works of the fa±«’ il al-Quds (Merits of Jerusalem) literature appeared during the first half of the sixth/twelfth century, they became abundant and common in the second half of that century and in the subsequent centuries (Goitein 1986, 332). This type of literature raised the awareness of Jerusalem’s sanctity in the Muslim public opinion. The most important of these works is the first volume of t «r»kh dimashq(the History of Damascus) by Ibn ‘As«kir, which is mainly dedicated to fa±«’ il al-Sh«m (the Merits of Syria and Palestine). Ibn

¶al«¯ al-D»n reiterated the vow of his predecessor and promised to carry out the jih«d in meticulous observance of Islamic legal principles. His point of view, as reflected in his public statements and correspondence, maintained that the ultimate aims of jih«d, the duty of Muslim leaders to participate, and the delegated authority he had been given by the caliph, justified his 11

AYYUBID JERUSALEM:AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

two mosques of Mecca and Medina pilgrimage should be made to the Aq·« Mosque (‘Im«d al-D»n, 110; Ab‡ Sh«ma, II, 94). Indeed, ¶al«¯ al-D»n was successful in drawing large numbers of Muslim pilgrims to the city, many of whom incorporated Jerusalem in their ¯ajj to Mecca (Ab‡ Sh«ma, Dhayl, 7; Ibn al-Ath»r, X, 212). One year following the reconquest of the city, an exceptionally large ¯ajj caravan, which included pilgrims from Iraq, Anatolia, Jazira and elsewhere, visited Jerusalem and other holy places liberated by ¶al«¯ al-D»n (Ehrenkreutz 1972, 210).

‘As«kir mentions the merits of Jerusalem in detail, including the Aq·« Mosque and the Dome of the Rock (Ibn ‘As«kir, I, 110, 129, 134, 141-142, 221, 223-224, 228, 240, 270). The book “fa±«il al-quds al-shar»f”, written by Abu’l Faraj ‘Abd al-Ra¯m«n b. al-Jawz» sometime after the conquest, for example, is full of praise for ¶al«¯ al-D»n’s achievements and to the ideal of jih«d as a whole (Sivan 1968, 117). Under ¶al«¯ al-D»n, Jerusalem continued to play a central role in the propagation of jih«d even after its recapture in 583/1187. This can be explained by the fact that the city continued to be a principal target for the Third Crusade, whose forces threatened to recapture it twice. Indeed, as Sivan points out, ¶al«¯ al-D»n’s propaganda in the period 583/1187-588/1191 concentrated on three aspects of the merits of Jerusalem: the sanctity of the city based on the Aq·« Mosque and the Dome of the Rock; the various Prophets and traditions connected with the city, such as the Nocturnal Journey (al-’isr«’) of the Prophet Muhammad; and the role of the city in the Day of Judgement (Sivan 1968, 117-118).

¶al«¯ al-D»n’s inscriptions include an important aspect of the propagation of jih«d ideology. Compared with N‡r alD»n Zang»’s titulature, ¶al«¯ al-D»n used a much smaller number of jih«d titles with a propagandistic function. Surprisingly, the title al-muj«hid (fighter in the Holy War) occurs only twice. The first is included in an inscription commemorating the restoration of the mi¯r«b in the Mosque of ‘Umar in Cairo datable to 568/1173, one of the earliest inscriptions of ¶al«¯ al-D»n (Wiet 1922, 307, 311; RCEA, IX, no. 3297). The second appears, with two other jih«d titles, al-mur«bit (defender of the faith) and mugh»th al-khil«fa (saviour of the Caliphate) in an inscription from a construction in the ramparts of Maiyaf«riq»n, probably dated to 589/1193 (RCEA, IX, 3471).

In addition, ¶al«¯ al-D»n’s propagandists used the fa±«’il al-quds for specific purposes relating to the city, such as the sanctification of the ®aram al-Shar»f, the strengthening of its defences, the resettlement of Muslims and the encouragement of pilgrimage to the Holy City. The first immediate task to be carried out by the Ayyubids after the liberation of the city from the Franks (see Chapter 4) was the restoration of the ®aram to its pre-Crusader form. There is no doubt that ¶al«¯ al-D»n and his followers looked upon their task as a sacred duty which could earn them special pious status. This was also the case after the completion of the refortification of the city in 588/1192, with the participation of ¶al«¯ al-D»n himself, various members of his family and many religious figures. As ‘Im«d al-D»n al-I·fah«n» writes in one of his letters:

Six inscriptions from ¶al«¯ al-D»n’s time have survived in Jerusalem; only one, datable after 587/1191 which originally came from the city wall, has a clear message of jih«d. Although much of it is reconstructed, it contains two titles j«mi‘kalimat al-’»m«n (unifying the word of the faith) and q«mi‘‘ abadat al-·ulb«n (persecutor of the worshippers of crosses) (Burgoyne and Abu’l Hajj 1979, no. XV; see Appendix IV, no. 4). These two titles appear also in two of ¶al«¯ al-D»n’s inscriptions elsewhere. The first is from a construction of a wall in the citadel of Cairo datable to 576/1180 (RCEA, IX, 3359). The other is from Alexandria datable to 583/1187 (Wiet 1922, 312; RCEA, IX, 3420). Furthermore, these titles of ¶al«¯ alD»n were included in Ibn al-Zak»’s khu³ba, delivered at the Aq·« Mosque after his conquest of Jerusalem, which might have been their source of inspiration (Ab‡ Sh«ma, II, 111-112).

... It (the fortification work) was done upon God’s order... to defend his house and protect his religion... all we request is to receive our reward in the next world and mercy for our sins (‘Im«d alD»n, 400, 413, 418; Ab‡ Sh«ma, II, 194). Bah«’ al-D»n Ibn Shadd«d, the future biographer of ¶al«¯ al-D»n and his principal advisor (see Chapter 2), in a speech to his army commanders just before Richard Coeur-de-Lion’s attack, emphasised that the defence of the city was a religious duty (Bah«’ al-D»n, 212). Concerning the issue of populating the city, ¶al«¯ alD»n’s propagandists, quoting various ¯adiths, linked habitation in the city with the jih«d and regarded it as a religious precept (Ibn al-Jawz», 93-95). They also mentioned ¯adiths relating to the importance of pilgrimage to the Holy City as the third sacred city in Islam after Mecca and Medina. For instance, Mu¯y» alD»n points out in his khu³ba in the Aq·« Mosque, one week after the conquest of Jerusalem, that apart from the

Finally, Sivan summarises the achievements of ¶al«¯ alD»n’s propagation of jih«d as thus: C’est là peut-être qu’on trouve le grand accomplisement de la propagande délenchée par Saladin: Jérusalem acquérait une place d’honneur dans la conscience religieuse des milieux piétistes et des couches populaires. Intimement liée àl’idée du jih«d, cette conscience devait jouer un rôle important dans l’histoire du jih«d à l’époque ayy‡bide (Sivan 1968, 119). After ¶al«¯ al-D»n’s death, his Ayyubid successors owed their prestige to the achievements of the jih«d fulfilled by 12

JERUSALEM IN THE POLITICAL CONTEXT OF THE AYYUBID STATE

Administrative Organisation and the Ayyubid Internal Struggle

the founder of the dynasty, of which Jerusalem was the jewel in the crown. Consequently, their commitment to the dual ideal of Jerusalem-jih«d was conceived as an expression of allegiance to ¶al«¯ al-D»n and provided them with legitimacy for their rule. Perhaps this is one of the motives which explain their special attention to Jerusalem not only in propaganda but also in their deeds. As it will be discussed in Chapter 4, they founded various religious and public institutions in Jerusalem, made great efforts to populate the city and encouraged pilgrimage to it, and some of them even resided there to give a personal example.

During the Ayyubid period Jerusalem was dependent in terms of administrative organisation on the governor of Damascus. He appointed a governor (w«l») for Jerusalem and its district (‘amal). This district was among others that formed the province of Syria, with Damascus at its centre. Immediately after the conquest of Jerusalem in 583/1187, ¶al«¯ al-D»n appointed the faq»h °i«’ al-D»n ‘º s« as w«l» of the city. He was reported to have negotiated the payment of the jizya tax by the Eastern Christians following the Ayyubid conquest of the city (Ab‡ Sh«ma, II, 115). On another occasion, he was identified by Ab‡ Sh«ma as al-Faq»h ‘º s« al-Hakk«r», a Kurdish military commander in the Ayyubid army who was engaged in ¶al«¯ al-D»n’s conquests in the Galilee during the year 585/1189 (Ab‡ Sh«ma, II, 140). He held this post until he fell in battle in Sha‘b«n 585/1189 (‘Im«d al-D»n, 299).

As time passed, the association of Muslim public opinion to Jerusalem was so strong that it had a dynamic of its own despite the wishes and designs of the Ayyubid rulers. After decades of violent conflict, some of them, who were driven by considerations of realpolitik and objective weaknesses, adopted a policy of co-existence with the Franks. But it seems they underestimated the driving force of the idea of the Holy City and the popular sentiment attached to it.

The am»r ®us«m al-D»n Sh«r‡kh al-Najm», a resident of Jerusalem of Turkish origin, was appointed by ¶al«¯ alD»n (‘Im«d al-D»n, 299; Muj»r, I, 391). ‘Im«d al-D»n says he himself wrote the letter of appointment illustrating the duties of the post for the governorship of the city of Jerusalem and its district as the following: “... serving its interests, looking after its affairs, the restoration of its ®aram and walls, ... and settling its quarters and houses ...” (‘Im«d al-D»n, 299). No doubt that the Ayyubid administration, two years after the city was conquered from the Franks, was still making efforts to settle a Muslim population in it.

To what extent Jerusalem had become an all-Islamic affair might be attested from the widespread protests against al-Mu‘aam’s dismantling of the city’s fortifications in 616/1219 and al-K«mil’s surrendering it to Frederick II in 626/1229. ¶ib³ b. al-Jawz» describes the Muslim response to handing Jerusalem over to the Franks: News of the loss of Jerusalem spread to Damascus, and disaster struck all the lands of Islam. It was so great a tragedy that public ceremonies of mourning were instituted (¶ib³ b. al-Jawz», 432; also cited and trans. by Gabrieli 1969, 273).

In Rama±«n 588/October 1192, shortly after conclusion of the truce with Richard Coeur-de-Lion, ¶al«¯ al-D»n appointed ‘Izz al-D»n Jurd»k al-N‡r», as w«l» of Jerusalem (‘Im«d al-D»n, 318; Ab‡ Sh«ma, II, 205; Muj»r, I, 391). The latter was a former maml‡k of N‡r al-D»n, and a high ranking officer in the Ayyubid army (‘Im«d al-D»n, 77, 238, 242, 316, 334, 374; Ab‡ Sh«ma, II, 119, 179, 187, 192). When ¶al«¯ al-D»n conquered Acre in 583/1187, he appointed him as w«l» of the city (‘Im«d al-D»n, 84). It has been reported that Jurd»k established the Jurd»kiyya Madrasa (590/1194), a ®anaf» madrasa, in Aleppo (Ibn Shadd«d, a’l«q, 275-276). He died in Aleppo in 594/1198 (Ab‡ Sh«ma, dhayl, 13).

These two events marked a severe blow to the prestige and credibility of the Ayyubids. However, Muslim public opinion could not change the course of events and Jerusalem remained under Frankish rule for a decade until 636/1239, when the city was reconquered by alMalik al-Mu‘aam’s son, al-Malik al-N«·ir D«w‡d. One of al-N«·ir’s poets gave an expression to the jubilant Islamic reaction as thus: “The Aq·« Mosque has a habit... When it is desecrated by the infidels, God brings it a n«·ir (defender) / a n«·ir (¶al«¯ al-D»n) who saved it in the first time, and a n«·ir (D«w‡d) who brought back its purity (Ibn Shadd«d, a‘l«q, 226-227).

The name of this figure appears on two dedication inscriptions from Jerusalem. The first is found at the J«mi‘ al-Af±al in Jerusalem, dated to 589/1193, with his title as mutawall» al-¯arb bi-l bayt al-muqaddas, a form of a military governor of the city (van Berchem 1922, 96; RCEA, IX, 1937, 187). The second, which was originally built into the city wall and dated between 588/1192 and 589/1193, mentions his name as the person in charge of the work (Burgoyne and Abu’l-Hajj 1979, 122-123, Pl. XV B, no. XVIII; see Appendix IV: 6). Jurd»k was probably given the full authority to manage the revenues

We may conclude that the rise in the position of Jerusalem as a result of the propagation of jih«d under N‡r al-D»n Zang» and the Ayyubids during the second half of the sixth/twelfth century and the first half of the seventh/thirteenth is an extraordinary phenomenon in the history of Islam. Its status as the third sacred city in Islam was affirmed and remains thus until modern times. By far it is one of the most unique and interesting effects of the Crusades on Islam. 13

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

Kab»r for the iq³«‘ of N«blus, an act aimed at putting his claim over central Palestine (Ibn W«·il, III, 14-15; van Berchem 1922, 98-99; Humphreys 1977, 93-94). Finally, the dispute was settled on the basis that al-Af±al would retain the territories that he had possessed (presumably including Jerusalem) before the crisis, while al-‘Az»z’s two appointed am»rs would share the iq³«‘ of N«blus (Ab‡ Sh«ma, II, 228; Ibn al-‘Ad»m, zubda, III, 131; Humphreys 1977, 96).

of Jerusalem, assuming he looked after its defences and the upkeep of the ®aram and the religious institutions. In addition one-third of the revenues of N«blus were allocated for the needs of Jerusalem, which indicates that the territory of the city and its district (‘amal) could not generate sufficient revenue (Ab‡ Sh«ma, II, 228). However, we are not certain about the boundaries of the district of Jerusalem. At the same time, ¶al«¯ al-D»n appointed ‘Alam al-D»n Qay·ar, one of his military commanders, as w«l» for the district of Hebron, Ascalon, Gaza and D«r‡m (‘Im«d al-D»n, 301; Muj»r, I, 391; Humphreys 1977, 79). If we exclude these territories, as well as the district of N«blus, Jerusalem would remain with a relatively small district.

In 591/1195, al-Af±al rewarded his Kurdish commander ®us«m al-D»n Ab‡’l Hayj«’ al-Hadhb«n», known as alSam»n (“the Obese”) by appointing him as governor of Jerusalem instead of ‘Izz al-D»n Jurd»k, who was given another iq³«‘ (Ab‡ Sh«ma, II, 230; Ibn al-Ath»r, X, 240, 245; Humphreys 1977, 101). This figure was the first commander of ¶al«¯ al-D»n’s ¶al«¯iyya regiment, which played an important role in the defence of Acre. However, when al-Az»z captured Damascus from alAf±al one year later, he dismissed Ab‡’l-Hayj«’, who was assigned to a mission in Baghdad in 593/1197 (Ibn al-Ath»r, 245). Instead, he appointed Shams al-D»n Sungur al-Kab»r to the post (Humphreys 1977, 104). The latter, who was a maml‡k of ¶al«¯ al-D»n, had shared with Maym‡n al-Qa·r» the iq³«‘ of Sidon and N«blus (Humphreys 1977, 78, 96). He remained w«l» of Jerusalem until he died in 594/1198. As a successor al‘Az»z appointed ¶«rim al-D»n Khu³lukh al-’Izz», a former maml‡k of ¶al«¯ al-D»n’s nephew F«r‡khsh«h – the fourth appointment to this post in five years (Humphreys 1977, 108).

Contemporary chroniclers, such as ‘Im«d al-D»n alI·fah«n», who were immersed in the Ayyubid administrative system, used both terms w«l» and muq³a‘ simultaneously. For them they were synonymous terms. In general, the system of iq³«‘ for the Ayyubids of Syria, as for their Saljuq and Zang»d predecessors, was an administrative mechanism aimed at ensuring an adequate financial base for an effective military machine (see Humphreys 1977, 371-375). Simultaneously with Jurd»k’s appointment, ¶al«¯ al-D»n assigned the jurisdiction and the supervision of the waqf properties in the city to the q«±» Bah«’ al-D»n Y‡s‡f b. R«fi‘ b. Tam»m (‘Im«d al-D»n, 396). Ab‡ Sh«ma reports that the am»r ‘Alam al-D»n Sulaym«n b. Jandar, a prominent am»r from Aleppo (d. 586/1190), served ¶al«¯ al-D»n in Jerusalem as the advisor of the state. This figure advised ¶al«¯ al-D»n to demolish the fortifications of Ascalon in order to invest all the resources in the defence of Jerusalem (Ab‡ Sh«ma, II, 195).

After eight years of internal conflict, in 598/1202, al‘ªdil finally became the unshakeable sultan. A great deal of continuity was maintained in the distribution of iq³«‘s and governorships in south Syria. Damascus, which was made an autonomous principality consisting of much of southern Syria and Palestine in 594/1198, was still ruled by al-Mu‘aam ‘ºs«, al-ªdil’s second son, with the aid of maml‡k am»rs. Jerusalem remained in the hands of ¶«rim al-D»n Khu³lukh al-’Izz». But at some point not later than 601/1204, al-Mu‘aam took up residence in the city and governed it directly with the assistance of one of his am»rs, Shuj«‘ al-D»n Khu³lukh al-Mu‘aam» (Humphreys 1977, 145). We do not know precisely what became of the city’s former governor, ¶«rim al-D»n Khu³lukh al-’Izz».

As is well known, the certain degree of unity that ¶al«¯ al-D»n had been able to maintain among the Ayyubids diminished with his death, and rivalries among his heirs over the state’s territory and sovereignty erupted. Consequently, as this struggle shifted back and forth among the contenders, the governors of Jerusalem were changed frequently. Their brief tenure indicates that the post was not for life, nor a hereditary possession. In the rivalry between ¶al«¯ al-D»n’s sons, al-‘Az»z and al-Af±al, over the sultanate, Jerusalem was at the centre of an odd incident. Sometime late in 589/1193 or early in 590/1194, al-Af±al proposed to hand over Jerusalem to al-‘Az»z, as a gesture of goodwill. Al-‘Az»z was happy to accept the offer but some of al-Af±al’s am»rs in Jerusalem were far less pleased with this proposal, especially the governor of N«blus, Sayf al-D»n ‘Al» ibn A¯mad al-Mash³‡b. One third of the revenues of his iq³«‘ was assigned to Jerusalem to which he had free access (‘Im«d al-D»n, 303). Fearing that al-‘Az»z might reveal his corruption, he wrote to al-Af±al with a suggestion to finance all the needs of Jerusalem and its garrison from the revenues of N«blus alone. Al-‘Az»z responded angrily by naming his am»rs Maym‡n al-Qa·r» and Sungur al-

In principle, the local administration in south Syria and Palestine was assured to al-Mu‘aam ‘ºs«, who was the prince of Damascus, while al-‘ªdil, as a sultan, was in charge of the state affairs as a whole. However, al-‘ªdil was closely involved with the public affairs of Damascus to the point that al-Mu‘aam practised a very limited role in his own principality (Humphreys 1977, 145). This is evident in the architectural projects that al-‘ªdil sponsored in Damascus, particularly the restoration of the city’s fortifications including the citadel and the repair of the Umayyad Mosque. Inscriptions from these monuments show that the men who supervised the 14

JERUSALEM IN THE POLITICAL CONTEXT OF THE AYYUBID STATE

construction work were all al-‘ªdil’s own appointees and reported directly to him. Since the literary sources are scarce, this epigraphic evidence remains a very important source of information on the very direct character of al‘ªdil’s rule in Damascus (Humphreys 1977, 146-149).

been the official charged with the construction, while the later, who was mentioned at the end of the inscription, may have been the site superintendent. The work was carried out “during the reign (f» dawlat) of al-Malik alMu‘aam”.

However, when we turn from Damascus to Palestine, especially Jerusalem, we find traces of al-Mu‘aam’s political and administrative activities during these years. At Mount Tabor (Jabal T«b‡r), south-east of Nazareth, where al-Mu‘aam was responsible for the construction of a new fortress, the first inscription (607/1211) is in the name of his father al-‘ªdil (Battista and Bagatti 1976, 7273; RCEA, X, 44 (no. 3660)). But in later inscriptions (610/1213-612/1215), as work progressed, alMu‘aam’s name was mentioned, indicating his growing autonomy in his domain (Battista and Bagatti 1976, 86105 (nos. 3-9); RCEA, X, 85,100, 106 [ nos. 3721, 3744, 3753] ).

The inscription found on the North Portico of the ®aram esplanade (610/1213) gives the same information as the preceding one, but adds that the construction work was done “during the governorship of (f» wil«yat) the greatest am»r ‘Izz al-D»n ‘Umar b. Yaghmur” (van Berchem 1927, 82-84 (no. 162); RCEA, X, 82-83 (no. 3718, 3719).

From Jerusalem there are twelve inscriptions dating to al‘ªdil’s reign (601/1204-614/1217), which bear the name of al-Mu‘aam. The bulk of those inscriptions come from the ®aram and the city’s fortifications. Four inscriptions, all of which come from the Qubba alNa¯awiyya, a tower in the Citadel, the Mu‘aamiyya Madrasa, and the porch of the Aq·« Mosque, mention that the construction “was ordered by our master, the Sultan, al-Malik al-Mu‘aam”. An even more elaborate formula is used indicating that the construction or restoration work was undertaken “during the reign (f» ayy«m dawlat) of our lord, and our master, the sult«n al-Malik alMu‘aam”, with the full protocol both for al-Mu‘aam and his father al-‘ªdil. It is also incorporated in five inscriptions from the ®aram found at B«b al-N«ir, the Southeast Colonnade, the North Portico, B«b ®i³³a, and the porch of the Aq·« Mosque. This formula implies that the work was done by a person acting in an official capacity as a chief of the community on behalf of the sovereign. By then al-Mu‘aam was already considered as the highest authority in Jerusalem. The title sul³«n, which is frequently used by the Ayyubid princes, carried no great weight at this period.

An inscription from the Ibr«h»m» Mosque in Hebron, dated to 1 Mu¯arram 612/ 2 May 1215, mentions that certain unspecified construction work was undertaken in the shrine by al-Mu‘aam, during the reign of his father al-‘ªdil (RCEA, X, 105-106; ‘Amr, Y. and Ab‡ S«ra, N. 1989, 390-393 (no. 285)).

However, the dedication inscription on Qubbat al-Mi‘r«j, dated to 597/1200-01, mentions only the name of the founder as the am»r isfahsal«r, ‘Uthm«n al-Zanj»l», who was mutawall» (governor) of Jerusalem (1927, 37-38, no. 52; RCEA, IX, 1937, no.3533). Al-Mu‘aam ‘ºs«, whose agent was al-Zanj»l», is not mentioned in the inscription.

In substance these inscriptions reflect the political and administrative character of Ayyubid rule in Palestine, and particularly in Jerusalem, which can be summed up in four points. First, when al-‘ªdil’s name is mentioned, no higher authority or suzerainty is attributed to him but he is identified merely as al-Mu‘aam’s father. Second, alMu‘aam’s own officials and maml‡ks are in charge of the work; no project is associated directly with al-‘ªdil. Third, throughout these inscriptions the use of terms such as “f» ayy«m” or “f» dawlat” indicate the official status of the sovereign, even if a local governor had actually executed the work. Here, the sovereign so named is always al-Mu‘aam ‘ºs«. Finally, most of these inscriptions refer to construction and restoration works in the two ®arams, the sanctity of which had been recognised since the early Islamic period. These works were done by the head of the Muslim community – i.e. alMu‘aam ‘ºs« – who is not only acting as a pious Muslim but also as the official authority, be that the caliph or whatever sultan or sovereign effectively controlled the area.

Two public water projects, ¶ahr»j al-Mu‘aam (607/1210-11) and Sab»l Sha‘l«n (613/1216-17), were indirectly related to al-Mu‘aam ‘ºs«. Their inscriptions mention the person who ordered them to be built, probably the w«l» of the city, as ‘Urwa b. Sayy«r alM‡·il», adding they were erected “by benevolence of (min ni‘mat) our master al-Malik al-Mu‘aam”. Elisséeff believes this phrase implies that the Ayyubid prince donated a sum of money to cover the expenses of construction as an act of piety (1954-55, 4-5).

A succinct summary of al-Mu‘aam’s rule in Jerusalem is given by Humphreys: It becomes clear that in Palestine al-Mu‘aam considered himself an independent ruler. In Damascus his position was nominal, but here he was a figure ultimately responsible for the community’s well-being. The construction activity in Jerusalem mirrored that done in Damascus, but here al-Mu‘aam and his entourage represented the authority of the state (Humphreys 1977, 153).

An inscription from the Dome of the Rock, in fragmentary condition (604/1207-08), mentions the am»r Shuj«‘ al-D»n Khu³lukh b. ‘Abdall«h and (®us«m al-D)»n Qaym«z al-Mu‘aam» (van Berchem 1927, 303-304 (no. 229); RCEA, X, 45 (3630). The former am»r may had 15

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

Following the death of al-‘ªdil in 615/1218, the Ayyubid state was in effect divided between his three eldest sons: al-K«mil Mu¯ammad in Egypt, al-Mu‘aam ‘º s« in south Syria and Palestine, and al-Ashraf M‡s«in north Syria and the J az» ra.Although al-K«mil was recognised as head of the family and subsequently as sultan, alMu‘aam played a decisive role in saving the Ayyubid dynasty at a critical moment against the advent of the Fifth Crusade ( Humphreys 1977, 162-192) . When al-Mu‘aam ‘º s«decided to demolish the walls of J erusalem in 616/1219, he ran into strong local opposition.His two governors there, who protested at this grave step, were his brother al-‘Az» z‘Uthm«n and his ust«dh al-d«r ‘I zzal-D» n Aybeg of Salkhad ( Humphreys 1977, 164) . During his period of independent sovereignty ( 615/1218624/1227) , al-Mu‘aam‘s administration in his principality was characterised by two main factors.First, he introduced a high degree of centralisation in the military provincial administration of the territories under his control.He reduced the power of the great muqta’ s and the non-military officials who controlled much of the land during the earlier part of his father’reign.I nstead he divided his territories between his younger brothers and deputies or mamluks.I n Transj ordan and Palestine, the literary sources refer only to nuww«b ( deputies)of alMu‘aam ( I bn Shadd«d, a’ laq, 60, 74, 80, 88, 100, 133, 152-153, 155; Sib³ b.al-J awz» , 392-393) .However, despite his turbulent and controversial policies, alMu‘aam’ s reign in Damascus was relatively tranquil with no maj or political manoeuvrings, as far as the sources can tell us.

agreement specified that the ®aram with all related sanctuaries and villages around the city were to remain in Muslim hands and be administered by Muslim officials ( Maqr» z» , 206) .I n 638/1239, J erusalem was attacked by al-N«· ir D«w‡d, and while he was destroying the Citadel, the city was occupied by al-malikal-ªdil I Iof Egypt.I t was soon returned to the Franks, together with the possession of the Dome of the Rock, by a treaty concluded between Richard of Cornwall and al-Malikal¶«li¯Ayy¯‡b in 1241 ( Maqr» z» , 272;Prawer 1969-70, I I , 277-87) .However, the Frankish rule over J erusalem came to an end with the invasion of the Khawarizmians in the summer of 643/1244.Thus the city was restored to the Ayyubids and so remained until the death of the last Ayyubid sultan of Egypt, T‡r«nsh«h, in 648/1250.AlK«mil’ s son, al-¶«li¯Ayy‡b, paid a tribute to its sanctity by constructing the Qubbat M‡s«in the ®aram. Demographic Changes / the Population The demography of J erusalem during the Ayyubid period changed dramatically compared with the previous period and this would affect the city for many years to come. Demographic data on J erusalem or any Middle Eastern city prior the Ottoman period are rather scanty and unreliable since they are based largely on historical sources. No reliable figures for the population of J erusalem in the Ayyubid period are available, so only gross estimates based on comparisons are possible.

Second, al-Mu‘aam tried to relaxthe rather puritanical atmosphere that his father had imposed in Damascus and to distance his regime from ostentation and grandeur. However, he reinstated the illegal taxes ( muk‡s)that al‘ªdil had abolished under the pretext that he needed extra money to cover the expenses of the war against the Franks ( Sib³b.al-J awz» , 392, 418) . With al-Mu‘aam’ s death in 624/1227, his son al-N«· ir D«w‡d – who was a weak and inexperienced youth – inherited his principality.Al-K«mil, who in Rama±«n 625/1228, sought the opportunity to seize Damascus and to counter the advancing new crusade headed by FrederickI I , led the Egyptian army to Palestine.He sent military governors to take J erusalem, Hebron and N«blus. The latter became his base from which he conducted his operations against al-N«· ir D«w‡d and the Franks ( I bn W«· il, I V, 228;I bn al-Ath» r, X, 479) . With the surrender of J erusalem to the Franks, under a ten-year agreement between al-K«mil and Frederick in 627/1229, the city witnessed a radical change in its administration.Al-K«mil did not lose sight of the city’ s religious significance for Muslims.Although the city was put under renewed Frankish administration, the 16

At the end of the tenth century, Al-Muqaddas»( 165) ,a native of J erusalem, wrote that the city was “more populous than many a provincial capital”.More than a half century later, Na· ir-»Khusraw ( 22)reported that the city’ s population was around 20,000.During the Frankish capture of the city in 492/1099, some 20,000-30,000 people were slaughtered, taking into consideration that this figure evidently included the refugees who had fled the coastal regions in front of the Frankish advance ( Gil 1992, 827;Prawer 1988, 17) .Later Arab chroniclers speakof even 70,000people massacred, a figure which may have been exaggerated to express the horror of the event ( I bn al-Ath» r, I X, 19;al-Maqr» z» , itti’ «, I I I , 23) . Eviction of Frankish Population Under the Franks ( 493/1099-583/1187) , the demographic structure of the city changed radically.A new population of Latins, native Syrian Christians and other oriental Christian minorities replaced the old Muslim, native Christian and J ewish communities.According to Rabbi Benj amin of Tudela ( 559/1163)the city “. . .contains a numerous population composed of J acobites, Armenians, Greeks, Georgians, Franks and indeed people of all tongues” ( 83) .I n his study on the Latin Kingdom of J erusalem, Prawer estimates the population of the city in the Crusader period at some 20,000-30,000( 1972, 82) . Runciman suggests that there were at least 20,000poor people for whom a fixed ransom was paid when ¶al«¯alD» n conquered J erusalem in 583/1187, in addition to

JERUSALEM IN THE POLITICAL CONTEX T OF THE AYYUBID STATE

many more thousands who were either set free after payment or taken into slavery (II, 465-467). Although these f igures may seem exaggerated, one must take into account the inf lux ofFrankish ref ugees who f led to J erusalem af ter ¶al«¯ al-D» n’ s victory at ®i³ ³ » n in 583/ 1187.

people) in the early seventh/ thirteenth century as the political and economic conditions in the city were signif icantly better (1985, 227). Eastern Christians

Muslims Following the capitulation ofthe city andthe eviction of the Frankish population, ¶al«¯al-D» n began a long-term policy to repopulate the city as part ofhis plans to restore its Islamiccharacter. ¶al«¯ al-D» n undertook a deliberate policy to install various Arabtribes in andaroundthe city. Al-Arifclaims that the sultan movedthe surrounding tribes ofthe Ban‡ H«rith, Ban‡ Murra, Ban‡ Sa‘ dandBan‡ Zaydinto the city (1961, 176;unf ortunately he cites no source f or this claim). Reporting on the conquest ofthe city, Ab‡ Sh«ma reports that the conquest was witnessed by “great numbers oflearned people as well as craf tsmen f rom Egypt and Syria”(Ab‡ Sh«ma, II, 92). Arab migrants f rom Yemen, IraqandEgypt, as well as J ews andArabs f rom Europe and North Af rica, were reported to have settled in the city (Goitein 1980, 331). Muslim immigrants f rom the Maghribcame to J erusalem af ter its capture by ¶al«¯al-D» n. They settledin the Magh«riba quarter, which became a pious f oundation (waqf ) during the rule ofal-Af ±al ‘ Al» , ¶al«¯al-D» n’ s son, in Damascus (Muj » r, II, 46). The city receivedmany ref ugees, Muslim andJ ewish, who f ledf rom Ascalon when its f ortif ications were destroyedby order of¶al«¯al-D» n in 587/ 1191. The Geniza letters f rom this period repeatedly speak ofa community of‘ As«qila in J erusalem (Goitein 1980, 331). Under the sultanates of¶al«¯al-D» n andal-ªdil andthe governorship ofal-Mu‘ aam ‘ º s«, J erusalem enj oyeda periodofgrowth. The relative political andstability at the endofsixth/ twelf th century andmore particularly at the beginning of the seventh/ thirteenth century attracted waves ofmigration that enabledit to recover f rom past ravages. Indeed, the reopening ofthe Islamicplaces of pilgrimage, the numerous construction proj ects, andthe establishment ofpious endowments attractedpeople f rom various parts ofthe Ayyubid domains and elsewhere. However, we do not know how the city was gradually repopulatedunder the early Ayyubids since the literary, archaeological anddocumentary sources provide us only with scanty inf ormation. Furthermore, there are no ref erences to population f igures ofthe city during this period. The f irst reliable account ofJ erusalem’ s population is the census reports that are based on the Ottoman archives f rom the year 932/ 1525-26, and give the f igure of934 households (Lewis 1955, 117-127). On the basis ofthis f igure, Schaef er calculates there were about 4700people in J erusalem during the middle ofthe 16th century, and thus estimates there were one third more (about 5200 17

The Eastern or OrthodoxChristians andJ acobites were allowedto stay in the city in return f or payment ofthe j iz ya tax (Ab‡ Sh«ma, II, 115;Muj » r, I, 331;Goitein 1980, 330;Runciman 1952, II, 467). Ab‡ Sh«ma relates that “thousands [ ofChristians]remained in the city of J erusalem andits vicinity, workedthe landandplanted vineyards and soon harvested f ruits” (115). A similar situation developedin Nablus where ¶al«¯al-D» n “made peace with part ofthe inhabitants [ Eastern Christians]and against the payment ofthe j iz ya tax, which they obligated themselves to pay in the f uture, he lef t them the right to use their lands and buildings (Ab‡ Sh«ma, II, 88). It seems that Eastern Christians, with rare cases, had no particular allegiance to the Franks who accusedthem of receiving bribery f rom ¶al«¯ al-D» n, or even instigated him to attack the Latin kingdom (Prawer 1988, 65, n. 3). ¶al«¯al-D» n’ s policy, as that ofhis predecessor N‡r alD» n Zang» , aimedat winning over the Eastern Christians in Crusader cities and gave his campaigns against the Franks the image ofa war to restore the status quo. It should be noted here that in many cities the Eastern Christians constituteda signif icant part ofthe population. In J erusalem, f or instance, the large north-eastern quarter ofthe city, the so-called Juiverie (the f ormer J ewish quarter), was inhabited by Christian Syrians (Prawer 1988, 65, n. 4). The Copts andEthiopians claim to have receivedDair alSultan (the f ormer conventual buildings of the Augustinian canons, to the east ofthe Holy Sepulchre) f rom ¶al«¯al-D» n, though neither community is attested there f or certain bef ore the Ottoman period(Cust 1929, 30-33). ¶al«¯ al-D» n also received an embassy f rom Georgia in 1192, f ollowing which Queen Thamar sent f unds f or restoring monasteries throughout the Holy Land – most notably the Monastery ofthe Cross, j ust to the west ofthe OldCity ofJ erusalem (Pringle 1998, II, 34) Jews There are no direct accounts in the literary sources illustrating ¶al«¯al-D» n’ s attitude to the J ews in Palestine andJ erusalem in particular. But it seems they benef ited f rom his policy ofrestoring the status quo in J erusalem and came to the city along with the new Muslim inhabitants (Prawer 1988, 69, n. 12). It is quite plausible that J ews were encouragedto settle in the city af ter the Franks hadprohibitedthem f rom doing so. Al-®ar» z» , a J ewish poet f rom al-Andalus (Spain) who visitedJ erusalem in ca. 614/ 1217, tells us that there were three J ewish communities: Frankish, Maghrib» and Palestinian (Prawer 1988, 69, n. 15). Each community hadits own congregation, customs, native language and

AY Y U B ID JE R U SAL E M :AN AR C H IT E C T U R AL AND AR C H AE O L O G IC AL ST U D Y

liturgy, with tensions arising between Eastern and Frankish ( European)J ews ( Prawer 1988, 84) .According to a Geniza letter sent f rom Alexandria, in 608/ 1211, money was collected in the J ewish community f or paying of fa loan f rom the w«l»( governor)ofJ erusalem f or the restoration ofan “old synagogue known as that ofRabi Sa‘ «diya Hakkohen, known as the son ofthe Yemenite of blessed memory”( Goitein 1980, 3335, I I .78;quoted by Prawer 1988, 75, n.34) .From another Geniza letter, dated ca.592/ 1196, we learn that a certain J ew by the name ofAb‡ Zikhr»was the physician ofalMalik alMu‘ aam and ofalMalikal‘ Az» z, the nephew and the son respectively of¶al«¯alD» n( Goitein 1980, 325;cited by Prawer 1988, 74, n.33) . Goitein suggests that the migration oflearned J ews f rom France attested f or the period ca.607/ 1210612/ 1215in the Geniza letters “proves that Ayyubid rule at the time must have had a reputation ofan orderly government able to guarantee the saf ety off oreigners ( Goitein 1986, 331) . Process of Depopulation The stability and prosperity ofthe city was once again interrupted 32years af ter ¶al«¯alD» n conquered it.AlMu‘ aam ‘ º s«’ s decision to demolish strategicsections ofthe city’ sf ortif ications in Dhu’ l ®ij j a 615/February 1219created panicand political insecurity f or the local population.The maj ority ofthe inhabitants, af raid to stay in an unf ortif ied city in the f ace ofthe Frankish threat, sought ref uge in Egypt or in other parts ofPalestine and Syria; many J ews moved to Acre, where a J ewish community had f lourished ( Prawer 1988, 264) .But when it became clear that the Frankish army, which has been def eated in Egypt, was not in a position to take the city, some ofthose who had lef t began to return.This is shown by a number ofGeniza letters sent f rom J erusalem by J ewish immigrants f rom France, dating between 618/ 1221 and 627/ 1229 ( Prawer 1988, 86, n.81, 82) . While the Arabicliterary sources were silent about what happened in J erusalem during the f ollowing decade, we may assume that the city’ s population was severely depleted.

peacef ully relinquished to the Franks, another change in the demography ofthe city took place but on a much smaller scale this time. During the renewed, but shortlived, Frankish domination in J erusalem ( 627/ 1229642/ 1244) , the city remained underpopulated.I t seems that only a small number of Frankish inhabitants returned to the city, since the treaty did not permit the Franks to ref ortif y it.No ref erences in the literary sources are available f or the f ate of the already depleted Muslim community ofthe city.The f act that the ®aram alShar» fand the I slamic holy places remained in Muslim hands indicates some sort ofMuslim presence in the city.During this period, the seat ofthe q«±» , the representative ofMuslim authority in J erusalem, was in alB» ra, near R«mall«h ( Prawer 1970, Paris, I I , 199) .However, Muslims and J ews, according to a Geniza letter f rom 634/ 1236, were not permitted to enter the city with the exception ofthe ®aram ( Goitein 1986, 331) .A f urther development occurred when the Syrian Ayyubids reached an agreement with the Franks whereby the Muslims were also denied access to the ®aram area ( Kedar 1972, 88) . When the Egyptian Ayyubids, aided by their Khawarizmian allies, reconquered the city in Rab» ‘I 642/ August 1244, the Frankish population was massacred and the city was once again depopulated.Political unrest as a result ofthe inf amous struggle between the two branches ofthe Ayyubid dynasty contributed to the state ofhavocin J erusalem.At the same time, the Mongol threat became imminent as they ransacked villages and towns in central Palestine, including N«blus, Hebron and 15 even Gaza ( Maqr» z» , 98) . I n 667/ 1268, seven years af ter the Mongols were def eated by the Mamluks at ‘ Ayn J «l‡t, Nahmanides, a J ewish scholar living in J erusalem, wrote in a letter to his son in Spain that: . . .Despite the ruin, she [ J erusalem]is goodly indeed and her population is near two thousands, and among them about three hundred Christians . . . and there are no children ofI srael therein, because since the coming ofthe Tartars they ran away and some were killed by the sword . . .( Prawer 1988, 252) .

Political instability deteriorated as the struggle between the two ( Egyptian and Syrian)branches ofthe Ayyubid dynasty intensif ied.I n 626/ 1229, when J erusalem was

15

The possibility that J erusalem may have been captured by the Mongols in 658/ 1260should be explored, see Kedar 1972, 9091.

18

CHAPTER 4

ARCHITECTURALCHANGES IN JERUSALEM UNDER THEAYYUBIDS

Introduction Al though the eightyeight year l ong Frankish occupation was a rel ativel y short episode in the l ong and rich historyof Jerusal em,manytopographicaland sociopol iticalchanges took pl ace within the city’ s wal l s.Within that period,architecturalchanges were marked by a change of function of some existing buil dings to adapt them to new purposes and by the erection of new ones to serve the needs of the new rul ers and settl ers.Those changes,neverthel ess,did not al ter the generalphysicalfeatures of the city which remained to a l arge extent as they were before 492/ 1099,but theybrought a new styl e of architecture and decorative arts to suit the tastes of the new inhabitants. The sociopol itical changes were characterized by the settl ement of a compl etel y new Frankish popul ation in the cityand the introduction of a new pol itical ,administrative and social organizational system. Once again, after its conquest by ¶al «¯ al D» n in 583/ 1187,Jerusal em witnessed drastic changes in some aspects of its topography,demography,administration and socioeconomic l ife.A generaloutl ine of these changes is necessary and it wil lbe considered in this chapter. After capturingthe city,¶al «¯al D» n kept his garrison encamped outside the city. From this position he l ooked after its affairs ( Ab‡ Sh«ma,96) .During the month of his stay ( 27 Raj ab25 Sha‘ b«n 583/231 October 1187) ,he was ful l y conscious of the urgent necessity to consol idate the city’ s fortifications in order to confront anyFrankish attacks.But for the time beingthe defeat of the Frankish forces in Pal estine was so immense that there was no immediate threat to Jerusal em.The city’ s defences coul d wait,for there were other pressingrel igious and administrative tasks to perform.Natural l y the first priority was the hol y precinct of the ®aram al Shar» f. Sanctification and Restoration of the ®aram The essentialtheme of the propaganda campaign for jih«d against the Franks repeatedl y emphasized that Jerusal em shoul d be an Isl amic city. Once it was reconquered, the Ayyubids – ¶al «¯ al D» n and his descendants –did not spare anyeffort in makingthe city worthy of its cel ebrated position as the third hol iest Isl amic city.

19

Immediatel y after Jerusal em was taken on Friday 27 Raj ab 583/2 October 1187,¶al «¯ al D» n began an extensive programme of restoration and reisl amisation of the city.His ul timate aim was the el imination of the ChristianFrankish character of the city, which had prevail ed for more than three generations,and the return of its Isl amic character. As might be expected,this proj ect began with the sanctification of the ®aram,in order to prepare it for the renewed Isl amic worship.Various measures were taken to remove al lstructuraladditions and decorations made by the Templ ars and the Augustinian canons during their occupancy in the area,especial l y in the Dome of the Rock and the Aq·«Mosque ( de Vogue 1860,266291;Enl art 1925,207224;Boase 1977,8691) . The first symbol ic but rather dramatic act tookpl ace at the Dome of the Rock which had served as the Templ um Domini ( Templ e of the Lord)duringCrusader times ( Vincent and Abel1914,917983) .On the first daywhen the Musl ims entered the citya l arge gil ded cross was removed from the topof the dome ( Bah«’al D» n,66;Ibn al Ath» r,X,157;Ibn W«·il ,II,217) .Ab‡ Sh«ma reports that ¶al «¯al D» n sent this cross among other trophies to the Abbasid cal iph in Baghdad,where it was buried in front of a gate into the city ( Ab‡ Sh«ma,II,139) .Inside the Dome of the Rockitsel f,al l Christian symbol s such as icons,figurative images and inscriptions,incl udingan al tar and a smal lgil ded dome with marbl e col umns,were taken down and destroyed; a marbl e pavement which covered the Rockin Crusader times,in order to prevent devoted Christian pil grims from chopping pieces out of it,was al so demol ished ( ‘ Im«d al D» n,5051;Ab‡ Sh«ma,II,113;Ibn al Ath» r, X,158;Ibn W«·il ,II,229) .The Rockhad al readybeen surrounded bywroughtiron gril l es earl ier in the sixth/ twel fth century during the time of the Augustinian canons of the Templ um Domini.This woul d in effect have formed a chancelscreen separatingthe sanctuary from the ambul atoryaround it.Much of this screen was stil lin pl ace in the nineteenth century,and one or two smal lpieces of it remain insit u.Other panel s are today in the Isl amic Museum of the Haram al Sharif.The design may be paral l el ed by other exampl es of Romanesque wroughtiron worksurvivingin the West ( Enl art 1925,II,21011) . The restoration work in the Dome of the Rock was assigned to the f aq» h °i«’al D» n ‘ º s«al Hakk«r» ,who

AYYUBID JERUSALEM:AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

FIG.2 MAPSHOW ING DISTRIBUTION OFAYYUBID BUILDINGS IN THE OLD CITY constructed iron grilles16 around the rock (Ibn W«·il, II, 229). It should be noted that al-Hakk«r» was the first w«l» of Jerusalem to be appointed by ¶al«¯ al-D»n (see above Chapter 3). It was also reported that ¶al«¯ al-D»n’s nephew and trusted lieutenant, al-Malik al-Muaffar Taq» al-D»n ‘Umar and his followers washed and purified the Dome of the Rock with rose-water, and that ¶al«¯ alD»n’s son, al-Malik al-Af±al, refurbished it with carpets (‘Im«d al-D»n, 52; Ibn W«·il, II, 230). There are indications that some wall mosaics in the Dome of the Rock were restored and a large undated Qur’«nic inscription, made of glass mosaic, was probably fitted during ¶al«¯ al-D»n’s reign. The inscription, which is written with Ayyubid naskh» script, may have replaced a Latin one (van Berchem 1927, 369-371; van Berchem, Marg.,1969, 218, 300, Figs. 361-362; Rosen-Ayalon 1989a, 360-371; see Appendix IV, no. 8).

Many changes took place in the Aq·« Mosque and its vicinity. During the Crusader period the building was more usually called the Palatium Solomonis (e.g. by John of Wuzburg and Theodoric) because it was thought to occupy the site of King Solomon’s palace. It had become a royal palace for the Latin king until it was given to the Templars, who made it their headquarters, adding new structures to it (Theodoric, 30-32; Vincent and Abel 1914, 970; Boase 1977, 8; Hamilton 1949, 48-53). All Crusader alterations, structural additions and the dividing partitions were removed and new Islamic modifications were introduced. The mi¯r«bthat the Templars had blocked by a wall was uncovered. ¶al«¯ al-D»n ordered it to be decorated with marble and a mosaic inscription bearing his name and the date of its restoration 583/1187-88 (‘Im«d al-D»n, 48; Ab‡ Sh«ma, II, 107-108; Ibn alAth»r, X, 157-158; Ibn W«·il, II, 217; van Berchem 1927, 403-404; Appendix III, no. 2).

16

These grilles have survived and are now kept in the Islamic Museum of the Haram al-Sharif

20

ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES IN JERUSALEM UNDER THE AYYUBIDS

It took ¶al«¯ al-D»n’s companions and soldiers nearly a week of tremendous effort to achieve their sacred task at the ®aram. They finished just in time for the following Friday prayers (4 Sha‘b«n 583/9 October 1187) when the whole enclosure was crowded with Muslim worshippers for the first time in almost nine decades (Little 1989, 177178). Because of the triumphant and historic event, there was substantial competition among the ‘ ulam«’as to who would deliver the khu³ ba (sermon). From the various contenders ¶al«¯ al-D»n selected the Q«±» Mu¯y» al-D»n b. Zak», a young Sh«fi‘» judge from Aleppo (‘Im«d alD»n, 49; Ab‡ Sh«ma, II, 109). D. P. Little sums up the significance of this sermon: ... In any case the sermon does provide an eloquent résuméof the status of Jerusalem in the eyes of ¶al«¯ al-D»n and his spiritual advisors of the image of the city they wish to propagate among Muslims... The khu³ ba consists of an enumeration of the reasons why Jerusalem is a holy place to Muslims, praise for its deliverers, and an exhortation for continued prosecution of Holy War against the Franks (Little 1989, 177). The most obvious achievement of the Ayyubids in Jerusalem was the “re-islamisation” of the city after nearly nine decades of Christian-Frankish control. ¶al«¯ al-D»n and his successors, who saw themselves as the new champions of Orthodox Sunn» Islam, regarded their deeds as a pious sanctification. And indeed, their consecration of the ®aram eventually resembled the original Umayyad transformation of the site into an Islamic holy place. In this respect Ibn al-Ath»r says:

FIG. 3 MAP SHOWING AYYUBID DEFENCES AROUND THE CITY WALL

A magnificent minbar was brought from Aleppo to Jerusalem by ¶al«¯ al-D»n and was installed next to the restored mi¯r«b, to mark the renewal of Muslim worship there. This minbar, a remarkable masterpiece in the art of wood carving, was ordered by N‡r al-D»n Zang» in Aleppo in 564/1168-69, and was completed after his death in 570/1174 (van Berchem 1927, 393-402; see Appendix III, no. 1). He vowed that it would be placed in the Aq·« Mosque after the liberation of Jerusalem by the Muslims (al-Tabbaa 1986, 231-235).

“... So Islam was restored there in full freshness and beauty” (Ibn al-Ath»r, X, 158; cited by Gabrieli 1969, 145-147). In the restoration of the ®aram, the Ayyubids utilized a large quantity of Crusader architectural spolia which was incorporated in many Islamic monuments in the ®aram. Elsewhere in the city, many religious buildings were established in former Crusader structures.

The whole ®aram precinct, including the Dome of the Rock and the Aq·« Mosque, was washed and purified with rosewater as a measure of re-sanctification. The two structures were refurbished with new lamps and carpets and provided with volumes of the Qur’«n (‘Im«d al-D»n, 51). Such ceremonial rituals were carried out by various members of the Ayyubid dynasty, performing meritorious acts in line with sacred Islamic traditions. As ‘Im«d alD»n puts it:

Once the restoration of the ®aram area was completed, the Ayyubid conquerors set out to re-Islamize the rest of the city and to develop it in accordance with the needs of the Muslims. This task was facilitated by the departure of the Frankish Christians of Jerusalem. Many Crusader ecclesiastical and secular buildings were either demolished or converted for Muslim purposes.

...The Ayyubid sovereigns vied with each other in the liberality of the good works they performed here, assuring themselves of the love of men’s hearts and the gratitude of their tongues (‘Im«d alD»n, 52; cited by Gabrieli 1969, 171).

After ¶al«¯ al-D»n’s death in 589/1193, his Ayyubid successors continued to pay attention to the ®aram because of its sacred status. This was reflected in further restoration works to the existing Islamic monuments and the construction of new ones. 21

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

FIG. 4 PLAN OF THE Hҕ ARAM AL SHARIF (AFTER CATHERWOOD IN FERGESSON 1867)

caused. ¶al«¯ al-D»n was reported to have restored vulnerable stretches of the city walls, including digging a ditch (‘Im«d al-D»n, 289; Ibn al-Ath»r, X, 211; Ibn Kath»r, XII, 347). His restoration work was carried out between 1 Dh‡’l ®ijja 587/19 December 1191 and Rama±«n 588/September-October 1192, with the financial participation of several of his am»rs and members of the Ayyubid family. As additional funding for this project, ¶al«¯ al-D»n endowed one-third of the revenues of the iq³«‘ of Nablus for Jerusalem (Ibn W«·il, III, 15; Humphreys 1977, 94). He himself apparently supervised the work, in which two thousand Frankish prisoners and local workers took part (‘Im«d al-D»n, 289). As the chronicler ‘Im«d al-D»n al-I·fah«n» explains:

Rebuilding of the City’s Defences In a time of great political turmoil and the ongoing threat of a Frankish counter attack, the restoration of the city’s defences had to take a high priority. Following an established pattern of creating a new centre of administration and defence, such as in Damascus and Cairo, ¶al«¯ al-D»n rebuilt significant stretches of the city walls and made some changes in the citadel. This scheme of fortification which was intended to provide security went hand in hand with his great efforts to attract a Muslim population to settle in the city. During the siege, which lasted more than two weeks (between 9 Rajab-27 Rajab 583/ 20 September-2 October 1187), the walls of the city remained generally intact, except the north-eastern section where little damage was

... He [ ¶al«¯ al-D»n]divided the wall among his sons, his brother al-Malik al-‘ªdil and his am»rs. 22

ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES IN JERUSALEM UNDER THE AYYUBIDS

He rode every day to encourage (people) in the cons truction work.The people went out with him to carry s tones to the cons truction s ites . He hims elf , hisf ollowersand princes , the ‘ulam«’, q«±» s , ·‡f » s , the s oldiersand the populace would do the s ame. . .He built in a s hort time what would have been built in years . . .(‘ I m«d alD» n, 289). I n the s ame res pect, I bn alAth» r mentionsthat ¶al«¯alD» n as s igned each am» ra tower to build and placed his s on alAf ±al in charge ofthe northeas tern s ection ofthe wall between B«bal‘ Am‡d (the present Damascus Gate) and B«bal Ra¯ma (the present Gol den Gate) (I bn Ath» r, X,211).On 28 Dh‡’ l®i j j a 587/16 J anuary 1192,a group off i f tystonecutters f rom Mosul ,whowere sent by i ts governor,at«beg ‘ I zzal D» n Mas‘ ‡d,arri ved i n J erusal em totake part i n the proj ect.Duri ngthei r stayof hal fa year,theyworked on deepeni ngand extendi ngthe rockcut di tch and on constructi ng secti ons ofthe wal l and towers between B«bal ‘ Am‡d (Damascus Gate) and B«b Mi ¯r«b D«w‡d (the present B«b al Khal » lor J af f a Gate) al ongthe northern and the northwestern si des of the ci ty(‘ I m«d al D» n,289;I bn al Ath» r,X,211).Ab‡ Sh«ma reports that ¶al «¯al D» n “turned the ci tywal lover the summi t of¶ahy‡n (Si on),whi ch thus he j oi ned to J erusal em, and he surrounded the whol e ci ty wi th di tches”(Ab‡ Sh«ma,I I ,205). Addi ti onal testi moni es to the i ncl usi on of the Nab» D«w‡d area (Mount Si on) wi thi n the wal l s at thi s ti me are provi ded by a nearcontemporary hi stori call i terary sources.The f i rst i s an account by a German pi l gri m, presumabl yBurchard ofMount Si on,whowrote between ca.673/ 1274and 682/ 1283):“. . .From that same hei ght ofOl i vet we saw Mount Si on,whi ch i s now i ncl uded i n the wal l s ofthe ci ty”(Laurent 1873,188).The second i s a map prepared by the I tal i an travel l er Mari no Sanudo (721/ 1321) whopossi bl ydi d not vi si t the ci tyat al l .The map,whi ch does not necessari l yref l ect the actual i tyof the ti me,shows a l i ne ofwal laround Mount Si on (Bahat 1987,295298). ¶al «¯ al D» n’ s f orti f i cati on proj ect i s wel lref l ected i n f our i nscri pti ons whi ch have been f ound i n and around the ci ty. The f i rst and most f amous i nscri pti on i s i ncorporated i n secondaryuse i ntothe Ottoman bui l di ng ofQubbat Y‡suf(1092/ 1681),at the south end ofthe Dome ofthe Rockpl atf orm (van Berchem 1927,2331, no.150).I t ref ers tothe constructi on ofa wal land the di ggi ngofa di tch byorder of¶al «¯al D» n,duri ngthe governorshi p ofthe am» rSayfal D» n ‘ Al »b.A¯mad, under the supervi si on ofthe am» rN«· i r al D» n al ²unb« al Sayf » ,i n the year 587/ 1191(see Appendi xI V,no.3). The second i nscri pti on menti ons the constructi on ofa wal lunder the supervi si on of¶al «¯al D» n’ s son,al Mal i k al §«hi r Gh«z»(Burgoyne and Abu’ lHaj j1979,no.15; see Appendi xI V,no.4).The thi rd i nscri pti on ref ers to the constructi on ofa tower under the supervi si on ofthe am» r S«bi q al D» n ‘ Uthm«n b.Mu¯ammad al Maj d» 23

(Burgoyne and Abu’ lHaj j1979,no.16;see Appendi x I V, no. 5). The f ourth i nscri pti on deal s wi th the constructi on ofa wal lunder the governorshi p ofthe am» r lHaj j1979,no. ‘ I zzal D» n J urd» k(Burgoyne and Ab‡’ 18;see Appendi xI V,no.6).The l atter f i gure was appoi nted by¶al «¯al D» n as w«l »ofJ erusal em and has been i denti f i ed i n another dedi cati on i nscri pti on f rom the J «mi ‘al Af ±al(589/ 1193) as mutawal l »al ¯ar b bi ’ lbayt al muqaddas(mi l i tarycommander ofJ erusal em). Recent archaeol ogi calexcavati ons around the ci tyhave reveal ed vari ous secti ons ofthe Ayyubi d f orti f i cati ons, some ofwhi ch are attri butabl e to¶al «¯al D» n’ s work.A smal lstretch ofthe Ayyubi d wal laround Mount Si on, wi th three towers (Fi g.4: 13),bui l t wi th many reused stones beari ngCrusader di agonaldressi ng,as wel las a di tch whi ch has an ashl ar quarryassoci ated wi th i t,were uncovered by Bl i ss and Di cki e (1898,6875,General Pl an I ).The wal l ,whi ch most probabl y was bui l t by ¶al «¯ al D» n, was constructed i n a seri es of short segments that zi gzagged around the eastern sl ope ofthe hi l land mayhave j oi ned the l i ne ofthe Fati mi d/ Crusader wal lsomewhere west ofthe Ottoman Sul phur Tower (BurjKi br» t) (Wi ghtman 1993,274275,f i g.85). Al though the l i terary sources attest to ¶al «¯ al D» n’ s el aborati on ofrockcut di tches al ongthe northern ci rcui t ofthe ci tywal l ,archaeol ogi calexpl orati ons have shown that vari ous repai rs and modi f i cati ons i ncl udi nga sl opi ng revetment to the scarp ofthe di tch were carri ed out duri ng the Ayyubi d peri od (Wi ghtman 1993,275277). Excavati ons i n the northwestern angl e ofthe ci tywal l s have shown that Qal ‘ at J al l ‡t (Gol i ath’ s Castl e or Tancred’ s Tower), whi ch was ori gi nal l y a Fati mi d/ Crusader constructi on, remai ned i n use throughout the Ayyubi d peri od,perhaps wi th mi nor modi f i cati ons (Bahat 1992;Wi ghtman 1993,252,f i g.78 A:2).The wal lnorth and west ofthe tower,i ncl udi nga rockcut di tch rel ated toi t,was al sorebui l ti n Ayyubi d ti mes (Fi g.4:16),as has been shown bythe excavati ons carri ed out byBahat and BenArioutsi de the present ci ty wal l(1972,119121;1975,109110; Wi ghtman 1993, 276,f i g.86).The ci tywal lbetween Qal ‘ at J al l ‡t and B«b Mi ¯r«bD«w‡d (J af f a Gate) remai ned i n use throughout the Ayyubi d peri od.A secti on ofthi s wal lwas uncovered i n recent excavati ons (Fi g.4:17). ¶al «¯al D» n was reported tohave i sl ami sed the Crusader ci tadel(Fi g.4:4) byrepai ri ngthe mosque on top ofBurj D«w‡d (Tower of Davi d) and by openi ng the i nner courtyard toMusl i ms as a pl ace ofprayer (‘ I m«d al D» n, 53;Ab‡ Sh«ma,I I ,114).Neverthel ess,i t seems that he di d not i ntroduce anysi gni f i cant changes tothe structure. On the whol e ¶al «¯ al D» n’ s restorati on ofthe ci ty’ s def ences was never put totri al .The anti ci pated Franki sh counterattack di d not materi al i ze.A peace treaty was si gned between ¶al «¯al D» n and Ri chard CoeurdeLi on, head ofthe Franki sh f orces,between Raml a and J af f ai n the year 588/ 1192.¶al «¯al D» n di ed shortl yaf ter that i n

AY Y U B ID JE R U SAL E M :AN AR C H IT E C T U R AL AND AR C H AE O L O G IC AL ST U D Y

Damascus (589/1193). After several years of rivalry among¶al«¯alD» n’ s heirs, his brother al‘ ªdil emerged as the sole Ayyubid sultan in Egypt and Syria in 598/1202. He appointed his son alMalik alMu‘ aam ‘ º s«as viceroy of southern Syria and Palestine, as we have seen. The constant Frankish threat to recapture J erusalem motivatedalMu‘ aam, shortly after his appointment, to begin two fortification proj ects. The first was the constructionof a strongfortress onJ abal al²‡r (Mount Tabor) in the north of Palestine (Battista and Bagatti 1976). The second was the rebuilding of J erusalem’ s defences ona muchlarger scale thanduringthe time of ¶al«¯alD» na decade before, as well as the construction of other religious and public buildings in the city. AlMu‘ aam perceivedJ erusalem as a holy city that he was privilegedto defendwithout any concession. Under the strongleadershipof his father al‘ ªdil, he receivedthe necessary political backing to dedicate much of his energies to strengthening the city’ s fortifications. I n striking contrast, contemporary historians are silent regarding alMu‘ aam’ s proj ect, including his biographer Sib³b. alJ awz»who mentions in detail his other buildingactivities. I nstead, informationconcerning alMu‘ aam’ s fortification work is primarily based on the accumulated epigraphic material and recent archaeological excavations aroundthe city, whichtestify to the spectacular dimensions of alMu‘ aam ‘ º s«’ s military architecture inJ erusalem. There are three inscriptions from his time whichrefer to the constructionof various segments andelements of the fortifications during the years 599/1202 and 609/1212, and possibly up to the eve of the Fifth Crusade in 614/1217. The first and the earliest inscription (although partly broken), dated 599/1202, was uncovered near the present western wall of the city, about 160 m. north of its southwestern corner (Broshi 1987, 299302;see AppendixI V, no. 14). The inscription which represents the earliest possible date for the refortificationprogramme deals probably with the construction of part of this wall. Apart from the name of alMu‘ aam, two other names are mentioned inthe inscription:Ab‡ Man·‡r Qaym«z, under whose auspices the work was carried out, and Khu³ lukh al‘ ªdil»who supervised the actual construction work. The first figure appears intwo other inscriptions found in the Dome of the Rock (early seventh/thirteenth century ?) andthe Qubba alNa¯awiyya (604/120708). His full name is the am»r ®us«m alD» nAb‡ Man·‡r Qaym«z b. ‘ Abdull«h alMu‘ aam» , who served as w«l » of Jerusalem under alMu‘ aam (van Berchem 1927, 62, no. 155 and303, no. 229). The name of the secondfigure appears also onthe same inscriptionfrom the Dome of the Rock. He is the am»r Shuj «‘alD» n Khu³ lukhb. ‘ Abdull«halMu‘ aam» , who (after being upgradedto the rankof anam»r) assistedalMu‘ aam in governing Jerusalem not later than 601/1204 (van Berchem 1927, 303, no. 229;Humphreys 1977, 145). 24

The secondinscription, datable to 609/1212, mentions the constructionof a tower, probably the same tower inthe southern wall in whose ruins the inscription (in two fragments) was found. Sucha tower may have defendeda gate locatedabout 100m. east of the present B«balNab» D«w‡d(SionGate). The inscriptionmentions the names of three figures who were involved in the construction work:first, the Sultan alMu‘ aam who ordered the work; second, ‘ I zz alD» n‘ Umar b. Yaghmur alMu‘ aam»who was probably responsible for raisingthe funds andthe materials;andKhu³ lukhalMu‘ aam»(as on the previous inscription), the mi ‘ m«r (the master builder or architect) who supervised the actual construction work (Sharon 1977, 182193;Walls and Abu’ l Haj j1980, 27, no. XXI ;Wightman1993, 278279; See AppendixI V, no. 16). The name of the am»r ‘ I zzalD» nYaghmur alMu‘ aam» , who was identifiedas w«l » (governor) of J erusalem, appears onanother inscription datable to 610/121314, found at B«b al‘ Atm, commemorating the restoration of the North Portico of the ®aram (vanBerchem 1927, 140, no. 162). Khu³ lukh, who possesses the only title of mi ‘ m«r in the Ayyubid architecture of J erusalem, was probably anexpert inthe constructionof suchfortifications. The third inscription dated to 610/121314, which is foundinthe mosque of the Citadel (not i ns i t u), refers to the constructionof a tower inthe Citadel. Accordingto the inscription, alMu‘ aam ordered the work, which was executed by the two same figures, Yaghmur and Khu³ lukh(vanBerchem 1922, 131132, no. 43). Anadditional fragmentary anddamagedinscriptionwas uncoveredi ns i t uinthe foundations of the southwestern corner of the Mosque Tower by C. N. J ohns duringhis excavations in the Citadel of J erusalem in 1935 and is now in the Palestine (Rockefeller) Archaeological Museum (No. 42. 264;number cited by Sharon 1977, 186). This inscription, whichis unpublished, dates to 14 ¶afar 600/ 3 November 1203 andprobably deals witha construction of a wall or tower by alMu‘ aam (see AppendixI V, no. 15). The discovery of the first two inscriptions in archaeological excavations amongst the ruins of two towers, provides us withcorroborative evidence for the destruction of the city’ s defences by alMu‘ aam in 616/1219. I n19731976, excavations aroundthe southwesternangle of the Ottomancity wall were conducted by M. Broshi (1976, 1994). They revealedsegments of the city’ s fortifications dating to various periods, including the remains of four towers, which were attributedto the workof alMu‘ aam onthe basis of the epigraphic evidence andarchitectural similarities (Broshi 1976, 75;Wightman1993, 279). The first tower was foundabout 100m. east of B«balNab»D«w‡d(SionGate) underneaththe Ottomanwall, at the end of the Late Byzantine Cardo (Fig. 4:8). The southern face of the tower was uncovered by Broshi

ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES IN JERUSALEM UNDER THE AYYUBIDS

(1977, 13-17; Wightman 1993, fig. 70:4), while the r emainderof the tower ’ sfoundationsins ide the citywall wasexcavated by Avigad (1983, 251-154, figs. 279:8; 298). Thisisan enor moustower ,s quar e in plan (23 m. x 23 m.) built with lar ge r ough-bos s edblockswith pointpickedmar gins .I n the fallen as hlar sanddebr ison both s ides of the tower , two fr agments of al-Mu‘ aam’ s inscr iption dated 609/ 1212 wer e uncover ed (mentioned above). I n addition, s ever al ar chitectur al elementss uch as vous s oir sandj ambswer e foundon the s outh s ide of the tower , clear lybelonging toa gate (Br os hi 1976, 77; BenDov 1983, 77; Br oshi and Gibson 1994, 154-155; Wightman 1993, 279).

mas s ive tower salong the r epair edFatimid/ Cr us adercity wall andpr acticallyabandoned¶al«¯al-D» n’ sextended wall ar oundthe Nab»D«w‡dar ea.

A s econd tower (Fig. 4:7), with s imilar layout and dimens ions , wasr ecover edunder neath the Ottoman B«b al-Nab»D«w‡d(Sion Gate) (Br oshi andTsafr ir1977, 29, fig. 2; 35, fig. 6; Wightman 1993, 279, fig. 88:3). Fur ther wes t, the foundations of a thir d tower , with a lar ge quantityof fallen as hlar sar ound, wer e foundbelow and outs ide the s outh-wes ter n cor nerof the Ottoman citywall (Fig. 4:6). I t isequallyenor mous(24 m. x24 m.) built with lar ge bos s edblockswith mar gins(Ben-Dov1983, 68, plan: 1; Br oshi and Gibson 1994, 153, fig. 1: 14; Wightman 1993, 279-180, fig. 88: 2; pl. 28.1: 3). A four th towerwasexcavatedalmos t half waybetween the s outh-wes ter n cor nerof thet citywall andthe Citadel to the nor th along the wes ter n line of the pr es ent citywall (Fig. 4:5). I t isbuilt in a s imilarmannerthough s mallerin its dimens ions (17m. along its eas t s ide) (Wightman 1993, 280, fig. 88: 1; pl. 22.2: 3; Br oshi andGibson 1994, 153, fig. 1: 5). I n the r uinsof thistower , al-Mu‘ aam’ s ins cr iption dated599/ 1203, the ear lies t of hisins cr iptions , wasdiscover ed(Br oshi 1987, 299-301, fig. 1).

I n the nor th-easter n and nor ther n sectionsof the city walls the ar chaeological evidence for Ayyubid for tification activityisuncer tain, although excavations r evealedat least thr ee tower swhich couldbe datedas “medieval”. The r emainsof the fir st tower(Fig. 4: 13) ar e situated between the Chur ch of St Anne and the fir st Ottoman tower nor th of B«b al-Asb«³(Lion’ s Gate) (de Saucy 1865, 109; Mauss1888, 47-49, figs. 37, 38). I tsfoundations, which consist of lar ge r oughbossedblockswith point-pickedmar gins, measur e 24.5 m. fr om nor th to south and have been pr eser ved to a height of 8m. overbedr ock(Wightman 1993, 281-282, figs. 87: 2, 88: 9). Although the date of the toweris ambiguous, itsdimensionsand style of masonr y ar e compar able tothe Ayyubidtower sin the south-wester n section of the wall.

The r es ultsof the excavationshave s hown that par tsof the citywall which connectsthes e tower swer er ebuilt by al-Mu‘ aam aswell. The line of the Fatimid/ Cr us ader wall, eas t of the Ayyubid gate-tower , which includes thr ee tower s (Fig. 4:9-11), r emained in us e and was r estor eddur ing the Ayyubidper iod(Ben-Dov1983, 66; Wightman 1993, fig. 76: 6-7; fig. 81: 7-10). The section of the Cr us aderwall between the Ottoman SulphurTower (Fig. 4: 9) andthe Ayyubidtower(Fig. 4: 8) wass till in us e dur ing the Ayyubid times , except for the year s 588/ 1192-599/ 1203, when ¶al«¯al-D» n’ swall ar oundthe Nab» D«w‡d ar ea s er ved as the pr incipal city wall (Wightman 1993, 280, fig. 88: 4-5). However , the r emainderof the wall fur therwes t with itsthr ee Ayyubid tower swaspr obably built 10 m.-20 m. in fr ont of the for merline byal-Mu‘ aam (Wightman 1993, 280, fig. 88: 2-4). Likewis e, the line of the ancient wall between the s outh-wes ter n cor nerof the cityandthe Citadel was r epair eddur ing the Ayyubidper iod(Tushingham 1985, 108; Wightman 1993, 281, fig. 88). One is dr iven to the conclus ion, ther efor e, that alMu‘ aam’ sfor tification s cheme focus ed on the s outhwes ter n s ection of the city wall between the Ottoman SulphurTowerand the Citadel. He pr imar ily ins er ted 25

As mall s ection of an Ayyubid wall oroutwor k was foundin the excavationss outh of the ®ar am (Fig. 4:12). I t extendsnor th-eas t j us t s outh of the pr oj ecting tower nearthe Double Gate ending at the ®ar am wall nearthe Single Gate (Ben-Dov1983, 71, no. 7; 1985, 369-371). On the bas isof itss tr uctur al as s ociation with the Single Gate, Ben-Dovpr oposedan AyyubidorMamlukdate for the wall, but the for meroption s eemsmor e plaus ible (Wightman 1993, 275, fig. 88: 8).

The othertwotower sar e locatedin the nor th wall; one (Fig. 4:14) isunder neath the fir s t Ottoman towerwes t of the nor th-eas ter n cor nerof the cityandthe other(Fig. 4: 15) under liesthe s econdOttoman towerwes t of B«bal‘ Am‡d(DamascusGate) (Wightman 1993, 282, fig. 88: 10, 11). They wer e both uncover ed dur ing clear ance wor ksagains t the citywall in the 1970s , andmeas ur e 17 m. and20 m. in width r es pectively. Des pite the fact that nor epor t of the excavation waspublis hed, theirchar acter of cons tr uction r es emblesin gener al ter msthat of other Ayyubidtower s. I ndeed, al-Mu‘ aam ‘ º s «, who was r emember ed for r ebuilding the s pectacularfor tificationsof J er us alem, als o ir onically or der ed them to be demolis hed. With the advent of the Fifth Cr us ade in 613/ 1217and the fall of Damietta in Egypt in the following yearaftera nine month-s iege, al-Mu‘ aam fear ed a r enewed Fr ankis h attack. Asa pr ecaution, in Mu¯ar r am 615/ Mar ch 1219 he abandoned Pales tine and or der ed the de-for tification of maj ortownsandfor tr es s es , including J er us alem, Tor on (Tibnin), Banyas , SafedandQal‘ at al-²‡r(Mount Tabor ) which hadbegun in the pr eviousyear . I nJ er us alem, al-Mu‘ aam or der edthe dis mantling of the newlyr ebuilt for tificationsof the citydes pite the fier ce oppos ition of the local am»rs . Such a dr amaticact was met with dis may and fearby the city’ spopulation and with outr aged r eactions thr oughout the Mus lim wor ld

AYYUBID JERUSALEM :AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

agreement in 639/ 1241. Af ter three years, the city was f inally reconquered by the Khawarizmians, allies of Sultan al¶«li¯ Naj m alD» n Ayy‡b, in 642/ 1244. The historian Ibn Taghr» bard»reports that al¶«li¯visitedthe city in 646/ 1248and“orderedthe wall to be measured, which came to sixthousanddhir«‘ , andhe orderedthat the tax revenues ofJ erusalem should be spent on its construction”(Ibn Taghr» bard» , V, 359). In view ofthe enormous damage which the city sustained during its recapture f rom the Franks, in 636/ 1239 and 642/ 1244, andthe severe problem ofdepopulation, it was unlikely that any serious f ortif ication work was done to its def ences. The city remainedunf ortif iedf or nearly three centuries until the early tenth/ sixteenth century when its walls were rebuilt by the Ottoman sultan Sulaym«n the Magnif icent.

(van Berchem 1922, 121, 133, n. 3 with bibliography). Ab‡ Sh«ma describes the atmosphere in the city: “On 1 or 7Mu¯arram [ sic] , alMu‘ aam (began to) dismantle the towers andwalls ofJ erusalem in f ear it would be taken by the Franks. The inhabitants reactedwith disorder andf ledto other countries. J erusalem until then was well built and hada large population. In J erusalem there was his brother al‘ Az» z‘ Uthm«n and‘ IzzalD» n Aybak ust«dh ald«r ... There was in the city a terror like that ofJ udgement Day;women andgirls, oldmen andwomen, young men andchildren, all sought ref uge in the Dome ofthe Rock and alAq· « Mosque;they cut their hair andtore their clothes. The mi¯r«b of the mosque was f ull of hair. Convinced that the Franks were coming, these unf ortunates f led, abandoning their goods and ef f ects;they blocked the streets, some ofthem heading toward Egypt, others to Karak or Damascus... A great number off ugitives diedf rom hunger andthirst. No such catastrophe hadstruck Islam” (Ab‡ Sh«ma, Dhayl, 115; cited and translatedby Wightman 1993, 278).

Religious Institutions The Religious Establishment

Despite the dismantling ofthe city walls, J erusalem was not taken immediately by the Franks. However, a decade later in 626/ 1229 it was given to them as part ofa peace treaty signed between alMalik alK«mil ofEgypt and Frederick II. Although the treaty was ambiguously worded, it is generally acceptedamong historians that the Muslims retainedlegal andreligious autonomy in the city andcomplete control ofthe ®aram. On the other hand, the Franks were not permittedto repair the f ortif ications ofthe city (Ibn alAth» r, X, 481;Ibn W«· il, IV, 241). However, there are indications in the Frankish literary sources that certain ref ortif ication work took place, especially at the Citadel andB«b al‘ Am‡d(St Stephen’ s Gate) (citedby Prawer 1975, 210, n. 56;Wightman 1993, 284285, n. 3640). Indeed, archaeological excavations at B«b al‘ Am‡d by Bennett and Hennessy in 1964 and 1965 uncovered substantial remains of the Crusader barbican, which consists ofan outer gateway (Hennessy 1970, 24, f ig. 1, pl. XV; Wightman 1979, 4560; 1993,285, f ig. 82). In 637/ 123940, using as pretext the f act that the Franks hadviolatedthe treaty by repairing the citadel, the son of alMu‘ aam ‘ º s«, alMalik alN«· ir D«w‡d stormed J erusalem andtookit (Ibn Shadd«d, a’ laq, 226233;van Berchem 1922, 25, n. 1, 137 n. 2, cites additional sources). He dismantled the Citadel including the superstructure ofthe BurjD«w‡d(Tower ofDavid) and may have destroyed the barbican in f ront ofB«b al‘ Am‡d, as shown in Bennett’ s and Hennessy’ s excavations. Ayyubidcontrol ofJ erusalem was shortlived, since the city was given once again to the Franks in an ambiguous 26

The Ayyubids adopted a policy ofstrengthening Sunn» j urisprudence in J erusalem. They did not f ollow a unif orm policy concerning the f our rites (madhhabs); each was guidedby his own partisanship andpref erence. ¶al«¯ alD» n, f or instance, f avoured the Sh«f i‘ »legal tradition, alMalikalAf ±al promotedthe M«lik» , andalMu‘ aam ‘ º s«was a staunch ®anaf » . Af ter the recapture ofJ erusalem in 583/ 1187, ¶al«¯alD» n set out to reestablish Islamic worship andlaw. In recruiting j urists, he hadto turn to Egypt andSyria, as there were no local f aq» hs in the city. The f irst Friday khu³ ba in the Aq· «Mosque was delivered by a young Sh«f i‘ »f aq» h (then 33 years old) f rom Damascus, Ab‡’ l Ma‘ «l»b. Zak» , who became q«±»alqu±«t (J udge ofthe J udges) in Damascus (Muj » r, I, 317, 331332;II, 120). For the most important post concerning the restoration of Islamic law in Palestine, ¶al«¯alD» n appointedas q«±» the Sh«f i‘ »j urist f rom Mosul, Bah«’ alD» n Ab‡’ l Ma¯«sin Y‡sufb. Shadd«din 584/ 1188. The latter, the f irst ofa series ofSh«f i‘ »q«±» s, heldthe titles q«±»al‘ askar (J urist of the Army), q«±»alQuds (J urist of J erusalem) and n«ir alawq«f (Superintendant of Endowments) (Muj » r, I, 391; II, 101102, 118). In addition to these f unctions, he taught at the ¶al«¯iyya, the f irst madr asa that ¶al«¯alD» n establishedin J erusalem, which became an important and prestigious centre of Sh«f i‘ »madhhab in the Muslim world. The inspectors (shaykhs) ofvarious Suf »institutions were Sh«f i‘ »f aq» hs. The f irst shaykh ofthe ¶al«¯iyya Khanq«h, f or instance, was Ghanim b. ‘ Al» alAn· «r», a Sh«f i‘ » f rom Nablus (Muj » r, II, 146). Madr asas One ofthe primary elements in Ayyubidreligious policy was the restoration of J erusalem to Islam and the af f irmation ofSunn»Orthodoxy. ¶al«¯alD» n’ s approach

ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES IN JERUSALEM UNDER THE AYYUBIDS

1967, III, 754). The waqf (endowment) was the financial foundation of the madrasa. It provided the income for the construction and the maintenance of the building, and the salaries of the instructers and grants for the students (Elisséeff 1967, III, 759). The w«qif (founder of the waqf) often imposed conditions that related to the appointment of the n«ir (inspector) of the madrasa, the instructors and the madhhab (legal school) which was taught and practiced in the madrasa. N‡r al-D»n, by building a foundation and establishing a waqf in which he appointed fuqah«’s and ‘ulam«’ and providing them an income, set up a system of direct involvement of the ruler and the state in religious affairs. This system was improved by the Ayyubids under ¶al«¯ al-D»n and his successors.

inspired and dictated by his predecessor N‡r al-D»n, was one of allegiance to the Abbasid caliphate in Baghdad and the introduction of the Sunn» legal traditions into the city after an absence of nearly nine decades. An important role in the execution of his scheme was played by the madrasas. The madrasa is the institutionalization of what was originally a common arrangement whereby students gathered around a learned person in order to acquire knowledge. The establishment of this formal institution became a means of acquiring religious merit and was considered to be a pious deed. However, towards the end of the fifth/eleventh century, madrasas became institutionalized state foundations. The earliest of these that were designated for teaching one or more of the four madhhabs of Sunn» Islam (Sh«fi‘», ®anaf», ®anbal», M«lik») originated in the large cities of the eastern Iranian world. In Nish«p‡r for instance, no less than 38 madrasas are recorded, although none have survived (Hillenbrand 1986, 1136). However, there is a consensus among historians that the first madrasa in Islam was alNi«miyya founded by the Saljuq vizier Ni«m al-Mulk in Baghdad ca. 460/1067. Around this time, numerous state-sponsored madrasas were established throughout the Saljuq Empire. The reason behind this sudden spate of building activity, as Hillenbrand points out, is related to the renaissance of Sunn» Orthodoxy led by the Saljuqs after their conquest of Baghdad in 447/1055. Their aim was to counter the propaganda efforts of militant Ism«’il» Sh»‘ism organized by the Fatimids from al-Azhar and other centres (Hillenbrand 1986, 1136). Ibn Jubayr (580/1184) mentions some thirty madrasas in Baghdad, all in the eastern part of the town, the most important being the Ni«miyya (Ibn Jubayr, 299).

The Ayyubids, like the Saljuqs and the Zang»ds, were staunch Sunn» Muslims who continued to promote Orthodox Islam against heresy. This attitude is shown in the encouragement which they gave to the establishment of madrasas in Syria and the Jazira, and their introduction into Egypt. The functions of the madrasa, which was a mature development of N‡r al-D»n’s innovation had been by then well established (al-Tabba 1982, 197). According to Ibn Shadd«d (d. 674/1275), there were ninety-three madrasas in Damascus during his time, including those established prior to the Ayyubid period (Ibn Shadd«d, II, 248). ¶al«¯ al-D»n has the greatest reputation as builder of madrasas in Syria, Palestine and Egypt. In 566/1170, he founded in Cairo the first Sh«fi‘» madrasa: the ¶al«¯iyya or N«·iriyya, near the Qubba of Im«m alSh«fi‘» (Maqrizi, khi³a³, IV, 193). In the same year he also established a madrasa for the M«lik»s near the mosque of ‘Amr b. al-‘ª· known as the Qum¯iyya. In 572/1177, he converted the former residence of the Fatimid vizier al-Ma’m‡n into a madrasa for the ®anaf»s (Richards 1995, 913). He built more madrasas in the years to come and the Ayyubid am»rs and various members of his family emulated this activity. Unlike his predecessor, N‡r al-D»n, who was a ®anaf», ¶al«¯ alD»n followed the Sh«fi‘» madhhab as did the majority of members of his family. There seems to have always been a dominance of Sh«fi‘» madrasas, whereas the other schools were in a minority. There were “mixed” madrasas in which two or more legal schools to be found, but these remained the exception rather than the rule throughout Ayyubid times.

The movement for founding madrasas spread westward to the towns of the Jazira and Syria. The madrasa of Gumushtik»n in Bu·r« (530/1136) is the earliest surviving madrasa in Syria (Hillenbrand 1986, 1138). By ca. 700/1300, according to the contemporary literary sources, 82 madrasas existed in Damascus. Of these only fourteen have survived (Hillenbrand 1986, 1138). Under N‡r al-D»n Aleppo and Damascus became important centres for religious studies where ‘ulam«’, faq»hs and s‡f»s gathered. He established many madrasas as a political tool to combat Sh»‘» doctrine in general and the Ism«‘»l» threat of the Assassins and the Fatimids in particular, and for the promotion of the ideal of j ih«d against the Franks. By doing so he deliberately sought as well to improve the image of his personal piety and obtain direct control and involvement in religious affairs.

In Jerusalem, six madrasas are known to have been founded by the Ayyubids, all during the first three decades of their rule; four still exist and the location of the other two is known. This is a small number compared to other Ayyubid centres in Syria and Egypt such as Damascus, Aleppo, Hama and Cairo. Perhaps this can be explained by the fact that while these centres enjoyed relatively extended periods of political stability, Jerusalem was constantly threatened by Frankish takeover and suffered from a severe problem of depopulation during the later Ayyubid period.

During that time, madrasas were, among other things, “mosque schools”, theological seminars to indoctrinate and propagate Sunn» orthodoxy. They were legal schools where Islamic law was taught by appointed fuqah«’s (jurist consults) and theory was taught by ‘ulam«’ (theologians) and mu¯addiths (traditionalists) (Elisséeff 27

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

seems to have had no »w«n; instead, it had a central courtyard surrounded by a prayer hall to the south and cells on the other three sides. The Na¯awiyya is a domed building and seems to have had no more than two rooms with a riw«q in between. While the Af±aliyya Madrasa no longer exists, its identification in the literary sources as a qubba puts it in the category of domed buildings.

Of the six madrasas established under the early Ayyubids, one was founded by ¶al«¯ al-D»n himself. ‘Im«d al-D»n reports that before ¶al«¯ al-D»n has left Jerusalem at the end of Sha‘b«n 583/1187, less than one month after the conquest of the city, he founded many madrasas and other institutions (‘Im«d al-D»n, 53). However, only the ¶al«¯iyya Madrasa, which was established a few years later, was mentioned by name (‘Im«d al-D»n, 53; Bah«’ al-D»n, 242; Ab‡ Sh«ma, II, 114). Of the other five, one was founded by ¶al«¯ alD»n’s son al-Af±al, three by his nephew al-Mu‘aam ‘ºs«, one by his treasurer and one by a Kurdish am»r. With the exception of the last two, their founders were members of the Ayyubid family.

Two madrasas include burials, a feature which is identified with funerary madrasas in Syria during the Ayyubid period. Burial in a madrasa was meant to bestow baraka upon the dead; the terms turba (mausoleum) and madrasa were interchangeable in this period (Hillenbrand 1994, 190). The Badriyya has a tomb in its courtyard which may indeed be that of the founder: the am»r Badr al-D»n al-Hakk«r». The Mu‘aamiyya has a burial hall with a grilled window (originally three windows) in the street frontage.

Of the six madrasas, three were Shafi‘», two ®anaf» and one M«lik». With the exception of al-Mu‘aam who was a committed ®anaf», most members of the Ayyubid family followed the Sh«fi‘» rite. Al-Af±al dedicated his madrasa to the M«lik» adherents among the Magh«riba community, but he may have only rendered nominal allegiance to the M«lik» law.

Qur’«n School for Children According to an inscription found in B«b al-Silsila/B«b al-Sak»na, a maktab (school for children) was built and endowed in 595/1198 for teaching orphan and poor children to read the Qur’«n (see Appendix II, no. 5). Although it contains a tribute to ¶al«¯ al-D»n some six years after his death, it is not certain that it was he who ordered the construction of the school. A linguistic similarity between this inscription and another dedicatory inscription concerning a pious foundation in Egypt of alMalik al-‘Az»z ‘Im«d al-D»n ‘Uthm«n, son of ¶al«¯ alD»n and his heir in Egypt, leads us to suggest that it was he who may have built the school in Jerusalem (Schaefer 1985, 211, n. 169). The exact location of this school is not certain, but we may assume it was near or above B«b al-Silsila/al-Sak»na (van Berchem 1922, 108-119; Walls and Abu’l-Hajj 1980, 9, Fig. 2).

These madrasas, with the exception of one (the Na¯awiyya), were located outside the ®aram in various repopulated neighbourhoods. Two madrasas (al-¶al«¯iyya and al-Maym‡niyya) were established in the former Latin Church of St. Anne and Jacobite church of St Mary Magdalene, respectively, and their re-use was eminently practical. The Sultan’s motives for the conversion of the former church into a madrasa may have been threefold: to confiscate the plentiful properties which once belonged to the church; the site was attractive for Muslims, and for Christians as well, as the traditional birthplace of Mary, the Mother of Jesus; to establish a religious centre close to the ®aram. The latter motive may have also led al-Mu‘aam ‘ºs« to establish his madrasa adjacent to the ®aram from the north, opposite B«b Sharaf al-Anbiy«’ (B«b al-‘Atm). The Af±aliyya was located in a quarter under current settlement (the Magh«riba Quarter), which was also adjacent to the ®aram from the west.

Kh«nq«hs, Rib«³s and Z«wiyas Although the general intent of kh«nq«hs, rib«³s and z «wiyas was to provide a place for religious practices and devotions, there were differences in emphasis and organization particular to each in the historical sources. The kh«nq«h was a kind of institution or convent for ·‡f» mystics. To be admitted to a kh«nq«h,students had to conform to a set of rules imposed by the institution. The shaykhs who taught there were generally ¶‡f» ‘ulam«’ or fuqah«’. However, there is some confusion in the sources between kh«nq«hs and rib«³s. The term rib«³ was originally used to designate a military garrison on the frontiers of Islam and was usually linked to the concept of jih«d. But in its later development it was considered as a religious retreat and a hospice for the poor. The z «wiya, on the other hand, was usually created around one specific instructor or shaykh, who belonged to a ³ar»qa (theological method). The pupils did not have to comply with any set of rules as they would have to do in the kh«nq«h and rib«³. In this respect the z «wiya is a much more informal institution.

Teaching of classes in madrasas was often conducted in individual halls or »w«ns. The number of »w«ns did not necessarily correspond to the number of madhhabs and/or religious subjects taught within a given madrasa. Hillenbrand points out that the overwhelming majority of madrasas founded in Damascus and Aleppo before 700/1300 that are recorded in the literary sources had one or two »w«ns and were built to serve a single madhhab (Hillenbrand 1994, 188). While this was the general trend throughout the Islamic world, the Egyptian cruciform four-»w«ns madrasa remained rare. Scores of Syrian madrasas are smaller domed structures with no »w«ns. Instead, they consist a number of rooms serving as classes and cells for students. Of the surviving madrasas, only the Mu‘aamiyya Madrasa has one »w«n, which may correspond to the ®anaf» madhhab taught within the madrasa. The Badriyya Madrasa 28

ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES IN JERUSALEM UNDER THE AYYUBIDS

The kh«nq«h has a similar development to the madr asa. I ts origins go backto the f ourth/ tenth centuryin eastern I ran and N» sh«p‡r in particular,and was linked to goups ofSuf » s,of ten allied to Sh«f i‘ » sm and the Salj uqruling power (Chabbi 1978,1025) . The Salj uqs ofSyria began f ounding kh«nq«hs in the third quarter of the f if th/ eleventh century,which seemed to be synonymous with r i b«³ s. I bn Jubayr,writing in 1184 concerning Ayyubid Syria,states: “As f or the r i b«³ s,called here kh«nq«hs,there are manyofthem;theyare meant f or Suf » s,and are splendid palaces,since Suf » s are real kings in this country”(I bn Jubayr,256) . The establishment ofkh«nq«hs in Egypt began under the Ayyubids,thus emulatingthe Salj uqprototype,¶al«¯alD» n is known to have established the ¶al«¯iyya Kh«nq«h in Cairo dated 569/ 117374 (alMaqr» z» ,maw«‘ i ,I I , 415) . ¶al«¯ alD» n introduced into Jerusalem two religious institutions:the kh«nq«h (a kind ofmonasteryf or Suf » s) and the z«wi ya(literary,“corner”f or teachingpurposes) . While ‘ I m«d alD» n states that ¶al«¯alD» n f ounded a ri b«³f or suf » s in the f ormer Latin Patriarch’ s house,he actuallyref ers to the kh«nq«h. Other than that there is no evidence in the literarysources f or the establishment of any ri b«³ s during the Ayyubid period in Jerusalem, however. Under the Ayyubids,one kh«nq«h and f ive z«wi yas are known to have been established in Jerusalem. Although their number was small,theywere f requently emulated under the Mamluks. The ¶al«¯iyya Kh«nq«h, f ounded by¶al«¯alD» n,represented yet another ofhis pious/ political works in the restoration of I slam to J erusalem,this one in the heart ofthe f ormer Latin Patriarch’ s Quarter,adj acent to the Church ofthe Holy Sepulchre f rom the north. I ts f oundation also represented the af f irmation ofSunnism. Ofthe f ive z «wi yas,onlytwo still survive:the Khatniyya (in a ruinous state)and alJ arr«¯iyya;Z«wiyat alHun‡d was completelyrebuilt in later periods;the Na· riyya and alDirk«h no longer exist but are known f rom the literary sources and epigraphicevidence. The terms z «wi ya and madr asa were occasionally interchangeable in this period,as in the cases ofthe Khatniyya,the Na· riyya and the Dirk«h. Regardingthe J arr«¯iyya the terms z «wi ya and qabr (tomb) were alternatives. Three z «wi yas were the workofmaj or political f igures and were generallyestablished f or minor religious f igures (shaykhs) ;the Khatniyya was originally endowed by ¶al«¯ alD» n f or the Shaykh J al«l alD» n alSh«sh» ;the Na· riyya (later known as alGhaz«liyya)was built byalMu‘ aam ‘ º s« f or the Shaykh Na· r alMaqdis» ;the 29

Dirk«h was endowed by alMuaf f ar Gh«z» ,duringthe reign ofalMu‘ aam ‘ º s«. The other two were f ounded byless important f igures;the J arr«hiyya Z«wiya was built bythe am» r®us«m alD» n alJ arr«h» ;Z«wiyat alHun‡d (also known as alRif «‘ iyya) was established by the Shaykh Sakrakanjto serve the communityofI ndians who settled in the city. Mosques The j «mi ‘ (congregational mosque) is the principal religious building ofan I slamic city,and predominant amongits manyf unctions is the Fridaycommunal prayer. As such it is a more ambitious kind ofstructure,[ and creates the need f or a building]conceived on a much larger scale than the masj i d,which is a secondaryplace of worship. I t has a political and public role, with undertones ofsymbolism and propaganda,and was of ten closelyassociated with the caliph,a governingof f icial or his proxy and a dynasty. The khu³ ba (Friday sermon) , delivered f rom the mi nbar ,had a strongpolitical f lavour and thus became an instrument f or the ruler’ s claim to legitimacyand af f irmingallegiance. The expansion and choice of location of the j «mi ‘ was specif ically determined bythe predominant school oflaw in a given area. The Sh«f i‘ »madhhab – prevailing in Syria and Palestine since Abbasid times –allowed onlyone j «mi ‘in each town,while the ®anaf » s permitted the presence ofa Fridaymosque onlyin large towns. This policywas true f or J erusalem throughout the early I slamicperiod and during the Ayyubid period as well. Af ter the conquest ofJ erusalem in 583/ 1187,the Sh«f i‘ » concept ofone Fridaymosque per town was respected by ¶al«¯alD» n. The Aq· «Mosque continued its role as the principal congregational mosque. Ayyubid mosque construction was minimal. Attention was f irst concentrated on the doctrinal sanctif ication and ref urbishment ofthe Aq· «Mosque,which perf ormed the f unction ofa j «mi ‘ ,but kept its historical title ofa masj i d. ¶al«¯alD» n ordered the restoration ofits mi ¯r«band the installation ofN‡r alD» n’ s mi nbar(see AppendixI I I ,no. 1) . The remarkable khu³ bawhich Mu¯y»alD» n b. Zak» delivered f rom the Aq· « Mosque, one week af ter J erusalem was taken f rom the Franks,represented the restoration ofI slam to the holycityand the af f irmation of ¶al«¯alD» n’ s authorityand his allegiance to the Abbasid caliph. The Aq· « Mosque continued to receive either direct support f rom the Sultan or other members ofthe Ayyubid f amily who were associated with the administration ofthe city. ,which still survive,were Four new mosques (masj i ds) f ounded in J erusalem under the Ayyubids. Three ofthese were f ounded by members ofthe Ayyubid f amily,and one by a religious f igure;two (J «mi‘ alMagh«riba, Masj id Mu¯«rib)were new Ayyubid f oundations;two (J «mi‘ alAf ±al, J «mi‘ alNis«’ ) were established in f ormer Crusader buildings.

AYYUBID JERUSALEM :AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

Two masjids( J «mi ‘al Ni s «’ ,J «mi ‘al Magh«r i ba)wer e f oundedi nt he®ar am,adj acentt ot heAq· «Mos quef r om t he wes t . The Cr us aderhal l soft he Or derofKni ght s Templ ar on t he wes ts i de of t he Aq· « wer es i mpl y conver t edi nt oJ «mi ‘al Ni s «’ . Thecons t r uct i onofJ «mi ‘ al Magh«r i bawaspr obabl yt hedi r ectr es ul tofal Af ±al ’ s es t abl i s hmentof t he Magh«r i ba Quar t er i nt he wes t bor deroft he®ar am. Thel ocat i onofJ «mi ‘al Af ±al( or Mas j i d‘ Umar ) ,f oundedi npar toft hef or merCr us ader hos pi t alj us ts out hoft heChur choft heHol ySepul chr e, was no doubti nt ended as a “r es t or at i on”,al bei ti na di f f er entpos i t i on,oft hemos quet hatCal i ph‘ Umarhad bui l ti nt heat r i um ofCons t ant i ne’ sbas i l i caoft heHol y Sepul chr eonhi sent r yi nt ot heci t y. Mas j i dMu¯«r i b,a s mal lmos que att he t op of²ar » q B«b al Si l s i l a,was f oundedi nanar eaoccupi edbys hopsandmar ket s . Commemorative Domes / Monuments Commemor at i ve monument sf or pr ophet s of t he Ol d Tes t amentwer eknowni nSyr i aandPal es t i nef r om t he ear l y cent ur i esofChr i s t i ani t y. TheAr amai cand Ar ab Chr i s t i ansofSyr i aadapt ed t hei rown pagan cul t sand her oest ot henew r el i gi onbygi vi ngt hem t heat t r i but esof s omeoft heOl dTes t amentpr ophet s .J obwaswor s hi pped i n ®awr «n,a Mos es cul tpr os per ed i n Si nai ,Emes a ( ®om· )andDamas cuspos s es s edt heheadofSt .J ohnt he Bapt i s t ,andAbr aham wasvener at edi n®ar r «n. Chur ches wi t hmartyria wer ebui l ti nt hes es i t est o commemor at e t hevar i ouspr ophet s( Tr i mi ngham 1975,240241) . I s l am i nher i t ed t he t r adi t i ons of t he Ol d Tes t ament pr ophet s ,s uch as Abr aham,I s hmael ,Amos ,J ob and Moses,f i r stt hr ought heQur ’ «nandl at ert hr oughqi· «· al anbiy«’( “St or i esoft hePr ophet s ”)( Nagel1960,180181) . Wedo notknow how t hecul t soft hes epr ophet si n t heear l y daysofI s l am devel oped,buti ti spos s i bl et o as s ume t hatt he l ocalChr i s t i ans ,who s t i l lf or med t he maj or i t y oft he popul at i on i n Syr i a,mai nt ai ned t hem. I nt er es ti nSh» ‘ »mar t yr swasexpr es s edi nt hecons t r uct i on ofcommemor at i vemonument s( Gr abar1966,38) . Sunn» s beganatt heendoft het ent h/ f our t hcent ur yt o bui l dt hei r own commemor at i ve domes ( qubbas) , des i gned as count er par t st ot hos eoft heSh» ‘ » s( I bnal J awz» ,VI I ,205206) . N‡ral D» nbui l tonl yonecommemor at i vemonument :t he Maq«m I br «h» m( Shr i neofAbr aham)i nt heCi t adelof Al eppo,dat ed t o 563/ 1168 ( al Tabbaa1982,245246) . The i mpor t ance ofI br «h» m ( Abr aham)t o Mus l i ms i s s econdonl yt ot hatofMuhammad,s i ncehi sr el i gi oni s s ai dt o havebeent hedi r ectpr ecur s orofI s l am. I ndeed, t wo oft het hr eemos ts acr eds hr i nesofI s l am,t heKa‘ ba of Mecca and t he Dome of t he Rock i nJ er us al em, commemor at ecer t ai ndeedsoft hegr eatpat r i ar ch. Thepl an and des i gn ofMaq«m I br «h» mi n Al eppo ar e cons i s t entwi t hi t si dent i f i cat i on as a masjidmaq«m: r at hert han bei ng a dome bui l tar ound a r el i c,i ti sa pr opermasjid whi ch cont ai nsa r el i c ofI br «h» m i na 30

s peci al z iy«ra ( chamber ) . The i s l ami s at i on of t he Chr i s t i ans hr i nesoft heCi t adelofAl eppo wasf ol l owed i nt he Ayyubi d per i od by t he i s l ami s at i on ofvar i ous s hr i nesi nt hevi ci ni t yofAl eppo ands ur r oundi ngvi l l ages ( al Tabbaa1982,248) . Ment i oncoul dbemadeher eof t heconver s i onoft heCr us adercat hedr alofStAbr aham i n Hebr on i nt o amos que,whi ch pr es umabl y happened s oon af t er583/ 1187. Thet ombsoft hePat r i ar chswer e al r eady vener at ed by Mus l i msbef or et he s i xt h/ t wel f t h cent ur y,andcont i nuedt o bedur i ngt heFr anki s hper i od. I nJ er us al em,t hr ee commemor at i ve domed s t r uct ur es wer eer ect edundert heAyyubi ds ;al lwi t hi nt he®ar am al Shar » f . Fi r s t ,t he Qubbat al Mi ‘ r «j ( Dome of t he As cens i on) ,whi chi ss i t uat edj us tnor t hwes toft heDome oft heRock,wasbui l ti nt heyear597/ 12001. Al t hough i t sdedi cat or yi ns cr i pt i onr ef er st ot hes t r uct ur easQubbat al Nab» yy( Domeoft hePr ophet ) ,t het exts ugges t st hat t her ewasanot hers t r uct ur eas s oci at edwi t ht hePr ophet Mu¯ammadwhi chhaddi s appear edandwasr epl acedby t henew onecommemor at i ngt het r adi t i onofhi smi‘ r«j ( as cens i on) t o heaven. The Ar abi cl i t er ar ys our ces ment i on t he Dome oft hePr opheti mmedi at el y af t era des cr i pt i on oft he Pr ophet ’ sas cens i on t o heaven,t hus pr ovi di ngt hei mpr es s i ont hatt her emaybeaconnect i on bet weent heDomeoft hePr ophetandt hemi‘ r«j. Second,t heQubbatSul aym«n,al s o knownasKur s »‘ º s « ( Thr one ofJ es us ) ,i sl ocat ed i nt he nor t h par toft he ®ar am es pl anade. Al t hought hes t r uct ur econt ai nst ypi cal Cr us aderar chi t ect ur alel ement si t smi¯r«bs eemst o bean i nt egr alpar tofi t ,seemi ngl y an i ndi cat i on ofAyyubi d cons t r uct i on. Ear l yI s l ami ct r adi t i onshavel i nkedvar i ous s i t esi nt he®ar am and i t svi ci ni t yt o Ki ng Davi d and Ki ng Sol omon ( I bn al Mur aj j «,f ol . 30b,78;N«·i r i Khus r aw,70) .I nt hecas eoft hes i t eofQubbatSul aym«n, i thasbeen pr es umabl y as s oci at ed wi t h Ki ng Sol omon andhi scons t r uct i onoft heTempl e( El ad1995,9093) . Thi r d,t heQubbatM‡s «,whi ch i ss i t uat ed on t hewes t s i deoft he®ar am es pl anade,eas tofB«bal Si l s i l a,was f oundedbyal Mal i kal ¶«l i ¯Naj m al D» nAyy‡b,sonof al Mal i kal K«mi l ,i n647/ 124950. Theques t i onoft he i dent i t y of M‡s «,af t er whom t he qubba i s named, whet herhe wast he Pr ophetM‡s « ora cer t ai n young Ayy‡bi d pr i nce cal l ed al Mal i k al As hr afM‡s «i snot cl ear l y ans wer ed i nt he cont empor ar yl i t er ar ys our ces . Muj » ral D» n( 901/ 1496)s peci f i est hati twasnotnamed af t er t he Pr ophet M‡s « and t hat i ts houl d not be as s oci at ed wi t h hi m( Muj » r ,I I ,51) . Max van Ber chem di s cus s es t hi si s s ue buthas no def i ni t e ans wer ( van Ber chem 1927,107) . Ont hewhol et heas s oci at i onwi t h t hePr ophetM‡s «f ol l owst het r adi t i onalpr act i ceoft he per i od and t her ef or es eems mor el i kel y t han t he as s oci at i onwi t hal As hr afM‡s «. Funerary Monuments Maus ol eumsi nmedi evalI s l ami car chi t ect ur e,i nt endedas pl acesofbur i alandcommemor at i on,ar edes cr i bedbya

ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES IN JERUSALEM UNDER THE AYYUBIDS

was transferred to Mu’t« near al-Karak (Ibn W«·il, III, 274).

remarkable range of terminology. There are standard descriptive terms such as turba (mausoleum), qabr (tomb or grave), madf an (place of burial), mashhad (place of commemoration) and qubba (dome). Frequently the mausoleum is referred to by its most distinguishing feature, the dome. In some cases the monument was made as a place of prayer by installing a mi¯r«b in it, or providing it with an endowment for the regular recitation of the Qur’«n within its walls.

Three mausoleums are known to have been founded in Jerusalem. The first, which no longer exists, is the madf an ( burial place) of Shaykh Dirb«s al-Hakk«r», an Ayyubid Kurdish am» r, dated to the early seventh/twelfth century. It was established in a domed porch of a sixth/twelfth century Crusader church and was marked by a low stone cenotaph. In the Mamluk period, it was incorporated into the J«wliyya Madrasa (715-20/131520), now known as the ’Umariyya Madrasa, on the north border of the ®aram. The Hakk«riyya was a Kurdish tribe which joined ¶al«¯ al-D»n and the Ayyubids in the struggle against the Franks. Part of the tribe settled in Jerusalem after 583/1187, where some of its members were killed and buried (between 587/1191 and 614/121718), as several inscriptions on epitaphs found in the city testify.

To enhance the sanctity of the mausoleum, it was often joined with other foundations: mosques, funerary madrasas, z«wiyas and rib«³ s. The waging of jih«d during the time of the Crusades instigated the erection of many mausoleums. In this respect, Ayyubid am» rs and military leaders in Syria and Palestine, who were involved in jih«d against the Franks and were patrons of mausoleums, sought religious merit for themselves. Their buildings, in Damascus, Aleppo, Tripoli and elsewhere, were free-standing domed turba structures and had the standard square ground-plan with four narrow axial entrances (Hillenbrand 1994, 323, figs. 5.193-5.197, pls. 234-236). They often bore inscriptions containing titles associated with jih«d.

The second is the Qubba Qaymuriyya (before 648/1251), the only surviving Ayyubid free-standing domed turba (mausoleum) in Jerusalem, which is situated about 1 km. to the north-west of the Old City, in the former Arab quarter of Nab» ‘Uk«sha. It contains five tombs, four of which belong to various members of the Qaymuriyya Kurdish tribe who were in the service of the Ayyubids: the am» r ®us«m al-D»n Ab‡’l ®asan b. Ab‡’l Faw«ris, his son Di«’ al-D»n M‡s« b. Ab‡’l Faw«ris (both died in 648/1250-51), the am» r ®us«m al-D»n Kha±r al-Qaymur» (d. 661/1262), and the am» r N«·ir al-D»n b. Ab‡’l ®asan al-Qaymur» (d. 665/1266); and t he fifth belongs to the am» r N«·ir al-D»n Mu¯ammad J«bir Bayk, Superintendent of the Two Sanctuaries of Jerusalem and Hebron (d. 770/1368).

In Jerusalem, various types of funerary monuments were constructed under the Ayyubids. Of the joint type of foundation, five are known, of which three have survived. First, the Af±aliyya Madrasa (ca. 590/1194), in the former Magh«riba Quarter, west of the ®aram, which no longer exists, was a domed structure and contained the tomb of Shaykh ‘ºd. Second, the Jarr«¯iyya Z«wiya (ca. 598/1201) is a domed structure which consists of a simple cenotaph marking a grave, presumably that of its founder ®us«m al-D»n al-Jarr«¯». This building has served a variety of functions: a ·uf »z«wiya, a turba comprising the founder’s tomb, and in the subsequent centuries a maq«m (shrine). Third, the Badriyya Madrasa (610/1212-14), situated in Khu³ ³Marzub«n in the heart of the city, just east of S‡q al-‘A³ ³ ar»n (part of the Triple Market), seems to comprise the tomb of its founder: Badr al-D»n Mu¯ammad b. Ab‡’l Q«sim al-Hakk«r», an am» r of alMalik al-Mu‘aam. It is a simple grave located in the courtyard of the madrasa. Fourth, the Mu‘aamiyya Madrasa (614/1217-18), situated in ²ar»q al-Muj«hid»n, outside the ®aram from the north, has a cemetery along its street frontage with several graves. However, none of these graves is associated with the founder of the madrasa or his descendants. The earliest identifiable grave there belongs to the Q«±» Shams al-D»n Mu¯ammad b. al-¶al«¯ Mu¯ammad al-®amaw» alSh«fi‘». He was appointed in 852/1448 during the reign of the Mamluk sultan al-§«hir Jaqmaq as a n«ir (inspector) of Jerusalem and Hebron, but died in the following year and was buried in the Mu‘aamiyya Madrasa (Muj»r, II, 277-278). Fifth, the Amjadiyya Madrasa, which no longer exists, was built for al-Malik al-Amjad Majd al-D»n ®asan, son of al-Malik al-‘ªdil. The founder was reported to have died during his father’s life time and have been buried in his madrasa shortly before his body

Cemeteries There are no Muslim burials within the ®aram precinct and there is no definite evidence for Muslim graves within the city before the reconquest of Jerusalem by ¶al«¯ al-D»n. The main cemetery areas were situated around the city in three major locations. First, the B«b al-Ra¯ma (Golden Gate) Cemetery, situated along the outside of city-®aram wall to the east, is one of the oldest and main Muslim cemeteries in Jerusalem. In the first/seventh century two Muslim officials, ‘Ub«da ibn al-¶«mit and Shadd«d ibn Aws, were buried there (Muj»r, II, 63; al-Asl» 1981, 199). Second, the M«mill« Cemetery, located about 1 km. west of B«b al-Khal»l (Jaffa Gate), is the largest of all Muslim cemeteries of Jerusalem. We do not known for certain when it was first used by Muslims. According to al-Asal» tens of thousands of corpses of the inhabitants of Jerusalem who were slaughtered by the Franks in 492/1099 were dumped in this area (1981b, 118). After ¶al«¯ al-D»n’s conquest of Jerusalem, it became one of the main cemeteries for the Muslim population. Many of 31

AY Y U B ID JE R U SAL E M :AN AR C H IT E C T U R AL AND AR C H AE O L O G IC AL ST U D Y

Jerusalem‘s officials,‘ulam« and martyrs were buried there ( Muj » r, I I , 64) .AlAsal»lists a hundred and fiftyof them ( 1981, 199) .One of the first Ayyubid officials to be buried there was the am» r Dia alD» n ‘º s«b.Mu¯ammad alHakk«r»( d.585/ 1189) , who was a prominent Sh«fi‘» f aq» h and served as the first w«l»of Jerusalem under ¶al«¯alD» n( Muj » r, I I , 143144;alAsal»1981, 159) .I n this cemetery, which remained in continuous use until 1927, the onlysurviving Mamlukturba ( mausoleum)is the Qubba alKubakiyya ( ca.688/ 1289)( Burgoyne 1987, 141143) . The S«hira Cemetery, situated on a hill about 100 m. northof the citywall between B«b al‘Am‡d ( Damascus Gate)and B«b alS«hira ( Herod’ s Gate) , is the third largest Muslim cemetery in Jerusalem.The historical sources testify that numerous Muslim notables,‘ulam«’ and martyrs, especially those who fell in the battle of ¶al«¯alD» n’ s conquest of Jerusalem, were buried there ( Muj » r, I I , 6263;alAsal»1981, 143) .Onlytwo epitaphs from tombs dating to the Ayyubid period are known to have originated from this cemetery.First, the epitaphof Shurwa b.D«w‡d b.I br«h» m alHakk«r» , who died 587/ 1191 in battle against the Franks near Ramla ( AppendixI V, no.2)and second, the epitaphof ®asan b. Ab‡ Bakr b.M«f alShanbak» , a Muslim pilgrim who died in 605/ 1208while visiting Jerusalem ( AppendixI V, no.14) . Muj » r alD» n mentions numerous graves, adj acent to the Jarr«¯iyya z «wiya from the south, which belong to “a group of martyrs ( muj«hid» n)who are said to be the companions of alJarr«¯» ”( Muj » r, I I , 48) .Muj » r alD» n also mentions numerous graves of martyrs adj acent to the Qubba alQaymuriyya ( Muj » r, I I , 281) .No traces of these burial areas have survived.

z «wiya, near the ¶al«¯i B» m«rist«n ( Muj » r, I I , 47; Ghawanima 1982, 22) .This is perhaps the same building whichserved as the seat of government. Not far from the southwest corner of the city, a large building has been excavated and identified as a khan ( caravansarai)or palace ( Tushingham 1985, 108, 141142) , or even as a centre of government administration ( Bahat 1991, 123) .Yet this building is not mentioned by the contemporaryliterarysources and it is permissible to suggest if it was intended to serve as princelyresidence, perhaps that of alMu‘aam ‘º s«who resided in the city for a number of years. Public Welfare B» m«rist«n or m«rist«n The Umayyad caliphalWal» d I( reigned 86/ 70596/ 715) is credited with having been the first to establish a m«rist«n ( hospital)in I slam ( alMaqriz» , khi³ a³ ,I I , 405) . I n later centuries, numerous m«rist«ns were founded in Baghdad, the most celebrated of which was the great ‘A±ud»B» m«rist«n, built bythe Buwayhid vizier ‘A±ud alDawla in 372/ 982 ( Dhahab» , I , 167) .Another great hospital in I slam was the N‡r»B» m«rist«n, founded in Damascus byN‡r alD» n Zang» .I bn Jubayr describes in detail the medical treatment of patients, tasks of doctors and the prescription of medicine in this hospital ( I bn Jubayr, 283) . Following his mentor and predecessor N‡r alD» n, ¶al«¯ alD» n founded the N«· ir»B» m«rist«n in Cairo, datable to 577/ 1182) .According to alMaqr» z» , he converted for this purpose part of the Fatimid palace, hired doctors and superintendents and provided it with endowments ( alMaqr» z» , maw«‘i, I , 407) .

Epitaphs Numerous epitaphs of unknown provenance of various Ayyubid figures survive.First is the epitaphof the am» r Badr alD» n ‘Abdull«h b.Badr al®aj j »( d.586/ 1190) ( AppendixI V, no.1) .Second is the epitaphof the am» r ‘I zz alD» n Ab‡’ l Hayj a b.®us«m alDhurz«r»( died 588/ 1192)( Appendix I V, no.7) .This figure might be identifiable as the am» r Sayf alD» n alMash³ ‡b, one of ¶al«¯ alD» n’ s prominent Kudish am» rs, who died and was buried in his own house in Jerusalem ( I bn al’ I m«d, I V, 294;alDhahab» ,I V, 267) .Third is the epitaphof the am» r Zayn alD» n b.‘Al»b.‘Abdull«h alHakk«r»( d. 592/ 119596)( AppendixI V, no.9) .

I n Jerusalem, ¶al«¯ alD» n established in 583/ 1187 a hospital called the ¶al«¯»B» m«rist«n in a churchlocated in the former complex of the Crusader Knights of St. John ( the Hospitallers)to the southof the Churchof the HolySepulchre ( see below, AppendixI I , no.1, pp.262265) . Water Sources and Projects

Government Buildings

Jerusalem’ s water supplyhas always relied on rainfall, as there is onlyone water spring, ‘Ayn Silw«n, whichflows througha tunnel to the Pool ( birka)of Silw«n.Within the city, there was a diverse system of conduits and drainage channels which brought rainwater to the cistern and pools.The water in the city was sufficient to supply a considerable number of bathhouses.

¶al«¯alD» n, according to contemporarysources, stayed during his visit to Jerusalem in 588/ 1192 “in d«r alaqis«’( the House of the Priests)near the Churchof the Resurrection”( ‘I m«d alD» n, 300;I bn alAth» r, X, 210; I bn Kath» r, XI I , 346) .I n addition, Muj » r alD» n mentions governors)of Jerusalem lived in the Dirk«h that nuww«b(

From the Crusader period there were two pools situated outside the city:one northwest of B«b al‘Am‡d which was called the Pool of Legerius, and the other southwest of B«b alKhal» l whichwas called the Pool of Germain ( in the location of Birkat alSultan)( Benvenisti 1970, 56) .I t is to be assumed that these two pools continued to

32

ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES IN JERUSALEM UNDER THE AYYUBIDS

provide water for the inhabitants of Jerusalem during the Ayyubid period.I t was reported that in 589/ 1193¶al«¯ alD» n ordered wells around Jerusalem to be blocked to prevent their being used bythe Crusaders ( Bah«’ alD» n; Prawer 196970,I I ,94) . The Ayyubid rulers of Jerusalem undertook the construction of water installations for the wellbeing of the Muslim worshipers in the ®aram.A water installation for drinking and ablutions was built byorder of ¶al«¯alD» n’ s brother,alMalikal‘ ªdil,which was called after him Siq«yat alMalikal‘ ªdil.I t was built in 589/ 1193 ( Van Berchem 1922,103104) .Onlythe vaulted entrance of the siq«ya still exists;it is situated j ust to the south of S‡q al-Qa³³«n»n, approached through B«b al-Ma³hara. About the s ame ti me, al-Mali k al-‘ ªdi l ordered the cons tructi on ofanother water proj ect, the abluti on place ofthe Aq· « Mos que known asal-K«s , whi ch i slocated between the mai n entrance ofthe Aq· « Mos que and the f li ght ofs teps leadi ng up to the Dome ofthe Rock platf orm. I t was res tored a number of ti mes i n the Mamlukperi od ( s ee Appendi xI , no. 2) . Duri ng al-Mu‘ aam ‘ º s «’ srei gn, two water i ns tallati ons were bui lt to provi de dri nki ng water f or wors hi ppersi n the ®aram. The f i rs ti sa ci s tern, commonlynamed ¶ahr»j

33

al-Mali kal-Mu‘ aam, s i tuated j us ts outh ofthe wes tern s tai rwayleadi ng to the Dome ofthe Rockplatf orm, and dated to 607/ 1210 ( van Berchem 1927, 68-72) . The s econd i sa f ountai n known asSab»l Sha’ l«n located j us t to the lef t ofthe north-wes tern s tai rwayleadi ng up to the Dome ofthe Rockplatf orm. I ti sdated byan i ns cri pti on to 613/ 1216-17. Muj »r al-D»n ( 901/ 1496)menti onssi xother poolswhi ch provi ded J erus alem wi th water, of whi ch three were wi thi n the ci ty:Bi rkat Ban» I s r«’ »l) , Bi rkat Sulaym«n and Bi rkat ‘ I y«d ( Muj »r, I I , 59) . The f i rs t waslocated to the north ofthe ®aram, whi le the locati on ofthe other two i s unknown. Three pools were outs i de the ci ty:Bi rkat M«mi ll«, and two res ervoi rsnamed al-Marj »‘ , near the vi llage ofAr³«s( Solomon’ sPools ) , whi ch brought water to J erus alem byan aqueduct. There were als o two s maller poolswi thi n the ci ty, one i n Khu³³ Marzub«n f or the collecti on ofwater f or the adj acent ®amm«m of‘ Al«’alD»n al-Ba· »r, and the other i n ®«rat al-Na· «r« ( Chri s ti an Quarter)f or the collecti on ofwater f or ®amm«m alBatrak whi ch i s part of the waqf of the ¶al«¯i yya Kh«nq«h. The M«mi ll« Pool, a res ervoi r located about 1 km. wes t ofthe ci tywalls , wasone ofthe mai ns ources .I t waspart ofthe waqf f or the ¶al«¯i yya Kh«nq«h( Muj »r, I I , 59;al-Asal» 1981, 119, 125) .

CHAPTER5

CATALOGUEOF AYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM

Note on Methodology

Mi‘ r«j , Qubbat Sulaym«n, Sahr» j alMu‘ aam, the Badriyya Madras a and Qubbat M‡s «.

Thiscatalogue recordsthe Ayyubid buildingsthat s till remain in the Old City of Jerus alem and putsthem into their his torical and cultural context.I nterpretationsof the architectural evolution of thes e buildingsare pres ented, and their architectural and decorative elements are s ometimesrelated to other Ayyubid buildingsels ewhere. The documentation of the Ayyubid buildings in Jerus alem wascarried out by the following means : ( a) Producing accurate s urveys of the buildings thems elves , with groundplans , s ections and elevations . ( b) Compiling architectural des criptionsand analys es of individual buildingsand their cons tituent parts , illus trated by drawingsof dis tinctive architectural and decorative elements ; ( c) Providing blackandwhite photographs of the buildingsand their dis tinctive features ; ( d) Studying the abundant epigraphicmaterial from the buildingsin ques tion,and from els ewhere in the city; ( e) Studying the relevant his torical primary s ources mainly thos e written by contemporary Arab his toriansand European pilgrim travellers ,aswell as sijills and waqfiyyas at the Shar‘ »Court in Jerus alem.

I n the framework of the Mamluk Jerus alem proj ect, during the 1970sand early 1980s,sixAyyubid buildings were either fully or partially s urveyed s ince they were adj acent to Mamluk monuments .Their drawings are publis hed by M.H.Burgoyne ( 1987) ,some of which are reproduced in thisbook.Thes e include:the J«mi‘alNis «’ ,J«mi‘alMagh«riba,B«balSils ila/ B«balSak» na, North Portico,B«bal‘ Atm and B«b®i³ ³ a. During JulyAugus t 1994,Iwasas s is ted by a team from the Medieval Ottoman Survey ( MOS) ,at the Britis h School of Archaeology in Jerus alem ( BSAJ)in s urveying two buildings :the Mu‘ amiyya Madras a and Qubba alQaymuriyya.An additional building,the Kh«nq«h al¶al«¯iyya,waspropos ed for s urvey with the as s is tance of another MOS team during July 1995.Unfortunately my application for acces sto the building to carry out a full s cale s urvey wasrej ected by the Council of the Awq«f Adminis tration.During November 1996,Icarried out a s urvey of the Z«wiya Jarr«¯iyya. Photographswere taken with 35 mm.camera fitted with a wideangle ( 28mm. )or with a zoom lens( 105 mm. ) .I included many photographs reproduced from various archives :the Department of I s lamic Archaeology,the Awqaf Adminis tration;and the Cres well and the BSAJ archivesat the As hmolean Mus eum,Oxford.

Note on Survey and Fieldwork Note on the Organization of the Catalogue Out of the twenty two Ayyubid remaining buildingsin the Old City of Jerus alem,nine were s urveyed and drawn by the Department of I s lamicArchaeology of the Awqaf Adminis tration at the Haram.The drawings of s ome buildingsinclude only their ground plans ,othersinclude elevationsor s ections .Some of the drawingswere “redrawn” and new details were added to them.Thes e s urveyed buildingsare:alKhatniyya Z«wiya,J«mi‘alAf±al,Siq«yat al‘ ªdil,Mas j id Muh«rib,Qubbat al-

34

The catalogue includesdes criptionsof exis ting Ayyubid buildings in and around the Old City of Jerus alem. Buildingsthat are largely rebuilt in later period and thos e known from his torical s ourcesand ins criptionsbut which no longer s urvive are included in the appendices thereafter.Each building in the catalogue isnumbered and lis ted in chronological order.

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM

1

chamber sal ongt henor t handwes tel evat i onsopent ot he s t r eet swhi chs er veass hops .

Kh«nq«hal ¶al «¯i yya

ΔϴΣϼμϟ΍ ϩΎϘϧΎΨϟ΍ Endowedandconver t edi n585/ 1189 Kh«nq«hofSul t an¶al «¯al D» n Moder nnames :Mas j i dal Kh«nq«hal ¶al «¯i yya( gr ound f l oor ) ;D«ral ‘ Al am»( upperf l oor s ) I. LOCATION ( Fi gs . 1.1,1.2) Thekh«nq«h i sl ocat edi nt heChr i s t i anQuar t er ,att he nor t hwes tcor neroft heChur choft heHol ySepul chr e and par t l y above i t ;att he cor neroft he ‘ Aqabatal Kh«nq«h and ²ar » q ®«r at al Na· «r a( “St r eet of t he Chr i s t i anQuar t er ”) .

Fr om t heves t i bul eas t ai r cas el eadsupt ot hef i r s tf l oor , whi ch cons i s t sofas er i esofvaul t ed chamber son t he nor t hs i de and a l ar ge as s embl y hal l( majma‘ ) or a mos que wi t h a mi¯r«b i nt he qibla wal l . Anot her s t ai r cas ei nt hes out hwes toft hecour t yar dl eadsupt o t heeas ts i deoft hemos que. Themi nar etwi t hi t st ypi cals quar e“Syr i ant ower ”r i s es abovet heeas t er nj amboft hepor t al . Theupperf l oori s r eachedbywayofas t ai r cas ef r om t hecour t yar dal ong t he s out hs i de oft he mi nar et . Itext ends s out hwar ds abovet henor t hwes tcor neroft heChur choft heHol y Sepul chr e. Si ncet hes ummerof1996,ext ens i ver enovat i onshave beencar r i edouti nt hei nt er i or . Int henor t hs i deoft he cour t yar d new f aci l i t i es f orabl ut i on wer ef i t t ed. The mos queont hef i r s tf l oorwasr es t or edandt hes t r uct ur es on t he nor t her ns i de oft he r oofwer er enovat ed. And f i nal l yanew i ns cr i pt i onbear i ngt henameof¶al «¯al D» nandt hedat eoff oundi ngt heKh«nq«hi n585/ 1189, wascar vedabovet heent r ance.

1 LOCATION PLAN FIG.1.

II. SITE AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION Themai npar toft hes i t ei sboundedt ot henor t hbyt he s t r eet‘ Aqabatal Kh«nq«h;t ot heeas tbyvaul t edr ooms andhal l swhi chonces er vedasas oapf act or yandnow as al eat herwor ks hop;t ot hes out h by t heChur ch oft he Hol ySepul chr e;andt ot hewes tbyt he²ar » q®«r atal Na· «r a( Pl . 1.1) . The bui l di ng i s a compl ex on t hr ee f l oor s ,butt he boundar i esofeachf l oordonotcoi nci de. Thegr oundand f i r s tf l oor s ar et he mos text ens i ve. A cr os s vaul t ed ent r ancepor chwi t hanel abor at epor t alont henor t hs i de l eadsf r om t hes t r eeti nt oavaul t edves t i bul ewhi chl eads di r ect l yi nt oas mal lmos queandt ot hel ef ti nt oanopen cour t yar d. A s er i esofchamber ss ur r oundt hecour t yar d on t he eas t ,nor t h and wes ts i des . Ther e ar e ot her 35

2GROUND PLAN (AFTER SCHICK 1885) FIG.1.

III. HISTORY IDENTIFICATION Accor di ngt o‘ Im«dal D» n,andvar i ousot herchr oni cl er s whos eem t ocopyf r om hi m,¶al «¯al D» n“chos ef ort he

AYYUBID JERUSALEM :AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

convent (rib«³) the Patri arch’ s Hous e (d«r al ba³rak), near the Churchofthe Res urrecti on (kan» satqum«ma)” (‘ I m«dal D» n,53;Ab‡ Sh«ma,114;I bn Kath» r,XI I ,326; al Suy‡³ » ,I ,271,276;Muj » r al D» n,I ,340341;Gabri el i 1969, 174).Moreover,Muj » r al D» n addsthat i t s tands “partl yover”the Churchofthe Res urrecti on (I ,341). DATE A copy of the endowment deed (waqf iyya) of the ¶al «¯i yya Kh«nq«h,whi ch i s pres erved i n the Shar‘ » Court ofJ erus al em (Sij il l ,vol .95,424428) i sdated 5 Rama±«n 585/17October 1189.Muj » r al D» n menti ons that ¶al «¯al D» n endowedthe ¶al «¯i yyaKh«nq«hf or the ¶‡f » s , and conf i rms the date whi ch appears i n the waqf iyya(Muj » rI I ,47).

q«±»ofDamas cus ,who certi f i edthe text ofthe waqf iyya i n 8Shaww«l791/1389.Thi sdocument wascopi edonce agai ni n the Shar‘ »Court,wi ththe permi s s i on ofthe q«±» Mu¯ammadMu· ³ af «,i n 1022/ 1613. I ndeed,the properti esi ncl udedi n the endowment f or the ¶al «¯i yya Kh«nq«h were numerous .They have been l i s tedwi ththei r namesanddetai l sel s ewhere (al ‘ Al am» 1981,3033;al ‘ Asal »1981,331;1983,83100;Frankel 1992,2433),but theyare requi redhere f or the purpos e ofthi ss tudy.I t begi nswi ththe def i ni ti on ofthe premi s es andi tsboundari es : (¶al «¯ al D» n). . .gave to chari ty al lthe bui l di ng whi chi sknown asthe Patri arch’ sHous e (d«r al ba³rak) i n J erus al em,i ncl udi ngthe nei ghbouri ng encl os ure (whi ch cons i s ts of ) a mi l lknown as ²«¯‡n ‘ U· f ‡r,abakery(f urn),amonas tery(dayr) borderi ngthe bakery,known asal J ad» d,agreat vaul t known asthe Patri arch’ shal l ,ahous e to the north of the s tabl e whi ch has vaul ts i n the bas ement.

FOUNDER Thi s was one of the mos t i mportant f oundati ons i n J erus al em duri ng the Ayyubi d peri od.I tsf ounder was ¶al «¯al D» n,al Mal i kal N«· i r Ab‡’ lMuaf f ar Y‡sufb. Ayy‡b,the f ounder ofthe dynas tyofthe Ayyubi ds(born 532/ 1138,di ed589/ 1193).

Thi s(compl ex) i ssurroundedbyf our boundari es. The f i rs t boundary,to the s outh,reachesto the Churchofthe Res urrecti on (qim«ma) andendsat ahous e known asd«r Y‡s ufal Sa¯¯«f .There,the boundary conti nues wes twards al ong the s treet [ . . . ]upto the ci tywal l .At thi ss i de,there i sthe entrance of the af orementi oned (Patri arch’ s ) Hous e andhal l .The s econdboundary,to the eas t, reachesto the hous e ofthe monksofthe Church ofRes urrecti on (d«r aqi·«’al qim«ma).The thi rd boundary,to the north,reachesdownwardsal ong the s treet to D«r al Bal «³and other bui l di ngs . There i sthe entrance to the af orementi onedhous e and the entrance to the mi l lknown as ²«¯‡n ‘ U· f ‡r. At the upper part (ofthe s treet) i sahous e known asD«r Fuwayl aandthe Monas teryofthe Karajknown asTuf f «¯a. The boundaryendsat the Khar«j »encl os ure.The f ourth boundary,to the wes t, reaches the monas tery (dayr) [ . . . ] and conti nuesunti lthe Monas teryofthe Karaj ,known as al Sankal . Thi s boundary ends at a hous e known asD«r J «m‡s .

¶al «¯ al D» n,or Sal adi n ashe i sbetter known i n the Wes t,wasaKurdbyori gi n andwasborn i n Takr» t,on the Ti gri snorth ofBaghdad.Hi sf ather Ayy‡bandhi s uncl e Shi rk‡hworkedi n the s ervi ce ofthe Sal j uqsand thei r at «begofSyri a,‘ I m«dal D» n Zang»andhi ss on and s ucces s or i n Al eppo and l ater i n Damas cusN‡r al D» n Ma¯m‡d.¶al «¯ al D» n proved to be an ambi ti ousand chari s mati c of f i cer i n N‡r al D» n’ sarmyandhi sf ortune changed when he j oi ned hi s uncl e Shi rk‡h i n hi s expedi ti onsto Egypt (s ee above,Chapter 1). Af ter N‡r al D» n’ sdeathi n 570/ 1174he became s ul tan. He wasatol erant rul er andnotedf or hi ss of thandi nes s towardshi senemi es ,i ncl udi ngthe Franks .He wasal s o renowned f or hi sas ceti c l i f e.He es tabl i s hed rel i gi ous i ns ti tuti ons and bui l t mi l i tary f orti f i cati ons i n Cai ro, J erus al em,Damas cusandother pl acesi n Syri a.He di ed and was buri ed i n Damas cus i n 589/ 1193.For more detai l s on hi sl i f e and ni ne year rei gn as s ul tan,s ee Chapter 1. ENDOWMENT ¶al «¯ al D» n’ s endowment deed (waqf iyya),whi ch i s publ i s hed by al ‘ Al am»(1981),al ‘ Asal »(1983) and Frankel(1992),contai nsval uabl ei nf ormati on about the bui l di ng.The text consi s tsofabout f i ve thousandwords, of whi ch onl y two thousand bel ong to the ori gi nal document.The res t i ncl udesa l ong l i s t oftes ti moni es (shah«d«t ) gi ven by s ucces s i ve j udges ,begi nni ng wi th the q«±»¶a±r al D» nI br«h» m b.‘ Umar al Shahraz‡r»al Sh«f i ‘ »,who certi f i edthe waqf iyyaofthe Kh«nq«hi n 17 Rama±«n 590/1194(Muj » rI I ,119).Thi si sf ol l owedby tes ti moni esoff ourteen j udges ,mos t ofwhom s ervedas q«±» s i n J erus al em and Hebron duri ng the s eventh/ thi rteen andei ghth/ f ourteen centuri es .The l as ti s the q«±»Ab‡ Mu¯ammad ‘ Abdul l «h al ®anaf » ,achi ef 36

The properti esi ncl udedthe f ol l owi ng: 1.The (publ i c) bathknown as®amm«m al Ba³ rak,the 17 vaul ted hal land the nei ghbouri ng shops. Al lof whi chare s urroundedbyf our boundari es .The f i rs t, on the s outh,i sboundedbythe al l eythat l eadsto the 18 armoury(z aradkh«neh),andhasthe B«bal Aqm» n. The s econd,on the eas t,i sbounded by abui l di ng 17

Accordi ngto al ‘ As al » ,thes e were l ocatedi n the Dabb«ghaandKh«n al Zayt area,s outheas t ofthe Churchofthe Hol ySepul chre -1981, 331. 18 Probabl yderi vedf rom the Greekwordkaminos ,af urnace whi chmay bel ongto the Patri arch’ sbath,see Frankel1992,25,n.22

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM

3. 4.

5.

6.

7.

19 20

known in the past as D«r al-Isbi³«r19 and in modern times known as the armoury (zaradkh«neh). The third, on the north, is bounded by the armoury ( zaradkh«neh) . The fourth, on the west, is bounded by the paved street known as the Oil Market (s‡q alzayt), which has the entrances of bath, the vaulted hall and the shops. 2. The pool known as Birkat alBa³rak20 and the adjacent quarter with its upper and lower buildings... Outside the city walls, the pool known as Birkat Mamill«, and the conduit which carries water from this pool to the inner pool known as Birkat al-Ba³rak. The plot of land (ar±) at Upper J‡ra, which is the northern. It is surrounded by four boundaries. The southern one reaches the road leading to Sarfa³a, [which is situated between Upper J‡ra] and Southern J‡ra. It ends at the rocks separating [the plot of land] and the rugged area (wa‘ r), which had been used as a quarry. The eastern boundary ends at the road separating it from the city ditch (khandaq). The northern boundary ends at the road leading to Mamill« and others. The western boundary ends at the stone terrace separating it from J‡ra known as Dayrat b. Mankalab al-Faranj» (the Frankish). [The plot of land] Lower J‡ra, on the south, known as al-Isbi³«r, is surrounded by four boundaries. The southern one ends at an ancient wall with an old channel. The eastern boundary ends at the road leading to B«b al-Khal»l and others. The northern boundary ends at the road leading to Saran³a, which separates it from the Upper J‡ra. The western boundary ends at the road leading to the Pool of ®armin [sic! ] and Baq‘a, and others. The [plot of] land known as al-Baq‘a, which is surrounded by four boundaries. The southern boundary ends at a wall, extending east-west, separating it from the lands of an orchard, part of which is planted with olive trees known as (or belonging to) Sal«ma Ab‡’l-¶ara·»r, an orchard (baq»‘ ) known as Ibn Safl«t, and an orchard known as Ibn Ruqayya… There is an orchard known as the Plain (marj) of Asbak»r, which is included in the rights (of property) of al-Baq‘a. The boundary continues until the land of ²«lbiyya. This is an old wall which separates al-‘Unuq from the lands of ²«lbiyya and ends at .the road leading from it (Plain of Asbak»r) to ²«lbiyya. The boundary continues along an old stone wall, which is bounded by a turpentine (bu³m) tree and has a pear tree. It separates the lands of al-Baq‘a from those of Bayt ¶af«fa. The eastern boundary ends at the road leading to S‡r B«hir and others. The northern boundary extends to Marba‘at al-Nis«, ending at an old road. The western boundary extend to the road leading to Bayt ¶af«fa and elsewhere. Two plots (of land), one part of which is known as the Plain of Asbak»r and the other part is known as

R«s al-Khan‡·, and the rest ... [the original is missing]. [The southern boundary]... [the original is missing]. The eastern boundary [the original is missing] [until the road leading to] al-Baq‘a. This is the road which leads to S‡r B«hir and elsewhere. From the north, (it is bounded by) an orchard in the Baq‘a named D«q Ma‘«sh and al-®amadiyya. From the west, (it is bounded by) the road and the old conduit. The second plot, part of which is known as Khallat Ab‡’l-Wuqiyya, another part as Karm alRukar, and the rest are two orchards known as al‘Unuq and the [plot of] land known as °aribat alArj«m. This plot is surrounded by four boundaries. The southern boundary, which is the boundary of alBaq‘a on the south, is the stone wall separating it from al-²albiyya lands. The eastern boundary ends at the aforementioned conduit separating this plot and the first plot. The northern boundary is called alRuk«r and the adjacent land. From the west, a path separates this land from the land of Bayt ¶af«fa. The terms of the waqfiyya are as follows: [All these properties]... and within these boundaries and their rights ... are given as an endowed, dedicated and eternal charity... They should not be subjected to any property laws and should not be abolished by any reasons of transfer or changed ... as the days, months and years pass... Then the waqfiyya deals with whom the waqf is dedicated: Al-Malik al-N«·ir ¶al«¯ al-D»n ... endowed ... these places, in favour of the ¶‡f» Shaykhs, old and young, the mature and beginner students, the homeless, Arab and non-Arab. He made this house, known as the aforementioned D«r alBa³rak as a rib«³ and residence for those who are homeless and those known ¶‡f»s from other Kh«nq«hs who come to it from far countries. The conditions for residence in the Kh«nq«h are as follows: Al-Malik al-N«·ir ... makes it as a condition that the group (of ¶‡f»s) should convene in this place every day after al-‘ A·r prayers to recite from the Qur’«n ... mention praise and blessing for the one who made the waqf (al-w«qif) and for all the Muslims. As for the post of superintendent, the waqfiyya says: Al-Malik al-N«·ir ¶al«¯ al-D»n... makes it as a condition that the legal superintendent (n«ir) will spend from the revenue of the properties on them (the ¶‡f»s) as he see it right. All matters concerning this waqf will be dealt with by their Shaykh the legal superintendent... He will appoint

This is the Arabic form of the Latin word ‘hospital’. It still exists in the Christian Quarter, but is no longer used.

37

AYYUBID JERUSALEM :AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY a superintendent after him whoever is qualified among them ( the ¶‡f» s) ,if he does not have a qualified son. If he has male sons,he will appoint the oldest and the most ideal as Shaykh,without anyother participation,as longas his descendants would be alive. If theydie out and no one is left, the most ideal of the ¶‡f» s in the place becomes their Shaykh...

restored ( ‘ i m«r a)the minaret ( man«ra) ,the great portal ( baww«ba) ,the vestibule ( darg«h)inside it and the hall behind the vestibule ( » w«n) ,the lower mi ¯r«b... and most of the roofs... before 820/ 141718( Muj » r,II,171) . The Shaykh Burh«n alD» n was born in 780/ 137879and was appointed as Shaykh of the Kh«nq«h in 797/ 139495. His son Naj m alD» n became Shaykh and superintendent of the Kh«nq«h in 836/ 143. He died in J erusalem in 839/ 1436( Muj » r,II,171) .

As for procedure,the waqf i yya continues: AlMalik alN«· ir makes it a condition that the aforementioned ( ¶‡f» s)and their Shaykh should convene in this place or in the Noble Aq· « Mosque on Friday after sunrise to recite the Qur’ «n,and after that to call blessing for who made the waqfand for all Muslims,and to recite some of the readings of the ¶‡f»Shaykhs.

The ¶al«¯iyya Kh«nq«h was one of the main ¶‡f»centres in J erusalem. There,¶‡f» s lived,studied,prayed and carried out reciting of the Qur’ «n ( dhi kr ) . They often were j urisprudents ( f uqah«’ )at ¶al«¯iyya Madrasa. It seems that the post of the Shaykh of the Kh«nq«h was a prestigious one in J erusalem. He was appointed by a special decree from the sultan,which was read in a ceremony attended by the Superintendent of the Two ®arams, the sultan’ s deputy and the q«±» s ( alQalqashand» ,XII,105106;Muj » r,II,303) . This post was occupied bymembers of the Arabfamilyof Ban»Gh«nim for about two centuries since ¶al«¯ alD» n’ s time. Immediately after the Ayyubid conquest of J erusalem, theysettled in the area of B«balGhaw«nima,after whom the ®aram gate is named. Shaykhs from Ban»Gh«nim served until 896/ 1490when the last Shaykh N«· ir alD» n Mu¯ammad,son of the Shaykh J am«l alD» n‘ Abdull«h b. Gh«nim,gave his post up to the q«±»Shih«balD» n b. alMuhandis ( Muj » r alD» n,II,367) .

Accordingto Muj » r alD» n,the q«±»Sharaf alD» n Ab‡ alR‡¯ ‘ º s«,son of the Shaykh J am«l alD» n Ab‡’ lJ ‡d Gh«nim alAn· «r»alKhazraj »alSh«fi‘ » ,Shaykh of the ¶al«¯iyya Kh«nq«h,leased the land in alBaq‘ a outside J erusalem ( from the south) ,which is part of the waqfof the Kh«nq«h,in the year 793[ 1390] . This land became orchards which consequently increased its revenue for the waqf( Muj » r,II,127) . SUBSEQUENTHI STORY A marble inscription,written in nas kh»Mamluk,above the mi ¯r«bin the qi bl a wall of the assemblyhall/ mosque records that:

Muj » r alD» n reports that Shaykh al I s l «m Kam«l alD» n Ab‡’ lMa‘ «l»Mu¯ammad,son of the am» rN«· ir alD» n b. Ab‡ Shar» f alMaqdis»alSh«fi‘ » ,was appointed as a superintendent of the ¶al«¯iyya Kh«nq«h in Shaww«l 900/ J uly 1495. He “began restoring the Kh«nq«h and repairingof what has been in disorder”( Muj » r,II,381) .

Ϧϣ Ϳ΍ ΪΟΎδϣ ήϤόϳ ΎϤϧ· ϢϴΣήϟ΍ ϦϤΣήϟ΍ Ϳ΍ ϢδΑ . 1 ΍άϫ ˯ΎθϧΈΑ έΎη΃ . 2 Γϼμϟ΍ ϡΎϗ΃ϭ ήΧϵ΍ ϡϮϴϟΎΑ Ϧϣ΁ ϦΑ ϰδϴϋ ήϴϘϔϟ΍ ϙέΎΒϤϟ΍ ϊϤΠϤϟ΍ ΓέΎϤϋϭ Ώ΍ήΤϤϟ΍ ϡΎϳ΃ ϲϓ ϪϔϠγ . 3 ϢΣέϭ ϪϨϋ Ϳ΍ Ύϔϋ ϢϧΎϏ ϦΑ ΪϤΣ΃ ίϋ ϥϭϼϗ ϦΑ ΪϤΤϣ ήλΎϨϟ΍ ϚϠϤϟ΍ ϥΎτϠδϟ΍ ΎϧϻϮϣ . Δ΋ΎϤόΒγϭ ϦϴόΑέ΃ϭ ΪΣ΃ ΔϨγ ϥΎΒόη ϲϓ ϩήμϧ

In 1080/ 1669, certain restorations and repairs were carried out in the Kh«nq«h,upon the request of the al‘ Alam»family( Si j i l l171,p. 255;cited byal‘ Asal»1981, 335) .

In the name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate. The mosques of God shall be visited and maintained bysuch as believe in God and the Last Day,establish prayers,... ( Qur’ «n, IX,18) . There ordered the construction of this mi ¯r«band the restoration of this blessed hall the poor ‘ º s«b. A¯mad b. Gh«nim –mayGod pardon him and grant mercyto his descendants –during the reign of our master,the sultan alMalik alN«· ir Mu¯ammad, son of Qal«w‡n, may his victory be glorified,in Sha’ b«n of the year 741 [ J anuaryFebruary1341]( van Berchem 1922,88) .

IV. ARCHITECTURE EARLI ERREMAI NS The ¶al«¯iyya Kh«nq«h,despite its significance as an Islamicinstitution founded in a Frankish monument,did not receive much attention from modern explorers and travellers. An exception to this,however,is C. Schick who carried out between 18851888an initial surveyof the Church of the HolySepulchre and its surrounding. He published a ground plan of this survey in 1885 which included the kh«nq«h to the north of the church ( for a section of the plan see Fig. 1.2) .21An unpublished sketch facade elevation bySchick,found in the archives of the

Accordingto Muj » r alD» n: Burh«n alD» n Ab‡ Is¯«q Ibr«h» m,son of the Shaykh Naj m alD» n A¯mad b. Gh«nim alAn· «r» alSh«fi‘ » ,Shaykh of the ¶al«¯iyya Kh«nq«h,

21

38

Schick,C.(1885),PlanderHeiligenGrabeskircheundUmgebung

CAT AL O G U E O F AY Y U BID BU IL D IN G S IN JE R U SAL E M Palestine Exploration Fund in London, documents the structure in 1887( PEF, Schick/ 227/ 3) .Vincent and Abel examined brief ly the kh«nq«h among other structures bordering the Church ofthe Holy Sepulchre f rom the north and west ( 1914, I I , 268-270) . Thus the building requires an accurate survey and structural analysis in order to trace its development throughout the Crusader, Ayyubid and subsequent 22 As we have noted above, ¶al«¯ alD» n periods. established the kh«nq«h in the f ormer Latin Patriarch’ s palace, which was built in the second decade ofthe sixth/ twelve century( Vincent and Abel 1914, 268;van Berchem 1922, 8788; Burgoyne 1987, 48; 517) . However, apart f rom the presence ofsome Crusader spolia, there are f ew recognisably Frankish surviving elements that are in sit u.Amongthese are stone carvings f ound on the archwayand j ambs ofan interior doorway, which are still visible despite the recent extensive restoration ofthe building( Pl.1. 2) .A f ragment ofa Latin inscription, f ound on the lintel of the same interior doorway, which was discovered in 1898and disappeared shortlyaf ter that, mayhelp us in datingthe building( see Fig.1.3, Pl.1. 3) .I t reads: [ Ar] nulfus pat riarcha domu[ m]qui condiditist am ( Vincent and Abel 1914, 268, n.9, f ig.126) .

The text, which is written in a verse f orm, mentions Patriarch Arnulfas a f ounder ofthe building.He was patriarch in 1099f or six months, and twice between 1112 and 1118( Vincent and Abel, 1914, 268, n.9) .He was responsible in 1114 f or reorganising the chapter ofthe cathedral and enf orcing the Augustinian rule of communal lif e( Prawer 1972, 425;Boase 1977, 79) . A blocked doorway with a typically Crusader cushion arch springingf rom a capital restingon a marble column still exists in the west elevation ofthe complex ( Pl.1. 4) . This was probably St.Mary’ s Gate or the Gate ofthe Patriarch, which served once as the west entrance to the Church ofthe HolySepulchre f rom the Patriarch’ s street ( ²ar» q ®«rat alNa· «ra) , during the Crusader period ( Wilson 1865, 52, pl.24;Vincent and Abel 1914, I I , pl. XV;Corbo 1981, pl.6, no.147) .From this doorway, a great staircase descended to the Chapel ofSt.Mary, which still survives f rom the twelf th centuryrebuilding ( Boase 1977, 79, f ig.2on p.77) . I n f act, Patriarch Arnulfrestored and enlarged the Old Patriarchion, which existed in the eleventh centuryaf ter the restoration ofConstantine Monomachus ( Corbo 1981, I I , pls. 4, 5) . The Patriarch’ s quarter ( quart erium Pat riarchae)is described in detail byWilliam ofTyre, in the northwestern part ofthe city.I t stretches f rom the citadel and David’ s Gate ( B«balKhal» l) , passingthrough the northwestern angle of Tancred’ s tower to St. Stephen’ s Gate ( B«b al‘ Am‡d) .The two other sides were part ofDavid’ s Street in the south, and the main street leadingf rom St.Stephen’ s Gate to the triple market f rom the east.The centre ofthe quarter was the Church ofthe HolySepulchre and the Patriarch’ s palace, f rom which the quarter tookits name ( William ofTyre, I X, 18; Prawer 1980, 301302, Map 2) .This quarter, which was the f irst to be settled by the Latins, f ormed an ecclesiastical lordship with a population of several thousand people and included market places, piazzas, houses, baths, shops and workshops ( Prawer 1980, 303) . LATER REMAINS WEST ELEVATION The main west elevation consists ofthree storeys, each constructed in a dif f erent type ofmasonry:large ashlars f or the lowest;small smoother ashlars in the middle “storey”;and much smaller and less smoothly dressed masonryat the top.

3 IN T E R IO R D O O R W AY O F T H E PAT R IAR CH ’S FIG.1. PAL ACE , SH O W IN G T H E L O CAT IO N O F T H E IN SCR IPT IO N “A” (AFT E R VIN CE N T AN D ABE L 1914) 22

Due to a varietyofcomplex issues related to the propert, it was not possible to carryout a thorough surveyat the ¶al«¯iyya Kh«nq«h.For this reason it is impossible to attain anymore than a verygeneral idea of the structure.My description will mainly include the exterior ofthe buildingand some parts ofthe interior which have been photographed.

39

The masonryofthe lowest ofthese storeys resembles the distinctive masonryobserved in the B«balSilsila/ B«balSak» na ( Catalogue no. 8) and the North Portico ( Catalogue no.15)where it appears to be in reuse.Here, especiallyat the north end, the masonryis homogeneous and is most likelyCrusader.The wall is supported bya six large buttresses which have sloping tops ( Pl.1. 5) . This f eature was f irst employed in Palestine by the Franks ( Burgoyne 1987, 228) .The wall is also pierced by a series ofdoorways leading to chambers, which have

AYYUBID JERUSALEM :AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

always been used as shops. The interior of many of these shops has been altered and is now heavily plastered and clotted with souvenirs and merchandise,makingit quite difficult to investigate their original layout. A curious feature in the wall is a blocked arched doorway which is partially obscured by an archway spanningthe street. I t has a typically Crusader cushion arch springing from a capital restingon a marble column ( see above,Pl. 1.4) . The two upper storeys of masonry form the west wall of individual rooms that are lit by small windows. The west wall of the mosque or the assembly hall on the middle storey is pierced by small windows;one such window is set within a pointedarched shallow recess ( as in Pl. 1.6) . STREET FRONTAGE (Pl. 1. 7) The street frontage,bounded to the west by ²ar» q®«rat alNa· «ra and to the east by a shop with later masonry abuttingon it,has a strikingentrance portal. The portal porch is set in a wall of finely dressed ashlars. On the west side it rises to three floors;the first and second floors appear to be later constructions. Schick’ s elevation,made in 1887,shows that only the first floor existed then. Although the east side of the facade has only the ground floor,it might have had at least another floor correspondingto the first floor on the west side of the courtyard. A cyma recta mouldingextends across the facade at the springingof the arch of the portal. On the east side it continues slightly beyond the portal. The wall on either side of the portal is set back0.25m. On the west side of the facade are two doors opening into two rooms,while on the east side only two rooms of the original six have survived. These rooms were probably intended for shops ( a function they serve until the present day)as an income generatingproperty for the upkeep of the ¶al«¯iyya ( see above,the waqf i yya) . Their doors are spanned with monolithic lintels and surmounted by relieving arches. Above the doors are narrow lancet windows. When Creswell photographed the facade in the 1920s ( Pl. 1.7)an oriel window above the arch of the portal,which no longer exist,could still be seen. ENTRANCE PORTAL( Pls 1.8,1.9) The portal consists of a porch or bay covered with a cross vault and a plain frontal arch. This arch has a hood mould around its extrados and restingon a cyma recta moulding which runs across either side of the bay. Stone benches are built against the east and west sides of the porch. The doorway has a monolithiclintel which is surmounted by a relievingarch. I t is set in a trefoilheaded recess and framed by a pointed arch defined by the same cyma recta moulding of the porch. A rectangular slab,probably intended for a foundation inscription,is set in a trefoil arch. 40

The middle part of the facade is constructed in ablaqof creamcoloured limestone and blackbituminous limestone. I n fact,three courses of blackmasonry extend alongthe three sides of the porch,the lower one startingat the level of the lintel of the doorway;the other two startingat the level of the springing of the trefoil arch,j ust below the cyma recta moulding. The ablaqvoussiors of the trefoil arch,as well as the relievingarch,are alternately creamcoloured and blackstones. The rectangular slab within the arch is also framed by blackstones. The dating of the entrance porch of the ¶al«¯iyya Kh«nq«h has been controversial amongscholars. Based on Muj » r alD» n’ s text ( see above) , van Berchem suggested that the porch and the portal were constructed by the superintendent of the Kh«nq«h,Burh«n alD» n b. Gh«nim ( 797/ 139495) ,who also built the minaret ( van Berchem 1922,90) . Creswell,however,believed that that must have been a restoration ( i m«r a)and rej ected van Berchem’ s dating. He also observed a striking resemblance in form and the moulding between the entrance bay at the Kh«nq«h and sultan Qal«w‡n’ s two foundations of the Rib«³ alMan·‡r» in Hebron ( 679/ 128081) and in Jerusalem ( 681/ 128283) .23 He concluded that towards the end of the seventh/thirteenth century crossvaulted entrance bays ceased to be built, and instead stalactite portals arrived in Palestine from Northern Syria ( Creswell 1978,I I ,162,n. 1) .24 As we will discuss below,Ayyubid buildings like the Siq«ya of al‘ ªdil ( 589/ 1193, no. 4) , the B«b al‘ Atm ( ca. 610/ 1213, no. 16) , the B«b ®i³ ³ a ( reconstructed 617/ 1220) each have similar crossvaulted bays with plain frontal arches. But none of these buildings has any ablaqdecoration. I n addition,the early Mamlukbuilding of the Rib«³‘ Al«’alD» n( 666/ 126768)has a comparable crossvaulted porch ( Burgoyne 1987,121,Pl. 3.2) . The fact that entrance porches are quite common architectural feature in Ayyubid and early Mamlukperiods suggests that the ¶al«¯iyya porch is likely to be contemporaneous. Moreover,the trefoil arch25 at the entrance may provide another clue for dating. The voussoirs at the cusps of the arch are identical to those found at the Muqaddamiyya Madrasa in Aleppo ( 564/ 1169)and their construction technique appears to be similar ( Ecochard 193738,83108;Burgoyne 1979,284285,fig. 25;Allen 1986,1213) . Burgoyne observed that the voussoirs at the 23

On the Rib«³alMan· ‡r»in Jerusalem see Burgoyne 1987,133,pl. 5.3. 24 The first appearance of a muqarnas( stalactite)portal in J erusalem was not in 711/ 1311,however,as Creswell ( 1978,I I ,147)noted. I n fact,it was a little earlier in 695/ 1295at the Duwayad«riyya Kh«nq«h, see Burgoyne 1987,157,pl. 8.6. 25 The evolution of the trefoil arch was not dealt with by Creswell. I t was briefly outlined by M. H. Burgoyne in relation to the trefoil arches employed in some Mamluk monuments in J erusalem. He traces the trefoil arch beginning in Salj uq brick monuments ( such as Gunb«di Q«b‡s 397/ 100607and Masj idi J«mi‘at I · fah«n,481/ 1088) . He claims that it had been introduced from Salj uqI ran to North Syria,where it appeared in Aleppo at the minaret of the Great Mosque ( 48387/ 109095)and Muqaddamiyya Madrasa ( 564/ 1169) .

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM

¶al«¯iyya, particularly the triangular voussoirs at the points of adjoining cusps, are counterfeit and do not reach the extrados of the arch, as at the trefoil arch of the Muqaddamiyya (1979, 285). This evidence, therefore, confirms Creswell’s conclusion that the entrance porch was constructed in 585/1189 and that the later ninth/fifteenth century restoration did not alter the structure and layout.

barrel vaulted chambers at the ground floor and a typically Ottoman pair of windows at the first floor (Pl. 1.11). A wall was erected, probably during the Ottoman period, on the south side to mark the border between the Kh«nq«h and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. FIRST FLOOR The large hall on the first floor is vaulted with three groin-vaulted bays that are separated by transverse arches carried on wall piers (Pl.1.12). This hall was recently renovated and subsequently opened for public prayers. However, it still awaits detailed investigation to determine whether its original function was as a Muslim prayer hall or whether it was an adaptation of an earlier structure.

VESTIBULE (Fig. 1.2) The entrance door opens into a high vestibule covered with a folded cross vault from which doors in each side lead to other parts of the building; a staircase on the west side leading up to the first floor; a passageway to the courtyard to the east; an archway to a cross-vaulted chamber, which serves now as a prayer hall of a mosque with a mi¯r«b in the qibla wall, to the south. On east and west side of the vestibule are stone benches.

A mi¯r«b in the qibla wall has a pointed arch whose voussiors comprise alternating black and cream-coloured stones and is flanked by colonnettes surmounted by capitals (Pl. 1.13). The inscription plaque which was fixed above the arch was removed from its original place (Pl. 1.14). The text refers explicitly to the construction (insh«’ ) of the mi¯r«b and the restoration of the assembly hall (maj ma‘ ) in 741/1341 (see above). On the left-hand side of the mi¯r«b is a blocked door spanned with a monolithic lintel which led to the rear of the hall.

COURTYARD AND GROUND FLOOR (Pl. 1.10) The courtyard is surrounded on the north, east and west sides by vaulted chambers. A staircase on the north side leads up to the upper floor and the minaret (before 820/1417-18) which is square in plan and belongs to the traditional Syrian type (Burgoyne 1987, 517-518, no. 52). A large buttress on the west side is flanked by two

PLATE 1. 1:GENERAL VIEW

OFTHE KHƖNQƖH AND ITS MINARET LOOKING NORTH

41

AYYUBID JERUSALEM:AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

PLATE 1. 2:INTERIOR DOORWAY PRESUMABLY BELONGING TO THE CRUSADER PATRIARCH’S PALACE (BEFORE RESTORATION)

PLATE 1. 4:THE BLOCKED GATE OFST MARY, THE CRUSADER WEST DOORWAY TO THE CHURCH OFTHE HOLY SEPULCHRE

PLATE 1. 3:INTERIOR DOORWAY PRESUMABLY BELONGING TO THE CRUSADER PATRIARCH’S PALACE (AFTER RESTORATION)

PLATE 1. 5:WEST ELEVATION

42

CATALOGUE OF AYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM

PLATE 1.6: SHALLOW RECESS IN WEST ELEVATION

PLATE 1.8: PORTAL

PLATE 1.9: TREFOIL ARCH AND ABLAQ DECORATION OF THE PORTAL

PLATE 1.7: STREET FAÇADE IN THE 1920S (COURTESY OF THE CRESWELL ARCHIVE, THE ASHMOLEAN MUSEUM, OXFORD)

43

AY Y U B ID JE R U SALE M:AN AR CH IT E CT U R AL AND AR CH AE O LO G ICAL ST U D Y

10:CO U R T Y AR D , LO O K ING PLATE 1.

SO U T H -W E ST

12:MO SQ U E O R PLATE 1.

ASSE MB LY H ALL LO O K ING SO U T H

13:MIH̙ RƖB PLATE 1.

11:LAR G E B U T T R E SS O N W PLATE 1.

E ST SID E O F

CO U R T Y AR D

14:INSCR IPT IO N PLATE 1.

44

CATALOGUE OF AYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM Thi s hal l( Sol omon’ s St abl es )i s bui l t mor e wonder f ul l y and mor es ol i dl yt han t he ( Aq· a) Mos que above. Ins i de t he ¶al «¯i yya Kh«nq«h ( whi chi sneart heminbarf orpr eachi ng,wher ea s haykh atpr es entr es i des ,known as al Khat n» , af t erwhom i ti snow cal l ed,t her ear et wof l i ghtof s t eps . Thef i r s thast hi r t ys i xs t epsl eadi ngdown t o par t of t he abovement i oned hal l ,and t he s econd hasf i f t yf ours t epsl eadi ng down t ot he r emai ni ng par toft heabovement i oned hal l( al ‘ Umar » ,166) .

2 Z«wi yaal Khat ni yya

ΔϴϨΘΨϟ΍ Δϳϭ΍ΰϟ΍ Endowedi n587/1191 Z«wiya andmadr as a oft hes haykhJ al «lal D» nA¯madb. al Sh«s h» I. LOCATION ( Fi g. 2.1) The z «wiya i sl ocat ed s out h of t he Aq· a Mos que, i mmedi at el ybehi ndt heqibl a wal landt hemihrab,above apr oj ect i ngt oweroft hes out hci t ywal l .

Inanot herpas s age,al ‘ Umar »adds : I ent er ed s ome oft hes e pl aces and s aw t her e wonder f ulbui l di ngs ,enough t of i l lt he eye. I ent er ed t hem t hr ough t hez «wiya,known ast he r es i denceofal Khat n» ,andt henpas s edont ot he or char dsand( t hepl ace)out s i det heMos que( al ‘ Umar » ,167) . Muj » ral D» nf i r s tcal l si t“t heKhant hani yyaZ«wi ya”and l ocat esi tbys ayi ng: “i nf r ontoft he( Aq· a)Mos quebehi nd t heqibl a,andadj acentt oi tf r om t hewes ti st her es i dence oft hepr eacher( d«ral khi³ «ba) ”( Muj » r ,II,13) . Andi n anot herpl acehel ocat esi t“neart heAq· aMos quebehi nd t heminbar ”( Muj » r ,II,34) . Lat eri nhi swor k,however ,he cal l si t“al Khat ni yya”( Muj » rII,174,206,208) . The name al Khat ni yya appear st o be t he cor r ectone s i ncei ti si ndi cat edi nnumer ouss ij il ldocument si nt he Ot t omanShar ’ iCour ti nJ er us al em ( al ‘ As al i1981,101, ci t esSij il l207,p. 247;Sij il l63,p. 92) . DATEAND FOUNDER Muj » ral D» ns t at est hatt hez «wiya:

FIG. 2.1 LOCATION PLAN

II. SITE AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION Thebui l di ngl i eswi t hi nacompl exofr ui nouss t r uct ur es t hat ar el ocat ed agai ns tt he s out h end of t he Aq· a Mos que,i nt hear eawher et heci t ywal lj oi nst heHar am wal li nazi gzagmanner . Her eananci entdoubl et oweri n t heci t ywal lmayhavebeenbui l tbyt heFat i mi dsi nt he f i f t h/el event h or t he Templ ar si n t he s i xt h/t wel f t h cent ur y. Thecompl exi sbut t r es s edont hewes ts i deby t wo t al l bl i nd ar ches ( Pl . 2.1) . At t he conj unct i on bet weent heci t ywal landt heHar am wal li st hebl ocked ent r ancet ot heDoubl eGat e,whi chpr ot r udesonei t her s i deoft hewal l( Pl . 2.2) . III. HISTORY

… wasendowedbyal Mal i k¶al «¯al D» n... f ora r i ght eousman who i st hes haykh,t hegr eat ,t he as cet i c,t he wor s hi pper ,t he her o( ofhol y war ) J al «lal D» nMu¯ammadb. A¯madb. Mu¯ammad J al «lal D» nal Sh«s h» ,whol i vesi nt hevi ci ni t yof J er us al em ( Bayt al Maqdi s ) . Then af t er f or whoeverf ol l owshi m. Heent r us t edi twi t hagr oup ofnot abl es . It ss t r uct ur ei sanci entf r om t het i me oft heByzant i nes( al r ‡m) ,butt hecons t r uct i onof t hehous ei ns i det hez «wiya i snew. Thedat eoft he endowmentdocumenti s18 Rabi ‘I,587 ( 1191) ( Muj » r ,II,34) . A copyoft heor i gi nalwaqf iyya i sf oundi nt heShar ‘ iCour t i nJ er us al em ( Sij il l63,p. 92)and i sdat ed t o 991/1583. Amongt hepr oper t i esendowedf ort hez «wiya/ madr as ai sa hous ei nt hes t r eetoft heGat eoft heCot t onMer chant s ’ Mar ket( B«bS‡qal Qa³ ³ an» n)( al As al i1981,102) .

I DENTI FI CATI ON Inhi sdes cr i pt i onofSol omon’ sSt abl esatt hes out hs i de oft he Har am,al ‘ Umar »r ef er st ot he z «wiya as t he ¶al «¯i yyaKh«nq«h: 45

SUBSEQUENTHI STORY Among t he s haykhswho t ook char ge oft he Khat ni ya Z«wi ya,Muj » ral D» nment i onst hes haykhShi h«bal D» n

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY Ab‡’l ‘Abb«s A¯mad b. Ali b. Rasl«n al-Raml» alMaqdis» al-Sh«fi‘» (775/1373-844/1440), who originally came from Ramle and was buried in the Mamilla cemetery (Muj»r, II, 174-175); the shaykh Burh«n al-D»n Ab‡ Is¯«q b. Zayn al-D»n al-Ans«r» al-Khal»l» al-Sh«fi‘» (819/1416-893/1489), who came from al-Khal»l (Hebron) and taught Islamic law in the z«wiya; after his death, his son Shih«b al-D»n Ab‡’l ‘Abb«s A¯mad became shaykh of the Khatniya until 900/1496 (Muj»r, II, 206-207).

The entrance door, which is situated few metres west of the mi¯r«b of the Aq·a Mosque, leads into a covered corridor (1.48 m. wide). On the west side a series of three chambers appear to be of Ottoman date. This is perhaps the location of d«r al-khi³«ba mentioned by Muj»r al-D»n (see above). To the east, a door (1.75 m. high and 0.82 m. wide) leads into two halls oriented north-south that are largely ruined. The western hall is rectangular in plan, measuring internally 26.15 m. long by 7.40 m. wide. It probably had four vaulted bays, of which only the northernmost bay, cross-vaulted with a transverse arch supported by wall piers, survived (Pl. 2.3). Wall piers for at least two other bays still exist on either side of the hall (Pl. 2.4). Schick, who visited and mapped the site in 1892, observed only three cross-vaulted bays (1892, 20, Plan; Fig. 2.3). He also described the west wall of the hall, which is now largely rebuilt, as being originally Byzantine, and thickened in Muslim or Crusader times (Schick 1892, 21, Plan).

According to a sijill document dated 1123/1711, the shaykh A¯mad al-‘Alam» lived in the z«wiya and took charge of it (sijill 207, p. 247). The building may have been severely damaged by an earthquake and subsequently was put out of use. Nineteenth century photographs and plans of the Haram show the building to be in a ruinous state. IV. ARCHITECTURE The building has no inscription but its identification is certain from texts of al-‘Umar» and Muj»r al-D»n. Only part of the z«wiya/ madrasa survives and so it is difficult to define precisely its configuration. However, its general layout has always followed the zigzag outline of the tower in the south city wall (see ground plan Fig. 2.2). Entrance was and still is from the interior of the Aq·a Mosque, but the staircase linking the building to the lower part of the tower and the outside of the Haram, as indicated by the topographical notes of Muj»r al-D»n (see above), were blocked at an unknown date.

FIG. 2.3 GROUND PLAN (AFTER SCHICK 1892)

Two doorways in the east wall of this hall lead to another smaller ruined hall. It contains remains of a small bath in its south-west corner, and various dividing walls which appear to be a recent insertion. In the north wall of this hall, the upper part of the ancient so-called “Double Gate” is discernible (Pl. 2.5). This gate was originally constructed in the Herodian period. It was rebuilt in the Umayyad period and was identified as B«b al-Nab» (Gate of the Prophet). A blocked window surmounted by a rounded arch in the upper part of the west wall appears to be of Crusader origin (Pl. 2.6). A flight of steps in the eastern part of the hall leads down to the lower floor of the structure (Pl. 2.7). This is probably the flight of steps described by al-‘Umar» which led down to the orchards outside the Haram. Finally, both R. G. Wray and C. Schick who visited the site at the end of the nineteenth century observed large quantities of white marble (perhaps Crusader in origin) which were utilised in the repairs of buildings in the Haram (Wray 1891, 321; Schick 1892, 21).

FIG. 2.2 GROUND PLAN (RE-DRAWN AFTER DIA) 46

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM

Җ PLATE 2.1: DOUBLE TOWER SOUTH OFTHE AQSA MOSQUE WITH THE ZƖWIYA ON THE UPPER PART, LOOKING NORTH-EAST

Җ PLATE 2.2: DOUBLE TOWER SOUTH OFTHE AQSA MOSQUE WITH THE BLOCKED ENTRANCE TO THE DOUBLE GATE (ON THE RIGHT) , LOOKING NORTH-WEST

PLATE 2.4: WESTERN HALL SHOWING SURVIVING GROINED ARCH VAULT AND WALL PIERSLOOKING SOUTHEAST

PLATE 2.3: GENERAL VIEW OFTHE WESTERN HALL

PLATE 2.5: EASTERN HALL SHOWING AT THE REAR THE ARCHESOFTHE DOUBLE GATE

LOOKING NORTH

47

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

PLATE 2.7: FLIGHT OF STEPS LEADING TO THE LOWER FLOOR OF THE TOWER

PLATE 2.6: WESTERN WALL OF EASTERN HALL SHOWING CRUSADER BLOCKED WINDOW, LOOKING NORTH-WEST

48

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM

3

Res urrect i on( qum«ma) ,abovet hepri s onoft hepol i ce, ( whi chwasendowed)i nt heyear 589( / 1193) ”( Muj » r,II, 46) . Inanot her pl ace,hepos i t i onst hi smos que“t owards t he Church of t he Res urrect i on ( qum«ma) f rom t he sout h”( Muj » r,II,49) .

J «mi ‘ al Af ±al

ϞπϓϷ΍ ϊϣΎΟ Conver t edandendowedi n589/ 1193 Mos queofal Mal i kal Af ±al‘ Al » ,s onof¶al «¯al D» n Ot hernames :J «mi ‘al ‘ Umar i yya,Mas j i d‘ Umarb. al Kha³ ³ «b I. LOCATION ( Fi g. 3.1) The mos que i ss i t uat ed i mmedi at el yt ot he s out h and s out hwes toft hef or ecour torparvis i nf r ontoft hemai n ent r ancet ot heChur choft heHol ySepul chr e.

DATE A pl aquewi t hani ns cri pt i onabovet hemi ¯r«breads :

.2 ΪΠδϤϟ΍ ΍άϫ ΓέΎϤό˶Αήϣ΃ ϢϴΣήϟ΍ ϦϤΣήϟ΍ Ϳ΍ ϢδΑ .1 έϮϧ ϞπϓϷ΍ ϚϠϤϟ΍ ΎϧϻϮϣ ΔϛέΎΒϤϟ΍ ΔΟέΪϟ΍ϭ ϒϳήθϟ΍ Ϧϣ ϪψϓΎΣϭ α˷ΪϘϤϟ΍Ϳ΍ ΖϴΑ ϡΩΎΧ ϦϳΪϟ΍ϭ .3 ΎϴϧΪϟ΍ ϚϠϤϟ΍ ΎϧϻϮϣ ϦΑ ϲ˷ϠϋϦδΤϟ΍ ϮΑ΃ .4 ϦϳήϓΎϜϟ΍ ΓΩήϤϟ΍ α˷ΪϗΏϮ˷ϳ΃ ϦΑ .5 ϒγϮϳ ϦϳΪϟ΍ϭ ΎϴϧΪϟ΍ Ρϼλ ήλΎϨϟ΍ ΔϨγ έϮϬη ϲϓ Ϫϧ΍Ϯοέ ˯ΎϐΘΑ· ϪΤϳήο έϮϧϭ ϪΣϭέ Ϳ΍ ΔϤΣέ ϰϟ· ήϴϘϔϟ΍ ϲ˷ϟϮΘΑ Δ΋Ύϣ βϤΧϭ ϦϴϧΎϤΛϭ .6 ϊδΗ .α˷ΪϘϤϟ΍ΖϴΒϟΎΑ ΏήΤϟ΍ ϲ˷ϟϮΘϣϚϳΩήΟ ϦϳΪϟ΍ ΰϋ Ϳ΍ “In t he name of God, t he Merci f ul ,t he Compassi onat e. Therest orat i on( ‘ i m«ra)oft hi s nobl emosqueandbl essedst ai rcase( daraj a)was ordered by our Lord al Mal i k al Af ±alN‡r al Duny«wa’ l D» n,t heservantoft hehol y God’ s house ( Jerusal em)and i t sguardi an agai nstt he i nf i delrebel s,Ab‡’ l ®asan‘ Al » ,sonofour l ord al Mal i k al N«·i r ¶al «¯ al Duny« wa’ l D» n Y‡suf ,son ofAyy‡b – may God sanct i f y hi s souland i l l umi nat ehi st omb – f or seeki ng hi s agreement ,i nt he mont hs of t he year f i ve hundred and ei ght y ni ne [ 1193] , duri ng t he governorshi poft heonei nneedofGod’ smercy, ‘ Izz al D» n Jurd» k,governor oft he mi l i t ary i n Jerusal em”( van Berchem 1922,9699,no. 36; RCEA,IX,187,no. 3464) .

1 LOCATION PLAN FIG.3.

FOUNDER II. SITE AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION The mos que i sent ered f rom t he covered s t reetoft he Qan³ aratal Qi y«mawhi chl eadsdowneas t wardst ot he Churchoft heHol y Sepul chre. Onpas s i ngt hrought he el aborat el ydecorat edOt t omanout er port alonedes cends af l i ghtofs t epst o a court yard whi ch i sbounded by modernbat hroomst ot henort h. Ont heeas ts i deoft he court yardat al lmi naretwi t haSyri ant ypes quaret ower i sdat edt ot heMaml ukperi od. Thebui l di ng i sbounded t ot heeas tbyt heConventof Get hs emane,t ot he wes tby s hops ;on t he f i rs tf l oor above t he prayer hal li sa bui l di ng f rom t he Ot t oman peri odt hathous esagi rl s ’s chool . III. HISTORY IDENTIFICATION Muj » r al D» ni nf ormsust hatamongt hewaqf sofal Mal i k al Af ±ali s“t hemos que,adj acentt ot heChurch oft he 49

Thef ounder wasal Mal i kal Af ±alAb‡’ l®as an‘ Al »N‡r al D» n,t heel des ts on of¶al «¯ al D» n. Hewasborni n 565/ 116970anddi edatSumays«³i n622/ 1225. Onhi s f at her’ sdeat hhewasrecogni zedass ul t anandheadof t heAyyubi df ami l y. From hi ss eatofrul ei nDamas cus hecont rol l edl arget erri t ori esi ncl udi ngt heHauran,J abal al Dur‡z,‘ Aj l ‡n,Si don,Tyreandt hewhol eofPal es t i ne asf ar ast hef ort res sofDaron. Butduet ohi si ncapaci t y t orul eands el f i ndul gence,coupl edwi t ht hes t ruggl eof s ucces s i onwi t hhi sbrot her al ‘ Az» z,hewass t ri ppedof hi st i t l eass ul t anands ubs equent l yl os tEgypt ,Damas cus and al lhi s Syri an t erri t ori es . Ins t ead he recei ved t he i s ol at edf ort res sofSal hkadi nt heJ abalal Dur‡z( Gi bb 1960,215;Humphreys1977,75122) . Thei ns cri pt i on al s oment i onst hatt hef oundat i onwork wasexecut edby‘ Izzal D» nJ urd» k,whoi sal s oi dent i f i ed ast hegovernor and mi l i t ary commander ofJ erus al em. He was N‡r al D» n’ s maml ‡k,and one ofhi s ol des t adherent s among t he Syri an mi l i t ary commanders . Accordi ng t ot he chroni cl er ‘ Imad al D» n,J urd» k was

AYYUBID JERUSALEM :AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

appointed by ¶al«¯ al-D»n in Rama±«n 588/SeptemberOctober asa w«l» ofJ erus alem (‘ Imad al-D»n,318). SUBSEQUENTHI STORY Muj »r al-D»n reports that the minaret attached to the Mos que of al-Af ±al was renewed s ome time bef ore 870/1465 f ollowing the damage caus ed by a s evere earthquake (Muj »r,II,49). Van Berchem s ugges tsthat the minaret was rebuilt af ter the earthquake of863/1458 (1922, 102, n. 1). On stylis tic grounds and its res emblance to the ¶al«¯iyya Minaret,Burgoyne adopts Muj »r al-D»n’ sdatingf or the minaret “bef ore 870/146566”(1987,568). Duringthe Ottoman period the Mos que ofal-Af ±al was identif ied as “J «mi‘ ‘ Umar” s ince a popular legend as s ociated it withthe s econd caliph‘ Umar b. al-Kha³ ³ «b f ollowinghisconques t ofthe J erus alem in 16/638. This legend hasbeen ref lected in a now mis s ing res toration inscription dated to 1255-77/1839-61whichwasf ixed on the outer portal (van Berchem 1922,99-101,no. 37).

IV. ARCHITECTURE (ground plan Fig. 3.2) The mos que wases tablis hed in a part ofthe north-wes t corner ofCrus ader Hos pital built by the KnightsofSt. J ohn,on the s outh s ide ofthe par vi s ,f acing the s outh entrance ofthe Holy Sepulchre (Vincent 1901,100,Plan; Schick1902,47-48,Plan;As hbee 1924,ill. 46[ plan by Schick] ;Pringle 1982,98;Biebers tein and Bloedhorn 1994,181).

FIG. 3.2 GROUND PLAN 50

The main outer entrance into the mos que isthroughan elaborately decorated portal (Pl. 3.1). The prayer hall of the mos que isentered throughthe two trans vers e arches , on the s ouths ide ofthe courtyard (Pl. 3.2). It isa twoais led hall (almos ts quare in plan 14.75 m. eas t-wes t by 14.50 m. north-south) consis ting oftwo baysofgroin vaultscarried on f our piersand on res pondingpilas ters built into the eas t and s outhwalls . Eachbay iss eparated f rom one another by trans vers e arches(Pl. 3.3). The piers have bas es1.51m. s quare,and their s pacingis5.90m. apart. In the middle ofthe eas t wall ofthe north-eas t bay a door givesacces sto a s taircase leadingup to the top of the minaret (Pl. 3.4). The pres ent mi ¯r«b,built ofs mall modern mas onry, appearsto have been a recent ins ertion. Itspos ition was s hif ted s lightly wes tward to the middle ofthe s outhwes tern bay (s ee plan,Fig. 3.2,Pl. 3.5). The plaque of the f oundation ins cription wasals o ins erted above the mi ¯r«band theref ore it isnot i ns i t u(Pl. 3.6). The ins cription explicitly ref ers to the res toration (‘ i m«r a) –not construction (i nsh«’ ) –whichmay imply als o the adaptation ofthe Crus ader hallsinto a mos que. Van Berchem s ugges ted that the s teps (daraj a) mentioned in the ins cription were the f light ofs tairs leading down f rom the mos que to the par vi s ofthe Church ofthe Holy Sepulchre,above which the portal and the ins cription originally s tood (1922,97). During repair worksin the mos que in 1995,a blocked door in the s outh-wes tern corner wasrevealed (ass een in Pl. 3.5). When the blockingwaspierced,f urther vaulted bays were expos ed extending to the wes t. Af ter the removal ofa cons iderable amount ofdebris ,three bays were renovated to s erve asan extens ion (20m. longby 9.60m. wide) f or the mos que. The bayshave groin vaults restingon piers1.53 m. square and s eparated f rom one another by trans vers e arches(Pl. 3.7). On the s of f it ofa trans vers e arch in the eas ternmos t bay isgraf f iti ofa cres cent and the word All«h,next to a Crus ader mas on’ s mark,carved on the mas onry. TracesofCrus ader tooling including diagonally dres s ed mas onry and mas ons ’ markswere f ound. Many ofthes e dis appeared asa res ult ofredres s ingand cleaningthe mas onry carried out during the recent repair works .

CAT AL OG U E OF AY Y U BID BU IL DING S IN JER U SAL EM

PLATE 3.4:DOOR

PLATE 3.1:OU T ER

T O ST AIR CASE L EADING T O T H E T OP OF T H E M INAR ET

ENT R ANCE POR T AL

EST ER N BAY SH OW ING MIH̚ RƖB AND A SM AL L DOOR T O T H E W EST EX T ENSION

PLATE 3.5:SOU T H -W

PLATE 3.2:FAÇ ADE OF PR AY ER

H AL L

PLATE 3.6:INSCR IPT ION

PLATE 3.3:EAST ER N BAY S OF PR AY ER

H AL L ,

PLATE 3.7:NEW

R ENOV AT ED EX T ENSION OF T H E M OSQ U E, L OOK ING NOR T H -W EST

L OOK ING SOU T H

51

AYYUBID JERUSALEM :AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

Al ’ Umar i ,cal l i ngi tt hePur i f i cat i onPl ace(al ²ah«ra) , des cr i besi tasf ol l ows :

4 Si q«yatal ‘ ªdi l

ϝΩΎόϟ΍ ΔϳΎϘγ

. . .Att hesi deoft hi s(west )por t i co (riw«q)i s t he Gat e of Abl ut i ons (B«b al ²ah«r a) . It consi st soft wopur i f i cat i onpl aces(³ ah«rat ayn) , one f or women and one f or men. The pur i f i cat i onpl acef ormencont ai nst went yt hr ee r oomsand al ar gef ount ai n.On t het op oft he pur i f i cat i on pl ace f or women ar el odgi ngs l eased f ort he benef i toft he pi ousf oundat i on (waqf )oft he®ar am.

589/ 1193 Wat erf ount ai nori ns t al l at i onofal Mal i k‘ ªdi l Ot hernames :al-mutawa±±a’ ( t heMaml uk per i od) ,alMa³ hara ( t heOt t omanper i odandunt i lt hepr es entday) I LOCATION (Fi g.4. 1) Thei ns t al l at i oni sl ocat edout s i det he®ar am gat eofB«b al Ma³ har a(Gat eofAbl ut i ons ) ,ont hes out hwes tendof t he al l ey Zuq«q B«b al Ma³ har a;eas tof®amm«m al Shi f «.

Fourst epsl eadf r om t he®ar am espl anadet ot he Gat e ofAbl ut i ons. . .Af t ert hi st her e ar e seven st epsl eadi ngt oal ongi shcor r i dorbywhi chone r eachest he pur i f i cat i on pl ace f ormen and t he f l i ght of st eps t o t he upper f l oor of t he pur i f i cat i on pl ace f orwomen.The pur i f i cat i on pl ace f or women i s att he begi nni ng of t he cor r i dort ot her i ghtasoneent er s”(al ‘ Umar » , 162) . DATE Accor di ng t o t he i ns cr i pt i on, t he or der f or t he cons t r uct i on of t he siq«ya i s dat ed t o Shaww«l 589/ Oct ober1193.Int heconvent i onalway,t hi sr ef er st o t he dat e of compl et i on.The t extof t he i ns cr i pt i on, cons i s t i ngofei ghtl i nesofnaskh»Ayyubi ds cr i pt ,r eads asf ol l ows :

ΔϳΎϘδϟ΍ ϩάϫ ϞϤόΑ ήϣ΃ ϢϴΣήϟ΍ ϦϤΣήϟ΍ Ϳ΍ ϢδΑ . 1 ϚϠϤϟ΍ ϞΟϷ΍ Ϊϴδϟ΍ ΎϧϻϮϣ ΓΪϴόδϟ΍ . 2 Δϛ έΎΒϤϟ΍ ϡΎϧϷ΍ ΙΎϴϏ ϡϼγϻ΍ ήλΎϧ ϡΎϤϬϟ΍ . 3 ή˷ϔψϤϟ΍ ϝΩΎόϟ΍ ϮΑ΍ ϦϴϤϠδϤϟ΍ εϮϴΟ ϥΎτϠγ . 4 ϦϳΪϟ΍ϭ ΎϴϧΪϟ΍ ϒϴγ Ϳ΍ ϡ΍Ω΃ ϦϴϨϣΆϤϟ΍ ήϴϣ΃ . 5 ϞϴϠΧ ΏϮϳ΃ ϦΑ ΪϤΤϣ ήϜΑ ϦϴϘϓΎΨϟ΍ ϲϓ ήμϧϭ . 6 ϪΘϤϠϛ ΍ΪΑ΃ ϼϋ΃ϭ ϪΗέΪϗ ήϬη ϲϓ ϪΘϳέΫϭ . 7 Ϫϟ΁ϭ ΪϤΤϤΑ ϪΘϳϮϟ΃ϭ Ϫϣϼϋ΃ Ϳ ΪϤΤϟ΍ϭ . 8 Δ΋Ύϣ βϤΧϭ ϦϴϨϤΛϭ ϊδΗ ΔϨγ ϝ΍Ϯη ˱ΎϤϴϠδΗ ϢϠγϭ ΪϤΤϣ ΎϧΪ˷ϴγϰϠϋ ϪΗ΍ϮϠλϭ

FIG.4. 1 LOCATION PLAN

II SITE AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION Theonl ysur vi vi ngcomponentoft hesiq«ya i sacr os s vaul t ed por ch and an ent r ancear chway,s i t uat ed att he ent r ance of t he pr es entday Pl ace of Abl ut i ons (al Ma³ har a) .Iti sr eached by ent er i ng B«b al Ma³ har a,i n t hewestpor t i cooft he®ar am,i nt oanal l eyway(about30 m.l ong)cal l edZuq«qB«bal Ma³ har a,t hent ur ni ngl ef t att heend. III HISTORY I DENTI FI CATI ON Thebui l di ngi sf ul l yi dent i f i edbyapr es er vedf oundat i on i ns cr i pt i on s i t uat ed i nt he t ympanum of t he ar ched door wayoft heent r ance(s eebel ow) . 52

In t he name of God t he Mer ci f ul , t he t r uctt hi s Compas s i onat e.Ther e or der ed t o cons bl es s edhappywat erf ount ai n(siq«ya)ourmas t er , t hegr eat ,al Mal i k‘ ªdi l,t hevi ct or i ous ,t heher o, t hevi ct orofIs l am,t hes avi ourofcr eat ur es ,Sayf al Duny«wa’ l D» n,t heSul t anofMus l i m ar mi es , Ab‡ BakrMu¯ammadb.Ayy‡b,t hebel ovedof t hepr i nceoft hebel i ever s ,mayGodpr ol onghi s mi ght ,and r ai s ehi saut hor i t yf or ever ,and gr ant vi ct or yt ot hebear er sofhi sf l agsandembl ems , f or t he s ake of Mu¯ammad, hi sf ami l y and des cendant s ,i nt hemont hofShaww«loft heyear 589[ Oct ober1193](vanBer chem 1927,103108; RCEA,IX,1937,no.3463;Wal l sandAb‡’ lHaj j 1980,9,no.38) .

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM FOUNDER This is not the place to give a long detailedaccount ofthe lif e ofSultan alMalik‘ ªdil SayfalD» n,br otherof¶al«¯ alD» n,who r eigned between 596/ 1200 and 615/1218. He commissioned this pr oj ect,bef or e ascending to the sultanate, as one of the many pious f oundations under taken in the ®ar am and its vicinity by var ious seniormember s ofthe Ayyubidf amily.Theyintendedto link their name with the sacr ed pr ecinct af ter the r econquest ofJ er usalem f r om the Fr anks.

smallerdr essedashlar s ofthe upperpar t which extends up to two cour ses above the ar ch (Pl.4. 4) .These two masonr y types indicate two stages in the sequence of constr uction,ofwhich the lowerbelongs to the or iginal phase.

SUBSEQUENTHI STORY AlSuy‡³ »(ca.875/ 1470)wr ites: It is saidthat B«balSiq«ya was oldandhas been r uined, and when the late ‘ Al«’alD» n alBa· » rr estor ed the men’ s Ablution Place (al may±a’ ,anothername f orthe s i q«ya) ,he r estor ed this gate (cited by van Ber chem 1922,104,n.3) . Muj » ralD» n (901/ 1496)r epor ts: The Gate ofAblution (B«balMutawa±±a’ )f r om which one can exit to the Ablution Place (mut awadda’ )ofthe Mosque which was oldand r uined,then it was r estor ed by ‘ Al«’alD» n alBa· » r , who also r estor ed the Ablution Place (Muj » r ,II,31) . Accor ding to both alSuy‡³ » and Muj » r alD» n, the ablutions ar ea (which was called al may±a’ and al Mut awa±±a’r espectively,the f or mers i q«ya)and the gate leading to it wer er epair edbythe amir‘ Al«’alD» n alBa· » r , the Super intendent of the Two ®ar ams (J er usalem and Hebr on)in ca.665/ 126667 (Bur goyne 1987,117;al‘ Asal»1982,227) .

FIG.4. 2 GROUND PLAN (AFTER DIA)

IV ARCHITECTURE EXTERI OR (Figs 4. 2,4. 3) The por ch is deep andalmost squar e in plan,measur ing 3. 16m.on the nor th side,2. 95m.on the east side,3. 02 m.on the south side and3. 20m.on the west side.It is r aisedon a cr ossvault,ofwhich the outerspr inger s star t on both sides f r om identical capitals ofelbow consoles (Pl.4. 1) .Each capital (about 45cm.in height)consists of two engagedelbow capitals (15cm.deep)with an eggmotifandleaves sur mountedbya mar ble abacus (62cm. long and 30 cm.wide) ,pr obably Cr usaders pol i a (Pls 4. 2,4. 3) . The elbow capitals suppor t,as well,a plain f r ontal pointed ar ch consisting oftwenty f ourvoussoir s and r ising about 3. 90m.above the alleywayf loorlevel.On the lef thandside ofthe ar ch,two types ofmasonr yhave been used:nine cour ses oflar ge ashlar s with dr essed mar gins in the lowerpar t ofthe wall contr asting with the 53

3 ELEVATION OFTHE PORCH (AFTER DIA) FIG.4.

AY Y U B ID JER U SAL EM :AN AR C H IT EC T U R AL AND AR C H AEO L O GIC AL ST U D Y In the east side of the porch, is a blocked archway (3.65 m. high) pierced by a door (1.65 x 0.75 m.) and surmounted by a small window, which leads into a locked room (Pl. 4.4) . In the west side, an entrance door (2.18 x 1.50 m.)leads into a tunnelvaulted corridor which in turn leads into the men’ s ablutions place. This door appears to be a later insertion, since the masonry of the j ambs and the lintel seems not consistent with the rest of the wall (Pl. 4.5) . In the south side of the porch, a monumental arched doorway with a modern Iron Gate (2.20x1.58m.)leads into the courtyard of the present day women’ s ablutions place. It comprises two marble columns supporting a pointed cushion arch (Pl. 4.6) . The columns (each is 2.38 m. high) are crowned by two identical capitals surmounted by moulded abacuses. Each capital (32cm. in height)contains two tiers of muqarnas low relief with schematic leaves (Pls 4.7, 4.8) . The cushion arch consists of gadrooned voussoirs, of which every three form one block except the key stone of the arch. The monolithic lintel above the entrance door, covered with a thick layer of plaster, is surmounted by a relievingarch. A marble slab (measuring 74 x 48 cm.)above the relieving arch contains the dedication inscription, now covered by an iron sheet.

PLATE 4.1:GENER AL V IEW O F T H E O U T ER

PO R C H ,

The type of the monumental crossvaulted porch was common in Jerusalem from the Ayyubid period until the arrival of the “stalactite portal”in 695/ 1295, first employed in the Dawadariyya Kh«nq«h (Burgoyne 1987, 157) . Accordingto Creswell, the stalactite portal arrived in Palestine from northern Syria (via Egypt, however) , and no more crossvaulted entrance bays with plain frontal arches are found (1978, II, 162) . The ¶al«¯iyya Kh«nq«h (585/ 1189) , B«b ®i³ ³ a (627/ 1220) 126768)(Burgoyne 1987, and Rib«³‘ Al«’alD» n (666/ 121, pl. 3.2)– all have a comparable crossvaulted entrance. The muqarnas capitals, the only two examples from the Ayyubid period, make here their first appearance in J erusalem. They would be widely used in the Mamluk period. The type of arch with gadrooned voussoirs, or the arch with cushionvoussiors, represents a continuation of a CrusaderAyyubid architectural tradition, which has comparable examples in the Church of St. Anne, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Af±aliyya Madrasa (589/ 1193, which no longer exist)and the Turba of Baraka Kh«n (663/ 1265679/ 1280)(Creswell 1978, II, 212;Burgoyne 1987, 112113) .

PLATE 4.2:WEST ER N EL B O W C APIT AL

L O O K ING SO U T H

PLATE 4.3:EAST ER N EL B O W C APIT AL

54

CATALOGUE OF AYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM

PLATE 4.4: MASONRY ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF THE

PLATE 4.5: ENTRANCE INTO THE PRESENT-DAY ABLUTION PLACE FOR MEN

FRONTAL ARCH

PLATE 4.6: ENTRANCE DOORWAY INTO THE SIQƖYA 55

AYYUBID JERUSALEM:AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

PLATE 4.7:WESTERN MUQARNAS CAPITAL

PLATE 4. 8:EASTERN MUQARNAS CAPITAL

56

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM

5

Hes ays :

J «mi ‘al Ni s «’

On t heot hers i deoft hepal ace[ Aq· «Mos que] , t hati st os ay,ont hewes t er ns i de,t heTempl ar s haveer ect edanew bui l di ng. IfI coul ddes cr i bei t s hei ght , l engt h, br eadt h, cel l ar s , r ef ect or i es , s t ai r cas es ,and r oof ,whi ch i sr ai s ed wi t h ahi gh pi t ch cont r ar yt ot hecus t om oft hecount r y,t he l i s t enerwoul dhar dl ybeabl et obel i eveanyt hi ng. Theyhavebui l tanew cl oi s t er( cur i a)t her e,j us t ast heyhavet heol doneont heot hers i de[ oft he pal ace] , and mor eover t hey ar e l ayi ng t he f oundat i onsofanew chur ch,ofwonder f uls i ze andwor kmans hi p,i nt hes amepl ace,att hes i deof t heout erpr eci nct( adl at usat r i is xt er i or i s,i .e. on t heedgeoft heHar am)( PPTS,V,312;CCCO, Vol . 139,ed. Huygens ,p. 165;s eeal s oBur goyne 1987,260,not es22,23) .

˯ΎδϨϟ΍ ϊϣΎΟ Conver t edca. 590/ 1193 Ot hernames :J «mi ‘Ab‡ Bakr Moder nname:Makt abatal Aqs a( t heAqs aLi br ar y) I LOCATION ( Fi g. 5.1) Themos quei sl ocat edal ongt hes out hendoft he®ar am bet weent hes out hwes tcor nerandt heAq· «Mos que.

J ohnofWuzbur gal s oment i onsal ar genew chur ch,not yetf i ni s hed,bui l twes toft heTempl ar s ’pal acei n ca. 11605( CCCO,vol . 139,ed. Huygens ,p. 1345;PPTS, Vol ,21,ch. V) . Soonaf t ert her ecover yofJ er us al em f r om t heFr anksi n 583/ 1187, t he Ayyubi ds embar ked on a s cheme of demol i s hi ng Cr us aders t r uct ur esand conver t i ng ot her s f orMus l i m us ei nt he®ar am andel s ewher ei nt heci t y ( s ee above,Chapt er 3) . The f or mer Templ ar s ’ Hal l , i mmedi at el yt ot he eas t of t he Aq· « Mos que, was conver t ed i nt o t he J «mi ‘ al Ni s «’ ( t he Women’ s Mos que) . Al ‘ Umar »( ca. 745/ 1345)des cr i best hemos quet hus :

FIG.5. 1 LOCATION PLAN

II SITE AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION The Mos que cons i s t soft wo l ong hal l s ,or i ent ed eas t wes t ,cover edbybar r elvaul t s ,andt hemai nent r ancei s i nt he nor t h wal l . Iti sbounded on t he nor t h by t he Maml uk Z«wi ya al Fakhr i yya,t he J «mi ‘al Magh«r i ba ( t heMos queofNor t hAf r i cans ) ,ar ai s edpl at f or m andan open cour t yar d;on t he eas tby t he Aq· « Mos que;i t s s out handwes twal l sar evi r t ual l ypar toft hes out hand wes text er i or®ar am wal l s . III HISTORY I DENTI FI CATI ON Theodor i c,whovi si t edJer usal em i n1169or1172,gi ves adet ai l eddes cr i pt i onoft hi sbui l di ngandi t sar chi t ect ur al cont extaspar toft hemonas t i cquar t er soft heTempl ar Or derwhi chwer epr obabl ycons t r uct edi nt he1160s . 57

“Att hes i deoft heJ «mi ‘al Magh«r i bat her ei sa l ar geopen s pace,and beyond t hatt heJ «mi ‘al Ni s «’ . It sl engt hf r om eas tt o wes ti ss i xt yt wo dhi r«‘and a hal f ,and i t swi dt hf r om sout ht o nor t ht went yt wo dhi r«‘ and t wo t hi r ds. It ( cons i s t sof )t woai s l es ,t hecei l i ngsofwhi char e madeupoft wel vevaul t s ,eachai s l ehass i xvaul t s car r i ed i nt hemi ddl ebys i xpi er s . Ini t sf acade, t her ear ef i vewi ndows . Thef i r s twi ndow i st wo dhi r«‘andahal fwi deandi t sdept hi nt hewal li s t hr eedhi r«‘ ,whi chi st hewi dt hoft heent i r ewal l att hi spl ace,andi t shei ghti st hr eedhi r«‘andt wo t hi r ds . Al lt heot herwi ndowsar es mal l er . In i t s wes t er n wal li s a wi ndow openi ng on t he Magh«r i baQuar t er . Thedooroft hi smos queopenst ot henor t h,on each s i de ar ef our t wi st ed col umns of whi t e mar bl e,t hei rhei ghtabovet hebas ei st wodhi r«‘ l es saquar t er . Inf r ontofi tar et wogr eatwal nut t r eesbeneat ht hem i sapl at f or m onwhi chpeopl e pr ay. One ent er s( t he mos que)t hr ough t he af or es ai d door and des cends f i ve s t eps t ot he above-

AYYUBID JERUSALEM :AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY mentioned aisles. At a distance of twenty-seven dhir«‘ to the east of the J «mi‘al-Nis«’is the wester n doorof the Mosque known now as the J «mi‘al-Aq· «( al-‘ Umar » ,153) .

twenty thr ee masons’mar ks wer e counted,most of which ar e concentr ated in the wester nmost par t of the fr ontage. It incor por ates a ser ies of openings,with mor e orless r egularinter vals of about 5 m.,and vaulting spr inger s withinter vals of about 3m. ( Fig. 5.3,Pl. 5.2) .

When descr ibing the J «mi‘ al-Magh«r iba, al-‘ Umar » mentions that: “Between the outside of the wall of this mi¯r«b [ of the J «mi‘al-Magh«r iba]and the wall of the J «mi‘al-Nis«’is a pr oj ection ( kharj a)into the adj acent Fakhr iyya Z«wiya ( al-‘ Umar » ,152) . Muj » ral-D» n ( ca. 901/ 1496) ,in his descr iption of the Aq· «Mosque,says: ... Inside the afor ementioned [ Aq· «] Mosque westwar ds is a lar ge vaulted str uctur e built with lar ge stones. It [ compr ises]two aisles extending east to west. And this str uctur e is known as the Women’ s Mosque. It [ compr ises]ver y well-built ten vaulted bays on nine pier s. I was told it was constr ucted by the Fatimids ( Muj » ral-D» n,II,13) .

FIG. 5.2 GROUND PLAN (AFTER CATHERW OOD 1833)

DATE AND FOUNDER Accor dingto Theodor ic ( see above) ,the TemplarOr der er ected this hall immediately to the west of what was known then as Templum Solomonis,as theirmonastic quar ter s ar ound 1160s. It was conver ted into the J «mi‘alNis«’ pr obably by ¶al«¯ al-D» n ca. 590/ 1193. The ar chitectur al evidence ( see discussion below) ,indicate that the str uctur e is Cr usaderin or igin. SUBSEQUENT HISTORY The wester nmost bays of the mosque wer e used as an assembly hall ( maj ma‘ ) for the adj acent Mamluk Fakhr iyya Zawiya. In his descr iption of the minar ets of the ®ar am,Muj » ral-D» n states that the Fakhr iyya minar et “... is on the assembly hall of the Fakhr iyya Madr asa”( II,26) . MODERN HISTORY The wester n par t of the mosque and the easter n hall of the J «mi‘al-Magh«r iba was conver ted into the Islamic Museum in 1927. Forsome time,the easter n par t of the mosque was occupied by the headquar ter s of the Committee for the Restor ation of the Aq· « Mosque, while the centr al par t continued to ser ve as a pr ayerplace forwomen. In 1982,the buildingbecame a college for Islamic studies,and now ser ves as the Aqsa Libr ar y ( Maktabat al-Aqsa) .

FIG. 5.3 GROUND PLAN, W ESTERN PART (COURTESY OFBURGOYNE 1987, 259FIG.22. 2)

IV ARCHITECTURE ®ARAM FRONTAGE ( Figs 5.2,5.3,5.4) The ®ar am fr ontage,about 52 m. long and 6 m. high, consists of four teen cour ses of finely dr essed and wellbuilt masonr y ( Pl. 5.1) . Many stones bear typically Cr usaderdiagonal tooling and masons’mar ks. About

58

FIG. 5.4 ELEVATION OFHҏ ARAM FRONTAGE (COURTESY OFBURGOYNE 1987, 266FIG.22. 7)

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM A small door (1.90 x 0.91 m.) at the far east of the frontage,about 2 m from the west wall of the Aq· « Mosque,i s surmounted by a monoli thi c li ntel. Two courses above thi s li ntel (2.32m. hi gh),a deepgroove i s vi si ble i nthe masonry. The groove must have beenused for the roof of a small structure adj oi ni ng the mosque from the outsi de shown i n Catherwood’ s plan (1833) (Fi g. 5.2),and i nPi erotti ’ s plan(1856). The openi ngs are of di fferent si zes,rangi ngfrom 1.85to 1.50 m. hi gh and from 1.52to 1.26m. wi de. Theyare spanned wi th monoli thi c li ntels,rangi ng from 2.06 to 2.26 m. long and 0.56 m. wi de,whi ch i n turn are surmounted wi th reli evi ng arches. The three openi ngs westwards were blocked unti l 1982(as i nFi g. 5.3),but reopened whenthe mosque was converted i nto a college. The openi ngi nthe centre serves as the mai nentrance to the mosque. The other three openi ngs to the west are blocked. Another openi ng i n the north wall westwards was blocked when the mi¯r«b of J «mi ‘alMagh«ri ba (Catalogue no. 6) was constructed. I t has been pi erced once agai nto expand the I slami cMuseum .

(see fi gs. 22.3 and 22.7). I t would appear, therefore,that the spri ngers were i nserted after the Hall was bui lt,perhaps to support the vaults of a porti co or a cloi ster. No other trace of such a cloi ster exi sts and i t i s li kely that the work was i nterrupted, possi bly by Saladi n’ s capture of J erusalem, never to be completed (Burgoyne 1987,261). ENTRANCE(Fi gs 5.2,5.5;Pl. 5.3) The mai nentrance to the mosque i s bui lt i none of the ori gi nal openi ngs si tuated almost i n the mi ddle of the ®aram frontage (Fi g. 5.2). I ts doorwayi s 2m hi gh and 1.58m wi de and surmounted wi th a si mple poi nted arch. The arch i s made out of ni ne li mestone voussoi rs i n contrast to the rest of the masonrywhi ch i s of hard miz z » stones (Fi g. 5.5;Pl. 5.6). A modernmetal canopyi s bui lt over the entrance to shelter i t from the rai n,replaci ng perhaps an ori gi nal stonebui lt arched cover. A photograph takeni nthe earlytwenti eth centurybyvan Berchem shows an archi volt supported by the columns and all set wi thi na proj ecti ngrectangular frame (1920, Pl. CXX,left). The door stepstands one step(25cm.) below the level of the ®aram esplanade. On ei ther si de of the entrance,there are four engaged marble columns (each 1.82m. hi gh),whi ch agrees wi th al‘ Umar» ’ s descri pti on. Each capi tal,32 cm. hi gh,i s carved wi th two ti ers of si mple acanthus leaves and volutes at the corners. The vault Spri nger onthe lefthand (east) si de of the entrance was hewn about 40 cm. to allow the i nserti on of the columns,provi di ng further evi dence that the doorway must postdate both the spri nger and the wall (Pl. 5.3). I NTERI OR(Fi gs 5.2,5.3,5.4)

FIG. 5.5 NORTH-SOUTH SECTION THROUGH THE FAKHRIYYA (COURTESY OFBURGOYNE 1987,FIG.22. 6) I nthe north face of the frontage are thi rteenspri ngers,at almost equal i ntervals of about 3m.,and at a hei ght of about 1.30 m. above the ®aram esplanade (Fi g. 5.5), These spri ngers,0.87m. wi de at the base,were meant to serve as the southern abutments of a seri es of vaults. Although they seem to be homogeneous and contemporaneous wi th the masonryof the wall,there i s evi dence that they were i nserted at a later ti me. Burgoyne,deali ngwi th the earli er structures around the Fakhri yya,provi des us wi th a convi nci ngobservati on: ... Whi le the spri ngers are spaced exactlyhalf as far as the spri ngers of the Templar Hall vaults, theyare not symmetri callywi th them as would be expected i f theywere bui lt si multaneously. As a result several spri ngers i mpi nge awkwardlyonthe li ntels over openi ngs i nthe north wall of the Hall 59

The entrance doorwayleads di rectlyi nto antwoai sled, eastwest longhall,measuri ngabout 71.50 m. longand 16.40 m. wi de,covered bytwentycrossvaults supported ona central row of ni ne pi ers (Fi g. 5.2,Pl. 5.9). After passi ng through the entrance on the ri ghthand,a wall di vi des the hall i nto two parts:The easternpart consi sts of two ai sles of fi ve bays each,whi ch have beendi vi ded bymodernwalls to provi de classrooms for the college. The westernpart,whi ch i s part of the museum,compri ses two ai sles of fi ve bays each. The di vi di ngwall mayhave beenerected i n1927whenthe museum was establi shed. Such an assumpti on can be supported by the fact that both plans byCatherwood (1833),(Fi g. 5.2) and Pi erotti (1856),have no trace of thi s wall. I nstead,they show another wall whi ch was erected to separate the westernmost pai r of bays from the hall to be j oi ned to the adj acent Fakhri yya Z«wi ya. Thi s pai r of bays must be the assembly hall (maj ma‘ ) of the Fakhri yya upon whi ch Muj » r alD» nstates the adj oi ni ng®aram mi naret i s bui lt (I I ,26). However,he had merelymenti oned that the hall of the J «mi ‘alNi s«’contai ns “tenvaulted bays carri ed onni ne pi ers”(see above). Onthe other hand,al‘ Umar» , known for hi s accurate topographi cal descri pti on,had

AYYUBID JERUSALEM:AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY told us it consisted of “two aisles... each with six vaults... sixty two and a half dhir«‘ long (approximately 44 m.), and twenty two and two thirds dhir«‘ wide (approximately 16 m.) ” (see above). It is more likely that during al-‘Umar»’s time J«mi‘ al-Nis«’ occupied only the six easternmost double bays, while the remaining four served as the “majma‘ ” of the Fakhriyya.

SOUTH ®ARAM WALL The exterior of the south ®aram wall is largely built with small, heavily bossed ashlars over an earlier “storey” of large smoother ashlars (Pl. 5.16). Although this masonry resembles the distinctive masonry observed as reuse in Ayyubid military architecture as well as in other civil architecture, here it is homogeneous and most probably is Crusader.

The interior of the hall consists of twenty bays carried on forty two pointed arches; each about 5.25 m. high, of which the springers rise about 1.40 m. above the floor level. Each bay measures 7.30 m. long and 5.80 m. wide on average, except the two westernmost bays which are larger than the rest; the north-western bay measures 9.12 x 7.30 m., while the south-western one measures 8.88 x 7.32 m. Each of the nine piers measures 2.20 m. long and 1.30 m. wide on average.

There are nine grilled windows corresponding to those described in the interior of the building (Pl. 5.17). Likewise, the arch in the far west end of the wall is clearly visible (Pl. 5.18). It is blocked by masonry similar to that of the rest of the south and west walls. Although we are not certain why this arch was constructed, we can only assume it was intended to strengthen this vulnerable corner of the building and the ®aram as a whole.

The openings in the north wall are echoed internally. In the western part of the hall, which is occupied by the Islamic Museum, the blocking of the openings is visible (Fig. 5.3). In the second bay from the west, the window was blocked by the mi¯r«b of the J«mi‘ al-Magh«riba, but was recently re-opened to link both parts of the museum (Pl. 5.10).

At the east end of the wall, a vertical joint in the masonry is discernible (Pl. 5.19). Evidently, it shows that the hall of the J«mi‘ al-Nis«’ abuts the western wall of the Aq·« Mosque, which in fact means it was built at a later stage. WEST ®ARAM FRONTAGE (Figs 5.6) The west ®aram frontage, like on the south side, consists mostly of small, heavily bossed masonry supported by an earlier massive substructure built with different types of masonry (Fig. 5.6, Pl. 5.20).

In the north wall of the far north-west bay, there is an arch, which was originally open. It is now blocked by the qibl a wall of the Fakhriyya, save for an entrance doorway (Pl. 5.11; Burgoyne 1987, 261, marked “C” in Fig. 22.3). Its west wall is pierced by a pointed-arched grilled window, measuring 3 m. high, 1.62 m. wide and 1.75 m. deep. The far south-west bay, has a pointed arch in its south wall and contains a grilled window (2.70 x 1.75 m., 1.60 m. deep) identical to the other windows in the south wall (Pl. 5.12). The west wall has a loophole window measuring 2.05 x 0.85 m. (Pl. 5.13). There are ten windows in the south wall, of which nine remain open and one in the third bay from the west is blocked (Figs 5.3). Each of these windows, which vary in their dimensions, is grilled and surmounted by a simple pointed arch.

FIG. 5.6 STRATIGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF W EST Hҏ ARAM W ALL (COURTESY OF BURGOYNE 1987, FIG. 22.8)

The east wall, which divides the hall from the Aq·« Mosque, has three open archways. Access into the Aq·« Mosque was possible through these archways until recent years when they were blocked with screens of metal bars and glass. The three archways are carried on two piers which are not aligned with the central piers of the hall and appear to belong to the Aq·« Mosque. Here, at the conjunction between the floors of the two buildings, the hall is lower than the Aq·« Mosque; at the northern archway it is 0.48 m. lower (Pl. 5.14), whereas at the southern archway it is 0.65 m. lower (Pl. 5.15). No doubt this evidence confirms that the hall abuts the Aq·«, and therefore it was built after it. It is quite difficult to observe any internal joint between the two buildings since the interior is plastered and white washed.

Burgoyne presents a “stratigraphical” analysis of the west frontage of the Fakhriyya which comprises eight phases or “storeys”, which were constructed with different types of masonry (1987, 263, fig. 22.8). He identifies four phases of the substructure belonging to the Herodian, Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid periods (masonry types 1-4), supporting clearly a Crusader phase (type 5), an Ayyubid phse (type 6), a Mamluk phase (type 7) and Ottoman repairs of a large breach, probably caused by an earthquake, in the north-west corner of the building (type 8) (Burgoyne 1987, 263, fig. 22.8). In the south-west corner, an almost vertical crack in the wall, perhaps as a 60

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM

result of an earthquake, is visible. The grilled window and the loophole correspond to those described in the westernmost bays of the interior.

adjacent Templum Solomonis, as their monastic quarters. (2) Ayyubid period The Templars’ Hall would have needed little alteration to adapt it for use as a mosque, the J«mi‘ al-Nis«’. It is entirely enclosed on three sides by the Aq·« Mosque and the southern and western walls of the ®aram, and the numerous openings in the ®aram frontage could be blocked if necessary. A new elaborate entrance doorway was built in one of the openings, placed more or less centrally in the ®aram frontage, since there was only a small door in the far eastern side of the north wall. In one of the windows in the south (qibla) wall opposite the main entrance a mi¯r«b was installed.

CONCLUSION The architectural evidence from the J«mi‘ al-Nis«’ show there are, at least, two main phases of construction: (1) Crusader period The distinctive Crusader features such as the heavily bossed and diagonal dressed masonry and masons’ marks found in situ all over the structure indicate it is Crusader in origin. This is probably the great hall constructed in the 1160s by the Templars Order, who was based at the

3:VAULTING SPRINGERSIN THE Hҏ ARAM PLATE 5. FRONTAGE, W EST OFENTRANCE 1:Hҏ ARAM FRONTAGE, LOOKING SOUTH PLATE 5.

4:VAULTING SPRINGERSIN THE Hҏ ARAM PLATE 5. FRONTAGE, EAST OFENTRANCE

2:ENTRANCE DOORW AY PLATE 5.

61

AYYUBID JERUSALEM:AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

PLATE 5.7: SOUTH AISLE (NOW PART OF THE ISLAMIC MUSEUM), LOOKING EAST

PLATE 5.8: WEST WALL OF SOUTH AISLE WITH SPLAYED WINDOW, LOOKING WEST

PLATE 5.5: BAY IN SOUTHERN AISLE WITH WINDOW, LOOKING SOUTH

PLATE 5.6: ARCH AND DIVISION WALL BETWEEN JƖMI‘ AL-NISƖ’ AND THE AQSA ҚMOSQUE PLATE 5.9: ARCH AND GRILLED IWNDOWN IN FAR SOUTHWESTERN BAY, LOOKING SOUTH 62

CATALOGUE OF AYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM

ARAM WALL, LOOKING NORTH PLATE 5.10: SOUTH Hҏ

PLATE 5.12: VERTICAL JOINT IN THE MASONRY OF THE SOUTH WALL WHICH ABUTS THE AQSƖ ҚMOSQUE

PLATE 5.11: ARCH IN THE MOST WESTERN END OF THE

ARAM WALL PLATE 5.13: WEST Hҏ

SOUTH WALL

63

AYYUBID JERUSALEM :AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

III HISTORY

6J «mi ‘al Magh«r i ba

I DENTI FI CATI ON

ΔΑέΎϐϤϟ΍ ϊϣΎΟ

Al t hought hebui l di ngi sanepi gr aphi c, i t si dent i f i cat i oni s qui t eeas y.Al ‘ Umar »(ca.745/ 1345)i nf or msust hat :

ca.590/ 1194 Moder nname:t heIs l ami cMus eum. I LOCATION (Fi g.6. 1;Pl .6. 1) Thi smos quei sl ocat ed att hes out hwes tcor neroft he ®ar am, wes toft heAq· «Mos que;neart he®ar am gat eof B«bal Magh«r i ba.

. . .(Thesout hwal loft he®ar am)begi nsont he west si de wi t har ai sed pl at f or m (mas³ aba) , whi ch, f r om t hemi ¯r«bnor t hwar dsmeasur essi x dhi r«‘l ong, andi ssi xandahal fwi de.Nextt oi t oni t seast er nsi dei st hedooroft heFakhr i yya Z«wi ya. . .whi chi sf ol l owedbyar ai sedpl at f or m, t endhi r«‘andaquar t erl ongandt hr eeandahal f wi de, nextt o whi ch i st he doorofJ«mi ‘al Magh«r i ba.The l engt h ofJ«mi ‘al Magh«r i ba f r om i t s mi ¯r«b unt i lt he end of i t s por t i co (di hl » z)i st hi r t y onedhi r«‘and ahal f , and i t s wi dt hi sel evenandahal f .Ithasaf i nemi ¯r«b, r est i ngont wof i nemar bl ecol umns. Thel engt hofi t spor t i co[ i nf r ontoft hef acade]i s el evendhi r«‘andt wot hi r ds. Ont hei ns i deofi t seas t er nwal li saf i nepl at f or m, onedhi r«‘andahal fwi deandei ghtandahal f andaquar t erandanei ght hl ong. In t he t hi cknes s oft he [ eas t er n]wal lar ef i ne cupboar dsf ort hel ampsandobj ect sbel ongi ngt o t heguar di ans .Ithasonedoort ot henor t hf our dhi r«‘i n wi dt h and f i ve i n hei ght(al ‘ Umar » , 152) . As a poi nt of cl ar i f i cat i on, al ‘ Umar »r emar ks t hat , al t hough cal l ed a j «mi ‘ (congr egat i onalmos que) , t he J «mi ‘al Magh«r i ba and t headj acentJ «mi ‘al Ni s «’i n f actar emas j i ds :

FIG.6. 1 LOCATION PLAN

II SITE AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION TheMos queoft heMor occansorNor t hAf r i cans , known as J «mi ‘al Magh«r i ba, i st he pr es entl ocat i on oft he Is l ami cMus eum.Thes i t ei sbounded on t henor t h by B«b al Magh«r i ba(t heGat eoft heMor occans )and an unnamedsab» l ;ont heeas tbyar ai s edpl at f or m;ont he s out hbyt hef or merCr us aderTempl ar s ’Hal lwhi chwas conver t ed i nt o t he J «mi ‘ al Ni s «’ (t he Women’ s Mos que) ;ont hewes tbyt heMaml ukFakhr i yyaZ«wi ya andanar r ow cour t yar dandt hewes t er n®ar am wal l . Themos quecompr i s edor i gi nal l yamai nf acadewi t ht wo ar cheddoor waysl eadi ngs out hwar dsi nt ot wol onghal l s r oof edbybar r elvaul t s .Oft het wo, onl yt heeas t er nhal l hass ur vi ved.TheFakhr i yyawasbui l tont hes i t eoft he wes t er none.Theeas t er nhal landt hewes t er npar toft he J «mi ‘al Ni s «’(t heTempl ar s ’Hal l ) , and mor er ecent l y t heFakhr i yya, wer ej oi nedt of or mt heIs l ami cMus eum. 64

Wehaveus edt heexpr es s i onJ «mi ‘al Magh«r i ba becaus et hi sname i st he mos tcommonl y us ed. Had wes ai d Mas j i d al Magh«r i bat hepeopl eof J er us al em woul d nothaveunder s t ood i t ;t hi si s al s o t he cas e wi t h t he J«mi ‘ al Ni s «’ (t he Women’ sMos que) .Nei t heroft hes ei saj «mi ‘i n whi ch t he khu³ bas(s er mons )ar e del i ver ed, but eachhasas i ngl ei m«m whol eadst hef i vepr ayer s t her eandnot hi ngel s e(al ‘ Umar » , 153;Bur goyne 1987, 269, n.25) . Whi l e al ‘ Umar » deal s wi t hJ «mi ‘ al Magh«r i ba i n connect i on wi t ht hes out h wal loft he®ar am, per haps becaus ei t had a nor t hf aci ng door , Muj » r al D» n, cons i der si tt obel ongt ot hewes twal l .Hewr i t es : . . .Oppos i t et he[ Aq· «]Mos quef r om t hewes t ,i n t hecour t yar doft he®ar am i savaul t eds t r uct ur e known asJ «mi ‘aMagh«r i ba.Iti sbus t l i ng and gr aci ous[ mos que] , wher et heM«l i k» spr ay(Muj » r , II, 15) .

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM When Muj»r al-D»n describes t he madrasas adjacentt o t he west ern wall oft he ®aram,he adds: . . .The Fakhriyya Kh«nq«h is nextt ot he J «mi‘alMagh«riba,where t he M«lik»s pray,t ot he westof it ,and wit hin t he wall oft he ®aram,as is alsoit s ent rance,near t he gat et hatleads outint ot he ®«rat al-Magh«riba ( Muj»r,II,34) . DATEAND FOUNDER The dat e and name of f ounder were not recorded anywhere regarding t he erect ion oft his building.But accordingt oMuj»r al-D»n,al-Malikal-Af ±al ‘ Al»,t he son of¶al«¯al-D»n,dedicat ed t he t own’ s quart er,known as ®«ratalMagh«riba,as waqff or t he benef itof t he Moroccan communit y ofJ erusalem,during t he t ime of his governorshipin Damascus ( II,46) .We are alsot old by Muj»r al-D»n t hatt hough t he waqf iyya document seems t o have been lost ,t he endowmentwas recorded and legalised af t er al-Af ±al’ s deat h ( II,46) .A copyof t his document ,which has been cert if ied t wice,once in 666/ 1267 and again in 1004/ 1595, survives in t he Ot t oman Shar‘ i CourtofJ erusalem ( sij ill no.77,p.588) and a t ranscriptofitis provided byA. L.Tibawi ( 1978, 13-15,Arabic t extin AppendixII) . In t he same cont ext ,we read in Muj»r al-D»n t hatamong al-Af ±al’ s waqf s were t he Af ±aliyya Madrasa dedicat ed f or adherent s oft he M«lik» rit e in t he Moroccans’quart er and a mosque [ J «mi‘al-Af ±al]near t he Church oft he HolySepulchre which was endowed in 589/ 1193( Tibawi 1978,13-15) .Alt hough t here is noment ion oft he J «mi‘ al-Magh«riba,neit her in t he waqf iyya nor byMuj»r alD»n,itis possible t oassume t hatal-Af ±al endowed itt o serve t he nearbyMagh«riba quart er duringt he same t ime, probablyin about590/ 1194( Burgoyne 1987,261) .

st rengt h and might ,our mast er t he Sult «n ‘ Abd al‘ Az»z ( 3)Kh«n,son oft he Sult «n,t he f ight er, Ma¯m‡d Kh«n,f rom t he Ot t oman f amily.May God prolong his kingdom,and bring t he whole world under his possession,in Shab‘ «n oft he year 1288 [ Oct ober-November 1871] ( van Berchem 1927,216-218) . Furt her changes t ot he buildingwere undert aken in 1927 duringt he Brit ish mandat e when t he east ern hall oft he mosque, t he west ern part of t he Women’ s Mosque ( Templars’ Hall) and t he Fakhriyya Z«wiya were convert ed int ot he Islamic Museum. IV ARCHITECTURE NORTH FAÇADE The nort h f acade of J «mi‘ al-Magh«riba,which was int ended as t he principal f acade oft he building,consist s oft wo point ed arched doorways aligned more or less symmet ricallyon eit her side oft he cent ral axis ( Figs 6. 2, 6. 3;Pl.6. 2) .The lef t -hand ( east ern)doorway,which al‘ Umar» observes as t he ent rance t ot he mosque,measures 3. 48 m.high and 2. 90 m.wide,and has a marble monolit hic lint el ( 3. 85x0. 35m. ) .This lint el is support ed byan elbow bracket( 0. 45m.high) ,on eit her side oft he doorway,carved wit h one t ier ofsimple leaves ( Pl.6. 3) . Above t he doorwayis a point ed arch t hatrises t oabout6 mf rom t he f loor level and has a span of3. 50m,consist s ofninet een voussoirs surrounded bya hood mould t urned atbot h ends oft he arch.The t ympanum oft he arch has been blocked bydif f erentmasonry,presumablyata lat er st age,apartf rom t hree small windows.

SUBSEQUENTHI STORY Alt erat ions and changes were int roduced int o t he buildingin 1288/ 1871,when a new ent rance f acade was const ruct ed in t he east ern wall.An Arabic inscript ion, writ t en in t hree lines ofmodern Ot t oman naskh» script , over t he ent rance records t he event :

ϥΎϜϤϟ΍ ϭ ϒϳήθϟ΍ ϲϜϟΎϤϟ΍ ΪΠδϤϟ΍ ΍άϫ ήϴϤόΘΑ ήϣ΃ Ϊϗ . 1 . 2 ϦϳήΤΒϟ΍ ϥΎϗΎΧ ϭ Ϧϳή˷Βϟ΍ϥΎτϠγ ϒϴϨϤϟ΍ ϙ έΎΒϤϟ΍ ϭΫ ϦϴΘϠΒϘϟ΍ ϝ˷ϭ΃ ϲϣΎΣϭ Ϧϴϔϳήθϟ΍ ϦϴϣήΤϟ΍ ϡΩΎΧϭ ϦΑ· ϥΎΧ . 3 ΰϳΰόϟ΍ ΪΒϋ ϥΎτϠδϟ΍ ΎϧϻϮϣ ϥ΄θϟ΍ϭ ΔϛϮθϟ΍ Ϳ΍ ϡ΍Ω΃ ϥΎϤΜϋ ϝ΁ Ϧϣ ϥΎΧ ΩϮϤΤϣ ϱίΎϐϟ΍ ϥΎτϠδϟ΍ 1288 ΔϨγ ϥΎΒόη ϪϜϠ˶ϣΎϫήγ΄Α ΎϴϧΪϟ΍ ϞόΟϭ ϪϜϠ˵ϣ ( 1)There ordered t he renovat ion oft his sacred M«lik» mosque and blessed high place by t he sult an oft he t wo lands,t he emperor oft he t wo seas,( 2) t he servantof t he t wo ®arams,t he prot ect or oft he f irstoft wo qiblas,possessor of

FIG. 6.2 GROUND PLAN (COURTESY OFBURGOYNE1987, FIG.22. 2)

65

AYYUBID JERUSALEM :AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

FIG. 6.4 EAST FAÇADE (COURTESY OF BURGOYNE 1987, FIG. 12.2, FOLD-OUT AT BACK)

FIG. 6.3 NORTH FAÇADE (COURTESY OF BURGOYNE1987, FIG. 22.2)

Ther i ght hand(wes t er n)door way,whi chi ss i mi l ari ni t s s hape and di mens i ons t ot he eas t er n one, has al s o under gones omeal t er at i ons(Pl . 6.4) . A smal l erdoor way (1.77x1.17m.) ,whi chi ss eti nar eces s(3.70m. hi gh, 2.00m. wi deand0.45m. deep)andspannedbyapoi nt ed and deep moul ded ar chi vol t ,i s bui l ti nt he or i gi nal door way. In f act ,t hi si st heent r ancet ot heFakhr i yya Z«wi ya,dat ed bef or e 732/ 1332 (Bur goyne 1987,262) whi chal ‘ Umar »ment i ons(s eeabove) . It st ympanum i s s t i l lopenbuti t sr i ght handj ambi sobs cur edbyapi erof t hewes t er npor t i cooft he®ar am,cons t r uct eds omet i me bet ween 745/ 1345 and 887/ 1482,whi ch i sal so par tof t he i nner por ch of t he adj acent B«b al Magh«r i ba (Bur goyne1987,194) . Her e,ont her i ght handsi deoft he door way,accor di ngt oal ‘ Umar » ,ami¯r«b t hatnol onger exi s t sonces t ood(s eeabove) . Anot hermi¯r«b,measur i ng 2.55 m. hi gh and 1.40 m. wi de,i spl acedcent r al l ybet weent het wodoor way(Pl . 6.2) . The poi nt edar ched ni che, 0.36 m. deep, i s s ur mount edbyaci r cul armedal l i onl i ght l ycar vedwi t h ani ns cr i pt i on. Thet extr eads :

EASTERNWALL( ®ARAM FRONTAGE) The eastern wall extends across the width ofa large raised platf orm. The eastern hall ofthe mosque opened originallyto the east in a series ofarches ofwhich the southern three and a springingofa f ourth as well as the northernmost one have survived (Figs 6.2, 6.5;Pl. 6.5). Each has been blocked save f or a window (measuring 1.80x1.08m. on average) surmounted bya smaller one. The southernmost arch (Pl. 6.6) is partiallyobscured bya staircase giving access to the roofand the Fakhriyya Minaret, dated af ter 745/ 1345 (Burgoyne 1987, 270). The voussiors ofthis arch and the one to the north bear a f ew Crusader masons’marks. More or less towards the centre ofthe ®aram f rontage, a new entrance f acade with light-brown f ine ashlar masonry was constructed in 1288/ 1871, probably masking three arches ofthe original wall (Pl. 6.7). A shallow recess f lanked bypilasters each decorated with two medallions encloses a plain rectangular doorway, measuring 3.74 x 2.30 m. The restoration inscription above the entrance is set within a lightly carved f rame (Pl. 6.8). On either side ofthe entrance, a high grilled window measuring3.10x1.50m. was also added.

Ϳ΍ ϝϮγέ ΪϤΤϣ Ϳ΍ ϻ· Ϫϟ΍ ϻ There is no God but All«h, Mu¯ammad is the messenger ofAll«h (van Berchem 1922, 133). This mi¯r«b appears to be a later insertion because its masonryis not homogeneous with the rest ofthe wall and the medallion is typicallylate Mamlukor earlyOttoman (Burgoyne 1987, 262). In f ront ofthe f acade, on either side ofthe eastern doorway, are two raised stone platf orms. The eastern platf orm measures 4.25 x3.70m. and is 0.56 m. high, whereas the western one measures 7.25 x3.70m. and is 0.47m. high. The porch in f ront ofthe f acade described byal-‘ Umar»existed until the 1920s when it was taken down. It consisted off our archways supported on f ive piers, as it is clearlyvisible in both plans byCatherwood (1833) (Fig. 6.3) and Pierotti (1856), and in early photographs (Burgoyne 1987, 262, Pl. 22.4). 66

FIG. 6.5 GROUND PLAN, A DETAILOF THE SOUTH PART (COURTESY OF BURGOYNE 1987, FIG. 22.3)

CAT AL O G U E O F AY Y U BID BU IL D IN G S IN JE R U SAL E M

WESTERN WALL As has been mentioned above, the J«mi‘ al-Magh«riba comprised originallytwo long halls ( known also as the “Ayyubid Halls”)divided bya spine wall, ofwhich only the eastern one survived ( Fig.6. 2) .The “Columned Hall” ofthe Fakhriyya Z«wiya ( dated bef ore 732/ 1332)was erected in the southern part ofthe western Ayyubid hall ( Pl.6. 9) .I n the east wall ofthe “Columned Hall”, a doorway ( now blocked) opened into the J«mi‘ alMagh«riba ( Fig.6. 3) . To the north, the site is occupied by two courtyards enclosed by a low wall ( the upper part ofthe ®aram wall)and divided bya modern partition.The stretch of the ®aram wall f rom the south-west corner to the B«b al-Magh«riba has undergone subsequent rebuilding, most probablyduring the Ayyubid period.Bycarrying out a “stratigraphical”analysis ofthe south part ofthis wall, Burgoyne identif ied eight masonry phases belonging to various periods, ofwhich one is Ayyubid ( masonrytype 6)( 1987, 263, Fig.22. 8) .This masonry, which consists ofre-used bossed stones, maybe part of the substructure ofthe western Ayyubid hall, f ound under the Mamlukmasonryofthe Fakhriyya, assigned byBurgoyne as type 7( Burgoyne 1987, 263, f ig.22. 8; see above J«mi‘ al-Nis«’ , Catalogue No.5) . Catherwood’ s 1833plan ( Fig.4)revealed an interesting f eature in the west ®aram wall.The present ®aram entrance of B«b al-Magh«riba seems to have been blocked and another entrance with the same name, approximately23m.to the south, led directlyf rom the Magh«riba Quarter into the western Ayyubid hall. However, no trace ofthis “new”gate can be f ound in Pierotti’ s 1856plan, and the B«b al-Magh«riba is marked at its present location.We have no explanation f or this anomaly. Along the spine wall between the two halls, at least f ive blocked pointed-arched openings and traces ofvaulting springers protruding f rom the wall are still discernible ( Pl.6. 10) .The latter evidence indicates this area was once vaulted.Moreover, Burgoyne points out that the architectural unif ormity ofthe north f acade ofthe two halls ( described above)suggests that the vaulting ofthe western hall was contemporaneous with the eastern hall and extended alongside it ( 1987, 263) .I t is quite possible that the lateral thrust ofthe vault must have something to do with its collapse, perhaps during an earthquake.Here, dif f erent types ofmasonryare used and the f ace ofthe spine wall appears to have undergone manyrepairs and alterations.

wall, a room has been erected, apparentlyat some later date.The corner ofthis room partiallyimpinges on the interior ofthe entrance door into the Fakhriyya described in the north f acade. I NTERI OR ( Figs 6. 2, 6. 5) The main entrance in the north f acade leads directly into the eastern Ayy‡bid hall, which measures about 54 m.long and 9. 10 m.wide.I t is roof ed by barrel vaults with various incisions to clear openings in the supporting walls and is lit by a series ofwindows in the eastern wall.Consequently, the hall consists ofa series ofbays divided by semicircular arches carried on corner piers. I n the northernmost three bays, partitions were inserted to provide storage rooms f or the museum.I n the central bay, which is immediately inside the new Ottoman entrance, the vaulting was modif ied to create a domed bay, measuring 9. 20x6. 70 m.On the roof , a shallow dome surmounts the hall above the bay( Fig.6. 2) .The vaulting ofthe two bays f lanking the central bay has also been altered;they have now cross-vaults. I n the southernmost three bays, the excisions on the sides ofthe barrel vaults correspond with the windows in the eastern wall and the blocked openings visible in the outer f ace ofthe spine ( western)wall ( Fig.6. 5, Pl.6. 11) . Along the eastern wall ofthese bays, there is a narrow platf orm ( 0. 90 m.high and 0. 80 m.wide) , perhaps a remainder ofthe platf orm that al-‘Umar»describes ( see above) . At the south-east corner ofthe hall, we encounter a curious f eature which is signif icant f or the relative dating of the building. This f eature is well observed and described brief lybyM.H.Burgoyne: . . . The articulation of the south-east corner ( marked ‘A’on the plan, f ig.22. 3)[ Fig.6. 9]of the eastern hall so as to avoid blocking one ofthe windows ofthe Templars’Hall on which it abuts shows that these walls were built some time af ter the Templars’ Hall.The re-use of one of the springers ( marked ‘B’on the plan). . .[ discussed in J«mi‘ al-Nis«’no.5, section I V]f or the vaulting at the south end ofthe eastern hall conf irms that the construction ofthis hall was subsequent also to the springers.Since the masonry ofthese later halls bear no coherent evidence ofCrusader tooling or masons’ marks, they are likely to be postCrusader, probably Ayy‡bid ( Burgoyne 1987, 261) . MI ®RªB( Figs 6. 2, 6. 3)

I n the south part ofthe wall, a staircase rises southwards to a small arched doorway, which leads to a f urther staircase within the thickness ofthe spine wall ascending to the Fakhriyya Minaret on the roof( Burgoyne 1987, 270) .Above this doorway, a springer ofa large arch survives in the masonry.Along the northern part ofthe

The mi¯r«b was pierced in 1927in order to expand the museum into the western bays ofthe J«mi‘ al-Nis«’( the f ormer Templars’ Hall) .Catherwood’ s plan of 1833 shows the mi¯r«b in its blocked original state ( see Fig. 4) .

67

AYYUBID JERUSALEM:AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY It is constructed in stone and flanked by two re-used Crusader marble columns with capitals, and is placed not quite in the centre of the south (qibla) wall (Pl. 6.12). It measures 3.75 m. high, 2.10 m. wide and its niche is 0.43 m. deep. The columns, 2.90 m. high, support a pointed arch of eight voussoirs. The conch has a central hub with six radiating stones. The capitals are carved with similar design of three tiers of simple leaves and volutes which were broken at the edges to fit the corners (pls. 6.13, 6.14). The imposts of both columns are

identical:they are carved with motifs of birds (their heads are broken off) and acanthus leaves in scroll pattern. To the left of the arch of the mi¯r«b, the masonry has been altered, indicating that the mi¯r«b has been inserted. Further clear evidence was provided when the mi¯r«b was opened revealing that it had been inserted in one of the openings in the north wall of the Templars’ Hall (Fig. 6.5).

1:GENERAL VIEW LOOKING SOUTH (COURTESY OF PLATE 6. THE BSAJ ARCHIVE, THE ASHMOLEAN MUSEUM, OXFORD)

3:ELBOW BRACKET PLATE 6.

PLATE 6. 2:NORTH FAÇADE, GENERALVIEW LOOKING SOUTH

68

CATALOGUE OF AYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM

PLATE 6.6: FILLED-IN ARCHWAYS IN EASTERN ELEVATION

PLATE 6.7: OTTOMAN ENTRANCE FAÇADE, SOUTH OF ENTRANCE

PLATE 6.4: WESTERN DOORWAY (FAKHRIYYA ENTRANCE)

PLATE 6.8: FILLED-IN ARCHWAY IN EASTERN ELEVATION,

PLATE 6.5: EASTERN HҐ ARAM FRONTAGE, LOOKING SOUTH-WEST

NORTH OF ENTRANCE

69

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

PLATE 6.9: NORTH FAÇADE OF THE FAKHRIYYA WHICH IS BUILT IN THE WEST AYYUBID HALL

PLATE 6.10: BLOCKED OPENINGS IN THE WEST “SPINE” WALL LOOKING NORTH-EAST

PLATE 6.12: PIERCED MIH̠ RƖB WITH RE-USED CRUSADER COLUMNS AND CAPITALS

PLATE 6.11: EASTERN HALL (NOW PART OF THE ISLAMIC MUSEUM) WITH MIHR̠ ƖB

70

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM

7 Mas j i dMu¯«r i b

ΏέΎΤϣ ΪΠδϣ 595/ 1199 Mos queofMu¯ammadb. Mu¯«r i b Moder n names :Mas j i d Wal »Al l «h Mu¯«r i b,J «mi ‘al ¶agh» r( Smal lMos que) . I. LOCATION ( Fi g. 7.1) Int hepr es entday®ar atal Shar af ,ont hewes ts i deoft he s t r eet now cal l ed ²ar » q ®ar at al Yah‡d; near t he begi nni ngof²ar » qB«bal Si l s i l a.

[sic] ΍έΎμϨϟ΍ ΔϳέΎδϗ ϰϟ΍ ΔϠΒϘϟ΍ Ϧϣ . 5 Ύϫ˷ΪΣ ϪϴϠΒϗ ϡΎθϟ΍ Ϧϣϭ . 6 ϢϬΑ΍ϮΑ΃ ΢Θϔϳ Ϫϴϓϭ ϖϳήτϟ΍ ϕήθϟ΍ Ϧϣϭ ϡΎϣϻ΍ ϰϠϋ ϒϗϭ ΔϳέΎδϘϟ΍ ϰϟ΍ Ώήϐϟ΍ Ϧϣϭ ΪΠδϤϤϟ΍ ΎΤΤλ Ύϔϗϭ ϩήμΣϭ ϥΎϜϤϟ΍ ΐ˷Ηέϭ . 7 ϥΫΆϤϟ΍ϭ βϤΧ ΔϨγ ϝϭϻ΍ ϊϴΑέ Ϧϣ . 8 ϝϭϻ΍ ήθόϟ΍ ϲϓ Ύϴϋήη Δ΋Ύϣ βϤΧϭ ϦϴόδΗϭ ( 1) In t he name of God, t he Mer ci f ul ,t he Compas s i onat e. ( 2) ( Qur ’ «n IX, 18) . ( 3) The cons t r uct i on of t hi bl es s ed mos que was or der edbyt hes er vanti nneedoft hemer cyofhi s Lor d,( 4)Mu¯ammad s on ofMu¯«r i b. Then he endowed t hi s mos que wi t ht hr ee s hops t ot he s out hbounded( 5)ont hes out hs i debyt hebazaar oft heChr i s t i ansandt ot heeas tbyt hes t r eeti nt o whi ch t hei rdoor sopen. ( 6)To t henor t h oft he mos queandt ot hewes toft hebazaari sapi ous endowmentf ort heim«m andt hemuezzi n. ( 7)The pl ace wasputi nt o pr oper( l egal )or derand an endowment( waqf )val i daccor di ngt oShar » ‘ al aw s etupf ori t ,i nt hef i r s tt endays( 8)ofRab» ‘I t he year595/( 1019 Januar y 1199)( Bur goyne and Abul Haj j1979,123124,no. XX,Pl . XVII) . Thi si ns cr i pt i on,whi chi snotins it u,wasf i xedi nt ot he out erwal lwhent hemos quewasr enovat edbyt heAwqaf Depar t ment dur i ng t he ear l y 1980s . Al t hough i t s pr ovenance i s unknown, i t pr obabl y comes f r om J er us al em. In l i ne 5,t he Qays ar i yya ofal Na· «r a( t he bazaaroft heChr i s t i ans ) ,t heonl yl andmar kci t edbyt he i ns cr i pt i on,i s notment i oned i nt he l i t er ar ys our ces , es peci al l y by Muj » ral Di n who named t hemar ket sby t hei rs peci f i edf unct i on. However ,i tmayhavebeenone oral lt het r i pl emar ketcons t r uct edbyt heFr anksands t i l l i n us et ot hi sday. Thel i t er ar ys our cesar eal s os i l ent aboutMu¯ammadb. Mu¯«r i b( l i ne4) ,aswel lasabouta mosquef oundedi n595/ 1199( Bur goyneandAbul Haj j 1979,123124) .

FIG. 7.1 LOCATION PLAN

FOUNDER

II. SITE AND GENERAL DESCRIPTIOIN A s mal lmos que cons i s t sofa nar r ow r ect angul arhal l wi t has i mpl emi¯r«b. III. HISTORY IDENTIFICATION An i ns cr i pt i on now bui l ti nt ot hes t r eetf r ont ageoft he mos quer eads :

Ϧϣ Ϳ΍ ΪΟΎδϣ ή˷ϤόϳΎϤϧ΍ ϢϴΣήϟ΍ ϦϤΣήϟ΍ Ϳ΍ ϢδΑ . 1 ΓΎϛΰϟ΍ [sic] ΎΗ΁ϭ Γϼμϟ΍ ϡΎϗ΃ϭ ήΧϵ΍ ϡϮϳϭ ͿΎΑ Ϧϣ΁ . 2 ΪΠδϤϟ΍ < ΍ >άϫ ΓέΎϤόΑ ήϣ΃ . 3 Ϳ΍ ϻ΍ ζΨϳ Ϣϟϭ ϦΑ ΪϤΤϣ . 4 ϪΑέ ΔϤΣέ ϲΟήϟ΍ ήϴϘϔϟ΍ ΪΒόϟ΍ ϙέΎΒϤϟ΍ Ϧϣ Ζϴϧ΍ϮΣ ΔΜϠΛ ΪΠδϤϟ΍ ΍άϫ ϰϠϋ ϒϗϭ΃ ϢΛ ΏέΎΤϣ

Ther ei snocl eari ndi cat i onoft hei dent i t yoft hef ounder . Iti squi t epos s i bl et hatacer t ai nMu¯ammadb. Mu¯«r i b was a wel l of fper s on who s et t l ed i nJ er us al em af t er ¶al «¯al D» n’ sconquesti n583/ 1187. Heboughtpr oper t y t her eandest abl i s hedanendowmentf ort heupkeepoft he mos que. DATE Aswehaves eenf r om t hei ns cr i pt i on,t hef oundat i onof t hemos queandt hees t abl i s hmentoft hewaqfwasdat ed t ot hef i r stt endaysofRab» ‘I 595/ 1019Januar y1199. ENDOWMENT The f oundat i on i ns cr i pt i on pr ovi des det ai l s of t he pr obabl ynol ongerext antwaqf iyya. Thei ncomeoft he mos quei sder i vedf r om t headj acentt hr ees hops ,whi l e

71

AYYUBID JERUSALEM:AN ARCH ITECTURAL AND ARCH AEOLOGICAL STUDY

an additional endowment was given for the im«m and the muezzin.

naskhi script, finely incised and bevelled cut. The letters are irregular in size and their maximum height is 0.045 m. A palmettes motif is carved in the middle of the first line.

IV. ARCHITECTURE STREET FRONTAGE

On both sides of the frontage above the level of the door and window, the springers of the original frontal arch can still be seen.

The simple and narrow (3.45 m.) street frontage of the mosque has a rounded arched door and a small grilled window on the left-hand side (Fig. 7.2, Pl. 7.1). The small masonry of the left-hand j amb of the door, the lower part of the wall and the arches of both the door and window are clearly modern insertions, added during the repairs made in the early 1980s.

INTERIOR (plan, Fig. 7.2) The entrance door leads directly into a small rectangular hall, measuring 6.20 m. long and 2.00 m. wide (Pl. 7.3). The size of this hall was originally much larger (Nij m 1983, 110). It has a pointed tunnel vault. In the middle of the qibla wall a simple concave mi¯r«b is set.

FIG. 7.2 ELEV ATION OF STREET FRONTAGE

A marble slab (measuring 0.43 m. high and 0.59 m. wide) above the arches of the door and window contains a foundation inscription (Pl. 7.2). It is written in Ayyubid

FIG. 7.3 GROUND PLAN

72

CATALOGUE OF AYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM

PLATE 7. 3:INTERIOR OF M OSQUE HALL

PLATE 7. 1:STREET FRONTAGE OF M OSQUE W ITH THE ADJACENT THREE SHOPS

PLATE 7. 2:INSCRIPTION

73

AYYUBID JERUSALEM :AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

8 B«bal Si l s i l a/ B«bal Sak» na

ΔϨϴϜδϟ΍ ΏΎΑ /ΔϠδϠδϟ΍ ΏΎΑ ca. 595/ 119899 Ot hernames :B«b D«w‡d (Gat eofDavi d)– t heEar l y Is l ami cPer i od;Por t aSpeci os a(“t heBeaut i f ulGat e”)– t he Cr us ader Per i od; B«b al Sa¯ar a (“Gat e of Magi ci ans ”)–t heMaml ukPer i od) . I LOCATION (Fi g.8. 1) Att hewes tbor deroft he®ar am,oppos i t eQubbatM‡s « f r om t hewes t ;att heeas t er nendof²ar » qB«bal Si l s i l a (“St r eetoft heGat eoft heChai n”) .

t her e.The t wi n gat ei s bounded t ot he nor t h by t he Bal adi yyaMadr as a,t heAs hr af i yyaMadr as aandt heB«b al Si l s i l aMi nar et(above) ,t ot heeas tbyt heWes tPor t i co of t he ®ar am, t o t he s out h by t he Tanki zi yya Madr as a/ Kh«nq«handt ot hewes tbyal i t t l es quar eand t heRi b«³al Ni s «’ati t snor t her ns i de. III HISTORY I DENTI FI CATI ON Al ‘ Umar » ,wr i t i ng ca.745/ 1345,des cr i bes t he wes t por t i cooft he®ar am: Adj acentt ot hemi nar et[ ofB«bal Si l s i l a]ar et wo door s ;t henor t her n onei scl os ed andnai l edup; t hemi nar etadj oi nsi t .Theopendoori scal l edB«b al Si l s i l a.Itwasknowni nt heol dt i mesasB«bal Sa¯ar a(t heGat eoft heMagi ci ans ) .It swi dt hi s f i vedhi r«‘and at hi r d (appr oxi mat el y 3. 73 m. ) , andi t sl engt hi sei ghtdhi r«‘andahal f .Andt he cl os ed one i st he i dent i cal (al ‘ Umar » , 163; Bur goyne1987,192) . Al Suy‡³ »(ca. 875/ 1470)s t at est hat : The B«b al Si l s i l a and t he B«b al Sak» na s t and s i debys i de.Int heol ddays ,t heB«bal Si l s i l awas cal l edB«bD«w‡d.B«bal Sak» naopensneart he ent r ance i nt ot he Madr as a cal l ed al Bal adi yya. Adj acentt oi tal s oi st hes out her n Mi nar et .The r oyalmadr as a,cal l ed al Madr as a al As hr af i yya, s t andst ot henor t hoft hemi nar et(al Suy‡³ » ,286; LeSt r ange1890,108) . ByMuj » ral D» n’ st i me(ca.901/ 1496) ,t het wi ngat ehad becomeknownast heB«bal Si l s i l aandB«bal Sak» na. Heobs er vest hat :

1 LOCATION PLAN FIG.8.

II SITE AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION The doubl e gat e of B«b al Si l s i l a (“t he Gat e oft he Chai n”)andB«bal Sak» na(“t heGat eoft heHol ySpi r i t ”) hasl ongbeent hemai nent r ancet ot he®ar am.Itl eadst o t heci t y’ st hor oughf ar e(al sh«ri ‘al a‘ am,asMuj » ral D» ncal l si t )of²ar » qB«bal Si l s i l a. Topogr aphi cal l y,i ti spar toft heanci enteas t wes tar t er y ofJ er us al em,t he onl y di r ectconnect i on bet ween t he ci t adeli nt hewal l soft heUpperCi t yandt heHar am.It cr os s es t he t own’ s cent r als t r eetal w«d (“Tyr opoeon Val l ey”)on amas s i veanci entcaus eway,ofwhi ch t he eas t er nmos tar ch,now knownasWi l s on’ sAr ch,s ur vi ves manymet er sbel ow t hel eveloft hepr es ents t r eet .Byt he l at e ei ght h/ f our t eent h cent ur y,t hes ect i on oft hes t r eet near es tt ot he ®ar am gai ned ar chi t ect ur alpr omi nence when atl eas tei ghtMaml uk monument swer e er ect ed 74

. . .Theyar euni f i ed.Fr om t hem onecanexi tt ot he pr i nci pals t r eetknownast hes t r eetofourmas t er Davi d(kha³s ayyi dn«D«w‡d) .Theyar et hemos t i mpor t antamongt hegat esoft heMos que(®ar am) (‘ umdat abw«b al masj i d) and us ed mos t by peopl ecomi ng i n and goi ng outoft heMos que. Fort heyl eadt omos toft het own’ sbazaar sand s t r eet s . B«b al Si l s i l ai s al s o known as B«b D«w‡d”(Muj » ral D» n,II,31) . Indeed,t hi sgat e wascal l ed B«b D«w‡d i nt he Ear l y Is l ami c per i od and had been l i s t ed by var i ous Ar ab chr oni cl er s.Ibn al Faq» h (290/ 903) ,Ibn ‘ Abd Rabbi hi (ca. 300/ 913)andal Muqadds»(ca. 375/ 985)ment i oni t amongot hergat esoft he®ar am (LeSt r ange1890,81; VII,298;170,r es pect i vel y) .Yett he mos tel abor at e des cr i pt i on oft he gat ef r om t hi sper i od i sby N«· i r » Khusr aw (438/ 1047) .Hewr i t es: . . .TheMos que(®ar am)i ss i t uat edeas toft heci t y andt hebazaar .Whenent er i ngi tf r om t hebazaar ,

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM Mazar, who excavated the area outsi de the southwest corner ofthe ®aram, clai ms that the upper part ofthe arch i s an Umayyad restorati on ( 1975, 221222) .It i s probably part ofan extensi ve substructure that supports the double gate of B«b alSi lsi la/ B«b alSak» na and the adj acent MamlukBaladi yya Madrasa ( Burgoyne 1987, 443) .

one would turn eastwards, then would see a great beauti f ul gateway thi rty dhir«‘ hi gh and twenty dhir«‘ wi de.The gatewayhas two wi ngs, ofwhi ch thei r f acades and open vault ( » w«n)are adorned wi th mosai cs, set i n plaster and cut i nto patterns so preci se that the eye becomes dazzled.Over the gateway i s an i nscri pti on, set i n enamel, whi ch gi ves the ti tle ofthe Sultan ( Fati mi d Cali ph)of Egypt.When the sun’ s rays f all on thi si t shi nes so the si ght bewi lders the soul.Above the gatewayi s a large dome bui lt wi th squared stones.It has two decorated doors f aced wi th Damascene copper workwhi ch shi nes so one would take them to be covered wi th gold;they were i nlayed wi th gold and ornamented wi th manydesi gns.Each ( door)i s f i f teen dhir«‘ long and ei ght dhir«‘ wi de;theyare called the B«bD«w‡d –peace upon hi m( N«· i r» Khusraw, 58;Le Strange 1890, 95) .

In recent years, as part ofthe scheme to open a tunnel along the outer f ace ofthe northern extensi on ofthe Western Wall, these substructures were haphazardly cleared bythe IsraeliMi ni stryf or Reli gi ous Af f ai rs.No plans of thi s substructure have been publi shed yet. However, a bri efdescri pti on ofthe results ofthe work reveals that a water ci stern i n the shape ofa cross f orms the f oundati on ofa church, or some other bui ldi ng, whi ch the Crusaders i ntended to erect on the entrance to the ®aram, but never completed ( BenDov, Naor and Aner 1983, 57) . Folda clai ms that the Crusaders bui lt a large church called St.Gi les near the B«balSi lsi la ( 1977, 273) .

About the same ti me Ibn alMuraj j «( ca.430s / 103040) menti ons the two copper doors at the two gates ofthe Mosque, B«b D«w‡d f rom whi ch one can exi t to Sulaym«n’ s bazaar near · ahy‡n, the present Zi on Gate ( Ibn alMuraj j «,96b, 268) .Wi lli am ofTyre ( 6/ 12th century)calls i t “the beauti f ul gate”( port as pecios a)( Boase 1977, 89) . DATEAND FOUNDER Above the northern lateral arch ofB«balSak» na, there i s an i nscri pti on off our li nes ofAyyubi d nas kh»scri pt carved on two adj oi ni ng t abul aeans at ae.It i s associ ated wi th the constructi on ofa Qur«n school f or orphans nearby i n 595/ 119899 ( van Berchem 1922, 110111) .Si nce the i nscri pti on i s in s it u, thi s date can serve as a t erminusant e quem f or the constructi on.In conclusi on, the outer porch of B«balSi lsi la/ B«balSak» na was erected some ti me af ter ¶al«¯ alD» n’ s conquest ofJ erusalem i n 583/ 1187 and bef ore 595/ 119899( see di scussi on below) .

DOUBLEGATE The complexofthe double gate ofB«balSi lsi la and B«b alSak» na compri ses two mai n components:The f i rst i s an outer porch of two domed bays leadi ng to two monumental doorways decorated wi th consi derable quanti ti es ofreused Crusader sculpture.The second i s an i nner porch whi ch consti tutes a part ofthe west porti co of the ®aram. OUTERPORCH A rectangular central pi er ( measuri ng 2. 98x1. 64x2. 90x 1. 77 m. on the north, east, south and west si des, respecti vely)di vi des the outer porch i nto two bays each wi th a double f rontal arch and covered wi th a short barrel vault and a dome ( Fi g.8. 2) .

SUBSEQUENTHI STORY Muj » r alD» n reports that the Mamluk sultan alAshraf Q«ytb«y ( ca.887/ 1482) , who was responsi ble f or the constructi on ofthe presti gi ous Ashraf i yya Madrasa and sab» l , constructed a f ountai n( f is qiyya)between the two gates ofB«balSi lsi la and B«balSak» na ( II, 36) . IV ARCHITECTURE EARLI ERSUBSTRUCTURES In the absence ofreli able archaeologi cal evi dence, the earlyhi storyofthe substructures, i ncludi ng Wi lson’ s arch, under the B«balSi lsi la/ B«balSak» na i s controversi al. The best avai lable plan showi ng the layout ofthese substructures was made byUnwi n( 1966, 2736) , on the basi s ofWarren’ s survey of1868 ( Warren and Conder 1884, 195209) . Wi lson and Warren suggest that Wi lson’ s Arch i s associ ated wi th the causeway bui lt across the ci ty’ s central “Tyropoeon”valleyand dated to Herodi an ti mes ( 1871, 7694) .

FIG.8. 2 GROUND PLAN (COURTESY OFBURGOYNE 1987) 75

AYYUBID JERUSALEM:AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY dimensions – 5.45 m. on the west, 5.12 m. on the east and 5.75 m. on the north and south sides. The four squinches in the zone of transition are made of fluted conches surmounted with duplex corner arches (Figs 8.2, 8.3, 8.4; Pl. 8.10), the north-west squinch is slightly different than the other three: a trefoil-shaped conch is surmounted by a small cushion arch (Pl. 8.11).

The south bay, 9.03 m. long and 5.98 m. wide, leads into B«b al-Silsila. The elevation of the outer porch rises to twenty courses of masonry which is surmounted by a cavetto moulding, as seen in the outer porch of the B«b al-Silsila (Pl. 8.1). It is abutted on the south end by the street facade of the adjacent Mamluk complex of the Tankiziyya, and the superstructure above it is also part of the same complex (Burgoyne 1987, 230-33, fig. 18.5, pl. 18.5). A stone above the apex of the south arch and beneath the cavetto moulding is carved with a curious design of an eight-pointed star set within a circle (Pl. 8.2). Another stone carved with a rosette motif is found near the left-hand springer of the south arch (Pl. 8.3). A lapidary shield (an upside-down T enclosed by a triangle resting on its point) is found at roughly shoulder height on the outer face of the central pier (Pl. 8.4). A large number of masons’ marks, probably Crusader, are carved on the stones of the central pier. On the south wall of the south bay, the engaged columns, partly restored, rise to a height of 2.64 m., and rest on a pedestal 70 cm. long, 38 cm. wide and 75 cm. high. The engaged columns on the south side of the central pier rise to 2.65 m. and rest on a pedestal 78 cm. long, 31 cm. wide and 85 cm. high. Here it is possible to note that the shafts of the columns do not fit symmetrically with their double capital, and that the right-hand side of the impost was broken to match the capital, thus providing evidence that this Crusader material is not in situ but in reuse (Pl. 8.5). The same can be said about the double capital and impost (48 cm. high) on the north side of the pier where the engaged columns, which no longer exist, could not have matched symmetrically (Pl. 8.6). On the east side of the central pier, at a height of 3.15 m., there is a double consul (or “elbow capital”), which measures 49 cm. in height (Pl. 8.7).

FIG. 8.3 RECONSTRUCTION OF ORIGINAL PLAN OF THE GATE (COURTESY OF BURGOYNE)

A short barrel vault (1.92 m. deep) occupies the space between the frontal arch and the dome on either side of the central pier. At both B«b al-Silsila and B«b al-Sak»na, an irregular rectangular hall, open on three sides including the doorways, is roofed by a dome (about 12 m. high). The zone of transition from square to octagon is formed by corner squinches (about 7.30 m. high). A cavetto moulding (about 9.20 m. high) defines the conjunction between the zone of transition and the dome. The latter is semi-circular in shape and is about 2.80 m. in depth.

FIG. 8.4 ELEVATION OF BƖB AL-SAKƮNA/ BƖB ALSILSILA, LOOKING EAST (COURTESY OF BURGOYNE 1992) Against the wall of the southern arched recess of B«b alSilsila, a modern bookstall obscures a grilled window, looking into the ground floor of the Tankiziyya, and two engaged columns, badly eroded, with two leaf capitals on the right-hand side (Pl. 8.11). High up on the left-hand side, there is another grilled window which looks into the mezzanine of the same complex (Burgoyne 1987, 237, fig. 18.4). According to Burgoyne, the area of the Tankiziyya south of the B«b al-Silsila porch was accessible from the porch, and it might have been used as shops (Burgoyne 1987, 231, fig. 18.3, pl. 18.11).

The dome at B«b al-Silsila covers an irregular rectangular hall, measuring 5.95 m. on the west side, 5.45 m. on the east side and 5.75 m. on each of the north and south sides (Fig. 2). The squinches in the zone of transition comprise fluted conches surmounted by various reused architectural pieces, such as voussoirs and cornices (Pl. 8.8); the southwest squinch has a vegetal scroll motif in relief (Pl. 8.9). Likewise, the dome at B«b al-Sak»na covers an irregular rectangular hall, although with slightly different 76

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM

The wall under the northern lateral arch of B«b al-Sak»na, which blocks the tall arched recess ofthe porch,contains a small doorway entrance into the Mamluk Baladiyya Madrasa ( Pl.8. 12).I t is surmounted bya plaque bearing the dedicationinscriptionofthe madrasa ( 782/ 1380) ( van Berchem 1922,no.87;Burgoyne 1987,446447).Above the doorway there are three windows surmounted by another inscriptionassociated with the adj acent Mamluk complexofthe Ashraf iyya and dated 875/ 1470( Fig.8. 2, Pl.8. 12;Burgoyne 1987,447). Burgoyne states that this wall seems to have beenbuilt not earlier thanthe constructionofthe Ashraf iyya,f or the latter inscription ( possibly not i n si t u) belongs to that construction,dated 875/ 1470( Burgoyne 1987,447).He also observes that the original entrance to the Baladiyya was 3. 23m.to the north ofthe present one,where a wall runningwestward f rom the west wall ofthe ®aram seems to predate the constructionofthe Baladiyya and to be associated with the constructionofB«b alSilsila/ B«b alSak» na,or perhaps an earlier development ( Burgoyne 1987,445446,f ig.43. 3). One course ofmasonry above the same lateral arch, betweenthe small arches ofthe northwest and the northeast squinches at B«b alSak» na,there are two adj oining slabs ( t abul aeansat ae) with aninscriptionoff our lines carved in Ayyubid naskh»script ( Pls 8. 13 [ right] ,8. 14 [ lef t] ).I t reads:

ϢΣήΗ Ϧϣ Ϳ΍ ϢΣέ ϢϴΣήϟ΍ ϦϤΣήϟ΍ Ϳ΍ ϢδΑ .1 ΎϬϠόΟϭ ΔϛέΎΒϤϟ΍ ΔόϘΒϟ΍ ϩάϫ ΎϨΑ ϱάϟ΍ ήϴϘϔϟ΍ ϰϠϋ ϢϠόΘϟ ΔϣΎϋ ϦϴϤϠδϤϟ΍ Ωϻϭ΃ ϰϠϋ ΎΒΘϜϣ .2 ϲΑ΃ έ΍ΪΑ ϑϭήόϤϟ΍ έ΍Ϊϟ΍ ϰϠϋ ϒϗϭ ΎϬϴϓ ϥ΁ήϘϟ΍ ΪΠδϤϟ΍ ΏΎΑ ϞΑΎϘϣ ϮΒϘϟ΍ ΖΤΗ .3 ΔϣΎόϧ ϑήμΗ ϪΗήΟ΍ ϥϮϜϳϭ ϰϟΎόΗ Ϳ΍ ϩήϤϋ ϰμϗϻ΍ ϢϠόΗ ΓήΟϻ .4 ϩΪϳ ϲϓ έ΍Ϊϟ΍ϭ ϢϠόϤϟ΍ ϰϟ΍ (ˮ) ϪΑ ΓέΎϤϋ (ˮ) Ϧϣ Ϟπϓ Ύϣϭ ϦϴϛΎδϤϟ΍ϭ ϡΎΘϳϻ΍ ϮΒϘϟ΍ ΖΤΗ .1 ϞϳΪϨϘϟ΍ ϝΎόη΍ϭ έ΍Ϊϟ΍ϭ ΐΘϜϤϟ΍ ρήθΑ Ώήθϟ΍ϭ Ρ΍Ϯϟϻ΍ Ϟδϐϟ ϥΎϴΒμϠϟ ˯ΎϤϟ΍ϭ ΍άϫϭ Ρϼμϟ΍ϭ ϦϳΪϟ΍ Ϟϫ΍ Ϧϣ ϢϠόϤϟ΍ .2 ϦϜϳ ϥ΍ ϪϟΪΑ ϦϤϓ ϝΪΒϳ .3 ϻϭ ήϴϐϳ ϻ ΍ΪϠΨϣ ΍ΪΑΆϣ Ύϔϗϭ ϪΒϧΫϭ έϮϜθϣ Ϫϴόγ Ϳ΍ ϞόΟ Δϳϻ΍ ϪόϤγ Ύϣ ΪόΑ ϪϤΣέ ϦϳΪϟ΍ .4 Ρϼλ ϊΠπϣ έϮϧϭ έϮϔϐϣ ϚϟΫ ΐΘϛϭ ϦϴϜϤΘϟ΍ϭ ΰόϟ΍ ϲϓ ϩΩϻϭ΍ φϔΣϭ Ϳ΍ .Δ΋ΎϤδϤΧϭ ϦϴόδΗϭ βϤΧ ΔϨγ έϮϬη ϲϓ

vault opposite the door ofthe Aqsҗ«Mosque,may God render its construction.I ts rent would be paid to the teacher,and the house under his control,( 4) as a salary f or teaching the orphans and the unprivileged.What is lef t( f rom the rent would be spent on) the repair ofthe school and the house,and the lighteningofthe lamp( 1) under the vault,and water f or the childrento wash the boards and f or drinking.I nconditionthat ( 2) the teacher would be pious and has integrity.This is a waqfinperpetuity and should not be changed or ( 3) substituted. Whoever substituted it af ter hearingit,etc.( al «ya) ( Qur’ «n,I I ,177).May God reward his zeal and pardon his sin,and illuminate ¶al«¯ ( 4) alD» n’ s couch ( tomb) –mayGod grant him mercy–and conserve his childreningloryand power.And this was writteninthe months ofthe year 595[ 119899] ( vanBerchem 1922,no.39,109119). The righthand ansa is slightlyabutted bythe arch ofthe northeast corner squinch.The text onthe lef thand t abul a spills over onto the adj oiningmasonry,f or it was longer thanthe t abul a could contain.One canalso assume that the original text givento the inscriptioncutter must have been f ar too long f or the space at his disposal,f or it was probablyplaned to incorporate the whole ofthe Quranic verse ( Qur’ «nI I ,177).Evidently,onlythe f irst f ive words ofthe verse are included,f ollowed bythe word al «ya ( the verse),which serves inthis case as the abbreviation“etc” ( vanBerchem 1922,111,n.5;Burgoyne and Folda 1981, 323).Such evidence indicates that the inscriptionis i nsi t u, which consequentlymeans that the date 595/ 119899may well serve as a t ermi nus ant equem f or the construction.I n other words,the outer porch ofthe B«b alSilsila/B«b alSak» na must have been constructed sometime af ter the Ayyubid conquest ofJ erusalem in 583/ 1187 and bef ore 595/ 119899. Betweenthe two bays ofthe outer porch,anoutof use modern circular water tank,surmounted with a metal dome,canbe seen( Fig.8. 2).Accordingto Muj » r alD» n ( see above) a f ountain built by the Mamluk sultan Q«ytb«y once stood here which has long disappeared, since nineteenth centuryplans show no trace ofit. The outer porch with its two domed bays lead to two monumental doorways decorated with a large quantityof reused Crusader sculpture which has beeninserted into an older roundheaded double gate ( Figs 8. 3,8. 4;Pls 8. 15, 8. 16).The two openings,each measuringca.7. 50m.high and ca.5. 05m.wide,are spanned bysemicircular arches with voussoirs havinga distinctive chamf er cut at 45degrees across the lower edge.Their semicircular prof ile suggests that theywere erected bef ore the end ofthe second /eighth centurywhenpointed arches were introduced to Palestine ( Creswell 1940,161165;Burgoyne 1992,124).Burgoyne ascribes this gateway–alongwith three other gates B«b alN«ir,B«b al‘ Atm,and B«b ®i³ ³ a which share the same distinctive f eatures – to the Umayyad period when the ®aram was beingdeveloped as a maj or I slamic religious

( 1) I n the name God the Mercif ul, the Compassionate.MayGod grant mercyto whoever begged mercyf or the poor ( f ounder) who built this blessed place and made it ( 2) a school ( makt ab) f or all Muslim childreninwhich to learnthe Qur’ «n. [ He]endowed it with the house known as the House ofAb‡ Na‘ «ma,( 3) ( situated) under the 77

AYYUBID JERUSALEM :AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

assume that theymayhave al loriginal l ygone together, which l eaves no doubt that the present doubl e gatewayis al ater assembl age.

centre at the time of the construction of the Dome of the Rockin 72/ 69192( 1992,122124,fig.7) . The inserted doorways,set within an externalshal l ow recess 43cm.deep,are rectangul ar in shape andspanned bysimpl ej oggl edl intel s.Their j ambs are adornedwith two tiers of marbl e col umns resting on moul ded pedestal s.The col umns are crowned with capital s and imposts carved with a variety of vegetaland fl oral fol iage,geometric motifs,as wel las figurative images, representingCrusader scul pturaltraditions in J erusal em. The doorwayat B«bal Sil sil a,measuring6. 05m.high and 3. 78 m.wide,reduces the originalopening on the righthandj ambby63cm.andon the l efthandj ambby 65cm.I n the upper tier,on either side of the doorway, there are interl aceddoubl e col umns,each 2. 48m.high ( impost –11cm.high,capital–30cm.high,shaft –1. 92 m.high,base –15cm. ) .I n the l ower tier,on either side of the doorway, there is another pair of interl aced col umns,each measuring2. 40m.high ( impost –11cm. high,capital–32cm.high,shaft –1. 82m.high,base – 15 cm.high) .These interl aced col umns rest on high pedestal s ( the l efthandpedestalmeasures 58cm.l ong, 39 cm.wide and 61 cm.high;the righthand pedestal measures 60cm.l ong,28cm.wide and67cm.high) . At shoul der height on the inner face of the righthand j amb,there is a badl yerodedinscription,measuring42 cm.l ongand32cm.wide.I t consists of eight l ines of naskh» Maml ukscript;onl ythe first three are l egibl e.The inscription,which has been inserted,deal s with a certain decree orderedbyal Mal ikal N«· ir Faraj( d.815/ 1412) ( van Berchem 1922,no.182,142144) . The doorway at B«b al Sak» na,measuring 6. 05 m.high and3. 18m.wide,reduces the ol der openingon the righthandj ambby91cm.andon the l efthandj ambby94cm. Here,the number of col umns is different than that in the B«bal Sil sil a.There are a pair of interl acedcol umns and one singl e col umn,on either side of the upper tier.The col umns on the l efthandside each measure 2. 45m.high. Those on the righthandside each measure 2. 50m.high. There are al so three col umns on either side of the l ower tier.Those on the l eft hand side ( of which the middl e col umn is missing)each measure 2. 43m.high ( impost – 11cm;capital–34cm;shaft –1. 83m. ;base –15cm. ) . The col umns on the righthandside each measure 2. 37m. high ( impost –10cm;capital–32cm;shaft –1. 80m;base –15cm) .Pedestal s on either side support the col umns.The pedestalon the l efthandside measures 70cm.l ong,30 cm.wide and70cm.high.The one on the righthandside measures 67cm.l ong,40cm.wide and74cm.high. Those systematical l ydetail edmeasurements demonstrate that the individualvariabl e el ements of the gatewayare not homogeneous,but were taken from different Crusader structures and put together.The interl aced,doubl e and tripl e col umns and their capitaland imposts are of different designs andsizes.Consequentl y,it is difficul t to 78

The col umns and their capital s and imposts are al most entirel yof Crusader scul pture of the highest qual ity.They have been describedbyBoase ( 1977,87) ,Fol da ( 1977, 271)andmore exhaustivel ybyBuschhausen ( 1978,figs 133152) .Burgoyne andFol da ( 1981,321324)discussed some specific issues andproposedval uabl e suggestions. Based on historical discussion, description and arthistorical eval uation, Buschhausen considers the ornamentalBaupl ast i k at B«b al Sil sil a/ B«b al Sak» na ( andat other structures aroundthe ®aram)to be l argel y Crusader creations,ascribingit to south I tal ian artists in J erusal em working under Frederick I I ’ s patronage ( ca. 627/ 1230636/ 1239)( 1978,14345) .Such datingis now general l ydiscredited.Burgoyne andFol da,who criticise Buschhausen’ s work for the l ack of measurements and archaeol ogicalanal ysis,show that this materialis reused spol i a anddate the assembl age to after 583/ 1187,but not l ater than 6271230( 1981,323) . I ndeed, a thorough examination of the archaeol ogical evidence of the abundant Crusader scul pture reveal s that the variabl e fragmentary pieces have been put together and incorporatedinto the structure of the gateway.At the B«bal Sak» na,where there are three capital s on each side of the two tiers,two identicalengagedcapital s andtheir imposts were j oinedbya thirddifferent capitalandimpost.As a resul t,no continuityin the carvedmotifs is discerned( Pl .8. 17) . On the doubl e capitalof the upper tier on the l efthand j amb,a scene of a headl ess human figure fl ankedbytwo animalfigures facingeach other is carvedon the engaged capital .Above it,some l etters,apparentl y of a Latin inscription, appear ( Pl . 8. 18) . Whil e Buschhausen suggests this scene portrays a Ti er kampf sz en ( 1978,pl . 137) ,Burgoyne andFol da correctl ypropose that it is the conventionalrepresentation of “Danielin the Lion’ s Den” andthe damagedinscription reads as fol l ows: [D ] AN[I HEL MI S] SUS I N LACU LEONU [M ]( 1981,322,fig.1) . On the doubl e capitalof the l ower tier of the same j amb,a defacedhuman figure,perhaps of a priest,is depictedon the corner of the capital( Pl .8. 19;Buschhausen 1978,pl s 139141) . At shoul der height on the wal lbetween the B«bal Sil sil a andthe B«bal Sak» na,a l apidaryshiel dis carved,simil ar to the one foundon the outer face of the centralpier ( see Pl . 8. 4) . I NNERPORCH ( Figs 8. 2,8. 5) The inner porch of the doubl e gatewayconsists of two vaul ts one baydeepandopen to the ®aram buil t against the outer western encl osure wal lof the ®aram ( Pl .8. 20) .

CAT AL OG U E OF AY Y U BID BU IL D IN G S IN JER U SAL EM Each of the doorways comprises two modern leaves made of wood and set internally within a recess 1. 55m.deep and surmounted by a roundheaded arch,echoingthe one in the outer porch ( Pls 8. 21,8. 22) .Vertical j oints on both sides of the doorways mark the lines of the inserted j ambs,which were noted in the outer porch ( Pl.8. 23) . The pier in between the doorways measures 3. 40m.long and 2. 26m.wide.

The porches of B«b alSak» na and B«b alSilsila correspond to what Burgoyne assigns as bays 45and 46 respectively of the West Portico,built in various stages from 707/ 13078to before 887/ 1483( 1987,192193,fig. 12. 2) .He adds: “These bays . . .show little sign of structural or architectural uniformity;they appear to have been rebuilt,perhaps more than once.Consequently it is impossible to say exactly what part of this section of portico is referred to in the inscription dated 713/ 131314,which is built into the ®aram wall at bay 49”( Burgoyne 1987,193) . This is quite evident in the two piers of B«balSilsila and B«b alSak» na ( according to Burgoyne,piers 46 and 45 respectively) .Along the middle of the pier separating the two bays of the gateway ( pier 46) ,a vertical j oint marks the dividing line between two different types of masonry.On the lefthand side of the pier,at a height of 2m.there is a slab,measuring90 cm.longand 77cm.wide,with an inscription written in ten lines of Mamluknaskh» script ( Pl.8. 22) .I t is a decree of the sultan alMalikalMuaffar A¯mad dated 824/ 1421( van Berchem 1922,no.183,144145) .This evidence confirms Burgoyne’ s opinion,that the lefthand side of the pier is a later modification ( Burgoyne 1987,193) .

5EL EV AT ION OF D OU BL E G AT E WIT H IN T H E WEST FIG.8. POR T ICO (COU R T ESY OF BU R G OY N E 1987)

2:AN PLATE 8. 1:OU T ER POR CH , G EN ER AL V IEW L OOK IN G PLATE 8. N OR T H -EAST 79

EIG H T -POIN T ED ST AR SET WIT H IN A CIR CL E

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

PLATE 8. 6:CAPITAL AND IMPOST ON THE NORTH FACE OF

PLATE 8. 3:ROSETTE MOTIF

A PIER

PLATE 8. 4:DESIGN OFLAPIDARY SHIELD ON CENTRAL

PLATE 8. 7:CONSUL OR “ELBOW

CAPITAL”

PIER

PLATE 8. 8:DOME RAISED ON SQUINCHES IN THE ZONE OF TRANSITION AT BƖB ALSILSILA PLATE 8. 5:ENGAGED COLUMNS ON SOUTH FACE OF CENTRAL PIER

80

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM

PLATE 8.9: SOUTH SQUINCHES IN THE ZONE OF TRANSITION AT BƖB ALSILSILA

12:NORTHERN SIDE OFTHE OUTER PORCH AND PLATE 8. ENTRANCE INTO THE BALADIYYA MADRASA

10:DOME RAISED ON SQUINCHESIN THE ZONE PLATE 8. SILSILA OFTRANSITION AT BƖB AL-

13:INSCRIPTION (RIGHT) ABOVE NORTHERN PLATE 8. SAKƮNA (COURTESY OFTHE LATERAL ARCH AT BƖB ALBSAJARCHIVE, THE ASHMOLEAN MUSEUM OXFORD)

11:NORTH SQUINCHESIN THE ZONE OF PLATE 8. SILSILA TRANSITION AT BƖB AL-

81

AYYUBID JERUSALEM:AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

PLATE 8.14: INSCRIPTION (LEFT) (COURTESY OF THE BSAJ ARCHIVE, THE ASHMOLEAN MUSEUM OXFORD)

PLATE 8.16: DOORW AY AT BƖB AL-SAKƮNA

PLATE 8.17: CAPITALS AT BƖB AL-SILSILA

PLATE 8.15: DOORW AY AT BƖB AL-SILSILA

PLATE 8.18: CAPITALS AT BƖB AL-SAKƮNA 82

CATALOGUE OF AYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM

PLATE 8.19: CAPITALS AT BƖB AL-SAKƮNA

PLATE 8.22: BƖB AL-SAKƮNA, INNER PORCH

BƖB AL-SAKƮNA, GENERAL PLATE 8.20: BƖB AL-SILSILA/ ARAM LOOKING WEST VIEW FROM HҎ

PLATE 8.23: CENTRAL PIER OF INNER PORCH, WITH AN PLATE 8.21: BƖB AL-SILSILA, INNER PORCH

INSCRIPTION

83

AYYUBID JERUSALEM :AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

9 Qubbatal Mi ‘ r «j

Ν΍ήόϤϟ΍ ΔΒϗ 597/ 120001 I LOCATION ( Fi g.9. 1,Pl .9. 1) Qubbatal Mi ‘ r «j( “Domeoft hePr ophet ’ sAs cens i on”) i s s i t uat edont heDomeoft heRockpl at f or m;about20m. nor t hwes toft heDomeoft heRock.

ΔΒϗ ϩάϫ . 2 ϩήϳ ˱΍ήϴΧΓέΫ ϝΎϘΜϣ ϞϤόϳ Ϧϣϭ Ϳ΍ ΎϫήϛΫ ϲΘϟ΍ ϢϠγϭ Ϫϟ΁ ϰϠϋϭ ϪϴϠϋ Ϳ΍ ϰϠλ ϲΒϨϟ΍ ΎϬϣΪϋ ΪόΑ ΎϫέΎϬχ· ϰ˷ϟϮΗϢϬΒΘϛ ϲϓ ΦϳέΎΘϟ΍ Ϟϫ΃ ήϴϘϔϟ΍ ϪϟΎϣϭ ϪδϔϨΑ . 3 ΎϫέΎΛΩ ΪόΑ ΎϬΗέΎϤϋϭ ήϴΒϜϟ΍έϼδϬϔγϹ΍ ϞΟϻ΍ ήϴϣϻ΍ ϪΑέ ΔϤΣέ ϰϟ΍ ϱίΎϐϟ΍ ΪϫΎΠϤϟ΍ Ϧϣϵ΍ κΧϻ΍ ΰϋϻ΍ ΪΣϭϻ΍ Ϊϴόγ . 4 ϡϼγϻ΍ ϝΎϤΟ ϦϳΪϟ΍ ˷ΰϋςΑ΍ήϤϟ΍ ϥΎϤΜϋ ϭήϤϋ ϲΑ΍ ϦϴϨϣΆϤϟ΍ ήϴϣ΍ ϒϴγ ˯΍Ϊόδϟ΍ αΪϘϟ΍ ϲϟϮΘϣ ϲϠϴΠϧΰϟ΍ Ϳ΍ ΪΒϋ ϦΑ ϲϠϋ ϦΑ ϦϴόδΗϭ ϊΒγ ΔϨγ έϮϬη ϲϓ ϚϟΫϭ ϒϳήθϟ΍ Δ΋ΎϤδϤΧϭ ( 1) In t he name of God, t he Mer ci f ul ,t he Compas s i onat e.And God may bl es s and gr ant peacet oMu¯ammadhi sPr ophetandhi sf ami l y. “What evergoodyoudo,Godknowsi t ”(Qur ’ «n, II,193).“. . . andwhohasdoneanat om’ swei ghtof goods hal ls eei t ”( Qur ’ «n,XCIX,7).( 2) Thi si s t heDomeoft hePr ophet( qubbatal -nabi yy) – mayGodpr ayuponhi m andhi sf ami l y–whi ch t he hi s t or i ans ment i oned i nt hei rbooks .Ther e t ook i n char gei t sexpos ur eaf t eri t sl os sand i t s r ebui l di ngaf t eri t sdes t r uct i on( 3) byhi ms el fand hi smoney,t he poorf orhi sLor d’ smer cy,t he gr eatam» r ,t he gr eat gener al ( i s f ahsal «r ),t he uni que, t he gl or i ous ,t he mor e s peci al ,t he conf i dent ,t heher o( ofhol ywar ),t heconquer or , t he f i ght er( att he boundar i es ),‘ Izz al D» n,t he beaut yofIs l am,( 4) t hehappyoft hehappi es t ,t he s wor d of t he pr i nce of bel i ever s Ab‡ ‘ Umar ‘ Ut hm«nb.‘ Al »b.‘ Abdul l «hal Zanj » l » ,gover nor of J er us al em. And t hat i si nt he mont hs of 597[ 120001]( vanBer chem 1927,3738,no.152; RCEA,IX,1937,no.3533).

FIG. 9.1 LOCATION PLAN

II SITE AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION

A dedi cat i oni ns cr i pt i ononamar bl es l abf oundabovet he ent r ancer eads :

Thes t r uct ur e,whi chi scal l edt odayt heQubbatal Mi ‘ r «j ( “Domeoft hePr ophet ’ sAs cens i on”),i sr ef er r edt oby t hededi cat i oni ns cr i pt i onasQubbatal Nabi yy( “Domeof t hePr ophet ”).Thet exts ugges t st hatt her ewasanot her s t r uct ur e as s oci at ed wi t h t he Pr ophet Mu¯ammad, pr obabl y wi t ht het r adi t i on ofhi sas cens i on t o heaven, whi chhaddi s appear edandbeenr epl acedbyt heexi s t i ng qubba. In t hi st r adi t i on t he Ar abi cs our ces us ual l y ment i on t he Domeoft hePr opheti mmedi at el y af t era des cr i pt i on ofhi sas cens i on t o heaven,t husgi vi ng t he i mpr es s i ont hatt her emaybeaconnect i onbet weent he Domeoft hePr ophetandt hemi ‘ r «j .Whi l et heques t i on oft hepr eci s el ocat i onoft heas cens i onr emai nsuns ol ved, ourt as kher ei st ocl ar i f ys omeoft heconf us i onwhi ch exi s t si nt he Ar abi cs our ces concer ni ng t he pr es ent s t r uct ur e.

ϰϠϋ Ϳ΍ ϰϠλϭ ϢϴΣήϟ΍ ϦϤΣήϟ΍ Ϳ΍ ϢδΑ . 1 ϪϤϠόϳ ήϴΧ Ϧϣ ΍ϮϠόϔΗ Ύϣϭ ϢϠγϭ Ϫϟ΁ϭ ϪϴΒϧ ΪϤΤϣ

Pr ecr us aderaccount soft he®ar am ment i on numer ous s t r uct ur eson t he pl at f or m oft he Dome oft he Rock, i ncl udi ngbot ht heDomeoft hePr ophet ’ sAs cens i onand

Thi sf r ees t andi ng domed s t r uct ur e( qubba) i sas i mpl e oct agonalchamberbui l twi t h ar chesr es t i ng on cor ner pi er sand col umnss uppor t i ng ahi gh dome.It scol umn capi t al sar eofCr us aderor i gi n.Eachs i deoft heoct agon, excl udi ngt hes out h( qi bl a) s i dewi t ht hemi ¯r«b,i sf i l l ed wi t has cr eenofwhi t emar bl e.Theent r ancedoori si nt he nor t h s i de. Ins i de, t he mi ¯r«b i s decor at ed wi t h pol ychr omet i l es .Thewhol es t r uct ur ei ss etwi t hi nal ow al mos t r ect angul arpl at f or m. III HISTORY I DENTI FI CATI ON

84

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM

the Dome of the Prophet. Al-Muhallab» (d. 380/990), for example, menti oned that duri ngthe rei gnof the Umayyad Cali ph al-Wal»d (86/705-96/715) there were s everal domesonthe ®aram al-Shar»f:Qubbat al-Mi ‘ r«j , Qubbat al-M»z«n (“the Dome of the Scales ”), Qubbat al-Si ls i la (“the Dome of the Chai n”) and Qubbat al-Ma¯s har (“the Dome of the Gatheri ng”) (al-Muhallab», 54). The geographer I bnal-Faq»h, wri ti ngi n290/903, menti oned s i multaneous lythe Dome of the Prophet, the Oratoryof Gabri el, and the Dome of the As cens i oni nfront of the Dome of the Rock(I bnal-Faq»h, 101, li ne 9). I bn‘ Abd Rabbi hi , who recorded the vari ous s tructures on the ®aram al-Shar»f i n 300/913, obs erved “the dome from whi ch the Prophet as cended to Heavenand the dome i n whi ch the Prophet prayed before the (other) prophets ...” (I bn‘ Abd Rabbi hi , VI I , 299). A more detai led des cri pti on was gi ven by al-Muqddas » (ca. 375/985), a nati ve geographer of J erus alem. He wrote:

s i de (north or north-wes t) of the Dome of the Rock. However, thi sdomed s tructure di s appeared long ago – perhapsduri ngthe Crus ader peri od –and wasreplaced j us t fourteen years after J erus alem was recovered by ¶al«¯al-D»nfrom the Franksi n583/1187. Although the dedi cati on i ns cri pti on i denti fi es the s tructure as“Qubbat al-Nabi yy”, the contemporaryand later Arabi cs ourcesreferred to i t asQubbat al-Mi ‘ r«j . By Y«q‡t al-®amaw»’ sti me (d. 623/1226) –onlytwentyfi ve yearsafter i tsrebui ldi ng–i t had beenclearlyi denti fi ed asQubbat al-Mi ‘ r«jand located onthe pavement of the platform of the Dome of the Rock(Y«q‡t, I V, 594). Although Ab‡’ l-Fi d«’(d. 732/1332) menti oned Qubbat al-Mi ‘ r«j , pres umablys i mplycopyi nganearli er author, he fai led to gi ve i tspreci s e locati on. He wrote: Whenal-Wal»d b. ‘ Abd al-Mali kbui lt the Dome of the Rock i n Bayt al-Maqdi s , he als o bui lt a number of domes , each called bya name:Qubbat al-Mi ‘ r«j , Qubbat al-Mi z«n, Qubbat al-Si ls i la and Qubbat al-Ma¯s har (Ab‡’ l-Fi d«’ , 227, l, 10).

On the platform (of the Dome of the Rock) are four domes , the Dome of the Chai n, the Dome of the As cens i on, the Dome of the Prophet. Thes e three domesare fi ne and covered wi th lead upon marble columnswi thout a wall (i n between), ... and i n the centre i sthe Dome of the Rock (alMuqddas », 129).

However, later hi s tori ansand chroni clersgave a more accurate pos i ti onof Qubbat al-Mi ‘ r«j . I bnFa±lall«h al‘ Umar», wri ti ng i n about 745/1345, gave the exact locati on of the bui ldi ng “... at a di s tance of forty-two dhi r«‘towardsthe wes t of the north door (of the Dome of the Rock) (al-‘ Umar», 149).

N«· i r-» Khus raw (438/1047), i n hi sdes cri pti on of the ®aram al-Shar»f, als o menti oned four domes on the platform:the Dome of the Rock, the Dome of the Chai n, the Dome of Gabri el and the Dome of the Prophet. He des cri bed the latter thus : Thi stoo res tsonfour marble pi ers . Theys ayonthe ni ght of the heavenly as cent, the Prophet fi rs t prayed i n the Dome of the Rock and placed hi shand on the Rock. From there the Prophet came to the dome that i s attri buted to hi m and mounted the bur«q,whi ch i swhy that dome i ss o venerated (N«· i r-» Khus raw, 33). I bnal-Muraj j «(ca. 430s /1030-40s), who wasthe i m«m of the Aq· «Mos que and a nati ve of J erus alem, located the Dome of the Prophet behi nd the Dome of the As cens i onand onthe ri ght-hand s i de of the Dome of the Rock(I bnal-Muraj j «, 77, 30a;124, 45b). He added:

Muj »r al-D»n, wri ti ng i n 901/1496, echoed what the earli er accountsmenti oned wi th regard to the locati onof the bui ldi ng: Onthe ri ght-hand of the Dome of the Rockand on the terrace from the wes ts i de, there i sQubbat alMi ‘ r«j . I t i s famous and well-vi s i ted... I t was [ formerly]anold domed s tructure (qubba) whi ch di s appeared, but i t wasrebui lt (Muj »r, I , 373). Muj »r al-D»nals o menti oned anadj acent domed s tructure related to the Prophet called maq«m al nabi yy: whi ch had a fi ne mi ¯r«b. He s tated: ... I t i ss ai d that the place of thi smi ¯r«b i sthe place where the Prophet (Mu¯ammad) prayed before the prophetsand angelsonthe ni ght of the j ourney from Mecca to J erus alem (al ’ i s r «’ ) (Muj »r, I , 373).

No one di s agreesthat the Prophet wasborne up to heavenfrom the Dome knownasQubbat al-Mi ‘ r«j (I bnal-Muraj j «, 122, 44b) ...ThenIlooked to the mi ‘ r «jthe place of the dome... ThenIlooked to Dome of the Prophet, and Iwastold:thi si swhere he (the Prophet) prayed before the mes s engersand the angels(I bnal-Muraj j «, 268, 96a).

DATE

The fact that I bn al-Muraj j « us ed the phras e “no one di s agrees ” reflectsi ni ts elf the controvers y among hi s contemporarys cholarswi th regard to the preci s e locati on of the Prophet’ sas cens i onto heaven(Elad 1995, 49). I ti s pos s i ble to as s ume that before or duri ng the Fati mi d peri od, Qubbat al-Nabi yywaserected to the ri ght-hand 85

Accordi ngto the dedi cati oni ns cri pti onthe cons tructi on (‘ i m«r a) of the Qubbat al-Mi ‘ r«ji sdated to 597/1200-01. Thi sdate i sconfi rmed by Muj »r al-D»n, who probably read the i ns cri pti on. Des pi te the fact that there are fragments of Crus ader mas onry and s culpture i ncorporated i nto the s tructure, s everal s tructural features s ugges t pronounced I s lami ccharacteri s ti cs , poi nti ngto an Ayyubi d date (s ee di s cus s i onbelow).

AYYUBID JERUSALEM:AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY FOUNDER Muj»r al-D»n’s text echoes also the inscription in identifying the founder. He says: It was built by the prince, the general, ‘Izz al-D»n Sa‘»d al-Su‘ad«’ Ab‡ ‘Umar ‘Uthm«n b. ‘Al» ‘Abdull«h al-Zanj»l», governor of Jerusalem, in the year 597 (/1200-01) (Muj»r, I , 373). The chronicles and other historical sources contain little information about ‘Izz al-D»n al-Zanj»l». He was an army commander in the service of the Ayyubid dynasty. Ab‡ Sh«ma, quoting ‘Im«d al-D»n, mentions that he joined the Ayyubid military expedition headed by ¶al«¯ al-D»n’s eldest brother, T‡r«n Sh«h, to conquer Yemen and was appointed as governor of Aden in 569/ 1173 (Ab‡ Sh«ma, II, 216). Sib³b. alJawz» reports that he returned to Syria in 578/1182 “... after he built many monuments and made endowments (waqf s), and he built a madrasa in Mecca and a rib«³ (hospice) in Medina” (Sib³ , 368). Following ¶ala¯ alD»n’s death in 589/1193, al-Zanj»l» was mentioned again in the struggle for succession (Ab‡ Sh«ma, II, 228). It is apparent from the inscription that in the year 597/1200-01 he was the governor of Jerusalem (mut awall»al-quds al-shar» f ), yet we are certain when he took this post. By that time, he still held this military title the isf ahsal«r, an army commander or general (Herzfeld 1955, 183-192; EI, 2nd ed., s. v. I spahs«l«r; Burgoyne 1987, 195, n. 5). He would have served under al-Mu‘aam ‘º s«, during the reign of the sultan al-Malik al-‘ªdil.

Its floor is paved with white marble; the same is in the interior walls. In the interior there are also eighteen columns. Above the aforementioned marble, there are small windows (t «q«t ) each (consisting of) three pieces of stucco (jib· mukandaj) and three pieces of glass. And above the small windows, there is the base of the dome. Its width from east to west (measures) seven dhir«‘, and from south to north six and a quarter dhir«‘. Its mi¯r«b is one and two third dhir«‘ wide; which is (located) at the beginning of the paved floor from the south. The door and the steps are on the other side from the north. The rest of the floor is for people to pray on From the apex of the dome to its floor is sixteen dhir«‘ in height. At the top (of the dome) from the outside there is a beautiful dome in the place of the crescent (hil«l), raised upon six small marble columns like candles, the height of each is about one dhir«‘ (al-‘Umar», 149-150). EXTERI OR (Figs 9.2, 9.3)

SUBSEQUENT HI STORY An inscription on the upper part of the mi¯r«b records that the mi¯r«b was repaired by an Ottoman official called Mu¯ammad ®aqq» in the year 1198/1781. These repairs appear to have involved mainly the covering of the mi¯r«b with tiles, presumably obliterating the one which al-N«buls» described in 1101/1690 as “fine“ (alN«buls», 137). IV ARCHITECTURE FIG.9. 2 GROUND PLAN (AFTER DIA) Al-‘Umar», who visited Jerusalem in about 745/1345, left us an extraordinarily detailed description of the Qubbat al-Mi‘r«j. He wrote:

There is a great deal of architectural harmony in the construction of the Qubbat al-Mi‘r«j. The two constituent elements of the octagonal base – the columns and the arches – are equal in height (about 2.50 m.), each being equal to the height of the dome, giving a total height of 7.5 m (Pl. 9.2).

Its door opens to the north, one dhir«‘ and a third wide, and two dhir«‘ and a third high. At corners of the exterior are thirty columns of white marble; the height of each column, excluding the base, is two dhir«‘ and two thirds of a dhir«‘.

The whole structure is built of limestone ashlars (each about 24 x 28 cm. on average), except the corner piers which are large (56 cm. high) dressed miz z »stones. Some stones in the south, south-west and north-west piers bear traces of diagonal tooling, possibly indicating reused masonry; no masons’ marks are found.

The walls of the octagon are covered with slabs of malak»marble bearing motifs of trees in blue. One can ascend to its door by three steps of marble, then one can descend into the interior by the same number of steps. 86

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM Apparentlythi s part ofthe structure was damagedi n the war of1948andrestoredbyKi ng ‘ Abdull«hofJordan i n 1951( Prag 1989, 115) . The columns and thei r capi tals are of marble.Each column measures on average 2. 45m.long, ofwhi chthe pli nthi s 8cm.i n hei ght, the base i s 15cm, the shaf t 1. 82 m, the capi tal 30cm, the abacus 9cm.The columns are not ofthe same di ameter;56cm.i s the average.Leadwas usedto j oi n the bases wi ththe shaf ts andthe shaf ts wi th the capi tals ( Pl.9. 5) . Three Arabi c nas kh»i nscri pti ons i n the f orm ofgraf f i ti are f oundon the pli nths ofthree columns.On the lef thandsi de ofthe southeast corner, there i s an i nscri pti on ofone li ne, whi chreads:

ϦϴδΣ [?] Ϫϟ Ϳ΍ήϔϏ ΪϤΤϣ FIG. 9.3 PLAN W ITH SECTION LINES(AFTER DIA) ®usayn ( ?)Mu¯ammadmayGodpardon hi m The structure is built within an almost rectangular terrace, measuri ng 9. 15m.( northsi de) ;6. 70m.( east si de) ;9. 55 m.( southsi de) ;6. 90m.( west si de) .Most ofthi s terrace has been restoredi n modern ti mes, except two small parts whi ch survi ved f rom the ori gi nal terrace.One part i s si tuatedon the southsi de i mmedi atelyeast ofthe mi¯r«b sali ent.I t consi sts oftwo adj acent large i rregular slabs measuri ng 1. 52 x 0. 92 m. and 1. 65 x 0. 63 m. respecti vely.I t abuts the mi¯r«b andri ses 25cm.above the Dome ofthe Rockterrace bears two Lati n letters – MI . Thi s well may be a f ragment of a Crusader i nscri pti on reusedi n the constructi on ofthe bui ldi ng.The other survi vi ng part i si n the f orm ofa semi ci rcular step ofstone protrudi ng f rom the north si de ofthe terrace, f ormi ng the outer stepi n the f li ght ofthree steps leadi ng to the entrance door. The structure externallyconsi sts oftwo di sti ncti ve parts. An octagonal base, f ormed by ei ght walls, ri ses to a hei ght of5. 51m.I t supports a hi ghdome about 2. 50m. i n hei ght ( whi chunti l 1997was coveredwi thleadsheets, see Pl.9. 3)andsurmountedbya curi ous f i ni al, about 70 cm.i n hei ght ( Fi g.9. 2) .

A second i nscri pti on, whi ch consi sts ofthree li nes, i s f oundon the southcorner, east ofthe mi¯r«b exteri or ( Pl. 9. 6) .I t reads:

ϪϳΪϟ΍Ϯϟϭ Ϫϟ Ϳ΍ ήϔϏ ϦϳΪϟ΍έϮϧ ΩϮϤΤϣ . 1 ϦϴϧΎϤΛ ΔϨγ [. . . ]. 2 [. . . ] ϭ ϦϴϤϠδϤϟ΍ ϊϴϤΠϟϭ ΍ ΎϋΩϭ . 3 ΔϳΎϤΘγϭ ( 1)Ma¯m‡dN‡r alD» n mayGodpardon hi m and hi s parents andall Musli ms and[. . . ]( 2)[. . . . ]the year 680( / 1281)( 3)andcalled[. . . ] . On li ne ( 1)above the wordMusli ms, a si gn ofan eye i s engraved.Thi s surelyi s the si gn “agai nst the evi l eye”. The name whi chappears here i s doubtf ullythat ofN‡r alD» n Ma¯m‡dZang» , the predecessor of¶al«¯alD» n, who di edmore than a centurybef ore. A thi rdi nscri pti on ofone li ne i sf oundon the ri ghthand si de ofthe northwest corner.I t reads:

Ϫϟ΁ ϰϠϋϭ ΪϤΤϣ ϰϠϋ ϲϠλ Ϳ΍

The base i s almost symmetri cal i n plan, eachsi de bei ng 1. 88m.The corners ofthe octagon eachconsi st ofa pi er ( about 56cm.i n hei ght)wi thf our columns, so arranged that each pai r of columns i s f lanked by two other columns, except f or those i n the qibl asi de whi chhave onlythree columns.Ei ght rebatedarches spri ng f rom the column capi tals.The outer f ace ofthe northwest pi er has a mason’ s mark, the onlyone recordedon the exteri or of the structure.

There are other graf f i ti , ei ther engravedor wri tten wi th i nkaroundthe exteri or ofthe structure, especi allyon the columns, most ofwhi chare i llegi ble.We maypresume that these i nscri pti ons were addedbypi lgri ms to the Holy Ci ty.

The space between eachofthe pi ers, excludi ng the qibl a and north si des i s f i lled wi th three courses ofmasonry approxi mately63cm.hi ghand24cm.wi de ( Pl.9. 4) .I n the northeast andeast si des ofthe structure, the pi ers and the adj oi ni ng f i lli ngs appear to be modern repai rs.

The scheme ofthe columns andthei r capi tals aroundthe structure has a curi ous arrangement.There are thi rty columns, a number whi ch agrees wi th al‘ Umar» ’ s account.The outer pai rs ofengagedcolumns have si xteen i denti cal leafcapi tals, whi chwe shall ref er to as Group

87

“God bless ( the Prophet) Mu¯ammad and hi s f ami ly”

AY Y U B ID JE R U SAL E M :AN AR C H IT E C T U R AL AND AR C H AE O L O G IC AL ST U D Y

A. Their flanking columns have fourteen capitals with various decorative motifs andare Crusader in origin that we shall refer to as Group B.

aroundthe arches andterminates in curveddownturns at each end.

The capitals of Group A are consistent in style,being plain. I n each capital are three tiers of downturned leaves. The upper and lower tiers are separate,but the middle ones are j oinedbyvolutes in the corners ( Pl. 9.6) . Similar capitals are found in other Ayyubid buildings such as in Qubbat Sulaym«n ( see Catalogue No. 11) , Qubba alQaymuriyya ( see Catalogue No. 22) . The capitals of Group B,on the other hand,are more elaboratelyandrichlydecorated. I n their style andmotifs, these capitals belong to a type of Crusader sculpture of which analogous examples can be foundin both Crusader andAyyubidbuildings in Jerusalem andin 12th century Romanesque churches in France ( Kuhnel 1977,47) . Here,theyevidentlyappear as reusedspolia. The capitals of this latter group display three types of motifs in different variations andcombinations. Two are entirelyvegetal or floral andthe thirdis figurative. The most common type consists of one or two rings of acanthus leaves springing from the base of the capital. The upper ring of the acanthus is often surmountedby volutes at the four corners of the capital ( Pl. 9.7) . All these capitals have developed from the Classical Corinthian order. Parallels to these capitals can be found in the Ascension Church ( Vincent and Abel 1922,pl. XLI ,12;Kuhnel 1977,figs 78)and reused in the Mamluk Minbar of Burh«n alD» n,dated to the mideighth/ fourteenth century ( Buschhausen 1978,pls 291292) . The secondstyle of capitals is basedon the motif of a palmette enclosedbystems or ribbons ( Pl. 9.8) . A similar palmette motif appears on capitals from the Ascension Church ( Kuhnel 1977,figs 4,8,11;Vincent and Abel 1922,pl. XLI I ,12) . To the third style belongs only one capital which is adornedwith figurative motifs in the form of birds ( Pl. 9.9) . The capital is now damagedandthe images of the birds are defaced. I t is not certain whether this is a result of a deliberate act of iconoclasm or rather a mere decay. The figures are arrangedon two levels with leaf patterns between and volutes at the corners. Two capitals with similar birds are foundin the Ascension Church ( Vincent andAbel 1922,fig. XLI I ,34) .

The space in between the columns in each facade of the structure,excluding the north and qibla sides,is filled with greyveinedwhite marble slabs,measuring 2.47m. in height,1.40m. in width andabout 7cm. in thickness. These slabs must have replaced “the slabs of malak» marble bearing motifs of trees in blue”,describedbyal‘ Umar»( see above) . On the north side,the door j ambs andlintel are made out of similar marble. An additional marble slab,measuring 1.45m. in length and0.86m. in width,is placedabove the door lintel. This slabis surmountedbyanother original slabbearing the dedication inscription,which measures 1.76m. long and 35 cm. wide. The soffit of the arch has been chipped away to allow the inscription to be fitted in place ( Pl. 9.10) . This mayindicate a later insertion andcouldhave important implications for the date of the building. The infills in the arches on the seven sides of the structure contain glass divided into four parts by iron frames. These must have replacedthe small windows ( ³ «q«t )each consisting of three pieces of stucco ( j ibs mukandaj )and three pieces of glass which existed during al‘ Umar» ’ s time ( see above) . The qibla side is entirelyoccupiedbythe mi¯r«b,which proj ects about 60cm. from the outline of the octagon and about 35cm. from the terrace ( Pl. 9.11) . The mi¯r«b on the exterior ( 3.36m in height)is semicircular in shape andrises to the level of the abacus above the capitals. I t consists of eleven courses of large stones in the lower part ( measuring 3037cm. in height)andsmaller stones in the upper part ( measuring 2326cm. in height) ,all of which are surmountedbya cavetto cornice 18cm. high. The masonryof the mi¯r«b appears to be similar to that of the rest of the structure,suggesting that the mi¯r«b is an integral part of the building. The arch above the mi¯r«b is filledwith three courses of masonry( Pl. 9.12) . The walls of the octagon above the arches rise to four courses on the corners andto one anda half courses ( 37 cm. high)above the apexof the arches. A cavetto cornice 52cm. in height runs aroundthe top of these walls. The total height of the octagon from the surface of the terrace is 5.51m.

Above the corner capitals,the abaci of the columns support eight rebatedor double arches,one on each side of the octagonal base. The inner arch springs from the supporting capitals ( Group B)measuring 1.86m. in span. I t is set back 22cm. from an identical outer arch,which springs from the outer capitals ( Group A) . Both arches, which rise to a height of 1.60 m.,are slightly pointed, each consisting of nine voussoirs,about 30cm. in width. A cavetto moulding,measuring 12 cm. in width,runs 88

The whole structure is built with limestone ashlars ( each about 24x28cm. on average) ,except the corner piers which were built with large ( 56cm. high)dressedmiz z » stones. Some stones in the south,southwest andnorthwest piers bear traces of diagonal tooling,possibly as reusedmasonry. The dome of the structure,well built of ashlar blocks,is high in shape andrises to a height of 2.50m. above the octagon ( see Pl. 9.2) . Until 1997 the stone dome was coveredon the exterior with leadradiating in 24strips

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM from a circular ring at the apex of the dome; each strip was divided into three plates. The lead plates curved at the bottom of the dome to cover the top of the cornice that crowns the octagon (Pl. 9.13).

slabs. The interior is by no means an accurate octagon, for the sides vary from 1.23 m. to 1.35 m. in length. Nevertheless, measured on a line passing through the centres of the opposing east and west walls of the interior, there is a distance of 4.82 m., a measurement that agrees entirely with that of al-‘Umar», which is seven dhir«‘ . By examining other dimensions given by al-‘Umar», we concluded that his dhir«‘equals approximately 0.69-0.70 m. and so 7 dhir«‘equal 4.83-4.90 m. – a sufficiently close correspondence to our measurement. Burgoyne, who carried out an analysis of dimensions of Mamluk buildings given by al-‘Umar»’, established the same value for the dhir«‘(1987, 104, 217). The most remarkable feature in the interior is the mi¯r«b (Pl. 9.17). The pointed-arched and semi-circular niche (measuring 2.38 m. high, 1.23 m. wide and 60 cm. deep) is set within a rectangular frame (2.94 m. high) surmounted with a kind of a gable (62 cm. high). It is decorated with blue and turquoise polychrome tiles. Above the niche of the mi¯r«b, there is an inscription (Pl. 9.18), written with naskh» Ottoman script, which indicates its refurbishing in the year 1195/1781 (van Berchem 1927, 54-55, No. 153). It consists of three lines. The lower part of the inscription, which consists of two lines written in white over the green background of the tiles, occupies two courses of the tiles, measuring 1.20 m. long and 40 cm. wide. It reads:

4 DOM E PLAN (AFTER DIA) FIG.9. The apex of the dome is surmounted by a curiously formed and ornate finial about 70 cm. in height (Pl. 9.14). It consists of a miniature domed structure:a small pointed dome in the shape of a lantern or helmet, lightly carved with drooping petals, is supported by crossed-pointed arches which spring from capitals of columns resting on a circular stone. This finial is unparalleled in Islamic architecture in Jerusalem and elsewhere. Its small dome resembles to a great extent a contemporary Islamic helmet, while the intersecting-pointed arches above the columns are Gothic in style. A close example to it is a stone object found at the Department of Islamic Archaeology, Awqaf Administration, near the ®aram alShar»f. It is probably a corner post of a cenotaph, which has similar intersecting-pointed arches, but with a round ribbed dome, each arch resting on a shaft carved with a fish scale motif (Pl. 9.15).

ϯήγ΍ ϱάϟ΍ ϥΎΤΒγ ϢϴΣήϟ΍ ϦϤΣήϟ΍ Ϳ΍ ϢδΑ ΪΠδϤϟΎϯϟ΍ ϡ΍ήΤϟ΍ ΪΠδϤϟ΍ Ϧϣ ϼϴϟ ϩΪΒόΑ ΎϨΗΎϳ΍ Ϧϣ ϪϳήϨϟ ϪϟϮΣ Ϧϣ ΎϨϛέΎΑ ϱάϟ΍ ϰμϗϻ΍ ϪΒΘϛ ϲϘΣ ΪϤΤϣ Ϧϣ ήϴϤόΘϟ΍ ήϴμΒϟ΍ ϊϴϤδϟ΍ Ϫϧ΍ Ϊϴγ “In the name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate. Glory to (God) who took his servant for a journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Furthest (Aq· «) Mosque, whose precincts we blessed, in order that we might show him some of our signs:for he is the one who hears and sees (all things) (Qur’«n, XVII , 1). The repair by Mu¯ammad ®aqq», ... It was written by Sayyid” (van Berchem 1927, no. 153, 54-56).

As we have seen, there is a great deal of architectural harmony in the building of Qubbat al-Mi‘r«j. The two parts of the octagonal base –the columns and the arches – are equal in height (about 2.50 m.), each equal to the height of the dome. INTERIOR (Figs 9.2, 9.3)

The upper part of the inscription, which is set within a gable-shaped frame crowning the niche of the mi¯r«b, reads as follows:

ΔϨγ Ϳ΍ ˯Ύη Ύϣ 1195 “Whatever God wishes, in the year 1195” [ 1781] (van Berchem 1927, 55)

The entrance door in the north side, measuring 1.59 m. in height and 93 cm. in width, is set within a recess 18 cm. deep (Pl. 9.16). It leads directly into an octagonal chamber which is lit by the windows under the arches in the seven sides of the structure and paved with marble

Above and behind the gable appears what seems to be the upper part of the original mi¯r«b of the domed structure. It is a pointed-arched, slightly horse-shoe-shaped, mi¯r«b. 89

AYYUBID JERUSALEM :AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY Three marble panels carved with interlaced k‡f i c inscriptions are f ound at the level ofthe column bases. Underneath the bases ofthe columns,on either side ofthe mi ¯r«b,there are twof ragments ofinscriptions.Panel A on the lef thand side ofthe mi ¯r«bmeasures 47x25cm ( Pl.9. 19) .I t has an inscription that reads:

Ϳ΍ ϞϴΒγ ϲϓ

The transition f rom the octagonal room tothe round base ofthe dome consists ofeight f luted conches ( 4. 40m.high f rom the f loor)actinglike miniature squinches above the corners ofthe octagon supporting a circular drum ( Pl. 9. 22) .A simple moulding separates the transition zone f rom the dome ( Pl.9. 23) .The interior ofthe dome is whitewashed. CONCLUSI ON

“. . .inthewayofGod”(vanBerchem 1927,55). Panel B on the righthand side,measuring33x25cm, has an illegible inscription ( Pl.9. 20) .Panel C,measuring 96cm.longand 28cm.wide,is located at the base ofthe southeast wall ( 30 cm.above the f loor)and contains another inscription ( Pl.9. 21) .I t reads:

. . .ϭ ΖϴϤϟ΍ Ϧϣ ϲΤϟ΍ ΝήΨΗϭ ϞϴϠϟ΍ “. . .the night and you ( God)bring lif e f rom the dead,and . . . ”( Qur’ «n,I I I ,26;van Berchem 1927, 5556) . The marble panels with their inscriptions appear to be f ragments oflarger inscriptions and have been reused here.I t is quite dif f icult to determine their provenance and date.A similar f ragment ofan inscription ( measuring 58x25cm. )was f ound in 1874in the Dome ofthe Rock and published byClermontGanneau( 1899,I ,226) .Van Berchem shows another similar f ragment of an inscription f ound in the Madrasa alBakriyya ( 1927,56, f ig. 8, also no. 177) . He attributes all these k‡f i c inscriptions by their style to the 6th/ 12th century,and more preciselytoone band ofa large inscription which mayhave originated in the Dome ofthe Rockdated tothe time of¶al«¯alD» n( van Berchem 1927,55) .However, it seems unlikelythat an inscription f itted by¶al«¯alD» n in the Dome ofthe Rockwould have been dismantled and reused in Qubbat alMi‘ r«jin less than f ourteen years. The scheme ofthe columns and their capitals around the interior is dif f erent than that ofthe exterior.The pairs of capitals,which belong to Group B,reappear in the corners ofthe building,excludingthe qi bl awall where twoadditional marble columns ( each 2. 36m.in height) f lank the mi ¯r«b on either side.The two capitals of columns,on the righthand side ofthe mi ¯r«b,belongin their style toGroup A type which is characterized byone or two rings of acanthus leaves.However,the two capitals,on the lef thand side ofthe mi ¯r«b,belongto Group B type which is based on the motifofpalmettes and intertwined stems.

90

The characteristically Crusader f eatures outlined above have led various scholars toattribute Qubbat alMi‘ r«jto the Crusader period.Schick stated that the building is reminiscent ofCrusader baptisteries ( 1899,23) .Boase went f urther and regarded it as a Crusader baptistery ( 1938,16) .Krautheimer,af ter analysing the design of medieval baptisteries,suggested alsothat the f orm ofthe structure is reminiscent ofChristian baptisteries ofthe period ( 1942,133) .And more recently,Bahat echoed these previous scholars and considered the existing structure a Crusader construction and called it “the bapt i s t er i um ofthe Templ um Domi ni ”( 1990b,179) . However,van Berchem regarded Qubbat alMi‘ r«jas an Arab monument which was inspired bythe Crusader Church ofthe Ascension on the Mount ofOlives ( 1927,4952) . Buschhausen agreed with van Berchem’ s opinion and stated that the structure is “an Arabic copy ofthat Crusader building,in which capitals ofthe 12th centuryhave been used” ( 1978, 231) . Furthermore, Burgoyne correctly observed that “the unsystematic arrangement ofcapitals of dif f erent types in the Qubbat alMi‘ r«jsupports the view that this is not a Crusader but probablyan Ayyubid construction composed mainlyofCrusader s pol i a”( 1987,48,pl.7) . We have already remarked that f ragments ofCrusader masonry and sculpture were incorporated into the structure:the capitals ( which were assigned toGroup B) ;a f ew diagonallydressed stones,which are f ound in some of the piers underneath the columns;a single masons’mark; and a small f ragment ofa Crusader inscription.Although it has been noted above that the inscription dated 597/ 120001commemorates its construction and not its restoration, we must as well relyon the architectural evidence. Several structural f eatures suggest pronounced I slamic characteristics.The mi ¯r«bappears tobe an integral part ofthe structure;its outer masonryis homogeneous with the rest ofthe building.The octagonal design ofQubbat alMi‘ r«j ,though in a modif ied f orm similar tothat ofthe Church ofthe Ascension,is tobe f ound in the adj acent and most important I slamic monument in J erusalem:the Dome ofthe Rock.

CATALOGUE OF AYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM

PLATE 9. 1:GENERAL VIEW WITH THE DOM E OF THE ROCK IN THE BACKGROUND LOOKING SOUTH-EAST

PLATE 9. 3:THE STRUCTURE BEFORE 1997WHEN THE DOM E WASCOVERED WITH LEAD SHEETS

PLATE 9. 2:GENERAL VIEW, NORTH SIDE LOOKING SOUTH-EAST

PLATE 9. 4:WEST SIDE LOOKING EAST

91

AY Y U B ID JE R U SAL E M:AN AR CH IT E CT U R AL AND AR CH AE O L O GICAL ST U D Y

5:MASO NR Y PLATE 9.

B E T W E E N T H E PIE R S AND L E AD JO INT S IN T H E B ASE S O F T H E CO L U MNS

7:CAPIT AL O F GR O U P B (L E FT ):T W PLATE 9.

O T IE R S O F

ACANT H U S L E AV E S

6:CAPIT AL S O F GR O U P A:PL AIN W PLATE 9.

IT H T U R NE D -

D O W N L E AV E S

8:CAPIT AL O F GR O U P B :W PLATE 9.

IT H A MO T IF O F PAL ME T T E E NCL O SE D B Y ST E MS O R R IB B O NS

92

CATALOGUE OF AYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM

PLATE 9.11: SOUTH SIDE WITH MIH̟ RƖB

PLATE 9.9: CAPITAL OF GROUPB:WITH FIGURATIVE MOTIFS IN THE FORM OF BIRDS

PLATE 9.10: INSCRIPTION SLAB ABOVE ENTRANCE DOOR

PLATE 9.12: MIH̟ RƖB EXTERIOR 93

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

PLATE 9.15: CORNER POST OF A CENOTAPH (FOUND AT DIA,AA)

PLATE 9.13: GENERAL VIEW (FROM THE ROOF OF THE DOME OF THE ROCK ) SHOWING DOME COVERED WITH LEAD PLATES BEFORE BEING STRIPPED

PLATE 9.14: FINIAL ABOVE DOME

PLATE 9.16: ENTRANCE PORTAL 94

CATALOGUE OF AYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM

PLATE 9.19: PANEL A WITH KNjFIC

INSCRIPTION

PLATE 9.20: PANEL B WITH KNjFIC

INSCRIPTION

PLATE 9.21: PANEL C WITH KNjFIC

INSCRIPTION

PLATE 9.17: INTERIOR: MIH̟ RƖB DECORATED WITH CERAMIC TILES

PLATE 9.18: INSCRIPTION OF MIH̟ RƖB

95

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

PLATE 9.22: 17 INTERIOR, Z ONE OF TRANSITION

PLATE 9.23: INTERIOR OF DOME

96

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM

The Jarr«¯iyya is a z «wi ya out s ide Jerus alem,t ot he nort h.Ithasa waqfands omes alariedpos it ionsandis namedaf t er it sf ounder t heam» r®us «m al-D» nal-®us ayn s onofSharafal-D» n‘ ?s « al-Jarr«¯» ,oneoft heam» r sof ¶al«¯ al-D» n.HediedinSaf ar 598andwasburiedint he af orement ionedz «wi ya.Out s idet hez «wi ya,t ot hes out h, aret het ombsofs everal warriors( muj «hi d» n) ;itiss aid t hatt hey werepartofal- Jarr«¯» ’ st roops ”( Muj » r,II,48) .

10 Z«wiya al-Jarr«¯iyya

ΔϴΣ΍˷ήΠϟ΍Δϳϭ΍ΰϟ΍ ca. 598/ 1201 Z«wi ya or t ombof®us «m al-D» nal-®us aynb.SharafalD» n‘ º s « al-Jarr«¯» .

A s lab builtint ot he wes text ernal wall oft he t omb chamber oft hez «wi ya cont ainst hef ollowingins cript ion:

I LOCATION ( Fig.10. 1) Thez «wi ya islocat ed in t hequart er ofShaykh Jarr«¯ nort hoft heOldCit y ofJerus alem.Its t andsa f ew met res eas tofNablusRoad immediat ely t ot he nort h oft he AmericanColony Hot el.

ΎϬϴϠϋ Ϧϣ .2 Ϟϛ ϢϴΣήϟ΍ ϦϤΣήϟ΍ Ϳ΍ ϢδΑ .1 ϝϼΠϟ΍ .3 ϭΫ < ϚΑέ > ϪΟϭ ΎϘΒϳϭ ϥΎϓ .4 < ϦϳΪϟ΍ ϡ >ΎδΣ ήϴϣϻ΍ ήΒϗ ΍άϫ ϡ΍ήϛϻ΍ϭ Ϳ΍ ϪϤΣέ ϲΣ΍˷ήΠϟ΍ϰδϴϋ ϦΑ ϦϴδΤϟ < ΍ > ΔϤΣέ ϰϟ΍ ϲϓϮΗ ϪϴϠϋ .5 < Ϣ˷Σ >ήΗ Ϧϣ ϢΣέϭ ϦϴόδΗϭ ϥΎϤΛ ΔϨγ ήϔγ ϲϓ ϰϟΎόΗ Ϳ΍ < Δ΋ΎϤδϤΧϭ > In t he name of God,t he Compas s ionat e,t he Mercif ul. . .( Qur’ «nLV,27-8) .Thisist hegraveof t heam» r®us «[ m al-D» na] l-®us ayns onof‘º s « al-Jarr«¯» .May God be mercif ul unt o him and unt ohim whoas ksf or m[ ercy]onhisbehalf .He pas s ed on t ot he mercy ofGod t he Exalt ed in 26 t he year [ 5] 98 [ Oct -November,1201] Saf ar, ( BurgoyneandAbul-Haj j1979,124-5) . Its eemst hatMuj » r al-D» n’ sinf ormat ionisbas edons ome s ourceot her t hant heins cript ion,s incehement ionst he name of ®us «m al-D» n’ sf at her, Sharaf al-D» n‘ º s « ( Burgoyneand Abul-Haj j1979,125) .Al-N«buls» ,who vis it ed t he s it e in 1101/ 1690, ident if ies it as “t he s anct uary ( maz«r )ofShaykhJarr«¯ . . .int heJarr«¯iyya Madras a”( al-N«buls » ,96) .

FIG. 10.1 LOCATION PLAN FOUNDER II SITE AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION Theoriginal partoft hez «wi ya cons is t sofa s implet omb chamber s urmount edby a domeandhous esa cenot aph marking a grave,pres umably t hatof®us «m al-D» n alJarr«¯i. Anot her s mall cros s -vault ed ant e-chamber adj oins it f rom t he nort h. The t wo chambers are incorporat edint oa larger complex,mos tofwhichislat e Ot t oman and modern.An out er chamber adj oins t he domed chamber on t he ext erior f rom t he wes t .The adj acentMos queofShaykh Jarr«¯,t henameofwhich hasderivedf rom t hez «wi ya,wasbuiltin1313/ 1895-6t o t hewes toft hebuilding( Pls10. 1,10. 2) . III HISTORY

®us «m al-D» nal-Jarr«¯»s houldnotbeconf us edwit hAb‡ ‘ Ubayda b. al-Jarr«¯, commander-in-chief of Caliph ‘ Umar b.al-Kha³ ³ «b’ sarmy att heconques tofJerus alem. According t o al-Arif ,he was“¶al«¯ al-D» n’ spers onal physician( j ar r «¯,“surgeon”) ,andheprovedhiswort hin t hebat t leofJerus alem”( 1961,239) ,buthecoulds imply belong t ot heBanu al-Jarrah t ribe.Weareclearly not f aced wit ht he cas e ofa maus oleum ( t ur ba)builtin advanceby it sf ut ureandint endedoccupant .Rat her,t he f ounder oft hez «wi ya wasburiedhereaf t er hisdeat h. DATE IfweacceptMuj » r al-D» n’ ss t at ementt hatt hez «wi ya was f ounded by t heam» r®us «m al-D» n al-Jarr«¯» ,t hen we haveast heearlies tpos s ibledat et heyear 583/ 1187when ¶al«¯ al-D» n conquered Jerus alem.The lat es tpos s ible

I DENTI FI CATI ON ThewordSaf arisa mis s pellingof¶af ar,butt heomit t edcent ury is knownf rom Muj » r al-D» n

26

Muj » r al-D» n,writ ingin901/ 1496,s ayst hat : 97

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY date is 598/1201, the year al-Jarr«¯» died. At what date the z«wiya was erected? SUBSEQUENTHI STORY During the 10th/16th century, a plot ofland ( “ar ±s » d» Jar r «¯,knownas ar ±Jar r «¯iyya, inthe village of²«balSuf l«, inthe area ofJerusalem”)is amongthe waqf s of the Jarr«¯iyya Z«wiya ( Sij il l522, p. 18;Sij il l602) . IV ARCHITECTURE EXTERIOR The shrine f orms a large complex, almost square inplan ( about 21 by 20 m.)and surrounded by anenclosure wall with a central courtyard with auxiliary rooms around it ( Fig. 10.2) . The complexis entered through a gateway on the west side ( Pl. 10.3) . The original components ofthe shrine consisted ofa tombchamber ( mausoleum)and the ante-chamber which occupies only a small part ofthe complex ( Figs 10.3, 10.4) . A similar development occurred inthe shrines ofDayr al-Shaykh, Nab» Rub»n, Nab» Y‡sha‘( Petersen 1996, 97-113)and Nab» M‡s« ( Tamari 1979, 153-180) .

quite possible toassume that this inscriptionis not ins it u and might have beenremoved f rom the tomband f ixed above a window on the exterior ofthe building f or passers-by tosee. It is plausible that the outer chamber was added at a later stage which practically enclosed the inscription. Immediately tothe north ofthis chamber, a ruined sab» l can be seen ( Pl. 10.3) . Ofthis sab» lonly part ofits northern enclosure wall, two vault springers on the southernwall and the stone basinhave beenpreserved. It seems that the basin, which is made out ofone stone ( 1.08 x0.40 m.) , was f illed with water through a hole cut inthe wall above the basin. The sab» l , which was built intothe westernexterior ofthe shrine, must have been covered with a cross vault and lef t openonthe west side. It was built along a public road and f illed at regular periods with water f or thirsty passers-by todrinkf rom, as in other shrines mentioned by Canaan ( 1927, 39) . According to the present attendant ofthe z«wiya, the sab» lwas still inuse duringthe British Mandate period. The tombchamber, square inplan( about 7.20 by 7.20 m.) , is surmounted with an almost semi-circular dome, 1.20 m. inheight and about 5 m. incircumf erence ( Pl. 10. 6) . The ante-chamber, the roofofwhich is about 1.10 m. lower thanthe roofofthe tombchamber, is surmounted with a much smaller dome ( Fig. 10.4;Pl. 10.7) .

FIG. 10.2 GROUND PLAN OF THE COMPLEX On the exterior ofthe domed chamber an outer lower chamber has beenadded. It is entered by a low door ( 1.65 x0.70 m.)and ventilated by a small window tothe south, while both are surmounted with a semi-circular arch ( Pl. 10.4) . Opposite the entrance, above a blocked window on the exterior wall ofthe domed chamber, a stone slab measuring 0.72 m. long and 0.53 m. wide contains an inscription( Pl. 10.5) . It is a tombstone bearingthe name of®us«m al-D»nal-Jarr«¯» ( see translationabove) . It is 98

FIG. 10.3 GROUND PLAN OF THE ZƖWIYA

CATALOGUE OF AYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM 27). Although ®us«m al-D»n al-Jarr«¯» is said to have been buried here, it is not certain whether there is a tomb under the cenotaph.

VESTIBULE (Fig. 10.3) The shrine complex is entered through the only modern entrance door, measuring 2.54 x 1.16 m (Figs 10.2, 10.3; Pl. 10.6). Then one enters a small vestibule, 3.85 m. long and 3.30 m. wide, which is covered by a cross-vault (Pl. 10.8). A door on the north side of this vestibule leads into a room with a typically Ottoman turned vault. The east side is open and leads into the courtyard which is surrounded with a series of rooms belonging to residential units, which were constructed in Ottoman and modern times. Two pointed arches can be seen on the north side of the courtyard. A staircase on the south side ascends to the upper floor, all of which was added in modern times.

The south wall, on the left-hand side above the mi¯r«b, is pierced by a window 2.27 m. high and 1 m. wide. High on the north wall, there is a small looped window (0.47m. deep and 0.40 m. wide), but blocked from the outside. In the west wall, near the south-west corner, there is another blocked window. Near the same corner on the south wall is a niche. Hanging on the same wall are drums, spears, spits and flags (Pl. 10.13). Such instruments and flags were used in the procession (mawsim) of Nab» M‡s«. Tawfik Canaan reported having seen the flag of Shaykh ‘ª³ if, the attendant (q«’ im) of the Jarr«¯iyya in the procession (1927, 197, n. 3).

ANTECHAMBER A door in the south wall of the vestibule opens to the south into a small cross-vaulted chamber, measuring 5.35 m. long, 3.95 m. wide and 3.02 m. high (Pl. 10.9). TOMB CHAMBER (Figs 10.2, 10.3) A small round-arched door (2.86 m. high by 1.07 m. wide) leads directly into the tomb chamber (Pl. 10.10). The irregular masonry of the j ambs and the arch of the door show it to be a later insertion. The floor is paved with modern tiles that presumably replace the original pavement.

FIG. 10.4 SKETCH OF WEST ELEVATION

The lofty tomb chamber is about 5.40 m. long (north to south), 5.15 m. wide (east to west) and unusually tall, measuring 6.10 m. to the top of the transition zone and 8.25 m. to the apex of the dome. In the corners of the square, four simple deep squinches make the transition from the square base to the round drum (Pl. 10.11).

CONCLUSION The Z«wiyya Jarr«¯iyya was established and endowed by ®us«m al-D»n al-Jarr«¯» who was probably buried in it later. The building has the traditional form of a maq«m, which consists a single-squared structure covered with a dome. In the course of time, perhaps in the Ottoman period, a sanctuary with an enclosure wall was built around the original domed maq«m which remained an essential feature of the complex. The shrine was the centre of the Sh«dhiliyya, a s‡f» sect, in the Jerusalem and Nablus area, who participated in the annual festival (mawsim) of Nab» M‡s«.

The mi¯r«b occupies the middle of the south qibla wall of the tomb chamber. It is a simple deep niche, measuring 1.69 m. high, 1.10 wide and 0.73 m. deep, and bears no decoration. There is a plain cenotaph, about 1.95 m. long, 1.35 m. wide and 1.85 m. high on the southern side of the chamber (covered with cloth), almost obscuring the mi¯r«b from the entrance (Fig. 10.3; Pl. 10.12). Such measurements agree with those given by Canaan (1927,

99

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

PLATE 10.3: WEST SIDE OF COMPLEX

WITH MAIN ENTRANCE AND REMAINS OF THE SABIƮL (RIGHT)

PLATE 10.1: GENERAL VIEW LOOKING EAST (COURTESY OF THE BSAJ ARCHIVE, THE ASHMOLEAN MUSEUM, OX FORD)

PLATE 10.2: GENERAL VIEW LOOKING NORTH PLATE 10.4: OUTER CHAMBER ABUTTING TO THE TOMB CHAMBER ON THE WEST

100

CATALOGUE OF AYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM

5:DE DIC AT ION PLATE 10.

IN SC RIPT ION

8:VE ST IB U L E , L OOK IN G PLATE 10.

W E ST

6:OU T E R C H AM PLATE 10.

B E R AB U T T IN G T O T H E T OM B C H AM B E R ON T H E W E ST

9:AN T E -C H AM PLATE 10. 7:ROOF W PLATE 10.

IT H DOM E S L OOK IN G SOU T H -W E ST

101

B E R, L OOK IN G N ORT H

AY Y UBID JERUSALEM:AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

RƖB PLATE 10.12: CENOTAPH AND MIH̠

PLATE 10.10: TOMB CHAMBER LOOKING NORTH TOWARDS THE ENTRANCE DOOR

PLATE 10.13: WEST WALL WITH BANNERS AND DRUMS

PLATE 10.11: SQ UINCHES AND DOME OF THE TOMB CHAMBER

102

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM

III HISTORY

11 QubbatSul aym«n

I DENTI FI CATI ON

ϥΎϤϴϠγ ΔΒϗ ca.597/ 1200–604/ 1208 Ot her names :Kur s »Sul aym«n ( Thr one of Sol omon) ; Kur s »‘ º s «( Thr oneofJ es us ) I LOCATION ( Fi g.11. 1;Pl .11. 1) The domed s t r uct ur e( qubba) i ss i t uat ed wi t hi nt he ®ar am;about25. 70 m.sout h of t he Nor t h Por t i co; s out hwes toft hepr es entday B«b al ‘ At m,now cal l ed Fay· al ’ sGat e.

Al t hought hebui l di ngi swi t houtaf oundat i oni nscr i pt i on, i t has been i dent i f i ed by chr oni cl er s f r om t he ei ght h/ f our t eent hcent ur yonwar dsasQubbatSul aym«n, al t houghs omet i meswi t hs omeconf us i on.Fi f t h/ el event h cent ur ys our cesr ef ert ot hes i t easKur s »Sul aym«n.Yeti t hasal s obeeni dent i f i edbyl at eni net eent h/ ear l yt went i et h cent ur ys chol ar sandar chaeol ogi s t sasKur s »‘ º s «. Ear l y Is l ami ct r adi t i ons dat i ng back t ot he Umayyad per i od,havel i nked var i ouss i t esi nt he®ar am and i t s vi ci ni t yt oKi ngDavi dandKi ngSol omon.Int hecas eof t hes i t eofQubbatSul aym«n,i thasbeenas s oci at edwi t h Ki ngSol omonandhi sconst r uct i onpr oj ect( El ad1995, 9093) .Ibnal Mur aj j «( ca.430s / 10301040s )s ayst hat : When ar r i vi ng att he r ock behi nd t he ( Aq· «) Mos quet owar dst heGat eoft heTr i bes( B«bal As b«³ ) ,onecanpr ayatt hepl acewhi chi scal l ed t he‘ Thr oneofSol omon’( Kur s »Sul aym«n) .Thi s i st hepl acewher eSol omon–peaceuponhi m– pr ayedwhenhecompl et edt hecons t r uct i onoft he Mos que( Ibnal Mur aj j «,f ol .30b,78) . N«· i r »Khus r aw ( 438/ 1047)r epeat st hes amei nf or mat i on addi ngmor edet ai l s : . . .Int henor t her ns i deoft heMos quees pl anade ( · a¯n) ,noton t he t er r ace ( di kka) ,t her ei sa bui l di ngl i keas mal lmos que. . .cal l edMi ¯r «bof Davi d( D«w‡d) .Nextt oi ti san el evat ed r ock r i s i ngt ot hehei ghtofaman,t hes ummi tonwhi ch al l owst opl aceas mal lpr ayi ngmat .Iti ss ai dt obe t heThr oneofSol omon( Kur s »Sul aym«n)–peace be upon hi m – wher e he s at dur i ng t he cons t r uct i on of t he ( Aq· «) Mos que ( N«· i r » Khus r aw,70) .

FIG. 11.1 LOCATION PLAN

Thes et wo s our ces cl ear l yi ndi cat et hatt her e was no s t r uct ur eabovet her ock,whi chmeanst hatt heexi s t i ng domeds t r uct ur emus thavebeenbui l tatal at erdat e.

II SITE AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION Thi sf r ees t andi ngdomeds t r uct ur e,bui l tent i r el yofwhi t e l i mes t one,i ss i t uat edi nt henor t her ns i deoft he®ar am, oppos i t et heMadr as aIs ‘ ar di yya.Itcompr i s esas i mpl e r oom,oct agonali n pl an,whi ch i sf or med by ar ches r es t i ng on cor nerpi er s ,cr eat i ng ar ched wi ndowsi n al l s i dewal l s .Thi sr oom i sr oof edbyar ounddomer ai s ed onat al lzoneoft r ans i t i on,pi er cedwi t hs mal lwi ndows . A moder npavedpat hl eadsf r om t heNor t hPor t i cot ot he ent r ancedoori nt henor t hwal l . Thei nt er i orhast wopai r sofcol umnsi neachcor nerof t heoct agon,excepti nt heqi bl a andnor t hwal l s ,wher e t her ei sas i ngl epai rofcol umns .Ithasas i mpl emi ¯r«b f l ankedbyt wos mal lcol umns .Ont hewes ts i deoft he r oom,api eceofnat ur albedr ock r i s esabovet hef l oor l evel .

As we have r emar ked i n Chapt er 4, many Is l ami c s t r uct ur es i nt he ®ar am wer e des t r oyed dur i ng t he Cr us aderper i odandvar i ousChr i s t i anchapel sandot her s t r uct ur eswer eer ect ed.Theni nt ur nt hey wer emos t l y demol i s hedbyt heAyyubi dsaf t err ecover i ngJ er us al em i n583/ 1187.Noneoft heCr us aders our cesment i ont he s t r uct ur eofQubbatSul aym«nandmos tmapsoft heci t y f r om t hi sper i odonl ys how t het womaj ors t r uct ur esi n t he ®ar am: t he Templ um Domi ni and t he Templ um Sol omoni s( Bahat1990,179) . Thef i r s tcl eari dent i f i cat i onanddet ai l eddes cr i pt i onof QubbatSul aym«n i sby al ‘ Umar »( ca.745/ 1345)who devot es t oi t a whol es ect i on under t he headi ng – “Des cr i pt i onoft heQubbatSul aym«n–peacebeupon hi m”.

103

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY This domed building is on the northern side of the ®aram. I t is in aline with the cistern (·ahr»j) and the flight of steps bywhich the Kh«nq«h alI s‘ ardiyyaand the Madrasaof Sayf alD» n Almalakare reached. From the facade of the cistern to the door of the dome (qubba) is forty eight dhi r«‘ . The door opens to the north,it is two dhi r«‘and ahalf high,and one dhi r«‘ and an eighth wide. I t is flanked by two marble columns and two platforms,aright one and aleft. The length of each is five dhi r«‘and a quarter,and the width the same. On either side of the abovementioned door are two windows that overlookthese two platforms,the height of each is two dhi r«‘and twothirds,and width adhi r«‘ and two thirds. The octagonal domed building is entered bythis door,all sides of the octagon are blocked. I nside, there are twenty four marble columns,each column – without the bases –two dhi r«‘and ahalf. I n each of the eight blocked octagonal sides are four columns carrying the marble slabs which is (part) of the arch of the arcades. The mi¯r«b is flanked by two fine columns, each of them one dhi r«‘and ahalf high. At the end of the columns,that is,at the end of the drum of the dome,there are small glass windows in the circumference (of the drum). The dome is sixdhi r«and a half in diameter. The height from the apexof the dome to the ground is twentydhi r«‘ . To the right of anyone praying,at the mi¯r«b,is asmall piece of rock two dhi r«‘and aquarter long,from the southern side one dhi r«‘wide,from the northern one two thirds of adhi r«‘ . Visitors prayat it. I t is said it is one of the (structural) remains of Solomon and that a prayer (said) there is answered. On the outside of the qi bl a wall of this domed building are two marble columns. These two columns complete the thirtycolumns which are in this domed building (al‘ Umar» ,165166). More than a century later,alSuy‡³ »(ca. 875/ 1470) identified Qubbat Sulaym«n near B«b alDuwayd«riyya (the present dayB«b al‘ Atm). He concludes that “it is not Sulaym«n the prophet,and perhaps it is Sulaym«n b. ‘ Abd alMalik”(alSuy‡³ » ,I ,173). Muj » r alD» n (901/ 1496) confirms the identification of Qubbat Sulaym«n and describes its vicinity with some care for details: Behind the (Aq· «) Mosque at the northern direction towards the west,there are manyraised rocks which are said to be from the time of David (D«w‡d–peace upon him. And this is clear for they are set in the ground and witnessed no change. And in this direction of B«b alDuwaydariyya,there is agreat wellbuilt domed structure (qubba) and inside there is afixed rock.

This domed structure is called Qubbat Sulaym«n. And the fixed rockinside on which it is said that Solomon stood after completing the construction (of the Mosque?) and he prayed to God (Muj » r,I I , 21). Nearlytwo centuries later,alN«buls» ,who visited the site in 1101/ 1690,seems to copyfrom Muj » r alD» n’ s text with regard to the location of Qubbat Sulaym«n, though he adds his own personal observation. He says: ... We went to the place of the rockwhich is said to have been cutout of the noble Rock. (This place) has adoor which opens and closes. They opened it for us and we entered. We saw arock two dhi r«‘long and one dhi r«‘wide. I nside,there is ami ¯r«b. A large wellbuilt dome is above (this place). We stood and prayed to God (alN«buls» , 149). These historical accounts clearly testify to the motive behind the construction of Qubbat Sulaym«n: to commemorate the Muslim tradition that associates the site,and more preciselythe rock,with King Solomon. The question of identification was investigated byvarious Western archaeologists and scholars during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The adj acent structure of º w«n Sulaym«n P«sh« (1233/ 181718), southeast of the present B«b al‘ Atm was identified as Qubbat Sulaym«n by Le Strange (1890,169),Schick (1898,84),and ClermontGanneau (1899,I ,170,n. 5). Van Berchem, however, based on the dedication inscription and his architectural analysis,claims correctly that this structure is not Qubbat Sulaym«n which the Arab chroniclers of the eighth/ fourteenth –ninth/ fifteenth centuries described (1927,210). Schickstates that the building of Qubbat Sulaym«n was called (in his time):“The small Rock (al ·akhra al ·agh»ra) or “the piece of the Rock“(shaqf atal ·akhra) (1898,103104;van Berchem 1927,207,n. 2). I t has also been identified as “Throne of Jesus“(Kurs» ‘ º s«) by Le Strange (1890,172),Vincent and Abel (1922,604608) and Bahat (1990,179). Van Berchem,who made a thorough study on the identification of Qubbat Sulaym«n rej ects calling it “Kurs» ‘ º s«“. He argues that the name must have mistakenly derived from alMu‘ aam ‘ º s«,who restored the adj acent North Portico of the ®aram (van Berchem 1927,210;Elad 1995,9193,n. 65). DATE On stylistic grounds,we have dated it to the early seventh/ thirteenth century(ca. 597/ 1200604/ 1208). FOUNDER There is no indication of the identityof the founder. See the discussion below in section I V on architecture.

104

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM Thenor t heas tandnor t hwes ts i desar epi er cedbyl ar ge gr i l l ed wi ndows ,meas ur i ng 1.48 m. hi gh and 1.16 m. wi de. Thenor t hs i decont ai nst heent r ancedoor .

IV ARCHITECTURE EXTERIOR ( Fi gs11.2,11.3) A moder n paved pat hway l eadss out hf r om t he Nor t h Por t i co t ot he ent r ance por t al . Thi spat hway ( 7.30 m. l ong,2.80m. wi de,95cm. hi gh)wascons t r uct edi nt he l at e1980swhent hewhol es t r uct ur ewasr epai r edbyt he AwqafAdmi ni s t r at i on. Or i gi nal l yat hr ees i dedf l i ghtof f ours t epsdes cendedt ot heent r ance.

The bas es t or ey i s al mos toct agonali n pl an att he ext er i or ,bei ng2.40m. oneachs i de,exceptt hes out heas t s i de( 2.43m.)andont hes out hwes ts i de( 2.39m.) . Iti s f or medbyei ghtr ebat edordoubl ear chess pr i ngi ngf r om t he cor ner soft he oct agon ( Pl . 11.3) . The ar chesar e sl i ght l ypoi nt edandbel ongt ot hef our cent r edt ype. Each ar ch,whi ch meas ur es86 cm. i n hei ghtand 1.24 m. i n s pan,i si nf actadoubl ear ch,ofwhi cht hei nneri s42cm. wi deandt heout eri s13cm. wi de. A moul dedar chi vol t , 60cm. wi deand12cm. hi gh,r unsar oundt hear chi n angul ardownt ur nsateachs i de. Theoct agonalbas ewi t h i t sr ebat edar chesr ecal l st hes ys t em us edi nQubbatal Mi ‘ r «j . Fi vecour s esofmas onr y,eachr angi ngbet ween30t o44 cm. i n hei ght ,bl ock t he s paces cr eat ed bet ween t he cor ner swhi chs uppor tt hear ches . Thi smas onr y,f or mi ng ver t i calj oi nt s ,appear st o bedi f f er entf r om t hatoft he cor ner s and t he r es tof t he s t r uct ur e,whi ch can be r egar dedasal at eri ns er t i on. Thes amecanbes ai dabout t hecavet t ocor ni ceabovei t ,whi chappar ent l ycont i nues t heor i gi naloneatt hecor ner s . Moder ns t ones l abswer e pl acedabovet hecor ni ce,pr obabl ydur i ngt her epai r si n t he1980s ,t huscr eat i ngagr i l l edar chedwi ndow ateach s i deoft heoct agon. Ont hes out hs i de,however ,weencount ert woi nt er es t i ng f eat ur es . Fi r s t ,t hebl ocki ngbet weent hecor ner sandt he cavet t ocor ni ceabovei tappeart obehomogeneouswi t h t he r es toft he mas onr y. Second,t he cor ni ce on bot h cor ner si scar vedt of i tt hes hapeofacapi t al . Al ongt he cor ner s ,t wover t i calj oi nt sf i l l edwi t hs mal l ermas onr y, cor r es pond t ot he s hape ofcol umns( Pl . 11.4) . Thes e mus tbet het wocol umnswhi chal ‘ Umar »des cr i bes ,but t hey no l ongerexi s t . Thear chesand s even cour s esof s mal l ermas onr y( each21cm. hi gh)f or mt heupperpar t oft hebase( 1.95 m. hi gh) ,whi ch i ssur mount ed wi t h anot herpr oj ect i ngcavet t ocor ni ce.

FIG.11. 2GROUND PLAN (AFTER DIA) Thes t r uct ur ei ss etwi t hi nar ai s eds t onepl at f or m. Itr i s es f r om t hesur r oundi nggr ound60cm. ont henor t hsi de,46 cm. ont heeas t ,10cm. ont hes out h,and30cm. ont he wes t . Iti sf arf r om bei ngs quar e;i t ss i desmeas ur e13.20 m. ont henor t h,13.25m. ont heeas t ,13.75ont hes out h, 14.75 m. on t he wes t . Its eemst hatt hi spl at f or m has r epl aced t he t wo s mal lor i gi nalpl at f or ms whi ch al ‘ Umar »des cr i bed on bot hs i desoft heent r ance. In t he nor t hs i de oft he pl at f or m,t wo f l i ght s off ours t eps des cend t ot he ent r ance on bot hs i des , each s t ep meas ur i ng1.07m. l ongand20cm. wi de,onaver age( Pl . 11.2) . The domed s t r uct ur e ext er nal l yi s of t hr ee di s t i nct “s t or eys ”. Anoct agonalbas e( 4.93m. hi gh)s uppor t sa t r ans i t i onzone( 1.50m. hi gh)car r yi ngar ounddome( ca. 2.90m. hi gh) . Thust heover al lhei ghti sabout9.33m. meas ur edf r om t hef l oori nf r ontoft heent r ancedoor ) .

The zone oft r ans i t i on,made outoff i ve cour s es of mas onr y,i sci r cul ari npl an. Iti ss etbackext er nal l yf r om t he oct agon;31 cm. att he cor ner sand 9 cm. i nt he mi ddl e. A poi nt ed ar ched wi ndow,meas ur i ng 90 cm. hi gh,49cm. wi deand65cm. deep,i spl acedcent r al l y overeach s i deoft heoct agon. A 12 cm. wi decavet t o moul di ngr unsar oundhor i zont al l yatt hehei ghtoft wo cour s es ( 58 cm. hi gh) and r i s es above t he ar ched wi ndows. Anot hercavet t omoul di ngr unsar oundt het op oft het r ans i t i onzone( Pl . 11.5) . Thedome,bui l tofs mal ls t ones ,i ss l i ght l ypoi nt edand s ur mount ed by a s i mpl ef i ni al ( Pl . 11.5) . It ss hape appear st obedef or med,es peci al l yont hes out hs i de,i n cont r as twi t ht he dr awi ng oft he nor t hs out hs ect i on, pr ovi ded by t he Awqaf Depar t ment of Is l ami c Ar chaeol ogy( Fi g. 11.3) . Vi ncentandAbel ’ sdr awi ngof

105

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY the same section shows a dent in the south side of the dome (1922, pl. LXI). Such deformity was probably created by a bad repair work following damage caused by a possible earthquake.

The f looris paved withf our teen eastwest r ows ofwhite mar ble slabs withvar ying measur ements (4944cm. long, 2030cm. wide) , including some patches ofpinkslabs and polychr ome tiles. I nf r ont ofthe mi ¯r«b, the f looris ador ned bya decor ative f r ame ofpolychr ome tiles, which measur es 1.56m. long and 76cm. wide (Pl. 11.9) . The tiles, some ofwhichar e damaged, eachmeasur e 20x20 cm. and ar e ar r anged in thr ee r ows. They ar e mainly decor ated withblackand white cheque design, but some have f lor al motif s. The inser tion ofdif f er ent pieces of slabs and tiles may indicate that this f loorr eplaces an ear lierpavement. The most r emar kable f eatur e, whichcan be noticed on the r ighthand side when enter ing the domed chamber , is the natur al bedr ockpr oj ecting out ofthe f loor(Pl. 11.10) .I t has almost a tr iangularshape measur ing about 2m. long, 1.20m. wide and appr oximately28cm. high. Todayit is sur r ounded bya moder n ir on r ailing. This is most likely the f amous r ock named “Kur s» Sul aym«n” which was mentioned by Ar ab chr onicler s ofthe ear ly and later I slamicper iods as being associated withKing Solomon.

FIG. 11.3 SOUTH-NORTH ELEVATION AND SECTION LINES (AFTER DIA) The entrance in the centre of the north side is set in a recess 1.69 m. wide and 35 cm. deep (Pl. 11.6). On either side of the recess, there is a 38 x 25 cm. high marble column resting on a pedestal. Each column measures 2.28 m. in height (of which the base is 14 cm. high; the shaft 1.76 m. high; the capital 38 cm.). In front of the door step, a monolithic slab measures 1.10 m. long and 74 cm. wide. The door jambs are slightly carved with a delicate roll moulding. Here, the thickness of the wall, measures 32 cm., There is a relieving lintel (1.08 m. long, 39 cm. wide) above the monolithic door lintel (1.23 m. long, 35 cm. wide) INTERIOR (Figs 11. 2, 11. 3) The entrance measures externally 1.73 m. high, 79 cm. wide; the width of the door step is 17 cm. It leads directly into the domed chamber which is symmetrically octagonal, the side walls being 1.80 m. long, including the qi bl a wall where a mi ¯r«b is situated (plan, Fig. 11.2) . Measur ing on a line passing thr oughthe centr es of the opposing walls ofthe inter iorgives a distance of4.30 m. The doorinter nallyis set in a r ecess, measur ing 1.86 m. highand 1.01m. wide (Pl. 11.7) . On the lintel ofthe doora lar ge gr af f iti inscr iption in naskh» scr ipt is wr itten withr ed inkmost ofwhichis illegible (Pl. 11.8) .I nf r ont ofthe door , the natur al r ockis levelled cr eating a step 1.16m. long, 93cm. wide, and 10cm. highf r om which one can ascend inside. 106

Along the side walls, ther e ar er aised benches. Eachbench, whichmeasur es on aver age 1.72m. long, 34cm. wide and 45cm. high, is made out ofeithera monolithicblockor two blocks of stones, with a high (ca. 20 cm.) r oll moulding bor derf r om the inside along the wall. Twenty f ourmar ble columns stood in the cor ner s ofthe octagon. The ar r angement ofthe columns her e dif f er sf r om that in Qubbat alMi‘ r «j . Eachcor nerhas twoengaged columns on eitherside ofa pier , excluding the qi bl a and nor thsides wher e ther e ar e onlytwocolumns (see plan, Fig. 11.2) . Eachpairofcolumns r ests on one j ointlyengaged base and plinthwhichmeasur es about 40x26cm. and 12cm. high (Fig. 11.3;Pl. 11.11) . One column, in the cor neron the r ighthand side ofthe entr ance door , was measur ed to obtain aver age f igur es:the total height is 2.37m. (ofwhich the base is 12cm;the shaf t 1.80m.;the capital 37cm.) . Lead is used as usual toj oin the bases withthe shaf ts and the capitals with the shaf ts. A lar ge numberofAr abic gr af f iti, wr itten in Ottoman naskh» scr ipt, eitherin black inkorengr aved, can be noted on the shaf ts. Althoughmost ofthem ar e illegible, some begin witha common phr ase: “¯a±ar t ui l « h«dh« al mak«n al mub«r ak f » shahr . . . ”, which tr anslates: “I visited this blessed place in the month...”. I t is obvious toassume that these gr af f iti wer e added byMuslim pilgr ims whovisited the site in the past f ew centur ies. All capitals ar e typicallyCr usaderand belong tothe same decor ative type:eachis car ved withthr ee tier s ofsimple leaves;each tierwith f ourleaves and volutes tur ning inwar ds in the cor ner s (Pl. 11.12;Vincent and Abel 1922, I I , pls LXI I , 12, LXI I I , 56) .I n some cases, leaves wer e deliber atelybr oken in or dertof it them in the cor ner s or to pairtwo capitals together(Pl. 11.13) . These capitals seem to have been assembled and r eused. Their r esemblance to the capitals assigned to Gr oup A in Qubbat alMi‘ r «jis r emar kable (Pl. 9.6) .

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM

In the centre of the qibla wal lthe mi¯r«b i ss et i n areces s 26cm. deepand1.44m. l ong. It i ss emi ci rcul ar i n pl an ( 84cm. wi de and38cm. deep)andfl ankedbytwo s mal l marbl e col umns( Pl . 11.14) . It i sal s o pl ai n and hasa poi ntedarch wi th adeepmoul dedarchi vol t around. Thi s mi¯r«b,whi ch ri s esto ahei ght of 2.25m.,i sdi vi dedi nto two parts :the concave ni che ( 1.26m. hi gh)andthe conch ( 61cm. hi gh)both s eparatedbyacavetto corni ce ( 9cm. hi gh) . The conch contai nsan i l l egi bl e Arabi c graffi to i n redi nk. The col umnseach 1.26m. hi gh are crownedby two capi tal s( each 23 cm. hi gh) ,of Cori nthi an type, carvedwi th three ri ngsof acanthusl eaves( Vi ncent and Abel1922,pl . LXIII,8) . Bus chhaus en s ugges tsthes e two capi tal sare Crus ader i n ori gi n ands howstwo s i mi l ar reus ed onesfrom the Dome of the Rock( 1978,pl s314, 315) . Before the recent repai rsof the bui l di ng,the mi¯r«b andthe res t of the i nteri or were coveredwi th athi ckl ayer of whi te pl aster ( Burgoyne 1987,48,pl . 8) . The mi¯r«b appears to be homogeneous wi th the mas onry of the whol e qibla wal l ,whi ch makesi t an i ntegralpart of the ori gi nalfabri c of the s tructure. Li kewi s e,we reach the s ame concl us i on when we exami ne the exteri or of the qibla wal l . Thi sfi ndi ngi sof great s i gni fi cance s i nce i t l eavesno doubt that the s tructure wasbui l t asaMus l i m s hri ne. In other words ,i t rul esout aCrus ader date i n favour of an Ayyubi done ( Burgoyne 1987,48,pl . 8) . Internal l y,the s i de wal l secho the l ater bl ocki ngof the corners of the domed chamber. The cavetto corni ce, whi ch runsaroundthe topof the capi tal son ahei ght of 2.86 m. meas ured from the fl oor l eveli n front of the mi¯r«b,i sthe s ame asthat whi ch runsaroundthe exteri or of the bui l di ng,under the s pri ngi ng of the arches . The i nternal faces of the arches each cons i s t of el even vous s oi rs . The trans i ti on from octagon to ci rcul ar drum i seffected byei ght fl utedconchesthat act ass qui nchesabove the cornersof the octagon ( Fi g. 11.3;Pl . 11.15) . Thi si snot expres s edon the exteri or other than bythe s teppi ngback of the wal l sat al evelwhi ch coi nci deswi th the bas e of the zone of trans i ti on. Each conch,whi ch ri s es4.10m. above the fl oor l evel ,i s formed by 1011 del i cate grooves . The drum,ri s i ngto s i xcours es ,i spi ercedbythe s ame s mal lei ght arched wi ndows we s ee from the exteri or. Another cavetto corni ce,5.75 m. above fl oor l evel ,defi nesthe conj uncti on between the drum andthe dome. Si xteen concentri c cours esof s mal ls tonesform the dome ( Pl . 11.16) . DATEOFCONSTRUCTI ON Havi ngi denti fi edthe l ocati on of Qubbat Sul aym«n,al Suy‡³ »s ugges ts i t s houl d be rel ated to the Umayyad Cal i ph Sul aym«n b. ‘ Abd al Mal i k( 96/ 71598/ 717)( I,

173) . Muj » r al D» n,however,s tatesamore generaldate for i tsfoundati on:“Thi sbui l di ngabove ( the rock)i sfrom the ti me of the Umayyads ( Muj » r,II,21) . However, nei ther gi vesanyreas onsfor propos i ngs uch adate,i n contras t wi th the chroni cl ers ’ accounts of the fi fth/ el eventh century. It hasbeen noted above that both Ibn al Muraj j « and N«· i r»Khus raw’ saccountsof the fi fth/ el eventh century i ndi cate that there was no s tructure above the rock i denti fi edthen asKurs »Sul aym«n. In other words ,thei r accountscoul ds erve usasat er minuspos tquem for the cons tructi on of the s tructure. On the other hand,al ‘ Umar» ’ saccount coul ds erve asat erminusant i quem. Cons equentl y,i ti spos s i bl e to narrow down the date of cons tructi on to between 438/ 1047( N«· i r»Khus raw)and 745/ 1345( al ‘ Umar» ) ,ati me s pan of about two hundred years ,whi ch coversthe Crus ader,Ayyubi dandthe earl y Maml ukperi ods . However,i ti spos s i bl e to further narrow down the date byaproces sof el i mi nati on. Aswe have al readyremarked that the moti ve behi nd the cons tructi on of Qubbat Sul aym«n wasmos t probabl ybas edon the earl yMus l i m tradi ti on whi ch as s oci atedthe rockwi th Ki ngSol omon. Though we are aware of the fact that after the Franki s h conques t of J erus al em i n 492/ 1099,the Aq· « Mos que wasconvertedi nto the Templum Solomonis ,l i nki ngthe s i te to the bi bl i calSol omon. Yet,asfar aswe know,no Chri s ti an tradi ti on of rel ati ng the rock to Sol omon has been menti onedbythe Franki s h s ources . Thi ss ugges ts that Qubbat Sul aym«n wasl i kel yto have been bui l t by Mus l i ms ,ei ther i n the Ayyubi d or the earl y Maml uk peri od,rather than the Crus ader peri od. In order to date Qubbat Sul aym«n more cl os el y,we mus t now rel y on the archi tectural evi dence and s tyl i s ti c paral l el s . Severalfeatures ,s uch asthe octagonalbas e rai s ed on rebated poi nted arches ,the corner col umn capi tal s ,the fl utedconchesi n the zone of trans i ti on,and the generaloctagonaldes i gn of the domeds tructure –al l s how acl os e res embl ance to thos e i n Qubbat al Mi ‘ r«j ( 597/ 120001)andthe Church of the As cens i on on the Mount of Ol i ves( began i n ca. 525/ 1130)( Vi ncent and Abel1922,II,361,fi g. 155;Kuhnel1977,4648,fi g. 1) . However,thes e featuresare not preval ent i n the domed s tructuresof the l ater Ayyubi dperi od,s uch asthe Qubba al Na¯awi yya( 604/ 120708;Catal ogue No. 12) ,Qubbat M‡s«( 647/ 124950;Catal ogue No. 21)and Qubbaal Qaymuri yya( before 648/ 1251;Catal ogue No. 22)or i n the earl y Maml uk Qubbaal Kubaki yya( ca. 688/ 1289) ( Burgoyne 1987,141143,No. 6) . Thusi t woul dappear that the actualdate of cons tructi on of Qubbat Sul aym«n probabl yfal l sbetween 597/ 1200and604/ 1208.

107

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

PLATE 11. 1:GENERAL VIEW

FROM THE W EST

PLATE 11. 3:SOUTH SIDE

PLATE 11. 2:NORTH SIDE W ITH ENTRANCE

PLATE 11. 4:SOUTH SIDE: DETAIL SHOW ING GROOVES FOR COLUMNS

108

CAT AL O G U E O F AY Y U BID BU IL D IN G S IN JER U SAL EM

5:EX T ER IO R PLATE 11.

O F Z O N E O F T R N ASIT IO N W IT H SM AL L AR CH ED W IN D O W S

7:IN T ER IO R PLATE 11.

O F QUBBA L O O K IN G N O R T H

8:AR ABIC G R AFFIT I O N PLATE 11. 6:EN T R AN CE PO R T AL PLATE 11.

L IN T EL

109

IN T ER IO R O F D O O R

AYYUBID JERUSALEM:AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

PLATE 11.9: ARABIC GRAFFITI ON INTERIOR OF DOOR LINTEL

PLATE 11.11: ENGAGED MARBLE COLUMNS

PLATE 11.12: ARCHED WINDOWS RAISED ON COLUMNS

PLATE 11.10: NATURAL ROCK IN THE FLOOR

AND CAPTIAL

SURROUNDED BY METAL RAILING

110

CATALOGUE OF AYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM

PLATE 11.13: ENGAGED CAPITALS WITH BROKEN LEAV ES

PLATE 11.15: ZONE OF TRANSITION

PLATE 11.16: INTERIOR OF DOME

RƖB PLATE 11.14: MIH̠

111

AYYUBID JERUSALEM :AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

12 Qubbaal Na¯awi yya

ΔϳϮΤϨϟ΍ ΔΒϘϟ΍ 604/ 120708 Ot hernames :Na¯awi yyaMadr as a,al Mu‘ aami yya,al Ru· «· i yya,Qubbatal ®an«bi l a

The l owerf l oor ,att he l eveloft he®ar am es pl anade, compr i s est woai s l esoff ourcr os s vaul t edbayss epar at ed f r om oneanot herbyt r ans ver s ear ches .Int heear l y1980s , t heAwqafAdmi ni s t r at i onr enovat edi tt os er veasof f i ces . Asa r es ul t ,t he ent r ance now i sby al ow doorati t s wes t er nendt oacor r i dor ,f r om whi chdoor sl eadi nt of our chamber s(Fi g.12. 3) .

I LOCATION (Fi g.12. 1;Pl .12. 1) The Na¯awi yya i ss i t uat ed wi t hi nt he ®ar am;att he s out hwes tcor neroft heDomeoft heRockpl at f or m.

FIG 12.3 GROUND PLAN OF THE LOW ER FLOOR (AFTER TAM ARI) III HISTORY IDENTIFICATION Ont henor t hwal loft hei nt er i oroft hewes t er ndomed chamber of t he bui l di ng a mar bl es l ab cont ai ns an i ns cr i pt i ont hatr eads :

FIG 12.1 LOCATION PLAN

II SITE AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION (Pl .12. 2) The bui l di ng cons i s t s oft wo s t r uct ur al l yi ndependent component sont wof l oor s: Theupperf l oor ,att hel eveloft heDomeoft heRock t er r ace,cont ai nst wodomedchamber swi t haconnect i ng hal l .Themai nel abor at eent r ancei sal mos ti nt hemi ddl e oft henor t hs i de.Anot hers i mpl eent r anceopensi nt ot he eas tchamber(Fi g12. 2) .

ϱάϟ΍ ϙέΎΒΗ .2-3 ϢϴΣήϟ΍ ϦϤΣήϟ΍ Ϳ΍ ϢδΑ .1 Ϧϣ ϱήΠΗ ΕΎϨ˷ΟϚϟ΍Ϋ Ϧϣ ΍ήϴΧ Ϛϟ ϞόΟ ΄θϧ΃ ήϣ΃ .4 .΍έϮμϗ Ϛϟ ϞόΠϳϭ έΎϬϧϻ΍ ΎϬΘΤΗ ΓέΎϤόϟ΍ Ϧϣ ΎϬϴϠϳ Ύϣϭ ΔϛέΎΒϤϟ΍ ΔΒϘϟ΍ ϩάϫ ˯ΎθϧΈΑ ΎϴϧΪϟ΍ ϑήη ϢψόϤϟ΍ ϚϠϤϟ΍ ϥΎτϠδϟ΍ ΎϧϻϮϣ .5 ϚϠϤϟ΍ ΎϧϻϮϣ Ϊϟϭ ϰδϴϋ .6 ήμϨϟ΍ ϮΑ΃ ϦϳΪϟ΍ϭ .7 ϡϼγϻ΍ ϥΎτϠγ ϦϳΪϟ΍ ϒϴγ ϝΩΎόϟ΍ Ϳ΍ ΰϋ΃ ΏϮϳ΃ ϦΑ ήϜΑ ϮΑ΍ ϦϴϤϠδϤϟ΍ϭ ϩΪΒϋ .8 Ϊϳ ϰϠϋ Ϛϟ΍Ϋ ϯήΟϭ .ΎϤϫέΎμϧ΃ Ϊόγ ϲΑ΍ ϦϳΪϟ΍ ϡΎδΣ ήϴϣϻ΍ ϪΑέ Ϯϔϋ ϲΟ΍ήϟ΍ ΖϴΒϟΎΑ ϲϟ΍Ϯϟ΍ .9 ϲϤ˷πόϤϟ΍Ϳ΍ΪΒϋ ϦΑ ίΎϤϗ ϊΑέ΍ ΔϨγ έϮϬη ϲϓ ϚϟΫϭ ϒϳήθϟ΍ αΪϘϤϟ΍ .ΔϳΎϤΘγϭ (1) In t he name of God, t he Mer ci f ul ,t he Compas s i onat e(23)Qur ’ «nXXV,11 (4)Ther e or der ed t he cons t r uct i on of t hi s bl es s ed dome (qubba)and t he adj acentr econs t r uct i on (5)our mas t ert hes ul t anal Mal i kal Mu‘ aam Shar afal Duny«wa’ l D» nAb‡ al Man·‡r(6)‘ º s«sonofour mas t eral Mal i kal ‘ ?di lSayfal D» n,t hes ul t anof Is l am (7)andMus l i msAb‡ Bakrb.Ayy‡b,may

FIG 12.2 PLAN OFUPPER FLOOR 112

CATALOGUE OF AYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM

God glorify their victories. And this (work) was done by (8) his servant, who aspires for the pardon of his master, the am» r ®us«m al D» n Ab‡ Sa‘ d Qim«z, son of ‘ Abdul l «h al Mu‘ aam»(sl ave of al Mal ik al Mu‘ aam), (9) the governor of J erusal em … in the months of the year 604[ 120708](van Berchem 1927, 62).

On the eastern side of the hal lis a domed chamber more beautifulthan the other. I t serves as a residence for the i m«m and the attendant of the pl ace and as a store room for the oil . Al Mal ikal Mu‘ aam appointed a singl ei m«m to recite the five prayers. He al so appointed twenty five men from amongthe students of grammar (na¯w) and their s haykh, on condition that they be ®anaf » s and pupil s of his madrasa (the Mu‘ aamiyya) outside the ®aram. For the benefit of this institution he endowed a vil l age cal l ed Bayt Liqya, in the J erusal em district, as waqf . On its ceil ingit is recorded that in the year 608 (121112) he (al Mu‘ aam) was engaged in erecting the buil ding (al ‘ Umar» , 145146).28

I bn W«· ilmentions that al Mu‘ aam ‘ º s«: … buil t in the ®aram al Shar» f a dome (qubba) and endowed it with great waqf , in order that it woul d be used for the teaching of the seven readings (versions of the Qur’ «n), on the condition that nothing coul d be spent from its waqfexcept for the ®anaf » s. He (al Mu‘ aam) appointed for (the post of) teaching the Shaykh Shams al D» n b. Raz» n al Ba‘ al bak» , student of the Shaykh T«jal D» n[ al Kind» ] . He read in the qubba the (bookof) El ucidation (al ’ » ±«¯) (in grammar na¯w) by Ab‡ ‘ Al »(®asan b. A¯mad) al F«ris»(al Na¯aw» , who died in 377/ 987), and modul ated the great Qur’ «n ... (I bn W«· il ,I V, 211212). Al ‘ Umar»gives us a detail ed description of the buil ding:

Muj » r al D» n (I , 403) mentions that, “at the end of (the Dome of) the Rock pl atform from the south, al Mu‘ aam ‘ º s« buil t a pl ace cal l ed al Na¯awiyya for teaching Arabic. He endowed it with great waqf s”. I n another pl ace, Muj » r al D» n (I I , 34) says that, “al Na¯awiyya, at the end of the (Dome of the) Rock pl atform from the direction of the south to the west ... was constructed by al Mal ikal Mu‘ aam ‘ º s«... in the year 604/ 1207”. FOUNDER

I n the southwestern corner of the courtyard (sa¯n) (of the Dome of the Rock) there is a pl ace known as al Mu‘ aamiyya Madrasa. I ts exterior l ength is thirty four dhi r«‘and its width from south to north is seven dhi r«‘ . And it is al so known as Qubbat al Na¯w (grammar). I t has two doors which open to the north. At both sides of them stand three marbl e col umns, each col umn consisting of four parts twisted and intertwined l ike a snake (mut ha‘ bana) in one body. Adj oining them are two fine col umns. The height of the buil dingmeasured from the ground of the (Dome of the) Rock courtyard (·a¯n al ·akhra) is nine dhi r«‘ .

We are informed by Muj » r al D» n that “the am» r ®us«m al D» n Ab‡ Sa‘ d ‘ Uthm«n b. ‘ Abdul l «h al Mu‘ aam» , governor (mut awal l » ) of J erusal em, was responsibl e for the construction of Qubba al Na¯awiyya, on (the Dome of) the Rockpl atform, by order of al Mal ikal Mu‘ aam ‘ º s«, in the year 604/ 1207”(Muj » r, I I , 270). I t is quite cl ear that Muj » r al D» n had another source of information concerningthe founder. To attempt to identify the founder, and fol l owing the cl ues given by Muj » r al D» n and the inscription, one shoul d l ook for his l ast name al Mu‘ aam» . He must have been a sl ave of al Mal ik al Mu‘ aam, from a Turkish origin, hence the name Qaym«z.

Through the two abovementioned doors one enters a hal l(r i w«q), eighteen dhi r«‘and a hal f l ongby sixdhi r«‘wide, and which has a gil ded Syrian (sh«m» ) ceil ing comprising thirteen n its south facade there are three smal l squares.27 I windows (³ «q«t ) which l ookon to the ®aram and the gates of the (Aq· «) Mosque.

DATE Accordingto the inscription, the order for construction is dated to the year 604/ 120708, which was echoed by Muj » r al D» n. I t seems that al ‘ Umar»misread the date, puttingit at 608/ 121112. ENDOWMENT

On its western side is a domed room (qubba) on arches. On each of its southern, northern, and western sides are three smal lwindows. On its eastern side is an entrance door from the abovementioned hal l , and a smal lwindow givingon to this hal l .

As mentioned above, the onl y evidence about the waqf which had been dedicated to the Na¯awiyya are the generalstatements of al ‘ Umar»and Muj » r al D» n. The former specifies the vil l age of Bayt Liqya, northwest of

For the transl ation of al ‘ Umar» ’ s text Iused both the publ ished Cairo edition (1924), and the manuscript in the Bodl eian Library, University of Oxford (Ms. Pococke 191), The l ater version incl udes a few additionalwords which are val uabl e for our understanding of the buil ding. 28

27 A Syrian ceil ing(saqfsh«m» ) is a type of wooden ceil ingmade of l ong roofing beams with smal lpieces of wood in between, creating squares, see Amin and I brahim 1990, 64, photo bel ow.

113

AYYUBID JERUSALEM :AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY Jerusalem, from which revenues could support the upkeep of this institution. SUBSEQUENT HISTORY Judge Kh«lid b. ‘ º s« alBalaw» , a traveller from Qant‡riyya in alAndalus ( Spain)visited Jerusalem on his way to Mecca between the years 133640.He was particularlyinterested in inscriptions and copied several in Jerusalem.In his work, which survives in manuscript, he described the Na¯awiyya thus, “On the west side of the platform ( on which the Dome of the Rockstands)is a mosque with two elegant domes of the same size and in them gilded inscriptions of various dates”( Tritton 1957, 538) .He also recorded a gilded inscription which he had seen in one of the two domes of the building.This inscription, which no longer exists, states that the ceiling was repaired byAsad alD» n‘ Abd alQ«dir b.‘ Abd al‘ Az» zin Rab» ‘II 719/ 1319.The latter was a grandson of alMu‘ aam and a scholar who died aged 95in 737/ 1337 ( Tritton 1957, 539) . On the exterior wall of the central hall, near the northeast corner of the western chamber, a small plaque with an inscription of Ottoman naskh» script reads:

ϞΟϵ ϩ΄θϧ΃ ϲϨϴδΤϟ΍ ϲϧ΍Ϊϟ΍ ϦΑ΍ ϦδΣ . 1 ϲϓ Ϣϴϫ΍ήΑ· ϝΎϘϓ . 2 ϦϳΩέ΍ϭ Ύϳ ϦϴδΤϟ΍ Ρϭέ ϦϴΑέΎθϠϟ Ύϔθϟ΍ Ϫϴϓ ˷ΪΟ ϪΨϳέ΄Η 1137 ΔϨγ ϲϓ . 3

The Qubba alNa¯awiyya was used as librarynamed d«r kutub al-masj id al-Aq·«, from 1923until 1956, when it became the headquarters of the Committee for the Restoration of the Aq· «Mosque ( ‘ Asal»1981, 109110) . Now serves as the office of the Head of the Supreme Muslim Council. IV ARCHITECTURE UPPER FLOOR North Façade( Pl.12. 3) It is clear that substantial restoration and alterations were carried out on the north facade.The present facade shows different styles of masonry, filled up openings and archways indicating at least three main phases of construction. First Phase The original facade comprised three archways extending between the western and eastern domed chambers of the structure.Four intertwined columns of white marble with capitals supported three pointed arches.One arch and part of another arch survive in the present facade ( Pl.12. 4) , although there may once have been another one to the west, as it is illustrated byvan Berchem ( 1927, 61, fig. 11;see Fig.12. 7) .Originallythese archways were open probably part of the portico ( riw«q) that al‘ Umar» described ( see reconstruction plan Fig. 12. 4, and reconstruction sketch Fig.12. 5) .

( 1)®asan, the son of alD«n»al®usayn»has constructed it ( the sab»l) .For the repose of the soul of al®usayn, Oh you who descend ( to the water) !( 2)Ibr«h» m has said, in order to date it ( the chronogram)“Would that healing should show itself vigorouslyto those who come to drinkof it” in the year 1137[ 172425] ”( van Berchem 1927, 67;Auld and Hillenbrand 2000, vol.II, 966) . The inscription clearlyrefers to a sab»l ( water fountain) , which no longer exists, built by a certain ®asan b.alD«n» , a member of the ®usayn»family who served as 29 q«±» of Jerusalem.

4 RECONSTRUCION PLAN OFUPPER FLOOR (FIRST FIG 12. PHASE)

A European traveller, who called himself ‘ Al»Bey al‘ Abb«s» , visited the ®aram in 1222/ 1807and left us the followingdescription which no doubt suits the Qubba alNa¯awiyya:“Near the southwest corner of the Dome of the Rockplatform, there is a buildingwhich consists of three or four rooms and used as a storage of oil for the lamps of the ®aram”( ‘ Al»Bey, II, 233) .

Natsheh ( in: Auld and Hillenbrand 2000, 966) amended van Berchem’ s readingconcerningthe name alD«n»instead of alD«yon the basis of evidence from the sij ills of the Ottoman Court in Jerusalem.

29

114

5RECONSTRUCTION SKETCH OFTHE FAÇADE FIG 12. (FIRST PHASE)

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM Second Phase The ar chways wer ef i l l ed l at erwi t h masonr y,exceptf or smal ldoor ways wi t h si mpl e monol i t hi cl i nt el s( Pl .12. 4; see al so r econst r uct i on pl an Fi g.12. 6,and r econst r uct i on sket ch Fi g.12. 7) .These can be seen i n a phot ogr aph of t he Or dnance Sur vey ofJ er usal em,i ncl udi ng an open doorand anot herone bl ocked ( Wi l son 1865,pl .5b) .The phot ogr aph ( Pl .12. 5)al so shows t r aces ofanot hert wo bl ocked door s,one t ot he westand ot hert ot he east .A f i l l edi n door way wi t h a monol i t hi c l i nt elcan al so be seen eastoft he ent r ance i nt o t he east er n chamber( Pl . 12. 4) .

FIG 12. 6 SKETCH PLAN OFUPPER FLOOR (SECOND PHASE) Att he poi ntwher e t he f r ont age r et ur ns about1. 08 m. f r om t he nor t h wal loft he west er n domed chambert her e ar e i ndi cat i ons t hata sab»l ( wat erf ount ai n)was once t her e( Pl .12. 6) .Ata hei ghtofabout2. 20m. ,a t er r acot t a pl aque ( 48x33cm. )cont ai ns t he f oundat i on i nscr i pt i on, wr i t t en i n naskh» Ot t oman scr i pt ,dat ed t o 1137/ 172425 ( Van Ber chem 1927,6667) .Fur t her mor e,deepgr ooves ar e st i l lvi si bl e on t he f l oorpavi ngi ndi cat i ngt he l ayout oft he sab»l whi ch measur ed 1. 72x1. 72m.Two ot her ar ched gr ooves ( ata hei ghtof2. 74m. )can al so be seen i nt he cor neroft he westchamber .A col onnet t e ofmar bl e wi t h a capi t al( 1. 65 m.hi gh) ,pr obabl yi n r euse,i s i ncor por at ed i nt o t he cor ner .The sab»l i s r ecor ded by Wi l son ( 1865,Sheet1) ,byvan Ber chem ( 1927,59,f i g. 9; see Fi g. 12. 4) and by Nat sheh ( i n: Aul d and Hi l l enbr and 2001,96667[ cat .no.45] ,pl s 45. 14. 4) .The sab»l was squar ei n pl an and pr obabl yhad a st one base cont ai ni ng a t r ough f or wat er sur r ounded by f our col onnet t es suppor t i nga smal ldome ( see r econst r uct i on sket ch Fi g.12. 7) We ar e notcer t ai n when af t eri t sl ast r ecor di ngi n 1927t he sab»l was r emoved.

FIG 12. 7 RECONSTRUCTION SKETCH PLAN OF THE FAÇADE ( SECOND PHASE)

A st r ai ghtver t i calj oi ntatt he eastpar toft he f acade def i nes t he conj unct i on bet ween t he mi ddl e hal land t he east er n domed chamber( see Pl .12. 4) .I tseems t hatt hi s chamberwas r ebui l tr epl aci ngt he or i gi nalone whi ch had col l apsed per haps as a r esul tofan ear t hquake.Evi dence f orsuch col l apse can be seen on t he ext er i oroft he sout h wal loft he same chamber( see bel ow,sout h el evat i on) . The whi t i sh l i mest one masonr yoft hi s wal li s si mi l art o t he masonr yused i n bl ocki ngt he ar chways,whi ch may wel lbe cont empor ar y. Thi r d Phase The mai n f eat ur e oft he t hi r d and l astphase oft he f acade i s a di st i nct i ve el abor at e por t al( Pl .12. 7) .I ti s pl aced al mosti n t he cent r e oft he f acade i n such a mannert hatt he doorwas posi t i oned on t he cent r alaxi s oft he chambert o whi ch i tgave access ( Fi g.12. 2) .The por t ali s uni que i n t he ar chi t ect ur e ofJer usal em.The shal l ow por t alr ecess i s spanned bya poi nt ed ogee ar ch. Basketand f i sh scal e mot i f s car vi ngs f r ame t he ar ch, whi ch r eston doubl e i nt er t wi ned mar bl e col umns on ei t hersi de.Each col umn has t wo f i nel y car ved j oi nt acant hus capi t al s;t he one on t he r i ght hand si de i s car ved wi t ht wo bi r ds ( Pl .12. 8) .A ser i es ofmoul di ngs wi t h a cont i nuous snai lmot i fi n t he cent r e i s di r ect l y above t he ar ch. Thi s por t ali s mi ssi ngf r om Wi l son’ s phot ogr aph of1865 buti tappear si n anot herphot ogr aph t aken i n 1889byt he Amer i can Col onyi n J er usal em.Ther ef or e i tmusthave been i nser t ed bet ween 1865and 1889.Per haps i tmaybe dat ed t ot he r epai rwor ks car r i ed outi nt he ®ar am byt he Ot t oman sul t an ‘ Abd al ®am» d i n t he l at e 1870s.The smal l erdoor ,wi t h cusped poi nt ed ar ch,whi ch gi ves access t ot he east er n domed chamber ,can al so be dat ed t o t he same t i me. The nor t h wal loft he westchamber( Pl .12. 9)i s pi er ced i n i t s l owerpar tby t hr ee wi ndows,now bl ocked.A wi ndow i nt he mi ddl e, 1. 20m.hi gh and 0. 89m.wi de,i s f l anked by t wo smal l er wi ndows wi t h i dent i cal di mensi ons,0. 82m.hi gh and 0. 60m.wi de ( Pl .12. 10) . Above t he wi ndows t he l i nt el s ar e car ved wi t h cur i ous bevel l ed mot i f s.The l i nt el s oft he mi ddl e wi ndow and t he l ef t hand smal lwi ndow ar e car ved wi t h an i nt er t wi ned r ope mot i f .The cl osestexampl e oft hi s mot i fi sf ound on t wo f r agment s of “chai n” col umns f r om J er usal em r ecor ded as Cr usaderspoli a byBuschhausen ( 1978,pl . 358) .The r i ght hand wi ndow i s decor at ed wi t h a f i sh scal es mot i f ,ort hey appeart o i mi t at e pi t ched shi ngl es ( i . e.wooden t i l ed)r oof s,such as one f i nds i n nor t her n Eur ope and Scandi navi an cont ext s,somet i mes i mi t at ed i n scul pt ur e( e. g.on t ombst ones) .Theyseem mor el i kel yt o be Cr usaderand appear st o be uni que i nJ er usal em,but mor e wor kneeds t o be done i nl ooki ngf orcompar anda. The r el i evi ngar ch above t he l i nt eloft he mi ddl e wi ndow i s composed ofsever alvoussoi r s,whi l e t hose oft he f l anki ngwi ndows ar e made oft wo st ones ofequalsi zes; t he l i nt el of t he l ef t hand wi ndow i s car ved wi t h count er f ei tvoussoi r s.

115

AYYUBID JERUSALEM:AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY The southern pier of the South-west Colonnade of the Dome of the Rock terrace, built in 877/1472, abuts on the north-west corner of the west chamber and its upper part rests on the roof of the Na¯awiyya (Burgoyne 1987, 570, pl. 60.1). The present stairway replaced a narrow vaulted stairway, with seventeen steps, called the Lane of Kissing (zuq«q al-b‡s) (al-‘Umar», 146; Muj»r, II, 292). East Elevation This elevation, which forms the east wall of the eastern chamber, is plain and devoid of any openings. It is built of whitish limestone masonry similar to that found on the north façade of the chamber, and therefore it must be contemporary (Pl. 12.11). South Elevation ( Pl.12. 12) Since the Na¯awiyya was built at the edge of the terrace of the Dome of the Rock, the south and west elevations consist of two “storeys”, of which the lower storey serves also as part of the revetment wall supporting the corner of that terrace. Both elevations are constructed homogeneously of whitish smoothly dressed ashlars, except for the eastern part of the wall. Each storey comprises eleven courses of masonry. Much of the masonry is re-used: many of the stones bear distinctive traces of Crusader workmanship: diagonal tooling and a considerable number of masons’ marks. The lower storey of the south elevation is supported by four buttresses with sloping tops; each 0.60 m. wide and at almost equal intervals (about 3.65 m.). These buttresses are built of the same whitish ashlars, and thus are structurally homogenous with the wall and must be contemporaneous with it. Buttresses with sloping tops are a feature which was first employed in Palestine by the Crusaders (Burgoyne 1987, 228). There are four pointed archways each flanked by two buttresses and filled up by two courses of masonry to form arched windows (Fig. 12.3; Pl. 12.13). These windows were fitted during the 1982-83 restoration works in the lower floor of the Na¯awiyya undertaken by the Awqaf Administration. Before that the archways were blocked by masonry leaving door openings into the interior cells. The easternmost door was surmounted by a pointed arch, while the other three doors were spanned by monolithic lintels (Pl. 12.14). There is a slab that contains a re-used fragment of an inscription with a naskh» Mamluk script above one of the doors (Pl. 12.15). The upper storey of the western domed chamber (Pl. 12.16) has the same arrangement of windows as in the north elevation: a window flanked by two smaller windows all have lintels carved with different motifs and spanned by relieving arches. Here the lintel of the middle window has a “lattice” motif; the right-hand one has the pattern of undulating rows of rounded merlons, while the right-hand one has a “saw-tooth” motif. The later lintel is surmounted by a relieving arch which has counterfeit voussoirs (Pl. 12.17). Above the three windows and underneath the roof cornice is a small window.

Three high windows with cusped arches light the middle hall in the upper storey (Pl. 12.12). Their arches are identical to the arch above the door leading to the east chamber from the north, which perhaps suggests they are all contemporaneous (Third phase). They perhaps replaced the three small windows (³ «q«t), probably surmounted with monolithic lintels, which al-‘Umar» describes (see above). The easternmost part of the wall which constitutes the south wall of the eastern domed chamber projects about 0.15 m. from the alignment of the south elevation. It is also built of a smaller type of masonry. A diagonal joint in its lower part provide us with further evidence that the original chamber had collapsed perhaps as a result of an earthquake and was rebuilt at a later period (Pl. 12.12). The existence of the typically Ottoman double window in its south wall evidently suggests an Ottoman date. According to al-‘Umar»’s description the original chamber was identical to the western domed chamber. West Elevation ( Pl.12. 18) Like the south elevation, the upper storey is pierced with three windows surmounted by monolithic lintels and relieving arches similar to those in the north wall (Pl. 12.19). The lintels are carved with a “fish scales” motif. Under the cornice of the roof, there is a small window. The lower storey has a pointed arched window, as in the lower part of the south elevation. The wall is strengthened by two buttresses which are identical in shape and method of construction to the four buttresses in the south elevation; the north buttress is 3.40 m. high and 0.91 m. wide, while the south one is 3.27 m. high and 0.86 m. wide. As in the south elevation, much of the masonry of this wall is re-used: many of the stones bear distinctive traces of Crusader tooling. At least fourteen masons’ marks have been recorded. At the northern extremity of the elevation and under the flight of stairs leading up to the south-west colonnade, a small door (2.00 m. high by 1.20 m. wide) was pierced to gain access into the lower floor (Pl. 12.20). Domes ( Figs 12.2,12. 7;Pl.12. 3) The dome of the west chamber has a cylindrical drum which is built of four courses of ashlars (Pl. 12.21). The upper course contains a series of brackets that support a projecting cavetto cornice at the base of the dome. Bracketed cornices as such were a quite common feature of Crusader architecture in Jerusalem (van Berchem 1922, 208). Parallels are found in the domes of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Church of St. Mary (Gethsemane), and the Church of the Ascension (Mount of Olives). Similar brackets, perhaps as re-used material, are found above the B«b ®i³ ³ a, 617/1220 (Catalogue no. 20). This architectural element continued into the early Mamluk period in Jerusalem, as it is represented in the Qubba al-Kubakiyya, ca.688/1289 (Burgoyne 1987, 141, pl. 6.3). The ashlar dome is covered by sheets of lead, and its apex is fitted with a stone finial. 116

CATALOGUE OF AYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM The dome of the east chamber is shallow, a typical feature in the Ottoman architecture of Jerusalem. It is built of small stones and surmounted with a crescent stone finial. It is almost certainly that the dome and the whole chamber were rebuilt in the Ottoman period replacing the original domed chamber (Fig. 12.6).

pendentives. In the south wall is a double window, surmounted by small ogee arches, set within an arched recess (Pl. 12.30). The transition from square base to the shallow dome is achieved by simple pendentives at the four corners. Its different alignment and lack of structural integration show that this chamber is a later addition to the building.

INTERIOR (Figs 12.2, 12.4, 12.6) LOWER FLOOR (Fig. 12.3) The main entrance door of the upper storey leads directly into a vaulted hall, 12.86 m. long by 4 m. wide, almost corresponding to al-‘Umar»’s dimensions. (Al-‘Umar»’s dhir«‘equals approximately 0.69-0.70 m. and so the 18 dhir«‘length of the hall equals approximately 12.7712.96 m.). It consists of three cross-vaulted bays separated by transverse arches and spring from abutments against the north and south walls (Pl. 12.22). There are no traces of the “gilded Syrian (sh«m») ceiling comprising thirteen squares”, which according to al-‘Umar» adorned this hall (see above). When the entrance was fitted, the wall on either side was thickened. A door in the north-west corner of the hall leads into the western domed chamber, which is almost square (about 4 m. by 4 m.). It is lit by the recessed-arched windows in the west and south walls. The windows in the north wall facing the Dome of the Rock platform are blocked on the outside (Pl. 12.23). The transition from square base to circular drum is effected in two stages. The first stage from square to octagon is by means of squinches, deep in the corners and shallow in the sides, surrounded by duplex arches (Pl. 12.24). The shallow squinches in the west and south sides are pierced with windows (Pl. 12.25). The squinch in the north wall contains a semi-circular marble plaque with an inscription, which is 0.94 m. long by 0.79 m. wide (Pl. 12.26; van Berchem 1927, 61-62; see text above). The squinch in the east wall has a stone medallion carved with intricate straps (Pl. 12.27). This stage culminates in a cavetto cornice. The transition from the octagonal cornice to the circular drum is made by eight small fluted conchs forming miniature squinches above the corners of the octagon. Another cavetto cornice defines the conjunction between the drum and dome (Pl. 12.28). Here too, there no traces of the gilded decoration inside the dome which al-Balaw» described (see above). A door in the north-east corner of the hall, which gave access to the eastern domed chamber, and the division wall were removed in 2001 as part of restoration works by the Awqaf Adminstration. This revealed what must have been the original set up. These are two pointed arches resting on corner pillars either side, and a marble column with a rounded simple capital in the centre (Pl. 12.29). This chamber, square in plan (about 3.80 m. by 3.80 m.), is entered also through an exterior door in the north wall. The shallow dome rests on corner

At the entrance door under the flight of stairs of the South-west Colonnade one turns at a right angle into a long cross-vaulted corridor from which doors open into a series of cross-vaulted cells separated by partition walls (Pl. 12.31). This is a recent adaptation made by the Awqaf Administration into offices (Pl. 12.32). Originally access to the lower floor was possible through multiple archways. At a later stage, these archways were blocked save for openings for doors (Pl. 12.33). The cells were cleared, plastered and fitted with new paving. A number of architectural element that appears in photographs documenting the clearance and restoration works in 1982-83 by the Awqaf Administration are no longer visible or accessible. In one photograph a wellhead in a rear cell is clearly seen (Pl. 12.34). In another photograph looking beyond the most eastern cell, extending east-west, a hall with a series of semicircular arches, each made of voussoirs with a chamfer, is visible, including storage jars for oil (Pl. 12.35). Because the roofing above these arches is made of large stone slabs (Pl. 12.36), it is plausible to suggest that they may have been constructed to support the elevated terrace of the Dome of the Rock, but further investigation is required. The type of arch used here is distinctively similar to those in the ®aram gates of B«b al-Silsila/B«b al-Sak»na, B«b al-‘Atm and B«b ®i³³a which were probably constructed in the Umayyad period (Burgoyne 1992, 122, 124). The presence of large storage jars, which are commonly used for storing oil, coupled with the recovery of the wellheads, testifies to al-‘Umar»’s text regarding the storage of oil in the Na¯awiyya, almost certainly for lighting the lamps in the ®aram. The Dome of the Rock terrace wall north of the Na¯awiyya The lower part of the west elevation of the Na¯awiyya with its distinctive smoothly dressed whitish ashlars and buttresses seems to continue northwards. A stretch of this wall extends from the flight of stairs of the South-west Colonnade to the Ottoman Dajj«n» Khilwa, which is supported by six buttresses; one is included in the rear wall of another Ottoman two-storey cell (khilwa) at the north side of the flight of stairs. The buttresses, each 2.88 m. high, 0.82 m. wide, and 0.61 m. deep, are at equal intervals of 3.20 m. (Fig. 12.8; Pl. 12.37). The northernmost buttress is partially obscured by the south wall of the Dajj«n» Khilwa. The same type of wall appears once again to the north of the ¶ahr»j of al117

AY Y U B ID JE R U SAL E M :AN AR C H IT E C T U R AL AND AR C H AE O L O G IC AL ST U D Y

Mu‘aam ‘ ºs« (Catalogue no. 13) as the eastern section ofthe south wall ofthe West Colonnade (340/ 95152) leading upto the west entrance ofthe Dome ofthe Rock (Pl. 12.38).

I n addition to the architectural evidence,the f oundation inscription ofthe Na¯awiyya gives an important clue. The text ref ers explicitlyto “the adj acent reconstruction” workundertaken byalMu‘aam (see translation ofthe inscription above). I t is possible to suggest that when the Na¯awiyya was f ounded,a stretch ofthe supporting wall ofthe Dome ofthe Rockterrace extending northwards to the West Colonnade,which was probably built in the Umayyad period,was rebuilt. Only within f our years since the erection of alNa¯awiyya, alMu‘aam constructeda cistern (·ahr»j) (607/ 121011) to the north andrestoredthe Southeastern Colonnade (608/ 121112) to the east (see reconstruction sketch,Fig. 12.9).

8 SK E T C H PL A N O F SO U T H -W E ST E RN C O RN E R O F FIG 12. T H E DO M E O F T H E RO C K PL A T FO RM

The present Southwest Colonnade with its f light ofstairs leading upto the Dome ofthe Rockterrace replacedan earlier structure. During al‘Umar» ’ s time (ca 745/ 1345) there existed“a narrow vaultedpassage with seventeen steps,at a distance ofabout f ive dhir«‘ (approximately 3.50m) north ofthe west dome (ofthe Na¯awiyya)”(al‘Umar» ’ ,146).

118

9 RE C O N ST RU C T IO N FIG 12. W E ST E RN C O RN E R O F T H E DO M

SK E T C H PL A N O F SO U T H E O F T H E RO C K PL A T FO RM

CATALOGUE OF AY Y UBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM

PLATE 12.4:FILLED-IN ARCHWAY

IN THE FAÇ ADE, EAST OF THE MAIN ENTRANCE

PLATE 12.1:GENERAL V IEW FROM THE ROOF OF THE DOME OF THE ROCK LOOKING SOUTH-WEST

PLATE 12.2:GENERAL LOOKING NORTH-EAST

PLATE 12.5:FAÇ ADE (AFTER WILSON 1865, PL.5B)

PLATE 12.3:NORTH FAÇ ADE

PLATE 12.6:LOCATION OF SABƮL THAT NO LONGER EX ISTS

119

AYYUBID JERUSALEM:AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

PLATE 12.7: MAIN ENTRANCE PORTAL

PLATE 12.9: NORTH SIDE OF THE WESTERN DOMED CHAMBER

PLATE 12.8: CAPITAL ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF

PLATE 12.10: BLOCKED WINDOWS IN THE NORTH SIDE OF

PORTAL

THE WESTERN DOMED CHAMBER

120

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM

PLATE 12. 11:EAST ELEVATION

PLATE 12. 12:SOUTH ELEVATION

PLATE 12. 14:DOOR IN THE ARCHWAY WITH INSCRIPTION SLAB ABOVE THE LINTEL (COURTESY OFDIA)

PLATE 12. 15:INSCRIPTION (COURTESY OFDIA,AA)

PLATE 12. 13:WINDOW FLANKED BY TWO BUTTRESSES AND A WINDOW WITH CUSPED ARCH ABOVE IT

121

AYYUBID JERUSALEM:AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

PLATE 12.18: WEST ELEVATION

PLATE 12.16: SOUTH SIDE OF WESTERN DOMED CHAMBER

PLATE 12.19: WINDOWS IN THE WEST UPPER SIDE OF THE

PLATE 12.17: WINDOWS IN THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE

WESTERN DOMED CHAMBER

WESTERN DOMED CHAMBER

122

CATALOGUE OF AYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM

PLATE 12.23: BLOCKED WINDOWS N THE NORTH WALL OF THE WESTERN DOMED CHAMBER

PLATE 12.20: ENTRANCE DOOR INTO THE LOWER LEVEL

PLATE 12.21: DOME ABOVE WEST CHAMBER

PLATE 12.24: ZONE OF TRANSITION IN WESTERN DOMED CHAMBER LOOKING SOUTH-WEST PLATE 12.22: CROSS-VAULTED HALL LOOKING EAST 123

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

PLATE 12.28: INTERIOR OF DOME PLATE 12.25: ZONE OF TRANSITION IN THE WESTERN DOMED CHAMBER LOOKING WEST

PLATE 12.29: DOUBLE ARCHES RESTING ON A COLUMN LEADING INTO EASTERN CHAMBER

PLATE 12.26: INSCRIPTION WITHIN SQ UINCH LOOKING NORTH

PLATE 12.30: PAIR OF WINDOWS IN THE EASTERN DOMED

PLATE 12.27: CARVED STONE MEDALLION

CHAMBER

124

CATALOGUE OF AYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM

PLATE 12.34: WELL-HEAD USED FOR STORAGE OF OIL (COURTESY OF DIA) PLATE 12.31: LOWER FLOOR, CROSS-VAULTED CORRIDOR LOOKING EAST

PLATE 12.35: HALL WITH SEMICURCULAR ARCHES SHOWING LARGE STORAGE JARS FOR OIL (COURTESY OF DIA) PLATE 12.32: EASTERNMOST CELL WITH WINDOW LOOKING SOUTH

PLATE 12.33: EASTERNMOST CELL AND DOOR LOOKING SOUTH JUST BEFORE RENOVATION IN EARLY 1980S (COURTESY OF DIA)

PLATE 12.36: ROOFING ABOVE SEMICIRCULAR ARCHES (COURTESY OF DIA) 125

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

PLATE 12.37: WALL OF THE DOME OF THE ROCK TERRACE LOOKING SOUTH-EAST

PLATE 12.38: WALL ALONG THE FLIGHT OF STAIRS TO THE WEST COLONNADE LOOKING SOUTH-WEST

126

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM

13 ¶a¯r » jal Mal i kal Mu‘ aam

ΔϤόϧ Ϧϣ Ϳ΍ ϪϤΣέ .4 ϲϠλϮϤϟ΍ έΎ˷ϴγϦΑ ϚϠϤϟ΍ .5 ϦΑ ϰδϴϋ Ϣ˷ψόϤϟ΍ϚϠϤϟ΍ ΎϧϻϮϣ ϊΒγ ΔϨγ ϲϓ ΏϮ˷ϳ΃ϦΑ΍ ήϜΑ ϮΑ΃ ϝΩΎόϟ΍ .Δ΋ΎϤ˷Θγϭ

Ϣ˷ψόϤϟ΍ϚϠϤϟ΍ ΞϳήϬλ 607/ 121011 Ci s t er nofal Mal i kal Mu‘ aam ‘ º s «,s onofSul t anal Mal i kal ‘ ªdi l

In t he name of God t he Mer ci f ul , t he Compas s i onat e. Thi si st hebl es s edci s t er n( ·ahr»j) vol unt eer edt obemadef ort hes akeofGod,byt he onei nneedofGod’ smer cy,Mu¯ammadt hes on of‘ Ur wa,s onofSayy«r ,al M‡· ul »( f r om Mos ul ) – may God be mer ci f ulunt o hi m… f r om t he f avourofourpat r onal Mal i kal Mu‘ aam ‘º s «, s onofal Mal i kal ‘ ªdi lAb‡ Bakr ,sonofAyy‡b, i nt heyear607[ 121011]( vanBer chem 1927,6970,no. 157;RCEA,X,1939,no. 3661).

I. LOCATION ( Fi g. 13.1;Pl . 13.1) The ci s t er ni s hi dden under t he Dome of t he Rock pl at f or m;i mmedi at el ys out hoft hes t ai r sl eadi ngt ot he wes t er n cent r alcol onnade oft he Dome oft he Rock pl at f or m.

Anot herdedi cat i oni ns cr i pt i on,s i t uat edont hel ef t hand s i deoft heent r ancet ot heci s t er n,r eads :

ϥΎϜϤϟ΍ [΍]άϫ ΄θϧ΃ ϢϴΣήϟ΍ ϦϤΣήϟ΍ Ϳ΍ ϢδΑ .1 ϲϧΎϫήΒϟ΍ ήΒ˸Ϩ˴ϋͿ΍ ϰϟ΍ ήϴϘϔϟ΍ ΪΒόϟ΍ .2 ϙέΎΒϤϟ΍ ϦϴόδΗϭ ϦϴϨΛ΍ ΔϨγ Ϣ˷ψόϤϟ΍ .3 ϥΎπϣέ ϲϓ .Δ΋ΎϤόΒγϭ In t he name of God t he Mer ci f ul , t he Compas s i onat e. Thi sbl es s ed pl ace( mak«n) was cons t r uct edbyt hes er vanti nneedofGod‘ Anbar al Bur h«n» ,i nt hevener abl eRama±«n,i nt heyear 792 ( Augus t Sept ember 1390) ( van Ber chem 1927,71,no. 158;RCEA,XVIII,1991,no. 792 006). At hi rd foundat i on i nscri pt i on,wi t h an uncert ai n dat e,i s found at t he out er nort h-west ern corner of t he front chamber,whichreadsasfollows:

FIG. 13.1 LOCATION PLAN

ϒϗϭ Ϣ˷ϠγϭϪϴϠϋ Ϳ΍ ϰ˷ϠλͿ΍ ϝϮγέ Ρϭήϟ .1 Ϳ΍ ϰϟ΍ ήϴϘϔϟ΍ ΪΒόϟ΍ .2 ΔϛέΎΒϤϟ΍ ΔϳΎϘδϟ΍ ϩάϫ Ϛϟ΍Ϋ ϰϟΎόΗ Ϳ΍ ϰϟ΍ ΎΑ˷ήϘΗͿ΍ ΪΒϋ ϦΑ ϢγΎϗ ϰϟΎόΗ [?]

II. SITE AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION Acces st ot heci s t er nnow i sf r om t heHar am es pl anade t hr oughanout erchamber ,l eadi ngi nt oanot herchamber wi t habar r elvaul t ,f r om whi chadoorl eadsi nt os i mpl e el ongat edbar r elvaul t edr oom whi chf or mer l ywasus ed asaci s t er n.

Fort hes pi r i tofGod’ smes s enger( Mu¯ammad) ... Thi sbl es s ed r es er voi r( s i q«ya) wasendowed by t hes er vanti nneedofGodt heExal t ed,Q«s i ms on of‘ Abdul l «h,i n or dert o be cl os et o God t he Exal t ed,t hati s( ?) ... ( vanBer chem 1927,7172, no. 159).

III HISTORY IDENTIFICATION On t he s i de oft he doorl eadi ng i nt ot he ci s t er n,an i ns cr i pt i onr ecor dst hat :

.2 ω˷ϮτΗΎϣ ΍άϫ ϢϴΣήϟ΍ ϦϤΣήϟ΍ Ϳ΍ ϢδΑ .1 ϰϟΎόΗ Ϳ΍ ϪΟϮϟ ϙέΎΒϤϟ΍ ΞϳήϬ˷μϟ΍΍άϫ ϞϤόΑ Γϭ˸ή˵ϋϦΑ΍ Ϊ˷ϤΤϣϰϟΎόΗ Ϳ΍ ΔϤΣέ ϰϟ΍ ήϴϘϔϟ΍ .3

IV ARCHITECTURE Tor eacht heci s t er nnow onehast ogot hr ought woout er chamber soni t swes t er ns i de( Fi g. 13.2;Pl . 13.2). The f i r s tchamber( A),wi t ht woopenar ches ,onet ot hewes t andanot hert ot hes out h,i ss quar ei npl an. Iti scover ed

127

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY with a typically Ottoman turned cross-vault which rests on pendentives (Pl.13. 3).On the outer f ace ofthe northwestern corner,an undated Ottoman inscription ref ers to the f oundation ofa water f ountain or installation (siq«ya) by a certain Q«sim,son of‘ Abdull«h (Pl.13. 4).

‘ mat ) our master al-Malikal-Mu‘ aam”.This is perhaps an implication that the Ayyubid prince donated a sum of money to cover the expenses of construction as an act of piety. The rear of this bay is now pierced with a high door.On the lefthand side of the door is a stone plaque with a Mamlukinscription,which refers to the construction “of this blessed place” by a certain ‘ Anbar alBurh«n»in Rama±«n 792/ AugustSeptember 1390( Pl.13. 7) .Though the original function of this chamber is not known,van Berchem suggested it may have served as a residence for a guardian in the ®aram whose surname was Burh«n alD» n( van Berchem 1927,71) . A doorway leads into an elongate barrel vaulted chamber ( C)which was formerly used as a cistern ( Pl.13. 8) .A blocked openingin the ceilingof the vault indicates its original function.Then obviously the cistern had no door in its western wall and the only access to it was from a wellhead on the pavement of the Dome of the Rock terrace. INTERPRETATION From the architectural development described above, three phases of construction may be deduced.I n the first phase –belongingto the Ayyubid period –the cistern ( C) was built in 607/ 121011to collect rain water from the Dome of the Rock terrace,which was used for both drinkingand ablution in the ®aram.I t was incorporated in the northwestern corner of the west supportingwall of the Dome of the Rock terrace,which was probably constructed immediately after the Qubba alNa¯awiyya in 604/ 120708( see ‘ Catalogue no.12,fig.12. 12) .

FIG. 13.2 GROUND PLAN

The partition wall between chamber A and the second chamber (B) has been removed to f orm a larger room, possibly when the buildingwas converted f or use other than as a water cistern.This chamber is rectangular in plan and covered with a pointed barrel vault;its eastern part has a narrower bay with a pointed arch (Pl.13. 5).A marble plaque (0. 68 m.by 0. 32 m. ) with a f oundation inscription written in Ayyubid nashk» script is f ound in the west-f acingarch ofthe bay (Pl.13. 6).The inscription seems to be not in sit usince it is situated f ew metres f rom the cistern in a place which would not be visible by worshipers.I t ref ers to the construction of a cistern (·ahr»j) by Mu¯ammad b.‘ Urwa b.Sayy«r al-M‡· ul» , who was probably the governor (w«l ») ofthe city.I t adds that the cistern was erected “by benevolence of(min ni

128

I n the second phase –belongingto the Mamlukperiod –a barrelvaulted chamber ( B)was built on the west side of the cistern.The cistern itself was converted into an adj oiningcell by piercinga door and window in its west wall and blockingthe openingin the ceiling. I n the third phase –belongingto the Ottoman period – another chamber ( A)was added from the west which served as a water fountain.To this period also belongs the cell ( D) ,known as the Khilwa of alDaj j «n» ,on the southeast side ( see p.13. 1) .This cell was built after removing part of the wall supportingthe Dome of the Rockterrace and cutting part of the terrace itself ( see Fig.12. 12 Reconstruction sketch of SW corner of the Dome of the Rockterrace) .

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM

PLATE 13. 4:INSCRIPTION ON THE OUTER NORTHW ESTERN CORNER OFCHAMBER A OFADJOINING CHAMBERS, LOOKING SOUTH-EAST

PLATE 13. 1:GENERAL VIEW

PLATE 13. 2:EXTERIOR OFOUTER CHAMBER

PLATE 13. 5:CHAMBER B, LOOKING EAST TOW ARDS ENTRANCE OFTHE CISTERN

PLATE 13. 3:INTERIOR OFOUTER CHAMBER A, TURNED CROSS-VAULT, LOOKING NORTH

PLATE 13. 6:MAMLUK INSCRIPTION 129

AYYUBID JERUSALEM:AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

PLATE 13.7: AYYUBID INSCRIPTION

PLATE 13.8: CISTERN (CHAMBER C)

130

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM wascal l edmaq«m ( hol ypl ace) :oneont heeas ts i deof t het er r ace,oneont henor t hs i de,t woont hewes ts i de, and t wo on t he s out hs i de ( N«· r »Khus r aw,33) .Hi s des cr i pt i oni sasf ol l ows :

14 Sout heas tQan«³ i r

Δϴϗήθϟ΍ - ΔϴΑϮϨΠϟ΍ ήσΎϨϘϟ΍ Rest or edi n608/ 121112 Sout heas t er ncol onnadeoft heDomeoft heRockt er r ace I LOCATION ( Fi g.14. 1) Att hes out hendoft heDomeoft heRockt er r ace,j us t over30m.eas toft hes out hcol onnade;att heheadofa s t ai r waynor t heas toft heAq· «Mos que

FIG.4. 2 SKETCH PLAN OFTHE COLONNADES (AFTER VAN BERCHEM 1927) TheGhur i ds t ai r waycons i s t sofat r i pl ef l i ght ,t hati s ,a mi ddl es t ai r waydi r ect l yoppos i t et hepl at f or mf l ankedon ei t hers i debys t ai r ways ,s ot hatpeopl ecangoupbyany oneoft hr eedi f f er entways .Her et ooar es i mi l arcol umns , ar ches ,and agal l er y made,asI haveal r eady s ai d,of hewn s t one.Each s t ep i soft wo ort hr ee l ong s l abs . Acr os st he ar cade i si ns cr i bed i n gol d and f i ne cal l i gr aphy,“By t he or derofPr i nce Layt h al Dawl a N‡s ht ak» nt heGh‡r i d”.Theys ayt hatt hi sLayt hal Dawl a wasas l aveoft hes ul t anofEgyptandt hathehadt hes e s t ai r sandt hegangwaysbui l t( N«· r »Khus r aw,34) .

1 LOCATION PLAN FIG.4. II SITE AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION

III HISTORY

Indeed,t hehi s t or i cals our cesar es uppl ement ed by t he epi gr aphi cevi dence.A Fat i mi di ns cr i pt i onont wos l abs bui l ti nt ot hecent r als pandr el sont hes out hf aceoft he col onnade,whi chmaynotbei ns i t u,r ecor dst hat“t hi s s acr edpl ace”wascons t r uct edbyN‡sht ak» ni n421/ 1030 ( Bur goyneandAbul Haj j1979,115118,nos.IX A and IX B;Bur goyne1987,219,n.5) .

EARLY ISLAMIC PERIOD

AYYUBID PERIOD

Whent heDomeoft heRockwasbui l tonar ai s edt er r ace, numer ouss t ai r waysmus thavebeencons t r uct edt or each i tf r om t he®ar am es pl anade( Fi g.14. 2) .Accor di ngt oIbn al Faq» h’ saccount ,t heear l i es ts ur vi vi ng des cr i pt i on of t he®ar am dat i ng t o 290/ 903,t her ewer es i xs t ai r ways ( Ibn al Faq» h, 100; Bur goyne 1987, 219220) . Al Muqaddas »( ca.375/ 985)ment i ons t hatf ouroft hem f aced t he f ourdoor s oft he Dome oft he Rock ( al Muqaddas » ,109) .N«· r »Khus r aw ( 438/ 1047)des cr i bes s i xs t ai r ways ,each wi t h acol onnadeatt het op,whi ch

An i ns cr i pt i on on amar bl es l ab i nt hes pandr eloft he eas t er nar choft hear cade,f aci ngnor t h,r ecor ds :

Thepos i t i onoft hepr es ents out heas tcol onnadei sont he s amel i neast henor t heas tcol onnade.Iti scompos edofa t r i pl ear ched ar cades uppor t ed on t wo col umnsand on t womas onr ypi er satei t herend.

131

ήσΎϨϘϟ΍ ϩάϫ ΩΪΟ ϢϴΣήϟ΍ ϦϤΣήϟ΍ Ϳ΍ ϢδΑ . 1 . 3 ϥΎτϠδϟ΍ ΎϧϻϮϣϭ ΎϧΪϴγ ΔϟϭΩ ϡΎϳ΃ ϲϓ . 2 . 4 ϦΑ΍ ϰδϴϋ ΢Θϔϟ΍ ϲΑ΃ Ϣ˷ψόϤϟ΍ϚϠϤϟ΍ ϢϟΎόϟ΍ . 5 ΪϠΧ ΏϮϳ΃ ϦΑ ήϜΑ ϮΑ΃ ϝΩΎόϟ΍ ϚϠϤϟ΍ ϥΎτϠδϟ΍ . [Ϳ] ΪϤΤϟ΍ϭ Δ΋ΎϤΘγϭ ϥΎϤΛ ΔϨγ ϲϓ ΎϤϬϜϠϣ Ϳ΍

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY In the name of God the Merciful, the Compas s ionate. Thes e arches ( qan«³ir) were recons tructed ( j uddida)in the reign of our mas ter and patron the s ultan, the learned, alMalik alMu‘ aam, Ab‡ alFat¯‘ º s «, s on of the s ultan alMalik al‘ ªdil Ab‡ Bakr Ayy‡b. May God perpetuate their kings hip, in the year 608[ 121112] .And thanksbe to God ( van Berchem 1927, 7374;RCEA, X 1939, no.3685) . SUBSEQUENTHI STORY Photographsdating to the late nineteenth centurys how the colonnade covered with painted plas ter. Other colonnadesand s tructuresin the ®aram were s imilarly “beautified”duringthe s ame period, and particularlyas part of the preparationsmade for the vis it of the German Emperor to J erus alem in 1898.The plas ter coatingwas removed by J am«l P«s h«, commandergeneral of the Ottoman forcesin Pales tine between 1914and 1917( van Berchem 1927, 9n.2;Hamilton 1949, 47) . IV ARCHITECTURE The three pointed archesof the arcade s pringfrom two piersand two columns .The columns , made of greenis h granite, and their Corinthians tyle capitalsare as s embled of different elements .They are probably Byzantine or earlyIs lamic in origin and appear here in s econdaryus e. The abaci above the capitalsare moulded in a s imilar fas hion asthe cornice moulding around the piers .The three archesare s imilar in height and s pan.A cavetto cornice runsacros sthe topof the arcade.

There are two rais ed limes tone t abul ae ansat ae with ins criptionswritten in relief k‡f »s cript in the s pandrelsof the middle arch facings outh ( Pl.14. 1) .The eas ternmos t inscription ( Pl.14. 2) , 0. 36m.high and 0. 69m.wide, is dated to Raj ab411/ OctoberNovember 1020( Burgoyne and AbulHaj j 1979, 115116, no. IX A) . The westernmost inscription ( 0. 38m.high and 0. 63m.wide) refersto the cons truction of the maq«m by N‡shtak» n 30 ( Burgoyne and AbulHaj j1979, 117118, no.IX B) . The founder s hould be identified asthe am» r Layth alDawla N‡s htak» n alGh‡r»whos e name wass een in an ins cription on the Southeas t Colonnade, known as Maq«m alGh‡r» , by N«· r»Khus raw when he vis ited J erus alem in 438/ 1047. The north face of the colonnade isa mirror image of the s outh face ( Pl.14. 3) .In the s pandrel of the eas tern arch on the north face of the arcade isa marble s lab( 0. 60m. by0. 35m. )with an ins cription written in Ayyubid nas kh» s cript.It relatesthat the colonnade wasres tored during the reign of alMu‘ aam ‘ º s«in 608/ 121112( Pl.14. 4) . On the bas isof content, Burgoyne and AbulHaj jobs erve that the wes ternmos t ins cription s hould be read before the eas ternmos t one, and therefore theyare not in s it u.They were pos s iblymoved from their original pos ition during res torations by alMu‘ aam ‘ º s« in 608/ 121112 ( Burgoyne and AbulHaj j 1979, 117) . The question though of what architectural elements belong to the original s tructure and thos e to the later res toration hasnot been s olved.But we can s afelyas s ume, therefore, that the colonnade wasrebuilt and remodelled byalMu‘ aam.

It s eemslikelythat the ins criptionswere not s een byvan Berchem when he firs t vis ited J erus alem in 1893 becaus e they were probably covered with thickplas ter which wasonlyremoved ca 191417.

30

132

CATALOGUE OF AYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM

PLATE 14.3: COLONNADE FACING NORTH PLATE 14.1: COLONNADE FACING SOUTH

PLATE 14.4: AYYUBID INSCRIPTION

PLATE 14.2: FATIMID INSCRIPTION

133

AYYUBID JERUSALEM :AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY . . .Abutti ngonthi sgate(B«bShar afal Anbi y«’ , thepr es ent B«bal ‘ Atm)i savaul tedpor ti co, f or ty s even dhi r«‘l ong and seven dhi r«‘and a hal f wi dehavi ngei ght pi er s .At thebegi nni ngofi t ar e two wi ndows , oneofthem open[ that i s , ungr i l l ed] thr oughwhi chi sr eachedtheZ«wi yaoftheVi zi er Am» nal D» n, knownasAm» nal Mul k.Adj acent to both ofthem i s a doorthr ough whi ch the Z«wi yat al L«wii senter ed.Bes i dethegatei sa pl atf or m wi thaci s ter n”(al ‘ Umar » , 158) .

15NorthPortico-Ayyubidsection

ϲϟΎϤθϟ΍ ϕ΍ϭήϟ΍ Ayyubid section 610/1213-14; other Mamluk sections up to 836/1432 g.15. 1) I LOCATION (Fi Al ongthenor thbor derofthe®ar am.

Muj » ral D» n’ stext i sus ef ulf orthehi s tor yofthepor ti co: . . . Thepor ti co extendsf r om B«bal Duwayd«r i yya to thewes t ends uppor tsf i vemadrasas .Par t ofi t– that i sundertheAm» ni yyaMadr as aandF«r i s i yya Madr as a–wasanci ent.It wasl atercons tr uctedi n the r ei gn of al Mu‘ aam ‘ º s «i n the year 610(/121314) . . . ”(Muj » r , 376) . DATE AND FOUNDER Ani ns cr i pti ononthewes ter npi erofthei nnerpor chof B«bal ‘ Atm r eads :

ϻϮϣϭ ΎϧΪϴγ ΔϟϭΩ ϡΎϳ΃ ϲϓ ϕ΍ϭήϟ΍ ΍άϫ ΩΪΟ .1 ΢Θϔϟ΍ ϲΑ΍ ϢψόϤϟ΍ ϚϠϤϟ΍ ϢϟΎόϟ΍ ϥΎτϠδϟ΍ Ύϧ .2 ήϜΑ ϮΑ΃ ϝΩΎόϟ΍ ϚϠϤϟ΍ ϥΎτϠδϟ΍ ϦΑ΍ .3 ϰδϴϋ ήθϋ ΔϨγ ϲϓ ΎϤϬϜϠϣ ϪϠϟ΍ .4 ΪϠΧ ΏϮϳ΃ ϦΑ΍ ήϴϣϷ΍ Δϳϻϭ ϲϓ .5 ϩΪΣϭ ϪϠϟ ΪϤΤϟ΍ϭ Δ΋ΎϤΘγϭ ήϤϐϳ ϦΑ΍ ήϤϋ ϦϳΪϟ΍ ΰϋ ϞΟϷ΍

FIG.15. 1 LOCATION PLAN

Thi spor ti co wasr eneweddur i ngther ei gnofour mas terand ourl or d, thes ul tan, thes chol ar , al Mal i k al Mu‘ aam Ab‡ al Fat¯‘ º s «, (3)s onof the s ul t«n al Mal i k al ‘ ªdi lAb‡ Bakr , son of Ayy‡b, (4)mayGodeter nal i s eki ngdoms ,i nthe year610 [ 121314]and thanks be to God (5) dur i ngthegover nor shi p(wi l «yat )oftheam» r , the mos t nobl e, ‘ Izzal D» n, ‘ Umars onofYaghmur ” (vanBer chem 1927, no. 162, 8284, pl .XXXVI) .

II SITE AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION TheAyyubi dphas eoccupi esthemi ddl epar t ofthenor th por ti co whi chextendsf r om B«bal ‘ Atm i ntheeas t to the Is ’ ar di yyaMadr as ai nthewes t. Accor di ng to Ar ab geogr apher sf r om the f our th/tenth centur y, por ti coeshadbeenbui l t al ongthewes t andnor th bor der softhe®ar am;ofthes enothi ngs ur vi ves , except a s er i esofemptys ocketsf ors pr i nger sofanol dpor ti co cut i nto ther ocks car pto thewes t oftheIs ‘ ar di yyaMadr as a (Bur goyne1987, 44, pl .3, 370) .

Ontheeaster npi eroftheadj acent bayto theeast, ther e i s another i nscr i pti on, al so f r om the ti me of al Mu‘ aam ‘ º s«, gi vi ng the di mensi onsofthe ®ar am, whi chr eads:

Immedi atel y af ter the r econques t of J er us al em i n 583/1187, theAyyubi dsbeganapr oces sofr es tor i ngthe ®ar am, whi chi ncl udedthecons tr ucti oni n610/121314 ofthemi ddl epar t ofthenor thpor ti co.Thi spor ti co was s ubs equentl ycompl etedi ntheMaml ukper i od. III HISTORY IDENTIFICATION Al ‘ Umar »(ca.745/1345) , des cr i bes the por ti co that conti nueswes twar dsi mmedi atel yaf tertheB«bal ‘ Atm i nthenor thr angeofthe®ar am thus : 134

ϝ]Ϯσ .2 ϢϴΣήϟ΍ Ϧϣ[˰Σήϟ΍ ϪϠϟ΍ Ϣγ]˰Α .1 Ϧϳ[˰ϧΎϤΛ] .3 ϭ ϊΑέ΃ϭ Δ΋Ύϣ ΔόΒγ ΪΠδϣ[˰ϟ΍ ϦϴδϤΧϭ ΔδϤΧϭ .4 Δ΋Ύϣ ϊΑέ΃ Ϫοήϋϭ ω΍έΫ ϚϠϤϟ΍ ω΍έάΑ ω΍έΫ “(1) In the name of God the Mer ci f ul , the Compas s i onate (2) The l ength of the Mos que (®ar am)i s784 dhi r«‘andi tswi dthi s455dhi r«‘ , (meas ur ed) wi th the dhi r«‘ of the ki ng” (van Ber chem 1927, no.163, 8497, pl .XXXVIII) .

CAT AL O G U E O F AY Y U BID BU IL D ING S IN JER U SAL EM

2 EL EV AT IO N O F T H E W FIG.15.

EST PAR T O F T H E NO R T H

Muj»r al-D»n echoes the former i nscri pti on andstates that the porti co from the B«bal-‘ Atm under the F«ri si yya i s “anci ent”andwas renewedduri ngthe rei gn of al-Mali k al-Mu‘ aam ‘ º s«( 375) . IV ARCHITECTURE ( Fi g.15. 2) The archi tecture of the North Porti co,whi ch has been constructed i n vari ous stages from 610/ 1213-14 to 836/ 1432,i s best descri bed,accordi ng to topographi cal order from east to west,byBurgoyne ( 1987,104-108,fi g. 1. 2,fi g.14) .Below i s a summaryof hi s descri pti on,wi th some addi ti onal remarks andobservati ons. The “renewal” of the porti co,as i t i s stated by the i nscri pti on and by Muj»r al-D»n,means probably the replacement of the “anci ent” porti co whi ch was menti oned by the fourth/ tenth century geographers.All bays ( assi gnedbyBurgoyne as bays 29-38)have a “mean pi tch”( i . e.the di stance from one pi er centre to the next) averages about 4. 65m.( Pl.15. 1) .Theycontai n stones wi th typi cal Crusader di agonal tooli ng and masons’ marks,as re-use expectedi n Ayyubi dconstructi on. A stone i s carvedwi th an i nscri pti on on pi er 29,one bay east of B«bal-‘ Atm,at a hei ght of about 3. 50m.faci ng south.The text,wri tten wi th four li nes of the typi cal Ayyubi d naskh» scri pt,deals wi th the measurements of the ®aram ( see above;Pl.15. 2) .

135

PO R T ICO (CO U R T ESY

OF

BU R G O Y NE 1987)

A marble slab carved wi th an i nscri pti on on pi er 31, whi ch i s the western pi er of the i nner porch of B«bal‘ Atm,at a hei ght of 4. 52m.faci ngsouth.It measures 70 x 36 cm.and consi sts of fi ve li nes wri tten i n Ayyubi d naskh» scri pt ( Pls 15. 3, 15. 4) . The text menti ons that the porti co was renewedi n 610/ 1213-14 ( see above) .Although the former i nscri pti on i s not dated,the style of the scri pt i s verysi mi lar to that of the latter one.Thus we may assume that the two i nscri pti ons are contemporaneous. Evi dently, thi s assumpti on can be strengthened by the fact that bays 29-31,i ncludi ng the i nner porch of B«b al-‘ Atm,are structurally and archi tecturally homogeneous.Here, the buttresses wi th slopi ng tops, bui lt agai nst the southern face of the pi ers,i s a Crusader techni que employed( accordi ngto Burgoyne)for the fi rst ti me i n Islami c archi tecture. Although the spaci ngbetween the pi ers of bays 32-35 under the F«ri si yya and the pi ers of bays 36 and 37 under al-ªlmali ki yya i s si mi lar to that of the former Ayyubi d bays,they project about 0. 70 m.from the ali gnment of the porti co andappear to have been rebui lt. However the pi er of bay38i s ali gnedwi th the Ayyubi d porti co and has a mean pi tch of exactly 4. 65 m.( Pl. 15. 5) .In conclusi on,the pi ers of bays 32-38mayhave been part of the Ayyubi d porti co but were rebui lt at some later date.

AYYUBID JERUSALEM :AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

PLATE 15.3:PIERS 28-31, INCLUDING BƖB AL-‘ATM

PLATE 15.1:GENERAL VIEW OFPORTICO W ITH BƖB AL‘ATM ON THE LEFT, LOOKING NORTH-EAST

PLATE 15.4:INSCRIPTION ON PIER 31

PLATE 15.2:INSCRIPTION ON PIER 29

PLATE 15.5:EXTENSION OFPORTICO W EST OFBƖB AL‘ATM

136

CATALOGUE OF AYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM

16 B«b al-‘Atm

the south by the ®aram esplanade and from the west by the Am»niyya Madrasa.

ϢΘόϟ΍ ΏΎΑ

III HISTORY

610/1213-14 Other names: B«b al-H«shimiyy»n (“Gate of the Hashimites”) – the Early Islamic Period; B«b Sharaf alAnbiy«’ (“Gate of the Glory of the Prophets”) – Ayyubid and early Mamluk Periods; B«b al-Daw«d«riyya (“Gate of the Daw«d«riyya”) – the later Mamluk Period; B«b Fay· al (1930); Kenyon’s Gate (suggested by Michael Burgoyne, 1992).

IDENTIFICATION Al-‘Umar» (ca. 745/1345), in his topographical description of the north portico of the ®aram and its gates, says: “... Abutting on this portico is a gate known as B«b Saraf al-Anbiy«’, eight dhir«‘ long and four dhir«‘ wide. In front of the latter is a walkway similar to the one mentioned above (i.e. paved with flagstones). Abutting this gate is a vaulted portico... having eight piers ... Abutting this gate is a platform, with a water tank” (al-‘Umar», 158; Burgoyne 1987, 104).

I LOCATION (Fig. 16.1) In the North Portico built against the north wall of the ®aram; north-west of Qubbat Sulaym«n; at the south end of ²ar»q B«b al-‘Atm leading into the ®aram.

Muj»r al-D»n (ca. 901/1496), focusing on the history of the north border of the ®aram and its gates, states: ...The portico extending from B«b al-Daw«d«riyya [B«b al-‘Atm] to the west end supports five madrasas. Part of it – that is under the Am»niyya Madrasa and F«risiyya Madrasa – was ancient. It was later reconstructed in the reign of alMu‘aam ‘ºs« in the year 610 [1213-14] (Muj»r, 375; Burgoyne 1987, 105). The present B«b al-‘Atm has been rebuilt on the site of an earlier gateway, probably dating to the Umayyad period. Gates leading into the ®aram area were subsequently mentioned by various geographers and chroniclers during the fourth/tenth and fifth/eleventh centuries. The names used by earlier sources differ from those used by later ones, thus creating difficulties in their identification.

FIG. 16.1 LOCATION PLAN

By analysing the order of the gates listed by Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi (300/913), al-Muqaddas» (ca. 375/985) and N«· ir-» Khusraw (438/1047), Le Strange identifies the Gates of the Hashimites (Abw«b al-H«shimiyy»n) as the present B«b al-‘Atm (1889, 106). Likewise, Burgoyne, relying as well on the architectural evidence, confirms Le Strange’s identification of the Hashimite Gates with the present day B«b al-‘Atm (1987, 119-122).

II SITE AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION

DATE AND FOUNDER

The present B«b al-‘Atm (“Gate of Darkness”), otherwise called B«b Fay· al, is the westernmost gate in the north wall of the ®aram. It is entered through the impressive but somewhat dark vaulted street of ²ar»q B«b al-‘Atm, which is flanked by three Mamluk foundations: the Am»niyya Madrasa from the west and the Sal«miyya Madrasa and the Dawayd«riyya Kh«nq«h from the east. It consists of an outer and an inner porch, each one bay deep. The inner porch is incorporated into the North Portico. It is bounded from the north by the ²ar»q B«b al‘Atm, from the east by the Dawayd«riyya Kh«nq«h, from

High in the wall, on the west pier of the inner porch of the gateway, an inscription states that the portico – of which B«b al-‘Atm is an integral part – was renewed in 610/1213-14, under the government of ‘Izz al-D»n ‘Umar ibn Yaghmur, during the reign of al-Malik al-Mu‘aam ‘ºs« (see North Portico no. 15; van Berchem 1927, no. 162, 82-84, pl. XXXVI). SUBSEQUENT HISTORY It is not clear when the gate received its popular name as B«b al-‘Atm. But we may assume that it was in the late 137

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY The doorway, which is set within a recess, has a semicircular arch, 45 degree chamfering and a segmental inner arch above. The modern wooden door itself, measuring 5.20 m. high and 3.20 m. wide, has a small door which leads into the ®aram.

Ottoman period when the street leading to it from the north was increasingly covered with vaults and consequently became gloomy. An inscription on the east pier of the inner porch of the gateway commemorates the fact that the Supreme Islamic Council named the gate after King Fay·al of Syria, and later of Iraq, for his contribution to the restoration of the Aq·« Mosque, in the year 1352/1930.

INNER PORCH (Figs 16.2, 16.3, 16.4) The doorway, which internally echoes the semicircular arch, the chamfering and the segmental inner arch, is set within an inner porch 1.60 m. deep (Pl. 16.2). The inner bay, which has been incorporated into the north portico, measures 5.75 m. long and 3.34 m. wide. It is covered with a cross-vault 6.20 m. high; its west and east sides between the north ®aram wall and the piers are blocked with later infill dividing walls, built with small limestone masonry, to provide classrooms for the ®aram al-Shar»f Elementary boys school (Fig. 16.2).

A triple gate at B«b al-‘Atm (see below) was discovered by Michael Burgoyne in 1976 who proposed calling it by the name of “Kenyon’s Gate” as a tribute to the late Dame Kathleen Kenyon who initiated the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem’s survey of Islamic buildings in the Old City (Burgoyne 1992, 137, n. 27). IV ARCHITECTURE

The west wall is pierced by a door (1.78 X 1.04 m.) and a small window above it, both leading into a room occupying the bay west of the porch (Pl. 16.3). The east wall, which is plastered and pierced by a small high window, looks into a classroom of the same school occupying the bay east of the porch. Along this wall, there is low bench 3.82 m. long, 42 cm. wide and 22 cm. high.

OUTER PORCH (Figs 16.2, 16.3) The dark street of ²ar»q B«b al-‘Atm leads directly to the outer porch of the gateway which consists of a single cross-vaulted bay (Pl. 16.1). There are two benches along its west and east walls. The frontal arch is pointed and comprises thirteen voussoirs.

On the west face of the east pier of the porch, at a height of 2.53 m., there is a plaque with an inscription, measuring 1.32 m. long and 99 cm. wide. It was put there in 1930 by the Supreme Islamic Council, who named the gateway after King Fay·al (Pl. 16.4). The frontal arch, which consists of nineteen voussoirs, is pointed and rises to 5.45 m.; its springers begin to rise at a height of 3.80 m. On the west pier of the porch facing south, at a height of 4.52 m., there is a marble slab with a dedication inscription written in Ayyubid naskh»script (see North Portico, Catalogue No. 15, pl. 15.4). This pier is abutted by another pier facing east and projects 1.15 m. into the ®aram. FIG. 16.2 GROUND PLAN (COURTESY OF BURGOYNE 1987)

FIG. 16.4 ELEVATION OF HҏARAM FAÇADE (COURTESY OF BURGOYNE 1987)

FIG. 16.3 SECTION NORTH-SOUTH (COURTESY OF BURGOYNE 1987) 138

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM The two bays to the east, which have similar frontal arches, were also blockedby infill walls andpiercedby windows anddoors to provide classrooms for the school ( Pl.16. 5) .The mean pitch of these two bays is about 4. 65 m.similar to that of the bay of the inner porch, which is identical to that of the Ayyubidpart of the north portico extending to the west ( see North Portico no. 15; Burgoyne 1987, 107)

Duringthe survey of the Dawayd«riyya Kh«nq«h in 1976, Burgoyne notedthat the two westernmost windows in the ®aram frontage of the kh«nq«h open into infill walls blockingtwo roundheadedarchways identical in form to the archway of the present B«b al‘ Atm ( 1987, 156, fig. 8. 3, pl.8. 1) .He believes that all three archways were originally open, forminga triple gateway into the ®aram, built probably in the Umayyadperiod( Burgoyne 1987, 156;1992, 113, fig.14) .

PLATE 16.1:OUTER PORCH OFGATEW AY FROM TARƮQ BƖB AL ‘ATM PLATE 16.2:INNER PORCH OFGATEW AY LOOKING SOUTH

139

AYYUBID JERUSALEM :AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

AL’SINSCRIPTION PLATE 16.4: KING FAYSҖ

5:BƖB AL ‘ATM AND TW O ADJOINING BAYS, PLATE 16. VIEW FROM Hҏ ARAM LOOKING NORTH

PLATE 16.3: WEST WALL OFINNER PORCH OFGATEWAY

140

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM

17 Madr as aal Badr i yya

ΔϳέΪΒϟ΍ Endowedi n610/ 121314 Madr as aofBadral D» nMu¯ammadal Hakk«r » Moder nname:D«ral M«n» I. LOCATION ( Fi g. 17.1) TheBadr i yyamadrasa i sl ocat edi nt hemedi evalquar t er Khu³ ³Mar zub«ni nt hecent r eoft heOl dCi t y, ont hewes t s i de of ²ar » q al Qi r am» j us t nor t h of t he Maml uk Lu’ l u’ i yyaMadr as a.

FIG.17. 2 GROUND PLAN

FOUNDERAND DATE A pl aquewi t hani ns cr i pt i onabovet heent r ancer eadsas f ol l ows :

FIG.17. 1 LOCATION PLAN

II. SITE AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION ( Fi g. 17.2) A pl ai nent r ancel eadst hr oughavaul t edcor r i dori nt oan opencour t yar dwi t hat ombi ni t ss out hwes t er ncor ner . Thecour t yar di ss ur r oundedbyas er i esofchamber s , of whi cht heoneont hes out hi sl ar geandcont ai nsami ¯r«b i nt he qi bl a wal l . A s t ai r cas ei nt he eas ts i de oft he cour t yar dl eadsupt ot hef i r s tandt heupperf l oor s , whi ch s eem t odat et ot heOt t omanper i odorl at er . III. HISTORY I DENTI FI CATI ON Muj » ral D» ni dent i f i edt heBadr i yyaMadr as aass i t uat ed “i nKhu³ ³Mar zub«nneart heLu’ l u’ i yyaandt heZ«wi ya oft heshaykhMu¯ammadal Qi r am»”( Muj » r , II, 47) . 141

ϩάϫ ΄θϧ΃ .2 ϢϴΣήϟ΍ ϦϤΣήϟ΍ Ϳ΍ ϢδΑ .1 ϡΎϣϻ΍ .3 ΏΎΤλ΃ ϰϠϋ ΔϛέΎΒϤϟ΍ ΔγέΪϤϟ΍ ήϴΒϜϟ΍ ήϴϣϷ΍ ϰϟϮϤϟ΍ ϪϨϋ Ϳ΍ ϲοέ ϲόϓΎθϟ΍ ΪϤΤϣ ϦϳΪϟ΍ έΪΑ ΪϴϬη[˰ϟ΍] ΪϫΎΠϤϟ΍ .4 ϱίΎϐϟ΍ ϞΒϘΗϭ .5 Ϳ΍ ϪϤΣέ ϱέΎϜϬϟ΍ ϢγΎϘϟ΍ ϲΑ΃ ϦΑ ϞόΟϭ Δ΋ΎϤΘγϭ Γήθϋ ΔϨγ έϮϫ[˰η ϲϓ ϪϨϣ ] ϢϫήΜϛ ϩΩϻϭ΃ Ϧϣ [....] ϭ ΪηέϷ΍ ϰϟ· Ύϫήψϧ ϢϬΒϧΫϭ ΍έϮϜθϣ .7 ϢϬϴόγ ϞόΟϭ ϰϟΎόΗ Ϳ΍ . ϪϴϠϋ ϢΣήΗ ϦϤϟϭ Ϳ΍ ϪϤΣέϭ (΍έ)Ϯϔϐϣ In t he name of God, t he Compas s i onat e, t he Mer ci f ul . Thi sbl es s ed madrasa wascons t r uct ed f ort hedi s ci pl esoft hei m«m al Sh«f i ‘ »–mayGod becont entwi t hhi m –byt hel or d, t hegr eatam» r, t he war r i or , t he her o( ofhol y war ) , t he mar t yr Badral D» nMu¯ammad, s onofAb‡’ l Q«s i m al Hakk«r »–mayGodgr anthi m mer cyandaccept f r om hi m( t hi spi ouswor k) ,i nt hemont hsoft he year 610 [ 121314] . And he appoi nt ed as i t s

AYYUBID JERUSALEM:AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY added during the Ottoman period and even more recently, as the masonry and the style of architecture show. The street frontage of the lowest storey is mostly obscured by a later barrel vault spanning the street (Pl. 17.1). There are three excisions in this vault;one clears the plain and diminutive entrance doorway, the principal feature at the southern side of the frontage (Pl. 17.2);another a later doorway at the north side which gives access to a staircase leading up to the middle storey. The doorway (1.72 m. high and 1.15m. wide) has a pointed arch and is surmounted by a foundation inscription (Pl. 17.3). The inscription plaque (0.52 m. by 0.46 m.) stands immediately above the keystone of the arch.

attendant to the most straight and [...] of his sons – may God multiply them [...] and recompense their zeal and pardon their sin!... (van Berchem 1922, 125;RCEA, X, 80-81, no. 3716). If we continue with Muj»r al-D»n, he states that the Badriyya Madrasa “was endowed by Badr al-D»n Mu¯ammad, son of Ab‡’l-Q«sim al-Hakk«r», one of alMalik al-Mu‘aam’s princes. He endowed it in the year 610 (/1213-14), for the Sh«fi‘» learned (fuqah«’). He aspired to be martyred – and God granted him martyrdom – in the (Jordan) valley, near Nablus, in the year 614 (/1217). And he was brought to his mausoleum (t urba) in Jerusalem” (van Berchem 1922, 125-126).

INTERIOR (Fig. 17.2) The entrance doorway opens into a long passage (12.75 m. long, 2.30 m. wide and 2.60 m. high) covered with a barrel vault (Pl. 17.4). On each side of the passage are blocked archways;two on the south side correspond to chambers now reached through a different entrance from the street;one on the north side corresponds to a chamber reached from an entrance on the north end of the frontage.

The am»r Badr al-D»n al-Hakk«r» is named after the Hakk«r»yya, a Kurdish tribe who joined ¶al«¯ al-D»n and the Ayyubids in the struggle against the Franks. Part of the tribe eventually settled in J erusalem after 583/1187, and some members of the tribe were slain and buried there (between 587/1191 and 614/1217-18), as several inscriptions found in the city testify (van Berchem 1922, 128and no. 142;van Berchem 1927, 299-301;Burgoyne and Abul-Haj 1979, 199). He was an Ayyubid prince in the service of al-Malik al-Mu‘aam ‘º s« who fought against the Franks and was killed either in the J ordan valley near Nablus (Muj»r, II, 47) or in the fortress at Mount Tabor (Ibn Taghribard», VI, 221;Sib³ ibn alJ awz», VIII, 575;Ibn Kath»r, XIII, 78). As a learned man (‘ all«ma), he participated in the discussion circles of Sib³ ibn al-J awz»,, which were also attended by al-Mu‘aam ‘º s« himself (Ibn Kath»r, XIII, 18).

At a right angle at the west end of the passage a doorway leads northward into a courtyard (9.65m. by 7.20 m.). It is open to the sky and paved with flagstones, each 0.60 m. by 0.35m on average, which seem to be original (Pl. 17.5). The courtyard is traditionally surrounded by a series of small cells on the east, west and north side, all entered by doorways from the courtyard (Pl. 17.6). At the south-western corner of the courtyard is a stone tomb with rounded top, 2.05m. long, 1.10 m. wide and 0.85m. high, which is enclosed by two low walls on the east and north sides, 3.35 m. by 1.80 m. (Pl. 17.7). A plain bulbous knob stands on its western end. Presumably, it marks the grave of the founder (Pl. 17.8).

IV. ARCHITECTURE STREET FRONTAGE (Fig. 17.3)

On the south side is a large room which is entered by a doorway (1.95m. by 1.30 m.) surmounted by a rounded arch. The room (8m. by 6.75m.) is covered by a crossvault and has a mi¯r«b (2.10 m. high, 1.40 m. wide and 0.90 m. deep) in its qibla wall (Pl. 17.9). Its dimensions and location suggest this room may have served as an assembly hall or a prayer hall for the madrasa. A cell (4.75 m. by 3 m.) on the western side of the courtyard is covered by a barrel vault and has also a mi¯r«b. The other cells on the north and east sides of the courtyard are almost similar in size and construction; each measuring about 3.50 m. by 3 m. on average and covered either by barrel or cross vaults (see plan, Fig. 17.2). The cell on the east side of the courtyard has a filled-in archway which is surmounted by another similar archway (see Pl. 17.5).

FIG. 17.3 STREET FRONTAGE

A stairway against the east wall of the courtyard rises to the second storey of the madrasa. (Pl. 17.5). This storey is mostly dilapidated and overlaid with debris. The present room on the right-hand side of the stairway is not

The present street frontage is three storeys high, but only the lowest storey belongs to the original Ayyubid phase of the building. The middle and the upper storeys were 142

CAT AL O G U E O F AY Y U BID BU IL D IN G S IN JE R U SAL E M

original; its west-facing double window and the quality of the stone dressing are typically from the Ottoman period. Likewise the room at the north-western side of the second storey,which is surmounted by a shallow dome,is dating

as well to the Ottoman period ( Pl.17. 10) .However,the third storey,which is only represented by one room over the street frontage,has a more recent date ( Fig.17. 3) .

PLATE 17.2: MAIN

E N T R AN CE W IT H T H E FO U N D AT IO N IN SCR IPT IO N ABO VE

PLATE 17.1: VAU L T E D

ST R E E T FR O N T AG E

PLATE 17.3: IN SCR IPT IO N 143

AYYUBID JERUSALEM:AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

PLATE 17.7: TOMB IN THE SOUTH-WEST CORNER OF COURTYARD AND DOORWAY INTO AN ASSEMBLY OR PRAYER HALL

PLATE 17.4: VAULTED PASSAGE, LOOK ING WEST

PLATE 17.5: COURTYARD LOOK ING SOUTH-EAST

PLATE 17.8: TOMB AND REMAINS OF ARCHWAY IN WEST WALL OF COURTYARD

PLATE 17.6: CHAMBERS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF COURTYARD, LOOK ING NORTH-WEST 144

CATALOGUE OF AYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM

RƖB IN ASSEMBLY OR PRAYER HALL PLATE 17.9: MIH̚

PLATE 17.10: CHAMBER ON UPPER FLOOR

145

AYYUBID JERUSALEM :AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

by cel l sanda highanddeep» w«nont hef our t h,nor t h s ide. An openair s mal l cemet er y wit hf ive t ombs occupies t he s out hwes tpar tof t he madrasa and is ent er edby a door way f r om t heent r anceves t ibul e. Int he sout h( qi bl a)wal loft hecemet er y,att hel eveloft hef ir s t f l oor ,isa f r ees t anding mi ¯r«b,t he onl y ves t ige ofa mos quehal lonanupperf l oor .

18 Madr as aal Mu‘ aami yya

ΔϴϤψόϤϟ΍ Endowedi n606/ 120910;compl et edi n614/ 121718 Madrasa ofal Mal i kal Mu‘ aam ‘ º s « Ot hernames :al ®anaf i yya,Mas j i dal Muj «hi d» n Moder nName:D«ral ‘ Aj l ‡n» I. LOCATION ( Fi g. 18.1;Pl . 18.1) Thecompl exoft heMu‘ aamiyya Madrasa isl ocat edon t henor t hs ideoft he²ar » qal Muj «hid» n( “St r eetoft he Fight er s ofHol y War ”) ,named al s o ²ar » q B«b Sit t » Mar yam ( “St r eetoft heGat eoft heLady Mar y”)ont he Via Dol or os a;oppos it et heent r ancet ot hecover ed²ar » q B«bal ‘ At m( “St r eetoft heGat eofDar knes s ”) ,named al s o B«b al Mal ik Fay· aland B«b Shar afal Anbiy«’ ( “t heGat eoft heGl or y oft hePr ophet s ”) .

As er iesofcel l st ot heeas toft hecor r idorbel ongst ot he or iginal s t r uct ur e,but t oday t heir dir ectl ink t ot he cor r idorandmaincour t yar disbl ocked. Att hes out hand nor t h s ides of t hes e cel l s ar e moder n r es ident ial ext ens ions . A s t air cas ef r om t heves t ibul el eadst ot he upperf l oor ,whichcons is t sofmoder ns t r uct ur esont he eas ts ideoft hebuil dingandol dr ooms ,whichappeart o beOt t oman,ont hewes ts ide. Thewal loft hes t r eetf r ont ageont henor t hs ideof²ar » q al Muj «hid» n isbuil twit hl ar ger us t icat ed s t onesin it s l owerpar tands mal las hl ars t onesinit supperpar t . Itis pier cedby a gr il l edwindow s etwit hina bl ockedar chway openingont hecemet er y. Att hepointwher et hes t r eet f r ont ager et ur nst ot henor t h,t her es t andst hes quar es t one t owerofa minar et . III. HISTORY I DENTI FI CATI ON Thebuil dingiscl ear l y ident if iedinl it er ar ys our cesand by t heexcel l ent l y pr es er vedf oundat ionins cr ipt ion. Muj » r al D» nment ionst hemadrasa t wice,givingit st wonames : “... The®anaf iyya Madrasa neart hegat eoft heAq· « Mos que,knownt oday asB«bal Duwayd«r iyya, ”( Muj » r , I,405) ;“...t he Mu‘ aamiyya Madrasa... oppos it et he Gat eoft heGl or y oft hePr ophet s ,knownast heGat eof t he Duwayd«r iyya, ”( Muj » r , II, 42) . The f oundat ion ins cr ipt ion iss it uat ed in a moul ded f r ame in t he eas t ( r ight hand)s pandr eloft hef r ont alar choft he» w«n. It ident if iest hisbuil dingast heMadrasa ofal Mu‘ aam ‘ º s «( s eebel ow) . DATEAND ENDOWMENT

1 LOCATION PLAN FIG.18.

Accor ding t ot heins cr ipt ion,t heor derf orcons t r uct ing t hisins t it ut ionisdat edt ot heyear614/ 121718,whichis t heyearofcompl et ion.

II. SITE AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION Theor iginalmadrasa haspar t ial l y s ur vived,andmany par t sar edat ed t ot heOt t oman and l at erper iods . Itis boundedby ²ar » qal Muj «hid» nt ot hes out h,a cl us t erof ol dandmoder nhous est ot henor t h,a moder npar kwit ha chil dr en’ spl aygr oundt ot heeas tandr es ident ialhous est o t hewes t .

Thet extoft heins cr ipt ionisasf ol l ows :

Acces st ot hes t r uct ur eisby a moder nent r ancedoorf r om t hes t r eet²ar » qal Muj «hid» n. Thedoor way l eadsint oa s mal lves t ibul e,f r om whicha l ongandnar r ow cor r idor ext endsnor t hwar dandt ur nswes twit ha r ight angl eint o anopencour t yar d. Thel at t eriss ur r oundedont hr ees ides

146

ϥ΃ Ϳ΍ ϥΫ΃ ΕϮϴΑ ϲϓ ϢϴΣήϟ΍ ϦϤΣήϟ΍ Ϳ΍ ϢδΑ . 1 ϭΪ˲˲ϐϟΎΑΎϬϴϓ Ϫϟ ΢˷Βδ˲ϳϪϤγ΍ ΎϬϴϓ ήϛά˲ϳϭϊ˴ϓή˲Η Ϧϋ ϊϴΑ ϻϭ ΓέΎΠΗ ϢϬϴϬϠ˲Ηϻ ϝΎΟέ ϝΎλϷ΍ϭ ϥϮϓΎΨϳ ΓΎϛΰϟ΍ ˯ΎΘϳ·ϭ Ε΍ϮϠμϟ΍ ϡΎϗ·ϭ Ϳ΍ ήϛΫ ϥ΁ήϘϟ΍ )έΎμΑϷ΍ϭ ΏϮϠϘϟ΍ Ϫϴϓ ΐ˷ϠϘΘΗ˱ΎϣϮϳ ήϣ΃ . 2 (37-36Δϳ΁ ˬέϮϨϟ΍ ΓέϮγ ˬϢϳήϜϟ΍ . 3 [. . .Ϣ˷χ]˰όϤϟ΍ ϚϠϤϟ΍ ϥΎτϠδϟ΍ ΎϧϻϮϣ ϪϠϤόΑ ϲΑ΃ ϦΑ ϰδϴϋ Ϣ΋΍ΰόϟ΍ ϮΑ΃ ϦϳΪϟ΍ϭ ΎϴϧΪϟ΍ ϑήη

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM at that time, he became a ¯anaf »,unlike other members of the Ayyubid family who followed the Shaf i‘ » school (Ibn Taghribard», IV, 267, 313). He was also taught literature, linguistics and grammar (na¯w) by a great scholar, T«j alD»n al-Kind» (d. 613/1216) (Ibn Taghribard», IV, 216217, 267; Ibn al-‘Im«d, 100-101). His deep interest in religious studies and linguistic learning is reflected in the writing of various books, including poetry (Sib³ , VIII, 425; Ibn Taghribard», IV, 368-369; Ibn al-‘Im«d, 201202; Dahman 1982, 94-103).

˯ΎϬϘϔϟ΍ ϰϠϋ ΔγέΪϤϟ΍ ϩάϬϟ ϒϗ΍Ϯϟ΍ ΏϮ˷ϳ΃ϦΑ ήϜΑ [... ΔϔϴϨΣ ϲΑ]΃ ϡΎϣϹ΍ ΏΎΤλ΃ Ϧϣ ΔϬ˷ϘϔΘϤϟ΍ϭ έϮϬη ϲϓ ϚϟΫϭ ϩΎοέ΃ϭ ϪϨϋ Ϳ΍ ϲοέ .4 Ϟ˷ΒϘΗΔϳϮΒϨϟ΍ ΓήΠϬϠϟ Δ΋ΎϤ˷ΘγϭΓήθϋ ϊΑέ΃ ΔϨγ ΪϤΤϣ ΎϧΪ˷ϴγϰϠϋ] Ϳ΍ ϰ˷ϠλϭϪϟ ήϔϏϭ ϪϨϣ Ϳ΍ [?ΎϤϴϠδΗ Ϫϟ΁ϭ “In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. (Qur’«n, XXIV, 36-37). There ordered its construction our Lord the Sultan alMalik al-Mu‘aam Sharaf al-Duny« wa’l-D»n Ab‡’l-‘Az«’im ‘ºs« b. Ab» Bakr b. Ayy‡b; who endowed this madrasa in favour of the schoolmasters (f uqah«’ ) and students of law (mut af aqiha), the disciples of the greatest im«m Ab‡ ®an»fa, (may God be gracious to him and be content with him), in the months of the year six hundred and fourteen from the Hijra of the Prophet, may God accept [ this work]from him and pardon him and may God pray upon our Lord Mu¯ammad and his family” (van Berchem 1927, 170-171; RCEA, X, 1939, no. 3801).

His reign began in 601/1204 and lasted until his death in 624/1226. He undertook a large number of religious, public and military construction projects in his domain. In Damascus, he was responsible for erecting the great Sh«f i‘ » madrasa,known as the ‘ªdiliyya. In J erusalem at least ten inscriptions bearing his name survive, a clear indication of his architectural projects in the city. At a certain time in his reign, perhaps in 623/1225, he chose to reside in J erusalem (Ibn W«·il, IV, 213). When living in J erusalem he is said to have dressed as a f aq»r and to have adopted an ascetic way of life. Ibn W«·il reported having seen al-Mu‘aam in 623/1225 at the Aq·« Mosque, with men, women and children pushing to be near him without anyone to protect him (Ibn W«·il, IV, 210).

Muj»r al-D»n claims that he had seen the endowment (waqf iyya) document of the madrasa which was made on 29J um«da I in 660/1261-62. He adds that the waqf iyya “...contains many villages, part of which became as private property in the hands of people” (Muj»r II, 42). Al-` Asal», however, quotes from a Sij ill document that the date of the endowment is 606/1209-10 (1981, 275, Sij ill no. 522, 29). According to this endowment, the properties whose revenues supported the madrasa included six villages in the J erusalem area: Ba³ ³ »r, ‘All«r al-Fawq«, ‘All«r al-Sufl«, Mazra‘at al-Sal«m, al-R«m and a village with an unclear name (Sij ill no. 522, 29).

Al-Mu‘aam died with dysentery in the citadel of Damascus in Dhu’l Qi‘da 624/1226, when he was fortyseven years old (Ibn W«·il, IV, 208). According to Ibn W«·il, he was buried along with his mother, in his madrasa the Mu‘aamiyya in the western part of the ¶al«¯iyya quarter, at the foot of Q«sy‡n mountain (Ibn W«·il, IV, 219). But he was reported to have been buried outside B«b al-Na·r in the Shams al-Dawla Madrasa (Ibn Taghribard», IV, 268). He had three sons: al-N«·ir D«w‡d, al-Mugh»th ‘Abd al-‘Az»zand al-Q«hir ‘Abd alMalik, and three daughters (Ibn Taghribard», IV, 268). SUBSEQUENT HISTORY

Thus it is possible to assume that there were two separate endowment documents, one found in the sij ill of the Ottoman Shar‘» Court in J erusalem, the other seen by Muj»r al-D»n. While the earlier date (606/1209-1210) may correspond to the beginning of the construction work or soon after, the inscription date (614/1217-1218) may refer to the completion of the work. Finally, the date (660/1261-62) mentioned by Muj»r al-D»n could probably be when the endowment was augmented.

TheMamlukPeriod An inscription on the south face of the minaret records that it was constructed by al-Malik al-Q«hir, alMu‘aam ‘ºs«’s son, who served as the administrator of the Mu‘aamiyya Madrasa, in 673/1274-75 (van Berchem 1922, 173-76; Muj»r, I, 400; Burgoyne 1987, 127). It is quite possible that the post of administrator was given to the founder’s descendants as stated in the building’s endowment (Burgoyne 1987, 127). The mi¯r«b, which still survives in the inner south wall of the cemetery, and a mosque associated with it on the first floor, which no longer exists, were probably built at the same time as the minaret. In the centre of the cemetery, one of the five tombs (see below, Tomb 1) bears an Arabic inscription on its stone. The inscription, which consists of three lines of Mamluk naskh» script, reads:

FOUNDER The founder al-Malik al-Mu‘aam Sharaf al-Duny« wa’l-D»n Ab‡’l-‘Az«’im ‘ºs« was the son of Sultan al‘ªdil and a nephew of ¶al«¯ al-D»n, who became governor of the province of Damascus and later the independent ruler of southern Syria and Palestine (Humphreys 1977, 58). It is here unnecessary to give anything but a short notice of his life and long reign. He was born in Cairo in 567/1180 but grew up in Syria (Ibn Taghribard», IV, 267). Having been taught f iqhby J am«l al-D»n al-®a·r», the shaykhof the ®anaf » madhhab (rite)

This is the tomb of the poor slave of the Mighty God, the Q«±» Shams al-D»n al-®amaw», the inspector of the Two Noble Sanctuaries, in alQuds al-Shar»f and the town of our Master al147

AYYUBID JERUSALEM:AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY Khal»l (Hebron), peace be upon him (van Berchem 1922, 177, no. 57;al‘ Asal» 1981b, 3233). According t o Muj »r alD»n, t he Q«±» Shams alD»n Mu¯ammadb. al¶al«¯al-®amaw» alSh«f i‘ » wasborn in 808/ 1405. He workedin t he s t at e adminis t rat ion in Egypt andduringSult an al§«hir J aqmaq’ sreign wasappoint ed as s uperint endent (n«i r ) of t he t wo s anct uaries in J erus alem and Hebron in 852/ 1448. Buthe died in t he f ollowing year and was buried in t he Mu‘ aamiyya Madr as a(Muj »r, II, 277278).

undoubt edly have obscured it s original layout and appearance, we conduct eda s urveyoft he main partof 31 ent ion was t o carry out an t he s t ruct ure. Our int archit ect ural s t udy and t o clarif yt he s equence of cons t ruct ion. Itappearst hatt here are no les st han t hree dif f erentphas esofcons t ruct ion in t he pres entbuilding. Oft hes e, t he f irs tisAyyubid, t he s econdisMamlukand t he t hirdisOt t oman.

As t he Mu‘ aamiyya Madras a s pecialized in ®anaf » f i qh, f amous®anaf » t eachers(s haykhs ) were as s ociat ed wit h it . Duringt he s econdhalfoft he eight h/ f ourt eent h cent uryandt he nint h/ f if t eent h cent ury, t he Mu‘ amiyya was , accordingt o Muj »ralD»n, a s inecure f or members oft he Dayr» f amily, who lat er adopt edt he name Kh«lid» . Among t hem we f ind t he f ollowing: Shams alD»n Mu¯ammad b. J am«l alD»n alDayr» (born about 730/ 1350) (Muj »r, II, 221);ShamsalD»n Mu¯ammadb. ‘ Abdall«h b. Sa‘ dalDayr» (770/ 1368849/ 1445) (Muj »r, II, 224);Sa‘ dalD»n b. Mu¯ammadb. ‘ Abdall«h alDayr» (768/ 1366867/ 1462) (Muj »r, II, 227);Am»n alD»n ‘ Abd alRa¯m«n b. Shams alD»n alDayr» (817/ 1414856/ 1452) (Muj »r, II, 225);T«jalD»n Sa‘ db. ShamsalD»n alDayr» (795/ 1392-892/ 1486) (Muj »r, II, 239). TheOt t oman Per i od The Mu‘ aamiyya Madr as a appearsf requent ly in t he Ot t oman Courtregis t ers(Si j i l l ), which of t en ref er t ot he names of various ins pect ors (n«i r ) and t eachers (s haykhs ) oft he madrasa.One document , dat ing t o 8 J um«da I 947/ 1540, ref erst o a cert ain res t orat ion work done t o ruinouspart soft he upper f loor oft he building, under t he s upervis ion oft he of f icial Ot t oman archit ect Badr alD»n b. Nimr and t he ins pect or oft he madr as a (ment ionedhere ast he ®anaf iyya) t he s haykhShamsalD»n Mu¯ammad b. alLu³ uf (Si j i l l 1, 759). Among ins pect ors , who now belong t o t he J «rall«h f amily, we f indt he f ollowing:Ab‡’ lLu³ ufb. Is¯«qb. Ab‡alLu³ uf , who was t he ins pect or of t he Mu‘ aamiyya in 1056/ 1646 (al‘ Asal» 1981a, 280, Si j i l l136, 344);‘ Al» J «rall«h af t er hisdeat ht he pos twasdividedint of ourt hs ands haredbet ween hisf our s ons(al‘ As al» 1981a, 280, Si j i l l240, 34);and J «rall«h alLu³ f », who was bot h ins pect or andt eacher in 1175/ 1761(al‘ As al» 1981a, 280; alArif1961, 248). The village ofBa³ ³ »r, accordingt ot wo Si j i l ldocument s dat ing f rom t he t ent h and elevent h/ s event eent h andeight eent h cent uries , wass t ill includedin t he endowment(waqf ) oft he Mu‘ aam.

ZҖ AMIYYA (AFTER FIG. 18.2 SKETCH PLAN OFTHE MU‘AZҖ BERCHEM 1922)

Van Berchem, who visit edt he sit e in 1914, st at edt hatt he Mu‘ aamiyya Madras a wascalledMas j idalMuj «hid»n, which enclos ed a cemet ery wit h t he s ame name: MaqbaratalMuj «hid»n and alSib«³ iyya, af t er B«b alAs b«³ , att he nort heas tcorner oft he ®aram alShar»f (1922, 168). His des cript ion was accompanied by a s ket ch plan (van Berchem 1922, 169, f ig. 27;s ee f ig. 18.2), butunf ort unat elywit houtt akinganyphot ographs oft he int erior. Van Berchem wrot e: Acces st ot he s urvivings t ruct ure isbyt he narrow andlow door P(f ig. 27), which openst ot he s t reet byt he s ide oft he MinaretM, andleadsint o an openair ves t ibule V. On t he lef t , a door P’leads t o an enclos ure E, enclos inga cemet ery... which islitbya grilledwindow F, underneat ht he vault oft he s t reett o t he s out h. Att he back oft he ves t ibule, t ot he lef t ,af lightofs t airsas cendst o t he f irs tf loor oft he madr as a, andt ot he righta longvault edcorridor beginsandleadst ot he door P’ ’ , which opens at a right angle int o t he court yard C oft he madr as a. This court yard is borderedon t he nort h bya great» w«n L, which is

IV. ARCHITECTURE The f oundat ion ins cript ion and t he lit erary s ources (dis cus s ed above), which make t he locat ion and ident if icat ion oft he Mu‘ aamiyya clear, do notgive precis e det ailsoft he int ernal layoutoft he building. For t hisreas on anddue t ot he recents t ruct ural modif icat ions and changes in t he s it e by recentoccupant s , which

31

The archit ect ural s urveyandt he product ion ofdrawingswere carried outwit ht he kindas s is t ance oft he Medieval andOt t oman Surveyoft he Brit is h School ofArchaeologyin J erus alem, in J uly1994.

148

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM

vaul t ingovert hes t r eetf r om t hes econdl eveloft hes out h s ide,appeart obeOt t oman.

roofed by a pointed barrel vault; the head of the arch T of the barrel vault facingthe courtyard is reinforced by a trans vers e rib D and crowned by a mouldingM with a s trongprofile.All the vis ible partsare of medium s ize as hlar s tones ; the vault of the »w«n ismade of rubble s tones ”. He added that “the madr as acomprised without any doubt of principal south or qi bl a»w«n,facingthe other one and enclos ing a qi bl a niche”,but no trace of s uch an »w«n exis ts( s ee below) . He concluded that “thislayout dis appeared,together with itsadj oinings tructuresof the madr as ain the poor hous es grouped around the courtyard today . . . ”( van Berchem 1922,169,fig.27) . As we s hall s ee below, des pite mis takes and dis crepancies ,van Berchem’ ss ketch plan givesa clear impression of the layout which would be much obscured by later expans ionsand alterations .I t als os howsthat by then,partsof the Mu‘ aamiyya Madrasa wer eal r eady negl ect edorina r uinouss t at e. Thel at es tphas eint hear chit ect ur alevol ut ionoft hes it e occur r eddur ingt hel as tf ew decades .Toexpandl iving s pace,t hepr es entr es ident smadechangeswhichincl uded t hedes t r uct ionofs omes t r uct ur esandt headdit ionofnew ones : a) The demol it ion of t he s t r eetf r ont age eas tof t he minar etwit ha s mal landar chedent r ancedoorwhich s t il l coul d be s een in l at e ninet eent h and ear l y t went iet h cent ur y phot ogr aphs ( Wil s on 1865,pl at e 29a;Mer r il l1908,89;Hanauer1926,219,pl .130; Bur goyne1987,127) .WhenvanBer chem vis it edt he s it ein 1914,itwasincl uded in hisdes cr ipt ion and mar kedasEinhiss ket chpl an( 1922,169,f ig.27) .I n it spl ace,a l ar gebl ockoff l at sands hopswaser ect ed ( Figs18.3,18. 16) . b)Thef il inginoft hear chway int hes out hwes tcor ner oft hecour t yar d,inf r ontoft hecel lmar kedS’invan Ber chem’ ss ket ch( Fig.18. 2) . c) The divis ion oft he nor t h» w«n int ol iving r ooms ar r anged on t wo l evel s .This divis ion incl ude t he ins er t ionofconcr et ebeamsint heinnerwal l soft he » w«n,t hecons t r uct ionofwal l sandt hecr eat ionofa l ar ge window in t he nor t heas tcor neroft he » w«n ( Figs18. 3, 18. 11) . d)Andmor er ecent l y,t headdit ionofa l ar ger oom att he l eveloft hef ir s tf l oor ,overt heeas t er n par toft he cemet er y,inor dert opr ovideext r al ivings pacef ort he adj acentf l att ot heeas t .Thisr es ul t edint heencl os ur e oft hemi ¯r«bint hes out hwal loft hecemet er y( Figs 18. 3,18. 11) . Thebr iefdes cr ipt ion which f ol l owsisr es t r ict ed t ot he Mu‘ aamiyya Madr as a al one.The s t r uct ur es on t he nor t handwes ts idesoft hecompl exappeart obeeit her Ot t oman ormoder n.Remainsofan el abor at ebuil ding,

FIG.18. 3 GROUND FLOOR PLAN

STREETFRONTAGE( Fig.18. 4) I nt he pr es entf r ont age,r is ing t hr ee s t or ieshigh,f our dif f er entt ypesofmas onr y have been us ed ( Pl s18. 2, 18. 3) .Thef ir s tisa l ar ger us t icat edorbos s edmas onr y in t hel owerpar toft hewal l( 8 cour s eshigh) .Numer ous s chol ar sandt r avel l er sbel ievedt hiss ect ionoft hewal l bel ongedt oa pr eI s l amics t r uct ur e.Tobl erandHanauer cl aimedt hatt hiswal lwaspar toft hecor nert oweroft he Her odian Ant onia ( Tobl er1853,I ,634636;Hanauer 1926,219220,pl .130) .DeSaul cy int er pr et edt hiswal l aspar toft hef uner ar y monumentofAl exanderJ annaeus ( 1882, 172173) . Mor e r ecent l y when Bur goyne des cr ibed t heminar etbuil tat op t hisl ar gemas onr y,he wasmor ecaut iousins pecif yingitas“ancientandmay be in s econdar y us e” ( 1987, 127) . Never t hel es s ,t his mas onr y iscommonel s ewher einandar oundJ er us al em dur ingt heCr usaderandAyyubidper iods,par t icul ar l y in f or t if icat ions .I t occur s al s o in r eus e in Maml uk s t r uct ur esinJ er us al em:t hes t r eetf r ont ageofRib«t‘ Al «’ al D» n,666/ 126768( Bur goyne1987,121122,pl .3. 1)

149

AY Y U B ID JER U SAL EM :AN AR C H IT EC T U R AL AND AR C H AEO L O G IC AL ST U D Y

and the lower part of the western entrance to S‡q alQa³ ³ «n» n,737/ 133637( Burgoyne 1987,279,pl.24. 3) .

The frontage ( about 18m.long)proj ects from the mai n street ali gnment i n two places:i t turns 1. 56 m.to the north at the base of the mi naret,correspondi ng to the ali gnment of the entrance,and i t turns to the north at i ts far east end 60cm.( see plan,Fi g.18.3) .As i t appears i n the earlyphotographs the rusti cated masonrywall and the mi naret abut the outer wall of the madr as a extendi ng eastwards whi ch no longer exi sts. I n the mi ddle of the street frontage a gri lled wi ndow ( measuri ng1. 74x1. 15m. )i s set i n a poi nted arch ( Fi g. 18. 4,Pl.18. 2) .The voussoi rs of the arch are made of dressed stones,i n contrast to the rest of the stonework.To the west of thi s arch,the remai ns of a smaller arch,now replaced bythe modern i ron door of a souveni r shop,are di scerni ble;part of the lower spri ngi ngcan be seen to the left of the door j amb( see elevati on,Fi g.18. 4) .I t appears that there was once another smaller wi ndow to the west of the exi sti ngone,and both li t the hall of the cemetery ( see reconstructed elevati on of the street frontage,Fi g. 18. 18) .

4 EL EV AT IO N O F ST R EET FR O NT AG E FIG.18.

The second i s masonryof small ashlar blocks formi ngthe base of a tower of a mi naret whi ch may have been demoli shed as a result of an earthquake and survi ved to a hei ght of thi rteen courses.A marble plaque wi th a dedi cati on i nscri pti on records the constructi on of the mi naret i n 673/ 127475byalMali kalQ«hi r,son of alMu‘ aam ‘ º s« ( see hi story above; Pl. 18. 4) . The mi naret,square i n plan whi ch belongs to the tradi ti onal Syri an type,was descri bed and di scussed by Burgoyne ( 1987,127128) .Earlyphotographs of the mi naret,that 32 ca.1872of Wi lson ( 1865,plate 29) ,Tancrede Duma ( 74;see Pl.18. 5) ,Merri ll ( 1908,89)and Hanauer ( 1926, plate 130)show that the upper part of the shaft wi th extra twelve courses and corbelled corni ce on top, has survi ved. The thi rd i s masonryof small rubble stones i n the mi ddle part of the wall,unknown i n date,i ntended probablyto strengthen the wall and mi naret.And fi nally,the fourth i s small fi nelydressed courses of ashlars i n the upper part. The masonryof the two lower parts belongs to one stage i n the sequence of constructi on when the mosque and the mi naret were added i n 673/ 127475( see also di scussi on below,the cemetery) .The masonry of the upper part belongs to an adj acent Ottoman structure ( now i n rui ns) of whi ch an elaborately moulded wi ndow j amb can be seen from the street below.

32

He was the photographer of the Ameri can Palesti ne Explorati on Soci ety’ s expedi ti on to J erusalem.The photograph here i s courtesyof the Fi ne Art Li brary,Harvard Uni versi ty( ARC495. 10( 1)P)

150

The present entrance i n the south frontage to the east of the mi naret i s modern,li ke the rest of the frontage extendi ngeast ( Pl.18. 1) .Evi dentlythe ori gi nal entrance was through a low arched doorway,as can be seen i n the early photographs,and as descri bed i n van Berchem’ s account ( Pl.18. 5) . I NTERI OR( plan,Fi g.18. 2) On passi ng through the entrance door,one enters a vesti bule and a corri dor.The vesti bule was open to the skywhen Maxvan Berchem vi si ted the si te i n 1914.Now i ti s covered bya modern superstructure,i ts eastern wall belongi ngto the same modern structure.On the west si de of the vesti bule stands a square wellhead coveri ng a ci stern.Next to i t,on the ri ght,a doorwayleads i nto an openai r cemetery. At the northwest corner of the vesti bule,from a rai sed platform,a fli ght of stai rs ascends to the fi rst floor.On the left si de wall of the stai rs,two stones,one wi th a mouldi ngand the other wi th a carved lobed moti f,probablyi n secondaryuse,are di scerni ble ( Fi g.18. 5,Pl.18. 6) . From the vesti bule a long vaulted corri dor extends northwards and turns at a ri ghtangle i nto the courtyard. Both the vesti bule and corri dor are paved wi th large stone slabs.On the east si de of the corri dor an openi ngleads to the eastern part of the si te.I t appears to be an ori gi nal part of the bui ldi ngand consi sts of a j umble of cells wi th barrel vaults spanni ng from east to west.I t seems that some parti ti on walls have been removed and new ones erected i n order to create rooms whi ch are more conveni ent for domesti c use.As a result,thei r ori gi nal layout i s di ffi cult to comprehend.I ti s qui te possi ble that these cells were connected to the mai n courtyard at the north end of the corri dor where there i s a blocked passage.The eastern wall of these cells serves as the eastern boundaryof the madr as a( see plan,Fi g.18. 3and secti on,Fi g.18. 6) .

CATALOGUE OF AYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM pointed frontal arch composed of two sets of voussoirs, thirty-eight in the outer arch and thirty-one in the inner arch. All the voussoirs are small, smoothly dressed ashlars (Fig. 18.7, Pl. 18.9). The springers of the arch are supported by two moulded marble imposts, apparently in secondary use (Pl. 18.10). Each impost has a mason’s mark in the shape of a crescent (Pl. 18.11). It is quite possible that the imposts are of Crusader origin though the mason’s marks might have been added by the Muslim craftsmen of the madrasa. The facade of the »w«n is also built with well-dressed small ashlar stones (Pl. 18.12). On the right-hand side of the facade, the foundation inscription consists of a marble slab set within a moulded frame (Pl. 8.13). The inscription measures 1.30 x 0.60 m. and has four lines of Ayyubid naskh» script (van Berchem 1927, 170-173). On the left-hand side of the facade, the original masonry has been replaced by white modern marble stones. Here, according to van Berchem, another foundation inscription existed but disappeared between the years 1893 and 1905 (van Berchem 1927, 173). FIG. 18.5 DETAIL OF M OULDING AND CARVED M OTIF

FIG. 18.6 WEST-EAST SECTION THROUGH ƮWƖN, LOOKING NORTH

A small door spanned by a flat lintel opens from the corridor into the main courtyard (Pl. 18.7). The fact that its south jamb is an integral part of the south wall of the courtyard is an indication that it belongs to the original fabric of the structure. The courtyard itself is partly occupied by modern structures on both the north and west sides. It retains much of its original paving with large slabs of stone, one of which bears unclear Arabic graffiti. Vine and lemon trees and potted plants provide shade and coolness in the hot summer and add a pleasant atmosphere to the courtyard. The ground plan (Fig. 18.2) shows the arrangement of a north »w«n and cells or chambers around three sides of the courtyard. On the north side, a large and impressive »w«n dominates the courtyard (Pls 18.8, 18.9). It has a deep tunnel vault measuring 11.43 m. deep, 7.18 m. wide, 9.50 m. high (see Figs 18.6, 18.7, 18.11). Its facade has a

FIG. 18.7ELEVATION OF ƮWƖN, LOOKING NORTH The inner walls of the »w«n are of ashlar (each measuring 28 x 50 cm. on average) and covered with several layers of plaster; traces of black smoke can be seen all over the vault and walls. At the level of the springing of the vault, on each of the west and east walls are four holes separated equally from each other. These holes may have been used for wooden beams which spanned across the »w«n. At the north-east corner of the »w«n, a large window was pierced by the present occupants of the building, thus allowing us to measure the width of the wall of the »w«n –2.78m. The back (north) wall of the »w«n, according to the present occupants, had two doors leading north but they were blocked at some time; nothing is known of the area beyond. 151

AYYUBID JERUSALEM:AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

Like the courtyard, the »w«n is not exactly aligned with the street frontage of the madrasa. This might be explained by the existence of pre-Ayyubid structures which may have determined the layout of the building. A glimpse of these structures can be seen into an opening pierced through the west wall of the »w«n showing a small chamber almost aligned with it (see ground plan Fig. 18.3).

FIG. 18.9ELEVATION OF SOUTH WALL OF COURTYARD

FIG. 18.10ELEVATION OF WEST WALL OF COURTYARD, UPPER FLOOR

FIG. 18.8 UPPER-FLOOR PLAN

Each of the two cells occupying the south side of the courtyard is indicated by filled-in pointed archways in the south wall of the courtyard (Fig. 18.9, Pl. 18.14). The east cell has a door and a window, each surmounted by a semicircular arch. Observation shows a clear difference between the original masonry of the wall and the later filling of the archways. The west cell is mostly obscured by a modern structure, which was built in recent years along the west side of the courtyard (Pl. 18.15). This cell corresponds to the chamber S drawn by van Berchem (1927, 169, fig. 27), at the entrance to which a Herodian stele was found by Clermont-Ganneau in 1871 (1899, 173). The upper part of the south wall, above the archways, is marked by a continuous cornice moulding which appears to form part of the original construction.

FIG. 18.11 NORTH-SOUTH SECTION, LOOKING EAST The aforementioned modern structure obscures also the two archways (and their corresponding cells) in the west wall of the courtyard (Pl. 18.16). The east side of the 152

CATALOGUE OF AYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM courtyard is occupied by one cell with a barrel vault. It is entered by a door from the courtyard and is ventilated by a small window. The door and window each have a flat lintel. At the north-east corner of the courtyard, the masonry contains two voussoirs of what seems to be the remains of an archway which once existed in the east wall of the courtyard, similar to those found on the south and west walls of the courtyard. It appears that the east cell is a later insertion, made after the archway was destroyed, as indicated by its different masonry and the style of its door and window. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to enter to survey the interior of these cells around the courtyard. The layout of the Mu‘aamiyya Madrasa, which consists of a main courtyard surrounded by a large »w«n on the north side and a series of vaulted cells open to the courtyard on the other three sides, was not original. It was built in the Syrian style, according to the fashion at the time of its construction. In Damascus, the Ri¯«niyya Madrasa, dated 575/1180 (IFD 1950, 51-54, fig. 30), and the ‘Adr«wiyya Madrasa, dated 580/1184-85 (IFD 1950, 57-59, fig. 32), were built according to the above layout and were undoubtedly the prototypes of the Mu‘aamiyya. Other contemporary Syrian examples, such as the ‘ªdiliyya Madrasa (619/1222-23) in Damascus (IFD 1950, 77-82, fig. 42; Rihawi 1979, 14951, fig. 20), and the Firdaws Madrasa (639/1236) in Aleppo (Herzfeld 1954-6, 301; Jalabi-Holdijk 1988, 6567) followed the same layout but with a great deal of decorative elaboration.

FIG. 18.12ELEVATION OF SOUTH WALL OF CEMETERY

CEMETERY The southern part of the Mu‘aamiyya, beyond the street frontage from the north, is occupied by an open-air cemetery which contains five tombs (Fig. 18.3; Pl. 18.17). It is almost rectangular in shape, though the west wall is not parallel to the east wall and seems to be a later addition. The east part of the cemetery, almost two-fifths of its area, has recently been dug up by the present residents to lay the foundations for an upper extension to the first floor, thereby providing extra living space (Figs 18.12, 18.13; Pl. 18.18). As a result, the level of the east part was lowered by about 1 m. and that of the west part was raised. Shards of glazed pottery, probably dating to the Mamluk period, were uncovered. During our survey, we made some archaeological discoveries which cast a new light on the sequence of the construction of the site in general, the cemetery and the street frontage in particular. The first is the finding of a thick layer of plaster on the interior walls of the cemetery, indicating that it was not originally an open-air burial place but a covered structure that may have served either as a tomb chamber or as an assembly hall. The second is the uncovering of a blocked window in the north-east corner of the cemetery. It probably belongs to the east cell on the south side of the courtyard (Figs 18.3, 18.13). Its sill is almost at the same

FIG. 18.13 ELEVATION OF NORTH

WALL OF CEMETERY

level as the sill of the grilled window in the south wall of the cemetery (Fig. 18.16). The third is the discovery of another blocked window in the south wall, east of the existing grilled window (Fig. 18.12, Pl. 18.19). After removing some stones and mortar, we could see the jambs of the window with holes for the grills and the outer face of a smooth masonry (Pl. 18.20). The window, which is rectangular in shape (measuring 2.04 x 1.29 m.), is built of well-dressed and fine ashlar limestone covered with plaster. It is spanned by a flat lintel which is surmounted by a round arch. The voussoirs of this arch are made of small rubble stones (Figs 18.14, 18.15). The fourth is the existence of an arch springer on either side 153

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY of the grilled window (see Fig. 18.12). The east arch springer has been inserted on the right-hand side of the round arch which surmounts the blocked window. Several stones were removed and rearranged to allow for the insertion, thus pointing out a different phase of construction. The west arch springer is similar in style and shape to the east one and is built on the same level. No parallel arch springers survive on the opposite (north) wall of the cemetery, which appears to have been rebuilt at a later date. Nevertheless, a vault springer is found at the north-west corner of the cemetery, but it does not correspond to the arch springers in the south wall and stands about 80 cm. below their level (Fig. 18.16).

From the interior of the cemetery, the grilled window appears to have been repaired in recent years. This is evident in the modern masonry of the jambs and the arch above the window. The thickness of the south wall of the cemetery can be measured through the window, which is 2.55m wide. At the far west part of the south wall of the cemetery, a modern concrete projection protrudes from the wall. It forms the back of the souvenir shop which can be seen in the street frontage. This shop was inserted in place of a small arched window which existed to the west of the present grilled window. In the easternmost part of the south wall, at first floor level, above the eastern blocked window, is a mi¯r«b. It is built of well-dressed ashlars set in a pointed arch recess. Its conch is round-headed with seven stones radiating from a hub (see elevation Figs 18.8, 18.12, Pl. 18.21). It is evidently the only vestige of the mosque prayer hall which once occupied the first floor above the cemetery. Both the floor and the roof of this mosque were probably destroyed in an earthquake, leaving the hall of the building open to the sky. The upper part of the minaret might have also been destroyed by the same earthquake. However, nothing has survived in the interior of the south wall to confirm the existence of a floor on which the mi¯r«b was constructed, nor the roof of the mosque. It is possible to suggest that the upper part of the south wall was also damaged by the proposed earthquake and was rebuilt later. In addition, the north-south section of the madrasa (Fig. 18.11) shows clearly that the base of the mi¯r«b corresponds closely to the level of the cornice moulding which marks the roof of the ground floor cells on the south side of the courtyard.

FIG. 18.14SOUTH-NORTH SECTION THROUGH EAST WINDOW OF CEMETERY, LOOKING WEST

As for the minaret, only the lower part survives. The early photographs (mentioned above; see Pl. 18.5) show that the muezzin’s gallery has disappeared, but that the upper part of the shaft surmounted with a corbelled cornice still existed at that time. These photographs also show that the shaft of the minaret and the massive street frontage on which it rests abutted an earlier wall built of smaller masonry and surmounted by a cavetto cornice. The latter wall, which undoubtedly was the original street frontage, has been demolished and replaced by a modern wall. Similarly, both van Berchem and Burgoyne suggest that this wall belonged to the madrasa, and that the minaret was a later addition (van Berchem 1922, 169; Burgoyne 1987, 128). To conclude, we may suggest that there were three stages of construction in the cemetery and street frontage:

FIG. 18.15 A SURVEY SKETCH PLAN OF

THE CEMETERY SHOWING LEVELS OF VARIOUS FEATURES

1) The earliest construction, which may be dated to the Ayyubid period, included a main assembly hall/tomb chamber covered either by a cross or barrel vault and lit by three grilled windows (one large window flanked by one window on either side) which looked out to the street (see elevation Fig. 18.17 and 154

CATALOGUE OF AYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM reconstruction plan Fig. 18.18). The floor of this hall was approximately at the same level as the main courtyard paving (see Fig. 18.11) and the corridor paving (see Fig. 18.16), which are both features of the original structure. 2) The second stage appears to have incorporated the mosque hall on the first floor above the assembly hall/tomb chamber with its attached mi¯r«b and minaret at the south-east corner. The minaret itself is dated by inscription to the work of al-Malik al-Q«hir in 673/1274-75, and the mosque hall and mi¯r«b may be attributed to the same date. We can assume that the builders thought that the earlier street frontage was neither thick nor strong enough to carry the minaret and the mosque hall on the first floor. They must have decided to thicken the street frontage by erecting a massive wall of rusticated masonry along its outer face. In the process, they blocked the small east window, enlarged and remodelled the large middle window and kept the small west window. 3) Presumably as a result of an earthquake, both roofs of the assembly hall/tomb chamber, the mosque hall and the muezzin’s gallery of the minaret collapsed. It is not, however, clear when this earthquake occurred. The hall must have become a cemetery during the second half of the ninth/fifteenth century, when more tombs were added to the already existing tomb 1, which (see below, Pl. 18.4).

earthquake of 863/1458 that the hall remained in ruins and gradually transformed into a cemetery.

FIG. 18.17 SKETCH RECONSTRUCTION OF THE ELEVATION OF THE STREET FRONTAGE

UPPER FLOOR (plan, Fig. 18.8)

FIG. 18.18 SKETCH RECONSTRUCTION OF THE AYYUBID STREET FRONTAGE, LOOKING NORTH The original staircase, now replaced by a modern one, rose to the upper floor at the north-west corner of the vestibule (see above, van Berchem’s account). It leads to the eastern side of the complex. The first and second floor levels now consist now of modern flats. The western side of the complex is reached by another, separate modern flight of stairs, which leans against the inner face of the eastern wall of the cemetery. This side includes four rooms above the four cells on the ground floor of the main courtyard. All rooms lead into one another through a door. Rooms B and C each have a window looking south into the cemetery. Rooms A, B, and C are rectangular. While Room A is covered by a modern concrete roof, Rooms B and C are covered by corrugated iron roofs. Room D, which survives intact, is almost square in shape and is covered by a stone cross-vault. It has an arched pair of windows, typically Ottoman in style, which look east, down into the main courtyard (see elevation, Fig. 18.10; Pl. 18.23). There are two other windows, one in the south wall and the other in the west wall. The elevation of the west wall of the courtyard at the upper floor level (Fig. 18.10) shows, to the south of

FIG. 18.16 RECONSTRUCTION OF

THE ORIGINAL GROUND PLAN OF THE ASSEMBLY HALL/CEMETERY

As we have noted in section III, the earliest tomb known in the cemetery belongs to the Q«±» Shams al-D»n al®amaw» al-Sh«fi‘», superintendent of the Two ®arams of Jerusalem and Hebron, who was buried there in 853/1449 (Pl. 18.22). While during this period it was customary to use religious buildings as burial grounds for important figures, it is not clear why al-®amaw» was buried in the assembly hall of the madrasa. It is quite possible that only when the hall, and the mosque on the first floor above it, collapsed as a result of an earthquake then it became a cemetery. Perhaps after the devastating 155

AYYUBID JERUSALEM:AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY the pair of windows, a partially destroyed, blocked door. I t is surmounted by a round arch, similar in style to that of the double window. Traces of broken stairs can be seen against the south wall of the courtyard, probably part of a staircase which once rose from the main courtyard to Room C on the upper roof ( Pl. 18.24) . A door in the west wall of Room C leads to what is now a raised garden outside the limits of the madrasa.

The masonry and the style of the windows of these rooms on the upper floor, especially Room D, indicate that they were constructed in the Ottoman period, but the precise date of their construction is not known. Perhaps these rooms were restored duringthe repairs of 947/ 1540, as was documented in the si j i l lof the Ottoman Shar‘ »Court ( see above) .

PLATE 18.3:STREET FRONTAGE

PLATE 18.1:GENERAL VIEW

FROM TҖ ARƮQ ALMUJƖHIDƮN LOOKING W EST

PLATE 18.2:STREET FRONTAGE PLATE 18.4:MAMLUK INSCRIPTION PLAQUE ON THE BASE OFA MINARET

156

CATALOGUE OF AYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM

PLATE 18.7: COURTYARD PAVEMENT

PLATE 18.5: GENERAL VIEW

DFROM EAST IN CA.1875, SHOW ING MINARET TOW ER AND THE SMALL ENTRANCE DOOR OF THE MADRASA (COURTESY OF THE FINE ART LIBRARY, HARVARD UNIVERSITY)

PLATE 18.8: ƮWƖN, LOOK ING SOUTH INTO THE COURTYARD

PLATE 18.6: STONE CARVED W

PLATE 18.9: ƮWƖN, LOOK ING NORTH, BEFORE IT W

ITH LOBED MOTIF IN RE-USE

FILLED W ITH MODERN CONSTRUCTION

157

AS

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

13:INSCRIPTION PLATE 18.

PLATE 18.10: PROFILE OF IMPOST 14:CELLS ON TH E SOU TH SIDE OF TH E PLATE 18. COU RTY ARD W ITH FILLED-IN ARCH W AY S

PLATE 18.11: MASON’S MARKS

15:CELL AT TH E SOU TH -W EST CORNER OF TH E PLATE 18. COU RTY ARD (COU RTESY OF DIA)

PLATE 18.12: ƮWƖN AND INSCRIPTION 158

CATALOG UE OF AYYUBID BUILDING S IN JERUSALEM

PLATE 18.19: BLOCK ED WINDOW IN THE SOUTH WALL OF THE CEM ETERY

PLATE 18.16: CELL AT THE WEST SIDE OF THE COURTYARD IN THE 1970S (COURTESY OF DIA) PLATE 18.20: DETAIL OF BLOCK ED WINDOW WITH HOLES FOR G RILL

PLATE 18.17: CEM ETERY, LOOK ING

SOUTH-WEST

PLATE 18.18: CEM ETERY LOOK ING

SOUTH-EAST

PLATE 18.21: MIH̟ RƖB 159

AYYUBID JERUSALEM:AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

PLATE 18.22: TOMBSTONE (TOMB 1)

PLATE 18.24: BLOCKED DOORWAY AND REMAINS OF A STAIRCASE TO UPPER FLOOR

PLATE 18.23: UPPER FLOOR, ROOM D, LOOKING WEST

160

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM foundati on i nscri pti on whi ch i s si tuated i n a shal l ow recess above the centralarch onthe exteri or face of the porch. The i nscri pti oncl earl yrefers to “thi s façade of the porch”( Hami l ton1949,3839) .

19 Porch of the Aq·« Mosque

ϰμϗϻ΍ ΪΠδϤϟ΍ ΔϬΟ΍ϭ 614/ 1217-18 I. LOCATION ( Fi g. 19.1) The porch extends al ong the north façade of the Aq·« Mosque.

FIG.19. 2 GROUND PLAN OFTHE AQSҚƖ MOSQUE (AFTER HAMILTON 1949) DATEAND FOUNDER Accordi ngto the i nscri pti on,the order for constructi onof the porch i s datedto the year 614/ 121718. The text of the i nscri pti oni s as fol l ows: FIG.19. 1 LOCATION PLAN

II. SITE AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION The Aq·« Mosque ( al Masj i dal Aq·«) ,bui l t agai nst the south wal lof the ®aram,i s the great congregati onal mosque of Isl ami c J erusal em. It was constructedi nca. 97/ 715 by the Umayyad cal i ph al Wal » d b. ‘ Abd al Mal i k, and has undergone consi derabl e structural al terati ons i nthe course of i ts l onghi story( Creswel land Al l an1989,7382) . It was convertedbri efl yi nto apal ace for the Franki sh ki ngs of J erusal em after 492/ 1099 and became the headquarters of the Kni ghts Templ ar from 511/ 1118. Traces of thi s peri odare foundi nvari ous parts of the bui l di ng. The present mosque i s al arge rectangul ar structure consi sti ngof sevenai sl es whi ch are al i gnednorthsouth, about 80 m. l ong and 55 m. wi de ( Fi g. 19.2) . It has a magni fi cent porch wi th aporti co ( r i w«q)oni ts northern si de. III. HISTORY I DENTI FI CATI ON The porch i s ful l y i denti fi ed by a wel l preserved 161

. 2 ϩάϫ ΔΌθϧ΃ ϢϴΣήϟ΍ ϦϤΣήϟ΍ Ϳ΍ ϢδΑ . 1 . 3 ΎϧΪϴγ ΔϟϭΩ ϡΎϳ΃ ϲϓ Δϗϭέϼϟ ΔϬΟ΍Ϯϟ΍ ΎϴϧΪϟ΍ ϑήη ϢψόϤϟ΍ ϚϠϤϟ΍ ϥΎτϠδϟ΍ ΎϧϻϮϣϭ ϝΩΎόϟ΍ ϚϠϤϟ΍ ϦΑ΍ ϰδϴϋ Ϣ΋΍ΰόϟ΍ ϲΑ΃ ϦϳΪϟ΍ϭ . 4 . 6 ΍ϭ ϡϼγϻ΍ ϥΎτϠγ ϦϳΪϟ΍ϭ ΎϴϧΪϟ΍ ϒϴγ . 5 ϞϴϠΧ ϱΩΎη ϦΑ΍ ΏϮϳ ΃ ϦΑ΍ ήϜΑ ϲΑ΃ ϦϴϤϠδϤϟ 7 ΍ ήϴϣ΃ ΔϨγ ϲϓ ϚϟΫϭ ΎϤϬϜϠϣ Ϳ΍ ΪϠΧ ϦϴϨϣΆϤϟ . ϰϠλϭ ΔϳϮΒϨϟ΍ ΓήΠϬϠϟ Δ΋ΎϤΘγϭ Γήθϋ . 8 ϊΑέ΃ . Ϫϟ΁ϭ ΪϤΤϣ ϰϠϋ Ϳ΍ In the name of God the Merci ful , the Compassi onate. Thi s façade of the porch was constructedduri ngthe rei gnof our master andour patronthe sul tanal Mal i kal Mu‘ aam Sharaf al Duny« wa’ l D» n Ab‡’ l ‘ Az«’ i m‘ º s«,son of al Mal i kal ‘ ªdi lSayf al Duny« wa’ l D» n,the sul tan of Isl am,Ab‡ Bakr,sonof Ayy‡b,sonof Sh«dh» , the compani on of the Pri nce of Bel i evers,may Godperpetuate thei r ki ngshi p,i nthe year 614of the hi j r a of the Prophet [ 121718] . MayGodpray upon Mu¯ammad and hi s fami l y( van Berchem 1927,415416;Hami l ton1949,39) . Another i nscri pti on,al though partl y damaged,was di scoveredonthe i nteri or of the dome of the porti co:

AYYUBID JERUSALEM:AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY and six wall piers connected by transverse arches, which spring from elbow brackets, divide the porch into seven bays, corresponding to the seven aisles of the mosque (Figs 19.2, 19.3). The central bay is covered by a dome on pendentives; the three on either side by cross-vaults (Figs 19.3, 19.4; Pl. 19.2).

[ΔΒϘϟ΍] ϩάϫ ΄θϧ΃ [ϢϴΣήϟ΍ ϦϤΣήϟ΍] Ϳ΍ ϢδΑ ϝΩΎόϟ΍ ϢϟΎόϟ΍ [ϢψόϤϟ΍ ϚϠϤϟ΍] ϥΎτϠδϟ΍ ΎϧϻϮϣ Ω[˰ϫΎΠϤϟ]΍ ήϔψϤϟ΍ έϮμϨϤϟ[΍] [Ϊϳ΅]˰Ϥϟ΍ ϮΑ[΃] ϥ[˰ϳΪϟ΍ϭ ΎϴϧΪϟ]΍ ϑήη ςΑ΍ήϤϟ΍ ήϏΎΜϤϟ΍ [ϚϠϤϟ΍] ϥΎτϠγ[˰ϟ΍ ϦΑ΍] ϰδϴϋ Ϣ΋΍[ΰϋ]˰ϟ΍ ... [ϦϳΩ]˰ϟ΍ [ϒϳ]˰γ ϝΩΎόϟ΍

The patchwork character of the porch is quite obvious when looking at its elevation (Fig. 19.5). It is especially apparent in the piers supporting the two extreme bays on either side, which differ in plan and in dimensions from those supporting the three central ones; the three front central arches are doubled by supporting ribs that rest on coupled columns and pedestals, while the arches of the four outer bays lack all these features; finally, the transition from the central bays to the two on either side is marked by the distinct change in the masonry of the façade (Fig. 19.6; Pl. 19.3). This clearly indicates that the two outer bays on each side were constructed separately from the three in the middle (Hamilton 1949, 37-38).

In the name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate. This dome was constructed by our Lord, the Sultan, al-Malik al-Mu‘aam, the learned, the just, the victorious by God’s help, the triumphant, the hero (of holy war), the sentinel and warden of marches, glory of this world and the faith, Ab‡’l ‘Az«’im ‘ºs« son of the Sultan alMalik al-‘ªdil, Sayf al-D»n ... (S.A.S. Husseini, in: Hamilton 1949, 46-48). Two other inscriptions which refer to further rebuilding work in the porch, are each found in a recess built in the spandrel between the outer arches. The earlier one in the west part of the porch mentions a restoration work by sultan al-Malik al-K«mil, son of al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad b. Qal«w‡n, under the supervision of Aybak al-Mi·r», in Rajab 746/1345 (van Berchem 1927, no. 285; Hamilton 1949, 38). The later one in the east part of the porch states that some repair work was undertaken by the sultan al-Malik al-N«·ir ®asan, son of al-Malik al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad b. Qal«w‡n, under the supervision of ‘I alD»n Aybak al-Mi·r» in 751/1350 (van Berchem 1927, no. 288; Hamilton 1949, 38). A third Mamluk inscription found in the right-hand shallow recess above the central arch of the porch refers to some repairs in the upper border of the façade by the sultan al-Ashraf Qaytb«y in 1474 1350 (van Berchem 1927, 433, no. 291; Hamilton 1949, 47).

In fact, three principal phases of construction may be distinguished (see Fig. 19.3). The first phase is Crusader and it is attributed to the Templars’ occupation of the Aq·« Mosque. It is represented by a porch consisting of three bays, of which the central bay stood higher than the other two (Fig. 19.6; Pl. 19.4). The side bays were covered by cross-vaults, which still exist in their original form, while the vaulting of the central bay is not known (Fig. 19.6; Hamilton 1949, 47). To this original phase also belong the various architectural details (pedestals, corner columns, elbow brackets, capitals, and the cornice moulding above the piers) of the four wall piers and the inward-facing side of the front piers in the three central bays within the vaulted area of the porch (Pl. 19.6). They all survive in situ and have a uniform style that is part of the original system of decoration (Hamilton 1949, 41-42, Pl. XXIII, 1-3).

IV. ARCHITECTURE

The second phase is represented in the rebuilding of the “façade of the portico” of the three central bays. The freestanding supports that carry the various elements of the frontal arches are a remodelling or repair of the original structure, particularly the central arch (Pl. 19.6). This work is attributed to al-Malik al-Mu‘aam ‘ºs« in 614/1217-18, as is confirmed by the inscription in the left-hand side of the shallow recess above the central arch (Pl. 19.7). The capitals and elbow brackets seem to have been a heterogeneous collection taken at random from diverse Romanesque and Gothic structures, as well as Byzantine “Corinthian” capitals, which represent a secondary use (Hamilton 1949, 41, Pl. XXIII, 4-6, Pl. XXIV, 6, Pl. XXV, 1-2). In addition, the various parts of the elaborate archivolt of the central arch, made of bands of zig-zag or chevron and cavetto and cyma recta mouldings, are in re-use and similar to those found on sixth/twelfth century buildings (Pl. 19.8; Hamilton 1949, 42-43, Pl. XIX, 1). The colonnettes, capitals and arches of the small niches which decorate the upper part of the façade are re-used Crusader spol ia (Pls 19.9, 19.10).

Hamilton (1949) described in detail the architecture of the porch. Here is a summary of his description with some additional observations and remarks.

FIG. 19.3GROUND PLAN OF THE PORCH (AFTER HAMILTON 1949) The façade of the porch comprises three pointed arches on either side of a larger central arch (Pl. 19.1). Six piers 162

CATALOGUE OF AYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM The dome above the central bay of the porch, which rests on arches and pendentives, was also added to the original structure (Fig. 19.4; Pl. 19.11). The four arches which carry it, on the north side, on the outer angles and piers (Hamilton 1949, 45, Pl. XXV, 6-7); on the south they are structurally independent of the corresponding wall piers, but spring from the jambs of the main doors of the mosque, which have been roughly handled (Hamilton 1949, 45, Pl. XXVI, 1). The addition of the dome has been confirmed by the inscription which encircles it, carved in the seventh course above the springing (Hamilton 1949, 46, fig. 25). Although the inscription which bears the name of al-Mu‘aam ‘ºs« is damaged and has no date, it was likely fitted during the rebuilding of the façade.

FIG. 19.5 PORCH NORTH ELEVATION (AFTER HAMILTON 1949) The porch was repaired several times during its later history. The crenellations and the upper border of the façade were renewed under the sultan Qaytb«y in 879/1474, as recorded by the second (right-hand) inscription in a shallow recess above the central arch (Fig. 19.5, Pl. 19.7), (Hamilton 1949, 47; van Berchem 1927, 433, no. 291). Some capitals and elbow brackets on the piers of the bay east of the central bay, among other parts of the mosque, were repaired during the reign of the sultan Q«n·uh al-Gh‡r» in 915/1509-10, as confirmed by an inscription found to the right of the central door (Hamilton 1949, 41, n. 2; van Berchem 1927, 434, no. 292).

FIG. 19.4 SECTION THROUGH NAVE AND PORCH, LOOKING EAST (AFTER HAMILTON 1949) The third phase is represented in the four outer bays of the porch to which the two inscriptions in their spandrels refer (Figs 19.3, 19.5, 19.6; Pl. 19.3). These bays were built under successive sultans (al-Malik al-K«mil in 746/1345; al-Malik al-N«·ir ®asan in 751/1350), but within the space of five years, and under the supervision of a single official ‘I al-D»n Aybak al-Mi·r». It seems likely that the work of this figure, who is mentioned in the two inscriptions, formed part of a systematic and comprehensive scheme of construction, which not only included the extension of the porch in either direction, but also the rebuilding the side aisles of the mosque itself.

PLATE 19.1:GENERAL VIEW

FIG. 19.6 PORCH LONG SECTION, LOOKING SOUTH (AFTER HAMILTON 1949)

OF THE PORCH LOOKING SOUTH-EAST

163

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

PLATE 19.4: CENTRAL ARCH OF THE PORCH

PLATE 19.5: CRUSADER ELBOW BRACKETS ON WALL PIER OF CENTRAL BAY

PLATE 19.2: THE PORCH LOOKING WEST

PLATE 19.3: THE PORCH LOOKING SOUTH-EAST PLATE 19.6: FAÇ ADE OF THE CENTRAL BAY OF THE PORCH

164

CATALOGUE OF AYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM

PLATE 19.7: INSCRIPTIONS ABOV E THE CENTRAL ARCH PLATE 19.9: WEST DOUBLE RECESS

PLATE 19.10: EAST DOUBLE RECESS

PLATE 19.11: DOME IN THE CENTRAL BAY PLATE 19.8: RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF ARCHIV OLT OF THE CENTRAL BAY

165

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY “... Adjacent to the madrasa [the Kar»miyya] is a gate called B«b ®i³³a, four and two thirds dhir«‘ wide and eight dhir«‘high. In front of it is a walkway paved with flagstones ... On either side of the gate are two fine benches, each two dhir«‘ (1.4 m. ) wide, the eastern one abutting on the above-mentioned Kar»miyya Madrasa and the western one adjacent to a portico...” (al-‘Umar», 157-158; Burgoyne 1987, 104).

20 B«b ®i³³a

ϪτΣ ΏΎΑ Reconstructed 617/1220 (?) Other names: B«b or Abw«b al-Asb«³ (“Gate or Gates of the Tribes”) –Early Islamic Period. I LOCATION (Fig. 20.1)

Muj»r al-D»n (ca. 901/ 1496), writing on the history of the north portico of the ®aram, says:

The gate is located in the North Portico built against the north wall of the ®aram; at the south end of ²ar»q B«b ®i³³a leading into the ®aram.

“... As for the portico extending from B«b ®i³³a to B«b al-Dawayd«riyya [B«b al-‘Atm] it appears that it was built by al-Malik al-Aw¯ad with his turba, which is at B«b ®i³³a “(Muj»r al-D»n, II, 2930; Burgoyne 1987, 105). During al-’Umar» and Muj»r al-D»n’s times B«b ®i³³a was located in the north wall of the ®aram, eventually in the same place as today. But from accounts of geographers and chroniclers of the fourth/tenth and fifth/eleventh centuries it may be implied that in the pre-Crusader period this gate was in the south edge of the west wall of the ®aram. Geographers and chroniclers of the early Islamic period list B«b ®i³³a among other names of gates leading into the ®aram, but no precise location is given. After the Ayyubid conquest of Jerusalem from the Crusaders, some old names were lost, others were given to different gates and new names were introduced. In the case of B«b ®i³³a, the old name was given to the present gate in the north wall of the ®aram. N«·ir-» Khusraw’s account gives a valuable clue for the positioning of the gate. He says:

FIG. 20.1 LOCATION PLAN

“... There is also another gate excavated under the ground, called B«b al-®i³³a (“Gate of Remission”). They say that this is the gate by which God –be He exalted and glorified – commanded the children of Israel to enter the (Aq·«) Mosque, according to His word –be He exalted –(Qur’«n, II, 58): “Enter ye the gate with prostration, and say ®i³³a [Remission] and We will pardon you your sins, and give an increase to the doers of good” (N«·»r-» Khusraw, 64-65; Le Strange 1889, 99-100).

II SITE AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION The present B«b ®i³³a (“Gate of Remission”) is situated at the south end of the street of ²ar»q B«b ®i³³a, leading into the ®aram. It is bounded on the north by ²ar»q B«b ®i³³a itself; on the east by the Kar»miyya Madrasa and the North Portico; on the south by the ®aram esplanade; on the west by the North Portico and the Aw¯adiyya Mausoleum. It consists of a single outer and inner porch, each one bay deep. The inner porch of the gateway is incorporated into the North Portico.

In fact, this account have led Wilson (1888, PPTS, 67-71, Appendix C) and Le Strange (1889, 100-101) to identify the old gate of B«b ®i³³a as Barclay’s Gate, situated below the present B«b al-Magh«riba. Van Berchem, on the other hand, places it in the north wall of the ®aram (1927, 104). More recently, Elad, based on an account of Ibn al-‘Arab» (486/1093) believes that B«b ®i³³a was located at the southern corner of the west wall of the ®aram (1995, 116-117, quoting Ibn al-‘Arab», XI, 78).

III HISTORY IDENTIFICATION Al-’Umar» (ca. 745/1345), in his description of the north border of the ®aram, states: 166

CATALOGUE OF AYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM arched window, which looks into the Kar»miyya Madrasa, dated to 718/1319 (Burgoyne 1987, 214, fig. 15.3). The superstructure above the porch, which consists of one room, belongs to the upper floor of the Kar»miyya (Burgoyne 1987, 215-216, fig. 15.4). The porch is paved with stone slabs.

Was there a gate at the site of the present B«b ®i³³a during pre-Crusader times, and if so, what was its name? To answer this question we return to N«·ir-» Khusraw. He says: ... in the north part (of the ®aram) is a double gateway, the gates of which are placed side by side, each being seven dhir«‘ wide and twelve dhir«‘ high. This gateway is called the B«b alAsb«³ (“Gate of the Tribes”) (N«·ir-» Khusraw, 59; Le Strange 1889, 96).

The doorway, measuring 3.80 m. high and 2.85 m. wide, has a semicircular arch with a 45 degree chamfer and segmental inner arch, similar to those found at the B«b al‘Atm (Catalogue No. 16). Its door-step, which stands at 18 cm. lower than the level of the porch, is 82 cm. wide.

From analysis of the order of the gates listed by the various early Islamic chroniclers, Le Strange correctly suggests that the old name B«b or Abw«b al-Asb«³ (“Gate or Gates of the Tribes”) corresponds with the present B«b ®i³³a (1889, 106). More recently Burgoyne, relying on the textual sources, as well as on the architectural evidence, reinforces Le Strange’s identification (1992, 121-122).

INNER PORCH (Figs 20.2, 20.3) The inner southern porch of the gateway is incorporated into the North Portico (Catalogue No. 15); it is referred to by Burgoyne as bay 21 of the North Portico, which built in various stages from 610/1213-14 to 836/1432 (1987, 105, pl. 1.1). The doorway internally is set within a recess, 1.78 m. deep on the west side and 1.65 m. deep on the east side, while the jambs each being 30 cm. wide (Pl. 20.3). The modern wooden door with its two leaves measures 5.40 m. high and 3.20 m. wide.

DATE An inscription over the entrance to the gateway, which no longer exists, states that the restoration of the gateway is dated to the year 617/1220, during the reign of al-Malik al-Mu‘aam ‘ºs«. The text of the inscription is as follows:

ϚϠϤϟ΍ ϥΎτϠδϟ΍ ΔϟϭΩ ϡΎϳ΃ ϲϓ ΏΎΒϟ΍ ΍άϫ ΩΪΟ ] ϝΩΎόϟ΍ ϚϠϤϟ΍ ϦΑ ϰδϴϋ ϦϳΪϟ΍ ϑήη ϢψόϤϟ΍ ήϬη ϲϓ ϚϟΫϭ ΏϮϳ΃ ϦΑ ήϛ[˰Α ϲΑ΃ ϦϳΪϟ΍ ϒϴγ ..... Δ΋ΎϤΘγϭ Γήθϋ (ˮ) ϊΒγ ΔϨγ Ϧϣ ΐΟέ “(This gate has been restored during the reign of the sult«n al-Malik al-Mu‘aam Sharaf al-D»n ‘ºs«, son of al-Malik al-‘ªdil Sayf al-D»n Ab‡ Ba)kr, in the month of Rajab of the year 61[7?] [September 1220?]...(van Berchem 1927, no.168, 103-104). FOUNDER This is not the place to give a detailed account of the life of al-Malik al-Mu‘aam ‘ºs« who was responsible for many building projects in Jerusalem. IV ARCHITECTURE OUTER PORCH (Figs 20.2, 20.3) The street of ²ar»q B«b ®i³³a leads south directly into the outer porch of the gateway (Pl. 20.1). It consists of a single cross-vaulted bay. The frontal arch is pointed and comprises thirteen voussoirs (Pl. 20.2). An infill wall is built into the western arch of the porch, which contains a window looking into the tomb chamber of the Mamluk Aw¯adiyya Mausoleum, dated to 697/1298 (Burgoyne 1987, 168, figs 9.3, 9.6). The east-facing arch of the porch is blocked by a wall pierced with a semicircular-

FIG. 20.2 GROUND PLAN OF GATEWAY ADJACENT TO THE AWHADIYYA (COURTESY OF BURGOYNE 1987) The bay of the porch is rectangular in plan (7.70 m. long and 3.45 m. wide) and covered with a cross-vault (Figs 20.2, 20.3; Pl. 20.4). It is built of large stones, of which many bear typical Crusader tooling and masons’ marks.

167

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY A distinctive masons’ mark in the shape of a crescent is carved on a stone on the east side of the same pier.

Its floor is 32 cm. lower than the door-step and 60 cm. lower than the ®aram esplanade.

Three steps ascend from the floor of the bay to the ®aram esplanade, of which the level has subsequently risen over the years. A facade of the inner gateway is set within the two buttressed piers of the bay (Pl. 20.6). The frontal arch, rising about 6 m. from the bay floor level, is pointed and has seventeen voussoirs. Its springers are at a height of 3.50 m. from the same level. One course above the keystone of the arch, a fluted rosette motif is carved on a square stone and flanked by a plain circle motif on either side. Above this course there is a fine corbel-table cornice made mostly from re-used Crusader material (Pl. 20.7).

FIG. 20.3 SECTION SOUTH-NORTH (COURTESY OF BURGOYNE 1987)

The east pier of the gateway is abutted by the west wall of the Kar»miyya Madrasa (endowed in 718/1319), as indicated by the vertical joint in the masonry. Originally, this madrasa had its own portico of three bays, but at some later time the portico was converted into the assembly hall of the Kar»miyya (Burgoyne 1987, 217, figs 15.3, 15.4). The two bays to the west (bays 22-23) are blocked with infill walls to provide classrooms for the ®aram al-Shar»f Elementary School (Pl. 20.8). They appear to be structurally and architecturally homogeneous with the bay in front of the gateway (bay 21): their main pitch is similar being 4.95 m.; the width of each of their piers is 1.30 m.; their frontal arches are identical in shape and their masonry contains a large number of reused Crusader stones, many of which bear masons’ marks.

The eastern arch of the porch is blocked by a wall which is pierced by a low door and a grilled window above it. Its lower part is obscured by two benches built against it on both sides of the door..The door (1.50 x 0.70 m.) leads into an underground chamber. The window (2.05 x 1.13 m.) looks into the ®aram extension (the assembly hall) of the Kar»miyya. There is a tabula ansata frame above the monolithic lintel of the window, probably intended for an inscription that was never carved. This wall, at least up to the level of the window sill, appears to be structurally homogenous with the rest of the porch; it is constructed with the same type of stones and bears identical masons’ marks. But the grilled window seems to have been inserted into the wall. Although Burgoyne believes that it belongs to “the original construction” of the Kar»miyya (1987, 217, pl. 15.6), it must be attributed to the original construction of the gateway.

The survey of the adjacent Aw¯adiyya Mausoleum by Burgoyne revealed that a deep recess in the south (®aram) wall of the tomb chamber opens under a semicircular arch with distinctive 45 degree chamfering of the lower edge of the voussoirs similar to that found in the doorway of B«b ®i³³a, which he considers as Umayyad (1987, 174). Moreover, he discovered a vertical joint in the masonry of the ®aram wall, about 1.20 m. west of the opening of the B«b ®i³³a, which supports the possibility that the present B«b ®i³³a is only one bay of a double gateway (Burgoyne 1987, fig. 9.3; 1992, 112-113, fig. 12).

On the north side of the east pier of the porch, a block of stone (1.27 x 0.80 m) is carved with a series of miniature columns and arches surmounted by another block carved with vertical deep grooves (Pl. 20.5). The two blocks were apparently cut to fit their space, indicating they are re-used Crusader spolia. The western arch of the porch is blocked by an infill wall, which is not homogenous with the rest of the fabric of the gateway. A modern wooden booth serving the ®aram guards obscures another block of stone carved with columns and arches, similar to those on the eastern side, built against the north side of the west pier of the porch.

A small sab» l with a bench in front of it abuts the eastern pier of the gateway from the south (Figs 20.2, 20.4; Pl. 20.5). It measures 3.16 m. high and 1.70 m. wide; it is built of small limestone masonry and appears to be a later Ottoman construction.

168

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM

PLATE 20.4: INNER PORCH PLATE 20.1: GENERAL VIEW

FROM TҐ ARƮQ BƖB HҎ ITҖ TҖ A, LOOKING SOUTH

PLATE 20.2: OUTER PORCH, LOOKING SOUTH

PLATE 20.5: MINIATURE COLUMNSAND ARCHES

PLATE 20.3: DOOR IN THE INNER PORCH, LOOKING NORTH

PLATE 20.6: VIEW 169

FROM THE HҐ ARAM, LOOKING NORTH

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

PLATE 20.7: CORNICE ABOVE THE INNER PORCH

PLATE 20.8: BƖB HҎITҖTҖA AND TWO BLOCKED BAYS OF THE NORTH PORTICO TO THE WEST

170

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM

III HISTORY

21 Qubbat M‡s «

I DENTI FI CATI ON

ϰγϮϣ ΔΒϗ

In hisdes cription ofvariousmonumentsin the ®aram es pl anade al ‘ Umar»(ca.1345/ 745)writes:

647/124950 Moder nname:D«r al-Qur’«n al-Kar»m (Qur’«n teaching pl ace)

“. . .Oppos ite the entrancesofthe Portico ofal Mu‘ aam,on the wes tern s ide is the Qubbat M‡s « –peace be upon him.It s tandsin f ront ofthe B«bal Sil s il a andthe porticoofthe ®anbal » s .It is twenty eight dhir«‘ between the pl atf orm (mas³ aba)on which it s tands and the B«b al Sil s il a.The pl atf orm is twentyf our dhir«‘ in l ength f rom south tonorth,andtwentyone dhir«‘ and a hal fin width f rom eas t to wes t,and hal f dhir«‘high.On the s outhern s ide ofthe pl atf orm is the af orementioned qubba.Itsl ength on the outside f rom south tonorth isten dhir«‘ ,andits width f rom eas t towes t isthe s ame.The height of the drum on the outs ide ofthe pl atf orm iseight dhir«‘ .Ins ide,this domed buil ding contains a f l oor pavedwith marbl e.

I LOCATION (Fig.21. 1) The domedstructure isl ocatedon the west side ofthe ®aram espl anade;about 18. 70 m.east of B«b al Sil sil a.

Itsdoor openstothe north,itswidth isa dhir«‘ anda hal f ,itsheight twodhir«‘andtwothirds.On either s ide are two iron windowgratings ,which are ofthe s ame l ength andwidth ofthe entrance its el f .The dome iscarriedbys upports ,between each wal land the next isthe arch ofa vaul t. Above the drum ofthe dome is another drum containing f ive gl as swindows( ³ «q«t ) .Above the s econddrum isthe vaul teddome,itsapproximate height f rom the topofthe s econddrum iseight dhir«‘ .It iscompl etel ywithout marbl e col umns , even at the s idesofthe mi¯r«b”(al ‘ Umar» ,164165) . Al §«hir»(872/ 1467)s tatesthat prayersofthe f our rites (madhhabs )are hel din variousl ocationsin the ®aram,of which the ®anbal »prayerstake pl ace at Qubbat M‡s « and the Maghrib»(wes tern)portico(al §«hir» ,230) .

1 LOCATION PLAN FIG.21.

II SITE AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION Thisdomed structure,set within a raised pl atf orm,is situatedimmediatel ytothe southwest ofthe stairway descending f rom the southwest col onnade of the Dome ofthe Rockterrace;about 12. 90m.tothe east ofthe West Portico opposite B«b al Sil sil a/ B«b al Sak» na (measured to the west wal lofthe pl atf orm) ; about 19. 30 m.to the west ofQubba al Na¯awiyya (measuredf rom the northeast corner tothe southwest corner ofthe Na¯awiyya) ;about 15m.tothe south of the pl atf orm of Sab» lQ«sim Bay (measured to the entrance) . The s tructure compris esa s ingl e room,rectangul ar in pl an androof edbya high dome.A door in the north wal l givesacces stothe interior,which isl it bytwowindows in each ofthe eas t,s outh andwes t wal l sanddominated bya concave mi¯r«b in the qibl awal l .

Muj » r al D» n (901/ 1496) ,des cribesthe pos ition ofthe buil ding: “The qubbain f ront ofthe B«bal Sil s il a isknown asQubbat M‡s «,who isnot the prophet M‡s «. Andit s houl dnot be as s ociatedwith him. . .It was al s oknown asQubbat al Shaj ara (“Dome ofthe Tree”)(Muj » r,II,21) . Asf or the name Qubbat al Shaj ara,it mus t be rel atedtoa tree which wasadj acent tothe buil ding.In hisdes cription ofthe gatesin the wes t ®aram wal l ,al ‘ Umar»mentions that “in f ront ofeach gate,excl uding B«bal Ghaw«nima, there wasa great mul berrytree under which a pl atf orm f or peopl e toprayon ands et in the s hade”(al ‘ Umar» ,160) . Maxvan Berchem deal swith the ques tion ofthe identity ofM‡s « af ter whom the qubbaisnamed,whether he was

171

AYYUBID JERUSALEM :AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY the prophet Moses or a certain Ayyubid young prince cal l ed al Mal ik al Ashraf M‡s«,but has no def inite answer ( van Berchem 1927,107) .In f act al AshrafM‡s«, who was al ¶«l i¯’ s uncl e,governed Damascus f rom 626/ 1229 until his death in 635/ 1237. Another contemporary Ayyubid prince with same name was al Mal ikal ‘ Az» zM‡s«,son ofal §«hir Gh«z»and grandson of ¶al «h al D» n,who reigned in Al eppo ( 613/ 1216634/ 1236) .There are,however,no indications in the historicalsources ofany intimate rel ationship between al ¶«l i¯( the f ounder)and these two f igures,theref ore it is doubtf ulthat he woul d have buil t a qubba in their memory in J erusal em. Al ternativel y, he may have dedicated it to the Prophet M‡s«,as customary practice of buil ding commemorative domes f or various prophets in Isl am known in Ayyubid Syria ( as discussed in Chapter 4) .Af ter al l ,when al ‘ Umar»mentions the Qubbat M‡s«, it is f ol l owed by the common phrase reserved f or prophets “peace be upon him”.In addition al ¶«l i¯may have intended to emul ate his Ayyubid predecessors in the construction ofpious f oundations in Jerusal em f ol l owing its f inalreconquest f rom the Franks in 642/ 1244. DATEAND FOUNDER

Sib³ ,24) .It is very l ikel y that Qubbat M‡s«was begun then and compl eted the f ol l owing year. However,there is a discrepancy oftwo years between the date in the inscription and that given by Muj » r al D» n. This can onl y be expl ained by the f act that Muj » r al D» n read the word without diacriticaldots in l ine 5 ofthe inscription as t i s ‘( nine) instead of sab‘ ( seven) , considering that al Mal ik al ¶«l i¯ died in 15 Sha‘ b«n 647/ 23November 1249( van Berchem 1927,106) . IV ARCHITECTURE EXTERI OR The qubba is situated al most in the middl e ofa raised stone prayer pl atf orm ( Mu· al l « or mas³ aba) . The pl atf orm is rectangul ar in pl an,measuring 19. 10m.and 19. 07m.on the east and west sides,14. 62m.and 14. 65 m.on the south and north sides respectivel y.It rises between 3362 cm.above the ®aram espl anade.It is paved with stone sl abs,each measuring either ca.50x50 cm.or ca.88x66cm ( Fig.21. 1,Pl .21. 1) . At the south end ofthe pl atf orm,there is a f reestanding mi ¯r«b,which measures 1. 56m.l ong,0. 96m.wide and 2. 41m.high.It has a niche,semicircul ar in pl an,37cm. in depth set within a recess 17cm.in depth.Abutting the mi ¯r«b f rom the west is a stone water tank,measuring about 1. 20m.l ong,1. 15m.wide and 1. 02m.high ( Figs 21. 2,21. 6) .It is covered by a monol ithic sl ab pierced with a circul ar wel l head in the centre,24cm.in diameter ( Fig.21. 1,Pl .21. 2) .

An inscription on a marbl e pl aque above the entrance door in the north wal lgives the name ofthe f ounder and the date ofthe buil ding:

ήϣ΃ Ύϣ ΍ΫΎϫ .2 ϢϴΣήϟ΍ ϦϤΣήϟ΍ Ϳ΍ ϢδΑ .1 ϚϠϤϟ΍ ϥΎτϠδϟ΍ ΎϧϻϮϣ .3 ϥΎϜϤϟ΍ (΍)άϫ ΓέΎϤόΑ .5 ϚϠϤϟ΍ ϦΑ· ϦϳΪϟ΍ϭ ΎϴϧΪϟ΍ ϢΠϧ .4 ΢ϟΎμϟ΍ [Δ΋]ΎϤΘγϭ ϦϴόΑέ΃ϭ ϊΒγ ΔϨγ έϮϬη ϲϓ ϞϣΎϜϟ΍ “In the name of God the Mercif ul , the Compassionate.The order f or the construction of this pl ace was made by our master the sul tan al Mal ik al ¶«l i¯ Naj m al Duny« wa’ l D» n b.al Mal ik al K«mil , in the months of the year 647/ ( 124950) ”( van Berchem 1927, 105107; 1920,Pl .XXXVIII) . Ifwe continue with Muj » r al D» n,we f ind a f urther conf irmation regarding the f ounder and date of construction ofQubbat M‡s«: “. . .The order to construct it was given by al Mal ik al ¶«l i¯Naj m al D» n Ayy‡b,son ofal Mal ikal K«milin the year of his death,in 649/ 1251” ( Muj » r,II,21) . The f ounder is al Mal ikal ¶«l i¯Naj m al D» n Ayy‡b,son ofal Mal ik al K«mil ,who reigned as the l ast Ayyubid sul tan in Egypt f rom 636/ 1238to 647/ 124950.On his return f rom Syria to Egypt in 646/ 1248 he visited J erusal em.During this visit,he ordered the repair ofthe city wal l s and donated two thousand Egyptian d» n«rsf or construction works in the ®aram ( Ibn Taghribard» , V,359;

172

FIG.21. 2GROUND PLAN OFPLATFORM AND EXTERIOR MIHR ̚ ƖB (AFTER DI A,W ITH CHANGES)

CATALOGUE OF AYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM The walls of the rectangular room rise to about 5 m. or sixteen courses of ashlars, each measuring 36 x 32 cm. Large stones measuring on average 90 x 45 x 35 cm are used in the corners of the building. Much of this masonry is reused; many of the stones, especially in the south side, bear the remains of Crusader tooling and several have masons’ marks. Above the western window in the south wall, remains of white plaster can be seen. The top of the walls is surrounded by a cyma moulding.

text contains five lines each 7 cm. wide. Above the arch, a large square block of stone measuring 78 cm. each side is pierced with five circular holes, one in the centre and four around it, all filled with different stone material. Above this block, there are three stones carved with relief decoration; the one in the centre has an unclear motif and the two flanking ones each has a shell and an eightpointed star motif.

Each of the east, south and west exterior walls are pierced by two identical rectangular windows (Fig. 21.2); each window has a monolithic lintel and measures 1.80 m. high and 0.85 m. wide; its sill is at the level of the floor of the platform. The exterior of the mi¯r«b, which is built with eleven courses of small masonry, projects about 45 cm. out of the line of the south wall. The north facade wall must have had two windows flanking the entrance door (Figs 21.3, 21.4; Pl. 21.3), echoing the two windows in the other walls. The one on the left-hand side has been blocked; vertical joints in the masonry are clearly visible. The other on the right-hand side of the entrance has been inserted with an external concave mi¯r«b, measuring 1.56 m. high, 61 cm. wide and 41 cm. deep.

FIG. 21.4 NORTH ELEVATION (AFTER DIA)

FIG. 21.3 GROUND PLAN OF THE QUBBA (AFTER DIA, WITH CHANGES) The entrance portal, 1.86 m. high and 1.13 m. wide, is spanned by a monolithic lintel (1.80 m. long and 34 cm. wide) and surmounted by a rounded arch comprising seven voussoirs (Pl. 21.4). A marble slab, measuring 54 cm. wide and 52 cm. high, with a dedication inscription is placed within the tympanum of the arch (Pl. 21.5). The

FIG. 21.5 EAST-WEST SECTION (AFTER DIA) 173

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY INTERIOR (Figs. 21.2, 21.4)

The transition from the rectangular base to the circular dome on the exterior is effected by an octagonal drum, 1.05 m. high, and made out of three courses of ashlars (Fig. 21.7). It is pierced with four small pointed arched windows, each measuring 65 cm. high and 35 cm. wide, in the four cardinal sides (Figs 21.4, 21.5). Above the drum, a dome, 2.75 m. high, slightly pointed and built of small stones, is surmounted by a simple finial (Fig. 21.6; Pl. 21.6).

The entrance in the north wall leads directly into a room, which is lit by the windows in the other three walls. Internally it measures 2.03 m. high, 1.26 m. wide and 41 cm. deep. The room is rectangular in plan, measuring 5.98 m. long and 5.65 m. wide. Each of the interior walls incorporates a blind pointed arch, about 68 cm. deep, springing from corner piers at a height between 1.31-1.40 m. from the floor and rising to 3.82 m. of height (Pl. 21.7). Four corner piers effectively create a square, of which each side measures about 4.50 m. (Fig. 21.2). In the north wall, on the left-hand side of the entrance, a niche, measuring 1.85 m. high and 88 cm. (now serving as a case for the Qur’«n books), is in fact the same window which is blocked from the outside. The qibla wall contains a concave mi¯r«b, 2.11 m. of height, is set within a double recess. The niche, measuring 1.80 m. high, 82 cm. wide and 75 cm. deep, is covered with dark grey marble; the hood is also covered with marble radiating from its apex (Figs 21.2, 21.5; Pl. 21.8).

FIG. 21.6 SECTION THROUGH ZONE OF (AFTER DIA)

The transition from square base to circular drum is effected in two stages (fig, 21.5). The first stage is from square to octagon by means of duplex corner arches, one arch inside the other, with fluted conches set into the corners, rising to 3.35 m. from the floor (Pl. 21.9). This stage culminates in a cavetto cornice, rising to 4.88 m. from the floor. The second stage from the octagon cornice to the circular drum is made by eight small and simple pointed conchs acting like miniature squinches above the corners of the octagon (Pl. 21.10). The drum, rising to a height of about 6.20 m., is pierced by four pointed-arched windows, which are also seen from the exterior. The interior of the dome is white washed (Pl. 21.11).

TRANSITION

The floor of the room is entirely paved with marble slabs of various shapes, dimensions and colours. The centre of the floor is dominated by a rug-like square each side measuring 2.04 m. and decorated with intricate work of geometric designs and alternating white, yellow, pink and black (Pl. 21.12). The design comprises a small circle set within an eight-pointed star, set within a larger fourpointed star, set within four half octagons. Each corner of the square has a design reminiscent of radiating sun rays. The whole coloured square is set within a plain marble frame or border, each of its slabs measures 35 cm. long and 27 cm. wide. Three other smaller rug-like rectangles, made of long marble slabs with alternating pink and black colours, surround the central square on the east, south and west sides.

FIG. 21.7 ROOF PLAN (AFTER DIA) 174

CAT AL O GU E O F AY Y U BID BU IL DINGS IN JE R U SAL E M

PLATE 21.1:GENER AL V IEW

LO O K ING SO U TH -W EST

PLATE 21.4:DO O R

IN NO R TH FAÇ ADE

PLATE 21.2:GENER AL V IEW W ITH FR EE -STANDING MIHR̟ ƖB, LO O K ING NO R TH -EAST

PLATE 21.5:FO U NDATIO N INSCR IPTIO N

PLATE 21.3:NO R TH

FAÇ ADE

PLATE 21.6:DO M E 175

AYYUBID JERUSALEM:AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

PLATE 21.7: INTERIOR OF THE Q UBBA

PLATE 21.9: DUPLEX

CORNER ARCHES AND CONCHES IN THE ZONE OF TRANSITION

PLATE 21.10: ZONE OF TRANSITION

RƖB PLATE 21.8: MIH̟

176

CATALOGUE OF AYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM

PLATE 21.11: INTERIOR OF DOME

PLATE 21.12: COLOURED MARBLE MOSAIC IN THE PAVEMENT

177

AYYUBID JERUSALEM :AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

dome out s i de J erus al em from t he nort hwes t , ”( Muj » r,II, 4849) . If we cont i nue wi t hMuj » r al D» n’ st ext ,we read:

22 Qubba al-Qaymuriyya

Δϳή˵ϤϴϘϟ΍ΔΒϘϟ΍

Iti sas s oci at edwi t hagroupof mart yredfi ght ers whos e t ombs are found i ni t . They are: t he mart yred am» r ®us «m al D» n Ab‡’ l®as an b. Ab‡’ l Faw«ri s al Qaymur» ,who di ed i n Dhu’ l Qa‘ dai nt he year 648 [ 125051] ;t he am» r °i «’al D» nM‡s «b. Ab‡’ l Faw«ri s ,who di edont he t ent h of Dhu’ l Qa‘ da i nt he year 648 [ 125051] ;t he am» r ®us «m al D» nKhadr al Qaymur» ,who di ed ont he fourt eent hof Dhu’ l ®i j j ai nt he year 661 [ 1262] ;t he am» r N«· i r al D» nb. Ab‡’ l ®as anal Qaymur» ,who di ed on t he t ent h of ¶afar i nt he year 665 [ 1266] . In t he aforement i oned dome, t here i s al s o t he t omb of am» r N«· i r al D» n Mu¯ammad J «bi r Bayk,one of t he Tabl akh«na pri ncesi nDamas cus ,andt he guardi anof t he Two Sanct uari esof J erus al em andHebron,who di edon Mondayni ghtof t he el event hof Mu¯arram i nt he year 770[ 1368]( Muj » r,II,49) .

Before 648/1251 Maus ol eum ( turba)of al Qaymuri yyafami l y Modernname:Qubbaal Qaymari yya I. LOCATION ( Fi g. 22.1) The bui l di ngi sl ocat edonahi l labout1 km. t ot he nort hwes tof t he Ol dCi t y,near t he mos que of Nab»‘ Uk«s ha; about100m. wes tof St raus sSt reeti nWes tJ erus al em.

1 LOCATION PLAN FIG.22.

II. SITE AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION Thi swel l bui l tmonuments t andsasone of t he onl yt wo s urvi vi ngAyyubi dbui l di ngsout s i de t he ci t ywal l s . Ithas t he form of a frees t andi ng turba,wi t h a cubi c bas e s upport i ngadrum s urmount edbyadome ( Pl . 22.1) . Int he nort hwal li sani nt eres t i ngport al ;t he ot her t hree wal l s are pi erced by t hree s pl ayed s l i t wi ndows . The drum of t he dome i spi ercedal s o byfour s mal lwi ndows . Ins i de are fi ve t ombsarrangedi nanort hs out hrow al ong t he wes twal l . There i samoul ded mi ¯r«b i nt he qi bl a wal l . Int he four cornersof t he t ombchamber are reus ed col umns and fri ezes ,of whi ch many are of Crus ader ori gi n. III. HISTORY I DENTI FI CATI ONAND FOUNDER Al t hought he bui l di ngi sanepi graphi c,i dent i fi cat i oni s qui t e eas ys i nce Muj » r al D» ndes cri besi tas“awel l bui l t

Thes e pri nces( am» rs ) ,who were ment i onedbyMuj » r al D» n,were membersof t he Qaymuri yya Kurdi s h cl an, whi chori gi nat edi nQaymur,afort res sl ocat edbet ween 33 Mos ulandKhal l «³i nt he J azi raregi on( Y«q‡t ,IV,481) . They were i nt he s ervi ce of vari ous members of t he Ayyubi ddynast y,bot hi nDamascusandCai ro duri ngt he s event h/t hi rt eent hcent ury. Int he power s t ruggl e among t he Ayyubi d pri nces ,t hey s i ded wi t h ¶al a¯ al D» n’ s grands on,al N«· i r Y‡s uf Mu¯ammad b. Gh«z» ,who became governor of Al eppo aft er hi sfat her’ sdeat hi n 634/1236,under t he guardi anshi p of hi sgrandmot her, °ayfaKh«t ‡n. Support ed by t he Qaymuri yyacl an,al N«· i r Y‡suf i n648/125051 t ookcont rolof Damascus, whi chhadbeenunder Egypt i anrul e. Int he s ame year,al ‘ As qal «n»report st hatabat t l e bet weenal N«· i r andt he Egypt i ans ,headed by t he Maml uk offi cer al Mu‘ i zz Aybak,t ookpl ace atal ‘ Abb«s i yya,near Raml a,i nwhi ch t he former wasdefeat edand°i «’al D» nal Qaymur»was ki l l ed ( al ‘ As qal «n» , 412414) . Thi s i nformat i on correl at es ent i rel y wi t h whatMuj » r al D» n ment i oned about°i «’al D» n al Qaymur» . Iti s qui t e pos s i bl e t o as s ume t hathi s body was broughtt o J erus al em and buri edi nt he turba whi chwaserect edfor t he Qaymuri yya fami l y. Hi sfat her,®us «m al D» n,who di edatt he s ame t i me, was probabl y buri ed t here. The ot her t wo Qaymuri yyapri nceswere s eemi ngl yki l l edi nl at er years andburi edi nt he turba. IV. ARCHITECTURE EXTERI OR The domedbui l di ngformsanal mos ts quare bl ock,10.60 m. ( eas t wes t )by10.55 m. ( nort hs out h) ,wi t ht urret l i ke proj ect i onsont he four s i des( Fi g. 22.2;Pl . 22.2) . Iti s cons t ruct edof fi ne as hl ars( eachmeas uri ng0.28 m. by 33

Over t he yearst he name al Qaymuri yyahasbeenwrongl yvocal i s ed byt he peopl e of J erus al em asal Qaymari yya.

178

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM the wall. The portal i tself i s set i n a recess ( 35 cm. deep) and surmounted by a poi nted arch;the j ambs on ei ther si de consi st of fi nely carved courses of stones. Both si des of the proj ecti on are moulded wi th desi gns of colonnettes ( Pl. 22.5). A photograph, whi ch was taken by Creswell i n the 1920s, shows that the ori gi nal entrance was much lower than the present one and the doorway was spanned by a monoli thi cli ntel made of a brown grani te stone ( Pl. 22.6). On enteri ng the bui ldi ng one descends about 1.10 m. to the floor level by a fli ght of fi ve steps, under whi ch the ori gi nal threshold i s sti ll vi si ble ( Fi gs 22.2, 22.4). These steps appear to be a later addi ti on, si nce the ground surface outsi de the bui ldi ng has ri sen.

0.25 m. on average) and re-used marble for the doorway, mi¯r«b and corner columns and i mposts. Each of the three proj ecti ons i s pi erced by three splayed sli twi ndows, 0.90 m. wi de narrowi ng to 0.20 m. externally ( Pl. 22. 3).

I NTERI OR( plan, Fi g. 22.2;secti ons, Fi gs 22.3, 22.4)

FIG.22. 2 GROUND PLAN At the upper eastern part of the north wall and at a hei ght of 3.85 m. i s a fli ght of stai rs ( 1.60 m. hi gh and 0.80 m. wi de), wi th j ambs of a doorway on ei ther si de, ascendi ng to the roof ( Fi g. 22.6). The landi ng proj ects sli ghtly from the wall and i s made of re-used marble mouldi ng. At the top of the ri ght-hand si de of the stai rs i s a voussi or i ndi cati ng there was an arch above the doorway ( Pl. 22.4). Si nce there are no traces of other stai rs on the wall, i t would seem plausi ble for there to have been a wooden ladder whi ch was used to reach upto the fli ght of stai rs i n order to allow access to the roof.

FIG.22. 3 EAST ELEVATION

The cyli ndri cal drum of the dome ( 1.55 m. i n hei ght) i s bui lt of four courses of ashlars ( Pl. 22.4). The upper course supports a proj ecti ng cavetto corni ce at the base of the dome. The drum i s pi erced by four arched wi ndows, almost i denti cal i n thei r di mensi ons ( each measuri ng 0.90 m. by 0.70 m.). The dome i s constructed wi th ashlars covered wi th small masonry, plaster and concrete, of whi ch the latter was apparently appli ed duri ng the restorati on works i n the 1930s ( Fi g. 22.5). The apexof the dome may have been fi tted wi th a stone fi ni al, a common devi ce i n the Ayyubi d peri od ( as i n the Qubba al-Na¯awi yya, the Qubbat Sulaym«n and the Qubbat M‡s«). The entrance doorway ( 1.30 m. wi de and 1.48m. deep) i n the centre of the north si de i s set wi thi n the proj ecti on of 179

FIG.22. 4NORTH-SOUTH SECTION, LOOKING EAST

AYYUBID JERUSALEM:AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY The structure consists of a sole chamber, square in plan (about 8.50 x 8.50 m.) and surmounted by a dome. The entrance doorway leads directly into the tomb chamber, with five stone tombs on the eastern side and a mi¯r«b in the qibl awall (Pl. 22.7). The tombs are oriented in the usual Muslim manner with its long axis parallel to the qibl awall. Four cenotaphs, almost identical in size and method of construction (each constructed with ashlars similar to those used in the rest of the building), are built on a raised platform. The northernmost tomb near the entrance, however, is larger than the other tombs. I t is built with large flat stones directly on the original stone paving of the chamber (see plan, Fig. 22.2 and section, Fig. 22.3). All the tombs originally had corner posts, as can be seen in a photograph from 1934 (al-‘ Asal»1981b, 113).

The interior walls are of exposed ashlars, but remains of plaster in the corners indicate that they were originally plastered. I nternally each of the east, south and west recesses walls is pierced by a splayed slit-window (Pl. 22.9); such windows are a common feature in Crusader buildings and military architecture, but here they were fitted to facilitate ventilation and light and served no military purpose.

FIG. 22.6ZONE OF

FIG. 22.5EAST-W EST SECTION, LOOKING SOUTH The qibl a wall contains a pointed-arched concave mi¯r«b. I ts upper part is formed by stonework radiating from a central hub (Fig. 22.4; Pl. 22.8). On either side of the mi¯r«b recess, two re-used marble columns support a moulded archivolt.

TRANSITION

The large arches in each corner rest on a moulded frieze composed of re-used pieces of sculpture supported by assembled marble columns and re-used capitals, all of which appear to be Crusader s pol ia. The transition from a square base to a circular drum is effected in two stages. The first stage is from a square to an octagon by means of large wall arches spanning each corner of the square duplex corner arches, one arch inside the other over a squinch, and little fluted muqarnasniches cut into the corners (Pl. 22.10). This stage culminates in a cavetto cornice (Figs 22.3, 22.4). The second stage of transition from the octagonal cornice to the circular drum is made simply by three ashlar courses and eight fluted squinches, trefoil in shape, above the corners of the octagon. The conjunction between the drum and the dome is undefined (Figs 22.3, 22.4).

180

CATALOGUE OF AYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM

PLATE 22.4:THE DOME AND FLIGHT OF STAIRS PLATE 22.1:GENERAL VIEW FROM THE NORTH-EAST, A PHOTO TAKEN IN THE 1920S (COURTESY OF THE CRESWELL ARCHIVE, THE ASHMOLEAN MUSEUM, OXFORD)

PLATE 22.2:GENERAL VIEW

LOOKING SOUTH-WEST

PLATE 22.5:ENTRANCE PORTAL

PLATE 22.6:ENTRANCE PORTAL IN THE 1920S (COURTESY OF THE CRESWELL ARCHIVE, THE ASHMOLEAN MUSEUM, OXFORD)

PLATE 22.3:SOUTH SIDE OF THE DOMED STRUCTURE 181

AY Y U B ID JE R U SAL E M :AN AR C H IT E C T U R AL AND AR C H AE O L O G IC AL ST U D Y

SH O W ING TO M B S AND MIH̟ RƖB, LO O K ING SO U TH

PLATE 22.7:INTER IO R

PLATE 22.9:SPLAY ED

RƖB PLATE 22.8:MIH̟

SLIT -W IND O W

PLATE 22.10:ZO NE O F TR ANSITIO N

182

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM

AppendixI: Ayyubidbuildingswhichhavebeenrebuiltinlaterperiods:

Location and general description

1 B«b al-Siq«ya (B«b al-Ma³hara) (ΔϳΎϘδϟ΍ ΏΎΑ)ΓήϬτϤϟ΍ ΏΎΑ ca. 589/ 1193? Other names: B«b al-²ah«ra, B«b al-Mutawa±±a’ (Mamlukperiod);B«b al-Ma³hara. Location Thegateis situatedin thewest portico ofthe®aram.I t leads f rom the®aram esplanadeto thes i q«ya ofal-Malik al-‘ ªdil (589/ 1193),theAblutions Place. History I n his description ofthewest wall ofthe®aram andits gates,al-‘ Umar»(ca. 745/ 1345) identif ies theB«b al²ah«ra (GateoftheAblutions) to thesouth oftheB«b al-Qa³³«n» n,with two large piers of the portico in between them.He adds:“f our steps lead f rom the ground level ofthe®aram to theB«b al-²ah«ra”(al‘ Umar» ,162).

I t is located between the main entrance to the Aq· «Mosque and the south staircase leading up to the Dome ofthe Rock platf orm.A marble round circular basin with a f ountain in the centre surrounded by a number oftaps and similar number ofstone chairs f or people to sit on during the ablution.The water was supplied by the underground channel known as the “‘ Arr‡bChannel”,starting south of Bethlehem.I t is drained into a tank under the ®aram esplanade.A modern railing surrounds the present structure. History I t was f ounded by Sultan al-Malik al-‘ ªdil in 589/1193 (al-Asali 1982,229).I t was restored a number oftimes in the Mamluk period,notably by the am» rSayfal-D»n Tankiz in 729/1328 (Muj»r, I I , 35), and by Sultan Qaytb«y (al-Asali 1982,229).

3.B«bal-N«ir

By Muj»r al-D»n’s day (901/1496) the gate was known as B«b al-Mutawa±±a’ “. . . which gives access to the Ablution Place (mutawa±±a’) ofthe (Aq· «) Mosque.An ancient gate which stood here was ruined and was rebuilt by ‘ Al«’ al-D»n al-Ba· »r,when he restored the Ablutions Place”(Muj»r,I I ,31).‘ Al«’ al-D»n al-Ba· »r served as the n«i r al ®aramayn (the superintendent of the Two ®arams ofJ erusalem and Hebron) during the reign ofal§«hir Baybars (568-76/1260-77) (Burgoyne 1987, 77). This is a clear indication that an earlier gate stood here bef ore the rebuilt one.

ήχΎϨϟ΍ ΏΎΑ

The gate was apparently open during the Ayyubid period to give access to the s i q«ya of al-Malik al-‘ ªdil (589/1193) (Burgoyne 1987,278,Figs 57. 2,57. 3).

History

ca.600-617/1203-1220 The Gate ofthe Superintendent ofthe ®aram. Other names:St.Michael’s Gate;B«bRib«³al-Man· ‡r»; B«bal-Majlis. Location I n the west portico ofthe ®aram leading to ²ar»qB«balN«ir.

An inscription on a leafofthe wooden door reads:

ΎϧΪϴγ ΔϟϭΩ [ϡΎϳ]΃ ϲϓ ΏΎΒϟ΍ ΍άϫ Ω[͋Ϊ˵Ο] ϰδϴϋ ϦϳΪϟ΍ ϑήη ϢψόϤϟ΍ [ϚϠϤϟ΍] [ϥ]ΎτϠδϟ΍ . [Ϧϳ]Ϊϟ΍ ϒϴγ ϝΩΎόϟ΍ ϚϠϤϟ΍ ϦΑ

2Al-k«s

α΄Ϝϟ΍

“This door was restored during the reign ofour Master,the Sultan al-Malik al-Mu‘ aam Sharaf al-D»n ‘ º s«,son ofal-Malik al-‘ ªdil Sayfal-D»n” (van Berchem 1927,no.154;RCEA,I X,264-265, no.3592).

ca.589/1193? The marble reservoir (al k«sor al k«’s= “the cup”) or the Ablution Place ofthe Aq· «Mosque.

183

AYYUBID JERUSALEM :AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY Muj»r al-D»n, who may have seen the inscription, says that the B«b al-N«ir “is an ancient gate which was rebuilt during the reign ofal-Malik al-Mu‘ aam ‘ I s«, around the year 600.I t was known as St.Michael’ s gate” (Muj»r, I I , 30).

.9 ϦΑ ήϜΑ ϮΑ΃ ϝΩΎόϟ΍ ϚϠϤϟ΍ ϦΑ ϰδϴϋ Ϣ΋΍ΰόϟ΍ ΔϨγ .10 έϮϬη ϲϓ Ϛϟ΍Ϋϭ ΎϤϬϟ Ϳ΍ ήϔϏ ΏϮϳ΃ ΪϤΤϣ [ϰϠϋ] Ϳ΍ ϰϠλϭ Δ΋ΎϤΘγϭ ήθϋ ΚϠΛ .Ϫϟ΁ϭ

Al-‘ Umar» calls this gate “the B«bal-Rib«³al-Man· ‡r»” af ter the adjacent rib«³ (hospice) ofSultan Qalaw‡n.He adds its dimensions:“is sixdhir«‘long and f ive dhir«‘ and a halfwide”(al-‘ Umar», 160).

I n the name of God the Mercif ul, the Compassionate.This is who has volunteered to make the cistern (· ahr» j ) and the water installation (ma·na‘ )34f or the sake ofGod, the servant in need ofGod’ s mercy, Mu¯ammad b.‘ Urwa b.Sayy«r al-M‡· ul», may God be mercif ul unto him and be satisf ied with him, by benevolence of(minni‘ mat ) ofour master the Sultan al-Malik al-Mu‘ aam Sharafal-Duny«wa’ l-D»n Ab‡’ l-‘ Az«yim ‘ º s«b. al-Malikal-‘ ªdil Ab‡ Bakr b.Ayy‡b, may God pardon them, in the months ofthe year 613[ 12167] .May God bless (the Prophet) Mu¯ammad and his f amily (van Berchem 1927, 99-100, f ig.16; Asali 1981, 236; Natsheh in: Auld and Hillenbrand 2000, 927).

An inscription on the f ace ofthe portico in f ront ofB«b al-N«ir mentions that this portico was built in 707/ 130708(van Berchem 1927, 115-116).

4.Sab»l Sha‘ l«n

ϥϼόη ϞϴΒγ Constructed 613/ 1216-17; restored in 832/ 1428; completely rebuilt in 1037/ 1627; possibly restored 1061/ 1651 Location and general description I n the ®aram esplanade;immediately north ofthe northwestern stairway and colonnade leading to the Dome of the Rockterrace. The sab» l , L shaped in plan, consists ofa domed chamber, a cistern and a small porch.The chamber is square and has an entrance door in its east wall.I t is surmounted with a typically Ottoman ribbed shallow dome.Against it f rom the west, the cistern ofthe sab» lprovides water into a trough which is sheltered by a porch.This one pointedarched porch is open on the north, west and south.I ts west f açade has three inscriptions dating f rom the Ayyubid, Mamlukand Ottoman periods respectively.

‘ Urwa b.Sayy«r al-M‡· il», who was responsible f or the construction ofthe sab» l , served probably as w«l »ofthe city.His name is also mentioned in another inscription in connection with building ofanother water project, that is ¶ahr»j al-Mu‘ aam (607/ 1210-11), which is located on the west side ofthe Dome ofthe Rockterrace.According to the inscription the construction ofthe two public water installations was f unded by a contribution (minni‘ mat ) given by al-Mu‘ aam ‘ º s«as an act ofpiety. The inscription, on the right-hand side (measuring 54cm. x44cm. ), consists off ive lines ofnas kh»Mamlukscript. I t ref ers to the f irst restoration ofthe sab» l , praying platf orm and the mi¯r«b by Sh«h»n, the Superintendent of the Two ®arams, during the reign ofSultan al-Ashraf Barsb«y in 832/ 1428(van Berchem 1927, 100-101, no. 165; al-Asali 1981, 237; Natsheh in: Auld and Hillenbrand 2000, 927).The restoration workwas carried out by the am» r Sh«h»n al-Shuj«‘ » (Muj»r, I I , 101).

A large praying platf orm (mas³aba) is built against the northern wall ofthe sab» lwith a mi¯r«b abutting on its north-east corner. History The inscription on the lef t-hand side the f açade ofthe sab» l(measuring 55cm.x56cm. ) consists often lines of nas kh»Ayyubid.I t reads:

ωϮτΗ Ύϣ ΍άϫ .2 ϢϴΣήϟ΍ ϦϤΣήϟ΍ Ϳ΍ ϢδΑ .1 ϪΟϮϟ ϙέΎΒϤϟ΍ ϊϨμϤϟ΍ϭ 3 ΞϳήϬμϟ΍ ΍άϫ ϞϤόΑ ϰϟΎόΗ Ϳ΍ ΔϤΣέ ϰϟ· ήϴϘϔϟ΍ ΪΒόϟ΍ .4 ϰϟΎόΗ Ϳ΍ ϪϤΣέ ϲϠλϮϤϟ΍ έΎϴγ ϦΑ΍ Γϭήϋ ϦΑ ΪϤΤϣ .5 ϥΎτϠδϟ΍ ΎϧϻϮϣ ΔϤόϧ Ϧϣ ϪϨϋ ϲοέϭ .6 Ϳ΍ .8 ϮΑ΃ ϦϳΪϟ΍ϭ ΎϴϧΪϟ΍ ϑήη ϢψόϤϟ΍ ϚϠϤϟ΍ .7

The inscription, in the centre ofthe f açade (measuring 60 cm.x60cm. ), comprises off our lines ofnas kh»Ottoman script.I t states that the sab» lwas constructed “af ter it became ruined and out of order” by the Governor (mu¯«f i) ofJ erusalem Mu¯ammad P«sh«, when Bayr«m P«sh«was the governor (waz » r) ofEgypt, in 1037/ 1627 (van Berchem 1927,101-102, no.166;al-Asali 1981, 237-238;Auld and Hillenbrand 2000, 927-8).I t is not clear who Sha‘ l«n was af ter which the sab» lwas called, although Van Berchem suggests he may have been an attendant ofthe sab» lat a certain time (1927, 98, n.1).

34

I n modern Arabic this word means “f actory”, but in contemporary sources it means “an installation f or collecting water such as reservoir or tank”, see Amin and I brahim 1990, 108.

184

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM History

5. Z«wiyat al-Hun‡d

Muj»r al-D»n writes that “Z«wiyat al-Hun‡d, adjacent to B«b al-Asb«³, is ancient which belonged once to poor people of the Rif«‘iyya; a group of Indians, after whom it was called, lived there” (Muj»r, II, 48).

(ΔϴϋΎϓήϟ΍ Δϳϭ΍ΰϟ΍) ΩϮϨϬϟ΍ Δϳϭ΍ί Early 7th/13th century (?); reconstructed in 1286/1869-70 Other names: Z«wiya al-Rif«‘iyya, Z«wiya of the Shaykh al-Sakrakanj

The original z«wiya was replaced by a new building serving as a hospice for Muslim Indians in 1286/1869-70 (Burgoyne 1976, no. 21; Bieberstein and Bloedhor 1994, vol. II, 455 (1722.1321).

Location In the north part of the Old City; opposite B«b al-S«hira (Herod’s Gate) from the south

185

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

AppendixII: Ayyubid buildings which no longer exist known from inscriptions and literary sources

In the early third/ninth century, the Emperor Charlemagne built a hospice for pilgrims and a church for the Latins here. Bernard the Monk describes the hospice and the adjacent Church of St. Mary. This church was destroyed and enlarged during the tenth and eleventh centuries by merchants from the Italian city of Amalfi. Around the years 1063-1071, the Latin centre included a monastery named Santa Maria, a women’s monastery named Santa Maria Magdalene and a hospital with a chapel (Prag 1989, 199-206).

1. ¶al«¯» B»m«rist«n

ϲΣϼμϟ΍ ϥΎΘγέΎϤϴΒϟ΍ Endowed and converted 583/1187 Modern names: al-M‡rist«n, S‡q al-Dabb«gha, S‡q Aftimus. Location

During the Crusader period, the complex was further enlarged and new structures were built. An extensive survey carried out in June 1900 by Conrad Schick reveals a clear picture of how this area looked like in the Crusader period. It included a large hall (about 200 X 90 m.) covered with cross-vaults supported by square piers to the south of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which served as a hospital, and three churches.

In the complex which occupies the whole block south of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Site and general description This is the site of the former headquarters of the Crusader Knights of St. John, the Hospitallers, which included the Latin hospital. It is bounded by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to the north; the Meat Market (S‡q alLa¯¯«m»n) to the east; David’s Street (²ar»q al-Bazaar) to the south; the Christian Quarter Street (²ar»q ®arat alNa·«ra) to the west. Within this complex, the Ayyubids established at least three institutions: the B»m«rist«n (583/1187), the Mosque of al-Af±al (589/1193) and the Z«wiya al-Dirk«h (ca 613/1216-17).

Ayyubid Period Bah«’ al-D»n (d. 632/1234) states that ¶al«¯ al-D»n ordered him “to stay in Jerusalem (to supervise) the restoration of a b»m«rist«n which he founded... until his return. He left Jerusalem on 6 Shawwal (583/1187)” (Bah«’ al-D»n, 242).

Only few remains of the original construction survived the major redevelopment which was undertaken in the area at the late 19th-early 20th century. These include: piers and vaults in the courtyard of the modern Lutheran Elementary School, at the south-east corner of the complex; vaulted halls along the northern side of ²ar»q al-Bazaar, which now serve as shops; vaulted bays, which once were part of the Latin hospital and houses now the Mosque of al-Af±al, at the north-west corner. No physical remains of both the B»m«ris«n and the Z«wiya al-Dirk«h has survived.

Al-‘Ayn» (d. 855/1451) mentions that: ¶al«¯ al-D»n ordered that the church adjacent to the (Frankish) hospital (d«r alisbi³«r) near the Church of Resurrection (qum«ma) will be converted into a m«rist«n for the ill. He endowed places (properties) for it and (provided it) with medicines and plenty of drugs. He also empowered the administration and superintendence of these waqfs to the q«±» Bah«’’ al-D»n Y‡suf b. R«fi‘ b. Tam»m (‘Is« 1939, 230231).

History

In his description of the streets of the Old City, Muj»r alD»n says that:

Earlier Periods The area has an interesting and complex history. Excavations and archaeological exploration have revealed remains from the Roman period until Crusader times (Warren and Wilson 1871, 269-273; Schick 1902, 42-56; Kenyon 1961-63). When the Roman city of Jerusalem (Aelia Capitolina) was built in the second century by the Emperor Hadrian, this was the site of the forum.

The Perfume Market (S‡q al-‘A³³«r»n) is followed (to the west) by the Street of al-Dirk«h, which has the ¶al«¯i B»m«ris«n and the Church of the Resurrection (kan»sat qum«ma), then followed by the Christian Quarter from the west (Muj»r, II, 53).

186

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM

In another place, he locates “alDi rk«h Z«wi ya, near al¶al«¯iB» m«ri s«n, whi ch was a hospi tal ( d«r al i sbi ³ «r)duri ng the ti me ofthe Franks . . . ”( Muj » r II, 47) . Indeed, ¶al«¯ alD» n’ s b» m«ri s t «n was founded in 588/ 1192is a former Churchof St Mary the Great/ Less (Richards 1994, 7083). During the digging of the foundations of the Lutheran Churchof the Redeemer in 1890,the German archaeological expedition found an inscription which suggests that that building had been made into Shafi‘ »madrasa by 6005/ 12038,possibly also around 588/ 1192at the time of ¶al«¯alD» n.(Richards 1994,75;Pringle 1997,2089).

The site remained in ruins until the late 19th century when the Ottoman sultan ‘ Abd al‘ Az» zgave the eastern part of the area to the Germans.They constructed there the Lutheran Protestant Churchof the Redeemer,which was consecrated in 1898in the the presence of the Kaiser of Prussia,Wilhelm I I ,during his visit to J erusalem.The churchwas probably built on the site of the churchof St. Mary of the Latins and follows its plan closely.During the same time,the GreekOrthodoxPatriarchate built the present day market named after PatriarchAftimos.I n the centre of this market,a baroque fountain was constructed to commemorate the 25thanniversary of Sultan ‘ Abd alHamid’ s rule.The western part of the area is occupied by the Churchof St.J ohn the Baptist and the monastery of Gethsemane.

Subsequent History The b»m«rist«n survived for a long time after the Ayyubid period until it was severely damaged by an earthquake in 862/ 1458.The records (sij il l s) of the Ottoman Shar‘ » Court in J erusalem indicate that it continued to function in another location after the earthquake (alArif 1961,179).

2.¶al«¯iyya Madrasa

ΔϴΣϼμϟ΍ ΔγέΪϤϟ΍

Sij il l53 (p.577) refers to repair works (ta‘ m»r) and restoration (tarm»m) in the B» m«ris«n al¶al«¯i and some of its waqfproperty in 978/ 1570(cited by alAsali 1989,8788).These works,whichwere funded by the waqfrevenues of the previous year,included the walls of a hall (120 akçe),ceiling of the ablution place (mutawa±a) (160 akçe),a portico (riw«q) above the entrance to the hall of the Ku¯l Makers (al ka¯¯al »n) (82 akçe),the floor of the eastern hall (d»w«n) (70 akçe),the façade of the western stores (makh«zin) and the gate of the B» m«ris«n (90 akçe),the outer of the eastern wall (300akçe),the western curtain wall,on the side of the prison (al ¯abs),the hall of the mentallyill (maj «n»n) (200akc, e),the northern and southern roofs (1500akçe),the western wall of of the entrance to the prison (60akçe),and the roofs of shops,whichbelong to the B» m«ris«n’ s waqfin Kh«n alZayt Market (420 akçe) (alAsali,1989,88).

Converted 588/ 1192 Other names:St.Anne’ s Church,and the monastery of the White Fathers. Location I mmediately to the north of ²ar» q Sitt»Maryam,about 45m.west of B«b alAsb«³(Lions’Gate) Site and general description The building is a fine 12th century Crusader church, converted into the ¶al«¯iyya Madrasa.I t is built in the classic Romanesque style with a fine entrance portal, consisting of a pointed arch and hood mouldings.The archivolt and cornice are finely carved. The upper window in the façade has gadrooned voussiors supported by marble columns with acanthus capitals, and is surmounted by an elaborately carved archivolt.

Sij il l196(p.177) informs us that the head of doctors (ra’ »s al a³ ibba’ ) in Jerusalem was appointed as the superintendent (mutawal l ») of the waqfproperty of the B» m«ris«n al¶al«¯i,in 1105/ 1693(alAsali 1989,9091).The same document reports that the Shaykhs ‘ Al» and ‘ Abd alRa¯» m,sons of the Shaykh ‘ Umar al‘ Alam» ,were appointed to recite the S‡ra of Y«s» n every Thursday and Monday,whichwill be dedicated to ¶al«¯alD» n,in the B» m«ris«n (alAsali 1989,90).

The interior of comprises a nave and two aisles basilica of four bays.I ts east end terminated in three semicircular apses,the central one being preceded by a barrelvault, whichwould have caused its outer wall to have proj ected beyond the others.On the inside and the outside,the walls were faced throughout with smoothly dressed ashlars

Sij il l269(p.61) mentions that a certain Waf«Afand»al‘ Alam» was appointed to the superintendence post (wa»f at al tawl iya) of the B» m«ris«n al¶al«¯i’ s waqf ,in 1203/ 1788 (alAsali 1989, 91). I n the same year, according to the sij il l269 (p.146),a ruined house in Khu³ ³Marzib«n,which belongs to the B» m«ris«n,was restored (alAsali 1989,93).

The Churchof St.Anne was built on the remains of a Byzantine churchat the supposed site of the house of Sts. J oachim and Anne,parents of the Virgin Mary and containing their tombs.After the Frankish conquest of J erusalem in 492/ 1099, the site was given to the Benedictine nuns,and the present churchwas constructed ca.1130withthe assistance of I vette,daughter of King

History

187

AYYUBID JERUSALEM :AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

Baldwin II and sister of Queen Melisende (Enlart 1928, 191) . The church possessed various properties in J erusalem, including part of the Triple Market (Benvenisti 1970, 71) . After ¶al«¯alD» n’ s conquest of J erusalem in 583/ 1187, the church was converted into a Sh«fi‘ »madrasa.In the tympanum of the arch above the entrance is a plaque of an inscription which reads:

Af±al had also endowed the whole Maghrib»Quarter for the Maghrib»(North African and Andalusian)community during his tenure as governor of Damascus (582/ 1186592/ 1196) .This waqfwas considered unusual even in Muj » r alD» n’ s time, for he says there was no “book of waqf ”for it, and its conformation after alAf±al’ s death required a rather comlicated legal procedure before its validity was recognized (Muj » r, II, 46) . The waqf i yya defines the borders of the quarter and states that all Magh«riba residents, male and female, youngand old, are included (Tibawi 1978, 1315) .‘ Abd alGhan»alN«buls»mentions that the madrasa contains a tombof a certain Shaykh ‘ º d (154) .Sandreczki identified it as “[ Masj id]alShaykh Aid”and located it about 75m.west of the WailingWall (1883, 57, no.1547) .The madrasa and most of the Maghribi Quarter were demolished by the Israeli authorities in J une 1967 to make way for the present large plaza in front of the Western Wall.

ΔϤόϧ Ϧϣ ϢϜΑ Ύϣϭ ϢϴΣήϟ΍ ϦϤΣήϟ΍ Ϳ΍ ϢδΑ .1 ΎϧϻϮϣ ΎϬϔϗϭ ΔϛέΎΒϤϟ΍ ΔγέΪϤϟ΍ ϩάϫ .2 Ϳ΍ ϦϤϓ ϥΎτϠγ ϦϳΪϟ΍ϭ ΎϴϧΪϟ΍ Ρϼλ ήλΎϨϟ΍ ϚϠϤϟ΍ ΃ ϦΑ ϒγϮϳ ή˷ϔψϤϟ΍ϲΑ΃ ϦϴϤϠδϤϟ΍ϭ .3 ϡϼγϻ΍ ˷ΰϋ΃ϦϴϨϣ˱ϮϤϟ΍ήϴϣ΃ ΔϟϭΩ ϲϴΤϣ ϱΫΎη ϦΑ ΏϮ˷ϳ ΎϴϧΪϟ΍ ήϴΧ ϦϴΑ Ϫϟ ϊϤΟϭ ϩέΎμϧ΃ .4 Ϳ΍ ϲΑ΃ ϡΎϣϻ΍ ΏΎΤλ΃ Ϧϣ ˯ΎϬϘϔϟ΍ ϰϠϋ ΓήΧϵ΍ϭ Ϳ΍ ϲοέ ϲόϓΎθϟ΍ βϳέΩ· ϦΑ ΪϤΤϣ .5 Ϳ΍ΪΒϋ .Δ΋Ύϣ βϤΧϭ ϦϴϨϤΛϭ ϥΎϤΛ ΔϨγ ϲϓ ϪϨϋ

Architecture Only a single photograph and a short note about the madrasa are found in the archives of the Palestine Archaeological (Rockefeller)Museum, which reads:

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful.This blessed madrasa was endowed by our lord alMalik alN«· r ¶al«¯ alDuny« wa’ l D» n, sultan of Islam and the Muslims, Ab‡’ l Muaffar Y‡suf b.Sh«dh» , Restorer of the Empire of the Commander of the Faithful, may God glorify his victories and bring together the goodness of this world and the next world for him, for the j urists (f uqah«’ )and desciples of the i m«m Ab‡ ‘ Abdull«h Mu¯ammad b.Idr» s alSh«fi‘ »– may God be satisfies with him –in the year 588 (1192)(van Berchem 1922, 9095, no.35;Vincent and Abel 1926, IV, 684;IRCEA, IX, (1937) , 179180, no.3453)

“Medieval doorway with two crossvaulted chambers and a domed middle chamber;dome carried on four arches, corner squinches and drum with four windows; in south wall of middle chamber is a mi ¯r«bwith moulded arch, in west chamber a wooden cenotaph (cited also by Burgoyne 1987, Pl.9, n.131, on p.52) .The abovementioned photograph shows the entrance door of the madrasa spanned with a moulded lintel and a relievingarch and surmounted with a pointed gadroonarch, possibly incorporating reused Crusader material.

3.Af±aliyya Madrasa

4.Maym‡niyya Madrasa

ΔϴϠπϓϻ΍ ΔγέΪϤϟ΍

ΔϴϧϮϤϴϤϟ΍ ΔγέΪϤϟ΍

Endowed 590/ 1194 Madrasa of alMalikalAf±al N‡r alD» n Ab‡ al®asan ‘ Al» , son of ¶al«¯ alD» n, for adherents of the M«lik» madhhab(rite)

Endowed in Jum«da I 593/ March 1197) Madrasa of the am» r F«ris alD» n Ab‡ Sa‘ » d Maym‡n b. ‘ Abdull«h alQasr» Modern name:Ma’ m‡niyya School

Location

Location

In the former Maghrib»Quarter, west of the ®aram

In the northernmost part of the Old City, near B«b alS«hira

History

History

Muj » r alD» n says that the Madrasa alAf±aliyya was in the Maghrib»Quarter and that it was endowed by alMalikalAf±al for the M«lik»f aq» hs in J erusalem (Muj » r,II, 46) .Al-

The Maymumiyya Madrasa was established in a church dated to the Byzantine and Crusader periods.The Church

188

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM

of St. Mary Magdalene is said to have been built by the Copts (in the time of Magistrate Makarios)ca 81930. I t was taken over in the 6th/ 12th by the Syrian ( J acobite) church by agreement with the Latin Canons of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. I t is shown on Crusader maps of J erusalem from this period. J ohn of Wurzburg,who visited J erusalem in 1165,noted that it was inhabited by Syrian monks. Michael,the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch, visited the church in 1166. After 583/ 1187,the church was converted into a Muslim institution. Muj » r alD» n writes briefly that ”the Maym‡miyya Madrasa,near the B«b alS«hira,was a church constructed by the R‡m ( Byzantines) . I t was endowed by the am»r F«ris alD» n Ab‡ Sa‘ » d Maym‡n b. ‘ Abdull«h alQasr» ,who was treasurer to ¶al«¯alD» n. The date of its endowment is J um«da I593/ March 1197. I t does not function in our time,but became ruined”( Muj » r,I I ,48) . I n 1864,the madrasa continued to be in a dilapidated state and the large ruin still consisted part of the porch, choir,side walls and two apses of the church and was occupied by a potters’workshop( Prag 1989,152) . The Ma’ muniyya Girls School was built on the ruins,and the cloister of the church has been preserved behind the walls of an underground shelter.

6. Madfan alShaykh Dirb«s αΎΑέΩ Φϴθϟ΍ ϦϓΪϣ ca.600/ 1203 Burial place of Shaykh Dirb«s alKurd»alHakk«r» Location I n the MamlukJ «wiliyya Madrasa ( now the ‘ Umariyya Boys’School)at the northwest border of the ®aram; south of the Via Dolorosa,opposite the Monastery of the Flagellation. History The burial place ( madfan)of an Ayy‡bid am»r,Shaykh Dirb«s, was established in a domed porch of a sixth/ twefth century Crusader church. Here the Knights Templar founded “the Chapel of the Repose” on the traditional site of the Praet orium ( or Pilate’ s House) where J esus spent the night after his arrest. Contemporary and later Arabic literary sources are almost silent concerning this site except for one account provided by Muj » r alD» n: ... in it [ the compound containing the J «wiliyya Madrasa]is the burial place of Shaykh Dirb«s alKurd»alHakk«r» ,who was a pious man and a believer ... ( Muj » r, I I ,38) .

5. Primary Qur’ an’ s School Between 583/ 1187595/ 119899 Qur’ an School of Sultan ¶al«¯alD» n

Some evidence that the grave existed in the eighteenth century is found in an account by Elzear Horn:

Location

Near the chapel in which there was formerly a Turkish tomb ( sepulchrum turcicum) ,and still is, one enters a room which is rather dark...”( Horn 1962,148) .

Near or above B«b alSilsila/ alSak» na,but the exact location of the school is not certain. History An inscription found in the bay of B«b alSak» na refers to the existence of the school which was endowed in 595/ 1198for teaching orphan children to read the Qur’ «n. Although it contains a tribute to ¶al«¯alD» n some six years after his death,it is not certain that it was he who ordered the construction of the madrasa ( for the text and translation of the inscription see B«b alSilsila/ B«b alSak» na ( Catalogue No. 8;van Berchem 1922,108119; Walls and Ab‡lHaj1980,9,Fig. 2) . However,Van Berchem believes that it was indeed ¶al«¯ alD» n who sponsored the establishment of the school,at a time when political instability in the region prevailed ( 1922,111114) . A linguistic similarity between this inscription and another dedicatory inscription concerning a pious foundation in Egypt of alMalik al’ Az» z‘ I m«d alD» n ‘ Uthm«n,son of ¶al«¯alD» n and his heir in Egypt,leads us to suggest that it was him who may have built the school in J erusalem ( Schaefer 1985,211,n. 169) .

Burgoyne,in his architectural description of the J «wiliyya Madrasa ( 71520/ 131520)gives a brief note about the Ayyubid grave: Today a burial place is marked by a low stone cenotaph –the only visible indication of a grave within the compound –under the remains of the domed Crusader porch. While the unweathered condition and fresh pickdressing of the stone cenotaph suggest that it is of relatively recent manufacture,it is not unreasonable to suppose that it replaces an older cenotaph marking the grave of “Shaykh Darb«s” whose nisbas, alKurd» , alHakk«r» ,show that he belong to notable Kurd» sh tribe of Hakk«r»( Burgoyne 1987,205) . I t should be noted that the Hakk«r» yya was a Kurd» sh tribe which j oined ¶al«¯alD» n and the Ayyubids in the struggle against the Franks. Part of the tribe eventually settled in

189

AYYUBID JERUSALEM:AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

Jerusalem after 583/1187, and some members of the tribe died and were buried there (between 587/1191 and 614/1217-18), as several inscriptions found in the city testify (van Bercem 1922, 128 and no. 142; van Berchem 1927, 299-301; Burgoyne and Ab‡l-Haj 1979, 199).

Ma‘rifa (Market of Knowledge) which I do not know the reason behind its name. It seems that it was invented by the guards to attract visitors... This was a prayer place for the ®anbal»s which was given to them by Sultan al-Malik alMu‘aam ‘º s« b. Ab‡ Bakr b. Ayy‡b, governor of Damascus, who allowed them to pray in it” (Muj»r, II, 14-15).

7. Madrasa/ Zawiya al-Nasriyya

ΔϳήμϨϟ΍ Δϳϭ΍ΰϟ΍ \ΔγέΪϤϟ΍ (610/1214) Madrasa or Z«wiya of Shaykh Na· r al-Maqdis» Other names: Z«wiya al-Ghaz«liyya (after Ab‡ ®«mid alGhaz«l») Location

Al-N«buls» describes the building as having a domed construction and a mi¯r«b (146). The structure with its double domes appears in a number of nineteenth century depictions and early photographs of the Haram area. Jarrar suggests that the building, which served as a Hanbilite shrine, had a tripartite configuration of two identical domes flanking an entrance, and was constructed during the reign of al-Mu‘aam ‘º s«, ca 614/1217-18 (Jarrar 1998, 89-93).

Above the B«b al-Rahma (Golden Gate) in the eastern wall of the ®aram. History Muj»r al-D»n provides us with the following brief but comprehensive account: The Na· riyya Madrasa, named after Shaykh Na· r al-Maqdis», was situated above the tower of B«b al-Ra¯ma. Later it was known as the Ghaz«liyya, after Ab‡ ®«mid al-Ghaz«l». It was constructed by al-Malik al-Mu‘aam ‘˭s« who made it as a z«wiya for thre reciting of the Qur’«n and the teaching of [Arabic] grammer. He endowed for it books ... Its waqf is dated to 9 Dh‡’l ®ijja 610 [1213-14]. It vanished in our time and became ruinous” (Muj»r, II, 34).

9. Zawiya al-Dirk«h

ϩΎϛέΪϟ΍ Δϳϭ΍ί Founded between 600-15(or 624)/1203-19(or 1227); endowed in 613/1216-17 Z«wiya of al-Malik al-Muaffar Shih«b al-D»n Gh«z», son of Sultan al-Malik al-‘ªdil Ab‡ Bakr ibn Ayy‡b. Oher names: Madrasa al-Sh«fi‘iyya Location Somewhere in the former Crusader Hospitalers compound south of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre History

8. S‡qal-Ma‘rifa

A clear identification of the building and its approximate location is given by Muj»r al-D»n who writes that: The Z«wiya al-Dirk«h, located near the B»m«ris«n al-¶al«¯i, was the hospital (d«r al isbi³ «r) during the Crusader times. It was built by Helena, mother of Constantine, who constructed the Church of the Resurrection (Holy Sepulchre) (Muj»r, II, 47).

ΔϓήόϤϟ΍ ϕϮγ (ca. 610/1214) Prayer place of the ®anbal»s Location At the south-east corner of the ®aram esplanade. History Muj»r al-D»n says that: There is a vaulted building with a mi¯r«b at the edge of the (Aq· «) Mosque from the east near Mi¯r«b Dawud. This place is known as S‡q al-

An earlier literary source reports that after the conquest of Jerusalem, ¶al«¯ al-D»n “converted the (Crusader) hospital (d«r al isbi³ «r) into a Sh«fi‘» madrasa, which is of a great beauty” (Ibn W«· il, X, 159). It seems very likely that we are dealing with the same institution which functioned as a “Sh«fi‘» madrasa” during ¶al«¯ al-D»n’s reign which was endowed as a z«wiya in later years (Richards 1994, 72). ¶al«¯ al-D»n was also reported to have resided here during his first stay in Jerusalem (‘Im«d al-D»n, 288, 190

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGSIN JERUSALEM 300). This may correspond to the fact that the Dirk«h Z«wiya became the residence for the governors ( nuww«b) of J erusal em in the earl y Ayyubid period ( Muj » r,I I ,47). I n his description of the streets of the Ol d City,Muj » r al D» n says that: The Perfium Market ( S‡qal ‘ A³ ³ ar» n) is fol l owed ( to the west) by the Street of al Dirk«h,which has the ¶al «¯i B» m«ris«n and the Church of the Resurrection ( kan» satqum«ma),then fol l owed by the Christian Quarter from the west ( Muj » r,I I ,53). As for the subsequent history of the z «wi ya,Muj » r al D» n mentions that the minaret above the Dirk«h Z«wiya was partl y destroyed by an earthquake in Mu¯arram 863/ 1458 ( Muj » r,I I ,49). He al so mentions that the sons of the Shaykh Sa‘ » d al Q«dir» ,who died in 851/ 1447,served as s haykhs in the Dirk«h Z«wiya ( Muj » r,I I ,181). The precise date of the foundation has not yet been establ ished. Three fragments of a foundation inscription were discovered on the site of the Church of the Redeemer which read:

I n the name of God the Merciful , the Compassionate, This bl essed madr as a was endowed for the j urists ( f uqah«’ ) among the companions of the I mam Ab‡ ‘ Abdal l ah Mu¯ammad,son of I dr» s al Sh«fi‘ »–may God be satisfied with him –duringthe reign of Sul tan al Mal ik al Mu‘ aam,son of Sul tan al Mal ik al ‘ ªdilAb‡ Bakr,son of Ayy‡b–may God eternise their reign. ( This foundation was executed by) ... son of Rafi‘ ,son ... ( ?) ... under of which and the house ... ( the whol e of the waqf?) l egal . May God condescend to accept from him and reward him ( ... and) pl easure. And this is in the year ... and 600 ( van Berchem 1922,178179). Based on epigraphic anal ysis,van Berchem dates this inscription between 600/ 1203 and 615/ 1219 ( van Berchem 1922,179181). Wal l s and Ab‡l Haj jsuggest that the foundation text seems to have been carved either between 60015/ 120319 or in 624/ 1227 ( 1980,9). Accordingto Muj » r al D» n the z «wi yawas endowed by al Mal ik al Muaffar Shih«bal D» n Gh«z» ,son of Sul tan al Mal ik al ‘ ªdil Ab‡ Bakr b. Ayy‡b, governor of Mayaf«riq» n,in 613/ 121617( Muj » r,I I ,47).

ΔγέΪϤϟ΍ ϩάϫ Ζ˴ϔ˶ϗ˵ϭϢϴΣήϟ΍ ϦϤΣήϟ΍ Ϳ΍ ϢδΑ .1 ϡΎϣϻ΍ ΏΎΤλ΃ .2 Ϧϣ ˯ΎϬϘϔϟ΍ ϰϠϋ ΔϛέΎΒϤϟ΍ ϲοέ ϲόϓ]Ύθϟ΍ βϳέΩ· ϦΑ ΪϤΤϣ Ϳ΍ ΪΒϋ ϲΑ΃ Ϣ˷ψόϤϟ΍ϚϠϤϟ΍ ϥΎτϠδϟ΍ ΔϟϭΩ ϲϓ ϪϨϋ .3 [Ϳ΍ ϦΑ ήϜΑ ϲΑ΃ .4 [ϝΩΎόϟ΍ ϚϠϤϟ΍ ϥ]ΎτϠδϟ΍ ϦΑ ϦΑ [.....] .5 [...]ϭ ΎϤϬΘϟϭΩ Ϳ΍ Ϊ˷ϠΧΏϮϳ΃ Ύϴϋήη .... έ΍Ϊϟ΍ϭ ΎϬΘΤΗ ϱάϟ΍ [.....] ϦΑ ϊϓ΍έ ϥ΍ϭ[˰οήϟ΍] ..... [ϪΑ]ΎΛ΃ϭ ϪϨϣ Ϳ΍ Ϟ˷ΒϘΗ (ˮ) .Δ΋ΎϤΘγϭ ..... ΔϨγ ϲϓ ϚϟΫϭ

The precise l ocation of the Dirk«h Z«wiya is stil lnot certain. However, it seems that part of the former Crusader hospital ,south of the Church of the Hol y Sepul chre was converted to house the z «wi ya. Wal l s and Ab‡l Haj jpl ace the buil ding on the present site of the Church of the Redeemer,southeast of the Church of the Hol y Sepul chre ( 1980,9,map 3,no. 58).

191

AYYUBID JERUSALEM :AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

AppendixIII: Ayyubidsegmentsofbuildings

supporters of his reign,humiliate the ungrateful of his favour,conquer it for him and by his hands ... in the months of the year 564 (/ 116869)(van Berchem 1927,393395,no. 277;RCEA,I X (1937) ,5657,no. 3281) .

1. Minbar of the AqsaMosque

ϲϜϧί ϦϳΪϟ΍ έϮϧ ήΒϨϣ Built by order of N‡r alD» n Ma¯m‡d Zank»in 564/ 116869;installed by ¶al«¯alD» n in 583/ 118788 General description

N‡r alD» n Zank»(reigned 541/ 1146569/ 1174)ordered the construction of this pulpit to be installed in J erusalem after its liberation (Muj » r alD» n,I ,339) .

This beautiful pulpit (minbar) ,built of cedarwood and inlaid with ivory and mother of pearl,was considered a masterpiece of I slamic craftsmanship.35

2. Mi¯r«b of the Aqsa Mosque

History

ϰμϗϻ΍ ΪΠδϤϟ΍ Ώ΍ήΤϣ

An inscription along the four borders of the lefthand balustrade,written in Ayyubid nas kh»script,reads:

Renovated by ¶al«¯alD» n in 583/ 118788 General description:

ήϴϘϔϟ΍ .2 ϪϠϤόΑ ήϣ΃ ϢϴΣήϟ΍ ϦϤΣήϟ΍ Ϳ΍ ϢδΑ .1 ϪϠϴΒγ ϲϓ ΪϫΎΠϤϟ΍ ϪΘϤόϨϟ ήϛΎθϟ΍ ϪΘϤΣέ ϰϟ΍ ϦϳΪϟ΍ έϮϧ ϝΩΎόϟ΍ ϚϠϤϟ΍ ϪϨϳΩ ˯΍ΪϋϷ ςΑ΍ήϤϟ΍ Ϧϣ ϦϴϣϮϠψϤϟ΍ ϒμϨϣ ϦϴϤϠδϤϟ΍ϭ ϡϼγϹ΍ Ϧϛέ ήϘϨγ ϕ΁ ϦΑ ϲϜϧί ΩϮϤΤϣ ϢγΎϘϟ΍ ϮΑ΃ ϦϴϤϟΎψϟ΍ ϡ΍Ω΃ϭ ϩέΎμϧ΃ Ϳ΍ ΰϋ΃ ϦϴϨϣΆϤϟ΍ ήϴϣ΃ ήλΎϧ .3 ϦϴϘϓΎΨϟ΍ ϲϓ ήθϧϭ ϩέΎϨϣ ϼϋ΃ϭ ϩέ΍ΪΘϗ· .4 έΎϔϛ ϝΫ΃ϭ ϪΘϟϭΩ ˯Ύϴϟϭ΃ ΰϋ΃ϭ Ϫϣϼϋ΃ϭ ϪΘϳϮϟ΃ Ύϔϟΰϟ΍ϭ ήμϨϟΎΑ ήϗ΃ϭ ϪϳΪϳ ϰϠϋϭ Ϫϟ ΢Θϓϭ ϪΘϤόϧ έϮϬη ϲϓ ϚϟΫϭ ϦϴϤϟΎόϟ΍ Ώέ Ύϳ ϚΘϤΣήΑ ϩΎϨϴϋ .Δ΋Ύϣ βϤΧϭ ϦϴΘγϭ ΔόΑέ΃ ΔϨγ

The niche of the mi¯r«b is flanked by a slender column with a carved “acanthus” capital on either side. I t is decorated with strips of alternating colours of marble. The upper part of the niche,the conch,is covered with a rich glass mosaic, containing a diaper pattern of interlaced medallions enclosingpalmettes,with a marble rosette in the centre. There is a dedicatory inscription, written in nas kh»script,referring to its renovation by ¶al«¯alD» n in 583/ 118788,above the arch of the niche. The frieze framingthe niche on three sides and beyond it to the left encloses an ornamental kuf icinscription. History The dedicatory inscription,consisting of four lines of Ayyubid nas kh»script,reads as follows:

I n the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. There ordered its construction (‘ amal ihi) the servant in need of his (God’ s) mercy and who’ s grateful for his benevolence,the fighter of holy war (muj «hid)in his path,the defender of the frontiers (mur«bi³ )against the enemies of his religion,the j ust king,N‡r alD» n, the pillar of I slam and the Muslims,j ustifier of the oppressed against the oppressors,Ab‡’ l Q«sim Ma¯m‡d b. Zank»b. ªqSunqur,defender of the Commander of the Faithful,may God glorify his victories,make eternal his power,higher his sign, spread his banners and emblems, glorify the 35

΍άϫ ΪϳΪΠΘΑ ήϣ΃ ϢϴΣήϟ΍ ϦϤΣήϟ΍ Ϳ΍ ϢδΑ .1 ϰμϗϷ΍ ΪΠδϤϟ΍ ΓέΎϤϋϭ αΪϘϤϟ΍ Ώ΍ήΤϤϟ΍ Ϫϴϟϭϭ Ϳ΍ ΪΒϋ βγΆϣ ϯϮϘΘϟ΍ ϰϠϋ .2 Ϯϫ ϱάϟ΍ ήλΎϨϟ΍ ϚϠϤϟ΍ ήϔψϤϟ΍ ϮΑ΃ ΏϮϳ΃ ϦΑ΍ ϒγϮϳ ϰϠϋ Ϳ΍ ϪΤΘϓ ΎϣΪϨϋ .3 ϦϳΪϟ΍ϭ ΎϴϧΪϟ΍ Ρϼλ Δ΋Ύϣ βϤΧϭ ϦϴϧΎϤΛϭ ΙϼΛ ΔϨγ έϮϬη ϲϓ ϪϳΪϳ ΔϤόϨϟ΍ ϩάϫ ήϜη Ϫϋ΍ΰϳ· Ϳ΍ ϝ΄δϳ Ϯϫϭ .4 .ΔϤΣήϟ΍ϭ ΓήϔϐϤϟ΍ Ϧϣ ϪψΣ ϝ΍ΰΟ·ϭ

I t was almost totally destroyed by fire started by an Australian

fanatic on 21 August 1969.

192

CATALOGUE OFAYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM Mecca]to the Aq· « Mosque [ of Jerusalem] , the precinct of which we have blessed... (Qur’«n, XVII; de Vogue 1864, 101; van Berchem 1927, 407-408, Pl. XXXI; Rosen-Ayalon 1986, 562, Figs. 6-9, Pls. VIII-XI).

In the name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate. There ordered the renewing (tajd»d) of this sacred mi¯r«b and the restoration (‘im«ra) of the Aq·« Mosque, which is founded on piety, the servant of God and his companion, Y‡suf son of Ayy‡b Ab‡’l Muaffar al-Malik alN«· ir ¶al«¯ al-Duny« wa’l-D»n, when God conquered it by his hands in the months of the year 583 (1187-88). And he asks God to inspire him thankfulness for this benefit and to reckon his fortune of pardon and mercy (van Berchem 1927, 403-407, no 280; RCEA, IX (1937), 159-160, no. 3423).

The inscription explicitely mentions the “renewing”(tajd»d) of the mi¯r«b which means that it has existed in pre-Ayyubid times. Al-Haraw», who visited Jerusalem in 569/1173, observed that the Franks did not harm the mi¯r«b (al-Haraw», 64). However, ‘ Im«d al-D»n stated that a wall, which was erected by the Franks in order to obscure the mi¯r«b, was later removed by ¶al«¯ al-D»n immediately after his conquest of Jerusalem (‘ Im«d al-D»n, 48). Although we are not certain whether any part of the pre-Crusader mi¯r«b has survived, the inscription provides us with a terminus post quem for the mosaic of the mi¯r«b. Furthermore, the decorative scheme of the niche of the mi¯r«b appears to be homogeneous with the dedicatory inscription in the mosaic (Rosen-Ayalon 1986, 556). Its style is evidently different from the Fatimid mosaic elsewhere in the Aq· « Mosque, which is based on major floral composition on a grand scale (Hamilton 1949, 9). And finally, the epigraphy (the use of the naskh» script) can hardly be attributed to pre-Ayyubid times.

The k‡fic inscription on the frieze framing the niche consists of three lines, two arranged vertically on the right and one continues horizontally on the left. It contains a kur’anic text which reads:

ϱάϟ΍ .2 ϥΎΤΒγ ϢϴΣήϟ΍ ϦϤΣήϟ΍ Ϳ΍ ϢδΑ .1 ϰϟ΍ ϡ΍ήΤϟ΍ .3 ΪΠδϤϟ΍ Ϧϣ ϼϴϟ ϩΪΒόΑ ϯήγ΃ ϪϟϮΣ Ϧϣ ΎϨϛέΎΑ ϱάϟ΍ ϰμϗϷ΍ ΪΠδϤϟ΍ In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Praise be to him, who carried his servant by night, from the Holy Mosque [ of

193

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

Appendix IV: Ayyubid inscriptions

the lower part of the dome’s drum; No date, possibly inserted by ¶al«¯ al-D»n, between 583/1187-589/1193 (van Berchem 1927, 369-371; van Berchem, Marg.,1969, 218, 300, Figs. 361-362; Rosen-Ayalon 1989, 360-371)

1. Epitaph of Badr al-D»n ‘Abdull«h b. Badr al-®«jj»; Provenance unknown, now in Islamic Museum, ®aram; 586/1190 (Burgoyne and Abul-®ajj 1979, 118, no. XIII, pl. XIII A; Walls and Abul-®ajj 1980, 27, no. XIII; al-Asali 1981, 262, no. 12)

9. Dome of the Rock, epitaph of Zayn al-D»n al-Hakk«r», Probably disappeared in the restorations of 1874; 592/1195-96 (van Berchem 1927, no. 227, 299-301).

2. Epitaph of Shurwa b. D«w‡d b. Ibr«h»m al-Hakk«r»; Found at the S«hira Cemetery, now in Islamic Museum, ®aram; 587/1191 (Burgoyne and Abul-®ajj 1979, 119, no. XIV, pl. XIII B; Walls and Abul-®ajj 1980, 27, no. XIV; al-Asali 1981, 264, no. 13)

10. City wall, Construction (?) text found in excavations north of the city, to the west of the Albright Institute; ca. 58995/1193-99 (Sukenik and Mayer 1930, 47-49; Walls and Abul-®ajj 1980, 27, no. XIX)

3. Inscription in Qubbat Y‡suf; A large marble slab in the rear wall referring to¶al«¯ alD»n’s construction of a wall and a ditch; 587/1191 (van Berchem 1927, 23-31, no. 150; RCEA, IX, 1937, 3447; Walls and Abul-®ajj 1980, 15, no. 150)

11. Dome of the Rock, balustrade of al-Malik al-‘Az»z ‘Uthm«n; Removed in 1954-64 restorations; not found in 1974; ca. 595/1198-99 (van Berchem 1927, no. 228, 301-303).

4. City wall, Rebuilding work (?) by ¶al«¯ al-D»n, originally built into the city wall, now incorporated into the West Portico of the Haram; After 587/1191 (Burgoyne and Abul-®ajj 1979, 119-121, no. XV, pl. XIV; Walls and Abul-®ajj 1980, 27, no. XV)

12. City wall, Restoration (?) under al-Malik Man·‡r Mu¯ammad (?); a fragment used as building stone; 595 or 597/1198 or 1200 (van Berchem 1922, no. 40, 120-123). 13. Qubbat al-Silsila, Restoration of the ceiling and the paving; 596/1200 (Tritton 1957, 537-39; Walls and Abul-®ajj 1980, 27, no. XXI)

5. City wall, Construction of a tower (?) by ¶al«¯ al-D»n; provenance unknown, now in Islamic Museum, Haram; 587-88/119192 (Burgoyne and Abul-®ajj 1979, 121, no. XVI, pl. XV A; Walls and Abul-®ajj 1980, 27, no. XVI)

14. City wall, Construction by al-Malik al-Mu‘aam; uncovered along the western wall, 160 m. north of SW corner of the city; 599/1202-23 (Broshi 1987, 299-302).

6. City Wall, Rebuilding (?) by ¶al«¯ al-D»n; originally built into the city wall; now in Islamic Museum, Haram; 588/1192 and 589/1193 (Burgoyne and Abul-®ajj 1979, 122-123, no. XVIII, pl. XV B; Walls and Abul-®ajj 1980, 27, no. XVIII)

15. Citadel, Construction of a wall or tower by al-Mu‘aam, dated 14 Safar 600/ 3 November 1203; a fragmented inscription uncovered in situ in the foundations of south-western corner of the Mosque Tower by C. N. Johns during his excavations in 1935; now found in the Palestine (Rockefeller) Archaeological Museum (No. 42. 264); unbublished.

7. Epitaph of ‘Izz (?) al-D»n Abu Al-Hayj«’ b. (?) b. ®us«m(?) al-Dhurz«r» (?), probably the ¶al«¯ al-D»n’s am»r Sayf al-D»n al-Mash³‡b. Provenance unknown; now in Islamic Museum, ®aram; 588/1192 (Burgoyne and Abul-®ajj 1979, 121-122, no. XVII, pl. XXV A; Walls and Abul-®ajj 1980, 27, no. XVII)

16. S«hira Cemetery, epitaph of funerary text of ®asan b. Bakr, Found in the property of the École Biblique, which perhaps came from the cemetery on the bedrock near the Adhamiyya Z«wiya; now found at the Convent of St.

8. Dome of the Rock, A Qur’«nic text (Sura ²«ha, XX, 1-21); written with glass mosaic in gold on a green background along a cornice at 194

CATALOGUE OF AYYUBID BUILDINGS IN JERUSALEM Etienne, the Museum of the the École Biblique; 605/1208 (van Berchem 1922, 123-125, no. 41; RCEA X (1939) no. 3637; Walls and Abul-®ajj 1980, 9, no. 41; Bieberstien and Bloedhorn 1994, II, 237).

20. Dome of the Rock, Restoration of balustrade (?) by al-Mu‘am ‘ºs«; was not seen by van Berchem; early 7th/13th century (van Berchem 1927, 305, no. 230).

17. City wall, construction of a tower by al-Mu‘am ‘ºs«, Uncovered at the excavations 100 m. east of B«b al-Nab» D«w‡d (Sion Gate); 609/1212 (Sharon 1977, 182-193; Walls and Abul-®ajj 1980, 27, no. XXI)

21. Epitaph of A¯mad b. Ab‡ Bakr ®asan al-Hakkar» Found in the al-²‡r (Mount of Olives) area; now in the Department of Islamic Archaeology, Awq«f Administration, ®aram; unpublished

18. Citadel, construction of a tower by al-Mu‘am ‘ºs«; Incorporated in the eastern wall of the mosque (not in situ); 610/1213-14 (van Berchem 1922, no. 43, 131-141). 19. Dome of the Rock, Unknown work of al-Mu‘am ‘ºs«, found during the 1874 restorations, not seen by van Berchem, but now in the Islamic Museum, ®aram; early 7th/13th century (van Berchem 1927, no. 229, 303-304).

22. Turba of the Am»r Baraka Kh«n, Funerary text; now in Deutsches Evangelisches Institut, Jerusalem; 644/1246 (van Berchem 1922, no. 59,186-187). 23. Turba of the Am»r Baraka-Kh«n, epitaph of Baraka Kh«n, Found in the courtyard’s west wall to the right of the door; 644/1246 (van Berchem 1922, no. 60, 188-190).

195

CHAPTER6

AYYUBID ARCHITECTURE

Methods and Materials of Construction and Decoration Plans The maj or Ayyubid religious foundations in J erusalem have the typical plan of medieval I slamic buildings,with various cells or chambers arranged around an inner courtyard. I n some cases confusion prevails as to the original purpose of some buildings. The ¶al«¯iyya Kh«nq«h ( 585/ 1189) ,for example,was referred to by contemporary chroniclers ( ‘ I m«d alD» n,Bah«’alD» n, Ab‡ Sh«ma)as a rib«³ ,while later historians identified it as kh«nq«h. Moreover,the Qubba alNa¯awiyya ( 604/ 120708) ,was called a qubba i ni t sf oundat i oni nscr i pt i onand bylat er hi st or i ans,buti twas alsonamed a madrasa,despi t et he f actt hati t s plan consi st s ofa por t i co f lanked by t wo domed chamber s ( f i gs. 12.5,12.6) ,whi ch i s ent i r ely di f f er entf r om cont empor ar ymadrasas. Onlyt he Mu‘ aami yya Madr asa ( 614/ 121718)has one » w«n,wi t h a cour t yar d or i gi nally enclosed by vault ed cells on t hr ee si des and open on t he f our t h( f i g. 18.2) . Her e,t he ar chi t ectachi eved a cer t ai ndegr ee ofcont r ast by j uxt aposi ng t he monument al » w«n wi t ht he low and uncover ed cour t yar d. The ot hersur vi vi ngmadrasas have t he same vault ed cells butno» w«ns. Onlyt he Badr i yya Madr asa ( 610/ 121314)has a maj ma‘( assembly hall) ( f i g. 17.2) ,wher eas anot hermadrasa ( t he Mu‘ aami yya) pr obablyhad one butwas lat ert ur ned i nt oa cemet er y; t he mosque oft he ¶al«¯i yya Kh«nq«hont he f i r stf loor ser ved as a maj ma‘ . The t wosur vi vi ngz «wiyas appeart ohave a di st i nct i ve layout ;t he Khat ni yya Z«wi ya,dat ed t o 587/ 1191,was est abli shed i na Cr usadert r i plebayed hall ( f i g. 2.3) . The J ar r «¯i yya Z«wi ya ( bef or e 598/ 1201)has t he layoutofa t ombchamberand f unct i ons as a qubba ( mausoleum) , ( f i g. 10.3) . FourAyyubi d mosques ar e known;alt hough t hr ee ar e called j «mi‘( congr egat i onal Fr i day mosque)and one a masj id,all oft hem i nf actar e masj ids. Thei rlayout consi st s ofvault ed halls wi t hmi¯r«bs i nt he qibl a wall, butt heyvar yi nsi ze. J «mi ‘alAf ±al ( 589/ 1192)( f i g. 3.2) and J «mi ‘alNi s«’( conver t ed ca.590/ 1194)( f i g. 5.2)and wer ef ounded i nf or merCr usaderhalls. NoI slami c bur i als wi t hi nt he ci t ywalls ar e knownbef or e t he Ayyubi d per i od. Ar ound t hi s t i me,wi t ht he r i se of

196

t r adi t i ons associ at i ng J er usalem, and t he ®ar am i n par t i cular ,wi t ht he locat i onoft he LastJ udgement ,bur i al neart he ®ar am became popular( Bur goyne 1987,88) .A numberofr eli gi ous f oundat i ons i ncor por at eat omb( t he Badr i yya Madr asa,t he J ar r «¯i yya Z«wi ya)orsi mply a bur i al gr ound ( t he Mu‘ aami yya Madr asa) . The t ombchamber s oft he J ar r «¯i yya Z«wi ya and t he Qubba alQaymur i yya ( bef or e 648/ 1251) ( f i gs. 22.2, 22.4)ar e eachdomed and have a cent r al ent r ance por t al. I nt he J ar r «¯i yya t her ei s a ±ar» ¯( cenot aph) ,a r ect angular st r uct ur e ofst one i ndi cat i ngt he locat i onofa bur i al under t he f looroft he chamber . The Qaymur i yya has act ually f i ve st one gr aves,t he cor ner s ofwhi chwer e or i gi nally decor at ed wi t hbulbous knobs. Mi¯r«bs Mi¯r«bs,ni ches i ndi cat i ng t he di r ect i on ofpr ayeri n r eli gi ous f oundat i ons,ar e qui t e common. All sur vi vi ng mosques ( excludi ng J «mi ‘ alNi s«’ ) , madrasas, commemor at i ve domes and mausoleums,i ncludi ng t he kh«nq«h,have mi¯r«bs. Usuallymi¯r«bs ar e plai n,buti n some cases,li ke i nt he J «mi ‘alMagh«r i ba ( ca.5901194) ( pl. 612) ,t he QubbatalMi ‘ r «j( 597/ 120001)( pl. 9.17) , t he QubbatSulaym«n( ca.600/ 1203?)( pl. 11.11)and t he Qubba alQaymur i yya ( pl. 22.6) ,ar ef lanked byr eused mar ble colonnet t es. The mi¯r«b oft he Aq· «Mosque i s an except i on. I ti s elabor at elydecor at ed wi t hcolour ed glass mosai cs and bear saf oundat i oni nscr i pt i on. Minarets Nomi nar et s –f r om whi cht he call t opr ayerwas gi ven f i ve t i mes a day–have sur vi ved i nJ er usalem f r om t he Ayyubi d per i od. Nori st her e anyment i oni nt he hi st or i cal li t er ar ysour ces aboutt hei rconst r uct i on. I ti si nt er est i ng t hatt he Ayyubi df oundat i ons oft he ¶al«¯i yya Kh«nq«h, t he J «mi ‘alAf ±al and t he Mu‘ aami yya Madr asa wer e pr ovi ded wi t hmi nar et si nt he Mamlukper i od. I twas t hen t hatt he f ourmi nar et s att he ®ar am bor derwer e also added. Construction and Decoration For t housands of year s,st one has been used almost exclusi vely i n J er usalem f or t he const r uct i on of monument s. Car ef ully cutand dr essed masonr y was employed i nsi de and out si de,f orwalls,pi er s,vault s and domes,and i n all t ypes ofst r uct ur es. The local miz z » li mest one was commonly used. Consi der able quant i t i es

AY Y U B ID AR C H IT E C T U R E

of marble, particularly Crusader, are reused both as construction and decorative material.

capitals were employed. Certain buildings display capitals of varying shapes and styles employed side by side. The outcome is a remarkable mixture of capitals with vegetal and figurative motifs characterised by a lack of unity and homogeneity, as can be seen at the B«b al-Silsila/ B«b alSak» na (pls. 8.14, 8.15), the Qubbat al-Mi‘r«j (pls. 9.69.12) and the façade of the Aq·« Mosque (610/1213) (pl. 19.2, 19.4-19.7). An example of a capital with Christian iconography depicting Daniel in the Lions’ Den is found at the B«b al-Silsila/ B«b al-Sak» na. The two capitals flanking the portal of the Siq«ya of al-‘ªdil belong to a type called “muqarnas” capitals. This is, in my view, their first appearance in the medieval Islamic architecture of Jerusalem. They appear in the Ayyubid period and become a common feature in the Mamluk period (Rihawi 1990, 257).

Walls of religious and civil foundations are usually built with dressed stone and filled with a rubble core. Façades are often faced with very finely dressed stone. In military architecture, walls are usually constructed with roughly dressed and rusticated and bossed large blocks of stone, with compacted rubble bonded with mortar. Lintels and Arches Doors, windows or simple openings walls are covered with lintels and arches. Lintels are usually monolithic, and are sometimes surmounted by a relieving arch. A type of lintel known as a flat arch, which consists of regularly shaped interlocking voussoirs (joggling), is employed at the B«b al-Silsila/ B«b al-Sak» na (before 595/1198-99) (pls. 8.12, 18. 13).

Corbels (or corbellings) and decorative brackets – external stones that support the transverse rib of a vault, the exterior base of a dome or a simple cavetto cornice – are employed. The frontal arch of the »w«n at the Mu‘aamiyya Madrasa is supported on either side by corbels (pl. 18.10). A series of brackets, which display a decorative rather than a structural function, support the base of the dome at the western domed chamber of the Qubba al-Na¯awiyya (pl. 12.16) and the cavetto cornice above the B«b ®i³ ³ a (617/1220) (pl. 20.6). Similar bracketed cornices are a quite common feature in Crusader architecture in Jerusalem. Parallels are found in the domes of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Church of St Mary (Gethsemane) and the Church of the Ascension on the Mount of Olives. This feature continued to be used in the Ayyubid period and the early Mamluk period.

Arches are usually pointed and represented in a variety of forms; a slightly horseshoe profile is common, but sometimes a stilted one occurs. The trefoil arch appears only at the portal of the ¶al«¯iyya Kh«nq«h. This is in fact its first appearance in the medieval Islamic architecture of Jerusalem. It was most likely built in the same construction technique as the trefoil arch at the Muqaddamiyya Madrasa in Aleppo, dated 564/1169, or even copied it (see above, the ¶al«¯iyya Kh«nq«h, no. 1). Pavements Floors are usually paved with flagstones, some of which are well preserved in numerous buildings. Qubbat M‡s« (647/1249-50) has a splendid patterned pavement of polychrome marble (pl. 21.10). The pavement of Qubbat Sulaym«n appears to have been assembled at a later period from marble and polychrome tile pieces (pl. 11.9).

Vaults Numerous types of vaults are used, including barrel (tunnel) vaults and cross (groined) vaults, pointed in section. Barrel vaults usually cover rectangular spaces, as in the »w«n of the Mu‘aamiyya, for example (pl. 18. 12). Sometimes excisions in the haunches of a barrel vault are made to prevent the vault from blocking door or window openings in the side walls, as in the surviving eastern hall of J«mi‘ al-Magh«riba (pl. 6.12).

Supports Apart from walls, piers and columns are used as supports to carry superstructures, usually flat roofs. Piers are commonly used to support large halls. The mosques of J«mi‘ al-Nis«’ and J«mi‘ al-Af±al, which were established in Crusader halls, have piers dividing their prayer halls into a number of bays; the North Portico (610/1213) is also supported by piers. In order to support walls in countering any lateral thrust that might have been transmitted by the vaults, buttresses with sloping tops were employed, as in the ¶al«¯iyya Kh«nq«h (pl. 1.3) and the Qubba al-Na¯awiyya (pl. 12.24).

Domes

Columns, mainly of reused marble or granite with a variety of reused capitals, are frequently found as supports. Having abundant access to Crusader spolia that survived from demolished Frankish structures Muslim builders reused capitals to crown any shafts, often regardless of their styles. Apart from the ordinary capitals, consoles or elbow

A wide variety of dome types and sizes constitute a common means of roofing. Usually the spaces covered by domes are the most important and conspicuous parts of the building. Most of the domes are well built with ashlar masonry and have the shape of a plain simple cupola. One of the main problems of dome construction in medieval

Cross vaults constitute the ceilings of square spaces. The vaulting systems of the J«mi‘ al-Af±al, the J«mi‘ al-Nis«’, the Qubba al-Na¯awiyya, the porches of the Siq«ya of al‘ªdil (589/1193), the Aq·« Mosque, the B«b al-‘Atm (ca. 610/1213) and the B«b ®i³ ³ a are all good examples.

197

AYYUBID JERUSAL EM :AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEO L O G ICAL STUDY

Islamic architecture was the transition from a square or octagonal chamber or space into a circular domedarea.In Ayyubid J erusalem various solutions and construction techniques were offeredbyMuslim architects:

a semicircular arch ( pl. 7. 1) and the latter by a monolithic arch ( pl.21. 3) .

1)The first is a transition by means of pendentives, which are spherical triangles leadingfrom the angle of two walls of a square to the base of a circular dome, andis usedin the dome above the central bayof the Aq· «Mosque porch ( pl.19. 8) .This methodhas been in use at J erusalem since Byzantine times. 2)The second is a transition made by simple deep squinches in the corners of the square,as at the J arr«¯iyya Z«wiya ( pl.10. 11) . 3)The thirdis a transition from octagon to circular drum consisting of eight fluted conches acting like miniature squinches above the corners of the octagon. A cavetto cornice defines the conj unction between the drum and the dome.This technique is employed in both the Qubbat alMi‘ r«j( pl.9. 23)andthe Qubbat Sulaym«n ( fig.11. 4) . 4)The fourth incorporates the two previous techniques. It is employedbytwo stages: a)From square to octagon by means of squinches, deep in the corners and shallow at the sides, surmountedbyduplexarches. b)From octagonal cornice to circular drum byeight small fluted conchs above the corners of the octagon,with another cavetto cornice definingthe dome from the drum.This solution is adoptedin the Qubba alNa¯awiyya ( pl.12. 22) . 5)The fifth solution for the zone of transition comprises two stages: a)Duplexcorner arches andflutedconchs set in the corners, culminating in an octagonal cavetto cornice. b)Eight small pointedor trefoil conchs in the corners of the octagon, with another cavetto cornice separating the drum from the dome. This technique is used in the B«b alSilsila/B«b alSak» na,the Qubbat M‡s« and the Qubba alQaymuriyya ( pl.22. 7) . Portals The entrance portals of the Ayyubid buildings vary in their types andsizes.The first type of portals has a plain doorwayspannedeither with a plain monolithic lintel or a pointed arch.A modest foundation like the Badriyya Madrasa ( 610/ 121314) ,for instance,has a low doorway with a pointed arch which resembles that of a private dwelling ( pl.17. 2) .However,a large and important foundation like the Mu‘ aamiyya Madrasa ( 614/ 121718)hadalso a small plain doorway( as appears from a nineteenth century photograph,pl.18. 2) .The entrance door at both buildings opened into a vestibule and a corridor from which another door openedon the central courtyard.The entrance doors of the small mosque,the Masj id Mu¯«rib ( 595/ 1198) and the Qubbat M‡s« ( 647/ 124950)are also veryplain;the former spannedby 198

The secondtype of portal has a doorwayset in a pointedarched recess.The entrance to the Af±aliyya Madrasa ( 590/ 1194) ,which no longer survives,had a recessed doorway spanned by a moulded lintel and a relieving arch,which in turn was surmountedbya cushion arch similar to that at the entrance into the Siq«ya of al‘ ªdil. This doorwaymayhas hadbeen composedof assembled Crusader spolia.A similar entrance is foundat the Qubba alQaymuriyya ( before 648/ 1251) ,but it is surmounted by a plain pointed arch ( pl.22. 5) .The large entrance portal of the J «mi‘alMagh«riba ( ca. 490/ 1194)consists of a pointedarcheddoorwaywhich is built largelyof reused Crusader elements including hood moulds and elbow brackets supporting a lintel ( pl.6. 3) .Similar portals are foundat Qubbat alMi‘ r«j( 597/ 120001)and Qubbat Sulaym«n ( ca.597/ 1200604/ 1208) :each has a small doorwaywith two flankingreusedmarble columns andset within a recess ( pl.9. 16;pl.11. 6) . The third type consists of a portal set within a crossvaulted porch.The portals of the ¶al«¯iyya Kh«nq«h ( 585/ 1189)and the Siq«ya of al‘ ªdil ( 589/ 1193)each have an entrance portal set in a crossvaultedbay.The bay of the ¶al«¯iyya Kh«nq«h has stone benches on either side, andthe doorwayis surmountedbya trefoil arch,the only example of its kindin J erusalem from the Ayyubidperiod ( pl.1. 6) .The crossvault of the bay found at of the entrance of the Siq«ya of al‘ ªdil is supported on the outside byreusedCrusader elbow capitals on either side ( pl.4. 1) .The doorwayitself is surmountedbya cushion arch,another Crusader feature.The doorways at the B«b al‘ Atm ( ca. 610/ 1213)andB«b®i³ ³ a( 617/ 1220)likewise have a crossvaulted porch on either side ( pl.16. 3;pl. 20. 2) .The porch of the Aq· « Mosque ( 614/ 121718) consists of seven crossvaulted bays corresponding to seven doorways leadinginto seven aisles of the mosque, while the central bayis coveredbya dome on pendentives ( pl.19. 8) .Both doorways of the double ®aram gate,the B«balSilsila/ B«balSak» na ( before 595/ 119899) ,have an outer porch with two bays coveredbytwo domes andan inner porch with two crossvaultedbays ( pls.8. 17,8. 18) . Doors and windows In religious foundations,most rooms have doors and windows openingonto an internal courtyard.Doors and windows are usually rectangular, and spanned by monolithic lintels and relieving arches. There occasionally are windows of street frontages,assembly halls andfuneraryfoundations at groundlevel to provide light and ventilation and through which prayers and blessings could be delivered from the street.These windows are providedsometimes with iron grills. Windows on façades or street frontages are often arrangedin groups in order to achieve symmetry,as in the Qubba alNa¯awiyya ( 604/ 120708) and the

AYYUBID ARCHITECTURE

of economic prosperityas wel las at times of war.They brought with them methods of construction and techniques and motifs of decoration from cityto city.The bul k of the founding inscriptions on the Ayyubid buil dings in J erusal em refer mainl yto the patron, usual l y the Sul tan, or a senior member of the Ayyubid famil y, the l ocalgovernor and or am» r, and sometimes the official who supervised the work.

Mu‘aamiyya Madrasa ( 614/ 121718) .The windows of the west chamber at the former foundation are arranged in groups of three ( pl s.12. 6, 12. 11, 12. 15) ;their l intel s have curious carved motifs. Lancet or spl ayed windows, reminiscent of windows in Crusader architecture, are found at the Kh«nq«h al ¶al «¯iyya, J «mi‘ al Nis«’and the Qubba al Qaymuriyya. Mouldings

I f we excl ude the inscriptions on N‡r al D» n’ s wooden minbar, which displ aythe names of its craftsmen, onl y one instance of an inscription provides evidence of an architect ( mi‘ m«r) , who was responsibl e for the actual construction of a section of the citywal l .This is not so extraordinaryif we examine the contemporaryepigraphic materialfrom Egypt, Syria and the J azira.Usual l y, the main emphasis was on the patron who ordered the construction ( amara bi’ insh«’ )of the monument, and secondaril yon the governor or the officialunder whose supervision ( bitawall»or binaar)the construction work was achieved.Onl yrarel y, as we noted, was the name of an architect responsibl e for the execution of the work mentioned.

Moul dings are used to define cornices and emphasise structuralconj unctions as in façades and domes.Most of these cornices seem to be in originaluse;a curious cavetto cornice at the portalof the ¶al «¯iyya Kh«nq«h starts at the springing of the frontalarch, continues on either side of the porch and rises to form a pointed arch above the portal .Simpl e cornices in the zone of transition of domes markthe conj unction between the drum and the dome. Marbl e imposts at the springingof arches and abaci over reused Crusader capital s are al so in secondaryuse, often not matching the capital s. Some portal s are decorated with gadroon ( cushion)or chevron arches and often have hood moul ds in the Crusader fashion, l ike at the Siq«ya of al ‘ªdiland the porch of the Aq· «Mosque.Simil ar hood moul ds are found above the mi¯r«bs at Qubbat Sul aym«n and Qubba al Qaymuriyya.

Likewise, the l iterary sources fail to provide much information on architects and craftsmen.However, an insight into contemporary architecturalpractice rel ating to the construction of fortifications in J erusal em is provided bya unique account of ‘I m«d al D» n:

Stone carvings Two Ayyubid buil dings bear stone carvings.On the spandrelof the outer arch of the B«bal Sil sil a are two stones carved with a rosette and an eightpointed star motif.A medal l ion in the zone of transition of the dome at the Qubba al Na¯awiyya is decorated with arabesque motif. Patrons, architects and craftsmen Architects, craftsmen and artisans often moved as a resul t

199

On 28Dh‡’ l®ij j a 587/16J anuary1192, a group of fiftystonecutters ( ¯aj j «r» n)from Mosul , who were sent byits governor, the at«beg ‘I zzal D» n Mas‘‡d, arrived in J erusal em to take part in the proj ect.During their stay of hal f a year, they worked on deepeningand extendingthe rockcut ditch and the construction of sections of the wal l and towers between B«b al ‘Am‡d and B«b Mi¯r«bD«w‡d ( the present B«bal Khal » l–J affa Gate)al ong the northern and the northwestern sides of the city( ‘I m«d al D» n, 289) .

CONCLUSION

The vas tmaj or i t y ofAyyubi d bui l di ngs i nJ er us al em wer econs t r uct edi nt hef i r s tt hi r t yt woyear s ,begi nni ng wi t h ¶al «¯ al D» n’ sr econques ti n 583/ 1187 unt i lt he dest r uct i onoff or t i f i cat i onsoft heci t ybyal Mu‘ aam i n 616/ 1219.Dur i ng t he l at erAyyubi d per i od onl yt wo f oundat i ons wer e er ect ed.Thi ss t agnat i on i n Ayyubi d cons t r uct i on act i vi t yi nJ er us al em was due t ot he t ur bul entpol i t i caland mi l i t ar ys i t uat i on att he t i me, i ncl udi ng t he r enewed Fr anki s h cont r ol of t he ci t y ( 626/ 1229642/ 1244) . Some r at her dynami c changes i ns pi r ed ei t herby pat r ons orby mi gr at i ng cr af t s men, r es ul t ed mai nl yf r om t he cont act s wi t ht he pr i nci pal r egi onalAyyubi dcent r es( Cai r o,Damas cusandAl eppo) and l ed t ot her eemer genceofar chi t ect ur alact i vi t yi n J er us al em undert heMaml uks . Undert he Ayyubi ds,bot h geopol i t i caland r el i gi ous f act or sl ef tt henewl yr est or edci t yofJer usal em opent o avar i et y ofi nf l uences.Localt r adi t i onst hatsur vi ved f r om t heEar l yI sl ami cper i odcont i nuedt obeempl oyed despi t et he Fr anki sh i nt er r upt i on.Ther est or at i on and r ebui l di ngofmonument sont he®ar am,especi al l yt he Domeoft heRockandt heAq·«Mosque,wer ei nmost casesf ai t hf ult ot hei ror i gi nalar chi t ect ur alf or msand decor at i vear t s.Thi si sr ef l ect edi nt her ebui l di ngoft he ®ar am gat es,t he sout heastCol onnade,and i nt he pr i nci pl eofer ect i ngcommemor at i vedomes.I ti sal so exempl i f i edi nt heuseofgl assmosai csasi nt hemi¯r«b oft heAq·«Mosqueandt heAyyubi di nscr i pt i oni nt he Dome oft he Rock,and t he cl assi calcapi t al si nt he por ch of t he Aq·« Mosque and t he sout heast Col onnade. Asr ecr eat edbyt heAyyubi dsofSyr i aaf t ernear l yni ne decades of Fr anki s h pr es ence,J er us al em r ef l ect ed a number of di f f er ent l ocal and r egi onal cul t ur al connect i onsi ni t sar chi t ect ur e.Outoft het hr eeAyyubi d r egi onalcent r esofCai r o,Damas cusandAl eppo,t hel as t t wo undoubt edl y had t he l ar ges ti nf l uence.J er us al em dr ew mor eonAl eppowheni tcamet ot hef i neands ki l l ed s t onecut t i ng,r ef l ect i ngas t ar kpl ai nnes sands obr i et yof t as t e( Al l en 1986,15) .But ,i n gener al ,t ype,s cal eand s i zeal lr el at et hebui l di ngsofJ er us al em mos tcl os el yt o t heAyyubi d monument sel s ewher ei n Syr i a.J er us al em wi t hi t sos t ent at i ousmonument st heDomeoft heRock andt heAq· «Mos que,asapr ovi nci albutpol i t i cal l yand r el i gi ous l y i mpor t ant ci t y, devel oped f unct i onal ar chi t ect ur ef orbot hi t sr el i gi ous and ci vi lbui l di ngs . Al t houghsponsor edbyseni ormember soft heAyyubi d f ami l y,aswel lasby l ocalgover nor sand am» rs ,none exhi bi tei t hert hes cal eort heaf f l uenceofcompar abl e

200

Syr i an or Egypt i an s t r uct ur es .I n f act t hey ar e char act er i s edbyagr eatdealofaus t er i t yandpl ai nnes s . Whi l et hepl ansus edar emor emodes ti ns i ze,t heyar e cl os et ot hei rcount er par t si n ot herSyr i an ci t i es .The J er us al em madras as ,f ori ns t ance,donothavemi nar et s buthavepr opor t i onat el yl ar geandwel l def i nedpl aceof pr ayerormaj ma‘ .Thei rpl an,wi t horwi t houtan» w«n,i s mor eaki nt ot heSyr i anone» w«nort wo» w«ncour twi t h apl aceofpr ayert hant ot hecr uci f or mf our » w«nCai r ene madras as .Thecommemor at i vedomesandmaus ol eums al s o cl os el yr es embl eot herSyr i an ones ,di s pl ayi ng t he s amear chi t ect ur alandcons t r uct i onalel ement s . I nouranal ys i st hebui l di ngsi nJ er us al em ar ever ys i mi l ar t ot hei rcount er par t si nSyr i a.Wemayt her ef or eas s ume t hatt hear chi t ect soft hes emonument scamef r om Syr i an ci t i es ,par t i cul ar l yf r om Damas cus .Pr eci s el y becaus e J er us al em dur i ng mos t of t he Ayyubi d per i od was i ncl uded i nt hepr i nci pal i t y ofDamas cus ,t her ul er sof Damas cuswer el i kel yt os ummont hei rar chi t ect st ot he Hol yCi t yf ort heexecut i onoft hei ract sofpat r onage. Thei nf l uenceoft heFr anks ’pr es encecomess econdonl y t ot hemar kt hatAyyubi dSyr i al ef tont hear chi t ect ur eof J er us al em i s .ManyCr us aderbui l di ngs ,knownf r om t he hi s t or i cals our cest ohavebeenel abor at el ydecor at edwi t h ar chi t ect ur al s cul pt ur e, have ent i r el y vani s hed. The conver s i onofwhol eCr us aderbui l di ngst oI s l ami cus es char act er i s ed t he f i r s t decade of Ayyubi d r ul ei n J er us al em. .Cer t ai nf eat ur esofCr us aderar chi t ect ur ear e di s t i nct i ve–Romanes ques t yl e,t ypi calmas ons ’mar ks , di agonals t one dr es s i ng – al lf aci l i t at ei dent i f i cat i on. However ,f r agment s ofCr us aders cul pt ur e and s pol ia s uchasmar bl ecol umns ,capi t al s ,i mpos t s ,moul di ngsand s i mpl e mas onr y wer e i ncor por at ed i nt o Ayyubi d cons t r uct i onsandwer ecommonl yr eusedt hr oughoutt he l at erI s l ami c per i ods .I n addi t i on,numer ous Cr us ader cons t r uct i on met hods and decor at i ve el ement s wer e empl oyed ext ens i vel y,s uch as t he cus hi on ar ch,t he chevr on ar ch,t he el bow capi t al s ,and t he cor bel s or br acket s .I ti snots ur pr i s i ngl y,however ,t hatHami l t on i dent i f i ed t he wor k of t he per i od as “Cr us ader and Ayyubi d”whenhef oundi tdi f f i cul ti nt heAq· «Mos que t o di s t i ngui s h bet ween Cr us ader wor k ins it u and i n s econdar yus e. Does t he r eus e of Cr us ader el ement s and f or ms i n Ayyubi dar chi t ect ur eofJ er us al em haveanyi conogr aphi c meani ng? Was i ti nt ended t or epr es ent pr eAyyubi d ar chi t ect ur et ur ned i nt ot hes er vi ceofI s l am?Orcan i t

CONCLUSION

even have been intended to have a contemporary antiFrankish significance and be a visual celebration of the triumph of Islam? It is pertinent to ask why, for instance, the façade of an important Islamic monument such as the Aq·« Mosque was principally constructed with re-used architectural elements in the style of Crusader buildings. This phenomenon is not confined to Jerusalem, however, but also in numerous cities, which were taken during the Muslim counter-Crusade. An interesting example, although from the Mamluk period, is the Gothic portal brought from a Crusader church at Acre and re-used by the sultan al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad b. Qal«w‡n in his funerary madrasa in Cairo (703/1203-04).

architectural activity. Ayyubid architecture is generally characterised by the trend of austerity and use of minimal decoration, high quality of construction with well-cut stones as the principal material. The Ayyubids were important patrons of architecture. Their monuments in Jerusalem and elsewhere reflected to a great extent their major political, religious, and social concerns and objectives. These aspects of their ideology led to the commissioning of numerous buildings. Far beyond the historical context, the architecture of the Ayyubids in Jerusalem, and the ideas it embodied, the institutions, and the economic support system (waqf ) related to them had a far reaching influence on the city’s architecture for the subsequent Mamluk and Ottoman periods. In terms of Sunn» Islam and its institutions, the same concepts and monument types were carried through and even largely developed. The institutionalisation of the madrasa, which was begun by N‡r al-D»n in Syria, for instance, was introduced to Jerusalem by ¶al«¯ al-D»n and his Ayyubid successors, and continued by the Mamluks. The inclusion of mausolea within the madrasas, a concept and an architectural form that was begun under the Ayyubids became a common practice in the following periods. Moreover, monuments dedicated to welfare, like m«rist«ns, rib«³ s, sab»ls, s‡qs, were perpetuated by the Mamluks and the Ottomans. The construction of commemorative monuments and shrines to venerated prophets of the Old Testament, as well as to early figures of Islam, continued far beyond the time of the Ayyubids. By the end of the Mamluk period, Jerusalem and its environs contained many mausolea, shrines and tombs of pre-Islamic and Islamic figures that amplified its status as a Holy City.

While it is tempting to see some sort of ideological motivation behind it, the nature of that motivation is still ambiguous, and cannot be established without concrete evidence in the buildings themselves and the epigraphic material, as well as in the contemporary historical sources. As I have previously noted, the Ayyubid architects in Jerusalem were very practical. They made use of the available construction materials, especially when these materials include high quality sculpted marble. Often their re-use of Crusader spolia seems to be haphazard and governed by local circumstances. There is also the question of craftsmen, Frankish or nonFrankish, who may have continued to work in Jerusalem under the new regime. The historical sources do not provide enough evidence to resolve this question. Perhaps one hint of this possibility is provided by ‘Im«d al-D»n alI·fah«n» when he refered to the presence of two thousand Frankish prisoners, along with local workers, in the rebuilding of the city walls by ¶al«¯ al-D»n (‘Im«d alD»n, 289).

The image of ¶al«¯ al-D»n as the champion of Sunn» Islam, the liberator of Jerusalem and the ideal Muslim leader was the product of a common consensus among contemporary and later historians. It seems certain that his dedication to jih«d,piety, inclination to public welfare and a patron of architecture made him a model to be emulated by later Ayyubid and Mamluk rulers, especially Baybars and Qaytb«y. These qualities created the incentive for succeeding rulers to initiate constructions in post-Crusader Jerusalem. The foundations of Mamluk Jerusalem lie in the building activities of the Ayyubids after 583/1187.

This book has attempted to combine architectural and archaeological evidence with the varying level of detail provided by the historical sources to understand the political role that Jerusalem played throughout the Ayyubid period. The main thrust of the book is that Jerusalem witnessed a great renaissance in Islamic architecture and the introduction of new socio-eco institutions which would determine the character of the city until the present day. Despite the war situation and the continuous Frankish invasions, the Arab regions under Ayyubid rule witnessed a great revival in various aspects of cultural life including

201

Abbreviations

AA

Awq«f Administration ( J erusal em)

AAS

Annal esar cheol ogi quesdeSyr i e

AB

Ar tBul l et i n

AESC

Annal es :économi es ,s oci ét és ,ci vi l i s at i ons

AI

Ar sI s l ami ca

AM

Ashmol eam Museum ( Oxf ord)

AO

Ar sOr i ent al i s

BA

Bi bl i calAr chaeol ogi s t

BAI AS

Bul l et i nof t heAngl oI s r aelAr chaeol ogi calSoci et y

BEO

Bul l et i nd’ ét udesor i ent al es

BSAJ

BritishSchoolofArchaeol ogyin J erusal em

BSOAS

Bul l et i nof t heSchoolof Or i ent alandAfr i canSt udi es

CCCM

Corpus Christianorum,Continuatio Mediaeual is.Turnhol t( 1966)

CI A

Courtaul dI nstitute ofArt ( UniversityofLondon)

DI A

Department ofI sl amicArchaeol ogy,Awq«fAdministration

DM

Damas z enerMi t t ei l ungen

DOP

Dumbar t onOaksPaper s

EI

Encycl opaedi aof I s l am,new ed.8vol s.in progress.Leiden 1960-

ErI

Er et z I s r ael

HA

HadashotArchaeol ogi ot( I sraelAntiquities Authority)

I EJ

I s r aelExpl or at i onJour nal

J A

Jour nalAs i at i que

J AOS

Jour nalof t heAmer i canOr i ent alSoci et y

J SAI

Jer us al em St udi esi nAr abi candI s l am

J WI

Jour nalof t heWar bur gI ns t i t ut e

MKA

ϫt h«r( UniversityofCairo) Maj al l atKul yyatal -

MAD

LesMonument sAyyoubi desdeDamas ,ed.byJ .Sauvaget,M.ÉcochardandJ .Sourdel Thomine ( I nstitut Français de Damas)Paris:E.de Boccard,1938–1950.

PE( F) Q( S)

Pal es t i neExpl or at i on( Fund)Quar t er l y( St at ement )

PPTS

Pal es t i nePi l gr i ms ’Text sSoci et yLi br ar y,13vol s.London 189097

QDAP

Quar t er l yof t heDepar t mentof Ant i qi t i esof Pal es t i ne

RB

RevueBi bl i que

RCEA

Reper t oi r echr onol ogi qued’ epi gr aphi ear abe,16vol s.ed.byEt.Combe,J .Sauvaget andG. Wiet.Cairo:I nstitut f rancais d’ archeol oie oriental e,1931-

ZPDV

Zei t s chr i ftdesDeut s chenPal as t i naver ei ns

203

Bibliography

Primary Sources AbbotDaniel: The Pilgrimage oft he RussianAbbotDaniel int he Holy Land ( 11061107) , PPTA, vol.I I I , Annot at ed by C. W. Wilson, London1888. Ab‡’ lF» d«’ : ‘ I m«d alD» n I sm«‘ » l alAyy‡b» ( d. 7321332) Al mukht a· arf »akhb«ral -bas har ,vol.I I I , Beirut( no dat e) Ab‡ Sh«ma: Shih«b alD» n‘ Abd alRa¯m«n b.I sm«‘ » l alMaqdis» ( d. 665/ 1266)Ki t «b al -raw±at aynf »akhb«ral -dawl at ayn ( al -N‡r i yyawal -¶al «¯i yya)( Beirut :D«r alJ » l 1974) Ab‡ Sh«ma:Dhayl Shih«b alD» n‘ Abd alRa¯m«n b.I sm«‘ » l alMaqdis» ( d. 665/ 1266) , Al -dhayl‘ al « al -raw±at ayn ( t ar«j i m al qarnaynal -s«di swal -s«bi ‘ ) ,2vols.ed.by I .alHusayni ( Beirut :D«r alJ » l 1974) Anonymous Pilgrims: Descript ion oft he Holy Places ( 11t h -12t h Cent ury) , PPTS, vol.V, Trans.by A.St ewart , London1894 Al‘ Asqal«n» : I bn ®aj ar A¯mad b.‘ Al»al‘ Asqal«n» , Al -dur ar al k«mi na,( D«r alKut ub al-Had» t ha:Cairo n. d. ) Bah«’alD» n: Ab‡’ lMa¯«sinBah«’alD» nI bnShadd«dY‡sufb.R«f » ‘ alAsad» , Al -naw«di ral -sul ³ «ni yyawa’ l -ma¯«si nal -y‡suf » yya,( The Li f e ofSal adi n) ,t rans.by C. R.Conder, PPTS, London1897) AlBand«r» : Quw«m alD» nalFat ¯b.‘ Al» , AlBand«r»( d.643/ 1245) , Sanaal -barqal -sh«m» , ed.by R.Shashan, Part1, Beirut , 1971 Benj aminofTodela: TheI t i ner ar yofBenj ami nofTodel a, ed.andt rans.by M. N.Adler, London1907

Evliya Tsheleb» : “Travels inPalest ine”, Trans.by St .H.St ephan, QDAP, XI I I( 1938) , 145156 Al®anbal» : Ab‡ Barak«t ‘ I zz alD» n A¯mad I bn Na· rall«h al‘ Asqal«n» al®anbal» ( 876/ 1471) , Shi f «’ al -qul ‡b f » man«qi b ban»ayy‡b,ed.by N.Rashid, Baghdad1978 AlHaraw» : ‘ Al»b.Ab»Bakr alHaraw»( d.611/ 1215) , Al -i s har «ti l « ma‘ r i f atal -z i y«r «t ,ed.by J .SourdelThomine, Damascus 1953 Al®usayn» : ¶adr alD» nb.‘ Al» , al®usayn» , Akhb«ral -dawl aal -sal j ‡qi yyaed.by M.I qbal ( Beirut1984) I bn‘ AbdRabbihi: I bn‘ AbdRabbihi A¯madb.Mu¯ammad, Al -‘ i qdal -f ar» d, Cairo, 1899 I bnal‘ Ad» m: Ab‡’ l- Q«sim Kam«l alD» n al®alab»( d.660/ 1261) , Zubdatal -¯al ab mi nt «r» kh®al ab,ed.by alDahhan, S. , Beirut , vol.2, 1954, vol.3, 1967 I bn‘ As«kir: T«r » khdi mas hq, 2vols.ed.by S.alMunaj j id, Damascus 1951 I bnalAt h» r: Ab‡’ l®asan ‘ I zz alD» n‘ Al»alShayban»alJ azr»( d. 630/ 1233) , Al -k«mi lf » ’ l -t «r » kh,ed.by M. Y.alDaqqaq, ( Beirut1987) I bnalFaq» h: Ab‡ Bakr, A¯madb.Mu¯ammadalHamadh«n» ,I bnalFaq» h, Mukht a·arki t «b al -bul d«n, I bnal‘ I br» : Ab‡’ lFarajGarigorius Aharon alMal³ »( d.685/ 1286) , T«r » khmukht a· aral -duwal ,Beirut , 1890 I bnalFur«t : N«· ir alD» nMu¯ammadb.‘ AbdalRa¯» m( 807/ 1404) , T«r» khal -duwalwa’ lmu‡l k,part ly ed.andt ransl. by U. andM. C.Lyons, Ayyubids, Mamlukes andCrusaders, 2 vols.( Cambridge 1971)

The Cit y ofJ erusalem: The Condit ion oft he Cit y ofJ erusalem and t he Holy Places atThis Day, PPTA, vol.V, Trans.by C. R.Conder, London1888 AlDawad«r» : Ab‡ Bakr b.‘ Abdull«h b.Aybak.Al -dur ral -ma³ l ‡b f » A.‘ ªsh‡r ( Cairo:Dar akhb«rmul ‡kban»ayy‡b ed.S. I hi«’alkut ub al‘ Arabiyya 1972)

205

I bnal‘ I br» : Ab‡’ lFarajGarigorius Aharon alMal³ »( d.685/ 1286) , T«r » khmukht a· aral -duwal ,Beirut , 1890

AY Y U B ID JE R U SAL E M :AN AR C H IT E C T U R AL AND AR C H AE O L O G IC AL ST U D Y

Ibn al-‘Im«d: Shih«b al-D»n Ab‡’l-Fal«h ‘Abd al-®ay al-®anbal» alDimashq» (d.1089/1678), Shudhur«t al-dhahab f» akhb«r man dhahab vols. 6 and 7, ed. by A. and M. al-Aran’ut (Damascus - Beirut 1991)

Ibn W«·il: Jam«l al-D»n Mu¯ammad b. S«lim al-®amaw», Mufarrij al-kur‡b f» akhb«r ban» ayy‡b, vol. 3 ed. by J. al-Shayy«l (Cairo 1953);vol. 4 ed. by H.M. Rab»‘ (Cairo 1972)

Ibn Iy«s: Mu¯ammad b. A¯mad al-®anaf», Bad«’i‘ al-zuh‡r f» waq«’i‘ al-duh‡r, ed. by M. Mustafa (Cairo 1982)

‘Im«d al-D»n: ‘Im«d al-D»n al-I·fah«n» al-K«tib, Ab‡ ‘Abdull«h b. ‘Al» (d. 597/1200), Al-fat¯ al-quss» f»’l-fat¯ al-quds» , Cairo (?), 1902

Ibn al-Jawz»: Ab‡’l-Faraj ‘Abd al-Ra¯m«n b. ‘Al» b. Mu¯ammad (d. 597/1201), Al-muntaam f» t«r»kh al-mul‡k wa’l umam, Haydarabad 1939

John of Wurzburg: Description of the Holy Land (1160-1170), PPTS, IV, Trans. by A. Stewart with notes by C.W. Conder, London 1894

Ibn al-Jawz», Fa±«’il: Ab‡’l Faraj ‘Abd al-Ra¯m«n b. ‘Al» b. Mu¯ammad b. alJawz», Fa±«’il al-Quds al-Shar»f, Beirut 1979

— CCCM, vol. 139 (Turnhout 1994) ed. by R.B.C. Huygens

Ibn Jubayr: Ab‡’l-®asan Mu¯ammad b. A¯mad Ibn Jubayr (d. 614/1217), Rihlat Ibn Jubayr, Beirut 1964

Al-Mak»n: Jirjis b. al-‘Am»d al-Mak»n, Akhb«r al ayy‡biyy»n, ed. by C. Cahen, (Extrait du Bulletin d' etudes Orientales de I' institute Francais de Damas), Damas 1955-57

Ibn Kath»r: Ab‡’l-F»d«’‘Im«d al-D»n ' Ism«‘»l al-Quraysh» alDimashq» (d. 774/1372), Al-bidaya wa’l-nih«ya, vol. 13, 7th edn. Beirut 1988

Al-Maqr»z»: Taq» al-D»n A¯mad b. ‘Al», Al-sul‡k li-ma‘rifat duwal al-mul‡k, ed. by M.M. Ziadeh (Cairo: Ma³ba‘at D«r alKutub al-Mi·riyya, 1934)

Ibn Khallik«n: Ab‡’l ‘Abb«s Shams al-D»n A¯mad b. Ab» Bakr (d. 681/1282), Wafiyy«t al-a‘y«n wa-’anb«’ abn«’ al-zam«n, Vols. I-VIII, Beirut 1968-1971

Al-Maqr»z», ‘itti‘«: Taq» al-D»n A¯mad b. ‘Al», ‘Itti‘« al-¯unafa bi-akhb«r al-a’imma al-f«³imiyy»n al-khulaf«, ed. by J. al-Shayy«l, Cairo 1948

Ibn Mam«t»: al-As‘ad b. al-Kha³ir al-Muhadhab b. Mina al-Ma·r» (d. 606/1209), Qaw«n»n al-daw«w»n, ed. by ‘Atiyya, A.S., Cairo 1943

Al-Maqr»z», maw«‘i: Taq» al-D»n A¯mad b. ‘Al», Al-maw«‘i wa’l i‘tib«r bidhikr al-khi³a³ wa’l-«th«r, Cairo 1913-22 Muj»r: Ab‡ al-Yaman Muj»r al-D»n ‘Abd al-Ra¯m«n al-®anbal» al-‘Ulaym» (d.928/1520), Al-uns al-jal»l f» t«r»kh al-Quds wa’l-Khal»l, Amman 1973

Ibn Munqiz: Mu’ayyad al-Dawla Us«ma b. Murshid b. Munqiz alKin«n» al-Shayzar», Kit«b al-i‘tib«r, ed. al-Zayn, H., Beirut 1988

Al-Muqaddas»: Mu¯ammad b. A¯mad, A¯san al-taq«s»m f» ma‘rifat alaq«l»m, ed. by M. J. de Goeje (Leiden: Brill 1906)

Ibn al-Murajj«: Ab‡’l-Ma‘«l» al-Musharraf b. al-Murajj«, Fa±«’il Bayt alMaqdis wa’l-Sh«m wa’l-Khal»l

Al-Nabuls»: ‘Abd al-Ghan» al-Nabuls», Al-¯a±ra al-’unsiyya f» al-rihla al-qudsiyya, ed. by A.H. al-‘Ulab» (Beirut: al-Ma·«dir 1990)

Ibn al-Qal«nis»: Ab‡ Yu‘l« ®amza, Dhayl t«r»kh dimashq, Beirut 1908 Ibn Shadd«d, a‘l«q: Ab‡ ‘Abdull«h Mu¯ammad b. ‘Al» al-®alab», Al-a‘l«q alkha³»ra f» dhikr ‘umar«’ al-Sh«m wa’l-Jaz»ra (History of Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine), ed. by S. al-Dahhan, Vol. II, 1962

N«·ir-» Khusraw: Book of Travels (Safar n«ma), trans. and ed. by W. N. Thakstone, New York 1986 Al-Qalqashand»: Ab‡’l-‘Abb«s A¯mad, ¶ub¯ al-a‘sh« f» ·in«‘at al-insh«, vol. IV, Cairo 1914

Ibn Taghr»bard»: Ab‡’l-Ma¯«sin Jam«l al-D»n Y‡suf b. Taghr»bard» alAt«bik», Al-nuj‡m al-z«hira f» mulk Mi·r wa’l-Qahira Cairo, 1938

Saewulf: The Pilgrimage of Saewulf to Jerusalem and the Holy 206

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Land (1102-1103), PPTS, vol. III, Trans. by Rev. Canon Brownlow, London 1892

Auld, S. and Hillenbrand, R., (eds.), 2000 Ottoman Jerusalem, the Living City: 1517-1917, 2 vols. London

— CCCM, vol. 139 (Turnholt 1994) ed. by R.B.C. Huygens

Avigad, N., 1980 The Upper City of Jerusalem, Jerusalem (Hebrew)

Sib³ Ibn al-Jawz»: Ab‡’l-Muaffar Shams al-D»n Qazawughl» al-Turk» (d. 654/1256), Mir’«t al-zam«n f» t«r»kh al-a‘y«n, ed. by I. ‘Abb«s (Cairo-Beirut: Dar al-Shur‡q 1985)

Avigad, N., 1983 Discovering Jerusalem, Jerusalem Ayalon, D., 1979 The Mamluk Military Society, Collected Studies, London

Sijills: Registers of the Ottoman Shar‘» Court in Jerusalem, Awq«f Administration, Jerusalem, beginning in 936/1529

Baer, E., 1989 Ayyubid Metalwork with Christian Images,(Studies in Islamic Art and Architecture: Supplements to Muqarnas; v. 4), Leiden

Theodoric: Description of the Holy Places (ca. 1172), PPTS, vol. V, trans. by A. Stewart, London 1891

Bahat, D., 1985 “The Church of St. Mary Magdalen and its Vicinity”, ErI, XVIII, 5-7 –

— CCCM, vol. 139 (Turnholt 1994) ed. by R.B.C. Huygens

Bahat, D., 1987 “Marino Sanuto’s Map and the Walls of Jerusalem”, ErI, XIX, 295-298

Al-‘Umar»: Shih«b al-D»n b. Fa±lall«h al-‘Umar», Mas«lik al-ab·«r f» mam«lik al-am·«r, ed. by Zak», A., Cairo 1924

Bahat, D., 1990 The Topography and Toponomy of Crusader Jerusalem, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, (Hebrew)

William of Tyre: History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, (trans.) Babcock, B. - Krey, A.C., 2 vols. New York, 1943 Y«q‡t: Ab‡ ‘Abdull«h Shih«b al-D»n Y«q‡t al- R‡m» al®amaw», (d. 626/1228), Mu‘jam al-buld«n, ed. by F.A. al-Jund», Beirut, 1990

Bahat, D., 1991 The Topography and the Archaeological Evidence - the Ayyubid Period”, in: Prawar, Y. and Ben-Shammai, H. (eds.), Book of Jerusalem: the Crusader and Ayyubid Period, (1099-1250), Jerusalem (Hebrew) Bahat, D., 1993 “Ayyubid Remains”, in: New Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations, vol. 2, ed. by E. Stern, 600

Secondary Sources Al-‘Asal», K. J., 1982 Min «th«rin« f» Bayt al-Maqdis, Amman

Bahat, D. and Ben-Ari, M., 1972 “Excavations in Zahal Square” Qadmoniot, V, Nos. 3-4, 118-119 (Hebrew).

Al-‘Asal», K. J., 1983-1989 Wath«’iq maqdisiyya t«r»khiyya, vol. I, (1983), vols. II, III (1989), Amman Al-‘Asal», K.J., 1984 Makh³‡³«³ fa±«’il Bayt bibliogr«fi«, Amman

al-Maqdis,

dirasa

Bahat, D. and Ben-Ari, M., 1975 “Excavations in Tancred’s Tower”, in: Y. Yadin (ed.), Jerusalem Revealed, Jerusalem.

wa-

Balog, P., 1980 The Coinage of the Ayyubids, London.

Ashbee, C. R. (ed.) 1924 Jerusalem 1920-1922: Being the Records of the ProJerusalem Council during the First Two Years of the Civil Administration, London

Battista, A. and Bagatti, A., 1976 La Fortezza Saracena del Monte Tabor, Jerusalem. Ben-Dov, M., 1975 “The Area South of the Temple Mount in the Early Islamic Period”, in: Y. Yadin (ed.), Jerusalem Reveald, Jerusalem.

Ashtor, E., 1976 Social and Economic History of the Near East in the Middle Ages, Los Angeles. 207

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

Ben-Dov, M., 1982 Excavations at the Temple Mount, Jerusalem.

Broshi, M., 1977 “Along Jerusalem’s Walls”, BA, 40, 11-17.

Ben-Dov, M., 1983 Jerusalem’s Fortifications: The City Walls, Gates and the Temple Mount, Jerusalem.

Broshi, M., 1978 “Jerusalem: Excavations along the Western City Wall”, HA 65/6, 35-6 (Hebrew).

Ben-Dov, M. et al., 1985 In the Shadow of the Temple, Jerusalem.

Broshi, M., 1987 “Al-Malik al-Mu‘aam ‘º sa: Restores and Destroys the Walls of Jerusalem, an evidence of a new inscription”, ErI, XIX, 299-302 (Hebrew).

Ben-Dov, M., 1989 Jerusalem, Man and Stone, the Archaeology, Architecture and the Inner Life of the Old City, Tel-Aviv.

Broshi, M. and Gibson S., 1993 “Excavations Along the Western and Southern Walls of Jerusalem”, in: H. Geva (ed.), Jerusalem Revealed, Jerusalem.

Ben-Dov, M., 1993 Jerusalem’s Fortifications: Eleventh to Thirteenth Centuries” in: New Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations, vol. 2, ed. by E. Stern, 795.

Broshi, M. and Tsafrir,Y., 1977 “Excavations at the Zion Gate, Jerusalem”, IEJ, XXVII, 28-37.

Benvenisti, M., 1970 The Crusaders in the Holy Land, Jerusalem. Berchem, M. van, 1920 Matériaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum. Deuxième partie: Syrie du Sud, II.Jérusalem.Planches (MIFAO, xIiv) Cairo. Berchem, M. van, 1922-23 Matériaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum. Deuxième partie: Syrie du Sud, II.Jérusalem ‘Ville’ (MIFAO, xIiv) Cairo. Berchem, M. van, 1925-27 Matériaux pour un Curpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum, Deuxième partie: Syrie du Sud, II.Jérusalem ‘Haram’ (MIFAO, xIiv) Cairo.

Burgoyne, M. H., 1976 “A chronological index of the Islamic monuments of Jerusalem”. The Architecture of Islamic Jerusalem: An Exhibition Prepared on the Occasion of the World of Islam Festival, London, The British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem (includes: “Map of Jerusalem Showing the Location of Muslim Monuments). Burgoyne, M. H., 1979 The Architectural Development of the Haram in Jerusalem under the Ba¯r» Mamluks, 2 vols. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Oxford. Burgoyne, M. H., 1992 “The Gates of the ®aram al-Shar»f”, in: Raby, J. and Johns, J. (eds.), Bayt al-Maqdis, ‘Abd al-Malik’s Jerusalem, Part I, Oxford University Studies, 105-124.

Berchem, Marg., 1969 “The Mosaics of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem and of the Great Mosque of Damascus”, in: Creswell, K.A.C., Early Muslim Architecture, vol. I, Part I, 323-372, Oxford.

Burgoyne, M.H. and Abul-Hajj, A. 1979 “Twenty-Four Medieval Arabic Inscriptions Jerusalem”, Levant XI, 112-137.

Bieberstein, K. and Bloedhor, H., 1994 Jerusalem: Grundzüge der Baugeschichte,vom Chalkolithikum bis zur Fruhzeit der osmanischen Herrrschaft, 3 vols Wiesbaden (TAVOB B 100).

from

Burgoyne, M.H., and Folda, H., 1981 Review of Buschhausen, H., Die Suditalienische Bauplastik im Konigreich Jerusalem von Konig Wilhelm Il, The Art Bulletin, 53/ii, 321-324.

Boase, T.S.R., 1977 “Ecclesiastical Art in the Crusader States in Palestine and Syria, A: Architecture and Sculpture”, in: Setton, K.M., (ed.), History of the Crusades, vol. IV, Madison.

Burgoyne, M. H. and D. S. Richards, 1985 “The Arabic Inscription in the Old Mosque of al-Bira”, in: Edbury, P. (ed.), Crusader Settlement, 164-165, Cardiff.

Boase, T.S.R., 1938 “The Arts in the Latine Kingdom of Jerusalem”, JWI, II, (1938).

Burgoyne, M. H. and D. S. Richards, 1987 Mamluk Jerusalem, London.

Braslavi, J., 1964 “A Topography of Jerusalem from the Cairo Geniza”, ErI, VII, 69-80 (Hebrew).

Buschhausen, M., 1978 Die Süditalienische Bauplastik im Königreich Jerusalem, Vienna. 208

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cahen, C., 1953 “L’evolution de l’iq³«‘ du IXe au XIIIe siècle. Contribution a une histoire comparée des sociétés mediévales”,AESC, VIII, 23-52.

Dickie, A. C., 1897 “Stone-Dressing of Jerusalem, Past and Present”, PEFQSt, 61-7. Ecochard, M., 1937-38 “Notes d’archéologie musulmane I: Stéréotomie de deux portails du XII siècle. In: BEO, VII-VIII, 83-108.

Cahen, C., 1960 “The Ayyubids”, EI, vol. I, 796-807.

Ehrenkreutz, A. S., 1955 “The Place of Saladin in the naval history of the Mediterranean Sea in the Middle Ages”, in JAOS, Ixxv, 100-116.

Cahen, C., 1960 “Ikta”, EI, vol. III, 1090-1091. Canaan, T., 1927 Muhammedan Saints and Sanctuaries in Palestine, London, reprinted Jerusalem (n. d.).

Ehrenkreutz, A. S., 1972 Saladin, Albany: State University of New York Press.

Chabbi, J., 1978, “Khanqah”, EI, vol. IV, 1025-1026.

Elad, A., 1991 “The History and Topography of Jerusalem during the Early Islamic Period: the Historical Value of Fada’il alQuds Literature. A Reconstruction, JSAI, XIV, 41-70.

Chevedden, P.E., 1986 The Citadel of Damascus, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Univeristy of California, Los Angeles.

Elad, A., 1995 Medieval Jerusalem and Islamic Worship, Holy Places, Ceremonies, Pilgrimage, E.J. Brill, Leiden, etc.

Clermont-Ganneau, C., 1896-99 Archaeological Researches in Palestine during the Years 1873-1874, 2 vols. London.

Elisséeff, N., 1954 “La titulature de Nur ad-Din d’près ses inscriptions”, BEO, 14 (1952-54), 155-196.

Clermont-Ganneau, C., 1899 “Medieval Tooling of the Crusaders”, PEFQSt, 354.

Elisséeff, N., 1955 “A propo d’un inscription d’al-Malik al-Mu‘aam ‘ºs«”, AAS, IV-V (1954-55), 3-28.

Conder, C.R., 1889 “The South Wall of Jerusalem”, PEFQSt, 145. Corbo, V.C., 1981 The Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, vols. I-III, Franciscan Printing Press, Jerusalem.

Elisséeff, N., 1967 Nur al-Din. Un grand prince musulman de Syrie au temps des Croisades, 3 vols., Damascus.

Creswell, K.A.C., 1969 Early Muslim Architecture, 2nd revised edition of vol. I in 2 parts, Oxford.

Enlart, C., 1925 Les momuments des Croises dans le Royaume de Jerusalem: Architecture religeuse et civile, I-II, Paris 1925-28.

Creswell, K. A. C., 1978 The Muslim Architecture of Egypt, vol. II, Ayyubids and Early Ba¯rite Mamluks, A.D. 1171-1326, New York.

Ferguson, J., 1847 An Essay on the Ancient topography of Jerusalem, London.

Creswell, K. A. C. and Allan, J. W., 1989 A Short Account of Early Muslim Architecture, Cairo Cust, L.G.A. 1929 The Status Quo in the Holy Places (Jerusalem 1929; reprinted Ariel: Jerusalem 1980).

Folda, J., 1977 “Painting and Sculpture in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem 1099-1291”, in Setton, K.M. (ed.), A History of the Crusades, IV, Madison.

Dahman, M. A., 1982 Fi ri¯«b Dimashq, dir«sa ‘an aham am«kinih« alathariyya, Damascus.

Folda, J., (ed.), 1982 Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century, BSAJ, BAR International Series 152, BAR Publishing, Oxford.

Dajani-Shakeel, H., 1976 “Jih«d in the Twelfth Century Arabic Poetry: A Moral and Religious Force to Counter the Crusades”, The Muslim World, Ixvi, 96-113.

Folda, J., 1983 “A Fourth Capital from the Chapel of the Repose in Jerusalem’, Levant XX, 194-195.

209

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

Frankel, Y., 1992 “The Establishment of the Waqf Xanqah al-Salahiyya by Salah al-Din”, Cathedra 65, 21-36 (Hebrew)

Hamilton, R.W., 1933 “Street Levels in the Tyropoeon Valley, Part II”, QDAP 2, 34-40.

Gabrieli, F., (ed.), 1969 Arab Historians of the Crusades, London

Hamilton, R.W., 1948 “Some Capitals from the Aqsa Mosque”, QDAP 13, 10320

Gautier-van Berchem, Marg., 1969 The Mosaics of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem and of the Great Mosque in Damascus, in: K.A.C. Creswell, Early Muslim Architecture, Oxford, I/1, 213-322.

Hamilton, R.W., 1949 The Structural History of the Aqsa Mosque, London Hanauer, J.R., 1926 Walks in and around Jerusalem, 2nd edn., London.

Ghawanmeh, Y. D., 1980 Im«rat al-Karak al-Ayy‡biyya, Amman

Hazard, J.W. (ed.), 1977 “The Art and Architecture of the Crusader States”, in: K.M. Setton (ed.), A History of the Crusades, Chapter 4, Wisconsin.

Gibb, H.A.R., 1932 The Damascus Chronicle of the Crusades, London Gibb, H.A.R., 1960 “Al-Af±al”, EI, Vol. I, 215

Hennessy, J. B., 1970 “Preliminary report on excavations at the Damascus Gate, Jerusalem, 1964-66”, Levant 2, 22-27

Gibb, H.A.R., 1962a “The Achievements of Saladin”, in: S. J. Shaw and W. R. Polk (eds.), Studies on the Civilization of Islam, Boston, 91-107.

Herzfeld, E., 1948 “Damascus: Studies in Architecture”: I. AI, 9(1942), 153; II. AI, 10 (1943), 13-70; III. AI, 11-12 (1946), 1-71; IV, AI, 13-14 (1948), 118-138.

Gibb, H.A.R., 1962b “The armies of Saladin”, in: S. J. Shaw and W. R. Polk (eds.), Studies on the Civilization of Islam, Boston, 74-90.

Herzfeld, E., 1955 Materiaux puor un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum,2e partie, Syrie du Nord, Inscriptions et Monuments d’Alep, 3 vols., Paris.

Gibb, H.A.R., 1969 “The Rise of Saladin 1169-1189”, in: Setton, K.M. (ed), History of the Crusades, Vol. I, The First Hundred Years, (ed. by M.W. Baldwin), Madison-London, 563-589.

Hillenbrand, R., 1986 “Madrasa”, EI, V, 1136-1154

Gibb, H.A.R., 1973 The Life of Saladin: from the Works of ‘Im«d ad-D»n and Beh«’ ad-D»n, London

Hillenbrand, R., 1994 Islamic Architecture, Form, Function and Meaning, New York.

Gil, M., 1992 A History of Palestine, 634-1099, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Humphreys, R. S., 1977 From Saladin to the Mongols: the Ayyubids of Damascus, 1193-1260, Albany.

Goitein, S. D., 1980 “al-Kuds”, EI, vol. V, 322-339. Goitein, S.D., 1986 Population in Palestine in the Early Islamic and Crusader periods in the light of the Geniza letters, Jerusalem (Hebrew)

Humphreys, R. S., 1989 “Politics and Architectural Patronage in Ayyubid Damascus”, in: Bosworth, C.E. et al (eds.). The Islamic World, From Classical to Modern Times, Essays in Honour of Bernard Lewis, Princeton, 151-174.

Grabar, O., 1966 “The Earliest Commemorative Structures, Notes and Documents”, AO, VI, 7-46.

Humphreys, R. S., 1994 “Women as Patrons of Religious Architecture in Ayyubid Damascus”, Muqarnas, XI, 35-54.

Grabar, O., 1996 The Shape of the Holy, Princeton.

Al-®um·», A. F., 1982 Raw«’i‘ al-‘im«ra al-‘arabiyya al-isl«miyya f» S‡riyy«, Damascus.

Grunebaum, G.E. von, 1970 Classical Islam, a History 600-1258, (trans. from German by K. Watson), London

Al-®um·», A., 1967 Al-Madrasa al-§«hiriyya, Damascus 210

BIBLIOGRAPHY

®usein, M. M., 1986 Al-jaysh al-ayy‡b» f» ‘ahd ¶al«¯ al-D»n, Beirut

Laurent, J. C. M., 1873 Peregrinatores Medii Aevi Quatuor, 2nd ed., Leipzig

Al-®iy«r», M.A., 1989 “Crusader Jerusalem”, in: al-‘Asal» (ed.) Jerusalem in History, London, 130-176.

Levi, M., 1991 “Maps of Jerusalem in Medieval Times”, in: Prawer, H. and Ben-Shammai, H. (eds.), Book of Jerusalem, the Crusader and Ayyubid Period 1099-1250, Jerusalem, 418-507.

Jacoby, Z., 1982 “Crusader Sculpture in Cairo: Additional Evidence on the Temple Area Workshop of Jerusalem”, in: Folda, J., (ed.), Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century, BSAJ, BAR Series 152, 121-138.

Lewis, B., 1955 “Palestinian cities in the sixteenth century according to documents from the Ottoman Archives: Jerusalem”, Yerushalayim: Mehkare Eretz-Yisrael 2/5 Lewis, B. et al, 1970 The Cambridge History of Islam, vol. I, Cambridge

Jacoby, Z., 1979 “The Tomb of Baldwin V, King of Jerusalem (1185-86), and the Workshop of the Temple Area”, Gesta XVIII 2, 3-14.

Little, D. P., 1989 “Jerusalem under the Ayyubids and Mamluks 1187-1516 AD”, in: K.J. al-‘Asal» (ed.), Jerusalem in History, London, 177-199.

Jalabi-Holdijk, R., 1988 Madrasa al-Firdaus in Aleppo, a Chef-d’oeuvre of Ayyubid Architecture, Unpublished, M.A. Thesis, American University, Cairo

Lutfi, H., 1985 Al-Quds al-Mamlukiyya, a History of Mamluk Jerusalem Based on the Haram Documents, Klaus Schwarz Verlag, Berlin

Jarrar, S., 1998 “Suq al-Ma‘rifa: An Ayyubid Hanbalite Shrine in alHaram al-Sharif”, Muqarnas, Vol. XV, 71-100.

Lyons, M. C. and Jackson, D. E. P., 1986 Saladin, Cambridge.

Johns, C. N., 1950 “The Citadel, Jerusalem: A Summary of Work since 1934”, QDAP, 14, 121-190.

MacKenzie, N. D., 1992 Ayyubid Cairo, a Topographical Study, Cairo.

Juha, F., 1981 Al-rabat wa al-¯ad«’iq wa al-zaw«y« wa al-tak«y« f» mad»nat ®alab, AAS XXXI, 205-216.

Mauss, C., 1888 La piscine de Bethesda a Jérusalem, Paris.

Kedar, B.Z., 1971/2 “The Jewish Community in Jerusalem”, Tarbiz, 41, 82-91 (Hebrew)

Mayer, L. A., 1931 “A Medieval Arabic Description of the Haram in Jerusalem”, QDAP 1, 44-51, 74-85.

Kennedy, H., 1994 Crusader Castles, Cambridge University Press.

Meinecke, M., 1985 Mamluk Architecture. Regional Architectural Traditions: Evolution and Interrelations, DM, Band 2, Mainz am Rhein, 163-175, Pls. 48-55.

Kuhnel, B., 1977 “Crusader Sculpture at the Ascension Church on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem”, Gesta XVI2, 41-

Meinecke, M., 1985 The Old Quarter of as-Salihiya, Damascus; Development and Recent Changes, AAS XXXV, 31-37.

Kuhnel, B., 1979 Crusaders’ Sculpture in Jerusalem, unpublished PhD Thesis, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem

Meinecke, M., 1992 Die Mamlukische Architektur in Ägypten und Syrien (648) 1250 bis 923/ 1517), 2 vols. Augustin.

Kuhnel, B., 1991 “Crusader Art in Jerusalem” in: Prawer, J., and BenShammai, H. (eds.), Book of Jerusalem, the Crusader and Ayyubid Period 1099-1250, Jerusalem, 304-352.

Merrill, S., 1908 Ancient Jerusalem, New York

Lami, S. M., 1984 Al-tur«th al-mi‘m«r» al-isl«m» f» Masr, Beirut.

al-Munjid, S., 1946 Bimaristan Nur al-Din, Damascus

Lapidus, I. M., 1988 A History of Islamic Societies, Cambridge

Nijim, R.Y., 1983 Kun‡z al-Quds, Amman 211

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

Patrich J., 1984 “The Structure of the Muristan Quarter in the Crusader Period”, Cathedra 33, 3-16 (Hebrew)

Pringle, R. D., 1993, 1998 The Churches of Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Corpus. 2 Vols. Cambridge

Petersen, A., 1996 A Preliminary Report on Three Muslim Shrines in Palestine, Levant 28, 97-113.

Pringle, R. D., 1997 “The Investigation of a Medieval Pit in the Muristan, Jerusalem, by Charles Coüasnon OP, Mr Leonidas J. Collas and Mrs Christal-M. Bennett in May 1963”, Levant, XXIX, 201-215.

Pierotti, E., 1864 Jerusalem Explored trans. by T. G. Bonney, London and Cambridge, 154. Pierotti, E., 1869 Topographie ancienne Lausanne.

et

modern

de

Regan, G., 1987 Saladin and the fall of Jerusalem, New York.

Jerusalem,

Richards, D. S., 1994 “Saladin’s Hospital in Jerusalem: its foundation and some later archival material”, in K. Athamina, and R. Heacock (eds.), The Frankish Wars and their Influence on Palestine, Bir Zeit, 70-83

Prag, K., 1989 Jerusalem, Blue Guide, London-New York

Richards, D. S., 1995 “¶al«¯ al-D»n”, EI, vol. VIII, 910-914

Prawer, J., 1969-70 Histoire du royaume latin de Jéusalem, trans. by G. Nahon, 2 Vols. , Paris.

Al-Rihawi, A., 1979 Al-‘im«ra al-‘arabiyya al-isl«miyya, kha·«’i·uh« waatharuh« f» s‡riyy«, Damascus

Prawer, J., 1972 The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem: European Colonialism in the Middle Ages. London.

Riley-Smith, J., 1991 The Atlas of the Crusades, London

Prawer, J., 1980 Crusader Institutions, Oxford.

Rohricht, R., 1895 “Karten und Plane zur Palastinakunde aus dem 7-16. Jahrhundert”, ZDPV 18, 173-182.

Prawer, J., 1985 “The Jerusalem the Crusaders Captured: a Contribution to the Medieval Topography of the City”, in: Edbury, P. (ed.), Crusader Settlement, 1-16, Cardiff.

Rosen-Ayalon, M., 1989 An Ayyubid Inscription in the Dome of the Rock, ErI, XX, 360-371 (Hebrew)

Prawer, J., 1988 The History of the Jews in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, Oxford

Rosen-Ayalon, M., 1990 “Art and Architecture in Ayyubid Jerusalem”, IEJ, 40, 305-314, Pls. 29-32.

Prawer, J., 1991 “Political History of Crusader and Ayyubid Jerusalem”, in: Prawer, J. and Ben-Shammai, H. (eds.), Book of Jerusalem, the Crusader and Ayyubid Period 1099-1250, Jerusalem, 1-67.

Runciman, S., 1952 A History of the Crusaders, Vols. I-III, Cambridge Sauvaget, J., 1930 “La Citadelle de Damas”, Syrie 11, 55-90, 216-241.

Prawer, J. and Ben-Shammai, H. (eds.), 1996 The History of Jerusalem, The Early Muslim Period 6381099, Jerusalem.

Saurvaget, J., 1941 Alep, Paris.

Pringle, R. D., 1981 “Crusader Masonry Marks in Palestine”, Levant XII, 187.

Sauvaget, J., 1938 – 1948 Les Monuments Ayyoubides de Damas, vol. I, 1938; vol. II, 1940; vol. III, 1948, Paris

Pringle, R.D., 1982 “Les edifices ecclesiastique du royaume latin de Jerusalem: une liste provisoire”, RB, 89, 92-99.

Schick, C., 1892 “The Building South of the Double Gate, PE(F)Q(S), 19-24.

Pringle, R. D., 1985 “Magna Mahumeria (al-Bir«): the archaeology of a Frankish new town in Palestine”, in: Edbury, P. (ed.), Crusader Settlement, 147-168, Cardiff.

Schick, C., 1898 “Al-Sakhra al-Sagh»ra (Qubbat Sulayman)”, PE(F)Q(S), 103-104. 212

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Schick, C., 1902 “The Muristan, or the Site of the Hospital of St. John at Jerusalem”, PE(F)Q(S), 42-56.

Tamari, S., 1968 “Sulla conversione della chiesa di Santa Anna a Gerusalemme nella Madras as-Salahiyya”, Rivista degli Studi Orientali, XII, 327-354.

Schmid, J. G., 1984 “The Origin of the Different Plans of the Medieval Madrasa in Syria and Palestine”, in: Sha‘ath S. (ed.), Alesco, Studies in the History and Archaeology of Palestine I, Aleppo, 329-335.

Tamari, S., 1987 “Qubbat al-Nahawiyya: an Ayyubid Architectural Response to the Crusaders in Jerusalem”, in: Kidar, B.Z. (ed.), the Crusaders in their Kingdom (1099-1291), Jerusalem (Hebrew).

Setton, K. M. et al, 1969-77 History of the Crusades, 4 vols, Madison and London

Tibawi, A.L., 1978 The Islamic Pious Foundations in Jerusalem, London

Shaefer, K. R., 1985 Jerusalem in the Ayyubid and Mamlik Eras, unpublished PhD thesis, New York University.

Tobler, T., 1853 Topographie von Jerusalem, Vol. I, Berlin Tritton, A. S. 1957 “Three Inscription from Jerusalem”, BSOS, XX, 537-39

Sharon, M., 1977, “The Ayyubid walls of Jerusalem. A new inscription”, in: M. Rosen-Ayalon (ed.), Studies in Memory of Gaston Wiet, Jerusalem.

Tushingham, A.D., 1985 Excavations in Jerusalem 1961-67. Vol. I, Toronto

Shmays«n», H., 1983 Mad«ris Dimashq f» al-‘a·r al-ayy‡b», Beirut

Vincent, L.H., 1956 Jerusalem de l’Ancient Testament, II, Paris.

Sivan, E., 1967 “Le caractère sacré de Jérusalem dans l’Islam aux XIIeXIIIe siècles”, JA, 254: 149-182.

Vincent, L.H., and Abel, F.M., 1914 Recheches des topographie, d’archeologie et d’histoire, Vol: II: Jerusalem Nouvelle, (4 fascs + album. Paris, 1914-1926).

Sivan, E., 1968 L’Islam et la Croisade: Ideologie et Propagande dans les Réaction Musulmanes aux Croisades, Paris.

Vincent, L. and Steve, 1954/6 Jerusalem de l’Ancien Testament, 2 vols. A.M., Paris.

Sivan, E., 1991 “ Sanctity of Jerusalem in Islam”, in: Prawer, J. and BenShammai, H. (eds.), Book of Jerusalem, the Crusader and Ayyubid Period 1099-1250, Jerusalem,

de Vogué, M., 1860 Les eglises de la Terre Sainte, Paris (repr: TorontoJerusalem 1973).

Sivan, R. (ed.), 1983 David’s Tower Rediscovered, (Catalogue of the Jerusalem City Museum, Hebrew and English), Jerusalem

Walls, A. G., 1974 “The Turba Baraka Khan or Khalidi Library”, Levant VI, 25-50.

Le Strange, G., 1890 Palestine under the Moslems, London

Walls, A. G., 1976 “Two Minarets Flanking the Church of the Holy Sepulchre”, Levant VIII, 159-161.

Strzyowski, J., 1936 “Ruins of the Tombs of the Latin Kings”, Speculum XI, 499-

Walls, A. G. and Abul- Hajj, A., 1980 Arabic Inscriptions in Jerusalem: A Hand list and Maps, London.

Sukenik, E. L. and Mayer, L. A. 1930 The Third Wall of Jerusalem,

Warren, C. and Conder, C.R., 1884 The Survey of Western Palestine: Jerusalem, London.

Tabbaa, Y., 1982 The Architectural Patronage of Nur al-Din (1146-1174), unpublished PhD Thesis, New York University, Vols I-II

Warren, C. and Wilson, C., 1871 The Recovery of Jerusalem, London Wiet, G., 1922 Les inscription arabes des Damas, Syria III, 153.163.

Tabbaa, Y., 1986 “Monuments with a Message: Propagation of Jihad under Nur al-Din (1146-1174)”, in: V.P. Goss (ed.), The Meeting of Two Worlds, 123-249. 213

AYYUBID JERUSALEM: AN ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

Wightman, G.J., 1989 The Damascus Gate, Jerusalem, (BAR International Series, 519), BAR Publishing, Oxford

Wilson, C., 1865 Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem, London (reprint, Jerusalem 1980).

Wightman, G.J., 1993 The Walls of Jerusalem, From the Canaanites to the Mamluks, Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement 4, Sidney

Wray, G.O., 1891 “Southern Projection PE(F)Q(S), 320-322

214

from

the

Masjid

al-Aqsa”,

BAR S1628 2007  HAWARI  

Ayyubid Jerusalem (1187–1250) An architectural and archaeological study

AYYUBID JERUSALEM (1187–1250)

Mahmoud K. Hawari

BAR International Series 1628 9 781407 300429

B A R

2007