Mosul after Islamic State: The Quest for Lost Architectural Heritage (Palgrave Studies in Cultural Heritage and Conflict) 3030626350, 9783030626358

Citation preview

PALGRAVE STUDIES IN CULTURAL HERITAGE AND CONFLICT

Mosul after Islamic State The Quest for Lost Architectural Heritage Karel Nováček · Miroslav Melčák Ondřej Beránek · Lenka Starková

Palgrave Studies in Cultural Heritage and Conflict Series Editors Ihab Saloul University of Amsterdam Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands Rob van der Laarse University of Amsterdam Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands Britt Baillie Wits City Institute University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg, South Africa

This book series explores the relationship between cultural heritage and conflict. The key themes of the series are the heritage and memory of war and conflict, contested heritage, and competing memories. The series editors seek books that analyze the dynamics of the past from the perspective of tangible and intangible remnants, spaces, and traces as well as heritage appropriations and restitutions, significations, musealizations, and mediatizations in the present. Books in the series should address topics such as the politics of heritage and conflict, identity and trauma, mourning and reconciliation, nationalism and ethnicity, diaspora and intergenerational memories, painful heritage and terrorscapes, as well as the mediated reenactments of conflicted pasts. More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14638

Karel Nováček • Miroslav Melčák Ondřej Beránek • Lenka Starková

Mosul after Islamic State The Quest for Lost Architectural Heritage

with contribution by Lucie Pospíšilová

Karel Nováček Department of History Palacký University Olomouc, Czech Republic

Miroslav Melčák Oriental Institute The Czech Academy of Sciences Prague, Czech Republic

Ondřej Beránek Oriental Institute The Czech Academy of Sciences Prague, Czech Republic

Lenka Starková Department of Archaeology University of West Bohemia Plzeň , Czech Republic

ISSN 2634-6419     ISSN 2634-6427 (electronic) Palgrave Studies in Cultural Heritage and Conflict ISBN 978-3-030-62635-8    ISBN 978-3-030-62636-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62636-5 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din, Mosul, digital reconstruction model of the interior. © Nyx Alexander Design This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

“After a long uneasy transit, Mosul is seen from a hilltop … In the distance, its minarets crazily slanting over its flat roofs and squat domes, Mosul looks a fair and gracious place.” —Ethel Stefana Stevens, By Tigris and Euphrates (London: Hurst and Blackett, 1923), pp. 151–2 “Mosul’s unusually favourable geographical position gave it uniquely privileged access to a remarkably varied series of cultural zones, each with its own distinctive character. There was literally no other city of comparable size in the medieval Middle East that could so naturally draw on such a richly varied cultural heritage.” —Robert Hillenbrand, The Frontispiece Problem in the Early 13th-Century Kitab al-Aghani, 2017, p. 213 “Every age has the architecture it deserves … The architecture of each epoch contains more than its builders believe: buildings tell about themselves and their time also things whose existence and meaning architects and residents may not have any or clear idea about.” —Karel Kosík, Win of the Method over Architectonics, in: Antediluvian Reflections (Prague, 1999), p. 53

Note on Transliteration and Dating

The dates of historical events, architecture, or artifacts are given in the format AH (Anno Hegirae)/AD (Anno Domini); if isolated, the date is always in AD unless stated otherwise. Arabic names and terminology are transliterated according to the IJMES transliteration system with several modifications: long vowels are shortened and dots below emphatic consonants are not applied.

vii

Acknowledgments

Our work on this book would not have been possible without the kind help of many of our colleagues and friends. First and foremost, we would like to thank Paula Ion for her contribution to a discussion about the original form of al-Nuri Mosque, accompanied by her original 2D and 3D documentation, kindly provided for the book. We would also like to thank Yasser Tabbaa, Andrew Petersen, Edward Jones, Petr Justa, Bruce Wannell, and Axelle Rougeulle, who kindly provided us with their photographs from Mosul. We are grateful to the Embassy of the Czech Republic in Baghdad, namely Ambassador Jan Vyčítal, who personally took an invaluable photoset of selected monuments in Mosul for us in July 2018, and Deputy Chief of Mission Lukáš Gjurič, who photographed objects that originated in Mosul in the Iraq Museum in Baghdad. Ludvik Kalus, Sheila S. Blair, and Yasser Tabbaa kindly helped us with a problematic reading of an inscription crucial for our reconsiderations. Thanks must also go to Richard McClary, Sara E.  Wolper, Martina Müller-Wiener, and Andreas Hoffschildt for diverse information and sources which they kindly shared with us. The completion of the project and the writing of the book would hardly have been possible without help of our informants and collaborators in Mosul and Iraq: Layla Salih and Faisal Jabar (Gilgamesh Centre Baghdad), Barnadet Almaslob (former curator of Mosul Museum), Marwan S. al-­ Sharif (University of Mosul, Dept. of Archaeology), Musʽab M. Jasim al-­ Juboury (Ninawa Directorate of Antiquities), Omar Mohammed (Mosul historian), Othman Al-Hayali, Omar Taqa, Zaid Issam, Momtaz Hazim, ix

x 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Ali I.  Al-Juboury, Narmin A.  M. Amin, Gilgamesh Nabeel, and many anonymous Mosulis who shared their knowledge with us on social media. We owe special thanks to Inka Tesařová and Arc Data Company Prague for their collaboration in the purchase and processing of satellite imagery. We also wish to thank Kateřina Vytejčková and Emily Neumeier for their translations from Turkish and our proof-reader James Raymond, who helped us to improve the linguistic quality of the text. Last but not least, we are grateful to our families for their never-ending patience and support. The project Monuments of Mosul in Danger has been financially supported by the Strategy AV21, a special instrument of the Czech Academy of Sciences supporting excellent research projects based on cooperation across scientific fields and institutions. The project has been further supported by the Oriental Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences.

Contents

1 A City Destroyed  1 1.1 Islamic State’s Evolution  1 1.2 Mosul Conquered  6 1.3 Islamic State’s Demolition Campaign 10 1.4 Typology of Destroyed Heritage 20 1.4.1 Mosques and Tombs of Awliya’: Pious Shaykhs and Sufis 20 1.4.2 Mosques and Shrines of Awliya’: Descendants of the Prophet Muhammad 23 1.4.3 Mosques of Prophets 26 1.4.4 Cemeteries 28 1.4.5 Christian Monuments 29 1.4.6 Ancient Assyrian Heritage 31 1.4.7 Other Monuments 31 1.5 Islamic State’s Ideological Attitude Toward Historical Monuments 34 1.5.1 Sources of IS’s Religious Ideology 36 1.5.2 Quranic Verses 40 1.5.3 Prophetic Narratives 41 1.5.4 Medieval Classics: Ibn Taymiya and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziya 42 1.5.5 Educational Leaflets to Sway the Discourse on Destruction? 43

xi

xii 

Contents

1.5.6 IS’s Video Production 47 1.5.7 Last Remnants of Idolatry: Ancient Assyrian Heritage and Shiʽi Mosque 48 Bibliography 63 2 A City Explored 69 2.1 Sources and Methodology 69 2.1.1 Arabic Primary Sources 69 2.1.2 European Travelogues 71 2.1.3 Scholarly Research on Mosul’s Architecture 71 2.1.4 Vedutas and Cartographic Sources 73 2.1.5 Archival Aerial and Satellite Images 75 2.1.6 Methodology 78 2.1.6.1 Dataset Description and Image Processing  80 2.1.6.2 Topographic Data Analysis  81 2.1.6.3 Digital Elevation Model of the City and Geomorphometry of the City  86 2.1.6.4 Summary of Spatial Analysis  95 2.2 The Catalogue and Analysis of Destroyed Buildings 98 2.2.1 Congregational Mosques 98 2.2.1.1 Great Mosque of Nur al-Din (al-Nuri) and Minaret al-Hadbaʼ (I01 and I03)  98 2.2.1.2 Al-Mujahidi Mosque (al-Khidr) (I06) 113 2.2.1.3 Mosque and Tomb of Nabi Yunus (Prophet Jonah) (I07) 125 2.2.1.4 Mosque and Tomb of Nabi Jirjis (Prophet George) (I08) 135 2.2.2 Shrines of Imams and Adjacent Mosques144 2.2.2.1 Shrine of Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim— Madrasa al-Badriya (I04) 144 2.2.2.2 Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din Ibn al-Hasan (I05)156 2.2.2.3 Mosque and Shrine of Imam Ibrahim (I16) 185 2.2.2.4 Shrine of Imam ʽAli al-Asghar (I28) 190 2.2.2.5 Shrine of Imam ʽAbd al-Rahman—Madrasa al-ʽIzziya (I34) 195 2.2.2.6 Shrine and Mosque of Imam al-Bahir (I35) 199

 Contents 

xiii

2.2.2.7 Mosque and Shrine of Imam Muhsin— Madrasa al-Nuriya (I37) 209 2.2.3 Mausolea and Mosques with Tombs215 2.2.3.1 Mosque and Tomb of Shaykh Qadib al-Ban al-Mawsili (I10) 215 2.2.3.2 Mosque and Tomb of Shaykh Fathi (I18) 219 2.2.3.3 Mosque of Sultan Uways (I29) 224 2.2.4 Other Sites228 Bibliography272 3 A City Contextualized283 3.1 Urban Morphology and Development283 3.2 The Islamic Building Production of Medieval Mosul: Forms, Patronage, and Dynamics of Meaning303 Bibliography324 4 Epilogue: A City Resurrected?331 Bibliography337 Index339

List of Figures

Figures authored by Karel Nováček, Nyx Alexander Design, or Lenka Starková, if not stated otherwise. Fig. 1.1

Fig. 1.2

Fig. 1.3 Fig. 1.4

Fig. 1.5 Fig. 1.6 Fig. 2.1

Current state of the site after the demolition of the Shrine of Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim, view of the southern aspect, the ruin of the Bashtabiya Fortress in the background. Photo by Bruce Wannell 13 Mosque of the Prophet George (Nabi Jirjis) in satellite images before destruction (A), after explosion (B), and after razing (C). WorldView-2 and WorldView-3© DigitalGlobe, Inc., distributed by European Space Imaging GmbH/ARCDATA PRAHA, s.r.o. 14 Demolition of Imam al-Bahir Shrine on 2 September 2014. Anonymous author, Facebook group Jamiʽ al-Imam al-Bahir, posted 3 September 2014 15 Mosque of al-Khidr (al-Mujahidi Mosque) in satellite images before destruction (A), after razing (B), and during the building of a new structure (C). WorldView-2 and WorldView-3© DigitalGlobe, Inc., distributed by European Space Imaging GmbH/ARCDATA PRAHA, s.r.o. 17 Minaret al-Hadba’ after demolition (2018). Photo by Jan Vyčítal18 Ruin of the Shaykh al-Shatt Mosque (targeted during the liberation operation in 2017) in the completely destroyed historic district of al-Shahwan. Photo by Jan Vyčítal19 Mosul panorama in the middle of the nineteenth century, a view from the eastern bank of the Tigris: (a) al-Qulayʽat hill, (b) Mosque of al-Qalʽa, (c) Mosque of Shaykh al-Shatt, (d) xv

xvi 

List of Figures

Fig. 2.2

Fig. 2.3

Fig. 2.4 Fig. 2.5 Fig. 2.6 Fig. 2.7

Fig. 2.8 Fig. 2.9 Fig. 2.10 Fig. 2.11

Fig. 2.12

Qara Saray Palace, (e) Chaldean al-Tahira Church, (f) Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim Shrine, (g) citadel, (h) Minaret of al-Aghawat Mosque, (i) Minaret of al-Basha Mosque, (j) Minaret of al-Khazam Mosque (?), (k) al-ʽUmariya Mosque (?), (l) unknown structure, (m) Mosque and Shrine of Nabi Shith, (n) Mosque of al-Mujahidi, (o) Ottoman administrative complex and garrisons. Lithograph by F. C. Cooper based on a drawing by G. P. Badger from 1842 to 1850 74 Overview of historical satellite and aerial photographs, obtained through the global archives of remote sensing data, for Mosul historical city center. Comparison of image resolution. From the left side—CORONA KH-4B; CORONA KH-7 Gambit; Luftwaffe; U2 aerial spy system photograph; OrbView-376 Detailed preview of the Mosque of al-Mahmudayn (I68) on the historical aerial photographs, taken by the Royal Air Force (RAF) during the years 1920 and 1924. Source: https:// www.flickr.com/photos/apaame/sets/721576855 40281436/, copyrights: Aerial Photographic Archive for Archaeology in the Middle East (APAAME), University College London (UCL) 79 The working area of the GIS database 82 Workflow of data processing in the project “Monument of Mosul in Danger” 83 General workflow of remote sensing data processing 84 Process of the image multilevel segmentation, based on the satellite image World-View 2, year 2013 (left), final topographic plan of Mosul city center (right). Drawing by Lenka Starková and Petr Vavrečka86 Vextractor software environment. Process of automatic vectorization of features, based on the historical plan of Mosul 87 Hakki’s Ottoman topographical plan of Mosul vectorized and orthorectified87 Digital elevation model in hill shade visualization, created by the stereoscopic photogrammetry tool 91 Comparison of the created categories of DEM: (a) digital surface model (DSM), (b) digital terrain model (DTM) with filtered buildings, (c) digital terrain model (DTM) with filled gaps after building filtering (the height value is counted from the nearest pixel values). The resolution was set to 1 m 92 Hypsometric map of Mosul based on the DTM 94

  List of Figures 

Fig. 2.13

Fig. 2.14 Fig. 2.15 Fig. 2.16 Fig. 2.17

Fig. 2.18

Fig. 2.19

Fig. 2.20

Fig. 2.21

Fig. 2.22

xvii

Comparison of density and distribution of ground points: point cloud extraction using the Extended Terrain Matching (ETM) algorithm (left), and semi-global matching (SGM) algorithm (right)  95 Hydrological reconstruction map of Mosul 96 3D reconstruction model of Mosul city (data from 2013). Data processed by Petr Vavrečka, visualized by Lenka Starková 97 Mosque of al-Nuri. General view of the mosque from the northwest. Photo by Petr Justa (2012) 98 Mosque of al-Nuri. Minaret al-Hadba’ from the south. Photo by T. J. Bradley (1928–29). Source: https://www.flickr.com/ photos/jones_in_chester/12564398133/in/album72157641061121185/, ©Edward Jones 99 Mosque of al-Nuri. Reconstruction model of the mosque area in the state before 1940, view of the southwest. © UNESCO, Othman Al-Hayali and Omar Taqa (2020), and Oriental Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences with Petr Vavrečka102 Mosque of al-Nuri. Reconstruction of the plan and transversal section of the mosque before its demolition in 1940–1944: (1) pillars of Types 1A and 1B, (2) pillars of Type 2, (3) pillars of Type 3, (4) approximate location of destroyed pillars in front of the northern facade, (5) medieval constructions, (6) Ottoman-period constructions, (7) conjectural medieval walls, (8) axis of the original structure, (9) axis of late Ottoman reinforcements. M1, M3–M5 mihrabs. Drawing by © UNESCO, Paula Ion (2020), according to analysis by Paula Ion and Karel Nováček, after earlier plans by E. Herzfeld (Sarre and Herzfeld 1911b, Taf. LXXXVIII), S. al-Diwahji (1963, 53, Fig. 13) and E. Herzfeld’s sketch book 104 Mosque of al-Nuri. Reconstruction of the original appearance of the mosque of Nur al-Din in 568/1172—plan and 3D model viewed from the north. Drawings by © UNESCO, Paula Ion (2020), according to analysis by Karel Nováček and Paula Ion 106 Mosque of al-Nuri. Reconstruction of the south and north elevations of the maqsura dome in the original state (late sixth/twelfth century) with known position of stucco decoration. Drawing by Karel Nováček with use of a photograph by General Directorate of Antiquities Baghdad and a drawing by © UNESCO, Paula Ion (2020) 107 Mosque of al-Mujahidi. View of the porticoed north facade during the renovation. Photo by Yasser Tabbaa (1983) 114

xviii 

List of Figures

Fig. 2.23 Fig. 2.24

Fig. 2.25

Fig. 2.26 Fig. 2.27 Fig. 2.28 Fig. 2.29

Fig. 2.30

Fig. 2.31 Fig. 2.32 Fig. 2.33

Mosque of al-Mujahidi. Comparison of two views from the east: left E. Flandin (1841), right an anonymous postcard (1908)116 Mosque of al-Mujahidi. Plan of the mosque complex: medieval nucleus (blue), early Ottoman (dark gray), late Ottoman (light gray), and modern or undetermined (white) constructions; a non-realized version of late Ottoman ziyada by dotted line. After two anonymous Ottoman-period projects, plans by A. Uluçam (1989, res. 25) and E. Wirth (1991, Abb. 4), redrawn with additions and interpreted 119 Mosque of al-Mujahidi. North elevation and longitudinal section. The hypothetical level of the roof of the medieval prayer hall by dashed line. After A. Uluçam (1989, res. 25), redrawn with additions and interpreted 120 Mosque of al-Mujahidi. A 3D reconstruction model of the state before reconstruction in the 1970s—a view from the northeast121 Mosque of al-Mujahidi. A 3D reconstruction model of the state before reconstruction in the 1970s—an interior view (maqsura dome) 122 Mosque of al-Mujahidi. Stucco panel in the mihrab’s conch. Photo by Yasser Tabbaa (1983) 123 Mosque of Nabi Yunus. View from the north. Drawing by Eugene Flandin, 1841–1842. Source: Flandin 1861; https:// upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Le_Tour_ du_monde-04-p072.jpg126 Mosque of Nabi Yunus. Plan of the complex: (1) medieval period (before 767/1365–1366), (2) medieval period (after 767/1365–1366), (3) earlier Ottoman period, (4) later Ottoman period, (5) modern. Conjectural dating by lighter shade. Outline of the buildings in the aerial image (by RAF, 1924) by a purple dashed line. Numbering of parts, mihrabs, and relative leveling added. Redrawn from al-Diwahji 1954 132 Mosque of Nabi Yunus. Quasi-muqarnas vault in the Nabi Yunus tomb chamber. Photo by Yasser Tabbaa (1983) 133 Mosque of Nabi Jirjis. The earliest view of the complex from the east. Unknown author, a postcard print (1908) 136 Mosque of Nabi Jirjis. Plan of the complex before its last renovation: (1) the Prophet Jirjis mausoleum, (2) eastern vestibule, (3) the main mosque, (4) the Hanafi musalla, (5) the Shafiʽi musalla, (6) the women’s musalla, (7) arcades and iwans, (8) well, (9) minaret, (10) the school over the passage,

  List of Figures 

Fig. 2.34 Fig. 2.35 Fig. 2.36 Fig. 2.37 Fig. 2.38 Fig. 2.39 Fig. 2.40 Fig. 2.41

Fig. 2.42 Fig. 2.43 Fig. 2.44

xix

(11) Madrasa of Ismaʽil al-Jalili, (12) Madrasa of Muhdir Bashi, (13) a cemetery, (14) deserted structures and masoned enclosures visible in the air photograph from 1959, (15) the entrance courtyard. Sources: al-Diwahji 1961: attached plan; Dhunnun et al. 1982, Plan 1; aerial photograph of the U2 mission from 1959; Wirth 1991: Abb. 2; redrawn with adjustments and additions 139 Shrine of Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim. Reconstruction model of the shrine, views from the east (a) and north (b)146 Shrine of Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim. View of the southeastern corner of the interior during the dado repair. Photo by Yasser Tabbaa (1983) 147 Shrine of Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim. Plan and section of the shrine. Sources: Sarre and Herzfeld 1911b, Taf. C; Pagliero 1965, Fig. 7, redrawn and interpreted 148 Shrine of Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim. Geometry (a), and 3D drawing (b) of the muqarnas vault 149 Shrine of Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim. Plan sketch of the al-Badriya complex. Drawing after the city plan by Ismaʽil Hakki (1322/1904–5) and E. Herzfeld’s photographs (1907) 151 Shrine of Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim. Architectural slab with palmette decoration found in the area of the shrine. After Mawsuʽat al-Mawsil al-Hadariya 1992, II, 101 152 Shrine of Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim. Fragments of the marble intarsia panels from Madrasa al-Badriya. Image processed from photos by B. Almaslob (2009) 154 Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. The view from the west after the last restoration (left) and after the destruction. Sources: Unknown author before 2013, accessible at http:// alialagamosulpic.blogspot.com/2018/06/320.html (left), Jan Vyčítal, July 2018 (right) 156 Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. General situation of the shrine in the urban neighborhood. Redrawn from Hakki’s plan (1322/1904–5)160 Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. State after destruction—an interior view. Photo by Jan Vyčítal (2018) 162 Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. Analysis of the northern and eastern facades: (1) non-faced wall, (2) a staircase trace?, (3) a muqarnas niche with adjacent plastered areas, (4) a roof trace?, (5) barely faced wall, (6) a vaulted niche with plastered right jamb, (7) a plastered niche or void, blocked by masonry (visible in Herzfeld’s photo only), (8) a roof trace, (9) a

xx 

List of Figures

Fig. 2.45 Fig. 2.46 Fig. 2.47

Fig. 2.48 Fig. 2.49 Fig. 2.50

Fig. 2.51 Fig. 2.52 Fig. 2.53

plastered stone wall, (10) a fragment of a wall bounded with the shrine, heading north, (11) brickwork, (12) hazar baf, (13) brickwork, (14) molded terracotta frieze, (15) epigraphic frieze, (16) molded terracotta frieze, (17) brickwork frieze with lozenge pattern from glazed tiles, (18) limit of a facade reparation in Herzfeld’s photo, (19) approximate corners edge in Herzfeld’s photo, (20) a stone reinforcing wall (from the 1964 repair), (21) lateral funeral space, shortened in 1964, (22) stone masonry of the shrine, (23) a vertical joint in the stone wall, (24) infilled and plastered void, trace of medieval wall running to the east, (25) void after a roof (al-Barma?), (26) a bottom edge of the brick wall, (27) hazar baf (different of 12), (28) brick masonry of the shrine, roughly plastered during a recent repair, (29) ditto 28, fine gypsum plaster, (30) a brick superstructure from the 1964 repair, (31) al-Barma vault spring (destroyed). Analysis and drawing based on orthorectified and adjusted photographs by E. Herzfeld, Y. Tabbaa, A. Uluçam and J. Vyčítal163 Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. Reconstruction model of the shrine after the recent reconstructions, view from the northeast 166 Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. Reconstructed fragment of monumental inscription on the eastern facade 167 Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. Plan and section of the shrine: a ground-floor plan (a), a plan in the level of wall decoration (b), an east-west section viewing north (c). Drawing based on Uluçam 1989 and al-Jumʽa in Mawsuʽat al-Mawsil al-Hadariya (1992, III) 168 Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. Portal A (left) and portal B (right), graphic reconstruction 170 Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. A 3D reconstruction drawing of the mihrab 172 Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. West interior face, stratigraphic analysis of the mihrab (older layer of plaster by pink color, later layer yellow). Drawing with use of Herzfeld’s original photograph (1907) 173 Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. Bottom part of the interior on the digital reconstruction model, a north view 174 Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. Muqarnas vault on the digital reconstruction model 175 Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. Reconstruction of the strapwork decoration panels with a degree of reconstruction accuracy: (1)–90% accuracy, (2)–70% accuracy, (3)–50% accuracy, (4)–not reconstructed 176

  List of Figures 

Fig. 2.54 Fig. 2.55 Fig. 2.56 Fig. 2.57 Fig. 2.58 Fig. 2.59 Fig. 2.60 Fig. 2.61 Fig. 2.62 Fig. 2.63 Fig. 2.64 Fig. 2.65

Fig. 2.66 Fig. 2.67 Fig. 2.68 Fig. 2.69 Fig. 2.70 Fig. 2.71 Fig. 2.72

Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. Muqarnas geometry Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. Typology of the muqarnas cells Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. Decorative patterns of the muqarnas cells Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. Muqarnas vault, comparison of its spatial design (in back) with muqarnas in Imam Yahya Shrine (in front) Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. Digital reconstruction model of the shrine’s appearance in the eighth/fourteenth century Mosque of Imam Ibrahim. The inscribed commemorative slab, stored in the Iraq Museum in Baghdad. Photo by Lukáš Gjurič (2016) Shrine of ‛Ali al-Asghar. Recent views of the north (left) and south (right) fronts of the shrine. Photos by anonymous authors Shrine of Imam ‛Abd al-Rahman. Plan of the mausoleum Shrine of Imam ‛Abd al-Rahman. Mihrab, currently stored in the Iraq Museum in Baghdad. Photo by Lukáš Gjurič (2016) Mosque of Imam al-Bahir. Elevations of the shrine, from left to right: the south, north, east, and west front Mosque of Imam al-Bahir. Reconstruction model of the structure—a view from the northeast Mosque of Imam al-Bahir. Plan and south–north section of the structure: medieval nucleus (blue), Ottoman (gray), and modern or undetermined (white) constructions. Source: Uluçam 1989, Fig. 39; redrawn and interpreted Mosque of Imam al-Bahir. Reconstruction model of the structure—a view from the bottom Mosque of Imam al-Bahir. Marble panel stored in the Iraq Museum in Baghdad. Photo by Lukáš Gjurič (2016) Mosque of Imam Muhsin. The view of the complex from the north. A detail from a photograph taken by an unknown author during World War I Mosque of Imam Muhsin Fragments of the marble intarsia panels. After al-Diwahji (1957; 2013) Mosque of Shaykh Qadib al-Ban. View from the southeast in 1930, before rebuilding. After al-Diwahji (1963, Fig. 51) Mosque of Shaykh Fathi. View of the entrance facade (1960). Photo by unknown author (1960) Mosque of Shaykh Fathi. A plan of the structure before rebuilding in 2001. A possible medieval nucleus (blue) and early/late Ottoman constructions (dark/light grey). After Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a; Uluçam 1989; U2 aerial photograph, 1959; redrawn and interpreted 

xxi 176 178 179 180 181 189 191 197 198 202 202

203 204 206 210 214 218 220

221

xxii 

List of Figures

Fig. 2.73

Fig. 2.74 Fig. 2.75 Fig. 2.76 Fig. 2.77

Fig. 2.78 Fig. 3.1

Fig. 3.2

Mosque of Sultan Uways. The situation of the mosque compound in the satellite image (November 2013) and reconstructed plan sketch of the mosque. White outlines and dashed line: ruined funeral (?) structures and a path visible in the historical aerial images. Drawing with use of satellite image WorldView-2© DigitalGlobe, Inc., distributed by European Space Imaging GmbH/ARCDATA PRAHA, s.r.o. 227 Mosque of Hamu al-Qadu. A view of the mosque dome, around 1312/1895. Photo by an unknown author 229 Takiya and Tomb of Muhammad al-Afghani with Mosque of Shaykh al-Shatt. A view from the northwest, the takiya on the right side of the mosque. After al-Diwahji (2013) 234 Mosque of Bayt Shahidu (Banat al-Hasan). Mihrab in Mosul Museum, state before 2014. Photo by Barnadet Almaslob (2009)245 Al-Tahira Syriac Orthodox Church. A plan sketch of the church compound. Structures destroyed by IS in grey. Drawing with use of a satellite image and a photoset taken by Petr Justa in June 2012  252 Al-Tahira Syriac Orthodox Church. The west front of the church. Photo by Petr Justa (2012) 253 Old city of Mosul, a digital elevation model over the satellite map from 2013 with recorded depths of historic interiors under the present-day surface (in cm). Important elevations and tells outlined by purple line. Sites: (1) Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim Shrine, (2) Sheykh Fathi, (3) Imam al-Bahir Shrine, (4) Imam Ibrahim Mosque and Tomb, (5) Nabi Jirjis Tomb, (6) al-Tahira Syriac Orthodox Church, (7) Sitt Nafisa Mosque, (8) Umm al-Tisʽa Mosque, (9) Mar Tuma Church, (10) Mar Guorguis Church, (11) Imam ʽAli al-Hadi Shrine, (12) Shimʽun al-Safa Church, (13) Mosque of al-Hajj Mansur, (14) Mar Petion Church, (15) Imam ʽAwn al-Din Shrine, (16) Mar Hudeni Church. Sources: Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a; Fiey 1959; Dhunnun et al. 1983; Habbi 1980. Drawing with use of satellite image WorldView-2© DigitalGlobe, Inc., distributed by European Space Imaging GmbH/ARCDATA PRAHA, s.r.o. 286 Old city of Mosul, topographic clues of the early Islamic city: red points—structures of the first/seventh and second/eighth centuries, yellow points—structures of the third/ninth–fifth/ eleventh century, brown dashed line—minimal extent of misr,

  List of Figures 

Fig. 3.3

Fig. 3.4

Fig. 3.5

xxiii

black dotted line—reconstruction of outline of the Hamdanid city (“taylasan”), hatched areas—extent of cemeteries according to Hakkiʼs map from 1323/1904–1905 and additional sources. Sites: (1) Mar Ishoʽyab, (2) Syriac Catholic Tahira al-Qalʽa, (3) Dayr al-Aʽla, (4) Mar Tuma Syriac Catholic Church, (5) Mosque of Banu Sabat al-Sayrafi (Masjid Khazraj?), (6) Mosque of Tell al-ʽIbada, (7) Mosque of Abu Hadir, (8) Tomb of al-Anaz, (9) Mosque of al-Hurr ibn Yusuf, (10) al-Thaqif Mosque, (11) Mosque of Saʽid ibn ʽAbd al-Malik, (12) al- Manqusha Palace, (13) Umayyad Mosque and dar al-imara, (14) Shimʽun al-Safa Church; (15) Mosque of al-Husayn ibn Saʽid ibn Hamdan, (16) Mashhad of al-Khuzaʽi, (17) Mashhad of al-Sitt Fatima, (18) Mosque of al-Mulla ʽAbd al-Hamid (?), (19) Masjid of Mansur al-Hallaj (?), (20) Mar Guorguis Chaldean Church, (21) Mar Petion Church, (22) Dar al-mamlaka. Drawing with use of satellite image WorldView-2© DigitalGlobe, Inc., distributed by European Space Imaging GmbH/ARCDATA PRAHA, s.r.o. 287 Old city of Mosul, detail of the fortified nucleus of the misr (large dashed square) and hypothetical related sites: (1) Umayyad congregational mosque, (2) Hesna ʽEbraye/dar al-imara, (3) Mar Ishoʽyab Cathedral, (4) Ancient Syriac al-Tahira Church in al-Qalʽa (the church “ad latrinas ante nostrae urbis portam”?), (5) al-Quraysh Cemetery (later Nabi Jirjis Mosque and Tomb). Cemeteries by hatched areas. Drawing with use of the vectorized city plan by I. Hakki (1323/1904–5)288 Old city of Mosul during the Atabeg period: red line—late ʽUqaylid and Seljuq city fortification with citadel, orange line—later extension of the city wall during ʽImad al-Din Zengi, brown point—Nabi Jirjis Shrine (1), red points—Badr al-Dinʼs shrines with depicted access from the nearest city gate: (2) Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim, (3) Imam al-Bahir, (4) Imam ʽAwn al-Din, (5) Imam Zayd ibn ʽAli (?). Drawing with use of the vectorized city plan by I. Hakki (1323/1904–5) 291 Ground plans of medieval shrines and mausoleums in Mosul: (a) Shaykh al-Shatt, (b) Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim, (c) Imam ʽAwn al-Din, (d) Imam al-Bahir, (e) Imam ʽAbd al-Rahman, (f) Shaykh Fathi, (g) Imam Ibrahim, (h) Nabi Jirjis, (i) Imam ʽAli al-Asghar. Blue–medieval nuclei, grey–Ottoman phases, white–modern constructions 306

Introduction

On 10 June 2014, groups of militants belonging to the self-proclaimed Islamic State (hereinafter referred to as IS) occupied Mosul, the largest city in northern Iraq. When this force was compared to the more numerous and better-armed Iraqi army, few outside observers would have imagined that the occupation could have become anything more than a short episode in the Iraqi civil war. In fact, it developed into a full three years of tyranny, killing thousands of civilians, totally breaking the coexistence of both Sunni and Shiʽi Muslims with Christians, Yezidis, and other cultural and religious minorities, and devastating the city to such an extent that its center would be completely uninhabitable for several years. Shortly after taking control of the city, IS began, among other changes, to implement a program of systematic destruction of historic buildings containing graves, be they real or symbolic. During the occupation, nearly 50 monuments fell victim to this cultural genocide, among them the most precious pieces of medieval architecture, once symbolizing the multifarious ethnic and religious tradition of the city (Fig. 1). In the recent history of the world, one rarely finds a similarly serious case of deliberate annihilation of a city resulting from a sectarian conflict. This book is dedicated to these architectural monuments and the circumstances of their destruction. It aims to fill a significant gap in our knowledge about them, as their unfortunate fate is exacerbated by the fact that most of them have not been systematically documented or subjected to in-depth research. Although it started promisingly with the work of

xxv

xxvi 

Introduction

Ernst Herzfeld in 1907,1 research into Mosul’s architecture remained limited to a narrow selection of buildings and effectively stopped at the turn of the 1980s.2 In most cases, therefore, the real architectural and artistic value of losses caused by cultural violence on the part of IS can only be estimated. This book is a result of the Monuments of Mosul in Danger project, which was launched by the Oriental Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences in Prague in 2015. Its original goal, which was to document IS’s destructive attacks on the architectural heritage in Mosul, was gradually extended to encompass systematic multidisciplinary research that aimed to examine the destruction in all its complexity including its underlying rationale and ideological background, architectural and historical analysis of Mosul’s built environment on the basis of all pertinent visual and written sources, and 3D reconstructions of selected, sufficiently documented monuments. From the beginning, the research was very specific in its method of working with data, as these could not be obtained or verified in the field. Thus, data collected from open sources (media reports, social networks, testimonies of local informants, published material) were corroborated by analysis of a regularly updated set of satellite and historical aerial imagery. The remote sensing data, however, had to be subjected to substantial refinement to enable us to work with sufficient precision in the complex environment of the densely built-up area of the old town and follow its development in the long-term perspective of the last century. The methodological and factual contribution of this specific research goes beyond the aims of this book and we assume that its results can be developed in other ways in the future. Some of the results of the project have already been preliminarily published (Melčák and Beránek 2017; Nováček et al. 2017; Nováček 2019). The aim of the book is threefold: (a) to analyze the reasons, course, and consequences of IS’s deliberate destruction of monuments in Mosul; (b) to reconstruct systematically the architectural history of those buildings that were destroyed; and (c) to place the results of architectural and historical analysis into the context of Mosul’s architectural and urban development and try to capture the changing significance of medieval building production in the city. The structure of the book corresponds to these goals. In the first chapter (“A City Destroyed”), we narrate in detail the course and circumstances of the systematic destruction of Mosul’s architectural monuments. By typological analysis of destroyed sites, we are able to precisely define IS’s main goals. The subsequent analysis of its religious

 Introduction 

xxvii

propaganda material enables us to place their actions in the broader framework of radical Jihadi Salafism, from which the ideology of IS stems. In the second chapter (“A City Explored”), after introducing the sources and methods of working with data, we present historical and architectural analyses of buildings destroyed by IS (buildings destroyed during the liberation operation were not the subject of our research, but an overview is presented in Fig. 2). The quality of the analyses naturally depends on the amount of preserved documentation. Thus, in the first part of the catalogue we focus on the 14 buildings of medieval origin whose histories are best reflected by the available sources. The architectural value of these sites was usually commensurate with their outstanding significance both as religious areas and as places of social memory. The sites are divided into categories according to their function and the systematically structured entries are supplemented by a selection of the most important documentation, adapted from other sources or created specifically for the project. The analyses of other, insufficiently documented buildings, or buildings whose destruction, in isolated cases, could not be verified, are presented within one subchapter at the end of the catalogue (see Sect. 2.2.4). All destroyed buildings are linked to the map (Fig. 1) by an alphanumeric code, which is always quoted after the name under which the same structure appears in our GIS database and on the project website  (www.monumentsofmosul.com), where additional documentation, including 3D models of selected monuments, can be found. The subject of the third, interpretive chapter (“A City Contextualized”) is the observation of destroyed buildings in the context of the historical and architectural development of the city. We present a reconsideration of the city’s urban development from its foundation in 641 to the fifteenth century on the basis of a critical revision of historical topographic data. We focus on the formal and spatial characteristics of architecture and revise some deep-rooted interpretations of the patronage and meaning of Mosul’s medieval architecture. In addition to summarizing the results, the epilogue (“A City Resurrected?”) considers perspectives on the post-war reconstruction of the destroyed heritage and the possibility of further research under the current conditions. Unfortunately, it was not within our power to address the problem of Mosul’s historical architecture in its broadest contours. The priority questions resulted naturally from the nature of the available sources and from the professional specializations of the team of authors. The basic

xxviii 

Introduction

Fig. 1  Old Mosul with architectural monuments deliberately destroyed by IS (June 2014–July 2017), marked by religious denomination. Identification codes of the monuments are in brackets. 1. Shrine of Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim (I04)— razed, 2. Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din (I05)—ruined, 3. Mosque of al-Khidr (al-Jamiʽ al-Mujahidi) (I06)—razed, 4. Mosque and Tomb of Nabi Yunus (I07)— razed, 5. Mosque and Tomb of Nabi Jirjis (I08)—razed, 6. Mosque and Tomb of Qadib al-Ban al-Mawsili (I10)—ruined, 7. Mosque of Hamu al-Qadu (I11)— ruined, 8. Mosque and Tomb of Nabi Shith (I12)—razed, 9. Mosque and Husayniyya Rawdat al-Wadi (I14)—razed, 10. Tomb of Ibn al-Athir (Qabr al-­ Bint) (I15)—razed, 11. Mosque of Imam Ibrahim (I16)—ruined, 12. Mosque and Tomb of Shaykh Fathi (I18)—razed, 13. Mosque of Abu al-ʽAlaʼ (I19)— ruined, 14. Mosque and Tomb of Nabi Daniyal (I21)—ruined, 15. Tomb of Shaykh al-­Shatt (I22)—razed, 16. Shrine of Imam ʽAli al-Asghar (I28)—ruined, 17. Mosque of Sultan Uways with cemetery (I29)—ruined, 18. Shrine of Imam ʽAbd al-­Rahman (I34)—ruined, 19. Mosque and Shrine of Imam al-Bahir (I35)— razed, 20. Mosque and Shrine of Imam Muhsin (I37)—ruined, 21. Tomb and cemetery of ʽIsa Dadah (I44)—ruined, 22. Mosque of ʽAjil al-Yawar (I47)— ruined, 23. Hammam al-Saray Mosque and Shrine of al-Sitt Nafisa (I50)—ruined, 24. Hammam al-ʽUmariyya (I69)—razed, 25. Mosque of al-ʽAbbas (I54)— ruined, 26. Shrine of Imam Zayd ibn ʽAli (I55)—ruined, 27. Cemetery adjacent to the Mosque of Umm al-Tisʽa (I57)—ruined, 28. Madrasa of the ʽAbdal Mosque

 Introduction 

xxix

determination is the composition of the set of destroyed buildings: the vast majority are Islamic funeral or commemorative structures (tombs, shrines) and the four most important congregational mosques of medieval origin in the city. The topic of Islamic funeral architecture resonates very strongly in the current scholarly discourse, and in the last decade there has been an intensification of research, related to the quest for new, ecumenical interpretations and the enrichment of art-historical analysis with archaeological methods (e.g., Mulder 2019; Petersen 2018). We tried to develop and deepen this approach—within the limitations imposed by Mosul’s inaccessibility for intensive field research for security reasons—which often meant that we had to work with poor-quality data obtained unsystematically at distance and with methodologically outdated procedures. The time focus of the historical-archaeological part of the book lies in the period of the twelfth to the fourteenth century. While only a minimum of material sources have survived from Mosul’s earlier historical phases, the later period of Ottoman supremacy was so complex in terms of architecture that it was not possible to research it satisfactorily on the basis of the poorly documented monuments in our analyzed set. Yet another important aspect also remained outside of our focus: the relationship

Fig. 1  (continued) (I58)—razed, 29. Shrine of Imams Hamid and Mahmud (I68)—razed, 30. Shrine of Imam ʽAli al-Hadi (I36)—ruined, 31. Tomb of Shaykh Mansur (I61)—ruined, 32. Tomb of Abu al-Hawawin (I62)—ruined, 33. Mosque and Shrine of Awlad (or Banat) al-Hasan (Mosque of Bayt Shahidu) (I63)—razed, 34. Mosque of al-Sabʽawi (I64)—ruined, 35. Tomb of Shaykh Rashid Lolan (I67)—razed, 36. Al-Tahira Syriac Orthodox Church (al-Tahira al-Kharijiya) (C14)—razed, 37. English War Cemetery (C27)—ruined, 38. Al-Saray Police Station/Madrasat al-Sanaʼiʽ (P16)—razed, 39. Great Mosque of al-Nuri and Minaret al-Hadbaʼ (I02–I03)—ruined, 40. Mosque and Madrasa of al-Ridwani (I48)—ruined, 41. Mosque of al-Abariqi (I51)—ruined, 42. Tomb of Shaykh Ibrahim (I70)—ruined, 43. Mosque of Mahmud ʽAbd al-Jalil al-Khidri (I71)— razed, 44. Shatt al-Jumi Mosque—Tomb of Shaykh Ibrahim al-Naqshbandi (I73)—ruined, 45. Mosque of al-Kharrazi (I74)—ruined. Ancient Nineveh with sites Nos. 4 and 35 are 1 km beyond the eastern boundary, site No. 22 is 1 km beyond the southern boundary and site No. 45 is 3  km beyond the northern boundary of the map. (Drawing by Lenka Starková and Karel Nováček with use of satellite image WorldView-2© DigitalGlobe, Inc., distributed by European Space Imaging GmbH/ARCDATA PRAHA, s.r.o.)

Fig. 2  Old Mosul with architectural monuments destroyed or severely damaged during the liberation of the city (February to July 2017), marked by religious denomination. Hatched area was completely destroyed in June–July 2017. Identification codes of the monuments are in brackets. 1. Mosque  of Rabiʽa Khatun (I59)—partly ruined, 2. Mosque of al-Khazam (I27)—partly ruined, 3. Mosque of Shaykh al-Shatt (I22)—ruined, 4. Mosque of Bab al-Jadid (al-Bashir Mosque)—ruined, 5. Masjid of al-Shaʽuri—razed, 6. Mosque of al-Kawazin— razed, 7. Al-Khalal Mosque—ruined, 8. Al-Mutaʽafi Mosque—razed?, 9. Mosque of ʽUthman al-Khatib—ruined, 10. Mosque of Shaykh Muhammad—ruined, 11. Mar Guorguis Chaldean Church—ruined, 12. Mar Ishoʽyab Chaldean Church (C1)—ruined, 13. Ancient Church of the Virgin Mary—ruined, 14. Syriac Catholic Church—ruined, 15. Sharif al-Dabakh House—razed, 16. Hana Jirjis House—ruined, 17. Bashir Munir House—razed, 18. Hana Michel Hana House— razed, 19. Dawud Ishak House—razed, 20. ʽAbd al-Rahman House—ruined, 21—Bahnam Raban House—razed, 22. Anes Kamas House—razed, 23. Ziyada House—ruined, 24. Al-Sharabi House—ruined, 25. Al-Tutunji House—ruined, 26. An unknown heritage house—razed. Drawing by Lenka Starková and Karel Nováček with use of satellite image WorldView-3 from 12 July 2017 (source: WorldView-3 © 2017, DigitalGlobe, Inc., distributed by European Space Imaging GmbH/ARCDATA PRAHA, s. r. o.)

 Introduction 

xxxi

between Christian and Islamic building and sculptural arts. Its significance for understanding Mosul’s medieval architecture is indisputable, but the data set we have collected (with a few exceptions; see Sect. 2.2.2.6) does not bring any new arguments to the ongoing discussion (Snelders 2010). In the analysis of buildings, the formal and developmental (stratigraphic) points of view were emphasized; to a lesser extent, we focused on the typology and development of decorative techniques and motifs, which were, in the context of Mosul, more thoroughly addressed by previous generations of researchers. The architectural parts of the book (Sect. 2.2), as well as the interpretive chapters (Chaps. 3 and 4), were written by Karel Nováček, an archaeologist with a background in architectural history, and Miroslav Melčák, a historian of the Middle East. The analysis of IS’s cultural violence in Mosul (Chap. 1) is the joint work of Miroslav Melčák and Ondřej Beránek, a specialist in the current history of the Middle East with a focus on radical Islamic movements. Lenka Starková, a landscape archaeologist and remote sensing specialist, Miroslav Melčák, and Karel Nováček wrote the introduction to sources and methodology (Sect. 2.1). Lucie Pospíšilová, aka Nyx Alexander Design, enriched the graphic and interpretive dimensions of the project with digital reconstructions of selected monuments and co-­ authored the appendix to Sect. 2.2.2.2. Olomouc, Czech Republic Prague, Czech Republic  Prague, Czech Republic  Plzeň , Czech Republic 

Karel Nováček Miroslav Melčák Ondřej Beránek Lenka Starková

Notes 1. Last  year (2020) marked the centenary of the publication of his essential contribution to our knowledge of Mosul’s architecture. 2. The last broader works based on field research were those of Dhunnun et al. (1982a, 1982b, 1983; al-Janabi 1982; Uluçam 1989—researched in 1983; al-Kubaisy 2010—researched in 1978). See Sect. 2.1 for details. Afterward, only general essays or isolated studies devoted to individual monuments were published.

xxxii 

Introduction

Bibliography Dhunnun, Yusuf, Ahmad Majid Malla Sharif, and ʽAbd al-Karim al-Saʼigh. 1982a. Al-ʽAmaʼir al-sakaniya fi madinat al-Mawsil. Wizarat al-­thaqafa wa al-iʽlam, Iraq. Dhunnun, Yusuf, Ahmad Majid Malla Sharif, and ʽAbd al-Karim al-Saʼigh. 1982b. Al-ʽAmaʼir al-khadamiya fi madinat al-Mawsil. Wizarat al-thaqafa wa al-iʽlam, Iraq. Dhunnun, Yusuf, Ahmad Majid Malla Sharif, and ʽAbd al-Karim al-Saʼigh. 1983. Al-ʽAmaʼir al-diniya fi madinat al-Mawsil. Wizarat al-­thaqafa wa al-iʽlam, Iraq. al-Janabi, Tariq J. 1982. Studies in Medieval Iraqi Architecture. Baghdad, Iraq: Ministry of Culture and Information, State Organization of Antiquities and Heritage. al-Kubaisy, Falah. 2010. Mosul: The Architectural Conservation in Mosul Old Town—Iraq. S. l.: CreateSpace—Amazon. Melčák, Miroslav and Ondřej Beránek. 2017. ISIS’s Destruction of Mosul’s Historical Monuments: Between Media Spectacle and Religious Doctrine. International Journal of Islamic Architecture 6: 389–415, https://doi. org/10.1386/ijia.6.2.389_1. Mulder, Stephennie. 2019. Shrines of the ʽAlids in Medieval Syria: Sunnis, Shiʽis and the Architecture of Coexistence. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Nováček, Karel, Miroslav Melčák, Lenka Starková, and Ondřej Beránek. 2017. Monuments of Mosul in Danger. Praha: Center of Administration and Operation CAS. Nováček, Karel. 2019. Mosul: Systematic Annihilation of a City’s Architectural Heritage, Its Analysis and Post-crisis Management. In Archaeology of Conflict/ Archaeology in Conflict—Documenting Destruction of Cultural Heritage in the Middle-East and Central Asia, Routes de l’Orient Actes II, ed. J.  Bessenay-­ Prolonge, J.-J. Herr, M. Mura, and A. Havé, 249–60. Paris: Association Routes de l’Orient. Petersen, Andrew. 2018. Bones of Contention. Muslim Shrines in Palestine. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan. Snelders, Bas. 2010. Identity and Christian-Muslim Interaction. Medieval Art of the Syrian Orthodox from the Mosul Area. Leuven: Peeters Publishers and Department of Oriental Studies. Uluçam, Abdüsselam. 1989. Irak’taki Türk Mimari Eserleri. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı.

CHAPTER 1

A City Destroyed

1.1   Islamic State’s Evolution This is not a book about the history of the Islamic State (IS). However, an overview of that organization’s historical evolution and ideological standpoints is necessary if we are to paint as complete a picture of our main topic as possible. IS proved to be a complex, composite organization, and there are many labels that could be used to describe it: from a terrorist group or a bizarre cult to an insurgency and a de facto state providing social services and sponsoring international terrorism.1 Beyond building upon the sentiments that were nourished by several decades of rending of the social fabric in Iraq (and Syria), IS also exploited the sad reality of the larger Middle East, which is governed either by extremely repressive regimes or by weak ones that must rely upon the support and protection of external patrons. Jean-Pierre Filiu, a prominent French historian of the Middle East, offers a compelling overview of the establishment of the shadowy Middle Eastern “deep state” and its impact on regional politics. The deep state refers to the tight cooperation of rulers with intelligence services, the military, and a corrupt judiciary, with the occasional and opportunistic exploitation of criminals (radical groups, street gangs, or death squads). It was precisely this existence of the deep state that after 2011 gave power to the Arab counter-revolutions and helped several autocrats to brutally and ferociously cling to absolute power (Filiu 2015). © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 K. Nováček et al., Mosul after Islamic State, Palgrave Studies in Cultural Heritage and Conflict, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62636-5_1

1

2 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

As an alternative, IS offered its tempting utopian vision of a resurrection of the glorious Islamic past. After 2011, IS conquered large parts of Syria and Iraq in seemingly swift and easy steps. A huge symbolic milestone was reached on 29 June 2014 when the organization proclaimed itself to be an Islamic Caliphate. However, the history of the organization begins neither with the occupation of the Syrian-Iraqi borderland and subjugation of Mosul on 10 June 2014, nor with the appropriation of the potent title of a historical and widely venerated Islamic institution. The evolution and manifestations of IS can be perceived in several conflicting ways, depending on one’s viewpoint and reading of history.2 One way is to narrowly associate the emergence of the group with the failure of Iraq after the 2003 US invasion. From this point of view, it was the return of former president Saddam Hussein’s security officers under a new, powerful Islamic guise. Another option is to dismiss the group’s members as mere savages, religious ignoramuses, and psychopathic killers. Yet another view situates the group within the much longer evolution of radical Islam and global jihadist ideology, represented mostly by al-Qaʽida.3 In this view, IS is simply another reincarnation of this tendency, albeit one that was able to learn from the past experiences and mistakes of its predecessors. This view is also confirmed by a sizeable Sunni constituency that views IS’s religious positions and utopian visions as a true part of Islam (Gerges 2016, ix–x). IS differs from its predecessors or current jihadi rivals in two major respects: its use of gruesome violence—mostly to deter enemies and lure young followers—and the fact that it was effectively able to govern a sizeable territory and actually assumed many of the functions of a “state.” In its own presentation, the beginnings of IS are connected with Abu Musʽab al-Zarqawi (1966–2006).4 Originally from Jordan, al-Zarqawi gained his combat experience in Afghanistan, where Usama bin Ladin allowed him to establish a military training camp. It was in Afghanistan that al-Zarqawi became acquainted with his important mentor, a foremost theoretician of jihad, Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi (b. 1959). After the Afghan war, al-Zarqawi moved through Iran, Iraqi Kurdistan, and Syria and worked on building and expanding his jihadi network. In 1999, he established a group called the Organization of Monotheism and Jihad (Jamaʽat al-tawhid wa-l-jihad), which was later, in 2004, renamed as al-Qaʽida in Iraq, only to be rebranded two years later, in 2006, as Islamic State in Iraq (al-Dawla al-islamiyya fi-l-ʽIraq). The organization quickly became infamous after the beginning of the Iraq war in 2003. This was

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

3

mostly due to its violence, implementation of severe Shariʽa punishments, and brutal tactics, which included suicide bombing of both Shiʽi and Sunni civilians while they gathered at shrines and during wedding and funeral ceremonies. Their most visible and signature act, however, became the beheading of captured enemies, usually followed by the circulation of a gruesome video-recording. Al-Zarqawi’s tactics quickly set off a cascade of violence. The Iraqi government also played its own tragic role. The Shiʽis made up the majority of the Iraqi population, yet they were under-represented for decades under Saddam Hussein’s rule and often mistreated. This equation was completely switched after the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, when the Shiʽis assumed the leadership position. This, in turn, led many to seek revenge. According to various reports, Shiʽi militias abducted and killed Sunni civilians across Iraq. While doing so, they were often “armed and backed by the government of Iraq” and operated “with varying degrees of cooperation from government forces.”5 This institutionalized violence helped to radicalize many Sunnis and pushed them into the arms of radical organizations, including IS. Mostly for strategic reasons, al-Zarqawi allied himself and his group with al-Qaʽida Central and swore allegiance to Usama bin Ladin. The merger of his group with al-Qaʽida turned al-Zarqawi into a global jihadist leader and provided him with legitimacy and a fresh supply of new followers and finance. It also helped his group to assume a prominent position among the competing armed Islamist groups in Iraq. This “marriage of convenience” eventually ended—mostly due to IS’s usurpation of the title “caliphate” and excessive use of violence—and the two organizations went their separate ways. Mutual clashes between the organizations culminated in 2013, when the former rebranded itself as IS in Iraq and the Levant (al-Dawla al-islamiyya fi-l-ʽIraq wa-l-Sham). In February 2014, the leadership of al-Qaʽida issued a proclamation renouncing IS, to which the latter responded by saying it had never really belonged to al-Qaʽida anyway. This opened the floodgates for mutual disparagement and an intense fight between the two over the ideological direction of jihadism.6 To fully grasp the reasons for the emergence of IS, though, it is useful to consider how the two aforementioned key processes—the failure of the Syrian and Iraqi states and the historical evolution of radical Islamism (or Islamized radicalism)—came together at a particular point in time. The ideology and social origins of IS stem directly from this specific Iraqi and

4 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Syrian war context.7 It was mainly the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq and the subsequent destruction of state institutions that helped to create a significant security vacuum. Paul Bremer, the head of Coalition Provisional Authority, issued two orders shortly after his arrival in Iraq. One, in the name of “de-Baathification” campaign, fired thousands of state employees, including doctors and teachers, on the grounds that they had been members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath party. The other disbanded the Iraqi military, releasing some 300,000 to 400,000 Iraqi soldiers from their duties without salaries and pensions, and—as Anthony Shadid, a foreign correspondent for The New York Times based in Baghdad and Beirut, put it—basically turning these men with military training into a reservoir of potential recruits for a guerrilla war, who had at their disposal “about a million tons of weapons and munitions of all sorts, freely accessible in more than a hundred largely unguarded depots around the country” (Shadid 2005, 152). It was precisely this situation that enabled a violent insurgency to wreak havoc across the country. Shortly after these orders were issued and implemented, many former Iraqi soldiers participated in demonstrations against the occupation forces. The purges also severely crippled the Iraqi border patrol, which, in turn, allowed the easy and swift flow of foreign fighters infiltrating Iraq to join IS. Moreover, IS’s evolution is impossible to understand without considering the decades of mistreatment of the Iraqi people and the omnipresent brutality and abuse of previous regimes, especially that of Saddam Hussein. The vicious cycles of violence were further exacerbated by the post-­ Saddam Hussein political establishment that failed to build national unity, nurturing instead intercommunal hatred and violence. As aptly expressed by Fawaz Gerges, “sectarianism is the fuel that powers ISIS, and it is fueled by ISIS in return.” The organization succeeded in defining the struggle in Iraq and Syria through the optics of identity. Due to its extreme violence, it seized control of the powerful narrative that it was delivering the Sunnis from Shiʽa domination (Gerges 2016, 12, 194). All this significantly contributed to an environment in which the population was even more divided along ethnic and religious lines than it had been before. Another measure that significantly worsened the security situation after the 2003 US-led invasion was the detention of thousands of Iraqis in US-run facilities, where they were exposed to abuse and humiliation. For many prisoners who had not previously been members of al-Qaʽida in Iraq, these harsh experiences had a transformative radicalizing effect and, after their release, pushed them into the ranks of militant groups. According

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

5

to the Iraqi government, almost two-thirds of the prominent members of IS spent time in US-run detention facilities between 2004 and 2011 (Gerges 2016, 133). In 2010, after two subsequent leaders of IS who had followed al-Zarqawi—Abu ʽUmar al-Baghdadi and Abu Hamza al-­ Muhajir—were killed, the leadership was assumed by Abu Bakr al-­Baghdadi (born in 1971 as Ibrahim ʽAwwad Ibrahim ʽAli al-Badri al-Samarra’i).8 Many details of al-Baghdadi’s life still remain rather sketchy and not much is known about his life before the 2003 US invasion. In February 2004, al-Baghdadi, together with thousands of other Sunni Muslims, was incarcerated in Camp Bucca, a detention facility maintained by the US military in southern Iraq. Many of his jail mates served in Saddam Hussein’s army or intelligence services. According to an eyewitness report, “if there was no American prison in Iraq, there would be no IS now. Bucca was a factory”—that made the ideology of IS.9 It was under Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s supervision that the organization underwent an important process of “Iraqization,” which involved a radical restructuring of its internal workings (Tønnessen 2015). Al-Baghdadi used his extensive network from his time in prison and rich contacts to replace many of the previous leaders of IS with trusted allies. It was mostly due to the combat skills of the veteran jihadi fighters and the presence of former army officers, who had served under Saddam Hussein and had extensive military experience, that the mafia-like network was transformed into a skilled army able to effectively overcome the defensive lines of the Iraqi army and capture large parts of Iraqi territory. For example, two of al-Baghdadi’s trusted deputies were Abu ʽAli al-Anbari, a native of Mosul and a former major general in Saddam’s army, and Abu Muslim al-­ Turkmani, a former lieutenant colonel in Saddam’s military intelligence (Atwan 2015, 44; Gerges 2016, 149). The ranks of IS were also enhanced by the highly trained fighters who used to belong to the Sons of Iraq (Abna’ al-ʽIraq), initially US-sponsored coalitions between Sunni tribes and Saddam Hussein’s former military officers who were trying to maintain stability and fight al-Qaʽida. In 2008 the US handed control of these groups over to the Shiʽi-dominated government of Nuri al-Maliki, who became Prime Minister of Iraq in 2006. Instead of keeping them in salaried positions, the government dismissed them without compensation. Many of these disaffected Sunni fighters, who had previously been trained by American personnel and fought alongside them, became the core of IS (Atwan 2015, 46–7). Under these conditions and using the power vacuum and chaotic situation in both

6 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Syria and Iraq, IS was able to gain control of large swathes of land. From December 2013, the organization gained control of territory in Northern Iraq and close to the Iraqi border with Syria, and conquered towns in the Iraqi Anbar province, eventually also overrunning Fallujah in January 2014.

1.2   Mosul Conquered Mosul was next. Iraq’s third-largest city, inhabited by as many as two million people, was already far from peaceful. Its fall during the Iraq war of 2003 had turned out to be a very violent event. The US army lacked sufficient capabilities to prevent violence and looting. Besides, a few months earlier, Saddam Hussein had granted an amnesty to many Iraqi prisoners, which resulted in plenty of criminals and even convicted murderers getting mixed up in the events on the ground (Cockburn 2006, 65). Mosul had subsequently become a hotbed of the Sunni insurgency and it had gone through many years of lawlessness and chaos, exacerbated by the mistreatment and persecution of Sunnis by the Iraqi government in Baghdad. As in other parts of Iraq between 2011 and 2013, there were regular demonstrations calling for reforms, which eventually turned into calls for al-Maliki’s resignation and protests against the plan to extend the mandate of US troops in Iraq. These initially peaceful demonstrations were later joined by various organized political and armed groups. Mosul’s inhabitants were in favor of neither the Iraqi regime nor the army stationed in the city. The sectarian nature of the governing regime contributed to the structural weakness of the state armed forces, which were unable to defend Iraqi territory. The Sunnis blamed Nuri al-Maliki for essentially turning the armed forces into a Shiʽa-led militia. And there were other grievances. For example, the Nineveh operational commander was notorious for his brutality and repeated use of torture. His police brigades were allegedly responsible for the murder of hundreds of people, most of whom were Sunni Arabs. He was also reported to be selling Sunni prisoners to Shiʽi militias (Gerges 2016, 116, 127). Hence, when IS’s brigades made their raid on Mosul, parts of the Sunni population welcomed them with cheers, hoping for a new force that would bring some semblance of order. The first brigade to arrive consisted of around 500 fighters. The Iraqi Army stationed in Mosul, amounting to some 10,000 regular soldiers and policemen, surrendered instantly, threw away their weapons and other military equipment—much of it supplied by the

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

7

US—and discarded their uniforms. In their escape, they were joined by tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. The initial reaction of the Iraqi government in Baghdad was very telling: after many hours of silence, al-Maliki made a televised statement urging all Iraqis to rally behind his Shiʽi-led government.10 The almost immediate collapse of Mosul’s state security forces was due mainly to their very poor morale, substandard equipment, and insufficient training. The widespread existence of so-called ghost soldiers was also significant. These were men officially listed in the army and receiving a regular salary, part of which went to their officers, who did not do their duty at all. That was the case for, among others, the sixth brigade of the Third Iraqi Army Division, which formed the first line of Mosul’s defense: on paper, it had 2500 men; in reality, the number was around 500.11 In any case, the capture of Mosul was a major strategic and symbolic victory and clearly demonstrated that IS was much more powerful than originally thought. IS occupied Mosul on 10 June 2014. Just three days later, the organization issued the “Charter of the City” (Wathiqat al-madina), the official document regulating the basic rules of life under the new regime. IS unequivocally committed itself to the application of religious law (shariʽa), including the use of hadd punishments, such as cutting off hands for theft. It ordered compulsory attendance at prayers in mosques and banned the consumption of alcohol and drugs, as well as smoking. Women had to veil themselves and preferably stay at home (al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2014a). Fear of the application of these regulations subsided for some time, as IS opted for a gradual tightening of the regime. It did not initially enforce the regulations, but chose instead to negotiate with the local population. Many residents who had fled from the approaching IS fighters began to return after their relatives assured them the city was safe.12 IS gained the sympathy of many residents as a result of tangible improvements in the water and electricity supplies, and also because it was able to calm the security situation in the formerly turbulent city. Concrete anti-blast barriers disappeared from the streets and security checkpoints were removed.13 Restrictions and persecution began to appear gradually. First in line were religious minorities. IS treated them according to whether it considered them to be members of a monotheistic, that is, protected, religion (Christians), polytheists (mushrikun; Yezidis), or apostates (murtaddun; Shiʽis). Christians were offered dhimmi status, which would allow them to remain in IS territory in exchange for payment of a religious tax (jizya).

8 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

The other options were conversion to Islam or emigration. Given that gaining dhimmi status actually meant becoming a second-class citizen with severely disadvantaged access to education and employment opportunities, the vast majority of Christians decided to emigrate (Lister 2014, 26–7). The behavior of IS toward Shiʽis and Yezidis was even harsher. Despite considerable differences in the rationalization of violence against these two groups (observable in IS’s magazine Dabiq), IS’s approach to both became genocidal and was accompanied by the total destruction of their cultural heritage. All these crimes were committed with the obvious aim of creating an exclusively Sunni Islamic state. However, IS intervened against the Sunni population as well. It began to consistently enforce the provisions of the Charter of the City. The application of the hadd punishments became common. People were crucified for spying, stoned for adultery, lashed for drinking alcohol, or thrown from rooftops for homosexuality. Limbs were amputated for robbery. Very shortly after the capture of Mosul, IS launched a massive demolition campaign directed mainly against Sunni religious monuments. Other regulations were to come later. First travel restrictions began to be adopted, culminating in a complete travel ban in February 2015. At the same time, the organization was trying to force fugitive qualified personnel (notably physicians and pharmacists) to return to Mosul by threatening to confiscate all the property they had left in the city.14 In Mosul, IS did manage to establish a complex system of administration, to the extent that some in situ observers commented that IS “had a more effective and responsive bureaucracy than the Iraqi government. If people had problems, they would go to IS, and IS would resolve their problems.”15 The bureaucratic system was controlled by central governmental departments called diwans, each with its own prescribed scope of activity (e.g., education, public services, health, public security, agriculture, military, and defense). Thus, IS’s management of the city was far from desultory. On the contrary, in Mosul, it achieved a significant degree of professionalism and complexity.16 Public employees, if they had not decided to flee the city before IS’s conquest, continued to work in schools, hospitals, and administrative offices. The paradox is that although they provided services to citizens living in the territory under the control of the self-proclaimed Caliphate, their wages continued to be paid out by the government in Baghdad, which, in this way, indirectly bankrolled IS.17 An obvious exception was the courts, which were no longer needed and were replaced by Shariʽa courts. In schools, educational curricula at all levels

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

9

were adjusted to fit the views of IS’s Diwan of Education. Religious topics were added, as were physical fitness and weapons training (Lafta et al. 2018). IS managed to diversify its revenue stream, which proved to be crucial to the success of the organization. Detailed financial documents reveal that IS based its economy on the extraction of natural resources (oil, gas), the collection of tax revenues (e.g., fuel and vehicle taxes, school fees, cash withdrawal taxes, customs duties), ransom money (forced donations by businesses, human trafficking), confiscation and rental of the seized property of minorities, and antiquities smuggling, among others.18 Nevertheless, the IS economy gradually became unsustainable. Only months after the seizure of Mosul, living conditions had deteriorated. Essential food supplies were no longer available in sufficient quantities, water was undrinkable or available only intermittently, and diseases started to spread. Dissatisfaction grew due to rising unemployment and food prices.19 A major problem for IS arose after the Iraqi government in Baghdad decided (in July 2015) to stop paying wages to all civil employees in order to deny IS a significant source of income. This obviously had a considerable impact on the standard of living.20 Most people stopped going to work. Strategic employees, such as doctors or engineers, had to continue but were paid only one-tenth of their original wages.21 When IS had expelled the Iraqi army from Mosul in June 2014, many Sunni residents had celebrated the organization as liberators. At that time, it is probable that nobody would have imagined that the same Iraqi army would begin—just two years later (on 17 October 2016)—an operation to liberate them from IS. Eastern Mosul was liberated with minimal air support, significantly limiting collateral damage. In Western Mosul, on the other hand, the strategy was changed. There, the IS militants were defeated with extensive support from coalition airstrikes, which fatally damaged the historic core of the city and caused a much higher number of civilian casualties. The sad tally for the whole liberation operation is about 9000–11,000 civilians dead.22 At its peak, IS used the hubristic slogan “remaining and expanding” (baqiya wa tatamaddad), expressing global as well as local ambitions. Considering how it altered people’s destinies within the territories under its control (not only in Mosul), this slogan is decidedly chilling. A brief account of IS’s three-year reign over the city of Mosul is utterly grim and tragic. The Charter of the City, presented to the residents immediately after IS’s arrival, ended with these words:

10 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Oh people, you have tried all secular regimes. You have experienced royal, republican, and Baʽthist as well as Safavid [Shiʽi] periods. You have tried them and suffered from pain, you have been burned by their fire […] Now comes the period of the Islamic State and the era of Imam Abu Bakr al-­ Qurashi. And you will see by the will of Allah the enormously vast difference between a tyrannical secular government, which oppressed the energy of the people, muffled their mouths, and ruined their rights and dignity, and the rule (imama) [of Abu Bakr al-Qurashi], which takes revelation sent down [by God] as a path […]. (al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2014a, Art. 16)

The results of three years of “just” rule by IS were the deaths of thousands of Mosul inhabitants and the total devastation of a city which had been, before the war, one of the most valuable heritage towns in the Middle East.

1.3   Islamic State’s Demolition Campaign The destruction of Mosul’s heritage started shortly after IS entered the city. The main targets had already been set down in the Charter of the City (al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2014a). The 13th article of the document briefly yet unequivocally identified the main targets of the destruction, that is, “idolatrous shrines and tombs,” which were to be leveled to the ground. In subsequent months, this particular regulation was implemented with considerable vigor. Dozens of Islamic monuments fell prey to the destruction. Neither, as we will see, were many pre-Islamic monuments and artifacts or Christian edifices spared, even though the destruction was not as substantial as was originally presupposed in the latter case, as will be clarified later. The documentation of IS’s destructive activities has been complicated by the lack of reliable information. Only the destruction that IS itself documented and published in its propaganda material could be considered fully confirmed. Other damage, reported by independent media or social networks but not accompanied by documentary images, required further verification, because in many cases the reports proved to be false. The inclusion of monuments in our list of buildings destroyed by IS was, therefore, largely determined by satellite imagery. For documentation purposes, we analyzed 11 images23 in detail and included in the list those structures, mainly in the historic core of the city, that were apparently damaged from IS’s seizure of Mosul, beginning in June 2014, to the start of the liberation operation in February 2017. In eight cases of destruction, we could

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

11

not find any media response that would link them to IS with absolute certainty. We must, therefore, at least admit the possibility that some of these cases were not the result of deliberate destruction by IS.24 Its involvement is, however, in most cases more than likely, given the total control that the organization exercised over the city in the period under scrutiny. Strictly speaking, the main criterion for the inclusion of these monuments in the list was their condition as it appeared in a satellite image. After the launch of the liberation operation in the old town, collateral damage caused by ongoing heavy fighting had to be increasingly taken into account. In some cases, it was difficult to decide whether presumed destruction by IS had not occurred for some other reason, such as coalition bombing from the air. Satellite imagery has been useful for verifying and uncovering only total or very large-scale destruction. As for less “visible” destruction (e.g., interior devastation), here we could only rely on media reports, eyewitness accounts, and images published after the war. Even in these cases, given the scale of the city’s destruction during the liberation, with several historic neighborhoods flattened, it was difficult to decide who/what destroyed the interior and under what circumstances. An accurate list of sights deliberately destroyed by IS could only be compiled after detailed field research complemented by interviews with local residents. However, such research was impossible at the time this book was being written. Thus, the list of instances of IS’s destructive activity in Mosul on the following pages cannot be considered definitive and is very likely to be incomplete. Yet, we believe, it is highly representative. Our knowledge of the specific background of individual demolitions is very scarce. Still, based on a few available reports, it can be assumed that they followed one, possibly prescribed, pattern. They were carried out under the supervision of an IS commander who distributed instructions to other cooperating members of the organization.25 The demolitions were approved by the responsible IS authorities. In this regard, media informants mention Diwan al-masajid26 or al-Hayʼa al-sharʽiya (the Legal Committee).27 The decision to carry out a demolition was preceded, at least in some cases, by the issuance of a consenting fatwa (legal approval).28 Technically, demolitions were performed using improvised explosive devices (IEDs), large bulldozers, or a combination of the two. Jackhammers could also be used to destroy smaller structures. Sometimes, the process of destruction was documented by films or photos that later appeared in IS’s propaganda material (see infra).

12 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

The destruction of Mosul’s monuments was carried out in several waves, with isolated cases of destruction occurring between them. Their dates were fixed according to information provided by both classical and social media, as well as information from Iraqi colleagues and informants. Nevertheless, some demolitions could be dated only approximately based on satellite images. The first wave started right after IS took control of the town and involved the elimination of statues of famous Mosul figures. IS tore down the statues of the ninth-century poet Abu Tamam and the poet and composer ʽUthman al-Mawsili (d. 1923). Probably at the same time, other, anonymous sculptures (e.g., of Lady Spring, or al-Sawwas—“Seller of licorice drink”) were pulled down.29 In June, the destruction of tombs presaged by the Charter of the Town also began. IS bulldozed the tomb of the famous Mosul historian Ibn al-Athir (16 June 2014),30 and—after an alleged, unsuccessful attempt by local people to protect it—the tomb of the venerated Sufi Shaykh Fathi (during the night of 23–24 June 2014).31 On 24 June, IS reportedly also tried to blow up the Shrine of Imam al-­ Bahir, but this time the shrine was saved by local people.32 It was destroyed later, in September. Probably as part of the elimination of state security forces, the al-Saray police station, which happened to be a heritage building, was also destroyed (around 21 June 2014).33 Immediately after these crimes, IS began an intensive campaign of destruction in the hinterland of Mosul (e.g., in Telʽafar, al-Mahlabiya, and al-Qubba). According to two pictorial reports published by IS, predominantly Shiʽi mosques and several shrines of Sufi shaykhs were destroyed (around 24–26 June 2014).34 There were also threats that IS would attack the Shiʽi holy towns of Najaf and Karbala. Shiʽi sites were, therefore, reasonably considered to be the main target of IS’s campaign against architectural heritage in the province of Ninawa. However, in Mosul itself, a traditional Sunni bastion, the situation evolved in a slightly different fashion. The second wave of destruction took place in July 2014. Thirteen monuments disappeared in just a few days, among them the most significant religious and historical sites. It started on Wednesday, 23 July, with the destruction of the Shrine of Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim (Fig. 1.1), one of the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad (henceforth referred to as imams). On the same day IS destroyed the Mosque and Tomb of the Prophet Daniel (Nabi Daniyal), and the Shiʽi mosque and Husayniya

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

13

Fig. 1.1  Current state of the site after the demolition of the Shrine of Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim, view of the southern aspect, the ruin of the Bashtabiya Fortress in the background. Photo by Bruce Wannell

(congregational hall) of Rawdat al-Wadi.35 The next day (24 July) witnessed the horrifying spectacle of the destruction of six sites, including the blasting of the iconic Mosque of the Prophet Jonah (Nabi Yunus) in Nineveh, whose tomb, situated in the mosque compound, had been destroyed several weeks earlier (probably on 2 July).36 The explosion also destroyed the Tomb of the Kurdish Shaykh Rashid Lolan, situated in the vicinity of the blasted monument. On the same day (24 July), IS turned its attention to the Shrines of Imam ʽAli al-Hadi,37 Imam ʽAwn al-Din ibn al-Hasan,38 and Imam ʽAli al-Asghar,39 as well as to the Tomb of the Shaykh Abu al-ʽAlaʼ.40 The wave of violence continued on 25 July with the blasting of the Mosques of the Prophet George (Nabi Jirjis; Fig. 1.2) and the Prophet Seth (Nabi Shith),41 and, on 26 July, was capped with the demolition of the Mosque and Tomb of the Sufi Shaykh Qadib al-Ban.42 The media overlooked the case of the small Tomb of Abu al-Hawawin, which was probably destroyed in one of the two waves (and certainly before 21 August, according to satellite imagery). The second wave of demolition was extensively reported by world media as well as by IS itself. The organization published an online pictorial report documenting eight instances of destruction.43

14 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Fig. 1.2  Mosque of the Prophet George (Nabi Jirjis) in satellite images before destruction (A), after explosion (B), and after razing (C). WorldView-2 and WorldView-3© DigitalGlobe, Inc., distributed by European Space Imaging GmbH/ ARCDATA PRAHA, s.r.o.

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

15

In terms of the demolition of monuments, August 2014 seems to have been quiet in Mosul. However, this was an utterly devastating and tragic period for another part of Iraq, the area around the town of Sinjar, which IS seized on 3 August. IS immediately instigated massacres of the Yazidi community accompanied by the destruction of Yazidi monuments.44 The destruction, however, returned to Mosul in early September 2014, during which IS disposed of at least four monuments (all cases were reported on 2 September). They were the Mosque and Shrine of Imam al-Bahir (Fig. 1.3), the Shrine of Imam ʽAbd al-Rahman, the Mosque and Tomb of the Shaykh ʽIsa Dadah with the adjacent historical cemetery, and the Tomb of the Shaykh Muhammad Efendi al-Afghani situated in the Shaykh al-Shatt Mosque complex. The destruction of the Mosque of al-Sakhurji, which was reported by several media outlets and also confirmed by our Iraqi colleagues, still has not been verified by satellite imagery or photographic evidence, but remains very probable.45 Two demolitions—that of the Shrine of Imams Hamid and Mahmud and the Tomb of Shaykh Ibrahim—were not detected by the media at all. However, the satellite imagery reveals they took place sometime in the last four months of 2014 (certainly before 22 December). At the turn of the year, another wave of destruction swept over the city. It had already been predicted earlier in December 2014, when news about the closure of some mosques appeared. This was interpreted as a preparatory step for their destruction.46 And indeed, most of the buildings on the list were hit by the militants sooner or later. IS first destroyed the Mosque and Shrine of Imam Muhsin and the Mosque of Sultan Uways with its adjacent cemetery (30 December),47 and continued with the Mosque and

Fig. 1.3  Demolition of Imam al-Bahir Shrine on 2 September 2014. Anonymous author, Facebook group Jamiʽ al-Imam al-Bahir, posted 3 September 2014

16 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Madrasa of Shaykh al-Ridwani (31 December)48 and the Mosque of ʽAjil al-Yawar (1 January 2015).49 In February 2015, Mosul lost four monuments. The Syriac Orthodox church called al-Tahira al-Kharijiya was the only Christian edifice in Mosul which was completely destroyed and razed to the ground (2 February).50 Sometime around the middle of February, the Tomb of Shaykh Mansur and probably also the Shrine of Imam al-ʽAbbas were demolished with no media response.51 And at the end of the month (on 26 February), the organization blew up the Mosque of the Prophet al-Khidr (al-­ Mujahidi  Mosque; Fig.  1.4), which had already been pillaged in July 2014.52 On the same day (26 February), IS released a propaganda video showing IS radicals destroying exhibits in Mosul Museum and the winged lamassu standing by the Nergal Gate in Assyrian Nineveh.53 The final intensive wave of destruction occurred in March 2015. In the course of nine days, IS targeted five monuments. It started with the demolition of the Mosque of al-Abariqi on 3 March,54 and the Mosque of Hamu al-Qadu on 6 March.55 Both had already been closed since December 2014.56 On 9 March, militants blew up the Shrine of al-Sitt Nafisa along with the adjacent Hammam al-Saray Mosque.57 On the same day the Monastery of Mar Kurkis (George), in the suburbs of Mosul, was severely damaged, but not completely ruined. The organization blasted the front wall and bulldozed the cemetery in its immediate surroundings.58 The wave of violence was topped off with the bulldozing of the Mosque of Imam Ibrahim (11 March).59 Probably in the same month, an Ottoman school (madrasa) was eliminated from the complex of the Mosque of Shaykh ʽAbdal.60 In the rest of 2015, the media detected just one case of demolition. On 24 June 2015, the Mosque and Tomb of the Sufi mystic al-Kharrazi was destroyed on the eastern side of the town.61 Another seven demolitions, however, passed totally unnoticed. IS targeted five mosques (of Shatt al-­ Jumi, Imam Zayd ibn ʽAli, Shaykh al-Sabʽawi/Imam Muhammad, Shaykh Mahmud ibn ʽAbd al-Jalil al-Khidri, and Awlad al-Hasan), an Ottoman bathhouse (Hammam al-ʽUmariya), and the English War Cemetery. According to satellite imagery, the demolitions occurred sometime between the end of December 2014 and the end of August 2015 (see the catalogue for exact time spans). In the subsequent period, just a few deliberate acts of destruction were detected by the media. The first came after almost a year (April–May 2016), when a huge crime against the region’s ancient Assyrian heritage was committed at the archaeological site of Nineveh, where IS destroyed

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

Fig. 1.4  Mosque of al-Khidr (al-Mujahidi Mosque) in satellite images before destruction (A), after razing (B), and during the building of a new structure (C). WorldView-2 and WorldView-3© DigitalGlobe, Inc., distributed by European Space Imaging GmbH/ ARCDATA PRAHA, s.r.o.

17

18 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

gates, sculptures, part of a wall, and a palace (see infra for more details). Later in the same year, an isolated mention of the demolition of the Mar Ahudemmeh Church appeared.62 The demolition was allegedly performed to acquire more space to enlarge the compound of the adjacent al-Takriti Mosque. The satellite imagery did not corroborate the deliberate destruction of the church, which probably collapsed before the arrival of IS due to groundwater problems which disrupted the statics. The very last of IS’s reported crimes against Iraq’s heritage was the blasting of both the Great al-Nuri Mosque and the Minaret al-Hadbaʼ (Fig. 1.5) on 21 June 2017 at the very end of the battle for Mosul.63 The complex of the mosque was prepared for demolition a few days earlier, and the crime was accomplished when Iraqi forces were only 50 meters short of controlling it. The bombing of the mosque and the minaret was probably the only crime against the country’s cultural heritage that IS sought to blame on coalition forces, clearly in an attempt to turn public opinion against the coalition. The charge was immediately denied by the release of film footage captured by a drone that was flying in the area at the time of the explosion.64

Fig. 1.5  Minaret al-Hadba’ after demolition (2018). Photo by Jan Vyčítal

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

19

The fact that the media reported “just” the destruction of Assyrian Nineveh between mid-2015 and the blasting of the al-Nuri Mosque in June 2017 was explained as no more than a seeming calm caused by a media blackout. In fact, more deliberate destruction was thought to be taking place in the city. It is thus surprising that the analysis of satellite imagery provided no evidence of further deliberate destruction in the town. Later destruction was, at least predominantly, a consequence of the armed conflict between IS and the coalition forces, especially following the launch of the operation to liberate Mosul’s old town on 19 February 2017 (Fig. 1.6). In the course of monitoring IS’s destructive activities, the media reported on a number of demolitions of historical buildings which turned out to be false according to our analysis of satellite imagery. They may eventually turn out to be related to events that did not damage buildings severely enough for them to lose structural stability. These reports may have originated in exaggerations of initial information on interior damage, or the removal of religious symbols (in the case of Christian architecture, crosses were often involved).65 To the best of our knowledge, during its three-year rule in Mosul, IS deliberately and totally destroyed at least 45

Fig. 1.6  Ruin of the Shaykh al-Shatt Mosque (targeted during the liberation operation in 2017) in the completely destroyed historic district of al-Shahwan. Photo by Jan Vyčítal

20 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

monuments and the destruction of one further monument is very probable (the Mosque of al-Sakhurji; the site’s status cannot be verified by satellite images). As for the plundering of interiors, our knowledge is not sufficient to make any final or reliable statements, at least in the case of Sunni Islamic monuments. General observations on partial destruction will, however, be made in relation to Christian as well as some Sufi architecture.

1.4   Typology of Destroyed Heritage IS’s selection of targets in Mosul was by no means accidental. If we recall the content of the thirteenth article of the Charter of the City, it will become obvious that the IS demolition campaign mainly focused on targets identified there, that is, tombs (qabr, marqad) and idolatrous shrines (mashhad, mazar). Yet, nowhere near all such buildings were destroyed. In order to understand which criteria were decisive for the inclusion of a site in the notional list of monuments intended for destruction, we will describe several functional types of monumental architecture that were at the center of IS’s attention. They were mosques and tombs of awliyaʼ (divided into two subgroups: pious shaykhs and descendants of the Prophet Muhammad), mosques and tombs of prophets, and cemeteries. We will deal separately with Christian architecture and, briefly, with the ancient Assyrian heritage in Mosul, which represented—for specific reasons discussed below—a rather limited proportion of all demolition cases. 1.4.1  Mosques and Tombs of Awliya’: Pious Shaykhs and Sufis This largest group of 17 destroyed monuments comprised mosques and tombs which were built by, or associated with, significant Mosul residents, whose status stemmed from the belief that they ranked among local awliyaʼ. These individuals, literally designated as “friends of God,” and sometimes also called “saints,” were personalities from the ranks of pious ascetics, Sufi shaykhs, religious scholars (ʽulama’), and descendants of the Prophet Muhammad. Awliyaʼ were generally believed to have extraordinary powers, namely the ability to perform miracles (karamat) and transmit the blessing (baraka) of God to ordinary people. This sacred intermediary role was even sought posthumously at their tombs, which could become objects of ritual visits (ziyara) for precisely this reason (Meri 2002, 73–82, 101–8). And this was also among the reasons why the

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

21

tomb-­mosques of awliyaʼ were popular among Mosul devotees and why many of them were focal points of religious life until recent times. Historically, there was a strong belief that visiting a saint’s tomb could secure the fulfillment of one’s needs, often embodied in, for example, relief from distress or medical cures, as was systematically attested in the biographies of awliyaʼ produced in Mosul in the course of the nineteenth century (see Sect. 2.1.1). Some biographies even specified the diseases or problems such visits could cure or solve. To give just a few examples within the subgroup of pious shaykhs and Sufis, we can mention the Tomb of Abu al-Hawawin, visited by those who wished to heal sick animals, the Tomb of Shaykh Qadib al-Ban, for those who desired to eliminate their pain or be absolved of their sins, and the Tomb of Shaykh Fathi, frequented by those seeking cures for mental disorders or epilepsy.66 Although we are not aware of any modern anthropological research having been carried out on this topic, it can be assumed that some of the sites were also visited for similar reasons in more recent times. One notable example is the eyewitness account of Subhi Sabri concerning ritual practices in the tomb-mosque of Shaykh Fathi, published one year before the arrival of IS in Mosul. His account gives evidence of the continuing significance of the site for curing mental and neurological diseases over a period of at least 200 years.67 He recounts that sick people used to have water from the water well within the complex poured over them, and often spent Friday nights in the tomb itself. They were accompanied by family members who brought votive offerings and incense, slaughtered lambs in the courtyard, and prepared food which they distributed to the poor of the neighborhood.68 Most pious shaykhs from among Mosul’s awliyaʼ whose eponymous tombs and mosques were destroyed were Sufis, or were linked to Sufism by local tradition. In the latter case, of course, the link could only have been created ex post facto to accentuate the significance of the entombed person. This applied to the alleged offspring and adherents of the famous Sufi shaykh and founder of the al-Qadiriya Sufi order ʽAbd al-Qadir al-­ Jilani (1077–1166), some of whom were allegedly entombed within the Mosul nucleus. Among the destroyed monuments were the tomb-mosques of his son ʽIsa Dadah (with adjacent cemetery), his grandson ʽAla al-Din (within the Hamu al-Qadu mosque complex), and his follower Muhammad al-Abariqi. Shaykh Qadib al-Ban (d. 573/1177–78)—whose tomb-­ mosque was also destroyed—was probably al-Jilani’s disciple and later also

22 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

his son-in-law, whom he provided with spiritual instruction and authorization (ijaza) to teach the al-Qadiriya Sufi path (al-Diwahji 1952, 99–100). Two other tomb-mosques were explicitly described as places where Sufi performances (dhikr) were held prior to IS’s occupation of the town. One of them was the mosque built on the tomb of the Iraqi Sufi scholar Ahmad ibn ʽIsa al-Kharrazi (ninth century),69 and the other was the above-­ mentioned tomb-mosque of the Sufi Shaykh Fathi (eighth or ninth century). The courtyard of the mosque was described as having been a venue for Sufi seances which incorporated impressive ritual manipulations of the body, including perforation by skewers (darb al-shish) or swords (darb al-sayf ).70 The tombs and mosques of Sufi personalities who were not necessarily considered awliyaʼ (although here we are relying on negative evidence) were also targeted for destruction. Specifically, the targeted edifices were those of Mahmud ʽAbd al-Jalil al-Khidri, ʽUthman al-Ridwani and his son Muhammad (the former buried in the tomb adjacent to the mosque in Madrasat al-Ridwani), and Ahmad al-Sabʽawi, the shaykh of the takiya set up in the complex of the al-Sabʽawi Mosque.71 His father Muhammad al-Sabʽawi was also a Sufi and was buried in the tomb within the mosque complex.72 Similarly, edifices linked to the leaders of the Naqshbandi Sufi order (the Tomb of Shaykh Rashid Lolan and the Shatt al-Jumi Mosque with a tomb), as well as the Sufi takiya of Shaykh Muhammad al-Afghani, also fell prey to destruction. Sufis were certainly among the main targets of IS, because the extremists considered the Sufi perception of faith to be incompatible with their strict construct of religious legality. Most Sufis fled the town right after the arrival of IS, some had to renounce the Sufi path, and some had to remain in hiding to save their lives. As we have seen, many of the tombs and affiliated mosques/takiyas of their historical spiritual leaders were destroyed. Other Sufi establishments were closed, transformed into IS training camps, or used as mosques. The most notable example is one of the biggest takiyas in the town, Takiya al-Naqshbandiya,73 which IS transformed into the congregational mosque and named after the Salafi leader and ideologue of the Wahhabi movement, Muhammad ibn ʽAbd al-Wahhab. The takiya was destroyed only by coalition airstrikes during the liberation.74 There was probably a particular reason why IS did not demolish this important Sufi establishment along with other Sufi lodges. It appears this could have been the absence of the tomb of a Sufi spiritual leader.

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

23

As for the tombs of awliyaʼ other than Sufis, IS targeted those of pious shaykhs, some of whom were ascetics whose tombs were also destinations for those seeking spiritual aid and sources of baraka. This was the case for the tombs of Shaykh Mansur, Shaykh Ibrahim, Abu al-Hawawin, and Shaykh Abu al-ʽAlaʼ (Ibn al-Khayyat 1966, 96–8, 102). Prominent among such figures was Sultan Uways al-Qarani, a contemporary of the Prophet Muhammad and later the close companion of ʽAli ibn Abi Talib, who was highly praised for his piety and asceticism.75 What made these monuments vulnerable to IS was mainly the presence of the tombs of these respected and venerated historical personalities, regardless of whether they had been pious ascetic shaykhs or Sufis. Their interment gave these places an aura of sanctity, the prerequisite for objects of religious visits and veneration. The popularity of these places often gave rise to locally important mosque complexes. Although these were usually only built centuries later as additions to the original tomb nuclei, it was specifically this funerary origin and ziyara potential that made them targets of destruction and often led to their demolition along with their respective tombs. 1.4.2  Mosques and Shrines of Awliya’: Descendants of the Prophet Muhammad Descendants of the Prophet Muhammad were considered to be awliyaʼ with the same attributes as the pious shaykhs (see supra), but with one notable exception. Descendants of the Prophet did not necessarily have to perform miracles (karamat) as signs of their sainthood, but, instead, could be venerated purely for their family relationship with the Prophet. After their death, their tombs and shrines were also sites of ritual ziyara and indisputable sources of baraka (Meri 2002, 80). In Mosul, IS deliberately destroyed 11 monuments associated with the lineal descendants of the Prophet Muhammad through his daughter Fatima, her husband ʽAli ibn Abi Talib, and their two sons, al-Hasan and al-Husayn. As for the Hasanid lineage, we recognized five destroyed shrines (of Imam Muhsin, Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim, Imam ʽAwn al-Din, Imams Hamid and Mahmud, and Awlad/Banat al-Hasan—Children of al-Hasan). Of the Husaynid lineage, Mosul lost another four shrines (of Imam al-Bahir, Imam ʽAli al-Hadi, Imam Zayd ibn ʽAli, and Imam Ibrahim). In the case of the shrines of two descendants (Imam ʽAbd

24 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

al-­Rahman, Sitt Nafisa), the authors of the awliyaʼ biographies are not of the same opinion—they propose both Hasanid and Husaynid lineages.76 All these descendants of the Prophet were naturally also the offspring of ʽAli, which allows us to describe them collectively as ʽAlids. In this respect, this group of destroyed monuments can be extended to include the shrine of ʽAli’s grandson, Imam ʽAli al-Asghar ibn Muhammad ibn alHanafiya, through ʽAli’s other wife, Khawla bint Jaʽfar, and Imam al-ʽAbbas, whose precise identity was uncertain, but who is still considered to have been a descendant of ʽAli.77 As we can see in the awliyaʼ biographies, all these figures are marked with the title imam, which is usually applied to the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad in Shiʽi Islam, and specifically to those from the narrow family circle of ahl al-bayt (People of the House), consisting of the Prophet, his daughter Fatima, ʽAli, al-Hasan, al-Husayn, and al-Husayn’s nine descendants (The Fourteen Infallibles).78 In Mosul, the title imam was applied more generously, extending to all three ʽAlid lineages and their sub-branches. Still, its usage should certainly be understood as a reference to the Shiʽi (re)interpretation of the sacred landscape of ʽAlid Shrines in Mosul—something that will be discussed later (see Sect. 3.2). It appears that the ʽAlid shrines in Mosul were historically places of shared religious culture and were venerated by both Sunni and Shiʽi Muslims, though the dominant religious influence could change according to the external political conditions. That, for example, is why the shrines once became the object of significant investment by sponsors who promoted the Twelver Shiʽi symbolism by incorporating the names of the Fourteen Infallibles into their decoration. This, however, did not prevent the Sunni population from subsequently fully adopting them and investing in their reconstruction and maintenance so that they became important centers of local religious and devotional life predominantly attended by Sunni Muslims in the now totally Sunni environment of the Mosul historical nucleus. Until recently, the ʽAlid shrines were administrated—de jure—by the Sunni Waqf Department (Diwan al-Waqf al-Sunni). However, real control shifted shortly after the end of the war to the Shiʽi authorities, mostly represented by alien military forces (the situation as of 2019), which made efforts to subordinate the shrines to the control of the Shiʽi waqf authorities (Diwan al-Waqf al-Shiʽi). Their efforts to change the status quo, unfortunately, represent a very dangerous prerequisite for the surge of sectarian violence.79

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

25

The ʽAlid shrines are interchangeably described by several Arabic terms, which are usually perceived as synonyms, although each has a different etymology. Mashhad means a place of memorial of the given person, maqam a place of his/her sojourn, and mazar a place of pious visits to a shrine by those seeking baraka.80 This diversity of possible conceptions means that a shrine did not necessarily have to be a mausoleum (darih, marqad) with the real tomb (qabr)81 of an imam, and this was actually the case for many ʽAlid shrines in Mosul, which verifiably emerged long after the given descendant of the Prophet Muhammad had died. Still, they did not have to be only empty cenotaphs. Even though our knowledge of the shrines’ initial history is scarce, we detected several cases of the refounding of earlier mausolea of monarchs—a process that one can trace in the context of Mosul from the end of the Zengid dynasty (1127–1233). This was the case, for example, for the shrines of Imam ʽAbd al-Rahman, Imam Muhsin, and Imam Ibrahim. On the other hand, some of the shrines— notably those of Imam ʽAwn al-Din ibn al-Hasan and Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim, the two most precious pieces of medieval architecture—were built as new edifices or substantially expanded by the Mosul ruler Badr al-­Din Luʼluʼ (1233–1259), but again on sites that had never previously been associated with the Prophet’s descendants. These must, therefore, have originally been empty cenotaphs. The origin of the other shrines is not clear due to a very patchy historical record, mostly appearing only toward the end of the Ottoman period. With only a few exceptions (e.g., the Shrine of al-Sitt Nafisa), all destroyed shrines contained a sarcophagus, which often had very high artistic value. Although it is—from a historical point of view—clear that many of them had to be cenotaphs rather than real tombs, this distinction may not have been obvious to their visitors, who certainly could perceive them as real funerary spaces. The twentieth-century author, Ismaʽil Al Faraj, who commented on the identities of many shrines’ patrons, adopted the same attitude when he tried to substitute implausible identities of several “entombed” imams with historically and geographically more convenient candidates (Al Faraj 2012).82 The funerary character of these shrines was often emphasized by the existence of small adjacent cemeteries, or even additional burial vaults, with long historical traditions. Burial in the neighborhood of the shrines of venerated descendants of the Prophet Muhammad was certainly popular among the inhabitants of the town.

26 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

As in the case of the tombs of pious shaykhs, the ʽAlid shrines have historically been busy hotspots of ritual visits intended to garner blessings and cures from a variety of diseases. For example, Imam ʽAli al-Asghar used to be visited specifically by those with ophthalmological problems, and Imam al-Bahir by those who wished to rid themselves of sorrows (al-ʽUmari 1955, 103; Ibn al-Khayyat 1966, 58). Again, it is difficult to ascertain the extent to which these practices were ongoing in ʽAlid shrines immediately before the arrival of IS, but from sporadic references in the media, as well as reports from other parts of Iraq, it appears they were well-established in contemporary Mosul.83 Although the shrines of ʽAlids could have been targeted primarily for the Shiʽi episodes in their long historical development, reflected in the appellation of their patrons as well as in the Twelver symbolism in the epigraphy, IS has never, to the best of our knowledge, utilized any such justification in its religious or ideological reasoning. Instead, they destroyed those shrines with a mere reference to the existence of a tomb.84 And it was this sacred nucleus, the place of the imam’s veneration that could condemn to extinction of the whole shrine complex, including a frequented mosque. 1.4.3  Mosques of Prophets Prophets (anbiyaʼ) are also considered to be from among awliyaʼ because they are ascribed the very same attributes (the ability to perform miracles and mediate blessings). Still, they are generally believed to be superior to them. The Hanafi theologian Abu Jaʽfar al-Tahawi (d. 933) aptly noted that “any one of the prophets is better than all awliyaʼ put together” (Meri 2002, 68). And indeed, prophets enjoy great respect among Muslims. Their existence and ability to perform miracles were acknowledged even by IS ideologues. This, however, by no means involved funeral structures and mosques erected above prophets’ graves. Mosul could take pride in its status as the site of the mosques of five prophets. They were the Prophets Jonah, George, Seth, Daniel, and al-­ Khidr. Given this unusual high frequency, the town bore the honorary epithet madinat al-anbiyaʼ (the town of prophets). The prophet Jonah (Nabi Yunus) is the only Biblical prophet who appears, by name, in the Quran (the tenth sura was named after him). The story of this “man of the whale” (sahib al-hut) is very similar to that in the Bible. His tomb and mosque in Nineveh represented an important

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

27

pilgrimage site venerated by both Muslims and Christians. Another important pilgrimage center for several centuries was the Mosque and Tomb of the prophet George (Nabi Jirjis), who has his counterpart in the Christian saint of the same name. The Islamic tradition traced his martyrdom to Mosul, where he was killed several times by the king Dadan (Diocletian) and miraculously resurrected. The mosques and tombs of the Biblical prophets Seth (Shith), the son of Adam, and Daniel (Daniyal), the visionary living in Babylon during the Jewish captivity, appeared only in the Ottoman period as the result of dream visions which initiated a search for their tombs, that later became places of veneration. Also in the Ottoman period, the cult of al-Khidr evolved in the al-­ Mujahidi Mosque (hence also the al-Khidr Mosque). The identity of this legendary figure has become the source of scholarly controversies. For some Muslims he is a saint (wali); others consider him to be one of the four immortal prophets. Sometimes he is associated with Eliah, or even equated with St. George. Al-Khidr was especially venerated by Sufis as a man with immense knowledge and wisdom. The tradition of the al-Khidr Mosque held him to be a prophet, whom one could meet after praying 40 morning prayers. His sacred space, described as maqam (shrine), was between the prayer niche and minbar (Ibn al-Khayyat 1966, 49). Needless to say, popular belief saw it as his grave, even though it was not marked by any commemorative or funeral structure.85 It is not surprising that shrines of al-Khidr are widespread throughout the Middle East, because there may be countless places where this legendary figure may have passed or resided. As for the prophets, the existence of multiple tombs in different places, on the contrary, stimulated scholarly discussions about their authenticity, and, as we shall see later, IS was able to utilize this artfully in its propaganda. Still, the nineteenth-century author of the ziyarat manual on Mosul tombs and shrines, Ibn al-Khayyat, alerted his readers to the obligation to venerate the prophets’ tombs no matter where and when they appeared (Ibn al-Khayyat 1966, 38). And, indeed, “Mosul” prophets enjoyed a great deal of respect from the local population, manifested in huge investments in construction throughout the centuries. They were, with the exception of the modest Mosque of the Prophet Daniel, among the biggest religious edifices in the town, serving as congregational mosques and places of ziyara for those who wished to receive blessings. They were hubs of religious and spiritual life in different urban areas. While the Prophet Jirjis Mosque served the intramural historical nucleus, that of al-Khidr was the center of the town’s extramural extension to the south, and was, from the Ottoman period, in competition

28 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

with the Mosque of the Prophet Shith situated close by. The spiritual center of the eastern side of Mosul was the huge complex of the Prophet Yunus Mosque, the only significant Islamic monument in this part of the town. For local people, the mosques of the Prophets in all likelihood represented the most sensitive targets of destruction. By destroying the tomb and later blowing up the whole Mosque of Yunus, the IS demolition campaign gained truly worldwide attention. The vast majority of the media reported the crime. And, according to piecemeal reports, it also provoked bold reactions from some local residents who protested against the destruction on the subsequent Friday after the midday prayer. The protest leaders were arrested and flogged.86 1.4.4  Cemeteries Mosul cemeteries represented a significant component of IS’s demolition campaign, though it was often difficult to discern the extent of the destruction on satellite images. Several cemeteries were razed in the vicinity of shrines and tombs of local awliyaʼ in the historical nucleus of the town. Specifically, we detected the destruction of those attached to the Shrines of Imam ʽAwn al-Din, Umm al-Tisʽa, Sultan Uways al-Qarani, and Shaykh ʽIsa Dadah. The cemetery attached to the al-ʽUmariya Mosque was probably also destroyed.87 All these cemeteries had very long historical traditions, in some cases dating back to the Zengid period. Not even the isolated tomb of Ibn al-Athir (d. 1233), once part of the large extramural necropolis, avoided destruction. From several reported cases one can infer that IS was sometimes able to show elementary respect for those buried, as it urged their relatives to exhume the remains and relocate them to another place before the cemetery was destroyed. This was noted in the case of the al-ʽUmariya Cemetery (December 2014),88 and even earlier (October 2014) in the case of the cemetery attached to the Shrine of Umm al-Tisʽa, where all the bodies were exhumed at the expense of the Hadid family and reburied in a common grave outside the city.89 Public cemeteries in the wider area around Mosul were also vandalized. Here, the post-war documentation revealed cases of the desecration of some burial plots with exhumed corpses left exposed in place. Reports of such damage came especially from the Wadi ʽUqab cemetery in the western suburbs of Mosul.90 The first systematic destruction of cemeteries,

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

29

including the Wadi ʽUqab as well as those of al-Islah al-Ziraʽi and al-­ Karama cemeteries,91 was reported in the context of an interesting phenomenon whereby IS allegedly used the destruction of the prescribed number of graves as a form of punishment for criminal acts. Cases of this “enforced” destruction have been described as punishments for breaches of the smoking ban or the sale of cigarettes. Failure to comply with the prescribed length of beard or to observe prayers was penalized in the same way.92 Several Christian cemeteries were also destroyed. We were able to detect the substantial damage caused to the cemetery attached to the Mar Kurkis (St. George) Monastery (see supra), and the cemetery in the complex of the Mar Tuma (St. Thomas) Church (in spring 2015). Staged photographs from the destruction of the latter appeared in IS propaganda materials.93 IS did not spare the so-called English Cemetery (Maqbarat al-Injliz) either. This burial ground to the west of the old town nucleus was the last resting place of British Commonwealth soldiers, as well as Turkish soldiers, who died during the two World Wars (destroyed in 2015).94 1.4.5  Christian Monuments After the massive exodus of Christians predominantly to Iraqi Kurdistan in July 2014, the first reports of the destruction of Christian architecture started to appear. The analysis of satellite imagery showed that during the three-year rule of IS, only one total demolition happened in the whole of the Mosul city. It was the blasting and razing to the ground of the Syriac Orthodox church, called al-Tahira al-Kharijiya. The reports on other demolitions turned out to be untrue, including that concerning the Mar Kurkis (St. George) Monastery in the al-ʽArabi neighborhood, of which only the western wall was eliminated, most probably in order to remove the monumental cross decorating the facade. The monastery complex itself has survived.95 What was proven, however, was the belief that most Christian structures had been looted and sustained damage to their interiors. Although it is often difficult to distinguish intentional damage by IS from collateral damage caused by the war conflict, the available documentation still enables us, in many cases, to point to IS’s specific heritage crimes. These involved the removal of crosses from the roofs and domes of churches, smashing of statues, icons, and other holy objects, and the destruction of

30 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

inscriptions. Many Christian buildings suffered major damage after they had been occupied by radicals and were used for purposes other than religious worship. They became IS headquarters (Syrian Orthodox Archbishopric in the al-Shurta neighborhood),96 training camps for new IS recruits (al-Saʽa Church; Danti et al. 2017c, 126), prisons (Mar Ephraim Church in the al-Shurta neighborhood; Danti et al. 2017a, 114), ammunition facilities (Syrian Orthodox Church in the Midan neighborhood; Danti et al. 2017b, 123), or warehouses (Mar Tuma Church).97 Churches could also be sold to contractors who wished to dismantle them and use them as a source of steel (Assyrian Virgin Mary Church in the al-­Nur neighborhood).98 The propaganda material produced by IS paid only limited attention to the destruction of Christian monuments. In the case of Mosul, it only featured staged images of the destruction of religious symbols. The organization published a whole series of such photographs in March 2015.99 They were taken at the Mar Kurkis (St. George) Monastery in the al-ʽArabi neighborhood and at one anonymous church in Mosul. Two of the photos appeared in the IS propaganda magazine Dabiq, with the cover topic “Break the Cross” inciting anti-Christian sentiment (Dabiq 2016a, 1, 46). The photographs of the destruction of the cemetery at the Mar Tuma (St. Thomas) Church complex were also used for propaganda purposes (see supra). But what is significant is the complete lack of propaganda photos documenting the total elimination of buildings, which was, on the contrary, common in the case of Sunni religious edifices, whose rubble was often removed and the original plot used, for example, as a parking lot. The absence of such documentation is, moreover, typical not only in the context of Mosul but also, to a large extent, in the context of other IS territories. It is, therefore, reasonable to consider that although IS clearly sought to eliminate Christian residents, it did not seek, at least in Mosul, to eliminate Christian sacral architecture. This, however, does not reduce the organization’s guilt for causing terrible damage during the desecration and looting of interiors, or their sacrilegious use of holy buildings for other purposes. This alone caused irreparable damage, which was subsequently completed by bomb attacks during the liberation operation in 2017, when several Christian churches and monasteries ended up in ruins.100 In this context, it is difficult to answer the question of why IS carried out the complete removal of the al-Tahira al-Kharijiya Church. Why did it blow up this one church and no other? Here, we do not understand the

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

31

ideological rationalization of IS at all, because IS did not comment on the demolition in any of its media outlets. Still, it is possible to understand this incident as the “Christian” analogy to the destruction of tombs of Muslim awliyaʼ and prophets, since the church was famous for guarding the relics of several Christian saints (St. Gabriel of Qartamin, St. Jacob Intercessor, the Apostle Simon the Zealot, St. Qawme Stylite, Maphrian Gregory bar Hebraeus, St. Yohannan of Dailam; Fiey 1959: 152).101 Moreover, the church contained the Chapel of St. Georgis, where several deacons and priests were buried. One of them was the famous contemporary martyr Father Rev. Paulus Iskander Behnam, who died a violent death after he was kidnapped by an anonymous Islamic radical organization in 2006.102 The church was known for having been frequented by people pleading for blessings before hospitalization at the nearby al-Jumhuri hospital.103 1.4.6  Ancient Assyrian Heritage IS in Mosul destroyed much of the ancient Assyrian heritage. In February 2015, the world was horrified by the release of a propaganda video about the destruction of Mosul Museum (al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2015a). It depicts IS members smashing Assyrian artifacts from Nineveh (in the eastern part of Mosul) and surrounding archaeological sites (Khorsabad, Balawat), as well as from the Roman-period town of Hatra.104 At the same time, the winged lamassu, which stood at the Nergal Gate in Nineveh, was destroyed by jackhammers (also shown in the video). The destruction of Nineveh continued in the spring of 2016. In April, the gates of Adad and Mashki and part of the wall were destroyed.105 The Sennacherib palace, which served as a site museum exhibiting Assyrian carved reliefs, was also damaged and looted (Danti et al. 2016, 93–104). The destruction of Assyrian Nineveh has been comprehensively analyzed elsewhere (Angiuli et  al. 2020; Bianchi et  al. 2017), and its ideological reasoning is briefly discussed infra. 1.4.7  Other Monuments Six destroyed structures do not fit into any of the proposed typological groups. One of them was the Mosque and Husayniya of Rawdat al-Wadi, which, according to our analyses, was the only unequivocally Shiʽi monument to be destroyed within the city (see, however, Sect. 1.4.2 and 3.2 about Shiʽi interpretations of the shrines of imams). The isolated nature of

32 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

this occurrence can by no means be understood to suggest that Shiʽa would be tolerated by IS. On the contrary, IS was very hostile toward Shiʽi Muslims, describing them as people of “deviant heresies” and “idolatrous apostasy” (Dabiq 2016b, 35–6). Mosul, however, was an Iraqi Sunni bastion whose Shiʽi residents were under long-term pressure from radical Salafists even before IS arrived in the town, which caused a security threat to the Shiʽi representatives, who often became the target of terrorist attacks. For this reason, Rawdat al-Wadi Mosque, for example, must have been closed to religious services over a period of years. Shiʽi mosques were thus largely built in the hinterland of Mosul inhabited by the Shiʽi Turkmens and Shabaks, and not in the city itself. We have already mentioned that these mosques (on the sites of Telʽafar, al-Mahlabiya, and al-­ Qubba) were also targeted, and the two ethnic groups persecuted, in June 2014 (see supra). Across the entire province of Ninawa, Shiʽi monuments probably suffered, by far, the greatest damage.106 Another mosque which is impossible to relate to any of the proposed groups is the Great al-Nuri Mosque with the famous al-Hadbaʼ Minaret. It was reported that IS had already attempted to destroy it in 2014, but was prevented from doing so by local residents. If this attempt really took place, it would be strange given that to IS, the mosque was the symbolic place in which Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi delivered his sermon declaring the Caliphate. (It should be noted that the mosque was ideologically “pure” because it did not contain any tombs.) Instead, IS decided to demolish it only in 2017 in order to prevent such an important symbol from being seized by Iraqi troops. The al-Hadbaʼ minaret, on which an IS black flag was raised for the duration of their control of the town, was demolished at the same time. The destruction of the al-Nuri Mosque, at the very culmination of the war, was the cruel and cynical parting shot at the end of their three-year ravaging of Mosul’s historical sites. The mosque of ʽAjil al-Yawar (1882–1940/1943?), the shaykh of the Shammar tribe and important Iraqi politician, is also difficult to classify. We were not able to find out anything about its significance for the religious landscape of Mosul or its possible role as a political memorial of Iraqi statehood. Public media referred to the presence of ʽAjil al-Yawar’s tomb in the courtyard of the mosque as the reason for the demolition.107 The other three destroyed monuments were secular in character. The al-Saray police center was probably destroyed as part of the elimination of Iraqi security forces during the occupation of the city. For the remaining two monuments, we do not find any possible explanation of their

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

33

destruction that would fit in with IS ideological and religious reasoning. They were the historical buildings of the al-ʽUmariya bathhouse (hammam) and the Ottoman school (madrasa) attached to the Shaykh ʽAbdal Mosque. We have to admit that in these cases the reasons for the buildings’ destruction could have been more mundane, such as, for example, the acquisition of land for construction, and the demolitions did not have to necessarily be committed by IS radicals. To sum up, during its almost three-year rule over Mosul, IS deliberately demolished at least 45 monuments, some of which were totally razed to the ground. The vast majority were the graves or shrines of awliyaʼ (ascetic shaykhs, Sufis, descendants of the Prophet Muhammad and ʽAli ibn Abi Talib) or prophets, and their associated, mostly eponymous, mosques. Altogether, such cases accounted for 35 of the demolitions in Mosul (78%). Without exception, these were very important religious places. Their position in the religious landscape was determined precisely by the presence of a grave or a shrine of an eminent religious figure, which gave the place a high degree of attractiveness and made it a source of blessings and a potential destination for ritual visits. And this was precisely the focus of IS’s attention in Mosul. The organization was obviously more interested in such sites than they were in other mosques that also housed graves in their grounds, but these were of secular figures, such as mosque founders from among the city’s rulers and urban elites (e.g., Mosques of al-­ Basha and Shaykh ʽAbdal), rather than saints or prophets. Although the fate of these graves is unknown to us, their host mosques have, with one exception, survived and—although they were often severely damaged by coalition airstrikes—some of them have already been successfully reconstructed and continue to serve local believers. The exception is the Mosque of ʽAjil al-Yawar, whose selection as a target for annihilation is not yet understood. However, the presence of ʽAjil al-Yawar’s tomb would have made it easy for IS to justify its complete demolition with reference to the general religious concept of taswiyat al-qubur (leveling of graves), which was IS’s central argument for the legal admissibility of demolitions in general (the concept will be discussed in detail later on). IS also utilized the same justification for the destruction of cemeteries. In all, the classification of deliberately demolished structures according to taswiyat al-qubur allows us to state that out of a total of 45 monuments destroyed in Mosul, 38 contained a tomb or a cenotaph—that is 84%. The remaining targets were demolished for other reasons. Two of these, anti-Shiʽa hatred in the case of the Shiʽi mosque, and the removal of vestiges of pre-monotheistic

34 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

religions in the case of Nineveh, are obvious. Others are more speculative (the saints’ relics in the Christian church, the liquidation of police forces, the destruction of the al-Nuri Mosque as a symbolic act), whereas two demolitions are completely inconsistent with the anticipated logic of target selection (hammam, school).

1.5   Islamic State’s Ideological Attitude Toward Historical Monuments The most frequent term used in relation to the destruction of monuments by IS is undoubtedly iconoclasm. This term is multilayered in meaning. Originally relating to the destruction of icons and images, its application later expanded to include the destruction of institutions and monuments that were considered fallacious or idolatrous by the opposing iconoclastic groups. The iconoclastic destruction could be based on religious beliefs, but at the same time, it could have clear political reasons and goals. The suitability of using this term to describe the destructive behavior of IS has been the subject of discussion. On the one hand, it has been argued that IS is completely unpredictable and acts without grounded religious or political justification. Their behavior should, therefore, be seen as much closer to barbarism and terrorism. This view has dominated the discourse in Western media to date. Within the scholarly literature, doubts about the religious motivation for the destruction of monuments have given rise to a number of studies that attempt to explain the behavior of IS from other positions. It was presented, for example, as a form of Latour’s “iconoclash,” conducted to produce impressive visual imagery that was disseminated to shock a global audience (Harmanşah 2015); as a means of manipulating history and annihilating religious diversity and national identity that had little to do with religion (Turku 2018); or as a sort of a rite of passage for IS initiates to solidify their new identity (Shahab and Isakhan 2018). We have argued elsewhere that a negative stance toward funeral architecture has a long tradition in Islam (Beránek and Ťupek 2018) and that iconoclasm should not be considered only a pretext for destruction, but a possible genuine rationale behind the destructive campaigns of IS (Melčák and Beránek 2017), whose iconoclastic actions can be placed in the same behavioral framework as those of other radical Salafi organizations, both recent and historical. Benjamin Isakhan  and José Zarandona have aptly

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

35

identified several layers of IS’s iconoclasm as reflected through its propaganda material  (Isakhan and Zarandona 2018; see also Isakhan 2018). They distinguish between “pre-monotheistic iconoclasm” and iconoclasm embodied by what they call “symbolic sectarianism.” The first targets artifacts and remains of Ancient Mesopotamian religions, which the organization considers heretical and idolatrous. Their destruction could also have politically defined goals, such as the rejection of Westerners who discovered these monuments during the colonial era and the modern state, which used them without restraint to strengthen national identity (Isakhan and Zarandona 2018, 9–10). As for symbolic sectarianism, it is directed primarily against the religious sites of those streams of Islam that do not conform to IS’s strict conception of religious practice, that is, especially against Shiʽa and Sufis. Politically, this kind of iconoclasm could serve as a demonstration of power toward alternative religious groups, sending them the message that there is no place for them in the newly defined Muslim community, or, for example, as an expression of the fight against the Shiʽa-oriented governments, both in Baghdad and in Damascus (Isakhan and Zarandona 2018, 6–7). In general, this pattern represents the distribution of iconoclastic targets and the purposes of IS quite well. However, in relation to the specific Sunni environment that characterizes Mosul, it is only partially valid. We saw one clearly Shiʽi target (1 of 45 monuments), several mosques with Sufi links (12 of 45), as well as one pre-monotheistic iconoclastic target (ancient Nineveh; destruction of artifacts was not quantified). Of the 12 “Sufi” monuments, we were unable to distinguish how many were real sites of Sufi sessions and rituals, and how often this was only a historical reference. In any case, one significant point we can make about all “Sufi” mosques is that they were built on tombs, which also applies to the vast majority of other destroyed, that is, “orthodox” Sunni monuments (in total 38 of 45). We thus argue that in Mosul, the main parameter for selecting a “suitable” iconoclastic target was quite different.108 Selection was determined primarily by the presence or absence of a grave that was or could potentially be an object of worship, regardless of the sectarian affiliation of the monument. As we will see in the following section, our empirical data obtained through our detailed typological analysis can be convincingly embedded in a discursive framework, which IS—in relation to the destruction of tombs and mosques built on tombs—intensively tried to influence through its propaganda texts and films. IS has explained its iconoclastic actions mainly through the consistent application of the religious doctrine

36 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

of taswiyat al-qubur (leveling of graves), which has been discussed since the very beginning of Islam and was systematically formulated and vigorously promoted by Salafi religious scholars.109 Its proponents demanded that graves be leveled to the ground because they became, or had the potential to become, idols (wathan), or objects of veneration leading to idolatry (shirk). IS’s iconoclasm, inherent in the doctrine of taswiyat alqubur, is thus closely related to the ritual practices performed during tomb visits (ziyarat al-qubur). In the following pages, we will present the development of this doctrine from the beginnings of Islamic civilization to its adoption by IS, and through the analysis of propaganda texts and videos, we will show how the organization incorporated it into the rationale for its destructive campaigns in the city. 1.5.1  Sources of IS’s Religious Ideology Admittedly, the ideological backgrounds and motivations of individual IS members can differ significantly. However, many acts and statements originating from IS as an organization can clearly be placed in the category usually termed Wahhabism–Salafism or, more precisely, Jihadi Salafism. In one of his speeches, the former leader of IS, Abu ʽUmar al-Baghdadi (d. 2010), clearly appealed “to all Sunnis, and to the young men of Jihadi  Salafism (al-salafiya al-jihadiya) in particular, across the entire world” (Bunzel 2015, 7). Salafism is an offshoot of Sunni Islam that refers to the example of the early Muslim community of “pious predecessors” (al-salaf al-salih) as the model to follow in all areas of life, both religious and private. In the majority view, the first three Muslim generations are considered to be salaf: the Prophet Muhammad and his companions (sahaba), their successors (tabiʽun), and finally the successors of the successors (tabiʽu al-tabiʽin). For Salafi Muslims, religious identity stems from the Quran and the Prophetic tradition and is passed down from generation to generation. Correspondingly, following the methodology (manhaj) of “pious predecessors” represents for them the desired ideal and ultimate goal.110 One of the most distinctive features of Salafism is its unique theological concept, which is based on the Hanbali madhhab. Although there have historically been a variety of Salafi movements, which have often been antagonistic to each other, they have always referred to one common source of religious thought: the monumental work of Taqi al-Din Ahmad ibn Taymiya (1263–1328). This prominent medieval theologian and

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

37

jurist, who lived in Damascus and Cairo during the Mamluk period, witnessed an extreme expansion of funerary monuments of many different types, from the monumental mausolea of rulers and urban elites, constructed within large funerary complexes usually also containing mosques, schools, and Sufi lodges, to humble constructions above the graves of local pious figures. All were revered for a reason: they served either to provide lasting posthumous benefits for buried secular monarchs or, conversely, to bestow the blessing of God upon visitors through the intercession of the entombed pious men. For Ibn Taymiya, the latter practice in particular was untenable. He provided the first-ever systematic and elaborated rejection of the idea that visiting and venerating tombs was permissible. On one hand, he pointed to the danger that visiting tombs and praying in them in order to ask the deceased for help and intercession (shafaʽa) could cause doctrinal impurity and become a source of idolatry (shirk). On the other hand, visiting tombs with the intention of greeting the deceased and delivering an invocative prayer (duʽaʼ) without asking for intercession or help, and bestowing honors on them was, according to Ibn Taymiya, legally sound. His criticism did not have much immediate impact. His legal views were considered extreme even by his contemporaries, and only fringe Muslim scholars continued to propagate them (e.g., his closest disciple Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziya, 1292–1350). However, this was to change in the eighteenth century, when his thought started to have a decisive influence on later Salafi movements.111 Many of Ibn Taymiya’s ideas were elaborated into a refutation of the cult of grave veneration by the founder of the Wahhabi movement, Muhammad ibn ʽAbd al-Wahhab (1703–1792). This religious leader from central Arabia continually stressed the absolute applicability of the concept of the unity of God (tawhid) and waging holy war (jihad) against all manifestations of idolatry (shirk), even going so far as to recommend excommunication (takfir) of all resisting fellow Muslims. According to him, the origin of idolatry was precisely the exaggerated worship of graves, which he, therefore, condemned in all forms. In this matter, he adopted a stricter stance than Ibn Taymiya. Muhammad ibn ʽAbd al-Wahhab’s ideas fueled armed Wahhabi campaigns in the Arabian Peninsula in the time of the first Saudi state (1744–1818) and also in Iraq at the very beginning of the nineteenth century. They pillaged the towns of Karbala and Basra, killed thousands of Shiʽi inhabitants, and destroyed tombs, including the mausoleum of the Prophet’s grandson, Imam al-Husayn. Shortly afterward (in 1803, and then again in 1805), they entered Mecca and Medina, which

38 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

also lost many tombs, including those of the close family members and companions of the Prophet Muhammad in the famous al-Baqiʽ cemetery. This emphasis on the destruction of tombs evolved into one of the central doctrinal positions of the official Saudi religious authorities, who promote it, both domestically and internationally, to this day (Beránek and Ťupek 2018).112 In its worldview, IS clearly belongs to one of the constituent strands of the global Salafi movement. Although it defines itself in opposition to Saudi Arabia, it also considers itself the successor to the Salafi-Wahhabi tradition. According to its own words, IS was especially inspired by the first Saudi state, which led unsparing Jihad against Shiʽa and destroyed a large number of tombs. In response to the loss of some Syrian territories in 2015, IS borrowed, for its commentary in Dabiq magazine, the words of Saʽud ibn ʽAbd al-ʽAziz ibn Muhammad ibn Saʽud (d. 1229/1814), one of the first Saudi leaders, taken from a letter to the-then Ottoman governor of Baghdad, Sulayman Pasha: We only fight and declare the kufr of one who commits shirk with Allah, sets up a partner for Allah whom he calls upon just as he calls upon Allah, whom he slaughters for just as he slaughters for Allah, whom he vows oaths to just as he vows oaths to Allah, whom he fears just as he fears Allah, and whom he seeks rescue from at [the] times of distress and need, as well as he who fights in defense of the idols and the domes built upon the graves, which have been taken as idols that are worshipped besides Allah. If you are truthful in your claim that you are upon the religion of Islam and are the followers of the Messenger, then demolish all those idols and flatten them to the ground, and repent to Allah from all shirk and bidʽa … And whoever directs an act of worship to [anyone] other than Allah from amongst the dead or living, prohibit him from doing so … And, if he does not refrain from that except if he is fought, then it is obligatory to fight him until he makes the religion, all of it, for Allah.113

In these points, the similarity is certainly striking. IS adopted the very same positions toward graves, but unlike other radical organizations, it was unfortunately able to apply them brutally, consistently, and without restraint in its occupied territories.114 In this regard we should seriously consider the possibility that the destruction of tombs by IS may have not been an expression of sheer barbarism, but was, to some extent, a fulfillment of a perceived religious duty.

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

39

A harsh attitude toward funerary sites and shrines had already been expressed by the IS leader (2006–2010) Abu ʽUmar al-Baghdadi, who considered “the necessity to destroy and eradicate all manifestations of idolatry (shirk) and prohibit the means leading to it” to be one of the fundamentals of the organization. The explicit consequences of this stance were made clear by a quotation from the Prophetic hadith narrated by Abu al-Hayyaj al-Asadi, which states: “Do not leave a statue without destroying it, or a raised grave without leveling it” (al-Baghdadi 2010, 14). The very same hadith was quoted in the 13th article of the “Wathiqat al-Madina” (Charter of the City) issued by the organization only three days after the seizure of the town.115 The mere quotation of this hadith was used as a strict, yet unequivocal, explanation of IS’s stance in relation to tombs and shrines. The religious ideology of IS is not a comprehensive system of ideas that is elaborated in detail in original texts. Instead, their ideologues rely on Islamic canonical texts (the Quran and collections of Prophetic narratives, as well as classical Arabic historiography), medieval Salafi treatises (by Ibn Taymiya and his student Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziya), Wahhabi texts (by Muhammad ibn ʽAbd al-Wahhab and his descendants and ideological followers), and the work of the Yemeni Salafi scholar Muhammad ibn ʽAli al-Shawkani (1760–1834), from which the organization extracts arguments for its ideological reasoning.116 IS can be heavily and oftentimes purposefully selective, unable to encapsulate the long evolution and intricacies of Salafi thought. In consequence, their conclusions often involve short cuts. That, however, does not change the fact that IS has managed to skillfully recast Salafi ideas into very effective religious propaganda, often presented in an attractive multimedia form. In the following pages we will present specific content of textual and video materials produced by IS in relation to the destruction of funerary architecture in the province of Ninawa. These are, specifically, two pictorial reports on the first two waves of destruction in Mosul (June and July 2014) interlaced with quotations from the Quran, Prophetic sayings and extracts from texts by Salafi authors (al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2014b, 2014c), two short treatises on the necessity of destruction (al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2014d, 2014e), and two propaganda videos shot during the demolitions (al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2014–2015, and al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2015). The opinions regulating behavior toward funerary architecture will be dealt with chronologically according to the times individual rules were fixed, so that we are able to discern the basic layers of IS’s reasoning for the demolition campaigns.

40 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

1.5.2  Quranic Verses Passages from the Quran were specifically chosen to emphasize the importance it places on tawhid, the uniqueness of God, as the central concept of Islam, and the negation of worshiping other objects besides God (shirk). It is explicitly pointed out that the Quran rules out the possibility that anyone but God can relieve worshipers from their afflictions (an obvious allusion to the performance of pleading prayers at graves). Indeed, those you [polytheists] call upon besides Allah are servants like you. So call upon them and let them respond to you, if you should be truthful. (Quran 7:194; cit. in al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2014c) Say, “Invoke those you have claimed [as gods] besides Him, for they do not possess the [ability for] removal of adversity from you or [for its] transfer [to someone else].” (Quran 17:56; cit. in al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2014c)

On the contrary, worship should always be directed toward God alone: Maintain yourselves [in worship of Him] at every place [or time] of prostration, and invoke Him, sincere to Him in religion. (Fragment of Quran 7:29; cit. in al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2014c)

Correspondingly, the place of prostration (masjid—mosque) should always be used only for God and never associated with worshiping anything else: And [He revealed] that the masjids are for Allah, so do not invoke with Allah anyone. (Quran 72:18; cit. in al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2014b)

Another Quranic verse was mentioned in reference to an event that happened during the life of the Prophet Muhammad, when he had a mosque destroyed in Medina. The mosque (referred to as Masjid al-Dirar) was reportedly to become the center of opposition to the early Muslim community, as is reflected in the following quotation: And [there are] those [hypocrites] who took for themselves a mosque for causing harm (diraran) and disbelief and division among the believers and as a station for whoever had warred against Allah and His Messenger before. And they will surely swear, “We intended only the best.” And Allah testifies that indeed they are liars. (Quran 9:107; cit. in al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2014b)

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

41

Only later tradition (e.g., al-Tabari) maintained that the mosque was destroyed and probably also burnt down. This detail was utilized by Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziya as a Prophetic precedent to support the argument that it was necessary to destroy mosques built on tombs and shrines (see infra), and for the same reason, it was quoted by IS ideologues. 1.5.3  Prophetic Narratives The hadiths (sayings and traditions related to the Prophet Muhammad) are an essential component of IS’s reasoning of destruction. The organization utilized the narratives that were most often cited by prominent representatives of Salafi teaching to document that the Prophet himself had objected to the construction of tombs and their worship. These represent the very core of the whole concept of taswiyat al-qubur, which IS has presented as an indisputable part of Sunni Islam. Two narratives were chosen to demonstrate that grave worship was a practice borrowed from Judaism and Christianity and, therefore, had nothing to do with Islam: [According to ʽAʼisha] Umm Salama told Allah’s Messenger about a church which she had seen in Ethiopia. She told him about the pictures which she had seen in it. Allah’s Messenger said, ‘If any righteous pious man dies amongst them, they would build a place of worship at his grave and make these pictures in it; they are the worst creatures in the sight of Allah.’ (Sahih al-Bukhari; al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2014c) [According to ʽAʼisha] the Prophet said during his fatal illness: ‘Allah cursed the Jews for they took the graves of their prophets as places for worship.’ ʽAʼisha added: ‘Had it not been for that [statement of the Prophet] his grave would have been made conspicuous. But he was afraid that it might be taken as a place for worship.’ (Sahih al-Bukhari; al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2014b)

Two more Prophetic sayings were quoted to illustrate the Prophet’s explicit prohibition of the use of graves as places of worship, and to specify in more detail what types of construction work on graves were forbidden: [According to Jundub ibn ʽAbd Allah al-Bajali] I heard from the Messenger of Allah five days before his death and he said: ‘Beware of those who preceded you and used to take the graves of their prophets as places of worship, but you must not take graves as mosques; I forbid you to do that.’ (Sahih Muslim; al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2014c)

42 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

[According to Jabir] The Messenger of God forbade plastering  a grave, building over  it and paving it. (al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2014b; cit. in al-­ Shawkani 2011, 28)

Finally, the above-mentioned hadith narrated by Abu al-Hayyaj al-Asadi became IS’s reference narrative for destruction, further demonstrating that the regulation concerning the destruction of tombs was also obeyed and employed by the Prophet’s companions, such as, for example, the future Caliph ʽAli ibn Abi Talib: [According to Abu al-Hayyaj al-Asadi] ʽAli ibn Abi Talib told me: ‘Should I not send you on the same mission as Allah’s Messenger sent me? Do not leave a statue (timthal) without obliterating it, or a raised grave without levelling it.’ (Sahih Muslim; al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2014b)

1.5.4  Medieval Classics: Ibn Taymiya and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziya IS excerpted the works of these two authors in a way that corresponds to a shift in opinion from the more moderate Ibn Taymiya to the stricter Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziya. All legal regulations mentioned below were explicitly adopted by the organization in their propaganda materials. Both medieval authors agreed that the combination of a mosque and a tomb was incompatible with Islam. To resolve such a situation, however, Ibn Taymiya offered two equivalent solutions, one of which allowed the mosque to be preserved. The choice of solution depended on the time sequence of the establishment of the funerary and prayer parts of the mosque: “If the mosque was built before the burial, it shall be modified either by leveling the grave (taswiyat al-qabr), or by exhuming it (nabsh), if [the burial] was fresh.” He considers demolition only if the mosque originated after the grave—in which case, however, he still admits either the removal (yazal) of the mosque or the removal of the physical structure (sura) of the tomb (Ibn Taymiya 1971, XIII, 103–4; al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2014c). IS also incorporated into their propaganda materials another of his compromise solutions, which makes it possible to close the mosque (sadd) instead of demolishing it (Ibn Taymiya 1997, II, 449–50; al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2014c). It is obvious that the organization was aware of these compromises, and if we accept that its actions were really inspired by the adopted Salafi regulations, we can consider this to be reflected, for example, in the

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

43

fact that some mosques built on tombs really were only closed, and not demolished. Ibn Taymiya’s disciple, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziya, took a much more unequivocal stance on the destruction of mosques. He even stated that they could be burnt down (tahriq). For his reasoning, he made use of the example of the Prophet Muhammad himself, who had the functional al-­ Dirar Mosque destroyed due to the refractoriness of the mosque’s patron (see supra). Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziya wrote that “if this was possible in the case of the al-Dirar Mosque, then the destruction of idolatrous shrines, whose custodians call for those [buried] inside to be considered equals to God, is more deserving and inevitable” (al-Jawziya 1998, III, 500; al-­ Dawla al-Islamiya 2014c). IS made clear that Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziya demanded, in accordance with Ibn Taymiya, the destruction of only those mosques that were built on graves. In these cases, however, he did not allow any compromises. Only if the grave was incorporated into the mosque ex post facto was the mosque to be preserved and the grave destroyed instead (al-Jawziya 1998, III, 501; al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2014c). In a similar vein, IS stressed that Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziya was also in favor of destroying domed structures (qubba) above graves, although these did not necessarily have to be serving as mosques (al-Jawziya, n.d., I, 380; al-­ Dawla al-Islamiya 2014b). 1.5.5  Educational Leaflets to Sway the Discourse on Destruction? As already stated, IS mostly relied on excerpts from classical studies of earlier Salafi authorities to promote their religious stances. The organization compiled the most comprehensive justification of its destruction of graves from selected parts of the authoritative Salafi treatise, “Sharh al-­ sudur bi-tahrim rafʽ al-qubur” (Opening of the Hearts by Forbidding Elevation of the Graves) by the Yemeni Salafi author Muhammad ibn ʽAli al-Shawkani (al-Shawkani 2011).117 It was released on IS’s Twitter account as a “Specimen of Propaganda Leaflets Distributed in Ninawa Province Shortly Before and During Destruction of Tombs [in Arabic]” and as such should be considered an attempt to justify the ongoing demolitions in the eyes of local people (al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2014d). The short, three-page text is artfully drawn up to leave the reader with the impression that the destruction of graves is an unquestionable doctrine of Sunni Islam, and that no alternative interpretations can be admitted. After introducing

44 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

several Prophetic hadiths, IS quotes al-Shawkani’s assertion that “leveling every raised grave, that exceeds the permitted height, is an imperative duty (wajiba mutahattima; al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2014d, 2; al-Shawkani 2011, 27).” Specifically, he forbids the addition of roofs or domes (qubba) to tombs and the construction of mosques around them. To ensure that the ban is not circumvented, the leaflet specifies that building is forbidden on the grave itself, as well as on the edge of, or in the close proximity to, the grave (al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2014d, 2; al-Shawkani 2011, 28–9). Nearly one-third of the adopted text is devoted to the negative impact that visiting and worshiping graves have on the social and economic life of devotees. This selection is quite odd given the fact that al-Shawkani commented on these aspects through the prism of Yemeni society in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Nevertheless, it is understandable, as al-Shawkani’s text is quite suggestive in this regard, and it seems that IS had the ambition of addressing less educated people through non-­ theological arguments as well. Thus, according to al-Shawkani, the main explanation for worship of the deceased was the activity of Satan, who persuaded people to erect tombs, cover them with clothes and adorn them with the most sophisticated decoration, light them with lamps, and scent them with incense burners. The splendor of such tombs is what attracts believers and sows trust in their hearts, along with the expectation that they can “ask the entombed for what only God can do, and this leads them away among idolaters” (al-Dawla alIslamiya 2014d, 2–3; al-Shawkani 2011, 33–4). The tombs’ visitors accentuate their requests for help with financial support or material donations, as they believe that this will help them to get nearer to God and achieve retribution in the afterlife. However, they do not bring their donations—including animals ritually slaughtered by the tombs—to God. Instead, “they worship with them an idol (wathan)! Since there is no difference between slaughtering [animals] intended to be sacrificed by the erected stones they call an idol, and the grave of the deceased they call a grave” (al-Dawla alIslamiya 2014d, 3; al-Shawkani 2011, 38). The leaflet accuses the attendants of tombs of deliberately supporting visitors in worshiping the dead by inventing lies about miraculous acts (karamat), which they incessantly disseminate in order to further strengthen the interest of worshipers in visiting tombs. As al-Shawkani puts it, the only motive for this “cheating of visitors” is to acquire part of their property. He says that “by this damned expedient and evil instrument, the charitable endowments (awqaf ) to the benefit of tombs have

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

45

multiplied and reached a huge sum of money.” If all revenues of these endowments were gathered, they would be enough to “feed the population of a great Muslim village! And if these endowments were sold, God would enrich a huge group of paupers with them” (al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2014d, 3; al-Shawkani 2011, 36). In the latter citation, IS intervened and made a slight adjustment to the text when changing al-Shawkani’s “population of a great Muslim village” to that of “a great Muslim city.” This was, in fact, its only significant “update” almost two centuries after the original text had been written. It is difficult to judge the extent to which the text could have had an impact on the environment of modern Mosul. The choice of topic, however, testifies to IS’s efforts to augment the discourse on the legality of building over graves with a socio-economic component. IS thus presents its demolitions not only as part of a legitimate struggle against idolatry (shirk) but also—rather absurdly, we might add—as resulting from a desire to protect other people’s property. Another leaflet, “Decisive Speech on the Legitimacy of the Destruction of the Alleged Tombs of the Prophets of God [in Arabic]” (al-Dawla al-­ Islamiya 2014e), was designed especially for the inhabitants of Mosul because it deals with its four prophets, Yunus, Jirjis, Shith, and Daniyal. According to the imam and preacher of the Prophet Yunus Mosque, it was issued very shortly after the demolitions.118 As is obvious from the content, it was created in direct response to protests from Mosul residents (see supra) and criticism from some religious scholars. IS must have been aware that demolition of the Prophets’ mosques was too much for the local people and quickly rushed to defend its actions. The leaflet is an anonymous, albeit original rather than adapted text, with elements of defensive apologetics, but firmly standing for the legitimacy of the destruction. It starts with a strained description of the situation before the organization took over the city: The people of this town have lived for a long time and suffered under the oppression of indomitable paganism (wathaniya), misguided by the scholars of evil and erroneous shaykhs, who frothed, shuddered, roused, and menaced when Islamic State was eradicating false tombs of prophets, upon them be peace, which are but fabricated and faked shrines of lies and falseness. Their only purpose was to steal and collect money from ingenuous and simple people in the name of religion. The time has come for these false shrines and monuments of lies to be eradicated, after God gave strength to the people of monotheism (ahl al-tawhid) on the Earth. (al-Dawla al-­ Islamiya 2014e, 1)

46 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

What follows is a short excursion into medieval authoritative views of the knowledge of true burial places of individual prophets. The burial of Yunus in Nineveh is ruled out on the basis of Ibn Taymiya’s claim that only the grave of the Prophet Muhammad is securely known in Islam (the status of that of one other figure—Abraham—is controversial). Otherwise, the tombs of prophets, with the explicit mention of Yunus, are unknown. As for Jirjis, the existence of his tomb in Mosul is rejected with reference to Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 923), who described the town after the prophet’s martyrdom as totally burned to ashes, which IS rather forcedly interprets as proof that the location of the grave could not have been known, and that the grave itself could not have been preserved. Also, with reference to al-Tabari, the leaflet refuses to recognize both the tomb of Shith, because he was allegedly buried in Mecca, and the tomb of Daniyal, who was buried in al-Sus (in the Khuzestan province of Iran). The logic behind the destruction of the tombs of the prophets thus seems to have been turned on its head when compared to IS’s earlier reasoning. In these particular cases, the organization destroyed them—in its words—not because of the presence of graves, but, on the contrary, because these were not the graves of prophets, but those of fabricated, fake idols. This surely does not mean that the organization would refrain from destroying them, should, hypothetically, the historical sources confirm their authenticity. Such reasoning more likely reveals the main objective for which the leaflet was issued: to placate the outraged reactions of the city’s residents and some religious scholars, who accused IS of disrespecting prophets, which is a provocative allegation even to a Jihadi organization like IS. This is why the organization reacted as follows: One of the means of the opponents in instigating the sentiment of the common Muslims and illiterate ones against the [Islamic] State is to claim that their members despise awliyaʼ (saints) and the dead (amwat) and do not extol them! This is an obvious deceit. (al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2014e, 3)

What follows is an attempt to penetrate to a deeper layer of the Salafi teaching about visiting graves, where IS, maybe surprisingly, advocates a rather moderate approach: If the aim of exalting (taʽzim) of awliyaʼ and the dead is according to sunna, such as visiting them, greeting them, delivering invocative prayer (duʽaʼ) toward them, honoring their tombs, not disdaining them, etc., then this is

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

47

what the people of sunna profess and do, and among them Islamic State, both [its] commanders and soldiers. But if its aim is to glorify them (taqdis), raise them to the level of divinity (uluhiya) and deity (rububiya), worship them, or accomplish around their tombs heretical novelties (bidaʽ), such as building on them, lighting them, plastering them (tajsis), seeking blessing in them, and making them mosques, this is [in fact] an insult toward awliyaʼ and believers, and hardship toward the Messenger of God and disgrace toward God, the Lord of Mankind. (al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2014e, 3)

In this final section, IS deviates from the position of extremist Salafism (represented primarily by Muhammad ibn ʽAbd al-Wahhab), which forbids grave visits per se, and tends toward the more moderate approach of Ibn Taymiya and al-Shawkani, who both considered the ziyara of tombs to be a plausible phenomenon, but only on the condition that several rules were followed. That, however, does not change the fact that IS obviously expressed this view toward ziyara to refute the accusation that they had disrespected Mosul’s prophets. The demolitions were instead legitimized through the alleged falseness of the tombs. Nevertheless, the result was the same: the loss of some Mosul’s most significant religious monuments. 1.5.6  IS’s Video Production Short video clips featuring real shots of destruction are undoubtedly the most impressive part of the propaganda campaign conducted by IS against the tombs. The films were usually produced to a high professional standard. In terms of content, however, they deviate somewhat from the well-­ arranged logic of religious reasoning, as was shown through the above-mentioned written materials. There was, of course, a reason for this: the films were designed to impress the audience, rather than impart knowledge. In one of the videos, shot in Mosul during the demolition of the Imam Muhsin Mosque in 2015, the destruction is clearly not meant to intimidate, but to “celebrate” IS’s actions in the fight against idolatrous tombs. IS is presented, in a reference to Quranic verse, as “the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind” that “[enjoins] what is right (maʽruf ) and forbids what is wrong (munkar)” (Quran 3:110). An IS member, who was probably the one responsible for the demolition, comments as follows:

48 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Allah has chosen us among the Jews and Christians and made us the best nation that ever existed among humanity, because we enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong […] This is the removal of graves, the removal of idolatry. [… IS] cleans mosques and removes graves from mosques. It cleanses mosques from tombs and proclaims the unity of Allah (tawhid). (al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2015)

The comments on demolitions made at the scene often appear to have been improvised by soldiers, rather than authored by the ideologues of the organization. In this regard, it can be interesting to make an excursion to the north of the neighboring province of Salahaddin, where another film about the destruction of tombs was made. In this film, the word “grave” was rarely mentioned by the commenting protagonists.119 The whole discourse presented above, about the permissibility of construction over graves, was narrowed down to mere proclamations about the proscription of the veneration of idols (wathan), which are clearly identified here with the demolished tombs. In one case, the majestic and archaeologically unique Mausoleum of Shaykh Muhammad al-Duri was even marked as a timthal (statue). In another case, the destruction of the Shrine of Sayyid Fadil, the IS leader remarked: For many years, this idol (wathan) has been considered equal to Allah […] Today, this idol has become sinful […] Let it defend itself if there is some good thing (khayr) in it. After all, it is just a stone, like the idols that were in the shrine (maʽbad) of the Quraysh [in Mecca]. (al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2014–2015)

1.5.7  Last Remnants of Idolatry: Ancient Assyrian Heritage and Shi ʽi Mosque Now, for the sake of completeness, let us briefly stop at two forms of IS’s iconoclasm in Mosul: the destruction of the vestiges of Ancient Mesopotamian religions and the demolition of the Shiʽi mosque. Both acts also had obvious religious rationales, which were also articulated in the propaganda materials of the organization. IS’s reasoning for the destruction of pre-Islamic statues, carved reliefs, and, by extension, also architectural remains, was briefly presented in an introductory statement accompanying the video issued after the destruction of Mosul Museum and the winged lamassu in Nineveh in February 2015. The IS radical standing in front of one artifact says:

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

49

O, Muslims. These vestiges (athar) that are behind me are idols (asnam and awthan)120 of peoples of previous centuries, which were worshipped apart from Allah. The Assyrians and Akkadians and others took for themselves gods of rain, gods of agriculture, and gods of war, and made them partners of Allah and favored them with various sacrifices. (al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2015a)

The logic of this explanation is similar to that used in the case of taswiyat al-qubur: to get rid of items that became or could become objects of idolatry.121 In its report on the Museum’s destruction for Dabiq magazine, the organization informed readers that “the soldiers of the Khilafa, with sledgehammers in hand, revived the Sunnah of their father Ibrahim when they laid waste to the shirki [idolatrous] legacy of a nation that had long passed from the face of the Earth” (Dabiq 2015b, 22). The obligation to destroy Ancient Mesopotamian antiquities is largely interspersed with references to known historical analogies. The Quran provides a number of references to the destruction of whole idolatrous generations (Quran 38:3, 17:17, and 30:42; Dabiq 2015b, 22–3), or the smashing of idolatrous statues by the prophet Ibrahim (Quran 21:58; al-­ Dawla al-Islamiya 2015a; Dabiq 2015b, 22). From early Islamic tradition, IS borrowed reports of the Prophet Muhammad’s destruction of the idols in Kaaba (al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2015a; Dabiq 2015b, 22), and of his companions who, instructed by the Prophet, did the same elsewhere in the Arabian Peninsula (Dabiq 2015a, 28).122 As for the Shiʽi mosque and husayniya (congregational hall designated for Muharram mourning ceremonies), its destruction can be fully explained by IS’s open hatred of Shiʽis, whom the organization does not recognize as part of the Muslim community but, on the contrary, considers apostates (murtaddun) who should be declared non-believers (takfir). Dabiq magazine mentions their excessive adherence to the cult of veneration of tombs as their fundamental transgression: They are the sect most famous for grave-worship amongst all deviant sects. Much grave-worship that entered into pockets of “Ahlus-Sunnah” (Sunnis) originated from Rafd and the Rafidah (Shiʽis) /…/. The Rafidah now prostrate themselves before graves and circumambulate them. They supplicate the buried and seek intercession from them. Their hearts are attached to them more than Allah! This shirki (idolatrous) apostasy is something of which all of them—both their leaders and laymen—are guilty. If this were their only kufr (blasphemy), it would be more than sufficient to declare them all apostates. (Dabiq 2016b, 36)

50 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Although the Shiʽi mosque destroyed in Mosul most probably did not contain a tomb, IS’s general obsessive hatred of the Shiʽa made it a very easy and desirable target. As mentioned above, more Shiʽi mosques and tombs were destroyed in the hinterland of Mosul during one of the organization’s demolition campaigns. The content of the propaganda materials that IS produced in relation to the demolition campaigns in Mosul shows that the organization attached great importance to communicating the reasons for its actions. And, perhaps surprisingly, their forms of communication are far from what we might call an attempt to shock or terrify the audience. On the contrary, the textual parts apparently aim to explain IS’s motives for the destruction, at least for the most part, directly to the city’s residents, including the religious elite. It is unlikely that IS’s propaganda production could convince more liberal-minded people. However, in the environment of Mosul, that had many years of experience with radical Salafism—which was gaining more and more followers in the city—such propaganda could effectively soften up some of the city’s inhabitants, providing a reminder that IS’s destructive campaigns did not conflict with historically verifiable attitudes of Salafi authoritative scholars to funerary and commemorative architecture. That is why they made use of traditional texts, or textual excerpts, as well as examples of revered figures from Islam’s history, and based on them, they guided readers through the most important layers of Salafi arguments against erecting tombs and building above them. All the presented arguments are inherent in the religious doctrine of taswiyat al-­ qubur (leveling of graves), requiring tombs and the buildings above them to be razed to the ground to prevent them from becoming subject to idolatry. The same logic was used in the case of the destruction of ancient Assyrian artifacts. Of course, nowhere has the organization admitted that there have always been alternative views on this matter, which are—not surprisingly—held by the vast majority of religious authorities. When comparing the pro-destruction arguments adopted by IS with the set of monuments that they actually targeted with the obvious intention of ruining them or razing them to the ground, we cannot but state that these particular actions very accurately followed the proclaimed religious ideology; the great majority of destroyed sites were funerary or commemorative structures with a strong potential for ritual visits (ziyara), which Salafi texts specifically connect with the threat of idolatry. It is obvious that the opinions presented in the deliberate propaganda agitation were not necessarily an expression of the thinking and inclination of every

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

51

single member of the organization, among either ideologues and regular fighters or administrators. There certainly could have been a variety of motivations that should not be understated, such as the terroristic rationale, the impact of the political context, or skillful manipulation of the sentiments of religiously uneducated regular members of the organization by IS leaders, among others. However, they were all members of the same organization, which openly and systematically spoke out against funerary architecture while referencing, in this matter, the Salafi interpretations of Islam. And it was unfortunately in Mosul that the most radical attitudes of the centuries-long Salafi discourse on the permissibility of funerary architecture were put into practice without any restraint, leading to all the tragic consequences that can be observed today.

Notes 1. Daniel Byman, “The Six Faces of the Islamic State,” 20 December 2015, Lawfareblog. https://www.lawfareblog.com/six-faces-islamic-state. 2. An interesting overview of several such conflicting—or rather mutually reinforcing—accounts by Arab authors is provided in Eido, Issam. 2014. “ISIS: The Explosion of Narratives—The Land of the Revolution Between Political and Metaphysical Eternities.” Jadaliyya, October 3, 2014. www.jadaliyya.com/Details/31290/ISIS-The-Explosion-ofNarratives-The-Land-of-the-Revolution-Between-Political-andMetaphysical-Eternities. 3. For the most useful overview of the evolution of militant Islamism in the past several decades see Hegghammer 2006. 4. For more details about al-Zarqawi, see especially Brisard 2005; Warrick 2015; Gerges 2016, particularly chapter 2; Fishman 2016, particularly chapters 1 and 2; or Milelli 2008. 5. See, for example, Amnesty International. 2014. “Absolute Impunity: Militia Rule in Iraq.” Accessed April 16, 2020. https://www.amnesty. org/download/Documents/8000/mde140152014en.pdf, p.  4. For similar claims see also Human Rights Watch. 2016. “Iraq: Possible War Crimes by Shia Militia.” January 31, 2016. https://www.hrw.org/ news/2016/01/31/iraq-possible-war-crimes-shia-militia. For a general discussion about the evolution of Sunni-Shiʽi antagonism in Iraq, see, for example, Haddad 2014. For the discussion of the role of Iraq’s statesponsored paramilitary Popular Mobilisation Units, see al-Khoei 2019, 99–110. 6. For more about the evolution of the dispute between al-Qaʽida and IS, see Zelin 2014; McCants 2015, especially chapter 4; Bunzel 2015, 25–30; or Stern and Berger 2015, chapter 8.

52 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

7. For the evolution of the Syrian part of the story, see mainly Lister 2015; or Dagher 2019. 8. For a detailed analysis of al-Baghdadi, see especially William McCants 2015. “The Believer.” Brookings, September 1, 2015. http://csweb. brookings.edu/content/research/essays/2015/thebeliever.html. See also Fishman 2016, especially 149–55. 9. Chulov, Martin. 2014. “Isis: The Inside Story.” The Guardian, December 11, 2014. 10. For an account of Mosul’s seizure, see, for example, Sly, Liz, and Ahmed Ramadan. 2014. “Insurgents seize Iraqi city of Mosul as security forces flee.” The Washington Post, June 10, 2014. www.washingtonpost.com/ world/insurgents-seize-iraqi-city-of-mosul-as-troops-flee/2014/06/10/ 21061e87-8fcd-4ed3-bc94-0e309af0a674_story.html; Parker, Ned, Isabel Coles, and Raheem Salman. 2014. “Special Report: How Mosul fell—An Iraqi general disputes Baghdad’s story.” Reuters, October 14, 2014. www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-gharawi-special-report/ special-report-how-mosul-fell-an-iraqi-general-disputes-baghdads-storyidUSKCN0I30Z820141014. For a detailed discussion of the factors leading to the conquest of Mosul, based on eyewitness accounts, see Abdulrazaq and Stansfield 2016. 11. Parker, Ned, Isabel Coles, and Raheem Salman. 2014. “Special Report: How Mosul fell—An Iraqi general disputes Baghdad’s story.”  Reuters, October 4, 2014.  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisisgharawi-special-report-idUSKCN0I30Z820141014. 12. Zangana, Haifa. 2014. “Limadha rahhaba ahl al-Mawsil bi-Daʽish?” Al-Quds al-ʽArabi, June 23, 2014.  https://www.alquds.co.uk/ ‫بداعش؟‬-‫الموصل‬-‫اهل‬-‫رحب‬-‫لماذا‬/. 13. “What Life is Like in Iraq’s City of Mosul Under ISIS Rule.” NBC News, July 9, 2014. https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iraq-turmoil/whatlife-iraqs-city-mosul-under-isis-rule-n151461. 14. West Mosul. Perceptions on Return and Reintegration Among Stayees, IDPs and Returnees. International Organization for Migration Iraq, June 2019. Accessed December 25, 2019. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Perceptions%20on%20return%20and%20reintegration%20%28June%202019%29.pdf, 16. 15. See, for example, Mohammed, Omar. 2018. “Mosul Will Never Be the Same.” Interview by Andy Clarno. Middle East Report 287, summer 2018. https://merip.org/2018/10/mosul-will-never-be-the-same/. 16. On this matter, see al-Tamimi (2015), who traced the development of the administration of IS from its origins in 2006 until the occupation of Mosul. The list of Diwans can be found in ibid., 124. For an insight into IS’s specific administrative methods, see, for example, Callimachi, Rukmini. 2018. “The ISIS Files.” The New York Times, April 4, 2018.

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

53

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/04/04/world/middleeast/isis-documents-mosul-iraq.html. 17. Coles, Isabel. 2015. “Despair, hardship as Iraq cuts off wages in Islamic State cities.” Reuters, October 2, 2015. https://www.reuters.com/article/ us-mideast-crisis-iraq-salaries/despair-hardship-as-iraq-cuts-off-wagesin-islamic-state-cities-idUSKCN0RW0V620151002. 18. Hansen-Lewis and Shapiro 2015, 143–6; Watson, Andrea. 2015. “How Antiquities Are Funding Terrorism.” Financial Times, June 29, 2015. https://www.ft.com/content/fbecb8a2-09df-11e5-a6a8-00144feabdc0. 19. Gelvin 2018, 100; “Citizens of Mosul Endure Economic Collapse and Repression Under ISIS Rule.” The Guardian, October 27, 2014. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/27/citizens-mosuliraq-economic-collapse-repression-isis-islamic-state. 20. Coles, Isabel. 2015. “Despair, hardship as Iraq cuts off wages in Islamic State cities.” Reuters, October 2, 2015. https://www.reuters.com/ article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-salaries/despair-hardship-as-iraq-cuts-offwages-in-islamic-state-cities-idUSKCN0RW0V620151002. 21. Abdul-Ahad, Ghaith. 2018. “How the People of Mosul subverted ISIS ‘Apartheid.’” The Guardian, January 30, 2018. https://www.theguardian. com/cities/2018/jan/30/mosul-isis-apartheid. 22. West Mosul. Perceptions on Return and Reintegration Among Stayees, IDPs and Returnees. International Organization for Migration Iraq, June 2019. Accessed December 25, 2019. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb. int/files/resources/Perceptions%20on%20return%20and%20reintegration%20%28June%202019%29.pdf, 17. 23. The images were taken on 15 November 2013, 21 August 2014, 22 December 2014, 7 March 2015, 6 May 2015, 21 June 2015, 29 August 2015, 21 May 2016, 16 September 2016, 7 April 2017, and 12 July 2017. 24. ASOR, for example, has highlighted the problem of automatically linking all destruction to IS without any direct evidence using the example of the destruction of the St. Elijah Monastery in the southern neighborhood of Mosul. See Danti et al. 2015, 2–7. 25. “Baʽda tafjir masjiday al-nabi Yunus wa al-imam ʽAwn … Daʽish tufajjiru al-nabi Sith.” CNN Arabic, July 26, 2014. https://arabic.cnn.com/ middleeast/2014/07/26/iraq-isis-prophet-sheth-mosque-damage. 26. Probably meaning Diwan al-daʽwa wa al-masajid responsible for daʽwa activities and control of mosques. Al-Tamimi 2015, 124. 27. “Musallahu Daʽish yahdimuna mazaran diniyan gharbi al-Mawsil.” Al-Sumariya, June 24, 2014. https://www.alsumaria.tv/news/103963/ alsumaria-news/ar.

54 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

28. “Al-ʽIraq yaqbidu ʽala mufti Daʽish “al-badin”.” Sky News ʽArabiya, January 17, 2020. https://www.skynewsarabia.com/middle-east/1313495‫البدين‬-‫داعش‬-‫مفتي‬-‫يقبض‬-‫العراق‬-‫“ ;صور‬Mufti Daʽish al-sharʽi: Haddamna maraqid al-Mawsil istinadan li-hadith nabawi.” Al-Ghad, November 16, 2014. https://alghad.com/‫ا‬-‫الموصل‬-‫مراقد‬-‫هدمنا‬-‫الشرعي‬-‫داعش‬-‫مفتى‬/. 29. Al-Taʼi, Khalid. 2019. “Nahhatun min al-Mawsil yaʽmaluna ʽala ihyaʼ maʽalim al-madina.” Diyaruna, May 1, 2019. https://diyaruna.com/ ar/articles/cnmi_di/features/2019/05/01/feature-01. 30. “Anbaʼ ʽan harq musallahi Daʽish ʽiddat kanaʼis wa hadm qabr muʼarrikh fi al-Mawsil.” RT, June 16, 2014. https://arabic.rt.com/news/715489‫داعش_كنائس_مؤرخ_الموصل‬/. 31. “Musallahu Daʽish yahdumuna mazaran diniyan gharbi al-Mawsil.” al-­ Sumariya, June 24, 2014. https://www.alsumaria.tv/news/103963/ alsumaria-news/ar; Mamoun, Abdelhak. 2014. “ISIL destroys Mosul mosques, pillages contents.” Iraqi News, July 6, 2014. https://www. iraqinews.com/features/urgent-isil-destroys-mosul-mosques-pillagescontents/. 32. “Al-ahali yatasadduna li-muhawalat Daʽish hadm marqad dini akhar gharb al-Mawsil.” Abna24, June 24, 2014. https://ar.abna24.com/ service/iraq/archive/2014/06/24/618697/story.html. 33. Layla Saleh (Gilgamesh Center Baghdad), pers.comm. 34. Two June demolition cases from Mosul (Tomb of Ibn al-Athir and Mosque of Shaykh Fathi) were also reported. Al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2014b; Dabiq 2014a, 14–17; see also “Daʽish takhtatifu Turkoman Shiʽa wa tudammiru mazarat.” Al-Wasat, June 29, 2014. http://www.alwasatnews.com/news/900075.html. 35. “Musallahun yufajjiruna marqad al-imam Yahya Abu al-Qasim gharbi al-­ Mawsil.” Al-Sumariya, July 23, 2014. https://www.alsumaria.tv/ news/106326/; “Daʽish tufajjiru maqam al-nabi Daniyal gharbi al-­ Mawsil.” Buratha News Agency, July 23, 2014. http://burathanews. com/arabic/news/243090; “Tafjir jamiʽ wa husayniyat Rawdat al-Wadi fi al-Mawsil bi-­Ninawa.” Alforat News, July 23, 2014. https://alforatnews.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=59798. 36. Mamoun, Abdelhak. 2014. “ISIL destroys Mosque of Biblical Jonah, Prophet Yunus.” Iraqi News, July 25, 2014. https://www.iraqinews. com/features/urgent-isil-destroys-mosque-biblical-jonah-prophetyunus/; “ʽAnasir tanzim Daʽish al-irhabi yanbushun qabr al-nabi Yunus fi madinat al-Mawsil al-ʽiraqiya” Abna 24, July 3, 2014. https://ar.abna24. com/service/iraq/archive/2014/07/03/620970/story.html.

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

55

37. “Daʽish tanbushu qabr ʽAli al-Saghir wa tufajjiru jamiʽ ʽAli al-Hadi fi al-­Mawsil.” Al-Sumariya, July 25, 2014. https://www.alsumaria.tv/ mobile/news/106504/‫في‬-‫الهادي‬-‫علي‬-‫جامع‬-‫وتفجر‬-‫الصغير‬-‫علي‬-‫قبر‬-‫تنبش‬-‫داعش‬. 38. “Daʽish tuzilu marqad al-imam ʽAwn al-Din wasta al-Mawsil.” Noor News, July 24, 2014. http://alnoornews.net/archives/59620/ ‫الم‬-‫وسط‬-‫الدين‬-‫عون‬-‫االمام‬-‫مرقد‬-‫تزيل‬-‫داعش‬/. 39. “Musallahu Daʽish yufajjirun maqam ʽAli al-Asghar ibn al-Hasan ʽalayhima al-salam fi al-Mawsil.” Al-Sumariya, July 25, 2014. https://www.alsumaria. tv/mobile/news/106461/‫ال‬-‫ابن‬-‫األصغر‬-‫علي‬-‫مقام‬-‫يفجرون‬-‫داعش‬-‫مسلحو‬/ar. 40. “Musallahun yahdimun marqad al-nabi Yunus wa yufajjirun marqad al-­ imam Abu al-ʽAla fi al-Mawsil.” Al-Sumariya, July 24, 2014. https://www. alsumaria.tv/news/106425/‫مر‬-‫ويفجرون‬-‫يونس‬-‫النبي‬-‫مرقد‬-‫يهدمون‬-‫مسلحون‬/ar. 41. “Tafjir marqad al-nabi Jirjis wasta al-Mawsil.” Al-Sumariya, July 25, 2014. https://www.alsumaria.tv/news/106517; “Baʽda tafjir masjiday al-nabi Yunus wa al-imam ʽAwn … Daʽish tufajjiru masjid al-nabi Shith.” Nawaret, n.d., https://www.nawaret. com/‫عون‬-‫واإلمام‬-‫يونس‬-‫النبي‬-‫مسجدي‬-‫تفجير‬-‫بعد‬/‫العربي‬-‫العالم‬/‫سياسية‬-‫أخبار‬. 42. “Musallahu Daʽish yufajjirun marqadan diniyan gharbi al-Mawsil.” Al-Sumariya, July 26, 2014. https://www.alsumaria.tv/ news/106570/‫الموص‬-‫غربي‬-‫دينيا‬-‫مرقدا‬-‫يفجرون‬-‫داعش‬-‫مسلحو‬/ar. 43. Al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2014c. We were unable to identify one of the reported cases, namely that of the “shrine (mazar) of the tomb of Shaykh Ibrahim” which certainly is not identical with the Tomb of Shaykh Ibrahim mentioned below and dealt with in the catalogue (Sect. 2.2.4, No. I70), because this one was destroyed only after 21 August. The iconic picture of the exploding dome of the Yahya ibn al-Qasim Shrine also appeared in Dabiq magazine: Dabiq 2014b, 17. 44. A comprehensive report on the destruction of Yazidi monuments has recently been published by RASHID International, Yazda, and EAMENA Project. See Fobbe (ed.) 2019. 45. “Daʽish jufajjiru jamiʽ wa marqadayn wa maqbara bi-l-Mawsil.” Noor News, September 2, 2014. http://alnoornews.net/archives/60505/ ‫بال‬-‫ومقبرة‬-‫ومرقدين‬-‫جامع‬-‫يفجر‬-‫داعش‬-‫عاجل‬/. 46. “Daʽish yughliqu 15 jamiʽan tarikhiyan fi al-Mawsil wasta makhawif min tafjiriha.” Kitabat, December 10, 2014. https://kitabat.com/ news/‫و‬-‫الموصل‬-‫في‬-ً ‫تاريخيا‬-ً ‫جامعا‬-15-‫يغلق‬-‫داعش‬/. 47. “IS militants damage ancient citadel, shrines in Iraq.” Business Standard, December 31, 2014. https://www.business-standard.com/article/ news-ians/is-militants-damage-ancient-citadel-shrines-iniraq-114123100681_1.html.

56 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

48. “Tanzim Daʽish al-irhabi yufajjiru masjid wa madrasa al-Ridwani fi al-­ Mawsil.” Wikalat al-anbaʼ al-wataniya al-ʽiraqiya, December 31, 2014. http://www.wna-news.com/inanews/news.php?extend.34999. 49. “Tanzim Daʽish fajjara jamiʽ ʽAjil al-Yawar fi hajj al-Tayaran janubi al-­ Mawsil.” Sharqiya News, January 1, 2015. https://www.alsharqiya.com/ news/‫الياور‬-‫عجيل‬-‫جامع‬-‫فجر‬-‫داعش‬-‫تنظيم‬-‫مصادر‬/. 50. The media localized the site of destruction to the Suq al-Shaʽʽarin area in the very center of the old town. That is why it was anticipated that the al-­Tahira al-Dakhiliya church has actually been destroyed. The satellite imagery, however, confirmed the destruction of the al-Tahira al-Kharijiya. As for partial destruction of Christian monuments, this will be dealt with below. 51. For the date of destruction, we rely on the information kindly provided by Layla Saleh, pers. comm. (Imam al-ʽAbbas: Feb 11; Shaykh Mansur: February 20) and ʽAmir al-Jumayli (Imam al-ʽAbbas: Feb 15), see alJumayli 2018, 188. 52. Mamoun, Abdelhak. 2014. “ISIL destroys Mosul mosques, pillages contents.” Iraqi News, July 6, 2014. https://www.iraqinews.com/features/ urgent-isil-destroys-mosul-mosques-pillages-contents/; Hattab, Jawwad. 2015. “Daʽish yufajjiru masjidan yaʽudu li-l-qarn 9 li-l-hijra fi al-Mawsil.” Al Arabiya, February 26, 2015. https://www.alarabiya.net/ar/arab-andworld/iraq/2015/02/26/-‫الموصل‬-‫في‬-‫للهجرة‬-9‫للقرن‬-‫يعود‬-‫جامعا‬-‫تفجّر‬-‫داعش‬. 53. The video immediately went viral and was shown by most news agencies. See, for example, Shaheen, Kareem: “ISIS fighters destroy ancient artefacts at Mosul Museum.” The Guardian, February 26, 2015. https:// www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/26/isis-­f ighters-­d estroyancient-­artefacts-­mosul-­museum-­iraq. 54. “Baʽda hadm al-athar … Daʽish yahdimu masjid al-Abariqi al-ʽaʼid li-l-­ ʽahd al-ʽuthmani bi-l-Mawsil.” Al-Akhbar, March 3, 2015. https://akhbaar.org/home/2015/3/186174.html. 55. “Daʽish yahdimu thani masjid yaʽudu ila al-ʽahd al-ʽuthmani wasta al-­ Mawsil.” al-Sumariya, March 6, 2015. https://www.alsumaria.tv/ news/126913/. 56. “Daʽish yukhli thalatha min aqdam jawamiʽ al-Mawsil wa yadaʽu lafita ʽala akhar tamhidan li-tafjiriha.” Al-Sumariya, December 16, 2014. https://www. alsumaria.tv/news/119157/‫ويض‬-‫الموصل‬-‫جوامع‬-‫أقدم‬-‫من‬-‫ثالثة‬-‫يخلي‬-‫داعش‬/ar. 57. “Daʽish yudammiru masjid al-Sitt Nafisa wasta al-Mawsil.” Rudaw, March 9, 2015. https://rudaw.net/arabic/middleeast/iraq/0903201511.

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

57

58. “Tanzim Daʽish yudammiru salib dayr Mar Kurkis bi-l-Mawsil.” Abuna, March 11, 2015. http://www.abouna.org/content/ ‫بالموصل‬-‫كوركيس‬-‫مار‬-‫دير‬-‫صليب‬-‫يدمر‬-‫داعش‬-‫تنظيم‬. 59. “Daʽish yahdimu masjid al-imam Ibrahim gharbi al-Mawsil.” Al-Sumariya, March 11, 2015. https://www.alsumaria.tv/news/ 127427/‫الموص‬-‫غربي‬-‫إبراهيم‬-‫اإلمام‬-‫مسجد‬-‫يهدم‬-‫داعش‬/ar. 60. According to Layla Saleh, pers. comm. Although this was not reported in the media, it was confirmed by satellite imagery. 61. “Daʽish yuzilu jamiʽ wa marqad al-Kharrazi al-athari fi al-Mawsil.” Ankawa, June 24, 2015. http://www.ankawa.com/forum/index. php?topic=784658.0. 62. “Daʽish yahdimu kanisat Mar Ahudama li-tawsiʽ jamiʽ bi-l-janib al-ayman min al-Mawsil.” Ankawa, July 31, 2016. http://www.ankawa.com/ forum/index.php?topic=815255.0. 63. “Battle for Mosul: IS blows up al-Nuri mosque.” BBC, June 21, 2017. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40361857. IS militants reportedly tried to blast the minaret earlier in 2014, but were prevented from doing so by local people. This information appeared, for example, in: “ISIS destroys Prophet Sheth shrine in Mosul.” Al Arabiya, July 25, 2014. http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-­ east/2014/07/26/ISIS-destroy-Prophet-Sheth-shrine-in-Mosul-.html. 64. Chulov, Martin, and Kareem Shaheen. 2017. “Destroying Great Mosque of al-Nuri ‘is ISIS declaring defeat.’” The Guardian, June 22, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/21/mosuls-grand-alnouri-mosque-blown-up-by-isis-fighters. 65. The total destruction of buildings which remained standing at least until the beginning of the liberation operation was reported, for example, in these cases: the Mosque of Maryam Khatun, the Mosque of al-Sabunji, the Mosque of Najib al-Jadir, the Mosque of Shaykh al-Shatt, the Church of the Clock (Kanisat al-saʽa), the Umayyad Mosque, the Mosque of Bakr Efendi, the Bashtabiya fortress, and others. 66. These examples can be found in Ibn al-Khayyat 1966, 79, 90; al-ʽUmari 1955, 120, Note 1. 67. It was recorded for the first time by Yusuf ibn ʽAbd al-Jalil al-Khidri (d. 1825; al-Khidri MS, Fol. 311). 68. Sabri, Subhi. 2013. “Marqad al-Shaykh Fathi…wa al-samt al-muhib al-­ muqaddas.” Al-Diyar al-Lunduniya, February 2, 2013. http://www.aldiyarlondon.com/2012-08-09-12-36-20/1-articles/7562-2013-02-02-10-17-28. 69. Radi, ʽAli Muhsin. 2015.“Daʽish al-irhabi yuzilu jamiʽ wa marqad al-­ Kharrazi al-athari fi al-Mawsil.” Buratha News Agency, June 24, 2015. http://burathanews.com/arabic/news/269574.

58 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

70. Sabri, Subhi. 2013. “Marqad al-shaykh Fathi…wa al-samt al-muhib al-­ muqaddas.” Al-Diyar al-Lunduniya, February 2, 2013. http://www. aldiyarlondon.com/2012-08-09-12-36-20/1-ar ticles/75622013-02-02-10-17-28; these practices were described in the al-Rifaʽiya and al-Qadiriya Sufi groups in Syria. See Pinto 2012, 62–70; In Iraq, these rituals are known among the al-Kasnazaniya branch of the alQadiriya Sufi order and are often described in the media. See, for example, Mercadier, Sylvain. 2018. “Meet the Kasnazani, the Sufi order that practices life-endangering rituals.” The New Arab, November 26, 2018. https://english.alaraby.co.uk/english/indepth/2018/11/26/ meet-the-qadiriyeh. 71. ʽUthman and Muhammad al-Ridwani, and Ahmad al-Sabʽawi were from among the deputies (khalifa) of the al-Qadiriya sufi shaykh Nur al-Din al-­Berefkani (1790–1851), whose brief biographical information can be found in ʽUthman 2008, 49, Note 23. 72. ʽUthman 2008, 42–4; al-Kaylani 2014, 234; Suyufi 1956: 110–11; al-­ Berefkani, Ahmad. 2012. “Sirat wa hayat al-shaykh Nur al-Din al-­ Berefkani.” Attaakhi Daily Newspaper, September 23, 2012. http:// altaakhipress.com/viewart.php?art=18262. 73. The Takiya al-Naqshbandiya was built in 1835 by the Mosul Governor Muhammad Pasha Inje Bayraqdar (1835–44). ʽUthman 2008, 38–9. 74. Omar, Kawa, and Rikar Hussein. 2018. “Mystical Sufi Dancing Rituals Return to Mosul After IS.” VOA, August 27, 2018. https://www. voanews.com/extremism-watch/mystical-sufi-dancingrituals-return-mosul-after. 75. Sultan Uways has also become one of the central figures in later Sufi narratives. The complex of his eponymous mosque in Mosul was the site of the al-Uwaysiya/al-Wisiya Sufi order. 76. The problem of the identity of individual imams will be outlined in the relevant parts of the catalogue. 77. It is worth mentioning that the Mosque of the Sufi Shaykh al-Sabʽawi allegedly had the tomb/shrine of ʽAli al-Asghar’s father, Imam Muhammad ibn a-Hanafiya, on its premises (see Sect. 2.2.4). 78. In Sunni Islam, ahl al-bayt comprises the Prophet, his wives, all their sons and daughters, ʽAli ibn Abi Talib, and his sons al-Hasan and al-Husayn. The title imam is usually applied to leaders of prayer. 79. Qasim, Ahmad, and ʽAli Muhammad. 2019. “Al-Mawsil… siraʽ “al-mawaqiʽ al-diniya” yundhiru bi-ʽawdat al-taʼifiya.” AA, August 21, 2019. https:// www.aa.com.tr/ar/1561184/‫تقرير‬-‫الطائفية‬-‫بعودة‬-‫ينذر‬-‫الدينية‬-‫المواقع‬-‫صراع‬-‫الموصل‬/‫;التقارير‬ al-Shalash, ʽUthman. “Siraʽ taʼifi ʽala maraqid al-Mawsil al-­qadima… al-manazil ahamm am al-masajid?.” UIQ, February 28, 2019. https://ultrairaq.ultrasawt.com/‫سياسة‬/‫الشلش‬-‫عثمان‬/‫المساجد؟‬-‫أم‬-‫أهم‬-‫المنازل‬-‫القديمة‬-‫الموصل‬-‫مراقد‬-‫على‬-‫طائفي‬-‫صراع‬.

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

59

80. The application of the terms is very vague and apparently does not correspond to any specific architectural forms. Mulder Forthcoming; El Sandouby 2008, 13–18. 81. That is why we use the designation “shrine” to distinguish it from a real tomb. 82. Al Faraj wrote his polemical work in 1948 in reaction to the first comprehensive book in Arabic on the monuments of Mosul written by Ahmad al-­Sufi (1940), the former inspector of the heritage directorate in Mosul. 83. Local women reportedly used to visit the shrines of imams in order to cure chronic diseases and achieve conception. See: “al-Mawsil—rahala Daʽish wa baqiyat al-nisaʼ yabhathna ʽan al-Ruqayya.” DW, February 4, 2019. https:// www.dw.com/ar/‫الرقية‬-‫عن‬-‫يبحثن‬-‫النساء‬-‫وبقيت‬-‫داعش‬-‫رحل‬-‫الموصل‬/a-47333514. 84. See, for example, the footage of the destruction of the Shrine and Mosque of Imam al-Muhsin accompanied by the explanation that the site was demolished in order to “cleanse mosques of graves.” See: al-Dawla al-­ Islamiya 2015 (IS propaganda video). 85. See, for example, the documentary film “Jamiʽ al-Khidr (Maʽalim Diniya),” produced by Diwan al-Waqf al-Sunni fi Ninawa. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmaLWFB7IRQ&t=313s. Another maqam of al-Khidr was described as situated by the mihrab of the al-Nuri Mosque (Ibn al-Khayyat 1966, 49). 86. Mamoun, Abdelhak. 2014. “Destruction of Yonus Shrine (Biblical Jonah) protested by Mosul residents. Protest leaders flogged by ISIL.” Iraqi News, July 25, 2014. https://www.iraqinews.com/features/urgentdestruction-yonus-shrine-biblical-jonah-protested-mosul-residentsprotest-leaders-flogged-isil/. 87. Al-Omari Family (@ALOMARI.FAMILY). 2014. Facebook, August 2, 2014. https://ar-ar.facebook.com/ALOMARI.FAMILY/posts/788225 707896820/. The destruction was not corroborated by satellite imagery. 88. “Daʽish yukhli 3 jawamiʽ tarikhiya fi al-Mawsil.” Almada, December 19, 2014. https://almadapaper.net/view.php?cat=117950. 89. The Hadid family was one of three Mosul families that mostly used the cemetery for their burials. Hadid, Samir Bashir. “Al-Mawsil baʽda al-tahrir—al-halqa 21. Tadmir al-turath wa takhribuhu.” Al-Gardeniya, February 11, 2017. https://www.algardenia.com/maqalat/294742017-04-11-16-17-00.html. During the liberation operation, the inhabitants of the al-Mushahada neighborhood used the area of the razed cemetery as a burial ground again. After the war, the bodies began to be exhumed and reburied in family graves elsewhere in the town. See “Mazar li-l-mafjuʽin: Umm al-Tisʽa… maqbara tujassidu alam al-Mawsil.” Niqash, February 22, 2018. https://www.niqash.org/ar/articles/society/5845/. 90. Post-war amateur photographs from the destroyed sections of the Wadi ʽUkab Cemetery circulated on the social media sites. See, for example,

60 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Nabil, Steven. 2018. Facebook, January 12, 2018. https://www.facebook.com/stevennabilofficial/posts/1621887354565340?comment_ id=1621925517894857&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3 A%22R%22%7D. 91. The Islah al-Ziraʽi Cemetery is situated c. 2  km northwest of the Old town perimeter, whereas the al-Karama Cemetery is on the very eastern edge of eastern Mosul. 92. “The War Against Idolatry: Extremists in Mosul Force Their Prisoners to Vandalise Graves.” Niqash, accessed May 17, 2015. http://www.niqash. org/en/articles/security/5180/Extremists-in-Mosul-Force-TheirPrisoners-To-Vandalise-Graves.htm 93. The photos were published by IS and have been widely circulated in the world media. See, for example, Thornhill, Ted, and Robert Verkain. 2015. “ISIS destroy Christian graves and headstones with sledgehammers as Islamist terror group continues its purge against other religions.” Daily Mail, April 17, 2015. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article3043255/ISIS-destroy-Christian-graves-headstones-sledgehammersIslamist-terror-group-continues-purge-against-religions.html. The origin of the photographs was confirmed in: “Syriac Heritage: Mar Thoma Church,” a documentary film. Suryoyo Sat, accessed April 4, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF5M3PTD5e8. The destruction of the cemetery was confirmed by satellite imagery. It happened between 7 March and 6 May 2015. The post-war photos of the destroyed cemetery were published at Mosul Eye. 2018. Twitter, February 3, 2018. https://twitter.com/MosulEye/status/959738189656346630. 94. “Mosul War Cemetery.” CWGC, accessed April 12, 2020. https://www. cwgc.org/find-a-cemetery/cemetery/69702/mosul-war-cemetery/. 95. Monuments of Mosul in Danger. n.d. Accessed April 12, 2020. http:// monumentsofmosul.com/list2/45-­c24. The cemetery originated in the seventeenth century and was substantially reconstructed in 1931. 96. “Irhab Daʽish yufajjiru adriha wa husayniyat fi al-ʽIraq.” Al Arabiya, July 5, 2014. https://www.alarabiya.net/ar/arab-and-world/iraq/2014/ 07/05/‫العراق‬-‫في‬-‫وأضرحة‬-‫مراقد‬-‫لتفجير‬-‫صورا‬-‫ينشر‬-‫داعش‬. 97. Mosul Eye. Twitter, February 3, 2018. https://twitter.com/MosulEye/ status/959737951990272000. 98. Danti et al. 2017a, 107. Similar processes are observable in the case of the Mar Ishaʽya Church in western Mosul, which, based on satellite imagery, bore the signs of deliberate destruction after 7 April 2017. It looks like the roof of the church was gradually dismantled. The damage does not appear to have been caused by an explosion or an airstrike. 99. The pictures are now available at: “Islamic State (ISIS) Vandalizes Churches in Iraq, Removing Crosses Atop Them, Destroying Statues and

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

61

Icons.” MEMRI, March 16, 2015. http://www.memrijttm.org/islamicstate-isis-vandalizes-churches-in-iraq-removing-crosses-atop-themdestroying-statues-and-icons.html. 100. Post-war analysis of the extent of damage caused to Christian architecture was closely monitored by ASOR in their monthly reports on destruction (mainly from 2017). See weekly and monthly reports of the ASOR Cultural Heritage Initiatives available at http://www.asor.org/chi/ reports/weekly-monthly. 101. Unfortunately, we do not know whether similarly important reliquaries and funeral chapels were part of other churches, which makes the proposal to consider them the cause of demolition rather hypothetical. 102. Paulus Iskander was found beheaded and dismembered. “Terrorist group murdered father Rev. Paulus Iskander Behnam.” European Syriac Union, October 11, 2006. http://www.european-syriac-union.org/news-reader/ terrorist-group-murdered-father-rev-paulus-iskander-behnam.html. 103. “Mirath al-Suryan: Kanisat al-Tahira al-Kharijiya fi al-Mawsil al-ʽIraq,” documentary film. Suryoyo Sat TV. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=kUxQenT9JH0. 104. The destruction was analyzed in detail by Jones, Christopher. 2015. “Assessing the Damage at the Mosul Museum, Part 1: The Assyrian Artifacts.” Gates of Nineveh, February 27, 2015. https://gatesofnineveh. wordpress.com/2015/02/27/assessing-the-damage-at-the-mosulmuseum-part-1-the-assyrian-artifacts/; Jones, Christopher. 2015. “Assessing the Damage at the Mosul Museum, Part 2: The Sculptures from Hatra.” Gates of Nineveh, March 3, 2015. https://gatesofnineveh. wordpress.com/2015/03/03/assessing-the-damage-at-the-mosulmuseum-part-2-the-sculptures-from-hatra/. 105. Danti et al. 2016, 80–92. The destruction of the gates also appeared in the pictorial report released by IS (al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2016). 106. This can be deduced from the list of all structures destroyed by IS in the whole province of Ninawa published by al-Jumayli 2018. 107. See, for example, “Daʽish yufajjiru masjidan ʽumruhu akthar min qarn janub al-Mawsil.” Lalish Media Network, January 1, 2015. https://www. lalishduhok.com/news/post/58489/. 108. The selection parameters could obviously depend on the confessional composition of the given locality. Comparative studies would certainly be helpful and welcome in this regard. 109. It should be mentioned that neither theological nor legal Islamic literature features the term “iconoclasm” in such a broad and all-encompassing sense as we understand it now. From the very beginning of Islam, two very closely related iconoclastic concepts were discussed, namely the destruction of statues (tamathil) and idols (awthan, asnam), and the leveling of tombs (qubur)—in both cases as a means to avoid the temptation

62 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

to idolatry. Over time, taswiyat al-qubur in particular has become a very widely discussed iconoclastic concept in the history of Islamic law and theology. 110. It is important to stress that other Muslim scholars, as well as Salafis, accept that the first three Muslim generations lived in an ideal society, but do not reject the developmental shifts in faith, customs, and law in subsequent centuries as subordinate to the early ideal. On the contrary, the majority accept them as legitimate expressions and indivisible parts of Islam. Generally, on Salafism, see, for example, Wagemakers 2016; or Lauzière 2016. 111. On the teaching of Ibn Taymiya, see especially Olesen 1991 or Memon 1976. 112. It has been discussed elsewhere that the Saudi religious establishment has had a profound influence on international Muslim networks, either by establishing new religious organizations or influencing existing ones, which have since helped disseminate the conservative Wahhabi interpretation of Islam, including its negative stance on funerary architecture. Saudi Arabia, with its effective international religious policy, has succeeded in dominating the Wahhabi/Salafi discourse and making it globally influential. For more, see, for example, Meijer 2009; or Adraoui 2020. 113. Dabiq 2015a, 59–60. IS’s respect for the first Saudi state and disrespect for contemporary Saudi Arabia is explicitly expressed in ibid., 59, Note 7. 114. On the contrary, Saudi religious authorities are generally very cautious about calling for violent action. The problem is more about disseminating Wahhabi ideas, which subsequently help to shape the ideological content of other, radical movements. 115. Al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2014a. It is worth mentioning that in the updated version of the document from early 2016, the article concerning the destruction of tombs and shrines was referenced under number 10. Still, the content is the same; see https://azelin.files.wordpress.com/ 2016/01/the-islamic-state-22charter-of-the-city-second-edition22.pdf (last accessed September 5, 2016). The document is also available at https://twitter.com/jenanmoussa/status/477042935821631490/ photo/1 (last accessed 21 September 2019). 116. To the same group we can also add the Salafi texts that are not in line with the official (Saudi) Salafi interpretation, such as various popular jihadi texts produced by al-Qaʽida, and the thoughts and texts of those who have opposed the Saudi regime (Sayyid Qutb, the Saudi Sahwa movement, Juhayman al-ʽUtaybi, among others). 117. Muhammad ibn ʽAli al-Shawkani, the prominent Yemeni Salafi scholar, was strongly influenced by Muhammad ibn ʽAbd al-Wahhab at the start of his career. Later, however, he distanced himself from Wahhabism for its vigorous application of excommunication of Muslims. Al-Shawkani’s view about visiting graves and building on them was closer to that of Ibn Taymiya than to the simplifying views of Muhammad ibn ʽAbd al-Wahhab.

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

63

118. Al-Mansuri, ʽUmar. 2016. “Imam wa khatib jamiʽ al-nabi Yunus: Daʽish fajjara 50 masjidan fi al-Mawsil.” Rudaw, November 18, 2016. https:// www.rudaw.net/arabic/interview/171120161. 119. In this film, the names of IS leaders in charge of demolitions are quoted in the subtitles. 120. Sanam and wathan, both meaning idols, are usually used as synonyms. Still, there were originally semantic differences between them. Although the available sources are not in full agreement in terms of definitions, still the main difference is as follows: sanam was an idol in human form made from gold, silver, or, alternatively, from wood, whereas wathan was an idol made of stone, or alternatively from wood. See Edward William Lane’s Arabic—English Lexicon. 121. The close link between the duty to destroy graves and statues/idols is obvious already from the reference hadith according to the authority of Abu al-Hayyaj al-Asadi, which IS referred to when announcing its demolition campaigns (see supra). For more about the treatment of idols by IS specifically, and during Islam’s history in general see, for example, Hawting 1999; Elias 2012; Flood 2002; Flood 2016. 122. IS has also clearly utilized this discourse to attack the Westerners, those “worshippers of devils” (al-Dawla al-Islamiya 2015a) and “kuffar (infidels)” who “unearth[ed] these statues and ruins in recent generations and attempted to portray them as part of a cultural heritage and identity” (Dabiq 2015b, 22).

Bibliography Abdulrazaq, Tallha, and Gareth Stansfield. 2016. The Enemy Within: ISIS and the Conquest of Mosul. Middle East Journal 70 (4): 525–542. Adraoui, Mohamed-Ali. 2020. Salafism Goes Global: From the Gulf to the French Banlieues. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Al Faraj, Ismaʽil Haqqi. 2012. Al-Athar wa al-mabani al-ʽarabiya fi al-Mawsil ʽala dawʼ al-naqd al-hadith. Amman: Dar Ghaydaʼ. Angiuli, Emanuele, Epifanio Pecharromán, Pablo Vega Ezquieta, Maria Gorzynska, and Ionut Ovejanu. 2020. Satellite Imagery-Based Damage Assessment on Nineveh and Nebi Yunus Archaeological Site in Iraq. Remote Sensing 12: 1672. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12101672. Atwan, Abdel Bari. 2015. Islamic State: The Digital Caliphate. London: Saqi Books. al-Baghdadi, Abu ʽUmar. 2010. Qul inni ʽala bayyina min rabbi. In Majmuʽ tafrighat kalimat al-qadat bi-dawlat al-ʽIraq al-islamiyya. Accessed June 11, 2020. https://archive.org/download/Dwla_Nokhba/mjdawl.doc. Beránek, Ondřej, and Pavel Ťupek. 2018. The Temptation of Graves in Salafi Islam: Iconoclasm, Destruction and Idolatry. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Bianchi, A., S. Berlioz, S. Campana, E. Dalla Longa, D. Vicenzutto, and M. Vidale. 2017. Monitoring Damage to Iraqi Archaeological and Cultural Heritage: the

64 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Case of Nineveh. In Nineveh, the Great City. Symbol of Beauty and Power, ed. L.P. Petit and D. Morandi Bonacossi, 265–269. Leiden: Museum of Antiquities. Brisard, Jean-Charles. 2005. Zarqawi: The New Face of Al-Qaeda. New  York: Other Press. Bunzel, Cole. 2015. From Paper State to Caliphate: The Ideology of the Islamic State. Analysis Paper 19, March 2015, The Brookings Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World. www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/03/ ideology-­of-­islamic-­state-­bunzel/the-­ideology-­of-­the-­islamic-­state.pdf. Cockburn, Patrick. 2006. The Occupation: War and Resistance in Iraq. London: Verso. Dabiq. 2014a. Ramadan 1435 (June–July 2014). Issue 2. Accessed February 24, 2020. https://clarionproject.org/docs/isis-isil-islamic-state-magazine-Issue-2the-flood.pdf. ———. 2014b. Shawwal 1435 (July–August 2014). Issue 3. Accessed February 24, 2020. https://clarionproject.org/docs/isis-­isil-­islamic-­state-­magazine-­ Issue-­3-­the-­call-­to-­hijrah.pdf. ———. 2015a. Ramadan 1436 (June–July 2015). Issue 10. Accessed February 24, 2020. https://clarionproject.org/islamic-­state-­isis-­isil-­propagandamagazine-­Dabiq-­50/. ———. 2015b. Jumada al-Akhira 1436 (March–April 2015). Issue 8. Accessed February 24, 2020. https://clarionproject.org/docs/isis-­isil-­islamic-­state-­ magazine-­issue+8-­sharia-­alone-­will-­rule-­africa.pdf. ———. 2016a. Shawwal 1437 (July–August 2016). Issue 15. Accessed April 4, 2020. http://clarionproject.org/wp-­content/uploads/islamic-­state-­magazine-­ Dabiq-­fifteen-­breaking-­the-­cross.pdf. ———. 2016b. Rabiʽ al-Akhir 1437 (January–February 2016). Issue 13. Accessed September 9, 2019. http://clarionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/Issue-13the-rafidah.pdf. Dagher, Sam. 2019. Assad or We Burn the Country. New York: Little, Brown and Co. Danti, Michael D., Amr Al-Azm, Allison Cuneo, Susan Penacho, Bijan Rouhani, Marina Gabriel, Kyra Kaercher, and Jamie O’Connell. 2015. ASOR Cultural Heritage Initiatives (CHI): Planning for Safeguarding Heritage Sites in Syria and Iraq. Weekly Report 77–78 (January 20–February 2, 2015). http://www. a s o r. o r g / w p -­c o n t e n t / u p l o a d s / 2 0 1 9 / 0 9 / A S O R _ C H I _ We e k l y _ Report_77%E2%80%9378r.pdf. Danti, Michael D., Amr Al-Azm, Allison Cuneo, Susan Penacho, Bijan Rohani, Marina Gabriel, Kyra Kaercher, and Jamie O’Connell. 2016. ASOR Cultural Heritage Initiatives (CHI): Planning for Safeguarding Heritage Sites in Syria and Iraq. Weekly Report 91–92 (April 27–May 10, 2016). http://www.asor. o r g / w p -­c o n t e n t / u p l o a d s / 2 0 1 9 / 0 9 / A S O R _ C H I _ W e e k l y _ Report_91%E2%80%9392r.pdf. Danti, Michael D., Marina Gabriel, Susan Penacho, William Raynolds, Allison Cuneo, Kyra Kaercher, Darren Ashby, Jamie O’Connell, and Katherine Burge. 2017a. ASOR Cultural Heritage Initiatives (CHI): Planning for Safeguarding

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

65

Heritage Sites in Syria and Iraq. June 2017 Monthly Report—Appendices. http://www.asor.org/wp-­c ontent/uploads/2019/09/ASOR_CHI_ Monthly_Appendices_072017r.pdf. Danti, Michael D., Marina Gabriel, Susan Penacho, William Raynolds, Allison Cuneo, Kyra Kaercher, Darren Ashby, Gwendolyn Kristy, Jamie O’Connell, Katherine Burge. 2017b. ASOR Cultural Heritage Initiatives (CHI): Safeguarding the Heritage of the Near East Initiative. July 2017 Monthly Report—Appendices. http://www.asor.org/wp-­content/uploads/2019/09/ ASOR_CHI_July17_Appendices.pdf. Danti, Michael D., Marina Gabriel, Susan Penacho, William Raynolds, Allison Cuneo, Kyra Kaercher, Darren Ashby, Gwendolyn Kristy, and Jamie O’Connell. 2017c. ASOR Cultural Heritage Initiatives (CHI): Planning for Safeguarding Heritage Sites in Syria and Iraq. August 2017 Monthly Report—Appendices. http://www.asor.org/wp-­o ntent/uploads/2019/09/ASOR_CHI_ August17_Appendices.pdf. al-Dawla al-Islamiya. 2014–2015. Hadm al-awthan. Propaganda video released in 1436 (2014–15). ———. 2014a. Wathiqat al-madina. Issued 14 Shaʽban 1435 / 13 June 2014. Accessed May 11, 2016. https://azelin.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/islamicstate-of-iraq-and-al-shc481m-charter-of-the-city.pdf. ———. 2014b. Taqrir ʽan hadm al-adriha wa al-awthan fi wilayat Ninawa. Accesed August 9, 2014. http://justpaste.it/atrah. ———. 2014c. Mulhaq taqrir hadm al-adriha fi madinat al-Mawsil. al-Maktab al-iʽlami li-wilayat Ninawa. Accessed August 8, 2014. http://justpaste.it/Adrah. ———. 2014d. Namudhaj min al-matwiyat al-daʽwiya allati wuzziʽat fi wilayat Ninawa qubayla wa athnaʼa hadm al-adriha—Sharh al-sudur bi-tahrim al-binaʼ ʽala al-qubur. Issued Shawwal 1435 (July–August 2014). Accessed August 9, 2014. http://justpaste.it/sh_sodor. ———. 2014e. Al-Qawl al-fasil fi mashruʽiyat hadm al-qubur al-mazʽuma li-­ anbiya’ Allah. Issued 1435 (2014). Accessed August 9, 2014. http://justpaste. it/QoulFasl. ———. 2015. Izalat mazahir al-shirk—hadm al-adriha al-shirkiya. Propaganda video released in Rabiʽ al-Thani 1436 (January–February 2015). Accessed April 8, 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEhWzVBqX-­c. ———. 2015a. ISIS Destroys Archaeological Treasures in Mosul, Iraq. Propaganda video released in Jumada al-Ula 1436 (February–March 2015). https://www. memri.org/tv/isis-­destroys-­archaeological-­treasures-­mosul. ———. 2016. Hadm al-athar al-shirkiya fi madinat al-Mawsil. Accessed May 29, 2016. https://justpaste.it/ubbu. al-Diwahji, Saʽid. 1952. Masjid al-shaykh Qadib al-Ban. Sumer 8: 99–106. El Sandouby, Aliaa Ezzeldin Ismail. 2008. The Ahl al-bayt in Cairo and Damascus: The Dynamics of Making Shrines for the Family of the Prophet. PhD diss., University of California Los Angeles.

66 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Elias, Jamal J. 2012. Aisha’s Cushion: Religious Art, Perception, and Practice in Islam. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Fiey, Jean Maurice. 1959. Mossoul chrétienne: essai sur l’histoire, l’archéologie et l’état actuel des monuments chrétiens de la ville de Mossoul. Beyrouth: Imprimerie catholique. Filiu, Jean-Pierre. 2015. From Deep State to Islamic State: The Arab Counter-­ Revolution and Its Jihadi Legacy. London: Hurst and Co. Fishman, Brian H. 2016. The Master Plan: ISIS, Al-Qaeda and the Jihadi Strategy for Final Victory. New Haven: Yale University Press. Flood, Finbarr Barry. 2002. Between Cult and Culture: Bamiyan, Islamic Iconoclasm, and the Museum. The Art Bulletin 84 (4): 641–659. ———. 2016. Idol-Breaking as Image-Making in the “Islamic State”. Religion and Society: Advances in Research 7: 116–138. Fobbe, Seán, ed. 2019. Destroying the Soul of the Yazidis. Cultural Heritage Destruction During the Islamic Stateʼs Genocide Against the Yazidis. RASHID International, Yazda and the EAMENA Project. https://rashid-­international. org/publications/report-­destroying-­the-­soul-­of-­the-­yazidis/. Gelvin, James L. 2018. The New Middle East: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gerges, Fawaz A. 2016. ISIS: A History. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Haddad, Fanar. 2014. Sectarianism in Iraq: Antagonistic Visions of Unity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hansen-Lewis, Jamie, and Jacob N.  Shapiro. 2015. Understanding the Daesh Economy. Perspectives on Terrorism 9 (4): 142–155. Harmanşah, Omur. 2015. ISIS, Heritage, and the Spectacles of Destruction in the Global Media. Near Eastern Archaeology 78 (3): 170–177. Hawting, G.R. 1999. The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam: From Polemic to History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hegghammer, Thomas. 2006. Global Jihadism After the Iraq War. Middle East Journal 60 (1): 11–32. Ibn al-Khayyat, Ahmad. 1966. Tarjamat al-awliyaʼ fi al-Mawsil al-hadbaʼ. Mosul: Matbaʽat al-jumhuriya. Ibn Taymiya, Taqi al-Din Ahmad. 1971. Majmuʽ al-Fatawa. Beirut: Dar al-kutub al-ʽilmiya. ———. 1997. Sharh al-ʽumda. Riyad: Dar al-ʽasima li-l-nashr wa al-tawziʽ. Isakhan, Benjamin. 2018. How to Interpret ISIS’s Heritage Destruction. Current History 117 (803): 344–350. Isakhan, Benjamin, and José Antonio González Zarandona. 2018. Layers of Religious and Political Iconoclasm under the Islamic State: Symbolic Sectarianism and Pre-monotheistic Iconoclasm. International Journal of Heritage Studies 24 (1): 1–16.

1  A CITY DESTROYED 

67

al-Jawziya, Ibn Qayyim. 1998. Zad al-maʽad fi hady khayr al-ʽibad. Beirut: Muʼassasat al-Risala li-l-tibaʽa wa al-nashr wa al-tawziʽ. ———. n.d. Ighathat al-lihfan fi masayid al-shaytan. Mecca: Dar ʽalam al-fawaʼid. al-Jumayli, ʽAmir ʽAbd Allah. 2018. ʽAsabat Daʽish al-irhabiya tudammiru al-maʽalim al-hadariya. Muhafazat Ninawa unmudhajan. Sumer 64: 183–205. al-Kaylani, Miʽad Sharaf al-Din. 2014. Tarikh takaya Baghdad wa al-mashyakha al-sufiya fi al-ʽahd al-ʽuthmani wa yalihi nubdha wajiza ʽan al-takaya al-­qadima kharija Baghdad maʽa thabat bi-l-takaya al-muʽasira. Beirut: Dar al-kutub al-ʽilmiya. al-Khidri, Yusuf ʽAbd al-Jalil. MS. Al-Intisar li-l-awliyaʼ al-akhyar. Riyad: Library of the King Saud University, MS 25, 1309 AH. al-Khoei, Hayder. 2019. Al-Hashd al-Shaʽbi: Iraq’s Double-Edged Sword. In Iraq After ISIS: The Challenge of Post-War Recovery, ed. Jacob Eriksson and Ahmed Khaleel. Palgrave Macmillan. Lafta, R., V. Cetorelli, and G. Burnham. 2018. Living in Mosul during the Time of ISIS and the Military Liberation: Results from a 40-Cluster Household Survey. Conflict and Health 12 (Art. number 31). https://doi.org/10.1186/ s13031-­018-­0167-­8. Lauzière, Henri. 2016. The Making of Salafism: Islamic Reform in the Twentieth Century. New York: Columbia University Press. Lister, Charles R. 2014. Profiling the Islamic State. Brookings Doha Center Analysis Paper 13, November 2014. www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/ Reports/2014/11/profiling-­islamic-­state-­lister/en_web_lister.pdf?la=en. ———. 2015. The Syrian Jihad: Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State and the Evolution of an Insurgency. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McCants, William. 2015. The ISIS Apocalypse: The History, Strategy, and Doomsday Vision of the Islamic State. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Meijer, Roel, ed. 2009. Global Salafism: Islam’s New Religious Movement. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Melčák, Miroslav, and Ondřej Beránek. 2017. ISIS’s Destruction of Mosul’s Historical Monuments: Between Media Spectacle and Religious Doctrine. International Journal of Islamic Architecture 6: 389–415. Memon, M. Umar. 1976. Ibn Taymiyya’s Struggle against Popular Religion. The Hague: Mouton. Meri, Josef W. 2002. The Cult of Saints among Muslims and Jews in Medieval Syria. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Milelli, Jean-Pierre. 2008. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. In Al Qaeda in Its Own Words, ed. Gilles Kepel and Jean-Pierre Milelli, 237–267. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Mulder, Stephennie. Forthcoming. Shrines in the Central Islamic Lands. In The Cambridge History of World Religious Architecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

68 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Olesen, Niels Henrik. 1991. Culte des saints et pèlerinages chez Ibn Taymiyya. Paris: P. Geuthner. Pinto, Paulo G. 2012. The Sufi Ritual of the Darb al-shish and the Ethnography of Religious Experience. In Ethnographies of Islam. Ritual Performances and Everyday Practices, ed. Baudouin Dupret, Thomas Pierret, Paulo G. Pinto, and Kathryn Spellman-Poots. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press in association with The Aga Khan University. Shadid, Anthony. 2005. Night Draws Near: Iraq’s People in the Shadow of America’s War. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Shahab, Sofya, and Benjamin Isakhan. 2018. The ritualization of heritage destruction under the Islamic State. Journal of Social Archaeology 18: 212–233. al-Shawkani, Muhammad ibn ʽAli. 2011. Sharh al-sudur bi-tahrim rafʽ al-qubur. Riyad: al-Riʼasa al-ʽamma li-l-buhuth al-ʽilmiya wa al-iftaʼ. Stern, Jessica, and John M.  Berger. 2015. ISIS: The State of Terror. New  York: HarperCollins Publishers. al-Sufi, Ahmad. 1940. Al-Athar wa al-mabani al-ʽarabiya al-islamiya fi al-Mawsil. Mosul: Matbaʽat Umm al-rabiʽayn. Suyufi, Niqula. 1956. Majmuʽ al-kitabat al-muharrara fi abniyat madinat al-­ Mawsil. Matbaʽat Shafiq: Ed. Saʽid al-Diwahji. Bagdad. al-Tamimi, Aymenn. 2015. The Evolution in Islamic State Administration: The Documentary Evidence. Perspectives on Terrorism 9 (4): 117–129. Tønnessen, Truls Hallberg. 2015. Heirs of Zarqawi or Saddam? The Relationship Between al-Qaida in Iraq and the Islamic State. Perspectives on Terrorism 9: 48–60. Turku, Helga. 2018. The Destruction of Cultural Property as a Weapon of War. ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Palgrave Macmillan. al-ʽUmari, Yasin. 1955. Munyat al-udabaʼ fi tarikh al-Mawsil al-hadbaʼ. Mosul: Matbaʽat al-hadaf. ʽUthman, ʽAruba Jamil Mahmud. 2008. Al-Takaya fi al-Mawsil mundhu awakhir al-ʽahd al-ʽuthmani. Dirasat Mawsiliya 20: 35–53. Wagemakers, Joas. 2016. Salafism. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion. Accessed November 5, 2016. https://oxfordre.com/religion/view/10.1093/ acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-­9780199340378-­e-­255. Warrick, Joby. 2015. Black Flags: The Rise of ISIS. New York: Doubleday. Zelin, Aaron Y. 2014. The War between ISIS and al-Qaeda for Supremacy of the Global Jihadist Movement. Research Notes, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy 20 (June 2014): 1–11.

CHAPTER 2

A City Explored

2.1   Sources and Methodology 2.1.1  Arabic Primary Sources Primary information on the architecture and urban development of medieval Mosul is rather insufficient. We lack any specialized and comprehensive topographical treatises of the kind that have been preserved for other major Islamic cities, such as Baghdad, Aleppo, Damascus, or Cairo, among others. On the contrary, the information is scattered in other varieties of mostly Arabic literature, among them especially general geographical works and travelers’ accounts, pilgrimage manuals, and classical historiographical works. These sources are mostly suitable only for topographical consideration of the city in the given period; architectural details are only rarely provided. A very valuable category among the available sources is the relatively rich collection of medieval inscriptions that have been, until recently, preserved in situ, or still survive in museum expositions. Fortunately, Mosul epigraphy has enjoyed relatively intense interest from local researchers and was largely “saved” for further research in book editions (see infra). Of the dozens of geographical and travelers’ accounts of the city, only a few provided a real help for our research, as they deviated from a rather universal descriptive pattern to reveal specific details that enabled us to © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 K. Nováček et al., Mosul after Islamic State, Palgrave Studies in Cultural Heritage and Conflict, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62636-5_2

69

70 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

track some of Mosul’s architectural landmarks within the urban landscape over time. The earliest descriptions, originating in the tenth century, were written by the representatives of the al-Balkhi school of geography Ibn Hawqal (d. c. 988) and al-Maqdisi (d. after 988), who visited Mosul under the Hamdanid dominance (Ibn Hawqal 1992; al-Maqdisi 1877). The Mosul of the Atabeg period was depicted by Ibn Jubayr (d. 1217), in the most comprehensive medieval description of the city (Ibn Jubayr 2008), al-Harawi (d. 1215), who wrote an account of the city’s selected pilgrimage sites (al-Harawi 2002), and Yaqut al-Hamawi (d. 1229), in his extensive geographical dictionary combining topographical data with historical insights (al-Hamawi 1977). Mosul under the Ilkhanids was experienced by four authors—Zakariya al-Qazwini (d. 1283), Abu al-Fidaʼ (d. 1840), Hamd Allah Mustawfi (d. 1349), and Ibn Battuta (d. 1368/1377)—who provided brief but informatively very valuable reports.1 As a follow-up to al-Harawi’s pilgrimage guide, we should mention a similar literary genre dealing with biographies of local awliyaʼ (saints). It developed in Mosul in the late Ottoman period as an intellectual response to the attacks on their historical and religious authenticity. The most significant collections of biographies were composed by the brothers Muhammad (d. 1788) and Yasin (d. 1816) of the al-ʽUmari family (al-ʽUmari 1967–1968; al-ʽUmari 1955), and Yusuf al-Khidri (MS; d. 1825), whose work was adapted with slight alterations by Ibn al-Khayyat (d. 1868).2 Although the biographies hardly say anything about the physical appearance of the saints’ eponymous tombs and shrines, their work is of high importance because, for the first time, it systematically attempted to disentangle the saints’ identities and at the same time revealed the extremely dense network of funerary and commemorative architecture in the city nucleus. Information on Mosul’s architecture and urban development can also be traced in standard historiographical works. Given the timeframe of our research, we utilized the whole range of titles. Yet, two authors are particularly worthy of note. They are Abu Zakariya al-Azdi (d. c. 945), the Mosul native who composed a history of the town, producing a unique source for its early Islamic urbanism (al-Azdi 1967, 1971), and ʽIzz al-­Din ʽAli ibn al-Athir (d. 1233), the Mosul resident who provided us with firsthand information about the town in the Zengid period (Ibn al-Athir 1963, 1987).

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

71

2.1.2  European Travelogues Between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries, Mosul was frequently visited by Western travelers, who provided us with dozens of travel descriptions of variable scope and quality. For the majority of them, Mosul was just a stop, often lasting only one day, on a longer journey, during which their interest was naturally more focused on the Assyrian archaeological site of Nineveh on the opposite side of the Tigris, while the city itself represented for them just a place of accommodation. Nevertheless, there were exceptions, for whom Mosul became a subject of interest, and during longer stays, they were able to capture remarkable details about its urbanism and descriptions of its most important monuments. In our research we drew mainly from the works of two eighteenth-century travelers, Edward Ives (1773) and Carsten Niebuhr (1778), as well as the nineteenth-­century American Missionary bishop to the Ottoman Empire Horatio Southgate (1840), the British traveler and business agent Claudius J. Rich (1836), the British journalist James S. Buckingham (1827), the Anglican missionary George P. Badger (1852), and the French diplomat and archaeologist Victor Place (1867–1870). 2.1.3  Scholarly Research on Mosul’s Architecture The beginnings of research on Mosul’s monuments are connected with the French vice-consul (of Syrian origin) in Mosul, Niqula Suyufi (1829–1901; written also as Nicolas Siouffi). During his stay in the city, he conducted a survey of epigraphic inscriptions on Mosul’s architecture. His work, completed in 1881 and edited by Saʽid al-Diwahji, who provided commentaries and appendices, is still one of the most comprehensive sources for Mosul’s epigraphy (Suyufi 1956). The first archaeological survey of the city then took place at the beginning of the twentieth century. It was performed by the German archaeologist Ernst Herzfeld (1879–1948) during just 16 days in the winter of 1907–1908. On this basis, he published the very first critical evaluation of Mosul’s Islamic and Christian architecture, which, to this day, represents a fundamental text exceeding all later studies in terms of both the scope and the quality of its analyses and documentation (Sarre and Herzfeld 1911–1920). Also very valuable for our research were his original research diaries stored partly in the Museum für Islamische Kunst in Berlin, as well as some of his other papers

72 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

stored both in the Smithsonian Institution and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and published mostly online.3 Iraqi archaeological research began to emerge only with the work of Ahmad al-Sufi as an inspector of antiquities for northern Iraq, who used his field experience to compose brief analyses of a dozen major monuments (al-Sufi 1940). Apart from a number of low-quality photographs, he did not attach any plan documentation; however, the plasticity of his descriptions became an excellent springboard for understanding the spatial distribution of several monuments right before a wave of radical modern reconstructions began. Of great use was his topography of Atabeg Mosul with a schematic plan of medieval monuments (al-Sufi 1953). His successor in research was the long-time director of Mosul Museum (Mathaf al-Mawsil) Saʽid al-Diwahji (1912–2000), who from the late 1940s published a number of monographs and journal studies on the history, topography, and archaeology of Mosul’s historic core. Nearly all his research on these topics was highly useful (see bibliographies in respective chapters). Unfortunately, the documentation component of his publications, if present at all, lags far behind the quality of his thorough descriptions and analytical insights. The prominent personality among the next generation of Mosul archaeologists is Ahmad Qasim al-Jumʽa (b. 1938). Unfortunately, his graduate theses dealing with mihrabs until the Atabeg period and marble elements of mosques in the Atabeg and Ilkhanid period were not published. For our research, we used a rich photographic documentation for his doctoral dissertation (al-Jumʽa 1975) and several analytical studies written for the extensive encyclopedia of Mosul (Mawsuʽat al-Mawsil al-Hadariya 1992). In the early 1980s, several other valuable volumes appeared, authored by Iraqi scholars, which are indispensable for the study of Mosul—particularly the three-volume series on a reliably documented and comprehensively described sample of religious, commercial, and residential monuments in the old city (Dhunnun et  al. 1982a, b, 1983; al-Janabi 1982). Unfortunately, since then, archaeological research on Mosul has declined considerably. Only studies concerning individual monuments and selected aspects of archaeology or epigraphy have been published. The Western contribution was not significant either. After Herzfeld, a survey of selected monuments (with a stress on those of Ottoman origin, or with a significant Ottoman phase) was conducted by Abdüsselam Uluçam (1989). The French Dominican Jean M. Fiey (1914–1995), on the other hand, made a significant contribution to the research of Christian

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

73

a­ rchitecture during his long residency in Iraq between 1939 and 1973 (Fiey 1959). A joint Iraqi-German mapping project of the old city was terminated shortly after it began due to the Gulf War (Wirth 1991). Otherwise, the studies produced were mostly historical, but sometimes with valuable topographic parts which were useful to us in the reconstruction of Mosul’s urban development (e.g., Patton 1982; Robinson 2000). 2.1.4  Vedutas and Cartographic Sources The collected set of about 60 views of the city dating from the second half of the nineteenth to the first third of the twentieth century is an important source of information on urban development, architectural landmarks, and geomorphology before the modern city’s expansion. It includes mostly published—and some unpublished—graphic sheets (copper engravings, lithographs, drawings, and paintings) and photographs, most often depicting the city skyline from the eastern bank of the Tigris or from the Bashtabiya fortress to the south. Other perspectives occur rarely. The quality and credibility of the depiction varies considerably, even within the output of a single author (cf., e.g., the graphics by E. Flandin). The oldest content-reliable views are, in addition to Flandin’s, the cityscape from the east by G. P. Badger from 1842 to 1850 (Badger 1852, 77), a view of Nineveh from the roof of a house in Mosul (Layard 1853, Pl. 70), and the portrayal of the citadel from the northern side by F. Thomas from 1853 (Place 1867, III, Planche 79). Since the 1880s, photography dominated among the vedutas (Fig. 2.1). A starting point for the analysis of buildings was the collection of mostly unsystematically acquired photographs and documentary films captured from the ground. Their quality is often at the lower limit of usability. In addition to published files, we also used private unpublished collections and images circulating on social networks. Overviews of all this content are included in the individual catalogue entries. The oldest maps and plans of the city, starting with the plan by C. Niebuhr (from 1766), were analyzed by J. M. Fiey (1946). All these sources from before the beginning of the twentieth century (e.g., plans by Helmut Graf from 1838, Felix Jones from 1852—but published 1855— Wilhelm von Pressel from 1871, Josef Cernik from 1875, and others) helped in the identification of architectural and landscape landmarks and, to some extent, elevation differences. The street network is usually displayed inaccurately, but the qualities of Jones’ plan are well known. It can

74 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Fig. 2.1  Mosul panorama in the middle of the nineteenth century, a view from the eastern bank of the Tigris: (a) al-Qulayʽat hill, (b) Mosque of al-Qalʽa, (c) Mosque of Shaykh al-Shatt, (d) Qara Saray Palace, (e) Chaldean al-Tahira Church, (f) Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim Shrine, (g) citadel, (h) Minaret of al-Aghawat Mosque, (i) Minaret of al-Basha Mosque, (j) Minaret of al-Khazam Mosque (?), (k) al-ʽUmariya Mosque (?), (l) unknown structure, (m) Mosque and Shrine of Nabi Shith, (n) Mosque of al-Mujahidi, (o) Ottoman administrative complex and garrisons. Lithograph by F. C. Cooper based on a drawing by G. P. Badger from 1842 to 1850

only be added that the plan  was very successfully georeferenced to the current satellite image, and thus provided a comparative layer to verify the historical extent of urban development, or changes of the riverbanks. The first truly reliable city plan (and, at the same time, an important topographic source) is the Ottoman city plan from 1323/1904–1905, created by an engineer Ismaʽil Hakki (Hakki 1323/1904–1905). It was made in two slightly different variants, one of which was photographically documented by E. Herzfeld. The plan presents the oldest accurate depiction of the complete street network and the parcel layout. All significant buildings are identified. However, the outlines of the buildings are slightly schematized. The plan served as a basis for E. Herzfeld’s own 1:10.000 Mosul plan, published in 1917 in Berlin. The author adapted the template to his chosen scale, that is, simplified the image (omitted parceling), and reduced and updated the labels. For the first time, Herzfeld’s plan conveyed a reliable topographic picture of Mosul to the western geographical community. In 1919, his work was followed by a plan of the city of British provenance based on an aerial photomosaic and verified on the ground (Mosul Town 1919). Iraq’s cartographic production after 1920, including detailed cadastral maps, remained inaccessible to us, with minor exceptions. Based on those sources, E. Wirth created a topographic plan ­outlining the main categories of historic architecture, including some residential houses (Wirth 1991).

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

75

2.1.5  Archival Aerial and Satellite Images The use of remote sensing data has a long tradition in the Middle East, especially in open landscape prospecting projects. However, the most frequently used freely available remote sensing data in the form of historical satellite systems (CORONA, Orb-View3) in most cases do not reach a suitable resolution for urban landscape research. The availability of historical high-resolution satellite images (Hexagon) was until recently relatively limited (NARA). The ideal data set would be a combination of higherand lower-resolution images to create a comprehensive picture of the site from a long-term perspective (multi-temporal GIS). Mosul, as a city of strategic importance in World War I and II, was a target for repeated documentation from various perspectives during the war. We assume that the impetus for aerial mapping could have come from a dispute between the powers over the affiliation of the Mosul Vilayet in 1916–1919. The collection of aerial photographs taken in northern Iraq during the twentieth century features a wide variety of resolutions and, of course, was acquired using a wide variety of photographic methodologies. The highest resolution ranges from 1 m up to 50 cm (these images were often taken with high-quality military technology). A collection of images taken in the inter- and post-war periods includes a diverse combination of oblique and vertical images. One of the most compreherensive collections comes from the 1960s—a set of vertical surveying images, taken from a U2 spy aircraft, with a uniform, very high resolution which is effective and suitable for urban areas. The USGS archive (https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/) was used as the main source of historical satellite images in this project. Historical satellite images of the CORONA KH-4B and KH-7 (GAMBIT) systems were obtained from it. From these sources, images of the KH-7 system (camera type: KH-7 High-Resolution Surveillance with resolution 0.61–1.2  m) were used as a base layer for detecting buildings and comparing their condition with the current images. The low-resolution images of the KH-4B system only served to preview the historic urban structure. The images collected using the KH-7 system are dated to the period 1965–1967 and the KH-4B system covers the period 1967–1972. The images of the satellite system SPOT (1986–1993) from 1988, with a resolution of 10 m, were used as an additional reference for the urban layout of the 1980s. The images of the OrbView-3 system operating between 2003 and 2007 represent, with their 1-meter resolution, the only

76 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

available archival data from the current century, and could also be used to survey the detailed morphology of urban development. While in the European environment, orthophoto planes created through periodic aerial photographic documentation represent the standard source of remote sensing data, in Iraq (as well as in most countries of the Middle East), free documentation via low-flying or high-flying aircraft was and still is not allowed. Therefore, an alternative in the form of satellite data was used as the main spatial dataset for the recent period (Fig. 2.2). In the collections of the world’s largest archive of historical aerial and satellite images, The National Archives and Records Administration at College Park (NARA), two categories of US spy system, operating mainly in the 1960s and 1970s, offer valuable data for archaeological remote sensing. The KH-9 Hexagon satellite system (1973–1980) and the U2 aeronautical system produced high-resolution images (approx. 50 cm on the ground; Hammer and Ur 2019, 5) appropriate for the study of urban landscapes. Until recently, none of the studies in these collections had a spatial index for locating individual images or the orientation in individual overflight missions. In the case of the Hexagon system, this situation has recently changed (the end of 2020). In the case of the U2 system, a significant step toward easier availability was taken in 2019, when E. Hammer and J.  Ur created a freely available index of individual missions of U2

Fig. 2.2  Overview of historical satellite and aerial photographs, obtained through the global archives of remote sensing data, for Mosul historical city center. Comparison of image resolution. From the left side—CORONA KH-4B; CORONA KH-7 Gambit; Luftwaffe; U2 aerial spy system photograph; OrbView-3

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

77

overflights in the Middle East that provided location data for the photos (Hammer and Ur 2019). According to the reconstruction map created by Hammer and Ur, two missions—B8638 and B1455—were carried out over the area of old Mosul in 1959. One image from mission B1455, with a resolution of 0.6 m, was used as an analytical layer in the geodatabase. In both cases—the U2 mission and the Hexagon missions—the images are provided as negatives which need to be converted into digital, georeferenced, and orthorectified data. The NARA also offers a collection of aerial photographs taken during and after World War II by military operational units. As part of the analysis of available data from the American Archives, images of Mosul, originating from the German Luftwaffe collection from 1942 with a resolution of 1.6  m, were found and one of them was included in the project source dataset. Collection of the overhead imagery used in the project Type

Source

Date

Resolution

Aerial historical Aerial historical Aerial historical Aerial historical Aerial historical Satellite historical Satellite historical Satellite historical Satellite historical Satellite historical Satellite historical Satellite historical Satellite contemporary Satellite contemporary Satellite contemporary Satellite contemporary Satellite contemporary Satellite contemporary Satellite contemporary Satellite contemporary Satellite contemporary Satellite contemporary Satellite contemporary Satellite contemporary Satellite contemporary Satellite contemporary

Royal Air Force Royal Air Force Royal Air Force Luftwaffe U2 spy mission KH-7 GAMBIT KH-7 GAMBIT CORONA KH-4B CORONA KH-4B KH-9 HEXAGON SPOT OrbView-3 WorldView-2 GeoEye-1 GeoEye-1 WorldView-2 Pleiades—stereopair WorldView-3 WorldView-3 WorldView-3 WorldView-2 WorldView-2 WolrdView-3 WorldView-3 WorldView-3 WorldView-2

15.06.1919 25.10.1920 20.06.1924 13.09.1942 1959 19.09.1965 30.04.1966 06.11.1968 04.06.1970 1972 17.06.1988 14.03.2005 15.11.2013 21.08.2014 22.12.2014 07.03.2015 06.05.2015 21.6.2015 29.8.2015 21.05.2016 16.9.2016 07.04.2017 12.07.2017 08.02.2018 03.09.2018 10.10.2019

0.8 m 0.8 m 0.5 m 1.6 m 0.6 m 0.6 m 0.7 m 1.8 m 1.8 m 0.6 m 10.0 m 1.0 m 0.5 m 0.5 m 0.5 m 0.5 m 1.0 m 0.5 m 0.5 m 0.3 m 0.5 m 0.5 m 0.3 m 0.3 m 0.5 m 0.5 m

78 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

APAAME—Aerial Photographic Archive for Archaeology in the Middle East—is a long-standing project of British institutions (first the University of Sheffield and then the University of Oxford) led by David Kennedy and Robert Bewley, which possesses over 115,000 images from the Middle East with a special focus on archaeological and historical monuments. The project was originally oriented toward the territory of Jordan; nowadays, however, the archive contains collections of images from all countries in the Middle East (mostly in the form of historical aerial photographs) (Kennedy and Bewley 2009).4 The collection also contains valuable images of Mosul city from low overflights (at very high resolution) dated to 1919, 1920, and 1924. These images, taken by the Royal Air Force (RAF), represent the oldest layer of remote sensing data in our project, recording the city before the massive changes during the twentieth century. The majority of photographs capture vertical views of the city and its surroundings. A smaller part of the collection is made up of ground photo documentation. Due to the excellent acquisition parameters (use of vertical cameras), their subsequent georeferencing and orthorectification featured low topographic deviation and image distortion (Fig. 2.3). 2.1.6  Methodology Mosul has been inaccessible to archaeological work on the ground since 2003. To circumvent this problem, our research on destructive interventions in the city during its occupation by ISIS made use of specific procedures, mostly based on the principles of archaeological remote sensing (ARS). ARS can be defined as a set of contactless documentation procedures for archaeological purposes which use a wide range of data obtained through aircraft carriers—from small carriers (drone, wing) to global satellite systems (Challis and Howard 2006; Gojda 2019). Remote archaeological research is primarily used for the purposes of documentation and interpretation of the non-urban landscape. Its use in urban areas is limited mainly by the need for high topographical and elevation accuracy and high resolution of data outputs. The ideal situation is therefore the use of archaeological remote sensing methods as a complementary activity to the traditional documentation procedures applied in urban environments. It was not possible to apply this ideal approach in Mosul. The documentation of Mosul’s architectural heritage can be characterized as a unique and very specific project, deviating from the standard

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

79

Fig. 2.3  Detailed preview of the Mosque of al-Mahmudayn (I68) on the historical aerial photographs, taken by the Royal Air Force (RAF) during the years 1920 and 1924. Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/apaame/sets/721576855 40281436/, copyrights: Aerial Photographic Archive for Archaeology in the Middle East (APAAME), University College London (UCL)

approaches. Factors that influenced the selection of data and analytical procedures can be defined as: 1. Minimum available archival resources (meaning topographic and cartographic documentation), with a predominance of small-­ scale maps. 2. Low intensity of research and documentation of historical heritage in the past, compared to other historic cities in the Middle East (Aleppo, Damascus, Baghdad). 3. Direct threat to the city from an ongoing state of war. 4. Radical destruction of monuments. 5. Limited possibilities for ground verification; absence of our own field documentation and systematic collection of ground data.

80 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

6. Absence of ground survey data and topographic plans as well as elevation data. 7. Limited number of very high accuracy sources. 2.1.6.1 Dataset Description and Image Processing The choice of processing method for the aforementioned data sources was determined by the character of three planned outputs of the analysis: 1. A map of the analyzed buildings and an evaluation of their degree of preservation. 2. A large-scale topographic plan of the historic city center (current state × historical state). 3. A digital elevation model of the historic city center. The basic framework of the data set is a collection of archive satellite images of very high resolution (0.38–0.5 m), mostly from the World-View and Geo-Eye systems. The oldest image in this collection is dated to 2013, and the most recent to 2019. The purchase of images from this period was driven by the effort to capture significant changes in the structure of the city during the IS occupation, as well as during the liberation operation and the subsequent period. The issue of generally high variability of off-­ nadir angle images (in the range of 5.3°–14.9°) and the absence of ground control points (GCP) for subsequent orthorectification (and consequent reduction of the degree of image distortion) is one of the limits of created geographical databases. For this reason, the dataset of satellite images after the process of orthorectification had a relatively high variability of ­topographic deviation of individual images compared to the other datasets. This issue can be eliminated by obtaining a high-resolution reference digital elevation model (DEM) and the GCP survey. Subsequent orthorectification can reduce the topographical deviations of the images. We tried to alleviate this problem by applying manual re-registration of all images (based on manually detected identical reference points) to a selected reference image (the oldest World-View 2 satellite image comes from 2013, with all the buildings still preserved) and subsequent orthorectification to a higher-resolution DEM. Although we did not achieve an ideal correspondence between different raster layers, the overlap of the images was improved to such an extent that we were able to safely identify identical architectonic monuments (or their destruction) in all available image records, structured into chronologically arranged layers. All sources

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

81

were processed in the local projected coordinate system—WGS/UTM zone 38N. All satellite images were obtained in the form of raw data, prepared for preliminary data processing. This was carried out in four phases: 1. Atmospheric correction. 2. Pansharpening of multispectral and panchromatic images. 3. Orthorectification to base DEM (DEM resolution 12.5  m; later DEM with a resolution of 1  m was used for clipped parts of the satellite images). 4. Reclassification of the range of RGB spectral values to increase the visibility of individual features. This preprocessing structure made all images suitable for subsequent visual analysis of buildings, and specifically for monitoring of their degree of preservation and gradual or definitive destruction. The collection of historical data sources (aerial photographs, satellite images) was also subjected to the same transformation in a parallel process. The preparatory processing of this collection was focused on georeferencing of images to a reference base, cropping of excess parts, and subsequent orthorectification onto a prepared DEM. Because all historical satellite and aerial data were photographed as panchromatic and black and white material, subsequent graphic editing of the image took place only in the area of reclassification for the purpose of changing the Stretch display mode (contrast changes, color dynamics, illumination, white balance, application gamma). 2.1.6.2 Topographic Data Analysis Identification and vectorization of the buildings under study were based on historical cartographic sources, descriptions of the city, and manual prospecting of visual data (satellite and aerial images). The vectorization of the ground plans of the buildings was created in the form of simple polygons by a fully manual process so as to capture the maximum range of details provided by the visual material. The base reference layer in this case was again the World-View 2 satellite image from 2013. The vector recordings were then projected onto more recent images for the purpose of comparing the condition of the building and the extent of its preservation. At the same time, those vector records were linked to a descriptive database system. The output of this phase is: (1) a map of ground plans of buildings

82 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

on a consistent scale, divided into groups according to the function and state of preservation, and (2) a map reflecting the present state of preservation of historical architecture (Fig. 2.4). In individual cases, the vectorized ground plans of buildings were also used to create orientation map sketches of buildings, for which no other planographic documentation is available (Fig. 2.5). Analysis of remote sensing data currently often uses semi-automated procedures for the detection of individual features, based on spectral or object-oriented analysis. Spectral analysis, such as index differing or ­supervised classification, is commonly used in the detection of relics preserved in the landscape. It is based on the analysis of individual pixels of the raster base, thus allowing the classification of individual types of object and accelerating the creation of topographic records of the landscape. This type of feature extraction unfortunately fails often in urban environments (Kitada and Fukuyama 2012; Tewkesbury et al. 2015). The usage of semi-automated classification methods was tested to create a comprehensive vector plan of the city of Mosul. The feature extraction method, which works on the basis of automated detection and conversion of features located on raster layers into a vectorized form, plays a key role in remote sensing data processing (Shackelford and Davis 2003; Jahjah and Ulivieri 2010; Comer and Harrower 2013; Verhoeven et  al. 2013;

Fig. 2.4  The working area of the GIS database

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

83

Fig. 2.5  Workflow of data processing in the project “Monument of Mosul in Danger”

Hadjimitsis et al. 2020). One of the first comparative analyses of applied methods for semi-automated classification was summarized by N. Kamagata et  al. in 2005. The current methodical approach was characterized in a study by C. Sevara and his team (Kamagata et al. 2005; Sevara et al. 2016) (Fig. 2.6). In the case of the Mosul city dataset, the feature extraction  method could be applied (as opposed to its full use possibilities within elevation data collections) only on the basis of 2D raster data. A very high-­resolution satellite image from 2013 in multispectral mode (0.5 m resolution) was used as a source image to generate a topographic plan of the modern appearance of the historic center of Mosul and its close background before the IS occupation. This registered image was subsequently vectorized by the semi-automated feature extraction method, using the  classification algorithm of the object-based image analysis (OBIA) based on edge detection. Object-oriented classification can be defined as a method that analyzes raster data in order to extract elements based on complete features, rather than individual pixels. In the frame of object-oriented classification, we work not only with the spectral properties of the raster (as is usual

84 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Fig. 2.6  General workflow of remote sensing data processing

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

85

during pixel-based classification), but especially with its shape, textural, or topological (contextual) properties (Drăguţ and Blaschke 2006; De Laet et al. 2007). Object-based classification began with a multilevel segmentation of the whole scene into closed objects. This process creates segments (homogeneous clusters), which are then used to create a classification base of features. Segment settings, used in this project, was set to parameters of 60.0 scale level (edge algorithm), Full Lamda Schedule (merge settings), 20.0 Merge level, and Texture Kernel was set to size 3. As a result of the extraction of classification categories, a vector city plan was created, copying individual buildings (segments). However, this plan had a relatively high error rate in the form of incomplete or unevenly curved vector lines, so manual correction was required. Finally, selected parts of the city were redrawn manually due to the very high extent of erroneous visualization of generated vectors. On the other hand,  the pixel-based classification method was only used as a verification method, enabling the selection of individual objects according to classification categories, most often created according to the spectral parameters of the smallest raster units—pixels (De Laet et al. 2007; Sevara et al. 2016). However, an excessively wide range of scale representations of individual buildings (high variability of colors, representing the roofs of the buildings) in combination with very dense built-up areas limited the full use of this method (Fig. 2.7). To create a topographic plan of the historical appearance of the city, the Ottoman plan, dating back to 1904–1905, was used as the source layer. The vectorization was realized in a form of semi-automated classification based on edge detection. Given the fact that this background layer was not a registered raster (not set in coordinates) but a common image, the process of vectorization of this layer was carried out in the external software Vextractor. The main reason for this was the need for graphic preparation of this raster. By improving the sharpness of the image and intentionally highlighting the color contrast of the lines and the background (shades of gray), it was possible to obtain a significantly better result and easier detection of even slightly visible lines. Graphics software that converts raster recording to vector works primarily with the direct edge detection command for black and white variants of input rasters. In this case, emphasis was placed on the possible detection of all lines, presented on the base layer. For this reason, a Gaussian filter with Gaussian standard deviation parameters set to 0.1 was used. In this case, the algorithm was able to detect even relatively indistinct, hidden (weak) lines and successfully convert them automatically to a vector output (format *DXF or *SHP)

86 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Fig. 2.7  Process of the image multilevel segmentation, based on the satellite image World-View 2, year 2013 (left), final topographic plan of Mosul city center (right). Drawing by Lenka Starková and Petr Vavrečka

(Fig.  2.8). Post-processing, as in the case of previous processing of the vector plan, consisted mainly of manual control and necessary corrections of erroneously drawn vectors across the entire scope of the created vector plan. To facilitate this procedure, a process of automated removal of solitary black spots was applied. The vector plan created in the graphic editor does not have any topographic information (coordinates), and it is therefore necessary to georeference it manually into the Geographic Information Systems (GIS). The very high-resolution satellite image from 2013 was used as a reference image in this case (Fig. 2.9). 2.1.6.3 D  igital Elevation Model of the City and Geomorphometry of the City Geomorphometry is a relatively young science which uses quantitative methods and techniques to analyze the earth’s surface using digital elevation models (Hengl and Reuter 2009). The absence of height parameters in the source data for this project significantly limited the use of the

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

87

Fig. 2.8  Vextractor software environment. Process of automatic vectorization of features, based on the historical plan of Mosul

Fig. 2.9  Hakki’s Ottoman topographical plan of Mosul vectorized and orthorectified

88 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

acquired visual material and also the interpretation of the topography of the city. Therefore, a key requirement of the analysis and data processing project phase was to obtain a digital elevation model for possible orthogonalization of raster layers and visualization of the real altitude of the city, and as a basis for geomorphometric analyses (elevation map, hydrological map). Under the term digital elevation model (DEM), we include elevation models of a selected area with absolute values of the elevation of points (pixels). Their two variants—digital surface models (DSM) and digital terrain models (DTM)—differ in terms of their principles of processing and utilization. Both of these outputs are very widely used in archaeology and heritage care. Creating a DTM finds application in the visualization of a “bare” terrain surface without above-ground objects (buildings, vegetation, rocks, etc.). On the other hand, DSM is a model in which above-­ ground objects are intentionally preserved on the earth’s surface. This model finds a variety of applications in urban archaeology. In the frame of our project, both types of outputs were used. Without the DEM we processed ourselves for the purpose of the project, we would have been forced to work only with freely available elevation data sources. For the Mosul area, there are freely available DSM models such as SRTM, ASTER at a resolution of 30 m (available via the portal of the United States Geological Survey, USGS), or DEM ALOS Palsar (created and distributed through the Alaska Satellite Facility) at a resolution of 12.5  m. After  we used our 1 m resolution DEM as a base layer for orthogonalization, correction of topographic deviation decreased on average by 4.6 m to values between 2.5 and 7.8 m, depending on the degree of skew of the image. Freely available models, unlike models created from raw data, are distributed in an already preprocessed raster format. When extracting DEM from one’s own source data, it is possible to modify the quality parameters of the output in the first phase of model creation—processing the point cloud. By processing very high-resolution images, it is possible to create a so-called dense elevation model, which is necessary for the analysis, ­especially  of the urban landscape. In contrast to the standard elevation model, the dense model elevation values are calculated for each individual pixel of the input image, thus creating a dense cloud of points which much more significantly and realistically reflects the real elevation parameters of the earth’s surface and above-ground objects (Krauß 2019). Digital elevation models can be obtained from a variety of remote sensing data. In our case the DEM was extracted from high-resolution satellite stereo images.

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

89

The principle of processing satellite stereo pairs is to use two images of the same area, taken from different places, with appropriate overlap (80% forward overlap along the flight line and 60% overlap between flight lines). This principle allows the calculation of relative parallaxes (disparities) between points in both images. The absolute heights of the individual points can then be calculated from the known parameters of the camera, the internal and external orientation of the camera, and the viewing angles (Krauß 2019, 86). Processing a stereo pair of satellite images into the form of DEM is a standardized method which is very often used to process historical satellite images (CORONA system) (Casana and Cothren 2008; Casana 2020). However, in the current time of frequent involvement of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) systems in archaeological field data collection, the creation of lower-resolution DEM is often pointless. Due to the absence of this type of very precise documentation in this project, the most suitable alternative thus was the creation of DEM from the background of a stereo pair of satellite images. As the input data, the stereo pair of the Pleiades system was used—a high-resolution (1 m) satellite images taken in May 2015. The purchased stereo pair had already been preprocessed in a form of pansharpening. As the main outputs of DEM creation processing, we selected DSM and DTM at the same grid resolution as the input stereo pair (1 m). An elevation map and a digital elevation model of the historic center of Mosul were subsequently created from them. The first step in DEM processing from a stereo pair of satellite images is to create a point cloud. This step entails the automated detection of identical points (pixels) in both images and their conversion into a vector point cloud. The density of the output point cloud is most often given according to the resolution of the input images. In our case, a point cloud with a resolution of 1 m was generated. Matching methods for point cloud generation were tested in two software packages—ENVI (Photogrammetry module) and ArcGIS Pro (Image Analyst, Stereo mapping). ArcGIS Pro offers three basic methods to generate a point cloud from a stereoscopic background. As a first step in the whole process, it is necessary to verify whether the used stereo pair of the image already includes a pre-created so-called stereo model, from which the software downloads information about the input parameters of both images. If this stereo model is not automatically stored as a part of the stereo pair from the provider, then it needs to be created. The process of creating the point cloud follows. In the ArcGIS Pro software, the

90 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Extended Terrain Matching (ETM) method is used. This feature-based stereo matching uses the Harris operator to detect identical feature points and extract them into the dense point cloud. The generated point cloud was exported to *LAS format, which is typically used to store aerial laser scanning data or the outputs of the photogrammetric Structure from Motion method. Fifty-eight separate LAS files were created for the processed area of Mosul. A subset of these files was subsequently selected for further processing and the selected LAS files were mosaicked to a compact file. During a closer inspection of the point cloud, incorrectly classified points were found. Although the algorithm had evaluated them as buildings, they actually represented other objects (mostly vegetation). Categories of points to be eliminated in the ongoing processing are represented by outliers, isolated very high objects, or false points generated below ground level. These points subsequently distort the scattering curve of the elevation parameters of the whole set, and for this reason, it was necessary to filter them out. The next step of DEM processing is to interpolate the generated point cloud (networking of point cloud vectors with each other into the raster output) into the form of raster DEM. Interpolation processing was first set up to extract the elevation model of the terrain surface (DSM). The TIN Natural neighbor method was chosen as the interpolation computational algorithm. After the DSM extraction, we found out that DSM created by this method can only be used as an orientation preview output. The density of the coverage of points classified as buildings is low and thus the generated 3D elevation model of the surface features great inaccuracies in the shapes and dispositions of buildings. This clearly shows the need to use field documentation (especially unmanned aerial systems) to obtain a better output in the future. However, this model is so far the only possible documentary output of the city before its violent occupation and before the waves of destruction of a significant proportion of its historical heritage. After texturing the model through the use of any kind of source satellite image, we get at least an approximate view of the city, not only from a 2D vertical view but also from the 3D point of view, along with an approximate reflection of the altitude dynamics of the building (Fig. 2.10). To create an elevation model of the DTM type, it is necessary to classify a point cloud so that a specific category of points representing the ground surface is created. These points are then filtered out from the original cloud and used as the basis for an elevation model representing the terrain

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

91

Fig. 2.10  Digital elevation model in hill shade visualization, created by the stereoscopic photogrammetry tool

surface of the selected area without above-ground (in this case unwanted) objects. To create the DTM model in raster form, the same interpolation algorithm was used as in the case of DSM (the Natural neighbor ­algorithm). These operations (classification and filtering of the point cloud) were carried out using LAStools, ArcGIS Pro software, and the ENVI Lidar addon module (Fig. 2.11). The interpolation outputs of the point cloud processing in the form of DSM and DTM are extracted as elevation models of 2D display from a vertical view. To preview the output from a 3D view, the elevation models are visualized using specialized visualization techniques. The most ­common outputs are the shaded terrain model (the terrain is artificially illuminated at a certain angle, thus the elevation transitions of the terrain are visible) and visualization using slope analysis (calculation of the terrain slope angle). The

92 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Fig. 2.11  Comparison of the created categories of DEM: (a) digital surface model (DSM), (b) digital terrain model (DTM) with filtered buildings, (c) digital terrain model (DTM) with filled gaps after building filtering (the height value is counted from the nearest pixel values). The resolution was set to 1 m

resulting values are then exported in degrees (ranging from −90° to +90°). Commonly, these visualizations are applied to aerial laser scanning data. Along with them, a number of other visualization algorithms can be applied. Within the visualizations of the DTM and DSM Mosul data, the basic visualization techniques were extended by a method that creates a preview in the form of a Local Relief Model—a method based on identifying fine

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

93

features or small terrain anomalies, which simultaneously removes macroforms from the original surface (Devereux et al. 2008; Hesse 2010; Opitz and Cowley 2013). This visualization provides a very good overview of the elevation parameters through color hypsometry. The generated DTM features a high variability of ground point density. The historic center of Mosul has a very dense, rather compact, housing development and narrow profiles of the street network. For this reason, logically, the highest density of ground points is located in open areas— around the Tigris riverbed and around the historic center, where modern buildings do not form such compact units. However, even in the center, the distribution of ground points could be captured, and a digital terrain model for the main geographical area of interest of this project could thus be created. The average density of points here reaches values of 6–7 points per 100 m2. This quality is not ideal for urban environments, but in the absence of more detailed photogrammetric documentation, it can be advantageously used on an interpretative basis. The resulting digital model, including buildings (DSM), was created in the height range of 227–292 m above sea level for the area of 32,1 km2. The height range of the DTM was 213–287 m above sea level. The DTM was processed on the smaller area (the city center and its close surrounding) of 28,6 km2 (Fig. 2.12). To verify the deviation of elevation accuracy from the freely available elevation models and DEM of most online map applications, the relative accuracy of the elevation was tested with Google Earth and by comparison with the freely available elevation model ALOS Palsar. In both cases, the deviation was around 6 m (both test sets showed values 5.6 m higher in altitude than the DEM, extracted from a stereo pair of satellite images). This variant was chosen due to the absence of GCP, where the verification values of height parameters would certainly be more accurate. Matching of the same stereo pair of high-resolution images in the ENVI software environment was then tested due to the possibility of applying a different point cloud generating algorithm. The semi-global matching (SGM) method, created in 2005, works on the basis of image correlation, in which identical pixels in both images from a stereo pair are identified according to the specific and unique environment of the pixel. Semi-global matching uses direct custom pixel analysis to locate identical pixels, thus eliminating the most common problem of automated point cloud extraction—damage and blurring of the edges of sharp altitude transitions between pixels (Hirschmüller 2005). This method generates a

94 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Fig. 2.12  Hypsometric map of Mosul based on the DTM

point cloud of better accuracy and improved detail, which reflects the real shape and elevation parameters of the terrain and objects on it (because it draws the edges more accurately). The form of the point cloud output from the ENVI software is saved in the same *LAS format as that from the ArcGIS Pro software. The ENVI processing of the Pleiades stereopair generated 180 separate files, from which 18 files were selected, covering the area of study, the historical center, and its immediate surroundings. Processing of the point cloud into DSM takes place automatically as part of point cloud generation. The resulting DSM was created in higher detail in comparison with the product obtained by the ETM computational

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

95

Fig. 2.13  Comparison of density and distribution of ground points: point cloud extraction using the Extended Terrain Matching (ETM) algorithm (left), and semi-global matching (SGM) algorithm (right)

algorithm. However, its quality is still not sufficient in relation to the detailed resolution of structures. The outputs of the point cloud classification and filtering to obtain the DTM also show different values than the previous DTM. The density of points is about 8–12 per m2, and the spatial imbalance of the coverage of points evaluated as ground points is much higher than in the case of the previous DTM (Fig  2.13). This helps to minimize the distortion of the generated elevation model. The ideal solution is to combine the two point clouds to increase the density of the ground point cover. The resulting visualization of the elevation model of the terrain is much more precise and more effectively displays variations in the elevation of the terrain. 2.1.6.4 Summary of Spatial Analysis The processing of remote sensing data is one of the key points in the research on Mosul’s architecture. The gradual development of applied methods was closely linked to the available sources and their quality. The creation of an elevation map of the city and an elevation model of the terrain proved to be a crucial point. Both of these outputs entailed a shift toward higher topographic data accuracy, the possibility of more precise interpretation, and topographic analysis of the area. The digital elevation

96 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

model, created at a resolution of 1 m, was used for orthogonalization of selected underlying raster layers employed in the project (historical aerial images, satellite images). However, given the very dense urban tissue of the historic center and the large height variations of the buildings, this resolution is still not ideal. The existing digital elevation model opened up the possibility of using geomorphometric analysis. It was possible, for example, to reconstruct a hydrology of the urban core, to analyze the current and past state of water distribution, and to see the relationship between the water system and the urban tissue (Fig. 2.14). One of the key outputs—a digital terrain model— can be used to analyze individual urban areas in more depth and in their geomorphological context, which is partly a result of centuries-long anthropogenic development. The movement from a 12.5 m resolution to

Fig. 2.14  Hydrological reconstruction map of Mosul

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

97

a 1 m resolution digital elevation model (limited, of course, by the density of extracted ground points) reflects the importance of using remote sensing data in an urban environment. In this context, it is necessary to acknowledge an older Iraqi study, which deals with this issue and is one of the first works on creating a 3D terrain model of Mosul (Ziboon and Mohsin 2009). In addition to analytical GIS projects, the remote sensing data (DSM, DTM, and topographical plan) is also used for 3D documentation and visualization of the city in the form of reconstruction models (Fig. 2.15). In the future, this type of visualization will not only provide a very effective overview of the complex building situation, but could also be used to present results to the public.

Fig. 2.15  3D reconstruction model of Mosul city (data from 2013). Data processed by Petr Vavrečka, visualized by Lenka Starková

98 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

2.2   The Catalogue and Analysis of Destroyed Buildings 2.2.1  Congregational Mosques 2.2.1.1 G  reat Mosque of Nur al-Din (al-Nuri) and Minaret al-Hadbaʼ (I01 and I03) The mosque was the most significant historical building and symbolic focus of the old city. The extraordinary high leaning minaret made it an unmistakable landmark (Figs.  2.16 and 2.17). The 0.75  ha area of the mosque is located in the western part of the city nucleus, in the eponymous al-Jamiʽ al-Kabir neighborhood. Previous Scholarship and Sources Available The mosque and minaret have been discussed in detail in standard works (Sarre and Herzfeld 1911b, Taf. LXXXVIII–XCII; 1920a, 216–31; Suyufi 1956, 103–6, 187–9; al-Diwahji 1963, 18–54; al-Jumʽa 1975; alJanabi 1982, 171–2, 181–9, 246–7). They have also been the subject of a

Fig. 2.16  Mosque of al-Nuri. General view of the mosque from the northwest. Photo by Petr Justa (2012)

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

99

Fig. 2.17  Mosque of al-Nuri. Minaret al-Hadba’ from the south. Photo by T. J. Bradley (1928–29). Source: https://www. flickr.com/photos/ jones_in_chester/ 12564398133/ in/album72157641061121185/, ©Edward Jones

stand-­alone monograph (al-Rubayʽi 2017) and several papers (al-Diwahji 1949; Pagliero 1965; Pagliero and Bruno 1967; Tabbaa 2002; Hillenbrand 2006). Thus far, the paper by Y. Tabbaa has most thoroughly analyzed the circumstances of the founding of the mosque and attempted to reconstruct its original form and epigraphic program. In addition to the descriptions and documentation published above, a collection of 19 photographs commissioned by the General Directorate of Antiquities before the demolition of the old mosque, probably in the 1930s, partly published by Y. Tabbaa (2002, Figs. 3–7, 12, 15, 16, 18, fully accessible at www.archnet.org), is crucial for the reconstruction of the original mosque. The original field sketches and plans by E. Herzfeld from 1907, preserved in his sketchbook, also represent a valuable source

100 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

because they allow us to correct the somewhat idealized published mosque plan. Further valuable information is provided by a collection of 21 other photographs of the old mosque, and 39 images of the minaret before repairs were carried out in 1980–1982: both iconic structures have been portrayed very often, but without much detail or analytical depth. A Brief History of the Complex The mosque was founded by Atabeg Nur al-Din Mahmud Zengi during his visit to Mosul in 566/1170 as the second congregational mosque, and was finished only two years later in 568/1172 (al-Diwahji 1963, 20–1; Tabbaa 2002, 340–3). The mosque must have also served as a madrasa (school), because a post of mudarris (professor) was established there.5 It is automatically presumed that the minaret was erected in the same period as the mosque, which was not necessarily the case as the structure itself lacked any foundation inscription or dating and Nur al-Din’s appointment of muezzins for the mosque cannot be considered evidence of the minaret’s existence. The covered part of the nearby bazar (qaysariya) became one of the assets of the mosque’s waqf endowment (al-Diwahji 1963, 21). Previous authors (e.g., Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 226; Tabbaa 2002, 350) mostly supposed that there was a reconstruction of the mosque during the reign of Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ, based on rather unconvincing arguments related to the analysis of the interior decoration. The first documented reconstruction was carried out by Uzun Hasan, the Aq Qoyunlu ruler, in 881/1476–1477. It can be supported by two commemorative slabs once placed on the qibla wall in the western part of the mosque. One of the slabs (40 × 40 cm) only gives general information about the reconstruction (tajdid). Al-Diwahji speculates that it could have mainly concerned—on the basis of the last position of both slabs in the old mosque—the mosque’s western part. Another slab of the same dimensions specifically commemorates the reconstruction (tajdid) of a “taq,” which should probably be understood in the context of Mosul as a “dome” (qubba).6 By the turn of the eleventh/seventeenth century, the mosque had fallen into disrepair and Friday prayers had been suspended. The courtyard was even used as a waste dump for a while. Only in 1151/1738–1739 was the mosque complex cleaned and provisionally repaired at the expense of Husayn Pasha al-Jalili. The Friday religious service was restored, as was the position of mudarris (al-Diwahji 1963, 23–4; al-ʽUmari 1955, 34–5), and a new minbar was commissioned (Suyufi 1956, 105, No. 413). The result was probably reflected in Niebuhr’s account from 1766, which mentioned, along with the supposed ruin of the old mosque, a “newly built part” with octagonal pillars (Niebuhr 1778, II, 359–60).7 The complex was not well

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

101

maintained for long, though, as J.  S. Buckingham (1827, 288) and H. Southgate (1840, II, 252) saw the mosque in a ruined state. According to a witness recorded by al-Diwahji (1963, 25), the mosque had once more ceased to serve its original purpose. Some parts had collapsed, while others were occupied by spinning mills. The mosque was returned to its intended purpose only by the Sufi Shaykh Muhammad ibn Jirjis al-Qadiri al-Nuri, who accomplished a major reconstruction of the prayer hall in 1281–1286/1864–1870. Remnants of the medieval riwaqs in the front of the mosque were demolished, the outer walls were repaired and plastered, the statically damaged interior was supported by a new set of pillars and arches and furnished by a new mihrab (Suyufi 1956, 104, No. 409). The eastern part of the prayer hall was partitioned into two rooms for students and derwishes. In the western part of the prayer hall, a historical mihrab was installed, having been transferred from the demolished Umayyad Mosque as late as 1225/1810 (Uluçam 1989, 88; al-Diwahji 1963, 25–6, 31). The Shaykh Muhammad also established a takiya (Sufi lodge) consisting of two rooms attached to the western end of the mosque, while his private dwelling was attached to the northern side of the takiya.8 Both the takiya and the house were removed in 1956, having been occupied for a few years by the “Islamic School” established in 1919 (al-Diwahji 1963, 51–3). The top of the minaret was made accessible with the construction of a new upper gallery after the old gallery was destroyed by a storm in 1211/1796–1797 (al-Diwahji 1963, 42, Note 48). It was in approximately this form that E. Herzfeld documented the mosque in 1907 (Fig. 2.18). Between 1913 and 1918 (according to dated photographs), the muezzin’s house, annexed to the east front of the minaret, was reconstructed and an arched gallery was erected on its flat roof with a staircase leading to the upper entrance to the minaret. In 1925, the Ministry of Charitable Foundations repaired the leaking roofs of the mosque, removed the riwaqs on the site of the old ablution area, and substituted them with a water basin (hawd) roofed with a domed structure on pillars. A large part of the courtyard was made into a garden and planted with trees (al-Diwahji 1963, 46). At the same time, the minaret obtained a new upper gallery and a plastered lantern (al-Diwahji 1963, 42). In 1940, it was decided to demolish the old mosque, which, despite protests of ulama, took place until 1944. Until 1365/1945–1946, a traditionalist new building with a spacious entrance portico and a central dome was constructed on the ground plan of the old building, with dimensions of 50 × 20 m (musalla), using some elements from the older mosque (pillars, mihrab from 543/1148–1149). Its corners were

102 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Fig. 2.18  Mosque of al-Nuri. Reconstruction model of the mosque area in the state before 1940, view of the southwest. © UNESCO, Othman Al-Hayali and Omar Taqa (2020), and Oriental Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences with Petr Vavrečka

accentuated by four minarets (al-Diwahji 1963, 48–9). In 1947, the decorative brick panels of the minaret’s base were stabilized and completed with new bricks (according to dated photographs). In 1956, the takiya and the attached house in the western part of the complex were demolished with the intention of building a library in their place (not implemented; al-­Diwahji 1963, 45–6). In 1980–1982, in cooperation with a team of Italian specialists, the minaret, endangered by excessive tilting, was stabilized and its facades were repaired. However, further tilting of the trunk could not be prevented. Recent Development and Current State The mosque took on an extraordinary significance as the site of the only public appearance of the IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in connection with the official declaration of the “Caliphate.” In March 2015, the inscription where Nur al-Din and the Iraqi king Faysal II were mentioned was removed from the front wall of the mosque (a local informant, 5 March

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

103

2015). The supreme symbolic role of the mosque probably contributed to its violent end: IS blew up both the mosque and the minaret on 21 June 2017, at the very end of the Mosul liberation operation, probably to prevent the “profanation” of the building after its recapture by the Iraqi Army. At the beginning of May 2018, the project of reconstruction of the al-­ Nuri Mosque and the Minaret al-Hadbaʼ was announced by UNESCO and the UAE’s Minister of Culture, as a part of the international initiative “Revive the Spirit of Mosul” (Tabbaa 2018). A stabilization of the ruined structures started on 17 October 2019 (Facebook page of UNESCO Iraq, accessed 20 January 2020). Reconstruction of the Early Mosque9 Here we focus, with regard to the later development of the structure, on a reconsideration of the early al-Nuri Mosque’s appearance, since the data available allow, we are convinced, other possible interpretations than those that have already been published (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a; Tabbaa 2002). As for the supporting system, Herzfeld identified two types of supports in the prayer hall—octagonal pillars with ornamental decoration and epigraphic friezes belonging, according to him, to the original mosque (Type 1 according to Tabbaa), and bundled columns with lyra-like capitals which originated, according to E. Herzfeld, in the first refurbishment in the late sixth/ twelfth century (Type 2). Y. Tabbaa confirmed this observation but challenged the connection of the bundled columns with a medieval reconstruction and also suggested a different pattern for the original supporting system. The octagonal pillars can be further divided into a variant with an epigraphic frieze on the abacus and an arabesque covering the beveled echinus (Type 1A) and a variant with a cubic, staggered abacus with ornamental frieze (Type 1B). Any unambiguous regularity in the distribution of the variants throughout the prayer hall has not been observed, although the pillars with epigraphic friezes tended to flank the central bay, and the ornamental friezes were mostly located in terminal parts of the prayer hall (Fig. 2.19). However, there was yet another, third form of support, unspecified so far: plain imitations of the octagonal pillars without any decoration (hence Type 3). These pillars were included particularly in the transversal arcades. According to photographs, the arcades featured two different construction phases. The earlier phase was distinguished by high pointed arches resting on one pillar of Type 1, situated approximately in the middle of the arcade.10 The later phase was characterized by two additional supports (one of Type 2 and one of Type 3) in each arcade and substantially lower, pointed, four-centered arches in shallow rectangular recesses (Tabbaa 2002, Fig. 5). This late, additional structure can be considered a result of

Fig. 2.19  Mosque of al-Nuri. Reconstruction of the plan and transversal section of the mosque before its demolition in 1940–1944: (1) pillars of Types 1A and 1B, (2) pillars of Type 2, (3) pillars of Type 3, (4) approximate location of destroyed pillars in front of the northern facade, (5) medieval constructions, (6) Ottoman-period

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

105

the reinforcement of the prayer hall in 1281–1286/1864–1870 and the pillars of Type 3 thus belonged to this construction phase too.11 The same Type 3 pillars could also be found in the longitudinal arcade dividing the south and north aisles of the prayer hall: at least two exemplars can be discerned in the photographs from the 1930s (Tabbaa 2002, Fig. 5); the third is conjectural.12 In two places in this arcade, on the contrary, we assume there were original Type 1 pillars, later removed, because, without their existence the arcade would be interrupted by a double-­ length gap, which would disrupt its symmetry (Fig. 2.20).13 Herzfeld and Tabbaa reconstructed this symmetry using the formula 7-0-3-0-3-0-7 (where the counting numbers represent the number of pillars that occurred in a continual line and the zeros the missing pillars), which would mean that only the central bay and two adjacent lateral bays were accessed by monumental wide arches. We instead suppose a pattern (2+)-0-3-0-2-0-2-0-3-0-(2+),14 whereby the arcade would have featured alternating short rows of pillars situated close to each other and wide arches that formed monumental entrances to each bay of the prayer hall. The appearance of this arcade could be partially reconstructed on the basis of one of the preserved photographs capturing the north side of the central bay (Fig. 2.21). The axial pointed arch was twice as wide as the lateral shouldered arches, its height over the lateral arches approximated a golden ratio, and the space above them was filled by rectangular recesses with shallow niches inside, topped by a four-centered arch. The main arch was framed by a molded rectangular recess. The wall was optically unified by a massive half-cylindrical framework underlaid by a staggering band that edged the arches. No inner decoration was preserved either in the niches or on the framing bands, which seems not to correspond to the original state (see infra). A differently reconstructed spacing of the arcade between the aisles has consequences for the supposed form of the northern part of the mosque. While Herzfeld developed the idea of a very large, four-aisle-deep mosque without a dome (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, Abb. 237), Tabbaa, on the contrary, introduced a very sober solution in which the large bays alongside

Fig. 2.19  (continued) constructions, (7) conjectural medieval walls, (8) axis of the original structure, (9) axis of late Ottoman reinforcements. M1, M3–M5 mihrabs. Drawing by © UNESCO, Paula Ion (2020), according to analysis by Paula Ion and Karel Nováček, after earlier plans by E. Herzfeld (Sarre and Herzfeld 1911b, Taf. LXXXVIII), S. al-Diwahji (1963, 53, Fig. 13) and E. Herzfeld’s sketch book

106 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Fig. 2.20  Mosque of al-Nuri. Reconstruction of the original appearance of the mosque of Nur al-Din in 568/1172—plan and 3D model viewed from the north. Drawings by © UNESCO, Paula Ion (2020), according to analysis by Karel Nováček and Paula Ion

the qibla wall are accompanied by an elongated, half-width entrance aisle closed by a full wall on the north, with one central entrance. This aisle would have been articulated into 11 regular square bays (Tabbaa 2002, Fig. 14). However, there would not have been regular articulation if some of the assumed supports were missing and the arcade was punctuated by over-elevated arches, as we suppose. Moreover, one should take into consideration the historic references to the riwaq pillars in front of the mosque, which Herzfeld was still able to record cursorily and which were, in all probability, an integral part of the medieval mosque.15 Herzfeld was thus probably correct to suppose that the plan of the original mosque reached beyond the north perimeter of the early twentieth-century structure. We therefore suggest a symmetric plan for the original structure with the

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

107

arcade between the aisles as its longitudinal axis, that is, that the northern aisle was the same width and height as its southern counterpart (Fig. 2.20).16 While we consider the proposed reconstruction of the central portion of the mosque to be plausible, the appearance of the end parts of the prayer hall is mostly hypothetical. Herzfeld’s plan (Sarre and Herzfeld 1911b, Taf. LXXXVIII) is not fully reliable in this regard since, according to analysis of his original field sketch, he did not manage to complete his measurements in these areas. In comparison with the plan published by

Fig. 2.21  Mosque of al-Nuri. Reconstruction of the south and north elevations of the maqsura dome in the original state (late sixth/twelfth century) with known position of stucco decoration. Drawing by Karel Nováček with use of a photograph by General Directorate of Antiquities Baghdad and a drawing by © UNESCO, Paula Ion (2020)

108 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

al-Diwahji (1963, 53, Fig. 13) and aerial images taken before its demolition, one can conclude that Herzfeld’s plan depicted the mosque as about 2.5  m shorter on both sides than it was in reality. The west end of the mosque, which was used in the last period as a women’s compartment separated from the central portion, seems to have been, according to the photographs, heavily remodeled during one of the late reconstructions. The space was not only divided by additional arcades in both the perpendicular and transverse directions, but was also secondarily lowered and unified in height with the northern entrance aisle. The outer wall appears to be, nevertheless, original. The east end was rebuilt in the mid-­ thirteenth/nineteenth century. According to the photographs from the 1930s, the south and east outer walls may have been original here but the courtyard (northern) wall, as well as both roofs of the prayer hall and the north vestibule, were clearly divided from the main parts by joints. Taking into account the irregular shape of the prayer hall’s roof in this portion, with many steps and ad hoc infilled voids, one can suppose a rather haphazard repair (probably in 1925) which used older vertical constructions on the south and east sides, making an effort to maintain the existing proportions of the mosque. Thus, although it cannot be assumed that the ceiling of the eastern part was original, some elements in the interior clearly belonged both to Nur al-Din’s construction phase (two octagonal pillars of Type 1: Fig.  2.19) and  to a later medieval refurbishment (the mihrab with a muqarnas semi-dome which can be formally linked with the seventh/thirteenth- to eighth/fourteenth-century Mosul mihrabs). If one takes the dimensions of the square central bay in front of the mihrab (a maqsura dome) as modular, then the south bays had modular widths of ¾, 1, ½, and ½ on both sides of the central bay. In the northern half, on the other hand, a central entrance corridor of a half-width and either three full 1 × 1 bays or two full and two terminal half-width bays on each side can be reconstructed (Fig. 2.20). There are, nevertheless, several possible variants for the detailed spacing of the pillars in the arcades. The decoration in the interior of the mosque has only been fragmentarily preserved and inadequately documented, as E. Herzfeld noted (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 216, Note 2, 226). In addition to the self-standing inscriptions analyzed by Y. Tabbaa,17 the only integral remnant of the decoration was preserved on the qibla wall of the central bay. It was a fragment of a unique stucco facade and stucco lining of the window above and to the left of the mihrab. Both monuments were transferred to the Iraq Museum in Baghdad before the mosque’s demolition, and a comprehensive description and analysis of their very complex ornamentation was

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

109

given by T. al-Janabi (1982, 183–9, 246–7). Originally, a five-axis18 blind arcade filled the entire south face of the maqsura dome above the main mihrab. Individual portions were divided by massive, semi-cylindrical, approximately 4 m high columns. Each portion of the arcade was articulated into three height registers consisting of shallow, pointed, or lobed-­ arched niches; rectangular windows were composed into the upper arches of two of the segments. The upper arches were framed by the rectangular recesses. The surface of the arcade was completely covered by immensely varied arabesque ornamentation with several epigraphic focuses (the name Allah executed in large, knotted letters, a circular disc with the names Allah and Muhammad inscribed, etc.). A rectangular panel with an inscription in square Kufi naming the Prophet, four orthodox Caliphs, and the first two Shiʽi imams, al-Hasan and al-Husayn (al-Janabi 1982, 184; Suyufi 1956, 187, No. 84), was set into the bottom niche of the central segment. Stucco decoration has not been preserved in both external parts of the arcade; irregular shallow niches and molded, plastered pilasters which apparently served as a base for the stucco were visible instead. Very similar articulation can also be observed on the opposite north wall, both in the area below the transition zone and on the facade of the entrance to the central bay, described above (Fig. 2.21). The area in the upper part of the maqsura featured wide rectangular frames with alternating recessed and protruding parts, topped by pointed-arched niches.19 We tend to argue that this specific shaping of the wall surfaces constitutes circumstantial evidence for the original continual use of stucco decoration throughout most surfaces of the maqsura dome. A zone of transition was situated over the arcade featuring large muqarnas squinches and a row of four-centered arched recessed panels which resembled a similar—but substantially diminished—frieze in the al-­ Mujahidi Mosque. Panels of the same shape flanked the bottom edge of the lateral (east and west) maqsura walls, and were probably the only decorative element there. The stucco decoration may also have extended into the fluted internal dome: a blue-painted molded gypsum stucco with ­epigraphic motifs was unearthed during the demolition (al-Diwahji 1963, 30).20 In the qibla wall, the stucco-decorated areas also included the richly decorated window above and to the left of the mihrab (al-Janabi 1982, Pl. 184–6) and the whole was integrated with carved stone panels encircling the original mihrab, which was later—sometime between the eighth/ fourteenth and mid-eleventh/seventeenth centuries—removed from the structure and placed in the mosque’s courtyard (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 227; al-Janabi 1982, 171–2).21

110 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

This hypothesis about the universal decoration program cannot fail to influence one’s views on the still-unresolved matter of the dating of the interior decoration. While some authors considered the stucco decoration and the richly decorated mihrab in the mosque’s courtyard to be an integral part of the early phase of the mosque from 566–568/1170–1172 (al-Diwahji 1963, 28, 31, 36–7; al-Janabi 1982, 172, 246; Hillenbrand 2006, 18), other scholars linked the decoration with a later refurbishment of the mosque with elaborate artworks during Badr al-Din’s reign, or even later (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 226–7; Tabbaa 2002, 350). The previously stated artistic unity of all the decorative elements (mihrab, stucco facade, and stucco framed window: Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 227; al-­ Janabi 1982, 187) and the idea that these elements were integral parts of a uniformly conceived decorative program in the central space of the prayer hall are both arguments for linking all this stone and stucco decoration with the first construction phase patronized by Nur al-Din. The central inscription with the names of two imams also supports this dating based on the presence of an identical inscription, patronized by Nur al-­ Din, in Umayyad Mosque at Damascus (Tabbaa 2001, 22).22 Minaret al-Hadbaʼ The minaret has often been the subject of attention in the scholarly literature, but descriptions are usually brief and fail to take into account its historical development and actual technical state. The works by R. Pagliero (Pagliero 1965; Pagliero and Bruno 1967) represent the most detailed analysis of the building from the structural and developmental points of view; al-Gailani (1973, 94–6), on the other hand, thoroughly analyzed its decorative and artistic aspects. The following description is limited to a summary of the most important observations concerning the development of the building; the ongoing reconstruction offers a unique opportunity to deepen our knowledge. The impressive building consisted of a cubic base (19.90 m high)23 and a cylindrical trunk topped by a gallery and a point-roofed lantern (with a total height of 24.40 m and a diameter between 4.12 and 5.24 m). The trunk was twisted somehow in its upper part and leaned 2.51 m off the vertical toward the east at its highest point. Perhaps the first reference to the minaret’s tilt came in 1758 (Ives 1773, 324); it was, however, confirmed that the process significantly accelerated during the twentieth century (Abed 2013).24 The base was made of coarse, plastered stone (0–9  m)25 and brick (9–19 m). According to R. Pagliero, it was added to the minaret around

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

111

the time of its completion or shortly thereafter, and its purpose was to be purely static as the bad structural condition of the minaret demanded immediate reinforcement of its foundations. The very base of the cube was perhaps fully masoned, and only at a height of 6 m were there entrances from the north and east (under the arcade of the upper terrace), as well as isolated windows in the north, west, and east fronts. These entrances provided access to both spiral staircases in the trunk. The north entrance was, however, blocked in an unknown period, either due to static issues (Pagliero and Bruno 1967, 220) or as a consequence of the addition of a structure to the facade.26 A 10 m high brick portion of the base was decorated by edge-to-edge rectangular hazar baf panels, of which only the westernmost was reputedly original (Pagliero and Bruno 1967, 220). The eastern panel was shortened to accommodate an ogee-arched doorway accessible from the bottom terrace by an external staircase. The panels consisted of only a ca. 20 cm thick layer of bricks, insufficiently interconnected with the flat surface of the base, which gradually led to extensive displacement of the ornamentation. The panels were subjected to substantial repairs and brick replacements in 1947 and 1980–1982. With the exception of the aforementioned entrance and an opening in the intersection of the central eight-pointed star on the west front, there were no other openings in the brick section of the base. A slender brick trunk comprised double stone staircase which wound up a ca. 1 m thick core, interconnected with the outer wall by a system of wooden beams. The space was probably not lit at all—or only by one small window on the south side. The decoration of the trunk was structured into seven strips of both hazar baf and strapwork divided by differently conceived narrow bands (Fig.  2.17). The lowest decorative strip of the facade continued down at least 0.8 m into the cubic base, which can be used to make an argument for the separate origins of the base and trunk (Pagliero 1965, 43). Conclusion The mosque was founded by the most influential Muslim ruler of the sixth/twelfth century with the intention of conveying a strong symbolic message of Sunni dominance in a largely Christian environment, and the founder granted an extraordinary amount of money for its construction and maintenance (Tabbaa 2002, 339–43). The resulting architecture was thus most likely an actual expression of these intentions and ambitions, and reflected not only the prestige of its mighty patron but also his Syrian sources of inspiration. Our reconstruction takes into account the original

112 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

existence of a wide peristyle prayer hall with two aisles of similar dimensions and seven or nine symmetrically placed bays of variable width. The central bay in front of the mihrab was markedly elevated over the rest of the hall and surmounted by a hemispherical dome. The maqsura dome was accessible from the north through a pointed-arched portico and an axial corridor that was half the width of a standard bay. One can assume with a high level of confidence that this corridor was highlighted both by an elaborated entrance gate and by a transversal gable roof, which would be a direct quotation of the transept (Qubbat al-Nasr) of the Umayyad Mosque at Damascus (Fig. 2.20). Although previous scholarship has assumed a certain degree of inspiration from the Umayyad Mosque, our reconstruction revealed an even tighter relationship. On the other hand, a distant ideal was regionally appropriated by the extensive use of a complex stucco ornamentation covering most, if not all, walls of the maqsura dome in a form that had grown organically from Iraqi early ʽAbbasid (and even Sasanian) artistic traditions (al-Janabi 1982, 184–9). This extraordinarily rich ornamentation was integrated into one framework together with the unique stonework of the mihrab. Other sources of influence, often mentioned in the literature (Hillenbrand 2006, 20), cannot be excluded. In particular, the massive, half-cylindrical external mihrab protrusion clearly has Anatolian parallels. The space of the maqsura dome should give an impression of exceptional grandeur supporting an omnipresent textual invocation of Allah, the Prophet, the four rightly guided Caliphs, and the Imams al-Hasan and alHusayn. The combination of four features—a monumental, spectacularly decorated mihrab, a minbar, an over-elevated, also lavishly decorated and domed maqsura space, and the transept—likely created, as in many other instances, a nexus of meanings associated with royal mosques. Unlike some previous scholars, we do not find enough evidence to support the idea that Badr al-Din Lu’lu’ was the patron of the mosque. There is only a very hypothetical possibility that he might have supported the construction of the Minaret al-Hadbaʼ whose dating to the period of the mosque’s construction is not confirmed by the available sources. On the contrary, its frequently emphasized relationship to the very consistent group of brick minarets in North Iraq, which can be seen not only in the similarity of their forms and decoration programs but also in common structural features (e.g., the absence of a structural connection between the walls and the external decorative skin), implies a later dating than the period of Nur al-Din.27 The mosque was subjected to numerous later adjustments, albeit only of a preservatory or even degrading character, which fundamentally

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

113

changed its appearance, especially its northern half. Undoubtedly, the whole ziyada also underwent substantial changes as some medieval elements, which later disappeared, were described by classical Arab authors (a fountain house: Ibn Battuta 1962, II, 348–9). It is a remarkable fact that the new building from 1365/1945–1946 not only reused many original decorative elements but also made allusions to other structural features of the early mosque (e.g., a wide, multi-aisled prayer hall and a high entrance portico) and could be thus seen as its free reconstruction. Fortunately, after the demolition of the mosque and minaret in 2017, there is still a foundation for the careful conservation, anastylosis, and reconstruction of this valuable monument. 2.2.1.2 Al-Mujahidi Mosque (al-Khidr) (I06) Situated near the west bank of the Tigris in the Bab al-Tob Quarter, beyond the southeast limit of the medieval city, the conspicuous structure of the mosque was a prominent feature of the southern part of Mosul’s panorama (Fig. 2.1). Sources Available The analysis presented here is based on detailed descriptions of the structure, published by al-Diwahji (1955), al-Sufi (1940, 51–6), Al Faraj (2012, 98–113), and Uluçam (1989, 85–6), and additional information by Sa’igh (2008, 160–3) and al-Janabi (1982). We had access to three reliable plans of the structure: the first is a late Ottoman reconstruction project (undated, before 1885, circulated on the al-Mawsil al-qadima … suwar wa dhikrayat Facebook group page, accessed on 29 January 2016); the others were published by A. Uluçam (1989, res. 25) and E. Wirth (1991, Abb. 4), respectively. A second Ottoman-period project (also accessed on the al-Mawsil al-qadima … suwar wa dhikrayat Facebook group page) presents the mosque in a very schematized form and can only be used to reconstruct the plan of the complex adjacent to the mosque, completed in 1319/1901–1902. Elevations of the mosque have been documented by Uluçam (a view from the north) and by Mawsuʽat al-­Mawsil al-Hadariya (1992; a view of a mihrab with a drawing of a stucco panel). The earliest view of the mosque from the east, by E. Flandin (from 1841; published in two slightly different versions: Flandin 1857, 1870), has indispensable significance, as does the first photograph by Henry Binder (1887; from 1885). Furthermore, important collections of photographs have been published by al-Diwahji (1955,  1963; six images), al-­Sufi (1940; view from the west and main entrance), Uluçam (1989; three images taken in

114 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

1982), Y. Tabbaa (two images from the exterior and six from the interior, taken in 1983 and accessible at https://archnet.org), and Al Faraj (2012; three images from 2007). Additionally, we worked with 7 anonymous photographs of the mosque’s exterior from the period 1901–1980 and 23 images captured after the large restoration in the 1980s, as well as 10 other anonymous photographs of the interior. The collection was complemented by a documentary film.28 Building History The al-Mujahidi Mosque (Fig.  2.22) was founded in 572/1176 (Ibn Khallikan 1977, IV, 84) as Mosul’s third congregational mosque by the governor of Mosul’s citadel and major patron Mujahid al-Din Qaymaz. The mosque became the core of the newly growing southern suburb. The building occupied a prominent, easily visible spot on the west bank of the Tigris and became part of a cluster of other religious and public buildings, among which Mujahid al-Din explicitly established a bimaristan located opposite the mosque (Ibn Jubayr 2008, 244), a madrasa, and a khanqah, as well as a bridge near the mosque that replaced the original one (Ibn Khallikan 1977, IV, 82–3).

Fig. 2.22  Mosque of al-Mujahidi. View of the porticoed north facade during the renovation. Photo by Yasser Tabbaa (1983)

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

115

The first Friday prayer took place as early as 575/1179–1180 (Ibn al-­ Athir 1987, X, 99), and the building was finally completed in 576/1180–1181, as evidenced by the inscription observed by C. Niebuhr in the mosque in 1766 (Niebuhr 1778, II, Taf. XLIII: E, 360) and ­perhaps again by al-Munshiʼ al-Baghdadi in 1822 (al-Diwahji 1955, 5). Ibn Jubayr gave an authentic testimony of the splendor of the newly completed mosque during his visit to the city in 580/1184.29 Three major reconstructions of the mosque, documented by inscriptions in the interior, were carried out during the Ottoman period. Scholars cannot agree on the extent of the renovations, partly due to a lack of surveys, and partly because the respective dedication slabs only featured uncertain phrases to the effect that the mosque had been rebuilt or recovered from debris. While al-Diwahji (1955, 7, and later e.g., al-Janabi 1982, 189, or Patton 1982, 54) suspected that the original, medieval core of the mosque, that is the domed bay in front of the mihrab, was preserved by each of the reconstructions, other authors (al-Sufi 1940, 55; Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 236; indirectly Uluçam 1989, 85–6) tended to the opinion that the mosque was completely rebuilt during some of these campaigns (mostly in 1264/1847–1848). In 1139/1726–1727, the building was reconstructed by ʽAli Pasha, the ruler of Mosul, as testified by an inscription to the left of the mihrab (Suyufi 1956, 158). According to al-Diwahji, two side bays, of 8 and 8.5 m width, were added to the central bay at this time (al-Diwahji 1955, 6, 9). However, in Flandin’s drawing of the mosque from the east, made in September 1841, the east bay does not yet exist. There are two large, walled arches, visible on the exposed eastern wall of the central bay, that seem to reveal the collapsed continuation of the medieval prayer hall to the east (Fig. 2.23 left). It follows that the reconstruction of ʽAli Pasha consisted merely of the closure and stabilization of the central bay. After this reconstruction, the mosque began to be associated with the cult of the Prophet al-Khidr and this dedication gradually replaced both the original and alternative names (Jamiʽ al-Mujahidi, Jamiʽ al-Rabad, Jamiʽ al-­Ahmar). Another unspecified building adaptation is associated with Yunus Efendi (d. 1207/1792–1793; al-Diwahji 1955, 6). A substantial reconstruction took place in 1264/1847–1848 during the reign of Sultan Abdulmajid I and vizier Tayyar ʽAli Pasha, as an inscription above the mosque’s main entrance attested. At this stage, the entrance portico was to be built anew and the main entrance to the mosque was to be repaired (al-Diwahji 1955, 6; al-Sufi 1940, 56), but—as has been

116 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Fig. 2.23  Mosque of al-Mujahidi. Comparison of two views from the east: left E. Flandin (1841), right an anonymous postcard (1908)

mentioned above—it was now that a fundamental change took place, in the course of which the side bays were annexed and the arcades of the central part of the prayer hall were reopened. The condition of the mosque after this reconstruction is seen in the oldest surviving photograph, taken in 1885 (Binder 1887, 230), and the first of the preserved, undated late Ottoman plans from the second half of the nineteenth century, which contains a detailed and reliable ground plan of the building (see infra). The third epigraphically recorded restoration30 was completed in 1319/1901–1902, during the reign of the Ottoman Sultan Abdulhamid II, and is documented by both the above  mentioned  Ottoman plans, probably made for the occasion, and by a photograph from the southwest from 1901 (Al Faraj 2012, 98). Both of the plans distinguished existing structures from those that were newly designed (in red). From a more reliable older plan, we can thus conclude that the subject of this last Ottoman refurbishment was a completion of the damaged southeast corner of the mosque31 and a reinforcement of the building’s perimeter with massive supporting pillars (in the southeast corner, east of the mihrab’s protrusion, and reinforcing the pillars of the entrance portico). The main development, however, was the construction of a new, closed complex of buildings northwest of the mosque (ziyada), comprising north and south arcade corridors, housing for the poor, an ablution area, and an enclosing wall with south and west entrances. The two plans differ substantially with respect to the ground plan, size, and composition of the buildings, and it is clear from the early twentieth-century photographs that a more modest

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

117

solution, schematically drawn on the second plan, was eventually preferred. We thus consider this plan to be later. To date the beginnings of this extension of the area, it is important that one of the buildings of the complex is already visible under construction in Binder’s photo, and the supporting pillar between the annex and the western perimeter wall of the mosque (probably used as the base of a staircase) was already standing at that time as well. It is therefore clear that both plans must have been drawn up before 1885, and the last Ottoman construction phase covered the longer period of 1885–1902. After the completion of the flat roof of the southern arcade, the external staircase to the mosque roof could be transferred from the northwest corner of the building to the southwest corner. During the adaptation of a new courtyard around the mosque, a stone wall, delimiting an older rectangular ziyada, was pulled down, together with a doorway from the north. According to al-Diwahji, the tall portal, still captured in the 1885 photograph, might have been the remnant of a medieval building (al-Diwahji 1955, 7), but his topographical arguments are not very convincing. In 1360/1941,32 the entrance portico collapsed. A new, five-axis portico on the same ground plan, with arches diverted down on subtle prismatic pillars with capitals, was created by Mustafa ibn Muhammad Pasha al-Sabunji (Al Faraj 2012, 111). On that occasion, the annex of unknown purpose in the northwest corner was removed. The appearance of the mosque after this modification is captured by a photo published by al-­ Diwahji (1963, 59, Fig. 16). The last renovation, carried out in the 1970s (see Papadopoulo 1976, Fig.  659), was very radical and modernizing, and the mosque consequently lost much of its historical value. The dome was, in all probability, completely replaced by a new construction from reinforced concrete. The mosque facades were repaired and plastered with cement plaster. When the dome was repaired, its external staircase and all surface traces of earlier development were removed (Fig. 2.22).33 A long supporting pillar, symmetric with the old eastern pillar, was added to the west of the mihrab’s protrusion. A partition defining the room at the east end of the portico was demolished. During the last documented repairs shortly before 2013, the interior plasterwork was changed and the arches were cladded with marble. The external portico arches were covered with concrete screens (mashrabiyas).

118 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Recent Development and Current State The mosque was pillaged some time before 6 July 2014. On 26 February 2015, it was razed to the ground by an improvised explosive device (IED) and bulldozers. After a certain time delay, the construction of a modern mosque began in the open space, but this mosque remained unfinished after the defeat of IS (Faisal Jabar, pers. comm.). No art-historical elements were transferred from the al-Mujahidi Mosque, and its most valuable part—the stucco panel—was thus destroyed together with the building. Architectural Analysis The al-Mujahidi Mosque was located in Mosul’s southern suburb, close to the original west bank of the Tigris.34 The mosque was exactly qibla-­ oriented. It persisted until the nineteenth century as a solitary structure, enclosed by a ziyada of unknown age with a gate from the north, but the remains of at least some of the adjacent buildings mentioned in medieval sources were situated east of the mosque.35 The buildings might have been abandoned as a consequence of a possible post-medieval shift of the Tigris river bed to the west. A cemetery spread to the south and east of the mosque until the early twentieth century. In 1885–1902, the ziyada was replaced by a spacious courtyard with a trapezoidal ground plan, perimeter buildings, two gates, and arcades (Fig. 2.24). This complex was demolished to make way for the construction of a new road in the 1980s. The mosque consisted of a 17 m high, central domed part in front of the mihrab (a maqsura dome), which stood out like a tall cube above the substantially lower flat roofs of two side bays (Figs. 2.25 and 2.26). An entrance portico was added to the building, in the last phase in the form of a five-axis arcade. The material of the building was plastered stone, except for a bricked dome and a repair of the southeast and southwest corners of the central hall’s exterior (see infra). Areas of brickwork are, however, visible in the photographs from recent repairs in the interior of the central hall. The prayer hall was accessible from the portico through three axially located entrances: the main entrance opened to a central domed space with a mihrab and minbar, while the western and eastern entrances communicated with lateral bays which were both separated from the main space and divided in the east-west direction into two naves by pointed-arched arcades laid on massive, wide prismatic piers. The maqsura dome, with a nearly square ground plan (9.2 × 9.0 m), was apparently a separate part of the building, with perimeter walls approximately twice the height and thickness of those elsewhere in the complex.

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

119

Fig. 2.24  Mosque of al-Mujahidi. Plan of the mosque complex: medieval nucleus (blue), early Ottoman (dark gray), late Ottoman (light gray), and modern or undetermined (white) constructions; a non-realized version of late Ottoman ziyada by dotted line. After two anonymous Ottoman-period projects, plans by A. Uluçam (1989, res. 25) and E. Wirth (1991, Abb. 4), redrawn with additions and interpreted

Its irregularly tapering shape above roof level was evidently the result of multiple repairs to the damaged structure. The fact that the maqsura dome already appears in this state in Flandin’s drawing of 1841, and the oldest photograph in 1885 is clear evidence that the mosque was not a new Ottoman-period building. The narrow stairway climbing the northwest corner is another result of later modifications, being intended to replace a missing minaret and to allow adhan.36 With no further possibility of detailed examination, the origin of the four horizontal, undulating steps in the masonry of the maqsura’s north facade can no longer be unambiguously determined. We offer the explanation that the three upper stages may have been the scars of the decayed terracotta lining mentioned by Ibn Jubayr, which gave the mosque the name of “al-ahmar” (Red). The high

120 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Fig. 2.25  Mosque of al-Mujahidi. North elevation and longitudinal section. The hypothetical level of the roof of the medieval prayer hall by dashed line. After A. Uluçam (1989, res. 25), redrawn with additions and interpreted

step below these three has a straighter, more pronounced crown. The comparison of its elevation in Flandin’s drawing with the later documentation (Fig. 2.23) confirms that it was a trace of the original roofing of the adjoining parts of the prayer hall, into which the central part opened via large arcades. Other large, irregular scars in the upper part of the southeast and southwest corners of the central hall’s exterior, appearing in all

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

121

Fig. 2.26  Mosque of al-Mujahidi. A 3D reconstruction model of the state before reconstruction in the 1970s—a view from the northeast

photographs taken before 1980, are of unclear origin. Perhaps they are connected with repairs of once-destroyed corner squinches or quoins. The cube of the maqsura passed through a low, octagonal drum into a hemispherical, single-shell dome. The dome had a cylindrical base, while its upper part was originally slightly S-shaped. Above the base, there were two registers of external horizontal decoration: a merlon-type frieze and a line of tiny blind niches in the form of squares with rounded corners. The latter resembled galleries on the domes of some Seljuk mausoleums (e.g., the Mausoleum of Sultan Sanjar in Merv, after 1157). According to al-­ Diwahji’s testimony (1963, 58), blue-glazed octagonal tiles were also used in the decoration of the dome’s external face. A massive, high, half-­ cylindrical mihrab protrusion on the external facade had been topped by a catenary half-dome, whose shape was adjusted twice during the twentieth century. The original form of the protrusion was close to that of the al-­ Nuri Mosque and can also be found elsewhere (Mosque at Erzurum Citadel, the sixth/twelfth century: Hillenbrand 2000, Fig. 2.184).

122 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

In the interior, the dome was supported by four simple squinches with very narrow, pointed vaulting arches (Fig. 2.27). The transition zone was decorated by one continual band of protruding, semicircle-topped panels, executed in stucco, resembling panels in the maqsura dome of the al-Nuri Mosque. Similar (though not continual) bands of panels can be also seen at Khazam Mosque (late tenth/sixteenth or early twelfth/eighteenth century). The austerity of decoration, the unbalanced proportions of the zone of transition, and the conspicuous external traces of a repair lead us to the conjecture that this dome was the result of an Ottoman-period

Fig. 2.27  Mosque of al-Mujahidi. A 3D reconstruction model of the state before reconstruction in the 1970s—an interior view (maqsura dome)

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

123

refurbishment. In their more recent state, the dome interior and the lower parts of the central hall were undecorated. Al-Diwahji, however, assumes that there was originally rich molded terracotta and stucco decoration, including epigraphy, and mentions a chance to find of one hexagonal gypsum panel with a molded, simply executed acanthus scroll, which might have been used in the medieval interior (al-Diwahji 1955, Fig.  5). One side of the panel was 8.6 cm in length. The focus of the prayer hall was an extraordinarily large, 6.8 m high mihrab. Its lower part was rebuilt during one of the Ottoman-period campaigns and its blue-painted decoration was also modern. In the outer niche of the mihrab, however, a panel with molded and carved stucco decoration survived (Fig.  2.28). The panel was an intact, highly prized work dated by some authors to the Atabeg period (in detail by al-Janabi 1982, 189, 246–7). It was clearly placed in situ, and its excellent state of preservation provided another hint that the structures around it were essentially intact medieval ones. The decoration of the conch was an intricately evolved arabesque motif with a thin, deeply engraved scroll and stylized vegetal elements. The presence of animal motifs in the decoration

Fig. 2.28  Mosque of al-Mujahidi. Stucco panel in the mihrab’s conch. Photo by Yasser Tabbaa (1983)

124 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

presumed by al-Diwahji (1955, 8) cannot be corroborated in the documentation available. A marble minbar was simple and of modern origin. On the opposite northern side, a tall, pointed entrance niche represented a tectonic counterbalance to the mihrab. A wooden gallery (sudda, mahfil) was inserted above the main entrance portal, and above it, there was a large rectangular window opening above the roof.37 On the sides of the main entrance were two symmetrical entrances to the staircase on the gallery and the roof, the easternmost of which was walled up during one of the Ottoman reconstructions. The staircase and gallery were very probably not an original part of the medieval building. Both lateral bays of the central domed bay were almost certainly built during the second Ottoman-period reconstruction of the mosque in 1264/1847–1848; the eastern bay was extensively repaired again before 1319/1902.38 The entrance portico also underwent significant changes during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Based on Flandin’s realistic drawing, we can assume that before the Ottoman reconstruction, the portico’s pointed arches were lower and were framed in shallow-recessed rectangular panels. The long walls of the portico showed traces of a continuation to the east, beyond the circumference of the Ottoman building. Even in a photographic view from 1908 (Fig. 2.23 right), the already completed eastern lateral bay of the prayer hall runs toward a wall, which is a prolongation of the partition wall between the prayer hall and the portico. This projection of the wall appears to be earlier than the eastern perimeter wall and looks like a destroyed remnant of the original continuation to the east. Conclusion The analysis has shown that the architectural significance of the al-­Mujahidi Mosque was considerably underestimated due to chronic disagreements between scholars regarding the dating of the existing structure. Reassessment of textual sources, descriptions, and imagery, as well as reconstruction of the mosque’s plan and elevation, leads us to the conviction that the central, over-elevated domed space of the prayer hall, with its lavishly decorated mihrab niche, was indeed a remnant of the original mosque founded by Mujahid al-Din Qaymaz in 1176. The maqsura dome, however, proportionally corresponded to a substantially larger structure than that of the Ottoman restoration. This is also indicated by the possible continuation of the large medieval portico to the east, beyond the perimeter of the Ottoman structure. The original building can thus be

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

125

reconstructed, with all probability, as a longitudinal hypostyle mosque of similar dimensions to the al-Nuri Mosque, completed only eight years earlier.39 The longitudinal mosque with over-elevated domed maqsura in front of the mihrab was derived from the archetype of the Umayyad Mosque at Damascus and, apart from the al-Nuri Mosque, it appeared in numerous variations in Seljuq and Atabeg-period architecture, particularly in eastern Anatolia (Diyarbakır, Dunaysir-Kızıltepe, Mayyafariqin, Mardin, and Silvan). Two other features enable us to make a closer parallel between Qaymaz’s mosque and Jamiʽ al-Nuri: the external form of the huge mihrab’s protrusion and the presence of extraordinarily rich stucco decoration on the interior face of the qibla wall, preserved directly in the outer conch of the mihrab niche in the case of the al-Mujahidi Mosque. Therefore, the al-Mujahidi Mosque formally followed up on Mosul’s new congregational mosque and even tried to exceed it in some sense by use of molded terracotta cladding of the maqsura dome exterior.40 This decoration, mentioned for the first time by Ibn Jubayr in 1184, represented the earliest ever recorded use of the technique in Mosul, which later found its full development on the shrines of Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ. 2.2.1.3 Mosque and Tomb of Nabi Yunus (Prophet Jonah) (I07) The mosque complex occupied the northwestern corner of Tell Nabi Yunus, historically known as Tell al-Tawba (Hill of Repentance), the lesser tell of the Assyrian megacity of Nineveh. Its northern facade and domes towered above the steep slope of the tell, forming a landmark visible from a distance. The historical nucleus of the large compound consisted of the mosque itself (with the Nabi Yunus tomb, three musallas or prayer halls, passages, and a minaret), a madrasa on the western side of the mosque (its roof, lower than the roof of the mosque, was used as a terrace and occasional prayer space), and a porticoed courtyard to the southwest with pilgrim facilities and servant rooms. The main gate led from the west into the courtyard. The ablution facilities were situated below the slope outside the mosque compound. Sources Available Although the mosque of Nabi Yunus was one of the Mosul’s key sights, it was insufficiently documented. The bulk of the literature on the mosque has dealt with historical aspects of the Nabi Yunus settlement, most comprehensively discussed by Fiey (1965, 493–524). Until the end of the Ottoman period, the access of non-Muslim scholars and visitors to the

126 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

mosque was not allowed (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 206). Our analysis was based on published descriptions by Rich (1836, II, 32–3), Badger (1852, I, 85–6), al-Diwahji (1954, 1963, 73–106), al-Sufi (1940, 24–8), and Uluçam (1989, 46–50). The only published floor plan of the structure, made by Muhammad ʽAli Mustafa in 1954, is not accurate in details.41 Only a drawing by E. Flandin from 1841 to 1842 (in two variants, Fig. 2.29, Flandin 1861) captured the northern facade of the shrine before rebuilding in 1271/1854–1855. In addition to this drawing, we analyzed 54 photographs of the exterior taken between 1858 and 1989 (including six aerial photographs), and 31 images from the interior (mostly mihrabs and the muqarnas dome of the Yunus tomb; only a small fraction are from the period before the renovation in 1989). Two pieces of documentary footage42 can also help to give a more complete spatial idea of the compound. Building History The complex was built directly on the ruins of the middle to late Assyrian Military Palace, which was renovated by Sennacherib and enlarged by Ashurbanipal (for recent interpretations of the finds at Nabi Yunus, see Turner 1970; Scott and MacGinnis 1990, 64–7, 71; Kertai 2015: Pl. 16B, 147–52; Reade 2017). The settlement of the tell continued after the destruction of Nineveh in 612 BC, but the next phase of monumental

Fig. 2.29  Mosque of Nabi Yunus. View from the north. Drawing by Eugene Flandin, 1841–1842. Source: Flandin 1861; https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Le_Tour_du_monde-04-p072.jpg

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

127

building activity was demonstrably connected with the foundation of the Mar Yonan monastery.43 The beginnings of the monastery are not elucidated by any extant sources; Fiey argued that the see of Nestorian bishops at Nineveh, established in 554, was in fact in Mar Yonan, which seems to be plausible (Fiey 1965, 498). The last direct mention of the monastery came in 932 (Fiey 1965, 501). Its actual abandonment is, however, difficult to determine, as it is unclear whether the late reference to the monastery of Yunus ibn Matta in the context of the thirteenth century (al-Hamawi 1977, II, 543), which is certainly borrowed from the tenth-century Book of Monasteries (al-Shabushti 1966, 181), was still intended to describe a reality, or just to reflect an earlier tradition. However, the remarkable discovery and display of the miraculously preserved body of the patriarch Hnanisho I (d. 701) in 1349, which, as Fiey thoroughly documented, was soon venerated as the remains of the Prophet Yunus (Fiey 1965, 507–8), indirectly show that monastic structures still stood (at least partly) in the first half of the eighth/fourteenth century and a clerus still operated there. However, in this period at the latest, and apparently in relation to the development of the cult of the Prophet Yunus’ tomb, the Christian compound was in the process of being totally transformed and absorbed by its Islamic neighbor. The mosque on Tell al-Tawba was first mentioned by al-Masʽudi in the year 332/943–944 (al-Masʽudi 2005, I, 163), but its spatial relationship to the monastery is not known. The same building was probably ­renovated or rebuilt by Jamila, the daughter of the last Hamdanid ruler Nasir alDawla (d. 969), who also added a pilgrim lodge to the complex.44 From the firsthand descriptions by Ibn Jubayr from 1184, we know that the complex, designated as a large ribat, was accessible by one gate (entrance), and comprised numerous rooms, ablution areas (matahir), and a central room with a mihrab, which was connected with the Yunus cult (Ibn Jubayr 2008, 245). Yaqut, who visited Mosul in the late 1210s or early 1220s, moreover recorded a tradition regarding the construction of a shrine (mashhad) by an unspecified mamluk of a Seljuq sultan, who ruled the town before 507/1113–1114.45 Although, strictly speaking, he could be any of the first five Seljuq governors of Mosul, it is assumed that he was the fifth, Mawdud ibn Altuntakin (reigned 502–507/1108–1113; al-­ Diwahji 1954, 254; Uluçam 1989, 46). The available information, however, does not unambiguously reveal whether this shrine was a totally new construction, or just a reconstruction/extension of an earlier building.

128 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

For the subsequent two and half centuries, our knowledge of the site is very scarce. Sources only mention the existence of a shrine without any details concerning its development. Only in 767/1365–1366, did the site evolve into a monumental congregational mosque (jamiʽ) under the care of Jalal al-Din Ibrahim al-Khatani. During the (re)construction, the tomb of the Prophet Yunus was “rediscovered” and covered with a dome. The operation of the new mosque complex was funded by a charitable endowment (waqf ) established for this purpose (al-Diwahji 1954, 255–6). This fourteenth-century development was the very first event to leave unambiguous traces in the recently demolished compound. Shortly thereafter, in 796/1393, Mosul was invaded by the armies of Timur Lenk. Even though we lack any explicit information, we assume that the mosque suffered some damage, because, after the intervention of the mosque’s administrator,46 Timur donated 10,000 dinars for the reconstruction works (al-Khidri MS, Fol. 280), probably related to the dome above the tomb (Yazdi 1887, 661–2; al-Diwahji 1954, 257).47 Further information about the mosque’s repairs comes from the tenth/ sixteenth century and concerns particularly the parts of the structure south of the tomb. In the year 997/1589, Husayn Pasha ibn Janbulat Pasha, the Ottoman governor of Mosul, established the so-called Shafiʽi prayer hall with a mihrab (al-Diwahji 1954, 265). The mihrab of the neighboring large musalla belonged to approximately the same period (see infra). The Yunus tomb’s door, donated by al-Ustadh Shalmawi (al-Diwahji 1954, 265; Suyufi 1956, 163, No. 628), was dated to 1000/1591–1592. The tomb dome, which had been restored by Timur, allegedly collapsed in 1078/1667 due to an earthquake (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 206) and was restored later on. An inscription testified to some modifications in the tomb’s interior in 1130/1717–1718 (Suyufi 1956, 200, No. 134). At an unknown time, but certainly not before the eighth/fourteenth century, the building was also equipped with a high minaret, which was recorded by C. Rich in 1820 (Rich 1836, II, Fig. after 34). The minaret collapsed sometime between 1820 and 1842. A substantial architectural change of the complex took place in the nineteenth century on the initiative of the educated waqf administrator ʽAbd Allah Bashʽalim al-ʽUmari (d. 1297/1879–1880). The most important element of this transformation was the construction of a two-­story extension of the northern facade of the building, which contained corridors on both floors, providing direct access to the tomb (see the state before the change in Fig.  2.29). The extension was sunk into the tell slope using older

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

129

foundations. Along with the construction of a new brick minaret, this demanding construction project was completed in 1271/1854–1855 (alDiwahji 1954, 261, 263). In 1286/1869–1870, the interior of the upper corridor was modified by breaking new and enlarging old windows, and lavishly decorated. The lower corridor in the annex was connected by a tunnel to the ablution facilities located at the foot of the slope, built a little earlier in 1254–1255/1838–1840 (al-­Diwahji 1954, 260–1).48 In this form, the complex lasted—with minor changes—until the 1980s. The only exception was the replacement of Bashʽalim’s brick minaret with a tall minaret with two galleries and limestone ashlar lining in 1341/1922–1923. The communication tunnel between the ablution facilities and the tomb was removed in 1952 (Uluçam 1989, 46) and the ablution area demolished in 1973, in connection with the expansion of the access route to the shrine. The north and west facades of the mosque were cladded with limestone slabs during the 1970s. In 1989–1991, the complex was radically expanded and modernized in a way that, unfortunately, did not respect the authentic architectural values of the mosque, the tomb, and their surroundings, but rather met the requirements of the tourist and pilgrimage businesses. The traditional access to the compound from the north was eclipsed by a new pedestrian access via a monumental staircase from the west, and by access from the bus parking lot to the south. The slopes were terraced and a large part of the surrounding historic town was destroyed in the process. The historic nucleus of the mosque, expanded by two large arcaded courtyards and two separate administrative complexes, was completely rebuilt using modern materials (according to the original spatial organization), and the remaining exterior facades were cladded with limestone. A new, oval-­ shaped staircase was added to connect the entrance courtyard with the terrace in front of the entrances to the mosque itself. The demolition of the old buildings and the erection of new parts of the complex were accompanied by archaeological research, which revealed significant remains of a late Assyrian palace east of the mosque. Recent Development and Current State The mosque of Nabi Yunus and the neighboring mausoleum of Shaykh Rashid Lolan (1882–1964) were blown up by IS on 24 July 2014. The area was subsequently cleared and flattened, and all structural remains visible on the surface were removed. During 2015–2016, the site was searched by illicit excavations, both by digging from above and by using a

130 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

system of dense tunnels opened from the eastern side (see also Angiuli et al. 2020, 19, 20). The extent of the damages and scientific potential of the unearthed findings are the subject of a preliminary paper (Al-Juboori 2017) and an ongoing project of Heidelberg University. According to preliminary reconnaissance and documentation, the ground floor of the mosque, with the exception of the northern wing, may be preserved under the rubble (Arch. Andreas Hoffschildt, pers. comm., November 2019). Interpretive Description The analysis of the available documentation shows two essential characteristics of the Nabi Yunus Mosque. First, despite the initially big difference in the elevations of the north and south facades, it is obvious that the building was designed as a two-floor structure. The ground floor, however, was neither used nor satisfactorily described during the recent period documented by the sources. Nevertheless, the fact that it was situated completely below the surface on the courtyard side is an indication of the great age of the foundations. C. Rich described this ground floor comprehensively as “three very narrow, ancient passages, one within the other, with several doors or apertures, opening one into the other,” accessible from the east side of the courtyard of the shrine, and added that the “passages are quite dark, narrow, and vaulted, appearing much as if designed for the reception of dead bodies /…/. They extended much farther, but they have been stopped up” (Rich 1836, II, 33). The spaces were, at least in part, accessible until the recent destruction of the building, as is obvious from fragmentary information provided by other authors. Al-Diwahji (1954, 262) describes, in the part below the minaret, the foundation masonry of huge stone blocks (linking it to a hypothetical fire temple). Fiey (1965, 513) made several attempts to reach the tomb from below but found his way blocked on all sides by “huge walls.” Al-Sufi (1940, 26–7) describes a tunnel leading from the madrasa (the lower building adjacent to the mosque on the west side) to the Yunus tomb and considers it a probable remnant of the Assyrian palace, but his description rather corresponds to the lower floor of the corridor attached by ʽAbd Allah Bashʽalim in 1271/1854–1855.49 Small, apparently refurbished room(s), accessible from the entrance beside the minaret’s base, are also visible in the documentary films cited above.50 The available documentation does not give any indication as to how the reported interfloor connections inside the building (including that between the tomb and the outdoor ablution area) might have looked. The

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

131

unused lower level with no openings gave the structure the appearance of a fortress and, at the same time, complicated the communication scheme, as the higher first floor had to be accessed by an external staircase leading to the terrace (the roof of the adjacent madrasa), which exceeded the height difference of 4.8  m. We can only assume (with no possibility of finding decisive proof) that the large, rugged, two-story building could have contained in its substance the twelfth-century ribat that Ibn Jubayr visited in 1184 (see supra). Apart from this, we can argue that the mosque belonged to several different construction phases. Despite the schematic drawing, four separate phases can be identified in the mosque’s floor plan, differing in orientation, wall thickness, or floor level (Fig. 2.30).51 The least problematic is the identification of the northern corridor, built in 1271/1854–1855 by ʽAbd Allah Bashʽalim (Fig.  2.30: 1). The purpose of this long passage, illuminated by large windows, was to make the tomb accessible without the need to walk through prayer rooms and disturb prayers. The structure is vaulted by six fields of segmental sail vault separated by massive semicircular arches (there were similar arches, with narrower openings, in the corresponding corridor on the ground floor). The easternmost field, designated as a tomb vestibule, was separated from the rest by a ceremonial partition. The walls of the hallway, also used as a women’s prayer section in more recent times, were richly decorated with stucco, painting, and inscriptions. The central part of the mosque contained the prophet’s tomb (Fig. 2.30: 3) and the prayer hall (Fig. 2.30: 2) adjacent to its western side. The hall was comprised of a central domed part and twin lateral bays on the west and east sides, both separated from the main room by massive arcades with prismatic pillars and half-rounded arches. The central, calotte-formed dome was laid on a high octagonal drum supported by rough muqarnas squinches. A small mihrab located in the southwest corner of the hall (Fig. 2.30: M3) was made on the occasion of the mosque’s rebuilding by al-Khatani in 767/1365–1366.52 The tomb used to be connected to the prayer hall by a separate, narrow passage, which was no longer required after the construction of the new, northern passage in 1271 AH, when the entrance from the prayer hall was converted into a window.53 The tomb had a rectangular plan (5.5  ×  4.75  m: Uluçam 1989, 47), and its floor level was 2.1 m below that of the prayer hall. Its walls had been covered by blue-glazed tiles up to a height of 195 cm, then followed by two bands (30 and 5  cm) of a brick ornamental frieze, topped by a 75  cm wide

132 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Fig. 2.30  Mosque of Nabi Yunus. Plan of the complex: (1) medieval period (before 767/1365–1366), (2) medieval period (after 767/1365–1366), (3) earlier Ottoman period, (4) later Ottoman period, (5) modern. Conjectural dating by lighter shade. Outline of the buildings in the aerial image (by RAF, 1924) by a purple dashed line. Numbering of parts, mihrabs, and relative leveling added. Redrawn from al-Diwahji 1954

epigraphic band comprising basmala and the ayat al-kursi Quranic verse. This decoration was removed in the 1980s. The most attractive architectural element of the tomb was a quasi-muqarnas dome consisting of ten tiers of polylobed stairs topped by a small ribbed dome of the octagonal plan (Fig.  2.31). The dome was of double-shell construction, with a ribbed, cone-like outer shell; both its form and the construction of the muqarnas had a close parallel in the Nabi Jirjis tomb. A small mihrab (M4) was set into the southwest corner of the tomb. Its inscription featured the name of a craftsman which was identical to the name inscribed on the mihrab M3, which is also formally very similar.

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

133

Fig. 2.31  Mosque of Nabi Yunus. Quasi-muqarnas vault in the Nabi Yunus tomb chamber. Photo by Yasser Tabbaa (1983)

Although there were strong clues that the period between al-Khatani’s rebuilding and the repairs to the mosque after Timur’s damages around 796/1393 was formative for the appearance of this part of the mosque, other traces still indicated a form, and possibly also a function, of the structure before the Jalaʼirid-period reconstruction. The prayer hall had an asymmetric plan, and it was not only the lateral aisles that differed in the plans. The central dome collided with a large pointed arch heading south: the vertical axis of the entrance was very close to the southeast squinch of the dome. It seems that the vaulted parts with supporting arcades were put into the pre-existing structure, respecting its communication axes and those of the structure already annexed to south. The striking height difference between the prayer hall and the tomb, and, at the same time, the surprisingly low elevation of the hall’s domed area can be interpreted as a result of a substantial raising of the floor level during the reconstruction in the late eighth/fourteenth century. Herzfeld and then Fiey have proposed the idea that the central part of the shrine conserved the plan of a longitudinal, east-oriented church (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a,

134 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

206; Fiey 1965, 512–13) whose sanctuary was reconstituted as the Yunus tomb during al-Khataniʼs reconstruction (when the passage was separated), while its nave acquired a spatial organization and vaulting characteristic of mosques of the period. We have put together more arguments which make this interpretation very plausible. The third part of the mosque, annexed to hall No. 2 and the tomb on the south side, comprised two musallas: the large one, situated under a large dome (Fig. 2.30: 5), and the small, so-called Shafiʽi one (Fig. 2.30: 6) in the west wing of an arcaded passage, which used to encroach on the central domed space from three, and perhaps originally from all four sides (Fig. 2.30: 4). Both prayer halls were furnished with mihrabs, secondarily built into the respective spaces, whose orientation did not conform to qibla. The Shafiʽi mihrab was set into the face of a partition between the musalla and a small space in front of the original entrance to the minaret. Apart from Quranic quotations, this mihrab (M2) also contained the name of the founder, the Ottoman governor of Mosul, Husayn Pasha ibn Janbulat and datation 997/1589 (al-Diwahji 1954, 265; Dhunnun 1967, Fig. 10, and p. 237, drawing 5). The mihrab in the large musalla (Fig. 2.30: M1) was not dated but its form belonged to the one, consistent group with mihrabs of the Khazam and Jamshid Mosques in Mosul’s old town, which have been built in 968/1560–1561 and shortly before 985/1577, respectively (Suyufi 1956, 95, Note 3; Uluçam 1989, 214). Unlike the dome of prayer hall No. 2, the domes in this part of the complex were of different construction, with very low drums supported by flat corner lintels instead of muqarnas squinches. This part of the mosque also showed striking chronological inhomogeneities. A conspicuous vertical joint visible on the eastern facade corresponded to a 40 cm difference in the height of floors and windows between the northernmost and central bays of the eastern wing of the passageway. The vaulting system seems to be a later addition as the plan depicts joints between the passage pillars and vaulted arches, as well as a different spacing of the pillars of the eastern wing, which did not correspond to the interval of the domes. The built-up area south of the mihrabs seems to conceal a southern, narrower wing of the perimeter passage, later substantially remodeled due to the adjustment of the qibla wall and addition of the minaret. As a part of his hypothesis about the monastic origin of the Nabi Yunus Mosque, Fiey (1965, 512–13) identified this third, southern part of the compound as an original cloister with a central open courtyard. Our revision supports this hypothesis with some other findings: the disposition of

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

135

the building seems to predate the rebuilding of the central, “church” part in the late eighth/fourteenth century, and the cloister could have been completed by the south wing which disappeared due to rebuilding in the late tenth/sixteenth century. Conclusion Even if the absolute lack of critically evaluable documentation substantially limits the plausibility of our reinterpretations, they may be the best we can do, particularly given that significant expansion of our knowledge about the shrine can be no longer expected. The available data confirm the assumption that the architecture built in this place, with such a strong social memory, featured an extraordinary development of building forms and use of space. This development was characterized by an extremely long process of layering and reinterpretation of elements, rather than by their removal. Although there is no decisive proof, we consider either the adaptation of part of the Assyrian palatial building or the reuse of its building material for the ground floor of the Sasanian Mar Yonan monastery to be plausible. After the advent of Islam, the spacious monastery/ribat might have been used as a place of syncretic veneration of Nabi Yunus, until 1349, when the prophet’s remains were revealed. This event became a pretext for converting an outliving monastic complex into an Islamic shrine, perhaps in a long-term effort to increase the city’s prestige through popular worship of the remains of the prophets. It was exactly this extremely rich and multifaceted memory of the building that bothered IS ideologues so much that the complex was one of the first to be destroyed in Mosul. 2.2.1.4 Mosque and Tomb of Nabi Jirjis (Prophet George) (I08) The Nabi Jirjis complex was, after al-Nuri Mosque, the largest and probably the most popular Islamic religious site in old Mosul. Its 0.3 ha plot had a gentle east-facing slope and adjoined the busy Suq al-Shaʽʽarin Street to the west. Sources Available Four detailed descriptions of the complex, made before the last major renovation in 1981, have been published, providing a reliable dataset that includes systematic plans, drawings, and photographic documentation (al-­ Sufi 1940, 17–23; al-Diwahji 1961; Dhunnun et al. 1983, 8–26; Uluçam 1989, 51–4). Some other details and isolated observations are dispersed

136 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

elsewhere (Suyufi 1956, 75–9, 181–2; Saʼigh 2008, 148–51; al-Jumʽa 1975, Figs.  73–4, 145–7, 238; al-Diwahji 2013, 67–8, 84–7; Al Faraj 2012, 54–62). E. Herzfeld visited and briefly inspected the building twice—in 1907/1908 and 1916. His description, however, contains a number of mistakes (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 236–8). The visual documentation collected consists—apart from the documentation published in the literature mentioned above—of six photographs from before 1981 (the oldest view, from the east, dates from 1908, Fig. 2.32), sixteen recent photographs (taken after the renovation and destruction of the building in 2014), and two documentary films.54 Building History The beginnings of the Mosul cult of the Prophet George, as well as its shrine, are not documented by sources and have been the subject of much unsupported speculation in the scholarly literature (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 236, 238; al-Sufi 1940 17–19; Saʼigh 2008, 148–9). Al-Diwahji

Fig. 2.32  Mosque of Nabi Jirjis. The earliest view of the complex from the east. Unknown author, a postcard print (1908)

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

137

(1961, 1–2) identifies the mosque with isolated references to the masjid al-nabi (the Prophet’s mosque) appearing between the third/ninth and sixth/twelfth centuries. However, the first unambiguous evidence of the existence of the building refers to 571/1175–1176, when a Mosul shaykh was buried in the al-Nabi Jirjis Mashhad (al-Diwahji 1961, 2). In 580/1184–1185, Ibn Jubayr described the building as follows: “Over [the tomb of Jirjis] a mosque was built, and his tomb is in one of its rooms, on the right of him who enters. This mosque stands between the new [al-Nuri] mosque and the Gate of the Bridge…” (Ibn Jubayr 2008, 244). The mosque and the shrine were also mentioned by later authors (al-Harawi, Yaqut al-Hamawi, al-Qazwini, Ibn Battuta), who nevertheless failed to provide any detailed information about them. In 796/1393–1394, after the conquest of Mosul, Timur Lenk visited the mosque and made a pious gift with which a new dome and a sarcophagus were built over the grave (al-Diwahji 1961, 3).55 In the Ottoman period, the area surrounding the mosque and mausoleum was filled with other buildings. Sometime before 1039/1629–1630, Taha Efendi Muhdir Bashi founded a madrasa with a small prayer room in the south easternmost corner of the complex (al-Diwahji 2013, 67), indicating that the entire space between the mosque and Suq al-Shaʽʽarin Street was already built up or otherwise intensively utilized. In 1168/1755, this madrasa was reconstructed (al-Diwahji 2013, 67). In 1129/1716–1717, Ismaʽil Agha al-Jalili supplemented the existing complex with a second madrasa (dar al-qurʼan; al-Diwahji 2013, 85; Uluçam 1989, 51). Shortly afterward, in the years 1147–1152/1734–1740, the nucleus of the old building cluster was replaced by a magnificent complex consisting of a new main prayer hall and a Shafiʽi prayer hall (Suyufi 1956, 76–8, No. 283–5, 290–2). The third, Hanafi prayer hall, which is not dated, may have been built during this construction stage too. The tomb was also either rebuilt or fundamentally refurbished (al-Diwahji 1961, 7). The investor in this construction was the Mosul ruler Husayn Pasha al-Jalili. The complex was then repaired many times. The katkhuda Yunus Efendi made some repairs to the mosque as well as riwaqs in front of the Shafiʽi prayer hall sometime before his death in 1207/1792–1793 (al-­ Diwahji 1961, 5, 10). The tomb was reconstructed, according to the inscription above its door, in 1208/1793–1794, and in 1284/1867–1868, it was allegedly pulled down (together with the adjacent vestibule) and rebuilt on the original foundations (Uluçam 1989, 52; al-Diwahji 1961, 7–8). A little earlier, in 1270/1853–1854, the mosque’s administrator

138 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Muhammad Sharif Agha had demolished the original minaret of unknown age and a new minaret was built in its place (al-Diwahji 1961, 10–11). At the beginning of the twentieth century, the complex of the Nabi Jirjis was falling down: the masonry of the mosque was cracked in many places, having perhaps also been damaged by the earthquake in 1903. A part of the dome of the main prayer hall collapsed and it was impossible to enter the structure in 1916 (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 237). The mosque was extensively repaired in 1324/1906, 1332/1914, and 1328/1910 (alternatively 1338/1919–1920), although the scope of individual campaigns cannot be specified. The works included the repair of Muhdir Bashi Madrasa, the reconstruction of the collapsed dome of the mosque and the prayer area, including the acquisition of a new minbar, and the construction of a roof over the Shafiʽi prayer room (al-Diwahji 1961, 5–7; Dhunnun et al. 1983, 8–9). The last large-scale project to renovate the complex commenced in 1981. Even in 1982, A. Uluçam noted severe destruction of the architectural complex. The mosque with the dome, the Hanafi musalla, and the minaret remained relatively stable, but the mausoleum of Jirjis, the western part of the Shafiʽi prayer room, and the eastern entrance arcade were in ruins. Only the eastern half of the mausoleum’s dome remained intact (Uluçam 1989, 51). The madrasa, dar al-qurʼan, and other secondary buildings of the complex were demolished without any documentation (Dhunnun et  al. 1983, 11). By 1974, the large cemeteries around the mosque had also been leveled (Al Faraj 2012: 56, Note 1). The renovations were completed in the first decade of the twenty-first century. What was originally a plastered rough stone building was supplemented with reinforced concrete roofs and limestone cladding. Extensive renovations of the interiors were carried out and authentic elements were replaced with new constructions. During the reconstruction, the collapsed western wing of the Shafiʽi oratory was removed, and all entrance arcades also disappeared. Recent Development and Current State IS destroyed the complex with an IED on 25 July 2014. The minaret was blown up later on. The ruins were removed, the surface was leveled, and the site was turned into a parking lot. A two-winged door, deposited in the Iraq Museum in Baghdad, is probably the only physical trace of the mosque that remains.

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

139

Description and Analysis During its long historical development, the plot was filled by a conglomerate of buildings, communications, and burial areas (Fig. 2.33). The religious complex of the Prophet Jirjis was their focus, consisting of the main prayer hall in the south—the only building facing qibla—the adjoining grave of the Prophet on the north side, and the attached prayer halls of two madhhabs (the Hanafi on the east and the Shafiʽi on the north). In the first half of the twentieth century, a two-story school building with a passage and staircase on the ground floor was added to the Hanafi musalla. Its height exceeded that of the main mosque. The mausoleum of Nabi Jirjis was built on a square ground plan (4.7 × 4.7 m), and was accessible via four steps from an antechamber to the east (Fig. 2.33: 1). The entrance was furnished with a late variant of the portal with pendentive voussoirs dated 1208/1793–1794 (Dhunnun et al. 1983, Fig. 18; Suyufi 1956, 181, No. 56) and had also been fitted

Fig. 2.33  Mosque of Nabi Jirjis. Plan of the complex before its last renovation: (1) the Prophet Jirjis mausoleum, (2) eastern vestibule, (3) the main mosque, (4) the Hanafi musalla, (5) the Shafiʽi musalla, (6) the women’s musalla, (7) arcades and iwans, (8) well, (9) minaret, (10) the school over the passage, (11) Madrasa of Ismaʽil al-Jalili, (12) Madrasa of Muhdir Bashi, (13) a cemetery, (14) deserted structures and masoned enclosures visible in the air photograph from 1959, (15) the entrance courtyard. Sources: al-Diwahji 1961: attached plan; Dhunnun et al. 1982, Plan 1; aerial photograph of the U2 mission from 1959; Wirth 1991: Abb. 2; redrawn with adjustments and additions

140 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

with a lavishly carved two-winged door (leaf dimensions 2.22 × 0.61 m)56 featuring undated epigraphic decoration, which was transported to the Iraq Museum in 1939 (al-Sufi 1940, 21; al-Diwahji 1961, 8).57 The undated marble sarcophagus of the Prophet, enclosed in a wooden, glassed box, dated from the beginning of the Ilkhanid period according to Dhunnun et  al. (1983, 10, and Figs.  24, 25), or the Timurid period according to al-Diwahji (1961, 8). The walls of the tomb were lined up to 2  m above with green and yellow glazed, square and octagonal faience tiles, followed by a fragmented epigraphic band inlaid with a polychrome faience, topped by a wide inscription band over the entire perimeter of the tomb, made of gypsum and dated to 1284/1867–1868 (Dhunnun et al. 1983, Fig. 19; Suyufi 1956, 181, No. 57). In the qibla wall of the mausoleum, in a small, separate room, there was a box with two hairs of the Prophet Muhammad, brought from Istanbul in 1269/1852–1853 (alDiwahji 1961, 10). The mausoleum had a double-shell dome, deformed by late repairs. The inner shell consisted of a paraboloid-like ceiling shaped by an eight-pier, stepped quasi-muqarnas, carried by simple, quarterround squinches. The outer shell was conical, ribbed (16 ribs) on a low, cylindrical drum, and built of stone. The dating of the dome is problematic. Dhunnun et al. (1983, 11) assume that it was built at the turn of the eighth/ninth century AH, but their reasoning is not fully convincing.58 A window with a rectangular, outside-shaped lining faces to the north, into the area of the Shafiʽi oratory. Dhunnun et  al. (1983, 9, and Fig.  14) labeled it without further argument as an Ilkhanid construction that was later supplemented by a new lintel, an ornamental relieving arch, and an inscription identifying the grave of the prophet Jirjis.59 The adjoining eastern, slightly rectangular vestibule (approx. 4.46 × 4.16 m) was vaulted by a dome on squinches of similar shape to the mausoleum’s dome, but without an external conical roof. Despite the dating uncertainties, the art elements mentioned above (the wooden door, north window lining, and sarcophagus) can be considered as indications of the medieval origin of the tomb. This view has already been expressed, for example, by al-Diwahji (1961, 7–8). The mutual spatial relationship and different orientation of the mausoleum and mosque almost eliminate the possibility that both objects could have been built as part of one project, within one construction campaign.60 Taking into account the remarkably thicker wall of the mausoleum and its approximately 160 cm lower floor level compared to the floor in the main mosque (Dhunnun et al. 1983, 10), we can assume that the mausoleum

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

141

and the northern wall of the western vestibule were remnants of an older building dating back to long before 1147/1734. However, it is no longer possible to determine the height to which the original masonry was preserved as the aboveground appearance of the building had been probably shaped by numerous later repairs and reconstructions. The main mosque (Fig. 2.33: 3) was tripartite, consisting of a square-­ plan central bay flanked by two, asymmetric lateral bays of two aisles each. The bays were separated by wide, pointed vaulted arches, running to the ground on massive prismatic pillars. The datation of this part to 1147–1152/1734–1740 was attested by several inscription slabs on the walls of the hall, but it is not clear which part of the original building was actually preserved. The central bay was significantly elevated over the side sections and its cubic mass protruded above the flat roof of the mosque. It was vaulted by a massive, single-shell dome with a pointed, slightly cyma profile and a perimeter of 9.5  m, placed on a tall drum and supported inside by austere quarter-round squinches. In 1338/1919, the damaged or collapsed dome was replaced by a new one of slightly different, hemispherical shape. Its inner face was decorated with intersecting stucco combs (Dhunnun et al. 1983, Figs. 3, 4), and glazed bricks were used on the outer surface. An undated mihrab featured a semicircular arched niche on a polygonal plan, filled with muqarnas. The arch’s edge was decorated by zigzag carving and two columns. The area around the niche was covered by arabesques, a line of trilobed panels over the arch, and conspicuous rosettes in spandrels, executed in high relief. Al-Diwahji considered the mihrab to be of Timurid origin based on its similarity with the mihrab in al-Aghawat Mosque (al-Diwahji 1961, 5). The work by Dhunnun et al. (1983, 9, and Fig. 8) dates it in accordance with the construction date of the mosque (1147 AH).61 The minbar was more recent, built in 1338/1919 (according to the reading of the year by Dhunnun et  al. 1983). In the northern part of the central hall, in the transition zone, a wooden tribune was put between two pillars, enabling access to the roof. The main prayer hall opened via its northeast corner to the Hanafi prayer hall (musalla), whose orientation conformed to that of the mausoleum, rather than that of the main prayer hall (Fig.  2.33: 4). This arrangement led to a divergence of arcades and irregular plans of bays around the contact of the main mosque with the Hanafi musalla. The musalla consisted of nine square or slightly trapezoidal bays, divided by pointed arches similar to the arches in the main prayer hall, but supported originally by four octagonal marble pillars with capitals decorated with

142 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

arabesque friezes.62 A simple mihrab in the middle of the southern wall had a triangular ground plan and a semicircular arch. Its mostly vegetative decoration was close to that of the Shafiʽi mihrab (see below; and al-­ Diwahji 1961, 6). Of the two entrances to the musalla from the north, the westernmost one should have been the older (Dhunnun et al. 1983, 9). The musalla contained neither epigraphy nor dating. The congruence of the musalla’s pillars with those in the al-Nuri Mosque and the unusual plan of the prayer hall led to the hypothesis that this part of the building should be dated to the Atabeg period (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 237–8; Dhunnun et  al. 1983, 9). C.  Niebuhr (1778, II, 360), H. Southgate (1840, II, 252), and E. Herzfeld (ibid.) recorded and developed a local tradition about its original Christian purpose. The idea that the structure was founded in the fifth/twelfth century was challenged by alDiwahji (1961, 6), who argued that the pillars’ decoration was not congruent with that in the al-Nuri Mosque but was, in fact, a historicized imitation, and that the building with pillars had its origin only in the mid-­twelfth/ eighteenth century. Also the fact that the pillars were recessed about 1 m below the floor level in 1982 (Dhunnun et  al. 1983, 9, and Fig.  2) was taken as a hint that this part was substantially older. However, a detailed comparison of the pillars in the old Mosque of al-Nuri and the Nabi Jirjis Hanafi musalla leads to the conclusion that the latter were ­congruent with the Type 1 al-Nuri pillars (see Sect. 2.2.1.1), but their abacuses and the bottom parts of the ornamental concave-molded corners had been removed. Given that both complexes were in the process of (re)construction in the same period (al-Nuri in 1151/1738–1739, Nabi Jirjis in 1147–1152/1734–1740), it may be presumed that the pillars were transferred from the already destroyed northern part of the al-Nuri Mosque and adjusted for reuse in the new Hanafi prayer hall. Moreover, the complex of the mausoleum and Hanafi musalla would not have any spatial logic without the main mosque (which is definitely from the twelfth/eighteenth century), which leads us to incline toward al-Diwahji’s opinion and to believe that the Hanafi prayer hall was concurrent with the main mosque. The Shafiʽi musalla used the northern perimeter wall of the mausoleum and its antechamber as a qibla wall (Fig. 2.33: 5). The prayer hall took the form of a long corridor, which simultaneously served as the main passage through the mosque, so it was equipped with two main entrances to the building at the east and west. Entrances to the main mosque, mausoleum, and Hanafi musalla were located in the south wall. Behind the northwest corner of the mausoleum, the corridor broke to the south. This

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

143

western wing was separated off by a wooden screen and used as a women’s oratory (Dhunnun et  al. 1983, 9).63 The mihrab, located next to the entrance to the main hall, had a triangular floor plan and a pointed arch (Dhunnun et al. 1983, Fig. 15). It was built during the reconstruction of Husayn Pasha al-Jalili, as evidenced by an inscription containing a quotation from the waqf charter created for the benefit of an imam of the Shafiʽi prayer hall (Suyufi 1956, 181, No. 58). The musalla was originally barrel vaulted and divided by transverse pointed arches (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, Abb. 245). Later the vaulted arches were removed and finally the entire vault was replaced with a reinforced concrete ceiling. The main entrance to the complex led from the east through a four-axis portico that opened into a large courtyard. The portico, supported by three subtle pillars, was built during Husayn Pasha al-Jalili’s rebuilding and was repaired many times (al-Diwahji 1961, 10). A side courtyard, accessible via the passage and staircase on the ground floor of the school attached to the mosque, was surrounded by the old Madrasa of Muhdir Bashi, the neighboring Madrasa of Ismaʽil Agha al-Jalili (i.e., dar al-qurʼan, founded in 1129/1716–1717), and a kitchen for the poor (al-­Diwahji 1961, attached plan). The opposite, western, highest part of the plot was dominated by a slender, approximately 30 m high cylindrical minaret on a cubic base, with two galleries (Fig. 2.32). The minaret was built in 1270/1853–1854 by the mosque administrator Muhammad Sharif Agha ibn ʽAbd al-Rahman in the place of an older minaret whose appearance is unknown. The minaret had been damaged by an earthquake in 1944, during which its upper part had broken off, but the damage was soon repaired (al-Diwahji 1961, 10–11). Around the minaret, the road from the western gate led to the entrance to the Shafiʽi part of the mosque, which was covered by deep iwan. The isolated position of the minaret was explained by A. Uluçam with reference to the fact that the minaret used to be connected to the later demolished Madrasa of Ismaʽil al-Jalili, which is probably a mistake (see supra; we should probably be more confident in the local topographical knowledge of the Mosul historian al-Diwahji). The area also included a well (al-Diwahji 1961, map attached), which occupied an important place in popular piety and healing. The relics of other unknown buildings or masoned enclosures in the vicinity of the mosque are visible in an aerial photograph from 1959, taken before the leveling of the cemetery around the Nabi Jirjis complex (Fig. 2.33: 14).

144 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Conclusion Although speculations about the early Islamic origin of the Prophet Jirjis’ tomb or the Christian ancestor of the complex remain completely unfounded, it is obvious that the demolition of the Nabi Jirjis complex deprived Mosul of a key architectural ensemble with a long historical development that may have begun as early as the late sixth/twelfth century. This complex was a feature of the distinctive panorama of the city and, at the same time, represented one of its most popular centers of pilgrimage, veneration, and memory. By analyzing all the available sources and data, we came to the conclusion that the mosque complex contained a medieval nucleus—specifically the mausoleum of the Prophet Jirjis and part of its eastern antechamber. The previous studies devoted to the building considered this core to belong to the Ikhanid or Timurid period (eighth–ninth/fourteenth–fifteenth centuries), which cannot be corroborated, and the extent of the original masonry preserved until the twentieth century remains questionable. Other parts of the building originated in extensive reconstructions under Husayn Pasha al-Jalili (1147–1152/ 1734–1740). Although the mausoleum and the al-Jalili buildings underwent countless later modifications and refurbishments, which left only a few authentic features in situ, the building remained valuable due to its unique spatial concept, which joined under a single roof the central hall of haram, vaulted by a large single-shell dome, and a variety of other, multipurpose spaces including four different places of prayer. The tomb of the Prophet Jirjis featured a focus of this conglomerate of constructions, which is a very unusual solution within the architecture of Mosul, hinting again at the long, complex development of the shrine. 2.2.2  Shrines of Imams and Adjacent Mosques 2.2.2.1 S hrine of Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim—Madrasa al-Badriya (I04) Among Mosul’s medieval Islamic buildings, the shrine of Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim—together with the al-Nuri Mosque—was one of the most well-­ researched, and its development and appearance were relatively well documented.64 Four detailed studies have been devoted to the shrine (Sarre and Herzfeld 1911a, 22–4; 1920a, 249–63; Pagliero 1965; al-Diwahji 1968; McClary 2017), which, along with other works and available documentation (al-Sufi 1940; Suyufi 1956; al-Diwahji 1957; Dhunnun 1967;

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

145

al-Janabi 1982; al-Jumʽa 1975; Uluçam 1989), provide a solid basis for the critical evaluation of the building. Nevertheless, we felt it was necessary to deal in detail with several aspects which have been neglected in the previous interpretations of the shrine, including the context of its built environment and shifts in its meaning since the seventh/thirteenth century. Therefore, this chapter aims to complement the existing studies and revise some of their previous conclusions. Building History The shrine was founded in 637/1239–1240 by Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ in a dominant location near the edge of the cliff looming over the Tigris, in the south forefront of the medieval citadel65 (Fig. 2.34) where another significant early Islamic building used to be located, that is, the Hamdanid mosque of al-Husayn ibn Saʽid ibn Hamdan ibn Hamdun al-Taghlibi, built before 338/949–950 (al-Diwahji 1968, 173). The shrine was not founded as a stand-alone structure but represented the completion of the older Madrasa al-Badriya, established by Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ between 607/1210–1211 and 615/1218–1219. It is likely that Badr al-Din was buried in the madrasa in 657/1258–1259, but the exact location of his final resting place remains the subject of discussion.66 There is no reason to doubt that the complex developed continuously until 1909, when the last remains of the madrasa were demolished (see infra). As with the shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din, we cannot be certain about the original dedication of the building. There is no epigraphic clue to any dedication in the building itself and to our knowledge no authentic source referred to it until the sixteenth century, when it appeared in Ottoman tax registers (tapu defteri) as the Shrine of Yahya ibn al-Qasim (ʽAli 2011, 154). The only unambiguous determination can be found on the cenotaph, but this too is not without its problems: the inscription was apparently carved secondarily, and the name of Yahya is introduced without any title (see infra). Suyufi, van Berchem, and Herzfeld have already partially gathered epigraphic sources attesting the reconstruction of the shrine, but have not determined when it occurred and did not attach much importance to it. The reconstruction took place in the Ilkhanid period under the rule of Abu Saʽid Bahadur Khan (716/1316–736/1335).67 It might have been preceded by damage to the building during the conquest of the city and the citadel by the Mongols in 660/1262, since this part of the city was severely damaged during this event (see Sect. 3.1). The citadel was (still) in ruins at the beginning of the eighth/fourteenth century (Abu al-Fidaʼ

146 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Fig. 2.34  Shrine of Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim. Reconstruction model of the shrine, views from the east (a) and north (b)

1840, 285), as were, according to Hamd Allah Mustawfi (d. 1349), most of Badr al-Din’s constructions (Le Strange 1919, 102). The key evidence of this Ilkhanid-period construction phase is the lower perimeter band in the interior with an inscription, which has not yet received sufficient attention. The epigraphic band was superimposed on earlier decoration: halves of the lowest register of the rectangular ornamented panels and arched niches (Fig. 2.35; Uluçam 1989, Fig. 296). Its translation reads as follows: O God, bless Muhammad, the Chosen One, ʽAli al-Murtada, Fatima al-­ Zahra, Khadija al-Kubra, al-Hasan al-Mujtaba, al-Husayn, the martyr at Karbalaʼ, ʽAli ibn al-Husayn Zayn al-ʽAbidin, Muhammad ibn ʽAli al-­Baqir, Jaʽfar ibn Muhammad al-Sadiq, Musa ibn Jaʽfar al-Kazim, ʽAli ibn Musa alRida /…/ ʽAli ibn Muhammad al-Hadi /…/, and our lord, the Substitute of God’s Proof (khalaf al-hujja) /…/ Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, honor and peace be upon them. And that with the effort of al-Hajji Ibrahim the servant of /…/ [in the year of] 71 [7 or 9] (AH).68

The reconstruction thus took place in 717/1317–1318 or 719/1319–1320 under the patronage of the tomb’s administrator al-­ Hajji Ibrahim ibn ʽAli. In addition to the names of the Prophet Muhammad himself, his daughter Fatima, and his wife Khadija, the inscription includes

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

147

Fig. 2.35  Shrine of Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim. View of the southeastern corner of the interior during the dado repair. Photo by Yasser Tabbaa (1983)

the names of the Twelve Imams, from Fatima’s husband ʽAli ibn Abi Talib to Muhammad ibn al-Hasan (the Hidden Imam). The same al-­ Hajji Ibrahim appears in two other inscriptions, one on the bases of the entrance portal’s jambs (Suyufi 1956, 141–2; No. 545 and 546), and the other on the fragment of a large epigraphic panel featuring the Twelve Imams’ names on the entrance facade (Suyufi 1956, 141; No. 544). This large panel most likely originated from the portal tympanum (note the curved edges limiting the inscription on both sides), and was later transferred to the foot of the facade, apparently during the addition of the entrance portico. Apart from the portal, which was apparently set into the facade secondarily, and the perimeter epigraphic band above the dado in the interior, it is difficult to identify other elements of the building that could have been the subject or result of this refurbishment. One such case might have been the marble mihrab set in the southwestern corner of the interior, which apparently disturbed the symmetry of the south and west facades and was probably superimposed onto their decoration.69 The cuboid body of the

148 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

shrine and its outer fronts, like most of the interior decoration and probably the muqarnas vault, came from the original building of Badr al-Din (Figs. 2.36, 2.37, and 2.57). But it is far from clear whether or not this was the case, for instance, for the external cladding of the octagonal drum and the polyhedral dome with turquoise fayence tiles (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 249, 253; Pagliero 1965, 51). Unlike the use of glazed formed brick in strapwork panels, which rarely occurred in Atabeg-period architecture in Iraq, the continual cladding of domes with glazed tiles is more likely a phenomenon of the Ilkhanid period, commencing with the emblematic mausoleum of Ilkhan Muhammad Khodabande Öljeitü at Sultaniya in 1310 (Wilber 1939). There are no reports of further development of the complex in the late Middle Ages and the Ottoman period. Only in the late Ottoman period, perhaps after 1887, the shrine was probably supplemented by a four-axis entrance portico, which also contained two, secondarily used bundled columns.70 The subsequent fate of the building can be traced to the twentieth century, beginning with the earthquake of 1903, which allegedly damaged

Fig. 2.36  Shrine of Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim. Plan and section of the shrine. Sources: Sarre and Herzfeld 1911b, Taf. C; Pagliero 1965, Fig. 7, redrawn and interpreted

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

149

Fig. 2.37  Shrine of Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim. Geometry (a), and 3D drawing (b) of the muqarnas vault

the complex (Uluçam 1989, 134). In 1908 or 1909, the remnants of the madrasa were completely removed, leaving only the alleged tomb attached to the west side of the shrine (Sarre and Herzfeld 1911b, Taf. C; see infra). The northwest side of the drum and roof were newly plastered (see photograph by G. Bell from May 1909). Around 1911 (if the dating of one of the photographs is correct), but certainly before Herzfeld’s second visit to Mosul in 1916, the shrine plot was enlarged to the west and a new western wing was erected in line with the original cemetery wall, opening into the courtyard through an eight-axis arcade with semicircular arches (al-­ Diwahji 1968, Fig. 1B—photo from 1937). The acute threat of the collapse of the shrine was prevented by the construction of a massive stone buttress with foundations at the foot of the cliff in the Tigris floodplain, and a pair of pillars supporting the eastern facade. Further adjustments were not made until 1964 (al-Diwahji 1968, 176),71 when the entrance portico was replaced by a uniaxial, concrete roof on steel columns. There were also interventions in the surrounding buildings—for example, the building adjacent to the west front of the shrine was demolished, and the shrine’s western window was opened again. Around 1982, conservation work was also carried out in the interior but with little effect. However, the lower band of epigraphy and the carved marble frieze below it were shifted down during this campaign.

150 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

A radical and demanding renovation was carried out in 1997–1999: all adjacent constructions were demolished, leaving the shrine as a stand-­ alone monument. Severe static damage to the shrine was repaired and the construction was reinforced by a concrete perimeter belt around the bottom of the structure. The original window was pierced again in the south wall, and all facades and remains of external decorations were thoroughly conserved. The repairs, however, avoided the muqarnas vault, a substantial part of which (from the fifth tier up) collapsed afterward. Recent Development and Current State The shrine was destroyed by IED on 23 July 2014. It was razed to the ground and the rubble was thrown over the terrace edge. The site was not developed and the bottom part of the shrine’s interior, recessed about 2 m under the surface, might be preserved under the backfill. Fragments of the early eighth/fourteenth-century inscription slabs from the interior were identified in the rubble in 2018 (Mal Allah and Yahya 2018, 122–3). Only the sarcophagus and fragments of inlaid marble panels were earlier transferred to Mosul Museum (the sarcophagus survived the museum’s destruction by IS; the fate of the marble panels is unknown). Another small wooden box, mentioned by E. Herzfeld (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 262–3, Abb. 260; Herzfeld 1943, 45), may be identical to the box stored in the David Collection (McClary 2017, 16). Madrasa al-Badriya Throughout the twentieth century, the monument was in a critical state and R. Pagliero aptly defined the factors endangering its statics. An overall instability of the subsoil, exacerbated by intensive river erosion of the uncovered slope, as well as considerable local differences in the load capacity of the subsoil, caused leaning and partial rotation, as well as breaks in, and selective sags of the shrine’s body along both axes (Pagliero 1965). It is possible to suppose that the erosion accelerated with the change of the Tigris’s course in the twentieth century, when the river bank again came dangerously close to the foot of the slope. The erosion and the collapse of the cliff edge undoubtedly had a substantial impact on the area of the madrasa with the shrine. In Herzfeld’s photographs from 1907 (Sarre and Herzfeld 1911b, Taf. XCIII and other, unpublished), it is evident that part of the northern wing of the madrasa (Fig. 2.38: 6) had succumbed to the erosion, while the western part of the complex, including the shrine, had been temporarily stabilized by the Ottoman city wall (Fig. 2.38: 7).

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

151

The medieval, probably late Atabeg-period wall, was fragmentarily preserved some 15 m below the later wall (Fig. 2.38: 8). The images further corroborate the destruction of the portion of the Ottoman wall south of the shrine by a massive landslide in the 1970s or 1980s which set in motion limestone blocks weighing several tons. There was another landslide in the area, directly in front of the shrine, before 1982 (Uluçam 1989, Fig. 293, and a photograph by Y. Tabbaa). This dynamic development suggests that the shrine did not originally stand at the very edge of the slope, and Madrasa al-Badriya, of which it was a part, was apparently a larger, most probably enclosed, three-winged complex, whose eastern wing fell victim to erosion before the thirteenth/nineteenth century.72 Although E. Herzfeld (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 249) identified the buildings adjacent to the shrine as not very old, the complex was

Fig. 2.38  Shrine of Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim. Plan sketch of the al-Badriya complex. Drawing after the city plan by Ismaʽil Hakki (1322/1904–5) and E. Herzfeld’s photographs (1907)

152 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

noteworthy from a formal point of view and might have been of medieval origin. It was built very near or on the site of earlier Islamic buildings, as attested by the find of a rectangular architectural panel with palmette decoration, which was dated to the third/ninth century and hypothetically associated with the Hamdanid mosque (see supra and Mawsuʽat al-Mawsil al-­Hadariya 1992, II, 101). Its decoration has close parallels in Samarra’s C-style (a beveled style) stucco panels (Fig.  2.39; Dimand 1937, 310, 323, Figs. 19, 20, 45; Haase 2007, 440–2). Unlike the shrine, which is mostly built of burnt, unplastered bricks, the adjacent structures were built of plastered stone. According to four surviving images (Sarre and Herzfeld 1911b, Taf. XCIII and CI; two unpublished73), a small, rectangular ground-floor structure was attached to the western face of the shrine (Figs. 2.38: 2 and 2.36). Its doorway was covered by a portico, which was directly connected to the main western entrance to the complex. This structure was marked in Herzfeld’s plan as a tomb without further explanation. This identification is doubtful both from the architectonic point of view and because locally produced literature is totally silent about any additional tomb in the complex.74 Uluçam (1989, 136) considers it, probably more aptly, to have been an ablution room. Whatever the purpose of this building, it was followed by the western wing of the madrasa, which was, in the first portion of the ground floor, divided by a four-axis arcade

Fig. 2.39  Shrine of Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim. Architectural slab with palmette decoration found in the area of the shrine. After Mawsuʽat al-Mawsil al-Hadariya 1992, II, 101

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

153

with unequally wide angled arches (both outer arches were narrower; Fig. 2.38: 3). An over-elevated iwan (Fig. 2.38: 4) and a dome-on-square structure (Fig.  2.38: 5, the actual tomb?) followed. A differently conceived, two-floor wing with external staircase and vaulted rooms upstairs flanked the courtyard on the north side (Fig.  2.38: 6). This type of madrasa, with the elevated iwan on the transverse axis, has many medieval parallels from the Seljuq, Atabeg, and Mamluk contexts (Golvin 1995; Madrasa al-Mustansiriya in Baghdad is certainly worth mentioning: Schmid 1980). In the later period, this type of madrasa appears in areas of Persian influence, both in the Ilkhanid period (Natanz) and in the Safavid context (e.g., Goodwin 1971, 38, 47, 69–70, 145, 297; Hillenbrand 2000, 215–16). On the other hand, Ottoman architecture, whose influence in Mosul increased in the period of the al-Jalili family’s domination (between 1726 and 1834), created completely different types of madrasa in which the iwan did not play an important role, and whose influence was not reflected in the arrangement of the Madrasa al-Badriya.75 Notes on the Interior Decoration of the Complex The existing comprehensive analyses of the decoration of the Yahya ibn al-Qasim Shrine should be supplemented in two respects. We should highlight the discovery of at least 11 fragments of inlaid marble panels in the complex. Al-Janabi (1982, 183, Pl. 179) described two of them and Hillenbrand (2006, 21–2) described one, but neither scholar was aware of their place of origin. Al-Jumʽa (1975, Pl. 154–166)76 provided the most complete documentation and unequivocally linked them to Madrasa al-­ Badriya, unfortunately without giving any further specification. There are three different types of decoration on the fragments. The largest two fragments, pertaining to an apparently identical rectangular panel, have central decoration of small five-pointed stars and lozenges framed by a complex pattern of interlacing polygons and a perimeter epigraphic band in knotted Kufi script (Fig.  2.40). While the second type differs in the geometric decoration of the panel’s bordure, the third type is completely different, featuring only a curvilinear arabesque ornamentation. It is possible to find analogs of individual decorative elements in inlaid panels from the Imam Muhsin and Imam al-Bahir Shrines, but nothing that is entirely comparable. Based on the assessment of the founder’s epithets in the inscription, one can ascribe the patronage of the panels to Badr al-Din Lu’lu’ with certainty.77 One can only speculate about the original placement of the panels; we cannot, nevertheless, suggest any suitable place in

154 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Fig. 2.40  Shrine of Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim. Fragments of the marble intarsia panels from Madrasa al-Badriya. Image processed from photos by B. Almaslob (2009)

the interior of the Yahya ibn al-Qasim Shrine. The placement of marble panels with the full honorific name of the founder thus cannot be excluded in other honorary spaces of the medieval madrasa. A detailed analysis of the epigraphy and decoration of the Imam Yahya cenotaph remains desirable, but this is beyond the scope of this study. In the context of this chapter, we would prefer to emphasize the signs that prevent us from considering the cenotaph as an artifact that has remained unchanged over time. The inscriptions on the vertical faces of the cenotaph were proportionally designed, raised from complex curvilinear ornamentation, and contained only Quranic quotations (Quran 2:255, 3:18–19, 5:55–56). The only exception is the dedication inscription,

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

155

which was carved on only one of the long sides, in an originally plain ledge between two ornamental panels. Moreover, the letters of the dedication have no ornamental base and were conceived more simply than the letters of the remaining inscriptions. This indicates that the dedication to Yahya ibn al-­Qasim with the name of the patron (Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ) and the date 637 was a later addition, executed after the completion of the casket. The lid, on the other hand, differs from the rest in its complete absence of ornamental decoration, in the conspicuously coarser execution of the script, and in the lighter tone of the wood. It is only here that the invocation of ahl al-bayt (People of the House) and the Twelve Imams—the characteristic element of post-Atabeg decoration—is carved.78 As a result, we would like to put forward the hypothesis that the cenotaph, like the structure of the shrine, was the product of two phases: the Atabeg phase and the later Ilkhanid reconstruction emphasizing Shiʽi symbolism in the decoration. Conclusion In the most recent scholarship, the Imam Yahya Shrine was presented as a monolithic structure dating from 637/1239–1240 and featuring an innovative decoration program combining Iranian and indigenous elements (McClary 2017, 24). We consider this perspective to be too narrow and ultimately misleading as the form of the building was the result of a multi-­ phase development, and its meaning was apparently the subject of several reinterpretations. The construction of the shrine crowned Badr al-Din’s more extensive project of founding a funeral madrasa under his name. Perhaps only the collapse of much of the al-Badriya complex along with the eroding terrace edge, and the demolition of the rest without documentation in 1909, prevented the shrine from being considered in this broader context. In terms of the layout of the complex, there is an interesting parallel with the Ilkhanid-period Imamzada (shrine) of Yahya at Varamin in Iran (built between 660–707/1261–1307), where the mausoleum was similarly set in a complex of buildings around the courtyard, occupying its south side (Wilber 1955, 109–11). The dedication of the Varamin shrine was emphasized by the addition of the splendid ceramic sarcophagus of Imam Yahya in 1305–1307 (Blair 2016). The dedication of the Mosul shrine to the Hasanid imam was not corroborated by even one of the numerous inscriptions and can hardly be considered the founder’s intention. It is much more likely to date from the reconstruction in 719/1319–1320, which considerably and deliberately shifted the

156 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

ideological focus of the building from Badr al-Din’s general veneration of the Prophet’s family (ahl al-bayt) to the accentuation of Twelver Shiʽi symbolism. 2.2.2.2 Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din Ibn al-Hasan (I05) The shrine is situated in the southern part of the city, close to a former gate Bab Lakish, which is surrounded by residential areas. The most detailed description of the structure so far was published very recently (McClary in press). McClary’s description and analysis focused on the presumed original form of the shrine and its artistic, decorative, and epigraphic elements. Taking into account detailed stratigraphic analysis of the structure, its development during the medieval and modern periods, and extensive Arabic-language scholarship on the complex, we attempt to reconsider its structural and functional evolution. Before its destruction, the complex of Imam ʽAwn al-Din comprised the tower-like shrine (mashhad; the tomb of ʽAwn al-Din; Fig. 2.41), a funerary annex on the eastern side (traditionally called al-Barma or Madfan

Fig. 2.41  Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. The view from the west after the last restoration (left) and after the destruction. Sources: Unknown author before 2013, accessible at http://alialagamosulpic.blogspot.com/2018/06/320.html (left), Jan Vyčítal, July 2018 (right)

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

157

al-Jaʽfari—a Shiʽi mausoleum), and the surrounding cemetery, enclosed by a wall. Al-Barma consisted of an L-shaped funeral space, a vestibule, and, adjacent to the east, a vaulted room. Sources Available Since the nineteenth century, scholarly interest in the epigraphy of the shrine (van Berchem 1978, 661–3; van Berchem 1911; Suyufi 1956, 99–102, 185–6 with al-Diwahji’s commentaries; Hillenbrand 2012, 22–3) has prevailed over structural and art-historical analyses. Recently, A. Q. al-Jumʽa (2018) revised most of the readings and published them in a comprehensive article featuring drawings of epigraphic inscriptions from the initial phase of the building (on the portals, the mihrab, the interior dado, and the sarcophagus). The account published by E. Herzfeld (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 263–70) favors a description of the craft details over the analysis of the whole and is accompanied by a narrow selection of documentation: seven photographs taken in winter 1907/1908 (a view from the northwest, photos of both portals, another of the mihrab, and three photos of the cenotaph), as well as a drawing of portal B and the door of portal A with the detail of a knocker. The ground plan, elevation, and vault remained undocumented—the vault pattern, published later (Herzfeld 1942, Fig. 26), comes from the Shrine of Imam Yahya ibn al-­ Qasim and was mistakenly attributed by the author to the Shrine of ʽAwn al-Din. Working from the only exterior photograph, C. Brodführer created a pen-and-ink drawing which he enriched, apparently after consultation with Herzfeld, with some elements that are not visible in the photograph (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, Abb. 261). There are further, relatively brief descriptions, which nevertheless feature valuable details, by A. al-Sufi (1940, 66–70, no documentation), A. Uluçam (1989, supplemented with five photographs and the first ground plan of the shrine made in 1982), A. Q. al-Jumʽa (1975, Pl. 12–15, 180–5, 243), A. Q. al-Jumʽa in Mawsuʽat al-Mawsil al-Hadariya (1992, III, 227, 291–92, 324, 329, 330, 336, 380; includes plan from 1986, front view of portal A and mihrab and five drawing details), Y. Tabbaa (the largest and most systematic collection of exterior and interior photographs—23 pictures, available with a building description at https://archnet.org), and Al Faraj (2012, 119–22, two original photographs). The collection of photographs published on the blog of Ali al-Aga79 (239 photographs) is invaluable for its documentation of the building’s development over the last ten years. Other published descriptions and photographs are those by al-Hadithi and al-Khaliq (1974;

158 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

7 images), al-Tutunchi (1976; photographs and drawing of the mihrab), T. al-Janabi (1982, 230, Pl. 169b), and R.  Parapetti (2008, four photographs). Of the unpublished sources, private photo collections by A. Petersen (1988, 12 images), Muzahim al-Jalili (2002, 17 images), and Saad Salem (about 2013, 9 images) are particularly important because they contain a number of details not recorded elsewhere. We could also take into account a partial and not very precise documentation of the shrine (a plan, section, and elevation) produced by the Ministry of Religious Foundations (awqaf ) in 1993, with some unknown details from elsewhere.80 After the destruction of the building in July 2014, documented in IS propaganda materials,81 and after the liberation of Mosul, photos of the ruined structure were captured by Ziyad al-Sumaydaʽi, al-Mosuliya TV reporter, in April 2018 (five images), and by the Czech Ambassador in Iraq, Jan Vyčítal, in July 2018 (50 photographs). Of the remaining ten individual images in the collection, only one, taken by G.  Bell in 1909 (Portal A), captures the building before a radical reconstruction in 1964. Building History According to the inscription on the interior dado, the shrine was built by Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ in 646/1248–1249. In spite of this unambiguous dating, doubts were raised as to whether the structure was indeed Badr al-­ Din’s work or was built earlier and only adapted by him. The question was first discussed by van Berchem (in Sarre and Herzfeld 1911a, 21) and subsequently by al-Jumʽa (2018, 161), on the basis of the reading of the initial part of the inscription on portal A, which began with the words “You have renewed a gate … (jaddadta baban …),” implying that the building had been refounded.82 There are also other indications that could be interpreted as traces of several medieval phases (see infra). Like the dating of the building’s foundation, its dedication is also questionable. E. Herzfeld and all later scholars have clearly linked the building with Imam ʽAwn al-Din, the son, or later unspecified offspring of al-­Hasan ibn ʽAli, but no inscription from the building provides such identification, except the very late epigraphic record about the reconstruction in 1325/1907–1908 (Suyufi 1956, 185, No. 81). The epigraphic plaque commemorating the reconstruction in 1191/1777–1778, on the other hand, only featured an unspecified dedication to “the great imam,” whose ancestor was “the best of the prophets (i.e. Muhammad)” (Suyufi 1956, 101, No. 399).83

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

159

Instead, the preserved inscriptions (on the sarcophagus and on the interior dado) contain only expressions of respect for God, the Prophet Muhammad, and his family (al Muhammad). Given the facts mentioned above, we should consider the possibility that the connection of the shrine with Imam ʽAwn al-Din was a post-Luʼluʼid tradition. We detected it only in the context of the sixteenth-century Ottoman administration (in tapu defteri; ʽAli 2011, 154). Subsequently it was developed by the authors of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (e.g., al-ʽUmari 1955, 103; Ibn al-Khayyat 1966, 54; al-Khidri MS, Fol. 290–2). There is no earlier evidence for the association. The building underwent several reconstructions in later periods, which fundamentally changed the character of the surrounding buildings, as well as the appearance of the shrine. The oldest documented refurbishment took place between 1187/1773–1774 and 1191/1777–1778, as attested by the inscription on the lintel of the eastern window of the tomb, and on a plaque originally located in the interior on the south wall but later transferred to the outer wall, to the left of the entrance. This reconstruction was funded, according to the plaque, by al-Sayyid Yahya ibn al-Sayyid Muhammad from a third of his sister’s charitable legacy (Suyufi 1956, 100–1). During this campaign, a lateral funerary structure adjacent to the shrine and referred to locally as al-Barma/Madfan al-Jaʽfari was erected or substantially renovated. The oldest documented grave in this annex had a gravestone dated to 1208/1793–1794. Repairs at the beginning of the twentieth century were rather minor and did not eliminate the building’s severe structural problems. An unspecified repair in 1329/1911, mentioned in an epigraphic cartouche above the entrance to the plot (Al Faraj 2012, 121; Suyufi 1956, 185 states 1325 AH), apparently involved the completion of the cemetery wall around the shrine complex (Fig. 2.42). Only in 1964 was a substantial restoration carried out, drastically altering the monument’s appearance. The entire outer wall of the building, with the exception of the east front where it adjoins al-Barma, was surrounded by a thickly plastered stone wall about 60–80 cm thick in upper part and 80–120 cm at the foot. Obviously, the purpose of this wall was to reinforce the shell, critically loaded with a huge double-shell dome whose pressure destroyed the relatively delicate brick sections of the perimeter wall (particularly in the corners). This radical measure apparently rescued the muqarnas vault of the shrine, which thus survived until its demolition in 2014. The new wall rose to form a parapet along the perimeter of the

160 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Fig. 2.42  Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. General situation of the shrine in the urban neighborhood. Redrawn from Hakki’s plan (1322/1904–5)

flat roof of the tomb. The shapes of the drum, the pyramidal dome, and the windows were modified as well. The lower part of the new shell was reinforced on the north, west, and south sides by a 450  cm-high dado made of secondarily used stone ashlars with several dislocated architectural elements.84 An opening for a new ventilation window was made in the dado on the west wall, and portal A, which had collapsed in 1954, along with the northern wall and the vault of the funeral annex al-Barma (Suyufi 1956, 99, Note 1 by al-Diwahji), was transferred to the shrine’s entrance. A portico with a square ground plan was erected in front of the entrance, supported by two pillars. The collapsed vault of the eastern vestibule was temporarily shortened and the space took on the character of an iwan. The eastern facade and the northeast corner of the tomb above al-Barma were also repaired and plastered. The interior of the shrine was not restored in 1964 and its condition deteriorated significantly in the second half of the twentieth century. The main cause was rising groundwater; the shrine is situated in a shallow

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

161

depression and the significant increase in the height of the surrounding terrain due to centuries of burials boosted water retention in the interior. From—at the very latest—1982 onward, the recessed part of the shrine was completely and permanently flooded (Uluçam 1989, 137, Note 2). This caused severe degradation of the inner surfaces and destruction of the decoration in the lower half of the building, especially the muqarnas niches. Even the last phase of repairs, which took place between 2008 and 2013 (according to the dating of the photos), did not solve this problem. The mausoleum’s interior was—after unsuccessful attempts to pump out the water—filled with soil up to the lower edges of the large niches, that is, over the marble mihrab and the circumferential dado with the inscription, as well as the inner opening of the entrance.85 After that, the interior was accessible only by a ladder dropped down from the western window. The entrance, portal A, was removed. Surprisingly it was not taken to the depository but was left disarticulated in the graveyard, where it probably remained until 2014. The external portico above the portal, which had collapsed shortly before the repairs began, was removed. The exterior plaster of the building was completely restored and the simple shape of the windows was historicized. In al-Barma, the barrel vault of the vestibule was completed up to the northern facade of the shrine (the face was left open), and the collapsed vault of the adjacent eastern space was repaired. Recent Development and Current State The building was destroyed by IED on 24 July 2014. Fortunately, the massive stone wall, which, as a result of a major restoration in 1964, reinforced the perimeter of the structure, prevented the building from being completely pulverized. The invaluable muqarnas vault and conical dome were demolished; the lower parts of the building, however, survived, albeit in a critical state (Fig.  2.43). The explosion caused a separation of the reinforcing perimeter wall from the original masonry and its partial collapse, which revealed the original faces of the structure from before 1964. The vault of the eastern funeral annex (al-Barma) was damaged, but some of its details (e.g., portal B) seem to have been preserved in good condition. Two of the interior elements were preserved: the wooden cenotaph miraculously survived the devastation of Mosul Museum, and a fragment of a wooden panel with carved decoration remains in the Iraq Museum in Baghdad (Basmachi 1976, 356). The door wing of portal A, an outstanding example of Mosul’s medieval metalwork, which used to be the property of Mosul Museum, described in detail by Herzfeld, is currently missing.

162 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Fig. 2.43  Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. State after destruction—an interior view. Photo by Jan Vyčítal (2018)

Description of the Exterior The most informative findings were made on the northern and eastern facades of the shrine (Fig. 2.44). The northern facade was visually divided into a rubble-stone, plastered lower part, and an upper third of brick. There were two rectangular windows in the upper register of the stone wall. According to the appearance of the plaster in their inner linings, they were probably original features of the building; the areas around the windows also bore the remains of the original plaster. In Herzfeld’s photograph (1907), the only known image of this part of the building from before the reconstruction in 1964, two parallel scars are visible on the original facade in the form of slight horizontal extensions of the outer wall face (the scars are also visible in photographs from 2018: Fig. 2.44: 4 and 8). The upper scar is located just below the window register and can be considered to be either an adaptation for the pent roof of an annexed structure or the flat roof of a low floor, arcade, or porch.86 The lower scar can be identified about 2  m further down and would correspond to the inner floor connection. This lower trace is interrupted on the

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

163

Fig. 2.44  Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. Analysis of the northern and eastern facades: (1) non-faced wall, (2) a staircase trace?, (3) a muqarnas niche with adjacent plastered areas, (4) a roof trace?, (5) barely faced wall, (6) a vaulted niche with plastered right jamb, (7) a plastered niche or void, blocked by masonry (visible in Herzfeld’s photo only), (8) a roof trace, (9) a plastered stone wall, (10) a fragment of a wall bounded with the shrine, heading north, (11) brickwork, (12) hazar baf, (13) brickwork, (14) molded terracotta frieze, (15) epigraphic frieze, (16) molded terracotta frieze, (17) brickwork frieze with lozenge pattern from glazed tiles, (18) limit of a facade reparation in Herzfeld’s photo, (19) approximate corners edge in Herzfeld’s photo, (20) a stone reinforcing wall (from the 1964 repair), (21) lateral funeral space, shortened in 1964, (22) stone masonry of the shrine, (23) a vertical joint in the stone wall, (24) infilled and plastered void, trace of medieval wall running to the east, (25) void after a roof (al-Barma?), (26) a bottom edge of the brick wall, (27) hazar baf (different of 12), (28) brick masonry of the shrine, roughly plastered during a recent repair, (29) ditto 28, fine gypsum plaster, (30) a brick superstructure from the 1964 repair, (31) al-Barma vault spring (destroyed). Analysis and drawing based on orthorectified and adjusted photographs by E. Herzfeld, Y. Tabbaa, A. Uluçam and J. Vyčítal

right-hand side by an obliquely descending scar or imprint, perhaps from a staircase leading up from the ground floor (Fig.  2.44: 2). Unlike the upper extension of the wall, the lower scar continued on the western facade. On the eastern part of the facade, a continuation of the eastern perimeter wall of the mausoleum projecting outwards to the north was identified in the photographs (Fig. 2.44: 10). According to photos from 2018,

164 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

this wall was clearly bounded by the north outer wall of the mausoleum, so it certainly was not a later extension or a corner repair. The crown of this wall was located at the bottom edge of the brick layer, just below the first ornamental strip. The original wall length cannot be determined; in Herzfeldʼs photo, it was made even about 0.5 m from the facade and plastered, resembling a slightly protruding pillar or pilaster, which was certainly not the original appearance. There was a tall, slender blind niche in the wall body, probably vaulted by a semicircular muqarnas conch that is just visible in Herzfeld’s photograph, and whose right, plastered reveal with the imprint of a wooden frame is still preserved after the demolition and partial collapse of this part of the building (Fig. 2.44: 6). The purpose of this niche and its stratigraphic relationship to the wall remains unclear; it was, however, topped by a kind of rough stucco sopraporta, set over the aforementioned roof scar. The niche’s sill was at the same height as the lower scar. Also at the level of this lower extension, there was another blind niche in the eastern part, point-arched with a simple muqarnas conch, the rest of which is still preserved in the facade (Fig. 2.44: 3). The two niches were not exactly symmetrical along the vertical axis. The findings are very fragmentary and were analyzed only in the orthorectified photographs without any possibility of verification on the ground, so they cannot be conclusive. However, we consider it proven that a wall projected outwards from the northeastern corner of the shrine, with a thickness equal to the thickness of the shrine’s outer wall but with a lower crown, and did not extend into the brick decorative strip. The wall defined the west edge of an unknown building, but at the same time collided with a pair of slender, superimposed decorative niches, around which fragments of plastered surfaces have been preserved. One possible explanation of this situation would be that the niches were originally under the spring of a large portico arch running to the north, as, for example, in the Bayezid Pasha Mosque at Amasiya or in the mosque of Eshkarand in the Isfahan area. The second possibility would be an additional embedding of the niches into the aligned remainder of the removed wall. The structure of unknown form connected to the northern facade of the mausoleum had two height levels (floors?) and may have been equipped with a separate internal staircase attached to the wall of the shrine. The lower level of this annex, with a flat roof, continued to the western side of the tomb. We also have other clues of buildings to the north of the mausoleum that disappeared at some point. Herzfeld states (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 265) that on the side facing the cemetery, the remains of the walls exhibit

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

165

an architectural arrangement of semi-columns. The area he is referring to appears in Brodführer’s drawing (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, Abb. 261), in which the semi-columns are not directly visible on the north side of the mausoleum, but conspicuous remains of ashlar masonry are depicted. Herzfeld’s information could be related to the cylindrical marble columns, whose fragments were found in the cemetery area and stored in a temporary stone collection in the easternmost room of al-Barma. Some dressed and molded architectural elements, which apparently could not originate from the shrine itself, were reused in the dado on the northern facade during the restoration in 1964. The eastern facade of the shrine featured equally important details, which were significantly better documented than those of the northern side. A wall ran out from the northeastern corner to the east and its crown, like that of the wall facing north, lay below the edge of the brick decoration band (Fig.  2.44: 24). Portal A was set into this wall and the wall formed the front of the barrel vault of the vestibule of al-Barma (Fig. 2.44: 31; see infra). These features, however, seem to have been the result of later adaptations. The wall itself is presumed to be of medieval origin, although its stratigraphic relationship to the outer wall of the mausoleum is not discernible in any photograph.87 The most convincing evidence for the existence of an original structure adjacent to the east front of the shrine (probably involving the wall in question) is the fact that the preserved pointed-arched doorway to the spiral staircase leading to the shrine’s gallery is framed by the lower band of the decorative brick strip (see infra). The doorway was thus an original part of the structure and had to be only accessed from the flat roof of a later disappeared annex. A horizontal void in the stone wall of the shrine at a level just below that of the beginning of the brick superstructure could be a trace of this roof (Fig. 2.44: 25). Only on the eastern facade was the brick decoration preserved in a comprehensible form, consisting of five distinct horizontal stripes (Fig. 2.45). The two upper stripes were separated from each other by narrow friezes of molded terracotta (Fig. 2.44: 14 and 16). The lowermost and the third bands featured one simple row of vertically placed bricks,88 while the band between them depicted either a “diaper” pattern of projecting squares (left of the doorway to the staircase, Fig. 2.44: 27) or a mosaic of octagonal patterns composed of beveled bricks with an undetermined molded ornament in the center (right of the doorway, continued on to the north facade, Fig. 2.44: 12). The fourth strip was wider than the

166 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

others and featured an inscription in monumental Naskhi script, executed in shaped brick (Figs. 2.44: 15 and 2.46). In the short preserved fragment of the inscription, it was possible to identify three epithets. Two of them might have been part of the titulature of Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ, whereas the third most probably was not (at least when compared to his other preserved monumental inscriptions in Mosul). Therefore, his patronage to this epigraphy and this part of the building is arguable.89 In the uppermost strip, small, blue-glazed square tiles arranged into lozenges formed the dominant pattern (Fig.  2.44: 17).90 The northern portion of the brick facade showed traces of extensive early repairs, as did the entire northeastern corner (a repair of the brick decoration is already discernible in Herzfeld’s photograph: Fig. 2.44: 18, 28). A brick superstructure over the decoration (Fig. 2.44: 30) was purely a product of the restoration in 1964. The west and south facades exhibit a minimum of stratigraphic detail and morphological elements. The upper pair of windows on the west facade is an original part of the building, but the shape and dimensions of

Fig. 2.45  Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. Reconstruction model of the shrine after the recent reconstructions, view from the northeast

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

167

Fig. 2.46  Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. Reconstructed fragment of monumental inscription on the eastern facade

the reveals were modified during the recent repairs. The bottom ventilation window was not added until 1964 (it is missing from Herzfeld’s photograph and Brodführer’s drawing). We consider the original facade element to be a striking horizontal scar, which continued from the northern facade—a trace of the roof of a lost adjoining building (see supra). Its continuation on the southern facade cannot be confirmed or refuted yet due to a lack of documentation from the period before the reconstruction in 1964. There were no openings on the south side. Both facades had the same brick decoration as the others. Only on the southern facade were we unable to find any details of the composition of the ornamentation. The Eastern Funeral Annex al-Barma (Madfan al-Jaʽfari) Essential data on the earliest history of the al-Barma funeral space are provided by the manuscript of Yusuf ibn ʽAbd al-Jalil al-Khidri from 1211/1796–1797, according to which it housed the graves of leaders (nuqabaʼ) of the group of descendants of the Prophet Muhammad, specifically in the lineage of his grandson al-Husayn ibn ʽAli (sada husayniya). Al-Khidri mentions five family members from three generations who died between 725/1325 and 802/1399–1400, beginning with Sharaf al-Din Muhammad Abu ʽAbd Allah. According to them, the mausoleum was also called Madfan al-Jaʽfari (al-Khidri MS, Fol. 291–2). It seems rather unlikely that any of these graves in the interior has survived to the present day. Yet, al-Khidri’s testimony must be regarded as entirely plausible and the existence of an elite burial ground from the Ilkhanid period onward, if not before, as proven. The question of whether the medieval structure adjacent to the shrine in the east had this funerary purpose has to be left open.

168 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

The funeral annex underwent a radical reconstruction in the 1770s (between 1187/1773–1774 and 1191/1777–1778, see supra). It is likely that this was when the basic structure of the rooms, which persisted with some modifications until 2014, was created. The annex itself was a confined, barrel-vaulted space on an L-shaped ground plan, joining one wall to the shrine and accessible by portal B from a spacious vestibule (Figs. 2.45 and 2.47) which could, in turn, be accessed by portal A from the north. The vestibule was vaulted by a parabolic barrel vault, whose spring was articulated by a stucco cornice in the form of a massive scotia indentation. There was another narrow, barrel-vaulted room, lower and shorter than the vestibule and parallel to it, and accessible from the vestibule by a small arched entrance. After the reconstruction, members of the Mosul ruling al-Jalili family were buried in al-Barma. The oldest identified tomb with a gravestone is dated to 1208/1793–1794 (from an unpublished photograph). An even older tombstone belonging to Sayyid Zakariya and dated to 1200/1785–1786 was secondarily set into a wall in the southwestern corner of the vestibule (Al Faraj 2012, 122). Other more prominent graves are reported to date from the years 1210/1795–1796, 1232/1816–1817 (Uluçam 1989, 139), and 1224/1809–1810 (Al Faraj 2012, 119).

Fig. 2.47  Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. Plan and section of the shrine: a groundfloor plan (a), a plan in the level of wall decoration (b), an east-west section viewing north (c). Drawing based on Uluçam 1989 and al-Jumʽa in Mawsuʽat al-Mawsil al-Hadariya (1992, III)

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

169

The Portals Both extremely valuable portals from the period of Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ, which probably laid the foundation for the two principal development lines of Mosul portals, were situated in the al-Barma annex from the early twentieth century at the latest: portal A in the entrance to the northern vestibule, and portal B in the tomb chamber.91 The portals were formally different: while portal A was characterized by a conspicuous series of interlinked trilobed panels (Fig. 2.48 left), portal B featured a horizontal lintel with joggled voussoirs and pendentives protruding down (Fig. 2.48 right). Both portals have been repeatedly described in the literature and analyzed in terms of their art-historic context (most recently McClary in press). Instead, we focus here on their stratigraphic context. It cannot be overlooked that, despite the variation in shape, both portals had the same proportions and decorative layout—especially when it came to the epigraphy bands, which, together with the stylistic similarity and the shared dating to Badr al-Din’s construction campaign, support the assumption that they both were designed for the same space.92 One can judge with near-­ certainty that one of the portals (perhaps portal A) originally served as the main entrance to the shrine and the other enabled access to another part of the complex that cannot be specified. Thus, the al-Barma annex was apparently not the original location of the two portals. Portal B was very imprecisely reassembled there after its transfer during the reconstruction in around 1187/1774 (as already assumed by Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 267; see also Sarre and Herzfeld 1911b, Taf. VIII). The discrepancies were partially eliminated during conservation work prior to 2013.93 Similarly, portal A, although it seems to be—according to the photos from 1907 and 1909—composed precisely, was most likely not in its original location. It was evidently created for a larger space than the vestibule of al-Barma. Unlike the compact inscription on portal B, the epigraphic band surrounding portal A continued, at least on its left side, on a neighboring wall, but this continuation was not visible on the walls of the vestibule at the time the first photographs by Herzfeld and Bell (in 1907 and 1909, respectively) were taken.94 Two dislocated slabs, probably with parts of the inscription, were loosely leaned against the east and west walls of the vestibule and are visible in both the abovementioned photos. Moreover, another epigraphic slab can be identified in the 1909 image, placed in the niche in the wall of the shrine.95 The fact that portal A was considerably elevated over the mausoleum’s  floor is

170 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Fig. 2.48  Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. Portal A (left) and portal B (right), graphic reconstruction

another indication that it had been moved from its original location by the time the photographs were taken in 1907–1909.96 This analysis suggests that the last and only known entrance to the mausoleum from the north was a secondary feature added during the reconstruction in the 1180s/1770s. The entrance was not placed symmetrically with regard to the interior decoration, reached a height of about 140  cm from the outer surface, and had a very plain appearance until 1963, when it was fitted with portal A, which had been transferred from the al-Barma vestibule. One can only speculate about the location of the original entrance; in terms of the original communication scheme, a location in the north wall, but in the level of the interior floor, would have been logical (perhaps against the qibla wall, with access from an enclosed courtyard). Nevertheless, it is impossible to decide whether this access point used the same opening or was shifted to the middle of the wall. Any later adjustment of the entrance would have affected the integrity of the founding inscription on the interior dado, but none of the available

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

171

editions of the inscription enables a reliable identification of all the missing parts, particularly in the poorly documented northern segment. The inscription was damaged in several places and its fragments even appeared in the substruction under the cenotaph, as captured by a photograph of E. Herzfeld (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920b, Taf. CXXXIV). The Interior of the Shrine The articulation and decoration of the interior were repeated on all four walls in identical form.97 A striking difference between the decoration concept of the cubic part up to the windows and the zone of transition and muqarnas vault should be emphasized. The lower level was dominated by a corner mihrab with a Quranic inscription around the perimeter (Fig.  2.49; Quran 76:23–6; for details see Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 267–8; McClary in press) and the founding epigraphic frieze at the top of a 120  cm-high dark marble dado, featuring Quranic verses (18:30 and part of 42:23), the name of Badr al-Din with rich titulature, and the dating 646 AH (Suyufi 1956, 101–2, No. 401; updated versions in Thesaurus d’Épigraphie Islamique, No. 2747; al-Jumʽa 2018, 166 and Figs. 32–50; al-Jumʽa 1975, Figs. 180–5). The perimeter inscription strongly resembled, in the type of lettering and technology of execution (carved out letters infilled with white paste), the dado inscription in the shrine of Imam Yahya (dated to 719/1319–1320), but its content unambiguously revealed that it was executed by order of Badr al-Din in 646/1248–1249.98 In Herzfeld’s photograph, the only record of this part of the tomb before it was flooded with groundwater, the mihrab and dado seem to stick out from the wall, which is covered with an older layer of plaster, and the features appear to be secondarily attached to this layer. A new layer of plaster and lime paint overlapped the older layer and was connected to the slightly projecting surface of the mihrab (Fig. 2.50). Before it was moved to Mosul Museum, the shrine contained a teak wood sarcophagus (2.5 × 1.1 × 1.1 m) with delicate ornamentation and inscriptions in the Naskhi script. The perimeter epigraphic bands contained Quranic texts: Quran 2:255 and part of 2:256 in the upper perimeter band, and Quran 5:55–6  in the dominant middle band. As well as Quran 3:33–4, the lowest band included expressions of respect for the prophet Muhammad and his family, the name of Badr al-Din with titulature, and the dating 646/1248–1249 (al-Naqshbandi 1950, 200–1: 1, 3, 4). Another inscription was engraved with a very tiny script on the thin, plain ledge between the upper and middle perimeter epigraphic bands.

172 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Fig. 2.49  Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. A 3D reconstruction drawing of the mihrab

Even though it appears to be a secondary piece of work (from both a technical and an artistic perspective), its content clearly reflects Badr al-Din’s patronage.99 The lid of the sarcophagus was severely damaged. It was captured on several amateur photographs featuring fragments of its perimeter

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

173

Fig. 2.50  Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. West interior face, stratigraphic analysis of the mihrab (older layer of plaster by pink color, later layer yellow). Drawing with use of Herzfeld’s original photograph (1907)

inscription (including the basmala, signifying the beginning of a Quranic verse). The record is of much lower quality than those for the rest of the sarcophagus. The lid even has slightly different dimensions and should not, in our opinion, be considered part of the original casket.100 The lower part of the interior was completely dark, which might not have been the original intention. The central register of the walls was filled

174 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Fig. 2.51  Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. Bottom part of the interior on the digital reconstruction model, a north view

with large pointed arches framed by rectangular recesses with concave-­ molded edges (Fig. 2.51). In their original state, one may expect there to have been windows situated in the center, as was the case in the Imam Yahya Shrine, and probably also in that of Imam al-Bahir, but no evidence of them is available as yet. Rather than windows, the centers of the arches were occupied by high rectangular blind niches, topped by three-tier muqarnas and a ribbed capping half-dome in a pointed, four-centered arch. Pairs of smaller copies of these muqarnas niches, one above another, flanked the rectangular frame on both sides. All muqarnases were superimposed on the structural surface of the niches. The upper register of the

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

175

stone part of the shrine featured a wide rectangular indented lesene framework, where two of the recessed areas in the eastern and northern facade were occupied by windows. This austere, symmetrical, heavy articulation of the wall face has close parallels in the interior of the mosque of Shaykh al-Shatt and in the northern wall of the maqsura dome of  the al-Nuri Mosque (568/1172).101 The recessed part of the lesene supported a cornice and the upper, brick part of the structure. The austere decoration of the lower register contrasted with the rich geometric ornamentation of the upper level. The vault started with a row of shouldered arched panels with a strapwork decoration, alternating with subtle, over-elevated muqarnas corbels springing above into a pattern of eight-pointed half-stars (Figs.  2.52, 2.53, and 2.54).102 Complete stars of the same size occupied the corners, topped by small ribbed domes, which were miniatures of the central eight-­ pointed star. The octagonal central dome was set apart by the fifth tier: each side was pierced in the middle by a square cell, which either completed the square pattern around the corner stars or created an edge for the bay above the small skylights protruding into the vault (Fig.  2.54 bottom-­middle). In a higher register, by the seventh tier, the octagon was transformed into hexadecagon by means of characteristic narrow rhombic

Fig. 2.52  Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. Muqarnas vault on the digital reconstruction model

176 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Fig. 2.53  Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. Reconstruction of the strapwork decoration panels with a degree of reconstruction accuracy: (1)–90% accuracy, (2)–70% accuracy, (3)–50% accuracy, (4)–not reconstructed

Fig. 2.54  Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. Muqarnas geometry

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

177

cells; the vault was topped by a ribbed dome in the form of an eight-­ pointed star resting on the ninth tier of the cells. The vault was assembled precisely, without any apparent errors apart from the west skylight not being centered. The vault consisted of stucco (gypsum) cells of 24 types (Fig. 2.55), which bore incised decoration in the form of allusive brickwork with decorative insets filling the rising joints between the bricks, highlighted by red or blue paintings (Fig. 2.56). This Iranian decorative element was introduced in the Seljuq period, proliferated considerably in late ʽAbbasid Baghdad, and continued to be used in the Ilkhanid period. Three cells in the second tier bore epigraphic motifs (Mawsuʽat al-Mawsil al-Hadariya 1992, III, 227), consisting only of rotated repetition of the name of ʽAli in the square or trigonal Kufi script. A close parallel to one variant of this motif can be found on the entrance portal of the shrine of Bayazid at Bistam (built in 1300–1311; Wilber 1955, Fig. 33). A combination of structural and decorative features is decisive for the interpretation and dating of the vault. The eight-pointed stars in the corners, topped by domes, are perhaps the most significant signs. These domes were seemingly situated in the apices of the hypothetical squinch vaults, but in reality they were shifted out from this supposed transition construction to the center of the vault and did not correspond to any structural element. Visually, the stars formed a single unit with half-star muqarnas corbels on the perimeter wall in the sense that the centers of these elements were all placed either in the middle of each side of the inscribed octagon (stars and some corbels) or in its corners (some corbels) (Fig. 2.54 bottom-right), although the corbels and starlike domes were situated in different tiers of the vault. The arrangement of the corner stars was therefore a purely artistic concept. The vault itself was not a load-­ bearing structure—its form was determinated solely by decorative requirements, and was completely independent of the external shell, which consisted of 12 ribs.103 Repetition or variation of the central star in the corners has been identified as a characteristic feature of the muqarnases in the Ilkhanid and post-Ilkhanid periods (e.g., Natanz, Mausoleum of Shaykh ʽAbd al-Samad—707/1307; Great Mosque at Varamin, the entrance portal—712–735/1312–1335; Great Mosque at Ashtardshan, the entrance portal—715/1315; Abrandabad mosque, etc.: Herzfeld 1942, 39–40; Harb 1978, 54). The vault should also be compared to the muqarnas vault of the Imam Yahya Shrine—a building completed only nine years earlier than Imam

178 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Fig. 2.55  Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. Typology of the muqarnas cells

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

179

Fig. 2.56  Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. Decorative patterns of the muqarnas cells

ʽAwn al-Din, so a high level of formal continuity should be supposed (Fig. 2.57). The basic construction principle of the two vaults was identical: each represented an independent structural element suspended from the external shell by a hidden system of timber. However, other characteristics are strikingly different. In a departure from the ʽAwn al-Din’s use of painted stucco, the Yahya muqarnas cells were built up from bricks (with blue-glazed insets and molded elements in the rising joints). The conspicuously tall shape of the Yahya’s vault followed the shape of the external dome, while ʽAwn al-Din’s vault did not. Although the Yahya vault pattern was symmetrical about the perpendicular and diagonal axes (the eighth sectors were identical in plan), the whole looked rather organic and it is clear that there was no attempt to create any intelligible, centrally arranged geometric motif. ʽAwn al-Din, on the other hand, was a refined geometric structure with elements placed at different heights, which the observer could interpret differently according to his position on the ground. This comparison leads to the conclusion that the structures were separated from each other by a considerable period of time and also supports our hypothesis that the vault of Imam ʽAwn al-Din, in its ­

180 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Fig. 2.57  Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. Muqarnas vault, comparison of its spatial design (in back) with muqarnas in Imam Yahya Shrine (in front)

construction features, geometry, and decoration (including the exclusive epigraphic references to ʽAli), is more representative of the Ilkhanid period than it is of the first half of the seventh/thirteenth century. Conclusion The shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din represents an underrated gem of Mosul’s medieval architecture whose long evolution is still not fully understood, as no attempt has yet been made to discuss its complex history in context. Broadly speaking, the remarkable metamorphoses of the shrine were stimulated by the efforts of builders to augment an existing field of meaning and to reach an even higher degree of symbolic sophistication. The present-­day value of the shrine is emphasized by the fact that the structure withstood the attack of the IS in July 2014, and its ruins remain the only preserved large shrine in the city. Contrary to the traditional concept of a freestanding, tower-like shrine, our review of both historical and present-day documentation enables us to see that the ʽAwn al-Din Shrine was a complex of buildings from the beginning (Fig. 2.58). Its central feature, a massive prismatic stone structure, did not necessarily have the form of a tower nor the function of the symbolic mausoleum. The square nucleus was flanked on the east and west

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

181

Fig. 2.58  Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din. Digital reconstruction model of the shrine’s appearance in the eighth/fourteenth century

sides by flat-roofed structures (the one on the west was the lower of the two) and another structure was annexed to its northern front, with a hint that they were once connected by a vertical communication (a staircase adjacent to the nucleus’ facade?). The qibla side of the complex shows no signs of construction. In searching for parallels to this layout, one could consider a group of Iranian one-domed mosques and shrines with adjacent lateral constructions and a courtyard (commonly also an entrance iwan) on the north side. This type of mosque might have represented a specific

182 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

regional group in the Isfahan area during the Seljuq period (including sites like Kouh-Payeh and Gehi: Siroux 1973), but was still used throughout later periods across a wider geographical area (e.g., the Ilkhanid mosques at Varamin, Eziran, Deshti, Kaj, etc.: Wilber 1955, 149, 165–7, Figs. 41, 42, 129; Hillenbrand 2000, 106–7). With our current state of knowledge, we find it very difficult to decide how much the ruler Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ was involved in the construction of this complex. It cannot be ruled out that he was its founder; on the other hand, we have discussed some indications that the construction of the building preceded his rule. A decorative element dating back to the sixth/twelfth century might have been found within the structure,104 the shrine was not qibla-oriented, and the corner mihrab with a dado featuring Badr al-Din’s dedication and the dating 646/1248–1249 might have been set up secondarily in the wall. Furthermore, the inscription on portal A referred to Badr al-Din as the renovator, not the founder. In any case, the personal intention of Badr al-Din to develop a shrine in this place as the expression of his obedience to God and respect for the prophet Muhammad and his family, and to furnish it with an outstanding cenotaph and other artistic decorative elements, including two innovative portals, is beyond doubt. Doubtful is, however, his generally accepted participation in the promotion of the cult of Imam ʽAwn al-Din at this place. Indeed, there is no historiographical or epigraphical evidence of such an association from the era of Badr al-Din, and that is why it probably originated later. We put forward the hypothesis that another shift in the meaning of the complex occurred in the Ilkhanid period—probably at the beginning of the eighth/fourteenth century. In the course of its renovation during this period, the nucleus of the complex (whether it functioned as a mosque or a mausoleum) was considerably heightened by a brick decorative superstructure and a double-shell conical dome with an outstanding muqarnas ceiling. The fact that the dome employed only ʽAlid symbolism (epigraphic references to Imam ʽAli, and a 12-ribbed external shell probably symbolizing the Twelve Imams) both inside and outside enables us to suppose that the complex was given prominence as an élite burial place of representatives (naqibs) of descendants of the prophet Muhammad of the Husayni lineage (sada husayniya) from this period onward at the latest, with the first documented burial interment, according to al-Khidri, taking place in 725/1325. The question of who might have been the patron of this radical adjustment cannot be answered satisfactorily. The monumental

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

183

external inscription band could have hypothetically identified this person, who would have been, according to the preserved fraction, of royal stock (see Sect. 3.2). The meaning of the complex as a cemetery of Mosul’s naqibs gradually overshadowed its previous, more general devotional dimensions, which probably went hand in hand with neglect of the area’s upkeep. The funeral rooms were reconstructed east of the shrine in the late eighteenth century, after which time they were also used by Mosul’s ruling al-Jalili family. The reconstruction reflected the site’s transformation from a shrine to the eastern burial site (al-Barma annex), which was confirmed by the transfer of the two splendid portals, one of which was placed in the annex itself and the other in the vestibule. The area where buildings once surrounded the shrine was left open for common burials. Paradoxically, the popularity of this spot as a burial place accelerated its devastation, as the increasing amount of earth around the shrine caused fatal problems with groundwater which no modern conservation campaign could solve. Appendix: 3D Digital Reconstruction of the Shrine Due to the absence of standard, complete, and good-quality documentation, the shrine could not be reconstructed by the photogrammetric method. Instead, we employed free manual modeling based on the ground plan, the available dimensions, and photographs. Two variants of the model were developed: one reconstruction of the site as it would have appeared at the beginning of the eighth/fourteenth century and another as it would have appeared following the decisive renovation in 1964. Portal A in the northern wall of the al-Barma extension, which disappeared in 1954, was the only important element that does not match to any of these variant and had to be omitted. The lack of information about the morphology of the entire lower part of the shrine and the absence of height data (the elevation was probably only estimated in all available sources) were notable obstacles when modeling the interior. Thus, to reconstruct the elevation, it was necessary to assess the relationship of the exterior, the interior, and the eastern extension as precisely as possible. The modeling of the interior details (the muqarnas ceiling and conches in the niches and the geometrically decorated panels under the transition zone) was determined by the reconstruction of their plan, elevation, and vertical sections on the basis of photographs (Fig. 2.54). The wireframe of all vault tiers was constructed from the ground plan and sections, determining the overall height of the vault and spatial identification of each cell.

184 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Detailed typological and morphological analysis enabled us to define a formal vocabulary of the vault based on 24 cell types (Fig. 2.55) and variations in their incised and painted decoration. The large muqarnas conches in the wall niches consisted of eleven cell types, and their smaller counterparts of ten types. Their reconstruction was, however, very difficult due to the lack of documentation. The available photographs of the perimeter panels under the vault were sufficient for accurate reconstruction of their strapwork pattern (the panels featured four different motifs that mirrored each other on opposite sides of the tomb), but not for identification of the minute inner molded ornaments. It is evident that each panel had completely different decoration, but the available data only allowed us to reconstruct some of the panels on the south side. We were not able to reconstruct the northern, eastern, and western sides. The ornamental and epigraphic decoration of portals A and B (Fig. 2.48) was first converted into vector graphics and then incorporated into the modified original photographs so that the result was not only as accurate as possible, but also looked authentic. The ornamentation of both portals could be completely reconstructed—and the inscriptions nearly completely reconstructed—in this way. The same method—conversion to vector graphics and subsequent integration into the model—was chosen for the mihrab, but in this case the quality of the photo documentation was significantly lower than for portals. Nevertheless, the mihrab epigraphy was reconstructed completely, and its rich geometric decoration with an accuracy of 75–85%. The interior dado with the perimeter inscription was photographed only in incomplete fragments and could not be reconstructed. The textures covering the surface of the model were chosen individually for each part of the building and both variants were designed according to the available documentation and the required level of detail. For instance, in the reconstruction of the eighth/fourteenth-century exterior, the texture from Herzfeld’s photograph was chosen for the north and west facades, and the brick decoration of the upper third of the building (except for the inscription) was reconstructed in raster graphics to match its assumed original appearance, including the hazar baf details. By contrast, the textures of the south wall, the drum, and the conical dome merely imitate the supposed surface. The texturing of the muqarnas vault was preceded by a typological analysis based on photographs which identified 16 different decorative patterns (Fig. 2.56), but this number may not be accurate due to the low resolution of the photographs and the

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

185

extensive damage to the vault surface. The identified phototexture types were separately applied to the surface of each cell. The resulting model is undoubtedly greatly affected by the low quality of the available sources and does not reach the accuracy and precision of photogrammetric models. Nevertheless, it provides the most detailed possible idea of the spatial arrangement of the building so far, it is as reliable as possible, and it allows the interior to be perceived in a form and with an integrity that have not been available to observers for centuries. 2.2.2.3 Mosque and Shrine of Imam Ibrahim (I16) Situated some 150 m north of the Nabi Jirjis Mosque in Raʼs al-Kur district, the complex occupied an elongated, east-west oriented plot in the corner formed by the north-south oriented Nabi Jirjis/Suq al-Shaʽʽarin Street and a narrow line running to the southwest. Sources Available The tomb was described in detail by al-Sufi, focusing on valuable artworks (al-Sufi 1940, 29–37; three photographs are provided). Al-Diwahji (2013, 139–40) added the recent history of the complex; his commentary on the epigraphic data collected by Suyufi (1956, 70–2, 179–80) is also very informative. Al-Jumʽa supplemented the documentation with more photographs (al-Jumʽa 1975, Figs.  23–5, 52–3, 71–2, 195), drawings of a richly decorated window, and a newly discovered tomb entrance (Mawsuʽat al-Mawsil al-Hadariya 1992, III, 333). Special attention was devoted to a slab depicting Kaʽba in Mecca (Strika 1976; Blair 2013, 160–1) and a redating of the tomb’s door wings (Dhunnun 1967, 230–2; see also al-­ Janabi 1982: 190–1, Pl. 189). The only known ground plan sketch (with no explicit scale) was made by Y.  Dhunnun and was redrawn by A. Q. al-Jumʽa.105 Building History According to the inscription on a commemorative granite slab depicting the Kaʽba (see infra), placed in the tomb chamber, the mosque was founded by the emir Ibrahim al-Jarrahi. His identity is uncertain. Al-Sufi gives several reasons why we should consider the last ʽUqaylid Mosul ruler, Ibrahim ibn Quraysh (r. 478/1085–486/1093) to be the founder of the mosque (al-Sufi 1940, 34–6; adopted by Strika 1976, 197). Although tempting, this identification can hardly be supported by written evidence. Al-Diwahji, on the other hand, more convincingly identifies the

186 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

founder with the governor of the al-Jarrahiya fortress (hence al-Jarrahi) Ibrahim al-Muhrani, who was the contemporary of the Shaykh ʽUdayy ibn Musafir (d. 1162), the founder of the proto-Yezidi community centered in Lalesh (al-Diwahji 1958, 159). The tomb next to the mosque was, according to the same inscription, built for Hanifa106 Khatun, the daughter of al-Qarabuli. She thus could be linked, via her father’s name, with alQarabuli, the leader of the Salghur Turkoman tribe flourishing at the turn of the eleventh and twelfth centuries in the area of Mosul and Arbil (Ibn al-Athir 1987, IX, 57). The other inscription in the mausoleum (on the lintel of the south window), nevertheless, identified the complex with a nameless imam, the son (or descendant) of Imam Ibrahim, who was the son (or descendant) of the sixth Twelver imam, Jaʽfar al-Sadiq (al-Jumʽa 1975, Fig. 72). Popular tradition, on the other hand, firmly links the shrine to Ibrahim himself. Scholars of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries disputed his genealogy, offering no fewer than three alternative family trees. This redesignation of the tomb as an ʽAlid shrine, along with a general reconstruction, is attributed to Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ (al-Diwahji 1958, 159), which is not supported by sources. It took place most probably later. The south window with this dedication on the lintel can be dated to the first half of the eighth/fourteenth century, based on its strong formal resemblance to the window in the ʽAli al-Asghar Shrine (dated in 731/1330–1331). The shift in the tomb’s dedication was probably associated with this reconstruction. The buildings were also refurbished later. As for the tomb, we can only guess whether its new wooden door, acquired in 998/1589–1590 (see infra), was associated with some major construction work. Other modifications were made in 1075/1664–1665 (only the renovation of “a grave” was mentioned in the inscription according to al-Sufi 1940, 37), in 1285/1868 (Suyufi 1956, 72, No. 275), and possibly in 1290/1873–1874 (Suyufi 1956, 72, No. 274). As far as the mosque is concerned, it was constructed (or substantially renovated) in 1290/1873–1874 by al-Sayyid Muhammad Tahir Bek Mir Alay, according to an inscription over the doorway (Suyufi 1956, 70, No. 261). In 1328/1910, the buildings were rather dilapidated, so Husayn Agha ibn Ali Agha al-Diwahji (d. 1921) repaired the mosque, including the dome, and built an enclosure wall (Suyufi 1956, 179, No. 51). Substantial repairs were also carried out in 1358/1939–1940 under the patronage of Mustafa ibn Muhammad Basha al-Sabunji (Suyufi 1956, 180, No. 52). The repairs only concerned the mosque—not the tomb—but while they were being carried out, the most

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

187

valuable parts of the tomb, the wooden door and the granite slab depicting the Kaʽba, were transferred to the Iraq Museum (al-Sufi 1940, 32–4). In 1951, the eastern part of the mosque’s courtyard had to give way to the expanding Suq al-Shaʽʽarin Street. In 1956, the mosque was refurbished again, the entrance toward al-Shaʽʽarin Street was repaired, and an imam’s room was erected (Suyufi 1956, 70/Note 6; 180). Recent Development The complex was destroyed by bulldozers and jackhammers on 11 March 2015. The plot has not been built upon again and remains covered by rubble heaps originating from the structure (according to the satellite image taken on 21 June 2015). Apart from the commemorative slab depicting the Kaʽba, it is likely that no other artifacts were saved from the structure. Description The complex consisted of two buildings: a tomb chamber in the northwestern part of the plot and a mosque adjoining its east and south sides (Fig. 3.5: g). The western third and eastern edge of the plot were occupied by courtyards. The buildings were flat-roofed, the tomb emphasized by a small dome. Considering the floor plan and the different floor levels, it can be concluded that the tomb was older and the mosque was added much later. The mosque was qibla-oriented, while the tomb was not. The original entrance to the tomb was in its north wall, where a blocked portal was visible, covered by backfill up to its upper third (al-Jumʽa 1975, Fig. 23). The lintel of the portal consisted of joggled voussoirs and was supported by molded corbels.107 One may thus suppose that the original mosque was also situated to the north of the mausoleum. After the addition of the later mosque, the communication scheme of the building changed: a new entrance was broken in the south wall, next to a richly decorated window with a wide tympanum. This entrance from the interior of the mosque led down from a much higher level and the floor of the tomb thus had to be accessed via a staircase. The door (each wing measured 1.8 × 0.48 m) with diagonally decorated cassettes and Naskhi inscriptions, dated 998/1589–1590, was a very valuable example of early Ottoman Iraqi woodcarving. The original dating to the Seljuq period has been justly challenged (Dhunnun 1967, 230–2). The inscriptions contained Quranic verses, the invocation of the Twelve Imams, and other Arabic as well as Turkish texts with some Persian

188 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

elements (al-Janabi 1982, 190–1, Pl. 189; Thesaurus d’Épigraphie Islamique, No. 26538, 26805). The dimensions of the door roughly correspond to those of the north portal of the tomb. The south window—of visible dimensions108 2.63 × 2.35 m—was particularly rich in epigraphy: inscriptions were preserved in two bands along the perimeter of the marble lining (the window was redrawn by al-Jumʽa in Mawsuʽat al-Mawsil al-Hadariya 1992, III, 333). The outer band featured a two-tone inlay technique and Quranic inscription (76: 5–9), the inner band was executed in relief, and the inscription contained invocation of the Prophet and the Twelve Imams, in phrasing characteristic of the Ilkhanid period (al-Sufi 1940, 37–8). A wide tympanum was covered by an inlaid dedication inscription bearing the complete genealogy of the imam.109 The inscription was, similarly to the inscription on the window lintel in Imam ʽAli al-Asghar Shrine, articulated into 21 small quadrilobe cells created by a complex pattern of joggled voussoirs. The interior of the tomb originally had marble cladding with epigraphic decoration. Suyufi and al-Sufi recorded some preserved parts, and although they are obviously referring to the same epigraphic items, there are significant differences in their descriptions, both in terms of their placing and, to a certain extent, their content (Suyufi 1956, 72; al-Sufi 1940, 36–7). That is why we cannot decide whether the inscriptions were circumferential or set in two separate panels in the north and east walls. One of the inscriptions mentioned the name of the imam and his genealogy, but the authors disagree as to whether this was a reference to Ibrahim himself, or to his son (descendant), as was stated on the window frame (see supra). Similarly, they report different years for the reconstruction: within the same decorative fragments (six circles with inscribed Quranic verses 3:17–18) they recognized 1075/1664–1665 (al-Sufi) and 1290/1873–1874 (Suyufi). Another part of the decoration was the long Quranic verse, ayat al-kursi (Quran 2:255). The granite epigraphic slab, often described as a stone (measuring 33 × 15 cm), was originally set into the east wall of the tomb (Fig. 2.59). Now exhibited in the Iraq Museum in Baghdad, it represents a pilgrimage certificate scroll, which was produced by the Meccan stone carver ʽAbd al-Rahman ibn Abi Harami al-Makki toward the beginning of the seventh/thirteenth century (Blair 2013, 160–1). The patron of the stone is unknown. Even though the slab’s inscription features the name of the mosque’s founder and his wife (emir Ibrahim al-Jarrahi and Hanifa Khatun), it was commissioned much later, very probably as their

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

189

memorial.110 As for the sarcophagus, it was located in the southwest quadrant of the mausoleum; the literature does not provide any detail about its form. The adjacent mosque was accessible from the east. A long epigraphy band above the doorway featuring Quran 9:18 was originally placed above the mihrab and was transferred to this place during the second half of the twentieth century (al-Jumʽa 1975, Fig.  195). The mihrab was the most valuable object in its interior. The easily designed piece with dimensions of 3.5 × 2.75 m featured a high, pointed niche, flanked by a pair of prismatic, beveled pillars. The interior of the polygonal niche was decorated by plain trilobed panels, and an epigraphic band (Quran 3:17–18) divided the niche and conch. Another Quranic inscription framed the mihrab on three sides (Quran 2:255).111 The mihrab is formally close to that of Banat al-­Hasan and can be dated to the seventh/thirteenth–eighth/fourteenth centuries. Its imprecise arrangement indicates that it was no longer in its original position. One can only speculate that the mihrab was originally situated either in the tomb chamber or, most probably, in the previous mosque and was transferred to the newly constructed mosque in 1290 or later. Fig. 2.59  Mosque of Imam Ibrahim. The inscribed commemorative slab, stored in the Iraq Museum in Baghdad. Photo by Lukáš Gjurič (2016)

190 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Conclusion The oldest preserved part of the complex was the tomb chamber, while the original medieval mosque, which was most probably situated in the area north of the mausoleum, ceased to exist at an unknown point in time. The traditionally postulated origin of the tomb in the late ʽUqaylid period does not seem plausible: a more realistic alternative is that it was founded by the governor of the al-Jarrahiya fortress around the mid-sixth/twelfth century. We put forward a hypothesis that the transformation of the building to the shrine of Imam Ibrahim (or, more precisely, to Ibrahim’s son or descendant) and its reinterpretation in the spirit of the Twelve Shiʽi Imams occurred only during its reconstruction in the Ilkhanid period, as evidenced by the artistic and epigraphic elements in the interior. The veneration of the Twelve Imams was reconfirmed at the end of the t­enth/ sixteenth century by the inscription on the lavishly decorated door acquired at that time. It was probably in 1290/1873–1874 that the new mosque was annexed to the tomb—a development connected with the changes to the shrine’s communication scheme and the transfer of the mihrab and part of the inscription band from the interior of the mausoleum to the mosque. 2.2.2.4 Shrine of Imam ʽAli al-Asghar (I28) The shrine was situated close to the al-Nuri Mosque, just opposite Minaret al-Hadbaʼ. In its final state, the shrine comprised a domed tomb on a square plan and a flat-roofed rectangular annex (another tomb) to the east. A small, polygonal courtyard flanked the structure on the north and west sides, encompassing one small freestanding structure to the north and a line of low buildings to the west (Fig. 2.60). Sources Available The features were cursorily described in standard works: al-Sufi (1940, 57–62), Suyufi (1956, 106–7), and al-Diwahji (1957, 102–4). Isolated references elsewhere only rarely provide new information. More detailed analysis is available in the case of the marble sarcophagus (Mal Allah and Yahya 2018, 130–2), and especially the wooden sarcophagus (including detailed photo documentation; al-Nuʽaymi 2018, 337–59). The graphic documentation is otherwise extremely sparse. We had at our disposal three low-resolution photographs of the mihrab (al-Sufi 1940, Fig. between pp. 60 and 61; al-Diwahji 2013, 18; al-Diwahji n.d., 488), two drawings by al-Jumʽa (a decorated window frame and a molded corbel of the

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

191

Fig. 2.60  Shrine of ‛Ali al-Asghar. Recent views of the north (left) and south (right) fronts of the shrine. Photos by anonymous authors

entrance portal; Mawsuʽat al-Mawsil al-Hadariya 1992, III, 332, 345), and several photographs of the portal and two windows by the same author (al-Jumʽa 1975, Figs.  21–2, 68–70). Three photographs of the north and south facades taken from above and from a distance (one dated to 1930, two recent, undated) were also available. As the structure stood in the vicinity of the Minaret al-Hadbaʼ, the most iconic feature of old Mosul, it appeared on many photographs of this monument; unfortunately, it is usually only the tomb’s dome that is visible. Building History The origins of the building are traditionally associated with the Madrasa al-Nizamiya, which was founded in Mosul by Seljuq wazir Nizam al-Mulk (d. 1092) for the Muslim judge (qadi) Abu Bakr al-Khalidi. The connection of al-Nizamiya with the shrine of ʽAli al-Asghar is not supported by sources. As far as the location of the madrasa is concerned, only Ibn al-­ Athir states that it is now (i.e., at the turn of the sixth/twelfth and seventh/thirteenth century) situated near the al-Nuri Mosque (cit. in al-Diwahji 1957, 103). This is certainly not enough to identify it with the Shrine of ʽAli al-Asghar. The names of two persons who taught in the madrasa before 598/1201–1202 are known (al-Diwahji 1957, 103). Nor can the archaeological evidence of the building from the Atabeg period, as referenced by some authors, be confirmed (al-Jumʽa 1975,

192 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Figs. 20–21, 54–60; Mawsuʽat al-Mawsil al-Hadariya 1992, III, 332, 345; al-Nuʽaymi 2018, 338), as this evidence was not reliably documented.112 Also questionable is the belief of some historians who, on the basis of inadequately documented inscriptions on the marble sarcophagus (see infra), infer that Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ founded a shrine for Imam ʽAli al-­ Asghar ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiya on the site of the madrasa.113 The available documentation enables us to link the transformation of an unknown previous construction into the symbolic tomb of this imam only in the Ilkhanid period, or even later. This is corroborated by the inscription on the richly decorated marble window in the mausoleum, which mentions its repair (juddida) in 731/1330–1331, and although it is not certain that the window was in its original position, one can perhaps conclude that the entire building was repaired at this time. From the ­beginning of the Jalaʼirid period (from 740/1339–1340) came an unmarked wooden sarcophagus, considered by local tradition to be the grave of the Imam ʽAli al-Asghar (al-Nuʽaymi 2018, 340). There is no other direct evidence of architectural changes to the complex. Comparing the photographs, however, it is clear that the appearance of the tomb changed significantly during the first half of the twentieth century. The original low half-globular dome with a brick turret on top (jamur) and a drum with windows were replaced by a higher, pointed dome with a cornice and without windows. Based on a comparison of dated photographs, we assume that this refurbishment took place between 1930 and 1932; al-Sufi in 1939 explicitly notes that the dome is new (al-­ Sufi 1940, 57). Further adjustments were made after World War II, when the large southern windows in the eastern part of the shrine disappeared. Recent Development According to Internet reports, the mausoleum was destroyed by IED on 24 July 2014. Part of the area was left unused, covered by heaps of rubble; another part was converted to a parking lot. In October 2018, the terrain on the site of the shrine collapsed to reveal a subterranean vaulted room (Facebook, Monuments of Mosul in Danger group, 29/10/2018), so the site remains a valuable archaeological area. As far as we know, no artifacts from the shrine had been transferred to Iraqi museum collections.

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

193

Description The shrine was surrounded by upper and lower courtyards that were flanked by other buildings. The height difference between the courtyards was more than 6 m; in the final phase of the shrine’s existence, they were connected by an interior staircase (al-Sufi 1940, 57; al-Diwahji 1957, 103; al-Nuʽaymi 2018, 337–8). The building was not qibla-oriented; it consisted of two similarly large parts, both of which had a funerary function (Fig. 3.5: i). The dominant part was a western cubic building with large windows on the south, east, and north sides, covered with an octagonal drum and a low dome topped by a brick extension (jamur). The inner space, with a side length of 6.7 m and a height of 10 m, was accessible by a marble portal with a lintel resting on molded, arabesque-decorated corbels and covered with an undocumented inscription band (al-Jumʽa 1975, Fig. 21).114 The interior was reputedly uninteresting, with the sole exception of a small mihrab of blue, inlaid marble (1.8 × 1.1 m) situated in the western or southern wall. The mihrab was undated and its niche featured a distinctive motif of vertical three- of four-lobed squares and a set of pointed, muqarnas-like cells in the conch. It was flanked by two pairs of columns and a rectangular band of the Quranic inscription (9:18) in the Naskhi script. While the mihrab as a whole had a rather late appearance, the plaque in the central part of the mihrab featured Kufi inscriptions, including Quran 3:18–19, and 24:1–2 (Suyufi 1956, 107, No. 422–5; al-­ Sufi 1940, 60–1), which suggests a complicated development of the object. A wooden sarcophagus (1.9  ×  0.96  ×  1.0  m) was placed against the southern wall of the western tomb, adorned with an epigraphic band at the top, a portion of which (Quran 76:1, and beginning of 76:2) was captured in the photograph by al-Jumʽa from 1971 (reproduced by al-Nuʽaymi 2018, 349, Fig. 4). Al-Nuʽaymi had already found a sarcophagus without an inscription in 2011 (ibid., Fig. 5), but surprisingly other wooden epigraphic fragments (initially probably parts of its exterior decoration) were discovered inside. These were fragments of Quranic inscriptions in the Thuluth script (basmala, the beginning of Quran 2:255—ayat al-kursi, the end of 2:285, and fragments of 9:112 and 76:6–8) (ibid. 340, and Figs. 10–14, 17–19). The inscription also included the date of 740 AH (ibid., 354, Figs.  15–16), making the sarcophagus an artifact from the beginning of the Jalaʼirid period. In the same space, there was also a rectangular window115 with a wide, carved stone lining that featured a Quranic inscription around the perimeter (Quran 42:23 and 33:33 referring to ahl al-bayt/the family of the

194 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Prophet; Suyufi 1956, 106, No. 421). The wide lintel supported on molded corbels was continuously covered by trilobed medallions and an intertwined inscription which stated the year of repair, 731/1330–1331, and the name of the patron, the Mosul representant (naqib) of ʽAlids and ruler Haydar ibn Sharaf al-Din Muhammad ibn ʽUbayd Allah al-­Husayni.116 The tomb was connected by a door to the neighboring eastern part of the complex, a prismatic building with a flat roof and windows on the north and south sides. The southern windows, captured in a photograph of the neighboring al-Hadbaʼ Minaret from the late 1920s or 1930s, were later walled up and replaced by a pair of slit vents. In the middle of the room there was a marble sarcophagus (2.73 × 0.7 × 0.8 m; al-Sufi 1940, 61). Its documentation is too contradictory for its origin and function to be reliably determined. As pointed out as early as the eighteenth century by Muhammad Amin al-ʽUmari (1967–1968, II, 62), local tradition considered it to be the tomb of Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ. Al-Sufi (and after him alDiwahji) disagreed, and according to his reading an inscription on the sarcophagus described it as the tomb of Imam ʽAli al-Asghar built by order of Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ.117 This “imprint” of Badr al-Din, however, is less persuasive when considering a significantly different reading of the same inscription (probably by al-Jumʽa cit. in Mal Allah and Yahya 2018, 138, Note 51), which does not mention Badr al-Din’s name at all and identifies the tomb with “the servant (khadim)” of Imam ʽAli al-Asghar (ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiya), that is, perhaps the administrator of the shrine.118 At the same time, it has been argued that the artistic design of the sarcophagus and its script did not correspond to the style of the Atabeg period and must have originated much later. Mal Allah and Yahya suggested the ninth/fifteenth century.119 Unfortunately, we do not possess a photo of the inscription to help us determine the accuracy of the available readings with any certainty. The post-Atabeg origin of the sarcophagus is, however, further indicated by the inscription on the lid featuring the genealogy of the Twelve Imams, a characteristic sign of the Ilkhanid and later periods (al-Sufi 1940, 62; al-Diwahji 2013, 19).120 Conclusion Unlike previous scholars, we don’t consider the identification of the Shrine of Imam ʽAli al-Asghar with Madrasa al-Nizamiya from the late fifth/ eleventh century to be plausible. The building itself did not contain any

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

195

references to the spatial arrangement of the madrasas. Due to very fragmentary and contradictory documentation, neither the foundation of the building in the Atabeg period nor its reconstruction as the tomb of the imam by Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ in the first half of the seventh/thirteenth century can be confirmed. On the contrary, it seems very likely that all the activity associated with the transformation of an unknown earlier building into the symbolic tomb of the imam took place in the 730s/1330s. The dominant western domed space was reserved for an unmarked wooden cenotaph, traditionally identified with the Imam ʽAli al-Asghar. In the east room, a shrine administrator (?) was interred later, perhaps in the ninth/ fifteenth century; his lavishly decorated sarcophagus referred to the veneration of the Twelve Imams. However, the development of the complex cannot be satisfactorily reconstructed and the apparent contradictions between the purpose of the spaces and that of the interior furnishings cannot be explained. Neither are we able to explain the origin of the striking height difference between the upper and lower courtyards, which probably hints at a complex stratigraphic development of the building and its surroundings. 2.2.2.5 Shrine of Imam ʽAbd al-Rahman—Madrasa al-ʽIzziya (I34) The site is situated on the northern outskirts of the old city in al-Tawalib quarter, 400  m south of Qara Saray. A small compound used to stand isolated in the gardens (formerly a cemetery) until the 1990s, when the path for a motorway was cleared in the northern part of the site. Sources Available The building was described in detail by A. Uluçam (1989, 132–3; with two photographs and a plan of the structure, but the exterior photograph shows, in fact, the dome of the Imam ʽAwn al-Din Shrine), and in brief by Herzfeld (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 282–3), al-Sufi (1940, 47–8), al-­ Diwahji (1958, 141–2), Fransis and al-Naqshabandi (1951, 218–19), al-Jumʽa (1975, Figs.  7–11, five photographs of the doorway), and Al Faraj (2012, 86–8). The photographs of a mihrab published in these works were added by a drawing by al-Jumʽa (Mawsuʽat al-Mawsil al-­ Hadariya 1992, III, 351). Furthermore, the mihrab was comprehensively described by al-Janabi (1982, 172–4; Pl. 161). No additional unpublished documentation was available.

196 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Building History The structure most probably originated as a part of the Madrasa al-ʽIzziya, founded by the Mosul Atabeg ʽIzz al-Din Masʽud I ibn Qutb al-Din Mawdud (576/1180–1181–589/1193). This hypothesis is supported by two sources. The first consists of accounts by Ibn Khallikan and Ibn al-­ Athir describing how ʽIzz al-Din founded a large, beautiful madrasa at Mosul and was interred in a mausoleum erected within this establishment. According to them, the madrasa was situated opposite both dar al-­ mamlaka (Qara Saray) and the Madrasa al-Nuriya (Imam Muhsin Shrine), which corresponds to the position of Imam ʽAbd al-Rahman’s tomb (Ibn Khallikan 1977, V, 207; Ibn al-Athir 1987, X, 228). The second piece of evidence is an inscription above the lintel of the entrance portal, which unambiguously identifies ʽIzz al-Din Masʽud as a founder of the structure. Even though the inscription does not specify its purpose, it was most probably the atabeg’s tomb. The connection of the burial place with Imam ʽAbd al-Rahman,121 as well as the identification of Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ as the founder, is apparently much later tradition—to our knowledge first recorded by Muhammad Amin al-ʽUmari in the twelfth/eighteenth century (al-ʽUmari 1967–1968, II, 80–1).122 There are no reports of any construction changes or repairs, although it has previously been suggested that in addition to the portal, the rest of the tomb was also the result of many reconstructions (al-Janabi 1982, 172; Saʼigh 2008, III, 157–8). Comparing overhead and terrestrial images, it appears that the ground plan and the basic form of the building did not change during the twentieth century. Recent Development The shrine was destroyed by an IED on 2 September 2014. The valuable mihrab and the portal (according to Suyufi 1956, 145) were preserved, and the former is now displayed in the Iraq Museum. Description The shrine was a simple, single-space cubic building which was not qibla-­ oriented, with an entrance from the northeast and a small window in the northwest wall (Fig. 2.61). Its internal dimensions were 4.9 × 4.9 m. The tomb was originally topped by a plain, pointed, probably double-shell roof with a plain hemispherical dome in the interior. The cone rested on an octagonal drum. The sarcophagus laid in front of a massive flat mihrab in the southeast wall.123 The mihrab from pinkish marble124 has a central

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

197

Fig. 2.61  Shrine of Imam ‛Abd al-Rahman. Plan of the mausoleum

motif of a five-lobed arch, supported by a pair of twin engaged columns (Fig.  2.62). Two Kufi inscriptions contained the shahada, basmala, and Quranic sura 112 (detailed description by al-Janabi op. cit). The mihrab is undated; one can agree with previous scholarship in dating it at the end of the sixth/twelfth century. The oldest documentation, however, already mentions the mihrab broken into two fragments; its dimensions do not correspond well to the small interior and al-Janabi was already considering its possible transfer from the original Madrasa al-ʽIzziya and its secondary placement. The interior also reportedly contained two more stones with two-line inscriptions, about the same age as the mihrab (Fransis and al-­ Naqshabandi 1951, 219). The tomb was accessed via a rectangular portal with a horizontal lintel supported by molded corbels. The lintel was decorated with interlacing trilobe and leaflike motifs. The portal was framed by two bands: the outer band was epigraphical, written in Thuluth, and contained the name and

198 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Fig. 2.62  Shrine of Imam ‛Abd al-Rahman. Mihrab, currently stored in the Iraq Museum in Baghdad. Photo by Lukáš Gjurič (2016)

epithets of the founder (al-Sufi 1940, 48; Suyufi 1956, 145, No. 560); the inner band was decorated with an interlace frieze. The archivolt above the lintel and relieving arch were heavily damaged and broken into small fragments. The hallway in front of the tomb had a slightly rectangular ground plan (stated dimensions of 4.5 × 4.75 m or 4.9 × 4.25 m; Uluçam op. cit; al-­ Janabi op.  cit.). It was vaulted with a modern sail dome and was most likely a later annex, recently serving as a prayer room. Conclusion Our revision failed to find any evidence or plausible hint that the shrine was founded by Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ. Moreover, its connection with Imam ʽAbd al-Rahman cannot be proved by any epigraphic record, but is only indicated by the local oral tradition and very late literary sources. On the contrary, it is almost certain that it was constructed as part of the madrasa of Atabeg ʽIzz al-Din Masʽud I before 589/1193 and the founder was most likely buried there. It is impossible to say how many authentic components remained from the tomb of the late sixth/twelfth century in the more recent structure. However, the signs that the mihrab was transferred from the demolished mosque or madrasa indicate the possibility of some

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

199

major refurbishment or new construction sometime between the eighth/ fourteenth and tenth/sixteenth centuries. It is noteworthy that even after this reconstruction the entrance portal only carried the name of its Atabeg founder. 2.2.2.6 Shrine and Mosque of Imam al-Bahir (I35) Imām Bāhir!! (From E. Herzfeld’s diary)

The complex was situated in the northwestern part of the old city, in the Imam al-Bahir Quarter. It originally flanked on the north a large open area with a cemetery. The mosque, with the shrine on its eastern side, occupied the southern edge of the plot, while the northern part was the site of a modern school, minaret, and utility buildings. Sources Available We worked from standard descriptions of the shrine published by al-Sufi (1940, 76–8; three photographs), al-Diwahji (1963, 187–95; six photographs, the earliest from 1920), Suyufi (1956, 146–7), and Uluçam (1989, 141–3; five photographs—three of the exterior, two of the portal), with additional information from Saʼigh (2008, III, 164–6), al-Tutunchi (1976), al-Janabi (1982, 178–82, with photos of a mihrab, a portal, and a marble slab), and Fransis and al-Naqshabandi (1951, 216–17). In addition, we collected 13, mostly recent photographs of the shrine’s exterior plus one taken shortly after its demolition (Facebook group Jamiʽ al-­Imam al-Bahir, posted 3 September 2014, Fig. 1.5), and only one view of the tomb’s interior before 1996 (al-Hadithi and ʽAbd al-Khaliq 1974). The elements of artistic furnishing of the interior (mihrab, entrance portal, decorated window, marble slabs, and door) are documented by a relatively rich collection of unpublished photographs and, much more rarely, by al-Jumʽa’s drawings (Mawsuʽat al-Mawsil al-Hadariya 1992, III, 331; al-Jumʽa 1975, 535, Fig.  67). The only ground plan of the tomb was published by A. Uluçam (1989, 143). One documentary film enabled us to develop a more reliable idea of the space of the shrine.125 Building History The tomb of Imam Muhammad al-Bahir, whose identity remains uncertain,126 was the nucleus of the complex. The period of its construction has been the subject of much speculation. Most authors have argued that it

200 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

was built by Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ in the first half of the thirteenth century (al-ʽUmari 1967–1968, II, 79; al-Chalabi 1946, 22), referring both to the architectural decoration and the function of the building as a cenotaph of the legendary imam, whose foundation praxis was usually connected with Badr al-Din. No source that would enable us to identify the tomb directly with Badr al-Din as a founder has been identified. Al-Diwahji was of the opinion that the building had already been founded as a madrasa in the Atabeg period and was subsequently transformed into an ʽAlid shrine (mashhad) by Badr al-Din. As evidence, he pointed to Atabeg regnal titles preserved in fragments on the tomb’s walls (al-Diwahji 1963, 188). Several fragments of the tomb’s epigraphic decoration indicate that the interior featured inscriptions, from at least two different decorative programs, realized on inlaid marble panels. One of them most probably contained the fragments of the founder’s two royal epithets, known from both the Atabeg and Badr al-Din’s regnal names.127 This inscription could hypothetically be the founding one. Another decorative program, supposedly of later origin, is represented by the fragment of an inscription with part of Quran 2:255 (Fransis and al-Naqshabandi 1951, 216:5, and Fig. 15, the bottom right photo). The only dated inscription recorded in the shrine, however, was that from 699/1299–1300. It bore the short statement that “the shrine (maqam) was built (buniya) in the months of 699.” Since it was published by Fransis and al-Naqshabandi (1951, 217), it has appeared in most scholarly works as evidence that the shrine was substantially reconstructed, or even founded (Uluçam 1989, 141), in this year. Originally, the inscription was located on one of the stucco panels inside the tomb, on the upper part of its western or southern wall.128 We tend to assume, in the context of other clues (see infra), that the inscription is evidence that the tomb was reconstructed in the Ilkhanid period. A next recorded phase of the compound’s refurbishment took place in the second half of the twelfth/eighteenth century, having been initiated by the mosque’s administrator al-Sayyid Bektash (d. 1178/1764–1765). A small mosque was added to the shrine’s western wall and a cluster of funeral and communication rooms north of the tomb was probably also constructed at this time. One of them was later used for the funeral of Bektash himself. According to al-Diwahji (1952, 102; 1963, 190), the conical ribbed dome of the tomb was also a result of intervention in this period.

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

201

In the first half of the twentieth century, the mosque was in a ruined state, the shrine and the vestibule were collapsing (al-Diwahji 1963, 195, Fig.  44; al-Sufi 1940, 78). The penultimate substantial renovation was carried out, together with archaeological excavations, in 1939–1940 (Fransis and al-Naqshabandi 1951, 216; Uluçam 1989, 141). The mosque was built completely anew, and an arched entrance portico was added in front of the entrances to the mosque and tomb. In 1963, a new minbar was erected in the interior.129 The last renovation followed in 1987: the mosque was substantially enlarged to the north and west, a northern courtyard was remodeled, and other buildings were constructed nearby. In 1996, the tomb’s dome was replaced by a concrete copy after the old one collapsed. In the 2000s, the complex was supplemented with a stand-­ alone minaret. Recent Development and Current State The compound was destroyed by an IED on 2 September 2014 (Fig. 1.5). Later that year the area was leveled and the rubble was removed. Only the modern, concrete minaret was spared and is still standing. The area is not in use today. Only the valuable mihrab, entrance portal, wooden door, and a few marble panels have been preserved from the building, having been transferred to the Iraq and Mosul Museums in 1939–1940. In March 2020, works on rebuilding of the compound have been launched (Mr. Musʽab Muhammad Jasim, pers. comm.). Exterior of the Shrine The compound of the shrine topped a slight elevation which was apparently used for burials for centuries. The cemetery even included the area in front of the mosque’s entrance. In connection with information about the tomb’s floor, situated 3 m under the surface (al-Diwahji 1963, 189), one can assume that the elevation was a consequence of the long-term piling up of cemetery levels, which means that the funeral area developed, to a large extent, after the shrine’s construction. The shrine occupied the southeast corner of the large plot. According to published accounts and the earliest image from the 1920s (e.g., al-­ Diwahji 1963, 195, Fig. 44), it was a ca. 17 m high structure with a prismatic, slightly narrowing perimeter, a high octagonal drum originally without windows, and a low, ribbed, cone-like roof (16 ribs) with rounded edges, springing from a flat circular base (Figs. 2.63 and 2.64). This shape was not maintained during the dome’s repair in 1996. Except for the brick

202 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Fig. 2.63  Mosque of Imam al-Bahir. Elevations of the shrine, from left to right: the south, north, east, and west front

Fig. 2.64  Mosque of Imam al-Bahir. Reconstruction model of the structure—a view from the northeast

dome, the whole structure was built of plastered rubble (its facades most probably were not decorated with brick friezes). In the last phase of its development—after the reconstruction in 1939–1940—the shrine had entrance from the north via a passage, through an opening that was originally a window (al-Diwahji 1963, 192), and otherwise the structure had only one, apparently modern window in the same wall.130 Apart from the northern entrance, a round arched niche was visible in the western wall—a trace of a blocked entrance from the mosque. The height of this western blocked entrance was, like the height of the entrance on the northern side, adjusted to the current level of the

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

203

surface around the shrine, which means that the western opening was also of very late origin. The adaptation of the new northern entrance from a window was preceded by the blockage of an earlier entrance—whose location was, however, only insufficiently described.131 We know that from here five stairs originally led into the tomb’s interior (al-Sufi 1940, 77). When the entrance was changed in 1939–1940, the 3 m height difference between the floors of the shrine and the entrance corridor was leveled by backfilling the tomb’s interior (Figs.  2.65 and 2.66; al-Diwahji 1963, 189). During the same reconstruction, both lavishly carved marble artifacts from the shrine—a mihrab and a monumental entrance portal—were removed from the structure and transferred to the Iraq Museum. The link between these reports allows for the assumption that before 1939 the entrance to the shrine was precisely through this portal, whose height was roughly halfway between the level of the floor in the tomb and the entrance corridor.132 This large entrance portal, with dimensions of 3.6 × 2.0 m and a clear width of 0.95 m, is an outstanding example of the Mosul portal type decorated by trilobed panels. The panels were created by intertwined bodies of

Fig. 2.65  Mosque of Imam al-Bahir. Plan and south–north section of the structure: medieval nucleus (blue), Ottoman (gray), and modern or undetermined (white) constructions. Source: Uluçam 1989, Fig. 39; redrawn and interpreted

204 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Fig. 2.66  Mosque of Imam al-Bahir. Reconstruction model of the structure—a view from the bottom

mythical composite dragon-serpents and griffins. The only known parallel for this iconography is found in a doorway in the Mar Behnam ­Monastery (al-Janabi 1982, 179, 252). The arabesque motifs on the horizontal architrave are supplemented by the names of Muhammad and ʽAli, and by the proclamation “sovereignty belongs to God” (al-mulk li-Allah). Three sides of the portal’s perimeter were framed by a Naskhi epigraphic band (basmala and Quran 2:255). All scholars agree that the portal is to be considered, from a formal and iconographical point of view, as a work characteristic of the period of Badr al-Din Lu’lu’; it must be said, however, that this is mainly due to its similarity to the doorway in Mar Behnam, which is also dated only indirectly (Fransis and al-Naqshabandi 1951, 216; al-Janabi 1982, 179, 252; Gierlichs 1996, 230–1).133 The window that was converted into the tomb’s entrance in 1939–1940 might not have been in its original position,134 and was probably a product of the Ilkhanid-period restoration. The rectangular window, with clear dimensions of 1.78  ×  1.13  m, had richly carved dark marble jambs. A

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

205

segmental relieving arch, articulated by a row of circular openings, was placed over a horizontal lintel consisting of joggled voussoirs. The undated dedication inscription band over the doorway was, like those of the Imam ʽAwn al-Din or Imam Yahya shrines, written in white-incrusted Naskhi script and contained the text: “The work on this window was ordered by khawaja Sharaf al-Din Husayn al-Badhaqi…” (Suyufi 1956, 146, No. 563). The traces of grating daps in the inner side of the left jamb also clearly identify the element as a window. Its style and the form of the inscription correspond to the period of the reconstruction at the turn of the eighth/fourteenth century (Mawsuʽat al-Mawsil al-Hadariya 1992, III, 331; al-Jumʽa 1975, 535, Fig. 67). Interior of the Shrine The roughly prismatic body of the shrine rose from a nearly square ground plan (Fig. 2.65). Its dimensions were 10.5 × 9.9 m outside and 7.5 × 7.4 m inside, which would have made the perimeter walls 1.25–1.5 m thick. This wall thickness would have been conspicuously greater than that of all the surrounding structures. The construction was originally topped by a double-­shell dome. The external shell was considered by al-Diwahji to be a twelfth/eighteenth-century modification. The internal dome—of unknown form—collapsed at an unknown time and only its 16-sided spring resting on an octagonal drum was preserved. The drum was supported in the corners by massive, undecorated squinches with slightly pointed arches and quarter-dome vaults. The same arches were also copied on the walls between the squinches, creating a continual transition tier (al-­Hadithi and ʽAbd al-Khaliq 1974). A central register of the walls (probably each wall) was occupied by large blind-pointed arches framed by shallow-recessed rectangular niches, whose design was similar to those in the Imam Yahya and Imam ʽAwn al-Din tombs. The bottom parts of the niches and the details of the walls’ articulation remained mostly uncovered and poorly documented. Rectangular stucco panels were found during the reconstruction in 1939, situated on either side of the central niches (eight panels in total). The tripartite articulation of the walls is a conspicuous feature that links the building under study with the Imam Yahya and Imam ʽAwn al-Din shrines (McClary 2017, 20). In the panel decoration small half-balls organized in rows (on the east and west walls) alternated with inscriptions in the Naskhi script colored in red (on the north and south walls), the inscription with the year of reconstruction (699 AH; see supra) among them. Three other inscriptions featured Quranic verses

206 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

(51:17–18), another religious text, and the name of ʽAbd al-Rahim ibn Ahmad, who was probably an architect or artisan responsible for the reconstruction works135 (Fransis and al-Naqshabandi 1951, 217). The bottom part of the walls, backfilled in 1939–1940, was originally covered by a dado consisting of vertical marble panels with a circumferential, hypothetically founding inscription, from which one fragment is preserved (mentioned above, Fig. 2.67). This inscription occupied the upper part of the panels and was written in the Naskhi script. In addition, their central part could have featured another decorative epigraphy (al-Janabi 1982, Pl. 177). It is executed in the knotted Kufi script, whose form, together with its two-tone epigraphic inlay technique, is very close to the collection of marble fragments found in the Madrasa al-Badriya/Shrine of Imam Yahya (al-Jumʽa 1975, Pls. 154–165),136 and which unambiguously relates to the reign of Badr al-Din Lu’lu’ (see Sect. 2.2.2.1). This provides a hint that the dado in al-Bahir’s tomb is from the same period and had the same patronage. It was already mentioned that one of the panels from the tomb contains the inscription of a significant part of the Quranic verse 2:255. Judging Fig. 2.67  Mosque of Imam al-Bahir. Marble panel stored in the Iraq Museum in Baghdad. Photo by Lukáš Gjurič (2016)

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

207

from the available photo (Fransis and al-Naqshabandi 1951, Fig. 15, bottom right), it is obvious that this inscription does not match the context of the “founding” panel in terms of dimensions, decoration, density, or script type. This signifies that it was part of a different decoration program. We can only speculate about whether it was related to another panel with a similarly long inscription, which reportedly included the names of the Prophet, his wife Khadija, his daughter Fatima, and Twelve Imams.137 This would hypothetically put them both in the era during which the names of the Twelve Imams were most characteristically applied in decoration, that is, the Ilkhanid period. The tomb also contained a fragment of unspecified religious (?) text and the epigraphic fragment with the patronymic “ibn Abi Talib,” hypothetically a reference to the person to whom the tomb was devoted and who was among the descendants of the Imam ʽAli ibn Abi Talib.138 The dark marble mihrab—along with the portal—was among the most valuable stone-carved monuments from the shrine (Fransis and al-­ Naqshabandi 1951, 216; al-Tutunchi 1976; al-Janabi 1982, 180). The mihrab’s niche, based on a rectangular ground plan (0.89 × 0.51 m), was topped by a pointed arch. The inner conch was filled by four-tier muqarnas and a ribbed capping half-dome. A rich ornamental and epigraphic decoration of the niche contained a central motif of a lamp. The external rectangular frame of the niche, with dimensions 2.86 × 1.72 m, was bordered by an inscription (Quran 24: 36–8). Al-Sufi observed that the mihrab was organically set into the south wall and seemed to be an original part of the structure (al-Sufi 1940, 78). Whether the mihrab was indeed an original feature remains, however, open to question. It bears a conspicuous similarity to the niched reliquary in the mausoleum of Mar Behnam, which is identified by an inscription as the work of a Christian stonecutter, Masʽud, son of Joseph, and dated to 1300 (Snelders 2010, 561–2), the exact year of the reconstruction of al-Bahir’s tomb. The mihrab was dismantled in 1939 and transferred to the Iraq Museum. Later, it was installed in Mosul Museum. Adjacent Spaces The tomb used to be part of a larger compound of unknown date. The mosque’s unusual plan and its position relative to the tomb led al-Diwahji to assume that the twelfth/eighteenth-century mosque reused an earlier structure (al-Diwahji 1963, 194). In addition, there are references to the remains of arcades around the building (al-Sufi 1940, 76), and there is a

208 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

hint of a wall extending southward from the shrine’s corner, visible in a 1982 photograph (Uluçam 1989, Fig. 312). The buildings adjoining the tomb to the north, with two small hemispherical domes, were tombs and communication spaces, built—like the mosque—shortly before 1178/1764–1765 (see supra). They shared with the mosque the ordering of bearing walls and wall thickness. The corridor was accessed from outside via a modern copy of the monumental portal to the tomb. At the south end it branched into two opposite right-angled shoulders, and the eastern shoulder was separated by a marble partition into a separate room. There were sarcophagi in both rooms, and the sarcophagus in the eastern room can be identified as that of al-Sayyid Bektash, the Ottoman-period administrator of the shrine. This tomb was architectonically accentuated by a small hemispherical dome, articulated inside by parallel, rhomboid-section corbels—a rough allusion to a muqarnas (Fig. 2.65). A flat-roofed mosque was mostly, if not entirely, a new building from 1939–1940 and 1987. A staircase was constructed leading from its roof to the tomb’s roof. It was fitted with a simple, undecorated mihrab (corresponding to a half-cylindrical projection on the outer face of the qibla wall), and a carved marble minbar supported by twisted columns (built in 1382/1963). Five small horizontal windows in the qibla wall illuminated the interior. The entrance to the mosque through a simple northern portal and the entrance to the tomb corridor were visually unified in 1939 by a portico with pointed arches and prismatic pillars. In 1987, the mosque was expanded to the north and the portico became an internal arcade in the prayer hall. Conclusion Unjustly underrated, Imam al-Bahir was the least-known building from the group of monumental tower shrines, which included Imam Yahya and Imam ʽAwn al-Din Shrines. It would not be true to say that, as it may have seemed, the building was any less magnificent; on the contrary, it had very similar ground plan dimensions and its height apparently exceeded that of the Imam Yahya Shrine. We do not have any evidence of the original vaulting of the tomb, and the conspicuously low conical dome has to be attributed to the reconstruction in the second half of the twelfth/eighteenth century. The impressive proportions of the tomb and the high artistic ambition with which it was conceived are, however, attested by a large

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

209

portal—one of the most interesting in Mosul—with zoomorphic iconography, as well as the northern window of the tomb, richly decorated mihrab, and inlaid marble dado with royal epigraphy. Only a fraction of this decoration could be documented by Iraqi researchers during the twentieth century. Our analysis corroborates their work and adds other arguments supporting the opinion that the origin of the shrine can be linked to the patronage of Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ. The building probably differed from the other shrines mentioned above by the absence of decorative brick facades. The possible adaptation of an older building by Badr al-Din is indicated, in fact, by only one clue—namely, that the monumental portal from the Badr al-Din period was not height-aligned with the building floor, but was adapted to a later increase in the height of the surrounding terrain. The tomb was substantially rebuilt in the Ilkhanid period, and we have argued that its ideological tone was shifted toward the symbolism of the Twelve Imams at that time. At some point, the tomb was incorporated into a poorly recognizable complex of buildings whose appearance was completely changed in the Ottoman period and during the twentieth century. 2.2.2.7 M  osque and Shrine of Imam Muhsin—Madrasa al-Nuriya (I37) The compound was situated on the northern outskirts of the old city in Mahallat al-Shifa’, 300 m south of Bashtabiya fortress, in the middle of a triangle with its vertices at two important churches (al-Tahira al-Kharijiya and Tahirat Maryam al-ʽAdhraʼ) and the Shrine of Imam Yahya ibn al-­ Qasim (Fig. 2.68). Sources Available The structure was omitted in standard works and by most historians writing about Mosul. Papers by al-Diwahji (1957, 110–12; 1963, 255–9; 2013, 30–4; including five photographs and drawings of decoration elements in the tomb’s interior) and al-Jumʽa (1975, seven photographs in Figs. 46, 102, 148–50, 210, 222), as well as the epigraphic catalogue by Suyufi with al-Diwahji’s additions (Suyufi 1956, 145, 193–4), are the principal sources for the history of the building. Special attention has been paid to two valuable monuments connected with the mausoleum—the mihrab, whose inscriptions have been subject to new readings (Dhunnun 1967, 224–5, with two photographs and one drawing of the mihrab’s dedication epigraphy), and inlaid marble slabs (al-Janabi 1982, 183, 254,

210 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Fig. 2.68  Mosque of Imam Muhsin. The view of the complex from the north. A detail from a photograph taken by an unknown author during World War I

Pl. 178; Hillenbrand 2017, Pl. 4.20 and 4.22). Except for general city plans and aerial photographs, no detailed plan or exterior images of the structure are known to the present authors either from before or after the rebuilding in 1959. Only a documentary film gives some idea of the interior space.139 Building History The building was situated in a relatively exposed place in front of the citadel, which had been used as a burial area since the Umayyad period. In the vicinity of the structure—perhaps to the west near the al-Sitt Fatima cemetery—was, according to tradition, the grave of ʽAmr ibn al-Hamaq al-Khuzaʽi, the Companion of the Prophet who died in Mosul. The Hamdanids built a mausoleum and a mosque over his grave in 336/947–948 (al-Diwahji 1982–2001, I, 183). The Imam Muhsin Shrine stood on the spot where Atabeg Nur al-Din Arslan Shah (reigned 589/1193–607/1210–1211), following the example of his father ʽIzz al-Din Masʽud,140 founded a Shafiʽi madrasa named al-Nuriya with his mausoleum (Ibn Khallikan 1977, I, 193–4; Ibn al-Athir

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

211

1963, 198, 201). The topographic data in the sources support this location.141 The structure under study might have been an original part of this madrasa–mausoleum complex, which seems to be indicated by a part of the dedicatory inscription slab documented by al-Jumʽa (1975, Pl. 210). This slab may have been preserved in the interior of the shrine (see also al-Diwahji 1963, 258).142 The origin of the building in the Atabeg period is also indicated by the conspicuous concentration of monuments in the interior, which can be dated to the sixth/twelfth or early seventh/thirteenth century. One of them—the flat commemorative mihrab (Dhunnun 1967, 224–5)—was commissioned by a certain Aba Tayy Hamid ibn Faris al-Halabi, identified in the mihrab’s inscription as “the builder of the mosque” (al-Diwahji 1963, 258; Dhunnun 1967, 225). This, however, need not contradict the identification of Atabeg Nur al-Din Arslan Shah as the founder of the complex. The addition of the mihrab seems to have been an act of patronage, and the inscription refers to a different part of the complex or even to a different site. In either case, it would only have been secondarily placed in the shrine. Muhammad and Yasin al-ʽUmari, and subsequently al-Diwahji, supposed that the atabeg’s mausoleum was refounded by Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ as the shrine with the cenotaph of Imam Muhsin ibn al-Hasan ibn ʽAli ibn Abi Talib. A fragment of a name (…ibn Abi Talib) was discerned on the lintel of the tomb’s entrance portal (Suyufi 1956, 145, No. 559) and could indeed have been a part of Imam Muhsin’s name.143 No documentation concerning the doorway is available and thus it is not possible to date it even approximately. Therefore, any connection of the reconstruction of the mausoleum with Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ remains an unsupported conjecture, first mentioned only in the context of the nineteenth century (al-ʽUmari 1955, 108). The rebuilding of the structure and its rededication could be more logically related to the disappearance of reports of Madrasa al-Nuriya after 715/1315, that is only in the Ilkhanid period (al-­ Diwahji 1963, 257). Around the middle of the twentieth century, a small mosque was set up in the portico on the northern side of the shrine, whose capacity was soon insufficient for the faithful of the adjacent neighborhoods, where extensive housing construction took place. That is why the mosque was pulled down in 1378/1958–1959 and replaced by a new mosque with a large prayer hall, which was supplemented in 1381/1961–1962 with a south wing and a minaret (al-Diwahji 1963, 259). In 1415/1994–1995, the building was again extensively rebuilt, but without any change in the

212 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

ground plan: the main addition was a new entrance portico, and the mosque was connected to the new Hall of the Naqib on the neighboring plot.144 Recent Development The complex was destroyed by bulldozer on 30 December 2014. The demolition was captured in IS’s propaganda footage released on 5 February 2015. The area was left empty and is covered by heaps of rubble (still visible in the satellite image taken on 3 September 2018). No objects had been transferred out of the structure before its demolition, but considering the means of destruction, it is very probable that the cenotaph and valuable decorative elements were preserved in the basement chamber under the mosque. The plot thus remains an important archaeological area. Description The sources inform us that the Madrasa al-Nuriya, intended for 60 students of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), was magnificently conceived and characterized by “extraordinary beauty” (Ibn Khallikan 1977, I, 193; Ibn al-Athir 1963, 201). The exterior of the shrine before rebuilding in 1378/1958–1959 is captured in two photographs taken from a distance during World War I and in the 1920s or 1930s, respectively (Fig. 2.68). The mosque with the mausoleum featured a plain cubic form with a four-axis entrance portico on the north side, topped by a sphero-conical pointed dome resting on a tall octagonal windowless drum. What this structure had in common with the Atabeg-period compound remains unclear. Historic descriptions only inform us about isolated pieces of the interior decoration. Two mihrabs, one complete and another fragmentary, were placed in the mausoleum. The aforementioned flat mihrab, commissioned by Ibn Faris al-Halabi, was a dark marble (hallan) slab with dimensions of 185 × 85 cm, articulated by a five-lobed arch supported by a pair of rope-twisted columns. A mosque lantern, one of the earliest examples in Mosul, was hung under the arch. Quranic framing bands were executed in Thuluth script. The monument can be dated, according to its form and partly preserved year, to the late sixth/twelfth century.145 The fragment of the other flat mihrab (al-Jumʽa 1975, Pl. 46) had very similar form; under the central arch, supported by two pairs of twisted columns, a hint of muqarnas was carved. A stonecutter’s inscription (ʽamal… /the work [of]…) featured in a panel under the muqarnas.

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

213

Bluish-gray marble panels inlaid by black and white marble with geometrical decoration and a Naskhi epigraphic band were another significant component of the interior decoration. This rare example of a technique that was highly developed in Mosul was also dated to the construction period of the madrasa (al-Janabi 1982, 183). At least three pieces (two epigraphic and one decorative without inscription) were preserved (Fig.  2.69; Hillenbrand 2017, Pl. 4.20 and 4.22). The two epigraphic fragments reveal that the structure was the result of an act of patronage by a monarch, whose name was unfortunately not preserved.146 It is impossible to determine whether the panels were used as wall cladding with the epigraphy at the top or as a freely placed panels, either in the original Atabeg-period mausoleum or in other rooms of the madrasa complex, from where they were later transferred into the only preserved structure from the compound. There were another two epigraphic panels of unknown material and design in the structure, one of which was inscribed with Quran 2:255 (ayat al-kursi; Suyufi 1956, 193: No. 108–9). There is no more information about the interior appearance. After the construction of the new mosque in 1378/1958–1959, the lower part of the mausoleum may have been left in situ under the floor of the new building and accessed from its interior through a tunnel passage with stairs, or a new basement room may have been constructed and covered by a reinforced concrete slab. The Imam Muhsin’s cenotaph and another grave were placed there, and the three fragments of inlaid marble panels and several other stone fragments were placed beside the mihrab.147 One fragment of a bundled column without a capital, identical to columns from al-Nuri Mosque, the mosques of Shaykh Fathi, Zayd ibn ʽAli, and Umm al-Tisʽa, and several Christian churches, also featured among the carved stone elements (al-Jumʽa 1975, Pl. 102). Its origin and relation to the Madrasa al-Nuriya are impossible to assess. Conclusion Due to the lack of sources and contradictions in the documentation, we are unable to reliably reconstruct the origin or development of the shrine of Imam Muhsin. This symbolic tomb was very probably an adaptation of the older mausoleum of Atabeg Nur al-Din Arslan Shah. Muhsin’s cenotaph could only have been created as part of the development of the veneration of the ʽAlids, whether it was under Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ or only in the Ilkhanid period (which seems more likely). As with the tomb of Imam ʽAbd al-Rahman, Badr al-Din’s involvement in the shrine’s transformation

214 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Fig. 2.69  Mosque of Imam Muhsin Fragments of the marble intarsia panels. After al-Diwahji (1957; 2013)

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

215

is unprovable and the Madrasa al-Nuriya, the original foundation of Nur al-Din Arslan Shah, was still in use up to the beginning of the eighth/ fourteenth century. The shrine contained remarkable evidence of interior decoration dating back to the late sixth/twelfth century, whatever its origin may have been. Part of this decoration was included in the new mosque complex built in 1378/1959 and the possibility of its survival under the ruins cannot be ruled out. 2.2.3  Mausolea and Mosques with Tombs 2.2.3.1 Mosque and Tomb of Shaykh Qadib al-Ban al-Mawsili (I10) The site is located on the western edge of old Mosul, very close to the stadium. Until the twentieth century, it stood in isolation in an extensive area behind the city fortification line, about 500 m to the south of the Bab Sinjar Gate. Until modern times, the area was used as a gypsum (marble) quarry and as a cemetery, known as the Cemetery of Scholars (Maqbarat al-ʽulamaʼ: al-Diwahji 1952, 102). Sources Al-Diwahji (1952; 1963, 260–9) described the building in detail on two occasions; his works represent the basic source of information about it. The four photographs he published are the only known documentation of the site before its demolition in 1378/1958–1959. Other Arabic works (Suyufi 1956, 151–3; al-Sufi 1940, 88–9; Al Faraj 2012, 134–8; the last of which presents two photographs from the interior of the tomb) provide only a few details. Of the European authors, only E. Herzfeld (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 287) mentioned the building, stating that it was a modern building without any archaeological significance and only describing the popular tradition explaining the origin of the site’s name. Four photographs (one taken before the summer prayer hall was erected) and a documentary film date from the period after 1959.148 Building History The mosque and tomb originated in a ribat built by Abu ʽAbd Allah al-­ Husayn Qadib al-Ban (471/1078–573/1177) in the cemetery area used at least from the sixth/twelfth century, as attested by a dated tombstone (al-Diwahji 1952, 102).149 In accordance with common practice, the founder was buried in his ribat. A fountain commissioned by the “Great

216 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Sultan al-Malik al-Ashraf” was built in the ribat, as evidenced by a chance find of an inscription slab in 1958 (al-Jumʽa 1975, Fig. 211). Al-Diwahji (1963, 262) identifies this patron with the Ayyubid sultan al-Malik al-­ Ashraf I. Musa (d. 635/1237).150 The maintenance of the ribat after the founder’s death is thus corroborated. According to the inscriptions on the site, the complex was substantially rebuilt or built anew in 1123/1711, and it probably survived in this form until its demolition in 1377/1957–1958. The small complex was made up of a tomb and a small mosque (musalla) and the buildings were grouped around an enclosed courtyard. A garden adjoined the compound and was allegedly used, at an unspecified time, as a Jewish cemetery (al-Diwahji 1952, 100). According to an inscription on the mosque portal’s lintel, the construction was carried out by Ahmad ibn Salih, the administrator of the complex (Suyufi 1956, 151, No. 581). According to a photograph from 1930 (al-Diwahji 1963, 260) and descriptions (al-Sufi 1940; al-Diwahji 1952), the building was in an alarming condition. The arcades and mosque were partially collapsed, and there were severe cracks in the dome of the tomb. Therefore, in 1957–1959, the entire complex was demolished and replaced by a spacious congregational mosque constructed from reinforced concrete, with the new structure of Qadib al-Ban’s tomb adjacent to the west. Later, a summer musalla was added to the western wall of the tomb and the compound was supplemented by a three-winged riwaq, an ablution area to the east, an enclosed garden, and two gates (from the east and west). From the rich decoration of the tomb, only the mihrab was reputedly saved and transferred to a new location in the summer musalla (al-Diwahji 1963, 267), but the documentary shows only an empty niche in the concrete wall and the mihrab’s destiny is thus unknown. Recent Development and Current State The mosque was destroyed by an IED on 26 July 2014. The attack was recorded by IS and the video was officially released afterward. Uncleared heaps of rubble cover the site, which remains unused to this day. However, it still has archaeological value and the area should be protected. The tombstone with the Umayyad Kufi inscription, al-Malik al-Ashraf’s foundation slab, and a large epigraphic slab from the mausoleum used to be housed in Mosul Museum.

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

217

Description The core and the most valuable part of the small complex before the reconstruction in 1378/1958–1959 was a structure with a rectangular ground plan of approximately 14 × 10 m with a tomb in the southern half, annexed by a four-axis riwaq with pointed arches opening onto the courtyard.151 The northern half of the building was probably occupied by a small prayer hall (musalla), unless this stood alone in the southern part of the enclosed courtyard. In the eastern part of the courtyard, next to the entrance to the compound, there were two rooms, which already appear to have collapsed in the 1930 photograph. The whole complex was built of rubble stone on mortar and was plastered. Probably the only exception was the 9 m high conical roof above the tomb, shaped by 16 ribs (al-Sufi 1940, 89), which was made of brick. The tomb had a square ground plan (6.2 × 6.2 m) with Qadib al-Ban’s tomb in the middle152 and a niche mihrab in the south wall (with a corresponding protrusion on the outer facade; Fig. 2.70). The entrance portal to the tomb with epigraphic decoration was, according to al-Diwahji (1952, 100), reassembled from older elements and resembled Mosul’s magnificent portals of the seventh/thirteenth century (Imam ʽAwn al-­ Din, Imam al-Bahir). More detailed documentation is missing. The lower part of the interior was clad with a number of secondarily used inscription panels of blue and dark marble. The entrance to the basement, where the graves of the closest relatives of Qadib al-Ban could be found, was supposed to be located under a marble bench in the northern part of the tomb. Al-Diwahji greatly appreciated the high-quality mihrab, unique in Mosul, with an allusion of muqarnas decoration in a semicircular conch, spandrels decorated with vegetal motives, and the inscription “Ya Fattah” (“O, Opener”) in a central rosette.153 The mihrab was placed in a rectangular recessed frame and above it was a stucco lesene in the form of a pointed arch (al-Diwahji 152, 101). At a height of about 70 cm above the floor, a wide terracotta epigraphy band circled the tomb’s walls with the complete genealogy of Qadib al-Ban down to ʽAli ibn Abi Talib (Suyufi 1956, 151, No. 583; al-Diwahji 1952, 105, and Fig. 2). The inscription was not dated, and it can only be assumed that it came from the reconstruction in 1123/1711–1712. Above the band, there were low-set squinches in all four corners with coarse cubical muqarnases, topped by an octagonal drum and a single-shell, ribbed, cone-like dome, culminating in a 16-pointed star motif. According to al-Diwahji, the shape and ­decoration

218 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Fig. 2.70  Mosque of Shaykh Qadib al-Ban. View from the southeast in 1930, before rebuilding. After al-Diwahji (1963, Fig. 51)

of the dome indicated an origin after 1000 AH, being similar to the tombs of Imam al-Bahir or Shaykh Fathi (al-Diwahji 1952, 102). Unlike the tomb, the prayer room was conceived very sparingly. The portal and the blue marble mihrab were similarly decorated, and the portal was dated to 1123/1711–1712 (al-Diwahji 1952, 102; Suyufi 1956, 152). The modern complex, built on the site of the tomb in 1378/1958–1959, did not retain any traces of the original building. The mosque was conceived as one large hall with a high-quality marble mihrab and minbar and a large, central dome vaulted on steel pillars. The prayer hall was accessible from a riwaq by three portals, each dated to 1378 AH. To the west there was a separately accessible tomb space whose conical roof freely imitated the original internal muqarnas decoration. Conclusion Although the Qadib al-Ban Mosque was not a building of exceptional architectural value, the complex underwent a long historical development, having started out as a private lodge of the prominent Mosul Sufi shaykh. It is very likely that even after a substantial reconstruction of the complex at the beginning of the twelfth/eighteenth century the tomb still contained some parts or elements transferred from the original building. The

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

219

new building from 1378/1958–1959 preserved some epigraphic monuments,154 but in principle, the most valuable remaining feature of the complex is its archaeological substance below ground level. Leaving aside the artistic and historical value of the mosque, IS flagrantly destroyed one of the most popular and regularly frequented places of daily religious practice and social gathering on the western outskirts of the old town. 2.2.3.2 Mosque and Tomb of Shaykh Fathi (I18) The structure used to be situated in the center of a large cemetery within the town walls, 370  m northeast of Bab Sinjar, on the outskirts of the Jewish quarter. During the 1990s, the surrounding area was intensively developed and a corridor was cleared on the eastern side of the complex for a motorway to pass through. Before it was rebuilt in 2001, the complex, accessible from the south via a riwaq, comprised a tomb in the southwestern corner, a prayer iwan (also designated as a mosque) in the southeastern corner, and a domed hall surrounded by an arcade north of the iwan. Sources Available The building was thoroughly described by E. Herzfeld in 1907 (Sarre and Herzfeld 1911a, 27–8; 1920a, 279–82). The author made a ground plan, drawings of two slabs in mihrab niches, and drawings of columns in the prayer hall; his photographs were lost. Seventy-five years later, A. Uluçam (1989, 144–5, 426–7) also dealt with the structure in detail. He published a modified version of Herzfeld’s floor plan and three original photographs (of the facade, the entrance portal, and the mihrab slab in the tomb). Valuable details are given in the works by Suyufi (1956, 113–14, 189–190) al-Diwahji (1965, 20), and al-Jumʽa (1975, Pls. 103–6, 110, 111). Other available sources were a photograph of the southern façade from 1960 (Fig. 2.71), two views of the new building as seen from the south in 2001, and two images from the IS propaganda report, capturing the destruction of the complex.155 Building History The origin of the tomb is hard to determine. As early as the beginning of the thirteenth century, al-Harawi (2002, 64) mentioned the existence of the graves of two shaykhs (Fath al-Kari and Fath al-Mawsili) who can be associated with the Tomb of Shaykh Fathi. Later historians made more accurate identifications, but did not fully agree on which shaykh is buried in the tomb of interest.156

220 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Fig. 2.71  Mosque of Shaykh Fathi. View of the entrance facade (1960). Photo by unknown author (1960)

In the tomb and adjoining southern iwan, valuable, almost identical marble commemorative plaques (flat mihrabs), dated by Herzfeld to 480–520 AH based on the form of the script, were set into the south walls (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 282).157 The mihrab in the tomb was probably bought and donated by Jumʽa, daughter of Amat Allah; the other was left without signature.158 However, Herzfeld also noticed that the plaques were not in their original positions on the walls. Using them to determine the date of the construction of the complex is thus problematic. The same applies to the bundled columns with the lyre-shaped capitals in the northeast of the prayer hall, similarly dated by Herzfeld to the sixth/twelfth century (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 282), which were used here secondarily in the late Ottoman rebuilding (see infra).159 Documented inscriptions provided information about two reconstructions of the complex. The first was carried out in 1131/1718–1719 by Yusuf ibn Muhammad, as attested by a marble slab in the portico (incidentally, this inscription was the very first epigraphic source mentioning the dedication to Shaykh Fathi; Suyufi 1956, 114, No. 452). According to the inscription over the lintel of the main entrance portal, the tomb was

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

221

renovated again in 1258/1842–1843 by al-Sayyid Fathi (Suyufi 1956, 189–90, No. 93).160 One can only speculate—on the basis of the ground plan and chronological analysis by E. Herzfeld (Fig. 2.72)—as to which parts of the compound were altered by these repairs. In any case, at the beginning of the twentieth century, the state of the complex was significantly affected by various changes to the domed area. The northwest corner of the gallery was in collapsed state at some point during the first two decades of the twentieth century and was provisionally closed with partitions (according to Herzfeld’s plan from 1907; the collapse is also visible in aerial photography from the University College London (UCL) archive taken in 1919).

Fig. 2.72  Mosque of Shaykh Fathi. A plan of the structure before rebuilding in 2001. A possible medieval nucleus (blue) and early/late Ottoman constructions (dark/light grey). After Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a; Uluçam 1989; U2 aerial photograph, 1959; redrawn and interpreted 

222 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Small adjustments to the entrance facade were made shortly before 1982: the plaster was repaired in the portico and the right side of the fourth arch was opened up (Uluçam 1989, Fig. 317). In 2001, a large new mosque was annexed to the mausoleum161 and in the same year, or a little later, the mausoleum itself was replaced by a massive concrete structure on a square plan with dimensions of ca. 20 × 19 m. One can ascertain from the different orientation, proportions, and interior arrangement of the new building that the original historic structure was razed. It is not known if valuable details (mihrabs, inscription slabs, columns) were transferred to the new building or elsewhere. Recent Development and Current State The tomb of Shaykh Fathi was one of the first structures deliberately razed by IS after their takeover of Mosul. The tomb was bulldozed during the night of 23–24 June 2014. The adjacent mosque was spared. The cleared and unused area remains a site of archaeological interest. Description The small, modest structure of the tomb (3.6 × 3.5 m) was the nucleus of the compound. It was recessed into the terrain (accessible via 3–4 stairs) and not qibla-oriented (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 279–82; Uluçam 1989, 144–5). No interior decoration is mentioned in the available sources; a low, conical roof with eight ribs, plain inside and also undecorated, rested on a double-stepped drum supported by muqarnas squinches in the corners. The form of the roof was reputedly characteristic of Mosul’s mausolea built after 1000 AH (al-Diwahji 1952, 102). As for the flat mihrabs, they were probably both commissioned at the same time and given as a commemorative endowment to the structure. In the northern half of the tomb, there was a sarcophagus without inscriptions or decoration. There were no windows in the tomb. The neighboring iwan was modestly lit by a slit window in the southern wall. Its vault (perhaps originally a barrel vault) was not preserved. To the north, the iwan opened into a domed hall originally flanked on three sides by a barrel-vaulted gallery, supported by eight bundled columns. These columns either were preserved as freestanding structures or were partly (or entirely) built into later walls. According to the photographs available (al-Jumʽa 1975, Pls. 103–6, 110–11), the cubic capitals with lyre motifs, documented by Herzfeld, were—in at least two cases— set upside down as bases, which gives unambiguous evidence of their

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

223

secondary position. The low dome with four perimeter windows surmounted the central area of the hall. From the hall, the entrance opened out into a narrow, elongated eastern room, created during one of the twentieth-­century refurbishments. The entrance to the compound featured a three-­arched riwaq and a semicircular marble portal decorated by palmette-formed pendentive voussoirs (Uluçam 1989, res. 318). The enclosure wall had two different phases. Part of the earlier phase annexed to the west wall of the tomb heading south was preserved (a photo from 1960, Fig. 2.71); the later phase was captured in the U2 aerial image from 1959 (Fig. 2.72). The complex was thought to have curative properties. For example, a well whose water was used to heal various illnesses was situated in the compound. It has also been reported that sick people were shut in the tomb overnight to rid them of their ailments (Uluçam 1989, 144; Sabri 2013). Conclusion It was not possible to corroborate the medieval building phase in the Shaykh Fathi complex, although the recession of the tomb indicates that it was older than adjacent structures. The commemorative flat mihrabs, probably originating in the Atabeg period, might have been dedicated to the structures that persisted until 2001 (in which case, the Atabeg provenance of the tomb and annex should be presumed) or transferred from an earlier phase of the compound as its most valuable objects. The modest appearance of the tomb’s interior and the form of the single-shell dome hint at a rather late origin of the structure, or, alternatively, at a radical rebuilding of an older tomb in 1131/1718–1719. Perhaps in this phase, if not later, a small but consistent functional unit, comprising a prayer iwan, a three-winged arcade supported by reused columns, and a central domed area, was annexed to the tomb. It is only from this period that it is possible to confirm the dedication of the buildings to Shaykh Fathi. The complex resembled, in its layout, a small Ottoman-period zawiya, which formally evolved from Anatolian domed madrasas (Aslanapa 1971, 128). The repairs in 1258/1842–1843 (or 1250/1834) probably included the construction of the entrance riwaq and the representative entrance portal. Although the remarkable architectural complex of Shaykh Fathi had already been destroyed in 2001, IS finally wiped from the map of the city a frequently visited social node with a long history and a central place in popular devotion and healing.

224 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

2.2.3.3 Mosque of Sultan Uways (I29) The mosque was located in the Bab al-Masjid Quarter (on the outskirts of the former Jewish Quarter), 390 m northwest of the al-Nuri Mosque, not far from the Faruq Street. The mosque was situated along the southern border of the trigonal, ca. 0.25 ha plot. A madrasa was annexed to the mosque on the west, and the complex also contained at least two domed structures (qubba) and a large cemetery. Sources Available The complex was described from an epigraphic point of view by Suyufi in the 1880s (Suyufi 1956, 82–4, 183) and from an architectural point of view by E. Herzfeld (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 288; briefly, without supporting documentation), S. al-Diwahji (1963, 165–70; in more detail, without supporting documentation) and finally, in 1982, by A. Uluçam (1989, 97–8, four photographs included). Unfortunately, there is no documentation in the paper dealing with the mosque’s two lateral mihrabs (Mal Allah and Yahya 2018, 124–5), as well as in the historical study on the beginnings of the complex (Khidr 2017, 27–30). Aside from the four published photographs, we only had three recent unpublished images to work from (mosque facade, interior, oblique aerial photograph). The ground plan of the complex is not known. Building History The sources are completely silent about the beginnings of the complex, which have thus remained the subject of contradicting speculations. According to one tradition, the core of the complex consisted of two domed structures (qubba) belonging to a large cemetery whose extent once exceeded the boundaries of the plot. One of them is said to have been founded by Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ as the shrine for the Prophet’s contemporary, Uways al-Qarani. It was described as his maqam, which literally means “the place of his stay” for a certain period of time, not the tomb per se.162 Local tradition, however, took the shrine to be the actual site of his interment (al-Diwahji 1963, 165). The other domed structure was supposed to be the tomb of Mosul’s naqibs.163 Another tradition denies the veracity of Uways al-Qarani’s relation to the first domed structure and instead maintains it was only the takiya (lodge) of the al-Uwaysiya/al-Wisiya Sufi order, which gave its name to a later mosque built nearby (al-Diwahji’s commentary in Suyufi 1956, 82, Note 2). A. Uluçam tried to merge both views (the cenotaph built by Badr

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

225

al-Din Lu’lu’ was supplemented in the eighth/fourteenth century with a small prayer room and takiya; Uluçam 1989, 97), but even this idea is only speculation without support in the sources. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the takiya was established at this place by the Jalaʼirid Sultan Uways I (757/1356–776/1374; Khidr 2017, 30).164 It is striking that the name “Sultan Uways Mosque” dominates both the local tradition and the sources, and it is thus possible that the tradition leading to Uways al-­Qarani is a later, supplementary development. The authors of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries, however, do not doubt his identification with this early Islamic personality and maintain that he earned his honorific title “sultan” after the Prophet Muhammad described him as “the Eminent among the Successors” (Khayr al-Tabiʽin), that is among those who had not known the Prophet personally, but accepted Islam through his companions.165 Thanks to the patronage of al-Hajj Jumʽa al-Hadithi, a large mosque was built in the southern part of the plot in 1093–1095/1682–1684, which persisted in modified form until 2014. In 1269/1852, it was supplemented by a madrasa, built by al-Hajj Husayn Beg ibn ʽAli Beg, which served until the 1950s (al-Diwahji 1963, 166–7, 169). A dome of the tomb (or takiya) collapsed in 1940, a valuable marble mihrab was taken from its interior and transferred to the Iraq Museum. The perimeter walls of the structure still stood in 1956 (Suyufi 1956, 82, Note 2) and are also identifiable in a photograph taken by a U2 spy aircraft in 1959. Nevertheless, Uluçam (op. cit.), writing in 1982, did not mention their remnants—the area of the former cemetery with the ruins and the madrasa had been leveled and repurposed as a garden. The comparison of recent photographs with photographs from 1982 (Uluçam op. cit.) shows that the mosque has undergone degrading changes in recent decades: the ribbed brick cone-like roof over the central bay of the entrance portico has disappeared and the entire portico has been walled off or replaced with a solid wall. Recent Development and Current State The mosque was destroyed by an IED on 30 December 2014. The area remains unused and is covered by heaps of rubble (September 2019). Description According to the cited literature, the oldest buildings on the site were two small domed central spaces, typologically more appropriate to tombs than

226 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

the hypothetical Sufi lodge. The details of their appearance are unknown, although al-Diwahji stated that the more western structure (i.e., Takiya al-Wisiya) also had a souterrain in which the second mihrab was to be found (see his commentary in al-ʽUmari 1955, 101, Note 1). In the 1959 aerial photo, the ruins of both buildings are visible on the northeast side of the mosque, with a conspicuous hollow path leading to them (Fig. 2.73). As for the mosque, it was built in a depression (as much as 4 m lower than the surrounding area), which caused technical problems with rising groundwater. It was of a slightly rectangular plan, with a three-part layout incorporating a large, raised central bay under a high, pointed dome on a double-graded octagonal drum. The drum was supported by the brick muqarnasʼ squinches. The large, simple mihrab under the dome was fitted with a semicircular vaulted pentagonal niche and had no distinctive decoration. A wooden gallery (mahfil) for muezzin was placed on the north wall of the central bay above the main entrance. Two barrel-vaulted lateral bays were connected to the central bay by a double-arched arcade with pointed arches, supported by massive prismatic pillars. The western nave served as the Shafiʽi, the eastern nave as the Hanafi oratory. They were also provided with mihrabs (Suyufi 1956, 83–4, No. 311–12), which were, according to descriptions, smaller objects with pointed arches and undated Quranic relief epigraphy. Mal Allah and Yahya (2018, 124–5) considered them valuable monuments from the eighth–ninth/fourteenth–fifteenth century, that is from an unknown older building, but this assumption cannot be independently verified. The entrance front was covered by a five-arched portico with pointed arches on prismatic pillars. Its bays were divided by vaulted arches and domed by sail domes, while the central bay over the main entrance to the prayer hall was accentuated by a higher dome on the octagonal drum and by a conical ribbed roof. Three entrances led from the portico to the prayer hall (Suyufi 1956, 82–3, No. 306–8). The horizontal lintels of the doorways consisted of joggled voussoirs supported by corner consoles. Two small mihrabs were set into the wall between the doorways (Suyufi 1956, 83, No. 309–10); both doorways and mihrabs bore a rich epigraphic decoration and the lateral portals were dated to 1093 and 1095 AH. Conclusion Due to the lack of any reliable historical evidence and contradictory oral traditions, the founding period of the architectural complex of Sultan

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

227

Fig. 2.73  Mosque of Sultan Uways. The situation of the mosque compound in the satellite image (November 2013) and reconstructed plan sketch of the mosque. White outlines and dashed line: ruined funeral (?) structures and a path visible in the historical aerial images. Drawing with use of satellite image WorldView-2© DigitalGlobe, Inc., distributed by European Space Imaging GmbH/ARCDATA PRAHA, s.r.o.

Uways cannot be convincingly determined.166 Still, the Atabeg and Jalaʼirid periods (seventh–eighth/thirteenth–fourteenth centuries), as suggested by previous scholarship, are both plausible candidates. The purpose of the complex was either funerary or ritual (a Sufi takiya), or a combination of

228 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

both. The later Ottoman mosque was a representative example of JaliliPeriod mosque architecture with a massive, over-elevated central bay and five decorated mihrabs. The entrance to the prayer hall was accentuated by a separate dome above the central portico bay, with a conical ribbed roof at the top. 2.2.4  Other Sites Mosque of Hamu al-Qadu—Tomb of ‛Alaʼ al-Din (I11) Period: Late Ottoman, with earlier phases Location: West Mosul, Bab al-Tob The forerunner of the building was the tomb (presumably accompanied by a small mosque) of Shaykh ʽAlaʼ al-Din, whose identity is uncertain and whose dates cannot be convincingly specified. Local tradition identifies him as the grandson of the famous Sufi ʽAbd al-Qadir al-Jilani (1077–1166), whose name was until recently inscribed above the door to the tomb (Suyufi 1956, 202, No. 140). However, historians of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, M. A. al-ʽUmari (1967–1968, II, 205) and Ibn al-Khayyat (1966, 114), were unaware of this identification and only described him as a virtuous, holy man of Mosul, whose grave, located at a large cemetery, was frequently visited by local people. In 1298/1880–1881, al-Hajj ʽAbd Allah Chalabi, known as Hamu al-Qadu, had the old mosque demolished and a new one erected on the same site, with a small madrasa (above the entrance to the mosque) and a drinking fountain (sabilkhana) close by. The bottom part of the mausoleum with the grave of the shaykh was preserved and became a subterranean part of the complex. The mosque area was accessible from the al-Zankana Street. The building itself had three symmetrical entrances from the north. According to the preserved construction plans of the mosque (Monuments of Mosul in Danger—Facebook page), the core of the building was a high prayer hall with a square ground plan, supplemented by a mausoleum (?) on the east side and a three-axis portico on the north side. A high, hemispherical, double-shell dome was erected above the prayer hall, topped with a brick cylindrical minaret with one gallery (Fig. 2.74). The minaret was accessible by a staircase that led up to the dome along the exterior of the building and then through the interior space between the two dome shells. The abovementioned plans do not reflect this solution: only a simple single-­ shell dome without the minaret is depicted. The purpose of this highly

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

229

Fig. 2.74  Mosque of Hamu al-Qadu. A view of the mosque dome, around 1312/1895. Photo by an unknown author

unusual and statically precarious solution was evidently to create a peculiar feature of the mosque, which would become a distinctive part of the city skyline. However, when the minaret soon cracked the outer shell of the dome, its height had to be significantly reduced and it was eventually completely removed. The reduction occurred before 1916, by which time the view of the city from the southeast shows the mosque after this adjustment (see also Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 228). Recent development and current state: The mosque was destroyed by bulldozer on 6 March 2015. It is a patch of rubble today. Sources: Hasan 2013, 434–7; al-Diwahji 1963, 245–6; Suyufi 1956, 201–2; al-Diwahji 2013, 145; Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 228; Ibn al-­ Khayyat 1966, 114; al-ʽUmari 1967–1968, II, 205. Mosque of the Prophet Seth (Nabi Shith) (I12) Period: Ottoman; modern

230 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Location: West Mosul, south part of the city, al-Nabi Shith Street According to local tradition, in 1057/1647–1648 a Muslim trader, al-­ Hajj ʽAli al-Nawma, found the grave of the Prophet Shith in a cemetery south of the city and built a mausoleum over it. In 1206/1791–1792, this modest place of veneration was supplemented with a small mosque, built by the founder’s great-grandson ʽAli ibn Ahmad ibn Mahmud ibn al-Hajj ʽAli al-Nawma. In 1231/1815–1816, the Ottoman governor of Mosul, Ahmad Basha ibn Sulayman Pasha al-Jalili, replaced both structures with a large mosque, an adjacent mausoleum, a madrasa, and his own tomb. The buildings were completed one year later. Other structures were subsequently added to the complex, but very little information about them has survived in written sources. The administrator of the mosque, Saʽid Efendi ibn Qasim Agha al-Siʽirti, built an extraordinarily elegant and tall minaret, whose cornerstone was laid in 1330/1912. In 1977, all buildings except the minaret were pulled down and a new concrete, qibla-oriented mosque was erected. The minaret was eventually also demolished after 1983 (due to a structural damage) and was replaced by a new, taller structure. The focus of the building complex in the period before the 1970s was a mosque in its southern part with a two-part mausoleum of the prophet adjacent to the mosque’s eastern wall. The space in front of the mihrab was covered by a large semi-globular dome, and two of the rooms of the mausoleum were accentuated by ribbed conical roofs. The northern facade of the mosque was punctuated by three entrances and covered by a five-­ axis portico. A spacious rectangular courtyard in front of the mosque was flanked by arcades on all four sides. The original madrasa was removed and its location is uncertain, while the later school found a place in a two-­ story building which included a tunneled passage (the eastern gate) to the area. The minaret from the beginning of the twentieth century was set in the northeastern corner of the enclosure. A cemetery used to surround the compound. Recent development and current state: The entire compound was destroyed by an IED on 25 July 2014. Since the rubble was removed in 2015 the area has been used as an occasional parking lot. Sources: Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 207; al-Diwahji 1963, 213–18; Suyufi 1956, 154–7; al-Diwahji 2013, 100–2; al-ʽUmari 1955, 90–2; Raʼuf 1975, appendix 9 (532–9); Uluçam 1989, 171–2. Shi‛i Mosque and Husayniya Rawdat al-Wadi (I14) Period: Modern

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

231

Location: East Mosul, al-Faysaliya Quarter The Shiʽi mosque and husayniya Rawdat al-Wadi was a modern structure of reinforced concrete, built in the 1960s. The husayniyas are sites for Shiʽi ceremonies commemorating the murder of Imam al-Husayn. This was one of a few in the town, reportedly closed for more than 40 years before it was targeted by IS. State: Destroyed by IED and razed to the ground on 23 July 2014. Sources: shiaamosel.blogspot.com Tomb of Ibn al-Athir (Qabr al-Bint) (I15) Period: Modern Location: West Mosul, Ibn al-Athir Street ʽIzz al-Din Abu al-Hasan ibn al-Athir was a famous Mosul historian. After his death in 630/1233, he was buried in the so-called Cemetery of Scholars, west of the walled town, some 300 m south of Bab Sinjar. The tomb is also known as Qabr al-Bint (Tomb of a Girl) on the basis of folk tales about a young lady who disappeared. The first documented reconstruction of the tomb was accomplished in 1306/1888–1889 by ʽAbd Allah ibn Hammu al-Qadu. Later on, the structure collapsed and was repaired by Muhammad Buyud ibn al-Hajj Mustafa.167 In 1938, when the ring road around the old town (today known as Ibn al-Athir Street) was being built, the tomb was found right in the middle of the street. The site was, however, preserved inside a small traffic circle with a completely new construction built over the grave. Before 1938, the mausoleum was a square, inconspicuous domed structure (c. 3.5 × 3.5 m) with an entrance on its eastern side. The grave itself was without any identification or decoration other than a fragment of a marble slab with a Quranic inscription (2:255, ayat al-kursi) in the west wall. Herzfeld was told that another slab with the name of Ibn al-Athir, which no longer existed by the time of his visit, had been found during the reconstruction. The identity of the person buried in the tomb apparently remained uncertain. No further information emerged until the beginning of the fourteenth/end of the nineteenth century, and the use of the alternative name Qabr al-Bint reflected the uncertainty. At least one slab was reputedly moved to the Iraq Museum. After the reconstruction in 1938, the grave was covered with an elegant, canopy-like, four-columned structure topped by a pointed dome.

232 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Recent development: The tomb was bulldozed and leveled to the ground by IS on 16 June 2014. References: Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 287; Suyufi 1956, 218–19; al-­ Diwahji 1958, 177. Mosque of Shaykh Abu al-‛Alaʼ (I19) Period: Ottoman Location: West Mosul, Mahallat al-Shaykh Abu al-ʽAlaʼ The date of the mosque’s construction and the identity of the eponymous shaykh are unknown. The mosque was also known under the alternative name of Mosque of al-Hajj Khalaf, derived from the name of its famous imam (Suyufi 1956, 60, Note 3). The earliest evidence of the building could be found in two inscriptions—above the door to the prayer room and above the mihrab—documenting the reconstruction/renovation of the mosque in 1176/1762–1763. Further reconstruction took place in 1212/1797–1798 and was sponsored by a certain Ahmad ibn al-Hajji Ibrahim according to an inscription over the mosque’s entrance (Suyufi 1956, 60–1, No. 221–3). This was followed by the reconstructions in 1296/1878–1879 (according to a handwritten note in the archive of Muhammad Saʽid al-Jalili) and 1365/1945–1946 (Suyufi 1956, 174–5). The small complex consisted of a tomb chamber, a mosque standing nearby (al-Khidri MS, Fol. 317–318; Ibn al-Khayyat 1966, 102), and a madrasa (al-Diwahji 2013, 130). In 1386/1966–1967, the mosque was demolished due to the construction of a new street (Ibn al-Khayyat 1966, 102, Note 1). Recent development and current state: According to the local media, the tomb was destroyed by an IED on 24 July 2014. However, its destruction has not yet been verified in the satellite imagery, and the structure appears to have stood at least until 2016. Sources: Suyufi 1956, 60–1, 174–5; al-Khidri MS, Fol. 317–18; Ibn al-Khayyat 1966, 102; al-Diwahji 2013, 130. Mosque and Tomb of Nabi Daniyal (Prophet Daniel) (I21) Period: Ottoman (nineteenth century) Location: West Mosul, Mahallat Jamshid The mosque was constructed, probably on the site of a ruined madrasa, in 1229/1813–1814 by Maʽruf ibn Ibrahim al-Sulayman (Suyufi 1956, 121–2, No. 485 and Note 3). About 30  years later, a resident of the neighborhood recounted a dream he had about the Prophet Daniel

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

233

having been interred in the mosque, which was a good enough reason for the ruler of the town, Muhammad Pasha Inje Bayraqdar (1835–1844), to start a search for the Daniel’s tomb. The excavation uncovered a stone, which was taken to be a remnant of the vault. The stone was covered with a sarcophagus and a domed structure was built above. The mosque was reconstructed and a schoolroom was established within the compound. The reconstruction was commemorated by an inscription from 1258/1842–1843 (Suyufi 1956, 122, No. 483). The mosque was substantially rebuilt by the Ministry of Charitable Foundations in 1401/1980–1981. The mausoleum used to stand in the courtyard of the mosque. It was a simple cubic structure with a high, octagonal drum and a low, ribbed conical roof. Its interior was accessible by a spiral staircase with about 22 stairs. A cenotaph of the prophet and a sacred well were situated inside. A collection of remarkable epigraphic and sepulchral monuments was also stored in the interior, including several marble slabs in the form of roofed mihrabs with lateral columns and simple decoration, dated to the eighth–ninth/ fourteenth–fifteenth centuries (one of them directly to 784/1382; Mal Allah and Yahya 2018, 122). Recent development and current state: The tomb was destroyed by an IED on 23 July 2014. Later on, the rubble was leveled and covered by a concrete floor. In 2019, excavation and restoration works commenced under the auspices of the Ninawa Directorate of Antiquities. Sources: Suyufi 1956, 121–2; al-Diwahji 2013, 147; Mal Allah and Yahya 2018, 121–2; “Al-Badʼ bi-iʽmar jamiʽ al-nabi Daniyal bi-l-Mawsil al-qadima wa saʽy li-iʽadatihi ila sabiq ishʽaʼihi wa ahammiyatihi al-­ tarikhiya.” al-Mawsiliya TV, May 13, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=ffEKcLz5Qy0. Takiya and Tomb of Muhammad al-Afghani (Shaykh al-Shatt) (I22) Period: Ottoman Location: West Mosul, al-Midan Neighborhood Takiya was built in the courtyard of the al-Shahwan Mosque (also known as the Shaykh al-Shatt Mosque) in the second half of the nineteenth century by the Sufi Muhammad Efendi al-Afghani (d. 1317/1899). He was interred in the takiya, as was his successor and son Ahmad. The building was reconstructed in 2000 by Muhammad ʽAbd al-Qadir ʽAbd al-Rahman, governor of the Ninawa province.

234 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Fig. 2.75  Takiya and Tomb of Muhammad al-Afghani with Mosque of Shaykh al-Shatt. A view from the northwest, the takiya on the right side of the mosque. After al-Diwahji (2013)

The building was annexed to the west corner of the Shaykh al-Shatt Mosque (Fig. 2.75). It had the form of a roughly square building roofed by a low, hemispherical dome with a conical jamur on top. A triple-axis entrance porch was affixed on the western side. There were two rooms under the dome: a larger one originally designated for holding Sufi seances (dhikr) and a smaller one that acted as a burial chamber for the Sufis. A water well was also part of the building. Recent development: The destruction of the takiya with tombs was reported on 2 September 2014. The mosque was spared but suffered fatal damage during the last phase of the city’s liberation in July 2017. Sources: ʽUthman 2008, 45; al-Diwahji 1963, 230–1. Shrine of Imam ‛Ali al-Hadi (I36) Period: Mongol–Turkmen; Ottoman Location: W Mosul, al-Mahmudayn Neighborhood The history of the complex is unclear and its association with Badr al-­Din Luʼluʼ (al-Sufi 1953, I, 45) is an unsupported conjecture. In particular, the historical literature has sought to resolve the question of the identity

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

235

of the entombed person, but without any clear result. The identification of the grave with the eponymous 10th Twelver Imam ʽAli al-Hadi (al-ʽUmari 1955, 105; al-ʽUmari 1967–1968, II, 73) was prevented by a dedicatory inscription on the lid of the sarcophagus that identified the deceased as his son/descendant ʽAli ibn al-Imam ʽAli al-Hadi (Suyufi 1956, 219–20, No. 216).168 Al-Diwahji identified on the sarcophagus another dedication to a certain Husayn ibn Sharif, which was probably a later, secondary inscription (Suyufi 1956, 219, No. 216). The marble sarcophagus measuring 2.17 × 1.1 × 1.5 m, with rich carved ornamentation (including a lamp) and Quranic epigraphy, was the most precious monument of the whole complex. The lid with the dedication to ʽAli and his genealogy back to ʽAli ibn Abi Talib was decorated with a white inlay technique (i.e., the same technique used for example in the dado i­nscription bands in Imam ʽAwn al-Din or Yahya ibn al-Qasim Shrines). The sarcophagus was estimated by al-Diwahji to date in the late seventh/thirteenth century. This hypothesis is supported by the very close link between the decoration of its frontal side (the form and decoration of the lamp and the hint of muqarnas vault above it) and the niche of the mihrab in the Shrine of Imam al-Bahir, which originated in c. 699/1299–1300 (see Sect. 2.2.2.6). The corner cylindrical pillars, covered with zigzags, resemble those on the front of the sarcophagus set in the wall of the Shrine of Awlad al-Hasan (dated to 748/1347, see infra). The sarcophagus was originally located in one of the two rooms of the tomb, the floor of which lay at a depth of 6 m below the terrain and was accessible from the courtyard by 12 stairs. The walls of the tomb chamber were covered with decorated marble slabs. The tomb stood as a separate building in the northwestern part of the courtyard. It had a ribbed cone-­ like roof and a three-axis entrance arcade. The southern boundary of the plot was occupied by a small mosque (12 × 5 m) with an entrance from the north, also through a three-arched arcade. There was a surrounding cemetery. The mosque underwent several reconstructions, and its appearance was not, to our knowledge, documented by any description, neither do we possess any photograph. In the 1950s, it was in a dilapidated state and in 1391/1971 it was replaced by a large new building (according to the inscription above the entrance gate to the mosque complex). Recent development and current state: The shrine was destroyed by an IED on 24 July 2014. Part of the complex probably continues to be used to this day.

236 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Sources: al-Sufi 1940, 84–7; al-Naqshbandi 1950, 201–2; al-ʽUmari 1955, 105–6; al-ʽUmari 1967–1968, II, 73; Suyufi 1956, 219–20; al-­ Diwahji 1965, 20, and Figs.  22–3; al-Diwahji 1982–2001,  II, 124; Al Faraj 2012, 131–3; Khoury 1992, 17; Mawsuʽat al-Mawsil al-Hadariya 1992, III, 356. Mosque and Tomb of ‛Isa Dadah and Adjacent Cemetery (I44) Period: Atabeg origin Location: West Mosul, al-Midan Neighborhood Originally a Sufi lodge (ribat) built by the Atabeg ruler, Sayf al-Din Ghazi I (ruled 1146–1149); later known as the mosque of ʽIsa Dadah. His identity is not certain. Local tradition maintains he was the son of the founder of the al-Qadiriya Sufi order, ʽAbd al-Qadir al-Jilani (1077–1166). Saʽid al-Diwahji considers him to be just one of several later Sufi shaykhs who gave the mosque and tomb its name (al-ʽUmari 1955, 121, Note 1). The site (namely the mosque) was reconstructed in 1406/1986 by al-Hajj Dhunun Tabbu al-Jammas (Al Faraj 2012, 144, Note 4). An inconspicuous structure built on a rectangular plan and featuring a low, hemispherical dome, reputedly contained no significant elements from the Atabeg period (Patton 1982, 480–1). The adjacent cemetery to the south occupied an extensive area (ca. 0.39 ha) on the terrace—the former west bank of the Tigris—and had a long historical tradition. At the end of the eighteenth century, Yusuf al-­ Khidri (MS, 296) witnessed many tombs of Husayni sayyids (the descendants of the Prophet through his grandson al-Husayn) in this cemetery. Recent development: Destroyed by IED (reported on 2 September 2014). The cemetery was leveled. Sources: al-ʽUmari 1955, 121; Patton 1982, 480–1; Al Faraj 2012, 144, one photo on page 145; al-Khidri MS, 299. Mosque and Tomb of Shaykh ‛Ajil al-Yawar (I47) Period: Modern Location: South Mosul, al-Tayaran Quarter The mosque was built on the site of the tomb of ʽAjil al-Yawar ibn ʽAbd al-ʽAziz ibn Farhan Basha (1882–1940), the shaykh of the Shammar tribe, Iraqi politician, and grandfather of Ghazi al-Yawar, the first Iraqi president after Saddam Hussein. The mosque was finished in 1362/1943, as the inscription above its entrance attested (Suyufi 1956, 203, No. 147). The tomb became part of the mosque’s courtyard.

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

237

The small mosque was built on a 12-sided plan and its dome was supported by six decorated columns with ornamental arches between them. Recent development: Destroyed by IED on 1 January 2015 and left in ruins. Sources: al-Diwahji 1963, 250; Suyufi 1956, 203. Mosque and Madrasa of al-Ridwani (I48) Period: Ottoman Location: West Mosul, Mahallat al-Shaykh Muhammad The mosque and madrasa were founded and maintained for generations by the al-Ridwani family. The mosque was built by Shaykh ʽAbd ­al-­Razzaq al-Ridwani in 1210/1795–1796, as the foundation slab above its entrance portal attests. His grandson, Shaykh Muhammad Efendi ibn ʽUthman ibn ʽAbd al-Razzaq al-Ridwani, reconstructed the mosque, extended its plot at the expense of the surrounding houses, and built a madrasa and a dwelling house in their place. The year of this reconstruction is not clear, given the lack of a foundation slab. The most probable date is 1331/1911–1912 (Salih 2013, 119) or 1340/1921 (written on the information panel in the compound). The mosque was saved from collapse by repairs in 1406/1986. The last restoration, in 1426/2006, substantially changed its appearance and involved a complete modernization of the compound. A spacious courtyard (12 × 18 m) was flanked by a small mosque of orthogonal plan (7 × 9 m) on the south side and a madrasa on the eastern side, which contained a single study room accessible via a two-aisled portico. The original two-story madrasa with a more complicated floorplan was reduced to a single-space ground-floor structure during one of the later repairs. The entrance facade of the mosque was articulated by three arches on column-like pilasters. A small, trigonal mausoleum was annexed to the west wall of the mosque and was accessible via a wooden door from its interior; ʽUthman Efendi al-Ridwani, the father of Shaykh Muhammad (the founder of the madrasa), was buried there in a lavishly decorated marble tomb covered with Quranic inscriptions. Recent development: The compound was destroyed by an IED at the very end of 2014 (reported on 31 December). Currently (in May 2018), the structures are in a ruined state. The perimeter walls and those parts of the interiors that are still standing are under reconstruction. Sources: Salih 2013, 119–30; al-Hayyu, Ghanim Muhammad, n.d. “Masjid wa madrasa al-Shaykh al-Ridwani fi al-Mawsil.” Bayt al Mosul, accessed

238 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

September 9, 2013. https://www.baytalmosul.com/15941575160616051605158116051583-­157516041581161016171608/3. Hammam al-Saray Mosque and Shrine of al-Sitt Nafisa (I50) Period: Atabeg (?; shrine), Mongol (?; mosque), Ottoman and modern reconstructions Location: West Mosul, Mahallat al-Nabi Jirjis, 160  m east of al-­ Nuri Mosque The mosque and shrine were originally two distinct structures separated by a wall and were not integrated until 1926. Their origin remains unknown, although it has been the subject of several hypotheses lacking support in sources. Saʽid al-Diwahji argued that the Shrine of al-Sitt Nafisa (the distant descendant of either Imam al-Hasan or Imam al-Husayn) was older than the mosque. It may have originated in the transformation of a madrasa, or a Sufi lodge (khanqah), into an ʽAlid shrine by Badr al-­Din Luʼluʼ. He mentions the Madrasa al-Nafisiya (attested in the seventh/ thirteenth century), but he also points out that, at least in the Ottoman era, more shrines associated with al-Sitt Nafisa were known in Mosul, and the madrasa in question could have been located in any of them (alDiwahji 2013, 44–5; see also al-Khidri MS, Fol. 296). The early origin of the structure is also suggested by the popular belief that it was one of the seven oldest mosques (the so-called al-masajid al-sufiya) in the town (alDiwahji 1954, 106, Note 68). The secondary literature links the origin of the Hammam al-Saray Mosque with Mongol rule over the town, and specifically with the establishment of a fortress (hisn) that is supposed to have included—in addition to the palace (saray) and administrative and military headquarters—both the Hammam al-Saray Mosque (then known as the Mosque of al-Saray) and the al-Sitt Nafisa Shrine.169 It was al-Diwahji’s conjecture that the mosque eclipsed at that time, by its centrality and popularity, the significance of al-Nuri Mosque (al-Diwahji 1963, 22). The first direct evidence, however, dates only from 1057/1647–1648, when the mosque was reconstructed/built (‘ammara) by Shaykh Yunus, as was recorded in the inscription above the entrance to the prayer room (Suyufi 1956, 26, No. 72). As regards the other building modifications, the shrine and the mosque are documented as having been connected into one complex with

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

239

a joint courtyard in 1345/1926–1927 (Suyufi 1956, 170; we do not know whether it also involved some other works). The extensive reconstruction of both buildings, funded by Sadiqa bint Ahmad Bakr Hammu al-Hajj Khalil, took place in 1405/1985 (Raʼuf 2013). The small, east-west aligned, qibla-oriented, and domed mosque was accessible from the north via a large courtyard flanked by another building with a rectangular ground plan on the eastern side (a shrine? or the space that housed a basement—serdab—with several tombs). The mosque was recessed 2 m below the surface and a “rare” mihrab with no inscription was situated opposite the entrance and stairs. A large part of the courtyard was occupied by a cemetery with the tomb of the mosque’s builder, Shaykh Yunus. No other documentation is available. This layout was substantially changed during the renovation in 1405/1985 when both buildings were probably replaced by one large structure on a square plan occupying most of the area of the previous courtyard and integrating the musalla and tomb into one space. Recent development: The complex was destroyed by IED on 9 March 2015. Its destruction was confirmed in a satellite image from 6 May 2015. In the period between September 2018 and October 2019, the structure seems to have been reconstructed. Sources: Al Faraj 2012, 75–6; al-Diwahji 2013, 44–5; al-Diwahji 1954, 105–6; Suyufi 1956, 26, 170; Raʼuf 2013; al-Khidri MS, Fol. 296; al-ʽUmari 1955, 110; al-ʽUmari 1967–1968, II, 82–4. Mosque and Tomb of Shaykh Muhammad al-Abariqi (I51) Period: Late Ottoman Location: West Mosul, Bab al-Jadid The mosque was built adjacent to the tomb of Shaykh Muhammad al-­ Abariqi, an alleged adherent of the Sufi Shaykh ʽAbd al-Qadir al-Jilani. During the construction of a new town wall by Husayn Pasha al-Jalili (1695–1758), both the tomb and the mosque were built anew. The small complex was adjacent to the town wall and bounded on the west by the cemetery of the al-ʽUmariya Mosque. According to an Iraqi TV story, it was a simple, modern, qibla-oriented structure with a domed space in front of a mihrab. Recent development: The mosque was destroyed on 3 March 2015 with pickaxes and pneumatic drills. Sources: al-ʽUmari 1955, 113, and Note 2 (by al-Diwahji).

240 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Mosque and Shrine of Imam al-‛Abbas (I54) Period: Ottoman origin? Location: West Mosul, al-Najafi Street The literature often repeats information from Muhammad Amin al-ʽUmari (d. 1788), who identified, on the basis of his erroneous reading of a preserved part of an inscription, the year 405 AH as the construction date.170 The critical edition of the inscription, however, showed that it was executed more than half a millennium later, in 995/1586–1587, during the restoration (?) by Muhammad ibn al-Hajj Kazim (Dhunnun 1967, 232–3). The identity of al-ʽAbbas, after whom the shrine was named, was a matter of disagreement. He was considered either the companion of the Prophet (al-ʽAbbas ibn Mirdas al-Sulami)171 or the son of ʽAli (al-ʽAbbas ibn ʽAli). The second identification already appeared in the inscription of 995/1587, which also mentions several members of the family of Imam ʽAli ibn Abi Talib. Although it is very selective and includes—in contrast to the usual genealogy of Twelve Imams—also, for example, Yahya Abu al-Qasim, we assume that it was originally an ʽAlid shrine, commemorating the son/ descendant of ʽAli ibn Abi Talib.172 Yusuf Dhunnun resorts to the usual shortcut, whereby he argues that if it was a tomb of an ʽAlid imam, it must have originally been built by Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ. In support of this statement, he mentions the Quranic inscription (Suyufi 1956, 54, No. 193) which was secondarily placed above the door to the musalla, and whose script and ornaments allegedly corresponded to inscriptions from the reign of this ruler (Dhunnun 1967, 232). We do not find this argument to be convincing. In 1293/1876–1877, the shrine was reconstructed by Muhammad ibn Faris ibn Khalil Ghufr Allah (Suyufi 1956, 53–4, No. 192—an inscription above a street window). In 1917, a part of the complex had to be removed due to the newly constructed al-Najafi Street, with the result that shops were built on the western part of the mosque’s plot, with a small prayer room above them. On the eastern side of the plot, the original shrine had been preserved, but it was eventually demolished after ten years (1346/1927–1928) and replaced with a new shrine by al-Hajj ʽAbd al-­ Baqi ibn al-Hajj ʽAbd Allah al-Shaykhun. A small madrasa was added next to it. Above both the madrasa and the shrine al-Shaykhun built a musalla (with a minbar), and in front of the musalla a small courtyard measuring just a few meters. An iron minaret was erected above the entrance in the southwestern corner and the complex started to serve as a congregational

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

241

mosque (jamiʽ; al-Diwahji 1963, 248–9; Suyufi 1956, 173). How the complex evolved from the 1960s onward is unknown. Recent development and current state: Reputedly destroyed around the middle of February 2015, but the demolition could not be verified using satellite imagery. The mosque seems to have stood until at least the spring of 2017. Sources: al-Diwahji 1963, 247–9; Dhunnun 1967, 231–3, Suyufi 1956, 53–4, 173; al-ʽUmari 1955, 100; al-ʽUmari 1967–1968, II, 45; alKhidri MS, Fol. 318. Mosque and Tomb of Imam Zayd ibn ‛Ali (I55) Period: Atabeg?, Ottoman Location: West Mosul, Mahallat Bab al-Bayd This building is associated with Imam Zayd, the alleged great-grandson of the fourth Twelver Imam ʽAli Zayn al-ʽAbidin.173 Saʽid al-Diwahji traditionally puts the origin of the tomb in the reign of Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ (Suyufi 1956, 16, Note 1), which, as in the case of many other shrines, cannot be supported by any textual evidence. Nevertheless, three objects that may indicate an Atabeg-period origin were found on the site: a fragment of bundled column with a lyre-shaped capital, a flat mihrab, and a wooden sarcophagus, similar to the Imam Yahya casket. The earliest recorded dating is from 1293/1876–1877 (above the door to the mosque) and mentions the name of the imam as well as the mosque administrator, al-Sayyid ʽAbd Allah ʽArabi Zade, probably also entombed in the complex (Suyufi 1956, 15–16, No. 25). Unfortunately, the complex was neither documented nor more systematically described, although it was a potentially important structure with a medieval nucleus. It was most probably identical with a rectangular, qibla-­ oriented domed mosque situated 125  m ESE of al-Ziwani Mosque, although the location of Imam Zayd ibn ʽAli is a matter of confusion.174 Scholars mentioned porticos with Quranic inscriptions to the left of the prayer hall. An undated flat mihrab featured a polylobed central panel with an inscription and arabesque ornamentation in spandrels, which was considered by al-Jumʽa to be characteristic of Mosul stonework decoration from the sixth/twelfth century. The sarcophagus was approximately dated to the seventh/thirteenth centuries according to the resemblance of its Naskhi epigraphic band (with Quran 2:255) to that used on the mihrab of the Panja ʽAli Shrine (al-Naqshbandi 1950, 200, and Fig. on Plate 8).

242 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Recent development: The complex showed signs of a lack of maintenance in the satellite imagery from 2013 to 2014 and may have been unused for some time. Nevertheless, IS destroyed it in spring 2015 (the dome is visible as broken in the image taken on 7 March; on 21 June the complex is already completely razed). Sources: Suyufi 1956, 15–16; al-Naqshbandi 1950, 200; al-ʽUmari 1955, 102; al-ʽUmari 1967–1968, II, 55; al-Khidri MS, Fol. 293; Al Faraj 2012, 147; al-Jumʽa 1975, Fig.  99; Mawsuʽat al-Mawsil al-Hadariya 1992, III, 348–9. Cemetery Adjacent to the Mosque and Tomb of Umm al-Tis‛a (I57) Period: Late Ottoman with an earlier phase(s) Location: West Mosul, Mahallat Hammam al-Manqusha Local tradition ascribes the mosque to Shahzanan, the wife of Imam alHusayn ibn ʽAli, who had nine children, or, alternatively, nine descendants in the lineage from the fourth to the twelfth Twelver imam (hence her epithet Umm al-Tisʽa, “Mother of the nine”). Al-Diwahji’s reference to the Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ period, when explaining the early history of the site, must be declined as unsupported. The first reliable evidence about the site appears in two inscriptions which identify the Mosul ruler ʽAbdi Efendi as the builder/rebuilder of the mosque and tomb in 1291/1874–1875 (Suyufi 1956, 116, No. 459, 460). Nevertheless, the existence of a number of subterranean rooms at three height levels, the lowest of which is situated about 7 m under the surface, indicates that the structure was developed before this date. The stone-built, plastered, vaulted rooms with pointed arches were partly used as tombs. In one of them the sarcophagus with the inscribed year of 788/1386–1387, as well as several tombstone slabs (not in situ), were recently identified (Mal Allah and Yahya 2018, 129–30). The compound also contained the Takiya al-­ Badawiya, as is inscribed above the entrance (Hadid 2012, Fig. on page 58). Recent development and current state: The adjacent cemetery was leveled by IS in late 2014. The mosque seems to have survived the IS occupation and was probably damaged during military operations in 2017. Sources: al-ʽUmari 1955, 121; Ibn al-Khayyat 1966, 61–2; Suyufi 1956, 116; Hadid 2012, 52–60; Mal Allah and Yahya 2018, 129–30. Madrasa of the ‛Abdal Mosque (I58) Period: Ottoman

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

243

Location: West Mosul, Suq Bab al-Saray The complex of the mosque and madrasa was founded by al-Hajj ʽAbdal ibn Mustafa al-Mawsili (d. 1100/1688–1689); the madrasa was built in 1080/1669–1670, the mosque two years later. Al-Hajj ʽAbdal was buried in the tomb chamber situated at the base of the minaret. The madrasa originally comprised eight student cells and chambers for teachers, and once had a fine collection of books. The building was restored in 1112/1700–1701 and 1203/1788–1789 (Suyufi 1956, 49–50, No. 174–5). The school teaching rooms were later demolished and replaced by a “recently built” room, just opposite the southern gate of the mosque. The student rooms completely disappeared (al-Diwahji 2013, 75). The madrasa was only partially preserved in the northeastern part of the complex and opened into the courtyard via a large, two-story iwan. Only one teaching chamber, opposite the big gate, was preserved. The rest of the building was empty and not maintained for years. Recent development: The mosque remained standing although the founder’s tomb was most probably destroyed. The madrasa was pulled down between March and August 2015 (according to satellite imagery). Sources: al-Diwahji 2013, 73–5; al-Diwahji 1963, 155–6; Suyufi 1956, 49–50. Tomb of Shaykh Mansur (I61) Period: Ottoman Location: West Mosul, Bab Sinjar Quarter, at the foot of Tell al-Kunasa The circumstances of the tomb’s construction are legendary, narrated by al-Khidri (d. 1825), Yasin al-ʽUmari (d. 1820), and Ibn al-Khayyat (d. 1868). The grave and adjacent well were found and restored by a certain woman according to an instruction received in dream. The identity of Shaykh Mansur is unknown. The isolated domed mausoleum stood within a walled cemetery and some time before the end of the eighteenth century a mosque was added (al-Khidri MS, Fol. 316), although this mosque later disappeared. In the last decades of the twentieth century, a completely new mosque was built in the vicinity of the tomb. No documentation is available. Recent development: According to satellite imagery, the mausoleum was demolished between 22 December 2014 and 7 March 2015 and left in ruins; the adjacent mosque was spared. Sources: al-Khidri MS, Fol. 315–16; al-ʽUmari 1955, 112; Ibn al-­ Khayyat 1966, 97.

244 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Tomb of Abu al-Hawawin/Shaykh ‛Amir (I62) Period: Unknown origin; Ottoman at the latest Location: West Mosul; Mahallat al-Mushahada The identity of Abu al-Hawawin is not certain. He is associated with Shaykh ʽAmir (al-Khathʽami), who himself was of unknown origin. Yasin al-ʽUmari considered him to be the companion and banner bearer of the Prophet Muhammad. Local people maintain that he was responsible for the Prophet’s animals and that is why the tomb was frequently visited by those seeking to cure animals by making them walk around it. Modern historians suggest the tomb should be identified with another two al-Khathʽamis who were verifiably buried in the city. The isolated structure of the domed tomb (qubba) had a floor situated below the terrain, accessible via several stairs. A high, slightly pointed dome was supported by a low, polygonal drum. There was a tomb inside; the mausoleum was not adorned with any inscriptions. Recent development and current state: Demolished sometime before 21 August 2014 and left as a ruin. Sources: al-Diwahji 1958, 158–9; al-ʽUmari 1955, 120; al-Khidri MS, Fol. 315; Ibn al-Khayyat 1966, 96–7; “Mawsiliyat: Maqam Abu al-­ Hawawin fi al-Mawsil,” a documentary film. Al-Mawsiliya TV, March 17, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynEnfCKUN0s (image of the tomb). Mosque and Shrine of Awlad (or Banat) al-Hasan (Mosque of Bayt Shahidu) (I63) Period: Ottoman Location: West Mosul, Suq al-Sagha, Hosh al-Khan Neighborhood The name of the building refers to a local tradition of children (or daughters) of al-Hasan ibn ʽAli, who, being chased, plunged themselves into the well, which is inside the building. The tomb and mosque were built by the ʽAlid, al-Hajj Ahmad ibn Shahidu in 1236/1820–1821, probably in the place of the old, demolished shrine witnessed by al-Khidri (MS, Fol. 293) at the end of the eighteenth century.175 The history of the shrine before this period is unknown, so it is useless to speculate about its origin at the time of Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ (al-Diwahji 1958, 169). The Shahidu family attached a one-room madrasa to the structure in 1270/1853–1854 (Suyufi 1956, 56, No. 206). The complex was reconstructed by al-Hajj Khalid Fathi ʽAbd al-Qadir al-Shaʽʽar in 1406/1985 (according to the inscription over the entrance).

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

245

The structure of a trapezoidal plan, which concealed under one roof a small mosque (8.75 × 4.55 m), a 3 m deep tomb in the western part, and a madrasa, was accessible from a small rectangular, later roofed courtyard. A 3.35 m high and 2.72 m wide marble mihrab with a pointed arch lining the niche, supported by a pair of columns with molded zigzag lines on shafts, was built into the qibla wall of the tomb (Fig. 2.76). The trigonal interior of the niche, a conch, and both spandrels were richly decorated by arabesques, interlacing stars, circles, and the shahada inscription in the middle. The mihrab is lined by the epigraphic friezes (Quran 2:255 on the three sides; Quran 112 at the top). All decoration is executed in high relief

Fig. 2.76  Mosque of Bayt Shahidu (Banat al-Hasan). Mihrab in Mosul Museum, state before 2014. Photo by Barnadet Almaslob (2009)

246 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

and inlaid marble (in the niche only). This extraordinary piece did not bear any dating; it was hypothetically attributed to the seventh/thirteenth century but could also have been built later on. According to the only published photographs of the mihrab taken in situ (al-Sufi 1940, Figs. between pp. 62 and 66), one can unambiguously argue that the mihrab had been dismantled and reassembled again in an unprecise way, and thus was not in its original position. Similarly, the second sculptural piece—the face part of a tombstone of an unknown female dated to 748/1347 (Suyufi 1956, 193, No. 107)—was apparently transferred from an unknown place and only secondarily set up in the qibla wall of the tomb. Its decoration style significantly differed from that of the mihrab (al-Sufi 1940, Fig. between pp. 66 and 67). Therefore, neither of the two sculptural monuments can be considered evidence of the mosque’s pre-­ Ottoman construction phase. Recent development and current state: Demolished before 22 December 2014. The place was built up again (by a mosque?) shortly afterward, but the new structure was annihilated during the liberation. A new building complex with two domes was eventually erected here in 2018. The valuable mihrab was transferred to Mosul Museum in 1956. Sources: al-Sufi 1940, 63–6; Suyufi 1956, 56, 192–3; al-Diwahji 1958, 169–70; Mal Allah  and Yahya 2018, 126; Saʼigh 2008, III, 168–9; al-­ Diwahji 2013, 140–1. Mosque of Imam Muhammad/Mosque of al-Sab‛awi (I64) Period: Unknown; nineteenth-century reconstruction of an earlier building (probably the Shrine of Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiya) Location: West Mosul; Ra’s al-Kur Neighborhood According to the inscription from the reconstruction of 1285/1868–1869 (Suyufi 1956, 110–11, No. 439), the mosque was identified with Muhammad ibn al-Imam ʽAli ibn al-Hanafiya, that is the son of the fourth Caliph, and the first Imam ʽAli ibn Abi Talib and his wife Khawla bint Jaʽfar, from the Banu Hanifa tribe (hence al-Hanafiya). The reconstruction was conducted by Shaykh Ahmad, the son of Muhammad al-Sabʽawi, the Sufi shaykh, who had earlier set up his takiya (Sufi lodge) inside the compound. Shaykh Muhammad was entombed in the burial chamber (hadra) in the vicinity of the tomb associated with the Imam Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiya. This association with the ʽAlid lineage indicates an earlier origin of the shrine, although the inscription from

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

247

1868–1869 is the very first entry on the monument we are aware of. No description of the site is available, nor do we possess any photograph of the complex. Recent development and current state: The mosque, along with the adjacent area, was demolished between 22 December 2014 and 7 March 2015. Only rubble remains and the area is no longer in use. Sources: Suyufi 1956, 110–11; ʽUthman 2008, 42–4. Tomb of Shaykh Rashid Lolan (I67) Period: Modern Location: East Mosul (Nineveh), Tell Nabi Yunus Rashid Lolan (1882–1964) was a Naqshbandi Sufi shaykh in Lolan, a village in the area of Baradost (Iraqi Kurdistan). As the leader of the Baradost Kurds, he was a political rival of Ahmad al-Barzani (1896–1969), the leader of the Barzani Kurdish tribe. He died in Mosul and was entombed in the mausoleum attached to the Nabi Yunus mosque complex. The structure was built in 1964 (or shortly thereafter) on a raised stone platform west of the Mosque of Nabi Yunus. It had the form of a cubic tomb chamber with blind arcades on the facades, topped by a bulbous, onion-shaped dome. No detailed documentation is available. Recent development: The mausoleum was destroyed by IED together with the entire Nabi Yunus complex on 24 July 2014. Sources: McDowall 2007, 179; “Bi-l-maslawi: Tarikh al-Nabi Yunus 2,” a documentary film. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTT1 sYFe14U. Shrine of Imams Hamid and Mahmud (I68) Period: Unknown; Ottoman-period reconstruction Location: West Mosul, Mahallat al-Mahmudayn The mausoleum was adjacent to the west front of the prayer hall of the Mosque of al-Mahmudayn. The legendary origin of the shrine is similar to that of Banat al-Hasan. It is believed that the sarcophagus hid a water well, into which Hamid and Mahmud, the alleged descendants of the Imam al-­ Hasan ibn ʽAli ibn Abi Talib, jumped as they fled from pursuers. The oldest record of the (re)construction is from 1135/1722–1723. It was ordered by the mother of al-Hajji Ahmad ibn al-Hajji Salih al-Darwish, as the inscription above the door to the tomb attested (Suyufi 1956, 90, No. 345). The tomb was accessible from inside a mosque, mentioned by Muhammad Amin al-ʽUmari (d. 1788; al-ʽUmari 1967–1968, II, 70). In

248 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

1212/1797–1798, the site was reconstructed by the wife of Muhammad Pasha al-Jalili as a congregational mosque (comprising the tomb and a madrasa). Recent development: The tomb was demolished between 21 August and 22 December 2014. The mosque was spared. Sources: al-ʽUmari 1955, 105; al-ʽUmari 1967–1968, II, 70–3; Suyufi 1956, 90; Ibn al-Khayyat 1966, 56; al-Khidri MS, Fol. 293; al-Diwahji 2013, 102–3. Hammam al-‛Umariya (I69) Period: Ottoman Location: West Mosul; near Bab al-Jadid Two adjacent baths were built by al-Hajj Qasim al-ʽUmari (d. 1001/1592–1593), the founder of the al-ʽUmariya Mosque, in 974/1566–1567, and became part of the mosque’s endowment (waqf ). The extensive structure (ca. 32 × 34 m) adjacent to the inner face of the town wall partly fell into ruin and was substantially rebuilt in the last decades of the twentieth century. Recent development: The structure was demolished and replaced by a new building at some point between 22 December 2014 and 29 August 2015. Sources: al-ʽUmari 1955, 123, Note 2. Tomb of Shaykh Ibrahim (I70) Period: Ottoman? Location: West Mosul, Bab Sinjar Quarter, at the foot of Tell al-Kunasa The history of the site, based only on oral tradition, was recorded by alKhidri and Ibn al-Khayyat. The interred person is supposed to be a certain Ibrahim al-Zaytuni, a local shaykh, originally a seller of olives. His old tomb fell into ruin and was later restored and endowed with a waqf. The site was very popular among the local population and was often visited by people seeking a baraka (blessing). The separate, relatively large, pointed domed structure was situated within an enclosed area used as a cemetery. The tomb chamber had a cubic form and was accessed from the south through a double-arched riwaq. A new building, al-Shahidin Mosque, was annexed to the western side of the enclosure in the last decades of the twentieth century.

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

249

Recent development: The mausoleum was destroyed sometime between 21 August and 22 December 2014; heaps of rubble still remain. The mosque was spared. Sources: al-Khidri MS, Fol. 316; Ibn al-Khayyat 1966, 98; al-Diwahji 2015, 170. Mosque of Mahmud ibn ‛Abd al-Jalil al-Khidri (I71) Period: Ottoman Location: West Mosul The mosque is identified with Mahmud ibn ʽAbd al-Jalil al-Khidri (1769–1836), the Sufi shaykh of the al-Qadiriyya order, who may have been buried in the mosque compound. In 1278/1861, Ruqayya Khatun, the daughter of Muhammad Efendi, made a waqf (charitable foundation) of a shop (dukkan) in the al-Saffarin market to support the al-Khidri Mosque. The mosque itself was a large, two-winged building with two small domes. The south wing was probably the original one, and the west wing a later annex (according to satellite imagery). No further information is available. Recent development and current state: Destroyed between 22 December 2014 and 29 August 2015 (according to satellite imagery analysis). Today a flattened, unused area. Sources: Raʼuf, ʽImad ʽAbd al-Salam. 2013. “Min tarikh al-khadamat al-nisawiya al-ʽamma fi al-Mawsil.” Bayt al Mosul, December 14, 2013. h t t p s : / / w w w. b a y t a l m o s u l . c o m / 1 5 7 1 1 5 8 3 1 5 9 3 1 6 0 5 1 5 7 5 1 583-­159315761583157516041587160415751605-­158515721608160 1/1. Al-Qadiri, al-Shaykh Mukhlif al-ʽAli. 2017. “Tarjamat al-shaykh Mahmud al-Jalili al-Mawsili al-Qadiri.” Al-Mawqi’ al-rasmi li-fadilat al-­ Shaykh Mukhlif ‛al-Ali al-Qadiri al-Husayni, November 22, 2017. https://alkadriaalalia.com/play.php?catsmktba=56. Shatt al-Jumi Mosque/Tomb of Shaykh Ibrahim al-Naqshbandi (I73) Period: Unknown; Shaykh Ibrahim entombed in the mosque compound in 1340/1921–1922 Location: West Mosul, Mahallat al-Midan This small mosque became the takiya of the shaykh of the al-­ Naqshbandiya Sufi order, Ibrahim ibn Hasan al-Husayni al-Naqshbandi, who was entombed in the mosque’s souterrain after his death in 1340/1921–1922. Saʽid al-Diwahji hypothesized that the mosque

250 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

stood at the place where Dar al-Hadith al-Muhajiriya had once been situated. The dar al-hadith was built by Abu al-Qasim Ali ibn Muhajir (from the influential Mosul learned merchant family) in 552/1157–1158. The mosque actually had, in its last phase, according to al-Diwahji, the shape of a madrasa. The building was also known as the Mosque of Shaykh Ibrahim or the Mosque of al-Mulla Hasan (probably linked to Ibrahim’s father Hasan). Recent development and current state: The site was possibly demolished between 22 December 2014 and 29 August 2015 (according to satellite imagery analysis). It is an unused area of rubble today. Sources: Suyufi 1956, 69; al-Diwahji 1957, 116. Mosque and Tomb of al-Kharrazi (I74) Period: Ottoman, modern restoration Location: East Mosul, Hayy al-Andalus The mausoleum was dedicated to the Sufi Shaykh Ahmad ibn ʽIsa al-­ Kharrazi (third/ninth C.) whose identity was a matter of contention. The history of the tomb is unknown but it already existed around the middle of the eighteenth century, as Muhammad Amin al-ʽUmari witnessed (al-ʽUmari 1967–1968, II, 87–91). The complex occupied a hill summit and consisted of a domed tomb that was in a nearly collapsed state. A few years before 1966, it was renovated and a small mosque was built adjacent to the tomb (Ibn al-Khayyat 1966, 85, Note 1). The mosque was built anew shortly before 2006 and Sufi celebrations (dhikr) took place there. No inscriptions or art elements are mentioned in the literature. Recent development: The complex was bulldozed on 24 June 2015 and its destruction is confirmed in a satellite image from 16 September 2016. Sources: al-ʽUmari 1955, 97; al-ʽUmari 1967–1968, II, 87–91; Ibn al-Khayyat 1966, 85; Blog of Dr. Ibrahim al-ʽAllaf. April 6, 2013. http:// wwwallafblogspotcom.blogspot.com/2013/04/blog-­post_3375.html. Al-Tahira Syriac Orthodox Church (al-Tahira al-Kharijiya—External alTahira; C14) Period: Ottoman Location: NW part of old Mosul, al-Shifa’ Quarter, the Farouk Street District, close to the former town wall and the al-ʽImadi Gate. The extensive church precinct comprised the al-Tahira Church with its north courtyard, the self-standing area of the theological seminary, and the adjacent al-Ghasaniya School.

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

251

The origins of the church are unknown. According to C. Niebuhr (1778, II, 361–2) and J. M. Fiey (1959, 151), it was built anew, together with some other churches of Mosul, by the governors of the al-Jalili family in 1744–1745, after the devastating siege of Mosul by Nader Shah in 1743. Later extensive rebuildings took place in 1878, 1940, and 1994. The compound of the theological seminary, occupied by the famous St. Aphrem Institute between 1946 and 1960, was probably added to the church in 1940. The seminary buildings were rebuilt in 1993. In 2006, the theological studies were transferred to Mar Mattai Monastery. The rare view of the church before the rebuilding in 1940 (by G. Bell in 1909) shows a high-walled, rectangular enclosure with a massive prismatic tower (a donjon—qasr?) in the southeastern corner and a small domed structure adjacent to the west wall. These features disappeared before 1940 and the inner organization of the space appeared to change completely. The church (Figs. 2.77: 1 and 2.78) used to be a three-aisled pseudo-­ basilica with a slightly over-elevated central nave. The barrel-vaulted naves were divided by arcades supported with pillars of octagonal plan, whose form was freely derived from the pillars of the al-Nuri Mosque. The decoration of the Royal Gate (a screen between the central nave and sanctuary) with dark gray marble stemmed from an eclectic blend of traditional elements, which can be found at the Mar Behnam Monastery or the Mar Ahudemmeh Church. The sanctuary consisted of a three-part integrated space divided by arches and vaulted by flat domes. A ciborium was erected over the altar. The structure adjacent to the sanctuary and oriented toward the north was the chapel of St. Georgis, with a sanctuary accessible by a marble doorway with trilobe panels and pendentive voussoirs (Fig. 2.77: 2). The eastern lateral wall was punctuated by two windows and two decorated marble niches; the Islamic tombstones originating in the beginning of the sixth/twelfth century, which used to be set into the lateral walls according to Fiey (1959, 153), were not found in place in 2012 (Petr Justa, pers. comm.). The north side of the church courtyard was flanked by the martyrion/chapel of St Jacob Intercessor (Fig.  2.77: 3), which ­preserved the relics of five early Christian martyrs and saints, discovered during the reconstruction of the Royal Gate in 1940 (Fiey 1959, 152–3). The church was a popular place for Syrian Orthodox communal festivities and for the patients of a nearby state hospital seeking miraculous healing or blessings before their medical treatment. Recent development and current state: The southwest corner of the church nave was damaged by a bomb explosion on 15 December 2009.

252 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Fig. 2.77  Al-Tahira Syriac Orthodox Church. A plan sketch of the church compound. Structures destroyed by IS in grey. Drawing with use of a satellite image and a photoset taken by Petr Justa in June 2012

On 2 February 2015, the church was sacked. It was subsequently destroyed, along with the entire surrounding complex of buildings, using an IED. The area was leveled and the remains were razed to the ground sometime between September 2015 and September 2016, with the sole exception of the west wing of the theological seminary. Sources: Fiey 1959, 151–4; “Mirath al-Suryan: Kanisat al-Tahira al-­ Kharijiya fi al-Mawsil al-ʽIraq,” a documentary film. Suryoyo Sat TV. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUxQenT9JH0. English War Cemetery (C27) Period: Modern Location: West Mosul, al-ʽUruba Quarter The cemetery was founded in 1918, to the west of the civil cemetery. According to data from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, it contained more than 349 graves of British, Indian, Australian, Canadian, and Turkish soldiers who fell in North Iraq during the two world wars. In addition, there were also civilian graves, particularly consular burials. The

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

253

Fig. 2.78  Al-Tahira Syriac Orthodox Church. The west front of the church. Photo by Petr Justa (2012)

cemetery used to be an important place of commemoration and forgiveness in Mosul as the soldiers of opposing sides rested here alongside each other. Recent development: The cemetery was vandalized by a group of IS supporters before 23 June 2014 and was eventually completely bulldozed along with the enclosure wall during the spring 2015 (the satellite image from 7 March already shows the destruction in progress, while on 6 May it seems to be completed).176 Sources: “Mosul War Cemetery.” CWGC, accessed April 12, 2020. h t t p s : / / w w w. c w g c . o rg / f i n d -­a -­c e m e t e r y / c e m e t e r y / 6 9 7 0 2 / mosul-­war-­cemetery/. Al-Saray Police Station/Madrasat al-Sana’i‛ (P16) Period: Late Ottoman Location: West Mosul, Suq Bab al-Saray

254 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

This late Ottoman administrative building changed its purpose several times over the course of the last two centuries. It was a police center in 1864, but was later transformed into a Christian school. In 1924, it became the School of Crafts (Madrasat al-Sanaʼiʽ), only to be converted once again to a police directorate (Markaz Shurtat al-Saray). It was a two-­ story building with an edged-U floorplan, and the vaulted ground floor was furnished with a monumental entrance hall in the south wing. The southern facade opened to a wide loggia on the first floor. Recent development and current state: The building was damaged by a suicide attack in 2005 and eventually destroyed by an IED in June 2014, probably on 21 June 2014. Source: al-ʽAllaf, Ibrahim. 2013. “Saray al-Mawsil aw Markaz Shurtat al-Saray.” Mudawwanat al-duktur Ibrahim al-ʽAllaf, February, 2013. http://wwwallafblogspotcom.blogspot.com/2013/02/blog-­ post_7228.html.

Notes 1. See al-Qazwini 1848; Abu al-Fidaʼ 1840; Le Strange 1919. As for Ibn Battuta, who visited Mosul in 1327, the larger part of his account was drawn from Ibn Jubayr. Still we don’t have to consider it a useless plagiarism. The core description differs only a little, but still, it reflected some important changes and brought new information related to the power structure of the city at that time (Ibn al-Battuta 1962). 2. In fact, Ibn al-Khayyat (1966) only abbreviated some longer passages of al-­Khidri (MS). For more on the context of the emergence of this genre, see Sect. 3.2. 3. https://asia.si.edu/research/archives/herzfeld/; https://www.metmuseum.org/ar t/libraries-and-research-centers/watson-digitalcollections/manuscript-collections/ernst-herzfeld-­papers. 4. The image archive was established in 1978 and is now available in an online version on the Flickr domain: www.flickr.com/photos/apaame/ sets/; www.apaame.org; http://www.eamena.org. 5. Abu Shama, n.d., II, 111–12. This does not necessarily mean that a special school building was additionally constructed within the complex, as is maintained by al-Diwahji (1963, 21). 6. Al-Diwahji 1963, 25. For the transcription of the inscriptions, see ibid., 23. During the last reconstruction, both inscriptions were taken down and transferred to the Iraq Museum.

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

255

7. The old mosque comprised, according to Niebuhr, part of a wall, a minaret, and a lavishly decorated mihrab. His testimony can probably be interpreted as indicating that the northern part of the mosque had been demolished in 1151/1738–1739 (see infra) and the summer musalla established. Valuable elements from the demolished interior were reused elsewhere, as was the case, for example, for four original pillars which were transferred to Hanafi musalla of al-Nabi Jirjis Mosque (see Sect. 2.2.1.4). 8. Saʽid al-Diwahji, the author of this information, is inconsistent on the point of the year of the establishment of this takiya. It happened either in 1271/1854–1855 (al-Diwahji 1963, 25) or 1299/1881–1882 (ibid., 45). Unfortunately, no dated inscription was preserved. 9. This chapter largely benefited from  data very generously provided by Paula Ion, the  UNESCO-hired architect responsible for  the  al-Nuri Mosque reconstruction. We are indebted to her architectural reconstructions of  both the  pre-1944 and  the  sixth/twelfth-century mosque, and  for  in-depth discussions, which were essential for  the  analysis of the al-Nuri prayer hall. 10. This position is corroborated by the revision of the original measurement in Herzfeld’s sketchbook, and was most probably also applied in the central bay under the high dome (Fig. 2.20). The fact that the whole east and west sides of the elevated maqsura dome were supported by only one subtle pillar in the middle of the walls seems odd, but the fragmentary documentation does not offer any alternative possibility. A similar structure of supports was also used in other mosques in Mosul (the Mosques of al-Jamshid, al-Nabi Jirjis, and Sultan Uways and, most of all, the closest one chronologically, al-Mujahidi Mosque); in these cases, however, the central part was not so over-elevated and the pillars were not so loaded as that in the al-Nuri Mosque. 11. A wooden gallery (sudda) opposite the main mihrab with access from the north aisle, as well as partition walls and remodelings at the eastern and western ends of the structure, also belonged to Shaykh Muhammad al-­ Nuri’s reconstruction. 12. It concerns the pillar east of the Type 1 pillar in the northeast corner of the central bay, which was depicted by E. Herzfeld both in his sketchbook and in the final plan as the original one. However, the shouldered arch springing from the corner pillar has apparently been remodeled (Tabbaa 2002, Fig. 6), so the corresponding eastern pillar might also have been rather a result of the late Ottoman reconstruction. 13. We assume they were removed during Shaykh Muhammad al-Nuri’s restoration. Their load-bearing purpose in the arcade was taken over by new buttresses reinforcing the neighboring pillars (Fig.  2.19, in the axes 4, 4.1, 6.1 and 7).

256 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

14. Unlike our predecessors, we are not sure about the number of pillars in the eastern and western terminal parts of the mosque, where the situation was heavily modified by several later rebuildings and was poorly documented (thus the sign 2+). 15. Comparison of the plan sketch in the sketchbook and the published plan (Sarre and Herzfeld 1911b, Taf. LXXXVIII) revealed that Herzfeld did not manage to record the exact position and number of the remnants of the riwaq pillars and their depiction in the final plan is thus not plausible (see also his explanation in Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 226). 16. This is corroborated by the height of the central north arch of the central bay (and by the similar arches reconstructed in other bays), whose apex exceeded the level of the flat roof of the late Ottoman north aisle. 17. Tabbaa 2002, 348–51. Inscriptions were published in Suyufi 1956, 103–6, 187–9; al-Diwahji 1963. 18. Al-Janabi stated erroneously that it was a three-part arcade, which however corresponds only to the extent of the preserved and transferred part. 19. Very similar wide rectangular pilasters can be found in the Shaykh al-­Shatt Mosque or Imam ʽAwn al-Din Shrine. 20. The original shape of the dome is hardly discernible from a single preserved photograph. We, nevertheless, consider Tabbaa’s hypothesis of the two-phase development of the dome to be very plausible, and, with regard to numerous parallels from Ayyubid Syria, Baghdad (mausoleum in Madrasa al-Mirjaniya), and North Iraq (Virgin chapel in Mar Behnam Monastery, Sitt Zaynab in Sinjar), we suppose its original form to have been a double-­shell dome, hemispherical outside and hemispherical and fluted inside. The remodeling of the outer shell can be plausibly linked with Uzun Hasan’s reconstruction in the late ninth/fifteenth century, as the inscription corroborated (see supra), and not with Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ (Tabbaa 2002, 347). 21. Hamd Allah Mustawfi (1281–1349) from Qazvin stated that “Mosul has a Friday Mosque, with a mihrab of cutstone, and carved so well that nowhere, even in wood-carving, could the like be done” (Le Strange 1919, 102). He was probably speaking about the main mihrab in the prayer hall and his description, at the same time, best matches the external mihrab. 22. Tabbaa’s opinion that the inscription may have been a later copy of the original Nur al-Din’s inscription is not supported by any arguments (Tabbaa 2001, 174 n. 54). 23. Due to its imperfect construction, its form rather resembles a square frustum, and this shape was even emphasized by the last repair in 1980–1982. A variety of values for the minaret’s dimensions are stated in the literature. We used here the data published by al-Shaykh Ali (1975, Table 1).

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

257

24. The factors that caused the tilt were comprehensively discussed in al-­ Shaykh Ali 1975; Pagliero 1965, 44–5; Pagliero and Bruno 1967, 221, and so on. 25. In the frame of the reconstruction in 1980–1982, the foundation was reinforced by a perimeter concrete belt hidden under a new cladding made from stone ashlars. 26. The row of five niches above the entrance and windows might have been interior niches of an annexed house that was later lost. 27. The minaret in Arbil was built, in all probability, under the patronage of Muzaffar al-Din Gökburi (586/1190–630/1233; Nováček et al. 2013, 20). The minaret at Sinjar is, as the only structure in the group, directly dated to 598/1201 (Sarre and Herzfeld 1911a, 9–10). 28. “Maʽalim diniya: Jamiʽ al-Khidr,” a documentary film. Accessed November 25, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hma LWFB7IRQ. 29. “/…/ The town has a large suburb with mosques, baths, khans, and markets. One of the emirs of the town, called Mujahid al-Din, constructed on the banks of the Tigris a congregational mosque than which I have never seen a more splendid. It is impossible to describe its architectural ornament and its arrangement. It is covered with reliefs in terracotta, and its maqsurah makes one think of those in Paradise. Round it are iron lattice windows, adjoined by benches overlooking the Tigris /…/. In front of it (the mosque) stands a finely built hospital erected by Mujahid al-Din /…/” (Ibn Jubayr 2008, 243–4). 30. The inscription was situated above the western entrance to the mosque; see also Eroğlu et al. 2012, 155. 31. The Tigris was regulated in this portion only at the end of the nineteenth century; before that high waters could easily reach the structure’s foundation and cause damage. 32. The date has been corrected by the editor of Al Faraj’s work, while the author himself stated the year 1366/1946–1947 (Al Faraj 2012, 111). 33. The gallery of the dome was henceforward accessible only via a ladder from the western nave’s roof. This ladder was—like the famous Immovable Ladder in Jerusalem’s Church of Holy Sepulchre—an iconic feature of the building, visible in all pictures until the demolition. 34. The Tigris has considerably changed its course during the last 50 years and now flows much further to the east than before. 35. Even in the first half of the twentieth century, their remains were seen in the river at low water levels (al-Diwahji 1955, 6). According to proponents of the Ottoman origin of the structure, these ruins could be identified with the original al-Mujahidi Mosque from the Atabeg period (al-Sufi 1940, 55). In fact, it could have been any other structure.

258 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

36. Although the stairway for the muezzin is, as we argue, of a relatively later date, there are neither hints of a medieval minaret nor traces of any earlier solution that would have enabled adhan. 37. One can only speculate that this route to the mosque’s flat roof might have been the latest solution that enabled adhan after the demolition of the external staircase. 38. In the photograph taken in 1901, this part is already complete, supplemented with a corner buttress (Al Faraj 2012, 98). 39. Comparison of the ground plans of both structures shows that the central bay of Qaymaz’s mosque had very similar dimensions to those of the alNuri Mosque, even if we suppose that the north-south dimension of the al-Mujahidi central bay was somewhat reduced by the Ottoman-period installation of staircases. The elevation of the al-Nuri prayer hall was about 2.8 m higher than that of al-Mujahidi, while the volumes of their maqsura domes were similar (these parts can be compared only approximately due to the lack of data about their medieval forms). 40. The terracotta cladding was clearly part of the original building, but its appearance remains completely unknown. The octagonal glazed tiles might have been a part of this decoration program, but could also have come from some of the later adjustments. 41. The plan was adopted by al-Diwahji 1954, 266 (identified by Fiey 1965, 512, n. 5). The plan published by A. Uluçam (1989, 50) is a mere redrawing of this plan. 42. “Maʽalim Diniya, Jamiʽ al-Nabi Yunus.” https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=eHnFaqmCl_Y; “Bi-l-maslawi: Tarikh al-Nabi Yunus.” https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=rj8goUInMjM (part 1); https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=uTT1sYFe14U (part 2). 43. We leave aside speculation about the existence of a fire temple at Nabi Yunus (Mashah al-Ramad: al-Diwahji 1954, 251) which has no reliable support in any sources (Fiey 1965, 497, Note 3). 44. Al-Maqdisi 1877, 146. The author describes her project as “building” a mosque, not reconstructing one. Still, we believe that this report concerns the same mosque mentioned earlier by al-Masʽudi. 45. Al-Hamawi (1977, II, 41) described the patron of the shrine as “emir of Mosul before al-Bursuq,” that is before the rule of the Seljuq Atabeg of Mosul, Aqsunqur al-Bursuqi (507/1113–1114 to 520/1126, with an interruption). 46. He was the famous naqib, representative of the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad, Nasir al-Din ʽAbd Allah ibn al-Muhamid (d. 802/1399) who was buried in the al-Barma mausoleum attached to the Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din (see Sect. 2.2.2.2). 47. Timur allocated the same amount of money for the reconstruction works at the al-Nabi Jirjis Shrine.

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

259

48. There is no indication that these ablution facilities had their origin in those mentioned by Ibn Jubayr (see al-Diwahji 1954, 260; Ibn Jubayr 2008, 245). 49. His description mentions, for example, small windows opening onto the corridor. These are visible in photographs of the northern facade taken after reconstruction in 1271 AH, but not in Flandin’s engravings created before the addition of the corridor. It is, however, possible that the extended part with passages used older masonry of unknown date, which is recognizable in Flandin’s image. 50. According to the ongoing investigations, the rooms tended to be organized along two or three parallel, south-to-north oriented lines. Their vaults were reconstructed in the 1980s using concrete and steel elements. The foundation walls of the minaret seem to be based directly on the paved floor of the Assyrian palace and neither these walls nor the other mosque’s foundations reached into deeper levels (A.  Hoffschildt, pers. comm., November 2019). 51. The mosque rooms were not, in many cases, regularly orthogonal, particularly in the southern part of the shrine, which showed an axial deviation to the west and no indentation on the eastern facade which occurred in the 1954 plan (Fig. 2.30; the actual roof edge according to the orthogonal aerial image is depicted by a dashed line). The thicknesses of some walls are suspicious and many details (e.g., door frame articulations) are missing. 52. Suyufi 1956, 198–9, No. 130 (M3) and No. 131 (M4). For the attribution of M3 to al-Khatani see Suyufi 1956, 162, No. 623. 53. The second entrance from the northern corridor through the older passageway was made during the last reconstruction. 54. “Maʽalim Diniya: Jamiʽ al-Nabi Jirjis,” a documentary film. Diwan al-­Waqf al-Sunni in Ninawa, accessed December 20, 2017. https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=HAbxMGSNjzc; “Bi-l-maslawi: Tarikh al-Nabi Jirjis,” a documentary film. Al-Mawsiliya TV, accessed December 20, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtsEUoDaVvk&t=1263s (part 1), and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzCtqqtjOA0 (part 2). 55. The claim that the tomb was discovered and built by Timur Lenk (e.g., al-ʽUmari 1955, 94–5) was rejected as an unsupported folk tradition as early as the eighteenth century (al-Khidri MS, Fol. 283). 56. According to Fransis and al-Naqshabandi (1949, 61) and al-Diwahji (1961, 8); al-Sufiʼs (1940, 21) proportions slightly differ (2.20 × 0.67 m). 57. Al-Diwahji (ditto) and Fransis and al-Naqshabandi (1949, 61) dated the door, according to ornamental decoration and the Kufi script form, to the end of the sixth/twelfth century.

260 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

58. The argument is the similarity of muqarnas to the vault of the tomb of Nabi Yunus and also the historical mention of Timur Lenk’s donation in 796/1393–1394, which, however, does not necessarily relate to the vault preserved until the twentieth century. The note by Muhammad Amin al-ʽUmari about the demolition of the tomb’s dome in 1149/1736–1737 and its new construction under Husayn Pasha al-Jalili (al-Diwahji 1961, 7) sounds plausible. According to al-Diwahji (1961, 8), however, doubleshell domes were no longer built in Mosul from the eighth/fourteenth century onward. 59. An identically shaped bottom edge of the relieving lintel could also be found over the eastern and western doorways of the Shafiʽi prayer hall, corroborating that the window or its refurbishment came from the reconstruction campaign of Husayn Pasha al-Jalili around 1152 AH. 60. One may probably omit the unlikely possibility of a surveying error during the mausoleum’s foundation, considered by Uluçam (1989, 52). 61. The latter opinion is plausible, as the Nabi Jirjis mihrab falls into a consistent group of twelfth/eighteenth century Mosul mihrabs, being nearly congruent with the mihrabs in al-Aghawat Mosque (founded in 1113–1114/1702–1703, no hint at the dating of the structure to the Timurid period), Qadib al-Ban Mosque (1123/1711), mosques of alBasha (1755), and al-Mahmudayn (1796). 62. During the last reconstruction, the arches and pillars were removed and replaced by a reinforced concrete ceiling with four prismatic concrete pillars, lined with marble at the bottom. 63. All this western wing collapsed during the twentieth century due to lack of maintenance. During the last reconstruction, its remnants were removed and the prayer hall was closed by a new partition leading from the NW corner of the tomb chamber to the north. 64. The identity of Yahya ibn al-Qasim has been disputed. His traditional identification as the grandson of Imam al-Hasan ibn ʽAli (al-Khidri MS, Fol. 293) was questioned by al-ʽUmari 1967–1968, II, 79. His name is often also referred to as Yahya Abu al-Qasim, which opens up further possibilities for identification (see, e.g., Al Faraj 2012, 122–4). 65. We don’t share the belief of al-Diwahji (1954, 100–1) and others that the shrine was included in the area of the citadel. Except for Ibn Jubayr’s not very reliable description that the fortress was adjacent to the houses of the Sultan, there are no other supporting clues in sources from Mosul, notwithstanding the apparent functional and military-strategic issues that would have resulted from such a solution. 66. This piece of information comes from Ibn al-Fuwati (1997, 366), while Ibn Khallikan (1977, I, 184) stated that he was buried in a shrine (i.e., the Yahya ibn al-Qasim Shrine), which does not seem probable. Al-ʽUmari

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

261

(1955, 103–4) recorded a tradition that Badr al-Din was laid to rest in the Shrine of Imam ʽAli al-Asghar in the al-Nuri Mosque neighborhood. This idea circulated in Mosul in the thirteenth/nineteenth century; alDiwahji (1968, 173), as well as al-Janabi (1982, 54), maintained that Badr al-Din was eventually interred in the Mausoleum of Imam ʽAli ibn Abi Talib at Najaf, which appears to be an unsupported conjecture. 67. In McClary (2017), this important phase of development is missing. 68. This final part of the inscription is preceded by basmala and the Quranic verses (or their parts) 6:90, 33:33, and 76: 8–12. The translation is ours. It was made on the basis of the transcription recorded by Khalid Sultan for his unpublished doctoral thesis and cited in the Thesaurus d’Épigraphie Islamique, No. 26066, and a slightly different version of the inscription published by Yusuf Dhunnun (1967, 228–9). Only these two transcriptions take into consideration the date, whose last number is not clear. 69. The available documentation is not informative enough for the mihrab to be conclusively connected with the reconstruction. Its construction might also have been the result of a change of plan during the erection of the shrine. Similarly, the date of the portion of richly ornamental frieze above the mihrab remains uncertain; its dimensions and the details of its execution and motifs differed from those of the perimeter band over the dado. 70. The portico probably still did not exist at the time of the earliest preserved photograph of the shrine from 1887. There is no hint of a twophase development of the portico, presumed by McClary (2017, 6). The secondary use of the columns can be deduced from the absence of capitals and bases (the latter were replaced by high, prismatic, roughly processed segments). 71. The inscription on the gate to the area stated that the reconstruction date was 1384/1964–1965. 72. This conclusion is corroborated by M. al-ʽUmari’s account from the second half of the eighteenth century, in which he states that “the shrine has a central courtyard (hawsh mutawassit) overlooking the Tigris” (al-ʽUmari 1967–1968, II, 78). 73. These photographs are among E. Herzfeld’s Papers in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, accessible at https://www.metmuseum.org/art/librariesand-research-centers/watson-digital-collections/manuscript-collections/ ernst-herzfeld-papers. 74. We also find it striking that the hypothetical existence of such a tomb would not be used in the scholarly literature as an argument in support of those who ultimately refused to accept the old local tradition that the last resting place of the shrine’s founder, Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ, was at the Shrine of ʽAli al-Asghar (see Sect. 2.2.2.4).

262 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

75. For a more reliable assessment, data on the form of the other Ottoman madrasas in Mosul would be indispensable. Uluçam (1989, 220–1) listed four new foundations in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, which should be supplemented with the madrasa of the ʽAbdal Mosque and Madrasa al-Aminiya, part of the al-Basha Mosque. At least the latter and Madrasa al-Khaliliya (within the complex of the al-Aghawat Mosque) are of a completely different type from al-Badriya (Dhunnun et al. 1983). 76. He mistakenly included a fragment of a panel from the Imam al-Bahir Shrine in the collection (al-Jumʽa 1975, Pl. 166; see al-Janabi 1982, 183, Pl. 177). 77. Two fragments of the inscription read as follows: 1. /…/ [a]l-imam qasim al-dawla, nasir [al-milla] /…/. 2. /…/ [m]alik umaraʼ al-sharq wa al-gharb, abu al-fadaʼil, husam amir al-mu[ʼminin] /…/ (according to al-Gailani 1973, II, 398, and Figs. 357, 358). All the epithets mentioned were used by Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ (compare van Berchem 1978). Furthermore, the epithet “Abu al-Fadaʼil” is a generic component of Badr al-Din’s titulature (al-Jumʽa 2018, 162). There is no reason to infer from the epithet “Qasim al-Dawla” or “Abu al-Fadaʼil” that the sponsors were Aq Sunqur al-Hajib (?) (al-Gailani, op. cit.) or Aq Sunqur al-Bursuqi (Hillenbrand 2006, 21, Fig. 5) respectively. 78. The cenotaph inscriptions were published in Suyufi 1956, 195–6. 79. http://alialagamosulpic.blogspot.com/2018/06/320.html, accessed December 9, 2019. 80. The authors would like to express their thanks to Axelle Rougeulle for sharing this documentation. 81. Al-Dawla al-Islamiya. 2014. “Mulhaq taqrir hadm al-adriha fi madinat al-Mawsil,” al-Maktab al-iʽlami li-wilayat Ninawa. Accessed August 8, 2014. http://justpaste.it/Adrah. 82. Al-Diwahji, on the other hand, suggested a different reading: “You have visited a gate … (qad zurta baban …).” See al-Diwahji’s correction of Suyufi’s original reading (Suyufi 1956, 100, No. 392). Even al-Diwahji, however, leaves the problem of the dual foundation (first a madrasa, later a shrine) open (ibid., 99, Note 1). Our analysis of the inscription confirmed the correctness of al-Jumʽa’s reading of the text. 83. The only conceivable source of the original dedication to Imam ʽAwn alDin would have been epigraphic inscriptions on the lid of the severely damaged cover of the sarcophagus. It appears, however, that the lid should not have been considered an original part of the sarcophagus (see infra for more details). 84. This estimate concerns the additionally recessed north side, while on the west and south sides, where the surface rose due to the gradual growth of the cemetery backfills, the height of the dado only amounted to ca. 190 cm.

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

263

85. Musʽab Mohamed Yasim Mohamed Al-Jubouri, pers. comm. 2019. 86. Other possibilities, such as the horizontal joint between the earlier and younger phases of the wall, are ruled out due to the fact that the scar did not continue on neighboring facades. 87. The wall collapsed in 1954 and its void was lined with mortar immediately afterward. The situation is further complicated by the vertical gap visible in the stone wall of the mausoleum to the left of what remains of the collapsed wall, which indicates a more complicated development of the building (Fig. 2.44: 23). 88. According to A. Q. al-Jumʽa (Mawsuʽat al-Mawsil al-Hadariya 1992, III, 380), the bottom edge of the epigraphic strip was lined with a horizontal band of the large, square, blue-glazed tiles, above which were groups of three, triangularly arranged smaller square tiles touching each other at the corners. The strip was fragmentarily preserved on the northern (12 tiles), western (7 tiles), and eastern (3 tiles) facades. The finding, which was marked with blue paint on the plaster of the new facade lining from 1964, seems to be, nevertheless, dubious; nor has the slightest trace of it been preserved. Furthermore, there is no free space on the eastern facade. 89. The  clearly legible part of the inscription reads as follows: [f]alak alma‛ali … malik umara[’] (star of summits … king of emirs). The middle part can probably be read as ghiyath al-wara (help of mankind). We were not able to connect it with a certainty with any sponsor of the building. The epithet was only rarely used. See Sect. 3.2 for more details. We are grateful to Ludvik Kalus, Sheila Blair, and Yasser Tabbaa for their kind assistance in reading the inscription. 90. During the 1964 repair, the loose tiles were randomly fitted at the edges of the frieze. 91. We adopted Herzfeld’s designation of the portals. 92. Portal A featured a perimeter epigraphic inscription of rather unconventional poetic content, rather than a religious text. The corrected transcription was recently published by al-Jumʽa (2018, 161); see  also the different version in Suyufi 1956, 100, No. 392. The upper frieze of portal A had the inscription designating Badr al-Din as its sponsor (Amara bi ‛amalihi … / The work on this [portal] was ordered by …; Suyufi 1956, 99, No. 391). Portal B is epigraphically richer. As well as common Quranic inscriptions (Quran 2:255 – ayat al-kursi in the perimeter frieze, and Quran 24:36–37 in the upper frieze), it features the name of Badr al-Din (al-Sultan al-Malik al-­Rahim Badr al-Dunya wa al-Din) inscribed independently, and not within the usual foundation inscription formula explicitly describing the given person as the founder/sponsor of the object. On both sides there are small panels containing the invocation of Muhammad and his family (on the right; Suyufi 1956, 100, No. 396),

264 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

and the plea for God’s forgiveness for Sunbul al-Badri (on the left; ibid., 100, No. 397), who is considered to have been the supervisor of Badr al-Din’s construction projects (al-Jumʽa 2018, 162). 93. After the destruction of the complex in July 2014, the portal remained in situ and suffered only minor damage. 94. Of course, the inscription on portal A could have hypothetically begun outside the epigraphic band on the right side. Given its unconventional content, it is hard to judge if the documented initial part of the inscription (see supra) really was the beginning or not. 95. However, this fragment cannot be identified with any known part of Suyufi’s or al-Jumʽa’s reading of portal A’s epigraphy. 96. The threshold of portal A was situated ca. 180 cm above floor level in the shrine’s interior. 97. Except for windows that are missing on the east and south sides. We do not find support in the documentation for differences in the decoration presented by R. McClary (in press). For example, the existence of large niches with muqarnas conches is evidenced by both photographs and the description of E. Herzfeld (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 264). 98. Uluçam 1989 and Tabbaa n. d. argued for a later origin of this dado inscription. However, the filiation is obviously the opposite: the inscription band with the names of the Twelve Imams in the shrine of Imam Yahya seems to be formally and technically a lower quality imitation of the inscription from the ʽAwn al-Din Shrine. 99. The content is very similar to that of the lowest perimeter inscription band (al-Naqshbandi 1950, 200: 2). Herzfeld hypothesized that this inscription could contain the dedication to Imam ʽAwn al-Din (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 264, No. 56). Although a few sections of the inscription are illegible, the structure of the legible parts and their distribution on the ledge make this suggestion improbable. 100. The fragments are hardly legible and have not been published as yet. 101. As the articulation of the latter example was only a base for the lavish stucco decoration, which later disappeared, it would be appropriate to ask whether Imam ʽAwn al-Din’s interior was also decorated with stucco, although no hint has been obtained from the structure itself. 102. A very similar combination of shouldered arched panels with strapwork and thin, high muqarnas corbels can be found in the vault over the entrance portal of Shad-i Mulk Aqa Mausoleum (after 1371) in the Shah-i Zindeh complex at Samarkand. 103. From the point of view of the strict construction typology suggested by H. Kazempour (2016) the vault thus meets the definition of real muqarnas (muqarnas in the narrow sense of the word). Kazempour argues,

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

265

based on the analysis of Iranian examples, that muqarnas was first developed from earlier, less complex forms in the Ilkhanid architecture of the beginning of the eighth/fourteenth century. 104. A wooden carved panel of the post-Samarra beveled style is exhibited in the Iraq Museum (Basmachi 1976, 356, A10669). The item was unnoticed by Mosul scholars, which casts some doubts on its connection with the shrine. 105. A. Q. al-Jum‛a comments on the ground plan in “al-Mawsil al-qadima— Masjid al-imam Ibrahim.” Al-Mawsiliya TV, accessed November 27, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ifujaliMfw. 106. According to our reading of the inscription on the commemorative slab. Her name is often incorrectly read as Husna. 107. The drawing of the portal was circulated on the al-Mawsil al-qadima … suwar wa dhikrayat Facebook group page and personally commented on by A. Q. al-Jumʽa in his interview for al-Mawsiliya TV (see Note 105). 108. The height is an underestimate as the window’s jambs continued beneath the current floor of the mosque. Al-Jum‛a estimated the window’s length under the surface to be ca. 100 cm (see his interview for al-Mawsiliya TV in Note 105), which hints at a considerable growth of the terrain since the window was made. 109. Surprisingly, it was not Imam Ibrahim, but a nameless imam, the son or descendant of the Imam Ibrahim. The genealogy is given back to ʽAli ibn Abi Talib. The inscription reads as follows: Hadha mashhad al-imam ibn al-imam Ibrahim al-Mujab ibn Ja‛far ibn Muhammad ibn sayyidina wa mawlana Zayn al-‛Abidin wa Hujjat Allah al-baligha ‛ala al-‛alamin ‛Ali ibn al-Husayn ibn ‛Ali ibn Abi Talib ‛alayhim afdal al-salat wa al-­ salam. Transcribed from a photo by al-Jum‛a (1975, Fig. 72). Compare a slightly different version by al-Sufi (1940, 29). 110. The slab was previously dated to the turn of the twelfth century. However, this estimation was based only on the year of death of the hypothetical founder of the complex, the Uqaylid ruler Ibrahim (486/1093) and the misdating of the door (as 498/1104; Strika 1976, 197; Dhunnun 1967, 197). On the contrary, the elegant Naskhi script and the way of representing the Haram area in Mecca on the stone constitute evidence it originated a century later. 111. Al-Jumʽa 1975, Figs. 52–3; al-Sufi 1940, 31–2; Suyufi 1956, 71, No. 263, 266, 267. Apart from these, the mihrab was inscribed with the name of the artisan, Ibrahim Abu Bakr (Suyufi 1956, 71, No. 264). 112. In addition to the entrance portal (see infra), this dating was also considered for unspecified column fragments discovered in a backfill of a well, accessible from a corridor leading to the eastern room with the marble sarcophagus.

266 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

113. The shrine was sometimes also denoted as a tomb of Ibn ʽAli or Ibn al-­ Hanafiya (al-Diwahji 2013, 17), or Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiya (Mawsuʽat al-Mawsil al-Hadariya 1992, III, 331). 114. The dating of the portal to the Atabeg period (al-Jumʽa 1975, Figs. 21 and 22) is not convincingly justified. In Mosul, stone lining with molded corbels of this type usually belongs to a younger layer of architectural elements, as is also evidenced by the dated window (731/1330–1331; see infra), which was of the same design as the portal. 115. Judging from its form and size, the window was most probably situated in the western room. Its precise placement, however, cannot be determined. Al-Jumʽa (1975, Figs. 69, 70) referred to a find of another window or mihrab (?) in a disarticulated state. 116. According to the drawing of the window by A. Q. al-Jum‛a (Mawsuʽat al-Mawsil al-hadaraiya 1992, III, 332), we read the inscription as follows: Juddida hadha al-shubbak al-mubarak fi wilayat al-mawla al-hasib alnasib al-tahir al-naqib Kamal al-Din Haydar ibn Sharaf al-Din Muhammad ibn ‛Ubayd Allah al-Husayni a‛azza Allah ansarahu fi shuhur sanat ahad wa thalathin wa sab‛ mi’a hilaliya (This blessed window was reconstructed during the reign of the respected, noble, and virtuous lord, the naqib Kamal al-Din Haydar ibn Sharaf al-Din Muhammad ibn ʽUbayd Allah al-Husayni, may God strengthen his victories, in the months of the year 731 of hijra). The person mentioned is probably the same Mosul ruler appearing in the travelogue of Ibn Battuta (1962, 176). Suyufi’s reading (1956, 106, No. 420) of the inscription differs significantly. 117. Al-Sufi, at the same time, supposed that the wooden sarcophagus in the main funerary room was secondary, built only later as the result of the mistaken identification of the marble one (al-Sufi 1940, 59, 61–2). 118. It is also worth mentioning that al-Sufi read Badr al-Din’s royal titulature as al-Malik al-Saʽid (al-Sufi 1940, 62; see also al-Diwahji 2013, 19), which contradicts his real regnal title al-Malik al-Rahim (van  Berchem 1978). As for Suyufi’s reading of the inscriptions, it differs considerably from those of all other authors and casts even more doubt on the identity of the entombed person. Like al-Jum‛a’s reading, it does not mention the name of “Badr al-­Din,” or the title of “al-malik” (Suyufi 1956, 107, No. 426). 119. They refer to the alleged date of the death of the deceased stated in the inscription without giving any detailed information (Mal Allah and Yahya 2018, 131–2). 120. The authors agree that the sarcophagus was also decorated by the circumferential inscription featuring Quran 2:255 (ayat al-kursi). 121. The identity of this imam is questionable. The authors do not even agree on whether he was a descendant of al-Hasan (al-Khidri, MS, Fol. 292) or al-Husayn (e.g., al-ʽUmari 1967–1968, II, 80).

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

267

122. This also influenced al-Diwahji, who wrongly suggested that the name of ʽAbd al-Rahman was carved on the entrance portal to the tomb and was confident that his sarcophagus could be found in the interior, although there was no specific indication or evidence of any inscription (al-Diwahji 1958, 141–2). The name Badr al-Din as a founder appears in a number of works, but always as conjecture or speculation without any support in the textual sources. According to another testimony, tombs of four Mosul descendants of the Prophet and their children were adjacent to the mausoleum on the western side, and tombs of three others could be found in the courtyard (al-Khidri, MS, Fol. 292; al-ʽUmari 1955, 109). 123. Al-Janabi stated, with a reference to al-Diwahji (1958, Pl. 39), that the sarcophagus was carved from wood and dated to the seventh/thirteenth century. This is an apparent mistake, as the photograph referred captures, in fact, an upside-down view of the sarcophagus in the ʽAwn al-Din Shrine. 124. Different values for the height of the mihrab are given in the literature: 287  cm (al-Sufi  1940, 47), 214  ×  89  cm (Fransis and al-Naqshabandi 1951, 218; and al-Diwahji 1958, 142), and 240  ×  89  cm (al-Janabi 1982, 173). 125. “Maʽalim diniya: Jamiʽ al-imam al-Bahir,” a documentary film, accessed March 18, 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJmZ-­ZjN10U. 126. Imam Muhammad al-Bahir could have been the son of the fifth Twelver Imam Muhammad al-Baqir and the brother of the sixth Imam Jaʽfar al-­ Sadiq (al-ʽUmari 1967–1968, II, 79–80), or the son of the fourth Imam ʽAli Zayn al-ʽAbidin (al-Khidri, MS, 294). 127. Hypothetically, for example, [rukn al-isla]m wa al-muslimin qa[hir al-­ mutamarridin], that is the “pillar of Islam and Muslims, the subduer of rebels.” However, the epithets of [‛adud al-isla]m wa al-muslimin (the strength of Islam and Muslims) and qa[hir al-khawarij] (the subduer of the Kharijites), or qa[til al-kafara] (the killer of infidels), or qa[mi ‛al-­ mushrikin] (the suppressor of polytheists) are also possible. Transcribed according to the photograph of the fragment in al-Janabi 1982, Pl. 177; see slightly different versions in Suyufi 1956, 147–No. 566; 194–No. 117: 2; Fransis and al-Naqshabandi 1951, 216: 2. For Badr al-Din’s and Atabeg titulatures, see van Berchem 1978; and, for example, Suyufi 1956, 145, No. 560. 128. According to al-Diwahji (1963, 190), al-Hadithi and ʽAbd al-Khaliq (1974), and al-Janabi (1982, 178). In 1982, however, Uluçam described the inscription as being situated in the entrance corridor (Uluçam 1989, 141). If his description is correct (there are several mistakes in his account), then it means that the panels had been transferred from the tomb’s interior shortly before he saw them. The photograph from 2007

268 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

(Al Faraj 2012, Fig. on page 129) captured an inscription in the tomb indicating that 699 AH was the year of construction, but in a completely different form: “This is the tomb of the imam, the son of Imam Muhammad ibn ʽAli ibn al-Husayn ibn Abi Talib. It appeared in the month of safar in the year of 699 AH” (according to Al Faraj 2012, 128, Note 1 by the editor). The authenticity of this last version of the inscription seems dubious. 129. Information on the development of the site after 1963 was mostly drawn from the documentary film (see supra Note 125). 130. A. Uluçam maintained that all the windows (medieval?) apart from the east window were walled up (Uluçam 1989, 142). 131. Al-Diwahji only mentioned that it was beside the tomb of al-Sayyid Bektash, which perhaps means the western part of the north wall. 132. We assume that the figure of five steps makes it possible to estimate the cant of the portal’s threshold of about 150  cm above the tomb floor. However, this means that even from the corridor (originally 3 m above the tomb’s floor) it was necessary to descend to the portal by several stairs. This is, however, not mentioned in the literature. 133. One wing from the original batten cleat door was stored in the Iraq Museum. It has a richly carved geometric (arabesque) decoration. Its dimensions amount to 2.27  ×  0.58  m, which fully corresponds to the clear dimensions of the portal. The wing does not feature any inscription or dating but its decoration has many parallels in late ʽAbbasid and Jalaʼirid Iraq. Al-Janabi compared it directly to the door of the ʽAwn alDin shrine from the period of Badr al-Din Lu’lu’ (al-Janabi 1982, 196, Pl. 196; Fransis and al-­Naqshabandi 1949, 61). 134. Especially its low position—only 3  m over the original surface—is puzzling. 135. The inscription reads as follows: “this work was produced by ʽAbd al-­ Rahim ibn Ahmad /…/ (hadha al-‛amal sana‛ahu ‛Abd al-Rahim ibn Ahmad /…/).” 136. The inscription (probably containing the letters alif, dal, haʼ, and lam) is difficult to read and understand without knowledge of the context that would have been provided by neighboring panels. The panel could correspond to the Kufi inscription in the tomb recorded by Fransis and ­al-­Naqshabandi (1951, 216: 1): “hadha ma… (this is…)”; see al-Janabi 1982, 182. 137. This inscription was only described by Suyufi (1956, 146–7, No. 565), and later adopted by al-Diwahji (1963, 189); no photo available. The inscription concluded with the phrase: “Hadha qabr…/This is the tomb of…” and the name “al-Bahu”(?), which we were not able to identify. The panel does not appear in the works of any subsequent authors.

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

269

138. Fransis and al-Naqshabandi 1951, 216: 3–4. According to al-Sufi (1940, 78), only two slabs survived in situ until 1940: one to the right of the entrance (90 × 45 cm) and another to the left of the mihrab on the south wall (75 × 75 cm—the upper part of the “founding” fragment). During the reconstruction in 1940, the marble slabs (except the panel with the Twelve Imams), were stored in the Iraq Museum (Fransis and al-Naqshabandi 1951, 216). Al-Jumʽa included one of these panels, exhibited in Baghdad, among fragments from Madrasa al-Badriya (al-Jumʽa 1975, Pl. 166), which appears to be a mistake. All scholars described the interior decoration as being very fragmentary, having been subject to numerous adjustments. 139. “Maʽalim diniya: Jamiʽ al-imam Muhsin,” a documentary film produced by Diwan al-Waqf al-Sunni, Iraq. Accessed February 18, 2016. https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=auEQORZXtf4. 140. See the Shrine of Imam ʽAbd al-Rahman / Madrasa al-ʽIzziya (Sect. 2.2.2.5). 141. The madrasa “was situated opposite dar al-mamlaka (an Atabeg residence, later Qara Saray) and Madrasa al-ʽIzziya.” 142. The partly preserved commemorative inscription contains the fragment of royal titulature “Nur al-Dunya,” which could indeed belong to Nur al-­Din Arslan Shah. The other legible parts include basmala and the verb amara (he ordered). 143. The identity of Imam Muhsin is unknown. There is agreement that he was of Hasanid origin, but it remains unclear which generation he was from. Even his name is not unambiguous. The name commonly used for him today, Muhsin (see also al-ʽUmari 1955, 108), was not known to alKhidri (MS, Fol. 292) and Muhammad Amin al-ʽUmari (1967–1968, II, 80), who instead identified him as ʽAbd al-Muhsin. 144. See the documentary film in Note 139. 145. The epigraphic analysis of the mihrab was published by al-Diwahji (in Suyufi 1956, 193, No. 112). The mihrab was incorrectly considered to be a relic of the eighth century AH. The epigraphic part containing the dating of the mihrab was published for the first time by Dhunnun (1967, 225). 146. They contained two royal epithets: hafiz thughur bilad al-muslimin (guardian of frontier fortresses of the Muslim lands), and [m]uhyi [a]l‛adl wa al-insaf (reviver of justice and equity), and the fragment of the third one (malik/king), all appearing in Atabeg sovereign names. See the incomplete transcription by al-Diwahji in Suyufi 1956, 193, No. 110–11. 147. See the documentary film in Note 139. 148. “Maʽalimdiniya:Jamiʽ Qadibal-Banal-Mawsili,”adocumentaryfilm.Accessed May 6, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd3bcS1wfQ4& list=PL8M_UhlF7nAdK7y2N4F_PJpQAlbCPQpIA&index=6.

270 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

149. The peculiar personality of Shaykh Qadib al-Ban was vividly described by Ibn al-Mustawfi (1980, I, 371). 150. Al-Diwahji quotes the inscription as follows: “(Basmala), this fountain was built and a waqf was made for the benefit of all Muslims. It was built by the great Sultan al-Malik al-Ashraf, let God make his government eternal, through ʽAli ibn ʽAbd Allah al-Nukhjuwani.” The slab was stored in Mosul Museum. Since Ashraf I visited Mosul in 617/1220, operated in the region (he was the emir of Harran, Mayyfariqin, Sinjar, and Edesa until 1229), and married the sister of Mosul’s ruler Nur al-Din Arslan Shah II, he is very likely to have been the donor. 151. No ground plan of the structure is known to the present authors; the dimensions were deduced from an aerial image of Mosul taken by the Luftwaffe in 1942. 152. There was a second, smaller marble grave in the tomb where a sister of Qadib al-Ban was allegedly interred (Al Faraj 2012, 137). 153. In the lower part of the mihrab’s niche there was a secondarily inset gravestone with the inscription “This is the grave of deceased Shaykh Hasan ibn Shaykh ʽAbd al-Rahman ibn al-Shaykh Muhammad known as al-­Baghdashti…,” and with the enumeration of Twelve Imams on the perimeter (al-Diwahji 1952, 105; al-Diwahji 1963, 265). 154. Fragments of epigraphic bands are visible in the interior shots of the documentary film (see Note 148). 155. Al-Dawla al-Islamiya. 2014b. “Taqrir ʽan hadm al-adriha wa al-awthan fi wilayat Ninawa.” Accessed August 9, 2014. http://justpaste.it/atrah. 156. They were Abu Nasr al-Fath ibn Saʽid (d. 220/835) and Abu Muhammad al-Fath ibn Muhammad ibn Washshah al-Azdi (d. 170/786–787). See, for example, al-ʽUmari 1967–1968, II, 112, Note 1 by al-Diwahji. 157. N. N. N. Khoury dated the plaques, without any explanation, to the seventh/thirteenth century (Khoury 1992, 16). 158. Inscriptions on both mihrab marble slabs were published by Suyufi 1956, 113–14, No. 450 (the mosque) and 451 (the tomb). 159. Herzfeld’s dating of identical columns in al-Nuri Mosque to the period ca. 540–560 AH was challenged by Y. Tabbaa (2002, 346). The columns were added to the prayer hall during the reconstruction in 1281–1286/1864–1870 (see Sect. 2.2.1.1). Two similar bundled columns (without capitals) were reassembled in the late Ottoman entrance portico of the Imam Yahya Shrine (built after 1887; see Sect. 2.2.2.1). 160. Uluçam (1989, 144) mentions a reconstruction in 1250/1834 by al-­ Sayyid Idris and argues (without giving any reference) that at that time a prayer room was added to the tomb. 161. Here we rely on the information given on Wikipedia referencing Dalil al-jamawiʽ wa al-masajid al-turathiya al-qadima issued by Diwan al-Waqf al-Sunni fi al-ʽIraq (https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/‫)مرقد_فتحي_الموصلي‬.

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

271

162. As it was perceived to be in the eighteenth and nineteenth century by alKhidri, MS, Fol. 98; and Ibn al-Khayyat 1966, 66. They maintained he had died at the battle of Siffin (657 AD) while fighting with ʽAli ibn Talib against Muʽawiya. He was supposed to have been buried on the spot in what is now Raqqa in Syria. His shrine in this town was destroyed by IS in 2013. 163. In 1955 al-Diwahji, however, noted an oral tradition that the tomb of the naqibs was actually identical to the shrine of Uways al-Qarani. It was allegedly situated close to the Faruq Street. Takiya al-Uwaysiya/al-Wisiya (see infra) lay to the west of it (al-Diwahji’s commentary in al-ʽUmari 1955, 101, Note 1). The link between the shrine (maqam) of Uways alQarani and the cemetery of the descendants of the Prophet (described as sadat) is already mentioned in al-Khidri, MS, Fol. 298: They were buried in the courtyard of the shrine. 164. The Mosque of Sultan Uways was first associated with this Jalaʼirid ruler (in Mosul after 766/1364) by Sarre and Herzfeld (1920a, 288). 165. Al-Khidri, MS, Fol. 297–8; Ibn al-Khayyat 1966, 66. Islamic tradition attributed spiritual knowledge to Uways al-Qarani. His intercession could secure entry to Paradise. 166. New data could emerge from the identification of the mihrab from Takiya al-Wisiya in the Iraq Museum and the possible discovery of two side mihrabs from the prayer hall of the mosque in the ruins of the building. 167. E. Herzfeld read the inscription over the entrance indicating a reconstruction in 1316/1898 (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a, 287). Whether it referred to the first reconstruction (with one number mistaken) or to the later one cannot be determined. 168. Al Faraj (2012, 133) proposed linking the tomb with ʽAli al-Hadi’s grandson, ʽAli ibn Jaʽfar ibn ʽAli al-Hadi. 169. According to al-Diwahji (1954, 105–6), who only refers to an unavailable article written by Dawud al-Chalabi in 1948. Unfortunately, we cannot determine the reliability of this information. 170. This date was given in the manuscript of Muhammad Amin al-ʽUmari’s work cited in al-ʽUmari 1955, 100, Note 2. The printed edition, however, does not mention this date (see al-ʽUmari 1967–1968, II, 45). 171. Proposed by Yasin al-ʽUmari (d. 1820; al-ʽUmari 1955, 100). This identification also appeared in the inscription above the entrance to the mosque after the reconstruction of the shrine in 1346/1927–1928 (see infra and Suyufi 1956, 173, No. 16). 172. Al-Khidri (MS, Fol. 318) identified him as Shaykh al-ʽAbbas al-Mustaʽjil, that is “rushing,” the epithet that he got for quickly fulfilled wishes expressed over his tomb. Al-Diwahji suggests just another hypothetical option, Mosul’s judge under Harun al-Rashid named al-ʽAbbas ibn alFadl al-Ansari (al-Diwahji 1963, 248).

272 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

173. Historians disagree on the name of his father, who was either Muhammad (al-Khidri, MS, Fol. 293) or ʽAli (al-ʽUmari 1967–1968, II, 55). 174. The Ottoman city plans depicted the Mosque of Imam Zayd ibn ʽAli in a different location, ca. 45  m to the northwest of the domed structure identified in the modern overhead imagery, in a built-up spot where only E. Wirth (1991, Abb. 1) marked a mosque. No such structure is visible there in the satellite images. Suyufi (1956, 17) noted another mosque, whose name is unknown, not far from Imam Zayd. It was abandoned in his time and bore the dating 1091/1680–1681. The photograph published in Al Faraj (2012, 147), reputedly depicting the ruins of Imam Zayd Mosque, probably captured a different site since the appearance of the ruins does not correspond to the description or the satellite imagery. 175. His work was completed in 1211/1796–1797. 176. This dating and extent of destruction substantially differs from the analysis of the ASOR-CHI team (Danti et al. 2017, 103).

Bibliography Abed, R. S. 2013. Monitoring Leaning of Alhadba Minaret. Al Muthanna Journal for Engineering Sciences 2 (1): 38–45. Abu al-Fida’. 1840. Taqwim al-buldan. Paris: Dar al-tibaʽa al-sultaniya. Abu Shama, Shihab al-Din ʽAbd al-Rahman. n.d. Kitab al-rawdatayn fi akhbar al-dawlatayn al-nuriya wa al-salahiya. Beirut: Dar al-kutub al-ʽilmiya. Al Faraj, Ismaʽil Haqqi. 2012. Al-Athar wa al-mabani al-‛arabiya fi al-Mawsil ‛ala dawʼ al-naqd al-hadith. Amman: Dar Ghaydaʼ. ʽAli, ʽAli Shakir. 2011. Wilayat al-Mawsil al-ʽuthmaniya fi al-qarn al-sadis ʽashar. Dirasa fi awdaʽiha al-siyasiya wa al-idariya wa al-iqtisadiya. ʽAmman: Dar ghaydaʼ li-l-nashr wa al-tawziʽ. Angiuli, Emanuele, Epifanio Pecharromán, Pablo Vega Ezquieta, Maria Gorzynska, and Ionut Ovejanu. 2020. Satellite Imagery-Based Damage Assessment on Nineveh and Nebi Yunus Archaeological Site in Iraq. Remote Sensing 12: 1672. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12101672. Aslanapa, Oktay. 1971. Turkish Art and Architecture. London: Faber and Faber Limited. al-Azdi, Abu Zakariya Yazid. 1967. Tarikh al-Mawsil. Cairo: al-Majlis al-aʽla li-l-­ shuʼun al-islamiya. ———. 1971. Tarikh al-Mawsil. Beirut: Dar al-kutub al-ʽilmiya. Badger, George P. 1852. The Nestorians and Their Rituals: With the Narrative of a Mission to Mesopotamia and Coordistan in 1842–1844. London: Joseph Masters. Basmachi, Faraj. 1976. Treasures of the Iraq Museum. Baghdad: Ministry of Information, Directorate General of Antiquities.

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

273

van Berchem, Max. 1911. Arabische Inschriften. In Archäologische Reise im Euphrat- und Tigris-Gebiet, ed. Friedrich Sarre and Ernst Herzfeld, vol. 1, 1–51. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer (Ernst Vohsen). ———. 1978. Monuments et inscriptions de l’atabek Lu’lu’ de Mossoul. In Opera Minora, 659–672. Geneve: Editions Slatkine. Binder, Henry. 1887. Au Kurdistan: En Mésopotamie et en Perse. Paris: Maison Quantine. Blair, Sheila. 2013. Inscribing Hajj. In The Hajj: Collected Essays, ed. Venetia Porter and Liana Saif, 157–165. London: The British Museum. ———. 2016. Architecture as a Source for Local History in the Mongol Period: The Example of Warāmı̄n. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 26 (1–2): 215–228. Buckingham, J.S. 1827. Travels to Mesopotamia. London: Henry Colburn. Casana, Jesse. 2020. Global-Scale Archaeological Prospection Using CORONA Satellite Imagery: Automated, Crowd-Sourced, and Expert-led Approaches. Journal of Field Archaeology 45 (sup. 1): 89–100. https://doi.org/10.108 0/00934690.2020.1713285. Casana, Jesse, and Jackson Cothren. 2008. Stereo Analysis, DEM Extraction and Orthorectification of CORONA Satellite Imagery: Archaeological Applications from the Near East. Antiquity 82 (317): 732–749. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0003598X00097349. al-Chalabi, Dawud. 1946. al-Malik Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ wa al-athar al-qadima al-­ islamiya fi al-Mawsil. Sumer 2: 20–28. Challis, Keith, and Andy J.  Howard. 2006. A Review of Trends Within Archaeological Remote Sensing in Alluvial Environments. Archaeological Prospection 13 (4): 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/arp.296. Comer, Douglas C., and Michael J.  Harrower. 2013. Mapping Archaeological Landscapes from Space, Springer Briefs in Archaeology. New  York: Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­1-­4614-­6074-­9. Danti, Michael D., Marina Gabriel, Susan Penacho, William Raynolds, Allison Cuneo, Kyra Kaercher, Darren Ashby, Gwendolyn Kristy, Jamie O’Connell, and Nour Halabi. 2017. ASOR Cultural Heritage Initiatives (CHI): Planning for Safeguarding Heritage Sites in Syria and Iraq (1S-IZ-100-17-CA021). December 2017 Monthly Report. http://www.asor.org/chi/reports/weekly-­ monthly/2017/December2017. Devereux, Bernard J., Gabriel S. Amable, and Peter Crow. 2008. Visualisation of LiDAR Terrain Models for Archaeological Feature Detection. Antiquity 82 (316): 470–479. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00096952. Dhunnun, Yusuf. 1967. Dirasa jadida li-kitabat al-Mawsil al-athariya. Sumer 23: 223–238. Dhunnun, Yusuf, Ahmad Majid Malla Sharif, and ʽAbd al-Karim al-Saʼigh. 1982a. Al-‛Ama’ir al-sakaniya fi madinat al-Mawsil. Iraq: Wizarat al-thaqafa wa al-iʽlam.

274 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

———. 1982b. Al-‛Ama’ir al-khadamiya fi madinat al-Mawsil. Iraq: Wizarat althaqafa wa al-iʽlam. ———. 1983. Al-‛Ama’ir al-diniya fi madinat al-Mawsil. Iraq: Wizarat al-­thaqafa wa al-iʽlam. Dimand, Maurice S. 1937. Studies in Islamic Ornament: I.  Some Aspects of Omaiyad and Early ʽAbbāsid Ornament. Ars Islamica 4: 293–337. al-Diwahji, Sa‛id. 1949. Al-Jamiʽ al-Nuri fi al-Mawsil. Sumer 5: 276–290. ———. 1952. Masjid al-shaykh Qadib al-Ban. Sumer 8: 99–106. ———. 1954. Qalʽat al-Mawsil fi mukhtalif al-ʽusur. Sumer 10: 94–111. ———. 1955. Al-Jami‛ al-mujahidi fi al-Mawsil. Baghdad: Matbaʽat al-Rabita. ———. 1957. Madaris al-Mawsil fi al-ʽahd al-atabeki. Sumer 13: 101–118. ———. 1958. Al-Mawsil fi al-‛ahd al-atabeki. Baghdad: Matbaʽat Shafiq. ———. 1961. Jami‛ al-nabi Jirjis fi al-Mawsil. Baghdad: Matbaʽat al-rabita. ———. 1963. Jawami‛ al-Mawsil fi mukhtalif al-‛usur. Baghdad: Matbaʽat Shafiq. ———. 1965. Umm al-Rabi‛ayn. Baghdad: Matbaʽat al-hukuma. ———. 1968. Mashhad al-imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim. Sumer 24: 171–181. ———. 1982–2001. Tarikh al-Mawsil. 2 vols. Matbuʽat al-majmaʽ al-ʽilmi al-ʽiraqi. S. l. ———. 2013. Dur al-‛ilm fi al-Mawsil. Beirut: al-Dar al-ʽarabiya li-l-Mawsuʽat. ———. 2015. Bahth fi turath al-Mawsil. Beirut: al-Dar al-ʽarabiya li-l-Mawsuʽat. ———. n.d. Al-Zakharif al-rukhamiya fi al-Mawsil. Cairo: Matbaʽat lajnat al-taʼlif wa al-tarjama wa al-nashr. Drăguţ, Lucian, and Thomas Blaschke. 2006. Automated Classification of Landform Elements Using Object-Based Image Analysis. Geomorphology 81: 330–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.04.013. Eroğlu, Cengiz, Murat Babuçoğlu, and Orhan Özdil. 2012. Mosul in the Ottoman vilâyet salnâmes. Ankara: Global Strateji Enstitüsü. Fiey, Jean Maurice. 1946. Mossoul d’avant 1915. Sumer 2: 31–41. ———. 1959. Mossoul chrétienne: essai sur l’histoire, l’archéologie et l’état actuel des monuments chrétiens de la ville de Mossoul. Beyrouth: Imprimerie catholique. ———. 1965. Assyrie chrétienne. Contribution à l’étude de l’histoire et de la géographie ecclésiastiques et monastiques du nord de l’Iraq. Beyrouth: Librairie Orientale. Flandin, Eugene. 1857. Opérations des Anglais dans le Golfe Persique et la Mésopotamie. L’Illustration, Journal Universel  29, No. 734 (March 21, 1857): 179–182. ———. 1861. Voyage en Mésopotamie, 1840–42. Le Tour du Monde, 2e semestre: 49–80. ———. 1870. Viaggio in Mesopotamia, 1840–1842. Il giro del mondo: Giornale di viaggi, geografia e costumi. Vol. XIII–XIV, No. 31 (August 4). Fransis, Bashir, and Nasir al-Naqshabandi. 1949. Al-Athar al-khashab fi dar al-­ athar al-ʽarabiya. Sumer 5: 55–64.

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

275

———. 1951. Al-Maharib al-qadima fi mathaf al-qasr al-ʽabbasi bi-Baghdad. Sumer 7: 211–221. al-Gailani, ʽAbd al-Rahman M. 1973. The Origins of Islamic Art and the Role of China. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh. Gierlichs, Joachim. 1996. Mittelalterliche Tierreliefs in Anatolien und Mesopotamien. Untersuchungen zur figürlichen Baudekoration der Seldschuken, Artuqiden und ihrer Nachfolger bis ins 15. Jahrhundert. Istanbuler Forschungen 42. Tübingen: Ernst Wasmuth Verlag. Gojda, Martin. 2019. Current Development in Archaeological Remote Sensing: A Central European Experience and Evaluation. Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica – Natural Sciences in Archaeology 10 (2): 155–164. https://doi.org/10.24916/ iansa.2019.2.5. Golvin, Lucien. 1995. La madrasa médiévale. Aix-en-Provence: Edisud. Goodwin, Godfrey. 1971. A History of Ottoman Architecture. London: Thames and Hudson. Haase, Claus-Peter. 2007. The Development of Stucco Decoration in Northern Syria of the 8th and 9th Centuries and the Bevelled Style of Samarra. In Facts and Artefacts in the Islamic World, ed. Annette Hagedorn and Avinoam Shalem, 439–460. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Hadid, Samir Bashir. 2012. Al-Mawsil qabla nisf qarn. S.l.: al-Dar al-ʽarabiya li-l-­manshurat. al-Hadithi, ʽAta, and Hanaʼ ʽAbd al-Khaliq. 1974. Al-Qibab al-makhrutiya fi al-ʽIraq. Baghdad: Mudiriyat al-athar al-ʽamma. Hadjimitsis, Diofantos G., Kyriacos Themistocleous, Branka Cuca, Athos Agapiou, Vasiliki Lysandrou, Rosa Lasaponara, Nicola Masini, and Gunter Schreier, eds. 2020. Remote Sensing for Archaeology and Cultural Landscapes: Best Practices and Perspectives Across Europe and the Middle East. Springer International Publishing. Hakki, Ismaʽil. 1323/1904–1905. Map of the Mosul City (in Ottoman Turkish). S. l. al-Hamawi, Yaqut. 1977. Muʽjam al-buldan. Beirut: Dar sadir. Hammer, Emily, and Jason Ur. 2019. Near Eastern Landscapes and Declassified U2 Aerial Imagery. Advances in Archaeological Practice 7 (2): 107–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2018.38. al-Harawi, Abu al-Hasan ibn ʽAli. 2002. Al-Isharat ila maʽrifat al-ziyarat. Cairo: Maktabat al-thaqafa al-diniya. Harb, Ulrich. 1978. Ilkhanidische Stalaktitengewölbe. Beiträge zu Entwurf und Bautechnik. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran, Ergänzungsband 4. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. Hasan, Wasan ʽAbd al-Muttalib. 2013. Minbara jamiʽay Hamu al-Qadu wa al-­ Shaykh ʽAbd Al fi al-Mawsil. Adab al-rafidayn 66: 433–460. Hengl, Tomislav, and Hannes Reuter. 2009. Geomorphometry: Concepts, Software, Applications. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

276 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Herzfeld, Ernst. 1942. Damascus: Studies in Architecture I. Ars islamica 9: 1–53. ———. 1943. Damascus: Studies in Architecture II. Ars islamica 10: 13–70. Hesse, Ralph. 2010. LiDAR-Derived Local Relief Models – A New Tool for Archa sse, Ralph. 2010. LiDAR-Derived Local eological Prospection. Archaeological Prospection 17 (2): 67–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/arp.374. Hillenbrand, Robert. 2000. Islamic Architecture. Form, Function and Meaning. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ———. 2006. Mosul  – Diyar Rabiʾa. In Die Dschazira, Die Kulturlandschaft zwischen Eufrat und Tigris, ed. Almut v. Gladiss, 18–22. Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. ———. 2012. Islamic Monumental Inscriptions Contextualized: Location, Content, Legibility and Aesthetics. In Beiträge zur Islamischen Kunst und Archäologie 3, ed. Lorenz Korn and Anja Heidenreich, 13–38. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert-Verlag. Hillenbrand, Carole. 2017. The Crusades. Islamic Perspectives. New  York: Routledge. Hirschmüller, Heiko. 2005. Accurate and Efficient Stereo Processing by Semi-­ Global Matching and Mutual Information. In IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’05), 807–814. https:// doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2005.56. Ibn al-Athir. 1963. Al-Tarikh al-bahir fi al-dawla al-atabikiya. Cairo: Dar al-­ kutub al-haditha. ———. 1987. Al-Kamil fi al-tarikh. Beirut: Dar al-kutub al-ʽilmiya. Ibn Battuta. 1962. The Travels of Ibn Battuta, A.D. 1325–1354. Trans. H.A.R. Gibb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ibn al-Fuwati. 1997. Al-Hawadith al-jami‛a wa al-tajarub al-nafi‛a. Beirut: Dar al-gharb al-islami. Ibn Hawqal, Abu al-Qasim. 1992. Kitab surat al-ard. Beirut: Dar maktabat al-hayat. Ibn Jubayr. 2008. The Travels of Ibn Jubayr. Trans. Roland Broadhurst. New Delhi: Goodword Books. Ibn Khallikan, Abu al-ʽAbbas Ahmad. 1977. Wafayat al-a‛yan wa anba’ abna’ alzaman. Beirut: Dar Sadir. Ibn al-Khayyat, Ahmad. 1966. Tarjamat al-awliya’ fi al-Mawsil al-hadba’. Mosul: Matbaʽat al-jumhuriya. Ibn al-Mustawfi. 1980. Tarikh Irbil (ed. S. al-Saqqar), 2 vols. Baghdad. Ives, Edward. 1773. A Voyage from England to India in the Year 1754. London: Edward and Charles Dilly. Jahjah, Munzer, and Carlo Ulivieri. 2010. Automatic Archaeological Feature Extraction from Satellite VHR Images. Acta Astronautica 66 (9–10): 1302–1310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2009.10.028. al-Janabi, Tariq J. 1982. Studies in Medieval Iraqi Architecture. Baghdad: Ministry of Culture and Information, State Organization of Antiquities and Heritage, Iraq.

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

277

al-Juboori, Ali Y. 2017. Recently Discovered Neo-Assyrian Royal Inscriptions from the Review Palace and Nergal Gate of Nineveh. Iraq 79: 3–20. al-Jumʽa, Ahmad Qasim. 1975. Al-Athar al-rukhamiya fi al-Mawsil khilala al-‛ahdayn al-atabaki w al-ilkhani. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cairo. ———. 2018. Tadmir ʽasabat Daʽish al-irhabiya li-l-nafaʼis al-athariya fi mazar alimam ʽAwn al-Din fi al-Mawsil. Sumer 64: 159–182. Kamagata, Noritoshi, Yukio Akamatsu, Masaru Mori, Yun Qing Li, Yoshinobu Hoshino, and K.  Hara. 2005. Comparison of Pixel-Based and Object-Based Classifications of High Resolution Satellite Data in Urban Fringe Areas. Asian Conference on Remote Sensing (ACRS). Proceedings of the 26th Asian Conference on Remote Sensing, Hanoi: 1–6. Kazempour, Hamidreza. 2016. The Evolution of Muqarnas in Iran. S. l.: Supreme Century Publ. Kennedy, David, and Robert Bewley. 2009. Aerial Archaeology in Jordan. Antiquity 83 (319): 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00098094. Kertai, David. 2015. The Architecture of Late Assyrian Royal Palaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Khidr, ʽAli ʽAbd Allah Muhammad. 2017. Jamiʽ al-Sultan Uways bayna al-haqiqa al-tarikhiya wa al-muʽtaqadat al-khatiʼa. Mawsiliyat 47: 27–30. al-Khidri, Yusuf ʽAbd al-Jalil. MS. Al-Intisar li-l-awliyaʼ al-akhyar. Riyadh: Library of the King Saud University, Unpubl. MS No. 25 (1309 AH). Khoury, Nuha N.  N. 1992. The Mihrab Image: Commemorative Themes in Medieval Islamic Architecture. Muqarnas 9: 11–28. Kitada, Keigo, and Kaoru Fukuyama. 2012. Land-Use and Land-Cover Mapping Using a Gradable Classification Method. Remote Sensing 4 (6): 1544–1558. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs4061544. Krauß, Thomas. 2019. Dense Surface Models from Airborne and Spaceborne (Multi-)Stereo Images. In Remote Sensing for Archaeology and Cultural ­Landscapes, ed. Diofantos G.  Hadjimitsis, 85–104. Springer Remote Sensing/Photogrammetry. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­ 10979-­0_6. De Laet, Véronique, Etienne Paulissen, and Marc Waelkens. 2007. Methods for the Extraction of Archaeological Features from Very High-Resolution Ikonos-­2 Remote Sensing Imagery, Hisar (Southwest Turkey). Journal of Archaeological Science 38: 830–841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2006.09.013. Layard, Austen H. 1853. A Second Series of the Monuments of Nineveh, Including Bas-Reliefs from the Palace of Sennacherib and Bronzes from the Ruins of Nimroud. London: John Murray. Le Strange, Guy. 1919. The Geographical Part of the Nuzhat-al-Qulub Composed by Hamd-Allah Mustawfi of Qazwin in 740 (1340). Leyden: E. J. Brill. Mal Allah, Muhammad Muʼayyad, and Akram Muhammad Yahya. 2018. Al-­ Baqaya al-athariya wa al-miʽmariya al-shakhisa fi madinat al-Mawsil khilala al-ʽuhud al-muzlima (q. 8.–10. h. / q. 14.–16. m.). Dirasat Mawsiliya 50: 117–139.

278 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

al-Maqdisi, Shams al-Din Muhammad. 1877. Ahsan al-taqasim fi ma‛rifat al-­ aqalim. Leiden: E. J. Brill. al-Masʽudi, Abu al-Hasan ʽAli. 2005. Muruj al-dhahab wa ma‛adin al-jawhar. Beirut: al-Maktaba al-ʽasriya. Mawsu‛at al-Mawsil al-Hadariya. 1992. Mosul University: Dar al-kutub li-l-­tibaʽa wa al-nashr. McClary, Richard P. 2017. Remembering the imām Yahyā ibn al-Qāsim Shrine in Mosul. Iraq: 1–26. ———. in press. Memorial for a Memorial: The Mashhad of Imām ʽAwn al-Dı̄n and the Destruction of Medieval Monuments in Mosul by ISIS.  In Robert Hillenbrand Festschrift. London: Gingko Library. McDowall, David. 2007. A Modern History of the Kurds. London: I. B. Tauris. Mosul Town. 1919. A Map Compiled by Map Compilation Section G. H. Q., Scale 12 Inches to a Mile. S. l. al-Najmawi, Abu al-Hasan ʽAli al-Agha. n.d. Personal Blog. Accessed November 25, 2019. http://alialagamosulpic.blogspot.com/. al-Naqshbandi, Nasir. 1950. Sanadiq maraqid al-aʼimma fi al-ʽIraq. Sumer 6: 192–202. Niebuhr, Carsten. 1778. Carsten Niebuhrs Reisebeschreibung nach Arabien und andern umliegenden Ländern. Vol. 2. Kopenhagen: Nicolaus Möller. Nováček, Karel, Narmin A.M. Amin, and Miroslav Melčák. 2013. A Medieval City Within Assyrian Walls: The Continuity of the Town of Arbil in Northeastern Mesopotamia. Iraq 75: 1–42. al-Nuʽaymi, Ahmad Hashim. 2018. Tadmir ʽasabat Daʽish al-irhabiya li-sanduq qabr mazar al-imam ʽAli al-Asghar. Sumer 64: 337–360. Opitz, Rachel S., and David C.  Cowley. 2013. Interpreting Archaeological Topography: Airborne Laser Scanning, 3D Data and Ground Observation. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Pagliero, Roberto. 1965. Conservation of Two Islamic Monuments in Mosul. Sumer 21: 41–61. Pagliero, Roberto, and Andrea Bruno. 1967. Stabilization Project of the al-Hadba Minaret in Mossul, Iraq. Mesopotamia 2: 219–228. Papadopoulo, Alexandre. 1976. L’Islam et l’art musulman. Paris: Lucien Mazenod. Parapetti, Roberto. 2008. Documents of Islamic Architecture in Iraq. Mesopotamia 43: 31–128. Patton, Douglas. 1982. A History of the Atabegs of Mosul and Their Relations with the Ulama A.  H. 521–660/A.D. 1127–1262. Ph.D.  Dissertation, New  York University. Place, Victor. 1867–1870. Ninive et l’Assyrie I–III. Paris: Imprimerie Impériale. al-Qazwini, Zakariya. 1848. Athar al-bilad wa akhbar al-ʽibad. Göttingen. Raʼuf, ʽImad ʽAbd al-Salam. 1975. Al-Mawsil fi al ʽahd al-ʽuthmani. Fatrat al-­ hukm al-mahalli 1139–1249 AH / 1726–1824 AD. Najaf: Matbaʽat al-adab.

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

279

———. 2013. Min tarikh al-khadamat al-nisawiya al-ʽamma fi al-Mawsil. Bayt alMosul, December 14. https://www.baytalmosul.com/15711583159316051 5751583-­5 9315761583157516041587160415751605-­1 58515721 6081601/1. Reade, Julian E. 2017. The Assyrian Palace at Nabi Yunus, Nineveh. In At the Dawn of History: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of J.N. Postgate, ed. Y.  Heffron, A.  Stone, and M.  Worthington, 431–458. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Rich, Claudius J. 1836. Narrative of a Residence in Koordistan, and on the Site of Ancient Nineveh. London: James Duncan. Robinson, Chase F. 2000. Empire and Elites after the Muslim Conquest: The Transformation of Northern Mesopotamia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. al-Rubayʽi, ʽImad Ghanim. 2017. Al-Jamiʽ al-nuri al-kabir fi al-Mawsil. Mosul: Markaz dirasat al-Mawsil. Sabri, Subhi. 2013. Marqad al-Shaykh Fathi…wa al-samt al-muhib al-muqaddas. Al-Diyar al-Lunduniya, February 2. http://www.aldiyarlondon. com/2012-­08-­09-­12-­36-­20/1-­articles/7562-­2013-­02-­02-­10-­17-­28. Saʼigh, Sulayman. 2008. Tarikh al-Mawsil III. Piscataway: Gorgias Press. Salih, Layla Muhammad. 2013. Al-Madaris al-mustaqilla al-qaʼima fi al-Mawsil min al-ʽasr al-ʽuthmani. M.A. Thesis, University of Mosul. Sarre, Friedrich, and Ernst Herzfeld. 1911a. Archäologische Reise im Euphrat- und Tigris-Gebiet. Vol. 1. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer (Ernst Vohsen). ———. 1911b. Archäologische Reise im Euphrat- und Tigris-Gebiet. Vol. 3 (Tafelband). Berlin: Dietrich Reimer (Ernst Vohsen). ———. 1920a. Archäologische Reise im Euphrat- und Tigris-Gebiet. Vol. 2. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer (Ernst Vohsen). ———. 1920b. Archäologische Reise im Euphrat- und Tigris-Gebiet. Vol. 4. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer (Ernst Vohsen). Schmid, Hansjörg. 1980. Die Madrasa des Kalifen al-Mustansir in Baghdad. Eine baugeschichtliche Untersuchung der ersten universalen Rechtshochschule des Islam. Baghdader Forschungen 3. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Scott, M. Louise, and John MacGinnis. 1990. Notes on Nineveh. Iraq 52: 63–73. Sevara, Christopher, Michael Pregesbauer, Michael Doneus, Geert Verhoeven, and Immo Trinks. 2016. Pixel Versus Object – A Comparison of Strategies for the Semi-Automated Mapping of Archaeological Features Using Airborne Laser Scanning Data. Journal of Archaeological Science Reports 5: 485–498. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.12.023. al-Shabushti, Abu al-Hasan ʽAli. 1966. Al-Diyarat. Baghdad: Maktabat al-muthanna. Shackelford, Aaron K., and Curt H. Davis. 2003. A Combined Fuzzy Pixel-Based and Object-Based Approach for Classification of High-Resolution Multispectral

280 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Data over Urban Areas. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 41 (10): 2354–2363. https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2003.815972. al-Shaykh Ali, Khalid. 1975. Leaning Minarets of Mosul. Sumer 31: 87–100. Siroux, Maxime. 1973. L’évolution des antiques mosquées rurales de la région d’Ispahan. Arts asiatiques 26: 65–112. Snelders, Bas. 2010. Identity and Christian-Muslim Interaction. Medieval Art of the Syrian Orthodox from the Mosul Area. Leuven: Peeters Publishers and Department of Oriental Studies. Southgate, Horatio. 1840. Narrative of a Tour Through Armenia, Kurdistan, Persia and Mesopotamia. New York: D. Appleton and Co. Strika, Vincenzo. 1976. A Ka’abah Picture in the Iraq Museum. Sumer 32: 195–201. al-Sufi, Ahmad. 1940. Al-Athar wa al-mabani al-ʽarabiya al-islamiya fi al-­Mawsil. Mosul: Matbaʽat umm al-rabiʽayn. ———. 1953. Khitat al-Mawsil. Mosul: Matbaʽat umm al-rabiʽayn. Suyufi, Niqula. 1956. Majmuʽ al-kitabat al-muharrara fi abniyat madinat al-­ Mawsil. Ed. Saʽid al-Diwahji. Baghdad: Matbaʽat Shafiq. Tabbaa, Yasser. n.d. Mashhad al-Imam ʽAwn al-Din. Archnet. Accessed February 25, 2020. https://archnet.org/sites/3841. ———. 2001. The Transformation of Islamic Art During the Sunni Revival. University of Washington Press. ———. 2002. The Mosque of Nūr al-Dı̄n in Mosul, 1170–1172. Annales Islamologiques 36: 339–360. ———. 2018. UNESCO Announces Five Year Plan to Rebuild Al-Nouri Mosque. Al-Shahid, May 4. https://alshahidwitness.com/unesco-­rebuild-­al-­ nouri-­mosque/. Tewkesbury, Andrew P., Alexis J.  Comber, Nicholas J.  Tate, Alistair Lamb, and Peter F. Fisher. 2015. A Critical Synthesis of Remotely Sensed Optical Image Change Detection Techniques. Remote Sensing of Environment 160: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2015.01.006. Thesaurus d’Épigraphie Islamique. n.d. Directed by Ludvik Kalus. 14th edition, January 2017. http://www.epigraphie-islamique.org. Turner, Geoffrey. 1970. Tell Nebi Yūnus: The ekal māšarti of Nineveh. Iraq 32: 68–85. al-Tutunchi, Najat Yunus. 1976. Al-Maharib al-ʽiraqiya mundhu al-ʽasr al-­islami ila nihayat al-ʽasr al-ʽabbasi. Baghdad: Wizarat al-iʽlam. Uluçam, Abdüsselam. 1989. Irak’taki Türk Mimari Eserleri. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı. al-ʽUmari, Muhammad Amin. 1967–1968. Manhal al-awliyaʼ wa mashrab al-asfiyaʼ min sadat al-Mawsil al-hadbaʼ. 2 vols. Mosul: Matbaʽat al-­jumhuriya. al-ʽUmari, Yasin. 1955. Munyat al-udaba’ fi tarikh al-Mawsil al-hadba’. Mosul: Matbaʽat al-hadaf.

2  A CITY EXPLORED 

281

ʽUthman, ʽAruba Jamil Mahmud. 2008. Al-Takaya fi al-Mawsil mundhu awakhir al-ʽahd al-ʽuthmani. Dirasat Mawsiliya 20: 35–53. Verhoeven, Geert, Michael Doneus, Clement Atzberger, Michael Wes, Michal Ruš, Michael Pregesbauer, and Christian Briese. 2013. New Approaches for Archaeological Feature Extraction of Airborne Imaging Spectroscopy Data. In 10th International Conference on Archaeological Prospection, Proceedings, ed. Wolfgang Neubauer, Immo Trinks, Roderick Salisbury, and Christina Einwögerer, 13–15. Vienna, Austria: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Wilber, Donald N. 1939. The Development of Mosaic Faïence in Islamic Architecture in Iran. Ars Islamica 6: 16–47. ———. 1955. The Architecture of Islamic Iran: The Il Khānid Period. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Wirth, Eugen. 1991. Zur Inventarisierung schützenswerter Bauwerke und Bauten-­ Komplexe in Mosul, Vorbericht über ein deutsch-irakisches Gemeinschaftsprojekt. Baghdader Mitteilungen 22: 639–658. Yazdi, Sharaf al-Din ʽAli. 1887. Zafarnama. Calcutta. Ziboon, Abdul Razzak T., and Amjed Naser Mohsin. 2009. 3-D Virtual Maps Production for Mosul City by Using GIS Techniques. Engineering and Technology Journal 27 (9): 1775–1789.

CHAPTER 3

A City Contextualized

3.1   Urban Morphology and Development The spatial development of Mosul in the early and middle Islamic periods has been the subject of several thorough analyses, which made full use of the available written sources (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920, 204, 207–15; al-­Sufi 1940; al-Diwahji 1951, 222–36; al-Diwahji 1982, 171–85, 325–70; Patton 1982, 34–79; al-Sufi 1953; Saʼigh 1923; Robinson 2000, 63–89; Mawsuʽat al-Mawsil al-Hadariya 1992, II, III). Our knowledge of the city’s urban development cannot be advanced without systematic archaeological research, which has not yet evolved; until then, the vast majority of topographic conclusions remain only unproven hypotheses. Our review of existing knowledge in this chapter aims to deepen and refine the idea of the spatial evolution of Mosul using two other categories of sources, which previous research used only to a limited extent. The first category is that of planographic and hypsographic data. We attempted to locate and display as accurately as possible using GIS all known elements of the medieval city and evaluate their mutual spatial relationships. To a limited extent, we were able to use earlier, less detailed, and topographically inaccurate sketch maps by al-Sufi (1953) and al-Diwahji (1982, I, 36, 145). The development of the microrelief of the urban landscape has not yet been taken into account in historical scholarship at all, although the terrain of old Mosul is rugged and its morphology undoubtedly influenced © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 K. Nováček et al., Mosul after Islamic State, Palgrave Studies in Cultural Heritage and Conflict, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62636-5_3

283

284 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

the extent and intensity of medieval settlement activities and vice versa. We based our analysis on a new digital terrain model (DTM), created specifically for the purposes of this study and achieving approximately 1–2 m of altitude accuracy (see Sect. 2.1.6.3). The data of the model were corrected by analyzing the elevation visible in the collection of historical views of the city, beginning with the panorama of G.  P. Badger from 1842 to 1850 (Fig. 2.1; Badger 1852, 77), which captured the city center before modern changes and expansion of buildings. Another source of information that helped to deepen our review of the early city’s topography is the general model of early Islamic urban development. Knowledge of the general principles of Islamic urbanism has advanced significantly in the last two decades, mainly thanks to archaeological research in Syro-Palestine, and interpreting Mosul’s development in the light of this model proved to be an effective way to understand some controversial issues and develop new hypotheses. In addition to the specific models of early Islamic urbanism, general empiric models of urban morphology (such as the fringe-belt analysis) have also been taken into consideration. Mosul was founded on a 30–50 m sharp river cliff of the western bank of the Tigris, built from an uplifted block of exposed evaporite rocks (abundant gypsum, alternating with limestones and a few marls) of Middle Miocene Fatha Formation (lower member). This undulating plateau with an average height of 300 m continues, without any substantial overlay of Quaternary sediments, to the west, being connected with the anticlinal, northwest-oriented ridge of Jabal Atshan (al-Kubaisi 2004; al-Kubaisi 2014). On the north and south, the erosion of small tributaries of the Tigris cut wide depressions into the Fatha block, which isolated the central part of the plateau as a hill, designated locally as al-Qulayʽat. Beyond the north depression the plateau continues, topped by the Ottoman fortress of Bashtabiya, a successor of the medieval citadel. The rock of the lower member of the Fatha Formation often has a nodular, clastic texture and is heavily karsted, which caused notorious stability problems in the city. This mechanical instability, together with the strong fluvial impact, also affected and is affecting the cliff with progressive, long-term erosion, particularly in the northern part of the medieval city. For the time being, it is not possible to reconstruct the dynamics of the erosion. The changes in the river flow in a wide inundation have been very significant in the past, but the data on them are fragmentary.1 However, from three sources2 is clear that not only a large part of the medieval fortifications (i.e., curtain walls, while towers resisted) but also most probably the eastern part of the medieval citadel have succumbed to erosion (see Sect. 2.2.2.1). In the

3  A CITY CONTEXTUALIZED 

285

southern part of the city, fluvial erosion apparently destroyed the eastern part of the al-Mujahidi mosque complex. Any topographic reconstruction of medieval Mosul should take these disappeared portions of the Tigris’ west bank into consideration. Without archaeological data, the anthropogenic contribution to the formation of the georelief of the medieval city can only be very roughly outlined. Most elevations in the Mosul city nucleus obviously have a geological origin, most probably including Tell al-Kunasa (Garbage Hill) on the western periphery, due to its elongated ground plan and the northwest orientation, which is consistent with the Mosul anticlinal system. Tell Hammam al-Zawiya, located 200  m west of the al-Nuri Mosque, can probably be considered the only real tell (settlement mound) in the city area. The intense changes of the Mosul georelief are indirectly evidenced by the depth of interiors of medieval buildings compared to the current surface, which roughly corresponds to the increase in terrain since the time of their construction.3 Unfortunately, the available data do not cover the city evenly and are completely missing for its easternmost areas, but still show that the largest increase in the height of the terrain (4.5–7 m) should be expected in the southwestern part of the historic core, where the Fatha Formation exposures have been eroded across a large area. On the western slopes of the al-Qulayʽat elevation, outside the densely populated urban quarters on the northwestern periphery and around the citadel, the terrain increased much less significantly (Fig. 3.1). The explanation for these differences in the built-up urban landscape probably should not primarily be seen in the natural processes of erosion and accumulation (although river floods and fluvial accumulation have undoubtedly affected the lower part of the city as well),4 but rather in differences in the intensity of settlement and waste management. Based on convincing arguments, historians have linked the center of the pre-Islamic settlement on the western bank of the Tigris with the outpost Hesna ʽEbraye, protecting the metropolis of Nineveh on the eastern bank. For local topographic and strategic reasons, the fortress was hypothetically situated on the al-Qulayʽat elevation. Around 570 AD, the monk Mar Ishoʽyab founded a cell near this fortress (Fiey 1959, 106),5 which the Sasanian king Khosrow II (590–628) transformed into a walled monastery (Robinson 2000, 63–72). The monastery is traditionally, and with certainty, associated with the complex of Chaldean churches Mar Ishoʽyab, Mar Guorguis, and Mar Yohanna in the Raʼs al-Kur neighborhood (Figs.  3.2 and 3.3). Around the fortress and monastery, a Christian

Fig. 3.1  Old city of Mosul, a digital elevation model over the satellite map from 2013 with recorded depths of historic interiors under the present-day surface (in cm). Important elevations and tells outlined by purple line. Sites: (1) Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim Shrine, (2) Sheykh Fathi, (3) Imam al-Bahir Shrine, (4) Imam Ibrahim Mosque and Tomb, (5) Nabi Jirjis Tomb, (6) al-Tahira Syriac Orthodox Church, (7) Sitt Nafisa Mosque, (8) Umm al-Tisʽa Mosque, (9) Mar Tuma Church, (10) Mar Guorguis Church, (11) Imam ʽAli al-Hadi Shrine, (12) Shimʽun al-Safa Church, (13) Mosque of al-Hajj Mansur, (14) Mar Petion Church, (15) Imam ʽAwn al-Din Shrine, (16) Mar Hudeni Church. Sources: Sarre and Herzfeld 1920a; Fiey 1959; Dhunnun et al. 1983; Habbi 1980. Drawing with use of satellite image WorldView-2© DigitalGlobe, Inc., distributed by European Space Imaging GmbH/ARCDATA PRAHA, s.r.o. Fig. 3.2  (continued) (15) Mosque of al-Husayn ibn Saʽid ibn Hamdan, (16) Mashhad of al-Khuzaʽi, (17) Mashhad of al-Sitt Fatima, (18) Mosque of al-Mulla ʽAbd al-Hamid (?), (19) Masjid of Mansur al-Hallaj (?), (20) Mar Guorguis Chaldean Church, (21) Mar Petion Church, (22) Dar al-mamlaka. Drawing with use of satellite image WorldView-2© DigitalGlobe, Inc., distributed by European Space Imaging GmbH/ARCDATA PRAHA, s.r.o.

Fig. 3.2  Old city of Mosul, topographic clues of the early Islamic city: red points— structures of the first/seventh and second/eighth centuries, yellow points—structures of the third/ninth–fifth/eleventh century, brown dashed line—minimal extent of misr, black dotted line—reconstruction of outline of the Hamdanid city (“taylasan”), hatched areas—extent of cemeteries according to Hakkiʼs map from 1323/1904–1905 and additional sources. Sites: (1) Mar Ishoʽyab, (2) Syriac Catholic Tahira al-Qalʽa, (3) Dayr al-Aʽla, (4) Mar Tuma Syriac Catholic Church, (5) Mosque of Banu Sabat al-Sayrafi (Masjid Khazraj?), (6) Mosque of Tell al-ʽIbada, (7) Mosque of Abu Hadir, (8) Tomb of al-Anaz, (9) Mosque of al-Hurr ibn Yusuf, (10) al-Thaqif Mosque, (11) Mosque of Saʽid ibn ʽAbd al-Malik, (12) al- Manqusha Palace, (13) Umayyad Mosque and dar al-imara, (14) Shimʽun al-Safa Church;

288 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Fig. 3.3  Old city of Mosul, detail of the fortified nucleus of the misr (large dashed square) and hypothetical related sites: (1) Umayyad congregational mosque, (2) Hesna ʽEbraye/dar al-imara, (3) Mar Ishoʽyab Cathedral, (4) Ancient Syriac al-Tahira Church in al-Qalʽa (the church “ad latrinas ante nostrae urbis portam”?), (5) al-Quraysh Cemetery (later Nabi Jirjis Mosque and Tomb). Cemeteries by hatched areas. Drawing with use of the vectorized city plan by I. Hakki (1323/1904–5)

settlement was established; Jewish neighborhoods would have been located further west (al-Diwahji 1951, 223). The Arab conquest tradition has preserved an identical spatial division: al-Baladhuri, for example, describes Mosul in the era of the Caliph ʽUthman ibn ʽAffan as a site with a fortress (hisn; undoubtedly identical with Hesna ʽEbraye), several Christian cells (it means the monastery, biʽa, dayr) and houses, and a

3  A CITY CONTEXTUALIZED 

289

Jewish district (al-­Baladhuri 1987, 464–5). The overlap of the early Islamic Jewish district with the present-day Jewish Quarter (Mahallat al-Yahud) is questionable because the modern quarter lies relatively far to the west of al-Qulayʽat and the settlement nucleus. The Islamic garrison city (misr) was laid out in “al-Hisnan” (“two fortresses”),6 later renamed al-Mawsil (Robinson 2000, 69–70), probably in 20/641–642, as an outpost of Kufan troops. A number of indications show that the Kufan influence was also reflected in the urbanization of the new settlement, which began shortly thereafter. Its core can be imagined as a regular, soon fortified nucleus, including an administrative district with the governor’s palace (dar al-imara), a congregational mosque, and a bath. Based on other known examples of this kind of settlement, it can be assumed that the nucleus of the misr was intended as a place of residence for elite tribal members (ahl al-raya or al-ʽaliya). This unit was connected by gates with rationally set up, unfortified quarters, allocated to tribal military units (khitat). As in the situation in Kufa, one can assume that the delimitation of the districts was made according to the collective will of the representatives of all present tribes. The districts were separated by streets, and every district had its own mosque (Akbar 1989, 29; Whitcomb 1994, 161–6). Several indices and details concerning the spatial organization of the misr of al-Mawsil, as recorded by the available written sources, enable us to reconstruct the earliest topography only tentatively.7 There is no doubt about the location of the congregational mosque—the focal point of the fortified core of the misr. It occupied the area of a shallow depression between the two summits of al-Qulayʽat, demarcated on the northwest by the al-Maksura Minaret, which was added to the mosque in the Atabeg period, and on the east by the al-Masfi Mosque, which replaced the dilapidated Umayyad Mosque, demolished in 1225/1810 (Uluçam 1989, 88). There is a distance of 110 m between the two points. This may roughly correspond to the east-west dimension of the mosque, which occupied, after two enlargements (al-Diwahji 1951, 230), a considerable area. According to the testimony of al-Harawi, there was no bigger mosque in the whole Islamic world than that in Mosul (al-Harawi 2002, 64). The mosque was equipped with several gates, the southern of which is specifically referred to as Bab Jabir (al-Diwahji 1963, 8). One of the gates, probably only after the expansion of the area, was situated very near to an unnamed church.8

290 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

The administrative heart of the misr was the dar al-imara. It was used as the seat of the governor and offices until the end of the third/ninth century, except for a short period after 725–726, when the administration was transferred to the al-Manqusha Palace built by the governor al-Hurr ibn Yusuf al-Umawi. The only thing we know about dar al-imara from the sources is that it was attached to the congregational mosque (Robinson 2000, 75); according to the Kufa model, it should adjoin the southern (qibla) wall of the mosque (Creswell 1979, I.1, 26; see also Bacharach 1991, 118–9).9 However, it would already be—apart from the Hesna ʽEbraye fortress and the nucleus of the misr—the third fortified area, which was situated on the top of the al-Qulayʽat elevation in the Umayyad period. To address the spatial relationship and hierarchy between these fortifications, it is necessary to address at a hypothetical level the question of whether the Hesna ʽEbraye was included in the fortified area of the misr, or left extra muros, which the sources do not explicitly say. Some indication of the mutual spatial relationship between the mosque and fortifications could be provided by the fringe-belt analysis, developed by the urban morphologists M. R. G. Conzen and J. W. R. Whitehand (see, e.g., Barke 2019, for the latest overview). The approach consists of identifying fringe areas in the urban space, which are characterized by a lower intensity of land use than their surroundings, revealing a certain hiatus in the urban growth. Later on, in the next cycle of growth, these spots were encroached upon by built-up areas and encapsulated in the urban tissue. These “gaps” in the built environment were usually formed either behind hardly permeable borders (such as city walls) or on the sites of abandoned large structures, which both, over a longer period, effectively restricted the use of the space for rebuilding. In our case, as in Islamic cities in general, cemeteries appear to be a good marker of fringe belts, as they tended to quickly expand to any areas with lower intensity of land use and/or high building restriction. The extent of the cemeteries in Mosul in 1904 perfectly shows several fringe belts of the city (Fig. 3.4). The outer one that followed the fortification system and was not yet encroached upon at that time corresponds to the limit of the Atabeg to Ottoman-period city, while the traces of a fringe belt within the city may even have roots in the pre-Atabeg era (see infra). As for the al-Qulayʽat elevation, two large burial grounds were situated on its summit and its eastern slope at the beginning of the twentieth century (Fig. 3.3). The southern one filled the entire depression between the two peaks of the elevation, reaching beyond the al-Masfi Mosque in the

3  A CITY CONTEXTUALIZED 

291

Fig. 3.4  Old city of Mosul during the Atabeg period: red line—late ʽUqaylid and Seljuq city fortification with citadel, orange line—later extension of the city wall during ʽImad al-Din Zengi, brown point—Nabi Jirjis Shrine (1), red points— Badr al-Dinʼs shrines with depicted access from the nearest city gate: (2) Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim, (3) Imam al-Bahir, (4) Imam ʽAwn al-Din, (5) Imam Zayd ibn ʽAli (?). Drawing with use of the vectorized city plan by I. Hakki (1323/1904–5)

292 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

east. In the northwest, it continued as far as the Minaret al-Maksura. This cemetery undoubtedly occupied the area of the Umayyad Mosque and its surroundings. The burial ground in the mosque area had already been in use in the pre-Atabeg period, as a fragment of a tombstone ascribed to Aqsunqur al-Bursuqi, and dated to 520/1126, corroborated (Uluçam 1989, 89). After the foundation of the new al-Nuri Mosque, the Umayyad Mosque gradually became an inferior space of worship, which is well documented by the 40-year-long asylum of Muwaffaq al-Din al-Kawashi, the opponent of the ruler Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ, in the mosque (Patton 1992, 69). The interments continued in the area even after the building fell into disrepair, and the burial area finally occupied more than 1 ha. Keeping this scenario in mind, we should also consider the other, northern cemetery on the al-Qulayʽat elevation (equally 1 ha large) to be an element that once expanded into a large, abandoned, built-up area, in this case situated on the summit of the hill, where no church or shrine had been hypothetically located. If we suppose that the fortress of Hesna ʽEbraye topped, for strategic reasons, the al-Qulayʽat elevation, its northern summit could have been the specific location of the fortress, which was, after the fortress’s abandonment, also used for burials. The two burial grounds are close to each other, which is in accordance with descriptions of the two neighboring areas of the mosque and dar al-imara. We also find it conspicuous that with the beginnings of Islamic historiography, any mentions of the old Persian fortress (Hesna ʽEbraye) disappeared. The authors only mention dar al-imara, or a “fortress” (hisn)10 in general, obviously to designate one and the same structure.11 We, therefore, hypothesize that incoming Muslims transformed Hesna ʽEbraye into the governor’s palace, made it part of the later fortified core of the misr, and attached a congregational mosque to its south side. This juxtaposition of palace and mosque corresponds neither with the situation in Kufa12 nor with the usual situation in new Islamic urban foundations, but it emerged from local historic and topographic conditions. The incorporation of the pre-Islamic military fort into the misr was also not a common solution as the young Islamic communities preferred to lay out their settlements apart (albeit not far) from existing centers. Al-Fustat, nevertheless, represented an important exception, where the older Byzantine fort of Babylon (Qasr al-Shamʽ) was also incorporated into a misr and adopted the functions of dar al-imara (Whitcomb 1994, 164). Unlike Babylon, which maintained after the conquest the character of a large, heavily fortified urban quarter almost exclusively populated by Christians

3  A CITY CONTEXTUALIZED 

293

and Jews, Hesna ʽEbraye had undoubtedly been a substantially smaller, predominantly military point, which was augmented by administrative and elite residential functions in the nascent Islamic city. The core of the town was gradually fortified in the late first/early eighth century. The exact identification of an investor remains disputed (Robinson 2000, 79). Events in the middle of the eighth century, such as the accommodation of the ʽAbbasid troops in 133/750–751  in the lavish al-­ Manqusha palace (qasr) in the southern suburb (built in c. 725–726; Robinson 2000, 80, 137) or the construction of the first Syriac orthodox church “on latrines in front of the city gate” (Fiey 1959, 19),13 were, nevertheless, already described as happening inside or outside the Marwanid walls and gates. No gates are convincingly known by name, perhaps with the exception of the western one, Bab Sinjar, once mentioned by al-Azdi (1967, 92).14 Our hypothetical model of the central part of the Mosul misr, therefore, combines fixed elements of the local topography with general assumptions. Based on archaeological parallels, we believe that the fortified central district had a regular, probably square ground plan (Fig. 3.3). Its size was determined by the northern and southern upper edges of the al-Qulayʽat elevation; the Mar Ishoʽyab Church was left outside on the northern side, as were the Ancient Syriac al-Tahira Church and al-Quraysh Cemetery, where the governor al-Hurr ibn Yusuf was buried in 113/731–732, on the southern side. The location of this cemetery (later the al-Nabi Jirjis Mosque) indicates a possible fringe belt outside the wall of the fortified nucleus. The nucleus had, in our hypothesis, a square plan with sides of 330 m and the distance from the intersection of its diagonals to the corners amounted to 240 m, which is one bowshot distance, estimated by H. Djaït for the Kufa foundation (1986, 92). Orientation of the square was conjectured in such a way as to maximally cover both summits of al-Qulayʽat. It puts the congregational mosque in the southeastern quadrant of the fortification (which is more usual in early Islamic urban foundations than the central position: Whitcomb 2010, 410) and the hypothetical dar al-imara in the northeastern corner. The result is, however, divergent from qibla. The square also includes a portion of al-Shaʽʽarin Street: its name reflects the early Islamic Suq al-Shaʽʽarin, the main suq west of the mosque, which might have been identical with an axial north-­ south street of the central quarter. Tribal khitat, which delineated and measured out quarters with residential complexes (dar), mosques, and cemeteries, were annexed to the central

294 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

part of the misr. According to al-Azdi, the most important informant for this period, the whole misr was settled by 4000 Kufan tribesmen. Five of the tribes are identified by name (Robinson 2000, 38, 73). Some of the toponyms which occur in sources can be identified in the current cityscape and help to estimate the minimal extent of suburban khitat. This is the case for the al-Thaqif Quarter and the Tell al-ʽIbada Mosque, two sites in the northwestern corner of the delimited area,15 the Mosque of Banu Sabat alSayrafi in the west, which used to stand in the vicinity of the Mar Tuma Church before 163/779–780, or the Shimʽun al-Safa Church as the southwesternmost point of the settlement in the second/eigth century (Qozi 1990) (Fig. 3.2). The southeast corner, between the conjectural south gate of the misr nucleus and the Tigris, developed during the Umayyad period in an additional administrative and residential quarter without a specific tribal appropriation. There, we can situate the Mosque of Saʽid ibn ʽAbd al-Malik, the Mosque of al-Hurr ibn Yusuf, the palace of Hisham ibn ʽAbd al-Malik, and the al-Manqusha Palace (used as the dar al-imara for some time), together with at least one Christian church (the Ancient Syriac alTahira Church in al-Qalʽa?) and a bridge across the Tigris, built by the last Umayyad Caliph Marwan II (744–750). The Christian settlement within the misr started to be an important phenomenon in the late Marwanid and early ʽAbbasid periods. Christians probably settled on empty spaces within khitat in agreement with the representatives of the tribes concerned, even though this symbiosis sometimes resulted in conflict, as in the case of the destruction of the Mar Tuma Church (Robinson 2000, 11). At the same time, the proper Christian and Jewish settlement continued to develop behind the northern border of the misr, supported by the early relocation of the episcopal see from Nineveh to Mosul (the Mar Ishoʽyab Church is considered to be the cathedral). Nevertheless, also in this area, or behind it, further to the north (i.e., in the “upper suburb”/rabad al-aʽla/of al-Azdi’s time), an Islamic settlement started to grow (Mosque of al-Qatiran ibn Akma al-Shaybani: Robinson 2000, 75). It is notable that the early Islamic Mosul toponyms do not expand into the southern half of the later medieval city—with one exception, the al-ʽAnaz tomb (before 197/812).16 The minimal area of the misr settlement can thus be estimated, according to the fixed points mentioned, as 110 ha, including the fortified nucleus (11.2 ha). The nascent city of Mosul witnessed its first climax under the Marwanids in the first half of the second/eighth century. The population density in the fortified part of the city reached such a level that some of markets had to be transferred extra muros, to the area behind the southern and

3  A CITY CONTEXTUALIZED 

295

southwestern perimeter of fortification, which until then had served as a burial ground (al-Diwahji 1951, 228). Also in the suburban khitat, there are indications of a lack of space (see the aforementioned dispute over the Mar Tuma Church extended at the expense of the aforementioned Mosque of Banu Sabat al-Sayrafi). Despite the intentional replenishment of the urban population by the transfer of Basran tribe members, the impressive patronage of buildings, and changes in the city administration, we are reluctant to see this era as standing in stark contrast with previous development, as C. Robinson did.17 Although the settlement only fully grew into its central administrative role during the Marwanid period, from the previous analysis it is clear that the misr was conceived from the beginning as a spatially generous urban center with complex functions and this project was gradually implemented. It is, nevertheless, questionable whether the original khitat pattern maintained its continuity to the Hamdanid period, as many scholars have supposed.18 The most ambitious Marwanid project realized in Mosul was the digging of the so-called Open Canal (al-Nahr al-Makshuf, also al-Nahr al-­ Hurr, later Nahr Zubayda), launched by the governor al-Hurr ibn Yusuf. The work took 14 years (107–121/725–739), up to 5000 workers were employed in the construction in some years, and the project’s realization consumed, according to al-Azdi, the astronomical sum of 8 billion dirhams (al-Azdi 1971, I, 190, 219). Research by Mosul historians unanimously situates the canal in the Tigris’ floodplain: it might begin near the Monastery of Mar Mikhaʼil northwest of the city, passing the Sulphur Spring and the city following the route of today’s river and reaching a total length of about 10 km. The still visible distributary Wadi Darhil, south of the aforementioned monastery, is considered to be its remnant (al-Diwahji 1951, 235–6). The proposed route of the canal actually has the characteristics of an artificial water work, but its identification with al-Nahr al-­ Makshuf is not in accordance with the sources. Al-Maqdisi states that the people of Mosul took water either from the Tigris or from the canal, which makes the aforementioned topographical consideration meaningless provided the canal impeded access to the river from the city (al-Maqdisi 1877, 138). Ibn Hawqal was even more informative, stating that the city was divided into halves by the canal and that its water level was more than 60 cubits (dhiraʽ) under the surface (Ibn Hawqal 1992, 194), which amounts to ca. 32–36 m. Neither account corresponds, by any means, to a description of a canal in the Tigris floodplain.19 Moreover, the canal flowed in the immediate vicinity of the al-Manqusha Palace (Robinson 2000, 75), and

296 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

later also al-Murabbaʽa/Wednesday market (al-Maqdisi 1877, 138), which were localized relatively far west from the present-day river bank (al-Diwahji 1982, 36). The enormous complexity, expressed in terms of construction time, dimensions, manpower, and financial costs, also does not correspond to a common river channel, not to mention its name, which is semantically comprehensible in a densely built-up cityscape, not in an open riverine area. Therefore, we tend to consider the Open Canal to be an independent source supplying Mosul with groundwater from the area west of the city, passing through the urban area approximately in the east direction and joining the Tigris in the vicinity of the later (Ottoman) islet of Ij Qalʽa.20 The following period of direct ʽAbbasid rule over Mosul (750–907) was probably not very productive in terms of urban development, given the repeated Kharijite revolts and Kurdish attacks, rapid changes of governors, and general instability in the region. Only at the beginning of the period, in 145/762–763, we are informed about the construction of the palace, Qasr Harb, of the governor Jaʽfar, the son of the Caliph Abu Jaʽfar al-Mansur (754–755), in a southern suburb.21 In 180/796–797, the Caliph Harun al-Rashid ordered the town wall (i.e., the Umayyad-period wall of the misr center) to be pulled down, and Mosul was left unfortified until the late ʽUqaylid period.22 The second reported ʽAbbasid construction was that of the palace (qasr) of the Caliph al-Muʽtadid (892–902) opposite the al-Tawba Mosque in Nineveh (al-Diwahji 1982, 176–7; al-­Maqdisi 1877, 138). Only in the Hamdanid period (906–991, with an interruption), did the city witness a revival of patronage, demographic growth, and vivid economic and commercial activities, as reflected in two brief descriptions of the city (Ibn Hawqal in 358/968–969 and al-Maqdisi in ca. 375/985–986; Ibn Hawqal 1992, 194–6; al-Maqdisi 1877, 138–9). As in the case of other cities (al-Basra, al-Rahba), al-Maqdisi described the ground plan of Mosul as “nearly taylasan.” Taylasan, a word of Persian origin, originally denominating a sort of long stole, was adopted by geographers and astronomers of the sixth to the tenth century as the terminus technicus for a trapezoid geometric form (Kindinger 2017, 74).23 This form can be easily traced in the local topography, with regard to the hypothetical extent of the Umayyad misr on the one hand and later fixed elements of the city plan, particularly the ʽUqaylid city wall, on the other24 (Fig. 3.2). It can be assumed that during the Hamdanid period at the latest, the city expanded significantly to the south, although there is no direct

3  A CITY CONTEXTUALIZED 

297

evidence for the expansion in the form of the patronage of specific buildings.25 It is possible that the construction of the Open Canal facilitated this expansion. The Hamdanids also expanded to the northern outskirts, where they established their palatial complex (dar al-mamlaka), which became the basis of later residences of the city’s rulers (today’s Qara Saray). The foundation of the palatial complex, separated from the city, is in accordance with the general model of a second stage of Islamic urbanization which took place at the same time in most Near Eastern centers (Whitcomb 2012). Additionally, the Hamdanids sponsored several religious buildings on the elevation further north on the way to the Sulphur Spring, which had only been discovered in 301/913–914 (al-Hamawi 1977, II, 498–9).26 In this area the Mosque of al-Husayn ibn Saʽid ibn Hamdan (before 338/949–950; al-Diwahji 1968, 173) and the mosque over the tomb of ʽAmr ibn al-Hamaq al-Khuzaʽi (in 336/947–948; al-Diwahji 1982, 183) were founded. It is possible that it was the discovery of the healing Sulphur Spring and the resulting abundance of visitors that stimulated this construction activity. The area of the spring and the Hamdanid dar al-­ mamlaka were connected with the city by one of its main streets, probably the extension of Suq al-Shaʽʽarin, the main axial thoroughfare of the original misr. The commercial center of the Hamdanid city was probably the extensive space called al-Murabbaʽa, where Wednesday markets (suq al-arbiʽaʼ) were held. Al-Murabbaʽa was described as similar to a fortress (shibh hisn), with its corners occupied by warehouses (funduq; al-Maqdisi 1877, 138).27 The Hamdanids were also patrons of other structures on Tell al-Tawba in Nineveh (see Sect. 2.2.1.3). There are far fewer references to urban development during the subsequent period of the ʽUqaylid rule (992–1096) over the city. In spite of this, the city changed its appearance under the reign of this dynasty in one substantial respect—it became a fortress. The ʽUqaylids should be credited with the construction of a citadel on the northern elevation at the Sulphur Spring, even though we lack direct evidence for this patronage (al-Diwahji 2015, 94). The fortress was besieged for four months, taken and destroyed by the Buyid emir al-Basasiri in 450/1058–1059 (ibid., 94–6), which indicates the excellent military quality of the complex built before this date. The fortress was probably repaired again in a short time. In 1184, Mosul was visited by Ibn Jubayr, who described the citadel as a large compound of ancient appearance (ʽatiq al-bunya) surrounded by walls with towers. The construction of the citadel thus certainly had to

298 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

have been completed in the early Atabeg period or even earlier (Ibn Jubayr 2008, 243). The fortification program was augmented by a city wall, built by Sharaf al-Dawla Muslim ibn Quraysh al-ʽUqayli within six months in 474/1081–1082 (al-Diwahji 1982, 177). The simple, relatively low wall was refurbished and supplemented by towers, a moat, and an intervallum (fasil)28 under the Seljuq administration in 498/1104–1105, when a Crusader presence in al-Jazira was already felt as a potentially threatening element (Mawsuʽat al-Mawsil al-Hadariya 1992, II, 149). It is possible that the ʽUqaylid wall on the eastern, southern, and western sides had the same course as later Atabeg and Ottoman fortifications, preserved until 1915. This is indicated by the names of some gates preserved in the sources of the late fifth/eleventh century (e.g., southern Bab al-ʽIraq or western Bab Sinjar). However, the northern side did not include the citadel and the palaces of the rulers (dar al-mamlaka), but ran from Bab Sinjar along the upper edge of a wide, shallow depression to the east, where, in the vicinity of the tomb of ʽIsa Dadah, it joined the fortification of the Tigris bank (Fig. 3.4). One indication of this course could be found in a 150–180 m wide fringe belt in the form of large cemeteries around the mausoleums of Shaykh Fathi, Imam ʽAbd al-Rahman (Madrasa al-ʽIzziya), and ʽIsa Dadah, which is predominantly the result of the regression and reduction of the settlement intensity in this area of the city’s periphery during the Ottoman period, but certainly stemmed from Atabeg (and most probably late fifth/eleventh century) spatial organization. There are no data about the patronage of religious buildings from the ʽUqaylid period, except for the foundation of Madrasa al-Nizamiya after 457/1065 (Patton 1982, 484). Ibn al-Athir’s valuable description of the appearance of the city at the beginning of Atabeg rule (Ibn al-Athir 1963, 77–8) points out a large-scale abandonment of the city quarters, particularly in the northern areas between the city, dar al-mamlaka, and the citadel, around the Umayyad mosque and along the city walls. The fact that the Umayyad Mosque was so distant from the city that only Friday prayers were held there gives a picture of the fragmented city space, where the settlement was focused in the distant, southern part of the fortified area, while the former city center, the al-Qulayʽat elevation with the congregational mosque, the palatial complex, and the citadel were considered to be outside the actual city. The transformation of the city into a fortress continued under the Seljuqs and was completed during the rule of the first Atabeg ʽImad al-­ Din Zengi (1127–1146). The citadel was integrated into the city by a new

3  A CITY CONTEXTUALIZED 

299

section of the wall, while the old ʽUqaylid northern wall became an internal fortification separating the city from the so-called midan, the open space between the two walls and the citadel, designed to house troops and military parades. The fortified city thus reached its maximal extent, which amounted c. 277, 8 ha.29 However, it is uncertain whether the fortification system was built only in 527/1132 in preparation for the siege of the city by the Caliph al-Mustarshid, or whether it was the result of longer-lasting construction activity dating back to the period of direct Seljuq rule (Patton 1982, 42–8). According to the available historical photographs, the city wall, demolished for the most part in 1915, was a diverse structure in terms of construction and materials, which reflected several construction phases, as already noticed by Olivier in 1795 (Olivier 1804, 266). Apart from the demanding reconstruction of the fortification and palatial area (Ibn al-Athir 1963, 77–8), there is no other specific documentation of construction activity in the city; ʽImad al-Din was probably fully preoccupied with his military activities, and possible investments of his emirs also seem to have been restricted (Patton 1982, 323). The situation changed significantly under ʽImad al-Din Zengi’s successors, when Mosul experienced a construction boom combined with massive support for new institutions by atabegs, viziers, amirs, and citadel commanders, as well as representatives of the wealthy civilian elite (ʽulamaʼ, merchants). From the point of view of the topographical development of the city, we can roughly divide this period, which lasted for more than a hundred years (541–657/1146–1259), into three phases. The first phase occupies the third-quarter of the twelfth century and is defined by the rule of the Atabegs Sayf al-Din Ghazi I (1146–1149) and Qutb al-Din Mawdud (1149–1170). Analyzing the spatial distribution and type of buildings founded in this phase, one can conclude that the beginning of the revival focused on resettlement of the deserted northeastern city nucleus. Around the Umayyad Mosque, restored on a magnificent scale by Sayf al-Din Ghazi in 1148, several multifunctional complexes of buildings were built as private foundations of the most influential Mosul families: Madrasa al-Atabekiya al-ʽAtiqa with a ribat (founded by Sayf al-Din Ghazi I), al-Zayniya Mosque with a ribat (founded by Zayn al-Din ʽAli Küçük and later added by Madrasa al-Kamaliya—see Sect. 3.2), and Dar al-Hadith and Madrasa al-Muhajiriya (founded by the al-Muhajir family; replaced by the recent Shatt al-Jumi Mosque?—see Sect. 2.2.4). Smaller foundations were, at that time, also concentrated in the area of the

300 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

al-Qulayʽat elevation—namely, the Mosque and Mausoleum of Ibrahim al-Jarrahi (around 1150, see Sect. 2.2.2.3) and the mosques of Qara ʽAli (580/1184) and al-Khallal (before 634/1236).30 The first phase culminated in the generous foundation of the al-Nuri congregational mosque (566/1170), which shifted the city’s existing social focus from the Umayyad Mosque–Mosque of Nabi Jirjis axis to the ideal center of the city. In the second phase (the reign of the last Zengid Atabegs, i.e., the last quarter of the sixth/twelfth century and beginning of the seventh/thirteenth century), the building activities moved to the outskirts of the city. One of the reasons—the unprecedented growth of the city and the exhaustion of the construction capacity of intramural areas—is aptly described in the note of an unknown copyist of Ibn Hawqal’s description of Mosul (inserted in 566/1170–1171; Ibn Hawqal 1992, 195). But that was not the only reason. The suburban periphery and cemetery areas were popular places of social interaction and festive meetings among both the city inhabitants and pilgrims, in which the venerated tombs, shrines, and ribats (Sufi lodges) represented important nodes or components of the Islamic sacral landscape (Mulder 2019, 238, 272). We can apparently place the beginning of the explosive development of Mosul’s suburbs in this period. They probably originated in front of all the important city gates: by the beginning of the twentieth century, only a few archaeological traces of their existence remained (al-ʽUmari 1967–1968, I, 61; Sarre and Herzfeld 1920, 204). The most important suburb was the one in the southeast. Easy access to the river made it suitable for communication and trade. In 572/1176–1177, the administrator of the citadel, Mujahid al-Din Qaymaz, established there the remarkable complex of buildings comprising a new congregational mosque (built only four years after the completion of the al-Nuri Mosque), madrasa, ribat, and hospital. He also connected the complex to the other bank of the Tigris with a new bridge. The generosity and complexity of this foundation gives the impression that his intention was to create a new urban nucleus in the developing southern suburb that would be able to meet the needs of local people without being dependent on intramural infrastructure. At the same time Qaymaz’s project was implemented, a number of mausoleums and ribats were established in other suburban zones, of which only a few are known by name and can be localized (e.g., the ribat of Shaykh Qadib al-Ban, the ribat of Ibn al-Shahrazuri, the Tomb of Shaykh Fathi, and the Mosque

3  A CITY CONTEXTUALIZED 

301

and Tomb of ʽUmar al-Mallaʼ, see Sects. 2.2.3.1 and 2.2.3.2). The new structures corresponded to the denominational diversity of Mosul residents at that time: of the six shrines listed in al-Harawi’s pilgrimage guide in the context of 611/1215, two were clearly Shiʽi in nature (the Shrines of Ra’s al-Husayn and al-Tirh31). Al-Harawi’s list can by no means be considered complete (al-Harawi 2002, 63–4). The line of three consecutive Zengid Atabegs (ʽIzz al-Din Masʽud I, Nur al-Din Arslan Shah I, and ʽIzz al-Din Masʽud II) constructed their funeral madrasas in the open areas of the midan, west of the palatial complex. These lavish complexes, together with other residences of high officials established there since the Seljuq period, laid the foundation for a new residential quarter in the northern suburb, annexed to the citadel from the south. The rule of Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ, originally an Armenian mamluk and a regent of the Atabegs (1211–1233), and later an independent ruler (1233–1259) also bearing the title of atabeg, represents the third and final phase of the Atabeg apex of the city’s development. His long and relatively stable government was significantly reflected in the shape of the city. Badr al-Din rebuilt the palatial complex of Qara Saray in 630/1232–1233 (al-­ Diwahji 1982, 329–30), and reconstructed the gates and a town wall, as his foundation slab, recorded by E. Herzfeld on Bab Sinjar, attested (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920, 212). In the photographs from the beginning of the twentieth century, portions of two different, parallel lines of the wall were discernible on the riverine side, both heavily damaged by erosion of the slope. The lower part of the one closer to the river, which was furnished by towers with a distinctive pentagonal ground plan, was constructed from large, rusticated ashlars, as was the substructure of the Qara Saray palace, and could be thus likely connected with the building activity of Badr al-Din (Fig. 2.38). In addition to profane buildings, Badr al-Din implemented a sophisticated program of sacral buildings, starting with Madrasa al-Badriya close to the citadel, which was built near and at the same time as Madrasa al-­ Qahiriya of Zengid Atabeg ʽIzz al-Din Masʽud II ibn Arslan Shah (1211–1218). After becoming an independent ruler, Badr al-Din developed a new project to build monumental tower mashhads (shrines) with accentuated expressions of devotion to the Prophet Muhammad and his family (ahl al-bayt). After a critical revision of the sources, we can confirm Badr al-Din’s patronage of three shrines, whose original dedication is unknown, and we believe that only much later were these structures

302 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

dedicated to Imams Yahya ibn al-Qasim, ʽAwn al-Din Ibn al-Hasan, and Muhammad al-Bahir. To these we may hypothetically add a fourth building, the Shrine of Zayd ibn ʽAli, which featured a similar, but unfortunately never satisfactorily recorded set of Atabeg-period decorative elements (although the tower-like form of this shrine has not been corroborated). There is evidence or at least some indication that all but the last of these structures were connected to earlier building units. Still, we find their locations topographically very remarkable—they were situated as visible landmarks near the city gates (Yahya near Bab al-ʽImadi, al-Bahir near Bab Sinjar, Zayd ibn ʽAli near Bab al-Bayd/medieval Bab Kinda?, and ʽAwn al-Din near Bab Likish)—Fig. 3.4. The inclusive character of the shrines (universal dedication to ahl al-bayt), their dominance of their surroundings (they were visible from far away), and their location at the entrances to the city, were undoubtedly intended to increase their attractiveness for pilgrims. Badr al-Din’s structures thus certainly complemented earlier, popular ziyara targets, that is, the tombs of the Prophets Yunus and Jirjis (see Ibn Jubayr 2008, 244–5; al-Qazwini 1848, 309). Moreover, all the new shrines were located along the inner perimeter of the city at regular intervals (1083 m from al-Bahir to ʽAwn al-Din, 1153 m from al-Bahir to Yahya, 1123  m from al-Bahir to Zayd ibn ʽAli). This regularity leads to speculation about whether Badr al-Din was invoking some form of transcendental protection of the city, which was attempted at nearly the same time in episcopal cities in Central Europe through sophisticated topography of church foundations (Skwierczyński 1996). This form of transcendental communication and expression of ideology through geometric urban planning or landscape memorials is a recognized phenomenon in Islamic culture (Toueir 1983; Novák 2012), and the possibility that the ruler of Mosul actively sought to create a system of safety and divine protection through the regular placement of the shrines in the city plan should be taken into consideration. Despite the skillful policy of Badr al-Din, Mosul did not escape the Mongol devastation in the summer of 660/1262. Part of the walls and perhaps also the citadel and monastery of Dayr al-Aʽla were destroyed.32 The Mongols reportedly used up to 30 catapults during the siege (Ibn al-­ Fuwati 1997, 377), the damage was thus probably considerable. According to Ibn Kathir, the city was turned into a wasteland (Ibn Kathir 1998, XVII, 439). The devastation certainly affected all the suburbs and the inner belt of buildings following the city wall. It is clear that the city only

3  A CITY CONTEXTUALIZED 

303

reached the territorial extent of the early Atabeg period again in the twentieth century. Some landmarks in the city might have been also destroyed.33 The abandonment of the citadel and possibly also of the palatial complex of Qara Saray suggests a change in the administration model under the Ilkhanid governors of the city. According to the hypothesis of Mosul historians, the citadel was substituted by a newly established fortress (hisn) in the southern and southeastern neighborhood of the al-Nuri Mosque. The Hammam al-Saray Mosque and the Shrine of al-Sitt Nafisa became part of this area (see Sect. 2.2.4). Similarly, it was hypothesized that the Mongols built a new dar al-imara somewhere around Tell Hammam al-­ Zawiya. Both hypotheses are, however, based, as far as we know, only on local tradition, toponymy, and the isolated find of one epigraphic slab bearing the names of the Ilkhanid ruler Abu Saʽid Bahadur Khan (1316–1335) and the governor of the Diyar Bakr and al-Jazira provinces, Sutay Bek (1309–1331; Khalil 1985, 250), unfortunately without any specific dedication (al-Diwahji 1954, 105–7).34 And it was specifically the long and stable rule of the Ilkhanid emir Sutay Bek that brought about a significant revival of construction activity in the city, which continued to some extent until the end of the fourteenth century and came to an end (symbolically) with the conquest and devastation of Mosul by Timur Lenk in 796/1393–1394, which was later partly compensated by his financial involvement in the repair of the two most significant mosques in Mosul— Nabi Jirjis and Nabi Yunus (Yazdi 1887, 661–2; see Sect. 2.2.1.3). The subsequent tumultuous and violent period of the contesting Turkmen Qara Qoyunlu and Aq Qoyunlu dynasties—the dark ninth/fifteenth century—severely marked the face of the city. The crisis probably culminated in 839/1435–1436, when the rebel Isbahan ibn Qara Yusuf took Mosul and wreaked such devastation that the ruined city was left depopulated and was occasionally settled by nomads (Ibn Taghri Birdi 1971, XV, 44; al-Sakhawi, n.d., 274). The process of the city’s revitalization started only in the later Ottoman period, particularly under the city governors from the al-Jalili family (1726–1834).

3.2   The Islamic Building Production of Medieval Mosul: Forms, Patronage, and Dynamics of Meaning Comprehension of the meaning of Mosul’s medieval architecture is complicated by many factors. The lack of sources and the long-term stagnation of historical and archaeological research have been mentioned. It has not

304 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

been pointed out, however, that not only individual structures but also whole categories of medieval religious and social buildings had completely disappeared from the city during the process of its modernization, before any research and documentation were developed. This was the case for ordinary neighborhood mosques (masjids), institutions like dar al-hadith, Sufi lodges,35 baths (hammams), and even madrasas: according to our knowledge, for these categories no single medieval structure has been unambiguously recognized as still standing in a recognizable form.36 This state eloquently demonstrates the fragmentary nature of the city’s layer of medieval Islamic architecture and the underdevelopment of its building archaeology. Another important objection is seldom accentuated. It results from a vague contextual relationship between the buildings and the epigraphic artifacts that can be found within them. In Mosul, as follows from the analysis of individual buildings, epigraphic monuments presented a value per se, which was not necessarily connected with their original architectural or funerary context. During reconstructions or the leveling of graves, or after the original building had fallen into disrepair, they were very often reutilized in the new environment. Not only tombs and shrines (e.g., Qadib al-Ban, Imam Muhsin in our sample), but even mosques (al-ʽUmariya) were used as something like proto-museums, where the epigraphic objects found a new meaning, serving as vehicles of social memory and very often remaining embedded in a legendary history of the new structure. This practice of fluid transfer and reutilization affected not only epigraphic objects, but also valuable architectural elements: their distribution worked not only within a single building complex (let us recall the multiple repositioning of the portals in Imam ʽAwn al-Din Shrine), but even across the city. We have had occasion to describe several such instances: the Atabeg-period pillars from the al-Nuri Mosque transferred to the Hanafi prayer hall at the Nabi Jirjis Mosque, the wide occurrence of the subtle bundled columns with lyra-shaped capitals,37 and the reinstallations of mihrabs (e.g., in the Shrine of Banat al-Hasan). This phenomenon should make scholars constantly cautious about the authenticity of interior decorative elements, which, without any possibility of verifying the situation in its physical state, makes any chronological and contextual inferences very fragile. The following considerations about formal features of Mosul’s Islamic architecture do not entirely follow the classification of the buildings in the catalogue, which is made on a different basis, particularly the prevailing

3  A CITY CONTEXTUALIZED 

305

recent functions of the complexes. On the contrary, here we attempt to identify the original purposes of the constructions, according to their analysis above and formal features of their medieval components. The pair of monumental congregational mosques built in a very short time span during the 560–570s/1170s demonstrates the enormous economic potential and prestige of their patrons, as well as the situation of the demographically growing and prosperous city. The al-Nuri Mosque was, according to our reconstruction, a synthesis of a Seljuq-period hypostyle mosque (accentuated by a vast maqsura dome in front of the main mihrab) with an explicit allusion to the Umayyad Mosque at Damascus, and represented a unique royal mosque, not only in Mosul but also in the whole of North Iraq. Its extraordinarily rich decorative program, combining painted stucco and stonework, was quite distinct from the sober architectural style adopted in the later period of Nur al-Din’s reign. The al-Nuri Mosque probably put the stress on these “classical” decorative elements to evoke a connection with regional traditions—in this case, the Sasanian and early ʽAbbasid traditions of monumental stucco decoration. Rare, extraordinarily decorated buildings, founded by Nur al-Din elsewhere in North al-Jazira and Syria, have been similarly interpreted (Raby 2004). There is circumstantial evidence that the stucco-decorated walls proliferated much more in Mosul’s monumental interiors (the Mosques of al-Mujahidi and Shaykh al-Shatt?, the Qara Saray Palace, the Shrine of ʽAwn al-Din?) and can probably be assigned to the characteristic features of the regional architecture of the Atabeg era. The absence of information about some other important formal elements of the building (e.g., the form of the ceiling of the prayer hall, the appearance of the inner facades, and the existence of the entrance iwan) prevents us from making a more detailed stylistic classification. Even the more fragmentary al-Mujahidi Mosque was basically of the same type. Its magnificent maqsura dome probably even had slightly larger dimensions than the al-Nuri Mosque, while the adjacent prayer hall was probably of a slightly lower height. However, a ground plan of the prayer hall remains unclear and it is impossible to determine whether it tended to a symmetric, two-aisled plan with large square bays, as was the case of the al-Nuri Mosque, or whether some other solution was applied, such as, for example, a three-aisled model where the central domed bay is set over the width of two of them, as in the Great Mosques of Mardin and Dunaysir. Unlike the al-Nuri Mosque, the exterior of the maqsura dome of the al-Mujahidi Mosque was probably cladded with terracotta tiles and the complex probably had no minaret.

306 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Apart from congregational mosques, it is possible to compare buildings only intended for funeral and commemorative functions, usually simple domed structures on a square plan. In addition to many formal and functional differences, the group differs from congregational mosques also in one conspicuous aspect: the structures were never qibla-oriented (their orientation varied between 130° and 170°, while qibla in Mosul is 192°) and their deviation from qibla was so high in some cases (up to 60°) that their possible subsidiary purpose as prayer halls seems doubtful. Although the shrines and most of the mausoleums were equipped with mihrabs, either these were fitted secondarily or their authentic origin together with the building is questionable (see infra). The shrines and mausoleums in Mosul differed mainly, and very markedly, in size (Fig.  3.5). The lengths of the sides of mausoleums were between 5 m and 8 m, and of shrines between 9 m and 12 m. The entrance to mausoleums was most often from the east (6 cases + 1 uncertain), and sporadically from the north (Imam Ibrahim) or from the south (Shaykh Ibrahim), while the entrance to shrines was from the north (or, more precisely, from the northwest) in all cases. We explain this difference by the conjecture that the majority of tombs were erected as isolated structures in cemeteries, sharing a uniform orientation of entrances, and were only

Fig. 3.5  Ground plans of medieval shrines and mausoleums in Mosul: (a) Shaykh al-Shatt, (b) Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim, (c) Imam ʽAwn al-Din, (d) Imam al-Bahir, (e) Imam ʽAbd al-Rahman, (f) Shaykh Fathi, (g) Imam Ibrahim, (h) Nabi Jirjis, (i) Imam ʽAli al-Asghar. Blue–medieval nuclei, grey–Ottoman phases, white–modern constructions

3  A CITY CONTEXTUALIZED 

307

secondarily supplemented by adjacent constructions of diverse purposes. The shrines, on the contrary, found from the beginning a firm place in winged, multipurpose complexes of buildings flanking courtyards (S. Blair uses the metaphoric term “little cities of God” for the shine complexes: Blair 1990). The building traces of the shrines prove this integration into larger units (clearly in the case of the Shrines of Imam ʽAwn al-Din and Imam al-Bahir), but the arrangement of these adjoining buildings cannot be reconstructed, as they have completely disappeared. The Madrasa al-­ Badriya provides some clues and a proof that we must reckon with the existence of these complexes in Mosul, but we are not sure here about the dating of its components. A conical double-shell roof, either polyhedral (Imam Yahya ibn al-­ Qasim Shrine) or ribbed, consisting of 8, 12, or 16 ribs, was the most conspicuous external indication of venerated tombs and shrines. The analysis of building development shows that cone-like domes originated over a long time span from the seventh/thirteenth century, and most of them come from reconstructions in the al-Jalili period. A more detailed chronology based on the detailed dome shape and number of ribs (e.g., al-­ Diwahji 1952, 102; Mawsuʽat al-Mawsil al-Hadariya 1992, III, 306–19) will no longer be verifiable. This marking of tombs, whether real or symbolic, was so widespread and self-evident that it could serve to IS as a reliable indicator for the selection of buildings for demolition. The three large shrines, built by Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ in the second third of the seventh/thirteenth century, probably differed typologically and architecturally from any existing building production in Mosul; the builder’s intention was to create dominant structures that were visible from afar and to meet this aim monumental tower-like shrines, derived from Persian tradition of funeral architecture, were used.38 Beyond this, however, there were significant differences between the shrines, beginning with the level of building material used and ending with the extent to which the interior and exterior facades were designed and how consistently their decorative programs could be developed. In this sense, the most complete and harmonious appears to be the shrine erected in Badr al-Din’s funeral madrasa, while in case of the Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din, it seems there were difficulties in adapting to the preexisting building substance.39 The Shrine of Imam al-Bahir can only be compared to both of them to a limited extent, due to its substantially altered state of preservation and our very limited level of knowledge. All three structures, nevertheless, shared some features: a tripartite articulation of walls, the usage of large blind pointed

308 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

arches framed by shallow-recessed rectangular niches, circumferential dados with inscription bands, and high-quality and sophisticated combinations of decorative materials and techniques (stone-cut portals, mihrabs, ornamental panels, inlaid marble tiles, stucco?, muqarnas ceilings). The formal development of these shrines reached its apex in the magnificent Ilkhanid-period reconstruction of the Imam ʽAwn al-Din Shrine, during which the lower stone building was provided with a brick superstructure representing  more than 1.5 times its own height, richly decorated, and topped by a massive cone-like roof. Its muqarnas vault was close, in its spatial geometry and iconography, to Iranian works of the beginning of the eighth/fourteenth century. In connection with the shrines, it is necessary to mention two more buildings, which are completely unique to Mosul. The first is the Madrasa al-Kamaliya, now known more widely as the Mosque of Shaykh al-Shatt, which has so far received only marginal attention (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920, 233–4; al-Diwahji 1957, 105–6; al-Janabi 1982, 52; Uluçam 1989, 118–9). The building is a striking landmark of the city skyline located on the banks of the Tigris at the northeastern foot of al-Qulayʽat. Its origins, as mentioned in the previous chapter, are traditionally linked with the foundation of a mosque, ribat, and madrasa by Zayn al-Din ʽAli Küčük before 563/1167–1168, probably in the 540s (Patton 1982, 485). However, the building does not contain any unambiguous chronological features, except for a late inscription referring to a repair in 1219/1804. The tomb, attached to the mosque, was demolished by IS (see Sect. 2.2.4); the mosque itself was largely destroyed on 18 July 2017, at the very end of the liberation of the city. Only the northern and eastern sides of its perimeter walls remained (Fig. 1.6). It is not possible to devote more space to the analysis of the building; we can only summarize that the brick structure with traces of significant repairs on the south side was built on an octagonal floor plan, which turned into a 16-sided drum and a hemispherical dome, which was probably not an original part of the building. Also probably secondarily, the lower half of the building was expanded into a prismatic form. The walls of the interior are divided by high, pointed-arched niches, in which openings running to the ground and blind niches originally alternated. A mihrab was secondarily built in the southern niche (Fig. 3.5a). The domain of octagonal buildings is Iran. They occurred much more rarely in neighboring areas of Iraq, Azerbaijan, Anatolia, and Central Asia. All known medieval octagons were used as mausoleums (famous tomb

3  A CITY CONTEXTUALIZED 

309

towers in Iran) or symbolic cenotaphs, the function of madrasa being ruled out (Blair 1983; al-Janabi 1982, Fig.  4, 21; Aslanapa 1971, 108, 125). The considerable dimensions of the building (there were approx. 11.2 m between opposite sides) indicate that we should either include it in a narrow group of large Mosul shrines or consider it to be an extra-large mausoleum. The octagonal “pavilion” in Shaykh ʽAbd al-Samad Shrine at Natanz, built in 389/999, seems to be its closest parallel, although it is impossible to date the Shaykh al-Shatt Mosque more precisely at the moment.40 It is unlikely that the existence of the shrine would not be reflected in the sources at all; rather, we should consider the possibility that the structure is hidden behind one of the unlocalized shrines or tombs (we propose one possible identification below). The Nabi Yunus Mosque at Nineveh, a compact, two-story, multiroom complex, also went beyond all typological criteria. Its specific form was determined by the extremely long development and extraordinary significance of the building, demonstrated by the almost respectful leveling of construction adjustments and shifts of meaning. It began with the Assyrian Palace and Mar Yonan Monastery, which was probably adapted for the joint veneration of the Prophet Jonah by Muslims and Christians in the Hamdanid period and was only fully appropriated as an Islamic shrine from 767/1365–1366 onward. Nor did a sequence of later refurbishments wipe away the original monastic plan with a church, which could be traced back in the available documentation. As the previous chapter indicated, the construction of architectural landmarks in Mosul was spatially conditioned, always taking into account the overall concept of urban space and actively co-creating this space. A space was a key dimension of any act of patronage. However, concepts of organization and order of the urban landscape underwent significant changes during the city’s medieval development, which originated in the different priorities of the Mosul rulers and other elite members, but were to some extent also a reflection of the demands of the broadest layers of the urban population. From the end of the fifth/eleventh century until the middle of the sixth/twelfth century, maximal emphasis was placed on military architecture, the firm demarcation of the urban space, and its transformation into a fortress, which was conditioned by a significant territorial expansion of the Mosul emirate under Atabeg ʽImad al-Din Zengi. The citadel was built as a compact, well-fortified complex, which remained a distinctly military fortress without a residential function throughout this period

310 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

(unlike Damascus, Aleppo, or Arbil: see Berthier 2006, 162; Tabbaa 1997, 53–69; Nováček et al. 2013). In the print by F. Thomas from 1853 (Place 1867–1870, III, Planche 79), the only more detailed depiction of the citadel before the late-Ottoman reconstruction, a heavily fortified northern gate (Bab al-Sirr) with ruins of a bridge over a moat and an entrance barbican (?) were captured. Given the Shiʽi orientation of the Hamdanid and ʽUqaylid dynasties and their overall helpfulness to Christians, the development of Shiʽi and Christian areas in the city could be expected, but there are no reports of this. Paradoxically, the only evidence of the foundation of the ʽUqaylid period concerns the rise of the Sunni Madrasa al-Nizamiya. With the changed conditions of patronage under the successors of ʽImad al-Din Zengi (see Patton 1982, 323–4 for details), considerable investment began to be made in the urban development. In the third quarter of the sixth/twelfth century, it was associated with the resettlement of the attractive area where Mosul had been founded, that is, around the restored Umayyad Mosque on the slopes of al-Qulayʽat, especially the eastern ones, near the river bank. The Atabegs themselves, but to a much greater extent representatives of the strongest Mosul families, took an active part in creating the panorama of the city, especially through sacral buildings (the congregational mosque itself with a new minaret, but also other, smaller mosques) and multifunctional complexes providing education, social care, science, and spaces for prayer. This trend culminated, in the late 1170s, in the construction of a new suburb around the monumental al-Mujahidi Mosque. However, the generous foundation of this urban complex was preceded by the founding of a new congregational mosque by Nur al-Din, which was a turning point in the building development of the city. The iconic Sunni ruler Nur al-Din did not intervene in the development of the city until the end of his reign, and the establishment of the mosque was undoubtedly part of his political agenda, which he tried to impose on the city and which had an anti-Christian dimension (Tabbaa 2002) but was not clearly anti-Shiʽi. The central inscription of the maqsura dome, listing the Prophet, four rightly guided Caliphs, and also the Imams al-Hasan and al-Husayn, created an inclusive devotional space that not only united the Sunni legal schools but also was acceptable to some Shiʽis (Tabbaa 2001, 22). Al-Nuri Mosque is thus the earliest evidence of the top-down policy of Sunni-Shiʽa convergence in Mosul, which continued and intensified under Caliph al-Nasir li-Din Allah (1180–1225; Mulder 2019, 98). It

3  A CITY CONTEXTUALIZED 

311

would be interesting to see how Nur al-Din’s imperial idea took hold in Mosul, but the sources are silent on the mosque for two centuries, beginning soon after its construction was completed. Some authors interpreted this hiatus as a rapid decline of the whole project (e.g., Patton 1982, 342), which might not have been the case considering the testimonies of Ibn Battuta and Hamd Allah Mustawfi, who refer to the mosque as a prospering site. The al-Mujahidi Mosque was completed only eight years after the Mosque of al-Nuri. It is difficult to find an explanation for the establishment of two monumental mosques in Mosul in such a short period of time, unless the founder was following an ambitious scheme to expand the city southwards. The mosque is definitely an eloquent proof of the self-­ confidence of emir Mujahid al-Din Qaymaz, recently appointed commander of the citadel. The expansion of the building activity extra muros by Mujahid al-Din Qaymaz foreshadows an increased interest in the development of the area in front of the city walls, previously filled mainly with cemeteries and gypsum mining areas. In this process of expansion, we can also see a specific phase of the creation of an Islamic sacred landscape (Mulder 2019, 247–8), as the essential components of this construction were venerated tombs, Sufi lodges and shrines, mosques, and madrasas. A wide range of believers took part in this process, from Sufis and scholars (ʽulamaʼ) of various levels to patrons of variable social status. In this sense, it was an expression of the piety of whole urban population. In the inner city, a similar process was simultaneously concentrated in the only undeveloped space between the citadel and the city, in the eastern part of the so-called midan, but it was much more exclusive. It was associated with the founding of the funeral madrasas of the last Zengid Atabegs. Their madrasa-tomb complexes were only preserved in fragments (the Shrines of Imam Abd al-Rahman and Imam Muhsin). Sporadic written references and preserved remains of decoration (high-quality stonework, inlaid marble slabs) constitute evidence of the above-average artistic quality of the madrasa interiors. The ideology of these complexes cannot be precisely reconstructed; one can only suppose that the foundation of these buildings arose from an intention to secure the founder’s eternal life by commemoration through the daily recitation of the Quran at the founder’s tomb, as was characteristic for other funeral madrasas (Hillenbrand 2000, 190–2).

312 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Despite these isolated realizations, the total volume of the architectural patronage of the Zengids in Mosul remained relatively modest. Only the last Atabeg, Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ, developed really extensive, diversified patronage of art and sciences (Hagedorn 1994). His inclination to Shiʽa, which has been a source of speculation by many authors (e.g., Sarre and Herzfeld 1920, 251; al-Diwahji 1958, 76–8; Patton 1982, 10; Tabbaa 2002, 350; Snelders 2010, 101), does not, in fact, have any reliable support in the available sources. The problem of his Shiʽi orientation was distorted by the large number of shrines attributed to him in which references to the genealogy of the Twelve Imams appeared. Critical reconsideration of these cases has clearly shown that his patronage can be challenged in all these cases or remains an unsupported presumption. The attribution of these features to Badr al-Din was obviously the product of an a priori construction or interpretive stereotype of Mosul historians from the eighteenth century onward. Indeed, his three demonstrable sacral realizations—the Imam al-Bahir, Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim, and Imam ʽAwn al-Din Shrines—were not conceived as Shiʽi shrines, but conveyed a universalistic message of respect toward the Prophet and his family. We argue that their shift to expression of the Shiʽi ideology was a result of later reinterpretations during the eighth/fourteenth century and even later (see infra). Today, the purposes of Badr al-Din’s religious foundations can only be ascertained from the preserved epigraphy because the decisive source for their comprehension, the endowment deeds (waqfiyas) of the new structures, have not been preserved.41 The expressed intentions are ultimately very personal. The foundation inscription inside the Imam ʽAwn al-Din Shrine is most explicit in this respect, when describing the foundation as a voluntary act of donation intended to please God and as an expression of Badr al-Din’s affection for the family of the Prophet Muhammad, for which he expects God’s forgiveness. Similarly, in the Imam Yahya Shrine’s epigraphy, he asks God to accept his good deed and save the reward he expects to receive for it for the next life (Suyufi 1956, 101, No. 401; Thesaurus d´Épigraphie Islamique, No. 26065). Undoubtedly, the founder’s concern for self-salvation was among the dominant factors behind these foundations. We can find an analogy in the motives of the founders of funerary madrasas, who prescribed the content of activities in such a way as to sufficiently ensure the posthumous religious and commemorative service to founders at their tombs (see supra; and Pahlitzsch 2001). In the case of Badr al-Din’s foundations, however, we can, for the time being, rule out the existence of the (currently unknown) tomb of the founder at

3  A CITY CONTEXTUALIZED 

313

any of the three shrines. At the same time, however, we are faced with the problem of how to explain the presence of the unnamed wooden cenotaphs in the Imam Yahya and Imam ʽAwn al-Din Shrines, which were provably commissioned during the life of the patron. We obviously do not have enough data to solve this problem, which should be the subject of further research. Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that the dedication of the cenotaphs can by no means be related to the period of their fabrication, and that there is no evidence to indicate whether their location in the shrines’ interiors is original or not. The stress that the shrines’ decoration put on the family of the Prophet Muhammad (ahl al-bayt), both in the invocations and Quranic references, and the absence of any original identification with particular venerated figures, could be understood as a means of realizing Badr al-Din’s ambition to create a kind of universal sacred space that would comply with the sentiments of the wider masses of the city’s inhabitants; respect for the family of the Prophet Muhammad has been inherent in all Muslim traditions, without any exceptions. It is also reasonable to consider this aspect as a strategy to attract as many visitors as possible to make ziyara (a pious visit) to the cenotaphs. The connection between commemoration and ziyara is apparent from the well-considered distribution of the shrines around the inner perimeter of the fortified city, in the vicinity of the city gates (Fig. 3.4). This location is by no means incidental and might have been determined by the need for a collective form of ziyara. Although Badr al-Din’s shrines were not qibla-oriented, they have been, probably secondarily, furnished by mihrabs—in two cases of unusual corner form so as to correct the remarkable deviation of the structures from the qibla. At least in the case of the Imam ʽAwn al-Din Shrine, this might have been the result of a complicated search for a new functional organization of the older building. Moreover, two of the mihrabs were commemorative “mihrab images” (or flat mihrabs), and all three bore a depiction of lamp as a symbol of divine light—comprehensible and highly valuable iconography for all ʽAlid visitors, both Sunni and Shiʽi (Mulder 2019, 81). Thus, mihrabs seem to have reflected a supplementary, originally unanticipated solution, which was intended to meet the needs of a broad spectrum of worshipers. After the abolition of the ʽAbbasid Sunni Caliphate and the ascendency of the Ilkhanids, political, social, and religious structures began to change. The first Ilkhanid rulers were Buddhists without any distinctive attitude toward individual Islamic denominations. This situation made it possible

314 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

for Shiʽi groups and Christians to exercise greater ambitions. The dominant position of Sunni ʽulamaʼ could no longer be taken for granted and actually experienced considerable decline. This state of confessional ambiguity on the part of the ruling elite began to take on more pronounced contours after the Ilkhanid ruler Ghazan Khan (1295–1304) converted to Islam in 1295 and started systematically favoring descendants of the Prophet Muhammad (sg. sayyid) by establishing special institutions, called dar al-siyada, funded by profits from royal charitable endowments (awqaf ). These institutions were established in all major cities of the Ilkhanate, including Mosul (al-Ghiyathi 2010, 56–7), and were, no doubt, an incentive to enhance the social as well as the political position of this religious hereditary nobility. It was even argued that Ghazan’s intention was to make sayyids the core of a society that, through the prestige of its kinship with the Prophet, could alleviate urban conflicts and stabilize society (Akio Iwatake cit. in Pfeiffer 2014, 146, Note 56). The position of sayyids was fully manifested in Mosul during the reign of the last Ilkhan Abu Saʽid Bahadur Khan (1316–1335), when the governorship of the city was bestowed on the “virtuous sayyid” ʽAlaʼ al-Din ʽAli, known by his nickname Haydar (according to the testimony of Ibn Battuta from 1327; Ibn Battuta 1962, II, 350). Another sign of their prominence was the fact that sayyids were—in two cases—proven, or otherwise very probable, instigators of costly tomb/shrine reconstructions in Mosul at least throughout the Ilkhanid period. The two proven cases were the Shrines of Panja ʽAli and ʽAli al-Asghar. The Panja ʽAli (ʽAli’s Palm) Shrine, already mentioned by al-Harawi (2002, 63; here referred to as Mashhad al-Tirh; see also Note 31), was most probably a Shiʽi shrine, which might have originated much earlier. There certainly must have been some continuity of Shiʽi manifestations in the urban landscape, at least from earlier periods that had been dominated by Shiʽi dynasties (Hamdanids, ʽUqaylids). Generally, however, their presence was documented only sporadically (Patton 1982, 28), and never by material sources until the end of the Atabeg period. This situation was to change with the advent of the Ilkhanid domination. Shortly after their capture of the city, the Panja ʽAli Shrine was adopted and reconstructed by local sayyids (in 686/1287–1288). The commemorative inscription below the newly commissioned mihrab especially recognized the leadership of the representative (naqib) of the Prophet’s local descendants, Nasir al-Din Muhammad.42 The mihrab, stored in the Iraq Museum, contains several elements clearly referring to the Shiʽi context (Sarre and Herzfeld 1911,

3  A CITY CONTEXTUALIZED 

315

Taf. IIC): the mihrab’s two side niches designated for displaying the palm print of Imam ʽAli and a hoof print of his horse (al-Janabi 1982, 177–8),43 the ayat al-wilaya (Quran 5:55), one of the crucial Quranic verses for Shiʽis (in their interpretation designating the leadership of ʽAli after the Prophet Muhammad), and the enumeration of the Twelve Imams, from ʽAli ibn Abi Talib through his sons al-Hasan and al-Husayn and the subsequent descendants up to the Twelfth Imam Muhammad ibn al-Hasan. Starting from the first decades of the eighth/fourteenth century, a number of earlier mausolea were adapted into small shrines and legendary tombs of descendants of the Prophet (referred to as imams), both in the lineage of Imam al-Hasan and Imam al-Husayn. Following the example of Panja ʽAli, a characteristic feature of some of these shrines was the incorporation of the names of the Twelve Imams into the shrine’s decoration (on mihrab, window, sarcophagus, etc.), along with the name of the Prophet Muhammad, and, sometimes, his daughter Fatima (e.g., the Shrines of Imam Yahya, Imam Ibrahim, Imam ʽAli al-Asghar, Imam al-­ Bahir). Together they are called the Fourteen Infallibles (al-maʽsumuna al-arbaʽata ʽashar), and they are occasionally joined by the Prophet’s wife Khadija. The typical sample of the inscription, as documented in the Imam Ibrahim Shrine, reads as follows: In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. May the blessing of God be upon Muhammad al-Mustafa, ʽAli al-Murtada, al-Hasan al-­ Zaki, al-Husayn al-Shahid, ʽAli Zayn al-ʽAbidin, Muhammad al-Baqir, Jaʽfar al-Sadiq, Musa al-Kazim, ʽAli al-Rida, Muhammad al-Jawwad, ʽAli al-Hadi, Hasan al-ʽAskari, and the Proof [of God] Muhammad, prayer and salutation be upon them all. (al-Sufi 1940, 37–8)

The Twelfth Imam Muhammad (ibn al-Hasan) is always quoted with the epithet “al-Hujja,” meaning “the Proof” [of God], which is used by Twelver Shiʽis to stress his exclusive role as the last imam who lives in occultation (ghayba) and one day will return as the awaited Mahdi.44 These particular cases of shrine adaptations should be taken as evidence that at least some groups of Mosul’s descendants of the Prophet Muhammad (sayyids) inclined toward Shiʽa. The modes of identification in the confessionally turbulent post-Atabeg period, when the alien Ilkhanid elite was still searching for its religious identity by switching between Sunna and Shiʽa, are hard to ascertain. It is, however, clear that new shrines of imams became dominant elements in the changing post-Atabeg religious

316 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

landscape. In contrast, Sunni madrasas, the typical product of the Atabeg period, and probably congregational mosques as well, were gradually declining.45 Among the buildings that were architecturally adapted and whose religious meaning was transformed were the three shrines of Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ: the Shrines of Imam al-Bahir (reconstructed in 699/1299–1300), Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim (717/1317–1318 or 719/1319–1320), and Imam ʽAwn al-Din (before 725/1325?). It is noteworthy that in the Ilkhanid period there is still a lack of clear evidence that these shrines were identified by the names of their respective imams. Perhaps only the secondarily inscribed name of Yahya ibn al-Qasim on the sarcophagus in his shrine could hypothetically be ascribed to this period. We are similarly uncertain about the patronages of the three reconstructions. While that of the Imam al-Bahir Shrine is totally unknown, the Shrine of Imam Yahya was reconstructed by its administrator (khadim). His interest in reinterpreting the shrine through the Twelver Shiʽi symbolism is evident. However, it remains unknown whether it was an autonomous decision from the position of administrator, or an assignment from another person, such as the leaders (naqibs) of Prophet’s descendants, who provably sponsored some of Mosul’s fourteenth-century reconstructions (see supra). The ʽAwn al-Din Shrine, on the other hand, seems to be quite a different case. Although the shrine stood adjacent to the burial ground of Mosul naqibs, who could naturally be anticipated as possible sponsors, the reconstruction was very probably the result of the patronage of a member of the imperial ruling elite. The analysis of the fragmentarily preserved dedication inscription on the facade (see Sect. 2.2.2.2) revealed that the sponsor identified himself as the “king of the emirs” (malik al-umaraʼ) and “star of the summits” (falak al-maʽali). These two monarchal titles had a long history. They were used by, among others, Atabeg rulers (including Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ). The point, however, that made the inscription fragment distinctive, was the third preserved part of the name, which can be reconstructed as “ghiyath al-wara” (help of mankind). It was probably a completely original epithet, having not yet appeared in any known documented monumental inscriptions.46 We hypothesize that it pertained to a high ranking official who partially adopted earlier regal titulature to integrate himself into the inherited forms of epigraphic representations of power in the city space, but differed by inserting an original component (possibly components) into the titulature. Given the anticipated date of reconstruction of the Imam ʽAwn al-Din Shrine (before

3  A CITY CONTEXTUALIZED 

317

725/1325), it would be reasonable to consider the governor of the Diyar Bakr and al-Jazira provinces, centered in Mosul, emir Sutay Bek (1309–1331), to be a suitable candidate (see supra).47 His sponsorship of the reconstruction of the Imam ʽAwn al-Din Shrine, the most imposing and demanding project of the Ilkhanid period, would undoubtedly be a good opportunity for him to make an indelible mark on the Mosul cityscape. Sutay Bek does appear to have been concerned, during his long rule, with the building of the city. According to al-Safadi (1971, 140), he built a mausoleum for himself on the western bank of the Tigris. This mausoleum has been identified with the Madrasa of al-Tughraʼi in the al-­Shahwan neighborhood (al-Diwahji 1954, 107, Note 80), which seems to be an entirely unsupported idea. The large octagonal structure of the Shaykh al-Shatt Mosque, with its apparent Iranian connotations and clearly commemorative purpose is, by all means, a better fit as Sutay Bek’s mausoleum. In order to verify both of these ascriptions, it will be necessary to carry out more detailed research on the prosopography and social history of the city in both the Ilkhanid and Jalaʼirid periods. Future research will also have to search for an explanation for the possible connection between the reconstruction of the Imam ʽAwn al-Din Shrine and the establishment of the adjacent elite burial ground of the local naqibs. As was already mentioned, no original dedication inscription has been preserved on any of the three above-mentioned shrines of Badr al-Din. This also applies to other shrines, with the exception of those whose identifications we know from inscriptions on sarcophagi (e.g., Shrines of Imam ʽAli al-Hadi, Imam ʽAli al-Asghar). For this reason, we are mostly unable to determine more precisely when the uninscribed identifications stabilized. Only the Ottoman cadastral survey registers (tapu defteri) in the sixteenth century processed our sites of interest under the names of imams as we know them today.48 However, the specific identities of the imams to whom the shrines were dedicated remained unstable. Until the eighteenth century the shrines, in general, were not accorded any systematic scholarly attention. Even though we can only resort to negative evidence, it would not be an exaggeration to say that no one was actually interested in them, or that they were paid very limited attention (e.g., al-Harawi 2002, 63–4). This, however, changed in the third decade of the eighteenth century after the Mosul scholar, al-Mulla Ahmad ibn al-­ Kawla, and subsequently, his son Muhammad led the very first Salafi campaign against the veneration of Mosul shrines and the societal influence of

318 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

their representatives (shaykhs). It was even reported that the progenitor of the Wahhabi movement, Muhammad ibn ʽAbd al-Wahhab, witnessed the fierce ideological campaign questioning the prophethood of the Prophet Jirjis and the authenticity of his tomb while studying in Mosul—an event that might have influenced his later activities (Raʼuf 1975, 414–5; see also Cook 1992, 196). The Salafi campaigns in Mosul provoked a reaction from advocates of the shrines’ legitimacy, who started to produce apologetical treatises and systematically research the biographies of Mosul’s patron saints (Raʼuf 1975, 411–4). Their work represents the earliest comprehensive source of information on the shrines, and is often derived from unreliable folk tradition and speculations, sometimes based on incorrect readings of imams’ genealogies incorporated into the shrines’ epigraphic decoration. Yet, the scope and the systematic character of their work had no parallel in the earlier history of the city.49 Interestingly, the authors often significantly differed in their findings. With regard to the identification of the imams of the ʽAlid shrines, they reached full agreement only in one case (Imam ʽAli al-Asghar). Otherwise, they did not know the identity of the imam at all, or, at least, differed in a nasab (series of patronymics showing an ancestry of the imam), that is, indicating more than one possible candidate. Modern scholarly research has not added much precision to the findings and has abandoned the field in situations where the identities of the imams to whom the shrines were dedicated remain unknown. Thus, the situation in Mosul corroborates the fluid dynamics of meaning of Islamic commemorative structures.

Notes 1. The first report on the city’s position in relation to the river relates to the construction of the al-Makshuf Canal by the city’s governor al-Hurr ibn Yusuf in the early second/eighth century, according to which the impetus for the construction was the great distance from the town to the river (see infra). From the data collected by al-Diwahji (al-Diwahji 2015, 45–50), and from the historical plans of the city, it follows that from the Atabeg to the early Ottoman period (sixth/twelfth–eleventh/seventeenth century) the river flowed in close proximity to the eastern fortified side of the city, except for the southern section around the al-Mujahidi Mosque, where it turned to the east (Niebuhr 1778, II, Tab. XLVI). In the nineteenth century, it was the opposite: in the northern part of the city, between ʽAyn al-Kabrit (Sulphur Spring) and the Qara Saray palace, the stream was relatively far from the fortifications; in the southern part, on the other hand, it

3  A CITY CONTEXTUALIZED 

319

was close to the al-Mujahidi Mosque. During the second half of the twentieth century, the situation reversed again: in the northern part the Tigris today reaches the foot of the cliff, forming an active cut bank, while between al-­Mujahidi Mosque and the river bank a 200 m-wide point bar has sedimented. 2. An unpublished photograph of E. Herzfeld from 1907, the anonymous photograph from 1909 (Anonym 1909, 116), and the Hakki’s plan of the city from 1323/1904–1905. 3. This consideration is conditioned by the assumption that the building was founded on the surface of the terrain. The increase, of course, was not subject to any rules and did not take place evenly; it can only be assumed that the terrain grew more dynamically in the vicinity of shrines and worshipped graves, where most burials took place. 4. This is evidenced by the description of the flood from 762–763  in the Chronicle of Zuqnin (Harrak 1999, 205). 5. C.  Robinson (2000, 66–8) made a convincing argument in favor of the hypothesis that the monastery was not identical with the fortress; the opposite opinion of Honigmann is, however, still presented in the literature (cf. Wheatley 2001, 287). 6. “Al-Hisnan” is a reference to two fortresses: the western one (in Mosul) and the eastern one (in Nineveh), denoting the broader area of Mosul, sprawling on both sides of the Tigris. During the conquest, the eastern fortress was conquered by force, whereas the western one voluntarily surrendered and the jizya (per capita tax) was imposed on its residents (alBaladhuri 1987, 463–4). 7. The principal source, devoted specifically to the description of the arrangement of the city’s tribal quarters, was composed by al-Azdi. Unfortunately, the manuscript has been lost (Robinson 2000, 73). 8. C.  Robinson (2000, 74) suggested its identification with the Mar Zena Church, transformed into the al-Khallal Mosque before 634/1236 (Fiey 1959, 33; Dhunnun 1967, 227). However, this location is too distant to be in touch with the mosque area. 9. Revised sources and archaeological data, nevertheless, indicate that the tight connection between the congregational mosque and the dar alimara at Kufa was not a result of the initial phase of settlement but of later development during the Marwanid period (Santi 2018). 10. See al-Baladhuri (1987, 464–5) when describing the site after the removal of the first governor ʽUtba ibn Farqad. 11. The toponym of Hesna ʽEbraye was, nevertheless, used long after the founding of Mosul in the Christian sources, but its meaning gradually changed and blurred. In the first half of the third/ninth century, it referred to the Christian quarter, located in close proximity to Islamic Mosul,

320 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

according to topographical indications in its northern neighborhood near the Tigris, probably in the vicinity of the Church of Mar Ishoʽyab (Thomas of Marga 1893, II, 337, 461, 469). In the thirteenth century, the location of the Monastery of Mar Mikhaʼil (6 km north of the city) was described as being “in Hesna ʽEbraye” (Robinson 2000, 70, Note 58), which, in our opinion, indicates a loss of awareness of the original location of the toponym. Alternatively, it could be an archaic designation for Christian Mosul in general. 12. See, however, Note 9. 13. This church has been plausibly identified with the Ancient Syriac al-­Tahira Church in the al-Qalʽa Neighborhood (biʽa al-ʽatiqa; Fiey op. cit.), 235 m SSE of the Minaret al-Maksura. The present-day church is a modern construction. 14. The gate shared its name with Bab Sinjar of the late ʽUqaylid and Atabeg fortification, which stood until 1915. However, Bab Sinjar by al-Azdi, who wrote in the first half of the fourth/tenth century, was mentioned in the context of events that happened in 129/746–747, that is, in the period when the outer fortification by no means yet existed. The toponym thus might denominate a gate facing toward Sinjar, that is, on the western side of the fortified core of the early misr. 15. Tell al-ʽIbada Mosque still stands 180 m north of the Imam al-Bahir Shrine on the southern foot of a small tell. 16. Patton 1982, 68, 478. Regarding its distant location, the tomb apparently has nothing in common with the suburban misr and most probably reflected a relocation of Mosul public cemetery (maqbarat ahl al-Mawsil) from misr to desert grounds around 137/754–755 (al-Diwahji 1951, 228). 17. Robinson (2000, 77) maintains that it was “under the Marwanids that the Kufan pattern was broken and the garrison transformed into a city.” 18. This idea is based on Ibn Hawqal’s statement that Arabs used to have khitat in Mosul (Ibn Hawqal 1992, 195), which seems to have been a historic reminiscence rather than a description of the present state. 19. Even though we have to count on the exaggeration of the chronicler, the considerable depth stated suggests the combination of an open canal with subterranean tunneled work (a qanat, karez). 20. The historical overhead imagery available to us does not enable us to verify potential traces of the canal on the western outskirts of the city, since the earliest aerial photographs taken in the 1940s (see Sect. 2.1.5) already captured a heavily disrupted and built-up landscape. 21. The remnants of the palace were still recognizable at the beginning of the seventh/thirteenth century, as Ibn al-Athir composed his al-Kamil fi altarikh in a village in the vicinity of the palace (Ibn al-Athir 1987, V, 175–6; al-Diwahji 1982, 176).

3  A CITY CONTEXTUALIZED 

321

22. However, this generally shared idea is contradicted by the historical reference to two city gates in this allegedly “unfortified” period: Bab al-­Qassabin in the southeastern part of the city, perhaps leading to the river (mentioned by al-Azdi within the year 189/804–805, and 420/1029–1030), and Bab al-Jassasa in the western part of the city (mentioned in 430/1038–1039), undoubtedly at the end of the eponymous street attested to by al-Maqdisi (al-Diwahji 1947, 127–8; Patton 1982, 45; al-Maqdisi 1877, 138). Due to the fact that we do not know the position or function of these gates, this contradiction cannot currently be resolved. 23. The discussion so far has leaned toward either semicircular or the long rectangular shape of taylasan (Le Strange 1905, 106; Sarre and Herzfeld 1920, 209; Rousset 1996, 34; Whitcomb 1994, 162; Wheatley 2001, 377), coming from the actual shape of a head cloth, which is not the case. Abu al-Fidaʼ corroborates the scientific use of the term as a trapezoid with his annotated drawing of the shape of sea bays (Abu al-Fidaʼ 1840, 19). 24. The reconstruction of the ʽUqaylid city wall course can be reliably used as a base for the reconstruction of the extent of settlement in the previous period, because the city by no means expanded in the ʽUqaylid period (see infra). 25. The third/ninth century dating of flat mihrabs and tombstones, secondarily set in mosques in the southern part of the city (the al-ʽUmariya, al-­ Juwayjati and Shams al-Din Mosques; see Sarre and Herzfeld 1920, 283–6; al-Jumʽa 2012), seems not to be entirely plausible (see also Tabbaa 2001, 17). Rather, the lobed decoration of the flat mihrab appears to represent one typological group with the Atabeg mihrab from the Imam ʽAbd al-­ Rahman Shrine. Their presence in late mosques cannot serve as evidence of the settlement in the early Islamic period. 26. The isolated monastery Dayr al-Aʽla, founded by Gabriel of Kashkar in the first third of the eighth century (d. 121/739), was situated, in our opinion, further north, directly above the spring (Sachau 1919, 13; see map of Mosul by Felix Jones, 1855). We don’t find plausible the tradition that identified the Chaldean al-Tahira Church as the successor of Dayr al-Aʽla (Rücker 1932; see also Fiey 1959, 130). After the building of the citadel, the monastery did not figure in any topographic identifications concerning the northern suburb, which supports the conviction that it was actually extra muros from that time. 27. The spot is located by al-Diwahji (1982, 179) in the area along today’s Nineveh Street between the river bank and the intersection with al-Shaʽʽarin Street, in approximately the same place as the Umayyad Palace of al-­ Manqusha. Herzfeld’s idea that al-Murabbaʽa was identical with the fortified islet of Ij Qalʽa (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920, 215) is not convincing, being founded only on the relatively old dating of the al-Qalʽa Mosque

322 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

minaret (the sixth/twelfth century). Ij Qalʽa itself is only of the Ottoman date. 28. It is an inner security corridor between the wall and the city. 29. E. Herzfeld estimated the area of medieval city to 291,6  ha (Sarre and Herzfeld 1920, 204). 30. We can rarely locate isolated cases of foundation projects in other areas of the city: the Mosque of al-Mulla ʽAbd al-Hamid in the southern Shahr Suq area, or the al-Wazir Mosque in the southeastern commercial suburb. 31. Mashhad al-Tirh (the Shrine of the “Miscarried Foetus”), better known as Panja ʽAli (Kaff ʽAli; Suyufi 1956, 148–9, Note 2 by al-Diwahji), was described by Meri (2002, 184, Note 255) and similarly by Mulder (2019, 107, Note 31) as the place where Muhassin, the third son of Fatima and ʽAli, was miscarried. Although this association cannot be supported by any known historical source, the deduction is reasonable. Muhassin should not be confused with Imam Muhsin (ʽAbd al-Muhsin), who is associated with a different shrine (see Sect. 2.2.2.7). 32. According to Abu al-Fidaʼ (d. 1331), the citadel and a third of the walls were in ruins at the beginning of the eighth/fourteenth century (Abu al-Fidaʼ 1840, 285). However, Zakariya al-Qazwini (d. 1283) mentions the citadel among the important objects of the city and does not report any damage (al-Qazwini 1848, 309). 33. Hamd Allah Mustawfi (d. 1349) maintained that most of the structures that had been built by Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ were in ruins (Le Strange 1919, 102), which was not the case, according to our analysis, for all shrines built by him. 34. The slab was discovered in 1952 in a private house on the southern slope of Tell Hammam al-Zawiya, the suspected location of the Ilkhanid dar al-­imara, and was stored in Mosul Museum (al-Diwahji 1954, 107). 35. The Mosque and tomb of Qadib al-Ban was originally a Sufi lodge—the only such structure in our sample. The available documentation from the period before the demolition of the complex in 1957 includes no details about possible medieval remnants of the Sufi house. 36. The medieval origin of the Madrasa al-Badriya, a three-winged complex with an over-elevated iwan on the transverse axis and a central courtyard, remains a hypothesis (see Sect. 2.2.2.1). 37. This popular element, dated to the late sixth/twelfth or the first half of the seventh/thirteenth century, was found in many Islamic and Christian structures in Mosul; in the case of Islamic buildings, however, always in a secondary context (the Shaykh Fathi Shrine reconstructed either in 1131/1718–1719 or in 1258/1842–1843, the al-Nuri Mosque in 1281–1286/1864–1870, the Imam Yahya Shrine entrance portico (built after 1887), the Zayd ibn ʽAli Shrine, the Umm al-Tisʽa Shrine, the Imam Muhsin Shrine and Madrasa al-Nuriya, etc.). Already Y.  Tabbaa (2002,

3  A CITY CONTEXTUALIZED 

323

346) speculated—and the wide distribution of reutilized columns within a relatively short time span seems to corroborate this—that a large Christian ruin might have been one source of these architectural elements. 38. The difference is obvious when one compares Badr al-Din’s buildings with the austere medieval nucleus of the Tomb of Nabi Jirjis. Provided this core is not a completely new building from the eighth/fourteenth century but reflects the original spatial concept of the prophet’s cenotaph from the end of the sixth/twelfth century, we see that Badr al-Din’s realizations represented a qualitatively completely different level of shrine architecture. 39. The absence of knowledge about the ceiling and roofing, as well as the very fragmentary preservation of the interior decoration, must, however, be taken into consideration. 40. The Mausoleum of Mar Behnam constructed in AD 1300 represents the closest regional parallel to the Shaykh al-Shatt Mosque (Snelders 2010, 562, Fig. 6); it is, nevertheless, considerably smaller. 41. We suppose that the new structures were founded as waqf endowments in order to guarantee the perpetuity of their existence. 42. Another naqib (Haydar ibn Sharaf al-Din Muhammad ibn ʽUbayd Allah al-Husayni) ordered the reconstruction of the ʽAli al-Asghar Shrine (see Sect. 2.2.2.4). 43. The mihrab has quite an unconventional form, because it was obviously commissioned with the intention of incorporating the relics described (al-­Janabi 1982, Pl. 166). 44. The Panja ʽAli Shrine inscription even attributes to him the Twelver Shiʽi epithets “Lord of Age” (sahib al-zaman), or “Ariser” (al-qaʼim), the one who stands up for God’s order (al-Janabi 1982, 177). 45. Reports on madrasas in Mosul in the Ilkhanid period declined considerably, although at least some of them continued to operate. The analysis of contemporary sources by Ahmad ʽAbd Allah al-Hassu revealed a strong wave of emigration of local ʽulamaʼ. Mawsuʽat al-Mawsil al-Hadariya 1992, II, 246. 46. We are very grateful to Ludvik Kalus who kindly researched for us the usage of the epithet and its similar forms within up-to-date documented Islamic epigraphy. 47. The identification of the sponsor of the reconstruction with one of the two conceivable Ilkhanid monarchs (Ghiyath al-Din Muhammad Khodabande Öljeitü, or Abu Saʽid Bahadur Khan) is unlikely, given that the three recorded epithets do not appear in their known titulature. 48. It is also significant that the shrines were under the supervision of local sayyids at this time, which may indicate continuity from as early as the fourteenth century (ʽAli 2011, 152–5). 49. See notably al-ʽUmari 1955; al-ʽUmari 1967–1968; Ibn al-Khayyat 1966; and al-Khidri MS.

324 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Bibliography Abu al-Fidaʼ. 1840. Taqwim al-buldan. Paris: Dar al-tibaʽa al-sultaniya. Akbar, Jamel. 1989. Khatta and the Territorial Structure of Early Muslim Towns. Muqarnas 6: 22–32. ʽAli, ʽAli Shakir. 2011. Wilayat al-Mawsil al-ʽuthmaniya fi al-qarn al-sadis ʽashar. Dirasa fi awdaʽiha al-siyasiya wa al-idariya wa al-iqtisadiya. ʽAmman: Dar ghaydaʼ li-l-nashr wa al-tawziʽ. Anonym. 1909. From Monte to Mosul. London: Bickers & Son. Aslanapa, Oktay. 1971. Turkish Art and Architecture. London: Faber and Faber Limited. al-Azdi, Abu Zakariya Yazid. 1967. Tarikh al-Mawsil. Cairo: al-Majlis al-aʽla li-l-­shuʼun al-islamiya. ———. 1971. Tarikh al-Mawsil. Beirut: Dar al-kutub al-ʽilmiya. Bacharach, Jere L. 1991. Administrative Complexes, Palaces, and Citadels: Changes in the Loci of Medieval Muslim Rule. In The Ottoman City and Its Parts: Urban Structure and Social Order, ed. Irene A. Bierman, Rifa’at A. Abou-­ El-­Haj, and Donald Preziosi, 111–128. New Rochelle, NY: Aristide D. Caratzas. Badger, George P. 1852. The Nestorians and their Rituals: With the Narrative of a Mission to Mesopotamia and Coordistan in 1842–1844. London: Joseph Masters. al-Baladhuri, Abu al-ʽAbbas Ahmad. 1987. Futuh al-Buldan. Beirut: Muʼassasat al-maʽarif. Barke, Michael. 2019. Fringe Belts. In J.W.R.  Whitehand and the Historico-­ geographical Approach to Urban Morphology, The Urban Book Series, ed. Vítor Oliveira, 47–66. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. Berthier, Sophie. 2006. La Citadelle de Damas: les apports d’une étude archéologique. In Muslim Military Architecture in Greater Syria: From the Coming of Islam to the Ottoman Period, ed. Hugh Kennedy, 151–164. Leiden: Brill. Blair, Sheila S. 1983. The Octagonal Pavilion at Natanz: A Reexamination of Early Islamic Architecture in Iran. Muqarnas 1: 69–94. ———. 1990. Sufi Saints and Shrine Architecture in the Early Fourteenth Century. Muqarnas 7: 35–49. Cook, Michael. 1992. On the Origins of Wahhabism. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 2 (2): 191–202. Creswell, K.A.C. 1979. Early Muslim Architecture I/1: Umayyads A.D. 622–750. New York: Hacker Art Books. Dhunnun, Yusuf. 1967. Dirasa jadida li-kitabat al-Mawsil al-athariya. Sumer 23: 223–238. Dhunnun, Yusuf, Ahmad Majid Malla Sharif, and ʽAbd al-Karim al-Saʼigh. 1983. Al-ʽAmaʼir al-diniya fi madinat al-Mawsil. Wizarat al-thaqafa wa al-iʽlam, Iraq. al-Diwahji, Saʽid. 1947. Sur al-Mawsil. Sumer 3: 117–128.

3  A CITY CONTEXTUALIZED 

325

———. 1951. Khitat al-Mawsil fi al-ʽahd al-umawi. Sumer 7: 222–236. ———. 1952. Masjid al-shaykh Qadib al-Ban. Sumer 8: 99–106. ———. 1954. Qalʽat al-Mawsil fi mukhtalif al-ʽusur. Sumer 10: 94–111. ———. 1957. Madaris al-Mawsil fi al-ʽahd al-atabeki. Sumer 13: 101–118. ———. 1958. Al-Mawsil fi al-ʽahd al-atabeki. Baghdad: Matbaʽat Shafiq. ———. 1963. Jawamiʽ al-Mawsil fi mukhtalif al-ʽusur. Bagdad: Matbaʽat Shafiq. ———. 1968. Mashhad al-imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim. Sumer 24: 171–181. ———. 1982. Tarikh al-Mawsil I. Sine loco: Matbuʽat al-majmaʽ al-ʽilmi al-ʽiraqi. ———. 2015. Bahth fi turath al-Mawsil. Beirut: al-Dar al-ʽarabiya li-l-mawsuʽat. Djaït, Hichem. 1986. Al-Kufa. Naissance de la ville islamique. Paris: Maisonneuve et Larose. Fiey, Jean Maurice. 1959. Mossoul chrétienne: essai sur l’histoire, l’archéologie et l’état actuel des monuments chrétiens de la ville de Mossoul. Beyrouth: Imprimerie catholique. al-Ghiyathi, ʽAbd Allah ibn Fath Allah. 2010. Tarikh al-duwal al-islamiya fi al-­ sharq. Beirut: Dar wa maktabat Hilal. Habbi, Yusuf. 1980. The Churches of Mosul. Baghdad. Hagedorn, Annette. 1994. Badr ad-Dı̄n Lu’lu’ von Mosul (reg. 1233–1259): Zu Auftraggebern islamischer Kleinkunst im 13. Jahrhundert. In XXV. Deutscher Orientalistentag vom 8. bis 13. 4. 1991  in München, ed. Cornelia Wunsch, 493–507. Stuttgart: Steiner. al-Hamawi, Yaqut. 1977. Mu‛jam al-buldan. Beirut: Dar sadir. al-Harawi, Abu al-Hasan ibn ʽAli. 2002. Al-Isharat ila maʽrifat al-ziyarat. Cairo: Maktabat al-thaqafa al-diniya. Harrak, Amir. 1999. The Chronicle of Zuqnin, Parts III and IV: A.D. 488–775. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. Hillenbrand, Robert. 2000. Islamic Architecture. Form, Function and Meaning. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Ibn al-Athir, Abu al-Hasan ʽAli. 1963. Al-Tarikh al-bahir fi al-dawla al-atabikiya. Cairo: Dar al-kutub al-haditha. ———. 1987. Al-Kamil fi al-tarikh. Beirut: Dar al-kutub al-ʽilmiya. Ibn Battuta. 1962. The Travels of Ibn Battuta, A.D. 1325–1354. Trans. H. A. R. Gibb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ibn al-Fuwati. 1997. Al-Hawadith al-jamiʽa wa al-tajarib al-nafiʽa. Beirut: Dar al-gharb al-islami. Ibn Hawqal, Abu al-Qasim. 1992. Kitab surat al-ard. Beirut: Dar maktabat al-hayat. Ibn Jubayr. 2008. The Travels of Ibn Jubayr. Trans. Roland Broadhurst. New Delhi: Goodword Books. Ibn Kathir, ʽImad al-Din Ismaʽil. 1998. Al-Bidaya wa al-nihaya. Cairo: Hajr li-l-­ tibaʽa wa al-nashr wa al-tawziʽ wa al-iʽlan.

326 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Ibn al-Khayyat, Ahmad. 1966. Tarjamat al-awliyaʼ fi al-Mawsil al-hadbaʼ. Mosul: Matbaʽat al-jumhuriya. Ibn Taghri Birdi, Jamal al-Din Yusuf. 1971. Al-Nujum al-zahira fi muluk Misr wa al-Qahira. Cairo: al-Hayʼa al-misriya al-ʽamma li-l-taʼlif wa al-nashr. al-Janabi, Tariq J. 1982. Studies in Medieval Iraqi Architecture. Baghdad: Ministry of Culture and Information, State Organization of Antiquities and Heritage, Iraq. al-Jumʽa, Ahmad Qasim. 2012. “Turuz Samarraʼ al-zakhrafiya wa taʼaththuruha bi-zakharif al-Mawsil fi al-qarn al-thalith al-hijri/al-tasiʽ al-miladi.” Athar al-­ rafidayn 1, No. 1: 21–30. Khalil, ʽAlaʼ Muhammad. 1985. Al-Moghul fi al-Mawsil wa al-Jazira. MA dissertation, Mosul University. al-Khidri, Yusuf ʽAbd al-Jalil. MS. Al-Intisar li-l-awliyaʼ al-akhyar. Riyad, Library of the King Saud University, Unpublished MS No. 25 (1309 AH). Kindinger, Judith. 2017. Bidʽa or sunna: The taylasan as a Contested Garment in the Mamluk Period (Discussions between al-Suyuti and Others). In Al-Suyūtı̣ ,̄ a polymath of the Mamlūk period: proceedings of the themed day of the First Conference of the School of Mamlūk Studies (Ca’ Foscari University, Venice, June 23, 2014), ed. Antonella Ghersetti, 64–80. Leiden: Brill. al-Kubaisi, Manal Sh.A. 2004. Geometry, Kinematics, Mechanism, Structural History, and Tectonic Implication of Faults Control the Tigris River in Al-Mosul Area, North Iraq. Iraqi Journal of Science 45: 145–158. ———. 2014. Faulted Anticlines (Desert Roses) and Linear Slope Deposits in Northwest Iraq: Analysis of Some Morphotectonic Features. Arabian Journal of Geosciences 7 (3): 1001–1015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-­013-­0857-­x. Le Strange, G. 1905. The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate: Mesopotamia, Persia, and Central Asia from the Moslem Conquest to the Time of Timur. New  York: Barnes & Noble. ———. 1919. The Geographical part of the Nuzhat-al-Qulub Composed by Hamd-­ Allah Mustawfi of Qazwin in 740 (1340). Leyden: E. J. Brill. al-Maqdisi, Shams al-Din Muhammad. 1877. Ahsan al-taqasim fı̄ maʽrifat al-­ aqalim. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Mawsuʽat al-Mawsil al-Hadariya. 1992. Mosul University: Dar al-kutub li-l-tibaʽa wa al-nashr. Meri, Josef W. 2002. The Cult of Saints among Muslims and Jews in Medieval Syria. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mulder, Stephennie. 2019. Shrines of the ‘Alids in Medieval Syria: Sunnis, Shiʽis and the Architecture of Coexistence. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Niebuhr, Carsten. 1778. Carsten Niebuhrs Reisebeschreibung nach Arabien und andern umliegenden Ländern. Vol. 2. Kopenhagen: Nicolaus Möller. Nováček, Karel, Narmin A.M. Amin, and Miroslav Melčák. 2013. A Medieval City Within Assyrian Walls: The Continuity of the Town of Arbı̄l in Northern Mesopotamia. Iraq 75: 1–42.

3  A CITY CONTEXTUALIZED 

327

Novák, Mirko. 2012. The Change of Caliphate Ideology in the Light of Early Islamic City Planning. In Stories of Long Ago, Festschrift für Michael D. Roaf, ed. Heather Baker, Kai Kaniuth, and Adelheid Otto, 385–404. Münster: Ugarit–Verlag. Olivier, Guillaume A. 1804. Voyage dans l’empire Othoman, l’Egypte et la Perse, fait par ordre du gouvernement, pendant les six premières années de la République IV. Paris: Henri Agasse. Pahlitzsch, Johannes. 2001. The Concern for Spiritual Salvation and Memoria in Islamic Public Endowments in Jerusalem (XII–XVI C.) as Compared to the Concepts of Christendom. In Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras 3, ed. U. Vermeulen and J. van Steenbergen, 329–344. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters. Patton, Douglas. 1982. A History of the Atabegs of Mosul and their Relations with the Ulama A.  H. 521–660/A.D. 1127–1262. A PhD dissertation, New  York University. ———. 1992. Badr al-Din Lu’lu’, Atabeg of Mosul, 1211–1259. Washington and Seattle: Middle East Center of the Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington. Pfeiffer, Judith. 2014. Politics, Patronage and the Transmission of Knowledge in 13th–15th Century Tabriz. Leiden and Boston: J. E. Brill. Place, Victor. 1867–1870. Ninive et l’Assyrie I-III. Paris: Imprimerie Impériale. al-Qazwini, Zakariya. 1848. Athar al-bilad wa akhbar al-ʽibad. Göttingen. Qozi, Youssef. 1990. Découverte de la date de fondation de l’église Šamʽûn As-Safa à Mossoul. In V. Symposium Syriacum, Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, 29–31 août 1988, ed. R.  Lavenant, 431–438. Orientalia Christiana Analecta 236. Roma: Pontificium Institutum Studiorum Orientalium. Raby, Julian. 2004. Nur Al-Din, the Qastal al-Shuʽaybiyya, and the “Classical Revival”. In Muqarnas 21, Essays in Honor of J.  M. Rogers, 289–310. Leiden: Brill. Raʼuf, ʽImad ʽAbd al-Salam. 1975. Al-Mawsil fi al-ʽahd al-ʽuthmani. Fatrat al-­hukm al-mahalli 1139–1249 AH/1726–1824 AD. Najaf: Matbaʽat al-adab. Robinson, Chase F. 2000. Empire and Elites after the Muslim Conquest: The Transformation of Northern Mesopotamia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rousset, Marie-Odile. 1996. Contribution à l’étude de la céramique islamique: analyse du matériel archéologique de Rahba-Mayadin (Syrie, vallée de l’Euphrate). PhD thesis, Université Lumière Lyon 2. Rücker, Adolf. 1932. Das ‘Obere Kloster’ bei Mossul und seine Bedeutung für die Geschichte der ostsyrischen Liturgie. Oriens Christianus 29: 180–187. Sachau, Eduard. 1919. Vom Klosterbuch des Šâbuštî. Berlin: Verlag des Akademie des Wissenschaften.

328 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

al-Safadi, Salah al-Din Khalil. 1971. Nakt al-himyan fi nukat al-ʽumyan. Beirut: Dar al-kutub al-ʽilmiya. Saʼigh, Sulayman. 1923. Tarikh al-Mawsil I. Cairo: al-Matbaʽa al-salafiya. al-Sakhawi, Shams al-Din Muhammad. n.d. Al-Dawʼ al-lamiʽ li-ahl al-qarn al-tasiʽ. Beirut: Dar al-jil. Santi, Aila. 2018. Early Islamic Kufa in Context: A Chronological Reinterpretation of the Palace, with a Note on the Development of the Monumental Language of the Early Muslim Élite. Annali, Sezione orientale 78: 69–103. Sarre, Friedrich, and Ernst Herzfeld. 1911. Archäologische Reise im Euphrat- und Tigris-Gebiet. Vol. 3. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer (Ernst Vohsen). ———. 1920. Archäologische Reise im Euphrat- und Tigris-Gebiet. Vol. 2. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer (Ernst Vohsen). Skwierczyński, Krzysztof. 1996. Custodia civitatis: Sakralny system ochrony miasta w Polsce wcześniejszego średniowiecza na przykładzie siedzib biskupich. Kwartalnik Historyczny 103: 3–51. Snelders, Bas. 2010. Identity and Christian-Muslim Interaction. Medieval Art of the Syrian Orthodox from the Mosul Area. Leuven, Paris, and Walpole: Peeters Publishers and Department of Oriental Studies. al-Sufi, Ahmad. 1940. Al-Athar wa al-mabani al-ʽarabiya al-islamiya fi al-Mawsil. Mosul: Matbaʽat Umm al-rabiʽayn. ———. 1953. Khitat al-Mawsil. Mosul: Matbaʽat Umm al-rabiʽayn. Suyufi, Niqula. 1956. Majmuʽ al-kitabat al-muharrara fi abniyat madinat al-­ Mawsil. Edited by Saʽid al-Diwahji. Bagdad: Matbaʽat Shafiq. Tabbaa, Yasser. 1997. Constructions of Power and Piety in Medieval Aleppo. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. ———. 2001. The Transformation of Islamic Art during the Sunni Revival. Washington: University of Washington Press. ———. 2002. The Mosque of Nūr al-Dı̄n in Mosul, 1170–1172. Annales Islamologiques 36: 339–360. Thomas of Marga. 1893: The Book of Governors: The Historia Monastica of Thomas Bishop of Marga A.  D. 840. Vol. II.  Edited by E.  A. Wallis Budge. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. Toueir, Kassem. 1983. Heraqlah: a unique victory monument of Harun ar-Rashid. World Archaeology 14 (3): 296–304. Uluçam, Abdüsselâm. 1989. Irak’taki Türk mimari eserleri. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı. al-ʽUmari, Muhammad Amin. 1967–1968. Manhal al-awliyaʼ wa mashrab al-asfiyaʼ min sadat al-Mawsil al-hadbaʼ. 2 vols. Mosul: Matbaʽat al-jumhuriya. al-ʽUmari, Yasin. 1955. Munyat al-udabaʼ fi tarikh al-Mawsil al-hadbaʼ. Mosul: Matbaʽat al-hadaf.

3  A CITY CONTEXTUALIZED 

329

Wheatley, Paul. 2001. The Places Where Men Pray Together: Cities in Islamic Lands, Seventh through the Tenth Centuries. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Whitcomb, Donald. 1994. The Misr of Ayla: Settlement at al-ʽAqaba in the Early Islamic Period. In The Byzantine and early Islamic Near East II: Land Use and Settlement Patterns, ed. Geoffrey R.D.  King and Averil Cameron, 155–170. Princeton: The Darwin Press. ———. 2010. An Umayyad Legacy for the Early Islamic City: Fustat and the Experience of Egypt. In Umayyad Legacies, Medieval Memories from Syria to Spain, ed. Antoine Borrut and Paul M. Cobb, 403–416. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2012. Formation of the Islamic City: A Second Archaeological Period of Urban Transition. In Proceedings of the 7th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East Vol 2, ed. Roger Matthews and John Curtis, 619–632. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Yazdi, Sharaf al-Din ʽAli. 1887. Zafarnama. Calcutta.

CHAPTER 4

Epilogue: A City Resurrected?

For several years, we witnessed the actions of the Jihadi-Salafist organization, Islamic State, which was able to decimate large areas of Northern Iraq. While adverting to the radical interpretations of pure monotheism, the organization, to which the Iraqi state literally handed over power without a fight, did not hesitate to put its vision into practice. IS was ready to eliminate anything that did not conform to its black-and-white view of the world. Anyone who did not fit into its “ideal” Muslim society was persecuted, banished, or killed. Anything that did not fit into its image of institutional conformity was redefined, damaged, or razed to the ground. The horror of its actions toward architecture, strongly reinforced by its mastery of modern information technologies, evoked the feeling that it was an entity whose actions were being carried out on an ad hoc basis. Our analysis of destroyed monuments and supporting propaganda campaigns have, however, shown that IS acted—and religiously justified its actions— in a very sophisticated way. Although the hatred toward religious minorities and associated attacks on their cultural and religious monuments allow us to define IS’s demolition goals as anti-Shiʽi, anti-Sufi, anti-Yezidi, or anti-Christian, the situation in Mosul, a Sunni bastion with several years of experience with radical Salafism, showed that the fundamental factor that led to a demolition could be completely different. In the case of Mosul, this was the religious doctrine of taswiyat al-qubur (leveling of graves), which aimed at © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 K. Nováček et al., Mosul after Islamic State, Palgrave Studies in Cultural Heritage and Conflict, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62636-5_4

331

332 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

eliminating real or potential sources of presumed idolatry (shirk), expressed primarily by practices associated with the worship of tombs during ritual visits (ziyara). Thus, it was not the religious or sectarian affiliation of the monument but its potential to become an object of worship that played a crucial role in the selection of the great majority of the analyzed cases. This doctrine has been discussed from the beginnings of Islam, was later promoted by Salafi scholars and ideologues, and was fully adopted by IS, as we have been able to trace in the content of its religious ideology. The consistency with which IS was able to apply taswiyat al-qubur with all the known consequences in Mosul is frightening and astounding at the same time. It proves that among many possible factors that could play a role in IS’s destructive campaigns, the religious motivation is definitely much more significant than we could have imagined. The deliberate destruction of IS in Mosul has resulted in the loss of more than 40 predominantly historical monuments. It is difficult to assess the overall impact of this heritage loss. The negative consequences can be related either to the preserved corpus of Islamic historical architecture as a whole or to the city itself and its inhabitants. It has already been said that the medieval architecture of Mosul has only rarely become the subject of professional research and does not figure in general compendia. This statement can be extended to the whole of Iraq, whose Islamic architecture has been preserved to a much lesser extent than Syrian, Iranian, or Anatolian building art, and is located on the border of these large geographical and artistic entities in a constant research vacuum. At the same time, it is obvious that the intensity of professional interest and the value of the built heritage are to some extent communicating vessels: without constant consideration of these values and interpretive efforts, as well as constant care for their preservation, no architectural artifacts can be perceived as valuable. From the point of view of existing art historical research, buildings from the earliest two time layers, the Atabeg and Ilkhanid periods, can be considered the most valuable elements in the set of destroyed architecture. The Atabeg period, sometimes only its final part of the reign of Badr al-­ Din Luʼluʼ, is in art historical literature presented as a Golden Age of Mosul (Hillenbrand 2006; Snelders 2010, 99–104; Hillenbrand 2017; McClary 2017), when an extraordinarily generous, universal, and supra-­ confessional patronage of the arts took place in the city and its environs. Ernst Herzfeld tentatively and somewhat mechanically tried to define the architecture of this period as the so-called Mosul School (Sarre and

4  EPILOGUE: A CITY RESURRECTED? 

333

Herzfeld 1920, 238–9), but he did not return to a deeper elaboration of this hypothesis and the concept remained reserved for metalwork and painting (Raby 2012; Contadini 2011, 150). Nevertheless, the Mosul architecture of the first half of the seventh/thirteenth century is still regarded as distinctive. Its unique qualities resulted not only from the aforementioned nature and length of Badr al-Din’s patronage, but also particularly from Mosul’s extraordinary geographical position, which allowed local artisans to draw inspiration from a rich regional tradition dating back to antiquity, as well as from the surrounding regions (Iran, Syria, Anatolia, and Iraq), each of which had a very specific artistic style (Hillenbrand 2017, 212–3). This extraordinary eclecticism, which draws together elements of diverse origins and transforms them into a new semantic whole, can indeed be considered one of the main features of medieval Mosul architecture, but it needs to be further defined in some respects. In our opinion, the phenomenon of Mosul architecture is not as closely connected with the reign of Badr al-Din Luʼluʼ, nor with him personally, as is usually assumed. Unfortunately, we know almost nothing about the allegedly magnificent reconstruction of the so-called Umayyad Mosque under Sayf al-Din Ghazi in 1148, but the new al-Nuri and al-­ Mujahidi mosques already represent all the features of the Mosul eclectic style, with its synthesis of various forms to create a new level of meaning. In the case of the al-Nuri Mosque, this resulted in a monumental royal mosque with a clear ideological message. At the same time, it is clear that the specific potential of Mosul’s building art did not run out after Badr al-Din’s death, but showed continuity at least until the first half of the eighth/fourteenth century. The most remarkable manifestations of Ilkhanid-period architecture, and particularly the magnificent reconstruction of the Imam ʽAwn al-Din Shrine, are preliminarily associated with the patronage of the Mongol governor Sutay Bek, whose rule competed in length with that of Badr al-Din. The picture of Badr al-Din as a Shiʽa-inclined patron also needs to be corrected. We do not find any support in the sources for this inclination, at least in the sphere of architectural artifacts. This judgment is rather an interpretive stereotype which stemmed from a mistaken ascription of a later, Mongol-period layer of architectural realizations and reconstructions, expressing the symbolism of the Twelve Imams, to him. Notwithstanding this point, the results of his religious patronage in Mosul were by all measures unique, not only the outstanding execution of individual shrines but in terms of even more by the fact that these shrines

334 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

seem to be part of a single spatial and religious  concept. The network of shrines within the city was intended to create a set of universal, inclusive spaces without specific dedication which could be used by visitors to commemorate the founder. However, this meaning, as well as the original meaning of other funeral monuments, became subject to innumerable shifts and reinterpretations in later periods, which completely blurred the shrines’ original purpose. The destruction of the city in 2014–2017 must also be seen in a local context and in a longer diachronic perspective. In this sense, with a few exceptions (such as the iconic Minaret al-Hadbaʼ or Imam Yahya ibn al-­ Qasim Shrine), Mosul is rather an example of a chronic official lack of interest in the consideration of architectural values and their preservation, which led to irreversible damage to the city’s cultural heritage during the twentieth century. The modernization of the city began with the complete demolition of the fortifications and the remarkable Shiʽi shrine of Panja ʽAli in the post-World War I period, continued with the demolition of the original al-Nuri Mosque, whose unique spatial and decorative concepts remained unrecognized, and ended with a wave of radical repairs between 1950 and 1990, to which much of the medieval substance of such monuments as the Nabi Yunus, Shaykh al-Shatt, and al-Mujahidi mosques fell victim without any documentation, as did a plethora of smaller buildings. The balance in the field of traditional residential architecture is equally tragic: a sober estimation speaks of 20% of Mosul’s historic fabric which disappeared without any record between 1914 and 1978, mostly in consequence of large-scale, state-supported engineering schemes, decay, or a lack of maintenance (al-Kubaisy 2010, 61). It is clear that the loss has at least doubled in the last four decades. The most serious attempt to integrate heritage values into the city’s master plan in the 1970s found no clear reflection in the practice of city development (al-Kubaisy 2010). The targeted destruction of selected monuments by IS can be seen as a final and—for the vast majority of Mosul residents—unacceptable phase of “modernization” of the old city, this time in the spirit of a radical Salafi doctrine. The city was deprived of congregational mosques of medieval origin, all its medieval shrines, and funeral monuments, as well as a plethora of other buildings, which together contributed to the distinctive character of the city and its skyline, carefully created over a period of centuries, as we have seen. Some of these buildings were the busiest places of pilgrimage, social memory, and meetings of the city’s inhabitants; others occupied specific roles in traditional rituals and healing.

4  EPILOGUE: A CITY RESURRECTED? 

335

The new situation in which the city finds itself after the deliberate removal of its most valuable landmarks and subsequent war destruction is a form of extremely complex transformation that can only be compared to the transformation of some European cities destroyed during World War II. Despite several projects with international participation, which are focused on the restoration of dominant historic buildings (led by the reconstruction of the al-Nuri Mosque in the framework of the UNESCO initiative “Revive the Spirit of Mosul: the Recovery of the City of Mosul through Culture and Education”), it is obvious that the maximal burden of the reconstruction effort will be laid on Iraqi bodies, which, given the enormous volume of destruction and the associated costs, but also the country’s persistent political and economic instability, create a critical situation, whose result is unpredictable for the time being. Heritage management in the city is currently the shared responsibility of the Diwan al-Waqf al-Sunni (Islamic religious buildings), the churches (Christian buildings), and the regional directorate of antiquities (profane monuments, most of all the historic residential architecture). The renovation of mosques under the auspices of the Diwan al-Waqf al-Sunni started very soon after the liberation and has achieved remarkable results, both in terms of the number of completed realizations and in terms of the general quality of the work. In April 2020, the first reconstruction of a shrine demolished by IS (the Imam al-Bahir Shrine) was launched, unfortunately without previous archaeological excavation. The destiny of other, less conspicuous structures and structures without direct religious use remains precarious. No protection measures for the old city, particularly for the preservation of the authentic urban environment, have been taken so far, and the lack of medium- and long-term planning in heritage management is apparent.1 Against the backdrop of a totally devastated city, parts of which have been bulldozed and leveled (Figs. 2 and 1.6), there is ongoing discussion about its future appearance. The strongest voices are those requesting a complete change of the old city into a modern center (e.g., al-Taʼi 2018), accompanied by nearly unlimited displays of architectural creativity (Buckley 2017). This stance apparently has the strong support of local authorities, as well as many professional and social groups in Mosul. Calls for a more balanced, site-specific handling in line with the extant architectural values of the old city have been much less pronounced. Therefore, the extent of the damage and the city’s current circumstances, as well as the example of the European post-disaster experience, imply that a process of highly transformative reconstruction of the urban

336 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

morphology is inevitable in Mosul. What is, nevertheless, notable in the development of some of the modernized European cities is their later return to principles of “facsimile” reconstruction (construction of copies), in some instances even in the second or third generation after the war (Berlin, Dresden, etc.: Bold et al. 2017). Insofar as these realizations are controversial from the point of view of their authenticity, they are strongly reasoned ideologically (a final showdown with the war experience), socially (a renewal of community life and identity), or economically (a renewal of tourism). There is no reason to doubt that facsimile reconstructions may also become in Mosul the key to solving some chronic problems deeply rooted in the past at some point in the future. Naturally, any kind of authentic reconstruction, either in the near or more distant future, needs documentation. The importance of documentation has been emphasized in a series of official heritage charters and advisory pronouncements (Bold 2017, 11). The under-investigated old city of Mosul is now in the midst of the most radical process of transformation in its history. The current moment may be the last opportunity to obtain relatively consistent data about its built heritage. This data collection should be primarily planned and organized by local heritage authorities and specialists who will also later manage the dataset. The process can be divided into two, interconnected areas: (a) the collection of data for revision and re-processing of the topographic and elevation maps of the city; and (b) the detailed documentation of extant heritage structures. Fortunately, today’s universal use of approaches to digital archaeology offers a quick, reliable, and cost-effective alternative to standard documentation methods, which is particularly valuable in the situation of extremely endangered historic urban organisms (Remondino and Campana 2014). The greatest advantage of digital technologies can be seen in the possibility of the development  of a complete, integrated methodology, which can use a whole range of modern instrumentation and techniques: unmanned air vehicles, laser scanners, aerial and ground photogrammetry (including the Structure from Motion technique), and so on. A combination of these sensory technologies with building archaeological surveys on the ground can be used to create a variety of documentation outputs with high interpretive value. In the last decade, 3D modeling technology, in particular, has proved to be a key means of documenting architecture and urban landscapes, whether in the photogrammetric or reconstruction (graphic) variant. Graphic models, represented in this book, cannot reach the precision of

4  EPILOGUE: A CITY RESURRECTED? 

337

photogrammetric models, but, in addition to the fact that there is no longer any possibility of obtaining photogrammetric data at all in most cases, they can present structures in a more appealing way than photogrammetric models, that is, with a balanced ratio of naturally looking raster textures and manually interpreted visual detail (elements of morphology and decoration, epigraphy). An indisputable advantage of graphic models is their iterative character, that is, the possibility of additional editing and improvement if some new documentation becomes available, and they can even be transformed into a fully photogrammetric form. From digital models, it is a short step to Heritage Building Information Modeling or Management (H-BIM), an integrated system of digital data management (Baik 2017; Antonopoulou and Bryan 2017; López et al. 2018). Well-managed digital heritage data not only is essential for any future architectural and archaeological reconsiderations of the city’s built environment but also has enormous potential to provide a wider audience with a visual experience of the past. In the form of interactive web environments or virtual museums, it is one of the few remaining ways in which it is possible to communicate memories of the former City of the Prophets to the city’s current inhabitants and the rest of the world.

Note 1. The necessity for emergency measures regarding the damaged cultural heritage remains on a general, proclamatory level (UNESCO Executive Board 204 EX/32).

Bibliography Antonopoulou, Sofia, and Paul Bryan, eds. 2017. BIM for Heritage: Developing a Historic Building Information Model. Swindon: Historic England. Baik, Ahmad. 2017. From Point Cloud to Jeddah Heritage BIM Nasif Historical House—Case Study. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 4: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2017.02.001. Bold, John, Peter Larkham, and Robert Pickard, eds. 2017. Authentic Reconstruction: Authenticity, Architecture and the Built Heritage. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Buckley, Samantha. 2017. Winners of the Mosul Housing Competition Address the Housing Crisis in Iraq. ArchDaily. Accessed June 24, 2020. https://www. archdaily.com/882476/winners-­of-­the-­mosuls-­housing-­competition-­address-­ the-­housing-­crisis-­in-­iraq.

338 

K. NOVÁČEK ET AL.

Contadini, Anna. 2011. A World of Beasts: A Thirteenth-Century Illustrated Arabic Book on Animals (the Kitāb Naʽt al-Ḥ ayawān) in the Ibn Bakhtı̄shūʽ Tradition. Leiden: Brill. Hillenbrand, Robert. 2006. Mosul—Diyar Rabi’a. In Die Dschazira– Kulturlandschaft zwischen Euphrat und Tigris, ed. Almut v. Gladiß, 18–22. Berlin: Museum für Islamische Kunst. ———. 2017. The Frontispiece Problem in the Early 13th-Century Kitab al-­ Aghani. In Central Periphery? Art, Culture and History of the Medieval Jazira (Northern Mesopotamia, 8th–15th centuries): Papers on the Conference held at the University of Bamberg, 31 October–2 November, 2012, ed. Lorenz Korn and Martina Müller-Wiener, 199–227. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag. al-Kubaisy, Falah. 2010. Mosul: The Architectural Conservation in Mosul Old Town—Iraq. S. l.: CreateSpace—Amazon. López, Facundo J., Pedro M.  Lerones, José Llamas, Jaime Gómez-García-­ Bermejo, and Eduardo Zalama. 2018. A Review of Heritage Building Information Modeling (H-BIM). Multimodal Technologies Interact 2 (21): 1–29. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti2020021. McClary, Richard P. 2017. Remembering the imām Yahyā ibn al-Qāsim Shrine in Mosul. Iraq 79: 1–26. Raby, Julian. 2012. The Principle of Parsimony and the Problem of the ‘Mosul School of Metalwork’. In Metalwork and Material Culture in the Islamic World: Art, Craft and Text, ed. Venetia Porter and Mariam Rosser-Owen, 11–85. London: I. B. Tauris. Remondino, Fabio, and Stefano Campana, eds. 2014. 3D Recording and Modelling in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage: Theory and Best Practices, BAR International Series 2598. Oxford: BAR. Sarre, Friedrich, and Ernst Herzfeld. 1920. Archäologische Reise im Euphrat- und Tigris-Gebiet. Vol. 2. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer (Ernst Vohsen). Snelders, Bas. 2010. Identity and Christian-Muslim Interaction. Medieval Art of the Syrian Orthodox from the Mosul Area. Leuven, Paris, and Walpole: Peeters Publishers and Department of Oriental Studies. al-Taʼi, Najla. 2018. Ahali al-Mawsil al-qadima yashraʽuna fi iʽadat al-iʽmar baʽda al-maʽarik. Al-Bahrayn al-Yawm, January 7, 2018. https://www.albahraintoday. com/43/080853-‫المعارك‬-‫بعد‬-‫اإلعمار‬-‫إعادة‬-‫في‬-‫يشرعون‬-‫القديمة‬-‫الموصل‬-‫أهالي‬

Index1

A Aba Tayy Hamid ibn Faris al-Halabi, 211 al-ʽAbbas al-Mustaʽjil, Shaykh, 271n172 al-ʽAbbas ibn al-Fadl al-Ansari, 271n172 al-ʽAbbas ibn Mirdas al-Sulami, 240 ʽAbbasids, ʽAbbasid, 112, 177, 268n133, 293, 294, 296, 305, 313 ʽAbd Allah Chalabi, al-Hajj (known as Hamu al-Qadu), 228 ʽAbdi Efendi, 242 Abdulhamid II, Sultan, 116 Abdulmajid I, Sultan, 115 Abrandabad, mosque of, 177 Abu al-Fidaʼ, 70, 321n23, 322n32 Abu Bakr al-Khalidi, 191 Abu Saʽid Bahadur Khan, 145, 303, 314, 323n46

Administrator (of mosque, shrine, tomb, waqf), 128, 137, 143, 146, 194, 195, 200, 208, 216, 230, 241, 300, 316 Ahl al-bayt (Prophet Muhammadʼs family), 24, 58n78, 155, 156, 193, 301, 302, 313 Ahmad, Shaykh, 246 Ahmad Basha ibn Sulayman Pasha al-Jalili, 230 Ahmad ibn al-Hajji Ibrahim, 232 Ahmad ibn Salih, 216 Aleppo, 69, 79, 310 ʽAli al-Nawma, al-Hajj, 230 ʽAli ibn Abi Talib, 23, 33, 42, 58n78, 147, 207, 211, 240, 246, 265n109, 315 ʽAli Pasha, 115 ʽAlids, ʽAlid, 24–26, 182, 186, 194, 200, 213, 238, 240, 244, 246, 313, 318

 Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to notes.

1

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 K. Nováček et al., Mosul after Islamic State, Palgrave Studies in Cultural Heritage and Conflict, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62636-5

339

340 

INDEX

ALOS Palsar, 88, 93 al-Qaʽida, 2–5, 51n6, 62n116 Amasiya, Bayezid Pasha Mosque, 164 ʽAmir al-Khathʽami, Shaykh, 244 Anatolia, Anatolian, 112, 125, 223, 308, 332, 333 Aq Qoyunlu, 100, 303 ʽArabi Zade, al-Sayyid ʽAbd Allah, 241 Arbil, 186, 257n27, 310 Archaeological remote sensing (ARS), 75, 76, 78, 82, 84, 88, 95, 97 al-Asadi, Abu al-Hayyaj, 39, 42, 63n121 Ashtardshan, Great Mosque, 177 Ashurbanipal, 126 Assyrian heritage, 16, 20, 31, 48–50 Assyrian palace (on Tell al-Tawba), 129, 130, 259n50, 309 Atabegs, Atabeg, 70, 72, 123, 125, 142, 148, 151, 153, 155, 191, 194–196, 199, 200, 211–213, 223, 227, 236, 238, 241, 257n35, 266n114, 267n127, 269n141, 269n146, 289, 290, 292, 298–305, 309–312, 314–316, 318n1, 320n14, 321n25, 332 Awliya’(saints), 20–28, 31, 33, 46, 47, 70, 318 Ayat al-kursi, 132, 188, 193, 213, 217, 231, 263n92, 266n120 Ayat al-wilaya, 315 ʽAyn al-Kabrit, 295, 297, 318n1 al-Azdi, Abu Zakariya, 70, 293–295, 319n7, 320n14, 321n22 Azerbaijan, 308 B Baath, 4 Bab al-Bayd, 302 Bab al-ʽImadi, 302 Bab al-ʽIraq, 298

Bab Jabir, 289 Bab al-Jassasa, 321n22 Bab Kinda, 302 Bab Likish, 302 Bab al-Qassabin, 321n22 Bab Sinjar, 215, 219, 231, 293, 298, 301, 302, 320n14 Bab al-Sirr, 310 Badger, George P., 71, 73, 78, 126, 284 al-Badhaqi, Sharaf al-Din Husayn, 205 al-Baghdadi, Abu Bakr, 5, 32, 102 al-Baghdadi, Abu ‘Umar, 5, 36, 39 Baraka (blessing), 20, 23, 25, 248 al-Barma, 156, 157, 159–161, 165, 167–170, 183, 258n46 al-Basasiri, Emir, 297 Bashtabiya fortress, 13, 57n65, 73, 77, 209, 284 al-Basra, 296 Bektash, al-Sayyid, 200, 208, 268n131 Berchem, Max van, 145, 158 Bimaristan (hospital), 114 Bistam, Shrine of Bayazid, 177 Buckingham, James S., 71, 101 Buddhists, 313 al-Bursuqi, Aqsunqur, Seljuq Atabeg, 258n45, 262n77, 292 C Canal, 295, 320n19, 320n20 Cemetery al-Baqiʽ, in Medina, 38 English War, 16, 29, 252–253 ʽIsa Dadah Mosque, adjacent to, 15, 21, 28, 236 al-Islah al-Ziraʽi, 29, 60n91 Jewish, 216 al-Karama, 29, 60n91 Mar Kurkis Monastery, adjacent to, 16, 29

 INDEX 

Mar Tuma Church, in the courtyard of, 29, 30 al-Quraysh, 293 Sultan Uways Mosque, adjacent to, 15, 28, 224 al-ʽUmariya, 28, 239 Umm al-Tisʽa Mosque, adjacent to, 28, 59n89, 242 Wadi ʽUqab, 28, 29, 59n90 Cemetery of Scholars (ʽulamaʼ), 215, 231 Cenotaph, 25, 33, 145, 154, 155, 157, 161, 171, 182, 195, 200, 211–213, 224, 233, 262n78, 309, 313, 323n38 Central Asia, 308 Chapel of St Georgis, in al-Tahira al-Kharijiya Church, 31, 251 Charter of the City, 7–10, 20, 39 Christians, Christian, 7, 8, 10, 16, 19, 20, 27, 29–31, 34, 48, 56n50, 61n100, 71, 72, 111, 127, 142, 144, 207, 213, 251, 254, 285, 288, 292, 294, 309, 310, 314, 319n11, 322n37, 323n37, 331, 335 Church, Ancient Syriac al-Tahira, in the al-Qalʽa Neighborhood, 293, 294, 320n13 Church of the Clock (Kanisat al-Saʽa), 57n65 Church of Holy Sepulchre (Jerusalem), 257n33 Church of Mar Ahudemmeh, 18, 251 Church of Mar Guorguis, 285 Church of Mar Ishoʽyab (Ishaʽya), 60n98, 285, 293, 294, 320n11 Church of Mar Tuma, 29, 30, 294, 295 Church of Mar Yohanna, 285 Church of Mar Zena, 319n8 Church, al-Tahira al-Kharijiya, 16, 29, 30, 56n50, 209, 250–252

341

Church, Tahirat Maryam al-ʽAdhraʼ, 209 Citadel, 73, 114, 145, 210, 260n65, 284, 285, 297–303, 309–311, 321n26, 322n32 See also Bashtabiya fortress; Hisn Commemoration, 311, 313 CORONA, 75, 89 D Dabiq, 8, 30, 38, 49, 55n43 Dado, 147, 157–161, 165, 170, 171, 182, 184, 206, 209, 235, 261n69, 262n84, 264n98, 308 Damascus, 35, 37, 69, 79, 110, 112, 125, 305, 310 Daniyal (Daniel), Prophet, 26, 27, 45, 46, 232–233 Dar al-Hadith al-Muhajiriya, 250, 299 Dar al-imara (governor’s palace), 196, 269n141, 289, 290, 292–294, 297, 298, 303, 319n9, 322n34 Dar al-mamlaka, see Dar al-imara (governor’s palace) Dar al-qur’an, 137, 138, 143 Dar al-siyada, 314 Dayr al-Aʽla, 302, 321n26 Deshti, 182 Dhikr, 22, 234, 250 Dhunun Tabbu al-Jammas, 236 Digital elevation model (DEM), 80, 81, 86–93 Digital surface model (DSM), 88–94, 97 Digital terrain model (DTM), 88–97, 284 Discovery of tombs, 127, 128, 230, 233, 259n55

342 

INDEX

al-Diwahji, Saʽid, 71, 72, 100, 101, 115, 117, 123, 124, 130, 136, 140–143, 185, 200, 205, 207, 215–217, 226, 235, 238, 241, 249, 250, 254n5, 255n8, 258n41, 259n57, 260n58, 260n65, 261n66, 262n82, 267n122, 268n131, 268n137, 269n145, 270n150, 271n163, 271n169, 271n172, 318n1, 321n27 Diwan(s) (of IS), 8, 52n16 Diyarbakır, 125 Donjon, see Qasr Door, 128, 130, 137, 138, 140, 157, 161, 185–188, 190, 194, 199, 201, 228, 232, 237, 240, 241, 247, 259n51, 259n57, 265n110, 268n133 Dunaysir (Kızıltepe), Great Mosque, 125, 305 E Earthquake, 128, 138, 143, 148 Erosion, 150, 151, 284, 285, 301 Erzurum Citadel, mosque, 121 Eshkarand, mosque, 164 Eziran, 182 F ‘Facsimile’ (authentic) reconstruction, 336 Fatha Middle Miocene Formation, 284, 285 Fathi, al-Sayyid, 221 Fathi, Shaykh, 12, 21, 22, 219–220, 223 Fatima, 23, 24, 146, 207, 315, 322n31 Faysal II, 102 Fiey, Jean M., 72, 73, 125, 127, 130, 133, 134, 251

Flandin, Eugene, 73, 113, 115, 120, 124, 126, 259n49 Fortress, 131, 238, 260n65, 269n146, 285, 288, 292, 297, 298, 303, 309, 319n5, 319n6 Fourteen Infallibles, 24, 315 Fringe-belt analysis, 284, 290 al-Fustat, 292 G Gabriel of Kashkar, 321n26 Gehi, 182 Geographic Information Systems (GIS), 75, 82, 86, 97, 283 Geomorphometry, 86–96 Georeferencing, 78, 81 Georelief, 285 al-Ghasaniya School, 250 Ghazan Khan, 314 H al-Hadithi, al-Hajj Jumʽa, 225 Hakki, Ismaʽil, 74 Hall of the Naqib, 212 al-Hamawi, Yaqut, 70, 137, 258n45 Hamdanids, Hamdanid, 70, 127, 145, 152, 210, 295–297, 309, 310, 314 Hammam (bathhouse), 16, 33, 34, 248, 289, 304 Hammam al-ʽUmariya, 16, 33, 248 Hanifa Khatun, 186, 188 al-Harawi, Abu al-Hasan ibn ʽAli, 70, 137, 219, 289, 301, 314 Harun al-Rashid, Caliph, 271n172, 296 al-Hasan, Imam, 23, 24, 58n78, 109, 112, 146, 158, 238, 244, 247, 260n64, 266n121, 310, 315 Haydar, ʽAlaʼ al-Din ʽAli, sayyid, 314

 INDEX 

Haydar ibn Sharaf al-Din Muhammad, naqib, 194, 266n116, 323n42 Hazar baf (brick decoration), 111, 184 H-BIM, 337 Herzfeld, Ernst, 71, 72, 74, 99, 101, 103, 105, 106, 108, 133, 136, 142, 145, 149–152, 157, 158, 161, 162, 164, 165, 169, 171, 184, 188, 195, 215, 219–222, 224, 231, 255n10, 255n12, 256n15, 261n73, 263n91, 264n99, 270n159, 271n167, 301, 319n2, 321n27, 322n29, 332 Hesna ʽEbraye, 285, 288, 290, 292, 293, 319n11, 320n11 Hisham ibn ʽAbd al-Malik, Caliph, palace of, 294 Hisn, 238, 288, 292, 297, 303 See also Fortress al-Hisnan, 289, 319n6 Hnanisho I, Patriarch, 127 al-Hurr Ibn Yusuf, 290, 293, 295, 318n1 Husayn Agha (ibn ʽAli Agha al-Diwahji), 186 al-Husayn, Imam, 23, 24, 37, 58n78, 109, 112, 146, 167, 231, 236, 238, 242, 265n109, 266n121, 310, 315 Husayniya (Shiʽi commemorative hall), 49, 231 Husayn Pasha al-Jalili, 100, 137, 143, 144, 239, 260n58, 260n59 Hussein, Saddam, 2–6, 236 I Ibn ʽAbd al-Wahhab, Muhammad, 22, 37, 39, 47, 62n117, 318 Ibn Abi Harami al-Makki, ʽAbd al-Rahman, 188

343

Ibn al-Athir, 70, 191, 196, 231, 298, 320n21 Ibn al-Hajj ʽAli al-Nawma, ʽAli ibn Ahmad ibn Mahmud, 230 Ibn al-Hanafiya, Muhammad ibn al-Imam ʽAli, 246, 266n113 Ibn al-Kawla, al-Mulla Ahmad, 317 Ibn al-Khayyat, Ahmad, 27, 70, 228, 243, 248, 254n2, 271n162 Ibn al-Muhamid, Nasir al-Din ʽAbd Allah, naqib, 258n46 Ibn al-Sayyid Muhammad, al-Sayyid Yahya, 159 Ibn Battuta, 70, 137, 254n1, 266n116, 311, 314 Ibn Hawqal, Abu al-Qasim, 70, 295, 296, 300, 320n18 Ibn Jirjis al-Qadiri al-Nuri, Muhammad, 101 Ibn Jubayr, 70, 115, 119, 125, 127, 131, 137, 254n1, 257n29, 259n48, 260n65, 297 Ibn Muhajir, Abu al-Qasim ʽAli, 250 Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziya, 37, 39, 41–43 Ibn Shahidu, Ahmad, al-Hajj, 244 Ibn Taymiya, Taqi al-Din Ahmad, 36–37, 39, 42–43, 46, 47, 62n111, 62n117 Ibrahim Abu Bakr, artisan, 265n111 Ibrahim ibn ʽAli, al-Hajji, 146 Ibrahim ibn Quraysh, ruler of Mosul, 185 Ibrahim al-Muhrani, emir, 186 Iconoclasm, 34–36, 48, 61n109 Idolatry, 36–40, 45, 48–50, 61n109, 332 Idols, 36, 38, 44, 46, 48, 49, 61n109, 63n120, 63n121 Idris, al-Sayyid, 270n160 Ij Qalʽa, 296, 321n27, 322n27

344 

INDEX

Ilkhanids, Ilkhanid, 70, 72, 140, 145, 146, 148, 153, 155, 167, 177, 180, 182, 188, 190, 192, 194, 200, 204, 207, 209, 211, 213, 265n103, 303, 308, 313–317, 322n34, 323n45, 323n47, 332, 333 ʽImad al-Din Zengi, 298, 299, 309, 310 Imam, 12, 24–26, 32, 45, 58n76, 58n78, 59n83, 109, 110, 143, 147, 155, 158, 186–188, 192, 195, 232, 240–242, 265n109, 266n121, 268n128, 315–318 Iran, Iranian, 2, 46, 155, 177, 181, 265n103, 308, 309, 317, 332, 333 Iraq Museum, The (Baghdad), 108, 138, 140, 161, 187, 188, 196, 203, 207, 225, 231, 254n6, 265n104, 268n133, 269n138, 271n166, 314 Isbahan ibn Qara Yusuf, 303 Isfahan area, specific regional group of mosques in, 164, 182 Istanbul, 140 Ives, Edward, 71 ʽIzz al-Din Masʽud I, Atabeg, 196, 198, 210, 301 ʽIzz al-Din Masʽud II, Atabeg, 301 J Jabal Atshan, 284 Jaʽfar, the son of the Caliph Abu Jaʽfar al-Mansur, 296 Jalaʼirids/Jalaʼirid, 133, 192, 193, 225, 227, 268n133, 271n164, 317 al-Jalili, family, 153, 168, 183, 251, 303 Jamila bint Nasir al-Dawla, 127

Jamur, 192, 193, 234 al-Jarrahi, Ibrahim, 185, 186, 188, 300 al-Jarrahiya, fortress, 186, 190 Jewish district (Mahallat al-Yahud), 219, 224, 288, 289 al-Jilani, ʽAbd al-Qadir, 21, 228, 232, 236, 239 Jirjis (George), prophet, 26, 27, 45, 46, 318 See also Mosque of the Prophet George (Nabi Jirjis) al-Jumʽa, Ahmad Qasim, 72, 153, 157, 158, 185, 188, 193–195, 199, 241, 262n76, 262n82, 263n88, 263n92, 265n107, 265n108, 266n115, 266n116, 266n118, 269n138 Jumʽa bint Amat Allah, 220 K Kaʽba, 185, 187 Kaj, 182 Karamat (miracles), 20, 23, 26, 44 Karbala, 12, 37, 146 al-Kawashi, Muwaffaq al-Din, 292 Khadija, 146, 207, 315 Khadim, see Administrator (of mosque, shrine, tomb, waqf) al-Kharrazi, Ahmad ibn ʽIsa, 22, 250 al-Khatani, Jalal al-Din Ibrahim, 128, 131, 133, 134, 259n52 Khawla bint Jaʽfar, 24, 246 al-Khidri, Mahmud ibn ʽAbd al-Jalil, 16, 22, 249 al-Khidri, Yusuf ibn ʽAbd al-Jalil, 57n67, 70, 167, 182, 236, 243, 244, 248, 254n2, 269n143, 271n162, 271n163, 271n172 Khitat (tribal military units), 289, 293–295, 320n18

 INDEX 

KH-9 Hexagon, 76 Khosrow II, 285 al-Khuzaʽi, ʽAmr ibn al-Hamaq, 210, 297 Kouh-Payeh, 182 Kufa, Kufan, 289, 290, 292–294, 319n9, 320n17 Kufi script, 109, 153, 177, 193, 197, 206, 216, 259n57, 268n136 L Ladin, Usama bin, 2, 3 Lamp, 207, 235, 313 Landscape sacred, 24, 300, 311 urban, 70, 75, 76, 88, 283, 285, 309, 314, 336 Lolan, Rashid, 13, 247 Lu’lu’, Badr al-Din, 25, 100, 110, 112, 125, 145, 146, 148, 153, 155, 156, 158, 169, 171, 172, 182, 186, 192, 194–196, 198, 200, 204, 206, 209, 211, 213, 224, 225, 234, 238, 240–242, 244, 256n20, 261n66, 261n74, 263n92, 264n92, 267n122, 268n133, 292, 301, 302, 307, 312, 313, 316, 317, 322n33, 323n38, 332, 333 titulature of, 166, 171, 262n77, 266n118, 267n127 M Madfan al-Jaʽfari, see al-Barma Madrasa al-Aminiya, 262n75 Madrasa al-Atabekiya al-ʽAtiqa, 299 Madrasa al-Badriya, 144–145, 150–155, 206, 262n75, 269n138, 301, 307, 322n36

345

Madrasa al-ʽIzziya, 195–199, 269n141, 298 Madrasa al-Kamaliya, 299, 308 Madrasa al-Khaliliya, 262n75 Madrasa al-Mirjaniya, 256n20 Madrasa al-Muhajiriya, 299 Madrasa al-Mustansiriya, 153 Madrasa al-Nafisiya, 238 Madrasa al-Nizamiya, 191, 194, 298, 310 Madrasa al-Nuriya, 196, 209–215, 322n37 Madrasa al-Qahiriya, 301 Madrasa of the ʽAbdal Mosque, 16, 33, 242–243, 262n75 Madrasa of Ismaʽil Agha al-Jalili, 137, 143 Madrasa of Muhdir Bashi, 137, 138, 143 Madrasa of the al-Nuri Mosque, 100, 254n5 Madrasa of al-Tughraʼi, 317 Madrasat al-Ridwani, see Mosque of al-Ridwani Madrasat al-Sana’iʽ, 253–254 Mahfil (wooden gallery), 124, 226 al-Mahlabiya, 12, 32 al-Malik al-Ashraf I. Musa, 216, 270n150 al-Maliki, Nuri, 5, 6 Mamluk, 127, 301 al-Manqusha Palace, 290, 293–295, 321n27 al-Mansur, Abu Jaʽfar, caliph, 296 Maqam (shrine), 25, 200, 224, 271n163 al-Maqdisi, Abu Muhammad, 2 al-Maqdisi, Shams al-Din Muhammad, 70, 295–297, 321n22 Maqsura dome, 108, 109, 112, 118, 119, 122, 124, 125, 175, 255n10, 258n39, 305, 310

346 

INDEX

Marble, inlaid, 150, 153, 193, 200, 209, 213, 246, 308, 311 Mardin, 125, 305 Marqad (shrine), 20, 25 Martyrion (chapel) of St Jacob Intercessor, 251 Maʽruf ibn Ibrahim al-Sulayman, 232 Marwan II, Caliph, 294 Marwanids/Marwanid, 293–295, 319n9, 320n17 Mashhad (shrine), 20, 25, 127, 156, 200, 265n109, 301 Masjid al-Dirar, 40, 43 Masʽud, son of Joseph, stonecutter, 207 al-Masʽudi, Abu al-Hasan ʽAli, 127, 258n44 Mawdud ibn Altuntakin, 127 Mayyafariqin, 125 Mazar (shrine), 20, 25, 55n43 Merv, Mausoleum of Sultan Sanjar, 121 Midan (open space), 299, 301, 311 Mihrab, 59n85, 72, 101, 108–110, 112, 115–118, 121, 123–128, 131, 132, 134, 141–143, 147, 157, 158, 161, 171, 182, 184, 189, 190, 193, 195–199, 201, 203, 207–209, 211–213, 216–220, 222–226, 228, 230, 232, 233, 235, 239, 241, 245, 246, 255n7, 255n11, 256n21, 260n61, 261n69, 265n111, 266n115, 267n124, 269n138, 269n145, 270n153, 270n158, 271n166, 304–306, 308, 313–315, 321n25, 323n43 Minaret al-Hadbaʼ, 18, 32, 98, 103, 110–112, 334 Minaret al-Maksura, 289, 292, 320n13 Minbar, 27, 100, 112, 118, 124, 138, 141, 201, 208, 218, 240

Misr (garrison city), 289, 290, 292–297, 320n14, 320n16 Monastery of Mar Behnam, 204, 207, 251, 256n20, 323n40 Monastery of Mar Kurkis, 16, 29, 30 Monastery of Mar Mattai, 251 Monastery of Mar Mikhaʼil, 295, 320n11 Monastery of Mar Yonan, 127, 135, 309 Mongols, 145, 238, 302, 303, 333 Mosque, al-Masfi (Umayyad), 57n65, 101, 289, 290, 292, 298–300, 310, 333 Mosque, al-Mujahidi, 16, 17, 27, 109, 113–125, 255n10, 257n35, 258n39, 285, 305, 310, 311, 318n1, 319n1, 333, 334 Mosque, al-Takriti, 18 Mosque of al-ʽAbbas, 16, 240–241 Mosque of ʽAbdal, 16, 33, 242, 243, 262n75 Mosque of Abu al-ʽAla,’ 232 Mosque of al-Aghawat, 141, 260n61, 262n75 Mosque of ʽAjil al-Yawar, 16, 32, 33, 236–237 Mosque of Awlad (or Banat) al-Hasan, 16, 23, 189, 235, 244–246 Mosque of Bakr Efendi, 57n65 Mosque of Banu Sabat al-Sayrafi, 294, 295 Mosque of al-Basha, 33, 260n61, 262n75 Mosque of Bayt Shahidu, see Mosque of Awlad (or Banat) al-Hasan Mosque of al-Hajj Khalaf, see Mosque of Abu al-ʽAlaʼ Mosque of Hammam al-Saray, 16, 238–239, 303 Mosque of Hamu al-Qadu, 16, 21, 228–229

 INDEX 

Mosque of al-Husayn ibn Saʽid ibn Hamdan, 145, 297 Mosque of Imam Ibrahim, 16, 23, 25, 185–190, 306, 315 Mosque of Imam Muhammad, 16, 22, 58n77, 246–247 Mosque of Imam Muhsin, 15, 23, 25, 47, 153, 196, 209–213, 304, 311 Mosque of Imam Zayd ibn ʽAli, 16, 23, 241–242, 272n174 Mosque of ʽIsa Dadah, 15, 21, 28, 236 Mosque of al-Jamshid, 134, 255n10 Mosque of al-Juwayjati, 321n25 Mosque of al-Khallal, 300, 319n8 Mosque of al-Kharrazi, 16, 250 Mosque of Khazam, 122, 134 Mosque of al-Khidr, see Mosque, al-Mujahidi Mosque of al-Mahmudayn, 79, 247, 260n61 Mosque of Mahmud ibn ʽAbd al-Jalil al-Khidri, 16, 22, 249 Mosque of Maryam Khatun, 57n65 Mosque of Muhammad al-Abariqi, 16, 21, 239 Mosque of al-Mulla ʽAbd al-Hamid, 322n30 Mosque of al-Mulla Hasan, see Mosque of Shatt al-Jumi Mosque of Najib al-Jadir, 57n65 Mosque of Nur al-Din (al-Nuri), 18, 19, 32, 34, 59n85, 98–113, 125, 135, 137, 142, 144, 175, 190, 191, 213, 238, 251, 255n9, 255n10, 258n39, 270n159, 285, 292, 300, 303–305, 310, 311, 322n37, 333–335 Mosque of the Prophet Daniel (Nabi Daniyal), 12, 27, 232–233 Mosque of the Prophet George (Nabi Jirjis), 13, 14, 27, 132, 135–144,

347

255n7, 255n10, 258n47, 293, 300, 302–304, 318, 323n38 Mosque of the Prophet Jonah (Nabi Yunus), 13, 26, 28, 45, 125–135, 247, 260n58, 302, 303, 309, 334 Mosque of the Prophet Seth (Nabi Shith), 13, 27, 28, 229–230 Mosque of Qadib al-Ban, 13, 21, 215–219, 260n61, 300, 304, 322n35 Mosque of al-Qalʽa, 321n27 Mosque of Qara ʽAli, 300 Mosque of al-Qatiran ibn Akma al-Shaybani, 294 Mosque of Rawdat al-Wadi, 13, 31, 32, 230–231 Mosque of al-Ridwani, 15, 22, 237 Mosque of al-Sabʽawi, see Mosque of Imam Muhammad Mosque of al-Sabunji, 57n65 Mosque of Saʽid ibn ʽAbd al-Malik, 294 Mosque of al-Sakhurji, 15, 20 Mosque of al-Saray, see Mosque of Hammam al-Saray Mosque of al-Shahidin, 248 Mosque of al-Shahwan, see Mosque of Shaykh al-Shatt Mosque of Shams al-Din, 321n25 Mosque of Shatt al-Jumi, 16, 22, 249–250, 299 Mosque of Shaykh Fathi, 12, 21, 22, 54n34, 213, 218–223, 298, 300, 322n37 Mosque of Shaykh al-Shatt, 15, 19, 57n65, 175, 233, 234, 256n19, 305, 308, 309, 317, 323n40, 334 Mosque of Sultan Uways, 15, 28, 58n75, 224–228, 255n10, 271n163, 271n164 Mosque of al-Tawba, 127, 296, 297 Mosque of Tell al-ʽIbada, 294, 320n15

348 

INDEX

Mosque of al-ʽUmariya, 28, 239, 248, 304, 321n25 Mosque of ʽUmar al-Mallaʼ, 301 Mosque of Umm al-Tisʽa, 28, 213, 242, 246, 322n37 Mosque of al-Wazir, 322n30 Mosque of al-Zayniya, 299 Mosque of al-Ziwani, 241 Mosul Museum, 16, 31, 48, 72, 150, 161, 171, 201, 207, 216, 246, 270n150, 322n34 ‘Mosul School,’ 332 Muhammad, Prophet, 12, 20, 23–25, 33, 36, 38, 40, 41, 43, 46, 49, 109, 140, 146, 158, 159, 167, 171, 182, 204, 225, 244, 258n46, 263n92, 301, 312–315 Muhammad ʽAbd al-Qadir ʽAbd al-Rahman, 233 Muhammad Buyud ibn al-Hajj Mustafa, 231 Muhammad ibn Faris ibn Khalil Ghufr Allah, 240 Muhammad Pasha Inje Bayraqdar, 58n73, 233 Muhammad Sharif Agha, 138, 143 Muhammad Tahir Bek Mir Alay, al-Sayyid, 186 Mujahid al-Din Qaymaz, 114, 124, 300, 311 al-Munshiʼ al-Baghdadi, 115 Muqarnas, 108, 109, 126, 131, 132, 134, 140, 141, 148, 150, 159, 161, 164, 171, 174–177, 179, 182–184, 193, 207, 208, 212, 217, 218, 222, 226, 235, 260n58, 264n97, 264n102, 264n103, 265n103, 308 al-Murabbaʽa, 296, 297, 321n27 Musalla (prayer hall), 101, 125, 128, 134, 138, 139, 141–143, 216, 217, 239, 240, 255n7

al-Mustarshid, Caliph, 299 Mustawfi, Hamd Allah, 70, 146, 256n21, 311, 322n33 al-Muʽtadid, Caliph, 296 Muzaffar al-Din Gökburi, 257n27 N Nader Shah, 251 al-Nahr al-Makshuf (Open Canal), 295–297, 318n1 Nahr Zubayda, see al-Nahr al-Makshuf (Open Canal) Najaf, 12, 261n66 Naqib (representative of the Prophet Muhammadʼs descendants), 182, 183, 194, 224, 258n46, 266n116, 271n163, 314, 316, 317, 323n42 al-Naqshbandiya, Naqshbandi, 22, 58n73, 247, 249 Naskhi script, 166, 171, 187, 193, 204–206, 213, 241, 265n110 Natanz, Shaykh ʽAbd al-Samad Shrine, 309 National Archives and Records Administration at College Park, The (NARA), 76, 77 Niebuhr, Carsten, 71, 73, 100, 115, 142, 251, 255n7 Nineveh, 6, 13, 16, 19, 26, 31, 34, 35, 46, 48, 71, 73, 125–127, 285, 294, 296, 297, 309, 319n6, 321n27 Nizam al-Mulk, 191 Nur al-Din Arslan Shah, Atabeg, 210, 211, 213, 215, 269n142, 301 Nur al-Din Mahmud Zengi, Atabeg, 100, 102, 108, 110, 112, 256n22, 305, 310, 311

 INDEX 

O Object-oriented analysis, 82, 83 Öljeitü, Muhammad Khodabande, Ilkhan, 148, 323n46 Orthorectification, 78, 80, 81 Ottoman architecture, 153, 223 P Pagliero, R., 110, 150 Palace, 18, 31, 126, 129, 130, 238, 259n50, 289, 290, 292–296, 298, 301, 305, 309, 318n1, 320n21, 321n27 See also Dar al-imara (governor’s palace) Patronage/patron, 25, 26, 43, 110–112, 114, 146, 153, 155, 166, 172, 182, 186, 188, 194, 206, 209, 211, 213, 216, 225, 257n27, 258n45, 295–298, 301, 303–318, 332, 333 People of the House, see Ahl al-bayt (Prophet Muhammadʼs family) Persian tradition, 153, 307 Pilgrim, pilgrimage, 27, 69, 70, 125, 127, 129, 144, 188, 300–302, 334 See also Ziyara (ritual visit) Place, Victor, 71 Portal, 117, 124, 139, 147, 157, 158, 160, 161, 165, 168–170, 177, 182–184, 187, 188, 191, 193, 196, 197, 199, 201, 203, 204, 207–209, 211, 216–220, 223, 226, 237, 263n91, 263n92, 264n93, 264n94, 264n95, 264n96, 264n102, 265n107, 265n112, 266n114, 267n122, 268n132, 268n133, 304, 308 Prophetic tradition (on destruction of tombs), 36, 41, 42

349

Q Qabr (tomb), 20, 25, 268n137 Qabr al-Bint, see Tomb of Ibn al-Athir al-Qadiriya (Sufi order), 21, 22, 58n70, 58n71, 236 Qanat, see Canal Qara Qoyunlu, 303 Qara Saray, 196, 269n141, 297, 301, 303, 305, 318n1 al-Qarabuli, 186 Qasr, 251, 293, 296 Qasr Harb, 296 Qasr al-Shamʽ (Byzantine fort of Babylon), Old Cairo, 292 Qaysariya (bazar), 100 al-Qazwini, Zakariya, 70, 137, 322n32 Qibla, deviation from, 306, 313 al-Qubba, 12, 32 Qubbat al-Nasr, transept of Umayyad Mosque, Damascus, 112 al-Qulayʽat, 284, 285, 289, 290, 292, 293, 298, 300, 308, 310 Qutb al-Din Mawdud, Atabeg, 299 R al-Rahba, 296 Remote sensing data, see Archeological remote sensing (ARS) Ribat, 127, 131, 135, 215, 216, 236, 299, 300, 308 Ribat of Ibn al-Shahrazuri, 300 Rich, Claudius J., 71, 126, 128, 130 Royal Air Force (RAF), 77, 78 Royal Gate, al-Tahira al-Kharijiya Church, 251 Ruqayya Khatun, 249 S al-Sabunji, Mustafa ibn Muhammad Basha, 117, 186

350 

INDEX

Sadiqa bint Ahmad Bakr Hammu al-Hajj Khalil, 239 Safavid, 10, 153 Saʽid Efendi ibn Qasim Agha al-Siʽirti, 230 St. Aphrem Institute, 251 Saints, see Awliya’ Salafism, Salafi, 22, 32, 34, 36–39, 41–43, 46, 47, 50, 51, 62n110, 62n112, 62n116, 317, 318, 331, 332, 334 Salghur, Turkoman tribe, 186 Samarkand, Shad-i Mulk Aqa Mausoleum, 264n102 Samarra, 152 al-Saray police station, 12, 32, 253–254 Sarcophagus, 25, 137, 140, 150, 155, 157, 159, 171–173, 189, 190, 192–196, 208, 222, 233, 235, 241, 242, 247, 262n83, 265n112, 266n117, 266n120, 267n122, 267n123, 315–317 Sasanian, 112, 135, 285, 305 Satellite imagery, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 29, 56n50, 57n60, 59n87, 60n93, 60n98, 232, 241–243, 249, 250, 272n174 Sayf al-Din Ghazi, Atabeg, 236, 299, 333 Sayyid (descendant of the Prophet Muhammad), 236, 314, 315, 323n48 Segmentation, 85 Seljuqs, Seljuq, 125, 127, 153, 177, 182, 187, 191, 258n45, 298, 299, 301, 305 Sennacherib, 31, 126 al-Shaʽʽar, Khalid Fathi ʽAbd al-Qadir, 244 Shabaks, 32 Shafaʻa (intercession), 37, 49, 271n165

Shahzanan, 242 Shalmawi, al-Ustadh, 128 Shammar, tribe, 32, 236 Sharaf al-Dawla Muslim ibn Quraysh al-ʽUqayli, 298 Sharaf al-Din Muhammad Abu ʽAbd Allah, naqib, 167 al-Shawkani, Muhammad ibn ʽAli, 39, 43–45, 47, 62n117 al-Shaykhun, al-Hajj ʽAbd al-Baqi ibn al-Hajj ʽAbd Allah, 240 Shiʽa, Shiʽi, 3–8, 10, 12, 24, 26, 31–35, 37, 38, 48–50, 109, 155–157, 190, 230–231, 301, 310, 312–316, 323n44, 331, 333, 334 Shirk, see Idolatry Shith (Seth), Prophet, 13, 26–28, 45, 229–230 Shrine of Imam ʽAbd al-Rahman, 15, 25, 195–199, 298, 311, 321n25 Shrine of Imam ʽAli al-Asghar, 13, 24, 26, 186, 188, 190–195, 261n66, 261n74, 314, 315, 317, 318, 323n42 Shrine of Imam ʽAli al-Hadi, 13, 23, 234–235, 317 Shrine of Imam ʽAwn al-Din, 13, 23, 25, 28, 145, 156–185, 195, 205, 208, 256n19, 258n46, 262n83, 264n98, 267n123, 268n133, 302, 304, 305, 307, 308, 312, 313, 316, 317, 333 Shrine of Imam al-Bahir, 12, 15, 23, 26, 153, 174, 199–209, 217, 218, 235, 262n76, 307, 312, 315, 316, 320n15, 335 Shrine of Imam Yahya ibn al-Qasim, 12, 23, 25, 55n43, 144–157, 209, 235, 260n66, 307, 312, 316, 334 Shrine of Imam Zayd ibn ʽAli, 16, 23, 213, 241–242, 272n174, 302, 322n37

 INDEX 

Shrine of Imams Hamid and Mahmud, 15, 23, 247–248 Shrine of Kaff ʽAli, see Shrine of Panja ʽAli Shrine of Panja ʽAli, 241, 314, 315, 322n31, 323n44, 334 Shrine of Ra’s al-Husayn, 301 Shrine of al-Sitt Nafisa, 16, 24, 25, 238–239, 303 Shrine of al-Tirh, see Shrine of Panja ʽAli Silvan, 125 Sinjar, 15, 257n27, 270n150, 320n14 Sitt Zaynab Shrine, 256n20 Southgate, Horatio, 71, 101, 142 Statue of Abu Tamam, 12 Statue of Lady Spring, 12 Statue of al-Sawwas, 12 Statue of ʽUthman al-Mawsili, 12 Stucco, 108–110, 112, 113, 118, 122, 123, 125, 131, 141, 152, 164, 168, 177, 179, 200, 205, 217, 264n101, 305, 308 Sufi, 12, 13, 16, 20–23, 27, 33, 35, 37, 58n70, 58n75, 226, 227, 234, 236, 246, 249, 250, 300, 304, 311, 322n35 Sufi lodge (takiya, khanqah), 22, 37, 101, 102, 114, 224–227, 233, 234, 236, 238, 246, 249, 255n8, 300, 304, 311, 322n35 Sulphur Spring, see ʽAyn al-Kabrit Sultaniya, 148 Suq al-Arbi‘a,’ 297 Suq al-Shaʽʽarin, 56n50, 137, 187, 293, 297 Sutay Bek, 303, 317, 333 Suyufi, Niqula (also known as Nicolas Siouffi), 71, 145, 188, 262n82, 264n95, 266n16, 266n118, 268n137, 272n174 Syria, 1, 2, 4, 6, 256n20, 271n162, 305, 333

351

T al-Tabari, Ibn Jarir, 41, 46 al-Taghlibi, al-Husayn ibn Saʽid ibn Hamdan ibn Hamdun, 145 Taha Efendi Muhdir Bashi, 137 al-Tahawi, Abu Jaʽfar, 26 Takfir (excommunication), 37, 49 Takiya, see Sufi lodge Takiya al-Badawiya, 242 Takiya al-Naqshbandiya, 22, 58n73 Takiya al-Uwaysiya (al-Wisiya), 58n75, 224, 226, 271n163, 271n166 Taswiyat al-qubur (leveling of graves), 33, 36, 41, 42, 49, 50, 61n109, 331, 332 Taylasan, geometric shape of, 296, 321n23 Tayyar ʽAli Pasha, vizier, 115 Telʽafar, 12, 32 Tell Hammam al-Zawiya, 285, 303, 322n34 Tell al-Kunasa, 285 Tell al-Tawba, 125, 127, 297 Terracotta, 119, 123, 125, 165, 217, 257n29, 258n40, 305 al-Thaqif Quarter, 294 3D models, 183–185, 336, 337 Thuluth script, 193, 197, 212 Tigris river, 118, 150, 236, 257n31, 257n34, 284, 285, 295, 296, 319n1 Timur Lenk, 128, 133, 137, 258n47, 259n55, 260n58, 303 Tomb of Abu al-Hawawin, 13, 21, 23, 244 Tomb of ʽAlaʼ al-Din, 228 Tomb of ʽAmr ibn al-Hamaq al-Khuzaʽi, 210, 297 Tomb of al-ʽAnaz, 294 Tomb of Ibn al-Athir, 12, 28, 54n34, 231–232 Tomb of Muhammad al-Afghani (Shaykh al-Shatt), 15, 22, 233–234

352 

INDEX

Tomb of Shaykh Abu al-ʽAlaʼ, 13, 23, 232 Tomb of Shaykh Ibrahim, 15, 23, 55n43, 248–249 Tomb of Shaykh Ibrahim al-Naqshbandi, see Mosque of Shatt al-Jumi Tomb of Shaykh Mansur, 16, 23, 243 Tomb of Shaykh Rashid Lolan, 13, 22, 247 Town wall, 150, 219, 239, 248, 250, 290, 296, 298, 299, 302, 311, 321n24 Transept, see Qubbat al-Nasr, transept of Umayyad Mosque, Damascus Turkmens, 32, 303 Twelve Imams, 147, 155, 182, 187, 188, 190, 194, 195, 207, 209, 240, 264n98, 269n138, 270n153, 312, 315, 333 Twelver Shiʽa, symbolism of, 24, 26, 156, 316 U al-ʽUmari, ʽAbd Allah Bashʽalim, 128, 130, 131 al-ʽUmari, Muhammad Amin, 70, 194, 196, 240, 247, 260n58, 260n64, 269n143, 271n170 al-ʽUmari, Qasim, 248 al-ʽUmari, Yasin, 70, 211, 243, 244, 260n66 Umayyad Mosque, Damascus, 110, 112, 125, 305 Umayyad Mosque, Mosul, see Mosque, al-Masfi ʽUqaylids, ʽUqaylid, 185, 190, 265n110, 296–299, 310, 314, 320n14, 321n24 Urban morphology, 283–303, 335–336 ʽUthman ibn al-ʽAffan, Caliph, 288

U2 spy aircraft, 75, 225 Uzun Hasan, 100, 256n20 V Varamin, Imamzada of Yahya, 155 Great Mosque, 177, 182 Visualization algorithms, 92 W Wadi Darhil, 295 Waqf (charitable endowment), 100, 128, 143, 248, 249, 270n150, 323n41 Wathiqat al-Madina, see Charter of the City Wednesday market, 296, 297 Wirth, Eugen, 74, 113, 272n174 Y al-Yawar, Ghazi, 32, 236 Yezidis, 7, 8 Yunus Efendi, 115, 137 Yunus (Jonah), Prophet, 26, 45, 46 See also Mosque of the Prophet Jonah (Nabi Yunus) Yunus, Shaykh, 238, 239 Yusuf ibn Muhammad, 220 Z Zakariya, al-Sayyid, 168 al-Zarqawi, Abu Musʽab, 2, 3, 5 Zayn al-Din ʽAli Küçük, 299, 308 Zengids, Zengid, 25, 28, 70, 300, 301, 311, 312 Ziyada (mosque precinct), 113, 116–118 Ziyara (ritual visit), 20, 23, 27, 36, 47, 50, 302, 313, 332 See also Pilgrim, pilgrimage