CHAPTER TEN
Taj al-Din ‘Alishah: The
Reconstruction of his Mosque
Complex at Tabriz
Bernard O’Kane
The mosque of Taj al-Din ‘Alishah at Tabriz has long been celebrated for its size and magnificence. Considering this, it is surprising how little we know about it. Its very poor state of preservation,
limited to part of the qibla ayvan (Figure 10.1), is of little help in
reconstructing its original form.1 I have been able to find only one reference to the beginning of its construction, in Ahri’s Tarikh-i Shaykh
Uvays, where after listing the names of the enemies of Chupan who
Figure 10.1 Tabriz, complex of ‘Alishah, rear of qibla ayvan.
Photo: Bernard O’Kane, c 1974.
208
BERNARD O’KANE
were killed in 1318 (Rashid al-Din and his son), he adds: ‘And Khvaja
‘Alishah united in himself all power and he founded that building
(an ‘imarat) in Tabriz.’2 This mention of a building so famous that it
need not be named could only be a reference to his mosque complex.
Although the end of its construction is not recorded in contemporary
Persian sources, we know that it was substantially finished at the
time of the Mamluk ambassador’s visit in 1322 (see further below).
The only Ilkhanid account of it is in Hamd Allah’s Mustawfi’s
Nuzhat al-qulub. He notes that its qibla ayvan was built to be bigger
than the Taq-i Kisra, but that it fell from being built in too great
haste. From the figures above it must have been completed in four
years or less, indeed a short time considering the size of the original.
He also mentions that the size of its courtyard was 200 × 250 cubits.3
Ibn Battuta mentions a madrasa and khanqah to either side of
the qibla, together with its tile mosaic decoration and its marble
courtyard which was traversed by a canal and studded with trees,
vines and jasmine.4
The anonymous Italian merchant who visited Tabriz in the early
sixteenth century also provided a succinct, if at times enigmatic
description. He noted that the vault of the qibla (which he calls the
choir) was unfinished, not realising that it had fallen down earlier.
He described the portals and doors of the mosques in detail and
mentioned a stream outside the main entrance. The fountain in the
centre of the mosque was one hundred paces square and six feet deep
with a platform containing a pedestal supported by six elaborately
carved marble columns. He also mentioned the stone vaulting all
around the courtyard, supported on crystal-like marble columns
each five or six paces high.5
The sixteenth century Safavid historian Karbala’i mentions that
‘Alishah was buried in the mausoleum (maqbara) that he had built
himself behind the arch of his mosque (dar aqab-i taq-i masjid);6
while the still extant remains of the qibla wall at this point show no
signs of any building having been attached to it, it is reasonable to
assume that, as with most other Ilkhanid ensembles, a mausoleum
was planned from the start as part of the complex.
None of this would be sufficient to gain much of an idea of the
mosque were it not that we have another source, that of the unnamed
secretary (dawadar) who accompanied the Mamluk ambassador
Aytamish al-Muhammadi on his embassy to Tabriz in 1322. His
account is preserved in the Mamluk historian al-‘Aini’s ‘Iqd al-juman
(Figure 10.9), where it was taken in turn from another Mamluk
history, al-Yusufi’s Nuzhat al-nazir fi sirat al-malik al-nasir.
The original of this text and a Russian translation were published
by Tiesenhausen in the nineteenth century,7 and these were used
in the chief discussions of the mosque in scholarly literature, those
of Pope8 and Wilber.9 However, another look at the original Arabic
text10 reveals that Tiesenhausen’s published version has two lacunae,
MOSqUE COMPLEx AT TABRIz
and that the original yields more information than has been thought
previously. It is also worth quoting in full as one of the most thorough accounts of a building, outside of waqfiyyas, ever to have been
written in medieval Islamic sources.
The relevant section of the text (see the appendix for the original
Arabic) reads as follows, with passages in square brackets being those
omitted in Tiesenhausen’s text:
He (‘Alishah) founded a congregational mosque in Tabriz and built
it such that no one could build one comparable. Beside it he built
two baths, among the most remarkable that exist (in the world).
The author of al-Nuzha11 says that when the amir Aytamish alMuhammadi travelled as ambassador to Abu Sa‘id he had with
him his secretary (dawadar), an exceedingly handsome and clever
young man who wrote beautifully. When they entered Tabriz and
he saw this mosque he wrote an account of it and brought it to
Cairo where I copied it:
When he (‘Alishah) wanted to build this mosque he assembled
and brought the engineers around him and indicated that they
should build it at a gate of the city known as the Kharbanda gate.
He ordered that its measurements and height12 should be like the
Iwan Kisra, but ten cubits higher and ten wider than it.
He made a quadrangular pool 150 cubits wide in the middle of
it (the mosque). In the middle of the pool was an octagonal dome
erected on a square base, every corner of which had a statue of
a lion which poured water into the basin. In the middle also are
two fountains which produce a great amount of water despite its
scarcity in Tabriz. In the pool are four boats. All sides of the basin
are covered with marble of the type called ‘Alamut’.13 The vizier
made the architect erect three cornerstones in every corner [of the
basin, each measuring 23 hands.
The width of the mosque is four hundred cubits square and there
is an arcade in every quarter,] and between every two arches is a
monolithic octagonal column the colour of jade. Every column is
some 12 cubits tall and is connected by an arch with the next; all
are decorated in gold. In the mosque are two tall minarets, each 70
cubits [and each spiral.14 Around the mosque are eighty windows
of copper pieces, each seven] by five cubits.15 In each window are
200 round panes;16 all are inlaid and engraved with gold and silver.
(In) the qibla in which the imam prays are a dome17 and two pillars
of Andalusian copper with glorious inlaid and engraved gold and
silver.18 There are four doors to the mosque and at each was made
a bazaar and shops, and various lamps on copper chains inlaid with
gold and silver were hung in each (bazaar).
The author of al-Nuzha said: it was related to me by Majd
al-Din al-Sallami,19 that when the vizier began the construction of
this mosque in this manner I said to him: ‘O Lord, this will take
209
210
BERNARD O’KANE
immeasurable riches.’ He (‘Alishah) replied: ‘O Majd al-Din, it is
a rule of the Mongol kings that whenever they take vengeance
on their vizier first there is confiscation of (his) wealth and then
(his) execution, therefore in spending his wealth on holy relics his
memory will rest with God, may he be praised and exalted.’
There are still several problems to be solved regarding the interpretation of some of the features mentioned in this passage, but together
with the other accounts it provides the basis for a reconstruction
(Figure 10.2) which differs substantially from that of Wilber (Figure
10.3).
There are three measurements given which provide the parameters for this reconstruction: that of the outer walls of the mosque,
400 cubits20 per side, given by the dawadar, that of the courtyard,
200 × 250 cubits,21 given by Hamd Allah Mustawfi, and that of the
pool, 150 cubits per side according to the dawadar, and 100 paces
according to the Italian merchant. I have assumed that the outer wall
joined the qibla ayvan at the point c. 20 m from its rear, as a photo of
Pope22 (Figure 10.4) show that the walls south of this area were faced
with brick; north of the same point they were covered with plaster,
indicating an interior. The portion shown on Figure 10.4 includes
an opening that was clearly filled in, but as Hamd Allah Mustawfi
records that part of the vault fell during construction, it is likely that
this represents a contemporary strengthening of the supporting walls
of the ayvan. Confirmation of this is provided by the mouldings of
the arch which appear on this side (Figure 10.4): its broken-headed
profile and lower S-shape are closest to those of other fourteenth
century monuments.23 Why did the vault of the
ayvan fall? The walls were even thicker than those
of the Ayvan-i Kisra (10.4 m versus 7.32 m), and
no special technology would have been needed for
the vault. Mustawfi, writing in 1340, ascribed its
downfall to haste rather than any unnatural event
such as an earthquake.24 Perhaps experimentation with transverse vaulting, combined with the
unusual semi-dome which seemingly abutted it at
the qibla end25 was enough to render it unstable,
but we do not have enough evidence to be sure.
Returning to the reconstruction (Figure 10.2),
although its dimensions provide for a mosque
0 20m
qibla aivan, original work
which has a rather cramped courtyard in relation
qibla aivan, early rebuilding
hypostyle area (+ aivans?)
to the size of the pool, it is nevertheless closer to
pool
mainstream Seljuq and Ilkhanid plans than that
of Wilber, which has a court implausibly 325 m
Figure 10.2 Tabriz, complex
wide, with no arcaded prayer halls surrounding
of ‘Alishah, restoration of
it. The round figures of the sources are obviously
original plan.
approximations and with just a little alteration,
Drawing: Bernard O’Kane.
MOSqUE COMPLEx AT TABRIz
Figure 10.3 Tabriz, complex of ‘Alishah, restoration of original plan
(after D. N. Wilber, Architecture of Islamic Iran: The Il Khanid Period
(Princeton, 1955), fig. 30).
widening the courtyard and diminishing the pool, for instance, it
is easy to imagine more plausible reconstructions. These could be
made more detailed through interpretation of the dimensions given
for the height of the columns in the hypostyle areas of the mosque
(12 cubits, five or six paces) (which would help in determining the
distance between the piers), and in the number (eighty) and dimension (7 × 5 cubits) of windows, which, as in earlier major hypostyle
mosques, may have coincided with the spaces between piers.26
However, I have resisted temptations to furnish any more detailed
reconstruction, not simply to give others more talented at drafting a
chance to do so, but also because of the risk of its speculations being
mistaken for certainties.27
My sketch plan obviously leaves many questions of detail unanswered. What was the elevation on either side of the qibla ayvan?
The plastered wall there (Figure 10.4) obviously belongs to an inner
surface, so it must have been an extremely tall abutment to the
ayvan, and not part of the hypostyle area which filled most of the
covered spaces of the mosque. Wilber reconstructed this area as part
of the khanaqa and madrasa that Ibn Battuta mentioned as being on
211
212
BERNARD O’KANE
Figure 10.4 Tabriz, complex of ‘Alishah, side of qibla ayvan.
Photo: Arthur Upham Pope, 1930s, courtesy of the Asia Institute,
Shiraz University.
each side of the qibla (Figure 10.3). However, it is more likely that
the areas immediately adjacent to the qibla were part of the mosque
proper. Perhaps a later parallel can be found in the plan of the Isfahan
Masjid-i Shah, where taller than usual bays abut the qibla ayvan,
and courtyards for two madrasas are found beyond them (Figure
10.5). These bays provided visual support for the ayvan, but perhaps
more importantly, they also provided structural support, buttressing
an unusually tall ayvan.
Were there any other ayvans than that on the qibla side?28 A
single-ayvan plan would not, of course be unprecedented, as preSeljuq examples at Nayriz and at Bashan in Turkmenistan, and the
Seljuq example at Firdaus show.29 But the most prestigious mosques
were consistently on the four-ayvan plan. No other ayvans are mentioned by the commentators, but this could be because the size of
the qibla ayvan so overshadowed them that they were scarcely more
memorable than the arcades surrounding the courtyard.
Some decades ago fragments of columns were dug up in the courtyard of the mosque; of those illustrated one is indeed octagonal,
as mentioned by the dawadar, while two others are polygonal and
carved with angular interlacing strapwork. From the reproduction
MOSqUE COMPLEx AT TABRIz
(Figure 10.6)30 it is impossible
to tell if they resemble agate as
mentioned by the dawadar, or
jasper as mentioned by the Italian
merchant, although it is possible
that any similarity to these stones
may have been caused by paint
(the dawadar specifically mentions gold paint).31
One of the most extraordinary
features of the building is the
large pool in the courtyard which
was provided with four boats. As
detailed below, ‘Alishah entertained Öljeitü on a boat on the
Tigris, so he was no stranger to
the delights of water. It must give
us pause to realise how the sacred
function of the building was not
deemed to be incompatible with
pleasure boating, although we
also know that the tradition was
continued by the Safavid Shah
Isma‘il.32
No Persian source mentions Ibn
Battuta’s madrasa and khanaqa.
But the argument from silence is
hardly grounds for dismissing them
as part of the complex: neither are
the baths and bazaars mentioned
by the dawadar found in Persian
sources, but his is an impeccable
authority. The complex then
consisted of (at least) a mosque, a
mausoleum, a surrounding bazaar,
a madrasa, a khanaqa and two
baths. This was obviously a very
substantial ensemble, although
in terms of the evolution of
complexes the more ambitious
examples of Ghazan Khan at
Sham and Öljeitü at Sultaniyya
obviously take precedence. In
terms of complexes sponsored by
viziers, however, ‘Alishah’s may
have been built as a rejoinder to
that which his rival Rashid al-Din
213
Figure 10.5 Isfahan, Masjid-i Shah, plan (after
K. Herdeg, Formal Structure in Islamic
Architecture of Iran and Turkistan (New York,
1990), p. 15).
Figure 10.6 Tabriz, complex of ‘Alishah, stone
columns (after A. al-‘A. Karang, Asar-i Bastaniyi Azarbaijan (Tehran, 1351/1972), pp. 247, 249.
214
BERNARD O’KANE
had built, (consisting mainly of a khanaqa, a hospice, a hospital and a
rawda or funerary garden) in a suburb to the east of Tabriz.33
Having got a clearer idea of the original complex, we may turn
to its founder, Taj al-Din ‘Alishah, to set it within the context of
Ilkhanid society. Originally a jeweller and dealer in precious cloths,
his increasing prominence at the court of Öljeitü attracted the jealousy of one of the main viziers, Sa‘d al-Din Saviji, who consequently
sent him to manage the state textile industry in Baghdad.34 This was
a tactical error, as ‘Alishah proved himself an able administrator,
erecting a new factory 100 × 300 gaz (c. 42 m × 116 m) with marble
flooring (the Karkhana-yi Firdaus, Paradisial Factory) and staffing it
with 4,000 workers.35 He also continually impressed Öljeitü with
gifts of jewels, a famous example being a cap ornamented with precious stones crowned by a 24-mithqal ruby, and by entertaining him
on a splendidly decorated boat on the Euphrates.36
In 1310 he was made vizier,37 together with Rashid al-Din and
Sa‘d al-Din. At Sultaniyya ‘Alishah was credited by al-Qashani as
being the designer (or overseer, mi‘mar) of the city; he also financed
the construction of a bazaar of brick and stone which was cheaper
than one built of mud, mud brick, marble and plaster by his rival,
Sa‘d al-Din. He later built a splendid palace there.38 Sa‘d al-Din was
executed in 1311 and ‘Alishah’s relationship with his other main
rival, Rashid al-Din, soon soured. Towards the end of Öljeitü’s reign
matters between them were so acrimonious that the administration
of the Ilkhanid Empire was divided between them.39 On the death of
Öljeitü in 1316 ‘Alishah accused Rashid al-Din of having poisoned
the sultan, and managed to have him executed in 1318.40 This was
the moment when, having finally disposed of all his rivals he ‘united
all power in himself’, as Ahri says,41 and undertook his ambitious
building project. He became the first Ilkhanid vizier to die a peaceful
death, in the reign of Abu Sa‘id in 1324.42
The cult of the gigantic had already been established in Ilkhanid
architecture43 when Ghazan constructed his funerary complex in the
suburb of Sham near Tabriz. Öljeitü in his new capital of Sultaniyya
carried on this tradition, to which his mausoleum still bears witness.
While supervising the karkhana in Baghdad ‘Alishah would have had
ample opportunity to visit and wonder at the Ayvan-i Kisra which he
later ordered to be surpassed. Indeed he may not have been unaware
of Öljeitü’s attitude to it, as reported by al-Qashani when Öljeitü
visited it on Tuesday 27 Jumada II 709/14 December 1309.44 Öljeitü
went there for amusement but also to reflect on the achievement
of those who had built it and to reprove himself with not achieving
its equal. Al-Qashani also recounted how Hulagu had visited it and
had struck his knee three times before it (a sign of despair) and then
said: ‘Many glances of the great and the holy have fallen on this
unparalleled arch; I strike my knee on behalf of those thousand-year
long glances.’45
MOSqUE COMPLEx AT TABRIz
As the dawadar’s account suggested, ‘Alishah did narrowly surpass
the dimensions of the Ayvan-i Kisra,46 and since it was in Ilkhanid
territory, he could indeed have ordered it to be measured beforehand.
Adding to the importance of the complex of ‘Alishah is the influence which it and its architect had on the development of Mamluk
architecture. For Aytamish was so impressed by the minarets of
the building that he brought their builder back to Egypt.47 There
the builder erected a similar minaret for Aytamish’s complex of a
zawiyya (Sufi residence) and hawd-sabil (water dispensary) in the
town of Fishat al-Manara in the Delta. The amir Qawsun saw this,
requested the builder’s services from Aytamish and ordered him
to erect two Tabrizi-style minarets for his mosque in Cairo.48 The
most obvious result of the Tabrizi builder’s activity was a short-lived
vogue for tile mosaic, seen on some dozen surviving monuments,
exemplified by the minarets of al-Nasir Muhammad’s mosque in the
citadel, for instance.49
One Mamluk monument that was also supposedly erected in competition with the Ayvan-i Kisra was the complex of Sultan Hasan
in Cairo (1356–61). Various Mamluk historians report that its qibla
ayvan (Figure 10.7) was larger, and was specifically ordered by its
Figure 10.7 Cairo, complex of Sultan Hasan, qibla ayvan.
Photo: Bernard O’Kane.
215
216
BERNARD O’KANE
patron to be larger, than the Ayvan-i Kisra, even though it was in
fact smaller. As the Ayvan-i Kisra was then in Ilkhanid territory,
it is unlikely that any Mamluk engineers were able to measure it;
the mere assumption of superiority was evidently enough to satisfy
everyone.50
The qibla ayvan of Sultan Hasan’s complex is disguised on the
rear (bearing the same spatial relationship to the mosque as that
of ‘Alishah) by the presence of the largest mausoleum in Cairo and
one of the Islamic world’s biggest dome chambers, dominating the
square in front of the Mamluk sultans’ palaces in the citadel. This
massive exterior (Figure 10.8) led Sultan Selim upon seeing it in
1517 to exclaim ‘this is a great castle’,51 and indeed the fabric was
regularly used in the later fourteenth and fifteenth centuries as a
base from which to launch attacks on the citadel opposite, with
the result that the staircases to the roof were knocked down in an
attempt to prevent it from being used as such.52 Large pockmarks
caused by cannonballs are still visible in the stonework of the
façade of Sultan Hasan’s complex that faces the citadel (Figure
10.8). They are paralleled by those to be seen on the exterior of
the ‘Alishah mosque (Figure 10.1), for it too was converted into a
citadel, having served as an arsenal for part of the Safavid period
and for most of the nineteenth century.53 With its 10.4 m thick
walls, it is not surprising that the cannonballs had little effect on
it. Indeed, although it has been recently transformed into Tabriz’s
musalla,54 it is still popularly known in the town as the arg
(fortress).
Figure 10.8 Cairo, complex of Sultan Hasan, exterior.
Photo: Bernard O’Kane.
MOSqUE COMPLEx AT TABRIz
Figure 10.9 Badr al-Din Al-‘Aini, ‘Iqd al-juman fi ta’rikh ahl al-zaman,
Istanbul, Ahmed III Ms 2912/4, f. 358.
217
218
BERNARD O’KANE
Both buildings also had bazaars attached to them.55 This was
sound economic practice in that their revenue would be part of
the complexes’ endowments. Ironically, although Taj al-Din feared
execution he succumbed to a natural death and was buried in his
mausoleum behind the mosque.56 Sultan Hasan, however, never
;occupied the majestic mausoleum which he had built for himself
the exact circumstances of his death after his imprisonment remain
unknown. Despite the five years in which Sultan Hasan’s complex
was being built it remained unfinished at his death,57 a case of ‘vaulting ambition which o’erleaps itself’ – an even more apt epithet for
the mosque of ‘Alishah.
Appendix
منها و دفن في مدينته و انشاء جامعا بتبريز و بناه ببنآء ال يقدر احد ان يبنى مثله و بنى بجانبه حمامين
في اقرب ما يكون و قال صاحب النزهة لما سافر األمير ايتمش المحمدي الي ابي سعيد في الرسليه
كان معه دواداره و هو شاب حسن ذكي ذكاء مفرط و كان يكتب مليحآ و لما دخلوا تبريز وراى هذا
الجامع كتب صفته و أتى به إلى القاهره فنقلت عنه ديوانه لما أراد أن يبني هذا الجامع ركب و أخذ معه
المهندسين و أشار ببناء هذا الجامع بباب من ابواب تبريز يعرف بباب خربندا و امر ان يكون بهندسته
و علوه علي منوال ايوان كسرى و زاد فيه عنه علوى عشرة اذرع و كذلك فى سعته وعمل في وسطه
بحيره سعتها مائة و خمسون ذراعا و لها اربعه اركان و في وسطها قبه مثمنه مركبه علي مصطبه
مربعه كل ربع منها على صوره سبع تقلب منه الماء إلي البحيره و في وسطها فرارتان يصعد منها مآء
عظيم علي قلة المياه في التبريز و في البحيره اربعه مراكب و جميع جوانب البحيره مرخم برخام يسمى
الموت و الزم الوزير المعمار أن يجعل في كل ربع فى البحيره ثالثه احجار وعرض كل حجر مقدار
ثالثة و عشرين شبرا و كان سعة الجامع اربعمأية زراع مثل في مثل و في كل ربع منه رواق و بين كل
رواقين عامود و ان من العمد المثمنه قطعه واحده و قواعد ها لون اليشم و طول كل عامود أثنى عشر
ذراعا و نيف و علي كل عامود طاقه معقوده و جميعها منقوشه بالذهب و فيه مأذنتان علو كل واحده
سبعون ذراعا و هي حلزون و وابر هذا الجامع شبابيك نحاس نيف عن ثمانين شباكا طول شباك سبعة
ازرع في عرض خمسه و في كل شباك مائتي اكره جميعها مطعمه بنقوش بالذهب و الفضه و القبله التي
يصلي فيها االمام قبه و قائمتان من النحاس األندلسي مرصعه منقوشه بصنعه مفخره بالذهب و الفضه
و عمل علي كل باب من أبواب الجامع و هى اربعه ابواب سوق و دكاكين و علق فيه انواع القناديل
بسالسل من النحاس المنقوش بالذهب و الفضه و قال صاحب النزهة و نقل لى مجد الدين السالمي ان
الوزير لما شرع في عمارة هذا الجامع علي هذا الوجه قلت له يا موالنا هذا يريد امواال بغير حساب
فقال يا مجد الدين قاعده ملوك المغل إذا نقموا علي وزيرهم اخذ المال ثم القتل فصرف المال في ذخيره
بقى له عند هللا عز و جل و ذكرا عند الناس خير.
Notes
1. In the past few years, as part of the conversion of the building and the
space in front into the musalla of the city, part of the eastern wall of the
qibla ayvan has been knocked down to make it symmetrical with that
on the west. This chapter is based on a presentation originally given at
a conference on the art of the Mongols, a subject dear to Sheila Blair’s
heart, at Edinburgh University in 1995.
2. Abu Bakr al-Qutbi Ahri, Tarikh-i Shaykh Uvays, ed. Iraj Afshar (Tehran,
1389/2010), p. 210 (printed text), f. 77a (facsimile). I am most grateful to
Charles Melville for checking the reference for me.
3. Hamd Allah Mustawfi, Nuzhat-qulub, ed. and trans. Guy Le Strange
MOSqUE COMPLEx AT TABRIz
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
(London, 1918–19), text, pp. 76–7, trans. p. 80. The word used for cubit
is gaz.
Ibn Battuta, The Travels of Ibn Battuta A.D. 1325–1354, trans. Hamilton
A. R. Gibb, 3 vols (Cambridge, 1958–71), vol. 2, p. 345. As Ibn Battuta
qualifies the term qashani by the Maghribi term zalij, it is clear that
he meant tile mosaic. The oft quoted description by Robert Ker Porter,
Travels in Georgia, Persia, Armenia, Ancient Babylonia, etc., 2 vols
(London, 1821), vol. 1, p. 222, of the very elaborate tilework of what
he calls the mosque of ‘Alishah is probably that of the Qara Quyunlu
Muzaffariyya complex (the Blue mosque); he gives a separate description (loc. cit.) of the 80 feet high brick arg which was used as an arsenal.
A Narrative of Italian Travels in Persia, trans. and ed. Charles Grey
(London, 1873), pp. 167–8.
Hafiz Husayn Karbala’i, Rawdat al-jinan wa jannat al-jinan, ed.
J. Sultan Karbala’i, 2 vols (Tehran, 1349/1970), vol. 1, pp. 496–7. This
is more explicit on the existence of the mausoleum than the earlier
sources: Hamd Allah Mustawfi, Zafarnama, British Library, London, Or.
2833, f. 730a: bi-pahlu-yi jami‘; Hafiz Abru, Zayl-i jami‘ al-tavarikh-i
Rashidi, ed. Khanbaba Bayani (Tehran, 1350/1971), p. 162.
Vladimir Tiesenhausen, ‘O Mecheti Alishakha v Tebrizi’, Zapiski
Vostochnago Otdileniya Imperatorskago Russkago Arkheologicheskago
Obshchestva I (1886), pp. 115–18.
Arthur Upham Pope, ‘Islamic architecture. H. Fourteenth century’, in
Arthur U. Pope and Phyllis Ackerman (eds), A Survey of Persian Art
(London and New York, 1939), pp. 1056–61.
Donald N. Wilber, The Architecture of Islamic Iran: The Il Khanid
Period (Princeton, 1955), cat. no. 51. The account of Keramatallah
Afshar, ‘Arg-e ‘Ališah’, Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. 2, pp. 396–7, is
closely based on this and the source in n. 6.
Badr al-Din al-‘Aini, ‘Iqd al-juman fi tarikh ahl al-zaman, Istanbul,
Ahmed III MS, f. 358a. I am most grateful to, initially, Donald
Little, and more recently, Amalia Levanoni, for providing me with a
copy of this, to Elizabeth Sartain and Bahia Shehab for help in reading
and translating it, and to Dalia Alnashar for typing it. The background
to the embassy of Aytamish is explored in Donald P. Little, ‘Notes on
Aitamiš, a Mongol Mamluk’, in Ulrich Haarmann and Peter Bachmann
(eds), Die islamische Welt zwischen Mittelalter und Neuzeit,
Festschrift für Hans Robert Roemer zum 65. Geburtstag (Wiesbaden,
1979), pp. 387–401.
This, as pointed out by Little, ‘Notes on Aitamiš’, p. 397, is not Ibn
Duqmaq’s Sahib nuzhat al-anam, as was thought previously, but alYusufi’s Sahib al-nuzha.
The Arabic text used by Tiesenhausen (‘O Mecheti’, p. 116) adds ‘and
width’ as well.
The Persian Mongol historians Vassaf (n. 32) and Mustawfi (Zafarnama,
f. 694a, describing the Shanb-i Ghazan) mention marble so frequently
in their accounts of the most prestigious buildings that it may have
become somewhat of a cliché; but this mention of a specific type makes
it a more reliable source.
This is unlikely to be anything so obvious as the well-known examples
of the Great and Abu Dulaf mosques at Samarra. As no other spiral
minarets are known from medieval Iran, probably spiral decoration is
indicated: it is found on several fourteenth-century Iranian minarets
219
220
BERNARD O’KANE
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
(for example, at Ashtarjan, Du Minar Dardasht and Bagh-i Qush Khana,
Isfahan; see Wilber, Architecture, pls 91, 158, 161).
The earlier sources mistakenly refer to the dimensions of the minarets
as being 70 × 5 cubits, because of the omission in Tiesenhausen’s text.
We therefore only know that they were 70 cubits (c. 32.34 m) high. We
do not know their placement: flanking the qibla ayvan or an entrance
ayvan, or at the corners of the mosque are all possibilities.
Round windowpanes were used in Iran as early as the Sasanian period.
Other examples are known from Samarra and medieval Nishapur: Jens
Kröger, Nishapur: Glass of the Early Islamic Period (New York, 1995),
pp. 184–5.
This must refer to the semi-dome of the mihrab niche. The engraving
of Chardin shows the ayvan as having a semi-dome at the qibla end:
Pope, ‘Islamic architecture’, p. 1060, fig. 381; pl. 1. Confirmation of
this is also provided by al-Matraqi’s illustration of Tabriz, where on
the south of the city (the right of the painting) the monument is shown
as a tall half-dome stuck on to the end of a lower wall with windows.
No indication is given of a courtyard, and although this is not evidence
that it definitely did not exist, it may already have disappeared by this
stage (Bayan-i manazil-i safar-i ‘Iraqayn, Istanbul University Library, T
5964, dated 944/1537–8, reproduced in Albert Gabriel, ‘Les étapes d’une
campagne dans les deux ‘Irak’, Syria (1928), pl. LXXVII).
Wilber plausibly interprets this as a reference to a lustre mihrab:
Architecture, p. 148.
The merchant who was an intermediary in previous peace negotiations
between ‘Alishah and Karim al-Din Kabir, the Mamluk nazir al-khass
(controller of the privy funds): Little, ‘Notes’, p. 396.
I have assumed that the common cubit (dhar‘ al-‘amma) of 0.462 m
was being referred to: on Mamluk metrology, see William Popper,
Systematic Notes to Ibn Taghrî Birdî’s History of Egypt, University of
California Publications in Semitic Philology XVI (Berkeley, 1957), p. 33.
This is perhaps more likely than the slightly larger building or work
cubit of 0.5775 m (ibid., pp. 33, 35) since another passage specifically
refers to the work cubit when describing a minaret: see below, n. 44.
Sheila Blair has shown by using the known height of the mausoleum
Öljeitü at Sultaniyya that the cubit used by Hafiz Abru, based on
figures taken from Hamd Allah Mustawfi (in his Zafarnama, f. 711a),
was equivalent to 0.42 m: ‘The Mongol capital of Sultaniyya, “The
Imperial”’, Iran 24 (1986), p. 143.
I am most grateful to Professor Sadegh Mirzaabolghasemi of Shiraz
University for obtaining a copy of this from the Asia Institute
Archives.
For example, the interior of the Bastam tomb tower: Robert Hillenbrand,
‘The flanged tomb tower at Bastam’, in Chahryar Adle (ed.) Art et société
dans le monde iranien (Paris, 1982), fig. 86; for a smaller scale prototype
see the lower arch of a gravestone dated 533/1139 in the Yazd Friday
mosque: Iraj Afshar, Yadgarha-yi Yazd, Vol. 2: Shahr-i Yazd (Tehran,
1354/1976), pl. 32–15/2.
The table in Charles Melville, ‘Historical monuments and earthquakes
in Tabriz’, Iran 19 (1981), p. 167, shows that the next earthquake after
that of 704/1304 (dating from before the mosque’s inception) did not
occur until 746/1345.
See n. 16 above.
MOSqUE COMPLEx AT TABRIz
26. As, for example, in the Great Mosque of Samarra and, for the most part,
in the mosque of Ibn Tulun in Cairo.
27. The dangers of this with regard to Sasanian architecture have been
highlighted by Lionel Bier, ‘The Sasanian palaces and their influence in
early Islam’, Ars Orientalis 23 (1993) (published 1994), pp. 57–66.
28. Pope, ‘Islamic Architecture’, p. 1058, asserted that the mosque had a
four-ayvan plan, but does not provide any supporting evidence for his
statement.
29. Illustrated respectively in André Godard, ‘Le masdjid-é Djum‘a de
Niriz’, Athar-é Iran I (1936), fig. 114; Galina A. Pugachenkova, Puti
Razvitiya Arkhitektury Iuzhnogo Turkmenistana pory Rabovladeniya
i Feodalizma, Trudy Iuzhno-Turkmenksoi Arkheologicheskoi
Kompleksnoi Ekspeditisii (Moscow, 1958), vol. 6, p. 245; Antony Hutt
and Leonard Harrow, Iran 1 (London, 1977), pl. 78 (despite the caption,
the ayvan illustrated is the only one of the mosque).
30. ‘Abd al-‘Ali Karang, Athar-i bastani-yi Azarbayjan (Tehran 1351/1972),
vol. 1, pp. 247, 249.
31. In view of ‘Alishah’s background as a jeweller, Robert Hillenbrand has
suggested to me that, like the twelfth-century cathedral at Cefalù in
Sicily, actual semi-precious stones such as agate or jasper might have
been inlaid into the polygonal fields. However, although it is difficult
to be sure of the scale of the polygons from the photographs, they seem
rather large to have accommodated semi-precious stones. It has been
recorded that the doors and walls of ‘Alishah’s buildings at Sultaniyya
were studded with gold, jewels and pearls, and that the pavements
shone with rubies, turquoise, emeralds and other jewels, although it
is difficult to view this as other than hyperbole: Abu’l-Qasim ‘Abd
Allah b. Muhammad al-Qashani, Tarikh-i Uljaytu, ed. Matin Hambly
(Tehran, 1348/1969), pp. 47, 178.
32. As related by the anonymous merchant, in Grey, p. 168. Shah Tahmasp
continued the practice of boating in the pool, which was then part of
the royal palace, while the main ayvan of the mosque seems to have
been converted into a store for munitions: Michele Membré, Mission
to the Lord Sophy of Persia (1539–1542), trans. Alexander H. Morton
(London, 1993), p. 30. If this was indeed the pool of the mosque of
‘Alishah it had been partially filled in, Membré describing it as a square
of 38 ells (c. 43.5 m) each side. In 1673 Chardin reported that the qibla
ayvan was used as a mosque again: Les voyages du Chevalier Jean
Chardin en Perse et autres lieux de l’Orient, ed. Louis-MathieuLanglès
(Paris, 1811), vol. 2, p. 323. By the nineteenth century it served, and was
known as, the arg (citadel): see n. 4 above.
33. The most reliable guide to this is Sheila Blair, ‘Ilkhanid architecture and
society: an analysis of the endowment deed of the Rab‘-i Rashidi’, Iran
22 (1984), pp. 67–90.
34. Al-Qashani, Tarikh, pp. 121–2.
35. Shihab al-Din Vassaf, Tarikh-i Vassaf (Tabriz, 1959), p. 541.
36. Ibid., pp. 540–1; Khvandamir, Tarikh-i habib al-siyar, 4 vols (Tehran,
1333/1954), vol. 4, p. 193.
37. Al-Qashani, Tarikh, p. 109.
38. Ibid., p. 47, 122, 178; Blair, ‘The Mongol capital’, p. 147.
39. Al-Qashani, Tarikh, pp. 194–5; Ann K. S. Lambton, Continuity and
Change in Medieval Persia: Aspects of Administrative, Economic and
Social History, 11th–14th Century (Albany, 1988), pp. 56–7.
221
222
BERNARD O’KANE
40. Mustawfi, Hamd Allah, Tarikh-i guzida, ed. ‘Abd al-Husayn Nava’i
(Tehran, 1362/1983), p. 613.
41. See n. 1 above.
42. Mustawfi, Tarikh, p. 616. In the two fifteenth-century histories of Yazd,
Ja‘far b. Muhammad b. Hasan Ja‘fari, Tarikh-i Yazd, ed. Iraj Afshar
(Tehran, 1342/1965), p. 120 and Ahmad b. Husayn b. ‘Ali Katib, Tarikh-i
jadid-i Yazd, ed. Iraj Afshar (Tehran, 1345/1966), pp. 142–3, the story
is recounted that ‘Abd al-Qadir, who built a madrasa in Yazd, accused
‘Alishah of fiddling the state accounts in the treasury in order to get the
funds to build his mosque; ‘Alishah poisoned himself as a result, his
accuser died at the same time and both were buried on the same day.
The account is certainly false, but it is a reflection of the huge sums that
must have been expended on the mosque, and the prestige which it still
enjoyed in the fifteenth century.
43. For more on this subject, see Bernard O’Kane, ‘Monumentality in
Mamluk and Mongol art and architecture’, Art History 19 (1996),
pp. 499–522.
44. Al-Qashani, Tarikh, p. 87.
45. Ibid., pp. 87–8.
46. The arch at Ctesiphon is 25.63 m wide, 43.72 m deep (48.40 m including
the frontal screen) and 25.62 m high: Friedrich Sarre and Ernst Herzfeld,
Archäologische Reise im Euphrat- und Tigris-Gebiet (Berlin, 1911–20),
vol. 2, p. 74. The ayvan of ‘Alishah was 30.15 m wide and 58.7 m deep;
Wilber estimated its height to the springing of the arch as 25 m.
47. As the ‘Iqd al-juman also informs us on the authority of al-Yusufi’s
Sahib al-nuzha: Little, ‘Notes’, pp. 397–8.
48. Ibid., p. 398, n. 69. The text of al-Yusufi mentions only that he was the
builder of a mosque for ‘Alishah, but it is certainly that which is the
subject of this chapter. The minaret at Fishat al-Manara was singled
out by al-Yusufi as being spiral on the interior (‘alazun min dakhiliha).
As all Mamluk minarets with interior staircases were already spiral, it
is strange why this characteristic should be mentioned. It is extremely
unlikely that anything resembling the minaret of Ibn Tulun is indicated.
Al-Yusufi had already quoted the dawadar’s description of the minarets
of ‘Alishah’s mosque as being spiral, which we interpreted above (n.
14) as referring to spiral decoration. Ibn Taghribirdi also described the
minaret of the complex of Tashtamur (735/1334) in the northern cemetery of Cairo as spiral (Michael Meinecke, Die mamlukische Architektur
in Ägypten und Syrien (648/1250 bis 923/1517), Abhandlungen des
Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo, Islamische Reihe, Band 5,
2 vols (Glückstadt, 1992), vol. 2, p. 167); the remains of the mausoleum of this complex display tilework, and it is likely that here too Ibn
Taghribirdi was describing a minaret with spiral tile mosaic decoration.
49. The school which he founded and its surviving examples are analysed in
Michael Meinecke, ‘Die mamlukischen Fayencemosaikdekorationen:
eine Werkstätte aus Tabriz in Kairo (1330–1350)’, Kunst des Orients 11
(1976–7), pp. 85–144.
50. O’Kane, ‘Monumentality’, p. 510.
51. Quoted in Nasser Rabbat, ‘The iwans of the madrasa of Sultan Hasan’,
ARCE Newsletter 143–4 (1988–9), p. 6.
52. Examples abound in Ibn Taghribirdi, al-Nujum. For example, in 1389 in
a battle between the Mamluk amirs Yalbugha and Mintash, the latter
occupied the complex of Sultan Hasan, leading to ‘a constant discharge
MOSqUE COMPLEx AT TABRIz
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
of missiles from the Citadel upon the Mosque of Hasan and from the
Mosque of Hasan upon the Citadel’: trans. William Popper as History of
Egypt 1382–1469 A.D., University of California Publications in Semitic
Philology (Berkeley, 1954), vol. 13, p. 72. Accordingly, in 1390 Sultan
Barquq ordered the stairway demolished: ibid., p. 122. Although it may
be doubted whether the missile throwers erected on the roof of the
Sultan Hasan complex would have reached the top of the citadel, they
would certainly have been within range of the stables at its foot. Since
after 1377 this area became the residence of some of the most important amirs, it was obviously a strategic target: Amalia Levanoni, ‘The
Mamluk conception of the sultanate’, International Journal of Middle
East Studies 26 (1994), p. 384.
Membré, Mission, p. 30.
The place of festival prayer: see Robert Hillenbrand, ‘Musalla’,
Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd. ed., vol. 7, pp. 658–60.
The existence of a qaysariyya (a lock-up bazaar) attached to the northern end of the complex of Sultan Hasan is noted in Michael Rogers,
The Spread of Islam (Oxford, 1976), p. 102. It is not mentioned in the
original waqfiyya but was added by the administrator of the endowment some time after Sultan Hasan’s death: Abdallah Kahil, The Sultan
Hasan Complex in Cairo 1357–1364: A Case Study in the Formation of
Mamluk Style (Beirut, 2008), p. 39.
See n. 6 above. Hamd Allah Mustawfi, Zafarnama, f. 730a: bi-pahlu-yi
jami‘; Hafiz Abru, Zayl-i jami‘, p. 162.
The decoration, particularly of the entrance portal and of the main
courtyard, was considerably curtailed.
Bibliography
Afshar, Iraj, Yadgarha-yi Yazd, Vol. 2: Shahr-i Yazd (Tehran, 1354/1976).
Afshar, K., ‘Arg-e ‘Ališah’, Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. 2, pp. 396–7.
Ahri, Abu Bakr al-Qutbi, Tarikh-i Shaykh Uvays, ed. Iraj Afshar (Tehran,
1389/2010).
Anon., A Narrative of Italian Travels in Persia, trans. and ed. C. Grey
(London, 1873).
Al-‘Aini, Badr al-Din, ‘Iqd al-juman fi tarikh ahl al-zaman, Istanbul, Ahmed
III Ms 2912/4.
Bier, L., ‘The Sasanian palaces and their influence in early Islam’, Ars
Orientalis 23 (1993) (published 1994), pp. 57–66.
Blair, Sheila, ‘Ilkhanid architecture and society: an analysis of the endowment deed of the Rab‘-i Rashidi’, Iran 22 (1984), pp. 67–90.
Blair, Sheila, ‘The Mongol capital of Sultaniyya, “The Imperial”’, Iran 24
(1986), pp. 139–51.
Les voyages du Chavalier Jean Chardin en Perse et autres lieux de l’Orient,
ed. Louis-Mathieu Langlès (Paris, 1811).
Gabriel, Albert, ‘Les étapes d’une campagne dans les deux ‘“Irak”’, Syria
(1928), pp. 328–49.
Godard, André, ‘Le masdjid-é Djum‘a de Niriz’, Athar-é Iran I (1936), pp.
163–72.
Hafiz Abru, Zayl-i jami‘ al-tavarikh-i Rashidi, ed. Khanbaba Bayani (Tehran,
1350/1971).
Hillenbrand, Robert, ‘The flanged tomb tower at Bastam’, in Chahryar Adle
(ed.), Art et société dans le monde iranien (Paris, 1982), pp. 237–60.
223
224
BERNARD O’KANE
Hillenbrand, Robert, ‘Musalla’, Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., Vol. 7,
pp. 658–60.
Hutt, Antony and Leonard Harrow, Iran 1 (London, 1977).
Ibn Battuta, The Travels of Ibn Battuta A.D. 1325–1354, trans. Hamilton A.
R. Gibb, 3 vols (Cambridge, 1958–71).
Ibn Taghribirdi, al-Nujum, trans. William Popper as History of Egypt 1382–
1469 A.D., University of California Publications in Semitic Philology, Vol.
13 (Berkeley, 1954).
Ja‘fari, Ja‘far b. Muhammad b. Hasan, Tarikh-i Yazd, ed. Iraj Afshar (Tehran,
1342/1965).
Kahil, Abdallah, The Sultan Hasan Complex in Cairo 1357–1364: A Case
Study in the Formation of Mamluk Style (Beirut, 2008).
Karang, ‘Abd al-‘Ali, Athar-i bastani-yi Azarbayjan, Vol. 1 (Tehran
1351/1972).
Karbala’i, Hafiz Husayn, Rawdat al-jinan wa jannat al-jinan, ed. Ja‘far
S. Qurra’i, 2 vols (Tehran, 1349/1970).
Katib, Ahmad b. Husayn b. ‘Ali, Tarikh-i jadid-i Yazd, ed. Iraj Afshar
(Tehran, 1345/1966).
Khvandamir, Tarikh-i habib al-siyar, 4 vols (Tehran, 1333/1954).
Kröger, Jens, Nishapur: Glass of the Early Islamic Period (New York,
1995).
Lambton, Ann K. S., Continuity and Change in Medieval Persia: Aspects
of Administrative, Economic and Social History, 11th–14th Century
(Albany, 1988).
Levanoni, Amalia, ‘The Mamluk conception of the Sultanate’, International
Journal of Middle East Studies 26 (1994), pp. 373–92.
Little, Donald P., ‘Notes on Aitamiš, a Mongol Mamluk’, in Ulrich Haarmann
and Peter Bachmann (eds), Die islamische Welt zwischen Mittelalter
und Neuzeit, Festschrift für Hans Robert Roemer zum 65. Geburtstag
(Wiesbaden, 1979), pp. 387–401.
Meinecke, Michael, ‘Die mamlukischen Fayencemosaikdekorationen:
eine Werkstätte aus Tabriz in Kairo (1330–1350)’, Kunst des Orients 11
(1976–7), pp. 85–144.
Meinecke, Michael, Die mamlukische Architektur in Ägypten und Syrien
(648/1250 bis 923/1517), Abhandlungen des Deutschen Archäologischen
Instituts Kairo, Islamische Reihe, Band 5, 2 vols (Glückstadt, 1992).
Melville, Charles, ‘Historical monuments and earthquakes in Tabriz’, Iran
19 (1981), pp. 159–77.
Membré, Michele, Mission to the Lord Sophy of Persia (1539–1542), trans.
Alexander H. Morton (London, 1993).
Mustawfi, Hamd Allah, Zafarnama, British Library, London, Or. 2833.
Mustawfi, Hamd Allah, Nuzhat al-qulub, ed. and trans. Guy Le Strange
(London, 1918–19).
Mustawfi, Hamd Allah, Tarikh-i guzida, ed. ‘Abd al-Husayn Nava’i (Tehran,
1362/1983).
O’Kane, Bernard, ‘Monumentality in Mamluk and Mongol art and architecture’, Art History 19 (1996), pp. 499–522.
Pope, Author Upham, ‘Islamic Architecture. H. Fourteenth century’, in
Arthur U. Pope and Phyllis Ackerman (eds), A Survey of Persian Art
(London and New York, 1939), pp. 1056–61.
Popper, William, Systematic Notes to Ibn Taghrî Birdî’s History of Egypt,
University of California Publications in Semitic Philology, Vol. 16
(Berkeley, 1957).
MOSqUE COMPLEx AT TABRIz
Porter, Robert Ker, Travels in Georgia, Persia, Armenia, Ancient Babylonia,
etc., 2 vols (London, 1821).
Pugachenkova, Galina A., Puti Razvitiya Arkhitektury Iuzhnogo
Turkmenistana pory Rabovladeniya i Feodalizma, Trudy IuzhnoTurkmenksoi Arkheologicheskoi Kompleksnoi Ekspeditisii, Vol. 6
(Moscow, 1958).
Al-Qashani, Abu’l-Qasim ‘Abd Allah b. Muhammad, Tarikh-i Uljaytu, ed.
Matin Hambly (Tehran, 1348/1969).
Rabbat, Nasser ‘The iwans of the madrasa of Sultan Hasan’, ARCE Newsletter
143–4, (1988–9), pp. 5–8.
Rogers, Michael, The Spread of Islam (Oxford, 1976).
Sarre, Friedrich and Ernst Herzfeld, Archäologische Reise im Euphrat- und
Tigris-Gebiet (Berlin, 1911–20).
Tiesenhauzen, Vladimir, ‘O Mecheti Alishaha v Tebrizi’, Zapiski
Vostochnago Otdileniya Imperatorskago Russkago Arkheologicheskago
Obshchestva 1 (1886), pp. 115–18.
Vassaf, Shihab al-Din, Tarikh-i Vassaf (Tabriz, 1959).
Wilber, Donald N., The Architecture of Islamic Iran: The Il Khanid Period
(Princeton, 1955).
225