The Dome of the Rock, the Kaʿba, and Ghumdan: Arab Myths and Umayyad Monuments

Author(s): Nuha N. N. Khoury

Source: Muqarnas, Vol. 10, Essays in Honor of Oleg Grabar (1993), pp. 57-65
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1523172
Accessed: 16/10/2009 10:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Muqarnas.

http://www.jstor.org
 NUHA N. N. KHOURY

THE DOME OF THE ROCK, THE KASBA,AND GHUMDAN:

ARAB MYTHSAND UMAYYADMONUMENTS

The Dome of the Rock has been - and still is - a major architecture as resulting from the early Islamic con-
concern in Oleg Grabar's scholarship. His interpreta- quests that brought the fledgling Islamic empire into
tions of the monument, its decoration, and various direct contact with these cultures in their native lands.
aspects of its history first appeared in the "Umayyad But Persian, Jewish, and Christian-Byzantine elements
Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem" in 1959.1 In a more were present in Arabia itself prior to the appearance of
recent lecture, later published as "The Meaning of the Islam,5 and were integrated into Arab history, tradition,
Dome of the Rock,"2 he modified some of his views on and culture to become part of the collective heritage and
the monument, pushing back its date of conception and memories that were recorded in the Islamic historical
emphasizing an early Islamic dialogue between the Jeru- writings of later years.6 A particularly rich repertoire of
salemite Dome and the Meccan Ka'ba. The same article Arab myths and memories, as well as architecture,7 thus
concluded with a comment on the "elusive" nature of preceded the appearance of the first Islamic monument.
great monuments, implying that the more important a Yet this monument has always been approached as the
monument or work of art, the more receptive it is to - product of non-Arab traditions and intentions.
or suggestive of - a variety of interpretations. Yet an- This study does not seek to reinterpret the Dome of
other interpretation of the Dome of the Rock is, then, a the Rock so much as to widen the scope of its conceptual
fitting tribute to a great monument of Arab-Islamic cul- and artistic inspirations and echoes - what Grabar has
ture and to Oleg Grabar's achievements in studying this termed its "esthetic culture."8 The participation of Ara-
culture. bia in the creation of this aesthetic can be found by
The Dome of the Rock is built upon layers of interwo- exploring three areas: the Dome of the Rock's overrid-
ven historical meanings, memories, and associations. It ing physical qualities and features, historical descriptive
falls within a sequence of centrally designed buildings, passages in which these qualities appear and the type of
but is unique within that sequence.3 Its archaeology and architecture they describe, and, finally, the pertinence of
iconography relate it to various events in Biblical and these source descriptions to Umayyad perceptions,
Christian history, and its mosaics and inscriptions have ambitions, and history.
been variously interpreted according to those events and The Dome of the Rock will here be shown to belong to
beliefs.4 Byzantine and Iranian stylistic elements and a general architectural type that includes a number of
decorative motifs can be noted and extracted from mythologized pre-Dome structures located not only on
within the Dome of the Rock's architectural and decora- the Temple Mount but also in South Arabia.9 The early
tive matrix. Yet all these considerations are secondary to sources frequently refer to these structures as "mihrabs."
the motives underlying its conception and execution; These mihrabs must be integrated into the pre-history of
they do not necessarily bear on the monument's original the Dome of the Rock; they and their surrounding
intent and meaning, nor do they fully explain it. events are as important to understanding the Umayyad
Islamicists consider both the Iranian and the Byzan- cultural personality as are the Biblical traditions that are
tine impact to be essential to the unfolding of early accepted as major forces behind the building of the
Islamic architecture in general and the Dome of the Dome of the Rock on its particular site.
Rock in particular. As Grabar has pointed out in perceiv- The Dome of the Rock is dated by inscription to the
ing a link between the Dome of the Rock and the KaCba, year 72 (690-91). This date in the reign of the Umayyad
the all-but-forgotten Arab heritage may be more critical caliph Abd al-Malik (685-705) is the pivot around which
to this early phase of Islamic architecture than has here- the complex that includes the Dome of the Rock was
tofore been suggested or accepted. Furthermore, schol- planned, executed, and later modified and expanded.?1
ars perceive Iranian and Byzantine effects on Islamic Less than one hundred and fifty years after the Dome's
58 NUHA N. N. KHOURY

construction different views were offered about its signif- ties, were transferred to the Dome of the Rock in an
icance. attempt to create a visually and architecturally compat-
In 831, the Abbasid caliph al-Ma'mun replaced Abd al- ible monument.
Malik's name in the foundation inscription with his own, The early and medieval chronicles do not mention
thereby transforming the Dome of the Rock into a mon- these similarities between the Dome of the Rock and the
ument of Abbasid rule." The Abbasid historian al- KaCba directly, suggesting that the connections they
Yacqubi (d. 874) accused Abd al-Malik of attempting to made were religious, pietistic, and mytho-historical
divert the pilgrimage from Mecca to Jerusalem, thus rather than architectural. The terms used to designate
characterizing the Umayyad Dome of the Rock as a rival the two structures - qubba (dome) in the case ofJerusa-
to the KaCba.'2In 985 Muqaddasi explained the Dome of lem's monument, and kacba (cube) for Mecca's shrine
the Rock as a rival to the great churches of the Christian signify formal differences and put the two structures in
east, seeing it as both a great work of architecture and an apposition. Any recorded architectural affiliations be-
emphatic statement in an architectural dialogue be- tween the Dome of the Rock and the Ka'ba must then be
tween the Islamic and Byzantine empires.13 All three found outside direct descriptions and within descrip-
statements acknowledge the greatness of the Dome of tions of a larger typological class that includes shrines or
the Rock as a work of architecture, yet disagree on its rai- monumental structures regardless of their specific con-
son d'etre. figurations. A clue to some sort of connection between
Of these three statements one, al-Ma'mun's, looks to the Ka'ba and the Dome of the Rock can be found in
the future. Whether al-Ma'mun's recording of his name Thacalibi when he speaks of a third structure, a mihrab
on the Dome of the Rock was motivated by piety or by built for Mary by Zakariyya.17
politics, it implies a recognition of the monument's cul- Tha'alibi's narrative locates Mary's mihrab in Jerusa-
tural value and a belief in its longevity. Muqaddasi and lem and associates it with the Temple, later the site of the
Yacqubi refer to the past. Muqaddasi recognizes the Dome of the Rock. According to the portion of the nar-
power of impressive architecture and so is able to pre- rative that parallels the Qur'anic account, Zakariyya,
sent the Dome of the Rock as a potent psychological tool leader and prophet of theJewish scholars (ra'su al-ahbari
in the hands of the Umayyad caliph. YaCqubi also sees wa nabiyyuhum) of the House of Aaron, hereditary care-
the building as a tool by which to achieve an immediate takers of the Temple, took charge of the daughter of
goal. His explanation places the Dome of the Rock in Clmran and placed her in a high and inaccessible loca-
direct competition with the KaCba. This statement, tion: a mihrab built expressly for her in the Temple (mas-
which has been shown to belong to an anti-Umayyad jid).8 He designed the mihrab so that its entrance was in
polemic,14 reflects a larger dialogue between Mecca and its center. The door could be reached only by climbing a
Jerusalem. stairway or ladder (sullam) "just like the door of the
YaCqubi's discredited statement on Abd al-Malik's KaCba."19
intention to divert the pilgrimage establishes a political Since Thacalibi was concerned with religious person-
link between Jerusalem and Mecca. Later pietistic and ages and prophets, he provides an appropriate Islamic
missionary literature, partly on the basis of the presence parallel to Mary's mihrab by referring to the religious
of a rock and on the tawdf ritual, amplifies the cosmolog- monument at Mecca. He strengthens the parallel, how-
ical connections between the two locales.'5 Architectural ever, by equating the Temple's family of ahbar with the
(physical and visual) links between the Dome of the KaCba's Qurayshi high priests, the hajaba, who alone
Rock and the Kacba are far more difficult to establish in were allowed to enter the structure.20 Height and re-
the original sources. stricted access, as well as a reference to hereditary or
The Dome of the Rock is a high, colorful, and symmet- dynastic rights of guardianship, appear to be the basic
rical structure that conveys distinct interior and exterior operational principles that allow Thacalibi to compare
messages. Grabar has focused on the same basic qualities the two structures. The same principles reappear in
as notable features of the KaCba, another geometric descriptions of a number of other structures designated
building with restricted access and distinct internal and as mihrabs, a term that acts as a textual signal of their
external content, and with colorful textiles substituting special nature or import.
for the mosaics and tiles of the Dome of the Rock.'6 The Qur'an mentions a number of mihrabs. Apart
According to the hypothesis accompanying this correla- from that associated with Mary, another (mentioned
tion, these features, the KaCba's most distinctive quali- twice) belongs to Zakariyya and is also a spatial unit.21
 THE DOME OF THE ROCK, THE KACBA, AND GHUMDAN 59

Qur'anic commentators indicate that a third mihrab, enceinte located upon a high platform. It is accessible
that of the prophet-king David, had a doorway.22 Refer- only to the practitioners of the new faith and is a monu-
ences to mihrabDawud in Wahb ibn Munabbih's eighth- mental creation of the victorious Umayyad state whose
century history23 characterize it as a structure of some ideologies it embodies. It is also a monument of striking
height in which David recited psalms and prayers in external visual impact, emphasized by its elevation and
seclusion,24 thus reiterating the twin criteria of height by its colorful decoration.33 It is a missionary monument
and limited access. Finally, the Qur'anic reference to that is meant to impress and convince, perhaps in a man-
Solomon's maharib (the only plural mihrab designation ner not unlike the effect Solomon's palatial structure
in the Qur'an)25 seems to correspond to a final phase in had on Bilqis and her followers. Furthermore, like the
the history of the Temple initiated by David but con- mihrabs which preceded it, the Dome of the Rock, by vir-
structed by his son Solomon.26 As noted by Soucek, the tue of its site, is a monument within a larger and signif-
Islamic sources focus on the Temple's elaborate multi- icant history. Taken together, these associations and con-
colored decoration.27 nections indicate that the Dome of the Rock itself
Built by Solomon's jinn, this Temple is described in belongs to the same architectural type known as "mih-
Islamic accounts in terms that match the physical ap- rab."
pearance of the Dome of the Rock.28 Whether these The semi-mythical character of mihrabs in the sources
descriptions preceded the Dome of the Rock or are a re- is a primary factor in their identification as culturally
sponse to its existence is a question that cannot be fully important monuments. The descriptions imply not only
resolved given the nature of the early sources. However, that mihrabs are important or imposing structures, but
it is clear that the more elaborate accounts borrow cer- also that they play significant historical roles. Mihrab
tain features of the Dome of the Rock. descriptions are embedded in accounts that speak of the
Solomon's structure was a colorful building sheathed pre-Islamic past, such as the siyar of prophets preceding
inside and out with white, yellow, and green marble. Muhammad.34 The body of material known as isradzliyyat,
Parts of it were coated and inlaid with gold and precious collections of pre-Islamic Jewish history and knowl-
jewels.29 Solomon had his throne at the end of a monu- edge,35 is a primary source for descriptions of these struc-
mental audience hall (majlis) where he received the tures and their surrounding events. Among the most
queen of Sheba who was, as is necessarily the intention of important purveyors of isradiliyyatis KaCbal-Ahbar (d. ca.
the structure and its mythologizing description, left in 655), a Jewish convert to Islam whose name appears in
awe of Solomon's apparent power and wealth.30 The for- contexts that require traditional knowledge or proofs.36
mula used for Solomon's mihrab reappears whenever Jewish perceptions are then considered to have had a
monumental buildings are described.3' decisive effect on the Umayyad choice ofJerusalem as a
These Qur'anic mihrabs, particularly the ones associ- primary shrine city.37 However, Kacb himself was a
ated with the Temple of the prophet-kings David and YemeniJew and a primary source of information on pre-
Solomon, can be - and have been - used to justify the Islamic Arabia in general.38 His knowledge ofJewish and
choice of the Dome of the Rock's site on Mount pre-Islamic Arabian lore must therefore be understood
Moriah.32 The histories and para-Qur'anic accounts pre- as that of an Arab.
sent mihrabs as architecturally affiliated structures. Al- As is the case with Ka'b al-Ahbar, Wahb ibn Munabbih
though their exact configurations are not described, (d. ca. 732), who is often cited as the final authority in
their height, their inaccessibility, and, in the case of Solo- matters that deal with pre-Islamic history, was also a
mon's mihrabs, their grandeur and opulence are always Yemeni; he spent a portion of his life as governor of
emphasized. These descriptions combine to define a Sanca.39 Significantly, Ibn Hisham, who transmitted
general architectural type that often appears under the Wahb's Kitab al-tzjdn on the history of pre-Islamic Ara-
term mihrab. The term does not refer to particular bian kings, often uses al-Yamani to designate his final
forms and functions (those being designated by words authority in his major Sira of the Prophet.40 Similarly,
such as qasr, dar, majlis, or ghurfa), but to a number of in- Ubayd ibn Sharyah al-Jurhumi (d. 686), who reputedly
herent qualities. These qualities indicate that in certain narrated pre-Islamic Arab history to the Umayyad Caliph
contexts mihrab is synonymous with monument. MuCawiya, was also a Yemeni Arab.41 Ibn Ishaq (d. ca.
The Dome of the Rock can be associated with mihrab 767), a chief collector of Islamic traditions and of isradzliy-
qualities through a number of features: it is an opulent yat used, among other sources, the accounts of Medi-
elevated monument that forms the focal point of an nese women whom he encountered in the mosque.42 In
60 NUHA N. N. KHOURY

that way, he transmitted Arab traditions to Egypt and all locations in Arabia made wealthy by the incense
Iraq.43The introduction ofJudeo-Christian material into trade, was admired and coveted by other kingdoms.55
Islam did not, therefore, amount to introducing foreign Ghumdan's attribution to Solomon further emphasizes
material into a new culture. Hodgson has pointed out its status as a monumental structure, an artifact of a royal
that native knowledge of these traditions was largely re- builder of legendary proportions.
sponsible for the acceptance and entry of isradiliyyatliter- Similarly, Ghumdan's destruction is variously ascribed
ature into Islam.44 to the Abyssinian invader Abraha in the sixth century,56
Seen in the light of a native Arab knowledge of pre- signaling the end of Sabeo-Himyarite rule and the begin-
Islamic history, descriptions of Solomon's mihrabs and ning of Abyssinian-Byzantine domination, and some-
of the Temple can be understood as part of the cultural times to the Caliph CUthman.57 When Hamdani de-
koine of early Islam. This is significantly underlined by scribed Ghumdan, its mounds were still visible opposite
the fact that descriptions of Solomonic structures were the eastern doors of San'a's Great Mosque.58 Ibn Hawqal
transmitted alongside accounts pertaining to the non- also identified these ruins with Ghumdan, describing
Jewish history of the region. The same historical narra- them as "traces of a great building now in ruins, so that
tives that describe Solomon's Temple include descrip- what remains is a big mound known as Ghumdan, a pal-
tions of a number of pre-Islamic South Arabian struc- ace of the kings of Yemen. Even in its ruined state, there
tures that were absorbed into Islamic history and is no higher building in Yemen."59
became sources of pride and symbols of Arab kingship.45 Geographers and travelers who describe Ghumdan,
Primary among these is Ghumdan Palace in San'a. including Hamdani, Yaqut, Ibn Rustah, Ibn Hawqal,
Ghumdan's descriptions undergo an elaboration pro- Nasir-i Khusraw, and IbnJubayr, all emphasize its height.
cess in the medieval Islamic accounts similar to those of In its original state, the palace is described as a tall struc-
the Temple and mihrabs of Solomon. Like Solomon's ture several stories high. Yaqut, basing his account on
buildings, Ghumdan is also designated by the plural the authority of Ibn al-Kalbi (d. 819),60 explains that the
maharib. The plural proper noun Maharib Ghumdan palace (qasr) had four sides each of a different color,
appears frequently in discussions of the term mihrab in white, green, yellow, and red. Within this was another
medieval dictionaries,46 and mhrbis found in connection qasr at the summit of seven stories (suquf) each forty
with royalty in pre-Islamic Yemeni inscriptions.47 cubits (dhirac) high,61 so that Ghumdan's shadow was vis-
While Ghumdan is not the only structure to survive in ible three miles away. The highest chamber (majlis) in
Yemeni and Arabic lore, it is the one characterized in Ghumdan was of polychrome marble, and its roof was a
Hamdani's tenth-century account as the oldest and fore- single slab of marble. Statues of lions at each of Ghum-
most among the palaces (qusur) of Yemen.48 Hamdani dan's four corners roared as the wind blew through
cites Ibn Sharyah in attributing Ghumdan's construction them.
to Ilsharah Yahdib (ca. 240-60).49 A Sabean structure, Hamdani's account, based on Wahb ibn Munabbih
Ghumdan belongs to a period when Sanca was eminent and Ibn Sharyah al-Jurhumi, differs from Yaqut's only in
in the region's political and architectural history, and is details.62 Hamdani's sources give Ghumdan twenty sto-
to be seen as a reflection of past glory.50 ries of ten cubits each, and describe it as a square struc-
The mythical characteristics with which the historians ture with a door on each of its red, white, black and
endow Ghumdan are important indicators of the struc- green sides.63 At its summit Ghumdan had a chamber
ture's primacy in memories of the pre-Islamic past. Thus, with marble windowpanes set in ebony and teak, and a
according to Hamdani, Ghumdan was built under auspi- roof that was either one marble slab or a dome com-
cious circumstances, with Taurus in the ascendant and posed of eight pieces of marble. It had statues of eagles
Venus and Mars, signs of constancy and permanence, in and lions.64 When its lamps were lit, Ghumdan was as
the constellation.51 bright as lightening.65
In addition to the Sabean king Ilsharah Yahdib,52 Ghumdan figured in the region's turbulent history in
Ghumdan is also sometimes attributed to Sam ibn Nuh, the centuries preceding Islam as the residence of Ara-
the progenitor of the Arabs.53Yaqut even provides an ac- bia's legitimate dynastic rulers. According to Ibn Hish-
count that credits its foundation to Solomon.54 The ac- am's narration of Kitab al-tzijn on the authority of Wahb,
counts therefore sometimes position Ghumdan at the only the supreme ruler, "he who deserved the title Tub-
beginning of Arab history following the Flood and some- bac among the kings of Himyar," was allowed to stay at
times in a period when its region, particularly Yemen but Ghumdan.66 In later years, Ghumdan continued to be
 THE DOME OF THE ROCK, THE KACBA,AND GHUMDAN 61

the prototype by which medieval authors measured lowed the Prophet's specifications of its Abrahamic
nobility and power in both architecture and kingship. form.73 Three Umayyad caliphs and almost ten years lat-
Turtushi used Ghumdan in his Sirdj al-Muluk to illustrate er, in 692, Ibn al-Zubayr was killed and the KaCbawas
the destruction of even the greatest kings and accom- quickly torn down and restored to the form it had had
plishments.67 In al-Khazraji's al-'Uqud al-Lu'lu'iyya, during the Prophet's lifetime.74
Ghumdan is used exclusively as a metaphor for wealth These reconstructions assume a debate on the KaCba's
and grandeur in panegyric poetry.68 nature and appearance, and the debate itself requires a
Ghumdan's physical and functional characteristics detailed knowledge of the KaCba'sconfigurations. The
relate it to the Temple, the Dome of the Rock, and the KaCbacould not have been a distant memory at the time
KaCba.Ghumdan's descriptions concentrate on its exte- the Dome of the Rock was built. Rather than being based
rior, implying an external value or content. This value is on a description of the KaCbamodel, the Dome of the
emphasized by Ghumdan's great height, the equal Rock and the KaCbabelong to a more basic architectural
importance given to its four facades, and its polychro- paradigm exemplified by Ghumdan.
matic, permanent, and expensive building materials. The history of pre-Islamic Arabia which appears in the
These features project a message of power, wealth, and chronicles of the final years preceding Islam in Arabia is
dominance, and identify Ghumdan as a monument. encapsulated in accounts of Ghumdan as a symbol of
Ghumdan appears in historical accounts as a prototyp- Arab rule. The area was then subject to a series of inva-
ical monument of kingship and power. As a royal resi- sions and changing political and religious affiliations
dence, it is an exclusive or restricted structure, a shrine reflecting the interests of various factions and their back-
to kingship that expresses the Arab concept of mulk.69 ing powers. The Abyssinian retaliation against theJewish
Much like Solomon's mihrabs and the Dome of the king Dhu Nuwwas (Yusuf Ascar) in 523 led to the con-
Rock, Ghumdan impresses by its very presence. Its quest of Yemen and the installation of Abyssinian gover-
descriptions encapsulate and exemplify qualities that nors.75Abraha, general and viceroy of Yemen, had styled
pertain to the architectural mihrab type mentioned by himself king by 547. His mythologized attack on the
early Arab historians and lexicographers. northern regions some years later with the intention of
Information about Ghumdan was as available to the destroying the Kacba is preserved in the Qur'anic ac-
Umayyads as that for Maharib Sulayman. Descriptions of count of waqCatal-fi .76Following Abraha's failure to take
it appear in many of the same sources that describe Mecca, Yemeni groups led by Sayf ibn Dhi Yazan began a
Qur'anic mihrabs. The value of Ghumdan's descriptions revolt that, with military help from the Sasanian shah,
does not rest on their historical validity so much as on the successfully ousted the Abyssinians from the region.77 Al-
fact that they were part of Umayyad aesthetic and cultural though Sayf ibn Dhi Yazan ruled as a vassal of the Sasa-
consciousness. Ubayd ibn Sharyah's book on the history nian king, and although Yemen itself continued to be a
of pre-Islamic Arab kings is presented as a dialogue be- Sasanian province until the death of Khusraw II Perwiz
tween him and MuCawiya.The Marwanids are reputed to in 628,78 these events are remembered in Arabic histor-
have possessed a book on the histories of ancient kings.70 ical accounts as constituting liberation from foreign
And the chroniclers report early Islamic archaeological domination.
discoveries in Yemen as late as the caliphate of Sulayman The semi-legendary Sayf ibn Dhi Yazan is presented in
ibn Abd al-Malik (715-17).71 The historians, therefore, the accounts as the last great king before the final disin-
report that the Umayyads possessed a store of knowledge tegration of the South Arabian kingdom. He is trans-
which preserved the basic features of monumental archi- formed into an Arab hero who paves the way for Arabia's
tecture. This architecture is signified by the term mihrab, unification under Islam. His victory against the Abyssi-
and is elevated, exclusive, opulent, and imposing. These nians is dated two years after the birth of the Prophet.79
are the Dome of the Rock's basic qualities. Following his installation, a Meccan congratulatory dele-
The idea behind the Dome of the Rock's design is not gation finds him seated "at Ghumdan's summit" (ra's
a projection of vague memories of the KaCba.By the time Ghumdan)."80 A panegyric reportedly composed for the
the Dome of the Rock was completed in 691, the KaCba occasion makes Ghumdan the appropriate reward of the
had been besieged by Umayyad troops fighting the coun- new Arab king.81 Ghumdan enters Islamic history when
ter-caliph Ibn al-Zubayr. The structure was burned dur- Sayf ibn Dhi Yazan, a monotheist, recognizes Abd al-Mut-
ing the siege of 683,72 and was rebuilt by Ibn al-Zubayr in talib, addresses him as his maternal cousin, and informs
a manner that, he maintained on CA'isha's authority, fol- him of the new era that will be initiated by Abd al-Mutta-
62 NUHA N. N. KHOURY

lib's grandson, Muhammad.82 While certain parts of the the KaCba's rival reflects a struggle for dominance be-
account doubtless have a basis in fact, its pseudo-histor- tween two Arab Muslim groups. The Umayyads did not
ical prophetic portion sets Ghumdan as the point of hold the edge in this struggle. Ibn al-Zubayr was a mem-
transfer of an old world order into a new one dominated ber of Quraysh and the first Muslim born after the hijra
by a new religion. to Medina. He refused the caliphate in favor of Mecca,
These accounts contain the historians' own interpreta- styled himself al-'Caidhbi al-bayt,88and so identified him-
tions of Ghumdan. Ghumdan is a power monument. It is self with the Meccan sanctuary.
a dynastic Arab shrine that expresses liberation and In countering these attacks the Umayyads needed to
sends a message of victory. It belongs to an aristocratic emphasize their Arab identity, their place at the head of
elite, and its architecture is an expression of this elite's the old Qurayshi aristocracy, and, consequently, their
ordained right to rule. Ghumdan is too important in right to rule. This message had to be relayed in a lan-
Arab memory not to be incorporated into Islamic his- guage familiar to their Arab enemies. A primary constit-
tory. Sayf ibn Dhi Yazan's recognition of the onset of a uent of this language was a system of dynastic rule that
new era sets the scene for the Prophet's appearance. It prompted later, anti-Umayyad historians to accuse the
also sends a message of historical continuity whereby the Umayyads of being kings (muluk) as opposed to the
Arab past is absorbed into a new Arab system of leader- Umayyads' own self-designation as khulafad Allah (God-
ship and religion. The same sense of historical continui- ordained caliphs),89 a title that imparts a sense of destiny.
ty is reflected in a frequently repeated pseudo-prophetic Another constituent was the Dome of the Rock, a monu-
formula, "For whom the kingdom of Dhamar? For the ment that projected images of ancient dynastic shrines
chosen Himyarites; for the evil Abyssinians; for the free such as Maharib Ghumdan and Maharib Suleyman and
Persians; for Quraysh the merchants."83 stood as an emphatic point of transfer from the old
Toward the end of Ubayd's book on ancient Arabian Islamic caliphate to a new Umayyad dynastic regime.
kingdoms Mucawiya proclaims that Himyar's rule had The inscriptions and representations within the Dome
been removed and transferred, through the agency of of the Rock also make references to the Arab past. Its
the Prophet, to a new victorious dynasty ("fa qad awrath- inscriptions bear the oldest dated designation of the new
ana alldhu dhalika min mulkihim").84With this statement, Arab religion as Islam.90 They begin with the primary
MuCawiyaidentifies himself - or is consciously made to statement of the Islamic faith, the Unity of God as
identify himself- as heir to the older Sabean-Himyarite expressed in the Surat al-Ikhlas. These statements define
kingdom and member of an elite that was chosen to con- Arab monotheism, in Umayyad terms, by what it is; then
tinue Arab history as initiated by the Prophet. MuCawi- they follow, in the Christological verses that refer to the
ya's self-definition is particularly appropriate for a ruler Trinity, by what it is not.
attempting to establish a new Arab Islamic dynasty in the The representations of crowns and jewels in the Dome
face of opposition from the equally Arab Qurayshi fac- of the Rock's mosaics also have affinities with Arab imag-
tions.85 The historical scene is primed for the construc- ery. Crowns are symbols of dynastic rule in Kitab al-tzian
tion of an Arab Umayyad monument that expresses where they not only appear in the title but also form the
these ideals. organizing headings throughout the book where each
In the years just before MuCawiya'sdeath in 680 and ruler is listed as "crowned king" (malikun mutawwaj). Ibn
the completion of the Dome of the Rock in 691, tribal al-Zubayr describes a cache of crowns discovered by
confederacies and allegiances were realigned in accord- Tariq ibn Ziyad during his 711 conquest of Spain in simi-
ance with newly reformulated genealogies,86 various lar terms.91At a fort two days' march from Tulaytila, Tariq
groups arose in support of CAli and his descendants, a found "twenty-four priceless crowns, [corresponding to]
number of revolts (the most important of which was the the number of their kings. The owner's name, age, and
fitna of Ibn al-Zubayr) occurred, territories were lost and regnal years were [inscribed] on each crown." Neither
regained, the KaCbawas destroyed and rebuilt twice, and Ibn al-Zubayr nor al-Biruni, who copied the account,92
Umayyad rule was transferred from the house of Abu mentions the fate of these crowns that conjure up the
Sufyan to that of Marwan.87 By the time stability was re- mosaic images in the Dome of the Rock. Did Tariq ibn
stored the Dome of the Rock was complete, and Abd al- Ziyad find such crowns in al-Andalus, or had they be-
Malik had initiated a series of reforms that Arabized ad- come, only a few years after the Dome of the Rock's com-
ministration and centralized the government. pletion, essential elements in myths of conquest and
Yacqubi's characterization of the Dome of the Rock as dynastic symbolism?
 THE DOME OF THE ROCK, THE KACBA, AND GHUMDAN 63

The intermingling of history and myth is an important Goitein, "Al-Kuds,"Encyclopaediaof Islam,2nd ed., also with its
partial execution. Rosen-Ayalon, EarlyIslamicMonuments,con-
part of understanding the Dome of the Rock. The Dome siders Abd al-Malikthe primary patron.
of the Rock exemplifies the definition of high architec- 11. The date appears above the entrances with the year 216 (831),
ture as it appears in historical and pseudo-historical ac- Creswell, Originof thePlan, p. 5. The inscriptions are discussed
counts. This definition is incorporated in descriptions of and transcribed in Christel Kessler, "'Abd al-Malik's Inscrip-
Maharib Sulayman and Maharib Ghumdan, which be- tion in the Dome of the Rock: A Reconsideration," Journal of
theRoyalAsiaticSociety(1970), part 1, pp. 2-14, esp. p. 9.
come architectural formulas for monumentality. Like 12. Quoted and accepted by Creswell, Origin of the Plan, pp.2-3,
the Dome of the Rock and the Kacba, they are external- and EMA1, 1, p. 66.
ized, restricted, elevated, visible, colorful, and opulent 13. Ibid., and Originof thePlan, pp.3-4.
structures. They are also dynastic shrines with semi-myth- 14. Goitein, "Al-Kuds," EI 2nd ed., p.325; Grabar, "Umayyad
Dome of the Rock," pp.35-36; Kessler, "'Abd al-Malik's
ologized histories and culturally sensitive roles. They are
Inscription," p. 11. The relationship between the holy cities is
prototypes of power and monumentality. The Dome of discussed in M. J. Kister, "'You Shall Only Set Out for Three
the Rock is synonymous with these Arab ideals of monu- Mosques': A Study of an Early Tradition," Le Museon, 82
mentality; it is a mihrab. It is not surprising then that the (1969): 173-87; G. R. Hawting, The FirstDynastyof Islam: The
Dome of the Rock's immediate intentions were quickly Umayyad Caliphate A.D. 661-750 (Carbondale, Ill., 1987),
pp. 49f.
forgotten, while its value as a monument lives on. 15. Primarilythrough the transfer of the sacrifice of Isaac motif in
the Sira, making Mecca the New Jerusalem; Gordon Darnell
Universityof California at Santa Barbara Newby, The Making of the Last Prophet(Columbia, S.C., 1989),
Santa Barbara, California pp. 18-19.
16. Grabar, "Meaning of the Dome," defines and discusses these
qualities.
NOTES 17. Abu Ishaq Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Naysaburi
al-ThaCalibi (d. 1035), Qisas al-anbiya' (Cara'is al-majalis)
1. Oleg Grabar, "The Umayyad Dome of the Rock inJerusalem," (Cairo, n.d.), pp. 333 f.
Ars Orientalis3 (1959): 33-62. 18. The Qur'anic passage most closely connected to ThaCalibi'sis
2. Oleg Grabar, "The Meaning of the Dome of the Rock," Mari- 3:37, where Zakariyya enters Mary's mihrab, indicating an
lyn J. Chiat and Kathryn L. Reyerson, eds., TheMedievalMedi- enclosed space.
terranean(St. Cloud, 1988), pp. 1-10. 19. Thacalibi, Qisas,p. 335, on the authority of Ibn Ishaq.
3. K. A. C. Creswell, The Origin of the Plan of theDome of the Rock 20. Ibid., p. 334.
(London, 1924); Early Muslim Architecture(New York, 1979), 21. Qur'an 3:39 and 19:11,in the latter of which Zakariyya"goes
vol. 1, 1, pp.65-123, esp. p.69, for the dating inscription, out" to his people from the mihrab, again indicating a space.
pp. 101-9 for the sequence (hereafter EMA). 22. Qur'an 38:21; Tabari (838-922), Tafszr,30 vols. (Cairo, 1954),
4. Grabar, "The Umayyad Dome of the Rock"; Priscilla Soucek, 23:141, idh tasawwaru al-mihrabais explained as "entry from
"The Temple of Solomon in Islamic Legend and Art," TheTem- other than the mihrab's door." Compare descriptions of
ple of Solomon,ed. Joseph Gutmann (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1976), "David'smihrab" in Guy Le Strange, PalestineundertheMoslems
pp. 73-123; Myriam Rosen-Ayalon, TheEarlyIslamicMonuments (Boston, Mass., 1890), pp. 167-69, 171, 213.
ofal-Haramal-Sharif(Jerusalem, 1989). I owe the last reference 23. This mihrab precedes David's initial construction of the Jeru-
to Bernard O'Kane. salem Temple. Wahb ibn Munabbih, a major source for Ibn
5. Irfan Shahid, "Pre-IslamicArabia," CambridgeHistoryof Islam, Ishaq's famous Sira and Tabari's Tafszr,is discussed in Newby,
ed. P. M. Holt et al. (Cambridge, Eng., 1980), vol. 1A, esp. Making of the Last Prophet,pp. lOf., and Raif Georges Khoury,
pp.14f. Wahbb. Munabbih,vol. 1, DerHeidelberger PapyrusPSR Heid Arab
6. The entry of Jewish literary traditions into Arabic lore is dis- 23 (Wiesbaden,1972), pp. 190-98, for his dates.
cussed in Gordon Darnell Newby, History of theJews of Arabia 24. Khoury,Wahbb. Munabbih,p. 68. The mihrab (translated Gebets-
from Ancient Timesto TheirEclipseunderIslam (Columbia, S.C., nische)overlooked Uriah's orchards and had window openings
1988); Byzantine traditions in Irfan Shahid, Byzantiumand the from which David "looked down" (pp. 72f.). In two instances
Arabsin theFourthCentury(Washington, D.C., 1984). (p.86), David's structure is a dar that includes a large number
7. Brian Doe, Monumentsof SouthArabia (New York, 1983); A. R. of mihrabs. Newby, Making of the Last Prophet,p. 159 (also on
al-Ansari, Qaryatal-Fau (Riyadh, 1982); a state-of-the-field re- Wahb's authority), gives "tower".
view in peninsular Arabian archaeology is G. R. D. King, "Cres- 25. Qur'an 34:13.
well's Appreciation of Arabian Architecture," Muqarnas 8 26. This continuity appears in Abu Hanifa Ahmad ibn Dawud al-
(1991): 94-102. Dinawari, Kitab al-akhbaral-tiwal, ed. Vladimir Georges (Lei-
8. Grabar, "Meaning of the Dome," p.9. den, 1888), p.23; Muqqadasi, al-bad' wa'l atarikh,6 vols. in 3
9. Arabia is here used to indicate the peninsula from the Red Sea (Beirut reprint of Paris, 1899-1919 ed.), 3:105.
to the Persian Gulf. 27. Soucek, "Temple of Solomon," pp. 84-90, citing Dinawari and
10. Grabar, "Meaning of the Dome," credits MuCawiyawith con- Tabarsi who use Wahb as their final authority. The same
ceiving the Dome of the Rock; F. E. Peters, "Who Built the descriptions are in Ibn Hisham's/Wahb ibn Munabbih's Kitab
Dome of the Rock?," Graeco-Arabica 2 (1983): 119-38, and S. D. al-tijdn(Hyderabad, 1347), p.159 (hereafter Kitabal-tijan), as-
64 NUHA N. N. KHOURY

cribed by M. Watt, "Ibn Hisham," EI, 2nd ed., exclusively to 49. Hamdani, Iklil, 8:24; Ghumdan is attributed to the same build-
Ibn Hisham who, however, collected the book from a chain of er in El, 2nd ed., but its date is given as 25 B.C. Ilsharah Yahdib
authorities ending with Wahb ibn Munabbih. Also Akhbar and his co-regent brother YaCzilBayyin, "kings of Saba' and
CUbaydbin Sharyahal-Jurhumi(appended to the same edition Raydan," appear in a number of Yemeni inscriptions, D. B.
of Kitabal-tzjdn,hereafter AkhbarCUbayd),p. 420. Doe and A. Jamme, "New Sabaean Inscriptions from South
28. Soucek, "The Temple of Solomon," pp. 74-88, and fig. 25. Arabia,"Journal of the RoyalAsiatic Society,1968, pt. 1, pp. 2-28,
29. Lubnan mumawwahanbi al-dhahab,Kitab al-tijdn, pp.159-60; nos. 2107, 2109, 2110, 2114, 2115, 2118, 2119.
AkhbarCUbayd, pp. 420-21. 50. Chronology is still problematic, A. F. L. Beeston, "Pre-Islamic
30. Ibid., pp. 420f.; Kitabal-tijan,pp. 159f. Sanca'," Sanca', pp. 36-38.
31. Particularly in the cases of Yemeni palaces reputed to have 51. Hamdani, Ikll, 8:7.
been built by Solomon for Bilqis and conflated with the Tem- 52. Ilsharah, the Arabic Sharhabil, appears in ibid., p.6; Yaqut,
ple's descriptions, Dinawari, al-Akhbaral-tiwdl,p. 24. Mucjamal-buldan,5 vols. (Beirut, 1955-57), 4:310-11. Beeston,
32. Soucek, "The Temple of Solomon," A reassessment is in "Pre-Islamic Sanca3," Sanca) p. 37, and n.15 for Ilsharah's
Nasser Rabbat, "The Meaning of the Umayyad Dome of the dates; Walter W. Muller, "Outline of the History of Ancient
Rock," Muqarnas6 (1989): 12-21. Southern Arabia," Yemen:3000 Yearsof Art and Civilizationin
33. See nn. 1 and 2 above. For monumental mihrabs, see Nuha N. Arabia Felix (Innsbruck, Frankfurt am Main, Amsterdam,
N. Khoury, "The Mihrab Concept," Ph.D. diss., Harvard Uni- 1988), pp. 49-54, esp. 51-52, for his role in Sabean history.
versity, 1992. 53. Hamdani, Iklil, 8:13; Abu CAliAhmad ibn CUmaribn Rustah,
34. Much of this material was excised from Ibn Hisham's Abbasid al-ACdqal-nafisa,ed. F. Wiistenfeld (Leiden, 1891-92), p.110.
Szraversion, Newby, Making of theLast Prophet,pp. 1-32. 54. Yaqut, Mucjam,4:311.
35. Kister, " C.Haddithu Canbani isra'ilawa la haraja',"IsraelOriental 55. Rimy Audouin et al., "Townsand Temples - the Emergence
Studies, 2 (1972): 215-39; Newby, Making of the Last Prophet, of South Arabian Civilization," Yemen,pp. 63-77, esp. 63-64.
pp. 10f. 56. Tabari, Tarnkh, vol. 1, p. 2, pp. 928-29; Ibn Hisham, Szratal-Nabi,
36. Kister, " CHaddithu',"M. Schmitz, "Kacbal-Ahbar,"El, 2nd ed. ed. M. Abd al-Hami (Cairo, 1937) 1:37.
37. Soucek, "The Temple of Solomon," pp. 73-88. 57. Yaqut, Mucjam,4:211.
38. El, 2nd ed., "considered to have possessed a profound knowl- 58. Hamdani, Iklil, 8:15.
edge of Arabia and southern Arabian tradition." 59. Ibn Hawqal, Suratal-ard(Beirut, n.d.), p. 43.
39. G. Khoury, Wahb b. Munabbih, pp.196-98. Wahb was de- 60. Abu al-Mundhir Hisham ibn al-Sa'ib al-Kalbi (d. 819), a known
scended from a Herati father, but was born and lived in genealogist and authority on pre-Islamic religions and history,
Yemen. al-Kalbi, Kitab al-asnam, ed. Ahmad Zaki (Cairo, 1924),
40. Ibn Hisham, Szra,1:30. pp. 12-19.
41. Akhbar CUbayd;condensed biographies of Ubayd in Bayard 61. Yaqut, MuCjam,4:210.
Dodge, ed. and trans., TheFihristofal-Nadim,2 vols. (New York, 62. Hamdani, Iklil, 8:23-25.
1970), 1:194; Umar Rida Kahhala, Mujam al-mu'allifin,15 vols. 63. Ibid., p.25.
(Damascus, 1957-61), 6:234 under CUbaydbin Shariyya. 64. Ibid., pp. 16; 22-23.
42. Newby, Making of theLast Prophet,p. 6. 65. Also Yaqut, Mu'jam, p. 210. Compare the description of Solo-
43. For Ibn Ishaq's move out of Medina, see ibid., pp. 6-8; El, 2nd mon's structure, which "shone like a bright lamp," in Dina-
ed. Except for one case, transmitters of his traditions are non- wari, al-Akhbaral-tiwal,p. 23.
Medinese. 66. Kitabal-tijan,p. 60.
44. Marshall G. S. Hodgson, The Ventureof Islam, 3 vols. (Chicago, 67. Muhammad ibn al-Walid al-Turtushi, Siraj al-muluk,ed. Jacfar
1974), 1:317. al-Bayyati(London, 1990), p. 69.
45. Tabari refers to three "unique" Yemeni palaces, Silhin, Bay- 68. CAliibn al-Hasan al-Khazraji,al-CUqudal-Lu'lu3iyyafi tarikhal-
nun, and Ghumdan; Abu JaCfar Muhammad ibn Jarir al- dawla al-rasuliyya, ed. Muhammad Basyuni CAsal, 2 vols.
Tabari, Tdrikhal-rusulwa al-muluk,5 vols. (Beirut reprt. 1965), (Cairo, 1911), 1:116-17, 333, 341, 378, 420. The only other
vol. 1, part 2, p. 928. instance of Ghumdan is as the place name of a valley in
46. Brief descriptions in R. B. Serjeant, "The Church (al-Qalis) of Yemen, p. 104.
Sanca and Ghumdan Castle," R. B. Serjeant and Ronald Lew- 69. Malik (in the dual form mlky)appears in the inscriptions listed
cock, eds., SanCad:An Arabian Islamic City (London, 1983), in n.49 above. MuCawiyais usually credited with (or accused
pp. 44-48, esp. p. 44; Grabar, TheFormationof IslamicArt (New of) creating a monarchical system (mulk);for example Abu al-
Haven, 1973), p. 79. The earliest mention of Ghumdan in the Abbas Ahmad al-Qalqashandi, Nihayat al-arabfi maCrifatansab
dictionaries so far is Abu Bakr ibn al-Hasan ibn Durayd (837- al-CArab, ed. Ibrahim al-Abyari(Cairo, 1959), pp.83-84.
933),Jamharat al-Lugha(Beirut, 1987). 70. Muhammad ibn Sallam al-Jumahi (756-845), Tabaqatal-shuc-
47. A. F. L. Beeston et al., DictionnaireSabeen(Louvain-La-Neuve ara', ed. Joseph Hell (Leiden, 1913), p.10.
and Beirut, 1982), p.69; Serjeant, "Mihrab," Bulletin of the 71. Kitabal-tijan,p. 55.
Schoolof Orientaland AfricanStudies22 (1959): 439-53, esp. 442 72. Abu al-Walid Muhammad ibn Abdallah ibn Ahmad al-Azraqi
and n.3. (d. ca. 864), Akhbr Makka,ed. Rushdi al-Salih Milhis, 2nd ed.,
48. Abu Muhammad al-Hasan ibn Ahmad ibn Ya'qub ibn Yusuf 2 vols. (Mecca, 1965), 1:196-200; Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn al-
ibn Dawud al-Hamdani (d. 945), al-Iklilmin akhbaral-Yamanwa Husayn al-MasCudi,Muruj al-dhahab,ed. M. Abd al-Hamid, 4
ansab Himyar,vol. 8, ed. Anastas Marie al-Kirmili (Baghdad, vols. (Cairo, 1938), 3:19.
1931), p.5; partial translation in Doe, Monumentsof SouthAra- 73. Al-Azraqi,AkhbarMakka,pp. 204-10. The first destruction and
bia, p. 254. rebuilding of the Kacbaduring the Prophet's lifetime is in Ibn
 THE DOME OF THE ROCK, THE KACBA,AND GHUMDAN 65

SaCd, al-Tabaqat al-kubra, ed. Ihsan Abbas, 2 vols. (Beirut, 83. The formula is inscribed on Minbar Hud, quoted in Nashwan
1960), 1:145-48. al-Himyari, Muluk .Himyar,pp. 5-6.
74. Al-Azraqi, AkhbarMakka, pp. 201-21. Abd al-Malik is made to 84. Akhbar Ubayd,p.472.
regret his restoration of the Ka'ba, p. 221. 85. A sarcastic reference to Mucawiya'shereditary system appears
75. Dhu Nuwwas, famous for his military campaigns against Abys- in MasCudi,Muruj al-dhahab,3:3. MuCawiya'sdeath is immedi-
sinia and 518 massacre of Najrani Christians, Kitab al-tijdn, ately followed by Kufa's revolt.
pp.301-6; Muller, "Outline of the History of Ancient South 86. Particularly important is the shift of the Qudaca confederacy,
Arabia," pp. 52-53. headed by the Kalb clan, from a northern to a southern gene-
76. Qur'an 105. Azraqi, AkhbarMakka,1: 141f.; Ibn Sacd, Tabaqat, alogy identifying them as descendants of Qahtan (hence
1:91-92, Abraha's construction in Sanca is described in identi- Himyar and Saba') as opposed to Ismacil; Hawting, First
cal terms as those applied to Ghumdan and the Temple Dynasty,pp.36f., and table 2. References to this shift are re-
(p.91). corded in Qalqashandi, Nihayatal-arab,p. 400.
77. Muller, "Outline of the History of Ancient Southern Arabia," 87. Hawting, FirstDynasty,pp. 24-56.
p.53. Kitab al-tijdn, pp.303-5; Nashwan ibn Sacid al-Himyari 88. "He who seeks refuge in the House [of God]," ibid., p.49.
(d. 1177), Muluk Himyar wa aqyal al-Yaman,ed. al-Mu'ayyad These particulars make Ibn al-Zubayrespecially relevant to the
and al-Jurafi (Cairo, 1378), pp. 149f., esp. p. 151, where Yeme- Dome of the Rock, although primacy in Islam was argued by
nis assure Persian envoys that Sayf is "our king, son of our other factions.
king, and our avenger." 89. Ibid., pp. 12-13, or "God's regents."
78. Muller, "Outline of the History of Ancient South Arabia," 90. As noted elsewhere, for example, ibid., p. 61.
p.54. 91. Al-Qadi al-Rashid ibn al-Zubayr,Kitdbal-dhakhadirwa al-tuhaf,
79. Kitabal-tijdn,p. 306 and n. 3. ed. Muhammad Hamidullah (Kuwait, 1959), pp.171-72. The
80. Ibid., p.307; Azraqi, AkhbarMakka,1:149f. accountis connectedto the discoveryof Solomon's "table" (Mdai-
81. Kitabal-tiajn,p. 307. dat Sulayman)later given to al-Walid (pp. 170-71).
82. Ibid., pp.307-10, significantly the final passages of the ac- 92. Al-Biruni, Kitab al-jamahirfi Macrifat al-jawahir (Hyderabad,
count. 1355), p.69.