فصلنامه گلستان هنر
سال ششم شماره 1 (پیاپی 17، پاییز 1398)

Muqarnas, also called “honeycomb vaulting” or “stalactite vaulting”, is usually considered the key component and the primary characteristic of Islamic architecture. The aim out of applying muqarnas is to create a smooth, decorative transition zone in an otherwise bare structural space. This decorative architectural element has been used within a variety of architectural settings from its beginning. Having thousands of complex geometric patterns composed of several combinations of simple elements makes muqarnas one of the most elaborate and fascinating forms of architectural ornaments. From a long time ago, that characteristic has attracted several scholars and researchers from different parts of the world to study and analyze muqarnas structures and patterns. Although there are several researches expressing opinions on the classification of muqarnas types, the issue is still under debate. Interestingly, one of the most adopted muqarnas typology studies dates back to a 15th century in a treatise written by an Iranian famous scholar, Qiyāth-od-Din Jamshid Mas’ud al- Kāshāni (1380-1429) mostly known as al-Kāshi in west. This book is Al- Kashi’s most impressive mathematical work called Meftāh-ol-Hessāb (The Key to Arithmetic) which he completed on March 1427, two years before his death. The work is a major text intended to be used in teaching the necessary mathematics to those studying astronomy, surveying, architecture, accounting and trading. In the fourth essay of the book, the first available written text on muqarnas mathematical and geometrical studies has been presented. While this essay was written to teach how to calculate muqarnas surfaces, it presents a typology for muqarnas and also introduces the main structural components and units of muqarnas for the first time. Astonishingly, after more than 590 years there are still diverse interpretations on the types as well as the fundamental units of muqarnas according to his points of view. While it is mostly due to the complicated writing style of Al-Kashi in Arabic, another main reason is that you can hardly find any 3D analysis of Al-Kashi’s studies. In fact, most researches have gone through the 2D patterns. Accordingly, this research tries to present a more accurate understanding of Al-Kashi’s treatise using 3D techniques. To do so, in the first phase the original essay in Arabic has been studied with the help of the Arabic language scholars at Shiraz University in order to have a better comprehension of the text. Secondly, the related literature has been studied and compared. These phases help us understand that the key point in misunderstanding and/or different interpretations of Kashi’s muqarnas types lies in different understanding of muqarnas fundamental units as were described by Al-Kashi. In this regard, by carefully scrutinizing the Arabic text and studying the 2D and 3D patterns and details of the remained muqarnases from Al-Kashi era, muqarnas fundamental units/components are identified and presented in 3D schematic diagrams for the first time. This paper is introducing the components as followed: “outer shell”, “inner shell”, “lower roof”, “upper roof”, “facet” and “facet base”. This would help prevent the inaccurate use of technical vocabulary for identification of muqarnas structures and also result in more a accurate and concise understanding of Al-Kashi’s muqarnas typology. Using the introduced muqarnas components in the previous phase, in the last section a detailed identification of Al-Kashi’s muqarnas typology has been presented. In his essay, Al-Kashi classified muqarnas into four main categories, namely sādeh (simple), motayyan (clay-plastered), Qows (curved) and Shirazi. To draw a conclusion, this paper elaborates on the earlier research and explains how the first three types differ from each other in spite of being formed in a similar square and/or rhombic grid. It also depicts how Shirazi muqarnases are formed within a radial system, not following a specific module. They have more complex structures due to the variety of fundamental components used. Finally, the present paper concludes that although Al-Kashi’s typology was basically conducted for the specific purpose of calculating muqarnas surfaces besides surveying them and although his research has been limited to his own time samples, the muqarnas fundamental units and typology he introduced can still be used even now in order to have a better understanding of this architectural element and its structures.

Muqarnas is one of the most popular decorative forms in Islamic architecture, from Andalusia and Morocco to India. There are numerous cases of muqarnas with a diversity of designs all around the present-day Iran. Although muqarnases all around the Islamic world (including Iran, along with Egypt, North Africa, the Levant, and the Asia Minor) look generally the same and carry a similar structure, studying their geometric principles of construction and building elements shows distinct differences. We are aiming to show the displacement of elevation of a muqarnas in a semi-dome from the arch of a semi-dome in the façade of an iwan through studying the construction of it from planar design to a 3D model; and thus underline the differences between muqarnases in Iran and those in the western Islamic world. What this paper investigates is the coincidence of a muqarnas and the arch of an iwan. A muqarnas is usually designed in plan, and then transformed into a 3D model by using specific rules. Since these rules are distinct, when a muqarnas is designed in plan, the 3D model and thus its elevation is already determined. In “muqarnas domes”, plan of the muqarnas coincides perfectly on plan of the dome and the elevation is not visible. But in an iwan, basically, the elevation of muqarnas should never fit the arch. Unlike what we are accustomed to see, the elevation of a muqarnas should actually look like a set of small arches, one on the top of the other. Clearly, this shape is different from the arch of iwan. The elevation of a muqarnas is not only indented, but its rising trend is also different from that of an iwan’s arch in most cases. This would create a vacant space between the arch and the elevation of the muqarnas. Several solutions have been developed by Islamic architects around the world. These solutions will be compared here and the characteristics of the Iranian one will be described. The Egyptian and the Anatolian solutions are classified into 4 groups. They tried to match the elevation of muqarnas to that of iwan. But these muqarnases, being made of stone elements, are more adhered to the shapes of their elements, thus the elevation still looks indented. Comparing these solutions with the Iranian ones, in which the muqarnas fits perfectly well into the arch of iwan, indicates that Iranian architects had the capability and courage to conceive the 3D model and its elevation along with its plan, especially in entrances. This paper demonstrates two main reasons for these differences. First reason is the mainstreaming muqarnas elements, considering their material, in the design. Stone muqarnases are designed through repetition of some certain elements, thus they are limited in creating some special forms (i.e. arch) in the elevation. Unlike these muqarnases, Iranian ones are designed on the basis of level lines (“Pa”s of muqarnas) and constructed separately in each level. This removes the previously mentioned limitation. The Iranian architects in this way have prioritized the perfection of the elevation over the ease of construction. The second reason for those differences is the Iranian architects’ geometric perception of coinciding a muqarnas plan on the elevation of an iwan. These architects have tried to solve the mismatch through a geometrical solution. To do so, they determine intersection points between the arch of iwan and the level planes of the muqarnas, and then they manipulate muqarnas elements to match the desired form in the façade of mosques’ iwans or their entrances.

In this paper yazdibandi, a type of ornamental vaulting, mostly known to be Qajarid, is investigated. Primarily, it is introduced on the basis of what two masters of Iranian traditional architecture, Ostad Asqar Sha’rbaf and Ostad Husayn Lurzadeh, have defined. Then according to the criteria they offer, the method to distinguish between yazdibandi and other types of Persian vaulting has been further discussed, along with terminology for its elements and parts. Literature of the subject is reviewed to show the state of this study among others. Afterwards, a historic search is carried out to find the origin of yazdibandi and, the first building or buildings made of this ornament, as well as the way it was invented and extended to other areas. It is the first time that such a study is done. The study has looked into numerous examples of yazdibandi and presents new findings. Considering construction, yazdibandi is closer to muqarnas, but its appearance is more like rasmibandi (revolved intersecting arches). Yet, unlike rasmibandi it is not statically self-standing, usually hanging from an upper structure or vault. The empty space between these two layers is usually deeper in muqarnas and smaller in the case of yazdibandi. In most of yazdibandies the lower surface would totally touch the upper supporting vault, conforming to its shape. These factors cause yazdibandi to have several constructional advantages. It would have a free plan layout, and since it is not structural and it depends on structures primarily erected, it is easier and faster to be built. It is also cheaper than both muqarnas and rasmibandi. Yazdibandi was quite common during the Qajar period, but according to the findings of this paper it was first designed in the Safavid period, more accurately during the reign of Shah Abbas. Earliest examples among the ones investigated in this paper could be the ones built in the entrance of Ganj’ali-Khan, Kerman bathhouse and inside the tomb of Sheikh Jebre’il, Ardabil. Of these two, the Kermani one is probably older. It was built in 1020 A.H. This paper also discusses the term “yazdibandi”. Yazd is a city in central Iran and yazdibandi could be translated roughly to “the vault from yazd city”. Rather surprisingly, it is very rare in Yazd for one to see any examples, but one can see many of them in Kashan, Qom, and Tehran, cities with major Qajar constructions. Therefore, it is natural to question the origin of the term. The name of the architect who built Ganj’ali-Khan bathhouse is Muhammad Soltani-ye Yazdi, and since his surname is Yazdi, he or his family probably were originally from Yazd. But the buildings we know he made are in Kerman, the name of the vault could point to his name. In this way, instead of saying “the vault from Yazd city”, yazdibandi should be translated to “the vault first designed by an architect named Yazdi”. This paper in the end gives criteria to categorize different types of yazdibandi. Many of the findings of the paper are based upon examples which are listed in the appendix. This list specially would be helpful for future studies.

In Iranian architecture, rasmibandi or kārbandi is a geometric structure seen in many Iranian ceilings made up of intersections of similar arches under geometry and mathematical orders. In theoretical geometry, the lowest voussoirs of all arches are situated on circumference of a virtual vertical circle with the same distances. Then in architectural plan we will see a symmetrical arrangement of chords in a circle. Each chord is a plan of a complete arch, almost always a pointed arch. In practical geometry, some arches or all of them will be constructed as ribbed vaults with load bearing ability. Due to rectangle, square and polygonal plan of Persian architecture, some ribs should be trimmed and some remain prefect. This roofing-ceiling system is similar to star patterns of Islamic- Iranian geometrical ornaments.The genuine ones are load bearing roofs which can withstand with no need of hanging from an upper stronger roof. Although in some cases rasmibandies are diminished to an ornamental secondary ceiling with a prefect geometrical essence, unlike moqarnas and yazdi-bandi ornaments, rasmibandi has an important structural aspect. The structural aspect of it is unseen and not researched. The relation between a plan of rasmibandi and a structure that must adapt it is not clear. Another problem is forces and tensions paths and that the ribs or surfaces are bearing more or less. The oldest sample of this ornamental element known is located in the Atiq Mosque, Shiraz, built in 9th/15th century. Other samples could be found in Na’in Jāme’ Mosque, Cordoba Jāme’ Mosque and Akhpat Monastery from 10th century. Some centuries later, this architectural element can be found only within the Iran’s territory. Even if samples can be seen outside Iran, they are very rare. Therefore, it could be claimed that Iran is considered the origin of kārbandi. From the early Islamic era till Qajar period some evolution occurred in all aspects of kārbani so that it developed for practical use in most Iranian buildings. It has been expanded and used for ceilings in mosques, mausoleums, tombs, bazaars, houses, madrasas, etc. In this article, geometry of rasmibandi has been discussed at first. Its typology is explained based on former papers of authors and scholars. Then, the evolution of its geometry and structure from early times till Qajar period has been surveyed. This study shows that both geometry and structure of rasmibandi reached their climax in Qajar era. This fact is proved by numerous rasmibandies of that era and the complexity of their geometry and precision of structures in comparison to the older ones. Although very complete rasmibandies have remained from the first Isfahan school of architecture period, i.e. Timurid and Safavid time, but the second Isfahan school of architecture, i.e. Qajar period, is the time for more evolution. Similar to the first Isfahan era, the ornamental rasmibandies with no strong load bearing structure are repeated in the second school. At the last part of this article structural behavior of rasmibandi has been investigated via a structural simulation. This simulation shows in a 10-meter span a kārbandi roofing that has low weight in comparison to other masonry vault and domes. It means that material has been used in a more optimal way.

Considering the importance of connection routes of the northern Iran to Russia and Europe in the Qajar era, building Azerbaijan paved road was initiated at Naser-ad-Din Shah’s command after his return to Iran from his second journey to Europe. The plan’s aim was to stretch this road from Tehran to Jolfa and finally to the banks of the Aras River. Other routes were supposed to be built in the same way. Nevertheless, the aforesaid project itself was terminated and the route ended in Qazvin. In 1880, Zolfaqār-Khān Kermani was commissioned by the Shah to prepare a map of the Tehran-Tabriz route, determine its geographical features and to estimate its repair costs. This mission achieved by providing the route map as well as a booklet. Zolfaqār-Khān Kermani was a graduate of the Dar-ol-Fonun (the Polytechnique School). Earlier, he had assisted, among others, Krziz in developing the Tehran map. Some of these maps have been found today. He also authored several books. Since he is one of the first graduates of Dar-ol-Fonun engineers, revising and publishing his booklet is of importance. Understanding and introducing the works of pioneer engineers such as Zolfaqār-Khān can help delineate how their acquaintance with the new sciences had an impact on the development of the trajectory of Iran. This paper presents his travel’s account. The content of it includes an estimation of the distance between cities and villages and a report on the quality of roads. This document contains valuable information about the historical geography of the route in the Qajar period. In this book, Zolfaqār-Khān introduces the geographical features such as rivers, plains, mountains, springs, and gorges and analyzes the operational needs such as construction and repair of the bridges along with their costs. The criterion for repairing a road in this booklet is its conversion to allow using carriages. With a critical view, he gives in his text a brief account of the general condition of some cities including their alleyways, houses, fortifications and moats and provides some suggestions for their improvement. Furthermore, he offers a description of the towns in terms of their agronomic, climatic, and water requirements for agriculture. In this paper, for the first time, after introducing Zolfaqār-Khān and reviewing his publications, a revised text of this booklet would be presented. With the numerical estimates of expenses recorded in Siāq script, the booklet contains 36 pages. The map for this booklet has not yet been found.

Among the scholars of Iranian architecture, some believe in a timeless “essence” as “Iranian Architecture” or “Islamic Architecture of Iran”. According to them, the essence has had various manifestations in different points of history. It can also have its contemporary manifestation if we try to identify and realize it, as they believe. Then we will have our own Persian, Islamic, and non-Western architecture in our time. What defines the essence are some “principles of architecture”. The principles differ by the scholars’ viewpoints; however, all of them are timeless principles and rules the observation of which can lead to an Iranian Islamic architecture suitable for Iranians spiritual, psychological, and physical needs and desires. Among the scholars, there are only three comprehensive viewpoints that are compiled and published: 1. Mohammad-Karim Pirnia’s “the Principles of Iranian Architecture”; 2. Ardalan and Bakhtiar’s “the Sense of Unity”; 3. Navaei and Haji-Qassemi’s “Khesht-o-Khiyāl”. A full analysis and critique of the first viewpoint was already published. In this article, we will analyze and criticize the two latter, both of them believe in an essence as “Islamic Architecture of Iran”. Reviewing and internal criticizing each viewpoint starts with explaining its goal and theoretical bases and continues by its principles. Then we will articulate the viewpoint in terms of ontological, epistemological, and practical/normative propositions. This will provide us with a site map of each viewpoint that will make a fair critique possible. The last part of each chapter, entitled “Challenges and Inconsistencies”, will be on an internal criticism on the viewpoint. In the conclusion, we will compare the two views and show that both of them are deeply related to “traditionalism”, and their main difference is due to their focus points: Ardalan and Bakhtiar focus on the symbolic language of architecture, while Navaei and Haji- Qassemi focus on the formal and physical aspects.