99702028 construction materials and techniques in persian architecture

8/22/2019 99702028 Construction Materials and Techniques in Persian Architecture

1/18

CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND

TECHNIQUES in Persian

architecture

CONSTRUCTION MATERIALSAND TECHNIQUES in Persian architecture.

Materials

Mud. The most frequent building material in Iranian cultural areas has always been mud, which is

available everywhere. When wet, it can simply be plastered on walls without shaping. Alternatively, it

can be tempered and formed into large blocks with more or less rectangular sides; the most commondimensions of such blocks, even today, are about 80 x 80 x 60 cm. Mud can also be manufactured

into bricks (q.v.) and either dried (et) in the sun or baked (jor). Sun-dried mud bricks were

generally larger in antiquity and the early Middle Ages than they are today. For example, those used

in Urartian (7th and 8th centuries b.c.e.) fortress walls measured about 50 x 50 x 12 cm (Kleiss,

1977), whereas modern mud bricks are approximately 22 x 22 x 5-6 cm. Plano-convex bricks, which

are shaped like cushions or bread loaves, with one flat and one convex face, first appeared in Persia

in the 8th-7th millennia b.c.e. in the walls of the Neolithic settlement at Tepe Ganj Dareh (Ganj

Darrah Tappa) in Kurdistan (Smith), where they were set in mud mortar. Sun-dried mud bricks,

usually quadratic in form, predominated until the end of the Achaemenid period. In the 2ndmillennium b.c.e. painted and glazed bricks were also used in Elam. Under the Parthians (3rd

century b.c.e.-3rd century c.e.) and especially the Sasanians (3rd-7th centuries c.e.) large baked

bricks set in mortar became more and more common in Persia. In about the 10th century molded,

cut, and relief-carved bricks, often painted or glazed as well, became a significant feature of Persian

architectural decoration.

Rubble. In prehistoric and early historic times rubble, naturally fragmented or deliberately chipped

rock of no specific shape, was the most frequent building material after mud; it was used primarily in

foundation walls, on top of which the main walls were constructed of mud (packed [na], chunks, or

bricks). The rubble walls consisted mainly of flat pieces of stone, which were carefully laid with loose

pebbles filling the interstices; the whole was cemented with mud mortar. In historical times lime

mortar has also been used.

Cut stone. Cut-stone architecture appeared in Persia in the Urartian period, around the beginning of

the 1st millennium b.c.e. Sometimes mighty stone boulders weighing several tons were broken up


2/18

into smaller pieces and used in construction. For example, in the terrace at Persepolis such man-

made boulders were laid in courses with small, crudely hewn stones filling the gaps. Whether or not

these wall surfaces, which were frequently marred by convex humps and roughhewn edges or with

protective rims projecting along the edges, were meant to be evened and smoothed often cannot be

determined. Stone architectural memberslike column bases, shafts, and capitals; door sills, frames,and jambs; wall niches; cornices; crenellations; and other special formswere crudely worked with

iron tools as early as the Achaemenid period, probably under the technical influence of Greek

stonemasons.

Wood. Another building material was wood, from both coniferous and deciduous trees, especially

poplar; it is still important today for supports and roof construction in the traditional rural

architecture of Persia. Roofs and ceilings are constructed of logs, across which smaller wooden

boards are laid and on top of them reed mats or thatch; the whole is then covered with mud, which

has first been levigated and tempered with straw, for insulation. Along the Caspian Sea coast

wooden architecture predominates, particularly post-and-lintel houses with thatched roofs. In the

Sasanian period wood also played a role in construction of bridges (q.v.); it must be assumed that the

large number of bridges known from this period consisted of horizontal wooden structures resting on

top of stone piers. On the other hand, in the Islamic period bridges were built primarily of stone or

brick and vaulted; wood played only a subordinate role in such constructions, being used for

scaffolding, building forms, pulley weights, temporary supports, and often for reinforcement in the

vaulting.

Gravel and paving. In ancient, medieval, and modern times road embankments have been

constructed of gravel, either coarse or fine, and paved with relatively unworked stone blocks. In

Islamic cities brick was sometimes used to pave major streets (Kiani, pp. 230ff.).

Techniques

Preparing the site. Already in ancient Persia, as in Hittite Anatolia in the 2nd millennium b.c.e., the

technique of making use of the rock surface of a site as foundations for walls was known. In the 8th

and 7th centuries b.c.e. the Urartians developed this technique to the highest level of perfection

(Kleiss, 1976, pp. 28 ff.). Flat terraces of different sizes and elevations were carved out of the uneven

rock surface following the specific conformation of the site, thus preparing a series of level platforms

of the required dimensions, on each of which walls could be erected. Those parts of the rock on

which there was to be no construction were generally left unworked. The Achaemenids also made

extensive use of this technique at Persepolis and other sites. They had probably learned it from the

Armenians, who had received it as part of their cultural heritage from the Urartians. Whereas in

Urartu, however, rubble or ashlar walls rested on terraces hacked out of living rock or on leveled rock


3/18

surfaces, in the Achaemenid period such rock-cut terraces served as foundations for walls of mud

brick (Kleiss, 1971).

In preparing the site, for example, that of an Urartian temple, recesses for plaques containing

foundation inscriptions were frequently cut into the rock at the points where the corners of the wallswere to rest (Kleiss, 1963-64). Drainage channels were also hollowed out of the rock surface at

several points before the walls were constructed; after the walls were built their function was to drain

off groundwater that collected inside the walls and thus to keep them dry (Kleiss, 1976, pp. 28-29).

In the Urartian and the ensuing Median periods staircase passages were also cut through the living

rock, in order to ensure the provision of water during a siege; whenever possible natural crevices in

the stone platforms were exploited for this purpose. Normally such a staircase led from within a

fortress to an underground well or spring (Kleiss, 1979, p. 154). All these early features were achieved

by carving out the living rock with picks.

When the surface of the site was somewhat concave, rubble foundations, mostly for mud-brick walls,

were generally preferred. Larger pieces of broken stone were carefully laid in courses with smaller

stones filling the interstices; toward the top pebbles of diminishing size were used, in order to

produce a level surface. In antiquity mud mortar was used, in the Middle Ages lime mortar. Over the

top of the foundation there was a layer of white lime 1-2 cm thick, on which the lowest course of the

mud-brick wall rested. This layer of lime was obviously intended as a damp course, to prevent

ground moisture from rising through the unmortared dry wall of the foundation into the mud-brick

walls and causing them to collapse. In Urartian architecture rubble foundations were constructed as

stepped terraces, in order to save stone; the dimensions of the topmost surface were determined by

the width of the mud-brick wall to be erected on it (Kleiss, 1977, pp. 35-36).

Walls. The upper walls were normally coated with plaster. In ancient times mud-brick walls were

usually plastered with mud tempered with chaff. Lime plaster, known from as early as the Neolithic,

became common in the Urartian and Achaemenid periods. Evenly spaced projections from the walls

served the primarily aesthetic purpose of articulating the facade, but in rare instances they also

served to buttress the construction or even as part of the fortifications.

Vaults. Vaulting became common in Persia in the 2nd millennium b.c.e.; in fact genuine vaults of

baked brick with gypsum mortar had already been introduced, for example, at the Elamite site of

Haft Tepe (Negahban). Semicircular vault forms are depicted in Urartian architectural

representations, and they are also known from bridge constructions of the Sasanian period, for

example, the so-called bridge of Valerian at tar, which is considered to have been built by

Roman engineers after 260 c.e. Parabolic vault forms began to appear in Sasanian architecture.

From early in the Islamic period the pointed arch was also in use in stone and mud-brick


4/18

construction, as well as in buildings of baked brick. The original tall, pointed profile of this type of

arch became progressively wider and shallower until the 17-18th centuries, especially in bridge

construction. In the 19th century the European round arch gained increasing influence; by the end of

the century it had, however, given way to the basket-shaped arch with its much wider span, again

especially in bridge construction. A particular feature of Islamic architecture from the 11th centurywas moqarnas (oversailing courses of small niche sections) vaulting, which became increasingly

common with the passage of time. Such vaults could be constructed of stone or bricks but were more

often simply decorative shells carved from gypsum or limestone mortar (Harb). They were

particularly popular as interior architectural decoration but also sometimes appeared on building

exteriors, especially facades.

Quarrying.Whenever possible quarrying was carried out where stratified stone was bedded

horizontally and would fracture in sheets. Blocks could then be cut from the sheets with chisels or

crowbars at no great expense, rendering deep shafts and the use of wedges unnecessary (Kleiss, 1981,

pp. 197-98). In Achaemenid quarries wedge-shaped holes averaging about 20 cm long, 8 cm wide,

and 8-10 cm deep can be observed at wide intervals. In the quarry south of the terrace at Persepolis

rough passages or channels had been cut around the blocks; wooden wedges had then been driven

into the rock at the back, in order to split off the stone blocks in parallel layers. A road paved with

stone chips linked the quarry face to the workings along the upper facade and an adjacent terrace

(Kleiss, 1975, pp. 81 ff.). In the Sasanian period, too, straight channels 30-50 cm deep were cut into

the rock and wedge-shaped holes closely spaced along them. This technique was lost until recent

times and was only reintroduced in connection with modern construction methods.

Clamps. From the Achaemenid period onward metal clamps, mostly of iron, were used in ashlar

construction. Some were simple bands, but clamps in the form of swallowtails were more frequent

(Schmidt, I, pp. 61-63; Kleiss and Calmeyer). In the Sasanian period band-shaped iron clamps were

used most often, for example, on the facing walls of bridge piers. The clamps were cast in lead molds.

Earthen dams. One specifically Persian feature is found in bridge building: earthen dams with paved

surfaces. Although they have also occasionally occurred in other cultures, they are particularly

frequent in Persia. These dams were as a rule intended to provide protection from the periodic

extreme variations in water levels in the streams, which might undermine bridge piers. They were

also useful in diverting streams into subsidiary canals for irrigation purposes.

Mortaring. Either lime or gypsum mortar was used, depending on the required degree of durability

and the necessity for special protection, as in bridge piers or canal walls, which were subject to the

continuous action of water. Important differences can be observed in the consistency of the mortar

used in the piers and in the vaulted portions of the bridge. In order to articulate the otherwise


5/18

monotonous wall surface, in early Islamic architecture mortar-filled vertical joints were made thicker

than the horizontal joints and decorated with stamped or incised designs.

Stonemasons marks.Stonemasons marks are known in Persian architecture from the Achaemenid

period, owing to Greek influence (Stronach, pp. 21-22); before that time they were not known inPersia. They were used in work on large buildings, in order to document the performance of the

individual stonemasons and to serve as an aid in reckoning payment. A few basic forms, like the

circle, the cross, the triangle, the rectangle, and the open rectangle, recurred in all periods, from the

time of the Achaemenids until the reign of the Qajar dynasty (1193-1341/1779-1924); it is therefore

clear that the equal-armed cross had nothing to do with identifying Christian workmen. In

comparing the repertoire of stonemasons marks at different Achaemenid building sites, there are no

immediately apparent differences that can be taken as evidence for identifying different workshops

or different historical periods (Kleiss, 1980). The same is true of stonemasons marks in Sasanian

and early Islamic architecture, as well as in the buildings of the period from the Safavids through the

Qajars.

Achieving color effects. In Achaemenid architecture color effects were achieved mainly through the

use of stones of different hues, for example, in column bases. This technique was already known in

the Urartian period and was passed on to the Armenians, who have continued to make use of it until

modern times; it was probably through them that it came to be adopted for medieval Saljuq

architecture. Traces of color remaining on some Achaemenid architectural elements suggest that

certain parts of buildings were at least partially painted. Red marks were also used as an aid in

joining together different building elements in the Achaemenid palaces at Pasargadae and as

guidelines for squaring and smoothing the building blocks.

Tools. The oldest stone-working tool so far known from Persia is an iron chisel found in the Urartian

fortress at Besm (q.v.), dating from the 7th century b.c.e. It was built into the upper leveling

courses of the stone foundations of the wall and surrounded on all sides by mud; it is thus to be

associated with the original dedication of the building. It is 19.8 cm long and 5.7 cm wide and would

have lent itself to the cutting away of the stepped terraces of the rocky subfoundation, as well as to

secondary working of building stone. It has a chisel-shaped point (Kleiss, 1979a, I, pp. 84-85). Under

Darius I (q.v.) a toothed chisel was employed only occasionally, but it did not come into general use

until somewhat later, when it was introduced by Greek stonemasons (Nylander, pp. 53-56; Stronach,

pp. 99-100). In stone architecture flat chisels were used to cut deep, narrow channels around

projecting blocks; traces of this work are still clearly visible. They were also used in the subsequent

crude shaping of the blocks. The final smoothing of the stone surface must have been accomplished

by means of abrasion with harder stones in conjunction with water and fine sand.


6/18

Transport. The question of how doorjambs, column shafts, and capitals were transported from the

Achaemenid period onward can be answered only by assuming that level tracks were prepared. The

partly worked stone blocks, like those in the terrace at Persepolis, were brought on wheels drawn by

work animals over inclined tracks leading to the construction area.

Laying out the plan. Measuring apparatus must also have been used in laying out building sites, but

no ancient examples of such apparatus are known. The precise planning and execution of buildings,

already apparent in the Urartian period but even more highly developed under the Achaemenids,

would nevertheless have necessitated such instruments. A proposed building, whether a single

structure or a larger complex, like the Urartian fortress at Besm and the structures at Pasargadae

and Persepolis, was marked out precisely on the site, as can be recognized from the rock cutting at

Besm and in the Kh-e Ramat at Persepolis. Only those parts of the rock on which a specific part

of the building, for example, a buttress, a support, or a jog in the course of the wall was planned,

were cut away; it was done so precisely that, even where the walls have completely disappeared, the

outline of the plan can be clearly gauged by the limits of the rock cutting

ww.iranicaonline.org/articles/construction-materials-and-techniques-in-persian-architecture

Capital in Iranian Architecture

By: Wolfram Kleiss1990


7/18


8/18

CAPITALS, in architectural terminology transitional elements between weight-bearing supports andthe roofs or vaults supported (Wasmuths Lexikon, p. 320). The development of the capital began inAssyria, when a tree trunk was inserted in the earth with another trunk or branch laid in the fork tocarry the roof construction (Figure 1a). From this forked grip the transverse beam soon developed; inthe course of time it came to be worked and richly decorated (Figure 1b-c). This ancient buildingtechnique is still widespread in rural construction in Iran; the trunks (columns) stand on stone bases,which are worked to a greater or lesser degree. From the Assyrian transverse beam there evolved theAchaemenid double-protome capital, the first artistic version of the simple transitional elementbetween support and beam in Iranian architectural history. As a rule such capitals rested directly onsmooth or fluted columns, with the animal heads (usually bulls but also eagles and lions) flanking thetransverse beam at right angles. The Achaemenid double-protome capital can be viewed as anIranian invention, though Mesopotamian influences in the representation of composite creatures arealso recognizable (Figure 1d-g).

In Persepolis, at the tribute gate, at the door to the royal palace, and especially in the large audiencehall (apadna), the double-protome capital was supplemen ted by a second transitional element,articulated on each of its four sides by superimposed volutes and resting in turn on a double corolla of

petals (Figure 1d), a form that had its forerunners in ancient Near Eastern art. Whether or not thevolutes, like the fluting of the column shafts, reflected the influence of Greek stone masons isuncertain, but the floral form of the bell -shaped lowest element suggests an entirely indigenousfeature, owing nothing to ancient Egyptian art, as has sometimes been suggested (Figure 2). Theconstruction of the three-part double-protome capitals, measuring 8 m high on columns about 19 mhigh, was an entirely Persian development, limited to Persepolis and Susa (Schmidt, p. 3). In othercapitals at Persepolis, however, Egyptian influence is clearly recognizable in the details of the lotusflowers (Figure 1e); perhaps they were even carved by Egyptian stonemasons. Nevertheless, thecolumn shafts, with a diameter of 1.60 m, are too large to have been imported from Egypt.

At the so-called Median stone tombs, which are now recognized as the burial places of lateAchaemenid notables (Gall, 1966), there are scroll capitals somewhat resembling Ionic forms (e.g.,those on the tomb of Qyzqapan; Gall, 1988, pp. 557ff.; see Figure 1h).

After the Achaemenid period the animal-protome capital lived on in the Hellenistic world, for example,at Sidon, on Delos and Thasos, and at Salamis (Ghirshman, 1964, pp. 351ff.). On the other hand,Hellenistic capitals in Iran include an acanthus capital from 3rd- or 2nd-century b.c. Estaskhr, now inthe museum at Persepolis (Figure 1i; Ghirshman, 1962, p. 23, fig. 29), as well as a palmette capital ona strongly convex echinus molding (Figure 1j), also from Estaskhr (Herzfeld, 1948, p. 279, fig. 376). Athird type comes from the area around Estaskhr: the capital of an engaged column, carved in the formof a corolla of everted leaves (Figure 1k; Herzfeld, 1948, p. 277, fig. 375). Achaemenid architecturalfeatures also had a strong impact on the Maurya architecture of India, especially during the reign of

Aoka (r. ca. 274-37 b.c.). Iranian influence is particularly reflected in the lion sculptures on bell -shaped capitals from Sarnath and the volute capitals from Pataliputra (Rowland, pp. 68, fig. 20, 72 fig.23).

In the Parthian period (3rd century b.c.-a.d. 3rd century) Greek and Roman influence on the voluteforms of Persian capitals is unmistakable. It can be seen in the red-sandstone capitals from Bard-eNenda (q.v.) in the museum at Susa (Figure 2a), the capitals from the Parthian palace precinct ofQaa-ye Zoh hk (Figure 2b; Kleiss, 1973, p. 177, fig. 14), and the capitals from the Parthiancolumned hall (palace) at orha (village 12 miles north of Mahallt; Figure 2c; Kleiss, 1973, pp. 173-74, figs. 9-10, pp. 181-82, figs. 18-19).

The published capitals from the Sasanian period (a.d. 224-641) can be divided into four groups.

Whether decorated or not, all belong to the basket capital type, but the transition from the basket

(Click to enlarge)


9/18

form to the quadratic upper surfacethe presence or absence of a molding and the form of themoldingpermits classification in the following groups: those from Kermnh, both the city andQaa-ye Kohna (Figure 2d); those from Bsotn (q-e Bostn)/Hjjbd and Sar(-e) Pol-e h(Figure 2e); those from Vondn (Vendern; Figure 2f); and those from Isfahan and the museum inTehran (Figure 2g). From Bpr and Nrbd two large capitals in a style related to the Corinthianhave also been published as from the Sasanian period; they probably crowned commemo rativecolumns (Figure 2h-i) and, on the grounds of their stylistic parallels, can be dated between the mid-3rdand mid-5th centuries (Huff, 1975, pp. 172-77, fig. 4, pls. 36/1-3). They show unmistakable Romaninfluence in the volutes.

In the early Islamic period antique capital forms died out, as can be seen in the mehrb (prayer niche)of the Great Mosque of Nn (Survey of Persian Art VIII, pl. 269A) from the 4th/10th century (Figure3a), and new forms were developed in carved stone and espe cially in molded stucco. Vase capitalsappear on the stucco columns that flank the mehrb of the Great Mosque in Neyrz in the Saljuqperiod (Figure 3b; Survey of Persian Art VIII, pl. 399); this type continued basically unchanged but withevolution in details at the shrine of Byazd at Bestm (q.v., 702/1302; Figure 3c; Survey of PersianArt VIII, pls. 392, 394) and in mehrbs at the Great Mosques of Rezya (676/1277; Figure 3d; Kleiss,1969, pl. 19/2), Isfahan (ca. 710/1310; Figure 3e; Survey of Persian Art VIII, pl. 396), and Marand(731/1330; Figure 3f; Kleiss, 1969, pl. 17/1). On the east portal of the mausoleum of Shaikh YsofSarvestn in Sarvestn (682/1283; Kleiss, 1972, pl. 58/3) the vase capital was translated into stone(Figure 3g); on the groups of three columns that carry the central cupola the stone capitals are carvedwith moqarnas (oversailing courses of small niche segments; Figure 3h; Kleiss, 1972, pl. 58/2).

Both the vase and impost capitals appear in the Mongol building at Taxt-e Solaymn (7-8th/13-14thcentury; Figure 3i), and some of the vase capitals are richly decorated. But capitals consisting ofcorollas of leaves, reflecting Western influence, can also be distin guished at Taxt-e Solaymn, thoughit is unclear whether or not they were imported (Naumann, p. 89, fig. 69; Figure 3i).

A few examples of vase capitals are known from the Timurid and early Safavid period, for example ata caravansary north of Marand and at Airandibi (Oryn Tepe; Kleiss, 1972, pp. 186f., fig. 53.3).

In the later Safavid period (11th/17th century) columns or piers with capitals were the exception.Moqarnas capitals in wood did, however, occur in royal buildings like the l Qp (q.v.; 1053/1643-

44; Wrfel, p. 122), the ehel Sotn (q.v.; from the period of ShahAbbs I, 996-1038/1588-1629),and the Hat Behet in Isfahan (Figure 3j, ca. 1081/1670); cut-stone versions occur as impost capitalsin the Shah Mosque in Isfahan (1025/1616; Stierlin, p. 130).

In the period of Karm Khan Zand at Shiraz (1163-93/1750-79) and during the Qajar period (1193 -1342/1779-1924) columns were used more frequently as supports, and capitals thus also appearedmore fre quently. In the covered portions of the Waql mosque, built by Karm Khan Zand in1187/1773, basked capitals encircled by vertical sprays of acanthus leaves, reflecting Westernclassical influence (Figure 3l; Sm, p. 68).

In the 13th/19th-century Qajar kiosk near Qasr-e Qjr in Tehran stepped impost capitals were used(Figure 3m); at Kermn, in the early 13th/19th- century bath of Ebrhm Khan there is a version withmoqarnas (Figure 3n; A Survey of Persian Art VIII, pl. 500). Moqarnas capitals of Safavid origin were

also reused in the Qajar period. Qajar architects revived historicizing capital forms like theAchaemenid double protome (Figure 3o) but of course without under standing the weight-bearingfunction of the originals (Kleiss, 1981, p. 177, fig. 16). Capitals on octagonal piers assumed specialforms; in a mosque at rs in Azarbaijan piers and capitals were carved as single members (Figure3p; Kleiss, 1970, p. 124, fig. 13).

Beginning in the reign of Fath-Al Shah (1212- 50/1797-1834) European influence became apparentin Persian architecture. After the first European visit of Nser-al-Dn Shah (1290/1873) it grew strongerand was especially noticeable in the forms of capitals (Figure 4). Today in photographs of Tehran it ispos sible to see the great variety of these capital forms, ranging from leaf capitals to capitals in a


10/18

predominantly Corinthian style, from scroll capitals set upon basket capitals with leaf diadems andleaf-decorated impost capitals to figural capitals with human masks or animal heads combined withleaf ornament. In addition, there are undecorated capitals consisting of globular and quadraticsections combined, which were worked as single pieces. Such capitals were also molded in stuccoand are still manufactured in that technique today for new buildings.

The profiles of balconies encircling some minarets, especially the Saljuq minarets of Isfahan (Surveyof Persian Art VIII, pl. 362), which are articulated on the exterior by moqarnas, recall the forms of suchcapitals.

Bibliography : H. von Gall, Zu den "medischen" Felsgrbern, Archologischer Anz., 1966, pp. 20-29.Idem, Das Felsgrab von Qizqapan, Baghdader Mitteilungen 19, 1988, pp. 557-61. NeueBeobachtungen zu den sogenannten medischen Felsgrbern, in Proceedings of the 2nd AnnualSymposium on Archaeological Research in Iran 1973, Tehran, 1974, pp. 139 -54. R. Ghirshman, Iran.Parthians and Sassanians, tr. S. Gilbert and J. Emmons, London, 1962. Idem, Persia. From theOrigins to Alexander the Great, tr. by S. Gilbert and J. Emmons, London, 1964. D. Huff, Nurabad,Dum-i Mil, AMI, N.S. 8, 1975, pp. 167- 209. W. Kleiss, Die sasanidischen Kapitelle aus Venderni,AMI, N.S. 1, 1968, pp. 143-47. Idem, Bericht ber zwei Erkundungsfahrten in Nordwest-Iran, AMI,N.S. 2, 1969, pp. 7-119. Idem, Bericht ber Erkundungsfahrten in Nordwest-Iran im Jahre 1969,AMI, N.S. 3, 1970, pp. 107-32. Idem, Bericht ber Erkundungsfahrten in Iran im Jahre 1971, AMI,N.S. 5, 1972, pp. 135-242. Idem, Qaleh Zohak in Azarbaidjan, AMI, N.S. 6, 1973, pp. 163- 88. Idem,Bemerkungen zum Sulenbau von Khurha, AMI 14, 1981, pp. 65-67. Idem, Fund pltzesasanidischer Kapitelle in Venderni und in Kermanshah, AMI 16, 1983, pp. 317-23. Idem, DerSulenbau von Khurrha, AMI 18, 1985, pp. 173-80. H. Luschey, Zur Datierung der sasanidi schenKapitelle aus Bisutun and des Monuments von Taq-i-Bostan, AMI, N.S. 1, 1968, pp. 129-42. R.Naumann, Die Ruinen von Tacht-e Suleiman and Zendan-e Suleiman, Berlin, 1977. B. Rowland, TheArt and Architecture of India. Buddhist-Hindu-Jain, 3rd ed., Harmondworth, Eng., 1967; repr. in paper1970. A. Sm, rz. ahr-e Sad waHfe, ahr-e gol o bolbol, Shiraz, 1337 ./1958. E. F.Schmidt, Persepolis I, 1953. H. Stierlin, Ispahan. Image du paradis, Lausanne and Paris, 1976.Wasmuths Lex ikon der Baukunst III, 1931. K. Wrfel, Isfahan, Zurich, 1974.

Figure 1. a. Transverse beam resting in cleft of tree trunk. b. Front and side views of support withtransverse beam carrying roof beams. c. Front and side views of capitol with transverse beam carryingroof beams. d. Double-protome capital with bulls from Persepolis. e. Floral capital from Persepolis. f.Double-protome capital with lions from Persepolis. g. Double-protome capital with bull men,Persepolis. h. Scroll capital from the tomb of Qyzqapan, an Achaemenid noble. i. Fragmentaryacanthus capital from Estaskhr, 3rd or 2nd century b.c. j. Palmette capital from Estaskhr. k. Capital inthe Hellenistic style from the Estaskhr district

Figure 2. a. Sandstone capital from Bard-e Nenda. b. Parthian capitals in stone and stucco fromQaa-ye Zohhk. c. Parthian capitals fromorha. d. Sasanian capital from Kermnh. e. Sasaniancapital from Bsotn. f. Sasanian capital from Vondn. g. Sasanian capital from the region of Isfahan.h. Sasanian column in Corinthian style from Bpr. i. Sasanian column in Corinthian style from

Nrbd

Figure 3. a. Stucco engaged column, 4th/10th century, from the Great Mosque at Nn. b. Stuccovase capital, 7th/13th century, Great Mosque at Neyrz. c. Vase capital, 702/1302, shrine of Byazdat Bestm. d. Vase capital, 676/1277, Great Mosque at Rezya. e. Vase capital, 710/1310, GreatMosque at Isfahan. f. Vase capital, 731/1330, Great Mosque at Marand. g. Stone vase capital,682/1283, Sarvestn. h. Moqarnas capital, 682/1283, Sarvestn. i. Capitals in various forms, 7-8th/13th-14th century, Taxt-e Solaymn. j. Wooden moqarnas capital, 11th/17th century, Isfahan. k.Stone moqarnas capital, 1025/1616, from Shah Mosque, Isfahan. l. Basket capital, 1187/1773, Waqlmosque, Shiraz. m. Stepped capital, 13th/19th century, Tehran. n. Stepped capital with moqarnas,


11/18

early 13th/19th century, Kermn. o. Double-protome capital, 13th/19th century, Tehran. p. Octagonalpier and capital carved as a single piece, 13th/19th century, rs

Figure 4. Capitals showing European influence, 13th/19th century, Tehran. CAPITALS, in architecturalterminology tran sitional elements between weight-bearing supports (see COLUMNS) and the roofs orvaults supported (Wasmuths Lexikon, p. 320). The development of the capital began in Assyria, whena tree trunk was inserted in the earth with another trunk or branch laid in the fork to carry the roofconstruction (Figure 1a). From this forked grip the transverse beam soon developed; in the course oftime it came to be worked and richly decorated (Figure 1b-c). This ancient building technique is stillwidespread in rural construction in Iran; the trunks (columns) stand on stone bases, which are workedto a greater or lesser degree. From the Assyrian transverse beam there evolved the Achaemeniddouble-protome capital, the first artistic version of the simple tran sitional element between supportand beam in Iranian architectural history. As a rule such capitals rested directly on smooth or flutedcolumns, with the animal heads (usually bulls but also eagles and lions) flanking the transverse beamat right angles. The Achaemenid double-protome capital can be viewed as an Iranian invention,though Mesopotamian influences in the representation of composite creatures are also recogniz able(Figure 1d-g).

In Persepolis, at the tribute gate, at the door to the royal palace, and especially in the large audiencehall (apadna), the double-protome capital was supplemen ted by a second transitional element,articulated on each of its four sides by superimposed volutes and resting in turn on a double corolla ofpetals (Figure 1d), a form that had its forerunners in ancient Near Eastern art. Whether or not thevolutes, like the fluting of the column shafts, reflected the influence of Greek stone masons isuncertain, but the floral form of the bell -shaped lowest element suggests an entirely indigenousfeature, owing nothing to ancient Egyptian art, as has sometimes been suggested (Figure 2). Theconstruc tion of the three-part double-protome capitals, measur ing 8 m high on columns about 19 mhigh, was an entirely Persian development, limited to Persepolis and Susa (Schmidt, p. 3). In othercapitals at Persepolis, however, Egyptian influence is clearly recognizable in the details of the lotusflowers (Figure 1e); perhaps they were even carved by Egyptian stonemasons. Nevertheless, thecolumn shafts, with a diameter of 1.60 m, are too large to have been imported from Egypt.

At the so-called Median stone tombs, which are now recognized as the burial places of lateAchaemenid notables (Gall, 1966), there are scroll capitals somewhat resembling Ionic forms (e.g.,

those on the tomb of Qyzqapan; Gall, 1988, pp. 557ff.; see Figure 1h).

After the Achaemenid period the animal-protome capital lived on in the Hellenistic world, for example,at Sidon, on Delos and Thasos, and at Salamis (Ghirshman, 1964, pp. 351ff.). On the other hand,Hellenistic capitals in Iran include an acanthus capital from 3rd- or 2nd-century b.c. Estakhr, now inthe museum at Persepolis (Figure 1i; Ghirshman, 1962, p. 23, fig. 29), as well as a palmette capital ona strongly convex echinus molding (Figure 1j), also from Estaskhr (Herzfeld, 1948, p. 279, fig. 376). Athird type comes from the area around Estaskhr: the capital of an engaged column, carved in the formof a corolla of everted leaves (Figure 1k; Herzfeld, 1948, p. 277, fig. 375). Achaemenid architecturalfeatures also had a strong impact on the Maurya architecture of India, especially during the reign of

Aoka (r. ca. 274-37 b.c.). Iranian influence is particularly reflected in the lion sculptures on bell -shaped capitals from Sarnath and the volute capitals from Pataliputra (Rowland, pp. 68, fig. 20, 72 fig.23).

In the Parthian period (3rd century b.c.-a.d. 3rd century) Greek and Roman influence on the voluteforms of Persian capitals is unmistakable. It can be seen in the red-sandstone capitals from Bard-eNenda (q.v.) in the museum at Susa (Figure 2a), the capitals from the Parthian palace precinct ofQaa-ye Zoh hk (Figure 2b; Kleiss, 1973, p. 177, fig. 14), and the capitals from the Parthiancolumned hall (palace) at orha (village 12 miles north of Mahallt; Figure 2c; Kleiss, 1973, pp. 173-74, figs. 9-10, pp. 181-82, figs. 18-19).

The published capitals from the Sasanian period (a.d. 224-641) can be divided into four groups.


12/18

Whether decorated or not, all belong to the basket capital type, but the transition from the basketform to the quadratic upper surfacethe presence or absence of a molding and the form of themoldingpermits classification in the following groups: those from Kermnh, both the city andQaa-ye Kohna (Figure 2d); those from Bsotn (q-e Bostn)/Hjjbd and Sar(-e) Pol-e h(Figure 2e); those from Vondn (Vendern; Figure 2f); and those from Isfahan and the museum inTehran (Figure 2g). From Bpr and Nrbd two large capitals in a style related to the Corinthianhave also been published as from the Sasanian period; they probably crowned commemo rativecolumns (Figure 2h-i) and, on the grounds of their stylistic parallels, can be dated between the mid-3rdand mid-5th centuries (Huff, 1975, pp. 172-77, fig. 4, pls. 36/1-3). They show unmistakable Romaninfluence in the volutes.

In the early Islamic period antique capital forms died out, as can be seen in the mehrb (prayer niche)of the Great Mosque of Nn (Survey of Persian Art VIII, pl. 269A) from the 4th/10th century (Figure3a), and new forms were developed in carved stone and especially in molded stucco. Vase capitalsappear on the stucco columns that flank the mehrb of the Great Mosque in Neyrz in the Saljuqperiod (Figure 3b; Survey of Persian Art VIII, pl. 399); this type continued basically unchanged but withevolution in details at the shrine of Byazd at Bestm (q.v., 702/1302; Figure 3c; Survey of Persian

Art VIII, pls. 392, 394) and in mehrbs at the Great Mosques of Rezya (676/1277; Figure 3d; Kleiss,1969, pl. 19/2), Isfahan (ca. 710/1310; Figure 3e; Survey of Persian Art VIII, pl. 396), and Marand(731/1330; Figure 3f; Kleiss, 1969, pl. 17/1). On the east portal of the mausoleum of Shaikh Ysof

Sarvestn in Sarvestn (682/1283; Kleiss, 1972, pl. 58/3) the vase capital was translated into stone(Figure 3g); on the groups of three columns that carry the central cupola the stone capitals are carvedwith moqarnas (oversailing courses of small niche segments; Figure 3h; Kleiss, 1972, pl. 58/2).

Both the vase and impost capitals appear in the Mongol building at Taxt-e Solaymn (7-8th/13-14thcentury; Figure 3i), and some of the vase capitals are richly decorated. But capitals consisting ofcorollas of leaves, reflecting Western influence, can also be distinguished at Taxt-e Solaymn, thoughit is unclear whether or not they were imported (Naumann, p. 89, fig. 69; Figure 3i).

A few examples of vase capitals are known from the Timurid and early Safavid period, for example ata caravansary north of Marand and at Airandibi (Oryn Tepe; Kleiss, 1972, pp. 186f., fig. 53.3).

In the later Safavid period (11th/17th century) columns or piers with capitals were the exception.

Moqarnas capitals in wood did, however, occur in royal buildings like the l Qp (q.v.; 1053/1643-44; Wrfel, p. 122), the ehel Sotn (q.v.; from the period of ShahAbbs I, 996-1038/1588-1629),and the Hat Behet in Isfahan (Figure 3j, ca. 1081/1670); cut-stone versions occur as impost capitalsin the Shah Mosque in Isfahan (1025/1616; Stierlin, p. 130).

In the period of Karm Khan Zand at Shiraz (1163-93/1750-79) and during the Qajar period (1193 -1342/1779-1924) columns were used more frequently as supports, and capitals thus also appearedmore frequently. In the covered portions of the Waql mosque, built byKarm Khan Zand in1187/1773, basked capitals encircled by vertical sprays of acanthus leaves, reflecting Westernclassical influence (Figure 3l; Sm, p. 68).

In the 13th/19th-century Qajar kiosk near Qasr-e Qjr in Tehran stepped impost capitals were used(Figure 3m); at Kermn, in the early 13th/19th- century bath of Ebrhm Khan there is a version with

moqarnas (Figure 3n; A Survey of Persian Art VIII, pl. 500). Moqarnas capitals of Safavid origin werealso reused in the Qajar period. Qajar architects revived historicizing capital forms like theAchaemenid double protome (Figure 3o) but of course without under standing the weight-bearingfunction of the originals (Kleiss, 1981, p. 177, fig. 16). Capitals on octagonal piers assumed specialforms; in a mosque at rs in Azarbaijan piers and capitals were carved as single members (Figure3p; Kleiss, 1970, p. 124, fig. 13).

Beginning in the reign of Fath-Al Shah (1212- 50/1797-1834) European influence became apparentin Persian architecture. After the first European visit of Nser-al-Dn Shah (1290/1873) it grew strongerand was especially noticeable in the forms of capitals (Figure 4). Today in photographs of Tehran it is


13/18

pos sible to see the great variety of these capital forms, ranging from leaf capitals to capitals in apredominantly Corinthian style, from scroll capitals set upon basket capitals with leaf diadems andleaf-decorated impost capitals to figural capitals with human masks or animal heads combined withleaf ornament. In addition, there are undecorated capitals consisting of globular and quadraticsections combined, which were worked as single pieces. Such capitals were also molded in stuccoand are still manufactured in that technique today for new buildings.

The profiles of balconies encircling some minarets, especially the Saljuq minarets of Isfahan (Surveyof Persian Art VIII, pl. 362), which are articulated on the exterior by moqarnas, recall the forms of suchcapitals.


14/18


15/18


16/18

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Architecture/capital_in_iranian_architecture.htm
http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Architecture/capital_in_iranian_architecture.htmhttp://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Architecture/capital_in_iranian_architecture.htmhttp://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Architecture/capital_in_iranian_architecture.htm


17/18

Xerxes


18/18

Darius

99702028 construction materials and techniques in persian architecture

Documents