CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND TECHNIQUES in Persian architecture 

CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND 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 common dimensions 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 (ḵešt) in the sun or baked (ājor). 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 2nd millennium 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 [čīna], 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 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 members—like column bases, shafts, and capitals;

door sills, frames, and jambs; wall niches; cornices; crenellations; and other special

forms—were 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

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 walls were 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 Šūštar, 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

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 century

was 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 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 in Persia. 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 Besṭām (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.

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 Besṭām and the structures at Pasargadae and Persepolis,

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

Besṭām and in the Kūh-e Raḥmat 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 Kleiss

1990

 CAPITALS, in architectural terminology transitional elements between weight-bearing supports and the roofs or vaults supported (Wasmuths Lexikon, p. 320). The development of the capital began in Assyria, when a tree trunk was inserted in the earth with another trunk or branch laid in the fork to carry the roof construction (Figure 1a). From this forked grip the transverse beam soon developed; in the course of time it came to be worked and richly decorated (Figure 1b-c). This ancient building technique 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 the Achaemenid double-protome capital, the first artistic version of the simple transitional element between support and beam in Iranian architectural history. As a rule such capitals rested directly on smooth or fluted columns, with the animal heads (usually bulls but also eagles and lions) flanking the transverse beam at 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 recognizable (Figure 1d-g).

  (Click to enlarge)

In Persepolis, at the tribute gate, at the door to the royal palace, and especially in the large audience hall (apadāna), 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 the volutes, like the fluting of the column shafts, reflected the influence of Greek stone masons is uncertain, but the floral form of the bell -shaped lowest element suggests an entirely indigenous feature, owing nothing to ancient Egyptian art, as has sometimes been suggested (Figure 2). The construction of the three-part double-protome capitals, measuring 8 m high on columns about 19 m high, was an entirely Persian development, limited to Persepolis and Susa (Schmidt, p. 3). In other capitals at Persepolis, however, Egyptian influence is clearly recognizable in the details of the lotus flowers (Figure 1e); perhaps they were even carved by Egyptian stonemasons. Nevertheless, the column 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 late Achaemenid 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 in the museum at Persepolis (Figure 1i; Ghirshman, 1962, p. 23, fig. 29), as well as a palmette capital on a strongly convex echinus molding (Figure 1j), also from Estaskhr (Herzfeld, 1948, p. 279, fig. 376). A third type comes from the area around Estaskhr: the capital of an engaged column, carved in the form of a corolla of everted leaves (Figure 1k; Herzfeld, 1948, p. 277, fig. 375). Achaemenid architectural features also had a strong impact on the Maurya architecture of India, especially during the reign of Aśoka (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 volute forms of Persian capitals is unmistakable. It can be seen in the red-sandstone capitals from Bard-e Nešānda (q.v.) in the museum at Susa (Figure 2a), the capitals from the Parthian palace precinct of Qaḷ‛a-ye Zoh hāk (Figure 2b; Kleiss, 1973, p. 177, fig. 14), and the capitals from the Parthian columned hall (palace) at Ḵorha (village 12 miles north of Mahallāt; 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 form to the quadratic upper surface—the presence or absence of a molding and the form of the molding—permits classification in the following groups: those from Kermānšāh, both the city and Qaḷ‛a-ye Kohna (Figure 2d); those from Bīsotūn (Ṭāq-e Bostān)/Hājjīābād and Sar(-e) Pol-e Šāh (Figure 2e); those from Vondānī (Vendernī; Figure 2f); and those from Isfahan and the museum in Tehran (Figure 2g). From Bīšāpūr and Nūrābād two large capitals in a style related to the Corinthian have also been published as from the Sasanian period; they probably crowned commemo rative columns (Figure 2h-i) and, on the grounds of their stylistic parallels, can be dated between the mid-3rd and mid-5th centuries (Huff, 1975, pp. 172-77, fig. 4, pls. 36/1-3). They show unmistakable Roman influence in the volutes.

In the early Islamic period antique capital forms died out, as can be seen in the mehrāb (prayer niche) of the Great Mosque of Nā’īn (Survey of Persian Art VIII, pl. 269A) from the 4th/10th century (Figure 3a), and new forms were developed in carved stone and espe cially in molded stucco. Vase capitals appear on the stucco columns that flank the mehrāb of the Great Mosque in Neyrīz in the Saljuq period (Figure 3b; Survey of Persian Art VIII, pl. 399); this type continued basically unchanged but with evolution in details at the shrine of Bāyazīd at Bestām (q.v., 702/1302; Figure 3c; Survey of Persian Art VIII, pls. 392, 394) and in mehrābs at the Great Mosques of Rezā’īya (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 Yūsof Sarvestānī in

Sarvestān (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 carved with 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 Solaymān (7-8th/13-14th century; Figure 3i), and some of the vase capitals are richly decorated. But capitals consisting of corollas of leaves, reflecting Western influence, can also be distin guished at Taxt-e Solaymān, though it 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 at a caravansary north of Marand and at Airandibi (‛Oryān 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 ‛Ālī Qāpū (q.v.; 1053/1643-44; Würfel, p. 122), the Čehel Sotūn (q.v.; from the period of Shah ‛Abbās I, 996-1038/1588-1629), and the Hašt Behešt in Isfahan (Figure 3j, ca. 1081/1670); cut-stone versions occur as impost capitals in the Shah Mosque in Isfahan (1025/1616; Stierlin, p. 130).

In the period of Karīm 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 appeared more fre quently. In the covered portions of the Waqīl mosque, built by Karīm Khan Zand in 1187/1773, basked capitals encircled by vertical sprays of acanthus leaves, reflecting Western classical influence (Figure 3l; Sāmī, p. 68).

In the 13th/19th-century Qajar kiosk near Qasr-e Qājār in Tehran stepped impost capitals were used (Figure 3m); at Kermān, in the early 13th/19th- century bath of Ebrāhīm Khan there is a version with moqarnas (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 the Achaemenid double protome (Figure 3o) but of course without under standing the weight-bearing function of the originals (Kleiss, 1981, p. 177, fig. 16). Capitals on octagonal piers assumed special forms; in a mosque at Čūrs in Azarbaijan piers and capitals were carved as single members (Figure 3p; Kleiss, 1970, p. 124, fig. 13).

Beginning in the reign of Fath-‛Alī Shah (1212- 50/1797-1834) European influence became apparent in Persian architecture. After the first European visit of Nāser-al-Dīn Shah (1290/1873) it grew stronger and was especially noticeable in the forms of capitals (Figure 4). Today in photographs of Tehran it is pos sible to see the great variety of these capital forms, ranging from leaf capitals to capitals in a predominantly Corinthian style, from scroll capitals set upon basket capitals with leaf diadems and leaf-decorated impost capitals to figural capitals with human masks or animal heads combined with leaf ornament. In addition, there are undecorated capitals consisting of globular and quadratic sections combined, which were worked as single pieces. Such capitals were also molded in stucco and are still manufactured in that technique today for new buildings.

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

Bibliography : H. von Gall, “Zu den "medischen" Felsgräbern,” Archäologischer Anz., 1966, pp. 20-29. Idem, “Das Felsgrab von Qizqapan,” Baghdader Mitteilungen 19, 1988, pp. 557-61. “Neue Beobachtungen zu den sogenannten medischen Felsgräbern,” in Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Symposium 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 the Origins 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 über zwei Erkundungsfahrten in Nordwest-Iran,” AMI,

N.S. 2, 1969, pp. 7-119. Idem, “Bericht über Erkundungsfahrten in Nordwest-Iran im Jahre 1969,” AMI, N.S. 3, 1970, pp. 107-32. Idem, “Bericht über Erkundungsfahrten in Iran im Jahre 1971,” AMI, N.S. 5, 1972, pp. 135-242. Idem, “Qal’eh Zohak in Azarbaidjan,” AMI, N.S. 6, 1973, pp. 163- 88. Idem, “Bemerkungen zum Säulenbau von Khurha,” AMI 14, 1981, pp. 65-67. Idem, “Fund plätze sasanidischer Kapitelle in Venderni und in Kermanshah,” AMI 16, 1983, pp. 317-23. Idem, “Der Säulenbau von Khurrha,” AMI 18, 1985, pp. 173-80. H. Luschey, “Zur Datierung der sasanidi schen Kapitelle 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, The Art and Architecture of India. Buddhist-Hindu-Jain, 3rd ed., Harmondworth, Eng., 1967; repr. in paper 1970. ‛A. Sāmī, Šīrāz. Šahr-e Sa‛dī wa Hāfeẓ, šahr-e gol o bolbol, Shiraz, 1337 Š./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. Würfel, Isfahan, Zurich, 1974.

Figure 1. a. Transverse beam resting in cleft of tree trunk. b. Front and side views of support with transverse beam carrying roof beams. c. Front and side views of capitol with transverse beam carrying roof 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. Fragmentary acanthus capital from Estaskhr, 3rd or 2nd century b.c. j. Palmette capital from Estaskhr. k. Capital in the Hellenistic style from the Estaskhr district

Figure 2. a. Sandstone capital from Bard-e Nešānda. b. Parthian capitals in stone and stucco from Qaḷ‛a-ye Zohhāk. c. Parthian capitals from Ḵorha. d. Sasanian capital from Kermānšāh. e. Sasanian capital from Bīsotūn. f. Sasanian capital from Vondānī. g. Sasanian capital from the region of Isfahan. h. Sasanian column in Corinthian style from Bīšāpūr. i. Sasanian column in Corinthian style from Nūrābād

Figure 3. a. Stucco engaged column, 4th/10th century, from the Great Mosque at Nā’īn. b. Stucco vase capital, 7th/13th century, Great Mosque at Neyrīz. c. Vase capital, 702/1302, shrine of Bāyazīd at Bestām. d. Vase capital, 676/1277, Great Mosque at Rezā’īya. e. Vase capital, 710/1310, Great Mosque at Isfahan. f. Vase capital, 731/1330, Great Mosque at Marand. g. Stone vase capital, 682/1283, Sarvestān. h. Moqarnas capital, 682/1283, Sarvestān. i. Capitals in various forms, 7-8th/13th-14th century, Taxt-e Solaymān. j. Wooden moqarnas capital, 11th/17th century, Isfahan. k. Stone moqarnas capital, 1025/1616, from Shah Mosque, Isfahan. l. Basket capital, 1187/1773, Waqīl mosque, Shiraz. m. Stepped capital, 13th/19th century, Tehran. n. Stepped capital with moqarnas, early 13th/19th century, Kermān. o. Double-protome capital, 13th/19th century, Tehran. p. Octagonal pier and capital carved as a single piece, 13th/19th century, Čūrs

Figure 4. Capitals showing European influence, 13th/19th century, Tehran. CAPITALS, in architectural terminology tran sitional elements between weight-bearing supports (see COLUMNS) and the roofs or vaults supported (Wasmuths Lexikon, p. 320). The development of the capital began in Assyria, when a tree trunk was inserted in the earth with another trunk or branch laid in the fork to carry the roof construction (Figure 1a). From this forked grip the transverse beam soon developed; in the course of time it came to be worked and richly decorated (Figure 1b-c). This ancient building technique 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 the Achaemenid double-protome capital, the first artistic version of the simple tran sitional element between support and beam in Iranian architectural history. As a rule such capitals rested directly on smooth or fluted columns, with the animal heads (usually bulls but also eagles and lions) flanking the transverse beam at 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 audience

hall (apadāna), 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 the volutes, like the fluting of the column shafts, reflected the influence of Greek stone masons is uncertain, but the floral form of the bell -shaped lowest element suggests an entirely indigenous feature, owing nothing to ancient Egyptian art, as has sometimes been suggested (Figure 2). The construc tion of the three-part double-protome capitals, measur ing 8 m high on columns about 19 m high, was an entirely Persian development, limited to Persepolis and Susa (Schmidt, p. 3). In other capitals at Persepolis, however, Egyptian influence is clearly recognizable in the details of the lotus flowers (Figure 1e); perhaps they were even carved by Egyptian stonemasons. Nevertheless, the column 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 late Achaemenid 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 in the museum at Persepolis (Figure 1i; Ghirshman, 1962, p. 23, fig. 29), as well as a palmette capital on a strongly convex echinus molding (Figure 1j), also from Estaskhr (Herzfeld, 1948, p. 279, fig. 376). A third type comes from the area around Estaskhr: the capital of an engaged column, carved in the form of a corolla of everted leaves (Figure 1k; Herzfeld, 1948, p. 277, fig. 375). Achaemenid architectural features also had a strong impact on the Maurya architecture of India, especially during the reign of Aśoka (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 volute forms of Persian capitals is unmistakable. It can be seen in the red-sandstone capitals from Bard-e Nešānda (q.v.) in the museum at Susa (Figure 2a), the capitals from the Parthian palace precinct of Qaḷ‛a-ye Zoh hāk (Figure 2b; Kleiss, 1973, p. 177, fig. 14), and the capitals from the Parthian columned hall (palace) at Ḵorha (village 12 miles north of Mahallāt; 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 form to the quadratic upper surface—the presence or absence of a molding and the form of the molding—permits classification in the following groups: those from Kermānšāh, both the city and Qaḷ‛a-ye Kohna (Figure 2d); those from Bīsotūn (Ṭāq-e Bostān)/Hājjīābād and Sar(-e) Pol-e Šāh (Figure 2e); those from Vondānī (Vendernī; Figure 2f); and those from Isfahan and the museum in Tehran (Figure 2g). From Bīšāpūr and Nūrābād two large capitals in a style related to the Corinthian have also been published as from the Sasanian period; they probably crowned commemo rative columns (Figure 2h-i) and, on the grounds of their stylistic parallels, can be dated between the mid-3rd and mid-5th centuries (Huff, 1975, pp. 172-77, fig. 4, pls. 36/1-3). They show unmistakable Roman influence in the volutes.

In the early Islamic period antique capital forms died out, as can be seen in the mehrāb (prayer niche) of the Great Mosque of Nā’īn (Survey of Persian Art VIII, pl. 269A) from the 4th/10th century (Figure 3a), and new forms were developed in carved stone and especially in molded stucco. Vase capitals appear on the stucco columns that flank the mehrāb of the Great Mosque in Neyrīz in the Saljuq period (Figure 3b; Survey of Persian Art VIII, pl. 399); this type continued basically unchanged but with evolution in details at the shrine of Bāyazīd at Bestām (q.v., 702/1302; Figure 3c; Survey of Persian Art VIII, pls. 392, 394) and in mehrābs at the Great Mosques of Rezā’īya (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 Yūsof Sarvestānī in Sarvestān (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 carved with 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 Solaymān (7-8th/13-14th century; Figure 3i), and some of the vase capitals are richly decorated. But capitals consisting of corollas of leaves, reflecting Western influence, can also be distinguished at Taxt-e Solaymān, though it 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 at a caravansary north of Marand and at Airandibi (‛Oryān 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 ‛Ālī Qāpū (q.v.; 1053/1643-44; Würfel, p. 122), the Čehel Sotūn (q.v.; from the period of Shah ‛Abbās I, 996-1038/1588-1629), and the Hašt Behešt in Isfahan (Figure 3j, ca. 1081/1670); cut-stone versions occur as impost capitals in the Shah Mosque in Isfahan (1025/1616; Stierlin, p. 130).

In the period of Karīm 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 appeared more frequently. In the covered portions of the Waqīl mosque, built by Karīm Khan Zand in 1187/1773, basked capitals encircled by vertical sprays of acanthus leaves, reflecting Western classical influence (Figure 3l; Sāmī, p. 68).

In the 13th/19th-century Qajar kiosk near Qasr-e Qājār in Tehran stepped impost capitals were used (Figure 3m); at Kermān, in the early 13th/19th- century bath of Ebrāhīm Khan there is a version with moqarnas (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 the Achaemenid double protome (Figure 3o) but of course without under standing the weight-bearing function of the originals (Kleiss, 1981, p. 177, fig. 16). Capitals on octagonal piers assumed special forms; in a mosque at Čūrs in Azarbaijan piers and capitals were carved as single members (Figure 3p; Kleiss, 1970, p. 124, fig. 13).

Beginning in the reign of Fath-‛Alī Shah (1212- 50/1797-1834) European influence became apparent in Persian architecture. After the first European visit of Nāser-al-Dīn Shah (1290/1873) it grew stronger and was especially noticeable in the forms of capitals (Figure 4). Today in photographs of Tehran it is pos sible to see the great variety of these capital forms, ranging from leaf capitals to capitals in a predominantly Corinthian style, from scroll capitals set upon basket capitals with leaf diadems and leaf-decorated impost capitals to figural capitals with human masks or animal heads combined with leaf ornament. In addition, there are undecorated capitals consisting of globular and quadratic sections combined, which were worked as single pieces. Such capitals were also molded in stucco and are still manufactured in that technique today for new buildings.

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

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

Xerxes

Darius