Figure 23. Window facing west.
Table of Contents
The most interesting carved stone ornament of the minarets is found in some of the rectangular window frames of the northern minaret. In the cylindrical section of the northern minaret there are nine carved stone window frames, three of them blind and three unpublished except for a drawing of one of them.43 I discuss the remaining three in detail in this section, while reviewing the others.
Detailed description of terminology for the minarets. Here I am concerned only with the window frames, not the minarets as complete compositions. However, I must explain my terminology with respect to the parts of the minarets. Creswell initially described the original part of the cylindrical section of the northern minaret in terms of eight serially numbered “bands or storeys” set on a socle and divided by torus moldings. He described the western minaret as a square shaft topped by five “storeys”. But instead of using “storey” throughout, he was inconsistent in his terminology and used “band” for multiple purposes.44 At the risk of introducing some confusion, I have called Creswell's numbered bands “registers” (retaining his numbering), projecting moldings “moldings”, and flat ornamented bands “bands” (I have been unable to avoid using “bands” for components of carved ornament also). For the western minaret I have also continued reference to numbered registers up into the octagonal section (which is consistent with Creswell's numbering of moldings up to molding 14, above which there are no projecting moldings). For the northern minaret I refer to registers of the socle separately.
A design principle common to the construction of foliate decoration and borders across the Antique world appears in the window frames of the northern minaret. I consider here only Antique or early Islamic frames that are composed of a border or set of borders completely enclosing one or more fields or voids (thus excluding door frames).
In some frames the foliage runs continuously and uniformly around the enclosed field; early Islamic examples are the bronze plates covering the undersides of the lintels of the entrances of the Dome of the Rock.45
In most frames, however, the foliage has a point of origin in the center of one side of the border (usually the bottom in the case of figural inner fields), from which it grows to either side. In the case of a single rectangular border the foliage turns the bottom corners, continues up the two sides, turns the top corners, and reunites in the center of the top side; there may be some special treatment at the corners. I call this composition, whether enclosing a rectangle or not, a “two-halved frame”. Such compositions are common in Late Antique mosaic floors, where the foliage usually consists of vines growing from a vase, and the frames enclose pictorial, hence oriented, fields.46 There are such frames in carved stucco at Khirbat al-Mafjar and in the Mosque of Ibn Ṭūlūn.47 Two-halved frames in carved stone are found in the Salon Rico at Madīnah al-Zahrā' and in the Great Mosque of Cordoba.48 These are all strictly foliate borders, although some have stems formed as a series of arcs.
Where multiple fields share a foliate two-halved frame there are T-shaped junctions where interesting design decisions had to be made; however, these are not relevant to the Mosque of al-Ḥākim.49
In the third register of the cylindrical section there are three windows, all blind. According to Creswell the window facing east is 2.17 by 1.62 m.50 Each is composed of a pierced screen in front of a recessed filling, a smooth bevelled border, and a wide epigraphic border. Two have a narrow foliate outer border and the third has a geometric outer border. I discuss them in “The Frame of the Window Facing East of the Third Register of the Northern Minaret” and “Borders of Undulating Stems with Alternate Trefoil Leaves”, below.
In the fifth register of the cylindrical section there are three small windows, 1.45 by 1.0 m., with grilles, bevelled frames, and “arabesque” borders, according to Creswell, who observed blue in the background of one border. He did not publish photographs of these window frames and remarked that Flury ignores them.51 One frame appears in his elevation drawing of the minaret, fig. 36, and is a two-halved frame composed of foliate scrolls.
In the seventh register of the cylindrical section there are three windows, facing west, north, and east (reversing Creswell's order of discussion). Two retain pierced balustrades in the lower part of the central field, which is otherwise open, and broad foliate frames. The designs of the balustrades are not related to those of the frames; I discuss them in “Balustrades of the Seventh Register”. All are surrounded with thick round moldings, which should be regarded as part of the composition, but which are plain. Creswell provided dimensions for the window facing east only: the opening is 1.36 by 0.58 m. and the entire frame, including round molding, is 2.34 by 1.49 m.52 I describe each frame below, with a summary at the end.
Figure 23. Window facing west. |
[Links: Window facing west, Creswell Archive, negative EA.CA.3133, EA.CA.3134, EA.CA.1915 (same as Flury, Ornamente, pl. 27, 4, below). Cf. Creswell, Muslim Architecture of Egypt, v. 1, pl. 26, e.]
 Figure 24. Window facing west. |  Figure 25. Window facing west, before unblocking; Flury, Ornamente, pl. 27, 4 (actually unnumbered). |
 Figure 26. Window facing west. |
The frame of the window facing west is a two-halved frame. It has a point of origin in a palmette at the bottom center; the two vertical sections correspond to each other, and the foliage grows together in a palmette at the top center. At the corners the foliate motifs are angled (inward on the bottom, outward on the top), but otherwise the foliage is upright all around. In Figure 27, below, I have colored the design of the right vertical section. For clarity in discussion I refer by number to what I call its seven cycles, from bottom to top; each cycle is a section from one crossing of the green-colored stems to another.
Bottom section. A central palmette sprouts two stems from its top, in the manner of the split palmettes of the main entrance frieze, and grows from two stems at its base. I shall describe these latter two stems as if they grow from the central palmette. On each side, shortly after leaving the central palmette the lower stem sprouts a split leaf that lies along the bottom of the frame and curves upward half the height of the frame to loop around the upper stem. The lower stem then curves downward, sprouting a large split leaf, and loops upward. At the angled joint in the corners there is some discontinuity in design that is not due to later movement of the carved stones, and while on the right side it appears that this upward-looping stem could have been meant to enter the vertical section of the frame at its inner corner, it clearly does not on the left side, so I conclude that it was meant to connect to the outer tip of the split palmette in the lower corner, matching the design of foliage elsewhere (however, compare the frame of the window facing north). Along this same stretch the upper stem curves upward, sprouts a small single leaf, and curves downward, following the shape of the large double leaf.
Lower corners. In each of the lower corners the lower stem grows into (or out of) one tip of a split palmette and the upper stem grows into (or out of) its base. The split palmette sprouts a stem from the other tip (call it A) and a stem from its base (call it B), and these two stems continue upward in the vertical sections. These latter two stems can be seen as the continuations of the upper and lower stems growing from the central palmette.
Transition from lower corners to vertical sections. For the purpose of the following description I introduce a term, “stem set”, by which I mean a set of stems, their leaves, and the geometric forms with which they are integrated, if any. I include as stem sets designs in which two stems diverge and converge, or split and rejoin, which is Antique; I call such designs split-stem foliage. Immediately above the split palmette in the lower corner there are two stems, A and B, as described. This pair of stems could be described as a stem set, but the matter becomes more complex immediately.
The designer has taken a liberty in order to create two stem sets: the stem issuing from the left tip of the split palmette in the corner (A) curves outward to grow into (or out of) the base of a simple split palmette, from which base another stem grows. From the top of this simple split palmette two stems grow, in a now-familiar manner. The stem that issues from the base of the split palmette in the corner (B) and runs to the right loops upward around it and crosses over stem A without dividing. There are now three stems growing from stem A, while stem B continues solo.
However, for most of the rest of the vertical sections the design is laid out as if there were two stem sets of two stems each, and I have so colored my analytical illustration, in arbitrary red (two of the A stems) and green (the B stem and one of A). To repeat, these analytical divisions have their borders at the points where the red stem set curves against the outside of the frame and the green stem set crosses over itself, and I call them cycles.
Cycles of the right vertical section
Figure 27. Window facing west.
The first cycle consists of the simple split palmette already described (which I have colored red), from which two stems grow, curving outward to the frame edge, and the stem set I have arbitrarily created and colored green, which begins with two straight segments of stem, one crossing over the other at the boundary with cycle 2; which stem crosses over the other is unclear.
In the second cycle the red stems curve inward and join at a small ring; two small leaves grow from the same point, and above it the stems curve out to the frame border again. This is split-stem foliage. The green stems, after the first overcrossing, diverge in two arcs to the frame border and arc back toward the center, where they cross at the boundary with cycle 3 (right over left).
In the third cycle the red stems take reverse curves, reuniting and throwing off two small leaves. These leaves constitute the filler of a six-pointed star at the top of which the stems cross again (right over left?) at the boundary with cycle 4.
In the fourth cycle the red stems again take reverse curves, reuniting at some small but indistinct device, and again at this point two leaves sprout, of an odd semicircular profile; above, this stem set continues as complexly shaped leaves along the frame border. The green stems continue the straight lines of the upper sides of the six-pointed star of cycle 3, break off in semicircles around the semicircular red leaves, and continue upward in apparently straight lines (but at a steeper angle than below) to an overcrossing (right over left) at the boundary with cycle 5.
In the fifth cycle the complexly shaped red leaves turn into stems that angle inward to join and give off two split leaves; from this point the stems diverge in shallow curves to the frame boundary. The green stems curve outward sharply to the frame edge, whence they rise in curved segments that change into reverse curves at cusps. At the points of the cusps there are two small stubby leaves that could belong to either stem set; I have assigned them here to the green set. At the boundary with cycle 6 the green stems unite.
In the sixth cycle comes a switch of roles between the stem sets, and an irregularity. Below, the red stems fill geometric or geometrized forms created by the green stems. In this cycle it is the green set that fills a geometric form created by the red set. The green stems, united, cross under the bottom of a five-pointed star, sprout two small leaves, and diverge in curves to the frame edge at the boundary with cycle 7. The red stems of cycle 5 clearly angle inward and outward twice to form all but the bottom two sides of the star, crossing (left over right) at the boundary with cycle 7.
To which stem set do the two bottom sides of the star belong? Not to the green set, which they clearly overcross, and not obviously to the red set, which undercrosses the left bottom side to emerge as the outer side of the left point, overcrossing on the right side. In addition there are vertical grooved strips just like the stems connecting the outer points along the frame edge, which arch inward around the top point (overcrossing the green stem on the right and undercrossing on the left). I do not know what stem set to assign these segments to.
It is instructive to compare the construction of the five-pointed star with that of the six-pointed star below it. The six-pointed star, which in this orientation has points at top and bottom, was simple to form with one stem set, beginning in the middle of the frame at a point where the green stem set crosses and finishing at the middle also, at another crossing. By contrast the five-pointed star has its lower two points at the frame edges, where the two stems of the red stem set meet the frame edges, but its top point in the middle of the frame, at a crossing of the red stems. For the six-pointed star each side of the figure could be alloted to a single stem, but for the five-pointed star there was no good solution. I am inclined to think that the designer of the frame did not introduce a five-pointed star by choice, but rather that it was a client requirement. For more on this question see “The Niched Room in the Western Minaret”.
In the seventh cycle I cannot distinguish the identities of the stem sets, nor even all of the connections of the various portions of stems. The situation is partly obscured by damage. In any event, this cycle is unlike the others, and at least in part because of the five-pointed star breaks the consistency of the design.
Upper corners.
Figure 28. Window facing west. |
The upper left corner is a bit clearer than the upper right one. A trefoil leaf grows from two stems, both rising from cycle 7; one of these loops entirely around the trefoil leaf to the inside side of its base, where it bifurcates, one branch leading to the center of the top section.
Top section. At the center of the top section of the frame is a damaged palmette. Stems emerge from the top and bottom of the palmette and loop around each other as they unroll to either side, somewhat differently on the two sides. On each side one stem terminates in leaves and the other grows into (or out of) the trilobed leaf in the upper corner. Topologically this arrangement is different from the bottom section, as only one stem leads into each corner.
Interlacings. I can describe the interlacings of the stems only from the point above the lower corners, at which I assigned them to stem sets, up to the five-pointed star. Some overcrossings are indistinct, and I may have erred on the side of regularity in interpreting them.
The red stems do not intertwine with each other; they diverge and recombine. Nor, surprisingly, do the green stems.
On the right side of the frame, the green stems cross left over right at the boundary between cycles 1 and 2, right over left at the boundary between cycles 2 and 3, left over right at the boundary between cycles 3 and 4, and right over left at the boundary between cycles 4 and 5. On the left side of the frame the corresponding crossings are right over left, left over right, right over left, and left over right. In short, on both sides the same green stem crosses over the other at every crossing, and in both cases it is the same stem; the two sides do not have symmetry of reflection in this regard.
As for the two stem sets, on the right side of the frame, in cycle 1 the left green stem crosses over the left red stem and the right green stem crosses under the right red stem; in cycle 2 the left red stem crosses over the left green stem and the right red stem crosses under the right green stem; then the left green stem crosses over the left red stem and the right green stem crosses under the right red stem; in cycle 3 the left red stem crosses over the left green stem and the right red stem crosses under the right green stem; then (in the upper part of the six-pointed star) both green stems cross over the red stems; in cycle 4 the left red stem crosses over the left green stem and the right red stem crosses under the right green stem; then the left green stem crosses over the left red stem and the right green stem crosses under the right red stem; and in cycle 5 the left red stem crosses over the left green stem and the right red stem crosses under the right green stem; then the left green stem crosses over the left red stem and the right green stem crosses under the right red stem. That is, except for the crossing at the upper part of the six-pointed star the two stem sets interlace in the same way, alternating crossovers.
On the left side of the frame, in cycle 1 both red stems cross over the green stems; in cycle 2 the left red stem crosses over the left green stem and the right red stem crosses under the right green stem; then the left red stem crosses over the left green stem and the right red stem crosses under the right green stem; in cycle 3 the left red stem crosses over the left green stem and the right red stem crosses under the right green stem; then (in the upper part of the six-pointed star) both green stems cross over the red stems; in cycle 4 the left red stem crosses over the left green stem and the right red stem crosses under the right green stem; then the left red stem crosses over the left green stem and the right red stem crosses under the right green stem; and in cycle 5 the left green stem crosses over the left red stem and the right green stem crosses under the right red stem; the second set of crossings is damaged. That is, except for the anomalous crossing at the upper part of the six-pointed star in cycle 3, which is the same as on the right side of the frame, there are irregularities in cycles 1 (both red stems overcross the green stems), 2 (the overcrossings are the same instead of alternating), and 4 (the overcrossings are again the same instead of alternating).
As the right side is more regular, I take it to be a better rendering of the intended design; the left side has an obvious error in cycle 1, so its other irregularities may result from an ensuing misunderstanding of the design. On both sides the anomaly at the upper part of the six-pointed star may have been intended to make it more prominent; the same anomaly occurs in the upper part of the five-pointed star on the right side (the five-pointed star on the left side is damaged).
 Figure 29. Window facing north; Flury, Ornamente, pl. 27, 1 (cf. Creswell, Muslim Architecture of Egypt, v. 1, pl. 26 d). |
The frame of the window facing north is also a two-halved frame. It is composed similarly to that of the window facing west, with two stem sets in each of the vertical sections, which I have colored similarly. The green stems form a variety of geometrized shapes filled by the red stem set, but there is no regular geometric figure. I omit a detailed description of the forms of the vertical sections.
Bottom section and lower corners. The point of origin in the center of the bottom is a ring through which two stems pass. It is ambiguous whether they cross each other or run side-by-side through the ring, but I think a crossing was intended (they do not join, as the joined stem would be thinner), so as I see it there really are two stems on each side of the center, not a single stem looped back on itself, and I describe the design on that basis.
On each side of the ring, one stem loops upward and the other downward. The upper stem then descends and crosses under the lower stem, which has sprouted a bilobed leaf. After the crossing the ascending stem joins the outer tip of a split palmette (the tip is not actually rendered, but it can be imagined on the basis of other examples), crossing another stem issuing from the inner tip (the crossing appears to be right-over-left on both sides). The descending stem passes under the split palmette and joins the inner leaf of a complex leafy form in the lower corner. The stem that issued from the inner tip of the split palmette loops downward, passing under the other stem on the left (this portion is destroyed on the right), and curves up into the center of the complex leafy form, which fills the very corner of the frame with a loop. The origins of the split palmettes are unclear to me: that on the right appears to grow from the stem issuing from its inner tip, but that is not the case on the left. On the right, certainly, and I think also on the left, the outer upper lobe of the split palmette turns into a stem, which crosses over the complex leafy corner form at the inner corner of the frame and grows into a split palmette just above the lower corner. (This may have been the design intended in the window facing west.)
Transition from lower corners to vertical sections. As in the window facing west, on each side only one stem continues from the bottom section through the corner and into the vertical section. As described, it grows into the base of a split palmette, crossing (over on the left side, under on the right side) a stem growing from the bottom loop of the complex leafy form that splits before growing into the split palmette of the vertical section (clear on the left side, destroyed on the right side); the stem that splits off curves upward around the split palmette along the inside of the vertical section. The outer leaf of the complex leafy form turns into a stem that rises along the outside of the vertical section and forms a stem set with the stem just mentioned; this is the stem set I have colored green in the figure below. From the top of the split palmette two stems grow; they are the red stem set.
Right vertical section.
 
Figure 30. Window facing north. |
The forms of the two stem sets are clear. Unlike the vertical sections of the window facing west, and except for cycle 1, the stems arising from the foliate forms created by the joinings of the red stems cross over each other immediately (and in the lower part of cycle 3 again before rejoining). The green stems appear to grow together within a ring at the boundary of cycles 4 and 5 but in the left vertical section there appears to be a crossing at this point, so I assume an error on the right side. Surprisingly, the red stem set ends in a hollow trefoil leaf in cycle 6.
Upper corners. The complex leafy forms of the top corners are more elegant than the trefoil leaves of the upper corners of the frame of the window facing west. Similarly to that frame, however, these forms point outwards while those in the bottom corners point inward, and a stem (the inner one of the green stem set) runs completely around them. The outer green stem crosses the inner one and coils into a leaf that grows a lobe crossing over the outer stem at the inner corner of the frame; a corresponding coil and the small trefoil leaf that grows from between the two coils complete the complex leafy form.
Top section. The center of the top section is unclear in the available photographs, but I assume some form from which four stems issue, as in the similar top section of the window facing east (see Creswell Archive, negative EA.CA.1636). Those stems curl outward reciprocally around a palmette that grows from the stem that runs around the complex leafy corner form; the other stem runs into the inner coil of the corner form, passing under the first stem on both sides.
Interlacings.
Figure 31. Window facing north. |
On the right side of the frame the red stems cross left over right in cycle 2, right over left and then right over left again in cycle 3, left over right in cycle 4, and right over left in cycle 5. On the left side of the frame the corresponding crossings are right over left, left over right and then right over left, right over left, and right over left. As the stems are not continuous these overcrossings may not have been regarded as significant, but there is no symmetry of reflection in this regard, and they differ in cycle 3, which means that if there was a logic to the layout it was not followed consistently.
On the right side of the frame the green stems cross right over left at the boundary between cycles 1 and 2, left over right at the boundary between cycles 2 and 3, right over left at the boundary between cycles 3 and 4, left over right (?) at the boundary between cycles 4 and 5; I assume right over left at the boundary between cycles 5 and 6, and at the top of cycle 6 the crossing is again right over left. On the left side of the frame the corresponding crossings are right over left, left over right, right over left, left over right, right over left, and left over right. These crossings are the same as on the right side of the frame except for the topmost crossing. As with the frame of the window facing west, on both sides the same green stem crosses over the other at every crossing, and in both cases it is the same stem, except at the top; the two sides do not have symmetry of reflection in this regard except at the top.
As for the two stem sets, on the right side of the frame in cycle 1 the left green stem crosses over the left red stem and the right green stem crosses under the right red stem; in cycle 2 both green stems cross over both red stems, then the left red stem crosses over the left green stem and the right red stem crosses under the right green stem; in cycle 3 the left red stem crosses over the left green stem and the right red stem crosses under the right green stem, then the left green stem crosses over the left red stem and the right green stem crosses under the right red stem; in cycle 4 the left red stem crosses over the left green stem and the right red stem crosses under the right green stem, then again the left red stem crosses over the left green stem and the right red stem crosses under the right green stem; in cycle 5 the left green stem crosses over the left red stem and the right green stem crosses under the right red stem, then again the left green stem crosses over the left red stem and the right green stem crosses under the right red stem; and in cycle 6 both red stems cross over both green stems. That is, except for the lower crossings of cycle 2, and cycles 4 and 5, the two stem sets interlace in the same way, alternating crossovers.
On the left side of the frame in cycle 1 the left green stem crosses over the left red stem and the right green stem crosses under the right red stem; in cycle 2 both green stems cross over both red stems, then the left green stem crosses over the left red stem and the right green stem crosses under the right red stem; in cycle 3 the left green stem crosses over the left red stem and the right green stem crosses under the right red stem; then the left green stem crosses over the right red stem and the right green stem crosses under the right red stem; in cycle 4 the left red stem crosses over the left green stem and the right red stem crosses under the right green stem; then the left red stem crosses over the left green stem and the right red stem crosses under the right green stem; in cycle 5 the left red stem crosses over the left green stem and the right red stem crosses under the right green stem; then the left green stem crosses over the left red stem and the right green stem crosses under the right red stem; and in cycle 6 both red stems cross over both green stems. That is, the lower crossings of cycle 2 are as on the right side, but then they switch; and in cycles 3 and 4 there is no alternation.
[Link: Window facing east, Creswell Archive, negative EA.CA.1636 (cf. Muslim Architecture of Egypt, v. 1, pl. 25, a).]
 Figure 32. Window facing east. |  Figure 33. Lower right part of window facing east; Flury, Ornamente, pl. 27, 2. |
Much of the frame of the window facing east is damaged or hidden from view; the top section resembles that of the frame of the window facing north but is carved more crudely. Enough of the two vertical sections is preserved to show that their design was different from the other two window frames in the seventh register, but not enough to permit analysis of it. Below is a composite image created by combining the top of the left side of the frame from Creswell Archive negative EA.CA.1636 with the preserved fragment of its right side from the same negative and a casually perspective-corrected detail of Flury's photograph of the lower part of the right side (note that the full photograph shows the inside lower right corner of the frame, anchoring this section; for the gap between sections see footnote 52). A more accurate reconstruction might be attempted by reversing the right sections left-to-right, but the over- and undercrossings of the stems in this window frame were probably as irregular as those in the other two window frames in this register, so there would be nothing to be learned in that regard from such an exercise. Given the variety of foliate forms in the three window frames I have not ventured to sketch a connection across the gap.
 Figure 34. Montage of both left and right parts of window facing east. |
All three window frames in the seventh register are two-halved frames around central open fields provided with pierced balustrades. All are composed mainly of foliage, organized according to the same scheme (assuming that the lost or invisible parts of the frame of the window facing east were like the other two frames):
The foliage unrolls in two stems from a foliate element or ring in the bottom center toward the lower corners;
where the stems combine in foliate elements angled inward (described above);
are reorganized as two interlacing stem sets (described above), rising through the more complex vertical sections;
one pair of stems appearing to intertwine with itself (while actually one stem lies on top of the other) and assuming varied geometric and geometrized forms, the other pair of stems being a case of split-stem foliage (not counting the irregularity at the five-pointed star in the frame of the window facing west) with varied foliate forms;
the two stem sets grow into and around foliate elements angled outward in the upper corners, reduced in the process to one or two stems on each side of the top section;
and unite at the center of the top section in a central foliate element;
maintaining an upright orientation throughout.
The repertoire of foliate forms is similar in all three frames, although the leaves and palmettes are rendered with varied skill. The stems are all rendered in the same manner, with a groove down the middle, like the foliate forms. The interlacings of the stem sets in the vertical sections are not regular and the left and right vertical sections do not have symmetry of reflection.
It would be appropriate to situate these three window frames in the context of Antique, Late Antique, Byzantine, and early Islamic window frames, in stone buildings, that are also rectangular and carved with two-halved frames that feature variation in foliate forms. However, I have found no such window frames.
There are parallels at Madīnah al-Zahrā' for a pair of stems interlacing with a pair of geometric bands. One features a pair of grooved stems interlacing with a pair of regularly curving grooved bands in a straight border, reportedly from the Salon Rico; it was published by Basilio Pavón Maldonado.53 Another two, in which the stems form rotated squares and the foliage joins in palmettes, were published by Henri Terrasse.54
For the period in question I have found almost no rectangular window frames with wrap-around borders of any kind.
It appears to me that in Western and Middle Eastern architecture of the first millenium A.D. arched windows may have ornamental frames but rectangular windows were generally either left plain or treated in the same way as doors, with pilasters and lintel, and perhaps a sill. The closest Antique comparison I have found is a set of window frames in the Temple of Baal at Palmyra in which the whole four-sided frame projects, and consists of a thick plain sill like a base on which rests a three-stepped architrave formed as a three-sided surround; it is topped by either a pediment or a section of entablature.55 The projection of the frame is suggestive but the bottom section is treated differently than the other three sides and the top section is given extra elements.
Much closer in time, though not in scale, are two small arched window frames in stone from Madīnah al-Zahrā', which belong to the tradition that is the direct source of the Mosque of al-Ḥākim window frames, whatever its own sources were. Both window frames seem to have been found in the bath to the east of the Salon Rico. One is complete; the other, dated in its inscription to 349/960–61, lacks part of the bottom section.56 In the complete example (assembled from many fragments) the open space is surrounded on three sides by a horseshoe arch on columns and capitals with imposts. The arch in turn is surrounded on three sides by an inscription band that rests on the outer edges of the imposts. The columns appear to be nearly half-round, and the arch and inscription are in low relief. This arrangment is surrounded on all four sides by a blank fillet, which runs uninterrupted around all four sides and is actually the inner “guard” (in carpet terminology) of a thicker frame. The column bases rest on this inner, rectangular frame. Outside it a much thicker frame also runs around all four sides, divided into triangles filled with foliage, carved in very low relief. This frame has a corresponding outer “guard” and is set into a larger decorative scheme that cannot be reconstructed from the published fragments. This is a rectangular wrap-around frame in which all sides are treated the same way (even if it frames an arched window rather than a rectangular opening).
The incomplete example differs slightly in proportions and details. It lacks the section between the column bases, but the thick frame, with blank “guards”, turns the lower corners and runs beneath the bases (and on the right side, beyond the base), so it clearly was designed according to the same scheme as the complete example.
The thick frame of the incomplete example is carved in moderate relief. Its design resembles an intertwining of two stems, with a peculiarity I have observed only in borders from the Salon Rico: the compartments formed by the two stems are filled by what I take to be flowers that grow from two stems that spring from the sides of the stems in the cycle below, but which do not themselves sprout additional stems or other foliage.57
Because of the condition of the original parts of the Salon Rico borders and their extensive restoration it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about how the stems intertwine, but in spot-checking those areas that appear original I find that the pairs of stems interlace regularly. In the incomplete bath window frame this is not the case. I believe that the intent of the designer was to create regular variation in the over- and undercrossings of the stems from which the flowers grow with the main stems. In the vertical section on the right and the right half of the top section, from bottom to top, the left flower stem crosses under the left main stem and vice versa for the right stems; then in the next cycle the left flower stem crosses over the left main stem and vice versa for the right stems; and so on, alternating. One of the main stems lies on top of the other, never crossing under it. In the vertical section on the left and the left half of the top section both kinds of over- and undercrossing occur, but not regularly. I infer that this is a case in which a master carved the right side and an assistant the left, and that the pattern was intended to appear as it was rendered on the right.
The main stems of the incomplete bath window frame, then, fail to intertwine exactly as in point 4 of the design scheme sketched in the summary above.
The incomplete bath window frame also fulfills point 6 of this design scheme (and probably originally point 1): while the center of the bottom section is missing, the foliage turns all the corners, and unites at the top center in composite center element. The corners are filled with short flowers pointing outward below and slightly inward at the top, a difference that parallels the distinction between top and bottom corners in the al-Ḥākim window frames. The main stems pass around the corner flowers in a coherent manner that appears to have been the basis for the approach described in point 5. There is only one pair of main stems, but the appearance of greater complexity, and of pairs of stems interlacing with other pairs of stems, is given by the flower stems (cf. point 3). A border from the Salon Rico (field 25) actually uses two stem sets throughout, one a guilloche (a geometrized form) and the other a case of split-stem foliage with foliate elements resembling pine cones. Finally, in the incomplete bath window frame the orientation of the flowers is not upright throughout, but sideways in top and bottom sections; however, completely upright orientation characterizes some of the similar Salon Rico borders (e.g. fields 30 and 57, also field 25).
It seems clear, then, that the design scheme of the window frames of the seventh register of the cylindrical section of the north minaret of the Mosque of al-Ḥākim was created by elaborating a scheme or schemes such as were actually used for window frames at Madīnah al-Zahrā' (though for other purposes also) by converting the flower stems into a second full stem set in the vertical sections and dropping them at top and bottom. The contrast between geometrized forms and foliage also exists at Madīnah al-Zahrā'.
Of course it is not possible to say whether there were intermediate stages of this design development between the extant material from Madīnah al-Zahrā' and the Mosque of al-Ḥākim. I discuss the originality of the Mosque of al-Ḥākim ornament below (see “The Originality of the Ornament”).
In my sketch of the design scheme of the window frames I drew attention to the variation in the forms of the foliage and geometry in the vertical sections (point 4). As the combination of foliage and geometry is unusual, as discussed in the following chapter, it is reasonable to look for sources for this characteristic, which I call “variation in ascending foliate patterns”.
Aside from inhabited vine scroll frames, in which the foliage does not change, I can find no example of deliberate variation of this sort in any earlier frame pattern: frame patterns were, conventionally, repeating series of the same or alternating elements. However, variation in ascending foliate patterns is well established as a characteristic of field patterns in Antiquity.58
Variation in ascending foliage is characteristic of some of the mosaics of the Dome of the Rock, such as the narrow faces of the inner sides of the piers of the octagonal arcade, although if it was a deliberate design principle it was not applied consistently, and the foliage is intermingled with other motifs. Some of the carved woodwork from the Aqṣā Mosque that Creswell thought to be early ʿAbbāsid exhibits variation in ascending foliage as well, although with different motifs than in the Dome of the Rock.59
 Figure 35. Cordoba, Great Mosque, Bāb al-Wuzarā', detail. |
Again, much closer in time to the Mosque of al-Ḥākim are comparanda from Cordoba: carved pseudovoussoirs. In the exterior gate of the Great Mosque of Cordoba known as the Bāb al-Wuzarā' (reconstructed in its present form in 241/855–56) the horseshoe arch over the doorway is composed in part of carved white stone pseudovoussoirs alternating with pseudovoussoirs constructed of red brick.60 In these pseudovoussoirs the foliage develops as it grows from the inside to the outside of the arch, expanding to fill the space available.
 Figure 36. Madīnah al-Zahrā', unlocalized pseudovoussoir; Velázquez Bosco, Medina Azzahra y Alamiriya, pl. 27, upper right. |
Pseudovoussoirs from Madīnah al-Zahrā' also exhibit variation in ascending foliage, and some reportedly from the Salon Rico or nearby develop into angular forms (discussed in the following chapter).61 Of course the fields of the Salon Rico, along with the dado panels flanking the door to the mihrab of the Great Mosque of Cordoba, are all examples of variation in ascending foliage, but in broader designs; the pseudovoussoirs are more closely constrained to the widths of borders.62
Just as there are no wrap-around borders displaying variation in ascending foliage earlier than the window frames of the Mosque of al-Ḥākim, there are no later ones—at least none I am aware of in the architecture of the following few centuries. Just as it is not possible to say whether there were intermediate stages of design development between the extant material from Madīnah al-Zahrā' and the Mosque of al-Ḥākim it is not possible to be sure that these window frames had no prototypes. But if there were prototypes they produced no other extant descendents. It seems entirely possible that the variation in ascending foliage of the window frames was a new invention, again perhaps prompted by some general or specific client requirement.
43. Muslim Architecture of Egypt, v. 1, pp. 92–94; Flury, op. cit., pp. 44–45.
44. For the northern minaret Creswell described the horizontal portions of the socle as “parts”, one of which has “strips” containing “interlacing bands”, and he went on to describe the cylindrical section in terms of “bands”, so that “the sixth band is decorated with a magnificent band of arabesque” and the windows in the seventh “band” are surrounded by “palmette friezes” or “a band of arabesque”. The western minaret Creswell initially described as a “square shaft” topped by five “octagonal storeys”. The shaft is divided by projecting moldings (decorated or not) into eleven numbered “bands”, some of which are decorated with “bands”, and the projecting molding at the top of the seventh “band” he also called a “band of dentils”. He began numbering again with the octagonal section, which is composed of “octagons” or “storeys” or “octagonal storeys”. Throughout, the numbering of the “bands” is extended to the molding at the top of the “band”, which has led to confusion in fig. 37 (misleadingly captioned as showing moldings though correctly labelled to distinguish moldings from other ornament): the lowest of the “bands of arabesque” of the shaft of the western minaret is labelled “between 1 and 2”, meaning the numbered moldings, whereas it is properly the entirety of Creswell's second band. For the western minaret Creswell abandoned the correspondence of numbering of storeys to that of moldings at the bottom of the octagonal section (cf. the text, pp. 98–99, to fig. 40).
45. Creswell, Early Muslim Architecture, 2nd ed., v. 1, pt. 1, pl. 3. The corresponding plates on the undersides of the tie-beams are not completely framed. At least one of the arch soffits of the Mosque of Ibn Ṭūlūn has such a frame; see op. cit., v. 2, pl. 104 b.
46. Katherine Dunbabin, Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World, Cambridge, 1999, fig. 122, 129, and 166.
47. Hamilton, Khirbat Al Mafjar, fig. 185, 186, 193, 198, 199, 207–09, 214, and 215. At Khirbat al-Mafjar there are also nonfoliate two-halved frames: see fig. 138, 140, and 144. For Ibn Ṭūlūn see Creswell, Early Muslim Architecture, 2nd ed., v. 2, pl. 107 a, b, and c.
48. An accessible illustration of the Salon Rico decoration may be found in Barrucand, op. cit., p. 67. For examples in which the relevant areas appear to be original, see Christian Ewert, Die Dekorelemente der Wandfelder im Reichen Saal von Madīnat az-Zahrā' (Madrider Beiträge, v. 23), Mainz am Rhein, 1996: for the lateral walls, field 6, pl. 20; field 22, pl. 40; field 23, pl. 46; field 24, pl. 52; field 26, pl. 62; field 27, pl. 68; field 31, pl. 74; field 42, pl. 80; field 43, pl. 102; and field 64, pl. 128; for the doors, pl. 52, a, and 53, a; for the western of the blind arches, pl. 54, a; cf. also the west side of the west wall of the west arcaded bay, pl. 59–61, in multiple borders. Cf. Natascha Kubisch, “Der geometrische Dekor des Reichen Saales von Madīnat az-Zahrā': Eine Untersuchung zur spanisch-islamischen Ornamentik”, Madrider Mitteilungen, v. 38, 1997, pp. 300–63, fig. 3, d; 4, b; 6; 7, b; 9, d; 12, b; and 14, b. Some of these frames consist of multiple borders, both with and without the characteristic construction of two-halved frames.
In the Great Mosque of Cordoba the two-halved frames include the thin carved white marble borders of the surround of the mihrab doorway, the frame of the larger of the two dado panels to the left of the doorway, and the thin carved white marble borders of the surround of the arch of at least one of the external doorways of the addition of al-Ḥakam II: see Barrucand, op. cit., pp. 57 and 79. For the dado good photographs are available in Henri Terrasse, L'art hispano-mauresque des origines au XIIIe siècle, Paris, 1932, pl. 27 and Manuel Gómez-Moreno, El arte árabe español hasta los Almohades, arte mozárabe (Ars Hispaniae, v. 3), Madrid, 1951, fig. 176.
49. It is interesting to observe the different handling of foliate scrolls at these junctions, for example in the so-called dīwān at Khirbat al-Mafjar in the lowest-level panels in the two sides of the apse, at the points where the horizontal scrolls turn a corner or join a vertical scroll, pl. 46 and 47, remarked on by Hamilton, p. 194, sixth paragraph. Hamilton also noted that there is a point of origin in the center of the apse; however, there are no others. In comparable compositions on the lateral walls of the Salon Rico, so far as I can see from Ewert's publication, there is a separate point of origin at the bottom and top center of each enframed panel.
50. Muslim Architecture of Egypt, v. 1, p. 92.
51. Ibid., p. 93.
52. Ibid., p. 93. The ratio of exterior to interior widths (“overall”, including the “torus molding”, to “actual opening”) is thus 2.6:1, which matches closely the ratio obtained by measuring the published plate, 25, a, so I consider the measurements accurate. Accordingly, I have used the ratio of interior width to interior height in constructing the montage of this window shown below.
53. El Arte hispanomusulmán en su decoración floral, 2nd ed., rev., Madrid, 1990, pl. 25-82, 498. Cf. ibid., pl. 25-83, 510, in which a pair of grooved bands intertwines to form a six-pointed star and interlaces with foliage; however the panel shown does not appear to be part of a longer design, and the construction of the foliage is consequently somewhat obscure.
54. L'art hispano-mauresque des origines au XIIIe siècle, Paris, 1932, pl. 10. One lies on the ground, just above “az-Zahra” in the caption, the other stands upright to the right of the tall arch fragment on the left; both are probably from Velázquez Bosco's excavations in the Dār al-Mulk.
55. Henri Seyrig et al., Le Temple de Bel a Palmyre (Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique, v. 83), 2 v., 1968–75, v. 1, pl. 25.
56. Antonia Martínez Núñez et al., “La epigrafía de Madīnat al-Zahrā'”, Cuadernos de Madīnat al-Zahrā', v. 5, 2004, pp. 107–58. The complete frame is fig. 3, p. 109; the other is fig. 31, pp. 123–24. Martínez Núñez gave no dimensions, but called the frames “arquitos”, and they do not look as though they could be very large.
57. For the Salon Rico borders see Ewert, Dekorelemente, field 4, pl. 20; field 9, pl. 26; field 26, pl. 62; field 27, pl. 68; field 30, pl. 70; field 33, pl. 86; field 51, pl. 108; and field 57, pl. 116.
58. A possible exception is in a mosaic floor in the frigidarium of the Baths of Trajan at Acholla, Tunisia, mid-second century A.D., where two wide borders are composed of varied foliage with suns in the center; see Dunbabin, op. cit., pp. 104–05 and fig. 104. Dunbabin pointed out that the mosaic reflects vault decoration, and in that context these wider borders, perhaps covering ribs, would display the foliage rising toward the central suns.
Two Antique door frames deserve consideration. In the main portal of the first-century Temple of Baal at Palmyra, in the third frame from the inside there is variation in coördinate detail in the elements in the coils of the vine scroll, but not in the scroll itself. This is like an inhabited scroll (see Seyrig, Le temple de Bel, v. 1, pl. 19, 1 and 20, 1).
At Baalbek, in the mid-second century main portal of the Temple of Bacchus each of the vertical sections of the inner of the two foliate borders is composed of a stack of composite foliate forms, generally beginning with a pair of leaves seen in profile and facing each other, and culminating in an open leaf from which the next such pair grows (see Theodor Wiegand, ed., Baalbek, Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in den Jahren 1898 bis 1905, 3 v., Berlin, 1923, repr. 1973, elevation, v. 2, pl. 8, photographs pl. 25 and 26, details pl. 51 and 52; cf. v. 1, pl. 55, below). But there is considerable variation in the details, even from one composite form to the next, and in the upper third, on the right side only, there are inserted (or substituted) additional (or other) forms (see particularly the four quadripartite flowers in Wiegand, op. cit., pl. 51–52, detail no. 105, and the bunch of tulips below it, which seem to be substituted for the usual ears of wheat). The two vertical sections do not correspond in the spacing of the composite forms, while across the top of the door frame the border is much more regular. The variation in the vertical sections could have been due partly to changes in stonecarvers and, or, loss of concentration by supervisors of the work during the long period of construction, but some of it must be deliberate.
Even though these are door frames rather than wrap-around frames one can imagine the idea of variation in the vertical sections of a frame persisting and being adapted to something like the wrap-around frames as seen in the small Madīnah al-Zahrā' bath window frames, but as there seem to be no extant monuments between the temples and the Mosque of al-Ḥākim displaying variation in ascending foliate patterns in borders, I think the temple door frames are not relevant here.
59. Creswell, Early Muslim Architecture, 2nd ed. v. 2, most notably pl. 26, d, and pl. 27, b.
60. Creswell, op. cit., v. 2, p. 140; also on the portal Klaus Brisch, “Zum Bāb al-Wuzarā' (Puerta de San Esteban) der Hauptmoschee von Córdoba”, Studies in Islamic Art and Architecture In Honour of Professor K.A.C. Creswell, Cairo, 1965, pp. 30–48. For additional bibliography see Jerrilynn D. Dodds, Architecture and Ideology in Early Medieval Spain, University Park, Penna., 1989, pp. 148–49, n. 25 to p. 52.
61. See Pavón Maldonado, Decoratión floral, pl. 2, no. 5; pl. 3 no. 20; and pl. 74, no. 461.
62. In the Great Mosque of Cordoba the faces of the uppermost (round) arches of the north section of the north side of the screen on columns around the antemihrab bay have foliate decoration with central points of origin and scrolls (or pairs of scrolls) filled differently in each loop (see Christian Ewert, Spanisch-Islamische Systeme Sich Kreuzender Bögen (Madrider Forschungen, v. 2), Berlin, 1968, pl. 38–40.) These should not be seen as borders: such variation in horizontal friezes is common in Antiquity and was transferred to such elements as the frontal arches of apses in Late Antique Syrian architecture.
