1
Conservation of Architectural Ornaments and
Sustainable Urban Development in Historic
Contexts: “To what extent we can refer to use
the ancient architectural motifs?”
(Case Study: Kharaghan Twin Towers, Seljuk Pattern for Islamic Mausoleums’
Architecture.)
Mehri Mohebbi*, Fatemeh Honarbakhsh Raouf**, Elaheh
Samandi***, Alireza Fakhari***, Ashkan Ebrahimian***.
* Head of Dept., Dept. of Architecture, Faculty of Fine Arts, Uni. of
Semnan, Semnan, IRAN.
** B.A. Student, Dept. of Architecture, Faculty of Fine Arts, Uni. of
Semnan, Semnan, IRAN.
*** B.A. Students, Dept. of Architecture, Faculty of Fine Arts, Uni. of
Semnan, Semnan, IRAN. (All students in this group are considered as
third authors of the final full text.)
Abstract
Architectural ornaments can make a building being in harmony with its historic
context. Despite of the geometrical characteristics of a new building in historic
background, its relevancy to the visual memory of the context can be more
influential to connect customers to the meaning of place. It means giving sense
of “belonging to the place” to visitors or residents of the context.
2
Furthermore, research on the essence of any architectural motif is what can be
helpful to know the originality of any motif as a cultural sign of urban context.
There are numerous motifs which are not belong to a region but social
interactions and political aspects impose them on local architecture. To analyze
motifs was the first step toward a sustainable architectural conservation. In case
of cultural interactions and the extent which a cultural movement affect an urban
settlement, we try to find the original motif and its meaning and relevancy to the
current local culture, to use it in a more sustainable way.
In the recent study on “Kharaghan twin towers”, there were a wide variety of
architectural ornaments which originated from Ancient China and Mongolian
cultural background. The meaning of birth, life and death in the East Asia did
create the architectural ornaments of these towers. In some points, their approach
to these three main steps of human life was the same as Persians’ believes; but in
so many cases, we found some kind of irrelevancy to the local values of the
Qazvin area, which encouraged us to leave the existing motifs and search for
more relevant ones. In this case study, one more used symbol in the Seljuk
ornaments has been studied, its originality and its uses. Conclusion concerns
about to use or not to use this motif in future architecture of the region; toward a
more sustainable and accepted spatial definition for natives and local inhabitants.
This part of study is outcome of a comprehensive work on the social dimension
of sustainability, Human relationship to the Nature. The studied motif
tells us the ancient story of “Human Relationship to the Nature”. It
is the reason of sustainability in ancient era; they felt and lived with
nature as it was, they participated in the natural life of their
surrounding environment as a member not as a ruler. They
respected the nature, it is what we are searching for: how to respect
the nature, how to feel and understand the nature and reflect it in
any architectural detail and to use it to create any architectural
definition as where we live with and in the nature.
Keywords: Seljuk Architecture, Turkmen, Brick-works, Kharaghan, Mausoleum,
Ornament, Tokke, Ram, Shamanistic Tradition, Turkish Weavings.
3
1 Originality in Arts and Architecture
What is originality in Arts and Architecture? Question of elusive answer!
Actually nothing in Art is strictly and completely original with its creator.
She/He inspired by many things, past and present. (Goff, 1968) Here in this
study, originality is a way to deepen our research, towards a wide perspective
approaching architectural conservation. Each motif and ornament comes from
the local culture; to what extent local culture had been presented at architectural
level, is what we try to discover in present discussion. For sure there are many
examples that are not the result of a search for originality, but of an innovative
effort; (De Winter, 2002) the success of such an outcome also has a strong effect
on our future undertaking toward a sustainable conservation.
2 Cemetery Architecture
The first civilizations had no complete understanding about the meaning of tomb
and burials and when someone died they simply buried him or thrown him away.
The first tombs were usually dug under the earth with no signs, then they became
mounds and were defined with trees and plants around them, and some were
built in the mountains. (Ancient Tombs and Mausoleums, 2009) Ancient Iranians
believed that after death the soul comes out of the body and goes up, and then the
body that remains is of no value. The body is no longer worth burying, burning
or throwing to the sea, because they believed it might infect one of these
elements (soil, fire, water). From this point, we could consider the act of
mummification as a way of avoiding the soil getting impure by something
worthless. (Ekraami, 2006)
Despite this idea, the people of Mesopotamia in the iron ages believed that after
death the soul continues living in the other world and so, in order to get
acquainted with the place, according to ones affordability they would put some
4
necessary things which might get needful. Ancient Egyptians believed the soul
needs a body to remain, so they were very accurate in their burying rituals. After
the migration of Medes and Parthian to Iran, different rituals were adjusted and it
was in that time that the cities of dead were placed nearby the actual residential
city. (Ekraami, 2006) Except the tomb of Cyrus the Great in Pasargad, we can
hardly find any other important and specific tomb to mention. Until the rise of
the Seljuk dynasty, the number of mosques was ahead of any other building, but
during that era, tombs became much popular. Turk emperors where interested in
tombs with the form of yurt tents (like towers). Two of the most outstanding
works of this type are the tombs of Sultan-Sanjer in Merv, and Qunbad-e-surkh
in Maraghe. During this era, the expansion of Sufism increased mausoleums and
shrines, including the tomb of Ahmed-Jami and Bayazid-Bastami’s set. (Arjah,
2010) One of the aspects of cemetery architecture is creating a link between the
material and spiritual world, so the tombs and mausoleums can be considered
symbolic and mysterious. For instance, domes and tomb towers are a symbol of
ascension and usually refer to the sky and heaven and also they could represent
the descendant of cosmological almightiness to the earth. Patterns of trees and
plants in such places are of importance. Islamic patterns shaping on a vase could
metaphorically represent heaven. After mosques, the most prevalent religious
buildings were tombs and mausoleums, and we can hardly find a city without
one. (Arjah, 2010)
2.1 Mausoleums in Seljuk Dynasty
A type of building which received a lot of attention and developed during this
period was the mausoleum. These buildings are the advanced type of tombs
which were built for Omayyad caliphs in the 8 th century. However, it must be
mentioned that these buildings had other important aspects; they were not only
for eminent people, but also built for religious scientist of the time. This could be
considered as the expansion of Sufism in Iran, Anatolia and Minor Asia.
Seljuk mausoleums have different forms: Octagonal, Cylindrical and Square
shape with a dome on top of it. They can either be built separately or beside
other buildings such as mosques and maddressa’s(schools) .
5
The tombs are designed by different symbols and patterns according to the
religious, social and political background of the person buried in it. In Iran and
Central Asia tombs were built cylindrical and tower-like which are found in a
place like Gunbad-Qabus. (Saoud, 2003) The Seljuk paid a lot of attention to
mausoleums as religious structures. (Fig. 1) The method of building these
structures is obtained by the architecture of Al-Buye and Al-Ziyar tombs which
are mainly under the influence of the tombs constructed in the northern parts of
Iran. In complete description on Seljuk’s mausoleums, it could be said that most
of them were built with 2 floors; the upper floor as a room, and the downer floor
as a place for burying the corpse. The room on top was mostly used for religious
rituals. The domes were normally with 2 layers which the external dome was
usually used for protection and also to make the dome look taller so that it could
be seen from far distances. This type of architecture has gained a lot of respect
for mausoleums; and building such structures in Seljuk period was very
common, for example we could mention Sultan-Sanjer’s mausoleum in Merv,
which has a dome and is similar to the tents of Turkish tribes. Although we must
consider Seljuk architecture as the continuance of its previous dynasties
(Samanid and Al-Buye) but some unfamiliar customs and properties were driven
into its Art specially by Turk emperors; as an example “ Kharaghan Twin
Towers”. The selected area, easily show the importance of the plain and
kharaghan plateau as a site for nomads. The main buildings are as if
inappropriate materials have been used (like the tents) and are reconstructed by
brick work. Turkish knits which create square patterns and wooden ribs which
are used symbolically on tents are samples for brickwork on these tombs.
(Rafiei, 2007)
6
Fig. 1: Some Patterns of Seljuk Mausoleum (Hilen Brand, 1998)
2.1.1 Qazvin Kharaghan Tombs
The village of kharaghan is located southwest of Qazvin province and the tomb
towers are located in this field. There is a 26 year time space between building
the first tomb and the second one, but their structural and detailed architectural
resemblances are much more than their differences. The first tomb has been built
on an octagonal plan, and in every side we have a cylindrical column with a
vault between them. The dome has 2 layers and the external layer of both tombs
have been destroyed. All of the towers facing has brickwork design. The design
of the dome and the sides include variant geometrical patterns and a chain of
Kofi calligraphy can be observed. Every side has its own design and none of
them are the same. The internal sides are painted and designed on stucco. These
designs include all the sides of the octagonal and the vaults between them. We
have drawings of peacocks, stars, pomegranate tree, flower bush, birds and
7
finally Kofi calligraphy. We have 2 caracole stairs that leads to the dome. This
tomb was built in 460.
The second tomb is very similar to the first one, except that it has 1 set of stairs,
and the height of the cylindrical columns overlap the dome. The inner side is
simply covered by brick and has two rectangle windows. According to the
inscription existing in the tomb, there is a brick alter, and a wooden fretwork
enshrine. This structure was built in 486. (Kiani, 2002)
3 Ancestors of Seljuk
Seljuk dynasty had its origins in the Turcoman tribal confederations of Central
Asia. Originally, the house of Seljuk was a branch of the Oghuz Turks. (Jami Al
Tawarikh) Oghuz refers to a historical nomadic confederation in Central Asia
and a group of Turkish people who speak a southwestern branch of the Turkic
language family. The term “Oghuz” was gradually supplanted among the Turks
themselves by Turkmen/Turcoman, from the mid tenth century on, a process
which was completed by the beginning of the thirteenth.
Phenotype diversity can be discerned amongst the Turkmen, who exhibit full
continuum between northern Mongoloid and Mediterranean Caucasoid physical
types. This most likely indicates an ancestral combination of Iranian groups and
Turco-Mongols that the modern Turkmen have inherited. (Malyarchuk, 2002)
Mongols as the ancestors of Turcoman have their roots in ancient China. The Hu
People (400 BCE) were ancestors of the Xianbeis, the Kithans and the Mongols:
the nomadic horse-riders of the northern steppes of China. (Kessler, 1993)
Seljuk dynasty belonged to both China, from its Mongolian side, and Persia,
from the other side. So, all art works from Seljuk era has Persian background
with Chinese and Turkish details. Furthermore, nomadic life of their ancestors
affects their architecture significantly, and representation of their nomadic life
can be researched in Turkmen life of Caspian region.
8
4 Analyses of very common architectural motif in Kharaghan
The brick structures stand 15 meters tall and 4 meters wide, and make extensive
use of geometry. There are three main details of brick works:
Blind Arcades
Tympanums
Round Columns
These details contain “geometric” and "Basket weave” patterns, which include
motifs inspired by the meanings of life in Qazvin plain. The Qazvin plain was a
significant grazing land for East Asian nomads; mostly architectural ornaments
of these two towers belong to the decoration of their tents (Yurt). The type of
decoration which we refer to is the traditional weavings of Kilim, Ensi, Chuval,
Torba and door hangings used by Turkmen nomads who moved to and lived in
the Qazvin plain seasonally. In the following map their traces on the whole Asia
and some parts of Europe and also the main routes of their seasonal travels can
be realized. (Fig. 2)
Fig. 2: Map of Yurts all over Asia and Europe
Blind arcades divide in three blunt arches; each of them contains two
semi-arches and one central arch, a kind of three-foiled cusped arch. Their
background contains three types of geometrical running ornaments. The usage of
9
“3” in Kharaghan towers can be considered as a hint to the ancient Chinese
philosophy affecting Turkmen culture indirectly; in other hand we have ancient
Persian philosophy which can be also considered as a powerful influential factor
on the architecture of the towers.
As we mentioned in the recent section, about the ancestors of Seljuk, they belong
to a Persian-Turk culture; so, the influence of ancient Persian art and architecture
and also Persian philosophical ideas on death and life should be mentioned
mutually. As a firstly remarkable effect of “3” in the architecture of towers, we
directed to the usage of three blunt arches in each of blind arcades. As it can be
seen in the following figure, it is inspired by what nomads built as entrances of
their Yurts. (Fig. 3) The whole architectural volume of the towers inspired by
Yurts, can be observed in other tombs all over the Seljuk Empire. (Fig. 1)
There are numerous examples of architectural ornaments on the facades of
octagonal volumes of towers which refer to the Turkmen life. Two other
considerable hints are related to their everyday life, as an instance in the
following figures, three main comparative examples will be represented. (Fig. 4,
5, 6)
Fig. 3: A Comparison between Yurt Entrance and Facades of Twin Towers
10
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
11
Fig. 6
4.1 The Meaning of Toke
The geometrical motif which we try reaching to its origin as an example among
thousand considerable decorative patterns is “Tokke”. (Maher-al-Naghsh, 2002)
Preliminary, its name gained our attention, what is exactly “Toke”, “Tokke” and
in some other manuscripts “Teke”. Many researchers believe that “Tokke”
becomes from the name of a Turkmen tribe which are a courage branch of
Turkmen who mainly live in the southern Turkmenistan and some parts of
northern Iran. They are famous for their horses (Akhal-Teke desert horse). Some
other researchers have mentioned that this motif belongs to the philosophical
ideas of ancient China, Triple unity of Heaven-Earth-Human. (Titarenko, 1996)
Among these various opinions, there are others who made a relation between its
literary meaning and Turkmen life. “Teke” means “goat”, and the motif “Teke”
is a triangle; face of a billy goat with horns. Goat in nomadic culture is the myth
of birth, courage and living. Their daily life depends on their animals which
among them, goat dedicates them food, safety and provides them with tools for
daily living. Horses, rams, and wolves, as well as braided rope pattern, were a
very common design motif among Hus’ and other nomads of Central and East
Asia. (Kohen, 2009) (Silk Road Seattle, 2009) The historic site of Shahr-eSukhte is the most important prehistoric city of the 3 rd millennium BC and a key
12
location for Iranian prehistoric studies, particularly concerning the southeastern
region, which was a connection point between Near Eastern civilization and that
of the Indus valley. (UNESCO, 2010)
4.1.1. The Newly Answer: Tokke in Burnt City
According to the recent studies on architectural ornaments of Kharaghan Twin
Towers, some remarkable motifs do not belong to Turkmen culture and ancient
Hu People. Hu People came from 400 BCE, but there are so many evidences
proving the exact originality of these motifs in ancient Persia, from 6000 to 3000
BC. One of the most considerable uses of “Teke” as a sign of cemetery
architecture has been discovered nearby Hamoon Lake in Sistan. The exact form
of triangle which can be mentioned in Kharaghan twin towers has been
discovered in the recent excavation in Burnt City (shahr-e-Sukhte). The most
significant point is the philosophy behind it; ancient Persian philosophy of death
and life. People of Burnt City believed that after death their soul will continue
living in another world, so after death the triangle of life had been completed:
“Birth”, “Life” and “Rebirth”. The reason of using “Teke” in cemetery is
perfection of soul after death. (Fig. 7, 8) Here also “Teke” is a sign of life, power
and safety; the souls rest under the realm of perfection which created by triangle
of life. Headpiece of goat includes three main parts; brain at the center and two
horns at sides. Brain is the one that leads life and the two horns represent gaining
power and reaching safety. The relation between ancient cultures and
philosophies refers to a global life. In a global life originality is important to
discover new horizons towards having a wide scientific approach.
13
Fig. 7: Motif Used in Weaving as an Architectural Ornament (O’Bannon, 1987)
Fig. 8: “3” in Cemetery Architecture (Burnt City (Shar-e-Sukhte) 3000 BCE)
There is one considerable factor; how a society survives during development,
which was and is a problem of ancient era and today. Unhealthy contests
between two nations could destroy one or both, and valuable outcomes of their
history will be defined as others. In case of Burnt City we face such a problem,
the city has been burnt twice, while they were developed and had been a
progressive society. In recent excavation, more than 12 types of textiles were
found. So many evidences prove that textile industry stood at its summit in Burnt
City as a trade heart of its era. Women wear based on fashion, and considerable
kinds of weaving had been used in various textiles. Furthermore, in the region,
Eastern point of Iran, numerous villages can be found named “white Mulberry”
14
or its derivatives: “Tut zil”, “Tutesk”, “Totaan” (In Persian). Appellation of
names of villages has a strong relation with its direct meaning; it means in the
ancient times, there were numerous villages where the Mulberry trees had been
the major type of plants. White Mulberry leaf is what exactly was used in the
preliminary step of producing silk. According to the remarkable industrial
development in Burnt City and also, the supposed natural and climate
characteristics of the region in 3000 BC, it can be mentioned that the possibility
of silk production in Burnt City ,much sooner than the date of Silk production in
China-, should be perused. “Everything we understand, we understand within the
representative realm of signs” (Simon, 1989); I assume that the destiny of Burnt
City’s people after the second burning period and migrating to unknown places
can be reachable after a comprehensive study on the above-mentioned villages. I
suggest this study as a hypothesis to the excavation group of Burnt City.
5 As a Result
It is just an anticipatory outcome of facing and considering originality in
architectural conservation: a more proper answer could lead us to a more proper
undertaking. A motif which will be used in an architectural conservation will
find its exact place to introduce people and culture of its time. It is not just a
question of form; it will be defined as the question of soul of structure and
function. Such a methodology will help us to excavate in the ancient times to
have a wide perspective as professional background which would guide us in our
future steps.
References
Ancient Tombs and Mausoleums (n. d.). Retrieved June 6, 2009, from
http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/atam/115005.htm
Arjah,
A.
Monument,
Retrieved
June
4,
http://www.encyclopaediaislamica.com/madkhal2.php?sid=1562
2010,
from
15
De Winter, K. (2002). Thoughts on Originality. Retrieved August 9, 2010, from
http://www.designaddict.com/essais/originality.html
Ekraami, R. (2006). Review on Cemetery Architecture: Changing Process,
Before and After Islam, Tehran, Iran: Valiasr Research Center.
Goff, B. (1968). Originality and Architecture, Retrieved September 2, 2010,
from www.bruce-goff-film.com
Hilen Brand, R. (1998). Translated by I. Etesam, Islamic Architecture, Tehran,
Iran: Tehran Municipality Urban Planning & Research Center.
Houtsma, M. Th. (1993). First Encyclopedia of Islam 1913-1936 (Vol. III).
Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill Publisher.
Kiani, M. Y. (2002) History of Iranian Architecture in Islamic Period, Tehran,
Iran: Samt Publication.
Kohen, S. (2009) The Mountain Goat; Symbol of Rain in Iranian Pottery,
London, UK: The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies. Retrieved August 1, 2010,
from http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Mythology/mount_goat.htm
Maher-al-Naghsh, M. (2002). Heritage of Iran Brickwork, Tehran, Iran: Soroush
Publications.
Malyarchuk, B. A., Derenko, M. V., Denisova, G. A., Nassiri, M. R. & Rogaev,
E. I. (2002). Mitochondrial DNA Polymorphism in Populations of the Caspian
Region and Southeastern Europe. Russian Journal of Genetics, 38(4), 434-438.
Russia: MAIK Nauka/Interperiodica.
Manning, A., & Serpell, J. (1994) Animals and human society: Changing
perspectives (P. 36). Edinburgh, UK: Routledge Press.
16
O’Bannon, G. , Mushak, P. ( 1987) Three From Turkestan, Oriental Rug Review,
8(1). New Hampton, USA: Ron O’Challaghan.
Rafiei, A. R., Shirazi, A. (2007) The Art of Seljuk Dynasty: Link between Art
and Science, Negareh, 5, 107-119. Tehran, Iran: Shahed University.
Saoud, R. (2003). Muslim Architecture Under Seljuk Patronage (1038-1327),
Manchester, UK: Foundation for Science Technology and Civilization.
Silk Road Seattle, Hu Peoples (n. d.). Retrieved August 12, 2009, from
http://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/exhibit/hu/hu.html
Silk Road Seattle (n. d.). Retrieved August 12, 2009, from http://
depts.washington.edu/silkroad/exhibit/hu/fig_25.html
Silk Road Seattle (n. d.). Retrieved August 12, 2009, from http://
depts.washington.edu/silkroad/exhibit/hu/fig_33.html
Simon, J. (1989). Philosophie des Zeichens (P. 39). Berlin, Germany: Walter de
Gruyter.
T. Kessler, Adam. (1993). Empires beyond the Great Wall: The Heritage of
Genghis Khan (P. 44). L.A., USA: Natural History Museum of Los Angeles
County.
Titarenko, Mikkail L. (1996). Translated by T. Karganova. Chinese Philosophy
and Chinese Civilization. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 23, 21-30. Honolulu,
USA: Dialogue Publishing Co.
UNESCO World Heritage Center (n. d.) Retrieved August 2, 2010, from
http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5185