crtoac) Eee OLEG GRABAR The exhibition of Mamluk art organized by Esin [Aaland the ssmposiun hel in Washington, DC, ft is opening Wore both memorable ocesions Jointly they peovidel one of the very. few ‘oppornitis inthe sewly growing field of Islamic an Tor the collective atention of lage number of fr historians and a smaller numberof historian 10 Focus on single period, This volume of Mugarnas records much of the atrial that was presented there at the symposia, ‘Asi both common and appropriate ina new fed, the overwhelming majority of the papers are taxonomic; they sesk to organie & quantity of objects oF monuments of architecture ito formal, technical, oF other eategories, {0 provide accurate efntons of those egories, 10 propose and sly dates, and to suggest an evolution of syle ‘and function. One cannot quarel with thot abjec- tives, but at the same time Mamluk objects, Whether or not they ware in the exhibition, andthe sscat-masterpeses of Mamluk architectare raise ‘more complex questions of meaning and perhaps equte more speculative treatment. In. answering ‘hose questions and in suggesting diferent interes tations we can perhaps add to our understanding both of the nature Islamic art and of the methods ofthe history of atin general 1 priori, few perids of Islamic history lend themselves as well a through and detailed anal- ysis a5 does the Maniak period in Eaypt and the Levant! Is chronological tamework it clexely ‘efined by major polit events although one ean quibble over whether 1250 or 1260 signaled ite beinning, there is general agreement that 1517 saris ts end. Its geographies! spread ie equally learly defined. Egypt was is center: Syria, Pal stn, and most of the Arabian peninsula were its provinees. Compared with the eritovial uncer Reflections on Mamluk Art ‘aintios of the boylits of Anatolia oF of the con- temporary Turkic and Mongol dynasties of the Mamluks were ted to a reasonably well demarcated area, 10. which they introduced a reasonably wellolled administrative structure ‘Although subjest to numerous changes and at times to devastating crises, the economic founda tions of Mamluk wealth—primarily @s middlemen in the transit trade from the East t0 the West remained fuel secure. Cairo was the largest metro poltan center in the world throughout thee twoutndachal centuries Ta also a haven for refugees from the whole of Muslim western Asia, ‘specially during the fist halteentury of Marniak Tule, and its stature as a major intellectual center ‘was maintained throughout the Mamluk period as “Muslims from independent North Afia und Spain tame thereto learn and 10 work, Many ofthe intl lectal eigous, and legal leaders of the budding ‘Owoman world wore trained there The Mamluk period is superbly documented CChronices abound in great variety, permiting a reconstruction of events thats more blaned than 's possible for earlier centuries, fr which 50 often a single source predominates. Although les acees- Sible legal and archival documents are also numer- fous! and thre are masses of literary, pets, Seite, philosophical, und even popular com- pendia, studs, and texts of all Kinds. Mamluk coins and inscriptions have by and large been Publised. Mamluk history, society, tude, and Institutions have been the subjects of numerous sfudiesand—a_ rare phenomenon in Islamic historiography—of actual scholarly debate, Most important for our purposes, the monuments of Mamluk times are visible, Cairo, Tipo and Sera Jem are very much Mamluk cities, and Damas- us, Aleppo, and the holy cites of Mecca andiieeeteetasas gre gasaeeECMUQ)ARN AS Ses ene srierLeL ener Medina were enormously modified during Mamluk tims Asconting to the timate of Michacl Mein- toke, nearly a third of some 3.300 identifiable Marntuk coastruction projects (new buikings and restorations have bos at least in part, preserved? “Thousands of Mamivk o2jet il the galleries and reserves of museum all ever the world tn contrast, to the situation for Ira, India, oF the Muslim ‘West, studies ofthe architectural monuments an, tora lesser degre, ofsmaler objects are available in books or attics, From the grand volumes of [Napoleon's Expiiton de Egypte to eecent mono- sraphs on individual builings or objet, the bib- Tiography on Mamluk aos extnsive and, however critial one may be ofits inllctual shoricomings, for the most part reasonably accurte* “The Mamluk perioe coincides with the most extraordinary changes it the arts and culture of Eurasia, which bepin asthe Pisani cautiously dis ‘aver antique sculpture, a8 Gothic eathedrals cover horthera Europe, as Anstolan architecture hones its Seliug model, and as literate and sophisticated Song painting stil roles in China. Tends in the time of Raphael and Leonardo, when northern Europe and Spain dhcover tay, when the Ottoman dome is ready or Sinans peeetion, and after two brillant centres of Persian painting tn the thirteenth century the Crusaders were finally tnd definitively defeated, and Wester awareness of ‘Avia depended on Masco Polo and some lonely Dominican ar; by thebepinning of the sixteenth, Portuguese and Spanish vessels sailed the tie Tadisn Osean, and the Ottoman feet was barely able to stand up to alan and Spanish navies in the Mediterranean Sea, “Thos for thice diffzentreasons—intenal o- Iesion and continuity: quantity, variety, and avail blity of information; and concomitant historical fand cltural changes fsewhere—ihe Mamluk Period olfers opportunies for research that are Farein other areas ot for ater times, ‘Methodologsally, robiems ofthis pesod are simple enough and, on the whole, hardly unusual. Some ent fom the ser quantity of documents determining the qualitative cange of Mamluk st, for surely with so many euarmpes iis une tha the sume quality was maintained throughout; iden ‘lying paradigmatic wieks through which other ‘works can be evaluatds and establishing te social Tange of Mamlak art, 36 it i highly improbable that eiferent kinds of patrons sponsored of ac ‘aired the same kinds of objects ‘Other problems are essentially historical: the sources of Mamluk at, stystie evolution, the Felationship between the Cairene center and the provinees or among the provinces themssives. A ‘more specific subject aries from contasing the fwornd-achalf centri of Mamiuk aft with the changes wrought in Anatoli, Iran, and Haly over the same period. Both Anatolian Ottoman and Iranian art are characterized by clear-cut and at times irreversible changes, while Mamlvk art, impresses one by is sure conservatism, by i numerous variations on the same themes. How valid is that impression? IF ii valid, should it be explained in social terms, asthe visual and func tional contract accepied by a sable society for an ‘sally ong period of time, or in cultural terms, 4s evidence that inventions and new searches ese- Whore simply did not reach the Mamluk worl? Why did the Mamluk world appear so static and «9 stable n'a Mediterranean word, both Christian find Muslin cultural ferment? The comparison ‘ith the Ottomans i particularly striking, a6 Doth Cultures shared similar Sunni religious directions finge with newly (atleast in the Levant) fashion: able Sufism, drew ther elites fom a comparable tne stock, and were in continuous if nt aways [rend contact with each other ‘What posing these questions ells us it seams tome, i that, however useful and indeed essential 1 may be t fll the taxonomic eequirements of scholarship, these endeavors lose something oftheir impor if they are beret of tei social, ideologies ‘or aesthetic contests and divorced fom thei met ‘odological implications. The varity of Mamluk forms that greets anyone visting Caio or Jerust Jem ooking a the exibition of Mamluk atin is many silent locations, or perusing its catalog Provides sumptuous feast to the eyes, bot how ‘does one reeogtize in these forms the will or the taste of the Mamiok world? T shall start with a numberof slmost random observation on some of the objects in the exhibition, then make a few remarks on Mamuk atchitectre, and. fly Serch outa posible spprosch wo Mau att a whol Let me begin by comparing 890 objets in brats a basin (plate 1: ©1880) feom the time of Nasir akDin Muhammad in the British, Museum tnd a candlestick (plate 2; dated 1482-83) in Cairo's Museum of Islamic Att donated. by (ayia to the mosque of Medina Both are deco rated with a single band broken up by severe eongly accentuated medallions and framed by ‘arrow ban above and below, The prim deso- ‘ative motif canst in writing set ave or comtast-G_GRABAR ing with vegetal ornament. The visual coherence of the decorative schemes, the powerful stress on ‘movement within circular objets seen respectively 8 rng and a eylinde, the contrast between the foveefuly proeaied icenifcation of « prince in the inscriptions and the more complex but also more static and repetitive elaboration of ornamen” tal details are all features of « Mamluk style They ace also found in Koran pages, gle lamps, txe les, and architctral ensembles of the Maaloh and they are dierent from the silisic Fe) PLATE 2. Canlesiet, 182-85, Muu ami Ar PLATE 1, Bas, 1384 Reish Museum, London, no. SI, characteristics of similar objets inthe twelth and thirteenth centuries rom Egypt, Sia or Tan” “The diferenses between the objects, such as the mote elaborate and mannered syle of writing fon Qusteay’s candlestick, the technique of engrav ing inthe later object yersus that of nlaying in the earlier one and the simplified ornamental moti, represent difrences of subperiods within «single style There i m9 diffcuy in establishing some of the same stylistic distinctions by comparing alNayirs architecture to Qaytbiy’s or by su ‘eying sequences of Mamluk domex® Objet such 1s the Baptiste de St. Luis (no. 21)? the candle- Stick in the Walters Art Gallery no. 16)!" the Raul basin (no. 22) the great Basins, bows, and candlesticks from Caito (308. 27,28, 29, 30,3) ean all be identi and interpreted as personal, quali- {ative of socal variants of single formal mattis, The penbox in the British Muscum made by ‘Mubammad ibn Sungar in 1281 (ae. 13) would be 8 transitional piss, and the one by Mubammad ibn Hasan al-Maveai made in 1269 (ao, 10) las inating atompr to mest an emerging new taste with the fasy details of another style The estab. lishment of a set of formal characteristics for Mamta metalwork fon fr tht ater anyother technique, howover broad, allows the traditional techniques of eonnoiseutship to operate, s0 tht ating and evaluation of objets can tert. For instance the basin in the Vitoria and. Albert Museum (a0. 18) hasan interior decoration which appears to be @ pastiche of all the motif of clas- sical Islamic. metalwork, and one ewer i the ‘Museum of Islamic Ar (00.19; plate 3) exhibits 3 striking and atypical contrast between the upper and lower pats of the body's decoration, In both instances the question is raised ofthe genuineness ofthe whole objet or of parts of,MUQARNA PLATE, Emer 1300 Mizeum eam At, Cio, 108 ‘Three braste, however, complicate matters somewhat, Two ate penboxes, one in the Louwre (no, 23: plate dy the cher in the Museum of Islamic Artin Cairo made for Abu'F-Fida (v0. 20 the thied is a Koran box also in Cairo (no. 25: ple 9) All three are dated or databe (0 the fst, Uhird ofthe fourteenth century, and all these bear tome relationship 40 oUF hypothetical 1pe, expe ‘inlly through the preseme of lgge and powerfal ‘scriptions. But ll thee also have area of inn ‘ate and sophisticated dsgns whose effet i not tmomeditey striking rom 2 discanee, si i in the vesicle from the times of al-Nisir and Qaytbiys rather, they require close seutiny and a personal, almost solitary attention to the object. The inser tions on two ofthese objects eesrly indicate that ‘hey were meant fr private use. Even if che name ofthe owner of the Louvre ponbox can no longer be read its long statement about the glories of pen- ranship suggst a testimonial in honor of eats ot decades of wing services. The Koran’ box 1s covered with carefily chosen Koranc inscriptions; the commonly kaowa Throne Verse is in bold leery, but les frequenly quoted passages are se only at lose quarters From these random observations on a few brass objets, the working hypothesis can be peo posed that several modes coexisted ja Mamluk limes using a vocabulary of forms fem dierent sources. Some were caer than the Mamluks others were new inventions. One mode was ston, futer- directed, impersonal; the other was intimate Jngerdrected, persona. At tines, a6 on a late “Mamtuk lamp fom Cato (v0. 32; plate 6) the two modes can be found on the seme object, It is perhaps too esky to sugusst that one mode was cia, the ater private, but the possibiy snot ‘cde, They may also relict so levels of pet, fone ofa! andprocamatory, the other individual fand perhaps mystical, i ther use respectively of ‘vellwor and uncommon Keranie quotations Tegan talking about the style of two types of objets and then went on to identify them, as well ts others, through modes. Without wishing to fall Into the dilfculties encountered by «0 many art Iistorians i rent yeas in trying to define stl, 1 wonder whether the identification of modes—that ie of combinations of subjects and forms sdapted to a particular foncion—does not beter suit the Historians now to understand object as active PLATE 4 Pebos, 1304-05. Lower, Paris 20362OLEG GRABAR A components of their contemporary li, expecially svn most of Mamiuk at falls nto the category of tbjets or buldings with primarily practical fone tions. PLATE 6. Lamp, secon the 1h century PLATE 5, Koran box, = 1350 Museum tide Are aio 1, The problem of site of modal definition i far more complex when one turns 10 the illum nation and especialy the (rotis- and fnspzces of spectacular Mamluk Koran. such as the mag: pifient ones of 1370 and 1388 (nos. 4 and 8; plates “Vand 8) Here the primary tsk, i seems to me, is rot to describe them, nor 10 preclaim that they ‘beautify the haly book. nor even to identify the ourees or evolution of this or that moti in their decoration. The problem sist ofall one of formal Aafiniton: what type or types of design are found in these manuscipis? ook pages are two dimensional, finite surfaces, and these examples ilstrate two characteristic ways of covering those surfaces: in the 1370 Koran a single motif growing from a contr, and in the 1384 Koran an allover repeat patter of medallions. Both types of design fccur on other Mat surfaces, in ceramice nos. 6? and 72) of textiles (nos. 116, 121, 125, 127, in Mamluk art and at other times or places as wel ‘Once this level of formal generality is established. then detailed analyses of individual motis and ther origins serve to identify the historical and possibly cultural or rocat dimensions of given awe ‘But neither formal typology nor historical ‘morphology manages 0 unswer much more fan: damental question: what led pattons of the same Social and intellactual level (euling princes), at oughly the same time (1370) and forthe same text (the Koran) to require ot appreciate dierent Kinds of iluminations? To postulate different rel ious meanings for these form+—forinstanee, exo: tere and Suf or establishment and Sunni--makesUQARNAS Le aS PLATE 7. Frontispiece, Kern 1370 Fay atin Library, Ca, MSS4, fo 23. sense becuse such meanings would reflect dierent interpretations ofthe holiness of the Koran, bat 10 investigntion, ay far as know. has identified the Prosencs by which these oF any other visual forms Felae to pies, The argunent tht these fancy tron tspicees indicate royal putonage is weakened by the ffontspioce of abBusir’s Kawalib inthe Chester Beatty Library tno.9) where Qiytbay ‘makes it pefetly clear that he i the patron ofthe manuscript. by ighlghting inscriptions pro ‘aiming hs tle and is sponsoehip. Perhaps we have no choice but Io so these designs simply as rns of sensuous altracion or as homage to the holy text through rich aad ineicate designs. Mum ‘ation is in tis case am attribute ven toa book ‘not, tke a istration, suing fom (One lst observation on Mamluk objets con- cerns ther inscriptions. Metalwork up pariclar splays nat merely a large numberof insertions bol an unas variety oftnserption types, ranging Som stexightforwardsttsmens of rank to person Al satements or signatres. In the other modi, ‘oly glass objets occasionally give a writen indi ition of function, patronage, o location, Why i= this so” With some besiation, one might suggest that something about e hierarchy of media cam be inferred from the presence or absence of instip= tions: not nesesarily or simply a hierarchy of quality—that brass of ass were “higher” tcch- niques than ceramics or textiles or ivory—but one reflecting the slave ability ta display individual ity and peculantion of taste, Metalwork denon tiated chat quality as carly asthe mile of the teh century? ‘Why these two media? Perhaps because, in contrast with ceramics, textes, ad even architec- tue, the last stages of their ornamentation were fisanal and aot industrial the finishing touches, ‘enamling chasing, on sass or metal could be ted to apply decoration atthe whim of @ singe patron when the object was almost faished. This ‘may explain, for instance, why the Bapitere de St Loui, the most elaborate work of easly Mamluk Prachikuns, depicting (or 50 it sem) the whole “Mamluk court, has no royal inscription!" T did not need one because st was made for an imme diate and specie purpose, seleevident to those ‘who used it! The basins maker, on the other hand, wanted to ensure that he was remembered $0 that he could reesve new commissions: his sgna= ture ean be found on the basin six tes. A 10 the to other inscriptions onthe Baptstre—the iden tileation of penbor as # penbox and of another ‘vessel sone to catty food—they probably com> remorse some concrete even that escapes ‘One conclusion we might draw fom these remarks is that insertions serve to determine the PLATE 6. Face Koran, 134 Eatin Naina! [bray Caio, MS If ST,OLEG GRABAR a arity or uniqueness ofan objct Thus itis ely thatthe tay in the Metropolitan Museury made for abMurayyad (nv. 22) was one of many sar fbjets, but unlikely that “AUT-Fida® fancy penease (no. 24) had any mates, A sezond condl- ‘Son is that inscriptions and other typeof mot were chosen to complement each other: with the taceptions of «problematic candlestick in the Walters Art Gallery (no. 16) and the basin in the Victoria and Albert Mescum (nos. 16 and 18), the fener figures depicted, the more elaborate the in- Seviptions. Furthermore, the later the obj, the Jos ikely iti to have vepresentations. Does this mean that the Mamuk period witnessed the feplocement of one hind of visual vocabulary (representation) by anther (writing) without noe tssanilyimplving changes in content? Or did the need for a dileentcostent for decoration lead to ‘hangs in vorabolary* The answer ley ihe specie cltral snd hitorial circumstances oF in {he mutually excusive properties of certain visual Hypotheses soch as those based on or derived fiom observations of individual objects can eaily be multiplied to form a variety of combination, sthich can then compre what may be called the onaoissership of Manluk art. Connoisscurship is hore defined asthe wet of impressions and assoc lions ggered by aszle object, which then, after Appropsiate compansors with other objects, return {0 it an attribution that i an explanation of place, function, patos, and artist Until now, however, our discussiots of abject have aot really slucdated any one individual objct so much st they have identifed thanes, mots, and questions dresad citer toa cla f objets or to elements ‘of design and decoration seen independently of an object. ‘Another posible approuch both to objets and to monuments of architecture isto group them hy petiod and then to identify discrete Mam substles. An opportunity to do just that arose When the Mamie exhibition as shown at the Metropolitan Museum in New York, where the ‘objects were arranged in roughly chronological order * One rapid excise using this approdch lst. The reign of Qaytbay (1458-96) was the Ins funy prosperous and relatively quot period of Mamluk history, and itis notable for a large number of surviving monuments and objets The monuments are faily accesible, and some prtini- rary studies have beer devoted to them. They include some thity buildings in Caito alone, ‘numerous consiruetiors in Jerusalem, and the rebuilding ofthe holy plies in Arabia!” About fava. doven. bronzes are altibuted dirty 10 Uys paltounge or We hs tite an ave shy objects in glass and ivory, many manuscripts, and a ‘quantity of textes {All these works display numberof common and consistent features. One ism sophisticated ara bosque design that uses various motifs but always manages to transform surfaces ina way tht makes the material of manulacture—whether stone, metal, piper, or fabric—lose its material quality and become @ loxurous patter, biliandy reacting to the movement of sources of light, a¢ Christel Kessler has 40. well shown for architcture.” Another is the predominance of certain vegetal ‘designs, sich as the thre petaled lea and of eae positions bass on coordinated medallions at dit. erent angles. Typical also are thik letters with playful Boils, especially on the hastae, and an Exttemely complen geomeiry. Yet itis stil very dif feult to combine these details into a definition of style, mainly because not one of these features, teers sulleently anchored in Qaytbay’s reign to js denying iencusvely with tha time. In short, the strategies of taditional conois- seurship or of chartctsaing period styles do not fem appropriate (othe study of Mamluk objects Except in the eae ofthe Baptiste, the analysis of | Mimiuk object leads, not to better understand ing of any individal object, but to hypotheses, ideas, and concepts valid for classes of objects (lamps, basing, penser) of for clases of specie decorative moti (calligraphic bands, cartouches, Peonies, geometric omderh of, more rarely, to the Hemtty of an owner or an artsan2” Neary the same conclusion can be reached aboot Mamish Architecture, Such otherwise dissimilar scholars as ‘Aletander Papadopoulo and the late K.A.C. CCreswil sur’ to have been almost instinctively ‘drawn to comping sequences of domes and min- ets (hey could have used gates jst as well as tough those clments could fe died part fom the buildings to which they belonged. * The reason for this atte isnot ficult 1 Find. Asie from some of the carly monuments of Mamluk archi- tecture (the mongue of Baybars, for example, oF some of Qula'tn’s oF alas’ buildings) whose forms have deliberately archaizing features? the hundreds of Mamluk monuments of Cairo, erust- lem, Aleppo, Damascus, and Tripoli have same ress of purpose, of form, of ornament, and of ‘efetivenessor, in Humphreys’ words, “expres- ‘ive infent™ thats striking4 MUQARNAS PLATES, Stas! Ray abQagraye Cao So far as fonction is concerned, they ate mosques, madras, Khangahs, or more rarely Bos pital or ribet, and marly always associated with the mausoleums of founders. They illustrate the high Musi ideal of an architecture of social seevice, supported by charity in the form of the fconomie and legal cnditions of the wat sytem ‘nd inspired by the ideological and religous reform fof the Muslim system that began inthe eleventh fexntury and assumed many regional variants ** The problem with all hee Mamluk foundations is that there are so many of them, located $0 cose to cach olher a8 in the Shas’ Bays alQayeayn in Sour canon Cairo (plate 9), on the western and northern sites ofthe Haram alShari in Jerusalem (ig 1) and in out their actual soc, religious, or intellectual ties and usefulness, At Best, teres an apparent ‘contradiction betweon the cost and quality ofthese buildings and their ikely value to the surrounding Population Tn form as well, the sequence of large gate with Menking, minaret, a dark passageway, a court, variety of public covered areas (hypostylcs for iwans) a smaller number of mote rested Tving oF fancuonal spaces (el, Hbeaies, lava ‘ovis and he like), and an exeriorzed mausoleum dome repeats tell Rundeeds of times. Changes in, for example, the coastretion of domes or the or mentation of minutes do cocur, and even sudden Innovations, such as the appearance of loggias in the fileenth cantary, are apparent, a ave ‘occasional return (0 older models On the whole, hhowever, we are dealing with a circumscribed numberof set pieces organized according 104 very Tinited numberof formulas. The existence of one oF more types wth variation of sours, tre of any “asia” period. Tt ise ve of Ottoman architer- ture a the siatcenth and seventeenth centuries as it {8 of Gothic rehitecture inthe thisteath. Buti it { coreet to consid that Mamluk architecture i alo such 4 classical moment of formal poise and ‘quiliris, then the question must be asked why this sage was reached fa Mamluk Islay, but notin contemporary Turkish o rain Islam. Mamivke omament is not a subject (have studied in detail, but T suspect that just as with thre-dimensional forms, ornamental mou ca fairly easy be broken down into a relatively small, FIGURE 1, Haram hunt, Jeruslems leat (Drwig by Mla, Bureoyne)umber of elements and treated in a elaively limited number of ways, and that, with occasional raintons exceptions innovations and retuos t0 bolder models, nearly the same motif snd visual Ioterprotations of moll prevailed for aver two cen- Effciveness or expresive intent i @ com: bination of thtce separate things the message con- veyed by the monimens, the means used 10 convey that message and’ the quality of those teams To dently he message tel, the only PLATE 1, Madras of Stan Haran, Caio, PLATE 10, Madeasaof Fran Barge, Cue: are hypothesis we so far have for the Mamluks isthe fone developed by Humphreys: theirs ean architec: {ure that embodies tension hetween religiosfne- tion and secular form because it is. there 10 ‘communizate 10 the population thatthe mulitary rstocraey of the Mamluks, by accepting Islam fand gloniving its procepls through buildings, {asserts its plea and economie domination of the Focal population, Aside perhaps for a few easly builings, this interpretation sill seems entirely applicable and has been confirmed by subseqvont investigations” The meine used to convey that mesage are ‘more dificult to idetily bat one possiby relevant ‘observation is that, withthe partial exception of the Sultan Hesan madras, which is anomalous in 0 many ways, a Mamluk building is very rately perceived a8 8 whole building, ts almost any ‘Ottoman mosque is, ba rather as a small aumber ‘of repeitve parts (dome, gate, minaret) which pee- suppose a building but are not necessarily visully Sneprted int it, ven an isolated building like the ‘mausoleum and khangah of Fara} bn. Bargog (plate 10) canbe graspad as n atcitetonie entity ‘nly if iis seen from the air: on the ground, ts Separate sides have a fascinating axymmetry fn the arrangement of the entrance, the minacets, andthe domes” The poweral use of a. continuous tmugitnas molding around the whole building and perhaps a more spectacular sitng in the sity, hich, among other things, makes it visually acces Sibi from the height ofthe Citadel, difeentiate the rmadrasa of Sultan Hasan (plate 11) from chat form, Bat even thre the eccentricities of th pla {tig 2}—the Tocation of the gate comples, for example—are flyin accord with st This Mamlukw MUQARNAS fT babi € = Architectural norm consisted of a stall number of sans (gates projecting into the street, minarets Trading from one monunent 10 the next, domes focusing on the preence of 3 benaaetor ot a holy rman, mgarns establshig some Sort of ult tive hierarchy, long bands of Koranic oF royal proclamation) that are all essentaly the same, AL het ike faces im a crowd, they are recognizable and identifiable only afer a socal or aMfective relationship has been etadlshe, For all these reson a qualitative evaluation fof Mam architstare bot, | think, 8m appro brats exercise, spite ofthe Large number of mon Times, Aside from the Satan Hasan madrast aad ‘orsbly afew other, aot appropriate Becase the synchronic intent ofthe momtiments was social And ideological and not aesthetic. Pehaps thi is ‘why mincteenth-century descriptions of Cato, whether that of Prssedvennes, of Roberts or of fone of the many other observers, almost always eal with streets oF otber urban settings that ‘clude monuments {plate 121°” but not with a ‘monument alone, Perhaps that is why, also, when the great work expositions of the second half of the nineteenth century vanted to reproduce the Muslim world in Phladiphia, Chicago oF Pars, ‘hey picked the monuertal sess of Cato eather than he aperl monuments a Istanbul ‘Always. azanting such exceptions as Sultan Hisan’s madrase and the Baptiste de St. Louis the artistic creativity of he Mamluk work didnot express tel in individ! monuments or objcts ‘made or built to glory 4 specie individu or ‘ovation, Its stn was to Ef range of fnetions, from financial investment and piety 10 nich ‘mundane occupations as heating and lighting a ‘oom oF # goague or wring a book. In this sense the best works of Mamlus artis architecture, is bronzes, it luminated hooks—were often techn cally brilliant continuations, maybe even culm FIGURE 2. Madina of San Hasan Cason nation, of medieval Islamic and in many ways so Westera Chistian) at, but they hardly paved the way forthe Kind of development tha just a ew docades after the end of the Mamluk regime made fan ensemble ike the Sleyrmaniye in Istana pos: ible. Except in a minor way for rags, Mamluk ‘Objects hid nothing 0 do with the explosion of Prachikunst found in the new imperial words of Islam. However interesting they may be archaeolo= polly the illustrated manuserpts ofthe Mami Period show neither the vivacity of thirteenth entury Arab paintings nor the sophisticated be Fiance of rani ones Why is this so? Only prolonged scholarly debate wil provide the answer, bot Ican atleastOLEG GRABAR ” FIGURE 3. Resorts of ust in ers plas. (Dring by Micha Burgoyne) contribute two centate hypotheses to that dit The fist is that, whether oF not meaning ean be given to any partcuar objector monument, the real concern of Mark patron, artisans, and ‘ses ay not inthe buildings built or the objects rade, bot in the tee ruled by the sultans and mir andthe lives ofthe several socal lasses who Inhabited them In Jensen, the whole Haram a Sharif with its attendant strot was the object of Mamlok tention and care” As any drawing shows (ig 3), the several buildings ae blrred into 8 single srt fagade fo form a mass, rather than @ troup ofndividal montmenta tr Cairo Marta minarets and gates guide and accompany one fom the Hakim mosque tothe Citadel” Rather than ends in themselves as they have become in museums) the objects should be Seen a6 isterme- ‘aries between people and activites, as expressions ofan attitude toward artistic eeatiity much more characteristic of bourgeois than of princely ar. Perhaps one of the paradoxes of Mamluk ast far it was a print art that maintained and developed. the visual forms not of princely oF imperial ideas but of anurban ele ‘A seond hypothesis thatthe disappearance ofalien threat that folbwed the final defeat ofthe Crusaders andthe Mongols allowed the ity dwellers of Egypt and the Levant to establish an uilvium among socal, intellectual, religous, fd cconomio structures that could remain wnchal lenged from both inside and outside. That equi- librium leaves the historian who locks only for ‘chunges and evolutions without a task, because all fone can do i penetrate Mamluk life and not seek init some element of vitality that was never there. “The implication ofthis conclusion extends beyond ‘Mamluk ar for tries the fundamental question Whether the’ methods or strategies to be used in studying any one period should be determined by tniversal” principles or by the cultural idio- syneratie of particulat moment of history Haxvano Univenssry ‘Canmnbee, Massxcnuserts 1, ain Au eataog, Renae of Iam: Art of ‘he Manis (Wesington, DC. 1981), contains an (pp. 25642) For penary sours onl peer! nto Iirodaction to MomlakHisorgrephy for the Reign of abage (Wiesbaden, 1970), and Barbara Scher, Be trig ar mumischonHcroyepie Feabur. 17D, 2'Soe Mubanmad M. Amin, Ctloqe er doce moms drei d Care (Caio, i981} and Donald P Tile, “The Sinlicane ofthe ram Documents” Dor alam 59805 3 Reload Arita Traditions” paper pre scot atThe Renter of las The Art of the Manus, Navona! Cally of Az. Washington, DC. May 1-16 18 4 What comtitetesaccepabie accuracy ia pubs Ueaton js camplinted gueston. New surveag ietbods and te dewloptat of ew Lehn know ‘dae about ping the decorative arte have ito. ‘duced int aceon rewch an expecation of Presson that ses torque that early everything be Fesuie, Whe T as dy wang oarge in vor of Insert or icp avmtion. uestion whale “historian who tos taste ad alte a dite om {historian who stir tesnology) ese pokte ftom a sre of delle lfcmaton shout some pat ‘at ado notes init oe time, Fr tne, to now where ad even wt cra cree were ae ‘Sony periaent othe hsoran ofa cure sevens fist 0 show that the tse and pase of manufacture ‘ete portant within the are tele The sme point ‘Shu be nad for masonry tadues ands aut of ‘ther fru. Or the ote and, eck pecs “sent the abet ofthe avestiaton ro under Seed and apn modes af prodicion, soars of2 MUQARNAS 5. Au, Remssunse 9 26, Ms ite with porposs, st sity pera. that Tit, fom the tine of he {arom nov 3) that setife am objst a bane yo foe specie aval, sould at objets ke dee th @ Simic royal nition pt ina somewhat int ‘Steger es when dete patonage? bid now 1,5, 122 In arches ce sme nd of eit bens writing and other pes of ‘craton ost nor sxamples sack athe Barog Sik Shaghha semble: Leis Hasecour and Gaston ‘Wit, Let Mogues du Cae Pari 199) 87 166 7 anhar U Pope and Phi Ackerman, Suey of Bran Art (London, 1839. vo. 6 pl 1, 1324, {532 for fraian examples: Hayward Oar. Te As 1 Felon Lands, 1976), 8 146, 198,20, for Ayub ample, Bo inst, the ace ofthe de of N's mong, Hauscoor and Wiet Mower (p80 de Feet rown Qnty though Beat te eth fentury reg in the Meteplitan Museum (170105) ‘Soni & design sein tr otha of te Woden Seing in Osytay’s ferry comple. Foe the hole Sse of domes, see" Chintl Keser, he Carl Masan’y Doms of Medal Caro (Landon 197. Thee an il one nthe ft reer to 101 Svea problems stround the Wetton of this objet tetuding that puted by te socket and heck From Cairo which are supp (0 tlons to i013) the mock of he Calo pee bar 4 padowritingwhish tore Ayyubd than Maia are the edalons with sta sym onthe Bae athe onde. The pos Inty hat tts bets neve ade yak frag ents of dire olin togster cannot Be slo Tit am purpose) aeiding deting wi cali raphy athe tsnqae fr aproprit pment of th Protoypel form of expeaon in he Musi word hve not been worked out Thi not mean ae er ‘han th vous publican of eat yar at det ‘ih caliph uch as Man Linge an ¥ Sad, ‘TheQuran Bish Library Eshibiion(London, 197) 0 Hasan Masoudy, Cllrs ant Pars, 981 [Al of them make sofa sonetines ery important tebe to th istry ad ekg of sips but icine to understand sch tera the one found in Qa ‘mac, Callgapers and. Pacers, rans. Vine. MinrstyWasngon IC, [99 pp 57-9. 12 LT. Giazlan, "Te Bronze Qulamdan of $42) 14s rom the Heritage Colleton” ars Osewals 7 960, 1. Au, enn. 24, 14 in spit of mantel publication by D., Rice (The Bogie dS. Lots [Pars 1953) the Bouse Str eom having een xpd 15. The elon wasaranged by Maiyn Jenkins nu contained aldtionaleampies rom the Meopa ta Mosem, the Madina Callstion. and privat 908 publi clledions tom Kew 16, Soo At Renan, asin 17. Hauer and” Wie Mosedes pp. S07; ‘Mics Burgoyne The chorea sae er Sel ere 1976 1A. Souren Msikian-Chivoni, “Cues ints erepogue de Q'thiy,” Kurt der Ores 6198). 1D kapecaliy fr Bronns and domes (Keser, ed Matory Denes 2. 'Thsconcoson I not a vga one fo aie st bt one ay wonder wheter i no seca such ofthe perception of Kame aft developed fom ‘Waser Knowledge af Bayo, which familar £08 carer han any ote pro he Masi Wot 21 Aleander Papacopto, Len et fort man man Dai 1970 igs 20-49, 267-90; KA. Crew “Phe Muslin Aohterre of Bayt, wo (Oxf, 1959, pei 22 The mon of Hayurs he sbj of oth- coming reeaistion by Jonthan Bloor i the meas tim, sor Creswe, Alm Archtetre of aye PD 18st 24 RS, Humphrys, “The Expressive Intent of the Manik Archstre of Cairo Stalls Iomice 38 avn 24. Thee tas yet 0 cas aces study ofthe bangs that Boyan the slventhy ea, The Res ot ‘ery feu aod ae controversial, ook on Hos ties Marshall G.8. Hodson, The Vena of Islam (Chico, 194) Some important stades have been done fm bing foncione, uc Icqutine Chabon the ‘bt, “La fnction dba 8 Bapdad de ¥" le m0 ‘bur du VIF wise” Rew des Esuber soniues #2 tava, 25 Oleg Grabae, “The serpin of the Madrash-Masioleum of Qashsy” Near Eastern Nimlimotien lomography. Eplraphy. and History, 0 DIK. Koopman (et, 1974) 3h The mort of arf Basi have been ad rabtypoblated by 8. Lamet Most, i Kliter and Moussiou doe Fara bn Bara on Cir (last 1B and in Monee ds Fara be Bari (Geka, ww, 171 The geetal_ public visting the exibition speared to tok almost much a the age 9p ‘ions of Cav om nineteen dewing a a 28" For isane, the Chicago eaibiion, as in Haley €. oe, The Drean City: A Porlo of Potome phe Vien (St Lous, 858 unpagionte 28" For the. monuments of Manisk Jeruslem, onal the ater of Archibald Wall Anal Abt Ha aad cspesialy Mics! Doraoyne in Leone 2-12 (098-0) 3. The vis sructre of Cait is only now bet ing oe invested. Lowe my conclusions Yo papers Breve nu somiar at Harvard Univrtyin 1980 by Katherine Fschee and Hizer Sujjed abd (0 2 visual study by Nore abSuysn, The See of Ilse Cao, ‘Ags Khan Program fr lami Arcletre Studs In [Manic Arctteture 2(Cambrie, Mae 1981) a