RICHT Journal
PublicationAthar
Volume 45, Issue 104 (4-2024)
Athar 2024, 45(104): 77-99 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Tasdiqi S, Tarkashvand A, Khanmohammadi M. (2024). Identifying the Functional Units of the Yazd Shamsiya Complex with Reference to Jame’ al-Khairat Endowment Document. Athar. 45(104), 77-99. doi:10.22034/45.1.67
URL: http://athar.richt.ir/article-2-1830-en.html
URL: http://athar.richt.ir/article-2-1830-en.html
1- Ph. D. Candidate of Architecture, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran university of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
2- Assistant Professor, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran university of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran ,tarkashvand@iust.ac.ir
3- Associate Professor, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran university of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
2- Assistant Professor, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran university of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran ,
3- Associate Professor, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran university of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (4009 Views)
Background and Objectives :
The Shamsiya Complex in Chaharmanar district of Yazd is a unique historical site with both physical remains and textual evidence from its era. Despite valuable research on the Muzaffarid period architecture of Yazd, particularly the Shamsiya school, there is still no clear consensus regarding the complex’s functional units and their interrelationships. The Waqfnama (endowment letter) of Jame’ al-Khairat, commissioned by the benefactors of this complex, provides valuable insights into Shamsiya, including its functional components. The authors believe that a re-examination of the Jame’ al-Khairat script can help resolve ambiguities surrounding the complex.
This research aims to answer the following questions: (1) What were the primary and secondary functional units of this complex? (2) What can be inferred about the physical and functional relationships between these components based on the document?
Methodes:
The first step in identifying the functional units of the Shamsiya Complex involves compiling a list of functions from the Jame’ al-Khairat document. The second step entails a detailed analysis of the historical text to understand the examples and references to these functions. Four main purposes guide this analysis: (1) Recognizing correct textual references to Shamsiya; (2) Understanding physical and spatial separations; (3) Understanding functional and situational co-appearance; (4) Interpreting the reason for co-appearances.
To achieve these four purposes, inferences are made from the text and then verified by cross-referencing with other sources. Single references, even if scattered, can provide valuable information about specific structures and their physical conditions, aiding in confirming or rejecting hypotheses.
Findings:
At first, according to physical evidence (such as the presence of the marble sanctuary stone in Shamsiya) and verbal evidence (including the presence of “Sar-e Kooche Bahrok” in Chaharmanar district), it was confirmed that the remains of the building called “Seyyed Shamsuddin mausoleum” in Chaharmanar are indeed the Shamsiya complex mentioned in the Jame’ al-Khairat Waqfname.
The entirety of the Shamsiya complex is referred to in the Jame’ al-Khairat by two names: “Abwab al-Khair” and “Beqa’e Khams” (Afshar I., 1975, 396-470). This complex comprises five main components: Madrasa, Beyt al-Adwiya, Dar al-Kotob, Dar al-Siyada, and Khanqah (Afshar I., 1975, 396). The “Beqa’e Khams” (five spots) mentioned in the text refers to these five main units. However, two of these five (Beyt al-Adwiya and Dar al-Kotob) are subsumed under the Madrasa (Afshar I., 1975, 396). For this reason, many parts of the Jame’ al-Khairat text mention only three of its units (Madrasa, Khanqah, and Dar al-Siyada) to refer to the entire complex.
In cases where the components of this complex are mentioned separately, the co-occurrence of the Madrasa and Khanqah is consistently observed, while the Dar al-Siyada is often mentioned separately (Afshar I., 1975, 517-551). Additionally, the endowments for the Dar al-Siyada are cited separately from those of the other two main components in the Jame’ al-Khairat (Afshar I., 1975, 476).
In technical terms, the costs of lighting the Khanqah and the Madrasa at night are stated together in the same account (Afshar I., 1975, 475), while the cost of lighting the Dar al-Siyada is stated separately (Afshar I., 1975, 479). Furthermore, while the doorman of the Madrasa and Dar al-Siyada is explicitly mentioned in the Waqfname (Afshar I., 1975, 474), no doorman is mentioned for the Khanqah. This suggests a high probability that the entrance door of the Khanqah shared the entrance door of one of the other two functional units.
There is a discrepancy between the texts of “Tarikh-e Yazd” (History of Yazd) (Ja’fari J., 2007, 110-111) and “Tarikh-e Jadid-e Yazd” (The New History of Yazd) (Kateb A., 2007, 118) and the Jame’ al-Khairat regarding the number of Madrasas mentioned for Shamsiya. This discrepancy could be attributed to a possible change in the function of one of the buildings, such as the Dar al-Siyada, to a Madrasa in later eras.
Conclusion:
In most cases where the phrase “Madrasa and Khanqah” on “Sar-e Kooche Bahrok” appears in the text, it should not be interpreted as encompassing the entire complex. Rather, this phrase typically refers only to the Madrasa and Khanqah, and their respective subsets, excluding other units such as the Dar al-Siyada. The function of the Dar al-Siyada has been clearly distinguished from the other main functions, both in terms of endowment and physical entity.
The functions of the Khanqah and the school were likely intertwined physically, possibly sharing a single building. Alternatively, they may have been two separate but connected buildings, with the entrance to the Khanqah situated within the Madrasa. This would explain the absence of a designated doorman for the Khanqah. Furthermore, the presence of four narrow spaces around the dome space of the mausoleum supports the hypothesis of a unified Khanqah and Madrasa.
Highlights:
The Shamsiya Complex in Chaharmanar district of Yazd is a unique historical site with both physical remains and textual evidence from its era. Despite valuable research on the Muzaffarid period architecture of Yazd, particularly the Shamsiya school, there is still no clear consensus regarding the complex’s functional units and their interrelationships. The Waqfnama (endowment letter) of Jame’ al-Khairat, commissioned by the benefactors of this complex, provides valuable insights into Shamsiya, including its functional components. The authors believe that a re-examination of the Jame’ al-Khairat script can help resolve ambiguities surrounding the complex.
This research aims to answer the following questions: (1) What were the primary and secondary functional units of this complex? (2) What can be inferred about the physical and functional relationships between these components based on the document?
Methodes:
The first step in identifying the functional units of the Shamsiya Complex involves compiling a list of functions from the Jame’ al-Khairat document. The second step entails a detailed analysis of the historical text to understand the examples and references to these functions. Four main purposes guide this analysis: (1) Recognizing correct textual references to Shamsiya; (2) Understanding physical and spatial separations; (3) Understanding functional and situational co-appearance; (4) Interpreting the reason for co-appearances.
To achieve these four purposes, inferences are made from the text and then verified by cross-referencing with other sources. Single references, even if scattered, can provide valuable information about specific structures and their physical conditions, aiding in confirming or rejecting hypotheses.
Findings:
At first, according to physical evidence (such as the presence of the marble sanctuary stone in Shamsiya) and verbal evidence (including the presence of “Sar-e Kooche Bahrok” in Chaharmanar district), it was confirmed that the remains of the building called “Seyyed Shamsuddin mausoleum” in Chaharmanar are indeed the Shamsiya complex mentioned in the Jame’ al-Khairat Waqfname.
The entirety of the Shamsiya complex is referred to in the Jame’ al-Khairat by two names: “Abwab al-Khair” and “Beqa’e Khams” (Afshar I., 1975, 396-470). This complex comprises five main components: Madrasa, Beyt al-Adwiya, Dar al-Kotob, Dar al-Siyada, and Khanqah (Afshar I., 1975, 396). The “Beqa’e Khams” (five spots) mentioned in the text refers to these five main units. However, two of these five (Beyt al-Adwiya and Dar al-Kotob) are subsumed under the Madrasa (Afshar I., 1975, 396). For this reason, many parts of the Jame’ al-Khairat text mention only three of its units (Madrasa, Khanqah, and Dar al-Siyada) to refer to the entire complex.
In cases where the components of this complex are mentioned separately, the co-occurrence of the Madrasa and Khanqah is consistently observed, while the Dar al-Siyada is often mentioned separately (Afshar I., 1975, 517-551). Additionally, the endowments for the Dar al-Siyada are cited separately from those of the other two main components in the Jame’ al-Khairat (Afshar I., 1975, 476).
In technical terms, the costs of lighting the Khanqah and the Madrasa at night are stated together in the same account (Afshar I., 1975, 475), while the cost of lighting the Dar al-Siyada is stated separately (Afshar I., 1975, 479). Furthermore, while the doorman of the Madrasa and Dar al-Siyada is explicitly mentioned in the Waqfname (Afshar I., 1975, 474), no doorman is mentioned for the Khanqah. This suggests a high probability that the entrance door of the Khanqah shared the entrance door of one of the other two functional units.
There is a discrepancy between the texts of “Tarikh-e Yazd” (History of Yazd) (Ja’fari J., 2007, 110-111) and “Tarikh-e Jadid-e Yazd” (The New History of Yazd) (Kateb A., 2007, 118) and the Jame’ al-Khairat regarding the number of Madrasas mentioned for Shamsiya. This discrepancy could be attributed to a possible change in the function of one of the buildings, such as the Dar al-Siyada, to a Madrasa in later eras.
Conclusion:
In most cases where the phrase “Madrasa and Khanqah” on “Sar-e Kooche Bahrok” appears in the text, it should not be interpreted as encompassing the entire complex. Rather, this phrase typically refers only to the Madrasa and Khanqah, and their respective subsets, excluding other units such as the Dar al-Siyada. The function of the Dar al-Siyada has been clearly distinguished from the other main functions, both in terms of endowment and physical entity.
The functions of the Khanqah and the school were likely intertwined physically, possibly sharing a single building. Alternatively, they may have been two separate but connected buildings, with the entrance to the Khanqah situated within the Madrasa. This would explain the absence of a designated doorman for the Khanqah. Furthermore, the presence of four narrow spaces around the dome space of the mausoleum supports the hypothesis of a unified Khanqah and Madrasa.
Highlights:
- Providing a method for studying the architectural implications of the historical text;
- Identification of the physical structure of Shamsiya historical complex based on textual evidence.
Type of Study: Original Research Article |
Subject:
History of architecture and urban planning
Received: 2024/03/2 | Accepted: 2024/08/6 | Published: 2024/12/5
Received: 2024/03/2 | Accepted: 2024/08/6 | Published: 2024/12/5
References
1. آرشیو مرکز اسناد پایگاه میراث فرهنگی شهر تاریخی یزد
2. افشار، ایرج (۱۳۵۴). یادگارهای یزد معرفی ابنیه تاریخی و آثار باستانی (جلد ۲). سلسله انتشارات انجمن آثار ملی.
3. امامیمیبدی، داوود (۱۳۹۹). بازاندیشی معماری مدرسه شمسیه یزد. پژوهشهای مرمت و معماری ایرانی اسلامی، ۶-۷(۳)، ۶۷–۹۴.
4. امامی میبدی، داوود (۱۴۰۱). واکاوی معماری خانقاههای یزد. معماری اقلیم گرم و خشک، ۱۰(۱۵)، ۲۱۱–۲۳۱.
5. جعفری، جعفر بن محمد (۱۳۸۴). تاریخ یزد. (ایرج افشار، ویراستار). انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی.
6. خادمزاده، محمدحسن (۱۳۸۷). معماری دوره آل مظفر یزد (ایلخانی و تیموری). همپا.
7. خادمزاده، محمدحسن (۱۴۰۲). مصاحبۀ شفاهی شهابالدین تصدیقی با محمدحسن خادمزاده.
8. دانشپژوه، محمدتقی و ایرج افشار (ویراستاران). (۱۳۴۱). جامع الخیرات. انتشارات فرهنگ ایرانزمین.
9. سید رکنالدین محمد (۱۳۴۵). ترجمۀ جامع الخیرات. (محمد غضبان، مترجم). اداره کل اوقاف.
10. علمداری، مینا (۱۳۹۱). تحلیل محتوایی جامعالخیرات (وقفنامۀ سید رکنالدین و سید شمسالدین) (پایاننامه کارشناسی ارشد). دانشگاه یزد.
11. کاتب، احمد بن حسین بن علی (۱۳۸۶). تاریخ جدید یزد. (ا. افشار، ویراستار.). امیرکبیر.
12. گرابار، الگ (۱۳۷۳). مسجد، نمونه هنر دینی در اسلام. (محمدسعید حنایی کاشانی، مترجم)، فصلنامه هنر، (۲۶).
13. مستوفی بافقی، محمد مفید (۱۳۸۵). جامع مفیدی. اساطیر.
14. میرحسینی، محمدحسن (۱۳۸۴). نکتهیابی از وقفنامه جامعالخیرات. فرهنگ، ۵۶(۱۸)، ۱۶۳–۱۸۴.
15. نیکزاد، ذات الله؛ و دانش یزدی، فاطمه (۱۳۹۳). قنوات منطقه یزد در قرن هشتم براساس یک سند تاریخی (وقف نامه جامعالخیرات). فصلنامه اثر، ۳۵(۶۵)، ۸۱–۹۶.
16. هیلنبرند، روبرت (۱۳۸۰). معماری اسلامی: شکل کارکرد و معنی. (باقر آیتاللهزاده شیرازی، مترجم.). روزنه.
17. ویلبر، دونالد (۱۳۶۵). معماری اسلامی ایران در دوره ایلخانیان. (عبدالله فریار، مترجم). شرکت انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی.
18. یعقوبی، مهدی، سامانی، سیدمحمود و منتظریمقدم، حامد. (۱۳۹۳). دارالسیاده زمینههای شکلگیری، جایگاه و کارکرد آن در عصر ایلخانان مغول. تاریخ اسلام در آینه پژوهش، ۳۷(۱۱)، ۱۱۳–۱۳۰.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |