Mendeley  

Zotero  

Heidari Babakamal Y, Saki S, Moosavi S A, Shahriari A. (2026). A Historical and Architectural Chronology of the Mausoleum of Imamzadeh Qasem and Zayd in Azna, Lorestan Province. Athar. 48(1), 57-88. doi:10.61882/Athar.2172.2240.7
URL: http://athar.richt.ir/article-2-2172-en.html

Abstract
Among Iran’s historical structures, mausoleums have attracted the greatest public attention after mosques. Indeed, the interrelation of religion and architecture has occupied a significant and inseparable position in the history of Iranian-Islamic art, manifesting prominently in mausoleums and tomb towers. Although numerous structures known today as Imamzadeh mausoleums were constructed across many regions of Iran, little definitive information is available regarding their historical chronology and architectural identity. One such structure is the tomb tower of Imamzadeh Qasem and Zayd in Azna County, Lorestan Province. Accordingly, the present study focuses on analyzing the structural features, architectural ornamentation, and construction and restoration phases of this monument. The primary aim is to identify the architectural elements, decipher the historical inscriptions to determine the construction phases, and establish a relative chronology of the mausoleum through a comparative analysis with analogous monuments. This research was conducted using a descriptive-analytical approach based on fieldwork and historical sources. Specifically, this study addresses the following questions: (1) What is the relative chronology of the Imamzadeh Qasem and Zayd tomb tower in Azna, based on its architectural features and comparative studies? (2) What are the distinct types of architectural ornamentation present in the mausoleum, and to which historical periods do they belong? The results indicate that, based on architectural features, epigraphic evidence, and comparative analysis, at least five distinct construction and restoration phases—tentatively attributed to the Seljuk, Ilkhanid, Timurid, Safavid, and Qajar periods—can be identified. However, the primary construction and completion of the structure occurred in two stages during the Ilkhanid period. Furthermore, the monument features a wide range of interior and exterior architectural ornaments, including stucco muqarnas, tall and simple or stalactite-style decorative niches, brick-tile and stucco-tile combinations, low-relief stucco, carved inscriptions, decorative brick-and-stucco spheres (tūpī), tilework, woodcarvings, and intricate brickwork—the latter being particularly prominent during the Ilkhanid period.
Keywords: Imamzadeh Qasem and Zayd in Azna, mausoleum, Ilkhanid period, epigraphy, architectural ornamentation.

Introduction
In Iran, the mausoleums of prominent figures received greater attention than in other regions of the Islamic world, resulting in some of the most significant monuments of each historical period (Pope, 2008: 916). Owing to their wide geographical distribution, mausoleum structures constituted the second largest category of architectural production in Iran after mosques (Grabar, 1966: 41–46). From the perspective of architectural history, early Islamic societies did not initially favor the construction of commemorative monuments over burial sites; however, memorial structures eventually began to emerge over the tombs of caliphs and religious elites. With the rise of the Alavid and Buyid dynasties in the fourth century AH (tenth century CE), Shiʿism entered a new phase, leading to the increased prominence of Shiʿite tombs and sacred shrines. From this period onward, mausoleums secured an established position within the corpus of Islamic architecture (Frye, 1984: 172–176). Early and significant examples include the Mausoleum of Ismail Samani in Bukhara (c. 300 AH / 907 CE) (Hattstein & Delius, 2004: 115), the Arab Ata Mausoleum in Tim (c. 336 AH / 947 CE) (Hillenbrand, 2008: 103), and the tower-shaped Gonbad-e Qabus (397 AH / 1006 CE) (Kiani, 2009: 45).
Under the Seljuks, mausoleum construction experienced remarkable growth, establishing architectural precedents that persisted through the Ilkhanid, Timurid, and Safavid periods. During the Ilkhanid era, mausoleums functioned as focal points for both local and state patronage, playing a significant role in reinforcing religious practices and stimulating local economies (Hillenbrand, 1999: 202). Although many Ilkhanid mausoleums continued Seljuk architectural traditions, greater emphasis was placed on verticality and the refinement of forms, and the construction of double-shelled domed mausoleums became widespread (al-Qashani, 2005: 112). Furthermore, the preference for polygonal plans over circular ones, along with the elaboration of architectural ornamentation on interior elevations, distinguished Ilkhanid tombs from their predecessors (Arab, 1997: 65). These developments reflect a peak in the standardization of layouts, proportions, and architectural components. Given this long-standing historical trajectory and architectural significance, identifying the historical and structural characteristics of these mausoleums warrants close scholarly attention. Within this framework, the mausoleum of Imamzadeh Qasem and Zayd in Azna represents a key case study. Its historical significance is underscored by its location along a major trade and communication route connecting Arak and Isfahan during the middle Islamic centuries. Consequently, establishing a relative chronology of the mausoleum based on its architectural style, extensive stucco decoration, tilework, brickwork, and numerous inscriptions is essential. A principal aim of the present study is to delineate the historical construction phases of the monument through a typological analysis of its architectural ornamentation—an issue that has not yet been addressed in a comprehensive scholarly investigation.

Discussion
The mausoleum of Imamzadeh Qasem and Zayd belongs to the category of polygonal tomb towers featuring a conical (rok) dome and a discontinuous double-shell dome structure. The conical dome of Imamzadeh Qasem and Zayd in Azna is comparable to the twelve-fluted dome of the Ulu Gonbad in Ahlat, Turkey (dating to the seventh century AH / thirteenth century CE), as well as to the dome of the Panja-Shah Mausoleum in Isfahan, the conical dome of Borj-e Ghorban in Hamadan, and the dome of Imamzadeh Hud in Jozin, Hamadan.
The architectural ornamentation of the mausoleum is highly diverse, including stucco muqarnas in the entrance iwan and the four iwans; tall, elongated blind arches articulating the facades of the iwans, the entrance, and the transitional zone beneath the dome; the combined use of stamped bricks (ājor-e mohrī) and tilework in the iwans; the distinctive stucco tūpī ornament set on a brick base; various types of stucco and combined stucco-tile ornamentation beneath the dome; brickwork with diverse geometric patterns on both the interior and exterior elevations; and, finally, haft-rang (seven-color) tilework dating to the Qajar period.
A significant portion of the inscriptions shedding light on the chronology of the monument and the identity of its builders became visible only after removing plaster layers from the entrance area of the shrine in the western iwan. Two chronograms are recorded in the inscriptions at the entrance of the western iwan. On the left side of the iwan arch, the chronogram sanat sabʿ sabʿīn sitt-miʾa—most likely indicating the year 677 AH (1278 CE)—is inscribed, representing the earliest known dated inscription on the monument. Following the inscription of verses 1 and 2 of Sūrat al-Fatḥ, the text concludes with the same date of 677 AH (1278 CE). In addition to these stucco inscriptions, important chronograms carved on the wooden door of the mausoleum and on the wooden cenotaph (ṣandūq) of the shrine provide valuable information concerning the dates of construction, later additions, and restoration phases. The chronogram recording the fabrication of the wooden door dates it to the month of Muharram al-Haram in the year 738 AH (1337 CE). Furthermore, significant dated inscriptions have been identified near the burial site. One such inscription, following a verse from Sūrat al-Ṣaff, contains a supplication for the forgiveness of Sayyid Nezām al-Dīn and Sayyid Mortażā, the sons of Imamzadeh Zayd, dating the cenotaph’s construction to the year 850 AH (1446 CE).

Conclusion
The results of the comparative analysis of the building’s plan demonstrate clear affinities with Ilkhanid-period mausoleums in western and central Iran, as well as with comparable monuments beyond Iran. Based on the combined study of waqf (endowment) documents, architectural ornamentation, and epigraphic evidence from different sections of the mausoleum, at least five distinct construction and restoration phases can be identified. According to archival records of the Organization of Endowments and Charitable Affairs of Iran, the initial construction of the Imamzadeh is attributed to the year 598 AH (1201–1202 CE), which also records the name of its patron. On this basis, the late Seljuk period may tentatively be regarded as the earliest phase of construction; however, no surviving architectural remains from this phase are currently identifiable.
The next significant chronological evidence emerged following the removal of plaster layers from the western entrance iwan, revealing an inscription that most likely dates to 677 AH (1278–1279 CE). A subsequent date of 738 AH (1337–1338 CE) is carved on the wooden door leaves of this same entrance. Taken together, the dated inscriptions, the overall layout of the building, its structural elements, and—most importantly—its architectural ornamentation indicate that the principal phase of construction belongs to the Ilkhanid period. Major architectural components, including the domed chamber, the iwans, the southern and western entrances, and the octagonal courtyard, were constructed during this era. Likewise, prominent decorative features—such as the stucco muqarnas of the southern entrance, the tall and elongated blind arches, the stucco tūpī ornaments on brick bases, the composite brick-and-tile decoration at the southern entrance, the stucco-and-tile ornamentation beneath the dome, the low-relief stucco work, and the diverse brickwork patterns beneath the iwans—are stylistically and technically consistent with Ilkhanid architectural practices.
The evidence further suggests that the construction, reconstruction, and expansion of the complex took place in at least two successive Ilkhanid phases, and that the domed chamber was likely erected upon the foundations or structural remains of an earlier Seljuk-period building. The production of burial cenotaphs (ṣandūq), wooden elements, and carved features of the shrine, along with localized repairs, can be dated—based on inscriptions—to the mid-ninth century AH (fifteenth century CE), corresponding to the Timurid period. Several important inscriptions at the western entrance were concealed beneath plaster layers, indicating that the application of plaster beneath the dome and on the squinches, as well as the covering of these inscriptions, likely occurred during the Safavid period. This attribution is supported by the stylistic characteristics of the inscriptions, including the phrase ʿamal-e [?] min-humā kāfī and the use of rhymed prose (sajʿ). Finally, the haft-rang (seven-color) tilework of the interior dado of the domed chamber, together with later brick and tile repairs in the iwans, dates to the Qajar period and the early Pahlavi era. Although the Seljuk period is currently identified as the earliest construction phase, future archaeological excavations may reveal evidence of even earlier occupations.