Cult monuments in the Golden Horde (origin, evolution and tradition)
- Тип работы:
- История. Исторические науки
Детальная информация о работе
Выдержка из работы
CULT MONUMENTS IN THE GOLDEN HORDE (ORIGIN, EVOLUTION AND TRADITION)
(N.N. Miklukho-Maklay Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, Russian Academy of Sciences)
The article analyzes the religious monuments of the Golden Horde. It addresses such categories of buildings as mosques, minarets, madrasahs, khanaka and mausoleums. Objects monumental architecture quite clearly reflect the different traditions in the addition of multicomponent urban culture of the Golden Horde. Analysis plan of the mosques, the main structures of the Muslim city, showed that all the currently known Juma Mosque of the Golden Horde had a basilica plan. Such a plan which has been adopted in Asia Minor, namely, in Anatolia, where similar mosque became widespread in the Seljuk period. Asia Minor had the appearance and minarets. Disposition of the mausoleums is quite diverse. They were built under the influence of architectural schools of Asia Minor, the Caucasus, Khorezm and nomadic traditions. In spite of the presence of various building traditions and innovations, principles of cult institutions'- planning were uniform all over the Golden Horde, which implies the elaboration of a single, though eclectic in details, architectural style.
Keywords: Golden Horde, cult architecture, mosques, minarets, madrasahs, khanaka, mausoleums, Asia Minor, Caucasus, Khorezm, nomads.
The multicultural character of the Golden Horde has been repeatedly intimated. It is believed that its culture displayed a syncretism and/or a synthesis of different traditions. This is scarcely surprising since Jochi'-s, Genghis Khan'-s son'-s, ulus, i.e. apanage, later called the Golden Horde, emerged in the mid-13th century as a result of Mongol conquests. It encompassed the traditionally sedentary areas such as Southern and Eastern Kazakhstan, the left-bank Khorezm, the North Caucasus, the Crimea, the Volga Bulgaria, and the Dniester region. Yet for the most part its territory consisted of the desert, steppe and forest-steppe regions, known under the blanket term Desht-i Kipchak, populated by nomadic and semi-nomadic peoples. There had been hardly any towns there in pre-Mongol times but the late 13 th century saw a vigorous founding of cities just on the steppes, and the Lower Volga basin became the centre of the Golden Horde. The nomadic Mongols used the forced labour of skilled craftsmen recruited from conquered peoples to build their settlements. Multiethnicity and the resulting multiculturalism of the Golden Horde society was most prominent in its cities inhabited by builders, artisans, and merchants from all countries affected by Mongol expansion while the steppe population was
much more homogenous. Monumental structures determining the outlook of cities are the most graphic examples of urban culture. Moreover, buildings are open to archaeological investigation. Therefore the study of monumental architecture enables us to trace the interaction of various traditions in the course of formation of urban culture of the Golden Horde fairly adequately.
Mosques. Mosques are the most important religious buildings in all Islamic countries. They had had a long history by the time of their emergence in the Golden Horde cities and different types of mosques were typical of different parts of the Muslim world.
It is believed that early mosques were modelled on the open courtyard of the Prophet'-s house where there was a praying zone under an awning in front of the qiblah, i.e. Mecca-oriented wall and awnings along the other walls. Thus the standard pattern known as the Arab mosque was formed [31, p. 66−92- 32, p. 195−196- 34]. At the same time it has been noted [26, p. 7−8- 29, p. 53- 27, p. 35−37] that the polystyle pattern of praying rooms of mosques took shape under the influence of Persian apadana'-s, Egyptian hypostyle halls and Roman forums. Since the 9th century a part of the structure, usually in front of the mihrab, has been covered with domes becoming an indispensable architectural element of the mosque.
The courtyard pattern spread over Arab caliphate has prevailed in the westerly part of the Islamic world ever since.
The formation of architectural patterns in Iran and Central Asia was different. Arab governors built mosques of courtyard pattern in the cities of Iran but Iranians patterned their mosques on pre-Islamic structures of the Sassanid epoch. Thus appear local types of mosques: the kiosk mosque in the west and the iwan mosque in the east [30- 28, p. 340−348]. Under the Seljuks a combination of the Arab and local patterns produced the quadriwanal pattern prevailing since the 12th century [28, p. 344−365- 32, p. 195−196]. Some scholars trace the origins of mosques with a large courtyard, four iwans along the axes and domed ceilings to pre-Islamic dwelling houses of Iran and Iraq [27, p. 264−266]. The Arab courtyard mosque pattern was also introduced in Central Asia yet there existed structures of local origin as well. Mosques of the dome-hall type just as the kiosk mosque in Iran are modelled on Zoroastrian fire sanctuaries, the chortak'-s [15- 23, p. 86]. Polystyle multi-domed mosques are also of local origin [13, p. 131−134- 14 p. 38−58- 23, p. 71−86]. In later periods the merging of the Arab and local traditions produced the multivariety of types of Central Asian mosques [12, p. 102−121].
The evolution of mosques in Asia Minor under the Seljuks of Rum was quite original [25, p. 31, p. 92−100- 35, p. 24−32]. Initially either Arab mosques of the courtyard pattern or domed structures of Iranian origin were built there. The inner courtyard in Arab mosques became roofed in the 11 th-12th centuries AD and the majority of mosques of that period are structures of basilican pattern, i.e. polystyle halls with a flat
ceiling supported by beams or arcades. The antemihrab part was often domed, and there could be a skylight being a survival of the courtyard either at the centre of ceiling or nearer the exit. The first mosques of the Golden Horde, a state situated on the edge of the Islamic world, were probably built under Berke who was a Muslim and favoured urban construction. Yet their mass erection took place under Uzbek who made Islam official religion and saw the flourishing of cities. It is in the time of his reign that Ibn Battuta mentioned thirteen congregational and many other mosques at Saray only [19, p. 306]. Unfortunately, the number of mosques investigated on the territory of the entire Golden Horde is only a trifle higher than that mentioned by Ibn Battuta. Nevertheless, the available evidence gives us an insight into their planning.
Mosques have been studied in different parts of the Golden Horde -in the Volga Bulgaria, the Lower Volga basin, the Northern Caucasus, the Crimea, the Dnieper and Dniester valleys, and Southern Kazakhstan. The majority of these structures belong to one and the same type- they are either square — or rectangular-planned and their inner space is divided by rows of columns supporting a flat ceiling of beams or arcades. Rectangular mosques are usually elongated meridionally but sometimes latitu-dinally, as is the case with the Great Mosque of the Upper Julat. The main entrance in the north wall facing the mihrab is framed with a portal. A larger building may have additional side entrances as at Bolgar, Saray and Kuchugury. The mosque of Saray has a small inner courtyard with a pool at the centre. The space in front of the mihrab in the mosque at the Vodianskoe site is partitioned off and it seems likely that the roof over it was heightened.
This type of mosques prevailing in the Golden Horde was formed under the influence of Asia Minor. As mentioned above, Anatolian mosques of the Seljuk period were basilicas, i.e. rectangular halls partitioned into aisles by rows of pillars connected by beams or arcades. The most typical trait of Seljuk mosques is the skylight under which there is a highly reduced inner courtyard with a fountain. The anremihrab part could have been covered with a small dome. Thus, one of the simplest structures of the Seljuk-Anatolian period, the Mahmud-bey mosque near Kastamonu, is a three-nave hall with two rows of wooden pillars, a beam ceiling and a gable roof. Ulu-Camfs at Sivas and Afyon are large multi-nave halls with a transcept leading to the mihrab and a flat ceiling resting on arcades [25, p. 16−17- 33, p. 100−102].
The Great Mosque at the Upper Julat is of somewhat unortodox proportions- its building is elongated latitudinally. It is probably due to local traditions. Thus, the oldest mosque in the Caucasus, the Juma Mosque at Derbent built in the 8th century, is a rectangular building heavily elongated latitudinally with a protrusion in the central part of the south facade. Other mosques of similar proportions are also known [2, p. 141−143- 8, p. 205- 22- 11, p. 110−112].
Besides large mosques of basilican plan there were mosques of different patterns in the Golden Horde. Domed mosques of the Crimea are small buildings consisting of one or two rooms. A domed square prayer hall is preceded by a rectangular antechamber with a vaulted ceiling. There may be a built-in minaret at a corner of the building. Small Anatolian mosques of the Seljuk and Early Ottoman periods such as Ala-al-Din'-s mosque at Bursa (AD 1335), Orkhan Gazi'-s mosque at Bilesik and the Green Mosque at Iznik (AD 1378) [31, p. 114−117- 35, p. 79−99].
The Lesser Mosque of the Upper Julat belongs to pillar-dome structures and resembles small pillar structures of Central Asia such as mosques attached to mausoleums of Khakim al-Termezi and Khoja Isa dating to the 11th century [4, p. 118]. The only difference is that the latter are elongated latitudinally while the former meridionally. Another pattern, however, is also possible, namely a vaulted ceiling with a strainer arch. This form can be encountered in village mosques of Azerbaijan, e.g. at a khanege, i.e. khaneqah, on the river of Pirsagat and at Khanlar where it dates to the 13th century [5, p. 93].
The planning of congregational mosques in the cities of the Syr-Darya valley is of a radically different kind. Both structures investigated there are of the courtyard type, which can be accounted for by the influence of the nearby Middle East.
Thus, the influence of Asia Minor prevails in the layout of the Golden Horde mosques. The Seljuk building tradition could have spread through Transcaucasia where such its examples as the Manuche mosque at Ani have survived [3, tab. 100] and through the Crimea. Mosques with a hall partitioned into naves known in the Volga Bulgaria in pre-Mongol times [21- 1] could also have served as an example. Starting from basilican planning with its flat ceiling Golden Horde architects reworked it in accordance with local conditions and customers'- tastes. Moreover, in a number of cases the very idea of the covered hall with a flat ceiling resting on pillars was adopted yet its embodiment in different parts of the empire was varying and often original. At the same time the influence of Central Asia or local traditions, as in the Volga Bulgaria and the Northern Caucasus, cannot be excluded.
Minarets. Minarets, either built in mosques or erected near them, are among the most important city-forming elements of the Muslim world.
Minarets in different countries differed significantly. Those of Syria, Maghreb and Spain are square-planned stone towers. Their shape derives from traditional Syrian bell-towers of the Byzantine period [32, p. 188]. Early Abbasid minarets of Iraq consisted of a square base and a circular shaft with an external stairway. In the post-Fatimid Egypt towers of minarets included three zones, i.e. a square section in the low part, an octagonal section in the middle, and a crowning dome. Transitional zones between these sections were covered with a belt of stalactite ornaments or muqarnas [32, p. 187−188].
Minarets of Iran and Central Asia had a circular tapering form. Occasionally they were set on a square or star-shaped base- the latter could also have been faceted. Their shafts were ornamented with decorative brickwork either covering the entire shaft or divided by belts of various designs alternating with inscriptions. The 11th century saw the appearance of glazed decoration. Iranian minarets have a balcony with a wooden roof while in Central Asia they are crowned with a massive rotunda with a circular arcade and a flat ceiling. The cornice of the balcony rests on a belt of big stalactites. A second intermediate stalactite balcony appears by the late 12th century. The majority of minarets in these regions are fairly high, up to 50 meters [6, p. 154- 32, p. 187−189].
The evolution of both mosques and minarets in Asia Minor under the Seljuks was highly original. Minarets are invariably tripartite: a high square in plan socle changes by means of triangular bevels into an octagonal prism supporting an almost imperceptibly tapering cylindrical shaft. In the upper part of the shaft there is an open balcony resting on several rows of stalactites. The shaft is crowned by a conical roof [31, p. 161- 35, p. 43] and often decorated with ornamental brickwork and blue tiles. Minarets of Azerbaijan are also tripartite but squatter and the chamber above the balcony is covered with a coved dome [5- p. 88−96, 156−160].
Most of the Golden Horde mosques also had minarets but only two of them are extant and two more known from drawings and photographs. Only basements of other minarets have survived.
The square base of the extant Lesser Minaret at the Bolgary site changes into an octahedral tier through triangular outer bevels supporting a cylindrical, somewhat tapering shaft. The latter is crowned with a low drum of the upper tier with a conical roof. The walls are faced with thoroughly cut limestone and tuff blocks and partially plastered both on the inside and outside. Individual elements of the building are decorated with stone carvings. The Greater Minaret known from drawings had approximately the same structure.
The Tatartup minaret at the Upper Dzhulat site collapsed as late as in 1985 and consequently was well studied. Its rectangular base is built of brick and stone blocks. The brick shaft of the minaret had a conical shape and consisted of two parts. They were connected with a double belt of muqarnas supporting the balcony for the muezzin. The shaft was decorated with several ornamental bands.
The minaret of the mosque of Uzbek at Solkhat has partially survived and was renovated. It has a high, triangular-planned base, which at the roof level changes into a slender cylindrical shaft through bevels. The shaft has two tiers separated by an open balcony with a stone parapet. The sharefe balcony rests on a ledge, which was originally formed by muqarnas. The roof of the shaft has not survived, but since the whole monument has a distinct Asia Minor appearance, it seems likely that the minaret was tapering.
Only basements of minarets have survived at other sites in the Volga region, the Northern Caucasus, the Crimea, the Dnieper and Transnistria. In some cases, the remains of fallen shafts and some architectural details were found. It only enables one to reconstruct their general structure. It is safe to say that they had a prismatic basement changing into a ciruclar in section shaft either through an octagonal part or directly.
Minarets of the Golden Horde are divided into three groups according to their position with regard to the mosque: 1) set apart from it- 2) with the base annexed to the mosque wall- 3) with the base built in the wall volume. Both detached and attached to mosques minarets have either a cubic or prismatic base, which changes into either an octagonal prism or directly into a cylindrical slightly tapering shaft by means of external bevels. Only the minarets of the mosque at Otrar flanking its portal did not have such a socle and were cylindrical from the very basement. Built-in minarets have a polyhedron base made either of stone or burnt bricks. The shaft is usually made of brick but sometimes of stone. Stone structures were decorated with carvings. Shafts of brick minarets are decorated with ornamental bands of carved terracotta, shaped bricks, stucco and glazed tile inserts. Under the little balcony for the muezzin there is a belt of muqarnas. The roof of minarets is conical.
The surviving structures have been analyzed most extensively. The similarity of the minarets of Bolgar and those of Shirvan-Apsheron Azerbaijani school is universally recognized. Tripartite buildings of squat proportions and masonry techniques link the Bolgar and Azerbaijani Bolgar minarets. The resemblance of decorative motifs on carved panels of the Lesser Minaret and those of Armenian and Anatolian monuments have also been noticed. Thus, the minarets of Bolgar are closely related to Transcaucasia and were probably erected by Armenian and Azerbaijani builders.
The Tatartup minaret in the North Caucasus shows the same design but a more slender form. It was made of a combination of brick and stone. Its decoration, the use of carved bricks and tiles for facing and the making of ornamental and stalactite belts relate it to the monuments of the Nakhichevan Azerbaijani school. Similar design is also typical of minarets of Asia Minor of the Seljuk and early Ottoman periods.
We can only sketch the broad outline of the rest of the Golden Horde minarets. It is known with assurance that they had a prismatic socle changing into a circular in section shaft either through an octahedron or directly. Such forms are characteristic solely of Asia Minor and countries related to it. They appear there in the Seljuk time and continue to exist later with slight modifications. One may cite in this connection the minaret of the Ala-el-Din Cami at Nigde (AD 1223), Ivli Minar at Antalya (AD 1220), the minarets of the Great Mosque and Gok Madrasah at Sivas (AD 127l) and that of the Green Mosque at Iznik (AD 1378).
Similar minarets were also common in the countries under Asia Minor'-s sphere of influence, i.e. Azerbaijan, the Crimea and partially Northern Iran. Their spread to the Golden Horde is yet another testimony to the impact of Anatolian and Transcaucasian cultures on the formation of its religious architecture since mosques and minarets usually form a single ensemble. The sole exception are cylindrical minarets of the Otrar mosque built after Central Asian patterns. It is quite understandable since the Kok Horde included Khorezm and was influenced by its well-developed building culture.
Pious Institutions. Not only mosques but some other institutions as well are related to religion in Islamic countries. Among them are madrasah'-s, high schools where primarily theology and law and often also mathematics, rhetoric, linguistics and medicine were taught. Madrasah'-s were pillars of religion and at the same time scientific centres: they often housed large libraries and renowned scholars. The madrasah as a public institution and architectural structure has no parallels outside the Muslim world since early European universities had neither specially erected buildings nor hostels [24, p. 260]. The first buildings of madrasah'-s appear in Eastern Iran and Bukhara in the late 9th — early 10th centuries. They were designed for institutions having no analogies in the contemporary world that is why the madrasah pattern is uniform and easily recognizable. Madrasah'-s are monumental rectangular buildings with a large inner courtyard which all the rooms give on to. Either two or four iwans are situated on the axes of the structure- they also give on to the courtyard. The entrance on the facade side of the building is emphasized with a portal. The majority of madrasah'-s have either one or several domed rooms used as a mosque and lecture-halls. This type of building has spread over the entire Islamic world with slight modifications.
Yet another category of buildings pertaining to religion consists of ribafs, khaneqah'-s, takiyyah'-s, and zawiyah'-s. These institutions served the needs of numerous dervish communities. Ribafs as abodes of '-warriors following the God'-s path'- emerged during Arab conquests and were enclosures with blind fortification walls, towers, rampart walks, battle platforms and the single main gate on the central axis. Two — or three-storeyed structures and a mosque serving as a place of meeting were located against the inner perimeter of the walls. The military function of ribafs loses its significance by the 11th century and in many areas they become fortified inns, i.e. caravansaries or rabafs [18, p. 89−94].
In contrast, khaneqah'-s, i.e. dervish hostels, were built in the cities and had no defensive functions. Their appearance is related to the spread of Sufism, a mystic trend of Islam. Members of the Sufi community lived in separate buildings allotted to them where they performed their mystic rites. Therefore a large domed hall for collective rituals is the compositional centre of the majority of khaneqah'-s. Prayer halls, the living quarters of the institution'-s founder, khujrah'-s of the community members,
kitchen and storerooms are grouped round it. Zawiyah'-s, hostels for itinerant dervishes and pilgrims had a similar layout but were less impressive. Takiyyah'-s emerged in the 13th-14th centuries were designed as large charitable complexes performing various functions. They included a separate mosque, a minaret, a canteen with a kitchen, living quarters of the sheikh and his family, a domed gallery with khujrah'-s for pilgrims, public springs, orchards, mazar'-s and a cemetery. In layout they were not structures closed around a courtyard or a hall but landscape-gardening ensembles spread along the longitudinal axis. The functions of these institutions were not clearly differentiated and consequently different names can be applied to one and the same building.
In the Golden Horde like in any state where a substantial part of the population were Muslims, madrasah'-s and khaneqah'-s were built alongside mosques. These institutions are mentioned in written sources, e.g. in the works of Juzjani, Ibn-Khaldun and the so-called '-Iskander'-s Anonymous'- devoted to biographies of Muslim khans Berke, Uzbek and Janibek [19, p. 128, 379- 20, p. 16−17]. The Arab traveller Ibn Battuta noted madrasah'-s, zawiyah'-s and ribafs he visited in the Golden Horde [20, p. 308 309].
Regrettably, these data have not been substantiated so far by the archaeological record. The only building which can be safely attributed as a pious institution is Uzbek'-s madrasah at Solkhat.
It is an almost square structure with a large richly decorated portal. Inside it there was a big inner courtyard surrounded on all sides by rooms of various purposes and a colonnade. On every side of the courtyard there was a big iwan and a fountain was located at the centre. The Solkhat madrasah is a rare surviving complex which enables us to evaluate not only the planimetry of the building but its entire volume as well since ceilings of some rooms have survived. All four iwans were covered with monumental semicircular archs and khujrah'-s also had vaulted ceilings. Square rooms in the western part of the building were crowned with semispheri-cal brick archs.
The domed mosque of Kurshun-Jami at Solkhat in the Crimea was originally, according to Evliya Celebi, a takiyyah, i.e. the dervish abode [7, p. 27- 9, p. 13−173]. Thus, various categories of cult buildings of various kinds have survived and have been investigated at Solkhat.
A part of a structure probably having had an inner courtyard along whose perimeter were located standard rooms (khujrah '-s) was excavated in the Lower Volga area at the Selitrennoe site. One of the rooms was the household mosque. Specific traits of layout of the building and its location near the congregational mosque allows us to presume that it housed an institution pertaining to Muslim religion, either madrasah or khaneqah. A cult complex in the Lower Volga area consisting of a mausoleum, a small mosque and living quarters seems likely to be an auliyya, a place of adoration of a saint, literally '-saints'-.
The Uzbek madrasah at Solkhat is, judging by its layout and building techniques, a characteristic example of Anatolian architecture. Open iwans with semicircular vaults encircled by a gallery with arcades resting on columns and a fountain at the centre of a courtyard are reminiscent of such quadriwanal structures of Asia Minor as Gok madrasah at Sivas (the 13th century AD), Cifte Minare at Erzerum (the 13th century), Ta§ madrasah at Akcehir, Buruciye madrasah at Sivas (the 13th century) and Ibrahim-bey'-s madrasah at Aksaray [25, p. 33, 35- 35, p. 46]. A building at Saray which can be tentatively identified as madrasah cannot be attributed as safely. The technique of brick-laying, building materials, the size and shape of mud- and baked bricks are indicative of the influence of Central Asian, most probably Khorezmian, building tradition. The Saray structure bears certain similarities to the madrasah building investigated at the site of Sauran in Southern Kazakhstan. The small number of pious institutions excavated in the Golden Horde cities precludes any far-fetching assumptions.
Mausoleums. Mausoleums as burial and funeral structures were widespread in Islamic countries. Their number is enormous and their role in the formation of architectural outlook of cities and other territories considerable. Mausoleums have been of prime social and religious import in the Muslim world. These structures reflect the duality of Islam where secular and religious matters can hardly be separated. They are, on the one hand, mundane funeral monuments and, on the other, are intended to provoke religious associations.
Two main provinces of formation of architectural forms of mausoleums can be distinguished. Their centres were located in Egypt and Iran respectively in accordance with the then political frontiers. Egypt, Levant and Arabia formed a single polity under the Mamelukes while Anatolia, Iraq, the Caucasus, Central Asia, Afghanistan and India were under Iran'-s sphere of influence.
Early mausoleums of Iran and the related areas are divided into two typological groups: domed buildings of cubic volume and tower structures. Tower mausoleums were built for rulers and other lay persons while square domed structures served as burial and adoration places of religious authorities, the imamzoda'-s. Cubic structures, in its turn, are divided into centric and portal. All the facades of centric mausoleums were similar and had either four entrances, one on each side, or two entrances on the same axis. This form presupposes an isolated building which can be approached from any side. Portal mausoleums have a single facade with an entrance shaped into a high arched niche in a rectangular frame. This portal called peshtak, i.e. the front arch, in Persian may either protrude from the facade wall or be higher than the building itself. The layout of such structures is focused on the portal which means that they can be approached from one side only.
The origin of cubic mausoleums is debated. It is believed that they were preceded by Christian martyria, pre-Islamic burial structures of Iran, i.e. dakhmas and naus'-s, as well as keda'-s, Zoroastrian pavillions for exposure of the dead prior to burial originating, in their turn, from habitable houses. Centric mausoleums are also connected to Zoroastrian fire temples whose central part, the chortak, is a domed structure with four wide arched passages on all sides.
Another line of evolution is represented by tower mausoleums. The Gumbad-i Kabus tower (AD 1006−1007) is the best known of them. Its origin is rather obscure. It is believed that it was built as a burial place of a Zoroastrian family converted to Islam and closely linked to pre-Islamic traditions. There is also a widespread hypothesis that the nomadic yurt was transformed into tower structures . It is also suggested that this type of buildings originates from mudbrick and barrow-shaped burial structures of Turkic peoples. These structures were combined with the Central Asian brick minaret and formed the tower mausoleum with a hip roof . Anyway, all the varieties of later mausoleums go back to these three types of buildings being either a transformation or a combination of some elements of centric, portal or tower mausoleums.
In the Golden Horde, like in other countries where Islam played a significant role, mausoleums were built everywhere. The influence of Sufism with its cult of '-holy tombs'- was also a contributory factor for this process. Mausoleums constitute the major portion of excavated objects of monumental architecture. Some of them have survived and some are known from drawings and descriptions of travellers and scholars of earlier times. The number of the Golden Horde mausoleums whose pattern may be analyzed approximates a hundred.
A survey of memorial structures of the Golden Horde shows a wide spectrum of architectural forms and planning patterns. This diversity calls for a systematization of evidence and elaboration of a comprehensive typology of the Golden Horde mausoleums. The classification proposed in this paper uses the following traits: the number of rooms- the shape of the building- the presence or absence of portals- the shape of the portal- the shape of the covering- and the presence or absence of a subterranean or semisubterranean crypt.
First, all structures can be divided into two large groups — unichamber (I) and multicameral (II) mausoleums. The majority of the Golden Horde mausoleums are unichamber buildings. By the shape of the main chamber they can be divided into three sections: (A) towerlike- (B) pyramidal- © cubic (prismatic). Section A comprises two subsections differing in plan: (1) circular and (2) polygonal. Pyramidal mausoleums can also be circular (1) and polygonal (2) while cubic structures are either square- or rectangular-planned with the rectangular having near-square shape (3). It should be noted that this terminology describes merely an ideal pattern. Thus, one of the main lines of evolution of this category of buildings is the square-
planned domed cube. In reality buildings of this type can be rectangular in plan and have somewhat elongated proportions when their height exceeds the length of their base. Late medieval mausoleums are characterized by a high drum resting on a cubic base and crowned with a dome. Nevetheless, typologically they belong to structures with a cubic base.
Every typological section of mausoleums can be divided into (a) facade and (b) portal types. Facade mausoleums have no pronounced portals but a marked side where the entrance is located. Portal mausoleums are those with a pronounced volume of the entrance portal. Given the original pattern of the Black Chamber at Bolgar, the third type of centric structures © should be added to the section of cubic mausoleums.
Mausoleums can be divided into subtypes by the shape of the portal: (b*) a protruding portal- (b**) a portal in line with the volume of the building resting on massive pylons whose thickness exceeds that of the walls (peshtak). The third portal subtype can be distinguished specially for the Golden Horde: (b***) a portal in line with the volume of the building without massive pylons. Its sides are mere prolongations of meridional walls of the building forming a large iwan in front of the burial chamber equalling the latter in width. This division is based on the planigraphy since it is often the only available evidence. The spatial arrangement of the portal unit is far more variable. Thus, protruding portals with moderately thick pylons, which are significantly narrower than the facade, do not exceed the height of the walls. Protruding portals whose width approximates that of the main part of the structure which have massive pylons could support a fairly high arch approximating in size that of a classic peshtak. All three portal types are characteristic of unicameral cubic and multicameral mausoleums. Tower and pyramidal structures are either of facade layout or have a protruding portal added on the outside.
Finally, every subtype of buildings is divided into two kinds by the shape of its roof: (Q) domed- (S) hip. The roof of archaeological monuments but rarely survives and its shape is therefore hard to identify yet it is easily identifiable from drawings. Tower and cubic mausoleums can have the roof of both kinds while all pyramidal mausoleums are hip-roofed by definition.
The group of multicameral mausoleums is divided into three sections: (D) prismatic longitudinal-axis- (E) prismatic cross-axis- (F) multicameral of complex layout. Those of sections D and E are square-planned and mostly bicameral. Plans of multicameral buildings of complex layout may vary depending on the number of chambers and their relative position. The mausoleums of section F may be square-planned (3) — rectangular-planned (4) — T-shaped (5) — and form complex stepped polygons (6). Subsection 6 comprises conglomerate irregular-planned buildings. The division into types, subtypes and kinds in the group of multicameral structures is based on similar principles yet it is applicable primarily to the structures of sections D and E. Complex-planned structures (F), especially conglo-
merate buildings, consist of different parts which can differ with regard to the treatment of entrance and the shape of the roof.
The presence of a subterranean or semisubterranean burial vault or crypt is an important but by no means crucial marker. A great diversity of burial structures have been called so. This classification considers only those forming a part of the building, i.e. underground structures with a separate entrance. With such big crypts akin to those of Christian churches all burials are located there while the surface chamber may be used as ziyarat-khana, i.e. '-adoration chamber'-. In this case the unicameral mausoleum becomes quasi bicameral, however vertically. Presence or absence of a crypt has nothing to do with the form of the mausoleum. These are rather local traits.
The classification of the Golden Horde mausoleums is indicative of a fairly well-developed architecture of memorial structures. The variety of types implies that they were brought from anywhere in the Near- and Middle-Eastern Muslim world and different borrowings could have prevailed in different parts of this enormous country. Some buildings are quite original being the result of reworking of the known types of planning. Available evidence enables us not only to define more precisely the genesis of types of mausoleums but to trace the distribution of spheres of influence of different architectural schools in different parts of the Golden Horde. With this in mind we analyze plans, building techniques and details of interior and exterior design of these buildings.
Two lines of architecture, i.e. building out of ashlar and either mud-or burnt-brick, can be distinguished within the bounds of the Golden Horde. There existed also a mixed technique when distinct parts of a structure were built out of different materials.
The analysis of planning, building techniques and architectural details of mausoleums enable us to detect several components of the Golden Horde monumental architecture. Armenian-Anatolian influence is prominent in the monuments built in the ashlar masonry technique. That of Central Asian school of mud- and burnt-brick building was also fundamental. And, finally, there were survivals of nomadic Kipchak traditions in architectural forms. Several zones of prevalence of certain schools can be distinguished. The Volga Bulgaria and the Crimea were under Armenian-Anatolian influence while the Lower Volga area and the steppes of the Northern Caucasus under that of Central Asia. At the same time the traditions of Azerbaijani architecture represented by the Nakhichevan school characterized by combination of ashlar and brick masonry and the extensive use of decorative tiles can be traced in some parts of the Lower Volga area (the Vodianskoe site) and the Northern Caucasus (the Pyatigorsk region, the Upper and Lower Julat). The Azerbaijani element, namely that of the Shirvan-Apsheron school, has also been recorded in the Volga Bulgaria. Rare mausoleum forms which can be derived from Turkic funeral
structures have been encountered in the Lower Volga basin and in the Northern Caucasus.
At the same time the imported traditions were adapted to local conditions. Bastard ashlar on the lime mortar or clay was widely used in the Volga Bulgaria and later in the Lower Volga area as well. An amazingly uniform type of tombs was formed there and later spread to other regions. Thus, buildings akin to Bulgarian mausoleums were being built in the Ural region besides those of Central Asian outlook. New types of layout of funerary structures also emerge and spread to various parts of the empire. Moreover, the Golden Horde architecture is characterized by application of building techniques of a certain tradition to the erection of a structure belonging to another tradition. Such a vigorous and prompt, given the short life period of the Golden Horde, reworking of adapted techniques led inevitably to the formation of an original style.
Conclusion. Thus, objects of monumental architecture reflect the role of different traditions in the formation of the multicomponent urban culture of the Golden Horde. Our analysis has shown that all congregational mosques of the Golden Horde known so far were of basilican planning, i.e. were rectangular-planned structures whose interior was divided into naves and aisles by rows of columns. This planning was undoubtly borrowed from Asia Minor where such mosques became widespread in the Seljuk period. Small domed mosques known mostly in the Crimea also imitate similar structures of the Seljuk and Early Ottoman periods. Minarets attached to mosques and thus forming a single architectural ensemble with the latter were also of Anatolian outlook.
Stone architectural details decorated with expert carving are also indicative of relations with Anatolia. Such details are present in mosques and minarets of Bolgar, the Crimea and the Old Orkhey. Ornamental motifs of this carving show a clear Seljuk influence. Nevertheless, having adopted the Anatolian type of mosques, architects of the Golden Horde significantly modified its embodiment.
It seems premature to discuss planning principles of other Islamic institutions of the Golden Horde, such as madrasahs and khaneqah'-s, since only a few have been excavated.
Memorial monuments represented by mausoleums form the most numerous group of monumental structures. Their planning is fairly diverse and owing to their abundance they are most useful for detection of the influence of various architectural schools and demarcation of architectural provinces within the Golden Horde. Armenian-Anatolian influence is more pronounced in the Volga Bulgaria and the Crimea. Elements of the Azerbaijani Shirvan-Apsheron school can be seen at Bolgar. At the same time in the nearby Mordovia there is a monument practically identical to the Khorezmian mausoleum of Najmeddin Kubra. Central Asian traditions prevailed in the Low Volga area and on the steppes of the Northern Caucasus. And, finally, there were survivals of nomadic Kipchak traditions in
architectural forms. Several zones of prevalence of certain schools can be distinguished. The Volga Bulgaria and the Crimea were under Armenian-Anatolian influence while the Low Volga area and the steppes of the Northern Caucasus under that of Central Asia. Among memorial structures of these regions there are forms characteristic of nomadic Kipchak gravestones. The traditions of Azerbaijani architecture represented by the Nakhichevan school can be traced at some sites of the Volga basin and the piedmont zone of the Northern Caucasus.
Reworking of imported traditions in the Golden Horde can be illustrated by the transformation of the design of Anatolian tower minarets in the Volga Bulgaria and the emergence of the bicameral mausoleum consisting of a square-planned burial chamber (gur-khana) and a small rectangular-planned anteroom used as a ritual chamber (ziyarat-khana).
The analysis of the architecture of public buildings is indicative of an important role of immigrants from Asia Minor in the formation of the Golden Horde culture. It seems, however, that the origins of the state architecture of the Golden Horde should be looked for not only abroad but in its most developed culturally regions, such as the Crimea and the Volga Bulgaria, as well. The Crimea'-s close relationship with Asia Minor in the pre-Mongol period was due to trade relations. The Golden Horde period saw the immigration led by the deposed sultan Izz al-Din Keikavus II from Anatolia to the peninsula [17, p. 67, 77- 10, p. 403]. Probably there were other waves of migration from Asia Minor, ruined by invasions of external enemies and internecine wars, to the Golden Horde where life was quiet and stable and the growth of cities constantly demanded an influx of skilled builders and craftsmen.
The influence of Asia Minor is also prominent in the architecture of the Volga Bulgaria. It seems likely that its roots stretch back into the pre-Mongol period. It is also quite possible that craftsmen from Armenia contributed to the development of stone carving in the Golden Horde.
The Golden Horde which had amalgamated regions from different historical and ethnic backgrounds did not follow a uniform line of cultural evolution. This is apparent from monumental architecture. The traditions of ashlar building were strong in the Crimea, the Volga Bulgaria and the Dniester basin. Architectural decoration was represented there by stone carving. Central Asian building techniques were used in the cities of the steppe zone of the Lower Volga valley and the Northern Caucasus. Structures were built out of mud- and burnt brick while tiles, mosaics, majolicas, terracottas and carved bricks were used for decoration. Carved and stamped stucco details as well as tiles with polychrome overglaze painting and gilt made up the principal components of interior design. A mixed technique of brick and ashlar masonry was used at Beljamen, Mokhshi, Azov and Kuchugury. Local traditions were strong in the Northern Caucasus. A distinct architectural province of the Golden Horde was formed by the cities of the Syr-Darya basin in Southern Kazakhstan
where Central Asian influence prevailed. Thus, in spite of the presence of various building traditions and innovations, principles of public institutions'- planning were uniform all over the Golden Horde which implies the elaboration of a single, though eclectic in details, architectural style.
1. Aydarov S.S., Zabirova F.M. O rekonstruktsii i konservatsii ostatkov kompleksa mecheti [On the reconstruction and conservation of the remains of the mosque complex]. Novoe v arkheologii Povolzh'-ya [New in archaeology of the Volga region]. Kazan, 1979, pp. 46−62.
2. Artamonov M.I. Drevniy Derbent [Ancient Derbent]. Sovetskaya arkheologiya [Soviet archaeology], VIII. 1946, pp. 121−145.
3. Arutyunyan V.M., Safaryan S.A. Pamyatniki armyanskogo zodchestva [The monuments of Armenian architecture]. Moscow, Gosudarstvennoe izda-tel'-stvo literatury po stroitel'-stvu i arkhitekture Publ., 1951. 244 p.
4. Borodina I.F. Osobennosti formirovaniya memorial'-nykh sooruzheniy Sredney Azii X-XV vv. [Features of formation of memorial structures in Central Asia of the 10th-15th centuries]. Arhitekturnoe nasledstvo [Architectural heritage], no. 22. Moscow, Stroyizdat Publ., 1974.
5. Bretanitskiy L.S. Zodchestvo Azerbaydzhana XII-XV vv. i ego mesto v arkhitekture Perednego vostoka [Architecture of Azerbaijan of the 12th-15th centuries and its place in the architecture of the Near East]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1966. 560 p.
6. Voronina V.L. Arkhitektura srednevekovogo Irana [The architecture of medieval Iran] Vseobshhaya istoriya arxitektury [General History of Architecture]. Vol. 8. Moscow, Stroyizdat Publ., 1969, pp. 15−110.
7. Grigor'-ev A.P. «Kniga puteshestviy» Evlii Chelebi — istochnik po istorii Kryma XII-XVII vv. [& quot-Book of Travels& quot- of Evliya Celebi — source for the history of Crimea in the 12th-17th centuries] Istoriografiya i istochnikovedenie istorii stran Azii [Historiography and source study of the history of Asia]. Is. III. Leningrad, Leningrad State University Publ., 1974.
8. Iskusstvo Azerbaydzhana [Art of Azerbaijan]. Vol. VIII. Baku, 1949.
9. Kramarovskiy M.G. Zolotaya Orda kak tsivilizatsiya [The Golden Horde as a civilization] Zolotaya Orda. Istoriya i kul'-tura [The Golden Horde. History and culture]. St. Petersburg, Slaviya Publ., 2005, pp. 13−173.
10. Kramarovskiy M.G. Religioznye obshchiny v istorii i kul'-ture Solkhata XIII-XIV vv. [Religious communities in history and culture Solkhat of the 13th-14th centuries] Archeologia Abrahamica [Archeologia Abrahamica]. Moscow, Indrik, 2009, pp. 395−433.
11. Kudryavtsev A.A. K izucheniyu arkhitektury srednevekovogo Derbenta (VIII-XIII vv.) [For the study of medieval architecture of Derbent (8th-13th centuries)] Drevnyaya i srednevekovaya arkhitektura Dagestana [Ancient and medieval architecture of Dagestan]. Makhachkala, 1989, pp. 98−114.
12. Man'-kovskaya L. Yu. Tipologicheskie osnovy zodchestva Sredney Azii. IX — nachalo XX v. [Typological bases of the architecture of Central Asia. The 9 th -beginning of the 20th centuries]. Tashkent, Fan Publ., 1980. 183 p.
13. Pribytkova A.M. O nekotorykh mestnykh traditsiyakh v zodchestve Sredney Azii v IX-X vv. [Some local traditions in architecture of Central Asia in
the 9th-10th centuries]. Arkhitekturnoe nasledstvo [Architectural heritage], no. 11. Moscow, Stroyizdat Publ., 1958.
14. Pribytkova A.M. Stroitel'-naya kul'-tura Sredney Azii IX-X vv. [Constructional culture of Central Asia of the 9th-10th centuries] Moscow, Stroyizdat Publ., 1973. 285 p.
15. Pugachenkova G.A. K probleme vozniknoveniya shatrovykh mavzoleev Khorasana [On the problem of the emergence of tent mausoleums in Khorasan]. Trudy Yuzhno-Turkmenistanskoy kompleksnoy ekspedicii [Proceedings of the Southern Turkmenistan complex expedition]. Ashkhabad, 1949, pp. 57−78.
16. Pugachenkova G.A. Puti razvitiya arkhitektury Yuzhnogo Turkmenistana pory rabovladeniya i feodalizma [Ways of development of the Southern Turkmenistan architecture during the periods of slaveholding and feudalism]. Moscow, Akademiya nauk SSSR Publ., 1958. 493 p.
17. Rays. T.T. Sel'-dzhuki. Kochevniki — zavoevateli Maloy Azii [Seljuks. The nomads — conquerors of Asia Minor]. Moscow, Tsentrpoligraf, 2004. 238 p.
18. Starodub T. Kh. Ribat i khanaka. Termin i arkhitekturnyy tip [Ribat and khanaka. The term and architectural style] Kul'-turnye cennosti. Cultural Values: Mezhdunarodnyj ezhegodnik. 2002−2003 [Cultural Values: International Yearbook. 2002−2003]. St. Petersburg, 2004, pp. 89−101.
19. Tiesenhauzen V. Sbornik materialov, otnosyashchikhsya k istorii Zolotoy Ordy [The collection of materials relating to the history of the Golden Horde. Arab sources]. Vol. I. Arabskie istochniki. St. Petersburg, 1884. 588 p.
20. Tiesenhauzen V.G. Sbornik materialov, otnosyashchikhsya k istorii Zolotoy Ordy [The collection of materials relating to the history of the Golden Horde. Persian sources]. Vol. II. Persidskie istochniki. Moscow, Leningrad, Akademiya nauk SSSR Publ., 1941. 308 p.
21. Khalikov A. Kh., Sharifullin R.F. Issledovanie kompleksa mecheti [A research of mosque complex]. Novoe v arkheologii Povolzh'-ya [New in archaeology of the Volga region]. Kazan, 1979, pp. 21−46.
22. Khan-Magomedov S.O. Dzhuma-mechet'- v Derbente [Juma mosque in Derbent] Sovetskaya arkheologiya [Soviet archaeology], no. 1, 1970, pp. 202 221.
23. Khmel'-nitskiy S. Mezhdu arabami i tyurkami. Arkhitektura Sredney Azii IX-X vv. [Between Arabs and Turks. Architecture of Central Asia in the 9th-10th centuries]. Berlin-Riga, Continent Publ., 1992. 344 p.
24. Khmel'-nitskiy S. Mezhdu Samanidami i mongolami. Arkhitektura Sredney Azii XI — nachala XIII vv. [Between the Samanids and Mongols. Architecture of Central Asia in the 11th — beginning of the 13th centuries]. Part I. BerlinRiga, Gamajun Publ., 1996. 336 p.
25. Benset Unsal. Turkish Islamic Architecture. Seldjuk to Ottoman. New York, 1973. 116 p.
26. Creswell K.A.C. A short account of early Muslim Architecture. Middlesex, Penguin Books, 1958. 330 p.
27. Ettinghausen R., Grabar O. The Art and Architecture of Islam: 6 501 250. New Haven and London, Yale University Publ., 1994. 448 p.
28. Godard A. L'-Art de Iran. Paris, Arthaud, 1962. 530 p.
29. Grabar O. The formation of Islamic Art. New Haven and London, 1973. 340 p.
30. Herzfeld E. Archaeological History of Iran. London, 1935. 342 p.
31. Hillenbrand R. Islamic Architecture. N.Y., Columbia University Publ., 1994.
32. Petersen A. Dictionary of Islamic Architecture. London and New York, Routledge, 1996. 645 p.
33. L'-Arten Turquie. Fribourg, 1981. 286 p.
34. Stierlin H. Islam. Early Architecture from Baghdad to Cordoba. Vol. 1. Koln, Tashen, 1996. 240 p.
35. Stierlin H. Turkey from the Selguks to the Ottomans. Koln, Tashen, 1998. 238 p.
About the author: Emma Davidovna Zilivinskaya — Leading Researcher of N.N. Miklukho-Maklay Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Dr. Sci. (History) (119 991 Leninsky Av., 32А, Moscow, Russian Federation) — eziliv@mail. ru
КУЛЬТОВЫЕ ПАМЯТНИКИ В ЗОЛОТОЙ ОРДЕ (ПРОИСХОЖДЕНИЕ, ЭВОЛЮЦИЯ И ТРАДИЦИИ)
(Институт этнологии и антропологии им. Н.Н. Миклухо-Маклая РАН)
Статья посвящена анализу культовых памятников Золотой Орды. В ней рассматриваются такие категории зданий как мечети, минареты, медресе, ханака и мавзолеи. Объекты монументальной архитектуры достаточно четко отражают различные традиции в сложении многокомпонентной городской культуры Золотой Орды. Анализ планировки мечетей, главных сооружений мусульманского города, показал, что все известные на данный момент джума-мечети Золотой Орды имели базиличную планировку, которая была заимствована в Малой Азии, а именно, в Анатолии, где подобные мечети получили распространение в сельджукский период. Малоазийский облик имели и минареты. Планировка мавзолеев достаточно разнообразна. Они возводились под влиянием архитектурных школ Малой Азии, Закавказья, Хорезма и кочевнических традиций. Несмотря на присутствие различных строительных традиций и творческие новации, принципы планировки культовых зданий были общими для всей Золотой Орды, что свидетельствует о выработке единого, пусть и эклектичного в деталях, архитектурного стиля.
Ключевые слова: Золотая Орда, культовая архитектура, мечети, минареты, медресе, ханака, мавзолеи, Малая Азия, Закавказье, Хорезм, кочевники.
Сведения об авторе: Эмма Давидовна Зиливинская — ведущий научный сотрудник Института этнологии и антропологии им. Н.Н. Миклухо-Маклая Российской Академии наук, доктор исторических наук (119 991, Ленинский проспект, 32а, Москва, Российская Федерация) — eziliv@mail. ru