Quick viewing(Text Mode)

Maqam Al-Nabi Musa in the Early Mamluk Period

Maqam Al-Nabi Musa in the Early Mamluk Period

ARAM, 18-19 (2006-2007) 621-639. H.doi: TARAGAN 10.2143/ARAM.19.0.2020749 621

HOLY PLACE IN THE MAKING: AL- IN THE EARLY MAMLUK PERIOD

Dr. HANA TARAGAN ( University)

According to the inscription on the wall of Maqam al-Nabi Musa (the of the ),1 upon his return from (Ìajj) to in 1268-69/668, the Mamluk Baybars ordered the construction of a shrine (maqam)2 over the grave of Moses. The shrine was built in the Judean desert between and , some 1.5 km south of the Jerusalem-Jericho road and approximately 8 km south of Jericho.3 The tomb of a , a prophet, a martyr (shahid) etc., which functions as a place for pilgrimage, can be perceived as a conjunction of several elements I thank the chief local archeologist Yuval Peleg for joining me on my ‘pilgrimage' from Jeru- salem to Jericho; for his astute observations and generous comments.

1 Et. Combe, J. Sauvaget et G. Wiet, Repertoire chronologique d'epigraphie Arab, (RCEA) (Le Caire, 1943), no. 4612. See also: L.A. Mayer, “Two Inscriptions of Baybars”, The Quar- terly of the Department of Antiquities in II (1933). pp. 27-33; J. Bloom, “The of Baybars al-Bunduqdari in Cairo”, Annales Islamologiques, 18(1982), pp. 75-76.; R. Amitai, “Some Remarks on the Inscription of Baybars at Maqam Nabi Musa” in (eds.) D. Wassertein and A. Ayalon, Mamluk and Ottoman Studies in Honour of Michael Winter (London, 2006), pp. 45-53. 2 Maqam: O Grabar is referring to the illusive or multiple “facets of memorial construction in the minds of the ”. He sees maqam as a “place- when related to the emplacement of some event”. See “The Earliest Islamic Commemorative Structures, Notes and Documents”, Ars Orientalis VI (1966), p. 7. According to J. Sadan, maqam is “frequented funeral site” See, “On Tombs and Holy Writ” in (ed.) A. Ovadiah, Milestones in the Art and Culture of Egypt, (Tel-Aviv, 2000), p. 186. According to Josef Meri, “The maqam which is often rendered as ora- tory or station, is a place which does not ordinarily contain a tomb (qabr), but is invariably asso- ciated with a saint or some other holy person, usually a prophet”. Josef W. Meri, The Cults of among Muslims and Jews in Medieval (Oxford, 2002), pp. 269-270. Baybars' refer- ence to the term maqam, in this inscription, relates, in my opinion, to his desire to connect the place with a prophetic figure-Moses. It should be noted, however, that, upon his arrival, a tomb had already existed at that site. 3 Numerous scholars have partially researched the building in reference to either the inscrip- tion, to the medieval literary sources in which the structure is mentioned or to the different parts of the building according to its various historical periods. To date, however, no research has ad- dressed Baybars' Maqam, specifically from its architectonic and iconographic perspective. See: S. Tamari, “Maqam al-Nabi Musa (Jericho)” Revue des études islamiques XLIX/2 (1981), pp. 231-250; Also, S. Tamari, “Maqam Nabi Musa Shelyad Yeriho” Katedra 11 (1979), pp. 153-180. (Hebrew). Kamil jamil al-‘Asali, Mawasim al-Nabi Musa fi Filastin: Ta'rikh al- wa 'l-Maqam (,1990), idem, Watha¿iq Muqaddasiyya Ta'rikhiyya, 3 vols. (Am- man, 1983). Kh.M.M. Murrar, Maqam al-Nabi Musa, M.A. thesis (al-Quds Univ. Jerusalem 1997). See also: Zeev Vilnay, Holy Monuments in Eretz , vol.1 (Jerusalem, 1985) (1st ed. 1951), pp. 233-238 (Hebrew).

06-8819_Aram 18-19_32_Taragan 621 06-26-2007, 18:41 622 MAQAM AL-NABI MUSA IN THE EARLY MAMLUK PERIOD

that conduct a dialogue of sorts. The first is the narrative manifested in render- ing an event from the scriptures, a miracle recounted in the oral legends or a story mentioned in religious traditions; the second is the actual time of a struc- ture's construction as well as its past time or its ‘memory' that constitute the event, which is the reason for its construction; thirdly is the location: the geo- graphical location, the chosen landscape, a location associated with the event whether real or invented; and the fourth is the patron, whether a community or a ruler, and his motivation for initiating the construction. The physical expres- sion of the sum total of all these elements is the structure – the architectural space. Through the structural and the decorative vocabulary which is familiar to the observer or worshipper, the desired message is transferred. This article explores Maqam al-Nabi Musa as an architectural creation which focuses, binds and unites all the elements listed above. It examines how the various architectural elements, such as the , the entrance, the columns and their capitals and the miÌrab, combine to form the meaningful message that the patron of the building wished to convey; how a patron – in this case the first Mamluk Sultan, Baybars – dispenses propaganda by means of the construction of a maqam; how the inscription joins the array of interpretation and deciphering and finally how that message can be understood by a society that is both illiterate and avoids figurative images. All these are considered within the broader historical context in which Muslims and Crusaders met. The burial site is situated in the middle of a large complex resembling a khan (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2-x). The tomb is enclosed in a dome-covered room sup- ported by four (Fig. 5) which embodying sculptured relief in the form of a shell. The room is approximately 10 meters in height, and almost square in size (5.60 x 5.45) comprising wide blind arches on all four walls. About eight windows surround the walls of the room through which the grave can be seen from the outside by the pilgrims (Fig. 3). The entrance to the room is from the prayer hall, which is a later Mamluk addition (Fig. 9). On either side of the entrance, Baybars provided a space for marble columns with Corinthian capitals.(Fig. 3 and 4). A long inscription was placed over a window to the left of the entrance, written in typical Mamluk script and set in a sigma-shaped frame (Fig. 3). Inside, on the south- eastern wall, Baybars had a constructed, flanked by two columns with Corinthian capitals (Fig. 6). The capitals bear floral friezes, set between the columns and the zigzagged miÌrab arch, which is topped by a modern plaque with the word Allah on it. In front of the miÌrab stands a huge cloth-covered construction of ashlar limestone (5 m. in length, see Fig. 5) encircled by a wooden lattice, in which the prophet Moses is supposedly entombed. Victor Guerin, who visited the place at the end of the 19th century, argues that in that era it was not unusual to build such big graves, although “it is noticeable that the of major figures such as Moses or Samuel are larger than those of

06-8819_Aram 18-19_32_Taragan 622 06-26-2007, 18:41 H. TARAGAN 623

lesser saints.”4 Guerin also tells us that tombs are nearly always covered with a cloth, which is usually green, but can sometimes be black. The columns, capitals and friezes (which have not yet been published and studied), were collected as loot from Crusader structures and ruins found in the Holy Land, mainly in Jerusalem.5 The capitals are in the traditional Corinthian style, (Fig. 4) deriving from Classical art but are unique in char- acter, highly schematic and stylized. The spiky leaf, curling outward, the horn-shaped scroll volutes and the bulbous lower section of the capitals are all typical of this the local style, which can be found in most 12th century Cru- sader churches in the Holy Land.6 Among them are still in situ part of the capitals on the pillars of the nave of St. John's church in Ramla which was later converted into a mosque,7 and the capitals of the Cathedral of St. John in Sebaste, both of them are dated to the second half of the 12th century.8 The friezes, placed above the abacus of the capitals on both sides of the miÌrab, are long and not aligned with the top of the capital. They differ in de- sign, representing two types of leaf style, and include two continuous interlac- ing scrolls, often interspersed with acorns and pine cones (Fig. 7). The sharp contrasts between their smooth surfaces, the deep undercuts defining their con- tours and the shadowy surfaces achieved by drilling, imbue them with an al- most naturalistic quality. The carving is of the highest quality, the sculpted leaves form an elegant, dynamic movement that fuses naturalistic and abstract trends. In all probability the friezes were originally made in the 12th century by lo- cal Christian craftsmen of the workshop in Jerusalem, who were stylistically connected to the western traditions on one hand, and to ‘lo- cal signs and symbols' on the other.9 They are remarkably similar to the Cru-

4 Victor Guerin, Description de la Palestine, Samarie, Tome premier (deuxieme partie) (Am- sterdam, 1969), pp. 21-22. 5 D. Pringle mentions about 300 churches that were built in the Holy Land during the 12th and 13th centuries. See, D. Pringle, “Church-Building in Palestine Before the Crusades” in ed. J. Folda, Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century (London, 1982), pp. 5-6. 6 Z. Jacoby, “The Workshop of the Temple Area in Jerusalem in the Twelfth Century: its Origin, Evolution and Impact” Zeitschrift fur Kunstgeschichte, 45 (1982/4), p. 357. 7 N. Kenaan-Kedar, ‘The Role and Meanings of Crusader Architectural Decoration: From Local Romanesque Traditions to Gothic Hegemony“in ed. H.E. Mayer, Die Kreuzfahrerstaaten als multikulturelle Gesellschaft (Oldenbourg, 1997), pp. 165-167. 8 N. Kenaan–Kedar, “The Cathedral of Sebaste: Its Western Donors and Models” in ed. B.Z. Kedar, The Horn of Îa††in (Jerusalem, 1992), pp.99-120. See also Fig. 3, p. 120. See also, D. Pringle, The Churches of the Crusaders ,(Cambridge,1998), p. 291, Fig. CLIX /c. For Romanesque, Frankish and Crusaders capitals reused in Muslim buildings in Syria,see C. Hillenbrand, The Crusades Islamic Perspectives (New-York, 2000), p. 384, Figs. 6.47; 6.48; 6.49. 9 N. Kenaan –Kedar, “Architectural Sculpture of the Latin Kingdom; Its Eastern and Western Sources” in Assaph, 9 (2004), p. 86. See also, V. Pace “Italy and the Holy Land:Import-Export, the Case of Apulia” in (ed.) J. Folda, Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century (London, 1982), pp. 245-268. Scholars mention the existence of additional workshops in Jerusalem, near the Holy

06-8819_Aram 18-19_32_Taragan 623 06-26-2007, 18:41 624 MAQAM AL-NABI MUSA IN THE EARLY MAMLUK PERIOD

sader friezes found above the abacus of the capitals supporting the (a reading platform) at the Temple Mount al-'Aqsa mosque10 and are also compa- rable, in both appearance and quality, to the friezes from the Templar church in Latrun (Le Toron des Chevaliers), some 25 km. north of Jerusalem, now on display at the Istanbul Archeology Museum (Fig. 8).11 Friezes of Baldwin V's tomb, decorated with acorns, pine cones and leaves, also show a remarkable resemblance to those of the miÌrab in Maqam al-Nabi Musa. Parts of this tomb are still located in the Temple Mt. museum.12 Baybars' use of Crusader columns, capitals and friezes in the Maqam al- Nabi Musa is explained by the concept of spolia. Since Late Antiquity, spolia constituted an ideological concept that conveyed a declaration of military vic- tory and supremacy. (The Latin word spolium suggests the stripping of the hide off a hunted animal; and figuratively, in more general terms, the loot taken from a defeated soldier after battle, thus leaving him disgraced.)13 Pub- lic buildings stripped of their decoration leave the defeated enemy plundered, while the victor uses the architectural spoils to add an aura of magnificence to his own city, a reminder of his victory. Ibn al-Furat, for example, describes the Saracens (the Khawarizmians) coming into the Holy Sepulchre in 1244/641 …“and destroyed the tomb which the Christians believe to be that of the Mes- siah, and they ransacked its Christian and Frankish graves, and the royal graves that it contains, burning the bones of the dead”.14 A western source definitely mentions this looting of columns: “Columnas vero sculptas, quae

Sepulcher and near the Hospitaller church of St. John in the Muristan. It should be noted that almost none of the objects created in the Temple Mount workshop have survived intact. How- ever, the figurative designs were destroyed by the Muslims, and those with floral designs were plundered as spolia. Bianca Kuhnel, Crusader Art of the Twelfth Century (Berlin, 1994), pp. 164- 168. See also: Z. Jacoby, “Crusader Sculpture in Cairo: Additional Evidence on the Temple Area Workshop of Jerusalem” in J. Folda, (ed.) Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century (Jerusalem, 1982), pp. 121-138. J. Folda, The Art of the Crusaders in the Holy Land, 1098-1187 (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 441-2. 10 H. Buschhausen, Die Suditalienische bauplastik im konigreich Jerusalem von konig Wilhelm II. Bis Kaiser Friedrich II (Wien,1978), Abb.188-190. 11 Ibid., Abb. 1-2. 12 Z. Yacoby, “The Tomb of Baldwin V, King of Jerusalem (1185-1186) and the Workshop of the Temple Area.” In (ed.) B.Z.Kedar, The Crusaders in their Kingdom (Jerusalem, 1988), pp. 189-205.See also, Figs. 1, 2, 4 (Hebrew). 13 Joseph Alchermes,“Spolia in Roman Cities of the Late Empire: Legislative Rationales and Architectural Reuse” D.O.P. 48(1994).p.167.See also, Beat Brenk, “Spolia from Constantine to Charlemagne: Aesthetics versus Ideology” D.O.P. 41 (1987), 103-109. D. Kinney, “Spolia. Damnatio and Renovatio Memoriae” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome“(MAAR) 42 (1997), pp. 117-148, esp. 120. H. Saradi, “The Use of Ancient Spolia in Byzantine Monuments: The Archaeological and Literary Evidence”, International Journal of the Classical Tradition 3(1997), pp. 395-423. and Godfrey Goodwin, “The Reuse of Marble in the Eastern Mediterra- nean in Medieval Times,” Journal of the royal Asiatic Society 1 (1977), pp. 17-30. 14 Ibn al-Furat, Ayyubids, Mamlukes and Crusaders: Selections from the Ta'rikh al-Duwal wa 'l-Muluk of Ibn al-Furat, 2 vols. Text and translation by U. and M.C. Lyons (Cambridge, 1971), 1, pp. 2-3.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_32_Taragan 624 06-26-2007, 18:41 H. TARAGAN 625

ante sepulchrum Domini errant ad decorum positae, sustulerunt”15… (they pull down the sculptured columns which stood before the tomb of the Lord for the sake of their decoration….). According to Ibn al-Furat Baybars razed to the ground the church of Annunciation in Nazareth (1263/661) looting five ‘Ro- manesque' capitals. Ibn al-Furat notes that Baybars was aware of the fact that this specific church “was the holiest of their holy places, where in their view the Christian religion had its origin…”16 Baybars and the other Mamluk rulers were certainly aware of the signifi- cance of the loot, which they exploited at every possible opportunity. Sar- cophagi, lintels, abaci, gates and columns with or without their Corinthian capitals,17 were all desirable objects for spolia, not only as a cheap source of otherwise expensive marble, which reduced the cost of Islamic constructions, but also and primarily since the pieces were dismantled from the churches of the vanquished enemy. To this day, such an affront to something sacred is con- sidered a humiliating disgrace. The use of architectural spoils as trophy appeared in in al-Sham and Cairo up to the end of the Mamluk BaÌri period (mid 14th cen- tury). Unlike in Cairo where the Crusader spolia suggests a concrete statement of victory directed at the Cairo public who had not physically witnessed the battles, here, at al-Sham, the fragments of Crusader architecture could have been used symbolically to trace transfer of power and authority from the Cru- sader infidels to the Muslims.18

Baybars' inscription on the maqam wall has remained intact. It is long and detailed, and, as noted above, is written on a sigma-shaped marble plaque. The text was first translated into English by L.M. Mayer in 1933. Reuven Amitai has since added his own translation and comments in a recent manuscript. I will therefore relate only to a few details here that are relevant to my analysis of the building and its iconographic significance.19

15 Z. Jacoby, The Tomb of Baldwin V, p. 199, note number 32. 16 C. Hillenbrand, The Crusades, pp. 380-381. Al-Maqrizi, Kitab al-suluk li-ma‘rifat duwal al-muluk, vol. 1, p. 487. 17 Referring to columns as spolia in the Mihrab of Nuri in Hama, E. Herzfeld says: “The little columns are, Crusader's work. It is almost a custom to place such spolia in prayer niches”. See: E. Herzfeld, “Damascus: Studies in Architecture – II”, Ars Islamica X (1934/1968), p. 46. Herzfeld also says that it was believed that the columns of Hama were thought to be with Barakat, blessing or magical power. Michael Greenhalgh argues “Since the later empire, indeed, marble columns had been popular as spolia. Not least because they are portable, they were often regarded more as trophies than as utilitarian objects.” See, Michael Greenhalgh, The Survival of Roman Antiquities in the Middle Ages ( London, 1989), p. 121. A post-modern reference to the use of columns as spolia in the Western culture, see, J. Onians, “The Strength of Columns and the Weakness of Theory” in ed. S.C. Scott, The Art of Interpreting (Penns, 1995), pp. 31-39. 18 H. Taragan, “Mamluk Patronage and Crusader Memories” Assaf (2006, forthcoming). 19 R. Amitai, “Some Remarks on the Inscription” in Mamluks and Ottomans, pp. 45-53.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_32_Taragan 625 06-26-2007, 18:41 626 MAQAM AL-NABI MUSA IN THE EARLY MAMLUK PERIOD

The inscription opens with verse 18 of Sura 9, which is, according to Sheila Blair, “one of the most common Qur'anic inscriptions, being one of three ref- erences in the Qur'an to the of God (masajid Allah), as distinct from any earthly masjid or place of prayer”.20 The same verse opens the now miss- ing inscription in Ramla from 1268/666, which mentions Baybars' victory in Crusader Jaffa.21 The Maqam’s inscription provides us with additional details of the con- struction. According to the text, the work was conducted under the supervi- sion of Jamal al-Din Aqush al-Najibi, the governor of the Syrian provinces in the years 1260–1271 and Baybars' khushdash. It is therefore likely that Baybars placed considerable trust in him and must have supplied him with the sum required for the project, and even established a (a religious endowment) for its future maintenance. Ibn Shaddad, Baybars' biographer, re- counts: He created an endowment (waqf) for it, for the cost of the muezzin, prayer leader (), those who lived in its immediate vicinity and those who came to visit it.22 The nearby village of Jericho and other villages were donated by Baybars as a religious endowment, to support Maqam al-Nabi Musa in the Judean desert.23 Some of these villages were part of the property which had been do- nated in the Crusader period to the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.24 The practice of delegating responsibility to a local ruler or overseer is also mentioned when Baybars decided to add a to the Abu Hurayra/ Rabbi Gamliel building in . There, it is said that Baybars instructed Khalil B. Sawwar, Governor of Ramla, to carry out the project.25 Another name mentioned in the Maqam's inscription is that of the supervisor, B. Rahhal. The inscription includes Baybars' titulature (laqab), which includes his de- scription as:

20 See S.S. Blair, Islamic Inscriptions (New York, 1998), p. 68, who states: “Undoubtedly chosen because it is one of the only three Qur'anic references to God‘s mosques (masajid Allah) a special term distinct from any masjid or place of prayer.” 21 RCEA, number 5401. 22 Izz al-Din ibn Shaddad al-Halabi, Ta'rikh al-Malik al-Zahir (Die Geschichte des Sultan ), (ed.) A. Hutayt (Wiesbaden, 1983), p. 351. 23 Y. Frenkel, “Baybars and the sacred Geography of Bilad al-Sham: A Chapter in the Islamization of Syria's Landscape” JSAI 25 (2001), pp. 160-161. 24 Y. Frenkel, “The Impact of the Crusades on Rural Society and Religious Endowment: the case of medieval Syria (Bilad al-Sham)”, in (ed.) Yaacov Lev, War and Society in Eastern Medirerranean, 7th-15th Centuries. (Leiden, 1997), pp. 245-248, esp. 246. See, Bernard Hamil- ton, The in the Crusader States; the Secular Church (London, 1980), p. 94; p. 137. 25 H. Taragan, “Politics and Aesthetics: Sultan Baybars and the Abu Hurayra /Rabbi Gamliel Building in Yavne” in (ed.) A. Ovadiah, Milestones in the Art and Culture of Egypt (Tel-Aviv, 2000), pp. 117-144.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_32_Taragan 626 06-26-2007, 18:41 H. TARAGAN 627

… “the speaker [with God] – prayer and peace upon him, our lord, the Sultan al- Malik al-Zahir, the master, the most splendid, the scholar, the just, the heavenly assisted, the victorious, the triumphant, Rukn al-Dunya wa'l-Din, the Sultan of Islam and the Muslims, master of kings and , conqueror of the cities, de- stroyer of the Franks and Mongols, who wrests castles from the hands of unbe- lievers, heir to kingship, sultan of the , Persians and Turks, the Alexander of [his] time, master of the stellar conjunction, reclaimed of the strayers of Islam from the hands of tyrants, king of the two seas, king of the two , servant of the two holy sanctuaries, he who commands to give the oath (bay‘a) to the two caliphs, Abu al-Fath Baybars, associate of the Commander of the Faithful, may Allah make his rule last forever.” (tr. R.A.) Reuven Amitai classifies Baybars' various titles in this inscription into three main categories: “Those which describe the Sultan as a just and pow- erful Muslim ruler, those which portray him as a mighty Jihad warrior, and those which show his majesty”.26 It should be noted that the inscription at the Maqam al-Nabi Musa in- cludes almost the entire range of titles that are applied to Baybars on his other constructions, and it is, indeed, one of the longest and richest of Baybars' titulatures. His titles, as a Muslim ruler, as a Jihad warrior and as a powerful monarch, appears on the three gates of his great mosque in Cairo, built in 1266.27 An inscription which includes almost the same titles as Maqam al-Nabi Musa inscription appears in 664/1266 on the tomb of Khalid B. al-Walid – the most famous Muslim general of the 7th century conquests – at Hims in Syria.28 The inscription describes Baybars as a Jihad warrior, sultan of the Arabs, the Persians and the Turks, the Alexander of the age, etc. and was engraved on the occasion of Baybars' passing through Hims to wage a jihad against the Chris- tians in Armenia. Baybars' inscriptions – although supplying historical information that is specific for each construction – can be said to present a standard, “banal” formula. The repetition in them may have been aimed to enable his subjects – the peoples of al-Sham in particular – to identify the ruler who had initiated the construction of the building with Islam, on the one hand (since even the illiterate could identify the script), and with the Mamluk dynasty, the

26 R. Amitai, Some remarks on the inscription (ibid.) 27 On the main gate (below the ) it describes Baybars as the master of two qiblas (Mecca and Jerusalem) – “he who ordered the recognition of two caliphs” – and as a custodian of the holy places (Mecca and Medina). On one of the lateral doors Baybars is hailed as Pillar of the World and the Faith, Father of Conquests and co-sharer with the Commander of the Faithful, the Caliph. See, RCEA 4563; 4564; 4565; J. Bloom, ibid. 28 “The Sultan, the victorious prince, the pillar of the world and religion, the sultan of Islam and the Muslims, the killer of infidels and polythesists, the tamer of rebels and heretics, the re- viver of justice in the two worlds, the possessor of the two sees, the lord of the two qiblas the servant of the two noble sanctuaries, the heir of the kingdom, the sultan of the Arabs and the Per- sians and the Turks, the Alexander of the age, the lord of the fortune conjunction, Baybars al- salihi, the associate of the Commander of the faithful” (RCEA xii inscription no. 4556), C. Hillenbrand, The Crusades Islamic perspectives ( New-York, 2000), p. 230.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_32_Taragan 627 06-26-2007, 18:41 628 MAQAM AL-NABI MUSA IN THE EARLY MAMLUK PERIOD

agent of religion and victory against the infidels, on the other. As converts and conscripts, the Mamluks needed to justify their rule and were addressed not only by their own representation as devout Muslims, but also and primarily as the defenders of Islam and as Jihad warriors. Baybars' titles in Maqam al-Nabi Musa inscription, primarily those describ- ing him as a conqueror of cities and victor over the Franks and Mongols, are, to a large extent, a written equivalent to the Crusader spolia, used in the build- ing. The Spolia and the inscription alike declare the victory of Islam over its enemies in general and over the Crusaders in particular.

Why would Baybars have wished to build a tomb for the Prophet Moses, and why at this specific site near Jericho? Such an act stands in contrast to the Biblical text, according to which the place of Moses' burial is unknown. And the LORD said unto him: ‘This is the land which I swore unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying: I will give it unto thy seed; I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither.' So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of , according to the word of the LORD. And he was buried in the valley in the land of Moab over against Beth-Peor; and no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day. (Deut. 34: 4-6)

According to the Maqam’s inscription, it was built on the ∂ariÌ of Moses. Blair interprets the term ∂ariÌ as a cenotaph, Yosef Sadan interprets it as a tomb or grave, and, Amin and Ibrahim in the dictionary of Mamluk architec- tural terminology define the term as “a grave, its construction”.29 In other words, a tomb or mark of a grave associated with the Prophet Moses already existed on that site, perhaps even made of stone, before Baybars' arrival. Baybars had no need to invent the site of Moses' tomb, but only to associate himself with it. In this context Baybars' biographer, Ibn Shaddad al-Halabi, recounts: He built over the grave of Moses (Musa) – may Allah have mercy upon him – [near] the “red hill” (al-kathib al-aÌmar) south of Jericho, a dome and mosque. …30 Regarding the red hill or al-kathib al-aÌmar, traditions ( pl. 'aÌa- dith) from as early as the Umayyad period (661-750) describe Muhammad as visiting Moses' tomb during his night journey (al-Isra').31 According to one of

29 Sheila Blair, Islamic Inscriptions, (New York, 1998), p. 45; Joseph Sadan, “On Tomb and Holy Writ; Some Methodological and Lexicographical notes on Burial Concepts in Islamic fiqh [Religious Law], Literature and Practices” in A. Ovadiah (ed.), Milestones in the Art and Culture of Egypt, (Tel Aviv, 2000), p. 184; M.A. Amin & L.A. Ibrahim, Architectural Terms in Mamluk Documents (648-923 H; 1250-1517) (Cairo, 1990), p. 74. 30 ‘Izz al-Din B. Shaddad al-Halabi, Ta'rikh al-Malik al-Zahir (Die Geschichte des Sultan Baibars), ed. A. Hutayt (Wiesbaden,1983), p. 351. 31 Cited in L.A. Mayer, Two Inscriptions, ibid., p. 29, note 3. See also, Amikam El'ad “Some Aspects of the Islamic Traditions Regarding the Site of the Grave of Moses” JSAI 11 (1988), pp. 1-15. See esp. notes 21 and 41. See also A.J. Wensinck, A Handbook of Early Muhammadan Tradition (Leiden, 1971), p. 172.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_32_Taragan 628 06-26-2007, 18:41 H. TARAGAN 629

these, the Prophet passed by Moses, who was standing and praying at the tomb that was near al-kathib al-aÌmar (the red hill). It should be noted that these traditions do not, in fact, place the tomb or the red hill in the Jericho area. Moreover, traditions of the late 9th or early 10th centuries assume that Moses was buried in the area of Damascus. The question of whether Moses' tomb is around Jericho or around Da- mascus is debated in the genre of Islamic literature in praise of cities and countries (fa∂a'il al-buldan) discussing the virtues of one locality over others.32 This debate already took place before the arrival of the Crusaders to the Holy Land and is outside the scope of this article. Suffice it to say that forty years before Baybars ascended to power, al-Harawi, who died in 1215, stated that: ‘Jericho is a village that contains a tomb (qabr) which is said to be of Moses son of Amran'.33 This suggests that the tradition linking Moses to Jericho was widespread and accepted by the end of the 12th century or the early 13th century. Through the building, however, Baybars made a passive memory active and converted tradition into fact. Pilgrimage and dedication of tombs can also be interpreted as politically motivated. Baybars wished to appropriate and exploit Biblical figures such as Abraham and Moses, figures such as the companions of the Prophet, and those of military commanders and heroes of the early conquest period, not only to aggrandize holy sites but also to associate himself with the mythical figures of the past history of Islam, in order to construct and legitimize a Muslim identity for himself and his dynasty.34 Moses is a central figure in Islam. He is men- tioned in the Qur'an more than any other prophet; he spoke to God face-to- face (kalim Allah), as mentioned in the inscription itself. He gave his people a constitution, and his life set an example for Mohammad, who saw it as a re- flection of his own destiny.35 Furthermore, for the Muslims, Biblical , including Moses, were Muslim prophets and were sent by God to teach and preach the word of Islam. In the 8th century tales of the prophets were very popular in the Muslim world, to the extent that a specific genre was formed “Tales of the Prophets” (qiÒaÒ al-anbiya'). Suleiman A. Mourad argues that around the 12th century this was not only a popular form of literature, but was

32 J. Sadan, ‘The Tomb of Moses (Maqam al-Nabi Musa), Rivalry Between Regions as to their Respective Holy Places’, The New East (Ha-Mizrah he-Hadash), XXVIII (1979), pp. 22-38 (Hebrew); J. Sadan, ‘The Maqam Nabi Musa Controversy as Reflected in Muslim Sources’, The New East (Ha-Mizrah he-Hadash), XXVIII (1979), pp. 220-238 (Hebrew). Paul. M. Cobb, “Vir- tual Sacrality:Making Muslim Syria Sacred Before the Crusades” Medieval Encounters 8/1 (2002), pp. 35-55, esp. 51-55. 33 ‘Ali al-Harawi, Kitab al-Isharat 'ila Ma‘rifat al-, tr. by J.W. Mery, as A Lonely Wayfarer's Guide to Pilgrimage (Princeton, 2004), p. 26. 34 See H. Taragan, Politics and Aesthetics, p. 122. 35 B. Heller, “Musa” in EI2, 7, pp. 638-639. See also D.B. Macdonald, on Moses title Kalim Allah, ibid., pp. 639-640.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_32_Taragan 629 06-26-2007, 18:41 630 MAQAM AL-NABI MUSA IN THE EARLY MAMLUK PERIOD

also considered a vital element in the teaching and education of any religious Muslim scholar.36 Further more, in the Syrian region pilgrimage to the tombs of saints and their worship, as well as the founding or “discovery” of new sites for pil- grimage, were already flourishing customs under the Zanjis and Ayyubids. This trend had become an inseparable part of the manifestation of the ‘Sunni Revival', which followed an entire century of the shi'a flowering.37 It became even more pronounced during the Mamluk period, and was expressed as a religious act in which both rulers and subjects participated. Consequently, Baybars' pilgrimage to tombs and his initiation of their construction or recon- struction could have been part of the standard practice of the period thus charging them with a symbolism conveying religious and political propaganda and a display of the power.

A further explanation to what motivated Baybars to chose the place of the maqam is based on geopolitical reasons. Two ancient parallel roads connected the north of the Dead Sea to Jerusa- lem. The first, “Ma'ale Edomim Road”, went from Jericho, along the south bank of Wadi Qilt, and circled the Mt. of Olives from the northeast as it reached Jerusalem. The second is the “Salt Route”, the more southern of the two. This road ran through what is known today as the Dead Sea Valley (Biqa't Yam Hamelakh), through Maqam al-Nabi Musa, and then through Bir Malki, the monastery of St. Euthymius, Wadi al-Hawd, the Mt. of Olives and Jerusalem.38 In the Christian tradition this road is identified as the route which John the Baptist took on his way from Jerusalem to his baptismal site on the River near the Dead Sea.39 In the Crusader period the road from Jerusalem to Jericho was one of the primary pilgrimage routes in the Holy Land. After their pilgrimage to Jerusa- lem and its holy places, the pilgrims would gather in large parties and travel to Jericho and the baptismal site on the Jordan. Due to the dangers of travel at the time, the Templars built forts along the way, the most important of which is in modern-day Ma'ale Edomim. The Crusader fort, Red Cistern [cisterna Rubea] (also known as Qal‘at Yahmur) is located near the khan in which pilgrims stayed overnight, which has been identified as the “Good Samaritan Inn”

36 Suleiman A. Mourad, “Jesus According to Ibn ‘Asakir”in ed. James E. Lindsay, Ibn ‘Asakir and Early Islamic History (Princeton, 2001), pp. 24-25. 37 Daniella Talmon-Heller, Society and Religion in Syria from the Reign of Nur al-Din to the Mamluk Occupation (1154-1260), Ph.D. Diss. (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1999), p. 10. 38 D. Pringle, “Templar Castles on the Road to the Jordan” in (ed.) Malcolm Barber, The Military Orders, vol. 1 (Hampshire, 1994), pp. 148-166; see also M. Har El, “The Route of Salt, Sugar and Balsam Caravans in the Judean Desert,” Geo Journal 2/6 (1976), pp. 549-556 and idem, Journeys and Campaigns in Ancient Times, Jerusalem 1982 (Hebrew), M. Benveniste, Cit- ies and Sites in Ertz Israel in the Crusaders Period (Jerusalem, 1984), pp. 217-218 (Hebrew). 39 Pringle, Templar Castels, p. 148.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_32_Taragan 630 06-26-2007, 18:41 H. TARAGAN 631

mentioned by the Dominican friar Burchard of Mt. Zion in 1283.40 It is not known when the fort was constructed, but it was already mentioned by the German monk Theoderich in 1172.41 It may have fallen into Muslim hands af- ter the Horns of Îa††in battle, but information on this point is vague, and the Ayyubids may have found it already deserted.42 The pilgrimage from Jerusalem to Jericho in the Crusader period was a part of the Christian concept of “sacred geography”, and its patterns had been formed in the early Christian era, long before the rise of Islam.43 In addition to sites related to Christian saints, in the 12th and 13th centuries ele- ments of the biblical past were also added, revitalized in the eyes of the pil- grims to become the spiritual present – as they experienced it. In line with the concept of sacred geography, pilgrims followed a specific sequence of holy places, essentially based on following the footsteps of Christ, among them the road from Jerusalem to Jericho and the River Jordan. The epiphany of Christ was celebrated on the 6th January, and began with a gathering at Jericho, and from it a pilgrimage to Gilgal on the Jordan, stopping along the way at an orchard called “The Garden of Abraham”, from where date palm fronds were taken in preparation for baptism.44 Baptism in the River Jordan was the high- light of the pilgrimage. Ricoldus de Monte Crucis, a Dominican friar who vis- ited the Holy Land in winter 1288/9 witnessed 10,000 Christians that were baptizing with him in the Jordan River in the Epiphany day.45 Thus, the Judean Desert – like much of the Holy Land – became a part of the Christian sacred geography, which was also reflected in the itineraries and maps of the Chris- tian pilgrims who came to the Holy Land during the Crusader period.

40 M. Ehrlich, Unpublished M.A.thesis. Eretz Israel at the end of the Crusades Period ac- cording to the Description of Burchard of Mount Zion (Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, 1993), p. 105. Burchard calls the fortress by its name “castrum Adommim” indicating how it is danger- ous to walk there. This might be the answer to Ehrlich wondering why Burchard of Mount Zion did not walk through Maqam al-Nabi Musa and did not even mention it. See, note 118, p. 121. See also, A. Grabois, “Christian Pilgrims in the Thirteenth Century and the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem: Burchard of Mount Sion” in B.Z. Kedar, H.E. Mayer, R.C. Smail, Outremer (Jerusa- lem, 1982), pp. 285-296. 41 Theoderich Guide to the Holy Land,tr. into the English by Aubrey Stewart (2nd ed.) (Lon- don, 1986), (1st published in London, 1897, PPTS, 5), p. 45. 42 D. Pringle, “Templar Castels on the Road to the Jordan” in ed. Malcolm Barber, The Mili- tary Orders, Vol. 1 (Hampshire, 1994), p. 154-155 (148-166). 43 Catherine Delano–Smith and Alessandro Scafi, “Sacred Geography”, in Sacred Places on Maps, A Cartographic Exhibition from the Collections of Pannonhalma (Hungary) and Schot- tenstift (Vienna) (Pannonhalma, 2005), pp. 121-140. Joshua Prawer, The Crusaders A Colonial Society (Jerusalem, 1975), pp. 220-227 (Hebrew). See also, A. Grabois, “From ‘Holy Geogra- phy' to ‘Palestinography': Changes in the Descriptions of Thirteenth Centry Pilgrims” Cathedra 31 (1984), pp. 43-66 (Hebrew). 44 Aryeh Grabois, “Attachment and Alienation of the Pilgrims to the Holy Land during the Period of the Crusades” Cathedra 41 (1986), pp. 38-45 (Hebrew). 45 Yvonne Friedman, “A Pilgrim between Personal Piety and Christian communitas” in B.Z. Kedar, The Crusaders in Their Kingdom 1099-1291 (Jerusalem, 1987), pp. 254-266 (He- brew), esp. p. 256.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_32_Taragan 631 06-26-2007, 18:41 632 MAQAM AL-NABI MUSA IN THE EARLY MAMLUK PERIOD

By erecting Maqam al-Nabi Musa, Baybars ‘re-conquered' the territory from Jerusalem to Jericho from the Christians, thus ‘converting' it to Islam and replacing it by a new Islamic map of holy places. Finally, it is interesting to note Mujir al-Din's (d.1521) assumption that Baybars, upon his arrival met by 300 Byzantine monks, and killed them be- cause he was concerned, “fearing for Jerusalem from the latent enemies”: In the year six hundred and sixty seven, he performed the to the Holy House of God [Mecca] and visited holy al-Madina. In the year six hundred and sixty eight he came to Jerusalem and built [ammara] the maqam of sayyiduna Musa al- kalim [to whom God spoke] peace upon him, as we already related [above] when we told his story. He went to visit it, passing on his way through Dayr al-Siq, which is [located] about half a barid [barid here means measure of distance] away from Jerusalem and which belongs to the Christians. He found around the monas- tery cabins of the monks, well built and inhabited, and a hospitable reception was held for him [there]. He thought they were too many, and was told that there was a group of monks in those cabins, about three hundred of them, so he ordered the destruction of the cabins, fearing for Jerusalem from the latent enemies.46 Thus, Mujir al-Din's reference documented the determined decision of Baybars to ‘clean' the Christians (Byzantine as well as Latins) presence in this area.

In conclusion, the inscription, the spolia and Baybars' informed, conscious use of historicism in Palestine-based architecture, all convey his self-presenta- tion as a devout Muslim, as well as defender and exalter of Islam and as a warrior in the Jihad against the infidel Crusaders, who ‘relabeled' what was once viewed as ‘Palestinography' (Christian or Jewish) landscape into an ‘Islamography' one. In the following centuries the building was expanded. After Baybars had established the shrine (maqam) it was enlarged to provide facilities for pil- grims. A large hall was added to the burial chamber, supported by piers form- ing domed units or square bays (Fig. 9). Ibn Shaddad (d. 1285, 15 years after Baybars), notes that Baybars had built a tomb () and a mosque (masjid). ‘masjid' can be interpreted here as a term of reference for the mihrab in the burial tomb. All around the courtyard were added -like rooms with crossed vaults open to the courtyard (Fig. 10), in a style typical to the Mamluk period (see also Sayyidna ‘Ali in Arsuf).47 I cannot say for certain whether the court- yard was built after Baybars's death, still in the early Mamluk period, or whether it was added together with the minaret in 1480, as mentioned by Mujir

46 Mujir al-Din al-Hanbali, Al-'Uns al-Jalil bi-Ta'rikh al-Quds wa’l-Halil, (Bagdad, 1995), p. 87. 47 H. Taragan, “The Tomb of Sayyidna ‘Ali in ArÒuf: The Story of a Holy Place”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 14 (2004), pp. 83-102.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_32_Taragan 632 06-26-2007, 18:41 H. TARAGAN 633

al-Din.48 However, the old entrance gate to the courtyard is still in situ and in- cludes a relieving arch, a bracket and a stone plaque, all of which are also characteristic of the Mamluk style in the Holy Land (Fig. 11). The plaque bears the marks of an inscription that was either erased or eroded with time. Following the expansion, the place became a site of pilgrimage for the gather- ing and celebrating of the mawsim.49 Later still, in the Ottoman period (16th– 19th centuries), a balcony and many flat-domed rooms were added over the Mamluk arcades. A similar Ottoman flat-domed style also appears in Sayyidna ‘Ali. At the beginning of the 20th century Maqam al-Nabi Musa became one of the first real expressions of national solidarity of the Palestinian collective. However, these celebrations ceased after establishment of the state of Israel in 1948. In the Oslo talks (1992), Israel effectively recognized Palestinian “religious sovereignty” over the site, and agreed to allow continuous Pales- tinian access to it. Since then, the site has been remained deserted, and is currently inhabited only by the guard, Ahmed, and a group of local Palestin- ians, whom I thank for their warm welcome and hospitality.

48 Mujir al-Din al-Hanbali, Al-'Uns al-Jalil, pp. 101-102. As for other medieval Islamic sources relating to the subject, see: S. Tamari, Maqam Nabi Musa, ibid. 49 Amnon Cohen, “Al-Nabi Musa”, eds. D. Wassertein and A. Ayalon, Mamluk and Ottoman Studies in Honour of Michael Winter (London, 2006), pp. 34-44. See also, T. Canaan, Moham- medan Saints and Sanctuaries in Palestine (Jerusalem, 1927), pp. 193-214. J. Drory, “Le-Korot Hagigot Nabi Musa” in Sal‘it (A/5, 1972), pp. 203-208 (Hebrew), and Andrew Petersen “The Archeology of Muslim Pilgrimage and Shrines in Palestine” in (ed.) Timothy Insoll, Case Studies in Archaeology and World Religion (Oxford, 1999), pp. 116-127.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_32_Taragan 633 06-26-2007, 18:41 634 MAQAM AL-NABI MUSA IN THE EARLY MAMLUK PERIOD

Fig. 1. Maqam Nabi Musa- A general view.

Fig. 2. Maqam Nabi Musa- The ground plane (after S. Tamari, Revue des études islamiques VLIX,1981).

06-8819_Aram 18-19_32_Taragan 634 06-26-2007, 18:42 H. TARAGAN 635

Fig. 3. Maqam Nabi Musa – The entrance to the shrine.

Fig. 4. Maqam Nabi Musa- The entrance to the shrine. Marble columns with Corinthian capitals.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_32_Taragan 635 06-26-2007, 18:42 636 MAQAM AL-NABI MUSA IN THE EARLY MAMLUK PERIOD

Fig. 5. Maqam Nabi Musa- Interior with the tomb and two sqinches.

Fig. 6. Maqam Nabi Musa- The mihrab flanked by columns, Corinthian capitals and friezes.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_32_Taragan 636 06-26-2007, 18:42 H. TARAGAN 637

Fig. 7. Maqam Nabi Musa- A floral frieze.

Fig. 8. Floral friezes from Latrun (Le Toron des Chevaliers), display at the Istanbul Archeology Museum. ( After H. Buschhausen).

06-8819_Aram 18-19_32_Taragan 637 06-26-2007, 18:42 638 MAQAM AL-NABI MUSA IN THE EARLY MAMLUK PERIOD

Fig. 9. Maqam Nabi Musa- Domed bays supported by piers in the large hall leading to the burial chamber.

Fig. 10. Maqam Nabi Musa- Ivan-like rooms with crossed vaults open to the courtyard.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_32_Taragan 638 06-26-2007, 18:42 H. TARAGAN 639

Fig. 11. Maqam Nabi Musa-The presumed Mamluk entrance gate to the courtyard: a relieving arch, a bracket and a plaque.

06-8819_Aram 18-19_32_Taragan 639 06-26-2007, 18:42

Top View