Restorations of Jerusalem and the Dome of the Rock and Their Political Significance,

1537-1928
Author(s): Beatrice St. Laurent and András Riedlmayer
Source: Muqarnas, Vol. 10, Essays in Honor of Oleg Grabar (1993), pp. 76-84
Published by: Brill
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1523174
Accessed: 06-08-2016 18:29 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1523174?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Muqarnas

This content downloaded from 207.206.234.4 on Sat, 06 Aug 2016 18:29:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BEATRICE ST. LAURENT and ANDRAS RIEDLMAYER

RESTORATIONS OFJERUSALEM AND THE DOME OF THE

ROCK AND THEIR POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE, 1537-1928

The seventeenth-century traveler Evliya (elebi describes primacy within Jerusalem itself. Three of these restora-
the Ottoman takeover of the city of Jerusalem by Sultan tions - one from the early eighteenth century, one from
Selim I in the following passage: "When Jerusalem was in the end of the nineteenth, and one from the beginning
the possession of the Circassian Mamlukes all the Culema of the Mandate period - will be used to demonstrate
and pious men went out to meet Selim Shah in 922 this point.
[1516]. They handed him the keys to the Mosque al-Aqsa The earlier phases of the Dome of the Rock's history
and the Dome of the Rock of Allah. Selim prostrated have been extensively studied and published by a num-
himself and exclaimed: 'Thanks be to Allah! I am now ber of scholars - among them K. A. C. Creswell, Max
the possessor of the first qiblah.' "' van Berchem, and Oleg Grabar2 - who deal with indi-
Selim's claim that he possessed the "first qiblah" signals vidual monuments and their meaning. Myriam Rosen-
that he was mindful of Jerusalem's significance, of its Ayalon and Michael Burgoyne have dealt with the signif-
place in early Islam, and of the importance of its legacy icance of the Haram's plan and early decoration and
to Ottoman claims of hegemony over the Holy Land and carry the architectural history ofJerusalem forward into
the Hijaz. Like the Abbasid, Fatimid, Ayyubid, and Mam- the Mamluk period," and Priscilla Soucek and Nasser
luk rulers before him, Selim embellished the city in small Rabbat have discussed the pre-Islamic significance of,
ways by restoring and adding to its edifices. His son and and references to, the site.4
successor Sultan Siileyman Kanuni, however, renovated The Dome of the Rock competes with another domed
the Holy City on a much grander scale. Sfileyman sym- building which covers a rock, the fourth-century Church
bolically appropriated Jerusalem by redecorating its of the Holy Sepulchre or the Church of the Resurrection
most famous Islamic shrines in the Ottoman manner (Kanisat al-Qiyama), located just outside the Haram
and enclosing it within massive rebuilt city walls. These enclosure (fig. 1). The domed anastasis covered the aed-
renovations are the best known - and, according to icule of the tomb of Christ, and the rock of Calvary was
some, the only - Ottoman contributions to the built contained in a porticoed courtyard. For this building the
form of the third of Islam's sacred cities. The latter view Haram site was rejected by the Christian community in
reflects a line of historiography that presents the last favor of a site outside the enclosure, and the site of Solo-
three centuries of Islamic rule in Jerusalem as an unbro- mon's temple on the Haram was desecrated and left
ken slide into neglect and decline until the benign inter- abandoned until the first Islamic constructions on it in
vention of the Europeans in the nineteenth century. the seventh century.5 A major difference between the
The aim of this paper is to put forward an alternative two buildings is that the dome that covers the Dome of
to that view, and to show that the Ottomans were in fact the Rock is closed; that of the Holy Sepulchre was left
active keepers ofJerusalem and its monuments through- open to the sky at the top until the nineteenth century.
out the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and that In 1009 the Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim destroyed the Holy
later Ottoman restorations of the Dome of the Rock, the Sepulchre and its contents in retaliation for Byzantine
Haram al-Sharif, and the city of Jerusalem should be attacks from the north. Though he later granted permis-
seen as part of a continuum that began with Ottoman sion for its rebuilding, construction did not begin until
claims over the territory of early Islam. Two major rea- 1046, under the reign of his successor and twenty years
sons emerge for these restorations. First, they were initi- after the restoration of the Dome of the Rock.
ated as part of a larger program by the Ottoman govern- Grabar writes that the Dome of the Rock has "a specific
ment to assert or reassert central administrative control Muslim meaning (the Ascension of the Prophet), an old
over the region. Second, they resulted from competition and particularly Jerusalemite association with the Resur-
with other religious groups and foreign powers to gain rection, theJudgment, and the end of time; and an intim-

This content downloaded from 207.206.234.4 on Sat, 06 Aug 2016 18:29:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 RESTORATIONS OFJERUSALEM AND THE DOME OF THE ROCK 77

Fig. 1. "View ofJerusalem from the Mount of Olives." From Luigi Mayer, Views in Palestine (London, 1804).

ate relationship to the monotheistic prophetic succession exterior of the Dome of the Rock and on other monu-
as seen through the Muslim faith - these three themes ments in the holy cities of Mecca and Medina were a
combined to create around the Dome of the Rock, on the stamp of Ottoman identity at a time when the Sunni
platform of the Haram, that extraordinary MamlukJeru- Ottomans sought to establish hegemony over their het-
salem which Suileyman the Magnificent, the new Solo- erodox Safavid neighbors.9 The Ottomans granted per-
mon, enclosed in a stunningly powerful curtain wall."' mission for the Christian restoration of the Holy
According to Evliya's account, when Selim entered the Sepulchre in 1555, shortly after S-ileyman established
city, he "passed the documents of Umar, which were in relations with Francis I, the French king.'o
the possession of the Greek and Frankish monks, over Evliya mentions no major restoration program during
his face and eyes and gave them the Royal Writ (haltt-i the seventeenth century, though he does say that Ahmed I
Serif) confirming to the monks the contents of the docu- "had a richly gilt canopy made, the cover of which was a
ments, to wit, that they were exempted from paying taxes curtain studded with gold and jewels. The corners were
and that the Anastasis was their praying place as hereto- fastened with silken cords, thus covering the Holy Rock.""
fore."7 Selim saw his role as continuing that of earlier For the eighteenth century, we know of at least four pe-
Islamic rulers of the city by maintaining the policies es- riods of restoration for the Dome of the Rock and the
tablished by CUmar, the first Umayyad caliph. Aqsa Mosque.'" The first, ordered by Ahmed III (1703-
Between 1537 and 1541 Sultan Sfileyman had the walls 30), was between 1720-21; it is documented in a register
of the city completely rebuilt (fig. 2). For the Dome of now in the Prime Ministry Archives in Istanbul.'3 This reg-
the Rock, between 1545 and 1566 he had the mosaics on ister (defter) includes orders, accounts, and inventories
the drum of the dome replaced with glazed tiles and lat- dated between 1133 and 1148 (1720-1736). It shows that
er extended this decoration to the lower walls of the most of the materials for the project were procured from
octagon and installed stained-glass windows.8 GUilru different parts of Anatolia and the Black Sea region and
Necipoglu has suggested that the skin of tiles on the shipped from either Istanbul or Izmir toJaffa for transfer

This content downloaded from 207.206.234.4 on Sat, 06 Aug 2016 18:29:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
78 BEATRICE ST. LAURENT AND ANDRAS RIEDLMAYER

P.;

? , .+. ,, .. ....-" i
.........i
W
----
-i-,
------
. .
- ---
. ...rict + ?

:~ .:~sr ,.LC'L .... ?'.: ?...: ' .".:." ...

.... , -M+ .. .+!..
N.. .. ... .. ....
M 77 W. ... . .. _ :

A. ...... .I. F
............. "R V?~?'~

.,.. iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM:: iiiii:7?1%Nnr:NN ..4. N ?,li~~FYB C~ I~n~ C~IC~

...".,?+. . .... ....

"
X-4-l rCD

............::..
.. i.
Sk 'M-s?
?L ?- M

'. .....
..
... .......

..:.:.:..i
..

-:4i
~ - - u LS 5L -~-- I a lrr-rS 1~-~- ."-

..
.

. ... ....

... .... . 0

N N.
.. .. ... ....... ..... .. xg .. ..... . ...
.
. ...
..
...
...
.... .
?r
..... ...
?
.. ... . .. .. .. ... . . ... .... .... . .

Fig. 2.Jerusalem. View of the Haram al-Sharif and the old city in the late 16th century. From Bernardino Amico, Trattato dellepiantee imagini dei
sacri edifici di Terra Sante disegnate in Gerusalemme (Rome, 1609), p. 18. (Photo: courtesy Houghton Library, Harvard University)

overland by oxcart (kanli) to Jerusalem. Since no the foremen and skilled laborers sent from Istanbul and
wheeled vehicles were to be found in the province, parts the cost of transport wagons constituted nearly a third of
had to be prefabricated, shipped from Istanbul, and the whole project's cost.
assembled on site. Fifty pairs of oxcart wheels, 120 The list of materials purchased for the project
wooden axles, and various other parts were requisitioned includes numerous pigments and clay body ingredients,
for the project from the Istanbul arsenal at Tophane. items that are normally used in painting and in the pro-
First, Osman Efendi, the former provincial treasurer duction of tiles. The fact that these raw materials were
(defterdar) of Damascus and later Mustafa Efendi, former shipped to the site indicates that the tiles for the restora-
first deputy imperial treasurer (?ikk-i evvel defterdari) was tion were produced somewhere in Jerusalem, though no
put in charge of the project, with the title of superin- tilemakers appear on the lists of craftsmen. Boxes of
tendent of construction (bina emini). The high status of newly made tiles are listed in an inventory of leftover ma-
the positions they had previously held indicates the terial dated 1734, suggesting that at least some tiles were
importance given to the Jerusalem project.'4 Local work- replaced in the restoration.
ers were hired to do the work, which began on 28 May Lumber ordered for the project - oak (mewe), pine
1721 and lasted until 3 February 1722, a total of 252 days. (Cam) and linden (ihlamur) - in various sizes was prob-
Two-thirds of the entire cost of the project came from ably used to construct scaffolding and to replace beams
the revenues of the tax farms ofJaffa and Tripoli. Pay for in the outer ambulatory. A large amount of lead was also

This content downloaded from 207.206.234.4 on Sat, 06 Aug 2016 18:29:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 RESTORATIONS OFJERUSALEM AND THE DOME OF THE ROCK 79

purchased for use in repairing the exterior of the dome.

:..r :.:f."i:
(ll: C: D...A t
European ("Frankish") marbles appear on the list in suf- K. .

ficient quantity (23.73m2) to suggest the repair of

dadoes, either inside or outside. I.. %,.i
The stained-glass windows in the drum of the dome
X-??. . , ,
were all replaced. Plain and colored glass is listed accord-
ing to the number of panels needed for each window.
Two kinds of window are specified: twelve ordinary win-
dows using little glass, and fancier windows for the qibla :b~'e* Y", I
wall using a large number of small pieces of the "Per-
sian" type, with more color. One of the supplies listed for xl,

window replacement is brass wire, rather surprising in

that traditional Ottoman stained-glass windows em- Wit:
ployed only a plaster armature. The reference to lead Cli' .::l."": ?;:ii . " ..: -.,,.
and brass suggests that at the beginning of the eigh-
teenth century the Ottomans introduced European ??M.
.::
. :A?i.
. .. . . ....

techniques of glass production for the replacement of ? ..,i:::: ,, :% : i.ii:. .:.I.I

:X?

the building's windows. The document is also the first re-

cord of any changes in the windows first placed there by --u 4,ii: .-Mr

Siileyman in the sixteenth century.

U: b'8i ::. N ?:
5?i

N: 3
Repairs and embellishments were also ordered for :7.1tL f 'il'lx
MAlI~ ~ ? t~-~~' ff
nearly a dozen other shrines and mosques in and around
Jerusalem. Among these was the tomb of the Prophet
David on Mount Zion, a site also venerated by Jews and
Christians, which had been taken over from the Francis-
can friars and rebuilt as a Muslim shrine in Sultan Sfiley-
man's time. Another dome that was refurbished was that

of the Mosque of the Ascension (al-Mascad) on the

Mount of Olives, built on the foundations of a Crusader
chapel, which marks the traditional site of the ascent of
Fig. 3. Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Interior of the r6tunda. Draw-
Jesus into heaven. This shows that maintenance was also ing by Elzear Horn, from his Ichnographiae Monumentorum Terrae
extended to sacred sites of Judaic and Christian origin, Sanctae, 1724-1744 (Jerusalem, 1962).
providing they could be fitted into the framework of
Islamic belief'5 The possible answers are several. First, the restoration
The document provides a view into the nature of eigh- coincides with a general tightening of central-govern-
teenth-century restoration techniques and their cost. Eu- ment authority over the province of Damascus."7 It was
ropean methods and materials are combined with tradi- also a time of increasing contacts with Europe; several
tional Ottoman ones in the Haram project. The scale official Ottoman embassies had sent back reports to
and expense of the project indicate the importance of Istanbul concerning artistic tastes and techniques. Al-
the Haram and of Jerusalem to the Ottoman govern- though the European methods and materials in the
ment. The restoration was a major organizational feat, Haram restoration were introduced too soon to be attri-
with important administrators put in charge of the pro- buted to the reports and picture books brought back by
ject, and special craftsmen and materials sent from the the Turkish ambassador from his visit to the French
capital and abroad to work on it. If one compares the court, they certainly suggest that a climate of receptive-
cost of this project to that of rebuilding the essential ness to new ideas and methods was already present.
frontier fortresses at Niq and Vidin in the Balkans, it is Major restoration projects were also underway in the
clear that the Jerusalem project was considered as impor- capital: the sources mention that Hagia Sophia and a
tant as the security of the empire's borders.'6 large number of other major monuments were restored
The question arises, then, why the government under- at that time.'8
took such a grand project just at this particular moment. The restoration also coincides with requests by the Eu-

This content downloaded from 207.206.234.4 on Sat, 06 Aug 2016 18:29:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
80 BEATRICE ST. IAURENT AND ANDRAS RIEDILMAYER

1 71

Mr..

Fig. 5. Dome of the Rock. From the northwest corner. Photograph by

..~.. ? _\,~-- .... :. J. McDonald from Ordnance Survey ofJerusalem (London, 1865). (Pho-
to: Fine Arts Library, Harvard University)

Restoration projects continued through the reigns of

succeeding Ottoman sultans.23 In 1817, Sultan Mah-
mud II restored the marble of the exterior of the Dome

of the Rock and constructed a portico over the south

qibla entrance. This repair came not long after the Rus-
li AMEN"
sians constructed a new closed dome for the Church of

the Holy Sepulchre.4 In 1853, Sultan Abdilmecid began

Fig. 4. Dome of the Rock. From the north. Drawing by Elzear Horn,
a major restoration project at the Dome of the Rock,
from his Ichnographiae Monumentorum Terrae Sanctae, 1724-1744
(Jerusalem, 1962). completed by Abdfilaziz in 1874-75 (figs. 4-6). It

ropean powers for control over the Christian monuments

in the city.'9 The historian Ragid in his account of the
events for the year 1131 (1718) mentions the struggle be-
tween the French, the Austrians, and the Russians to con-
trol any repairs made to the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre (fig. 3), which he, as well as many before him,
refers to as the "dungheap" (qumama)." ?After having
made vague promises to the Austrians in the Treaty of
Passarowitz, the Ottomans cleverly forestalled both the
Hapsburgs and the Russians by quickly granting permis-
sion to the French, who were their allies, though this per-
mission was limited to repairs to the existing structure as
stipulated in the Covenant of CUmar and the sharica. Per-
mission was denied for a French proposal to build a new
closed dome in the Baroque manner for the Holy
Sepulchre.' It was around the same time that the interior Fig. 6. Dome of the Rock. Exterior of west and southwest facades
tiles made by the potters of Kfitahya for the Armenian ca- under restoration between 1873 and 1875. (Photo: Collection of the
thedral of St. James in Jerusalem were installed.22 Palestine Exploration Fund, London)

This content downloaded from 207.206.234.4 on Sat, 06 Aug 2016 18:29:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 RESTORATIONS OF JERUSALEM AND THE DOME OF THE ROCK 81

Fig. 7. Ottoman school that became the Museum of Antiquities in 1901. Photographer unknown. From the journal Servet-ifunun

included stripping the southwest and west sides of the another just to the north of Herod's Gate, effectively
Dome of the Rock's exterior and replacing the tiles.25 In linking the old and new city. In 1901, a new Museum of
1876 Abdfilhamid II began buying carpets for the Dome Antiquities opened in a room off the courtyard of the
of the Rock. Successive Hamidian projects included orna- former (fig. 7). Beginning in 1890, the project was
mentation of the arcades on the stairs of the Dome's planned by three people - Ismail Bey, the Director of
slightly elevated platform and of the facade of the Aqsa Public Instruction in Jerusalem, and FrederickJ. Bliss, a
Mosque. Palestinian Exploration Fund archaeologist and son of
These restorations all occurred as part of the Ottoman the founder of the American University of Beirut, in con-
government's centralization of military and administra- sultation with Osman Hamdi Bey, director of the Istan-
tive control over the provinces of the empire during the bul Museum of Antiquities. The Jerusalem Museum was
Tanzimat and the reign of Abdfilhamid II. The govern- later moved to the Tower of David under the British in

ment tried to reassert its authority in the provinces 1920, and to a new building nearby, the Rockefeller
through institutional modernization, Ottomanization, Museum.28
and Islamization. The imposition of new institutions vis- The number of new foreign residents in the empire
ibly altered the character ofJerusalem during this period encouraged foreign rulers to visit, which in turn gener-
and the politically motivated restorations of the Haram ated improvements. The new German settlements in
al-Sharif monuments, like the Hijaz railroad project, can Haifa,Jaffa, andJerusalem prompted the visit of the Ger-
be seen as concrete expressions of Abdfilhamid's policy man Kaiser to the region in 1898. Roads were repaired to
of Islamization. Increased tourist and pilgrim access to facilitate his journey. In Jerusalem, a new road was built
the holy sites of Jerusalem and its environs also along the old walls of the city from the Jaffa Gate to Mt.
prompted a renewed focus on the early Islamic monu- Zion, which allowed him to visit the German colony
ments of the city.26 along the way. Jaffa Street was repaired and street lamps
Under Abdiilhamid, Jerusalem's port at Jaffa grew to added along it and other streets on the path he was to
accommodate a flood of tourists to the Holy Land and take to visit Christian sites in the area north of the old
included a new customs house and the Jaffa-Jerusalem city, clearly visible on a map modified by Konrad
rail line, opened in 1892.27 Among the institutions added Schick.29 To accommodate the Kaiser's desire to enter
to the city at this time were European-style new schools; the old city through the gate mounted on a horse -
one inside the walls of the old city by Herod's Gate and heretofore permissible only to a conqueror of the city -

This content downloaded from 207.206.234.4 on Sat, 06 Aug 2016 18:29:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 82 BEATRICE ST. LAURENT AND ANDRAS RIEDI.MAYER

more critically. Frederick J. Bliss's correspondence with

the Palestine Exploration Fund suggests that his rela-
C?,~~?rc ~~-r c ct ~fc?l 4QII tions with the Ottomans between 1890 and 1900 were
AIL 4.?
congenial," but his successor, the Irish archaeologist
R.A. Stewart Macalister, was not as conciliatory. He com-
VM-AL-?
plained that theJaffa Gate "has been utterly spoilt by the
erection above of an ultra-hideous clocktower, which in
itself is a perfect eyesore" (fig. 8)."' Concerning the
museum, he wrote, "You will remember that I have com-
plained before of the waste of time involved in the hand-
ing over of the antiquities to the ignorant effendis who
:? e4i '. Wr run this museum."32 There were management problems
with the museum, but similar problems had been dealt
with differently during Bliss's time. Macalister's tone was
peremptory, and he clearly felt that the British could do
Y.,~?., better.

As the British foothold in the region strengthened,

they became increasingly impatient with an Ottoman
officialdom they regarded as bungling and inferior. The
ultimate result was Allenby's entry into Jerusalem in
1917, not triumphantly on horseback through a breech
in the wall, as the German Kaiser had done, but on foot
through the Jaffa Gate itself. In the following year, in
conjunction with the Supreme Muslim Council ofJeru-
salem, the British embarked on a major restoration of
the Haram al-Sharif,33 which included the demolition of
the fountain and moving the clocktower, but, according
to the Palestine Annual, "so constant was the stream of
criticism directed against this excresence [the tower]
Fig. 8. Letter about the Ottoman clocktower from R. A. S. Macalister,
that the [Pro-Jerusalem] Society proceeded to its remov-
dated 10June 1908. Palestine Exploration Fund, London.
al. As however the inhabitants of Jerusalem were natu-
rally averse from the loss of their clock, the tower will be
a breach was made in the wall by theJaffa Gate, a remark- re-erected in a simple more suitable form in front of the
able concession by the Ottoman government. Post Office in Allenby Square."34 (Since the residents
Partly no doubt to compensate for this concession, were made so unhappy by its removal, one wonders who
Abdfilhamid later embellished the area of theJaffa Gate. besides the British were upset by its presence). The
In 1901, an Orientalizing fountain appeared just beside National Museum of Art, Archaeology, and Natural His-
the breach in the wall and, in 1907, a new large clock- tory was established in the old Ottoman barracks of the
tower appeared in a corner of the Jaffa Gate. The white Tower of David in the Citadel in the western part of the
stone of the tower, which contrasted sharply with the tra- old city; the objects in the old Government Museum
ditional goldenJerusalem stone, came from inside a cave were moved to the new museum.:3
important to the city's Jewish architectural tradition, The British architect C. R. Ashbee was put in charge of
demonstrating the continued conscious link of Jerusa- restoring the Dome of the Rock, the Aqsa Mosque, and
lem with that tradition by the Ottoman ruler. Clocktow- other sites on the Haram." Among his major undertak-
ers, which were also installed in Istanbul, Izmir, and ings was the restoration of the Dome's tiles. In 1918, Sir
other cities of the empire under Abdiilhamid, func- Ronald Storrs invited David Ohanessian, an Armenian
tioned as icons of municipal modernization. ceramist from Kiitahya, to come from Aleppo where he
As the European powers gained a stronger foothold in lived at the time."7 Ohanessian sent for help from others
Jerusalem and its environs, their officials began to view in the Kiitahya industry, who brought with them the ma-
the local population and the Ottoman bureaucracy terials and supplies, including clay, needed to produce

This content downloaded from 207.206.234.4 on Sat, 06 Aug 2016 18:29:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 RESTORATIONS OF JERUSALEM AND THE DOME OF THE ROCK 83

tiles. They made tiles for other buildings - including NOTES

the American Colony Hotel and St. Andrew's Scottish

Church - street signs, and decorative objects, but for 1. St. H. Stephan, "Evliya Tshelebi's Travels in Palestine, V,"
some unknown reason, none for the Dome of the Rock. Quarterly Statement of the Department ofAntiquities in Palestine 8, 3
The restoration project was completed in 1928; by (1938), p. 147.
2. K. A. C. Creswell, Early Muslim Architecture, rev. ed. (Oxford,
then it was under the supervision of the Supreme Mus-
1969), Max van Berchem, Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum,
lim Council, with the Turkish architect Kemalettin
2eme partie, Syrie du Sud:Jerusalem, 2 vols. (Cairo, 1927), and
directing the project from Istanbul. The lapse of time Marguerite van Berchem and Solange Ory, MuslimJerusalem in
suggests that it was necessary to raise funds as the work the Works of Max van Berchem (Geneva, 1982). Oleg Grabar,
went along or that the Council may not have approved "The Umayyad Dome of the Rock," Ars Orientalis 3 (1959):
33-62; idem, Formation of Islamic Art (New Haven, Conn.,
the British plans. Kemalettin appointed Rushdi Bey
1973), pp. 48-67, his entry "Kubbat as-Sakhra," in the Encyclo-
Ahmad to be the architect in charge.38 The Aqsa Mosque paedia of Islam, 2nd ed., vol. 5, and his other publications on
and the Dome of the Rock were structurally stabilized, the subject.
the mosaics and stained-glass windows restored. Other 3. Myriam Rosen-Ayalon, The Early Islamic Monuments of the Haram

buildings on the Haram were also stabilized. In 1926, in a al-Sharif Qedem: Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology,
Hebrew University (Jerusalem, 1989); Michael H. Burgoyne,
letter to the Supreme Muslim Council, Kemalettin MamlukJerusalem (London, 1986).
remarks that he is sending a tile specialist to Jerusalem to 4. Nasser Rabbat, "The Meaning of the Umayyad Dome of the
propose restoration plans for the tiles,39 suggesting that Rock," Muqarnas 6 (1989): 12-21. For Solomonic associations
he did not approve of the Amenian tilemakers' work. of the Dome of the Rock, see also Priscilla Soucek, "The Tem-
ple of Solomon in Islamic Legend and Art," J. Gutmann, ed.,
The tiles, however, were not restored; an earthquake in
The Temple of Solomon (Missoula, Mont., 1976), pp. 73-123.
1927 that affected many sites in Jerusalem drained off 5. Robert Osterhout, "Rebuilding the Temple: Constantine
the funds allotted to the project.40 Monomachus and the Holy Sepulchre," Journal of the Society of
The major restoration periods discussed here - one Architectural Historians 48 (1989): 66-78, provides a succinct
from the reign of Ahmed III, one under Abdfilhamid II, history of the church and provides relevant bibliography. See
also FE E. Peters, Jerusalem (Princeton, 1985).
and the last under the British Mandate and the Supreme
6. Oleg Grabar, "The Meaning of the Dome of the Rock," in
Muslim Council - demonstrate that restorations of the
Derek Hopwood, ed., Studies in Arab History (London, 1990),
early Islamic monuments in Jerusalem were in part the p. 152. A version of this article also appears in Marilyn Chiat
result of competition with other religious groups and and Katherine Reyerson, eds., The Medieval Mediterranean:
Cross-Cultural Contacts (St. Cloud, Minn., 1989), pp.1-10. This
foreign powers for primacy in the city. They were also
publication also summarizes nicely most of the early bibliog-
part of a larger program by the Ottomans to control the raphy on the topic.
region. From the time of Siileyman through the reign of 7. Stephen, "Evliya Tshelebi's Travels in Palestine, V," p. 147.
Abdfilhamid II, the restorations coincided with the 8. This restoration has been evaluated by Michael Meinecke,
granting of concessions to foreign rulers and religious "Die Erneuerung von al-Quds/Jerusalem durch den osma-
nensultan Suilaiman Qanuni," Studies in the History and Archae-
groups both abroad and in Jerusalem. Finally the embel-
ology ofPalestine, Proceedings of the First International Sympo-
lishment and repair of the Dome of the Rock, the sium on Palestine Antiquities, ed. Shawqi Shacath, vol. 3
Haram, and other places in the city usuallyjust preceded (Aleppo, 1988), pp.257-83, 338-60, documents Siileyman's
or immediately followed a restoration of the Church of program for the city. See also Alistair Duncan, The Noble Sanctu-
ary: Portrait of a Holy Place in Arab Jerusalem (London, 1972),
the Holy Sepulchre.
pp.64-67. For a partial list of the Ottoman monuments of
These projects of the eighteenth, nineteenth, and Jerusalem, see Michael H. Burgoyne, The Architecture of Islamic
early twentieth century, sponsored by the Ottomans, the Jerusalem (Jerusalem, 1976). The as yet unpublished research
British, and the Supreme Muslim Council, are part of on the Ottoman tiles of the Dome of the Rock byJulian Raby
the continuum of repair and reconstruction of the and John Carswell will also surely shed light on that topic.
9. Giilru Necipoglu, "From International Timurid to Ottoman:
Umayyad monuments in the Haram al-Sharif that had
A Change of Taste in Sixteenth-Century Ceramic Tiles,"
begun not long after the buildings' construction. Muqarnas 7 (1990): 154; see also idem, "The Siileymaniye
Complex in Istanbul: An Interpretation," Muqarnas 3 (1985):
92-117.
Wellesley College
Wellesley, Massachusetts 10. See George Jeffery, A BriefDescription of the Holy Sepulchre, Jeru-
salem, and Other Christian Churches in the Holy City (Cambridge,
Eng., 1919), p.34.
Harvard University 11. Stephan, trans., "Evliya Tshelebi's Travels in Palestine, VI,"
Cambridge, Massachusetts pp.92-93.

This content downloaded from 207.206.234.4 on Sat, 06 Aug 2016 18:29:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
84 BEATRICE ST. LAURENT AND ANDRAS RIEDLMAYER

12. Archival sources point to restorations in 1720-21, 1742, 24. See Robert Willis, The Architectural History of the Church of the Ho-
1753-54 and 1780. Oktay Aslanapa notes only the last of these, ly Sepulchre atJerusalem (London, 1849), pp. 154-57.
but gives a fuller list of the nineteenth-century repairs in his 25. For tile production for this and subsequent tile restorations,
"Kubbet el-Sahra'da Osmanli devri tamirleri," in Nurhan Ata- see Filiz Yeniqehirlioglu, "Tile Samples from the Dome of the
soy, ed., Sanat tarihinde Dogudan Batfya: Unsal Yiicel Anzszna Sem- Rock and Their Twentieth-Century Reproductions," in Seventh
pozyum bildileri (Istanbul, 1989), pp. 15-18. International Congress of Turkish Art, ed. Tadeusz Majda (War-
13. Nejat G6yinc summarizes the contents of this document in saw, 1991), pp. 267-80; Charles de Vogii, Le Temple deJ&rusalem
"The Procurement of Labor and Materials in the Ottoman (Paris, 1865); Charles W. Wilson, Ordinance Survey ofJerusalem
Empire (16th and 17th Centuries)," in Jean-Louis Bacque- (London, 1865); and Charles Clermont-Ganneau, Archaeologi-
Grammont and Paul Dumont, eds., Economie et sociitis dans cal Researches in Palestine during the Years 1873-1874, trans.
I'Empire ottoman (Paris, 1983), pp. 327-33. The document is in Aubrey Stewart (London, 1899), 1: 179-227, discuss the condi-
the Turkish Prime Ministry Archives (Maliyeden Mildevver tion of the monument prior to and during this restoration.
Defterler, no. 7829). We are preparing an analysis and trans- 26. For renovations under Abdfilhamid II, see Conrad Schick, Beit
lation of this document for publication. al-Makdas oder der alte Tempelplatz zu Jerusalem: wie er jetzt ist
14. Rapid Mehmed Efendi, Tarih-i Rafid, 5 vols. (Istanbul, 1865), 5: (Jerusalem, 1887), and his Die Stiftshiitte, der Tempel in Jerusalem
130-31. unter der Tempelplatz derJetztzeit (Berlin, 1896). See also Charles
15. The Holy Sepulchre, of course, failed this test, since both the Warren and C. R. Conder, The Survey of Western Palestine:Jerusa-
Qur'an and hadith vehemently deny the death and resurrec- lem (London, 1884).
tion of Jesus. Amnon Cohen, "The Expulsion of the Francis- 27. The papers of Konrad Schick, German architect and resident
cans from Mount Zion: Old Documents and New Interpreta- of Jerusalem during the period, document this period; they
tions," Turcica 18 (1986): 147-57; Josef Matuz, "Die Lateiner are in the archives of the Palestine Exploration Fund in Lon-
Palistinas im Spiegel osmanischer Urkunden aus dem 16.Jahr- don. See also "Letters from Herr Baurath C. Schick," letter
hundert," Materialia Turcica 9 (1983-84): 22-31. dated October 1892, Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly State-
16. Tarih-i Rafid, 5: 136-39. ment, 1893, pp.20-23.
17. Ibid., p.122-23, notes that the military and fiscal administra- 28. For Bliss's role in the formation of this collection, see Palestine
tion of the province of Damascus was reorganized in 1721. For Exploration Fund: Bliss 93/131A, 132A; and ibid., 42-90/85A.
more on the history of this period, see Karl Barbir, Ottoman 29. The map was the original 1865 survey map of Jerusalem pre-
Rule in Damascus, 1708-1758 (Princeton, N.J., 1980). pared by the British team led by Wilson and modified by
18. Ibid., pp. 160-61; for the Hagia Sophia, see Semavi Eyice, Aya- Schick in his "Preparations Made by the Turkish Authorities
sofya, 3 vols. (Istanbul, 1984-86), 3:28. for the Visit of the German Emperor and Empress to the Holy
19. Ibid., 5:130-31. F.M. G&6ek, East Encounters West: France and the Land in the Autumn of 1898," in Palestine Exploration Fund
Ottoman Empire in the Eighteenth Century (New York, 1987). Quarterly Statement, 1899, p. 116. On the role of the German col-
20. A scatological pun on Kanisat al-Qiyama, the Arabic name of onies, see CAli Muhafazah, "al-MustaCmarat al-Almaniyah fi Fil-
the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, a pun that no Muslim writ- astin bayna Camayy 1868 m. wa 1918 m.," Studies on the History
er from the Middle Ages on has been able to resist (Peters, and Archaeology of Palestine, Proceedings of the First International
Jerusalem, p.600, n.9 and passim). There may also be a link Symposium on Palestine Antiquities, ed. Shawqi Shacath, vol. 1
with earlier Umayyad descriptions of the site of the Dome of (Aleppo, 1984), pp. 357-95.
the Rock. When CUmar entered the Haram, it was noted that 30. Bliss's correspondence is at the Palestine Exploration Fund
the rock had been heaped with dung by the Christians who (PEF) in London, PEF/Bliss, in 8 vols.
had desecrated the site because it was holy to the Jews (ibid., 31. For R. A. Stewart Macalister's comments on the clocktower, see
pp.186-89). Palestine Exploration Fund: MAC 250, letter dated 14July 1907.
21. Elzear Horn, Ichnographiae Monumentorum Terrae Sanctae, 1724- 32. PEF/MAC 295a, letter dated 1 January 1909.
1744, ed. E. Hoade and B. Bagatti Jerusalem, 1962), pp. 33. The Pro-Jerusalem Society published two volumes in conjunc-
62-64; for Muslim law on this topic, see Claude Cahen, s.v. tion with this restoration, Jerusalem 1918-20 (London, 1921),
"Dhimma" and G. Troupeau, s.v. "Kanisa," in El, 2nd ed., and Jerusalem 1920-22 (London, 1924).
2:228 and 4:546. 34. Palestine Annual, n.d., [ca. 1920], p.21.
22. As Carswell has documented in his study of the Kiitahya indus- 35. Barnabas Meistermann, Guide to the Holy Land (London, 1923),
try; see John Carswell, Kiitahya Tiles and Pottery from the Arme- p.294.
nian Cathedral of St. James, Jerusalem, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1972), 36. See Jerusalem, 1918-20 for further information.
1:12-13. 37. Ronald Storrs, Orientations (London, 1937), p. 367.
23. For the history of the period, see Moshe Maoz, Ottoman Reform 38. The best source for this restoration is Bayan al-Majlis al-SharCi
in Syria, 1840-1860 (Oxford, 1968); David Kushner, ed., Pales- al-Islami al-A'la bi Filastin Can Cimarat qubbat al-Masjid al-Aqsa
tine in the Late Ottoman Period: Political, Social and Economic wa-ma tamma min Cimarahfi al-amakin al-ukhra min al-Haram al-
Transformation (erusalem and Leeds, 1986); Haim Gerber, Sharif al-Qudsi wa al-barnamaj al-muqarrar li-itmam al-Cimarah
Ottoman Rule in Jerusalem 1890-1914 (Berlin, 1985). For the city (erusalem, 1347/1928).
of Jerusalem in the nineteenth century, see Yehoshua Ben- 39. Ibid., p.11; the letter is dated 24 May 1926.
Arieh, Jerusalem in the Nineteenth Century, 2 vols. Jerusalem, 40. Ibid., p.14.
1984).

This content downloaded from 207.206.234.4 on Sat, 06 Aug 2016 18:29:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms