Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Esfahan’

Tunnels

 

 

In another pretty provocative (after last month’s demand for ‘bombing Iran’ by Alan J. Kuperman) and, I suppose intentionally meant, alarming New York Times op-ed William J. Broad assumes that, over the years, Iran had largely expanded a tunnel system, thus enabling the regime in Tehran to fortify its (allegedly clandestine) nuclear program and hide it from possible attacks.

Even given that there has no evidence been provided declassified so far that Iran has further, hidden, nuclear sites the International Atomic Energy Agency is unaware of, President Ahmadinejad, who seems to be a ‘tunnel expert’, had announced already end of November 2009 that the country will now largely increase its enrichment activities with 500’000 new centrifuges spinning in another ten or so sites other than those in Natanz and Fordow near Qom. Thus, Iran seems to directly respond to threats by Israel and the US to attack the already known sites by digging in: a classic example for the counter-productive effects of lack of diplomacy.

Broad mentions six tunnel entrances in the nearby mountain(s) of Esfahan’s uranium conversion plant, which can easily be traced by GoogleEarth. By the way: on the other side of the mountain, the Khorasgan branch of Islamic Azad University is located.

Read Full Post »

“He who knows not and knows not that he knows not, shun him. And he who knows not and knows that he knows not, awaken him. And he who knows and knows that he knows, follow him.”

Arabic saying

The swastika has nowadays a bad reputation but it has of course not been invented by German Nazis. Rather it is a positively connoted, sacred symbol in Hinduism and Buddhism, such as lucky charm. It is interesting to see that it has also found its way into Islamic Art, even as a sign of blessing. A famous square panel on the western iwan of Esfahan’s Great Mosque dating from the 17th century (Shi’ite Safavid) resembles a Swastika, and its calligraphy mentions Ali [1]. It might be a beautiful example of “a simple design rotated 45 degrees which acquires two separate values, one as a carrier of geometric forms filled with (by the time of the panel) antiquarian writing, the other one as a violator of the sequence of both writing and architecture by forcing one into rare contortions to read the writing” [2]. The southern iwan which had got additional decorations by Sayyid Mahmud-e Naqash in 1475/76 sports a similar but definitely Timurid swastika-like panel, with its ample arabesque and floral motifs [3].

Swastika01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

flora01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Square from Five Squares

These examples are not strict swastikas. Rather, they represent a popular Islamic geometric pattern, a square composed of three squares. In the 10th century, artisans were thoroughly taught in a distinct academic context by mathematicians in geometry. Alpay Özdural (d. 2003) describes [4] how, for instance, Abu’l-Wafā’ al-Būzjāni (940- ca. 998), in his famous treatise Kitāb fīmā yahtāju ilayhi al-sani’ min al-a’māl al-handasiya (On the Geometric Constructions Necessary for the Artisan) teaches the right way of constructing this very combination of squares and avoid often made mistakes of the carpenter whose job involved cutting single pieces of material into parts and arranging them skillfully in attractive patterns in mosaics. Abul’l-Wāfa explains that artisans and even geometers (muhandis) often err in the assembling of the pieces, the former since they do not know the scientific proof, the latter due to lack of practice. As Özural writes, Abu’l-Wāfa’s book on Geometric Constructions was apparently motivated by meetings with practitioners and aimed in the proper advancement of Islamic Art. As a true academic, he displayed, in his book “pure geometry, familiarity with practical applications, and skill in teaching theoretical subjects to practical-minded people.”  

The figure below (from Özdural’s article) shows how, by cutting and pasting two, five and nine squares, according to Abu’l Wāfa’s theoretical solutions [5], pretty attractive patterns are created. The earliest “square from five squares” can be seen on the wooden door of the mosque of Imām Ibrāhīm in Mosul which is dated 1104 CE. And Abu’l-Wāfa also explains patiently why some popular ‘practical solutions’ were essentially wrong.

 Abu'l-Wafa

While between the 11th and 15th centuries in Iran and Central Asia, Spain and elsewhere in the Islamic World, geometric tessellations became more and more ambitious, dazzling, breakneck artistic, it is not clear how much artisans actually knew about geometry and mathematics. Özdural’s paper convincingly shows how academics such as Abu’l-Wāfa in Baghdad or later Omar Khayyām in Esfahan and Jamshīd al-Kāshī in Samarqand frequently met with artisans, architects, masons and carpenters in what he calls conversazione, i.e., seminars and practical sessions, where the then popular cut and paste technique of dividing larger material into smaller pieces was exercised and got a sound theoretical foundation. While the Golden Age of Islamic Science and Art before and around 1000 CE, in particular Persia, was brutally brought to an end by Mongol invasions after 1220, with catastrophic destruction and by and large architectural inactivity for several decades, later-on, during Ilkhanid, Timurid, and even Ottoman periods, scholars again took over in assisting those who created the most incredible geometric and arabesque tessellations. But they still noted lack of knowledge and unwillingness of master-builders to entirely rely on geometric proof but rather dealt “with geometry in their unmethodological and incorrect way three centuries after Abu’l-Wāfa.” “Yes, we have heard of it, but in essence we have not heard how science of geometry works and what it deals with.”

 

Pentagons and Decagons

Especially fascinating may be the way, artisans had tried to use pentagons and decagons in their tessellations. There have even been speculations, at least since the late 1980s, whether medieval Islamic artists had been able to create aperiodic tiling, such as those which had been described by Roger Penrose in the 1970s.

penrose

In studying the probably 13th century manuscript by an anonymous author, Fī tadhākul al-ashkāl al-mutashābihah aw al-mutawāfiqa (On Interlocking Similar or Congruent Figures), which is now located in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris, Wasma’a K. Chorbachi and Arthur L. Loeb [6] point to the similarity of the here described problem of interlocking convex decagons and pentagonal stars (the Islamic Pentagonal Seal) with those being now popularly known as aperiodic Penrose Tiling [7].

Interlocking

In this manuscript one may find an interesting ‘practical’, albeit incorrect, solution for creating regular decagons and pentagons by cutting and pasting the kunya-5 triangle, a right-angled triangle with one angle equal to 36°. The approximation differs from 36° by only 12’22’’, i.e., 0.5% [8].

kunya-5

In particular in the 13th century, the golden triangle (an isosceles triangle having angles of 36°, 72° and 72°; its base length equals f times its side-length, where f is the golden fraction defined by the equation phi = 1/(1+phi)), was used by Muslim scientists for the construction of regular pentagons and decagons [9]. The golden triangle can be subdivided in such a way that another golden triangle and a golden gnomon results, i.e., a isosceles triangle having angles 108°, 36° and 36°. As Chorbachi and Loeb write, artisans may actually have created the 36° angle using the (incorrect) method of constructing kunya-5.

The construction of the Pentagonal Seal in the Paris manuscript is, according to Chorbachi and Loeb, a very particular one, with its five-pointed star constituted by ten golden gnomons which exactly match the ten golden triangles which constitute the decagon. “It is historically significant that as early as the thirteenth century A.D., it was known that what we presently call the golden triangle and golden gnomon are together capable of tessellating the Euclidean plane, and that during the Middle Ages, Islamic design continued in the tradition of the Alexandrian and other eastern Mediterranean schools of mathematics. The use of this five-pointed star appears to have stimulated mathematicians to work on these practical problems in design. The importance of this problem to the Muslim scientists may be inferred by the fact that they tried over the course of several centuries to find the perfect solution.”

According to Wasma’a K. Chorbachi in “The Tower of Babel” [5], “[t]he true patron of the scientists who wrote these ancient manuscript was art. It was the artisans and the architects who called for the services of science and scientists to assist them solving the design problems that they were facing. And as in the case of Islamic art in the past, science must come to the service of the arts, whether we are talking today of Islamic art, of Western art or of art generally, today more than ever before […].” “[I]slamic tradition is so strong that, if we are in touch with the language of the present time and ground ourselves in this strong old tradition, we can arrive at an expression that is not only contemporary but could be meaningful and valid in the coming century.”

 

Notes

[1] According to Oleg Grabar in his fine book The Great Mosque of Isfahan (New York University Press 1990, p. 34) it contains in the four corners the pious quatrain: “As the letter of our crime became entwined [i.e., grew so long], [they] took it and weighed it in the balance against action. Our sin was greater than that of anyone else, but we were forgiven out of the kindness of Ali.” Grabar notes that the central part of the panel is nothing else than the plug of the artisan who was diligently involved in restoring the mosque in the 17th century, Muhammad ibn Mu’min Muhammad Amin.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Decorative brickwork on the northern iwan of the mosques also shows clockwise and counterclockwise swastikas in one of the circumferential bands.

 northern01

[4] Özdural A. Mathematics and Arts: Connections between Theory and Practice in the Medieval Islamic World. Historia Mathematica 2000; 27: 171-201.

[5] Ibid. It is the Islamic proof of the Pythagorean Theorem, which is closer to the Indian method of Bhāskara Achārya (d. 1185) than to the Greek method in Euclid’s Propositions, as is beautifully explained by Wasma’a K. Chorbachi in her eye-opening article “In the Tower of Babel: Beyond Symmetry in Islamic Design. Computers Math Applic 1989; 17: 751-789.

[6] Chorbachi WK, Loeb AL. An Islamic pentagonal seal (from scientific manuscripts of the geometry of design). In Hargittai I (ed) Fivefold symmetry. World Scientific, Singapore 1992, pp. 283-305

[7] Ibid., p. 284: “Although the approach to the generation of this pattern in the Paris manuscript is quite different from that taken by Penrose, it is notable that these ‘quasi-periodic’ patterns were already of interest at least in the thirteenth century A.D. The manuscript stresses the uniqueness of the fivefold center of rotational symmetry in the pentagonal seal, thus implying the lack of translational symmetry in the pattern, but does not explicitly deal with the matter of non-periodicity.”

[8] Ibid., p. 286f: “The construction was therefore remarkably accurate, though not correct. Kamal ad-Din Musa Ibn Yunus Ibn Man’a in his thirteenth-century commentary on Abu’l Wafa’ al Buzjani’s book on the geometry of construction, with whom this construction may well have originated, actually was quite explicit in cautioning that some of his constructions, in particular of the heptagon, were practical, but not mathematically exact. They can be used in small-scale designs without noticeable discrepancies, which however become manifest on a larger scale.” 

[9] Ibid., p. 293: “[I]n the second half of the thirteenth century (ca. 1259) in the town of Marāgha, which became a center of scientific activities and contained the famous observatory, another illustrious mathematician, Nasir ad-Din at-Tusi, wrote commentaries on Euclid, in which he made obvious use of the golden triangle. … [H]is commentaries on Euclid included a short treatise dealing with the inscription and circumscription of polygons within the circle: Sittat Maqalat min Kitab Tahrir Uqlidis: Six Books/Articles from Euclid’s Book of Elements.” As an example, see the construction below, which had been created with some guidance from Eric Broug’s booklet Islamic Geometric Patterns, Thames & Hudson, New York 2008.

 Pentagon

See also on this blog

About difficulties of the Western perception of Islamic abstraction which might easily result in fundamental misconceptions.

About decagonal tessellations on the west iwan of Esfahan’s famous Friday Mosque.

About Alpay Özdural’s proof that the mysterious North Dome of Esfahan’s Great Mosque is based on Omar Khayyām’s triangle.

A review of a booklet which makes complicated Islamic geometric patterns easy to reproduce.

Read Full Post »

281-450

 

For some time, the Gonbad-e Qabud in Maraghah in Western Iran has attracted considerable attention. Maraghah is a small city east of Daryacheh Urmiyeh in the East Azerbaijan province of Iran. It lies about 100 km south of Tabriz close to the southeastern shores of the huge super-salty lake at the southern foot hills of 3700 meters high Kuh-e Sahand. On the other side of the mountain lies the picturesque village of Kandovan, Iran’s Cappadocia [1].

iir07021 

Maraghah is quite famous for its five tomb towers (four are preserved) from the Post-Seljuq and Mongolian periods (12th till early 14th centuries). Gonbad-e Qabud, the Blue Tower (1196/97), has the most elaborated and complex brick pattern which has fascinated and confused generations of explorers and tourists. It represents an octagonal tower with eight panels each crowned by a niche with a pointed, gothic, arch. The brickwork results in highly ornamental net of unglazed ribs interlaced with turquoise blue ribbons unrelated to the pentagonal geometry of the overall pattern. It can be shown that the pattern extends over two panels and therefore repeats four times.

 

Almost hidden in a book about Fivefold Symmetry edited by István Hargittai (World Scientific, Singapore 1992) which compiles very interesting articles on all aspects of fivefold symmetry, mineralogist Emil Makovicky at Copenhagen University has argued that the incredibly complex brick pattern which is displayed on the eight panels of the octagonal tower may in fact represent a Penrose pattern [2]:

“Aperiodic tiling with pentagonal geometry, discovered by Penrose [in 1974, 1978], have been, in its different versions, the object of intensive study by numerous mathematicians and crystallographers. The present discovery of a similar, 800-year-old tiling from (post) Saljuq Iran therefore represents a matter of considerable interest. Besides giving a surprising insight into the skills of ancient geometric artists, it also reveals some new aspects of Penrose tiling and leads toward further generalizations.” 

                                                                

Makovicky correctly describes the large-scale pattern of the Gonbad-e Qabud as consisting of:

 

“[…](a) regular pentagons; (b) complex decagons, hereafter called butterflies with convex angles of 72° and reentrant angles of 108°: (c) deltoids (“kites”) and a pair of partly overlapping pentagons that always form together a rhomb with “deltoid-marked” corners of 72° and unmarked corners of 108°; and (d) occasional nested pentagons with five spokes. “

 

What follows are combination rules, described as “simple”:

 

“[only] straight-line segments of the net intersect (at 72°), whereas all line breaks (of 108° or 144°) are outside these intersections. Polygons of the same kind do not share edges. Butterfly wings terminate in pentagons and are surrounded either by four additional pentagons or by an additional cis pair of pentagons and a cis pair of rhombs (each straddling the long diagonal).

 

“The entire pattern is too complex to be understood at a glance. It requires long contemplation, and almost appears to be designed by a mathematician rather than an artist. Its badly damaged lowermost portions can be safely reconstructed because of the good state of preservation of the corresponding uppermost portions.

 

However, “[in] a small part of the bottom portions of the pattern the artist gained the upper hand over the mathematician. The tenfold stars, which can be traced in the polygonal net on both sides of the partly overlapping nested pentagons at the bases of the corner pilasters […] were emptied of their original polygonal contents and were filled by fivefold “rosettes.” Eye-attracting rosettes of this kind are common in Islamic wall ornaments, but those used here (only once per each side of the building) are completely foreign to the rest of the pattern.”

two-panels

After his lengthy analysis of the pattern on the Gonbad-e Qabud, Makovicky concludes that it is “[b]ased on tiles that can readily be obtained by transformation of the Penrose pattern of pentagons, stars, and lozenges. It deviates from a true cartwheel Penrose tiling only in several geometric and artistic adaptations.”

 

 

No Penrose tiling

 

As a matter of fact, the pattern on the Gonbad-e Qabud lacks any characteristics of a Penrose tiling. First and most eminently, it is not aperiodic. And secondly, it does not implement a self-similar subdivision. The small-scale pattern seen is unrelated to the large-scale major pattern [3]

 

A simple method how the medieval artists (and it can be argued that in that particular case not even a mathematician was involved in the process of decoration) has been suggested by Lu and Steinhardt [4]. They discovered, on what is called now the Topkapı Scroll [5], a 15th century Timurid-Turkmen scroll now in the collection of the Topkapı Palace Museum in Istanbul, that most of the highly complex geometric patterns found on buildings and paintings in the Islamic world can be created seamlessly with the aid of a set of five tiles displaying well-defined decorative ribbons, a decagon, a pentagon, an elongated hexagon, a bowtie, and a rhombus, which they called girih tiles which “[share] several geometric features: every edge of each polygon has the same length and the two decorating lines intersect the midpoint of every edge at 72° and 108° angles. This ensures that when the edges of two tiles are aligned in a tessellation, decorating lines will continue across the common boundary without changing direction. Because both line intersections and tiles only contain angles that are multiples of 36°, all line segments in the final girih strapwork pattern formed by girih-tile decorating lines will be parallel to the sides of the regular pentagon; decagonal geometry is thus enforced in the girih pattern formed by the tessellation of any combination of girih tiles. The tile decorations have different internal rotational symmetries: the decagon, 10-fold symmetry; the pentagon, five-fold; and the hexagon, bowtie, and rhombus, two-fold” [4].

girih

Lu and Steinhardt reconstructed the pattern on the Gonbad-e Qabud with four girih tiles. I have followed the suggestion by Makovicky and have not included a decagon “rosette”.

 

rec

The Maraghah pattern compared with the decagonal pattern on the West Iwan of Esfahan’s Great Mosque

 

Another suspected site displaying allegedly a “quasi-crystalline” pattern of tesserae is the western iwan of Masjed-e Jomeh in Esfahan. The reconstruction revealed that it is not a Penrose tiling. The “dazzling” appearance turns out to be largely a rosette which can be constructed by use of a set of four girih tiles. There is no self-similar subdivision. In a way, it resembles a bit the pattern found in Maraghah, although there, some irregularities occur, as described above.

 

west-iwan

The artists who have created the decorations at either site (1197 in Maraghah, mid of the 15th century in Esfahan) did not use color but chose a high degree of abstraction. It is amazing that an intentional reduction of a piece of art to a strict geometric pattern with an unbelievable degree of precision has led to profound confusion among a large number of visitors. The perception of the artistic effort in fact confused even certain scientists who argued that medieval artists could have discovered what became famous as Penrose patterns, 500 or even 800 years before they were described and understood in the West.

                                                                                

 

 

Notes

 

[1] I have posted some pictures about trips in and around Tabriz on Salmiya.

                                                                             

[2] Makovicky E. 800-year-old pentagonal tiling from Marāgha, Iran, and the new varieties of aperiodic tiling it inspired. In: Istvan Hargittai (ed.) Fivefold Symmetry. World Scientific, Singapore 1992, pp. 67-86.

 

[3] See Lu and Steinhardt’s response to Makovicky’s comment on their paper at Science 2007; 318: 1383b.

 

[4] Lu PJ, Steinhardt PJ. Decagonal and quasi-crystalline tilings in medieval Islamic architecture. Science 2007; 315: 1106-1110.

 

[5] Necipoglu G. The Topkapı Scroll: Geometry and Ornament in Islamic Architecture. Getty Center for the History of the Art and Humanities. Santa Monica, CA, 1995.

 

Read Full Post »

The Great Seljuq Empire (1037-1194 CE) has been described as a period with stunning scientific and artistic achievements in particular in Iran. Their capital became Esfahan in central Iran under Malikshah I (d. 1092). Among the many Seljuq monuments found in Iran, Esfahan’s Great Mosque, or Masjed-e Jomeh, is probably the most remarkable. The Great Mosque’s huge courtyard of 65 by 55 meters with its four iwans , the standard model of later Iranian mosques, provides the two axes, one in the Makkah direction and the other perpendicular to it. The iwans differ considerably in their composition and decoration. The most important iwan to the south is connected to the larger of the two main domes which contains the mihrab indicating the direction of prayer. 

 

The western iwan is the most unusual and complex of all. While all iwans had been added to the Seljuq mosque after a fire pillaged by the Hashashiyyin sect in 1121 CE, their decorations are from the Timurid and early or even late Safavid periods (late 15th till early17th century) [1]. The western iwan and its counterpart to the east are called the sofe of the student (shāgird) and master (ustadh), respectively. Although both iwans were built at the same time as the southern iwan (early 12th century), both of them are, “in their visible shape, late Safavid works of the seventeenth and, in case of the west one, even early eighteenth centuries”, as Grabar in his book about the Great Mosque writes [2]. So, while dating of the specific decorations may be highly problematic if the artisan had not signed his work, there is constantly restoration work which will inevitably change the appearance of the ‘living monument’ over time. More information about Esfahan’s Great Mosque, its amazing history and stunning architecture, can be found here.

 

There were suggestions that there had been a breakthrough in creating (almost) Penrose tiling in the late 15th century, in particular on the Darb-i Imam in the Great Mosque’s vicinity. In the supporting online material  of Peter J. Lu and Paul J. Steinhardt’s article in Science magazine, you may find a picture of the western iwan where the authors suggest that the tiling can be subdivided in the same way as the respective pattern(s) on the Darb-i Imam shrine [3]. You can easily identify the pattern at the inner sides of the iwan’s portal. It is huge, about one meter wide and up to 10 meters high. At first glance especially this site seems to be an anomaly in Esfahan. Lu and Steinhardt also suggested so-called girih tiles to facilitate the incredible precision of the tiling [4].

 

As Lu and Steinhardt point out, based on a blurred picture taken from the book Design and Color in Islamic Architecture by Seherr-Thoss (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 1968) the large-scale pattern consists of large decagons and bowties [5]. When reconstructing the small-scale pattern, I could identify similar but not the same subdivision rules which transform the large bowtie and decagon girih-tile pattern into the small girih-tile pattern of decagons, bowties and elongated hexagons as on the Darb-i Imam. For instance, the pentagonal areas encircled in magenta can be filled with a fourth girih-tile described by Lu and Steinhardt, the rhombus. See, for instance, the rightmost picture of the panel and, in particular, in the magnification below. So, the pattern on the western iwan of Esfahan’s Great Mosque differs from that found on the Darb-i Imam.

 

construction011

construction02

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Much of the discussions after the paper of Lu and Steinhardt had been published were about the possibility of medieval artisans had consciously or unconsciously been able to create what has become known as Penrose tiling, five hundred years before its description in the West. It might be concluded, however, that neither the dazzling pattern on the Darb-i Imam nor that on the western iwan of Esfahan’s Great Mosque are Penrose tiling, simply, because they are not aperiodic.

 

Lu and Steinhardt had been criticized not having given due regard to extensive previous work on Islamic Art. In particular, reading an almost forgotten book about Fivefold Symmetry, edited by István Hargittai (World Scientific, Singapore 1992), might be revealing. Much of Lu and Steinhardt’s ideas and conceptions may in fact be found there, not only Emil Makovicky’s paper on the 800-years-old Gunbad-i Kabud in Marāgha in northwestern Iran. Emil Makovicky’s response to the Science article articulates that neither the Gunbad-i Kabud pattern nor that on the Darb-i Imam are aperiodic, and hence do not represent Penrose tiling. Moreover, when considering the reconstructed pattern on the Gunbad-i Kabud in both Makovicky’s (Fig. 8b ibid) and Lu and Steinhardt’s (Fig. S6 of supplementary online material) articles, it may in fact be assumed that the pattern on the western iwan of Esfahan’s Great Mosque is not entirely dissimilar to the former.

 

I suppose Islamic artisans tried their best in creating most interesting (indeed dazzling) patterns which attract the attention of visitors now for several hundred years [6] rather than producing quasi-crystals. As E. Makovicky argues, both the patterns on the Darb-i Imam and the west iwan of Esfahand’s Great Mosque are variations of the stunning decagonal pattern on the Gunbad-i Kabud in northwestern Iran, built in 1196/97 CE. “[w]e believe that the artisans were satisfied by creating a large fundamental domain without being concerned with the mathematical notion of indefinitely expandable quasiperiodic patterns. However, they understood and used yo their advantage some of the local geometric properties of the quasi-crystalline patterns they constructed.”

 

 

 

Notes

 

 

[1] For instance, next to the western iwan the pretty famous Timurid gate had been moved and inserted into the façade. It contains signature and date of its creator Sayyid Mahmud-e Naqash, 1447. A similar, highly decorative floral style can be seen on the south iwan and on the Darb-i Imam shrine, some 300 meters west to the mosque, which is dated 1453. By the way, on the gate the date 1317 appears which translates into 1939 when restoration work had taken place. The Timurid gate near the western iwan of Masjed-e Jomeh leads to a room with a stunning dated (1310) mihrab of sultan Oljatu, the great Ilkhanid Mongolian ruler in northern Iran. The inscriptions are, according to Oleg Grabar, not qur’anic, but contain traditions about mosques and about Ali. Amazing that Oljatu in fact converted to Shi’a Islam in 1310.

 

[2] “[A] celebrated square panel in the western iwan [which] is one of the most commonly cited examples of complex geometric ornament using writing. It is easy to argue that here is a wonderful example of a simple design rotated 45 degrees which acquires two separate values, one as a carrier of geometric forms filled with (by the time of the panel) antiquarian writing, the other one as a violator of the sequence of both writing and architecture by forcing one into rare contortions to read the writing. And one could argue that here is precisely the use of geometry which gives it the high status so frequently heard and read about. In fact, however, the corner spaces contain the following rather undistinguished pious quatrain: ‘As the letter of our crime became entwined [i.e., grew so long], [they] took it and weighed it in the balance against action. Our sin was greater than that of anyone else, but we were forgiven out of the kindness of Ali.’ The central square is taken up by a signature of one of the most active craftsmen busy repairing the mosque in the seventeenth century. Even though formally related to the angular style of writing on the face of the iwan and in fact much more sophisticated in design, this panel is nothing more than a ‘plug’ for a local artisan.” The exact construction of a similar “square from three squares” has been described in Abu’l Wafa’s (d. ca. 998) book “On the Geometric Constructions Necessary for the Artisan”. As Alpay Özdural describes it in his article “Mathematics and Arts: Connections between Theory and Practice in the Medieval Islamic World” (Historia Mathematica 2000; 27: 171-201), contemporary mathematicians frequently held so-called conversazione with artisans explaining them how to create new inspiring geometric decorations.

 

[3] A second visit, after 2007, of the Darb-i Imam shrine end of December 2008 revealed that the patterns were in fact temporarily not visible. Because of the upcoming Ashura festivities the complex was heavily decorated with religious banners and transformed into a place of observance for daily husseiniyyas.

 

[4] I have mirrored, for example, the right part of a picture of the arch borrowed from ArchNet (left part of the panel) and can demonstrate (right part of the panel) that each tiny tessera on one side (as small as, say, a square centimeter) can be found in exactly the same place on the other side of the vault.

 

archnet2

[5] It may be of interest to note that Peter Lu visited Esfahan only after his paper in Science magazine which attracted considerable public interest worldwide. The political situation before the US American election in the end of 2008 largely complicated the procedures for issuing visas for Iran, in particular for US citizens and individual travelers. Thus, the whole article was based on the diligent work in libraries, as Peter Lu mentions in a colloquium where he reports on his amazing findings.

 

[6] Just by comparison I would not assume that Sayyid Mahmud-e Naqash, who created and notched the late Timurid, beautiful floral, decorations on the south iwan and the gate in the western façade of the mosque was the one who designed the decagonal patterns on the west iwan (and similarly different decorations on the Darb-i Imam, as well). But who knows? It would be interesting to learn how contemporary artisans repair, with incredible precision, the decorations. 

 

 

 

 

See also on this blog

 

Esfahan’s Old City. Some impressions of a cultural heritage at risk. 

 

Islamic Geometric Patterns.  A nice booklet teaching you drawing incredibly difficult patterns with compass and straightedge.

 

The Mysterious North Dome of Esfahan’s Great Mosque. About the most significant mosque (from an architectural point of view) in Iran. Pictures can be found here and here.

 

Dazzling Tesselations. Presumed almost perfect Penrose patterns in medieval Esfahan which have attracted enormous interest in 2007 after a publication by Lu and Steinhardt in Science magazine.

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Of course, the old ones were repeated. In the latest report on Iran of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which had been published yesterday, it is once more concluded that,

 

[r]egrettably, as a result of the continued lack of cooperation by Iran in connection with the remaining issues which give rise to concerns about possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear programme, the Agency has not made any substantive progress on these issues. As indicated in previous reports of the Director General, for the Agency to make such progress, Iran needs to provide substantive information, and access to relevant documentation, locations and individuals, in connection with all of the outstanding issues. With respect to the alleged studies in particular, an important first step is for Iran to clarify the extent to which information contained in the documentation which Iran was shown, and given the opportunity to study, is factually correct and where, in its view, such information may have been modified or relates to non-proliferation purposes.“

 

The last part (the ‘alleged studies’) relates to the ‘laptop’ and ‘green salt’ allegations which, according to Tehran, had been ‘fabricated’. The militant Mujahedeen-e Khalq Organization (MKO), which has very recently been removed from the European Union’s list of terrorist organizations, had provided U.S. intelligence in 2004 with a stolen laptop with suggestive evidence for a small-scale facility to produce uranium gas.

 

The IAEA furthermore concludes that,

 

[u]nless Iran implements the above transparency measures and the Additional Protocol, as required by the Security Council, the Agency will not be in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran. The Director General continues to urge Iran to implement all measures required to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme at the earliest possible date. The Director General, at the same time, urges Member States which have provided such documentation to the Agency to agree to the Agency’s providing copies thereof to Iran.”

 

It is self-evident that in the case of alleged forgery Iran should in fact be provided with the original files.

 

Again, it is made clear that,

 

[c]ontrary to the decisions of the Security Council, Iran has not supended its enrichment related activities or its work on heavy water-related projects, including the construction of the heavy water moderated research reactor, IR-40 [located at Arak], and the production of the fuel for that reactor.”

 

Three remarkable statements are listed in the report. First, Iran has increased the number of centrifuges at the Fuel Enrichment Plant in Natanz, which are supposed to enrich uranium, to more than 5500. However, it has not increased the number of centrifuges which are already enriching uranium. Their number is till below 4000. Secondly, the IAEA reports Iranian claims that, since November 18 2008 and January 31, 2009, the country had produced 171 kg of low enriched uranium (LEU) hexafluoride. Altogether, Iran has thus produced 1010 kg of LEU since February 2007, when fuelling the centrifuges in Natanz had begun. Thirdly, upon an inspection at the Fuel Manufacturing Plant [in Esfahan][i]t was noted that the process line for the production of natural uranium pellets for the heavy water reactor fuel had been completed and fuel rods were being produced.” The IAEA report mentions that using satellite imagery, there is proof that the Heavy Water Production Plant in Arak now appears to be in operational condition.”

 

The key for any progress lies in ratifying the Additional Protocol of the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty of which Iran is a signatory. Tehran’s consistently declaimed litany that “a broader access would expose sensitive information related to its conventional military and missile related activities” must eventually be countered with a comprehensive security guarantee. It’s high time to get out of this impasse.

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.