Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Peter J. Lu’

 

This year’s Nobel Prize in Chemistry goes to Dan Shechtman from Israel for his discovery of quasicrystals in Nature in 1982. Persian artisans have created aperiodic quasicrystal tesselations on buildings more than 500 years earlier, before Johannes Kepler, Albrecht Dürer and, of course, Roger Penrose. I had discussed that amazing fact on this blog numerous times, e.g., here, here and here.

I have recently changed the header of this blog now featuring a part of Esfahan’s Darb-i Imam shrine with its famous almost quasicrystal pattern. It was Peter Lu and Peter Steinhardt who published their article on decagonal tesselations on buildings in Iran in 2007, and who draw my attention to this amazing kind of Islamic art.

Kudos to Shechtman too.

Last update October 5, 2011.

Read Full Post »

Quasi-periodicity in 15th century Islamic Art and whether it actually has been developed as a concept is still a matter of a somewhat controversial debate. There are three sites in the city of Esfahan which have been studied in this regard in considerable detail, two rather small patterns on a spandrel and a portal on the Darb-i Imam shrine in the Dardasht quarter of the old city (1453) and a huge pattern on the western iwan of the Great Mosque. Several authors have, in the meantime, tried to overlie Penrose patterns of kites and darts or thick and thin rhombuses in order to prove that medieval artisans were able to apply what had been described by Roger Penrose only five centuries later. See, for example, Lu and Steinhardt (2007), their response to some additional work by Makovicky (2007), or Cromwell (2008) here, here, and here.

However, while a certain desire for subdivision and self-similarity can easily be traced on the respective buildings, it is not perfect, in particular not at the Darb-i Imam’s spandrel and portal, and the Great Mosque’s western iwan (probably 17th century). The higher level of girih- or proto-tiles is composed of decagons and bowties in each case only. I have pointed some time ago to a possible solution for creating in fact a perfect subdivision if one had considered a special arrangement of girihs in the upper right corner of the spandrel of the Darb-i Imam, which is composed of decagons, bowties and, in fact, the elongated hexagon, or bobbin, which can be found all-over. The picture below indicates the higher level pattern originally found on the spandrel (left) and a suggested pattern (right) which takes into account a small portion of the lower level pattern in the upper right corner. See more information here.

 

On the western iwan of Esfahan’s Great, or Friday, Mosque, the highest level is composed of alternating half decagons while the spaces in-between are filled with half bowties. Both decagons and bowties follow mainly the suggested subdivision rule. However, the pattern is distinct as it introduces, at the intermediate level, a rhombus, which is otherwise missing in the subdivision. If one adds colors (picture below, left), it becomes clear that the artisans just fell short in creating a true Penrose pattern.

 

Certainly, it would have been possible to assemble the five-point star (purple in the left picture) by a bobbin and two bowties instead. How it would look then can be seen in the right picture above (by Benjamin R. Schleich from his dissertation, which can be found here). A nice animated gif, instantly explaining the concept of subdivision and self-similarity, can be found here.

The picture below shows the western iwan, or sofe-shāgird, the iwan of the student (sic!). Sofe-e ustadh (the iwan of the master) faces it, it is the eastern iwan.

That medieval artisans just fell short of creating something that would really have amazed us 500 years later may be regarded as indirect proof that they had not really penetrated the mathematical concept. But if they actually had, why would that have been more interesting? Medieval artisans were keen to produce, with the help of eminent mathematicians, interesting ornaments and designs on mosques and buildings, not mathematical breakthroughs. They achieved a ‘dazzling’ appearance anyway; I have pointed to that several times here on this blog, see here and here. By removing color as a common element, for instance in the case of the Gonbad-e Qabud in Maraghah (1196), they even created something what would absorb and dazzle scientists even eight centuries later.

That has made a lasting impact, hasn’t it?

Last modified October 18, 2010.

Read Full Post »

The small Darb-i Imam shrine (1453), about 300 meters west of the Great Mosque, may in fact be one of the gems of Timurid architecture in Esfahan. The site is rather hidden in the labyrinthine lanes of the northern part of the old city of Esfahan [1].

The shrine consists of a funerary complex [2] with courtyards, shrine structures, and a small cemetery. During the centuries it had been steadily reconstructed and repaired, especially in the early and late 17th century. Characteristic are the two closely spaced domes, one bulbous with beautiful arabesques and one more slender with floral decoration, on high drums with highly stylized calligraphy.

Its pishtaq, or porch, contains several exquisite mosaics made of glazed tiles. Some of them are said to be created by Sayyid Mahmud-I Naqash, who has also decorated the southern iwan and the celebrated Timurid gate on Esfahan’s Masjed-e Jomeh.

What has recently attracted more interest are the geometric patterns made of black glazed and unglazed terracotta pieces in several spandrels and a porch next to the mentioned main pishtaq.

spandrel

It had been suggested that they represent the so far only discovered example of an almost perfect Penrose tiling which had been created 500 years before their description in the West [3]. In their meticulous reconstruction using the famous “kite-and-dart” type of Penrose tiling, Peter J. Lu and Paul J. Steinhardt very much focus on a spandrel which in fact matches almost perfectly with a Penrose tiling [4].

large01

What makes this tiling so unique may be the subdivision rule painstakingly elaborated by Lu and Steinhardt:

“Perhaps the most striking innovation arising from the application of girih tiles was the use of self-similarity transformation (the subdivision of large girih tiles into smaller ones) to create overlapping patterns at two different length scales, in which each pattern is generated by the same girih tile shapes.”

lu_large

It has been questioned whether the pattern on the spandrel is really self-similar. The difference between the large and small scales is very big. In their analysis, Lu and Steinhardt create the spandrel itself by four large length scale decagons and two bowties, while the small scale consists of three girih tiles, the decagon, the bowtie and the elongated hexagon. So, where is the large-scale elongated hexagon [5]? Can it be that it has been overlooked?

 small-scale

The pattern is in fact aperiodic. There is only one small-scale area in the whole spandrel which resembles the large-scale pattern: in the upper right corner. The area with the corresponding (yellow) borders of the small-scale spandrel is shown in the picture below. Here, a part of the (green) elongated hexagon shows in the lower corner.

Thus, the large-scale spandrel may be reconstructed in a different way, shown below. Although the bold blue lines do not exactly fit, the reconstruction here seems to support the concept of self-similarity and aperiodicity of the tiling on this particular spandrel of the Darb-i Imam [6].

suggested_large1

Notes

[1] The historical city with its huge bazaar had been cut by Kh. Abdorrazaqq into two halves some 40 years ago in an attempt of urbanization.

[2] The complex contains the tombs of two descendants of Imam Ali from Safavid times, Ibrahim Tabatabai and Zain al-Abedin Ali.

[3] Penrose himself had been inspired by Johannes Kepler’s Harmonices Mundi (1619), where he constructed tilings around regular pentagons which can be extended into Penrose tilings. Pentilings, i.e. arrangements of regular pentagons in the plane in which each pentagon makes edge-to-edge contact with two, three, four, or five neighbors, thereby sharing vertices in such a way that no gaps large enough to contain another pentagon are left in the array, have even been described by Albrecht Dürer in 1525.

[4] In the supporting online material for their article in Science, Lu and Steinhardt (2007) have suggested, based on a more than 40-year-old photograph that the tiling on the western iwan of Esfahan’s Friday mosque can be subdivided in the same way as that on the Darb-i Imam. Meanwhile, it has been shown that the patterns are different and that the one on the Friday mosque contains, in addition to a decagon, an elongated hexagon and a bowtie, a fourth girih tile, a rhomb (see an illustration of the girih tiles here). The pattern is, in addition, periodic, similar as the pattern on the Gonbad-e Qabud in Maraghah, which had been constructed in fact 250 years earlier.

[5] While Lu and Steinhardt had elaborated only a subdivision of a decagon and a bowtie by smaller-scale decagons, elongated hexagons and bowties (see below), P. R. Cromwell has recently presented a corresponding subdivision of the hexagon.

subdividions

[6] Respective spandrels can be found everywhere in Esfahan, not only on the Darb-i Imam. They seem to have been very popular during Safavid times.

See also this summary which has been inspired by an email exchange with Prof. Jost-Hinrich Eschenburg, University of Augsburg.

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 »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.