Tombeau Kubakîya (688/1289)
Localisation : cimetière de Mamilla, au nord.
Réf :
Berchem
(1922), p.203-210
Burgoyne
(1987), n°6
Clermont-Ganneau
(1896), I, p.286-289
Meinecke
(1992), 7/61
Ollendorf (1982), p.245-258
Berchem (1922), n°68
RCEA 4908
Thésaurus (2025), n°3609
Historique
Le tombeau est construit après le 5 ramadan 688/22.IX.1289, soit la date de décès de l’émir ‘Alâ al-Dîn Aidughdî al-Kubakî citée sur l’épitaphe de la façade est (ill.5).
L’édifice consiste en une salle carrée surmontée d’une coupole (ill.1, 15) reposant sur des trompes (ill.1, 8-11), il combine une architecture Ayyubîde/Mamluk avec les bancs flanquants l’accès, l’arc de décharge à voussoirs surmontant le linteau monolithique sur l’accès (ill.4, 7), les ouvertures (ill.12) et l’inscription de construction (ill.4, 5) avec des éléments de remplois Croisés comme l’arc brisé (ill.3, 13), les colonnes coudées (ill.13, 14), les impostes (ill.13, 14), et l’arc trilobé outrepassé de l’accès (ill.3, 4, 13). Cet édifice présente des similitudes avec le tombeau Barakakhân daté de la même période.
C’est le seul tombeau encore existant du cimetière Mamilla.
Epigraphie
688/1289. Texte funéraire 5 lignes (64x44) sur la porte (ill.5).[1]
« ….
Voici le mausolée du serviteur avide d’Allâh, l’émir ‘Alâ al-Dîn Aidughî,
fils de ‘Abdallâh, surnommé al-Kubakî. Il est décédé le jour du jeudi 5 du mois
de ramadan vénéré de l’année 688 (22.IX.1289), qu’Allâh le couvre de sa
miséricorde et lui donne pour demeure son paradis ! ».
Biblio complémentaire
Daadli (2011), p.78-97
Taragan (2017), p.269-287
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1/ relevé du tombeau |
2/ vue depuis le sud |
3/ la façade nord avec le portail d’accès |
4/ le portail d’accès |
5/ l’inscription de construction datée 688/1289 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6/ la façade sud |
7/ les ouvertures de la façade sud |
8/ l’intérieur depuis l’ouverture sud, vers le
nord-est |
9/ l’intérieur depuis l’ouverture sud, vers le
nord-ouest |
10/ l’intérieur depuis l’ouverture ouest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11/ retombée de la zone de transition de la coupole
à l’angle nord-est |
12/ le linteau et l’arc de décharge de l’ouverture
droite sur la façade sud |
13/ la façade nord avec le portail et son décor |
14/ retombée de l’arc droit avec l’imposte et la
colonne coudée |
15/ la coupole du tombeau |
Documents anciens
Clermont-Ganneau (1896), I, p.286-289. Visite entre novembre 1873 et novembre 1874.
The Zawiyeh el Kebekiyeh. In the cemetery of Mamilla there is a well-built kubbeh known by the name of El Kebekiyeh, after that of the Emir 'Ala ed Din Aydoghdy, the son of 'Abd Allah el Kebeky." He gives the date of this personage's death, which agrees exactly with that which may be read on the tarikh. Unless Mujir ed Din has made some mistake, we must, it seems, distinguish between this personage and his all but namesake, the great Emir 'Ala ed Din Aydoghdy, who also was the son of 'Abd Allah, and who died in the month of Shawwal in the year 690, and was buried in the ribat which lie had caused to be made near the Haram, at the Bab en Nadher.
If then we are to believe the tarikh, which is confirmed by Mujir ed Din, the Kebekiyeh must have been built a little before the year 688 a.h. But a glance at the monument suffices to show that the architectural forms which enter into its construction have never been wrought by Arab masons of the end of the thirteenth century. The conclusion to which I have come is, that materials belonging to an earlier period, that of the Crusaders, have been to a great extent used over and over again. These materials must have been found on the spot, and they may perhaps have belonged to that very écclésia which stood in the cemetery of the Canons of the Holy Sepulchre, a sort of mortuary chapel, whose facade, at least, may have been left untouched. The elegant archivolt beneath which opens the door of the Kebekiyeh, with the two little columns with sculptural capitals, now partly destroyed, by which it is supported, appear to me to be an altogether mediaeval piece of work : it is a pointed, but only very slightly pointed arch, with a vertical joint in the middle, of carefully dressed stone, and its mouldings are exactly the same as those of many arches existing in various churches built by the Crusaders. The style of the capitals and the profiles of the abacus are quite in accordance with this conjecture. A more careful examination of the materials only confirms this. On all four sides of the monument, especially on the south-east, which is the one in best preservation, I have found many Latin masons' marks which place their origin beyond doubt. (For this detail see the Special plate, and the accompanying table, under the head " Kebekiyeh "). The principal work of the Arab masons might have consisted in building the cupola ; and even to prove this one would have to examine minutely the blocks of which it is composed, a thing which I was not able to do. The interior of the building itself furnishes us with an additional piece of evidence in favour of this theory, and one of great interest from other points of view. In the midst of the square chamber, which is roofed over by the lofty cupola, and lighted by four windows pierced in three of its sides, we see a magnificent cenotaph, which stands on one side, and beneath which the body of the Emir ought to rest, but which assuredly never was carved for him. The faithful drawing of it, which I give below, much of the delicacy of which has unfortunately been lost by Its too hurriedly executed engraving. My recollections and notes do not enable me to say whether these columns are " kneed shafts." If renders it unnecessary for me to describe it at length. I think that no one would hesitate to recognise in it a Western piece of work, belonging to the twelfth, or perhaps even to the eleventh century.
The mediceval tooling is still visible on several of the large blocks of which the body of the centotaph is composed. It should be noticed that it is only the two blind arches at each end of the sides which have been ornamented with the diaper work, which is of a delightfully delicate character. Eight of the other arches, that is, two on each side and two at each end, have their upper part countersunk, while the four remaining ones, being the two middle ones on each side, are filled with plain hewn stone. They were perhaps intended to contain either figures, or at all events some surface ornamentation of the same kind as that which we see in the two end arches of each side. Of course the figures, if ever carved, would not have been spared by Mohammedan purism. The same mishap must have befallen the mediaeval epitaph, which probably was inscribed upon this fine tomb. It will be noticed that the two arches next to the end ones on the side of the tomb, as well as the two at each end, only have their filling cut away for half the height of the arch.
|
|
|
Vue du tombeau Source : Clermont-Ganneau (1896), I |
