Muslim Fortresses in the Levant: Between Crusaders and Mongols Read Free Page B

however, can no longer be determined. During the same year, the third year of building, the warehouse ( makhzan ) was constructed. This must have been fairly large as we are told that when the fortress was evacuated and destroyed the military supplies were distributed among, Jerusalem, Karak and Damascus. 144 The most puzzling element in this account is the curtain wall, which was the last important

     
    Table 1.1 Mount Tabor: construction dates of sections of the fortress

Dates
Individual buildings in the fortress
5th of Dhū in the year 609/1212–13
Foundation date of the fortress
5th of in the year 610/1213–14
Bāshūra
610/1213–14
The building of the pool/reservoir
611/1214–15
Living quarters ( mazil )
611/1214–15
Storerooms ( makhzan )
II in the year 612/1215–16
The building of the curtain wall
    building project to be mentioned in the inscriptions. This is somewhat difficult to explain, since a large percentage of the inner buildings in many fortresses “use” the inner face of the curtain wall as a prominent part of their structure. Vaulted galleries running along the inside of the curtain walls, towers and barracks are all constructed and supported by the curtain wall. From the defense point of view, one would assume that when undertaking such a project in a hostile country the army and the building force employed on the site would feel more secure if they surrounded themselves with a wall.
    Judging from the information provided by the inscriptions it appears that the inner part of the fortress was given priority. The curtain wall was apparently the final addition. This is very different from what we know of the Crusader fortress at Vadum Iacob (1178–9), where the curtain wall was built first, allowing the large vaulted halls to be supported by it. One way of explaining the curtain wall construction at Mount Tabor is by assuming that the year given (612/1215–16) represents the date of its completion, not commencement, although the inscription does not explicitly say so.

The anatomy of Ayyubid fotresses
    Turning to the individual elements that comprise a fortress, it is probably best to work from the outer parts of the defense to the center of the fortress.

    Types of masonry
    Determining the chronology or creating a typological chart according to masonry is a tricky matter. It demands a certain amount of caution and a survey of a much larger number of fortresses. As all four of our fortresses are dated precisely by inscriptions found on the site, the aim here is to provide a few clear descriptions of Ayyubid masonry types, and compare the findings to masonry styles employed by the Franks and later by the Mamluks.
    In the introduction to The Fortifications of Armenian Cilicia , Edwards gives this subject of masonry a great deal of thought. His ideas and advice are important and relevant to anyone working in the field. The four fortresses presented in this study all show different types of masonry, in other words, there is no uniformity. This could be due to a combination of factors. Different kinds of rock are carved in different methods. Certain regions may have had their own local style and traditions of masonry work; or, if restricted in time and funds, the architect may have decided to compromise and make do with coarsely cut and dressed stone. 145
    The rusticated style atwas, according to Johns, common in the region after the Roman period. 146 The first Ayyubid construction phase, dated 1184, used crudely cut stones. However, there is some variation. The outer face of the towers is of better quality stones than the inner face and the curtain walls ( Figure 1.3 ). In the second phase, built between 1184 and 1214, the masonry is of a slightly higher standard. Both the curtain wall and the towers themselves are a mixture of ashlar and marginal drafted stone blocks of a fairly even size, cut and dressed with greater care and precision ( Figure 1.4 ).

     

     
    Figure 1.3 , masonry in towers built