Architectural Heritage

Architectural Heritage

The citadel town of Erbil represents a distinct urban entity and should be treated as such. It is not simply an agglomeration of a number of houses and other buildings located within a complex system of narrow alleyways. The citadel town is the unique heritage of human experience and genius of thousands of years. It tells the story of how hundreds of past generations interacted with their natural environment and how they developed their way of life based on their cultural norms and values.

Therefore, any attempt to conserve and develop this citadel should deal with it not as the sum of individual parts but as a total environment. There are so many lessons, both historical and architectural, that can be learned from this town. Its remaining buildings, houses, and urban spaces and features, represent an extremely valuable and irreplaceable cultural resource that should not be allowed to disappear forever.

Recently, the citadel town has been included as one of the 100 most endangered cultural sites in the world by the World Monument Fund (WMF) in New York. Efforts are also being made to have it included as one of UNESCO’s list of World Heritage Sites.

The existing fabric today consists of about 250 buildings most of which are courtyard houses from early 19th century.. In fact, there is no accurate survey or official record which ascertain the true age of all existing buildings.

The oldest surviving building is the Qala’ Hammam which is thought to have been built in 1775. Some existing houses have dates inscribed on them in Hijra Calendar as AH1311 which is equal to AD1893. Another house had a dated inscription of AH 1321 which is equal to AD1903. It is almost certain that there are older houses particularly on the south eastern side of the citadel. This means that there has been a continuous process of rebuilding over hundreds of years.

Houses were built over and over again and again on top of existing foundations, semi basements or even some walls. In other words, the citadel’s fabric has been regenerating itself continuously. It is a great pity indeed that older buildings that belonged to the 16th and 15th Centuries or beyond could not survive this process.

Today, there are some 90 or so houses which have original and authentic architectural qualities that merit their restoration to their original state. Also, the perimeter wall must be maintained and restored because it represents an entity by itself. The mosque and hammam are still there but also need some restoration and enhancement.

However, most of the remaining houses have been left to either decay to a very serious extent or have been changed or added to so much that it makes it difficult to justify restoring them as they are. Should such houses be demolished and rebuilt as something else, or should they be restored as they were? Therefore, any future conservation and revitalization plan for the citadel must face this very challenging question that will prove to be the essential key to its success or otherwise.

Houses

Before the advent of modernization since the 1930s of the last century, the citadel consisted largely of traditional courtyard houses- just over 500 in all. Of these there were some 30 or so large palace-like houses that were mostly located on the peripheral wall but some were inside the town proper. Medium-sized houses numbered about 120, while smaller houses of poorer families numbered about 350.

All these houses, large and small, had open courtyards and were constructed in brickwork. They used timber joists for roofing and brick vaults for roofing semi-basements. The inside walls were plastered in “juss” and had numerous niches and shelves, often decorated with colorful patterns and features. Ceilings were often paneled with wooden planks and painted in bright colors and floral decorations. In simpler houses and rooms ceilings were left to expose tree trunks and matting.

Most houses had two floors and a flat roof. The entrance from the alleyway led to an open courtyard from which one either went down to a semi-basement level or walked up to an upper floor. Often, semi-basements were lower than courtyard level by about 1 to 1.5 meters, while upper floors were usually higher than courtyard level by about the same amount. The difference in levels allowed the insertion of windows for the lower semi-basement level.

More often than not, houses had a raised terrace with arches (Arcade) or with columns (Colonnade, or Tarma) overlooking the courtyard and act as an intermediate space to upper floor rooms. The terrace is reached directly through steps from the courtyard. Behind the arcade or colonnade, which is placed on one or two sides of the courtyard, the main rooms of the house are located. These rooms, which are directly accessed from the terrace, are usually planned with their longitudinal axis perpendicular to the terrace. They also received their natural daylight and ventilation through several windows facing the terrace. In case of perimeter houses, they also had windows overlooking the town below.

Arcaded terraces usually have three or more round or pointed arches resting on round or square columns. Often, these arcades were built in stone and sometimes covered with grey color marble from Mosul. Colonnaded terraces, on the other hand, had wooden columns often crowned with elaborate “Muqarnased” capitals not unlike their counterparts in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq.

Courtyards were usually planned to be geometric in shape- either square or rectangle. This contrasts sharply with the shape of the land plot which was nearly always highly irregular with no right angles. This suggests that the designer, often the master mason “Usta” himself, arranged the spatial organization of the plan after first deciding the shape, size, and place of the courtyard. However, in very small plots it was not possible to achieve a regular shape for the courtyard.

For example, if the plot had a narrow frontage and was long in depth then he would logically opt for a long rectangular courtyard along its axis. If, on the other hand, the plot was square in overall shape he would choose to start with a square courtyard. Because most plots were irregular symmetrical plans were not possible and perhaps undesirable.

This also meant that the entrance to the house had to be on one side of the frontage and rarely in the middle. Ideally, the entrance was usually a “broken” arrangement to provide added privacy. This meant that when the entrance door was opened no outsider or passerby could see the courtyard and the people inside. In addition, a small water closet (toilet) was often provided near the entrance for guests.