要旨：インドネシア、バンダアチェのバイトゥラフマン・モスクに焦点を当てた本書の論旨を、モスク自体の変遷について考古学的視点で批判的に検討した。第 1期（17世紀前半 -1866年）は、アチェに現存する 17世紀のインドラプリ・モスクとの比較が必要で、特に先イスラーム期建物の基礎上に建てられた点の重要性を述べた。第 2期（1866-73年）は廃墟地図から中央広場様式のモスクであると判断したことへ疑義を表明し、むしろ第 1期と大きく異ならない可能性を示した。第 3期（1881年以降）はインド・サラセン様式的な形態を取ったことの理由を考察し、他の植民地建築モスクとの比較を行った。全体に東南アジアでのイスラーム考古学でのモスクの意味、そして在来様式建築から西方的ドーム建築への変遷を本書への批判を通じて検討した。

Critical book review: Baiturrahman Mosque in Banda Aceh, - the elements as vernacular and colonial mosque architecture in Southeast Asia-

書評論文：バンダアチェのバイトゥラフマン・モスク東南アジアモスクの伝統・植民地建築要素

Sakai Takashi (National Taiwan University)坂井 隆（国立台湾大学）

Bouwsema-Raap, Wilhelmina 2009. The Great Mosque of Banda Aceh, Its History, Architecture and Relationship to the Development of Islam in Sumatra, Bangkok: White Lotus

Keywords: Baiturrahman Mosque, Aceh, Java/Malay style, Indo-Saracenic style, Islamic archaeology

1. IntroductionIn 2009, Wilhelmina Bouwsema-Raap published her study for history of the Sultanate of Aceh in Northern Sumatera with

concentrating of the Baiturrahman Mosque at Banda Aceh (no.1 in Map) as the Great Mosque of this city. This book is composed with following chapters;

1. The Arrival of Islam in North Sumatera, 2. The History of Aceh up to its First Great Mosque, 3. The First and Second Great Mosque of Aceh, 4. The Third Great Mosque of Aceh, 5. Further Development of the New Mesjid Raya and Conclusion

Even though this study does not focus the architectural also archaeological characteristics of the Baiturrahman Mosque, the main part can be read a perfect historical introduction of this mosque, which is occupied as the earliest meaningful colonial mosque in Southeast Asia.

In terms of view the early mosque and the colonial mosque in Southeast Asia, the Baiturrahman Mosque is very important building including 3 times construction at the same place, where close to Dalam, the palace of the Aceh Darussalam Sultanate, and this book can be considered as a remarkable historical study included much archaeological and architectural information of the mosque, which was never explained by others. For understanding colonial eclectic religious architecture in Southeast Asia, I ever pointed-out the important meaning of this mosque of the Third period (Sakai 2015). However, by archaeological point of view, the First and Second periods also include other much significant elements in the history of vernacular mosque of Southeast Asia.

By such perspective in several different disciplines for understanding unique structural characteristics of the Baiturrahman Mosque among history of mosque in Southeast Asia, I would like to discuss critically her study, especially chronological description of this mosque in the 3rd and 4th chapters.

2. The First Baiturrahman Mosque-the Java/Malay styleThis mosque was firstly constructed by order of sultan Iskandar Muda (r.1607-36) as the Friday Mosque of the capital, Banda

Aceh, of the Aceh Darussalam Sultanate. For description of the first mosque, the author explained its characteristics with showing an imagined drawing of Peter Mundy, an English traveler, who visited to here in 1637 (Bouwsema-Raap 2009: Fig. 5) and additional own drawing of the floor plan (i-bid. op.cit.: Fig. 6), particularly the exterior of this mosque was explained as ‘four sloping roofs that decrease in size as they ascend’. For corroboration of this understanding, picture of another mosque in Aceh was attached (1).

As like as traditional mosque in the Java/Malay style, the majority of vernacular mosque architecture in the Southeast Asian archipelago, the Baiturrahman Mosque was certainly constructed in pyramidal multi roofs with square plan, suit with general characteristics of this style, which has several variation of lower wall structure such as wooden in the Kampung Laut Mosque, thick brick, supported with upper beam, in the Great Mosque of Demak, while brick wall of the Indrapuri Old Mosque is not contacted with upper structure. However, her idea of four roofs structure cannot be accepted, because the basic roofs number of mosque in this style is known as three (2). Her showed picture (i-bid. op.cit.: Fig. 8) of the Samalanga Mosque (Figure 1, No.3 in Map) has not four roofs

『東南アジア考古学』38号 (2018)Journal of Southeast Asian Archaeology 38(2018)

43

but five roofs, which is consisted three main roofs and two top decorations such as the Great Mosque of Banten in Java. We should consider the drawing of Mundy for this mosque with four roofs is an estimated image by a painter after getting his information, was miss-counted top double decorations on triple roof as a upper roof. Unbelievable condition of this drawing can also be seen at arch image of upper part of outer pillars in the first floor, because arch structure had not be used generally in wooden timber vernacular mosque architecture of this region before the introduction of European colonial mosque of the end of the 19th century.

Also, her drawing of the plan with total 64 pillars (i-bid. op.cit.: Fig. 6) is not suit with explanation of 16 pillars. Even though number of outer pillars is really 8 in a side as shown in the drawing of Mundy, the mid pillars should be thought 36 or 16, while 4 at the inner, supported the top roof, as like as common condition of the Java/Malay style mosque. Moreover, inner structure of this plan image cannot be accepted, because three sides of the inner wall, opened at north, is not the same direction with the main entrance at the east without showing position of the mihrab, the most important element of any mosques. Also, in large possibility the upper structure of this mosque was not supported by wall but pillars only as like as the Indrapuri Old Mosque.

We should care double crenellated walls in the drawing of Mundy. Wall without meaning of mechanical structure connected with roofs can be seen the exiting Indrapuri Old Mosque (No.2 in Map) (3) and above mentioned the Samalanga Mosque, which has special technical characteristic composed mechanical wooden pillars and non-mechanical brick wall. Especially the inner wall of drawing of Mundy was certainly functioned for making of mihrab, while the outer wall surrounds whole inner structure as like as the Indrapuri Old Mosque.

The author does not mention reference example of the early mosque in this region such as the Great Mosque of Demak and the Kampung Laut Mosque in Kelantan (No.8 in Map), the Malay Peninsula, besides the Indrapuri Old Mosque. If she wants to discuss structural special characteristics of the Baiturrahman Mosque, these early mosques should be considered as existing reference examples. In this point of view, I must evaluate that explanation of the first mosque in pyramidal roof structure/the Java/Malay style by the author was not enough.

Then, the author misses that the first mosque was burned and rebuilt in the same style during reign of Sultana Nur al-Alam (1675-78) without any pictorial image. However, she also misses a famous drawing of Banda Aceh in François Valentijn’s Oud en Nieuw Oost-Indien/“Old and New East India” with image of this mosque before 1724-26. In this book, the Baiturrahman Mosque was drawn by three pyramidal roofs as distant view in the engraving/painting of Banda Aceh port city (Figure 2). In this image, observed from the port at north, triple roofed main building is located at west direction, suit with kibra in here, and the outer wall without separation surrounded annexed wall-less doubled roof building at the east too. By such condition, we can believe an important value of this painting as the real image. Because several cities image of this book was certainly used 17th century’s one (4), this triple roof style is only understood as the condition before the published years. However, total image of the mosque in Valentijn resembles to the Indrapuri except two stories building of left side in the same complex (5). Therefore, we should care to observe basic structure of the Indrapuri (Figure 3, 4).

This triple pyramidal roofed Indrapuri mosque was built at the center of a wide double foundation structure, which is considered a huge temple ruins before the Islamic period. This original stone made double foundation was formed a trapezoid plan with short side at the west direction, while at the southeast corner of the first foundation still there is remaining a relative large entrance staircase. However, mosque building is surrounded by a pure square plan outer wall, and under the first roof located the inner wall without any structural connection to upper roofs structure. The inner wall was constructed for purpose of making the mihrab and limitation of the prayer area.

Then, what is main function of the outer wall in the Indrapuri or the Samalanga, also the Baiturrahman? Large part of early mosques in the Java/Malay style never has this kind of outer wall. In this point of view, we must care different plan between trapezoid

Fig. 1　Samalanga Mosque, Biruen, during 1880-1910 (sources in list of the end of this paper)

Fig. 2　Far view of the first Baiturrahman Mosque before 1724-26

44

lower old foundation and the prayer hall in pure square. Therefore, there is no thinking besides a estimation, that on the surface of pre-Islamic structure, newly constructed square plan outer wall shows prayer area toward the qibla, the direction of Mecca by the western side. The Baiturrahman Mosque was not constructed on such pre-Islamic monument, however, we should consider experience of double wall system in the Indrapuri Old Mosque resulted construction of similar system in the Baiturrahman. In the image of Valentijn, the prayer hall of mosque included two stories building was surrounded by a high wall, therefore this condition can be understood as the most significant characteristics of this mosque unrelated with reconstruction after the fire in the 1670s.

3. The Second Baiturrahman Mosque-the new timber architectureWe have almost no any pictorial information and record of this mosque after Valentijn, and the author write the mosque was

fortified during the civil war in four months by 1735 related with succession of sultan (i-bid. op.cit.: 38) without description of condition of the mosque afterword.

By use of the old archives and writings, however, the author explains that it was rebuilt by the powerful minister of religion Habib Abd al-Rahman, a Hadhrami Arab, between 1866 and 68. Only several years later the Dutch Colonial War of Aceh was begun in 1873, then this second mosque was burnt by the Dutch attack in April 10, 1873. For explanation of this mosque, the author showed a simple but very valuable plan and section map (Figure 5) (6), which is, a few different with understanding of the author, based on report of J.F.D. Bruinsma (Bruinsma 1889).

Firstly, I would quote writing of the author for size of this second mosque;

Outer stone wall: c.170 by 120 m with 2.5 m H. & 0.65 m W. Inside platform: c.110 by 90 m with 1 m H. & inner stone wall with 1 m H. Space between the outer and inner wall: 12 m (south), 26 m (west) and 46 m (north) Wooden mosque: 38 by 32 m (1,216 square meter) ‘ Courtyard’ of the prayer hall: rectangular in 20 by 16 m ‘Galleries’: 10 m (east/front), 7 m (west) and 9 m (north & south) Stone foundation at portal with ablution: 10 by 10 m (100 square meter)

Also, for meaning of ‘two side-by-side steep pointed roofs, covered with palm leaves’ roof of the mosque, observed by several visitors, the author estimated two possibility such as;

‘Whole interior of main building’ (west) or ‘front gallery’ (east)

Even though the map shows almost the same condition with such description of the mosque, it is very important that the axis of mosque building in rectangular plan is not the same direction with any line of both outer and inner stone walls, which are not drown as pure rectangular plan. This condition tells us different periods of construction between mosque building and two stonewalls, and it is easily considered that certainly mosque building was built more later to suit with real direction toward Mecca (7) by Habib Abud al-Rahman.

Therefore, we can understand that his constructed second mosque is only prayer hall by traditional timber beam technique on the original double stonewalls structure. We have almost no comparable data with this map of the second mosque ruins, however, among Southeast Asian old mosques in existence almost we cannot find similar example with this kind of double stonewall with inner

45

Fig. 3　Areal view of the Indrapuri Old Mosque Fig. 4　Panorama of the Indrapuri Old Mosque after the Dutch-Aceh War

platform system except the Indrapuri Old Mosque.However, what is the most important point is firstly

that Kaaba Temple in Al-Haram Mosque of Mecca is not the courtyard style mosque, because the Kaaba is the common target of prayer for all Muslim in the world. Also, her thinking that this mosque was formed by a courtyard style, never chose in any vernacular wooden mosque architecture in Southeast Asia. After the built of the Umayyad Mosque of Damascus (715), the courtyard style mosque had been widely spread in both West and South Asia, mainly because of its structural style with wider prayer space in dray climate region. However, the wide space of courtyard has no any pragmatic function in rainy season of Southeast Asia. By this very simple natural reason, Southeast Asian local architects had tried to get wide space by timber pyramidal structure during the 15th and 19th centuries.

In such reconstruction of the second mosque, more important element is double stone walls, which had been used the first mosque after the 17th century. Especially, the tall outer wall was used as defensible structure by Acehnese against the Dutch attack, such as picture of Dutch (Figure 6). Moreover, with addition of the inner wall on the platform, the ruins map

of the second mosque clearly informs in large possibility it is the original double stonewalls of the first mosque. This very large, if compare with mosque building, and massive stone made structures suggests a similar image with large foundation of the Indrapuri Old Mosque, which in fact became the second base of defense for Acehnese after fall of the Baiturrahman Mosque and the palace in 1874 until 1879.

However, we should care again the plan of the second mosque in the map of Van Maaten, which has two irregular elements, as followed;

1. No showing any mihrab like projection part on the west side wall2. The eastern gallery wider than the western ‘gallery’Even though this map does not show any existing building but only its ruins of the prayer hall, the mihrab, the most important

part of any mosque, is usually clearly appeared on the qibla wall. Also, we can only estimate relative small ruins of the southeast of the prayer hall and two ruins located mid position between outer wall and mid wall as something additional buildings. However, if Van Maaten had not basic knowledge of mosque architecture, sometimes he could miss out to find the mihrab part.

But, the second element is not related with the same reason. Although almost the courtyard style mosque has wide roofed prayer hall at the qibla side, the western side in Banda Aceh, the western ‘gallery’ has narrow depth than the eastern ‘gallery’, that is 3 m

46

Fig. 5　Ruins of the second Baiturrahman Mosque Fig. 6　The outer wall of the Baiturrahman Mosque in 1873

difference according to above mentioned record by Bruinsma. Also, the east-west section of the mosque building in the map shows a few lower level of the floor of the western ‘gallery’ from the ‘courtyard’, while floor of the eastern ‘gallery’ has no different level with the ‘courtyard’. Moreover, the ‘courtyard’ is not drawn as surface of the platform but as something higher structure together with the eastern ‘gallery’.

To understand this structural condition ruins in the section AB, a rational answer should be that this mosque building was not constructed in the courtyard style, but a composition building between the main prayer hall (east, north & south ‘galleries’ with ‘courtyard’, 38 by 26 m) and the mihrab ‘gallery’ (38 by 7 m). In this estimation, the mihrab ‘gallery’ is too larger from common mihrab, therefore it is more better interpretation that this lower lever floor part could be the original part of the first mosque, and Habib Abd al-Rahman added a wide prayer hall its eastern side.

I cannot understand the reason for identification as central ‘courtyard’ in the plan by van der Maaten and the description of Bruinsma because the central part and eastern part higher than the western part in the section AB (8), and this section could not be happened by the courtyard plan even built in stilt structure. Then by structural evidence in this section we must think that ‘courtyard’ like image in the plan was miss-understood for additional part of the second mosque on the original the first building. Therefore, we should consider this second mosque was not built in the courtyard style. By condition of the section AB and observation of visitors, I would consider the second mosque was built a large rectangular plan with covering by long hipped roof from square planed the first mosque. If this estimation is right, the prayer hall has no wall as like as the front hall in the Java/Malay style, while the mihrab ‘gallery’ only was surrounded by wall for formation of the mihrab.

Anyway, we should memorize that Habib Abd al-Rahman constructed very rare style mosque by traditional timber technique on the center of the original foundation. And, certainly this mosque was not the same with image of the author’s description as ‘does the Kaaba in the Haram of the Holiest Mosque in Mecca’ (p.43) (9).

4. The Third Baiturrahman Mosque-the Colonial styleAfter 3 years later from the burning and occupation by the Dutch troop on the second mosque, Governor General J. W. van

Landsberge expressed construction of a new mosque at the same place when he visited occupied Banda Aceh in March 1877. Of cause, this promise was made by unfinished Acehnese strong resistance, was continued more 30 years after this year until the 1910s at least.

For this third mosque, the core part of present time the Baiturrahman Mosque and constructed during October 9, 1879 and December 27, 1881, and the author explains result of her long search for limited information of the architect, such as;

The name is Burins who belongs to the Department of Public Works in the Dutch East Indies Colonial Government, and he was ‘probably a European-trained Dutch architect and a Christian’. With consultation of a ulama of West Java he could design the main part of this third mosque and the construction works was held by Lie A Sie, an Overseas Chinese in Aceh.

As pointed out by the author, the largest problem of this third mosque is that the plan was designed as pure cruciform building (Figure 7). There was no any specialty on the qibla wall at the west with others sides. This condition clearly tells us religious background of Bruins as a Christian (10). In contrast, the Java/Malay style traditional mosque was built in square plan by technical reason as timber structure, in several methods architects tried to construct mihrab such as by niched brick wall at the Indrapuri Old Mosque or wooden projection small chamber at the Kampung Laut Mosque. These formation of mihrab are shown clearly in plans, however, the original plan of this third Baiturrahman Mosque has no special part of mihrab in the plan.

As the next feature, the central part of this mosque has octagonal planed second floor, where was covered by impressionable large onion shaped dome (Figure 8, 9). Although, the first roof of south-north wings is covered by traditional hipped double roofs, but it could not show large impression under this massive central dome. Why Bruins got image of this central dome and where is located the original architecture?

Before the construction of the third mosque, the first central large domed mosque, Al Osmani Mosque (Figure 10), was constructed in Labuhan, Medan (No.5 in Map) in 1872. In this place located a small Malay sultanate, the Deli Sultanate, which had been accepted political influence of the Dutch Colonial Government in the 1860s. In 1870, Sultan of Deli ordered restoration of this mosque to a German originated company, G. D. Langereis & Co, in Medan, where was originally the area of this sultanate. 2 years later, new building of this mosque was completed with large central dome and horseshoe arched exterior galleries similar with the Mesquita in Cordoba.

The central large dome of this mosque is formed half ball shape on the octagonal shaped cylindrical prayer hall. It seems this large dome, no any quite similar model dome in other region, has basic function of dome for getting wide space without inner pillars, as like as the same function with early domed mosque in West Asia. Although we have no evidence for consideration of architectural choice of this style, probably, architect of this company chose dome structure by vague image of West Asian mosque for this order.

However, the dome of the third mosque of Baiturrahman is different with the dome of Al Osmani Mosque, such as in shape and structural function, even though impressionable exterior image of this mosque probably gave a large suggestion for Bruins. The dome of third mosques is formed onion shape with relative long eaves at the lower part. By basic point of view, this shape is very similar

47

with domed mausoleum of the Indian Islamic architecture. Also, long eaves exactly resembles to chhatri, domed summerhouse building in the Indian Islamic architecture. Almost resembled chhatri like eaves of the central dome of Baiturrahman are found easily especially in Mughal buildings in Agra. But, in different with dome of Al Osmani Mosque, the dome of Baiturrahman has no dynamical structural relation with square planed lower part. This dome with octagonal second floor is only functioned as decoration of this building, which is almost the same meaning with the early buildings of the Indo-Saracenic style buildings in North India such as the Muir Central College in Allahabad or the Mayo College in Ajmer (11).

Even though we have no detail information of architectural knowledge background of Bruins, without information of such function and examples of domed mausoleum and chhatri, no body possible to create design of the central dome of the third mosque. The author also points out basic style of the third mosque was chose from recall Mughal architecture like the Revenue Board Building/

Chepauk Palace in Madras (12), however, her explained similar Mughal imaged buildings in the British Malaya and Singapore were constructed after the 1890s such as will be shown in the later. In this point of view, we should care differences of model of Al Osmani Mosque and the third mosque of Baiturrahman. Without doubt Bruins certainly got much information of such early examples of the Indo-Saracenic architecture in the British India, while architects of G. D. Langereis & Co created central large dome by their own imagination related with domed Islamic architectures in West Asia.

However, we should care an early picture of the third mosque in 1881. In this picture Bruins constructed cruciform mosque was stand on a high, probably ca.80 cm, foundation (Figure

48

Fig. 9　The central dome of the third Baiturrahman Mosque in 1881

Fig. 10　Al-Osmani Mosque, Medan, North Sumatera during 1900-16

Fig. 7　The original plan of the third Baiturrahman Mosque

Fig. 8　The third Baiturrahman Mosque in 1881

11). This is certainly considered as remained part of inside platform, which was recorded by Van der Maaten and Bruinsma based on observation before the construction of the third mosque. Therefore, by this picture we can confirm such remain of the early structure of this mosque since the 17th century.

After construction of the third mosque in 1881, dome style monument of this mosque was slowly accepted by the local Acehnese. At least, for getting sympathy of them, in 1936 firstly this mosque was expanded with changing of rectangular plan by two additional domes at both sides (Figure 12 & 13). This is very meaningful extension work, because rectangular plan is more suit with emphasize of the qibla wall. Therefore, we can understand that this change, designed by an Indonesian architect Ir. Thaher (13), resulted more wide acceptance of the local Muslim.

This extension of the Baiturrahman Mosque became an important trigger to modernized local Muslim for the beginning of using

of domed mosque, as result new mosques after this period were always constructed with dome, a symbol of modernization of Islam in this region. By such reason also, after this time the independent Indonesian government expanded this mosque with addition of number of domes, such as five in 1962 and finally seven in 1990 as explained by the author (i-bid. op.cit.: 66-79).

5. Archaeological remains of mosque in Southeast AsiaIn this chapter, I want to discuss the meaning of mosque ruins of the Islam world in general, Southeast Asia in particular, left

from study of Bouwsema-Raap.Islam was spread in Southeast Asia, in particularly the Archipelago, around 13th century, and before 15th century large part of

important port cities began to be ruled by Muslims. Also, frequently happened conflict between Muslim and European powers in

49

Fig. 11　Side view of the third Baiturrahman Mosque in 1881

Fig. 12　The expanded the third Baiturrahman Mosque in 1936 Fig. 13　The expanded plan of the third Baiturrahman Mosque

many places, especially after Portuguese occupation on Malacca by 1511. Under such general condition, Islamic archaeology is a good way for understanding of the late historical period in this region by material evidences.

But unfortunately, we have very few number of information of mosque ruins in this region, because large part of old mosque usually was continually reused again by restoration or sometime reconstruction at the same place, even though the original sponsors lost their power such as the Great Mosque of Banten, which is one of crowded mosque in present time, located at side of the Surosowan Palace archeological ruins of the Banten Sultanate, the northwest end of Java. In the capital ruins of this sultanate, demolished by the Dutch in the 1810s, now usually it was explained by the locals only two mosque ruins concerned remaining of the mihrab niches such as the Pacinan Tinggi Mosque (Figure 14) and the Kaibon Palace Mosque (Figure 15), even though not clear the dating of the construction. These are very small number, if consider estimated maximum population of this port city is about 100,000 persons by the 17th century. Except continually using mosque in present such as the Great Mosque of Banten, large part of other much number of mosques could not be confirmed as mosque without remaining of mihrab part. Moreover, the majority of Southeast Asian early mosque both the Java/Malay style or the Pattani style (14) ware built by timber structure for the main part, therefore difficult to identify as mosque building by only remains of under surface structure. Especially, mosque built only timber structure included mihrab such as the Kampung Laut Mosque (Figure 16) could not be identified as religious building by only archaeological method.

Originally, mosque has no special architectural common characteristics including mihrab part in Islam, because it was only

required wide space for gathering prayer with mark for showing of the Mecca’s direction (qibla). Furthermore, by general condition of no finding of any prayer target perfectly, archaeological artifacts cannot be used as evidence for its function as religious prayer building. Except the 4 iwan style large mosque in the Persian cultural area, large part of mosque ruins could not be identified easily as mosque, moreover in the case of timber architecture. Only the courtyard style plan relative clearly shows its function such as Bambhore Mosque (727, Figure 17) ruins in Pakistan, the Great Mosque of Siraf (8th-9th centuries, Figure 18) at the Persian Gulf coast, Iran or the Otrar Mosque (14th C., Figure 19) ruins in Kazakhstan (15), which were shown construction with qibra direction. However, mosque of this style had not constructed in Southeast Asia by natural reason. By such basic condition, Islamic archeology in Southeast Asia has large difference with other religious archaeological studies, which targeted special proper prayer tools or architecture.

50

Fig. 14　Pacinan Tinggi Mosque ruins, Banten Lama Fig. 15　Kaibon Palace Mosque ruins, Banten Lama

Fig. 16　The qibla wall of Kampung Laut Mosque, Kelantan Fig. 17　The Great Mosque ruins in Bambhore, Pakistan

In the Southeast Asian archipelago, the changing procedure of a mosque from early timber building like the Java/Malay style to modern domed mosque is quite difficult to know by archaeological study only, even much number of large mosques in this region were already processed such architectural drastic restoration. Moreover, Islamic burial ruins, old tomb, is perfectly difficult to be investigated as target of study by archaeological excavation included accidental findings due to special beliefs for tomb by Muslim.

Therefore, in Indonesia, the most developed country for the Islamic archaeology in Southeast Asia, this field do not means a study for religious one but close to an archaeological study of pre-Modern period, as a periodic term (16). Because of this condition, the major targets are focused city structure concentrated large monuments such as palace and fort etc. or trade relation by study of finding foreign ceramic shards. Sometimes, existing tomb stones/cenotaphs are targeted in this study field, however, it is frequently closer to art historical point of view.

However, although the Islamic archeology means study for a period, we want to use some religious proper material elements for separation with other religious cultural one. By this reason, originally identification of mosque building is a best way for such purpose, even includes much difficulty. Especially, in the Archipelago of Southeast Asia it should be an important study method for understanding total history (17).

In such point of view for development of the Islamic archaeology in this region, it is easily to know the special value of our targeted the Baiturrahman Mosque.

6. Mosque as colonial architecture in Southeast AsiaIn another point of view, as a colonial architecture the Baiturrahman Mosque also has special meanings.We can clearly confirm the procedure of construction of a colonial or non-vernacular mosque building for reconstruction of the

early mosque at the same place. Especially, in fact the third mosque of Baiturrahman was acted as the creator of new domed style mosque in Southeast Asia. After construction of the third mosque, even though local Acehnese did not accept this strange building as their religious prayer place as least until its first extension by 1936.

For understanding of acceptance procedure of new style mosque, an important mosque is the Baiturrahim Mosque in Ulee Lheue (Figure 20), the port of Banda Aceh. When the second Baiturrahman Mosque was burn by the Dutch attack in 1873, local Muslim had held their prayer in the old building of this mosque, but in 1922 the colonial government reconstructed the new building with pyramidal roof covered a small dome and similar plan with the third Baiturrahman Mosque instead decrepit old timber building. This procedure tells us two facts that the local Muslim had begun to use domed building as mosque in the 1920s, and the colonial government built a transitional eclectic style mosque in Aceh. Until this period, large part of vernacular timber mosques in Aceh were still existed such as above mentioned the Samalanga Mosque, rather the Indrapuri Old Mosque is remaining in present time.

By this condition, we can understand that the Dutch colonial government reconstructed such two mosques by eclectic style for stabilization of Muslim who stayed in former capital of the occupied sultanate. It is clear, that the purpose was not a religious welfare policy but a kind of occupation method. Also, tells that around this period, the local Muslim had accustomed themselves such colonial eclectic building as mosque (18).

Similar imaged domed mosques were continually constructed in North Sumatera and Malaya, such as the Azizi Mosque in Tanjungpura (1902, Figure 21, No.4 in Map) or the Zahir Mosque in Alor Ster (1912) and the Syed Alwi Mosque in Kangar (1933) etc. by order of local authorities, while the British Colonial Government in Malaya also built several the Indo-Saracenic style mosques (19)

such as the Friday Mosque of Kuala Lumpur (1909, Figure 22, No.6 in Map) or the Ubudiah Mosque in Kuala Kangsar (1917, Figure 23, No.7 in Map) etc.

In this point of view, from experience of the Baiturrahman Mosque we can relative easily to consider the reason of construction

51

Fig. 18　The Great Mosque ruins in Siraf, Iran Fig. 19　The Great Mosque ruins in Otrar, Kazakhstan

of colonial mosques in these areas. Also, this fact is closely related with other reason of colonial rule condition in the other part of Sumatera or Java etc. in the Dutch East Indies, in where never built or restored any mosques by the colonial government.

7. Conclusion The main study target of W. Bouwsema-Raap, the author of this book, is general historical development of Islamic culture in

Aceh, and for this purpose she uses the Baiturrahman Mosque as a symbolical monument. This is a good idea for explanation of such her interest if consider long historical changing condition of this mosque. In this point of view, her method is acceptable to be evaluated as excellent success on this publication, however her methods which mainly depend on the past written documents is not sufficient to describe the vivid changes of mosque architecture in the past. In this point of view, this publication can be read an important study result of general historical understanding for Acehnese Islamic changing. Basic data of her study were only concentrated in documents and each element of existing this mosque, by this reason much number of hidden data mainly from archaeological study were not used in her description.

Besides my pointed-out no possibility of the courtyard style concerned the map of the second mosque, she originally should search the condition before the first mosque of Baiturrahman, because after first introduction of Islam before the end of 13th century, some certain kinds of buildings ware should be used as mosque. For example, several beautiful Muslim tombstones of the Samudera-Pasai Sultanate are remaining around North Aceh as certain material evidence of acceptance of Islam, but we have no any information of mosque in this earliest sultanate of Southeast Asia because difficulty of mosque building ruins for its identification of the mihrab part in wooden architecture. By consideration of such reason, of cause, we cannot view the Baiturrahman Mosque as the oldest mosque in Aceh.

Probably mosque like the existing Kampung Laut Mosque were ever constructed and used in Aceh also, and we should answer the reason for development special technique in Aceh, separated architectural structures between the wooden roof and brick wall in the same time.

Even though still find such several questions related with material history in Islamic Aceh, as the trigger for deep and wide expansion of interest on material elements I am convinced absolutely the valuable importance of this book, at least for development of the Islamic archaeological study in Southeast Asian archipelago.

52

Fig. 22　The Friday Mosque of Kuala Lumpur Fig. 23　Ubudiah Mosque, Kuala Kangsar, Perak

Fig. 20　Baiturahim Mosque in Ulee Lheue, Banda Aceh in 1929 Fig. 21　Azizi Mosque, Tanjungpura, North Sumatera in 1921

Note1. She does not explain the name of this mosque, but it is clear the picture of the Samalanga Mosque in Bireun area, North Aceh during 1880-1910

(Bouwsema-Raap 2009: 33 Fig. 8).2. The Great Mosque of Demak, the existing oldest mosque in Java with dating late half of the 15th century, and the Kapung Laut Mosque, older

more mosque in Kelantan of the Malay Peninsula, are formed triple roofs. As variation of this style, there are five roofs (the Sultan of Ternate Mosque) or double roofs (the Palace Mosque of Wolio) in Eastern Indonesia by the 18th century (Sakai 2016).

3. This mosque is located about 20km southeast from the Baiturrahman Mosque (Bouwsema-Raap 2009: 32 Fig. 7).4. Banten by Valentijn was copied all elements from an old map of this city, estimated the 1630’s (Guillot 1990), by only changing of view point

from flat map to bird view image.5. Usually at the entrance side of the prayer hall in the Java/Malay style mosque attached wall-less hipped roof hall such as the Great Mosque of

Demak or the Kampung Laut Mosque. Even though such entrance hall is always constructed in one story, sometimes this two stories image was miss-drown double roofs of such building.

6. This map (Bouwsema-Raap 2009: Fig. 10) was certainly made by some technician among the Dutch troop in not long time after the Dutch occupation of Banda Aceh in Jan 6, 1874. And the original map was inserted in the publication of K. van der Maaten (Maaten 1896).

7. The axis of both stonewalls is drawn by more eastern direction than the mosque building, it can be estimated to suit with the stream of Aceh River at northeast neighboring.

8. As a possibility, floor of the front hall in the first mosque was still traced in different surface condition with other part. Regard on such differences, probably they miss-observed it as trace of courtyard by wrong belief from image of West Asian mosques.

9. Even though Kaaba Temple is surrounded by wide gallery like structure of Haram Mosque, Kaaba itself has no any courtyard but a cubic structure. By this common understanding of Kaaba and Haram Mosque, this paragraph of the author is not totally to suit with the map of van der Maaten.

10. The Great Mosque of Medan, built in 1906, also formed in diamond plan without any emphasizing of qibla wall. This mosque with five domes was designed by a Dutch architect Theodoor van Erp, who were very famous as the leader of the first restoration work of Borobudur during 1907-11. This eclectic style mosque was functioned for the next grate mosque of sultan of Deli after Al Osmani Mosque.

11. Muir Central College was designed by W. Emerson during 1872-86, while Mayo Collage was built by C. Mant in 1875.12. This palace was built by Robert Chisholm in 1871 with the same function of central dome with the third mosque of Baiturrahman.13. Bouwsema-Raap could not get educational background of this local architect also (Bouwsema-Raap 2009: p.93).14. The Java/Malay style mosque, widely spread in Southeast Asian archipelago, is formed square plan with pyramidal multi roofs, while rectangular

plan mosque with mihrab at short side are concentrated around Pattani, Southern Thailand and Kelantan, Northeast coast of Malay Peninsula (the Pattani style) (see Sakai 2016).

15. Bambhore, located at close to the mouse of the Indus River, was occupied the Umayyad Dynasty as the east end of their territory, and a stone made mosque ruins in the courtyard style is remaining in good condition without mihrab. Also, the Great Mosque of Siraf, a stone made courtyard style mosque without clear mihrab part, ruins at an old port of the Persian Gulf, Iran, was constructed on exact the same place of building ruins of the Sasanian period. Meanwhile Otrar, located the right bank of Syr River, was formed an important transportation center in Central Asia. In this city ruins a brick made courtyard style mosque ruins of the 14th century is found with mihrab structure.

16. For example, the first excavation report of Banten Lama (Hassan 1978), occupied as the first result of Islamic archeological investigation in Indonesia, was only explained condition of palace and city of this sultanate in the western part of Java Island.

17. Almost similar condition with the Indrapuri Old Mosque is found in the other Islamic world, such as the Great Mosque of Siraf ruins.18. Probably the acceptance of the local Muslim for domed mosque was related with development of the modernization of Islam with getting new

knowledge of the Western Islamic world after the 1920s. 19. During about half century, 1880s-1930s, the British Colonial Government in India almost never constructed any mosques in any styles included

the Indo-Sracenic, because Muslim population is not the majority in the British India.

BibliographyBasry, Muh. Hasan and Ibrahim Alfian (ed.)

1990 Perang Kolonial Belanda di Aceh/The Dutch Colonial War in Aceh. Banda Aceh: The Documentation and Information Center of Aceh.Bruinsma, J.F.D.

1889 De Verovering van Atjeh’s Groote Missigit. Sneek: H. Pyttersen.Bouwsema-Raap, Wilhelmina

2009 The Great Mosque of Banda Aceh. Bangkok: White Lotus.Guillot, Claude

1990 The Sultanate of Banten. Jakarta: Gramedia.Hassan M. Ambary

1978 Penelitian Ekskavasi Banten Lama 1976. Jakarta: Pusat Penelitian Arkeologi Nasional (Indonesian National Archaeology Study Center).Maaten, K. van der

1896 De Indische Oorlogen. vol.1. Haarlem: n.p., and Batavia: Kolff.Mundy, Peter

1919 The Travels of Peter Mundy. vol.3. Pt.2, 2nd series: No.45 and vol.3. Pt.2, 2nd series: No.46. London: Hakluyt Society.Sakai Takashi

2015 The Changing of Colonial Architecture in Southeast Asia, 2015 Annual Conference for Southeast Asia in Taiwan at National Tsing-Hua

53

University, Hsinchu, Taiwan2016 ‘The Java/Malay style mosques architecture and the example in Buton’, Journal of Southeast Asian Archaeology 36, pp.61-78

Internet web-sitesGoogle Earth Pro

2018a Indrapuri, Aceh Besar Regency, Aceh, Indonesia, accessed in June 19, 20182018b North Sumatera & Malay, accessed in June 23, 2018

Wikimedia Commons2009a ‘Banda Atjeh.jpg’, accessed in June 19, 2018

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Banda_Atjeh.jpg2009b ‘COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Moskee in Laboehandeli TMnr 10016536.jpg’, accessed in June 19, 2018

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:COLLECTIE_TROPENMUSEUM_Moskee_in_Laboehandeli_TMnr_10016536.jpg2009c ‘COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Moskee TMnr 10016532.jpg’, accessed in June 19, 2018

https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkas:COLLECTIE_TROPENMUSEUM_Moskee_TMnr_10016532.jpg2009d ‘COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Militairen voor de moskee van Samalanga TMnr 10016556.jpg’, accessed in June 23, 2018

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:COLLECTIE_TROPENMUSEUM_Militairen_voor_de_moskee_van_Samalanga_TMnr_10016556.jpg

2009e ‘COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM De Azizi Moskee Tandjoengpoera TMnr 60021732.jpg’, accessed in June 23, 2018https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:COLLECTIE_TROPENMUSEUM_De_Azizi_Moskee_Tandjoengpoera_TMnr_60021732.jpg

2011 ‘Mesigit777.jpg’, accessed in June 19, 2018https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mesigit777.jpg

2014 ‘Banbhore-20.jpg’, accessed in June 23, 2018https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Banbhore-20.jpg

2015 ‘Masjid Ubudiah, Kuala Kangsar.JPG’, accessed in June 23, 2018https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Masjid_Ubudiah,_Kuala_Kangsar.JPG?uselang=ms

2016 ‘Eks Keraton Kaibon - panoramio.jpg’, accessed in June 19, 2018https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eks_Keraton_Kaibon_-_panoramio.jpg

Source of pictures1: Wikimedia Commons 2009d, 2: Wikimedia Commons 2009a, 3: Google Earth Pro 2018a, 4: Wikimedia Commons 2011, 5: Bouwsema-Raap 2009, 6: Basry & Alfian 1990, 7-9: Bouwsema-Raap 2009, 10: Wikimedia Commons 2009b, 11-13: Bouwsema-Raap 2009, 14: Sakai Takashi, 15: Wikimedia Commons 2016, 16: the author, 17: Wikimedia Commons 2014, 18-19: Sakai Takashi, 20: Wikimedia Commons 2009c, 21: Wikimedia Commons 2009e, 22: Sakai Takashi, 23: Wikimedia Commons 2015, Map: Google Earth Pro 2018b

Map 1: Banda Aceh, 2: Indrapuri, 3: Samalanga, 4: Tanjungpura, 5: Medan, 6: Kuala Lumpur, 　　 7: Kuala Kangsar, 8: Kampung Laut

54