| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: Palace and Mosque at Ukhaidir - A Study in Early Mohammadan Architecture
Author: Bell, Gertrude Lowthian
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Palace and Mosque at Ukhaidir - A Study in Early Mohammadan Architecture" ***
produced from images available at The Internet Archive)
PALACE AND MOSQUE
AT UKHAIḌIR
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONDON EDINBURGH GLASGOW NEW YORK
TORONTO MELBOURNE BOMBAY
HUMPHREY MILFORD M.A.
PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY
PALACE AND MOSQUE
AT
UKHAIḌIR
A STUDY IN
EARLY MOHAMMADAN ARCHITECTURE
BY
GERTRUDE LOWTHIAN BELL
OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1914
TO MY FRIEND
DR. WALTHER ANDRAE
IN GRATEFUL RECOLLECTION OF HAPPY AND PROFITABLE
DAYS SPENT IN THE FIRST CAPITAL OF ASSYRIA
WHICH HAS BEEN REVEALED BY HIS
LABOUR AND RECREATED BY
HIS LEARNING
PREFACE
I have attempted in this book to bring together the materials, so far as
they are known, which bear upon the earliest phases of Mohammadan
architecture, to consider the circumstances under which it arose and the
roots from which it sprang. No development of civilization, or of the
arts which serve and adorn civilization, has burst full-fledged from the
forehead of the god; and architecture, which is the first and most
permanent of the arts, reflects with singular fidelity the history of
its creators. Not only does their culture stand revealed in the
crumbling walls which sheltered them and in the monuments raised for
perpetual remembrance over their bones, but the links which bound them
to that which had gone before are therein confessed, as well as their
own contribution to the achievements of their predecessors, to
mechanical skilfulness, to utility, and to beauty. It is the nature and
the extent of this contribution which is of vital importance to the
student, and it is this which lends to architecture its keenest
significance. What, then, was the contribution of the first builders of
Islâm?
It must be confessed that the question admits of no very striking
rejoinder. The Mohammadan invaders were essentially nomadic; their
dwelling was the black tent, their grave the desert sands. The
inhabitants of the rare oases of western and central Arabia were
content, as they are to-day, with a rude architecture of sun-dried brick
and palm-trunks, unadorned by any intricate device of the imagination,
and unsuited to any but the simplest needs. Even the great national
shrine at Mekkah, the sacred house of the Ka’bah, was innocent of
subsidiary constructions. It is true that on the northern trade-route
the rock-cut tombs of Madâin Ṣâliḥ and of Petra bear witness to a higher
order of artistic impulse, but it was an impulse which borrowed its
power from without, from Hellenized Egypt and from Hellenized Syria. If
there were an indigenous Arabian architecture worthy of the name, it can
only have existed in the southern limits of the peninsula, where as yet
exploration has been too imperfect to afford data for argument, nor is
there evidence to show that in the seventh century of our era it can
have played a part in the development of the northern tribes. Upon the
northern frontiers the influence of the Byzantine and of the Sasanian
empires would seem to have been predominant, and when the invaders
established themselves in provinces which had been ruled from
Constantinople or from Ctesiphon, they employed Greek and Persian
artificers to fulfil their newly developed requirements and to satisfy
their newly developed taste for architectural magnificence. The palaces
of the conquerors were planned, constructed, and adorned by those whom
they had conquered; their learning and their civilization were borrowed
from them; even the ritual of their faith was shaped by contact with
older forms of worship. No more significant example of the debt which
Islâm owes to alien races can be cited than that which is afforded by
the history of the mosque. Out of the mud-built courtyard of the Arab
house, the open space for domestic and tribal assembly, Greek and
Persian builders created an architectural type which governed the whole
Mohammadan world. And the only contribution of the masters for whom they
worked was the demand for just such large and open spaces, easily
accessible, oriented in a certain manner, and partially shaded from the
rays of the sun.
It is therefore scarcely possible to say that a specifically Mohammadan
art existed during the first century after the Flight, though its germs
were latent in the welding together of Hellenized with un-Hellenized, or
barely Hellenized, regions under a single hand. The architecture of the
first century gives evidence of the formative character of this process
of compression; before the third century had ended it may be said to
have been completed. If the monuments of the first century are still a
faithful reflection of earlier and foreign creations, they hold the
promise of further and more definitely characterized growth. But in an
age and in lands where change was slow-footed, older conceptions
continued to hold the field long after the political conditions under
which they had arisen had vanished or had been baptized with other
names. As we now know, the Mesopotamian palace builders of the ninth
century of our era were guided by schemes which their Sasanian
forerunners had inherited from remoter times; while the mosque builders
had advanced little beyond the plan laid down in the camp-cities of the
conquest. But the interchange of workmen between East and West was
continuous, the intercourse unbroken; and from that intercourse, coupled
with the needs of the age and the prejudices of the Faith, the arts of
Islâm were born.
In the present study my eyes have been turned chiefly, and necessarily,
backwards. I have not been so much concerned with the offspring as with
the parentage of the buildings which I have passed under review. Of
these buildings the most important is the great palace of Ukhaiḍir on
the eastern side of the Syrian desert. I have given, also, the first
plans and photographs of three small ruins in its vicinity, Qṣair,
Mudjḍah, and ‘Aṭshân. If they do not belong to the same period as the
palace, they cannot be far removed from it in date. The problems
presented by Ukhaiḍir led me back to Sasanian architecture, and I
publish here new plans and photographs of two vast constructions at
Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn. I have, further, taken this occasion to publish the plans
of two mosques, the one at Diyârbekr, the other at Mayâfârqîn, both of
which belong to a later period. The first of these has been known to us
only through a sketch made by Texier, which I found to be inaccurate in
many significant points, as it is also incomplete. The second has not
previously been studied.
The palace of Ukhaiḍir was practically unknown until the winter of
1908-9, although it had been seen by European travellers as early as the
seventeenth century. Della Valle passed by it in June 1625 on his way
from Baṣrah to Aleppo, and described it as ‘a great ancient fabric,
perfectly square, with thirteen pilasters or round columns on each side
without, and other compartments of arches; within which were many
chambers, with a court of no great bigness and uncovered. The Arabians
call this fabric Casr Chaider. I could not conjecture whether it had
been a palace or temple or castle; but I incline to believe it a palace
rather than anything else.’[1] Pedro Teixeira’s account is doubtful. He
says:[2] ‘At eleven in the morning we came to a dry channel which in
winter they say has much water, and I thought it likely by the nature of
its situation and capaciousness. Over it, on a rising ground, is still
an ancient square fort, with twelve bastions, three on each side, made
of burnt brick and lime, strong and well built. Without it, at about
sixty paces distance, is a small Alcoran, or Tower, ten cubits high,
tho’ it appears to have been higher, of the same structure, all decay’d
with age; yet it appears to be a royal fabrick by its goodness and the
place it stands in, where it could not be raised without mighty cost and
much labour, and difficulty. It was done by an Arabian king, grandfather
to Xeque Mahamed Eben Raxet, whom I said before I was carried to see, to
secure the caravans going that way before the Turks possess’d themselves
of Bagdat and Bazora. The Arabs call it Alcayzar or Kayzar, which
signifies a palace or Cesar’s House, for so they call all that belong to
kings and princes. This they reckon the half-way from Bazora to Mexat
Aly, whither we were going. We found some small wells in this channel,
the water of them clear and fresh, but of an intolerable ill scent, yet
necessity prevail’d.’ The only item in this description which connects
Teixeira’s palace with Ukhaiḍir is the name. Teixeira reached Meshhed
‘Ali (Nedjef) six days after he had passed by Alcayzar and he gives the
situation of the palace as half-way between Baṣrah and Nedjef, whereas
Ukhaiḍir lies to the north-west of Nedjef. There is no ‘Alcoran’, i.e.
minaret, at Ukhaiḍir, neither could the building be described, even by
the least careful observer, as a square fort with three bastions on each
side. I am therefore inclined to suppose that there is another ruin
called Ukhaiḍir further to the south. We need not linger over the
derivation which he assigns to the name.
Scarcely more correct as to architectural features is Tavernier’s
allusion to Ukhaiḍir. There can, however, be no doubt that it is to
Ukhaiḍir that he refers, by reason of the geographical position of his
‘grand Palais’. Coming from Aleppo, he turned off at ‘Ânah into the
desert and after some twenty days of journeying he observes:[3] ‘Cinq
jours aprés que nous eûmes quitté ces deux familles Arabes, nous
découvrîmes un grand Palais tout de brique cuite au feu; et il y a de
l’apparence que le pays a esté autrefois semé, et que les fourneaux où
on a cuit cette brique ont esté chauffez avec du chaume: car à quinze
ou vingt lieües à la ronde il n’y a pas une brossaille ni un brin de
bois. Chaque brique est d’un demi-pied en quarré et épaisse de six
pouces. Il y a dans ce Palais trois grandes cours, et dans chacune de
beaux bastimens avec deux rangs d’arcades qui sont l’un sur l’autre.
Quoy que ce grand Palais soit encore entier, il est toutefois inhabité,
et les Arabes fort ignorans de l’antiquité ne me sceurent apprendre pour
qui il a esté basti, ny d’autres singularitez dont je m’informay, et
dont j’aurois bien voulu qu’ils m’eussent instruit. Devant la porte de
ce Palais il y a un étang accompagné d’un canal qui est à sec. Le fond
du canal est de brique, de mesme que la voûte qui est à fleur de terre,
et les Arabes croyent que c’a esté un conduit par lequel on faisoit
passer l’eau de l’Euphrate. Pour moy je ne sçaurois qu’en juger, et ne
puis comprendre comme on pouvoit faire venir de l’eau de si loin,
l’Euphrate estant éloigné de ce lieü-là de plus de vingt lieües. De ce
Palais nous tirâmes au nord est et après une marche de quatre jours nous
arrivâmes à un méchant bourg, autrefois nommé Cufa et à present
Meched-Ali.’[4]
The least inaccurate description of Ukhaiḍir is furnished by an
anonymous Englishman, quoted by Niebuhr.[5] ‘Ich habe’, says he, ‘in dem
Tagebuch eines Engländers, der von Haleb nach Basra gereiset war,
gefunden, dass er 44 Stunden nach Osten von Hêt eine ganz verlassene
Stadt in der Wüste angetroffen habe, wovon die Mauer 50 Fuss hoch und 40
Fuss dick war. Jede der vier Seiten hatte 700 Fuss, und in der Mauer
waren Thürme. In dieser Stadt, oder grossem Castell, findet man noch ein
kleines Castell. Von eben dieser verlassenen Stadt hörte ich nachher,
dass sie von den Arabern el Khader genannt werde und um 10 bis 12
Stunden von Meshed Ali entfernt sei. Sie ist ohne Zweifel gleichfalls
wegen Mangel an Wasser verlassen worden: und da man hier gar keine
Städte oder Dörfer in der Nähe findet, so ist dies wohl die Ursache,
dass man davon nicht alle brauchbare Steine weggebracht hat, wie von
Kufa und Basra, wo fast nichts mehr übrig ist.’ In the same volume (p.
236) Niebuhr gives the route from Baṣrah to Aleppo through the desert
and mentions therein Ukhaiḍir under the name of el Chäder, remarking
that it is the castle to which the Englishman referred. This Englishman
I conjecture to have been Mr. Carmichael, whose route is shown in a map
published by Ives,[6] and there called ‘the common route of the caravans
from Aleppo to Bassora over the great desert of Arabia, as described in
a journal kept by Mr. Carmichael in the year 1751’. Ukhaiḍir appears
upon it as ‘Alkader, the ruins of a most magnificent building’.
Major John Taylor saw it in June 1790 and dismissed it with short
shrift.[7] He too was following the desert road from Aleppo to Baṣrah.
On leaving Shethâthâ he says: ‘The camels being loaded at half past 6
this morning, we set forward over a barren flat desert. We crossed the
bed of a river and at 11 a.m. we passed to our left the ruins of a
small square fort, distant about half a mile, which the Arabs call Ula
Kayder.’
Ritter[8] gives a summary of all these notices by early travellers,
including that of Teixeira, which he accepts unquestioned, in spite of
the fact that Teixeira’s palace lies, according to his own account, at
least seven days’ journey to the south of the site of Ukhaiḍir.
M. Massignon was, however, the first to make any record of Ukhaiḍir. His
preliminary notes, together with a plan and some photographs, were
published in the _Bulletin de l’Académie des Inscriptions et
Belles-Lettres_ of March 1909, and in the _Gazette des Beaux-Arts_ of
April 1909. The next visitor to the palace was myself. I left Aleppo in
February 1909 and reached Ukhaiḍir on March 25, travelling by the east
bank of the Euphrates and across the desert from Hît via Kubaisah and
Shethâthâ. I had no knowledge of M. Massignon’s journey, neither did the
Arabs, who were at that time inhabiting the place, give me any
information concerning him. I did not hear of his discovery until I
reached Constantinople in the following July. M. Massignon followed up
his observations with the first volume of his _Mission en Mésopotamie_
(published in 1910), which was concerned chiefly with Ukhaiḍir. I, in
the meantime, had published a paper on the vaulting system of the palace
in the _Journal of Hellenic Studies_ for 1910 (p. 69), and I gave a more
detailed account of the building in the following year (_Amurath to
Amurath_, p. 140). I returned to the site in March 1911, in order to
correct my plans and to take measurements for elevations and sections.
Going thence to Babylon, I found that some of the members of the
Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft who were engaged upon the excavations there
had been to Ukhaiḍir during the two years of my absence and were
preparing a book upon it. They were so kind as to show me their drawings
while I was at Babylon, and I had the advantage of discussing with them
my conjectures and difficulties, and the satisfaction of finding that we
were in agreement on all important points. Their book appeared in 1912
(Dr. Reuther, _Ocheïdir_, published by the Deutsche
Orient-Gesellschaft), and is referred to frequently in this volume. For
their generosity in allowing me to use some of their architectural
drawings, I tender my grateful thanks, together with my respectful
admiration for their masterly production.
I feel, indeed, that I must apologize for venturing to offer a second
version of the features of a building which has been excellently
described and portrayed already. But my excuse must be that my work,
which was almost completed when the German volume came out, covers not
only the ground traversed by my learned friends in Babylon, but also
ground which they had neither leisure nor opportunity to explore; and,
further, that I believe the time has come for a comparative study of the
data collected by myself and others, such as is contained in this book.
I must also thank M. Dieulafoy, M. de Morgan, Professor Strzygowski,
Professor Sarre, Dr. Herzfeld, Professor Brünnow, Professor Haverfield,
M. Velazquez Bosco, the Director of the Imperial Museums in Berlin, the
Council of the K. Akademie of Vienna, the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft,
and Messrs. Holman, Macmillan, Gebhardt and Bruckmann, for permitting me
to reproduce plans, drawings, and photographs prepared or published by
them. I have in every case acknowledged my indebtedness in the text of
this book. Dr. Moritz and Professor Littmann have been so kind as to
give me their views on the graffito in the palace, and their suggestions
as to its deciphering. Finally I should like to thank the Clarendon
Press for the care which has been expended upon the publication of my
work, and Sir Charles Lyall for the help which he has given me in
revising the proofs.
With this I must take leave of a field of study which formed for four
years my principal occupation, as well as my chief delight. A subject so
enchanting and so suggestive as the palace of Ukhaiḍir is not likely to
present itself more than once in a lifetime, and as I bring this page to
a close I call to mind the amazement with which I first gazed upon its
formidable walls; the romance of my first sojourn within its precincts;
the pleasure, undiminished by familiarity, of my return; and the regret
with which I sent back across the sun-drenched plain a last greeting to
its distant presence. The unknown prince at whose bidding its solitary
magnificence rose out of the desert, the unknown lords who dwelt in its
courts, cannot at the time of its full splendour have gloried and
rejoiced in their handiwork and their inheritance more than I who have
known it only in decay; and, in the spirit, I part from it now with as
much unwillingness as that which I experienced when I withdrew, further
and further, from its actual protection.
GERTRUDE LOWTHIAN BELL.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. UKHAIḌIR 1
II. QṢAIR, MUDJḌAH, AND ‘AṬSHÂN 38
III. QAṢR-I-SHÎRÎN 44
IV. GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE 55
V. THE FAÇADE 122
VI. THE MOSQUE 145
VII. THE DATE OF UKHAIḌIR 161
SUBJECT INDEX 169
INDEX OF NAMES 173
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
FIGURES IN THE TEXT
FIG. PAGE
1. UKHAIḌIR, NORTH WALL OF PALACE, SHOWING ORIGINAL SCHEME 11
2. UKHAIḌIR, ARCH CONSTRUCTION 12
3. UKHAIḌIR, ARCH CONSTRUCTION 15
4. UKHAIḌIR, SOUTH SIDE OF COURT B 31
5. ZINDJIRLI 61
6. PASARGADAE 62
7. PERSEPOLIS, APADANA OF XERXES 63
8. PERSEPOLIS, PALACE OF DARIUS 64
9. PARTHIAN PALACE AT NIFFER 66
10. HATRA PALACE 67
11. RELIEF FROM QUYUNDJIK 77
12. MODERN ṬARMAH HOUSES 83
13. BALKUWÂRÂ 85
14. SCHEME OF POMPEIIAN HOUSE 87
15. PRIENE, HOUSE 33 88
16. PRIENE, HOUSE 24 88
17. PALACE AT PERGAMON 89
18. SMALL PALACE AT HATRA 91
19. CTESIPHON 95
20. KARKH 95
21. ROMAN FORT AT HOUSESTEADS 99
22. ODHRUḤ 100
23. LEDJDJÛN 101
24. DA’DJANIYYEH 102
25. BSHAIR 104
26. QASṬAL 105
27. LAGASH 107
28. ṬÛBAH 113
29. KHARÂNEH 114
30. PETRA, THE STORIED TOMB 129
31. HATRA, FAÇADE OF PALACE RECONSTRUCTED 138
32. MOSQUE AT RAQQAH 154
33. MOSQUE OF ABÛ DULAF 155
34. ASSYRIAN FORTRESS 157
35. UKHAIḌIR, GRAFFITO IN ROOM 44 163
MAPS
1. Syria and Mesopotamia }
} _at end_
2. Ukhaiḍir, map of site }
PLATES (_at end_)
1. Ukhaiḍir, ground-plan.
2. Ukhaiḍir, ground-plan of interior buildings.
3. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, first floor of palace. Fig. 2. Ukhaiḍir, second
floor of palace.
4. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, Section _a-b_. Fig. 2. Ukhaiḍir, Section _c-d_.
5. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, Section _e-f_. Fig. 2. Ukhaiḍir, Section _g-h_.
Fig. 3. Ukhaiḍir, The Ḥammâm. Fig. 4. Qṣair.
6. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir from north-east. Fig. 2. Ukhaiḍir, central court,
from south.
7. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, south-east angle of palace yard. Fig. 2. Ukhaiḍir,
north-east corner.
8. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, south-west corner. Fig. 2. Ukhaiḍir, detail of
tower chamber. Fig. 3. Ukhaiḍir, decoration on north wall.
9. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, south gate, interior. Fig. 2. Ukhaiḍir, south gate,
exterior.
10. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, chemin de ronde of east wall, looking north. Fig.
2. Ukhaiḍir, north façade, showing loopholes of chemin de ronde.
11. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, north façade. Fig. 2. Ukhaiḍir, north gate.
12. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, room 1, looking north. Fig. 2. Ukhaiḍir, room 88,
south-west end of vault.
13. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, room 4, north-east portion of dome. Fig. 2.
Ukhaiḍir, room 4, south-west portion of dome.
14. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, great hall, looking south. Fig. 2. Ukhaiḍir, vault
of great hall, looking south.
15. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, great hall, west side. Fig. 2. Ukhaiḍir, great
hall, door of south-west stair.
16. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, great hall, looking north. Fig. 2. Ukhaiḍir, vault
of south-west stair out of great hall.
17. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, corridor 5, looking west. Fig. 2. Ukhaiḍir, north
end of corridor 20.
18. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, south wall of mosque. Fig. 2. Ukhaiḍir, miḥrâb.
19. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, east side of mosque. Fig. 2. Ukhaiḍir, east side
of mosque, north end.
20. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, south-east angle of mosque. Fig. 2. Ukhaiḍir,
south-west angle of mosque.
21. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, door of mosque. Fig. 2. Ukhaiḍir, north end of
gallery 108.
22. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, north-east angle of court A. Fig. 2. Ukhaiḍir,
corridors 28 and 102 from corridor 100.
23. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, court H, north side, and north wall of mosque.
Fig. 2. Ukhaiḍir, second story, rooms 119, 120, and 121, from east.
24. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, second story, rooms to south and east of court.
Fig. 2. Ukhaiḍir, second story, showing doors of 132, 137, and 117.
25. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, gallery 134. Fig. 2. Ukhaiḍir, squinch in
north-west angle of gallery 134.
26. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, north-west angle of central court. Fig. 2.
Ukhaiḍir, east door and south-east end of central court.
27. Ukhaiḍir, central court, east side of north façade.
28. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, south-east angle of central court. Fig. 2.
Ukhaiḍir, fluted semi-dome, south-east angle of central court.
29. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, room 29 and south side of central court. Fig. 2.
Ukhaiḍir, south side of central court, showing door of room 31. Fig. 3.
Ukhaiḍir, south side of central court, door into room 42.
30. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, vault of room 31. Fig. 2. Ukhaiḍir, room 31,
showing decoration in top of vault.
31. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, south wall, east end, of room 32. Fig. 2.
Ukhaiḍir, room 40 from room 30. Fig. 3. Ukhaiḍir, south-west angle of
passage 36.
32. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, room 33, north-west column. Fig. 2. Ukhaiḍir,
groin in north-east angle of corridor 28.
33. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, court B, north-west angle. Fig. 2. Ukhaiḍir, court
B, eastern half of north façade. Fig. 3. Ukhaiḍir, court C, north-west
angle. Fig. 4. Ukhaiḍir, court C, eastern half of north façade.
34. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, south door of room 44. Fig. 2. Ukhaiḍir, south
doors of room 45.
35. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, south side of court B. Fig. 2. Ukhaiḍir,
south-west angle of court H. Fig. 3. Ukhaiḍir, west end of No. 78.
36. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, door between rooms 44 and 45 from room 44. Fig. 2.
Ukhaiḍir, court C, south door of room 55.
37. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, door from court C into palace yard. Fig. 2.
Ukhaiḍir, south-west corner of court E. Fig. 3. Ukhaiḍir, south side of
court H.
38. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, from south-east corner of chemin de ronde. Fig. 2.
Ukhaiḍir, from east gate.
39. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, south-west angle of court G. Fig. 2. Ukhaiḍir,
east annex, north-east end. Fig. 3. Ukhaiḍir, east annex, from north.
40. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, remains of stair. Fig. 2. Ukhaiḍir, room 140.
41. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, room 141, north-west corner of groin. Fig. 2.
Ukhaiḍir, east annex, from south.
42. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, east annex from south, showing door of room 141.
Fig. 2. Ukhaiḍir, north annex, showing roof. Fig. 3. Ukhaiḍir, north
annex, detail of roof.
43. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, north annex, from north gate. Fig. 2. Ukhaiḍir,
from north.
44. Fig. 1. Ukhaiḍir, north annex, from west. Fig. 2. Ukhaiḍir, from
north-west.
45. Fig. 1. Qṣair, interior, showing apse. Fig. 2. Qṣair, detail of
apse. Fig. 3. Qṣair, exterior from south.
46. Fig. 1. Mudjḍah. Fig. 2. ‘Aṭshân.
47. Fig. 1. Mudjḍah. Fig. 2. Mudjḍah. Fig. 3. Mudjḍah, detail of lower
niches.
48. Fig. 1. Ṭâûq, minaret. Fig. 2. ‘Aṭshân, from north-east.
49. Fig. 1. ‘Aṭshân, north gate, exterior. Fig. 2. ‘Aṭshân, north gate,
interior.
50. Fig. 1. ‘Aṭshân, rooms 2, 3, and 5, from north. Fig. 2. ‘Aṭshân,
rooms 5 and 8, from north.
51. Fig. 1. Palace of Khusrau, corridor 103, east side. Fig. 2. ‘Aṭshân,
west door of room 6, from west.
52. Fig. 1. ‘Aṭshân, room 8, from west. Fig. 2. Palace of Khusrau, vault
of room 71.
53. Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn, palace of Khusrau, upper level.
54. Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn, palace of Khusrau, lower level.
55. Fig. 1. Palace of Khusrau, east end of hall 3. Fig. 2. Palace of
Khusrau, west end of hall 3.
56. Fig. 1. Palace of Khusrau, vaulted ramp in corridor 12. Fig. 2.
Palace of Khusrau, court M, south antechamber, showing door leading into
corridor 42.
57. Fig. 1. Palace of Khusrau, south-west corner of court M, showing
corridor 42. Fig. 2. Palace of Khusrau, east side of courts O and Q.
58. Fig. 1. Palace of Khusrau, west side of courts Q and S. Fig. 2.
Palace of Khusrau, south-west corner of court S.
59. Fig. 1. Palace of Khusrau, vault of room 73. Fig. 2. Palace of
Khusrau, corridor 43, looking west.
60. Fig. 1. Palace of Khusrau, court V, looking west. Fig. 2. Palace of
Khusrau, gateway between courts U and V, west arch.
61. Palace of Khusrau, gateway between courts U and V, south-east angle
of room 82.
62. Palace of Khusrau, court W, with rooms 97 and 98.
63. Fig. 1. Palace of Khusrau, eastern double ramp. Fig. 2. Palace of
Khusrau, north buildings.
64. Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn, Chehâr Qapû.
65. Fig. 1. Chehâr Qapû, interior of east gate. Fig. 2. Chehâr Qapû,
niche in room 8. Fig. 3. Chehâr Qapû, squinch in room 6.
66. Fig. 1. Chehâr Qapû, niche in room 6. Fig. 2. Chehâr Qapû, squinch
in room 14.
67. Chehâr Qapû, court D and hall 54, from east.
68. Fig. 1. Chehâr Qapû, vault of room 31. Fig. 2. Chehâr Qapû, squinch
in room 39.
69. Fig. 1. Chehâr Qapû, hall 54, south-east corner. Fig. 2. Chehâr
Qapû, hall 54, squinch in south-west corner.
70. Fig. 1. Chehâr Qapû, hall 54, exterior of south door. Fig. 2. Chehâr
Qapû, hall 54, interior of south door.
71. Chehâr Qapû, hall 54, from south.
72. Chehâr Qapû, hall 54, from west.
73. Fig. 1. Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn, Qal’a-i-Khusrau. Fig. 2. Firûzâbâd.
74. Fig. 1. Sarvistân, small domed chamber. Fig. 2. Hatra, oversailing
vault in main palace.
75. Fig. 1. Kerkûk, Mâr Ṭahmâsgerd. Fig. 2. Hatra, vaulted passage in
so-called temple.
76. Sarvistân.
77. Sargon’s Palace at Khorsâbâd.
78. Fig. 1. Gate at Khorsâbâd. Fig. 2. Ḍumair.
79. Fig. 1. Kharâneh. Fig. 2. Kharâneh, gateway.
80. Fig. 1. Kharâneh, interior of court. Fig. 2. Kharâneh, interior of
audience hall.
81. Mshattâ.
82. Fig. 1. Petra, Corinthian tomb. Fig. 2. Petra, al-Dair.
83. Ctesiphon.
84. Fig. 1. Doorway of mosque, Ḥasan Kaif. Fig. 2. Gateway of mosque,
Ḥarrân. Fig. 3. Mayâfârqîn, north façade of mosque.
85. Ukhaiḍir, reconstructed north façade of central court.
86. Fig. 1. Parthian decoration, Assur. Fig. 2. Sasanian silver dish
(Hermitage, St. Petersburg, No. 2969).
87. Details of decoration from Medînat al-Zahrâ.
88. Fig. 1. Djebel Sindjâr, khân. Fig. 2. Ḥasan Kaif, mosque.
89. Fig. 1. Cairo, mosque of Ibn Ṭulûn. Fig. 2. Mosque of Abû Dulaf.
90. Diyârbekr, Ulu Djâmi’.
91. Fig. 1. Cairo, mosque of Ibn Ṭulûn. Fig. 2. Sâmarrâ, mosque.
92. Mosque of Ṣalaḥ al-Dîn, Mayâfârqîn.
93. Fig. 1. Diyârbekr, mosque, fragment of old wall. Fig. 2. Mayâfârqîn,
mosque.
CHAPTER I
UKHAIḌIR
THE fortified palace of Ukhaiḍir stands in the desert about three hours’
journey to the south-east of the oasis of Shethâthâ and some seven
hours’ south-west of Kerbelâ. Its exact site has been fixed by Sir
William Willcocks’s survey and it is upon his map that mine is based
(Map 1). Ukhaiḍir is not far from the south-west end of the low ground
which Sir William Willcocks has called the Ḥabbâniyyeh depression. The
southern part of this depression covers an area of 146 square kilometres
at a level of 46 metres above the Persian Gulf;[9] at its lower end it
still contains a lake of brackish water, the lake of Abû Dibs, the
water-level of which is 19 metres above the Persian Gulf. The northern
part is occupied by the Ḥabbâniyyeh Lake. That the whole area was once
filled with escape water from the Euphrates is shown by the fact that it
is covered at a level of 25 metres above the Persian Gulf by a thick
belt of Euphrates shells; at this level it extends over an area of 1,200
square kilometres. The oases of Raḥḥâliyyeh and Shethâthâ are situated
upon the edge of this ancient reservoir. Between Shethâthâ and Ukhaiḍir
a shallow valley, the Wâdi al-Ubaiḍ, makes its way up from the
south-west to the lake of Abû Dibs. I have been told that after heavy
winter rain a stream has been known to flow down the ghadîr, the
water-course, which winds through the sand and stones of the valley bed.
Whether this be true or no, a well of good sweet water exists in the
Wâdi al-Ubaiḍ, fed, in all probability, by a spring, like the famous
water of Muḥaiwir in the Wâdi Ḥaurân, or the wells of ‘Asîleh in the
Wâdi Burdân. At no other point in the immediate vicinity of Ukhaiḍir is
fresh water to be obtained; whether you dig within the palace walls, or
without, the water, if water there be, is brackish and unfit to drink.
To the north of the Wâdi al-Ubaiḍ the ground opposite Ukhaiḍir, sloping
gradually down to the Ḥabbâniyyeh depression, is intersected by gulleys,
narrow and steep, cutting through hillocks of gypsum, and among these
hillocks is the small ruin which the Arabs call Qṣair. Here, I take it,
the gypsum was obtained for the mortar which binds the masonry of the
palace, and its good qualities are attested by the excellent
preservation of wall and vault until this day. I have not visited the
quarries, but the Arabs told me that the stone had been brought from a
distance of about an hour to the south of Ukhaiḍir, where there are
traces of working ‘taḥt al-arḍ’, below the ground--not in a hill-side.
Near the quarries there is said to be a well of good but not abundant
water; Shakhârîz is the name of the well. It is built of stone. Behind
it, some three hours’ journey from Ukhaiḍir, there is a low line of
hills, the Djebel Ḍaba’. From the castle walls the long levels of the
desert spread out invitingly to the hills, and I would gladly have gone
thither, but I had not time to spare during either of my visits.
Ukhaiḍir does not reckon security among its many charms. The plentiful
sweet water of the well in the Wâdi al-Ubaiḍ makes it a trysting-place
for raiding parties, and after four or five days’ sojourn it is best to
be gone, lest the news that a foreigner is lodged within the palace
walls should run too temptingly among the tribes. In 1911, the date of
my last visit, I came to Ukhaiḍir from Shethâthâ, having ridden straight
across the desert from Ramâdi, skirting the Ḥabbâniyyeh Lake and the
east side of the Ḥabbâniyyeh depression. When I left I did not follow
the usual way, by Abû Dibs to Kerbelâ, but rode almost due east, to the
foot of a cliff of sand and rock, which is the western limit of a flat
desert plateau that stretches eastward to the Hindiyyeh. An abrupt rise
of this nature is called in colloquial Arabic a ṭâr.[10] From Ukhaiḍir
the ground dropped gradually. After two hours’ riding (about six miles)
we reached the khabrâ of Wizikh. A khabrâ is a hollow bottom where rain
water lies and stagnates till it evaporates. The khabrâ of Wizikh, which
was dry and sandy, appeared to stretch along the foot of the ṭâr,
northward to Abû Dibs, and also southwards. My Arab guide, a sheikh of
the Zaqârît, which is a sub-tribe of the Shammar, informed me that there
were wells of brackish water in the khabrâ further to the south, the
Biyâr Slâm. The khabrâ was about a fifth of a mile wide. At the further
side we rode up the sandy gulleys of the ṭâr and in ten minutes reached
a well, the Bir Sbai’i, the water of which was brackish but drinkable.
From here to the Hindiyyeh there is no water of any kind. Another ten
minutes brought us to the summit of the ṭâr, whence we could see
Ukhaiḍir on the one hand and the tower of Mudjḍah on the other. The
bearings here were as follows: Ukhaiḍir (south-east angle of the castle)
300°, Mudjḍah 97°, central point of the Djebel Ḍaba’ 244°. Mudjḍah is a
solitary tower without any provision for the storage of water, or any
ruins round it. I think it can have served no other purpose than that of
a landmark on the line of the caravan track, which must have passed this
way from the great city of Kûfah to the oasis of Shethâthâ, or ‘Ain
al-Tamr, to give it its earlier name. From the top of the ṭâr to the
modern Kerbelâ-Nedjef road the desert is absolutely flat and
featureless, and we ourselves came near to losing our way across it. The
existence of a former caravan track across this waste is assured by the
ruined khân of ‘Aṭshân, half-way between Mudjḍah and the modern Khân
Ḥamâd.
Such are the characteristics of the country round Ukhaiḍir. The ṭâr,
standing over the low ground of the khabrâ, bounds the view to the east;
to the north-east, across the Wâdi al-Ubaiḍ, the gypsum hillocks lead
down to the Ḥabbâniyyeh depression; to the north-west a few shallow
desert wâdis cross the path to Shethâthâ; to south and west stretches
the immense expanse of the Syrian desert, broken only by the small group
of the Djebel Ḍaba’. It is, however, by no means certain that in the
seventh and eighth centuries, that is to say, at the period during which
it is probable that the palace was built, the local conditions were the
same as they are at present. It is indeed likely that the Ḥabbâniyyeh
depression contained at that time more water than it does now, that the
lake of Abû Dibs stretched across a considerable part of it, and that
its margin approached nearer to Ukhaiḍir. The scrub and reed round the
edge of the lake would have given cover for water fowl, for boar and
other wild animals, and the lords of Ukhaiḍir, when they went out to the
chase, would have had an ample supply of game. Moreover the oasis of
Shethâthâ was certainly a more important place then than it is at
present, for all its 160,000 palm-trees.[11] There can be no doubt that
it occupies the site of ‘Ain al-Tamr, famous in the days of the Persian
kings[12]--that same oasis which Khâlid ibn al-Walîd took and sacked in
the year A.H. 12. It is my belief that the Mohammadan invasion did not
diminish its importance, and in proof I would adduce the evidence
afforded by the khân of ‘Aṭshân and the landmark tower of Mudjḍah,
showing that from Kûfah to ‘Ain al-Tamr there must have been a direct
caravan road across the desert. Muqaddasi, writing in the year A.D. 985,
describes ‘Ain al-Tamr as a little castle;[13] Yâqût, who mentions the
name Shefâthâ as part of ‘Ain al-Tamr, praises its dry dates above those
of other towns,[14] and to this day they maintain that honourable
pre-eminence. Ukhaiḍir, then, with the marshy haunts of game a mile or
two from its gates, and a much-frequented oasis three hours to the
north, presented in the eighth century advantages which it no longer
enjoys now that the waters have retreated to the confines of the modern
Abû Dibs, and the traffic of Shethâthâ has shrunk to an occasional small
caravan of merchant and citizen passing along the Kerbelâ track, or the
visit of a ragged crew of Beduin date-buyers. Yet it is difficult to
conjure up any picture but that of isolation when, after a weary
struggle through sand or marsh, according to the season, the gaunt walls
and towers of the palace rear themselves out of the solitudes of the
desert--in all that barren waste sole vestige of mortal energy, of the
fleeting splendour of mankind. (Plate 6, Fig. 1).
The palace consists of a quadrangular area bounded by a wall which
measures 163·60 metres from east to west, and 175·80 metres from north
to south (Map 2). It is almost exactly oriented. The wall is provided
with round towers, projecting 2·70 metres from its face, and with a gate
in the centre of each side. At the north-west angle, at a distance of
13·25 metres from the palace wall, a building consisting of fifteen
vaulted rooms runs out due north. It has a length of 81·20 metres and a
width of 11·45 metres. To the west of the six southerly chambers lies a
rectangular court, 35·20 metres from north to south and 25·80 metres
from east to west, with round towers like those of the main palace,
projecting 2·75 metres. North-east of the palace there is a small
irregularly-shaped building, known to the Arabs as the Ḥammâm, the bath.
Its greatest length is 12·90 metres and its greatest width, including
the rectangular buttresses, 8·65 metres. With the exception of the
Ḥammâm, these edifices have been enclosed by a second stone wall, but
this wall cannot have been a considerable structure, for at the only
point where its width can be determined, north of the palace, it is but
1 metre thick. Its present aspect is that of a low mound of sand, and in
places even this mound is by no means clearly to be traced. Owing to the
very fragmentary character of the northern line of the outer wall, it is
not possible to fix the position of the north gate, though there can be
little doubt that a gate existed opposite the north gate of the palace,
at a distance of about seventy paces from it. South of the Ḥammâm the
wall is easier to make out. It runs parallel to the east wall of the
palace, and is broken by a gateway opposite the eastern palace gate. At
intervals large heaps of stones seem to indicate the presence of towers.
Two hundred and thirty paces to the south of the palace, this outer
towered wall turns to the west and runs parallel to the south wall of
the palace. Traces of a gate can be seen opposite the south gate of the
palace. From the south-west angle of the palace wall a second low sandy
mound runs down to join the outer wall, and immediately to the west of
this division wall there had been another gate in the outer wall, which
then ran on westward for two hundred paces. The west wall is not exactly
parallel to the palace; it was broken by a gate opposite the west gate
of the palace. The north-west angle of the outer wall is very nearly
obliterated. It turns off eastward almost at right angles and joins an
inner dividing wall which comes up from a point about twenty paces west
of the north-west tower of the palace, and seems to have been connected
with that tower by a cross-wall. At the point of junction between this
dividing wall and the outer wall, a mound runs out north-west for a
great distance into the desert. I did not follow it, but from the top of
the palace its course can be traced for more than a mile. The northern
outer wall then turns slightly to the south of east and passes close to
the south-east corner of the detached northern building, beyond which
point it is almost obliterated. Between the Ḥammâm and the north-east
angle of the outer wall there are some low sandy mounds wherein the
Arabs say that they have dug and found brackish water.
When I first visited Ukhaiḍir in March 1909 it was occupied by Arabs
from Djôf in Nedjd who were anxious to establish themselves there
permanently. To this end they wished to receive official recognition
from the Government, and they proposed to earn a livelihood by supplying
Baghdâd with camels bought from the tribes of the Syrian and Arabian
deserts. When I returned in 1911 they were gone, and Sheikh Ṣukhail, of
the Zaqârît, who was camped under the walls, could give me no account of
their departure, except that it had taken place some months previously.
Possibly they found Ukhaiḍir an unsatisfactory centre for commercial
enterprise, and there can be no question but that their project would
have been ill looked upon by the Beduin, who regard the sweet waters of
the Wâdi al-Ubaiḍ as their peculiar property. Whatever may have driven
them forth, the Djôfîyîn had left no memorial of their residence save
heaps of filth and refuse in the halls and courts of the palace, new
stonework round the well in the Wâdi al-Ubaiḍ, a meagre plantation of
half-withered palm-shoots close by it, and evidences of an equally
unsuccessful attempt to establish a few palm-trees within the palace
walls near the west gate, where there is a small deep well of brackish
water. And we, finding Ukhaiḍir untenanted, took possession of it and
pitched our tents in the central court.
The towered wall of the palace encloses a yard and a quadrangular block
of building which covers an area measuring 111·40 metres from north to
south and 68·50 metres from east to west (Plate 1). On three sides of
this block, rounded towers project 1·75 metres from the face of the
wall, while the north side is connected with the main wall. The northern
part of the building is three stories high, the upper story being on a
level with the chemin de ronde which runs round the main wall. The rest
of the building, 73·95 metres from north to south, is one story high.
The palace yard runs round three sides of the building. To the west and
south it is unoccupied by any structure; north of the west gate lies a
well of brackish water, and it was there that the Djôfîyîn had planted
their palm-shoots. This well I believe to be modern; it bears no mark of
antiquity. To the east, north of the east gate, the yard is blocked by
an edifice, a single story high, the chambers of which are numbered on
the plan 140-152. It is a later addition, as will be seen, to the
original scheme of the palace.
The main wall consists of a core of masonry 2·60 metres thick, rising
about 10 metres above the present level of the ground (section _e-f_,
Plate 5, Fig. 1). It is difficult to get absolutely accurate
measurements of height as the surface-level varies slightly according to
the depth of ruin strewn over it. Blind arcades on the interior and on
the exterior carry the chemin de ronde. On the interior, pilasters 1
metre deep are united by arches very slightly pointed (Plate 7, Fig.
1). The pilasters are without capital or impost, the arches springing
directly from them. The arches rise to a height of 8·50 metres, and
their span averages on the east wall a little under 3·85 metres, while
the width of the pilasters averages 1·55 metres. The arches are composed
of two rings of stone voussoirs, the inner ring laid vertically; i.e.
with the broadside showing, the outer ring laid horizontally, with the
narrow end showing. Dr. Reuther notices that in some instances the
horizontal outer ring is lacking. The walls and pilasters, like all the
walls of Ukhaiḍir, are built of thin irregular slabs of stone, very
roughly coursed, with a binding course laid through them at intervals.
In or above the binding courses are holes for wooden beams. There are
four such holes in each pilaster and one in the spandrel between the
arches. In the back wall of each arcade there are three holes up the
centre, and two level with the springing of the arch. Similar holes for
beams occur in all the walls of Ukhaiḍir. At a height of 1·50 metres
above the level of the arches, the wall is set back ·40 metre and broken
by windows, 11·80 metres above the ground, and 1·80 metres above the
floor of the chemin de ronde. As the authors of _Ocheïdir_ have
observed, these windows cannot have served any purpose of defence, since
they are so high above the floor. There was thus no means of attacking
from the wall a foe who had penetrated into the palace yard. Between
each pair of windows, shallow pilasters, corresponding to the pilasters
below, are carried up to the top of the wall. There are holes for beams
between the window arches on wall and pilaster, and also directly above,
along the top of the wall. On the exterior there is again a blind arcade
1 metre deep, consisting of two round arches between each tower (Plate
7, Fig. 2). The towers have a projection of 2·75 metres beyond the face
of the arcade. The exterior arches bear no relation to the arches of the
interior arcade. Two arches, with an average span of 3·85 metres,
separated by a pilaster 1·60 metres wide, stand between each of the
piers, 4·10 metres wide, against which the three-quarter round towers
are placed. There are five of these towers between gateway and angle
tower. They have a diameter of 3·30 metres, whereas the angle towers
have a diameter of 5·10 metres. The holes for beams appear as on the
inner side of the wall, but they do not correspond with the interior
holes. As in the interior arcade, the outer arches are slightly pointed
and spring directly from the pilasters. The top of the exterior arches
is ·30 metre above the level of the floor of the chemin de ronde. The
chemin de ronde does not occupy the whole width of the core of the wall
(Plate 3, Fig. 2). The passage is 1·90 metres wide. On the inner side,
the wall is 1 metre thick and broken by the above-mentioned windows
looking into the yard; on the outer side there is a series of recesses
covered by ovoid arches. Each recess, 1·45 metres wide and ·40 metre
deep, contains either a loophole window or a door. The loopholes, of
which there are four between each tower, open on to the exterior of the
palace and command a wide view of the desert. They are ·65 metre wide on
the inside and narrow outwards to ·20 metre. On the inside they are
covered by a lintel with an arched niche above it, on the outside they
have a triangular head with a single upright stone placed within it,
supporting the side stones of the triangle, and a small inverted
triangular aperture above (Plate 8, Fig. 3 and Plate 10, Fig. 2). Each
window recess is machicolated, there being an interval of ·20 metre
between the outer edge of the floor of the recess (which corresponds
with the outer face of the core of the wall) and the inner side of the
arches of the exterior arcade. Through this gap an enemy standing at the
foot of the wall could be attacked. Every fifth recess contains a door,
·75 metre wide, which gave access to a small round chamber hollowed out
of the thickness of the tower. In the whole circuit of the wall not one
of these tower chambers is intact, but enough remains to determine their
construction (Plate 8, Fig. 2). Each chamber was covered by an ovoid
dome, in the masonry of which there are traces of flat ribs. There was a
loophole in the walls on either side, from which the defenders could
cover the curtain wall between tower and tower, and it is reasonable to
suppose that there must have been a third loophole fronting the desert.
The loopholes were constructed in the manner already described. It seems
probable that the towers exceeded the curtain walls in height; many of
the towers show fragments of masonry higher than the present summit of
the walls. The angle towers rose a story above the chemin de ronde and
contained a second round chamber above the chamber on the level of the
chemin de ronde. Traces of this second chamber remain in the north-east
and in the south-west towers (Plate 8, Fig. 1). A stair was placed in
each of the four angles of the castle yard (Plate 7, Fig. 1). The
stairs, which were vaulted in a manner which will be described later
(below p. 16), wound twice round the newel post before they reached the
gallery of the chemin de ronde, and thereafter rose one story higher in
order to reach the summit of the wall, and the upper chamber of the
angle towers. It is probable that the summit of the wall was given a
crenellated parapet in order to protect those who walked along it. Nor
was it only from the angles of the yard that the chemin de ronde could
be approached. It was accessible from the top story of the palace and
also by means of stairs which were situated on either side of the east,
south and west gates. None of these gates are well preserved and in no
case have the stairs escaped ruin, but the mark of the stair can be seen
clearly on the inner face of the wall (Plate 9, Fig. 1). The three
gateways are all alike (section _g-h_, Plate 5, Fig. 2). They are
flanked on the exterior by segments of towers (Plate 9, Fig. 2). The
outer archway, which contained the door, has in every case been blocked
up by the Beduin; it is therefore impossible to tell its exact depth,
though its width, 2·10 metres, can be determined. I omitted to note the
portcullis of which the authors of _Ocheïdir_ found traces outside the
door.[15] An inner arched niche, 1·45 metres long by 2·50 metres wide,
is visible from the interior, together with a portion of the chamber
into which it led. This chamber was 6·30 metres long by 3·10 metres
wide, and was covered by a pointed barrel vault oversailing the face of
the walls. Over the doorway on the inside, there is an arched niche
which communicated with the arch of the outer gate by a rectangular
funnel. It is impossible to imagine what can have been the purpose of
this funnel, which connected the bottom of the niche with the top of the
arch, unless it were meant to receive the bolt of the door, but I do not
think that even this explanation will hold. The authors of _Ocheïdir_
observed a similar communication between every niche placed over a
doorway and the arch below it. The construction is made clear in their
admirable drawing (_Ocheïdir_, Fig. 19). They offer no conclusion as to
its purpose, but since it occurs in archways which show no sign of
having contained a door, the idea that it was meant to provide space for
a bolt cannot be maintained. The inner wall of the gate-house, which has
in every case fallen, projected into the palace yard 3·50 metres from
the face of the inner pilasters of the enclosing wall. Besides the
vaulted passage or chamber in the centre, it comprised the
above-mentioned staircases. I detected traces of a door between the
gate-room and the staircase on either side. The stair wound once round
the rectangular newel post and reached a chamber on the first floor,
above the gate-room. The doors of communication between the stair and
this chamber are not preserved. The chamber is unusually low, 3·30
metres from the floor to the top of the vault. It is provided with a
large window, 2·50 metres high, in the outer wall, opening on to the
desert. The stair turned once more round the newel post and led into the
chemin de ronde, with which the upper chamber of the gate-house
communicated by doorways. The vaulting construction of the south
gateway, which is the best preserved (Plate 9, Fig. 1), shows that the
vault of the upper story must have cut across the vaults of the passage,
from which it was separated by transverse arches. A big window in the
outer wall opens down to the floor of the chamber and the learned
authors of _Ocheïdir_ place here, no doubt correctly, a hourd projecting
from the wall over the doorway below. There are small rectangular domed
chambers in the towers on either side of the gate, the domes being set
over the angles of the square on horizontal brackets. The gate-house was
probably carried up, like the angle towers, a story higher, and the
stairs must have communicated with the upper story, to judge by the
evidence afforded by the south gate-house. On the north façade, and
there only, the summit of the wall was given a decoration consisting of
a row of arched niches carried by small engaged columns (Plate 8, Fig.
3). The authors of _Ocheïdir_ describe these arches as horse-shoed; they
seemed to me to be merely slightly stilted and adorned with a double
fillet. Below the niches runs a band of lozenges. Between each niche is
set a larger engaged column, and these columns appear to have been
carried up higher than the arches and in all probability bore an
architrave, thus forming a rectangular frame to each niche, but the
exact nature of the decoration here is uncertain, since the wall has
broken away. The chemin de ronde was covered by a pointed stone vault,
most of which has fallen in (Plate 10, Fig. 1). Like all the vaults of
Ukhaiḍir it oversails the face of the wall. The lower part is built of
horizontal courses, while in the upper part the stone slabs are laid in
vertical rings so as to dispense with centering, and this is the
construction in all the vaults of the palace. At the springing of the
vault a wooden beam crossed the passage from wall to wall. The holes for
these beams are visible, and in some places a splintered fragment of
wood projects from the masonry. At the angles of the passage the vaults
from either side come together in a simple diagonal section, i.e. there
was no intersection of the vaults.
The principal entrance of the palace is the north gate (Plate 11, Fig.
1). Before the door there is an artificial platform thirty-two paces
from north to south by eighty-seven paces from east to west. The door is
placed in a rectangular tower, 15·70 metres wide, which projects 5·10
metres from the face of the wall, 2·40 metres from the face of the
towers. Between the west side of the gate-tower and the first of the
western round towers is stretched a vault 2·50 metres in depth (Plate
11, Fig. 2). Upon this vault rests a small platform, immediately below
the loopholes of the chemin de ronde, at the level of the second story.
On the east side of the gate-tower there are traces of a similar vault,
but this must have fallen at a period when the palace was still
inhabited, since the place which it occupied upon the wall has been
carefully plastered over. The pointed arch over the north door is a
later reconstruction. The door leads into a narrow room, No. 1, 5·95
metres by 3 metres, from which there is access to rooms 2 and 3. These
rooms are irregular in shape, unlighted, and built over vaults which are
now filled with débris. The authors of _Ocheïdir_ suggest that they may
have gone down to the water-level. I doubt it. The water-level in the
palace yard is considerably deeper than these vaults are likely to have
been, and the water there is too brackish to drink. It is more likely
that these subterranean chambers were dungeons. The vault over room 1 is
not continuous. It is composed of a series of seven transverse arches,
·65 metre wide, separated by spaces ·20 metre wide (Plate 12, Fig. 1).
These apertures enabled the occupants of room 88, on the first floor, to
pour boiling liquids on any foe who had passed through the door. Room 1
is bounded to the south by an arched doorway, oversailing the wall, as
is the case with all wide arched openings at Ukhaiḍir, beyond which lies
the smaller chamber No. 4, 4·15 metres long by 3·10 wide. A transverse
arch cuts off 1·05 metres of this space, leaving a square of 3·10 metres
to be covered by a fluted dome (Plate 13, Fig. 1).[16] The remaining
three sides of the chamber are broken by pointed archways which give
access to the great hall (No. 7), and to the passages Nos. 5 and 6. The
fluted circle of the dome is set upon a fillet which has a projection of
about 1 centimetre from the face of the wall below (Plate 13, Fig. 2).
The circle is accommodated to the square by a course of stones forming
at each corner a flat triangular bracket, rounded upon the inner side.
The upper part of the dome is much ruined. The curve must have been
ovoid and it is probable that an aperture was left at the summit, since
the dome, if closed, would have projected considerably above the floor
level of room 88. The hole in the upper floor, like the slits in the
roof of room 1, would have served for purposes of attack when the enemy
had forced an entrance.
The authors of _Ocheïdir_ have pointed out that the original scheme of
the castle did not include the present north door, nor yet the massive
enclosing wall with its towers and gates. As it was first planned, the
north door stood well within the existing entrance, between two segments
of towers. A part of these towers is visible in rooms 2 and 3. But when
the walls had been raised about 2·80 metres from the ground, the plan
was altered and the outer wall and north door added to it. The north
palace wall, with its round towers and gateway, was then incorporated in
the larger outer wall. A glance at Dr. Reuther’s plan will show how this
was effected (Fig. 1). Although the alteration took place while building
was in progress and does not denote a later period of construction, it
is yet of importance, as I shall have occasion to show later.
On the first floor the gate-tower is occupied by three vaulted chambers,
88, 89, and 90. The central room, 88, is 4·50 metres wide and therefore
wider by 1·50 metres than the passage room, 1, below it. Consequently
the slits between the transverse arches of 1 do not take up the whole
width of 88, but leave a passage along the wall on either side. The
chamber is low, measuring only 3·55 metres to the top of the vault. The
vault oversails the wall; the lower part is composed of stones laid
horizontally, the upper part of stones laid in vertical rings, with an
inclination backwards against the north wall. At the southern end a
space between the vertical rings and the south wall is filled in with
horizontal courses (Plate 12, Fig. 2). The arches of the side doors
break into the vault. In the north wall there is a large window, the
upper part of which has fallen away, though some of the lower part
remains. It is slightly recessed on the exterior (Plate 11, Fig. 2), and
Dr. Reuther gives the explanation of this recess. It contained the
groove of the portcullis, which has been obliterated below owing to the
rebuilding of the north door at a later period. In the south wall of
room 88 there are three arched windows opening into the great hall. The
central window is the largest; in all three the arch is surmounted by a
shallow arched niche. The narrow vaulted rooms 89 and 90 are approached
by round-arched doorways and lighted only by very small windows high up
in the north wall. In room 89 there is a staircase leading up to the
second floor. Rooms 89 and 90 open into long corridors corresponding in
width with the corridors 5 and 6.
[Illustration: FIG. 1. North wall of palace, showing original scheme.
(From _Ocheïdir_, by kind permission of Dr. Reuther.)]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Arch construction. (From _Ocheïdir_, by kind
permission of Dr. Reuther.)]
The great hall, to the south of room 4, is the largest chamber in the
palace. It is 15·50 metres long by 7 metres wide, but its width is
increased on either side by arched recesses 1·40 metres deep and from
2·20 metres to 2·30 metres wide (Plate 14, Fig. 1). These recesses, five
on either side, are separated from one another by squat engaged columns
set against piers which are ·80 metre deep. The columns carry
rectangular impost-capitals from which spring the shallow slightly
pointed semi-domes, or calottes, which cover the recesses. The capitals
are very roughly constructed of small stones. There are traces of a
shallow abacus, while a cavetto moulded in plaster seems to have been
interposed between capital and shaft. At the corners a triangular stone
adjusted the circle of the column to the square of the abacus, and the
whole was no doubt covered with plaster. The abacus projection runs back
along the walls of the niche and above it the calotte springs from
another small projection (Plate 15, Figs. 1 and 2). The calottes are
bracketed over the angles, the construction being the same as that
described in the dome of room 4. All the niches of Ukhaiḍir are treated
in like fashion. The method employed in constructing the archivolts is
admirably described by Dr. Reuther.[17] The face of the arch is formed
by a permanent centering composed of gypsum and reeds. The vaulting
takes place, not above the centering but between the two centering
arches, the vault being built in vertical rings (Fig. 2). When the
arches are of wide span an outer ring of horizontal voussoirs is added
to the inner arch. This system is common in Mesopotamia to the present
day, and is found frequently at Ukhaiḍir. In the great hall there are
holes for wooden beams below the abacus of the capitals and in the
spandrels of the arches. The northern recess on the east side is open
and gives access to a ramp which leads to the first floor. The second,
third, and fifth recesses contain low doors covered by a segmental
arch. On the west side similar doors are set in the first, third,
fourth, and fifth recesses, the last named giving access to a stair
(Plate 15, Fig. 2). The calotte archivolts at their highest point are
3·50 metres above the present level of the floor. The wall is carried up
for another 1·25 metres, where there is a double outset from its face.
Above this outset the stone vault runs up perpendicularly for about ·80
metre and the remainder of the vault is of brick (Plate 14, Fig. 2). For
a height of about 1·50 metres the brick tiles are laid horizontally, but
when the curve of the vault increases the bricks are set upright in
vertical rings. The vault thus formed is built without centering; it has
a slightly pointed, ovoid shape and is much stilted. The north wall
remains intact and its scheme of decoration is instructive (Plate 16,
Fig. 1). The arched door, 3·50 metres high, is set back within a niche 1
metre deep. About ·90 metre above the arch of the door stands a very
shallow calotte covering the niche. The face of the calotte is recessed,
which enhances its decorative value by giving it a double outline. As
Dr. Reuther has observed,[18] the calotte is not ‘the segment of a
pointed dome, but its curve in horizontal section springs sharply back
from the face of the archivolt and flattens rapidly behind. Thereby the
effect of the shadow is strongly felt at the edge, and the calotte seems
to be deeper and more markedly vaulted than it is in reality’. At the
base of the calotte there is a small niche which has been broken through
owing to the partial ruin of the dome behind it.[19] In the wall on
either side of the calotte there is a shallow arched niche. The arch is
carried on pairs of engaged columns and is enclosed in a rectangular
label. Above the calotte are the three windows of the first floor room,
88, covered by segmental arches. The windows are framed by engaged
columns which carry stilted round-arched calottes. The south wall of the
great hall is partly ruined. The doorway seems to have been of the same
proportions as the door in the north wall, but it was not set back
within a niche. The small decorative niches reappear on either side, and
there were probably three windows opening into room 101 in the upper
story, indeed on the west side the window jamb can still be seen. Even
with these windows the great hall must have been most insufficiently
lighted, since neither its doors nor its windows open directly on to the
exterior of the building. To the south lay the small rectangular
chamber, No. 27, which was probably, as Dr. Reuther suggests, covered by
a dome similar to the dome of No. 4. It opens to east and west into the
vaulted corridor 28, and on the south into the central court.
Holes for wooden beams can be seen on the north wall of the great hall,
two on either side of the portal niche, one on either side of the
shallow decorative niches, and one on either side of the group of
windows. On the south wall they have been somewhat differently disposed,
one on either side of the door at the level of the arch, one almost
immediately above, higher than the top of the arch, and three higher up
still, following the curve of the vault (Plate 14, Fig. 2).
The masses of masonry on either side of the vault are lightened by the
tubes which are characteristic of the vaulting system of Ukhaiḍir
(section _a-b_, Plate 4, Fig. 1). One of these tubes pierces the wall on
either side, partly above the calottes of the recesses. On the east side
the opening of this tube can be seen high up in the wall of the corridor
28; on the west side the tube is not visible owing to the interposition
of a stair behind the corridor, but there can be no doubt that it
exists. Again towards the top of the vault there is another pair of
tubes. The western of these two can be seen through a breach in the wall
of the stair which leads from room 89 to the second floor; I infer its
eastern counterpart. The vault of the great hall is buttressed by the
vaults of the chambers of the ground floor and of the first floor which
lie at right angles to it.
The wings of the three-storied block, of which the great hall forms the
centre, are bounded to the north by the two vaulted corridors 5 and 6
(Plate 17, Fig. 1), the western corridor, 5, being 34 metres long, and
the eastern, 6, 34·90 metres long. The vaults are constructed in the
usual fashion, oversailing the wall and built of thin slabs of stone,
laid vertically in concentric, slightly pointed rings. The corridors
lead into the palace yard. The door of the west corridor is much ruined.
The door of the east corridor is set in a niche surmounted by a shallow
calotte, of which the archivolt is slightly pointed. Below the calotte,
between it and the arch of the door, is a second small arched niche,
connected by the usual funnel with the top of the door arch. The calotte
is outlined by a singular decoration composed of a crenellated
motive.[20] The crenellated motive is common in the ornament of Ukhaiḍir
and elsewhere, but I am not acquainted with any other example of its
application to the archivolt.
To the south of the east corridor runs a vaulted ramp, a sloping passage
from the great hall to the first floor. To the south of the ramp lie two
groups of three vaulted chambers. In the inner group, Nos. 12, 13, and
14, the rooms are 7 metres long with an average width of 3·50 metres.
They are separated from each other by walls 1 metre thick, and
communicate with each other by doors covered by ovoid arches set back
from the jambs. Each room possesses a door into the great hall, but
since the position of these doors is determined by that of the recesses
in the hall, which do not correspond with the rooms behind them, the
doors are never in the centre of the rooms, and in one case, No. 13, the
side wall is narrowed to allow space for the door. The wall which
separates the rooms from the recesses of the great hall is 1·50 metres
thick. A door at the east end of each room leads into the corresponding
room of the second group. In this group the rooms 15, 16, and 17, while
they have the same width as those of the first group, are considerably
shorter, measuring only 4·80 metres. They communicate with each other
and with the vaulted passage, 20. Room 17 has further a door in the
north wall, which leads into the small vaulted room, No. 18, and this in
turn is connected with a still smaller room, No. 19. Nos. 18 and 19 lie
under the ramp, and No. 19 is in consequence extremely low. None of the
chambers above described are provided with windows; what light they
possess filters in through the doors. Nos. 12, 13, and 14 are therefore
exceedingly dark, and must have been darker still when the south wall of
the great hall was intact. Nos. 18 and 19 are totally unillumined, and
for this reason, and on account of the inconvenience of their low
vaults, it may be presumed that they were not used for dwelling
purposes.
[Illustration: FIG. 3. Arch construction. (From _Ocheïdir_, by kind
permission of Dr. Reuther.)]
The arches of the doorways in these rooms, and in all other small
doorways in the palace, are constructed in a manner different from that
which has been detailed above. Again I borrow the description from Dr.
Reuther. A wooden centering has been placed upon the jambs; over this
centering was laid a band of gypsum mortar and small stones, irregularly
bedded, which, when it hardened, formed an inner arch of concrete (Fig.
3). When the span was narrow no other arch was considered necessary.
When it was wider an outer arch of voussoirs laid horizontally
encompassed the inner concrete arch. Not infrequently, besides the
wooden centering, a permanent centering of mortar and reed was placed on
either face of the concrete arch. When the wooden centering was removed
the concrete arch remained, set back from the jambs, whereas in all the
wide archways, such as those of room 4, the arch follows the principle
of the vault and oversails the wall.
The passage, No. 20, which is 12·25 metres long by 2·80 metres wide,
communicates by a door at its northern end with the small unlighted
room, No. 21. The construction here is of interest (Plate 17, Fig. 2).
The passage is finished by a shallow pointed calotte, standing out from
the face of the wall and spanning the angles in the usual fashion with a
horizontal masonry bracket. Below it, but not in the centre of the
passage, is the small doorway, which is covered by a masonry lintel. The
passage opens on to court A through an arcade of two pointed arches. The
arches spring from engaged columns and from a squat masonry column
placed between them. The rough capital and engaged capitals, from which
the stucco has disappeared, are constructed in the same way as the
engaged capitals in the great hall. On the opposite side of the court
there was once a similar arcade of two arches which has now fallen;
indeed, the arcade of No. 20 is the only free-standing arcade which
remains intact in the whole palace, with the exception of those in rooms
33 and 40. Court A, 10·70 metres by 6·25 metres, communicates with
corridor 6 by a vaulted passage, 1·90 metres wide and 4·25 metres high,
leading to an arched doorway 1·60 metres wide and 2·55 metres high. East
of this passage lies a vaulted room, No. 26, the door of which stands in
the ruined cloister, No. 25. Room 26 is lighted by two small windows in
the south wall, opening on to the court, and by a window-slit in the
east wall, opening on to the palace yard. To the south of court A lie
three chambers, Nos. 22, 23, and 24, which have a width varying from
4·05 metres to 3·85 metres and a length of 5 metres. They communicate
with each other and with the court, added to which No. 22 possesses a
third door leading into No. 20, and No. 24 a third door leading into No.
25. For the door leading from No. 24 into court A space has been
provided by removing a section of the dividing wall between Nos. 23 and
24.
The arrangement of the west wing of the three-storied block is
dissimilar from that of the east wing. Three chambers, 8, 9, and 10, lie
to the west of the great hall. They have an average width of 3·70
metres, but in length they are only 5·75 metres. They are lighted by
small windows high up in the west wall. They communicate with one
another by doors covered with ovoid arches set back from the jambs, and
with the great hall by small doors in the recesses. The vaults are
pointed and oversail the walls. South of No. 10, a stair leads up from
the southernmost doorway in the great hall to the first floor. The vault
over this stair, of which I give a photograph (Plate 16, Fig. 2), will
serve to illustrate the construction of all vaults at Ukhaiḍir over an
inclined plane. They are built in horizontal sections, which form
inverted steps; an unbroken rising vault is not to be found in the
palace. To the east of this group of rooms with its stair is the
cloistered court which I suggested, after my first visit, might be a
mosque.[21] The suggestion has been borne out by the discovery of an
arched niche in the south wall, which I believe to be the miḥrâb.[22]
The mosque (since I may now give it this title without hesitation) is
approached by two doorways from the west corridor, 5. These doorways
lead into an open rectangular court, the ṣaḥn, 10·30 metres from north
to south by 16 metres from east to west. To east, south, and west of the
court ran porticoes, or riwâqs, to use their Arabic name, which have now
fallen (Plate 18, Fig. 1). The engaged columns on the north side and the
south-east angle pier are, however, standing, and they determine the
width of the riwâqs. The southern riwâq was the widest (4·05 metres),
and this is the portion of the mosque which is known as the ḥaram. The
east and west riwâqs are alike 3 metres wide. The arcades, which
separate the riwâqs from the ṣaḥn, occupy a space 1 metre thick. On the
west side the arcade is entirely ruined, but on the east side part of
the arches at either end are still to be seen (Plate 19, Figs. 1 and 2).
From these fragments it is apparent that there must have been three
arches on the east and west sides, while approximately similar
proportions would allow five arches on the south side. (The span of the
south arches must have been about ·30 metre less than the span of the
east and west arches.) The north end of the east and west vaults rested
against the north wall, the south end against a transverse arch, in
order to avoid intersection with the vault of the ḥaram. The east vault,
which is best preserved, is a slightly pointed ovoid and oversails the
east wall. Below the spring of the vault can be seen the windows of
rooms 8 and 9; the window of room 10 opens into the ḥaram. Immediately
above the springing of the vault there are three holes for cross beams,
the decay of which has entailed the ruin of the vault. The fallen masses
of masonry columns and vault form heaps of débris on all three sides of
the court. At the eastern end of the ḥaram there is a low door, almost
blocked by ruin heaps, which gives access to a narrow blind passage
situated under the stair. The vault of the ḥaram has received an
elaborate decoration in stucco. It was divided into sections by nine
transverse arches, 1 metre wide. They cannot have had any correspondence
with the columns and arches of the arcade, nor was this necessary, for
they sprang from above the line of the vault and therefore from above
the summit of the arches of the arcade. The transverse arches were
decorated with lozenges (wards as they would be called in modern Arabic)
having a zigzag outline (Plate 18, Fig. 1). In the centre of each
lozenge there was a round hole, or rosette, recessed back in concentric
circles. Between the transverse arches the vault was worked in parallel
bars of stucco, the one oversailing the other. The bars begin at a
distance of about ·80 metre above the spring of the vault. It is evident
that this vault must have been constructed over a light centering, and
Dr. Reuther is of opinion that the singular ridged decoration was
suggested by the impression left by the centering boards upon the
plaster.[23] The top of the vault was probably treated as in room 31,
where a decoration similar to that of the ḥaram is more fully preserved.
Holes for cross-beams break the fourth and fifth stucco ridge between
each transverse arch. Between the terminal transverse arches and the
wall at either end of the ḥaram there is a space 1·60 metres long. It is
divided into two quarter-domes by a transverse arch which springs from
the back wall, at right angles to the transverse arches of the vault.
This arch is decorated in exactly the same manner as the others and must
have joined the first transverse arch at either end, at the summit of
the vault. The quarter-domes are covered with stucco ornament. At the
east end (Plate 20, Fig. 1) a fluted squinch occupies the two angles; on
either side of it are two shallow calottes. Three concentrically
recessed rosettes are set above each of the calottes, and there is a
like motive in the apex of the calotte. Above the squinch and calottes
there is a band of four isolated crenellations, the same motive which
appears on the archivolt over the doors of corridors 5 and 6. Above the
crenellations are vestiges of a decorated band, and above the band the
apex of the quarter-dome is fluted. At the west end there is a slight
variation in the proportions and in the motives of the lower register of
the quarter-domes (Plate 20, Fig. 2). The squinch, instead of being
fluted, is decorated with three concentric bands, sunk one within the
other. At its base lies one of the usual concentric rosettes. The same
rosette is placed on either side of each calotte and within the calotte,
the rosette above the calotte being omitted. The crenellated motive of
the east end is repeated at the west end, but the band between the
crenellations and the flutes of the quarter-domes is omitted.
The miḥrâb niche is not placed exactly in the centre of the south wall,
but a few centimetres to the east (Plate 18, Fig. 2). If there was any
stucco ornament upon it, it was all carried away by the fall of the
vault. The semi-dome which covers it is set over the rectangular niche
on horizontal brackets of masonry, like all other semi-domes and
calottes in the palace. The archivolt is constructed of a double ring of
voussoirs, the inner ring laid vertically, the outer horizontally. There
is no reason to doubt that the miḥrâb is contemporary with the wall. The
plaster which remains upon the interior of the semi-dome shows no sign
of decoration. Below the semi-dome the face of the walls of the niche is
much injured by the heavy masses of fallen masonry.
The angle pier which took the corner arches of the ḥaram and the east
arcade shows, on the sides facing the arcades, returns in the shape of
engaged columns. A third return is rectangular and corresponds with a
return on the east wall, the two carrying the transverse arch which
terminates the eastern vault. In the fragment of this vault which is
standing the principles of construction can be discerned unusually well
(Plate 19). The vault is built of thin slabs of stone, laid in rings,
with a marked inclination against the northern head wall. At the
southern end these rings fan out so as to meet the transverse arch.
One more detail remains to be noticed. The two doors from the west
corridor, 5, stand in recesses 1 metre deep. The recesses are covered by
a calotte, and round the archivolt is placed a stucco decoration
consisting of seven cusps (Plate 21, Fig. 1).
The first floor of the north gate tower has already been described. The
east door of room 90 communicates with the vaulted and unlighted room,
93. A thin dividing wall separates room 93 from room 94 (there is a
small aperture like a window in this wall). Beyond another thin dividing
wall lies room 95, with a window at its eastern end looking into the
palace yard. These three rooms, 93, 94, and 95, occupy the space above
the east corridor, 6. Room 107 is on a lower level; it is approached
from 93 by a doorway with steps and is wholly unlighted. The group of
rooms Nos. 103, 104, and 105 are on the same level as 107. They are
14·75 metres long and correspond in width with the rooms below them. At
their western end they are provided with a masonry divan, 1·20 metres
wide and raised ·55 metre above the level of the floor. The meaning of
this divan is apparent in the section (section _a-b_, Plate 4, Fig. 1);
it was needed in order to lift the floor of the three rooms above the
vaulted tube which lies parallel to the vault of the great hall. The
height of these rooms from the floor to the top of the vault is 4·20
metres. They communicate with each other and with the vaulted passage
108, and room 103 possesses further a door in the south wall leading
into room 102. The latter returns to the level of rooms 93, 94, and 95,
and consequently steps are placed in the doorway of 103.
At the north end of the passage 108 there is a door sunk below the level
of the floor and covered by an arch oversailing the jambs (Plate 21,
Fig. 2). It communicates with the ramp which comes up from the great
hall. East of this door there are the remains of an engaged column, and
it is obvious that the passage must have been flanked here by an open
arcade (Plate 3, Fig. 1). Steps in the doorway at its southern end lead
up to room 106, which is on the same level as 102. South of court A lie
three rooms, 109, 110, and 111. They are not as deep as the rooms below
them on the ground floor (4·40 metres as against 5 metres) since space
has to be provided for a narrow ledge above court A. On to this ledge
the north doors of the three rooms open. On the north side of court A
the ramp, after passing the doorway of 108, is continued upwards (its
windows can be seen in the wall of the court (Plate 22, Fig. 1)). A
wide doorway opens on to a stair, which will be described later, coming
up from the palace yard. The ramp is then carried on along the east side
of court A, and finally opens on to the roof of 111 and of the narrow
passage to the east side of it. The last portion of the ramp is ruined,
but traces of the vault which supported its floor can be seen in the
east wall of court A, together with the spring of the vault with which
it was roofed. Between the ramp and the vault of 25 there appears to
have been a vaulted passage, very low at its northern end, and lighted
by a rectangular window which overlooks the palace yard. It opened at
the southern end, through a narrow vaulted way, on to the roof of No.
47.
The outer stair from the yard is a later addition (Plate 40, Fig. 1).
The round tower at the northern end of the wall has been cut away to
receive it, and it was supported further by four rectangular piers, two
on either side of the tower, which were built up against the wall. These
piers were not bonded into the wall, and the northernmost has entirely
fallen away, but it can still be traced on the face of the masonry. The
communication with the first floor was effected, as has been mentioned,
by means of a door at the north-east angle of the ramp.
Room 106 occupies the vaulted space at the west end of 47 and has a door
to the south opening on to the roof of 45. To the west a door leads into
corridor 102, which lies above the eastern wing of corridor 28 (Plate
22, Fig. 2). It has a door to the south opening on to the roof, and is
lighted by narrow windows in the south wall. West of 102 was the small
room, 101, now ruined, and beyond it rooms 100 and 99 above the west
wing of corridor 28. The height of these rooms on the first floor is
only 3·55 metres to the top of the vault. No. 100 communicates by a door
and steps with the stair leading up from the south-west corner of the
great hall, and so with the first floor chambers of the west wing. These
can be approached also from the west door of room 89, which opens into
the passage room No. 92. In the south wall of 92 there is first a door
and steps which lead down to No. 96, secondly a door giving access to
the roof of the east riwâq of the mosque, and further west a narrow
window which overlooks the ṣaḥn. There are two similar windows in the
south wall of 91 and a door on to the roof of the west riwâq of the
mosque. (The windows and the door of the west riwâq can be seen in Plate
23, Fig. 1.) At the western end of 91 a window opens on to the palace
yard. Rooms 96, 97, and 98 lie above 8, 9, and 10. They are lighted by
narrow windows in the west wall, which can be seen in Plate 19, Fig. 1.
They communicate with each other by doors covered by ovoid arches set
back from the jambs and breaking into the curve of the vault, and each
has access through an arched opening in the east wall to a small room
·85 metre wide, lying at a higher level. The northernmost of these three
small rooms lies under the stair leading from No. 89 to the second
floor, and its vault slopes down at the northern end in order to leave
space for the stair. No. 98 opens by a door on to the staircase from the
great hall. At the west end of the staircase there is a door leading
out on to the roof of the ḥaram, and above it is placed a window. Both
door and window can be seen in Plate 19, Fig. 1. Opposite to this door
and window there is a large opening in the west wall of the great hall,
doubtless in order to secure a little additional light in that dark
edifice.
The stair and the ramp from the great hall were therefore the sole means
of approaching the first floor until the outer stair from the yard was
added. The second floor could be approached in a circuitous manner by
the upper part of the ramp and over the roof of rooms 111, 110, and 109,
or more directly by the stair leading out of room 89. But this stair
could only be reached either by the ramp and through rooms 105, 107, 93,
90, 88, and 89, or by the stair out of the great hall and through rooms
98, 97, 96, 92, and 89. The second floor could also be reached from the
yard, by the stairs in the north-east and north-west angles and thence
along the chemin de ronde.
The rooms on the second floor do not correspond regularly with those of
the floors below (Plate 3, Fig. 2). The second floor of the gate-tower
is much ruined. It is possible that, as the authors of _Ocheïdir_
suggest, it was originally divided into three chambers lying north and
south. Parts of the south wall remain, and there is clear evidence of a
door jamb near its eastern end. On the east side the doorways leading
into 117 and into the chemin de ronde are standing, together with the
south jamb of a doorway which undoubtedly gave access to the roof of the
vault between the gate-tower and the first round tower. The door into
the corresponding balcony on the west side is gone, the door of the
western wing of the chemin de ronde is much ruined, but the door into
No. 116 is still perfect. Neither of these walls, to east and to west,
shows any trace of a vault; the vault, if vault there were, covering the
gate-tower chambers must therefore have sprung much higher than the
vaults of the adjoining chambers.[24]
To the west of 116 is a small room, 115, with a door into the chemin de
ronde and a door into the open court, 114. A window in the south wall of
this court overlooks the ṣaḥn of the mosque (Plate 23, Fig. 1). Still
further west is a vaulted room, 113, presumably with a window looking
out into the yard, but the west wall is much ruined. On the opposite
side of the gate-tower, No. 117 opens into a small rectangular area,
118, where there is no sign of a roof; to the east of it lies an open
space embracing the roofs of Nos. 94 and 95 together with a part of 93.
Here, too, there is no trace of a vault in the north wall, nor of any
party walls. The series of rooms on either side of the gate-tower,
occupying the area over the corridors on the ground floor and of the
corresponding rooms on the first floor, are designated by Dr. Reuther
casemates because they were connected with the chemin de ronde and
probably played some part in the defence of the palace. In all of them
the vaults, which oversail the walls in the usual fashion, are slightly
flattened at the top.
A door in the south wall of No. 117 leads into an open court, 16·95
metres from east to west by 12·60 metres from north to south. It does
not lie in the centre of the three-storied block, but extends
considerably to the east of the central axis. The stair from the first
floor reaches the second floor at the north-west angle of this court.
The door into 119 opens awkwardly over the stair. On the east, south,
and west sides of the court stand groups of three chambers, the central
chamber opening into the court by a wide archway springing from engaged
columns, the side chambers by doors covered by ovoid arches set back
from the jambs (Plate 23, Fig. 2); and here we have an architectural
group which dominates all the courts upon the ground floor of the palace
that are yet to be described. The central chamber with its wide archway
is the lîwân or reception-room,[25] the side chambers are, in one form
or another, its invariable or almost invariable complement. I shall
henceforward speak of the whole as a lîwân group. As Dr. Reuther has
pointed out, the occupants of an oriental room seat themselves upon
cushions or dîwâns against the wall, the dîwân, cushion or carpet, which
is placed against the back wall, being the place of honour. In order not
to break up the company, the side doors of every room are situated as
far as possible from the back wall, and it will be noticed that this
rule holds good in every living-room of the palace. At Ukhaiḍir (though
this is not always the case) in every lîwân group the rooms communicate
with each other. It is common in oriental houses to build lîwâns facing
different points of the compass so as to secure a comfortable shade at
different hours of the day, and warmth or coolness at different seasons
of the year. The lîwân group, if such it were, over the gate-tower would
have served the purpose of a winter reception-room, for it faced south;
the group facing north would be used in summer.
In the lîwân group on the west side of the court the rooms are 5·95
metres long with an average width of 4 metres. The vaults here are all
standing, and the rooms are considerably higher than those on the first
floor, measuring 5·25 metres to the top of the vault. (It is difficult
to get exact measurements for the height of the rooms on the ground
floor owing to irregularities in the level of the ground, but I think
that a height of 5 metres to the top of the vault is not far wrong.)
Between the parallel barrel vaults are masonry tubes, which are visible
upon the façade in the form of small openings like windows between the
arches of the central and of the side rooms. To the south of No. 121
there is a small open court, 123, which is approached by a narrow
passage from the main court. A door from it leads into No. 122, which is
completely ruined. On the north side of the court, 123, there was a
stair which gave access to the flat roof of Nos. 121, 120, and 119. On
the north side of 119 a fragment of wall rises above the level of the
roof; it was probably connected with the high vault of the gate-house
chambers. In the lîwân group on the south side of the court, the rooms,
124, 125, and 126, are 7 metres long, but their exact width is difficult
to determine since the party walls have fallen (Plate 24, Fig. 1). It
must, however, have averaged about 4 metres like the width of the rooms
on the west side. On the east side of the court a vaulted passage runs
parallel to 137; the door into the court is standing and its arch
oversails the jambs, whereas the arches of all the other doors are set
back (Plate 24). Above the door there is a narrow window. A lîwân group
follows to the south of the passage (Plate 24, Figs. 1 and 2). The rooms
are 7·45 metres long; their width varies, as far as I could ascertain in
their ruined condition. According to my estimates No. 132 is 2·85 metres
wide, No. 131 is 3·95 metres wide, and No. 130 is 4 metres wide. Still
further south there is a small open court, No. 127, corresponding to No.
123. A door in the south wall opens on to a narrow parapet or balcony
which crowns the façade of the first floor. To the east lies an
irregular chamber, 128, which is totally ruined.
The passage, 137, leads into a gallery, No. 134, which was finished on
the east side by an open arcade (Plate 25, Fig. 1). Traces of an engaged
column remain at the north end of the arcade, and the vault was
constructed with transverse arches in the same manner as the vaults
round the ṣaḥn of the mosque. There was, however, no stucco decoration
in this upper gallery. At the angles stood quarter-domes over unadorned
squinch arches (Plate 25, Fig. 2). The gallery opens at its
south-eastern end on to the roof of No. 109. To the south of the gallery
there are two narrow chambers, one with a door into the gallery, the
other with a door on to the roof of 109. They are almost completely
ruined. Dr. Reuther places in them a stair leading by a double flight on
to the roof.
The main part of the palace, one story high, lies to the south of the
three-storied block. Except for a group of rooms in the east side of the
yard, which is a later addition, it is symmetrically arranged round a
central court. It falls into three divisions: two courts, B and C, with
their living-rooms on the east side; two exactly similar courts, G and
H, on the west side; a central court with a group of chambers to the
south of it, and further south a small court, E, with rooms on three
sides of it, and a subsidiary court, D, further east. The long vaulted
corridor, 28, which runs from east to west between the great hall and
the central court, turns at right angles and runs from north to south
between the central court with its chambers and the side wings. It is
then carried round to the south of the chambers dependent on the
central court, and runs from east to west between them and court E with
its chambers.
The central court is 32·70 metres from north to south and 27 metres from
east to west. It is surrounded to east, north, and west by a blind
arcade which forms part, on the north side, of the façade of the
three-storied block (Plate 6, Fig. 2). The arcade is 1 metre deep.
Engaged half-columns set against rectangular piers carry shallow
calottes, the archivolt of which is slightly horse-shoed (Plate 26, Fig.
1). The intercolumniation varies from 2·35 to 2·55 metres. All the
details were of stucco, which has now broken away. The columns, piers,
and walls are of stone masonry; the capitals, calottes, and archivolts,
together with the wall above them, are of brick. The capitals, which are
much damaged, are cubes formed of three courses of bricks; the calottes
are of brick laid in horizontal courses and carried over the angles of
the niches by horizontal brackets; the horse-shoed archivolts are
composed of an inner ring of brick tiles laid horizontally, and an outer
ring laid vertically. Of the outer ring only fragments remain. In one
case (the calotte immediately to the south of the east door) the tiles
are laid in rings, and the curve of the archivolt is not horse-shoed
(Plate 26, Fig. 2). The corresponding calotte on the west side has
fallen. In the centre of each calotte, and impinging upon the stonework
below, there is an oblong window which lights corridor 28. On the north
side of the court only two of the niches and calottes remain intact to
the east of the central door, and only one to the west of the central
door. In the centre the whole face of the wall has fallen, carrying with
it parts of the corridors on the first floor and part of the south wall
of the great hall. The small chamber, 27, which was probably covered
with a dome, is entirely ruined, together with room 101 above it. It is
therefore impossible to determine the exact form of the doorway which
led from 27 into the central court, but there is no reason to suppose
that it differed materially from the door on the east side of the court.
The nature of the horizontal decorations which govern the façade
preclude all idea of a large central door. The blind arcade of the first
floor is not so high as the arcade below it (Plates 27 and 85). Instead
of the half-columns and piers of the ground floor, the archivolts of the
first floor spring from a cluster of four small engaged columns which
must have been finished in stucco. Nothing remains of the capitals. In
the spandrels are placed oblong windows lighting the upper corridors,
100 and 102. On the face of the pointed arches of the arcade it is still
possible to trace a scolloped ornament in plaster, like that which
exists over the doors of the mosque. Within the large arches there is a
system of small blind arched niches flanked by slender engaged
colonnettes of which little trace remains. There are five of these
niches within each of the large niches, two below and three above, the
central niche in the group of three being the largest. There is a slight
error here in Dr. Reuther’s reconstruction, an error to which he himself
called my attention. He has placed only one small niche in the upper
register instead of three. The side niches can be seen in Plate 27. He
suggests that in the middle of the façade one or more of these small
niches must have contained windows in order to give additional light to
room 101, since it was from room 101 that most of the light in the great
hall was derived. Beyond the arcading on either side of the façade the
wall was finished by a solid pier, the surface of which was broken by
three projecting horizontal bars. The cornices are not preserved, but,
as I shall show later, they cannot have been very important. The
decoration of the façade ends on the level of the second floor and forms
a narrow balcony a little over 1 metre wide which runs along the face of
the building. The wall of the second floor is recessed a few centimetres
to give additional width to this balcony. On to it open the doors of
Nos. 123 and 127. These doors are not placed symmetrically with respect
to the façade; the west door is nearer the centre than is the east door.
The plain wall is carried up to the top of the door arches; above that
level there is a band of shallow arched niches which appear to have been
divided from one another by engaged columns, probably carrying an
architrave, like the niches on the summit of the outer north wall of the
palace.
To return to the central court. On the east side there is a doorway in
the third intercolumniation from the south end (Plate 26, Fig. 2). It
leads into corridor 28. The arch of this door is set back from the
jambs, but the upper part is ruined. The corresponding door on the west
side has disappeared, together with most of the south-west end of the
wall. On the east side the arcading is not carried into the angle of the
court. The southernmost archivolt ends against a quarter-column, beyond
which space is provided for the entrance of a stair which leads down to
a vaulted chamber below the level of the ground (Plate 28, Fig. 1).
Above this entrance there is a fluted semi-dome finished by a fillet
(Plate 28, Fig. 2). The semi-dome is set horizontally over the angles of
the niche in the accustomed manner. The actual entrance to the stair is
covered not by an arch but by a masonry lintel (compare the door between
20 and 21).
The south side of the court is also arcaded, but not in the same
fashion. The arcades are much shallower (·40 metre deep) and they are
differently grouped. In the centre of the south wall there was a wide
archway (4·20 metres wide) leading into room 29. This arch rose above
the level of the arcade on either side of it and the chambers behind it
were higher than the adjoining chambers (Plate 29, Fig. 1). On either
side of the entrance there is an unusually large engaged column; beyond
these columns there is a flat pier and an engaged quarter-column,
followed by a niche ·80 metre wide covered by a shallow calotte (Plate
29, Fig. 2). Three more recesses, measuring in width 1·95 metres, 2·10
metres, and 2·50 metres, and separated from each other by engaged
columns of about ·70 metre diameter, occupy the remainder of the façade.
In no case is the capital preserved, but it is noticeable that all the
columns swell outwards towards the top. The archivolts are ovoid, not
horse-shoed. The first niche on either side of the small niches contains
a door leading on the west side into No. 31 and on the east side into
No. 42. The third big niche on the east side contains another and a
smaller door which gives access to a stair leading to the roof (Plate
28, Fig. 1). The doors of Nos. 31 and 42 offer good examples of arch
construction (Plate 29, Fig. 3). The arch is set back from the jambs and
formed of an inner ring of concrete and an outer ring of stone voussoirs
laid horizontally. The calottes covering the niches are of brick, but
unlike the calottes on the other three sides of the court, the bricks
are set horizontally and vertically and used in half and quarter lengths
so as to form intricate designs which Dr. Reuther compares very aptly to
the Hazârbâf motives so common in oriental woodwork (Plate 29, Fig. 2).
South of the central court lies a group of rooms of a ceremonial
character. In the centre of this group is the lîwân No. 29, 6 x 10·70
metres. It was covered by a barrel vault of brick, which has now fallen
in. The vault oversailed the wall and its point of springing is 4·30
metres above the level of the ground, instead of the 3·40 metres above
ground-level at which the vaults spring in the adjoining chambers to
east and west. It is therefore clear that the vault of 29 must
considerably have overtopped the other vaults, and as I shall show
later, it is usual to find the ceremonial lîwân higher and more
important than the remaining chambers of the group. I have followed Dr.
Reuther in giving it a rectangular frame upon the façade of the court
(section _e-f_, Plate 5, Fig. 1). Two large doors, 1·50 metres wide and
3·64 high to the top of the arch, open on either side of the lîwân, on
the east into rooms 41 and 42, and on the west into rooms 31 and 32,
which lie at right angles to the lîwân. At the south end a similar door
leads into No. 30, a chamber 6 metres square, which has been covered by
a barrel vault of brick running north and south, and doubtless the same
height as the vault of the lîwân. Doors of the same character, with
ovoid arches set back from the jambs, are placed in the middle of the
east, south, and west walls of No. 30. The fact that the high vaults of
Nos. 29 and 30 were not sufficiently buttressed by the lower vaults on
either side accounts for their fall.
Rooms 31 and 32 are distinguished by a plaster decoration more elaborate
than any which is to be found elsewhere in the palace, with the sole
exception of the mosque. The vault of No. 31 resembles the vault of the
ḥaram, and like the ḥaram vault it must have been built over a
centering. It is divided into two compartments by three transverse
arches, one spanning the centre of the chamber, the other two placed
respectively against the east and west walls (Plate 30, Fig. 1). These
transverse arches, which are ·95 metre wide, spring from a double outset
at a height of 2·80 metres from the ground. The vault between the arches
springs at a point ·25 metre higher. It is composed, like the ḥaram
vault, of narrow oversailing ridges worked in stucco. Along the top of
the vault are placed between each pair of transverse arches four square
stucco motives, some of which remain intact. They differ slightly from
each other, but all are variants of the same theme (Plate 30, Fig. 2).
The first from the east end consists of four squares within one another,
like a Chinese box, each sunk behind the other. In the centre there is a
circular rosette, doubly recessed. In the second a single recessed
square contains a saucer-shaped motive, the surface of the saucer being
covered with rings of small plaster excrescences. In the third the usual
recessed square is filled with a triply sunk diamond, with a recessed
rosette in the centre. In the fourth the recessed square frame is filled
with a recessed diamond, within the diamond is a recessed square, within
the square a second recessed diamond, in the centre of which is a
rosette. In the western compartment two of the motives consist of
squares sunk within one another, a third of a doubly sunk square
containing a triply sunk rosette, while the fourth is obliterated.
Finally high up in the east and west walls under the vault is placed a
small niche whereof the arch springs from engaged colonnettes.
No. 31 is connected with No. 32 by a door opposite to the door in the
central court. The construction of the roof in No. 32 is different from
any other example of roofing in the palace. It is divided into three
compartments by four heavy transverse arches which spring at a height of
2·85 metres from the floor, level and are set forward twice from the
face of the wall (Plate 31, Fig. 1). Between the arches small barrel
vaults are stretched across the chamber from north to south. In the
eastern compartment the north and south head walls are carried up to the
height of the vault. Immediately below the spring of the vault there is
a sunk band in the head walls decorated with three recessed circles or
rosettes. In the central and western compartment the vault terminates
against a semi-dome, set over the angles in one case horizontally, in
the other (the western compartment) by means of small recessed squinches
(compare the west end of the ḥaram). Below the semi-domes there are a
couple of narrow fillets, and below the sunk band of the eastern
compartment a single wide fillet. Below these, at the same level in all
the compartments, the head wall is decorated with pairs of arched
niches, the arches being supported by engaged colonnettes. The
colonnettes have no bases; a narrow impost serves them as capital. The
face of the arches is decorated in two of the compartments by fillets
and in the third (the western) by a zigzag motive. Within each niche
there is a spear-shaped ornament sunk in the wall. In the spandrel
between the arches there lies a recessed rosette. At a height of ·35
metre above the springing point of the transverse arches the head wall
is set very slightly forward, in imitation of the outset of an
oversailing vault. The arches of the doors rise higher than the level of
this outset, which is lifted in a rectangular label over them. The
barrel vaults between the transverse arches are variously treated. The
eastern vault is divided into sections by three short transverse arches,
each of which is decorated by a square sunk motive. The central vault
has the same number of short transverse arches, but these are
undecorated. The western vault is provided with a transverse arch
against the semi-dome at either end, while the remainder of its length
is decorated with stucco ridges. A pair of niches, smaller than those
upon the side walls, is placed in the east and in the west wall under
the transverse arches, but the spear-shaped ornament and the recessed
rosette of the side niches is omitted.
Rooms 31 and 32 are 10·05 metres from east to west and 4·90 metres from
north to south. Room 41, lying opposite to room 32, has an equal length
and the same system of doors, but no decoration. Room 42, which
corresponds with room 31, is only 7·25 metres from east to west, since
space had to be allowed for the two stairs leading out of the central
court, one to the roof and one to the underground chamber. In the
south-east corner of No. 42 there is a small door giving access to a
narrow passage behind the block of masonry which contains the upper
stair. It turns at right angles into a short passage lying above the
lower stair. The vaulted underground chamber corresponds in length and
width with No. 42 (section _e-f_, Plate 5, Fig. 1). It is lighted by
three small windows which are splayed upwards to the ground-level--one
of these can be seen in Fig. 3 of Plate 29. The room was filled with
débris, so that I cannot be certain of its height. In the west wall
there is an arched niche or ṭâqchah. In the intense heat of southern
Mesopotamia it is customary to provide all houses with underground
chambers, wherein the inhabitants spend the greater part of their day in
summer. They are known as serdâbs. To the authors of _Ocheïdir_ I am
indebted for an interesting observation with regard to the vault of No.
41.[26] It was built in sections over a movable centering which has left
its mark upon the concrete of which the vault was formed.
Rooms 32 and 41 communicated by doors in the south wall with the
columned chambers 33 and 40 (Plate 31, Fig. 2), which are exactly alike
in every respect, except that No. 40 is connected by a door with the
room to the south, No. 39, whereas there is no south door in No. 32.
Both 33 and 40 have doors, covered with ovoid arches set back from the
jambs, leading into the corridor 28, and both are divided into three
aisles by two arcades of three arches carried on two masonry columns.
The aisles run north and south. The innermost aisle in either case forms
part of the vaulted corridor, 36, which runs round three sides of No.
30. This aisle is only 2·50 metres wide, as compared with the 2·85
metres of the other two aisles. All the aisles are roofed with barrel
vaults. Though the columns are of stone masonry, the capitals, together
with the arches and walls they carry, and the segmental vaults, are of
brick. The columns are separated from one another from north to south by
a distance of 2·50 metres, but the distance between each column and the
wall behind it is only ·90 metre; hence the wide central arches rise
almost to the spring of the vault, whereas the side arches are from
their narrow span necessarily much lower (Plate 32, Fig. 1). The curve
of all the arches is a pointed ovoid, and the narrow arches are
considerably stilted. These last are built of concentric rings of small
brick tiles, the inner band laid vertically, the outer horizontally. The
large arches are composed of two concentric rings of voussoirs, both
laid vertically, the inner ring being of large tiles used in their full
size, the outer ring of half of the same tiles. The capitals are better
preserved than any in the palace, and from one of the capitals of No. 33
in particular, an excellent idea of the form of the impost-capital
commonly used at Ukhaiḍir can be obtained. (It is the capital seen in
Plate 32, Fig. 1.) The cube of the capital is adapted to the circle of
the column by placing an angle of brick under each corner. The capital
is composed of a shallow ovolo in moulded plaster surmounted by an
abacus which consists of a single course of bricks and carries an impost
formed of three courses of brick. Within the arches the impost slightly
oversails the abacus.
On the south side of corridor 36 the vault has fallen, together with the
columns between the engaged piers which must have supported the arcade
(Plate 31, Fig. 3). The spring of the arches can be seen against the
piers. From the fragments that exist, the barrel vaults do not seem to
have intersected one another but to have met diagonally at the angles.
At the east and west ends of No. 36 a door opens into rooms 39 and 34.
No. 34 communicates with a parallel chamber, No. 35, which opens
independently upon the narrow open court, F, between 36 and the corridor
28. The eastern side of this court was much ruined. In the south-east
corner was a stair which led up to the roof. To the north, and partly
under the stair, lies a small room, 38, communicating with another
narrow room, 37, which was not entirely vaulted over. That it was
intended to contain a fire is clear from the fact that the vault is
pierced by two terra-cotta pipes, the one 29 centimetres in diameter,
the other 12 centimetres, which must have served as chimneys. Similar
pipes occur elsewhere and will be mentioned later.
The long corridor, 28, which lies to east and west of the central court
and its group of chambers, turns at right angles and encloses the whole
central block. The corridor is covered by a semicircular stone vault,
oversailing the walls; at four points, however, it is left unroofed in
order to admit light and air. These openings are flanked by transverse
arches, springing a few centimetres lower than the spring of the vault.
The angles of the corridor are roofed with groined vaults, and groined
vaults occur in two places, towards the middle of each of the long sides
of the corridor. Moreover, a small extension of the east arm of the
corridor, No. 61, is also roofed with a groin. This last is the example
given by Dr. Reuther on Plate 13 of _Ocheïdir_; it is the only groin in
the palace which is built of brick. Where the groins do not rest on the
head wall, they are laid against transverse arches, springing from a
point lower than the springing of the vault. The lower parts of the
groin are built of stones laid horizontally and forming a bracket from
which spring the intersecting vaults (Plate 32, Fig. 2). The vaults are
also built of thin slabs of stone, cut in the shape of bricks, and laid
with a slight inclination backwards against the head wall or the
transverse arch. This construction demanded little or no centering. In
the north-east angle of the corridor there is a small door in the east
wall which gave access to a stair or passage running under the wall. It
was so much blocked by ruins that I could not penetrate into it.
From the corridor a door opens into each of the five courts, B and C on
the east side, forming the eastern wing of the palace, H and G on the
west side, forming the western wing, and E to the south. The courts have
no direct communication with each other. The chambers on the north and
south sides of these courts are all arranged in lîwân groups, but there
are differences in detail between courts B and H on the one hand, and
courts C and G on the other, while the position and size of court E has
led to further modifications. Court B (Plate 33, Figs. 1 and 2) measures
15·20 metres from north to south, and 17·60 metres from east to west,
but on the west side ·40 metre is occupied by a shallow blind arcade,
and on the east side 3 metres was taken up by an arcaded passage which
is now ruined. The blind arcade is composed of five arches carried by
engaged piers which have an average width of ·70 metre. The arches are
round and spring directly from the piers without the interposition of
impost or capital. In the central of the five intercolumniations is
placed the door from the corridor. To the north and to the south of the
court lies a lîwân group of three vaulted chambers. The lîwân opens on
to the court through an archway 2·60 metres wide flanked by engaged
columns and piers (Plate 34, Fig. 1). The side chambers communicate by
means of arched doorways with small antechambers, which in turn open
into the court through arched doorways 2·05 metres wide, flanked by
engaged columns (Plate 34, Fig. 2. The mass of brickwork which partly
blocks the doorway is a later addition). The antechambers are roofed
with barrel vaults running east and west, which are separated from the
outer end of the lîwân vault by transverse arches; thus the vault of the
lîwân is enabled to run through to the wall of the court (Plate 35, Fig.
1). Structurally, the antechambers are therefore distinct from the outer
end of the lîwân; practically the antechambers and the outer end of the
lîwân form a kind of narthex, the outer end of the lîwân being part of
the narthex and not an integral part of the reception-room. This fact is
accentuated by the position of the side doors in the lîwân. The sitting
space along the walls ends with these doors, and for practical purposes
the lîwân is no longer than the side chambers. The capitals of the
engaged columns are rectangular impost blocks of stone masonry. Between
the parallel barrel vaults there is the usual system of tubes (Fig. 4).
The tubes running north and south are carried over the transverse arches
of the antechambers, and their openings appear on the façade of the
lîwân groups. Where the façade has fallen, as, for example, on the south
side of court B, the construction can be clearly traced, and it is also
possible to observe that tubes ran from east to west between the wall
of the façade and the barrel vaults of the antechambers, as well as on
the inner side of the same barrel vaults. Perhaps these tubes were
connected with a tube running north and south parallel with the vault of
the corridor. The vaults are ovoid and are constructed of a single
course of stones laid vertically supporting a mass of stone and
concrete. In all the interior doors the arches are set back from the
jambs (Plate 36, Fig. 1) and constructed in the manner described on p.
15. Upon the plaster of the west wall of No. 44, south of the door
leading into No. 45, there is a graffito inscription in Arabic (see
below, p. 161).[27]
[Illustration: FIG. 4. South side of court B. (From _Ocheïdir_, by kind
permission of Dr. Reuther.)]
East of the lîwân group on the north side of court B there is a stair,
and still further east a narrow passage within the outer wall. A small
door in the north-east corner of the side chamber, 46, gives access to
an unlighted blind passage under the stair. The stair runs up to a
landing-place which is connected by a low doorway with a small chamber
situated above the eastern passage. Another door leads into a gangway
hollowed out of the thickness of the outer wall, and from this gangway a
door leads into a tiny circular room in the outer towers. I did not
determine whether the gangway in the wall runs on interruptedly from
court to court. On the whole, as Dr. Reuther has observed, this would
seem to be improbable since the strict isolation of the courts is in all
other respects preserved. Almost exactly above the entrance to the stair
(an awkward piece of construction) sprang the first arch of the arcade
which flanked the court from north to south. In every court this arcade
has fallen, but on the south side of court H a portion of the first arch
remains, together with the vault behind it (Plate 35, Fig. 2). I cleared
away the ruins at the south end of this arcade and found the remains of
the first column at a distance of 2·40 metres from the south wall. The
arcade must therefore have been composed of four columns carrying five
arches, corresponding with the blind arcade on the opposite wall. The
massive stone vaulting of Ukhaiḍir was not suited to free standing
arcades, and, as has been noticed in the mosque, when the wooden
cross-beams perished, their collapse was inevitable.
To return to court B. The passage already mentioned, running parallel
with the outer wall, leads into an oblong room, 47, 3·55 metres wide,
which lies from east to west across the back of the lîwân group and the
stair. This room is vaulted at either end but is left open near the
centre (Plate 35, Fig. 3). The same oblong room is found behind the
southern lîwân group of court B, and behind each of the lîwân groups in
courts C, G, and H. In every case the vault next to the outer wall is
pierced by a pair of terra-cotta pipes similar to the pipes described in
No. 37. It is probable, as I shall show later (p. 82) that these rooms
were intended for kitchens. On the south side of court B there is no
stair; above the vault of the passage which leads into the oblong room,
51, there is a blind corridor accessible from No. 50 by a door placed in
the east wall, some 2 metres from the ground. This door must have been
approached by a wooden ladder or steps, but I climbed up into it over a
heap of ruins. On the west side the antechamber of No. 49 is provided
with a door into corridor 28. Immediately to the south of this door a
wall, broken by a doorway, has been built across the corridor. This wall
is a later addition; it is not bonded into the walls of the corridor,
and it does not occur in the corresponding west arm.
Court C differs from court B in the absence of antechambers to the lîwân
groups (Plate 33, Figs. 3 and 4). The lîwân opens into the court through
a wide pointed arch carried on engaged columns; the side chambers are
provided with doorways into the court, covered by ovoid arches set back
from the jambs (Plate 36, Fig. 2), and the façade thus formed
corresponds exactly with the façades of the court on the top floor of
the three-storied block. Near the south-east corner of court C there is
an arched doorway leading into the palace yard (Plate 37, Fig. 1). In
the oblong chamber, 60, behind the southern lîwân group, the south wall
is occupied by a blind arcade of four arches borne by piers 1·10 metres
wide and 1·05 metres deep. A similar blind arcade occurs in the
corresponding chamber of court G, and indeed, except for slight
variations in the measurements, the only difference between courts C and
G is that in the latter there is no door into the palace yard. In the
same way court H re-echoes court B save that in court H there is no
doorway between the southern antechamber, 82, and the corridor 28 (Plate
37, Fig. 3).
The arrangement of the rooms in court E is not symmetrical. On the east
side court E is curtailed by the small oblong room, 61, and an open
court, D. No. 61 is a continuation of the east arm of the corridor 28.
It measures 5·25 metres from north to south and 3·50 metres from east to
west. The square for the brick groin with which it is roofed is obtained
by laying a transverse arch to north and south. It opens by two arched
doors, divided by a pier, into court D, which measures 10 metres from
north to south and 9·20 metres from east to west. In the south wall
there is an arched doorway into the palace yard. To the east of court E
there is space for one chamber only (62) and a winding stair which leads
to the roof. On the west side there are two chambers, 67 and 68,
communicating with one another and with the court. To the south of 67
there is a narrow passage (Plate 37, Fig. 2) which leads into an oblong
room, 69, similar in all respects to the oblong rooms behind the lîwân
groups in courts B, C, G, and H.[28] Between the barrel vaults of 67 and
68 and the south arm of corridor 28 are the usual tubes. The doorways of
67 and 68 are covered with ovoid arches set back from the jambs, but the
opening into the narrow southern passage follows the line of the vault
and oversails the wall. Above the vault of the passage there is an
inaccessible passage or tube which exists for structural reasons only.
To the south of court E lies a lîwân with its side chambers, the lîwân,
64, opening into the court by a wide archway, the side chambers by small
doors, as in courts C and G. Finally, the space between 65 and 69 is
filled up by a fourth room, 66, which communicates with 65 and with the
narrow passage. Tubes are laid between all the barrel vaults of these
rooms.[29]
The whole building above described is enclosed on three sides by a wall
1·60 metres thick, set with towers 2·40 metres in diameter which project
1·80 metres from the face of the wall (Plate 38, Fig. 1).[30] Through
the upper part of the wall runs the low, vaulted, and unlighted gangway
which has already been mentioned (Plate 39, Fig. 1). It is no more than
a tube between the wall and the vaults that adjoin the wall, but it
serves to give access to the round chambers hollowed out of the towers.
Access to the roof can be obtained at three points, the stair at the
south-east angle of the central court, the stair at the south-east angle
of court F, and the stair at the south-east angle of court E. Further,
the three doors out of the first floor rooms 99, 102, and 106 open on to
the roof of the single-storied block. There are traces of a narrow
parapet round the edge of the roof, and the different courts seem to
have been divided from one another and from the corridor 28 by low walls
on the roof (Plate 38, Fig. 2).
One other building stands within the palace yard, the group of rooms
140-152 to the east of the main palace. It is a later addition, though
it resembles the rest of the palace too closely to admit of its having
been added after the lapse of any considerable period of time. The north
façade is prolonged beyond the chambers at either side, and is joined at
the east end to one of the pilasters of the outer wall and at the west
end to one of the towers of the inner wall, but it is not bonded in to
the pilaster or to the tower. The northern end of the palace yard is
thus divided off into a large court, which bears the same relation to
the east annex as does the central court to the ceremonial chambers to
the south of it. The stair to the first floor of the main palace was
placed in this court, and it was approached from the main entrance
through corridor 6. At the south-east corner the east annex does not
connect with the angle of the east gate staircase, but is divided from
it by an interval of ·30 metre.
The group of rooms 140-152 (the east annex) resembles in its main lines
the group 29-42, south of the central court, and must have been intended
for the same purposes. The north façade is decorated with blind arcades
projecting ·25 metre from the face of the wall (Plate 39, Fig. 2). The
ovoid arches, which contain very shallow calottes, are carried by
engaged columns having a diameter of ·40 metre. A recessed polygon was
placed in the spandrels. The arcade is best preserved at the west end,
and it is there possible to see that a narrow cornice, consisting of a
single course of stones, ran along the wall above the arches, and that
above the cornice the top of the wall was adorned with small arched
niches, borne on stumpy half-columns and separated from one another by
larger engaged columns (compare the top of the outer north wall of the
palace and the top of the north façade of the central court). At the
west end of the façade, in the first intercolumniation of the blind
arcade, there is a gateway 1·90 metres wide, covered by a pointed arch.
A similar gateway seems to have existed in the second intercolumniation
from the east end, but the façade here is much ruined. The north wall of
rooms 140, 142, and 145 has fallen (Plate 39, Fig. 3). There can be no
doubt that access was obtained to the lîwân, 140, by a wide archway, as
in the case of the corresponding lîwân, 29, south of the central court.
I saw no trace of a north door into chambers 142 and 145, though in all
probability it existed. The lîwân, 140, is 5·40 metres wide by 10·50
metres long. Like the lîwân 29, it has two doors on each side and a door
in the south wall. It is, however, vaulted in stone, not in brick, and
the vault does not rise above the level of those on either side. The
door-jambs are enriched with shallow pilasters, ·18 metre wide and ·4
metre deep, worked in stucco (Plate 40, Fig. 2). They do not carry an
arch over the archivolt of the door. In the side doors the archivolt
cuts into the line of the oversailing vault which is carried over them.
Above the south door there is a high narrow arched window, giving
additional light to room 141. On either side of the door is placed a
shallow arched niche, 1 metre wide and ·5 metre deep. The arch is filled
in with a calotte, the lower edge of which is sunk behind the face of
the wall. To the west of 140 are two vaulted chambers, 142 and 143,
communicating with one another and with a similar chamber, 144, lying
further to the south. The vaults of 142, 143, and 144 are set at right
angles to the vaults of 140 and 141, so as to form buttresses to them.
On the east side the same arrangement is observed in rooms 145, 146, and
147. These six chambers correspond to the more elaborate chambers 31,
32, 33, and 40, 41, 42 of the main palace. No. 141 (which corresponds
with No. 30) is provided with four doors, one in the middle of each
side. It was covered, not by a barrel vault, but by a stone groined
vault, which has now fallen (Plate 41, Fig. 1). The chambers east and
west of 141 (Nos. 144 and 147; compare the columned rooms of the main
palace) communicate with the yard on either side and also with the
vaulted passage or antechamber 148. Into this passage (Plate 41, Fig. 2;
compare No. 36 of the main palace) the south door of No. 141 opens. The
vault of the passage has fallen. It was no doubt carried on the south
side by columns and arches like No. 36. There are no chambers to east
and west of the passage, but on either side of the open space to the
south of it were two chambers, 149 and 150 to the west, 151 and 152 to
the east. They communicated with one another and with the yard to the
north, as well as with the corridor south of 141. Their vaults ran east
and west. No. 150 has fallen almost completely and No. 152 is much
ruined.[31] A doorway in No. 148 gives access to a stair which leads
down into an underground room lying beneath Nos. 144, 143, and 142
(section _e-f_, Plate 5, Fig. 1). It is lighted by three splayed windows
in the north wall; under the windows there is an arched niche or
tâqchah. To the west of No. 142 there is a ruined chamber which
contained a stair leading to the roof. Thus the analogy with the block
of rooms Nos. 29-42 is complete even to the serdâb and the stair to the
roof.
The vault construction in the east annex shows a variation from that of
the main palace. Instead of the long tubes running parallel with the
barrel vaults, the masonry between the parallel barrel vaults of the
annex is lightened by short compartments set at right angles to the
vaults. Plate 39, Fig. 3, shows this construction between the vaults of
143 and 146 and the ruined vaults of 142 and 145; Plate 42, Fig. 1, the
same construction between the vaults 144, 141, and 147, and the ruined
vault of the passage 148. This system is an improvement upon the tubular
scheme, inasmuch as it fills in the space between the vaults more
completely and gives greater solidity to the roof. Moreover, it has the
advantage of leaving no long inaccessible tubes to serve as a home for
birds and snakes. The decorative effect of the openings of the tubes is
lost, but it was not needed in the blank east and west walls of the
annex, nor yet in the arcaded north wall.
The fact that a similar system of small compartments is to be observed
in the building outside the palace to the north (though they are here
laid parallel to the barrel vaults) leads me to suspect that it must
have been built at about the same period, and is therefore a later
addition to the original plan. It is completely detached from the
palace, but it stands in line with the west wall of the palace and
parallel to the north wall (Plate 43, Figs. 1 and 2). It is separated by
a distance of 13·25 metres from the face of the arcades of the north
wall. It was itself constructed at two different periods. The older
portion lies to the south, nearest to the palace, and consists of a
large open court, J, 33·20 metres from north to south and 24·80 metres
from east to west, flanked on the east side by six vaulted rooms. The
southernmost of these six rooms, 153, is 9·55 metres from north to south
and 7·80 metres from east to west. It is separated from court J by a
wall 1 metre thick, but on the east side its wall is 1·90 metres thick
and shows upon the exterior traces of an outer stair, leading to the
roof, which passed over the wide arched opening in the east wall. The
vault, which must have stood two stories high, like the vault of the
great hall, has fallen. The remaining rooms, 154-158, have doors in the
east wall and small loopholed windows in the west wall (Plate 42, Fig.
2). The rooms are divided across the centre by a transverse arch and
vaulted in two compartments, the vaults running east and west. Court J
had a cloister upon the west side; it has entirely disappeared, but the
spring of its vault is visible on the inner side of the west wall.
Probably the vault was carried on the east side by columns and arches.
Four round towers project at irregular intervals from the exterior of
the west wall (Plate 44, Figs. 1 and 2); they have the same diameter as
the towers in the outer palace wall. The southernmost is about 3·40
metres from the southern angle of the court--an exact measurement is
difficult because the angle of the wall is ruined. The next tower lies
5·65 metres to the north of the first; an interval of 7·35 metres
separates it from the third tower, and the third tower is 10·70 metres
from the larger tower at the north-west angle of the court. The angle
tower contains a winding stair. The three smaller towers seem to be a
later addition to the wall; they bear no relation to the three doors,
and they block some of the windows. The windows are placed in groups of
three, two groups between the south-west angle and the first door, one
group between the first and second, and the second and third doors, and
two groups between the third door and the angle tower. There are traces
of a similar group in the north wall immediately to the east of the
angle tower, and the straight face at the east end of the north wall
gives reason to believe that there was a group of windows here also. The
north wall is much ruined, and the ruin heaps are covered with blown
sand. The arches of the windows are carried by engaged columns.[32]
To the north of room 158, and in a line with it, lie nine vaulted
chambers which were added at a later date (Plate 44, Fig. 2). They are
separated from No. 158 by a stair running up to the roof, with a doorway
to the west. At the east end there is a small room under the top of the
stair with a loophole window in the east wall. From this room, which is
accessible from No. 159, a stair, now completely ruined, led down into a
substructure. Nos. 159 and 160 are 4 metres broad; they are covered by
barrel vaults and have a door at either end. No. 161 opens by two doors
into No. 162. No. 162 is 4·80 metres broad and is divided across the
centre by a transverse arch. East of the transverse arch only half the
space is vaulted over. Besides the doors, there are two small windows
high up in the north and south wall. In the east and west walls there is
a wide archway instead of the usual doors. The five rooms 163-167
resemble in all respects Nos. 159-161. Except over No. 162, where the
vault is higher than in the other chambers, the roof of rooms 154-167 is
raised above small compartments lying over the barrel vaults (Plate 42,
Figs. 2 and 3), and the mass of masonry between the vaults was lightened
in the same manner. Slit-like windows appear high up in the east wall
between the vaults (not, however, in rooms 153-162), doubtless in
connexion with these compartments.
At a considerable distance to the north-east of the palace stands the
small building which is known as the Ḥammâm (Plate 5, Fig. 3). Unlike
the rest of the palace, it is not oriented. It consists of a long
chamber running slightly to the west of north (about 24°), 10·65 metres
long by 5·30 wide. It was covered by a vault which has now fallen. The
door is on the east side; in the north and south walls there is a deep
rectangular niche. A door in the north-east corner leads into a smaller
chamber, 4·10 × 3·30 metres. In this building the thrust of the vault
over the larger chamber is taken by outer buttresses, the only instance
of such construction at Ukhaiḍir. On the east side there is one buttress
·60 metre deep; on the west side three, 1·25 metres deep. A stair
leading to the roof ran up over the western buttress.
CHAPTER II
QṢAIR, MUDJḌAH, AND ‘AṬSHÂN
QṢAIR
Among gypsum hillocks, about an hour’s ride to the north-east of
Ukhaiḍir, lie the ruins of a village known to the Arabs as Qṣair.[33]
There have been here a number of small houses, possibly lodgings for the
gypsum workers, and I noticed several deep rectangular tanks, though
whether they were intended for the storage of water, or were connected
with the process of gypsum working, I do not know. Broken pottery was
scattered sparsely over the ruin heaps; most of it was unglazed, but
there were also fragments of blue glazed ware and a few pieces with a
black glaze on the inner side. Such sherds as these are to be found on
every site, mediaeval or modern, in Mesopotamia, and do not offer any
conclusive evidence as to date. One large building is standing in ruins
(Plate 5, Fig. 4). It lies approximately north-east by south-west and
has been enclosed by a wall of sun-dried brick, set with towers. On two
sides this wall was clearly visible; it lay thirty-two paces from the
central edifice on the north-east and one hundred and ten paces from it
on the south-west side. The ‘little castle’, from which Qṣair takes its
modern name, is a long narrow building 45·15 × 8·95 metres. The walls, 1
metre thick, are constructed of stones and gypsum mortar, but the
masonry is slightly different in character from that of Ukhaiḍir. The
stones, instead of being broken into thin slabs, are used in thicker
blocks, and the binding courses are of the same blocks, whereas at
Ukhaiḍir they are almost always composed of particularly thin slabs.
There are traces of plaster upon the walls, but window and niche angles
are finished with large blocks cut with a certain amount of care,
another feature which is not to be observed in the smaller materials of
Ukhaiḍir. The north-east end of the building was divided off by a wide
archway, of which only the returns in the walls remain. The chamber thus
formed (6·30 metres long by 5·95 metres wide) was finished by a niche
covered by a shallow ovoid calotte. The niche is rectangular in plan,
1·26 metres deep by 3·25 metres wide. The calotte was carried over the
angles by shallow squinches, of which the archivolt was decorated with a
zigzag ornament in plaster,[34] while at the base of the calotte there
has been a similar band of plaster ornament. The construction of this
niche recalls with fidelity the terminal semi-dome of a room in the
Umayyad castle of Kharâneh (see below, p. 114). Above the calotte there
is a small rectangular window (Plate 45, Figs. 1 and 2). The back wall
of the niche is exceedingly thin (·45 metre thick) and has in
consequence broken away. There is a window high up in each of the side
walls of the chamber, ·50 metre from the transverse arch.
The remainder of the building appears to have consisted of a single
chamber 33·10 metres long. The south-west end is very much ruined. There
are traces of five doors on either side, and of a door in the south-west
wall. The two doors in either side wall at the north-west end of the
chamber were flanked by windows--probably there were more windows,
though the ruined condition of the wall makes it difficult to speak with
certainty. As regards the roof, there are remains of the spring of a
vault in the north-east chamber and on the south-west side of the
southern return of the transverse arch. On the exterior, at the
north-east end, the wall is set back above the top of the calotte, and
immediately below that level the east corner is sliced off diagonally,
so as to form a triangular niche which has been partly covered by thin
slabs (Plate 45, Fig. 3). Above the level of the calotte the angles of
the building on either side appear to have been similarly sliced off.
The side windows of the north-east chamber are rounded at the top, but
the openings are so small that it was not necessary to construct these
arches with voussoirs, and they are merely cut out of the masonry of the
wall. The archivolt of the north-east niche is composed of a single row
of voussoirs laid horizontally, as is the case in some of the more
roughly built arches at Ukhaiḍir (for instance the door of passage 137,
Plate 24, Fig. 2). None of the doorways are preserved up to the height
of lintel or arch.
I am inclined to suppose that this building was connected in some way
with the working of the gypsum. It is possible that it may belong to the
same period as Ukhaiḍir.
MUDJḌAH
I sighted the tower of Mudjḍah from the top of the ṭâr east of
Ukhaiḍir[35] (Plate 46, Fig. 1). It stands in the level desert which
stretches east to the Hindiyyeh; there are no ruins in its vicinity, nor
any evidence of water storage (Plate 47, Fig. 2). The tower is built of
bricks measuring ·27 × ·27 × ·7 metre. It rests upon a base of 4·35
metres square and 2·85 metres high, each side of which is adorned with
three rectangular niches ·20 metre deep and ·36 metre wide. Each niche
is covered by a triply recessed arch, roughly constructed of half-bricks
set in rings, not as voussoirs (Plate 47, Fig. 3). Above the square
niched substructure the tower is circular, and for a height of about 2
metres the wall is plain. On the east side, above the central niche of
the substructure, is placed a door (Plate 47, Fig. 1). The arch of the
door, which is set in the second decorated zone of the tower, consists
of a double row of half-bricks laid vertically and an outer belt of
brick voussoirs laid horizontally. Each of the three members of the arch
is recessed behind the other, the outer voussoirs being flush with the
face of the wall. The door gives access to a winding stair, ·60 metre
wide, which leads to the top of the tower. The second decorated zone
consists of a band of rectangular flutings, forming a zigzag in plan.
Two courses above these flutings there is a course of bricks laid
corner-wise so as to constitute a dog-tooth motive. The wall is then
carried up for another six courses in plain masonry, above which lies a
second course of brick dog-tooths. The succeeding zone is adorned with
eight triply recessed niches with rectangular heads. After four more
courses of plain brickwork there is a third course of dog-tooths, and on
the west side of the tower five courses of plain brickwork are preserved
above the dog-tooths. That there was at least one other decorated zone
seems certain. If my theory is correct, that the tower was intended as a
landmark for caravans passing over this flat expanse from Nedjef to ‘Ain
al-Tamr, it is important to observe that at its present height it is not
visible from ‘Aṭshân, which is the nearest caravanserai to the east of
Mudjḍah.
For purposes of comparison, I will set beside the tower of Mudjḍah a
minaret, as yet unpublished, belonging to a ruined mosque at Ṭâûq, south
of Kerkûk (Plate 48, Fig. 1). This minaret stood upon a low square base
of which the surface of the brickwork is decayed. Upon this base was
placed an octagon divided into three decorated zones; the first and
third are furnished with eight small arched niches, the central zone
with eight larger niches, each one being recessed behind a rectangular
frame of masonry. The remainder of the minaret is round and is adorned
with broad alternating bands of brickwork, zigzags and diamonds, the
latter being slightly recessed. The door is placed high up above the
octagon and has no apparent means of access; probably it was approached
from the top of the mosque. The summit of the minaret has fallen; of the
mosque nothing remains but low mounds, and I know no record of its
construction. Ṭâûq is not mentioned by the earlier Arab geographers.[36]
Rich saw there a small gateway, the architecture of which he compares
with the Mustanṣiriyyeh at Baghdâd,[37] dated A.D. 1233, and the
brickwork zigzags of the minaret are not unlike the decoration of the
minaret in the Sûq al-Ghazl at Baghdâd, which may have been built about
the same time as the Mustanṣiriyyeh or a little earlier.[38] This is the
period to which I should assign the minaret of Ṭâûq, but the tower of
Mudjḍah must belong to an earlier age. Instead of the broad ogee of the
arches in the Ṭâûq niches, the arches in the lower zone of niches at
Mudjḍah are round, or as nearly round as their primitive construction
would permit. The rectangular flutings are characteristic of a group of
Persian monuments which are dated by Professor Sarre from the twelfth to
the fifteenth centuries,[39] but the prototype is to be found in two
minarets of an older period, the towers of Ghazni, one of which was
built by Maḥmûd of Ghazni (A.D. 947-1030) and the other by his immediate
successor.[40]
‘AṬSHÂN
Two hours’ ride to the south-east of Mudjḍah is the ruined caravanserai
which the Arabs call ‘Aṭshân, the Thirsty--the name is well deserved,
for there is no water nearer than the Hindiyyeh.[41] It is not exactly
oriented, but faces approximately north (Plate 46, Fig. 2). It is built
of brick tiles varying from ·31 × ·31 × ·7 metre to ·32 × ·32 × ·8 metre
and sometimes as large as ·34 metre square. The walls enclose an area 29
metres square; they are 1·80 metres thick, and are strengthened at the
angles by round towers, 4·10 metres in diameter, projecting 1·90 metres
from the face of the walls, as well as by smaller towers 2·75 metres in
diameter which are placed in the centre of the east, west, and south
walls. The small towers have the same projection as the angle towers. In
the centre of the north wall is the gate, which is pierced through a
double tower having a projection of 3·10 metres from the face of the
wall. The gate towers are preserved up to a considerably greater height
than the other towers (Plate 48, Fig. 2), but the systematic levelling
of the walls and towers is probably due to brick-robbers, and there is
nothing to indicate their original height. Even the gate-house towers
have been higher than they are at present (Plate 49, Fig. 1). The west
wall has fallen, carrying with it the south-west tower and all the
constructions in the interior which ran along this side. The whole
edifice looks as if it had been terribly shaken by earthquake; great
cracks have sprung open in the solid masonry; the north-east tower leans
outward and is on the point of falling.
The north doorway is set back ·75 metre within the segments of the
flanking towers.[42] The doorway is 1·35 metres wide and opens into a
small chamber, 2·40 metres square, which is covered by a barrel vault.
The inner doorway is set back within an arched niche (Plate 49, Fig. 2).
To the west, a small opening has been pierced through the wall (it can
be seen in Plate 49, Figs. 1 and 2), but it has been formed merely by
removing the bricks of the wall and bears no sign of having existed in
the original plan. The arches over the outer doorway and over the
interior niche are composed of a course and a half of tiles laid
vertically and an outer ring of brick voussoirs laid horizontally. The
gateway leads into an irregular courtyard which has been surrounded on
three sides by chambers. Near the centre of the court there is a brick
tank, 2·90 by 3·25 metres. This seems to have been the only provision
which was made for water. A row of chambers 3·50 metres wide lies along
the west wall. No. 1 is 5·80 metres long and has been roofed with a
barrel vault running north and south. No. 2 has a length of 3·75 metres
and was vaulted from east to west. No. 3 is 9·10 metres long and No. 4
is 4·15 metres long. There is no door between Nos. 3 and 4. In the
latter room a space of ·80 metre is left open upon the east side and the
remainder of the chamber is covered with a barrel vault lying east and
west. Judging from the analogy of similar rooms at Ukhaiḍir, No. 4 was
probably the kitchen. No. 3 seems to have communicated with the court by
a door in the north-west corner. Parallel to it lies the vaulted lîwân,
No. 5, 4·90 metres wide (Plate 50, Figs, 1 and 2). At its southern end a
door, placed in a wide and shallow niche, opens into No. 6. No. 6
communicates both with No. 4 and with the long, partially ruined hall,
No. 7. The doorway between 6 and 7, 2·05 metres wide (the arch has
broken away), is placed within a niche 1·45 metres deep which is covered
by the segment of a semi-dome (Plate 51, Fig. 2). The semi-dome is laid
across the angles by means of masonry brackets which must have borne a
very strong resemblance to pendentives. The horizontal courses are
carried up in the centre of the semi-dome for three courses, each
shorter than the one below, and round this pyramidal core the brickwork
of the semi-dome is laid concentrically.[43] To the south, the door
niche is carried back beyond the width of the semi-dome, forming a small
vaulted recess. No. 7 seems to have been provided with a door opening on
to the court, but the western end of the north wall is completely
ruined. A very narrow door under the semi-dome gave access to room 8,
which could also be approached from the court by an arched door in the
west wall (Plate 52, Fig. 1). No. 8, 2·90 by 5·75 metres, lies parallel
to No. 7, and is roofed with a barrel vault. In the west wall, north of
the door, there is an arched niche, ·54 metre deep, and a similar niche
is placed in the north wall. The main interest of No. 8 is the
decoration on the exterior. On the west wall a simple and effective
pattern is produced by laying a couple of rows of brick tiles face
outwards at intervals along the top of the wall, and below these, north
of the door, a rectangular tablet was formed, for purely decorative
purposes, by inserting 2 or 2½ rows of faced tiles into the wall. The
top of the north wall was ornamented with a row of four arched niches
(Plate 50, Fig. 2). Small engaged columns, without bases, carry imposts
formed of a single brick, from which spring round arches decorated with
three fillets in plaster. One of the niches is pierced by a narrow
window. The vault construction is very similar to that of Ukhaiḍir. All
the vaults oversail the walls by 4 centimetres. The lower part of the
vault is composed of from five to nine courses of bricks laid
horizontally, the upper of bricks laid vertically. Over the ovoid arch
thus formed (it is always a course and a half thick) are carried the
horizontal courses of the walls. I looked carefully for any trace of
tubes between the parallel vaults, but found none; the masonry seems to
be solid in every case. All the door arches, as far as can be determined
in their ruined state, were round and sprang flush with the jambs.
The fortress-like character of the khân of ‘Aṭshân, the plan of its
gateway, and the details of its construction and decoration incline me
to assign to it a date not far removed from that of Ukhaiḍir. The tower
of Mudjḍah must stand in intimate connexion with the khân, for I can
conceive of no reason for the erection of an isolated tower in the midst
of a waterless desert, unless it were intended to serve some purpose on
the caravan track from Kûfah to ‘Ain al-Tamr, of which the khân of
‘Aṭshan was the intermediate stage.[44] I would suggest that neither
khân nor tower can be dated much later than the ninth century; both are
valuable and interesting examples of early Mohammadan architecture of
the age, or at least of the school, to which Ukhaiḍir itself belongs.
CHAPTER III
QAṢR-I-SHÎRÎN
The general disposition of the Sasanian ruins at Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn has been
given by M. de Morgan, and the plan of the two principal buildings, the
palace of Khusrau and the palace (if palace it were) of Chehâr Qapû,
both of which I examined, appear in the same volume.[45] It is quite
possible that the ruins may have suffered to a certain extent during the
years which elapsed between M. de Morgan’s visit and my own, and this
may account for the omission in my plans of some features which are
shown by him. Nowhere did I observe stucco decorations in so good a
state of preservation as that which is depicted in his Figure 208. I
have, however, compared my photographs with those published by him and
found no very noticeable differences. Moreover, it will be observed that
such details as are absent from my plans are usually indicated
hypothetically on those of the French mission, and it is therefore
doubtful how much of them was actually seen and how much was
conjectural. A very little excavation would determine whether these
conjectures are correct. It is much to be regretted that I had not the
French plans with me, as I might have been able to form some more
definite opinion as to the value of the proposed restorations. As it is
I must content myself with recording that which I saw above ground.
THE PALACE OF KHUSRAU
The larger edifice, which is known as the palace of Khusrau (i.e.
Chosroës II, Parwêz, A.D. 590-628), is not built upon a single level.
The central part is raised above the plain by means of a solid platform
of earth some 3 metres high. The terribly ruined state of the buildings
made it difficult to take elevation measurements which should approach
to accuracy; I have therefore endeavoured to give a correct impression
of the structures upon the two levels by reproducing the plan in two
parts. In the one (Plate 53) the upper rooms and courts are given; the
uncovered areas on the upper level are lightly tinted, the covered rooms
are dotted, while the buildings on the lower level are shown only in
outline. In the other (Plate 54) the upper level is left in outline and
the covered and open areas of the lower level are fully indicated.
The palace is exactly oriented, the main rooms and entrance facing east.
The building materials are undressed stones laid in a thick bed of
gypsum mortar. The stones are used exactly in the shape in which they
were furnished by nature, a shape which happened to be that of large
rounded pebbles. With such materials accurately coursed masonry is not
to be expected. The core of the walls is no more than a mass of concrete
with stones bedded at haphazard in the strong gypsum mortar. On the
outer surface of the wall, particularly in important chambers, the
pebbles are, however, coursed with considerable care, but the face of
the walls is necessarily very rough and must always have been covered
with plaster. The vaults are constructed of the same unfavourable
materials. They were built over a centering on which was laid an inner
skin of stones and mortar; when this had hardened it was strong enough
to bear the mass of concrete which was built round and above it.
Construction of this kind would have been impossible but for the
excellent qualities of the mortar. I observed that the vaults both in
this palace and at Chehâr Qapû had almost invariably a slight outset
from the wall (Plate 52, Fig. 2), as is generally the case in Sasanian
vault building, whether in brick or in stone. The vaults are round or
slightly ovoid, except in the lower corridor, under the margin of the
platform (Plate 54, Corridor 103). Here the vaults are very markedly
pointed (Plate 51, Fig. 1), but I should attribute this form not to any
conscious predilection for the pointed arch--an arch which was, so far
as I am aware, unknown to Sasanian architects--but to an accident
inherent in the rude construction of an unimportant part of the
building. Occasionally brick was used. I saw fragments of brick among
the ruins of the palace of Khusrau, and in Chehâr Qapû some brick vaults
are still standing. The walls which were intended to support these
massive stone roofs were seldom less than 1·30 metres thick, and
sometimes considerably thicker. (In Chehâr Qapû, however, they are not
infrequently reduced to a thickness of little over a metre.)
The eastern end of the platform is devoid of constructions. It is
accessible by means of three double ramps which will be described in
dealing with the lower level of the palace. Excluding the width of the
ramps, the open platform is 149 metres long (reckoning it up to the east
wall of chambers 21, 22, and 23) and 98 metres wide. The main gateway of
the palace is much ruined. The hall or porch which is numbered 1 on the
plan is indicated by two grass-grown mounds, 26·60 metres long by about
5·40 metres broad, leaving a space of about 9·80 metres between. Another
mound lying north and south marks the eastern limit of No. 2. At either
end of this latitudinal chamber there were traces of cross walls, which
I have shown on the plan. Upon the eastern mound I saw through the grass
circular patches of brick which may have been the remains of columns.
Whether No. 1 was flanked on either side by columns, as M. de Morgan has
represented it to have been, I have no means of determining, but I have
little doubt that it was a covered porch of some kind leading to a
latitudinal chamber, No. 2, which was some 45 metres long (between the
cross-walls) by 17 metres wide, and that this chamber was a covered
antechamber to the hall of audience, No. 3. The hall (3) is 27·20 metres
square; the walls are ruined down to the level of the side door arches,
and the interior is filled with ruins to the depth of about 1
metre--judging by the present ground-level in the doorways (Plate 55,
Figs. 1 and 2). At each corner of the hall, 2·90 metres from the walls
on either side, there are the remains of a pier, 1·40 metres square,
with two engaged columns projecting about 1 metre and producing a
heart-shaped ground-plan. The pier at the south-west corner is tolerably
well preserved, and there can be no doubt as to its form. The eastern
wall of the hall is 4·35 metres thick and is broken by a single door 3
metres wide. At the south-east corner a small doorway leads into a short
passage, probably vaulted, which gives access to the open platform. On
the west side of the hall lies a lîwân (4) 5·10 × 13·15 metres. A door,
1·60 metres wide, opens into court A, but there is no direct
communication between the lîwân and its subsidiary chambers. Of these
last there are two on either side. To the north, room 5 opens by doors
into hall 3 and court A. No. 6 has only one door, opening into a narrow
passage (9) which was probably covered by a vault. On the south side No.
7 corresponds exactly with No. 5, while No. 8 opens into No. 7 and not
into the corridor 10. These corridors (9 and 10) lead respectively out
of the north-west and the south-west corners of hall 3; they are
prolonged beyond rooms 6 and 8 and open into court A. Parallel to them
run a second pair of corridors (11 and 12) which are two of the main
gangways of the palace. No. 11 is 1·80 metres wide. Its eastern end is,
so far as I could ascertain, a cul-de-sac, but it may possibly be
provided with a door into room 13 (the walls are very much ruined here).
A doorway, placed immediately west of the end of corridor 9, leads into
court A, and doors on the north side communicate with courts D and E.
Corridor 12 is 1·70 metres wide and leads out of hall 3; the arched
doorway into the hall is preserved. The only other doorway in this
corridor of which I could make certain is one communicating with court
I, but in both corridors (11 and 12) the walls are so much ruined that I
cannot feel sure that they do not possess more doors. Beyond courts F
and J both corridors drop down to the lower level and are then continued
to the western limit of court B, where they turn at right angles and
unite behind court B, but on the lower level. Whether the descent was
accomplished by steps or by a ramp I could not determine, but in No. 12
the vault at this point was well preserved, and I noticed that, as in
the stairs and ramps of Ukhaiḍir, it was built not in an inclined plane,
but in sections rising one above the other like inverted steps (Plate
56, Fig. 1). East of hall 3 and of the chambers pertaining to it, the
remainder of the central area of the palace is occupied by two courts, A
and B, 33·90 metres wide, divided from one another by a much ruined
cross wall in which there was presumably a door. Court A is 40 metres
long from the west wall of the lîwân (4) to the cross-wall; court B is
71·30 metres long from the cross wall to the end of the platform.
To north and south of the central area lie a series of courts with lîwân
groups, on the west side courts C and G alone offer slight variations of
scheme. In court C there is a lîwân group at either end, the western
group being the more important; as will be seen, this is the usual
arrangement in the courts on the lower level. There are, besides, three
chambers (13, 14, and 15), lying between court C and hall 3. These
chambers are almost completely buried under ruin heaps overgrown with
grass; I was able to see that No. 13 opened into No. 3 and into court C,
but I could not determine the position of the doors in Nos. 14 and 15.
Court C measures 21·60 metres from north to south and 19·20 metres from
east to west. The western lîwân is 5·20 by 7·25 metres. I would here
remark that in all cases the lîwâns open by their full width on to the
court, whereas in the French plan the entrance arch is narrowed by short
returns in the side walls. The side chambers (17 and 18) do not
communicate with the lîwân (a rule which is followed throughout the
palace), but have doors only into the court. A door in the west wall of
the lîwân (16) leads into a latitudinally placed chamber (19) measuring
5·10 by 14·30 metres, which is separated by a wall at the south end from
a small subsidiary chamber, 1·75 metres wide, with which it communicates
by a narrow door. There is also a doorway between No. 19 and court D.
This group of rooms (16 to 19) occurs unchanged in courts E, G, H and I,
and is provided invariably with a posterior court. In one case only,
court H, a shallow lîwân group is placed at the west end of the
posterior court. All the latitudinal chambers (19, 28, 32, and 42)
behind the lîwâns are completely ruined. I conjecture that they were
vaulted, but it is possible that they were not wholly covered, like the
corresponding chambers behind the lîwâns at Ukhaiḍir. On the analogy of
Ukhaiḍir they must have served the purpose of kitchens. I saw no trace
in court C of the columns which are placed there in the French plan. At
the east end there is a shallow lîwân group (21, 22, and 23), the lîwân
being 4 metres deep. To the north of this group lies a short passage
leading to a door which communicates with the open platform. A
corresponding passage (20), 2·30 metres wide, leads out of the
north-west corner of court C, runs along the north side of courts D, E,
and F, drops on to the lower level in the same manner as corridors 11
and 12, is continued as far west as they, and then turns off at right
angles and joins the cross-passage which connects them. North of court C
are two chambers on the upper level (106 and 24). No. 106 is a long
passage room with two rectangular arched niches in the south wall, a
door at the east end opening on to the platform, and a door at the west
end which gives access to a ramp that descends into the exterior park,
between the retaining wall to the south and the wall of a chamber on the
lower level to the north. In the north wall of No. 106 there is a door
leading into No. 24, a much ruined room about 7·50 metres square, and a
door further west opening on to the roof of a short passage.
Courts E and F stand in the same relation to one another as courts C and
D; court E is the forecourt of a lîwân group with a kitchen (25 to 28);
court F is the posterior court. The western wall of court F is the
retaining wall of the mound on which the rooms and courts of the upper
level are built. Court F, together with No. 28, are omitted in M. de
Morgan’s plan, a fact which shows that there must be serious errors in
his measurements.
Upon the southern side of the platform, court G is divided from the hall
3 by three chambers (33, 34, and 35) which, like the corresponding
chambers north of the hall, are ruined and filled with débris. They
appear to have had no communication with the hall. On the south side a
door leads from court G into corridor 43, 2·60 metres wide, which
corresponds with the northern corridor (20). The western end of court G
is occupied by a lîwân group and kitchen (29-32), the latter opening
into court H. Court H, 15 metres from east to west, differs, as has been
said, from its counterpart court D, in that it is furnished with a
shallow lîwân group at its western end. These rooms (36, 37 and 38) are
much ruined, but it appeared to me that there was no communication with
court I. Court I, 14·20 metres from east to west, and court J, 17·80
metres from east to west, with the lîwân group and kitchen between them,
correspond exactly in their arrangement with courts E and F. I do not
doubt that all the rooms above described were covered by barrel vaults,
but there is no wall on the upper level that stands much more than a
metre high, and therefore no vault is preserved.
In the central part of the palace the upper level is prolonged to the
western end of court B, but in the wings it ends with courts F and J.
Thus it is that the rooms and courts which flank the western end of
court B are upon the lower level. They form two complete units, one on
either side. The northern unit is composed of courts K and L and rooms
44 to 50. On the east side of court K lies a shallow lîwân group (48,
49, 50), the lîwân being 3·25 metres deep. On the west side the lîwân
group differs somewhat from those which have been already described. A
narrow antechamber, 2·40 metres deep, is interposed between the lîwân
with its side chambers (44, 45, 46) and the court. A wide archway,
corresponding with the arch of the lîwân, and two doors, corresponding
with the doors of the side chambers, open into court K, but the width of
the arch and doors of the antechamber is slightly greater than the width
of the arch and doors of the lîwân and its side chambers. The door of 46
is 1·05 metres wide and stands 1·85 metres from the south wall; the
corresponding door of the antechamber is 1·70 metres wide and stands
1·30 metres from the south wall. The arch of the lîwân has a width of
5·20 metres; the corresponding arch of the antechamber is 5·80 metres
wide. Neither here nor in any other court where the antechamber occurs
is it possible to determine the exact relation between the vault of the
antechamber and the vault of the lîwân, but the fact that the lîwân arch
seems to have been narrower than the antechamber arch (it is only in
court K that the measurements can be taken with anything approaching to
accuracy) leads me to suppose that the vault of the lîwân cannot have
been carried through to the court, as at Ukhaiḍir. In that case the
antechamber must have been roofed with a continuous vault laid at right
angles to, and possibly higher than, the vault of the lîwân. The
antechamber communicates with corridor 11. Courts M and N, on the south
side of court B, are the counterpart of courts K and L. The southern end
of the antechamber is exceptionally well preserved, and the arched
doorway leading into corridor 42 is standing (Plate 56, Fig. 2). Part of
the vault of corridor 42 can be seen in Plate 57, Fig. 1.
The cross-passage connecting corridors 20, 11 and 12 affords
communication with the western courts, which form three units, all
exactly alike, except for slight variations in width. Each unit consists
of a pair of courts and two groups of rooms. A shallow lîwân group lies
at the east end of each of the forecourts, O, Q, and S (Plate 57, Fig.
2). Doors from the passage are placed in the side chambers of the
lîwâns, and corresponding doors open into the courts. As far as I could
ascertain the courts communicated with one another, but the division
walls are ruined, often down to ground-level, and it is hard to decide
between a doorway and a breach. At the west end of the courts stands a
more important lîwân group with an antechamber (Plate 58, Figs. 1 and 2,
and Plate 59, Fig. 1). In no case is there a door in the back of the
lîwân, but communication with the posterior court is provided by means
of a narrow vaulted passage (59, 67 and 75) placed to the south of the
lîwân group.[46] There is no latitudinal chamber in the posterior
courts, but a small additional chamber (58, 66 and 74), possibly for
domestic purposes, lies on the northern side of each lîwân group. A
corridor (79) leading out of court N bounds these courts to the south,
and at right angles to it another corridor (80) bounds them to the west.
The outer wall of No. 80 is ruined to the foundations, and I could not
see whether there were doorways opening into the park. There were clear
traces of doors leading into this corridor from courts P and T. Parallel
to No. 79, but wholly separated from it, runs the continuation of
corridor 43, which, after passing round the south side of court N, turns
at right angles and opens at its western end into the park (Plate 59,
Fig. 2). To the south of these corridors lies a large court, U, with
remains of an arcade along its northern side. The space between the
arcade and the wall of corridor 43 was probably vaulted; at its southern
end it opens into the corridor. Court U is almost square (51 × 51·70
metres). To the west and south its walls are ruined, but on the west
side great heaps of stones furnish indications of a gate. On the
opposite side of the court there is another gateway of which a
considerable part is standing. It is situated at the west end of a
rectangular area, court V, arcaded on either side, which must have been
intended for a private pleasure-ground or a place for games (Plate 60,
Fig. 1). The latter is the more probable conjecture, since there is no
direct communication between court V and the palace. The gateway was an
important structure. From the western court (U) a porch 2·70 metres deep
opened through an archway 3·70 metres wide into a rectangular vaulted
chamber (83) 4·50 metres from east to west (Plate 60, Fig. 2). To the
east of 83 lay a chamber (82) almost square (5·90 × 5·80 metres) having
a rectangular vaulted niche, 1·50 metres deep, to north and south and an
archway to the east opening into court V. No. 82 must have been covered
by a dome, which was in all probability set over the angles on squinch
arches (see below, Plate 69), but no part of the dome is standing (Plate
61). On either side of the gateway there are four chambers accessible
only from court V. No. 85 opens into the passage, probably vaulted,
which was formed by the northern arcade; No. 89 opens on to the area
outside the southern arcade. It would be natural to expect that an outer
wall ran parallel to this arcade, dividing court V from the park, and I
looked for traces of such a wall, but did not find them. Court V (18·50
× 102·50 metres) terminates in a group of much-ruined buildings of which
I could only make out the general plan. The arcaded passage (92) ends in
a small vaulted and unlighted room (93) (6·55 × 3·55 metres). To the
south of 93 are two large chambers (94 and 95), No. 94 terminating at
the southern end in a deep niche. Nos. 93 and 94 are separated by a
narrow passage from a small rectangular court (W) having two chambers at
either end. Of these chambers Nos. 99 and 100 are completely ruined, but
the vaults of Nos. 97 and 98, which are built partly under the upper
platform, are standing (Plate 62). To the south lies another small court
(X) out of which the passage 101 leads into a small rectangular chamber
(102) which in turn communicates with the arcaded corridor 103. This
corridor runs round the eastern end of the platform which is carried
over it on a vault. The vault, which was very roughly constructed, is
noticeably pointed, especially on the east side (Plate 51, Fig. 1).
Three double ramps provided access to the platform, the eastern pair
being the largest and most important. The eastern ramps begin opposite
the fourth detached pier at either end of the arcade of the corridor,
where a mass of masonry 6·60 metres long by 4·90 wide blocks the
adjoining arch. Vaults carrying the ramp are placed before the seventh
and eighth arches from either end of the arcade, and in front of the
central arch lies a vaulted chamber 3·75 metres wide. The length of this
double ramp is 48 metres (Plate 63, Fig. 1). On the west side of the
corridor there are nine vaulted chambers, 5·80 metres deep, which are
tunnelled out under the platform. Their doorways correspond with the
arches of the corridor. A detached chamber lies at either end of the
corridor. The north and south ramps are constructed in the same fashion,
but they are only 30·80 metres long. Opposite the central vault there is
a chamber under the platform; on either side the platform is solid,
after which there are two vaulted chambers.
On the north side of the palace there is another group of much-ruined
buildings on the lower level. The arcaded corridor (103) ends at this
point in a narrow vaulted chamber (104) which lies under No. 106. Like
106, No. 104 has two arched niches in the south wall. It abuts at its
western end against the ramp which descends from No. 106. A narrow
passage leads out into a large enclosure, court Y, in which all the
walls are ruined. Plate 63, Fig. 2, shows the eastern end of No. 106
with its vault partially preserved, and the walls and substructures of
No. 24. In the south-west angle of court Y there was a large chamber
(105), and the north-west corner was occupied by two groups of three
rooms lying to north and south of the small court Z. Possibly there was
a somewhat similar arrangement of rooms on either side of court Z[1].
CHEHÂR QAPÛ
Like the palace of Khusrau, Chehâr Qapû faces east. It covers a
rectangular area 134 metres from east to west, and 82·60 metres from
north to south (Plate 64). The building materials are the same as those
used in the larger palace. The principal entrance is in the east end; I
saw nothing of the great portico which M. de Morgan places on the south
side, and as the outer wall at that point is entirely ruined, it is
impossible to say whether there were a door there or no. The eastern
gateway is much ruined (Plate 65, Fig. 1),[47] but the transverse arch
between chambers 1 and 2 is standing. To north and south lie a series of
courts and small chambers, occupying a width from east to west similar
to that of the gateway buildings and apparently appertaining in some way
to the entrance, since they do not communicate with the interior of the
palace. The eastern wall both of the gateway and of the outer courts has
fallen, so that the architectural scheme of the façade cannot be
determined. It is certain, however, that it was not symmetrical, for the
courts are not symmetrically disposed, nor is the north wing equal in
length to the south wing. To the south of the central gate lie two
courts, A and B, 10·10 metres from north to south, and 9·35 metres from
east to west. Court A is provided with a pair of small rectangular
chambers on either side; in court B there are two rooms upon the south
side only. There are slight variations in size between these chambers,
but they average about 4·10 metres square. They communicated with the
court, but not with one another. They have all been covered by conical
domes set over the angles on squinch arches. I give an example from No.
6 which will serve to illustrate the construction in every case (Plate
65, Fig. 3). Many of the rooms had a small niche in one wall (Plate 65,
Fig. 2), the ṭâqchah, which is to be seen in all Persian houses; it
appears again in numerous rooms in the body of the building. In No. 6
the niche is unusually large and, though it has broken through, the
plaster decorations on the archivolt are preserved (Plate 66, Fig. 1).
They consist of three fillets, and above the archivolt the small
oversailing band of plaster which marks the springing of the dome is
lifted so as to form a rectangular label. As can be seen from the
photographs, most of the plaster has fallen from the walls; where it
remains it is usually decorated with an insignificant striated motive
consisting of narrow vertical and horizontal bands of five lines each,
which look like the impress of some coarse matting on the wet plaster.
To the north of the central gate there are two rooms, 9 and 10,
communicating with one another. Further north lies a large court, _C_,
14·10 metres long, with two rooms at either end. Nos. 11 and 12 differ
from the usual arrangement. No. 11 measures 6·20 by 4·05 metres and has
a niche in the east wall. The north wall, which contained the door into
the court, has fallen. No. 12, 1·65 × 4·20 metres, opens into the court
by a narrow door in the north-west corner, part of the wall having been
cut away to allow space for it. Nos. 13 and 14 are domed rooms of the
customary type. In No. 14 the north-west squinch is particularly well
preserved, part of the plaster fillets over the archivolt being still in
place (Plate 66, Fig. 2).
The central gateway opens into court D, 31·50 × 13·30 metres. At the
western end of the south wall of this court there are faint traces of
plaster decoration, shallow arched niches separated by engaged
colonnettes. The court terminates in a second vaulted gateway (15),
which is so much ruined that the details of its structure cannot be made
out (Plate 67). On either side of this gate a low archway leads into the
vaulted passages 16 and 17. At the eastern end of court D a door gives
access to a chamber (18) 27 × 4·20 metres, which forms the east side of
court E and opens into that court by two wide doorways. To north and
south of court E lie chambers 19 and 20, 12·40 × 4·20 metres and 12·40 ×
4·20 metres, which open into the court by three arches carried on
masonry piers varying from 2·50 to 2·80 metres in length. On the west
side of the court, No. 21 corresponds with No. 18, but the greater part
of its walls have fallen. Court F is flanked to the south by No. 23,
11·50 × 4·20 metres, a closed chamber with a single door, and to the
north by No. 22, which is only 9·10 metres long in order to allow space
for a door leading into No. 24 (11·40 × 4·40 metres). The west side of
court F is partly occupied by the vaulted passage (16) and partly by No.
25, a room which no doubt communicated with the court by a door. A door
leads from it into No. 26, whence a pair of doorways give access to
court G. No. 27 lies to the north of court G and communicates with No.
28, to the north of court H. No. 28 in turn communicates with No. 29,
lying parallel with Nos. 30 and 31, two rooms that open out of the west
side of court H. Back to back with Nos. 29, 30, and 31 lie Nos. 32, 33,
and 34, with doorways opening west. The vaults of these six chambers are
well preserved. Plate 68, Fig. 1, shows the interior of No. 31 with an
arched ṭâqchah in the wall. The vault is ovoid and oversails the wall.
The courts in the south wing of the palace correspond neither in size
nor in disposition with those of the north wing. Opposite to the door of
No. 18 a door leads into No. 35, which is an isolated chamber with a
deep niche at the south end. Court I can be approached from court D only
by a circuitous route through passages 17 and 45. Upon the east side of
court I lie the two rooms 36 and 37, 4·40 metres wide and respectively
7·85 and 8 metres long. On the south side there is a group of rooms
preceded by an antechamber, of which nothing is standing but a return at
the east end of the wall or arcade. Three doors lead out of the
antechamber into rooms 39, 40, and 41. In the central chamber (39) there
is an arched niche at either end leaving a space 4·15 metres square
which was covered by a dome set on squinches (Plate 68, Fig. 2). To east
and west, the dome rested upon the arches of the doors leading into Nos.
40 and 41. Beyond 41 there is another room, 42, which was accessible
from 41 only. On the north side of court I are two small rooms, 43 and
44, about 4·15 metres square and much ruined. Further west is the
entrance to corridor 45. Court I is separated from court J by a wall
which is ruined to its foundations. On the south side there is a single
long chamber (47) with an antechamber; the north side is occupied by
corridor 45, which is accessible from court J by a door in the
north-west corner of the court. Corridor 45 communicates with corridor
17, a transverse arch separating the two. I call attention to the fact
that the vault builders were always careful to avoid intersection; when
two barrel vaults meet at right angles, the one is always divided from
the other by a transverse arch. This is very noticeable in corridor 17,
where the vault is standing. In the eastern arm of the corridor, opening
out of court D, the east and west vault terminates against a transverse
arch so as to allow the north and south vault of the western arm to run
straight through to the head wall at the northern end.
The western arm of corridor 17 opens into court K. The north and west
sides of this court are completely ruined and represented only by
grass-grown heaps of stones. On the south side there is a true lîwân
group (49, 50, 51) with an antechamber, the lîwân (49) opening into the
antechamber through a wide archway, the side chambers (50 and 51) by
means of doors. To the west of these chambers there is an open space
with no buildings standing upon it; even the outer wall is completely
ruined. It is here that the south gate is placed in the French plan.
Some 19 to 20 metres west of No. 50, two chambers (52 and 53) with an
antechamber are partially preserved. A mound of stones and grass runs
northward, continuing the west wall of Nos. 51 and 53. East of this
mound, at any rate at its northern end, there were ruin heaps indicating
chambers, but I was not able to discern their exact form or extent, nor
yet their relation to the hall 54. This hall is a chamber 16·15 metres
square, with walls 3·90 metres thick which carried a dome set upon
squinch arches (Plate 69, Fig. 1). No part of this dome is standing, but
it is safe to conjecture that it was built of brick.[48] The method of
constructing the squinches can be seen best at the south-west angle
(Plate 69, Fig. 2). An archway, 5·70 metres wide, breaks the centre of
each wall. The round arches were built of brick, but on the south side
only is any considerable portion of the brickwork preserved (Plate 70,
Figs. 1 and 2). The bricks are laid horizontally, not vertically, i.e.
with the narrow face outward. Above each archway there is a small
round-headed window. On the exterior the face of the walls has perished
to a considerable extent. Between the top of the archways and the bottom
of the windows the wall would seem to have been recessed back slightly
(Plate 71), and at this level the corners of the building appear to have
been sliced off, thus reducing the mass of masonry behind the squinches.
This effect may, however, be produced merely by the decay of the
masonry, for the lower part of the walls also has invariably broken away
at the angles. At the north-east and north-west corners I noticed some
brickwork embedded in the stone masonry. No. 54 stands 9 metres from the
western outer wall, of which at this point nothing but foundations
remain. At the north-west angle there are ruins of four chambers (55,
56, 57, 58) placed two deep, and to the south four chambers (59, 60, 61,
62) lie parallel to one another along the wall. No. 62 breaks off
abruptly with a high peak of masonry (Plate 72), possibly part of an
upper story. I saw no trace of any building further to the west.
CHAPTER IV
GENESIS OF THE EARLY MOHAMMADAN PALACE
The palace of Ukhaiḍir is not an isolated phenomenon. It belongs to a
group of buildings which exhibit in varying proportions the
characteristic features of the fortress and of the pleasure-house of
princes. These buildings are scattered over the western frontiers of the
Syrian desert; Ukhaiḍir is as yet the sole example of the type which has
been discovered upon the eastern side. They are a logical outcome of the
period of cultural transition during which they arose, the difficult and
distasteful passage from nomadic to settled life; they attest the
abiding call of the open wilderness, to which the poets and chroniclers
of the first century after the Hidjrah are faithful witnesses. To the
Arab the desert is more than a habitation; it is the guardian of
traditions older and more deeply rooted than those of Islâm; of
traditions which are sacred to his race; of his purest speech, and of
his finest chivalry. It is for him the natural theatre of his actions,
and there is no other stage on which he can play out his part. To this
day I have heard the Beduin speak of themselves as the Ahl al-Ba’îr, the
People of the Camel, just as they spoke of themselves in the early
centuries as Ahl al-Ḍar’, People of the Udder.[49] The authority of the
Prophet was powerless to stay the current of his race. ‘Periodically the
Arabs succumbed to the allurement of the camel, to the need to drink of
its milk. The Prophet himself was not exempt, since he prayed God to
preserve him from it. For his nation, said he, he dreaded the diet of
milk. When his companions expressed their astonishment at his fears, he
replied: “The passion for milk will lead you to abandon the centres of
reunion and to return to nomad existence.”‘[50] His immediate successors
followed the example set by him, but the national inclination was not to
be restrained, and the Umayyad khalifs returned to the habits of their
forefathers. Their capital was Damascus, but their residence was the
Syrian desert. They escaped to the bâdiyah, the spring pasturage in the
rolling steppes, where the tents of the Ṣukhûr still cover the plain
when the winter rains are past; they transported their courts to the
ḥîrah, the palace camp.
The word ‘ḥair’ denotes a camp, a castle, or a villa.[51] The original
signification does not seem to have implied solid constructions, but
rather the headquarters of a desert princeling and his retainers. Such
an assemblage must necessarily have been mobile. The exigencies of
pasturage and the uncertainties inherent in tribal predominance, where
the limits of authority cannot be expressed in terms of geographic
definition, were alike unfavourable to stable residence. Joshua the
Stylite[52] talks of the ḥertâ of Nu’mân ibn Mundhir as having withdrawn
into the inner desert before the attack of the Tha’labites--it must
therefore have been a movable camp; on the western borders there is no
certain evidence that the Ghassânid princes possessed either fenced
cities or garrisoned fortresses.[53] But before the dawn of the
Mohammadan era the ḥîrah had begun to change its character, and the
nomad encampment to develop into the standing camp and even into the
city. The Ghassânids must have had a fixed establishment in the
Djaulân,[54] and some of the existing ruins on the eastern frontiers of
the Ḥaurân may date from their time. At Khirbet al-Baiḍâ, for example, I
could find no certain trace of Roman handiwork. The plan might date from
the age of Diocletian, but the decorations betray a different
origin.[55] Yet I cannot place them as late as the Umayyad period.
Djebel Sais I have not seen.[56] The plan of the bath recalls the
arrangement of the chambers at Qṣair ‘Amrah, and it may therefore be
Mohammadan. At Qaṣr al-Azraq, Dussaud found a dedication to the emperors
Diocletian and Maximian, but the fortress would seem to have been
rebuilt in the thirteenth century A.D.[57]
Similarly upon the eastern side of the desert, the Lakhmid camp had
grown into an important town, which absorbed the generic title and was
known as al-Ḥîrah, the standing camp _par excellence_, the capital of
Persian Arabia. But no sooner did the Lakhmid princes find themselves
enclosed within the walls of a city than they threw out fresh ḥîrahs
into the desert: palaces, the magnificence of which haunted the
imagination of Beduin poets of the Days of Ignorance and gave birth to
legendary tales and to moral aphorisms which were recorded with pious,
if uncritical, exactitude by the historians of Islâm. We know the site
of the most famous of these pleasaunces, Khawarnaq.[58] Ibn Baṭûṭah, in
the fourteenth century A.D., saw the remains of its immense domes on the
edge of a canal which was fed by the Hindiyyeh branch of the Euphrates.
In his day it was still inhabited. The existing ruin mounds, standing
upon the brink of the Sea of Nedjef, are covered with the sherds of
mediaeval pottery. The canal has now silted up and the Sea of Nedjef is
dry. I was told at Nedjef that thirty or forty years ago the lake was
full of water, and that the climate of the town, never very much to
boast of, had been considerably affected for the worse by the change.
Below the town, the bed of the lake is occupied by palm-gardens and
cornfields, watered by a canal recently constructed. What was its
condition in Sasanian times I do not know. The lake was dry in the
Middle Ages,[59] but ‘Adi ibn Zaid speaks of the Nu’mânid lord of
Khawarnaq as having looked from his palace walls and rejoiced at the
sight of the sea.[60] It is difficult to imagine that any one could have
rejoiced in the Baḥr Nedjef if it had worn its present aspect. The
extent of the mounds of Khawarnaq is not large, though my impression is
that part of the steep earth cliff overhanging the Baḥr Nedjef has
fallen away and carried the castle walls with it. The ancient canal from
the Hindiyyeh lies about a quarter of a mile to the north of the mounds.
Legend has been busy in accounting for the origin of the castle. It is
said to have been built by Nu’mân ibn Imra’ al-Qais, by order of the
Sasanian king Yazdegerd I, who desired that his son, Bahrâm V Gûr,
should be brought up in the salubrious air of the desert above Ḥîrah.
This would place its foundation in the early part of the fifth century
A.D.[61] The architect was a certain Sinimmâr, a Byzantine (Rûmi)
according to some authorities,[62] nor need this assertion excite
surprise. A century later Justinian lent workmen to Khusrau I, when the
latter was engaged in building the new Antioch near Ctesiphon. Other
Lakhmid ḥîrahs are mentioned besides Khawarnaq, but they are to us
nothing but a name. Al-Sadîr stood in the desert ‘that lies between
al-Ḥîrah and Syria’,[63] presumably not far from Khawarnaq, since the
two castles are frequently mentioned together. We hear also of
al-Ṣinnîn, where ‘Adi ibn Zaid was imprisoned.[64] Of greater importance
was al-Anbâr on the Euphrates, which was rebuilt by Shapûr II in the
early part of the fourth century.[65] None of the Lakhmid ḥîrahs in the
desert, except Khawarnaq, have been identified. In 1911 I rode out
across the Baḥr Nedjef from Khan Muṣallâ to see a ruin called al-Ruḥbân,
which was reputed to be ancient, but found nothing except a mud-built
wall erected by the Bani Ḥasan. A few palm-trees had been planted near
it. My guide, a sheikh of the tribe, was much distressed when I denied
to Ruḥbân the antiquity which had been claimed for it. ‘Mistress,’ he
expostulated, ‘before my beard was grown, I saw it here.’ His age I
should judge to have been no greater than my own, and Ruḥbân may have
had the advantage of us by a decade. After this disappointment I
declined to visit other quṣûr of the Bani Ḥasan (qaṣr = fort, is the
name which is applied to any walled village or palm-garden) though he
mentioned a considerable number. Subsequently a mullah of the Nedjef
mosque told me that there were ancient remains at Ḥiyyadhiyyeh, which
lies somewhere between the Baḥr Nedjef and Ukhaiḍir, to the south of the
line across the desert which I had followed. Ḥiyyadhiyyeh is mentioned
by Niebuhr in his itinerary from Baṣrah to Aleppo by the desert
road--Meshed ‘Ali, el Tukteqâne or el Heiadîe, el Hossian, el Chader
(Ukhaiḍir) Ras el ‘Ain.[66] I doubt whether there is much to be found on
the surface at Ḥiyyadhiyyeh, for the Bani Ḥasan have planted palm-groves
there, and in so doing, they have probably destroyed most of what was
old, but the mullah asserted that a Lakhmid castle had stood at that
spot and another at Ruḥbeh, which he said was identical with
Qâdisiyyeh.[67] I give his opinion for what it is worth, which is very
little. There are, however, no doubt old ruins at Ruḥbeh, whether
Lakhmid or of a later time, if it occupies the site of Qâdisiyyeh--a
very possible hypothesis. It was a large village in A.D. 635, when the
Mohammadan invaders defeated the Persians close to its walls. Muqaddasi
knew it as a walled town on the pilgrimage road. Mustaufi (fourteenth
century) describes it as mostly in ruins, while Ibn Baṭûṭah speaks of it
as a large village.[68] The Sâl Nâmeh of the Vilâyet of Baghdâd mentions
a ruined qaṣr at Ruḥbeh.[69] The sheikh of the Bani Ḥasan gave me the
names of ‘Izziyyeh,[70] and ‘Atiyyah as quṣûr of his tribe, but he did
not think that there were ruins at either place.
To our scanty information concerning the pre-Mohammadan ḥîrahs one other
item is to be added. Mas’ûdi gives an account in the following terms of
a palace built at Sâmarrâ by the khalif Mutawakkil (A.D. 847-861) in
imitation of a Lakhmid ḥî ah: ‘Mutawakkil in his days raised a building
such as no man knew, it is that which is called the _ḥîri_ and the two
wings (literally sleeves) and the porticoes (_arûqah_). And that was
because a companion of his vigils related to him upon a certain night
that one of the kings of Ḥîrah, a Nu’mânid of the Bani Naṣr, erected an
edifice in his capital, which was al-Ḥîrah, after the model of an army
in battle. (The word I have translated by _army in battle_ is _ḥarb_ =
war or campaign; Dr. Herzfeld suggests that it must be taken here to
mean military camp--a somewhat hypothetical emendation)[71]. For such
was his infatuation for war and his love of it; so that the memory of it
might never vanish from him under any condition. In this edifice the
portico was the audience chamber of the king, and this was the centre
(literally the _breast_); and the two wings (_sleeves_) lay to right and
left. In the two dwellings which formed the wings lodged those who stood
nearest to him among his courtiers. In the right wing was the wardrobe,
and in the left wing was kept such wine as was needed. The open court of
the portico was common to the centre and to the two wings. The doors,
three in number, led to the portico. To this day this building (i.e.
Mutawakkil’s copy) is called the _ḥîri_ and the two wings in allusion to
al-Ḥîrah. And the people followed Mutawakkil, imitating his creation,
which is famous to the present time.’[72] The word _riwâq_, which I have
translated ‘portico’, does not necessarily imply the existence of
columns, though it is used for the porticoes which surround the court of
a mosque. Its primary signification is a roof in front of a tent,
supported by a single pole in the middle.[73] I shall have occasion to
return later to this important passage (see below, p. 86).
But if we have little knowledge of the Lakhmid ḥîrahs which were the
precursors of Ukhaiḍir on the eastern frontiers of the desert, we have
another and a richer source of information in the Sasanian palaces. The
Lakhmid princes stood in close relations with the Sasanian empire. Among
the officials of the Persian court there was an Arab secretary whose
special duty it was to conduct the correspondence with ‘the land of the
Arabs’. Moreover, it is related that the Arab phylarch paid a yearly
visit to the court of the Chosroës.[74] To a Lakhmid the education of a
Persian prince was entrusted, and Lakhmid armies placed Bahrâm V upon a
contested throne. The Christians of Ḥîrah belonged to the Nestorian
church, the church of Assyria; we hear of one, the poet ‘Adi ibn Zaid,
who was Arab secretary and enjoyed great influence with Khusrau Parwêz.
Half allies, half vassals, the Lakhmid phylarchs fought side by side
with the Persians against Rome;[75] they were sufficiently independent
to receive an embassy from the Byzantine emperor, and sufficiently
important to warrant an attempt on his part to buy them over from the
Sasanians. Finally, at the beginning of the seventh century, Khusrau
Parwêz set the Lakhmid dynasty aside and established in place of Nu’mân
III an Arab of the Ṭayy, who lived and held his court at ‘Ain al-Tamr
near Ukhaiḍir. Possibly the huge walls of Qaṣr Sham’ûn, on the outskirts
of the oasis,[76] may date from the time when ‘Ain al-Tamr was the
residence of the phylarch. But he was no longer an independent ruler; a
Persian adviser was appointed to assist him, and a few years later the
state was converted into a province of the Sasanian empire under a
Persian regent. Independent or subject, the civilization of Ḥîrah must
have been modelled upon that of Ctesiphon; Persian influence must have
been predominant in its arts and its architecture, and the Lakhmid
ḥîrahs must have reflected the glories of Sasanian palaces. It is to
these palaces that we should look first for an explanation of the
architectural scheme of Ukhaiḍir. One reservation must, however, be
made. It is true that Ukhaiḍir cannot be regarded as primarily a
fortress. The absence of any sufficient provision of water would have
been a fatal weakness in time of siege. No cistern exists within the
palace; no ancient well has been found, and if the conditions were the
same of old as they are now (which is, however, by no means a safe
assumption), any water within the palace would have been too brackish to
drink, as is the case in the modern well in the palace yard. Moreover,
the outer ring of walls, which encloses the northern annex, was
obviously too weak for defence; it is more like the garden wall of a
pleasure-ground. Nevertheless, considerable care has been lavished upon
the defences of the main building. They were, and they are to this day,
adequate for the spasmodic warfare of the Arab tribes. In the very act
of construction the architect seems to have bethought him that such
protection was necessary and to have added a strong girdle to his palace
plan. On the other hand, the Sasanian palaces, so far as they are known
to us, are either unfortified, or they stand within a fortified park,
the walls and towers of which are not in direct structural relation with
the residential buildings. At the same time Sasanian military works,
where they have been examined, do not differ materially from those of
Ukhaiḍir; the fortress of Qala’-i-Khusrau at Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn is an
excellent case in point (Plate 73, Fig. 1). It is a rectangular
enclosure, about the size of Ukhaiḍir (roughly 180 metres square),
surrounded by a wall which is strengthened by rounded towers. The towers
are somewhat differently disposed from those of Ukhaiḍir; they are
larger and they are set twice as far apart, but the scheme is the same
in both places. The interior buildings are much ruined. A row of
chambers, or more probably, from the width of the ruin heaps, a row of
small courts with chambers grouped round them, adjoined the inner side
of the walls, leaving a central court which was partly filled by a large
building, rectangular in plan. The town wall of Dastadjird was also
furnished with rounded towers.[77]
Almost without exception the plan of the Sasanian palaces is a
development of the lîwân type, the origin of which is to be sought in
the southern Hittite sphere, northern Syria and the mountain lands north
of the Mesopotamian plain. The architecture of this region is known to
us best through the excavations at Zindjirli, where the evolution of the
southern Hittite palace can be traced over a period of close upon a
thousand years.[78] It is an evolution which is dominated
[Illustration: FIG. 5. Zindjirli. (From _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_,
by kind permission of the D. Orient-Gesellschaft.)]
from the first to last by the monumental gateway. At Zindjirli the type
appears in its earliest and simplest form in the gateways of the inner
city wall, which Professor Koldewey places approximately in the
thirteenth century before our era.[79] A doorway set back between a pair
of solid towers leads into a narrow
[Illustration: FIG. 6. Pasargadae. (From _Iranische Felsreliefs_, by
kind permission of the authors.)]
court, placed latitudinally, with a second doorway opposite to the first
(Fig. 5, D). Three hundred years later this structure is adapted, in the
earliest khilâni palace, to residential purposes (Fig. 5, G).[80] The
solid towers remain, but the space between them has been converted into
a covered portico, or lîwân, and the inner latitudinal court has become
a latitudinal hall with a small chamber at either end. The further
development is characterized by the multiplication of chambers and the
disappearance of features proper to the fortress. In the khilâni palace
erected after Asarhaddon’s destruction of the city in the first half of
the seventh century (it appears in Fig. 5 to the north-west of G), the
arrangement of the subsidiary chambers is conceived on freer lines, the
walls are thinner, the flanking towers of the lîwân have disappeared,
and in their stead are set tower chambers; in short the fortress towers
have given place to a purely decorative motive, the towered façade,
which was destined to have a long and honourable history in Christian
architecture.[81] That the Hittite khilâni was imitated by the Assyrians
during the eighth and the seventh centuries we know both from
inscriptions and from excavations.[82] To it the Assyrian builders owed
the introduction of the column, which was foreign to their architecture.
At Pasargadae the khilâni reappears in a form which bears testimony to
its Hittite parentage.[83] The façade towers, the columned lîwân, the
orthostatic construction, and more significant still, the latitudinal
disposition of the chambers, are all to be found in the Pasargadae
palaces, but the greater depth which was given to the principal room
necessitated the introduction of a double line of columns to support the
roof (Fig. 6). At Persepolis and at Susa the same scheme is carried out
in colossal dimensions. It is found alike in the gigantic apadanas and
in the palaces, in the one case adapted to the ceremonial magnificence
of the Persian king of kings, in the other to the requirements of the
dwelling-house. In the apadana, the lîwân was deepened and a second row
of columns was added to the first; the hall of audience was magnified
into a huge quadrangular chamber, the roof of which was supported by a
forest of columns; solid towers of unburnt brick flanked the lîwân, and
subsidiary lîwâns occupied the space behind them on either side of the
audience hall (Fig. 7). In the palaces the towers were hollowed out into
rooms correspondingly in depth with the lîwân, and the audience hall was
flanked by side chambers. Where space permitted, as in the palace of
Darius at Persepolis, additional rooms were disposed round a courtyard
at the back of the edifice. So constituted, the Achaemenid palace
reproduced the traits of the later khilânis at Zindjirli in a form
adapted to new requirements (Fig. 8).
[Illustration: FIG. 7. Persepolis, Apadana of Xerxes. (From _Iranische
Felsreliefs_, by kind permission of the authors.)]
Before the khilâni palace was taken up again by Persian hands, an
immense revolution had swept over western Asia. Alexander’s invasion is
a turning-point
[Illustration: FIG. 8. Persepolis, Palace of Darius.
(From _L’Art antique de la Perse_, by kind permission of M. Dieulafoy.)]
in history. The Mesopotamian arts emerged from the period of Greek rule
profoundly modified by direct intercourse with the West; for the
Seleucid kingdom, with one capital on the Tigris and another on the
Orontes, had bridged the gulf between Babylonia and the Mediterranean
coast-lands. Greek culture, Greek artistic conceptions were carried
across Asia by the invaders; but the further they penetrated, the less
they overmastered local tradition. Babylonia, Assyria and Persia were
never Hellenized in the sense in which Syria was Hellenized. The ancient
East, with 3,000 years and more of a highly elaborated civilization
behind her, assimilated what was brought to her, but she used it after
her own fashion. She turned the Greek kings into oriental despots, and
translated Greek ideas into her own forms of expression. The
architectural remains of this period are as yet scanty. Seleucia and
Antioch are unexplored, and except for the Greek theatre at Babylon, the
excavation of Mesopotamian sites has yielded little but fragments.[84]
But if the Seleucid era is comparatively unknown, the new elements which
the Greek conquest had introduced into oriental architecture stand out
with an amazing vividness in Parthian buildings. Loftus, whose
excavations at Warka were the first to reveal a great Parthian
settlement on a Babylonian mound, was not slow to appreciate the
significance of his discoveries.[85] Together with capitals which bore
an obvious relationship to the Ionic, and walls enriched with Ionic
half-fluted engaged columns, he found plaster ornaments and fragments of
wall-surface decoration covered with continuous geometric patterns in
which he recognized an art that was essentially oriental. The Chaldaean
monuments at Warka were covered with mosaics set in geometric designs
which are the prototypes of the Parthian coloured reliefs.[86]
Hellenistic houses of the Parthian period have been unearthed in the
Amrân mound at Babylon. The small Parthian palace at Niffer, with its
columned hall of audience, opening through an anteroom, which is in the
nature of a closed lîwân, into a square peristyle, resembles a Greek
dwelling-house seen through a Babylonian medium[87] (Fig. 9). At Assur,
together with a temple (if temple it were) which is almost
peripteral,[88] and a stoa,[89] we have a palace on a lîwân plan, with
ionicizing capitals and a façade of stucco mock-architecture
[Illustration: FIG. 9. Parthian palace at Niffer. (By kind permission of
Messrs. Holman.)]
which indicates the road that led from the Hellenistic façade in two
orders[90] to the stucco façades of Ctesiphon and Ukhaiḍir.[91] At Hatra
a building which looks like the Parthian conception of a temple in antis
stands in the court of a monumental lîwân palace,[92] but so far as can
be judged without excavation the Hellenistic house is conspicuous by its
absence. Not only the royal palace (Fig. 10) but also such of the
smaller palaces as are known to us through the admirable publication of
the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft, show a strongly characterized lîwân
plan. To the Parthian interpretation of the venerable khilâni scheme the
Moslem East has remained unswervingly true. The lîwân, as it is to be
seen at Hatra, dominated the fancy of the Sasanian and of the early
Mohammadan architects, and it continues to be an indispensable part of
the modern house of Damascus or Baghdâd--except indeed the post-modern,
which are wretched imitations of the worst European styles, but these
are found more often in ultra-civilized Syria than in Mesopotamia. The
huge Parthian lîwân was possibly a result of the introduction of the
vault. The great hall, in which, no matter what its size, the interior
space was unbroken by pier or column, was a setting for princely state
which could not be enhanced by any
[Illustration: FIG. 10. Hatra palace. (From _Hatra_, by kind permission
of the D. Orient-Gesellschaft.)]
architectural device. Portico and audience chamber were blended
together, and the columns of the one served to enrich the walls which
flanked the monumental archway of the other.
The vault itself was not a new feature. It was well known to Babylonian
and to Assyrian builders, by whom it was used to cover spaces of narrow
span.[93] Vaulted drains and tombs are of frequent occurrence, and Place
found a barrel vault with a span of 4 metres in the gateways of Sargon’s
palace at Khorsâbâd.[94] But though the principles of vault construction
were familiar, the vault does not seem to have been developed to any
notable extent before the second Babylonian empire at the earliest.
Félix Thomas claims to have found the remains of monumental vaults in
Sargon’s palace, but the proofs which he adduces are not convincing.
There is no direct evidence for the domes which Place reconstructs over
the rectangular chambers adjoining the temples, the area of the palace
which was known in his days as the Harâm.[95] Layard found no trace of
monumental vaults in his excavations of Assyrian palaces,[96] nor have
any been discovered by the German excavators at Assur. Professor
Koldewey is of opinion that the great hall at Babylon was vaulted,
since, in the absence of all trace of columns, no other way of covering
it is conceivable; and though direct evidence is not forthcoming, there
is a strong likelihood that the proportions of the vault may have been
greatly increased, and its structural value much more fully realized
towards the end of the seventh or the beginning of the sixth century
before Christ.[97] There are no data for its employment in Mesopotamia
during the Hellenistic period, but it may safely be assumed that the
absence of vaulted buildings in the eastern parts of the Seleucid
kingdom is fortuitous. From the fourth century B.C. onwards western Asia
shows a continuous series of cut stone vaults of small span,[98] many of
which exhibit traits which point to their derivation from the sun-dried
brick vaults of Assyria or from the cut stone vaults of the Saitic
period in Egypt, themselves a derivation from sun-dried brick
construction. In the second half of the third century, vaults with
similar characteristics appear under Hellenistic influence in central
Italy, where, after the middle of the second century, they underwent a
development to which the Hellenistic East can offer no parallel.[99] At
the end of the second century, while Latin builders threw their stone
vaults securely over a span of 14·50 metres, as in the Ponte di Cecco in
the Via Salaria, and even of 18·50 metres, as in the Pons Mulvius,[100]
the Greeks of Asia Minor did not venture upon a span wider than 7·10
metres,[101] and confined themselves as a rule to vaults under 4 metres
in span. It was now the part of the East to learn from Imperial Rome.
Western Asia took back its own creation from the hands of Roman builders
in the vast proportions which the proficiency of the latter had given to
it, and over the whole of the Roman Empire the monumental vault sprang
into being. The earliest extant examples on Mesopotamian soil are the
great vaults of the palace at Hatra.[102] Throughout the city, so far as
our knowledge goes, the vault is systematically used, and for the first
time it is constructed of dressed stone, not of brick. For it must be
borne in mind that the expansion in Asia of the Roman Imperial stone and
mortar vaulted architecture encountered a similar expansion of brick
vaulted architecture in which both material and structure point to an
ancient oriental tradition and an independent Asiatic origin.[103] If
Hatra is the oldest example of the systematic use of the vault in a
monumental building, the very presence there of a method so fully
developed postulates a long evolution. That this evolution was oriental
is suggested by the fact that the forms which the vault assumes at Hatra
can be traced back, almost without exception, to Asiatic brickwork,
while the systematic employment of the vault is foreshadowed in hollow
substructures which date from the Hellenistic era, and even from earlier
times.[104] In Babylon such substructures, several stories high, roofed
with stone slabs, would seem to have been devised before Alexander’s
conquest, while Strabo’s description, which probably applies to a
Hellenistic reconstruction, mentions terraces in which the vaults rested
on cube-shaped piers, vaults and piers being built of burnt brick with a
mortar of asphalt. Moreover, Strabo notes that in Seleucia, the capital
of the Hellenistic kingdom on the Tigris, all the houses were vaulted on
account of the want of timber.[105] That these vaults were of brick goes
without saying; stone was even more difficult to obtain at Seleucia
than wood. In this connexion the possibility that Nebuchadnezzar’s great
hall at Babylon may have been covered with a vault should not be
overlooked.
The vaults of Hatra fall into five groups.
1. A primitive vault, composed of oversailing horizontal courses of
stone is found in the small chambers of tombs (_Hatra_, ii, Figs. 93,
111, 155). Sometimes the walls incline smoothly inwards from base to
summit until the space between them is narrowed sufficiently to admit of
the imposition of a covering slab (_Hatra_, ii, Figs. 99, 118, 120, 155.
In Fig. 155 the slope begins in the fourth course above the base). The
vault built of oversailing horizontal courses was an obvious expedient
for the roofing of narrow spaces, and it is, as might have been
expected, widely distributed.[106] There is one instance at Hatra of a
dome constructed in the same manner. It covers a rectangular chamber,
1·50 × 1·70 metres, and it is the solitary known example of an attempt
on the part of Parthian builders to solve the problem of a circular
vault over a rectangular substructure (_Hatra_, ii, Fig. 93).
2. The true vault oversailing the wall occurs in numerous tomb chambers
(_Hatra_, ii, Figs. 100, 105, 125, 130, 144, 145, 149, 152, 163), as
well as in most of the smaller rooms of the inner palace (_Hatra_, ii,
Figs. 225, 226, 237, and Plate 8) (Plate 74, Fig. 2). It is a form which
originated in brick building. It is found in Assyrian brick tombs,[107]
but never, so far as my knowledge goes, in any dressed stone vaults save
in those of Hatra. It appears at Ctesiphon in the side vaults,[108] and
in the rough stonework of Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn (Plate 52, Fig. 2, and Plate 68,
Fig. 1). It is constant at Ukhaiḍir and in early Mohammadan
architecture,[109] and it is used invariably in the brick vaulted
constructions of Mesopotamia at the present day. It is perhaps the
triumphant survival of the old brick vault of horizontal oversailing
courses, represented by Mughair, and it bears, at Hatra and elsewhere,
another indubitable mark of its brick origin in the horizontal or almost
horizontal joints of its lower courses.[110]
3. The vault springing flush with the walls is used in tombs (_Hatra_,
ii, Figs. 103, 118, 128, 139, 159), in the southern and in the northern
lîwâns of the main palace and in the two lîwâns which were added at the
northern end (_Hatra_, ii, Plate 8), in the western annex, the so-called
temple (_Hatra_, ii, Plate 9), and in building B (_Hatra_, ii, Fig.
183). The moulded cornice, which usually divides this vault from the
walls below, is absent in most of the tombs. The high stilt formed by
the horizontal lower courses, which is especially remarkable in the
larger of these vaults, differentiates them from western Hellenistic
vaulting and connects them more closely with brick forms. In one of the
smaller palaces there is a striking example of the survival of brick
building methods (_Hatra_, ii, Fig. 74). The stone vault is composed,
almost to its whole height, of horizontal courses, and only the very top
of the arch is filled in with radiating voussoirs. Nor is the elliptical
vault, which is the form naturally assumed by oriental uncentered
brickwork[111] wanting at Hatra (_Hatra_, ii, Figs. 108 and 162, Fig.
162 being a primitive example, where the vault is carried down to the
floor of the chamber).
4. One room on the upper floor of the palace shows a fuller
comprehension of the thrust and buttressing of the vault (room No. 12,
_Hatra_, ii, Plate 10 and Fig. 226). The space to be covered is
diminished by placing two arched niches on either side, a system which
points the way to the breaking up of the wall into buttressing piers.
This principle was carried out yet further by Sasanian builders. In the
palace of Sarvistân the lower portion of the piers was detached from the
body of the wall and further lightened by being divided into two small
columns,[112] while angle piers terminating in a single detached column
bore the dome of a chamber situated at the back of the palace (Plate 74,
Fig. 1). The advance in structural knowledge thus gained was carried
little further in these regions; indeed it is curious to observe that
Ukhaiḍir exhibits a movement in the opposite direction. Although in
rooms 33 and 40 the vaults are set upon columns which stand absolutely
free, the vault of the great hall rests upon arched niches whereof the
piers are connected with the wall, and the principle of the detached
column is recalled only by the engaged columns which form part of the
pier. The arcade on free standing columns with a vaulted corridor behind
it is of frequent occurrence, but the fact that in all the palace only
one, and that one the shortest, of these arcades remains standing (No.
20) shows that the skill of the builders was at fault. Again, in the
church of Mâr Ṭahmâsgerd at Kerkûk the engaged columns are present, as
in the great hall of Ukhaiḍir, but in the same manner they are
structurally one with the piers behind them[113] (Plate 75, Fig. 1); and
in the churches of northern Mesopotamia, where deep niches under the
vault are a constant feature, the engaged pier of Hatra returns in all
its primitive simplicity.[114] Whether the data afforded by extant
monuments in Mesopotamia and Persia are conclusive would be hard to
determine. The setting of arch, vault, and dome on free standing
supports would seem to have been a conception deeply rooted in
Hellenistic art, but for actual examples we can adduce only the evidence
of relief architecture or the disposition of rock-cut tombs and
temples. The blind order under the vault of the men’s caldarium near the
forum at Pompeii,[115] the rock-cut dome on engaged columns of the
Hellenistic tomb of Akeldama at Jerusalem[116] exhibit a motive to which
the architecture of a later age was to give fully developed plastic
execution. Yet more explicit are the indications afforded by the
rock-cut monuments of Egypt and of India. At Memphis one of the graves
of the Persian period shows a vaulted nave resting on piers,[117] and
the rock-cut temples of Hellenistic India, with their long vaulted naves
resting on columns,[118] point to similar achievements in the Seleucid
architecture of Mesopotamia from which they are derived. The existence
of an underlying desire to solve statical problems which were of the
highest importance to the spatial interior is attested by the sporadic
survival of such buildings as the Praetorium at Musmiyyeh and a room in
the Golden House of Nero,[119] where the four-sided and the round dome
were placed respectively on piers and on columns; but the final mastery
was reserved for early Christian builders of the Hellenistic
coast-lands, or developed in the same age in Rome out of methods which
were specifically Roman, such as the intersecting barrel vault and
construction in concrete. In Rome also the original impulse may have
come from the East.[120]
5. In three of the upper rooms in the palace (Nos. 13, 15, and 16,
_Hatra_, ii, Figs. 227 and 228, and Plate 10) the roof is formed by
means of transverse arches (respectively five, three, and one in number)
carrying stone slabs which cover the space between them. This type of
roof was universally employed in Syria from Nabataean times until the
Mohammadan invasion.[121] It was a simple and a satisfactory method of
roofing in stone in a country where centering beams, sufficiently
massive to sustain a stone vault, were difficult to obtain. I know no
other Mesopotamian example of it in stone, but it was copied in Sasanian
brickwork, where the stone slab was replaced by a brick vault running at
right angles to the main axis.[122] In this form it finds a place at
Ukhaiḍir in room 32, and it continued to be used by Mohammadan builders
in the Middle Ages, the most renowned example being that of Khân Orthma,
at Baghdâd.[123]
The absence of the dome at Hatra is significant. The small square
chambers of the palace were well suited to dome construction, yet
nothing but the barrel vault is present. Moreover, it is the barrel
vault in its simplest expression; not even an intersection is
attempted. In the vaulted passage surrounding the central chamber of the
western annex, the ‘temple’, one end of the vault terminates on each of
the four sides against a transverse arch, whereby the insuperable
difficulty of intersection was avoided[124] (Plate 75, Fig. 2).
Hellenistic builders had attacked the problem as early as the second
century B.C. in Asia Minor,[125] and yet more boldly in Rome.[126] I
know no single example of the intersection of barrel vaults in Sasanian
buildings; even at Ukhaiḍir the system is sparingly used, and never
without careful abutment. Where two barrel vaults meet at right angles,
they are either joined together diagonally, without intersection, as in
the chemin de ronde, or they terminate against transverse arches, and
not infrequently in the rectangular space thus formed, a semi-dome takes
the place of the intersecting vault, as in the mosque and in the upper
gallery No. 134. The rock-cut temples of India exhibit a similar
termination of the barrel vault in a semi-dome.[127] The dome, though it
is at Ukhaiḍir of frequent occurrence, the chambers of the chemin de
ronde in all the round towers being domed as well as the two chambers
north and south of the great hall, Nos. 4 and 27, is never placed over a
span wider than 3·10 metres. The square rooms, Nos. 30 and 141, behind
the two lîwâns 29 and 140, where, on the analogy of the Sasanian palaces
(see below, pp. 74, 76 and 78) a dome might be expected, are covered in
one case by a barrel vault, and in the other case by a groined vault.
There was no question here of a dome on free standing columns; where the
opportunity occurred, in rooms 33 and 40, it was set aside in favour of
parallel barrel vaults. The domed chambers in the towers have a circular
ground-plan, and when the problem presented by the rectangular
substructure arose, it was met in a fashion which is applicable only to
very small edifices. The dome in No. 4, and all the calottes over
rectangular niches, are set over the angles upon horizontal brackets of
masonry. On the octagon, or half-octagon, thus formed, a circle or
segment of a circle of small diameter could be placed without any
difficulty. It was an expedient which had been adopted by early dome
builders both in Syria and Asia Minor,[128] but it was inadequate when
the space to be covered assumed larger dimensions and, before the date
of Ukhaiḍir, Byzantine and Sasanian architects had elaborated solutions
of the problem. In the West the great dome of Santa Sofia had already
been placed securely upon stone pendentives; in Persia the use of the
arched angle niche, or squinch, had enabled Sasanian builders to throw
their domes over a span of 16 metres. The three domes of Firûzâbâd, the
earliest of the Sasanian palaces, have a diameter of 13·30 metres; the
larger of the two domes at Sarvistân is about 12 metres across, the
dome in the smaller palace at Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn covered a chamber 16·15
metres square.[129] If the audience chamber in the larger palace at
Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn was domed, as I suspect, it covered an area about 16
metres square. Under this dome, at each angle, at a distance of 2·90
metres from the walls stands a corner pier 1·40 metres square,
terminating on the two inner sides in an engaged column 1 metre in
length. The distance between the piers is thus about 16 metres, that is
to say that the dome would have been no larger in diameter than that
which covered the principal chamber in the neighbouring palace. The
walls there are 3·90 metres thick, whereas the side walls of the chamber
in the palace of Khusrau are never more than 2 metres thick, but in the
one case the wall was the only support, whereas in the other the thrust
would have been taken first by the angle supports and by them
transferred to the outer wall. Moreover, the walls themselves were
buttressed by vaulted rooms. The piers are buried about 1 metre in the
ruins with which the hall is filled (the ruin heaps lie deepest along
the walls and reach almost to the height of a doorway arch which remains
in place on the south side); the best preserved of the four piers
projects less than 1 metre out of the present surface; that is to say
that its whole height is at present under 2 metres. It is conceivable
that the piers may at no time have been carried very much higher. Like
the columns under the small dome at Sarvistân, they may have been bound
into the wall at that level by arches carrying a barrel vault, which
would in this instance have had a span of 5·20 metres, and the dome
placed upon the square substructure thus formed would reproduce the
Sarvistân dome in magnified proportions.[130] It is clear that Ukhaiḍir
shows a retrogression in the art of dome building, both in point of span
and in point of distribution of thrusts, nor is the fact surprising. The
desert ḥîrah of an early Mohammadan prince need not be expected to rival
in architectural achievement the summer palace of the Sasanian king of
kings, situated upon one of the high roads of his empire.
Firûzâbâd affords the earliest extant example of the dome in Persia. In
Babylonia and Assyria no dome is standing which can be dated earlier
than Ukhaiḍir. Possibly the Lakhmid ḥîrahs would have provided us with
other instances, but the tentative nature of dome building at Ukhaiḍir
throws doubt upon the proficiency of Lakhmid construction in this
respect.[131] In the Babylonian cultural sphere the dome does not seem
to have played an important part in monumental building until a late
period, and in my opinion too much significance has been attached to the
celebrated relief exhibiting domed buildings which Layard found at
Quyundjik.[132] We have here a representation of village architecture,
and it is natural to suppose that the domes were of small dimensions.
They are to be found to this day in the village architecture of northern
Syria and northern Mesopotamia, indeed no other form of roof exists; and
they take the shapes depicted upon the relief. They are built of
sun-dried brick held together by a mortar of clay. The high ovoid domes
which appear upon the relief and in modern villages are built of
oversailing rings, like the solitary dome at Hatra. I imagine that the
summit of the round domes is constructed over a light centering, but I
have not actually seen them in process of being built. The difficulties
presented by these methods are practically nil, owing to the light and
malleable material and the smallness of the span. The translation of
this primitive dome into larger diameters was a very different matter,
and there is no evidence for the belief that this step was taken in
Mesopotamia in an early age.
The Sasanian conquerors came out of lands on which Hellenism had made an
impression less deep than on Mesopotamia, lands where Rome had never
penetrated; and they came of a stock more tenacious of its own
traditions and less eclectic than the Parthians. To a large extent they
re-orientalized the territories which they occupied. No doubt there was
less for them to copy, for in the interval of some 300 years during
which the Parthians were predominant, Seleucid monuments must have
disappeared, and the blurred Arsacid copy of Greek or Roman models had
taken their place. The Sasanians created an art of their own, less
dependent than that of Parthia on Western forms, and more potent to
influence those who came into contact with it, not excluding the
Byzantines. In the earliest of their palaces, so strongly marked is the
reversion to Achaemenid types that Dieulafoy relegated it unhesitatingly
to the earlier Persian period. In its general characteristics the plan
of Firûzâbâd differs little from that of an Achaemenid khilâni palace
(Plate 73, Fig. 2). The lîwân has deepened, and the employment of the
vault has enabled the builder to dispense, as at Hatra, with the columns
that sustained its roof. The greater depth of the lîwân, combined with a
desire to keep the vaulting span within moderate bounds, have led to the
breaking up of the tower room on either side into two narrow chambers.
In order to counteract more effectually the thrust of the main vault
(13·30 metres wide) the side chambers are placed at right angles to the
lîwân, a principle which was not adopted at Hatra, but which rules at
Ctesiphon, and at Ukhaiḍir. The towers themselves have disappeared, and
though their place remains in the plan, in the elevation it is probable
that the façade presented an unbroken line. The audience hall of the
khilâni palace is reduced to a domed chamber, and the clumsy
construction of the dome makes it evident that the builder would not
have ventured to stretch its diameter further. Finally, round the
posterior courtyard are grouped, besides the living-rooms, two smaller
lîwâns, placed, like those in the Ukhaiḍir courts, so that they may
serve respectively for winter and for summer.
The resemblances in detail between the Achaemenid palaces and Firûzâbâd
are no less striking. The high fluted gorge and narrow torus of stone
which cover the doorways and niches of the one are repeated in the
plaster-work of the other. The plain fillets which surround the openings
at Persepolis reappear at Firûzâbâd, but in the latter case all the
openings are arched, and the moulded archivolt is set within the
rectangle formed by the fillets. The ṭâqchah niches, which, so far as my
knowledge goes, are found for the first time in the palace of Darius,
are present also at Firûzâbâd,[133] and henceforth assume a permanent
place in Persian architecture, from which they were borrowed by
Mohammadan builders.
The building material at Firûzâbâd is undressed stone, very roughly
coursed and set in a bed of mortar. In the domes the stones are cut
thinner, more carefully coursed and provided at intervals with a bonding
course; in the vaults the thin slabs are laid vertically, parallel with
the main axis of the chamber. Exactly the same principles are observed
at Ukhaiḍir. Nor do the resemblances end here. Tubes are not absent from
the vaulting system,[134] and most of the archways are set back from the
jambs to facilitate the placing of centering.[135] The arches are
semicircular as at Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn. In the vault of the big lîwân
centering would seem to have been used, for it is set back from the face
of the walls, doubtless in order to leave a convenient ledge for the
centering beams. The vaults and domes here and in all other Sasanian
buildings have the ovoid shape common to Ukhaiḍir and to subsequent
Mohammadan work in Mesopotamia. It is the old Mesopotamian vault
contour. The exterior walls of Firûzâbâd are broken into a continuous
series of recessed and arched blind niches divided by engaged columns
carrying an entablature of modest proportions.[136] The appearance of
this decoration is to my eyes so entirely un-Hellenistic that I have
difficulty in connecting it with any classical influence, and in point
of fact an arched niche from one of the reliefs from Quyundjik, in the
British Museum (Fig. 11), is nearer akin to it than such
[Illustration: FIG. 11. Relief from Quyundjik.
(From _L’Art antique de la Perse_, by kind permission of M. Dieulafoy.)]
façades as those of Ctesiphon or Ukhaiḍir. But it must be admitted that
while the recessing of Babylonian and Assyrian wall surfaces is in no
sense an imitation of architectural forms, least of all an imitation of
the column, which was an element unknown to the designers of these
recessed buildings,[137] and that while on the Quyundjik relief the
architrave is placed directly upon the piers without the intermission of
impost or capital, the engaged columns of Firûzâbâd are true columns
carrying an impost, and the whole scheme is no longer a pattern, but a
copy in relief of a colonnade in the round. In the courtyard the
rectangular niching is retained, but without the engaged columns.[138]
On the façade of the palace a series of seven arched niches is set high
up in the wall, on either side of the arched opening of the lîwân.[139]
It is a motive which recalls the open loggias in the façade of an
Assyrian palace.[140]
The palace of Sarvistân bears an obvious relationship to that of
Firûzâbâd, but the strict symmetry which regulates the latter is not so
closely adhered to, and the construction is handled with greater freedom
and skill (Plate 76). The principal lîwân happens, it is true, to have
resumed the old latitudinal disposition, but the longitudinal lîwân is
present in a subsidiary position. The lateral chambers are provided with
wide arched openings which, together with the arch of the lîwân, form a
façade not unlike those of the Ukhaiḍir courts.[141] The breaking of the
façade by doors leading into the lateral chambers of the lîwân occurs
first at Hatra, and characterizes all lîwân buildings later than that of
Sarvistân. Instead, however, of the piers and engaged columns of
Ukhaiḍir, the three arches of Sarvistân are separated by groups of
triple flutes. These flutes are far more clearly connected with ancient
oriental tradition than the engaged columns of Firûzâbâd. They are
derived from the reed-like flutings of Babylonia and Assyria, which are
to be found as late as the Parthian counterfeit at Tellôh.[142] The
motive does not disappear after the Mohammadan invasion. It occurs at
Kharâneh, a ḥîrah on the western borders of the Syrian desert (see
below, Plate 80, Fig. 2), and I found it upon the façade of Sultan Khân,
a Seldjuk building in the heart of Asia Minor.[143] Here, as at
Sarvistân, it flanks a central doorway. At Sarvistân it gives way at the
angles of the palace to a single engaged column. As at Firûzâbâd, the
audience hall at Sarvistân is a square domed chamber, but it opens
immediately into the posterior courtyard and a single lîwân faces it on
the further side. Besides the partial detachment from the wall of the
supports of some of the vaults and of the columns bearing the smaller
dome, there are other evidences of advance in structural knowledge. In
the central lîwân, in the tower chambers, and in the central domed
chamber the walls are partially hollowed out by blind niches, which add
to the security of the vaults while they increase the interior space of
the chambers. These blind niches lend to the supports of the dome
something of the appearance of free standing angle piers, and they show
a dawning apprehension of the fact that the thrust of the dome is
concentrated mainly upon the corners of the substructure. In the
isolated dome of Ferâshâbâd[144] the hollowing out of the walls is
carried yet further.
The building material used in walls and vaults is undressed stone and
mortar, but at Sarvistân the stones are more carefully coursed than at
Firûzâbâd. As far as can be judged from photographs, the vaults must
have been built over a centering. They oversailed the walls as at
Ukhaiḍir, while the semicircular door and window arches were set back
from the jambs according to Dieulafoy’s restoration, and oversailed the
walls according to the restoration of Flandin.[145] The side walls of
the palace are broken by frequent doorways, and in the smaller dome
windows were pierced through the drum.[146] The domes are built far more
skilfully than those of Firûzâbâd. The zone which contains the squinch
oversails the wall, standing flush with the outer edge of a small
cornice adorned with a dog-tooth. The squinches are built with a
proficiency which is in marked contrast with their rude prototypes at
Firûzâbâd. They are divided from the dome by a second dog-tooth cornice,
and the dome itself is constructed of light brick tiles.[147] This
combination of the two materials is resorted to again at Ukhaiḍir. The
niches in the columned chambers are covered with semi-domes which are
set clumsily over the angles on very small squinches.[148] The
Achaemenidizing plaster-work of Firûzâbâd is not repeated, but the
dog-tooth is copied from the cornice under the dome in the older palace.
It is significant that the cornices of Sarvistân have but one fillet
instead of the two fillets of Firûzâbâd. A tendency to reduce the
importance of horizontal decorations is characteristic of Sasanian and
of Mohammadan work in Mesopotamia (see below, p. 130).
Both for Firûzâbâd and for Sarvistân a minute re-examination is urgently
needed, but the political conditions of the province of Fars are not
favourable to archaeological research. Nor was the state of affairs
ideal at Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn when I was there in April 1911, and I measured
the palace of Khusrau to the tune of the whizzing of stray bullets. That
they were not intended to hit me was due principally to the fortunate
circumstance of my having been accredited by a powerful Kurdish ally on
the Turkish side of the frontier to the leading Kurdish brigand, Kerîm
Khân, on the Persian side. This fact rendered the situation more
reassuring, but I was not tempted to prolong my stay beyond the five
days which I devoted to the palaces, neither did I loiter over my work.
It would have been difficult to push on further into the interior, or
perhaps I should say that it would have been too expensive; for though
Kerîm Khân would have provided me with an escort, he would have expected
a small fortune in return for his protection, and perhaps it might
fairly be urged that he would have deserved it. According to the
information which has reached me from Baghdâd, matters have gone from
bad to worse since the date of my visit, and the high road of the
Sasanian kings has been definitely closed to traffic.
Like the Achaemenid palaces, Firûzâbâd and Sarvistân were not intended
for the lodging of vast hordes of retainers. These may have been
accommodated in tents or in mud-built houses of an unpretending nature.
But with the close of the sixth century we come to a group of royal
dwelling-places wherein provision was made for an indefinite number of
women, courtiers, servants, and guards, and the type of building thus
created was taken over by the khalifs of Islâm and extended to
proportions vaster still. Of this type the palace of Khusrau at
Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn is the best example we possess.[149] In general terms
Ukhaiḍir is its fortified counterpart.
The palace of Khusrau is built upon an artificial platform like
Persepolis and the Assyrian palaces, while additional lodgings for the
king’s family and suite are placed on the level of the plain. The double
ramps or stairways by which the platform is approached are exactly
similar to those employed in the older prototypes. The eastern end of
the platform is occupied by an immense open space lying before the
entrance to the state apartments. A deep porch, possibly with columns on
either side, leads into a latitudinal chamber, the details of which
cannot be determined without excavation. From this antechamber a doorway
communicates with the square hall of audience, which corresponds
precisely with the audience halls of Firûzâbâd and Sarvistân. In the
posterior wall there is a deep lîwân in which, perhaps, the throne of
the Chosroës may have been placed. Behind the reception-rooms there is
an open court round which the living-rooms are grouped, not singly, but
in a series of subsidiary courts, some of which are placed on a lower
level. The whole scheme is thus exactly parallel to the scheme of the
palaces in Fars, though the reduplication and enlargement of the various
parts somewhat obscures the resemblance at first sight. At Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn
a porch is added to the lîwân palace and the entrance lîwân has become a
closed chamber, the porch having superseded the columned entrance of the
Achaemenids and the archways of the earlier Sasanians. The rectangular
audience hall of the normal Sasanian khilâni palace follows. The small
lîwân to the rear, with its flanking rooms, have their parallel at
Firûzâbâd, but the small lîwân at Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn forms part of the hall
of audience and three of the flanking rooms can be entered from that
hall, as well as from the open court behind it.
I must pass from what went before to what came after and draw a
comparison between the palace of Khusrau and the desert palace of
Ukhaiḍir. A characteristic feature of the latter, the girdle of walls,
must be left out of account. At Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn the walls were placed
round the large pleasure-grounds with which the Sasanian king surrounded
his dwelling. It is the wall-less Ukhaiḍir, the Ukhaiḍir as it was
originally conceived by its builders, which must be taken into
consideration, though even in that first design the desert ḥîrah was not
left entirely defenceless, since it was compressed into the rectangle of
its own enclosing walls, strengthened by towers. The space within those
walls had to be utilized to the full. At Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn the guards could
be lodged in the lower rooms about the stairways, at Ukhaiḍir they were
gathered together within the main entrance. The great hall is, in fact,
a monumental gateway. It belongs to the system of defences which is
absent from the Sasanian palaces. The Mohammadan builders reverted to an
older type, to the fortified palace of the ancient East. At Khorsâbâd
the principal entrance to the palace lay within the walls of the
acropolis, and it was not, therefore, strongly fortified, but such gates
as those in the acropolis walls are the true progenitors of the Ukhaiḍir
scheme (Plate 78, Fig. 1). In Sargon’s palace the long entrance passage,
some 10 metres wide, represents the great hall of Ukhaiḍir; the lateral
chambers on either side are divided at Ukhaiḍir into groups of smaller
lateral rooms which, both at Khorsâbâd and at Ukhaiḍir, were very
insufficiently lighted. In either case some additional light is obtained
from a court into which the chambers open. The symmetrical arrangement
of the Ukhaiḍir gate with the central court and audience rooms behind it
would not have appealed to ancient authorities on fortification.
Chaldaean and Assyrian gateways are seldom if ever situated opposite to
one another, an asymmetrical disposition being accounted better for
purposes of defence.[150] The long passage room of Khorsâbâd and
Ukhaiḍir, but without the lateral chambers, exists in some of the
excavated gateways at Susa,[151] and at Susa above the gateway stands a
hypostyle pavilion offering a high and airy abode to the great folk who
inhabited the palaces within, just as at Ukhaiḍir an open court with
lîwâns on all sides occupies the high summit of the gate-house. At
Ukhaiḍir there is no direct communication between the ground floor of
the gate-house block and the rest of the palace, except one door out of
the great hall. The gate tower and hall, with the adjoining rooms for
dependants, and the mosque, which had of necessity to be accessible to
all, formed the public part of the building, and the upper stories,
since they too could only be reached by passing through the public
rooms, cannot be regarded as containing private apartments. The better
rooms may have been intended for guests; the chambers in the
gate-tower, and those which were in direct connexion with the chemin de
ronde, for guards.
The great open platform of Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn is represented at Ukhaiḍir by
the central court. The ceremonial rooms at Ukhaiḍir recall with singular
fidelity the disposition at Firûzâbâd, but the flanking chambers of the
lîwân (the old tower chambers of the khilâni palace) have doors of their
own, as at Hatra and Sarvistân, and the three halls are barrel vaulted
instead of domed. Special care has been taken with these vaults. In the
audience chamber (No. 30), as in the lîwân (No. 29), they are finely
built of brick, while in rooms 33 and 40 they are set upon columns. The
unequal intercolumniations in these rooms (the columns stand ·90 metre
from the walls and 2·50 metres from each other) is no doubt due to a
desire to secure as much space as possible in the centre of the room,
but it produces a singular resemblance to Sasanian methods, where the
short columns are set close to the walls that they may be the more
easily bound in with them by arches. The rooms round the small court F
are probably not intended for dwelling-rooms, but stand in some definite
relation to the ceremonial chambers; as Dr. Reuther has suggested, the
little room 37, with chimney-pipes in the vault, may have been used for
the preparation of light refreshments for the prince and his guests. For
what special purpose the elaborately decorated rooms 31 and 32 were
intended it is of course impossible to say, but as I shall point out (p.
115) they accord with a similar arrangement at Kharâneh. The rooms of
ceremony were provided with a serdâb under No. 42. Almost exactly the
same grouping of chambers is found in the block which was set at a later
date into the eastern part of the palace yard. The north-east angle of
the yard forms the court; the façade of the annex is adorned with
engaged columns and niches; even the serdâb and the stair to the roof
are reproduced. It is clear that we have here a second set of
reception-rooms similar to the first, but why a second set was needed it
is impossible to tell. The fact that an outer stair was added to the
older part of the palace, so as to place the new reception-rooms in
direct connexion with the first floor of the gate-house block, the floor
which I have tentatively assigned to guests, leads me to suggest that
the second ceremonial lîwân, with its dependences, was intended for any
visitor who was of such distinction as to need a separate audience room.
The courts B, C, H, and G can have served no other purpose than that of
the ḥaram, the dwelling-places for the wives and children. Each court is
a habitation complete in itself, a bait as it is called in Arabic, a
house. Each is provided with a winter and a summer lîwân, with
living-rooms adjoining it, and behind each lîwân lies a long narrow room
partly open, with chimney-pipes in the vault--the kitchen.[152] Each
bait has access to two of the chambers hollowed out of the towers,
which, according to the suggestion of the authors of _Ocheïdir_, were
probably closets. In two of the courts, B and H, the flanking chambers
of the lîwân are provided with anterooms which open into the court
through an archway resting on engaged columns. They are covered with
barrel vaults running at right angles to the vaults of the chambers
behind, and separated from the lîwân vault by transverse arches. The
vault of the lîwân is carried straight through from the back wall to the
wall of the court, but the side walls are not continued through to the
court, as in C and G, but open through wide arches into the
antechambers. These arches are the transverse arches against which the
antechamber vaults abut. In the ground plan this group has the
appearance of a short lîwân flanked by two short chambers, with an
antechamber common to all three, though structurally this would not be a
true description. The antechamber predicts the modern ṭarmah, which is,
as a rule, either a short antechamber to the central room only, or a
long antechamber common to all the three rooms (Fig. 12). In either case
the modern ṭarmah is actually that which the ṭarmah of Ukhaiḍir only
appears to be, an independent latitudinal antechamber cutting off part
of the lîwân.
[Illustration: FIG. 12. Modern Ṭarmah houses.
(From _Das Wohnhaus in Bagdad_, by kind permission of Dr. Reuther.)]
In court E the arrangement of the rooms is modified owing to the
exiguous space which remained at the back of the ceremonial chambers.
The elements are, however, the same, a court, a lîwân with side
chambers, and a kitchen. To these are added a stair leading to the roof,
which is absent from the ḥaram courts. It is reasonable to assume that
court E was the private bait of the lord of Ukhaiḍir. These courts or
baits are foreshadowed in the posterior courts of the Achaemenid and the
early Sasanian palaces (again Firûzâbâd offers the closest parallel); in
the palace of Khusrau they reach a development which was to be very
little modified at Ukhaiḍir. The scheme can best be studied in the
courts on the lower level O, Q, and S. Each of these courts is provided
on the west side with a lîwân, flanking chambers, and a ṭarmah, while a
fourth chamber to the north may be a kitchen. To the south a vaulted
passage leads in each case to a posterior court P, R, and T. On the
eastern side of the forecourts there is another lîwân group, much
shallower than the first and without a ṭarmah or any subsidiary rooms.
The flanking chambers of the eastern lîwâns have small doors into the
court and into the vaulted passage behind them. As far as I could judge,
the three forecourts communicated with each other, in which case the
strict isolation of the baits of Ukhaiḍir is a new feature. In courts K
and M the arrangement is a little different. The east end in one court
only is occupied by a shallow lîwân group, the west end in both by a
deep lîwân group with a ṭarmah, but the subsidiary chambers are to the
rear, one small and one larger room, approached by a door through the
lîwân and opening on to a posterior court. The four baits on the upper
level are very similar. The subsidiary chambers are placed behind the
main lîwân; in courts C and G there is a group of rooms to the side, and
court G is without the shallow eastern lîwân group in its forecourt, but
possesses it on the west side of its posterior court. Neither courts E
nor I have the small lîwâns. All the courts communicate with one another
(except perhaps courts I and H) and with the passage. These long vaulted
passages are a feature of Ukhaiḍir also. The building materials at
Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn are those of Ukhaiḍir and Sarvistân, undressed stones,
coursed with a certain amount of care, and burnt brick tiles for the
finer work.
One further step in the long history of oriental palaces can now be
taken, thanks to the excavations of Professor Sarre and Dr. Herzfeld at
Sâmarrâ. Part of the plan of the great complex of Balkuwârâ lies before
us (Fig. 13). Just as the palace of Khusrau reproduced the khilâni
palaces on a gigantic scale, so Balkuwârâ is a gigantic reproduction of
Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn. The approach to the palace, through two courts, covers an
area some 300 metres long (the measurements are only my approximate
estimates made from the scale of Dr. Herzfeld’s outline plan) and passes
under three ornamental gateways. A third courtyard, lying before the
halls of audience, is over 100 metres long and is set round on two sides
by a free standing colonnade (instead of the blind arcade of Ukhaiḍir),
a corridor, and a long line of rooms, these last carried round the third
side also. An immense lîwân, 30 metres long by 15 metres wide, with two
rows of flanking chambers, occupies the centre of the fourth side.
Beyond a small latitudinal room there is a group of four great chambers
arranged crosswise. Meeting in a central chamber, between the arms of
the cross, lies a complex of nine smaller rooms, four groups in all, and
beyond this we find another latitudinal room and a great lîwân opening
into a garden court.[153] On the further side of this garden pavilions
stand upon the banks of the Tigris. The area to the left of the
ceremonial halls is occupied by twenty-four courts, each one a bait
after the manner of Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn and Ukhaiḍir. Besides the lîwân group
at one end (Dr. Herzfeld speaks of the principal room as =⏊=-shaped, but
judging from his outline the form is produced by the combination of the
lîwân group and the ṭarmah) and the group of three shallower rooms at
the opposite end, there are three rooms down either side of each court,
and rooms flanking the group at either end. Some of the courts are still
bigger and more complex. In the right
[Illustration: FIG. 13. Balkuwârâ. (From _Erster vorläufiger Bericht
über die Ausgrabungen von Sâmarrâ_, by kind permission of Dr.
Herzfeld.)]
wing of the palace, besides a number of baits of a more or less normal
character, there are a bazaar and barracks. The huge building here
displayed covers only a quarter of the whole area of Balkuwârâ. It is
interesting to note that the chief mosque lies to the right hand of the
main entrance, just as at Ukhaiḍir it lies to the right of the gate. The
smaller palace of al-’Âshiq is again composed of a central block between
two wings.[154] The audience chambers appear to consist of a large lîwân
with a rectangular room behind it, this room being flanked by two
similar rooms (compare Firûzâbâd). The general features of the main
gateway, a closed lîwân flanked by two chambers on either side, each
with an antechamber, were already known, as well as the details of the
wall decoration on either side of the gate.[155] M. Viollet, who did
some work in 1910 on the great palace known as the Bait al-Khalîfah, has
published a sketch-plan of it,[156] and Dr. Herzfeld is now engaged on
further excavations there. Both he and M. Viollet have published
exceedingly instructive photographs of stucco decoration from the
palaces, and I gave a few in _Amurath to Amurath_. Dr. Herzfeld’s series
is naturally far the most interesting, as his work has been the most
thorough.
If the palace of Khusrau is unmistakably the culminating point of a long
oriental tradition, and the model for future generations of oriental
potentates, it serves also to illuminate the little known period during
which it arose; it throws light upon the ḥîrahs of the Lakhmid
phylarchs, concerning which we have practically no contemporary
information. Mas’ûdi tells us that the khalif Mutawakkil copied in one
of his palaces a scheme which had been adopted by a king of Ḥîrah. It
consisted of a central block, wherein was situated the audience chamber,
and two wings containing storerooms and lodgings for courtiers. In front
lay an open court common to all three parts of the palace; the way to
the audience chamber passed through three gates. Dr. Herzfeld, when he
had laid bare the plan of Balkuwârâ, realized that it corresponded with
Mas’ûdi’s description.[157] That Mas’ûdi believed the type of the Ḥîri
with two sleeves to have been created by a Nu’mânid prince in imitation
of the battle array of his army, we, who are acquainted with older
monuments, know to be incorrect;[158] it is the latest descendant of a
long ancestral line of oriental palaces which runs back through the
Achaemenid and the Assyrian to the Hittite. The palace of Khusrau is as
perfect an instance of the scheme as is the palace of Balkuwârâ; the
differences between them are differences of dimension, not of kind. At
Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn old oriental traits, such as the artificial platform and
the double stairways, are peculiarly well marked. The three gates of
Balkuwârâ are not present at Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn, or rather they are not laid
out in the same relation to one another, but it is very possible that
Mas’ûdi’s account of the Nu’mânid palace was coloured by a lively
recollection of the glories of Balkuwârâ, which in his day was beginning
to fall into ruin. Sâmarrâ was finally abandoned by the khalifs in 892,
and Mas’ûdi wrote in 943. But if Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn fulfils the requirements
of the tenth-century writer, so does Ukhaiḍir, and Ukhaiḍir, standing
within two days’ journey of Ḥîrah, may well be taken to be the closest
representation of the Lakhmid ḥîrahs until Khawarnaq itself is
excavated.
[Illustration: FIG. 14. Scheme of Pompeiian house.
(From Mau’s _Pompeii_, by kind permission of Messrs. Macmillan.)]
The genesis of the lîwân house as it appears in the palace of Khusrau,
at Ukhaiḍir and at Balkuwârâ has emerged from the analysis of a long
series of more ancient buildings. The baits adhere severely, I might
almost say implacably, to a type which was derived ultimately from the
khilâni. It is, however, possible that in their later form another
influence may have been at work. We know that, to a certain extent at
any rate, the Parthians adopted the Hellenistic house. The Greek
peristyle is found in Parthian houses at Babylon and at Niffer (Fig. 9);
but, on the other hand, in the Parthian palace at Tellôh, ‘in spite of
the penetration into the heart of Asia of the elements of Greek
civilization, the constructors, contemporaries of the Seleucids, have
remained in all points faithful to the traditions of ancient Asiatic
civilization,’[159] and at Hatra no Hellenistic house has yet been
recorded. The plan of the Hellenistic house is well known from
excavation, principally at Delos and at Priene. As early as the second
century B.C. it is found in combination with the Roman atrium house at
Pompeii (Fig. 14). In the ordinary private house, which was too small to
admit of a complete peristyle, the oecus gives into the courtyard
through a prostas with an open colonnaded façade, while other less
important rooms are set round the remaining sides of the court (Fig.
15). This has already something of the appearance of a lîwân group with
a ṭarmah, and the resemblance is increased if oecus and prostas are
reduplicated and two rooms placed in the centre (Fig. 16). The genesis
of this house is totally different from that of the lîwân-ṭarmah house;
the house of Priene is an abridgement of the peristyle house, the
lîwân-ṭarmah house is a development of the khilâni, but it is
nevertheless possible that the Hellenistic peristyle house, in its
abridged form, may have given the initial impulse which led to the
adding of the ṭarmah to the lîwân. We may be sure that no columned
façade could have come into existence in Mesopotamia before the close of
the second Babylonian empire, and indeed at Ukhaiḍir the columned façade
is not applied to the ṭarmah house, though it is found in arcaded
galleries--for instance in No. 20. Moreover, the rooms in courts B and H
are structurally more closely related to the simple lîwân of Hatra than
to the oecus-prostas house, while the modern ṭarmah house is
structurally, as well as in plan, one with the latter.
[Illustration: FIG. 15. Priene, house 33. (From _Priene_, by kind
permission of the General Director of the K. Museen in Berlin.)]
[Illustration: FIG. 16. Priene, house 24. (From _Priene_.)]
What is the principle which determined the arrangement of the rooms or
groups of rooms within the bait, and of the baits within the palace?
Professor Koldewey, in one of those generalizations, as profound as they
are brilliant, which we owe to his learning and acumen, has laid down a
law touching architectural grouping which will be of service in
considering this question. Speaking of the intentional separation of the
main chamber of a Babylonian temple from the encompassing wall, he says:
‘This intentional separation is perhaps connected historically with the
origin of the Babylonian house, which must be dealt with in another
place. In my view, a view which rests upon the study of Babylonian
ground-plans in historic and in prehistoric times, the grouping of
chambers in ground-plans throughout the Babylonian cultural sphere
proceeds from the interior. The embracing wall, Duru, is the primary,
the indispensable essential. Within the compass of the wall, the single
chambers are set in such fashion, and in such fashion are they linked
together, that ultimately a court remains over. In the Greek house, on
the other hand, the single chambers, Megara, are so placed, and joined
together in such manner, that ultimately a court results. The Italic
house creates for itself a kind of court by sundering a roof which was
originally continuous. It is therefore possible to distinguish between
the different types of houses with courtyards by defining the Babylonian
ground-plan as injunctive, the Greek as conjunctive, and the Italic as
disjunctive.’[160]
[Illustration: FIG. 17. Palace at Pergamon.
(From Durm’s _Baukunst der Griechen_, by kind permission of Messrs.
Gebhardt.)]
With the disjunctive plan Mesopotamian archaeology is not concerned; nor
do I believe that the conjunctive plan was either widely or permanently
of importance, at any rate up to the period to which Ukhaiḍir belongs.
The Greek scheme cannot be brought into sharper contrast with the
Mesopotamian than by laying a plan such as that of the Pergamene palace
(Fig. 17) beside a plan such as that of the smaller palace at Niffer
(Fig. 9). I select with intention a building wherein Hellenism has
influenced the details, but left the fundamental principle unchanged. At
Pergamon the court results from the manner in which the isolated
chambers are placed and linked together; at Niffer a court remains over
from the manner in which the chambers or groups of chambers are placed
within, and linked to, the encompassing wall. In the baits of Ukhaiḍir
it is no less the encompassing wall which is the indispensable
essential, and it may even be surmised that the latitudinal chamber
which lies behind the lîwân is a survival of the intentional separation
of the principal room from the wall. But it is not only the bait, the
unit, which must be considered, it is the grouping of units. Now these
units are so placed round the encompassing wall, and joined together in
such fashion, as to leave a court over. In detailed and in general
disposition Ukhaiḍir exhibits the injunctive plan.
Before considering the Umayyad ḥîrahs of the western desert three other
Sasanian buildings must be passed briefly under review. I will deal
first, though it is not first in date, with the second palace at
Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn, Chehâr Qapû.
Is it a palace? A glance at the plan is enough to prove that it does not
fall precisely within the four corners of the scheme to which Khusrau’s
palace belongs. This divergence of plan, and the peculiar character
imparted to the ruins by the isolated quadrangular chamber which
dominates the whole complex, have led to the suggestion that Chehâr Qapû
may have been a fire temple. In support of this view two buildings have
been cited, the rectangular western annex at Hatra, and a ruin excavated
by Dieulafoy at Susa. The last-named instance carries little
weight.[161] Its resemblance to Hatra depends upon the reconstruction
proposed by Dieulafoy upon data too slight to be convincing. Until a
further examination has been made, the ruin at Susa offers too frail a
substructure for the lightest of theories. As regards Hatra (Fig. 10),
the western annex blocks a window in one of the smaller rooms of the
south lîwân and is therefore certainly a later addition. But the learned
author of the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft publication has given us two
plans of smaller palaces, found among the ruins in the city, of which
one certainly, and the other probably, is composed of a lîwân with its
flanking chambers, and a posterior rectangular room with, however, the
interposition of a narrow latitudinal room between them (Fig. 18). Dr.
Andrae has pointed out that while a lîwân group combined with a
rectangular chamber, but without a latitudinal chamber, exists in the
main palace (south lîwân), two lîwâns with a latitudinal chamber but
without the rectangular chamber are found in the northern annex, which,
like the western annex, is a later addition to the palace. The fact that
the dispositions observed in the main palace are not entirely isolated
examples is of the highest significance, but it does not solve the
problem connected with the so-called ‘temple’. In all these palaces the
posterior quadrangular chamber may have been a sanctuary, or it may
equally well have been a living-room. The theory that in the main palace
it is indeed a sanctuary rests mainly upon the symbolic representations
carved upon the lintel of one of its doorways.[162] The motives there
used are familiar elements of Parthian decoration. The dragon occurs
upon the façade of Hatra itself and was found by Loftus among the
Parthian fragments at Warka,[163] as well as upon a lintel excavated by
George Smith at Quyundjik,[164] but there is no saying whether the
lintel belonged to a sanctuary or to a private dwelling. Nor is there
much to be learnt, with regard to fire temples, from literary sources.
Herodotus declares that it was not the practice of the Persians
[Illustration: FIG. 18. Small palace at Hatra. (From _Hatra_, by kind
permission of the D. Orient-Gesellschaft.)]
to erect statues, temples, or altars;[165] Strabo that they erect
neither statues nor altars, but, considering the heaven as Jupiter,
sacrifice on a high place. Strabo goes on, however, to state that they
have large shrines called Pyraetheia, in the middle of which the Magi,
entering daily into the shrine, maintain an inextinguished fire.[166]
Trustworthy architectural data for such buildings we do not possess, and
as Dr. Andrae has observed, the rectangular chamber at Hatra is unlike
any other temple known to us, either in the East or in the West.[167] In
the outer court of the palace he found a ruin which he calls tentatively
an âteshgâh (fire altar).[168] It is a block of masonry almost square
which stood 10 to 12 metres high and has traces of a stair that may
either have wound round three sides of the tower, or have zigzagged up
the face on one side only. He compares it with the tower some 28 metres
high at Djûr, near Firûzâbâd, which was published by M. Dieulafoy[169].
The Djûr tower may date from the time of Ardeshîr Bâbagân, A.D.
227-240. Here, too, there was a stair, which must have wound three times
round the tower in order to attain the platform at the summit. M.
Dieulafoy was struck by the resemblances that existed between the tower
at Djûr, the ziggurat at Khorsâbâd, and the minarets at Sâmarrâ and at
Cairo.[170] A ramp winding round the ziggurat to the summit of the
pyramid is described by Herodotus, but has not yet been assured by
excavation, and even the existence of pyramids with platforms at various
heights among the ruins hitherto examined is doubtful.[171] The whole
question of fire altar and fire temple is therefore very obscure. The
towers at Djûr and at Hatra may have been sacrificial altars, and Strabo
bears witness to the fact that the Persians sacrificed in a high place;
but I find it difficult to believe that they can have been intended for
an inextinguished fire. To keep a fire alight in so exposed a spot would
have taxed the ingenuity of the Magi beyond endurance. The shrines in
which the perpetual fire burnt must have afforded better shelter, but
what shape they assumed we do not know. No help can be expected from
this quarter, and the problem presented by Chehâr Qapû must be
considered on its merits. It is slightly cleared by a recognition of the
fact.
The quadrangular chamber of Chehâr Qapû, viewed impartially, does not
offer any serious difficulty. If the audience hall in the palace of
Khusrau were standing, its aspect would be much the same, for it too was
a large square chamber with a dome rising above and dominating the rest
of the palace. At Sarvistân a parallel structure exists to this day. But
it is the surrounding buildings which are different, and the question is
further complicated by the circumstance that the rooms in the immediate
vicinity of the domed hall are so much ruined that their exact
arrangement cannot be decided without some excavation--it is provoking
to think how little excavation would be needed. So far as can be
observed at present Chehâr Qapû is a rectangular complex with the main
entrance to the east; the gateway is flanked to the south by two courts,
to the north by one, each court being furnished with small rectangular
rooms. I conjecture that these were guard-rooms, and they may be
compared with the rooms under the ramps in the palace of Khusrau. The
main entrance opened into a long quadrangular court with a monumental
gate at the further end. To the north of this court, and communicating
with it by a door at the eastern end, there is an almost quadrangular
area, formed by rooms set round the courtyard numbered E on the plan.
The rooms are latitudinal, and they bear no resemblance to the lîwâns of
the palace of Khusrau. To the west lies another court, F, with
latitudinal rooms on two sides and an independent communication with the
entrance court; still further west are two smaller courts, G and H,
with rooms on two sides; and finally, to the north of the domed hall,
there seems to have been a fifth court or open space with rooms on two
sides. The south wing is not symmetrical with the north wing and it is
considerably wider. There are three large courts here. Court I has
chambers on three sides; those on the south side resembling a lîwân
group with a ṭarmah. Court J has on the south side a latitudinal
chamber, with a ṭarmah on the north side, and a passage communicating
with the entrance court, A. Court K has a lîwân group with a ṭarmah on
the south side; the north and west sides are ruined. Beyond this lies a
totally ruined area, to the west of which stand two rooms, apparently
with a ṭarmah, and at the south-west end of the palace there is a series
of four rooms. With the exception of the small courts on either side of
the main gate, all the courts seem to have had some direct
intercommunication; this was probably the case in the palace of Khusrau
also. The grouping of the rooms in the court is, however, almost
entirely unlike that which has been described in the larger palace at
Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn, at Ukhaiḍir, or at Sâmarrâ. Courts I and K alone, with
their lîwâns and ṭarmahs, offer shadowy resemblances to the others. The
arrangement of the rooms, the irregularity of the areas covered by the
courts, and the tendency towards an asymmetrical disposition, point to a
reversion to the methods of the ancient East. Symmetry plays no part in
the palace-planning of Babylonia and Assyria. From the earliest to the
latest, from the Chaldaean palaces[172] to the palace of Nebuchadnezzar
at Babylon,[173] through all the intervening palaces in Assyria, at
Nimrûd, at Quyundjik, at Khorsâbâd and at Assur, no principle of
symmetry is to be observed. Nor yet is it to be found, except quite
fortuitously, in the Hittite khilâni palaces (the late khilâni,
north-west of G in Fig. 5, is one of the few instances), although they
originated in the symmetrical gateway; and it is markedly absent in the
northern Hittite palaces and temples at Boghâz Keui, though in other
respects they have little in common with the southern Hittite
monuments.[174] Assyrian temples more nearly approach to a symmetrical
disposition, but only under influences foreign to Assyria, influences
which can be traced back to the end of the twelfth century before Christ
in the Anu-Adad temple at Assur. The old Assyrian scheme, of which we
have one example in the temple of Assur, at Assur, built by
Shamshi-Adad, was derived from the Babylonian temple plan and, like the
Babylonian, it was asymmetrical. The imported plan is characterized by
the substitution of longitudinal for latitudinal chambers.[175] But
these foreign, probably Western influences (for they were responsible
also for the creation of Solomon’s temple, apparently a symmetrical
building),[176] could not reduce Assyrian architecture to an ordered
plan, and the temples in Sargon’s palace at Khorsâbâd fall far short of
symmetry,[177] while in Babylonia the longitudinal chamber, i.e. the
imported plan, was never adopted, and until the latest period, the
temples, like the palaces, remained entirely unsymmetrical.[178] The
plan of Quyundjik, which is the most complete record of any Assyrian
palace which has yet been published, throws considerable light upon
Chehâr Qapû (Plate 77). Courts XXVII and XXX in the temple area, courts
XVIII, XIX, XX, and XXII in the domestic quarters, exhibit an
unsymmetrical grouping of latitudinal and longitudinal chambers very
much akin to that of the courts of Chehâr Qapû. In court XVI we have a
foreshadowing of the ṭarmah scheme. (Place believes the rooms in court
XVI to have been storehouses for wine, from the quantity of jars found
in them.)[179] It would be ridiculous to push a minute comparison too
far, seeing that a period of over 1,000 years separates the two
buildings, but a certain resemblance in details and, still more, a
general correspondence on the fundamental principle of asymmetry leads
me to suspect that a primaeval tradition survived through all the
innovations of Greece or Rome, Parthia or Persia, and that, at the end
of the sixth century, it had sufficient vitality to guide the craftsmen
to Khusrau Parwêz in the composition of a monumental building. Survivals
of this nature are not infrequently connected with hieratic tradition,
and if my conjecture is correct it might serve in some measure to
support the claim to a non-secular character which had been put forward
for Chehâr Qapû, although the domed hall, which we must assume to have
been the sanctuary, bears no resemblance to the cella and anteroom of
the Babylonian or of the Assyrian temple. It would be necessary to
postulate that while the Sasanian builder retained in the courts and
chambers of his temenos something of an ancient tradition which had come
to be regarded as sacred, he gave to the shrine wherein the holy element
burned with a perpetual flame the form which had been assumed by the
ceremonial dwelling of the divine Chosroës.
The two remaining Sasanian buildings which it will be necessary to
mention are Ctesiphon and Karkh. Ctesiphon is the most famous of all the
later Persian palaces (Fig. 19). It was erected by Shapûr I (A.D.
242-272)[180] and is therefore about 100 years later than Hatra, and
earlier than Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn by some 250 years. Not only chronologically,
but also in plan, it is closely related to the Parthian palace. It
reproduces in yet more striking dimensions the simple lîwân scheme, of
which Hatra offers the earliest monumental example. The lîwân at
Ctesiphon is covered by a vault spanning 25·80 metres, a dimension which
was not exceeded in Rome itself. On either side of the lîwân five
vaulted chambers were set at right angles; rising in stories their
vaults abutted the main vault, as at Firûzâbâd and Ukhaiḍir. The side
chambers had an independent entrance in the façade, a system which was
first employed at Hatra. The masonry is of brick, chained with wooden
beams as at Ukhaiḍir; but at Ctesiphon the beams are placed parallel
with the coursing of the masonry, whereas at Ukhaiḍir they are inserted
at right angles into the walls.
[Illustration: FIG. 19. Ctesiphon. (From _L’Acropole de Suse_, by kind
permission of M. Dieulafoy.)]
[Illustration: FIG. 20. Karkh. (From _L’Art antique de la Perse_, by
kind permission of M. Dieulafoy.)]
The second building is at Karkh, the town known in Syriac as Karkhâ de
Lâdan. It was founded by Shapûr II (309--379)[181] when he rebuilt Susa,
from which it is not far removed. Of this palace we have nothing but a
fragment, possibly a monumental entrance (Fig. 20). The central chamber
is covered by a dome which was set over squinches upon four wide
archways.[182] The cutting away of the walls under a dome is thus very
highly developed at Karkh. Four transverse arches span each of the
wings, and the space between the arches is covered by a vault. In
connexion with Ukhaiḍir this scheme of the wings at Karkh is of special
interest because it is repeated in room 32, where even the windows under
the vaults are reproduced by blind niches. The material used at Karkh is
brick, and it may here be noticed that at Susa and in Babylonia, where
brick was the only available local material, it is invariably used by
Sasanian architects; in Fars and in the Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn district, where
stone was more easy to obtain than brick, they constructed in unsquared
stones, roughly coursed, using brick only for the larger vaults and
domes and for those portions of the walls which were finely finished.
The latter system was employed at Ukhaiḍir. Vault construction in stone
was facilitated there by the fact that the stone broke naturally into
thin slabs and could be made to assume more or less the proportions of
brick tiles. For this reason stone vaults could be built without the use
of centering. At Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn this was not the case. The stones are
smooth rounded blocks like large pebbles; it would have been impossible
to use them for vaults unless the cement in which they were laid had
been peculiarly strong, and the vaults thus formed are of the rudest
kind. Coursed and undressed stone held together by a clay mortar was
used for vaulting purposes as early as Lydian times; a vault of that
character covers the tomb chamber of the tumulus of Alyattes near
Sardis. The same masonry is found in the terrace of the
Takht-i-Mâder-i-Suleimân at Pasargadae (fifth century B.C.), and is
still in common use in Asia Minor.[183] Masonry of dressed and undressed
stones set in a mortar of clay or pitch has been found in Assyrian
buildings,[184] but gypsum mortar was not known in Mesopotamia till the
seventh century. Its earliest appearance was in the palace of
Nebuchadnezzar at Babylon. In Egypt it is of much earlier occurrence,
and the use of mortar in the Aegean region during the second millennium
B.C. (Mycenae, Argos) was probably due to Egyptian influence.[185] Hatra
is the earliest Mesopotamian monumental building in dressed stone and
mortar; it was an example which was not followed by Sasanian architects.
The method was foreign to local tradition; native workmen returned to
their own systems and continued to construct wall, vault, and dome of
brick or of undressed stone.
A survey of Sasanian buildings leads to the conclusion that a singular
want of technical skill was displayed in their vaulting system. The
vault and the dome may have been born in Mesopotamia, but they lingered
there in a state of immaturity. The barrel vault, the vault on
transverse arches, the dome on Persian squinches, or in smaller
dimensions on the horizontal bracket, these were the only forms which
were employed. If an inclined plane was to be covered, the barrel vault
was split up into sections and raised in steps; if the barrel vaults met
at right angles, they were carefully separated from one another. At
Ukhaiḍir the groined vault is added to this slender stock of forms, but
it is not used in many places where it might be expected to appear, and
when it is employed, it is only with the utmost precaution. As far as
the invention shown in the Mesopotamian regions is concerned, we might
to-day be obliged to content ourselves with the barrel vault and the
dome poised carefully upon four walls (or little better); but the Greek
builders of the Mediterranean coast-lands stepped into the breach, and
it is primarily to them that we owe the development of the elementary
principles of oriental vaulting.
I have already alluded to a series of early Mohammadan buildings which
are of the utmost importance to the study of Ukhaiḍir, the Umayyad
ḥîrahs which stand upon the frontiers of Syria. On the western side of
the desert the authority of the khalifs had been preceded by the
authority of Imperial Rome. Lands which were occupied by Roman armies
were endowed with a solid heritage, more enduring than any political
domination has proved to be. To this day the traveller to Petra has the
paved Roman road under his feet for many a mile; he can reckon his
journey by Roman milestones, and daily he will pass by shattered wall
and piles of ruin which mark the site of Roman watch-tower and Roman
fortified camp. After the lapse of eighteen hundred years these massive
structures still offer a meagre shelter to the Beduin shepherds and
their flocks, and in the seventh century, when the Umayyad khalifs fled
from their cities to the beautiful solitudes of the Syrian desert, most
of the castles of the Roman limes, which had been re-occupied by the
Ghassânid allies of Byzantium, were standing in all their towered
strength. Here indeed was an inheritance for those who loved the
wilderness; where the Roman legionaries had languished in interminable
exile, the children of the desert held their court.
The Arabian limes did not differ in its system of military defence from
the limites of Europe, but whereas the European camps were originally
laid down as stockaded earthworks and were not systematically clothed in
stone till the time of Hadrian,[186] on the Syrian frontier the camps
and forts were from the first built of solid stone masonry. The
comparatively late date of the oriental defences was no doubt partially
responsible for this peculiarity, but it must also be borne in mind that
fortification by means of earthworks was foreign to the regions through
which the Arabian limes ran. As early as the time of Vespasian, the
camps of Flavius Silva at Masada, near the Dead Sea, were surrounded by
walls of rudely piled stones,[187] while in the Flavian period the
European camps were still fortified by earthworks and stockades. The
Roman province of Arabia Petraea was created in A.D. 105, and the
fortification of the first limes dates therefore from the time of
Trajan. On this inner limes one great camp stands in ruins, the camp of
Odhruḥ.
Archaeological research on the Roman frontiers in Germany, Austria, and
Britain, as well as in North Africa, has made us familiar with the
general disposition of the legionary camps; moreover, we have two
literary sources of information. Polybius, writing in 150 B.C., has left
a description of the camp in his day, and Hyginus, writing not earlier
than a period shortly before the time of Hadrian, has given an accurate
account of the camp as he knew it.[188] Architecturally there is no
fundamental difference between the two. The camp of Hyginus was a
rectangular enclosure, with a length one-third greater than its width.
It had four gateways, the Porta Praetoria and the Porta Decumana in the
centre of each of the short sides, the Porta Principalis Sinistra in one
of the long sides, but not in the centre, and the Porta Principalis
Dextra opposite to it in the other. Round the interior of the walls lay
an open space, the Intervallum. The interior area was divided by
thoroughfares placed in a regular order. Between the Porta Principalis
Dextra and the Porta Principalis Sinistra ran a cross street, the Via
Principalis. At right angles to it, the Via Praetoria ran up to the
Porta Praetoria. These two were the most important of the roads; they
were wider than the others, and in the later stone-built camps they were
sometimes flanked by colonnades, while at their point of junction was
set a tetrapylon. The colonnades and the tetrapylon are common in cities
which were laid out on the Roman camp plan.[189] Opposite the point of
junction of the two streets, the centre of the camp was occupied by
official and public buildings. Here lay the Forum and the Praetorium,
with the Sacellum wherein the eagles of legion and cohort were
deposited. Behind the Praetorium, the Via Quintana crossed the camp from
side to side, while numerous small roads at right angles to it gave
access to the lodgings of the troops; the Via Sagularis, within and
parallel to the Intervallum, was carried round the whole rectangle. To
this general scheme the camps which have been excavated conform, with
little divergence.[190] I give as an example the fort at Housesteads,
on the Roman Wall (Fig. 21). The sanctuary, X, which is here
rectangular, is not infrequently apsed.[191] As a rule not much remains
of the interior buildings except the Praetorium and a few large public
edifices, such as granaries and armouries. The Praetorium varies
considerably in detail, but in general disposition it resembles the
Greek peristyle house. A typical, well-preserved example is to be found
at Wiesbaden.[192]
[Illustration: FIG. 21. Roman fort at Housesteads. (By kind permission
of Professor Haverfield.)]
One of the most imposing of Praetoria is that of Lambaesis[193] in
northern Africa, where a stone-built camp was constructed about the same
date as Odhruḥ to replace the older earthwork. The development of the
Praetorium varies with the size and importance of the station. As
regards the outer fortifications the four gateways were flanked by
towers which projected inwards, from the inner face of the wall, and not
uncommonly had a slight salience upon the exterior also.[194] There are
one or two examples in which the gate towers are rounded upon the
outside and have a more considerable projection.[195] Towers are usually
placed at the rounded corners of the wall, and sometimes at intervals
along the wall; they have no salience upon the exterior.[196] The
barracks, which were as a rule roughly built huts, were more solidly
constructed in some of the great permanent camps, and the whole interior
plan has been traced at Carnuntum and at Novaesium. The barracks in
these camps consisted of long double rows of small chambers, more or
less regularly disposed and standing back to back. A street or court,
open at either end, unless it happened to terminate against one of the
larger official buildings, separated each row from the row opposite. The
Intervallum was left open, that free access might be given to the walls;
at Carnuntum only, part of the west side was occupied by buildings.
[Illustration: FIG. 22. Odhruḥ. (From _Provincia Arabia_, by kind
permission of Professor Brünnow.)]
In the Trajanic camp at Odhruḥ (Fig. 22) no trace of the interior
buildings remains except a small apsed Sacellum, placed precisely in
the position in which it would be found in a camp on the European
frontiers. Since the four gateways compare equally well with those of
the European camps, we may conclude that the interior arrangement of
Odhruḥ was normal. But the fortifications are not normal. Rounded towers
project some ten metres from the outer face of the wall and the angles
are strengthened by circular towers of still greater salience. Thus in
the earliest camp of the Arabian limes we encounter a developed system
of flanking towers which is completely absent in Europe.
[Illustration: FIG. 23. Ledjdjûn. (From _Provincia Arabia_, by kind
permission of Professor Brünnow.)]
The second or outer limes cannot be much later in date, and in all
probability it belonged to the time which saw the fortification of the
road from Palmyra to Damascus. Ḍumair (Plate 78, Fig. 2), the second of
the chain of forts that extended from Damascus to the desert
capital,[197] is dated by an inscription in the year A.D. 162; it bears
a close resemblance both to Trajan’s camp at
[Illustration: FIG. 24. Da’djaniyyeh. (From _Provincia Arabia_, by kind
permission of Professor Brünnow.)]
Odhruḥ and to Ledjdjûn, a camp on the outer Arabian limes. The salient,
rounded, intermediate towers and circular angle towers of Odhruḥ are
repeated at Ḍumair with unimportant variations in detail. No part of the
Praetorium is standing, but there are traces of some of the rows of huts
in the Praetentura, and according to Domaszewski’s plan they extended,
on one side at least, over the Intervallum to the wall.[198] In the
Retentura one ruined building remains, which the learned archaeologist
believes to have been the Armamentarium. In the camp of Ledjdjûn the
walls and towers are an exact copy of those of Odhruḥ (Fig. 23). The
interior buildings belong to two periods. The greater part of the
Praetorium, and a small apsed structure to the north of it, belong to
the first period; and to the same date, Domaszewski assigns certain
buildings placed along the walls between the towers, the largest of
which he takes to have been a Horreum. The rows of barracks which fill
the eastern half and a part of the western half of the camp are of
later date and belong probably to the time of Diocletian.
No other legionary camps of the size of these three exist along the
Arabian limes; the other fortresses which have been examined and planned
are smaller, different in character, and later in date. Of these there
are three which I propose to consider, Da’djaniyyeh, Bshair, and Qasṭal.
Da’djaniyyeh is undated, but from its plan I should judge it to be
earlier than the other two. Bshair is dated by an inscription in the
time of Diocletian; for Qasṭal there is no epigraphic evidence, but the
capital found among the ruins of the Sacellum can scarcely be earlier
than the fifth century.[199] That the towers in the fortress of
Da’djaniyyeh should be rectangular and set à cheval upon the walls, is
not of any significance (Fig. 24). Round and square towers are commonly
found at one and the same time, though the round tower, which is
strategically an improvement upon the rectangular tower, is in fact
later in origin (see below, p. 108). It is worth noting that the details
of construction in the walls and towers of Da’djaniyyeh are exactly
reproduced at Qasṭal, a fort which diverges much more than Da’djaniyyeh
from the Roman camp scheme, but even at Qasṭal the stairs and approaches
to the towers are copied from the Odhruḥ prototype. The remarkable
feature at Da’djaniyyeh is that the Roman camp plan is obscured and
almost lost. The greater part of the Intervallum is filled in with
buildings; stables, horrea, and armamentaria are linked to the
encompassing wall in a manner which recalls the ancient oriental system,
a system which is perhaps foreshadowed at Ḍumair and Ledjdjûn.[200] In a
wall set round with chambers there is no room for gates; the suppression
of gateways is therefore a necessary corollary of the change of scheme,
and at Da’djaniyyeh the Portae Praetoria and Decumana have disappeared.
The postern in the south-east wall is not a survival of the Porta
Praetoria; its existence is due to the fact that the main water-supply
of the fort was a cistern lying outside the walls at this point. Apart
from these striking innovations the interior preserves the Roman plan.
The Praetorium and Sacellum stand in their accustomed place, but the Via
Praetoria, besides having no independent gate, is no longer laid quite
symmetrically with regard to the Praetorium. Something like the same
combination of camp and oriental fortress can be seen in the Byzantine
citadel at ‘Abdeh, but the features of the Roman camp are more
completely obliterated and the Praetorium is probably represented by a
large ruined building, placed unsymmetrically against one of the
walls.[201] At Bshair the orientalizing process is carried a long step
further (Fig. 25). The chambers are placed symmetrically round the
enclosing wall; there is but
[Illustration: FIG. 25. Bshair. (From _Provincia Arabia_, by kind
permission of Professor Brünnow.)]
one gate, and the Sacellum itself (k) is set against the wall, leaving
the central court clear. Bshair is no longer a Roman limes fortress, it
is a military caravanserai. The same definition applies to the undated
fort at Qasṭal (Fig. 26). Again, the interior buildings are set round
the encompassing wall, but they are not single chambers; they are the
baits of the Mesopotamian palaces, minus the lîwân. Each unit is
composed of a small open court with rooms on either side (this is the
normal arrangement, though three of the baits at Qasṭal have rooms upon
one side only), and in the interior of the complex a court is left over.
There is no room in this scheme for a Praetorium and accordingly it is
given a place outside the walls,[202] but fragments of carved ornament
found in the principal court make it probable that a small Sacellum
occupied the centre. This principle is retained in the caravanserai
fortresses of other parts of Syria. At Dair al-Kafh (A.D. 306) a small
temple, which was subsequently converted
[Illustration: FIG. 26. Qasṭal. (From _Provincia Arabia_, by kind
permission of Professor Brünnow.)]
into a chapel, stood in the centre of the court;[203] in the barracks at
Anderîn (A.D. 558) a chapel is similarly placed,[204] and at Qaṣr ibn
Wardân (A.D. 561) a building, the uses of which have not been
determined, stands in the barrack yard.[205] Beyond this small
resemblance, the divergence of Qasṭal from the Roman camp type is
complete. All the more noticeable is its likeness to the only Sasanian
castrum of which we have any sufficient record. Qasṭal belongs to the
same family as the fort at Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn (Plate 73, Fig. 1). The towered
walls, the single gate, the chambers or baits placed round the interior
of the walls so as to leave a central court over, all these are
characteristic of the older building; but at Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn the lodging
of the commandant is placed inside the court, whereas at Qasṭal it is
outside.[206] In the Zohâb district there is another building of a
somewhat similar type, but it looks more like the ordinary caravanserai
than like a fortress.[207]
The caravanserai type, when once it had established itself on the
Arabian limes, was not to be ousted, but its later application is not
only to fortress and barrack, but to genuine lodgings for caravans. In
the Roman or Byzantine caravanserai of Khân al-Zebîb enough remains to
show that the interior buildings were placed round the encompassing
wall.[208] At Umm al-Walîd this interior arrangement is clearly
preserved;[209] at Umm al-Rasâs baits, not unlike those of Qasṭal, are
linked to the wall,[210] and the plan of a later building at Khân
al-Zebîb (it is probably Moslem) differs not at all from that of a small
modern caravanserai.[211] Khirbet al-Baiḍâ (see above, p. 56) belongs to
the same group, but from its geographical position it must be regarded
as a military station rather than as a true caravanserai, though it may
have served both purposes. To what cause is the singularly rapid change
from Roman camp to Asiatic caravanserai to be attributed? The answer is
obvious. On the Arabian limes the builders were brought into contact
with a strong Asiatic tradition; they were probably themselves local
workmen, and they orientalized the Roman scheme. They applied from the
first their own system of flanking towers to the defences; they grafted
an injunctive plan on to the Roman camp plan, and they ended by
discarding the latter in favour of the former.
The covering of dead ground by means of flanking towers and crémaillères
goes back in western Asia to the earliest times. The plan of the
acropolis of Gudea, drawn upon a tablet which is placed in the lap of a
statue of the patesi of Lagash, exhibits, in the middle of the third
millennium B.C., a system of fortification so fully developed that
scarcely a dead angle exists in the whole circuit of the walls (Fig.
27). In the science of military engineering even Egypt would seem to
have lagged behind Chaldaea, for the advantage of flanking towers was
not understood there until the Asiatic expeditions of the Eighteenth
Dynasty had taught the Pharaohs how to correct the defects in the
unbroken lines of their massive defences.[212] In the Assyrian reliefs,
double and triple rings of walls set thick with towers surround the
towns; towered walls are represented in the ground-plans,[213] and
excavation has proved the existence of rectangular towers in the walls
of Khorsâbâd and of Assur.[214] A chemin de ronde, loopholes, and
machicolations have been found _in situ_ in the walls of Assur, together
with traces of crenellation,[215] and all these features, as well as
hourds projecting from the battlements, and the ladders and
battering-rams which they were intended to counteract, are familiar upon
Assyrian reliefs. Rounded towers have not been revealed by Babylonian or
Assyrian excavations. They belonged to a later age or perhaps to a
different sphere of culture, the Hittite or Syrian. But Dieulafoy
observed them on the Achaemenid fortifications of Susa;[216] and at
Hatra, while the inner walls of the town were flanked by rectangular
towers, solid or casemated, and casemated bastions, on the outer wall a
rounded tower has been recorded, and Dr. Andrae conjectures that it was
one of many.[217] In this particular, as in the approximately circular
outline assumed by its walls, Hatra may exhibit traits borrowed from the
civilization of the southern Hittites. There are rounded and rectangular
towers in the larger Parthian palace at Niffer.[218] In Sasanian
fortifications the rounded tower seems practically to have displaced the
rectangular.[219]
[Illustration: FIG. 27. Lagash. (From _L’Acropole de Suse_, by kind
permission of M. Dieulafoy.)]
Flanking towers strengthened the walls of Hittite cities. At Zindjirli
the gradual development of more scientific methods can be traced in the
successive walls which encompassed the town and the acropolis. The inner
city wall, which was the first in date (it was probably built in the
thirteenth century), is provided with rectangular towers which have a
salience of 2 metres. The outer acropolis wall (Fig. 5), built about 900
B.C., has semicircular towers with a salience of 3½ metres; the
strategic disadvantages of rectangular towers had been realized and
corrected. A further improvement was effected in the inner cross wall,
behind the main gate of the acropolis. The wall is built in retreating
angles, and set with towers alternately rounded and rectangular; the
rectangular towers project 1·80 metres from the face of the wall, while
the rounded towers cover them with a projection of 4·50 metres. The
outer city wall was built after the destruction of the city by
Asarhaddon in 681 B.C. and is no more than a copy of the earliest wall,
but at the same period casemates were added to the walls of the
acropolis.[220] The Hittite capital of Qadesh on the Orontes, as
depicted in the frescoes at Abû Simbel, a temple built by Rameses II
(1388-1322), was protected by a wall with towers, the height of which
must be due partly to the imagination of the Egyptian craftsman.[221]
These towers have the appearance of being round, but the absence of
architectural records of round towers at so early a date throws doubt
upon the matter. In Asia Minor rectangular towers have been found upon
the outer and the inner walls of Boghâz Keui;[222] they do not as a rule
exceed a projection of 2½ metres. At Troy the earliest walls had
towers 3 metres wide, and 2 metres salient; the curtain wall was in some
places not longer than 10 metres, and the city gates were flanked by
deep bastions. In the walls of the third period at Troy three towers
were uncovered on the south-east side; they are 3·20 metres wide, 2·35
salient, and are separated from one another by a distance of only 6·40
metres.[223] But on the Greek mainland, at Tiryns, and at Mycenae, the
fortifications are characterized by crémaillères and by deep bastions
rather than by towers.[224] Much more lavish is the use of towers in the
pre-Hellenic cities of Asia Minor, other than Troy. The very ancient
acropolis on the Yamanlar Dâgh above Smyrna possessed rectangular
towers.[225] In Caria the fortification known as the Wall of the Leleges
opposite Iassos had rounded towers and crémaillères,[226] and the walls
of Alinda rectangular towers à cheval.[227] The Lycian towns depicted
upon the bas-reliefs in the tombs at Pinara, discovered by Benndorf and
Niemann, exhibit salient rectangular towers,[228] while fortified towers
of the same character are depicted on the monument of the Nereids at
Xanthos,[229] and we have a plan of the ancient walled town of Pydnai in
which the features portrayed on the reliefs are clearly to be
recognized.[230] Nor must the towns of the Phoenicians be forgotten, the
towered walls of Mount Eryx in Sicily, of the acropolis of Lixos in
Mauritania Tingitana, of Thapsus, of Carthage, and of Tyre.[231]
With such a wide development of fortifications by means of flanking
towers, extending from the cultural spheres of the Babylonians and the
Hittites over all the western parts of Asia, and carried by the
Phoenicians into the furthest limits of the Mediterranean, it is not
surprising that the fortifications of Greek towns in the fifth century
should exhibit the same features. Assos, the finest example of this
period, carries on the tradition in the crémaillères and rectangular
towers of its walls;[232] and Messene, with its rounded and rectangular
towers, shows in the succeeding century a yet more complete
understanding of military architecture.[233] The acropolis of Selinus,
with semicircular towers, bears witness at a like age to the carrying
over of the Greek system of defences into Sicily.[234] The walls of
Ephesus, built by Lysimachus towards the close of the third century,
‘one of the greatest monuments of fortification which have been left to
us by antiquity,’[235] show the towered wall of the Hellenistic age,
while Mantineia, with its circular outer wall, is like an isolated
reversion to the round cities of Hittite lands.[236] Philon of Byzantium
formulated the laws which governed Greek fortification in the
Alexandrian age. Towers, crémaillères, and casemated walls combined to
make a system of defence all the elements of which had been familiar to
the Hittites and to the Assyrians, and the methods of attack which he
sought to counter were the same as those which can be seen on the
Assyrian reliefs.[237] Vitruvius advocates the flanking of walls by
round or polygonal rather than by rectangular towers, but his words
should be taken as a counsel of perfection, not as representing the
practice of his day, for the systematic use of rounded towers by Roman
engineers is later than Augustan times and polygonal towers are unusual
before the age of Diocletian. At Aosta, which was fortified soon after
25 B.C., the towers are rectangular,[238] but at Fréjus and at Autun,
both of which were fortified in the Augustan age, we have two of the
rare instances of circular or semicircular towers.[239] As Schultze has
pointed out, the planning of towers varies with time and place, but not
infrequently rounded and rectangular towers can be seen on buildings of
the same date.[240] As at Zindjirli the rounded tower denotes a
technical advance, though the rectangular tower is not necessarily
displaced by it. The typically Roman conception of frontier defences,
the fortified limes, was definitely abandoned in Europe about the year
A.D. 360, but a century earlier the invasion of Gaul and Spain by the
Franks had proved that the long line of strongholds was powerless to
check the inrush of barbarian hordes, and in the last half of the third
century the fortified town was virtually substituted for the fortified
frontier. Towered walls sprang up about the cities of Roman Gaul, and
the work of fortification begun by Probus was carried on by
Diocletian.[241] The same process can be observed throughout the empire
during the course of the third century, and almost without exception
these later fortifications were strengthened by circular or semicircular
towers.
But if the walls of Roman cities can claim to have inherited, through
Greece and the civilizations of the Aegean, the formulae of the ancient
East, the fortified camp was essentially the creation of Rome herself.
The stockaded earthwork, with rounded corners and lines devoid of
flanking defences, determined the plan of the stone wall which replaced
it in Europe and in Africa,[242] and it was not until the Romans applied
their system to lands which had seen the birth and development of a
science of warfare different from their own that they modified their
design. The difference was fundamental. The Roman camp was intended
primarily for purposes of attack. It was the camp of an army on the
march, indispensable, in the eyes of commanders as wary as they were
daring, to a halt that lasted no longer than a single night, but in its
essence impermanent. The oriental fortress displays a contrary
intention. It was defensive and abiding, a stronghold provided with few
exits (since the gateway is the weakest point of a fortified position),
but with high walls, heavily flanked by towers which would give the
garrison every advantage against the besiegers.
By the time of Diocletian the transition upon the Arabian limes from
camp to fortress had been completed. The Umayyad khalifs, when they in
turn strewed the fringes of the Syrian desert with the creations of
their architects, copied, not the Roman plan which had been imported
under Trajan and had survived, in broad outline at any rate, at least,
as late as the year A.D. 162 (the date of Ḍumair), they copied its
oriental counterpart, adapting it to the use of princes by methods
borrowed from Byzantium and from Persia. We know that the Umayyads, like
the Ghassânids before them, repaired and re-occupied the Roman
fortresses. Hamza al-Iṣfahâni believed that Qasṭal and Odhruh had been
built by Djabala ibn al-Ḥârith;[243] Yâqût mentions that Yazîd ibn ‘Abd
al-malik (Yazîd II) lived at Muwaqqar, and judging from the existing
remains it is probable that he either built or rebuilt it.[244] His son
Walîd occupied Qastṭal and Azraq.[245] But princes whose passion for
magnificent construction was so great that the subjects of Yazîd III
could see cause for exacting from him, when he came to the throne, a
promise that he would not lay stone to stone or brick to brick,[246]
were not likely to content themselves with the forts of the Roman limes.
The poets, who were welcome guests at their palaces in the wilderness,
have left descriptions of the luxury of their surroundings,[247] and the
picture has been completed by the discovery of some of the buildings
themselves. None of the ruins which have been examined are mentioned by
contemporary writers under the name by which they are known to the
Beduin, but a palace or palaces are recorded in the Wâdi Ghadaf, and it
is in that district that Ṭûbah, Kharâneh, and Qṣair ‘Amrah stand.[248]
Mshattâ, which was the first to be visited by archaeologists, bears a
name which is probably modern.
Qṣair ‘Amrah lies somewhat outside the architectural type to which the
other three buildings belong. It is a small unfortified pleasure-palace
with a reception hall and throne-room on a basilical plan, and a bath.
Very closely related to it is the early Mohammadan ruin of Ḥammâm
al-Ṣarakh, discovered by the Princeton Expedition.[249] The bath at
Djebel Sais is not dissimilar, but in the light of our present knowledge
it requires re-examination.[250] Both at Qṣair ‘Amrah and at Ḥammâm
al-Ṣarakh there is a small dome over a square chamber. At Ḥammâm
al-Ṣarakh this chamber is 2·15 metres square; the dome is set on
pendentives and lighted by windows. It is laid up in gores with
projecting ribs constructed of long, thin, wedge-shaped bits of shale,
entirely undressed and completely covered by plaster. When intact it
must have presented an appearance not unlike that of the ribbed dome at
Ukhaiḍir, except that the ribs were set wider apart and the pendentive
substituted for the primitive bracket. Concerning the structural
features of the dome at Qṣair ‘Amrah, the publication of the Viennese
Academy, which leaves much to be desired, is not explicit. Dr. Musil,
who is always the best guide in matters architectural and
archaeological, describes it as being set on pendentives and lighted by
windows in the dome.[251] Here and at Ḥammâm al-Ṣarakh two semi-domed
niches are placed opposite to one another, one at either end of the
domed chamber, and a room (3·30 metres square at Ḥammâm al-Ṣarakh) next
to the domed chamber is roofed with a groined vault. We have a similar
use of the groined vault in the east annex at Ukhaiḍir. At Ḥammâm
al-Ṣarakh some of the doors are covered by straight lintels, others
(together with all the windows) by semicircular arches. Some of the
wider arches are slightly pointed, but the vaults and transverse arches
in the reception-room are semicircular. At Qṣair ‘Amrah straight lintels
are the rule for doors and windows, but over the architrave of the wide
door leading into the audience chamber there is a shallow relieving
arch. The three parallel barrel vaults of the audience chamber are
visible upon the exterior, and the absence of the flat roof obviates the
need of tubes between the vaults. In both of these bâdiyahs the walls
were decorated with frescoes. Qṣair ‘Amrah was built between the years
711 and 750, when the house of Umayyah came to an end, the earlier date
being determined by the presence among the frescoes of a representation
of Roderick, the last king of the West Goths, who came first into
contact with the Arabs at the battle of Xeres in 711.[252]
To the same group belong a small ruined bath at ‘Abdeh[253] and the bath
at Rḥaibeh,[254] the first being possibly Byzantine. At ‘Abdeh the dome
placed between two semi-domed niches is set on horizontal brackets. In
the palace of Qaṣr ibn Wardân the dome between two semi-domed niches is
the basis of the plan, but it is further elaborated by the placing of a
semi-domed chamber on the alternate sides. These two chambers are not,
however, an integral part of the domed chamber, for they are separated
from it by solid walls broken only by doorways. Fortunately we are not
reduced here to conjecture concerning the date. On the lintel of the
south gate an inscription gives the year A.D. 564.[255] It is clear,
therefore, that the dome between semi-domed niches is an architectural
scheme which was taken over by the builders of the Mohammadan age from
their Byzantine predecessors, and all the evidence points to the
conclusion that in both periods the artificers were Syrians.
Al-Ṭûbah is the southernmost of the Wâdi Ghadaf palaces[256] (Fig. 28).
Its plan is that of Qasṭal repeated three times, with the addition of
projecting rectangular chambers on either side of the gates. When the
three main courts adjoin one another the side chambers against the
dividing walls are omitted. The individual baits are very similar to
those of Qasṭal, but only one row of chambers is interposed between each
of the small courts. Thus at first sight it looks as if the Ṭûbah bait
consisted of a court with rooms on one side only, except in the
north-east and north-west angles, where the courts have chambers on both
sides, that the corner spaces may be filled in. Actually, however, the
[Illustration: FIG. 28. Ṭûbah. (From _Qṣeir ‘Amra_, by kind permission
of the Akad. der Wiss. in Vienna.)]
bait centres round each alternate court, which communicates with the two
chambers on either side, and the intermediate court is merely a yard
common to two baits. The bait of Ṭûbah is therefore the same as the
typical bait of Qasṭal. The enclosing walls and the foundation of all
other walls are of stone, the rest of the building is constructed of
brick tiles. The western end of the palace, and most of the northern
side were completed; the eastern and south-eastern parts were never
carried above the foundations. The doorways are covered by brick and
stone arches, but a stone or wood lintel was placed under the arch.
Where the lintel is of stone its outer side is adorned with an
interesting early Mohammadan pattern, which has affinities with the
carving on the eastern end of the façade at Mshattâ. The stone lintels
are not carried through to the inner side of the arch. The arches, which
are round, are built of stone, as is the wall below them. The wooden
lintels have rotted away or have been removed by the Arabs. They were
laid in brick walls and covered by brick relieving arches composed of
two rings of brick tiles. In the inner ring the bricks are set
vertically, parallel to the main axis of the arch, with the broad side
outwards; in the outer ring they are laid horizontally, at right angles
to the main axis, with the narrow end outwards. It is the principle on
which many of the smaller arches at Ukhaiḍir are constructed. The brick
arches at Ṭûbah are a stilted, slightly pointed oval; that is to say
that the transition from the ovoid to the pointed arch is illustrated
here in much the same manner as at Ukhaiḍir.
[Illustration: FIG. 29. Kharâneh, upper floor. (From _Qṣeir ‘Amra_, by
kind permission of the Akad. der Wiss. in Vienna.)]
Kharâneh lies a few hours to the west of Qṣair ‘Amrah[257] (Fig. 29). It
is two stories high and about 35 metres square, and it consists of baits
grouped round a central court (Plate 79, Fig. 1). A rounded tower is set
at each of the four corners, a semicircular tower in the middle of each
of three sides, and in the fourth side stands a gate between
semicircular towers, which are cut away on the interior face, like the
towers on the south, east, and west gateways of Ukhaiḍir (Plate 79, Fig.
2). The rooms on the ground floor are ill lighted, and were probably
intended for stables, storehouses, and guard-rooms. The court was
surrounded by a cloister, the roof of which rested on arches springing
from angle piers. On the upper floor this roof, which was constructed of
stone slabs, provided a passage or gallery into which the baits of the
first floor opened (Plate 80, Fig. 1). The rooms on the upper floor
correspond with those below, but in some of the larger chambers (three,
according to Musil’s plan) the vault is divided into sections by means
of transverse arches borne on slender engaged columns in groups of three
(Plate 80, Fig. 2). The column groups recall with singular fidelity the
triple reed-columns on the façade of Sarvistân. Beyond the evidence
afforded by Dr. Moritz’s photograph, we have no information regarding
structural details, though they must be well worth a careful study. The
vaults and transverse arches seem to belong to the same family as those
of room 32 at Ukhaiḍir. The end of the chamber at Kharâneh is closed by
a semi-dome reaching from the back wall to the first transverse
arch--the same arrangement as has been described in the mosque and in
gallery No. 134 at Ukhaiḍir. It is also extremely significant that the
semi-dome at Kharâneh should be carried over the angles of the walls on
squinch arches. The arches spring over the angle instead of being filled
in with a small semi-dome. The fillets round the arches and round the
rectangular windows must be compared with the fillets round the arched
niches in room 32 and round the archivolts of squinch and niche at
Chehâr Qapû. Another very important point is mentioned by Dr. Moritz. To
the right of the audience chamber, which he photographed, and connected
with it by a door, is a small rectangular room, beyond which lies
another rectangular room of about the same size. Round this last room
runs a moulding, above which stand circular plaques of stucco decorated
with formal plant-motives in Sasanian style, and with late Syrian
leaf-motives. One of the plaques Dr. Moritz detached from the wall, and
it can be seen standing upon the floor in his photograph (Plate 80, Fig.
2), and is now in the Kaiser Friedrich Museum in Berlin. It is more than
a coincidence that to the right of an audience hall there should be
found both at Ukhaiḍir and at Kharâneh a chamber, the elaborate
ornamentation of which points to its having some special ceremonial
significance. At Ukhaiḍir this side chamber is carried through to the
audience hall, at Kharâneh it is divided from it by an interposed room,
but the principle is the same in both cases, and in both cases it must
be connected with laws of etiquette of the Umayyad courts with which we
are unacquainted. Over the above-named doorway, leading from the
audience hall into the first right-hand chamber, Dr. Moritz found a
graffito inscription in which a date corresponding with November, A.D.
710, is mentioned. Kharâneh, therefore, must have been standing at that
time. The archway he describes as an ordinary round arch; in the
photograph the door appears to be set within a niche, whereof the arch
oversails the wall, like the larger archways at Ukhaiḍir. The door
itself is covered by a lintel, and a lintel of solid stone covers the
door of the main entrance (Plate 79, Fig. 2). In his section Dr. Musil
represents some of the doors as round-arched and some with a lintel and
a relieving arch above it; the latter follow a scheme which is common to
most of the buildings in the west side of the Syrian desert and exists
at Ctesiphon, but is unknown at Ukhaiḍir and unusual in the later
Mohammadan buildings of Mesopotamia. Of the loophole windows in the
outer wall at Kharâneh, those on the ground floor are finished in
precisely the same manner as the loopholes in the towers at Ukhaiḍir,
the opening is filled in with an upright stone against which two bricks
are placed diagonally. On the upper floor the loopholes show the same
method somewhat simplified. There is but one main door, as in the
original scheme of Ukhaiḍir. The masonry is of undressed stones set in
mortar, with an occasional bonding course as at Ukhaiḍir. All round the
castle, between the two upper rows of loopholes, runs a decoration
consisting of two horizontal courses of brick with a brick zigzag
between. On the towers this band of ornamental brickwork is repeated
lower down. The presence of brick used decoratively leads one to suspect
that it may be used also in the finer vaults, but like all the technical
questions at Kharâneh, this cannot be answered without further
observation. Over this main gate there appears to have been some kind of
hourd, corresponding in level with the upper story; above it the wall
between the towers is decorated with five perpendicular bands of late
Syrian leaf-motives. Dr. Musil’s reconstruction of the gate[258] cannot
be correct; it does not take into account the horizontal floor-line
below the opening which gave access to the hourd, and it covers the
bands of ornament. The Kharâneh gateway must be reconstructed in much
the same fashion as the three gates in the outer wall at Ukhaiḍir. A
vaulted chemin de ronde seems to have crowned the walls.
The rooms of the upper story are grouped into five baits. Over the
entrance an additional chamber is interposed between two baits (compare
the courts at Ṭûbah which are common to two baits) and on the opposite
side there are two extra rooms to fill up the angles. These two
additional rooms communicate with the baits on either side, and the
gate-house chamber communicates with either bait; otherwise the baits
are kept distinct from one another. The scheme is in fact that of Ṭûbah
or Da’djaniyyeh, but with the small courts vaulted over and turned into
audience halls or big living-rooms, and here we may seek the explanation
of the difference between the baits of the palaces on the eastern side
and of those on the western side of the Syrian desert. The normal bait
on the Mesopotamian side consists of two lîwân groups with a court
between, and the lîwân is derived, as has been shown, from the khilâni.
The domestic arrangements of the East, where the women are lodged apart
from the men, and if possible the several wives apart from each other,
make the bait system in some form indispensable to every dwelling-house,
but in Syria the khilâni plan was adopted only for monumental façades,
such as that of Solomon’s temple, and from it, through temples of the
pagan era, to Christian churches. The normal bait on the Syrian side has
therefore no connexion with the khilâni; the lîwân is absent. The group
of chambers consists of two pairs of rooms with an intervening court, or
in complexes more closely knit together, an intervening hall. The group
thus formed is the half of a new unit, and may either share a central
court with other half-baits, as at Kharâneh, or be provided with a small
court of its own and another half-bait, as at Mshattâ. This distinction
apart--it is a distinction which is due to local custom and local
architectural tradition--the close relationship which exists between
Kharâneh and Ukhaiḍir cannot be insisted upon too strongly, for it helps
to determine the date of Ukhaiḍir.
Mshattâ lies a few hours to the west of Kharâneh (Plate 81).[259] It is
the best known of the Syrian ḥîrahs, and its magnificent carved façade
is now in the Kaiser Friedrich Museum. All that concerns me here,
however, is its place in the architectural group of which Ukhaiḍir is
the eastern representative. It was perhaps built by Yazîd II,[260] and
it was left unfinished at his death. It may therefore be a little later
than Kharâneh, for Yazîd died in A.D. 724. As at Ṭûbah and Ukhaiḍir, the
materials used in it are brick and stone. It is surrounded by a wall set
with towers, of which, as at Ukhaiḍir, more than the half-circle
projects. The towers on either side of the main gateway are octagonal.
Of the buildings immediately within the gate we have nothing but the
ground-plan. Roughly speaking they correspond to the three-storied block
at Ukhaiḍir, and as Dr. Herzfeld has pointed out,[261] a further
correspondence lies in the fact that the oblong court to the right of
the gate-house group, with a niche in the qiblah wall, was probably a
mosque. The mosque at Ukhaiḍir occupies much the same position with
regard to the gate, but since the orientation of the two buildings is
different, the qiblah niche at Mshattâ is hollowed out of the main outer
wall, while the niche at Ukhaiḍir is hollowed out of an opposite wall.
(It must be noted that the big mosque in the palace of Balkuwârâ
occupies the same position relatively to the gate.) The conclusion which
Dr. Herzfeld reaches, namely that neither palace was a copy of the
other, but that both were reproductions by different hands of the same
general scheme, is borne out in all other particulars. Beyond the
gate-house block lies the central court; beyond the court the hall of
audience. At Mshattâ, where the lîwân was unknown, its place was taken
by an aisled hall on a basilical plan. Instead of the simple apse there
is a trifoliate chamber covered by a dome. The most renowned example of
the trifoliate apse is in the church at Bethlehem. The learned disagree
as to whether that apse was built by Constantine or by Justinian, but in
either case it was earlier than Mshattâ. For the rest, the trifoliate or
quadrifoliate chamber covered by a dome is a familiar Hellenistic motive
which occurs frequently in palaces and in the baptisteries of early
Christian churches. At Ukhaiḍir we have, in the same position as the
trifoliate chamber, the quadrangular room No. 30. The throne-room, if I
may so term it, at Mshattâ bears comparison with the throne-room at
Qṣair ‘Amrah, where two small apsed rooms correspond to the apsed side
niches. On either side of the ceremonial chambers of Mshattâ lies a
bait, the unit, now complete, which was foreshadowed at Kharâneh and at
Qasṭal. Such is the arrangement of the central part of the palace. The
two wings (to return to Mas’ûdi’s definition) were never built.
Schultz’s ingenious reconstruction gives in each wing a row of baits,
all adhering more or less closely to the norm, with subsidiary courts,
and chambers at either end to fill up the space. When we come to
structural details, the materials are sadly lacking. Either the
buildings are too much ruined to afford the necessary information, or
the photographs which have been taken are insufficient.[262] Those given
by Brünnow and Domaszewski are the best. From them, and from the
reconstruction of Schultz, it is possible to see that the vaults
oversail the walls[263] and that they are built of a double slice of
tiles laid vertically, parallel to the main axis, so as to dispense with
centering. The only photograph of a doorway which has been
published[264] shows a relieving arch constructed of the same double
slice of tiles, with place for a lintel below it. Schultz was able to
determine that the lintel was composed of a wooden beam carrying a
straight arch of stones. The straight arch occurs at Ukhaiḍir, but
without the support of a lintel. The relieving arch has the form of the
brick arches at Ṭûbah, a stilted and slightly pointed oval, and from the
photograph it would seem that it was set back from the face of the jambs
below the lintel, but Schultz in his reconstructions gives it the same
width as the door opening.[265] Brünnow and Domaszewski reconstruct the
doorways in the domed chamber without lintels, and the doorways in the
small chambers of one of the baits without arches--that is to say, they
are arch-shaped, but the arch is merely cut out of the solid wall.
Schultz places lintels and relieving arches over all the doors. _Kim
belir?_ The windows are small and round-arched. The closets were in the
towers as at Ukhaiḍir, and Schultz in one of his drawings[266] places
over the niche a fluted semi-dome. We know no more.
It now remains to sum up the conclusions reached with regard to the
origin of ḥîrah and bâdiyah on either side of the desert. And first it
is clear that Ukhaiḍir stands in the closest relations to the Syrian
group, not only in general conception, but in details of construction.
But Ukhaiḍir reflects the older Lakhmid ḥîrahs, those palaces that were
supposed to represent an army in battle with two wings, and through them
it re-echoes the Sasanian palaces which were contemporary with them.
These too, as we know from the palace of Khusrau at Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn, were
composed of a centre and two wings. Again, allowance must be made for
Byzantine influence in the Sasanian palaces and the Lakhmid ḥîrahs.
Justinian lent artificers to Khusrau I; Khawarnaq was built by a Greek.
The intercourse, friendly and unfriendly, between the Sasanian and the
Byzantine empires was unbroken. When it was friendly it took the form of
commerce, and architects were among the exchangeable commodities; when
it was unfriendly it took the form of prisoners of war. Khusrau I must
have captured a large and varied selection of artificers when he removed
the whole population of Antioch to Seleucia. It is improbable that they
should have sat idle in their new abode. They exercised their crafts,
and they exercised them in their own manner. It may well have become the
fashion among the citizens of Ctesiphon to shop in the Greek Bazaar,
just as the citizens of Damascus shop in the Greek Bazaar of their own
town. Greek influence, as we know, did not begin with Justinian. It
began with a mightier figure than that of the imperial lawgiver--with
the mightiest of all, with Alexander. I have already shown that the
Mohammadan lîwân took to itself a part of the Greek peristyle and uses
it still under the name of ṭarmah. Who can tell when this process began?
The Greek peristyle exists in a Parthian palace at Niffer and in
Parthian houses at Babylon. Hatra fronts the desert with a Hellenistic
façade; so does Ctesiphon; it adorns the central court of Ukhaiḍir. But
that Byzantine or earlier Western influence affected in any fundamental
manner the plan of palace or ḥîrah is not borne out by this evidence. No
fundamental change can be observed at any time, but on the contrary a
steady, continuous growth of oriental methods, on oriental lines, and a
steady development based on developing needs, ceremonial and social.
From the days of the Hittites the palace was composed of a centre and
two wings. The khilâni palaces of Zindjirli were laid out on a small
scale; the khilâni palaces of Pasargadae and Persepolis covered a wide
area, but provided little better accommodation; for the courtiers and
guards were lodged elsewhere, in buildings of a less permanent
character. Persepolis was the capital of an empire; all the needs of the
time were fulfilled there. But this is not the case at Firûzâbâd and
Sarvistân. Of the capital seats of the Sasanian kings we know but two,
in any real sense, Ctesiphon and Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn, and at Ctesiphon we know
only the great hall of audience--together with a fairly accurate guess
at its flanking chambers. Before we can say that the extensive wings,
which at Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn were added to the khilâni palace, were not a
natural development (and they are planned on principles which are
entirely oriental) we must have a clear conception of that which lay
about the great hall at Ctesiphon, of the palace at Dastadjird which
Heraclius committed to the flames, and of the palaces in the Zohâb
district. The oriental palace, in the form which it had received from
Chosroës and Nu’mânid, laid a strong hold upon the imagination of the
East. In the Days of Ignorance the Arab of the desert entered its courts
with praise; in the days of conquest he divided its spoils with his
fellow soldiers, and sent a part to Mekkah, glorying in the God-given
strength which had dispossessed the kings of the earth. Not by literary
evidence alone can the deep impression which it created be measured. It
gave birth to the Syrian ḥîrahs and to the stupendous residences of the
Abbâsids.
On the Syrian side of the desert there is another element to be
considered, the Roman legionary camp, and this too had a centre and two
wings. The truth is that any complex of buildings laid out on an ordered
plan falls almost inevitably into this disposition. The palace of the
Flavians on the Palatine had a centre and two wings, yet it was not for
that reason derived from the khilâni or related to the oriental palaces.
Its ancestor was the Greek peristyle house which goes back in turn to
the megaron palaces of Mycenae and Tiryns and Troy. Neither were
Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn and its offspring in the Syrian desert derived from the
limes camp. Gradually but surely, while Rome still held the Syrian
frontier, or rather while Rûm--the Hellenistic, the Byzantine Rome,
itself half-orientalized--held it, the ancient Asiatic scheme invaded
the limes fortress, pushed out the Praetorium, or pushed it back against
the encompassing wall, which had become an indispensable requisite, and
having grouped its baits after its own fashion, left a court over. The
union of both sides of the desert under the hand of a single ruler
quickened the process. Neither the Roman Qasṭal nor the Umayyad Ṭûbah
are palaces on the Persian ḥîrah plan; then suddenly Kharâneh and
Mshattâ spring into being, uniting the oriental traditions of the
Mesopotamian side of the desert with oriental traditions which had
developed independently from the same root on the Syrian side. The
Syrian architects were masters of a more scientific technique, for they
had been trained in a Graeco-Roman school. They taught their
Mesopotamian brothers, and even the builders of remote Ukhaiḍir had
learnt how to lay a cross vault.
But if the legionary camp is powerless to affect the ancient palace
plan, it did not wither away, unnoticed, like a plant upon uncongenial
soil. It bloomed again in the cities of the eastern Roman empire, in
Boṣrâ, in Damascus, in Apamea. Towns such as Diyârbekr, where not one
Roman stone remains upon another, still betray a Roman origin in their
crossed thoroughfares and quadruple gateways.[267] And therewith it
returned, remodelled, to the West. The palace at Antioch was built on
the plan of the Roman limes camp. Diocletian copied it at Spalato, and
Constantine’s palace in his new capital was in some respects an echo of
that of Diocletian, though the true oriental palace was not without
effect upon Constantinople.[268] The imperial residence, stereotyped by
him, went on into other phases, too complex, and often too obscure, to
be followed here, but it is curious to note that five hundred years
later, Theophilus, himself an Asiatic, since his father, Michael II, was
a Phrygian by birth, built for himself a palace on the Bithynian coast
which was modelled avowedly on the palace of the khalifs at
Baghdâd.[269] A few years later Mutawakkil laid out Balkuwârâ--what
sister _ḥîri_ with two sleeves stood at Bryas, on the shores of Marmora?
One other point remains. The palace of Ukhaiḍir is contained within a
towered wall which is wholly distinct from it. This is not the
encompassing wall of the ancient East, the primary condition of the
structure. It has the four gateways of the Roman camp, though the
unneeded cross-roads have dropped away. Here at last Imperial Rome has
come to her own. For all its oriental system of fortification, its
towers and its hourds, its machicolations and its loopholes, its
casemates and its crenellations, this wall is perhaps no other than the
wall which surrounded the legionary camp. But I doubt whether the camp
itself, which made so fleeting an apparition on the Asiatic frontiers,
was the deciding factor. The camp lived on in the city and made a far
deeper impression through the city than through the limes fortresses.
The scheme is repeated at Sâmarrâ. Balkuwârâ forms part of a great
enclosure similarly disposed, with three gates, like the gates of
Ukhaiḍir, the palace taking the place of the fourth.[270] The area
covered by the enclosure is so extensive that it resembles a town rather
than a royal dwelling, and through this town run the crossed
thoroughfares which were once the Via Principalis and the Via
Praetoria.
CHAPTER V
THE FAÇADE
The breaking up of the wall-face into horizontal zones was a device
familiar to the ancient East. In the main gateway of Sargon’s palace at
Khorsâbâd the wall is divided into a high orthostatic podium, decorated
with reliefs, and a brick superstructure diversified by vertical flutes
and rectangular recesses.[271] In the interior of the palace, the court
of the ḥaram shows a similar disposition, except that the podium is of
enamelled brick, not of stone.[272] The upper part of the walls is in no
case preserved. On Assyrian reliefs it is not uncommon to find a
horizontal band along the top of the walls below the crenellations;[273]
but the nature of the upper zone or zones in decorated façades such as
those of Khorsâbâd is a matter of conjecture. Concerning Chaldaean wall
decoration we have little evidence. The building on the Wuswas mound at
Warka, of which Loftus published a sketch,[274] has recently been
re-examined by Dr. Jordan, who believes it to be post-Babylonian.[275]
The walls of the temple of Bel at Niffer were decorated with shallow
buttresses, while the gates bore resemblance, both in plan and
decoration, to the gates of Khorsâbâd.[276] The gateway of Gudea at
Tellôh has the same doubly recessed rectangular niches that have been
noted at Khorsâbâd, but they do not seem to have been grouped in panels,
and the plinth is reduced to insignificant proportions.[277] It is
significant that in the post-Babylonian construction at Tellôh both the
rectangular niche and the flute are present, and it may be surmised that
the walls of Wuswas, with their recessed and fluted panels placed one
above the other, represent an ancient scheme. It is a scheme which may
be compared with that of the façade of Ctesiphon (see below, p. 134). At
intervals groups of recessed niches are carried up continuously to the
height of two registers of panels, just as in the two lower zones at
Ctesiphon the engaged columns embrace two registers of arched niches.
But at Ctesiphon we have architectural forms borrowed from Hellenism
instead of the surface decoration (recess and flute) of Chaldaea and
Assyria.
The orthostatic construction was used in Hittite architecture at
Zindjirli, Boghâz Keui, and Sakcheh Geuzu. Mr. Hogarth has found it at
Carchemish and Baron Oppenheim at Râs al-’Ain.[278] But in all these
buildings, Babylonian, Hittite, and Assyrian, there was no attempt to
ornament the façade with the similitude of plastic architectural forms.
The elements of such ornament were not indeed lacking, but they appear
in isolated examples and were not applied to the wall-face in a
continuous decorative system. Side by side with stelae and altars
adorned with fluted motives akin to those of the façades[279] there are
instances of mock architecture in relief. An Assyrian stela upon a slab
found at Quyundjik and now in the British Museum will serve as an
illustration (Fig. 11). Two pilasters carry an architrave consisting of
a double fillet and a band of crenellations; between and behind the
pilasters an arched niche, placed in counterfeited perspective, frames a
hunting scene. It is an early example of the application of the third
dimension to architectural ornament, and it conveys the impression of
plastic architecture in two planes. As Professor Delbrück observes, by
the addition of free-standing columns placed before the pilasters, we
should have here a motive familiar to Graeco-Roman façades.[280] The
archivolt, of which the enrichment is expressed at Quyundjik in the
terms of a shallow fillet, appears at Khorsâbâd, with enamelled brick
enrichment, over a doorway,[281] and also upon reliefs.[282] All the
methods of decorating the face of the arch which were known to antiquity
are found on the Assyrian monuments. The podium façade is oriental, for
it was used in Assyria and in Persia. Pre-Greek is the employment of
blind openings; in the Persepolitan palaces a blind niche is placed in
every intercolumniation, and in plastic architecture an open gallery or
loggia was common to Egypt and to Assyria.[283] In pre-Hellenic Egypt
and western Asia there is, however, no example of a continuous series of
arches in relief, though the continuous treatment of decoration on the
wall-face is typical of Babylonian architecture from the earliest time,
and it remained only to apply it to true architectural motives instead
of to the purely decorative motives of Chaldaea and Assyria. That these
last were mainly based upon the outward aspect of primitive wooden
structures, I do not doubt, but at the remote date at which we first
know them they had already lost all structural significance. The step
from pattern to imitative architecture must have been taken at an early
stage in the Hellenistic East. Seleucid buildings which have vanished
are reflected in the stupas of Hellenistic India, where the surfaces are
adorned with blind openings between engaged piers, and in the rock-cut
temples, where the decorative scheme of the façade is a podium carrying
a colonnade in relief.[284] In Egypt rows of niches are present in the
interior of tombs,[285] and an early example of the same motive can be
seen in the gateway at Perge, a city which lay under the direct
influence of Antioch.[286] The lightening of the massive wall by means
of niches and blind openings can be traced through pre-Greek
architecture in Mesopotamia (Assyrian palaces and temples) and in Egypt
(from the Eighteenth Dynasty and even earlier) down to the Achaemenid
period. The systematic application of this principle to the wall-face,
and its union with imitative architecture in relief as a decorative
scheme took place, as far as can be determined at present, in the
Hellenistic age.
In the third and in the second century B.C. the division of the wall
into two zones by means of a moulding appears at Delos, Priene,
Magnesia, and other parts of western Asia,[287] and a little later it is
found in what is known as the incrusted style at Oscan Pompeii. The
lower zone consists of unpainted stucco decoration representing a stone
wall, composed of one or of two rows of orthostatae, and above them
several courses of dressed stones. The upper zone, which was at first
undecorated (it represented space, the upper air), takes on later the
semblance of a colonnaded gallery[288] in imitation of the open
galleries characteristic of Eastern Hellenistic architecture.[289] The
podium façade carrying an open arcade is, as Professor Delbrück is
careful to point out, in origin different from the galleried wall, but
in façade schemes the two run together so as to be almost
indistinguishable. The theme is represented in relief upon the façade of
the Bouleuterion at Miletus[290] and frequently in Pompeii, where,
however, the engaged columns do not stand upon a podium.[291] Behind the
columns, both at Delos and in the Pompeiian examples, the wall is still
divided into two zones by a moulding. In all cases it is a theme which
stands as a representation in relief of plastic architecture, of deep
colonnades such as those which were to be seen on the Mausoleum at
Halicarnassus.[292] The blind order of the Ephebeum at Priene may be
cited as another striking example of imitative architecture.[293]
Similarly the superimposition of one blind order upon another, a
decorative motive so familiar in Roman theatres and amphitheatres, finds
its prototype in the colonnades of Hellenistic stoae, such as those
erected by Attalus in Athens and in Pergamon.[294]
Professor Delbrück is of opinion that the impulse towards decorating the
wall-face with the similitude of plastic architecture was quickened by
Greek painting, which, from the fourth century B.C. onward, gained an
increasing mastery in the representation of spatial dimensions. Plastic
examples of the phase of development represented by the Boscoreale
frescoes might be expected in the second century B.C., and in fact there
were at that period mock colonnades in relief, such as the Ephebeum at
Priene. The cutting away of the wall-face by means of niches was
foreshadowed in Hellenistic art; the lightening of the wall-mass by
niches has been noticed in the gate at Perge and the tombs of
Alexandria, while windows in the intercolumniations were of frequent
occurrence.[295] It is possible, as Professor Delbrück suggests, that in
Hellenistic Mesopotamia decoration by means of blind openings, whether
doors, windows, or niches, won a great popularity because it was based
on pre-Hellenic tradition, and it is interesting to observe that the
only early examples of the arched niche, which is the leading motive at
Ukhaiḍir, are to be found in western Asia.[296] But the systematic
application of these principles to the façade was accomplished only in
the latest phases of Hellenistic art, and we may perhaps owe it to Roman
builders. In the intercolumniations of the decorated zone niches,
arcades and windows take the place of the traditional moulding,[297] and
the upper wall is broken by a row of arches or of windows.[298] On inner
walls a double row of niches is sometimes accompanied by stucco
incrustation,[299] while the podium is decorated with engaged
columns.[300]
It remained for the Imperial period to complete the development. Orders
of columns were placed in zones one above the other; niches of richer
type occupied the surface of the wall, and not infrequently they were
placed one within the other; rounded and rectangular niches followed one
another in a rhythmic sequence; columns and piers stood out in higher
relief and the podium and architrave were broken above and below them.
Gradually the orders and niches lost their original significance; they
were looked upon merely as decorative motives, and as such followed a
development of their own. They lent to the wall-surface an
ever-increasing movement and rhythm as their forms grew richer and
freer. This evolution can be seen upon the walls of Roman buildings
which are yet standing; if in the cities of the eastern Mediterranean
most of the monuments have fallen, the elements of their composition
have been found and put together, as in the Nymphaeum at Miletus,[301]
or the theatre at Ephesus,[302] and similar decoration can still be
studied upon the walls of Ba’albek.[303] But in western Asia, and
notably in Syria, the old classical love of unbroken wall-surfaces died
hard--perhaps it may be said to have survived long into the Middle Ages
in the smooth faces of dressed stone which give so much dignity to the
Mohammadan buildings of Damascus and Aleppo. Older and simpler
decorative forms continued to rule when in Rome the evolution had gone
on to other stages. The façade of the Nabataean temple at Sî’, for
example, echoes in free-standing architecture the features of the relief
decoration of the Ephebeum at Priene.[304] In the temenos of the
basilica at Apamea (second century A.D.) the solid outer wall has
disappeared, and its place is taken by a series of piers with
rectangular openings between, but in the basilica itself the treatment
of the wall is still of an extremely simple character.[305] The temenos
wall of the temple at Palmyra is treated with the old formal severity.
At Bâqirḥâ and at Isriyyeh the walls are unbroken save by shallow
pilasters,[306] a simplicity which rivals that of the pre-Roman tomb of
Ḥamrath at Swaidâ.[307] At Mushennef and at Qanawât pilasters are set at
the angles, and the rest of the wall is undecorated.[308] In the
pre-Roman temple at Swaidâ, niches, in imitation of small doors, are
placed on either side of the single entrance;[309] at ‘Atîl a double
order of niches, the lower rectangular, the upper rounded and arched,
occupy the same position, but the walls of the cella are without even
the customary pilasters;[310] in the Qaisariyyeh at Shaqqâ a genuine
opening flanks the doorway on either side, but the façade is otherwise
unadorned.[311] In the Philippeion at Shahbâ the side niches are omitted
and there are no pilasters except at the angles; rounded and rectangular
niches are employed on the interior walls of the palace, and on either
side of the interior doorways of the bath, but in all other respects the
latter building is noticeable for the entire absence of decoration upon
its walls;[312] and as late as the sixth century angle pilasters set
upon a podium were considered a sufficient decoration for the walls of
the exquisite tomb at the southern Dânâ,[313] while the porticoes of
house and stoa are models of severity.[314]
The fantastic variety which characterized the late Hellenistic and the
Roman Imperial age must be sought for in south-west Asia in another
group of monuments. The influence of Alexandria dominates over the tomb
façades of Petra, and was felt even in the earlier tombs at Madâin
Ṣâliḥ.[315] With the latter I am not immediately concerned, except in
so far as they help to determine the date of the Petra tombs. It is
enough to notice that the local oriental forms, the pylon tombs with a
band or bands of crenellated ornament, or with a staircase motive at the
angles, dropped out of fashion during the first half of the first
century after our era, and that in the first century A.D. Hellenistic
forms had invaded the Ḥedjr tombs.[316] The gable tomb and the columned
façade, which Domaszewski has christened the Roman temple tomb, do not
indeed appear at Madâin Ṣâliḥ, but the fully developed aedicula, with
quarter-columns in the antae, is found there as early as the year A.D.
31 in the tabernacle which frames the doorway,[317] and the tabernacle,
both with a gable and with an archivolt, was employed in Arabia at an
early date for votive niches.[318] It is therefore unnecessary, as
Puchstein has pointed out, to assign such gable tombs at Petra as date
from a period before the Roman occupation (i.e. before A.D. 106) to some
fortuitous Greek influence,[319] since the type was familiar to the
stone-cutters of an earlier period. Not later than the middle of the
first century A.D. a second order of dwarf columns was placed in the
attic (the earliest dated example is tomb F 4 at Madâin Ṣâliḥ, A.D.
63-64), but it is instructive to note that the appearance of a new form
does not imply the elimination of older types. At Madâin Ṣâliḥ all the
different variations continue to exist side by side, and there is an
example of the primitive pylon tomb with a single band of crenellations,
the unmitigated copy of an Arabian house for the living turned into a
house for the dead, which is dated as late as the year A.D. 74,[320]
just as the Egyptian gorge is found side by side with, and indeed upon
the same tombs as, a fully developed Ionic entablature. The Roman temple
tomb of Petra is predicted in the dwarf piers of the attic (which are of
frequent occurrence at Madâin Ṣâliḥ) inasmuch as they imply a
corresponding series of engaged piers in the wall below. A single
example of this so-called temple tomb exists at Madâin Ṣâliḥ, but
without the piers in the attic; it is probably to be dated in the middle
of the first century A.D.[321] The engaged column, in contradistinction
to the engaged pier, is employed at Madâin Ṣâliḥ only in the antae of
the tabernacles; at Petra it takes its place among the main supports of
the façade. At Petra, too, the plastic freedom of late Hellenistic
architectural forms makes itself felt. Broken podiums are found upon
wall paintings of the second style at Boscoreale, though their
architectural counterpart cannot be pointed out at so early a date;
broken entablatures are present in late Hellenistic work at Alexandria,
but not elsewhere in the Greek cultural sphere at the same period.[322]
Both these features, together with the preference for engaged columns
instead of piers, are common at Petra, and they are like sign-posts
pointing to the source whence the stone-cutters of Petra drew their
inspiration. There are, it is true, early examples of the broken
architrave in Italy in the triumphal arches of Rimini (27 B.C.) and
Aosta (25 B.C.), but the systematic use of broken podium and entablature
is one of the distinctive features of the later Imperial period. In the
Lion Tomb at Petra, which recalls the tabernacle of the tomb F 4 at
Madâin Ṣâliḥ, architrave, frieze, and cornice are broken over the angle
columns and piers. In the tombs of the second century the principle is
carried further; architrave, frieze, and cornice are all broken, and the
system is extended to the plinth-like member which is interposed between
the entablature and the dwarf order of the attic, and, when the façade
reaches a second story, to the upper entablature also.[323] In the
Corinthian tomb, the Dair, and the Khazneh a second order is
superimposed upon the first. In each case a tholos occupies the centre
of the upper story and the pairs of flanking columns are crowned by a
broken pediment. In the Dair an engaged pier and quarter-column fill out
the façade on either side (Plate 82, Fig. 2). In the Corinthian tomb the
lower zone is complete in itself (Plate 82, Fig. 1). The engaged columns
stand upon a high plinth and carry a broken architrave composed of
frieze and cornice only; the dwarf piers are placed upon a broken plinth
with a moulded cornice, which is interrupted above the central door by a
moulded archivolt. The dwarf columns carry a complete entablature,
architrave, frieze, and cornice, and a low broken pediment occupies the
centre of the façade. Above this structure the second order, with its
tholos, stands upon a moulded plinth. In the Storied tomb the lower
order carries a complete entablature and a broken attic which contains
the gables and archivolts of the doors; upon a plinth with a moulded
cornice rises a second order bearing an entablature; a second plinth,
itself divided by a horizontal moulding, carries a dwarf order which is
crowned by a third entablature (Fig. 30). Yet another order crowned the
tomb, but it was built, not rock-cut, and little of it remains. The
tholos in these façades is a Hellenistic motive, though it is known to
us at an early period only from wall paintings and from literary
sources.[324] To the multiplication of horizontal decorations earlier
Nabataean tombs had shown a strong inclination. The double band of
crenellations in the pylon tombs of Madâin Ṣâliḥ and of Petra, the
double attic of the so-called Ḥedjr tombs in both places, point the way
to such compositions as the Storied tomb. Everywhere a strong
centralization rules the scheme of the façade. It is rare to find more
than one door; where doors are placed in the flanking intercolumniations
they are insignificant in size, as in the Corinthian tomb. In the Dair
(Plate 82, Fig. 2), mock windows occupy the outer intercolumniations. In
the Storied tomb, where there are four doors, the two central entrances
are higher than the others, and, in the upper story, the central
intercolumniation is wider than those on either side. But the long
unbroken lines of the horizontal mouldings give an exceptional monotony
to this façade. Usually a gable or archivolt, breaking into the attic,
emphasizes the centre of the façade and is re-echoed in the pediment,
with its central acroterion which crowns the whole, while in the tholos
tombs the centralization is even more strongly underlined. The angles
are commonly in antis, with a quarter-column set against the corner
pier. The archivolt is conspicuous by its absence. It is never used
except in exchange for the pediment over aediculae, and, exceptionally,
over mock windows, as for example in the lower zone of the Dair.
[Illustration: FIG. 30. Petra, the Storied tomb.
(From _Provincia Arabia_, by kind permission of Professor Brünnow.)]
The same insistence upon horizontality is to be observed in the façades
of Ctesiphon and Ukhaiḍir; but the effect is produced in a different
manner. No doubt it is difficult to do justice to the horizontal members
in these buildings, owing to the fact that, from the perishable nature
of the material, they have suffered complete destruction, but it can
safely be conjectured that they were never of much importance to the
general effect. The space left between the decorated zones is too small
to admit of the full entablature, attic, and podium which separate the
lower order from the first upper order in the Storied tomb, or even of
the entablature and podium which are interposed between the upper order
and the order of dwarf columns. The multiplication and the breaking of
horizontal members in Western Hellenistic monuments are discarded in
Mesopotamia, and with them vanishes much of the significance of the
façade. The zone decoration becomes a pattern composed of innumerable
groups of architraved and arched divisions, set one within the other, so
as to cover the whole surface of the wall. Where exigency demands, real
doors and windows may be placed in the niches; the zones may correspond
to a certain extent with the structural division of the building into
stories; but the main intention of the architect is to cover his wall
with continuous motives which are not dependent upon the structure and
must fit into it as best they can. It is the traditional surface
decoration of the ancient East, disguised in the new dress which it had
borrowed from Hellenism.
No better example of the oriental practice can be found than in the
façade of Ctesiphon. The north wing and the face of the great central
arch have fallen, but they are preserved in M. Dieulafoy’s
photograph[325] (Plate 83). The façade is divided into three zones, but
organic connexion between them is lacking. Each zone, in either wing, is
subdivided into two horizontal registers. The lower register of the
lowest zone consists of wide arches separated by pairs of engaged
columns which are carried up to the top of the zone. The width of the
intercolumniations bears no relation to the width of the wing; a space
remains over at the outer end which is awkwardly filled by two small
blind arched niches, placed one above the other. The upper register is
occupied by groups of three niches; in each group the central niche is
wider than the other two, and each niche is flanked by engaged
colonnettes. At the outer end there is no room to complete the pattern,
and the outer flanking niche is omitted. The lower zone breaks off
abruptly here against a plain pylon-like wall, and at the inner end it
is not organically connected with the great archway which forms the
centre of the façade. Single engaged columns divide the middle zone into
five compartments. They are not placed above the pairs of engaged
columns of the lower zone, nor yet in the centre of the lower
intercolumniations, but purely in accordance with the dictates of the
pattern which covered the middle zone. It, too, is subdivided into two
horizontal registers. In the lower register there are five pairs of
niches, with three engaged colonnettes between. At the inner end the
pair must have been incomplete owing to lack of space; at the outer end
the engaged column is omitted for the same reason. In what relation the
triple colonnettes stood to the niche arches is not clear. They were not
regarded as necessary to the arch, for on the outer side of each pair
they are absent, and the same applies to the colonnettes and arches in
the upper register of this zone. These groups consist of three niches of
equal size, with a pair of colonnettes between the central and the
flanking niches. In the third zone the upper of the two registers has
almost entirely disappeared; it is obvious, however, that the two
registers were not welded together by engaged columns. In the lower
register the arched niches, separated by engaged colonnettes, are
conceived without any thought of the division of the wall below them,
and, from the fragment of the upper register which remains, it would
seem that the niches which adorned it were equally independent of the
niches of the lower register. Into this confusion breaks the huge
central arch, cutting short the pattern at the inner end of the wings
just as the pylon wall cuts it short at the outer end. Yet the gigantic
size of the façade and the even repetition of the arches in each
register gives to the eye a sense of orderly grouping, and draws the
whole into an apparent symmetry which an analysis of the details proves
to be lacking in reality.
Ukhaiḍir, separated from Ctesiphon by an interval of some 500 years,
shows a sensible advance. The north façade of the court is not indeed
centralized, nor is it symmetrically placed in the wall of the
three-storied block, but the two lower zones are organically connected
with one another. The seven blind niches of the lower order correspond
with those of the second order. In the second order the breaking up of
the zone into registers is still adhered to, but since an archivolt has
taken the place of the architrave of Ctesiphon, the principle is not so
strongly marked. It works only within the arched niches. That it is
substantially the same is, however, apparent from the fact that at
Ukhaiḍir, as at Ctesiphon, the lower register consists of groups of two
small niches, the upper register of groups of three, the central niche
being the largest. The seven large niches of the second order are
separated by a cluster of four columns; in the spandrels of the arches
there are niches containing windows. The pylon-like wall of Ctesiphon is
represented by a battered wall at Ukhaiḍir, but instead of sloping back
and forming horizontal ledges, its perpendicular face seems to have been
divided at intervals by horizontal bars of masonry. There is no space
between the zones for important horizontal mouldings. Dr. Reuther in his
reconstruction (_Ocheïdir_, Plate 25) places a plain masonry balcony
along the narrow platform formed by the summit of the second zone. It
is, however, conjectural, and in my opinion it lays a stress upon the
horizontal divisions between the zones which is contrary to the spirit
of the decorative scheme. In the upper zone the plain wall is in far
better accord with the classical treatment of wall-surfaces than are the
restless nichings of Ctesiphon, and it enhances the value of the rich
orders below it. But it is not regarded, like the plain wall of early
Hellenistic decoration, as representing space, the upper air;[326] it
is rather the gallery wall of ancient Assyrian and early Hellenistic
architecture. It is confined by an upper row of arched niches, each one,
so far as can be determined in their ruined condition, placed within a
rectangular frame of engaged columns and architrave, like the niches
upon the outer fortification wall of the palace. And here we have the
system that dominates Ctesiphon, the column and architrave framing
arched niches. In the upper zone of the Ukhaiḍir façade symmetry has
vanished. The long crowning row of niches calls attention to the fact
that the decorated lower zones of the façade do not stand in the centre
of the wall, and the doorways of the third zone bear no more relation to
the arches below them than the perpendicular divisions of the Ctesiphon
wall bear relation to one another. Another similarity exists between the
two buildings. The arches of the second zone at Ukhaiḍir are decorated
not with the mouldings of the classical archivolt, but with the cusp of
the great arch at Ctesiphon. So far as I am aware the earliest example
of this cuspidated ornament in monumental architecture is at Ctesiphon.
It appears in northern Syria in the fifth century A.D., when it can be
seen both with the cusps pointing inward[327] and with the cusps
pointing outward.[328] In the latter form it bears a close resemblance
to the broken palmette of late Graeco-Roman ornament,[329] and its
origin is probably to be sought in oriental Hellenism, but whether it
was developed in the Syrian or in the Mesopotamian regions I cannot
determine. It became a common motive in Syrian architecture during the
sixth century,[330] where it is used in both forms, but in the
Mesopotamian sphere it is almost always inverted, as at Ctesiphon. We
have it at Ukhaiḍir, not only in the façade but also on the arches of
the mosque doorways and possibly in the lîwân arches in the courts.[331]
In exactly the same form it is employed in the early Abbâsid buildings
of Sâmarrâ,[332] and there is another notable example of its use over
the doorway of the mosque at Ḥarrân, where an outward-pointing cusp is
used (Plate 84, Fig. 2). In the mosque at Mayâfârqîn it is found
inverted on the elaborate arches which cover the miḥrâb niches, on the
relieving arches over the doors of the outer north wall (Plate 84, Fig.
3), and on the blind niches above. This part of the wall belongs to the
earlier portion of the building, which is ascribed, in an inscription
round the dome, to the Ortokid Alpi (A.D. 1152-1176). It is a common
feature of Ortokid decoration at Diyârbekr,[333] and in the first half
of the thirteenth century it is seldom absent from the lintels of
Christian churches and Mohammadan mosques in Môṣul and the surrounding
districts,[334] nor yet, in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth
centuries, from the lace-like decoration of the arches in the mosques at
Ḥasan Kaif[335] (Plate 84, Fig. 1). Other examples in late Mohammadan
architecture are too numerous to be mentioned. I select the few which I
have quoted because they are little known.
In attempting a reconstruction of the Ukhaiḍir façade (Plate 85) I have
sought some guidance from the representation of a Sasanian fortress
which is to be seen upon a silver dish, now in the possession of the
Kais. Archäol. Kommission of St. Petersburg[336] (Plate 86, Fig. 2). It
has been assigned to the beginning of the Sasanian period. The façade
depicted bears some interesting analogies to that of Ukhaiḍir. It is
divided into two stories. In the lower story the lower zone consists of
eight arched niches, the arches borne on tall engaged columns without
capitals. The archivolts are decorated with three fillets and a small
oval motive is placed in the spandrels. Above the arches there is a
cornice composed of two simple horizontal mouldings with a band of
spirals between them. I surmise that these spirals, which seem to be
singularly out of place in a monumental façade, were put in to fill up
the space and have no warrant in any actual building. The gateway
occupies the centre of this zone. A wide archway, set in a rectangular
frame, covers two narrow arched doors. Within the semicircle of the
embracing arch there is a shallow calotte decorated with broken
concentric rings. The archivolt is outlined by a moulding which is
carried up continuously round the rectangular frame. Within this frame a
horizontal moulding is laid above the arch. This scheme of archivolt and
rectangular frame with a continuous moulding is common in Syria and
Mesopotamia.[337] The crowning member of the portal breaks the line of
the cornice. It consists of a frieze carved in relief with a human (or
divine?) head and bust, and a cornice bearing a row of cusps. The upper
zone of the lower story is less easy to describe in terms of
architecture. There is a frieze (or dwarf order?) decorated with four
groups of six flutings or engaged colonnettes and five groups of four
circles, each circle containing a quatrefoil. The cornice is composed of
two bands, the first decorated with alternate circles and rhomboids, the
second with diagonal brickwork. A projecting hourd is placed at either
end of the building, and between the hourds the top of the wall is
battlemented. These crenellations form a parapet to the gangway which
runs along the base of the second tower-like story. Upon the gangway
stand eight figures, seven of whom are blowing trumpets. Behind them
the wall is plain, but the upper part is decorated first with a band of
half-florettes, then with a row of arched niches, each niche being set
within a rectangular frame, and finally with a band of diagonal
brickwork. The summit of the wall is battlemented and a wooden hourd
projects from either side. The lower zone of the lower story corresponds
very fairly with the lowest zone at Ukhaiḍir. The schematized horizontal
bands of the second zone bear little or no relation to real
architecture, but the upper story is set back, as at Ukhaiḍir, and the
battlemented parapet of the gangway is a very probable solution for the
parapet of the Ukhaiḍir gangway. The upper story, with its plain wall
and its row of niches is the same in both façades, and the upper
battlements may safely be restored at Ukhaiḍir.
At Ctesiphon the capitals and bases (if bases there were) of the columns
and colonnettes were moulded in stucco and have disappeared. Bases seem
to have been absent from the slender engaged columns on the outer walls
of Firûzâbâd and Sarvistân, but at both places the state of the ruins
renders an exact determination of such details difficult. The engaged
columns seem to rest upon a low plinth. The decoration in those palaces
is, however, far more nearly connected with oriental than with
occidental tradition. We have not much information as to Sasanian
capitals. The columns and double columns of the inner rooms at Sarvistân
are covered by rectangular imposts,[338] and de Morgan gives a drawing
of a stucco capital from Shirwân.[339] It is scarcely necessary to
allude to the famous impost-capitals of Bîsutûn and Iṣfahân, which
belong, in all probability, to the end of the sixth or the beginning of
the seventh century. They show far greater skill in the handling of the
rectangular impost than the capitals at Sarvistân, but whether they are
a natural development out of the latter, or borrowed directly from
Byzantine art, existing material does not enable us to decide.[340] The
latter theory seems to be the more probable, and it is supported by the
fact that the evolution of the Mesopotamian capital did not proceed upon
the Bîsutûn-Iṣfahân lines. At Ukhaiḍir there is a reversion to the
simple impost of Sarvistân, nor did the development there go beyond the
elementary impost-capital of rooms 30 and 40. The capitals of the
swelling columns on the north façade of the central court may have been
more like those of Bîsutûn and Iṣfahân, but unfortunately they are
completely ruined. At a later date, in the church of Mâr Ṭahmâsgerd at
Kerkûk (eighth or ninth century), the scheme of the Sarvistân halls is
repeated, but the pairs of columns are without capitals or bases, and
the colonnettes of the niches in the spandrels are similarly treated
(Plate 75, Fig. 1). I should be inclined to reconstruct all the columns
and engaged columns at Ukhaiḍir and Sarvistân, and possibly at Ctesiphon
also, without bases.
On the western side of the Syrian desert the evolution of the capital
is different. The engaged capitals at Madâin Ṣâliḥ and Petra show a
marked tendency towards the Corinthian. Like the capitals of the Kôm
al-Shukâfa oasis[341] and capitals on Pompeiian frescoes of the second
style, they have the Corinthian form and the Corinthian rosette upon the
abacus, not indeed worked out into a true rosette, but left in the shape
of a simple boss. In the second-century façades at Petra, such as the
Corinthian tomb and the Khazneh, this tendency reaches full expression.
The replacing of the architrave by the archivolt created a structural
need which was satisfied by the introduction of the impost-capital, and
we find the latter both at Mshattâ[342] and at Muwaqqar,[343] the
capitals at Muwaqqar being closely related to the Bîsutûn-Iṣfahân type.
With these stone-carved capitals, the brick and plaster capitals of
Ukhaiḍir, so far as they are preserved, are little concerned. The
further history of the Muwaqqar capitals must be sought, in the realm of
Mohammadan art, at Sâmarrâ and in the mosque of Ibn Ṭulûn.[344]
New to Mesopotamian architecture are the clustered columns in the middle
zone of the Ukhaiḍir façade. No doubt they are not essentially different
from the triple supports between the arches of the second zone at
Ctesiphon; but at Ukhaiḍir they are given a true architectural meaning,
the central pair carries the wall, the flanking columns carry the cusped
arches; moreover they are set in different planes, the central pair
standing in front of the flanking columns. The effect produced is almost
Gothic, a foreshadowing of the clustered piers of Armenian
churches.[345] It was a scheme which was not to remain sterile in early
Mohammadan art. Clustered piers carried the roof of the great mosque at
Sâmarrâ[346] and the arcades of the mosque at Ibn Ṭulûn.
The first great distinction, then, between the second-century façades of
Petra and the third-century façade of Ctesiphon is that the mock
architecture at Petra is organically coherent, whereas at Ctesiphon it
is incoherent, i.e. it is a pattern covering the wall-face rather than a
simulation of plastic construction. The second great distinction is the
systematic use of the archivolt at Ctesiphon for all the secondary
intercolumniations in the wings. It is perhaps not without importance to
observe that the same change from architrave to archivolt took place,
though at a rather later date, in the stone-building regions of western
Asia. In Syria, for example, the arched window almost entirely replaced
the rectangular window in the course of the fifth century.[347] In the
lower and central zones of Ctesiphon the arches are framed by groups in
a rectangle composed of engaged piers and architraves; in the upper zone
this system is abandoned. The principle of the arched niche within a
rectangular frame appears, as has been seen, as early as Assyrian
stelae, but for the use of the motive in a continuous series upon the
façade there is, so far as I am aware, no example earlier than the
Tabularium.[348] In the Augustan age it is found upon the Porta
Praetoria at Aosta,[349] and thenceforward it governs the decorative
scheme of Roman city gateways. Whether it was derived from Hellenistic
Alexandria, together with the whole city gateway type, as Schultze
surmises;[350] or whether it was evolved out of such wooden
superstructures as gave birth to the decoration upon the Etruscan gates
at Perugia;[351] or whether it was a specifically Roman (Stadtrömisch)
conception, it is impossible to say. Nor does it signify. We know it as
Roman, not only in the gateways, but also in the theatres and
amphitheatres of the Roman empire, and I cannot doubt that the perfected
Roman scheme is at least as directly responsible for Mesopotamian
wall-surface decoration as is the western Asiatic development of
Hellenistic façades. The gateway at Aosta, the Storied tomb at Petra,
may well be taken as representing the immediate progenitors of
Ctesiphon.
Five hundred years later, in round figures, comes Ukhaiḍir--five hundred
years of architectural growth and of fairly continuous intercourse with
the West. The architrave has vanished from the principal orders; it is
retained only to form the old rectangular framework for the small niches
at the top of the wall. Symmetry and organic cohesion rule over the two
lower zones. But in the details of its composition there is nothing at
Ukhaiḍir which might not have been foretold from the façade of
Ctesiphon.
The lower zone of the north façade forms part of the decorative scheme
of the central court as a whole. The central court resembles, as has
been observed by Dr. Reuther, a Greek peristyle with engaged columns in
place of free standing columns; the southern side is, however, treated
as a separate façade, the façade of the lîwân. The principal feature was
necessarily the wide arched opening of the lîwân itself. There is
nothing new here; we have it at Ctesiphon, combined with Hellenistic
wings; we have it at Firûzâbâd, without side doors, and at Sarvistân and
at Hatra.
Hatra, though in plan it is no less purely oriental than Ctesiphon,
shows direct Western influence far more strongly than the southern
Mesopotamian or the Persian palaces. Dr. Herzfeld has compared its
triple-arched façade, wherein the central arch surpasses the flanking
arches in height and width, with that of the triumphal arch,[352] and
the comparison is apt. So far as my knowledge goes, the triple-arched
scheme appears for the first time in the Assyro-Persian cultural sphere
at Hatra, and it is accompanied there by strongly Hellenized details of
decoration, which distinguish it from the older oriental palaces to
which it is related in plan. This Hellenized decoration is present in
all other Parthian ruins, and it is not surprising that it should be so.
The Parthians wrested their empire from a Greek dynasty. The
Mesopotamia which they conquered was a part of Asiatic Greece; it was
more closely linked to Greek culture than it had ever been linked
before, or was ever to be linked again. The Hellenistic triple-arched
scheme fitted the lîwân plan admirably, inasmuch as it provided the
great opening which was essential to the lîwân hall. But it implied the
placing of doors in the two flanking chambers, and this was done for the
first time at Hatra. The side doors were an innovation which was not
accepted without hesitation. It was not adopted in the façade of
Firûzâbâd, where Hellenistic influence is almost entirely lacking. To a
great extent the Sasanians stand for a reaction against Hellenism. A
fresh wave of orientalism flows back into Mesopotamia with their
conquest, and they went far to complete the severance with the West
which the Parthians had begun when they overthrew the Seleucids. But the
Greek domination, together with the fitful occupation of parts of
northern Mesopotamia by Roman armies, left an indelible mark. Moreover,
the Sasanian frontiers marched with those of Rome, and the
interpenetration of the two civilizations was inevitable. It is felt in
the façade of Ctesiphon. Though the triple-arched scheme is not present
there, the provision of independent doors to the side chambers was a
convenience; it was used at Firûzâbâd in the lîwân group at the back of
the posterior façade; it was used at Ctesiphon, and thereafter it was
not to disappear. With it the triple-arched façade came into favour. It
formed part of the truly oriental façade of Sarvistân; no doubt it
existed at Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn; it exists at Ukhaiḍir, but it is there
completely re-orientalized. The ṭarmah-lîwâns bear a faint resemblance
to the Hellenistic motive; in the lîwâns of courts C and G the likeness
fades; in the south façade of the central court it is gone altogether
and the side doors are no more necessary to the scheme than they were at
Ctesiphon. In place of the triumphal arch façade we have the lîwân
façade which dominates the architecture of Persia and of India. The
central hall is raised above the flanking vaults and this raised vault
implies a lifting of the central part of the façade. Dr. Reuther
conjectures that a rectangular frame was given to the central arch, and
since that is the stereotyped form of the lîwân façade of a later date,
I have adopted his view. Moreover, some such device must have been used
at Hatra. There, too, the vault of the lîwân rises above the flanking
vaults, and Dr. Andrae, in his reconstruction of the façade, has given
it a rectangular frame (Fig. 31). But at Hatra the arched opening of the
lîwân was considerably lower than its vault and need not necessarily
have broken the horizontal lines of the façade. It must, however, be
borne in mind that something very like the later lîwân façade must have
existed at Hatra, as it existed at Ukhaiḍir. Flandin and Coste, in their
restorations of Sarvistân (_Voyage en Perse_, Plate 29), give a true
lîwân façade to the principal entrance and to the side lîwân, and indeed
their section indicates the vault of the side lîwân as springing so high
that the façade must have been raised to correspond. The lîwân arch has
been given in these restorations the same rectangular frame which has
been conjectured to have existed at Hatra and at Ukhaiḍir. At Ukhaiḍir,
as at Ctesiphon, the wings are decorated by blind arcades, two of which,
for the sake of convenience, are broken by doors. The arcades are
shallower than those which are carried round the other three sides of
the court; the capitals of the columns, as Dr. Reuther has pointed out,
must have been different from the other engaged capitals, since the
shafts swell outwards towards the top;[353] and the calottes which cover
the niches are adorned with Hazârbâf, the interwoven motive common in
oriental woodwork.[354] The great arch of the lîwân is carried by pairs
of engaged columns set in antis, and this is the arrangement which was
usually adopted in the later lîwân façades. We have seen it in the tombs
of Madâin Ṣâliḥ and of Petra. On either side there is a narrow arched
niche which has the appearance of buttressing the central arch; beyond
these follow three arched niches of wider span, the innermost on either
side being slightly narrower than the others. The engaged column of the
lîwân arch is joined to the quarter-column of the small flanking niche
by a straight wall-face, on the same principle as that which is employed
in the central supports of the ṭarmah-lîwâns of courts B and H. The
result is in plan a double column, similar to the double columns which
carry the arcades of every early Christian church in central
Anatolia.[355] I saw one of these double columns in a graveyard at
Raqqah, where it is used as a tomb-stone. They are foreshadowed in the
Nabataean façade at Si’ in the Ḥaurân.[356]
[Illustration: FIG. 31. Hatra, façade of palace reconstructed.
(From _Hatra_, by kind permission of the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft.)]
The triple-arched façade must have been popular in the early Abbâsid
period. It is found in the Bait al-Khalîfah at Sâmarrâ, where it is as
pronounced as it was at Hatra. It was present in the two main façades of
the audience chambers at Balkuwârâ.[357] But the single arched motive
was to play an equally important part in Mohammadan architecture, a
part of which an early (perhaps the earliest) indication is to be seen
at Ukhaiḍir. On the north wall of the great hall the central feature is
the great arch with its shallow calotte. Within this frame is set the
smaller arched opening of the door. Here, as Fergusson has
observed,[358] is the ‘perfectly satisfactory solution of a problem
which has exercised the ingenuity of architects of all ages’. It has
always been manifest ‘that to give a large building a door at all in
proportion to its dimensions was, to say the least of it, very
inconvenient. Men are only six feet high and they do not want portals
through which elephants might march. It was left, however, for the
Saracenic architects completely to get over the difficulty. They placed
their portals--one or three, or five, of moderate dimensions--at the
back of a semi-dome. This last feature thus became the porch or portico,
and its dimensions became those of the portal, wholly irrespective of
the size of the opening. No one, for instance, looking at this gateway
(south gate of Akbar’s mosque at Fatehpur Sîkrî) can mistake that it is
a doorway, and that only, and no one thinks of the size of the openings
that are provided at its base. The semi-dome is the modulus of the
design, and its scale that by which the imagination measures its
magnificence’. The same principle rules over two of the smaller doorways
of Ukhaiḍir, the doors at the outer ends of the corridor 5-6.
The arched niche, either blind or pierced with doors or windows, is used
at Ukhaiḍir to complete the decoration of the north wall of the great
hall. Blind niches with a rectangular frame stand on either side of the
central calotte, while above it the three niches are pierced by windows.
Here and in all other examples at Ukhaiḍir, the opening, simulated or
real, is covered by a shallow calotte. In the central court the single
niche at the south-east corner is potentially a doorway; it is covered
by a fluted semi-dome (compare the doubtful example at Mshattâ, above,
p. 118). In the same manner the niches on the two side walls of room 32
are potentially windows; at Karkh, where they are similarly placed, but
in outer walls, they are actually pierced by window openings. The single
niche motive is found in room 140, where, however, the niche is
unusually shallow. That the form of such niches as those of the great
hall and of rooms 31 and 32 is Hellenistic is not open to a moment’s
doubt. Out of the countless classical parallels I may cite the aedicula
upon the east façade of the basilica at Shaqqah.[359] The archivolt at
Shaqqah is carried on colonnettes, the semi-dome is fluted, and the
addition of a pediment, in the true Graeco-Roman style of Syria,
involves the doubling of the colonnettes. The purely decorative
character of the aedicula may well be compared with that of the niches
on either side of the central calotte in the great hall. Dr. Reuther
draws an apt parallel between the placing of the niches in the great
hall and the placing of the niches in the building on the citadel at
‘Ammân,[360] and he calls attention to the fact that at ‘Ammân the
colonnettes have neither capital nor bases and that the archivolts of
one of the pairs of niches in room 32 are decorated with a zigzag
ornament analogous to that of ‘Ammân. All these points help to prove the
Mohammadan origin of the building on the citadel. It is not, however,
strictly correct to describe the colonnettes either at ‘Ammân or at
Ukhaiḍir as being without capitals. They are all provided with a small
impost block. In room 32 a strikingly oriental motive is introduced into
the niches on the side walls. The spear-shaped ornament in the centre of
each niche was familiar to Assyrian decoration. Whether it had, or had
not, its origin in the spear-shaped loopholes of fortified walls,[361]
it is used for purely ornamental purposes in Assyrian decorative
crenellations at Assur and in Parthian crenellations at Warka.[362] It
was common in a similar position during the Achaemenid period,[363] and
was carried on into later Mohammadan work, with the difference that the
whole niche was given a spear-shaped or trifoliate heading[364] (Plate
75, Fig. 1). Nor are the recessed rosettes of the stucco decoration at
Ukhaiḍir connected with Hellenistic types; they have affinities with the
rosette motives of Assyrian fresco and enamelled brick,[365] but the
floret shape of the Assyrian rosette disappears with the perspective
treatment. In a cruder form the rosette of Ukhaiḍir is used at Mâr
Ṭahmâsgerd. Here it is not recessed but cut deeply into the wall, and
its effect is produced solely by the resultant shadow. The crenellated
motive of the stucco work in the mosque has its counterpart in the
ornamental crenellations of Assyria and Persia, but it is used at
Ukhaiḍir with singular freedom. The crenellations are combined so as to
form recessed rhomboids; they are even applied to the archivolt in the
two doorways of corridors 5 and 6.[366] Save for the rosettes, all the
stucco decoration at Ukhaiḍir is of an architectural character--that is
to say that it imitates plastic construction such as crenellations,
arched and columned openings; or else it is an elaboration of structural
details, such as the squinch or the transverse arch. Sometimes it is
actually called into being by structural processes, as in the horizontal
ridges of the vaults in the mosque and room 31. The motives placed on
the summits of the vaults in rooms 31 and 32 are reminiscent of
coffering, and I have little doubt that their origin is to be sought in
the Hellenistic scheme of ceiling decoration. It is, however,
interesting to note that Western forms are more obscured at Ukhaiḍir
than in buildings of a later Mohammadan period. The stucco coffers of
the vaults at Sâmarrâ stand very close to classical types,[367] whereas
the coffers at Ukhaiḍir are employed in a manner foreign to classical
conceptions. This must be largely due to the fact that in the great
palaces at Sâmarrâ Western artificers were at work, while in the
comparatively unimportant desert retreat oriental workmen and oriental
ideas had the upper hand, yet I would suggest that the differences
between Ukhaiḍir and Sâmarrâ indicate a considerable difference in date.
In the ninth century Western influence was stronger in Mesopotamia than
it was in the preceding age, when the arts were still held closely in
the thrall of Sasanian tradition. Consequently we find at Sâmarrâ
capitals inspired by the Corinthian acanthus capital, and among the wall
decorations the Hellenistic vine motive plays a conspicuous part.[368]
We have yet to learn that the flowing vine, so essential to Coptic
decoration and to that of the Hellenistic coast-lands, was a feature of
Sasanian architectural ornament. It occurs in monuments of the Umayyad
period which were directly under the sway of Hellenistic Syria, such as
Mshattâ and the miḥrâb of the Khâṣakî Djâmi’,[369] but except for
sporadic examples in Parthian architecture, where the Hellenizing
tendencies of the decorations are indisputable,[370] its systematic use
on Babylonian soil begins (so far as the evidence goes) at Sâmarrâ in
the middle of the ninth century, and there it was the artificers, not
the work of their hands, which were imported. I do not deny that in
comparison with the Sâmarrâ palaces Ukhaiḍir is a crude product of local
workmanship, wherein it is natural to expect a closer adherence to local
tradition; but it is important to point out how close that adherence is,
and how well it corresponds with recorded examples of Mesopotamian and
Persian decoration earlier than the Umayyads, whereas the decoration in
the same regions, but at a later period, diverges widely from the older
schemes. The divergence is due, in my estimation, to the diffusion of
Western influence when the western and the eastern provinces of the
khalifate were drawn together under the Abbâsids and all quarters of
their empire contributed to their constructions. In the ninth century we
find Mesopotamian architecture in Cairo and Coptic decoration in
Sâmarrâ. I regard the oriental character of Ukhaiḍir as indicative not
only of its isolated position, beyond the direct course of international
civilization and arts, but also as typical of the primitive age during
which it arose.
Materials for the study of early Mohammadan decoration are still so
scanty that the difficulty of assigning exact dates to such as we
possess is great. It is enhanced by the fact that the workmen of the
first khalifs must have been of non-Arab extraction. The Arab invaders,
pouring in out of deserts which were innocent of monumental
constructions, had nothing to contribute to architecture or to the arts.
So far as we know them in the pre-Mohammadan period they had not
created an art of their own. Along the trade-routes, the rock-cut tombs
of Madâin Ṣâliḥ and of Petra exhibit, without salient divergence, the
artistic principles of Hellenized Egypt and Hellenized Syria, while
concerning the older Arab civilizations in the southern parts of the
peninsula we have as yet no evidence save that of inscriptions. The
Mohammadan conquerors employed the workmen of their predecessors, and
according to the nature of their own traditions, these workmen might
raise a palace with a basilical hall, like Mshattâ, or a palace entirely
composed of lîwân groups like Ukhaiḍir; they might cover their walls
with Hellenistic fresco, as at Qṣair ‘Amrah, or with ornament derived
mainly from the ancient East, as again at Ukhaiḍir. The variations of
this period were due to individual idiosyncrasy, or rather to individual
training; there is no reason why they should be taken to denote a
chronological distinction. A hundred and fifty years later this
heterogeneous material had been welded together and the Islâmic
_Weltkunst_ was beginning to take shape. Sâmarrâ, in the eastern part of
the Abbâsid dominions, the mosque of Ibn Ṭulûn in the western part,
re-echo one another; artistic conceptions are not only interchangeable,
they are the same; and though, all through the history of the arts of
Islâm, local peculiarities, based on local conditions and traditions,
continue to differentiate one region from another, it is not the
differences but the similarities which are the most striking. They go
hand in hand with the singular solidarity of Islâm, with the
uninterrupted intercourse between remote parts of the Mohammadan world,
with the ceaseless passage of travellers and scholars from the western
limits of Europe on the one hand to the eastern limits of Asia on the
other. This intercourse was quickened, as the Prophet had intended that
it should be, by the institution of the annual pilgrimage. The mosque of
Ibn Ṭulûn is not an isolated example of a direct borrowing by one region
from another. The gates of al-Mehdiyyeh in Tunis were copied from the
gates of Raqqah.[371] It is impossible to explain the curious niching of
the walls of the eleventh-century palace of the Menâr, to take another
Tunisian example, except by a comparison with the wall-surface
decoration of Babylonia and Assyria.[372] I am fully aware that a long
period of time had elapsed between the fall of the Mesopotamian empires
and the erection of the Menâr, and that it would be vain to attempt to
establish a continuous sequence of buildings between them, but I would
point out that the Parthians, when they reconstructed the Babylonian
palace at Tellôh, reproduced the Babylonian wall decoration so closely
that de Sarzec was persuaded that the ruins of their palace belonged to
the Chaldaean age.[373]
Turn again to the fortress of the Bani Hammâd and you will find the
cusp motive of Syria and Mesopotamia repeated on its arches;[374] and
at the palace of Medînat al-Zahrâ in Spain (end of the tenth century) we
have the plaster decorations of the walls of Sâmarrâ carried out in a
style which betrays their Coptic and classical parentage,[375] though
they are not devoid of characteristic motives, such as the palmette tree
and the continuous pattern, which are rooted in oriental tradition.[376]
In the same ruins the workers in stone have borrowed alike from
Byzantium and from Mesopotamia; some of the continuous geometrical
patterns are closely allied to those of Sâmarrâ,[377] while the free use
of the crenellated motive may be compared with its use at Ukhaiḍir
(Plate 87). The earliest Mesopotamian examples of such patterns as these
are Parthian (Plate 86, Fig. 1).
One of the structural features of Ukhaiḍir has a value which is not only
structural but also decorative. I allude to the use of masonry tubes
between parallel barrel vaults. Obviously it is a scheme which was born
of the systematic use of the vault. It is to be found at Hatra, where it
appears in some of the tombs.[378] The same system is present at
Firûzâbâd, where there was a masonry tube between the barrel vaults of
the side chambers of the entrance lîwân and the domed chamber.[379] In
later Mohammadan architecture I have found masonry tubes at Khân
al-Khernîna above Tekrît.[380] A second device for the lightening of the
wall mass between parallel barrel vaults is employed at Ukhaiḍir in the
east annex and in the buildings to the north of the palace. It takes the
form of a number of narrow tubes. I saw it also in a fourteenth-century
khân at the foot of the Djebel Sindjâr (Plate 88, Fig. 1), a khân which
is famous for the dragon reliefs on its doorway,[381] and in a mosque of
the early fifteenth century at Ḥasan Kaif (Plate 88, Fig. 2). The
decorative importance of the first scheme, the large single tube, lies
in the effect which its opening produces on the façade. This can be
observed in the courts on the ground floor at Ukhaiḍir, as well as in
the court on the upper story of the gate-house. The arched openings of
the tubes between the arched doors of the lîwân and its side chambers
form an essential part of the façade, and they are retained when vault
and tube are alike absent. The existence of tube openings in the façades
round the central court, the ṣaḥn, of the mosque of Ibn Ṭulûn is
sufficient to show that the Egyptian mosque was copied from a vaulted
prototype (Plate 89, Fig. 1). I do not doubt that it was modelled on the
vaulted buildings of Mesopotamia, though vault and tube are absent from
its structure. The great mosque at Sâmarrâ was not vaulted;
unfortunately the data are insufficient to determine the scheme of the
façades of its ṣaḥn. Nor was the mosque of Abû Dulaf vaulted; it had a
flat roof carried on arches, like Ibn Ṭulûn; but the tube openings
appear in the form of niches on the façades of the ṣaḥn (Plate 89, Fig.
2). As at Ibn Ṭulûn, they have become purely decorative. I do not know
whether there are tubes between the vaults of the Bait al-Khalîfah at
Sâmarrâ, but the openings are simulated upon the façade by shallow blind
niches. The same system holds good in the ṣaḥn façades of the Azhar at
Cairo, a building which has no other connexion with Mesopotamian
architecture than this traditional use of a decorative motive, the true
significance of which had long been forgotten.
CHAPTER VI
THE MOSQUE
The mosque of Ukhaiḍir has an exceptional interest. It is one of the
earliest mosques known to us which retains its original form and
decoration, and its plan may be regarded as one of the first examples
which we possess of the systematized architectural scheme which, in
slightly varying types, ruled the Mohammadan world until the fourteenth
century of our era. It was a scheme which was derived from the inaugural
sanctuary of the Faith, the Prophet’s house at Medînah.
Recent research has made it abundantly clear that Muḥammad, when he
constructed his new dwelling after the flight to Medînah in A.D. 622,
had no other object in view than the purely domestic. It was not a
mosque which he set himself to build, but a living-house, and he laid it
out in the fashion which was customary in his day. It may indeed be
doubted whether he contemplated the need of a temple of any kind.[382]
In the view of the founder of Islâm there were but two sanctuaries in
the world, the mosque of the Ka’bah at Mekkah and the mosque of the Aqṣâ
at Jerusalem, the former being at that period an open space, bounded
only by the buildings of the city, with the house of Abraham in its
midst, the latter an area on the edge (_aqṣâ_ = extremity) of the sacred
enclosure at Jerusalem, an area actually occupied by the ruins of
Justinian’s Church of the Virgin, which had been destroyed by the
Persians in A.D. 614. For the rest God could be worshipped in every
place, and the nomads of Arabia could perform their religious exercises
as satisfactorily in the open wilderness as in any other spot. But, as
has been well pointed out,[383] even in the Days of Ignorance, the
madjlis, the place of assembly--that is to say the courtyard of the Arab
house--was itself invested with a kind of sanctity; the meetings held in
it were conducted with gravity and order, and it may also have been used
for cult purposes. To it the terms ‘madjlis’ and ‘masdjid’ were applied
impartially, and it was not until after the advent of the Prophet that
the word ‘masdjid’ was narrowed down so as to signify only such places
of assembly as were connected with religious observances.[384] These
places were not, however, used exclusively for cult purposes. In
Muḥammad’s masdjid at Medînah, the court of his house was necessarily
the centre of his domestic life; in it he lived and entertained his
wives and took counsel with his friends, and, since he was the head of
his community, it was the meeting-place of the Faithful, whether for
religious or for secular needs. The homeless among his adherents found a
lodging in it, and the wounded were tended there. Nor did the masdjid
al-djamâ’ah, the mosque of assembly, lose its secular character until
more than a hundred years had passed after the Hidjrah. For the mosque,
as Wellhausen has put it (and the phrase cannot be bettered), was the
forum of primitive Islâm. When the conquerors founded their camp-cities,
the misrs of Mesopotamia and of Egypt, their first step was to _mark
out_ the area of the mosque, to provide, that is to say, a central place
of assembly for the people. To it the khalif repaired on his accession
and the governor on his appointment, and the discourses which they
pronounced on these occasions were political rather than religious.[385]
Thither, too, they summoned the people when questions of importance were
to be discussed, or weighty tidings to be communicated.[386]
Muḥammad’s house at Medînah, which was to play so influential a part in
the architectural history of Islâm, consisted of a courtyard 100 ells
square (_circa_ 60 metres) enclosed by a wall, the lower part of which
was stone and the upper of sun-dried brick. The qiblah, the direction in
which the worshippers turned in prayer, was towards Jerusalem, i.e. it
lay to the north; there was, however, no niche to mark it, and the word
‘qiblah’ did not carry with it any architectural connotation, but merely
the sense of a moral order. That the congregation might be protected
from the burning sun, this side of the court was covered by a roof of
woven palm-leaves, supported on columns made of palm-trunks. The roof
was so low that a man could touch it with his hand. On the east side,
two rooms, for the two wives, Saudâ and ‘A’ishah, were placed outside
the wall at its southern extremity. In the opposite corner (the
south-west) a primitive lodging was provided for the poorest of those
who had followed the Prophet in his flight. It was covered by a roof
(ṣuffah) similar to that of the qiblah, and those who inhabited it were
known as the Aṣḥâb al-Ṣuffah, the people of the portico. There were
three doors into the courtyard. That which lay to the south was the
principal entrance; a subsidiary door was placed on the west side, and
on the east side was the door used by the Prophet. At a subsequent date,
owing to quarrels with the Jews, the qiblah was turned away from
Jerusalem and placed in the direction of Mekkah. This necessitated the
closing of the south door and the opening of a door in the north wall.
Moreover, the Aṣḥâb al-Ṣuffah were moved to the north-east angle of the
court and their roof was re-erected there.[387] In addressing those who
were present, the Prophet was accustomed to lean against the trunk of a
palm-tree, but in the year seven or eight of the Hidjrah he caused a
wooden minbar to be erected. It consisted of two steps and a seat. On
or before it he conducted the prayers.[388] The khalif ‘Umar enlarged
the mosque at Medînah, but the new building scarcely exceeded the old in
architectural pretension. The wall was of sun-dried brick, the columns
of palm-trunks (or according to one account of sun-dried brick also)
supporting a palm-leaf roof. It is not clear whether this roof was
carried all round the court or was confined to the south side. The
court, which in Muḥammad’s day was without any kind of pavement, was
given by ‘Umar a floor of pebbles beaten into the ground.[389] Further
improvements were carried out by ‘Uthmân, but it was not until the time
of the Umayyad khalif Walîd ibn ‘Abd al-Malik (A.D. 705-715) that the
old simplicity of construction was abandoned. In the year A.H. 87 or 88
he pulled down the mosque and rebuilt it. The workmen whom he employed
were Greeks and Copts from Damascus and Egypt.[390] The walls and
columns of the new edifice were of cut stone; gold, silver, and mosaic
were used to adorn it; the miḥrâb and the maqṣûrah were of teak.[391]
The maqṣûrah, the enclosure reserved for the khalif, had already,
according to Balâdhuri, been introduced into the mosque by Marwân (A.D.
683-685), but his maqṣûrah was of stone. The miḥrâb was a new feature:
‘the first who introduced the novelty of a concave miḥrâb was ‘Umar ibn
‘Abd al-Azîz when he restored the mosque of the Prophet’ (by order of
the khalif Walîd).[392] Both maqṣûrah and miḥrâb were borrowed from
Christian usage; the maqṣûrah was copied from the Imperial enclosed dais
of Byzantine churches, the miḥrâb from the Christian apse--it was ‘min
shân al-kanâ’is’, an attribute of churches, and was adopted with some
reluctance by Islâm.[393] Concerning the Medînah mosque Professor Becker
quotes an exceedingly suggestive anecdote. Walîd, boasting of his
construction to a son of the khalif ‘Uthmân, who had been the last
before him to restore the mosque, said: ‘How far our building excels
yours.’ ‘True,’ replied his interlocutor, ‘we built after the manner of
mosques, but you after the manner of Christian churches.’
Elsewhere the development followed similar lines. The Ḥaram of Mekkah
stands apart; its arrangement could never be the same as that of
ordinary mosques. Yet it is interesting to observe that it was at first
innocent of any building except the Ka’bah. The khalif ‘Umar enlarged
the area by pulling down adjacent houses, and enclosed it with a wall
lower than a man’s stature; ‘Uthmân is said to have been the first to
furnish it with riwâqs. Again here, as at Medînah, it was Walîd who
first beautified the mosque with marble columns and with mosaic.[394]
The accounts of the foundation of the misrs of Baṣrah, Kûfah, and Fusṭâṭ
throw a vivid light upon the requirements, spiritual and architectural,
of primitive Islâm. It is recorded that the khalif ‘Umar gave orders to
the respective governors of the three places, Abû Mûsâ, Sa’d ibn abi
Waqqâs, and ‘Amr ibn al-’Âṣ, that a masdjid al-djamâ’ah should be
provided, while each tribe was to have a small mosque for its particular
use. At Baṣrah the mosque was marked out (_ikhtaṭṭa_) but not built, and
Balâdhuri is careful to add that the people prayed in it without
buildings.[395] It was subsequently enclosed with a fence made of reeds,
and this fence Abû Mûsâ replaced by a wall of sun-dried brick and roofed
it (presumably the qiblah side) with reeds. Ziyâd ibn Abîhi, Mu’âwiyah’s
powerful viceroy, enlarged it considerably. His building was of burnt
brick and gypsum mortar, and he roofed it with teak.[396] Five columns
(the word used is _sawâri_ = masts, the columns were therefore
presumably of wood) supported the roof of the qiblah wall; the side
walls were of stone, and columns are not mentioned there. The columns
were probably of teak like the roof; some of them had four _’uqûd_ =
ties, which I take to mean the metal collars which were used to fasten
together the different sections of wooden or marble columns. Ziyâd was
the first to introduce a maqṣûrah, and he is said to have built a
minaret of stone. Al-Hadjdjâdj or his son put in columns made of stone
from the mountains of Ahwâz.[397] At Kûfah the mosque was marked out on
a high spot before any part of the city had been built. On three sides
the ṣaḥn was bounded by a ditch; on the fourth, that which faced towards
Mekkah (the front side as it is called by the Arab writers), there was a
covering roof (_ẓullah_) which had neither side nor end walls; it was
200 ells long, and was supported by columns of marble which were taken
from churches built by Chosroës. The ceiling was like the ceiling of
Greek churches.[398] ‘And such’, says Ṭabari, ‘was the mosque (at that
time), with the exception of the mosque at Mekkah which they would not
imitate.’
The first mosque at Kûfah therefore consisted of a great ṣaḥn surrounded
on three sides by a ditch and on the fourth, the qiblah side, by an open
colonnade carrying a roof, and the arrangement was exactly the same as
that of Muḥammad’s house, except that the qiblah wall and the palm-trunk
columns were replaced by marble columns. Balâdhuri gives a tradition
that the mosque at Kûfah was built out of part of the materials taken
from the palaces of al-Mundhir at Ḥîrah,[399] and Ṭabari says that the
castle at Kûfah was of burnt brick taken from Persian buildings at
Ḥîrah. Ziyâd rebuilt the mosque. He summoned, according to Ṭabari,[400]
Persian builders, and expounded to them the plan of the mosque and its
extent, and that which he desired regarding the length of its roof,
saying that he wished to erect an edifice which should not have its
parallel. To which a man, who had been one of the builders of Chosroës,
replied that could only be accomplished by using columns from the Jebel
Ahwâz which should be carved and polished and filled with lead and iron
clamps (_safâfîd_ = skewers). The ceiling should be 30 ells high
(_circa_ 17 metres!), and it should be roofed. The mosque should also
have side and end walls. This scheme was adopted by Ziyâd. Balâdhuri
mentions that he placed a maqṣûrah in this mosque also, and that both at
Baṣrah and at Kûfah he strewed pebbles on the ṣaḥn to prevent the people
from getting dusty.[401]
At Baṣrah and at Kûfah the ṣaḥn was the principal feature of the mosque,
as indeed it had been at Medînah; this was not the case at Fusṭâṭ. The
first Egyptian mosque was built by ‘Amr ibn al-’Âṣ in the year A.D. 642.
It stood in the midst of vineyards and consisted merely of a covered
place, 50 x 30 cubits in extent (28·92 x 17·34 metres), enclosed in a
brick wall.[402] The people assembled in the open space which surrounded
it. The roof, which was very low, must have been supported on columns,
though these are not mentioned. The brick walls were unplastered, and
the floor was strewn with pebbles. ‘Amr set up within it a wooden
minbar, but this was resented by ‘Umar, and it was removed. ‘Is it not
enough’, wrote the khalif, ‘that thou shouldst stand while the people
sit at thy feet?’ This episode is of the highest significance in the
history of the minbar. It is clear that it was regarded at that time as
a throne rather than as a pulpit, and as such unsuited to any but the
khalif. It was not until the close of the Umayyad period that the minbar
lost its secular significance and became a part of the ritual furnishing
of the mosque. With this change it is probable that its form changed
also, and instead of the two steps and a seat of the Prophet’s minbar,
the high pulpit of the modern mosque came into use. That this pulpit was
copied from the pulpits of Christian churches is not improbable. The
minbar which was set up in the time of ‘Abd al-Azîz ibn Marwân (A.D.
685-705) in the mosque of ‘Amr is said to have been taken from a
Christian church.[403] Neither was there in ‘Amr’s mosque any miḥrâb to
mark the qiblah; it was not until the third enlargement of the mosque in
A.D. 710 that the qiblah wall was given a miḥrâb. It is further recorded
that the orientation adopted by ‘Amr was imperfect, so that the
worshippers were obliged to stand askew that they might face truly
towards Mekkah while they prayed. The mosque was provided with six
doors, two in each wall, with the exception of the qiblah wall, which
was left unbroken. The first enlargement of the building took place in
A.D. 673, on which occasion an open space, or court, was added to the
north. In the second enlargement (A.D. 698-699) the mosque was entirely
rebuilt and the ṣaḥn was included within its walls.
It appears from these accounts that by the middle of the Umayyad period
the development from courtyard-house to sanctuary was complete. Its
course had been simple and obvious. All the essentials of the
stereotyped form were present at Medînah; the differences were
differences in size and splendour, not in kind. The domestic court had
become the ṣaḥn; the palm-leaf sheltering roofs against the qiblah wall
and in one angle of the court had solidified into the riwâqs; the
palm-trunk columns had been replaced by columns or piers of brick
(possibly by brick columns at Medînah itself as early as the time of
‘Umar), or, where the spoils of Sasanian and Byzantine lay ready to
hand, as at Kûfah or Fusṭâṭ, by columns of marble. The qiblah had been
given a visible shape in the miḥrâb niche, and by the close of the
Umayyad period the minbar had wholly lost its temporal attributes and
had taken its place as part of the necessary furniture of the mosque,
though it probably still continued to be a movable wooden structure.
Such a sanctuary, but reduced to the modest dimensions of a private
chapel (if I may be permitted the phrase), is the mosque of Ukhaiḍir.
The fact that its orientation is inexact--Mekkah lies to the south-east
of Ukhaiḍir, whereas the direction indicated by the miḥrâb is almost due
south--would not have been regarded as of much importance. As has been
mentioned, ‘Amr’s mosque had the same defect, and in this respect
Manṣûr’s mosque at Baghdâd offers a yet more significant parallel.
Ṭabari observes that the mosque in the round city was not properly
oriented because it was built to fit the qaṣr, whereas at Ruṣâfah the
orientation was right, because the mosque was built before the
qaṣr.[404] Precisely the same explanation applies to the Ukhaiḍir
mosque. The palace builders were accustomed to square their plans to the
points of the compass, and a miḥrâb in the south wall was the closest
approximation which could be obtained in an edifice which lay north and
south. The mosque was so small that there was no difficulty in applying
to it the system of vaulting which reigns over the whole palace, but the
massive Mesopotamian vault was unsuited to free-standing columns and the
roof of the riwâqs has fallen. Outside Ukhaiḍir we have no extant
example of a vaulted mosque on this plan. We are specifically told that
the roof of the mosque at Baṣrah was first of reeds and then of teak;
the nature of the roof of the ẓullah at Kûfah is open to doubt. Its
ceiling was like the ceiling of Greek churches, a description which does
not exclude the possibility of a vault. That the miḥrâb at Ukhaiḍir
received no decoration need cause no surprise. Far from being regarded
as having any special sanctity, the miḥrâb is defined as the least holy
part of the mosque and the Imâm is earnestly warned not to take up his
station within it--doubtless, as Professor Becker observes, in order to
emphasize the fact that though the miḥrâb was copied from the Christian
apse, it shared none of its attributes.[405] Of the minbar it is
improbable that any vestige would be found under the ruin heaps at
Ukhaiḍir. It was most likely of wood, and has long been destroyed. Nor
is it necessary to suppose that the ṣaḥn contained a water-basin for
ablutions. No such feature is mentioned in the account of the early
mosques, save that at a later date Maqrîzi records the presence in the
mosque of ‘Amr of an ancient well appertaining to the gardens in which
the mosque was built.[406]
It will be convenient to carry this survey a little further in order to
include the mosques of Sâmarrâ, which are not far removed, either
chronologically or geographically, from the mosque of Ukhaiḍir, but in
so doing the early Syrian and North African mosques must be taken into
account. The plan of the first mosques in Syria was partly determined by
the fact that they were erected on the site of Christian churches. They
differ, therefore, from the normal construction of the Medînah type. To
the khalif ‘Umar is ascribed the first Mohammadan building upon the site
which is now occupied by the Aqṣâ, but it seems probable that his
edifice was nothing but a makeshift reparation of the ruined church of
the Virgin.[407] Probably the Umayyad khalif ‘Abd al-Malik rebuilt the
mosque in the year A.D. 691, but in A.D. 746 it was destroyed by an
earthquake. Manṣûr rebuilt it, and it was again destroyed by earthquake.
It was restored by al-Mahdi about A.D. 780, but the plan was
considerably altered. Even the mosque described by Muqaddasi in A.D. 985
is materially different from the building which exists to-day. I think
it exceedingly doubtful whether the mosque retained at any time after
the temporary construction of ‘Umar the plan of Justinian’s church,
since the necessary alteration in the orientation must have introduced a
wide diversity; but the design of the many-aisled church and the
presence of a large quantity of columns and capitals may well have
influenced the mosque builders. In any case the position of the Aqṣâ
would have led to an abnormal plan, inasmuch as the great court of the
ḥaram enclosure, in which it stood, rendered it unnecessary to give a
separate court, or ṣaḥn, to the mosque.
The Umayyad mosque at Damascus is also abnormal, but its plan seems to
have been far more directly determined than in the Aqṣâ by the building
which preceded it on the same site. The nave and aisles of the church of
St. John must have dictated the scheme of its arcades, and its
distinguishing feature, the wide central aisle running north and south,
can only be explained by a similar disposition, either transept or
narthex, in the church.[408] It is conceivable that the temple porticoes
may have given the impulse to the full development of the riwâqs about
the ṣaḥn, just as the porticoes of such buildings as the Serapeion, the
agora, and the gymnasium at Alexandria, or of the stoas and agoras which
adorned the Hellenistic cities of the Roman empire, may have had their
share in suggesting an extension of the colonnades of the mosque, and
indeed in Mesopotamia, where these models were absent, there is no
reason for supposing that the riwâqs were carried in the first
constructions all round the ṣaḥn. But this extension was in itself a not
unnatural growth out of the Medînah plan, and in its further history,
the courtyard-mosque with its deep ḥaram and its narrow flanking riwâqs
pursued its own line of development, based upon its own needs. In this
development no doubt the renowned Umayyad mosque at Damascus played a
part. In Syria both the Aqṣâ and the mosque at Ba’albek show the wide
central aisle running north and south.[409] It is typical of the
Tunisian mosques, but here it is almost always found in conjunction with
a wide transept running parallel with the qiblah wall; a dome covers the
miḥrâb where the wide aisle and the transept meet, and a second dome
stands at the opposite end of the central aisle. This =⏊=-shaped scheme
can be seen at Qairawân, in the Zaitûnah at Tunis, at Tilimsân, and
elsewhere. The mosque of Qairawân was founded in A.D. 671, but entirely
rebuilt, first in 703 and again in 837.[410] The Zaitûnah was founded in
A.D. 732. The great mosque at Cordova, founded at the end of the eighth
century, had the same disposition.[411] The Tilimsân mosques are
considerably later in date and are built with piers, with the exception
of Sidi al-Ḥalwi, where both piers and columns are used.[412]
With the exception of the late Tilimsân group, the wooden roof of all
the above-mentioned mosques, both in Syria and in North Africa, was
supported by columns and arches, the columns having invariably been
taken from pre-Mohammadan buildings. Probably the earliest extant
example of a mosque in which the arches rested on piers is at Ḥarrân,
but the building is unfortunately so much ruined that its exact
disposition cannot be determined without excavation. The plan, so far as
it is apparent, has been given by Dr. Preusser.[413] The central arch in
the north façade of the ḥaram alone remains standing. Its width would
seem to indicate that here, as at Damascus, the central aisle was
broader than the rest. On either side of it there was an arch of much
narrower span.[414] None of the other piers can be placed with
certainty. There are some fragments of columns both in the ḥaram and in
the east riwâq. An inscription on the east gate gives the name of Ṣalâḥ
al-Dîn,[415] but I think it certain that it alludes not to the
foundation, but to the restoration of the mosque. The cusped ornament
round the relieving arch over the door corresponds with the cusped
motive on the façade of the Mayâfârqîn mosque, and the gateway at Ḥarrân
has every appearance of being the work of Ṣalâḥ al-Dîn. But the engaged
capitals of the interior responds in the east wall, and the wreathed
acanthus capital under the central arch of the ḥaram (one capital only
is preserved) must be dated several centuries earlier. I do not doubt
that they were executed for the places which they occupy, and I agree
with Dr. Herzfeld in assigning them to the Umayyad period.[416] I
observed, however, among the ruins in the interior of the mosque many
fragments of carved ornament which cannot be earlier than the time of
Ṣalâḥ al-Dîn, and I came to the conclusion that until the building has
received further study it is impossible to make a more precise statement
concerning it than that it seems to be a structure of which parts at
least belong to the early eighth century, that it had a wide central
aisle and four gable roofs supported on masonry piers, or possibly upon
piers and columns.
At Raqqah, according to Balâdhuri,[417] a mosque was built by Sa’îd ibn
‘Âmir ibn Ḥudhaim not long after the conquest of the country by the
Mohammadans; and Muqaddasi, as I have already had occasion to
mention,[418] speaks of one of the Raqqah mosques as built upon columns.
My impression upon visiting the site in 1909 was that the earliest
Mohammadan city must have occupied the ground where, among ruin heaps,
rises a rectangular minaret. In connexion with this minaret I
conjectured that the first mosque had stood (though possibly the minaret
was not contemporary with the earliest building), and since the town to
which it belonged was the successor of Nicephoricum-Callinicum, and
there were no doubt plenty of columns at hand for the mosque, I conclude
that it was Sa’îd ibn ‘Âmir’s edifice which was described by Muqaddasi,
and that it is to be classed with the normal type of courtyard-mosque
built on classical sites, i.e. it had a riwâq or riwâqs composed of
columns. The khalif Manṣûr founded in the year A.H. 155 a second town,
the ruins of which are still to be seen to the west of the earlier
settlement. Upon this site there were no ancient remains,[419] that is
to say that Manṣûr had not Roman or Byzantine materials at his disposal.
Now within the walls of Manṣûr’s city stand the ruins of a mosque built
upon piers (Fig. 32). According to an inscription over the central arch
of the ḥaram arcade it was repaired in A.D. 1166 by the Atâbek Nûr
al-Dîn.[420] It was surrounded by a wall built of sun-dried brick, which
was strengthened by rounded towers. The ḥaram was composed of three rows
of oblong brick piers, of which the northernmost alone is standing; the
riwâqs on the remaining three sides were of two rows of columns which
can be traced only by the holes in the ground whence the burnt bricks
whereof they were built have been extracted. The central arch of the
ḥaram is no wider than the arches on either side, but the niche in which
it is set is carried up higher than the other niches, and M. van Berchem
has suggested that it may have been surmounted by a gable, like the
mosques at Damascus and Diyârbekr. It is possible that this was so, but
both at Damascus and at Diyârbekr the central aisle is distinguished
from the side aisles by its greater width. The round minaret in the ṣaḥn
at Raqqah I believe to have been the work of Nûr al-Dîn. At Baghdâd,
Manṣûr built a mosque of which we have nothing but the description. Its
walls were of sun-dried brick and its columns of wood, each column being
composed of two pieces, the ends bound together with sinews and glue and
rings of iron, with the exception of five or six columns near the
minaret, which were constructed of rounded pieces of wood.[421]
[Illustration: FIG. 32. Mosque at Raqqah.]
Less than a hundred years later Mutawakkil (A.D. 847-861) built the
mosque of Abû Dulaf, which is closely related in plan to Manṣûr’s mosque
at Raqqah (Fig. 33).[422] There is the same enclosing wall of sun-dried
brick garnished with
[Illustration: FIG. 33. Mosque of Abû Dulaf.]
rounded towers. The arcades are of burnt brick, but the central aisle of
the ḥaram and the corresponding aisle of the north riwâq are more than a
metre wider than the others (7·33 metres as against an average of 6·20
metres), and a transept 10·40 metres wide runs along the qiblah wall.
Dr. Herzfeld informs me that he has by excavation ascertained the
existence of a miḥrâb in the centre of the qiblah wall where I had
placed a door. In one respect Abû Dulaf differs from all other mosques
built with piers; the arcades of the south riwâq, instead of lying
parallel to the qiblah wall, are placed at right angles to it. I do not
think that this variation is of great importance, for the outer and
inner arcades (that is to say, the arcade on the ṣaḥn and the arcade
next to the qiblah wall) are placed parallel to the qiblah wall, and it
is only between these two that the ḥaram arcades run at right angles.
The divergence from the normal scheme is not therefore so great as would
at first appear. The mosque is surrounded by an outer enclosure, or
ziyâdah[423], within which stands the spiral minaret, to the north of
the centre of the north wall. The piers and arches of the riwâqs must
undoubtedly have carried a flat wooden roof; nevertheless in the façades
of the ṣaḥn each pier is adorned with the blind niche which I believe to
be derived from the tubular system of Mesopotamian vaulting (Plate 89,
Fig. 2). This decoration is a direct link between the unvaulted mosque
of Abû Dulaf and the vaulted palace of Ukhaiḍir, and the fact that it
appears again in the mosque of Ibn Ṭulûn is to my mind an indubitable
proof of the essential exactitude of the tradition which connects Ibn
Ṭulûn’s building with Mesopotamian architecture (Plate 89, Fig. 1).
Other structural evidence is not wanting. The position of the minaret in
the northern ziyâdah (to say nothing of its spiral form) corresponds
with the position of the minarets both at Abû Dulaf and at Sâmarrâ, and
even if we leave on one side the much-disputed question of the origin of
the stucco ornament in the Cairo mosque, there is another feature of its
decoration which points directly to Mesopotamia. The walls are crowned
with a fantastic parapet, which probably goes back, in design at least,
to the ninth century, and below the parapet, just above the level of the
roof, runs a decorative band consisting of a recessed square pierced by
a circular hole (Plate 91, Fig. 1). The same motive appears upon the
walls of the Sâmarrâ mosque, with this difference, that it is placed
below the level of the roof and not above it (Plate 91, Fig. 2). Instead
of forming part of a light parapet, it forms part of the solid wall;
with the result that the circle is not pierced through to the interior,
but remains a saucer-shaped motive sunk within the square. I hazard the
conjecture that the origin of this ornament is to be sought upon the
walls of Assyrian fortifications, and that it represents the row of
shields set within rectangular frames which are to be seen on
innumerable Assyrian reliefs (Fig. 34).
In the great mosque at Sâmarrâ the wooden roof was borne directly
(without the interposition of arches) by composite piers having bases
2·07 metres square.[424] These piers were composed of an octagonal core
of brick with four slender marble columns placed one at each corner. The
columns were sometimes round, sometimes octagonal, and averaged ·30
metre in diameter. Dr. Herzfeld calculates that each column consisted of
three sections, placed one on top of the other and bound together with
lead and with metal rings. They rested upon bell-shaped bases and
carried bell-shaped capitals. Dr. Herzfeld points out that the teak
columns of Manṣûr’s mosque at Baghdad were similarly composed of
sections joined together in the same manner. The ḥaram and the north
riwâq at Sâmarrâ were given a wide central aisle.
[Illustration: FIG. 34. Assyrian fortress.
From _L’Acropole de Suse_, by kind permission of M. Dieulafoy.]
The two small mosques of which Dr. Herzfeld has uncovered the
foundations in the palace of Balkuwârâ present further variations. The
larger was an oblong chamber of brick, 35 × 15 metres, the roof
supported by two rows of eight columns which were probably either of
wood or of marble. In the wall opposite the qiblah there were three
doors. The smaller mosque was a chamber 10·35 × 7·76 metres, built of
sun-dried brick, without columns. The miḥrâb was a deep rounded niche
surmounted by a cyma moulding and flanked by engaged columns, and in the
opposite wall were three doors. The miḥrâb of the larger mosque, which
is totally destroyed, is probably to be reconstructed in the same style.
Neither of these mosques has a ṣaḥn, the great palace enclosure in which
they stand serving them as court.[425]
With the exception of the small palace chapels at Balkuwârâ, all the
Mesopotamian mosques were laid out on the same plan, but they differed
in details of construction. When columns were available they were used
in the riwâqs, as at Kûfah and in the first mosque at Raqqah. Elsewhere
there were either wooden columns (Baṣrah, Baghdâd), or columns of
masonry (Ukhaiḍir); or the riwâqs might be built with brick piers
(Manṣûr’s mosque at Raqqah, Abû Dulaf) or, where stone was easy to
obtain, with stone piers (Ḥarrân). At Sâmarrâ there is an isolated
example of a composite pier. The roofs also differ from one another. At
Ḥarrân there must have been wooden gable roofs over the riwâqs; at
Ukhaiḍir they were vaulted; at Abû Dulaf the flat wooden roof rested on
arches; at Sâmarrâ, and probably at Baghdâd, it was carried directly by
the piers or columns. The wide central aisle was present at Ḥarrân, at
Sâmarrâ, and at Abû Dulaf; at the latter there is also a side transept,
producing the same =⏊=-shaped plan that has been noticed in the Tunisian
mosques. The data are too scanty to admit of any but the most general
conclusion. We find divergent detail but no divergence in type, and the
type in Mesopotamia, as in other parts of the Mohammadan world, was
derived ultimately from the Prophet’s house at Medînah. It is in
Mesopotamia that we have the earliest examples of the brick pier. We do
not know how far Nûr al-Dîn’s reparations at Raqqah extended, nor what
was the aspect of the façades of the ṣaḥn before his time, but at Abû
Dulaf the original construction is preserved and the brick piers and
arches of the façades bear in their spandrel niches a characteristic
Mesopotamian trait. I do not doubt that the first Egyptian mosque built
with brick piers, that of Ibn Ṭulûn, was inspired by the Mesopotamian
scheme; the marks of relationship are too numerous not to be convincing.
The engaged quarter-columns with which his piers are provided were no
new thing. Engaged half-columns are universal at Ukhaiḍir, and the
oblong piers with quarter-columns in Ibn Ṭulûn’s mosque are nothing but
a translation into solid masonry, along the lines indicated at Ukhaiḍir,
of the octagonal piers with angle colonnettes of Sâmarrâ. More than a
hundred years later this building served as a model to al-Ḥâkim, and it
is interesting to note that the Mesopotamian pier was applied at a still
later date to a building which seems in other respects to have been a
direct imitation of the Umayyad mosque at Damascus. The great mosque at
Diyârbekr (I give here a plan which I made in 1911, Plate 90) is a
patchwork of older materials re-used at different times. The oldest part
of the existing structure is the west wing of the ḥaram, which is dated
by an inscription in the year A.D. 1091,[426] but the west arcade of
the ṣaḥn, though it is dated A.D. 1124, must preserve the memory of a
plan which is older than that of the present mosque. It strikes the
north wall of the ḥaram at an angle of 78°, and by reason of its oblique
disposition it cuts off the north-west corner of the ṣaḥn, which is 6·24
metres shorter on the north side than it is on the south side. The east
arcade of the ṣaḥn (dated A.D. 1163-1179) lies almost at right angles to
the north wall of the ḥaram. Whether the orientation of the west arcade
was dictated by a pre-Mohammadan building or, as Dr. Herzfeld has
acutely suggested, by the plan of a mosque which stood upon this site
before the year A.D. 1091,[427] cannot be determined with certainty. In
its present form it is the work of Mohammadan builders of the twelfth
century, though it is partly composed of pre-Mohammadan materials.
Whence these materials were derived has not been ascertained. There is,
however, a further proof that a building older than the existing mosque,
oriented in the manner corresponding with that of the west arcade,
existed on this site. On the north side of the ṣaḥn, between the two
northern madrasahs, there is a lane or passage which communicates with
the street beyond the precincts of the mosque. On the east side of the
passage there is a fragment of wall, built of large dressed stones,
entirely dissimilar from the masonry in any part of the existing mosque,
and this fragment lies at the same angle as the west arcade of the ṣaḥn
(Plate 93, Fig. 1).
Not far from Diyârbekr there is another building which shows in its plan
and decorations the influence of the Ulu Djâmi’ in that city. The
so-called mosque of Ṣalâḥ al-Dîn at Mayâfârqîn ranks, even in ruin,
among the finest of Mohammadan monuments (Plate 92). The wide central
aisle has been converted into a chamber almost square (it is not quite
rectangular and averages 13·60 x 13·32 metres), which was covered by a
dome set on elaborately decorated squinch arches (Plate 93, Fig. 2).
Under the dome runs an inscription assigning the building of the mosque
to the Ortokid Alpi (A.D. 1152-1176). The square chamber is surrounded
on three sides by a corridor consisting of eleven bays, some of which
were probably domed, while the others were vaulted. The columns placed
against the piers of the dome were taken from a neighbouring early
Christian basilica. The wings to east and west are divided by three
arcades into four transepts averaging alternately 5 metres and 2·60
metres in width, a narrow transept lying next to the qiblah wall. The
eastern miḥrâb in the south wall of the east wing is dated by an
inscription of the Ayyûbid Ghâzi in the year A.H. 624 = A.D. 1227. The
west wing contains no date, but the very shallow miḥrâb in the south
wall is proved by its decoration to belong to a period not earlier than
the sixteenth century, and as the whole wing as it stands at present
seems to have been rebuilt, it may well be that it all belongs to a late
reconstruction or reparation. Still further west are some ruined
edifices which formed part of the precincts of the mosque, and here a
lintel, re-used in a doorway of a later period, bears a second
inscription of the Ayyûbid Ghâzi and the date A.H. 624 = A.D. 1227.
There are no remains of a minaret, and the ṣaḥn is completely ruined and
filled with débris, but the north façade, which is almost entirely
preserved, is of remarkable interest in the history of Mohammadan
decoration. (The photograph of a section of this façade has been given
on Plate 84, Fig. 3.) The wings and the north façade show many signs of
reparation, and no doubt the mosque shared the fate of all great
buildings in these stormy regions, and suffered frequent ruin and
subsequent restoration; but it seems probable that the two wings were
originally built between A.D. 1226 and 1228, and that they were added to
the domed chamber with its corridor which had been erected some fifty
years earlier.
In the Ayyûbid mosques at Ḥasan Kaif, all of which are dated in the
first half of the fifteenth century, no suggestion of an early plan can
be traced. At Môṣul, the great mosque as it exists at present dates from
the time of Nûr al-Dîn Maḥmûd (A.D. 1146-1173), but the plan shows
traces of an earlier riwâq constructed with piers, and lying immediately
to the north of the present ḥaram; while fragmentary inscriptions in
decorated Kufic must belong, according to M. van Berchem, to the
eleventh century A.D.[428]
That we have no further information concerning the Mesopotamian mosque
shows how insufficient are the data which bear upon its architectural
history. From the facts which I have briefly summarized one conclusion
may, however, be drawn. The mosque builders were guided by a scheme of
extreme simplicity, the details of which were executed according to the
nature of the building material which was available. When that material
could be taken from older buildings the Mesopotamian artificers were not
slow to profit by so fortunate a circumstance; elsewhere they reverted
to the system of construction which from time immemorial had prevailed
in those regions. They built with sun-dried or with burnt bricks, or
where stone could be obtained they built with stone. Sometimes they
imported stone from Ahwâz for the columns of their riwâqs, and sometimes
wood; sometimes they raised columns of stone masonry, or again they
combined brick piers with colonnettes of marble. But since imported wood
and stone were expensive, and the Sasanian monuments, which had served
as quarries, were speedily exhausted, there was a natural tendency to
return to the old local forms, and piers of brick or stone masonry were
the obvious solution for the supports of the riwâqs. Ukhaiḍir is the
only example which remains to us of a mosque in which the riwâqs were
covered with a vault; probably the vault was seldom employed. It is
certain that all the mosques of the early Abbâsid period, of which the
ruins are preserved, must have been roofed with wood.
CHAPTER VII
THE DATE OF UKHAIḌIR
There are no inscriptions by which to fix the date of Ukhaiḍir. If any
record of its foundation were made, it must have been written upon the
plaster which covered the walls, and in some of the more important rooms
the plaster has peeled away. But it is probable that there was no such
record. The laudable habit of setting the name and date of the founder
upon the building which he had caused to be constructed does not seem to
have been followed in the first age of Islâm, and, like Ukhaiḍir, the
ḥîrahs upon the Syrian frontier have furnished us with no direct
evidence as to their origin. I found in room 44 a graffito upon the
plaster on the south side of the doorway which communicates with room
45. It is exceedingly ill written, and in some places the cracking of
the plaster makes it almost indecipherable. The authors of _Ocheïdir_
did not notice it and no mention of it appears in M. Massignon’s text,
though he certainly saw it, since it is visible in one of his
photographs.[429] The original is so indistinct that I doubt whether any
photograph would reproduce it satisfactorily. After an unsuccessful
attempt to take a squeeze, I made a copy--scarcely more successfully
(Fig. 35). When I returned to Ukhaiḍir in 1911 the plaster was still
more damaged, and I abandoned the attempt to re-copy the graffito.
Meantime Dr. B. Moritz had noticed the characters in M. Massignon’s
photograph, and he was inclined to believe that they might be ancient,
possibly Nabataean. I therefore sent my copy both to him and to
Professor Littmann, and the latter was so kind as to supply me with the
following notes. ‘Dr. Moritz and I combined our efforts and something
like the following may be suggested:
[Illustration: Arabic]
“This water from the house (?) to ... from this water. And the
declaration was pronounced that there is no God but God and Muḥammad is
his Prophet. And there was present at this ... Bishr, son of ‘Âdah son
of ‘Îsâ son of ‘Umar, in the year of the Hidjrah 77-.”
‘If the date is correctly read we would have to choose between the years
A.H. 771 and 779 = A.D. 1369-1378. The purpose of this inscription may
be to reserve the rights of watering at or near Ukhaiḍir. The Beduin
put their tribe marks on ruins in the desert in order to prove that the
region (water and pasture) is theirs. This is their way of annexation.
The whole is very doubtful; but we have made out at least something. The
words that are absolutely certain are [Illustration: Arabic],
[Illustration: Arabic] and [Illustration: Arabic].’
The result, as Professor Littmann observes, is small; but we have at any
rate the assurance that the graffito is not very ancient and that it is
not concerned with the building or restoration of the palace. The water
to which it alludes must be the well in the Wâdi al-Ubaiḍ.
The name ‘Ukhaiḍir’ is not mentioned by historians or geographers. Like
so many of the place-names now current in the desert it is in all
probability comparatively modern. Mshattâ, Qṣair ‘Amrah, Kharâneh, are
not known to history under those titles; even the word ‘Ḥamâd’, which is
applied universally to the high and barren steppes of the northern
Syrian desert, is not used by any mediaeval writer. But the root from
which ‘Ukhaiḍir’ is derived, signifying primarily to be green and
therefore easily applicable to any spot where there is water or verdure,
is found in other place-names. The palace or ḥîrah of the Umayyads in
Damascus was called ‘al-Khaḍrâ’,[430] and Balâdhuri mentions another
Khaḍrâ, in or near Kûfah, in his description of that city.[431] It
would, however, be vain to attempt to identify the Khaḍrâ of Kûfah with
Ukhaiḍir, though some at least of the place-names given in Balâdhuri’s
catalogue denote sites well without the limits of Kûfah itself, and even
at considerable distances from the town. Khawarnaq, for example, comes
into the list, and a building or village called Qaṣr al-Muqâtil, which
is stated by Yâqût to be either between ‘Ain al-Tamr and Damascus, or
near al-Quṭquṭâneh and Sulâm.[432] Quṭquṭâneh we know to be the modern
Ṭuqṭuqâneh, and Sulâm I must connect with the well of the same name, of
which I heard as lying under the Ṭâr east of Ukhaiḍir a little to the
south of my path to Mudjḍah and ‘Aṭshân.[433] Qaṣr al-Muqâtil is said by
Ṭabari, by Balâdhuri, and by Yâqût to have been called after a certain
Muqâtil ibn Ḥasân ibn Tha’labah ibn Aus ibn Ibrâhîm ibn Ayyûb ibn
Madjrûf ibn ‘Âmir ibn ‘Uṣayyah ibn Imra’al-Qais ibn Zaid Manât ibn
Tamîm, who would seem to have lived during the Days of Ignorance, and in
fact the Qaṣr of the Banû Muqâtil is mentioned by Ibn al-Athîr in his
account of the movements of Persian and Mohammadan leaders which
preceded the battle of Qâdisiyyeh.[434] From a further passage in Ibn
al-Athîr it would appear to have
[Illustration: FIG. 35. Ukhaiḍir, graffito in room 44.]
lain near Quṭquṭâneh, on the road from Kûfah to Anbâr.[435] Yâqût states
that ‘Isâ ibn ‘Ali ibn ‘Abdallâh (who was great-uncle to the khalif
Manṣûr) demolished and subsequently rebuilt Qaṣr al-Muqâtil, and that it
belonged to him: he goes on to quote a couplet of Ibn Takhmâ al-Asadi:
‘Methinks there is not in the Qaṣr, the Qaṣr of Muqâtil, or in Zûrah,
any pleasant shade or a friend;’ from which I infer that the Qaṣr was
not a walled palm garden, like the modern quṣûr in the vicinity of the
Baḥr Nedjef, and therefore that it may well have been an isolated castle
in the desert. I do not wish to suggest that there can be any certainty
in identifying Ukhaiḍir with the Qaṣr al-Muqâtil, but I would
nevertheless call attention to the following points:
1. It is strange that a building as important as Ukhaiḍir should not
have been mentioned by historians or poets, since the district in which
it stands was the theatre of much action during the first hundred and
fifty years of the Hidjrah.
2. The position of the Qaṣr of Muqâtil, so far as somewhat vague
indications allow it to be determined, would not accord ill with the
site of Ukhaiḍir.
There is, however, another way of accounting for the silence of early
records, namely, by supposing that Ukhaiḍir was not in existence at that
period. In this matter we can be guided only by such deductions as can
be made from the plan, structure, and decorations of the palace.
The plan of Ukhaiḍir is in many respects more closely related to that of
the palace of Khusrau at Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn than to the plan of Balkuwârâ.
The latter palace is a further development of the scheme which is
represented in a less complete form by the two other buildings. That
this further development necessarily implies the lapse of any long
period of time, or indeed of any appreciable period of time, between the
erection of Ukhaiḍir and the erection of Balkuwârâ, I am not prepared to
assert; it might be taken to denote no more than that in the one case
the architects were called upon to construct a remote hunting palace in
the desert, while in the other they were laying out a princely dwelling
in the capital of the empire. A similar explanation might be given to
account for the difference between the beautiful and varied stucco work
of Balkuwârâ, wherein the influence of Hellenistic Syria and Coptic
Egypt is apparent, and the limited range of the decorations of Ukhaiḍir,
confined as they are to motives which had been borrowed by the Sasanians
partly from Mesopotamian Hellenism, and partly from the
Assyro-Babylonian tradition. But I cannot regard such reasoning as
wholly convincing. The difference both in decoration and in structure
between Ukhaiḍir and the buildings at Sâmarrâ are such as to place the
foundation of the one considerably earlier than the foundation of the
others.
As regards structure one of the most significant indications of date is
the curve of the arches. Ukhaiḍir belongs to the time of transition
from the round or ovoid to the pointed arch. This transition must have
been accomplished in Mesopotamia during the course of the eighth
century. While the Sasanian vault is invariably round or elliptical (I
attach no importance to the fortuitous appearance of the pointed vault
in the substructure at Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn), the Sasanian arch is, so far as
my knowledge goes, invariably round. The arches of Sarvistân are
specifically stated to be round,[436] the arches of Firûzâbâd are also
round, though where the arch is set back upon the jambs a tendency to
give a curve to the angle lends to them the appearance of a
horse-shoe.[437] All the arches of the Ctesiphon façade are round, and
at Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn the builders knew no other form. It has been contended
that the pointed arch is found in the upper gallery on the interior of
the east wall at Ctesiphon, but Dr. Herzfeld has shown satisfactorily
that the curve assumed by those arches was dictated by their peculiar
construction.[438] The pointed arch, like the pointed vault, may have
been used sporadically in the pre-Mohammadan era (it is found in the
church of Qaṣr ibn Wardân, which must have been built about the year
A.D. 564[439]); it was latent in Sasanian architecture; but it was not
until the eighth century that it passed into familiar use. In the
Umayyad buildings on the western side of the desert, it appears side by
side with the round arch, and at Hammân al-Ṣarakh, Ṭûbah and Mshattâ it
assumes exactly the same shape in which we have it at Ukhaiḍir, a
slightly stilted, pointed ovoid which bears the hall-mark of its descent
from the Sasanian elliptical vault. Similarly at Ukhaiḍir it has not yet
ousted all other forms; there are examples in the palace of the true
ovoid arch and even of the round arch. The builders of Sâmarrâ went a
step further. Their arches have shaken off all connexion with the
Sasanian ellipse and have taken on the curve which was to become typical
from that time forward of the Mohammadan pointed arch.[440] Of the same
character are the arches of the Baghdâd gate at Raqqah, which cannot be
earlier than the reign of Manṣûr and may with greater probability be
assigned to Hârûn al-Rashîd.[441] It would therefore appear to be
certain from the evidence which we possess that in the first half of the
ninth century, and possibly as early as the close of the eighth century,
the pointed arch had come into systematic use in Mesopotamia, to the
exclusion of all other forms, and if that be the case, Ukhaiḍir must
belong to an earlier period, more closely approximating, as I would
suggest, to the period which witnessed the same transition stage on the
Syrian side of the desert, a stage which falls there into the first half
of the eighth century.
From the details of arch construction little help is to be derived. The
double ring of brick voussoirs, the inner horizontal, the outer
vertical, is common to Ctesiphon and to Sâmarrâ, as well as to the
Syrian ḥîrahs of the intervening age. The system of arch-building over
temporary or permanent centerings has been shown by Dr. Reuther to be
practised to the present day, but so far as I am aware, arches set back
from the jambs, such as those which were built over temporary centerings
in the Sasanian palaces and in Ukhaiḍir, are not present in monumental
buildings at a later date. There is no recorded example of this
construction at Sâmarrâ.
Neither do the horse-shoe arches of the central court afford any
conclusive evidence as to date. In all probability the horse-shoe arch
was used in Mesopotamia long before Ukhaiḍir was built, and it is used
to this day. It appears at Tâq-i-Girrâ, a monument of which the date is
not determined, though the classical workmanship of its mouldings
indicates a period early in the Christian era;[442] it is found in a
Hellenistic vault at Chiusi,[443] and it is common in the churches of
Syria. To the north of Mesopotamia there is an early example of its use
in the basilica at Mayâfârqîn.[444] As for the methods of vaulting
employed at Ukhaiḍir they exhibit no features which are not present in
the Umayyad buildings on the Syrian side of the desert, but in some
respects, for example in the use of the groin and of the fluted dome,
they are in advance of Sasanian construction.
I have already called attention to the points of similarity between
Ukhaiḍir and Kharâneh. They have a certain weight in the chronological
problem although they do not afford decisive evidence as to identity of
date. With identical requirements details of structure are apt to remain
the same over long periods of time. The loophole windows at Abû Hurairah
and at Raqqah,[445] in buildings which must be placed in the middle of
the twelfth century, differ little, if at all, from those of Ukhaiḍir
and Kharâneh. Nor is the coincidence in the latter two monuments of a
decorated chamber to the right of the audience room in itself a
determining factor. The same scheme may have existed in Mohammadan
palaces later in date than Kharâneh, but unfortunately the later palaces
have not been preserved or are not yet adequately explored. Possibly the
excavations at Sâmarrâ may throw further light on the subject.
There is, however, another matter which must be taken into account. The
palace of Ukhaiḍir could not have satisfied the needs of any but a very
primitive society. It contains no bath, that indispensable requisite of
existence in hot climates, nor any sanitary arrangements whatsoever.
Moreover the seclusion of the ḥaram courts is very imperfect, a fact
which points to a primitive stage of Islâm. It is true that the ḥaram
courts are separated from each other and from the central court of
honour, but they are overlooked by the windows of the two upper stories
of the northern block, which must have belonged to the public part of
the palace. Doorways open from the first floor on to a roof which is
continuous with the roof of the ḥiram lîwâns, and even if low walls
divided the roof spaces, the guests or guards who were lodged in the
upper story had an uninterrupted view into all the courts below. When I
first visited Ukhaiḍir I found it inhabited by some Arabs from Djôf. The
wives and families of the shaikhs had taken possession of the rooms on
the first floor, where none of my servants were allowed to penetrate.
They dwelt there because, if they had occupied the lower courts, their
movements could have been observed from above.
All these observations point to, or can be reconciled with, a date in
the eighth century for the building of the palace, but whether it
belongs to the late Umayyad or to the early Abbâsid period cannot be
decided from internal evidence. The sister buildings on the western side
of the desert are Umayyad, but on the other hand Ya’qûbi, writing
towards the close of the ninth century, mentions the fact that the
castles of the Abbâsid khalifs were situated on or near the road to
Mekkah. ‘He who wishes to travel from Kûfah to the Ḥidjâz goes out along
the southern road by stations which are built and halting-places which
are kept in repair, among which are the castles of the Hâshimid khalifs.
The first station is Qâdisiyyeh.’[446] The Arabic word which I have
translated ‘castles’ is _quṣûr_; it is the word which is applied to-day
to the mud-walled palm gardens of the Baḥr Nedjef. Whether in this
passage it should be taken to denote palm gardens or ḥîrahs situated
along the Ḥadjdj road I do not know, but it is significant that, with
the exception of Ukhaiḍir, no trace of any such ḥîrahs has remained to
our day. Ukhaiḍir is not upon the road that runs from Kûfah to the
Ḥidjâz, but neither is it more than two days’ journey removed from it.
That the khalif Hârûn al-Rashîd carried his hunting expeditions into the
region near Kûfah seems probable from the fact that it was on one of
these occasions that he is said to have found the grave of the khalif
‘Ali at the spot which is now occupied by the city of Nedjef.[447] The
story of the finding of the grave bears every sign of having been a
legend invented by the Shî’ahs, but it lends additional colour to the
supposition that the early Abbâsids frequented the eastern deserts in
pursuit of game, and therefore that they may have possessed palaces
outside Kûfah to which they were accustomed to resort. Manṣûr, the
second of the line, founded Baghdâd in A.D. 762, and removed the offices
of government thither from Hâshimiyyeh near Kûfah in 763. His
predecessor Ṣaffâh had lived at Hâshimiyyeh near Anbâr: it was he who
had transferred the capital from Damascus to ‘Irâq. Previous to 750,
when the last Umayyad khalif, Marwân II, was deposed and slain, the
eastern provinces of the empire were governed by powerful viceroys, and
if Ukhaiḍir is to be regarded as pre-Abbâsid it is to one of these that
it must be attributed. Men like Ziyâd ibn Abîhi or Ḥadjdjâdj, who
controlled the riches of ‘Irâq and Persia, were scarcely second in
wealth and power to the khalifs themselves. Ziyâd’s personal austerity
is attested by historians who had no desire to depict the character of
Mu’âwiyah’s vicegerent in a favourable light, but his architectural
activity is shown not only by the number of mosques which he founded or
rebuilt, but also by the erection of palaces at Baṣrah.[448] He died in
A.D. 673 after holding his high office under ‘Ali and Mu’âwiyah for a
period of nearly fifteen years. Ḥadjdjâdj was governor of ‘Irâq from
A.D. 695 to 713. In the khalifate of Ḥishâm, Khâlid ibn ‘Abdallâh ruled
over ‘Irâq for thirteen years (724-737), and Yûsuf ibn ‘Umar, who
succeeded to the post, held it for seven years. Any of these men might
have built and occupied palaces in the wilderness, imitating the
practice of their Umayyad masters, and also of their Nu’mânid
predecessors in the very region in which the Umayyad viceroys wielded in
their turn an authority far greater than that to which the Arab princes
of Ḥîrah could lay claim. But the existence of a miḥrâb in the mosque
fixes a date before which it is unlikely that Ukhaiḍir could have been
built. According to Mohammadan writers, the first miḥrâb was that which
was constructed in the mosque of Medînah between A.D. 709 and 711, and
if that be so Ukhaiḍir cannot be placed earlier than the last years of
Ḥadjdjâdj. I take the years 709-711 as the earliest possible date and
the khalifate of Hârûn al-Rashîd as the latest possible date, and with
due regard to the probable age of the Syrian palaces on the one hand,
and to the architectural features of Ukhaiḍir as compared with those of
Raqqah and Sâmarrâ on the other, I conclude that Ukhaiḍir must have been
built towards the middle of the eighth century.
This leads me back once more to the Qaṣr of Muqâtil, which, though it
was in existence during the pre-Mohammadan and Umayyad periods, was
destroyed and rebuilt by ‘Îsâ ibn ‘Ali; and without insisting upon the
identity of the two, I submit that the suggestion that they may be
identical is not groundless. The well in the Wâdi al-Ubaiḍ is the only
spot in the region immediately south of the lake of Abû Dibs at which
fresh water can be obtained, and for that reason it was probably always
frequented. That no advantage should have been taken of it at a time
when Ḥîrah and Kûfah were rich and important centres of population is
difficult to suppose. But whatever habitation was in existence on the
Wâdi al-Ubaiḍ during the Days of Ignorance, it cannot have been the same
as the palace of Ukhaiḍir, which is indisputably of Mohammadan origin.
The Qaṣr al-Muqâtil was, however, rebuilt in the early part of the
Abbâsid era; and that is a date (and as I have attempted to show, it is
the latest date) which is consistent with the architecture of Ukhaiḍir.
SUBJECT INDEX
A
abacus, 12, 29;
boss on, 135.
acanthus, 141, n. 3.
acroterion, 129.
aedicula, 127, 129, 139.
aisle of mosque, 151, 152, 153, 154, 157, 158, 159.
aiwân, _see_ lîwân.
Alexandrian influence, 126, 127, 136.
ancient road, Kûfah-Shethâthâ, 2, 43.
antechamber, _see_ ṭarmah.
apadana, 63.
arcade, 16, 17, 19, 23, 28, 30, 32,
35, 49, 50, 71, 125, 153, 154, 155, 156, 159;
blind, 5, 6, 24, 25, 30, 32, 34.
arch, breaking into vault, 10, 20, 34;
construction, 6, 12, 15, 18, 24, 26, 29, 39, 42, 113, 166;
decoration, 122;
horse-shoed, 8, 24, 165, 166;
ogee, 40;
oversailing, 9, 15, 16, 26, 27, 33, 79, 115;
ovoid, 6, 26, 28, 32, 33, 34, 114;
pointed, 5, 6, 9, 16, 29, 32, 34, 112, 114, 118, 165;
relieving, 112, 113, 115, 118;
round, 30, 39, 41, 43, 76, 112, 113, 115, 118, 165;
segmental, 13;
set back from jambs, 14, 16, 20, 25, 26, 28, 33, 76, 79, 118, 166;
stilted, 8, 29, 114, 118;
transition from round or ovoid to pointed, 114, 165;
transverse, 8, 9, 17, 18, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 36, 37, 51, 53,
72, 73, 83, 96, 97, 112, 115, 140.
architrave, 123, 131, 135, 136;
broken, 125, 128.
archivolt, 128, 129, 131, 133, 135.
armamentarium, 102, 103.
Assyro-Babylonian influence, 142, 164.
asymmetry, 51, 52, 79, 81, 93, 94;
in façade, 130, 131, 132.
âteshgâh, 91, 92.
attic, 127, 128, 129, 130.
B
bâdiyah, 55, 112, 119.
bait, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 104, 105, 106,
112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 118, 120.
balcony, 19, 23, 25, 133.
barracks, in Roman camp, 100, 102, 105.
base, absence of, 27, 42, 134;
bell-shaped, 156.
bastion, 107, 108.
bath, _see_ ḥammâm.
battering-ram, 107.
brackets, horizontal, under domes, semi-domes, and
calottes, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18, 24, 25, 27, 42, 73, 97, 111, 112, 113.
brick, 13, 24, 26, 28, 30, 39, 40, 41, 45, 54, 69,
70, 71, 79, 82, 84, 96, 113, 115, 117, 154, 155, 160;
enamelled, 122, 123, 140;
sun-dried, 38, 68, 75, 146, 147, 148, 153, 154, 160.
buttress, 4, 35, 71, 122.
buttressing vaults, 14, 26, 35, 74, 75, 95.
Byzantine influence, 115, 119, 143, 147.
C
calotte, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 24, 26, 34, 38, 73, 133, 138;
construction, 13;
laid in rings, 24, 42;
stilted, 13.
capital, 25, 77;
absent, 6, 30, 138, 140;
bell-shaped, 156;
Corinthian, 135, 141;
impost-, of masonry and stucco, 12, 24, 25,
27, 29, 30, 42, 134, 135, 138, 140;
Ionic, 65;
wreathed acanthus, 153.
caravanserai type, 104, 106, 111 n.
casemate, 22, 107, 108, 109, 121.
castrum, Sasanian, 105.
cavetto, 12.
cella, 94, 126.
centering, 9, 12, 13, 15, 18, 26, 28, 30, 33 nn.
1 and 2, 45, 71, 72, 75, 76, 96, 118, 166.
centralization, 129, 131.
chapel replacing sacellum, 105.
chemin de ronde, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 21, 73, 106, 116.
chimney, 29, 32, 82.
Christian influence, 147, 148, 149.
cloister, _see_ arcade.
closet, 83, 118.
coffering, 140.
colonnade, 84, 98, 123, 125.
column, absence of, in Babylonia and Assyria, 62, 77;
clustered, 24, 131, 135, 158;
double, 138;
dwarf, 127, 128, 130, 133;
engaged, 8, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30, 32,
34, 36, 42, 46, 78, 122, 124, 125, 127, 128, 130, 131, 133, 136;
free-standing, 16, 17, 28, 29, 32, 35, 45, 47,
63, 80, 82, 123, 136, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 158, 159, 160;
of wood, 148, 154, 157, 158, 160;
quarter-, in antis, 127, 128, 129, 138.
concrete, 28.
cornice, 25, 34, 70, 133;
broken, 128.
courts, isolation of, 31, 33, 48, 49, 83.
crémaillère, 106, 108, 109.
crenellated motive on archivolt, 14, 18, 140.
crenellation, 7, 18, 107, 121, 122, 123, 127, 128, 133, 134, 140, 143.
curtain wall, 7, 106 n. 8, 108.
cusp, 19, 24, 132, 133, 135, 142, 153.
D
Days of Ignorance, 56, 120, 168.
decoration, continuous niches, 123, 124, 125, 136;
continuous pattern, 123, 130, 131, 135, 143;
Coptic, 141, 143, 147, 164;
derived from wooden structure, 123;
geometric, 143;
imitative architecture, 65, 77, 123, 124, 125, 127-36;
in horizontal zones, 122, 124-36;
of structural character, 140.
dîwân, 19, 22.
djâmi’, _see_ mosque.
dog-tooth, brick, 40, 79.
dome, 8, 10, 51, 53, 56, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75,
76, 78, 79, 92, 97, 112, 117, 118, 152;
fluted, 9, 13, 166;
on columns, 71, 72, 73, 74, 78;
ribbed, 7, 111;
thrust of, concentrated on angle piers, 78, 96.
dragon motive, 90, 143.
dungeon, 9.
Duru, 88.
E
Egyptian fortification, 106;
influence, 127 n. 1;
tombs, 124.
entablature, 76, 130;
broken, 127, 128;
Ionic, 127.
F
façade, Babylonian and Assyrian, 122, 123;
Graeco-Roman, 123;
Hellenistic, 24, 25, 51, 66, 88, 119, 122, 123, 124, 126-34;
of lîwân, 32, 34, 66, 78, 82, 95, 136, 137, 138;
of mosque court, 143, 144, 156, 158;
Roman, 124, 125;
single-arched, 138, 139;
towered, of khilâni, 62, 63, 75, 77, 78, 116;
triple-arched, 136, 137, 138.
fillet, 8, 10, 25, 27, 51, 52, 76, 79, 115, 123, 133.
fire altar, _see_ âteshgâh.
flutes, triple, 78, 115.
fluting, 40, 41, 78, 122, 123, 133.
forum, 72, 98.
fresco, 112, 140, 142;
Alexandrian, 128 n. 3;
of Boscoreale, 125, 127, 128 n. 3.
frieze, broken, 128, 133.
funnel above arch, 8, 14 n. 1.
G
gangway, _see_ balcony.
gate-house, Ukhaiḍir, 8, 81, 117.
gate, monumental, 4, 7, 9, 41, 49, 51, 52,
53, 81, 84, 86, 92, 96, 116, 122, 142.
gate towers, 7, 9, 10, 41, 114;
of Roman camp, 99.
gorge, Egyptian, 76, 127.
graffito, Kharâneh, 115;
Ukhaiḍir, 31, 161, 162, 163.
Greek influence, 65, 66, 75, 87, 97, 119, 127, 130, 137, 139;
in India, 123, 136, 140, 141, 142, 143, 152, 164.
guard-rooms, 50, 51, 81, 92.
H
ḥair, 56.
ḥammâm, 4, 37, 56, 111, 112.
ḥaram, 17, 18, 21, 26, 27, 82, 83, 122,
147, 151, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 167.
ḥarb, 58.
Hazârbâf, 26, 138.
head wall, 19, 27.
ḥertâ, 56.
ḥîrah, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 74, 78, 81,
86, 87, 90, 97, 117, 119, 120, 161, 162, 166.
ḥîri, 58, 59, 86, 121.
horizontal decoration, 24, 79, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133.
horreum, 102, 103.
hourd, 107, 116, 121, 133, 134.
house, Arab, 145, 146, 158;
Hellenistic, 65, 87, 89, 99, 120;
lîwân-ṭarmah, 87, 117;
Roman, 87, 89.
hypostyle pavilion over gate, 81.
I
incrusted style, 124.
inscriptions, absence of, in early Mohammadan architecture, 161.
inscription with date, Diyârbekr, 158;
Ḥarrân, 152;
Kharâneh, 115;
Mayâfârqîn, 159;
Môṣul, 160;
Qaṣr ibn Wardân, 112;
Raqqah, 153.
intervallum, 98, 100, 102, 103.
K
khân, 40, 41, 43, 143.
khilâni, 62, 63, 66, 75, 76, 80, 82, 84, 87-93, 116, 119, 120.
khuṭbah, 146 n. 1.
kitchen, 32, 33, 42, 47, 48, 49, 82, 83.
L
label, rectangular, 13, 27, 51.
latitudinal chamber, 45, 47, 49, 62, 65 n. 4, 78, 80, 90, 92, 93, 94.
ledge, _see_ balcony.
limes, Roman oriental, 97, 98, 100-6, 110, 111, 120;
Roman western, 98, 110.
lintel, 112, 113, 115;
of masonry, 16, 25, 118.
lîwân, 22, 23, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 42, 46,
47, 48, 49, 53, 60, 62, 63, 65, 66, 70, 73,
75, 76, 78, 80, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89,
90, 92, 93, 94, 95, 104, 112, 116, 117, 119,
132, 137, 138, 142, 143, 167.
loggia, 78, 123.
longitudinal chamber, 78, 93, 94.
loophole, 6, 7, 9, 107, 115, 116, 121, 140, 166.
lozenge, 8, 17.
M
machicolation, 7, 107, 121.
madjlis, 145.
madrasah, 159.
Magi, 91, 92.
maqṣûrah, 147, 148, 149.
masdjid, 145.
masdjid al-djamâ’ah, 146, 148.
megaron, 65 n. 4, 89, 120.
miḥrâb, 16, 17 n., 18, 132, 141, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 155, 157, 159, 168.
minaret, at Abu Dulaf, 156;
at Baghdâd, 40;
at Baṣrah, 148;
at Iṣfahân, 41 n. 1;
at Raqqah, 153, 154;
at Sâmarrâ, 156;
at Ṭâûq, 40;
of Ghazni, 41;
of Ibn Ṭulûn, 156.
minbar, 146, 149, 150, 151.
misr, 146, 148.
Mohammadan art, 142.
mortar, bitumen, 69, 96;
clay, 96;
gypsum, 12, 15, 44, 96.
mosaic, 65, 147, 148.
mosque, 16, 17, 20, 21, 26, 40, 86,
117, 132, 133, 141, 142, 144, 145-60, 168.
moulding, 124, 125, 128, 133, 166;
continuous, 133.
N
narthex, _see_ ṭarmah.
niche, arched, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16,
19, 24, 25, 34, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 47,
50, 51, 52, 53, 76, 78, 122, 123, 124,
125, 130, 131, 133, 138, 139, 142, 154, 158;
architraved, 40, 126;
flanked by colonnettes, 13, 24, 25, 27, 28, 42, 52, 130, 131, 139, 140;
in rectangular frame, 8, 34, 40, 76, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 139.
O
oecus, 87.
orientation of mosques, 150, 151.
orthostatae, 62, 122, 123 n. 1, 124.
ovolo, 29.
P
painting, Greek, 125.
palace, Achaemenid, 62-4, 140;
Assyrian, 93, 94, 124, 140;
Babylonian, 93;
Byzantine, 121;
Greek, 89;
Hittite, _see_ khilâni;
Mohammadan, 84-7, 110-21, 168;
Parthian, 65-72, 89, 90, 140;
Roman, 121;
Sasanian, 44-54, 73-81, 83, 84, 90-7, 118, 119, 120, 121.
palmette, 141 n. 3;
broken, 132;
tree, 143.
panel, 42, 122.
pediment, 129, 139;
broken, 125, 127, 128.
pendentive, 42, 73, 111.
peristyle, 65, 87, 99, 120, 136.
pier, 12, 17, 18, 20, 24, 25, 29, 30, 33, 123, 127, 128, 152, 153, 158;
heart-shaped, 46, 74.
piers, clustered, 135, 156, 158.
pilaster, 5, 6, 8, 34, 123, 126.
plan, basilical, 111, 117, 142;
change of, at Ukhaiḍir, 10, 33 n. 3, 60, 81;
circular city, 107, 109;
conjunctive, 89;
disjunctive, 89;
injunctive, 89, 90, 106, 120.
plaster, _see_ stucco.
plinth, 122, 128, 134.
podium, 122, 123, 124, 125, 130;
broken, 125, 127, 128.
Porta Decumana, 98, 103.
Porta Praetoria, 98, 103.
Porta Principalis Dextra, 98.
Porta Principalis Sinistra, 98.
portcullis, 7, 10.
portico, 58, 59, 126, 152.
potsherds, mediaeval, 38, 56.
Praetentura, 102.
Praetorium, 72, 98, 99, 102, 103, 104, 120.
prostas, 87.
pylon-like wall, 130, 131.
pylon tombs, 127, 128.
Pyraetheia, 91.
R
ramp, 12, 14, 19, 21, 45, 46, 50, 80, 86.
recess, _see_ niche.
recessed calotte, 13;
ornament, 18, 27, 34, 40, 133, 140;
square containing circle, on mosques, 156.
Retentura, 102.
retreating angles, _see_ crémaillère.
rinceaux, 141 n. 3.
riwâq, arûqah, 17, 20, 58, 59, 147,
150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 160.
rock-cut monuments, 72, 123, 126-30, 142.
Roman camp, stockaded earthwork, 97, 99, 110;
stone, 97, 99, 100-4;
type, 98, 99, 103, 105, 106, 120, 121.
Roman influence, 136, 137.
Roman temple tomb, 127.
roof, wooden, 144, 150, 152, 153, 156, 158.
rosette, 17, 18, 27, 140.
S
sacellum, 98, 101, 103, 104.
safâfîd, 149.
ṣaḥn, 17, 20, 21, 23, 143, 144, 148,
149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 156, 157, 159, 160.
Sasanian influence, 59, 75, 115, 137, 141, 164.
scollop, _see_ cusp.
semi-dome, 18, 27, 28, 38, 42, 73, 79, 111, 112, 115, 139;
fluted, 25, 118, 139.
serdâb, 25, 28, 35, 37, 82.
spandrel, 6, 12, 24, 27, 34, 131, 133.
spear-shaped motive, 27, 140.
spiral motive, 133.
squinch arch, 18, 23, 27, 38, 50, 51, 52, 53, 73, 79, 96, 97, 115, 140, 159;
fluted, 18.
stair, 7, 13, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 46, 82;
on âtesgâh, 91, 92.
staircase motive, 127.
stela, 123, 135.
stoa, 65, 124, 126.
stone, dressed, 65 n. 1, 70, 96, 124, 126, 159;
undressed masonry, 6, 24, 28, 44, 69, 76, 78, 84, 96, 113, 116, 117, 160.
stucco, 12, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 26, 34, 52, 86, 115, 124, 125, 134, 140, 164;
oversailing bars, 18, 26, 28, 38, 51, 65, 66, 140.
stupa, 123.
ṣuffah, 146.
symmetry, 92.
T
tabernacle in votive niches and tombs, 127.
ṭâqchah, 28, 35, 51, 52, 76.
ṭarmah, 30, 32, 48, 53, 83, 84, 87, 88, 93, 94, 119, 137, 138.
temple, Assyrian, 92, 93, 94, 124;
Babylonian, 92, 93, 94;
fire, 90, 92, 94;
in antis, 66;
peripteral, 65.
tetrapylon, 98.
theatre, at Babylon, 65;
at Ephesus, 125.
tholos, 128, 129.
torus, 76.
towers, à cheval, 103, 108;
chamber, 7, 31;
flanking, 4, 6, 7, 33, 36, 37, 41,
60, 99-110, 113, 114, 116, 117, 121, 153, 155;
in Roman camp, 99;
polygonal, 109;
rounded and rectangular, 103, 107, 108, 109;
tomb, 41 n. 1.
transept of mosque, 152, 155, 158, 159.
trifoliate apse, 117.
tubes, decoration, value of, 35, 143;
imply vault, 143;
in vault, 14, 19, 22, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, 76, 143, 144.
U
Ukhaiḍir, absence of bath, 166;
central court, 23, 24-6, 33, 34, 82, 131;
corridor, 28, pp. 20, 23, 24, 25, 29, 33;
court A, 16, 19;
court B, 23, 30, 31, 32, 33, 82, 83;
court C, 23, 30, 32, 33, 82, 83;
court D, 23, 33;
court E, 23, 24, 30, 33, 83;
court F, 29, 33;
court G, 23, 30, 32, 33, 82, 83;
court H, 23, 30, 32, 33, 82, 83;
east annex, 34, 35, 82;
great hall (7), 12-14, 19, 24, 81;
ḥammâm, 37;
imperfect seclusion of ḥaram courts, 166;
inner walls and towers, 33;
mosque, 16-19, 150;
name of, 162;
north annex, 36, 37, 60;
north gate tower, 9, 10, 19, 21;
outer walls and gates, 4-9, 34, 78, 81;
palace yard, 5, 14, 20, 32, 33, 34;
passages 5 and 6, pp. 10, 14, 16, 34;
room 4, p. 9;
rooms 29-42, pp. 26-9, 34, 35, 82;
three-storied block, 14-23, 24, 25, 32, 33, 81, 117.
underground rooms, _see_ serdâb.
‘uqûd, 148.
V
vault, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16,
19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28,
29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36,
37, 39, 41, 42, 48, 49, 50, 51,
72, 73, 75, 82, 83, 95, 112, 115,
143, 144, 150, 155, 160, 165, 166;
at Hatra, 70-3;
construction, 9, 10, 13, 14, 19, 43, 118;
elliptical, _see_ (vault) ovoid;
flattened, 22;
groined, 29, 33, 35, 73, 97, 111, 112, 120, 166;
history of, 68-70;
intersection, avoided, 9, 17, 29, 53, 73;
introduction of changes plan, 66;
on columns, 71-2, 78;
over inclined plane, 7, 16, 46, 97;
oversailing, 9, 43, 45, 52, 70, 79, 118;
--imitation of, 27;
ovoid, 31, 52, 71, 76, 165;
pointed, 45, 50, 165;
pointed and oversailing, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17;
segmental, 28;
stilted, 13, 70;
want of skill in Sasanian, 97.
Via Praetoria, 98, 103, 121;
Principalis, 98, 121;
Quintana, 98;
Sagularis, 98.
Viceroys of ‘Irâq, 168.
vine motive, 141.
W
wall, buttressed, 131;
construction, 6, 38, 45;
outer, angle sliced off, 39, 54;
unbroken face, 126, 131.
ward, 17.
water basin in mosque, 151.
windows in drum of dome, 79, 111.
wooden beams, in wall, 6, 12, 13, 95;
under vault, 9, 17, 18, 21, 32, 34, 36, 37, 39.
Z
ziggurat, 92.
zigzag motive, 17, 27, 38, 40, 116, 140.
ziyâdah, 156.
ẓullah, 148, 150.
INDEX OF NAMES
A
Abbâs, Abu, 75 n.
‘Abdeh, 103, 112.
Absalom, tomb of, 128 n.
Abydos, 70 n.
‘Adhrâ, the, church of, 133 n.
‘Adi ibn Zaid, 57, 59.
Africa, 98 n., 110;
North, 98, 99, 152.
Ahwâz, Djebel, 148, 149, 160.
‘A’ishah, 146.
Akbar’s mosque, 139.
Akeldama, tomb of, 72.
Alabanda, 128 n.
Aleppo, ix, x, xi, 58, 126.
Alexander, Emperor, 69, 119;
his invasion, 63.
Alexandria, 125, 127, 129, 152.
‘Ali, 167, 168.
Alinda, walls of, 108.
Alkader, _see_ el-Chader.
Alyattes, tumulus of, 96.
Ammân, 118 n., 140.
‘Amr ibn al-’Âṣ, 146 n., 148, 149;
his mosque, 149, 150, 151.
‘Amrah, Qṣair, 56, 111, 112, 114, 118, 142, 162.
Amrân mound, 65.
‘Ânah, ix.
Anatolia, Central, 138.
al-Anbâr, 43 n., 57 and n., 164, 167.
Anderîn, 105.
Andrae, Dr. Walther, v, 66 n., 69 n.,
73 n., 90, 91, 92 n., 93 n., 94 n.,
106 n., 107 and n., 137, 141 n., 143 n.
Antioch, 57, 65, 119, 120 n., 121, 124.
Anu-Adad, 93.
Aosta, 109, 128, 136.
Apamea, 98 n., 120 and n., 126.
Aqṣâ, the, mosque of, 145, 151, 152.
Arabia, vii, 127.
Arabia Petraea, 98.
Ardashir I., 74 n.
Ardeshîr Bâbagân, 91.
Argos, 96.
Asarhaddon, 62, 108.
al-’A’shâ, 145 n.
al-’Âshiq, 86, 132 n.
Asia, 65, 69, 87, 142;
South-west, 126;
Western, 63, 68, 123, 124, 126, 135.
Asia Minor, 73, 78, 96, 108.
‘Asîleh, wells, 1.
Aslâm, _see_ ‘Aṭshân.
Assos, 109.
Assur, 65, 66, 68, 93, 94 n., 96 n., 106 and n., 107, 140, 141 n.
Assyria, 62 n., 65, 68, 74, 78, 93, 122, 123, 140, 142.
al-Aswad ibn Ya’fur, 57 n.
Athenaeus, 128 n.
Athens, 66 n., 124.
al-Athîr, Ibn, 3 n., 162 and n., 164 n.
‘Atîl, 126.
‘Atiyyah, 58.
‘Aṭshân, Khân, viii, 2, 3 and n., 40-3, 162 and n.
Attalus, 124.
Austria, 98.
Autun, 109.
Ayyûbid Ghâzi, 159, 160.
al-Azîz ibn Marwân, ‘Abd, 149.
al-Azraq, Qaṣr, 56, 111.
B
Ba’albek, 126, 152 and n.
Bâbisqâ, 132 n.
Babylon, xi, 65 and n., 68, 69, 70, 76, 87, 93, 96, 119.
Babylonia, 64, 65, 74, 78, 94, 96, 142.
Bacon, 109 n.
Baghdâd, ix, 5, 40, 58, 66, 72, 79, 121,
141, 143 n., 150, 154, 157, 158, 167.
Baḥr Nedjef, _see_ Nedjef.
Bahrâm V Gûr, 57, 59, 74 n.
el-Baḥri, _see_ Dair el-Baḥri.
al-Baiḍâ, _see_ Khirbet al-Baiḍâ.
Bait al-Khalîfah, _see_ al-Khalîfah.
Balâdhuri, 74 n., 147 and n., 148 and n., 149, 153, 162.
Balkuwârâ, 84, 85, 86, 87, 117, 121, 138, 157, 164.
Ballu, 98 n.
Bâqirḥâ, 126.
Bashmishli, 132 n.
Baṣrah, ix, x, 58, 146, 149, 150, 158, 168.
Bassora, _see_ Baṣrah.
Baṭûṭah, Ibn, 56, 58, 75 n.
Becker, Prof., 17 n., 112 n., 146 n., 147 and n., 149 n., 150.
Beduin, tribe, 5.
Bel, temple of, 122.
Bell, Miss G. L., xi, 40 n., 56 n., 57 n., 59 n., 70 n., 71 n.,
73 n., 78 n., 86 n., 132 n., 133 n.,
138 n., 143 n., 153 n., 154 n., 165 n., 166 n.
Benndorf, 108 and n.
Berlin, xii, 115, 118 n.
Bethlehem, 117.
Binbirklisse, 73 n.
Bishr (son of ‘Âdah son of ‘Îsâ son of ‘Umar), 161.
Bîsutûn, 134.
Blanchet, 103 n., 109 n., 110 n.
Boghâz Keui, 93 and n., 108, 122.
Bosco, R. Velazquez, xii, 143 n.
Boscoreale, 125, 127, 128 n.
Boṣrâ, 98 n., 120.
Bostân, 41 n.
Britain, 98 and n.
British Museum, 76, 123, 132 n.
Bruce, 98 n.
Bruckmann, xii.
Brünnow, Prof., xii, 98 n., 100, 101, 102, 103 n.,
104, 105, 106 n., 110 n.,
117 n., 118 and n., 126 n., 127 n., 128 n., 129, 135 n.
Bruno, 56 n.
Bryas, 121.
Bshair, 103, 104.
Bulard, 124 n.
Burdân, Wâdi, 1.
Burgess, 72 n., 73 n.
Bury, 121 n.
Butler, 72 n., 98 n., 105 n.,
111 n., 112 n., 126 n., 132 n.,
133 n., 135 n., 138 n., 139 n., 165.
Byzantium, 97, 109, 110.
C
Cagnat, 98 n., 99 n.
Cairo, 92 and n., 141, 144, 156.
Carchemish, 122.
Caria, 108.
Carmichael, Mr., x.
Carnuntum, 100.
Carthage, 109.
Casr Chaider, ix.
el-Chader (Ukhaiḍir) Ras el-’Ain, x, xi, 58.
Chaitya Cave, 123 n.
Chaldaea, 70 n., 106, 122, 123.
Chehâr Qapû, 44, 45, 51-4, 90, 92, 94, 115.
Chipiez, 65 n., 68 n., 70 n., 75 n.,
78 n., 93 n., 94 n., 106 n.,
108 n., 109 n., 122 n., 123 n., 128 n., 140 n.
Chiusi, 69 n., 166.
Choisy, 68 n., 69 n., 70 n., 109 n.
Chosroës, the, 59, 80, 94, 120, 148, 149.
Chosroës II, 44.
Clarke, 109 n.
Constantine, Emperor, 117, 121.
Constantinople, vii, xi, 121, 151.
Corbett, 146 n., 149 n.
Cordova, 152.
Corinthian tomb, 128, 135.
Coste, 74 n., 76 n., 78 n., 79 n., 106 n., 107 n., 137, 165 n.
Cramer, 110 n.
Ctesiphon, vii, 57, 59, 66, 70,
75, 77, 94, 95, 115, 119, 120,
122, 129-32, 134-8, 165, 166.
Curie, 98 n.
D
Ḍaba, Djebel, 2, 3.
Da’djaniyyeh, 102, 103, 116.
al-Dair, 128 and n., 129.
Dair al-Kafh, 104.
Dair el-Baḥri, 70 n.
Dalman, 126 n.
Damascus, 55, 66, 101, 119,
120 and n., 126, 147, 151, 152, 154, 158, 162, 164 n., 167.
Dânâ, 126.
Darius, King, palace of, 63, 64, 76.
Dastadjird, 60, 107 n., 120.
Daumet, 138 n.
Dead Sea, the, 97.
De Beylié, 142 n., 143 n.
De Goeje, 3 n., 57 n., 147 n., 167 n.
Delbrück, Prof., 68 n., 69 n., 70 n.,
72 n., 73 n., 96 n., 123, 124 and n.,
125 and n., 127 n., 132 n., 136 n., 166 n.
Della Valle, ix.
Delos, 65 n., 68 n., 87, 124.
De Meynard, Barbier, 59 n., 167 n.
De Morgan, M., xii, 80 n., 134.
Dereh Shah, 80 n.
De Sarzec, 78 n., 87 n., 122 n., 142.
De Vogüé, 56 n., 72 n., 73 n., 84 n., 111 n.
Dibs, Abu, 1, 2, 3, 168.
Dieulafoy, M., xii, 53 n., 65 n., 68 n.,
71 n., 72 n., 74 n., 75, 76 n., 77, 78 n.,
79 and n., 81 n., 90, 91, 92 and n., 95, 96 n.,
106 n., 107 and n., 118 n., 122 n.,
130, 134 n., 140 n., 143 n., 157, 165 n.
Diocletian, Emperor, 56, 103, 109, 110, 121.
Diodorus, 69 n.
Diyârbekr, viii, 120, 132, 154, 158, 159.
Djabala ibn al-Ḥârith, 110.
Djâbiyah, 56 n.
Djaulân, the, 56.
Djôf, 5, 167.
Djôfîyîn, the, 5.
Djûr, 91, 92.
Domaszewski, 98 n., 102, 103 n.,
106 n., 110 n., 117 n., 118 and n., 126 n., 127 and n., 128 n., 135 n.
Dulaf, Abu, mosque of, 144, 154, 155, 156, 158.
Ḍumair, 101, 102, 103 and n., 110.
Durm, 65 n., 66 n., 70 n., 89, 108 n., 109 n., 124 n.
Dussaud, 56 n.
E
Ebersolt, 121 n.
Ecbatana, 123 n.
Egypt, vii, 68, 70 n., 72, 96, 106, 123, 124, 127 n., 142, 146, 147.
Epaminondas, 109 n.
Ephesus, 109, 125, 132 n.
Euphrates, river, x, xi, 1, 56, 57.
Euphrates road, 43 n.
Europe, 101, 110, 142.
Evans, Sir Arthur, 70 n.
F
Fars, 79, 80, 96, 143 n.
Fatehpur Sîkrî, 139.
Ferâshâbâd, 78.
Fergusson, 41 n., 72 n., 73 n., 123 n., 139.
Firûzâbâd, 53 n., 73, 74 and n.,
76-80, 82, 83, 86, 91, 95, 119, 134, 136, 137, 143, 165.
el-Fityân, _see_ Khirbet el-Fityân.
Flandin, 74 n., 76 n., 78 n., 79 and n., 106 n., 107 n., 137, 165 n.
Flavians, the, palace of, 120.
Flavius Silva, 97.
Franks, the, 110.
Fréjus, 109.
Fusṭâṭ, 146 n., 148, 149, 150.
G
Garstang, Prof., 60 n.
Gaul, 104 n., 110.
Gebhardt, Messrs., xii, 89.
Germany, 98.
Ghadaf, Wâdi, 111, 112.
Ghassânids, the, 56.
Ghazni, towers, 41.
Gsell, 98 n.
Gudea, 106, 122.
H
Ḥabbâniyyeh, 1, 2, 3.
al-Ḥadjdjâdj, 43 n., 148, 162 n., 164, 168.
Hadrian, Emperor, 97, 98.
Ḥakh, 133 n.
al-Ḥâkim, 158.
Halicarnassus, 124.
Ḥamâd, Khân, 2.
Hammâd, Bani, the, fortress of, 142.
Ḥamrath, tomb of, 126.
Hamza al-Iṣfahâni, 110.
Ḥanbal, Ibn, 55 n.
Hanging Gardens, the, 69 n.
Harbâ, 143 n.
Ḥarrân, 132, 152, 153, 158.
Ḥarûn al-Rashîd, 165, 167, 168.
Ḥasan, Bani, 3, 57, 58.
Ḥasan Kaif, 133, 143, 160.
Hâshimiyyeh, 167.
Hatra, 66, 67, 69-72, 75, 78, 82,
87, 88, 90-2, 94-6, 107, 119, 136-8, 141 n., 143.
Hatti, 60 n.
Hauqal, Ibn, 142 n.
Ḥaurân, the, 56, 98 n., 138.
Ḥaurân, Wâdi, 1.
Haush Quru, 80 n.
Haverfield, Prof., xii, 99.
Hazâr Dâr, 80 n.
Heberdey, 125 n.
Ḥedjr tombs, 127, 128.
el-Heiadîe, _see_ Ṭuqṭuqâneh.
Heraclius, 120.
Herodotus, 90, 92.
Herzfeld, Dr., xii, 58, 60 n., 62 n., 65 n., 74 n.,
80 n., 84, 85, 86 and n., 94 n., 105 n., 107 n.,
110 n., 117, 118 n., 121 n., 123 n., 130 n., 132 n.,
134 n., 135 n., 136, 138 and n., 140 n., 141 n., 143 n.,
151 n., 153 and n., 154, 155,
156 and n., 157, 159, 160 n., 165 and n., 166 n.
Hêt, _see_ Hît.
Heuzey, 78 n., 87 n., 122 n., 138 n.
Ḥidjâz, 167.
Hidjrah, the, 55.
Hilprecht, 65 n., 107 n., 122 n.
Hindiyyeh, the, 2, 39, 41, 56, 57.
al-Ḥîrah, 56-9, 86, 87, 148, 168.
Ḥishâm, 168.
Hît, x, xi, 43 n.
Hittorff, 128 n.
Ḥiyyadhiyyeh, 58.
Hogarth, Mr., 122.
Holman, Messrs., xii, 66.
el-Hossian, 58.
Housesteads, 99.
Humann, 125 n.
Hurairah, Abu, 166.
Hyginus, 98.
I
Iassos, 108.
Ibrahîm ibn Salamah, 74 n.
Inaldi, Inalid, 158 n.
India, 72, 73, 137.
‘Irâq, 162 n., 167, 168.
‘Îsâ ibn ‘Ali ibn ‘Abdallâh, 164, 168.
Iṣfahân, 41 n., 134.
Isriyyeh, 126.
Iṣṭakhr, 107 n.
Italy, 68, 128.
Ives, x.
‘Izziyyeh, 58.
J
Jacobi, 98 n.
Jaussen, 126 n., 127 n.
Jerusalem, 72, 128, 145, 146.
John of Ephesus, 56 n.
Jordan, Dr., 122.
Joshua the Stylite, 56.
Jupiter, 91.
Justinian, Emperor, 57, 117, 119, 145.
K
Ka’bah, the, vii, 145.
al-Kahf, _see_ Dair al-Kahf.
Karkh, 94, 95, 139.
Kayder, _see_ el-Chader.
Kerbelâ, 1, 2.
Kerbelâ-Nedjef road, 2, 3 n.
Kerîm Khân, 79;
his brother, 80 n.
Kerkûk, 40, 71, 134.
Kfair, 132 n.
Khader, _see_ el-Chader.
al-Khaḍrâ, _see_ al-Qabbet al-Khaḍrâ.
Khâlid ibn ‘Abdallâh, 168.
Khâlid ibn al-Walîd, 3.
al-Khalîfah, Bait, 86, 138, 144.
Kharâneh, 39, 78, 82, 111, 114-18, 120, 162, 166.
Khâṣakî Djâmi’, the, 141.
Khawarnaq, 56, 57, 75 n., 87, 119, 162.
Khazneh, the, 128 and n., 135.
al-Khernîna, Khân, 143 and n.
al-Kherr, Wâdi, 58 n.
Khirbet al-Baiḍâ, 56, 106.
Khirbet el-Fityân, 102 n.
Khodja ‘Alam, 41 n.
Khorsâbâd, 68, 81, 92, 93, 94, 106 and n., 122, 123.
Khurâsân, the, 74 n.
Khusrau I, 57, 119.
Khusrau II Parwêz, 59, 74 n., 94.
Khusrau, palace of, 44-51, 74, 79, 80,
81, 83, 84, 86, 87, 90, 92, 93, 119, 164.
Khusrau, Qal’a-i-, 60.
Knossos, 70 n.
Koepp, 97 n.
Koldewey, Prof., 61, 62 n., 65 n., 68 and n.,
69 n., 76 n., 77 n., 87 n., 88, 92 n., 93 n.,
94 n., 108 n., 109 n.
Kubaisah, xi.
Kûfah, x, 2, 3, 43 and n., 148-50, 158, 162, 164, 167, 168.
Kuhna, Qal’a-i-, 107 n.
L
Lagash, 106, 107.
Lambaesis, 99.
Lammens, 17 n., 55 n., 56 n., 111 n.,
117 n., 145 n., 146 n., 147 n., 148 n., 162 n., 168 n.
Lanckoronski, 124 n.
Lane, 59 n.
Layard, 68 and n., 75.
Leachman, Captain, 162 n.
Ledjdjûn, 101, 102, 103 and n.
Leleges, wall of the, 108.
Le Strange, 40 n., 57 n., 58 n., 151 n., 167 n.
Littmann, Prof., xii, 161, 162.
Lixos, 109.
Loftus, 65 and n., 90, 122, 140 n.
Lyall, Sir Charles, xii, 22 n., 56 n., 57 n., 145 n.
Lyell, 98 n.
Lynch, 135 n.
Lysimachus, 109.
M
Macmillan, Messrs., xii.
Madâin Ṣâliḥ, vii, 126-8, 135, 138, 142, 145 n.
Madjḍah, _see_ Mudjḍah.
Magnesia, 124, 125 n.
al-Mahdi, 151.
Maḥmûd of Ghazni, 41.
Makhḍah, _see_ Mudjḍah.
Makrîsi, 147 n.
al-Malik, ‘Abd, 151.
Maṇsûr, 150, 151, 153, 154, 157, 158, 164, 165, 167.
Mantineia, 109.
Maqrîzi, 151.
Marçais, 152 n.
Marmora, sea of, 121.
Marwân, 147, 149, 168.
Masada, 97.
Massignon, M., xi, 31 n., 38 n., 39 n., 40 n., 57 n., 58 n., 161.
Mas’ûdi, 58, 86, 87, 118.
Mau, 72 n.
Mauritania Tingitana, 109.
Maximian, Emperor, 56.
Mayâfârqîn, viii, 132, 153, 159, 166.
Media, 62 n.
Medînah, 145-52, 158, 168.
Medînat al-Zahrâ, palace of, 143.
Medinet Abu, 70 n.
Mediterranean coast-lands, the, 64.
al-Mehdiyyeh, gates of, 142.
Meissner, 56 n.
Mekkah, vii, 120, 145-8, 150, 167.
el-Melfûf, _see_ Ridjm el-Melfûf.
Memphis, 72.
Menâr, the, palace of, 142.
Merchel, 109 n.
Merkes, the, 65 n., 76.
Meshed ‘Ali, _see_ Nedjef.
Mesopotamia, 12, 16 n., 38, 66, 68, 70,
71, 75, 76, 79, 88, 96,
97, 115, 124, 130, 133, 137, 141, 143,
144, 146, 152, 156, 158, 165, 166;
Northern, 71, 75, 141 n.;
Southern, 28.
Mesopotamian plain, 60.
Messene, 109 and n.
Michael II, 121.
Michaelis, 122 n.
Miletus, 124, 125.
Mommsen, 101 n.
Moritz, Dr. B., xii, 111 n., 114 n., 115, 161, 167.
Môṣul, 133, 160.
Mount Eryx, 108.
Mshaiyesh, 111 n.
Mshattâ, 111, 113, 117, 118 and n., 120,
133 n., 135, 138, 139, 141, 142, 162, 165.
Mu’âwiyah, 148, 168.
Mudjḍah (Madjḍah, Makhḍah), viii, 2, 3, 39-41, 43, 162.
Mughair, 70 and n.
Muḥaiwir, 1.
Muḥammad, 145, 146, 147, 161.
Muhtadi, 165 n.
al-Mundhir, 56, 148.
Munich, 133 n.
Muntaṣir, 165 n.
Muqaddasi, 3, 58, 151, 153.
Muqâtil ibn Ḥasân ibn Tha’labah ibn Aus ibn Ibrâhîm ibn Ayyûb ibn Madjrûf
ibn ‘Âmir ibn ‘Uṣayyah ibn Imra’al-Qais ibn Zaid Manât ibn Tamîm, 162.
al-Muqâtil, Qaṣr, 162, 164, 168.
Mûsâ, Abu, 148.
Muṣallâ, Khân, 57.
Mushennef, 126.
Musil, Prof., 2 n., 55 n., 58 n.,
103 n., 111 and n., 112 n., 113,
114 and n., 115, 116 and n., 117 n., 162 n.
Musmiyyeh, 72.
al-Mustanṣir, 143 n.
Mustanṣiriyyeh, the, 40, 143 n.
Mustaufi, 58.
Mutawakkil, 58, 59, 86, 121, 154.
Mu’tazz, 165 n.
Muwaqqar, 110, 135.
Mycenae, 96, 108, 120.
N
Nabataean tombs, 127 n., 128.
Nâṣiri Khusrau, 159 n.
Naṣr, Banû, 58.
Nassick, 123 n.
Nebuchadnezzar, palace of, 70, 93, 96.
Nedjd, 5.
Nedjef, ix, x, 3 n., 40, 57, 58, 167.
Nedjef, Bahr, 56, 57, 58, 164, 167.
Nereids, the, monument of, 108.
Nero, Emperor, 72.
Nicephoricum-Callinicum, 153.
Niebuhr, x, 58 n.
Niederberg, 100 n.
Niederbieber, 100 n.
Niemann, 108 and n.
Niffer, 65 and n., 66, 87, 89, 107, 119, 122.
Nimrûd, 93.
Nöldeke, 56 n., 57 n., 96 n., 112 n.
Novaesium, 100.
Nu’mân III, King, 59.
Nu’mân ibn Mundhir, 56.
Nu’man ibn Imra’ al-Qais, 57.
Nu’mânid, 120.
Nûr al-Dîn, 153, 154, 158, 160 (Maḥmûd).
O
Odhruḥ, 98-103, 110.
Oppenheim, Baron, 60 n., 123.
Orontes, the, 64, 108.
Orthma, Khân, 72.
Ortokid Alpi, 159.
P
Palatitza, 138 n.
Palmyra, 101, 126.
Parwêz, _see_ Khusrau II Parwêz.
Pasargadae, 62, 63, 96, 119, 123 n.
Pergamon, 66 n., 69 n., 73 n., 89, 124, 125 n.
Perge, 124, 125.
Perrot, 65 n., 68 n., 70 n., 75 n.,
78 n., 93 n., 94 n., 106 n., 108 n.,
109 n., 122 n., 123 n., 128 n., 140 n.
Persepolis, 63, 64, 76 and n., 80, 119.
Persia, 65, 71, 73, 74, 110, 123, 137, 140, 168.
Persian Gulf, the, 1.
Perugia, 136.
Petra, vii, 97, 126-9, 135, 136, 138, 142.
Philon of Byzantium, 109.
Pinara, 108.
Place, 68 and n., 94 and n.
Polybius, 98.
Pompeii, 72, 87, 124;
Oscan, 124.
Praeneste, 125 n.
Preusser, Dr., 152.
Priene, 87, 88, 124, 125 and n., 126.
Princeton Expedition, the, 111.
Probus, 110.
Promis, 109 n., 136 n.
Ptolemy Philadelphos, 124 n., 128 n.
Puchstein, 62 n., 93 n., 108 n., 123 n., 126 n., 127 and n., 128 n.
Pydnai, 108.
Q
al-Qabbet al-Khaḍrâ, 162 and n.
Qadesh, 108.
Qâdisiyyeh, 58, 162, 167.
Qairawân, 152.
Qalb Lôzeh, 132 n.
Qanawât, 126.
‘al-Qâsin ‘Ali, Abu, 158 n., 159 n.
Qaṭal, 103-6, 110-13, 118, 120.
Qṣair, viii, 1, 38-9.
Qṣair ‘Amrah, _see_ ‘Amrah.
al-Quṭquṭâneh, 162, 164.
Quyundjik, 75, 76, 77, 90, 93, 94, 123.
R
Raḥḥâliyyeh, 1.
Ramâdi, 2.
Rameses II, 108.
Ramsay, 73 n., 78 n., 138 n.
Raqqah, 138, 142, 153, 154, 158, 165, 166, 168.
Râs al-’Ain, 60 n., 123.
al-Rasâs, Umm, 106.
Rashîd, 167.
Reuther, Dr., xi, 6-36 _passim_, 82 and n., 83, 131, 132 n., 136-40, 166.
Rhages, 41 n.
Rḥaibeh, 112.
Ridjm el-Melfûf, 70 n.
Rimini, 128.
Ritter, xi.
Roderick, King, 112.
Rome, 72, 73, 95, 110, 126.
Rothstein, 57 n., 59 n.
al-Ruḥbân, 57.
Ruḥbeh, 58 and n.
Ruḥeimeh, 58 n.
Rûm, 120.
Ruṣâfah, 150.
S
Saalburg, the, 98 n.
Sachau, 152 n.
Sa’d ibn abi Waqqâs, 148.
al-Sadîr, 57.
Ṣaffâh, 167.
Sa’îd ibn ‘Âmir ibn Ḥudhaim, 153.
St. Petersburg, 133.
Sais, Djebel, 56, 111.
Sakcheh Geuzu, 60 n., 122.
Saladin, M., x n., 152 n.
Ṣalâḥ al-Dîn, 152, 153, 159.
Salamah, 74 n.
Salmanassar III, 106 n.
Salmon, 154 n.
Sâl Nâmeh, 58.
Sâmarrâ, 58, 70 n., 84, 87, 92,
93, 121, 132 and n., 135, 138, 140-4, 151, 156-8, 164-6.
al-Ṣarakh, Ḥammâm, 111, 112, 165.
Sardis, 96.
Sargon, palace of, 68, 81, 94, 122.
Sarre, Prof., xii, 41 n., 60 n., 65 n., 74 n.,
80 n., 84, 94 n., 107 n., 130 n., 143 n., 153 n., 154 n., 160 n., 166 n.
Sarvistân, 53 n., 71, 74 and n., 78-80,
82, 84, 92, 115, 118 n., 119, 134, 136, 137, 165.
Saudâ, 146.
Savignac, 126 n., 127 n.
Sbai’i, Bir, 2.
Schefer, 159 n.
Schrader, 124 n.
Schreiber, 135 n.
Schultz, 117 n., 118, 133 n., 138 n.
Schultze, 109, 136.
Seleucia, 65, 69, 70, 119.
Selinus, acropolis of, 109.
Septimius Severus, 69 n.
Sextius Florentinus, 128 n.
Shabîb, revolt of, 164 n.
Shahbâ, 126.
Shâhnâmah, the, 22 n.
Shakhârîz, 2.
Shammar, tribe, 2.
Shamshi-Adad, 93.
Sham’ûn, Qaṣr, 59.
Shapûr I, 94.
Shapûr II, 57, 96.
Shaqqah, 73 n., 126, 139.
Shethâthâ, Shefâthâ, x, xi, 1, 2, 3 and n.
Shîrîn, Qaṣr-i-, viii, 44-54, 60, 70, 74 and n., 76, 79,
80 and n., 81, 82, 84, 86, 87, 90,
93, 94, 96, 105, 119, 120, 137, 164, 165.
Shirwân, 80 n., 134.
Shuhbâ, 98 n.
al-Shukâfa, Kôm, 135.
Sî’, 126, 138.
Sicily, 108, 109.
Sidi al-Ḥalwi, 152.
Sieglin, 135 n.
Sim’ân, Qal’at, 84 n.
Simbel, Abû, 108.
Sindâd, 57 n.
Sindjâr, Djebel, 143.
Sinimmâr, 57 and n.
al-Ṣinnîn, 57.
Sixtus of Bourbon, Prince, 58 n.
Ṣlaibiyyeh tomb, 165 n.
Slâm, Biyâr, 2.
Smith, George, 90.
Smyrna, 108.
Solomon’s temple, 94, 116.
Spain, 110, 143.
Spalato, 121.
Sprenger, 122 n.
Stockstadt, 100 n.
Stolle, 98 n.
Strabo, 69 and n., 91, 92.
Strzygowski, Prof., xii, 117 n., 133 n., 134 n., 135 n., 138 n., 152 n.
Studniczka, 128 n.
Ṣukhail, 5.
Ṣukhûr, the, 55, 118 n.
Sulâm, 162.
Sulṭan Khân, 78.
Sûq al-Ghazl, 40.
Susa, 63, 81 and n., 90, 96, 107.
Swaidâ, 126.
Syria, vii, 57, 66, 70, 72, 73, 97,
104, 116, 126, 133, 135, 139, 142, 143, 151, 152, 166;
Eastern, 98 n.;
Northern, 60, 75, 98 n., 132, 141 n.
T
Ṭabari, 57 n., 148 and n., 149 and n., 150 and n., 162.
Tâg-i-Îwân, 72 n.
Ṭahmâsgerd, Mâr, 71, 134, 140.
Takhmâ al-Asadi, Ibn, 164.
Takht-i-Mâder-i-Suleimân, 96.
al-Tamr, ‘Ain, 2, 3, 40, 43 and n., 59.
Taposiris Magna, 124 n.
Tâq-i-Girrâ, 166.
Ṭâr, the, 162 and n.
Ṭâûq, 40.
Tavernier, ix, x n.
Taylor, Major John, x.
Ṭayy, the, 59.
Teano, 56 n., 145 n., 146 n., 147 n., 148 n., 149 n., 151 n.
Teixeira, Pedro, ix, xi.
Tekrît, 140 n., 143.
Tellôh, 78, 87, 122, 142.
Texier, viii, 109 n.
Tha’labites, the, 56.
Thapsus, 109.
Theophilus, 121.
Thiersch, Prof., 92 n., 124 n., 128 n., 151 n.
Thomas, Félix, 68.
Tigris, the, 64, 69, 84.
Tilimsân, 152.
al-Tiqtaqa, Ibn, 143 n.
Tiryns, 65 n., 108, 120.
Tornberg, 3 n.
Trajan, Emperor, 69 n., 98, 110.
Trajan’s camp, 101.
Troy, 108, 120.
al-Ṭûbah, 111-14, 116-18, 120, 165.
Ṭulûn, Ibn, mosque of, 92 n., 135, 142-4, 156, 158.
Tunis, 142, 152.
Ṭaquṭqâneh (el-Heiadîe), 58 and n., 162.
Tyre, 109.
Tzâriq, 57 n.
U
al-Ubaiḍ, Wâdi, 1, 2, 3, 5, 162, 168.
Ukhaiḍir, _passim_;
_see also_ el-Chader.
Ulu Djâmi’, 132 n.
‘Umar, 147-51.
‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-Azîz, 147.
Umtâ’iyyeh, 133 n.
‘Uthmân, 147.
al-’Uzza, ‘Abd, 57 n.
V
Van Berchem, M. Max, 133 n., 143 n., 152 n., 154, 160.
Veramîn, 41 n.
Vespasian, Emperor, 97.
Vienna, xii.
Viollet, M., 16 n., 86, 156 n.
Vitruvius, 109, 128.
W
Walîd (son of Yazîd ibn ‘Abd al-Malik), 110.
al-Walîd, Umm, 106.
Walîd ibn ‘Abd al-Malik, 147, 148.
Wardân, Qaṣr ibn, 105, 112, 165.
Warka, 65, 90, 122, 140, 141 n., 142 n.
Wâsiṭ, 162 n.
Weissenberg, 99 n.
Wellhausen, 146.
Wetzel, Dr., 16 n.
al-Weyned, 111 n.
Wiegand, 124 n.
Wiesbaden, 99.
Willcocks, Sir William, 1 and n.
Wizikh, 2.
Wright, 56 n.
Wüstenfeld, 3 n., 147 n.
Wuswas, 122, 142 n.
X
Xanthos, 108.
Xeque Mahamed Eben Raxet, ix.
Xeres, battle of, 112.
Xerxes, 63.
Y
Yamanlar Dâgh, the, 108.
Ya’qûbi, 167 and n.
Yâqût, 3, 110, 147 n., 162 and n., 164 and n.
Yazdegerd I, King, 57.
Yazîd ibn ‘Abd al-Malik (Yazîd II), 110, 117.
Yazîd III, 111, 162 n.
Yûsuf ibn ‘Umar, 162 n., 168.
Z
al-Zahrâ, _see_ Medînat al-Zahrâ.
al-Zaitûn, Umm, 73 n.
Zaitûnah, the, 152.
Zaqârît, sub-tribe, 2, 5.
al-Zebîb, Khân, 106.
Zindjirli, 60 and n., 61, 62 n., 63, 107, 109, 119, 122.
Ziyâd ibn Abîhî, 17 n., 146 n., 148, 149, 168.
Zohâb, 105, 120.
Zugmantel, 100 n.
Zûrah, 164.
* * * * *
[Illustration:
MAP 1
SYRIA AND MESOPOTAMIA]
[Illustration:
MAP 2
UKHAIḌIR
Map of Site
]
PLATE 3
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, first floor of palace.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, second floor of palace.]
PLATE 6 Ukhaiḍir, map of site.]
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir from north-east.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, central court, from south.]
PLATE 7
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, south-east angle of palace yard.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, north-east corner.]
PLATE 8
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, south-west corner.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, detail of tower chamber.]
[Illustration: FIG. 3. Ukhaiḍir, decoration on north wall.]
PLATE 9
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, south gate, interior.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, south gate, exterior.]
PLATE 10
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, chemin de ronde of east wall, looking
north.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, north façade, showing loopholes of
chemin de ronde.]
PLATE 11
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, north façade.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, north gate.]
PLATE 12
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, room 1, looking north.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, room 88, south-west end of vault.]
PLATE 13
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, room 4, north-east portion of dome.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, room 4, south-west portion of dome.]
PLATE 14
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, great hall, looking south.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, vault of great hall, looking south.]
PLATE 15
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, great hall, west side.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, great hall, door of south-west
stair.]
PLATE 16
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, great hall, looking north.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, vault of south-west stair out of great
hall.]
PLATE 17
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, corridor 5, looking west.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, north end of corridor 20.]
PLATE 18
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, south wall of mosque.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, miḥrâb.]
PLATE 19
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, east side of mosque.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, east side of mosque, north end.]
PLATE 20
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, south-east angle of mosque.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, south-west angle of mosque.]
PLATE 21
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, door of mosque.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, north end of gallery 108.]
PLATE 22
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, north-east angle of court A.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, corridors 28 and 102 from corridor
100.]
PLATE 23
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, court H]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, second story, rooms 119, 120, and 121,
from east.]
PLATE 24
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, second story, rooms to south and east
of court.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, second story, showing doors of 132,
137, and 117.]
PLATE 25
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, gallery 134.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, squinch in north-west angle of gallery
134.]
PLATE 26
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, north-west angle of central court.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, east door and south-east end of central
court.]
PLATE 27
[Illustration: Ukhaiḍir, central court, east side of north façade.]
PLATE 28
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, south-east angle of central court.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, fluted semi-dome, south-east angle of
central court.]
PLATE 29
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, room 29 and south side of central
court.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, south side of central court, showing
door of room 31.]
[Illustration: FIG. 3. Ukhaiḍir, south side of central court, door into
room 42.]
PLATE 30
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, vault of room 31.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, room 31, showing decoration in top of
vault.]
PLATE 31
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, south wall, east end of room 32.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, room 40 from room 30.]
[Illustration: FIG. 3. Ukhaiḍir, south-west angle of passage 36.]
PLATE 32
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, room 33, north-west column.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, groin in north-east angle of corridor
28.]
PLATE 33
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, court B, north-west angle.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, court B, eastern half of north façade.]
[Illustration: FIG. 3. Ukhaiḍir, court C, north-west angle.]
[Illustration: FIG. 4. Ukhaiḍir, court C, eastern half of north
façade.]
PLATE 34
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, south door of room 44.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, south doors of room 45.]
PLATE 35
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, south side of court B.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, south-west angle of court H]
[Illustration: FIG. 3. Ukhaiḍir, west end of room No. 78.]
PLATE 36
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, door between rooms 44 and 45 from room
44.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, court C, south door of room 55.]
PLATE 37
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, door from court C into palace yard.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, south-west corner of court E.]
[Illustration: FIG. 3. Ukhaiḍir, south side of court H.]
PLATE 38
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, from south-east corner of chemin de
ronde.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, from east gate.]
PLATE 39
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, south-west angle of court G.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, east annex, north-east end.]
[Illustration: FIG. 3. Ukhaiḍir, east annex, from north.]
PLATE 40
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, remains of stair.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, room 140.]
PLATE 41
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, room 141, north-west corner of groin.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, east annex, from south.]
PLATE 42
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, east annex from south, showing door of
room 141.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, north annex, showing roof.]
[Illustration: FIG. 3. Ukhaiḍir, north annex, detail of roof.]
PLATE 43
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, north annex, from north gate.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, from north.]
PLATE 44
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ukhaiḍir, north annex, from west.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ukhaiḍir, from north-west.]
PLATE 45
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Qṣair, interior, showing apse.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Qṣair, detail of apse.]
[Illustration: FIG. 3. Qṣair, exterior from south.]
PLATE 46
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Mudjḍah.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. ‘Aṭshân.]
PLATE 47
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Mudjḍah.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Mudjḍah.]
[Illustration: FIG. 3. Mudjḍah, detail of lower niches.]
PLATE 48
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Ṭâûq, minaret.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. ‘Aṭshân, from north-east.]
PLATE 49
[Illustration: FIG. 1. ‘Aṭshân, north gate, exterior.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. ‘Aṭshân, north gate, interior.]
PLATE 50
[Illustration: FIG. 1. ‘Aṭshân, rooms 2, 3, and 5, from north.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. ‘Aṭshân, rooms 5 and 8, from north.]
PLATE 51
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Palace of Khusrau, corridor 103, east side.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. ‘Aṭshân, west door of room 6, from west.]
PLATE 52
[Illustration: FIG. 1. ‘Aṭshân, room 8, from west.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Palace of Khusrau, vault of room 71.]
PLATE 55
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Palace of Khusrau, east end of hall 3.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Palace of Khusrau, west end of hall 3.]
PLATE 56
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Palace of Khusrau, vaulted ramp in corridor 12.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Palace of Khusrau, court M, south antechamber,
showing door leading into corridor 42.]
PLATE 57
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Palace of Khusrau, south-west corner of court M,
showing corridor 42.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Palace of Khusrau, east side of courts O and
Q.]
PLATE 58
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Palace of Khusrau, west side of courts Q and S.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Palace of Khusrau, south-west corner of court
S.]
PLATE 59
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Palace of Khusrau, vault of room 73.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Palace of Khusrau, corridor 43, looking west.]
PLATE 60
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Palace of Khusrau, court V, looking west.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Palace of Khusrau, gateway between courts U and
V, west arch.]
PLATE 61
[Illustration: Palace of Khusrau, gateway between courts U and V,
south-east angle of room 82.]
PLATE 62
[Illustration: Palace of Khusrau, court W, with rooms 97 and 98.]
PLATE 63
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Palace of Khusrau, eastern double ramp.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Palace of Khusrau, north buildings.]
PLATE 64
[Illustration: Qaṣr-i-Shîrin, Chehâr Qapû.]
PLATE 65
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Chehâr Qapû, interior of east gate.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Chehâr Qapû, niche in room 8.]
[Illustration: FIG. 3. Chehâr Qapû, squinch in room 6.]
PLATE 66
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Chehâr Qapû, niche in room 6.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Chehâr Qapû, squinch in room 14.]
PLATE 67
[Illustration: Chehâr Qapû, court D and hall 54, from east.]
PLATE 68
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Chehâr Qapû, vault of room 31.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Chehâr Qapû, squinch in room 39.]
PLATE 69
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Chehâr Qapû, hall 54, south-east corner.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Chehâr Qapû, hall 54, squinch in south-west
corner.]
PLATE 70
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Chehâr Qapû, hall 54, exterior of south door.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Chehâr Qapû, hall 54, interior of south door.]
PLATE 71
[Illustration: Chehâr Qapû, hall 54, from south.]
PLATE 72
[Illustration: Chehâr Qapû, hall 54, from west.]
PLATE 73
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn, Qal’a-i-Khusrau.
(_From M. de Morgan’s ‘Mission scientifique en Perse’._)]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Firûzâbâd.
(_From ‘Voyage en Perse’: Flandin & Coste._)]
PLATE 74
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Sarvistân, small domed chamber.
(_From L’Art antique de la Perse’, by kind permission of M.
Dieulafoy._)]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Hatra, oversailing vault in main palace.]
PLATE 75
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Kerkûk, Mâr Ṭahmâsgerd.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Hatra, vaulted passage in so-called temple.]
PLATE 76
[Illustration: Sarvistân
(_From ‘Voyage en Perse’: Flandin & Coste._)]
PLATE 77
[Illustration: Sargon’s Palace at Khorsâbâd.
(_From ‘Ninive’: Place._)]
PLATE 78
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Gate at Khorsâbâd.
(_From ‘Ninive’: Place._)]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ḍumair.
(_From ‘Provincia Arabia’, by kind permission of Professor Brünnow._)]
PLATE 79
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Kharâneh.
(_Phot. by Dr. Moritz._)]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Kharâneh, gateway.
(_Phot. by Dr. Moritz._)]
PLATE 80
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Kharâneh, interior of court.
(_Phot. by Dr. Moritz._)]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Kharâneh, interior of audience hall.
(_Phot. by Dr. Moritz._)]
PLATE 81
[Illustration: Mshattâ.
(_From ‘Mschattâ’, by kind permission of Professor Strzygowski._)]
PLATE 82
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Petra, Corinthian tomb.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Petra, al-Dair.]
PLATE 83
[Illustration: Ctesiphon.
(_From ‘L’Art antique de la Perse’, by kind permission of M.
Dieulafoy._)]
PLATE 84
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Doorway of mosque, Ḥasan Kaif.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Gateway of mosque, Ḥarrân.]
[Illustration: FIG. 3. Mayâfârqin, north façade of mosque.]
PLATE 85
[Illustration: Ukhaiḍir, reconstructed north façade of central court.]
PLATE 86
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Parthian decoration, Assur.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Sasanian silver dish (Hermitage, St. Petersburg,
No. 2969).
(_Phot. F. Bruckmann A.-G., Munich._)]
PLATE 87
[Illustration: Details of decoration from Medînat al-Zahrâ.
(_By kind permission of M. Velazquez Bosco._)]
PLATE 88
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Djebel Sindjâr, khân.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Ḥasan Kaif, mosque.]
PLATE 89
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Cairo, mosque of Ibn Ṭulûn.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Mosque of Abû Dulaf.]
PLATE 90
[Illustration: Diyârbekr, Ulu Djâmi’.]
PLATE 91
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Cairo, mosque of Ibn Ṭulûn.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Sâmarrâ, mosque.]
PLATE 92
[Illustration: Mosque of Ṣalaḥ al-Dîn, Mayâfârqîn.]
PLATE 93
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Diyârbekr, mosque, fragment of old wall.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2. Mayâfârqîn, mosque.]
FOOTNOTES:
[1] _Travels into East India and Arabia Deserta_, London, 1665, p. 263.
[2] _Travels from India to Italy by Land_, London, 1710.
[3] _Les Six Voyages_, t. i, liv. 2, ch. 3, p. 136, Paris, 1681
[4] M. Saladin quotes Tavernier’s words in _L’Architecture Musulmane_,
p. 327.
[5] _Reisebeschreibung_, vol. ii, p. 225, note.
[6] _Journey from India to Persia_, London, 1773.
[7] _Travels from England to India_, vol. i, p. 243, London, 1779.
[8] _Erdkunde_, vol. xi, pp. 956, 1039.
[9] The height above sea-level is Sir W. Willcocks’s reduced level,
arrived at by his own observations on the Persian Gulf. Sir W.
Willcocks, _The Irrigation of Mesopotamia_, p. 15, Plate 2.
[10] Professor Musil, early in 1912, visited Ukhaiḍir and continued
his journey south, parallel with the ṭâr which he names ṭâr al-Ṣeihed.
_Proceedings of the K. Akad. der Wiss. in Wien_, No. 1, 1913, p. 10.
[11] When I was there in March 1911 many of the palm-trees had been
killed, and the rest severely damaged by the snow which had fallen
in January and February. In the memory of no living man had snow
fallen in Shethâthâ, and the inhabitants, when they woke to find the
ground covered with white, were at a loss to know what the strange
substance could be. Some took it to be flour. Snow fell as far south
as Nedjef, and in the desert round ‘Aṭshân, between Ukhaiḍir and the
Kerbelâ-Nedjef road, it lay for some days. When I passed I saw each
abandoned camping ground of the Bani Ḥasan marked by a ring of dead
animals, donkeys, sheep, and goats, which had perished in the unwonted
cold.
[12] Ibn al-Athîr, ed. Tornberg, vol. ix, p. 423, ‘Shefâthâ w’al
‘ain.’ Shethâthâ is a colloquial corruption for Shefâthâ, and the
official maps still spell it in the latter fashion.
[13] Ed. de Goeje, p. 117.
[14] Ed. Wüstenfeld, vol. iii, p. 759.
[15] _Ocheïdir_, p. 12.
[16] Dr. Reuther gives the square as 2·85 metres. In my first account
of the palace I had described this dome as oval in plan, but, as I
felt very doubtful on this point, on my second visit I took particular
care to re-examine the whole tract between the north gate and the door
of the great hall. My second measurements gave a square of 3·10 metres
to the dome. The difference between us is, however, too small to be of
much importance.
[17] _Ocheïdir_, p. 3.
[18] _Ocheïdir_, p. 21.
[19] Dr. Reuther observes here the funnel leading from the bottom of
the niche to the top of the arch which had been described in the outer
gates.
[20] The decoration as well as the funnel had escaped my notice, but
when Dr. Reuther called my attention to the former I was able to
verify the correctness of his observation on one of my own photographs.
[21] _Journal of the Hellenic Society_, vol. xxx, 1910, p. 77.
[22] In the spring of 1910, I asked M. Viollet, who was then on his
way to Mesopotamia, to clear away the ruins from the middle of the
south wall and ascertain whether there were any sign of a miḥrâb. Upon
his return he informed me that he had discovered the niche at the
point which I had indicated and that he felt no hesitation as to its
being in fact the miḥrâb. When I was at Ukhaiḍir in 1911, I uncovered
the niche still further and photographed it carefully. Two of these
photographs I sent to Dr. Wetzel for publication in the German
work, and they are there reproduced, _Ocheïdir_, Figs. 22 and 23.
Professor Brünnow has suggested that since prayer niches with flanking
colonnettes were known to the Nabataeans, the Mohammadan niche, with
its non-Arabic name, was certainly derived from pre-Mohammadan usage.
(’Zur neuesten Entwicklung der Meschetta-Frage,’ _Zeitschrift für
Assyriologie_, August 1912, p. 129.) This view is not likely to find
acceptance. It is expressly stated that the miḥrâb was a feature of
the mosque which was borrowed from the Christian cult and that it was
not adopted until the beginning of the second century of Islâm. (See
Lammens, Ziâd ibn Abîhi, _Rivista degli Studi Orientali_, vol. iv,
1911, p. 246 (94), note 1, and Becker, ‘Zur Geschichte des islamischen
Kultus,’ _Der Islam_, vol. iii, 1912, p. 392.) I continue, therefore,
to regard the niche at Ukhaiḍir as a clear proof that the building was
originally intended for a mosque.
[23] _Ocheïdir_, p. 24.
[24] There seems to me to be an error in the reconstruction of the
north façade given in _Ocheïdir_, Plate 24. Dr. Reuther makes the wall
of the chemin de ronde, immediately to the west of the gate-house,
stand flush with the outer edge of the vault between the gate-house
and the tower. I do not think that this is correct. The chemin de
ronde projected no further here than it projected between the other
towers, i.e. it was flush with the face of the pilasters, and in my
Plate 11, Fig. 1, its windows can be seen behind the balcony. If the
wall had been flush with the edge of the balcony vault, the fall of
that vault, partial to the west of the gate-house, total to the east,
must have entailed the fall of the wall also. But this is not the
case; the chemin de ronde is intact on either side.
[25] Aiwân is the Persian form, very commonly used in the Shâhnâmah.
It has become lîwân in Arabic by the incorporation of the article
al-Aiwân. (Note by Sir Charles Lyall.)
[26] _Ocheïdir_, p. 5.
[27] It appears in one of M. Massignon’s photographs; _Mission en
Mésopotamie_, Plate XX
[28] Dr. Reuther observed that in No. 69 the vault at the north end
had been constructed without centering, while the vault at the south
end had been constructed over a centering; _Ocheïdir_, p. 43.
[29] Rooms 63 and 65 are vaulted without centering; _Ocheïdir_, p. 5.
[30] As has been mentioned on p. 10, the original intention was to
carry this same wall round the fourth side (the north side) also; but
when the great outer wall was added to the scheme, it replaced the
smaller, less important wall of the first design.
[31] The authors of _Ocheïdir_ restore a south wall running from No.
150 to No. 152, thus converting the open space to the south of 141
into a court on the analogy of court F. I saw no trace
of such a wall.
[32] Dr. Reuther gives a detailed photograph (_Ocheïdir_, Fig. 50),
showing a band of rhomboids round the window frame.
[33] It was visited by Massignon and appears in his map, _Mission en
Mésopotamie_, vol. i, p. 21.
[34] Cf. the crenellated motive round the archivolt of the doors of
corridors 5 and 6 at Ukhaiḍir.
[35] M. Massignon heard of it under the name of Makhḍah or Madjḍah,
but he did not visit it. Op. cit., p. 30.
[36] Le Strange, _Lands of the Eastern Kaliphate_, p. 92.
[37] _Residence in Koordistan_, vol. i, p. 40.
[38] _Amurath to Amurath_, p. 191. Massignon, _Mission en
Mésopotamie_, vol. ii, p. 41.
[39] Tower tomb at Bostân, dated on the miḥrâb A.D.
1300-1301, _Denkmäler persischer Baukunst_, p. 116, and Plate 85.
Tower tomb at Rhages, twelfth or thirteenth century, ibid., p. 57.
Tower tomb at Veramîn, twelfth or thirteenth century, ibid., p. 59.
Minaret of Khodja ‘Alam at Iṣfahân, probably end of fourteenth or
beginning of fifteenth century, ibid., p. 76 and Plate 62.
[40] Sarre, op. cit., p. 76; Fergusson, _History of Indian and Eastern
Architecture_, p. 494.
[41] M. Massignon heard of a ruined khân called ‘Aṭishân, op. cit., p.
30. He places it too far east in his map.
[42] Cf. the east, west, and south gates of Ukhaiḍir.
[43] Cf. a calotte in the central court at Ukhaiḍir, Plate 26, Fig. 2.
[44] This seems to be the road to which al-Ḥadjdjâdj alludes
(_Ṭabari_, vol. ii, p. 945): ‘And if you have come opposite to Hît,
leave the Euphrates road and al-Anbâr and take your way to ‘Ain
al-Tamr so that you may reach al-Kûfah.’
[45] _Mission scientifique en Perse_, vol. iv, Plates 40, 42, and 46.
[46] Cf. with these passages the vaulted passages to one side of the
lîwân groups at Ukhaiḍir in courts B, C,
G, and H.
[47] In the photograph there seems to be a low archway on the south
side of the gate; it is, however, merely a hole in the wall, and I
satisfied myself that there was originally no opening here.
[48] In the palace of Firûzâbâd the dome is of stone, but at Sarvistân
it is of brick. The construction of the squinches at Chehâr Qapû is
not like that of the Firûzâbâd squinches, but it is exactly similar to
the Sarvistân work. Dieulafoy, _L’Art antique de la Perse_, vol. iv,
Plates 5 and 14. Sarvistân is much nearer in date to Chehâr Qapû, see
below, p. 92.
[49] Ibn Ḥanbal, Musnad III, 163, quoted by Lammens, ‘La Bâdia et
la Ḥîra sous les Omaiyades,’ _Mélanges de la Faculté orientale de
Beyrouth_, vol. iv, p. 95.
[50] Lammens, op. cit., p. 92. In this brilliant article, and in
a series of studies on the Umayyad khalifs, published in the same
journal, Lammens has restored to the Umayyad period, which was
neglected or wilfully misrepresented by Mohammadan historians, its
capital importance. See too Musil, _Qṣeir ‘Amra_, p. 150 et seq.
[51] Lammens, op. cit., p. 106. Sir Charles Lyall me the following
note: ‘I feel considerable doubt as to Lammens’s theory that the word
‘ḥîrah’ was used in the time of the Umayyads. The word is Syriac, not
Arabic. See Nöldeke, _Sassaniden_, p. 25, note 1.’
[52] Ed. Wright, p. 46. See too John of Ephesus, iii, 42, where
al-Mundhir’s sons are described as pitching a great ḥertâ in the
desert.
[53] Nöldeke, _Die ghassanischen Fürsten aus dem Hause Gafna’s_, p. 47.
[54] Possibly at Djâbiyah. Teano; _Annali dell’ Islam_, vol. iii, p.
928.
[55] De Vogüé, _La Syrie centrale_, vol. i, p. 69; Bell, _The Desert
and the Sown_, p. 125.
[56] De Vogüé, op. cit., vol. i, p. 71.
[57] Dussaud, _Mission dans les régions désertiques de la Syrie
moyenne_, p. 31.
[58] Bruno, Meissner, ‘Von Babylon nach den Ruinen von Ḥîra und
Huarnaq,’ _Sendschriften der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft_, No. 2, p.
18.
[59] Le Strange, _Lands of the Eastern Khalifate_, p. 76, n. 1.
[60] Ṭabari, ed. de Goeje, Prima Series, p. 853, Bell. _Amurath to
Amurath_, p. 141
[61] Nöldeke, _Perser und Araber_, p. 79.
[62] Rothstein, _Die Dynastie der Lakhmiden in al-Ḥîra_, p. 15. Ṭabari
does not mention this fact, though he quotes a poem by ‘Abd al-’Uzza
in which Sinimmâr is alluded to as ‘al-’ildj’, the stranger, non-Arab.
_Ṭabari_, vol. i, p. 852.
[63] Yâqût, vol. ii, p. 375.
[64] Rothstein, op. cit., p. 115. See Massignon, _Mission en
Mésopotamie_, vol. i, pp. 32 et seq., for Lakhmid topography. Sir
Charles Lyall calls my attention to a verse of al-Aswad ibn Ya’fur
in which he gives a list of the Lakhmid buildings: al-Khawarnaq,
al-Sadîr, Tzâriq, and ‘the pinnacled castle of Sindâd’.
[65] _Encyclopédie de l’Islam_, under Anbâr. The site was ancient.
[66] _Reisebeschreibung_, vol. ii, p. 236.
[67] Since this was written I learn that Ḥiyyadhiyyeh was visited
in 1912 by Prince Sixtus of Bourbon and Professor Musil, see the
_Vorbericht_ of the latter in the report of the K. Akad. d. Wiss.
in Wien, 1913, No. 1, p. 11. Journeying southwards from Ukhaiḍir
they passed through Ḥiyyadhiyyeh, which is described as ‘eine
festungsartige kleine Ortschaft am rechten Ufer des wâdi al-Kherr’.
On the way from Ḥiyyadhiyyeh to Nedjef they passed by Ṭaquṭqâneh
(Niebuhr’s Tukteqâne) and Ruḥeimeh.
[68] Le Strange, _Lands of the Eastern Khalifate_, p. 76.
[69] Massignon, op. cit., p. 41.
[70] Mentioned by Massignon under Ruḥbeh, op. cit., p. 41.
[71] _Erster vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen von Sâmarrâ_,
p. 40.
[72] _Mas’ûdi, Marûdj al-Dhahab_, ed. Barbier de Meynard, vol. vii, p.
192.
[73] See Lane, _Arabic and English Dictionary_, under _riwâq_.
[74] Rothstein, op. cit., p. 130.
[75] Idem, pp. 69, 74, 81.
[76] Bell, _Amurath to Amurath_, p. 139.
[77] Sarre-Herzfeld, _Iranische Felsreliefs_, p. 237.
[78] _Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli_, pt. ii. There is some doubt as
to whether Zindjirli was actually occupied by Hatti. No Hittite
inscriptions have been discovered there; but further researches have
shown that architecturally Zindjirli belongs to a group of settlements
the Hittite origin of which it is impossible to doubt. Professor
Garstang has found a khilâni palace at Sakcheh Geuzu (_Annals of
Archaeology and Anthropology_, vol. v, Plate 3), Baron Oppenheim a
very remarkable palace of the same type at Râs ul-’Ain, of which the
plan has not yet been published.
[79] _Ausgrabungen_, p. 173, and Fig. 82, p. 184.
[80] _Ausgrabungen_, Fig. 83, p. 184.
[81] Puchstein, ‘Die Säule in der assyrischen Architektur,’ _Jahrbuch
des k. d. arch. Instituts_, 1892, p. 11.
[82] Koldewey gives a chronological series of Assyrian khilânis and
shows that the development in Assyria was a faithful copy of the
development which he had noted at Zindjirli, op. cit., pp. 188 et seq.
[83] Dr. Herzfeld suggests that it may have been transmitted to the
Achaemenids through Media; _Iranische Felsreliefs_, p. 186.
[84] Dr. Herzfeld calls attention to the significant fact that the
Babylonian theatre, while it exhibits a good Greek plan, is built
of sun-dried brick, doubtless by local workmen, and is technically
indistinguishable from local structures of an earlier age. _Iranische
Felsreliefs_, p. 225. To a reconstruction of a later period belongs
the stage, with its burnt brick foundations, wooden superstructure,
and ornaments of carved stucco, and here too technique and material
are of local origin. The theatre is not yet published. A very short
account of the excavations is to be found in _Mitt. der D. O.-G._, No.
21, p. 9, and No. 22, pp. 4 et seq.; a longer description in Koldewey,
_Das wieder erstehende Babylon_, p. 293.
[85] Loftus, _Chaldaca and Susiana_, p. 225. See Sarre-Herzfeld,
_Iranische Felsreliefs_, p. 227, for a comprehensive enumeration of
Parthian remains.
[86] Dieulafoy, _L’Art antique de la Perse_, vol. v, p. 29.
[87] Hilprecht, _Explorations in Bible Lands_, p. 564, compares it
to the ancient Greek houses at Delos, for which see Durm, _Baukunst
der Griechen_, p. 516. The juxtaposition of megaron and andron, each
group of rooms opening into its own court, recalls irresistibly a
yet older type; cf. the plan of Tiryns, Perrot-Chipiez, _Histoire de
l’Art_, vol. vi, Plate 2. It is curious to note that the audience
halls at Niffer are the oriental latitudinal chambers; indeed they
have the closest connexion with the old Babylonian house type, which,
as Professor Koldewey has observed, postulates invariably a court with
a large chamber to the south of it. The Niffer palace is little more
than a reproduction of such houses as the big house in the Merkes
at Babylon, plus the column, which was due to Greek influence. See
Koldewey, _Das wieder erstehende Babylon_, pp. 279 et seq.
[88] _Mitt, der D. O.-G._, No. 25, p. 39.
[89] Ibid., No. 28, p. 59.
[90] Stoae of Attalos at Athens and at Pergamon, Durm, _Baukunst der
Griechen_, p. 504.
[91] The Assur palace is not yet published, but see _Mitt. der D.
O.-G._, No. 42, pp. 45-50. The plan is given on Plate 4 of Andrae’s
_Festungswerke von Assur_.
[92] Andrae, _Hatra_, pt. ii, Plate 6.
[93] The literature on this subject is of vast extent. See Choisy,
_L’Art de bâtir chez les Byzantins_, p. 32; Dieulafoy, _L’Art antique
de la Perse_, vol. iv, p. 14; Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, pp. 143-7,
163-81, 231-46. Delbrück’s chronological _résumé_ of the history of
the vault has brought order into chaos; _Hellenistische Bauten in
Latium_, pt. ii, pp. 63-85.
[94] Place, _Ninive_, vol. i, pp. 176, 255.
[95] Idem, vol. i, pp. 254 et seq.
[96] Layard, _Nineveh_, vol. i, p. 127, and vol. ii, p. 260.
[97] I must refer briefly to his new work. _Das wieder erstehende
Babylon_, wherein the question of Babylonian vaults is fully discussed
on pp. 90 et seq.
[98] Delbrück, _Hell. Bauten in Latium_, vol. ii. Table A, p. 64. The
widest span is found in the cisterns of the theatre at Delos; it is
6.55 metres.
[99] Early Hellenistic barrel vaults in the Mediterranean coast-lands.
Delbrück, op. cit., pt. ii. Table A, p. 64. Cut stone vaults showing
characteristics of brick construction, such as vaulting in concentric
courses, vaults outlined by mouldings, vaults with uncentered joints,
and a single example of the horse-shoe vault at Chiusi, idem, Table B,
p. 67. In Egypt and in western Asia solutions were sought to further
problems of stone vaulting, the intersection of stone barrel vaults,
vaulting in inclined planes, the stone dome with or without voussoirs.
At first these were in general confined to the East; the evolution in
the West begins in the Roman Imperial period. Delbrück, pt. ii. pp.
77-80. Development of the Egyptian cut stone vault out of sun-dried
brick construction, idem, pp. 80-3.
[100] Delbrück, op. cit., pt. ii, Table C, p. 70.
[101] Bridge at Pergamon, Delbrück, pt. ii, Table D, p. 72.
[102] Andrae, _Hatra_, pt. ii, p. 2, assigns it to the second century,
after Trajan and before Septimius Severus; a more accurate dating is
not possible without excavation. The largest of the palace vaults
spans 14·80 metres.
[103] Choisy, _L’Art de bâtir chez les Byzantins_, p. 154.
[104] Podium of the altar and of the upper gymnasium at Pergamon,
Delbrück, pt. ii, p. 104. The whole subject is admirably handled by
him, pt. ii, pp. 108-11, where the accounts left by Diodorus and by
Strabo of the substructure of the Hanging Gardens are examined, and
the mutual interaction of India and western Asia is considered. See
Koldewey, _Das wieder erstehende Babylon_, p. 90, for a description
of the vaulted substructions which he believes to have supported the
Hanging Gardens.
[105] Strabo, xvi, 1, 5.
[106] Chaldaea, at Mughair, sun-dried brick; Perrot-Chipiez, vol.
ii, p. 232. Egypt, at Dair el-Baḥri, 18th Dynasty; Perrot-Chipiez,
vol. i, p. 536; and a brick dome at Abydos; Choisy, _Histoire de
l’Architecture_, vol. i, p. 19. Syria, dolmenic tomb at Ridjm el
Melfûf; _Annual of the Palestine Exploration Fund, 1911_, p. 9.
Knossos; Evans, _Prehistoric Tombs of Knossos_, p. 139. Numerous other
examples are cited by Durm in two articles in the _Jahreshefte des
öst. arch. Instituts_, vol. x, 1907.
[107] _Mitt. der D. O.-G._, No. 27, p. 29.
[108] In one of these only is the springing of the vault preserved.
Bell, _Amurath to Amurath_, Fig. 109.
[109] Sâmarrâ, _Amurath_, Fig. 154.
[110] Cf. the stone vaults at Medinet Abu, Delbrück, op. cit., pt. ii,
p. 81.
[111] Dieulafoy, _L’Art antique de la Perse_, vol. iv, Fig. 10; _Mitt.
der D. O.-G._, No. 40, Fig. 10, a late Assyrian tomb.
[112] Dieulafoy, _L’Art antique_, vol. iv, Plate 7.
[113] Bell, _Churches and Monasteries of the Ṭûr ‘Abdîn_, p. 100 (44).
[114] Idem, pp. 65 (9), 71 (15), &c.
[115] Mau, _Pompeii, its Life and Art_, p. 199.
[116] Delbrück, op. cit., pt. ii, Fig. 45.
[117] Idem, p. 146.
[118] Fergusson and Burgess, _Cave Temples of India_, Plates 9 and 11.
[119] De Vogüé, _La Syrie centrale_, Plate 7, and Delbrück, op.
cit., pt. ii, Fig. 77. The records only have survived; the buildings
themselves have disappeared.
[120] Delbrück, op. cit., pt. ii, p. 145.
[121] Butler, _Ancient Architecture in Syria_, Sect. A, pt iii, Fig.
185; de Vogüé, _La Syrie centrale_, vol. i, p. 47.
[122] Tâg-i-Îwân, Dieulafoy, _L’Art antique_, vol. v, p. 80.
[123] Dieulafoy, ibid., vol. v, p. 80.
[124] Andrae, _Hatra_, pt. i, p. 18.
[125] Pergamon, _Athenische Mitt._, vol. xxix (1904), p. 136, Plate
13; Delbrück, op. cit., pt. ii, Table G, and p. 103.
[126] Delbrück, op. cit., pt. ii, p. 104.
[127] Fergusson and Burgess, _Cave Temples_, Plates 11, 15, 24, and 28.
[128] Kalybes at Shaqqah and at Umm al-Zaitûn, de Vogüé, _La Syrie
centrale_, p. 44, and Plate 6. Two domes at Binbirklisse, Ramsay and
Bell, _Thousand and One Churches_, pp. 80 and 241.
[129] As to the date of these palaces, I accept the suggestions of
Dr. Herzfeld until good reasons for modifying them have been shown.
Ardashir I founded the city of Firûzâbâd in A.D.
226; the palace is probably of his time. Sarvistân belongs possibly
to the time of Bahrâm V Gûr, 420-438; Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn may have been
built by Khusrau II Parwêz towards the end of the sixth century.
Sarre-Herzfeld, _Iranische Felsreliefs_, pp. 128-31.
[130] The Sarvistân dome rests on walls some 1·50 metres thick, and
is about 5 metres in diameter, according to Dieulafoy’s plan (vol.
iv, Plate 3). Flandin and Coste (_Voyage en Perse_, Plate 28) extend
its diameter to the outer walls, which would give it a span of about
7·50 metres, but the section which they give on Plate 29 shows that
Dieulafoy’s plan is in this respect correct, and indeed no other
construction is possible.
[131] Balâdhuri (_Futûḥ_, p. 288) says that Ibrahîm ibn Salamah, one
of the chiefs of Khurâsân, built the dome of the old Persian palace
of Khawarnaq, in the khalifate of Abu Abbâs, and adds that previously
there was no dome there. Possibly the domes seen by Ibn Baṭûṭah were
due to this Mohammadan restoration.
[132] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, p. 146, Fig. 43.
[133] Dieulafoy, op. cit., vol. ii, Plate 14 and vol. iv, Plate 15.
Possibly there are earlier examples of the ṭâqchah than those at
Persepolis. Room 11 in the big house in the Merkes at Babylon would
seem from the plan to have possessed a ṭâqchah. Koldewey, _Das wieder
erstehende Babylon_, Fig. 236.
[134] A tube can be seen in Dieulafoy’s Plate 9, vol. iv. It runs
between the inner barrel vault on the right side of the big lîwân and
the domed chamber to the right of the central hall of audience. See,
too, the tubes in Flandin and Coste’s sections, Plates 40 and 41 _bis_.
[135] Dieulafoy, vol. iv, Figs. 25 and 26, and Plate 14, an arched
niche in the inside of the dome. According to Flandin and Coste’s
sections, all the door, window, and niche arches were so treated.
[136] Idem, vol. iv, Fig. 29.
[137] Koldewey, in _Mitt. der D. O.-G._, No. 12, p. 6.
[138] Dieulafoy, vol. iv, Fig. 30.
[139] Idem, vol. iv, Plate 17.
[140] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, p. 140.
[141] Flandin and Coste restore the façade differently and give it the
true oriental form of the lîwân façade; see below, p. 137.
[142] De Sarzec-Heuzey, _Découvertes en Chaldée_, p. 397.
[143] Ramsay and Bell, _The Thousand and One Churches_, Fig. 355.
[144] Dieulafoy, vol. iv, p. 77.
[145] Idem, vol. iv, Plate 1. In the flanking chamber to the left of
the entrance lîwân the vaults of the niches oversail the wall and the
same seems to be the case in the vault of the lîwân itself. Flandin
and Coste draw all the door, window, and niche arches oversailing the
jambs. From Dieulafoy’s picture of the dome, it would seem that the
arches of the side niches there certainly oversailed the jambs. Plate
5.
[146] Idem, vol. iv, Plate 2.
[147] Idem, vol. iv, Plate 5.
[148] Idem, vol. iv, Plate 7.
[149] There are probably many more than those which we know. De
Morgan has given a plan of Haush Quru, a ruin by which I passed on
my return from Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn. That I did not linger there was due
partly to the circumstances described above, and partly to the fact
that a village has grown up round and among the ruins, which renders
their examination exceedingly tiresome. I was obliged to waste a large
portion of my stay in a visit of ceremony to Kerîm Khân’s brother,
who resides at Haush Quru. In plan the palace is very similar to
the central block of Qaṣr-i-Shîrîn. It is noticeable that the same
rectangular area occupies the centre of the state apartments; de
Morgan represents it as covered with cement--was it opened or domed?
_Mission sc. en Perse_, Plates 50 and 51. He mentions other Sasanian
ruins and gives a sketch plan of Shirwân, p. 362, another of Dereh
Shah, p. 367, and a fragmentary plan of Hazâr Dâr, together with some
remarkably interesting details of decoration. Hazâr Dâr is probably
so much ruined that without excavation the distribution of the palace
could not be made out; at any rate it cannot be determined from the
plan given on Plate 62. For other Sasanian remains see Sarre-Herzfeld,
_Iranische Felsreliefs_, p. 237.
[150] So too at Susa; Dieulafoy, _L’Acropole de Suse_, p. 239.
[151] Idem, Fig. 126, and p. 240.
[152] I had not realized the purpose for which these oblong rooms were
intended until Dr. Reuther told me that he had seen similar kitchens
in modern Arab houses. He has made a careful study of Mesopotamian
domestic architecture of the present day and published an excellent
book on the subject, _Das Wohnhaus in Bagdad und anderen Städten des
Irak_.
[153] I suspect that the cross-shaped disposition of chambers was used
in oriental palaces older than the Mohammadan era. It is found in the
fifth-century church of Qal’at Sim’ân (de Vogüé, _La Syrie centrale_,
vol. i, p. 141), for which I do not know a Western prototype.
[154] Herzfeld, _Erster vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen von
Sâmarrâ_, Plate 9.
[155] Herzfeld, _Sâmarrâ_, Fig. 23; Bell, _Amurath to Amurath_. Fig.
148.
[156] ‘Un palais musulman au IXe siècle,’ _Mémoires
présentés à l’Acad. des Ins. et Belles-Lettres_, vol. xii, pt. ii.
[157] _Erster vorl. Bericht_, p. 40.
[158] Dr. Herzfeld believes the type to be based upon the Roman camp,
a point to which I shall refer later, p. 120.
[159] Sarzec-Heuzey, _Découvertes en Chaldée_, Plan A, and p. 405.
It must, however, be remembered that in the plan, as we have it, the
dates of the various parts of the building are hopelessly confused;
Koldewey, _Das wieder erstehende Babylon_, p. 286.
[160] _Die Tempel von Babylon und Borsippa_, p. 14.
[161] _L’Acropole de Suse_, Fig. 264.
[162] _Hatra_, pt. i, Fig. 32.
[163] _Chaldaea and Susiana_, p. 225.
[164] _Assyrian Discoveries_, pp. 146 and 429. Photograph opposite p.
308.
[165] Bk. i, ch. 131.
[166] Bk. xv, ch. 3, 13-16.
[167] _Hatra_, pt. ii, p. 143.
[168] Ibid., pt. ii, p. 109.
[169] _L’Art antique_, vol. iv, p. 79.
[170] In the mosque of Ibn Ṭulûn at Cairo. The origin of the minaret
is a vexed question which has been treated at length by Thiersch, _Der
Pharos_, and continues to be the subject of controversy. Personally I
subscribe to the view of Dr. Andrae and M. Dieulafoy.
[171] Koldewey, _Die Tempel von Babylon und Borsippa_, p. 66.
[172] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, pp. 448-9.
[173] Koldewey, _Die Tempel von Bab. und Bor._, Plate 2; the palace
has not yet been published, but the plan is given here. See, too, _Das
wieder erstehende Babylon_.
[174] Puchstein, _Boghaskoi_, Plates 33, 42, 44, 46, and 47. The
differences are so profound that I am led to the belief that the
architects of southern Hittite palaces must have been governed by
cultural influences other than those which obtained at Boghâz Keui.
For example, the latitudinal disposition of the chambers which
characterizes the southern khilâni is absent at Boghâz Keui. Can it
be that southern Hittite architecture is in truth Syrian architecture
under Hittite domination?
[175] Andrae, _Der Anu-Adad Tempel_, Plate 4, is an example of the
symmetrical temple. On p. 83 Andrae discusses the influences under
which it arose, a subject of the highest interest and importance,
for which the recent excavation of the temple of Assur has given
chronological data. _Mitt. der D. O.-G._, No. 44, p. 40. The plan of
the Assur temple is given in _Die Festungswerke von Assur_, Plate 2.
[176] Koldewey, _Sendschirli_, p. 18.
[177] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, Fig. 196.
[178] Koldewey, _Die Tempel von Bab. und Bor._, Plates 3, 5, 7, and 12.
[179] Place, _Ninive_, vol. i, p. 101.
[180] Sarre-Herzfeld, _Iranische Felsreliefs_, p. 129.
[181] Nöldeke, _Geschichte der Perser und Araber_, p. 58, note.
[182] Dieulafoy, _L’Art antique de la Perse_, vol. v, p. 79.
[183] Delbrück, _Hellenistische Bauten_, pt. ii, p. 86.
[184] For instance, the walls of Assur, _Mitt. der D. O.-G._, No. 26,
p. 35, and No. 28, Fig. 11.
[185] Delbrück, op. cit., pt. ii, p. 90.
[186] Koepp, _Die Römer in Deutschland_, p. 76.
[187] Brünnow-Domaszewski, _Die Provincia Arabia_, vol. iii, p. 221.
[188] Stolle, _Das Lager und Heer der Römer_, pp. 52 et seq., 105 et
seq.
[189] Boṣrâ in eastern Syria, Brünnow-Domaszewski, op. cit., vol.
iii, p. 2; Shuhbâ in the Ḥaurân, idem, iii, p. 146, and Butler,
_Architecture and other Arts_, p. 393; Apamea in northern Syria,
Butler, idem, p. 54.
[190] The material for their study is ample: _Der
obergermanisch-rätische Limes des Römerreiches_, published by the
Reichs-Limeskommission; _Der römische Limes in Oesterreich_, published
by the K. Akad. der Wissenschaften; the great camp at Novaesium
published in the _Bonner Jahrbuch_, 1904; for the Saalburg see Jacobi,
_Führer durch das Römerkastell Saalburg_. For Africa, Ballu, _Les
Ruines de Timgad_; Gsell, _Monuments antiques de l’Algérie_; Cagnat,
_Les Deux Camps de Lambèse_. For Britain, Bruce, _The Roman Wall_;
Curle, _A Roman Frontier Fort_. Lyell, _A Bibliographical List of
Romano-British Architectural Remains_, gives reference to others.
[191] _Der oberger.-rät. Limes_, No. 66, Aalen, No. 65, Unterböbingen.
[192] _Der oberger.-rät. Limes_, No. 31.
[193] Cagnat, _Les Deux Camps de Lambèse_, p. 19, Fig. 2.
[194] _Der oberger.-rät. Limes_, No. 8, Zugmantel.
[195] For example Weissenberg, _Der oberger.-rät. Limes_, No. 72.
[196] There are scarcely any exceptions, but at Stockstadt, _Der
oberger.-rät. Limes_, No. 33, at Zugmantel, No. 8, at Sulz, No. 61_a_,
and at Niederberg, No. 34, a slight exterior salience is given to some
of the rectangular towers. At Niederbieber the gate towers have a
considerable salience, and the intermediate towers are also salient,
a variation to which Schultze (’Die römischen Stadttore,’ _Bonner
Jahrbuch_, 1909, p. 324) attaches no importance.
[197] Mommsen, _The Provinces of the Roman Empire_, vol. ii, p. 153.
[198] Cf. Khirbet el Fityân, which belongs probably to the time of
Diocletian, Brünnow-Domaszewski, vol. ii, p. 139.
[199] Brünnow-Domaszewski, vol. ii, p. 102, Fig. 685.
[200] It must be remembered that in all these ruins only those parts
which remain above ground have been recorded. Excavation is needed to
show the exact relation of the interior buildings to the encompassing
wall at Ḍumair and Ledjdjûn.
[201] _Revue biblique_, 1904, p. 414. and Musil, _Arabia Petraea_,
vol. ii, pt. 2, p. 118.
[202] Praetoria are occasionally found outside the walls in the
fortified cities of Gaul, but there is no example earlier than the
close of the third century. Blanchet, _Les Enceintes romaines de la
Gaule_, p. 276.
[203] Butler, _Ancient Architecture in Syria_, Sect. A, pt. ii, p. 146.
[204] Idem, Sect. B, pt. ii, Plate 8.
[205] Idem, Sect. B, pt. i, p. 26.
[206] I am aware that this view is in contravention of Dr. Herzfeld’s
opinion, but I fail to discern any ground for his statement that the
castrum of Qasṭal belongs to the type of the great legionary camps.
‘Die Genesis der islamischen Kunst,’ _Der Islam_, vol. i, p. 123.
[207] Flandin-Coste, _Voyage en Perse_, Plate 213 _bis_.
[208] Brünnow-Domaszewski, vol. ii, p. 82.
[209] Idem, vol. ii, p. 89.
[210] Idem, vol. ii, p. 65.
[211] Idem, vol. ii, p. 78.
[212] Dieulafoy, _L’Acropole de Suse_, p. 163.
[213] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, p. 341, Gates of Balawât, and other
plans, pp. 343-4.
[214] Plan of the acropolis of Khorsâbâd, Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii,
p. 326; the towers have a salience of 4 metres and are placed at
intervals of 27 metres. Walls of Assur, _Mitt. der D. O.-G._, No.
32, p. 35, and plan of the western half of the mound, issued with
that number. The towers are 4 metres wide, with a salience of 2
metres; the curtain walls vary in length from 24·55 metres to 29
metres--distances, remarks Dr. Andrae, which lie well within the
limits of a bow-shot. See too Andrae, _Die Festungswerke von Assur_,
vol. i, p. 5, where the normal proportions of Salmanassar III’s outer
wall are given as follows: towers 8 metres wide, with a salience of
3 to 4 metres; curtain walls 30 metres long. Towers existed in the
archaic walls (idem, p. 65), as well as great bastions standing out
from 10 to 20 metres from the face of the wall (idem, p. 123).
[215] _Mitt. der D. O.-G._, No. 31, p. 28, No. 32, p. 36; and
_Festungswerke_, vol. i, p. 115.
[216] _L’Acropole de Suse_, Plate 2. It is doubtful whether the towers
in the plan are based upon actual observation, or due to a restoration
on the part of the excavator.
[217] Andrae, _Hatra_, pt. ii, pp. 36, 39, and 53.
[218] Hilprecht, _Explorations in Bible Lands_, P. 559.
[219] Dastajird, Sarre-Herzfeld, _Iranische Felsreliefs_, p. 237;
Iṣṭakhr (the walls may, however, have been Achaemenid), Flandin-Coste,
_Voyage en Perse_, Plate 58; Qal’a-i-Kuhna, idem, Plate 213 _bis_.
[220] Koldewey, _Sendschirli_, pt. ii, pp. 172-8.
[221] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. iv, p. 505.
[222] Puchstein, _Boghaskoi_, Plate 2.
[223] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. vi, Plate 1.
[224] Durm, _Baukunst der Griechen_, pp. 38 and 42.
[225] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. v, p. 45.
[226] Idem, vol. v, p. 321.
[227] Idem, vol. v, p. 324.
[228] _Reisen in Lykien und Karien_, p. 54.
[229] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. v, p. 385.
[230] Benndorf-Niemann, op. cit., p. 124.
[231] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. iii, pp. 331, 338, 348, 353, and 325.
[232] Texier, _Asie Mineure_, vol. ii, Plate 108. _Investigations at
Assos_, Clarke, Bacon, Koldewey, pt. i, p. 13.
[233] Merchel, _Die Ingenieurtechnik im Alterthum_, p. 425. Messene
was founded by Epaminondas in 371 B.C.
[234] The town was destroyed by the Carthaginians in 409
B.C., and the walls date from after that period. Durm,
_Baukunst der Griechen_, p. 209.
[235] _Forschungen in Ephesos_, vol. i, p. 91.
[236] Koldewey, _Sendschirli_, vol. ii, p. 179. It was built in 320
B.C.
[237] Choisy, _Histoire de l’Architecture_, vol. i, p. 501.
[238] Promis, _Le Antichità di Aosta_, Plates 3 and 4.
[239] Blanchet, _Les Enceintes romaines de la Gaule_, pp. 211 and 14.
[240] ‘Die römischen Stadttore’, _Bonner Jahrb._, 1909, p. 293.
[241] Blanchet, op. cit., pp. 335-7.
[242] Not only were the walls of camps less strongly fortified than
the walls of towns, but the defences of the gateways were not so
highly developed. Cramer, _Trier_, p. 72.
[243] Brünnow-Domaszewski, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 100.
[244] Idem, vol. ii, p. 182; I think it very doubtful whether any part
of the existing ruins are Roman. See too Herzfeld, ‘Genesis,’ _Der
Islam_, vol. i, p. 128.
[245] Lammens, ‘La Bâdia et la Hîra,’ _Mélanges de la Faculté
orientale de Beyrouth_, vol. iv, p. 103; and Musil, _Qṣeir ‘Amra_, pp.
155-6.
[246] Musil, idem, p. 163.
[247] Lammens, op. cit., p. 107.
[248] Moritz, ‘Ausflüge in der Arabia Petraea,’ _Mélanges de la F.
O. de Beyrouth_, vol. iii, p. 432. I do not propose to consider
here small buildings like Mshaiyesh (Musil, _Arabia Petraea_, vol.
i, p. 313, and _Qṣeir ‘Amra_, p. 115), or al-Weyned (Musil, _Arabia
Petraea_, vol. i, p. 289, and _Qṣeir ‘Amra_, p. 93). They are both on
the caravanserai plan and differ little from the edifice which stands
near Qṣair ‘Amrah. This last was probably a lodging for guards and
courtiers. Musil, _Arabia Petraea_, vol. i, p. 223; _Qṣeir ‘Amra_,
Plate 2.
[249] Butler, _Ancient Architecture in Syria_, Sect. A, pt. ii, p. 77,
and appendix, p. xix.
[250] De Vogüé, _La Syrie centrale_, vol. i, p. 71.
[251] _Arabia Petraea_, vol. i, p. 229, and _Qṣeir ‘Amra_, p. 64.
[252] Nöldeke, _Neue Freie Presse_, March 28, 1907, and Becker,
_Münchener Neueste Nachrichten_, May 28, 1907.
[253] _Revue biblique_, 1904, p. 423; Musil, _Arabia Petraea_, vol.
ii, pt. ii, p. 106, and _Qṣeir ‘Amra_, p. 72.
[254] Musil, _Arabia Petraea_, vol. ii, pt. ii, p. 75, and _Qṣeir
‘Amra_, p. 65.
[255] Butler, _Ancient Arch. in Syria_, Sect. B, pt. i, Plate 4, and
in the same number _Greek and Roman Inscriptions_, p. 40.
[256] Musil, _Arabia Petraea_, vol. i, p. 176, and _Qṣeir ‘Amra_, p.
13.
[257] Musil, _Arabia Petraea_, vol. i, p. 290, and _Qṣeir ‘Amra_, p.
97; Moritz, ‘Ausflüge,’ _Mélanges de la F. O. de Beyrouth_, vol. iii,
p. 421. I give four photographs which Dr. Moritz has been so kind as
to place at my disposal.
[258] _Arabia Petraea_, vol. i, Fig. 135.
[259] Schultz and Strzygowski, _Mschattâ_; Brünnow-Domaszewski, vol.
ii, p. 105; Musil, _Qṣeir ‘Amra_, p. 39.
[260] Lammens, ‘La Bâdia et la Hîra,’ _Mélanges de la F. O. de
Beyrouth_, p. 110.
[261] ‘Genesis,’ _Der Islam_, vol. i, p. 126.
[262] _Mea culpa!_ I visited Mshattâ in the year 1900 (and to this
day, though I spell its name in the accepted grammatical fashion,
I cannot bring myself to speak it except as the Beduin speak
it--Mshittâ), but I was so much dazzled by the splendour of the
façade that I photographed nothing else. Moreover, I was not then
sufficiently instructed to be on the watch for matters which would
now absorb my attention. In 1905 I passed close by it again, but
a regrettable sentiment prevented me from re-visiting it after it
had been shorn of its glory. I never find myself in Berlin without
rejoicing that the marvellous decoration has been put in safety,
and in easy reach of us all, but I never think of the palace in the
wilderness without congratulating myself on having seen it in 1900. It
remains in my mind as the most princely of ḥirahs, wrapped round by
the grass-grown Syrian desert, mild and beneficent in winter; and the
flocks of the Ṣukhûr resort to it as kings resorted of old.
[263] Cf. the vaults in the side niches of a building on the citadel
at ‘Ammân which I believe to be not older than the Umayyad period.
Dieulafoy, _L’Art antique_, vol. v, p. 98; _Mitt. der D. O.-G._, No.
23, p. 47.
[264] Brünnow and Domaszewski, op. cit., Fig. 720.
[265] In any case the maxim laid down by Dr. Herzfeld (’Genesis,’
_Der Islam_, vol. i. p. 110) is misleading. It is too hasty a
generalization and it does not cover the facts. At Ukhaiḍir door
openings are sometimes wider and sometimes narrower than the arches
above them, and it is doubtful whether the same is not the case at
Sarvistân. See above, p. 79.
[266] _Mschattâ_, Plate 6.
[267] So it appears to me, but I am conscious that the roots may go
deeper. Damascus, Apamea, and Antioch are Seleucid foundations, and we
know nothing of the Seleucid city plan.
[268] Ebersolt, _Le Grand Palais de Constantinople_, pp. 162-7.
[269] Bury, _A History of the Eastern Roman Empire from the fall of
Irene to the accession of Basil I_, p. 132.
[270] Herzfeld, _Erster vorl. Bericht_, p. 33.
[271] Sprenger-Michaelis, _Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte_, 9th ed.,
vol. i, p. 60.
[272] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, Fig. 101.
[273] Dieulafoy, _L’Acropole de Suse_, Figs. 93, 100, 132.
[274] _Chaldaea and Susiana_, p. 174.
[275] _Mitt. der D. O.-G._, No. 51, p. 71.
[276] Hilprecht, _Explorations in Bible Lands_, p. 483, and fig. on p.
552.
[277] Sarzec-Heuzey, _Découvertes en Chaldée_, Plate 53 _bis_, Fig. 1.
[278] The last two examples are not yet published. For the connexion
of the orthostatic construction at Pasargadae with Assyria and the
Hittite cultural sphere, see Herzfeld, _Iranische Felsreliefs_, p.
184. The link between the two is probably to be sought at Ecbatana.
[279] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, Figs. 107 and 110.
[280] _Hellenistische Bauten in Latium_, pt. ii, p. 147.
[281] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, Fig. 123.
[282] Idem, vol. ii, Fig. 136.
[283] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. i, Fig. 267, and Puchstein, _Die ionische
Säule_, Fig. 45, for Egypt; Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, Fig. 39, for
Assyria.
[284] Fergusson, _History of Indian and Oriental Architecture_, p.
115, façade of the Chaitya Cave at Nassick.
[285] In the Sema of Ptolemy Philadelphos; Thiersch, ‘Die
Alexandrinische Königsnekropole,’ _Jahrbuch des k. d. arch. Instituts,
1910_, p. 65. See too _Der Pharos_, p. 210, for an extant example at
Taposiris Magna. Delbrück’s handling of the subject is admirable; op.
cit., pt. ii, pp. 99 and 139. That the lightening of the wall-face in
Hellenistic architecture may be of oriental origin is borne out by the
fact that it appears more frequently in the south-east regions, where
Greek culture was under the influence of Egypt and western Asia.
[286] Lanckoronski, _Städte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens_, vol. i, p. 59.
[287] Bulard, ‘Peintures murales et mosaïques de Délos,’ _Mémoires
Piot_, vol. xiv, pp. 116 et. seq.
[288] Idem, Plate 6 A; Wiegand-Schrader, _Priene_, p. 312.
[289] Delbrück, op. cit., pt. ii, p. 128.
[290] Wiegand, _Milet_, pt. ii, Plate 7.
[291] Delbrück, op. cit., pt. ii, p. 129.
[292] Durm, _Baukunst der Griechen_, p. 542.
[293] Wiegand-Schrader, _Priene_, p. 268. Delbrück, op. cit., pt. ii,
p. 130.
[294] Durm, _Baukunst der Griechen_, p. 504.
[295] For instance, in the Agora at Magnesia; Humann, _Magnesia am
Maeander_, p. 113.
[296] Delbrück, pt. ii, p. 137. He cites the Ephebeum at Priene and
the upper gymnasium at Pergamon.
[297] Praeneste, Delbrück, pt. i, Plates 13 and 17, and pt. ii, Plate
1. Tabularium, Delbrück, pt. i, Plate 7, and pt. ii, Plate 3.
[298] Praeneste, Delbrück, pt. i. Plates 13 and 17, and pt. ii, Plate
1.
[299] Apse at Praeneste, Delbrück, pt. i, Plate 18.
[300] Tivoli, Delbrück, pt. ii, p. 12.
[301] _Jahrbuch des k. d. arch. Instituts_, vol. xvii, 1902;
_Archäologischer Anzeiger_, p. 152.
[302] Heberdey, _Ephesos_, vol. ii, Plates 7, 8, and 9.
[303] _Jahrbuch des k. d. arch. Instituts_, vol. xvi, 1901, p. 143,
and vol. xvii, 1902, Plate 9.
[304] Butler, _Florilegium Melchior de Vogüé_, The Temple of Dhûsharâ,
Plate 1.
[305] Butler, _Ancient Architecture in Syria_, p. 55.
[306] Idem, pp. 67 and 77.
[307] Idem, p. 325.
[308] Idem, pp. 347 and 351.
[309] Idem, p. 327.
[310] Idem, p. 343.
[311] Idem, p. 371.
[312] Idem, pp. 380 et seq.
[313] Idem, p. 245.
[314] Idem, pp. 252 and 265.
[315] For the latter see Jaussen-Savignac, _Mission archéologique en
Arabie_. A number of the tombs are dated, and the learned fathers of
St. Étienne, in publishing the inscriptions, have given us a solid
basis for the evolution of the Ḥedjr tomb. For the Petra tombs,
Brünnow-Domaszewski, _Provincia Arabia_, vol. i; and Dalman, _Petra
und seine Felsheiligtümer_, and _Neue Petra-Forschungen_. The material
was brilliantly reviewed by Puchstein, _Jahrbuch des k. d. arch.
Instituts_, 1910, vol. xxv; _Arch. Anzeiger_, p 3.
[316] Egypt, as Puchstein has observed, was always the dominant
influence. The form and origin of Nabataean tombs goes back to the
time of the Pharaohs, _Arch. Anz._, 1910, p. 40.
[317] Jaussen-Savignac, tomb A 5, p. 357.
[318] Idem, pp. 414 et seq.
[319] Domaszewski suggested that they were the graves of Greek
merchants, _Prov. Arabia_, vol. i, p. 15.
[320] Puchstein, op. cit., table, p. 35.
[321] Jaussen-Savignac, op. cit., p. 382; the tomb called Al-Ferîd.
[322] Delbrück, op. cit., pt. ii, pp. 170, 173.
[323] Tomb of the legate Sextius Florentinus, Brünnow-Domaszewski,
vol. i, p. 170; Corinthian grave, idem, p. 168; No. 34, idem, p. 172.
Al-Dair, idem, p. 187; the Storied tomb, idem, p. 169; the Khazneh,
idem, Plate 2, and _Palestine Exploration Fund Annual_, 1911, p. 95.
See Hittorff, ‘Pompeii et Petra,’ _Revue arch._ N.S., vol. vi, p. 7.
[324] Wall paintings in Alexandrian tombs and at Boscoreale.
Athenaeus gives a description of a tholos on the state barge of
Ptolemy Philadelphos, and Vitruvius a description of a wall painting
at Alabanda, which Studniczka compares with the Khazneh. _Tropaeum
Trajani_, p. 66; Thiersch, ‘Die Alexandrinische Königsnekropole,’
_Jahrbuch des k. d. arch. Instituts_, vol. xxv, 1910, p. 67. A
free-standing tholos, placed upon a pluteum or attic, appears upon the
tomb of Absalom at Jerusalem, which Puchstein dates in the first half
of the first century A.D. See Perrot-Chipiez, vol. iv,
p. 279.
[325] This should be compared with Dr. Herzfeld’s drawing of
the façade with conjectural restorations in the north wing.
Sarre-Herzfeld, _Euphrat- und Tigris-Gebiet_, vol. iii, Plate 41. I
doubt whether any of the columns were furnished with bases.
[326] Delbrück, _Hellenistische Bauten_, pt. ii, p. 129.
[327] Butler, _Ancient Architecture in Syria_, p. 132; east church at
Bâbisqâ.
[328] Idem, p. 150; chapel at Kfair.
[329] Bronze tablet found at Ephesus and ivory diptych in the British
Museum, _Mschattâ_, pp. 266 and 277.
[330] Pointing inwards on the apse at Qalb Lôzeh, and pointing
outwards on a doorway at Bashmishli; Butler, _Anc. Arch._, pp. 223 and
239.
[331] _Ocheïdir_, p. 41.
[332] At Al-’Âshiq; _Amurath_, p. 238, and Herzfeld, _Sâmarrâ_, p. 40.
Also round the windows of the great mosque at Sâmarrâ; _Amurath_, Fig.
142; Herzfeld, _Erster vorl. Bericht_, Fig. 1.
[333] For instance in a madrasah of the Ulu Djâmi’. The inscription
round this madrasah is published (_Amida_, p. 87, inscr. No. 28), and
I have the photographs, but these are not yet published.
[334] _Amurath_, Fig. 170.
[335] Unpublished. I have all the photographs and M. Max van Berchem
has studied the inscriptions from them.
[336] It was shown at the exhibition of Mohammadan art held in Munich
in 1910, and was numbered in the catalogue 2696 (_Meisterwerke
muhammedanischer Kunst_, vol. ii, Plate 122).
[337] An early Syrian example, possibly Nabataean, is to be found
at Umtâ’iyyeh; Butler, _Ancient Architecture in Syria_, Sect. A,
pt. ii, p. 89. Cf. too the façade of the basilical hall at Mshattâ.
(Schultz-Strzygowski, _Mschattâ_, Plate 4), and an interesting example
on the tambour of the church of the ‘Adhrâ at Ḥakh; Bell, _Churches
and Monasteries of the Ṭur ‘Abdin_, p. 84 (28).
[338] Dieulafoy, _L’Art antique_, vol. iv, Plates 6 and 7.
[339] _Miss. scient. en Perse_, p. 364.
[340] Strzygowski, _Mschattâ_, p. 354; Herzfeld, ‘Genesis,’ _Der
Islam_, vol. i, p. 118.
[341] Sieglin-Schreiber, _Die Nekropole von Kôm esch Schukâfa_, Figs.
214, 215.
[342] Strzygowski, _Mschattâ_, Fig. 36.
[343] Brünnow-Domaszewski, vol. ii, p. 185, Figs. 760-5, and Plate 49.
[344] Herzfeld, _Erster vorl. Bericht_, Fig. 5.
[345] Lynch, _Armenia_, vol. i, Fig. 74.
[346] Herzfeld, _Erster vorl. Bericht_, p. 9.
[347] Butler, _Ancient Architecture_, p. 130.
[348] _Circa_ 78 B.C., Delbrück, _Hell. Bauten_, pt.
ii, Plate 3.
[349] Promis, _Antichità di Aosta_, Plate 7.
[350] _Die römischen Stadttore_, p. 296.
[351] Ibid., pp. 285-6. They too are Augustan.
[352] _Erster vorl. Bericht_, p. 34.
[353] _Ocheïdir_, p. 33.
[354] Reuther, _Das Wohnhaus in Bagdad_, p. 74.
[355] Ramsay and Bell, _The Thousand and One Churches_, Fig. 6, and
_passim_.
[356] Butler, _Ancient Architecture_, Fig. 127, p. 364. See too double
columns at Palatitza; Heuzey and Daumet, _Mission archéologique de
Macédoine_, p. 198, where other examples are cited.
[357] Herzfeld, _Erster vorl. Bericht_, p. 34. As Dr. Herzfeld points
out, Mshattâ offers another notable example of the three-arched
façade. See Schultz-Strzygowski, Plate 4.
[358] _History of Indian and Eastern Architecture_, p. 580.
[359] Butler, _Ancient Architecture_, p. 367.
[360] Dieulafoy, vol. v, p. 99.
[361] _Mitt. der D. O.-G._, No. 31, p. 28.
[362] Loftus, _Chaldaea and Susiana_, p. 225.
[363] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. v, Figs. 340 and 342.
[364] Another good instance is at Tekrît; _Amurath_, Fig. 130.
[365] Perrot-Chipiez, vol. ii, Figs. 106, 116, 124, 136.
[366] _Ocheïdir_, Fig. 19.
[367] Herzfeld, _Erster vorl. Bericht_, p. 35.
[368] Idem, p. 23, and p. 18.
[369] The latter, though it is now at Baghdâd, was in all probability
an import from northern Mesopotamia or northern Syria. Herzfeld,
‘Genesis’, _Der Islam_, 1910, Plates 1 and 2.
[370] The workmen at such a site as Warka may have been half bred with
Greeks. The rinceaux on the door-jambs at Hatra, on the other hand,
are better defined as combinations of the palmette and the acanthus
than as modifications of the vine, and the typical Parthian decoration
at Assur consists of various forms of the continuous pattern, the old
oriental decorative scheme. Andrae, _Hatra_, pt. ii, Sheet 47, and
Plate 12; _Mitt. der D. O.-G._, No. 42, Figs. 7 and 8.
[371] De Beylié, _La Kalaa des Beni-Hammad_, p. 41, quoting Ibn Hauqal.
[372] De Beylié, _La Kalaa des Beni-Hammad_, p. 41.
[373] The Wuswas ruin at Warka has furnished another example of the
imitation of Babylonian decoration by Parthian builders. _Mitt. der D
O.-G._, No. 51.
[374] De Beylié, op. cit., p. 63.
[375] R. Velazquez Bosco, _Medina Azzahra y Alamiriva_, Plate 17.
[376] Idem, Plate 18.
[377] _Amurath_, Fig. 161.
[378] Andrae, _Hatra,_ pt. ii, Fig. 37, Sect. _e-f_, and Fig. 152
[379] Dieulafoy, _L’Art antique_, vol. iv, Plate 9. Possibly there are
others; the palaces of Fars must be re-examined.
[380] _Amurath_, Fig. 133. As regards the date, M. van Berchem
calls my attention to a passage in the _Fakhri_ of Ibn al-Tiqtaqa
(ed. Derembourg, p. 445), in which it is stated that the khalif
al-Mustanṣir built among other monuments such as the Mustanṣiriyyeh
at Baghdâd and the bridge at Harbâ, khân al-Khernîna. I was therefore
right in assigning it to the thirteenth century A.D.
[381] A drawing of the gate is published by Sarre-Herzfeld,
_Euphrat-und Tigris-Gebiet_, vol. i, p. 13.
[382] Teano, _Annali dell’ Islam_, vol. i, p. 443.
[383] Lammens, ‘Ziâd ibn Abîhi,’ _Rivista degli Studi Orientali_, vol.
iv, p. 242.
[384] Sir Charles Lyall sends me the following note: “There is a
masdjedâ at Medâin Ṣâliḥ. Masdjid is the “place of prostration”
(sadjada) and this use of ‘sadjada’ is anterior to Islâm. See
al-’A’shâ’s line: “Whoever sees Haudhah prostrates himself (yasdjud)
without delay, when he puts on the crown above his turban or lays it
down.”‘
[385] As, for instance, the _khuṭbah_ of ‘Amr ibn al-’Aṣ in his mosque
at Fusṭâṭ (Corbett, ‘The Mosque of ‘Amr,’ _Journal of the R. Asiatic
Soc._, 1890, p. 768), and the _khuṭbah_ of Ziyâd ibn Abîhi at Baṣrah
(Lammens, op. cit., p. 36).
[386] Lammens, ibid., p. 31; and Becker, ‘Zur Geschichte des
islamischen Kultus,’ _Der Islam_, vol. iii, p. 394.
[387] Teano, op. cit., vol. i, p. 438.
[388] Idem, vol. ii, pt. i, p. 68; and Becker, _Die Kanzel im Kultus
des alten Islam_, p. 3 (Orientalische Studien Theodor Nöldeke
gewidmet).
[389] Teano, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 965.
[390] The Copts built the façade, the Greeks the side and back walls;
see Becker’s very interesting note, _Der Islam_, vol. iii, p. 403.
[391] Balâdhuri, _Futûḥ_, ed. de Goeje, p. 6. Yâqût, _Mu’djám_, ed.
Wüstenfeld, vol. iv, p. 466.
[392] Teano, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 569, quoting Makrîzi, _Khiṭâṭ_,
vol. ii, p. 247.
[393] Lammens, Ziâd ibn Abîhi, op. cit., p. 246; Becker, ‘Zur
Geschichte d. islam. Kultus.’ op. cit., pp. 392-3. Professor Becker
points out that though the architectural form was borrowed from the
Christian apse, the word ‘miḥrab’ which was applied to it had had an
earlier usage. It signified the princely seat of honour, which in all
probability was generally niche-shaped.
[394] Balâdhuri, _Futûḥ_, p. 46.
[395] Idem, p. 350.
[396] Idem, pp. 347-8.
[397] Idem, p. 277.
[398] Ṭabari, Prima Series, p. 2489; Teano, op. cit., vol. iii, p.
857; Lammens, Ziâd, op. cit., p. 247.
[399] _Futûḥ_, p. 286.
[400] Ṭabari, Prima Series, p. 2492.
[401] _Futûḥ_, p. 277.
[402] Teano, op. cit., vol. iv, pp. 563 et seq.; Corbett, ‘The Mosque
of ‘Amr,’ _Journal of the R. Asiatic Soc._, 1890, pp. 759 et seq.
[403] Becker, _Die Kanzel_, _passim_, and ‘Zur Geschichte des
islamischen Kultus,’ op. cit., p. 393; Corbett, loc. cit., p. 773, n.
1.
[404] Ṭabari, Tertia Series, p. 322.
[405] ‘Zur Geschichte des islamischen Kultus,’ op. cit., p. 393.
[406] Teano, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 567.
[407] Le Strange, _Palestine under the Moslems_, p. 90.
[408] I follow Dr. Herzfeld’s view, _Euphrat-und Tigris-Gebiet_, vol.
i, p. 98. Professor Thiersch believes it to have been copied from
the Chalce of the Augusteion at Constantinople, but his theory is
based solely upon hypothesis and it appears to me to be far-fetched.
Thiersch, _Pharos_, p. 214.
[409] At Ba’albek its width is strongly marked in the façade of
the ṣaḥn and in the arcade next to the qiblah wall, not in the
intermediate arcades. For plan see Berchem-Strzygowski, _Amida_, Fig.
271.
[410] Saladin, _La mosquée de Sidi Okba à Kairouan_, pp. 18 et seq.
[411] Saladin, _Manuel d’art musulman, Architecture_, Fig. 139.
[412] Marçais, _Monuments de Tlemcen_, Figs. 14, 49, 69.
[413] _Nordmesopotamische Baudenkmäler_, Plate 73.
[414] Cf. the narrow blind arches on either side of the lîwân in the
central court at Ukhaiḍir.
[415] Sachau, _Reise in Syrien und Mesopotamien_, p. 221.
[416] _Orientalische Literaturzeitung_, September 1911, p. 422.
[417] _Futûḥ_, p. 178.
[418] _Amurath to Amurath_, p. 56.
[419] Balâdhuri, _Futûḥ_, p. 179.
[420] _Amurath to Amurath_, p. 57; Sarre-Herzfeld, _Euphrat-und
Tigris-Gebiet_, vol. i, p. 4, and vol. iii, Plate 66.
[421] Salmon, _Introduction topographique à l’histoire de Baghdad
d’al-Khaḷîb_, Arabic text, p. 60; Sarre-Herzfeld, _Euphrat-und
Tigris-Gebiet_, p. 91.
[422] _Amurath to Amurath_, p. 243; Sarre-Herzfeld, _Euphrat-und
Tigris-Gebiet_, p. 69.
[423] It appears in M. Viollet’s plan, ‘Description du palais
d’al-Moutasim,’ _Mémoires présentés à l’Acad. des Inscr. et
Belles-Lettres_, vol. xii, pt. ii. Plate 8.
[424] Herzfeld, _Erster vorl. Bericht_, p. 7.
[425] Idem, p. 37.
[426] A.H. 484; it is the inscription on the north
wall. On the south wall of the same wing there is an inscription,
which probably alludes to some reparation and gives the date
A.H. 874 = A.D. 1469. The inscription on
the minaret is in the name of the Inalid Inaldi (A.H.
503-536 = A.D. 1109-1141). Two decrees are built
into the north wall of the wide central aisle; they are dated
respectively A.H. 639 = A.D. 1241,
and A.H. 731 = A.D. 1330. The east
wing of the ḥaram bears an inscription on the north wall dated
A.H. 550 = A.D. 1155, and another on
the same wall dated A.H. 1094 = A.D.
1683, while upon the east gable there is an inscription dated
A.H. 735 = A.D. 1334. An inscription
on the west arcade of the ṣaḥn is dated A.H. 518
= A.D. 1124, and the eastern arcade is dated
A.H. 559 = A.D. 1163, while a second
inscription contains the name of Abû ‘al-Qâsin ‘Ali, who died
about A.H. 575 = A.D. 1179. On the
east gate there is an inscription dated A.H. 575 =
A.D. 1179. The madrasah at the north-west corner of
the ṣaḥn is dated A.H. 935 = A.D.
1528; the wall to the east of the north door (behind the arcade)
A.H. 625 = A.D. 1228; the small
madrasah court to the north of this wall A.H. 595 =
A.D. 1198, and the north doorway of this madrasah
A.H. 576 = A.D. 1180.
[427] _Orientalische Literaturzeitung_, September 1911, p. 399. In
A.D. 1046 Nâṣiri Khusrau saw a mosque here which had
marked resemblances with the existing building. Ed. Schefer, p. 28.
[428] Sarre-Herzfeld, _Euphrat-und Tigris-Gebiet_, vol. i, p. 17; and
vol. iii, Plate 88.
[429] _Mission en Mésopotamie_, vol. i, Plate 20.
[430] Ibn al-Athîr, vol. v, p. 224. The governor of ‘Irâq, Yûsuf ibn
Umar, was imprisoned in the Khaḍrâ by Yazîd III, A.D.
744. See too Lammens, ‘La Bâdia et la Ḥîra,’ _Mélanges de la Fac.
Or._, vol. iv, p. 100.
[431] _Futûḥ_, p. 284. The palace of Ḥadjdjâdj in Wâsiṭ was called
al-Qabbet al-khaḍrâ on account of its green dome; ibid., p. 290.
[432] Yâqût, vol. iv, p. 121.
[433] Professor Musil also heard the name; he writes it Aslâm and
applies it to the southern end of the Ṭâr. _Proceedings of the K.
Akad. der Wiss. in Wien_, No. 1, 1913, p. 10. Bir Aslâm appears in
Captain Leachman’s map. _Journal of the R. Geog. Soc._, 1911.
[434] Ibn al-Athîr, vol. ii, p. 349.
[435] Ibn al-Athîr, vol. iv, p. 328. Yâqût’s alternate site, between
‘Ain al-Tamr and Damascus, must therefore be rejected. Ibn al-Athîr
refers to it in this passage in connexion with the revolt of Shabîb,
during the vicegerency of Ḥadjdjâdj.
[436] Flandin-Coste, _Voyage en Perse_, p. 27.
[437] Dieulafoy, _L’Art antique de la Perse_, vol. iv, Fig. 26.
[438] ‘Genesis der islamischen Kunst,’ _Der Islam_, vol. i, p. 112.
[439] Butler, _Ancient Architecture in Syria_, Sect. B, pt. i, p. 32.
[440] The arches of the tomb known as Ṣlaibiyyeh are the best
preserved. _Amurath to Amurath_, Figs. 150 and 151, and Herzfeld,
_Erster vorl. Bericht_, Fig. 6. Dr. Herzfeld found in it three graves,
and he believes it to have been the mausoleum of the khalifs Muntaṣir,
Mu’tazz, and Muhtadi.
[441] _Amurath_, Figs. 43 and 44.
[442] Sarre-Herzfeld, _Iranische Felsreliefs_, pp. 232 et seq.
[443] Third and second century B. C., Delbrück, _Hellenistische Bauten
in Latium_, pt. ii, p. 68.
[444] Bell, _Churches and Monasteries of the Ṭûr ‘Abdîn_, p. 87 (31).
[445] Sarre-Herzfeld, _Euphrat-und Tigris-Gebiet_, vol. i, Fig. 57;
and vol. iii, Plate 68.
[446] Ya’qubi, ed. de Goeje, p. 311. Dr. Moritz calls my attention to
a passage in _Murudj al-Dhahab_ of Mas’ûdi (ed. Barbier de Meynard),
vol. viii, p. 294, in which it is related that the khalif Rashid built
wells, cisterns, and castles along the Mekkah road. These castles can,
however, have been nothing but guard-houses.
[447] Le Strange, _Lands of the Eastern Khalifate_, p. 77.
[448] Lammens, ‘Ziâd ibn Abîhi,’ _Rivista degli Studi Orientali_, vol.
iv, p. 232 and p. 656, note 2.
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Palace and Mosque at Ukhaidir - A Study in Early Mohammadan Architecture" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.