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.